ML20070T117
| ML20070T117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1983 |
| From: | Steptoe P CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Bechhoefer C, Cowan F, Harbour J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, ISSUUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8302080207 | |
| Download: ML20070T117 (42) | |
Text
7 .
l ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE cOUNSRORS AT LAW l 00tKETED
. .w THREE FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA CHICAGO. ILUNOis 60602 EO - OS ,SNA . ,,72 , ,,
=== E =2 5- '83 FEB -7 All :2LS ,N ,0NO,,,CE ROS TL O N. 889 I 1120 CONNECT T A ENUE. N W.
_ WASHINGTON O C.20036
_ :L! 202 833 9730 February 3, 1983 In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-329-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-OM
) SJ-329-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 ) 50-'3 3 0-OL and 2) )
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission mission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 6152 N. Verde Trail Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433
Dear Administrative Judges:
During the hearings which were held in November and December, 1982, Applicant agreed to provide (or in one case, to consider providing) the parties and the Board with the following additional information:
- 1. List of Category I structures not included in Seismic Margin Review (see Tr. 9720).
- 2. List of Underground Pipe & Conduit hit by Drilling (Tr. 10137).
- 3. Certain " Raw Data" from Quality Improvement Plan (Tr. 10146; there is no promise to provide this data but we said we would consider doing so.)
e 6
9302000207 830203 PDR ADOCK 05000329 E ._.
PDR _ - - _ . - _ ~ - _ - . . - _ . ..__ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _
- I, o
Administrative Judges
. February 3, 1983 Page 2
- 4. Possible Inappropriateness of Using Al Oxide l
grinding wheels because of alleged ferric oxide con-tamination (Tr. 10005).
- 5. New boring information referred to in Mr.
Brunner's examination of Dr. Woods (Tr. 9768).
- 6. Dr. Peck's analysis of recent settlement data (Tr. 10406).
- 7. Exhibit 29 as redrafted, relating to DGB crack monitoring t.r. 11072)
- 8. Seismic Analysis of Certain Underground Piping (Tr. 9043).
- 9. We promised to confirm that separation of DGB from electrical duct banks is about 2 inches (Tr. 10921).
- 10. List of Underground Piping protected by the galvanic protection system. (Tr. 10137).
This letter and the enclosures constitute Applicant's response to all of the above items, except Nos. 6, 7 and 10.
Item No.7, Exhibit 29R was sent to the Board and all parties on January 17, 1983. We hope to submit responses to Items 6 and 10 in the near future.
Applicant's Response to Item 1.
Enclosure A is a response prepared by a CPCo engineer under the supervision of Dr. Thiruvengadam.
Applicant's Response to Item 2.
Enclosure B is a response prepared by an engineer l working with Consumers Power Company's Legal Department.
I.
Administrative Judges a
February 3, 1983 Page 3 Applicant's Respnse to Item 3.
Applicant has decided not to provide this Quality Improvement Program " raw data" for the reasons stated at the hearings by Mr. Brunner. (Tr. 10140-10146).
If Ms. Stamiris wishes to pursue the matter we assume she will file an appropriate motion with the Board.
Applicant's Resonse to Item 4.
Enclosure C was prepared by an engineer working with the Consumers Power Company's Legal Department, who investigated the substance of Ms. Sinclair's concern about possible ferric oxide contamination of grinding wheels. Based on this in-vestigation, Applicant does not perceive a problem and does not intend to pursue the matter further. Mr. Brunner sent the Board and the parties a copy of NCR MOl-9-2-172, which is referred to in this response, on December 14, 1982.
Applicant's Response to Item 5.
See Enclosure D, which was prepared by an engineer working with CPCo's Legal Department.
Applicant's Response to Item 8.
See Enclosure E, the Affidavit of Dr. Thiru Thiru-vengadam. Dr. Thiruvengadam explains that even though Bechtel used the FSAR SSE (0.12 9 ) in developing the seismic
~
Administrativa Judgas February 3, 1983 Page 4 input for the analysis of the buried service water piping which is to be reinstalled, it did so in such a conservative way (using enveloping floor response spectra from inside the SWPS for service water piping buried outside the SWPS) that the actual seismic input to the analysis exceeded the SSRS.
Applicant's Response to Item 9.
Applicant has confirmed by reference to design drawings, field records, and by interviews with construction personnel who did the work, that a minimum horizontal clearance between the walls of the Diesel Generator Building and the duct banks is 2 inches. (The vertical clearance is 12 inches).
By providing this information, Applicant does not concede that these are issues that have to be taken up in the hearinge. We expect, of course, that the list of Category I structures not included in the seismic margin review may be relevant to further testimony by Dr. Kennedy when the results of the seismic margin review are discussed in subsequent stages of the operating license proceeding. We assume that.
Ms. Stamiris may use the information provided in Item 2 in l
her cross-examination of Mr. Bird and Mr. Wheeler concerning similar drilling incidents at the site. Similarly, the information supplied about duct bank clearances (Item 9) may i be relevant to Dr. Shunmugavel's duct bank testimony filed January 24, 1983. But Item 4 (ferric oxide contamination of
Administrative Judges February 3, 1983 Page 5 grinding wheels) has never been an issue in controversy in this proceeding. The significance of the new boring information provided to Ms. Stamiris in Item 5 has already been addressed in Dr. Woods' testimony. Applicant hopes that the affidavit of Dr. Thiruvengadam obviates any need for further evidentiary pre-sentation on seismic analysis of buried service water piping (Item 8). We request that the other parties or the Board let us know a reasonable time in advance of February 14 if there is a need to cross-examine Dr. Thiruvengadam concerning his affidavit.
Sincere y, ,
n ..
('
1
\ J L5 1
f/'. %].,' ' IMC/>
Philip P.'Steptoe f One of the Attorneys for Consumers Power Company cc Service 1ist Isham, Lincoln & Beale 3 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (212) 558-7500
[ Enclosure A] 2/3/83-ITEM 1 -
~' SEISMIC MARGIN STUDY SCOPE (TR. 9720)
While discussing the scope of the seismic margin study it was stated that only Category I structures, containing equipment which is necessary-for the safe shutdown of the plant, were included. Although that included most of the Category I structures, the Applicant agreed to identify those Category I structures, as defined in subsection 3.8.4.1 of the FSAR, that have not been considered in the seismic margin review.
They are as follows:
. Retaining walls, valve pits, and meter pits associated with the Service Water Pump structure .
. The Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits
. Foundations for the control room pressurization tanks, and
. Foundations for the penetration pressurization tanks.
The reasons for their exclusion will be provided by Dr. R P Kennedy to the NRC Staff when the results of the Seismic Margin Review program are presented.
O
o,
[ Enclosure B) 2/3/83 Item 2
-f List of underground pipe and conduit hit by drilling (TR 10137).
Ms. Stamiris requested that "the Board direct the applicant to provide us with a complete list of all the unanticipated events that have occurred at the Midland Site and regarding any of the Soils Remedial Work which would include the borings and the drillings associated with " dewatering,"
Pages 10136 and 10137 of the transcript.
Investigation of this "cumplete list," which included contacts with personnel within Bechtel's Site Management Office, Bechtel's QC Section, Bechtel's Ann Arbor Office, CP Co's Site Contraction Management Office and CP Co's NPQAD Office indicates that a " complete list" of underground utility damage that has occurred at the Midland Plant does not exist.
The history of reporting, repairing and logging damaged underground utilities was based on whether the utility was Q or Non-Q. In the event the utility was Non-Q, the utility (pipes, duct, line, etc) was identified and repaired. Each occurrance was not similarly logged on a master damage list. If the incident was significant in cost or time of repair, a file was kept.
Damage to underground utilities which were Q-listed entailed a different type of response. Q-listed items which are damaged to the extent they become " reportable" have either Bechtel and/or CPCo NCRs or other type of action document written against that damaged item. The issuance of an action document for Q-related damage is mandatory and both Bechtel
2/3/83
. c.
and CP Co. Project Management maintain that on all Q-related damaged
-ritems, which were reportable, an action document was produced. The most comprehensive approach to the logging (listing) of underground utilities damaged is the compilation of various logs from Bechtel and CP Co, which on a monthly basis is summarized and distributed with enclosures.
This month 7 report is the ALAB-106 monthly report for Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330.
The ALAB-106 monthly report contains Associated Quality Action Requests (QAR's) and Non-Conformance Reports (NCR's), written or closed during the month the QAR's, NCR's are icgged in the following documents, which comprise the ALAB-106 monthly report.
- 1. Bechtel Nonconformance Reports.
- 2. Sheets from the Bechtel Nonconformance Report Log.
