ML20094M792
Text
,
o
- \\
/at.* tes Io, UNITED STATES y
iy g' *.
s.,
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\
~
r REGION lli c
3 a/
7ss noOSEVELT ROAD g-j GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 40137 March 3, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR:
G. Fiorelli, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch FROM:
E. Gallagher, Reactor Inspector SLBJECT:
MEETING ON MIDLAND S0ILS SETTLEMENTS AND EFFECTS 2
A meeting was held on February 27-28,.1980 at the Midland site regarding the soils settlement issue. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a site orientation and technical presentation for the NRC consultants.
Those consultants currently retained by the NRC include the U.S. Corps.
of Engineers for the geotechnical review, U.S. Navy Surface Weapons Center for the structural review, and Energy Technology Engineering Center for the piping and component review.
4 The Licensee's project manager indicated as an introduction to the meeting that CPC0 would not proceed with the remedial actions associated I
with the site settlement problem until such time that the NRC staff acknowledge and accept Amendment No. 72 to the FSAR which outlines the corrective measures. These measures include underpinning the feedwater valve pit and electrical penetration area of the auxiliary building; installing pile supports for the service water intake structure; installation of permanent dewatering system to prevent soils Liquef action; and acceptance cf the surcharge program completed in the Diesel generator building area.
The meeting contents included much of what has been previously discussed by the Licensee in response to the 50.55(e) and 50.54(f) submittals.
Attached are the meeting agenda and List of attendees.
l 1
E. Gallagher cc:
k J. G. Keppler A
R. Knop
(/
{
- 0. W. Hayes i
T. Vandel l
R. Cook /
6 0408150727 040718 PDR FDIA RICEB4-96 PDR S
O
.~
MEFTINC WITH NRC ON MIDLA D PLANT FILL STATUS AND RES01.tlTION
~ ~
Fsbrucry 27 & 28, 1980 Midland. Site
1.0 INTRODUCTION
s/
C. Keeley 2.0 PRESENT STATUS OF SITE INVESTICATIONS /
T. Cooke 2.1 Hectings with Consultants and Options Discussed (Historical)
[/(g/**/44,\\
2.2 Investigative Program s
A.
Boring' Program B.
Test Pits C.
Crack Monitoring and Strain Cauges, Utilities D.
2.3 settlemen.t A.
Area Noted B.
Preload C.
Instrumentation 3.0' WORK ACTIVITY UPDATE s/
J. Wanseck 3.1 Summary of work activities and settlement surveys for all Category I structures and facilities founded partially or totally on fill I
4.0 REMEDIAL WORK IN PROGRESS OR PLANNED (
, 12, 27, 31, 33 & 35)v' S. Afifi 4.1 Diesel Generator Structures 4.2 Service Water Pump Structures 4.3 Tank Farm 4.4 Diesel Oil Tanks 4.5 Underground Facilities 4.6 Au::iliary Building and FW Isolation Valve Pits 4.7 Liquefaction Potential 5.0 EVALUATION OF PIPINC (Q16,17,.18.19 & 20)"'
D. Riat i
6.0 DEWATERINC (Q24)..
j B. Paris 7.0 ANALYTICAL INVESTICATION*p B. Dhar l
7.1 Structural Investigation (Q14, 26, 28, 29,30 & 34) 7.2 Seismic Analysis (Q25) i 7.3 Structural Adequacy with Respect to PSAR, FSAR, etc.
)
8.0 SITE TOUR All 9.0 CONSULTANTS
SUMMARY
I Peck /Hendron/
Could/Davisson 10.0 DISCUSSION All N
m
.a
- ATTENDyS, a
~
~
Con umers Power Bechtel Consultants C. S. Keeley T. C. Cooke Harris Burke j.
T. Thiruvengadam Sherif Afifi R. B. Peck
(
Don Riat A. J. Hendron, Jr.
Bimal Dhar C. H. Could Bill Paris M. T. Davisson
'slius Rote J
Jim Wanzeck Karl Wiedner John 'Rutgers Lynn Curtis Al Boos Chuck McConnel NRC US Corp Of Engineers E-TEC L. Heller R. Jackson N. Gehring P. Chen J. Kine J. Grundstrom T. Cappucci B. Otto J. Bransner F. Rinaldi W. Lawhead R. Conzalis P. Hadala F. Schauer D. Hood C. Callagher R. Cook US Navy Weapons Center P. Huany J. Matra e
e Q
O O
o i
9 1
g
~w 1
A 3
4 s
k 3< cdy 0
he 6. /&I B
~
f(.
4 /. sew &
9A hpd a c. o&-
t 5 3. Mi tr, ML p y/,iIT A f
- $. dhp p). b' Hn l
t
5 O
e l'(
/Iwm y{[ %4t/ bddbm 48.
A9 % [p &y %'J rb /n l~n sv>-M aAh effdL hp ps _4 4 L%
d & /~l AM L daa k x 1 u,c p e q d a y c h a e 4 4 p % % 2 /~
7 tA w L m arAjama wi
, ~ BRt
, spMl&
y 4 4 N bw. /4 4 L <@u 9
? ab,y pnxka Aar ak & Q !aktl r~4h
,1
.e p d f ~ f d a % ct 1 2 _,,e. g f A j 3
u L LGpd A nu24 l}
/
9 g
- +
=
0
- O hetcwA4_.
t- % (
p p. [A O, b & M 4 y
fr 54ct & L & dl2L4I9Aa.
y I
1 i
i i
9 3
e C
g.
M% bra @&1Av%dxs svW
& n v/sAJNu& L;t w %og *ED
/a O 3
9 TL & /a) W pe M -
agwas4 ff Q
A qu A A tuedn eecas y b %Ig*~, &c. */u up -
Ah
< gm W & AeuT4 by b AMG c t
%Cp~m2k A x &
Ma ik a4lF<~A n sabjefAi a y sus < ~ sn. J a.
~
t
--m.
s
.i a
e-p t
ana g
f
.=-
T
/lJ-r-Le-1v--
[b
)
.>T' 1
e.
g
.s
=
s 2
0
,n 1
~
~
.m
-y e
JG;$m
.j m,w. l 4;
....,u-t 1
4.
.,e
)f
'.;7 ' :. J j
. j g
e.*:
.~
.... - f,.,'..l s,,
,,x f
- b
- s. N-
- - ' a,. ?. '
s p.
m.s,.g;ey.. \\
p
.. - -."!....,%.p=
s l
,e,,. m-g. J
.= r ;w
. - '. m;;_ e. s.
h
,..., g e -:.d. g:...J
.. a.... s. e.,.....n.
.~~
.J Ci s
a.S....s.* *. WM.. 9
+
.4
.'r '
?-
., % 5 e,. 4ti.....
.4..
~
g.
./
~
~
.c.. w &
- .. s v.
s
- 'Q*:;a.9.wg, s.'
s.
>.u
.,'T
.7 e.
~ s =-
- % *;.ghg
.;..z.Q h*[j"5'
'*'c ;19.y.'-w x
w
.y
.g
_
- e 4.Aa *:W~.n"+;
s u -.. _....,...
1
..a. y.,p. r,, -
m - t
.;. e
', ', t U
- 7%W 7...-....-.._...n.
9
--s.,..,..,.,.
i
...a...m :.-.;,g
,..,.M.
.....y
...s..-
.s e
.?
. <; g
..-a
. =
~
r ea e 6
'4 s-
,,,p
.T w.
w a
- ',y {,. y g 9 "d m.
.s,
5 gq
..q' } pts L
e s u.
,o a
s
.g $t s*
- ..j.,.2*
p.,
gg
/
s
~
.d..,
~.
+
p
... -n.
..s,..$... *. ~,., -
+
.e,, i.e l
s s w,.
,; e
_ y......
~.,..
..s,..
...s.,
!*U,,.
.F 4.[I %. '.*)
- g
- r,
-.. - 2 e.r s.
s
-(
- f #*
.. n
,'.;r,
" w:**
'fa,'.w',,
^,~~y'..
d 7 4-.._._,...s 4 vgQ;&
- %.e.'* g-
%ws
.e,..r._m..~.__.;*
_ _ - - _ _. _.; %_ f,y
...e L
.. as.ame.~...
s a
- a. - +.
i e
e o
e.
o.
s g.
f c W '1 & JWCW OO'at W W M. % C'~dcLG Li _ ^!F ' y i
y ts, ic..
.f;
[H-v'/-C h ' kW.
~ *
+
~
~
.- g e-Sok-j 9. M
$-fee $
jf.
^
e, ta *, ed s
I.r's: -)
..w
.,.y
~
Q[ k* :'
c.)
A
!h j &.
f*-
a
'".s_
..g..
- 4...
f
- 47 %.@ n,;
- ,p n.,
?
, b. -
g.g
e,gK :*p;J
..,. G'A
+, =
- 4 ve- + +
- 4
, C
..-..'&-. u'.x 2a
' ~
'--...-)r
... a
~ :,.' O.},-..y
- S
--.m I
gg_
?
~'y j
~4
+
I 1., y,* lO..
- y! e '.'. h'~.;j,
..,f
,.d E
5
.h-g
^
l
.., e -.
-=.-
t
- %'*i 1"*} * "' 'I.
-d ti
,y
. -P -
~.
\\...
....,. } '.
..s,,.
_-;"7'Q.h. M
.... p't g ~ y r
- . Y:Nr$
l.
[
~.y go y
,j
.. __ g.g
. - e., s.
/
- - a-;j
,,e. ; j 4
.,,4*l(q g
., + '.
........,w
.gg A
~~
-.J
. ; ' 'f h.4 p
=l
- - - -.~ - ' 3.,w.Q
(
l w,!
l
'Q._
_~--
~ : e
. -L_ -_;f..:()
. - ~..
.c n i
,'Ky.:.o.
. w.
64 er < a.
.m.
s
~
8-s.
..;*y l
e
+ -
-......,.g.,,..,...
y,_
,j.,
7 I
- , ~,...,;t. g,,,...,y
.. y :.g g.
, i,*... ;.
a*
m
.-..s
- ,.,,,4,.
g.,
i
(
.f
.g,,.--5.
6
~.....
I -
+
.,>e I*I * *.2 I
,(, d )"y
- c. ;:: 2.s.an y.,,,,.m.,..;,a.f. v7,-q."s,.. p,. ;, ;,"*.,
- 4
- =*-m**,e-*----
... _.u.......u ;..
.2 g,
.~
. ~.
..-,z e
e e
ar $
.l b
k
.d d
..' s.
I l
s' m
.-_ -y V
i I
' s'*.
AY,.
c5 L3 i
- .s
. y 23. M
.n f
G S
l
~.x
.,,:,., f' '- ;,, ' ey ~ ;
r.
a a
. ~,
.'s
'l
/.
hh-T'
- l.
n
[
.- 3 dd&
& l $.1#.'.
A,* -. J... 4.4 d pA' 4 :
s
'?. ' C.
"g g.
.. ;.;-{i,;:. m'..'.t 8
a _ ;.
