ML19312D801
| ML19312D801 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1980 |
| From: | Herring K, Persinko D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312D762 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003250350 | |
| Download: ML19312D801 (27) | |
Text
..
'( )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-344 COMPANY, ET AL.
)
(Control Building)
(TrojanNuclearPlant)
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF KENNETH S. HERRING AND DREW PERSINK0 ON CFSP CONTENTIONS 20, 12/13, AND 16 Q.1 Please state your name and position with the NRC.
A.1 My name is Kenneth S. Herring.
I am a Senior Structural Engineer in the Engineering Branch of the Division of Operating Reactors, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
A.1 My name is Drew Persinko.
I am a Structural Engineer in the Engineering Branch of the Division of Operating Reactors, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
l Q.2 Have you prepared statements of professional qualifications?
A.2
-Yes.
Copies of our stat 7m.nts are attached to this testimony.
80032 5A39
. -Q.3.
What are your responsibilities with regard to the NRC Staff's review of the proposed modifications to the Trojan Control Building?
A.3 (Mr. Herring) As a Senior Structural Engineer, I have prime responsibility for the Staff's structural and r.echanical review and evaluation of the proposed modifications.
This includes a review to determine what structural effects actual modification work itself might have on existing structures as well as a review of the modifications to determine whether they will substantially restore seismic margins to the Control Building Complex and bring that Complex into substantial compliance with the requirements of the Trojan license.
It also includes assuring that any effects of the modifications on the response of safety related systems, piping, equipment and components are adequately accounted for.
A.3 (Mr. Persinko) As a Structural Engineer in the Engineering Branch, I am responsible for assisting Mr. Herring in the struc-tural review and evaluation of the Control Building modifications described by '
Herring.
-Q.4 What is the purpose of this testimony?
A.4 The purpose of this testimony is to address the Coalition for Safe Power's(CFSP) contentions 20, 12/13 and 16 as to structural aspects of those contentions.
e.
Q.5 CFSP' Contention 20 states that:
Inadequate assessment of the effects of drilling in the control building walls during modification has been made.
Where will drilling in Control Building walls be required for the modification work?
A.5~
For installation of the steel plate on the west or R line wall of the Control Building, it will be necessary from elevation 59' to about elevation 98'.
These holes will be drilled entirely through the wall.
In addition, it will be necessary to drill through-wall holes on
-the west or R line. wall on the Control Building between elevations 45' and 61' in order to bolt new concrete to the existing wall and on the east or N line wall between elevations 65' and 95' to bolt new concrete to the existing east wall.
Finally, holes will be drilled into the R, 41 and N walls of the Control-Building so that reinforcing steel from new wall sections to be added in these areas can be placed and grouted into existing walls. These holes are not through-wall holes.-
Q.6
- What possible effects could such drilling have on the walls?
_=
. A.6 Such drilling could affect the seismic capacity of the walls through damaging _ reinforcing steel in the walls.
In addition, the pattern and spacing of-holes could weaken a wall and, if holes abandoned because reinforcing steel is encountered are not prop-erly regrouted,-such abandoned holes could result in a weakened wall.
Finally, Intervenors expressed the concern that drilling on existing cracks could cause the cracks to expand and thereby weaken the walls.
Aside from these potential effects on wall capacity from drilling, there is also a concern that the drilling operation could result in damage to equipment or cables located in the areas of the drilling site and that drilling could result in the generation of dust and debris that cou;d affect equipment. These non-structural concerns are addressed in the separate testimony of Mr. Clemenson and Mr. Knight.
Q.7 Can measures be taken to avoid damaging the reinforcing steel in the walls?
A.7 Yes. The walls to be drilled are either composite shear walls
'made up of block on the outside sandwiching a reinforced concrete core or are double block shear walls. The reinforcing steel in the block portion of_ either type of wall is inside the block cells
~
. 'in a unifonn pattern and can be detected by the use of metal detectors.
PGE has indicated that a survey will be done prior to
~ drilling to locate this reinforcing steel.
Such a survey should allow the reinforcing steel in-the block to be located and thereby avoided during drilling.
Reinforcing steel in the concrete core in the composite walls probably cannot be accurately located using metal detectors.
Nevertheless, that reinforcing steel is located at regular inter-vals and the locations can be estimated from the original design drawings.
