ML19352B289
| ML19352B289 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1981 |
| From: | Thompson O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Heller L, Knight J, Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19352B286 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107010436 | |
| Download: ML19352B289 (14) | |
Text
...
'i,'iANO
\\
f.
E '. ns li n i ".!!/., S U P
'\\
i sm Dit) ft. Agency /Pca symbor, com n 3.
os
-tGener_ t)
]jigjg]
- aov, 2.
snutats
,.G Le oste ur CR I
Y s.
4u J. Knight r
2V k
[7 s.
Action Approvst rile As Requested Circufste For Clearance Note Com For Cerrection Per Comand Msturn ment
/
Coordinetion For Your informati Prepare heply ernation REMAnns investigate on Justify See Me Signature
SUBJECT:
Bailly-Monitoring 1
In contractanticipation of Pile Installatio of monitor (, copy atta hwe have initiatedtermination n
of COE 2
The c ed).
an RFPA for relevant to'tiieattached neAm a
Denton to Stello i yet been issued' issued.
same subject but hass perhaps it should
/
not be p
[#d DJ NOT use this form a
( )3.-
h TROM:(Name, org clearances,ORD of approv ls s a REC 3
- 0. Thanpson/HGEB. syrabol. Agency / Post)and similar actionsa, concurrences
, disposels, sost-t:3 Room No,-Bldg.
PI P-214 It' s. tiV 197e-0 76 hone No.
1 4 r 3334 4
OPTIONAt. FORM 28186 Pree W cebed b I'I*II M41 (Rev. 7-76)
R 4I GSA I
i l
u
i, I
NtfCL ! '
- GUL.1 M Y n
- m
, r. a
.o(
Docket flo. 50-367 ME!'ORAfiDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
IllSPECTION At:D MONITORIllG OF PILES AT BAILLY (TAC-4764)
The staff dvaluation of the applicant's proposed pile driving program for the Bailly plant was submitted from Division of Engineering to Division of Licensing in a memorandum from J. Knight to R. Tedesco dated September 25, 1980. The staff has determined that augmented inspection and field conitoring of the pile installation is necessary to assure adequate safety and is a prerequisite to meeting the intent of the December 12, 1979 Order of the Commission.
Inspection and enforcement will be provided by IE in accordance with normal practice.
The field monitoring will be an extension of the HRR review process and will be provided by HRR and its cons.'ltants.
Agreements reached during a discussion on October 9, 1980 between H. Thornburg (IE) and R. Tv desco, J. P. Knight, B. J. Youngblood, D. Lynch and O. Thompson (NRR), are stanarized in the attached description of the duties of the on-site NRR representative and the anticipated interfaces between the on-site NRR representative who will perfonn the field monitoring, the NRR staff and its consultants, the IE inspector, IE, and the applicant.
'If you or your staff require further discussion regarding inspection or monitoring of the Bailly pile installation, the project mar.ager, D. Lynch, can be contacted at 492-8413 to arrange a meeting.
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
I h stated cc: See page 2 w
m
-i---y
'ti: or Stello. i cc: w/ attachment H. Denton H. Thornburg D. Eisenhut R. Vollmer R. Shewaaker R. Tedesco J. Knight
.B. Youngblood F. Schauer R. Jackson W. Haass G. Leir D. Lynch L. Heller J. Ma S. Goldberg P. Crane
- 0. Thompson E. Gallagher P. Barrett ACRS i
s e
s I
e 1
I 4
i f
l
Subject:
Inspection and Monitoring of Piles at Bailly (TAC-4764)
Prepared By:
Dr. Owen 0. Thompson, Geotechnical Engineering, Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, liRR Justification for On-site NRR Representative The flRR staff and its consultants require field monitoring of the installation of piles at the Bailly site to assure adequate safety of the foundation of this plant The field monitoring will be an extension of,the fiRR review effort and is required because pile installation is a critical part of plant construction and errors made cannot be rectified after the plant is complete.
