ML20090A905
| ML20090A905 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1981 |
| From: | Rinaldi F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A223 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BOX-12, FOIA-84-96 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8102270072 | |
| Download: ML20090A905 (75) | |
Text
--- - - -
~.maa--am._m4 a_m
,ha.A----m, u.h__ _....,_ _.
_w__,_a-.
...... M. i.' w -s
~
1 i
2 I
M,47,,, g-9 %:.g-'b.'e,-*'4*qp*..'...- =
_ %h v..m
-f e n ~ w e.e..
-@g.. T g n.f, p -
g-s.'.. Jew...
- d
_q.
- S, y.F>-
- J. ;...' g.Q:, Q,*
.g., p
. -,..?a *..e.,==.,= * @as"1.w,
s t
g
,3.. ca.
. *. =.
-+i &w.,
9/
- s
- gg
...q
-s..
. ~..
l l, '
k,',*.*
yq 3
'GM 7, r eg 7+ se r. =q -r? -?ns U ;* w,,j, m.,,,y,,,,_,,,,
5 i
,.. h. :.:,.1.
N
..,.c..-
n..
.u. m.-,...
M."
f
.. O/V,t'x*d..--.*M".
~.
o., _
'T,T.J*.,.a0. me.,.=- 3.2 7.c; 3 o L
, + ~.
~
s i
...._..r.n.3d....o..,/
. _.. _ 2. -...
-. x._h i M <
. 2> o a g e.,.
e.
.aw..em.--.-
w.e.e..wi.-*-** * * - * * * * - *' * * *
- * ' * " ' * ~
-.. - -. ~ ~ - -. - - - - - -.. - - + -.
f.
l 6-e
. + -..
bgD
--**'m-d-#d*'d.*-NN
- O
. h h
h. -- -. -
- ~ --~
~~ --~ ~
Y O
O i
h I
- /
+
g 9
e
,p
.w**.
.-e-
..e..e
-. + - = - ---..<-----'a-*.
-.- -.=. -
-*=*e..=-.
-.-..p V
_.e--
..e.-
e
+
.e
..mm
_ eaumeem -..
- -e..e-e.*
.o=
e..
0
-.e
--e
-+e~
- .*eme**.*ee=*-*=p-*
=-
m.+
- e>+
- =. *
.uo es. e.
m
..g.
M --
M.m..+
es e.
.66 N
.--h6..**
.-. N -6h6
+e*
4 e.
e.,
.a.
.e
. aga.ee.. em
.m. au..
--iu.e...+ge.4nem.e-.
es e.*
==de eh. * *. *
-*J.*
l l
-~ -.
.--.-==ms-
.++-m-*-.
o-
- + ~ + - -
...-.e.
4
.e.
m I
i
. e
.m e.ew
.es
<w..**
me.
a.
- * +.
.e a.wmo. e e.
.. e em.
- -*.e n==
ma
- . + -.
e>
em.-m e.e a em m ee.
me e.
I I
.... - *==..
.-.-===*a-+
=w.
m-
_.eme e-
.. -..,=..-
g
-...........--.-.e.
/ 011 oO
+
-.. m y,,,,
.N.-5.k 255% -Q G Q Q '^ 4. y & A
.(; :g;:u.; Ci :
. ->p M
n m.-
.w ay ll Frank Rinaldi, P.E.
Okg7 $ "'
Structural Engineering Branch H
Division of Engir.eering
%TN j
office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 3
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to My name is Frank-ftinaldi. I presently reside at5506-Beech-Ridge Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030 and I am employeed as a Senior Structural Engineer i
in the Structural Engineering Branci, Division of Engineering, Office of Reactor Regulation, Washington, D. C. 20555.
Professional Qualification I received a 8. 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 as a registered Professional Engineer in the Comonwealth of Virginia (19,72).
I an a member of the Main Committee of the ACI-ASME Comittee on Concrete Pressure Components for Nuclear Service (Concrete Reactor Vessels and l
t 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.
Outies also involve safety-related review of structural and seismic design l
criteria (Safety Analysis Reports & Topica1' Reports) for power systems and the evaluation of nuclear containment.Jtructures, reactor vessels and other structures and components.
~
The following is a summary of my previous professional experience:
1971-1974 U. 'S. Atomic Energy Comission Fuel Fabrication and Transportation tranch (StructuralEngineer).
1970-1971 Naval Facilities Engineering Comand-Division of Research Development and Testing and Evaluation (General Engineer).
1968-1971 Naval Facilities Engineering Comand-Electronics Facilities i
Support Branch (Structu,ral Engineer).
s 1966-1968 Naval Facilities Engineering Command-Chesapeake Division (Civil Engineer).
a in.a.m.t u.a.. 4 g---
A w A % g,i 81022700 M.
/ g y-7 &.y
?..
- = -
b
{
w.>..-
.n.~
.,. y i n ~ c y q q t. q.y g:f:== = 2 K:i"== ~ &.- n.'
u ~ = 3 r~.c
~
. <, ~....
e l
{
} Yf Y M
T"$G G T2cteftIf 4,
StN CC 71/ 6 DCJ'CU /J GWso 0 4 M i
5 rp *Ct. r*V!
k is.s A TErsus.
Cy.rW M ho 4.LtettAuc C.
sn sp-w e
$e Y
f l
9 hfdl f
fhl 9_*. T1tE. bMif.d_ isspA73t. ).W.E wav'.D At W.c ru know rn'M de 8/uf C b ON k
8 D
0 EI.t Mi c.
PG - 4wnyDJ eA 4 t-t c gy st; oey D
&7/:eerrssc -
Due ro plevT p/t.t.
c.s a nstr w rFr=c-e s rqu/ M.o.
I i
- \\
l oe 1
i l
l 1
G e
s l
i 5
i 4
11 e
e.
"/
4 r
')*
L.
h y+
/4.ri
,g i
' j *.
f*
%=
s nW'k {
Caf
i.n '~;
4.-
[
-,~ ~p :
4
--. ~ '
..u..
'~
[
- - -.. - - - - - - x-
2 :n..,.
,m M w. ~ k % > c-- y-.
w,y p u~..
T $5 & & h. f ( h j. f :? f :~ f W ' N.. n.
b 2?'*J.TI'.Tf'f."
~ -- 1 I
' ' ~ * ' '
y. ':~r. r. : ~....i,,. c.n...m,.......- -..+v:- m, w...c.... - :.p.a.--..-2. -..Yndb e M
- _.. y--
M.. g.:-.y:
n s-g.., - - _
m;;;;
,a..7
.,. p' '. ~ wu. ~.,, : -y. ?....
3: ~.
y%g.
. ::a.8.
~...:.a.
~-
~;
5 gg;
.,. b m,- - -
=-.
,x4
-.t -
6r -. om /,:,
- y.
..3
'~g.r
. n.
[
.cewsu n.
E Moxwo WPP
(
foLGE l.
M W/anel W,eA w y
L-a-ec. -- -. } zo o f.a./ %,.sfu. q Af4f~~ A,ysua, sq,, A, p
' rky c--su/ksd n fer We,r,<,d A W C *&'a L<J-;,,
~
l / m on L w.ers wm : A Ak}jy V
- p. L.p,.,,,w
- x. Ksyur (.AGd
- p. -
...s V
S m r~l' 0 '*e**?h 8 %
- * * 'l* * **
Mtp q Midia.ord f*f4 :
N' R**'
- ff*
s g
A 44'1 C
$gy ws q;' 2-!b-80 p-Co M fps idoorffe.J u pud /e p.Wem in p
%pdareor af M.5eH6mxl-
).x...
/nvim n x s-z n -.gry.s-
?...**z'-*o
.zseausa y p A;p.,z.-
+1e an-a.s p.,,ws.,,
Q
<kmnyda s.,ty 4s~w.
/ 4 + p..r,te r',,,t e w a a
- r..
'id 1 2 7 go
.r.fz vis.4
'.7 A
fL
_. _ h _
e l
1W
+.,
W.
m k'
O N
- 7' r
.f V M.
l l-6. 9/.
O
--e
.i
. '.s*.
I
..e
_...-.~2
- . n...;.....-r-.
1..
s
.~..
.<.,--s;y,.~..:-**....
..". _:;,;i '
,...., :,, p..; 2M. :~. -m. %- -
,,,_.,., ~%~ ;
I
- %v.
l l
I i.
mu tand m I
i
- 5.m - n +
1 t
4 Tae. q.
e,s c.s c.c.s c. O s pi ps on ]
T.tcc i
- 1. " w '~.
. Cec 4'".lc
. e d t.
p.,s.
Sc ** v. c(. * * 't.
- e e Ibek { 'll ad-ca9cN/ a t pu rp. : t e
to rt.. : G - ;,,.u..' c t.
I.sm <;;,.s:. ::
I 2.s e rw.m c: u.,-
6 ve. n. c.. s+.. v.:..
c c
1,Q. Il Gzz % c % d 0 6 h,"..ve.)
,.. a.
Ay, %..:t ud. m.+.e r e.yev t-
?
~
.p,usG.Nn s aI.l t>.fiues.'.e r. si tt< s,. r..'
b,'
I e.-
n s., n,.
n'il Pr) uc S.c '. ; !i...?..
I h.
Ccy fer Luurev H a n'... u (A,, I e s )
( l...
_m t.Lt.
g g.
y
!Nb 8'*9'%
0
'.i
...e,. em.vd c..f-)
u, s b., :
+
dwv.'liu v 131/ <.
6,t t.v b. hbf.., v'Jr.
r )f'.. w_.
-. J.b.e -,k.
I L- % 5%.L G m %.'.
e k, 3-l j
e -
l'~ y 9/q c.1
. u Q.<C..<;f g e. @.
~
pp y,
. _.. b <. 9. 'vdu/ t.._ $r._ Sc i c I
.s :
I
...i, ;.
%s k. I-1d'tu.s te:L,<. & C.)
.L.< 6
.ekk
.!.c.J.u.
$ ~.6..u < f_ h R 6. j. I n....
r k.
I
... G.~ % L _..~ d e. p
.f.G-I. f. O..
j
~
r-O O
% l),'V. $ w In' % *.. N V..].$.I L._
- 3..
{,!
.... 18 '_
$.__..y 14. E...
( 4. f.
,7,.,...
...../
g,,,
y gj.g g' s
/.g r, uy'r L
.O m
e-.
r-.-
.m1 9
,, n..
.. - -.au.:....
l 5
^. -. ~
l..
S '& a..,
=v
'.... c shu M:..J,.;;p a_..
_2 g>:.c,.,# - g pr.~'.4
.g....,. ~i,.:s_ m....
m~...
.y. yu*~
m'..'.. A.
~~
- n....j.;.: :4 S.p...
-mu.p
. ? * *
- m,,.,
i.
l 7.,-
1
- 'g. g'y ' 7 T #,,'. g id'.' **'****.Ei
- .,,jf
.y.
,n r n.m..,.s N
.-.,,.,..,._...m.
......,.-. ~.--
gi g a_~ ~~ m.g".
if'3>.. c2 u. y. - - -
. ~.
.n t.
-47S.3.... Diosac &es.6C4)4 Aoe..
~
_=
WW d. p, u 9 -+sys,.2 w W r. /.t,,p..,is p, -,p.'
l M J' m & < oyA s er %. a' i
W M y & M<4-/ w.
i-y -su sw au l~. p
\\.i MS
'}?'
+'
- s.,_. a. p
,s. y c.. g,
- . cc J' y
d n
- 3....
6d<. mu + typy 29
- j; L 9
- p.,
D J y MT R a % ou y w i/s.'
.y
._. g
- l. i..
Da--y. f..a k yo t
i
. 7 r w - A rt z.cs b ~ja i
.r
- -.--_sSa<,sm* u. C4d_.$....
- . w d lete6/4/ p da 2 L
7 (p h t <> A '< f k*-6.2 y aO.p.skwy 46%
'.l's
_...-. 7ist-b de..tt.. M Shyy uf~. p s.c w K.._--.3
'6..
p rr,..
u,
,p l;T.'"
. -.' of.A.......
Abin.. -.. _.. -D_..ht."aAE bc W%..% O-A I
- *t.
g.
6d.k Q... p.~4. O.. M a. L Lt-L __Les 3.,-
>s.....
..nb.u.k. s s,x thL WL, ;%u
.%,.r'ktM--c.Mos< M<
=..
I e
e.
r i
[,
- n. _g 2,. ge-
. 6.z- <
.a-%CZ.i-~_.w.._y'-yff.f.
. " 4.y m. v.
i NU
~
e..,>_j#
o
,2,
<...,.,i.;a~.p.
, ' ' ~
1-a ca..
1.1 h/
i.
l
,3
$/:c uj a ~v&L.jkti e Aw o A.<. A LU q (%c.
Am y n it. csu b y f < a, a s a-6.;
l
,4.aw
&pu 4 af t~
w
.1
& z T-b n,.s ~ p.-.<.
n
!6,..
7 'T /.;f...
^
-f7.,y pnu. x A. J,tc4 c4 4 _ufftau.- A &V4 1%
3 M.-
u :!< a c.- s.4,r. - -- J
.d, p i
- r
/
l Nfbeak. M2/1 64
/tlu-/7f 9fw.5.c 6M (dir~1
/M 4 4 3*
_.. O. 4 / o _.... rp~
... J y -(J ~ A.'. ' 4 2
u
- 8. S r >-
ej>rJ:-
70 j r.~
-c< /f4.y.v.
,I.i l4 (fg y J
s-.[J
' M._u,,4
'A
- t. s.
l
.('/t.c[/
/
. w#
.....s_
6[4. //8dgr,M
].::+
...... e
.s_._
2a.9 - 3 oo..$e.<.ua.9%:hM./5t.)4 l
..} ' '
64 A-4. 4 /<
cfn c.su<rasf..
ez1..
I u {..
we%
2(6 op) f 2s, A Jk Z h d '4 as.7 i
Sic. _._
o
-i.-
l
,I'l-l* bvn. aoenn 9 f.* f.% e 4,,
14
. A1.yw_. f-a_4 - 9_9_.<} h44r Wi...... _..
3-
[ p,.. __. _.
L.D.
W C
..)-
. k,c. ) y1 vs 3 w L's..
l Tov 4 (P
b w.
w--,
I j
j.
1 t
6
l.
- ;+
- -'.;nr.a =-,o'.;..-<% w,_. JW.4%
. n,,,, r
~. ~.. -
..,.....TT :.M ^a~---.<t
...h,-
rn-x x - %s
%$.$ ?.y.*": % - :.e - ~.**p-wi."n-. -';:.,;..: ':44 4%...:s
-,. ~,,. + s,/. 2. i:.
~'
.e a
w
%,s 4 3qs..,.w* W p-4 -. s.$ 4....
e,.
~.
..... s.s D
.f7 a
I
.... ;g ?. S m ; s s e:. -. --
'.r ~,,., _. ;,.
3 a.
- w..
_,..,w...,.
g,y
{
( p ',cv s 1... r.
- m. r e-.r.e
< + m v..w"r-9e
-.m*e='*~~*
v5.,.
~.
S., h.
w
~
.--=.%
5f*..a.
C. w.t -.evnw
,c.
h5.. #-*
. ~ -
.i
-/..
- c 1
p e
f C,,.
'5 i.
a c,f i
~
p%g, p k
Mg t
.N
^
w /d 7,.p1 Ca = Q wt g b.
- 4. 4 1
P
+ " -
L.wg
'M L
C a:,,
N4 I
k g
I y ~...
Ug g m.
f.
. Ek n
.yQ~
- Ou.t;
%P-
%_ w/
e1 /.
W y
/
d f'"6 b1 i..
i 6.1'l % e o 91
.u eY s
i
?
1
%*M. %.g
,/
k.,
m...
W.
[J -
W
- a. * -%,
Ce9'.
6./. <..
N.
'J 3.,
O
(
d#
e
~
,e t
e.g. ' -
. N
" ' % g.x.,
y y....
.;,. - f n~*
.;..a w%-.
3
' ~
F.
m.
g.
~
l w'~~,.
j 9
~.
wa*
h n
l
. ~..
- m...
k ' *,
i
~..
h 1
s L.
)
w
. ~ -
.~.
~
r.
.' ~ L '
-~~.
'~..
bl-C- * --,,[
E,
' ' ' " " = =,
~
k.
~
.,, ~.
r r
t N....'.-':
.....a 1
9 n+
l i
.,a...
.1-
- m..
....,..,,.,m. _. a l.-
, x... n..- u:,.g. _:. y-.... n. m.,.
3._.~.,.-
.~.~;:p
.,.y..
, n-.
t
. c.
- v.,...
~..
.aa 9
L E
f: b o,s w h 4 a f a w tt wr u. & q s
@l,~;.,.4'.
b,% &.
1
$5i Q;fue,,u.Bk Mr !
p.
hA b
r!i.}.
Gy1m, Sd L k & % & 7 d'".:.
K.
% N's:y >n W w.
_...i.
. C, a f....
1g L....
m t,.~..P-1us p: _,
q.,_
Qu.2',
ch.J... WI M..Y 'o % 4 a Y d k
~(
It #. M p&.....
cL>.k L- %
u b
91-a
@p; f.S.4 h e~pe.'
1C q
n.I sx '.m P4,..f i
i.
L,~ a-
~,b
_..._ _V.ss r%.
?.A s.
4_ $:.,s A $i. %....;.
f.
g j
21.t K1 Vca 5.l 'n..x;;Le 7 / m g.s.d. *y
/
e A := *
(
..-s
. g.._.....
~
C r a c K.o.....
l l
u.
.a gs ys
~
..a y.
W.i t
_ _ =...
.:...._. 4
.t.
~
L.
s
~
E D.T t
M a
' vi-u-
- .H*N
! ~ J.M-h*.b. -..h e-s' ~ L.-..; W ". W " N W h C Q ::. ?.?Md&?p;.QGmW~:9 N
i, ". ':..........
k.-
r t
- ..n v,m ;...:.-c
.c
~
c,n h
{ ;..
- L. :..u.. - -
,~. * * * * ' ' '
,xr.~~-~*"'.*
.'n..**
- * ' ' ' ~ '. ' ' ' ' '.. ' ' ~ ~
- r
- .~
.1
&.~.
.w.-a
. y. ::
~x g
3
\\ '.
L.._:_.
i I
kr..,..
{
M&J NPP Tnp. Re gf 4 On..=r,wMrs. D/z2-ze]
e m
fWg sqs4.h
..d 4SWC. C.-c.illad Up -h-ddy..a f,.1 pa,a cmn,m sac,. D.qp s, t c.s.,,a ; n. t. -
O
$v & Mrp.Lt b < 't.a. G=Mts A.--
- 7. h u w. 3r a DG. WidO-stllDWS AJWT 'Te(*,e.7As#ArN7 dLDd."' Lly *pewy.
t 2.vd W h W das.'y ym N
- 3. 44 tra udrer.. 7 w o - 0 s.v-.
o.ec~.-
bs.
A 4-d w 9
F W
A. set.vscr voree skr u t crsec:r.:4 ~ CwV.,
k<.. [ S., k,.<.
[j q tNm A -t:- (wi. yrtig 44 Q t).)
5-i-j 8'*S.ms e M Ril
<pMh&
e.-e ~a.. -4.r.h.:
- p. Md:h4l ni i
e-g
- r...
(h F'N Py=54 -
li%:t.. (
4-4 E C8a Afd,)
M_j,3 c
...u,.4 a-t-
}-
,n,.
i, A ee% A 7 c sw o-
-{& Y**
W hSAA**
h N#A b Ct eke'id f
l yd..
L*m. to Midt....)Q.op(._. AJ.4rf v.o g
e
.~.*e r.a ekae.a.
e #+ m c s.pq 4
..u%
A.mlu-A A.. _.....-
g
(
. {& k LQ s ww.m & ~hle 4 w AL W p
a.L M 4.: y A m W w. w,
4 g
l a
(o SA:%~4.-
M yh.,.
> s.
c.~ A.c.M,a i
H,h AA.- ~4 y n.A.. $.. e s, M. A. _
i
~f h M P'~
e-A..i e.ye 4 E. M
..-.(d) k'.d
.h.-
y % 'b-c u. 9,g,g3 i
p i
p 14 i
y
- e2.,.u.. r..
% d-1ktwA..y.-
J L..
J. %.ca x g [a..
..q w
.bJs.y 04
.t.e.-
24 g
._4
.tu.M. -
.._. 9 A). h-d-A-4 4.
btu g
&.-r =,,', - -AU Au lea WS_.#4.. m T.-.,.... Y & 2 - li M w a. a
%...' h
\\
i bik m
A
\\
Q, g.Wy ns v
zncs s~96wirp<
T M * *
- 4* N
.'s
- -E.[
4,..
- c...
g
+
.s e
M
s.
'<--* ~~..w.-~ ; h,..;;
~~ 3... W::%...,,
=& (l *. ' * *,~; v,.....
a
' ". *y d'&+ ' *. * -
se, "' t
- ~ -
..>q.
..n_?-
.,,,..s
~.**v*K..
g e,
=
l e
1
\\
un stos-m 55=v % w "
"c " w r'"*
\\
l k
2.
au et p, I.) c~pkw j
}::2..
g v, x ym c w.L t.
p
% r swouh,
+
6% Gn % g-y m w.
L. s d:3qs i
s
%.sJ.s
% 4c -
}
Am g c w 3 C.)
IMW d'i@ di' 4.f W fil
.we h.,. #
]
s, pakt k % %t1-L sf.~ c.p p at 7
a a,m,Ar.,
& w.
.--r aA
.n
+
r i
u.
L
--p, il.
10%AC& WYt04 /$7/t1 ST/LM(7uIt.c y..
4a 4
s et.4 4~,i ux guet frJ
<u.
[4)
[S-.-}
> A su ass b 1
1 s.
9 i
W A4
%. R sy y
$.?' ?
lb) plu,. y s w A v
n 4J p st~
Jr-r&:-
M.
A ny, %p w~
w :M eeuLjds c.~ as.s, m.
n
- 54.....,.4.
w;.a N.@r s'15 u: ::-
na ~
t
,)
i Prie:
..._._.....L,,,
.i g, ! /./
(
i
- 6..,.,
v 5/
T l
's
\\k
~
r.-
4
,.&nk{,gA,%. 9 u..
y'
)
t
~ -
w
.... o_
. _._:r, 4
)W.
l
.4
. w o
- x
.. -(f I m
.7
~
N m.a c ~""~
l
) '* JN '.
,,,,=,=.% i. g.gg, g g..,- -.--.w;
-..rr e
'N
't -
' fg-,-.L.A,Q)W5%??$.:N- }}.
i s 23:6....
- - ) i --,- _ L kkf-f--
@?k'?YkWY YN
?
Q. LAf5~~ is.. M % %'y ; & # 2 X Ii
> r - n.
f fdWi W hf 74 f#
te.,% AJ U:!!TED STATES OF A" ERICA i;UCLEAR REGULATORY C0:1.;ISSIO!!
AM BEFORE THE ATO'11C SAFETY' Af D LICENSIt:G E0ARD 4Kl 6404-r?>7 l
i In the itatter of
)
41 /*
l Docket Nos. 50-329-0M COMSU:ERS POWER C0'iPANY Mil (Hidland Plant, Units 1 and 2) h 50-330-OL HRC STAFF INTERROGATORIES TO CONSU'1ERS PO!!ER CO':PA:;Y X O W43 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(b), the NRC Staff serves the following inter-rogatories on Consumers Power Company.
In several interrogatories we have included requests for documents. The requests are made in the event you will respond absent a fonnal Motion to Produce these Documents.
Interrogatory 1 As a result of settlement and inadequate co'mpaction in the fill area, you have proposed remedial actions and you have agreed to re-analyze the seismic / -
structural analyses of the. category I structures located in this area.
(a) Have you verified and evaluated any changes in the design safety margins available for any Category I structures by performing structural re-analysis?
(b)
If the answer to (a) is yes, please provide a copy of any structural re-analysis perfonned.
(c)
If the answer to (a) is no, please state the reasons for not performing that re-analysis.
(d)
If the answer to (a) is no, but you plan to make such re-analysis, please state when you plan to do so.
f b
l-hff
~
q-m--
r w
4
- .,,, r.._ _
a
,[. ;. ?p.-ckFMM*
O-N MD N.D E in * ' Y d N 6
';. ' M i?
W% -:-,. e.,
2-(e) H:ve you factored into any re-analysis infonnation contained in, or r..sulting from, a letter fro Robert Tedacso to Vice President J. Cook, dated October 14, 1980, concerning seismological inpat data acceptable to the Staff?
( f)
If-the answer to (e) is yes, please provide a' copy of that re-cnalysis.
(g)
If the ansuar to (e) is no, please state if you plan to make an analysis incorporating that data, which structures you plan to re-:nalysis, ard when you plan to do so.
R (h) If' you believe re-analysis is not required for any such Category I structure, please state for each s'tructure why such re-analysis is not required.
N i
(i) Uas the floor response spectra for the diesel generator building genar-ated on the assumption that the shear wave velocity would not be lower than 500 feet per sec6nd?
(j)
If the answer to Question (1) is negative, please state the assumption used with respect to shear wave velocity.
(k) How have you assured yourself that the soil shear wave velocity will
~
not be less than 500 feet per second for the life of the plant?
\\
Interrogatory 2
,. a The fill. material under the northern wing of th'e service water pump structure has been found to provide inadequate support. While the portion of the 1*
structure over the fill material is,'being supported by the main structure founded on natural material, through cantilever action, 'it is stated in l'anagement Corrective Action Regiort No. 24. Interim Report 6, issued Septem -
bar 7,1978, that the total design loads canno[be supported by the main s tructu re. Your proposed remedial action will utilize corbels attached to the side of the structural wall by bolts. The corbels are to be supported by pilings placed underneath them.
(a) What alternative corrective actions 'did you consider for supporting the cantilevered portion of the Service Water Pump Structure?
i s
s 4
f ' L. l-.. -.. ~.. -,
~"'
=-
h 5...:.**:&f, 5 ~l '
- j.5*
A
% yly..-
C:5 r
M*
.p.g;c ' ^ 6'
. 3.hi:.Rym :-;.;
~ - vn-n4%
- . W ~ Q. p w-- 3. w ;
a.r.-- w..=. %,,..,,.,.,
,..m. _,.. _
5;9{
06.m.
..m. _. --. ~. m.
-,, m. -~-
~ '
~
, ' /.
- .,. 'ti-d g.@Jch-k2p (b) Was one of the alternatives considered to provide a stable solid fonda-tion support of the cantilever portion of the structure dotta to the glacial till rather than the concentrated support dcsign eventually chosen?
(c) What structural analyses for each of these alternatives did you parfor.n?
(d) Please provide a ecpy of any analysis described in 2(c) above.
(e) Did you factor into any analysis identified in 2(c) above the infor-mation contained fr! a 19.ter from Robert Tedesco to Vice Presi :at J. Cook, dated October 14,~ 1980, concerning seismological input data acceptable to the Staff?
(f) Explain tihy each of the alternatives far.tifh! ta Ma) abcee.:as rejected or accepted.
(g) For those alternatives that were rejected, but for t:hich no analysis was identified in 2(c) above, give the reasons for not considering those alternatives.
(h) What analyses have you done to assure yourselves that the long Icagi-tudinal bolts which will be used in the re iedial action will withstand the force produced in the bending mode?
(i) Please provide a copy of any analysis identified in 2(
\\=t" (j) If no such analysis has been perfonned do you plan to an analysis.
and if so when?
(k) Do you have a plan for pre-service and in-service inspection of the integrity of the bolts during the life of the plant?
4 (1) If the answer to 2(k) is yes, prwide,a copy or description of that plan.
-(m) If the answer to 2(k) is no, state the reasons that such a plan is not' necessary.
(n) What type of bracing (if any) will be provided to assure that the vertical piling will resist horizontal forces?
(o) What analysis have you done to assure the adequacy of any horizontal braces identified in 2(n).
(p) Please provide a copy of any analysis identified in 2(o).
(q) What analyses have you done to assure-yourselves that the piling under
~
O the service water pump structure will provide adequate vertical support after the occurrence of a postulated earthquake (M7 r- --
n 1
r
-n.
~
_n.,
,., - ', 7.q@&- - JW"'YW v.5-M A : h & E h ? Z,*1:: ~.7. Q R h. '
=:. ' ^-7 9 & ? ' '
~"
-pr.
2 4-(r) Please provide a copy of any cnalysis identified in 2(q).
(s) Did yea factor into any analysis idntified in 2(a) abo.e the infor-mation contained in a letter froit P.obert Tedesco to Vice President J. Cook, dated October 14, 1980, conteraing seise.ological input data acceptable to Vie ~ Staff 7-~--
~ " ~~
l Interrogatory 3 The following questions refer to the remedial actions at the servica t.3 tar peap structure (a)
Is the corbel design such that it depends upon a friction-fit nith the service wat,er pump structure's north wall resulting frc.n the pre-tensioning of the long longitudinal bolts.
(b) Hod have you assured yourselves that this friction-fit will be cain-tained under all the desing loads for the building?
(c)
If the answer to 3(b) is based on tests or other analysis please identify and provide copies of the analysis or test results.
(d) How have you assured yourself that the concrete at the interface between the corbel and the Senice Water Purap Structure can adequately resist bearing pressures developed as a result of pre-tensioning of the bol ts.
(e)
If the answer to 3(d) is based on tests or other analysis please identify F
and provide copies of the analys(s or test results.
L Iaterrc;atory 4 In the response to Question 15 of the NRC request,. regarding plant fill, it is stated that, " differential settlement primarily induces additional strain, which is a self-limiting effect and does not affect the ultimate strength of the structural members." Additional clarification of this statement is needed.
A S.
g m.
.m
m w,r n w:;z
'=4&&w M. $ak W.. $$ri_%.s. t f.TW'~W'N
/=
- a...p-k.a. >.
,'fi?2 %**W W W Q=. ". ~ = c
- Y.
"^
/ H Q ::.......- c.wav;.. <. -n m-c w.w,..,.=. _. n._,..
w.
G
. $ ] $N % v..er.
5-.n*'."*"'*-'****-~
k
.r.=m.
~ es ~ n-v < +
- s. u- :- rnr Y
- * ~ -
. a 3.,_.
',. k '7.'
" "'d 3,.T.- t twe :.=: c.--
~
(a) !!hy do you classify the resulting strains as self-liniting in nature?
(b) How do you reconcile your stater. ant quoted above with your state nt concerning the Service Water Punip Structure in the Management Corrective Action Report No. 24, ~ Interim Report 6, issued Septynbar 7,1978 that
~~
~
~ he"t'6tal des'ign 'loids c' anno't 'b'e supported by the niin structure t
Interrogatory 5 4
The applicant responses to Questions 14, 28, ar.d ::9 of tha imC rslusat regarding the causes of cracks due.to settlenent, the significance of the extent of cracks, and the consequences of cracking, provided insight caly into the existing condition of the Category I structures.
(a) Have you perfomed analyses which provide tension field data under the design load combinations at all crack. locations for each Category I s tructure.
(b) Provide copies of any such data or analysis described in Part (a).
(c)
If the answer to (a) is no, state why it is not n'ecessary to psrfom that analysis.
(d) Have you perfomed any analyses to show the limiting ~tansion field conditions in which a crack will not propagate. '
(e) Provide copies of any such data or analysis described in Part (a).
(f)
If the answer to (d) is no, state why you do not believe it is necessary to perfom that analysis.
(g) What analyses have you perfomed prior to loading or surcharging of any structures or tanks will not further propagate existing cracks?
i
- Interrogatory 6 Since the fill was replaced by other material, such as lean concrete, in the vicinity of the auxiliary building and of the feeduater valve pits, the soil properties of the foundation material have been changed.
l A
h e
..n._
9e s.
,57{.?lA
~S~.i d O ?:-h~ 2." h:' G h Q l,.L:r;9i.4&-1%*5
, s.i = ' c.
e:;m..-..
..w.
(a) Ifave ycu parfonaed new seisaic/ structural r.nalyses that utilizes the new soil properties, (e.g. danping valves and shaar medules).
(b)
If t!.e answer to (a) is yas, please provide a copy of any such seismic /
structural analysis.
(c) If the tuswer to (a) is no, please state t!.a reasons for not parforming such neu seismic / structural analysis.
(d) If the answer to (a) is no, please state your basis for concluded that these structures will comply with current i;RC criteria.
(e)
If the answer to (a) is yes, have you parfonaed a r.eu soilsstructural interaction analysis for the auxiliary building and the feedwater valve pits.
(f) If the answer to (e) is yes, please pro' vide a copy of that analysis.
Interrogatory 7 The applicant has not established the effectiveness of the ground water well system. These uells are needed to control the ground water level and prevent soil-11gulfaction.
(a)
Is the permanent dewateMng system designed to withstand the safe shutdown earthquake.
(SSE)?
(b) If the answer to (a) 'is no,'hava you evaluated tha impact of soil liquification on any soil supported Categcry I structure.
(c). If the answer to (b) 1s yet, what ground vibratory motion has been considared?
Interrogatory 8, In connection with your seismic analysis of the service water pump structure and the diesel generator building have you developed:
(1) Lump mass models 3
(2) Stiffness value for each member (3) Mass at each nodes. point (4) Spring i
constants used in the analy; u (K,, C,, Kg C, K, C ) and (5) Seismic msw-+
s4 s
--w a -,
,-m..
~
-y
o.:...,,
, 25fl& a..r
~E.
" ~
~ ~'"kY
.,-?
'.*a2 = '~ '.
..::m%vr:r?Q
-w? 7 ^y^^*-W,5.V ?g&:-@T,y;;g MH ***.,,
c
- .,.a.. c.- - - -- ~,r,..~ - -
a..
4
.m pw.?.
wn
,.a.
,,..,.,,a g.
j
() %a..,~.
A4
. u.a...c -
7.
.,. ~ ~ - -
- ~ ~ -
4 e
. _,. _.. ~
f.'f,e. w.ca,-
9 'y:
.2> ~mg 1:. puts of the codified Taft H21E 1952 record used in this analysis. As to c..y affir.ativa aa:.ter, please provide copies.
!.t dere;atory 9
- ith r:spact to tha seismic Category I vtlva pits located in the fill :-fjacent of the east and west side of the diesel geacrator building:
(a) Uhat chcnges, if any, occurred to thase pits during the diescl gencrator saccharge program?
(b) Do any cracks exist in these pits?
(c) Uhat changes, if any, occurred in the rattle space for the pipfe.g during the diesel generator building surcharge program?
e S
N p emme. -.
- ~.. -
*l*
s.
=.. e x
- ? = = u : K D 'h: _~' y :k -~g ^
z.;- $Q ~'
p ri-4,n-:e - Ma?
~
[f-y,
UNITED STATES c
L*,.-f*[}*b
^+ ' NUCLEAR: REGULATORY COMMI'SSION 2
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 a
% * *- - /
OCT 2 91G Docket Nos. 50-329/330 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director
-~ 'r Licensirig fo
~
Division of Licensing FROM:
James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Con;enents and Structures Engineering Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
MIDLAND NPP - DISCOVERY QUESTIONS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, FSAR REVIEW Plant Name: Midland NPP Units 1 and 2 Licensing Stage: Discovery - FSAR Review Docket Number: 50-329/330 Responsible Branch and Project Manager: LWR # Darl Hood Requested Completion Date: October 6, 1980 Review Status: Completed The discovery round review of the FSAR has been completed by Pao Huang and John Matra of the NSWC and Frank Rinaldi of the Structural Engineering Branch. We find that additional information is required before we can complete our review.
The additional infomation requested, which concerns structural aspects, is contained in the enclosure. The material review 4d to date consisted of information provided through Amendment No. 81, dated September 16, 1980.
l/
^
1%
s Jame P. K si nt Director fo Components 'and Structures Engineering i
Di is'on of Eng'ineering CONTACT:
F. Rinaldi x29467
Enclosure:
Discovery Questions cc: W. Pike, MPA D. Eisenhut, DL R. Vollmer, DE y ((
[
F. Schauer SEB W. Paton, OELD f._ g 9 /
j F. Miraglia, DL
/
D. Hood, DL P. Huang, NSWC 7 y
1 J. Matra, NSWC F. R,inaldi, SEB
f.
~5 N
Y
-%7;yov:x;u...
v,
.c.w., ; c,.._.,
h,y
. G % w.=.+_m e.. n
~ ~ w.-~w-.-
- v. -
s ENCLOSURE b U II[!$5 MIDLAND NPP UNITS 1*AND 2 DISCOVERY')UESTIONS RE';UEST FOR INFORMATION FSAR REVIEW l
- 1. - As a resvit of-settlement and-inadequate compaction in the fill area, the applicant has agreed to re-run the seismic analyses of the Category I.
structures located in this area. We require that the applicant verify and evaluate any changes in the design safety margins available for all applicable Category I structures, by performing a structural re-analysis using the resulting seismic forces.
2.
As a result of the strengthening measures planned for the auxiliary building and the service water intake structure, through the use of
~
caissons and piles, respectively, the foundation of these structures will be different from tne original design. Such a change will require a new seismic / structural analysis. In addition, since the floor response spectra for the diesel generator building were generated on the assumption that the shear wave velocity would not be lower than 500 FPS, we require that monitoring of the soil properties be undertaken throughout the period of consolidation in order to verify the validity of this assumption.
Also, the applicant is required to report and evaluate any variations from the minimum assumed value of 500 FPS. -
3.
The fill material under the nothern part of the service water pump structure remains an open ites. While the portion of the structure over the fill material is being supported by the rest of the structure founded on natural material, through cantilever action, it is stated l
in the Management Corrective Action Report, Interim Report 6, issued l
September 7,1978, that the total design loads cannot be supported by the main structure. The proposed corrective action recommends the placing of pilings along the north wall of the structure. The following concerns regarding this proposed corrective action, need to be addressed:
a.
The corrective action does not provide the type'of foundation support that was considered in the original design, which provided stable solid soil support along the foundation of the structure. The corrective action only providcs concentrated supports along the wall through the use of piles, corbels, and bolts.
b.
The method of attaching corbels by using long longitudinal bolts through the walls requires the bolts to resist bending forces..
This is not an effective way of utilizing bolts, since bolts provide -
low strength in the bending mode. Other corrective design methods, t
that more closely comply with the design intent, should be considered i
and compared.
'\\
A
,w a n ~ - -. -..,,,.,. _
.=
,~
,e
,y
-r
~
^ ^
~ ^
^
l g.-..
}
l 3.q.,,;{- n 2 E n f vm. ~.M. ^ h 5 Y $ % ? [ j:: h
-lfb i
l
. - - i-y.,
,,,j-c.
In the proposed re-analysis of the service water pump structure for seismic loading, the manner in which piling will be modeled is not clear.
It appears that the vertical piling may not resist horizontal forces unldss proper bracing is provided.
In addition, the aplicant shculd evaluate as to whether or not the piling will still be an effective way of providing vertical support after the occurrence of a postulated.
earthquake (ettt.
se 4.
In.the response to Question 15 of the NRC request, regarding plant fill, it is stated that, " differential settlement primarily ir: duces additional strain, which is a self-limiting effect and does not affect the ulticate strength of the structural members." Additional clarification of this state-ent is needed. Due to differential tettle ent th= foundatic-e af Category I structures, in the plant fill areas, have become drastically different from the original design. Consequently, the new structural systems should be evaluated to determine that all of the design loads, load combinations and stress / strain limits identified in current NRC criteria are satisfied.
5.
The applicant responses to Questions 14, 28, and 29 of the HRC request regarding the causes of cracks due to settlement, the significance of the extent of cracks, and the consequences of cracking, provide insight into the existing condition of the Category I structures. However, additional information is needed for the evaluation of the Category I structures, as follows:
a.
Provide the tension field data, if any, under the design load combinations at all crack locations. for each Category I structure.
b.
Provide an analysis that will show the limiting tension field condition in which a crack will not propagate.
1 c.
Demonstrate that the existing cracks will not propagate further as result of any postulated additional. settlement.
d.
Demonstrate that adequate corrective plans, in regard to the adverse effects of corrosion of the reinforcing bars in the cracked areas, have been formulated and that quality assurance / control procedures
.have been carefully identified and evaluated.
6.
Since the fill was replaced by other material, such as lean concrete, in the vicinity of the auxiliary building and of the feedwater valve pits,-
the soil properties-of the foundation material have been changed.
It is recommended that new soil properties (e.g. damping values and shear modulus) be used in the revised seismic analysis to determine the structural adequacy of all of the pertinent Category I structures. A new soil-structure i
interaction analysis should be conducted by the applicant and a summary of the assumptions, models, and results should be provided for our review.
9%
~
, = =,
v-
,-P-evre i.i.
y
-my+--e y
yviiig--,,e.
-gw-w-.
er y.g-
--.w,7e--g--y
f f-D.D 5
N
%:. y.G.fD. m n, e
..j.
)
~
.,9
. :... s...
,,.-,..n
. n n,,..
,..v.---
- A.w
~
" T. x --- Q Also, all structural / seismic analyses should be conducted using the revised seismic loading and current NRC criteria so that margins of safety can be determind against currently acceptable loads and standards.
In addition, all analyses should include the effects of soil settlement, as identified in the revised load combination equa-tions, and include an evaluation of significant local cracked areas, as per Question 5 criteria.
7.
The applicant has not established the effectiveness of the groundwater well system. These wells are needed to control the ground water level and prevent soil-liquefaction. The proposed dewatering system should be categorized in its entirety or in part, as per the determination of the system and gecscience technical personnel, as Category I systems and should be designed and constructed to resist the loads of OBE/SSE and other pertinent loads.
8.
The reactor vessel support system remains as an open item since it is undergoing a re-evaluation by the applicant. Provide the final design and analysis for our review.
9.
Since the design of other Category I and internal concrete structures were completed before 1973 the load combinations presented in the FSAR are not in accordance with all of the current NRC criteria. Specifically, the staff has adopted as the acceptable criteria ACI-349 modified by the exceptions identified in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.142. The applicant has not yet compared the degree of conservatism of the Midland NPP design for the two criteria, with respect to the lead combination and with respect to related acceptable allowable stress / strain criteria. Demonstrate that the criteria (load combinations and acceptance limits) are equivalent in safety scope.
- 10. The Tornado Missil'e Spectra does not fully comply with the current NRC criteria. Specifically, the applicant has not considered the three steel pipe missiles (3" dia., 6" dia.,12" dia.). From a structural point of view the 12" diameter steel pipe controls the design of the concrete barriers. Therefore, further evaluation of the tornado missile barriers is required.
In addition, the applicant should demonstrate that the vents used to reduce the differential pressure in other Category I structures are adequate to resist any postulated missile impact.
- 11. Confirmatory independent seismic analyses of the containment structure, service water pump structure and the diesel generator building are underway. Additional data to those presented in the FSAP, are required.
It is requested that the following data be forwarded to NRC for.the structures mentioned above:
1.
