ML19210C706

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 791018-19 Meeting W/Util & Bechtel Re Proposed Bldg Mods
ML19210C706
Person / Time
Site: Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date: 10/29/1979
From: Trammell C
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7911190447
Download: ML19210C706 (66)
v • d • e


Text

l }*

ACv pa arouq

,{

k UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

o

.; y WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 p'

CCTOBER 2 9 1979 Docket No. 50-344 LICENSEE: Portland General Electric Company (PGE)

FACILITY: T.ojan Nuclear Plant

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 18 AND 19,1979 WITH PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AND BECHTEL TO DISCUSS THE TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING MODIFICATIONS On October 18 and 19,1979, the NRC staff met with representatives of Portland General Electric Company (PGE) and Bechtel to discuss the proposed Trojan Control Building modifications.

A list of attendees is shown in Attachment 1.

At this meeting, PGE submitted preliminary written responses to 19 of the 48 questions and requests for information propounded by the NRC staff in letters dated September 14, 20, 28 and October 2,1979. These draft responses are shown in Attachment 2.

The status of the NRC Plant Systems Branch (PSB) questions and associated responses are as follows:

09-14-79 Letter Status 1

Acceptable 2

Acceptable 3

Should add commitment to use of fire retardant wood.

4 Discussed. No written draft avail-a bl e.

09-28-79 Letter Status 1

Acceptabl e 2

Conditionally acceptable. Answer makes reference to question 7 for which no response is as yet availabl e.

3 Clarification required that differ-ential pressure could be maintained under accident conditions or a Tech Spec waiver should be requested with appropriate basis furnished.

1353 063 W7 7911190 44

t Meeting Summary for Trojan

-2 OCTOBER 2 3 1979 4

PGE should make it clear that fire watch will be used regardless of use of fire retardant wood.

5 Acceptable 6

Acceptable 7

Discussed. No written draft availabl e.

The following structural questions were discussed (asterisk indicates draft answer is contained in Attachment 2):

09-14-79 Letter:

8, 9 09-20-79 Letter:

2*,

3, 4, 5, 6 Notu: 09-28-79 letter contained seven PSB questions - no structural questions.

10-02-79 Letter:

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 The balance of the structural responses (in draft form) are attached, and were not discussed.

PGE indicated that formal responses to all PSB requests would be filed by October 26 or shortly thereafter.

The NRC staff indicated that coments on the draft structural responses will be made during the week of October 22.

There will probably be another meeting similar to this one to discuss written draft responses to the remaining 31 items when available.

Ik A lA!' t i

j l'cl g [(,

Charles Trammell, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #1, D0R Attachments:

1.

List of Attendees 2.

Draft Responses}} Q64

t t Meeting Summary for OCT03FR 20 9 Trojan Docket Files NRC POR Mr. Jack W. Lentsch, Manager Local PDR Generation Licensing and Analysis ORBI Reading Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street NRR Readin9 Portland, Oregon 97204 H. Denton

  • E. Case
  • Columbia County Courthouse D. Eisenhut*

Law Library, Circuit Court Room B. Grimes

  • R. Vollmer
  • St. Helens, Oregon 97501 J. Miller
  • L. Shao Director, Oregon Department of Energy W. Gammill
  • Labor and Industries Building, Room 111 Salem, Oregon 97310 G. Zech
  • A. Schwencer D. Ziemann
  • Dr. Hugh D. Paxton P. Check
  • 1220 41st Street G. Lainas
  • Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 D. Davis
  • Michael Malmrose NRC Staff Participants T. J. Carter
  • U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission T. Ippolito
  • Trojan Nuclear P1 ant P. O. Box 0 D. Crute,hfield
  • Rainier, Oregon 97048 R. Reid V. Noonan G. Knighton
  • Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean D. Brinkman
  • Division of Engineering, P. T. Kuo
  • Architecture and Technology Project Manager Oklahoma State University OELD Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074

' OSD (3) Mr. Eugene Rosolie ar hP Kreutzer

  • Coalition for Safe Power R. Fral'ey ACRS (16) 215 S.E. 9th Avenue TERA Portland, Oregon 97214 M. Miller, ASLB William Kinsey, Esquire Richard M. Sandvik, Esquire 1002 N.E. Holladay Frank W. Ostrander, Jr.

Counsel for Oregon Dept. of Portland, Oregon 97232 Energy 500 Pacific Building R'onald W. Johnson, Esquire 520 S.W. Yamhill Corporate Attorney Portland, Oregon 97204 Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Maurice Axelrad, Escuire pnetland. Oregon 97204 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad and Toll Suite 1214 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Ms. Nina Bell qr

  • Less Attachment 2 728 S.E. 26th Street

{'J) () > sq Portland, Oregon 97214

1 ATTACHMENT 1 TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING MEETING OCTOBER 18 AND 19,1979 NRC Staff Shaw, Pittman, Fotts & Trowbridge C. Trammell B. Churchial J. Gray P. Harvey D. Persinko V. Noonan Lowenstein, Reis, Neuman, F. Clemenson Axelrad & Toll J. E. Knight M. Axelrad K. Herring A. Carr A. Hafiz Hanson, _Holley & Biggs PGE M. Holl ey, Jr. D. Broehl T. Bushnell R. Johnson L. Erickson Bechtel W. White B. Sarkar K. Gross R. Anderson 135'a 066

ATTACHMENT 2 NRC Questions (9/14/79) l_0/1_6/_79 DRAFT Q. 1/2 Page 1 _f 2 1. Provide a detailed descrip; ion of how the. equivalent dia-meter was determined which was used in computing the penetra-tion of the dropped washer into the steel cover plate for cable trays. 2. Provide a drawing which illustrates the projected area used for computing the equivalent diameter. Answer: An evaluation of the postulated drop of a plate washer on the steel cov.er trays was provided in Licensee's response dated September 5, 1979 to Systems Branch Question 11. In the equation used, the term "D" is the diameter of the missile. For an irregularly shaped missile, such as the corner of the plate washer, an equivalent diameter must be used in the analysis. The equivalent diameter t taken as the diameter of a circle with an area (A) equal to the circumscribed contact area or projected frontal area of the noneylindrical missile. (Refer-ence: page 2-4, Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-9A, Rev. 2). The contact area (A) is the plate thickness (T) times the are length (L) of the rounded portion of the plate washer. The arc length (L) is the length of the rounded edge, or one CE-1

i NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 2:00 PM DRAFT Q.1/2 Page 2 of 2 fourth the circumference of a circle of that radius (R). 2.375 in. Plate Washer thickness (T) = Radius of rounded corner (R) = 1.5 in. 2.36 in L = 2nR = 2w(1.5) = 4 4 A = TL = (2.375)(2.36) = 5.6 in.2 D= 4A 4(5.6) = 2.67 in. n s The attached Fig. 2-1 shows the projected area used for compu-ting the equivalent diameter of the plate washer impact. 1355 068 CE-1

6$' +Y \\ ,7 O / w / \\ / q-PLATE WA6HE2 +4 D i i l l I l l I WA6 HEE THICKNESS T=2.67$' l PEOJECTED t-1EEA u 1353 069 t = 2.se " FIGU2E 2-1

i NRC Questions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 3:00 PM DRAFT e Q. 3 Page 1 of 2 Provide a listing of all areas containing pafety-related cables or equipment in which wood framing will be used during the modification work. Answer: Wood will be used dering the modification program for form material for placir.g concrete for the new walls along column lines N, and R, and along column line Q as follows: a) At the new N line wall up to approximately el. 95'3". b) At the new R line wall up to approximately el. 77', and where grouting behind the steel plate from approximately el. 77' to approximately el. 97'3". c) At the new N' line wall up to 21. 65'. d) At the new locker room doorway at el. 45' along column line Q. Within the above areas the following locations where wood forming will be used contain safety related cables or equip-ment: 1) In the Electrical Auxiliaries Room along column Line N around the equipment hatch and around the columns at the intersection of column lines R and 41. 1353 070 CE-3

t 10 3:00 PM --. /16/79.. - - - NRC Questions (9/14/79) DRAPI Q. 3 Page.2 of 2 2) On the east (outside) side of the N line wall,-at approximate el. 72' around the battery room exhausts. 3) On the west side of R line wall between elevations '69' and 93' around the edges of the steel plate. 4) Below grade where wood form work may be required for the grade beams supporting the new R, N' and N line walls. This form work, if needed, would be located in the vicinity of the service water piping, diesel fuel oil lines and the electrical duct bank. A minimum of 3 inches of sand will separate those items from the above form work. Figures 3-1 through 3-4 show locations of the above described wood form work. These figures are the same as attached to the answer to NRC Question No. 7, dated July 20, 1979. In addition, as described in response to Question 6 of this set, wood cribbing will be used as Plate 8 is being lowered into place. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 show location of the wood cribbing. 1355 071 CE-3

