ML13317A350
| ML13317A350 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1982 |
| From: | Paulson W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Dietch R Southern California Edison Co |
| References | |
| LSO5-82-09-085, LSO5-82-9-85, NUDOCS 8210040153 | |
| Download: ML13317A350 (6) | |
Text
September 29, 1982 Docket No. 50-206 LS05-82 085 Mr. R. Dietch, Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operations Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770
Dear Mr. Dietch:
SUBJECT:
EVALUATION OF SONGS 1 - PROPOSED MASONRY WALL TEST PROGRAM Enclosed is the NRC staff evaluation of your proposed Masonry Wall Test Program for use in the seisi c reevaluation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 (SONGS-1). The purpose of your test program is to provide relevant test data for the validation of your nonlinear inelastic time history analysis methodology. The staff concludes that your proposed test program is acceptable subject to the satisfactory resolution of the staff's concerns as delineated in the enclosure.
You should provide the additional information needed to.resolve questions on your flasonyy WTE Prog s soon aspassibTE, outn~t later than 30 days prior to your proposed restart date.
Sincerely, Walt Paulson, Project Manager 2
Operating Reactors Branch #5 6
Me Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page 6210040153 820929 PDR ADOCK 05000206 P D R l
o g
- See previous yellow for additional concurrences.
SEPB:DL SEPB:DL SEPB:DL SEPB:DL 0
- .1PM OR 5:BC
.DL OFFICE SURNAMEf PYChendk ErcKenna*
RHermann*
WRussell WPaulson DCe*eld F ir u.
.....I.......E..
el........aul ~.....
..........e~d...
DATE...9/
/82..._8.........................
a...q NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960
Docket No. 50-206 LS05-82 Mr. R. Dietch, Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operations Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770
Dear Mr. Dietch:
SUBJECT:
EVALUATION OF SONGS 1 - PROPOSED MASONRY WALL TEST PROGRAM Enclosed is the Structure Engineering Branch evaluationoof your proposed Masonry Wall Test Program for use in the seismic reevaluation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 (SONGS-1).
The purpose of your test program is to provide relevant test data for the validation of your nonlinear inelastic time history analysis C.thodology. The staff concludes that your proposed test program is acceptable subject to the satisfactory resolution of the staff's concerns as delineated in the enclosure. As you may observe the list of concerns is rather lengthy. You are requested to support the staff's response in a timely manner so that our review can be performed to support your restart program.
Sincerely, Walt Paulson,;Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page
- OFFICE, SEPB:
D SEPB:DL S
EPB:DL ORB#5:PM ORB#5:BC AD:SA:DL CE)~~~~~.........
SURNAME
,,I...
.E
.nna RHemann.
WRussell WPaul son DCrutchfield
.1..FMiragJ....
DAT 9/
/82 9/Z/82 9/pi/82 9/ /82 9/ /82 9/ /82 9/ /82 NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960
Mr. R. Dietch cc Charles R. Kocher, Assistant General Counsel James Beoletto, Esquire Southern California Edison Company Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 David-R. Pigott Orrick, Herrington*& Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Harry B. Stoehr San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1831
,San Diego, California 92112 Resident Inspector/San Onofre NPS c/o U. S. NRC P. 0. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 Mayor City of San Clemente San Clemente, California 92672 Chairman Board of Supervisors County of San Diego San Diego, California 92101 California Department of Health ATTN: Chief, Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section.
714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 215 Freemont Street San Francisco, California 94111 Robert H. Engelken, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V 1450 Maria Lane Walnut Creek, California 94596
Evaluation of SONGS-l Proposed Masonry Wall Test Program Background and Objective By letter dated July 19, 1982, the licensee has decided to proceed with the test program, and proposed a "Masonry Wall Test Program" for NRC review and evaluation.'
The objective of this evaluation report is to review the proposed test program scope and contents, uhich include the test specimns, test facility, input, test procedures, data collection and reduction,report preparation and schedules etc., and reach a conclusion on the acceptability of the test pro gram.
Suggested itens and followa-u actions by the licensee are also included.
