ML19305A125
| ML19305A125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1978 |
| From: | Axelrad M, Rachel Johnson, Wight J LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL, PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305A118 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901040151 | |
| Download: ML19305A125 (9) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BC'ARD In the Matter of
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No. 50-344 et al.
(Control Building Proceeding)
)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
_~
A LICENSEE'S SUPPLEMENTARY PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CCNCLUSIONS OF LAW CONCER'iING INTERIM OPERATION j'
Decerter 6, 1978 i
RONALD W.
JCHNSON, ESQ.
Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W.
Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 92704 Telephone:
(503) 266-8879 j
MAURICE AXELRAD, ESQ.
JOEL S. WIGHT, ESQ.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, A:<elrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
3 i
Suite 1214 Washington, D.C.
20036 Telephone:
(202) 862-8400
)
79010_401 S(
- 49a -
C'IITED STATES OF A'iERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC:01ISSICN BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY )
Cocket No. 50-344 et al.
)
(Control Building Proceeding)
)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
)
LICE!!SEE'S SUPPLEME::TARY PROPOSED FINDI::GS OF FACT A::D CCNCLUSIONS OF LAW CONCERMI::G INTERIM OPERATION 22a.
[To be inserted at conclusion cf hearings cc=mancins December 11, 1978 to provide a current procedural background.]
B.
Evaluations and Analyses Considerinc Response Scectra of Conc. lex 82a.
In addition to evaluating the potential effects on equipment of maximum structural displacement, the effects on equipment of the amplitude and frequency of a structure 's response to a seismic event are also considered.
For this purpose, the response of a structure in terms of acceleration amplitude as a function of frequency is plotted.
The resulting curve, termed a response spectra curve, is then used co qualify equipment.
Equipment for the Plant was qualified initially prior to issuance of the operating license in accordance with
49b -
i we FSAR Section 3.7.
At the time of the issuance of LER 78-13 (Li-cansee Exh. 6) in May, 1973, Licensee concluded based en information considered during the reevaluation study of the Control Building's seismic capacity t.:at seismically qualified equipment, piping, systems and components within the Control Building were unaffected by the deficiency.
(Licensee Exh. 9B (Response to Question 10) ;
Tr. 2337 ( Anderson) ; 2350-51 (White)).
Following completion of the STARDYNE analysis in August, 1978, Licensee examined the l
effects of that analysis on equipment qualification in response to NRC Staf f questions regarding the qualification of certain
~
equipment, systems, ccmponents and piping within the Complex, i
i.e.,
those requir 1 to event an accident or mitigate the consequences of an accident so as to assure that offsite releases such as ECCS and exceeding 10 CFR 100 guidelines will not occur, safe shutdown equipment (" safety-related equipment").
Extensive information as to the effect of the STARDYMF analyses on equipment qualifications was submitted to the NRC Staff with copies to the 1973.
(See Board and parties from September through November, Licensee Exhs. 9D (Response to Question 3b), 9E (Response to Ques-tions 6, 8, 12, 16, 17, 18), 9F (Response to Question 3), 9G, 19, 20, 21, 22; Herring III, NRC Staff Exh. 9
).
This information i
j Licensee's submittals of November 22 and 24, 1978 are herein designated as-Licensee Exhs. 21 and 22, respectively.
The NRC Staff's testimony filed on November 25, 1978 is i
herein designated as Herrine III, NRC S ta f f E>:h. 9.
I i
'~
ww - - - -_. _,___:
- 49c -
included consideration that the Complex might respond with poten-J tially lower natural frequencies than had been predicted based on i
earlier-analyses, due to the effects of. stiffness reduction and inelastic behavior (e.g.,
flexural and shear cracking, higher damp-j ing and redistribution,,of load) or that it might respond with i
potentially higher frequencies based _on the hypothetical assump-tion that the structure remains totally elastic (Tr. 2337-38 (Anderson)).
82b.
In order to assess and quantify the~e effects, Licensee prepared a new acceleration time history for ground e
i motion and horizontal response spectra based on the results of STARDYNE analyses, including consideration of stiffness reduction and present material properties.
Licensee also considered the effects of expected stiffness reduction of the structures and 1
present properties of the materials actually used in construction on the original vertical response spectra for the Complex.
l IHerring III, NRC Staff Exh. 9, p.
