ML20215D143

Summary of 860820 Meeting W/Util in Bethesda,Md to Discuss Util 860619 Submittal Re Adequacy of Masonry Walls. List of Attendees,Agenda & Viewgraphs Encl

ML20215D143
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	10/06/1986
From:	Licitra E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8610140008
Download: ML20215D143 (23)

Text

r g.$ Floy y

/ ,% UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 g( l' ,;s WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%,.*...+/ OCT 6 1986 Docket Nos.: 50-528, 50-529 and 50-530 LICENSEE: Arizona Public Service Company FACILITY: Palo Verde, Units 1, 2 and 3

SUMMARY

OF MEETING REGARDING ADEQUACY OF MASONRY WALLS A meeting was held on August 20, 1986 in Bethesda, Maryland with representatives of the licensee and the staff to discuss the licensee's June 19, 1986 submittal regarding the adequacy of masonry walls at Palo Verde, Units 1, 2 and 3. The attendees for the meeting are listed on Enclosure 1 and the meeting is summarized as follows:

Summary The licensee made a presentation in support of its June 19, 1986 submittal. The viewgraphs used during the presentation are included as Enclosure 2. Since the viewgraphs contained additional clarifying information for the June 19, 1986 submittal, the licensee indicated that the staff's review should consider both packages.

Following the presentation, the staff provided the following comments based on its review to date of the June 1986 submittal and its understanding of the material presented at the meeting.

(1) For one of the two groups of mascnry walls in question, i.e., the walls at elavation 100 feet, the staff will be able to conclude that the information presented by the licensee demonstrates that the walls, as constructed, are adequate to meet NRC seismic requirements.

(2) For the walls at elevation 74 feet, the staff cannot find that the licensee's submittal demonstrates that the as-built walls meet accepted industry standards and NRC requirements.

(3) In addition, the staff stated the following with regard to the licensee's methodology; (a) the assumption of using a 3-stage moment of inertia for estimating wall stiffness is not supported by test data, and (b) the sensitivity of stress change in response to wall frequency shift has not been considered.

The staff stated that it will complete its review of the masonry walls submittal and the results of the evaluation will be provided to the licensee.

8610140008 PDR 861006 '

P ADOCK 05000528 PDR, J

O In response to the licensee's request, the staff agreed to schedule a follow-up meeting to permit the licensee to provide any further information relating to masonry walls. The licensee informed the staff that in addition to its evaluations of the masonry walls, it has been considering ways of strengthening the walls as an alternative to resolving the issue. However, no decisions have been made regarding a final resolution..

45/

E. A. Licitra, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate No. 7 Division of PWR Licensing-B

Enclosures:

1., Meeting Attendees

2. Viewgraphs cc: See next page l

l I

i f PD7 EAlicitra/yt ,

hton 10/[/86 1 6/86

Mr. E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.

Arizona Nuclear Power Project Palo Verde cc:

Arthur C. Gehr, Esq. Kenneth Berlin, Esq.

Snell & Wilmer Winston & Strawn 3100 Valley Center Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85073 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Mr. James M. Flenner, Chief Counsel Arizona Corporation Commission Ms. Lynne Bernabei 1200 West Washington Government Accountability Project Phoenix, Arizona 85007 of the Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, NW Charles R. Kocher, Esq. Assistant Washington, DC 20009 Council James A. Boeletto, Esq.

Southern California Edison Company Ms. Jill Morrison P. O. Box 800 522 E. Colgate Rosemead, California 91770 Tempi, Arizona 85238 Mr. Mark Ginsberg Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager Energy Director Washington Nuclear Operations Office of Economic Planning Combustion Engineering, Inc.

and Development 7910 Woodmont Avenue Suite 1310 1700 West Washington - 5th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Phoenix, Arizona 8E007 Mr. Wayne Shirley- Mr. Ron Rayner Assistant Attorney General P. O. Box 1509 Bataan Memorial Building Goodyear, AZ 85338 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 Mr. Roy Zimmerman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 239 Arlington, Arizona 85322 Ms. Patricia Lee Hourihan 6413 S. 26th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040 Regional Administrator, Region V U. S. Nuclear Fegulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596

s .

