ML20150A608

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Control Bldg Per Seismic Nonconformance

ML20150A608
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	08/30/1978
From:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Goodwin C PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
References
TAC-07551, TAC-08348, TAC-7551, TAC-8348, NUDOCS 7809070084
Download: ML20150A608 (4)

Text

'

sa neog,

/XJN

,8 , UNITED STATES 3* -'t NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 August 30, 1978

%,,...* +-[/j' Docket No. 50-344  :

Portland General Electric Company ATTN: Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.

Assistant Vice President 121 SW Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Gentlemen:

l Confinning our oral request made at the conclusion of our meeting i in Bethesda on August 28, 1978, enclosed is a request for additional information resulting from the infonnation presented at this meeting.

It is our understanding that you will be able to provide a written response by September 11, 1978. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this request.

Since rely , ,

I i y (kdlNY

! A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors l

Enclosure:

i Request for Additional /

Information cc: w/er. closure '

. See next page l

• 9e . - f

, v y!  !/

g 7 QD ..

Portland General Electric Company '

cc: Mr. H. H. Phillips Portland General Electric Company 121 SW Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Warren Hastings, Esquire Counsel for Portland General Electric Company 121 SW Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Mr. J. L. Frewing, Manager i Generation Licensing and Analysis i Portland General Electric Company

. SW Salmon Street

, Portland, Oregon 97204 ,

Columbia County Courthouse Law Library, Circuit Court Room i St. Helens Oregon 97501 Director, Oregon Department i of Energy

, Labor & Industries Building, Rm. 111-Salem, Oregon 97310 l

}

Richard M. Sandvik, Esquire' Counsel for Oregon Energy Facility

Siting Counsel and Oregon

! Department of Energy '

500 Pacific Building 520 SW Yamhill

. Portland, Oregon 97204 Dr. Harold Laursen 1520 NW 13th Street Corvallis, Oregon 97330 V

TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING SEISMIC NON-CONFORMANCE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

1. Provide a detailed comparison of the original and the refined seismic analyses of the Turbine Building and a discussion of why the results of the new analysis do not alter any previous conclusions regarding the integrity of the structure. Identify any safety related components, equipment and systems located in the Turbine Building, and discuss the impacts of the results of this refined seismic analysis on each of these items and why the impacts of these results are acceptable.

2. Discuss in detail the discrepancies between the original Bechtel analyses, the TABS analysis and the STARDYNE analysis of the Control-Auxiliary-Fuel Building complex. Provide a comparision of the results and the basis for any conclusions regarding the acceptability of these inconsist-l ancies. Substantiate (1) that there is no detrimental impact on previous statements and conclusions regarding the integrity of the Fuel 9uilding, j and (2) that the statements in the FSAR regarding the conservatism of the fixed-base seismic analyses perfonned previously for all Seismic l

Category I structures are not invalidated.

3. Given the results of the supplenental STARDYNE analysis and considering all of the nonlinearities in the response of the structure indicated by these resuits:

(a) Identify each of the expected nonlinearities and quantify the effects of each on the benavior of the structure.

l (b) Provide a detailed discussion of the impact of these results on the floor response spectra for the Control Building. Identify all safety related components, equipment and systems in the Control Building. Discuss the impacts that any changes in the response spectra and the increased displace.9ents of the structure would have on each of these items and why these impacts are acceotable.

(c) Provide a sumary of the stress lavels in the most critical wall elements (i.e., consider those walls which are the most highly stressed, those walls with the highest and lowest height to length ratios, those walls with the highest and lowest reinforcement ratios, etc.), and the corresponding strength ratios and acceptance criteria. Discuss the impact of cyclic degradation on wall strengths at these stress levels and provide a basis for all conclusions regarding these effects. In addition, discuss the strain compati-bility betweso the concrete core and the masonry at these stress levels to substantiate that each of these materials will reach

the assumed stress levels at about the same overall wall dis-placement such that significant degradation of either one of these materials does not occur before the other has reached its required stress level.

(d) Discus; in detail the effects cf the "Basic Shear Wall Capacity Criteria" utilized in the supplemental analysis on tha shear transfer capability at the wall-slab interfaces.

(e) Provide a detailed discussion of shear transfer into transverse walls and the tensile and compressive stresses in these trans-verse walls to substantiate the assumption that the gross over-turning moments in the structure will be resisted by the trans-verse walls. Include a basis for any conclusions regardin) the adequacy of these walls to transmit the required forces.

(f) Discuss the adequacy of the shear transfer mechanism at the foundation level from the walls into the rock. Include the N ses for any conclusions regarding the adequacy of these mechanism.

5. Discuss in detail the impacts of the supplemental STARDYNE analysis results on all analysis results submitted previously. Quantify the differences between the supplemental and previous basic shear wall acceptance criteria for the varicus extremes of shear wall behavior (i.e., consider the walls with the highest and lowest reinforcement ratios for walls in the various height to length ratio caterories, the walls which were both moment controlled and shear controlled under the previous criteria, etc.), Include a basis for using a wall's dowel capacity, determined by considering that the steel reinforcement will reach its ultimate strength, in the supplemental analysis as the capacity of a wall if the dowel capacity is greater than the shMr capacity calculated from the "Basic Shear Wall Acceptance Criteria" for walls with height to length ratics less than or equal to 0.5.

6. At what OBE level below 0.15 "g" does the supplemental analysis indicate that nonlinear behavior of the wall systems will begin.

I 7. Considering the nonlinear behavior of the Control Building indicated l by the supplemental STAROYNE analysis, provide a detailed discussion l

of the expected impact of this behavior on the Fuel Building to sub-stantiate that there will be no detrimental effects of this behavior on the integrity of the Fuel Building.

8. Discuss the consistency of the "Basic Shear Wall Acceptance Criteria" with the results of the Schneider, Mayes and Clough, PCA, and other appropriate test data, especially with regard to cyclic loadings. Consider and discuss the differences among the various test specimen and how the results for the test specimen are related to the Control Building walls. Include a quantification of any differences.