ML20027C484
| ML20027C484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Haddam Neck, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1982 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Counsil W CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, TAC-42894, NUDOCS 8210150699 | |
| Download: ML20027C484 (13) | |
Text
-
u h
SEP 2 81982 DISTRIBUTION:
vD'ocket File PMKreutzer-3 NRC PDR Econner L POR RAClark Docket Nos. 50-213 NSIC JShea 50-245 and 50-336 ORB #3 Rdg JLyons ORB #5 Rdg CTrammell DEisenhut Gray Files JHeltemes y, c)ghf//
Mr.11. G. Counsil. Vice President OELD Nuclear Engineering & Operations I&E ConnecticutYankeeAtomicPowerCmd.f.",S-10 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Dear Mr. Counsil:
.,r, Wh and'oureconsultant, Franklin Research Center, have been reviewing your November 4, 1980 response to IE Bulletin 80-11 on Masonry Wall Design for Haddan Neck Plant and Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Hos. I and 2.
We have determined that the additional information requested in Enclosures 1, 2 and 3 for the three units is needed to complete our review.
In recent discussions with your staff (Mr. Michael Cass), a mutually agreed upon sbhedule for your submittal of the requested information has been determined. Therefore, our review s?hedule with Franklin has been revised to expect your response within 60 days from the date of this letter.
The information requested affects fewer than 20 respondents, therefore, OFB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.
Sincerely, Original signed by Robert A. Clark Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated a
cc: See next page i
8210150699 820928 PDR ADOCK 05000213
.G PDR p if su u>
..z r,...
J
,e...,
.]..
.RA 9/l.f./82,,,,,,,,9//,Q/,8 2,,,,,,,,,, 9/,@,8 2,,,,,,,,, 9f,/,pl.SP,.....
91.@l82....._..9/.M82..__
oney OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usce. ini-moea NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company cc:
William H. Cuddy, Esquire Mr. John Shediosky Resident Inspector / Millstone Day, Berry & Howard Counselors at Law c/o U.S.N.R.C.
P. O. Drawer KK One Constitution Plaza Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Niantic, CT 06357 Mr. Charles Brinkman Regional Administrator Manager - Washington Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I Office of Executive Director for Operation Operations 631 Park Avenue C-E Power Systems Combustion Engineering, Inc.
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 4853 Cordell Aven., Suite A-1 Bethesda, MD 20014 John F. Opeka System Superintendent Mr. Lawrence Bettencourt, First Selectman Northeast Utilities Service Company Town of Waterford P. O. Box 270 Hall of Records - 200 Boston Post Road Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATTN:
Superintendent Office of Policy & Management Millstone Plant ATTN: Under Secretary Energy Post Office Box 128 Division Waterford, Connecticut 06385 80 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06115 Waterford Public Library Rope Ferry Road, Route 156 Waterford, Connec.ticut 06385 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I Office ATTN: Regional Radiation Representative John F. Kennedy Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Northeast Utilities Service Company ATTN: Mr. Richard T. Laudenat, Manager Generation Facilities Licensing l
i P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Enclosurs 1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MASONRY WALL DESIGN HADDAM NECK PLANT CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY DOCKET'No. 50-213 9
Conclusive evidence is needed for the application of the " arching action" technique.
In addition, more information is necessary on the nature and current status of the modifications. The final report should also be s u.imitted. Before a final technical evaluation can be made, the licensee is required to provide the following information:
1.
Indicate how equipment loads were considered in the analysis.
2.
Indicate if testing for material properties was used in lieu of the minimum specified.
If so, provide a description of the testing program and the test data.
3.
Indicate how variations in frequency,due to uncertainties in mass, materials, and other parameters were considered in the analysis.
4.
In calculating seismic loads, the licensee multiplies the wall acceleration 'by factors of 1.3 for out-of-plane loads and 1.0 for in-plane loads. Justify this difference in factors used for in-plane and out-of-plane loads.
5.
Indicate whether cracking of sections was given proper consideration in the analysis.
6.
Specify limits for the relative displacement in the shear stress,
equation -(J) in Section 4.3.2 of Reference 2.
7.
In Section 4.4.1 of Reference 2, the licensee states that the response of in-filled panels to in-plane relative displacements may be analyzed by considering the non-linear composite action of the masonry wall and surrounding frame. The licensee is requested to identify all walls which were qualified by this technique. Discuss and provide the technical basis for the non-linear composite action.
The licensee is also requested to provide the results of the analysis along with some sample calculations.
8.
