ML19296D494
| ML19296D494 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1980 |
| From: | Herring K, Persinko D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296D476 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003040683 | |
| Download: ML19296D494 (10) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-344 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. )
(Control Building)
)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF KENNETH S. HERRING AND DREW PERSINKO ON PGE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION WITH REGARD TO CFSP CONTENTION 20 STATE OF MARYLAND
) S.i COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY)
I, Kenneth S. Herring, being duly sworn, depose and state:
1.
I am a Senior Structural Engineer, Engineering Branch, Division of Operating Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
2.
I have prepared the Statement of Professional Qualifications attached hereto, and if called upon, would testify as set forth therein.
3.
I have prime responsibility for that portion of the NRC Staff's review of the proposed modifications to the Trojan Control Building which deals with the structural adaquacy of those proposed modifications to bring the facility into substantial compliance with the license.
I am also primarily responsible for the Staff's evaluation of the structural-related effects of the proposed modification work itself on plant safety.
I, Drew Persinko, being duly sworn, depose and state:
4.
I am a Structural Engineer, Engineering Branch, Division of Operating Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
pmacg3
. 5.
I have prepared the Statement of Prefessional Qualifications attached hereto, and, if called upon, would testify as set forth therein.
6.
I am responsible, along with Kenneth S. Herring, for that portion of the NRC Staff's review of the proposed modifications to the Trojan Control Building which deals with the structural adequacy of those proposed modifications to bring the facility into substantial compli-ance with the license.
I am also responsible, along with Mr. Herring, for the Staff's evaluation of the structural-related effects of the proposed modification work itself on plant safety.
We, the affiants Kenneth S. Herring and Drew Persinko, being duly sworn, depose and state:
7.
Within the areas of our review responsibility, we are responsible for addressing CFSP Contention 20 which states:
20.
Inadequate assessment of the effects of drilling in the control building walls during modification has been made.
8.
We have reviewed in detail the proposed modification work with regard to drilling in Control Building walls which could reduce the shear capacity of the Control Building walls.,
9.
We have reviewed the Affidavits of Richard C. Anderson and William H.
White submitted in support of the Licensee's motion with regard to CFSP Contention 20.
10.
Based on our review and evaluation of the proposed modification work with regard to drilling in Control Building walls, we concur in and agree with statements set forth in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the
. Anderson Affidavit and paragraphs 9 and 10 of the White Affidavit.
However, for the reasons set forth below we cannot agree and concur in the conclusion set forth in paragraph 12 of the White Affidavit that ".
. drilling necessary to perform the modification work will not have an adverse effect on the shear capacity of the Control Building walls" or the statement in paragraph 12 of the Anderson Affidavit that the drilling necessary for the modification work will not harm the reinforcing steel in the walls.
11.
In paragraph 5 of the White Affidavit it is stated that the shear capacity of the wall is independent of loss of material due to drilling and that the limited damage to the steel in the wall if encountered by the drill would not affect the shear capacity of the wall. We do not agree.
When calculating wall shear capacity that is controlled by flexure, the capacity is dependent on area of steel present.
The Licensee has calcu-lated a maximum strength loss of 2% in a vall where there will be drilling.
This assumes that all rebars between columns 41-46 in a wall are damaged and this affects one panel in four, and that 75% of the capacity is con-tributed by the steel (25% from normal force). Actually, fewer than three panels exist along column lines R or N in the N-S direction in the Control Building.
Consideration of openings (e.g. doors) will further reduce this to approximately 2 1/2 in some locations.
This will change the 2% to approximately 3.5% strength loss due to reinforcing steel damage from drilling.
We believe that the percentage of steel removed through damage from drilling will be small and should not significantly afiect overall wall capacity; however, before this statement can be made positively,
. concerns over val] capacity and stiffness calculations delineated in the SER at Section 5 must be resolved to better quantify the effect of this steel removal.
The Licensee in PCE-1020, Section 5.3.2 states that the seismic capability was based on the more conservative of interim operation criteria or Section 3.4.2 of PGE-1020.
It must be verified that the double curva-ture capacity is less than the single curvature, sliding and shear capacities in the panels where steel can be nicked to assure that con-servative criteria are being used.
Also removal of concrete, masonry and grout material would affect flexural capacity if removed from the compression zone. Removal of material from the compression toe should have negligible effect on overall capacity but may cause a small amount of spalling in the vicinity of the holes.
12.
We cannot concur at this time with the last sentence in paragraph 6 and the last three sentences in paragraph 7 of the White Affidavit.
Removal of concrete, masonry and grout affects wall strength for walls controlled by the shear mode of failure.
The Licensee has calculated a maximum reduction in wall arco due to drilling of 6% in any plane. The shear failure mode can become controlling over the flexural mode if an excessive amount of material is removed from the wall.
It is believed that removal of this amount of material (6%) will not degrade shear capacity significantly.
However, due to effects addressed in the SER at Section 5, flexure capacity can increase with increased normal force (especially due to gross bending) and it is no longer clear that this new flexure capacity will be less than the shear capacity with the
- material removed. Additionally, below E1.77, the walls are double block where the allowable stress in the shear mode of failure is 150 psi, as opposed to 300 psi for composite walls.
This allowable stress of 150 psi must be considered when evaluating shear capacities with removal of material between E1.61-77.