OCT 6 1986 MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION t No(s): 50-528/529 @

Local PDR PBD-7 Reading JPartlow BGrimes ACRS(10)

EJordan Attorney, OELD GWKnighton E. A. Licitra Project Manager JLee NRC PARTICIPANTS E. A. Licitra J. Ma P. T. Kuo D. Crutchfield L. B. Marsh M. J. Davis H. Rood i

l bec: Applicant & Service List l

l i

Enclosure 1 Attendees for Palo Verde Masonry Walls Meeting August 20, 1986 Name Affiliation

~

Manny Licitra NRC/NRR/PBD7 John Ma NRC/NRR/EB Ahmad Hamid Drexel University Stephen Triolo Franklin Research Center Bill Quinn Manager of Licensing /ANPP Orhan Gurbuz Bechtel Ken Schechter Bechtel/ Civil Engr. Gr. Superv.

Steven Shapiro Bechtel/Nuc./Lic. Supr.

Lucien Hersh Bechtel/ Chief Civil /Struc. Engr.

Wm. Bingham Bechtel/Proj. Engr. Mgr.

P. T. Kuo NRC/NRR/PWR-B/EB Dennis Crutchfield NRC/NRR/PWR-B L. B. Marsh NRC/NRR/PWR-B/EB Michael J. Davis NRC/NRR/PBD7 Harry Rood NRC/NRR/PBD7 R. M. Butler Director Technical Services - ANPP l

i

Enclosure 2

({}

. AususT 20, 1986 AGENDA I. CONCERN ,

II. DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION III. JUSTIFICATION OF ASSUMPTIONS IV. RESULTS V. CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS VI. MAR 0 INS OF SAFETY VII. CONCLUSIONS VIII. RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS I

6 4

0 4

PRESENTATION ON MASONRY WALLS FOR THE PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 1, 2. AND 3 AUGUST 20 1986 J

l i

i i-l l

l

, , g - . -,, - - , - - , - - - - - - ,- - - -

-,g ,,,,,,,,,-w -,--,,,,-.,-,,,,yr,-w,.,,-.- -

([)-

, AUGUST 20, 1986 II. DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION (1)

A. TIME-HISTORY (T-H) ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS:

• COUPLED ANALYSIS WITH S0IL STRUCTURE INTERACTION (SSI)

• SINGLE T-H RECORD

• SINGLE DIRECTION TIME-HISTORY

• STRIP IDEALIZATION OF WALL B. REALISTIC MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND METHODOLOGY

• WALL MODULUS OF ELASTICITY FOR STIFFNESS

• AVERAGE REBAR LOCATION ("d")

• GROUT STRENGTH BASED ON TEST

• 3-STAGE MOMENT OF INTERTIA - UNCRACKED PARTIALLY CRACKED, AND FULLY CRACKED i

(1) JUNE 19, 1986-SUBMITTAL i

i i

i i

i

~

__t"0X77/ POL 750KD/A/6

~ ~ EL /80l 0 2LTIGOl O ECl40 l 0-Et/20 bo -

~"~EL/00h miW/4 1 ///svmw JVIASONRY WALL

~2t7410 ELEVATION LOOKW6 NOR'IN  ;

i ,_ //2 L O ,

l l t l l l

l rMASONRY ~

WALL ,

l 1 JL PL AN & EL EV 74 'O L _ - - - -

. ($)

. AUGUST 20, 1986 III. JUSTIFICATION OF ASSUMPTIONS A. TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS

• COUPLED ANALYSIS WITH SSI PER FSAR PER NRC APPROVED BC-TOP-4A

. ACCEPTED INDUSTRY PRACTICE

• SINGLE TIME-HISTORY RECORD ENVELOPES RG-1.60 SPECTRA PER NRC APPROVED BC-TOP-4A VALID FOR LINEAR-ELASTIC ANALYSIS

• SINGLE DIRECTION TIME-HISTORY (REALISTIC APPLICATION)

