ML19210E043

Summary of 791018 & 19 Meeting W/Util & Bechtel Re Control Bldg Mods.Supporting Documentation Encl

ML19210E043
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
Shared Package
ML19210E039	List: ML19210E038 ML19210E043
References
NUDOCS 7911290203
Download: ML19210E043 (66)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:' e

1. pa arcoq'o UNITED STATES E}),(

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 8 %.'.sf.j CCTOBER 2 9 1979 Docket No. 50-344 LICENSEE: Portland General Electric Company (PGE) FACILITY: Trojan 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 ARC 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 writte draft avail-able. 09-28-79 Letter Status 1 Acceptabl e 2 Conditionally acceptable. Answer makes reference to question 7 for which no response is as yet availa bl 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. 1435 155 7911290 2 03

Meeting Summary for Trojan OCTOBER 2 3 19 5 4 PGE should make it clear that fire watch will be used regardless of use of fire retardant wood. 5 Acceptable 6 Acceptabl e 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 Note: 09-28-79 letter contained seven PSB questions - no structural questions. 10-02-79 Letter: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, i:, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 The balance of the structural responses (in draft form) are attacned, and were not discussed. PGE indicated that formal responses to all PSB requests would be filed by October 26 or she tly thereafter. The NRC staff indicat<. that comments on the draft structural responses will be made during the ww of October 22. There will probably be another meeting similar to this one to discuss written draft responses to tne remaining 31 items when available. / /? / s %% j J cl, G g l'd, Charles Trammell, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #1, D0R Attachments: 1. List of Attendees 2. Draft Responses 1435 156

Meeting Sunnary for C" 2' Trojan Docket Files NRC PDR Mr. Jack W. Lentsch, Manager Local PDR Generation Licensing and Analysis, ORBI Readin9 Portland General Electric Company NRR Reading 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 H. Denton

• E. Case
• D. Eisenhut*

Columbia County Courthouse B. Grimes

• Law Library, Circuit Court Room R. Vollmer
• St. Helens, Oregon 97501 J. Miller
• L. Shao Director, Oregon Department of Energy W. Gammill
• Labor and Industries Building, Room 111 G. Zech
• Salem, Oregon 97310 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 Nuc1 ear P1 ant P. 0. Box 0 D. Crutc,hfield
• R. Reid Rainier, Oregon 97048 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 fDs owe I&E*

Mr. Eugene Rosolie C. Parrish/P. Kreutzer

• Coalition for Safe Power R. Fraley, ACRS (16) 215 S.E. 9th Avenue TERA Portland, Oregon 972:4 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 R'onald W. Johnson, Esquire 500 Pacific Building 520 S.W. Yamhill Corporate Attorney Portland, Oregon 97204 Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Maurice Axelrad, Esquire Ant tland. Oregon 97204 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad and Toll Suite 1214 4* ')7 c 3 ic7 J lJI 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Ms. Nina Bell

• Less Attachment 2 728 S.E. 26th Street Portland, Oregon 97214

f f ATTACHMENT 1 TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING MEETING OCTOBER 18 AND 19,1979 NRC Staff Shaw, Pittman, Pott; & Trowbridge C. Trammell B. Churchill 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. Holley, Jr. D. Broehl T. Bushnell R. Johnson L. Erickson Bechtel W. White B. Sarkar K. Gross R. Anderson 1435 158

ATTACHMENT 2 NRC Questions (9/14/79) l_0/16/79 DRAFT Q. 1/2 Page 1 of 2 1. Provide a detailed description 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 cover 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 s) aged missile, such as the corner of the plate washer, an equi alent diameter must be used in the analysis. The equivalent diameter is taken as the diameter of a circle with an area (A) equal to the circumscribed contact area or projected frontal area of the noncylindrical 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 are length (L) is the length of the rounded edge, or one CE-1 Ik)b

