ML19338B979

Final Deficiency Rept Re Reactor Bldg Spray Piping Supports. Reactor Bldg Spray Piping Support Design Adequacy Verified & ASME Section 3 Code Allowable Stresses Met

ML19338B979
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	05/01/1979
From:	Howell S CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML19338B977	List: ML19338B976 ML19338B979 ML19338B988
References
HOWE-131-79, NUDOCS 8007291130
Download: ML19338B979 (18)

Text

. _.

r , .

l CORSumBTS

'#N

' Power Company stephen H. Howest

. _, ,,m,e ,

Generes Offices: 1945 West Parnett mood, Jackson, Micetienn 48201 e (517) 788-0453 May 1, 1979 Hove-131-79 g F:5 8 a

.,s Mr J G Keppler, Regional ~ Director m'E [- 47 b-.

.c,y%

Office of Inspection and Enforcenent k'j i $ Nl W"a ef' v US Nuclear Regulatory Coc:=ission 4

.- P Region III ..

~"' J' 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 - l -- -

MIDLAND NUCLEAR PLAITI ~

UNIT NO 1, DOCKET NO 50-329 UNIT NO 2, DOCKST NO 50-330

REACTOR HUILDDIG SPRAY PIPr!G SUPPORTS

Reference:

S H Howell letters to J G Keppler; Midland Nuclear Plant; Unit No 1, Docket No 50-329; Unit No 2, Docket No 50-330; Reactor Buildirs Spray Piping Supports -

1) Serial Ecue-60-78, dated April 19, 1978

2) Serial Ecve-92-78, dated June 13, 1978

3) Serial Hove-154-78, dated August 30, 1978

4) Serial Hove-186-78, dated October 13, 1978

5) Serial Hove-231-78, dated Nove=ber 10, 1978 -

6) Serial seve-265-78, dated Decenter 15, 1978

7) Serial Hove-36-79, dated February 1,1979

8) Serial Ecve-93-79, datied March 16, 1979 The referenced letters are interi= 50 55(e) reports. This letter is the final 50 55(c) report. Analysis conducted since the initial report has verified the adequacy of the design of the reactor buildin6 spray piping supports in that the ASME Section m Code allevable stresses are net.

The enclosed letter provides the final report to Bechtel Managenent Corrective Action Report (MCAR) 22.

h 4

Enclosure:

Letter, P A Martine to G S Keeley, RLC-7507, MCAR-22 Final Report, with attached report, dated April 27, 1979 l

CC: Director of Office of Inspection Director, Office of Managenent l and Enforcement Internation & Pro 5ran Control, USNRC (1) t Att: John G Devis, Actin 6 Director, j USNRC (15) 80 0's 2 911 N

-- Enclosure to -

,, .., , n , s Howe-131-79 .

Bechtel Power Corporation 777 East Eisennower Parkway .'

Ann Arcor Michigan asenmm P.O. Box 1000, Ann A"acr. Mcngan 481C6 t

Aprii 27, 1979 BLC-7507 .

Mr. G. S. Keeley Project Manager .

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 1945 West Parnall Road -

Jackson, Michigan 49201 ,

Midland Units 1 and 2 Consumers Power Cocpany Bechtel Job 7220 MCAR 22 FINAL REPORT Files 2417/2801

Dear Mr. Keeley:

The attached % =1 report for MCAR 22, " Apparent Design Deficiency in the Reactor Building Spray Piping Assemblies," is submitted for your infor:acion and use. The basis of the MCAR Final Report sub=ittal is recgipt of agursnce from II"' 4 Grinnell (primary design responsibility) that r.he design meets Code requirendats. -

t. .

~-x -

ITT Grinnell.has given Bechtel assurance that the anchors in question are vithin the Code allowables. Bechtel Engineering has completed the review of the 'Grinnell rqport on results of the time history analysis for the si::

welds that were discussed with Consumers Power on January'22, 1979, and

-, - reported to the NRC cl February 1,1979 (Hove-36-79) and March 16, 1979 (Howe-93-79) . The review confir=s the Grinnell assertion that the six anchors

meet Code requiremente.

The ITT Crinnell report, which presents the su= nary of analysis for the remaining anchors, vill be reviewed by Bechtel Engineering on or before

May 18,.1979. Final verification and closure 'of the MCAR by Bechtel Quality

.i Assurance will- be based upon Engineering's review and acceptance of the Grinnell report. The Grinnell reports reviewed'and accepted by Bechtel will 9

9

• 1 9

.1

2

\ ~

)

, nove-131-79 4

i ECC: JL3 acon, M-1085A WR31rd, JSC-2163 .

RLCastleberry, Bechtel AA (w/o att)

TCCooke, Midlaxx1

JIcorley, Midland l LADreisbach, Bechtel-Midland (w/o att)

GSKeeley, P14-4083 EWMarguglio, JSC-220A PAMartinez, 3cchtel AA-4 DEMiller, liidland -

i JFNevgen, Bechtel-Midland (w/o att) '

M ibbs, II&B File: 0.4 9 17 i

i d

k i

d 4

4 i

=

f i

e l

~.

l* Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation

• ~

Attachment to BLC-7507 .

SUBJECT:

MCAR 22 (issued 3/21/78) '

Reactor, Building Spray Anchor Discrepancy FINAL REPORT DATE: April 27, 1979

~

PROJECT: Consumers Power Company Midland Plant Units 1 & 2 -

Bechtel Job 7220 Introduction i

This final report is prepared in response to Midland project Management

. Corrective Action Report 22, dated March 21, 1978.

Description of Discrepancy l It was determined that local pipe stresses may potentially exceed ASME l Code Section III allowables at the anchor points in the reactor building l spray headers located in the reactor building dome. A total of 32 l anchor points (16 per unit) were determined to have this potentially

! overstressed condition.

l Potential Safety Iceliestion A potential safety problem could exist if the overstressed piping deformed plastically and impeded reactor building spray flow following a LOCA or main steam line break (MSLB). .

Summary of Investigation and Historical Background It was determined that the potential condition exists because ITT Grinnell's _

original anchor design did not use a reinforcing pad, which has been utilized by subsequent ITT Grinnell anchor designs to distribute the loading. The 1976 analysis used by Grinnell in designing these anchors i

indicated that the original design, witnout reinforcing pads, was adequate.

l Only the spray piping anchors have this original design. Subsequent l Grinnell anchor designs utilize a reinforcing pad supported by a three-

- dimensional finite element analysis for all other Crinnell-designed l piping anchors in the Midland plant.

8 4 4

~

4'

~ ~ ~' ~

n, ,

Bechtel Power Corporation -

m a 22 m u. nzronT .

Mr. G. 5. Keeley .

- . April 27, 1979 Page 2 . .

be maintained in the Project Engineering files and will be available for -

any desired subsequent reviews. Detailed calculations are retained by ITT Grinnell. They are required to be kept for the lifetir.e of the plant per ANSI N45.2.9-1974.

Very truly yours,

• r P. A. Martinez Project Manager p ,

- ec:

Mr. R. G. Bauman Mr. W. R. Bird *

• Mr. J. L. Corley ,

Mr. B. W. Marguglio

Attachment (4 pages)

\ -

4 j .

D 0

e4 4

b I'

~~

~

Bechtel Associates ProfessionalCorporation Attachment to BLG-7507 .

MCAR 22

• Final Report April 27, 1979 -

Page 2 -

1 All 16 Unit 2 reactor building spray dome anchcrs were installed in late 1976 and early 1977 in accordance with Grinnell drawings, except that minor modifications were made to the Level'1 approved Grinnell hanger sketches. The 10 Unit 1 anchors were installed in the prefabricated dome, based on the approved supplier Revision 0 design, in early 1977 prior to the lifting and setting of the Unit i dome. For the remaining six anchors in the Unit 1 ring girder area, a revised anchor design was received from the supplier which included reinforcing pads. These anchors have not been installed pending resolution of this MCAR. The Grinnell sketches were revised to show the minor modification requited for installation and sent to Grincell for concurrence. -

Simultaneous to the above in April 1977, Grinnell revised their sketches (Units 1 and 2) to incorporate a reinforcing pad. These revised sketches were received by Bechtel Engineering in June 1977.

The Unit 2 drawings were returned to Grinnell by Bechtel Engin2ering with an approval Level 9 (revision unccceptable) because the Unit 2 anchors were already installed. The Unit 1 drawings were returned to Grinnell by Bechtel Engineering with an approval Level 1 (revision acceptable) based on the erroneous schedule information that they were not yet installed.

During the week ending March 13, 1978, a review of the' status of the pad material questioned the need for reinforcing pads, bringing to light the fact that the as-designed / built condition may have exceeded the code allowable stresses. Significant actions and results which developed in the investigation of the anchor design are described in the following paragraphs.

1) Bechtel initiated a-reanalysis of the reactor building spray system piping to define specific loading for each of the subj ect anchors.

The original design loading provided to Grinnell was based on worst case seismic loading with additional allowance to ensure an adequate design for a water hammer loading combination. It had been antici-pated that the water hammer loads would not have exceeded the 4

e 4

g L -

i

,_ _s

} Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation Attachment to 3EC-7507 MCAR 22 .

Final Report April 27, 1979 Page 3 seismic loading. The water hammer lo'ading combination analysis was to be performed later in the project cycle with a review of the adequacy of the initially designed reactor building spray system supports for this loading.

It was determined that the water hammer loading combination signifi- '

cantly exceeded the previously provided seismic loadings. Independent cf the investigation for MCAR 22, this planned verification would have caused the recognition of the potentially overstressed conditions, based on the inia.ial calculational method. Therefore, Bechtel i -

proceeded to develop time-history loadings to allow Grinnell to perform .a more exact analysis using. actual loading conditions.

2) Bechtel reviewed the anchor-to-pipe. interface stress levels, based

! on the loading developed in Item 1, and determined that the stress l 1evels were acceptable. Bechtel analysis was based on using the

, stress intensification factor technique for an unreinforced pipe l branch. .

3) Concurrent with Bechtel activity in Item 2, Crinnell reviewed the anchor stanchion design and structural attachment interface for acceptable st' ass levels. Grinnell determined that, using the =ost severe of the time-history data combined with other loads provided i by Bechtel as a result of Item 1 activity, all but six anchors per unit were accept'able. These six anchors were calculated to be approxi=ately 6% over code allowables at the Bechtel-supplied

~

i structural support and Grinnell anchor interface.

i Grinnell subsequently reviewed these anchors based on the actual

• time-history loading developed by Bechtel as discussed in Item 1.

i Based on this analysis, the report of which is attached, Grinnell has determined that these anchors are also within code allowables.

4) It is concluded that the statement on the MCAR corcerning ap. parent l

cause is inaccurate, and that no deficiency in the supplier design i calculations has been discovered. 1 o .

4

~

j

, .,m ,

a. . p ,

Bechtel Associates Professional Cohoration Attachment to BLC-7507 -

MCAR 22.- ~

Final Report "

April 27, 1979 Page 4

- ' Corrective Action As a result of the deter:nination that the reactor building spray piping system can be used as is, no corrective action involving hardware is required.

A review of the methods used to ensure timely response by Grinnell and resolution of comments on change.s to hangers were initiated early in the investigation. It is concluded that the existing procedural nethods for aucher design review and approval are adequate. Since the time of recog-nition of the problem in March 1978, these methods have been properly implemented. -

Reportability

. Proje.cc Engineering's final evaluation is that the originally reported discrepancy 'of the subject MCAR has been shown through analysis not to exist, and thus there is not now a reportable condition within the

' requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).

Submitted by

!( < WW Approved by:. Dh **

'W w

Concurrence by: /- .M .

w -

4/17/5 ,

j l

l

= l l

l G

e

' RWTED ConnESPONDENc3 DCD8WO M . .

' 'i Howa-132-79

.~

Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation w

SUBJECT:

MCAR 24 (issued 9/7/78) l Settlement of the Diesel Generator Foundations and Building (Insufficient Compaction in Plant Area Fill Related to  ;

Seismic Category I Structures and Facilities) )

INTERIM REPORT 5 . MI197/

. s  !

DATE: April 16, 1979 PROJECT: Consumers Power Company [

Midland Plant Units 1 & 2 b( l##/ M

~

i Bechtel Job 7220 4'\

C 1%~, p Introduction- -

1. The title has been expanded to include activities related t - t area fill under other Seismic Category I structures in addition to the diesel generator building.

2. Extensive effort has been expended to respond to the NRC letter dated March 21, 1979, concerning the subject 10 CFR 50.54 request regarding plant fill. Portions of activities regarding plant fill and settlement will be covered in response to those questions.

3. This report is submitted to advise of interim status, developments, and project actions related to plant backfill settle =ent in the following areas since Interim Report 4, dated February 16, 1979. '

Information provided in Interim Report 5 includes settlement data up to April 13, 1979, wherever possible.

a. Settlement of the' diesel generator foundations and building as described in MCAR 24 and NCR 1482

b. Backfill under Seismic Category I structures other than the --

diesel generator building.