In Reference 2, the licensee indicated that arching action has been
.used to qualify some of the masonry walls.
The NRC, at present, does not accept the application of this method to masonry walls in nuclear power plants in the absence of conclusive evidence to justify this application. The licensee is requested to indicate the number of walls which have been analyzed by this technique and provide a sample calculation.
Before any conclusions can be made, the following areas need technical verifications Explain how arching action handles cyclic loading, especially when o
the load is reversed.
Provide justification and test data (if available) to validate the o
applicability of the arching theory to the masonry structures at the Haddam Neck Plant, with particular emphasis on the following:
a.
nature of the load b.
boundary conditions c.
material strength d.
size of the test walls.
o If hinges are formed in the walls, the capability of the structures to resist in-plane shear force would be diminished, and shear failure might take place. This in-plane shear force would also reduce the out-of-plane stiffness.
Explain how the effect of this phenomenon can be accurately determined.
9.
Indicate whether the construction practice for masonry walls at the Haddam Neck plant was in conformance with provisions specified ~or the special inspection category in ACI 531-79 [7].
If not, explain and justify the use of allowable stresses.
10.
Justify by any existing test data or literature the use of 35 psi for allowable masonry diagonal tension.
11.
Provide any increase factors that may have been used for allowable stresses under abnormal conditions.
If they are higher than those listed in the SEB criteria [5], provide justification. The SEB factors are listed below by type of stress.
Axial or flexural compression 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 Masonry tension parallel to the bed joint 1.5 Shear carried by masonry 1.3 Masonry tension perpendicular to the bed joints 1.5 Reinforced masonry 0
Unreinforced masonry 1.3
- 12. " Indicate if block pullout was considered in the analysis.
If so,-
provide sample calculations of block pullout ar.alysis.
13.
Indicate whether the walls are stacked or running bond.
If any stacked bond wall exists, provide sample calculations to obtain stresses of a typical wall.
i 9
nklin Research Center A Dmsen of The FrarAbn insutute
-~ "
. v
O 14.
In Reference 4, the licensee reports that all modifications have been completed except those for wall CYTB-1008 in the' turbine building, which were scheduled to be completed by September 1,1981. Verify the status of the modifications to this wall and other walls in inaccessible areas.
15.
In Reference 4, a final report was scheduled to be docketed upon completion of the modifications.
Provide this report.
16.
Provide a description of the modifications and detailed drawings of some sample modifications.
In addition, provide a sample calculation to show that the modified walls will be qualified under the working stress design method.
17.
Since the Haddam Neck plant is a part of the systematic evaluation program (SEP), the licensee is requested to clarify whether the seismic analysis was performed based on SEP loadings.
If not, provide justification.
O NOU Frankjin,m r,. arch Center Rese 4 won.
.w.a m.m.
6 l
REFERENCES 1.
Masonry Wall Design NRC, 08-May-81 2.
W.' C. Counsil Letter to B. H. Grier, NRC.
Subject:
Haddam Neck Plant -
IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co., 04-Nov-80 A01021 3.
W. C. Counsil Letter to B. H. Grier, NRC.
Subject:
Haddam Neck Plant, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2 - Masonry Wall Design Northeast Utilities, 03-Mar-81 A01021 4.
W. C. Counsil Letter to B. H. Grier, NRC.
Subject:
Haddam Neck Plant - Masonry Wall Design Northeast Utilities, 26-Jun-81 A01021 5.
Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation SRP 3.8.4, Appendix A N FC, 00-Jul-81 6.
Uniform Building Code International Conference. of Building Officials,1979 7.
Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures Detroit: American Concrete Institute,1979 ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79 M
00hd Franklin Research Center A Dms.on of The Franen insutute sen s J ook.
e e
Enclosura 2 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MASONRY WALL DESIGN MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-245 Based on the Licensee's response to IE Bulletin 80-11, a technical evaluation was conducted.
In general, the Licensee's response was satis-factory; however, additional information is required to permit a proper final technical evaluation.
Conclusive e.vidence is needed for the application of the " arching action" te chnique.
In addition, more information is necessary on the nature and number of the modifications. The final report on the modifications should also be submitted.
Before a final technical evaluation can be made, the Licensee is required to provide the following information:
1.
Indicate whether walls are stacked or running bond.
If any stack bond wall exists, provide sample calculations of the stresses for a typical wall.
2.
Explain and justify the difference (if any) between the load combinations provided in the plant FSAR and the load combinations used in the reevaluation of the masonry walls.