- 3. Bechtel Quality Action Requests.
- 4. Bechtel Management Corrective Action' Requests.
- 5. Bechtel Quality Action findings.
- 6. Bechtel FLAGS Quality Action Reports.
- 7. Babcock and Wilcox Reports of Nonconformity.
- 8. Babcock and Wilcox In-Service Inspection Nonconformance Reports.
- 10. Quality Action Requests.
- 11. Corrective Action Reports.
- 12. Management Corrective Kction Reports.
Unfortunately, none of this material is indexed in a way which would allow one to identify th cse documents which relate to drilling incidents
~
2/3/83 in.accordance with Ms Stamiris' request. Therefore, to beys,ure of a complete list one would have to examine each NCR, QAR etc. since the start of
-(
construction, which would be unreasonably burdensome. We do not believe that under NRC rules Applicant would be required to perform such a compilation even if discovery were still open.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Bechtel employee named Bill Netzela kept an unofficial log of such incidents for a period of time in 1982.
This log is provided. In addition, we provide a list prepared by an engineer working with CPCo's legal department which includes the items in Mr. Netzela's list, the NCR's discussed by Mr. Bird and Mr. Wheeler in their testimony, and all other drilling incidents of this nature which Bechtel and CPCo employees at the site and in Ann Arbor could recall. Thus we have made reasonable efforts to prepare a list which includes all the drilling incidents that we (the CPCo Legal Department IL&B, and the persons at Bechtel and CPeo we talked to) know about. We have also included NCR 2072, a 1979 incident which we discovered in the course of our investigation.
NCR No. Description Date Damaged M01-4-2-008 42" Hole for Cassion (Q) 02-25-82 M01-9-2-038 Two 4" Test Borings (Q) 03-8-82 M01-9-2-051 Bwst #2, Exc. (Q) 04-21-82 Beneath Valve Pit 4199 Drilled into Deep (Q) 04-29-82 Elect. Duct Bank 4245 A. Created Void at (Q) 05-19-82 Observation Well #4
e 2/3/83
. =.
NCR No. Description Date Damated
,, B. Damaged 12" Circu-lating Water Line No Action Damaged Water Line (Non-Q) 04-16-82 While Drilling DSB-ANI No Action Abandoned Sewer Line (Non-Q) 02-4-82 No Action 72" Pond Fill Line (Non-Q) 04-13-81 No Action Damaged Man Hole #10 (Non-Q) 04-16-82 4252 Ejector Well Drilled (Q) 09-23-83 Without QC Inspection 4265 Ejector Well ME-54 (Q) 05-28-82 Drilled Leaving Sloughing Around Hole No Action Electric Grid Ground 01-13-82 No Action Electric Grid Ground 01-19-82 No Action Railroad Communications (?) 01-19-82 No Action Damaged Diesel Oil Line 01-19-82 No Action Damaged Gas Line 01-21-82 No Action Damaged Gas Line 01-26-82 No Action Damaged Grid Ground 02-2-82 No Action Damaged Oil Waste Line 02-25-82
--- Damaged Rubber Coating (Q) 03-1-82 No Action Damaged Grid Ground 03-1-82 No Action Damaged Grid Ground 03-1-82 No Action Damaged Grid Ground 03-1-82 No Action Damaged 2" Hetal Line 03-14-82 No Action Damaged Elect. Duct Bank 03-29-82 No Action Damaged Temp. Gas Line 04-27-82
l e j
2/3/83 i.
NCR No. Description Date Dianaged No Action Damaged Elect. Duct Bank 04-24-82 2072 Damaged Elect. Duct Bank (Q) 04-6-79 L
1 e
i J
4 i
I 1
i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - , ,
80 RING t.0G .1m.. m. n20-v11 11 m -3 e = . .. ..
5 Detween Unita 1 & 2 service water Line s 4980 t 125 to, N. A.
. u. . . .w.4 4 ...
4/6/79 4/6/79 I.INan" ** *
,w.=.
Nobil 3-61 a
1 3/4" d- Nome 21.0'
. u. - .* = = = . * . * . = .
N. A. W. A. O W. A. 635.0 Wet Determined es. A.
. . ~ . , . . .me .
'# 140 lb. / 30 ineSee wene L. Matthews PEMCTR ATION
- f I i i .: : :.
- s. ::
1 : :. .
- * . . . a, . i r -
= . - . -..... .
(3 : I j= ! :. % % % [ a. .=*.....==~...
1! I i j i- i !! I I t : *
- 2. 635.0 0 l 0-2.5' uo aasples (Fill) Augered to 7.5'.
Pushed casing tc 622.5 8.3' anc began ss 18 10 5 6 5 2 -
2.5-4' silty clav, gray, damp,
- wash boring wit.*
2 1 medium stiff, Aattle fine-coarse roller bit and 631.0 =
-isand, trace fine gravel f etif rill) 630.0 recirculating
- g. _ 4-5.5' TAne-i.eoaum sanc, yellow water.
. s 18 11 8 2 4 4 . , brown. daro, redium dense (SP)(TilD 2s -
2 3.5-is.3' sancy clay, gray to brown, darp to motst, soft to
- _ medium stiff, trace fine gravelfel.) (C1.L) s 10 10 4 2 2 2 . 5.6' Trace paper and black organic 3.s . 3 material 10" _
ss is 11 0 6 2 5 .
4 2" ; _
ss 18 6 2 1 1 2
- C.-
2* 1 L 15-ss II 4 2 1 1 2 -
2- :
ss 18 11 8 4 4 4 "
- - 815 8
- 7 1s Lost par-ton of 2cre.5-1s.s'.
- v. wet looserane-neezam f0Ptfri;11 er. vel. drill fluid at
- 20. .=y-. X 18.9-19.5' salty Clay. yellow 18.5'.
55 we r m a i 6 6 - > '
" 614.0
%"' 3 brown, dorp to poist, redium staff, trace fine sand and fine test additional
- dr:11 fluad at aravel f et) (Fi!!) 19.5'.
2 19.5-20.5' salty meetum-coarse Used drilling
. Sand and fine-medium Cravel, gray mud from 20' to to ersy brown, wet, loose (sM-cm 21'.
(Fill) Very slow drill-
- 20.5-21' nare, lost drill med ing from 20.5-Sottom of boring at 21 feet 21' (rods boune-
. ing).
a Lost mud return
- after drilling l
through hard l materaal at 21'-
. fluened hole
=
with clear water but unable to overflow casang l with pump wide
, open.
Soring grouted a
to around surface
.m,..... '"" ******'
.. . ... . .... - . Oetween units 1 s 2 Ftrvice water Line Twt-3
- 24-210 213 sevaeaon 21 5/79 l
. em em ...m.
mo
- - - - ,, ww-.--,
NONCONFORMANCE REPORT $ 4. $/en NfMM b'.f.
! . i. PROJECT NAME joe NO. gg- 28-
! ' NO. 4072 PAGE
. . . .. . .._-_ .. _ ._. . . Mi d l and .___0. 7.220.._-. _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . _. ...p.
- _2._UNIflSI 3. DR AUWING/ PAR T NO. REV 4. ITEM DESCRIPTION 6. ITEM LOCATION I
Service Water Struct.
...._...__C.ondui.t _2BA07h._ __._.
1 . _ __ I_ I_ . 1_1..
- 6. P.O. OR SPEC NO.. AL NO.. . _ S._ E-510 j 7. SE RI P ACEMENT T 9. SOURCE 10. CONTRACTOR / SUPPLIER P/N ._REV . SER NO. N/.A, _,
N/A N/A Construction _. ______R/A._ _ _
i* 11. INSPECTION CRITERI A IR NO E-1.0__ 12. ASME AUTHORIZED 14. Discovered Disting 15. Eesuiss Fornished er E 0'D 13. SM E TCH AT.TACHED I I DWYG l 6 SPEC KiOTHER NO_ffW S, lIYES IU NO 1IRec*gIJIConstIliese i ICI.ene I lEng KIFLD I
- ~ "'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 9~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'16.' NONCONF ORMt NG'COkDt TidWI'~~ ~ N~ ~I D ~Es' IONT EOidEURRENCE
. . . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ Conduit _2BA07h. entering Serylce_ Water _.. Structure a
_re.oek
_ ..'.'. relse's_
eePe.,
en in.-
! .throuett North. wall _st_t Elevation __621'_from, duct _ bank,h ,_$ (re,am Of water about the y
. size..of a _ pencil _ flowing _ front _it.._ For location __ refer..to. drawing E-510g_Section_D..dfqu__Wpin e esteen
__cava 3e
) , ;, o . _ . _ . . _ _ . . .