NRC Questions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 2:00 PM Q.lf2 Page 2 of 2 fourth the circumference of a circle of th,at radius (R). 2.375 in. Plate Washer thickness (T) = Radius of rounded ccrner (R) = 1.5 in. 2.36 in L = 2,R = 2w(1.5) = 4 4 A = TL = (2.375)(2.36) = 5.6 in.2 D= 4A 4(5.6) = 2.67 in, w n The attached Fig. 2-1 shows the projected area used for compu-ting the equivalent diameter of the plate washer impact. 1435 l60 CE-1

~ .y ,W \\ 1 / f \\ %) PLATE WA6HEA k D I I 3$$N $313k5 l 1 l l I WA6 HEE THicKAlESS T= 2.975" l P2CJECTED A2EA u 3 1435 161 L = '2.36 " FIGUI2E 2-1

-.../16/79-- 10 3:00 PM NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) 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 during the modification program for form material for placing concrete for the new walls along column lines N, 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 el. 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. CE-3 1435 162

NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 3:00 PM 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 iJ, 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. CE-3 ' 3 j !) }b

e

• ? w L..ia. : *.E *

'~ } N, . -.- m..,. u. ~ I, ( i

c-_

t 4 ;1 f g g 3 O EOOf* ? {r $E t.1 v i,.. 1

a c.-ar.,

! wf i an== ~ i 2 I', m i ~ ' g3 I!' o ?.k. - r # h.,!! l I ',i W uw? - )i ' l l L 6 o,4

w. &/ ?:

La w e ~.-y; ' ",.C. _4 H . r/4n~ 4 a p CON? NGL I 'Ig l 33,0 !U.. g l j i accE!.:i g j[h p sa ib y K= I l --e ,1) 0 AA0232 hs s ; t 7s j )l l. 1. g O l.j l Nj l-w l T?r CLEAR 4 C0ias;:pos; :[ ^ ENTRY b): kl k,1 .i ^- = i i. i I II k '[ "g43 lyM@ \\< y:; l = u t i II i/ es.orser f. n " '" i , T;.; 1.i i li 5 ij l i C. 't ! l l it t lj \\s i [*' 2 H R 5- }'; l New cetysc i- \\\\ ll i f i t > : tit.*:a.u t.s \\\\ ?k [ p:. J. } g -{~ .1(.d [:[ o, I1 ~ J[i g g \\\\ toes

• I.

t e m \\\\ hj I I I 7 ,4 7 'mtg ; .ms I l /s. j Il_j h'- . ls o t-g I l '.[ Eittv )E s MEN 1 i T, [ g I ROCN {Nc.t . smur'*** i 4 h ! iv EF'.

M4d jd

-h-k$$kkb$ - hy? Y SY ,.c q { j= DUCTBANK/ I i C' ! W 140TSANK4 W A -.1 A l f B H { /g I \\ NEW SHE AR t - EXISTING $ HEAR '7 WALLS CHOWN f [ 'h W ALLS Shot'.*N ?.

h ml

'C - HATCHED 17 yelcAL)(,' * ..,,,,,f SHADED (TYPICAL) r Ei CONTROL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN El 45'-0" SHOWING EXISTING AND NEW SHEAR WALLS t.

• *iiMMI LMN

,t Q' 1 -H I 4 ~ g' >

_I ' __ j '

1, i 'i ji'.f'~fe,-vc-14 B L ..'s.4,J.j'g"- y s, n ^ AllXILI A A.V BLf!LDt'iG i MrVC-146 A E 7 Si AD80C!V1 __.f a W A.;T t gj f V APC88 AT081 c-

• e7

tmML,

= s-PARTiXE FLAN i i et u m*S na.et. m o m n MVCl4G A : wi NIN h l*ASIOlQ 5 f i e '.X c0a nsoon 17s 'A p< L- % ~ ~.'$ D2 L Td U J"'" 2 T = } _,"[ [ ~' L,: w g b lCC- ,5*8 i ELEY i $;!DJ.F

g. 9 A4Ld'W] ;: b N = 'M ACH.

