ML19340C342
| ML19340C342 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland, Bailly |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1980 |
| From: | Heller L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340C304 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-89-167, CON-NRC-3-89-167 NUDOCS 8011140546 | |
| Download: ML19340C342 (7) | |
Text
(*O a
-r.:
~~~D =.
e c,
~
ff o,
UNITED STATES
/-
g h '., y b NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.y \\e
- f. p WASHINGTON. O, C. 20555 l-'
'N MN-(3[gg 11EMORAf!DUM FOR:
James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Engineering, DSS f0P1 fe*
THRU:
Robert E. Jackson, Chief Geosciences Branch, DSS FROM:
L. W. Heller, Leader Geotechnical Engineering Section Geosciences Branch, DSS
SUBJECT:
STATUS OF GE0 TECHNICAL REVIEW 0F MIDLAf40 Af10 BAILLY PLANTS BY CORPS OF Ef1GINEERS Interagency Agreement No. flRC-03-79-167 with the Corps of Engineers was executed on September 25, 1979 that included two review tasks for Midlind and Bailly.
The target. date for letterreportsfromtheCorpsoutliningunreso10ed issues ard recommenaations for resolution for both plants was 12/79.
Corps personnel visited NRC to attend a meeting on Midland on January 15 and 16, 1980.
Conversation with District and Division Corps representatives revealed that adequate Corps. manpower to accomplish the review had not.yet been identified or assigned; one reviewer had made a cursory examination of available information and had visited both sites, but at least a three man review team is needed for these plants.
OnJanuary18,theCorpsadvisedmethattheleadreviewerprehiouslyassigned to the cases (and who had made both site visits) will terminate his review in two weeks and be assigned to other duties for a 6 month period. A replacement (John Grundstorm) was being assigned and I was told he would begin work ircediately.
On January 21, Joe Kane contacted the Corps and was advised that the following team was being assembled to work on the Midland /Bailly review at the Detroit District office.
W,
'?fC. Bill Lawhead - Coordinator / Administrator eA John Grundstorm - geotechnical engineer Ron Erickson
. Bill Otto Peter Kytasty I" ' N* d ' ?
Y Q,
f). d. d.,.
L ';-
~
~ ~ ~
c 8 0111 &oSijy
4 J. Knight JAli 23 n
1990 I estimate that the review subtask' schedule given in the contract will be delayed by about 3 months since the Corps is just now beginning their review. 4 Thus, for the Bailly plant, we would be prepared to release pile driving
' operations, probably.with a number of stipulations and conditions that could again halt' driving, by June rather tnan March.
y
's lh (b,'
y na:n L...an W. Heller, Leader Geotechnical Engineering Section
-Geosciences Branch, DSS cc:
H. Denton R. Mattson F. Schroeder D. Ross D. Lynch D. Hood R. Jackson L. Heller J. Kane l
3 Thompson T. Davvison', Univ. of Ill.
2 5
I
- h. -
l
[ b(d
..'I
}
~
I
~
~'
i r.
..........._...,6
.n...
n
.. u..... c..... c. e.....
. a c.: c. : o s w.m
- 3.
.. f N(. ED-T Cu.t echnical Engineering Assist nce to NRC Orient at ion '!eet ing at the Beti.ceda,'!3ryland 7-8 Novenber 1979
.RC File Kubinski 1 Feb 80 4 '"' '
KUBINSKI/vw/6786 1.
The purpose of this t rip was orientation in nature.
It was r:ade to acquaint P.. Erickson and J. Kubinski with the NRC Organization, staff, project requi renents, and f acilities available at their main of fice.c Eethesda, !!aryland.
2.
The nectings took place on the 7-8 November 1979.
I s ill refer to the ir.eet ing that took place on the 7th as '-feeting I, and the meeting chat took place on the 8th as Meeting II.
- ~ ~
.~
3.
The following are significant items discussed at th' respective ncetings:
a.
Meeting I:
This neeting was pricarily orientation in nature.
SCE personnel were int roduced to the NRC staf f, their organizational elenents and in Ceneral their funct ion as a review agency.
Dave Lynch of NRC gave a concise presentation on the general nission, and referencing specifically Bailly Nuclear Generating Station near Gary, Indiam'.