~
2 3
i 0~
._ Ak
-. __ ~. -
PnO4 009 5 T = QC E86 Sb f. * *goavE
$2f D
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ -
- <t aurnoneran enserc n 3
-Q-List f.3,006 o1Fai' O One_(.1)_Hol.d_ Tag.1 Applied _ Hold Pbr__ Engineering Disposition
, IF. REPORTED 8 DATE 18. ALIDATED BY DATE as. osmserson nasutts @
a 21. ROUTING.
JU fWl TO FIELD ENGINE RN,
. h . ...._
1 I TO OTHE RS ISPECIFYl
. Y. . _.
_'?
~ ~ ~
5.M E6EdsMdig t5sesoset6en l'[VielFEMNRkomenensteil baisse to Pr
~
t'EIngnieering conduit to be reEaired in accordance with note 21< sheet 11B, of'
~~
.- I . _ l > .
.S_W_'l' $_. k_ ~ T_ _ ) M 7.1.. _-._ .. __ .
...O.uK.__Tu. hiAMEtGs%itag_._mic_.
.__..._. _....... .__ . _...___...._ . . _ __. . _ __ _ .. . . . _F6?NR_.:IL%w[.I
. . __ _ _,_ B l 3..omno i
.c
. n. pro,ECT ENGINEERING DiSeOSiTiON jL . . L. ,.
-g :*'L:...
Q l _h<> E..? T3 Ap.7.9. p/.e.t.. R .q M_i .i ?_.. . .aps.d__
. . ..d. . . 3 .._.E___'l_?. c.u.. .r_ s.9 u d_f.. . . t._g
'Y, . . , . bA .. _._d..._id_. 6 _s. .._.r/~.
. / /_ _P_.c_. . f pd: .M-i _._ .
m _..___ __ _
l 7 ,
- 26. OC ACCEPTANCE
. . . . . _!. .. .h t.'t .
C. .W ] 6 . Y. _ _ .'." h T % % % Y,s.% P
- h AU THORIZED INSPECTOR DATE
.s v e. .,id .....
l
s m- .
h .
,e ,
. NONCONFOftMANCE REP 0nf (CONTDI 20.P AOE .1-. c P J 19.NCA NO. -
- 24. Diwoollten Caneweeneo 24. Deweelflon Caneweeneo 24. DespooHien f*=====rense Item flom flesse e .
. RFWone RE JECT REPAIR USE AS IS FIE WOnst nC Jf C T PE P Ain USE AS IS REWORg RE JE CT DEPAIR USE AS IS f.' -
1,5
-PRpJf C s ,lt tD pIGINf i n PriOJECT Flf tD ENGINEE n l> ATE PROJe CT FIELD ENGINEE R DATE f f. r"5 or. fER /.. / 4J.* 4/b D$15's d A% f PROff PflOff CT ENGINEE n DATE PROJECT ENGINEER - DATE
. I 6' . .[8[42-eI /t M PROkt T CllNS kil Od G NE E R DATE PROff CT CONSTR OC ENGINEER DATE PROJE CT CONSTR OC ENGINEER DATE AU Tilonth D INSPE C T OR DATE AUTIlORIZE D IDISI'E C TOR DATE AUTNOMIZE D INSPECTOR DATE 24 D.,ee.fie C. mews.ne. 24. Di eestien C. news.nes 24. Dwison C.neweenee llege
- llem liene RfwORK FIE Jf t. T i RE P AIR USE AS IS REWOtIE RE JE C T RE P Ain USE AS IS RE WOnat RE JE C T REPAIR USE AS IS I
PROM C f FIE LD E NOINE E R ,
DATE PROJECT FIE LD E NOINE E R DATE PROJECT FIELD ENGINEE R DATE PROJECT ENGINE E R ,
DATE PROJECT ENGINE E R , DATE PROJECT ENGINEER DATE PROM CT CONST R OC ENOINEER .DATE. PROJE CT CONSTR OC E NGINEER DATE PROJECT CONSTR OC ENGINEER DATE AUTIIORIZE D INSPE C T OR DATE AuTf tont2 E O INSPE C T OR DATE AU TNOMIFE D INSPE CTOR DATE
- 24. Olwoolltest Conewtonee 24. Olpeelflon Geneweenee I
- 24. Dispoeltlen Ceneweente Blom llont flom I'E WOnE REJfCT REP AIR USE AS IS RE Wonst nf JE CT REPAIR USE AS IS REWORK RE JE CT REPAIR USE AS IS PROJE CT FIE LD ENQ1Nf E R DATE ., PROJE CT FIE LO E NOINF E R DATE PROJECT FIELD ENGINEER DATE PROJECT ENUINEf n DATE, PROJE C T E NGINE E R DATE PROJECT ENGINEER DATE 3OJE CT CONSTR OC ENGINEE R DATE, PROJECT CONSin OC ENGINEE R llATE PROJE CT CONSTR OC ENONGEER DATE f Tu f f eORIZE D INSPE CTOR DATE AU T HORIZE D INMPE CT OR DATE AUTNOnl2E D INSPECTOR '
SATE
- 24. Diese#Inon Ceneweenee -
- 24. Despeelflon Coneweonce 24. Deposellen Coneweense
- llem ,
Item
- 2em nfWORK sIf JE CT RE P AIR USE AS IS nf WORK lif JE CT FlfPAln U$f AS $$ nfWORK RE JE C T RE P AIR USE AS IS PO4OJE C T F IE L D E NOINE E R DATE PROff CT FIE LD E NGINf f n DATE PROJE CT FIELD ENGING E R DATE
~PnOJE CT f NiilNE E n DATE PROJE CT E NGINE F M DATE PROJECT ENGINEER DATE PROff CT CONSTn OC ENGINEER ISATE ,
PROJE CT CONS T R OC E NGINE E R DATE PnOJE CT CONSTR OC ENGINEE R DATE kUTitolll2f D INSPECTOR DALE AUTOIORIZE D INSPt CTOn DATE AU TOIOnt 2 F O IN$PE C TOR DATE
C j FIELD ENGINEER'S REPORT FORM .
. E MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 l I
JOB 7220 DATE D N N k PAGE
-= .
k op b ;
a.su*a = = .a, ma = m .s, , _ . = - . e e i i . . i , t .
er ; '
r I
Pon:sMEv roj._le.e cAomc=d__oE _.NC 2.___ i 2 Q 1 Z _ h EG AR S_.
I NSG-sA-d,, d,w w 2 ' M 1 4 d 1.' r d_ M M,
, . . . i 9 _ _
I-%W. nChl LJ.hfr--: YEiit.i32%ED_ ! '
'____ l l ; Ii i i !
.! l Ad.t_. ' uN usei:> c.cs t>005.. W _ Trt E AMiNr. Eft:>.. Act.E.de41 ws_wm r.uc ver. rv d- ' w. .wa+c c@E d...c s _ N erAc_ e i 5%E _Ei_4 -J ~61 w C.. ... _ sew.t is +7E. _.@TC2t>__BFod .
- i '
i . ._. - .. .. . __ . .
.~ _
i .
. . I
__cc*AhnsV ;
_ e.a s_w . G . .
i i i ; ; j l 122 4C 3D ! 90.. _chh.E _. x,9 cou doc . _ . __
. j __ ,
IBAOOl . '
Kex nm d.*:P _.t.c'o+4o ..P5n., .,EJ _is .stsJm_ .
lBA00.3 '
- . u__NO .S.ic,Nii:tcANT . ?2.G..s,au Wi> !' .
16A
- - D 3.B__ .
'l B AM,'z._ '
__i _. "
.. a
.. i
_LBA c d _4 0> ' cast.E _.xw j co eoir_ ...__ . i :
' i ! : -
__i _ _ ; ! i . I .
i ! ,'
f.A'AO n 7.3._i.__c.AG .
M, o __s A e ca.4rracw.oec _v.1z:or ...
I
_ _ _b LE _ __T_A.;. . cc,CcuiT- ! - :
_E. E A od_9_... ' '.. _iklo %wiNcl.wr' . ~6tcwver 2' rot = . l . _.._ -
__z 5 A od 5 ' i Ia i Ia. .._.'__.__ a . . . . .
ir q _. __
l ! : i
_i, ! ,
I. :, .. :
- 4. .4..
._!J A,A obo ' ! '
i ' O.
_1'cASLE i .2P2eA,ete.; Pen? 3tO ~ do M i .
- TW ' cc>s cut _- .
ig _:a is ym e , i
.JAA0611 p ! '
._LE.AA24%; !
tb .1ctubschT- ht.G % rr. .'Dr.op ..