NQ 2 IIMEW8'88 1 J, b l ~lw a i !*ioom --+H M' 3 36A747 ~ byO j ? 4 ESA M 5 'i [ A - ESA745 I! ? 4 i D 7 O X,/D 401 -- h g ?f " 7 oS 9 W gY s r a C~ SATTERv YECH4.*JtCAL ACOM q,'] E poou ,7,- Q c n scTmcA!. q j, 5' AUXiLI AR if.!! j; h %~ g h'*J ~~',$ - C Q c. 't bi FI, EL. 61 &* st.tL i;s.c~ 'j 2" - ii 84 8'MERv i ggry y; ggg; d iy/ Ii TE t.EPHONE - cat'nN ec.2:PmT gf d:)) "CBt9tC) gL,73'.t" I& (p ..G ii i 1 1* - /S f;':, dN \\. C ,s i 3 e a , y'. w o mfew i \\- i.,r s e: w w \\- !.' a-3 e-- ABAcc5 e l h [(#1J f '/ j toen,, 4 Nf S'BIlOGS LTOR e f 0,j. S'B1;o4 J e J' N fj A M SPt3 f 4 **- UP 3'b1IEhi ~ l .f' (.g gg k ( l em Molt" i8ioCM NO 1 C D7y %) L-t" L te CN fl)'$$~W $W52mlbv?Y. 'S Y b' r A in 22" HBD-!4 fSC D 't e i ! E G%D% 's s y e s p w c eupu.i! 's-EX3CTING SHEin C ,L \\ NEW SHEAR { JEW A N. \\ ~ TEEL PLATE .'51 ' W ALLS CHOWN rggi h' WALLS SHOWNHATCHED (TYPfCAL!h' h y SHADED (TYPICAL) J 5 m I; CONTROL BUILDING FLO0ft PLAN EL 61'-0" & 6 5'-0" SHOWING EXISTING AND NEW SHEAR WALLS l4N I Y 4 KETCH t@ S-2.

8

• w WPAcoG e-- AaA%o t

/ - - AS A2.65 ' ~ ~ ~ / waAoso b[ w54(([ [ /r--WI A O S O ^^ ,'(i - ~AB AJt 6 s>,:.: j /,- / ' 2*A1.70ln - i J -NST2dC i e V,,-AB A4C C i r ABASCO ABA2cc d !/~ABAttC WALL. f'ENE7RATiou g ( typic AL ) g EAST EL E V. COL,R ABIOloq T-cournott.!io essu=oce . I ,s . -... e.w;.g_ a gm,. =, u $

g..

..<-.a w-h AS AS94 (TOP) {tav' M*W N r 2 [ ,_ g n,gg,; f, - A5Asso f sc7Tou) pc i I g fy:* ~ N P p d M c ly m o N vv4 M e n Ik.l 1 -'.s N a w 4 V.1 0,3, ~' !4 t. 4 i

y MECHAstlCAL ROOM g-c

(. z. 5! di [w,' ,-i d s! [, cast t: si ne aomo %) $i - ) 3 O .g \\' 9! I% l 7 ,0 -1

i

!; i y

91 '!j 0 7 coMPursa nocu I 'A p; 1-CAOLE TRAY 6,6EE g j, DJ, EAs? EL. ABcv7. es tc ss 1, e*, C, ud 'w 3*. H K D-2 a t e -g L 8 < - SEE PART PL M1, i ctse s4 b D A P' AGE 2 PCM [ CORR!DC5: "I 0 3 y: r g 2sAzac-M = ;'/ j .p g.)M s coueotrs i* t-s t /j/,--same couma ] d>\\ f 2 ;' pp:99,cai,to ,c y s t' F: - J.. Obu <s -} 'yn

