ML19246A681
| ML19246A681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1979 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Goodwin C PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907060239 | |
| Download: ML19246A681 (8) | |
Text
i
~,
b' pn nao
[0, UNITED STATES y
)y( ',p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,.
9 C W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o
oo
%.D /
May 18,1979
- ..+
Docket No. 50-344 Mr. Charles.Goodwin, Jr.
Assistant Vice President Portland General Electric Company 121 SW Salmon Street Portl and, ' Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
In conducting our review of PGE-1020, " Report on Design Modifications for the Trojan Control Building" dated January 14, 1979, including Revision 1 dated March 31, 1979, we have determined that we will need the additional iniormation identified in the enclosure to continue the review. With the exception of request No. 50, thir is the same set of requests telecopied to you on May 10, 1979.
In order for us to mainta;n our review schedule, your response is r2 quested by June 14, 1979.
If you are unable to meet this date, you are requested to advise us, within 7 days of the date of this letter, of the schedule that you can meet.
Three signed originals and forty copies are required.
Please contact us if you have anj questions concerning this request.
Sincerel,
j A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors Enclosu.e:
Request for Additional Information cc w/enclosere:
See Next Page i
l 79070602W D
Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Portland General Electric Company May 18,1979 cc:
Mr. H. H. Phillips Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Warren Hastings, Esquire Counsel for Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Mr. J.
L'. Frewing, Manager Generation Licensing and Analysis Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Columbia County Courthouse Law Library, Circuit Court Room St. Helens, Oregon 97501 Director, Oregon Department of Energy Labor and Industries Building, Room 111 Salem, Oregon 97310 Richard M. Sar 4, Esquire Counsel for Orejon Energy Facility Siting Counsel and Oregon Department of Energy 500 Pacific Building 520 S.W. Yamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Michael Mal. arose U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trojan Nuclear Plant P. O. Box 0 Rainier, Oregon 97043 29B 262
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORftATION TRNAN NUCLEAR PL ANT PROPOSED CONTROL BUILDING DESIGN t10DiflCA110NS ENGINEERING BRANCH DIVISION OF OPERATING REACTORS 1.
The footnote on page 1-7 which defires " safety related" implies that there may be a difference between this and the original definition of the term.
Provide a list of any equipment, components, and piping which were originally designated as " safety related" but are no longer being considered as such and corresponding justifications for no longer considering them as " safety related."
2.
Verify that closely spaced modes resulting from the madal analysis of the building complex are being considered in accordance with the criteria delineated in BC-TOP-4A.
Additionally, describe what the beam elements in the STARDYNE finite element mesh represent.
3.
Provide clear, detailed sketches and descriptions of the connection interfaces of the additional walls to the existing structure.
Additionally, describe the methods by which the effects of concrete creep and shrinkage (causing tension in the walls and/or a reduction in assumed dead weight) have been factored into the design of these aJditional walls.
Describe and justify in detail the design and the procedures for the connections of the new walls to the existing structure.
4.
Verify that the applicable requirements of ACI 318-77 for the modifica-tions are the same as those of ACI 349-76 as supplemented by Reguletory Guide 1.142.
Identify any differences and justify the acceptability of the ACI 318-77 requirements in lieu of those contained in ACI 349-76 and Regulatory Guide 1.142.
S.
Provide 'he basis for your determination in Section 3.2.3 of PGE-1020 that the allowance for future addition of equipment will have an insig-nificant effect on the seismic analysis.
6.
For the " Criteria for Bolts", provide the following:
a) A clear description of the bolt assembly and hardware arrangement.
b)
The basis for the formula to calculate the allowable shear force for the bolt including the contact area between the wall and the steel, the stress distribution at the wall / steel interface and the maximum compressive stress induced in the wall at this interface along with justification for the value.
c)
The basis for the assured loss factor.
d)
The effect of the condition of the in-situ wall on the assumed shear capacity.
298 263
. For the " Criteria for Studs", provide the basis for the design value 7.
of the Nelson Division of being one-hal' +he values given in TW.:
Inc. publica.
, "bign Data 10 -- Embedment Properties of Headed
- TRN, Include a discussion of what is indicated in this table (e.g.
Studs."
maximum or minimum ultimate), and the statistical variation in the testing which established these values, if appropriate.
Verify that all resistances and stiffnesses based upon dead load considerations 8.
considers the dead load to ne reduced by the vertical earthquake component.
Provide a discussion of the type and the extent of the nondestructive 9.
examinations which will be performed on the plate welds, along with detailed jus ti fica tions.
Describe the decoup;'ing criteria for equipment, components, piping, 10.
etc. whose mass was lumped into that of the structural system r.nd verify that it is met everywhere.
Provide the shear capacities of the column connections vs. the required 11.
shear resistance under the combined loadings to support your claim in Section 3.4.2.2 that the derived flexural capacities of the Trojan walls are conservative in that the building walls will not slide.