- I -
a _ ,.=...n
_ _.'.2. A AoG 5_.._ _,I . '. n . _..___s.
a-I.
.. 2.EA o 24,i __4 .... .CA&E Ic4 ccNN r.
I __ !__i_ ! !
REMARKS: route N M KEMT FG,4 E.T- t's(:,-it..O @ TN A
. t EU.ca.J TMo.uMu ';:=
.ah.
bG - - - _ . - ""_- - - _
F*
WW.,
FIELD ENGINEER'S REPORT FORM
. MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2
. JOB 7220 DATE 2 M U PAGE.: E OF 474Mae m't- rvieu 9::c- - ga q w mmen.,, men,m gm
!" ' i - .
l l , l
__ce,4bmrL EE4Wt)(4._ ' i I i
- i l l i i ! i l l !
h4h(b'5 bi.tEtdAW b4 b%bJE E. b ! ; '
_Z3)o.q4. -
__idp ' 7sls$rQw a::,._P$r-M.veis 6vaud;dTw[! T m c.
I
.r c=4.t,.oir.' w w_...v.w v.-o ma . wiw
{
m n=- ,
1 I
___ __ididhi..__k5 3cs B G b _ 7e :._ _X B.E . .S ACbf.E . A-T
' I !
ATEcM.__cocr.h.b4 kTES __i.b d 9 @ Q. [. E _M._7.5 _.I ,
THIN .*iciar rs, cco w .c_tJ:> s k T m _ s ,.*!L M i -
i , .
A_ 1 thir___ B oiit.LM 3C . . Loc.A 1'ti:) 4 . _ .ts P M . c x J
_ lSi23 RJ N 4 _ _ C .I M 6 @ L E IW.2 q _ CMC ti__kS, {
M 'E W _... It:> ME_.2nt R .C 4.:rg cpF WR I bAc s *4 c uc e 3
i r w _Ro7Et> og rt W25aEutE-b I ' i ! ' pgpo r . _ _ _ , .
l
! I
' . I !
- I i
, ! ; j . .
~, ,
iz__AAo Dj_ _. : ( mi,s. .:ca. '_cmwir _:
I '
2 A Cd4 M. Cs4NIF.scha.. _hCE' D 2:o ?>=.
I
!a. o
.2A4 coy _,
i i i ;
' .. I I
't.!deste I 2AA. _CO2. i:: 4 Ceu t_c4 r_. i ! ! -
i e .
' j .
f . _ . - . ..
W_._ l=j i a l JAA ocL4' ' q.. _ . . .
...l . .. . .
IAAces. ..i_ -
!_ =: '
. _ r_ - .
I 11A eEr .' -
I d 6cwier.Aar.,Pk N ew DeoW' ' !
l I i l l
l 1
'..e e . ,
l l
..] '
I e i .
I
-.I
'T .E... d cxiiP:. T'04 _ _ _ _ .L?E. 2 N C.9 . d_ 6EE --
. _ _ Ent4.t> lC.E ' L4.3Ar'ha b LA. D ..___. W j Wb __Mys Wd j - e i .
i l . .
i _. G4( 64 . _146,7EC T51:>' _.SN N T . , .00i"0i NO .Cc 4l _gEG6TW b N G,.Tf. M 'b:i_a _ . _.) i ._ __1.__ I...l.
{
- k. ems.t.e?
i ; i .
i PAtr_ _ . ~b- E- 88 2_ '
REMARKS: ROUTE
> --$ .0
. [ __ Sd* .m FIL F \
I FIELD ENGINEER'S REPORT FORM MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 JOB 7220 DATE M N PAGE . b OF_
N 6 "
. 0J0 P.EcuiAEca ^n f l1fr c . s l , l l : . l i e
[Q *
.C L.b 9 Q bl. - ! ! !
l t l j i I ! l l ! 8 l l .
i :
I '
m N u. IM_ok_.
N$hga> I M d hir_.284d
- I i i i
i x hh h et A n ol N . . 4 p .,' DN' cPMM, L,.DE-S
. l I
- !' 'TUEEEE e m- M C2_ I ;
I
.tbHAcd woo N VGME.[ __ c>d5.LE,._.R.bLA_Lbt(),_
f! i ! I i i l l . ,
I i
- . i ,
I ;
l I . l . :
l . i . . e :
_ . . . _ _ . - ._....a- ; _
l i I . !
i i . ! l ,
j I l t l i i ! ,
l Pcc hMkh__% n'o.g J i ' I
! I
- i i i i . i l i i I !
' i
- i .
l h 3 E.U::44 C M_1f.- d.8mab _o_E. _A'2 TEE 94t d l
. .' ECE*4D_Lh4 d A S L C E e O '[7 M3 f $=) . g ..._. G u b n t". , 2.6A OUS 46 40VL.h W y n 4 b, d _ _Awb_'. W % iiNER> l WI5h - ,PpGG M. .I N,.;
, . . . 3 ,
l I i l ; I I l i : l ! ;
! l !
~
l .
l* i l
! ] !- ! I i
l i
1 - . .i 1. - __ t_ . .. _ I I I i i i __j '
l ,
i , .
i
- ; . . i i , i
- 2. a I<j 1 : ! ; '
l l , l l l
! I i
' I i . i .
i l I
i i. '
I i l i l i I i -
. l. .. m 2. _,
I I
- I !
- l -
l !
~
- I - . ' i -
! l i l l I i
' l
.] ._ . .. =
11
. ; - i . i : i i 1 .
REMARKS: g ROUTE I
l G
O U M G- LE \
.- ,..w,w, ,
O . . , .
C .
i itG k.'
- I
_ T.
i i w -- _1. _ . ..i i a@ @gdnh3 h. $C'h.
^
3 l I t -~ ,i. l l Y,"" so er "'lcapitL
- ~
- s. l l-Ig Il' t ,
/.e -fl. sk. '*. !
r
, ", f~ c =u s %.,g . N. p @.-
I- i' f- h.. . !
Q,a_ _. .t e- ,. :: .y .- -
T.. p-
/:. .
tp1 ..,_m R : .l- -
- s 8
. I< u-'l \. . x.
'l r ll- d. '-
/-
.!. "M' --op' .
8 L . '
p ' .Q- -
- 1. ,
- i. n. ylm9L
~
. h. . g - -
-.f
- L*5E ". E,. n..
l
/.f...
q s
/ . ,,.,,,.,.
_. 8 '85 ..
g . .i -- ,
. ,p j4 .. t,,,,,,, .3 ; f ,.'
'l M
- 1
- p r }c.h""'i ,
Sg ;' , -j , g-
- r. . .. , .
IV R a e %. .- g e fg.f 8. .f.g C
- ! - F ~I U i b .h g .
? E 3 .*. O.
h i '
- k 4 l I*
l p8' '
- l. ..*:
E d
OE 'hq e .f
- g_I
+5~
i.. e .:I .i.- 4 . 9 L_ a -- . ., r m : 3 ...g - .: .< ,,o g, ,;
~.
.e,= / ...u. sp .g..f,;. . , .. v.
I. .
.+ .
p f ',I
"'*'"' ' e.
. .9 ,4, . .~ [!
).*1 ;d**/ ! .
- f.
-e 2 * ,s,' ' . af lr *
', - *: 'j'} ,
'.t ; " -t. ; . n .' n .: (b ".
A T' ::. **'
eg 3: .h'
,T,.,' l p: /.t'a?
f.R*y
- 9) .*.*."' .f 3 1 t r:.' .. . g. , , .r..
g
,(.
s g
.__'___ -3
, 0, ,.
.--M,,*? e,'.! v .g&..
t-9* .
-g- - - - ~ - :- . : CO ' Ak., .,3.
s.. . , , . .. . l'Lt
. . y ; ,,. .. p .
- r. n.-
_ _ , .e.-.. c., i. .i,g g . .: . , .,
y ,--- r3
- Q.
R <
..'.v:::. e 3
+ - .. , w. v -: : . i /s.4, ., .i.g'
.,v.. . ._r n s.
- .c4
'c R y' .,.
- .... .: <.o.-:,4 ..
, a ...... t.:..#. .. .
3 , . .
a., . . . , . . . ,;..>
a_ .,, ."
m-: - ;- ...#.. , r,,A'.~. ge .we. .,. H q t.
- r. - c3 i . -
y..
r .<
o e- opp.. ~ . g ,
, A.[ ,.t :
t*
-h.'.---
s /. .
....4,,..-,i........,.
D. >. - .
y,pl:m .a . b. c s i. .