Furthermore, the staff requires a significant quantity of verification (load tests, heave measurements, etc) of the pile foundation design to be accomplished on a daily basis during construction.
The on-site l{RR representative is also needed to assure that the verification activities are reviewed and evaluated by the staff in a timely manner.
Finally, the staff believes that an on-site flRR representative is a prerequisite to meeting the intent of the December 12, 1979 Order of the
' ommission and the intent of the staff's comitment in the SER that installation of C
piles will be closely followed during construction.
Duties of On-site fiRR Representative The on-site NRR representative will observe the driving of piles and related activities; he will review and evaluate field records and report his findings to the NRR staff or its consultants, as directed by' the NRR staff.
In particular, the on-s'ite NRR representative will monitor:
1.
Daily records of pile driving and redriving.
4 2.
The applicant's evaluation of the satisfa:*ory densificatior of each area l
6 described by the applic' ant as a " preconstruction area."
3.' The applicant's evaluations of piezometer and grounduater data.
4.
The technical background and experience of the applicant's structural and geotechnical engineers who will process NCR's.
5.
The qualifications and experience of the applicant's pile inspectors.
6.
The applicant's redriving of piles which show heavc. equal to or greater than 0.5 inches, and, if necessary,the applicant's evaluation of piles with final heave greater than 0.5 inches.
7.
The applicant's submittals for periodic settlement reading's at significant stages cf the plant construction.
8.
The applicant's selection of piles to be load tested.
9.
Changes to the applicant's QA/QC manual as related to pile driving.
I
- 10. The pile foundation installation for compatability with project plans, specifications, and accepted engineering practices.
l l
The applicant is committed to obtain specific approvai frcs.RR for nuncrous o
activities. The on-site NRR representative will monitor these activities and report to NRR.
As directed by NRR, the on-site NRR representative shall simultaneously inform the applicant and the IE inspector of NRR approval.
The on-site NRR representative shall maintain a daily log of monitoring activities.
Interfaces Between the On-site NRR Representative, the NRR Staff and its Consultants, the IE Inspector, IE, and the Applicant The NRR staff will direct the activities of the on-site NRR representative, with assistance from consultants, as required. The on-site NRR representative will report to URR or to a consultant as directed by HRR. The fjRR contact is 0. Thompson, Technical Manitor (301-492-8186).
The on-site NRR representative will respond, as described above, to the applicant's requests for approval of the specific activities for which NRR review and approval are required. The IE inspector will simultaneously be informed.
The on-site NRR representative will not perform any enforcement activity except in the case of immediate risk to life. Any activities requiring enforcement action will be referred to the IE inspector and to NRR.
The on-site NRR representative will not be required to perform inspection activities, except as necessary to assist the NRR review effort. Nothig in the representatives duties shall take away the responsibilities of the IE inspector in the performance of the normal IE function.
The on-site HRR representative shall work in coordination. tith the.E inspector so that each knows what the other is doing. Ultimate inspection and enforcement responsibility remains with the IE inspector.
The on-site NRR representative shall request from the applicant infoaation necessary to the NRR review effort.
Lack of adequate or timely submittals from the applicant shall be referred to URR and IE for appropriate action.
t t
O J
l
-~
K'
- c. w.. r. t ;-~ r h.-
pa n
J V
/
,ff anuary 4 1
C MEMORANDUM FOR: Commissioner Gilins FROM:
l William J. Dircks
~
Executive Director for Operations
~
I SUBJ5CT:
i QUESTIONS REGARDING BAILLY Your memorandum of January 6 to me asked for my view discussed be1ow.
ons j
(1)
In light of the utility's relative lack of nuclear experience, how do you evaluate NIPSCO's competence to I
build and eventually to operate a nuclear power reactor 7 i
We have made no recent survey of the technical or manag i
of NIPSCO.
The initial Decision of April 5,1974 a
cations Licensing Board of the Atomic Energy Commission au,thorizin a construction permit fo Bailly dealt with the Applicant's technica uance of fications.
