ML20039G663
| ML20039G663 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1981 |
| From: | Hood D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201180593 | |
| Download: ML20039G663 (9) | |
Text
.-_
't 7
I DISTRIBUTI,0N W * ' g, Central Files NRC PDR LB#4 Reading EAdensam
/ g MDuncan 4
"., :,m. _,,.ID (,,
DHood MEMORAt4DUft FOR: Elinor G. Adensam, Chief OELD y
- mt p
Licensing Branch #4 OI&E(3)t1 DEC 22 798D,.
Division of Licensing
- em,
{i
\\ te.a 4.a - C FROM:
Darl Hood, Project Manager g7 e
Licensing Branch #4 N
A Division of Licensing
/rgifd'
SUBJECT:
CORRECTIONS TO LICEllSING C0f01TIONS FOR AUXILIARY BUILDIllG AND FW PIT Uf0ERPINNItiG - MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 The attached Table A.20 from " Testimony of Darl Hood, Joseph Kane and Hari Singh concerning the Remedial Underpinning of the Auxiliary Building Area" is marked to reflect changes made during the OM-OL hearing on 12/03/81.
During the hearing Mr. Ted Johnson of Bechtel committed on behalf of the applicant to abide by the conditions of Table A.20, as amended, and not to procede with the construction milestones in Table A.20 without staff approval.
The ASLB asked to be notified by flRR in the event that:
(1) Appeals reaching the Director of tiRR should result in an impass or (2)
Consumers Power should decide to proceed with any of the construction milestones in Table A.20 without first receiving tiRC approval.
The ASLB clarified that its desire to be notified did not include dates in the Table for supplying information or dates for starting construction. The staff stated that these dates were not intended to be licensing conditions, per se.
Darl Hood, Project Manager Licensing Branch #4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated 60'9^o}
cc:
G. Lear D
W. Paton J. Keppler 8201100593 811216 R ADOCK 05000329 J. Kane A
F. Rinaldi PDR
/
/
-e
/
o tra r
.......R. Ted s ;o DL:LB #4 DQB#
AD /D[
D:DL
- l
........,h.,..@,, j,.,"
- ."..................... DHg,od,,
- [b E,$, qam,,,,
,, R.4,,
n.
omco
,R h
,,0
,; e,nh,u,t,,,,
t
.un.-e >
.12a),zai,,,,,
12,f,k,,s,i,,,,,,
/
,jg,/,
/81 7 2 /,,, a1 om>
unc ronu ais oo-coi sacu oao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom i..,_myo
((
g o
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,*****/
DEC 16 #
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch #4 Division of Licensing FROM:
Darl Hood, Project Manager Licensing Branch #4 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
CORRECTIONS TO LICENSING CONDITIONS FOR AUXILIARY BUILDING AND FW PIT UNDERPINNING - MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 The attached Table A.20 from " Testimony of Darl Hood, Joseph Kane and Hari Singh concerning the Remedial Underpinning of the Auxiliary Building Area" is marked to reflect changes made during the OM-0L hearing on 12/03/81.
During the hearing Mr. Ted Johnson of Bechtel committed on behalf of the applicant to abide by the conditions of Table A.20, as amended, and not to procede with the construction milestones in Table A.20 without staff approval.
The ASLB asked to be notified by NRR in the event that:
(1) Appeals reaching the Director of NRR should result in an impasse or (2)
Consumers Power should decide to proceed with any of the I
construction milestones in Table A.20 without first receiving NRC approval.
The ASLB clarified that its desire to be notified did not include dates in the Table for supplying information or dates for starting construction. The staff stated that these dates were not intended to be licensing conditions, per se.
Darl Hood, Project Manager Licensing Branch #4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
G. Lear W. Paton J. Keppler J. Kane F. Rinaldi R. Landsman R. Tedesco D. Eisenhut R. Hernan
r f
g, e
-l-i
[
3 Table A.20 i
{
l' i
Requested Starting i
Date Infonnation Date of Construction j
Construction Milestone.
Available for Staff Review Milegtone t
1.
Install Vertical Access Shaft to tio submittal required 12/29/81 El. 609 and Complete Freeze Wall l.
Installation.
I i~
i l
Proposed Special License Condition: None 4
I i'
2.
Activate Freezing of So;; along 12/15/81 2/1/82
, Freeze Uall Alignment i
r.
i Proposed Special License Conditions:
1 2a.
Provide documentation demanstrating the Freeze Uall, when activiated, will not adversely.
l i
atYect seismic Category I structures, cenduits and pipes by causing ground heave or i:
t
)
resettlement upon unfreezing.
l l
1 i
i 2b.