, g ; -
t .
sr v ,,9 r- ,-... ,=.-- =. e.
- e. 4.4 .
E
- f. i p} .
n a e - - - 's.9.'A.t. -
s
.~ .
s.
i, .
l y.1 h3 l p l 4 P
_ f*-- - - d- '
ls.
Y,-b>/.<%.hqn,.
, r- -- .
N lf;M.
- .e. T b'.$.O.h., .r
'3 [.
- u I'.' G
.p,.--- A. ;,s.4v : ..
- 4. .! - ,,',q. 641,: p.'z -
O : Lo - B f ---k-.--=--- . ..v:4.s: :.W * . , , w , : q t .
AM!-
"p3%w.j y in .e e: . _.- 'W.M / T.i.
Y;?n:yD'1., P.y A [4$ m $a.,.4 .W ? 1. E *
.a.
Ag: I 3 ?.:Mf'/
G1 T - 8 '
3 t -
, 48.- -a
- t
- a. n.' : ',(. l
' : ,s.
1 .fU. .:i: . t . ;' .
+
n .; f.;
-s
";. ' . .i 1.' i ;:. .r, h i n;s.- c .' ..
0 ; f @n~~' .y, <3.
~
.s,,. p i
.+' . .t .
- u '-
-5
. ! . _* } e _'[ .i-....
- 2. . n ** y-
- W)ing ! .l ... g.; -i - .
. s ?- .
g g;c.t; pg .. .; e .
4,,. . ,.
Sl' f U, b[ . cj . '3 . 0. .:.- ;3 3 .,
i s, . p. .. t..
. 4...c. . , -.5 .p . .: s..s;..
A p
1 .. .
8I J ,. ,
a $_ o
'l f ~ :,..-
n l n g g y .
g r'. . ..t ts'..y ..5 g?. . f.
,a t ..;
f.: .'. * .P . ' ;d . . .
- ng_n.2 n T Tg 8- M '
k e, t y .
I'
... a e .
. - p., .
7 . ..r;.,-. -
i 'F a )
,d.g...[l+, y, j4, y .
^
P1 ia .c .
[E$
^ b; j n*g... .lg. e I f. ,
- ti .i . -
8 .. ,. . ,. . w -
p ,. 2 4
- j. . .
N
- y $
$ .- Pg 2 ..
.T.v.
.g. :
Og . E so3 s, , , . .. . . . 4 g .. :. ..
m (
- 86
.- i .i...
s
'..... .i.5...6: -. . ~ _ , ...
.t , . -, ... . .; ., , . E . . ; .: . ,
._~,q . . . _ - _ . - - - -
.g . . ,. . .
8 , . . . . . . . . ,.,; . *; ,,7 , .
..*..r'
~ . .
' a.
~ '** " " ' ' ^
7} 27. "PVC' Cohiluf t' RephiE Pricidur$i ' ' ' '
E a. Remove concrete to expose an area 1-1/2" minimum around the damaged area; b
.' F.I Chaefer the inside edge of the hole to clean up and eliminate burrs and
- p. . create a smooth edge inside the conduit. Clean up the outside of the j . conduit around the damaged area and apply a section of-PVC coupling, pg sufficient to completely cover the area and cement in place with PVC cement. Repair concrete per Section 17 of civil Specification C-231.
g -. c This will maintain the integrity of the conduit and the concrete.
{ b. When the length of the damaged area is greater than that of a coupling, 4 an alternative method of repair any be used as follows:
j]l 2) Cut a vertical section out of the PVC which will allow it to
-1 overlap the damaged section by at least 1/2 inch on each side of 3> the damaged section.
l't*E 4) Perform Step A using the formed PVC in place of a coupling.
g _
Ig 28. Conduit _
2 Over 1 Criteria h tj The adequacy of seismic supports of non-1E raceway will be done by analysis and/or en gineering walkdown late in the job. 2 over 1 seiscic supports arD q,g .q., -
I> ~/
(.,5 < - ~ ~ -
~ -
d' b. Seismic Class IE conduit installations shall not be routed under non-El Catesory I components (tray, conduit, piping, valves, or valve operators, .
gj ductwork, pumps, or motors, tanks, instrumentation, lighting fixtures, 7,5 etc.) When this is not possible, and analysis cannot verify that failure is acceptable, the non-Category I component must be seismically supported.
g c. Non-Class IE conduits shall not be routed over Seismic Category I components (tray, conduit, piping, valves or valve operators, ductwork, punps or notors, I1 tanks, instrumentation and tubing, lighting fixtures, etc.). When this is
[8 not possible, and analysis cannot verify that failure is acceptable, the i
$3 non-Class IE conduits must be seismically supported.
B2 d. At crossovers, non-Class IE conduits shall have a seismic support on each
- E side of the crossover spaced in accordance with the Class IE support
.E . criteria. Additional seismic supports need not be provided for the Ej] remaining conduit length.
1 e. Non-Class IE conduits running parallel and at an elevation above the
}Yg Seismic Category 1 installation shall be seismically suppnrted in accor-iI dance with the support criteria for Class 1E when the horizontal distance is less than 12 inches and analysis cannot verify that failure is acceptabic.
4 .
[g A E-5-E 2. Nmpp.,[f,Q 41% GBB W# M1 QK A + 2M .2_Na>E t>N M.isS _ _ 91 M& M W h l1-24-71 ISSUED TOR COSSTRUCTION RLH TLS TLS W1 htC/m
[- T ] our f*ALs nrvarious sy emc.o Uff c,;jf p9i l p : : ,'
otSloNED oRAWN
- !! MIDLAND PIANT UNITS 1 & 2 # *** 7??O _l .
$E
\. COMSUMERS POWER COMPANY CONDUIT A';D TRAY D " ' W"' G * *-
'?' 5
'g N N01ES, SYMFOLS AND DETAll.S E-l'2 (Q) EII- IIB
<h .
'I
.. . . . .v.= . N.
. . :. .1 y s. .. .i ?
~~~--
- 'L,,*.
i " ' ",. -) '1 lI , - . . . . . .._ ,
L.'-
} ,
. . . . . . . . . m. - *
. :, m..
s .,.., "
. ~ - - -- -
-.s e
e
' .:s-
~- - .
'I .-=. :. w - \.
1 .
--m
,,- .: 0. .:, . :<-: !
, n. ,
.-w . i c ,.v.. ,. -I y r .v('.. ( ..ra.
.r w-s 3._..-$..b... . ..
u._n
. . j - m.y e ;
i j
. ... . j . t -
g . .
.. g'-
.. coo .I. .....
. , .. .., c :. - - .
. u' ,
- -i I I j _o ?_ ,". _ ;
r --l ~ _r. _7 I"I -
y-/&w j
}.
q l
. f, ' i
. - : .' ? ;...' l e.c c a.T g g .,.,. . . __ _
ad
_. i 1 .
.,;;m.cr
~~ ". ~',.. x
~
ELEVATION .EoND ae'.CAQ ; PLAN OR ELEV. .
- (4 -. AfERS Cr 'flgjEEN .
, A:.TyKr.A'Tc_ - NO.I .
. CR EQUAL 7?'..~ .
. 3.,. . -) ty p HOR. OUCT EE'_CW 7
-,...r.
1 W TER TA6LE
> c: ...r:.i.3s ...
f .- .Au. AP.NNO -
,.'f.Tr(AFOAt f.
.,' 2 1
'y D - '.
-, . - ' ~.. t.. .- imz cr --
'l 3
<TR.f~ruRc ... ... .
. n ,,: . , ,. : .- u
,. .... m"uw 1...
.. ~.
-fr
.._.,,;l-_..
. .~'
N: 3 i. .m ? M .o w 1 5.j ; .. c .j : ~ . .;:'
W s
,. p o o. o-
.r .
.m *- i;, i . c., .
l- !;i u n.- .
I . . .l .- -*
- - j,. .. i..
l ~.
!- , . i *f <.r l . = ? . * *y;e .,q r,r.y. s;f; ..t' .*
l : I . .
.s. _c . . .. . I .S- .
.; y . . g.;t. . s. .,
- . , tl g , . ..
I .. . M
. .r. CcNOusT ' '- - -
. , , . . . , ....r.
., . :.. . \ \ \ 'V
. t -. .; ;y.". .. .,.
c.
.. !-.4 . . .
. \gk N- 2 2. . . .. .. .,. : n . . . iu N
' EL
. TION -
. .: .~
/. - .
- .. r. !.. . D'lCT.EAN!: I:f.WF.
. .gW', ,
c,/ LTt. rw.Te so.'23
.: ,,, , .,..>.... ,7.
..n.,..
3.g
,.r.
