ML19296D819
| ML19296D819 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1980 |
| From: | William White BECHTEL GROUP, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296D792 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003130284 | |
| Download: ML19296D819 (7) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,)
Docket No. 50-344 et al.
)
(Control Building
)
Proceeding)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. WILLIAM H. WHITE COALITION FOR SAFE POWER'S CONTENTION NO. 20 1.
My name is William H.
White.
I am employed by Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) as an Engineering Specialist in the San Francisco Power Division.
I have been employed in this position since 1976.
My professional qualifications are contained in an attachment to this affidavit.
2.
I participated in the performance of the seismic analy-sis of the Trojan Control Building, Auxiliary Building, and Fuel Building Complex (Complex) for the licensing proceedings on interim operation, and have either performed or supervised the seismic analysis of the Complex with the proposed modifi-cations.
I also participated in the evaluation of the shear capacities of the walls in the Complex.
3.
The purpose of this affidavit is to address, in part, Coalition for Safe Power's Contention No. 20 which reads:
Inadequate assessment of the effects of drilling in the control building walls during modifications, has been made.
8003180 2 ti(f
CFSP #20 Page 2 of 6 Dr.
W.
H. White 4.
The affidavit of Mr. Richa rd C.
Anderson concerning this contention addresses the effects of drilling upon the rein-forcing steel in the Control Building walls and on equipment attached or adjacent to these walls.
This affidavit will evaluate the effects of the drilling during modification work on the shear capacity of the Control Building walls.
As will be explained below, the evaluation shows that the drilling will not degrade the structural integrity of the walls in the Control Building and that the shear capacity of these walls will not be reduced.
5.
In the more conservative of the two methods used to de-termine the shear wall capacities of the modified Complex, the capacities are computed from the flexure analysis equation described in Section 3.4.2.2 of the " Report on Design Modifi-cations for the Trojan Control Building", PGE-lO20.
When wall strength is controlled by the flexural mode of failure, the shear capacity of the wall is dependent on the amount of reinforcing steel present, and is independent of loss of material due to drilling.
As stated by Mr. Anderson in his affidavit, the reinforcing steel will be avoided during the drilling process.
Further, Mr. Anderson stated that, even if the steel in the wall were to be encountered by the drill, damage would be limited to polishing or, at most, a nick.
Such limited damage to the reinforcing steel would not affect the shear capacity of the wall as determined by the flexure equation.
CFSP #20 Page 3 of 6 Dr.
W.
H.
White 6.
The other method used to determine wall capacities as-sumed that wall strength was controlled by the shear mode of failure as discussed in Section 3.4.2.1 of PGE-1020.
This results in significantly higher wall capacities than those determined by flexural analysis.
The capacity of a wall which fails in a shear mode is directly proportional to the cross-sectional area of the wall (i.e.,
the area of a hori-zontal bisecting plane).
Drilling holes in the wall will re-move material and will thus reduce the cross-sectional area of the wall available to resist shear.
If an excessive amount of material were to be removed, the capacity of the wall defined by shear controlled failure could become less than the flexur-al capacity of the wall.
In that event, the shear failure mode would control, and from then on the capacity of the wall would be reduced by further drilling.
As discussed below, however, that will not be the case for the limited amount of drilling in the Control Building walls.
7.
As stated by Mr. Anderson in his affidavit, only the walls on Column Lines R and N will be drilled through.
The total reduction in the cross-sectional area of either wall due to drilling will be small (less than 6%).
The test results, as described in Section 3.4.2.1 of PGE-1020, show that 300 psi is the lower bound for a shear controlled failure for any com-posite shear wall of the Complex.
The shear capacity of any wall obtained by using 300 psi in conjunction with the cross-sectional area of the wall, reduced by the area lost due to drilling, is greater than the shear capacity obtained from the flexure equation.
Thus, the shear mode of failure is not
CFSP #20 Page 4 of 6 Dr. W.
H.
White controlling and the reduction in cross-sectional area due to drilling will not reduce the wall's shear capacity.
8.
The pattern of the bolt holes will not reduce the shear capacity of the wails.