Because of the regular pattern of core reinforcing steel, if such steel is encountered during drilling, the drilling pattern can be adjusted and other core steel can more easily be avoided during subsequent drilling.
Even if reinforcing steel is encountered during drilling, damage to the steel should be minimized.
The reason for this is that in the slow speed drilling to be used, markedly different sound, vibration and motor load will result when steel is encountered by the drill bit. This will allow the drill operator to stop drill-ing quickly on encountering steel and should not result in more i
i
. than a nick in the steel of about a 1/8 in. depth. This has been verified from the results of previous drilling into the walls by PGE.
. Q.8 If reinforcing steel is damaged during drilling, what effect might such damage have on the wall capacity?
A.8 The seismic capacity of any wall is dependent upon whether the flexure mode, the sliding mode or the shear mode of failure is controlling.
The flexure mode of wall failure is dependent, in part, upon the area of steel present in the wall.
Thus, damage to reinforcing steel will affect the flexure capacity of a wall.
PGE has calculated a maximum loss in strength due to drilling damage to reinforcing steel in any' wall of 2%..This calculation assumed that all reinforcing steel in the wall was damaged which is a conservative assumption. On the other hand, the calculation ignored the effects of openings in the walls and, at the same time, assumed the presence of more panels and steel in the walls to be drilled than actually exist.
If these latter assumptions are accounted for, the loss in strength due to damage to steel would increase to about 3.5%.
In reality, the percentage of reinforcing steel removed through damage from drilling should be small and should not significantly affect _overall wall capacity.
However, as set forth in Section 5 of the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) of February 14,
'1980, there are a number of items which will affect well capacity and stiffness which either have not been accounted for or which have been inadequately accounted for in the licensee's analyses.
Until wall capacities are finally and adequately determined, the significance of even a small loss in wall strength due to drilling damage to reinforcing steel cannot be finally determined.
Also, the nicking of the steel reinforcement will have a small effect on the sliding resistance of the wall panels and the shear capacity (for diagonal tension failure) when such capacity is determined using the method described in the report entitled
" Report on Design Criteria for Masonry Walls in the Trojan Power Plant," by Dr. James Coleville, P.E.
Q.9 What effect would the removal of concrete, masonry and grout material by drilling have on wall capacity?
A.9 Removal of concrete, masonry and grout material will affect flexure capacity if such removal occurs in the compression zone of the wall.-
Removal of material in the amounts proposed from the caupression zone toe will have a negligible effect on overall capacity.
- However, removal of concrete, masonry and grout primarily affects wall. strength for walls controlled by the shear mode of wall failure.
The' licensee has calculated a maximum reduction in wall area from
. drilling of 6% in any plane. This will cause some reduction in wall capacity against shear failure although the removal of 6% of the wall area in any plane should not significantly degrade the wall shear capacity.
J t.
l
. At some point, the shear mode of failure can become controlling over the flexure mode of failure if an excessive amount of material is removed from tne wall. As set forth in Section 5 of the Staff's SER, flexure and sliding capacities can increase from increased normal force on the wall (especially due to gross bending) and that has not been fully accounted for in PGE's capacity evaluation.
Consequently, until _ these matters are properly accounted for, it is not possible to determine whether flexure and sliding capacities remain less than wall shear capacity with material removed from drilling and, in turn, the significance of the effect of material
- removed from drilling on overall wall capacity cannot be determined.
Q.10 What effect will the pattern of drilled. holes have on wall capacity?
A.10 Depending upon the angle of orientation of the plane of drilled holes relative to the stress field in the wall and the amount of material between the holes, a crack could develop along the plane of holes.
Shear would be resisted by the material between the
' holes. The consideration of the maximum 6% reduction in material on any plane accounts for this. Additionally, the holes may act as crack initiators in the panel (due to stress concentrations);
- however, this would not affect the analysis since cracking of concrete and masonry materials is expected and these would not be large cracks.
4.
Q.11
'What effect will partly. drilled holes obandoned because rein-
-forcing steel was encountered have.on wall capacity?
-A.11 Abandoning partly drilled holes could result in a significant reduction -in shear area and capacity, depending of course, on the number of holes abandoned and the measures taken to grout aban-doned holes.
PGE has evaluated the shear area and capacity losses due to hole drilling and has accounted for such area losses up to a maximum of 6% area loss in any plane of holes.