.g" : . fage
<j,g.g.,p.;p,,googo TA.s.:.c *s o.g, c.142 -
..'s .
....,..t
. ju.jygi.g
- - '- ~
. HOR. DUCT ABOVE ,. WATER!TABLEi6. .> . _ . . ..J " .. .: .. ., *
' , ~- '
p.: .
.j. w .. l .G
'.7:
EL'EVATION .: .'
. -~ - ;.
- - . ,;;.7..g .ly..,. (
E
':.. VERT DtiCTTBELOW WATER TABLE .
'. ';,~g,: .J.G..$ ,l.Q.;.4.. :. OR.WHERE DUCT . TURNS HOR.
. . , .. f..
. y, * .%,'
. .'. . , g%4%/,..%
- c. .f.sDi...
3 in,... ;~. . . ; ,e, . c; ,;.n : v.;. . . . -.lMMEDIATELY; AFTERn LEAVINGe4 STRUCTURE- -
. .' . ..,,.....w:. wp.v'. . e,n, . ..
. 0, . . . .. . .
y ..y - c g..!E:066fMnii&isitf#ACN)WIIH BOILDING' 'l ETdiL l
-s _ . .. , .. . . .
.c . .. a
.. .,7 n .. % p _., g .
, 7 ,. . q_m .
/ ! $
l k ..
1 4
4 4
i l
, , DcN I I 2-
., ow A E-+2.
4 l
MATERJAL PAOCUR'EMENT RESPONSIBluTY AFFECTED PM OR MR PREP;FE .
I sECHTEL OmCE C SUPPUER CO*(mACTOR PURCHASE ORDERS FOR DCN CPANGE '
aECHTEL FIELD 2 NONE REQUIRED YES s*
= '
v/A ;)/
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: Ke v i s e T. h e d il D
, e i ll '
.) c ! tp It POTf 1) pCC 5 *Ei E EFFECTIVITY OF CHANGE
~~
C' AI C ok 1 5 u, <
!NSTRUCTIONS REGARDING USED MATERALEQUIPUENT MlA ORGwfoR as ,nOVAL DATE
\i' . I < I, l'e j
l l
l
.= .
. .-- S U PP LEMENT- '
PAGE2 OF '2.
DRAWlNG tHANGE NOTICE CN NQ M NO E92.4 112
~
l .
l I . . . l b Yh en %e \en
\ s g r e o.t e c %=g% o$ .% e cla m e. g e d m.v < n % at c4s. coup \seg s.n !
cs he c n c.i e <w e % . J eT c e p. 'i r m e y \o ,u. e sed a.s %\\ows:
- t. C ut .
d a es . pie c e o f 'Tv t (. h m e eli = 4, eb a s !
we o\ w3 e J Tvt 3 2 ),c 3 'i n .L e s\ c w 3 e c % n .. ;
- 2. C ut a ve ct;c.\ s e ct; o n ost e4 w e PVC l w k e b 6 \ \ ct\ \ c w 'd w ov er \a p % e I ciao! .e4 sec % n Na y 4 \ e a st % e n l s mek UJ. oj tke d a.m 3 4 s e cUen . l t
- 3. L < ,s . w e T v c \a y ke-tin f o r <.a , y i t o n a p,tce of G h nc:$ ey
% e s m <n e eh m e t e c ..
\
- 4. Pec st p A isisE %ba o t .ss
'Pvc{ie p1=cc eta c.oup i.s3 i
b l
l
)
O = () uh I . h h . " 1 ,P % % b L
[" : -
p=<pnaa f
.los a
<fAs b . a.
-Qo4hl ,
~
&, )n.
1oo vrd**7y* ouf . 1 C /
g.y a.. arts,; tri. . c,, ,, .L y,'s/r u jdf. c..
2 R y c. <Il . gi. gr. 'E //s/rs-e,aI iji,p.u I Ful G cvis g,fx h$$h, elly Rilsto i.L o.a.'da/La th/si S p.h- Ga .buu .
ifailru (w*1jr Iljrs/fpuLi&7eI,1b y
- tw.J 4,. , t,+ gn.
7 a. ,/,;, gn. % n.R' 74-j'r2.
1?.lii.
u e ,. i. 4
's. :. i.,a s .e r ?, -
n yJ -n.. af,j. ,.u 4,9, r. ., .
3 D 9{. ?.' ~T .m /- c.~.:.1 eda saile. i..:. tjLy's ~
@Q "r iLA. >. L. e.d.y .yj;b~
i,h 11 t y c. >la: the. . o,.. A 3//r-
- l2 s.y c. I,.< r4 c,. A s/fr
/3 2.y c . I,.,*., Gig cc L llr-.
2 rc.'u G M //7 reI,Y- .m L .1w. !L :. s)</> u i.r x.y c. ,I..', sA Auoale- 3/.u-ln a_ n x .y c . </,1, ri. n sa. k ifaf,C
,, W-17 4 2+w4-ny rr. ! c.' ;I A=' ' a -- l 9l, n/s o,A 9/n/rs Ir' h ilyM ;h.. hO '(n j Gu 4 :) f/'e1/[n ,r4 r,lr~- o !.-
D { zyc~~lih n- v J wh f/r/-
g,1( g ./z. e /x -3W ' '
, ,s wd A
(W ,
A
[ Enclosure A] 2/3/83 s
ITEM 1 4-
" SEISMIC MARGIN STUDY SCOPE (TR. 9720)
While discussing the scope of the seismic margin study it was stated that only Category I structures, containing equipment which is necessary for the safe shutdown of the plant, were included. Although that included most of the Category I structures, the Applicant agreed to identify those Category I structurcs, as defined in subsection 3.8.4.1 of the FSAR, that have not been considered in the seismic margin review.
They are as follows:
. Retaining walls, valve pits, and meter pits associated with the Service Water Pump structure
. The Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits
. Foundations for the control room pressurization tanks, and
. Foundations for the penetration pressurization tanks.
The reasons for their exclusion will be provided by Dr. R P Kennedy to the NRC Staff when the results of the Seismic hargin Review program are presented.
,,--..,9,,__ ,_,y -
't v *
[ Enclosure D) 2/3/83 ITEM S
~#
New boring information referred to in Drunner's examination of Dr Woods.
. (TR. 9765, 9766, 9767, 9768)
Dr Weods stated in his prepared testimony that the calculations and boring logs furnished to him by Bechtel Engineering were correct. He ran a random sampling of the data and he was satisfied that with the methods available to control the Ground Water Table, (GWT) below 610 feet elevation that the plant area vill be safe with respect to lique-faction of the sands encountered during borings.
Dr Woods stated (TR. 9753) that some time af ter he had written his testimony, that additional information concerning borings related to the underpinning and dewatering work was made available to him. The borings in question were done by Moretrench/Mergentime Co during March and April, 1982. Even though Dr Woods did not have access to the data on the additional new borings prior to completing his written testimony, Dr Woods was aware of and had received copics of location maps and calculations (analysis) some time prior to his oral testimony given en November 20, 1982.
Dr Woods oral testimony (TR. 9746) states, "There were some additional sand pockets identified in those borings. Frequency was no more than that from the previous borings and it does not change my conclusion, any of the conclusions that I stated in the testimony."
The two borings referred to in Dr Woods' testimony are identified on Bechtel drawing SK-G-443, Fig. 2.5-7, Rev. 4 as borings MP-10 and ME-27B.
2/3/83 These borings registered the lowest blow-counts. BechteldrabIngSK-G-942,
, Fig. L-10, Rev. O show boring MP-10 as having a blow-count of 23/24 at elevation 587.5 feet. This drawing also indicates a boring done by a different contractor in the immediate vicinity of MP-10. This boring, LN, had a blow-count of 20/22 at elevation 586.0 feet. The significant point here is that borings taken by two different contractors in different time frames, using the same ASTM standard, D-1586 for blow-counts, show near identical data results.
Bechtel drawing SK-G-944, Fig. L-12, Rev. O, gives the blow-count for MP-10 and ME-27B between elevations 627 to 610 feet.
MP-10 4/12 at 623.5 feet ME-27B 4/14 at 619.5 feet 3/17 at 614.5 feet Dr Woods was aware of this type of data as listed on the various Bechtel drawings and also of the logs of boring related to the "new" borings.
Bechtel Geotechnical personnel (Dr Afifi, D Henderson) state that current information regarding the latest liquefaction analysis is included in FSAR Amendment 47, which was released on or about January 14, 1983.
The Mergentime boring logs for all borings in question are found in pages D.1-1, 331 through D.1-1, 362 of the 50.54(f). Ms Stamiris will s
l be sent a copy of latest data in the next few days as promised (TR.
l 9768).