1; Licensee Exh. 19, pp. 1-4).
1 Although it is clear that both of these bounding conditions could not occur, these assumptions are employed to envelope any
' theoretically possible response of the structure, and equipment is shown to be qualified regardless of the actual building response anywhere within the bounding criteria.
1 I
Licensee's basic submittals on the new floor response spec-l tra dated October 27 and November 2, 1978 (Licensee Exhs. 19 i
and 20) present the primary analysis which served as the basis for the Board's examination of Licensee witnesses during hearings j
in Salem, Oregon'en November 3, 1978.
Licensee's subsequent l
submittals of November 22 and 24 (Licensee Exhs. 21 and 22) pro-j vided further clarification regarding existing material proper-ties and expected variations in relevant analytical parameters to give assurance that the upper (elastic) and lower (degraded i
or inelastic) spectral frequency bounds had been sufficiently I
l broadened (Herring III, NRC Staff Exh. 9, pp. 2-3).
I c
i h
. =.
- 49d -
32c.
The new acceleration time history enveloped the Troian FSAI design ground sc.ectra (Licensee Enh. 19, c.
3: Tr.
2342-44 (White)).
Linear elastic time history analyses were performed in both the N-S and E-W directions using this new time history and the STARDYNE fi xed base mcdel (with linear elastic uncracked structural stif fnesses) to generate a base set of linear elastic loor resc.onse sc.ectra.
A modal ana_,v. sis usinc_ reducad structural stiffnesses was performed to determine the potential lower bound frequency shifts due to such stiffness reduction under
_#.' o. _- a_ s y c.._e a agec-
"-- u's wa_-o_
Ae-dc- --..--c..
....e.cye m
.a se_
_ a
_# ^ -..
c'. - '
c i. _ =
u'. a.7 ". _ =_ d_
_#c -
"_ 4 "s e u#
.#_om k..a_ base se*. o #_
o v_
y each floor, and were widened based on criteria specified in the
- - - _ _-,. : -.. o _r een ----
e : 3 _4 -, w, a_
a_ a c_ u.,,-__.-:----
_m_-r-...
r.e c _. n. o. _
n..
,.a-c -.. c 4-,,
r stiffness reduction and inelastic behavior.
(Licensee Exh. 19,
- o. n..
2, 4-5 and Figures 11 through 30; Licensee Exh. 20 (Response
._ o Q t. a s- _ l o. 4 ),.
.a. a _ _ t. - Irr,
- a _= = =.u..
9,
- v...
,, 4 s..
.. n. ~o =.
s.
ry 4o.
.:. n _<._ a 32d.
In resc.onse to further NRC Staff technical c.uesticns,
- k. e ~~ ~4 - a.. c. a_ a_ s ""..m**ed add.4*4 nal 4.. _#c _a "- i c n -a_ c, n d _i..- an -.i -
u
--v.
y cipated variations in relevant parameters (e.g.,
concrete and masonry strengths, changes in Poisson's ratio for evaluating structural stiffness, stiffness reduction factors, building mass determinations and the effect of secondary block wallt.) which The nedal points selected were c,enerally at the center and at the four corners of each floor.
Since the flecr slabs within each building are quite rigid inplane, the horizontal motions of the four corner nodes and a representative center node on each floor in each building adequately cover all ma"Jcr hori-zental respense motions of the fico r.
Therefore, the broadened
- " e s e #.4 ". a.
o.4..
o-or. a e.".a_'
a_ o#
..".e
- a_ s ec..a e a,er.-'.-
r flecr would envelope the resc.onse at any location on the floor.
(Licensee Exh. 20, (Res~.nse to Cuestion 3); Tr. 2357-60 (White)).
- 49e -
r l
1 1
could produce structural frequency variations (Licensee Exh.
21, pp.~2-3).
This additional information showed a further
- t i
widening of some curves presented in Licensee Exhibit 19 fo r the Auxiliary and Fuel Building spectra in the E-W direction, due to the use of higher stiffness reduction factors in the Fuel Building (Ibid., pp. 4-5).
The conservatism of the broadening of the low bounded spectral frequency peaks was further confirmed 1
considering Poisson's ratic reductions and the actual stiffnesses of the concrete walls (Licensee Exh. 22; Herrine III, ::F.C S ta f f Exh.