2memw =mmw; &Sstsyst;p;;xt

:.iL n,

'~' { 'h ]gg 4 i (f C-d50 146:1/ \\ [ l NEW EXISTING SHEAR O! Si 72..y-g*ggory

TBN t([,

SHADED (TYPICAL) 'C[s, W ALLS SHOWN t' \\ STEEL PLATE gj / / z-g: CONTROL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN EL 7T-O" E SHOWING EXISTING AND NEW SHEAR WALLS T D** '9 ~ in n.. 166 t . J] 6KcTc.H blo. ~6-S i mo o m

e

1. t.\\N Y

F l-p l y-i ..vn. GMW'5 =%W Ub i 'XO **W T" ,,,y;; . _~ ~. S g jN' g ..o m: m._s=:: m -sea.m .a ~< .,c -Q 7. l 0j-l f'MC. 2 [ 4 t.L E V, N (< d ftf tt0? Ffl' ('Q S 2- ,f' 3 f b-D f'd I""" g

j

\\ w-l e. c ""*D o 7,,. "d WATER M 'Q,- 4 SAM *t ING f s i<'j L Ali. qg {I s O! EL ?h= If : Lt'l t- ,A w; m b' .'.i l'F t Ot. 'f] (, gg j. CONTROL RCou . 'j ~. v W A 7 ,,e \\,' h,i h d oF#ICI \\ q (' thsST RUMf NT / 8-m N,: i $NO48 W ,s a LuNcw i V! 1 f , Ii' 3 c w $ ocM lh R i Y k \\

• $$?

~ i

s..

r,-}. \\ 2 ,~ - a' ia m p t'9 3 - d .[4 s-p3 h< } } i 11 gcegy Totttr (F i SUPERVISCR :3 .f

800*

rs.j ., gg ~ Ih'MN*9 j av sg no. d;

• • • c=

ip+ w. usu. . 3'A i M,:L.;i * - r - d-s.3 pmq e. ; : 7: :. - ,4 9 E i 4 hWEd-f'Y T-MN6KTrN5p% h

• ?

%Nbc.2$fb 8, s e: Pf / I 9 1 7\\ r&4"p' l l .\\* EXtSTING S,HE AR j g-NEW 'N -' i / -i e. / s' s .r,, STE E L PL m... 1 46 Al ." # L L (*)f 4a g,,qi,/ ' v >I 4"' ' *"-HSD-14('4h,Q SHADEO ti VPICA1.1 (6"'i = j = = E CONTROL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN El 93'-0" SHOWING EXISTING AND NEW SHEAR WALLS T 105 167 t

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 stace is sufficient considering the 'ffects 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

)$bb

NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 3:00 PM DAAPT Q. 5 Page,2 of 4 representing the proposed anchorages ih accordance with the spirit of ASTM Specification E-488-76. Answers (a) The attached letter (Attachment 5-1) from U. S. Grout Corporation verifies that Five Star Grout, t.te 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 absorbs 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 t6 NRC Structural Branch Guestion 7 incorrectly characterized PLA as inactive carbon.

CE-5 ) h !) ) N

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-C588-78 shows that Five Star Grout does not exhibit either sig-nificant expansion or shrinkage after hardening. (See -2)._.. (c) Within the Co.nplex, 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 rcck 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 %rcuted at the Trojan Plant, such that CE-5 's55 170

NRC Questions (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 made with only 10 in. embedment length which is shorter than that required by the ACI Code. ~

_L

_ _ _ _. -. _ ________ _~ _ ~' Test data which substantiates compliance with CED-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 55 17I

U.S. G R O UT COR PO R ATIO N ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL CENTER 1154 55 E AST RUTNAM AVENUE e R:VERSIDE. CONNECTICUT 06S75 m (203i 637 4305 Septenber 19, 1979 Messrs. Ted Bushnell & Don Broehl: PORTL74;D GE ZRAL ELECTRIC 121 S. W. Sal::en Street Portland, OR 97204

Dear Messrs. Bushnell & Brochl:

This is to certify that Five Star Grout consists of three co. ponents: 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 for:: of activated carbon. Expansion will occur while the material is in the plastic state when tested by ASTM C-827 and will exhibit no shrinkage or expansion after hardening. F.tve 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-out test and volume change are being forwarded under separate cover. Very truly yours, e :: ,. - ) / /...~ s John Reilly f Asst. Mgr. Industfial Division JR:jg