He also covered elements in the nornal review process giving an indication as to general requirecents.
Later, he covered the nore technical aspects and probleas in existance at the site.
b.
!!ceting II:
This neeting was also or orientation nature, with the enphasis placed on the !!idland Nuclear Facilities.
This neeting was very similar in nature to the one on Bailly, but was conducted with enphasis on the Midland site.
4.
The following people were involved in these neetings:
!jecting I_:
a.
Bob Jackson (NRC)
Lyman ikfler (NRC)
Dave Lynch (NRC)
J. Kubinski (NCE)
R. Erickson (NCE) b.
Meeting II:
Lynan ikiler (NRC)
Da rl liood (NRC)
Dan Gillen (NRC)
J. Kubinski (NCE)
R. Erickson (NCE) a d a AX n m D A I'OCW,.. u 2 2 C' o m u = o u o u. c o u r n. i,.. s 'J P P t.9 2 8 O F U H e
RCP AC ES DD on s e, t:T e rs o H WILL DE
"' c*a- ' " - " " " " "
u i. m ax c a e x ua r c o.
e
r,- -.,p g-
^
Crot e: Lnic al 'N!: c rin:
.*.e s t e Hce t o NRC Crie nt at ion !!ect ing at the
- LIJP T:
e
. Le t!.r.<.da, ':.i ry!.u.d E h ver te r 1W 9 5.
- d e itens dir. cussed are listed below:
a.
"ectinn 1:
1.
This necting was of orientation nature and a good introduction' to the ent ire program' was given by Dave Lynch, Project Panager, NRC, Bailly Nuclear Ceaerat ing Station.
II.
The purpose of NRC's nission with respect to review is to insure radiological safety and containment of all possible danger.
It is not NRC's concern to see that OASilA standards or safety _ in general 4s observed.
Ill.
The issue at Bailly.is concerned with piles supporting cf primary containr,ent facilities.
It is a rigid structure and, therefore, no displacement can 1e tolerated.
Dynamic operations result in displacement and this displacement rust be nonitored so that the entire structure is adjusted accordingly. 4t is a 4
very, defined load / deflection analysis for the entire facility.
u :41 IV.
The containment facility cannot fail.
It may have to be politically safe which implier a greater than necessary safety factor to be technically safe.
V.
The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) has not yet been written for the Eailly plant.
VI.
It is necessary to defend any technical judgnents before the Advisory Committee for Reactor Safety (ACRS).
At the Bailly site it will be necessary to-defend as built conditions.
VII.
The t erm " Intervener" is defined as follows:
An intervener cust live within 50 niles of the proposed facility (the State in which the facility exist can act as an intervener); the interveners may hire firms or individuals to represent them in obtaining infornation concerning the construction or operation of nuclear facilities.
VIII.
The normal review process consists of the-following items:
- Applicant submits PSAR (Prelf=inary Safety Analysis Report)
- NRC writes Safety Evaluation Report (SER).
This SER is a concise picture of NRC staff's review.
NRC submits SER to Advisory Committee on Reactor Saf tcy (ACRS).
The ACRS car. form subconittees in which their nembers and/or their consultants can c' valuate the specific issues.
- ACRS evaluates SER/PSAR and letter on the safety of the plant is written.
2 0
g'
.T 'h {L 9
ejD.
a t ta e>
-,yz
$_7
- :..ii:C T:
C. - t c ' nical T ;ixe ri:.p
- t s f rir. e t o ?,RC Crient at ion tc et ing at the L. :'.. Ja, Ma ryla nd 7-b ' ovenbe r 19 79
- Pubite hearings are generated only if the license is thought to be abic to be granted.
~;his is~a construction license.
- The Construction Fernit, issued by NRC, but IIcense is granted by the
-rhairean of the.Connission.
- The review of deviations fron the PSAR, SER and CP nust be reported by the applicant to the !!ucicar Regulatory Connission Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement (I&E). The I&E Of fice sends this information to the review of fice for review, and <'p-new if cense or anended IIcense is usually issued.
NOTE:
The following is a list of itens concerning the Bailly plant.
IX.
The construction pernit for Eaf11y Plant consist of non-displacement high capacity piles which go to bedrock or glacial till and support y concrete r:a t foundation.
