ML20038A910
| ML20038A910 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1981 |
| From: | Rinaldi F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A881 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8111240431 | |
| Download: ML20038A910 (17) | |
Text
..
L
~
,,/2elr.'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
50-330 OM & OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
)
(Midland Plant Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF FRANK RINALDI FOR THE NRC STAFF ON THE AUXILIARY BUILDING A
0.1 Please state your name and position.
A.
My name is Frank Rinaldi.
I am a Senior Structural Engineer in the Structural Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Q.2 Have you prepared a statement of professional qualifications?
A.
Yes. A copy of this statement is provided as Attachment 1.
l l
l Q.3 Please state the duration and nature of your responsibilities with respect to the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
A.
I have served since February 1980 as the technical monitor for the Midland portion of an interagency contractural agree-ment between NRC and the Naval Service Weapons Center (hereafter NSWC).
By this contract the NSWC has been assisting the staff of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) in the safety review of the Midland Project in the field of structural engineering.
In addition to, and as DE310' ATED DhIdl311 d
8111240431 011120
'crtified By~
4 PDR ADOCK 05000329 T
PDRf (l._.
.1
. consequence of,' my serving as contract technical monitor,.I have become directly involved in assessing the adequacy of remedial measures proposed by CPC relating to the structural adequacy of Category I structures affected by the plant fill settlement problem.
Q.4 When did the applicant solicit approval of the remedial underpinning schemes now proposed for the Auxiliary Building?
A.
The applicant solicited Staff approval of the remedial underpinning schemes for the Auxiliary Building by a submittal dated September 30, 1981. This submittal was given to the Staff at the conclusion of a series of meetings during the first week of October 1981.
Q.5 What information has the applicant provided in support of the proposed remedial underpinning of the Auxiliary Building?
A.
Information provided to the Staff by the applicant in the submittal dated September 30, 1981 included: a technical report on the under-pinning of the Auxiliary Building which described the concept to be used for underpinning of the Isolation Valve Pits, Electrical Penetration Wing Structures, and of the Control Tower; an acknowledge-ment of the poor soil conditions under the Auxiliary Building, and a description of the design features of the proposed remedial action, including temporary and permanent support schemes; information on construction procedures and on final schemes to accomplish the underpinning operation; and description of a post-tensioning system and the application of jacking forces.
1 Q.6 Briefly describe the underpinning scheme proposed by the applicant for the Auxiliary Building.
A.
An unoerstanding of the underpinning scheine can be reached by an examination of Attachments 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
The base dimension of the new foundation at the till will vary, measuring fourteen feet underneath the control tower, ten feet underneath the Electrical Penetration Area, and six feet underneath the Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits. See, e.g., Attachment 5.
The final support for the Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits may be changed, subject to the results of the dynamic analyses of the structure. The jacking operation will transfer the loads of the existing structure to the underpinning, and dowels s
will physically connect the underpinning walls to the structure.
In addition, mechanical tapered threaded splices may be used to tie i
the reinforcing bars in the various secticas of the underpinning structure.
~
Q.7 Did the applicant commit to provide further information on its remedial measures for the Auxiliary Building?
A.
Yes. The applicant plans in the future to analyze the strJctures for loading conditions of various stages of construction.
In addition, the applicant proposes a monitoring plan to detect both differential settle-ment of the structures and oropagation and enlargement of cracks during I
- 1 the underpinning work.
Q.8 Has the Staff fount 1c, aiscd remedial underpinning scheme for the l
Auxiliary Buildf r.g in he satisfactory?
- -----+
I
. ~.. -
. A.
Yes. The proposed underpinning scheme for the Auxiliary Building 1
can, in concept, provide adequate support for the subject structures (Isolation Valve Pits, Electrical Penetration Areas and the Control Tower). The Sta?f has identified certain conditions that should be imposed at different stages of the construction work proposed by the 4
applicant. Those conditions are listed in the testimony of Staff's witnesses in this hearing session, and are designed to insure that no I
damage is done to existing structures during constructian of the new foundation.