Lump mass models 2.
Stiffenss value for each member 3.
Mass at each nodes point 4.
Spring constants used in the analysis (K, C,, K, C, K C )
o g
x y
y 5.
Seismic inputs of the modified Taft N21E 1952 record used in this analysis.
.N e
.;... =
,....* *..' ~f ; 4 #
~... -' ' ' ' '
r.
' M y.* ** >="t*
....,,,..y..%....-.-
n.a
- T.,"". W..~.-i.
,t, s.*
i e d..g..,
J.
.a g.
- 4 ~.
. fr - s ; me..
r... ~..y
.e
/
,% eow*% 'T..e:.}M.d.I..I"_8.W g.;
s' 1.*
o....N 2 C 3 e u c 3-. Ct r a.= w
.g
.?
QK.*,,Tl C Q \\..
. W CL
- T] A d'WS A.'CE c OS'l C ' "*'$'
f
~
$ 8s7~ M/J.Ti'~... l*s
~7 4. 7.bist" ~ ?
?
%*s
- I.CTc e H d.a. _ t1/vd*/. T.D.
/
S t.r w el e r_ c 9, D Q C g. k~uWM4 l 'ork.is.
.T
=
b C MDf3 F M ?" M. V '4 4 ~' ~ $'*"'W-Y~
A WF PM*J M' C EM r * * ~ F i t C.
GLT"$*J.7.. O M n OD*Y/aN/a.. QC C.
- x ',
t %Lv =,g. css 4 n. %*
.%AI..TI).Y.M_..
N~
%* L.bT1EO. U2 A71If... GT%C 4 Ie ?. 't~n M.*
- T l' 4. d' Mf**.h C ;* G l; 4 '
._. - t. ~.- _-.F.O E 9"*.* _.9 E _9 4*!C ! G. bv c'r. A su c: -
Co swE wirk..
C1 LCCI, 64*JtnAT*?. o u o < DI.44.
6 S t4a!^t i m.7_._s' O 2_?.s r. w v.c c aav:L' - wi_. ?i #, s'.
_ _.C' * ! %EsfAr_br.&txA2& _f_._OMW.C,J---
9-S oo r...p F*PGr.rt.f.t...oc.mr.Af sc 7"... * **!ft" *:.. @.WLT/.* /-.
ceigpio._. tar._ l'*e?'
m BCM l* -
Fw... Ssrxt.LW.~ -y 0:*tys II
%L't.'t*1L-.TMr..rNe:. 2 Ec.Ttce: ge c1.~U. r n + a. Axs.r~~ h
~
4ts. sed _3A._.6M E9(4tFw.7?tT.VE.__s P pit.f-fe.wt)).W.yn!.? O '.
_ _ t 2.. =
Docasstar._.0.*ncono 4_e
- Cere...voyop; arr.try....Pr;.orr.u...
. _frft v.8. r.*_. A/
m U.'%...*b._0.'*W T!**J b'PFC'W E C ~ (76 Y t'.W4.
I3.
l%. 9W 2
i
\\ *uTEMerts w OderuL_ Cut _*1 c-.%awu_
!Y..r.._Cn. ruses (2-a eactv.ent.. s44rv n. 70 ** ' ms".~s.. :.1 ~ : wr e :<.:,,
v 015.Etes ettI*.J._!*_17e 9 #__tf.5v.d.wo r?. _C.r.8.cE._e
._c e e' r. (
m.
U ' % i&sey,t 5%Cocrvr. n :._e.<n.2.y. 7g.y r.-rlrw vn.
s
- %tW.Utt.*tTric. 4671.W?."?
$$- ='
4ctro'
- Le eoLLy O'No4._ff,Rh, /y J'/.'s I i U*
50rWr!d;r..'. *%e Cri.r>+c. 1prtssow. 2. pN*$a y
2.--
S w *n s ' C&T *n or y_ 2 91fi M - u d.L n e - e _ /L _c u.-tv'=
Qid.4Er* i'*tA_ Sr.U.?!Hrsp~~ '
lt -
S.wr.v.t L99 it?.) M _ p un te j _ _t v u. f r arynx. A c n ;u.
. c u t M.
.N..E. [6 N. o_A. S*6. c.R.. o.s.
Co M p u.brt.
l
!.I 1 i
1.0 -;
n.uocist.es w 'cu* vie _}*'udocp. Z._/.-
8 g
l Espstr.e-.ru t~ceretf*..rctar.c.r.eAv r" ** ne's Ax*We:sc..t <<
?
04.*t.o C_us Fu-
.D.*J
'htc._.D$M..o.t' Ssz.ewees ct=f' fM=n* '
M ; ~',
9 5
0M *."d..MJ.COLWotir O lG$1C.. b*ts!@h47*k ]edi~_FA;f. $'<.
o.----
w eae_ _ um._m_,r_.m m.wam.mwr
~
I f
I s
s l
A.
,e
, ij nyy m g y g.- _
(
c e:
l
Q 2 [ } f
..c " ' - ^ ' * ~~ G.: i & = % w..... M.4;G v i.-}'*. &..*:.%
,g, Y. '
l
. g.
2 :.g%.,.
-- e.._
e
.s.
&fQQg..
~ 3,
..,....._v..
.._.y
-(:r-e....gf.-
..~., 9,. ; -. :n.. s
- Wi
- ~ ~ - ~ ~ -
g
~_
- -. -.. _..-. l $. /*J l f./$..(s.,s..
.W
~_m.m.
.._.r.%--
..._3..-....
..m...-
t.'f Q C.' l}
21 -
.1'.mo Q.t 4J!/~hs. G/9kh Ls'
- t k' 5 4/^**'" h *' *?/*' '*W'
...... SC'M o M E..) *4 " ~Z ~ o 0*G'.
o.. 4Yc 1.2 -
M swee w we Recp*~w fa,._.qsr..m ~ (0 1
.. 1.s wa y.
rup.p./c..ir.s.?~... Bo
- 7... e.s:W... - -../-4 N H. =a ~
- r
.........-.ZY-
% H. a v. P.we~*R -- % 'fM'"' h **W
. EZ :... $*s<i t. @B tr.77dJ. ! W.
)*44'V.@'*'.W^% -.42*/X'Y/C. G'7"*'r* *s 1
co<
.y
_ ors e ervav. - Ais,., **'t~re M*v.J"coc erwe a. /* r's i
A
%st.o. Cr-eenre.. &s n we --. -.. - --_.......
2 C ~....-.hsp n.'r re %rnw-LE-W Jurin.~reces-_&cmero c.....
=
9e n..u. ety.?
n wr_er e* era,.. *w.. satt Sn. 27. s. a
/.JW7, l
.s'7N_rvita--
.. A 4... /. /..V.z,..--.
- o. og.4.. 0 3 esf p.e c,e=t.s~.re. re..a.. /Jf.
Po u.s..ato.f.o.c. r.ispea y -.de. rev a.;
- s. ~.fr u 97 D c r.~.t t.n
-- @ y-r/.*.*.J
- e. AJ..li 02177
- w 4'
S6. 7)*' ~. /C..
.i St 1.W"~T SJrF+fr*~'r
/**/.'/ w.'
. Y AC M * %,o c tut N* t-Ss rye e, ss..e.tu.r s:rrn. s.m..~
?2,
I?tip. ear.r-r*
4.e t i n * ~ * * ' a t.*
- M *' t.*e'*terc'. M M Mf.*'"J t*s'Jtt-.or exq.gLV-_,.wse r. se'ox4' w o 2 f- - EtJfJ w/K..r.9. O.Mt.CCt *.W (fo%e0f.-9f., t:.y C /.:
/C/ -
- P.MfA+1v71y
!.a scx.rEMc4 - M..v. p.a..y.a.v._pp.en__
--- --.19
' M c m rio r,e C n e t t r- _.-
'E.9
[k'dM/M71* d 0C A.V.kTf44 E ~- -
gf.4'c w e Q_o,e[_ Qs y,,.
r El.x _. :MJf ts'!.1~- 7.o R.YE-Dcae.'--..df. --. 2t? t %7 f C*
- R.
F
__ -_ /. w.. Ph*
R--.4 Jr.t.r. {,e
.T.0 WJCA-CC--T9'fff.4.". y I'VI.& - O'****VdoeM.-. 6fN"tY'**'
0 0 M J E. 8 -. W + 7 8 A.
U 8d_ef H _".5 9'e Wt...--:.
W/f ZELW TN's. Oan or71d.w. ' ^4fwf1.W.* /~- GW!Wl'*.
_ ?]..:.
E
_. W --
S.vregebse1. nit
@ j erio % t.; - t2 try s v:,*
.. e,r e ea.c. /.e srce,
D.u. 9. r1L k.tiy YCdif C.#..!
A./.'.*. '.G --.$.O.*J 16 s/.r.'. '.M...
- A oyf_pped47nat)
- t s
f d?.'.
JQU 81' y?sw 9.,($f4 A/Cf~
.TO...WJ7/0 4/...C.r /.#'az-.sAmt.'t!'s"s.:
AJ r Q.5 pftt/M**ffo.-./EZCA NW :-
Eggk.'.Grw son s.t.
J f.-- -
esp-.?ttgl..bd.orLL-T M h'z]
i
.==-.
(._
(
i
..e j
g 0
I 8
a e
l
- a. :,...,
~ -- - ~.
nr A. ~.,*..
r.
- L..m.3.-*-
.. ~.
r-
...... ~
,. 3 ; _..r,' q
- s. _......:. _- '.,y...%., ; i...-,.'s
. + g..,gy ;. p,.. ;.y..- < -
~,
,t.,,,,.
. 3 lNC DGDnn';
._._.._...._,_._ 2 yosssc,.w...] D I,
\\
l$r*1*n* ?.?. _.._.
_. Gur.:nw NZ.// l.Z.?. 2 ) ~
. C E a rc**- m Dr.ra r, r/ fin.rc 7'acnw. o in
._... t 6. /. K. % ss.
e..v. f raw.e C_r_r_. p.w r c.>
s w ~e r. w e n y p n e...an e rkr_
Mm4~e (I C0
_.._._. _ _ _ _ _ 2.. s c _yp e p,e. _ s em e t r. s_.f.n.e_ar a.c..e D.*: : #
v jg on.f ysin. 4 C.Jr..
D I.T ~ <<.r.;'. A 4.fnt 7,i: Cr/r-e -
( d or? r. on* } }.2./ sfC. W ::. yf*'.e.*
C. er.*ro.~&
. [
..? 2 2.2.).. _
37f. vcntr.r. Nor DfM*~o f** (~C f 7*.)
W/C t.
urJr*w.. I U* l
. _..... Nu r_ slen. eora.. u.o M C.r.Wer P.m e r.'".*
.1,e Q y eross:y.. Z._.L. N. err. w. A,.., S. yxrr.e_..r O.u~'~w I F. 4:J. / P ##' **' "'
!
- sty e a Fo r.t.
C 0
.. enven'*ve.r !/4 4~.Wa). __
= _...
9 s
.i s..
l 4
I I
.i I
t l
w t
s
..._.,.__,....,.m......,__,.__._.._.
I
c.r
?
...._ jav u.-
e....
..m.,...
y n.
w: -
.n.-,-
M_
4 :.:........
Q.. w-6 @ M,,->i
- ', J,Y' Qq
- ~~~ ~.*15W.".-'-
..;..~T--e.-L;,W..nw..-}.y_,,ff,'Q. g..'.f..
.g._
...~p.-..._.,.
- ~
n
... <r s.
. f,......
.,_,fj*.
.;//f(.,.
.."a.
\\
.U f ~r 1 p *,,,t.'
.. g.e,. @r4.s e..-
(.:.. r.. :... -
~
7,.r.m-.
- . _ ' _- _V 2 W C,c.:r -
e.
v 3
i-.... -
c
+
s at...
un Q J i*.'7.r. g C o* *. o /
D. V. O.~ _...'.
- C C.rC r*. IA F4.r*_.C o.' _ '5.f'.t?! s M.
[ df.f o *sW cp 3 C P G r,); g s.f CCt.o,o.. f t scs d.rw.:._ r G f f ^ ~'
.:.ca a pser rr.ic..- Jc_: w, 2_9 /.,_.2.. rtr...rs a r 01 % 2
.{. "' ' V*
9 t Arse: y 4 C
.Ft. u n.**, ~f e eN - etm
~
/N h '-s' ' '
~
. a u : wa. '. exn... o.e. e =y~.& n.? Jo ~~~ /: er-c
- t i NS$. $.$fU
- M.,,'?.
,.g /. _.
g n0.i
- h. v. 2 _.-
.r n. s e f. ~. r.._ n u ~... R a e... '. n a.
.r,. n n <,.., w~.,
- n...n~
.ca.. u....
gg.:r**,
....... -.--.Y d. o_* O$.A.f.
.$&,04O.
f:CWf Y/d*/.. m..
..//,ff Ofsr*.
p fe'
- er*
_pp.,._., o_.._m. _, e i: -is.9 - g.u cm ? r. v.t. z p r C a*./Jfd 7 Vf 4*.!
es* h.a )* T Y.#.r. f._
)y~ U.*t*?.!_a.A. /
t 2
e.
4..
g..
1 i
t 4
1 s
c--
s 7
8
...... _.. ~...
s
~.
-S.
2..
,.g
\\
- 1.,
.n.,
,,x s
W...4...
.yg_.,;g....- r. 3.
.-.,2
.. ;.... y.
~
T..g ra
.,.J.'i..,...
.,v. w.... x c-w.
_Sr:...,.: 2. C~
)
\\ q rjh:.o *:Y
& c a., 7 Qs.a
.n. 4, w... _,
U I C,.1 l'.Lt.) ~ _ 9.**<r or Tissn.a.r.. r oe I'* (" H " * " To* " ~;
- f ? ! ; et; P f c r.** w Cet$ e c = *o.s.f. T. b t.'
.512. I* (3.C. IN ~ bt:.n C 't UC ;**J R. \\1nw6.' 't-t' ink lr 9 f * * *'* o-
/ H.a V:e'
~
. s:I u.. / s..
tor. R.h t e.os. flu. s P t'.<3 # C': tr.r. F r.
s
.. 0 VE 'Clf W C D o 9thps<9 S v of oritirt>> s.! dm.C o 17.4*/4"
..TK.C..lo5: loA 6 o 2 _$
/t, ?. i....
}
i 322.29 C3 T.0
. VEspa~.cc -.ro 9 ornna 3/2 !.. i.~ xos 4so it...
......... %* a:r... % A r.!!J'c litveu.i~- a c4s e u... jns i
bit.:ma. 0. y. 6_o.4. 2._
.. Il2 * /*. ( h [2. l ).... TVEBA*C. JitJMr-. Mk** r.f 4
!. ~. in W ? /4 W'?.?'y.
l
. L'4 !VT 1N Dir!O H t.. pr ec of s Air r,i.
(2f.j. e.ag: ?ngo! 2.T-C
..... augtgcr14.w. 2*JT f I. l.).. $ Cf.
s' N g;p % t - sp... _
f 312 *11. CC. ))..
O sav 4a teoa rerory..r.vsssur Hi.:.'ac r.vs,..y
--.. '. J vcs ea 1 n.prr??: o a. $ a ~ er.! t c. s x :.eak g.,
I t
FSee..~.3.T.l @.'t 9.
- 3. J, h..i. tr. -_
. -.... 3I2. ]2.
( S'oI h _.-...c:p.o:c.-.. %1poese Ta y erroon '312 1 Dm. gl.oron~.~s u
..va.Th 6t.4. '2 2'-)' Ro?-y tu:!~ rep _.'". 7:n....ur.
\\
...o p. 4 ute W 7 1 py r.~
S.E ?. - soc ~. L..!;.?.4
-.. 5e t. t**:a-P2 *'"?!y ' Br.:p~tt -.C'"'. 2'2. 2 I'
...-... _. h u.. h.Q C S I E
- 4 l.1 L s.!.*.' Y
'.I',de.-. AtRyk r:. p oM ec.q u od_t4 7t m.: _.
Nwy.)
- 9in y*.4'..~. h A r.c. 4cce..t..?-f..
lv.41fras~.*?.7 2 1". /
2.r / c..
3 12. 10 (I*[* l* V) '
be &. Q &o g x.ocUts'd P Pe'.it'u.'*.*s#J
!.*? 4'. M." 2-. 9.! M "".e*. M a& M. M.W. 0 d
..Scr414's ni@rns...CT*"?.C //u;*,f St.?**'[4 n s s 4.c u s a. 1. 2,.g. /./. - r. x se 9, u.........
U61.
(.J. J~.1)
. p.novooc..rtecc..cmnocig.%;.. u.c. f. rw-
.twitwr.w./..cxrit:.w.<u
?,c.rro-:.c sn 2 7
=
?,EE*Y-.('I*$*l*l
. & b D R J VL1//! 4.F7'/L.1.0_krAAr.J4'.V'.'a c '
. WIT 4...hd etot.
R**!S&y. k ret,t.glieusa po'r sc rt,.
i o
. 9.".V.Sh*5Yy L4.co..f80.f.4sr/.p MfM7s_ 4.yo.,,r-
<* 1,f A_/
.s t.
i
. -. ~ _
~~~
~
~~~
m-
.ao n.m
~
--2 ty' -l, ; -.,1_&WWW'2=Q";&.: f i -
,b:.u..$..
i T.%-..
T. - i..- - -
^
G9 ht".*?? $.V.:'f'.c'*^~~N' - -V- '&
.y
=- ' ~
' ' ' -+'%N
- % i:~.**.~~2WG- '
WC:Ch;.lG..~f k...:.~.. -.m==. c.... 3 -,.hw,....aQo.r:t.r.]p
~
/)C C.
c
.:.c g.
{ L.. [:... :$... ;. [c.. s
.?.-
.,a.:.--.
- .... p...
a.c----
t-
- - fti
}^a,$1l
.;e,7~;a, zw. 3'.
^
B*
r.
W
. ~ - ~ -,~ 3
.z
' ; -- ~ ~ ~ * - -'
.:9,.: -
~.
~
O gqi//e c l
2 II E.7 - ( ZZl. l.) _. _.DE 'ac.E lhr res d 4.cr.7 A' vn: M T' in : a -
~
.. lov 7 MC S./ E* O l .?.f_ E E g:p s
.~
71' C:C ort./. /t%: Cr"t r./
IE C..'**.a..
211.T(, - ( 3 {./.d..... V reir7 es;w g c o,au c7. e 4 f. t, a c e y.;
M (*m pit mo - k.pontor.
Sce-ses.t.) e / p v.,.v... si co I 0._31..Q,d R u.o *~.re s a. s s a w. poe rio,s s
a
,,,. r,:. w,.,,,
L * ^' ~ Pwrc'c o "t' *' > ro c w.ro. <;<
- e...
% %tr***..E e. Ip**Oa*..f-e <reso i..* WWPG r~ ~ r" c
.. -.. Pc cri ?-* a r...e v.ttuuy.@.>dt',. * ' ' = m.n r c..,
rwan er. ro- %oo Hamre - S4 *~'<
.s c.: 2. 5 f.,
t IS 7.e/.,,,..Tneu.7sp-? a.c* n:, 3 T- / t*~7 OlC 4C.
'1' J"). -
. fE.E 4so St..r 1.0 2.
d%. y /,+1- /vM/ *'s:y 6V'-e m S '.,.
.._... G A Il!) uf 7 S TM t K.C_ itso 7" p Pi!N 't.o l'ncow 73w;*'co
... N!!.fft.f. Dios e TVn-1. FRM vLs.<*. L,0/_t.t.. De r,k rset r*
. I ^' Q d'*
- crc.. Tu $4P.sry _ }2carro L6uopw'.&.
..... _. iAS,De ut t.
7 ML(., 3 f~//_ k~ Jt*c, 9.'{i: ?. 2o,J
... - S* I I.*.
.I*
NCW pl*. A.T et.668_y st_s.ct4 8.!J7*
g,. m sygs.-vgg
..... --. _ I.Y.f rt 44 ff.Co ewfaJr >./
ir/3re c Ch.v W e r,,,f" L sp.,u r_.T.M st!~ 3.d* ' >
n u_.Wce_ry.0 cn t
7Il.1io'__(2.T). _
'rM pgy_pe ywie.rz,ay z,p-jy af.s,.
...%7 Mc/aeos-. Mew !/wn._.i3!:VVF!!. 4' f*N.
D7.1smw.a %cc cw. vat wars.Ptast.Ar.o:r.:..
..src n 1M.a 's!.wcr.tcerris 7 /M 1 rw Missw I?nt**? -.J. C# h A /
2 III. 9.)_f3.wS,)
St*t-Arcre, s.p__r..e..ewt..>vn.. a.het;,.c.__R_ u. p.>vse e f"
.--.L^1._Oc4 - Ce cysr - R.r.pmge___ q_a. _ni o7-~
b N
- T _ A r o u 4 t.s r.c.. % I/ tr.D.' e 4 f s or o S ! N '.
III
- H ll J& -.
.htree Wss._ @if.4...four.o Grea,,gg_,sgisfgg_
\\.........
..Dvtu**t-.-l_-%4 ' Ac W.cr Aa;Y4 m..R&tpo~t4 sk*4t. syftgjoy:_fT!,'d.nst s9 JLit.trate Av/:/**c; N
i a
I l
l i
l I
r 4.
w m
.,c,..
.c t
. e.
.. h. 2
..?.g.%w @. m.fcrs.: e -
7,% coga.ggc... ryp: 2 4 +gj,-
g,.pg;.s
~~ ~ _ a..... --. z.
e..:--_-..-------..--
. Co a ?.-.
_-.._. Qvrio n 3' [
t.. Q v i.?ie a p I I *I
- o...(5..r
~ t r c.,r.r %, eir a.: y,,.. t:,~,,:.,
~
e...: ~ ~,r,,..,
L..
M < n i:.
/4nar!"L Ftu;c,:.c Crer:: h~w
./
j cu k sa Mrw ;
u :. u.:.e. cc g ga. ? s w.m N'H ~'aC ' SC'*
f n ? d ;(; - 2 0, 3.c c.
- .' :- }.
2 II & 'I.(I.'Cl.,1 A*..')
C.s r.risa '- ? H
,,*i:
<f.o,o w -<.
d ADD tt.A;;J p tx oFMo 7se~s,
y.t. p,v.; A:ero.s.v es-1:: 44/.;;.
- _.tE. watt. 2 610 14v. /,, I 4 h.
I L; st.- fr.< 4s sp r~.'>
1
-.'t.y..
_R r$ l.41 Ile v Z,
M...I_ _1.t
./%oT-
- s
-_ rr.A. c 4c:4
.7, h t otsep tk~gg R..f..>. 4 O
1' t.s A..W,..O.. e: c_.
3._I.2. 4_7,(Ja l'.).ti.).
T-n,ve(.j.z.
ap_.__ M_._r-C u u_
- r. e.. o.r.. e.re.
h,. egem..a_p u__e_, o.ro_ _s_+ c.m. _. tr. ~75e.s,4,,o. P :..;
..o. -a rVy..Rw6/.ste.. $ fdwp*vru7 R e k. w c.
A n* 6'M.
.A...
Pesfoator..P.r.s 12...2. 7..% Src 3.s,J,,.
r n g c r 2, T. 1....t.?. 3. 7 - / ?
~3 U *N.[ZJ~.h C.') _...P!, J. 2.-Lt.- tss10mr~z f*'.<.!*<.. '^' h ' ' '.
t.gntrower.. n.. -}
l.u..c.x..._DN__tr.os...
D..sw E_4. Ar. _
70<!v4.% N ut/:e O.-
% mm h *<W:.r _
7 A 6nwfa..M,*/._f.CC*tD4vec _ht'W N_Jf('T'~?
.f*.0A.. /.t..C..A_flt*!df4@C
.T.dC.N..Y. _o_u_. 04*gss+ >. >
...ftJ!rs._.r - rp;nt.s. Jop e p
9.
...f
.'fl O. Y N'
- I'N_._.?._6M*6.*yt_ sMirfa: t.. s+4tt dsra !/:.oaqctut>- F-c <.
t,i._<*.*.e.e..rp..y.t.tn..r 1.1.1 gg.s.. _o.n..._pu e4&~.<
e.. e:.../.
s
.pr.sg 7eu bart pfdst. _
.W..X egr.am,s..e ec'rt *4M'*1.?
IkJN'ifty
~ E$sy opfc _J4*e.. l.o._st l*.
I I
i t
t e
.i
!- l l
ii i
l i
j i
t i
i i
j i
l l
i v
i.
i i
i I
s
~
=
e s
L-
~
i
..A'* N w
~.i....
4 4,
~
k ':V b., %..-.~%
n_9.
. ; +.
..'~..u.m,..-....,..,-y..
..,a v
-m u.-.._._e m
x, o..
,,,.. g y-.
- p..,-.y... a,.-.s.
.r,,. 3
,,.c..
- *5.?.,G.5~$'.~. ~l,~~L... f[$ p a rs-.C.5 ]J. /h...(*,
X'T,6'10_U..q.Qf Y Y *p~
'4
,.. ~,... -
..:. n. n.
J.
=-
%> L..a ;...
.w_..,..,,.y.,,..,,,,
3
'y
- / 't"
- y
,.m
.L.
_.s "'
. N t f5* ~c:rtde).m f,e=L -
~
w,
f W
G 0 ) k...3 7,Z o.l.)g.
s.-..-
_ hsyrpuege e r-Tepg.
.y y g vcs.a. g _ w.p. :
p;.,y..,
Gvt.:Tlen pCac.tcutff.,R'.C#sr. Mas.1,, fat ()./gr.y j)d".v.,<f..,
c#
3 2Cfawd - f f*.9...
I* 7* Eo.2
.1 $c, L/
U 7 !.7,).. j u,&,, e n n s s.o vir u seser:.
Fao _ A_moe.e G f.u v %.? G -
~~
r 7.s. ;c
- ~Jsr.ri..
v.st e -Ca.r u. c.C.e.t. r. - e.f. T;'ir. Ze**m o C.Lon: s rY...N. E ges att. -.MM '!b.
- t. Bay.o > t o s !b..%.
% 17 M I'..
... \\ }o.7 { l. '..l'l...* 7)-..%. O..w...*t..c. f.. ~. Z. w % e s...
W @.. Z 4 s ns... Cw f.'.r*
o R f.>. l f % ~ l?C.*e i n 'i~
p.-
.._. 2y et o !Js >s'.
..A.* Opp n e. c.'t 0 P..t.se.v7._.I.t gxeato'T.. Ppwr 78 Talme _% m.io
.c, /*.9.Z.y --
g't
...-.-. P o 4...!V.Jme,n.,g. ore
-.- l~so. 8 (3. 7. 2. 8...).....Dns ccias..m..ene, ee it,as..m.se2.....s.
o co y ai e, w.un..
t !.t.
/..W O.$t!./.W. t.wa. ///r/t/g.1eftc 04;'"CA w D s
in? VC.Nr.fJ.
. tyt!. 9'.=.=.
.$fC...
O.gre-y $. 73yrg s sfair.". p>s,0f.4../sIse. n.. **.A..; E. d.o.*u=N.*.
l.50*4 D* lo]* I. ]
V s-
-i
. f g gig)>'.f"A7/ha!f deov/.1*: d.
- C.. ( T. 7. 7. 2 /,,)_...
Qgsfeest
.$A'th.7e. w..To..~f.af,, /..
- 2.. ney o.rs.=..
.).3.C e.i O._( 3 7 4.. /
dmIFrews.w. i Ct.o wlcom*a. & E.r cu pno s v r a. R. K I. I 2..
.E..tiPe. vtr.. k." t
. m.
ke S l
,J 9.u.n. _Es.'fM ~.Lqcre.n w:-...e rM.a :.r
- f. t. //.n. -
~
.3 !) 3
.C.3.O.----- se<mero. nw Ovme.>tmoowe.wew..? " J:
R * *r* *<r.7' n c. o t z A f k r e e G.'.$ C.? sv t r ^ '..tre: C,
o.WJ M L b ~~ W f A of f**
hect NCs,s 944/'.G.Q%?~A *Pt..
SW44. Mdt.t.t 6p.y.o.4-. M.. fr /.e.'t..cer11:G. M..,w. es.'s..
fC0?A- $.Th,tc.u.t:.5.LE.EtMw.ef o1 m.ItDh v4ly * @.
v i k w ~ P.1 1f w ?. a+.c ter-r
_ %, g,f. g.s.
I
.E.t.tyt.o.wJ. ~..S fn.f.ttr s..Qs1. f.o.o.vWnF. V..'5' f.>67 m./.$. ' 6. d.s!
e
$ f.9).e nv1f!'AP)..N..:.it..t t
.W..t.o.t.t. '.Co..n.tgg.yppyg. 7,yp. f.tG /..'.
...d.e. n.t Qu.A..tt.a_ S F..F. W.r..?'...0.0.e.,?'4.*C # Ctst."
- d. ~.n 4:Crm'**
ll.Y
$_P4t.*. F=
t i
s r
l _
l )
l f
I
.]
I I
1 l
5 i
7 a
2' t
6 l
[
t I
- 6-e
-T..
..?""."".===.
.p.-...-,.
- - = -
- d
.. x;.....
.^;
.;m
.,y...
2 a
.-. g : w..
s1. ;
~'-
. _.,.. m.:.
..: ::; 4 73.,:.._ y.?x.
.;: -Q.,.
- 3 a'.'p 6.M.'.c._.3. 0.(JA t
(.&. VCs'.' / s.U
\\
..t.. 4 e... -Q *./
4
.]
T
\\
0 t/.r huoa.
e s
I 3 0. t.T ( 3,7)...Tu wc pewa parsast.,sperr e... ecsyrxc.
=
-=
_.1.). t r e.2:e. acz.. c c
.a. r. r. ~ o.e.m a.~ <.,..s.c.w r.c.
. ~r.
r;'f.. y ap
.M...e.ru.sous a).. n.a. m...... spp;,,,c..;,
_ *+
r, y rtM V:r-o =_ '/.? s's. Kn.-xaon.
c
. ir,v o.. A. 4 't*
/. de,
/.//
.c.
/,9 z.. ft:.::
_f 474 G+: y.Z'.. S7C vern:r.),,
12 L.
ao v.im_.
A/M 4~'M.::.
I'*!C. 0.s. N C ~~ 24Jt**N '2
.C*f trF*nt At.~;'
f*'*l**'r' r '"r.
i t' e. 4.I' l' . J ~o. 0 x m r'A4 _' % rv.._..***'.5'.
to weserauc tria r
- f. t: _/. / /.... _ct,,,.,,,c.:, _e.,.,. c.,> _..
-_ _._. 0 MjM.'!.'G..... A.""_.. _.H %LC.*_ ! ? A.r. os;
.1 W *24 D*7)
~ MEN ?.F._V_ch' Gs!!CT.._a * /. cr-e eeivu.s_-3Cor**.iri c UD*s'G E 6__].s 9 ?.. Ha Co_*1/1f.4.:...Ser;**~.'t s.it. e /_e_rrien.,
.Sr. c.. _Ase r c..C.C. 'P.'.cr.I 1 a./1.... _._..
I
_i i.Tc LIS...[3 7,t/_)
_h.cyyyo>v n.. 2 g.f.L2.
d.. dos #:.:~. M (.?.:~__..n f-C.
.A/* 7~_. to *?lr*e*.2..._tvt et' 4/*t'E..../W' '>#-J
%A*tpearc.. -.& us n.. M**./.*_..T ou.o sec.o _2y_ D.y evr:A..
t3a.L4 (1 7)
Armu f s._.m._g. y; si.e.r?__ rs o_,o r_. 7,,7
/.c. v w c: e
.. ;. _..-. L.
.-..._. PIHun o.S h? the c.. 047s t*3ty. 2. {iz.sger,s. _k
a.
-..lsi+1.sa...M oM!.4 _A52C'$1ro...w!!!!._f2. 6...Cri'ec.w r
I I'
VN M*14 K..G_.*.I2 'E//t.,rw4" f2r'.f,p.smg _ __.....
~
1 rs?.f C p Am-E S___ep w cA. v u o R ___.
S '
I l-i i
i I _gggijg__3,c p &yy 3 y, y,,.,,,. _
,4a sur.7. _.
E >e riz *> d C # 7 g A_.i j
i i
i q i,i......
.i 2_f.
i i
i 1i i.!
t
.p)>
. I ~
.4
't
....... _.... _..... -. _ w.w. i.
~....
.. n. m, -
y^. '". -.3
..c,.u...a..*..x...
. - =
_ _ _ _ _.*7..,,-
,tm
.... >m'.. s M, -t.~ '~~ -
......a..=-
p s...w
~....
.r_~_;.s,--.,
v.,..<5. ' V__.._v
~
6 s..
,75->.4."
.wwsu.t.,-,mc==
-c./',,.,.,~.y
_ t._..,...
_t. _e
~
r
..m..,__.~
g;_
m....,.. m.... o ps.tQxa.-
.. _.. __ : Q.-n. ~~; 22.-_.Q;,..
s.:..aan n e.~n.+_
- **] C &
..I 6. 2 7 ~.. AtrY < cice denJn.~'. 6C es'.rF.:
. R_ N.%. '. R O&.
\\
'Ss+1 i c.Jo
,t. p.+.
..O.r.rw. e t...
/.t B ?- Taf.. ~/. 12,5vwog 2...PSse_
3 IlnMMyers.Rhitsiu q
.npcsur-fRs w:.c._._.P.Sei..
Sr:,~..ni /.l'. 6". 2 _='.._
FYur..D o ante. cria's _744. '-._ _. _ _...__.. _ _....
. _ _.. _.. _. =. _. _. _. _ _ _ _.. _..
l I
t
-=. _.....
t 3
4 e
1 l
l l
{
e r
a r
I
{
{
a l
l..
c_.__._
r.
M.
M. M O
l.
g e
.s i
t e
e_
8 l
e b
9 e
k e.
- A
>ah
......, ~...
, / ;. b._.,.m W.@ ~ ~: ~ ;.. &" '.a:' *+M..- -.
- ~::=~2:2.:: -9.ti-[ ' -l,7sg=
~2....
.........._..lA & C.Q, Uff? ideJ.J M >osv.'r.
-__Yv-../..
/
a_
.c-W.~ T/07) o Q.r*7/0')
J
...t 3 0, il. D.. F., /...-_.. Cts:p, Gr. M c..W..e.._vJ.c.., su pse-O.c.i,s 7 w-..
- 4. -Cro ed Y.. >w.
.ft.* o. '4.. C.. TT/:/?k...-f"- F. v ~?,*..H.
{.
.. W f.*ek*.
C O d.',.*~
!_.*/. /.ne".d
- ps.V l 3 0
- I3 D
- i. Ib..
_f??..p.se.3i~ ~..CG'c7_.3.'. R) cg ) _...-...-..
...~.Lo+o.. % 2w/4 2 ".J~.'. U.V!*.% FM* ~*t.. !$ CZ159
~
>~.. o. _sr..a..n. o. a. on_p._
m n..n..,
... -...... DeMrn..o (= e r>ss' swr /JM.W &y...tf. 9,Mf.%
c
..... 144l'04C.
0*NJM'*'eTtv'. 40**M<~Dm" AFF4;;....
doet A ci.77.9... w. f.:.. E C t r*~J c o.. f d e
.:.* re ra V...
rv.
t_ _ _. - - _
. t~. f:**v3622+7.. tv/zn'-.ff. rvi.*#.'s >.h=.%m~ :....
b Len pt A mt,._.._
=
I3o ter.
(J.7,/)
_._.h,,,,a 4_.ta,r_..ap, _ s,*rwi,,e. gap. v.r4.,,
. v
--... corne Wien*
triove o~' c.Te. M 2-t'i~.
. M c z - J<m -. 4. o 6.. W,, o. i rs. 3' ? /. 2. '. ). _..
. I 3 0 5' N' I
- f.)
- 3. 9. /. l Oo r.r we 7* /up r r ~~.. f,/ c.~t/_*.~._ r.c._s.'c*.'
trsp. e.4.t.r
. S..f t?n._3._ Af.o../.._A_2* /
12-G. F r s J.. _
c..._.
s
--..- Utp...t"# 0 44".-.~2J-V.
4'W' C _Eo*.s*, ussac.*
.O FNiW-. V2.?r ! _ CNfo,
$ 3 C *) 3
. l.T. i. !*O.
2.e.9)to it.- t.F. Vowr.- oc. E.c ' J7s.: 12...W PRCC_L 5-D'.. is f.'f4>
E*'t /?.:c ??ys.y.,,y...
?
. f24.e v.o j.i_rp 4 y' 3.r 9,./
/ F.t.. o. -.. d_ /.v..g.. #_.o.w_ -...
k M blHIC H W'
/1_ ~S,9ff.;'.9Fo ADj is'c_.
htBCE. 2 r-V fL t t%f./.*p,
D.._
h.
... J J a.* K.._
P.._0
%ince res.e,w.,9, cco.2._neeme,,. e._._.
- . Cerwcea_/<w-_s:' &e 4ne.nc~ans
?.-.-_.----._-..-
nt.
Cr w - tf b v.M't.?.c. J ?R 12 m r ' A ~*
v1;_e.1e..c
&_y_eo /p.__,tpp.7. J. c,. E r.f s.e..c...
1 I'
h 6LE _ 8,1 2 7 'Q M if." W l'.r-ev.. k M n r**.c n..
--..l.10..*.I.7 O...F.<.l J. u s w t r _ 7 0- -.q. v r..r m W _. 8...s D..
/.J A#r ~t**
NC.Mtksc.,Hiru 734' Mrtra r. 7rYc
~
N/OC4rv)._Q$tMd
/J AE' $ W/W'!"7".]
f.W?~~
i j
e i
i I
le etCAf we Vd.O _g.t yf..
1T. n f '..". sd d.*C. 7.a
.......u.o..
- s. t ?.k...o. 4tru. U_J.,r. o.-. ' EeJpu. t q
k.4dMT_./da Jitsi.ir iso E----
I
. *l
'l p
j.
.. ; c
- ,...j.-
g....
~.. _
Q
-Md J.E'1 T-mm_
M"'""'" " ' ' ' " " "* " * " * " ' " " * ' ' '
.+.-
-. m.n
..,.........i ?
-... c ~. v c - =. u.. =
. ;%Wmp,.y; x.. i;;. 3:. 3 E g.....,.
,m V.>...
n.
w
~
< y :.w n.r---- -..
.~e
.,,..,. w..., = ~ w =c =.
y;. -...c.p ; gg.
^
y.;.A 5.., g y <_g..,,
v.
v.*
1
.4.,........<
l
,,y
.y,
.,c..,,..;,.
~
..'r.,., v ~J..
..C*y.
y,
- p..
( j'..*V i. ~. 7 y
.- m_,.
R.; -MM.,a a
EC716 M.. b b...
l 6 UFJ71W
~
I 1 ?_*,, l.f. (,3..TJ )
A. W K s.
TV.. 9 v E 'r 4/.. I J c., /,T.. /1/e 7-Mec v w.
l e.*
kS. 9-5 a J uYc 1 y i.m %.: c w.m.u-
~
..S f-!. 3l Q. < M, c/
We dem.c: 7.y'r ' ?.n :
Pc su!f-r s C/ %vt: -.Cu; *.mr.c. c..
G t.*:, w. ::
br d ar.e
- f. 'c-Mi' 'cy.>.
.D&Z.,f'._ sy9,nrie e _sw
- c. ore 4*9.. r,s m aar w c..&* urro..
)
1.1.o..t.1 s
n> omria 7.brecrJes %.c.~soou n c n.- e.. *.-+n-DirMm*c..ser.ns.Mrvz kn a. /.~.y f r.c.eue w,;..
/m Nnu Se Ya smee. vurn..:t:ec.R2!+.??.~.'.c..::
'& J a r..2
.ir.m'.m r. -a -
I
.C o y n e y r e e r g o._ n r. o.e a..e C y..y.w FC.2..
'rk 91b* )*At,.s._.r;tw.1:r..pcren ~re EEspw:2.,...D n CW t.
4 x a e u :.,,.. g s. 4.o A 4 s n./
Cri %,. ?.6vu.o /e.c4r,rn..om..,p.y l
_ Sei.r4ic.
I C/t L_.
9 t g.j.+ x s, yr e. Gun._f w..f. r. <.r... r......_~. -
I S.e.r.r t.c..n.. n. r.-_Su. pe_.y fr.:.w._u
_..t..~.>. Mas. 9
+
\\
\\
3 pcss!2 _.D.y t._To. hu eeeit.r~wr. Scr.w + r r~~
I 1
totM.45 h0dl W" &+. 5tn 92_.9.tvirw 9 y.%':'n
< TltGe..TJJ.GR* I N M !" R y.. f N S W A N : M '--
f
' !Jo.:A_L Ud.r 0 '
NstwKc. to knae,cr~._I30.<.1.]
Is n 7~.ccce re e:<;.
r EveLunrLGrt v.pmc or e.surus.
Ac.c.w.r i
f l
l
\\l sQ,g 3,. _y_pp, y 3,,,yp,.,y y,,
te t.d.tLA Ftvi7 12/ 4M4Hi:5' SA M r.y / Ifs.c4/e,,C.r..
. 7. 1 - 2. %. -.... y. - -.
Ecr.o.u..n..s. eq e... 2. 1/d:c.] H,hr_ A ccry_qcy i
br_da tr 13 o.I &_,.
130_*2.1 (J.1.2 )
'$psuy to tenbe.ht.r.s.t.ur.c..itA ' vpu..,ExTrv7 ts2. 7d'
\\'
I I'
i d !N 3 h;.,,. TAP 326..ponais_!!.C.
l l5I i
lI i
\\
\\
, tresf w e
.Q.M..,.hffcc. 3.d__/p. N% g=
i i
i.
m 1
j i
j j
l u
i i
e
(
i l
i i
,. ; ;.g i
i i
j i
i i
i i
- i. I I.
t.
1 l
g.;..
.t l
{
l c.
- sqs,
.---.m m-a u.
... w.:.
., fe;r' '?2',2,3ffd.M J Yi :-- NT'?
_g.,.:%:. '.N_ E f. *Q:QQ'.L~. ;-3._.. - h.. ~
'.f.o. 'p.. h. -,$l5 l
.c w. -.,,,,,
I nCi. l C.A L d b V f D.E P S.: ~. :. : '. : -
3 1
H. D:nicis R. Stephens M. Bolotsky M. Soyle
>A. H a f i :
W. Brocks M. Tokar
~
G. Ma:ctis O. Chopra H. Balakulan M. :icCoy S. Salah W. LeFave R. Kirkwood D.. Pickett C.*Ferrell K. Campe J. Boegli C. Hinscn W. Ross R. Friebe T. Cardone L. P.eiter L. Heller D. Gillen R. Gonzales J. Fairobent D. Brinkman B. Campbell W. Belke F. Alenspach B. McDermott S. Newberry i
D. Hood
/
?iM4/ ; k i
/-c -gi
=. c.
