ML19259D268
| ML19259D268 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1979 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Goodwin C PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910170529 | |
| Download: ML19259D268 (15) | |
Text
,b*
3 pmarcq 7%
UNITED STATES
[ j r.
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\y
)
OCTOBER 2 E9 ~
Docket No. 50-344 Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Assistant Vice President Portland General Electric Company 1:1 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. Whereas it is not possible to detemine at this time if there will be additional questions, the enclosed request covers all remain-ing areas of concern. Therefore, with these questions and the others sent to you on September 14, 20 and 28, our review ha; progressed to the point where a meeting would be of benefit in expeditiously resolving the open items addressed in our requests for additional information. Please contact us to schedule a mutually convenient time after you have studied these recent requests and determined how you plan to address these questions and concerns.
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, A. $chwencer,' Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc: w/ enclosure See next page jjg) ggg 7 910170 T d f f
- tr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Portland General Electric Company cc:
Mr. H. H. Phillips Mr. Jn".n 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 St~ ct Portland, Oregon 37204 Mr. Stephen M. Willingham 555 N. Tomahawk Drive Mr. Jack W. Lentsch, Mana? r Pcrtland, Oregon 97217 Generation Licensing and Analysis Portland General Electric Company Mr. Eugene Rosolie 121 S.W. Salmon Street Coalition for Safe Power Portiand, Oregon 97204 215 S.E. 9th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97214 Columbia County Courthouse Law Library, Circuit Court Room Richard M. Sandvik, Esqui'e 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, New1an, Reis, Axelrad and Toll Michael Malarose 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. McCollo.. Dean Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 Division of Engineering, Architecture and Technology Ms. C. Gail Parson Oklahana State University 800 S.W. Green #6 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Portland, Oregon 97526 1162 269
Mr. Charles aoodwin, Jr.
Portland General Electric Company cc: William Kinsey, Esquire Dr. W. Reed Johnson 1002 N.E. Holladay Atomic Safety and 1.icensing Appeal Portland, Oregon 97232 Board U. S. Nuclear Rr.gulatory Commission 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 ard Industries Building, Room 111 Salem, Oregon 97310 Robert M. Hunt, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Columbia Cor.ty St. Helens, Oregon 97051 Marshall E. Miller, Esquire, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Reculatory 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 1162 270
s RE0 VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TROJAN CONTROL BUILDIfG 1.
Your motion for summary disposition indicates that a core drill is to be used to drill holes in the existing wall's.
Previous indications were that a core drill was not to be used, but rather a star drill.
Provide a detailed basis for your conclusion that the reinforcement will not be significantly damaged by contact of the core drill and that contact will be immediately detected by the drill operator considering the strength of the concrete and aggregate used for the construction of the in-situ walls.
Include a detailed discussion of how the sa'ety-related conduits embedded in the R wall will be avoided. Addit ionally, your June 29, 1979 response to question 30 indicates that abandoned holes will be fully grouted before replacement holes are drilled. Verify that the grout will have attained its required strength before replacement holes are drilled.
Also, provide the properties of the grout which will be used and justify the acceptability of the grout for the proposed application and your procedure for detemining that the grout has attained its required properties before the replacement hole is drilled. Al so,
state how many holes can be drilleo before a wall is degraded signi-flantly if the grout has not been allowed to ~ develop the required strength and justify all assumptions and conclusions.
2.
Your July 6,1979 responses to questions 16 and 43 indicate that the ultimate capacity of the beam / column connections are taken as 2.8 times the AISC working stress capacities.
Ycur July 10, 1979 response to question 46 indicates that the appropriate factor is 2 rather than 2.8.
Verify the appropriate value. Additionally, l}b.d d[)
s
. the response to question 16 indicates that this facter is based upon consideration of bearing and tensile limitations on the connecticn angles and pure shear on the bolts. Substantiate that consideration of shear in the clip angles and any moments induced in the connection would not cause the ultimate connection capacity to be less than the assumed factor times the AISC working stress allowables, the assumed factor being based merely upon the ratio of ultimate tensile strength obtained from a tensile test to the code allowable tensile strength. Substantiate that localized concrete crushing is precluded such that it will not detrimentally impact the assumed strength. Also, substantiate the acceptability of the assumed ultimate tensile strength of the steel.
3.
Your June 29 response to question 11 and September 5 response to question 12 indicate that shear friction capacities at the wall / slab interfaces are taken as:
V = 1.4 (Asfy + N)
Your June 29 response to question 41 illustrates that the test specimens indicate that a better capacity is given by:
V = 1.28 (Asfy + N)
Verify which was used in your analyses of the Trojan walls. Did the reinforcement ratio considered for specimens L1 and L2 include the area of the embedded columns? Justify in detail the conservativeness of the relation-ship utilized considering the conditions present for the Trojan walls 1162 272
s
. and the fact that the ACI Code does not allow fo.- the same contribution to capacity from the normal force as from the reinforcenent.