09 Explain the basis for Staff's approval of the general concept of the proposed underpinning scheme.
1 A.
The general underpinning scheme proposed by the applicant will result in support of the Auxiliary Building ani related structures on un-disturbed natural material, i.e., glacial till. The till is considered a reliable support for these structures because laboratory testing and experience indicate that the till has acceptable soil characteristics i
i i
and engineering properties. Additionally, the applicant has identified feasible temporary and pemanent underpinning schemes. The temporary support will be used during the construction of the permanent foundation, and will be designed by use of engineering analyses prior to implementation to avoid damage to existirg structures.
The Auxiliary Building will consequently have a foundation which will l
provide support as good as that which was originally proposed by Consumer Co. in its construction pemit application.
~u.
-.r--
. Q.10 Identify the areas of Staff's concerns which have prompted its request for conditions on the construction of the underpinning for the Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits'.
A.
Further information is necessary on the following subjects:
1.
Post-Tensioning System 2.
Jacking Operation
~
3.
Load Transfer Schemes 4.
Analyses of the Structures and Evaluation to Acceptance Criteria 5.
Evaluation of Cracks Q.ll Discuss the items which have prompted the Staff to request conditions on the construction of the proposed underpinning of the Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits.
A.
Staff needs further details from the appl 1 tant on the building post-l tensioning so that it can evaluate applicant's position that the post-l l
tensioning scheme compensates for the reduction in buoyancy force under l
I the Feedwater Isclation Valve Pits and Electrical Penetration Areas of the Auxiliary Building. These details include information on the number, 1
array and size of tendons, post-tensioning force, procedures for the operation, connection schemes, anchoring schemes, consideration of effects on the structures (direct and indirect), effects on through cracks (existing and new), effects on the geometry of the structures, monitoring criteria, and analyses use.d to arrive at the above determinations. Also,the staff needs an explanation of how the post-tensioning scheme compensates for the reduction in buoyancy force.
I i
l
. Staff also needs more details on the proposed jacking operation for the implementation of the underpinning scheme on the Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits and Auxiliary Building. These details include information on the jacking forces to be applied for various sections of the temporary and permanent underpinning structures, procedures to be used, sketches of connection and interaction details, description of the load transfer schemes, effects of stress concentrations on the structures (direct.
and indirect), effects on cracks (existing and new), monitoring criteria, and analyses used to support the above determinations.
Further details and analyses should also be provided to the Staff on the proposed load transfer mechanisms (i.e., dowels).
Staff also needs to know details of the planned analyses to verify the safety of the structurcs during various construction loadings. The
~
results of these analyses must then be evaluated against satisfactory acceptance criteria.
Staff also needs further evaluation of cracks in these structures including identification of through-cracks from.past and future crack mapping efforts. Acceptance criteria to be used in their evaluation and details of any monitoring work should also be supplied to Staff along with justification for the criteria chosen.
1 l
l l~
l
. The above information will allow the Staff _to assess anticipated loads, t
and postulated conditions (i.e. cracks) that will be imposed on the structures during the construction period and during the service life of the structure, and to evaluate these conditions in lfght of adequate criteria. These criteria will be evaluated by the Staff for conformance with established criteria, codes and specifications acceptable to the Staff.
In summary, the information submitted by Applicant will enable the Staff to conclude that the Auxiliary Building is designed to the design limits originally proposed by Consumer Co. and accepted by NRC Staff.
4 Q.12 Has applicant committed to provide information that will eliminate or alleviate the Staff's concerns?
A.
The applicant.has committed to provide information on items one through four, as identified in the answer to Question /0, in future submittals and during future structural audits at the Architect / Engineer offices.
Also, the applicant has proposed to discuss a plan of action for the resolution of item 5, as identified in the answer to Question 10.
Q.13 Identify the structural information which the applicant has committed to provide for Staff's review, the approximate dates for submittal to the Staff, and the dates for needed decision by the Staff.
A.