Description of Deficiency

1. Diesel Generator Foundation and Building It was stated in Interim Report 1 of MCAR 24, dated September 22, 1978, that "the diesel generator building settlements were

- noticed to exceed anticipated values in July 1978." The " anticipated values" referred to were not the "esti=ated ultimate settlement" values given in FSAR Figure 2.5-48. (Estimated ultimate settle =ent is defined as the estimated value predicted for a 40-year plant life.) Instead, these " anticipated values" were merely values of settlement that were greater than the amount of settlement which would have been expected under usual conditions for the elapsed .

. time. The July 1978 sectiement readings were within the estimated maximum settlement values given in the FSAR.

Bechtel Associates Professionai Corporatior. -

HCAR 24 e Interim Report 5 April 16 , .1979 Page 2 of 10 The diesel generator foundation and building settlement data are shown'in Figures 1, 13, 14, and 14-1. The maximum / minimum time settlement curves for the diesel generator building and one diesel generator foundation, shown in Figures 15 and 16 of Interim Report 4, have been updated to include settlement for all locations shown in Figure 1. This updated information is shown in Figures 43 and 44,

2. Other Seismic Category I Structures

' Settlement data for Seismic Category I structures other than the diesel generator--building are shown in Figure 2. Additional soil borings are being performed to evaluate fill under Seismic Category I structures other than the diesel generator building. Updated information on fill material not meeting praject specification requirements will be provided in the respon. e to the NRC's 10 CFR 50.54 request. ,

Corrective Action

1. Diesel Generator Foundations and Building Settlements Corrective actions for this area have been discussed in Interim Reports 3 and 4. The preloading was completed .co 20 feet above the final plant grade on April 7,'1979. The instrumentation shown in Figure 17 of Interim Report 4 has been completely installed.

2. Other Seismic Category I structures The corrective actions will be discussed in response to the NRC's 10 CFR 50.54 request.

Activities Related to Plant Fill and Settlement _

1. Diesel Generator Building and Foundations

a. Activities Completed Since Last Report .

1) Soil exploration Soil exploration in the diesel generator building area was described in Interim Report 4 except for Dutch cone penetrometer soundings. Fourteen Dutch cone penetrometer soundings were performed in the area of the diesel genera-tor building. The locations of these. soundings are shown in Figure 8 of Interim Report 4. The soundings were performed according to the " Tentative Method for Deep, -

l Quasi-Static Cone and Friction-Cone Penetration Tests of ,

A *'N4w ,ew .%

Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation.

l- MCAR.24'

Interim Report 5.

. April 16,1979 Page 3 -of 10 Soil," ASTM Standard Designation D 3441-75T. Test results indicate that the soil under the diesel generator building above an approximate elevation of 605 feet is highly variable in classification. . These results are consistent with soil boring.results. They indicate that the fill-below the building is variable. in strength properties and susceptible to nonuniform settlement.

. 2,) Liquefaction study An analysis of liquefaction potential for sand in all l

l quadrants beneath the diesel generator building was

! performed. The analysis was based on the soil' boring i information,~. field quality-control data, and the gradation tests performed by Goldberg, Zoino, Dunnicliff, & Associates, Inc. The results of the analysis show~that the northwest quadrant- of the fill beneath the building is susceptible to liquefaction. However, the liquefiable sand pockets in the northwest quadrant are only locally connected and are surrounded by cohesive soil and dense sand. Corrective l

actions for this problem will be addressed in response to the NRC's 10 CFR 50.54 request.

3) Strengthening of the turbine building wall

~

This item, as described in~ Interim Report 4, was completed prior co placing 'preload -above the 10-foot level (elevation 644').

j

• 4) Preload operation

~Preloading of the diesel generator-building has been -'

l~ completed.. The granular fill material for the preload has been placed to el 654' as shown in Figures 11 and 12.

This. completes Step VII in Figure 12. Step VI of the preload sequence, which was to hold the preload at 15

- feet above final plant grade, was deleted. l

5) Construction of diesel generator structure The last section of the building (roof slab) was poured on March 22, 1979. The construction of the main structure has been completed.~ These additions of weight to the~

l building will assist the consolidation process.

L

^

e -w->u.i.--T

.i---'e* m ,.a-- -J' e.- m 8e

. . . ,. s Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation MCAR 24 .

Interim. Report 5 April 16, 1979 Page' 4 of 10

6) Crack mapping

• The existing cracks in the diesel. generator building which were mapped before preloading are shown in Figure 45.

The present level of the preload prevents further visual examination of the cracks.

