ML20069C641: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
(NRC) IE Bulletin 80-11, " Masonry Wall Design" (1] , which required Licensees to present reevaluation criteria with justifications and to submit a written report upon completion of the reevaluation program. The evaluation included a review of any Licensee-proposed modifications of masonry walls and the proposed methods, procedures, and repair schedules. | (NRC) IE Bulletin 80-11, " Masonry Wall Design" (1] , which required Licensees to present reevaluation criteria with justifications and to submit a written report upon completion of the reevaluation program. The evaluation included a review of any Licensee-proposed modifications of masonry walls and the proposed methods, procedures, and repair schedules. | ||
1.2 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND 1 In response to IE sunetin 80-n, Arkansas Power & Light Company (the | 1.2 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND 1 In response to IE sunetin 80-n, Arkansas Power & Light Company (the | ||
.I Licensee) provided the NRC with documents describing the status of masonry wans at Arkansas Muclear One Units 1 and 2 [2]. As a result of the review of these documents, the NRC sent a letter dated January 15, 1982 requesting additional information (3]. In response to this request, the Licensee forwarded answers [4] to all questions raised. | .I Licensee) provided the NRC with documents describing the status of masonry wans at Arkansas Muclear One Units 1 and 2 [2]. As a result of the review of these documents, the NRC sent a {{letter dated|date=January 15, 1982|text=letter dated January 15, 1982}} requesting additional information (3]. In response to this request, the Licensee forwarded answers [4] to all questions raised. | ||
j Unita 1 and 2, respectively, have 75 and 104 safety-related masonry walls that were classified as follows: | j Unita 1 and 2, respectively, have 75 and 104 safety-related masonry walls that were classified as follows: | ||
1 i Unit 1 Unit 2 j 1. Wans supporting Seismic Category I pipes 19 8 1 2. Walls supporting Seismic Category I attachments Ia 1 other than pipes 9 19 ia i 3. Walls in the proximity of safety-related system 47 77 | 1 i Unit 1 Unit 2 j 1. Wans supporting Seismic Category I pipes 19 8 1 2. Walls supporting Seismic Category I attachments Ia 1 other than pipes 9 19 ia i 3. Walls in the proximity of safety-related system 47 77 | ||
Latest revision as of 12:30, 31 May 2023
| ML20069C641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1982 |
| From: | Con V, Subramonian N FRANKLIN INSTITUTE |
| To: | Chokski N NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20069C644 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 IEB-80-11, TER-C5506-161, NUDOCS 8207150446 | |
| Download: ML20069C641 (33) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- . . _ . _. __ __ . . _. TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
- MASONRY WALL DESIGN (B-59)
ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC DOCKET NO. 50-313,.50-368 FRC PROJECT C5506
, - - .3'.
NRC TAC NO. 42901, 42889
~
FRC ASSIGNMENT 6
~ '
, NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81 130 . FRC TASK 161 L .
~-
e '... - ,
. Preparedby ,,,,1 ru . v .. , ." y'
' ~
Franklin Research Center ., . Author: V. N. Con ,["', . 20th and Race Street. ,
.6 . N. Subramonian Philadelphia, PA.1910'1 l ... .
. FRCGroup Leader: V. N. Con.? . :,. h.
.- ~.
propag fog-q:; p::<.pley % :. :-4: ... ; -
.,!.z '.:f.; . -
.a 3~~'
Nuclear Regulatory Commission . - _ . ..
~ , Washington, D.C. 20555 , . ,. .
Leal NRC Engineer: N. Chokshif. H E
. ~. . q...].T..e ?. * .=, . ~ . ~
m.. . K ,-f,. . . .~ a.. .. .. n. m.: 1 .f . ~ . <-2 ..
.. . .3 ~ .; . . .
ng.. c..
. w,. -
.. ,. cs. ,
,. , ,.n.m A, ..,s.; - .
-- j . .- ( .
1 "
. u ,
6.'J: ' ..I.. ,
- . sue -, r .
t .. . ,.
... ., * . G . .a.;i .,%: "'M July. 9,: 1982
. ;qg' # ' -;.r .
(- i . - 3
~
~
. This report was prepared Is a$ account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States H> . ~ 4 t Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their , ,_,,g' employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or a, , ' respcnsibility for any third party's use. or the results of such use. of any information, appa-
, ', Y. "[. ,
.';i:'..'n.ratus, product.or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third- 2 { '. _ ^
I - lygpt party would not infringe privately owned riohts. ,,; ;;N,T
,.m.:.siifE .i'
$ pRn@h _. -
F
.u I
. :.- t
- - d
- With modification by NRC staff to remove the reference to
= " Interim" relative to NRC evaluation criteria. '
~ 1W%
~~ ~
=.
- :._.. lR.*[: '"
.u m % .. Franklin.Research Center M *~ gggQ%%
A Division of The Frankjin Institute . The senamn Fr.,*nn Pathey.Phda Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 m .oek .
~ .: .
7 -
. b .
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT MASONRY WALL DESIGN G-59) l i '
. ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY s ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC DOCKET NO. 50-313, 50-368 FRC PROJECT C5306 NRC TAC NO. 42901, 42889 FRC ASSIGNMENT 6
- ,' NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC43-81 130 FRC TASK 161 I
t l Preparedby ( Franklin Research Center Author: V. N. Con l 20th and Race Street - N. Subramonian Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: V. N. Con Prepared for
, Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: N. Chokshi i
i
~
July 9, 1982 1; lj This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States l; Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their p employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or f responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-1 ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third-party would not infringe privately owned rights. lf i.; Reviewed by: Approved by: i Yss Yasp (cat ' Of 0.Y i , Group Leader Departmedt OlrAtor 4 i .... Franklin Research Center l A Division of The Fran} din Institute i' The Bernorrun Frarudin Parkway. Phila Pa. 19103 (21S) 448-1000 !t
'i
S e f TER-C5506-161
~i CONTENTS
.i i
Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope
. 1 l . . . . . . . . . .
y 1.2 Plant-Specific Background . . . . . . . . . 1
, 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4
i 3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . 5 t . 3.1 Evaluation of Licensee's Criteria . . . . . . . 5
-6 3.2 Evaluation of Licensee's Approach to Wall i Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4
.1 4.1 Licensee's Criteria . . . . . . . . . . 10
?