In order to assure that holes drilled in a wall have been properly accounted for in capacity determinations, the hole drilling must be such that the total holes drilled, including holes abandoned and not grouted in with the grout reaching design strength, do not reduce wall area in any plane by more than 6%. That is,-abandoned holes in which grout has not reached design strength must be included in the 6% area reduction limit. As this limit is approached, drilling must be halted until the grout in abandoned
-holes' reaches design strength, unless a strength something less than design strength can be shown to be appropriate. Once the grout in a rirticular abandoned hole reaches appropriate strength, that hole will contribute to a shear _ area and capacity to the
. 1 extent the virgin wall material would.
In this way, it will be assured that holes abandoned due to encountering reinforcing steel
- have been properly accounted for in the capacity determinations.
As previously stated, the shear capacity reductions due to hole drillings, including the effects of abandoned holes where grout has not reached design strength, will be small if maximum shear area reductions in any one plane of holes are less than or equal to 6%. At the same time, the effects of such reductions on capacity to force ratios -for walls where drilling will take place cannot be quantified until concerns raised in Section 5 of the SER with regard to the calculation of stiffnesses and capacities have been resolved and final, correct capacity to force ratios have been determined.
Q.12 Will drilling on existing cracks in Control Building walls have any effect on the seismic capacity of the wall?
A.12 No. The existance of small cracks in a wall does not indicate that there is a plane of weakness in the wall.
Such cracks will have no significant effects either on the shear area of the wall or the vertical reinforcing steel in the wall.
Consequently, they will not significantly affect the shear capacity of the wall.
Because of the small size of such cracks, drilling ~directly on the 4
,w,
crack will not cause.the crack to expand' or separate and will not have any significant effect on seismic capacity of the wall.
A.13 CFSP_ Conten' tion 12/13 states:
The facility cannot be operated safely while the modification work is being performed and there has been no demonstration that operation during modification work will not pose an undue risk to the public health and safety.
CFSP Contention 16 states:
Licensee has not made adequate plans to protect all safety equipment and equipment for safe operation during the modi-fication work.
From the structural standpoint, what aspects of the modification work could have a bearing on the safety of operation during perform-ance of the work?
A.13-The aspects of the modification work which could have an effect on the safety of operation and which must be examined from a struc-tural effect standpoint are plate drops during plate handling operations and the adequacy of measures to-mitigate the effects of such plate drops, equipment qualification during the modification work, the work sequence and effects of opening columns on seismic l
4.
- capacity, and the effects of drilling in walls. The structural effects of drilling in walls have been addressed in previous answers on'CFSP Contention 20. Also, there would be some effect-from additional. temporary loads during construction being imposed on the existing structural elements.
Q.14 What aspects of plate handling and plate drops have you examined from a structural standpoint?
A.14 Specifically, we ~have examined the structural consequences of a drop of plates 1 to 6 onto the energy absorber to be installed below those plates to determine the adequacy of the protection afforded to conduits and piping below grade. We have examined the effects of a drop of plates 7 and 8 on previously installed plates.
Finally, we have examined the structural aspects of plate handling on the Turbine Building operating floor to determine whether unacceptable structural consequences could result from such plate handling.
i Q.15 What protection will the energy absorber provide against a drop of plates 1 - 67 i
A.15 To provide assurance that'the essential equipment located below grade will not be damaged from impact loads in the event one of
1.
the plates (1-6) should be dropped while it is being lifted up through the gap between the Control and Turbine Buildings, a-temporary energy absorber will be provided at elevation 45'-0".
It will be conservatively sized to accommodate the maximum kinetic energy capable of being developed by a plate during the handling operations.
It will consist of a crushable corrugated aluminum structure, two three-inch thick steel plates and an appropriate guide to ensure that the impact load will be distributed over the' energy absorbing material.
From our evaluation of the proposed energy absorber, we have determined that it has been conservatively designed so as to limit the impact loading from a plate drop onto the energy absorber such that damage to the pipes and conduits below grade will be precluded.
From this we conclude that the essential systems located below grade (elevation 45 feet) have been adequately protected in the event that any one of the plates numbered 1 through 6 should be dropped during the handling operations necessary while these plates are being lifted in the gap between the Control and Turbine Buildings.