They are embeddedaconcrete apprcximately three feet.
pr X.
A brief driving history for the piles is as follows.
In driving the piles stiffening occurred at 55. feet.
Blow counts fron 200 to 300 blows per inch were experienced.
The till caterial is at about 110 feet and bedrock is at 120 feet).bove a very stiff clay deposit which is n,d shaped in profile, internittent sands and clays are the overJurdend caterial.
This stiffening occurs in a very dense sand above this larger clay deposit.
XI.
In May 1974 the construction pernit called hr a test pile progran which indicated significant problens in driving.
Shortly after that, NIPSCo came in with a short pile proposal.
In September 1977 an alternate proposal to jet long piles was subnitted.
A test progran was initiated and in February 1978, the NRC issued an order to jetting the piles.
In jetting the piles, the soil reacted similar to a giant wash boring (1,000 gallons per nir.utes at 300 PSI).
The~ area of disturbance was much too large and the pile was actually 18se near the surface.
The nat ure of the structure which was to be supported by these piles demanded that the piles have uplift capacity.
Because of the disturbance and lack of uplift.
capacity, the short pile concept is once against an issue as or March 1978.
These piles would develop / end bearing and friction.
The applicant was allowed to drive 100 piles as indicators to determine capacities and applicability of using the short pile concept.
A cluster was driven to observe heave within the piles.
This brings us to the current state of the issue.
XII.
It is now the task of the NRC review to look at all of the above subnit tals and reconsider the ent i re issue.
They nust also deternine if const ruction restrictions are required or further load test are required.
The jetting procedures have made soft spots which encompress almost five percent of d
the area of the foundation.
These lofsen areas cust be densified and a technique developed to insure that they develop all lateral capaci:!ities as well as uplift capacitles.
., g
~
- C O, T
.f f Mu!.t:T:
C..t.-Lht.fcal Tn h < r i ng
- w.i st. y e t o '.MC Ori c nt at ion "- d i ng at the-
, t he s da, ":i r y :,.d 7 -S No.. - 5 c r 19 7 9 XIll.
The Advisory Co.:c.itt< e on Reactor Safety (ACRS) bcs aircady indicat ed t!.at nothing was rubstant f ally wrong with use of short piles to provide substantial foundatinn. nat is.ti.at tl.ere is.'no deflection in the piles and i
that all the disturU(hreas due to the jetting procedures are densified.
q XIV.
It is apparent that now it is~necessary to look at the PSAR and; become fully fantliar with it as well as considering the groundwater af fect on the foundation.
XV.
SCE will have o prepare the entire Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and not just assist in its preparation.
A sample Saftey Evaluation Report is available f rom NRC and will be t rans-itte'd.
1 NOTE:.The last item is of general nature.
n b % L "A
+
XVI.
The hearing process can be. described as follows.
Ad inistrative law
.iodge act as the Chairman. Engineer Scientists and some technical people drawn from university staff act as part of the concittee.
The commission delegates authority to the Board, the Board Inturn can dictate policy.
The Poard can question any item and the interveners' attorney can question around itecs brought up by the Ecard.
It is, therefore, necessary to mininize any questions the Board r.ay have by clear concise presentations.
XVII.
SCE will coet with Newnarig Hall and Davison at Champagne (University of Illinois) concerning the piling issue socetime in January or
- February, b.
Meeting II:
This coeting was of a briefer nature than Meeting I.
At this neeting Joei E
Kane (NRC) and Darl' Hood (URC Project Manager) presented an introduction concerning issues at the Midland Nuclear Facility.
I.
/ s a prelininary to the r.eeting, the following itens were discussed.
A brief discussion on what safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) or an operating base j
carthquake (OBE) were head. Appropriate voluces of the Frelininary Safety
-Analysis Report (PSAR) were to be sent to NCE as soon as possibic. The applicant, Cenau-r,2 r<m e e
&~ con 3
( CPC.)
, cust still respond to original 1&E questions on the interim report and on 10CFR 50.54(f).
There is apparently a report or a paper on the devatering system.
i l
- 11. The I&E Of fice (Inspection and Enforcenent) is investigative in nature and generally goes to the NRR (Nucicar Regulatory Review' for' support.