(The contribution of the steel to the apparent coefficient of friction includes contributions from the bending, shearing and kinking of the steel in addition to that from the normal force.)
Consider that the value of 1.4 for an apparent coeff.cient of friction is for nonolithic reinforced concrete and describe how the construction joints, mortar joints and lack of aggregate in the concrete block were factored into your evaluation. Additionally, stirrups around the columns in test specimens L1 and L2 provided restraint for these columns. Substantiate that similar restraints exist for the columns in the in-situ walls or describe in detail any differences and how these were considered. Justify all conclusions and assumptions in detail.
4.
Your July 6 response to question 16 references tests conducted by Pauley et al. on roughened reinforced concrete joints to substantiate an apparent coefficient of friction of 1.4 for the consideration of shear transfer into the crors wall of corners R-55 and N-55.
Justify the applicability of these tests at these intersections of the Trojan walls considering:
(1) the embedded column steel and concrete interface along with the discontinuous core steel; (2) any construction joints; (3) nortar joints; (4) lack of aggregate in the block; and (5) cell grout and concrete block interfaces.
Ii6.2 273
s
. 5.
Your July 6 response to question 16 indicates that the vertical 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 1666 kips and 1593 kips, respectively.
Provide the correct shear forces.
6.
Your July 6 response to question 16 discusses displacement compatibility for the resistance forces contributed by the beam / column connection and the reinforcement through shear friction.
It is essential that each point on the vertical corner line achieve its required resistance at essentially the same time such that premature failure of sone elements will not lead to progressive overall failure.
Therefore:
a) Substantiate your assumption that every point on the corners has a vertical displacement such that cach point will develop its required resistance force at the same time as the other points.
b) Demonstrate that the vertical deflections required to develop the shear friction and connection resistances at corners R-55 and N-55 are compatible with the predicted horizontal deflections.
c) The referenced test data of Pauley et al. shows that the peak shear friction resistances were developed at displacements of i 16.!
R 4
s 0.02 to 0.03 inche:; and that at displacement of about 0.10 inches the resistances maintained were reduced from the peak value by about as much as 20 to 25 percent. Substantiate your determination that these indicated reductions do not have a significant detrimental impact on your calculated capacities. Also, at what displacement level did the D specimen reach its peak resistance?
d) Discuss the effect3 of the differences between the test specimens in (c) above and the in-situ walls, listed in the previous question 4, on the displacements at which the peak resistances will be reached.
e) Substantiate that the displacement level at which the assumed ultimate beam / column strength is developed is not significantly affected (increased) by the consideration of stresses and resulting deformations induced in the concrete.
7.
Your July 6 response to question 43 illustrates that the double curvature assumption is conservative as compared to the single curvature assumption. With regard to the single curvature capacity derivation given there:
a) Address the points raised in question 2, 4 and 6 above.
I162
<./5
s b) Substantiate that the moment resistance contributed by the continuous vertical reinforcement is available at the same time as are the other assumed resistances.
8.
Your July 6 response to question 45 indicates that the stiffnesses incorporated in the STARDYNE analysis were derived from the test results for specimens L1 and L2 which implicitly had incorporated into them the effects of the embedded frame. These were referred to as upper bound stiffnesses.
Your July 10 response to questien 46 filustrates that the frame was considered as additional rein-forcing steel. Justify this seeming double consideration of the steel framing.
9.
Your June 29 response to question 3 and PGE-1020, Revision 2 indicates that the appropriate factor of safety for the Nelson studs is 2.
Your June 22 response to question 22 indicates that a factor of 3 was used in the design of the st. is and, therefore, may be more appropriate.
Clarify this apparent inconsistency.
10.
Your September 5 response to question 22 discusses only the average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, yet the response of the same date to question 5 states that daily as well as seasonal variations were considered. Therefore, state the tenperature variations considered 1162 2/6
s
. in your evaluation and substantiate the adequacy of these in light of the seasonal and daily temperature variations.
Illustrate how changes in mean wall temperature have been considered and how stresses other than shear stresses resulting from the temperature gradients were considered. Show how these temperature effects have been incorporated into the evaluation of the additional as well as the existing walls.
11.
Provide the properties of the grout which will be used for purposes other than the grouting of additional rebar. Justify the adequacy of the grout to perform its intended function.
12.
Quantify the maximum extent of cracking (sizet and distribution) of the walls considering all combined loadings. Provide detail ed justifications for all assumptions and conclusions.
13.
Substantiate that the loading combinations considered in your evaluations are governing considering all other loading combinations delineated in Section 3.8 of the Trojan FSAR for the Complex and the Turbine Building. Also, provide the basis for your exclusion of certain loads indicated in the FSAR load conbinations.
14 Substantiate the use of the 1.4 apparent coefficient of friction in your September 5 response to question 13.
Ii62 277
s
- 15. Verify for the shear friction transfer bet' ween the slab and wall at el.117', discussed in your September 5 response to question 12(c), that the appropriate limitation on the naximum shear that can be resisted by this mechanism is met and that there are no construction joints such that the conctete can be considered to be cast monolithically.