] 4.2 Wall Modifications. . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3 Modification Schedule . . . . . . . . . . 10 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 a
,j APPENDIX A - CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION i
l APPENDIX B - NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR
.) ARRANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT 1 i
] APPENDIX C - NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT 2
%}
l'1 APPENDIX D - TYPICAL SKETCHES OF WALL CONSTRUCTION j APPENDIX E - SKETCHES OF WALL MODIFICATIONS q
~
I i
'l 4
l f
#s i11 dUdd Franklin Research Center A QMeson of The Frannhn Insense ,
t, ._ _ _ - . .__ _. _ . _ . . - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ , , . . .. ,
d TER-C5506-161 i FOREWORD
~!
I
' This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of 1 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical u
, assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by
; the NRC.
;j
.l 1
1 i e l
.1 1
l 1 1, u ,l ,i j .. 'i
~1 .
'1 i o I t O y N2) Franklin Research Center l r w a m v u -. i
s
- t. .
l q 7 TER-C5506-161 j A
- 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this review is to provide a technical evaluation of the Licensee's response to Items 2 and 3 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 7
(NRC) IE Bulletin 80-11, " Masonry Wall Design" (1] , which required Licensees to present reevaluation criteria with justifications and to submit a written report upon completion of the reevaluation program. The evaluation included a review of any Licensee-proposed modifications of masonry walls and the proposed methods, procedures, and repair schedules. 1.2 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND 1 In response to IE sunetin 80-n, Arkansas Power & Light Company (the
.I Licensee) provided the NRC with documents describing the status of masonry wans at Arkansas Muclear One Units 1 and 2 [2]. As a result of the review of these documents, the NRC sent a letter dated January 15, 1982 requesting additional information (3]. In response to this request, the Licensee forwarded answers [4] to all questions raised.
j Unita 1 and 2, respectively, have 75 and 104 safety-related masonry walls that were classified as follows: 1 i Unit 1 Unit 2 j 1. Wans supporting Seismic Category I pipes 19 8 1 2. Walls supporting Seismic Category I attachments Ia 1 other than pipes 9 19 ia i 3. Walls in the proximity of safety-related system 47 77 ,! 75 104 l i*
'} Wall attachments generally are limited to small piping supports, electrical conduits and boxes, instrument lines, and ventilation duct supports.
, j None of the walls identified were load-bearing walls supporting the building structure in the vertical direction or acting as shear walls in the
.l l'$
t . A ]5 4 j!!!!) FrankRn Research Center
.j 4 cm on w w resa.an msnm ,
0 - - .
g 4 1 A
] TER-C5506-161 1
horizontal direction. Generally, the walls served as shielding and fire protection devices. 1 Most of the block walls are shielding walls constructed with heavyweight hollow concrete blocks or cells; all cells are filled with grout. Continuous
; reinforcement is placed in every other cell. Walls that do not have a I .
shielding function are constructed with standard blocks in which only cells having reinforcement, plumbing, or other embedded items are grouted. Typical concrete block wall details are shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Appendix
, D. Vertical reinforcing steel consists of one No. 5 bar of 16-inch spacing in ]
the center of single-wythe walls and one No. 5 bar at 16-inch spacing near each face of multi-wythe walls. Horizontal reinforcement consists of a bond beam with I four No. 4 bars at 48-inch spacing in single-wythe walls, and an identical bond beam at each face of multi-wythe walls. In addition, joint reinforcing, consis-
; ting of extra-heavy Dur-o-Wall truss steel bars, is placed in alternate horizontal
) joints (16-inch spacing) of shielding walls and in every horizontal joint (8-inch I spacing) of other walls. At shielding walls, No. 2 steel tie bars hooked around
.I
,] vertical reinforcing bars are placed at staggered 32-inch spacing horizontally
] and 16-inch spacing vertically. Figure 3 of Appendix D illustrates this arrange-k ment and indicates a typical running bonded construction of masonry walls at the
-1 plant.
Materials specified for wall construction are as follows: o Concrete blocks - AS M C90, Grade PI. Heavyweight units cured and oven-dryed. 3 l o Mortar - ASM C476, Type PL, 2000 psi compressive strength . l at 28 days.
. o Grout -
AS M C476, 2000 pai compressive strength at 28 l days. o Rainforcing - AS M A615, grade 40. - [ bars I i o Horizontal - ASM A82, Dur-0-Wall extra-heavy truss type. ll joint j reinforcement i i 4 - dd Franklin Research Center i 4 ca an w n. rr.non u.
- l. ,
- l i
- 1 TER-C5506-161 As for the construction practice, the Licensee indicated that general j inspection was perfor:ned by the experienced Bechtel field engineering i
i personnel [2] to ensure compliance with the required specifications.
.'l '1 Bechtel's subcontractor submitted a certificate verifying that all concrete k, blocks conformed to the required specifications.
k, c i i.] 4
. J.
i. [ . d 1 i .I L
'f
,i l
i 4
)
- l a i Jh) Franklin Research Center g 4 cm at n. rr.n a w O
_ .. .. ~ , . I . L
- 3. 4
'i l TER-C5506-161
]
.I 2. EVALUATION CRITERIA I
f Dj The basic documents used for guidance in this review were SES Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation," [5] developed by the Structural Engineering Branch (SEB) of '.he NRC (attached as Appendix A to this report) , the Uniform Building 1 Code [6], and ACI 531-79 [7]. e In general, the materials, testing, analysis, design construction, and inspection of safety-related concrete masonry walls should conform to the SEB criteria [5]. For operating plants, the loads and load combinations for qualifying the masonry walls should conform to the appropriate specifications in the FSAR for the plant. Allowable stresses are specified in Reference 7 I l and the uppropriate increase factors for abnormal and extreme environmental loads are given in Reference 5.