@lWp=h&n" A..r..
- C > ~ s.*x j
.n x
- " 2 ?l~Gi;7-Q Q~,
. ~-. r R _ a a x -
w %, _....
_u -
_._ &&iJ&?993}.$.h*4:
Wk'
" ~~'
. w _,.,. 3,,3.,.. m -. n..,,,
, yg,,,,,,, g,. 3..
g;
,.,_.,,.,,g.3,,,,,
( ). i:ra.. ;.u E. :.i: -.. we.m~ ~ r - v i n= t::s,- -n-s *~- m.~:
N
~~ -
n
\\
f*2 *.
M _- -
f/ ' y'*
' '....A
,%br::a ry *. 5, ,n3
- 1 * '
/.
t,,...
~
b
[
l" j
(
I
..J,,,.-
\\'.
/.
\\
- 0TF
\\.
- i.. LT:
GJIDELII t..; i..3 rREFAdi. '....iY
' t.UATI O t T.:. '... i
~
The attached guidanta has been de/elo,7ad in connection with c.ur ex; crience over the lest several y:ars in,re;:aring SER's.
'.ni l a t'.a cnclosed guidanca has not boon fcr.nli 3d, it has bee.
- d t'y C: in editing SEP.s with the goal of producing more consistent
..sd casily understood docamants.
'4 talieve that if those guidelinas are followed, particularly by the originators of SER inputs, tha amount of editing and re.vriting r.:.,aircd will be greatly raduced, thereby, hopefully improvir.g the efficiency of the process.
We welcome any suggestions on improving these guidelines.
./
. B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
As stated
\\'
[
k 4
/
s R
=
f e
1 p
.--w
... 7..
..-w
.n.c e.
9 ~. w z..~ q'. 3..-. y.=;;q. -
i.g-3 ;yya
, ~. < ; w.~.g
%. -- A -
. m. c.c.
m% s :
.a
... :. ; u.
..;.. r.
A.
C%iE*.T
~
1.
Przier wS: yLe 'Mi. co is.
? " 3. * ;. -..- : ty a dicar:e grN; of p0ple. ':ht12 your ic;.ut runst tc :' %
- '..~ d crit' 11 scrutiny by technical ex; arts, it m::
20 le (...elligi':le tu ::2 inforr.:ed layman. Ec:..n.'ser tha t year. v...'s wi l l 'ca r:4d ctraf J11y by the lawyers involvad in the ca:.?, by the inter.emrs, th21;;;11: ant..
sd by the w blic.
If yev can '.s ci +.e. ' :r i ".t t o = s *.o h ore
. 2:-t.ndable to these v.ho ara : ;t.
.rts it. y.r s;;-ciai:y, plisse da so.
2.
At the !.egina;ng of each rajoi. vt * ;.
'ct ia.. : ' '. r. :.:...':
to expldin what the section mus t ecocl C,-
. sc.ie c ' o.-t'.2
..":... ra!. Le finding. Tell why we review the subfect of the se. tion.
3.
State all.the guf @s, codes, stardards, C-X "et : : t d in t!.e review and whether the plant meets each.
4.
Remember, regulatory guides reco mend, they don't rv.u;re.
5.
Give special attention to hearing cortentiens. Since testir.c.ny on them will have to be prepared sooner or later, tha hsue t!.cy raise should be addressed in the SER to the extant practical, liowever, don't explicitly refer to the issues as cententions in the SER.
6.
Do not say that the facility "r.uets the intent" of a i..:let%n, guide, code, etc.
It either meets it or it d:ssn't.
- i ;.:11e g :d, I
you can further explain or qualify this. Also an alter: de tpa cech
.in most cases is acccptable, if feilly explained and Jiittf',..i.
7.
Give a conclusion at the end of each major sutheading. Dun't go on for many pages without reaching at least an intermediate conclusion.
Summarize the interecdiate conclusions at the end of each rajor section.
8.
t!se the conclusions and findings in the SRp if applicable. However, don't use them blindly since, some situations may require Modification to the standard conclusions.
9.
h' hen you have finished a section, ask yourself (1) Are there any other conclusions that can or should be reached?
If so, put thc:n dcwn; (2)
Is each conclusion adequately supportad with bases? Atoid : ages of system description folicwed by one sentance sayJng we revic..cd it and it is acceptable. llhy is it acceptable?
'? hat prcves i; is safe?
s..
s
\\
s-
.m
,a*-.-.---men,
,s
_ _ zwi@M5. -W s
, u.y Q.;l._
f
... I;4.w,.. J. -;.. J. _
=1f(M m,ij W 2
.. x m :. - - :: x z W -
+. -.-.
w- -
p-
. ep1CY'3::Jt q.
sx
~
~
- " -- ' g
~-" *- T p y;n,,e, 2 r.
- m v.,w.m.v. w.
y G O. e c...u.-...,,., -... m,.,
.~ _.m. w j......
n
.~y.
. - u.
. N y.rw '"I"
~ %g
- g. uW-
- t'q;.,
- 9'C 1.
Ec:,n rcr.t:r.cc: :Srt.'rJ di. x t.
.:1 ~
- 2. ' c ir. -
...s.
~
" int:cize special t :M*cel jarga.
2.
Mt..i.i'e losig s tri:.3s vf ::..'...i. :.
3.
I:1 r.os t insta' ces, u:e the sc.c
- ;r.
./ 2 ', ts,
.r rathir than isfai ri.a the ::.;C staff or ti.e Cc
!isi 1.
4.
For CP ::R's d.tcri' e the p'.c.
- .. pl e t. i.
' r g 5 r? ty.m.
<. g.,..e pl a:.t 7111,;.4 x:i..'c '
.ry 7, s t.-
i
- c. U ' s.' :.:.a
- 2. c
,. :. i..
r p i. ' :.t.e scis.!. C.it+gcry I, etc
.1 dl sci.
...ry. -.r* ct.:r ;.,. q disit,cid to withstand tM dfects
.f.....
,fd s:,j'r.ctive c:-:it'enal v.a. ids and e.alds in c.clus': 4 5.
2.t. c: e 'i equirca.erits are pr, sen
..:.1se.
J n '. s aj t..
..il.i. :wi re, say we require.
Coapleted analyses and tests si.uld 1..: referred to in past tense, as should cur review. The a!'plicint 00: for.r1 a calculation, we revk..ed it.
5.
Ce not use abbreviati:ns. Spell out units such :s dageecs Far3r.heit, centi: sters per sec:nd, Hert:, Bri;.ish thermal '..iits par hour :ar sqt.re foot, percent, etc. Ace'eleration in g is accep:cble (0.679).
7.
A Ifratted number of coronly recognizable acreny.ns is acceptable e.g.,
~~
S; ell cut construct?M 5 mit, icis-of-scoiar.t acci.! erit, circency core cooling sys te.r,... i. wad rafey L
feature. Call the plant by its name, or "the facility".
S.
Minimize unnecessary capitalizatiens.
Only ti tles +a.i,' es.. '.is are capitalized.
Loss-of-coolan't accident, probsble r+xt::m h.cricane, safe shutdown earthquake, and emergency core cooling s;. star.1 ar2 all y
1cwer case, as are tolt, meter, kilegra n, applicant, s :aff, c. st action
\\
permit and technical specification. ' Do not capitalize namis of systems.
I 9.
Avoid use of foot notes.
- 10. Do not underline for enghasis.
- 11. The words " Category I" are always precteded by the werd "saismic".
+
~
- 12. tihen mantioning regulatory guides, include tt e titte: Fa;ula cry Guide 1.222, "The Design Sasis Meteor Strike for List.t i:stse.aa:t:rs,"
(?.evision 3). Ge sure the title is correct and unabbrevia:ed.
Includa the Revision l'o.
S m.
i
- c.
'- w
, t.. -.g.,e i - ' % - 3 '-
. v-. ;..%
W+1ChT~D'i:: -&;&,$g _'x:,;- SQ.y#
r
, v.
e---
g,,.,
q...
13.
J3 c h;...r s t..; ! :. :.n 'y, L:r.g-t a r,, s a fety. re'. a:e t, '. :: -cf-cc:1cnt, taiss: -:f-plant are hyph Ited when used as a:j+c-ivil phra:es such as the bilard:--of-pla t design.
- 14. Do not hesitate to includa drawir.;s to clarify, parti:alarly t.i:,e structures.
- 15. 5 211 out the first t:n integral
.-hses, c+.e. tr.3...:en.
'Jse n marais for deci sis ce n
.:rs./ cater than ten, su:S as 2.5, ~.15, 12, etc.
16.
E 'cr to th? ; li Int as ' it", ' :: "'e" o r 'M. hey".
Theappi'-['s
- . cgraa is its v. p c., ot his ce t'.eir pec;. am.
17.
~ n't use sum.adings with c;re than theca r.;mbers, 2.3.5
.13 r.,
a 2.3.5.1 is not.
'Jte (1), (2), (3) if y:a must further subdivi:'a, and (a).. (b), (c) if still rcre s'.idi.ision is warran:cd.
~
18.
Refer to the ISAF. Ind SER subhcadi gs as Sections, rather than Chap ters.
Section 12.0, or Section 2.3. A, not Chapter 12.0 or Chapter 2.3.4.
- 19. Have your typist double q, tqe your 5ER input.
- 20. Section headings should be all caps, underlined and centered on the page:
12.0 P.A0!ATION PROTECTION
- 21. S ibsecticn headings sh:uld be undarli..'d and have only the initial letter of cach. cord capitalized: 8.2 Offsite Pc er System, 9.5.1 Fire Protection System.
- 22. Until a better apprcach is deve.lo ed, references shou.d not be superscripted. Use the author's na.me and the report cate in arentheses in the text, give the full reference in the Bibliography.
For example, "... based on the historical record (Jones,1955),"
or " Based on tests by Smith (1902), we conclude....."
23.
References should be listed in alphabetical order, as follows:
Author, " Title in quotes," Publishing organizatior., date.
/
g.
e
'N
[
~%:%. y.e-fd.
tx : --
~
...c
-.1~
n-
.:. :. w3.. -,. - --
m.
-E%y%w...
.. rf-3$h.A... _ ~~.%...m.-
{-f
-..:..e"[p"~"'E..
f 2N?i7.6i ffQg4y7,f My -
)
. 's'in=
-c Y.
A
" *.swf ;, w: *=
.w ~ v ~ ~.
., *p::;f'** :, s u L.u x.,
m.weerce..
+ar g.q t J.~. % a.
s,,:.~......,. w. ~ ~-.. n,..-..,,u..
s
~
s
. ~.
f,ndp:.:e.
- a. r, --" __ _.._,,a-g e
,,.3 p #,
NLt-u%
SAFETY EVA!.UATION REPORT Evaluation of Response to 10CFR 50.54(f) Request Regarding Plant Fill Dated March 21, 1973 MIDLAND PLANT Units 1 & 2 9
W f
a
\\ / y _fp.
p
/ c4 &
O, S
b
'e,-
e.
' 3* ; ~
b-
.., _.x
- 2,~. f;y. ' ' '~. 3- - - -- 3,,
}-
, *~'_'~'_.,;.-'z-1*
~ ; yg.~a,}~.
,e
,.;,s
..: -7,.:;..
7.v. g.,
o
.. r :' -
-..w..
a., a.e f
Ti.E'E r C;'; TENTS Pace Section 1
I." -
Introduction 1
II.. Result of Investigation 2
III. Statement of Deficiencies
!Y.
Discussion of Remedial Action Proposed by the Applicant 7
11 12 V.
Results to Date VI.
Evaluation of Response to 10CFR 50.54(f) Request 16 Yll, Recommendations e
l I
1 e
\\
e see o
Y..'& IS 4s'..I!b YW 5
A :;L ~ ~
'?
5&.5-5
~l ~ * ** ? -. -
$ TN & & Q.
iQQ fW
. g--
e
- Q..',,. l ;; ~. i <.c =.
r
.v~ m...:...,.,,..w
?b*, *}]"w&
. vw. s.
w.
..m.,_,
q.
~
~
- ,. _ 3-%.,,_
h I.
INTRODUCTION On August 22, 1978, Consumer Power Company (CPC) notified the NRC Resident Inspector that there was larger than expected settlement of the diesel generator building foundation. During subsequent investigations by NRC and CPC personnel, it was determined that the settlement was reportable.
On March 21,1979, a 50.54(f) request was issued by H.L Denton, to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, which CPC responded on April 24, 1979. Revisions to the CPC response were submitted on May 31 (Rev.1); July 9 (Rev. 2), and September 13, 1979 (Rev. 3).
In addition, a series of meetings between the applicant and NRC personnel took place. The following report describes the observed settlement, the structural aspects of the issue, the applicant's proposed remedial action, the evaluation thereof by the NRC technical reviewer, and the staff's recomendations.
II.
Results of Investication As a result of the investigations conducted by NRC personnel of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, the following deficiencies were established:
The quality assurance program for obtaining proper soil compaction of a.
the Midland site was deficient in a number of areas. This is especially evident in the area of diesel generator building.
i b.. Soil of the type used in the foundation of the diesel generator building is also located, to varying degrees, under other Class I structures and
~
plant area piping.
i Several inaccurate statements are contained in the FSAR ~with respect to c.
soil foundations.
d.
Although it has been stated that inadequate soil compaction contributed to the settlement of the D/G building, it had not been detemined what other factors may have contributed to the settlement.
.w.
.r..
I w,
w=-
-wM--
y.
N EP-a w.
-..i.
c--m----me w
ei.---g.--we*-
e w-- - -----
w
-e7
-+
' ' t.h 3 6 m ~'
^
~ - - ~
- ~
^ gd*-g;d2 "'rn:;~kn- -
- x. ;.w.[f(15', _.y y __-.
3
~ ~ ~
3
.. s.a-
.mn
.w. 7.n m
t j
e.
Extc9sive cra: Ling has been observed in various Caterery I structures which are in er. cess of the limits specified by the applicable building codes (i.e., ACI-318, ACI-349) or acceptable engineering practice.
I'!.I. STATE",D;T OF THE DEFICIENCIES It appears that the deficiencies are caused mainly because of:
1.
Insufficient compaction in the areas where backfill material was used.
2.
Insufficient technical direction in the field during back filling operations.
3.
The backfill material used was not in accordance with the criteria j
contained in the FSAR Section 2.5.4.5.3.
The structures affected by the backfill material are:
1.
Diesel generator building.
2.
Service water pump structure (partial).
3.
Tank farm.
4.
Diesel oil storage tank.
5.
Feedwater isolation valve pit and the auxiliary building.
1 The affected structures are shown in Figure 1.
I A description of settlement, structural cracking, and potential problems of the affected structures are as follows:
- 1. Settlement and Foundation Material Description i
a.) Diesel Generator Building i
The settlement monitoring problem of this structure began in July,1978.
It was observed that.there was excessive settlement of the diesel genera-tor building. The contours of the settlement monitoring are illustrated -
in Figure 2.
It can be seen that the differential settlement approximates 4 inches.
p J
\\
e.
! "f m.,
~,,
I
=::n =.... :....
r l ' " p 2; M.w (Mjf
--[g.g.eglr.,4
.. b. lis._;.,,
R
~ ~.
" c.39.,gTORT/.f&--
x~.t.s m y..
_ _., g,. ;.,-. -
e
..<;-.--t--c: m 7...a..
...,.,-.w..,,
...n ::.v.. n. w. _..,,,..
g{, {},~ S[f'U;iNTng IF.TS.? hd:ratdr"pecc:::tqcrc f:ur.:::-:- - : :.;y p.-e;
~ - ~ =
+a.s v 20 f eet of fill s:r.icn consists' of sof t to stiff 'c~ lay >;itn ;.
- u. cnc layers of very loose to dense sand.
~
b.) Service k'ater Pump Structures
. iterial The major portion of the structure is founded on natural sct" except for the northern part which is fcunded on the fill. - - e exter.t of tne backfill is shown on Figure 3 and 4.
In view of the -.sual settlement observed at the diesel generator building, an i-
.igation was perforced by NRC Region III to obtain information rela:
o design and construction activities affecting t..a Diesc1 Ge-
- or Building foundation and plant area fill. As a follow-up t:
.e investi-gation of all Category I structures on fill, several borir.r -ere taken
- s of soft in this area. The borings indicated that the backfill cord to very stiff clay and loose to very dense sand. The conc'
- en was sf the that some areas of the fill material under the northern pa-structure were not sufficiently compacted. However, no si:
'icant settlement of the structure has been noted. The reason fr
.is appears to be that the existing dead loads from this portion of th ructure
- antilever are partially supported by the rest of the structure throu:.
action.
'c. ) Tank Farm Figure 5 shows the tank farm in plan. Tnere are two bora:. water Of storage tanks (BWST), a utility tank and a primary storas:.s.k.
these, only the BWT5s are safety-related.
4 6
i s
9 ga w%,..,
.e 6 e&.
,e eeg, f. am Demp**
- jf..
hiz;$
-{
.>r -
. n us;;.,, z s....,., -
()
e.n.,.:.w,~,
,.,. _ _., n,._
,,..,.n
,g
[.];.-l 'L.,..,,.,Jieini n:; the ring girder for cath tankvis a small. box-sh:pe'd?4tructurt
.;i v,,.. u. >
g called a valve pit. This houses valves and other contrcls. As a f:ilc.-
up to the investigation of all Category I structures founded on fill, several borings and test pit examinations were completed in the tant farm area. The results of the investigation indicated that the tanks
~
are supported on medium to very stiff clay backfill with occasional
~
medium to very dense sand layers. Selected points on the piping between the BWSTs and the auxiliary building will be monitored for settlement during the construction phase. Any differential settlement measured will be analyzed in accordance with est:blish:d pro:ei:res.
~
d.) Diesel 011 Storage Tanks There are four diesel oil storage tanks, each 12 feet in diameter and 44 feet in length (See Figure 6).
There is six feet of earth covering each tank. The tanks are supported at three points anchored to concrete pedestals. The tanks are founded on backfill and results of the boring program indicated that the tanks are supported on medium to stiff sandy clay backfill. The soil condition is adequate to support the tanks. Moreover, the weight of the tanks is approximately equal to the fill that it replaced. In order to verify that the fill is satisfactory, these tanks have been filled with water and settlements are being monitored. In the three months since the tanks have been filled with water, no appreciable settlements have been noted.
\\
e
--M.-
~
.c
~ ~ ~ ~
- 9 ; p.yxk. :ip. :--sr-
- p;.:;.3-d 4 v~
2,
.. i s e.) Auxiliary Buildino and Feedwater Valvt Pits Since some of the fill extends under the auxiliary building and feec-water valve pits and its bearing capacity was found to be questionable, it was decided to replace it with structural elements which extended from the existing concrete foundations to underlying undisturbed glacial till. The proposed method will be described later.
2.
Cracking of Structures Extensive cracking of several Category I structures has been observed.
These cracks vary in width from building to building. From the available data as reported by the applicant, it appears that at least some of the observed cr'acks are increasing in width. The maximum width of cracks for various structures are tabulated below:
Date/ Crack Width in Mils Structure Diesel Generator 8/30 (30) 9/79 (30)
, n_., n - y Q, Service Water Pump 8/79 (20)
No data Structure Auxiliary Bldg 8/79 (20) 9/79 (30)
Borated Water Storage No data 9/79 (20)
Tank and Valve Pit The applicant stated that the majority of these cracks are shrinkage and temperature cracks and that they do not affect the structural integrity of the buildings.
3.
Inconsistencies Between Information Contained in the FSAR And The Design In response to the 10CFR 50.54(f) request on plant fill, the following inconsistencies have been reported by the applicant:
1 1
mm o
,,. L.
+ y.
a.
f.hh.5Ef
..;. ff ~
W
):
.. fY'hhn7$$5?$
- -~=."p;...__ c::r-p i s.,m ;..e - ~,- w., n...;,g. n.
- .,L
- :
_.,_n,..
(: %
...,.c.u-,.
n.--n m A 0 > -, ----
W
-~~-
4 p-% % %.,,JA uniform load of 3000 psf was used in se.ttlement calculatioyn
.%s
.y T
.M * -...
or the a).
diesel generator building rather than 4000 psf indicated in Figure s
2.5-47 of the FSAR.
b.) The calculations of settlerrent of the diesel generator building _ _. _ _. _......
assumed a mat foun>iation rather than spread footings. Additionally, the sketches of the diesel generator building contained in the response to the 10CFR 50.54(f) Request show that the foundations of the diesel generator building consist of a continuous grade beam (Figure 2).
This is not consistent with the assumption for the foundation used in the calculations.
c.) The response states that the FSAR contains the results of erroneous calculations for the mat foundation rather than the actual, i.e., the continuous grade beam.
4.
Deflection of the Electric Duct Bank During investigation of settlement of the diesel generator building, it was discovered that due to lack of clearance between the vertical portion of the electric duct bank projecting above floor level foundations, the duct was supporting practically the er. tire structure (See Fig. 7). As a result, the load transferred from the building to the duct bank produced bending, which could have caused the reinforcing steel (at Point A See Fig. 7) to exceed the yield strain. The duct bank might have been deformed beyond the allowable limits.
b l
I e
De em es e a e se
.. 2
~&-
._Q{$
i
%.a.SSj qlCf: -j.
, ' fggg ;;p a L ~h-i:~ -
-v., c, 3 x,
.a 7-W IV.
Discussion of the Remedial Actions Proposed by the Applicant 1.
Settlement and inadeouate Compaction
. The remedial action reposed by the applicant is primarily directed towards stopping the excessive settlement and replacing the questionable materf at
~
i used as a fill. The specific actions for various structures are described i
below:
a.) Diesel Generator Building On the basis of the recomendation of the soil consultant professors, i
R. Peck and A. J. Hendron, the remedial measure chosen wes to preload the existing backfill by layers of sand surcharge. The surcharge was applied in steps up to 20 feet total. Fig. 8 shows a cross-section of the building and the surcharge. It is expected that the surcharge will produce stresses in the fill greater than those for which the i
fill would be exposed to during the life-span of the structure. The i
surcharge will remain until excess pore prersures are dissipated and i
the rate of settlement becomes small and t.1e residual settlement can be predicted by extrapolation. In order to remove a potential of liquefaction, dewatering of site is planned which will be described later.
i The applicant claims that the differential settlement of the diesel generator pedestals will have no effect on alignrent of the engine and the generator because they are both mounted on the same foundation.
Further1nore, during the operation of the plant, if further differential settlement causes the allowable tolerance to be exceeded, the manufac-j, turer states that the generators can be shinned to a leveled position.
i
\\
- ~
e 1
6 9,,--e
---+->w
---n--yc-w.
4e,1 e6e-r,w
-,,w-g-
.y.,
s.
---e, s
-6w
-v,,,-e e
h,.. Y, k$[M5'
- b','.'-*;.; '.-f' Y e 5 E,.;u ~ MshKE m
h5 l
- 2...
~~YkI[4hTfhfk,,
$u,
[ ) '.2I.
O ~ ' ' '
t 'g.
m m _
_m... s
,.,..,g,,.,,,,__
..; _ w =.,,,.,
s.
9._.
f
[h&.3 lw ~n b).
Service Water Pu.p Structure As mentioned before, the major portion of the structure is founded on natural soil material except for the northern portion which is founded on-fillr-During-the investigation of all Category I structures on fill and as a result of examination of the borings taken in this area, 1
it was concluded that the structure does not show any significant settlement, although it is partially situated on the fill. The reason for this is that,the existing dead loads from this portion are being partially supported by the rest of the structures through cantilever action. The remedial measure chosen is to support the north wall on piles driven to hard glacial till.
Figures 9,10 and 11 show the plan and details of the piles. A totsi
)
of 16 piles is planned at this time. The piles will have a capaciy of 100 tons and are designed as bearing piles to carry only vertical load.
The piles will be pipe piles filled with concrete. They will be pre-drilled through the fill and driven into the glacial' till. The length is expected to be approximately 50 feet.
As shown in Figures 10 and 11, the concrete corbels will be anchored to
~
l the wal1 by a system of anchor bolts. The pipe piles in turn will i
be jacked against the corbels to effect the transfer of load.
A test pile will be load tested to determine its capacity.
c.) Tank Fars No remedial measures are proposed by the applicant for these structures.
t
\\
g O
D
-i.,,,
~
4 srm
--..au
I' rg-r,A ; * '.s; c q
, s 3.,-5...Qi. f'Q..py g...--
pg. 7 '.
E J
- ;.y g
.t An =., a.,
, _ 9, d.) L'r.dte;round Facilities The applicant stated that all safety related piping is sufficiently ductile, so that there are no adverse effects of differential settle-ment. Electrical duct banks are reinforced concrete elements enclosing PVC and rigid steel conduits providing voids for the cables.
The integrity of the duct bank is established by passing a rabbit through during the construction phase and the duct bank by itself is ductile and can absorbe a considerable amount of differential settle-4 i
ment without significant stresses. No remedial measures are planned by the applicant for duct banks or underground piping.
e.) Auxiliary Building and FW Valve Pits J
The design of the remedial measure has the objective of replacing the soil of suspected bearing capacity with structural elements which extend from the existing concrete foundations to underlying undistri-i buted glacial till.
In order to accomplish this, it is planned to utilize the' structural capacity of the electrical penetration rooms to bridge over some of the questionable underlying materials by providing I'l caissons at the extremities of the electrical penetration rooms. These L
caissons shall have sufficient capacity to support approximately one-half of the dead and live loads of the electrical penetration rooms i
with the remaining one-half being supported by the control tower.
i The proposed method for supporting the isolation valve pits is to temporarily ' support them in place, totally undemine them by removing all materials to a depth at which undisturbed glacial till is encountered and filling the excavation with lean concrete.
o P
4 I
S 0-.
g
--~_-
f
,-.,.,-,e
_W%n TT
\\Q,3
. qg -L_
..M4Q
'=h:-4n @7.%
- . Q -,-.. -
- 9..
,, M ?i5 %;N Q-[ -
--.A
' % ?.p m.-.,,; n.,s m.:..,.,., _ _
, n-
. e...,,.,....-,~.
...-1%.,,,.._
_f, Gs
~
~
.X:
- W - - $
(QhS.w ~.J 2 _.
The plan of attack for performing the w'ork is as follows:
l Figures 12 through 14) 1.
Locally dewater the soil above the glacial till in the affected areas. The dewatering system shall be installed and the water drawn down in advance of any excavation. The dewatering system is a curtain cut-off type.
2.
Temporarily support the isolation valve pit by the use of I beams spanning between the buttress access shaf t and turbine building foundation all at the ground surface.
l 3.
Excavate an access shaft adjacent to the isolation valve pits to a depth of approximately 7 feet below the bottom of these pits.
The excavation would then proceed laterally as a drift until the excavation reaches the extreme edge of the electrical penetration afta.
=
4.
Install jacked caissons at this location utilizing the electrical penetration rooms foundation as the reaction.
1 5.
Concrete the caisson and load test same.
j 6.
Install support of excavation system along the turbine building i
foundation wall and connect it to the access shaft and the jacked caissens. The jacked caissons which were previously installed under the electrical penetration rooms will temporarily act as support of excavation for the excavation under the isolation valve pit. The containment structure and the buttress access shaft form the remainder of the excavation enclosure under the isolation valve pit.
i 7.
Excavate all material from underneath the isolation valve pits to a depth at which undisturbed glacial till is encountered.
8.
Fill the excavation under the isolation valve pits with lean concrete backfill to within 7 feet of the existing foundation.
f
'9. Place structural concrete in the drift under the isolation valve pits and the access area for installation of caissons underneath the electrical penetration rooms.
- 10. Dry pack and transfer isolation valve pit load to the lean concrete backfill.
i J
- a...... a 7--
t 3 g.g %. *: ~^-
~.l.- w 5.% i O 2-W = f W 8 ~n '..,.. _ -
3
,' a
~ M Xd2"
-:. m a 11 '
~~
.a f.) Dewatering Figure 15 is a plan view of area dawatering system.
The present concept is to enclose the Q listed area with a permanent exterior dewatering system. The dewatering system would consist of l
submersible deepwells that would extend to the original clay till.
1 1
Approximately 200 to 300 deepwells would be installed. The number required to maintain the ground water at the desired level would be operated and the remainder would be redundant. There would be suf-ficient redundancy to provide for interruption of parts of the system.
V.
Results to Date 1.
Settlement of Diesel Generator Building The removal of surcharge was started on August 15, 1979, and completed on August 30, 1979. The appl.icant claims that the observed pore pressures are smaller than actually anticipated and are now dissipated..The curve of settlement as.a function of logarithm of time became linear shortly after the completion of the fill and, therefore, it is possible to predict the settlement that would occur at any future time by extrapolation, assuming that the surcharge will remain in place. The applicant claims that the residual settlement for the diesel generator building due to secondary com-pression of clay in the 40-year plant life will be of the order of 1 inch.
The applicant did not specify if this figure is based on the assumption that the surcharge is permanently left in the building or in the absence of it or whether it considers the effects of a seismic event.
l
.N y
r
-yw-
--e-
-v---
+-y py-- - -
9 9-
- ?.2 ?ll}[- } j.L_--
%. Z: ~ _ _
^~EG%WGNE.?
2:2-~; L.....
~ T <~.
OffQQ5tkh[N?Yhh$*EN f
+~c."p gw.:
-c
..,.m
-v.w.
g
, L wn.t.-
,.,,-u-....,._..
- y
...w.--
-n.,,
[@_= -)-,~,w
~
-[,,~n N Q 2.
Cracking Lack of information regarding monitoring of cracking does not allow the staff to evaluate the present day situation regarding this issue.
We have requested that the applicant continue to sep the cracks in the affected areas. Fro. the sketchy information received, it can
~
be observed that at least in one area, the auxiliary building, the i
cracks are progressing and according to the data contained in Revision 3 of the Response to 10CFR 50.54(f), dated 9/13/79, they are up to 30 mils (Fig.14-9, Auxiliary Building, Control Tower Walls).. Tne j-cracks in the borated water storage tanks (BWST) foundations have also been recently observed. It is interesting to note that these cracks are not due to extensive leads because some of the structures have not been loaded at the present time, e.g., BWST foundation. The pattern 1
of the cracks, which is predominantly vertical and in a random fashion, does not shed any light on the possible cause of cracking. The '
t sketches submitted by the applicant contain large areas marked as l
' temporarily inaccessible" or.
- permanent inaccessibility", thus ruling i
out possibility of obtaining any information regarding cracking in these parts of structures.
VI.
EVALUATION OF RESPONSE TO 10CFR 50.54(f) REQUEST REGARDING PLANT FILL i
DATED MARCH 21, 1979 1.
In response to Question 15, the applicant presented an argument that l
the ACI-318 Code requires that the effects of settlement should be included
~
i in the dead load. Furthermore, the proposed load factors to be used in an l
i
[
a
.. ~ _
.;,...,,. - :.r.. -
t,.
p.p p.M*g-W -
~.s-N MOE.~. :' -Ddk
~ 2^D3f#
.,,,13..
~. w evaluation of the affected structures are such that they will effectively increase the allowable stresses (or reduce capacity of the designed i
section by 33 percent). The basic assumption on the part of the applicant is that the stresses due to settlement are similar to those due to temperature effects and, therefore, should be treated in a similar fashion. The applicant proposes to use two additional equations to be used to evaluate the effects of settlement (See Fig.16 and 17). One of them, inclueles dead and 1tve loads, temperature load and wind load.
The other includes dead and live loads, temperature load and the OBE load.
Both of these equations have the load' factor of unity assigned to the loads which would correspond to the extreme environmental loading conditions of the requirements of the ACI-349 Code and that of the Standard Review Plan 4
(SRP) Section 3.8.4.
i We find that this method of evaluating effects of the settlement is not acceptable. The effects of settlement should be analyzed in accordance
\\
with the load combination requirements of the ACI-349 Code, supplemented by the Regulatory Guide 1.142 (April 1978).
2.
In response to Question 7. the applicant provided criteria for struc-tural integrity of electrical duct banks. These criteria consist of checking for continuity and obstructions by means of hard fiber composition rabbit and when no obstructions are observed, the conduit is considered to be I
j adequate.
Electrical duct banks for the diesel generator building is a part of the plant which is necessary for a safe shutdown. For this reason, they are classi-F l
\\
y g,e a ese
=
- "*b
%p.,,,,,,,.
""D;.dpi.,J.QQ;y,$
^'
2, L..
-s..; ?-;
g.~ :..y
,.m
' ' ' ' "l3.3
'," ",39'~-%"?'.N"LPh
...,. sc /
~
cm rtw.,
,- ~. - -
. e. c= =.
. i 1 <r;
,u.
m m w, -
y b
.% w <
..u..
?q
..u_ _
}7[.)2Cn' =fie6&a-Category.-I structures an.d.tne det.fkcriterialappifcabh*to ottcr Category I structures such as containment and auxiliary building apply equally'well to design of the ducts.' Their'f ailure in case of an emergency may be as important and catastrophic in consequences as that of any other
, Category I structure. In order to assure their functionality, appropriate Category I structural criteria must be applied to their design.
It appears that the applicant is applying somewhat different criteria for the cesign bi the cucts. The exact criteria used are not stated, but it appears that the reinforcing r ovided is minimal, so that the ducts can achieve a considertble amount of ductility in bending. We consider that this approach for designing of electric duct banks is not 3cceptable to the design of Category I structures. The applicant applied a " test" by i
i passing a rabbit through the voids to see if there is an obstruction to the I
electrical conduits. This is hardly an acceptable criterion for qualifying a Category I structure and in an event of an earthquake, the damage to the ducts may be unpredictable and the consequences may be catastrophic, if the ducts were not designed to criteria applicable to Cateogry I structures.
- 3. In reference to the Response to Question 14, we do-not agree with
(
the applicant's evaluation of effects of diffrential settlements and his l
approach to the evaluation of cracking. The following will provide the l
l reasons for the above:
i 1.
One of the fundamental assumptions in structural design of nuclear plants is that the structural members are designed for elastic behavior.
This means that the yield stresses are not exceeded and that cracking in the concrete are limited to those due to temperature and shrinkage.
The cracks in the auxiliary building, the feedwater isolataion valve 9
8 9,
saammens es emme e.hesp4.
. ~
= go,*. ames.e a e so e o.e.
useo e ee.
7,
,*>.;www % g-
..,.. g
.;; cgy g.7..
gn. ; q --._.3. %.
- ~
.p
-%Y-<
.;,, g. -p r.
.t.rP
- pits and the borated water storage tank rir.g are in excess of those which could originate from these causes. The maximum crack width is as 1arge as 0.03 inches. This is far beyond the limit set in the ACI-318
.. Code, which are 0.016 and 0.013 inches for interior and exterior exposure,
.respectively. It is noted that in some cases, cracks develop even before the structure has been loaded, e.g., foundation for borated water storage tanks. Such cracks may be caused by a number of reasons, such as, volumetric changes, chemical incompatibility of concrete components, etc. These cracks may become larger when the load is applied on the foundation and may adversely affect the reinforcing steel by exposing it to the environment.
l The foregoing discussion tends to indicate that the construction of the Category I structures of the Midland plant may have proceeded in a direction which violates the basic criteria of connercial standards, such as ACI-318.
The criteria adopted for a nuclear plant should be more restrictive. The extensive cracking of various Category I structures indicates that it is not so. The applicant discusses the matter of cracks by a generalized I
type of response.
In response to Question 14 (p.14.3), the applicant makes 1
o the' hague statement that "Wherever cracks are caused by loads not included in the original design (such as cantilever action of a part of a structure),
their width may be reduced when the loads are released during the corrective i
action. Therefore, it is concluded that the structural integrity of the i
buildings has not been affected by cracking". This kind of statement does
)
. not answer questions of the cause of the cracks, the corrective action l
planned for all of the structures, where the cracks appeared, and what is j
the prognosticated impact of the cracks on structural integrity and per-formance throughout the life-span of the structures.
%+
l
_, ?I'iLy G,g ;; _ _
- L fj&>wp* j'_ ;,, _
3 ' '[.{-
5 $ 7 . 'r # 7
'"TdfiS5g.}f
[yy 'yfW M S, D g, g$
..c
. w,,.. w..<, m
-,.,w -.._,,.
- C.} W.%.u n.,...
,,s
.m.m.m...-16 f';7/. nn.._Q{
[y$2.La l a-
' '~
3,
,x We maintain a position that it is the.respotisibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the plant does not present danger to the safety of the public and to enable the regulatory staff to reach a conclusion that it is i
i adequately designed and constructed according to pertinent design criteria,
~
We have concluded, based on our review of the information submitted to date by the applicant, that he has not demonstrated the above noted design adequacy.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of the discussion contained in the Evaluation (Section VI), the following recommendations regarding future actions pertinent to the safety related structures can be made.
1.
Settlement and Inadequate Compaction of the Foundations Material a.) Because of replacement of the fill by other material (such as lean concrete in case of auxiliary buildng and FW valve pits) the soil properties of the foundation material will be changed. We reconmend that the new properties of this new foundation material be thoroughly investigated. The new soil properties (e.g., damping values and shear modulus) should be' used in the revised seismic analysis for determination of the structural adequacy of the affected structures. Pertinent soil-s'tructure interaction method should be used in the revised analysis.
Our present position on soil-structure interaction is attached (Encl. 3).
~
b.) The structural analysis should be conducted using the current NRC criteria so that the mergins of safety can be determined against the current standards. This involves inclusion of the effects of settlement and of revised load combination equations that are appropriate for the structures.
s I
".;s g ".'- cy g*y &.A
&** * *="Y' ~
.,,,,.,v."Q
.A' - = ((~('["'y -[.,
-l -
-,. h s-m,~..
._gy.
c.) We consider the electrical duct banks to be a vital link between the diesel generator and other parts of the plant. The acceptance of the ducts should be based on the structural criteria for Category I structures as provided in the appropriate sections of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) and Regulatory Guides. Passing of a rabbit though
~
the duct banks cannot be substituted for such a criteria. We recommend, therefore, that the applicant be requested to perform an analysis of the affected duct banks using the criteria applicable to other Category I structures.
2.
Cracking of Catecory I Structures We believe that the applicant did not answer the basic questions regarding the causes of the cracks, significance of the extent of the crack and their consequences. In view of the above, we recommend that the applicant be requested to conduct a detailed and comprehensive study which would answer these questions.
3.
Inconsistencies of Info-mation The Response to the 50.54(f) Request reported the following inconsisten-cies between data used for structural design of the diesel generate-building and the data contained in the FSAA.
1.
A uniform load of 3,000 psf was used rather than the 4,000 psf shown i
in Figure 2.4-47 in the FSAR.
I i
2.
The calculations assumed a mat foundation rather than a spread footing foundation, which is the actual design condition.
3.
The results of these erroneous calculations were included in the FSAR.
l I
l We recommend that the applicant be requsted to clarify these apparent inconsistencies.
t 0
- e==
e eoe a ee e e see
.... au..- Y. T.
.?
. x
- w...n
...+.. -
%,,,x. _.
~ ~
g,..~ a.'
c
. =
%n.
a.
e:
.ut-_
$ m._..?
w(7*
-f /. swr... d.
.@ fY-ak*b
. I ' '
~, '
"';.'/~"'
e
. n.. x. c.-..,,,.. c.,.., -- a....
u
,r_.:;.. v. x. a...w
..,.,a m.
g
- g
,y.. w.... ; -.
e
....-m,._._.....,..;..,..,,,.m,_,..
y;#( n2
- ~.
..sc
.s-= =.
.,,, _, _,, _ S+,;,v,
. ;e. j..j -
- p.,.c. a 1
g 4
18 T
I Floor Response Spectra
!. 4.
The floor response spectra for diesel generator building were generated
]i*#
,7
.\\'
f en the assumption that the shear wave velocity will not be icwer than j
500 fps. We reconnend that the surveillance of the soil properties be conducted throughout the. entire period of consolidation of the
)Ws r
r p
}
building to verify the validity of this assumption.
s
./
5 f
a,
,)~
e 4
6 J
s
? 4 y
7(
L,.
~
- p_.
sv
..,..v.c g./*,
' ;. g i.g k 2 ' 5:~~ = E ~
. y..., ~. K
..h * *25.*k.[_Z'~ ':::,.~~ g-fj.
1
{.,f..'.Q.y~ '
,a, r-j=
=l, ' V..
.'6 i.g u
1:l,.,,
.:ll..
Es i1:
jill'il El
- i il e
at t i E
j 1
$p 4-it
'4
.t]
l t p,
/ k.
- i i
a s-
.i ?l g
.2...
81
\\ N ~ _ g
,p...,i !
i,M.;.;,
I.-
f
. r.f s t
,b 7d ' k'li'l W " 'h V i '. f h.si
)
ll/ C.1 3
a 2
t4 y ll- $1:
if if f
31
/
=M
- 18...
y-
. r.'
hs
.y,.
, t st 9
i
..lE 2/'I4
-]lf
' /
a Q
J.
o
.~
i
\\*
':/
y _ f : g*l Q[w y
g t /
la e
L v
g'/
t!
N t g
s%
klii i '., '
j y/, y
_27 it,.. l.
j j
, /
i
\\,, --
g-(\\ ',
r i
'j 2
L'\\ k
- i. Nf%,[
y$
. a #,
1 f
l u'.[>
- g.,w Aa es
?
t a
f Q-t
](th]@tQ' y]g-l'CP/E.
..c.4...
3.
l
- V I
i j gl jfiM.
,j, i
I 4
O c i.L
'h Et'1, ws
}
J L."
3 J.
2 a
,i J
mJ
- E R5
- r. L
_!I.L1 I
~~
. i.r..T.
- is.l..
E5 a
=g s:
m u
- a 3
g_;f x
3, 18 t{e P
a s
EE 9
{
rg
~
=
w
~
.vr.
.~.-
3 f.. )-
Qu a. %_
's
/jh'['
3h 3,6
/ 4.2 4.7 5
g. e,,Y, r,,
e Y, (! 'W
/
n
. Aq
- - fp):i.
y q,
r ----- -]
/
7
~
i l.
j
/ !j.
d '
f.o i
i i
3 6'0: 'i :
i I:
l i
r I
0.d 3 i
)
(
)
(
)
g
)
a r... !,!
a
/j/ s.
u c.
s.
)
, i i'y,(
4) g p
i y,
I i
f 'e y
i s
i i
1 i
i t
l l
t._ _ _ _ a L.___
J.
L_.___.I g,V
.,: J jl g
(
/
5.72' S.4 5.9
- 6. 7 /
- ','J.,3l,lM 7
i s
-'i'{j.
i' DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING a.
$eE TOTAL SETTLEMENT OFWALLS FROM 7-14-76 TO 6-29-79 IN INCllES
J, 1.
-p i (20 FEET OF SURCHARGO.