Enclosure:

cc: Mr. Everett L. Thompson 14806 Bothell Way N. E., Apt. 326 Seattle, WA 98155 (206)363-8829 A nAcueuT S~l 1435 172 MAN oFFCE OLD GREENWCK CONNECTCUT 06870 (203) 637 43C3 e TELEX 99541 s CA8LE. FNE STAR

i CPR CONSTRUC ION PRODUCTS R ES EARCH, I N C. Tne Beocock Sw.4aing.o.4 Greenwich. Connecticut o06?o

• Pnone(2o$ 637 2oo2
• Cecie C P A

~ 9 CERTIFICATION Date: May 11, 1978 Product: Five Star Grou 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 'l Day 9300 2330 psi 9500 7 Day 30kbb 5280 psi 21200

• ime of Set ASTM C-191 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.

b .. f. $ j D. iala Vice President 1435 173 ATTecW Marr 62

pest Penn mestm.g mayoraten.es, Inc. n ~ . H. 37 n e An independens inspecsion Bureau and Testing Laborasary 482 West Eighth Avenue West Homestead, Pennsylvania 15120 P.O. Box 324 4 Area Code 412 462 3717 File No. WP-2002 March 14,_1978 Report of M M f-3 REI2r/ORCING BAR SHEAR BOND TESTIIC %I PROJECT: OWNER: Pennsylvania Pcuer & Light CONTRACTOR: Research-Cottrell DATE OF INSPECTION:. March 10, M Scope To determine if the shear bond strength of grout used to anchor reinforcing bars could withstand loading as great or greater then the tensile strength of the steel. Description of Reinforcine Anchoring The reinforcing to be tested were grade N. The bars were anchored into pre-drilled holes of varying dia=eters. 'wo diffsrent products were used to achieve the bond. One agent was Nprc-duced by U. S. Grout Corporation. The other agent was Sika Hi-Mod produced by Sika Chemical. Test Set-ue_ ~ All single bars were tested using a calibrated 20 ton Holl-e ram Centerhole Jack (RCH 202 014) connected to a hydraulic pu=p throu;;h a Duragnu$e 10,000 lb. Test Gauge used to measure line pressure. ~ Two 8 inc channcis with their webs back ::o back one inch apart were welded together to form a yoke. The yoke was placed over the bar,. 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 cadreld 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 % e double bar set u connected to a hydraulic pump through the Duragnuge Test Gauge used to measure line pressure. A re-inforced WS x 24 beam was centered perpendicular to the centerline of the bars. The beam had bearing on steel shics placed 10 inches from the centerline. We test jack was centered on the beam. The yoke previously described was placed over the bars and cencered on the jack. Cadwelds were again placed on each bar to facilitate load transfer. 1.435 I74 e y ,r- ---v - - + -. --"1 e

&P4, Wes: Penn Testing 1seratories, Inc. T .................... s....... -..... ~.... - 482 West Eighth Avenue West Homestead, Pennsylvania 15.120 P.O. Box 324.. Area Cod. 412 462 3717 File No. I.7-2002 fierch 14, 1978-Page 2 REINFORCING BAR SHEAR BOND TESTING Susquehanna Seca= Electric Station fQ,4, 6-3 Pennsylvsnia Pcuer & Light Research-Cottrell 1,. March 10, 1978 Test Procedure In all tests a surcharge of 1000 lbs. uss applied to the com-pleted test apparatus for the purpose of senting all co=penents. W e load was relsased and all bear % dictances were reene=ked. h e 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 minimu:n lead was held' for 5 minutes then gradually re-leased to =are load. TEST RESULTS: ' s Test No. Bar Size Hole Si=n Co= ment 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

~ 4

1. 6 2.75"=10" Double bar cet up No failure at full' load

of 61,120 lbs.