7) Utility monitoring Pipes passing near and under the diesel generator building' have been profiled in accordance with the monitoring program discussed in Interim Report 4. Pipe profiles are shown in Figure 60. Checks on Seismic Category I electri-cal ducts in the yard area show no obstructions.

b. Activities in Progress

1) Secclement monitoring a) Instrumentation data Plots of borros anchors, surface plates (settlement platforms), and preload intensity are shown in Figures 46 through 56. Piezometer and cooling pond water level plots are shown in Figures 57 through 39.

Throughout the preload stages, 39 piezemeters within the preload area were monitorc4 on a daily basis, while the 28 settlement marker, 32 settlement platforms, and 45 borros anchors were monitored weekly. Instru-

~'

mentation placed outside the preload area was also monitored for comparison. The results show that the preload program is causing the anticipated building settlement. Indications from piezemeter readings are being studied.

b) Evaluation of underground pipe for preload pressure The effect of preload_on the circulating water pipes is being monitored as addressed in Interim Report 4.

Figure 11 has been updated to show the roundness-monitoring requirements for these pipes.

O 3 w - -

• =

'[

.. r s .%

Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation MCAR 24 Interim Report 5 April 16,1979 '

Page 5 of 10 .

'c). Crack monitoring Some of the existing cracks in the diesel generator building walls are being electronically monitored.

Since Interim Report 4 there has been essentially no change in the size of the cracks, monitored per Figure 18 of Interim Report 4.

2) Structural: evaluation / analysis l

An analytical model is being developed to analyze the effects of _ settlement of the diesel generator building and foundJtions. A seismic analysis,.considering a range l

of possible soil parameters, is in progress.

!' 3) Acceptance criteria a) Structural analysis Criteria to evaluate the diesel generator structure and the foundations for the effect of settlement are being developed. These will be addressed in response to the NRC's 10 CFR 50.54 request.

l b) Removal of preload Evaluation of the settlement readings will provide a basis for deciding when to remove the preload and

~

predicting the-maximum residual settlements of the diesel generator building.

2. Other Seismic Category I Structures and Facilities a.- . Activities Completed Since Last Report

1) Soil' exploration Additional. borings have been taken. The locations of l these borings are shown in Figure 42.

i '

i 2) ' Crack mapping.

l L

The main structural elements of the service water ~ pump structure and auxiliary building penetration rooms have been examined for cracks. The cracks identified in the l- service water structure have been mapped as shown in -

Figure 62.-

l e- - , - -

,-. w y -e.n .n

Bechtel Associates ProfessionalCorporation MCAR 24 .

Interim Report 5 April 16 , 1979 Page 6 of 10

3) Settlement monitoring a) Emergency diesel fuel cil tanks have been filled with water and their settlements are being recorded.

b) Pipes in the general plant fill area which have been profiled are shown in Figure 61.

c) A barros-anchor has been installed in the auxiliary building control tower at the same location as boring AX-6 shown in Figure 42.

b. Future Activities Planned Activities include continuation of the monitoring program, evaluation of fill under Seismic Category I structures, evalu-ation of the structures and facilities, and identification of any needed corrective action.

Effect on Proiect Schedule The current schedule ac.alysis indicates an estimated potential delay in construction completion and system turnover of 2 months for the present corrective action program for the diesel generator foundations and buildings. The impact of this potential delsy in systas turnover on the preoperational testing schedule is yet to be determined. However, no impact on the fuel load date due to this delay is anticipated.

The potential for schedule impact for any needed corrective action

'related to other Seismic Category I structures is yet to be determined.

Submitted by: n rib ^ [

Reviewed by: '/

i .

Approved by: M /M'rM A Concurrence by:

AG/js 4/4/1- .

o-M w -, - _ _

~

^

DRAWING

SUMMARY

N

• 7

.. MCAR 24.Incarim Repsr 5 -

April 16, 1979 Page 7 of 10 Figures. Incl,uded in MCAR 24 Submitted with-Fiture' ,

Ti'tle Interim Report .

1 Diesel Generator Building 1, 2 (Replaced by Settlement Data Figures 43 and 44) 1 Foundation Settlement Monitoring 3,4,5 2 Settlement Record Table 3,4,5 3 Settlement Data. 3 (Replaced by Figure.13) 4 Settlement Data 3 (Replaced by Figure 14) 5 Seismic Category I Structures 3 Sa Seismic Category II Structures 3 6 - Diesel Generator Building 3 7 Bechtel Boring., Dutch Cone Penetrations, and Test Pit Locations in Main Plant Area (1978) 3, 4 8 Diesel Generator Building Boring Plan 3, 4

~

9 Diesel Generator Buildiag Underground Utilities Plan 3 10 Diesel Generator Building Underground Utilities Section 3 11 Diesel Generator Building Proposed Surcharge Requirements Plan and Sections- 3, 43 5 12 Diesel Generator Building ~

Proposed Surcharge Require =ents .