I m
1
,o !
[ Enclosure C] 2/3/83
. .2 '
Item 4 !
r Possible inappropriateness of using al oxide grinding wheels because of alleged ferric oxide contamination (TR .10005).
Ms Sinclair: "But the information that I have is that aluminum oxide grinding wheels contained Ferric oxide." The allegation that the grinding wheels that have been and are currently being used at Midland Project contain ferric oxide was investigated by contacting NPQAD Personnel (R Witaker; P Musante, NDE and Welding QA Analysis) who were personally involved in researching the use of grinding wheels being used on austenitic stainless steel pipe. First, it has been determined that the only grinding wheels that were ever in use at the Midland Site were aluminum oxide. Even though Bechtel's " Field Material Requisition" used for procurement of various grinding wheels, designated " Grinding Wheels -
Metal", receipt was aluminum oxide wheele. In addition, Bechtel Procedure FIG 18, Rev O, " Identification Marking of Tools For Use on Stainless Steel Materials" states: "All tools and tool accessories intended for use on austenitic stainless steel material shall be identified by the application of a white paint marking the tool and tool accessories.
Only those tools and tool accessories so identified will be used on austenitic stainless steel materials. It shall be the respcnsibility of the craft superintendent that requisitioned the tools and accessories to direct and supervise the identification marking operation upon receipt of the tools and accessories."
Also, Bechtel's Procedure 7220-M-204.1 Rev 10, 5.1.3.e states: "For
9 t.
2/3/83 austehiticstainlesssteelpiping,onlystainlesssteelbrus$Isor
_ , aluminum oxide or silicon-carbide grinding wheels shall be used."
The MPQAD indicates that these procedures have been and are now being implimented. Because of some vagueness in Bechtel's description of items in preparing " Field Material Requisition", Procurement of grinding wheels, CPCo NCR M10-9-2-172 was issued. This NCR imposed that 1) super-vision of requirement for purchasing grinding wheels; proper information required on purchase orders. 2) Project Field Quality Control Engineer to incorporate paragraph 5.1.3, subparagraph (e) into applicable PQCI(s) in order to further establish process control in the field. 3) Project Field Quality Control Receipt inspection to perform receipt inspection on all grinding wheels to ensure that only aluminum oxide or silicon carbide grinding wheels are received for use at the Midland Energy Center.
The MPQAD contacted the M K Morse Company, a vendor for Saw Blades and Abrasive Wheels, on the subject of chemical composition of M K Morse Company Abrasive Wheels. MQPAD was informed by Morse that a typical abrasive wheel contains:
97.03% Aluminum Oxide ;
2.1% Titanium oxide
.5% Silicon
.2% Ferrous Oxide
.13% Zirconium Oxide
.02% Calcium oxide and Magnesium oxide
\
2/3/83
. c.
The .2% ferrous oxide is a trace amount and occurs in the chemical ircomposition of grinding wheels during processing. As the abrasives are crushed to size, they cause minute particles of iron from the crushing cylinders to flake off. Information received from various vendors 4idicates that ferrous material in the quantity present is not significant to contaminate an aluminum oxide grinding wheel, consequently it is not necessary to refine out of the wheels' chemical composition.
The austenitic stainless steel pipe itself has trace amounts of ferrous oxide in its chemical composition, similar in magnitude to the amounts present in th: grinding wheels. The grades of piping used at the Midland Plant, and their associated ferrous content, are listed below.
Grade Ferrous Content 304 .08%
309 .15%
316 .08%
Again, this ferrous content is obtained through the manufacturing process of the stainiees steel, and further s':. ws the insignificance of the trace amounts of ferrous oxide found in the grinding wheels.
+-
[ Enclosure E]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-329 OM 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos, 50-329 OL (Midland Plant Units 1 and 2) 50-330 OL AFFIDAVIT OF THIRU R. THIRUVENGADAM My name is Dr. Thiru R. Thiruvengadas. I am employed by Consumers Power Company as Section Head of Civil Engineering, Design Production Department of the Midland Project. In this position, I am responsible for reviewing civil enginetring design, including the seismic input to the analysis of structural systems and components, including piping. I am familiar rich the techniques of piping seismic analysis described in the affidavit.
I have a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Madras, India, a Master of Engineering degree in Power Engineering from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India; and a PhD degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
I have approximately 14 years of experience in Civil / Structural Engineering in firms including Skidsore, Owings and Merrill, Chicago, Illinois; Sargent & Lundy, Chicago, Illinois; Bechtel Power Corporation, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Consumers Power Company, Jackson, Michigan.
.. ; '. - e.'. . . . . ...
, n, .
l l
I swear that the statements in this affidavit and in the attachment 1
thereto are true and correct he at of my Jrnowledge. ,
1 e
] 4% /
" Thiru R. Thh'ruvei W J
Sw'orn and Sub'asribed to Before Me This & Day of _%,,reu,, ,19D.
. /
v< <<n , k bsw Notary Publip', Washtenaw County stvtxtY A Baoss, Wotary Pubite WASNT DAW COUNTY . NICllIGAN MY COMISSION EXPInts 10 26 84 I
l I
i Affidavit of Dr. Thiru Thiruvengadam
. <=.
Introduction
< The testimony of Don Lewis regarding underground piping at the Midland Plant presented on November 16, 1982 (following TR. 8868) included stress summary tables for the buried service water system lines being reinstalled as part of the soils remedial work. Mr. Lewis stated that these stress summary tables showed the results of a dynamic seismic analysis of this piping which had been based on the FSAR SSE (0.12g) earthquake. He also stated that all the other under-ground Category I piping at the Midland Plant had been analyzed using BC-TOP-4A techniques with the 1.5 x FSAR SSE earthquake as input, and that a check analysis of the re-installed buried service water piping using BC-TOP-4A techniques and 1.5 x FSAR SSE is being carried out. (Tr.
8941-8943.) Mr. Lewis also testified that 1.5 x FSAR SSE response spectra envelopes the site specific response 1
spectra for purposes of the BC-TOP-4A analyses of buried piping. (Tr. 8944) . On November 17, 1982 Applicant was l granted permisrion to supplement the record to explain how l
l the underground service water piping to be installed meets current criteria. (T1. 9041-9043.) The purpose of this i
affidavit is to show that the input spectra used in the 1
dynamic seismic analysls of the underground service water piping discussed in Don Lewis' testimony actually exceeds l
current criteria, even though the FSAR SSE(0.12 9) earthquake l
. .. _ - . . __ _ _ . .= =.
was used in developing the input spectra.
. Af.
HOW THE DYNAMIC SEISMIC ANALYSIS WAS DONE.
< The service water system modeled inside and in the vicinity of the service water pump structure consists of lines 4
36/26"-OHBC-15, 16, 19, 20, 53, 54, 55, and 56. These lines consist of return lines (36/26"-OHBC-16 and 20 and 26"-OHBC-54 and 56) and supply lines (36/26"-OHBC-15 and 19 and 26"-OHBC-53 and 55).
The analyses of these lines were performed in two parts:
A. Supply lines 36/26"-OHBC-15 and 19 and 26"-OHBC-53 and 55 were analyzed seismically from the strainers inside the SWPS (OF-75A through E) to thirty feet beyond the ethafoam outside in the soil to a fictitious anchor. In-structure response spectra were developed for all floor elevations of the SWPS using the FSAR SSE (0.12g) earthquake. The envelope of the floor response spectra for 0.5% damping at elevations 656'-0",
634'-6", and 620'-0" was used as the seismic input at all support points. The pipe outside the building for each line also used the same enveloping spectra used j
I inside the building.
B. Return lines 36/26"-OHBC-16 and 20 and 26"-OHBC-54 and 56 run in a NW'-SE direction through the fill, into the SWPS, and out into the soil underneath the cooling pond.
4
)
These were analyzed seismically from fictitious anchors
-in the soil located 30 f t. northwest and 30 f ti. southeast of the SWPS. Again, in-structure response spectra were developed in the SWPS using the FSAR SSE (0.12g). The envelope of the floor response spectra for 0.5% damping at elevations ranging from 589'-6" to 634'-6" was used as the seismic input at all support points. The piping out-side the building for each Jine also used the same enveloping spectra as the piping inside the building.
For piping to be replaced or rebedded beycnd approximately 30 ft. from the SWPS, the seismic analysis in the supply line (described in A above) was used because of similarity in layout.
THE CURRENT CRITERIA.