I .;? i.' ;< t..i&.. M T,14 ? t t s,..._...,.u.4..-_ st~ t ,s i l e s

4

' i,

i i c" t

L.: f g i O fiCO** ! jE t.1 v i i '8 i.j r- """ j...- 4'. e g a c-ar,> No. i l m-. !d I l}l- { l . rh;9 J ~"" * '"m.~ 7',

W

!!j !i { } o ~

  • 1 i

l . N4V' ,/ ll l 1%N ? J ifA 'l'{'i ~.Lj \\ K / m- .i 11 a d l-tv{7:'77f-)) 2,'.T. T ...*~ ^ 8 i i 1 Cp!,9[- S>ic h e iii g

T) u_ L._ a- - -

b 1p t I th, I: 4. A A 0 2: 2 m g. s l p %c'%_q f }tg .ij jy

h. p

{, I

3-4 l

{h ! j =. o g. l r CLEA?4 COME: DOC h h' g' l ENTRY e --y p; l 4 "q 5 o / e e< y; .I i i I y ( Ai mener 'y]y?-:-thWTii ?f,e di i i i ! E. m[ l l l l N i k.'. hj 5 E' f I l Ik !) !I I v. N.b,3 E'< ~ I ty w a k.j tQ O* New st.)<NC - \\\\ ? p Q;! gi ty : tit.NG.s At \\\\ W

j. j 1\\'

T~~ . _d cQ o T.' [ l \\\\ LotET E \\ 5=- ba y 9 "d]i '/ g } I i wcuy ; r q. ~ n,7 m 3y l l l ls ',f - [ I l g [;I ; e I MEN 3

. ['

Ittv }4 'd g g !h ROOM sc.t j e

W S.

A' d. I .i l'1v Est 14 .h ~ ~ hh _..w -E fh-ikkhh. _ g=

DUCTBMK, l

c' -t - ft M TSANXJ-I th' b {[ E 45 A. B H t i I \\ NEW SHEAfi / 'N EXISTING SHEAR 0 '7, vYALLSCHOWN (, (h SHADED JYMCAd $O =; c.- HATOMED !TYMCAU([J WALLS SHOWN f r ,,,f

rs.

CONTROL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN EL 45'-0" SHOWING EXISTING AND NEW SHEAR WALLS t T GKETGH NO.5-1 1355 072

a D '*' N S O P*D LoJ s Lf A h hL= gg p q C/ -!(M.16I !.MED / _-i / 14' p- -.H l - -t ~ N [I'h' h'.kh[ N [ __, d !.i 'g &. &-VC,1% B 2-...s ; e, i s,, m h ,g gg,'C-146 A AMlW BLEDM l. s i ftADiO47/:/I t --. (h:' ' vv45Ti tvArctu 1 3 v 1 sw.s'? =- t wasrE ars g,, s**,, DEOM TANA3 j ' PARTIA. [ PLAM i i '" "'

  • R.

Ft.R.et..(,g.c"

c. -

a Mvcs4GA !\\wl NIU h I* AS4010 s N coaasoon ti G ? '.... ~ ^!'4 em T I ' % % 2 VJiiC"'~ 7 'f-T '".- _/

noia o

N,/ C ":% rr n ,' N: A $rldC-f M \\ ELEY I! mena O

d. at w4wl b

% 5. Ace. ue 2 he 4 03. 5 / M' lw \\ moom i 4 3-56A747 ~'005 i b l } BS A*l45 9' 4 ij d 4 7)A - ES A*,45 422t l !i ygo D20 x /D 401-hsfy f***1 J 's:+' e JYO$ } 'O' i o12 + b

  • =
  • di

.$ 'i S AT*E R'r WECHAN! CAL ROOM 'j H}' A

  • 00M f.

"' i E L.f CTRICA!. se. e,i i AUXILIAR:f.S jl U"? ^ mi m ' 4 f C f Uk s t-s t.. EL. as.o-FL EL. 61 4" If,:" w -C w BATTERY .4 r . IE,e te $1M,,t t-u, goog y / Tit.EPHONE L L / l CBl*TS'I E 1,. 73'.$~ icu te'.t'i n7 3 si "CB19tO i 9 L I.. /c i ,.J. i 'g~ .' bs ' ~ " /9 ?49 4 Spit *H d~"" " 4.\\ g', d t 2 4,, 's 88 =o-ASAcc5 e a A / rSS: TOM h, >- go., ije ,w / jj S* bin 0GS L To j Leggy 4 g g 'Ch p ,,m

'V i

svor. 9i i / ; ::.u, reuo4i < c: g 1: m- 34 iM AC>t. ' Ci. EV m N 4 4 C '"/e rm. L&'.st" picer.s No.1 .N 'y i ~~IIsDI8~ hwpS m e p y w. w g a;s!ess"' Wi e' W L ( m

j..,

G%D& AAk 44g2fkHBD-!4(SC 2) ~ i Q i i g 9. sweeppe.p m ar '\\ ~,.L ,% NEW SHE AR { JEW 'A EX1CTING SHEAR ,Q h* \\ HATCHED (TYP!CALI h h h,, ~ TEEL PLATE WAL'aCHowN WALLS SHOWN N ~- SHACED (TYPICAL) I z g CONTROL BlilLDING FLODR Pl.AN El 61'-0" & 6 5'-0" 1353 0.73 SHOWING EXISTING AND NEW SHEAR WALLS Ir fKETGI @ B-2.

WPA2OG s e-- ASA%D \\ / - ABA285 _ _ _ / '.-.- Na Ao%7 /(WS[6G ^ b L,,fJ ! r WI ACO# ~ ,g BA%C // [ N f nASAMG ./ / 2*A1.70)S - e L/ j ,- N ST2bc 43 s V,/-ABA4CO ABASCC gABA2.cc IASAltC WAU NETRAT1cl4 g { M D EAST ELEV. @ COL,R_ ABIOloq -// // v . I),- CON'RC1.t.!iD 00RRfDO A / ,m w., us s.+ = + -n a a. c-- w, -> 2 - y\\

u r y. v u. M

'. o a.,-s $ 394 (T LEY r d f-9,-ilf D,. i.\\.- ASA330 iBCTTonJ) NO 2 - n, 6-r t g

+

4. lp; i I y ^'; 1 j 4 l.Y LOD V46f' l E b '7 en / .~ %g: MECHANICAL R00M y Cz, 4 i

f Yt Wp) i CABt t' VStE ADiNC f'~l 5i rh c: i

-1 1 O d[ h: T h'j \\' c! ?"$ zl -y 91 c h - a u cowuren nocu (.g $p 4-CASLE TRA'rs,5EE g EAST EL.ABcVE. u s.c., u. s. ,s s'.. H Kp-2 .- a 1 L <d I PAP.T PL AM, ! 'I ctEAN W SEE f. / P' AGE 2 Pom corr!DCA .e P g ASA234-8 comangtys 't, J s N \\ ~/ u,.a -p@d> T,< f,/,'-- sem **5 fc $ f pp 967 4619(# so,i; W 2 l e 3 l h b^uF: ' -ffd * -J.i !.ildt E$ /- s u 4.,-m 3 '4 :D2X L '* M 7 'C " ? ;r d J N E Jy H;<.GWi;Fj@4.iSf;

R:

N/ f h.. h , !-Q c,

  1. \\

~ ~ i I NEW EXISTING SHEAR d (h.p f' H00. F- 'kS)/ .h'. th, 5 ! W ALLS SHOWN STEEL PLATE ( SHADED ITYPICAL) \\,,,,/ ,9i \\_/ y z:5: CONTROL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN El77-O" E! SHOWING EXISTING AND NEW SHEAR WALLS 1355 074 t SKETGH No. 3-3 i

e / ~ ))$ 30M$m "N]' m ~8{ i Y, / .. _,- ; v:+a n.w.s.w., m a,.<,., " 'M ?N ',s.es&VA M@TMn#1RA T'" Egs '_ / _,_~q._..._...- 4_.,. y c .n.. g c. s ;._;. F,. v-

I?
4,-
/

6 %a ~< O2 - b p.[: h07 M_ cp nc-) s i h i.f v M i i 5 h. 3 j IV WAYER T . 4 SAM *t tfv0 f i LAfi. s 4 Y 'k el i

5

. {.'si Y E, f.$ .js g L A3 s C1 FF tot. I g y I[ 3 [ CONTROL ROOM .n.. h ,m

,1 a

g 7 4 v, E h CF8:CE q T

!NST ftVMf NT g i

' /.. 4 (,

sscp we u

yi .1 t.UNc> WA .11 ROCM I l i I~. '.: j gi, -.4 . CHART

.permaarg 5"

I k

g.. -- -

h_ -f k,i ) 3-l g .j$ N,,,- s' 11 b<g$ i -g toesy voittr w

SUPERVISOR *:i d,

q: a== m, MN if a 'l.i H-g(tv, % L..