Sections and Details 4, 5 13 . Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data 4, 5 14 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data, Sheet 1 4, 5

' 14-l ' ' Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data, Sheet 2 5

~

' ' ~ ~

MhAR24IntrrimR2p9rt 't Aoril 16,1979; Pero' 8 of -10

. 15 Dics31 G2ntrator Building 4 (RIpitctd by Settlement Data Time Race Figure 43) 16~ Diesel Generato'r Pedestal 4 4 (Replaced by Settlement Data Time Rate Figure 44)-

17 Instrument Location Plan 4 .

18 Diesel Generator Building Crack Monitoring 4 19 Designations and Locations of Surveyed Pipelines, January 1979 4 20 Tank Farm Boring Plan 4 21 Cross Section A-A' Tank Farm 4 22 Cross Section B-B' Tank Farm 4 23 Cross Section D-D' Diesel Generator Building 4 1

24 Cross Section E-E' Diesel Generator Building 4 i

25 Cross Section F-F' Diesel Generator Building 4 26 Cross Section G-G' Diesel Generator Building 4 27 Cross Section E-H'D.iesel Generator Building 4 28 Cross Section I-I' Diesel Generator Building 4 f

29 Penetrometer Readings Test Pit 1

- South Wall Diesel Generator Building 4 --

30 Penetrometer Readings Test Pit 3 North Wall Tank Farm Area 4 31 Penetrometer Readings East Wall of Test Pit 2 Condensate Water Tank ,

Area, Sheet .1 of 2 4 i

32 Fenetrometer Readings East Wall of- )

Test Pit 2 Condensate Water Tank ,

Area, Sheet 2 of 2 4 l 33 Pield Density Test Results- 4  !

)

I

.I 7-I

MCAR 24 Interin Reper,,') ; April 16, 1979; Pagm 9 af I 34 Plasticity Chart 4

.35 Water Content -Versus Elevation 4 36 Dry Unit Weight Versus Elevation 4 37 Total'U'nic Weight Versus Elevation 4 38 Shear Strength Versus Elevation 4 39 . Shear Strength Versus Moisture content Diesel Generator Building 4 40 Test Pit Boring Logs 4 41 Diesel Generator Building Preload Plan 4 42 Diesel Generator Building Additional Boring Locations

, and Details 5 43 Diese1' Generator Building Setticaent Data - Building Markers 5 4

44 Diesel Generator Building Sectiement Datz - Pedestal Markers 5 45 Crack Mapping Diesel Generator Building 5 46 Diesel Generator Building Sectie=ent Data, Borros Anchors and Surface Plates Area, and' Cluster Plan 5 47 Diesel Generator Building Settle =ent Data, Borros Anchors and Surface Plates, Area A 5 48 Diesel Generator Building Settle =ent Data, Borros Anchors and Surface Plates, Area A 5 49 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data, Borros Anchors and Surface Plates, Area B 5 50 Diesel Generator Building Settlement i Data, Borros Anchors and Surface Plates, Areas B and C- 5 l 51 Diesel Generator Building settlemet.t Data, Borros Anchors and Surface Places, i Area C. 5 i

4 . -

4 MCAR 24 Interim Fepart ' April 16,1979; Peri 10 of 1" 52 Diesel Generator Building Settlement i Data, Borros Anchors and Surface Places,  !

j Areas C and D 5 53 Diesel Generator Building Sectiement Data, Borros Anchors and Surface Plates, -

Area D 5 54 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data, Borros Anchors and Surface Plates,

, Ar ea E. 5 55 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data, Borros Anchors and Surface Places 5 56 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data, Borros Anchors and Surface Plates,

' Areas A, B, D, and South of Building 5 57 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data Piezometers and Cooling Pond 5 58 Diesel Generator Building Settlement.

Data Piezometers - Sheet 1 5 59 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data Piezometers - Sheet 2 ,

5 60 Diesel Generator Building Surveyed Pipe Lines Profiles by GZD 5 61 Diesel Generator Building Plan of Pipe Profiling Locations 5 62 Crack Mapping Service Water Pump Structure 5

.k a

4/4/1S f

_