ML19249E862
| ML19249E862 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1979 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Goodwin C PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910020633 | |
| Download: ML19249E862 (5) | |
Text
Th. ? 0 pR 8'tco gr
[o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION yg g
5., '
'C WASHINGTON,0. C. 20555
'o.....#
SEP 14 59 Docket No. 50-344 Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Assistant Vice President Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
In conducting our review of PGE-1020, " Report na Design Modifications for the Trojan Control Building," as supplemented :nd amended, we have determined that we will need the additional information identified in the enclosure to continue our review.
In order for us to maintain our review schedule, your response is requested as soon as possible. Three signed originals and forty copies are required.
Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this request.
Sincerely, NY
/
A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc: w/ enclosure See next page 7910020633" 1069 079
Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Portland General Electric Company cc: Mr. H. H. Phillips Mr. John A. Kullberg Portland General Electric Company Route One 121 S.W. Salmon Street Box 250Q Portland, Oregon 97204 Sauvie Island, Oregon 97231 Warren Hastings, Esquire Ms. Nina Bell Counsel for Portland General 728 S.E. 26th Street Electric Company Portland, Oregon 97214 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Mr. Stephen M. Willinghan 555 N. Tomahawk Drive Mr. Jack W. Lentsch, Manager Portl and, Oregon 97217 Generation Licensing and Analysis Portland General Electric Company Mr. Eugene Rosolie 121 S.W. Salmon Street Coalition for Safe Power Portland, Oregon 97204 215 S.E. 9th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97214 Columbia County Courthouse Law Library, Circuit Court Room Richard M. Sandvik, Esquire St. Helens, Oregon 97501 Frank W. Ostrander, Jr.
Counsel for Oregon Dept. of Director, Oregon Department of Energy Energy Labor and Industries Building, Room 111 500 Pacific Building Salem, Oregon 97310 520 S.W. Yamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Dr. Hugh D. Paxton 1220 41st Street Maurice Axel rad, Esquire Los Al amos, New Mexico 87544 Lowerstein, Newman, Reis, Axel rad and Toll Michael Malmrose Suite 1214 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Trojan Nuclear Plant Washington, D. C.
20036 P. O. Box 0 Rainier, Oregon 97048 Mr. David B. McCoy 348 Hussey Lane Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 Division of Engineering, Architecture and Technology Ms. C. Gail Parson Oklahoma State University 800 S.W. Green #6 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Portland, Oregon 97526 F
1069 080
Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Portland General Electric Company cc: William Kinsey, Esquire Dr. W. Reed Johnson 1002 N.E. Holladay Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Portland, Oregon 97232 Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic Ronald W. Johnson, Esquire Washington, D. C.
20555 Corporate Attorney Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Mr. Donald W. Godard, Supervisor Siting and Regulation Oregon Department of Energy Labor and Industries Building, Room 111 Salem, Oregon 97310 Robert M. Hunt, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Columbia County St. Helens, Oregon 97051 Marshall E. Miller, Esquire, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (5)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section (4)
Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 e
e 1069 08i
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING MODIFICATIONS 1.
Provide a detailed description of how the equivalent diameter was determined which was used in conputing the penetration 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.
3.
Provide a listing of all areas containing safety-related cables or equipment in which wood framing will be used during the nodification work.
4.
For the cable trays ABA401, ABA010, and ABA380, which nay be exposed to a drop of a plate washer in excess of 3 feet, you have stated that suitable guides or alternate protection will be provided. Describe the guides or alternate protection and show pictorially how the protection will work.
5.
Your response regarding the use of grout for installation of rebar into the existing walls and rock does not adequately justify its acceptability in these applications. Therefore, provide the following:
a) Ver.ification that inactive carbon, sand and cement are the only constituents of the grout and that contains no other materials.
b) Substantiation that the expansion of the grout in only the plastic stage is sufficient considering the effects of any shrinkag which may occur beyond that in the plastic stage.
If there is any expansion beyond the plastic range, substantiate that it's effects are negligible with regar/ to splitting of the existing naterials (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 naterials similar to those in which the rebar will be grouted (i.e., concrete grouted nasonry block and rock), and (3) using the same type rebar as that to be used at Trojan that the full rebar strength will be developed in every case. In addition to the tests mentioned in the specification CRD-C588-78, the following tests should be perforned: 1) tensile tests on the grout in accordance with ASTM Specification C190-77, and 2) strength tests on full-scale specinens representing the proposed anchorages in accordance with the spirit of ASTM Specification E488-76.
1067 082
- 6. Provide the results of your analyses showing that plates 1 through 6 are sufficient to sustain without detrimental effects on plates 1-6, the structure, equipment, components, piping, or cable trays, the impact of plate 8 should a drop of plate 8 occur.
Include (a) a detailed description all assumptions used in the analyses, and (b) detailed justification for all of the assunptions used in the analyses, all of the loads and all of the acceptance criteria relied upon. Include an identical discussion for plate 7.
- 7. Propose an inservice inspection program for the bolts to be used to provide for shear transfer between the new and existing <;ructural elements.
Provide and justify the bases on which it can br 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.
- 8. PGE-1020 indicates that the plates to be installed on the west wall of the Control Building will be used as foms for concrete to be poured. Other infomation has indicated that these plates will not be used for.oncrete foms. Verify that the plates to be installed on the west walls will be used as foms for concrete.
If this is the case:
(1) specifically identify the plates that will be so used, and (2) provide the details of your analy;is which demonstrate that these plates will be seismically gaalified throughout all work phases. Provide detailed justifications for all criteria and assumptions relied upon in your enalyses.
- 9. Your September 5,1979 response to structural question 24 is unacceptable. Since reliance is being placed on test data which considere'i only planar loads, and ultimate strengths are determined from this test data, it is necessary to assure that the out-of-plane earthquake conponent does not significantly reduce the strengths determined from the consideration of the test results. Therefore, in light of the above-referenced question resulting from your July 6, 1979 response to question 17, provide the details of your analyses to demonstrate that tne effects of the out-of-plane earthquake component will not significantly affect the attainment of the assumed capacities. Provide detailed justifications for all assumptions and criteria relied upon.
- 10. Verify that the computer program WECAN was used only for linear elastic analyses. Additionally, verify that the conputer program verifications for the CYLN0Z, SPHN0Z and DESREV neet the requirements of Standard Review Plan Section 3.9.1.II.
1069 083