ML20141K296
| ML20141K296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1986 |
| From: | Leech P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601220434 | |
| Download: ML20141K296 (5) | |
Text
-
JAN 15 986 1
Docket No. 50-293 LICENSEE: Boston Edison Company l
FACILITY: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY ON NOVEMBER 4, 1985 REGARDING MASONRY WALLS AT PILGRIM STATION Staff merrbers of the Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch and its consultants met with Boston Edison Company representatives on November 4, 1985 to discuss the plate analysis used by the licensee to qualify reinforced masonry walls. A list of the attendees is provided in 1
The topics of discussion are indicated in Attachment 2.
In addressing the staff's concerns, Boston Edison presented the results of its sensitivity analysis and parametric studies to substantiate assumptions made in the plate analysis. The staff reviewed the detailed calculations for various walls and discussed the proposed disposition of three walls which are affected by tornado design.
Boston Edison's submittal dated December 31, 1985, for staff review includes the information discussed above.
Mwt 4W 99 Paul H. Leech, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate #1 Division of BWR Licensing Attachments:
As stated DISTRIBUTION j
TDocket: fije p NRC PDR Local PDR i
BWD#1 Reading JZwolinski 8601220434 860115 PLeech PDR ADOCK 05000293 OELD P
NRC Participants 5h l
DBL:PD#1 DBL':PD#1 DBL:PD#1 CJamerson(\\
Pleech:tm JZwolinski f/q/86 (
l /go/86 g/f/86 i
.,.a
~n
--n-
.~ - - - -
pun q
4' UNITED STATES 4.-
U NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\*****}
JAN 151986 Docket No. 50-293 LICENSEE: Boston Edison Company FACILITY: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY ON NOVEMBER 4, 1985 REGARDING MASONRY WALLS AT PILGRIM STATION Staff members of the Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch and its consultants met with Bostor. Edison Company representatives on November 4, 1985 to discuss the plate analysis used by the licensee to qualify reinforced masonry walls. A list of the attendees is provided in.
The topics of discussion are indicated in Attachment 2.
In addressing the staff's concerns, Boston Edison presented the results of its sensitivity analysis and parametric studies to substantiate assumptions made in the plate analysis. The staff reviewed the detailed calculations for various walls and discussed the proposed disposition of three walls which are affected by tornado design.
Boston Edison's submittal dated December 31, 1985, for staff review includes the information discussed above, b k.
Paul H. Leech, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate il Division of BWR Licensing Attachments:
As stated l
l L
ei w
w y
,p--,
y
cc:
Mr. Charles J. Mathis, Station Mgrs Mr. William D. Harrington Boston Edison Company Senior Vice President, Nuclear RFD #1, Rocky Hill Road Boston Edison Company Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Resident Inspector's Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 867 Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 Mr. David F. Tarantino Chairman, Board of Selectman 11 Lincoln Street Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 Office of the Commissioner Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering One Winter Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Office of the Attorney General 1 Ashburton Place 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Mr. Robert M. Hallisey, Director Radiation Control Program Massachusetts Department of Public Health 150 Tremont Street Boston, Massachusetts 02111 Regional Administrator, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. A. Victor Morisi Boston Edison Company 25 Braintree Hill Park Rockdale Street Braintree, Massachusetts 02184 I
L i
l l
~
<v
ATTACHMENT 1 List of Attendees Meeting on November 4, 1985 at Braintree, Massachusetts Relative to Masonry Wall Design for Pilgrim Station Docket No. 50-293 Boston Edison Company Thomas J. Tracy Civil / Structural Group Leader S. Chugh Structural Engineer Paul Baughman Cygna Energy Services 3
L. Kaner Cygna Energy Services I
NRC Nilesh C. Chokshi Structural Engineer Vu Con Franklin Research Center Ahmed Hamid Drexel University i
i 4
5 1
I i
l L
l
ATTACHMENT 2 Topics of Discussion at November 4, 1985 Meeting with Boston Edison Company Relative to Masonry Walls at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station In the two-way cracked analysis of block walls [1], the proposed methodology was based on the close similarity of the masonry walls to a reinforced concrete wall that is adequately reinforced in the two directions.
Our main concern is whether the methodology developed for reinforced concrete can be adapted to masonry wall. Please address the following concerns:
1.
Due to two-way bending of a masonry wall, the direction of the principal tensile stress does not coincide with any of the two orthogonal directions. Explain how the cracking moment for a particular element was determined. Also, indicate how the effects of the directional variation of principal stresses were determined and how they affect the wall stiffness.
2.
The finite element method is a microscopic approach in which element stresses were evaluated using the Branson equation, a.
Since the Branson equation was developed for structural members, justify its applicability to an element of the finite element model, b.
Based on an element stiffness, explain how the inertial forces were obtained taking into account the stiffness changes (i.e., frequency shift).
Explain how the stiffness of each element was combined in the evaluation of the inertial forces.
3.
Indicate the total number of walls qualified by the two-way cracked analysis and indicate how many of these walls have horizontal bond beams.
4.
For walls without horizontal bond beams, explain how stiffness was evaluated for the case in which the moment in the horizontal direction exceeded the unreinforced allowable (i.e., it was not clear in the earlier response [1] how cracking was represented in the model).
5.
For walls with horizontal bond beams, explain how stiffness along the horizontal direction was determined.
Reference L
1.
W. D. Harrington (Boston Edison Company), Letter with Attachment to D. B. Vassallo (NRC),
Subject:
IE Bulletin 80-11: Masonry Wall Design, February 21, 1985
.. _ - _ _