ML19250B627
| ML19250B627 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1979 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Goodwin C PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911010239 | |
| Download: ML19250B627 (6) | |
Text
-
',(p" "%,,o,,
.(
UNITED STATES y
' s,( 3 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 '- " L-E WASHINGTO N, D. C. 20555 h
September 20, 1979
.el mW s
Docket No. 50-344
//7 />
C'j
& {. d i M'
4C y,\\
5 9,'f v M/
n Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Assistant Vice President d
\\ */ ^7 f
Portland General Electric Company
[@)
121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
In conducting our review of PGE-1020, " Report on Design Modifications for the Trojan Control Building," as supplemented and amended, we have deter-mined that we will need the additional information identified in the enclosure to continue our review.
These questions are the same as those telecopied to you yesterday.
Further requests for additional information will be forth-coming soon.
Your respon'se is requested as soon as possible.
Three signed originals and forty (40) copies are required.
Please contact us if you have any questions concerning*this request.
Sincerely, j,'
(18WL A.'Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc: w/ enclosure See next page t
1280 091 7911010 2-37
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.l7214 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Mr. Stephen M. Willingham 555 N. Tonahawk Drive Mr. Jack W. Lentsch, Manager Portland, 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 Axelrad, Esquire Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Lowenstein, Newcan, Reis, Axelrad 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 97 Division of Engineering, Archite. ture and Technology Ms. C. Gail Parson Oklahoma State University 800 S.W. Green #6 Stillwater, Oklahona 74074 Portland, Oregon 97526 1280 092
Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Portland General Electric Company cc: William Kinsey, Esquire Dr. W. Reed Johnson 1002 N.E. Holladay Atomic Safety and Licensing Appea' Portland, Oregon 97232 Board
~
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi:
R'onald 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. Nu : lear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (5)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 D:.cketing 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 1280 093
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT 1.
Verify that the Nelson studs are being placed in accordance with all criteria required by "Embedment Properties of Headed Studs" by the Nelson Division of TRW. Additionally, sub tantiate the conservatism of the shear / tension interaction relationship assumed for the reinforcement and the studs in your September 5,1979 response to question 3.
2.
In your July 10, 1979 response to question 13,.;n unrestrained strain of 100.x 10 exp -6 in/in (and a restrained strain of 70 x 10 exp -6 in/in) ;s assumed for the in-situ walls.
In your September 5,1979 response to question 11, an unrestrained shrinkage strain of 280 x 10 exp -6 in/in is assumed for the new walls.
In your September 5, 1979 response to question 22, shrinkage strains are calculated to be 174 x 10.exp -6 in/in for the new walls and assumed to be 200 x 10 exp -6 in/in for the existing walls, the latter being based upon the assumption that new concrete placed against the existing wall causes the existing to swell (as would be the case for the block when the core concrete was*placed). These values are extremely inconsistent. Justify this inconsistency in detail, and provide calculations indicating how each was established (in addition to those already provided) along with justifications for all assumptions (including those for calculations already provided), including details of the associated concrete mixes.
3.
With regard to your September 5,1979 response to question 22, provide the details of your determinations of E (sub) shu and C (sub) u and justify all assumptions in detail.
4.
With regard to your September 5, 1979 response to question 11, the 99ation used to calculate concrete tensile stresses re-suiting from shrinkage, taken from the referenced book by Park and Pauley, is based upon consideration of a beam with unrestrained end conditions. This is not the case for the walls you are considering. Use of this equation would appear not to be conservative and your resulting conclusions would not be realistic. Therefore, justify the conservativeness of this equation by submitting an analysis which considers the actual situation (i.e., the fixity of the wall boundaries) including detailed justification for all assumptions.
1280 09A
5.
Your September 5, 1979 response to question 17 indicates that, for your analysis of the effects of plate handling on existing structures, the combination of dead, live, and impact loads for the crane girder and floor at el. 93 in the Turbine Building considered an impact load equal to 25% of the live load.
d) Justify the use of this factor for the floor beam calculations since Section 1.-.3 of the 7th edition of the AISC Specification would indicate that 33% is more appropriate for nomal handling.
b)
In the consideration of a chain fal failure, the redundant chain fall which is merely held taut (essentially carrying no load) would see a suddenly applied load that would be amplified by 2 (not the 1.25 considered above). Therefore, provide the details of an analysis, for the plate which produces the worst loading, considering the realistic dynanic behavior resulting from the failure of a chain fall which demonstrates that your acceptance criteria are not violated. Justify all assumptions relied upon.
.c ) If a plate were to be dropped on the flo[ at el. 93, the effects would b~e in excess of those given the consideration of an impact load equal to 25% of the live l oad. Therefore, provide the details of an analysis which
.demorstrates that this drop would not have unacceptable consequences.
Provide the drop heights considered. Justify in detcil all assumptions, loads, and load combinations and acceptance criteria relied upon.
6.
In your September 5,1979 response to question 12(a) regarding the impact of the recent PCA test results on the coefficients of. friction assumed in your analysis, the following major conclusions of the PCA test results were not addressed:
1) that bond between the grout and steel was negligible, 2) that the initial coefficients of friction (i.e., those at the point at which initial slip occurred) were lower than the peak coefficient for all specimens, and 3) that the coefficient of friction tended to decrease with increasing compressive force.
(The compressive stresses at the steel / wall interfaces resulting from bolt tension are substantially higher than the 60 psi results which you considered).
1280 095
O
% Therefore, provide a complete and comprehensive discussion, considering all of the conclusions from the PCA tesing, which demonstates that your assumed coefficients of friction exist in light of these test results.
Include a comparison of the materials you.are using versus those used for the tests. Additionally, consider that the value of 0.7 suggested in the ACI Codes is independent of clipp6se amplitude, in conjunction with item (3) above and the PCA test results which show that for the dry steel / concrete interfaces the coefficient of friction decreased with increasing displacement.
1280 090 O
9 9
f 9
O