3 N..

9a-- sa m s m e !. i t t &j M_ M M 44,,; 3

naw.:..

.: s M/ F W i N!MQWM79s-I-ME&W'EZOQ (4 9 [C'.TC'JNS$ 8, s c! l' f f- +4[' fl 1 i i i El $1 4 \\ Fi ,i \\* EXtSTING SHE AR i 5: NEW / ./ i f (h. (y/ k') v d.}. (,~,gh kh WALLS SHOWN STEELFLATE 5 = O ssAoEc timeAu c/ u. pyg. ;2 a g CONTROL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN EL 93'-0" i SHOWING EXISTING AND NEW SHEAR WALLS 1353 075 i SKETcW No S-4

NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) 10/16/_79 DRAFT Q. 5 Page 1 of 4 Your response regarding the use of grout for installa-tion of rebar into the existing walls and rock does not adequately justify its acceptability in these applications. Therefore, provide the following: a) Verification that inactive carbon, sand and cement are the only constituents of the grout and that con-tains no other materials. b) Substantiation that the expansion of the grout in only the plastic stage is sufficient considering the effects of any shrinkage which may occur beyond that in the plastic stage. If there is any expansion be-yond the plastic range, substantiate that it's effects are negligible with regard to splitting of the exist-ing materials (block, concrete, etc.) c) Test data which substantiate that the use of this grout (1) in holes of dimensions similar to those which will be used at Trojan, (2) in materials similar to those in which the rebar will be grouted (i.e., concrete grouted masonry block and rock), and (3) using the same type rebar as that to be used at Trojan that the full rebar strength will be deve-loped in every case. In addition to the tests men-tioned in the specification CRD-C588-78, the follow-ing test should be performed:

1) tensile tests on the grout in accordance with ASTM Specification C190-77, and 2) strength tests of full-scale specimens CE-5 1355 076

NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 3:00 PM L? API Q. 5 Page 2 of 4 representing the proposed anchorages ih accordance with the spirit of ASTM Specification E-488-76. Answer: (a) The attached letter (Attachment 5-1) from U. S. Grout Corporation verifies that Five Star Grout, the grout to be used for installation of rebar, consists of three components: 1) a high early strength Type 3 cement 2) a fine silica sand 3) a non-reactive chemically inert aggregate called Permanent Life Aggregate (PLA). Permanent Life Aggregate, as specified in the attached letter, is a chemically inert form of activated carbon.* Activated carbon is porous carbon which has affinity for water. When the activated carbon contained in the grout comes in contact with the mixing water, it abscrbs water which displaces the air contained in its pores. The air thus released into the grout paste expands due to the heat of hydration. This mechanism gives the expansive characteristic to the grout during the setting process. The percentage of the constituents as given in the response

  • Licensee's response dated September 5, 1979 to NRC Structural Branch Question 7 incorrectly characterized PLA as inactive carbon.

CE-5 1355 077

NRC Questions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 3:00 PM DRAFT Q. 5 Page 3 of 4 dated September 5, 1979 to NRC Question No. 7 is by weight. (b) Testing of the grout to ASTM C-827 has established that expansion will occur while the material is in the plastic stage. (See Attachment 5-1). Testing to CRD-C588 shows that Five Star Grout does not exhibit either sig-nificant expansion or shrinkage after hardening. (See -2). _ __ _ i_ _ (c) Within the Complex, rebars will be grouted only into core concrete. Connection details are being revised to obviate the need for grouting rebars into masonry. The rebars grouted in rock for the rail stop anchorage will each be pull tested after installation to verify that they can develop the design loads. Data on tests performed by West Penn Testing Laboratories established that under conditions very similar to those at Trojan, rebars grouted into concrete developed their full strength without failure of the grout. The following comparison establishes that the tests referenced above sufficiently reflect the way in which rebars will be grouted at the Trojan Plant, such that CE-5 1353 078

NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) 10/16/_79 DRAFT Q. 5 Page 4 of 4 the results of the tests are directly. applicable: 1. Hole dimensions: 2.75 in. at test, 2.5 to 3 in. at Trojan. 2. Materials in which rebar will be grouted: 5000 psi design strength concrete in both cases. 3. Similar types of rebar: 60 ksi deformed bars #6 and

  1. 7 tested; 60 ksi deformed bars #5,,#7, and #9 at Trojan.

4. Same type of grout material: Five Star in both Cases. The major difference between the tests and the Trojan condition will be the embedment length. Trojan will use embedment lengths as required by the Code. Tests were aade with only 10 in embedment length which is shorter than that required by the ACI Co h _. _ : _. ~_ 1_ -~. -_.-

1_ -. -.

- -.. _... _ -. - -2.. .... -- -.. -- -. - --- : - : ^. - -.. - -. - - - - -. ^~ ~ ' ~^ ..-~.. ~.. -. - -. -... -.. - Test data which substantiates compliance with CRD-C588-78 is attached (Attachment 5-2). Tests performed in accor-dance with ASTM C190-77 indicated that the tensile strength of the Five Star Grout is 722 psi (Attachment 5-1). CE-5 1353 079

U.S. G RO UT CO R PO R ATION ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL CENTER 1154 55 E AST PUTNNA AVENUE e R;VERSOE. CONNECTICUT 06S7S e (203> 637 4r5 September 19, 1979 Messrs. Ted Bushnell & Don Broehl: POE LTu?D GEMERAL EI.ECTRIC 121 S. W. Salmon Street Poutland, OR 97204

Dear Messrs. Bushnell & Broehl:

This is to certify that Five Star Grout consists of three co=penents: A high-early strength type 3 cement, a fine silica sand, and a non-reactive chemically inert aggregate called PLA (Permanent Life Aggregate). PLA is a chemically inert form of activated carbon. Expansion will occur while the material is in the plastic state when tested by ASTM C-S27 and will exhibit no shrinkage or expansion after hardening. Five Star Grout conforms to the specified criteria in CRD-C-588 and may ex-hibit a minute amount of expansion by this test. Five Star Grout has a tensile strength of 722 psi when tested by ASTM C-190-77. All additional data on pull-cut test and volume change are being farwarded under separate cover. Very truly yours, r3 /) / 5 A John Reilly Asst. Mgr. Industhial Division JR:j g

Enclosure:

cc: Mr. Everett L. Thompson 14806 Bothell Way N. E., Apt. 326 1353 080 Seattle, WA 98155 (206)363-8829 AB ACA BEMT MMN OFFCE OLD GREENWCH. CONNECTCUT 06570 003 637 4X:3 e TELEX-995541 e CABLE. FrVE STAR

i CFR CO N ST R U CYl O N PRODUCTS R ES EARCH, I N C. Tne Beocock Sw.lo.ng.o.d Green cm, Connect. cut 06670. Paone(204 637 2002. Cecie CPR CERTIFICATION Date: May 11, 1978 Product: Five Star Grout Water Added for' Test: 23% by weight Lot Number: C780322 04 Volume Change, ASTM C-827 Max, % +1.9% 3 Day _ 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day Expansion, CRD-C-588-76 +.03% +.03% +.03% +.03% Compressive Strength ASTM C-109 9200 1 Day 9300 2330 psi 9500 7 Day jhj@@ 5280 psi 21200 }imeofSetASTMC-194 Final 3 hours 20 minutes This is to certify that the above tests were performed on a sample of material taken from the above lot and that the above results were obtained. s /.d'A D. iala Vice President 1355 081 ATTAcW Marc G2