The I&E
+
s Of fice considered the overall performance of the applicant as well as the technical adequacy of any field changes.
The viability'of the luality Assurance Program is also investigated by this group.
d i
6 l
~-
=
-~
_~
,,. > ;. 7
']
.c ", ?M 7:
r
. cL ! c al n, '* i r i nt, I s ! t. w e t o
.'.R C-Ori en t.: f r.n '". + t I:.g a t the L'..'Ja, *:.ry!..nd 7-8_ ' overh r 379 -
A III. The current st at e of the re. view I s. one ' in which t he cc,nct ruct f on perrit h uld be suspended, codified or revoked by the Cct.ission.
One of there act ions l e. necess,ary to take concerning the quality assuraace breakdown at the Mid!.,ndLsite as well as the inadequate fill in support of Category I structures.
4
-IV. Questions of a non policy nature can go direct ly to the applicant. No con-!trent is considered. to be binding between _ NCE and the applicant.
Once these questions are established and they are addressed to the applicant, they should be docu.ncnted 'especially when they are relatively significant.
V.
Construction inspections' or visits to the site are necessary in perforning the nission.
NCE must be able to-reply (we saw) in reference to a
[
specific frsue if possible.
j VI. More than one visit is in rost cases necessary, since sequential evente will be occurring in the fixin, of unstable conditions at the site.
1 VII. The NRC Of fice of Inspection and Enforcenent has a fulltime man at l
the r te, and he can be contacted concerning observing any action at the site..
i VIII. 'iceting concluded with two inmediate itens of cajor concern:
I a.
Should the existing license be nodified, suspended or revoked.
b.
A list-of visits and times sequentially established in the future.
6.
These nnetings were of orientation in nature and it is difficult to establish any conclusions.
The actions to be taken in the future are ones concerning scheduling field trips and site visits, carrying out orientation procedures with all docunents t ransmitted, assuring that all documents have been transnitted and then beginning the revied process and =aking either reco nendations, connents, or-conclusions regarding the situations at both facilities.
?
KD-J. KUBINSK1 Technical Eranch i
I
._-----R. Erickson i
1 L. lleller (NRC) l 5
t
.._u g
q,. -
ff 6
pano C'WL,CO BV
- o, UNITED STATES
+
E5 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
2 C WASHING TON. D. C. 20555 I
o
%,..
- Y IMR 0 6%
i y
'~.,
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert E. Jackson, Chief Geosciences Branch, DSS THRU:
Lyman W. Heller, Leader Geotechnical Engineering Sectiorz 7 Geosciences Branch, DSS FROM:
Owen 0. Thompson, Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineering Section Geosciences Branch, DSS
SUBJECT:
SITE VISIT TO BAILLY WITH COE DETROIT PLANT NAME: Bailly Nuclear 1 LICENSING STAGE: Post CP DOCKET NUMBER: 50-367 TAC NUMBER: 4764 MILESTONE NUMBER: R-18 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH: LWR-4; M. D. Lynch, LPM REVIEW STATUS: Awaiting COE review coments On February 20 and 21, I visited the Bailly site with M. D. Lynch, Project Manager, DPM, and representatives from the Corps of Engineers (C0E) Detroit District and North Central Division. The licensee and his consultants also were present. The attendance list is attached.
The purpose of the v'isit was to enable the COE staff to become familiar with the site since the.COE has assigned different reviewers to the Bailly project since the site visit on November 26, 1979..
The licensee presented a summary of the design and. construction history. We were conducted on a tour of the excavation and we viewed the present site conditions. The excavation was muddy and icy. The tops of piles were visible as follows:
a) all production piles (numbering about 1000 piles) in the turbine building area b) the piles installed for the indicator pile program, numbering about 130 piles evaluations DUPLICATE DOCUMENT y of test area E (where jetting was used).