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

1. 6 2.75"x10n No failure at fu'.1 load of 30.560 6
2. 6 2.75"x10" No failure at full load 7
3. 6 2.75"x10"

' No failure n't full _ load e e 1435 175

NRC Questions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 3:00 PM DRAPT Q. 6 Page 1 of 5 Provide the results of your analyses showing 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 plate 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 wood. 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 '455 l76

__ /_16/79 _ 10 3:00 PM NRC Questions (9/14/79) 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 200 psi er A = contact area D.I.F. = Dynamic Increase Factor, taken as 2.0 800 lbs x 2 x 48 in. x3 in. x 2.0 = 460.8K F = 2 in This force would be resisted by the 84 Lolts 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 CE-6 14SS \\ll

NRC Questions (9/14/79) 10/16/79 3:00 PM 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 = 485.1 K Total capacity = 564.9 Since the total capacity exceeds the applied laad, 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 1435 I78

_ /16/79 3:00Jg, 10 NFC Ouestions (9/14/79) 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 thickness c S = depth of crushed core A = Area of core KE =f X A*8 cr f = 750 psi cr 2 A = 24 x 3-1/2 = 84 in .5 t S = e 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 xA cr where 1.3 is a dynamic factor suggested by the manufacturer. K F = 1.3 x 750 x 84 = 81.9 CE-6 1435 l79

NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) 10/l6/79 _ 3:00 PM 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 K K 63 bolts x 7.7 / bolt = 485.l (concrete) 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 CE-6 '435 l80

h 5 5 4, \\ 8 PLATE (th! 2A/ SED P06/7/ p cw 7tcL. 80/t0/^/C7 s l TUE8/AIE BLOQ. 5L 93 dh / i .h[h./ i g i wr \\ r m 6U105 PLATE TENfPCE M Y SEAC/h/6 l -4 '< d 'k 4 ' d' TIM 8 EF-i Ij g CE/a8/A/G EL 85 '3' R (wP OF PLATE 6 5,4 57 tA b s2Ac.<E T-r

• di.: I.%. U d

= N s / ..(, J " /k. al-pt,si. ww s.el dem 1435 181 hem $ bb bb= p/g[Jgg 6-j e.

41 4(o PLATE 8M ~. (IM EA/6EO 906/7/0^0 * ,6U05 PLAT 5 ~ / ( EL 93 'O' -= y%; =- ~ /s _: x- :

=:

3t 33;3 f 7 u "1 ~ n:( (rap of PLAres y, s, 5 sua7) v N N /' NN -4 t.< 4 'O K'MBE P. - 4 bh0h0k el ds 'd7 i a. x c -I R 7 ) ELEVATIOkl OF 2 WALL LOOK!kl'6 EG6T FIGU2E 6-2

0 PLATE 7 ("IAl 2A/SEO POSIT /0M) ~ ~ l f 2L 93 ' S' y/ ~~ /\\ fM I '\\ I g4S a g g Tiim 2L ~ 9:3 % s 5 e4 A< SEE FIG. 6-4 / K:n :nx 1433 183 El 45 'o'% 5 ) . ELEVAT/OkJ OF 2 WALL LOOKIAJ6 EA67 f l & U E E (b - 5

n PL A TE.4

V 7

/ !L / "suos" Q h

pJ s

h'sXCEL PAC l i, q m 4 e u (~ El 79 - 3" z (W of PLATE W ) 4 8.2.9CKET 7*c dupoo27- .+' excel pr.;o D 'lIZ /" Secur M ^ -p /i. 4} l ~ 0 PLATE P @ we57.= ace ce,e;v. a 4 1435 184 SECT /OAJ A-A M2 LOCf-1770M SEE f /g g-3 A I.\\ $, F/GU2E~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), tha 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 14$5 I85

NRC Questions (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 cl1 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 C sample by showing that E - 2 >0.8 R, where o E is the mean sample tension, 0 is the standard deviation and Yo 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 bol's in the sample, their end anchor-c 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), CE-7 1435 I86

NRC Questions (9/14/79) _1_0/16/79 3:00 PM DRAFT Q. 7 Page 3 of 4 then the sample for the subsequent, inspections may be reduced to mot less than 10% of the total number of bolts. 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 through-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-vided in the bolt tension-shear transfer relationship, as a basis for the original design pretension. The acceptance criterion for the entira sample requires that the sample mean minus twice the sample standard deviation (x - 2o) be equal to or greater than 80% of the mean value of the initial bolt pretension (Yg). This provides reasonable assurance that, CE-7 1435 I87

__ /16/79 3:00 PM 10 NRC Ouestions (9/14/79) DRAFT 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 condition of exposed portions of the test sample bolts, end anchorages, and concrete or masonry surfaces 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 coadition 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. CE-7

lb~16/79 3:00 PM ~ / NRC Questions (9/14/79) 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. CYLNOZ and SPHNOZ were developed by the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, Pa. and are based on the curves pre-sented in Welding Research Council Bulletin 107. The CYLNOZ and SPHNOZ programs have been verified by 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 witn the acceptence criteria for verifica-tion in Standard Review Plan Section 3.9.1.II 2.c. CE-10 1435 I89

NRC Questions (9/14/79) 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 program 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. CE-10

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 1 Pace,1 of 5 10/16/79 Verify that the Nielson 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 f t'll tension according to the above tables. 1435 191 CF-1

NRC Ouestions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 1 Page 2 of 5 10/16/79 As shown below the shear / tension interaction assumed for the reinforcement and the studs in the Licensee's response dated September 5, 1979 to Structural Branch Question No. 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= c[1.106 A f'0.3E 0.44)1, ue = 2 s c c 2 0.85[1.106 x 0.307 x (3.5)0.3 x (3410)0.44]1 = 11 = 7.5k 2 2 CF-1 1435 192

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 = m dulus 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: 2 Area of stud = 0.307 in 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 1435 193

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

32.4 - 11 = 21.4k V stud

0.307 10.5 = 3.55k 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 ef cf 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 exceedri. The interaction of tension and shear in the stud is considered as follows: (see Section 6 of the referenced TRW publication) (P stud)S/3 (S stud)5/3 + < l P S u u CF-1 }khb

NFC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT a Q. 1 Page 5 of 5 10/16/79 P' = ultimcte tension capacity of stud (from Table 4) = 16.56k u Sf = ultimate shear capacity of stud = S = 15k uc 11 5/3 (3*55)5/3 .6 < 1 (16.56) + = 15 Therefore, the capacity of the stud under combined tension and shear will not be exceeded. CF-1 1435 I95

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 1 of 12 10/16/79 3:0C PM In your July is, 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 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). There 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 a sumptions (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 en the dead load distribution on the existing Complex walls. NRC Question 11, dated CF-2 1435 196

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 2 of 12 l@/16/79 3:00 PM September 5, 1979 related to the reduction of allowable shear in the new reinforced concrete wall as a result stress, Vc, 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 walls of the Complex, is given below for a typical 30-inch 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 i.n 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 1435 l97

NRC Ouestions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 3 of 12 10/16/79 10:00 AM associated 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 Cshu is the ulcimate shrinkage strain as obtained 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 CF-2 1435 I98 s

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 4 of 12 10/16/79 10:00 AM = 540 x 10-6 = 990 x 10-6 in/in c shu 0.545 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 - 321 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% was assumed. CF-2 1435 I9'

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, S s 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 content are based on data obtained from original concrete design mix of the Complex walls. CF-2 l435 ?00

NRC Questions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 6 of 12 10/16/79 3:00 PM Cement content coefficient, S e Sc = 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) C sh = 990 x 0.62 x 0.80 x 0.30 x 1.03 x 0.86 x 0.98 x 1.00 = 128 x 10-6 in/in This is not substantially d_ifferent___than_t_h.e value derived from the published literature,.which was u' sed in.the reSDonse 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. }4}} }Q} CF-2

NRC Ouestions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 7 of 12 10/16/79 10:00 AM 4 Mw li tt 1r .1: v ~ T E !in s o r. ( L u' 0.C ~2 - I! J[I 2 - 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 = M dulus of elasti' city of cell filled block (Average of block and cell fill, area of block and cell fill being approximately equal) [22(100 x 2000)0.5 + 4.074 x 10 ]1/2 3 6 = 6 = 2.53 x 10 psi CF-2 1, i} j { }Q2

