ML19305B630
| ML19305B630 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Oconee, Palisades, Point Beach, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Turkey Point, Duane Arnold, Farley, San Onofre, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, 05000209  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1980 |
| From: | Licciardo R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003200007 | |
| Download: ML19305B630 (16) | |
Text
'
j;[
r',.
gf y
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 l;
E 9,
I
%.... /
Docket Nos.
(see Attachment No. 1) ypeg 3 :n
, LICENSEES:
(see Attachment No. 1)
FACILITIES:
(ses Attachment No.1)
SUMMARY
OF MEETING ON MASONRY WALL AND PIPE SUPPORT STRUCTunt8 INTER-DISCIPLINARY C0 ORDINATION Introduction 11, 1980, the NRC staff met with representatives of Bechtel On January and licensees whose plants were designed in whole or part by Bechtel to discuss matters related to masonry walls and pipe supports in light of the Trojan plant design problems.
See Attachment 1 for a list of these plants, licensees and docket numbers. A list of attendees is provided in Attachment 2.
The topics discussed were presented in a January 7,1980 NRC letter to Bechtel from Darrell G. Eisenhut, Acting Director of the Division of Operating Reactors. A copy of the meeting agenda followed is provided as Attachment 3.
Introduction & Background - NRC Ken Herring of NRC summarized our experience in dealing with the Trojan plant's masonry walls including apparent inadequacies in the QA/QC of
, their design and constnJction.
Ken Buchert of Bechtel responded to this.
Introduction - Bechtel D. W. Halligan briefly outlined the. intended scope of Bechtel's presen-tations for the meeting.
Presentatien of Summary Matrix Block Wall Sumary A summary of block walls used at Trojan and other nuclear plants designed by Bechtel was given by Ken Buchert.
The presentat' ion concentrated on the dates designs started and the total number of masonry shear walls used.
Trojan was said to be unique in its use of a large number of masonry shear walls required to carry seismic loads. Pilgrim 1 and San Onofre 1 are the only other plants with masonry shear walls.
Alan Appleford of Bechtel addressed the currently availabS information on equipment and piping supported on block walls as summar..ed in columns d
3 and 4 of Attachment 4.
He stressed the limited and,reliminary nature of the information which could be made available in t' e limited time available before the meeting.
3003200 N
e 2-Construction Specifications and Practices John Stull and D. B. Hardia presented information and positions on construction specifications and practices used in the plants under consideration.
Construction details of the walls (including the use of either mortar, grout or concrete) are summarized in Attachment 4.
Quality standards for block masonry and grout are presented in Attachment 5.
Where the particular quality standards listed incorporate others by reference, these "others" are not separately referenced on the tabulations provi ded.
The different levels of responsibility by Bechtel in the various plants under consideration are presented in summary form in Attachnent 6.
The types of contracts and the related specifications did not require detailed documentation of block walls. Therefore, the written records of their construction and' quality are sparse or virtually nonexistent.
Quality is ensured in the " modus operandi" generally employed by Bechtel in the selection of contractcrs - which is generally undertaken from a client's listing, the use of affiliated unions and related block workmen.
A preconstruction meeting is generally held at which price and approach are discussed. Coordination and administration of the actual work on the site is by Bechtel field engineers who also inspect.
Many of the field engineers used on the plants under discussion are long term employees of Bechtel and are therefore available to provide information as may be recalled. The field engineer is required to sign off on billings.
The only plants listed on Attachment 1 that have a full set of speci-fications are those with a relatively late start, starting with Davis-Besse in 1969, and ANO-2 (1970).
For these plantst every wall is identified, specifications were required for each, and daily inspection records were called for.
The particular responsibilities for construction specifications and records' needs to be ide'ntified for each plant by checking the prime contract and subcontracts'used to complete the block ~ walls at each plant.
Block walls, both complete and partial, are used to facilitate the access of equipnient ~and piping into interior rooms and especially during con-st ruction. They' are also used for shielding purposes.
6
---.. 1..=---a---.
s.
. Design Criteria Design criteria used in the plants were discussed by Ken Buchert, Ken Lee and Ted Johnson of Bechtel. A summary by plant is presented in.