.i .q s
i l0 ! l
.--j i '1 I
11 'f - , 1 i1 l1 ij . !l ,-l 4 ii i1 1 1 ' i l ' l L' ~d Franklin Research Center l , r cm a n. rrm n m, l~j
'I TER-C5506-161 ~ , 3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION ji This evaluation is based on the Licensee's earlier response [2] and ; subsequent response [4] to the request for additional information [3]. The j Licensee's criteria [2] were evaluated with regard to design and analysis i methods, loads and load combinations, allowable stresses, construction i specification materials, and relevant test data. In addition, the Licensee's J ?,
modifications and response to the request for additional information [ Appendix { B for Unit 1 and Appendix C for Unit 2] will be evaluated. 3.1 EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S CRITERIA i The Licensee has reevaluated the masonry walls using the following ' 'l criteria [21: I j o Allowable stresses for analysis of masonry walls were based on Uniform j Building Code (UBC) rpecifications (6].
! o Imads and load combinations used were those specified in the plant
{ Safety Analysis Report.
't j o Boundary conditions were determined by considering one-way or two-way a spans with hinged, fixed, or free edges, as appropriate.
l j o A 3% damping for operating basis earthquake (OBE) and 54 for design j basis earthquake (DBE) were assumed. t
! o A collar joint strength of zero was assumed.
In general, the Licensee's criteria are in compliance with the SEB criteria [5]. The Licensee has responded to all of the questions (listed in Appendix B for Unit 1 and Appendix C for Unit 2) in the request for additional { information [3]. These responses [4] are reviewed below: j Question 1 (applicable to Units 1 and 2) In response to this question, the Licensee clarified that the frequency 1 of concrete masonry walls is dependent on the type of analysis (one-way beam l or two-way plate) , boundary conditions, and section movement of inertia, as i t ia j g 1 Ed Franklin Research Center j
- r- en om. r- u.
f , d j TER-C5506-161 5 well as the wall dimensions. m is explains why the frequencies of walls with comparable dimensions vary widely. The Licensee's response is considered
- j adequate.
1 h j Question 2 (applicable to Units 1 and 2) i j In this question, the Licensee was requested to justify the use of the average acceleration rather than the envelope of the response spectra for , walls supported by two floors. Se Licensee considered the seismic response 9 -{ of a simply supported, uniform beam simulating a strip of the wall panel with .+ j unit width to justify the use of the average acceleration. The equation of
'l motion of an undamped, simply supported beam was solved, and the results t
indicate that the use of the average of two-floor acceleration response 1
; spectra to calculate the modal response of a wall panel is satisfactory. ; Question 3 (applicable to Units 1 and 2) 1 In response to this question, the Licensee conducted a parametric study l on walls with various thicknesses. The top and bottom edges of the walls were l assumed to be fixed so that the out-of-plane interstory drift effect can be evaluated. The resulting stresses indicated that this effect is insignificant
-{ as compared to the capacity of the masonry walls. The response is considered j adequate. t 4
) Question 4 (applicable to' Units 1 and 2)
To demonstrate the adequacy of using only the fundamental mode in the analysis, the Licensee selected two sample walls in order to analyze the effects of higher modes. One wall was treated as a cantilever beam, and the I other wall was treated as a plate with four simply supported edges. The I i dynamic analysis was carried out using computer program STARDYNE. The resulting moment and shear at the center and at the base of these walls were
; extracted for the fundamental mode and multi-mode SRSS combination. The i, comparison illustrated that the fundamental mode results art less than those f
calculated using SRSS combinations by only 0.15% for moments and 1.97% for i
) ):
JJ2) Franklin Research Center j A Omnsson of The Franman mantue e
^ ~ - ~ ~ ~
T
- - - ~- ^
. . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . .
i -
.l-'
-i l : TER-C5506-161 shears. This indicates that the use of the fundamental mode alone in the analysis is sufficiently accurate.
; Question 5 (applicable to Unit 2 only, Appendix C) i i
In response to this question, the Licensee has provided a description of the bracing system installed for two Unit 2 cantilever walls and indicated
,. that out-of-plane drift effects due to bracing are negligible. This response is satisfactory.
Question 6 (Unit 2, Appendix C, or question 5 of Unit 1, Appendix B)
~
In response to this question, the Licensee provided brief descriptions of j several techniques used in the analysis:
~1 l
- a. Verification by Curves 1
; The purpose of this method is to determine the adequacy of Seismic i Class I block walls by grouping masonry walls with similar parameters j such as boundary conditions, floor elevations, and wall thicknesses j and heights. The curves for different wall groups (types) were generated using the criteria presented in the original submittal I [2]. The following types of curves have been generated: vertically
} spanned beam, horizontally spanned beam, and plate. The wall is 8
considered adequate if it falls within the allowable range of the f appropriate curves. Otherwise, a more refined analysis is used. l t b. Effective Inertia Analysis 1i I For some walls, the effective moment of inertia was used to account for the partially cracked condition. An iterative procedure was l
- introduced to obtain the effective moment of inertia.
j I
- c. Dynamic Analysis j' The dynamic analysis was used to verify those walls which were not
; qualified by simple static analysis. In the dynamic analysis, a modal response was obtained considering multi-mode combination.
,j The Licensee's response to this question is intended to clarify several '4 l j techniques employed in the analysis and is considered to be adequate. I 1 ' l ' l 1 1 s O ~7~ ll ; 10 Franklin Research Center 4 Onaman of The Frarmen insatute
TER-C5506-161 t Question 7 (Unit 2, Appendix C, or question 6 of Unit 1, Appendix B) In response to this question, the Licensee clarified that the stresses in the in-plane direction due to seismic loads were insignificant since none of the masonry walls at the plant were either load-bearing or shear walls. Seismic loads due to out-of-plane direction were combined absolutely with , vertical seismic loads in the analysis. The Licensee clarified that equipment
, and pipe weights were accounted for in the analysis. The Licensee's response '
a i to this question is adequate. 4
-l 1 Question 8 (Unit 2, Appendix C, or question 7 of Unit 1, Appendix B)
In this response, the Licensee provided values for allowable stresses in axial compression, bearing, and tension parallel and normal to the bed joint. 1 These allowables are satisfactory because they are in compliance with ACI 531-79 codes. Furthermore, the Licensee clarified that all seismic Category I masonry block walls for the plant are reinforced. Thus, the allowables given-l. were used only to indicate if the wall were cracked or uncracked at the bed { joint. This clarification is cor.sidered adequate. I i j Question 9 (Unit 2, Appendix C, or question 8 of Unit 1, Appendix B) l j The Licensee indicated in the original submittal [2] that an increase factor of 1.67 was used for shear and tension parallel and normal to the bed { joint, instead of 1.5 for shear and tension parallel to the bed joint and 1.3
] for tension normal to the bed joint as specified in the SEB criteria [5] . In ej response to this question, the Licensee indicated that ACI 531 code allowable .
a
; stresses [ Reference 7, Chapter 10.1 of Commentaryj are generally associated j with a factor of safety of 3. It is identified, however, that all masonry walls at this plant are reinforced; hence, the increase factor for tensile . stresses does not apply to this plant.