The design basis for the 36" piping to be replaced and the 26" piping to be rebedded is the site specific response spectra. The design basis for the piping inside the SWPS is the FSAR SSE (0.12 9 ).1/
The current criterion for damping is 2% in safe shutdown earthquake analyses.
HOW THE DYNAMIC SEISMIC ANALYSIS MEETS THE CURRENT CRITERIA.
The standard design procedure is to use response spectra applicable to the individual piping support points.
1/ There are some modifications presently being performed to the piping inside the SWPS including hanger modifications and installation of expansion bellows on the supply lines.
That is, the designer could have used the response spectra
. =.
for elevation 589'-6" for piping located at elevation 589'-6",
'eground response spectra for buried portions of the piping, and so forth, rather than using enveloping response spectra.
Figures 1 through 3, which are applicable to the supply lines, compare the floor response spectra at different elevations inside the FWPS to the site specific response spectra for the top of the fill and to 1.5 x FSAR SSE ground response spectra. Figures 4 through 6 make the same comparison for the return lines. Figure 1, for example, shows that for the enveloping spectra the zero period acceleration is 0.332g, compared to 0.149g for the SSRS and 0.18g for 1.5 x i
FSAR SSE. (For underground piping outside the building the zero period acceleration is an appropriate basis for com-parison.)
The seismic analyses described in A and B above used floor response spectra derived from 0.5% damping rather than the current FSAR requirement of 2% damping. This is a significant source of additional conservatism for piping inside the structure, but it does not add significant conservatism for underground piping outside the SWPS. All of the spectra shown in Figures 1 through 6 are for 0.5% damping.2/
i 2/ There is a minor drafting error in all of the figures i which has no effect on the matters discussed in this affidavit.
The NRC Staff and Applicant have agreed that the SSRS developed by Western Geophysical should be modified to coincide with-the Housner spectrum at long periods (low frequencies). This is not shown in the attached figures. However, the low frequency portions of the response spectra are not important in the seismic analysis of buried piping. In other words, only the right sides of Figures 1 through 6 are relevant for purposes of this discussion.
i CONCLUSION
. As shown above, the seismic analysis of the buried
- piping was performed using conservative input spectra which exceed the SSRS. As the testimony of Don Lewis (following Tr. 8868) shows, the stress levels are within allowable values. The piping systems located inside the SWPS, which have been analyzed to meet the FSAR SSE, will be included on a sampling basis in the Seismic Margin Review. The analyses done to date show that the seismic stresses for the piping inside the structure are very low. Therefore I expect that the Seismic Margin Review will show that the piping inside the SWPS is adequate to withstand the SSRS.
The discussion above applies to the dynamic seismic analyses performed using Bechtel's ME-101 computer code. As previously mentioned, a check analysis of the service water-piping to be replaced or rebedded is also being performed based on BC-TOP-4A techniques. The BC-TOP-4A analysis uses the 1.5 x FSAR SSE as input. If the check analysis reveals higher stresses than the values tabulated in Don Lewis' testimony, they will be revised by n:eans of an FSAR amendment. I do not expect this check analysis based on BC-TOP-4A techniques to alter the conclusion in this affidavit that the underground service water piping to be rebedded or replaced meets current criteria. ,
- i '
i.
si -:;:,
.' s ...
t -
E -
- tI
- - i . ." i f .* - ' -
0
_ 0 1
- - _ _ 1 0-s E
R 8N 0
1 I _
s e
e U -
2
. T C N 0[f / _ 4
- U R O 5 7
. TN T I g SOI A R
'g 2g5 , 0 5
I PT 2 3 2 0 8 2 -
M EC%E L .
48.
U R 5.E
)
L 3.
0 O
{
PI 0 E R D:C I
S EHI OA C S(
F F . -j y
, 3 I
W qATD 5 O 3 WL N 1 P -
VO RU O E GOS x T
( -
CHINR R A
S R -
V TP G I
S S 0 R RME F S 7 I
EOAS 2 SNDS a 0- "6 "O -
'6 '4 '0 '
5 32 _
6 66 s L LL E EE , 0 1
I I
9 I
i 8 7 7 I
6 I
/ _
I _ ~ ,
5 4
I i -
e r / ^
u 3
/
i I
i g
F I
' i 2 p
a 1 I
a r a -
t r c
e p
t c
e -
s nS p e
stose ns -
oe n sW po p -
ey o Rb eF l -
cE -
iF i
f nR cf gA i eo p sS -
SpD eFn o -
teT eror it t
i n
o -
S e SF i -
t i
ins R f R A eS S DS F 1
- - - - 0 0 0 0 0 o 2 1 4 3
.25EgwoN
,. ; ;!l!' ;i' Ii ,i I' s
. "f ;(". ? "* ......a-.....;%...L'"..
I y I I
'82 I ? .
2; i
'- ,l 4 b "
E Ek l- o N - x.$ n N
- o** l
- l. ;
~
5 ..
l- n I
~ {g l i
~
$ c
$ $ llE-bb.b I I //
Ei? r 1
. ese - R
- - a I
/ 2 .
=
\N 1
l I - o
- = l g
5
_ l -
i
\ - n 5 E \ 8
\ g ,
1 - ~
k g
. I I
I l-l -l I
l!}
j I
i .
l
$ BE l
& f? l I
j I i l'SY i
5
~
t I , ' I o o o
' n d S (8)Nouyug3333y
- i
. t.
+
.2 I I I I I I 3 I I I I I 3 D'"""'on* Figure 3 SERVICE vmTER PUMP STRUCTURE .
SSRS - Site Specific Response Spectra VERTICAL DIRECTION et Top of FM by Weston . DAMPING RATIO: 0.5%
FSAR - SNe Design Response Spectre SSE GROUND ACCELERATION From FSAR .
! ?Ver11 cal Spectra is Assumed to Be Equal to % Horizontal Spectra I. .
i.
I-4.0 - :
3.0 - ,
3 EL620'O" EL656' O" E
g 2 .0 n
d O FSAR X 1.5 (SSE)* ,k V EL 634'-6* '
1.0 -
SSRS (TOP OF FILL)*
r O.268g r O.258g f-0.12g
"~N------% N m
j- 0.254g fr0.10g
--- -T" I e i I I a al l I-- T- T-( O 20 33 50 100 l
O.1 .
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 78910
- racrw orwcv #com i
.s .: *s . . ~$' . ** . . . ... .. *
- i i i 1 3 8
~
4 l-
~
O $
- . J~.
Igg *
- O g
n
- g" o .s a a=
g W g BN " ,N
==
40 f
' x g
, _g s Q a>
( -a
$ E 1 -"
~_ ,
, A g - * -
- y,N S
\y i l
I
-O E
( *1
-1E _e g
\ E ;
\.
\
-~
\
\
\
\ ~ ; -- \
i
} \
\
\ '
\
\
m h1
\
i'$
s o
),
u.
'};8 m.m1
\
, i ' O o O. O a6
- n d (6)NORWTG#
- o. .
'. o.
g I I I
- I I I I I Is s l 1
"* SemicE *TER PUMP SMGM SSRS SNe Specific Response Specten @e 5 EAST WEST DIRECTION at Too of FE by Weston DAMPING RATIO: 0.5%
FSAR Sne Design Response Spectun SSE GROUND ACCELERATION From FSAR -
5.0 =
- EL634'6*
4.0 - -
E z EL 689' 6" 9
h 3.0 s
=
/ -
h i
2.0 =
l 1
/ - -
SSRS(TOP OFFILQ 1.0 =
0.304g =
0.198g 0.18g 0.149g
,/^~~~~~.- l
- 0 -
_ =_= r- --
a a , a a g ag,
~ , ,
0.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 78910 33 60 100
, 2f rREoUENeviceSi -
...e .
- *s .,
1 .-.
, I I I I E I I I R ! I I I f'
] Definition: SERVICE MSN N
- SSRS SNe Specific Response Specinn Mgure 6 VERTICAL. DIRECTION .
i at Top of F4 by Weston DAMPING RATIO: 0.5% ;
FSAR - Site Design Response Spectnm SSE GROUND ACCELERATION
- From FSAR I ' Vertical Spectnan is Amoumed i; i to Be Equal to % Hortrontal '
Spectrurn.
i 5.0 -
l
=
i 4.0 =
1 3
w z .
O E -
e 3.0 -
Q a .... . .
EL634'6" m -
,h, M N W q' O.270g ' _
1.0 .
0.254g
-~-----,%~~ i[/,
0.12g op 0 - -
- - - - - - -T " "a a a a a aaaa _ ' -
s T - T -
0.1
- 2 3 4 5 6 78910 20 33 50 100 FREQUENCY (CPS) as-tese-oe
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _