ML20084E185
| ML20084E185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1984 |
| From: | Lundvall A BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8405020164 | |
| Download: ML20084E185 (22) | |
Text
i DALTIMORE l
GAS AND l
ELECTRIC CHARLES CENTER P. O. BOX 1476. BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 l
l April 23,1984 AmtMum E. LuMovALL. Jm.
l vice P=cniormt so.m Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. 3. R. Miller, Chief l
Operating Reactors Branch #3 l
Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units Nos.1 & 2 Dockets Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 I&E Bulletin 80-11. Masonry Wall Design Gentlemen:
I Your letter dated March 11,1984 requested additional information concerning our re-evaluation of the seismic qualification of masonry walls at Calvert Cliffs.
A detailed response to your questions is enclosed. if you should have any questions concerning this information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely, j
J l
A& D
Enclosure:
Response to NRC(SGEB) 2/24/84 Request for Additional Information r
Re Masonry Walt Design i
cc: 3. A. Blddison, Jr., Esq.
G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Mr. D. H. Jaffe, NRC Mr. T. Foley, NRC l
Mr. 3. C. Ventura, Bechtel l
l l
h,fo y
bcct Messrs. A. E. Lundvall, Jr.
i C. H. Poindexter R. H. Kent
- 3. A. Tiernan C. H. Cruse G. C. Creel R. M. Douglass R. E. Denton/D. W. Latham R. F. Ash C. C. Lawrence, III A. R. Thornton O. T. Ward R. C. L. Olson/M. D. Patterson B. S. Montgomery M. 3. Gahan,111 R. C. Esenwine I
l i
I f
s m
.c 1
RESPONSE TO NRC (SCEB)
February 24, 1984 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Masonry Wall Design, IE Bulletin 80-11 l
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2 l
Docket No. 50-317/318 Question 1:
With reference to Response 3 of Reference 1, the Licensee identified eight walls as being unqualified by the SGEB increase factors (2).
These walls were qualified based on the inelastic l
method; however, Table 3.3 of the same response indicated that these walls were qualified by the Licensee's elastic design criteria. Please clarify this contradiction. Also, with respect i
to the increase factor higher than the SCEB allowable.
(1.67 as I
opposed to 1.3 per the SCdB for tension normal to the bed joint),
please identify all affected walls along with the percentage of exceedance for each wall.
Also, explain all conservative mea-sures (if any) used in the analysis to justify a higher increase factor.
Response
The above question states that there is a contradiction in our Response 3 of Reference 1.
The following explanation is provided to further clarify the qualification methods for the walls listed in Table 3.3 of the above references As stated in the Table 3.3 title, these were " walls qualified by the Calvert Cliffe Elastic Criteria which would not qualify elastica 11y by the SEB criteria".
This means that the maximum allowable tensile stress perpendicular to the bed joint was less than 1.67xALLOWABLE rather than 1.3x ALLOWABLE.
Further discussion provided in Response 3 stated that even though the walls were qualified by the Calvert Cliffs Elastic Criteria, they also satisfied the requirements of our inelastic criteria.
- However, for purposes of our response to the Bulletin, the walls were qualified by the l
elastic criteria, l
l The following table identifies all walls with increase factors higher than the SGEB allowable tension and the associated per-I I
centage of exceedance. It should be noted that these percentages l
reflect stress comparisons for the most severe loading combin-l ation. Also included in the table is the actual increase factor required to qualify the wall.
As stated in Response 3 of Reference 1 all walls satisfied the Calvert Cliffs Elastic criteria with the tension perpendicular to the bed joint less than 1.67 times the ALLOWABLE for the most severe loading combin-ation.
Also please note as shown in the following table that wall A23 was originally qualified to the SGEB allowables.
Page 1
% of Exceedance of Required Stress Elevation Wall SCEB Allowable Increase Factor
-10'-0" J
17.7%
1.53 5'-0" 0
13.8 1.48 45'-0" A21 20.0 1.56 45'-0" A23 0.0 1.05 45'-0" A30 26.2 1.64 69'-0" C*
69'-0" Al 11.5 1.45 69'-0" A17 13.1 1.47
- See Response to Question 2 Also requested in the above question was an explanation of all conservative measures used in the analysis which justifies the use of a higher increase factor.