3.
Indicate how earthquake forces in three directions were considered in the analysis.
4.
Justify,the use of an increase factor of 1.5 for allowable masonry shear and tension normal to the bed joint [Page 1, Exhibit C-1, Reference 2]. The SEB criteria [4] allow an increase of only 1.3 for shear and tension normal to the bed joint.
If any existing test data will be used to justify this increase factor, the Licensee is required to d.iscuss the applicability of these tests to the masonry walls at Mil,lstone Unit 1 with particular emphasis on the following:
- Boundary conditions
- Nature of loads
- Size of test walls
- Type of masonry construction (block and mortar type, grouted or ungrouted)
The Licensee is also requested to indicate, if SEB criteria were to be used, how many walls could not be qualified and to identify these walls.
5.
Provide sample calculations for block pullout of attachments analysis and tornado analysis.
6.
Regulatory Guide 1.61 allows 4% damping for operating basis ear thquake (OBE) and 7% damping for safe shutdown earthquake (SSE).
Provide the damping values used in the analysis and justify them if they are higher than those allowed by Regulatory Guide 1.61.
t 7.
In deference 2, it was indicated that arching action analysis may have been used to qualify some masonry walls. The NRC, at present, does not accept the application of this technique to masonry walls in nuclear power plants in the absence of conclusive evidence to justify dais application. The Licensee is requested to indicate the number of walls which have been analyzed by dais technique and to provide sample calculations.
In addition, the following areas need technical verification before any conclusion can be made about arching analysis:
Explain how the arching action theory deals with cyclic loading, o
especially when the load is reversed.
o Provide justification and test data (if available) to validate the applicability of arching action theory to the masonry structures at Millstone Unit 1, with particular emphasis on the following areas:
a.
nature of the load b.
boundary conditions c.
raterial strength d.
size of test walls.
o If hinges are formed in the walls, the capability of the structures to resist an in-plane shear force will be diminished, and shear failure might take place. This in-plane shear force would also reduce the out-of-plane stif fness. Explain how the effect of this phenomenon can be accurately determined.
8.
Reference 3 indicated that *a final report on the modifications was being prepared and would be submitted upon completion. Provide this final report.
9.
Provide a description of the required modifications and explain by sample calculation how they rectify wall deficiencies.
In addition, provide detailed drawings of some sample modifications.
10.
Since Millstone Unit 1 is a part of the systematic evaluation program (SEP), the Licensee is requested to clarify whether SEP loadings for seismic analysis have been used.
If not, provide justification.
11.
Page 2 of Section 3.0 of Reference 2 is missing. Provide this page.
T 1
e e
, REFERENCES 1.
IE Bulletin 80-11 Masonry Wall Design NRC, 0 8-May-81 2.
W. G. Counsil Letter to B. H. Grier, NRC.
Subject:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 - IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design Northeast Utilities, 04-Nov-80 A01021 3.
W. G. Counsil Letter to R. C. Haynes, NRC.
Subject:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 - IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design Northeast Utilities, 29-Sep-81 B10313
'4.
Criteria for' Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix A NBC, 00-Jul-81 5.
Uniform Building Code International Conference of Building Officials,1979 6.
Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures De troit: American Concrete Institute,1979 ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79 A
Ubbd Franklin Research Center A Oms.on of The Frannhn insutute
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MASONRY WALL DESIGN MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-336 It is noted that sufficient information has not been provided to justify certain allowable stresses and their increase factors. Conclusive evidence 'is also needed for the application of special analysis techniques, specifically arching action and energy balance techniques, to the masonry walls at Millst*one Unit 2.
In addition, the final report on the reevaluation
' and modifications to masonry walls should be submitted. Before a final technical evaluation report can be made, the licensee is required to supply the following information:
1.
Indicate whether the walls are stack or running bond. If any stack bond walls exist, provide sample calculations used to obtain stresses of a typical wall.
2.
a.
Section 3 of the SEB criteria [3] specifies ACI 531-79 [5] as the g*overning code for allowable stresses in masonry walls.
In Section 5.1.1.3 of Reference 2, the licensee has listed allowable shear stresses which exceed some allowables listed in ACI 531-79.
Justify the following allowable shear stresses (the allowable stresses from the ACI 531-79 "Special Inspection" category are shown in parentheses and based on an f'm of 1350 psi)
No Shear Reinforcement Flexural members 50 psi (4 0 psi
. l.1 jf'm)
Shear walls 50 psi (33 psi = 0.9 gf'm; M/Vd >/1)
Reinforcing Taking Entire Shear Flexural members 120 psi (110 psi = 3.0 jf',)
Shear walls 75 psi (55 psi = 1.5 }f'm;M/Vd>/1)
The licensee should indicate whether construction practices were in conformance with the provisions specified in ACI 531-79.
b.