- t In addition, it is identified that none of the walls of this plant are used as shear walls; thus, the increase factor for shear stress is not applicable to this plant.
; This question has been resolved satisfactorily. N.
t 4, -8~ MJ Franklin Research Center j 4cw mr- %. I
' .i
- 1 2
TER-C5506-161 I Question 10 (Unit 2, Appendix C, or question 9 of Unit 1, Appendix B) In this question, the Licensee was requested to indicate the present i status of waus which were inaccessible and excluded from the original field d survey. Four walls of Unit 1 were involved in this case. The Licensee indicated that, for walls 6-B-44 and 6-B-42, a field survey win be performed f
,; during the present unit outage and, should the survey determine anything which would require further attention, NRC will be notified. Wan 4-B-66 is in a high radiation area (3 Rea minimum), and based on a drawing review and previous analysis, it has been determined that the potential radiation exposure does not warrant a survey of this wall. Wall 4-B-169 is inside a closed pipe chase and will never be accessible without significant removal of existing structure. No survey is planned for this waH.
For Unit 2, the inaccessible walls win be surveyed in the next refueling j outage. ALARA reviews win be performed to ensure that radiation exposure is
! minimized.
-i However, in a conference ca n with the NRC on June 30, 1982, the Licensee informed the NRC that walls 6-B-42 and 6-B-44 of Unit 1 have been surveyed.
j For walls 4-B-66 and 4-B-169, the Licensee indicated that drawing reviews show no substantial items attached to these wans, and that the analysis demonstrated that these walls satisfy the design criteria. For Unit 2, the
.] Licensee will survey all inaccessible wan s beginning September 1982. Again, analysis showed that these walls satisfy the design criteria.
l The response to this question is considered adequate. 3.2 EVALUATION OF LICENSEE"S APPROACH TO WALL MODIFICATIONS The Licensee has completed modifications for two walls at Unit 2. A ' simple bracing system was designed and installed for these waus and the reanalysis indicated that modifications ' brought the responses of these walls within the acceptable level. Incations and configurations of these bracing systems are shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Appendix E. The Licensee's approach with regard to wall modifications is satisfactory. i 4 l M Franidin Research Center A c -n a n. n.n n m 4
- ..,..w. ..:.. - : . . : -z=- -
t li 9 TER-C5506-161 e [j 4. CONCLUSIONS 1 j ! A detailed study was performed to provide a technical evaluation of the j masonry walls at Arkansas Power One Units 1 and 2. Review of the Licensee's
} criteria and additional information provided by the Licensee led to the i ,
conclusions given in Sections 4.1 through 4.3 below. In addition to these j conclusions, it should be noted that the following confirmatory action should s be conducted:
.)1
]yj o ~ As indicated in the conference call with NRC on June 30, 1982, the Licensee will forward a letter to the NRC to confirm that walla L 6-B-42 and 6-B-44 of Unit 1 have been surveyed; that drawing reviews show no substantial items attached to walls 4-B-66 and 4-B-169; and
, that calculations showed that these walls satisfy the design criteria. For Unit 2, all inaccessible walls will be surveyed beginning September 1992; calculations indicate that these walls
; satisfy the design criteria.
M . j 4.1 LICENSEE'S CRITERIA
!}
j The criteria used for reevaluation of the masonry walls, along with the w i additional information provided by the Licensee, indicate that their
- . provisions are in compliance with the SEB criteria and are found to be
;j satisfactory.
4 g 4.2 WALL MODIFICATIONS 1,
.f The Licensee's modifications are adequate since two walls at Unit 2 were y reanalyzed after modifications and found satisfactory. Sketege. of wall modifications are provided in Appendix E.
q j 4.3 MODIFICATION SCHEDULE 1
; The Licensee has already completed all modifications. .
4 I I j
.j .s
- 1 i
'] g '1 4
Mhranklin Research Center r tu an or m rrmen m u. 1 .- . . -.
t j ' TER-C5506-161
- 5. REFERENCES
- 1. IE Bulletin 80-11
" Masonry Wall Design" NRC, May 8, 1980 l 1 2. D. C. Trimble (Arkansas Power and Light Company)
I Letter and attachments for Units 1 and 2 to K.V. Seyfrit (NRC). January 29, 1981
- 3. J. F. Stolz (NRC)
Imtter to D. A. Rueter (Arkansas Power & Light Company) .
Subject:
Request for Additional Information, AP & L's Submittal on IE Bulletin 80-11 January 15, 1982
- 4. D. A. Rueter (Arkansas Power & Light Company)
Letter with attachments to J. F. Stolz (NRC) . Subject Responses to the Request for Additional Information April 30,1982 5. i Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation" i NRC, July 1981
- 6. Uniform Building Code
.j International Conference of Building Officials, 1979
- 7. ACI 531-79 and Commentary AC; 531R-79
" Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures" American Concrete Institute,1979 1
l 1 1 i i 1 As Jddd Franklin Research Center
,< % on n rr m.
k i 1 1
- .3 APPENDIX A CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RELATED MASCNRY WALL EVALUATION 1!
l t i Ll i i I
.I l
1 h liti l r i 8 l
.i i
I t i j i-1 ah j . . . . Franklin Research Center l A Division of The Franklin Institute 1 The Benstrun Frando Parnway. PNia.. Pa. 19103 (215) u8 1000 h l-} ._ . . - _ . -
i 1
'l I
L l
! SEB CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RELATED t4A50NRY WALL EVALUATION l
I The purpose of this appendix is to provide minimum design considerations and criteria for the review of safety-related masonry' walls, \ .I 1. General Requirements '.l'
', 3e materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspection ! related*to the design and construction of safety-related concrete masonry ] walls should conform to the applicable requirements contained in Uniform Building Code - 1979, unless specified otherwise,' by the provisions to this criteria.
