ML18031A097
| ML18031A097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1979 |
| From: | Ferrell C, Van Neil R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Houston R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18031A096 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902260094 | |
| Download: ML18031A097 (9) | |
Text
, gian RECa,
+~e 0
ce nO I
ea0 aI **de4 ENCLOSURE 2 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556 JAN 24 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR:
R.
Wayne Houston, Chief Accident Analysis Branch, DSE FROM:
THRU:
SUBJECT:
C. Ferrell and R. VanNiel, Section B
Accident Analysis Branch, DSE L. Soffer, Section Leader Accident Analysis Branch, DSE SITE VISIT TO SUSQUEHANNA I&E DECEMBER 5, 1978 C. Ferrell arid R.
VanNiel of the Accident Analysis Branch arrived at the Susquehanna site about 9:00 a.m.
on December 5,
1978 for a tour of the facility and adjacent areas.
There was a brief discussion of the current status of the plant and then we split 1nto small groups for individual tours.
We were accompanied by a representative of PP&G for a tour of the adjacent roads and nearby industries.
We drove over a gravel based road which loops around the side and'upper portion of the site exclusion area before it becomes a black top paved road.
There were no residences or items of interest on the first unpaved section of the road.
There were a few scattered houses located on the paved portion.
We were shown the railroad siding off-site on which an earlier derailment has occurred.
We then visited the area which has been proposed for the publ1c recreational facilities on PP&G property which abutts the Susquehanna River.
A small lake w1ll be created for canoe1ng, row boats and sailing.
No power boats will be allowed.
The recreat1onal facil1ties will be only for day-time activities and over night camping will not be permitted.
We spent a few minutes in the applicant's visitor center which is located on Route ll between the reactor exclusion area and the proposed recreational area.
We travelled south along the river to the town of Berwi.ck to vis1t the local hospital which would be used to treat any injured patients from the plant.
A special room is available for treatment of contaminated patients.
We then visited the closest industrial facility.
This is the clothing manufacturing plant that is described in the FSAR.
We noted no discrep-anc1es in information presented in the FSAR as a result of our tour of the offsite areas outside the exclusion area.
In the afternoon, we met at the plant conference room where we again split up into groups for a tour of the reactor facility.
We visited the control room, turbine building and the reactor secondary containment.
While inside the primary containment, I looked at the inboard main steam 1<ne isolation valve (MSIV).
This is located very close to a large I-beam which might cause
1 I
R.
W. Houston
, JAN 8d 1ggg difficulties in disassembly for valve lapping operations.
I also went to the outboard MSIV outside of primary containment.
The presence of scaffolding and a large plastic dust cover prevented me from getting a
good view of this valve.
We climbed to the operating deck of the con-tainment building.
The structural steel is in place for the secondary containment building, however, the sheet metal sides and roof have not yet been installed.
I viewed the spent fuel storage pools and the shaft used to lower the shipping casks used for offsite shipment.
On completing the tour, we returned to the conference room where we discussed any questions we came up with as a result of our visit.
I was shown a drawing which clearly indicated the air intake for the control room.
This was not clearly visible during our tour due to the presence of temporary scaffolding inside of the control building.
During the time of our visit, I noted no aircraft in the vicinity of the site.
Charles N. Ferrell, Se'ction B
Accident Analysis Branch Division of Site Safety and Evironmental Analysis
c6
,~gR RECyl Wp "o 4@JIIh, 'g
+>>*++
ENCLOSURE 3
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIVllSStON WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 MEMORANDUM FOR:
J. Carl Stepp, Chief Geosciences
- Branch, DSE THRU:
L. W. Heller, Leade Geotechnical Enginee Geosciences Branch SE ion FROM:
Owen 0. Thompson, Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineering Section Geosciences
- Branch, DSE
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT PLANT NAME:
Susquehanna 1 6 2 LICENSING STAGE:
OL DOCKET NUMBERS:
50-387/388 MILESTONE NUMBER:
01-50 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH:
LWR-3; S. Miner, LPM REVIEW STATUS:
Awaiting responses to Round 01 Questions On December 5, 1978, I visited the Susquehanna 1 and 2 site with the following staff:
S. Miner, LPM R.
Van Niel, OLB C. Ferrell,
- DSE, AAB L. Andrewd,
- DSE, HMB D. Corley,
- DSE, HMB The purpose of the visit was to become familiar with the site end the plant construction features.