Due to lack of time to prepare for this meeting, Attachment 7 does not show all load combinations for all of the plants.
It was stated that tornado loads and external missile loads generally do not affect these walls.
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) was generally used when these walls were designed. No specific analysis was made for dead loads (D) operating basis earthquake loads (E) safe shutdown earthquake loads (E') or temper-ature gradient loads (T) in a number of these plants. Different positions were taken on other plants.
D. W. Halligan stated that these circumstances and criteria were discussed with the staff during the licensing of 'each plant.
Dr. Ken Lee discussed the extent of potential cracking or fracture under seismic conditions. Bechtel has no particular position at this time.
Bechtel stated that preliminary reviews indicated that generally single wythe block walls have been designed to withstand the loads by themselves.
They are then assembled into multiple wythe walls by adding concrete mortar or grout filler.
It has been assumed that the resulting composite is of more
, conservative design than the single wythe wall.
Bechtel believes that the damping values used are conservative.
Block walls were not meant to support large pipes.
Bechtel believes that in the majority of cases (based on a sample audit) that the block walls support only light elements, with pipes 2 inches in diameter or smaller, and electrical equipment.
The weight of such items is estimated by Bechtel to be no greater than 10%
- of the wall weight (based on the sample audit), and to add no more than 20%
' to wall stress.
Bechtel will provide the technical data which support these estimates.
T. E. Johnson presented an overall vicM stressing:
o Available criteria including load combinations used, governed the wall design o Almost all block walls are inside-not subject to tornado and external missile loads o Low damping coefficients were used o UBS provides a safety, factor of_3 o Comments on linear vs. non-linear response.
w e
-r sm -
4-The block walls in the plants were " structurally o
prudent" for the time, especially within the California experience, in allowing for seismic events.
In some cases, Bechtel did miss the fact that large pipes o
were attached; where this was not so, the design was based on the designers judgment of the overall situation.
A discussion was held between J. Coleville, NRC consultant, and Ken Lee and Ken Buchert of Bechtel regarding " cracked I," the moment of inertia under cracked conditions, the validity of ACI cracked I calculations, and the significance of the small effective I.
Bechtel used judgment in these matters after discussions with Newmark.
It was indicated that recent data is available from SANDIA Labs and from EPRI sponsored Tornado building test in which the 1/2 (Ig + Ic) approach was tested against the resulting displacements from the test. Bechtel has connitted to review this work.
J. Coleville and Ken Herring commented that tests on concrete walls (as for the EPRI tornado building tests) are not necessarily valid for block walls.
Bechtel made its first tests with missiles on concrete walls five or six years ago.
Bechtel indicated that they had to rely on UBC criteria then and that such design has been shown to have adequate safety.
The staff questioned the general applicability of the UBC; they further indicated that Bechtel should not take two different approaches to determine values of parameters under seismic conditions to justify the safety of the designs.
Ted Johnson spoke of the "added" load combinations, embedments and missiles, and the basic allowances which have been made based on concrete standards 314-319, and indicated that he believed these adequately address the problems and that the plants are safe with respect to these walls.
Ken Herring indicated that the concrete codes do not apply to block walls and that our basic concern is whether the walls are safe - not whether they comply with a particular FSAR connitment.
Bechtel maintained that, in general, the walls are only supporting small loads and that there are only a small number of plants where these walls are otherwise loaded.
Further, Bechtel indicated, the block walls are not generally used as structural elements in the overall plant design, but, rather, are used as " fillers" and "blockouts."
(
I
. J. Coleville observed that one cannot identify the critical block walls at this time without reference to the structural elements themselves.
Bechtel pointed out that on Duane Arnold, for example, concrete block walls were discussed with the staff 5 - 10 years ago.
The discussion then was focused on what the allowable shear strength should be for block walls. References were made to a few papers and particularly Author Clay Hegemier and the Proceedings of the North American Conference held in Colorado in 1978.
Substantial disagreement exists between all parties on the shear stre..gth of bed joints over the range of 26 to 54 psi.
Collar joints and vertical joints were also discussed.