The use of other industrial codes, such 'sa ACI-531, ATC-3, or NCMA, is also acceptable. However, when the provisions of these codes are less conser-
.fj vative than the corresponding provisions of these interia criteria, their ; use should be justified on a case-by-case basis.
( ~
?. In new construction, no unreinforced masonry walls.will be permitted.
For operating plants, existing unreinforced walls will be evaluated by the provisions of these criteria. Plants applying for operating licenses i i which have already built unreinforced masonry walls will be evaluated on i a case-by-case basis. 1 I 2. Loads and Load Combinations
- i The loads and load combinations shall include consideration of normal loads, severe environmental loads, extreme er.vironmental load, and abnorinal loads.-
8 Specifically, for operating plants, the load combinations provided in the l plant's FSAR shall govern. For operating license applications, the following
} load combinations shall apply (for definition of load tems, see SRP 1 Section 3.8.4, subsection II.3). -
f
'j (a) Service load Conditions (1) D+L (2) ~ D+L+E f
(3) D+L+W l If thernal stresses due to T, and R3are present, they should be L included in the above containment, as follows: 1 (la) D + L + T, + R, ~ (1b) D + L + T, + R, + E 1 i j 3.8.4-19 Rev. 0 - July 1981 i ii I .) 4 A-1 MU Franklin Research Center Ae w n.r ':l L
- _ . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . - . . . _. .
i 1 l 1 (ic) 0 + L + T, + R,.+ W Check load comoination for controlling condition for maximum 'L' and for no ' L' . (b) Extreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnormal / Severe Environmental, and Abnormal / Extreme Enviremental Conoitions l
; ~
(4) D + L + T, + R, + E' (5) 0 + L + T, + R, + Wt (6) 0 + L + T, + R7 + 1.5 P, (7) 0 + L + T, + R, + 1. 25 P, + 1. 0 (Y, + Yy + g < .25 E (8) D + L + T, + R, + 1. 0 P, + 1. 0 (Y, + Yj + Y,) + 1.0 E' q In combinations (6), (7), and (8), the maximum values of P,, T,, R3 , Yj , Y7, and Y,, including an appropriate dynamic load factor, should be used unless a time-history analysis is performed to justify other-
. wise. Combinations (5), (7), and (8) and the corresponding structural 1
acceptance criteria of should be satisfied first without the tornado
]. missile load in (5) and without Yp , Y), and Y, in (7) and (8). When
{ j considering these loads, local section strength capacities may be exceeded under these concentrated loads, provided there will be no j loss of function of any safety related system. d Both cases of L having its full value or being completely absent should d be checked. . 1 3. Allowable Stresses 4
< Allowable stresses provided in ACI-531-79, as supplemented by the following modifications / exceptions, shall apply.
(a) When wind or seismic loads (CBE) are. considered in the loading combin-ations, no increase in the allowable stresses is permitted. (b) Use of allowable stresses corresponding to special inspection category shall be substantiated by demonstration of compliance with the inspec-tion requirements of the NRC, criteria. ~ (c) When tension perpendicular to bed joints is used in qualifying the unreinforced masonry walls, the allowable value will be justified by test program or other means pertinent to the plant and loacing conai- ~ tiens. For reinforced masonry walls, all the. tensile stresses will be essisted by reinforcement. (d) Fot load conditions which represent extreme environmental, abnormal, !- abnormal / severe environmental, and abnormal / extreme environ = ental conditions, the allcwable working stress may be multiplied by the factors shown in the following table: r i 3.8.4-20 Rev. 0 - July 1981 l~ A-2 Jb Franklin Research Center 4 on on or n . Fren n m,one. l l
l^ 4 , 'i 6 Type of Stress Factor
] Axial or Flexural Compression 1 2.5 Bearing 2. 5 Reinforcement stress except shear 2.0 but not to exceed 0.9 fy Shear reinforcement and/or bolts. 1. 5 j Masonry tension parallel to bed joint 1. 5 Shear carried by mesonry 1. 3 Masonry tension perpendicular to bed joint
'for reinforced masonry 0 5 for unreinforced masonrya 1,3 Notes -
(1) When anchor bolts are used, design should prevent facial spalling of masonry unit. (2) See 3(c).
- 4. Desian and Analysis Considerations i (a) The analysis should follow established principles of engineering i
mechanics and take into account sound engineering practices. 4 i (b) Assumptions and modeling techniques used shall give proper il considerations to boundary conditions, cracking of sections, if any, j and the dynamic behavior of masonry walls. (c) Damping values to be used for dynamic analysis shall be those for
,i reinforced concrete given in Regulatory Guide 1.61.
. (d) In general, for operating plants, the seismic analysis and
,, ' Category I structural requirements of FSAR shall apply. For other plants, corresponding SRP requirements shall apply. The seismic analysis shall account for the variations and uncertainties in mass, i materials, and other pertinent parameters used.
-1 (e) The an'alysis should consider both in plane and out-of plane loads.
(f) Interstory drift effects should be considered. . (g) In new construction, no unreinforced masonry wall is permitted; also,
, all grout in concrete masonry walls shall be compared by vibration, t
l (h) for masonry shear walls, the minimum reinforcement requirements of p ACI-531 shall apply.
] (f) Special construction (e.g., multiwythe, comoosite) or other, items
,, not covered by the cooe shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for their acceptance.
(j) Licensees or appifcants shall submit QA/QC information, if available, j , for staff review.
! 3.8.4-21 Rev. 0 - July 1981 1
nkHn Research Center A Deceion at The Frannan anmoruse al
, - > ~ . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .
J t -
~
i f i 1 i In the event QA/QC. information is not available, a field survey and i a test program reviewed and approved by the staff shall be implemented to ascertain the conformance of masonry construction to design drawings and specificiations (e.g. , rebar and grouting). i (k) For masonry walls requiring protection from spalling and scabbing due to accident pipe reaction (Yr ), jet impingement (Y)), and missile impact (Y f, the requirements of SRP Section 3.5.3 shall apply. Any deviation,) rom SRP Section 3.5.3 shall be reviewed and approved o
, case-by-case basis. .i
.I - r 5 References 4 4 (a) Uniform Building Code - 1979 Edition. 4 (b) Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures ACI-531-79 and Commentary ACI-531R-79. j i (c) Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Requiations for I Buildings-Applied Technology Council ATC 3-06. 1 * (d) Specification for tho Design and Construction of Load-Searing Concrete l Masonry - NCMA August, 1979.