t, o e e 41,.7 West Penn "esting Lahratories, Inc. An ladependens inspecsion Bureau sad Testing Morasary 482 West Eighth Avenue West Homestead, Pennsylvania 15120 P.o. Boz 324 4 Area Code 412 462 3717 File No. WP-2002 March 14, 1978 Report of MM -3 REINFORCING BAR SHEAR BOND TESnK. %I PROJECT: OWNER: Pennsylvania Pcuer & Light COITITACTOR: Research-Cottrell DATE OF INSPECTION:, March 10, 6 Scope To determine if the shear bond strength of grunt used to anchor reinforcing bars could withstand loading as great or greater than the tensile strength of the steel. Description of Reinforcine Anchoring The reinforcing to be tested were grade 6 The bars were anchored into pre-drilled holes of varying dia - ters. "vo diff6 rent products were used to achieve the bond. One agent was N, prcduced by U. S. Grout Corporation. The other agent was Sika H2.-Mod produced by Siha Chemical. Test Set-uo All single bars were tested using a calibrated 20 ton Holl-o ram Centerhole Jack (RCH 202 014) connected to a hydraulic pu=p through a Duragau$e 10,000 lb. Test Gauge used to measure line pressure. ~ Tuo 8 inc channels with their webs back to back one inch a-art were welded together to form a yohe. Theyokewasplacedovert5ebar bearing on steel shims set at a distance of 10 inches on either side of the bar. The test jack was placed over the bar and set on the yoke. A cadweld was placed on the bar over the jack to provide a means of applying the load to the bar. Enerpac Jack (RC'506 AH5)p was tested using a calibrated 50 ton The double bar set u connected to a hydraulic pump through the Duragauge Test Gauge used to measure line pressure. A re-inforced W8 = 24 beam was centered perpendicular to the centerlinu of the bars. The beam had bearing on steel shims placed 10 inches from the centerline. The test jack was centered on the beam. The yoke previously described was placed over the bars and centered on the jack. Cadwelds were again placed on each bar to facilitate load transfer. 1353 082 = - - - - y- ~ v, r-- -~~-?~" 1 M

W, es, Penn,_,estm.g Labertton.es, me.

3. y An Independen Inspection Bureau and Tasting I.46erecery 482 West Eighth Avenue West Homestead, Pennsylvania 15.120 P.O. Box 324 4 Area Code 41: 462 3717 File No. t.P-2002 thrch 14, 1978-Page 2 REINFORCU!G EAR SHEAR BOND TESTING Susquehanna Sten = Electric Station fQwk S-3 Pennsylvania Po.ier & Light Research-Cottrell 1-March 10, 1978 D**D "D ~1 d

,b.$ a

w o o

Test Procedure In all tests a surcharge of 1000 lbs. uss applied to the com-pleted test apparatus for the purpose of seating all ec=sonents. We load was relsased and all bearNg distances were rechecked. The test lead uns applied at a censtant rate until a load of 1257. of the bar design was obtained, or until failure. In applicable cases the msnimmt load was held' for 5 minutes then gradually re-leased to zero load. TEST RESULTS: ~ s Test No. Bar Size Role Sian Comment 1 W' No failure at full. load of 45,060 lbs.. 2

  1. 7 2.75"x10" No failure at full load 3
  2. 7 2,75"x10" No failure at full load

~

Double bar set up ' load 4
  1. 6 2.75"=10" No failuro at full of 61,120 lbs.

Load . increased to 69,000 lbs. causing cracking in concrete 5

  1. 6 2.75"x10" No failure at fu'l load of 30.560 6
  2. 6 2.75"x10" No failure at full load

~ 7

  1. 6 2.75"x10"

' No failure at full load ~ 1353 083

, /16/79 3:00 PM 10 NRC Questions (9/14/79) DRAFT Q. 6 Page 1 of 5 Provide the results of your analyses showir.g that plates 1 through 6 are sufficient to sustain without detrimental ef-fects on plates 1-6, the structure, equipment, piping, or cable trays, the impact of plate 8 should a drop of plate 8 occur. Include (a) a detailed description of all assumptions used in the analyses, and (b) detailed justification for all of the assumptions used in the analyses, all of the loads and all of the acceptance criteria relied upon. Include an identical discussion for plate 7. Answer: To preclude any possibility of detrimental effects on Plates 1-7, the structure, equipment, piping or cable trays should a drop of Plate 8 occur, the maximum drop height of Plate 8 will be limited to 4 inches by placing timber cribbing on top of Plates 5, 6, and 7 as shown on the attached Figures 6-1 and 6-2. The timber cribbing will consist of two piles of 4" x 4" x4' long pieces stacked on top of each other. As the plat 3 is being lowered, 4" thick segments will be removed one at a time from each pile, thus limiting the drop height of Plate 8 on wood to approximately 4". The last piece removed from each pile will be 1" thick, thus further reducing the drop height of Plate 8 on the plates below to 1". The timber cribbing will be made using Douglas Fir or similar sood. It will be supported on the bottom by brackets attached to the lower plates. The cribbing will be braced laterally by guide plates designed to prevent bulging and subsequent CE-6 1353 084

NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 3:00 PM DRAPI Q. 6 Page 2 of 5 collapse of the cribbing. The guide plates will be supported by the Turbine Building floor at el. 93', the girder, and the lower plates. Temporary lateral bracing will be added to the girder to resist the lateral forces induced by the cribbing and guide plates should P, late 8 drop. The maximum vertical force induced by a drop of Plate 8 on the timber would be limited by the crushing strength of the timber normal to the grain. Therefore, the force on the lower plates would equal to er (D.I.F.) F=P A where P = crushing strength of timber, taken as.400 psi er A = contact area D. I.F. = Dynamic Increase Factor, taken as 2. 0 800'1bs x 2 x 48 in. x 3 in. x 2.0 = 460.8K F = 2 in This force would be resisted by the 84 bolts holding the lower plates in place. Twenty-one (21) of the bolts are bear-ing on block walls and sixty-three (63) are bearing on con-crete. The allowable shear on bolts in masonry and concrete was established based on Tables No. 24-G and 26-G of the 1976 UBC and extrapolating to 1-3/4" diameter. The following al-lowable shear loads per bolt were used: K Concrete: 7.7 / bolt (with special inspection) K Masonry: 3.8 / bolt i355 085 CE-6

10/16/79 3:00 PM NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) DRAPI Q. 6 Page 3 of 5 Therefore, the total capacity of all the bolts equals: k K 21 bolts x 3.8 / bolt = 79.8 K K 63 bolts x 7.7 / bolt = 485.l K Total capacity = 564.9 Since the total capacity exceeds the applied load, the bolts will hold the lower plates in place. Steps will be also taken to preclude any possibility of detri-mental effects on Plates 1-4, the structure, equipment, piping or cable trays should a drop of Plate 7 occur. A corrugated aluminum HEXCEL pad, stabilized and precrushed, will be placed on Plate 4 to absorb the energy of the drop. The HEXCEL pad will be 4" wide, 24" long, and 17" thick. It will be attached to the top of Plate 4 as shown in Figures 6-3 and 6-4. A " shoe" under Plate 7 will spread the load. The Z bars shown in Figure 4-1 in Licensee's response dated September 5, 1979 to Systems Branch Question No. 9 will guide the plate. The analysis to show the adequacy of this system is as follows: Weight of Plate 7, W = 3 kips Maximum drop height, H = 14.75 ft. Maximum kinetic energy, KE = 3 x 14.75 = 44.25 ft-kips or KE = 44.25 x 1000 x 12 = 531,000 in-lbs The corrugated aluminum HEXCEL pad will have a 750 psi crush strength. For added conservatism, it is assumed that half of the honeycomb core thickness is available for crushing (the CE-6 1353 086

NRC Questions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 3:00 PM DRAFT Q. 6 Page 4 of 5 manufacturer suggests that up to 7/10 of the thickness is available for crushing). The energy absorbed equals the kinetic energy: t = honeycomb core thicL*. ness e S = depth of crushed care A = Area of core KE =f X AX 3 cr f = 750 psi er 2 A = 24 x 3-1/2 = 84 in .5 t S = c 531,000 = 750 x 96 x.5 tc 531,000 = 16.9 in, t = c 750 x 84 x .5 17 in, thickness will be used. The vertical force induced in the lower plates would be F = 1.3 x f X A er where 1.3 is a dynamic factor suggested by the manufacturer. K F = 1.3 x 750 x 84 = 81.9 1355 087 CE-6

__ /16/_79 10 3:00 PM NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) DRAFT Q. 6 Page 5 of 5 This force would be resisted by the 71 bolts holding the lower plates in place. The total capacity of the bolts equals: K K 8 bolts x 3.8 / bolt = 30.4 63 bolts x 7.7 / bolt = 485.lK (concrete) K K Total capacity = 515.5 Since the total capacity exceeds the applied load, the bolts will hold the lower plates in place. Reference 1: " Wood Handbook" No. 72, by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1955, Table 12, page 75. o 1353 088 CE-6

~ ~;~ fA Ikh vA Y 8 PLATE (i^t2AiSEDponiYth ~ e courr a. Du/t0/h/C7 v i TuwNE aLOQ. 5L 93ldh / ~4.V. t 4 . % '.[ \\ ~ 9 ~ l sume ptAra TEMPC242Y BEActN6 -4 k 4 'k 4 'd' ' M SE.E. il [ CE/88/N4 I EL 85 '5' (wP OF PLATE 6 5,4 57 iA b seAcKET-

  • s.: 1.n.v.a yhat.