(('
hr l
.;5.:p
- p ln$
WM,)!h, I
m~
- -ht.
f g.'
e
.jlq..:
l' n
j O
I'gk l
e
j
\\
.. - ~. = = m,.
y...
--..'s.n. r-
- + - -
.,+..:,
- = m.-,~,.
- .;su..a
=.c,+.
- mr.
.-~
a e
.. a..
- xv.,
,, s.:-
v 6,0 c
43 '- O '
32' 2'a(2,,3-m gt'- e " -
f cg 4. naux.
j,
.i(
__3__
9 N
w m
q i
kl Q
i
. m.
i r
i_
..m o
s D&
-i N
M m
1,
..(,
o.
i N
SERVICE. WATER STRUCTURE PLAN A T EL. 634 '- 6" mium.,*3 8
T*
.l.
i e
e e.
g e
e.
w-
-4..
m 1
. 2 = = a x ;- W @.. =
_.. a w.,
)
Weg1. c %.
@.wkt;gy,yg ;:=:
+wpsa..,4 st;+gnam;
_.. -. =. =. -.
se IL-c-
..,..,_..........,.,,,~,:.._.,,,.
g.,
9 :n;_e=.zes
.,..s,.
-. '/
.x
.~ y;*
.. c._.i t - g
.-.a 1
TCP W JD2 M M 4!W 0' atft,.4Moto'%.'
,s.
l.
.. m (to170w g MAL
._ME.4/7' *~'
u t
,s
.h. A.
\\
53
- DWILL 1
.m. i.
M V
i I
I (B) 1 e
44%w'c'--n A
N
/
j
'BoTT W'MRT L=wi o' f9 A T M L M A I M l.
. MCLAND PLANT ONf731 & 2
,j CONSUMBS PCWER COMPANY TYPICAL SECTION CLOOKING WEST) star.cz vA m s m e m z
" c^2 55' = "
SERVICE WATER STRUCTURE F G,4
==== j l
\\
- p
.....m, w
y
?
-... ver.m. -
_Aw g.
-..j
?&.. *
,..,..R~
Ef.f. $j 5..Li^Y T.%. T.
- s....,_-.,*.,l %.. a
,Jy'.:== v%'.~
,,,...s
- ,
- i '
i;.
- s.* *
..m.
~ ; ' ;== =
l
.t
. r "*'
d,-,.,
q ' V.,
, 9,,
1 g[*J I
?
2 E
- h e
^d b
i M
@ g I
31 e.s e
t.
w f
.\\
i
/
.g l
g esa l S. -
zi P
1' A.
Jy h.
L I
e la
=
r a
O
- 4 6
l
=
r 0
N 4 i
e.
\\-
3.**g z
=
4, te I
%=!
i I
e'l l
.j e,
i 8
mes n
e I
^ 94
=y te b k G
l qr
.a.
o 9.e e
.s.
3 t
t s
D
\\e
.E e
2
./
a e
9
- e v
o.
-f" g,
==
==
A 2
I, g
a h
b A
3 5
I E
E
.I K
e u
N
<4 N
ee,
(#%3d
^
ou 9
4 9
e
- \\
4 h
~
~
- ~ ~ - =
.,a---
.e.
4,
s
-g_
r
~.
.m. h.,:.l.,'... f,
.T "t~
2 I 'G e,,.,..-.[, - N.....-,
+ @ ~._T,'
~
wJ1=Ju>e -g
.~}~,'g g.-y-m c.v j* :m -l:
.,.y gg 7;,.y
.;,..,... y. x ? -
tzg'.
- Q-
-n-'
.._.~...<~..:
e.
...,,d'--
- 2L*.
1
. s.n v
--sau m;,....,..
c===.
i
.c A o
- sv ins.m s... m e- -..w -. w... ;r...,.,.... n :.a. :
.g; _.
..s e.x m -
pp
( '..'% W.*c m:a--...,
.w.,,.m.,....vy.3,,-,t,-ye.,,,m,,,.,_,.
(
f.Q.r.n -.
s t'**. %=2 's.m.;.-- -
u..y 7..
- T2 a.-%+;'i i
e e
i
_A T
,..m, M
s s
t
/
't W
u m
w* A w. <k 9W (s
,4
~_,
98 m.'.
0 i
~
i N
i!
l 1
M
~ a
~l O
y si, t
h
" t.
I, j..
_8 g
g 1
=
,i t
i s
'. i I
3
\\f d
f.,
V T a
h N o
yS 5 -d j
O N.
mn v
i IL i
i
/
1 14 l
l t
i o
4.
. %s
~
e.:
ag
%4e; 3'
wi N.
Me.
g!
M i
i 8
j O
e j
e l
._,_ J Q
.,l
\\.
... _, ga..m. % g r-
~A E S EEI.:~lh* N E k
!E,s_ v e
- i
- v.. -
""'~ ~ ~
i- [
I I
i i
e I
i
\\
T O. D.
APPROX
.G35' EL T.O, FTQ, EL r 30'-r."
/
<ww<..
., s "1
- ~-
~
[
w MUDMAT) d, i+se -
0 0-o y
~
APPROX. SHAPE OF QUCT BANKg I
/
J
- 10. NATURAL GROUND) t
_ i
/
hEpsox. eu. w '
/
?
\\
/
/
i i
/
d' L
./
\\
/
I r
V B,0,0, EL 595'-O*
$:.
- 4A u'T oS5'*"
~
g ENVELOPE-f g
- . pt %-
- DUCT BANK
)
n MIDLAND Pt. ANT UNITS 1 & 2 eN
_ ELEVATION.
C NSMRS POM COMPANY
['
{
H fYXING PA.Sf_)
~
mg
^i DDCT RANK ELEVATION i k,k PJ G U R,6 7 g.
p.
,e--e w-
,+.-..m w,
m
,-o mm w
e, 4
^ ^ ^
L% :a.,
7 S-2 W ; &.. A, Af; W.w a-s.5%.. A,-
?b.:;.;:,....,h_
(
, f.*j G...
'. -....... ~ ~
$ spxrg. ~=*.?,, -vu> ~%;. --wA an~:m.'
i
, mp.,.s **.7
- y. r..j.- ~
- f_ y~...
4:=
.~.
- - r --
e..
-.. h.3. y -...
c:=..
x.;
u.
y, :, s g y.
i.
t.
mt, mr;
,u.. - - : - v r.
. m.
g-m,,.,,.,,.,,,,.,,,__.
,s l
(,'; b%"
..:' ' ;.;. c --
r: -~ ~.-~ *. u n-a e *mv.*.ea n.~~~
=~c
- ~-
.?.
.-w~
I o,.._.
,}i'.*2*..**-%.% swan-
'--~A
=
_ ' = l * *.}*
- ~
O il-g kl,
/
F
~
e.
e
.l L V~
R o
l b
J, L
f s
4 l m' l
I"'
.L4 e.
'l l-s p
=l t
1 5... "
n n
l.
E
)
I b
e
..n g
i i
s i..
g U
m L
i
%P l
s r
,1 I
N N
.j d- -
b
='
k-,
- y:s.
s e 33 l
- II.
L5 i
' ""*.e.-.
=
w 9
.k 4
4 j 6
i i
,=
=
.y 1
- a gg-
.i it
=-
a I4I e
9 8
e e
- e
$s 8
h a.
j
- ~.-...
.,...-_ m.-,3_ g,,...
~
..m
..4; 7.:~..c.
.. :.m.. :.x; s.x..
.,._w*=-
6
-G w*
.y,,
k =.,
.a,.*h-m.
=
.-c w" '
t.:.
S
l *
.cs Ii
- i. Il. l o
/
'.1JI r
. i 2
i, o
___s i
l 6 __.., i i
i :
i i i l
8 :
i i
I I. i n
..___..a i
e g
. i 5
a e 9
i
- -c:-
. e EC n
i i e
s
=
M g
((Q i
9
.o
-- o y
4 5
m L
y i
q
- -~
i i g
w M
D
. i d
s s
y_1 t
- -Q t
ess % ' tr-g i
-t 4
9 e i i I D
o4g a 8 w
-,c.
4-
,--_ a i o
i tu RE i
i E
M.
P.!
4 s
i I w.3
%g 8
I4
..___ s i, b. e an _= en g 0 0 i i
..._7m
- i
\\
\\
\\
it
.l 9
99.I 9
00 y
f I
ee F G. 9 f
9 e
Ne A
h.
x
-er a
.g
..,-y
,.-.,g
.m3.-..%
ee.,..g-e
.y w--.m.-y.,
wm-_.,,-,,.,y-,-
,-n
?b5%.$.h hi$b:~L.'
..:WhwW.. Y%-R,B&q. s.,3.a :%gm. ;...,, _
.5s ak.v. m7 wa
.
~
..,_.w.-...-.....:,,....c-'...,,-=4e =..- u O o Ct.ia (i..>.
y.
.: -.. -r..
c.4rc.
.a 7n.n..S(...~.r.'l.2.L_W TO ' ACCCUNT'f0W3TEEE..".
.RSL AX.~/NG..,
m
\\
CONCRETE CREEP.AN.O *EL ASTIC 3.
'2~
w 1
l l
1 1
1
,( =
-SLEEVES.(TTR) j 4---- _._____A,-
j I
BEARING 8 f
EEARING A i
1 m - _= -4 4 _ _ _ _.. _
L' i
i 7-
+
a ANCHOR BOLTS I
yA (rrn) 7l SHIM &
t n
q.4. p I
.i a
PILES I
_,1
.i DETA.IL m V
1O e
- g a e.
O e
O.
b*
W +e e
e
-=
= = -.......,,
+m er w
,----.:,.---~~.-..,,,-,ew,.1
,-vre-w
-sw-
,rv,..-m w
- gw.-
y "e=n
~.
=
- .;,. [;;g n.;,_.3 _
~......,
_.g
... h y.~. n,
.. T..,%
" C 'yg% 'y..
3....
..~
, a s.
DL*LL +EG = ?.790"
\\
16 P/LES e100 7'/' A'LE= t200" e
s.
e EL. 45G W y I
1 3
PtrTUAL
- tur 5N i
~
I 8
&&C
~
4RADC B.,6M4' EL 63443
[
7 I
f e
2
.i l.
637'-4*
V ceritt m
%/
B st60'1 1 1
krias J
f N
I I
SECTICH.(1h iM$j U e
e e e
,=
-e
\\
e e 8
j g
-~ - - -
%.ngy-- - %~ - ~ ~.. '.
.si,...
-. 4_
f.2
?~'
~
- ~ '
rr "- t. ~*' o W pu,:
f
.~..s=.,r.
,,.!.,.. ? = g.
o.s.e:
a
. ( :.
m.
m,-
g%L._.m p
.g g
g l
at.
. -- w s
s.r n a al l,i T"N 1
Y
,s
?
~
ffff.
~
s, /'t. e v/
\\
1 f
EL f
a n n
/
p
,, l, it n-g-
8@
=
.s
- g t
f)
N b'
y<
- tie s
,)
~~
a E
e'
/
j 4
9, g
Aws.vs w
[
o i,,,,,,.....
\\,
e
~
i4 eu,
""""A $
ry, 1
. i 2
sus
,j
\\
. Tem
\\
- inh.
=
wh 1
~, 4 -
1 J{
J
\\\\/
s
/r
~.
N,/
~1l 2:
I
'{
,i I*
- 3 i l I
I I
a
(
c *},
6.
e
\\
et.
IV
.k.1 l
~,
,eg y
N$ 11.
ow m
- w.s i.e as
--r p
=p e e ene.
14 m,
...' ' a* *
.s.,
- ' = = ~, *,,. _,, [ _ _
m,
g:gg
-i$. d Err f * 'd*?
ny, r ~:<;
."' -s?;, Q-Q. [~.
- 1*: - _~~._.
5-.;~y
.. <-- -l Q. 9. A y
^
^e e
7 e '*.. r
,p
% '~~}."'
e
,r.9 l
- W g
yg jp 3
O.5
,.c
- ll a a a
%.e
,gs
,M 3 3.
ll: g t.
J t
/V j g
k
@@de%.h:,-)
,n 2
i- %
_ -. 4 r{y,.
_ -_=
4 C, O,
,- T ~',C e
/
.il.,f.a
'/
//
l.e.,,=e.
r n
. rap,;
m,
.g y
=
..,<F"..,g n,
.g u
N:E a
9"a C"'"
)
s.'y W-"
h 1
,' 'y >;
E 1-ss
.f e
k
.b T
W h
E
{7-
-lg A b.
a
,f t
tw fid,@
1 t
s
.w j
N
. p <.
E.1 b
\\
, k.#'
l s'
f s
v'd
'
- gj N
i s
/
6)~~ ;,
M
.h
\\
,Q wn sc Z
r ar;,,**
~
.=.
i T*
'44 a
F 1
,Ey n.:
t
,. u c. e I
!.- eg)
?
i N b R
.s_3 u. l -
, 2h
,e i s
o
. p h kN 1*
Ej t
v-..
- utg,
. dI
/ 'u
(/c.-[
5 c,.
.e I
</.o.
e
=
\\
g T..
. h.s I
e a
N.
66'
\\V>
'fu j-J
.~ O e
o 5s
,I o
A a
N T
i
'g I
1Il f ~- h.,,@@
lI
{
9 3h R gs s I.
o-
-4 s
1 4
Y g
i@
C.
Y i
~
g e- -, s. m f/GlO-m:,eownawar c
e e..
g.
- .===a.
-a
$~ t ? " *
- i
=
,,, i g
go.
- J ;D
..,J...n.
~
p.,,,
_-,-; --s_.--
.s... aC'
- g'-Q g.".f..
- . ~...gypg.{.QU;i
, & & Q .~-2. R D t.* [ '. =
.~
.s, i
.*~~f.
t n
,,, a...w* M' W T *,. t r.-; t-- -
- w = x *.,.,fyp..,..ev
. Eat '..p.,wg. get..
- y T s*
J**
(,)S% u..n.m.r..
y-
. w..e -~ ~ r.. -s..g,. -.. - n. ;n,,-s..
a..
,g..
% h!. 6
- h
~'
@1, *
.'.T. w. n,,, rn.-
. ~, *., *a.._,.~ v c.
W I
o
{
L 1ECRAME COL.
ALDG.CDL.
Y. g$U$efLfir. PEN AAAA f
./
/
4 TURBINE BLDG.
1 l'
I l
I I
1 I
M suscrtus wirM Usur BEMIND A8
- PEACT4*n glDs.
REQUl*[D WALL atWATERIN6 WILL 7t/R3/NC RLD6.
f 172 h*tMEERS AT
'Q*MIM.AC&CC) 1L. 6/4
- 0,==*'*1 70!
BA!E sLAR 29
/
6 UNSUITABLt-Pfkevt
,#, e.
e.
Jo/L i Af# LACE W/-
.,,.*a.*.
4 V..-_---
LgAg egucntTE l '..*.'. :..' '.:.*.' _:. '.' * ' ; '
i WSt4%.
l t
}
l
\\
A 4
/.
( EL.111 6' 0
! ( y
[
ORl6tMAL-2LOPt l
, l; i
. SOIL PROTICileN
- 3 1
cadentit o
j i
.A 7,
(
i 1
g
]
l 1 a
- .
- .' e r/cousr no fesn:c, /
- ~ q*_pg sy c... ~.-
PCRMANENT SUPPORT COWC. BACxFILL i
I {*
- F0A TUR3tHE BLDG
- TIN 00M
[. r fl. Sit'* J" GLLf7 l
'"* W "
APR02.80TTod 1L eereMI6tNAL ftCAMATIN
' TYP/ CAL SECT Ms 14
^~
^'r*'
r-n
---c, ee-g
,v.O m
"7.-
w
%g
- * *+p9--
.=,w:,+
n.
..,.. +c
.. -:, = ; :z.,..; ; y 1._ m g--..
.;.g-..q.,e c
e
.(.' '
- % 9' V. s i
e a
3 e
w w
2 g
oCAg s=s
.m'w$*#
a cmr l
Ch 3-I o
em I
N g
gj e
N so
\\
e=
m s
\\
EE l
\\.
\\
s N
4 i
l E
N N
dx I
\\
\\
s$
I
_m.e $ h
-w z-z, N
u*
I k
$ $ 3<3 R
3 \\
\\
2 1
8 3*
~
z w
\\ \\
E E
.rs w
I N
N I
t e
1 1
N c
E2 w "
.\\
, h.
I N.
=.
1 *..
I a
x e
w e
1st.
,I. s.
I 8
3
=
t i
- k - - J 'j \\
I l
' \\
e N
N '-
\\
N
- 1 s *
\\
g
.' NN N 1
x N-h, N &
I a
g N Ni x x=
a N i<.
1
.'N',4
\\
N N N
g irs.
><g A. s \\
Th;g N
3 i<,C.
N N j N
s
~'
\\,' 'h i,ts i
i
\\H H
\\s t Ei h, 3 J \\
I I !\\ _
J d b., \\
l 3
3 B
=5 V-s )
1
\\
(sE h '\\
l 2
Is \\
8 l
l' eig'N 'N h *.
I w
kN \\ \\. h l
!E 2
,1 J
l Cs l
geo
\\
'N gg ei$
I 3
N
=
4, i.
=-
"EEW:
I
)
Egt I
ig l
9g Emma
/
4 J
r 15
.N e
g, v
e ee
-.-__..m._ % g. su,_.wx_, v=Sl=.
r5.. :. ;..
- r.
4
.. ;-,. a.. $
mny;-pe,z.y,. aD.q,s.,.gy
....,a.-,..:..,..,.~-.
- m. y-7-- m.
e.
. _ g g,...
.=.
- w. s~;;"'s ; m ; s c:.... -.. w ~.
,,,,.m.
..m._.......
yj.
t g...u.. -. n.
,c
..,,...., ~,......,..., _. _ _ _
- . ;y '*
.... m. ~,a " *_ a - % ?. t
_n(..n:. _ ~: *.
./
.a ww..,=
=
a.
U -: Cr LCe..,-
r:
.a
-PRIl'AF.Y
- 1..
I.erril.t.*lT ra.L (r.,;3.7.;Lr..,e n, c:ce.c.'Jo.~c, u..I*.'9, Eit.. )
a
.,s 1.
w SEISi1IC I.'!E..TIA (2LT SHORT DCMTIC.'!)
7 2.
01.e.rt: I.:e.rI w. c the..el:. Tv.:e (LT.u..1Ep c"i_.:.c.v. )
3 s.a i
SECOE.DARY 1.
~
(A)
SEISMIC DISPLACE:EHT (CYCLIC)
(3)
THE??.a.L (CYCLIC) 2.
Sc.11 G IIT (U 2 CYCLE) 3.
FORMIi'G (U2 CYCL:)
FIG.16 x
- ~.
[.#~ g y e ~2,@. 4 O k,:.~. 7 n -
- 4._ g;
- ~~_,. _..
.;., _.;;_.:3js~
s ""..
.s.; :'.
MIDLal'D LESIEi C?,ITEP,IA FSA7 (A) 1.4D + 1.7L (3) 1.4 (D + L + E ) +...
o (c) 1.25 (D + L + W) +...
(:3) 1.CD + 1.0L + 1. Cess + "*
(s)
- 1. 0D + 1.0L + 1.CW +...
7 ADDITic::Al CF.ITE?IA 1.0.D + 1.2SL + 1.05 SET (A)
(s) 1.4D + 1.4 SET (c) 1.03 + 1.0L + 1.0W + 1.0 SET (n) 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0E, + 1.0 SET D:
DEAD LOAD E:
(SSE) EAEP.0Utd ss L:
LIVE LOAD W:
TOP.'lADO i
E:
(02E) EAP.T.iCUAXE SET:
SETTLETEiii n
- u...
?.,CO ' c. tJ.T.*iu.m FIG.17
\\.
e
.m T
dw Mm ~
y', t,$.3yy.37. :m/h.
=.gg-.
.:,=aW=..
^. ::;.
c.~,
R..'k,.
62d5 vM"M'~-:#.+-
,,,.,; r.___
' " GTc;3
~
c7-
-?
.~
%P:q
- -s, f:.,
.#... ac=: ;
._.g.
=
-m ; - 'i': x..s vp,.rr
. m -, g.
, ' ' * * ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(j %
...... u..
m.
.. MIDLAND NUCLEG PLANT * ---
- F
@,$ %5:na.d..~
_ q,.,.,
3._y Docket No.' 50-329 and 50-330' (TAC,5053)
Structural Engineering Branch Review of Response to 50.54(f)* Request 1.
Investigate the soil properties of all of the areas where the fill material will or has been changed. On the basis of the soit properties thus determined conduct a new seismic analysis to account for the revised soil-structure interaction effect and the new structural response. The structural response spectra should be used to detemine the new seismic loads to be incorporated into a revised structural a'nalysis of Category I structures.
2.
Your proposed method of re-evaluation of Category I structures which are founded partially or totally on fill, as cutlined in the resopnse to Question 15, is not acceptable. The structural analysis should be conducted using the current NRC criteria, i.e., the Standard Review Plan (Sections 3.8.4 and W Ac.I. - 14 9 3.8.5)gupplemented by the appropriate Regulatory Guides, (R.G.,1.142), so the margins of safety can be assessed.
3.
With reference to your response to Question f4, it was stated that the preliminary estimate for the residual settlement for the diesel generator building for the 40-year plant life is of the order of 1 inch. In this connection, specify the following:
a)
Is this estimate based on static condition only or does it include soil shakedown due to an earthquake event and if the answer is negative.
what would be the total predicted settlement. In your response describe l
your method of analysis of settlement.
l b) What is the accuracy of the results of your analysis. State the possible upper bound of the settlement.
4.
With reference to Question #14, you did not answer the basic questions regarding the causes of the cracks, significance of the extent of the crack
[
~ ~ ' 7 'h /
. c l,e
~:y d niik O-?~-O-
.,. n..., - M -.Qf.;l,.*Q3;; :g..-?
}-
. V~.
}
- LJ
. w..
3,m,
,..,.g..
4 and their consequences.
In view of the above, you are requested to conduct a detailed and comprehensive study which would answer these questons. It is noted that large areas of the auxiliary building are marked as temporarily or permanently inaccessible. Indicate how you plan to investigate the extent
~
of the cracks in those areas.-
1
=
5.
Review of your response to Question #7 indicates that the electrical duct banks have not been designed in accordance with the same criteria as those I
applicable to other Category I structures.
i The electrical duct banks are considered to be a vital link between i
diesel generators and other parts of the plant. The acceptance of these ducts should be based on the use of the structural criteria for Category I structures as provided in the appropriate sections of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) l and Regulatory Guides. Passing of a rabbit through the duct banks cannot be
~
substituted for review using such criteria. You are requested, therefore, to perform an analysis of the affected duct banks using the criteria applicable to other Category I structures..
6.
The Response to 50.54(f) Request reported the following inconsistencies between data used for structural design of the diesel generator building and the data contained in the FSAR.
a) A uniform load of 3,000 psf was used rather than the 4,000 psf shown in Figure 2.5-47 in the FSAR.
The calcula' ions assumed a mat foundation rather than a spread footing b) t foundation, which is the actual design condition.
c) The results of'these erroneous calculations were included in the FSAR.
Please clarify these apparent inconsistencies.
\\
1
_.._ m. ws.,
- -.. ~... _.,.. _ _. -
wg
^
a,,..,..g%
.m
' ~ ?i2.y,a,_*((_f"[~ g
- ; ~r "^=f
', ; *~
, f f ;; ; g g ;$.. Q~.} "...
- n. &_..';fQ;;-,f }l: Lib 1.
.:.r
-..~::,,.m....
r m v;. u. :., u - -.. = -.
p,;.,:. a.
,..n..,. e.. n,,.,..:., a.,: - s.
- _,t.,
.yy
.. ~ -
-21,,,,,_,..
l r%.3
- A C t.- a =-.
' c. y.'...., ]',Q7... _ S
= ---
7.
In response to Question #13, it was indicated that the floor response spectra for the diesel generator building were generated on the assumption r
l that the shear wave velocity will not be lower than.500 fps. Describe the ___
basis for this assumption. Describe the surveillance plan during the life span of the plant by which you will be able to monitor the soil conditions to ascertain in the future that the assumption is valid.
A E
O I
. - ~. -
.g SilHHARY Of S[D INTERIM LICENSING
.t P051I10HS ANU 5TAIUS Or 5ste nEVISION 6
i
,tgg[11 7 979 4
h.
g SRP SECTION INTERIM LICENSING POSITION IN 4
A00lil0N lil UR Diff. IRoll Til0SE Y
LISTED IN CORRESPONDING SRP SECTIONS
^
3.7.1 Selsmic Input 1.
Use of site dependent input design g,:
T spectra is acceptchie if the input
/
- j spectra are reviewed and accepted by GSB
..i- '.
(Ref. SRP.Section 2.5)
-(
9,.v.',
2.
For western United States (West of Rock-l les), the response spectrum for vertical motion can be taken as 2/3 the response
.ir
. 7 spectrum for horizontal motion over the
),
entire range of frequencies. (Encl. 4)
)..
3.
Methods for implementing the soll-struc-
/;
ture interaction analysis should include both the half space lumped spring and 4
mass representation and the fintte
'p element approaches. Category I struc-
~'
" r;j tures, systems and components should be ij,
designed to responses obtained by any
.py; one of the following methods:
l
[],;
a) Envelope of results of the two I
gj.,
- methods, b) Results of one method with conserv-g ;,'
alive design consideration of impact
!r from use of the other method, c) Combination of (a) and (b) with 3
prowlsion of adequate conservatism In design.
ld
- 4.
Consideration of the effects due to accidental Lorsional forces in design
)ho
'-h (as a minimum, the 5% times base dimen-l I,[
slon off-setting criteria should apply).
t l
...i h
t
'J '
s.,
e.
.?
. f.
~
[,,Cy'f.l If.
SilMMARY 5tB INTERIM LICfM5ftlG t
P051110N5 AND 51ATUS DI 5RP REVISION 8 %:. }l. %.i t
HARCil 1979_
t c
'i-6%
i!
[,f.'MI INTERIM LICENSlHC FOSITION IN
- , j h SRP $ECil0N A00lT10N lil 0R OlFF. FROM TINISE t2biy.
LISTED IN CORRESPON0lHG SRP SECil0NS j 3h 3.7.1.(continued)
Case by case review for special situat-
'n 5.
lens (e.g. Diablo Canyon) to consider i
the effects due to torsional inputs.
!j l
Horizontally propagating waves and " 1" 5 1 l'
effects for large foundation structures j
' d and the attendant torsional and tilting f
.c effects, should also be considered in i
j;f;
. p the case by case review (Refer to Olabic I
CanyonSER's).
. -} 4 Staff onsite seismic design audit on a 6.
/E case by case basis.
j 4
i d:.
Deletion of Table 3.7.2-1. " Acceptable 1.
Methods for Soll-Structure Interaction 3.7.2 Analysis" and adopt acceptance crit'erla J )
- tl i
, J. -
of3[ Ion),3.7.I3(b)and3(c)statedin
, x- ) { h 3
3,3 a
x[,
.i lg-4.c 5ect
?
Use of R.G. 1.92 and 1.122 l
-l 2.
f.},
e Staff onsite seismic ~ design audit on a i
J [)
3.
i case by case basis,
(
l! ! !
> g, Staff onsite seismic design audit on j
1.
e 3.7.3 a case by case basis I
I Consideration of component torsional
'ad..
(
i o.-
C 2.
response due to accidental torsion, i
- 1. Case by case acceptance of the useof a single seismic instrumenta
-O' e,q ,
l system for sites with multiple plan'ts fp>.
3*7*4
- 4. r.
x (more than 2 plants) e-
. f p:.
h;.
,4;.
l N:.'. 3 :.
l e
t,
~ ~ - ~
- n.
-. J ::y g '. g y...
--se;~~C
., g.Sq
..... n. - ~
y:~...:.... : :r~. - w.=:yi. -x. ' ' 4:
2 2, v: _z u2..-
~
--r<
2
-+
- s Mr.
- 2..,,,;; a.
4 CONSUMF.RS POn'ER COMPANY (C.P. CO.)
MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH DOCKET NOS. 50-329 & 50-330 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT
& ~
AF Dr. P. C. Huang John P. Matra, Jr.
Frank Rinaldi
.n.
rp4 u/.'
. eQ //
lG j
s L
i p
.~
l
.L
e.4-k'*.i* w&..
- A'-W
.i$.'4%.,
. 52-CN.T gTC....f-Q'gg).g>
2[,'.NQ.UEW9* -
.,.~u r +.:
3,.. -na ::ny.;
a p.-..
- w %_._.;.
. ;~:-, w.,. n.. ;.,, w - ~*.s. cu
~a u n..x.,.
j.
y
- u_.2. c,.. -
,.m~.,_..m,..,....s.
M,.LTun-=~4J Consumirs Power, Company p. P. Co.) q~.s,.%g(
"~
Midland Plant Units 1 J '2 Structural Engineering Branch Docket Nos. 50-329 & 50-330 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT h
V.
3.3.1 Mind Design Criteria All Category I structures exposed to wind forces are designed to withstand the effects of the design vind. The design vind specified has a velocity of 85 mph based on a recurrence interval of 100 years.
The p.cocedures that are used to transform the vind velocity into pressure loadings on structures and the associated vertical distri-bution of wind pressures and dust factors'are in accordance with ASCE Paper No. 3269. This document is acceptable to the staff.
The procedures that are utilized to determine the loadings on seismic Category I structures induced by the design vind specified for the plant are acceptable since these procedures provide a con-servative basis for engineering design to assure that the structure vill withstand such environmental forces.
The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that, in the event of design basis vinds, the structural integrity of the plant seismic Category I structures will not be impaired and, in consequence, seismic Category I systems and components located within these structures are adequately protected and will perform their intended safety functions, if needed. Conformance with these procedures is an acceptable basis for. satisfying, in part, the -
requirements of General design Criterion 2.
3.3.2 Tornado Desian criteria All Category I structures exposed to tornado forces and needed for the safe shutdown of the plant are designed to resist a tornado of 290 mph tangential wind velocity and a 70 mph translational wind velocity. A simultaneous atmospheric pressure drop was assumed.
to be 3 psi in 1.5 seconds. Tornado missiles are also considered in the design as discussed in Section 3.5 of this report.
The procedures that are used to transform the tornado vind velocity into pressure designs are similar to those used for the design wind loadings as discussed in Section 3.3.1 of this report. The tornado missiles effects will be determined using procedures to be discussed in Section 3.5 of this report. The total effect of the design tornado on Category I structures is determined by appropriate combinations of the individual affacts of the tornado wind pressure, pressure drop and tornado associated missiles. Bechtel Corp. Topical Esport BC-TOP-3A was the major reference used as' design criteria.
1 s
. =-
y w
+rg---w-6 a-'
e =
-w--'---
r----*--i*
L _
.o,,.... '
- ^
a m,,
m ;.-lm R.+1i$."Q:2 3: -:~&... ~=. jc * ' l:.y.?;Q-;+
- j
- < v.r_c. -%. 2
%, ;T.O
,e 9-
-=
.gga
- y. E /*
f i
Structures will be arranged on the plant site and protected in such a manner that collapse of structures not designed for tornadoes i
will not effect other safety-related structures.
)
The tornado missile spectra does not fully comply with the current Specifically, the applicant has not NRC tornado missile criteria.
considered the three steel pipe missiles (3" dia., 6" dia.,12" dia.).
From the structural point of view, the 12" dia. steel pipe controls Therefore, further evaluation the design of the concrete barriers.
In addition, the applicant for this tornado missile is required.
should demonstrate that the vents used to reduce the differential pressure in other Category I structures are adequate to resist t
the missile impact.
The procedures utilized to determine the loadings on structures induced by the design basis tornado specified for the plant are acceptable, with the exception of the two open items " stated in the previous paragraph; since these procedures provide a conserva-tive basis for engineering design to assure that the facilities structures withstand such environmental forces.
The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that in the event of a design basis tornado, the structural integrity of the plant structures that have to be designed for tornadoes will not be impaired and, in consequence, safety-related systems and components located within these structures will be adequately protected and.2ay be expected to perform necessary safety functions as required. Conformance with these procedures and the resolution of the two open items is an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criterion 2.
3.4.2 Water Level (Flood) Desian Procedures The design flood level resulting from the most unfavorable condition or combination of conditions that produce the animum water level at the site is discussed in Section 2.4, Hydrology. The hydrostatic effect of the flood will be considered in the design of all Category I j
structures exposed to the water head.
l The procedures utilized to determine the loadings on seismic l
Category I structures induced by the design flood or highest ground-water level specified for the plant are acceptable since these procedures provide a conservative basis for engineering design to assure that the structures will withstand such environmental forces.
The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that in the event of floods or high groundwater, the structural integrity of the plant seismic Category I structures will'not be impared and, in consequence, seismic Category I systems and components located i
within these structures will be adequately protected and any be expected to perform necessary safety functions, as required.
Conformance with these design procedures is an acceptable basis
{
for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criterian 2.
,\\
I 2
~
)
y..-
~
._.m,.-
"_ 1 f$Y 'V t og < pun'~
5._
3 r..,._
- ~~ ? 1?
. l,y ^"
3~j(3_.g,p w >. _ 4a, ;. y
=
~~
L
- vy.' 5.y --
f f.
,M l
- g. 'y -..
3
~.
c However, the applicant has not established the effectiveness of the groundwater well-system. These wells are needed to control the groundwater level and preven. soil-liquefaction. The above conclusicus are subject to the final approval of the major concern
~
related to the groundwater level and considerations for soil-liquefaction and any effects on the structures.
3.5.3 Barrier Desien Procedures The plant Category 1 structures, systems and components are shielded from, or designed for, various postulated missiles.
[_e Missiles considered in the design of structures include tornado generated missiles and various containment internal missiles, such as those associated with a loss-of-coolant accident.
Information has been provided indicating that the procedures that are used in the design of the structures, shields and barriers to resist the effect of missiles are adequate. The analysis of structures, shiled and barriers te determine the effects of missile impact will be accomplished in two steps.
In the first step, the potential damage that could be done by the missile in the immediate vicinity of impact is investigated. This is accomplished by y
estimating the depth of penetration of the missile into the impacted structure. Furthermore, secondary missiles will be prevented by fixing the target thickness well above that determined for penetra-tion. In the second step of the analysis, the overall structural 7
response of the target when i=pacted by a missile is deter =ined i
using established methods of impactive analysis. The equivalent h
loads of missile impact, whether the missile is environmentally generated or accidentally generated within the plant, are combined with other applicable loads as is discussed in Section 3.8 of this report.
=
The procedures that will be utilized to determine the effects and loadings on seismic Category I structures and missile shields and barriers induced by design basis missiles selected for the plant are acceptable since these procedures provide a conservative a
basis for engineering design to assure that the structures or g
7 barriers are adequately resistant to and will withstand the effect of such forces. Bechtel Corp. Topical Report BC-TOP-3A was the major reference used as design criteria.
The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that in A
the event of design basis missiles striking seismic Catagory I "f
structures or other missiles shields and barriers, the structural 7_
integrity of the structures, shields, and barriera vill nr.,t be a
impaired or degraded to an extent that will result in a loss of required protection. Seismic Category I systems and components protected by these structures are, therefore, adequately protected against the effects of missiles and will perform their intended safety function if needed. However, the current evaluation does not consider the effect of the 12" dia, pipe missile on the integrity of the vent structures. Conformance with these procedures, with the l'
exception noted above, is an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design criteria 2 and 4.
=
3
--mi
m. u ::
P' &
,._..~w;: :.Q SL&,Z.. q :g-.,-.
i:
Zj
~
$ 9 - d x E. O Y :
x, e.t.- -
-M~
.m 3.7.1 Seismic Input The input seismic design response spectra (OBE and SSE) applied in the design of seismic Category I structures, systems and components was developed by a site-dependent analysis. This site-dependent analysis developed tha seismic design response spectra from site-related information including site time histories, in lieu of the response spectra specified in Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response l
Spectra For Nuclear Power Plants." This is acceptable since the free field response spectra at the finished grade level or at the structural foundation level include consideration of appropriate amplification factors based upon an acceptable set of site earth-sake records, and the analysis has taken into account actual soil y:merties at the site, and includes consideration of appropriate imping values corresponding to the calculated soil stress levels.
The specific percentage of critical damping values used in the seismic analysis of category I structures, system, and components dif for with Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Valves For Seismic Analysis Of Nuclear Power Plants." Since these values are lower than those in Regulatory Guide 1.01, an analysis performed using them is conservative and therefore acceptable.
i u
The synthetic tian history used for the seismic design of Category I structures,~ systems and components is adjusted in amplitude and frequency content to obtain response spectra that envelope the response spectra specified for the site.
I The use of the site-dependent analysis and the critical damping values provide reasonable assurance that. for an earthquake whose intensity is.06 for operating base earthquake (OBy), and.12
[.
for safe shutdown earthquake (SSF), the seismic inputs to seismic Category I structures, systems, and components are adequately 4
Q defined to assure an acceptance basis for the design of such structures, systems and components to withstand the consequent i'
seismic loadings.
L E
3.7.2 Seismic System and Subsystem Analysis b
3.7.3 The scope'of review of the Seismic System and Subsystem Analysis for the plant included the seismic analysis methods for all Category I structures, systems and components. It included review t
of procedures for modeling, seismic soil-structure interaction, development of floor. response spectra, inclusion of torsional ll effects, evaluation of Category I structure overturning, and i.
determination of composite damping. The review has included l
design criteria and procedures for evaluation of interaction of non-Category I structures and piping with Category I structures and piping and effects of parameter variations,on floor response spectra. The review has also included criteria and seismic analysis procedures for reactor internals and Category I buried piping outside the containment.
c_
(
~4 l
9 g
vs
.s,-
- m---
w.
_,n
.m
,e_~_,.-,_.
,,e
__r_
n=.
n "
v
,. ;.r,...~..-.
.a.
m m.
w s...-._.-
e.a.
', 5'$ f[ ~ " = ' f"?. x m m_ A$k S W EN. _f.Y ' ? ^ ~g ~ ~ ~ ~ Y.w g aw-n.m ; u. .,-w-s_,,.;..,,,, g m,,,,. C4w.=.w : W u. n.-,,. m. .- v m,>..~- . ? (m;.g r n.w 6 - ~. s..w~Q y 9; The system and subsystem analyses was performed by the applicant on an elastic basis. Modal response spectrum multidegree of freedom and time history methods form the basis for the analyses of all major Category I structures, systems and components. When the modal response spectrum method was used, governing response para =eters win be combined by the square root of the sum of the squares rule. However, the absolute sum of the modal responses was used for modes with closely spaced frequencies. The square root of the sum of the squares of the maximu: codirectional responses was used in accounting for three co=ponents of the earth-quake motion for both the time history and response spectrum methods. Floor spectra inputs used for design and test verifications of structures, systems, and components was generated from the time , l history method, taking into account variation of parameters by peak widening. A vertical seistic system dyna =ic analysis was employed for au structures, systems and components where analysis show significant structural application in the vertical direction. Torsional effects and stability against overturning'are considered. c,- The (finite element, lumped soil spring) approach is used to evaluate soil-structure interaction and structure to structure-interaction effects upon seismic responses. For the finite element analysis, appropriate nonlinear stress-strain and damping relationships for the soil are considered in this analysis. We conclude that the seismic system and subsystem analysis procedures and criteria proposed by the applicant provide an acceptable basis for the seismic design. However, a confir=atory, independent structural analysis of major Category I structures will be performed in the near future and the conclusion report in an addendum to this report. This independent work vin consider the containment building and-at least one other Category I structure. 3.7.4 Seismic Instrumentation Program The type, number, location and utilization of strong motion accelerographs to record seismic events and to provide data on the frequency, amplitude and phasa relationship of the seismic response of the containment structure comply with Regulatory Guide 1.12. Supporting instrumentation is being installed on Category I struc-tures, systems and components in order to provide data for the verification of the seismic responses determined analytically for such Category I items. The installation of the specif'ied seismic instrumentation in the reactor containment structure and at other Category I structures, systems, and components constitutes an acceptable program to record data on seismic ground motion as van as data on the frequency and amplitude relationshin of the sesponse of major structures and systems. A prompt readout of pertinent data at the control room can be expected to yield sufficient information to guide the operator on a timely basis for the purpose of evaluating the seismic response in the event of an earthquaka. Data obtained from such installed seismic instrumentation will be sufficiant to determine that the se'ismic analysis assumptions and the analytical model used for the design of the plant are adequate and that anovable .-..O [
' ^5,'. ' %.
- /3.ggg ::~:.: %Q.-
_.,; w.. % ; L z _q 75 y ;-- Q = g. 7 ; } 3_} a Nw.:... m, e"# stresses are not exceeded under conditions where continuity of operation is intended. Provision of such seismic instrumentation complies with Regulatory Guide 1.12, 3.8.1 Concrete Containment The' reactor coolant system will be enclosed in a concrete contain-ment (reinforced base and prestressed cylindrical vall) as described in Section 3.8.1 of the FSAR. The containment structure was designed in accordance with applicable codes, standards and specifications in use before April 1973. Designs and analysis Performed after this date were designed in accordance with applicable .Lbsections of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III Div. 2, and the American Concrete Institute (ACI 318). Various combinations of dead loads,. live loads, environmental loads includ-ing those due to wind, tornadoes, OBE, SSE, ed loads generated by the design base accident including pre??ure, te=per:: re and asse:hted pipe ruptura effects were considered. Since a majority of the contain-ment design was completed by 1973, the load combinations used and presented in the FSAR do not agree with these*in the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.8.1. Also, the applicant has not demonstrated the degree of conservatism used in the Midland design, with respect to the load combinations and the related acceptance criteria. Is it equivalent to that which would have resulted if the NRC Standard Review Plan Acceptance Criteria had been used? This remiu an open item. Static analysis for the containment shall and base are based on methods previously applied. Likewise, the liner design for the containment employs methods similar to those previously accepted. The choice of the materials', the arrangement of the anchors, the design criteria and design methods are similar to those evaluated for previously licensed plants. Materials, construction methods, quality assurance and quality cratrol measures are covered in the SAP and,.in general, are sins.lar to chose used for previously accepted facilities. Prior to operation, the containment will be subjected to an accepted test in accordance with the Regulatory Guide 1.13 during which the internal pressure will be 1.15 times the containment design pressure. The criteria used in the analysis, design, and construction of the concrete containment structure to accound for anticipated loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed upon the structure during its service lifetime are not fully in conformance vith established criteria, codes, standards, guides, and specifications acceptable to the Regulatory staff. Resolution of the open items will bring the design and analysis of the containment structure 'in full conformance with NRL established criteria. 6. [N ... ~, 4 -~ r- .w
. c" ' :.~ d +. w' w m,..,_. .db -- 3%.i& n- ~ __m .%..Q-0 e.Wh ' -... A
- l C,T b ? 5 ?. ~W ="= Y-n ~ ;W
$$h. $.55?W ~ c p.