- 16. Your July 10 response to question 13 indicates that the maximum vertical amplification factor is 16 percent while your September 5 response to question 15 indicates that it is 13 percent. Therefore, provide the correct maximum vertical amplification factor.
- 17. Your September 5 response to question 15 says that the south wall as a whole will not experience any tension. Will parts of this wall experience any tension? If so, quantify the magnitude and the extent and justify the acceptability of the tension.
18.
In your September 5 responses to questions, the response to question
- 17. indicates that for the combination of dead, live and SSE loadings, the maximum allowable stress in bending and tension is limited to 0.9 fy and the maximum allowable shear stress is limited to 0.5 fy.
Verify that this limitation was imposed for the evaluations of steel elements discussed in the responses to questions 18 and 25.
Il62 278
s 19. Your September 15 response to questian 29 is not adequate.
a) State the codes used in the design of the anchorages for the bumping posts and the allowable stress limits.
b) At each of the assumed ductilities, summarize the stresses in the conpression members of the post and the corresponding allowable stresses, alsg with the basis for the allowable stresses.
c) Provide the bases for your determination that all connections are adequate to develop the stated ductilities.
d) Describe how the actual strengths of the steel (vs. Code allowables) and strain hardening and strain rate effects were factored into your evaluation and design.
20.
Provide the SSE and OBE floor response spectra which you committed
'to provide in your June 22 response to question 48.
In addition, provide a table which summarizes the capacity to force ratios for all other walls in the complex which have not been provided as yet (including those in the Fuel Building).
For this table, indicate the basis on which you detemined the capacities and loads to substantiate compliance with the criteria delin'eated in Section 3.8 of the Trojan FSAR.
- 21. Your Septenber 5 response to question 28 is inadequate.
a)
Provide a detailed basis for your selection of 3 OBE's for the evaluation of the Complex.
b)
Your response only addressas the number of cycles exceeding 90% of the maximum stress Nithin a given earthquake, yet there i16.! 2/9
s are other significant stress cycles at l'evels below this. Therefore, consider an effective number of full stress cycles considering all cycles of stress within an earthquake. Provide detailed justifications for all assumptions and conclusions regarding the derivation of the total number of effective stress cycles.
Additionally, provide the basis for your conclusion that the stiffness degradations of 25 percent in 11 cycles for specimen G1, 21 percent in 5 cycles for specimen L1, and 27 percent in 6 cycles for specimen L2, as shown in your July 10 response to question 40, indicate that stiffness degradation is minor.
Also, ciscuss an detail why the negative stiffness degradation factor for specimen A4 does not invalidate your calculation of initial stiffness for the walls and thereby have a significant non-conservative impact on your calculations. Provide a detailed basis for all assumptions and conclusions.
c) Quantify the impact of your conc'usions in (a) and (b) on the assumed deflections, stiffnesses and capacities.
d) Quantify the maximum strains in the steel (reinforcement and beam / column connections). Justify the ability of the steel to sustain the required number of maximun effective strain cycles.
22.
In your July 6 response to question 17, you indicate that the amount of inelastic strain was estimated by ecuating tne strain iI62 280
s energy of the elastic stress-strain curve due to a static applica-tion of load to the area under a stress-strain curve beyond yield.
Justify the technical validity of this approach (and its conserva-tiveness), in detail, for the consideration of the effects of earthquake loadings in the inelastic region.
23.
Provide an outline of your calculations to detemine capacities, the stiffness degradation factors and the variations in these stiffness degradation factors, and the associated variations in all parameters (shear stress, nomal stress, reinforcement, etc.) affecting these for a represertative set of actual Trojan walls. For all walls, provide a summary of the capacities, and the stiffness degradation factors and the assumed variations in these factors, along with the associated values assumed for the parameters con.ributing to the capacities, and stiffness degradation factors and the assumed variations.
a)
For the parameters affecting capacity, indicate the percentage
' contribution of each parameter to the total capacity. State whether the parameters are means or extremes, and justify the acceptability as such.
b)
For the parameters affecting stiffness degradation, substantiate that each parameter is a mean parameter.
c)
For the vTriations assumed for the stiffness degradation factors, state values assumed for the paraneters which affect stiffness degradation factor variations and the effect that variations in these Il62 281
s
. parameters have on the assumed variations in the stiffness degradation factors. Substantiate that the potential variations in these parameters are adequately accounted for by the variations in stiffness degradation factors assumed in your analyses.
24.
Substantiate that the wall depicted in ~your September 5 response to question 27 is representative of the actual conditions found in the Trojan walls.
25.
Confirm that all information in PGE-1020, Revision 2, and all submittals in support of this application to date contain infor-mation which is consistent, and accurately and clearly reflect your methodologies and practices in the design and construction of the Control Building Complex and in the proposed nodifications.
Identify and justify any discrepancies, ll62 282
.