Scope of Evaluation The scope of this evaluation covers only the acceptability/adequacies of the licensee's proposed test program.
The SONGS-1 masonry wall design adequacy and needed dispositions are not included within the scope of this evaluation.
Information Reviewed
- 1. "Masonry Wall Test Program" by SCE dated July 19, 1982.
- 2. Conference call between SEB staff and the licensee and its consultants on May 23, 1982.
Summary and Conclusion The staff has reviewed the test program proposal and other pertinent information and identified some concerns regarding the test input motions, the piping/equipme simulations, test data measurenants/reduction and neans and criteria for inter preting the test results for the verification of analysis methodology.
The staff concludes that the licensee's proposed program is acceptable subject to the satisfactory resolution of the staff's concerns hich are delineated below.
- 1. A discussion or assessment of the impact of not inputting vertical motion together with the horizontal one is needed to justify its amission in the test procedure.
Also, expand to include the omission of the other horizontal notion (in-plane) in the test, in view of the fact that three components of earthquake motion should be included in the analysis.
- 2.
Discuss the basis of your selection of time history durations and demonstrate its adequacy considering the fact that the duration of motion may have important bearings on non-linear analysis results.
- 3.
Discuss the reason for not being able to input two distinct motions at the two actuator levels as was implied in the proposal.
If indeed, the input motions can't be distinct, assess its impact on the test findings and test conclusions.
Appropriate carpensatory measures, if any planned for adoption in interpreting the data, should also be discussed.
- 4.
Describe how the closeness/similarity between the test walls and the in-situ walls are to be assured with respect to the construction material and boundary conditions.
- 5.
Give detailed discussion about and justification for major.piping/equipdent attachment sinulation in terms of weights, eccentricities and locations of such attachments.
Also discuss the methods in attaching these piping/equipnt.
- 6.
How are the in-structure armplified design spectra,to be used in defining actuator' input motion~determined?
Procedures for verification of similarity of input actuator. motions to those of in-structure design spectra should be'provided.
What are the criteria for judging acceptability of the. similarity of the Motions?
- 7.
How representative are the 3 types of panels selected corpared to the range of walls considered applicable for the non-linear analysis coamuter code?
A discussion to demonstrate that a reasonable representativeness has been achieved, should be provided.
- 8. Provide a discussion of how pre-test prediction analyses by DRAS-2D code will be done and what particular results will be subnitted to NRC staff prior to the test?
- 9.
Key rebar strains should be measured directly by strain gages so that the strain time history is known during the test.
- 10.
Direct measurement of longitudinal strains in the face shell (both on tension and compression side) should be made.
If such a measurement is difficult to implement, then discuss what are the difficulties involved.
- 11.
Describe the means of precracking the panels and at the same time preventing the yielding of the rebar.
How is the panel to be loaded? Also, testing of pre-cracksed panels should proceed only.after an acceptable mapping of the cracks is taken.
- 12.
How will the test results be used to interpret the analysis results?
The criteria to judge the acceptability of test results as a means of verifying the analysis methodology and their bases should be provided.
- 13.
The means and criteria to dispose significant differences between the test results and the corputer analysis results and basis thereof, should be provided.
- 14.
On pageA-38 of Section 5.1.2, Appendix A of your Response to NRC Review of Methodology", you referred to ACI-318 regarding a method of computing the effective manent of inertia.
This method was used in the deflection calculations of Turbine Bldg. Group 1 walls. Also, on page 74 of Volume 4 "Fuel Storage Building", Fuel Storage Building wall stiffness was based on 1.5 times the cracked moment of inertia.
The equations (9-7), (9-8) and (9-9) of ACI-318 code provide expressions for le, Mcr and fr respectively, where le is the effective rment of inertia for computation of deflection, 4'cr is the cracking moment and fr is the modlus of rupture of-concrete.
In view of the above, provide a discussion as to whether the pertinent "fr" values for masonry wall have been used in your analysis calculations and whether a number of flexural tensile strength prism tests are necessary in order to validate the "fr" values used in the analysis. If such tests are considered unnecessary, provided the basis thereof.