Provide a plan, with established criteria and basis, for field monitoring of the effects of the Freeze Wall. The required plan will include a comitment to monitor both vertical and lateral movements at a m'utmum of four locations where safety related structures and j
utilities could potentially be affected. This p/q, /,do 4e prov//e/ 47 ///s/Ba.
i I
SW4
[
2c. Provide responses for questions 1dentified in Attachment 21_A Sc M^.6,,. ;, ii, ::,
4 i
-,u aum m.
2d. Provide responses for review concerns identified in answers to questions 14 and 17 of this testimony.
l 1
i I
6 e i t t
9 l
f.
~ _ -
r g.
4 Requested Starting l.
Date Information Date of Construction construction Milestone Available for Staff Review Milestone i
,j 3.
Extend Vertical Access Shaft below 1/15/82 2/15/82
}
El. 609 and begin to remove soll foundation support from beneath Feedwater Isolation Valve Pit.
'j
,f I
Proposed Special License Conditions l
ij 3a.
Provide design analysis for temporarily supporting the Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits (FIVP) l
!j on beams extending from the Buttress & c n Shaft to the Turbine Building. Tne. design will identify actual loads and displacements and demonstrate the adequacy and safety of the
,k
' temporary support system.
i 3b.
Provide an acceptable monitoring program with criteria for avoiding adverse impact on FIVP.
Provide rumsc.c t, g oe str o ns 5, g, to,11, iz,13, 2 4, 2 g, g y,,,, 2 9 ;,,,, g,yy, ;r, afna,, e 2 i, '
sc.
)
4.
Begin drif t excavation beneath lhe,
1/15/82 2/15/8'2 i
j' Turbine Duilding.
f
- [
Proposed Special License Conditions:
}
lL c
4a.
Provide design analysis (including supporting calculations, drawings and specifications)
'f-which evaluates the anticipated undemining and temporary construction loading on the Turbine Building at this stage. The analysis will be required to demonstrate an
'{
- l acceptable margin of safety for the Turbine Building to safely carry the imposed ij temporary construction luads so as to avoid adverse impact on the adjacent Auxiliary Building.
I, i!
o
'b 4b. Provide an acceptable monitoring program for affected Category I structures, conduits and f
pipes with criteria and basis for this construction stage. Criteria basis should describe how
'I movements to be measured are related to code allowable stresses and allowable strains.
4c. Provide documentation demonstrating the adequacy of the final pennanent support system l
b-along the north side of the Turbine Building in safely providing long-tenn support for j,
, t,he Turbine Building without adversely impacting the Auxiliary Building.
l q~
/ t / 5.,
4d. Provide responses for questions 9,325 and 30 which are identified in Attachment 21.
f*
(
t.
f *
.p Requested Starting Date Information Date of Construction
[
Milestone s
Construction Milestone Available for Staf_f Review 5.
Dcgin removal of soil foundation 2/1/82 4/1/82 F
p support from beneath Auxiliary Dailding.
~
Proposed Special License Conditions:
Sa. Provide design analysis (including supporting calculations, drawings and specifications) which evaluates the temporary support system for the Auxiliary Building at appropriate 0
sequential stages of excavation and jacking. The design analys will be required to demonstrate acceptable margins of safety at the various stages of temporary construction.
l:
l 1 ;
Sb. Provide an acceptable monitoring program with criteria and basis for temporary conditions l
of loading at this stage of construction.
67/2 I42%Zb2L i
3 Provide responses for!. ques,ti,onsA18,A23 and 28 which are identified in Attachment 21.
Sc.
Sd. Provide design analysis (including supporting calculations, drawings and specifications)-
demonstrating the adequacy of the installed temporary post-tensioning system.
Se. Provide an engineering evaluation of all cracks (existing and new) and propose a plan'.
i for the detailed evaluation of through cracks.
6.
Begin construction of permanent 5/17/82 11/1/82 underpinning wall.
5 Proposed Special License Conditions:
l
}
6a. Provide design analysis (including supporting calculations, drawings and specifications) i which evaluates the permanent underpinning structure. The design analysis will be i
required to address all load combinations including stability under seismic loading.
l t
l 6b. Provide results of the evaluation of through cracks.
6c. Provide an acceptable monitoring program with criteria and basis for long-term plant i
operation condition.