The following is a brief j
summary of some conservative assumptions utilized in the re-i evaluation effort.
It should be noted that these conservatisms are in addition to those outlined in Attachment E of Reference 3 and Response 3 of Reference 1.
~
1.
For walls which consisted of multi-wythe construction, the collar joint strength was assumed zero. Of the walls listed above; J, 0, A21 A23 A30 and Al are of multi-wythe con-struction.
In each case, the most critical wall geometry and loadir.g condition observed on the individual wythes was used in wall qualifiestion.
2.
Conservative assumptions for wall attachment weights were used.
3.
Conservative assumptions on wall boundary conditions were considered (i.e.,
completely pinned connections vs. par-tially fixed).
4.
When wall natural frequencies occurred less than the peak of the response spectra, the peak acceleration was used in the seismic analysis.
Question 2:
With regard to the nonlinear analysis technique (energy balance technique and arching action theory), please note the following and provide the information requested:
a.
Arching Action: The NRC position on this issue states that the use of arching action theory to qualify unreinforced masonry walls is not acceptables these walls should be repaired so that they can be qualified based on the SCEB criteria (2).
(The NRC position is attached.)
In view of l
this, indicate your intended actions and schedule to bring the affected walls in compliance with the staff position.
Page 2
b.
Energy Balance Techniques The NRC is currently preparing a position statement regarding this technique, which will be forwarded to the Licensee in the near future.
c.
In a meeting of the NRC on January 20, 1983, the Licensee identified 24 walls qualified by the arching action theory and 22 walls qualified by the energy balance technigge.
However, according to Attachment F of Reference 3, there were 43 walls qualified by the arching action theory and 20 walls qualified by the energy balance :echnique.
Please identify all walls qualified by each technique.
1
Response
Subsequent to our March 30, 1981 submittal (Reference 3),
continued evaluation and review of the Calvert Cliffs CMU
]
wall program was conducted.
Due to this continued ef fort, several changes and clarifications have been identified to the above submittal which will be discussed in this re-i sponse.
j It should be noted that the "SGEB Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation" (July 1981) was received af ter our final re-evaluation submittal (March 30, 1981).
Attachments D and E of Reference 3 clearly define the criteria used in wall qualification at Calvert Cliffs.
Allowable stresses with the associated increase factors as provided in Section 5.2.1 were the basis of the reevaluation effort.
As a general practice and as an added safety measure, when, through elastic analysis allowable tension 1
was observed perpendicular to the bed joint, an inelastic review of the wall was automatically performed. The result of this inelastic review was presented along with the elastic results in Attachment F and Attachment C of i
Reference 3.
It should be noted that in both of those attachments, when the tensile stress in the masonry was ob-served to be greater than zero but less than the allowable (with the appropriate increase factor), the wall was assumed qualified elastica 11y.
In addition, for many inelastic cases presented in the table, an arching and an energy balance evaluation was performed and the results for the I
individual walls included.
Therefore, it can be seen that a summation of the entries in each of the qualification headings presented in Attachment F of Reference 3 will not be an accurate determination of number of walls qualified by elastic or inelastic methods.
Attachment F is provided only to tabulate analytical results while Attachment G provides the summary of result of the total re-evaluation program.
Page 3
In order to further clarify the Calvert Cliffs response to I.E.
Bulletin 80-11, Attachment G has been revised and attached to this response for your reference.
When walls were qualified elastica 11y and masonry tension greater than zero was observed in the analysis, the Attachment Remarks Column has been revised to reflect the magnitude of this stress. Also, the method of inelastic wall qualification is defined in the appropriate column.
It should be noted that as stated previously in this re-sponse several changes to the CMU wall program have been made since the March 30, 1981 submittal. These chantes are described below and reflected in the attached revision to Attachment C.
1.
Wall A20 at Elevation 45'-0":
This blockout was originally qualified by inelastic analysis (arching) and has since been physically removed.
I 2.
