ML20210R953
| ML20210R953 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1986 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210C305 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8605200147 | |
| Download: ML20210R953 (2) | |
Text
o r
ENCLOSURE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT MASONRY WALL DESIGN, IE BULLETIN 80-11 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-302 The findings reported in this Safety Evaluation Report (SER) are based on the attached Technical Evaluation Report (TER), Attachment 1, prepared by Franklin Research Center (FRC) as a contractor to NRC. This TER contains the details of construction techniques used, technical information reviewed, acceptance criteria, and technical findings with respect to masonry wall construction at h
the Crystal River Plant. The staff has reviewed this TER and concurs with its technical findings. The following is our summary of the major technical findings:
(
1.
Initially, the licensee identified five masonry walls in the control t
complex building as safety-related. Three walls in the instrument room of the turbine building, a non-safety-related structure, were also evaluated as a result of the upgrade to the emergency feedwater system. Based on a later inspection, the licensee concluded that the collapse of two walls (No. 2 and No. 3) in the control complex building will have no adverse effect on the safety-related equipment in the area. As discussed in item 2 below, Wall No. I was modified so that it will not interact with the safety-related equipment.
For the remaining walls, the results from the licensee's working stress analysis indicate that the gf $$
2 a
1
, ~
calculated stresses in these walls comply with the intent of the staff acceptance criteria (Appendix A of the TER).
2.
The only safety-related equipment associated with Wall 1 of the control complex is the ventilation system main supply air duct. The collapse of Wall I could possibly damage the vertical section of this duct. However, the licensee has modified this wall by removing a portion of the wall that could impact the duct. Thus, the potential interaction between the duct and the wall has been eliminated. Additionally, the license performed slight modifications to Walls 2 and 3 to ensure that the safe'ty-related h
electrical conduits which penetrate these walls at the top boundary are not in contact with these walls. As discussed in item 1, these walls are no longer considered safety-related walls. The licensee has also changed engineering procedures to assure that the safety-related equipment will f
not be placed in the vicinity of these walls in the future.
Based on the above findings, the staff concludes that Items 2(b) and 3 of the IE Bulletin 80-11 have been fully implemented at Crystal River 3 and that there is a reasonable assurance that the safety-related masonry walls at Crystal River 3 will withstand the specified design load conditions without impairment of (a) wall integrity or (b) the performance of the required safety functions.
. --