= u s w.l. }"Ik. f l out - u.I d.- 1353 Off9 FIGU2E 6-l

di Mo PLATE 8 'M ~. ~~ (7Al EA9/S&O POSIT /OA0 * ,6u!25 PLAT 5 / (EL93'C'

g
p-

=-_ _Y_ _ __.

_T_- :

/' ff---- r&L 85 'B' u IL th ( (rop OF PLATE 6 5,.5 %'O7) 8 N \\ j' NN -4" k 4.'O T'MSE2. - o 1353 090 eL As 'd; 5 ) ELEVATioLI OF 2 WRLL LOOK!.U6 Et06T FIGU2E 6-2

0 PLATE 7 (?M 2A/SEO POSIT / cal) 4 ~ ( EL 93 ' O y/ pg, /\\ ?+1 /\\ i a g g Tiim E! ~ 9:3% A I.> SEE p/4.6-4 / 1353 091 El 45 'o'% S I . ELEVAT/OU OF 2 WALL LOOE/M6 E467 FMUEE 6-5

e a 7 ~ PL A TE 7 l

/

l " 6 HOE "

7 m
  1. 5X6fL P40 gjf

= io = m 'A P = 1 f EL 79.'3" h ("" 0* " ATE *4 ezscxer rc sumar }jijw "secur ~ A! 59 /i etere% Q l/ r $ west,= ace ce,e n.=cc ~ A ~ 1353 092 SECT /OAJ A-A 502 LOC /-7770M 62E F/4 G,-3 F/6UEE~6-4

NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 3:00 PM DRAFT Q. 7 Page 1 of 4 Propose an inservice inspection program for the bolts to be used to provide for shear transfer between the new and existing structural elements. Provide and justify the bases on which it can be concluded that the proposed inspection program will provide assurance that the relied-upon bolt tensions will be maintained in all bolts throughout the life of the plant. Answer: An inservice inspection program for bolt tension will be con-ducted on new bolts included in the Control Building modifica-tion for which bolt tension is relied upon to develop the frictional force for shear transfer between new and existing structural elements. Although potential pretension losses in the bolts have been conservatively considered in the design (design based on an assumed loss of 25% of final construction pretension), the following inservice inspection program to verify bolt tension with time will be implemented: Control Building Modification Connection Bolts The structural adequacy of the bolts used to reinforce the Control Building shall be demonstrated at the end of one, three and five years after initial tensioning and at five year intervals thereafter. Structural adequacy CE-7 135e3 093

NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) _10/16/79 3:00 PM DRAFT Q. 7 Page 2 of 4 shall be demonstrated by: a. Demonstrating that each bolt in a random and repre-sentative sample of not less than 25% of the total number of bolts has a tension of equal to or greater than 80% of the initial bolt tension. If the tension in any bolt is below 80% of the initial bolt tension, the tension in two adjacent bolts shall be measured. If either of these bolts is found to have less than 80% of the initial bolt tension, then all bolts shall be tested. All bolts found to have less than 80% of the initial bolt tension shall be retensioned to the original installation tension value. b. Demonstrating the acceptability of the entire test sample by showing that 2 - 2 8 >0.8 R, where o E is the mean sample tension, 8 is the standard deviation and xo is the mean initial bolt tension. If this criterion is not met, then all bolts shall be tested to the criteria in (a) above. c. Determining that there is no evidence of degradation or abnormal conditions by visual inspection of the condition of all bolts in the sample, their end anchor-ages and concrete or masonry in the vicinity of the anchorage. d. If the bolts inspected during the first three inspec-tions meet the acceptance criteria of (a), (b) and (c), )353 094 CE-7

NRC Questions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 3:00 PM ___ DRAFT Q. 7 Page 3 of 4 then the sample for the subsequent, inspections may be reduced to not less than 10% of the total number of Dolts. This proposed inservice inspection program will provide an appro-priate evaluation of 1) the tension in the bolts at the time of the test, 2) the relationship of possible bolt pretension losses with time, and 3) the conditions of the concrete or masonry at the bolt anchorages. A random and representative sampling of 25% of all bolts will provide a suitable sample size from which a meaningful standard deviation can be determined, particularly since all bolts are of identical configuration (straight thrcagh-wall, loaded in direct tension only with constant design preload values, all of the same material and diameter, and all of similar length). Also, the service environment for the bolts is essentially the same throughout. The acceptance criterion for an individual bolt test tension of equal to or greater than 80% of the initial pretension value furnishes a margin against the 75% of initial pretension value that was used, in addition to the factor of safety of 2 pro-vide.d in the bolt tension-shear transfer relationship, as a bas is for the original desigt) pretension. The acceptance criterion for the entire sample requires that the sample mean minus twice the sample standard deviation (Y - 2o) be equal to or greater than 80% of the mean value of the initial bolt pretension (Yo). This provides reasonable assurance that, i355 095 CE-7

NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) l0/16/79 3:00 FM DRAPT Q. 7 Page 4 of 4 as a minimum, 97.5% of all the bolts will have pretension values not less than 80% of the initial pretension value, still with a factor of safety of at least 2. The ondition of exposed portions of the test sample bolts, end anchorages, and concrete or masonry surf aces adjacent to the end anchorages will be visually inspected during each test (the portion of the bolt within the wall is subjected to essen-tially the same environment as conventional reinforcing steel, and corrosion is not a concern). The time dependent behavior of the bolts is expected to be an exponential function of time where most losses that will occur should occur relatively soon after the initial installation. Therefore, with the condition that the first three tests demonstrate that bolt pretension losses are essentially stabil-ized, reduction in the size of the test sample is justified. We believe that the proposed inservice inspection program will provide assurance that the bolt tension, in all bolts, which is relied upon to develop the frictional force for shear trans-fer between new and existing structural elements will be main-tained throughout the life of the Plant. 1355 096 CE-7

~ NRC Questions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 3:00 PM DRAFT Q. 10 Page 1 of 2 Verify that the computer program WECAN was,used_only for linear elastic analyses. Additionally, verify that the com-puter program verifications for the CYLNOZ, SPHNOZ and DESREV meet the requirements of Standard Review Plan Section 3.9.1.II. Answer: In the reevaluation of equipment with response spectra based on the modified Complex, the computer program WECAN was used only for linear elastic analysis. The equipment so analyzed was auxiliary mechnical equipment such as tanks, heat exchang-ers, and demineralizers. The computer programs CYLNOZ and SPHNOZ were used only to calculate local stresses caused by external loadings in cylin-drical and spherical shell elements of auxiliary mechanical equipment. C7LNOZ and SPHNOZ were developed by the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, Pa. and are ba sed on the curves pre-sented in Welding Research Council Bulletin 107. The CYLNOZ and SPHNOZ programs have been verified b;- Westinghouse. Veri-fication was accomplished by comparing the stresses calculated by the programs to stresses determined directly from the curves presented in Bulletin 107. Good correlation was obtained be-tween the numbers calculated by the programs and those obtained from the curves. This method of computer program verifica-tion is consistent with the acceptance criteria for verifica-tion in Standard Review Plan Section 3.9.1.II.2.c. 1353 097 CE-10

NRC Ouestions (9/14/791 10/16/79 DRAFT Q. 10 Page 2 of 2 The DESREV computer program, which was use'd only in the reeval-uation of the CVCS holdup tank recirculation pump, performs static analyses of Gould's end-suction, foot-mounted pump as-semblies (which consist of pump, motor, coupling and base-plate). In addition to nozzle and seismic loads, loads created by the pump operation are considered in the analysis of the f unctional capability and structural integrity of the pump, bedplate, shaf t and hold-down bolts. These loads are also considered in the analysis of the pressure retaining portions of the pump. The DESREV progr'm solutions to a series of test problems are substantially identical to hand calculations, and program verification has been performed in accordance with the criteria of Standard Review Plan Section 3. 9.1. II. 2.c. 1355-098-9 CE-10

NFC Ouestions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 1 Page,1 of 5 10/16/79 Verify 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, substan-tiate the conservatism of the shear / tension interaction rela-tionship assumed for the reinforcement and the studs in your September 5, 1979 response to question 3. Answer: The placement of Nelson studs will be in accordance with all criteria specified in "Embedment Properties of Headed Studs" by the Nelson Division of TRW. The spacing of the studs to develop their full tension and full shear capacities is influenced by the stud embedment, the distance between the anchors in a group, and the distance from an anchor to a free edge. Table 6 of the referenced publication provides the minimum spacing of studs for full tension capacity development. Table 4 provides tension capacity corresponding to the embedment. Tables 16 and 23 provide the minimum distances for full shear capacity devel-opment. Although the studs in the Complex modification are designed for pure shear only, the placement and spacing of the studs will comply with the requirements for the development of full shear and full tension according to the above tables. 1355 099 CF-1