Wall C at Elevation 69'-0": This single wythe partition wall was previously qualified by inelastic analysis. A detailed finite element analysis of the wall was performed and it was requalified to the Calvert Cliffs elastic criteria.
I q
It is therefore concluded from the revised Attachment G,
I that twenty two walls were qualified by the energy balance inelastic criteria, one wall was qualified by the arching theory, and the remaining walls satisfy all Calvert Cliffs elastic criteria.
It is our intention to make modifications to the wall qualified by arching (ZZ at Elevation 69'-0") by October 1, 1984 These modifications will be provided to ensure wall ZZ will satisfy the SCEB elastic requirements.
i i
I i
l Page 4
. _ ~ _ _ _ _ ~ _ - _ - _ =..
)
l k
Referencest l
i 1.
A. E. Lundvall (Baltimore Gas and Electric); letter to R. A. Clark (NRC) -
Subject:
IE Bulletin 80 December 13. 1982 2.
SCEB Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation; Developed by the Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch (SCEB) of the NRC -
July 1981 3.
A. E. Lundvall (Baltimore Gas and Electric); letter to B. H. Grier (NRC) -
Subject:
IE Bulletin 80 March 30, 1981 J
I 1
5
{
l 1
l 1
i i
j l
n a
an_
<.m--
-n m-9 e
b REVISION TO ATTACHMENT C
]
OF REFERENCE 3 i
i i
t i
e l
i l
i i
i
r LISTING 0F ALL MASONRY WALLS CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Revised 03/23/84
$R iR H"E eu s.
-l c.
ca t ! l1l i!! i;l
-5w WALL m gg AUXILIARY BUILDING. EL. (-) 10'-0" (FIC. C-5)
A X
B X
C X
Shield walls with no attached or proximal safety-related D
X equipment E
X F
X X
C X
X M
X X
I X
X J
X X
Tensile Stress < 1.67 allow-able K
X X
L Loose-block shield wall ob-served to have proximal safety-related systems.
Removed 06/17/80 M
X Shield walls with no attached or proutest safety-related N
X equipment F
X AUXILIARY SUILDING. EL. S'-0" (FIC. C-4)
A X
X 3
X X
C X
X 1
LISTING OF ALL MASONRY WALLS G.2 CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Revised 03/23/84 U
h O
Il
$
ca ea m
M
)
ogg g
$m lu
$n0 E*3 W
2 5-WALL REMARKS AUXILIARY BUILDINC EL. 5'-0" (FIC. C-4)
D X
X E
X X
F X
X i
G X
X H
X X
l I
X X
\\
J X
X l
K X
X L
X X
M X
Loose-block shield wall N
l observed to have proximal safety-related systems.
Removed 06/17/80 i
0 X
X Tensile Stress <1.67 i
allowable AUXILIARY BUILDING, Et. 27'-0" (FIC. C-3)
A X
Energy j
Balance B
X X
C X
X i
D X
X E
X X
i l
l F
X X
\\
l l
l
LISTING OF ALL MASONRY WALLS G.3 CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT l
Revised 03/23/84
?
u Eg l2 a@=
h k
l 1R R
555 33=
cla c t/s t/3 c
~ -
$u hmU f
u
=
1 WALL E
- k REMARKS AUXILIARY BUILDING EL. 27'-0" (FIC. C-3)
C X
X H
X J
X K
X X
l L
x x
M X
X l
N X
X 0
X X
P X
X Q
X X
R X
Energy Balance S
X X
T X
X 1
U X
V X
l W
X l
x X
l l
Y X
X z
X X
AA X
X l
l s,
e i
9 e e
$4
t l
i LISTING OF ALL MASONRY WALLS C.4 CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Revised 03/23/84 l
192 es e.
u s2 R
-s=
cm.
c=
=
Eg lg
-l I"gl*
!"l*
gE 8-l 5*
g l
WALL REMARKS 1
AUXILIARY BUILDING EL. 27'-0" (FIC. C-3)
BB X
X CC X
DD X
EE X
TF X
GG X
X NH X
X JJ X
X XK X
X LL X
X MM X
X WN X
X l
00 X
X PF X
X X
X RR X
X 55 X
Shield wall with no attached or proximal safety-related equipment TT X
X W
X X
TV X
X e
o.