The staff's consultant, J. Coleville, indicated that the problems of non-shear walls are not necessarily insignificant and that the collar mortar joints would do well if they could sustain 12 - 20 psi loads with 80% voids. Dr. Lee restated Bechtel's design philosphy - that the block walls were designed as single wythe walls and then combined into multiple wythe walls. He said this means no credit was taken for any strength in collar joints.
J. Coleville indicated he would like to see an analysis supporting this assertion.
Bechtel then presented available design information for the double wythe walls at Turkey Point 3 and 4, including reinforcement and ties. Similar information was provided for Millstone 2.
Bechtel considers its design approach to be satisfactory on the basis that a single wyth could take the lateral load and that the amount of reinforcing was consistant between jobs.
Discussion centered on the validity of the design approach including con-siderations of the. amount of reinforcing used. The assumption of end wall restraints varies between plants based on the structural designer's per-
-ception of the rigidity of the particular local wall ccnditions.
It was concluded at the meeting that there is substantial disagreement between Bechtel and the NRC staff as to what constitutes an adequate approach to the design bases and related stresses on single wythe walls, the validity of the simplified extension to the integrity of compcsite walls, and consider-ations of the resulting reactions upon the principal structural elements of the buildings under seismic conditions.
t i
Ted Johnson proposed that a safety margin of 3 for working stress and a safety margin of 2 for ultimate strength calculations are satisfactory if one has significant test information upon which all could agree.
San Onofre 1 This plant was described as having a single story, single room building of block construction in which the loadings on the building are extrenely small.
Pilgrim 1 A cursory survey of the affected building was insufficient to permit a conclusive judgment due to lack of information on the response characteristics of the surrounding, structure.
General Suninary Review The staff believes that there nay have been a lack of adequate control and supervision during the initial design with respect to block walls at these plants. Especially for the older plants, it appears that designs were based on judgments with a lack of substantive justification.
Earlier Bechtel submissions on particular details of existing in-stallations were not confirmed by subsequent NRC inspections.
Criteria initially used for the Trojan block walls were not approved.
Charles Trammell pointed out that not only the seismic qualification of the block walls and all systens attached theretc (not only Category 1 piping) are of concern, but also of concern is the integrity of the essential safety systems in close proximity which could be impacted by the failure of such a wall. The integrity of the wall when subjected to all possible loads such as high energy line breaks and internal plant missiles also needs to be addressed.
Mr. Trammell requested that,the licensee representatives at the meeting
~ discuss with their management the lessons learned to date, from the Trojan experience and this meeting. Also, he asked that they have further discussions with their Architect Engineer (Bechtel) to determine the safety of their plants in this area. He stated that it is to be expected that the staff will pursue this matter directly with each licensee, however, the licensees were encouraged to form an owners group to enable a detailed treatment of this matter in the most efficient way. The staff also indicated that it is possible that an I&E Bulletin similar to 79-02 and 79-14 will be issued.
~
. The basic outstanding issues are:
1 o Define the problem at each plant in terms of plant safety should the wall or attachments fail, o Establish acceptable criteria for the desi5n of the safety related walls and attachments ano, o Ensure all structural elements have been designed to resist appropriate piping and equipment support reactions.
W R. Licciardo, Project Manger
-Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors Attachments:
List of Dock ~ ts, Licensees 1.
e and Facilities 2.
List of Attendees 3.
Agenda 4.
Table 1 5.
Table 2 6.
Table 3 7.
Table 4 O
e 4
4 f
1
Meeting Sumary for Docket Files NRC PDR Local FOR ORbl Reading NRR Reading H. Denton E. Case D. Eisenhut R. Tedesco G. Zech B. Grimes W. Gamil1 L. Shao J. Miller R. Vollmer T. J. Carter A. Schwencer D. Ziemann P. Check G. Lainas D. Crutchfield
- 8. Grimes T. Ippolito R. Reic
'V. Noonan G. Knighton D. Brinkman Project Manager OELD OI&E (3)
C. Parrish/P. Kreutzer ACRS (16) fiRC Participants NS'C TERA Licensee-Short Service List i
l i.
1 w
l j
Docket No.
LICENSEE FACILITY 50-344' Portland General Electric Trojan 50-010-Connonwealth Edison Dresden 1 50-155-Consumers Power Big Rock Pt.
50-206-Southern California Edison San Onofre 1 50-250' Florida Power and Light Tu rk ey Pt. 3 50-251' Florida Power and Light Tu rk ey Pt. 4 50-255-Consumers Power Palisades 263*
Northern States Power Monticello E3-266 Wisconsin Electric Power Point Beach 1 50-301-Wisconsin Electric Power Point Beach 2 50-277*
Philadelphia Electric Peach Bottom 2 50-278-Philadelphia Electric Peach Botton 3 50-209-Duke Power Oconee 1 50-270-Duke Power Oconee 2 50-287-Duke Power Oconee 3 50-312-Sacramento Municipal Utility Rancho Seco 1 District 50-293,
Boston Edison Pilgrim 1 50-313' Arkansas Power & Light ANO-1 50-368 -
Arkansas Power & Light ANO-2 50-317 -
Baltimore Gas & Electric Calvert Cliffs 1 50-318 -
Baltimore Gas & Electric Calvert Cliffs 2 50-366-Georgia Power Hatch 2 50-336 -
Northeast Nuclear Energy Millstone 2 50-346-Toledo Edison Davis-Besse 1 50-331 -
Iowa Electric Power & Light Duane Arnold
.50-348 '
Alabama Power Farley 1 G
e 9
\\
i
LIST OF ATTENDEES AFFILIATION NAME NRC Charles Trammell NRC Ken Herring NRC B. D. Liaw NRC Robert Licciardo NRC Drew Persinko Univ. Md/ Consult. to NRC Jim Coleville NRR/ ORB-4 Monte Conner NRC/QAB Jack Spraul NRC/ DOR J. F. Fair Boston Edison Co.
N. H. Williams Bechtel Ken Buchert Bechtel D. W. Halligan Bechtel T. E. Johnson Bechtel S. L. Sobkowski NRC/SEB F. Schauer Bechtel D. B. Hardie Bechtel Man Applefood Bechtel John Stull SPHD Del Raasch Bechtel W. A. Brandes Bechtel Kenneth Lee Censumers Power Co.
Roger Huston NRC/ DOR /SEPB Thomas Cheng NRC/ DOR /SEPB Henry Lee Bechtel
_ illiam Brittle W
Duke Power Co.
Nabil Awadalla Northern States Power Steve Hammer James F. Costello NRC/RES NRC V. Noonan Arkansas Power & Light David Saunders Arkansas Power & Light-Mike White Bechtel John Amaral Toledo Edison Company Dennis Mominee Florida Power & Light J. A. DeMastry Florida Power & Light D. '4. Jones Florida Power & Light G. D. Whittier H. A. Wilber NRC/I&E Philadelphia Electric L. A. Silva Philadelphia Electric
- 0. Marano l
9 e
3
2 2-LIST OF ATTENDEES NAME AFFILIATION G. K. Wang Bechtel J. W. Fay Bechtel
.A. L. Reimer Wisconsin Electric M. P. Cass Northeast Utilities D. T. Ward Baltimore Gas & Electric B. K. Kanga Bechtel A. J. Arnold Bechtel David C. Jeng NRC/SEB John O'Neill Shaw, Pittman for Wisconsin Electric C. W. Burger NRC/RES Kanti Gandhi Bechtel Gaffour A. Kosi Bechtel Paul W. Koss Bechtel F. M. Linn PSE&G R. A-Williams Bechtel John S. Ma NRC/SEB J. W. Brothers Bechtel R. H. Stone Bechtel 4
e r-
~~
ATTACHMENT 3 f
AGENDA MEIIING NRC - JANUARY 11, 1980 1.
Introduction & Background - NBC 2.
Introduction - Bechtel (D. W. Halligan) 3.
Presentation of Sunanary Matrix Block Wall Sununary ( K. P. Buchart) a.
b.
Equipment & Piping Supported on Block Walls (Alan Applaford) c.
Construction Specifications.and Practices (John Stull & D.B. Hardie) d.
Design Critaria (K. P. Buchert, Ken Lee &
T. E. Johnson) 4.
General Conclusions (D. W. Halligan) 5.