-Q.16-What structural elevations have been performed with regard to the
. handling of plates-7 and 87
4 A.16 As discussed in PGE's responses to NRC Question 5 (9/20/79) and Question 6 (9/14/ 79), effects of a postulated plate drop on the plates previously installed and on the existing floors, walls and supporting crane girder were considered. The crane girder was evaluated for postulated plate drop effects, including dynamic effects, and shown to be adequate.
Additionally, the Turbine Building operating floor at elevation 93' has been examined for a postulated drop of plate #8 since it must be transported along the floor before chain hoists are a ttached. The plate is to be transported on 2 A-shaped frames to preclude a flat plate drop. All of the floor supports were eval-uated and found to be adequate. These evaluations were based on proposed plate handling operations that generally would prevent plate 8 from being lifted more than 1 inch above the floor. Based on these evaluations, the Staff concludes that should a drop of plate 8 on a corner or edge occur as it is being transported along the Turbine Building operating floor, the effects will not create a safety hazard as the resisting mechanisms to falls of these types have been examined and found to be adequate.
During one part of the handling of plate 8, the licensee had pro-posed to elevate one end of the plate to about 2 feet above the floor'with a jack situated under the plate to preclude the end from falling. This raised a concern that the jack could be
knocked out-from under the end of the plate. The licensee has-since indicated that this jacking arrangement will not longer be used and that the end of the-plate will not be lifted 2 feet above the floor. This thus eliminates the concern with regard to the jack being knocked out from under the plate resulting in a 2 foot drop of the end of the plate onto the Turbine Building floor.
Prior to transport of plate 8 across the Turbine Building operating floor, A-shaped frames will be attached to the plate to preclude a flat drop of the plate onto the floor. The design of the A-shaped frames has just recently been finalized and our review of that design to determine its adequacy to preclude a flat drop of plate 8 is underway but has not been completed at the time this testi-mony is being prepared.
As for effects on previously installed plates below and gross wall effects during installation of plates #7 and #8 into the gap between the Control and Turbine Buildings, both plates #7 and #8 will have precrushed Hexcel pads placed on the plates below to absorb the energy of a postulated drop and therefore limit the force transmitted to the plates below to an acceptable level.
Additionally, for plate #8, 4" X 4" wood planks and one2" X 4" plank will be stacked vertically on the plates below and held by guide plates. The planks will be removed one at a time as plate L#8 is lowered over the previously installed plates so that the
maximum distance plate #8 can fall during installation is 4".
The final plank removal will decrease the fall to 2".
The wall was evaluated for this postulated drop and found to be adequate.
Additionally, a 1" drop directly-onto plates 1-7 was investigated and found to be adequate.
The licensee has analyzed the dropping of plate 8 when it is being lowered into position to verify that the previously installed plates, bolts and associated structures could absorb the kinetic energy. The analysis shows that the dynamic load in the Hexcel pad will not exceed 374,000 pounds assuming a 30% increase in strength due to the dynamic load. Based on our review of the analysis, we have detemined that the impact velocity of the plate is insufficient to make this assumption; and a factor of 1.1 is more appropriate. Use of this factor. wil? esult in an 18% increase in the defomation of the pad. However, the licensee assumed a factor of 1.0 in its calculation which is conservative. There-fore, the 1-inch pad is acceptable. The resisting mechanisms to this type of drop of plate 8 onto.previously installed plates are adequate provided that the concrete behind plates 1-6 has reached design strength before plate 8 is installed and the bolts installed on the plates below plate 8 have been tightened to the value needed to produce the friction force relied upon in resisting a drop of plate 8.
l
The loads induced by a drop of plate'7 onto previously installed plates have been calculated and shown to be less than those for plate 8, thus making plate.8 the more critical.
Therefore, a drop of plate 7 will be adequately resisted provided that the concrete behind plates 1-6 has reached design strength before plate 7 is installed and the bolts installed on plates 1-6 have been tightened to the value needed to produce the friction force relied upon in resisting a drop of plate 7.
Q.17 How will the proposed modifications affect equipment qualification?
A.17 The proposed modifications to the Control / Auxiliary / Fuel Building Complex will result in a slight frequency increase in floor response.
Thus, as the modification work progresses, the floor response spectra will gradually change from those determined for interim operation to those calculated for the final modified structures.