.{ (e) Trojan Nuclear Plant Concrete Masonry Design Criteria Safety Evaluation Report Supplement - November,1980.
.I I
1 ] 1 l 3.8.4-22 Rev. 0 - July 1981 i { A-4 1 A_ nun Research_cemer _ .
l, . 1 1 ! 1 1 i
.j i
.J APPENDIX B
] 3 - . .
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ARKANSAS !dUCLEAR ONE UNIT 1 1.;, l< l I 'l I 4 i I
)
1-1 i . ll . l ' l 1 { .I i
.! A i . . . _ Franklin Research Center I A Division of The Franklin Institute The Bengmen Franen Parxwey FMa.. Ps. 19103 (215)448 1000 k
. . _ - . . . . . m. . . . . _
t
- ok' .
i n l Based on the Licensee's submittal [2], a technical review was conducted.
!, Before a final technical evaluation report can be issued, the Licensee is
,. i
} required to provide the following information.
I s. . s 5
- 1. Explain why the frequencies of some of the walls presented in Tables
]' 4,. 5, and 6.of aeference 2 are widely differwnt from the frequencies
- , of other walls of comparabis dimensions. Also explain why some of
. the frequeix:ies in these tables ,are indicated as OBE or DBE.
- 2. With reference to Section 6.1.4, Appendix A [2], justify using the average acceleration rather than the envelope of the response spectra l j for walls supported by two floors.
g?
- 3. With reference to Section 5.8 [2] c justify neglecting out-of-plane interstory drift in the analysis and explain whether the predicted D}, in-plane interstory drift of 0.0006 in/ft of height applies to confined or unconfined walles.
l
) 4. With reference to Section 6.1.2, Appendix A (2], provide sample f calculations to snow that analysis using only the fundamental mode is j adequate and is compar'.ble to a multimode analysis.
y 5. With reference to Table 5 [2], briefly describe the techniques used j for (a) verification by curves, (b) effective inertia analysis, and
.] Tc) dynamic analysis. Also clarify whether pipe reactions due to j thermal expansion are considered in the analysis.
i /
, ; 6. Provide more information on seismic analysis in different directions
/! '
and explain how the equipment weights and pipe weights were accounted ' for.
- 7. With reference to Section 5.0, ' Appendix A [2), provide the values for
" allowable stresses in axial compression, bearing, tension normal to 4
the bed joint, and tension parallel to the bed joint. i- ,
- 8. With reference to Section 5.2.1 of Appendix A [2], justify the 9 proposed increase factor of 1.67 for shear, bond, tension normal to the bed joint, and tension parallel to the bed joint. The SEB
. criteria (3] suggest an increase factor of 1.3 for masonry shear,1.5 1 for masonry tension parallel to the bed joint, and 1.3 for unreinforced masonry tension normal to the bed joint.
- 9. Indicate the present status of walls which were inaccessible and L j hence excluded from the original field survey.
l
=
k , .i* 3 ) (4 s ! ,! 'N , t i 1
! B-1 d Franklin Research Center 4 Omon of The Freeman insaame
_f' _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - __ . . -- _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . , _ _ _ _
,s._._.. , . . . . ~ . . . . . - . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . - . . - - . . . ~ . . . . , . . . . - .. . -. a. u - . . .
i d - a REFERENCES J j 1. IE Bulletin 80-11
] " Masonry Wall Design"
.J NRC, May 8, 1980 41 1
q 2. D. C. Trimble (Arkansas Power and Light Company) Imtter and attachments for Unit 1 to K. V. Seyfrit (NRC)
; .Ta nuary 29, 1981 4
3. Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation" NRC, July 1981 >
- 4. Uniform Building Code International Conference of Building Officials, 1979
- 5. ACI 531-79 and Commentary ACI 531R-79
'}* " Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures" American Concrete Institute, 1979
-] 6. ATC 3-06
.J " Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for
.; Buildings" l Applied Technology Council,1978
'I 7. " Specification for the Design and Construction of Load-Bearing 1 Concrete Masonry"
.) National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) , August 1979 1
- 1 rj
-.] .j N
q
- y 1.$
1
-l d,
ij a 2 l j A B-2 24 dbbU Fr:nklin Research Center A cm.,on a n. er.n u n u.
-] .-i
__. .__ _ . _ _ _ _ , . . . _ . . _ _ _ . , ~ , _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . , . . _ . . . , _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ , . . . _
1 i 1
$ 1 If i
t 4 APPENDIX C 1 NBC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORr4ATION FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAh ONE UNIT 2
'> l I
1 i l i-3
.i " ,k L1 l
i . .i q 1 4 4 1 1 r 1
)
1 I
~
sh l . . . . Franklin Research Center i A Division of The Franklin Institute j n. s.ngmin Frandn Parm.ey. PNia Pa. 19103 (215)448 1000 1 J _ _ _ _ _ . . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ - . . . . - - - - _ - - . _ . - - . _ . . - - ~ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ . - - - . .--- . - - - - -
1
.1 i
Based on the Licensee's submittal [2], a technical review was conducted. Before a final technical evalation report can be issued, the Licensee is required to provide the following information.
- 1. Explain why the frequencies of some of the walls presented in Tables
- 4, 5, and 6 of Beference 2 are widely different from the frequencies of other walls of comparable dimensions. Also explain why some of d the frequencies in these tables are indicated as OBE or DBE.
]
- 2. With reference to Section 6.1.4, Appendix A [2], justify using the
'h i
average acceleration rather than the envelope of the response spectra l . for walls supported by two floors. I , D,' l- i 3. With reference to Section 5.8 (2) , justify neglecting out-of-plane ',} interstory drift in the analysis and explain whetner the predicted 'l .. in-plane interstory drift of 0.0006 in/f t of height applies to l.j confined or unconfined walls. Ln
- 4. With reference to Section 6.1.2, Appendix A [2] , provide sample calculations to show that analysis using only the fundamental mode is
'j adequate and is comparable to a multimode analysis. i jj 5. With reference to the cover letter and Table 5 of the attachment [2], l provide a description of the bracing system installed for two Unit 2 i
- cantilever walls and indicate whether out-of-plane drift effects were
; included in the analysis.