Additionally, for all walls discuss the causes of (e.g. shrinkage) and the effects of the observed separation between tr c bottom of the steel beams and the concrete along the west wall of the Control Building and limitations on the rotational restraint of the in-situ wall on the appropriateness of using the double curvature specimen tes_t results.
Significant separation of the concrete away from the beams or tension induced in the walls where there is no separation could impact the consideration of the " box effect" or confinement as suggested by PGE thereby reducing the shear capacity assumed for the wall.
Quantify the extent of and effects of this unbonded condition for all walls.
- Also, in addition to considering the concrete strength of 5000 psi, discuss the effects of the interfaces with 3000 psi design strength concrete.
- 12. Justify the ductility limit of 4 for the outer rebar in the flexural calculations.
Also, considering displacement compatibility for the entire structure using the stiffnesses indicated by the test results, what are the strains predicted in the outer rebar?
JJstify their acceptability Additionally, for the flexural analysis in light of your assumptions.
justify the use of a compression zone length of 107 of the total equations ef fective length, and c JDply the m3ximum Values of E and justify the use of a linear stress-strain relationship for the concrete in compressior,.
the effects af creep and shrinkage (e.g. weight
- 13. Discuss in detail how reductions, tension fields, etc. ) have been factored into your consideration of the walls snear strencths and stiffnesses.
298 264
. 14.
Discuss in detail why the dead load acting for the SSE is greater than that acting for the OBE, thereby resulting in greater shear capacities for the SSE than considered for the OBE.
15.
Provide the basis for the 30f amplification factor assumed in the vertical direction.
16.
Provide the basis for your calculation from the block and the beam to column connection capacities.
Include a discussion of the straia compatibility of the two, and the basis for the 100 psi allowable vertical shear on the block at corners whicF seems to include a 1/3 increase in UBC allowable stresses which would not be appropriate nor in line with current practice.
17.
Discuss in detail the effects on the in-plane well shear capacity of any tension induced in the walls by the gross overturning moments and the " plate bending" of the walls generated by the earthquake component perpendicular to these walls.
18.
In Table 3.3-1 the sum of the effective weights in the N-S iirection does not add up to your indicated total.
Please clarify.
19.
Provide the basis for yourclaim that, in lieu of the test program results, there are no UBC requirements addressing the type of walls in the Trojan complex since Sec. 2417 of UBC-1963 specifies that for combinations of units, materials, or mortars, the maximum stress shall not exceed that permitted for the weakest of these.
Also, provide the basis for your statement that the USC did not envision the use of a model such as STARDYNE, therefore, higher allo.vables are appropriate.
UBC Sectio-2417 merely states that forces be determined from the principles of continuity and relative rigidity, which is what STARDYNE does.
20.
Provide the upper limits for the relative displacement of the Turbine and Control Buildings, considering the test results. in the areas where t+e existing shake space is being reduced b the addition of the steel plate and verify that there is adeqbate clearance everywhere.
21.
In Section 4.2.3 you discuss the removal of part of the concrete beam along the R line between columns 41 and 46.
What was the original structural function of this beam? Verify that removal of part of the bean does not compromise its structural integrity or its structural functions.
Specifically, what impact will this have on the mas,nry blocks supported above the beams?
22.
Provide a summary of the lead combinations ard the maximum forces which will be developed for the bolts and the shea studs and locally in the existing elements. Indicate where the iielsor shear studs will be used.
- Also, discuss the shear transfer mechanism betweer, the steel plate and existing walls in det:il.
e D
. 23.
Describe and justify the design criteria for the rail stop being added in the Terbine Building.
24.
Explain why the finite element representation of the new wall along column line does not duplicate the wall as depicted in Figures 3.1-2 and 3.2-1.
25.
In Section 4.2.3, reference is made to the tensioning of bolts after concrete has attained " adequate strength."
Define " adequate strength" and describe how it will be determined.
26.
Verify that the static and dynamic effects of the rigging and the steel plate on the Turbine Building above elevation 93 feet have been considered.
27.
What strength concret ' was used to model the new walls in the STARDYNE analysis of the modifiad complex?
In Section 3.2.5 a concrete strength of f'
= 5000 psi at 90 days is specified for the new walls. Will the quali?ication of the modified complex be affected while this strength is being developed after concrete placement considering both in plane and out of plane wall loadings? Provide the basis for your response.
28.
Describe the procedures used to remove the rock during relocation of the railroad spur (e.g. blasting) and verify that there will be no impact on plant safety resulting from the removal of the rock.
29.
Describe in detail the ncdifications necessary to ensure the seismic qualification of the complex as a result of the strengthening or stiffening of the structure and the secuence in which they will be performed.
30.
Provide your evaluations of the effects of the proximity or configuration of hole patterns, including the effects of any cracking which is present in the walls.
31.
Summarize the details of your evaluations which determined that placement of the reinforcing steel, the forms and the concrete will not significantly degrade tne seismic capability of the complex.
Include a definition of significant.
32.
Sumnarize the loads and load combinations and corresponding acceptance criteria for which the diesel generator air intake will be designed.