The applicant has agreed to provide information to the Staff as part of a structural audit at the offices of the Architect / Engineer prior to extending the access shaft below 609 feet elevation. The audit l
l will determine the adequacy of the following:
e
"~"
. 1.
Temporary supports for the Feedwater Valve Isolation Pits.
2.
The design of the foundation for the turbine building during the
~
implementation of temporary support prior to erection of the permanent underpinning structure for the Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits and the Auxiliary Building.
3.
Design of the proposed permanent support system for the north side of the turbine building and determination that it will not fail and deleteriously affect nearby Category I structures and components.
The applicant has agreed to provide information to the Staff as part of a structural audit at the offices of the Architect / Engineer prior to the undermining of the fill material under the Auxiliary Building. This audit will determine the adequacy of the 'following:
1.
The temporary post-tensioning system and the jacking operation.
2.
Support configurations and load transfer mechanisms.
3.
The finite element analysis of the auxiliary building for each major construction configuration in demonstrating proper support l
l for the structure.
4.
The detailed design and analysis of the temporary support system.
l 5.
The monitoring program.
~
The applicant has al.so agreed to provide information to.the Staff _as_ part of a structural audit at the offices of the Architect / Engineer prior to the installation of the permanent underpinning structure. This audit will determine the following:
1.
The adequacy of the design calculations pertaining to underpinning wherein Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) loads equal 1.5 times those obtained from FSAR SSE Spectra.
2.
Results of the confirmatory dynamic analysis using the approved Site Spacific Response Spectrum (SSRS) as input to show that the responses for the underpinning structural elements are less than those used for the above design.
3.
The adequacy of the structural calculations pertaining to reanalysis of the structural elements in the Auxiliary Building, including detailed infonnation on the structural models, to account for possible changes in forces due to changes in the foundation support system for i
the Electrical Penetration Areas and Control Tower underpinning. The acceptance criteria for this check will be the same as in Sections 3.7 and 3.8 of the FSAR. This evaluation will consider the enti-a model of the underpinning and superstructure. The acceptance criteria for
[
the underpinning will be current Staff criteria identified in SRP 3.8.4 and 3.8.5.
An evaluation of the entire structure involving new loadings (site specific response spectra) and new evaluation criteria for the i
. determination of safety margins will be addressed prior to the issuance of the Operating License.
The dates and descriptions of the above milestones are identified in Table A.20 attached to the joint testimony of Darl Hood, Joseph Kane and Hari Singh for the Staff.
The applicant has proposed to meet with the Staff in an attempt to agree on criteria to be used in the evaluation of cracks in these structures and other Category I structures founded on the fill material.
The Staff will meet with the applicant to determine the extent of evaluation required prior to undermining the Auxiliary Building and prior to installing the permanent underpinning.
Q.14 Does theNRC Staff at this time have reasonable assurance regarding Consumers' proposal to proceed with the remedial underpinning of the Auxiliary Building?
A.
Yes. The NRC structural staff is prepared to concur with che start of underpinning, subject to the successful completion by Consumers and approval by the Staff of the work required as special license conditions which are listed in Table A.20 and as, supplemented,by my answers to Questions- ~ ~
~
~
11 and 13. Satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of each of the proposed license conditions listed as specific milestones will be required prior to the start of any construction work covered by those milestenes.
l
t ATTACHMENT 1 Frank Rinaldi, P.E.
Structural Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
My name is Frank Rinaldi.
I presently reside at 5506 Beech Ridge Drive, i
Fairfax, Virginia 22030, and I am employed as a Senior Structural Engineer in the Structural Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
20555.
Professional Qualification I received a B. S. degree in Civil Engineering from the City College of New York (1966) and a M. S. degree in Civil Engineering from Maryland University (1974).
I am a registered Professional Engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia (1972).
i I am a member of the Main Committee of the ACI-ASME Committee on Concrete Pressure C 9onents for Nuclear Service (Concrete Reactor Vessels and f
i Containments).