- ~ ^
. ". 6.
.: r.
~
e
- *.. erene o_mee., q j y-t._
e+-
. p
.G., /24
. =O 7'l ae '
_~
,sf
' $.*p.
~
r.
.".1/i'E;,-Z t
6.---
3-
- fl
~
.x.,
m
/
- l. ;
' } t. il
-('
O
'y
,=-.:..;,+=w,fg.9
, _ [ d ~~~ / O j U ~ b e h. 6. I..'.../..,q
. [... i. [
-3 u+:
_ _ _. p.....
... J 1.-. - O i a 1;t 'f A. 4:.1-J.; h -*dy$
r,..
W '%.-.,.t-
,...;.~ l,,;.:._a p g aj Q R!.. g' g ; w ~~~~f ', f, y.;,f l h *2' D Q.'y~.). ) {
=
~. -..... -.... -... -.. -.
l-
- j...u-::.
l
.i 4
i p
},
y._
8___
C' /
-A a..._
~
W_
'f M,
~
3 ew /
5
...,.-*J
. g u
i.~Ny 4--
XJ. H. e --
(
. ~,
. >.4 '
-e.
in..
. A.. Q..... ' '_
- 4. ft.-]../k-.-.-.M
~^
Y
--' f'n) :
,f' f
~
T
- ;;;~.
i l
l A
-: vif s-.
% }
. ;.:.Miq,..y
/
.mv j -
j o
?
/
.. y ;-
- f..
... o g?:g,, ' - ;g
.a,
~-.j y
- f;;;; s. (
s.,"
'['.Qg8
.n. +... n
- :o-
... :.a1,,
- r. - -
j '
, 7 M. ' A *f t.y,,
^f 2s
'?,
r -
. g w:2%eg m
f k
. }
f.
r
':.2;:.s'tu>f s
.. ;.+
^
1 (L
%.y f.
.. ;y,.
q s
g.
, - - s.. w g ZT p
_[
./
~Shj}h f
x'
~
f...
- w.
'.. [-
- -
- ;;;pM. nt%G%
...,. y g
q
].c.
- ,.+.
- m. :wm, ummaa y.
%npg..m.g w w.aw m -2w m a.am -
'h g
e e
e e.=
4 4-4 Mg D
M
.-(
b.m
_.l
.t.
..1 s
fj
=:,a-NI' g
It r._ ; :
i J
!/
.m
~
..-.-=.*b..j P
1
. 49
' l, a U.k.%
. - TV e
_.g._______.
'j g_
~
~f
,..,,-)'
,.,:.,'*g,.
a
.. :W.Q'..h
- g
/__
s
-*ha'm=-*
aa..,...,.. _
k n
.Nh d.I.h s
- +
7$.
- J/
T-MN.*J.y j
k' SN'-$.'S l
.j,,'; * '.,.' v?,-
,f 2
+a j
e'
- c*.
..y
~~
f- '
..f,
~2.;f
(
t' ;
. _k _
W.
%.}_)((&
~
' '~-
- .,;, W.* * '
~
~
s,[I.((
- 0 *? ~.
'e
,s
,';u jgep,,
_ s
-i
- a..$, )*i'f5'[-Y
- <L. 3%)g V
~ ~'~ ?
- k.. <
_.,AL me-lr w-
~
r.;%_ f r
,~
' w' ' 2**
,*f'
- mt~ : ;
)
~
~
.',-X:
.. _ f.
'V.-.,;i.W 'Q*,
~
l
.~g-l
=
[
ll.'.':],'Qllll*.*Qlll(;l,, f, *f.lQ
,,', 4 2.**, ' *f'hi $,dr.[.
'8 i
g g
i:-
{
a:.::.d.c.w...i a,u - L;,i;.:.;.L_s112g:2324iM72;g&Qg
l D
g, 9
9
%O ep *
.J
- s. -.
e Q
o I
P
- h. _.
/
-m m
v N
- Q
- y
'.. r
~
W? '.; '-
. 3 *.
_% ($
L3 _)-.980,_
?
4
^*
_e.
av
.l**
- 5. am h+
+.e.e We h
- a. h eM e
^
.4
.-u-**
e
-=w=
.w..
e.
a.
~
- 9
. '#4, p ll
~-
m.'.=.
.: ' :t.g;p \\
j
~/
....h. tf. m o
7
- D,~1'y
(.S..,
- Q n*
f f..,
~ f:: - ' -
+
.ygg.
I s.
J.
ngg
~
a w e
. bk MALM s
- ... :'._h.e +;'$
E *:
~.e.
s =. at eV."j A
_ [
l
~%.' ;:.Q h$?$
?
E,
.~. -s7 ;t:
W
_r_
. r.,, m w%
~.
~
. 94 W
.~
-.. ~.
h ; ?- T^
?-
- .,*^
-.:~y.z-: m y~~* W.
- 7..; g.
,.a.,.c
,y y
- a f.:
' : s.;.?.a wn ',,.JG,.,;, Q's 'h.uh O y:d'*yO b $$$2.C* &
=
~
+ - - -
mu==e-
+
-se-+u mr m.ne m.m
.,,,.do,,'eg.n. -
we,
- u g
r-*me e
~ ',
e e
em
-*w
-.m-.
A
~~
e
,_ee eh.e.m i ~. O
..v 1
=...x
.. * ;. 43 A
-m* * " - *
- m #
' 4Y
\\
ff)p
/*
, - :l
~
- - -_ - --. / VV-
~ -
..._ _ m
.L -
O e a
. '.' W Q g**h s-e:y
~^* ~-~
/
34 d
_.t
.m
- c.. m g g
__ S f-
. - _(
. GLhmM
{
N
^
.ga $Aj
. g,.
..L;6'@ tr f
6
- n. n
- f;. E,.;,'i M
t 4-
~
m s -c
... ;,U'd ? % -!
f ffg
^
^
a A
, ~
.g w
. g
- J-.
,{$
9
~.- [ g l
._6-s.
,[, /~5%ve%Q '
.f
-e e t
- ao
.u.=
..~ <. *', ;j s -.,. ; :, ' gg. ys5-Q ue,g g 4: s a
s. s 4. 4 sm f
' h $..a....,
A ff a
- 3
<.;.G'-l:l.&a -
F
- ' ; 1, ::.. n.
,.o 7 g " j '-
.,s,,
g 1.
W'
'. ~.
. m.,
..e..xssw
.I 3,)
~
... m h'*
^ -"
~"'
m 2= '
.)
o
...: n'
. (J.
.. v.-...:
p
[-
. --R
[. :-
h' k _ l'
^
~
XWiN g.:pyyn,y:W Ny 1 z=
.cM.;:.,%:e
...?
g
..u.
4 N ' f ' M U...'i.b$... 2 ;'.,., [ gig.j[f g,,[
t
,f,,,
s
a 4
a.
4 4
A4 4
e 4
O e
.3
~
e m
p.-
A
-.. ?P.
f
,1+m t
1
, k d g
e
(
_Q. d.
%5
^
t
-'.,.f.6
.e g
-n w
...a.
. ~. 3 9..g; 4
,"]
n-W f
%}l?$
- 'r
- D
.. y._
+
.. a J e. a..
tv
. ~sgg'
.W b
W_
h.
y y' '. =. c...:. w
.h
.- lQ Q. _
=
,y
,,j t
i.
-.?.d 1
~
[. f: $. 3- ' 1
'g
- N
,g s
.,-??,s?y s..
. "I O
t s.
. A_
- .:s.&
.' ^
- 4 j
., i'.9'[,
~~
, E'.6@4%
- d
.s ir 44.4 4 4 d
. l x
.+.
.. ~..
. +
i.u.a.n r
l 3
.../
+. ;.m, r.7 e**j.
n
~
5 1.
go, ;
-- i 4m-.e.
,..m.,
,,e 4
.g 4.
g.4
.e.
a,4 e.
w O
e
?
1 h sos ocs 9
o
~
f r
e.
5, %
r~ ny e.
..c
- m...,
o
'ra 7,,tg '
4 4
si'!
A
'~~-
^. ' lis'k 9,
.. un*:%
._ A
~ ~
h;GD a.-w]
~
Wh
=:%
,.5 I
- .. a r
~.,.9g g,.s k
~
(,U. _*,
t
- .. /
,,.. <.g. ]MM
}
_g_
g
~
'h
'. a.::MBy,sn s
- * *i a
o m.
.. aggy
~
qqqq
- _ 8
~
~.-
g..,,; c;;.; ;- - ~'
y
. ~ -3,C'y::s'?.C.3,_
t a
i
~
.. g.,: -.-i
~
^
., J.
.^)
1 4 0 i h,qj
..:v s
. - l'
% N
A1
//
~
~,.,n -;. ': Q'[o t
t _s m M ~ ~ w w,,_ m _
x
_, y..,....
._..e p
.4
]_f a g" /','@[ j w
""g*_..
dh*L q
x
~~
.;*,;..;cy/f a
m
. u.1, g. g. v...=..w.,ma..e, wmm. w--
s 9
~
7.
.1 s
... k If k..-
N
~.. -.
..e
/
N e.]
a e-j s
-s
~
<j-
__ji
_.l
,2; l
':-3
- h,,
g N
f
,,,=...y
.- ; a
- q:.
~I f.
k k.
I snm d.pl5b'.'f h,Y*l Q-& _
.s
...;.,- -,t,..y.
v-
' S ?,-,
'A s 9
~~yJu hla)
-w 7.
. %M;-4Q Q
b*
.I
...y 4 a...
Y 4
g.,,
.,. s.jeg
.i -
--.m.4
- W,1.?o ;@.
1
~
p.93
^
w;5 O
', ;, q
.,, * ** Y,Y
~
,,,. / ?{tpt b
e
.e
- .'k'v.*
,. ~.,...
~
H.. c.u 5 *
... ' ' ~ 7. ;al.b.1
~
...:.,;n.aj t
. g
.'s{.*,, T,QeN"p(fjM" I
~
e L
g; * ' 'f. 7,' * "I,'g. ' (.R ]I -
'e e
4 a.a:
..::.a
.mu...,c:.n.:;:..a 2/. u.. a a w :nex a m w.m
i
\\
.y e
p.
,)
~
s.
4 W
. m.?
..1..
..2<
a
,. ~
~
,. -. L.
4.
6.
//[
h.
,p 8
,- A.;
..;.:n
,:.. g. %
. mt.
- 3 s 4
- (- 8.,*=
n z-.
s s. ;:.cb' y
- v.~.r4 A
9
./ 's. tana :Q.
~
- c.. m...
,.M'f
^
-.)1 of
. f..-Q___
',"'l$;54 a
/
'u;:}
&wJ~
~
t..,
o
. vf,;..
h.?
- . +- r a.=
4.7 r9h,j
__m__. _
.- ~
~ ;.y!!C* d
.M.. -m.M9 p
-p,_
p t
\\
I
.a....gs'w 3
- a h ',i~k
't'-*
~
.. s.,.+.
a.