Include a discussion of how the effects of the Turbine Building, a non-Category I structure, have been cor.sidered.
33-Provide the basis for r ;r determination that removal of the face masonry block and a portion of tne.ancrete core at colunn lines 41 and 46 on column line N'
.ill not significantl; ef fect the shear capacity of these walls.
n -
w-w 34.
Provide the capacity assumed for the dowels used to perform the wall modifications and the basis for this assumed capacity.
35.
Provide the basis for your determination that the connection of the guide columns between the Control and Turbine Buildings will not significantly effect the behavior of either structure during a seisnic event.
36.
Provide the basis for your determination that removal of portions of the Turbine Building will not effect the analysis referred to in Section 2 nor significantly affects its seismic capability.
37.
Provide the correlatior, wall for wall between the test specimens and the actual walls, and justification for the applicability of the test specimen results to the actual wall including a discussion of the similarities of such items as reinforcing steel ratio and continuity, encasement, material strengths, joint preparation (especially where drypack was used), etc.
With regard to the drypack, refer to the article bv Kahn and Hanson entitled, "Infilled Walls for Earthquake Strengt.ening" in the February 1979 ASCE Journal of the Structural Division.
This article describes a " brittle" failure of a test specimen with a drypack joint.
Discuss the implications of this with respect to the walls in the Trojan complev with the drypack joints and the applicability of the test results from specimens without drypack joints.
33.
Discuss the behavior of the test walls vs. those of the actual walls considering the large differences in tne H/T and L/T ratios.
Provide the basis for your response.
39.
Define " representative" as used in defining the struts used in specimens El, F2 and H2.
Include a discussion of the similarity between the way in which the struts were anchored into the bulkheads, thus encasing the wal vs. the way the walls are encased in the frame formed by the columns and beams in the actual structure.
Expand this to include a similar discussion for specimens L1 and L2.
Also, discuss the similarities between the horizontal steel anchorage at the edges of the test specimens vs. that of the actt.u i walls interrupted by openings, and those which intersect cross walls (e.g. the wall intersection at the intersection of column liries R and 55. )
40.
Provide the relationships betv.een stiffness and load degradation vs. the number of stress cycles at the stress levels to which the walls are loaded to substantiate that the structure will withstand several OBE's followed by an SSE.
Indicate the number of full stress reversal cycles considered for each event and the number of OBE's considered for evaluation purposes, and the basis for each choice.
41, Discuss in detail the error band associated with each of the test results (e.g., s ti f fnesses, s trengths, degradation, etc. ).
Exolain and justify how these were factored into your evaluation of the complex.
298
.267
. 42.
Discuss the bases for you statements regarding the strength differences between L1 and L2 in more detail.
Include further discussion of the effects of the shear studs in L1 since they were only at the base as indicated in Figure A3-2.
For all specimens, indicate the reinforcement anchorage details in the upper and lower beams.
43.
Describe in detail how the constant bending moment applied to the test specimens via the auxiliary loading system in conjunction with the main loading system compares to that which would exist due to and restraint in the actual Trojan walls, to justify the applicability to the test specimens results directly to the actual walls.
44.
Provide the relative displacement profiles between the complex and other structures, along with the allowable, at the computed OBE stress levels in the walls and the factored OBE stress levels in the walls considering the test data results.
45.
Considering the strength of the column connections for the actual walls, demonstrate that they are apable of resisting the axial forces indicated by those results for the columns inspecirens L1 and L2.
Justify any exceedences of the beam / column connection capacity.
46.
Provide the secant modulus derived for each of the test specimens vs. stress level; a comparison of the experimental initial elastic modulus for the test specimens vs. that calculated using the formula in Section 2.2.1.3.2 of Appendix G; the error bands, and their deviation, for the curves representing stiffness reduction as a function of stress level, and the stresses in each of the walls resulting from incorporation of the stiffness reduction factors in the STARDYNE model along with the associated stiffness reduction factors assumed in the analysis.
Since the stiffness reduction factors are not linear with stress level discuss the effect of transverse gross overturning moments and transverse inertial wall loadings, plus the effects of creep and shrinkage on the stiffness in a given direction.
Discuss the effecb cf the embedded steel framing and how it was incorporated into your analyses.
Alsc, indicate why tha results of the specimens with struts were not incorporated into your stiffness considerations.
47.
Provide the detailed bases for each of the variations assumed in Table B-2 in the calculations of the peak broadening percentage.
48.
Provide the SSE and the OBE floor response spectra f,r all elevations in the f.cmol ex.
49.
Compare the slopes of the sides of the peaks in floor response spectra for the complex f requer.cy shi f t vs. stress (therefore, ground acceleration) level as derived from the test data results to verify that the floo response spectra are conservative for all earthquake levels for botn the OBE and the SSE spectra.
Justify any non-censervative deviations.
298 268
~I' Verify that th' *'i9 nal FSpa Pipe break criteria are not ITPacted by tha 1
new 50' analyses.
269 29 0
.