Excerpts from that decision are at Attachment 1 quali-developed by Jim Keppler providing his views i
, a memorandum you asked.
g.
these questions.I understand IE also is developing a set of comen technical resources of NIPSCOIf you desire an up-to-date e ructure and
~
utilize to some extent the dra,ft of NUREG-073we will initiate one.
Although we would Management Structure and Technical Resources,"1 on " Guidelines for j
during the last year.to be largely subjcetive in nature, similar to eva the evaluation would have ing of several people from NRR and IE.The evaluation could be performe of NTOL plants three weeks would be required to visit the utility and writWe estima evaluation.
e up the to build and operate a nuclear plant.The areas of greates of NIPSCO Other matters that would be reviewed includ ortant.
structure; the technic of available manpower;al staff including the number zational including the NS interface arrange $$ vendor, the A-E and the constructor, together wit ments between the utility and the contractors; the i
responsiveness of the utility to NRR and IE concerns involvement of senior utility management with the pro; ject and the degree of 3
m py a-+
Cr..issioner Gilinsky "
.l i
s Be:ause of delays in the Bailly project, we are not sure of the manage-ment emphasis and the technical resources being applied by the utility.
However, the overall objective of the review will be to determine whether,,
corporate management is involved with, informed about, and dedicated to the safe design, construction and operation of the plant and whether sufficient technical resources have been or will be provided to support adequately the construction and safe operation of the plant.
(2) Will extensive redesigning be required to bring the Bailly reactor design into confomance with present -
requirements? Are there any other plants of similar design at a comparably early stage of construction?
Tht Bailly plant would use a reactor of the BWR 5/ Mark II design and would have an electrical rating of 645 megawatts.
The design is basically similar to that of ten other units of higher electrical ratings to ccme on line from 1981 (e.g., tasalle) to 1985 (e.g., Nine Mile Point 2).
Bailly is at a much earlier stage of construction (less than 1% completed) than 1
these units and is.to come on line in 1989.
The Bailly plant was designed by the same architect / engineer, Sargent and '
Lundy, and is to use a nuclear steam supply system from the same manufacturer, General Electric, as the LaSalle and Zimer plants.
The construction permit for Zimer was issued in 1972, for LaSalle in 1973, and for Bailly in 1074.
The LaSalle and Zimer plants are presently undergoing OL review to determine the extent that this design meets our present requirercents. A Sefety Evaluation Report for LaSalle is in draft form and is to be published in the near future; at present there are 53 outstanding issues that will need to be resolved with the applicant before issuance of operating licenses.
The staff will likely apply the same requirement to plants in early stages of construction, such as Bailly, as it would to near-term construction-permit applicants. Included will be those TMI requirements that will be ideatified in the final version of NUREG-0718. " Licensing Requirements for Pending Applications for Construction Permits and Manufacturing License." Areas of design which may require extensive revision at Bailly are,Bailly has no the reactor con-tainment structure and the control room. Construction at reached the point where such changes cannot be incorporated, f5fpeMiilliamJ. Dies William J. Dir'cks Executive Director for Operations Enclosures ASLBP Decision Excerpt Revised & retyped in' OEDO.
See Memo fm Director, R-III dtd 1/8/81 previour yellow for concurrences.
CC:
Chairman Ahearne '
Comissioner Hendrie
,h Comissfoner Bradford,_4 g-
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~.....
. ~.................
.,,,c E
fECY
.. ~. ~. - ~... ~........................
Oh 1/.14/.81...................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
au,-~pt fr:= A*c.i: S:fttytr,dLicensinsMudDEcisicnofAprilI[is74, b:
rizing issuance of killy Construction Femit:
.ea
..K "F.
APPLICANT'S TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS
"'I 30.
The Applicant has had considerable experience in the design construction and operation of numero6s fossil-fired power plants.
Its principal contractors, General Electric Company and Sargent and Lundy, have extensive experience in the design and construction of nuclear power facilities (S.E.R., following Tr. 741, p.126). The Applicant has taken steps to assure that individuals with relevant prior experience are assigned by such contractors to the Bailly nuclear project (Lyle, followng Tr. 582).