. s
.F:.:3.. _,.'. es
- s tes.y J,
.>,.~r%-..,'....
.'.. d.0agT.e r.
. y;s
- ' f t
.., ~.,,
<.:-'r ;u:~Yyj y y
.'. ;.t.c.
g' s
- **ddy
~.
~a',**
- I:*1(
mwt
.. +
-xn..
~
=
.a
- t :
m,
- ~
- '%, 4
.:+-Q
- 2 y g.g+.
f
- s.
a%:af 4.%
p 7 ja.4Vyi t
n,
.s g
e W.e --,,,
um ",%*e,m.w 4
d 5
,si 7.
. w
.g
- w. 4,re g.<
- \\.
.- (v' -~p /*g f,'$
~
r.
- *. ; *".
- a r.
47,G;,,q'p:}g-Q2f'.= - b ' e.[
,,,e
~.
,, ' ' j_~; e.,
e * -'. *[
me s
o ' *,,
..i:_.w a.
.c
..... z......, r. a ;.dw.c.Jd;r.c +: w m g69;w gya;gAq)
4+
op4 no ni cw% 4M
// > n%e-p Aw ik gytw me, A
W%
caum /M JA4A i
Oy d S-d.
/a #A i
n I
!//
[-
N 6t ppaeM..:cA p % qeA
, xpu dn. - a ik Dh.
ex ~ a s m
AMdS
& k &4 Ae Me-)
0
,u.JL.l - nn-
.-~;. =. A Am t'4L 1~u.Asa a
e.
n.
kN E
- I
?
w e
awq p
u m-b #
' DI m%mhW I
Ae r.
m f
, fl Q 6 Y - W, d % 4 W, b[l4 G 0 Y
h & Et.5 COY CaA1Ag
[
-/A b N m
e K
h
. /La /c M ust 4 "
W i
Lt4 th D
A m ~-n 4 9
- J
- J
- J
n Mm'
/
f, Y
l
\\
C f
- h klk M
/2 etem...
k N
u &G[A Jk E %S NYM b 4-N(
m w
-m W
b A Ah
- bM
/ Eb y
'n Q o.,, h alb - s h M N by
\\
-b 7 h.
N a%. eq wzb k ~
n
'W ',
H
'+d. _& 192.4 tsen n %.
7 D
fask pW
&w &
s uB w me
~
N Ai41.k A s,_,
D
/
.M&Eu Q
't], 2.1 lE M-2-7f M
\\
Q3h h
.N~v w
f j 3 ~/,4o - &,1 S 3 W T d Q. <( h y L w
m
/
p<L.u MG M,
w M,.
9 M
Y I
s%
- - - - ~ -
f' l
n i
S ALq s~
- i
~
h& " *
- M - T
- A % &
[
P
~+.gew atcas O
y'
/
6 A
A A
A A
A k.
k.
l b
p, D
.b
. b.
_ k.
i
.b l
. A.
.k
. A.
k
_k
.k
. k,.
l
.k' A
A Rl
. n,,,:
LJ
. A
jQ L E X t ~~
lie C T tJ (.r
};
d// /2 /
95 e
"!' ?
O (Y e
./ _
.k-.b_k?.0M%.
gar _ e s /l Ant a p u.
..-.......S. Til~ N A C k<A'ron TAIE N 'H 2-
=A
.J. L.Le<-
l C4.
./7,b us
<-a nrm Eh J.
L Mf]S _
i!p=z W pgg.
Beves /J. K-cle c Pce,/ o~nerw R,,pu.
Skh
{
$WW WsOk = /
f_ M T.xm.
FG, hOL 4
ri j
lf4 13e-+h Sul ffGd6
_f,A l&J
/LNJ ponx f/2
& m,dLm CAs-6 RP__Leasastw c%-mmes sec. h -@ AE
% ? Ic!:
f z$-s -
efu-el'f6 C' S.
(MQ,
T C6o (L c-c/u PW %.
~~~
YA b) lf W
h k-d if5ses c ico M @ p
&?'n_& r.fwv&
^~
aptdkB e bc upo.m mys 4d W
$Nsibevr/NEckeE,
,,. T._Coak AfdC
~
~~
,= =:.r
! sell
= =~c
~.
M.
9_*_ A M-~
.N.-
_ A 1rnrEA*___.D*i' Au *
'L~h n_ a__et-vs. ;
W T*.1.1__m___.
_._M
b
/Y f /4c-fsni*.y /9/afala/,' Aufs =x Coyone-,fs.
E=.as#xn 3/d/Je. e sfa.AA'a led f-a:,-7%/.,JextaA, y s.ds, a ca ye,-<.f.s adiel d.
h,.kn t-xap,ix.na h ;., -sd.x r,ve-a t rJaj e.
I n a. d e - s 7 % r n
. x i., 4 f a n *. n. d a s e.
, e a s o x a s s h f u l- /, a s.
.ypx-ptJ<., pxa J-k :.a.t.%%, amad.d;w,sey.ga+,u, dispsi%
.....a>, Jm 4:.%aAk ha,.aff eAl exga /=a.n'en. A -o~fe i y isin-..s sde//.
be. sariamed a,..I a.ca.epfa,J, s tjected, sepai;eed ex Aewms.d ;,_
~
-.. a.a.a.exJane e. ~iff. den-~f. d pxoe.edwees.
M f3AA 8'.3./,fl/,/ paxa, f
/.... f/e*en. c.ah/e.fsay. s<p m at % </a fa ta.s w n m/ad la >'Is.A,w.
-. cad le...yxeaJig Ro.~.tla%wf_;Ja tif:..d j emJa.-<.<_~-Al l
the. a 5w<.~. d'en ~ d..exi k ta..
Fallow;7../.s a A'sf.af. //e. :cyex=.2% ~ vi /ad'. s..~.*Ae s c r #.
.a. Day /AG6or s d /HT&13 Aas n s uke.s/syuaflw..-.3'seg~
s.. ky /ATP*/L and iN//Me3 Aa.s A.? " tu1%./.syuaA=<. 3 ' Acg.stxA.Y 14rs c.; 17 ear iAGlas.a.,d /HJ5 o 1. An x P is<ia.o td. syuJL.- /.'..,tage:a J geso
- d. nay /A6Be2. a J /W68*7.. Aas.ss at ' run a/.syeem.f/*n.-- 3 '. Aey,Jo<ad...
.rcr*
Ce. '1Eay. 2AGMas'.a-J t1824 % k tr'* n.dl<s/.sepexa.Re.. 3 ' A e g.r:x 9; -rs.y 2cFAet.a d zWryasJo* A=s x/1.yad: d-.aapu.a.tz, - 3'_s.y y, may zArco r J 2Mes aa.Aass3 E.a:<../_s <pu aw -3 'xeggeg...-..
3
- 4. n.y iAci.io a-J ic,rA si...ks m c ~ti d.,.y~ nu -a.'.s.g see.J.
5 t
x fsy.IMJ-oy. a d 1.dse.ci
)asA J_.Aas<iar.Ja) sap. as<st:a -. / ' xyyg j, s, 2 c s n o.2. a.t 2 A6 Hon. Aas xs ". ren%/_ayuadk -. s 'say.;.<gd _
Y. Gy 2 AGM of. e-d 2 86.5c,3 Aas <. 2 nthd..:yeJ.h
. a.' seg is<<d...
t
+ e.~.- :
. hg
- 2 e
- 0 e
1./
! b O
yae diy n,., 1Jhue. a.f ;4. dived ;- -ee. eda,< e.. -.& de-.
ale nL-al e,e6,eia
.M.
6//$wiy k a. s!bf r/e.syaank & lam ~ fed:
y 2 %y iBUSai u.(nV77ai Aa.s e vw#dsere26k -- 3lAcg~rsyz kd
..... b. 7 fay / FD/6 d i Wf6 cts' 4-u k 3f ruNU.5y*<=& ~ 3 ' Acf~ cd---.-
6 rs, i.oaa ~J iasse as x nuri,yewi - 3.' e rgg-....
....c.
- a. 1, m e.z J>MAsoy tu a. 3%:'uA../gaan-a 'xcy a-d.
em h
f
../
,-Y
.- de raJ/=.ywes V7 did nt i,.d,%.s7'e..dat a y he>rie.cs.mN Je--
h/ Sci-
..s M...
N......... _..
W e.=
w e me. ewe.
e s.-ge.se.
.e..ee.
6an -
g.
-gw, em ep e s.- i N r, si W,,.r N u>. / W r,-
w-
.. &.. Y k..
6.xY
_ % lel
...... u.2....
..Es#, S/,/ A4fe /
/Awte,es sLfA l4~MahifeS y
64.Oe
.h*
MM
."..e e6-hh 6 M 8W
...8.6
-8 M.
..-66 e...
h
.m gegp emegh.m
.ee M6 N-hm..<...
..my e.,
.g, e,e, e
, e gem %
,.g.,,,,
.mg,,,g,
,,,g,,,
gg, e
.*.6M' d'8I W
MM. M -* M 6 h.' N N*
.h Nh l
s.e.
w.
Si.
e e
ea-ih%.
W6 -.
.W h.
4
.M
'W'N
...m.MM ane eM.m
.m
INSFECTION EVALUATION 1.
Taeility
,//t,//J/ A/VD UN/7
/c.1 Dates of Inspection
/1/ /,/8/
h d,/ D
~
1 Report No. @ -3 2 C,/,/8/-2. 3 SM -3.36 /p/
~2 )
s Type (x)
Routine M/d W /
Reactive l
1 Special Inspectors
-[, ooc)k 2.
Scope of Inspection Areas Inspected: Examination of site conditiens and laydown areas; on site storage of material; management meetings; changes in site management:
Cycle 2 SALP; damage to electrical penetrations; allegaticns pertaining to small bore pipe welding; remedial soils work; failure of auxiliary feedwater neaders; and assembly of CRDM's.
l 3.
Evaluation of Licensee Performance (include such things as:
- 1) major concerns not represented by the items of noncompliance; 2) positive observations not reflected in the report, or 3) perspective on the sigr.ificance of the findings.)
See 4*TT/kW d NW-M W 5/L'
- N QQg fOWgT/AL 0WWAW-c 4.
k'ith respect to Identified Conca.rns, vou believe they are:
Yes No. t
& \\"l (a)
Being dealt with effectively by licensee i n\\ h id V 4 1' (b)
Being dealt with effectively by NRC N
4, 4
Attachment i
RP 1206
[
2-RP 1206 f
5.
If ef ther answer to 4. is "P o,"
provide your recon:nendations a_nd rationale.
L'.
f 6.
Overall Inspector Assessment ~
Since the last inspection of this type. I believe the licensee's regulatory performance in this area has:
Improved Regressed i
Stayed the Same Indeterminate V
i k.
J 7.