- . ~~*fg,..;.m ;
- 2 w w:n v.v.=-.....
,w .u.,,,, g (JO.n N c.c r. -w ~+ ww-w .' n ~~- ' ~- ..%4 . 4
- "p4.,,._
7 'gc :n.-m,=w . 9 y* a The use of these criteria as defined by-applicable codes, standards, guides, and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control programs and special construction techniques; and the testing and in-service surveillance requirements provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of winde, tornadoes, earthquakes and various postulated accidents occurring within the containment, the structure will withstand the specified design conditions without inpairment of structural integrity of safety function. Conformance with these criteria pending the resolution of the open items constitutes an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criteria 2, 4, 16 and 50. 3.8.3 ' Concrete And Structural Steel Internal Structures The containment interior structures consist of support systems (reactor, steam generator, coolant pump), reactor coolant pipe restraints, primary and secondary shield'valls, pressurizer supports, refueling canal valls, operating and intermediate floors, missile shields, polar crane supporting elements, in core instru-mentation tunnel and let down cooler enclosure. The containment concrete and steel internal structures will be designed to resist various combinations of dead and live loads, accident induced loads, including pressure, jet loads, and seismic loads. Since the design of Category I internal concrete structures were completed before 1973, the Iced combinations presented in the FSAR are not in accordance with current NRC requirements. Specifically, the staff uses as the acceptable reference ACI-349, modified as per Regulatory Guide RG 1.42. This deviation is considered an open item. The load c:wabinations for steel structures in SRP 3.83 are in'accordance with the AISC specification. The applicant fully follows these requirements in their design of the Category I internal steel structures. Via our April 21, 1980 memorandum and the IE Bulletin No. 80-11, the applicant was requested to submit informa-tion on the use of masonry walls in Category I structures, their location, design and analyses methods, piping / equipment supports, etc. Our final evaluation of this matter will be completed following the requested submittal by the applicant. This phase of the evaluation ret H.ns an open itam. s J As of this writing, the reactor vessel support system is under review because the previous design was determined ineffective due to the fe'. lure of the anchor bolts prior u any application of loads (other than pre-tension loads). A new reactor vessel support. [ system was proposed by the applicant. Thereviewfortheproposed] support systcm will be performed at a later'date. Therefore, the design and analysis for the reactor vessel support and any other internal structure affected by this modification remains an'open item. 7 S . **J g 9 .........-...--........1. ~ ' ' - ~ ~"**~"*
' r.: :,,,_ e .v-., Y' ..pq, }'. '. yo
- - y ',.v. 5 ~
p[ m,. x.. a.,. u o.e - i The criteria that is used in the design, analysis, and construc-tion of the containment internal structures to accound for anticipated loadings and postulated conditions this may be imposed upon the structures during their service lifet u are not fully in conformance with established criteria, and with codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to the Regulatory staff. Resolution of the open items will bring the design and analysis of the internal structure in full compliance with NRC established criteria. i 1 The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, ) and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control programs, and special construction techniques; and the testing and in-service surveillance require-ments provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of earthquakes and various postulated accidents occurring within the containment, the interior structures will withstand the specified design condi-tions without impairment of structural integrity or the performance of required safety functions. Conformance with these* criteria pending resolution of the open items constitutes an acceptable basis for satisfying in part the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 4. 3.8.4 Other Categerv I Structures Category I structures other than the containment and its interior structure are all of structural steel-reinforced concrete and reinforced concrete block. The structural components consist of 1 slabs, walls, beams and columns. The major codes used in the design of the ACI 318-63, ACI 318-71, " Building Code Requirements For Reinforced Concrete." For steel Category I structures, the AISC, " Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structures", steel for buildings is used. These Category I structures was designed resist various combinations of dead loads; live loads; environmental loads including winds, tornadoes, OBE and SSE, and loads generated by postulated ruptures of high energy pipes such as reaction and jet impingement forces, compartment pressures,'and impact effects of whipping pipes. Since the design of a majority of Category I structures were completed before 1973, the load combinations presented in the FSAR are in accordanca with applicable codes and standards in use before this date. The load combinations for the concrete structures do not agree with the current NRC acceptance criteria. Specifically the staff uses as the acceptance reference ACI 349 modified as per RG 1.142. This deviation is considered an open item. For steel structures the AISC specification is found acceptable to the staff. 8 l S I e
m :.. se.n n- % W '" " a '-
- .a.c.
~ ...:. T * %,.. ; - %. ~ ' = p:4--a 1_ x.a_5.%f:~gm+s y..Tl*n. @..9. -M c@_m k'~~'-( q % q ~~'"; W W w ....5 W ): ~ ' - + m-jj'. .:y. w..v..,.n -m--, m -:.u._,.. ,.n...u._.,... O%. n.. :
- ?H
......-, n. n -. v..-.m .. - ~ - -. ~. 7,$ f p s. l = _ w ~ h 'T.57 x--Y The materials of construction, their fabrication, construction and installation are in accordance with the ACI 318-63, ACI 318-71 codes and the AISC specifications for concrete and steel structures respectively. However, the applicant is required to evaluate any j deviation from ACI-349 as modified by R. C. 1.142 and determine the affect on the safety of these concrete structures. The extensive soil settlement and related concrete wall cracking which have been observed in various Category I structures are discussed in Section 3.8.5 of this report. However, the review of this problem area re=ains an open item until the applicant addresses all of the staffs questions and they are found acceptable. The criteria that will be used in the analysis, design, and J construction of all the plant Category I structures to accound for anticipated loadings and postulated conditions that may be ) imposed upon each structure during its service lifatime are not fully in conformance with established criteria, codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to the Regulatory staff. Resolution of the open items will bring the design and analysis of other Category I structure in full compliance with NEC established criteria. The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the strdetural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control, and special construction techniques; and the testing and in-service surveillance requirements provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of winds, tornadoes, earthquakes and various postulated accidents occurring within tha structures, the structures will withstand the specified design conditions without impairement of structural integrity er the performance of required safety. functions. Conformance-with these criteria, codes, specifientions, and standards pending resolution of the open items constitutes an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 4. 3.8.5 Foundations Foundations of Category I structures are described in Section 3.8.5 of the FSAR. Primarily, these are reinforced concrete NAT foundations. The diesel generator building is one of the major structures which utilizes footers instead of MAT foundations. The major code used l in the design of these concrete foundations is ACI 318-63 prior to 1973 and ACI 312-71 after 1973. These concrete foundations are designed to resist various combinations of dead loads; live loads; environmental loads including winds, tornadoes. OBE and SSE, and loads generated by postulated ruptures of high energy pipes. 9
- Ip,*,*=e,,
t..
- w..
s . J.Q :M &.[:yy..-. K..m. g.^?^[. ..,; Q -r6-kkiak' 5:2 ~** y,.; : -<; ,.. g, % '" s c ;. 3,y.,.
- 4 #'
The design and analysis procedures used for Category I foundations are the same as those approved on previously licensed applica-tions and, in general, are in accordance with procedures delineated in ACI 318-63 end ACI 318-71 codes. The material of construction, their f abrication, construction and installation are in aqcordance with ACI 316-63 and ACI 318-71 codes. Extensive soil settlement and cracking in concrete valls have been observed in various category I structures. The structures affected include the diesel generator building, the diesel oil storage tank, the service water pump structure (partial), the tank farm, the feedwater isolation pit and the auxiliary building. On the basis of the structural problems which have occurred due to the extensive soil settlement, (cracking of concrete walls of various Category I structures) it is reco:nnended that the following action items be addressed by the applicant and reviewed by the staff in order to insure the adequate safety of the related structures prior to the final acceptance of the FSAR. 1. Settlement and Inadequate Compaction of the Foundations Material Because the fill vill be replaced by other material such a.as lean concrete in case of auxiliary building and feedvater valve pits), the soil properties of the foundation material vill be changed. We recommend that the new properties of this new foundation material be thoroughly investigated. The new soil properties (e.g., damping values and shear nodulus) should be used in the revised seismic analysis to determine the structural adequacy of the affected structures. Pertinent soil-structure interaction methods should be used in the revised analysis. b. The structural analysis should be conducted using the current NRC criteria so that the margins of safety can be determined against the current standards. This analysis should include the effects of settlement and revised load combination equations that are appropriate for the structures. We consider the electrical duct banks to be a vital c.link between the diesel generator building and other parts of the plant. The acceptance of the ducts should be based on the structural criteria for Category I structures as provided in the appropriate sections of the Standard Review Plan and Regulatory Guides. The method of passing a rabbit through the duct banks cannot be substituted for such criteria. We, therefore, recommend that the applicant be requested to perform an analysis of the affected duct banks using the criteria applicable to other Category I structures. 10 8 en m.________,
..N..5);,*3J.., , MG.=... l.. - y'. - -- * -- -f,g&W _f %'nnm2 - "3 Y ~~T }.f* Q Qq-9** *'{yff *W",.b b,2?lWQ(--T -~.: - . - m-.-- - - p 'im. rem ;, M.m *a evu,\\~- - u,,,,,,, 0.$.*u oa:.m. w. <w.- ev -- -+ r.a., e.- m. s.. n a .m, ~~--.- ~. 7}*D...m.~.f.b:SWmJ 1 .f';:, 2 2Y w k_t ~ '~ 2. Cracking of Category I Structures We believe that the applicant did not answer the basic questions regarding the causes of the cracks, the significance of the extent of the crack, and the consequences of the crack-4
- ing.
In view of the above, we recommen'd that the applicant i be requested to conduct a detailed and comprehensive study to answer these questions. 3. Inconsistencies of Information The response to the 10 CFR 50.54(f) request reported the following inconsistencies between data used for structural design of the diesel generator building and the data contained in the FSAR. a. A uniform load of 3,000 psf was used rather than the-j 4,000 psf shown in Figure 2.4-47 in the FSAR. b. The calculations assumed a mat foundation rather than a spread footing foundation, which is the actual design condition. c. The results of these erroneous calculations were included in the FSAR. We recommend that the applicant be requested to clarify these apparent inconsistencies. 4. Floor Response Spectra Because of replacement of the backfill with caissons or piles, the properties of the foundation material supporting the structures will be changed. Such a change may alter the response of structures to seismic forces. The floor response spectra for the diesel generator building were generated on the assumption that the shear wave velocity would not be lower than 500 fps. We recommend that the surveillance of the soil properties be conducted throughout the entire period of consolidation of the building to verify the validity of this assumption. 5. Corrective Actions Under Consideration The corrective actions undertaken and/or proposed by the applicant for the structures in question do not recommend the most conservative and permanent remedial action. ) In order to increase the rigidity of the diesel generator building, it is recommended that a solid, continuous sat be placed under the existing structure. This mat should be connected to the present foundation by dowels or other positive usans. yy ,y* t-ew. a-t t tNM' m
w
++----w-- -1.-'+N-D-W'n--* w W 9Tw*--'- --m"*'- 9
' 'K.'
- a y,
',. ? r.g g g y. 1 GW 5'- k.% JI,@-$*Qh,' 3 e-h %{ 'i g;;.,.y.[ LI r .1 ec 2.< . u-The electrical duct system should be designed as other Category I structures. Therefore, they should remain elastic under all load combinations, including settlenent load in comb
- nation with other loads identified for other Category I structures.
The proposed repair for the service water building consisting
- of the vertical piles and corbels is not considered as de-pendent as the placing of a foundation resting on the stable soil. The erection of abutments under this part of the structure is the only remedial action that provides soil support resembling that of the original design.
The Borated Water Storage tanks should be loaded to monitor any effects on their supporting. foundations and soil media. The proposed devatoring systems should h categorized in its entirety or in part, as per determination of the system evaluation and geoscience personnel, as Category I systems and should be designed and constructed to resist the loads - of OBE/SSE and other pertinent soil loads. The above action items 1 through 5 are cons,idered open items. The criteria that will be used in the analysis, design, and construc-tion of all the plant Category I foundations to accound for anticipated ~ loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed upon each foundation during its service lifetime not fully are in conformance with established criteria, codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to the MFC staff. Resolution of the open items will bring the design and analysis -? Category I structures in full compliance with NRC established criteria. The use of these criteria as defined by applicab3e' codes, standards, and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control, and special construction techniques; and the testing and in-service surveillance requirements provida quakes, and various postulated events Category I foundations will withstand the specified design conditions without impairment i to structural integrity and stability or the performance of required safety functions. Conformance with these criteria, codes, specifi-cations, and standards pending resolution of the open items constitutes an acceptable basis for satisfying in part the requirements of l Ceneral Design Criteria 2 and 4. 4 L i I l s l l I.- ~- a . ~.... -, n
.,, -g _. __ ,.4.i. ..--- Jam.d, S. 'me m m. - - 2 g.
- M ' $.Q M W W:...-.. _.
.w. _.,,,
- }l.b *9 T:-
Q-.3W M.'&.* C"- M%D;._ _.. s. .;. n ~.:; f 4 ,,g ,.;ve.e A.: m o.r.,.-c.-e.m.Q,.,., .y.., , m, m M . Oh.m.m... f-m.
- m... m..., m.
M... g.j.[ ?u_ _ g BIBLIOGRAPHY ..g ;,,, g d, e a Section 3.3 - Wind and Tornado Loadings 3.3-1 " Wind Forces on Structures", Final Report of the Task l Com=ittee on Wind Forces of the Com=ittee on Load and Stresses of the Structural Division, Transactions of l the American Society'of Civil Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York, New York, 10017, Paper No. 3269, Vol. 126, j Part II, 1961, p. 1124-1198. - or - 3.3-1 "American National Standard Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures", American National Standards Institute, A58 1972. 1 Section 3.5 - Missile Protection 3.5-1 A. Amirikian, " Design of Protective Structures, " Bureau of Yards and Docks, Publication No. NAVDOCKS P-51, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., August 1950. l 3.5.2 Williamson, P. A., and Alvy, R. R., " Impact Effect of Fragments Striking Structural Elements". Holmes and Narver, Revised Edition, 1973. L Section 3.7 - Seismic Design 3.7-1 USAEC Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Nucient Power Plants.". 3.7-2 USAEC Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants." 3.7-3 USAEC Regulatory Guide 1.12 " Instrumentation for Earthquakes." i Section 3.8 - Desian of Category I Structures 1 3.8-1 American Institute of Steel Construction, " Specification for Design, Fabrication 4 d Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings,101 Park Avenua, New York, N.Y.10017, Sixth Edition, 1 1969. 3.8-2 American Concrete Institute, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-1971), F. O. Box 4754, Redford Station, Detroit, Michigan 48219. 1 i 3.8.3 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code," Section III, and Addenda United Engineering Canter, 345 East 47th Street, New York, New York 10017. 13 I i ( i +-...... 1 ..,,,.-~
~,,,.;, . 6 A". * ;$* 1 ". ...s, C.* 9~y*}*p;h e' jw y.& ?*."
- l..'K _.,.j,,~&b '. l.
- ~ * ~ *
~ *~ e.. " ~ V - l 2*%^;; - .o ,.n*,.m *._ c- ..wgv.s. c...g;,, w,..> g.n BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued) OTHIE BC-TOP-1 " Containment Building Liner Plate Desig. Report". BC-TOP-3-A " Tornado And Extrane Wind Design Criteria For Nuclear Power Plants". BC-TOP-4-A "Seisnic Analyses Of Structures And Equipnent for Nuclear Power Plants". 3C-TOP-5A " Prestressed Concrete Nuclear Contahnnt Structures". BC-TOP-7 " Full Scale Buttress Test For Prestressed Nuclear Containment Structures". BC-TOP-8 " Tendon And Anchor Rainforcement Test". BC-TOP-9A " Design Of Structures For Missile Impact". v. e 4 S k L. M e i i 14 W
- --es*-a s
v-r -.>w m
.----- - M u '-
- e-
- s. *~.:;
- w, c.... - Tg,..,,... -. s.;aj,._,, ~'_7-..--.---,.-- ,,b.TL. '?l~}E.5W'*;,.- -..~ 9; r ' - - KTj&&r ~.%.q'-Q.. w if:~{y--WMM?Sb.. _ w ~+'4 . c.g;3. _ W " 5 7g a....... s <.= =.w. e tc-v.-...s.s-n.,..... - ,..,.,,.,y.,,.,,. M,. f{ (.:, 2v.. a.u.. z..
- . w...... -,. m.... m..,..... -.
. ~.. .~_ w ~.., <. nW ".~ k. V:9: n a n.x w J m e s..y r-f.s. ~. p CONSDERS PO'GR COMPAhT (C.P. CO.) MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH DOCKET NOS. 50-329 & 50-330 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I Dr. P. C. Huang John P. Matra, Jr. Frank Rinaldi i M its /b /.? ( /-6-gi
..;y,.., . :.t r J. a, . :y,.l-M.D ' 53f*~ . ~.h-W ]': 'AYS$? fhD ^'* D. W '
- -:;w..
.::.. u., Consumers Power Company (C. P. Co.) Midland Plant Units 1 & 2 Structural Engineering Branch f Docket Nos. 50-329 & 50-330 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT 3.3.1 h'ind Desien Criteria All Category I structures exposed to wind forces are desi;:-.ed to withstand the effects of the design wind. The design wind specified .has a velocity of 85 mph based on a recurrence interval of 100 years. The procedures that are used to transform the wind velocity into pressure loadings on structures and the assc inted vertical distt?.- bution of wind pressures and gutt facters cr: in c c:rdar.:: wit!. ASCE Paper No. 3269. This document is acceptable to the staff. The procedures that are utilized to determine the loadings on seismic Category I structures induced by the design wind specified for the plant are acceptable since these procedures provide a con-servative basis for engineering design to assure that the structure will withstand such environmental forces. The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that, in the event of design basis winds, the structural integrity of the plant seismic Category I structures will'not be impaired and, in consequence, seismic Category I systems and components located within these structures are adequately protected and will perform their intended safety functions, if needed. Conformance with these procedures is an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General design Criterion 2. 3.3.2 Tornado Design Criteria All Category I structures axposad to tornado forces and needed for the safe shutdown of the plant are designed to resist a tornado of 290 mph tangential wind velocity and a 70 mph translational wind velocity. A simultaneous ator, spheric pressure drop was assumed to be 3 psi in 1.5 seconds. Torn.do rissiles are also considered in the design as discussed in Se.: tion.i.5 of this report. The proc 64ures that are used to transfort the tornado wind velocity into pressereloadin;s are sistlar to th %a used for the design vind loadings as discusted in Section 3.3.1 i.f this report. The tornado missiles affacts t.111 be determined using procedures to be discussed ) in Section 3.1' ot this re N rt. The tot al effect of the design j tornado on Cat uory I strutures is detarained by appropriate ccabinations of the individua1' effects of the tornado wind pressure, pressure drop and tornado associated missiles. Bechtel Corp. Topical T. aport BC-TOP-3A was the major reference used as design criteria. 1 x l m m e-
.- e.-5Q aa% n-N T l-. $hY ~-r.c yr. . W+ u; u m m..,-n : m :- -..,,,. p._., _ - ( ) hw.. u.
- y_
- u. g-m ~., - _ ~.- n
.,.n .n .~. ~ ~
- Z;c 2Tr A
YW$ k&- Y Structures will be arranged on the ' plant' site and protecte such a manner that collapse of structures not designed for tornadoes will not effect othat safety-related structures. The tornado missile spectra does not funy comply with the current NRC tornado missile criteria. Specifically, the applicant has not considered the three steel pipe missiles (3" dia., 6" dia., 12" dia.). [ From the structural point of view, the 12" dia. steel pipe controls the design of the concrete barriers. Therefore, further evaluation for this tornado missile is required. In addition, the applicant should demonstrate that the vents used to reduce the differential prsssure in other Category I structures are adequate to resist the missile impact. l The procedures utilized to determine the loadings on structures induced by the design basis tornado specified for the plant are acceptable, with the exception of the two open items stated in the previous paragraph; since these procedures provide a conserva-tive basis for engineering design to assure that the facilities structures withstand such environmental forces. The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that in the event of a design basis tornado, the structural integrity of the plant structures that have to be designed for tornadoes win not be impaired and, in consequence, safety-related systems. and components located within these structures win be adequately ~ protected and may be expected to perform necessary safety functions as required. Conformance with these procedures and the resolution of the two open items is an acceptable basis for satisfying, in '~ part, the requirements of General Design Criterion 2. 3.4.2 Water Level (Flood) Desian Procedures The design flood level resulting from the most unfavorable condition or combination of conditions that produce the==w#num water level at the site is discussed in Section 2.4, Hydrology. The hydrostatic effect of the flood win be considered in the desigs of all Category I structures exposed to the water head. The procedures utilized to determine the loadings on seismic Category I structures induced by the design flood or highest ground-water level specified for the plant are acceptable since these procedures provide a conservative basis for engineering design to assure that the structures will withstand such environmental forces. The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that in i the event of floods or high groundwater, the structural integrity of the plant seismic Category I structures win not be impared and, in consequence, seismic Category I systems and components located within these structures will be adequately protected and may be l expected to perform necessary safety functions, as required. Conformance with these design procedures is an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criterion 2. l I i 2 L l- - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - - - - ~ ~ - ~
't ,.,.x .; I-U*Q-Q 9 _-- O. ? A ~ q 3 -y..
- i;-;--2.-
- w s
v., .m However, the applicant has not established the effectiveness of the groundwater well-system. These wells are needed to control ( the groundwater level and prevent soil-liquefaction. The abeve conclusions are subject to the final approval of the major concern related to the groundwater level and considerations for soil-liquefaction and any effects on the structures. 3.5.3 Barrier Design Procedures The plant Category I structures, systems and components are shielded from, or designed for, various postulated missiles. Missiles considered in the design of structures include tornado generated missiles and various containment internal missiles, such as those associated with a loss-of-coolant accident. Information has been provided indicating that the procedures that are used in the design of the structures, shields and barriers to resist the effect of missiles are adequate. The analysis of structures, shiled and barriers to determine the effects of missile impact will be accomplished La two steps. In the first step, the potential damage that could be done by the missile in the immediate l vicinity of impact is investigated. This is accomplished by estimating the depth of penetration of the missile into the impacted structure. Furthermore, secondary missiles will be prevented by fixing the target thickness well above that determined for penetra-tion. In the second step of the analysis, the overall structural response of the target when impacted by a missile is determined ( using established methods of impactive analysis. The equivalent loads of missile impact, whether the missile is environmentally '~ generated or accidentally generated within the plant, are combined with other applicable loads as is discussed in Section 3.8 of this report. The procedures that will be utilized to determine the effects and loadings on seismic Category I structures and missile shields and barriers induced by design basis missiles selected for the plant are acceptable since these procedures provide a conservative basis for engineering design to assure that the structures or barriers are adequately resistant to and will withstand the effect of such forces. Bechtel Corp. Topical Report BC-TOP-9A was the major reference used as design criteria. The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that in the event of design basis missiles striking seismic Category I structures or other missiles shields and barriers, the structural integrity of the structures, shields, and barriers will not be impaired or degraded to an extent that will result.in a loss of required protection. Seismic Category I systems and components protected by these structures are, therefore, adequately protected against the effects of missiles and will perform their intended safety function if needed. However, the current evaluation does not consider the effect of the 12" dia. pipe missile on the integrity of the vent structures. Conformance with these procedures, with the exception noted above, is an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 4. 3 -s .c.t--
tfggtQ C j'. Rn6Ghk,,;l. (( 3 ,,2.]g{...~ - ?,.f.i" -{ - -- :; e gi@gg-[kgf Q.. h y W W :4> y ';Mhi}. y} m.py m m;.m.m,-..m.,,_._._ _ _ j,pm s.u g g 7,g,g,..m m -n y m, s. - -__- pfgh6 a 7 ..G.y;..: m b wn The input seismic design response spectra (operating base 'darth-quake (OBE) and safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) ) applied in the C design of seismic Category I structures and components was developed by a site design response spectra (Housner-developed) analysis. The seismic responses used for the design in the period range { from.2 to.6 seconds and are increased by 50% to compensate for the differences between the site design response spectra (Housner-developed) and the Newmark-developed response spectra. The vertical design response spectra are defined by multiplying the horizontal site design response spectra by two-thirds. The site design respcnse spectra are applied at the various foundations of i seismic Category I structures. The Midland design response spectra for the bulk of the plant differs from regulatory guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants".~ These spectra.(OBE and SSE) correspond to maximum horizontal ground acceleration of.06 g for OBE and.12 g for SSE. Vertical response spectra are linearly scaled in proportion to the marimum vertical ground acceleration which equals 2/3 of the maximum horizontal ground acceleration. The response spectra for the fiidland 1 site are the average response spectra developed by normalizing and averaging both components of the strong motion ground accelerations for four earthquakes (El Centro, Calif., December 3,1934; El Centro, Calf., May 18, 1940; olympia, Wash., April 13, 1943; and Taft, Calif., July 21, 1952). This spectrum 1s intended to envelop large magnitude earthquakes at moderate distances from the epicenter. This is acceptable since the free field response spectra at the finished grade level or at the structural foundation level include consideration of appropriate amplification factors based upon an acceptable set of site earthquake records, and the analysis has taken into account actual soil properties at the site, and includes consideration of appropriate damping values corresponding to the calculated soil stress levels. The specific percentage of critical damping values used in the seismic analysis of Category I structures, system, and components differ with Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values For Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants." Since these values are lower than those in Regulatory Guide 1.61, an analysis performed using them is conservative and therefore acceptable. The synthetic time history used for the seismic design of Category I structures, systems and components is adjusted in amplitude and frequency content to obtain response spectra that envelope the response spectra specified for the site. The use of the site-dependent analysis and the critical damping values provide reasonable' assurance that, for an earthquake whose intensity is.06 for CBE, and.12 for SSE, the seismic inputs to seismic Category I structures, systems, and components are adequately defined to assure an acceptable basis for the design of such structures, systems and components to withstand the consequent seismic loadings. 4 $s ..w ,. _.,. ~, ,, ~ _,.,, _ -. -,, -. .,,m- ___,,,-.m...,.._._m.
~l* *. n. p, p ,.%. c. v..M9$-4-~ c3.. -- g.,; ' .. ;,.7.pg. i ** g g.74ya2~,E 7.c--
- r i
3.7.2 %w :-... -c.. . a Seismic System and Subsystem Analysis ( 3.7.3 The scope of review of the Seismic System and Subsystem Analysis for the plant included the seismic analysis methods for all '( Category I structures, systems and components. It included review of procedures for modeling, seismic soil-structure interaction, developsent of floor response spectra, inclusion of torsional affects, evaluation of Category I structure overturning, and determination of composite damping. The review has included ~ design criteria and procedures for evaluation of interaction of non-Category I structures and piping with Category I structures and piping and effects of parameter variations on floor responsa spectra. The review has also included criteria and seismic analysis procedures for reactor internals and Category I buried piping outside the containment. l I The system and subsystem analyses were performed by the applicant on an elastic basis. Hodal response spectrum multidegree of i freedom and time history methods form the basis for the analyses of all major Category I structures, systenu, and componeau.. Eu the modal response spectrum method was used, governing responsa parameters will be combined by the sqsare root of the sum of the j j squares rule. However, the absolute sum of the modal responses l j was used for modes with closely spaced frequencies. The square root of the sum of the squares of the maximum codirectional responses was used in accounting for three components of the earth-quake motion for both the time history and response spectrum methods. Floor spectra inputs used for design and test verifications of structures, systems, and components were generated from the time f -( I history method, taking into account variation of parameters by peak widening. A vertical seismic system dynamic analysis was [ employed for al2 structures, systems and composents where analysis show significant structural application in the vertical direction. Torsional effects and stability against overturning are considered. The (finite element, lumped soil spring) approach is used to i j evaluate soil-structure interaction and structure to structure interaction effects upon seismic responses. For the finite al,ement analysis, appropriate nonlinear stress-strain and damping relationships for the soil are considered in this analysis. Due to the settlement and inadequate compaction problem, the i applicant has agreed to perform seismic re-analysis of all j Category I structures in the plant fill area of the Midland Plant. In addition, we require as necessary a structural re-analysis of the Category I structures. We conclude that the seismic system and subsystem analysis j procedures and criteria proposed by the applicant with' the exception of the open item stated in the previous paragraphs; provide an acceptable basis for the seismic design. However, a confirmatory, independent structural analysis of major category I structures vill be performed in the near future and the conclusion reported in an addendum to this report. This j( independent work will consider the container building and at least one other Category I structure. I e 5 l ( j -. _e--- i---- is
==-- -.-se-e p.e-rswf rw --mmip,---g ww-wg-t'-e-e---g-,+-.gy ,+-.ym.-. -*-y--e.-w-.s,-w -w
- -,e
=r ->p- ---v w giw m--- --r-w
?? g' % % % -. = T L M~;K-.,.... ~.-.:-- 4,7.- J. .~ f %R'h&Qf h$&Ub ~ .2 5 *L } - I}} - -. < ' ' ' - ~ Sf.:. m.m ; ,.e. ..,n.~.- f %, D= $. n w..w... e. .,.,. -..,. n.. . ~..,..,.._, y 3c7.4MSeismic InstrumentaHon ' Program .( (T5; w % f The type, number, location and utilization of strong motion i accelerographs to record seismic events and to provide data on the g frequency, amplitude and phase relationship of the seismic response E of the containment structure comply with Regulatory Guide 1.12. Supporting instrumentation is being installed on Category I struc-tures, systems and components in order to provide data for the verification of the seismic responses determined analytically for such Category I items. The installation of the specified seismic instrumentation in the reator containment structure and at other Category I structures, systems, and components constitutes an acceptable program to record data on seismic ground motion as well as data on the frequency and amplitude relationship of the response of major structures and systems. A prompt readout of pertinent data at the control room can be expected to yield sufficient information to guide the op'erator on a timely basis for the purpose of evaluating the seismic response in the event of an earthquake. Data obtained from such installed seismic instrumentation will be sufficient to determine q that the seismic analysis assumptions 2nd the analytical model used for the design of the plant are adequate and that allowable i stresses are not exceeded under conditions where continuity of operation is intended. Provision.of such seismic instrumentation complies with Regulatory Guide 1.12. 3.8.1 Concrete Containment The reactor coolant system will be enclosed in a concrete contain-ment (reinforced base and prestressed cylindrical wall) as described in Section 3.8.1 of the FSAR. The containment structure was designed in accordance with applicable codes, standards and specifications in use before April 1973. Dasigns 'and analysis performed after this date were designed in accordance with applicable subsections of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III Div. 2, and the American Concrete Institute (ACI 318). Various combinations of dead loads, live loads, environmental loads including those due to wind, tornadoes, OBE, SSE, and loads generated by the design base accident including pressure, temperature and associated pipe rupture f effects were considered. Since a majority of the containment design .was completed by 1973, the load combinations used and presented in the FSAR do not agree with those in the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.8.1. Also, the applicant has not demon- = strated the degree of conservatism used in the Midland design, with r respect to the load combinations and the related acceptance criteria. Is it equivalent to that which would have resulted if the NRC Standard Review Plan Acceptance Criteria had been used? This remains an open item. I Static analysis for the containment shall and base are based on methods previously applied. Likewise, the liner design for the containment employs methods similar to those previously accepted. E 6 i
~ .r-V j:p _,5%.s. ) Ih-n ~A. . v,g.m .A ~Ms,Dbf~_'L'y _-Q.:~;R- [ y- -Q.ya mn an' ... c.: /4 The choice of the materials, the arrangement of the anchors, the design criteria and design methods are similar to those evaluated for previously licensed pisnes. Materials, construction methods, quality assurance and quality control measures are covered in the SAR and, in general, are similar to those used for pr' 'iously accepted facilities. 4 Prior to operation, the contaT LiIanE will b'e s'ubjected to an accepted ~~ ~ i test in accordance with the Regulatory Guide 1.18 during which the internal pressure will be 1.15 times the containment design pressure. The criteria used in the analysis, design, and construction of the I concrete containment structure to account for anticipation loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed upon the structure during its service lifetime are not fully in conformance with established criteria, codes, standards, guides, and specifications i acceptable to the Regulatory staff. Resolution of the open items will bring the design and analysis of the containment structure in full conformance with NRC established criteria. l The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, j guides, and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control programs and special construction techniques; and the testing and in-service surveillance requirements provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of i(- winds, tornadoes, earthquakes and various postulated accidents cccuring within the centainment, the structure will withstand ~~ the specified design conditions without impairment of structural integrity of safety function. Conformance with these criteria, pending the resolution of the open items, constitutes an acceptable l basis for satisfying, in part, the -requirements fo General Casign l Criteria 2,4,16, and 50. i 3.8.3 Concrete And Structural Steel Internal Structures The containment interior structures consist of support systems (reactor, steam generator, coolant pump), reactor coolant pipe.. restraints, primary and secondary shield walls, pressurizer supports, refueling canal walls, operating and intermediate floors, missile shields, polar crane supporting elements, in core instru-l mentation tunnel and let down cooler enclosure. The containment concrete and steel internal structures will be designed to resist i various combinations of dead and live loads, accident induced i loads, including pressure, jet loads, and seismic loads. Since the design of Category I' internal concrete structures were completed before 1973, the load combinations presented in the FSAR are not in accordance with current NRC requirements. Specifically, the staff uses as the acceptable reference ACI-349, modified as per Regulatory Guide RG 1.142. This deviation is considered an open ites. The load combinations for steel' structures in SRP 3.8.3 are 4 r _ _...,, _. ~..-- _.
, 7._T h.., ;.{.,. - M,, m::.4,,Jw/2ms=.:e-m. q ;,,,.. ]. gx ..-. >mes 1 .y. 'O 21'?! [.{3}[ R)[
- q. ~:"'__
W$$. f 'if Q W 'N& - lV q :.w;-- e mm w - - ,.m..,..,,._, __ fx { a%...e g,,g ordance'with' the 'AISC ' specification. - The applicankfully c g j g d d m,, # n11ae. ch ne reqdirem'ents..in theirQef gn of-C.3tegoryMnternal f i steel structures. Via our April'21 1980 memorandum and tYe IE Bulletin No.~80-11, the applicant was requested to submit information on the use of masonry walls in Category I structures, their location, i design and analyses methods, piping / equipment supports, etc. Our ,i final evaluation of this matter will be completad following the requested submittal by the applicant. This phase of the evaluation remains;an open,iteau __ 4 As of this writing, the reactor vessel support system is under revie,v because the previous design wac determined ineffective due to the failure of the anchor bolts prior to any application of loads (other than pre-tt.asion loads). A new reactor vessel support system was proposed by the applicant. The review for the proposed support system will be performed at a later date. Therefore, the design and analysis for the reactor vessel support and any other internal structure affected by this modification remains an open. item. The criteria that is used in the design, analysis, and construction of the containment internal structures to account for anticipated loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed upon the structures during their service lifetime are not fully in conformance j with established criteria, and with codes, standards, and specification acceptable to the Regulatory staff. Resolution of the open items will bring the design and analysis of the internal structure in full compliance with NRC established 'riteria. c g The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, /y and specification; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria, the materials, quality control programs, and special construction techniques; and the testing and in-service surveillance requirements i provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of earthquakes and various postulated accidents occurring within the containment, the i interior structures will withstand the specif.ied design conditions without impairment,of. structural integrity or the performance of j required safety functions. -Conformance with these criteria, pending j resolution of the open items, constitutes anineceptabic basis for satisfying in part the requirements of General' Design Criteria 2 and 4. 3.8.4 Other Catenary I Structures Category I structures.ot;her"than the containment and.its interior l structure.are all.of structural steel, reinforced. concrete'and. l reinforced concrete block. The structural c6mponents' consist of slabs, walls, beams, and columns. The major godes used in the design of ' concrete Category I structures are the ACI 318-63, ACI 318-71, i " Build'ing Code Reqdi'rements for. Reinforced Concrete.".For steel Category I structures, the AISC, " Specification for the Design. Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings" is used. 8 ,y, r,p1--=r wr =-'r . = - - - --e--, m-a --g w " +.- M yes e-? e t-f w-w e -t-d 't -"we.e-T.e .e.es-,,- .*wa+-w e - - _.y--- --n.- r---a
s. -e... }j gg. 4E.]L-Q..3-3. -- }.. '.. pg.9 a ; Gsy~w- - i a.-' m, m .,, w. These Category I structures were designed to resist various combinations i of dead loads, live loads; environmental loads including winds, j M tornadoes, OBE and SSE, and loads generated by postulated ruptures I '{' of high energy pipes such as reaction and jet impingement forces, compartment pressures, and impact effects of whipping pipes. Since i the design of a majority of Category I structures were completed before 1973, the load combinations presented in the FSAR are in accordance with applicable codes and standards in use before this " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " 'date. %e liia~ d combinaTionis for the concrete structures do not agree with the current NRC acceptance criteria. ' Specifically the staff uses as the acceptance reference ACI 349 modified as per RG 1.142. This deviation is considered an open item. For steel structures the AISC specification is found acceptable to the staff. The materials of construction, their fabrication, construction and installation are in accordance with the ACI 318-63, ACI 318-71 codes and the AISC specifications for concrete and steel structures respectively. However, the applienst is required to evaluate any deviation from ACI-349 as modified by R. G. 1.142 and determine the effect on the safety of these concrete structures. The extensive soil settlement and related concrete wall cracking which have been observed in various Category I structures are discussed in Section 3.8.5 of this report. However, the review of this problem area remains an open item until the applicant addresses all of the staffs questions and they are found acceptable. The criteria that will be used in the analysis, design, and construction (- of all the plant Category I structures to account for anticipated loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed upon each ~ structure during its service lifetime are not fully in conformance with established criteria, codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to the Regulatory staff. Resolution of the open items will bring the design and analysis of other category I structure in full compliance with NRC established criteria. The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the material, quality control, and special construction techniques; and the testing and in-service surveillance requirements provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of winds, tornadoes, earthquakes and various postulated accidents occurring within the structures, the structures will withstand the specified design conditions without impairment of structural integrity or the per-formance of required' safety functions. Conformance with these criteria, codes, specifications, and standards pending resolution-of the open items constitutes an, acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 4. I i 9 N l ,.~
_h+&.R Qgft&,._ _.Q.---hh&:~ /h,44.-% ,[ Mdf;^ ~ ,c.J G - ~ c.. c ' ?.i W i - ~~Ni M+.? }m}v.}~c, ..c ~.: c* ~ ' ' "
- l 1
-va:...,, (,.m.: v. - y G., .* 0* baFoundations c, ' ' ~ l - Foundations of Category I structures are described in Section 3.8.5 of the FSAR. Primarily, these are reinforced concrete mat foundations. The diesel generator building is one of the major structures which utilizes footers instead of mat foundations. The major code used in i the design of these concrete foundations is ACI 318-63 prior to 1973 ( and ACI 318-71 sfeer 1973. These concrete foundations are designed to resist various combinations of dead loads; live loads; environmental loads including winds, tornadoes, OBE and SSE, and loads generated by postulated ruptures of high energy pipes. The design and analysis procedures used for Category I foundations are the same as those approved et previously licensed applications and, in general, are in accordance with procedures delineated in ACI 318-63 and ACI 318-71 codes. The material of construction, their .... fabrication, construction and installation are in accordance with ACI 318-63 and ACI 318-71 codes. Extensive soil settlement and cracking in concrete walls have been observed in various Category I structures. The structures affected include the diesel generator building, the diesel oil storage tank, the service water pump structure (partial), the tank farm, the feed-water isolation pit and the auxilliary building. On the basis of the structural problems which have occurred due to the extensive soil settlement, (cracking of concrete' walls of various Category I structures) it is recommended that the following action items be addressed by the applicant and reviewed by the staff in order tb insure the adequate safety of the related structures prior to the final acceptance of the FASR. 1. Settlement and Inadequate Compaction fo the Foundations Material a. Because the fill will be replaced by other material such as lean concrete in case of aux 1111ary building and feedwater valve pits, the soil properties of the foundation material will be changed. We reconunend that the new properties of this new foundation material be thoroughly investigated. The new soil properties (e.g., damping values and shear modulus) should be used in the revised seismic analysis to determine the structural adequacy of the affected structures. Pertinent soil-structure interaction methods should .be used in the revised analysis. b. The structural analysis should be conducted using the revised seismic loading and current NRC criteria so that the margins of safety can be determined against the current standards. This analysis should include the effects of settlement and revised load combination equations that are appropriate for the structures. 10
~ .~ x , < ; p-j- +_. ;;,: .<--~ m 4 3 3.::- y. g.g.
- n..
a.,, ., w .,3,, c. We consider the electrical duct banks to be a vital link between the diesel generator building and other parts of the plant. p The applicant has stated that, "The function of the duct banks is to { provide a space in the ground through which cables may be pulled. They also provide a casing around the cables to protect them during future construction activities in the area. The duct banks are not required to provide a watertight boundary around the cables. Therefore, cracking of the duct banks due to differential settlement does not affect their design functions. In the event that any significant obstruction or discontinuities are encountered, several alternatives will be considered to correct this condition. If the obstructions are small, a router may be pulled through the conduit to remove the obstruction and provide a smooth transition through the conduit. Replacement and rerouting of the duct bank will be studied as alternatives in the event of large discontinuities of the duct bank." With the foregoing information, we agree with the applicant that as long as the pressure and watertight conditions around the cables are not included in the design requirements minor cracking of duct banks are not objectionable. 2. Cracking of Category I Structures The applicant responses to question 14,28 and 29 of NRC request regarding plant fill regarding the causes of cracks, the significance of the extent of cracks and the consequences of cracking gives us'a better insight of just what the existing condition of the Category I structures are. We further recommend that the applicant be requested to: g a. Provide tension field data, if any, under the design load Q combinations at all the crack locations for each of the Category I structures. b. Provide analysis to show the limiting tension field conditions in which a crack will not enlarge or. propagate. Show that the existing cracks khall not propagate further due c. to settlement and inadequate compaction problem. d. Show the corrective plans in regards to the adverse effects of corrosion cf the reinforcing bars in the crack areas. 3. Floor Response Spectra Because of replacement of the backfill with caissons or piles, the properties of the foundation material supporting tne structures will be changed. Such a change may alter the response of structures to seismic forces. The flo6r response spectra for the diesel generator building were generated on the assumption that the shear wave velocity would not be lower than 500 fps. We reconunend that the surveillance of the soil properties be conducted throughout the entire period of con-solidation of the building to verify the validity of this assumption.
- 8 l
11 s -. n.m. a.s., s -v -m u-,-
y.....,......,....,......-... .pm = m 4p._. ~... g. ,..m Ah,.-. m.u.. Tg r._- .g. j. {.g*--p.y.gs 4 aw[Zyt .,,,.,.,..w .t 4. , - y {,Q j. W.;;.'*2.7 M.+ - a f.C Z.
