ML17244A944

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Rept on Design Mods. Further Requests Forthcoming

ML17244A944
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	09/20/1979
From:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Goodwin C PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 7910020795
Download: ML17244A944 (10)

Text

,1 Distribution E

J.

R.

Buchanan TERA ACRS (16)

@ I'I'III/

P 0 ban Docket No. 50-344 Please contact 'us if you have any questions concerning this request.

II Sincerely, f

SEP g g gyy Docket file"50-344 NRC PDR Local PDR NRR Rdg.

ORB Rdg.

D. Eisenhut ter. Charles Goodein, Jr..

B. Grimes Assistant Vice President M. Gammil 1 Por tland General Electric Company 121 S.>1.

Salmon Street

Attorney, OELD

Portland, Oregon 97204 A. Schwencer

Dear [qr.. Goodwin:

C. Trammell

.. C. Parrish In conducting our review of PGE-1020, "Report on Design Modifications for the Trojan Control Building," as supplemented and amended, we have deter-mined that. we will need the hdditional information identified in the enclosure to continue our review.

These-questions are the same as those telecopied to you yesterday.

Further requests for additional information wi11 be forth-coming soon.

Your response is requested as soon as possible.

Three signed originals and forty (40) copies are required.

Enclosure:

Request, for Additional Information cc:

w/enclosure See next page

.. - ( sian<< "~

0t'ClA>

A. Schwencer, Chief.

Operating Reactors Branch 81 Division of Operating Reactors

""~~" <>~man ]Op(

OI r>Ca~

CURNAMKW OATS~

Q ptl-"-

C.

@mell; kb tY>>

\\

dor.;orbal,...

ASchwencer---

09/g)/79 P8g:

fPfoo P 2.9.6.2:0.7 1'

Ke g )L~.

NRC FORM 318 (976) NRCM 0240 Q U,t OOVCNNMCNT ~IIINTINOOPNICNI I ~ T ~ tt ~

T ~ 4

- ~

4

~ 1 1

.R!

~'%f I!q If I!'

ff l E

2!C Iff l!

II

!I

!f

gpA 4ECy~

0

++*++

Docket No. 50-344 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 September 20, 1979 Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.

Assistant Vice President Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W.

Salmon Street

Portland, Oregon 97204 g/

Dear Mr. Goodwin:

In conducting our review of PGE-1020, "Report on'Design Modifications for the Trojan Control Building," as supplemented and amended, we have deter-mined that we will need the additional information identified in the enclosure to continue our review.

These questions are the same as those telecopied to you yesterday.

Further requests for additional information will be forth-coming soon.

Your respon'se is requested as soon as possible.

Three signed originals and forty (40) copies are required; Please contact us if you have any questions concerning ~this request.

Sincerely,

Enclosure:

'Request for Additional Information A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch bl Division of Operating Reactors cc:

w/enclosure See next page

Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.

Portland General Electric Company CC:

Mr. H.

H. Phillips Portland General Electric Company 121, S.W.

Salmon Street

Portland, Oregon 97204 Warren Hastings, Esquire

. Counsel for Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W.

Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Mr. Jack W. Lentsch, Manager Generation Licensing and Analysis Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W.

Salmon Street

Portland, Oregon 97204 Columbia County Courthouse Law Library, Circuit Court Room St. Helens, Oregon 97501 "

Director, Oregon Department of Energy Labor. and Industries Building, Room ill

Salem, Oregon 97310 Dr. Hugh D. Paxton 1220 41st Street Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Michael Malmrose U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trojan Nuclear Plant P. 0.

Box 0

Rainier, Oregon 97048 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Division of Engineering,

- Architecture and Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Mr. John A. Kullberg Route One Box 250Q Sauvie Island, Oregon 97231 Ms. Nina Bell 728 S.E.

26th Street

Portland, Oregon '7214 Mr.". Stephen M. Willingham 555 N. Tomahawk Drive

Portland, Oregon 97217 Mr. Eugene Rosolie Coalition for Safe Power 215 S.E.

9th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97214 Richard M. Sandvik, Esquire Frank W. Ostrander, Jr.

Counsel for Oregon Dept. of Energy 500 Pacific Building 520 S.W. Yamhill

Portland, Oregon 97204 Maurice Axelrad, Esquire Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad and Toll Sui te 1214 1025 Connecticut

Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

20036 Mr. David B.

McCoy 348 Hussey Lane Grants

Pass, Oregon 97526 Ms.

C. Gail Parson 800 S.W.

Green P6

Portland, Oregon 97526

Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.

Portland General Electric Company cc:

William Kinsey, Esquire 1002 N. E. Holladay-

Portland, Oregon 97232 R'onald W. Johnson, Esquire Corporate Attorney Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W.