The proposed organization of NIPSCO's. staff is modeled.on the organization of project groups which have successfully munaged the design and construction of nuclear power plants (Coe, following Tr. 584).
The Regulatory Staff has concluded that the applicant is techni-cally qualified to design and construct the Bailly facility (5.E.R., pp.126,138).
31.
The Joint Intervenors ' allege in Contention 21 that the Applicant has had no experience in the nuclear field and there-fore the Commission cannot properly issue a construction perinit because NIPSCO is without, the prerequisite experience. The Joint Intervenors did not direct the Board to any legal precedent in support of their contention.
0"- independent search reveals a number of cases suggesting that prior nuclear experience is not required.
Although these decisions do not have the finality of either a Commissicn or Appeal Board decision, nevertheless, we find them persuasive. In the Matter of Northern States Power Company, Docket No. 50-130 Inter-mediate Decision,1 AEC Rep. 314 at 323 (April 21,1980); In the Matter _ot' Niacara Mohawk Power Corooration Docket No. 50-220
' Initial Decision, 3 AEC Rep. 5 at 14.
The approach suggested by the Joint Intervenors would bar substantially all public utilities frorn utilizing nuclear power, since this field is relatively new with few organizations knowledge-able in the intricacies of nuclear power.
We perceive no reason why experienced electrical utility operators should not be pennitted to take advantage of such expertise in developing another source for production of electrical energy, provided that. the Applicant develops' a schedule of training for its own employees to enable the Applicant to properly operate a nuclear plant.
- 32. Accordingly, we reject the Joint Intervenors' Contention 21.
We find that NIPSCO is technically qualified to design, construct and operate a nucleai power plant."
ATTACHMENT i e
. o
. =L:1
.L E s:. L k=
- n k= 2 ~ ^~ ' '
' :E ' =.
~
1-
/m\\
L!%ITID ET ATEK
[
'3 7.
NUCL E A R R e G ULA TO P Y COV 5.'.!O0104*
tt
{
R E Cl31.* Etl 9,4 d y/S N...
0 79: exc rvitt v.An oLtx attyn. LLpots som 5
January 8, 1981
.W.DRANDUE FOR: Janes H. Saferak Director, Division of hsident and Regional Reactor Inspp: tion. IE YkN2 Jatnes G. Kepp' lar, Director
SUBJECT:
R.rEW/.L CT 2AILLY CONS [EUCTION PTJXIT As you are avsrs, the issue of whether or not to extend the E4113y Coestruction Permit is pending before an 'Atorzic 5efaty and Licensing Board (ASLS).
As vs understand it, the pr'.rsry astrers under consideratipu by (Le ASLE relmte to unvironnental conditions that may be caused by exter.Aion of the Constrvetion Turnit, the reasons for construction delays,.
. and the competency of the utility as evidanced by the delays.
In view of the fact that very little construction has takee place since the constructicr. Termit was iksuad in 1974 we beli4ve other matters verrant assess:ne.nt. by the NRC in its consideration of axtending tha Pe rnit.
?articularly important, in our viev, are the following:
1.
The Bailly facility v111 utilfee a one-of-a-type 645 Ns. Mark TI, BVR 5 design.
We anticipate that significant modifications vill be required by siRC, resulting in a substantial theresse in capital costs over that estinated during the initial Construction Permit review.
2.
The Quality Assurance Organization and Program identified in the Construction Permit Application vill require significant upgrading to meet existing utandards.
3.
Tha utility has only a amm11 our6er of people with nuclear expericca.
The majority of thema people arm currently functioning in non-nuclear positions.
We belIeve the overall co=petence of the utility to construct and,perate the facility may not match the stoodards which the NRC staff would expect if a utility vers subz!tting a new appifcation today.
As you know, both Chairman Ahearne and Comissioner C111nsky ra'eently tound the Bailly site by belicoptar with Bert Davis. Bill Axeleon, and r.yself to observe first hand the characterietics of the location from a git 1E'euitability and ceertency plemninr et andwire.
During the,e over-flights, they botW sked our views concarcing this particular sits and whether we thought the prof.ct abould be continued.
l p p p J 0 Ze A TACHMENT II h'
. QPj' ~
g
. am
- L _ ___ _ _, ___
=
., = =..
t
. 1/3/El -
Jsats H. Cniossi
%*e orprsssed our view that whf.It some dther sitas with plants in operaties are vo:se from c. po.' olation density consideration, va did net L*1feve it M1' ~ t tf etda s to be*1d a nw.
vas wror.riate with tofer'c puMir and polit a
P ant this clos. ce a mjor e.iey.
We also stated chat our vf ev was based l
on the f a er th at construction was minimal de3 that we vere. not advocattag shutting down plants with higher population densities.
In respocss to direct questi.ons va also told the Con.issioners that the r4e of the plant-design and the capabilities of the utility raised additional concerns in our einds. Collectively all the concarns reaulted in our view that the Project should not continue.
k's did not initially consider voicing.sny written position on 1a1117 because the issues are.largely licensing considerations and, since, if the Ccatruction Perv.it were extended. Region III would not perm _it physical construction to herin un_til va ve.re satisfied that theye see's a
. _qu_a.Jity assurance organization var ede quati and operational. ITpon further considaration of the uniquonass of tXe-1TsCW~eM8unding Ecilly and the coesiderations under revism.; by the ASLB, ve believe it would be appropriate for IX to recoc=And tha-KRE assess the need to broaden the Eearing issues to include the mattora discussed in this resorandum.
We vould be pleased to provide any assistanea which' KEI. may desira with torpect to these c.atters.
b Jar.es C.
pp Director ec:
V. S tello, 'IE
~
E. C. DeYoung. IE r-~~--
E. L. Jo rdan, IE e
j l
l e
8
~
S
- e l
t-
i
/
,~
} r:.
r Yy : s u* 9A}
es.
p g ~* q g
..,,...,.su
-s..
g i,_...y.' '-... +... a a u s-u. e.. e.em.. e.
e, s e e a. A em.. e c.....r. ce.....
g e - %, u u s.,,a a e.4a.n gvu,o e
l K i.ED-T Geotechnical Er.gineering Assistance to NRC - Trip l
Report, }!cetinr, at bailly Generating Station 2f hov ' u u i ea s = =u e.1 = o.
s
'mgrn-T GULJi%T:
,;cchai::1 Er.gincering Arsistance to NRC - Trip Report, Meeting at m
0; illy Ccncreting St: tion 26 Nov 79 An indicator pile prcgram has been instituted in which 140 piles have been c.
driven.
There are three rows of piles in the east-west direction and two rows in the north-south direction.
Tests have been performed on some of these indicator piles as follous:
6 bearing tests, 2 uplift tests, and I lateral test.
d.
The piles were designed as foundation to support the nat.
A Danes & Moore representative gave a presentation which included design c.
criteria and current conditions.
This was followed by a general question and answer period which was basically chaired by Dave Lynch.
The following are a list of itens that were mentioned or discussed throughout the rest of this period.
f.
Differential compressibility and non uniform settlement were issues considered in the design period.
An indicator pile program was initiated to confirm the top clevation of the bearing stratum.
In addition to this, a heave monitoring program was established to check anticipated heave in placing clusters of piles.
The cntire foundation was to be placed on piles which were HP 14x117's g.
placed using a single action Vulcan 016.
A contour map was shown which indicated the tip elevations of all the piles.
In general, critera for driving the piles were established in the design which was 500 blows for the last 5 feet, 100 blows for the last foot, and 30 blows for the last 3 inches.
This criteria was followed during driving.
h.
A long discussion concerning the proposal to densify the soil near the surface for the piles which ware jetted followed.
Two soil borings were taken in this area.
Some control (closed) pipe piles are intended to be placed in the area and have the following dimensions.