- . gsg,Ml'*g,.'
q a *- er 5* i' w-sm:a.c.-m w l (. w c. w, c. .m.~..,,..,..,.-,
- .t.;
j =%. Cgwive-Actions Under.Considerat$Sn-E D ~ '-- " - ~ The corrective actions undertaken and/or proposed by the applicant for the structures in question do not recommend the most conservative and permanent remedial ac, tion. The proposed repair for the service water building consisting of the l vertical piles and corbels is not considered as dependent as the Placing of a foundation resting on the stable soil. The erection of abutments under this part of the structure is the only remedial - action that provides soil support resembling that of the original design. The Borated Water Storage tanks should be loaded to monitor any effects on theit supporting foundations and soil media. The proposed dewatering systems should be categorized in its entirety or in part, as per determination of the system evaluation and geo-science personnel, as Category I systems and should be designed and constructed to resist the loads of OBE/SSE and other pertinent soil loads. The above action items 1 through 4 are considered open items. The criteria that will be used in the analysis, design, and construction of all the plant Category I foundations to account for anticipated loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed upon each foundation during its service lifetime are not fully in conformance with established-criteria, codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to the NRC staff. Resolution of the open items will bring the design and analysis of Category I structures in full compliance with NRC established criteria. The use of these criteria as defined,by applicable codes, standards, and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedure; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control, and special construction techniques; and the testing and in-service surveillance requirements provide quakes, and various postulated events, Category I foundations will withstand the specified design conditions without impairment to structural integrity and stability or the performance of required safety functions. Conformance with these criteria, codes, specifications, and standards, pending resolution 6f the open items, constitutes an acceptable basis for satisfying in part the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 4. i t 12 -4. ,,,ge h.amam .m
C.:l ' * .2-o ^;- Q '5-3 3 y..4-;f~= Q " l}.}.gyQ J l
- / 7.y;5 ;.~. ; &
-h- .~ .. -c.c. m:; y... BIBLIOGRAPHY l l Section 3.3 - Wind and Tornado Loadings ) f' 3.3-1 " Wind Forces on Structures", Final Report of the Task { Con:=ittee on Wind Forces of the Com=ittee on Load and Stresses of the Structural Division, Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York, New York,10017, Paper No. 3269, Vol.126, Part II, 1961, p. 1124-1198. or - 3.3-1 "American National Standard Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures", American National Standards Institute, A58 1972. Section 3.5 - Missile Protection l 3.5-1 A. Amirikian, " Design of Protective Structures, " Bureau of Yards and Docks, Publication No. NAVDOCKS P-51 Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., August 1950. 1 3.5.2 Williamson, P. A., and Alvy, R. R., " Impact Effect of Fragments Striking Structural Elements", Holmes and Narver, Revised Edition, 1973. Section 3.7 - Seismic Design 3.7-1 USAEC Regulatory Cuide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Nuclear Fover Plants.". 3.7-2 USAEC Regulatory Cuide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants." e 3.7-3 USAEC Regulatory Cuide 1.12. " Instrumentation for Earthquakes." Section 3.8 - Design'of Category I Structures 3.8-1 American Institute of Steel Construction, " Specification for Design. Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings,101 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y.10017, Sixth Edition, 1969. 3.8-2 American Concrete Institute, " Building Code Raquirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-1971), P. O. Box 4754, Redford Station, Detroit, Michigan 48219. 3.8-3 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code," Section III, and Addenda United Engineering Center, 345 East 47th Street, New York, New York 10017. 13 ( \\ e ausynene o e-e + =. as
- e e== e ee o e
e o em + ++4%
..-,.x. ,_,,.t,,.-t 1_;-_.... _ ^'?'.4*.y y p ; &+.33.....'
- _w
...i.M,. :. ~-~'~,~'. : W.6En. T'. ..m.......-.. - ~.. 4 ~.--- - - gjg'Q'>t: ;s .g"..:;;:.Q- '7;#:. -* y &, gA
- M
^ .,...,j- : - .y, v. ..:-,... v.~rw - c 3;,w.s u.---4.2 - : c.,. :,, g ,,,...n...,.m._ L;- tr a..-..,.- -
- M
..e. .,.--~~--x .w ., - - > = -,u- . - ~. - - . ~. - BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued) . W i - (,,3,.y;;i:. nzxev '.. y *.;; . - > ~ % g 3 OTHER BC-TOP-1 " Containment Building Liner Plate Design Report". BC-TOP-3-A " Tornado And Extreme Wind Design Criteria For Nuclear Power Plants". BC-TOP-4-A " Seismic Analyses Of Structures And Equipment For Nuclear Power Plants". BC-TOP-SA " Prestressed Concrete Nuclear Containment Structures". BC-TOP-7 " Full Scale Buttress Test For Prestressed Nuclear Containment Structures". EC-TOP-S " Tendon And Ancher Reinforcement Test". BC-TOP-9A " Design Of Structures For Missile Impact". e.. 4 I 14 .y-. ,..y o ..w- .--r.
^' Q e O W e. ,u e ,,6 "y $sp.h *. ^ h,e," W ~" e s , * %Q o
- }_
= * * * - ' ~ l4 m . $v647'c Ms W QPasu: /7:5 / l G rowno avaws.e sprenre soc.r s ua.r-puu, ConPty W //fr' 7Wef Ct/BM y7 NAC rocc-Weo Mi 'A-c kres'seMyy 9pbuw7 4'N woY c c/7 tem. MSinw 77M 7Mers s7ars2. pre Miww (J DM-4 ..D.E. e, /$ D/h. ). Som,# Creau m j y fewY 0 F Vt 4 sJ ', .y n'.;~ // D4* cS73'/'l f/M Ce nTR.e t.,s fM6 pSJMcd as: M Cse es.c~rf s B dSFiz,I. fA*dM/=* % P '/ n-E Vd' v4now R< W.$. / lOD kh$hU /m$ Y d?%)l D, sV & i.77 &) 1 V2g7t L/15D TD EBDuc5 W .O /. 9 E /2 c y m e.. fAfSNAA /W O I'?M f5y /** S NWWMN 4 i ~ f 1 e I e Os
.. 2.. v, _ :~i~;g,.- ~_- .L. - -kJ 1.h _ _. _ _M,.: : W z-a3..... ?.%u ;,_ ',:- Z ' ? l*"T. W. 7 T.? }' ...;, ' ~- R yl}( & n } ~.[ y r ~' g -i-:lt4 % $ ',O, ' ' ~ " 7'. ..,,,4.,w;.., -- - Y ; s rse,=M q -m .r n . g. *,,,., l !.::%.J g Q y w~y z,,.. Q 9 47.- g y g g s.,fjtf g Q s r. . *> > y;- p..e a e ...__..~, g. f 4 g.7 t w-a ~ ~ ~ E;; cec 77o m x/ s u sF-y'7/s N/? ass.o W47z*/. usc<4 -.sy<ts. hM.J4 wfu.,s /ftc,C N4*t.ord 7v do wrr.*-c4 .y'f~ f Sw.o wres
- uusi, no C o s t. -
pp-.rerw7-A/ 4WCF4CP'o 7~ff fiup.14n DE W4 ?re/ws 5 y 14.y am ss cessoein-es in ir.s sovria.sry e tc 1 " PAe-r, M psa osN;Ni,ve.mu oe 7xw otwm m.pwindif &o ' db;' dairbe.e ysia.ra v,veg, ,ps Cnewy 2 k.v.cra w do esan m ps.nws* Arv.o cournevewa.re esvuy~ yyyg-Mo.t ef. Das 2E frvo o724 era pea rwsw7 sais-
- 4esos,
~ S O O a 8 e J. m
-.-~ - , - 2:,.:-w:s <km --f*- . n...~ m .~ :- =u: . ;;:':::,-39,.=; g ; {.,y:.~Qyp
- y,
- v..
c-G bue ru ,2 c m -s m v a r H.o /iv so.cgan ~c~ d e
- y = 4. r.<.
Qg.acci m, 14g $ gi, u e.v 7- /M A*4MO r v p a sa e SE7seic f.;- p.ie y,, u g;-
- d. &
C,e:u ga,,,. 2 Swerv.r,. 1 /u rfd pcd~r F/w M.s oF .7.rA r //Dat-dow ~ ft /W/3 TA./ A-opiN *-J wr P.fGuutt l'-J y / Sf43J#ic y..... # 87* Ynitsc. N-6~'d47 ^t. OA t/ J 7:n6' &strf4*Ay Z' ..Swenir.cs, i 4 O e em e e \\ e l l 6_j
- O h
e \\. e 1 l e e e e
- e A
e a y i
n.=--
- s2 -
e J;v .3*w.yhy;'. ";&i[-- ,,. ;., f _ . _ *L'Q.fg. g}-gg*.7-:y -+'d S&_., ~;}. t:...., e.u.... .e -n*--- . y, = _.. . ar. ;._.. m...,... m -.. n. .~. . &g., N.,, f i,~ ^ b 6 c a s t s -' o R g.cyt 4ccery7.L-';e.p-y: pig-c.c:,c;x A 'c='~Wrys.,s----&Mh. trow.s .*g. -);ver:rj_ ':Myp.;p; *'M. a y:r. c.,- e p 7Ft F#"a+77*w ^<* re.e.w c. sussoa77~ s r;se l c$/'*A VC7VtC44 (N// 6-A$d 6 VJW4.dCD, .Stic// p / l C##N44 /%ffy AJ-73*.c 7??C A%c.t/ws-aann 7;rAC ). .$hercivee 70 .5C/J Mt C F~o/22 4 C. s [ M., f./.-dM i 4rf"/h~ S94*c754 P s-**t. n~ l t#ar Drnc.t 65.use +7ait. nw&g suc/rar e .6fn6447;r.c ow 7-yar AtwMpr7* a r#+r. 72%r 9 J' rn., W &4. VJ~.J.oc/ry laseto,wo7" Bd 4 ws,e. 77?%/ $~Dv Pf r.. W Asco*se Miec.tsrwr ,7. sac.. S ( SylVt/t.Cduc.g 'e# y'?& ..$ote. f't%pft d d. 4 ~ eves u 77%<<4m v7"" rWet SNr/ses~ /Mr/t/60 esA' t% N.,sart. /M.77h.</ o Q eF 7M1lC ' du/how4 7D. 4/fse/Py'.r*:Wyst" t/#4.'/&Q d A;~ 7W U. 4.t?twpH MJ, j l i 1 1... P 2 . ~ _. e- ,..---r-.---- D
. +. .n.....-- 3.y a.5 a 3:-;-- g. . n..,.m -.kp.iC.'L.2: *.y ._ -Q.Q ' ~,y.Q:; 2 $0 M0 AAS44,., a5. m../d' ps t.t. $472x's.d4 c,sss. 04/s. 7.a *.L: Tr AleerWren j:wer or.rsec deks/tes ev. ors:e peso rp Osc w.r-saf-s .*se ur e.e eu sarr.c. irony ca.~zuerr o. ?Tsc,panna..' .o p r ess a r e v e.rs/ e c
- vest 7;Mr.scae.
H e r r x.s Att ' ),,s .6Esw4 .;5 vppsMa - Oy 7:end Andr7~ oA' r:p*sc.ry; eve.rvt ;- F0 es *VDfC 0 #./ N47sspr?r M + 7 % ss a rzes e o e s ss \\ Cse r-I4 m v*Cir. s9 e ryosv, s4 srdnc.4"447.rs.t of"7V4 s srsvervat Gy rWs o f. M a u rd e r /wasan74 o m 7~ r#.6 Tvro 4 Dr.ca y al.,.o w s M M A/dr GA $offeA7ED 8y i 7;md A.txid 27;euervec r:pA.* sM e c n w 7/4 s uasc 4eisM. Ve%f lastesarrvt ste77/*st Creraro say NC42 29/ (Wr.co t/k ' Z" M 75e *1 SAP *ts7". $. cours.r7' o,=_ pt.de/w4.. p/Lsw 4.c VMBE/L 7;V6 A*/*/t,77/ N4 s i es=', 7;Flf E n tec7s#se4".'.. 4e Tiuo quKsyseosr 2eeneakt 7;n'/ r 't*2 Arc?/c c E f 77 d*J o'F c e av c s n.a.s 7o A//2 C sua vs.a ec /#@ec.crFD gy 7Wf /9pptses w~y, ,y-f/g* Av::.4-A:s.r.rga G CJ.* M I) 7/Yd HCn5*a. .oF Mrr;pcxdve; y-vf coearz,e &. Osi$<6 Ao46 doeg[7yplN4f., G
- O'-C 7"'e *"M 7#d" ** AC kraut.0 W kA JILL 77/8 0 04.7-4... 7 0 R.EtAcr=. G8MesN4, YMAs*
/.c No7* n^s Kordcrn.*f =vny af v~rst.sipse 4 e o.e:r:s. . 67Wfst M17Noa.,e.cnouse..c4 as.*rs.oas F.o ar-evD AdM M CDo 2.) Th'. 7#f ff/.rMt c '.h *. A nes.ytt eN' rwf sueska v'AP GTRWer*'Ag 17~ /s swr
- CL/*nt o6 s.s L u ff t E R
);nsb;flN4w/LL B G' 7tfo97'GD e fsedd V&~Ars4*l. . f/4/w4 CHNor~ R&C/J7* Hes sewist. p%d.cr.t. yubtst ys *fd'A B R ncsso 4 // pp-ovtac.o, W/44 7W4~ -)Ril/ws e JTNL 8E SFMc77b.t TD 3sypose7" VGB.rsen4., A*4D #W64 sf*t/ K e n-r:W &dk*/ E, 1 c i i ~..
l ......x-.-,
- 742,..,....:....
--e W. y.^ u. e &....&WM. S-R_,;.,.&.w -.:;.. k. ;;..... q., .y, s ,.. 9+3 ;, - a, s.< --.. t >.~. : --..;.... e :__ _ _ v.~ s.t 47..p.,...9
- 7...,.. '.
q..< i., as s.- - OC ~6Ef '. M
- f,f,4 C rar t,
. ffg.cs~4f,,,... . :5*c/ f f t o g /$ $y.,,D~Ar M s U m...., . ~. n,,....-,........ ~ ~...-.. .;.y . ~..... 4 ~. Q.,,%,'w > crsuo9g /isine su h e c # w W.'i y M P 4 v m f D r. .:.../ W.4s b 9 7Fe M i W e. p v 4 ~,ry*.e 4 7 7 u E .ptM 70
- p. ~.'. * :'.c :
. O /2 734G M &K h t-7'd ' f/2/O& 70 /$" Y ffht/&n77ee/ OP A e 4.o [ e ?WGW. Md 4 4'o.r A? /f/Es / Rfwrax . )9/t.G-TFn/J/o w V G V 4 4. 5c/q u-7 3yJWM. WA.J... R o^!'~0 i $ y... W $WK9.?7...' VAW-4*Pu % 7W OEs~"-</ b Y. y.u.r .R .. 7hG* A? car e;reis //A~Cwd .5 c/y/W &D M y. *74hE4.../w7%~4n/#4 6 77ts ec m. S . m A-P.Pferno 4 .. 7W/ /. Ats.4'F/& #77o~<./ J44* w.b A4 BE- /9W44 w g-9
..~. - w-~ ~- x.. . -... 2;;.5 3.. 5.:.-._y.?4. ' ,.. ~_ -_gu-
- y
- .h...n.. ;1..
- :-- ->.-
.,..~q -c, w..- ~' p v s.c rr a v /r o e //2( Ln rus vts ep..use 7o c neave.cru ?E64nowd fwur
- Pse_,
y ='G A?pps/ con. /NJ. 57'47aco 7%5s-7' " 0/M25A/774t $577dA"/td6"/V? PA/*L4/9t/L) ) As DC/C4.J~ '9.bo /77DW4. 4 e d .$7tsf/st/ W//MJJ /J A> Cg-G .4/4/774./4 MF4*C/ /
- /0 N D DocJ. stroV. APFfc7~_. -72f (dt7/H.4 g...:ry-g.5x/47b' j,,
oF yydi. 6m WCW44. N E n g t't r*, Ykyt.bsl/ 77Klr Gra rEssJfs/7~. yo 7 7 4's yJ ,4to / 7-~ Gd73rdasty [ /pW/fr 70. .:n:C/JM/t cS7"A V W A f.C ?._ b - _ ..M_' h ..e e \\ m. .e.
- u ww
-m-- -n. y .~.
c.----..% q..:a
- ..s,. s....
.. ~., - _ a. ^- KQ'. g -_ ~ h. .g.y.~7; ::m g~- " -- %.r,cid,;gg,.g._:. ",... -;3. +p sec.a. g .u . s..m-'.'i~~ r - :=~ ;
- *Q.*. s a :. = -.
=~*a .,.y., ff l R.. g, 9 2.- ..,-g .s., w.ww ,{//25 2,ggpJ; -Y /rl, Z.P, & c 2-F Gf BE644-Ds/M f 4.JH7' F/4 c Rss,ei:w./ ~
- -nss-Cod VJ,C t*
OP Cf.4u% 77/f .sW4/pscor'sv:..: aS
- TWG, 6XrFs Q ~ c,3 2/24C M hw 4 7W.'~
d s q Se g s e,,v c c,/ e A crusc,e/h &/c/rs c< e 9 $6.r7.;Cer /Nl'%vy
- 0P J Mtr~
g</,% 9 7~~./ 4 /.7
' A/J.?v" 4*
'~
doso/77a.J
&sc 17./-6 64rs'A'dpp <U
<$772 /C.P't/C-C * /A"C,
j (Al5 f=cs,e.r;%pos:,
)2 s t'o m s tser p.o m.7~ y'7Ae s
AffHcss/?' BB'
, $4 /2.C71*D.7"D l G) f$oWof..rBouben Mao MM,,
-. JWy.
V'wsfA M sod ~sl4**s/
Ae de doMdsov,97towJ f 4.e-C CMk 4 cs9 7 / o N./
.E**JL. EACH
.$47EE%0Ry. 2..<S7YWCYC/.Cd.
U ?/C0t//DE AWAl-)JM'. 7D 546 %/
7's>4L'
~~
.. host / ??%.._7~5'A/J/ e *s/...P/4*L.D
. MM/Po^rJ
/A/ kJMtC// fr c,ex ca: _ wit s
,4vr nuur/>g 0/?.} W A# M,..~
N
$....ffY.
Y SN$
.J/59/. C. /%M
/se = +4+7;tE'*.
/=~-es/2 77H/'
p DC.S 7D. L 7'7~.C.fMfA/7' 4 r1 D /.s*4M*4 M76
. do A*ffdc71dod. f/ Lod /ZM, b)
Ab%)
004 d'Y vY c.-,9,,s
/ *'t '. 7 f aE' l-d'4/AfAd
..,$$$M/ C. devdt-y.ft.f...70._D /7?f# s'/dN4~..*O'd*..NA VC7W'#.
AOMc/4 y ce s**. W Aff-f'se?.J'7"F.D
.577?vtri.'s'fJo n
fre r/wr,.sr..seif ~ rre s<e7.at-
./ vir,s.seriou M f 7 W o o'J Sh'o va g a.. wax;>. /.*v'. 7pte
/24'V's] r.co Arvdey.CA.J,
874vc.7vit+c.
4*v4<-y <!'.4f J//* w< a 08 dowe o erra c/.s/w6
.r-#aC
./Cri/!.J.Ko of/Jovic A o4asu.;
i+vvp d d/#d*" T* N N t.# / 7M?ot/o9
.50 s,,, :.~-~ swM,Ad "o 'J p t** J4F#7[. CJk. 48. E47EszHis/FD
,4 /i d / M r ~
ev$/4w7~
SrwonA-o f,.
f#/t J A / s.e.y.t: v
.f#cr csw
/NC.4 t/o S yW;G S/c'FFc7,,r o /*
SA*7:rL.f A7f"'7' Avvo
./2-G V/Mo
/--**4er
% Bs M s 71s e.c4t/47so v r-7Rir*r.4tts s9W'7f. P*se-We. M#r7c'KC.
l e.
e
..e h
=
l I
l
~
-.---g wr
_.2.,_..._.-... _. 7.-
s L >-.uw...-
m. -
~.
_ :..... c. u.
> *i.h. .'.,?.?f"' _"MY.,.?-O'- '....,,.:~--#
^2)ly-> %e~ y.,..'*
.Y
,, "?~Q- -.f.dh *W ".,
.=_
]?.*-.
. ,W.
'>~*..g,..uc..- - -.:
,y{.
z q
. L.
r.u. :........-
.n.,..... -..
f$.h1
~8$cg r pf,4tjeA7,e op $h/ A jQyY yp,,,,y-A a
DG5tM w.H 08 mplsrca Cy
/973, 7-#,:s-4.o s-o comsiive m.w ci ro
/~o przere.<vw => w 77fs FJ4tc O c)
/ t'o r-
'f di'-t :
wirs/
yrius. 'W 7h:!*
(Wf if-70 ^f / C EWE /rd l'o W M / J;.f/ d W 'S/?f/:C*f/-.:
[P-Et//N 7'-.& [de P.).T, k /.
/S?.4.ro,,.7vA' c
- p p c & y J-4,.t As7- 06 w v.srsc.r>co 73i!f Eds.f4 op co u re.ez/s n.r e use.o sw.r:542 N/ A s D'J*tw,,..w/r# /2cr,orer to y.e42
/-d& 0 ^.rE/W.fr/o: u._J w 77)hf= /Ehe.,97th 0 e espr u c.c cwres,z;..X.05 r w i w w 7.r-e 77/am;r" cvsee's'. 4/ouse 4*%-v/.~. /3.e:r w rs.o /F 7a'C' //KC. Sn~'o.mo fevirv /yeu /cespunce ae/ww fr!O GFr t/. C tsco? { ,s'. .-sw -,--.-wy-y
1 L. >: 1
- -- s Lt:yl. p ; y..-- g.p 5...,... q,., s,.
- ...g-w.. n. y c. -
.._..x-dE.^-C,+QE4s/l j hu; h ~ O/h:2 @.. OEJs7sd /s)7Et?J/: &-vcleyc d'ye /,..sg.c - us,5 4/r &M,0!/7Fo BSA>cf /9 7 P, 77,4S-Ae *.o G Ma /"47*- f/Zffs.svrre /sv 7;t4~ Sd' 4 44 NGY /& s4 C M A /.*v C E W /rn' 77h5~ C-g/, Beds /V Y A C /2fefds.C... v5peuppesug rys r a s r cr.t r. ,s.r res-e 9 a r rie a c.c W,.c:r,zd vse ifcz .n'k,, / e N etf/ro /Ar f fA. [Ecq. W ro<y 6 es/sc 2 x 1.7 %, ~77e'6',$pt/ f.4.v >~ /r'sfJ.. A +7' Do***7 o-r,. -m7 C.42 77.7 06C#/ 0F dov4 des.47-nrm 7 Ws$~ i c,r.co o ,,exsr Mawn &caf wird jaer.prc.r-to r7se h 40 &8&gy-sN/ .4l/.e 77/f kr.,s1a;o i /WCfE,pTE'.s C4 0 4 / 7 F s 5 4.'. T J /7" E-b///./av'lf^ ~'T ya 1'N'n9'~ toMscd t t.*d v s. a ,,VAo 'd. /2SJ c/L.74ca l \\ C & tit.ssvy.// f.C $eo.syrawcf .t N;rd$/# ,o%r'o /F 77/se i N EA/ N#J,# l -_-_-______________-_-_m_
/ t.:%.. /:..
- . 2=W
.. : -- ;. L - -- ~,,' :... ,;:. n,.g N.'~;.~;~.:.:.2fM; &;}j%. L~' W M __ u.... --
- .4 1
gkyfqy.';f 2-X*;,~g;3%M5'p* y[ -- ....s=- ~2 I 5 C';,,,' I 'J.
- s. pw. r.. m 2..,., e., -.. m...,.,,.,,,, _,,,,,,,
!.~}.0. w. .:.e-.. c.-~ 'k D ' L..' I' . 7m m.~.m.----- _l;.U'.i~U*.. lii2 '4 e- :~~~~09 c -- . w.--.~- ,-- u. a 'U : .f:[]Q~- .s a - -- '. 4 '~. ;- .. u. s
- g Dennis J. Dougherty, Chief Te:hnical Assistance Contri:ts Bran:h HEIGRL.!O'#. TO: Division of Contracts FRO.v,:
Roger J. Mattson, Director Division of Systems Safety- - (This forc is designed to accer..odate varying kinds of pr::urer.ent rc:.csts', including small purchases, sole source actions and cc= pet,itive solicitations. Inapplicable items or those for which you have not developed information should be left blank. Insuchcases,projectofficershouldcontactDivisio$ of Contracts personnel for appropriate cuidance.) Part ! - Project Data 1. It is requested that the Division of Contracts take the following action: Enter into an Interagency Agieement and /_xJ Issue a Request for Proposal / f Execute a Modification to with the Naval Surface Weapons Center Contract No. C A, ward a contract on the basis of with our acceptance of a proposal received from Name of Person or Firm in response to an RFP or under a B0A. G Award a Sole Source Contract /_/ Award a contract on basis of to our acceptance of an. Name of Person or Firm Unsolicited Proposal \\ 2. The project is entitled, " Structural Enoineerino Case Reviews (II)". i 3. The level of effort required to perform this work is estimated at 4.0 man-year (s) and month (s)overa 2.0 year month period from the effective date of the contract, T 1 ..--r--c-g og g----te-- -'-e t-w --+m-a M-
~ ^ ^ ~ ~ ...g... vp w~. % :- -g .,,g.
- .bg;;;;q.373 3..-.
-Q.. r- .m =.a +.- Director, Division of Contracts 2 4. The expiration date for receipt of pro;iosals is working days after i suance of RFP. 5. A praproposal.. conference.is../ /._is_no.t J T /_contemp1,at,'d. 6. /X/ No classified inforntion is anticipated. / / Classified information is anticipated. See NRC Form 187, attached. ,7 The Technical Monitc'. for this requirement is F. Rinaldi , telephone numb,er 4927807
- the COAR*is F. Schauer
, telephone number 492 -7483 Part II - Funds 1. Es)imated Cost: 5300,000. Current FY 590,000* Second FY $150,000 Third FY $60,000 Funds Availability: This certifies that funds in the amount of, 5,_.*60.00n* are available for obligation in the current bcdgat for the subject work and/or that funds-in the amount 'of $150.000 have been included in next year's budget request for the work (if work is' contemplated beyond this Fiscal Year). B&R Symbol 20-19-05-15 FIN No.- 86878 ' /1 4 Appropriation ' Symbol 3IXO200.200 Y[IddM '4Ed" I I"" *"" I 'I "I Part III - Duplication of Effort fe y - 1. I certify that, based on inquiries made with other NRC offices, no unnecessary duplica*. ion of effort will result from the conduct of the subject work. 2. Attached are the certifications executen by each of the members of the Contract Review Board.in accordance with the instructions contained in the memorandum of L.,V. Gossick dated October 15, 1976. s ,To be'incrementally funded this fiscal year.- ,w y
' !,.2.i'.u:,...... :. -~_dr;p.g . _ i __&.a%.5 . ; mwawerg_._.t u.:.pwtvery . --vegg. 3ye->&>.3.w ew,,, a V ;-:- m... c... -- - w-s,,,.,.,,,,, _,,,, .m.. ' 9a 8P] Vi' Att a c hments ~ ~ ' ' " " '"' " " ' "*-""~ 2 M "~~ p.? Q e=- . -2% L /x/ Statement of k'ork (Attachment No.,.: 1__) /__f Evaluation criteria and their numerical weights (Attachment No. ) ~ /_] IIsi~of firmTthe' invitedio 's'ubmit proposals in addition to ~~ general public notificat' ion (Attachment No. ) i /_) Copy of letter designating Source EvaTuation Panel members (AttachmentNo. ) ~ /_/ Sole Source Justification, if applicable. (Attach =entNo. ) /,_/ Unsolicited Proposal Justification; if applicable. Approval and execution of a contract with on Name of Proposer the basis of an unsolicited proposal is recomended.- (AttachmentNo.' ) ~
- /,_f ContractReviewBoardCertifications(AttachmentNo.
) /_/ Special Requirements * (AttachmentNo. ) W ^ y R6her J. Mattson, Director Division of Systems Safety
- This pertains to instructions concerning schedules, reports, data, Government-furnished r.quipment, or other special requirements.
-.___._______m-__.-_._m_. ________-_a_-
7.g-ra. s.k $. 53 ,lg3 y g.d. $h.1'3.: .yyQ._ .g}J ~~ ~
- a i
.,. ~. s v., a., a TITLE: Structural Engineering Case Reviews ( y ) FIN: 647? E!.P. NUMBER: 20-19-05-15 TECH:;iCAL M3!;1TC3.: F. Rinaldi __.CO3NIZANT._BRkNCHCHIEF: F. P. Schauer (FTS 492-7507) I BACKGC0Uf;D INFO:.f'.ATION Applicants seeking to construct and operate nuclear power plants must submit to NRC for review and evaluation documentation consisting of a Freliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR)'and a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The safety rehiew and evaluation p'rocess is condu:ted in two ph:ses: (1)At ths PSt-a stags the applicant d:scrib:s and discu::es th: gene el lay:.*t of Category I structures and systems, basic design codes and criteria to be used, analysis and design procedures to be adopted, and technical information needed for showing comp iance to applicable NRC regulations and design criteria. On completion of the PSAR review, evaluation, and approval, the applicant receives a Construction Pemit (CP)licant describes in detail and with morewhich enables him to s tion; (2) At the FSAR stage the app specific engineering data the design calculations and details of all Category I structures, systems and components. Demonstration of co=pliance to appli-able NRC regulations and requirements in all aspects of design, analysis, fabrication, and erection of Category I structures and systems is a prerequisite for NRC staff approval of the FSAR. On completion of the FSAR review, eval-uation, and approval, the applicant receives an Operating License (OL) for commercial p,lant operation. In addition to the above, safety reviews art al.so conducted on various standard plant designs in accordance with the Comission's standardization policy. The two types most comonly reviewed are: (1)astandardnuclearsteamsupply systemplantdesignsubmittedbyaNuclearSteamSupplySystem(NSSS) vendor, and(2)astandardBalanceofPlant(BOP)designsubmittedbyanutilityapplic-ant or an architect-engineer firm. The reviews of these applications are carried cut 1n the same manner as previously described except for the identification of system interface requirements which require staff review to assure consistency between the NSSS and the 80P. PU'RPOSE OF PROGRAM The ob.jective of this agreement is to obtain expert technical personnel of the contractor to assist the Structural Engineering Branch, DSS, in its licensing reviewofOperatingLicense(OL) applications. i I ,s
_ ^ ~} '%g ~~ U l e;- l , Se] ~.,c- -~=m. _ _ _ _~^ % :p g M IT T O*f*.. ;. 9 'g jyg3 y l *. ',.,, $ l q ~~.* W an N.b w - m . +... c:::r U. ..s f p e - ~ -.;, [ .,-m l .. q.. 4:":&.c <W 1. e =+ t-~r r u -- c., t i ( /..% i e u e q.. r ~ ,.%.,...s,,y,. $.$Nh= k~ .e_ y :.... m -9. ll; i h i GENERA!. REOUIREMENTS Therehiewsaretobeconductedusingtheguidancecontainedinregulatory guides, applicable codes and standards, and the guidance and acceptance .in the areas of SEB criteria found in the Standard Review Plans (SRPs) low th'e approach outlined responsibili,ty. The contractor will generally fol below in conducting reviews and evaluations. Recomand requests for additional information 'or clarification based upon initial review and evaluation of the information provided by the applicants. Evaluatetheresponsesprohidedbytheapplicants. ~ -- Attend meetings with the staff, applicants, and their architect-engineer to discuss and resolve outstanding issues. Perform independent structural and seismic analysis of key Category I structtires and compare the analytical results obtained with those of the PSAR/FSAR's. Participate with the NRC staff coordinator (s) in implementing a Structural Design, Analysis and Construction Audit at the applicants' engineering offices.- Propose specific solutions / acceptance criteria for outstanding issues identified in the reviews. The solutions proposed ran be different from the acceptance criteria of the SRP's as long as design adequacy of Category I structures and systems can be assured or demonstrated by the solution. PrepareSafetyEhaluationReports(SERs)whichIdescribetheehaluationof the design and analysis of the applicants' Category I structures and systems. Attend meetings with the Adhisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and public hearings, on an as-needed basis, to assist the staff in explain-ing bases for conclusions and positions reached in the SER. Prepare input to SER Supplements which further clarify and document Category I structural evaluations in the SER based upon review by the ACRS. j PerformplantinspectiontripswithNRCstaffcoordinator(s)onanas-needed basis. " " ' * ' ~ h " tur m - w. my w---e w up -e erm -,isv-g-
~ .e.Vgh.17 y.;-- '~~= f g. " '?.j ~J. [ S 7.. g.7.,.i, 3;.. - - n-TASK 1: Midland Estimated Level of Effort FY 80: 4 man-renths FY 81: 9 man-nonths The contractor shall perform r. license review and evaluation of Category I Structures covered by SRP Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5.3, 3.7 and 3.8. Estinated Estinated Man-Days Completion Date SUBTASKS Review and evaluate material covered in the above 60 1/8/80 sectior.s of the SAR in accordance with acceptance criteria contained in the related SRPs. Prepare input for a draft SER and identify open issues and sections of the SAR where additional infor-mation is needed from the applicant. Discuss the draft SER with the SEB staff, partic-10 2 /11/80 ipate in meetings with the applicant and the SEB staff to resolve open issues and assess additional informdion submitted by the applicant, and pre-pare input for a final SER. Prepare input to SER supplement. Attend ACRS 20 4 /7/80 meetings and licensing board hearings as needed to assist the staff in explaining the bases for conclusions and positions reached in the SER. Attendance at these meetings may take place at a time beyond the estimated completion date for this subtask. O Conduct a design audit, at the A&E's office, of 30 5/18/8f the Category I structures, and make one site visit. The purpose of the site visit is to familiarize the contractor with the structures. The audit shall be based on the existing Audit Guidelines used by the staff on previous occasions and modified for this task by the contractor as needed. During the audit struc-tural design calculations of key structures selected by the contractor and approved by the staff shall be reviewed in detail. It is estimated that the audit will last one week. 1 6 0
M h."....<m. l e.-.. ., e: :. - u- _.-s a =. a.m.. ....:.w.. ,.~ c .....m.... yL:*+ TK-;.;;.~.r y 'u;.. a.m wh,> .. :.rn.c = ~..r f.G e. ....., 1 = - 9>-> -= a M yu-c'- l ~ - 3.- Ch;m.ea..m:w;.uw. y . --v.,-. m....w._. Gan.=... .. c.. .. n.~.., ..-w.,.,,..- n..-., y f,$7h-S-- - C *.2 7~ - ~ Estimated Estirated 1:an-Days Co oletion Da n SUETA5rs Perform a confirmatory, independent structural 160 i n1/11 analysis of the facility contain.ent structure and one other Category I structure selected by the NRC staff. The analytical procedure shall be performed on the basis of the A&E's up-to-date design drawings, the loading information and the current staff criteria. The appropriate seis-ic input shall be obtained from the appli-cant applied at the base of the foundation in the form of time history from which the con-tractor will develop floor response spectra at different elevations using the criteria contained in section 3.7 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP). The structural analysis for all applicable loads including seismic. shall be perfonned using the criteria '~ contained in Section 3.8.1 (containment struc-ture), 3.8.4 (structures other than contain-ment) and 3.8.5 (foundations) of the SRP, and the current branch positions. As noted in Regulatory Guide 1.142, ACI-349 code supple-mented by,ieu of section 3.8.4 of the SRP.the Regulatory Guide 1.142 may be used in l On the basis of the analysis the contractor is expected to assess the safety of the structures and specify the available margins of safety. s 9 O -~~ --.-r
' S c:. ~... ,:. 7.g.g.a. 31 ::&& .,-;. \\ -m &E.:EQ ?:3:h&hQ
- l-? -hA
~ ., 4.w-
- ., w..
c .,,3., TASK 2: Waterford 3 Estimated Level of Effort FY 80: 6 1/2 man-months FY 81: 6 1/2 man-months The contractor shall perform a license er view and evaluation of Category I Structures covered by SRP Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5.3, 3.7 and 3.8. Estimated Estimated Man-Days Completion Date SUBTASKS' Review and evaluate material covered in the above 60 10/27/80 sections of the SAR in accordance with acceptance criteria contained in the related SRPs. Prepare input for a draft SER and identify open issues and sections of the SAR where additional infor-mation is needed from the applicant. Discuss the draft SER with the SEB staff, partic-10 11/1/80 ipate in meetings with the applicant and the SEB staff to resolve open issues and assess additicnal information submitted by the appiicant, and pre-pare input for a final SER. Prepare input to SER supplement. Attend ACRS 20 1/7/80 meetings and licensing board hearings as needed to assist the staff in explaining the bases for conclusions and positions reached in the SER. Attendance at these meetings may take place'at a time beyond the estimated completion date for this subtask. Conduct a design audit, at the A&E's office, of 30 3 /18/80 the Category I structures, and make one site visit. The purpose of the site visit is to familiarize the contractor with the structures. The audit shall be based on the existing Audit Guidelines used by the staff on previous occasions and modified for this task by the contractor as needed. During the audit struc-tural design calculations of key structures selected by the contractor and approved by the staff shall be reviewed in detail. It is estimated that the audit will last one week. l l t x 4 m
_ _.__ _.su m+, T.P O _,......- _. :....: _,- e.h ge- _. - % Ids- - ..-4 '. Bib?~~f[* ( ".m c'Y khl{QSfg lY:5h-kh0SO-!b ~9_ ; u e.... 3 (: ' c..m:a c. .:~..,,..-.;...
- y
.:c..- -w~. ... ~. J. K=.?i paw.+ .6- '~2'K^rn-k ~ Estimated Estimated P,an-Days Co:pletion Date SUBTASKS Perfom a confimatory, independent structural 160 11/31/81 analysis of the facility containment structure and one other Category I structure selected by the NRC staff. The analytical procedure shall be perfomed on the basis of the A&E's up-to-date design drawings, the loading infomation and the current staff criteria. The appropriate seismic input shall be obtained from the appli-cant applied at the base of the foundation in the fom of time history from which the con-tractor will develop floor response spectra at different elevations using the criteria c6ntained in section 3.7 of the Standard ReviewPlan(SRP). The structural analysis for all applicable loads including seismic shall be perfomed using the criteria contained in Section 3.8.1 (containment struc-ture), 3.8,4 (structures other than contain-ment) and 3.8.5 (foundations) of the SRP, and the current branch positions. As noted in Regulatory Guide 1.142, ACI-349 code supple-mented by'ieu of section 3.8.4 of the SRP.the Regulatory Guide 1.142 may be used in l On the basis of the analysis the contractor is. expected to assess the safety of the structures and specify the available margins of safety. A e 9 l + e w n
-_c =._ _ _ ---_. _ = - S: '.. .. -5'.'Qq
- .
- ;-.Q;~=Q-
. }. ~[J ~ ,. _.y.;.g. 3; - ~m- .e,,.x , " [, .-,. a - -c,. w.,... TASK 3: Comanche Peak Estiested Level of Effort FY 80: 9 man-months FY 81: 4 can-months The contractor shall perform a license review and evaluation of Category I Structures cevered by SRP Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5.3, 3.7 and 3.8. Estimated Estimated Man-Days Completion Date SUBTASKS Review and evaluate material covered in the above 60 6/1/80 sections of the SAR in accordance with acceptance criteria contained in the related SRPs. Prepare input for a draft SER and identify open issues and sections of the SAR where additional infor-mation is needed from the applicant. Discuss the draft SER with the SEB staff, partic-10 6/15/80 ipate in meetings with the applicant and the SEB staff to resolve open issues and assess additional information submitted by the applicant, and pre-pare input for a final SER. Prepare input to SER supplement. Attend ACRS 20 10/4/80 meetings.and licensing board hearings as needed to assist the staff in explaining the bases for l conclusions and positions reached.in the SER. Attendance at these meetings may take place at a time beyond the estimated completion date for this subtask. Conduct a design audit, at the A&E's office, of 30 9/16/80 the Category I structures, and make one site visit. The purpose of the site visit is to familiarize the contractor with the structures. The audit shall be based on the existing Audit i Guidelines used by the staff on previous occasions and modified for this task by the contractor as needed. During the audit struc-tural design calculations of key structures selected by the contractor and approved by the staff shall be reviewed in detail. It is estimated that the audit will last one week.
~.... " L -l ___ =- ]~?&...l.; %.w.....,,
- r:::, _
-. - ;-:.-L - - % i- ?->- %-;+f * @ <o =.M ::.n ~,7 M W W-. =i~?.T:. -u " - ~ T'% ' 4 .s. 9-y Q j.;.. ;;.:. _ e .u. ~ l ".-~'- p.q -.. r: ::.. c. -...-- -m m.,,. u..,,. m.m., _._ _,,_ gf l. O &. a..:.. ;. n.--...-m ,.. n -..u W .n-m . n. a-. -- -. ~.
- k. ]Q;;$ h.A -.