TORSIONAL EFFECTS ARE MINIMAL OUT-0F-PLANE (FLEXURAL) RESPONSE DOMINATES

• STRIP IDEALIZATION OF WALL ONE WAY ACTION - CONSERVATIVE APPLICATION RUNNING BOND CONFIGURATION ENSURES UNIFORM RESPONSE PENETRATIONS AND OPENINGS ARE LOCALLY REINFORCED

. . ($)

, AUGUST 20, 1986 III. JUSTIFICATION OF ASSUMPTIONS (CONTINUED)

B. REALISTIC MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND METHODOLOGY

• WALL MODULUS OF ELASTICITY (Ew)

- Ew - 1.5 x 106 & 2.0 x 106 BASED ON CODE MINIMUM AND REALISTIC EXPECTED VALUES OF f'm

• AVERAGE REBAR LOCATION ("d")

- WALL ACTS AS A CONTINUUM

- NRC CONCURRED

• CONSERVATIVE GROUT STRENGTH BASED ON PVNGS TEST

- GROUT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH USED LESS THAN TEST DATA (2300 PSI VERSUS 2600+ PSI)

• 3-STAGE M0 MENT OF INERTIA - BASED ON SOUND ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES

- FULLY GROUTED CELLS AT PVNGS

- THEORY OF ELASTICITY (SRP 3.8.4 APPENDIX A)

1) PLANE SECTIONS REMAIN PLANE

2) SECTIONS REMAIN UNCRACKED UNTIL (fc).

IS EXCEEDED

3) SECTION REMAINS PARTIALLY CRACKED UNTIL (9, IS EXCEEDED

- REFINED GRID SIZE TO INCREASE ACCURACY OF ANALYSIS

- SMALL BLOCK HEIGHT LIMITS STRESS CONCENTRATION

!.

• WALL MODELING - VERIFIED BY INSPECTION

- PINNED-PINNED END CONDITION

- MASS INCLUDES ATTACHMENTS

l i

DESCRIPTION OF I 3-STAGE .

.. ,..r.-

O Rebar i

, N. A .- --

~~

l. -

~1

- N . A .T-~

..,:l, g .: .- D l ,. . , . . . .. . :... l N . A -- ~

l l IGROSS I PARTIALLY CRACKED i

ICRACKED 4

I -

1 I

l l

DISTRIBUTION OF CRACKING AND STIFFNESS 4

top g top -

[

I

, l f I

Fross o

7.~i Extent of l cracking

< I partially "

( cracked f

__ 5 w' -

f-

,1 i

I varies 22 e ements 91ft element ye ffective ,\ l =22ft Direction of - - -

I -- -

cracked lateral load v I

f.

t M $ I)artiall crackel g

6 '

$ r k

y -:

Iross 6: 1 bottom --[ bottom -

] I-

/\ /\

\\\T\ \\ssu SECTION VIEWS EFFECTIVE MOMENT THREE STAGE ACTUAL CONDITION OF INERTIA MOMENT OF INERTIA

. Iegp= (fl fig +{ I- fg er

~~~'(PER ACI 218)

.N

_ o.8

/600-- -

67

_ G.S

_ e.s s

-G./ X

/200-- -

s9 to PO M E

• I PAR 7~/ ALLY ,

.E 9 0 0.. -

CRAC5N,5 -

S.2 4.9 g y -

47 x e - 45 H fco -

-42 L, B.9 s,s ktu 3.6 b

~ E .C Edcl< f e _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ j ,s

.O .

O E.~ 4 -

b 8 /b /2 Ma. , FT-Klp7-

. APPLIED MOAIE//7' VERSUS Ef~FECTIVE MOMENT OF /NEW77A NEGLECTH/G B1ASO//Ry FACESHEllyELEVAT70N 74'-O"

9 O

AususT 20, 1986 PRELIMINARY IV. RESULTS TIME-HISTORY ANALYSES FREQUENCIES AND M0MENTS - ELEV. 74 ANALYSIS SSE C0.2G) GBE CO.1G)

PARAMETERS FINAL MA FINA_ MA FREQUENCY FT-K/FT FREQUENCY FT-K/FT Ew-1.5x106 4. 9 2.7(1) 6.8 1.8(1)

E's-0.67Es Ew=1.5x106 N/A(2) N/A(2) 6.8 1.7(1)

E's=1.0Es Ew-1.5x106 5.5 2.9 6.8 1.6(1)

E's=1.5Es Ew=2.0x106 6.3 2.9 7.8 2.0(1)

E's-1.0Es (1) REPORTED IN JUNE 19, 1986 SUBMITTAL (2) DATA NOT AVAILABLE

g if ^

. . AUGUST 20, 1986

- PRELIMINARY IV. RESULTS CONTINUED TIME-HISTORY ANALYSES MAXIMUM STRESSES (PSI) - ELEV. 74 ITEM SSE C0.2G) OBE f0.iG) i CALCULATED (1) ALLOWABLE CALCULATED ALLOWABLE MASONRY 420 833 290(2) 333 REBAR- 13500 48000 9130(2) 24000 BOND- 118 180 80(2) 120 (i) CALCULATED STRESSES BASED ON UPDATED MAXIMUM M0 MENT (2) REPORTED IN JUNE 19, 1986 SUBMITTAL I

b

- , - - ~ . ,, - - - - ,

c i

GROUND ACCELERATION VERSUS WALL ACCELERATION ELEVATION'74, 0.2n SSE

?

(TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS)

El. 180

! El. 160 i El. 140 P

El. 120 El. 100 @ 0.2g SSE

\\\Y//XNN I ,0.28 8 '/AW//

\

\ -

90.5g i

/

El. 74 , 0.23n

@ 0.2g SSE CONTROL BUILDING ELEVATION VIEW 4

.~ . . -

AUGUST 20, 1986 V. CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS A. PURPOSE

• SUBSTANTIATE T-H ANALYSIS

• ADDRESS " DIP" IN T-H ANALYSIS

• ESTABLISH UPPER B0UNDS B. METHODOLOGY

• RSA

• ONE-DIRECTIONAL INPUT

• ENVELOPED SPECTRA / PEAK BROADENED SPECTRA

• 3-STAGE I

• UNCOUPLED STRIP MODEL

i e

,% - . . .,. -, - -.w i _. .. -. - -- , . - --% - *, .

i AVERAGE BETWEEN ELEVATIONS 74 & 100 COMPARISON OF PUBLISHED g AND ENVELOPED WALL SPECIFIC SPECTRA 7% DAMPING I I I I I III I I I I IIII f-- -3

_ __ _ _ g_. - t - i- I- t- F I -t - - - - - - - - - ---- --- -- - --- - -

I I III pk I I I 0*8 - ---

I I I I

I I

I I I I

III III

!- -% + - - - - -

g g

] n i I I I I III g g

(A - _ _ _ l_. - t. _ i_ l 1- l- 1 -1 ----

g-- -_

T

- ' - - ---- --~~- - -'- - -'

g I I I I I til g g i v i i i i l IIi g

0. 6 - - - -

