ML20091F523
Text
.
I An AcwsuT i
o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
i I
. wasHiwarow, o. c.20sss A...../
MEMORANDUM FOR: George Lear, Chief Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering i
THRU:
Lyman Heller, Leader JLAeotechnical Engineering Section N Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering FROM:
Joseph Kane, Senior Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineering Section 4
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F REGION III REACTOR INSPECTOR'S CONCERNS REGARDING THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING AT MIDLAND In response to your verbal request of July 27, 1983 I am providing my comments on the July 19, 1983 memorandum prepared by R. B. Landsman on his concerns for i
the Diesel Generator Building. Since many of the concerns covered in the
}
July 19, 1983 memorandum had previously been expressed in the ASLB hearing sessions of December 6-10, 1983, I have attempted to identify the specific transcript pages where these issues were discussed. Hopefully this listing of transcript pages will pemit the interested reviewer in recognizing and evaluating the similarities and differences with both niy previously expressed views and those of GES Consultant, the U.S. Arnty Corps of Engineers, and those views.new provided by Dr. Landsman.
4 Jo ph D. Kane, Senior Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineering Section Structural and Geotechnical i
Engineering Branch Division of Engineering 3
Enclosure:
f As stated ec: See page 2 9
m g49840517
~
.p
, y ac=4 n
.R.R
- w y
_,, ~
r George Lear.*
cc: w/ enclosure R. Vollmer J. Knight G. Lear P.ho L. Heller E. Adensam
+
T. Sullivan D. Hood F. Rinaldi H. Singh, COE R. Landsman, Region III J. Harrison, Region III W. Paton, OELD 4
- i J. Kane e
de -
.f l
1 4
8 d
9 T
l e
d
-~
=h
a b
Review Comments of Joseph Kane Diesel Generator Building Concerns at Midland Reference - July 19, 1983 Memorandum, From R. B. Landsman thru J. J. Harrison to R. F. Warnick,
Subject:
Diesel Generator Building Concerns at Midland.
1.
First Concern - The problems and limitations inherent in the finite element analysis completed by CPC because of the effects of cracks and CPC interpretation of settlement data.
Comment: To the best.of my understanding and recollection the statements expressed in this first concern are accurate. I am in agreement with these statements except for the sentence "It is this time dependent-effect that was also not used in their model." It is not clear to me what is intended by " time dependent effect". If it means the effect of cracking that resulted because of settlements,'then I would agree with the statement. If it implies that time dependent settlements were not l
considered, then I believe the statement is in error.
Per'inent Transcript Pages - December 10,1982, Pages 11173 to 11203.
t i
4 4
i j
2-2.
Second Concern - Problems with analysis performed by NRC Consultant, the U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Center, and statement that this analysis gave unacceptable results.
i
~
Conenent: In my opinion it was very unfortunate that the study by NSWC was not provided to the NRC Staff who are affected by the study results in sufficient time to permit a full internal NRC review with opportunity for calm and deliberate discussions on its contents before this document was introduced by the Applicant into evidence before the ASLB.
I personally l
have serious problems and questions with the NSWC report. I have not i
pursued my concerns with the NSWC report for two reasons. First, I was under the impression that all review issues related to the DGB had been fully addressed at the December 6 through 10, 1982 ASLB Hearing session and.
secondly, my understanding of the procedure used by NRC Structural Engineering Section to arrive at its conclusion as to the magnitude of the stresses induced by settlement Ithe crack analysis approach) does not l
rely on the results or conclusions of the NSWC study.
With respect to Dr. Landsman's ctated second concern, I essentially am f
in agreement with his statements except I do not under;tand what is meant I
by the words "and this portion of th., SSER should be stricken" which appears j
l in the second sentence.
1 d
- d
.~..
~
t O
3.
Third Concern - Crack analysis approach used by the Staff is not normal engineering practice.
i Comment: In response to examination questions from both OELD and ASLB, both Mr. Singh and I gave our views on the crack analysis approach. An
.important conclusion reached by Dr. Land: man, v5fch is different from my position, is that the Staff's crack analysis to determine rebar' stresses i
is unacceptable. I believe a review of the transcript records will
'i clearly show that I did not make this conclusion on unacceptability because I feel it is outside my area of responsibility and expertise.
t i
Pertinent Transcript Pages - December 10, 1982, Pages 11187 to 11201.
4.