Gd. h ov' tile veryonser fo r questions i and 2 w0
- ye yendhO g% QMd N I
5
_~
AHACEME.'!T 21 RECORD OF TELEPHOT;E C07:VERSATIONS Date: Octcber 30, 1981 Project: Midland 50-330 Recorded by: Joseon D. Kane Talked With:
CPCo Sechtel NRC COE D. Sudzik A. Boos R. Landsman H. Singh G. Keeley N. Swanberg E. Rinaldi
- v. Hood J. Ka ne Route To: For Information G. Lear L. Heller D. Hood W. Paton F. Rinaldi R. Landsman, I&E, Region III H. Singh, COE, Chicago J. !ane Main Subject of Call:
Remedial Undcrpinning of Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits Items Discussed:
- 1. to CPCo September 30, 1981 submittal from J. W. Cook to H. R. Denton entitled " Technical Report on Underpinning the Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits".
During the October 30, 1981 conference call CPCo was requested to respond to the following questions which had been developed in the COE/fliiC reviev. of Enclosure 3, relative to geotechnical engineering aspects in underpinning the Auxiliary Building.
l Q.l.
(Pg. 2, Sect. 4, 2nd Para.) Please define " design jacking force,"
i how established and the duration that it will be held?
Q.2.
(Pg. 2, Sect. 4, 3rd Para.) Discuss and provide detail of dowel connection.
(Diameter, how distributed along wall, length of embedment,etc).
Q.3.
(Pg. 3, Sect. 5.1, last para) The agreed upon acceptance criteria for soil particle monitoring during dewatering requires 0.005 mm and not 0.05 an.
Correction by CPCo recuired.
"TTHC'C% % s,n-PDR ADOCK 0506 559 '
T pop
-l1.
Q.4.
(Pg. 3, Sect. 5.1, Para. b) Installing the frozen cutoff membrane' will cause expansion and possibly increase the soil voids. When ultimately unfrozen, what is the effect (e.g., further settlement) 4' on safety related structures, conduits and piping. = Provide discussion on the basic system of the frozen membrane [ size and spacing of holes to be " drilled, method for pumping brine into foundation layers, range of temperatures that are critical to wall stability which are to be monitored, deccmissioning (e.g., grouting, etc)].
Q.5.
(Pg. 3, Sect. 5.2) Clarify the procedure to be used in post tensioning the Electrical Penetration Area. Where will the buoyancy force be transmitted to the foundation and in what manner?
Q.6.
(Pg. 4, Sect. 5.6, 2nd Para.) Please explain the meaning of " failure bearing capacity factors" and the basis for "the nine times the shear strength for the cone"?
Q.7.
(Pg. 4, Sect. 5.b, 4th Para.) How will the equivalent soil modulus be determined? What is the depth that the measured settlement will be distributed over and what is the area to be used in determining the stress?
i Q.8.
(Pg. 4, Sect. 6) Presently, this paragraph implies that crack i
monitoring will not be performed on the existing structure.
Please i
correct. Before remedial underpinning begins an accurate and up-to-l date record of cracks should be developed for those safety related i
structures which could potentially be affected by the uncerpinning operations. This background record should be verified by I&E inspection and could serve as the basis for evaluating any changes in cracks due to underpinning operations.
l Q.9.
(Pg. 5 Sect 6.1.1 and 6.1.2) When will the acceptance criteria for the differential and absolute settlement be provided to the fiRC?
Q.10.
(Pg. 5, Sect. 6.2) Provide the basis for establishing the crack width of 0.03 inch. Appendix D should also address crack monitoring
~
requirements during underpinning (frequency of reading, format for i
presenting observations, action levels etc).
Q.11.
(Pg. 6, Sect. 7.2.1, last Para.) Provide discussion why the drained shear strength is not required to be considered in analyzing for adequate bearing capacity. Also in the last paragraph in Section 7.2.1, Pg. 7 indicate the basis for the 2 days and what would be required if the settlement rate does not reach a straight line trend in 2 days.
Q.12.
(Pg. 7, Sect. 7.2.2) Where are the WCC controlled rebound-reload cycle soil test results? What is the corresponding stress level with a secant modulus of elasticity equal to 3500 KSF?
I 1
,,, _ _ -.. ~ _ _ _,.. _,, _., -,,
,,mm.
_. _,..,. _., -,. _., _.., _.. ~ - -
Q.13.
(Pg. 8, Sect 7.2.3,1st Para.) The estimates of settlement using the referenced NAVFAC DM-7 do not include secondary consolidation.
What secondary consolidation would be indicated if the censolidation test results using the appropriate load increment were used?
Ccnpare this estimate with valves for permanent wall conditions "after jacking, long term".
Please provide basis for the three estimated settlement valves for " Load transfer coints for temporary load to reactor footing" at the bottcm of pg. 8 and discuss any effects of this settlement on the reactor and pipe connections.