. p y; ZU~ -d .g - 1 I Estimated Estimated P.an-Days Completion Date i SUBTASKS Perform a confirm'atory, independer.t structural 160 6/1/81 l analysis of the facility containment structure l and one other Category I structure selected by the NRC staff. The analytical procedure shall be performed on the basis of the A&E's up-to-date design drawings, the loadin;' infomation and the current staff criteria. The appropriate seismic input shall be obtained from the appli-cant applied at the base of the foundation in the form of time history from which the con-tractor will develop floor response spectra at different elevations using the criteria contained in section 3.7 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP). The structural analysis for all applicable loads including seismic shall be performed using the criteria contained in Section 3.8.1 (containment struc-ture), 3.8.4 (structures other than contain-ment) and 3.8.5 (foundations) of the SRP, and ~ the current branch positions. As noted in + Regulatory Guide 1.142, ACI-349 code supple-mented by'ieu of section 3.8.4 of the SRP.the Regulatory Guide 1.142 may be used in l On the basis of the analysis the contractor is expected to assess the safety of the structures and specify the available margins of safety. l I ar " ^
,J. m. ^.QGG '.Q.q3Lg --&;=f.{}.}..),}f
- * :. >.pg 2.+ ; si.-
~ 9] v-vv._ 4 .w. 1.EVEL OF EFFORT AND PERIOD OF PERFORIGNCE The estimated level of effort is a man years over a two year period from acceptance of this work order. REPORTIN3 REOUIREMENTS Upon the completion of each subtask of each task the contra: tor will provide the cognizant NRC Branch Chief with a letter report which includes (as appropriate) recomended requests for additional information, saf:ty evaluation report input, supplemental safety report input, independent analysis results, and other re- ~ lated technical documents. t A monthly business report is to be submitted.by the 20th of the month to cognizant Eranch Chief with a copy to the Director, Divisiop'of Systems Safety (Attn:
- 5. L. Grenier). These reports will contain:
A listing of efforts completed during the period, milestones reached.or, l if missed, an explanation. The amount of funds expended during the period and cumulated to date, by l engineer, and totaled. A.y problems or delays encountered or anticipated. A surcary of the progress to date and plans for the next reporting period. The first monthly report, after acceptance of NRC Form 173, should contain the planned monthly rate of expenditure based upon the funds authorized. A suggested form for the report is availabTe in the. branch. MEETINGS AND TRAVEL The contractor may be required to attend guidance' sessions at the NRC Headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, for approximately seven (7) days during the first month of the contract. In addition, one two-day meeting each month shuuld be planned between the NRC staff and the contractor staff to discuss work progress and to meet with applicants. Onesitevisitandatwo-weekperioddesignauditforeach(OL) case review task is anticipated. J \\ NRC FURNISHED MATERIALS l TheNRCwillprovideonecopyoftheSafetyAnalysisReport(orselectedportions thereof), SAR amendments, and other related documentation for each of the I applications identified herein. O BILLING REQUIREMENTS Vouchers submitted for paynent should list expenditures for manpower and any cther major items of expenditures for each task. This infonnation on expenditures by tas,k must be gathered by the NRC as a legal requirement to properly assess licensing fces to utilities. j s f-
".W. _
- m. ;aus- - w m ;,.,...... ~ -,
- a.. - _ - - -
.Q6 m m. E ^.,...W.'sQK.g!{ %...:....,,T"'Dffy4 h ..iu,... 'N / **l,K.3{.g.;;)){. =.~.. 77 . M."g.u. n t. w e u,...., .m ..m,,,,..c.. ...- w.UISTRIBUT!D'i: e.,[i) O h c.=.m. ..., m.r,. w. -. -. ~.- ~. ;-m ..u. m. - --Central. File
- $ F. St.hauer f ffiE ~birectop,.4iv4Mor.-of Contra'it'
- ' /.
- ..NRF. g.ile E
Rinald DSS CON File (Grenier) Part IV - Attachments J. Knight P. Triplett (w/o attr't) k rCr.' ':, :"d w/o"a W td /_/ Statement of Work (Attachment No. :- * )i. Murley, RES _ G. Arlotto, SD D. Eisenhut, DDR /,_f Evaluetson criteria and i. heir nur.er, cal weights (Attach.er.: l'c. }- l /] !.ist of firms to be invited to submit proposals in addition to general public notificat' ion (Attachment No. # ) /,,_/ Copy of letter designating Source Evaluation PaneT members (AttachmentNo. ) /,_f Sole Source Justification, if applical>1e. (Attach =entNo. ) /__/ Unsolicited Proposal Justification, if applicable. Approval and execution of a contract with on C-Name of Proposer the basis of an unsol' icited proposal is recouraended.- (AttachmentNo.* ) ':.. ? =... L,_.j/] Contract Review Board Certifica'tions' (Attachment No. ) /3 Special Requirements * (AttachmentNo. .) Ort,.8r.3 sbed LF - .. cn.nweer DSS:S DSSg - Roger J. Mattson, mrector .,r 'FRinah DJen9 12/6 12/ 6/(9,,5bt0/7 Division of Systems Safety f ,3 DSS:SE n I ..........B(. d DSS NRR# 4 son a >.FSch r ,,)3 ight,,,,, ,,p(G ni,e,r.-.. tt.....fE@.r,op, der,,, 12/ */79 5(,. o .......l........... 12/f/79 ..12/..../.79 12 79 12 nava). 12/../.79 .......g......., 8828 remes ate (9.P83 poecas stee. . Wu.3,soygassa.Carf passettoes OFF9CE:3979 999 369 i.
. 4.j: ~4:7 -% . v...,. " :.% EiC%.1 _V '.4.~k_Z[ %.,.., W ;,..?- % b U, ;Rc,w a M & a ..,..m ~ ,. p.
- f., _ ' " "..
.=: -+ NRC-03-80-109 7
- e DivissO% OF CO* TR&OTS
- r. on.s g ai st rat.. st m U s. Nt' OLE Am af CV6&f CR) CO*.** ?:15:0 N N/A n AS ei'.:.10N. O C *:!!5
$' r.1 w C f.'00lrIC ATI:*. CTmLRts:~tert e NOilFl: ATION OF CC'.'i?. ACT EXECUTION CC*.1R ACT F AFE D ON-TO. Rocer J. Mattson, Director auf non.: As sor; nut. sE n RFPA No. NRP.-109 Division of Syste-'s safety DATE W.i c m e nt 3g,37,7a y. .r'.',, s. rn.Oki1'lla'm'$. M/e'r"Y FEB 2 8 1990 ICa?t '. :t 3.-r: a estl ICatel l Te-hnical Assistance contracts Rranch DIV:S!O*** OF CONTR ACTS. ADM CC*.i A AC10 A f *.~.v 5 & c Jta*M EXECUTION DATE U.S. Naval, Surface k'eapons Center 2/19/80 i Silver Spring, MO Tirt OF CO*.1 A ACT Cost F ACJECT TITLE FEnsOD OF TLEi cn!. ANCE " Structural Engineering Case Reviews II" 2/19/80 - 2/18/82 l FRIN tral int LSTaGATOR NRO AU1HORICED REPRESENTATIVE Franz Schauer UK.R P4U*.tGE R FIN NUf.15ER MOUNT 20-19-05-15 B-6878 NEV.* NRC FUNDS S 60,000.00 ' FUNDING tiU TOTAL FY IX. FUNDING S 60.000.00 1 101 AL NRC OruG t.TIONS S 60,000.00 GovE A?;t.:EP41 rn.$"a nry A11 Arw*.?L Niist: er ;Tnari rws.tf T FRC-03-80-109 '6: 7 OA*.! :16 et0 79 /) f\\ i.ex/d' f.,c / ' M W uf*yp y --.. . - - ~. _
?.3=;;%.. = ;... - b'g- :_ ^Y' ~ " '~ M *
- = ~
2,Y?-{}} l ": ; - 1 r" Y gg7h f g f & ff l l l #~kg -& $ $ 2.b ,. *M .w -,. e.,; - t.--- m - s.,,,,.,,, !}A m-ww-BILLING INSTRUCTIONS FOR. NRC.COSI-TYPE CO.'; TRACTS hr.4 g j i:$-242 ~ J ,$., c.g., z T r., %.5$ ~' ~ Gener 1. The contractor shall submit vcuchers for cost-reirtuise r in the mner and format described herein and as illustrated in the sa"-le voucher. Fom. Claims shall be submitted on the payee's letterhead, invoice or on the Governrent Standard Form 1034, "Public Voucher for Purchases and Sersices Other Than rarsonal," and "Str.nrd Fer-i:li, Felic V: : :r 1 for Purchases Other Than Personal - Continuation Sheet." These forms are available from the Gevernment Printing Office, 710 f;;rth Capitol Street, Washington, DC 20801. Number of Copies. An original and six copies should be mailed to the NRC offices identified below. Frequency. The contractor shall submit clair:.s icr re!...bursemant once each month unless othmiise authorized by the Contracting Officer. Billing of Costs After Expiration of Contract. If cest-reicbursements are incurred during the contract period and claimed after the contract has expired, the period during which these costs were incurred must be cited. Currency. Billings may be expressed in the currency normally used by the contractor in maintaining his accounting records; payments will be made in that currency. However, the U.S. dollar equivalent for all invoices paid under the contract may not exceed the total U.S. dollars authorized in the contract. Supersession. These instructions supersede all previous billing instructions. Preparation and Itemization of the Voucher. The contractor shall furnish the information set forth in the explanatory notes below. These notes are keyed to the entries on the sample voucher. (a) Payor's Name and Address. (i) Address the original voucher (with I copies) to: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Accounting, l Office of the Controller, ATTN: GOV /COM Accounts Section, Washington, DC 20555. (b) Voucher Nurt tr. Insert the appropriate serial number of the vouchar. . This is to be in sequential order beginning with 001 as the number to be used for the first voucher submitted under this contract. 1 (9/79) -~. -
.. ' f r. p, in - %: .{-%...X.E.hbhW35.A. &:;..l~}. :jf, M }
- m. :.,. 2,.s.
. + + ' ,.2-(c) 06te of Voucher. Insert the date the voucher is prepared. (d) Centract Number and Date. Insert the contract number and the date i of the contract. (e) Payee's Name and Address _.. Show the name of the contractor as it appears in the contract and its correct address; except when an approved assignment has been r:ade by the contractor, or a different payee has been designated, then insert the name and address of the payee. (f) Contract Anount. Insert the total estimated cost of the contract, exclusive of fixed-fee. For incrementally funded contracts enter the amount currently obligated and available for payment. (g) Fixed Fee. Insert total fixed-fee (where applicable). (h) Billing Period. Insertthebeginningandendingdates(day, month, and year) of the period in which costs were incurred and for which reimbursement is claimed. l (i) Direct Costs. Insert the major cost elements '(i)(1) Direct t. abor. This consists of salaries and wages paid (or accrued) for direct perfomance of the contract. (1)(2) Frinoe Benefits. This represents fringe benefits applicable to direct labor and billed as a direct cost. Fringe benefits included in direct costs should not be identified here. (i)(3) Capitalized Nonexpendable Eculpment. For educational institutions list each item costing 51,000. or more; for contractors other than educational institutions list each. item costing $200. or more and having a life expectancy of more than one year.- List only those items of equipment for which reimteursement is requested.- A reference shall be made to the following (as applicable): (1) the item number for the specific piece of equipment listed in the Property Schedule; (2) the Contracting Officer's Approval Letter, if the equipment covered by the Property Schedule; or (3) be preceded by an asterisk (*) if the equipment is below the approval level. Further itemization of vouchers shall only be required for items having specific limitations set forth in the contract. (i)(4)- Materials,' Supplies, and Noncapitalized Equipment. This is consumable materials and supplies and equipment other than that described in (i)(3) above. (t)(5) h emium Pay. This is remuneration in excess of the basic hourly rate. (1)(6) Consultants' Fee. These are fees paid to consultants. (i)(7) Trave!. Domestic travel is travel within the United States, its territories, possessions, and Canada; it should be billed J ,,,e ..--a .f..
~'
- :. m. _. y,....
} ^;.;7ci-M.M'#-g--f9 , _ A.Aa..%-66h l.q q y y - g g,-d ;].] " ~ ] - g J ' * ~. . s v., c.,yg e t.e - ,,,,, ) ? separately from foreign travel. (i)(8) Other. List all other direct costs in total unless significant in accunt. If significant, list cost elements and dollar amount separately, e.g., subcontracts. (j) Indirect Costs--Overhead. Cite the formula (rate and base) in effect during the time the cost i.as ir.ctrred ar.d for which raftburse-ment is claimed. (k) Fixed-Fee. If the contract provides for a fixed-fee, it must be claimed as provided for by the contract. Cite the formula or method of computation. (1) Amount Billed for Current Period. Insert the amount billed for the major cost eiements, adjustment, and adjusted a.ounts for the period. (m) Cumulative amount from Inception to Date of this Billing. Insert the cumulative amounts billed for the major cost elements and ~ adjusted amounts claimed during this contract. (n) Total Amounts Claimed. Insert the total amounts claimed for the current and cumulative periods. (o) Adjustments. This includes amounts conceded by the contractor, outstanaing suspensions, and disapprovals subject to appeal. (p) Grand Totals. e l i l l h* . 1 j \\ e 0 ~--w . e
- p.
.-. san.c %, .. **!M.. 't.T*'.7. ~w; ;&-, a.. 7 5 p*,,... _ _L Z:X.. ~=ir; .a % 3--z Q- ' 'n2.g?.:.,,~.t". -r.dfa..e..eq. 7. ? d mn-> e D ray 3, - p-4 7
- r..- -
"M+," v.'i.: 7.. m ;, s... m.~.---n.w ( :..N w.. :.. a,.,..--.. e.,.~ ~. -. u =.,,. - w 3, - s. .y h ?b5w d J '~ ~ ^ '22 e-% .g; SL"PLE V070EDI (a) Payor's na e and Address (b) Veucher No. The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co.ufssion Division of Acccunting, CON (c) DC' N 'h*: Fr*F2:'d-I Attention: Gov /Co:n Accts Section Washington, DC 20555 (d) Contra-t no. and Date 1 (e) Pa;.ee's Na:e and Address (f) Total Isti=ated Cost of Contract A3C CORPORATION 100 Main Street Arn.chere, U.S.A. " ora The National llank' Anywhere, U.S.A. (g) Total Fixed 2 ee F I Assignee for A3C Corporation l Ar.y.there, U.S.A. ) (W.en Pa:veents are Assirned) (b) This voucher represents reimburseable costs fros July 1, 1c77 througn Julv 31, 1Q7R (1) Amount 3illed (c)C- - T ative for Current Amount From Period In=eption to Date of this I (i) Direct Costs 3illine Di ect Labor 4 3,400 $ 6,600 Fringe 3enefits 600 1,200 Capitalizr.d Nonexpendable Equipment 5.000 8,000 (i)(h) Materials, Supplies and Noncapitalized Equipment
- 2,000 h,000 Premium Par 100 150 Consultant's Fee 100 100 Travel - Domestio 200 200 Foreign 200 200 (i)(8) Other Total Direct Costs
$11,600 $20,650 ,(j) EDIRECT COSTS n of Direct Labor or Other Base (Foziatla) h,000 6,000 (k)' FIXED-FEE EARKED (For.zzla) 700
- 1. LOO (n) Total Amounts claimed
$16,300 $25.050 (o) Adjustments (1.700) Outstandir.g Suspensions (p) Grand Totals $16.'90 $26,350 ? O e e
2
.:....s .m, ~' 'I.~. T'.. ; -,. ... ~.~. r r.. '*7-*"-...? W ~* ~.M a
- ~
- e. ~ 3 q c.~ g *-s d S r y* y E*~
v,, 3. ~ :Q.. <~.y :G M*Z-Q-{ 'b,-}
- ,s e~
f-}?. -j$ ~.. - - .l ~- % X. 4;. g,,. . r e46 ^ . f.) r P0YlCr .i. wca O Vice Prrsadens - Projects Engineering and Construction osaeres otheas: 1945 West Parnell Road, Jockeon. MI 49201 + (517178&o4S3 November 26, 1980 Robert L Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing US Nuclear Regulatoy Commission Washington, DC 20555 MIDLAND PROJECT NRC PEVIEW OF SEISMIC AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN CALCULATIONS FILE: 0460.2 UFI: 73*60 SERIAL: 10109 We have reviewed the NRC questions and guidelines preparatory to an NRC staff audit of major Midland safety-related structures which were provided to us with the NRC's correspondence of. July 7, 1980. We note that this " audit" has been structured as a very co. rehensive review of the Midland safety grade structures which will require considerable preparation nnd resources by both the NRC and applicant. We recommend, therefore, that this effort be considered an integral part of the FSAR review and safety evaluation report preparations. We believe this approach will meet NRC staff management concerns on the efficient utilization of resources and assist in the timely completion of the licensing review process. We request the NRC staff to work with us to make this activity serve this dual purpose. We suggest as a starting point that the following NRC open items could be integrated into this NRC review and resolved: . o CSB 4 External Containment Pressure Analysis (NRC Questions 022.29, 022.46/FSAR Section 6.2) o MEB (M) 1 Containment Liner and Penetration Structural Integrity (FSAR Table 3.8-36) o SEB 2 Adequacy of Containment Using ACI 359 Loads (NRC Questions 130.22, 130.17) o SEB 3 Adequacy of Category I Structures to ACI 318 Code (NRC Questions 130.23,130.16) o SEB 4 Floor Response Spectra (NRC Questions 130.24, 130.18/ISAk Section L 7) oc1180-0092a100 me e e.- .p,,u u_ u _._
~_?.' f.,> > % g yl..N:y p w...,&, $.$.W
- . h
- -
4& ; w. 5.... 5.an..' l9.%n:m.=wt m - 7.m. _ T e % =; g ~ a N f.7g?iU)T-7C N-N..,s --w,. we, D 6 im.s-.e...m.- .e. m..- *.~.. ~. ~... .. ~. gpi"L ~ O < J[.'g, Z d. 'm ' ~ We iavite the staff to add or delete open issues to the above list which could 1 be targeted for resolution as part of the structural review. As requested by the NRC's correspondence, we plan to prepare a comprehensive written response to all questions and to have backup data available for the i NRC team's review. Backup data will include such items as appropriate sections of the FSAR, portions of the civil / structural design criteria, drawings, and typical calcu'Ictions. Guideline gestions were reviewed and categorized, and a preliminary estimate was made of the engineering manhours required to prepare for and undergo the audit envisioned in the the NRC letter. Based on present estimates it is anticipated that approximately 12,000 engineering manhours will be required to prepare for and undergo the audit. We find that this amount of preparatory work is consistent with that of other licensees which the NRC has revived. Cur schedule of this effort indicates that we will be ready after April 1, 1980. We reconend, therefore, that the audit should be scheduled for the 7 w'eek of April 6 through April 10, 1981, beginning at 9:00 as on April 6. We can acconunodate the need for access to available design information and the need for an open meeting by holding this meeting in the first floor conference room in Bechtel Power Corporation's Ann Arbor engineering offices. As requested we will work,through the NRC Licensing Project Manager to complete the details of these arrangements. b tttac4 0-JWC/RLT/cr CC LHCurtis RJCook, Midland' Resident Inspector DFJudd 'l 4 s i oc1180-0092a100 \\ p. l r m.---
4 gto qa-. [. :. ..; Q _. ;. _. - " ~ ~ l ~. ~- - ~ - - w,. ~.. 4. ~.7- - s asag'o. 4 s . UNITED STATES
- a 4^ g. i
! }*i e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a WAswsNctoN. o. c. 2csss j, I te.'44[/ y 7 5 550 g%' Cor: ander ATTH: CR-15 U.S. f;aval Surface Weapors Center White Oak Laboratory Silver Spring, I;D 20910 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Interagency Agreement No. I:RC-03-80-109 Pursuant to the authority contained in the Economy Act of 1932, as a ended, 31 USC 625, the l'.S. f;uclear Regulatory Ccr.-issior. (l:RC) and tne U.S. t;aval Surface Weapons Center (f:S'. C) desire to enter into a cooperative agreerent whereby NSWC will provide technical assistance in tne conduct of licensing review of operating license applications. Accordingly, the Parties hereto mutually agree to the following terms of this agreement: I Feriod of Ferformance The period of perforrance shall be from the effective date of the agreer.er.t through twenty-four (24) months thereafter. II Statement of Work Work performed under this agreement shall be in accordance with Attachment I which is attached and made a part hereof. III Estimate of Cost The estimated cost of the effort described in paracraph II abeve is $300,000. The NSWC shall provide within thirty (36) days of the date of this agreement a detailed cor'. estimate for the work described in Article II, hbove, which may result in a reduction in the total est: mated cost of the agreement. IV Oblication of Funds The amount presently obligated hereunder for the effort described is $50,000, chargeable to the following B&R and fit!: BaR: 20-19-05-15 FIN: B-6878 Additional obligations to cover the remainder of costs will be provided through unilateral modifications to this agreement, subject
5. m..-. ., W W** *.2"~GW4--- ".?,.:.:n ~ e: e-y_ _ h ~ " '. ...N. = a ae-a...,& . "Y.N Q.f.,Y.NW "' % Caf@l m.. '"P a- ~ v - ~~ , nw T-W,% m; w u k :..mr.4.--4m-. m.m...;,,,,.. _ _, .) a 06m =.w. :.. :a =,.n w, '.-~.., nu. -. - n., n._ J. _
- u
^ '.ry.;;. C '1T - k Y. ]Qi: 5a to the availability of funds, ur.til such chligatier.s e:;;;al the estimated cost in III above. Y Billine Instructions NSWC, to receive reimbursement for costs incurred, shall submit invoices in accordance with Attachment II, Billing Instructions for NRC Cost-Type Contracts, which is attached and made a part hereof. VI Advance Nctification Whenever NSWC has reason to believe that the total cost of the work undar this agrea. ant will be substar.tially grsa ar or less thar. the prasently estimated cost of the work or whanever i;SUC expects to incur costs in excess of the funds presently obligated,i:5UC shall promptly notify NRC in writing. When the costs incurred equal 100% of such estimated total costs. NSWC shall not incur costs in excess of the estimated cost. VII NRC Contacts Technical
Contact:
'Tne NRC technical contact for the work hereunder is Mr. Frank Rinaldi, Division of Systems Safety, telephone number (301) 492-7807. - Contracts Contact.: The liRC contact is Mr. William B. i'enczer, telephone number (301) 427-4480. If this agreement is acceptable to NSWC, please so indicate by signing in the space below and returning two (2) signed. copies to me. The third signed copy is for your records. Sincerely, f I j e t 1 D. J Doughe Chie l Tec nical AssiNance Contracts Branch 1 Div sio'of Contracts Offi f Administration l ACCEPTED: BY: M ~ E. BROG ilTLE: sv 'direetforr i L Ecce;Yance on 2 ReicFu'.sab2e Basis DATE: - 19 FEB 1980 \\_
U
vh-cw, ..,w., ......,w.-.%...,y.. .+ -n
..:~, Si,A,Enit(T g,1.', g g gff rq --- TE .sV.p.j s ;
- .g--.M-
~ TIT!.E: Stri:tural Erig'idirihg' Ca' sit Reviews ( y ) " #' FI!!: 13 a' S 'T ? Eir. ftu'GER: 20-19 05-15 TE 2.1A'. I C ;ITOP.: F. Kir.rldi C03'.IZA!ii EFd!i:H CHIEF: F.P.Schauer(FT549~-7507) EA ::Gr.7.";: I!; 0 m T10t:. Applicants seeking to construct and operate nuclear p: er plants rm:st submit to titC for review and evaluation d::ur.entation censisting of a Preliminary Safety Analysis Re' port (PSAR) and a Final Safety Analysis Ke; ort (F5;R). The safety rehiew and ehaluation process is conducted in tuo phases: (1) At the PSAR stage the acplicant describes and discusses the gzneral layout of Category I stru:tures and systs 5, basic casign cedas :...d criteria :c be used, analysis and design pro:edures to be adopted, and technical infor..ation needed for sh: wing cc=plian:s to applicable r;?.C regulations and design criteria. On completion of the PSAR review, evaluation, and ap rcval, the applicant receives a Construction Permit (CP) which enables him to start plant construc-tion; (2) At the FSAR stage the applicant describes in detail and with more specific engineering data the design calculations and details of all Category I structures, systems and components.* Demonstration of cc=pliance to appli-able f;RC re;ulations and require:Ents in all aspects of design, analysis, fabrication, and erection of Category I structures and systems is a prerequisite for tiRC staff,' approval of the FSA:.. On ecoplation of the F5AR review, eval-untion, and approval, the applicant receives an Operating License (OL) for comercial plant operation. In addition to the above, safety rehiews are also conducted on various standard The plant designs in accordance with the Cc=ission's standardization policy. two types most comonly reviewed are: (1) a standard nuclear steam supply system plant design submitted by a Ruclear Stea. Supply System (!!SSS) vendor, and (2) a standard Balance of Plant (BOP) design submitted by an utility applic-ant or an architect-engineer firm. The revisws of those cpplications are carried out in the same manner as previously discribed except for the identificati6n of system inte'rface requiremarits which require staff review to assure consistency between the fiSSS and the BOP. i PURPOSE OF PROGRAM The obje:tive of this agreedent is to obta'in expert technical personnel of the ~ ccatractor to assist the Structural Engine' ring Branch, DSS, in its licensing e review of Operating License (OL) applications. ~ ~ ~ ~ .,w y y-er. 4 gm
fC TE+:cq(q-b NA + ' [bhbb5 S-c n.d;-pHw.% 5 ;&_.,..- +,- -- - =c===.. g - -- _, -~ r : mm..,. -s -m.m..,. *,,., 4 - ~ - ~ - . (y ;
- w.., M. v.r.
-w. -.. .m % 4,,,./,. w,,,,,,_ r-- ~ ~
- y
- .
h.%'i=svm. s GEriERAf. REOUIRE8'INTS The reviews are to be conducted using the guMan:e contained in regulatory guides, applicable codes and standards, and the guidance and acceptance criteria found in the Standard Review Plans (SRPs).in the areas of SE responsibility. balow in conducting reviews and evaluations. Reco raend requests for additional informationor clarification based upon initial review and evaluation of the information provided by the applicants. ~ Evaluate the responses provided by the applicants. Attend meetings with the staff, applicants, and thair architect-engineer to discuss and resolve outstanding issues. Perform independent structural and seismic analysis of key Category I ctructures and compare the analytical results obtained with those of the PSAR/FSAR's. Farticipate with the !?RC staff coordinator (s) in implementing a Structural Design,' Analysis' and. Construction Audit at the applicants' engineering offices. Propose specific solutions / acceptance criteria for outstanding issues identified in the reviews. The sol'utions. proposed can be different from the acceptance criteria of the SRP's as long as d.esign adequacy of h - Category I structures and systems can be assured or demonstrated by t e solution. ~ Prepare Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) which describe the evaluation of the design and analysis of the applicants' Category I structures and systems. Attend meetings with the Advisory Co:r.ittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and public hear.ings, on an as-needed basis, to assist the staff in explain-ing bases for conclusions and positions reached irt the SER. Prapare input to SER Supp15m:nts which further clarify and document Cate; cry I structural evaluations in the SER based upon review by tha, ACRS. Perfori. plant inspection trips with !;RC staff coordinator (s) on an as-needed-basis. 4 e 6 9 I-- ~w-w-
x.. 1 ' ^ ; pz.p.1;; : -m - _, m.
- r.;jl*Q.. 3 3 -.
=g._.} r{. _{; .5 s w.. ' c.. ;.; TASK l': Midland l Estimated Level cf Effort I FY EO: a ran-r nths l FY E1: 9 ren-r-as l The contractor shall perfor= r license review and evaluation of Category I' Structures covered by SRP Sections 3.3,'3.4, 3.5.3, 3.7 and 3.8. Estir.ated Estir.ated Man-Days Completion Oa e SU1 TASKS. ~ Review and eva'luate material covered iii the above 60 3 /8/80 sections of the SAR in accordance with acceptance criteria contained in the related SRPs. Prepare input for a draft SER and identify, open issues and sections of the SA?. where additional 9 for-mation is needed from the applicant. Discuss the draft SER with the SEB staff, partic-10 4/1/80 ipate in meetings with the applicant and the SEB staff to resolve open issues and assess additional information submitted by the applicant, and pre-pare input for a final SER. Prepare input to SER supplex.ent. Attend ACRS 20 6/15/30 meetings and licensing board hearings as needed to assist the staff in explaining the bases for conclusions and positions reached in the SER.' Attendance at these meetings r.ay take place at a time beyond the estimated completion date for this subtask. 30 5 /18/81 - Conduct a design audit, at the A&E's office, of-the Category I structures, and make one site visit.. The purpose of the site visit is to - familiarize the ' contractor with the structures. Th.e audit shall be based on the existing Audit. Guidelines used by the staff on'previans occasions and modified for -this task by the contractor as needed.. During the audit struc-tural des.ign calculations of key structures selected by the contractor and approved by t'he staff shall be reviewed in detail. It is estimated that the audit will last one week. e I j e ._e
=14g; %-; l Mv M-~$$ ' ( a :.. v ~ % 1 m s n y 5 % ep..].}ww_h ? 344 --l. - 5.. ~ -- l;.2?75 g w m. Y lcm.%pm. u,,- ..n.., n..n..,,,_.,_,,,,,_ g G: u.w.,.... u. v. n :- - -n.n =.. - ~. yy h.{$Dm ' 'f. l;.- ' 2.' Q w iJ ' ~ ~ \\ Estimated Esiinated l r.:a -Cays Conistion Cite l S'J57ASr.5 ~ Perform a confirmatory, independent structural 160 1 /31 /81 ar.alysis of the facility contair. ment structure and one other Category I structure selected by the liRC staff. The analytical procedure shall be perforced on the basis of the A&E's up-to- . date design drawings, the loading information and the current staff criteria. The appropriate seismic input shall be obtained from the appli-cant applied at the base of the foundation in the form of time histcry from which the con-tractor will develop floor response spectra at different elevations using the criteria ,~ contained in section 3.7 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP). The structural analysis for all applicable loads including seismic shall be perforced using the criteria contained in Section 3.8.1 (containment struc-ture), 3.S.4 (structures other than contain-ment) and-3.8.5 (foundati~ons) of the SRp and the current branch positions. As noted in Regulatory Guide 1.142, ACI-349 code supple-mante'd by the Regulatory Guide 1.142 may be used in lieu of section 3.8.4 of the SRP. On the basis of the analysis the contractor is expected to assess the safety of the structures and specify the available margins of safety. e j G g 6 g
~ ' %~. ".. :... .. - * -h3.:.Ma W --A - .,;.sL
- pbQjL.
.5, _. w- . -. 3_ __ 3 ~ .v -:v?.e.;. 3%. .e TA!K 2_: lfaterford 3 Estimated Level o'f Effort FY 80: 6 1/2 man-conth FY 81: 6 1/2 nar.-mon.s n The contractor shc11 perform a license rr view and evaluation of Category I - Structures covered by SRP Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5.3,.3.7 and 3.8. Estinated Estirsted rian-Days _ Com-letion Dr.s SUSTASKS 60 10/27/80 Review and evaluate material covered in the above sections of the SAR in accordance with acceptance criteria contained in the related SRPs. Prepare input for a draft SER and identify opan issues and sections of the SAR where additional infor-mation is needed from the applicant. 10 11/1/80 Discuss the draft SER with the SEB staff, partic-ipate in meetings with the applicant and the SEB staff to resolve open issues and assess additional l information submitted by the applicant, and pre-pare input for a final SER. Prep.are input to SER supplement. Attend ACRS 20 4/7/80 ~ meetings and licensing board hearings as needed to assist the staff in explaining,the bases for conclusions and. positions reached in the SER. Attenda'nce at these meetings may take place at ~ a time beyond the estimated completion date for this subtask. Conduct a design audit, at the A&E's office, of 30 7/18/80 - the Category I structures, and (r.ake one site visit. The purpose of the site visit is to familiarize the contractor with the structures. The audit shall be based on the existing Audit. Guidelines used by the staff on previous occasions and modified for-this task by the contractor as needed. DuHng the audit struc'- - tural. design calculations of key structures selected by the contractor and approved by the staff shall be reviewed in detail. It is estimated that the audit will last one week. W 6 y x }1 - es g m y- '7 -y 7 w trwy.i w-wr wr-- ww ,y +
.._ _. _ m. m,. ._ s.,. m,3 '. - _. 'r-*-. -s%&q%. m-m ~ nn .a _....- -.;,. -.. - ,,p=** ~ ~ NN.5 ~ ~ ~ H.U,5... ~.MG. 01'2Ny
- Q f.& ~;*t# W -
- ATrw t .:~r 8 8 r ' :v'
- r-.
r.1:. _ w =. . ? W.QT;;:,v n rn n,.,.z::-s: ,--ve e. y-
- . u.
O w.;. r,. v.. .-w
- m... u w n e,.
p.....-,..,. y QmLn:=c==;u. a. .p .lk y.. '^.,y -Q = m.--- E:ticated Estimated Mi -tzes Cc letier. D!te SJiASE5 Perform a confirmatory, independent structural 160 11/31/81 'onalysis of the facility contain=ent structure -and one other Category I structure selected by the NRC staff. The analytical procedure shall be performed on the basis of the A&E's up-to-date design drawings, the loading infor:ation and the current staff criteria. The appropriate seismic input shall be obtained from the appli-cant applied at the base of the foundation in the form of tir.e history frc: which the c:n-tractor will develop floor response spectra at different elevations using the criteria contained in section 3.7 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP). The structural analysis for all applicable loads including seismic shall be perfomed using th'e criteria contained in Section 3.8.1 (containment struc-ture), 3.8.4 (structures other than contain-ment) and 3.8.5 (foundations) of the SRP, and the current branch positions. As noted in Regulatory Guide.1.142, ACI-349 code supple- ~ mented by the Regulatory Guide 1.142 may be used in lieu of section 3.8.4 of the SRP. On the basis of the analysis the contractor is expected to assess the safety of the structures and specify the available margins of safety. G O O e e e 6 9 6 s G e e e S S e e O O t S O e O h g 6. n. dulp ,**eawes-m-mmmmmmm m m-mmu i m-mm ummsi im
~ ' J'46 J.".; ;. ~, c.Mg.:M ' ne--a. - ..).Q-yg5. m_-- m ;.-- .=3.._.._- g..
- g3 g.-.,. m
~YW.:. gg e l TASK 3: Cc anche Feal_ Estir.ated Level of Effer: FY 80: __9 r.an-conths. FY S1: c rsn - m n-The contractor shall perfor= a license review and evaluation of Catego 3.3, 3.4, 3.5.3, 3.7 and 3.8. Structures covered by SR? Sections Estirated Estir-ted !!an-Cays _ Completion C'. a S S?! TASK _ 60 6/1/80 Review and evaluate caterial covered in the above sections of the G,1 in accordance with acceptance Prepare criteria cor.taine2 in the related SRPs. input for a draft SER'and identify open issuas and sections of the SA?. where additional infor-mation is needed from the applicant.
- 10. _
6/15/80 Discuss the draft SER with the SEB staff, partic-ipate in meetings with the applicant and the SES staff to resolve open issues and assess additional information submitted by the applicant, and pre-pare input for a final SER. 20 10/4/80 Attend ACRS Prepare input to SER supplement. meetings and licensing board hearings as needed to assist the staff in explaining the bases for conclusions and positions reached in the SER. Attendance at these meetings may take place at a time beyond the estimated completion date for j I this subtask. 9/16/80 30 _ Conduct a design audit, at the A3E's. office, of 5' b the Category I structureJ. and make one site ~ The purpose of the site visit is to visit. familiarize the contractor with the structures. The audit shall be based on the. existing Audit-l Guidelines used b'y the staff on prdvious ' ~ occasions and modified for this task by the g contractor as needed. During the cudit,struc-tural design calculations of, key structures selected by,the contractor and approved by It is the staff shall be reviewed in detail. estimated that the audit will last.one week. e e e 9 6 't 6 g
- m.,
e -~ \\
C'::6e. ;..... :;:i. 4 :_:_. _&.nw KQ-$T'. '.' L T D -J.,- : # %1'NQ?QhIhh-Nb8 ' V3.'.*5 ~ ' . N. = nx..wr..u:. w.--,. = ..w..,,.,_ _,,_,, _ _ g(. C.~: ~.= n..,.= - -,...~.e=r,.--,-...
- y
~. ~. .+ .. g m.S C2 h e=. {,'g*. = ..p*g 'E1}<'.-- ' Estir.ated Estimated !<ar-Days Comoletion Date SUBTASr5 Perform a confirrl story, independent structural 160 6/1/81 analysis of the facility containment structure and one other Category I stru:ture selected by the liRC staff. The analytical procedure shall be perforr.ed on the basis of the A&E's up-to-date design drawings, the loading information and the current staff criteria. The appropriate seismic input shall be obt:Ined from the appli-t applied at the base c, the foundation in .can the form of time history from which the con-tractor will develop floor response spectra at different elevations using the criteria contained in se: tion 3.7 of the Standard Review Pian (SRP). Tha structural analysis for all applicable loads includag seismic shall be performed using the criteria contained in Section 3.8.1 (contain=ent struc-ture), 3.8.4 (structuras other than contain-ment) and 3.8.5 (foundations) of the SRP, and the current branch positions. As noted in Regulatory Guide.1.142, ACI-349 code supple-mented by the Regulatory Guide 1.142 may be used in lieu of section 3.8.4 of the SRP. On the basis of the analysis the contra'ctor is expected to assess the safety of the structures and specify the available margins of safety. =. e e e e O g 9 e e W e m 6 9 6 g e S W 9
' ' J,? :.. e e. I. n._ w o.- n :..,_.<_ a ],.:_ q..~.m. _ g.n: _.- g-. ..~...y.' p '..T;.nr..:nd.h a fr.. ~ _3. ,34 y --~,-..,q AW= a ~ EFFORT Ar:D PERIOD OF PERFOR!G'"E _ It C3 LE. The estirated level of effort is A man years over a two ydar period from l [ h::e: s,:e cf this work ordar. P REO.TU;G RE0'.'12.EMEr 75 ~ Upon the cc :letion of each subtask of each task the contractor will. provide the -- ce;ni::..t fi?. Erar.:h Chief with a letter report which includes (as appFopriate) r rtn.o= ended requests for additional information, safety evaluation report input, l supple antal safety report input, independent analysis results, and other re-I e lated technical cocuments. A monthly business report is to be submitted.by the 20th of the month to cognizant h Branch Chief with a copy to the Director, Division'of Systems Safety (Attn:, f
- 2. L. Grenier). These reports will contain:
b. A listing of eff6rts completed during the. period, milestones reached or, if missed, an explanation. The amount of funds expended during the pariod and cumulated to date, by engineer, and totaled. Any problems or delays encountered er anticipated. A sumary of the progress' to date and plans for the next reporting period. j The first monthly repert, after acceptance of NRC Form 173, should contain the planned monthly rate of expenditure based upon tiie funds authorized. A suggested form for the report is available in the branch. ~ = f.EETII;GSA!0 TRAVEL The contractor may be required to attdnd guidance sessions at the NRC Headquarters ~ in Bethesda, Maryland, for approximately seven (7) days during the first month of~ In addition,,one two-day meetin. each month should.be planned between q the I;RC staff and the contractor staff to discuss work progress and the contract. applicants. review task is anticipated. _liRC FURf!!SHED !%TERIALS The t:RC will provide one copy of the Safety Anciysis R'eport ('or selected portions tharcof). SAR amendments, and other related documentation for each of the applications identified herein. BILLIt:G REOUIREMENTS, Vouchers submitted for par.ent should list expendituras for manpow by task must be gathered by the liRC as a legal requirement to properly. assess lit: sing fees to utilities. c N
', I h a hh NEdh .; y. w s ?[5. f1(['/ c. .... UNITED STATES. __ w.my,gn m.....-,-m2.... $( .yg EAR. R EGlit~ATO RY )O,MM I,SSIO N,, g ,s. r,. z
- WASHINGTON.' O. C. 2055[
- g h
N g(C'19 icd. P.EP.0RAf:0VF FOR: Frank Rinaldi, Structural Engineering Eranch, DE FROM: Darl Hood, Licensing Branch #3, DL
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF RELATED OPEN AND NE}: ITEMS FOR THE PIDLAf:D STRUCTURAL DESIGP AU0IT The attached letter of November 26, 1980 requests, in essence, that all appropriate outstanding staff requests and open items related to structural integrity be determined and included for resolution as part of the pending structural design audit. There are several such items by technical review branches other than SEB which no doubt could productively be addressed during the structural design audit and resolved. In addition, new structural require-ments, such as Emergency Response Facilities, could be included during the audit. Please advise me whether you agree with this request by Consumer Power Company, and if so what other items should be added to the audit. I shall be happy to assist you in polling other review branches for related inputs should you desire. My own view is that we should make maximum advantage of this opportunity to resolve all possible structural and structural-related outstanding and new items while this rare collection cf personnel and information will be available to us. Of course, structural matters related to soil settlement will have to be segregated out for the modifications hearing which will probably be starting also around April, 1981. I also believe that parallel meetings during the audit can be arranged so that time restraint and. excessive manpower problems during the audit can be avoided. I would appreciate you: reply by January 9,1981 in order that I may reply to Consumer Power Company's suggestion. fD As-llbf Darl Hood, Project Manager Licensing Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
11/26/80 letter cc: See next page. f t& 9 r b* [ p wm--
- -p,..e.,g =...
- rn..-
+m.- ....,..c x ..s..= ~,- ._.z.=...=., ::a.,,x r.--.r:. -s. w=.z w; ..ga.;r. x ;..n m...m
- == w +..., e.
,...s.. mvv. .c..,;u. ... 3,: x .j. DEC 191980 2-cc: F. Schauer J. Knight R. Tedesco k*. Paton G. Lear W. Naass S. Pawlicki W. Butler R. Bosnak E. Gallagher R. Shcemaker E. Grimes 4 I 9 R 1 I i l l I l t c I. e--=4.' ..-.....~r=.s.
- .-,y-p,y,.
,n.- ,....w,, 4 4%. .,,g_,u -m, _o. _.,.