_.- -. - +_ _-....,.
r l
i r
LISTING 0F ALL MASONRY WALLS l
C.5 j
CAtVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Revised 03/23/84 i
l r
H"E au.
e.
-l cEm ea R
g j
w r
i WALL 5-g aggggg l
I I
j AUKILIARY BUILDING EL. 27'-0" (FIC. C-3)
[
f W
X X
t XX X
X
[
i i
i YY X
Shield walls with no att-1 I
ached or proximal safety-i related equipment j
EZ X
4 j
A1 X
X Not safety-related per new f
A2 X
inspection i
l info.
l
~
A3 X
X Tensile Stress < 1.3 allowable i
A4 X
X 1
M X
X I
A6 X
X l
j A7 X
l 4
A8 X
l AUXILIARY SUILDING EL. 45'-0" (FIC. C-2) l
}
A X
i a
X
{
l c
X X
l I
l D
X X
r p
4 I
X X
i i
F X
Energy Salance i
a
.o
____;._a
LISTING OF ALL MASONRY WALLS G.6 1
CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT i
Revised 03/23/84 e
gu g
,n c
- w c=
WALL 5
g REMARKS I
AUXILIARY BUILDING EL. 45'-0" (FIC. C-2) t C
X X
H X
X J
X K
Partition wall in office arent no longer exists L
X
\\
M X
X N
X X
i 0
X X
P X
X Q
X X
R X
S X
X Tensile stress < 1.3 l
allowable T
X Energy Balance U
X X
l j
V X
Energy Balance W
X Energy Balance l
X X
X Y
X X
l 1
X X
.x.
.t.
C -
- -O-
LISTING OF ALL MASONRY WALLS g,7 CALVERT CLITTS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Revised 03/23/84 o
gu g
n-
[9
@
cs:
e=
m eg E*E8 "gd Eg kg E
~
8
~
3.
2 E I N
2 5-REMARKS WALL AUXILIARY BUILDING EL. 45'-0" (FIC. C-2)
M X
X BB X
X I
CC X
Energy l
Balance DD X
Energy Balance
)
EE X
Energy Balance FF X
Energy Balance CG XX X
HH X
X Tensile strean < 1.3 allowable J1 X
X i
KK X
X Masonry walls have been l
LL replaced by removable steel missile barriers Mg NN X
" Lok-in block" wall 00 X
" Lok-in block" wall 1
Masonry wall bas been re-PP placed by removable steel missile barrier QQ X
Energy Balance m
i LISTING OF ALL MASONRY WALLS C.8 CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT I
Revised 03/23/84 t
22 au.
e.
,R l8 a-e eu 1'
5 l$ $l la s"l
~
3 g-
-5N WALL REMARKS 4
a AUXILIARY BUILDING EL. 45'-0" (FIC. C-2) i i
RR X
Energy Balance SS X
Energy Balance TT X
Energy I
Balance UU X
Energy Salance i
W X
Energy Salance W
X X
XX X
W X
X ZZ X
f A1 X
X A2 X
X A3 X
X l
A4 X
Not safety-related per BCAE review of S.R. status of NVAC ductwork A5 X
X A6 X
A7 Included in Wall F, some elevation A8 X
X
LISTING OF ALL MASONRY WALLS l
C.9 l
CALVERT CLIFFS WUCLEAR POWER PLANT Revised 03/23/84 l
u l
HH eu e.
~
I R
9 a-cE.
c=
1 m
w WALL g g
agxAggg se AUXILIARY BUILDING EL. 45'-0" (FIC. C-2)
A9 X
X A10 X
Note safety-related per BC8E review of S.R. status of NVAC ductwork All X
X A12 X
Determined to be not safety-related per revised mechanical data A13 X
X A14 X
X A15 X
X l
l A16 X
X A17 X
Shield wall with no attached or prontas1 safety-related equipment A18 X
X Tenelle streen 41.3 allowable A19 X
X Tenelle stress <1.3 allowable A20 X
Wall removed A21 X
X Tensile strees 41.67 allowable A22 X
X Tensile strees 41.3 alloweble A23 X
X Tenelle strene el.67 allevable A24 X
RnerRy Salence A25 X
A26 X
LISTING OF ALL MASONRY WALLS G.10 CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Revised 03/23/84 i* D U.