Entire document previously entered into systcm under:
ANO M5d%6jd5%N No. of pages:
Ms,
2+
- j
{
lll!CL E AR REGUL ATORY CO."J."ISSION
,j
- r. AC -4 *.G T ON. D. C. 20:.55 t
5 IEC 1 1 j339
[
L'0 3.ANDU:* FOR:
D. T. Lynch, LPM Light ' ater Reactors, Branch flo. 4, DPM THRU:
Robert E. Jackson, Chief Geosciences Branch, DSS Geotechnical Engineeringfpg't[,/ /
Lyman W. Heller, Leader /g,
Geosciences Branch, DSS FROM:
Owen 0. Thompson, Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineering Section Geosciences Branch, DSS S'.'B X C T :
C00RDIf!ATION OF BAILLY REVIEW In a phone conversation February 6, 1980, with Mr. f:eil Gehring, Corps of Engineers, Detroit (C of E Detroit), I attempted to establish a date for a visit to the Bailly site for the benefit of the new C of E Detroit reviewers.
Ue have been trying to coordinate this visit with a visit to Midland site since both projects will have the same reviewers.
Furthermore, we have atte.pted to have consecutive visits to minimize the travel of Waterways Experiment Station (WES) personnel (seismic analysis review consultants to C of E Detroit). Mr. Gehring informed me that WES does not currently have a qualified reviewer to assign to the Bailly project.
He indicated that C of E Detroit management would consider this problem and inform us of their course of action.
In the interim, I suggest that you tentatively arrange a site visit for the week of February 19 and 20, 1980.
This schedule precludes a coc.bined Midland /Bailly site visit but hopefully will expedite the review by C of E Detroit.
If they identify additional consultants, another site visit r.ay be necessary at a later date, k.,
- w %."
Owen 0. Thompson, Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineering Section Geosciences Branch, DSS cc:
L. Rubenstein J. Knight R. Jackson L./deller W. Thompson D. Hood J. Kane
?0022Golff
2f ts3KtCyg g
m UNITED STATES y Yg) w(
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g $ gag ay WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 F E B 1 9 199 0 Docket No.: 50-367 MEMORANDUM FOR:
L. S. Rubenstein, Acting Chief, Light Water Reactors ds-/k
.)
Branch No. 4. Division of Project Management FROM:
M. D. Lynch, Project Manager, Light Water Reactors, Branch No. 4, Division of Project Management
SUBJECT:
FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH NIPSCO REGARDING THE BAILLY REVIEW 0F THE FOUNDATION PILE PROPOSAL BY THE U. S.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DATE & TIME:
February 20, 1980 11:30 A.M.
LOCATION:
Bailly Site PURPOSE:
To acquaint the Corps of Engineers with the Bailly site.
PARTICIPANTS:
NIPSCO A. Severance, et al NRC
- 0. Thompson, et al D. Lynch N-M. D. Lynch, ivaect Manager light Water Reactors, Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management cc:
See next page 5003150l83
)b f Rf C0 g
UNITED STATES o
g
- 3 g#[ g
/ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C
WASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 g.g lfe'
%; e.%
Tie,8 12CQ
~
~
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert E. Jackson, Chief Geosciences Branch, DSS Lyman W. Heller, Leadp $
cC THRU:
7 Geotechnical Engineering Se.t,lon Geosciences Branch,' DSS FROM:
Owen 0. Thompson, Geotechnical Enginr.!r Geotechnical Engineering Section Geosciences Branch, DSS
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH COE (DETROIT) SEB, GSB, AND CONSULTANTS REGARDING PILES AT BAILLY DATE AND TIME:
March 10, 1980 - 8:00 a.m.
LOCATION:
University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois PURPOSE:
To discuss the COE findings regarding the acceptability of the' applicant's pile proposal; to identify unresolved issues and to formulate staff positions necessary to allow pile driving to continue.
PARTICIPANTS:
D. Lynch, DPM
- 0. Thompson, GSB F. Schauer, SEB T. Davisson, GSB Consultant J. Ma, SEB W. Otto, COE W. Hall, SEB Consultant J. Grundstrom, COE L. Heller, GSB R. Erickson, COE P. Kytasky, COE l'lp.
~
Owen 0. Thompson, Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineering Section Geosciences Branch, DSS cc:
L. Rube stein L. Heller D. Lynci.
J. Kane D. Hood
-0.
Thompson J. Knight N. Gehring, COE Detroit F. Schauer W. Hall, Univ. of Illinois J. Ma T. Dav,isson, Univ. of Illinois o
D M]
w#
mm L
gg@