l- T- l k ~' -- - --~~-

Z I T r i I ' S O I I I I I III r NOTE: Wall specific includes

,__ .- .. _ _I_ _ _L _I_ L L Li -__a __.-_ __ '_"s .7 casos 1.5Es, 1.0 Es, .67Es 3-_.___._____._.-__.

4 '

I I I I I I l , e

1. g 1 i l i i ll #

j d W

0.4- - - - - l- - t - i- t- t-l

.k i

l I l l)[1 g g I i14Ii 1 g_

q l r "F T i l l i -

I g I I I I IIil  %

j 0.2 - - - - + - l- F 4- l- 1 -1 ---- --- -- - - - - -

- - %g- --- - -- - -

I I I I !Ill, s 1 _

PUBLISHED (scaled to .2G)_ . ._ _ _. _ _ _ ____ _ _ *_,..

l ENVELOPED WALL SPECIFIC g - - -

g,g i i i i i iiil  ; -

.01 .10 1.0 PERIOD (SEC) 10.

. AususT 20, 1986 PRELIMINARY V. CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)

C. RESULTS RSA FREQUENCIES AND M0MENTS - ELEV. 74 PARAMETERS SSE (0.2s) OBE (0.1G)

TYPE OF

_EW(PSI) SPECTRA FRE0. MA FRE0. MA

1. 5x iO6 ENVELOPED 5.4 3.6 5. 6 2.8

2. 0x iO6 ENVELOPED 6.2 3. 5 6.7 2.3 15%

1.5x106 BROADENED 5. 4 4.5 6.8 2. 0 15%

2.0x106 BROADENED 6. 2 3.5 7. 8 2.0 2.0x 106 ENVELOPED (1) 6.1 3.5 6.1 2. 3 RSA MAXIMUM STRESSES (PSI) - ELEV. 74 ITEM SSE C0.2s) 03E (0.is)

CALCULATED ALLOWABLE CALCULATE ) ALLOWABLE MASONRY 650 833 400 333 REBAR 21.000 48.000 12.800 24.000 BOND 180 180 110 120 (1) BASED ON GROUT MOMENT OF INERTIA ONLY l

, .AususT 20, 1986 V. CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED 1 D. CONCLUSIONS

• RSARESULTSMORECONSERVATIVETHANT-HANAL'7,ISRESULTS

• RSA ELIMINATES T-H " DIP"

• RSA CONFIRMS T-H ANALYSIS

• ALL SSE STRESSES ARE WITHIN PRESCRIBE 0 ALLOWABLES

• OBE BOND AND REBAR STRESSES ARE WITHIN PRESCRIBED-ALLOWABLES

• OBE MASONRY STRESS EXCEEDS THE REDUCED ALLOWABLES BY ONLY 20%

• WALLS ARE ADEQUATE AS-BUILT

. - ~

~

32[ MARG /N O F 8AFETY P/C TOM /A L REPREN7A' T/ON OF MARG /NS OF SAFETY FOR BOND STRESS El EV 74 ' O, SSE = O 2g

-UL T/ MATE $83 ACZ- 3/8. G S

/?EdlIB7'/C AUOWABL5 300 ,

ACI B/8-/ 7-fg MAlial/l .

/N

>BE5/6#

i MAR 6/Al ERESCR/8ED > .0 F All0WABLs l SAFETY 180 MI {

.. MAX. R.SA//5%

8ACADENED ~:-

max /?SA ENI/EL OPGD /46 l'S/ MARG lH srscTRA

^

> W l MAxTNA --- l/8PS/

- ANALYSI6 l 0TNGR -

fo, , $m, 2 6.~l60) )

CON. SERVAT /sM -

NOTE' 0/5 E /5 O A/D 6 7 M'ESS&5 ARENo7' PRG6ENTED S/NCE TNGY,4RS L555 cR/7~/CA/

i

AUGUST 20, 1986 VII. CONCLUSIONS T-H ANALYSIS IS REALISTIC AND COMPLIES WITH SRP 3.8.4, APPENDIX A

- ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS

- SOUND ENGINEERING PRACTICES

- PROPER CONSIDERATION TO CRACKING 0F SECTIONS AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS RSA CONFIRMS MARGIN OF SAFETY WALLS AS CONSTRUCTED HAVE ADEQUATE MARGINS OF SAFETY FOR SSE AND OBE i

l I