- . 3,,,..-
L.2-
"'] & @jkf Q 4t; ;,Y*%M #"l.h. f5?i45 ":~ ~ --4;y5 ;. .~ l, M I l, W., -.-....... ' -- i$r; ;$ }l%'} -[ &c ". -~-1.-r'T_ .m r.u.- n-v.m.- u,... t UNITED STATES :- - e. -
- ., k
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - ~. ,S y q. - g. ~.c. e, <. -. J 480 ' WA5H188GTON. D. C. 20$55.#*' - . %..-4 $s.y.q
- p_
..;i 2:n., q AUG5 1980 MDt0RANDUM FOR: A. Schwencer. Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing l THRU: James P. Knight. Assistant Director for i Components and Structures Engineering i Division of Engineering j FROM: George Lear. Chief Hydmlogic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch i Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
TRANSMITTAL OF U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LETTER REPORT - GE0TECHNICALENGINEERINGREVIEW(TACNO.5077) 4 PLANT NAME: Midland Plants. Units 1 and 2 LICENSING STAGE: Post CP DOCKET NUMBERS: 50-329/330 i. RESPONSIBLE BRANCH: Lic. Br. No. 3; D. Hood LPM REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: N/A REVIEW STATUS: Continuing t The NRC Geotechnical Consultant. Corps of Engineers. Detroit District, has i submitted a letter report which sunnarizes their review efforts to date for the Midland project, identifies unresolved issues and r.akes reconnendations for resolving these satters. The July 7,1980 letter report was submitted as an enclosure to the July 10. 1980 transmittal letter from Z. Goodwin. Chief. Engr. Div., NCD COE to R. Jackson. NRC. We have reviewed the Corps report and have found it to be a thorough effort in identifying the problem areas including specific requests for the infor-nation needed to resolve the identified matters. The Corps report should assist NRC in preparation for upcoming safety hearings. t 4 l I g,yp /b [dA;- p f,. g / t/ / y f ... ~.. -
~ ~' y. 7 g g.g U,-w 5 'r=r ; ***- ....m, ~.- -Q ;. 5~ '-kh '{ W...~~ f gb N AUGS 1980 A. Schwencer ww ....,,,,, -a, We request that the contents of the July 7,1980 letter report (enclosure 1) from the Corps be submitted to Consumers Power Company (CPCo) for their response. In addition, we request that enclosure 2 also be provided to CPCo as a supplement to the letter report. Enclosure 2 clarifies certain issues identified in the Corps report and is based on the comments by various reviewers in NRC Branches (MEB SEB. GSB and HGEB) who armt invol.ved in areas of interface review responsibility. Coordination of the internal NRC coments and Enclosure 2 was completed by J. Kane GES. HGEB. d/, ,i rge Lear. Chief ydrologic and Geotechnical l Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
Enclosures:
1. July 7,1980 Ltr Report from C0E 2. Suppl. to COE July 7,1980 Ltr Report cc w/o enc 1: R. Vollmer L. Reiter R. McMullen. w/ enc 1 2: R. Jackson R. Gonzales F. Rinaldi A. Cappucci W. Lawhead COE w/ enc 1s 1 & 2: i J. Knight G. Lear L. Heller W. Bivins l D. Hood E. Gallagher. IE Region III J. Kane NRC PDR Local POR l l 1 t ~ ,q w c. e e e --g a m --A--
mq.. x.,,,% m __ gMhlhh.-.-.ana.^7%;,y,;c -p s.. ,, a.- h. ~... Q.,,. (* . - = - rd i ~ ;- 'g--A Kt d, h j?i U'.%, N,- *, 4. ., e ... % '25j{fg. g - l p W,%4,....,..- DEPARTMEN,T OF TH. E ARMY . + - a.n.c.. - ~ .~. .Y G . c t,<...s-. . m.~..,.... ort =*, s me.s. comes or :=emesas.,,,. er e asTacit assCaesase anapt**. .A%% k. 3 f' TM):..t ') ' r:. =w ~Q Ti J* 7JW.*1980 NCEED-T
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreenant No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.1 -liidland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report 1 1 THRU: Division Engineer, North Central ATTN: NCDED-C (Janes Simpson) i l TO: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN Dr. Robert E. Jackson 3 Division of Systems Safety Mail Stop F-314 Washington, D. C. 20555 1. The Detroit District hereby subnits this letter report with regard to completion of subcask No.1 of the subject Interagency Agreenant concerning the Midland Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The purpose of this report is to identify unresolved issues and make recossendations on a course of action and/or cite additional information necessary to settle these matters prier to preparation of the Safety Evaluation Report. 2. The Detroit District's team providing geotechnical engineering support to the NRC to date has made a review of furnished documents concerning foundations for structures, has jointly participated in briefing meetings with the NRC staff, Consumers Power Company (the applicant) and personnel free North Central Division of the Corps of Engineers and has ande detailed site inspections. '.he data reviewed includes all documents received through i Amendment 78 to the operating license request, Revision 28 of the FSAR, Revision 7 to the 10 CFR 50.54(f) requests and MCAR No. 24 through Interia Report No. 8. Generally, each structure within the complex was studied as a separate entity. 3. A listing of specific problems in review of Midland Units 1 and 2 follows for Category I structures. The issues are unresolved in anny instances, because of inadequate or missing information. The structures to be addressed l follow the description of the problem. Inadequate presentation of subsurface information from completed a. borings on meaningful profiles and sectional views. A11' structures. i Enclosors I 4- % a. r ~ -.
- : W. ' * '.....
l ,~ & , hfY$yl'[*Q. 3._ lE. };j . '.. ?!3an,.'5 & A ~7 v ',a 'l.*UL TcC i r l NCIID-T l* SLT ICT: Interagency Agreenest No. NRC-03-79-167, Task Ko.1 - P.idland Plant Units 1 and 2 Subtask No.1 - Letter Report 4 I b. Dis 6repancies between soil descriptions and classifications en boring loss with subnitted laboratory test results sunnaries. Examples of such discrepancies are found in boring T-14 (Borated water tank) which shows stif f to very stiff clay where laboratory tests indicate sof t clay with shear strength of only 500 p.s.f. The log of boring T-15 shows stiff, silty clay, while the lab tests show sof t, clayey sand with shear strength of'120 p.s.f. All structures. Iack of discussion about the criteria used to select soil samples for c. lab testing. Also, identification of the basis for selecting specific values for the various paranaters used in foundation design from the lab test results. All structures. d. The inability to completely identify the soil behavior fron lab testing (prior to design and construction) of individual sa=ples, because in general, only final test values in sussary form have been provided. All s tructures. (1) Lack of site specific information in esti=ating allowable bearing pressures. Only textbook type infornation has been provided. If necessary, bearing capacity should be revised based on latest soils data. All structures on, or partially on, fill. (2) Additional information is needed to indicate the design nethods used, design assumptions and computations in estimating settienent for safety related structures and systems. All structures except Diesel Generator Building where surcharging was performed. A complete detailed presentation of foundation design regarding e. ranedial naasures for strudtures undergoing distress is required. Areas of renedial measures except Diesel Generator Building. f. There are inconsistencies in presentation of seismic design infor=ation as affected by changes due to poor compaction of plant fill. Response to NRC question 35 (10 Cy150.54f) indicates that the lower bound of shear wave velocity is 500 feet per second. We understand that the sana velocity will be used to analyse the dynamic response of structures built on fill. However, from information provided by the applicant at the site meeting on 27 and 28 February 1980, it was stated that, except for the Diesel Generator Building, higher shear wave velocities are being used to re-evaluate i the dynamic response of the structures on fill asterial. Structures on fill or partially on fill except Diesel Cenerator Building. 4. A listing of specific issues and information necessary to resolve then. a. Reactor Building Foundation l l (1) Settlement / Consolidation. Basis for settlement / consolidation of l the reactor foundation as discussed in the FSAR assumes the plant site would i 2 ~ 9 e 8
- ee e
f y
-^W' - - --- - - N ~ Y~.',%. --f,?" %:.- - w.. :.. g n .... p*.- y.. M g g ..'
- v,
- 7~#i.W
- 4..,.(~ ".y ~...
_._~c=.c.
- M Y9,7b1
~~d m. w:n... ;-m n. u m._. ..idJECTi ' Interagency 'Agreemene-Noi'NRC-OF79-167 Task No. Midlahd Plant 7 f %;. _]h m u n Vnirs-1 ' an.d ), Subtask No. 1,- Letter.3eport __w p. .y , a,g not be dewatered. Discuss and furnish co=putation for settlement of the Reactor Buildings in respect to the changad water table level a.s the result of site dewatering. Include the ef fects of bouyancy, which were usei in previous calculations, and fluctuations in water table which could happen if the dewatering system became inoperable. (2) Bearing Capacity. Bearing capacity computations should be provided and should include rethod used, foundation design, design assu=ptions, adopted soil properties, and basis for selecting ultimate bearing capacity and resulting factor of safety.
- b.
- Diesel Generator Building.
(1) Settlement / Consolidation. In the response to NRC Question 4 and 27, (10 CTR 50.54f), the applicant has furnished the results of his co=puted settlements due to various kinds of loading conditions. From his explanation of the results, it appears that compressibility parameters obtained by the preload tests have been used to coqute the static settleraenu. Inforation pertaining to dyna =ic response including the amplitude of vibration of ~ generator pedestals have also been furnished. The observed settlement pattern of the Diesel Generator Building indicates a direct correlation with soil types and properties within the backfill meterial. To verify the preload test settlement predictions, co=pute settlements based on test results on sa=ples from new borings which we have requested in a separate re=o and present the results. Reduced ground water levels resulting from dewatering and diesel plus seismic vibration should be considered in settlement and seismic analysis. Furnish the computation details for evaluating a=plitude of vibration for diesel generator pedestals including =agnitude cf exciting forces, whether they are constant or frequency dependent. (2) Searing Capacity. Applicant's response to N2C Question 35 (10 CTR 50.54f) relative to bearing capacity of soil is not satisfactory. Figure 35-3, which has been the basis of selection of shear strength for computing bearing capacity does not reflect the characteristics of the soils under the Diesel Generator Building. A bearing capacity computation should be sub=itted based on the test results of samples from new borings which we have requested in a separate memo. This information should inci de method used, foundation design assu=ptions, adopted soil properties and basis for selection, ultimte bearing capacity and resulting factor of safety. '(3) Preload Effectiveness-The effectiveness of the preload should be studied with regard to the moisture content of the fill at the time of \\ 1 preloading. The height of the water table, its time duration at this level..F. #,,9** and Wether the plant fill uns placed wt or dry of optimun would be all I f,, M.t* 1.sportant considerations. ',. ',,j' ' jy ',,. 'f * $ 5 3 s
,k[M*
- l
- * * =
.o NCIED-T /
- e SURJECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midhnd Plant Units I and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report l
(a) Granular Soils. When suff'.ient load is applied to granular soils it usually esuses a i reorientation of grains and novament of particles into acre stable positions plus (at high stresses) fracturing of particles at their points of contact. i Amorientation and breakage creates a chain reaction among these and adjacent particles resulting in settlement. Reorientation is resisted by friction
- ^
between particles. Capillary tension would tend to increase this friction. A l moisture increase causing saturation, such as a rise in the water cable as occurred here, would decrease capillary tension resulting in more compaction. { Present a discussion on the water table and capillary water effect en the granular. portion of the plant fill both above and below the water table during and after the preload. / (b) Inpervious and/or Clay Soils. Clay fill placed dry of optiaun would not compact and voids could i exist between particles and/or chunks. In this situation SPT blow counts - would give misleading information as to strength. Discuss the raising of the unter table and deternine if the time of saturation was long enough to saturate possible clay lunps so that the consolidation could take place that would preclude further settlement. i e-Discuss the preload effect on clay soils lying above the water table (7 feet +) that were possibly compacted dry of optinua. It would appear only limited consolidation from the preload could take place in this situation and the potential for further settlenent would exist. Discuss the effect of the preload on clays placed wet of optinun. It would appear consolidation along with a gain in strength would take place. Determine if the new soil strength is adequate for bearing capacity. Conclusions Since the reliability of existing fill and compaction information l is uncertain, additional borings and tests to determine void ratio (granular soils) relative density, noisture content, density, consolidation properties and strength (triaxial tests) would appear. to be desirable in order to j natisfactorily answer the above questions. Borings should be continuous push with undisturbed cohesive soil samples takan. (4) Miscellaneous. A contour asp, showing the settlement l configuration of the Diesel Generator Building, furnishea by the applicant at j the meeting of 27 and 28 Febr.uary 1900 indicate ; that the base of the building i has warped due to differential settlements. Wditional stresses will be induced in the various components of the structure. The applicant should evaluate these stresses due to the differential settlenent and furnish the cogutations and results for review. 4 g '4 l w... ~... - ~ ~ ~4-- l~. +. - - E
Z:K,., - ;~. -- g; _~: _ _ _ " 5 l' __. _ 'r~~~~~# & ~; y'- ~ gl =- }.
- $*783
" ~ ,, ' ' 2[' . :7~ ~. .r -"m-M, Qm-r : m m..n.- -- v..,,,,.,,. , i % :. - ;..~.. m i. w,,. - - u.a,,,.,. .w,..,. _ _. p # ~ScitD-T- ~ ~ p.A 7 - 5g3'.TEdTY~Intaragency Agreement Nc. NRC-03-7N. f67,CTask'No.~1'2Eid7I$1 Plant ~ - - ~ Units 1 and 2 Subtask No.1 - Letter Report c. Strrice Water Building Toundation. (1) 3 earing Capacity. A detailed pile design based upon pertinent soil data should be developed in order to more effectively evaluate the proposed pile support systes prior to load testing of test piles. Provide adopted soil properties, reference to test data on which they are based, and method and assumptions used to estimate pile design capacity includ*.g conputations. Provide estimated maximum static and dynamic loads to be inposed and individual contribution (DL, LL, OBE, SSE) on the m.ximum leaded pile. Provide factor of safety against soil failure due to maximum pile load. (2) Settlements. (a) Discuss and provide analysis evaluating possible differential settlement that could occur between the pile supported and and the portion placed on fill. (b) Present discussion why the utaining vall adjacent to the intake structure is not required to be Seismic category I structure. Evaluate the observed settlement of both the service unter pumphouse retaining valls and the intake structure retaining nall and the significance of the settlement including future settlement prediction on the safe operation of the Midland Nuclear Plant. (3) Seismic Analysis. Provided the propossi 100 ton ultimate pile load capacities are achieved and roast,nable margin of safety is available, the vertical pils support proposed for the overhang section of the Service Water Pu=p Structure vill provide the support necessary for the structure under conbined static and seismih inertial loadings even if the soil under the overhang portion of the structure should liquefy. There is no reason to think this won't be achieved at this time, and 'the applict.nt has committed to a ' load test to demonstrate the pile capacity. The dynamic response of the structure, including the inertial loads for which the structure itscif is designed and the mechanical equipment contained therein, would change as a result of the introduction of the piles. Therefore (a) Please summarize or provide copies of reports on the dynamic analysis. of the structure in its old and proposed configura.fon. For the latter, provide detailed information on the stiffness assigned to the piles l and the way in which the stiffnesses were obtained and show the largest change in interior floor vertical response spectra resulting free the proposed modification. If the proposed configuration has not yet been analyzed, describa the analyses that are to be performed giving particular attention to the basis for calculation or selection, of and the range of numerical stiffness values assigned to the vertical piles. (b) Provide af ter completion di the new pile foundation, in accordance with commitment No. 6, item 125, consumers Power Company memorandum 5 l w,- .. ~, =
. -v
- .n
,, _ 7:QeM b ..M d 7 "' y, ? ,,g -?Q - [.$ ^;
- ggg g -.-
. : u: %IED-T - a
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.1 - Midland Plant J Units 1 and 2 Subtask No.1 - Letter Report i dated 13 March 1980, the results d measurenants of vertical applied Icad and absolute pile head vertical deformation which will be made when the structural load is jacked on the piles so that the pile stiffness can be determined and conpared to that used in the dynamic analysis. d. Auxiliary Building Electrical Penetration Areas and Feeduster Isolation Valve Pits. (1) Settlement. Provide the assumptions, method, cor:putation and 4 estimate of expected allowable lateral and vertical deflections under static and scisnic loadings. (2) Provide the construction plans, and specifications for underpinning operations beneath the Electrical Penetration Area and Feedwater Valve Pit. T1.e recuested information to be submitted should cover the following in sufficient details for evaluation: (a) Details of deutering system (locations, depth, size and capacity 4 of wells) including the monitoring program to be required (for example, l unasuring draudown, flow, frequency of observatior.s etc.) to evaluate the performance and adequacy of the installed system. t (b) Location, cectional views and dimensions of access shaf t and drift to and below auxiliary building wings. (c) Details of temporary surface support systes for the valve pits. (d) Devatering before underpinning is recommanded in order to preclude differential settlement between pile and soil supported elements and negative drag forces. 1 1 (e) Provide adopted soil properties, method and assumptions used to estimate caisson and/or pile design capacities, and computational results. j' Provide estimated anximum static and dynamic load (compression, uplif t and lateral) to be imposed and the individual contribution (DL, LL, 03E, SSE) on maximum loaded caisson and/or pile. Provide factor of safety against soil failure due to anximum pile load. i -(f) ' Discuss and furnish computations for settlement of the portion of the Auxiliary Building (valve pits, and ' electrical penetration area) in respect to changed water level as a result of the site deuatering. Include the effect of bouyancy, which was used in previous calculations, and fluctuations in unter table which could happen, if devatoring system becomes inoperable. i (3) Discuss protection measures to be required against corrosion, if 4 piling is selected. 6 I A..
~.
- h WL w -~~ ~R}' l,L t.
~,i~;[:_.. . - l-2... &_ * ' _ __ _ S &j.gz{ Q .-ff$7h e u- .i $$; c} ^ " ~.:.f f .-w; z.e n.c-.m-g y s l NCEED-Tu - e m1-~ ~ - -m-w . = u. --..
- f%'~[25UBJECT:
Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. '1 - Lett'er,' Report
- .- Mgland Plant Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-1K,,., Task-No.1 T.~
(h) Identify specific information, data and method of presentation to be subnitted for regulatory review at completion of underpinning -operation. This report should su=narize construction activities, field inspection records, results of field load tests on caissons and piles and an evaluation of the completed fix for assuring the stable foundation. a. Borsted Water Tanks. (1) Settlement. The settlement estimate for the Borsted Water Storage Tacks furnished by the applicant in response to NR" Question 31 (10 CTR 50.54f) is based upon the results of two plate load tests conducted at the foundation elevation (EL 627.00+) of the tanks. Since a plate load test is ~ not effective in providing information regarding the soil beyond a depth more than twice the diameter of the bearing plate used in the test, the estinate of the settlement furnished by the applicant does not include the contribution of the sof t clay layers located at depth more than 5' below the bottaa of the tanks (see Boring No. T-14 and T-15, and T-22 thru T-26). (a) Compute settlements which include contribution of all the soil layers influenced by the 'otal load on the tanks. Discuss and provide for review the analysis evaluating differential settlement that caald occur l between the ring (foundations) and the center of the tanks. I (b) The bottom of the borated tanks being flexible could very under differential settlement. Evaluate what additional stresses could be induced in the ring beans, tank walls, and tank bottoms, because of the settlenent, and conpare with allovable stresses. Turnish the computations on stresses ~ including method, assumptions and adopted soil properties in the analysis. (2) Bearing capac' ty. Iaboratory test results on samples from boring i T-15 show a sof t stratus of soil below the tank bottoa. Consideration has not been given to using these test results to evaluate bearing capacity information furnished by the applicant in response to NRC Question 35 (10 CTR 50.54f). Provide bearing capacity computations based on the test' results of the samples from relevant borings. This information should include l anchod used, foundation design assumptions, adopted soil properties, ultimate i bearing capacity and resulting factor of safety for the static and the seismic loads.
- f. ' Underground Diesel Fuel Tank Foundation Design (1) Bearing capacity. Provide bearing capacity computation based on the test results of samples from relevent borings, including anthod used, j
foundation design assumptions, adopted s' oil properties, ultimate bearing capacity and the resulting factor of safety. (2) Provide tank settlement analysis due to static and dynamic loads including methods, assumptions made, etc. (. 'l 7 l l l l
~ '.O.*: ^. e e. ......f e.. . _ ~.. ..w
- s.>,. q s ; + 2 n-e.. a K -
"*=M=-..= ='~ 4.: 4~.+_.u, -
- .,, _t
,,,3 :" X,:.Q~ ~ -w= .O e NCEED-T ~ . }.h*',3
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreenent No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant i Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report t (3) What will be effects of uplift pressure on the stability of the i tanks and the associated piping system if the dewatering systes becomes inoperable? 3 Underground Utilities: (1) Settlement (a) Inspect the interior of water circulation piping with video cameras and sencing devices to show pipe cross section, possible areas of crackings and openings, and slopes of piping following consolidation of the Plant fill beneath the imposed surcharge loading. 4 (b) The applicant has stated in his response to NRC Question 7 (10 CFR 50.54f) that if the duct banks remain intact af ter the preload program has been completed, they will be able to withstand all future operating loads. Provide the results of the observations' asde, during the preload test, to determine the stability of the duct banks, with your discussion regarding their reliability to perform their design functions. (c) The response to Question 17 of *2asanaes to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill" states that "there is w ri,:an to believe that the stresses in seismic Category I piping systems w".1 ever approach the Code allovable." We question the above statesent based on the following: Profile 26* - OEBC-54 on Fig.19-1 shows a sudden drop of approx. 0.2 feet within a distance of only 20 feet-Using the procedure on p.17-2, (b = E(e) = E ( D ) =*E ( D ) ( 86 ) j 21 2 1,2 \\. l p = 30000 ( 26 ) [ 8(0.2)(12) ! = 130.0 III i 2 (20:12)' Furthermore, the Eq. 10(a) of Article WC-3652.3, sec. III, Division 1, of the ASME code requires that some Stress Intensification Factor *1" be assigned to cil computed settlement stresses. Yet, Table 17-2 lists only 52.5 ISI stress for this pipe. This matter requires further review. Please respond to apparent discrepancy and also specify the location of each coraputed settlement etress at the pipeline stationing shown on the profiles. More than one critical stress location is possible along the same pipeline. (d) During the site' visit on 19 February 1980, we observed three instances of what appeared to be degradation of rattlespace at penetrations of Category 1 piping through concrete walls as fo11sust 8 i i g,; q. 'a.w w.m W.3.* .e'r P, \\ ~
,, F.1 _ _ ___ _ __.aw e.~ _.$ ~
- m.==. e-e me,. >,_
^ - I ) r :( ;. + .**w . w p '0W++ Men '~~ 41Ly tl Q-
- p=._5?'.qR-7 r
. ~.i.c 3 w 9 . y..,:v a -: 2. m y.. m.-- m..,,,, .n._ i g . 3: m_y:... n-. p ~ ~ nn,,- n n. v. = M$3im d5UBJECZ4 Infaragency Agree 5nt No. NRC-03-79/1'A7cTask'NdCis-Mi-d$d Plant Y' Units 1 and 2 Subtask No.1 - Letten Report Wrest Borsted Water Tank - in the valve pit attached to the base of the structure, a large diameter steel pipe extended through a steel sleeve placed in the unll. Because the sleeve us not cut flush with the wall, clearance between the sleeve and the pipe was very small. - g-si. ve w.a A :n :.?; E"' ~ r s W. '. 's,* i e ge %. g g=" a yVa 3 %1 SAP Service Water Structure - Two of the service inter pipes penetrating the northwest wall of the service unter structure had settled differentia 11y with respect to the structure and were resting on slightly squashed short pieces of 2 s 4 placed in the bottom of the penetration. From tha inclination of the pipe, there is a suggestion that the portions of the pipe further back in the well opening (whie*2 was not visible) were actually bearing on the invert of t se opening. The botten surface of one of the steel pipes 4 had small surface irregularities around the' edges of the area in contact with the 2 x 4. Whether these irregularities are normal annufacturing irregularities or the result of concentration of load on this teurerary support caused by the settlement of the fill, uns not known. These instances are suffic*ient to warrant an examination of.those penetrations where Category 1 pipe derives support from plant fill on one or both sides of a penetration. In view of the above facts, the following inforantion is s. required. (1) What,is the minimum seismic rattlespace required between a i Category I pipe and the sleeve through which it penetrates a well? (2) Identify all those locations where a Category I pipe deriving support.from plant fill penetrates an exterior concrete well. Determine and report the vertical and horizontal rattlespace presently available and the minimum required at each location and describe remedial actions planned as a l result of conditions uncovered in the inspection. It is anticipated that the i answer to question (1) can be obtained without any significant additional excavation. If this is not the case, the decision regarding the necessity to obtain information at those locations requiring anjor excavation should be deferred until the data from the other locations have been examined. i i i 9 9 8 4 e ' ~ ~ ~
- ~:-
=
. w... -s a., s. y , * [.'. 4'* *
- ?
? ' Wa', ;.N '^ * - ,, s. NCEED-T ^ y" ~ SUBJECT Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.1 - Midland Plant j. Units 1 and 2. Subcask No.1 - Letter Report (e) Provide details (thickness, type of asteriai etc.) of bedding or cradle placed beneath safety related piping, conduits, and supporting structures. Provide profiles along piping, and conduits alignments showing the pro;,erties of all supporting materials to be adopted in the analysis of pipe stresses caused by settlement. (f) The two reinforced concrete return piper ubich exit the Service Water Pump Structure, run along either side of the energency cooling unter { reservoir, and ultimately enter into the reservoir, are necessary for safe shu tdown. These pipes are buried within or near the crest of Category I slopes that form the sides of the smergency cooling veter reservoir. There is no report on, or analysis of, the seismic atability of post earthquake residual displacement for these slopes. f!hile,the limited data from this area do not raise the specter of any probles, for an important element of the plant such as this, the earthquake stability should be examined by state-of-the-art i methods. Therefore, provide results of the seismic analysis of the slopes 1eading.to an estimate of the permanent deformation of the pipes. Please provide the following (1) a plan showing the pipe location with respect to other nearby structures, slopes of the reservoir and the coordinate systen; (2) cross-sections showing the pipes, normal pool levels, slopes, subsurface l conditions as interpreted from borings and/or logs of excavations at (a) a location parallel to and about 30 ft free.the southeast outside wall of the service unter pipe structure and (b) a loc tion where the cross section vill include both discharge structures. Actual boring logs should be shown on the profiles; their offset from the profile noted, and soils should be described using the Unified Soil Classification Systes; (3) discussion of available shear strength dats and choice of strengths used in stability analysis; (4) 4 decernisation of static factor or sa'faty, critical earthquake acceleration, and location of critical circle; (3) calculation of residual anvenent by the method presented by Nevaark (1965) or Makdisi and Seed (1978); and (6) a determination of whether or not the pipes can function properly af ter such movements. h. Cooling Pond. (1) Eastgency Cooling Fond. In recognition that the type of embankment fill and the campsetion control used to construct the retention dikes for the cooling pond mere the same as for the problem plant fill, we request reasonable assurance that the slopes of the Category I Emergency Cooling Pond (baffle dika and asin dike) are stable under both static and dynamic loadings. We request a revised stability analysis for review, which will include identification of locations analysed, adopted foundation and embankment conditions (stratification, seepage, etc.) and basis for selection, j adopted soil properties, anthod of stability analysis used and resulting factor of safety with identification of sliding ' surfaces analyzed. Flesse address any potential impact on Category 1 pipes naar the slopes, based on the results of this stability study. Recommendations for location of new l emploration and testing havn been provided in a separate letter. 10 0 w. ~,. -... = l
l nb-w -. L t a .n. ,,. _ _. 5 l ' " E-F .-m - f~5h. kN?$.y .._.-m. ~
- J 2 & & ?'.F W E"'.
~ ;. / o ... s_= _: CUE';. -. M.. gg4&m.. -. ; :,.m %.. 'Q15UBJECT: #Intetagency Agreement' No." NnC-03-79-167,-Task No. Mid2had Plant j$[@k xA-.o i Mn_ijs 1 and 2, Subtask' No.,1 - Lettar7Reporr7T; ya (2) Operating Cooling Pond. A high level of safety should be required for the remaining slopes of the Operating Cooling Pond unless it can be assured that a failure vill not: (a) endanger public health and properties, (b) result in an assault on environment, (c) impair needed emergency access. Recommendations for locations of new borings and laboratory tests have been submitted in a separate letter. These recommendations were made on the assumptions that the stability of the operating cooli ; pond dikes should be demonstrated.
- i. Site Dewatering Adequacy.
(1) In order to provide the necessary assmace of safety against liquefaction, it is necessary to demonstrate that the water vill not rise above elevation 610 during normal operations or during a shutdown process. The applicant has decided to accomplish this by pumping fron wells at the site. In the event of a failure, partial failure, or degradation of the devataring system (and its backup system) caused by the earthquake or any other event such as equipment breakdown, the water levels vill begin to rise. Depending on the answer to Question (a) below concerning the norst.1 operating water levels in the immediate vicinity of Category I structures and pipelines founded on plant fill, different amounts of time are available to accomplish repair or shutdown. In response to Question 24 (10 CyR 50.54f) the applicant states "the operating groundwater level vill be approxinately el 595 f t" (page 24-1). On page 24-1 the applicant a1so states "Therefore el 610' is to be used in the designs of the devatering system as the maximum permissible groundwater level elevation under SSE conditions.* On page 24-15 it is stated that "The wells will fully penetrate the backfill sands and underlying natural sands in this area." The bottom of the natural sands is indicated to vary from elevation 605 to 580 within the plant fill area according to Figure 24-12. The applicant should discuss and furnish response to the following questions: (a) Is the normal operating devatoring plan to (1) pump such that the unter level in the wells being pumped is held at or below elevation 595 or (2) to pump as necessary to bold the water levels in all observation vella near Category I Structures and category I Pipelines supported 'on plant fill at or below elevation 595, (3) to pump as necessary to hold water levels in the wells mentioned in (2) above at or below elevation 610, or (4) something elsef If it is something else, what is it? . (b) In the event the unter levels in observation wells near Category I Structures or Pipelines supported on plant fill exceed those for normal operating conditions as deff ned by your answear to Question (a) uhat action vill be taken? In the event that the water level in any of these observation vella exceeds elevation 610, what action vill be takenf e 11 l l ~ . ~ _... _...... ~
.c ' ygg-L'; :M-~5 - . n_. L'-;w ;f E-}}2~~.13.y __-., . ~{.}g. }is =- l-7 A. 50 N. 4 '- k NCEED-T'- SUNICT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.1 "idland plant Units 1 and 2. Subtask No.1 - Letter Report (c) Where will the observation wells in the plant fill area be j located that win be susitored during the plant lifetime? At what depths win the screened intervals be? Vill the combination of (1) screened interval in l cohesionless soil and (2) demonstration of timely response to changes in j cooling pond level prior to drawdose be ande a condition for selecting the observation wells? Under what conditions will the alarm mantioned on page 24-20 be triggered? What will be the response to the alaruf A worst case test of the completed permanent dauntering and groundwater level monitoring systems could be conducted to determine Wether or not the time required to accomplish shutdown and cooling is available. This could be done by shutting off the 1 entire dewatering system when the cooling pond is at elevation 627 and determining the water level versus time curve for each observation well. The test should be continued until the water level under Category I structure, whose foundations are potentially liquefiable, reaches elevation 610 (the normal water level) or the sus of the tiasi intervals allotted for repair and the time interval needed to accomplish shutdown (should the repair prove unsuccessful) has been exceeded, whichever occurs first. In view of the i j heterogeneity of the fill, the likely variation of its permeability and the necessity of asking several assumptions in the analysis which was presented in the applicant's response to Question 24a_, a fun-scale test should give more i reliable information on the available time. In view of the above the applicant should furnish his response to the following: If a devatoring system failure or degradation occurs, in order to assure that the plant is shutdown by the time water level reaches elevation 610, it is necessary to initiate shutdown earlier. In the event of a failure of the dewatering syttu:, Wat is the water level or condition at which i shutdown win,be initiated? How is that condition determined? An acceptable method would be a full-scale worst-case test performed by shutting off the entire deustering system with the cooling pond at elevation 627 to determine, at each Category I Structure deriving support from plant fill, the water level l at which a sufficient time window sein remains to accomplish shutdown be' fore the water rises to elevation 610. In establishing the groundwater level or' j condition that will trigger shutdown, it is necessary to account for normal surface water inflow as won as groundwater recharge and to assume that any additional action taken to repair the dewatering system, beyond the point in j time when the trigger condition is first. reached, is unsuccessful. (2) As per applicant response to NRC Question 24 (10 CFR 50.54f) the design of the permanent downtering system is based upon two major findings: (1) the granular backfill materials are in hydraulic connection with an underlying discontinuous body of retural sand, and (2) seepage from the i cooling pond is restricted to the intake and pump structure area, since the plant fin south of Diesel Generator Building is an effective barrier to the inflow of the cooling pond water. However, soil profiles (Figure 24-2 in the
- Response to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill"), puging test time-drawdown graphs (Figure 24-14), and plotted cones of influence (Figure 24-15) indicate that south of Diesel Generator Building., the plant fill material adjacent to 12 4
a.z '.. u - = -. - - - -.
'+:@p ~....y.,-. - e9 :(- - m-W 7_, g- _ _ - gn ~%;.:.: m, _lA.% kr :- ~ -f - .MW%Q::p.,. ' s>- F
- q~
l. '4%@3;;.pWnLv ~.w
- .m
.: ~ *- ,u m. .; w w e;a...n m-.v m.,. S l ( } W%--.cn.,0.,.. u,,.-. . %.,,,.. w c,m. -w.
- p 4,,,g*s NCEID-T,SUBUECTi""'Thitwapsey-Agreerant No. - NRC-03-79967f Task;No.-1 % yid 4jfLd Plan c.UM
.%., c . A Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - 1.ettef Report the ' ooling pond is not an effective barrier to inflow of cooling pond water. c The estimated permeability for the fill material as reported by the applicant is 8 feet / day and the transmissivities range from 29 to 102 square feet / day. Evaluate and furnish for review the ' recharge rate of seepage through tl,e fill 3 materiala from the south side of the Diesel Generator Building on the )- permanent downtering system. This evaluation should especially consider the i recovery data from PD-3 and complete data from PD-5. (3) The interceptor wells have been positioned along the northern i side of the Water Intake Structure and service water punp structures. he calculationa estinating the total groundwater inflow indicate the structures serve as a positive, cutoff. However, the isopachs of the sand (Figures 24-9 3 i and 24-10) indicate 5 to 10 feet of remaining natural sands below these j structures. The soil profile (Figure 24-2) neither agrees nor disagrees with the isopachs. De calculations for total flow, whicE assucci positi: cu t:.' ", reduced the length of the line source of inflow by 2/3. The calculations for the spacing and positioning of wells assumed this reduced total flow is applied along the entire length of the structures. Clarify the existence of seepage below the structures, present supporting data and calculations, and reposition wells accordingly. Include the supporting data such as drawdown at the interceptor walls, at aidway location between any two consecutive wells, l i and the increase in the water elevations downstream of the interceptor wells. The presence of structures near the cooling pond appears to have created a j.- situation of artesian flow through the sand layer. Discuss why artesian flov l vas not considered'in the design of the devatoring system. i l (4) Frovide construction plans and specification of permanent devotering systen (location, depths, size and capacity of wells, filterpack i l design) including required monitoring program. The information furnished in i response of NRC Question 24 (10 CF150.54f) is not adeguate to evaluate the' adequacy of the system. N. I (5) Discuss the ramifications of plugging or leaving open the weep holes in the retaining wall at the Service Water Building'. (6) Discuss in detail the amintenance plan for the devotering system. (7) What are your plans for monitoring water table in the control tower area of the Auxiliary Building? ~ What measures will be required to prevent incrustation of the (8) pipings of the devotering system. Identify the controls to be required during plant operation (measure of dissolved solids, chemical controla). Provide basis for established criteria in view of the results shown on Table 1,~ page 23 of tab 147. at 1
- 13 e
e , = =, ._.___-.%-_,-.,_.pg. war %-,.,g_ ,,.,3,9 _,..g.p-g- .+ma w-y egy.g- ..-weme ey cwy g-w@9rn.9 -+www w w.. y 9 ygyy-+. -y e,y pp
.. y n... w. ' '. %,_S.xn %&c.- ' R. :. @ 2 y r. g y--.n. W M..'~ q.D 5.2 M e., v.re; .1 c - I a '.a - . % v.. .... a.3 .o NCEID-T
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report (9) Upon rea~chis a steady state in devatoring, a groundwater survey l should be made to confirm the position of the water table and to insure that no perched water tables exist. Dewatering of the site should be scheduled with a sufficient lead time before plant start up so that the additional settlement and its effects (esrectally os piping) can be studied. Settlement should be closely monitored during this period. \\
- j. Liquefaction Potential.
j j An independent Seed-Idriss Simplified Analysis was performed for the i fill area under the assumption that the groundwater table was at or below elevation 610. For 0.19 g peak ground surface acceeleration, it was found i j that blow counts as follows were required for a factor of safety of 1.5: i Elevation Minimus SFT Blow Count *I ft For F.S. = 1.5 610 14 [ 605 16 600 17 595 19 The analysis was considered conservative for the following reasons (a) no account was taken of the weight of any structure, (b) liquefaction criteria for a magnitude 6 earthquake were used whereas an NRC memorandum of 17 Mar 80 considered nothing larger than 5.5 for an earthquake with the peak l acceleration level of 0.19 3's, (c) unit weights were varied over a range broad enough to cover any uncertainty and the tabulation above is based on the most conservative set of assumptions. Out of over 250 standard penetration tests on cohesionless plant fill or natural foundation anterial below N ** elevation 610, the criteria given above are not satisfied in four tests in natural anterials located below the plant fill and in 23 tests located in the - plant fill. These tests involve the following borings 573, SE2, DG-18, AZ 13, AZ 4. AZ 15 AZ 7 AZ 5, AZ 11, DG 19. DG 13. DG 7. DG 5. D 21. GT 1, 2. l Some of the tests on natural unterial were conducted at depths of at less tHan 10 f t before approximately 35 f t of fill was placed over the location. Prior. to comparison with the criterta these tests should be multiplied by a factor of about 2 3 te account for the increase in effective overburden pressure that results from the placement and future dewatering of the fill. le'For M = 7.5, blow counts would increase by 30%. I 14 1 a i. m
q-g= g W R". cks : .u - _ = _. -.. .. n.- ,.g g. ' N.Y,.. -- -- =, ~. 7 - - es. 1 -D,. - : - <~T. ?" hSA.Ykth h y T W M, M k.kWN- -~_5 -T-s;-,i ...;. & d.":7. -m r u = m.w-*w-w qg.;,. m.,,.m,m.,_ .I d' E*~ d'l.1. f ~4. M P', 4*tt *:.*** t * :* t'.*2e
- fr t 7%*'T3 s*
,h e ' is*. ** ** t 4+.- M @ d N EJD-L Interagency Agreement No. 'NRC-03-79-k67; Task No.1 - Mibd Plant 9'
SUBJECT:
,.. W.... y t t ~_ N ' ' ~ Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report Of the 23 tests on plant fill dich fail to satisfy the criteria, most are near or under structures where remedial measures alleviating necessity for support from the fill are planned. Only 4 of the tests are under the Diesel Generator Building (Wich will still derive its support from the fill) and 3 others are near it. Because these locations dere low blow counts were recorded are well separated from one another and are not one continuous stratun but are localized pockets of loose asterial, no failure mechanism is present. \\ In view of the large number of borings in the plant fill area and the conservatism adopted in analysis, these few isolated pockets are no threat to P ant safety. The fill area is safe against liquefaction in a Magnitude 6.0 l earthquake or smaller Wich produces a peak ground surface acceleration of 0.19 3 or less provided the groundwater elevation in the fill is kept at or below elevation 610. k. Seismic analysis of structures on plant fill meterial. (1) Category I Structures. From Section 3.7.2.4 of the FSAR it can be calculated that an average V, of about 1350 f t/see uns used in the - original dynamic soil structure interaction analysis of the Category I structures. This is confirmed by one of the vievgraphs used in the 28 Tebruary Bechtel presentation. Plant fill V, is clearly much lower than ~ this valut. It is understood from the response to Question 13 (10 CT150.54f) concerning plant fill that the analysis of several Category I structures are underway using a lower bound average V, = 500 ft/see for sections supported on plant fill and that floor response spectra and design forces will be taken as the most severe of those from the new and old analysis. The questions which follow are intended to aske certain if this is the case and sein an understanding of the tapact of this parametric variation in' foundation \\ conditions. \\, (a) Discuss dich Category I structures have and/or will be reanalyzed for changes in seismic soil structure interactifon due to the change in plant fill stiffness from that envisioned in the original design. Isve any Category I structures deriving support from plant fill been escluded from reanalysis? On dat basis? I (b) Tabulate for each old analysis and each reanalysis, the, foundation parameters (v,9 and t') used and the equivalent spring and. damping constants derived therefrom so the reviewer can sain an appreciation of the extent of parametric variation performed. (c) Is it the intent to analyse the adequacy of the structures and l their contents based upon the envelope of the results of the old and ner analyses? For each structure analyzed, please show on the same plot the old, new, and revised enveloping floor response spectra so the effect af the \\ 15 i m~~"~~~~~~-^ m. m "1 'I N 'E
s? v.. ,v%y_Mxw 4s--Qx l.n..nE.id hE3 fWQ,; ' ~{. }h_[?& . ! AL E30 s e 5-l w., . -.. 3u 4-
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2. Subtask No.1 - I,etter Report changed backfill on interior response spectra predicted by the various models can be readily seen. (2) Category I retaining us11 near the southeast corner of the l i Service Water Structure. This wall is experiencing some differential settlement. Boring information in Figure 24-2 (Question 24, Volume 1 f Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill) suggests the vall is founded on natural soils and backfilled with plant fill on the land side. Please furnish details clarifying the following: l (a) Is there any plant fill underneath the well? What additional l data beyond that shown in Tigure 24-2 support your answer? (b) Have or should the design seismic loads (FSAR Figure 2.5-45) be changed as a result of the changed backfill conditions! (c) Eave or should dynamic unter loadings in the reservoir be considered in the seismic design of this vall? Please explain the basis of your answer. 5. In your response for the connants and questions in paragraph 4 above, if you feel that sufficiently detailed information already exists on the Midland docket that may have been overlooked, please aska reference to that information. Resolution of issues and concerns will depend on the expediticus i receipt of data mentioned above. Contact Mr. Neal Gehring at FTS 226-6793 l regarding questions. F:',1 EZI IIZ110 3 *M8 3 .>IL F. McCALLISTER Chief Engineering Division i l e> e 16 1 L .1 -~'"" M **' n- '=. . M
- T,,,y..as."
,.3- ___.q.- auty a w ='s . w......- -. 7 a-4,
~ ^ :. :. m.we. '&~_. - %%>3 m ^
- ~
.l5.l K.: .--4.... .[..k.. $YNiD h [.[;
- ][
---t # YMNffh g .-c. m m.. u -, : .m.,.,,
- % : '.:.:t.
e --., D' G nd=~J-CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY') v Zib-% DOCKET NO. 50-329/330 SUPPLEMEN1 TO COE JULY 7,1980 LETTER REPORT PREPARED BY: J. D. Kane, GES. HGEB 4.b.(3)(a) The fifth paragraph beginning with "
Conclusion:
" should be deleted. Page 4 The purpose of the coments in this paragraph has been covered in a separate letter from A. Schwencer to J. W. Cook, June 30, 1980,
Subject:
Request for Additional Information Regarding Plant Fill." 4.c.(2)(a) Add the words "and glacial till" following the words "on fill." Page 5 4.c.(2)(b) The requested discussion on the safety categorization of the intake Page 5 structure retaining wall should include any impact on safety related features (e.g., emergency diesel fuel oil storage tanks. conduits, etc.) behind the wall. Also the evaluation of observed and future settle-ments of the retaining walls should address actual stresses induced ) by the settlement against allowable stresses permitted by approved j codes. The previous response to question 24 does not cover this concern. 4.d.(2)(a) Add the word " temporary" following the words " Details of..." The Page 6 paragraph (d) below beginning with. " Dewatering before..." snould be added at the end of paragraph 4.d.(2)(a) and deleted fmm its present position. 4.g.(1)(c) Delete the entire sentence beginning with "Furthennore the Eq.10(a)..." Page 8 Stress intensification factor is not a consideration for the computation on the straight length of pipe section in the above equation. To clarify the comparison being made in this paragraph add the words "as allowable" following the 52.5 KSI. 4.1.(9) At the end of this paragraph add the sentence "Please provide your
- Page 14 plans for conducting this gmundwater survey."
4.J. Paragraph j. does not require action on the part of CPCo but presents Page 14 conclusions of the COE reviewer in his evaluation of the plant fill's resistance against liquefaction. These conclusions are tentative and subject to the final resolution of the seismic' input for the Midland project. l i 4 3..- ... w-M.. -r.m :.rcey.gr..; =...g.u..d ;.g y T.. ;=:::.%. ...}}