I have been employed by the NRC Structural Engineering Branch since 1974 as a Senior Structural Engineer. My duties include development of design criteria for nuclear structures and participation in the formulation of safety criteria.
Duties also involve safety-related review of structural and seismic design criteria (Safety Analysis Reports & Topical Reports) for power systems and i
the evaluation of nuclear containment structures, reactor vessels and other structures and components.
4M E
NO W
e
. eek
'OM
~... - --
./
, ~
2-The following is a summary of my previous professional experience:
' 1971-1974 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Fuel Fabrication and Transportation Branch (Structural Engineer) 1970-1971 Naval Facilities Engineering Command - Division of Research Development and Testing a'nd Evaluation (General Engineer) 1968-1971 Naval Facilities Engineering Command - Electronics Facilities Support Branch (Structural Engineer) 1966-1968 Naval Facilities Engineering Command - Chesapeake Division (Civil Engineer)
{
9
__m
,.,, - - e
I AITACitMENT 2 a
i W<.y w,
\\
\\
\\
\\,/,/
\\,
(
- ' f.'L"..
/
le mm; l
. =p. y,/.pi==
j;{ ~"
- o!!!!s:n::ii
\\
g,
'! N!: 5f
!!5
!!k:5
- fi..::b!kEf$i...
if D- -
th i'T iEi ' ~ ~ -- h
~"'
!!!i ii
- ibs4!!
iit.:-..
'! h7! nisiENE=i=s=
Mg!
-4 = = @iMEH dy; M E ueg;,;ui,yg;,;
IEEE44 iHHii~
psA4.4 ssp.
ep w, g qsL s;stsgy' gi;U; sass sr";
- , ppa. " g..g.g..gg..gf;u i
==:2
h' h....p...
_______b.
-(_____l_______
g"%,
h, jjyjisyy@iiis:hh@j6@@jhh][ENh$ij
' ~
i!""-!!!!; ;; ;lT""ij[jF"-iijiP ~i j!i'
?.i,
.. E. b.. _ J
..a..n. i._ _
..a..... pt..a i:ll!
i:l!!!:li! !!!)__.frNs M __W "-""_i g
L
. L. _ _ _ _{."_..L_
_ _ [.... [....
u l...
ens no l
es f
,e 4 a.W p s-e e
G G
e e
e stNER Al. Pt AN
[-"] ansa erse son access (TEST SIDO g anna er comerse coastautrea h
i M
E CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ht MIDLAND PLANT UNITS I B 2 g
CONCEPT DRAWING i
UNDERPINNING AUXILI ARY BUILDING M
CONSTRUCTION AFTElt 31 WEEKS
.g g APPENDIX C FIGURE 8 l
g' S
t 5
)
\\
e e4 e m *
\\
s
\\,
s s
N
/
G
\\
\\
/
ie+;t<.. -~s&.
/
i
\\
\\.
s a
\\ '.A.
-n-
..a y"
. y'..
, m_ =t-4 'i. [@..
-s a-N.
i
\\
Q..
Jg,,g_;)
ea
_le
.d x
s,,t i
w, g;
3..
t
., ?h N
. ~
Y f L 4 'fS-
..f
- . if.
{
A
.u
.'e
_ m,2 r
.___-_--._. a
..i..\\__l__
_ _L__g[__ _8_____..
4_1_
. __9_ ___1_._ _9____.
_(
l
-.y O,
I
__J_
1_
fEJ l la___..[. 11 L_E_ _E_.
,3)
_ __7_ _ _ T,' -- '-- - T --- m'-'
.g.
t
,.,y g.
_.7 y.
l
. 7
/
._7 -
ath
'__..__L____.L__ _ f
.. __ e_I____ s
.___L___.
i _ _.
v aa a,
.s
.s a-O O
O O
O 9
1
.m,,m. rut a...........
m m
hMNh CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ri,t MIDLAND PLANT UNITS I 8 2 i,..
CONCEPT DRAWING
{.'