Provide allowable stresses for unreinforced masonry. Justify these values if they exceed those given in ACI 531-79 or UBC-79.
?.tixt::..-... _.. w...
.u..-.
a.
- a. u
ms.
e o*
3.
With respect to multiple wythes, clarify whether collar joint strength was used in the analysis. If so, justify by any existing test data the values used for allowable shear and tension of collar joints. Provide sample calculations illustrating the analysis of multi-wythe wall.
4.
The licensee uses an increase factor of 1.67 [ Reference 2, Section 5.2.1] for allowable masonry stresses in tension and shear whereas the SEB criteria [3] allow only 1.3 for shear and tension normal to the bed joint and 1.5 for tension parallel to the bed joint. The licensee justifies the factor of 1.67 by claiming it provides a f actor of safety of 1.8 (3 + 1. 6 7). Substantiate this assertion by any existing test data. The licensee is also requested to indicate the npmber of walls which would not be qualified if the SEB criteria were to be used.
5.
In Reference 2, the licensee indicates that the energy balance and arching action techniques have been used to qualify some of the masonry walls. The NRC does not accept the application of these methods to masonry walls in nuclear power plants without conclusive evidence to justify this application. The licensee is requested to indicate the number of walls analyzed by each of these techniques and to provide sample calculations to illustrate the analysis by each technique. The licensee is also requested to identify the types of struct.ures (grouted, ungrouted, distribution of reinforce-ment) involved in these analyses.
In addition, the following areas need technical verification before any conclusions can be made:
a.
Energy Balance Technique o Provide a technical basis to ensure that the ductile mode of failure will occur (if the wall fails).
o Provide justification for and test data (if available) to validate the applicability of the energy balance technique to the masonry structures at Millstone Unit 2, with particular emphasis on the following:
a.
nature of the load b.
boundary conditions c.
material strengths d.
size of test walls, b.
Arching Action o Explain how the arching action theory handles cyclic loading, especially when the load is reversed.
o Provide justification for and test data (if available) to validate the applicability of the arching action theory to the masonry structures at Millstone Unit 2, with particular emphasis on the following areas:
bb.ranklin Resea.rch Center a n,. r,.
. ~.
~,
o o-r.o
'o a.
nature of the load b.
boundary con'ditions c.
material strengths d.
size of test walls.
o If hinges are formed in the walls, the capability of the structures to resist in-plane shear force would be diminished, and shear f ailure might occur. This in-plane shear force would also reduce the out-of-plane stiffness.
Explain how the effect of this phenomenon can be accurately determined.
6.
Section 3.7.2 of the Standard Review Plan requires that unless a dynamic analysis is performed, the effect of higher modes of vibration shall be accounted for by shitiplying the peak acceleration of the floor response spectrum by a factor of 1.5.
The Licensee is requested to explain how higher modes of vibration were accounted for in the analysis.
7.
Indicate how earthquake forces in three directions were considered in the analysis.
8.
Indicate how out-of-plane drif t effects are considered in the analysis.
9.
Indicate if block pullout was considered in the evaluation. If yes, provide sample calculations of block pullout analysis.
10.
Specify the number of masonry walls analyzed for impact and suddenly applied loads. Provide,the results (stresses, displacements) of these analyses.
In, addition, provide a sample calculation illustrating the analysis for impact and suddenly applied loads.
11.
Provide the final report on the reevaluation and modifications to g
masonry walls which was scheduled to be submitted by May li 1981.
/
nklin Research Center A Onas.on en The 7eerud.n ansktwee
-.-g-=
q.
g
,g 4
9 e
/,"
REFERENCES a
1.
Masonry Wall Design i
NRC, 0 8-May-81 i
2.
W. G. counsil Letter to B. H. Grier, NRC
{
Subject:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 2 - IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design Northeast Utilties, 04-Nov-80 j
A01021 3.
Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation SRP 3.8.4, Appendix A NRC, 00-Jul-81 4.
Uniform Bu}lding Code
~
International Conference of Building Officials,1979 5.
Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures De troit: American Concrete Institute,1979 ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79
+ e e
e,
t I
1 e
nklin Research Center A Desen of The Fem met.twee
,.... _. -. -.-