Questions & Discussion m
W 0
0 r,
e
~ -, -. - - - - -,,
m-
3 TOTAL NO. TOTAL NO.
NO. WALLS NO. WALLS TOTAL NO.
TOTAL NO. TOTAL NO. TOTAL NO.
OF SilEAR OF HON-SUPPORT.
SUPPORT.
OF SINGLE OF PRJLTI.
OF CON-0F OTHER WAI.LS SitEAR CAT. I CAT. I WYTilE WYTilE CRETE OR TYPE WALLS P1PE SYSTEMS WALLS WALI.S CROUT WALLS EXCLUD.
WITil -'
CORE PROIECT HAME PIPE HORTAR WALLS Trajan (66) 96 406 117 10**
58 218 226 0
Drssden 1 (56)
NOT AVAILABLE TO BECirtEl Big Rock Pt. 1 (59) 0 5
2 2
3 0
0 2
Saa Onofre 1 (63) 4 26 0
30 0
0 0
l Turkey Pt.3&4 (65) 0 107 0****
97 10***
O I
(.
Pa11aades (66) 0 28 7****
21 20 0
0 8
Hon t ic e llo (66) 0 114 3
111**
49 10 0
55 l
Pt. Beach 1&2 (66) 0 66 13 25 15 7
0 16 Pe ch Brm. 2&3 (66) 0 89 1
27 47 9
33 0
Oconee 1.2.3 (66) 0 0
0 0
0 0-0 0
Rancho Seco (67) 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Pilgrim 1 (67) 13 141 6
82 94 60***
O Arkansas 1 (67) 0 131 3**
53 78***
O Calvert C1fe.1&2 (67) 0 141 0****
141 0
0 0
Hatch 2 (67) 0 5
0****
5 0
0 0
H111 stone 2 (68) 0 205 4****
154 51***
O Davis-Besse 1 (69) 0 223 23****
199 0
24 0
Duane Arnold (69) 0 211 11**
92**
113 98***
O Farley 1 (69) 0 30 1****
30 0
0 0
h Arkansas 2 (70) 0 174 0****
65 104***
O
- Not available M
- Upper bound i
- Design allowed alternate (to constructor) g
- Large pipe I
( ) Year design work started 1/11/80 1
l
.. 1
HASONRY WALL QUALITY STANDARDS
,a c
o (BLOCK MASONRY GROUT ONLY) o, 0.{
U M
p 8
8 E
O hN O
ei k U S4 n
ws o
3 4
4 G
G 0
0 d
G G
G u
.0 0
n N
N N
N N
h N
N N
Nb N
h a
W 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
44 0
e Dresden 1 Not Available At This Time Big Rock Point x
x x
x x
x San Onofre 1 x
x x
x x
x 1
Turkey Pt. 3&4 x
x x
x x
x x
x Honticello x
x x
x x
x x
x x
Oconee 1 No Hamonry Walls in Bechtel Scopo Oconee 2 No Hasonry Walls in Bechtel Scope Oconee 3 No Masonry Walls in Bechtel Scope Palisaded x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x Peachbotton 2 & 3
, x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
Pt. Beach I & 2 x
x x
x x
x x
x Trojan x
x x
x x Arkansas 1 x
x x
x x x
Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2 x
x x
x x
x x
x x
Ilatch 2 x
x x
x x
x Pilgrim 1 x
x x
x x
x x
x x x x
x Q>
Rancho Seco Not Applicabic g
2 g
'H111 stone 2 x
x x
x x
x x
x x
Davis Besse x
x x
x x
x x x
x u,
i Duane Arnold x
x x
x x x
x Farley 1 x
x x
x x Arkansas 2 x
x x
x x
x x x x
x i
l I
7 -
I E
A TACHME M 6 CONSTRUCTION BY BECHTEL TYPE OF CONTRACTOR OR PROJECT MAME BECHTEL CONTRACT SUBCONTRACTOR <
REMARKS Arkensas 1 EPC S/C Inspection Reports by S/C Engr
/.: kansas 2 EPC S/C Insp Rpts & MIRs-Q by S/C Engr lig Rock Point 1 EPC S/C S/D with Contr Admin Daily Report Calvsrt Cliffs 1&2 EPC S/C S/D v/ audit of completed work last 10%
by Bechtel r,avic-Besse EPCM C
Q S/C w/ daily insp S/D v/insp rpts & audits f
Oresden 1 EPC S/C S/D v/Contr Admin Daily Report Duans Arnold EPC 3
S/D with Wall release card
)
Paricy 1 E
atch 2 E
F.illstone 2 EPC B
S/D v/ Release for Grout No Raccrds M:nticello EPC S/C S/D 3:ence 1 E
hense 2 E
':ense 3 E
LU.sades EPC S/C S/D feach Botton 2&3 EPC S/C S/D
- -grin EPC S/C S/D
- . Beach 1&2 EPC S/C S/D with Contr Admin Diary
.incho Seco EPCM C
'an Onofre 1 EPC S/C
- jcn EPCM C
S/D vith Documentation for "Q" verk i
S ecs & Dvgs to Constrs.ct - Ne Eagr=t
_rkey Pt. 36' EPC S/C P
for !=sp Abbreviations as noted below:
5/ = 5 :veillance by field engineers with specifications and drawings used for acceptance; no formal records kept.