.t j .j 6. With reference to Table 5 [2], briefly describe the techniques used for (a) verification by curves, (b) effective inertia analysis, and
..I (c) dynamic analysis. Also clarify whether pipe reactions due to
- thermal expansion are considered in the analysis.
I
- 7. Drovide more information on seismic analysis in different directions and explain how the equipment weights and pipe weights were accounted
; for.
l 4 - 'a
- 8. With reference to Section 5.0, Appendix A [2], provide the values for
- l. }
allowable stresses in axial compression, bearing, tension normal to the bed joint, and tension parallel to the bed joint.
'),
9. Wita reference to Section 5.2.1 of Appendix A [2], justify the
-I proposed increase factor of 1.67 for shear, bond, tension normal to l ?' the bed joint, and tension parallel to the bed joint. The SEB
( criteria [3] suggest an increase factor of 1.3 for masonry shear,1.5 lj for masonry tension parallel to the bed Joint, and 1.3 f.or 2 unreinforced masonry tension normal to the bed joint. I 1 10. Indicate tne present status of walls wnich were inaccessible and
- ) hence excluded from the original field survey.
'i l
- 1 l1
!l A C-1 d 'Jd Franklin Research Cerster !' A C* aman of The frrerwen m . . , - - . . _ _ . . _ . _ - . - . , _ . . . . . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - . . _ _ . . . _ - - _ _ _ _ . . _ . , _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ -.,_-__.__v
. _ _ , . _ . . - __...- ._. . . _ . _ . . . - . _. - : . -. a . u_:; . s,~ -- _ .---- - - - - . . - - - - - - -
; . , i e
l
i l
- 1 fj REFERENCES 1
4 1. IE Bulletin 80-11 1 " Masonry Wall Design" l
! NRC, May 8, 1980 1 l
- 5 4 7. D. C. Trimble (Arkansas Power and Light Company) i Imtter and attachments for Unit 2 to K. V. Seyfrit (NRC) i January 29, 1981
, :q , l 3. Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation" NRC, July 1981 , i
-l 4. Uniform Building Code International Conference of Building Officials,1979 f 5. ACI 531-79 and Commentary ACI S31R-79 ~l " Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures" American Concrete Institute, 1979
- 6. ATC 3-06
" Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings" Applied Technology Council, 1978
- 7. " Specification for the Design and Construction of Icad-Bearing Concrete Masonry" i National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) , August 1979 i
l 1 9 t
'4 1 .q 1 ,
1 l' l t 5
'l l
1 i k ,i j C-2 i l
]j j.JU Franklin Research Center
^ % orn.r e inou.
APPENDIX D TYPICAL SKETCHES OF WALL CONSTRUCTION i
?
a
.1 4
*i
-1 l
F . a i 1 i , ,t A . i 1
?
e 4 1 4
.6 i
i' i i 4 I
! A
; . . . . Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benprmn Franen Parkway. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (2151448 4000 1
1 1
i, l
. . \
- 1 t
t 4 1 4 5
.2 A
I / / /t l.h Y $. ?$Y M b$h 9 '.:i *
' . ]' se:.s ar.,.s. u sAa f D*a;cc c :. m =-4 .: . *
.i
.; s" r-* -
* %s r I.': 4 'n!;.
y N'%, /V
- g ,.*i'.
,i "'Y"# ,
i
....a.* N;:.f.). v. .L. .. . . . . . , . . . .c ...; . -) :.i4 m V.= %:g..l.l. -as=
A cII ?*;. 3... . Y?
'I ' '
1 O20*;* AT AI,:. C_.*.* I hL;- p '~ ' .__iTh' 3 7:MC T :. 4
- sH:I:.or:G wA;:.s A.N3 AT RI!iT0RCID
%~ e .
d
~
.l'.
=.". "';--4
* - .~ . %. ., , .__.s.
C* *
- 23 NCN-sH I*_3OI "i/ b. b. . .
j
\ ;> -e - *,
.a.
5 5 316 -TTP em s,,rd num.-a. .A . saa a;!'~-') kA
-itd*.W:[*$;.:.%
'ki'.
- . > - ca :-
D l.' i. e isa ;4/ sit.'.T ' " Y-5 o ja * * '.:'. ba cz ,.LI* .1
/ .L..r . .
Q..-**jt'.. pjA
-7 /, 0 .s*T ' k ' :.
o. 3 'w-* 4 .7
>w-j
./.4*d.%...HIAc
*R... - .. w.....
. :.*s
. ;. /
Aye,3;gs ;; ,37:3 m..
'*I.T.T.
. .T.C' 2-;T?
a i b h 1 1 r I i1
- I-l .)
l1 i i Figure 1 l i l .. 4 f i 3 r g D-3.
-4 dEJ Franklin Research Center i-i-r om at n. vmmu m. eau
_ -w+ - ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' _
. . . . . . -.a . . . . . - . . .~-.....-s-.- .-. . ~ . . .....-.....n:.--. . - . - . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . _ -
t . . 4 1
-4 e
f l 1 i s.
.i f ,
4 4
., 4 .90R:'::. 3CND 3D.M
, RI1AR (m)
-)
e
..-s
+3 m cRec:
I v.h & f L j f_l$ .. i I #4 -:>;[:
, d'4;*A s) ;
- y$4%*
f
! n .dI weWi= -
' .svsw
] 8 5 -" "AC-
- RZ3AR vitihFi t.. d. die.S .. i 6 = -rs m . . - 'ss , >=
? 5 = 1*'b.k.'
3,$.h: - . . . h,h$$) k = d3$bN[bh5 e.t.s di.' r ss = d s:0, .. .s !'<8.*;'1
= .;:D' la y
jiid ..e ,h".I's" e e;
, ' i Ws,M.
- ,w-= ,m- ,
I i.c,it a M,.:iji. _l
.~5e =.
/
.= : e
/ /
Figure 2 l . l,
- .I l
e l' 1 g D-2
] dd!j Franklin Research Center s om an ao ne vreeman m i
.b . .