NRC Ouestions (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, E c Effective modulus of elasticity of concrete = 1+C t Eb Effective modulus of elasticity of block = 1+C t E E Xb c f =XE f = g ,( ) s s b 1+C c shu 1+C t t From force equilibrium fAs s + f ^b " f E b cc AE3b AEcc X[ A E + } =(c X)1 + C or ss 1+C shu t t for A = 0.44 in /ft ; Ab = 2 x 8 x 12 = 192 in2; 2 s 2 (30 - 16) x 12 = 168 in A = c CF-2 1435 ?03

NRC Ouestions (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 10-6 for 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 c:use some amount of swelling. The bolt loss from shrinkage for this swelled 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 1435 ?04

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 notin.g 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 provide 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, which 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

435

?05

NRC Ouestions (9/20/79) DRAFT Q. 2 Page 11 of 12 10/16/79 10:00 AM w'ould have to be considered. Hence, the factor, S which t, was taken as 0.62 in deriving the value of 174 x 10-6 in/in we 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 thicknesc effect was also very conservatively taken as that for 9 inct. 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 frem 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. CF-2 1435 ?06

NRC Questions (9/19/79) DRAFT

0. 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 kbb $0f CF-2

NRC Questions (9/28/79) DRAFT Q. 1 10/16/79 1:00 PM Verify chat 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. CH-1 1435 ?08

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 arJ 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. CH-2 I l'. 3 F; ! 09

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 concrete on the Control Room side of the drilled hole. This "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. CH-3 1435 ?10

NRC Ouestions (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 retardan' 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 nan-fire retardant wood is taken into any of these areas and continue until it is removed. The fire watch patrol would not be necessary durirg the times when a continuous fire watch has been estab21shed in an area for other reasons. Identify each of the are s 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 brcught 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 11 ? G

~~ NRC Ouestions (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. I. 4 hI)

NRC Questions (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 other 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.

CH-5 } 4 j, D

NRC Ouestions (9/28/79) ._ DRAFT Q. 6 10/16/79 8:00 AM Presently it is proposed to utiliz? 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 or battery powered telephones. Describe and discuss any other additional measures that can and will be implemented to further provide assurance tne 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. 4S5 ).14 CH-6

NRC Ouestions (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 chear forces. Answer: The shear force values which appear in Licensee's July 6, 1979 rerpo'se 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. CI-5 1455 ?I5

NRC Ouestions (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 tnc Nel-son studs is 2. Your June 22 response to question 22 india 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 of the Nelson Division of TRW, Inc. publication, " Design Data 10 - Embedment Properties of Headed 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 allow-ables, the design of the studs is adequate. j43g }}6 CI-9

e NRC Ouestions (10/2/791 fg ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 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 ruaximum 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 Ouestion 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 e l CJ-3 1435 ?I7

NRC Questions (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 naximum 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 o 1435 ?18 c3-5

y-- -a I

(El G5 o*

SpAcgg 1 ~~ E L G 4 0 '3 b h (;py" i -.,p Asw A 4'90 soir el c,2-5~3 / /-- ,y N .fy, N PLATE / Q, wr.?-

• Q l

PLA T8 A1R ' , p y / y G El 59 $3 / L EDGER ANGL EA%/ COA /STEUCTros/ / D I Jo/MT d r _lfL "b-F/GU2E 8-t I

4 -F ) f-El 77'O" i Epacee ~ y* *s (SEE AJOT! */) El74-3h fi} ~ / i4 JL.- El-73-0 / ,/ i i P?p TE 0 / 3m, (~6YbhEN I ASTM A 490 BOL7'S CJk El 70.c% Q , -- 2EMOVA8L.5 TIE 6 /_d i/ / iq, AloTe: / I. SPACE 25 WILL SE 26- ^' P L. A T C 4q / MOVdC AFM2 THE / COA /CEETE HAS S6T / !,,q / .S P A C E/2 / (S' EE AJOTt*I) 1 /E L (o5 0 d i_ J El. &4 '0" k PL.A TE /m.p r.C ~ ~ - P/GUi2E 8-2 1435 ?20 .}}