Supervisor's Comments N
i O
e Inspedor(s)
^
.A Attachment RP 1206 '
'TEAN #3 CONdenu - I fy1&TE7eint
.5 Tot 2AG e-
'TNIS
/Ns.kcT/oq A.do a.T eco Ye-RS
'T[-{ c 0 Lo Sc evT 904 A bloNeoso MANde- /x 7//e~ Alen-
/% A'TC121AL STo RAQe-e aN b i T/D AAS,
'Tl-I-d~
(0etoA-T AL. 5o A b D kes.ses>
A1 A-TCA /A&
STo A C e~
COA / b iT/DA/5 /1T' A
'T/Mc 5o b S e$c)ENT-
'T D 0
'The~ TIMa-WHeN 7Hc MONCem1 L/ANCE~ WAS l
} De~ aft) S/E~a ANb A D.DdESSES CONJ) (T/04^5 WMicH cAmz ctose-
'ro 6eove Au rrem A/o N Co Jrt.-t l4/ANdET fEC c Af7'/f, C 1 $0 JQ4S 0
oS l DC^R~l S/Gb NoNCoN4RPlINQ C& W bl'T/O'V5
/Al
/V/A/cA-/AL-
$T'oAAG G~ M/N /CN C.D t/Lb W
/N 0 i C ATIVe
'THMT
%ECfFTEZ-JS'
^/sY AE4"-Y 1Ae-Lt* I Ale Cfdo
/s1 A/ A/ ira IN
/V1$TERJ&l-sioRAsa-ceMD rr i civs,
5llc utb cfco 'ToLxMTe
/>1w b i o cR. cry VhQH/s A-R.e-A.
?Korn kec.y' ret-TT co u L b bw -
C ogs'Tg.UEb
~Tc lNb IC GTE' A
rV1 AyAG e-MENT W s 4 K M e=ss AWb inANAGEMe;9
/AlCASecT/ VENeGs,
fe-so Lu ytog ep
'rH-c
[(bo Ns N tco $219W4G i
BEtPoecr AN.h the.tob o c.
m o N t r o f. / N ei tu NH/s k eeA-Sy 't-he Mec sno u'.b, w 8-A c L A-T N g-Ly S Ho f T
't'/M tE E'2./MtE
/4L@td
'TH E 'VAC T H e~
Abi LTTy
'To AC5ess.
M A NA-t$ GA* 4E7vT Coit.k.%dl't \\fE A 6T'toA/,
i C
~
~ [75m pt 3 CONC'cAA/
t-T/-//3
/hs fe c'7 JoA/
'r1+ni
/712. n2 CuRu?N1 BccAin e-THE S C t <=-
Q A-S ct PE /2. INTeNbiasy7~
A V'r s 4.
A-IVI A-iVAGt/M emi
'p1 e-er /AtG
%<l rTH 'Tl-le~ NKQ.
s'T'At P/A/G.
/7)R, COelAAsb To bLsavss D
A tP-P c A R s %
ec A-14)c,'+ tf
& 0 RLt Gie-b ANb QUALITY oR ICN7 u=- b r fl1/S e2' D A-Nb o rHeR jgisfecrop,3 sewm To ce mmeMicATe-kl E iL.. klrrl+
na A..
c d L L-/ % /10 ANb h1 i2..
C J KLit-Nb S e EAds To uNOWLsT R^/.b T}+/FT fE~GUL/TT0/2,.V 2.u'Q Jt I?.e/nen?25' A/ reb
'70 l
B ec
/>1 e=7 'xs I, t c ems a-n Pt.A-x4 jysye-v2e.,
'TI-lele- /]Er 7/Mes W/fer+'
17 15 mbt
/)N/9RSNT THAT Ct'c0 CeRfDRt$rc
/nA/V46E~Mest'7
/G VI I LL A/G Te L c=T~
l'nt.
c u ki-ANd h5
'Tl Hest
/
Jos TR-er nH-e NRc-lHTeNhs Po R. twa.
1
'T6 bo ANb Wl'f! cH
&~
&nto ee N "
A-ivb GJ A-Li P/e.D e7u's usi+ 'to hs IF
'T OR/Ve-o Xoose W rr/+
coAR R/4-Te-bAck' /NG AMD A-u'Ti-i0 ATTY, Go nt e ec.R.trrmy ANb
)qLJ/12eW 4 by 'T/+2' Af2 C
/N'sfed16Ls'.
?
, /7&d #3 i
CeAlceAA/ h T/t/5' &AW bls otss.s e s I M /}- T O Ti+2tt.
b+V/ PLANT /MVE R A-6
)}-0RIL/AKy P <= e a W 4 T r R l-ter9-O E~2
'999-1L u'd c'S ANb MR.s.
Pmt Pa A.mp/e 12.cPA/Rs W/+ies it4vE~
Nor 6 e2e y APMoves By NRL boiv 16't I LLER.
/{/Vb Jintr>tb5ts OP H/s:/MMebi& W STAD9 H A V e:
cciv'v' eyed
/J-co stsetv&rN w
(-}SfkcAct-l Arth A-t L/%cK 6 p.
h-AG ERNes,s To A-Tre/m-?r TW 9e-e-D i+cAs e >z Ref41Rs ON7~/ L GTd-ERS NAV2' kL)/Vb
'TN w hji -
$1'1-L/S AN.h
'TI4e~
Vlx
/s Af8EOVEh.
Mou/b-Ve~R, K WRR b h/Dic47 eD THgr b~W, ANO i cPdo3 =mP9:4h 4Re P/A ivaisie T o Co.:. 4/+h=-4 6 WITt+
TH-L-AeP4/L3, K<WARb AND
/nyseL9 De-eampt/e-h sN ~rouy 17,/781 T
C 6+sub siv costveeser/oses wirs-jy]rosb3 i
TH4r Pm W /c%
Ret
/vsT R&Aby %R._
R~ Mis UNbeAYn/UN4 N T-
'rH is 1 trie~
h v e W
- et c,p.,i A
fILDT l%L2
/N 1-Hc
/NsT&n b R s n/vt n wve24% A.
is 9 2 4 v e' b Tb l.
3 d l y 2-f, /9 82_,
%WM Affe79As To es A
AAcK oW-Corvnus// C47/m/V be=Thu'mA' bait m ' M 's S Rev9 nr2 seg snaxeve.uas cao e s
oVme wi<
xn-M1_AervaderoL mosmest2n/ '
i
~
a s
.%ri >* 3 COMCEA's/ - h Ca A/7/A/6'Fh.
YH/S LA-cIl.
g9 campMiMt/siv i5
% Thel 50/n w
%rcMs" (L. MAR.k HA-5
- /+A-D dare u28k.
c.on/T'MT WIT /f M1008h
&x0Auss alG A/R.c-coNce12Ms-ANA
/
/4AV6 J+4h CON YWRSAT-toiVS w' i i ll bor/
jf\\/LLez.
AA/h so /rto-op
/+.is WADC Al-Go 02.te%S /A/g AfkC C.oAlcrA2Alg; &J L/,
f)Q!ifNb be-L/ETV2:3 LL cT/HC' T H E y ' W }/
30L). /AlfrCv5N0lE-SS T/l5 A EfA/A5
/A/
L M-T E y 12 TH e-coacenjtts 5
V RPlA L-lyt e~2BT')A/G pc'?Tt) sam /
/9/Yb
%sH Mco V A-e n onts is Puwn=b se TH5r A L /--
fAET/25 A E.e CLt4ALy 4W42E 'rH&
Tli'E AUXt L/SQ.y 95sb%)A W //e796EP S//oL/Lb
/Ve i be AT-TEA +f16:b UN t ) L. /h802.s A'0EA}$7/0)V (1A=S MANG0 tQEb
)E//.907h~~^? T)+)5
/M E c7/A/G,
Ti+ r L iC EN 5 el=~
STAKrs /vt o o i 9/enh'o/V oC 7IH~
SW&)h G ewe ~^?E1DR y/n Ho v7-TETAL CONT 26t--
1 A/ PLA-d ee,
sTAcA/G rs/GroRc s M G U T
/4CT/o/t/
\\A/ / LL 6C
/6G 4UES7c b,
/g%)
~
J a
- g SrncThae?
hGllanl EssusS
&C,a ' 44m Shb t
/,- 4 G oil 5 g,
M 9.$ Ov"3 an tvft'licn,+be e ;mkis tls e y,n a s el y h g-f-n th lasee hd a,,parrily vsla ted rAe.asts h( c er of i pril 3c, /07 2..
Tbe lhe., see Ey cn/ed k
as sw
&e.eltec'O '
b e+ banIt anI M t frtle.d i
Yt fvEe (6ltvakuht ocb%l$5 en sos /S)werk&
3Yb C hC 8 JTcVa h,
hb$
Wff p f[
gYsag,)
nas e
\\)y R$y 11,l@ $1 f@)(4 rett (fnash$
d CY\\
IOb'ed b
flte CAL tyedudul
~
y
(!) c. Jty all rwelal sa,'Is sck G) @ ) h* to kky t a
.shp wach, r/ e-lrc~ te e h
Will ohhm frM wdffth g
r,vg l cf work 8dtWf s y f has te debrbe Q[. '
to cen dre t ar\\
onesh fan M.
rle n Her.
p
. s
,~
e 1
PS-wl cfG hwe estaWaled a W.<k ArrLc
/ktkm +deq bdre yo a so r.
ey/<we k
rk. AstB cnk <.
I f
1 l
.-.+
e.
b
_. 7 n
,e i
_' ^
, i c e, " ~
f..q / !.,
_. S $
a A 's ohc fCa
<>dcnl bo,p, rece, fth, ahen yry en b.(%)).uo,y,the i
br all Bechtel GC ch,xchts in k dd mia 5
y rhe suis GA-9c cry wl+ekt the R12[ thynbs a b rm med n(e A//cvg.4<a,,
obswi>3 rwe/ ore /
exus:
(/) Q eb c n nt t w waalb ey tt5SOfely (
42hpubbh,s rhe ennune ssveal stit h 4 ans vo allawEIy.
r.
c<cre p>g7Ae. ensw w,d muk teas N4 w Aen rle evuotes hdel s $ wor acidl ust l y
tios k k hehm *c3 rel5wd.
t (3)(s}Jh taintz/f' wtron f rle enin ho/ red tec%I en h# netesurg Aeh establa h dt egu nee's co quk u'm or r adivay a
. coo llcb Ccpyah a fQcr (y) f [l1e 61%&cr# u.s to mde up vAe wedud akel as Dvo rkof'enar p$tdllscl C Jy a b Y 0;'
trek
- m 7
fc, rls cxc. reccch ad6 Suk ;<stl1,121 % issue da CAL an $pkhr2+,jn2.,
g h* ste-Ytrey m p%)s (dsd'he) b, rie C4L c>clLNP c
l l
l
.I
^
~
( /) & %,
zll re-ed'al sis we<h en3d her ?rene wsi,
bwaJeny we.lk sul um?ay allcl instradm h
y rez wys.