The Licensee's Motion For Summary Disposition assumed only a 300 psi capacity.
13.
We cannot concur and agree with the statement in paragraph 8 of the White Affidavit regarding the tendency of a crack to develop along a single plane of bolt holes for the reason that the angle of orientation of the plane and the stress field in the wall being drilled have not been identified. Whether a crack will develope along a single plane of bolt holes is dependent upon the orientation of that plane relative to the stress field in the wall.
14.
We cannot concur and agree in the last sentence of paragraph 11 of the White Affidavit.
Abandoning partly drilled holes could result in a significant reduction in shear area and capacity. However, as discussed in the 12/17/79 PGE response to NRC question 1 of 10/2/79, drilling will be halted once area reductions reach the investigated limits.
In order to meet this commitment, the grout in abandoned holes must have attained strength comparable to that of the materials comprising the in-site
- walls, i.e., design strength.
Alternatively, the abandoned holes with grout not at the appropriate strength must be considered in calculating area reductions. As stated previously in this affidavit, these reduc-tions in shear capacity due to drilling should be small. However, the effects of such reductions on capacity to force ratios for walls where drilling will take place cannot be quanitfied until the concerns raised
. in the Staff's SER with regard to calculation of capacities and stiffnesses have been resolved and fir.al, correct capacity to force ratios have been adequately determined.
15.
Based on our review described in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, we can only agree and concur in Licensee's statement of material facts set forth in II.D. and II.E. of the motion with regard to CFSP Contention 20.
ll
//. /~ Yf.
/K r c ;ti.//
_X-N -( C U n Kenneth S. Herring l
W Trew'Persinko Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of February, 1980
[x
'l
& L H
Notapf Public My Commission Expires: July 1, 1982
PROFESSIONAL QlJALIFICATIONS OF KENNETH S. HERRING EXPERIENCE:
l Jan.1977 to' U.:i. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Present Engineering Branch, Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C.
20555 Applied Mechanics Engineer (1/77 to 1/79)
Structural Dynamicist (1/79 to 10/79)
Senior Structural Engineer.(10/79 to Present)
Responsible for the review, the analysis, and the evaluation of structural and mechanical aspects related to safety issues for reactor facilities licensed for power operation, and test reactor facilities, including e
the formulation of regulations and safety criteria. An emphasis is placed on seismic, impact and other dynamic loading considerations, in addition to static loading considerations; and linear and nonlinear, concrete and steel behavior.
Responsible for coordinating various outside technical assistance programs and internal tasks related to structural and mechanical applications to nuclear power plants.
Aug.1974 to Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Dec. 1976 3 Executive Campus Cherry Hill, New Jersey Structural Engineer in the Structural Mechanics Group Responsible for conducting static and dynanic, including seismic, finite element analysis and design of structures in nuclear power generation facilities.
Responsible for maintaining the Strucural Mechanics computer facilities at CHDC.
Fortran IV programing experience.
Aug.1973 to University of Illinois, Department of Civil Engineering Aug. 1974 Urbana, Illinois 61801 Research Assistant Responsible for conducting an investigation into the material properties of fiber reinforced concrete using quick-setting cements for the Department of Trans-portation, Federal Railroad Administration. A report on the outcome of the study was published.
EDUCATION: "
State University of New York at Stony Brook - Bachelor of Engineering -
May 1973' 1
i University of Illinois at Urbana-Cf ampaign - Master of Science in Civil Engineering (Structures) - August 1974.
ENGINEER-IN-TRAINING: New Jersey.
TECHNICAL SOCIETIES:
American Society of Civil Engineers - Associate Member - April 1974 to Present.
ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE COMMITTEES:
1 Secticn XI - Subgroup on Containment - 11 ember - January 1979 to Present.
l
=
Professional Qualifications of DREW PERSINK0 Experience September,1979 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Present Engineering Branch, Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C.
Structural Engineer Responsible for assisting in ths review and evaluation of the structural design of nuclear power plants.
1977 to Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1979 Cambridge, Massachusetts Research Assistant Responsible for designs and analyses of rein-forced concrete frames subjected to seismic
' loadings with the purpose of improving existing design codes. Results published in Mater's thesis.
1974 to E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.
1977 February 1975 to September 1977 Construction Engineer Employed in the Engineering Department, Construc-tion Division.
Directly responsible for field erection of part of a multi-million dollar petro-chemical plant expansion project in Orange, Texas. Worked closely with superintendents and foremen of all crafts.
Responsible for all work perfonned in the assigned area which include scheduling, planning, cost control, estimating change orders, quality control, and personnel safety.
Performed field structural design.
June,1974 to February,1975 Design Engineer Employed in the Architectural and Civil Section of the Engineering Department, Design Division; Wilmington, Delaware.
Responsible for the design of steel and concrete structures such as buildings, and equipment and piping supp6rts in industrial plants.
Also respon'sible for design of building and pipe support footings and equip-ment foundations.
2
~
Education Master of Science in Civil Engineering, May 1979 - Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Bachclor of Civil Engineering, May 1974 - University of Delaware - Newark, Delaware.
Additional Engineering Education George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas.
Professional Af ftiations American Society of Civil Engineers, Associate Member.
Engineer-in-Training - Delaware.
e
~.
m