Fourth Concern - Problems with relying on the crack monitoring program i
to evaluate stresses during the service life of the DGB.
t Comment: The hearing transcripts will show that neither H. Singh or myself was questioned on the acceptability of the crack monitoring program for the Diesel Gendrator Building. The discussions that did occur in the hearings were provided by CPC consultants and NRC Structural Engineering Section. It is my impression that technical specification details still i
l need to be resolved with the Applicant on the crack monitoring program i
i for the DGB. Some of the details to be resolved wculd include the actual method to be used in measuring the cracks and the requirements for jointly coordinating and evaluating both. settlement and crack readings. I share 1
e
+...w-e...e==~=ww.
e e
e
. the same concern as Mr. Lan'dsman on the " lack of formulated corrective action to be taken when the allowed crack sizes are exceeded." In addition to Mr. Landsman's concern I have proElems with the following aspects of the crack monitoring program which were worked out by NRC Structural Engineering Section and the Applicant.
a.
The criteria on crack widths permitted under both the alert and action limits.(December 10, 1982 transcript, page 11059) are not sufficiently restrictive to prevent potential _ sections of the DGB from experiencing cracks where tensile stresses in the reinforcing steel would be well above the allowable stress.
b.
It is not clear what is intended by the wording " summation of the increase in all the crack widths...." as it. pertains to both the alert and action limits. Are the crack widths identified in transcript page 11069 to be~ the increases that are permitted?
Increase over what existing width and date?
I c.
A crack monitoring program may elect to select certain wall sections l
l for more careful measurement.of cracks but it should not fail to i
require reasonable surveillance on other' portions of the structure.
My understanding of the agreed upon monitoring program for the DGB is that it is limit'ed t'o locaTized areas on the faces of _three selected walls.
i O
P
d.
The decision to require crack monitoring at a frequency of once in five years after yearly monitoring for the first five years should not be made at this time. The decision to significantly increase the required monitoring interval should be withheld until the initial data and trends are known and evaluated.
i l
l l
.l
'I f
b.
1
[
i
.b E-.
+
~
ArrAcs MusT 2.
- * - bW
.t. 1
'O O'I I
.QVM vT)Ct1 $ D es
. Q 1'Q s d(
g#g (Cg
&G)14 $\\b r1 1% b)-
A px 4 cos, Abode.g. p-sucLoy,s.~
wrdo,p,4c
-t 6., sdeM for L c.ona,,ie,,a o}. w mnvct i
p63u ci< m.,h arc \\ k were cashL ubsh L %B s sbus J he spcb be4 den ik gue 4sekle,,e4 ait ev:.L'hi.
==
M N
- =.
- e bmpsd b.L a.wa. drus,e ord momelb.h <3 p
g o
y co,1mbdq M n.Ampid shuse and %h a.e m3 c>p i
i
%(y. 41,ssea,ws be {comes whm v:,J.,,at
.y ba.1 0, J. m.>.
.:!s W.sdc,b,4J6 Ace =Reco-bi-aruts 4 au.xm3 2 '; 4 bR dany. L wS<s iAe., c[, ce,3 s viu i,seler,,evr hwc amJ a$esamine empd 3%c es4Lom nh;wih$ ~eedckcact maJAn04, An,al4
- e. col %suc i
h
.L b
m en*
"d e-s ~~..k--s 9-e Tch 3 o,d 4 yonde. mik.4 Wswc e-sanon Soc a.cl.
i voQ. dwdon.s. L,ce croc.t map wonhc\\ m A WsWc.ps d mb{od.? loo <.s ovJ du 4 chect sM. a.n k :,b.sses od momenh a.gaind e b,3 crctu s hy ci sb i spolie-u ayep 9 uM,mnJ m.3,7,ny
' gas 5 and 4 de,, aMosssn3 % sebnhs or, F,p
.c a b 4
by streues ovd emena sbok recogni;H k
N.
m ccen3 o
se%*n% xare yid,kc k Nyv 2o25.L ~4v v3cri e bse se6,Qs Laa 3eh h occur-hke, a h,,cr.
l
-h C.Y%%ug Cvt, k Sea e. Seheme,nks,. con t be v>.:dt ho o.5 hts:ki%t.
..E -
Leetrl
]
- 3 d
u
h 4
.m 24 2.
J. h 1_ ekme A u 4.EE.anMs ogym,4Nop.2c i., leg uM-4M dees b 7A leq% be. %% rm)b 44 04w bdon.4-QL d<e.sv.so,Js%,ws)Mc),ecc ncqw.in M.c a usw m s L s b - 4,co,,sh d-ou b kyL. Co m 3 s % l u e e -,ee b,e.3. s \\e.,3L.
I Eylamb,he"o4q_y[dmodnd i
sp;A4144-Lhafftjy 46~2 m ea u.3.w n p u A A o u, runb<cy 4. e e bes, Wq.c. im hR m 64dtom wpho,% dawm 4Q, sh aed een+ w&
espL hme arens c} crarg p
e.
...i.,'**,
s
- _g.
=
,.s 1
t
.i.. j.
r
. g ' ' _.,
.I g..
i s
f.
s-
'f
.i
'