ML19320B202
| ML19320B202 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1980 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Goodwin C PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320B198 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, TAC-12369, NUDOCS 8007100034 | |
| Download: ML19320B202 (3) | |
Text
_
mQ,
[paaergk UNITED STATES y i l e t" g p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g gpf y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 N..v4/
July 3,1980 Docket No. 50-344 Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Assistant Vice President Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
IE Bulletin 80-11 on the subject of Masonry Wall Design was sent to you for information on May 8, 1980 (copy enclosed). Since the action called for in the bulletin was written for most power reactor facilities, it was felt inappropriate for the identical actions to be taken by you since some of the actions called for by the bulletin have already been performed for Trojan. Becace the masonry wall design problem was discovered at Trojan and resulted in the bulletin to other facilities, you are obviously much farther along than others in addressing these concerns.
Nevertheless, there are several items in this bulletin which have not been addressed, and are of sufficient importance to warrant a response.
Therefore, you are requested to provide a written response to Bulletin Items 2.b and 3 within 90 days.
As to Item 2.b, the design criteria for single and double wythe and composite walls for consideration of all in-plane and all out-of-plane loads and the interaction of these loads should be provided and fully justif'ed. Stiffness considerations must be substantiated. All inherent margins in the criteria are to be quantified based on existing test data to the extent possible. The long-range test program shall provide bases for those quantities not established at this time. A description and justification of tornado loads should be pro-vided for all walls.
In this regard, we note that Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-9 applies to reinforced ccncrete walls.
Its application to concrete masonry must be substantiated.
In addressing Item 2.b, we are mindful of the previous infonnation you have filed regarding the masonry wall problem. Therefore, in responding, you may reference previously filed documents provided that such references are clear and specific. Since previous documents date back to October 1979 and are numerous, part of our objective here is to lay out clearly and in one place the design criteria for all masonry salls, together with a justification for their adequacy and safety margins.
It will also provide a clear, referenceable document for updating of the FSAR and related Technical Specifications.
8007100D M
Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr..
As to Belletin Item 3, you are requested to subait for cur review your long-term confirmatory test program, including its associated schedule for completion and a detailed justification of its adequacy. We suggest the following items be considered in your test program:
1.
Wall frequency calculation, dynamic behavior, damping, stiffness, etc.
2.
Anchor bolts in composite, double and single wythe masonry under in-plane and out-of-plane loading. Account for cracking.
3.
Local load capacity, e.g., tornado missiles, block pull-out from bolted connections, including anchor and through-bolt configura-tions, etc.
4.
Confirmation that smearing local loads over 6t is justified and reasonably conservative.
5.
Local bearing stresses for bearing normal to wall.
Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this request.
Sincerely,
.f(f h C-e R. A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
IE Bulletin 80-11 cc w/ enclosures: See next page i
Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Portland General Electric Company cc: Mr. J. W. Durham, Esquire Donald W. Godard, Supervisor Vice President and Corporate Counsel Siting and Regulation Portland General Electric Company Oregon Department of Energy 121 S.W. Salmon Street Labor and Industries Building Portland, Oregon 97204 Room 111 Salem, Oregon 97310 Columbia County Courthouse
~
Law Library, Circuit Court Room St. Helens, Oregon 97501 Michael Malmros, Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trojan Nuclear Plant P. O. Box 0 Rainier, Oregon 97048 Robert M. Hunt, Chairr.an Board of County Comnissioners Columbia County St. Helens, Oregon 97051 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Programs (AW-459)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Crystal Mall #2 Arlington, Virginia 20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X Office ATTN: EIS C0ORDINATOR 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 i
SSINS No.: 6820 Accession No.:
UNITED STATES 7912190695 NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tHISSICN 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND E!iFORCE.E'.T WASHINGTON, D.C.
20555 May 8, 1980 IE Bulletin No. 80-11 MASONRY WALL DESIGN Description of Circumstances:
In the course of conducting inspections pursuant to IE Euiletin Nos. 79-02 and 79-14 at the Trojan Nuclear Plant, Portland General Ele:tric Co. (PGE) identi-fied a problem witti the structural integrity of concreta masonry walls with Seismic Category I piping attached to them. This problem was briefly addressed in IE Information Notice No. 79-28, which was sent to all Ccnstruction Permit and Operating License holders on November 16,1979 (Attachment 1).
The problem was that some walls were found which did no-have adequate structural strength to~ sustain the required piping systsa support reactions.
These structural deficiencies were at that time reporte: to be attributable to two deficiencies:
1)
Apparent lack of a final check of certain pipe sup: ort locations and
._ reactions to ensure that the supporting elements c:ssessed adequate structural integrity to sustain the required loads.
2)
Ncn-conservative design criteria for the reactions from supports anchored into the face of concrete masonry walls; e.g., relying on the combined strength of double block walls without substantial pcsitive connection beween the two walls by teans other than the bcnd provided by a layer of mortar, grout or concrete between them.
Continued investigations into the deficiencies identified at the Trojan Nuclear Plant, engineered by Bechtel, confirmed the deficiencies to be attributable to l
error in engineering judgment, lack of procedures and precedural detail, and inadequate design criteria (details are in Trojan Nuclear Plant's LER No. 79-15, i
and supplements).
Because of this and the generic implications of similar deficiencies with other operating facilities, we have c:ncerns with regard to the adequacy of design criteria used for the design of casenry walls and an apparent lack of design coordination between the structural and piping / equipment design groups.
IE Eulletin 79-02, Revision 2 issued on November 8, 1979 required a review of pice supports attached to masonry walls using expansfor ar.chor bolts.
For most pipe supports in this category, the expansion anchor belts were replaced by bolting through the wall or the support was relocated.3 another structure.
Supports that are bolted through masonry walls are alsc to be considered in the review for this Bulletin.
--.3
IE Bulletin No. 80-11 May 8, 1980 Page 2 of 4 Action to be taken by all power reactor facilities with an Operating License (except Trojan, Sequoyah Unit 1. North Anna Unit 2, and Salem Unit 2):
1.
Identify all masonry walls in your facility which are in proximity to or have attachments from safety-related piping or equipment such that wall failure could affect a safety-related system. Describe the systems and equipment, both safety and non-safety-related, associated with these masenry walls.
Include in your review, masonry walls that are intended to resist impact or pressurization loads, such as missiles, pipe whip, pipe break, jet impingement, or tornado, and fire or water barriers, or shield walls.
Equipment to be considered as attachments or in proximity to the walls shall include, but is not limited to, pumps, valves, motors, heat exchangers, cable trays, cable /cenduit, hVAC ductwork, and electrical cabinets, instrumentation and controls.
plant surveys, if necessary, for areas inaccessible during normal plant operation shall be performed at the earliest opportunity.
2.
provide a re-evaluation of the design adequacy of the walls identified in Item I above to determine whether the masonry walls will perform their intended function under all postulated loads and load cerbinations.
In this regard, the NRC encourages 'the f.ormation of an owners' group to establish both appropriate re-evaluation criteria and where necessary, a later confirmatory masonry test program to quantify the safety margins established by the re-evaluation criteria (this is discussed further in Iten 3 below).
a.
Establish a prioritized program for the re-evaluation of the masonry
- walls, provide a description of the program and a detailed schedule for ccmpletion cf the re-evaluation for'the categories in the program.
The completion date of all re-evaluations shculd not be more than 180 days frem the date of this Bulletin. A higher priority should be placed on the wall re-evaluations considering safety-related piping 2-1/2 inches or greater in diameter, ;iping with support loads due to thermal expansion greater than ~.00 pounds, safety-related equipment weighing 100 pounds or greater, the safety significance of the potentially affected systems, the overall loads on the wall, and the opportunity for performing plant surveys and, if necessary, modifications in areas otherwise inaccessible.
The factors described above are meant to pr. ovide guidance in determining what loads may significantly affect the tasor.ry wall analyses.
b.
Submit a written report upon completion of the re-evaluation program.
The report shall include the following information.
(i)
Describe, in detail, the function of the masonry walls, the configurations of these walls, the ty;e and strengths of the materials of which they are constructed (mortar, grout, concrete and steel), and the reinforcemant details (horizontal steel, vertical steel, and masonry ties for multiple wythe
.v.
-. -. -.==-, -+
B V
IE Bulietin tio. 80-11 May 8, 1980 Page 3 of 4 constructien). A wythe is c:nsidered t: be (as defined by ACI Standard 531-1979) "each centin'.cus vertical section of a wall, one mas.onry unit or grouted space in thickness and 2 in. minimum in thickness."
(ii) Describe the construction practices employed in the construction of these walls and, in particular, their adequacy in preventing significant voids or other weaknesses in any mortar, grout, or concrete fill.
(;ii) The re-evaluation r.eport should include detailed justification for the criteria used.
References to existing codes or test data may be used if applicable for the :lant conditions.
The re-eval,uation should specifically address the following:
(a) All postulated loads and load ccabinations should be evaluated against the correspending re-evaluation acceptance criteria.
The re-evaluation should consider i
the loads from safety and non-safe:y-related attachments, differential floor displacement and ther=al effects (or detailed justification that these can be considere.d self limiting and cannot induce brittle failures), and the effects of any potential cracking under dynamic loads.
Describe in detail the methods used to account for these factors in the re-evaluation and the adequacy of the acceptance criteria for both in-plane and out-of-plane loads.
(b) The mechanism for load transfer into the masonry walls and postulated failure modes should be reviewed.
For multiple wythe walls in which compositie behavior is relied upen, describe the methods and acceptance criteria used to assure that these walls will behave as composite walls, especially with recard to shear and tension transfer l
at the wythe interfaces. With regard to local loadings such as piping and equipment support reactions, the acceptance criteria should assure that the leads are adequately trans-l ferred into the wall, such that any assumptions regarding l
the behavior of the walls are appropriate.
Include the potential for block pullout ar.d the necessity for tensile stress transfer through bend at the wythe interfaces.
3.
Existing test data or conservative assumptions may be used to justify the re-evaluation acceptance criteria if the criteria are shown to be conser-vative and applicable for the actual plant c:nditions.
In the absence of a:propriate acceptance criteria a confirma ory masenry wall test program is required by the NRC in order to quantify the safety margins inherent in the re-evaluation criteria.
Describe in detail the actions planned and their s:hedule to justify the re-evaluation criteria used in Item 2.
If a test p cgram is necessary, provide your ccmmit ent for such a program and a s:hedule for submittal of a description of the test program and a schedule for ccmpletion of the prcgram.
This test pregram should address all
IE Eul:etin No. 80-11 May 8, 1980 page 4 of 4 a:prc;riate loads (seismic, ternado, missile, etc.).
- t is expected that t."e test program will extend beyond the 150 day ce-icd allowed for the o:her Bulletin actior.s. Submit the results of the tes program upon its c:cpletion.
4.
Sub=it the informatien requested in Items 1, 2a, a.-d 3 within 60 days of the date of this Sulle:in. Within 180 days of the date of this Bulletin sth=it the information requested in Item 2S.
If in the course of the re-evaluation, the operability of any safety related system is in jeopardy, the licensee is expected to meet the applicable technical specifications action statement.
This irferration is requested under the provisions of 13 CFR 50.54(f).
Accordingly, ycu are requested to provide within the tire period specified in Item 4, written statements of the above information, si;ned under oath or affi rmation.
Re: orts shculd be submitted to the Director of the apor:priate NRC Regional Office ar.d a copy should be forwarded to the NEC Office of Inspection and Enforce ent, Division of React:r Operations Inspecticn, Washington, D.,C. 20555.
The re;nrting requirements of this Bulletin do nct preclude nor substitute for the applicable requirements to report as set fcrth in the regulations and license.
If you require additional infonnation regarding this =atter, please contact the Directcr of the appropriate NRC Regional Office.
Approved by GAO, B180255 (R0072); clearance expires 7/3 /20.
Approval was given under a blanket clearance specifically for identified generic problems.
Attachrent:
IE Infcnnation Notice No. 79-25 ee eensm
mm.em maamm a w
w,
A::a:hment 1 55 INS No.: 6370 UNITED STATES A::essien No.:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMI55:0N 751C250475 0FFICE CF INSPECTICM AND E'.?~:.CE'TC
'eSHINGTON, D.C.
205E5 November 16, 1979 1E Inferration Notice No. 79-28 OVERLCADING OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS DUE TO PIPE SUP?CET CAD 5 Descri: tion of Circumstances:
Recently, the NRC was inf:rmed thit, in the course of the i s:ections pursuant to IE Eulletin No. 79-02 end 79-14 by the Fortland Gene ai Elec ric Co.
(PGE) at the Tref an Nuclear Plar.t. s:te walls were f:und whi:. di:.ot have adequate structural strength to' sustain the required suppor ree::ic :. Sechtei Corporetion was the Architect Engineer for the piant. These - structural inadecuacies were reported to be attributable to two deft:iencies:
1)
A: parent lack of a final check of certain pipe su::cr:lecations and reactions to ensure that the supporting struc ura'. ele:ents possessed adecuate structural integrity to sustain the required !oads.
2)
Inadequate des" "eria for the reections from susp:r:s anchored into the face of r
... olock walls; e.g., relyi g c-One combined strength
--ef dcuble conci ete block walls without pcsitive c:nnection between the two walls by means other than the bcnd provided by laytr of great between them.
The NRC is currently pursuing these issues in detail f:r the Tr:jan Nuclear Plant to determine the extnet of these deficiencies and the generic implications for other Sechtel facilities.
This Information Notice is prcvided as an early nctifi:atic, of a pcssible signif-icant ratter.
It is expected that recipients will rev'ex - e i-fermatica for possible applicability to their facilities and the actins teinc performed under IE Bulletin No. 79-02.
Specific action is being recuested reia-ing to the i
adequacy cf attachments to cor. crete block walls ur. der :E 3.lletin No. 79-02 Revision 2, item 5.c.
No specific actions are recuested ir res:ense to this 1
Informaticn Notice.
If NRC evaluations so indica e, f;rther licensee actions may be recuested or required.
If you have any cuestic s re;arding this matter, please contact the Director of the appropriate NRC ?.egfena. Cffice.
No written response to this IE Information Notice is required.
.. _.