' The seismic qualification of safety-related equipment, components and piping is dependent upon the floor response spectra for the structures where these items are located.
Q.18
' What will be done to assure that safety-related equipment, compo-nents and piping will be seismically qualified during and after the modification work?
A.18 Safety-related equipment, components and piping are presently
- qualified under the floor response spectra for the existing,
as-built Complex to withstand earthquakes up to and including the SSE.
Provided that the unresolved items affecting floor response spectra for the modified Complex, set forth in Section 5 of the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report of February 14, 1980, are ade-quately resolved, final, appropriate floor response spectra for
~the modified Conplex will be determined.
Once those correct floor response spectra for the modified Complex have been generated and prior to the commencement of any modification work that could affect floor response spectra, the licensee will modify, as neces-sary, safety-related equipment, components and piping so that they will be seismically qualified for the floor response spectra of both the as-built Complex and the modified Complex.
Changes to equipment, components and piping may be necessary to qualify for the floor response spectra for the modified Complex.
Regarding the seismic qualifications of safety-related mechanical
\\
equipment, the effect of the response spectra for the modified i
Complex will be evaluated to determine whether there will be an increase in loading.
If an increase occurs, the new load will be evaluated against allowable stresses and if an overstress occurs, the element' will be strengthene.d.
Safety-related piping will be analyzed using the response spectra for the modified Complex to assure adequate restraint. Additional restraints will be installed as required.
l
Also, electrical equipment, cable trays and control equipment will be reviewed and modified as needed to insure seismic qualification under the final response spectra for the modified Complex.
In view of the fact that the systems described above are seis-mically qualified for interim operation of the asbuilt Control Building Complex SSE response spectra and will remain so during the modification work and that they will be seismically qualified for the SSE response spectra for the modified Complex prior to commencement of any work affecting the response spectra, it follows that the safety systems d? scribed above will be seismically quali-fied while modifications to the Complex are being performed.
This is contingent, of course, upon the development of final, adequate floor response spectra for the modified Complex and the performance of any of those modifications described above that may be necessary to qualify equipment for the modified Complex response spectra.
0, 19 Describe the modification work that will involve opening of columns.
A.19 Face masonry, and in some instances, core concrete will be removed at various columns so that reinforcing steel for the new walls may be tied-in to the existing walls. This will be done along N' at columns 41, 46; along column line R at columns 41, 46; and along N at columns 41, 46.
As discusued in PGE-1020, Rev. 4, Section 5.3.
2.1, the steel columns will be exposed only after certain modifica-tions have been installed.
4.
Q.20 What concerns are raised with regard to this work?
' A.20 The possible concer..aised is that opening of the columns could reduce the shear capacity of the Control Building Complex below that necessary to resist the SSE.
Q.21 What have you detsrmined from your evaluation of the exposure of the columns?
A.21-For the currently proposed work sequence, it is possible to expose columns N-41, N-46, R-41, R-46, N'-41, N'-46 simultaneously below elevation 65*.
The licensee has indicated that no credit was taken for the steel or masonry reinforcing at wall panel vertical boundaries when calculating the flexural capacity of the walls.
This is true but both single and double curvature modes of flexure must still be accounted for when calculating flexural capacity of panels adjacent to these columns. As is currently proposed above elevation 65', no columns will be exposed until the new N' wall is installed and the concrete has reached design strength.
It will then be possible to expose columns R-41, R-46, N-41, N-46 simul-taneously'since work on column lines R and N is scheduled to proceed concurrently.
Exposing the columns affects the ability of a' wall to resist a single curvature flexure mode of failure.
In calculating the capacity to resist this mode of failure, reliance
~
EDUCATION:
State University of New York at Stony Brook - Bachelor of Engineering ~
May 1973' j
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Master of Science in Civil Engineering (Structures) - August 1974 ENGINEER-IN-TRAINING: New Jersey.
TECHNICAL SOCIETIES:
l.:.erican Society of Civil Engineers - Associate Member. - April 1974 to Present.
AS!!E BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE COMMITTEES:
5 St: tion XI - Subgroup on Containment - Member - January 1979 to Present.
t i
9 a
8
Professional Qualifications
)
of DREW PERSIfiK0 Experience _
September,1979 U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Commission to Present Engineering Branch, Division of Operating Reactors Office of tiuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C.