9, p.
3).
32e.
Based on these spectra for each floor of the Complex, the qualification of safety-related equipnent has been reviewed by Licensee.
All equipment and cable trays continue to be qualified.
Licensee had determined that additional piping restraints will be s
required to " tune" some runs of piping and that some existing restraints on piping runs will also require stiffening.
(Licensee Exh. 19, p.
7; Licensee Exh. 20 (Response to Question 7) ; Licensee Exh. 21, p. 5).
Licensee has committed to perform this work prior to resumption of plant operation (Licensee Exh. 9G, pp.
1 3-4; Licensee Exh. 21., p.
5).
J 82f.
The NRC Staff has reviewed the information provided
- by Licensee and concluded that, with appropriate modifications to piping in the Plant as identified by Licensee to meet the widened spectra, and with appropriate modifications based on l
the further spectral widening noted in Paragraph 82d above, the t
,. c -
safety-related equipment in the Cc= plex will withstand any earth-quake up to and including the 0.25g SSE for the period of interim operation.
(Herrinc III, NPC Staf f Exh.
9, pp.
1-3).
82g.
We find that the Complex's safety-related equipment, with the additional restraints and adjustrents cc==itted to by the Licensee, can safely withstand the effects of an earthquake up to and including the 0.25g SSE, and is qualified for interim operation for the period during which the required =cdification to the Control Building will be perforced.
We therefore conclude that, insofar as seismic qualification of equipment within the Complex is concerned, such interim operation should be authorized, and that the operating license should be amended in accordance with the amendment we authorize below, which takes into account both the design deficiency in the Control Building walls and the re-lated reevaluation of equipment qualifications.
eu UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO*E4ISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, )
Docket No. 50-344 et al.
)
-~
)
(Centrol Building Proceeding)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 6, 1978, I served a copy of the letter from Maurice Axelrad to che A cmic Safety and Licencing 3carf, dated December 6, 1978, and of the Licensee's supplementary Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Concerning Interic Cperaticn, dated Cecember 6, 1978, by placing a true copy of said documents in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Washi"Oton, D.C.,
addressed as follcws:
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Atenic Safety and Licensing Beard Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Ccrmission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollcm, Dean Docketing and Service Section Division of Engineering, Office of the Secretary Architecture & Technology U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccomission Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C.
20555 Stillwater, OK 74074 (Original & 20 copies)
Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Columbia County Courthouse 1229 - 41st Street Law Library, Circuit Court Rcom Los Alamos, NM 87544 St. Helens, OR 97051 1
1 i
T Joseph R. Gray, Esq.
Atcmic Safety and Licensing Counsel for NRC Staff Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccemission U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Cec. mission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, C. C.
20555 Ms. Nina Bell Robert M.
Jchnson, Esq.
632 S. E.
18th Street Assistant Attorney General Portland, CR 97214 100 State Office Buildinc Salem, OR 97310 H. H. Phillips, Esq.
Vice President-Corporate Ccunsel Mr. Eugene Rosolie Portland General Electric Co.
Ccalition for Safe Power 121 S.
W.
Salmon Street 215 S. E.
9th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Portland, CR 97214 Mr. Stephen M. Willingham Colunbia Environrental Ccuncil 555 N. Tomahawk Drive P.
O.
Box 611 Portland, OR 97217 St. Helens, OR 97051 Mr. John A. Kullberg Mr. David 3. McCoy Route 1, Ecx 2500 348 Hussey Lane Sauvie Island, OR 97231 Grants Pass, CR 97526 Ms. C. Gail Parson John F.
Socolofsky, Fsq.
P.O.
Box 2992 Assistant Attorney General Kodiak, AK 99615 100 State Office zuilding Salem, OR 97310 Gregory Kafoury, Esq.
Counsel for Columbia Envirennental William Kinsey, Esq.
Council Ecnneville Power Administration 202 Oregen Pioneer Building P. O. Bcx 3621 320 S. W.
Stark Portland, OR 97208 Portland, OR 97204 Dr. Harold I.
Laursen 1520 M. W.
13th Corvallis, OR 97330 j'
- O
/ lf i
/
,s
/
l 7.
.b V k//
s'k i-LfSENSTEIN, NEWMAN, RL -, AXELRAD &
TOLL 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
2003,6 202-862-8400 1
>