They are 10 inches in diameter, 7/8 inch thick; they will be placed using the Vulcan 016 hammer.
These piles will act as dencification piles, and will be placed according to previously established criteria.
They will be placed in an ef fort to correct the disturbed area to preconstruction conditions.
Questions were asked by NRC representatives concerning monitoring of the program and ability to determine that the disturbed soil has been returned to preconstruction conditions.
Development of a pilot program in another area in which soil borings indicated similar conditions to the site, disturbance was created in a similar manne, to that created at the site, and the soil densified using the piles as proposed is necessary in establishing a definite correlation to those conditions in the site.
Once a correlation can be established, determination as to density of the soil using driving techniques in the circular piles will be possible.
A report was written in August 1979 whien apparently went through this approach, as well as other means of densification being discussed.
1.
In a foundation system such as that at this site, heave is a definite and' significant issue.
Vertical monitoring is necessary on adjacent piles. Items 2
NCrEn-T SUBJFCT:
Cccrechnien! En-i-enring Aesistance to NRC - Trip Report, Meeting at H=111y conoraring station 26 Nov 79 that need be considered are negnitude of heave, radius of influence, pile load / deflection characteristics, pile perfornance/ tests, re-dtive characteristics, new heave during re-drive.
Forty piles were monitored for heave in a pilot program which yielded results sich were not unexpected.
The pile ir. thc ::;iddic appeared to hense ucst ar. ell as the piles driven initially he.,ving nost.
Pile tips appeared to heave less than pile butts since the piles were 1. laced in tension because of the heave procces.
Of the piles driven, 37 piles heaved less than.7 inches and 3 piles heaved between.8 and 1.1 inches.
It is also necessary to develop load tests after all piles have been placed to determine if the piles have unscated at a result of the heave.
j.
The criteria for re-driving is as folluws:
re-drive all piles with greater than.5 inch of heave within a radius of 35 feet; the equivalent penetration during re-drive should be development of a minimum of 10 blows per inch.
Total allowable heave is 1 inch and re-drivi: 3 should be performed in a single operation.
Additional heave after re-driving should definitely be considered and the piles that are not re-drivdn vill not heave greater than an inch.
Ref erence here was nade to a report dated December 4,1978, Chapter 3.
The tips of the piles should be used to develop heave measurements, k.
Other discussions nrrics=1 concerning heave and questions - raised which were to date unresolved concerned applicability and ceasurements of existing j
systems.
6.
RECOMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:
No conclusions can be made as a result of this trip since it was basically orientation in nature and exposure for NCE and NCD personnel to prob 1 cms existing at the Bailly nuclear site.
A transfer of additional documents and a brief meeting between Kubinski (NCE) and Heller (NRC) took place in the motel that evening following this meeting.
It is extremely necessary to study the pile issue, review actions preposed by NIPSCo. Dames 6
!!oore, and Sa rgent 6 Lundy since continuation of driving is scheduled for early March 1980.
,.,e
-42= 4 -
Inc1 JOSEPil KUBINSKI As stated Technical Branch Engineering Division CONCURRENCE:
J1M SIMPSON (NCD)
LYMAN }{ELLER (NRC) 3
- Q
I '<.<. e i : s '.
a r..
-, c,..
, a.
,..v <. c c1 3,.
f r - 2 s y.
- n. i 2,,,
zi.,
m g r.,i
~, = e
,".' ~ ' ~, * * ~ "
pg.'c i'~~
NA s Se, c. r st n c c.
U.[ f $' C o r m.,y.
C..--
^
' ' ~ "
I b, L i t3 CT.
Kicnx t),syin e3 4 - q] e d C G-f cc,+,a n.,,
,, ~.
' O. V c c,T s c i: T 9 s w
w ?. 5* Ces -d G.y Ms t
I
's.
-Q 3. p w t_ 3 cs w s+t e, o m eejL(r.c~cas...=an.s.,.,2,..
/Y
/') y A9,94
.. a >v.,,.. n.. ;
s~.... n.a o, -. ~...