Q.14.
(Pg A-1, Sect. 1, 2nd Par.) Please indicate how the soil spring constants were established for long tenn loads.
Q.15.
(Pg C-2, last Par. and Pg. C-6, Par. 3) What are the protective construction measures planned for the Turbine Building and Buttress Access Shafts and when will they be placed? Please provide discussion on the secuence of operations to ccmplete the drift beneath the Turbine Building and show sectional views of this work with respect to the Turbine Building foundations and affected piping and conduits.
Q.16.
(Pg C-3, Par. A.I.a) Please explain what is meant by minimizing the amount of concrete to be removed.
Q.17.
(Pg. C-3, Par. A. l.c. and A,1.d) What is the magnitude of the load for testing the temporary :upport pier and hcw was it established i
and how will it be applied? Is the EPA foundation slab capable of supporting this load at this time?
Q.13.
(Pg. C-4, Sect. A.l.f., 1st complete para.) Provide discussion on monitoring of the control tower behavior at this time. What criteria will be used to decide if preload should be stopped and support capacity should be added to the control tower?
Q.19.
(Pg. C-4, Sect. A.2.)
What are the reasons why the three tempcrary supports under the EPA should not be completed before the permanent support at the control tower is initiated?
Q.20.
(Pg. C-4, Sect. A.3.a) Questions are raised as to whether the EPA e
structure can withstand the overhang condition which results if the initial temocrary supports is assumed to fail. What is the basis and need for this extreme assumption? Is the EPA structure capable of withstanding this loading condition?
Q.21.
(Pg. C-4, Sect A.3.b and A.3.c) The distinction between 3.b and 3.c is unclear. What is the magnitude of the load for testing and how established? Is there a problem with the EPA foundation slab providing a sufficient reaction load?
Q.22.
(Pg. C-5, Sect. 14 and 15)
It appears the operations described in these items are intended only for the wings and not the control tower. How is the load test and load transfer for the control tower to be completed. For the long term load test on the wings, what is the load magnitude and how was it established? What is the final O
- E*
- ^"B-wMN w e amin.pp.w--4 www,mm,%.
.m, w---
l f
l
~
l l
i sequence of operations in transferring the structure load to the permanent underpinning.
Q.23.
(Pg. D-1, Sect 1.0, 2nd Par) Describe the procedure that relates allowable stresses and clicwable strains with structure movements that are being monitored.
Q.24.
(Pg 0-2, Sect.1, 3rd Par.) Please clarify the distinction between the first and second layer systems for detecting structure movement.
Q.25.
(Pg 0-2, Sect. 1, 4th, 6th, and 7th Para.) Please provide elevations and sectional views with typical details for the deep seated bench mark and the instrumentation for monitoring relative horizontal movement and absolute horizontal movement.
Q.26.
(Pg. D.3, Sect. 2, 2nd Par.) Please clarify the explanation why the hydraulic pressure data cannot be used to measure lcad.
Q.27.
(Pg. D-3, Sect. 2, 3rd Par.) Provide sectional view of set up for measuring difference in relative pcsition.
How does this procedure address the possibility of both the underpinning element and structure settling? Previde the basis for maintaining the jack / hydraulic system for i hour and for establishing the 0.01 inch movement.
0.28.
(Pg. D-4, Sect. 2, 4th Para.) When will the modeling and critical structural stresses and strains be determined and furnished to the NRC?
Q.29.
(Pg D-5, Sect. 2, 2nd and 3rd Para.) Provide sketch and locations with typical details of instrumentation for measuring concrete stress, tell tale devices and predetermined points for monitoring vertical movement.
Q.30.
(Pgs. D-5 and D-6, Sect. 3, Par. 3A.1, 3A.2, 3A.3) For the various types of monitoring described in these paragraphs provide an example of the fanns to be used for plotting the recorded data. What are the nredetermined levels of movements which would require adjustments and/or action by the onsite geotechnical engineer.
Identify any specific instrumentation which would be continued to be read during plant operation and which eventually will be addressed by a Technical Specification.
2.
Con:omers was notified that the above ouestions do not contain the COE/NRC review comments on the laboratory test results for foundation soils beneath the Auxiliary Building. The COE/NRC comments on the test results will be furnished at a later date following CPCo submittal of the Part II lab test report which is expected to be submitted to the NRC the week of Novemoer 2,1981.
3.
Consumers indicated the questions asked in the conference call of October 30, 1981 would be addressed as far as possible in the upccaing meeting with NRC '1 Bethesda on November 4, 1981.
gge-weh WWm*
m - '--
re.
mM