/cAiting
(.2) % Saond gll re perse,neI get'casly cGrkked (3) &
ecrh'f
( w y)
Es ah's)y all t
r a re wne pra n,i L Lt/ ac 1xwa I + bc A' rnor,Nbt'cahm-(n Q()Oevelep vstten
\\
ev& s hc rGerh'f<'abM
(_., '{i V55 ') L G 5; lU$
VQ d f
'Y&'~
" 'k u.n m A. :l V 40.md &, eLp,6 png:bw The NFL-h?as ma,ene)4de(see,sf%%py,yg[
b h+ horned C PCc Fo com msue te n dt't l ~
an l
S n/s G C rep w It Scdi4 Tr3iw tres O f 2 rr,1W2.
on Al/ reeltl wgA wil' reen skg/ tm A'l su4
~
po,wdy de w h0e.</ Gc pawe I arg
+tve e s ryzlhd.
l
L
..s >.. -
g 9
l 9
y A
p c;
Y G
e
-/)
r
/
I
\\.
t
?
t-e l
%M
\\
C 1g,A,;
./
a g
a 9
W}Y.,....,. >.
.., Q
..)-
as.
4,a y. hh.*.g b)I* -
y.% s: g f
,~.. - p jd..Q -f,.~rW6.., f N,4
.:m.n.-
WW.M..p dM.,.W C.j y **.. _.Ma... b.,:y/s ?..,.
3
.,W,...W.,
~
.:,,u*-A*.A,,,p.,..<.
.An,1w' %
'bf:.W..., d-w,.
4,..
,,3 0
?a*
w
.,..e n. m:. ~
- .... e.,a..., ',.s...
.. =
s
...n
,4,.
- n..
w u.
..','.**z.~v~,..
.a:
,<...e.,.
.o.
.a s...
... ~.
, um cf...,.
(.*..
,,...n.,
z.l. 3*
a [;, ~., :.. *.;..., S,. ' i.**
- H.',* ~,s
- 4. 4,..,.:,1 % vQ.'.
q s
^
..'a A
?w'"
.. e
, g... *.
-i'- :. hw-a:n.w a:'3.*w.:; "'tlus '?'~;?k... p.l.
-S v.
. 7 s
M$.$f. f. f.Q;h.LsQ.. fw&
W~Q..:..Q Q. Q*. Q.$$Qh,*Q.W~k.?y.W..
- f. : f %W., w j ; &.::..
1.. f.e.'::
),
a&.
- 2
).
N s.
~,
...'t.p.
c.~.
,,...c$477. s p r.
- r e
...5.*
m
..g
.t.
a
.cm,.
<c 5
r -
s
..~y.yc..
,.. ** h.*%, j. m t ;A< s,
.... ;. * /.,.**
...,n. ;,
r -
..e.,
.,w e,.
w-y.
~
.,.. - = - f.
. ; o,,.
- a.,.c.;.
..j--
..s +,. 7..,. c,. 7.y. s c 4.,g.n,g,4 -
e.
r.,.
t*,
s > ~ : n. p:,v,w.. ;;; ym.,s......
, vy.
..y
.p..
..n. :.,. c * ; *.,..
.., +
+-
~.
s
.m.
- m v..
q
,'.s.',
..h,
,\\.
s ~
4
.. s.y o* j..
,e).~.x,p,..a.v.:
,j.-
.x.- u..m.%s.)J.)4y*..,g.
,e n
s
.,-.,y.
...es
- ~ r; e
- q..e*
, e
%...g;.
...y*,,,-
V. r. f.?
- t _..; e..
c 4 'e 4
- u:u%.%.. <.
p't
,r.,
~
. - M.i y *,iAglg,.'4s }. J *((. tr.e.. ()
- t a r.,.-3.M 5
.. ci t.,
,,* *.a ; y.
s
(. '.'c
- 2*.
- c,..'
.,, 's ' f. 'fy ~, ? q.vf.4. _3.f.~'}."'l~e,i *W.{-[24.,. g 1 oR; s-
. \\.
^
,[
r.,., a y. Q2,g :,; ;14, s : A ;y,.
.c.,..
.f s
- --y j.m -.
. i g.
. c.t 4=e*
..:.. * - -,'c.4**n,.*.ap +:.',.,,y,.e,*.-
i e
s,
+
4.e. :.s.c p e -
.s.
r..
1.s 6.4 E&o.u.y. O...,4,,.
,.3..
+
.-.?
c. g., ; Y l < s y
. t.
..s
- l*:sy 3:
W.-;. rfq, q,J.n > 4 -; ';; %g 't. <. s v. J. a.' ~,..Q
)
r.
.a.'
.- a
.M
.a
/'.
.y
^,,
sr e.
<a..* be, q e. g.g ;..).:[' &.;L'..'.s fe.q. 'iy t&. ' p f.,.)R..,.ih
.. l s
5
- '.' ;.,.n 5 f3.l.y.
. yl:..,.j - ' ',
,a:
Q:'
- ?
s w
-a
~
,.,*.
- y, 4.w.
~ 9 r..;4 ~ r ?,. 5..
w y
1 J.
._.Q 7. _ *,
4u r. w.,,j p
.,p u
.s Wy pW.1 s y.,7*.4.*+r.s.,..,ea+ ~ w
. ' = >
r, ~-.ss z
s..,.
y.J u.:.e,..
r.
. s -s..,. v.... %
.a.,- N.,,. g,. (.. ) it. o u, r ws..g
.,0; < '.t ",.., e. p ?
.y t
. ~ -.
- .,cw.-,
r p
.7...
s er.g,,,..me s -=.,e T,. ' '. =4 O =
c' ; 4.,.,,+,.#.
r 2
3,
./u...y +g..,,
h s.
y.
- % - * "'uw '.= t.
<4-.
/.
f e
...f.....
. 6 e... $. rt-f *
- 6.,Q.,' t,5,,,,,,b %# - ? '...t #K.
r-t.s ~.
,*g e
- o..,-
e, g % %,y a9
. q, f,.TS.I;*J. $ G,). sv g.,==
s
]; - * -
t4.
.p
.-s.
.s, ( r >p y x. 4.,.J.,,s.
- s f..., '. <. '. -
u%
--%e.
. e s
..,. ~
,.-',.,?_
..c.
- n.
' Y. m. %, <...., o.. + r.. o. *..tr~',.... * : c*
... Y,,~
c-y v.-
' - * : a w'= - - s a.. r,, /./.
,s
.5..
e*+.
. h..;. + ),a.,'W.y' n r;;,,aW y3,; 3 w'
s
- ~
1.* e, >.,. - ;.
.s s 4..... -
- 6
- s /5r 4. 7. v.;3 0 '<:
- 7...
. I *t.
.y**. 9-**
,,g,.
4;
' '7,. fd
- p(*..,
e ;d0<
., ;_f r..~.
t
..4. ^e * (.,,
f, Da
- g. 4-S..a.
Lff w4
'., f. ;" i _.
.A'[g a.,
es-
.-f;;.*> h..,
g c ;.:
, $e&g..,3 ;g *... -1',t.g.y (f. p.@Se,/*..-
1..,...
,-',-1' We.
.sB.
. j *g r
~.%,.,3* %;.g,.
g#
s, _',.Q g,
.%g l.
,I.~.
8. 7,, *.
,,f 36g g
- s $,,..'f
. /.4.
- g.,
.q,
,,f,,-
,8
,*,.s q
.f 1
q
- Y.
.,. 6
,x
'6.,
6;'.,g" p, v
.,., A,..w.,< "f;* r uq/.p M.',%
q g.,,%g.,I O.
y * * *;
/'
g/
.:,. L.
....... i ;.f g'.re:a,im;
.g,r,...
- 9. g g O. ;.
g
- ,.4.',4
- 9,g
- d,t -',
..T.
q
~
,.,?.
"r q;;.T r" q..,.,g\\,=a. ;...,
..n.. ~, v*.,.,
A ~.,. - -aM;'. ' I(.*'f '[ ~
r-*
2
.w.~~ v:.
. e n h,.
A,*'*s' A ',y',.,s
.a.
n~'.
s
.,,. * % "g#.*-.
n.,..
.o,
=,.;
4.e i e '-
r.:
,...~.,<2n"-
,.J.,c'
.I
> Y 'l '
6,,.F j A.- $. f, "..,. j %,. '.4.' &..)
.*",.,Y..
r L
,i'* ',
'/t II' MdN.'r\\ *
~...,
1.' t N.\\ es
. v, u. '.
. 'h, y.
-.' M, -
...v.~.....u.-*.
- ' /.2{",a.
- w
.4 m"
W..
-.c.4
% g* N
-.t t,,. r*U,
. N. #a,.e...-.h'.
3.,. g
,.s.,..
,M
-4.
e.
s g-
[O%.,
g 4
4 u.,
- .e 1
.g b
e 4
6.,9.tS/ D~3 fi,M*k,F.Dv..Y.v;NM. @,,<N.. D.,. 4@'WN ?". N %.@ M I @ gin h"-N M}@g qa,
.[""-g g
i h
g g
l j@'D MNN?i c
.,.r..
- a..=...
. n..,.
. ~v.:.,.. + v... c_ s-.. s ~.-
w W W,.....v.,.
D.'? *t-
.s. +*
.g, g.,-
- g..g e., m,
. a.. 3; h.s.s h me,- ;*1., #.t c
i
,. -. i. 4.. f *
.'s
- j".
. m.
- y
, N ;
- 7.
- j
- h.' a J., ' '* *' ' -
[
s.
. ' m ' i <; p.". i. w :x..; d, s'*y.g'v*igy9:l.'y' *x. 49
. ;.~
- 4. 69 I T..a. a ; e..,
- 6 4
C C
.gg'd ^.* ? *y,q;,.lg[e.p(.g.y Q,7, 3y ) :,
[.. M
,;[,
et. " s i p
-,',,ep.t.;;_..,;,ef.gA.. :w.7,q.%;
y,
'hp.: ;' w_ M 7 (-
<g
~,
y;...,.. n:e:
. s ;.y +
. v.,
~
c...y
.a
.a 4
n.,
y,w 3
r y %.
y g.
- ..g ' g
,I e, g.
"4 - e g.
w
(
9 a
.e h'*-
g
(,',.'
4 e-l,'*..,.
P
% O e-e,.
I. y,,..
S a,,
'
- 9'
^
s*
1)t* rA. ' '
E,'
e a
r o.
,p 6-
- 4...
+,t.*
4
.e...s.
. ~ -.
- s. -..~, '.. * *
- 3,'y' _ '
t,..,**.-
!g - *\\*
[a.,.1.,Lg a
.s
,'Ji
. ','i, f8. -, *-
,?. sp.-
'h'.
- L
... s/ s.,.'
.s
.q-*....
. f.
9..m
..u.
e' t..,
n.
w
\\
.%.s e
6, s
s -
e a
t
+
I w
I 4
,,. i.
... ~.'..