A.!c.. su3 k uL en,. r.,, :,
.w.. e,,2.e,,~
e u r..;. >..
~
i f*
g.J.
5%. U 5%
w.,.,
7 dona CAA/El(,A7 CHf5kA4h TR. e 1
/keasnr BEN) t,' d' u T u k ~ ' JQ.
I
. David Maxwell e F Bravn
- ^ ' W O, A. Caris s IJIPSc.o E F O s. w f d'fdi'e,aa/
ec~
sec. t oin s. a...
n,e
!b. [ fAMSCL Ct* CCOTecir gjfj(*o
%n
$[~m '71-t4%.
GB//XA/k'Rc.
d,,~ C, e.,-,,e es.,,-
,0 f,
[j
- gpg S.,,;. E,;.
N' O.i. M.,n
[
Lo. 44 Ncb C91S (,,_
+ :, a w v. h a s.
A ole.,
SI,a i k.s i NIP 5Co C A,,a w., f ). E, e, 0.,11 l'.*>,. s
[
[,,
hfa &,.<
C.C.
heateel
$ ff-
'Y l
h,.
e.a s.-
h u a,-,.,
- s. n.no (
l P00R DRIGINAL l
fi 44 8
3 I
l.
I 1
~
I r zi e
t l?if
- L j ';
r_
ig
{... _ _ j ljj
- j; i !
1., g c:
=
.I
- 9 Y
~
1 e
r.
g Il aI ri 5
al c,
1 f!
>g I
f 3
Q 1
w
((
[%hs-1 f----
,i j
. r t.......r..
11 r
l :t l
g)f f"M r
c=. -
/
['
-3 03 g
"I* i ei 1
8:
- w r :e x
l.
g i
i;.r
~--
5 g
R i.
M
]
I lji I*j g
i Q
Ie i
~
!j s
h
.i I
_s I ',
O l
/ ji i.,.
n-
-i 9
i e
i.:.,
- s
\\
c s
N i!
fj p - =:.:
s Tl~--
~ll ~.- T.p_ !!
i
,i t T
j
.I W-s.
~ ~ ~ ~
i 28 Ir 4
!l Er iji g
Q
!{[
h.:'
g.
r is
}-
- ti n!
n i
=v
@*V : N ti
'bn e;_)
i l
dp tii l
I.
l W
i l
l _'
e 1.
[
t
., )
f7
~ = -
it.
- .r l.
g i
' I i
a r--
l m
i,i l
T.,.
5 i!!
(
i
\\
.s_,_y
<.,...... - -.sm _ __._C i
\\
P 9 0 RO R I G I N i
t m..
6 2*'.>..
- yi
.==
.a
~
Ek~d:=
c n
(
. w a - n.,s. y
.m...e-n u. ' n o..
w.
.: s. a __i z.
1 s~
c z <= 4
.u-.,
a s
O
~S y-.
a w ta
<p W'
s
... M,.
..f.,.,...u..
. i.s.
j p........,........,..,....,.
m.
.........l......,.........,,,,,,,_
t
. o.
3 e
g...
o
. l.
.i.
o I q
- x. t i, j, h'.r.*
~:1 fi?
71 7 c
T I'
' s D~
- ?
i.
7o m.
- ?< l. 7 73, 7
i.
s
- m. ;l e.
j-.
a.-l.* a' e.a
< j
__ <. t.
c.
c.
u <.
- a... a. y,...,.c.,. 4 %< [@,.)- { v;._., ; l _,a 4. g _-
c.g e,._(m.g v
xl.........
(
.. s. c..
.l
.r
<;s l
6y
- 4I n
.s
- 4%...*
.!.i..
. Is.v.b. ~. -....- m n m
~--.ar -
I' s.
q.:.....
r-..r.s.
r r
... * *. 8 8 I
D
~
re....
........,... ". ~
................;....y.~.....
.. ~... ~ ^.,.
..t..
.7. W,
,g.g
.........p.....,.