~
Structural Engineer Responsible for assisting in the review and evaluation of the structural design of nucicar power plants.
1977 to V,assachusetts Institute of Technology 1979 Cambridge, liassachusetts '
Research Assistant Responsible for designs and analyses of rein-forced concrete frames subjected to seismic
' loadings with the purpose of ir. proving existing design codes.
Results published in MM.er's thesis.
\\.
1974 to E.I. DuPont de tiemours and Co.
77
~
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.
Wor' red closely with superintendents and foremen of all crafts.
Responsible for all work performed in the assigned area which include scheduling, planning, cost control, estimating change orderc, 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 sopp6rts in-industriai plants. - Also respon'sibie for desien
^
(
of building and pipe support footings and equip-ment foundations.
.:.. q;
, ',o.
^
4,..
... y lu
!,fduSation I Master of Science in': Civil Engineering, May 1979 - Massachusetts Institute.
of;Technologi'- Cambridge, Massachusetts.
. Eadhelor of Civil _ Engineering, May 1974 - University of. Delaware - tiewark..
Delawa re.7
-Ajditional Engineering Education-
-LGeorge Washington University,. Washington, D.C.
Larar University,; Beaumont, Texas.
~
~ Trofessior.a1 Affiliations Y.merican Society-of Civil: Engineers ~, Associ te Member, l
Enginecr-in-Training - Delaware.
f D
j -
a f
I s
4 h
4 o
. l a-4.
e i
u o
,- +
v,
,.~4
--..w-
,-~e-y.,-s
PROFESS 10tiAL QUALIFICATI0?."i 0F KEtifiETH S. HERRING EXPERIENCE:
l Jan.1977 to' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Present Engineering Branch, Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
!!ashington, D.C.
20555 Applied Mechanics Engineer (1/77 tu 1/79)
Structural Dynamicist (1/79 to 10/79)
Senior Structural Engineer.(10/79 to Present)
Responsible for the revi'ew, the analysis, cnd the evaluation of structural and mechanical aspects related to safety issues for reactor facilities licensed for power operation, and test reactor facilities, including i
the formulation of regulations and safety criteria. An emphasis is placed on seismic, impact and other dynsmic loading considerations, in addition to static loading
.(
considerations; and linear and nonlinear, concrete and steel behavior.
Responsible for coordinating various outside techni-assistance programs and internal tasks related to structural and mechanical applications to nuclear p er 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 i
Responsible for conducting static and dynamic, including i
seismic, finite element analysis and design of structures in nuclear power generation facilities.
Responsible for maintaining the Strucural Mechanics computer facilities at CHOC.
t Fortran IV programing experierge.
' 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.
.o EDUCATION:
State University of liew York at Stony Brook - Bachelor of Engineering -
liny 1973*
g t
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Master of Science in Civil Engineering (Structures) - August 1974 Et 3ISEER-IN-TPAINIliG: New Jersey.
TEC!!NICAL SOCIETIES:
.yarican Society of Civil Engineers - Associate Member. - April 1974 to a.esent.
AS".E EDILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE COMITTEES:
8 : tion XI - Subgroup on Containment - lisabar - January 1979 to Present.
i
Professional Qualifications of DREW PERSINK0
_E_xperience September,1979 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Present Engineering Branch, Division of Operating Reactors Office of fiuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C.
~
Structural Engineer Responsible for assisting in the 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 ir. proving 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 Depar'crant, Constr;:-
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 performed 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 sopp6rts in industriai plants.
Alsorespon'sibTefordesien of building and pipe support footings and equip-ment foundations..
D""
1 WW 6
d j
h-- o. -.........a.
- ... c.., m nn_w__
w
.sf ~ *
.g.,~
' Education.
Master of Science in Civil Engineering 2.May 1979 - Massachusetts Institute
.of.~ Technology.- Cambridge, Massachusetts.
! Bachelor of Civil Enginee' ring, May 1974 - University of Delaware - flewark, Delaware.
Mditional kngineering Education
- Geoige Washington University, k'ashington, D.C.
't.acar University rBeaumont, Texas.
Professional Affiliatio~ns
" ~
American Society of Civil Engineers, Associate Member.
i
~ En5 neer-in-Training - Delaware.
3 A
/
4 e
4
'w w
y
.,4
+
.m
.