NRC Ouestions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 1 Page 2 of 5 10/16/79 As shown below the shear / tension interacti,on assumed for the reinforcement and the studu in P.he Licensee's response dated September 5, 1979 to Structural Branch Question Nc. 3 is con-servative. _ As a representative example, a #7 reinforcing bar and a 5/8 diameter x 8 3/16 stud will be considered. Considering a load factor of 1.4 for the reinforcing bar and a factor of safety of 2 for the stud (Licensee's response dated June 22, 1979 to NRC Question No. 7), the maximum allowable force on each element will be: Tension on the #7 bar: f A T= y s 9 x 60 x 0.6 = 23.lk 1.4 1.4 Shear on the 5/8 stud: V= u e =,- [ 1.10 6 A f'0.3E 0.44 1_, 3 2 s c c 2 ( 3 410 ) 0. 4 4 ) 1_, l_!,, -I. 5k 0.85[1.106 x 0.307 x (3.5)0.3 x 2 2 1353 100 CF-1

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 1 Page 3 of 5 10/16/79 where o = capacity reduction factor f = yield strength of reinforcing steel y A = area of reinforcing steel or stud material s S = concrete shear capacity of stud uc f = compressive strength of concrete c E = modulus of elasticity of concrete c In terms of ultimate strength: Ultimate tension force on #7 bar: T = 1.4 x 23.1 = 32.4k u Ultimate shear force on 5/8 stud: V = 1.4 x 7.5 = 10.5k u Assuming that the distribution of these forces between the reinforcement and the stud is proportional to their cross-sectional areas, the forces on each element are: Area of stud = 0.307 in2 2 Area of bar

0.6 in P = tension force V = shear force 0.307 P stud

32.4 = lik 0.307 + 0.60 CF-1

NRC Ouestions (9/20/79) DRAFT e Q. 1 Page 4 of 5 10/16/79 P bar

32.4 - 11 = 21.4k 0.307 10.5 = 3.55k V stud

0.307 + 0.60 V bar = 10.5 - 3.55 = 6.95k The interaction of tension and shear in the reinforcing bar is considered in the following manner: P bar,V bar Minimum A = s of of p y y where o = capacity reduction factor f = yield strength of reinforcing steel y y = coefficient of friction Minimum A 21.4 6.95 = + =.40 in2 < 0.60 in2 s .9 x 60 .85 x 60 x 1.4 Since the area of reinforcement _provided (.6 in.2) is more than the minimum area required (.40 in.2), the capacity of the reinforcement will not be exceeded. The interaction of tension and shear in the stud is considered as follows: (see Section 6 of the referenced TRW publication) (P stud)5/3 (S stud)S/3 + P S u u 1355 102 CF-1

NRC Ouestions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 1 Pege 5 of 5 10/16/79 P' = ultimate tension capacity of stud (from Table.4) = 16.56k u S6 = ultimate shear capacity of stud = S = 15k uc ll S/3 3.55)S/3 + =.6 < 1 (16.56) 35 Therefore, the capacity of the stud under combined tension and shear will not be exceeded. 1355 103 CF-1

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 1 of 12 10/16/79 3:00 PM In your July 10, 1979 response to question.13, an 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 shrinkago 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 we.11 causes the existing to swell (as would be the case for the block when the core concrete was placed). These values are extremely inconsistent. Justify this inconsistency in detail, and pro-vide 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. Answer: The differences in the values for shrinkage strain cited in answer to the various questions arise primarily because the values were determined in response to questions relating to differing circumstances, which called for differing approaches with differing degrees of conservatism. For example, NRC Question 13, dated July 10, 1979 addressed the issue of the effect of creep and shrinkage on the dead load distribution on the existing Complex walls. NRC Question 11, dated 1353 104 CF-2

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 2 of 12 10*/16/79 3:00 PM September 5, 1979 related to the reduction of allowable shear stress, Vc, in the new reinforced concrete wall as a result of tension developing at the interface between the new and existing walls owing to shrinkage in the new walls. Question 22, dated September 5, 1979, on the other hand, dealt with the evaluation of bolt losses because of shrinkage in the new concrete walls and also possible shrinkage in the existing walls due to the evaporation of the absorbed moisture in the existing walls. 1. Existing Walls The Licensee's response dated July 10, 1979, to NRC Question No. 13, described the effects of creep and shrinkage phenom-enon in the existing walls of the Complex on the distribution of wall dead load to the embedded structural steel columns. In that response an unrestrained shrinkage strain of approxi-mately 100 x 10-6 in/in was taken for the composite walls based on published shrinkage test results as referenced there-in. Also, a restrained shrinkage strain of 70 x 10-6 in./in. was assumed for the walls. A detailed evaluation of the shrinkage strain, specific to the 5 walls of the Complex, is given below for a typical 30 1nch thick wall. The analysis is based on the outline as given in ACI paper No. SP 27-13 (Reference 2-1) which is the basis of the recommendation as reported in ACI paper No. SP 27-3 by the ACI Committee 209 (Reference 2-2). The correction factors to the ultimate shrinkage strain are based on the values of the CF-2 1355 105

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 3 of 12 10/16/79 10:00 AM essociated parameters of the concrete mix given in Table 2-1. The unrestrained shrinkage strain at any time t is given by "sh " *shu t h th s f e c SSS SSSS where C is the ultimate shrinkage strain as obtained shu from tests on laboratory sample. Ultimate shrinkage strain (cshu) Tests carried out on the laboratory samples for concrete mixes used in the construction of the Complex walls gave the following unrestrained shrinkage strain: 42 days shrinkage = 540 x 10-6 in/in The time of shrinkage coefficient, S gives the fraction t, of strain in time t days of the ultimate shrinkage strain. From Ref. 2-2, t for moist-cured concrete S = t 35 + t 42 S = 0.545 = 42 35 + 42 1353 106 CF-2

NRC Ouestions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 4 of 12 10/16/79 10:00 AM = 540 x 20-6 = 990 x 10-6 in/in c shu 0.546 Time of shrinkage coefficient, S t This factor is defined above. The total dead load at a particular elevation of a wall was built up in an incre-mental fashion as the portions of the wall..above were con-structed. Since the time that elapsed in erecting a wall from ground elevation up to the roof of the Control Build-ing was about four to six months, consideration was made of the shrinkage of a portion of a wall prior to its being loaded by the wall weight above it. This time lag effect was conservatively taken as 21 days because the time period that elapsed between erection of a wall below and the dead load coming from the wall above is more than 21 days. Therefore, St" S40 years - S21 days 21 1.0 - = 35 + 21 0.62 = Relative humidity coefficient, Sh The average annual humidity furnished by the Portland, Oregon Weather Bureau is 73%. However, in consideration of the fact that both the faces of the walls are not exposed to outside atmosphere, an average humidity of 60% vas assumed. 1353 107 cy_2

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 5 of 12 10/16/79 10:00 AM Sh = 1.40 - 0.010H, where H = 60 = 0.80 Minimum thickness of member coefficient, Sth Sth = 1.17 - 0.029T, where T = 30 inches (flow path = 0.30 for moisture evaporation consistent with composite wall thickness) Slump of concrete, Ss S = 0.89 + 0.041S, where S = 3 1/2 inches slump s = 1.03 Fines coefficient, S g Sg = 0.30 + 0.0140F, where F = 40 (percentage of = 0.86 fine aggregate by weight) Air Content coefficient, S e S = 0.95 + 0.0080A, where A = 3.8 (Air Content in e = 0.98 percentage) NOTE: The values for concrete slump, percentage of fines, air content and cement con' tent are based on data obtained from original concrete design mix of the Complex walls. 1353 108 CF-2

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 6 of 12 10/16/79 3:00 PM Cement content coefficient, S c Se = 0.75 + 0.034B, where B = 6.60 + 0.95 (number of = 1.00 94 lb. sacks of cement and pozzolan per cu. yd. of concrete) E sh = 990 x 0.62 x 0.60 x 0.30 x 1.03 x 0.86 x 0.98 x 1.00 = 128 x 10-6 in/in This is not substantiall_y different_than_the value derived.from the __. published literature,.which.was.used in.the.resoonse.to.NRC Question No. 13, and thus has no significant impact on the response provided to that question. The grouted masonry block walls, along with their continuous reinforcing steel, will inhibit the unrestrained free shrinkage of the core concrete. The following analysis of the existing Complex walls illustrates the restraining effect and also determines the value of restrained shrinkage in the wall. In determining the restraining effect, the wall at el. 45' is assumed to be vertically held and the entire height of the wall is considered to tend to shrink down. A 12-inch length of wall is taken for analysis. Thickness of the wall is 30 inches. See figure 2-1 for the analytic model. 1353 109 CF-2