At the time of my visit, the major part of the superstructure was complete and the installation of the internal equipment was in progress'onstruction of one cooling tower was within 20 feet of top elevation but constrhction of the other tower was only at foundation level.
The spray pond was lined with concrete and spray heads were being installed.
The Engineered Safeguards Service Water (ESSW) pump house structure was completed and equipment was being installed.
Foundation soils generally were not visible but a utility trench extending about 15 feet below grade was open along the south side of the ESSW pump house.
The base of the trench was approximately at the same elevation as the base of the pond.
"J
'l i
J
'J; I
"i
D~C 1 9 578 J. Carl Stepp Beneath a few feet of recent granular fillthe natural sands and gravels were visible.
The natural deposits were predominantly fine to medium sands with occassional large gravel inclusions'n the lowest part of the exposed section there was a layer of sandy gravel about 1 foot thick.
The gravel particles appeared to be less than 3 inch maximum dimension.
Within the sand deposit there were some lenses a few inches thick of very clayey sand.
The subsurface soils appeared to be relatively compact since the sides were standing temporarily on near-vertical slopes.
The spray pond liner was complete but some repair work was in progress.
Hair-line cracks have developed in the liner and the contractor is chipping a groove along the cracks and filling the groove with a synthetic water-proofing compound.
The cracks were predominantly on tha side slopes but the base slab was muddy and may have crocks also.
At the time of my visit, some of the cracks had been filled, some had been grooved and not filled, and some had not been worked on.
The cracks did not appear to extend deeper than a few centimeters.
Furthermore, the Contractor had drilled into some cracks in the northeast corner of the spray pond and reportedly had found that the cracks did not extend through the slab.
At the time of my visit these holes had been filled with water proofing compound.
The water-proofing compound is non-hardening and easily deformed when pressed with a finger.
The remainder of my visit consisted of a conducted tour of the plant and explanation to the Applicant of my Round
//1 Questions dated 'November 29, 1978 in a memo from L. Heller to 0. Parr.
~../J c~
Owen Thompson> Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineering Section Geosciences
- Branch, DSE cc:
R. Denise L. Hulman L. Heller S. Miner
- 0. Thompson ACRS (16)
a, ggaa Rcoq Wp
+
0 ca r W~
O a
ea 0
/yn ea
%~*y4 Docket Nos.
50-387 and 50-388 ENCLOSURE 4 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 otic 88 >me
~ C MEMORANDUM FOR:
L. G. Hulman, Chief Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, DSE Earl H. Markee, Jr.,
Leaderar.g.+e&g Meteorology Section, HMB, DSE FROM:
SUBJECT:
Leta Andrews, Meteorologist Meteorology Section, HMB, DSE SUSQUEHANNA SITE VISIT PLANT NAME:
Susquehanna, Units 1
& 2 LICENSING STAGE:
OL DOCKET NUMBERS:
50-387/388 On December 5,
1978, Debra Corley, HMB, and I met with John Martin, Dames
& Moore, and representatives from. the Pennsylvania. Power and Light Company, who accompanied us on a visit of the Susquehanna site.
At the site we examined and discussed the meteorological tower location,
- sensors, and recording systems, Wooded areas and the general topography near the site. were noted and.discussed.
From the top of the contain-ment superstructures, we got an overview of the relationship of the structures with one another and with respect.to air,intakes and.potential effluent release points.
We.also looked at and discussed the.natural draft cooling towers and spray pond.
After lunch, the applicant took us on a general tour of the site and facilities.
cc:
S. Mine L. Andrews Leta.Andrews, Meteorologist.
Meteorology Section Hydrology-Meteorology Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
~
'I 4