Salmon Street

Portland, Oregon 97204 Mr. Donald W. Godard, Supervisor Siting and Regulation Oregon Department of Energy Labor and Industries Building, Room ill

Salem, Oregon 97)10 Robert M. Hunt, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Columbia County St. Helens, Oregon 97051 Marshall E. Miller, Esquire, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

{5)

U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 Docketing and Service Section {4)

Office of the Secretary U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Es'quire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 Dr. John H.

Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 Dr.

W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic Washington, D.

C.

20555

0

RE UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORtOTION TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT 1.

Yerify that the Nelson studs are being placed in accordance with all criteria required by "Embedment Properties of Headed Studs" by the Nelson Division of TRW.

Additionally, substantiate the conservatism of the shear/tension interaction relationship assumed for the reinforcement and the studs in your September 5,

1979 response to question 3.

2.

In your July 10, 1979 response to question 13, 4n unrestrained strain of 100.x 10 exp -6 in/in (and a restrained strain of 70 x 10 exp -6 in/in) is assumed for the in-situ walls.

In your September 5,

1979 response to question 11, an unrestrained shrinkage strain of 280 x 10 exp -6 in/in is assumed for the new walls.

In your September 5,

1979 response to question 22, shrinkage strains are calculated to be 174 x 10.exp -6 in/in for the new walls and assumed to be 200 x 10 exp -6 in/in for the existing walls, the latter being based upon the assumption that new concrete placed against the existing wall causes the existing to swell (as would be the case for the block when the core concrete was'placed).

These

'alues

.are extremely inconsistent.

Justify this inconsistency in detail, and provide calculations indicating how each was established (in addition to those already provided) along with justifications for all assumptions (including those for calculations already provided), including details of the associated concrete mixes.

3.

With regard to your September 5,

1979 response to question 22, provide the details of your determinations of E (sub) shu and C (sub) u and justify all assumptions in detail.

4.

With regard to your September 5,

1979 response to question 11, the equation used to cal.culate concrete tensile stresses re-sulting from shrinkage, taken from the referenced book by Park and Pauley, is based upon consideration of a beam with unrestrained end conditions.

This is not the case for the walls you are considering.

Use of this equation would appear not to be conservative and your resulting conclusions would not be realistic.

Therefore, justify the conservativeness of this equation by submitting an analysis which considers the actual situation (i.e., the fixityof the wall boundaries) including detailed justification for all assumptions.

5.

Your September 5,

1979 response to'uestion 17 indicates that, for your analysis of the effects of plate handling on existing structures, the combination of dead, live, and impact loads for the crane girder and floor at el.

93 in the Turbine Building considered an impact load equal to 251 'of the live load.,

a)

Justify the use of this factor for the floor beam calculations since Section 1.3.3 of the 7th edition.

of the AISC Specification would indicate that 33$ is more appropriate f'r normal handling. "

b)

In the consideration of a chain fal "'ailure, the redundant chain fall which is mere1:y held taut (essentially carrying no load) woul'd see a suddenly applied load that would be amplified by 2 (not the 1.25 considered above).

Therefore, provide the details of an analysis, for the plate which produces the worst loading, considering the realistic dynamic behavior res from the failure of a chain fall which demonstrates tha your acceptance criteria are not violated.

Justify all assumptions relied upon.

ulting t

.c) 0'f a plate were to be dropped on the flqor at el. 93, the effects would be in excess of those given the consideration of an impact load equal to 25$ of the live load.

Therefore, provide the details of an analysis which

demonstrates that this drop would not have unacceptable consequences.

Provide the drop heights considered.

Justify in detail all assumptions,

loads, and load combinations and acceptance criteria relied upon.

6.

In your September 5,

1979 response to quest'ion 12(a) regarding the impact of the recent PCA test results on the coefficients of.friction assumed in your

analysis, the following major conclusions of the PCA test results were not addressed:

1).

that bond between the grout and steel was negligible, 2) that the initial coefficients of friction (i.e., those at the point at which initial slip occurred) were lower than the peak coefficient for all specimens, and 3) that the coefficient of friction tended to decrease with increasing compressive force.

(The compressive stresses at the steel/wall interfaces resulting from bolt tension are substantially higher than the 60 psi results which you considered).

Therefore, provide a complete and comprehensive discussion, considering all of the conclusions from the PCA tesing, which demonstates that your assumed coefficients of friction exist in light of these test results.

Include a comparison of the'materials you are using versus those used for the tests.

Additionally, consider that the value of 0.7 Suggested in the ACI Codes is independent of slippage amplitude, in conjunction with item (3) above and the PCA test results which show'hat for the dry steel/concrete interfaces

'.he coefficient of friction decreased with increasing displacement".