. ; ;A&
ct L
~
7 (f,gve; M<dLJfm
~
S '-
o
~
/
,N[9cW
, INl h
+
g a
La g
w
&g oa cur p~4 aw1"L gh-d> W sU W ak a
p ppy qgggu (ave 3 %
'wA4 %
p
.n G.
A A J"4 *
,g n M a~c4 W
vf Y
nym
._ ?
y
):
MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR yo of 14A.1.36 REACTOR HEAD K$D INTERNALS HANDLING TESTS 0003195
~
1.
Purpose lul Verify that the reactor vessel head and internals can be installed, removed and stored using the available fixtures and lifting rigs.
1.2 verifytheprcpeduresusedforheadandinternals handling.
1.3 vari'fy the use of the reactor internals vent valve i
assembly exercise tool.
\\
[
1.4' obtain baseline data on reactor internals vent valve assembly condition and required opening forces.
i 1.5 Demonstrate operability of protective devices, int'.triocks, and safety devices.
2.
Prerequisines 2.1 Construction ~ activities complete on items to be tested 2.2 Polar crane operational 2.3 Reactor vessel head and! internals storage facilities functional 2.4 Reactor vessel head and internals ready to be installed or removed from the reactor vessel 2.5 Perform load tests'on the polar crane.
l I
3.
Test Method j
8 3.1 verify polar crane control logic, protective devices, interlocks, and safety devices.
3.2 Adjust fixtures and lifting rigs as necessary.
30 3.3 verify Icvel lifting, pendant adjustment, and adequate clearances.
3.4 Install reactor vessel internals and head in accordance with applicable procedures.
3.5 Remove reactor vessel internals and head in accordance with applicable procedures.
^
3.6 Operate and inspect the reactor internals vent valve assembly.
14A.1-37 Revision 30 10/80 4
euts eshat g.a
--es
. seen -
4 _
g
, a zZ MdhtyghNY e
e e e
b n a u h' Y f
L npa 4 hew (4 M L. L y
ayp 2~iha wp/nn M.
yJ C Lam "tq,ype g,
pn p g al' & S FA/6h a d tuL 6 eAos 9e. An, &
a Stka 46r p
ef 2 f at Q kTc far Aq g g tZ B&el &hv4 bA p
c A6:
qpuvdnd14l& Q6L t-4'-
[ETv; pu,4 Ws a-m g
,/ v
~
g.
MIDIAND 1G2-FSAR 1aA.T.31 scL 3 WAsTI SYSTIM-0 1.
Purpose To demonstrate the operability of the solid waste system.
2.
Prerequisites cowion activikes complete on items to be 2.1 tested
- 2. 2 Appropriate instrumentation calibrated and operational 2'. 3' Appropriate power and. steam sources available 3.
Test Method 3.1 Demonstrate operability of solid. waste process subsystems.
3.2 Demonstrate proper operation of the solidification subsystem control circuitry.
T.3 Comenstrate ficwpsths to the extruder - evaporator.-
29
.4 Domenstrate the. operability of the asphalt extruder _
- evaporator 3.5 Demonstrate the operability of the dry' waste.
subsystem.
3.6 Cer.csstrate capability of handling equipment for remote removal and transport of filters to tha s
dr=.. ting area.
r 4.
.iccept.nce Critoria M.e solid esste syster operates as described is section
- 31. 4.
7 4 s e i t o to A C ' t. 31 STEM sct 1DtS\\45. We%hW SuCMr%.'t" W43.5 is r4o WEE QWO
" '"D D"#
9 3.7 N DN g
g
% S h %S g smw set. 0ty is=9Me As h%%.
eS, t.s:,
14A.1-32 Revision 29 4
7/80 9
1
'w
=W,a
- "'*="em-O k0
~
92 e/ @" c4
%&sp /4
- ^
~
.d
- w
- ds e
ag g//Ad/a/p~(w ri A-i w isa&O tu a jn ; 4 u d ul p M a A ffc A
L ehy,R.Je,
%/4%
e d +& C--)kh a
+wm 7
g ja d;+, bk *At u Auj
&k w
Nhd e
%M L#VRe Mc/:&
W at thAuh1L cutf LW A
c_
gm r b.M bb 6_
7% @.
MM dkm@7 W Ac# k
//#d @ c 1
s i-
. MInr.a.w 1i:2-rsaa 0003195 1aa,.T.30 LIQUID. *das:2 ST5 TEM.
...1 c.'
t
' Purpose.
To descastrate the oper=h4 T dty-of the liquid waste system..
2.
Pre-Wsites-const=nction achvities complete on items to be-2.1 tested.
2'. 2:
Ayy.wy :. ate system inst =umentatica d M ted and operada'=T
. 2.3 Ayy.w4ats power son =ces av=d' = hie -
'.4 steam-supply available for.6g evaporatcr 2
~
- 2. 5
% %w2. Logic and ala=m circuit =y functional testa completa-3.
Test Method 3.1 verify' operability of 'sysm 'flowpaths.
3.2
- Demonst= ate design head and flew characta=.d stics/of systemtpumps.
=Y:q
?g ef
~
na$
wys6 of speed
- 4.
Acceptance c=1teria
- The liquid waste" system operates as desc-4.bei in sec ica 11.2.
3.~Cesaw.srw'-i%c.aaurym :eamvrxxn edeemees--
pa '2,5 eaetsur pot.co/r Swe. A::w ix 7kr
- Ax2 i
f.sr.sv'y & &=%-1" ~ ro N p m.,,)
7"df lAUN IA A t* f fA W-rc Reccewac a x
- 774 siouc as.ese qs1M.
3.4 Duadsm.wr 7Mf *seiuq )'ra picars Agoscwrm&-
Mm Knees'E(As Aecerroo<.
.44 M:0.pucd* Zenido Warex,
3 $" Dondswar 7x6 mu& Carm rc,e /muip C.?.
Roadaser fan.udr.
N.
14x.1-31 L
.g N,g;[.
December 1, 1983 Midland Job Site NRC - CPCo - Bechtel Meeting On Cable Qualification l
AGENDA 1.
INTRODUCTION WRBird 2.
IEEE FLAME TESTS MAFerens A.
Licensee Commitment to IEEE 383-74 B.
Rockbestos Insulation Rework C.
Project Position for cable within equipment / cabinets l
l 3.
MIDLAND /PALO VERDE COMPARISON PBCorbett A.
Documentation that suspect material was not supplied to Midland 4.
BECHTEL SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM WRBird A.
Regulatory / Contractual Requirements B.
Region IV Audit C.
Safety Evaluation Practices D.
Current Activities E.
Commitment for Formal (proceduralized) System 5.
ENGINEERING HOLD SYSTEM BRKappel A.
Historical (1980-83) Practices B.
Inte,ria Controls and Reviews C.
Commitment for Additional Formalization and Procedures e
e 11/29/83 8
MI1183-0049A-MP01 l
= -. -
~-
- m..
.a
~ jlj L
3/ ~..
,) ".1/~
Attachment I s
Serial 26619 1
Minutes of Meeting NRC - Midland Project Cable Qualification A December 1,1983 seating was held at the Midland Job Site between Midland Project personnel and Messrs R Gardner and R Burgess of the NRC to answer questions the NRC had previously asked at a November 9, 1983 meeting on cable qualification issues. The attached agenda provides the specific topics for which a formal presentation,was made.
In addition, the NRC informed us the meeting was to be considered an interim exit meeting on the investigation they have been making on cable issues. Also discussed in some detail was an
. additional issue on BIW cable's.
Each of the agen'a items, the BIW d
cable.and the NRC interim exit remarks are discussed separately in these minutes. The meeting attendees are listed on. Attachment 2.
The NRC was given copies of all the materials provided as attachments to these minutes.
1.
INTRODUCTION W R Bird provided a brief history of the previous meetings to obtain resolution of the cable questions. The agenda was briefly run through to explain what we had prepared for presentation.
2.
IEEE' FLAME TESTS M A Ferens presented the Mid" land Project position on flame testing of t-cables as given on Attachment 3.
I R Gardner asked specific questions about the Rodkbestos material which was the snbjegt of the Palo Verde 50.55(e). The questions were answered by P Corbett's response that the problem was specific to one cable reel which had repairs but for which the cable repair material was not properly cured. Also provided were Attachments 4 and 5 providing the information that the Midland supplied Rockbestos cable had passed flame tests.
i which provides the Midland Project position on cables inside cabinets was then presented by M A Ferens t
l 3.
MIDLAND /PALO VERDE COMPARISON P Corbett presented Attachment 7 as a slide. The NRC h,ad information that L
there were three concerns with the Palo Verde cable as follows:
Not Cross-linked f'
Not Flame Retardant.
Not the Same Compound for Repairs P Corbett stated that our understanding was that different material was only I
referring to not addinF flame retardant to the base compound.
The NRC was I
I 4
ICl283-0007B-MP01
,,m.,.
r-
.. _.. ~ - - _ _ _ _,. _ -.. _.., -. _ _.., -., ~ _ _,..,...,. _ _......
~
Serial 26619
}-
2 provided copies of Attachments 8 and 9 which state we do not have any of the problem cables and which take, exception by Rockbestos of some of the wording used by Arizona Public Services 50.55(e).
The NRC' stated they had no additional questions on the material presented.
4.
BECHTEL SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM W R Bird presented an introductory background on how our Part 21 and 50.55(e) reporting programs are covered in the Project hierarchy of l
documents starting with the FSAR, the two Corgany Topicals, and then Consumers Power Company's Volume II and Bect.el's NQAM. He stated that the licensee has made a conscious effort to caintain strict compliance l
with the reporting regulations. Region IV reviewed the Bechtel Part 21 system which they found to meet the regulations.
We have some concerns with our present situation in regards to providing visibility as to where safety evaluations are occurring and the length of time to close.
We also are committed to be responsive to any perception that we are not quick enough to reach *a reportable decision on such items as the Essex cable.
W R Bird then went through the Bechtel evaluation system for reportability using Attachment 9.
Specific attention was paid to those steps required by pr'ocedure, which steps represented practice but didn't have a specific procedural requirement and the involvement, if any, of QA and client of each step.
R Gardner asked specifically about how the original issue of t' a cable qualification was handled within the evaluation process.
He wLnt through some of the events and correspondence that he was aware of, specifically:
(1) the TWX to the site putting cable on hold, (2) the 6/26/80 IOM addressing a potential deficiency which concluded not significant in that 7
the specification does not prohibit the rework of cables and the suppliers procedures allows for rework, (3) the ION of 11/20/80 which added Essex to the cables for safety consideration and (4) the correspondence used to lift the holds. His concerns are that NPQAD was not involved, that there was no documentation that the evaluations were completed and that putting cables on hold is inconsistent with not determining the repair conditions on the cables as significant.
'WRBirdstatedthatthesystemfailedinthattheconditionsrequi[ing the holds were not recognized as a condition also requiring an NCR.
The i
i QAR written specifically to track the Palo Verde-Rockbestos cable condition did track that through to conclusien. All the cables have now been qualified for their allowed usage.
R Gardner then addressed SCRE 100 on the Ess'x cable.