SS 2l".
g g
g EM.
c=
s s
h 8h Eh0 hU l55-s 8-i
$"~Eh 8-s WALI.
m REMARKS AUXILIARY BUILDING EL. 45'-0" (FIG. C-2)
A27 X
A28 X
X Tensile stress <1.3 allowable A29 X
X A30 X
X Tensile stress <1.67 allowable A31 X
X Tensile stress <1.3 allowable A32 X
X Tensile stress <1.3 allowable A33 X
X A34 X
X Tensile stress <1.3 allowable A35 Loose-block shield wall ob-served to have proximal safety-related systems.
Removed 07/30/80. New wall.
M6 X
X AUXILIARY BUILDING EL. 69'-0" (FIG. C-1)
A X
X B
X Energy Balance C
X X
Requalified elastica 11y by detailed F.E. Analysis 1
D X
Energy Balance s
w' E
X
X
\\
F X
'X-C X'
X n.
s b
e
% w,
LISTING OF ALL MASONRY WALLS G.11 CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Revised 03/23/84 www N
ig g
dyd SS.
B".
EH
<s EU EUG E
U E5 75 D*D a:
$=
sBs Ugb dzu
~~
a<
eE 8-E
<5<
i 5
5 WALL REMARKS AUXILIARY BUILDING EL. 69'-0" (FIC. C-1)
H X
X I
X X
J X
K X
L X
X M
X X
.l N
X
]
O X
I P
X Not safety-related per revised mechanical data i
)
Q X
R X
X S
X T
X X
U X
X f
V X
X W
X X
X X
Energy Balance Y
I 2
X Energy Balance I
LISTING OF ALL MASONRY WALLS G.12 CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Revised 03/23/84 N
hg ugu dad 28 2".
g Ud5 EUU E
s
< s a
sa use a.an aa a-E-
8,8 e-2 s5 og WALL 555 REMARKS AUXILIARY BUILDING EL. 69'-0" (FIG. C-1)
AA I
X BB X
X CC X
DD X
EE X
FF X
X GG X
X HH X
II X
X JJ X
i R
X LL X
HM X
M X
00 X
X PP X
X QQ X
X RR X
SS X
j TT X
t!U X
X 4
- 2 e
t-
,a.
%+
-,n4.-
LISTING OF ALL MASONRY WALLS G.13 CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Revised 03/23/84 w3w 3
dad 82 BMm g
a
<s G5G EM.
C5G G
s y
T3 0
~5 GW-d=
gn 85"
$"5 5~d 8
$eI WALL wo*
REMARKS AUXILIARY BUILDING EL. 69'-0" (FIG. C-1)
VV X
Energy Balance W
X XX X
YY X
X Partially inaccessible wall not identified in 60-day report ZZ X
Arching A1 X
X Tensile stress <1.67 allowable A2 X
X Tensile stress <1.3 allowable A3 X
A4 X
X A5 X
X A6 X
X A7 X
A8 X
A9 X
X Tensile stress <1.3 allowable A10 X
X All X
X Tensile stress <1.3 allowable A12 -
X X
Tensile stress <1.3 allowable l
A13 X
A14 X
X 1
1 l
l LISTING OF ALL MASONRY WALLS G.14 CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Revised 03/23/84 w>w 3
g gg Wad BSm B".
3=l5 s
<s Gde CN; C
G a-@
$-@ U$a Q55 4
8,8 B-5 s
5<
e-WALL 555 REMARKS 4
AUXILIARY BUILDING EL. 69'-0" (FIG. C-1)
AIS X
4 A16 X
A17 X
X Tensile stress <1.67 allowabic 4
A18 X
X A19 X
X Tensile stress <1.3 allowable A20 YARD AREA A
Temporary loose-block shield walls which have been removed B
f
.i
)
~
,,s_**
- -