NRC Ouestions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 7 of 12 10/16/79 10:00 AM D}} 10D L, -i nJ o u .o - -:. 3_ T, - ~ e..- l L' , r. e w' c.c z .a 2 JL Figure 2-1 2 A = Area of concrete core, inches c 2 Ab = Area of cell filled block, inches 2 A = Area of reinforcing steel, inches s E = Modulus of elasticity of concrete c 6 = 4.074 x 10 psi (based on fg = 5000 psi and w = 145 pcf) Eb = Modulus of elasticity of cell filled block (Average of block and cell fill, area of block and cell fill being approximately equal) 3 6 [22(100 x 2000)0.5 + 4.074 x 10 ]1/2 = 6 = 2.53 x 10 psi 1353 110 CF-2

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 8 of 12 10/16/79 10:00 AM E = Modulus of elasticity of steel s 6 = 29 x 10 psi c hu = Unrestrained shrinkage strain s = 128 x 10-6 in/in x = Restrained shrinkage strain C = Creep coefficient t

0.88 Assuming creep coefficient of cell filled masonry to be the same as that of concrete, Ec Effective modulus of elasticity of concrete

1+C t Eb Effective modulus of elasticity of block = i+C t E Xb Uc f =XE f = g ,( ) s s b 1+C c shu 1+C t t From force equilibrium fAss+fAbb"fEcc E bb AEcc or X[ A E + j ,4, hu )1 + C ss 1+C s t t 2 for A = 0.44 in /ft ; Ab = 2 x 8 x 12 = 192 in2, s 2 A = (30 - 16) x 12 = 168 in c 1353 111 Cr-2

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 9 of 12 10/16/79 10:00 AM or, x [ (0.44 x 29) + 192 x 2.53 + 168 x 4.074 ) x 106, 1.88 1.88 6 128 x 10-6 x 4.074 x 10 x 168 1.88 or, x = 73 x 10-6 in/in This value is only 4.3% higher than the restrained shrinkage specified in response to NRC Question No. 13 and, therefore, would not alter the magnitude of dead load distribution due to the effect of shrinkage as given in that response. Licensee's response to NRC Question No. 22 assumed a conservative restrained shrinkage value of 200 x lb-6 }-r ~ o the existing walls for the limited purpose of calculating bolt tension losses. Before erecting the new wall adjacent to the existing wall with the 3 inch thick steel plate as the outside fo rm, the surface of the existing block face will be sprayed with water. This will moisten the block and possibly some of the cell fill concrete and would cause some amount of swelling. The bolt loss from shrinkage for this celled portion of the existing wall would occur only if the entrapped moisture finds a path to diffuse to the outside environment. This diffusion process would be inhibited by the steel plate on one side and the core concrete (where existing) and the outside core filled masonry wythe. Furthermore, any loss in bolt stress due to this effect would be detected during the surveillance and the bolt stress would be monitored to ensure that it did not fall CF-2 1353 112

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page,10 of 12 10/16/79 10:00 AM below the design stress level. Considering the above, and also noting that an unrestrained shrinkage for the entire 30 inch thick existing wall is only 128 x 10-6 in/in, a shrinkage strain of 200 x 10-6 in/in for the swelled portion of the in-situ wall for the purpose of calculating bolt losses is an appropriately conservative figure. 2. New Walls For the new wall elements, an analysis similar to the one de-scribed above was performed to provi$e a basis for Licensee's response to NRC Question No. 22, dated September 5, 1979. However, the thickness effect, as given by the term Sth' was conservatively taken as 0.84, v> " is applicable for a 9 inch thick wall only. Consequently, if the thickness coeffi-cient is appropriately modified to correspond to the actual wall thickness, the resulting strain will be substantially reduced from the 174 x 10-6 in/in shrinkage strain shown in that response. Also, the strain of 174 x 10-6 in/in was conservatively established as the remaining shrinkage in the new walls after 28 days from the time of pouring. This was the minimum time envisaged for tightening the bolts. That analysis differed from Licensee's response to NRC Question No. 11, dated September 5, 1979 which described the evaluation of tension forces in the new walls which result from interaction between the newly cast concrete and the existing wall. Recog-nizing that the new walls would be kept moist for the first seven days, during which period shrinkage of the wall would not take place, only the shrinkage occurring after that period cF-2 1353 113

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 11 of 12 10/16/73 10:00 AM w'ould have to be considered. Hence, the factort S which t, was taken as 0.62 in deriving the value of 174 x 10-6 in/in was taken as 1.0 and the total shrinkage strain was calculated '174 x 10-6 )/0.62 = 280 x 10-6 in/in. It should be noted as here that in deriving this strain the thickness effect was also very conservatively taken as that for 9 inch walls, and consideration of the actual wall thickness would substantially reduce this value. The concrete design mix used in the construction of the in-situ composite walls of the Complex is given in Table 2-1. The information provided in this table was compiled from the data given for 3/4 in. aggregate and concrete mix D1 as they appear in Table 3.8.17 of the Trojan FSAR. The mix design for the new concrete walls will be made using aggregates which have less shrinkage characteristic.

References:

1.

Branson, D.

E., and Christiason, M. L., " Time Dependent Concrete Properties Related to Design Strength and Elastic Properties, Creep, and Shrinkage", ACI Publication No. SP27-13. 2. " Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and Temperature Effects in Concrete Structure", Reported by ACI Committee 209, ACI Publication No. SP27-3. 1353 114 CF-2

NRC Questions (9/19/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 12 of 12 10/16/79 10:00 AM TABLE 2-1 Concrete Mix Design Used in the In-Situ Walls of the Complex 3 psi lb cu ft sacks W/C oz lb/ft Strength 5000 Cement 620 3.15 6.60 Pozzolan 85 0.55 0.90 Sand 1137 7.06 40 3/4 in. 1760 10.60 60 Aggregate Water 310 4.96 0.44 WRA 11.3 AEA 0.68 4.5 Total 3912 144.9 1355 115 CF-2

NRC Questions (9/28/79) DRAFT Q. 1 10/16/79 1:00 PM Verify that the installed Hexcel energy absorbing material will be (a) " stabilized" in order to ensure the edge material is stabilized and therefore will absorb the anticipated amount of energy should it be crushed by a falling plate. (b) "precrushed" in order to eliminate the peak load shown in Figure V-2 of Hexcel catalog #TSB-120. Answer: (a) The Hexcel energy absorbing material will be " stabilized" by bonding a plate on the top and bottom of the material. (b) The Hexcel energy absorbing material will be "precrushed" in order to eliminate the peak load shown in Figure V-2 of Hexcel catalog #TSB-120. 1353 116 CH-1

NRC Questions (9/28/79) DRAFT Q. 2 10/16/79 8:00 AM Previous responses have indicated, in response to the control of dust, grit and debris, that the work area may be isolated. In this regard, the staff believes a small portable enclosure should be employed on the east and west inside walls of the Control Room and the electrical auxiliaries room when drilling holes in the walls. This box shall be capable of containing and collecting any dust, dirt, debris and water that may enter the room as the drill penetrates the wall. Verify that such a small enclosure and collection means will be provided in order to preclude the release of this material inside the rooms. Answer: A small enclosure will be used on the inside of the walls as outlined in the above question. It will be constructed so as to collect and contain any dust, dirt, debris and water incidental to the drilling. It will also be constructed so that a workman can hold the enclosure against the wall with his hands and at the same time be able to see the wall to determine when and where the drill bit is penetrating. Additional measures to control dust, grit and debris are described in response to Question 7 of this set. 1353 117 CH-2

NRC Questions (9/28/79) DRAFT Q. 3 10/16/79 11:00 AM ~ Confirm that the required control room differential pressure requirements (Technical Specification 4.7.6.1.d.3) can be ~ continuously maintained with open drilled holes in the control room wall. Provide the basis for your conclusion. Also, con-firm that these requirements can be met during installation of Plate 8. Answer: The referenced Technical Specification requires periodic verification that the Control Room emergency ventilation system, CB-1, is capable of maintaining a positive pressure in the Control Room relative to the outside atmosphere during certain specified events. Each hole drilled into the Control Room will be temporarily plugged before the next hole is drilled. Therefore, there will be no more than one 3" hole open into the Control Room at any one time due to the modification program. Such a hole would not reduce the capability to maintain a positive pres-sure. During installation of Plate 8, as each bolt is placed through the hole in the Control Room wall an "O" ring will be placed in the annulus between the bolt and the c-rete on the Control Room side of the drilled hole. Th.s "O" ring will be removed immediately prior to grouting the bolt hole, thus preserving the capability to achieve the Control Room pressure differential during the process of installing Plate 8. 1353 1i8 CH-3