It stated that he e
i felt the three reasons given in Block 10 did not. substantiate the conclusion of "not reportable, further evaluatien required." His opinion
.was that finding the Essex' cables placed in Class 1E containment applications was sufficient grounds to immediately call the condition i
'IC1283-0007B-MP01 s
i
l(
,i _
Serial 26619 3
potentially reportable. Additionil information was provided by " R Bird,.
P W Jacobsen and E Jones on the st pporting basis for the three reasons.
At this point in the meeting, a discussion was held between the participants as to the interpretation of 50.55(e) regulations as to what type of specific conditions may allow a licensee to do further evaluations on a situation rather than immediateley report it.
W R Bird presented Attachments 10 and 11. We will inform the NRC if we find any significant problems with the past safety evaluations made by Bechtel.
It was also promised to provide the site resident inspector with a copy of the SCRE log so they could have the opportunity to assure themselves that they had received all the SCREs since R Cook had been put on dis,tribution. 2 was provided to R Gardner.
5.
ENGINEERING HOLD SYSTEM Attachments 13, 14 and 15 were provided by Bruce Kappel.
W R Bird stated that follow up on this subject as to the ongoing reviews and changes to this system will be provided to the NRC through our 50.55(e) reports (MCAR 74).
6.
BIW CABLES R Burgess asked if all the cables for the plant meet tia FSAR commitments. They are now aware of 11 BIW cables installed in Q raceways. They also noted a question on a cable with Foxboro ITT SUPRANO marked on it.
P Jacobsen provided the latest information on th'a BIW cable on which MPQAD had written an NCR, because of it having been procured non Q, but installed in a Q application'.
It has been determined that QC had written NCR #4595 in October of 1982 on eight of'the cables, and tF.t we have further investi,gations we need to do to get all the facts en this situation.
The NRC plans to look for additional cables to assure they meet qualification requirements.
It was suggested that Project develop a program to' verify that all vendor supplied cable for Class IE use has been qu.alified.
7.
NRC INTERIM EXIT RESULTS A.
The previous unresolved item concerning Rockbesgos cable / flame testing applications appears to be satisfactorily resolved and it should be closed.
B.,
controls in place in response to the TWX on cable installation holds were inadequate.
(Critorion XV-Control of Nonconforming Items)
C.
There is a potential noncompliance to 50.55(e).
Examples are:
IC1281-0007B-MP01
c Serial 26619 4
1.
, Rationale for making SCRE 100 nonreportable.-
2.
The delay in issuing the Essex Cable NCR which prevented reviews on reportability of the nonconformance.
3.
Handling of the safety evaluations by Bechtel on the repair cable conditions. Concerns are with both the evaluation system and the specific conclusion made.
D.
BIW cable issue is considered an unresolved item.
8.
MEETING CONCLUSION The investigations and corrective actions committed to deal with.
reporting evaluation programs and holds appear to be appropriate.
O e
e i
i l
l l
i i
s I
i 4
~
IC1283-0007B-MP01
,,,--,-.----,-,-,-,-------~,e,--,--c-
,n.
tt To DLQuamme 3
l Faow
', eck, NIReic el/GWRowe g
Darc February 15, 1984 power Sussect MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER GWO 7020 USNRC EXIT MEETING
~'"~^$wocuee File:
0483.15 UFI:
12*24*25 Serial:
CSC-7331 con s-0485.21 42*03*03 cc JWCook, P26-336B HPLeonard, MPQAD RAWells, MPQAD JLWood, MPQAD Attendees The following is a brief report of the exit meeting concerning cable sub-9titutions held on February 10, 1984.
6 I
e 6
4 e
9
.,.-..,____g,__
is t,, ?. -
j +
-.)
urrrinc morss In 1982, an allegation was made by a former electric'ian, that indiscriminate cable substitutions were being made. A subsequent overinspection of over 9000 class IE cables revealed six cables of incorrect size.
Not only was cable size checked, but routing, color coding and sylar tag in forma. tion.
Although the overinspection was completed in 1983. with a number of NCR's being generated the NRC requested an exit meeting to further investigate the breakdown.
An exit meeting was held on February 10, 1984, in the Orientation Room between Bechtel, Consumers and NRC officials.
Those in attendance were:
CPCO,,_
BPCO NRC M. Schaeffer D. Scott J. Harrison D. Cochran M. McCully R. Cardner J. Rowe R. Heistand B. Burgess D. Newcome Mr. Cardner requested any additional information on why two differcut size wires could be cut from the same reel, why the real number recorded was an invalid number and why the tags attached to the cable were iscorrect (2 of 4 wrong).
Mr. McCully explained that shortly after he arrived on site he found the manufacturer's serial number was being used (in some cases) for the reel number. As to the other two concerns, Mr.. McCully nor could anyone else provide a plausible reason for the errors.
A trip to the present " cut-shop" was made to look at the present set-up
- and.htna reels are marked to see if a reason for the errors could be found.
Only suppositions could be given.
The group then went to the Services Support Building to look at tags that identified cables (made out by " cut-shop").
The tags showed they had been improperly filled out.
Prior to leaving the Orientation Room, Mr. Cardner informed the group this item would be viewed as an " item of non-compliance".
CWRowe 2/14/84 o
O
-[v
- tmi, 1
UNITE 6 STATES i,, g@ - n y,i g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g $9 *#l wasmuorou. o. c. 20sss
' 'N June 21, 1.983 Docket Nos: 50A?9 OM, OL and 50.20 OM, OL
\\
Mr. J..W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Cook:
Subject:
Request for Additional Infomatfu Regarding Sefsste Margin Review - Volume VL: Borated Water Storage Tank and, Foundation:
Sections 1.8 and 3.7.2.1 of Supplement 2 to the SER identified seismic margin studies as a confimatory issue for Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Your letter of February 16, 1983, famarded Volume VI of the Seismic Margin Review by Stmc-tural Mechanics Associates (SMA) for NRC review. The NRC staff has reviewed Volume VI and finds that additional information identified by Enclosure 1 is needed to compTete this review.
ShouTd you have qiaestions regarding Enclosure 1, contact our Licensing Project Manager. Your responsa within 30 days of receipt of this request would be appreciated.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely,
.!;, /
,f;
~,
?
Ig-6.* :.*L. O '. t,4 /-u :
~; %
Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page
-g-30b280044 9
C
MICLAND
)
Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consmers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan A92G1
~
cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
01 vision of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Department of Public Health Isham, Lincoln & Beale P.O. Box 33035' 1hree First National Flaza.
Lansing, Michigan 48909 Sist floor
- Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue James E. Brunner Esq.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Constaners Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Jackson, Michigan 4S201 Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Michigan 48640 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Stewart H. Freeman Freeland, Michigan 48623 Assistant Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Protection Division Consumers Power Company 720 Law Building 212 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Wendell Marshall Mr. Walt Apley Route 10 c/o Mr. Max Clausen Midland, Michigan 48640 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PNWL)
Battelle Blvd.
Mr. R. B. Borsum SIGMA IV Building Nuclear Power Generation Division Richland, Washington 99352 Babcock & Wilcox 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 Mr. I. Charak, Manager Bethesda, Maryland 20814 NRC Assistance Project Argonne National Laooratory Cherry & Flynn 9700 South Cass Avenue Suite 3700 Argenne. Illinois 60439 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 James G. Keppler, Regional Adhinistrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 t
C
g Mr. J. W. Cook
-E-cc: Mr. Ron Callen Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way P.O. Box 30221 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr.. Paul Rau.
Midland De1Ty News 124 Mcdonald Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Billie Pirner Garde Director, Cittzens Clinic for Accountable Government Government Accountability Project Institute for PoTicy Studies
_- 190I Que Street,. N.W.
Washington,. D. C.
20009 Mr Howard Lavin, Project Manager TERA Corporation -
7101 Wisconsin Avenue Rathesda, MaryTand 20814 Ms. Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project 1901 Q Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009 f
a e
O
- 5 Ol
~
Supplemental page to the Midland OM, OL Sartice List Mr. J. W. Cook cc: Casumander, Naval Surface Weapons Canter ATTN:
P. C. Huang White Oak Silver Spring, Meryland 20910 Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Box 1449 Canoga Park,. California 91304 Mr. MaiT Gehrtng-U.S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7thr Floor 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigart 48226 Charles Bechhcafer,. Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commtssion Washington,D. C.
2055E Dr. Frederick P. Cowarr Apt. B-125 6125 N. Verde Trail j
Boca Raton, F1orida 33433 Jerry Harbour, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Casumission
]..
Washington, D. C.
20555 Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.
ATTN: Dr. Steve J. Poulos i
1017 Main Street l
Winchester, Massachusetts 01330 2
1
..2
[
REQUEST FOR A00IT 0 w r" FORMATION 130.0 Structural Engineering Branch 130.29 Provide the following additional information with respect to Volume VI of the Seismic Margin Review report titled, " Borated Water Storage Tank and Foundation" transmitted by your letter of February 16, 1983.
130.29.1 Clarify in Section 1.1 that a modffied Housner response spectrum is used in the development of the SME and not just the Housner response spectrum.
130.29.2 Does the word " foundation" at the end of the third sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2.1 mean the ring beam and the sand central support?
130.29.3 Provide the folTowing fnformation, for Section 2.2.1, relevant to the -
seismic models-(a) Discuss in more detail why the model identified in Figure VI-2-2 is a better repres,entation then the model in Figure VI-2-1.
(b) State why you assume that the hydrodynamic pressure is constant from elevation y=0.15h to the bottom of the tank.
(c) Provide a comparison between the methods identified in References (6) and (7).
'A sammary of specific assumptions, model and results should be provided for staff revfew.
(d) Address the development cf the constant 1.453 in Equation 2-3.
(e) Address Equation 2-4 by providing a specific reference within Reference 2 and/or providing a cocy of related pages.
130.29.4 With respect to Section 2.2.3, investigate and discuss results of *Jw effect on the fundamental frequency and hydrodynamic pressures due to vertical ground motion for the borated water storage tanks.
130.29.5 We agree, for Section 2.3.2, with the use of rocking stiffness based upon.
the difference in stiffnesses of disks of radius equal to 28.75 ft. and 24 ft. However, the overturning monent should be based upon the hydro-dynamic wall pressures which does not include Mg (Eq. 2-41.
Discuss this concern and its offect.
130.29.6 Equation 3-2 in Sectin 3.3 appears to be valid if hoop stiffness of the tank can be assumed as rigid. Demonstrate that the fundamental frequency of the tank is greater than 33 hertz.
130.29.7 Address in Section 4.4.2 any potential increase in hoop stress due to the vertical ground acceleration and any change in stress and safety margin due to consideration for potential corrosion development.
i y
2-130.29.8 In Section 4.4.2, why have you considered deaa load in conjunction with the sefsmic load, combined as SRSS7 130.29.9 State in Section 4.4.3 if you have used Ffgute NC 3922.11 of the ASME Code Section III to determine the maximum compressive stress. Also, address any consideratiens given in your analyses for potential cor-resion development and its effect on total stress and margin of safety.