l EPC - Engineering, Procurement and B - Bechtel Construction by Bechtel as Prime Contractor C - Owner let Contract Administered by Bechtel EPCM-Engineering. Procurement and Construction Management by Bechtel S/C - Subcontractor as Prime Contractor E
- Ingineering Only by Bechtel
MAJOR GOVERNING IAAD 3
PRO. LECT [1At.tE cot.t lllN A TIONS CitlTEttlA DIEtTo UllC-working stress,
- 1. 33 stress factor-OllE, 1. 50 SP-SSF, Frequency Troian (66)
D t Id '.'o Ca ic. -unc rac ked.
Drnrden 1 (56)
U BC-working stress Big Rock Pt. 1 (59)
OtE tsllC-wo rking stress San Onofre 1 (63)
DIE UllC-working st ress,
- 1. 3 3 s t re s s fac to r-O llE Turkey Pt. 3&4 (65)
U BC-working stres s Palirade s (66)
Unavailable at this time hiontic ello (66)
UllC-working stress Pt. Ileach 1&2 (66)
U llc-wo rking stress U BC-wo rking stres s,
- 1. 0 stress factor-OI3E, 1. 33 stre ss facto r-SSE, Paach llottom ZL3 (66)
D t E, D t E' Frequency Calc. -uncracked Oconee 1,2,3 (66)
Not required Rancho Seco (67)
I>t E '
UBC-working stress,1.33 stress factor-SSE Pil,, rim I (67)
DIE UllC-working stress, 1.0 stress factor, Frequency calculation-unc racked.
A rkansa s I (67)
DtB U BC-wo rking stress, 1.0 stress factor, Frequency calculation-uncracked Calvert Cliffs 1&2 (67)
UllC-wo rking stress Concrete Design Manual - working stress, 1. 0 SF-O BE, 1. 5 SF-SSE, flatch 2 (67)
Di Lt E Frequency calculation-unc racked hiillstone 2 (68)
DIE U llc-wo rking st res s,
- 1. 0 S F-O llE,
- 1. 5 SF-SSE, Frequency calc. -uneracked Davis-Besse 1 (69)
D I E, D t E' UllC-wo rking stres s, 1. 33 SF OllE,1. 50 SF-SSE, Frequency calc. -uncracked UllC-working stress, 1. 0 SF-OIIE, 1. 5 SF-SSE (1. 50 given in FSAR Duane Arnold (69)
D t E, D tE' response to question 12. 5), Frequency calculation-1/2(lulic).
Farley 1 (69)
DIE U LIC-wo rking stress,1.0 SF-O BE,1. 5 SF-SSE, Frequency calc. -unc racked Arkansas 2 (70)
DIE' tillC-working stress,1.0 stress factor, Frequency calculation-unc racked D
EI - Safe Shutdown Earthquake Load 5
=
nj E - Operating Basis Earthquake Load m
5 To - Load Due to Temperature Gradient Across Wall
~