NRC Questions (9/28/79) DRAFT Q. 4 Page 1 of 2 -10/16/79 3:00 PM The Trojan response of September 5, 1979 t.o Systems Branch question 10 is confusing in that it speaks of areas external to Category 1 equipment. The staff believes that a fire watch patrol should be established to perform hourly inspec-tions for areas where a fire could affect safety related cables or equipment in which non-fire retardant wood will be used for concrete forms or other purposes. The person while assigned as a fire watch patrol should have no other duties. This fire watch patrol should be instituted when the non-fire retardant wood is taken into any of these areas and continue until it is removed. The fire watch patrol would not be necessary during the times when a continuous fire watch has been established in an area for other reasons. Identify each of the areas where such a fire watch patrol would be necessary to monitor for fires in areas where a fire could affect safety-related cables or equipment. Answer: The intent of Licensee's response dated September 5, 1979, to Systems Branch Question 10(i) was to indicate that, during the modification program described in PGE-1020, Licensee will establish a fire watch patrol when non-fire-retardant wood is utilized in areas where a fire could affect safety-related cables or equipment. The fire watch patrol will perform hourly inspections'from the time the nontreated wood is brought into any such area until it is removed, and will not be assigned ____ other duties. The areas where such a fire watch patrol might CH-4 1355 119

NRC Questions (9/28/79) DRAFT Q. 4 Page 2 of 2 10/16/79 8:00 AM be necessary are listed as Areas 1, 2, 3, And 4 in-Licensee's response dated to NRC Question 3 of September 14, 1979. 135.3 120 CH-4

NRC Ouestions (9/28/79) DRAFT Q. 5 10/16/79 In reference to the construction noise lev,els in the control room, response 18 to the staff's July 20, 1979 questions, you indicated that "Should it be determined by the plant operator in the Control Room that excssive noise is being created, lighter weight tools or ocher means of concrete removal will be employed". The staff believes it is essential that if either the NRC IE resident inspector or the plant operator should determine that excessive construction noise is being created, lighter weight tools or other means of concrete re-moval will be employed. Verify that the above additional control on control room noise is acceptable and will be complied with. Answer:

  • In the event that either the NRC IE Resident Inspector or the Plant operator determines that excessive construction noise is being created, lighter weight tools or other means of concrete removal will be employed.

1353 121 CH-5

NRC Questions (9/28/79) ___ DRAFT _ Q. 6 ~ 10/16/79 8:00 AM Presently it is proposed to utilize a positive feed control drill on the east and west control building outer walls. Fur-ther a person will be stationed on the inside for the purpose of detecting when the wall has been penetrated and notifying the driller via radio communications or by sound er battery powered telephones. Describe and discuss any other additional measures that can and will be implemented to further provide assurance the drill will not be allowed to penetrate to such an extent as to damage equipment within, e.g., positive stops or a paint strip on the core drill to alert the driller that wall penetration is imminent. Answer: o Conventional practice for such drilling operations includes the use of marking on the core drill so that the drill operator knows where his drill bit is located in relation to his planned penetration depth. Such a marking procedure will be used for all concrete or masonry core drilling required for the modifi-cation work. The type of marking used will be one that the drill operator can easily see while operating the drill. Either a tape or painted stripe is the method which we would plan to use. 1353 122 CH-6

NRC Questions (10/2/79) DRAFT Q. 5 10/16/79 10:00 AM Your July 6 response to question 16 indicates that the verti-cal shear forces at corners R-55 and N-55 are 2357 kips and 1260 kips, respectively. Section 3.5 of PGE-1020, Revision 2 indicates that these same forces are 1686 kips and 1593 kips, respectively. Provide the correct shear forces. Answer: The shear force values which appear in Licensee's July 6, 1979 response to NRC Question 16 were taken from PGE-1020, Revision 1. The values in PGE-1020 Rev 1 were based on the results of an analysis of a STARDYNE model of the Complex with the modi-fications described in PGE-1020, Rev 0. The shear force values provided in the July 20, 1979 Revision 2 to PGE-1020 are based on the results of an analysis of the currgnt STARDYNE model which incorporates the changes in the modification described in Licensee's letter dated June 22, 1979. The correct shear forces for the modified Complex at corners R-55 and N-55 are 1686 kips and 1593 kips, respectively, as provided in PGE-1020, Rev 2. 1353 123 CI-5

NRC Questions (10/2/79) Q. 9 10/10/79 9:00 AM Your June 29 response to question 3 and PGE-1020, Revision 2 indicates that the appropriate factor of safety for the Nel-son studs is 2. Your June 22 response to question 22 indi-cates that a factor of 3 was used in the design of the studs and, therefore, may be more appropriate. Clarify this apparent inconsistency. Answer: In PGE-1020 Section 3.2.4.3 and in Licensee's response dated June 29, 1979 to NRC Question No. 3, it is stated that the allowable design values for Nelson studs are one-half of the values given in Table 15 cf the Nelson Division of TRW, Inc. publication, " Design Data 10 - Embedment Properties of Headed e' Studs". A justification for the allowable design values is presented in Licensee's response dated June 22, 1979 to NRC Question No. 7 Licensee's response dated June 22, 1979 to NRC Question No. 22 indicates that the maximum calculated forces on the studs are one-third of the values given in Table 15 of " Design Data 10 - Embedment Properties of Headed Studs". Since the calculated forces are less than the allowables, the design of the studs is adequate. }b CI-9 r.

NRC Questions (10/2/79) DRAFT Q. 16 10/16/79 Your July 10 response to question 13 indicates that the maximum vertical amplification factor is 16 percent while your September: 5 response to question 15 indicates that it is 13 percent. Therefore, provide the correct maximum vertical amplification factor. Answer: Licensee's response dated July 10, 1979, to NRC Question No. 13 stated that the maximum vertical amplification factor is 16 percent. Licensee's response dated September 5, 1979, to NRC Question No. 15 states that "the dead load was reduced 13% to account for vertical motion". Thus, the 13% is the reduction in dead load, and is not a value for vertical amplification. o 1355 125 CJ-3

NRC Ouestions (10/2/79) DRAFT Q. 18 10/16/79 3:00 PM In your September 5 responses to questions, the response to question 17 indicates that for the combination of dead, live -and SSE loadings, the maximum allowable stress in bending and tension is limited to 0.9 fy and the maximum allowable shear stress is limited to 0.5 fy. Verify that this limitation was imposed for the evaluations of steel elements discussed in the responses to questions 18 and 25. Answer: In Licensee's responses dated September 5, 1979 to Structural Branch Questions Nos. 18 and 25, the maximum allowable stress in bending and tension of the steel elements was limited to 0.9 f and the maximum allowable shear stress was limited y to 0.5 f for the load combinations referred to. y n 1353 126 CJ-5

+ E:n :unt n s 1 fel &5 0' , SPACES 1 d ~ 1 EL G4 0% f ~ b" t ', 4}*--,pg. - A SW A 490 goL7-el 62-3Q rU .],_ N PLATE 4l Q, PLAreAR ' , n / y El 59 $3 / y L EDGER ANGL EA%/ COA /ST2UCTrost / Jot ^JT d ~J N-f/GURE 8-t 1353 127

l -F, -d \\ y EL 77'O' ~ s A' t.< ~ SPACEE (SEE klOT! */) El 7&'3% \\.~;l fll4g ,. L.e 'fO"y"* ~ 2 - y t 2 1-7 3- 0 j u Pl. A TE S / l \\ 3 y \\ (b?bhEE I cdx ASTM A 490 BOLTS El 70-0% QK,\\ r 2EMOVA8LE TIE 6 \\/ [ ~ / iq, AloTe: l /. SPACE 26 WILL SE 26- ' ~ ' P L. A T E $2 / MOVED AFTE/2 THE / CCA/CEETE HA6 S6'[ l / !i g SPACER f (3EE A/OTd*/) e r /E L (o 5 '0" c.ax A ei a.+:o" N. _- ? PL A TE + / m 4er p r.t - -s-1355 128 P/GUi2E 8-2 _}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19210C706&oldid=4912828"