UNDERPINNING AUXILIARY BUILDING 3
i PERMANENT UNDERPINillNG 4 g g
APPENDIX C FIGURE 9 e
l b
4 6
6 e
e
A77KHMENT 4 h
^
\\
t d I"
.lll~
i r
Auz r
Turbine gig.
g Bldg.
2 Min.-
_ " Min.
~
f
' 50,_
2
( :l.609LO' e4 m III m
R g,.ack 3-WlOx88 (7]p.)
Mm y
l R'coc. oe J
T
^
\\
8/d. kla//
9 Aq 4-wm x 300 ne ;ce w/ era /
39Por5 g gii2,(79 ----
7 593 (o" i
E/
?
- s. 59/4o' ;
m ;.
~
(
' ~ d of Cc/
B" 56
- 4\\\\\\
/,.
~
.i 4
Tendon Caro /lery'
'/
i b
pa. 5?/ ' 6'
- I h;-E/. 57/ '- C'
- A\\W//
//,fNN
\\
- OE Ol&W/&
SECTION AT CONTROL TOWER WINGS CONSUMER POWER COMP /ciY liIDLA:ID PLANT UN!YS 1 & 2 LNDERPINNINC AUXILIARY BUILDI:.C FIGURE 10
A77ACMMEN75 7u* rbine S.6/4.0 7
/,/
~
/
/
Confro/ 8/c/c).
//
El. 603.0 l
l 0
. y
.-e cn Y..
0,
. ':0
_A
.,,.,'1 k.
y, Mas.s c,icavarvor, T~o El. 5 9 0. 0 Q
-ns o~
Od Ct!~/no
'7 C l. 5 (D 2. 0
'.'r...
~
//6 s w //
jg '. g-SECTION AT CONTROL TOWER CO:iSGIER PU'a*ER COblPAhT
- iIDLA:iD PL'.:.T U:41TS 1 & 2 UNDERP!:itil.C AUXII.IARY SCII.DI: C FIGURE 11
l AT7;ACHWENT (a
.. s :....
c, u. ;
c.,..,
- g.
~.r
%: s
~.g.,u.;p M,e
- .. n
- ~
"I
.j ^.
. gyggf.gf
- v. o - >
/ V l-
/
/
y
.h E
I 1
e_ _ -
... o, :.........
.....cr....a
~r
' -. ".. ~. ;. ;.'.. Qq%Q2.R a M a c k s l:-.:
.... ~...
... o...... o..
...~
....r......
....u
...... ~.
...a.~\\
.~
~.:
....,..g.
-.. v.
'. g. c.'.
...-;,gg 9 gtc g.o*- : :s c':. - _
.R o
r
++...
m...m
.a...
s.
a,m;.g... cf.....~,-
- - -...,.C
. s.,-. y..
r.
m.
~
s:
.y v.
.g. e..w...
t....
g.....,
.w..a.
A,...
- a.,.. n. m.
- . :. cs,...
.......o.....
~;
........... n.
. d...
m..
s.. %,:
u-
. or.,......
..i
~e.
s.
... ~. : ~. ; a..
- .g.
.-. Msrs &covahon -
c
. :s y
p %Q,:
.. o.,.
. y
~.,. 3s. :.. p.,'
. l...
.b:,a.:,~
.El 570.0 :.::
=~
sn x.
1ayy._. u m
. ~.,
.e wym qq.
.m y
.. a.. :,.... -
-a m
x.r a n.i
..a.:...o... - :. :a. :.:n ;
'...a:-
r-
...<..#... '.O g.
w
.. ~., ;
. cs.. m-e. >. n.
~:e x.. :
.~
-...a.
o..
.., a: :..
0.*....
..s
. r--
1.ihit4 4/g p/ y i' itiyyti,q+ys/MYl;&W//
Bearina El. 562.0 ELEV. - UNDERPINNING FOR CONTROL TOWER CONSUMER POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 UNDERPINNING AUXILIARY BUILDING
. FIGURE 12
' = -
-mw w
ww,
--.- -