1 ts-YW 2.
6....
...__"e.....
.u. - - - -
.j'._.. -.L - -... e t i s - G d
.-....-.A,,,
g.-
..g..
..........p..,..,. _
l t
5..
.,r..=..
-p
. n - s /~........ >..
=..
...y.....
M.
d.,....
...J os ag r.
.t.,.,j..
l
..l.......... es l
._s
. a. s.,.s
- . 2.
s) ';B. g]... e.,.* &. n.1.. o. 7
. o.
.J.
- j **
...s a_n e
. h -* -
/4..
+ 4 ry.m * * * 'l * $
..no pog.gy
.r.
.. r.v..
19. G o.
e...
..)...$.
.. pA
, to s
m
.(.s
. sc
- 1. u %..'......_.. a _.,4..!o?..
m..6 - E d..* * *. *. *. *..* &' *.... y....*
,.. g.
.11 1-4*.?.p
- { * =.1 3
__ a s-cu
) S, i,, [r; M-
.........t.
- l.....
C{-
o
.....L.
c
.o.
,,.l
.r*
...rr.v..
+-
..l.....t..,..
m rrr..
..i u
,.h.
. o g
.3
. s s.av 4.
. sg~. h, a,y..J,..
4 auI
.s
(
.5.....
\\.
..l...
..p......,.
,.9s-Ou $
J
.......l
.....r.....t..I.e..
. 6.,J ;
r 0
m.,,,...'.
4.....L.
-.a a
..........p...
1
..l.
.g.:
r rr c.
. r.,
..].............,....g....
...... n
..........,... 1...
...)
...... s. g p'.ag _;_ ;__
_g} g
.....).
..l.................
g
...y, f-
...,i
. p.oe 4.i..._ _ u 1......... 4.... i...... '......% _g. pg...... j., 4'
.1. *
. i.
r!
f-Y-ndA ;.'..... j.*
_ t-v.nu.
.. h..*.a f
.. (, -u g
.g l
p
. g
. u.
.,. l' 1
M.
s' 9-6-nu s
E
'j'
...p't-venu..
- ]
. [.
O
..l:..E.*
- .M e
..gjst-v-nu:
-l-l?
(,
t. a.nsA..
1-
},.,
.l..
.t.
.[.i F[.
9-a.nup[. -
c:
- 4H.e.nu.*:11-e-Me -:
.. e-
.t.e
. %.L
. \\' - )
u l
g.-
- I. -
M,s-a-au.**.
63 o,. +7;;. ;J..
- 9 6-a-Me ' 'L c. -,. a ; n.3 3 y :
c.a.na
.n,.
n o
ri-o-ns4.u,.
m.
' e.-
V o
o
.s s
l
~
A y
yl y y, y a
m u
1 x
x x.x
~
..E.cja
, Dt ri co-tw g u
sro a
g._
6-a-nuk_-
I
- .i.
.t.
}
. {.;
g,pt-a-na:
46.
t 7.u 3. k...
Q a_
1_o.x,Q..
s
_ a-s -
-. w a.
us.
......j.
.g.
.g.. g.a-na -
..,..c
(.9 L
C "**s "* e..
(l*"~*F"'
O P00R ORIGlWL 1
l
e i
i i
f 4
i i
l l
l 1
i f
r rs 9
w
>=
z.
- v. s. n. n..i.s c.-
g g
w.
HillLDIN G N
<t G3
.y si 81 tt O.
. s-vs w
TM-M P
I L
O e
Q s
AUXILIARY BUILDING
[AB-155 I SA-Il E-tv BASELINE I
- SA-9 REACTOR BUILDING I
.we TP-AQ[3 93 1
do x.:1
.w g i
y) o-m RADWASTE BUILDING i
- e '~ M rae.
r.a IT..e e n...s e... v 44
,w l
H Approniaote bccfions of test pilas i
fcr bed 6:ts.
\\
I
~
l 1
t 1
1 T(S1 PILE _LOCAllON PL E00R ORIGINAL.
---