The reduction of the cross-sectional area on any plane is insignificant (less than 6%).
- Moreover, the belt holes to be drilled will not traverse the entire struc-ture along any single plane.
Therefore, any tendency for a crack to develop along a single plane of bolt holes would be stopped by the portion of the wall without holes.
9.
The effect of drilling on any existing cracks in the Control Building walls has been considered, and it has been determined that it will not affect the strength of the walls.
A visual inspection has confirmed that cracks in the Control Building walls where drilling might take place are hairline cracks and do not indicate a plane of weakness in the wall.
Thus, they have no effect on either the vertical reinforcing steel or the total shear area of the wall, and therefore do not affect the wall's shear capacity.
Because the cracks are so small, they would not expand even if drilling were to occur directly on them.
10.
Coalition for Safe Power's response to Staff Interrogatory C20-4 referred to an alleged crack identified as " Location at the 69 ft level eastside Control Building wall, 35 milimeters (sic) wide depth approximately 1 inch and 5 ft long."
CFSP #20 Page 5 of 6 Dr. W.
H.
White The only crack to which Coalition for Safe Power could pos-sibly be referring is a vertical crack located on the east side of the west (R-line) wall of the Control Building.
This crack is only 35 mils (.035 inches) wide at its greatest width.
Although it is not expected that any drilling will be done in this crack, for the reasons given in paragraph 9 above, any such drilling would have no effect on the shear capacity of the wall.
11.
If, as described in the affidavit of Mr. Anderson, it is necessary to abandon a partly drilled hole because rein-forcing steel has been encountered, the hole will be fully grouted before a replacement hole is drilled.
Since the re-duction in shear area owing to any such abandoned hole would be insignificant, the replacement hole may be drilled even if the grout in the abandoned hole has not yet developed its designed strength.
12.
Thus, as discussed above, the drilling necessary to per-form the modification work will not have an adverse ef fect on the shear capacity of the Control Building walls.
CFSP #20 Page 6 of 6 Dr.
W.
H.
White I, William H. White, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, state that I have reviewed the foregoing affidavit, and that the statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
k.-
s
,' s WILLIAM H.
WHITE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
ty of en b C
)
c, SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 62 day of
- d ort h y 1930
/
2
<- b
~
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR CALIFORNIA My Commission Expires b y.7C #f6c V
a m ummunnum muu n mm u m u n ui...."' S E
M/.XU!E E. LO2Y!:';57E ;l 5 i /bk Nyla..e
..2.;c...,
y,,2 E
!3
,'['
Cl!Y f. (0..iis
<>F w..
.u gg j j
My Co.mn.L..a Ea;.r:s !!ay.3,1,30 jj 3 5HIIIIIllllBIIHilla48tia8Eldladdsageild;ggeggggggggggg h
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF WILLIAM H.
WHITE PRESENT POSITION Engineering Specialist, Bechtel Power Corporation EDUCATION BS, Civil Engineering, University of Idaho; MS, Civil Engineering, University of Colorado; PhD., Civil Engineering, University of Colorado.
PROFESSIONAL Registered Professional Engineer, Oregon DATA Member, American Society of Civil Engineers.
SUMMARY
3 years:
Engineering Specialist 2 years:
Structural Engineer 6 years:
Assistant Professor 1 year:
Senior Engineer EXPERIENCE Dr. White has been employed as an Engineering Specialist with Bechtel's San Francisco Power Division since 1976.
He is assigned to the Chief Civil Engineer's Staff where he is responsible for seismic analysis.
Earlier, Dr. White was a Structural Engineer with the Tennessee Valley Authority for 2 years where he was responsible for seismic analysis of all Category I structures for a twin-uni'_ nuclear power plant, including the seismic input for the design of the nuclear steam supply system.
From 1968 to 1974, Dr. White was an Assistant Professor at Oregon State University where he taught undergraduate and graduate courses in structural mechanics and analysis and computer applications.
Prior to joining Oregon State, Dr. White was em-ployed at the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory for a year.
At Bettis, he was a Senior Engineer working on shock analysis of nuclear reactors a-board submarines and was involved in programs to assess the shock resistance of reactor internals.