4 i 4 i
.i l
'J 1
's 2
f
. .?
4 1
.c t
-J.
11 i SM:I:,2:NG WAILS
'NCN-SH!ZLDINO WALLS g- men-o-wn.:. non:. ro:N: n:Nr.
I$ VER7. WAI.:, M3AR -;y; e w 4 *A h 61 If s efi lo -iI * ,1 e et . tl__
- 1 s In i st o s , et s ,. *mg 1 -
m I as is .: ii , e t, . e i' 7i, i: a v. , i '
*D3
\%: .I 11 4 ;ii --
I Ii~ i, i. is i. i _ r. [ I:. vA; CN l 2
'-=1-
-*=4 -
'2 c
' 7?? l 12 T=s (m) i i ' AT SM:r:, :Nc w.,;...
F D C/U Cr"D C i DCi2.: ., CNLY 4 u ' r., s...,.,... s...... ,. . . . : q .
.'~r cen crn c m c c l
l i p . .AN t . i Figure 3 I b - i
.I
, . i i l I i 1
- 4 l
l * !. 6 A D-3 !'i
- dddd Franklin Research Center A Cmean of The Frannan insonae I '
l _ !. .__ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . - - - - --- .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
l! - t- . i. i i
.i i
I ,1 J f APPENDIX E ti SKETCHES OF WALL MODIFICATIONS . 1 r 4 I y
- 1 lj Li t
i '.I
-4 1,
1i li r:
?
1 I t. l i 1: 4 l .... Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin institute i The Benstrun Fransdin Pernway. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 i f a
?
I
f i. . 1 1 i s 1 1
-i i
1 1 i b L.0 -- &
- y.. ./ n l
fo-[f!" . uglcy 9!c" -,b" .
- 'c~
, 24 a-212 m A 7
l Lx1f/ , a. // . /a o c.uii ~/ 47ss s ; <! / / V2. gf : / / . 6 / g>
. /n
;q
>s
, y
~D ,
/ l 24 3-2/7
- t' .
f *,' l $a,
.. _, O.
..,- -p I - b
~~~
/LC"_ l _ 8!C"_ $d?* ?!?" s'-JYZ' :L/ "
g., -
.- i.
1, R AN 2 E2 366'-O" t 1
- .f,1
.c
*--" . 4, i s <. m ,,,
2 : mE
!' 2. ,I f wt v4 :,,.n s a .' . .n. ,,
4 I M
; ,. :n .uc.c-T
.. ./ ,
i! ,. ' .a f . .
- 1 SECT /CN A-A 1
1 Figure 1 1
~i I
1 s_t
)4 i
k- ~ . 300 Franklin Researen Center a c m.ones n. Fr= = n vs ae. 4
----~.=----.-+-.-u-.----<~--- - - - - - ' - =~- - -" - -
i
.i d
i
#2
- }
I. h - $'3.. !V;;
- e l- * -
,, ,, t 6 1 !94 i
/)
i war ///////s/p/////a
% C'J-9'i NY-2*. S*,
N.
'l f. l l L iz<.3 as i l} .
i T._ _vowsiw
. s, w .-
wwn: ~~ Q
.. _ f
) ?
"l t
'S N %g
,1
,- t g g, 's y
24-3 E2-5 %. 4 -m
)' .. .... q y z L xs x'r Typ k b b a
- 4. m. . m. , ,
m ,.
~
'91 AA
}l.'s.A W.x A l g% _*y -
i PL AN @ E!. 335'-O" -
.j .
i i
, p 24 3 g2 24 3-83 _
i
' ., . I..*I
. .'L*.
' / .'..
.' '.[>2
.. ... c
, L 'J!? N, .
'5T! :
-/
,/ ..
.... -.,.,l ,qg .
t a ~ 8 <
'. ,/-
M / i
. El I]?-Y m ) ///Y ,,
i
- i -
SECT /GN A-A 1 '
.i.
Figure 2 E-2 1 i i l l Adu& Franklin Research Center
; A on on at The Fran n m.
p
ENCWSURE 2 4.4 SAFETY EVALUATION FINDIN3 The licensee in the ' letter. d$ted JEly 2,1982 has confirmed the telephone convers$ tion of JEne 30, 1982 asdiscEssedinSection3.1. - In $dditirn, the licensee h$s indic$ted th$t the Unit 2 wdl1s, which
$renotsEEeyeddEetoin$ccessibilityasofnow,willbesbrEeyedin the fall outage of 1982. All of these walls were analyzed based on
~
drawingsErheysandfoEndtomeet$pplicablestEctEr$1$cceptance criteri$. FErthermore, the licensee h$s comnitted to notify the NRC whenthefieldsErbey(toidentifydehidtionsfromthedesigndr$ wings) iscomplet5d$nd$dhiseifthew$lkdownyieldedSnyresEltswhich impact the structural integrity of Unit 2 block walls.
~
Ontheb$sisofaboUecommitientsan'dthereviewofreferenced' ' docEments,' the st$ff concludes the 'followin'g'with the stipul$ tion..th$t the - licenseecompletethesErheyof$11cErrentlyindccessiblewallsin the next outage. If the licensee decides to omit any wall from the sbrhey,theNRCst$ffshobldbenotified. ~
"The Ese of (1) the ehdl$ation criterid defined by 5pplicable ,
codes, standards, and specifications, (2) applicable loads and imMng cmbin$tions End design $nd $nalysis procedEres, (3) Applicable stEctEr$1 $ccept$nce criteria, (4) materiels, (5) qE51ity control, and (6)specidlconstrEctiontechniqEes$ndtestingcanproEidere$sonab'le Assur$nce th$t, in the ehent of winds, torn $does, earthqEakes, $nd various postulated accidents occurring within. Category I structures, the safety-reldted masonry udlls will withstand the specified design conditions without imp $irment of ($) wall integrity or (b) the per-formance of required safety functions. Conformance with these criteria, j codes, specifications, and standards constitutes a. satisfactory basis ! which fulfills, in part, the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 4'. These s$fety eh$1udtion findings form the b$ sis for conclEding that Items 2 and 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11 has been fully implemented subject to
~
theabahementionedstipuldtion.
-}}