64 -,
O e
l
[
.-.,....-...T
~. -
w-
.s
-.c 'Q _f -
h'\\\\[
'9 UNITED STATES
}:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
l-
-2 wasmmoron.o.c. ossa July 19, 1982 Docket Nos. 50-329 OM, OL and 50-330 OM, OL Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Cook:
Subject:
Draft SSER No. 2 on Soils-Related Issues Enclosed'is a draft copy of the second supplement for the Midland SER.
The primary pumose of this SSER, once published, will be to reflect completion of the staff's soils-related OL review. Although the draft i
is incomplete at this stage, it does identify several open issues to be resolved before this SSER reflects review completion. To this end, a meeting with members of your cogany has been scheduled for July 21, 1982, in Bethesda, Maryland.
This draft copy is preliminary at this time and does not reflect official staff approvals. Accordingly, no change in previous staff approvals should be inferred from this draft SSER.
Sincerely.
i i
[
d.Purpfe M:
- As stant er Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Draft SSER No. 2 cc: See next page l
l j
- 7307270-3 72 --
h e
. ~. _...... -....,..... - - -.,.. -,, - -,,, _,..... _
,-...__, _._,..~, -,,.-~,.....,.._.. _.. -, -. - - -
(
5 s
MIDLAND July 19, 1982 Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Division of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Department of Public Health Isham, Lincoln & Beale P.O. Box 33035 Suite 4200 Lansing, Michigan 48909 1 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 William J. Scanlon, Esq.
2034 Pauline Boulevard James E. Brunner, Esq.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Consumers Power Cogany.
212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Michigan 48640 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Stewart H. Freeman Freeland, Michigan 48623 Assistant Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental
. Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Protection Division Consumers Power Cogany 720 Law Building 212 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Wendell Marshall Mr. Walt Apley Route 10 Midland, Michigan.
c/o Mr. Max Clausen 48640 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PNWL)
Battelle Blvd.
Mr. Roger W. Huston SIGMA IV Building Suite 220 Richland, Washington 99352 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. I. Charak, Manager NRC Assistance Project,.
Mr. R. B. Borsus Argonne National Laboratory Nuclear Power Generation Division 9700 South C' ass Avenue Babcock & Wilcox Argonne, II.11nois 60439 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission, Cherry & Flynn Region III Suite 3700 799 Roosevelt Road Three First National Plaza Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
~
.]
~
3
(
- Mr. J. W. Cook July 19, 1982
/
cc: Commander, Naval Surface Weapons Center ATTN:
P. C. Huang White Oak Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr. L. J.~ Auge, Manager Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Box 1449 Canoga Park, California 91304 Mr. Neil Gehring U.S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue
. Detroit, Michigan 48226 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Ralph S. Decker Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comsdssion Washington, D..C.
20555 Or. Frederick P. Cowan Apt. B-125 6125 N. Verde Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Jerry Harbour, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.
ATTW: Dr. Steve J. Poulos 1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 h
I
!Ir
.__....m.
d
.s.
I d
NUREG-0793 Supplement No./g DRAT Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330 Consumers Power Company i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu!ation A
- ~~$,
/
%....l..i DRAFT 4
~
J e
I ABSTRACT This report supplements the Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0793, issued May l
1982 by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission with respect to the application filed by Consumers Power Company, as applicant and owner, for licenses to operate the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Dccket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330).
The facility is located in the city of Midland in Midland County, Michigan.
This supplement provides recent infor-i mati~on regarding resolution of some of the open items identified in the Safety Evaluation Report ;..2 _
....... /.i.. el....
'J.
C :- ' :._ _
2--...
. ~.
- 'mt.
^ ^ _ _,
Plast of f 4e open ite m eer er.reu fed wil 4 soil-rehfeel proWe ~r at/ke Midh =d s)/ e.
DRAF' f
MidlandSSERg fit g
g i
~
O a,
~
0 Hydroligic Engineering 2.4.4 Flood Protection Requirements
[ Later]
2.4.6.2 Design of Dewatering System
[Later]
a 2.4.6.4 Dewatering Monitoring Program
[ Later]
i
(
DRAfli
f 9-9 e
').
9 )O f)7.-
E DRAFT I ulJ 3 >' ' 'c Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2
) y "L" $ ;
DRAFT Safety Evaluation Report Supplement
. f.. ~ l-q
._ '].t% #/
Geotechnical Engineering
- r
t
- ...~:..
2.5.4 Stability of Subsurf ace Materials and Foundations 1.' ".. !M
- g 2.5.4.1 Site Conditions I 6 2.5.4.1.1 Generat 2.5.4.1.2 Site Foundation Description 2.5.4.1.3 Site Investigations 2.5.4.2 Properties of Foundation f4adar'i a.k J 2.5.4.3 Foundation Profiles and Design Properties 2.5.4.4 Foundation Treatment 2.5.4.4.1 Underpinning 2.5.4.4.2 Surcharging of the Diesel Generator Building Foundation 2.5.4.4.3 Surcharging of the Borated Water Storage Tanks 2.5.4.4.4 Permanent Dewatering 2.5.4.4.5 E cavation and Backfill 2.5.4.5 Foundation Stability 2.5.4.5.1 Bearing capacity 2.5.4.5.2 Vertical Movement (Settlement) 2.5.4.5.3 Horizontal Movement i
2.5.4.5.4 Lateral Loads 2.5.4.5.5 Liquefaction Potential l
2.5.4.5.6 Dynamic Loading i
2.5.4.6 Instrumentation and Monitoring 2.5.4.7 Remaining Issues 2.5.4.8 conclusions
~
a I
i 9
l..-
l 1
9'
\\~
DRHT
~
G;JL...J
.Le..;.
-'tr
- nd 2
_ :..L.: "uch: ::
50 227/2!C unari a.~.., EU: t u ; ~...
7;y..
Supp6emens - Gev6.
L....;L :..s.........w 6
i s spe s.d "; "
2 ^ ? "," '
O.
nddG# WC# NMM 2.5.4 Stability of Subsurface Materials and Foundations
.TE A In Section 2.5.4 of the 9;,
- 7":
.f.:,
.7 y..
- , the
..sw.6.w.,
status of the staff's geotechnical engineering review of the Midland Plant was provided and it was indicated that a more detailed evaluation of the stability of subsurface materials and foundations for seismic Category 1 safety-related structures I ts*
- n se o p and components would be presented in a supplement.
S in c e Shn*
t h e CK A?,
4G42 the applicant has submitted several technical reports addressing previously identified staff review concerns.
These reports dated through June 18, 1982 along with the previously identified documents in s'ection 2.5.4 of the 9.,
.;^2 SER have been reviewed by the staff and its consultants and serve as the basis for the fotLoving sections which present the results of our safety evaluation.
In addition to identifying the applicable criteria (CFR, R.G.,
SRP, NUREGs) under which Section 2.5.4 review has been conducted, ed t h e Meged$0e S E R a l s o p r ;. i d ; e d i s c u s s sene as t h e f o l l o w i n g 1
6 topics related to the plant fill' settlement problem:
a.
Discovery of the plant fill deficiencies - Section 1.12 b.
Affected safety related structures and utilities - Section 1.12 and Table 2.2 Bi1MT
+
.1
.t._
j hh J,
W a M,4 3 M d4 c.
NRC issuance of the Order Modifying Construction Permits - Section 1.12 2.5.4.1 Site conditions 2.5.4.1.1 General The proposed Midland nuclear plant is located in central Michigan on the southwest bank of the Tittabawassee River. Topographic relief is slight in the site area with elevations ranging between elevation 594 feet along the Tittabawassee flood plain to elevation 630 feet in the southwest portion of the site area. In order to reach plant grade elevation 634 feet and to be above the floodplain, 30 to 35 feet of fitt had to be placed and compacted above the natural ground surface. The borrow. source of soil materials for the plant fill was the 880-acre cooling pond area located it.
south of the plant area as shown on FSAR Figure 2.5-46.
The average. original ground surface which existed prior to placement of the plant fill was slightly above elevation 600 and it is this surface below which future references in this SSER to natural soils is intended. Plant fitt placement activities were conducted largely from 1975 to 1977.
I Subsurface explorations in the natural soils in the main plant area reveal highly variable soll materials and layering conditions that is typical of a glaciated plain. A Loose to very dense,n.-fx: brownfihesand(SP) is found beneath' the thin topsoil layer. The bottom of the surface sand layer l
052 O
. _-. _ =. -
DRAT
+
varies in the main plant area from elevation 575 to elevation 600 feet but has been '
'ed as deep as elevation 552 feet in site a*plorations.
Underlying the fine sandy soils is a preconsolidatede very stiff to hard gray sitty clay (CL) that contains numerous discontinuous silt lenses. This natural foundation clay layer is a Lacustrine deposit and extends to depths as deep as elevation 545 feet. Glacial tiLL which consists of a very stiff to hard brownish gray silty clay (CL, CH) with sand and gravel is located beneath the Lacustrine clay layer. The glacial tiLL brownish gray silty clay layer is very thick and extends to bottom elevations ranging from elevation 365 t 2 430 feet. Below the clay tiLL and above the black shale 4
bedrock of the Saginaw formation. Lie glacist outwash consisting of predominantly very dense fine sand layers (SP) with sitt that are occasionally n.
intertayered with very stiff clayey sands and very dense sand and gravels and very dense silts with' gravel. The top of bedrock is enccuntered at approximately elevation 250 feet in the main plant area as shown on FSAR i
Figure 2.5-23.
Plant fill placed beneath safety related structures and utilities consisted mainly of the Lacustrine and tiLL clays that were excavated from the cooling pond area. Clean sands (structural backfill) from an offsite source and Lean concreter used as an alternative to the structural backfill, were also Afi' J
i 1
o
- - - - -, - - -, -, -. - -, - - -, - - -, - -, - - - -. - - - - ~ - -.. - - - - - - ~, +
. ~....
k O
, g placed in the plant fill. Inadequate compaction of the clay and sand fill to required compaction criteria (95 percent of maximum dry density established in ASTM 01557 and 80 percent relative density, ASTM D2049, respectively) is considered to be the major cause of the plant fill settlement p.oblem.
2.5.4.1.2 Site Foundation Description Tables 2./
and 2 2 provide a summary of the pertinent foundation information for seismic Category I scructures that are founded on the natural soils and i
plant fill materials. In addition to providing the bottom foundation elevations and foundation type, the notes on these tables also indicate the foundation remedial measures proposed for the various structures supported on the plant fitt.
9 O
6 1
y w -,,. -,,. _,, - -.
+__-,__---,.,y
-,----,,-,,cwy---,_,
v-
,,,,-,w,.
f
.,- -. - - ~,, --- -.
-y.w,,-w-.
j-
. Table 2./
Safety-Related Structures Founded on Natural Soils Structure Supporting Foundation
. Foundation Foundation hil Elevation Type Reactor Very stiff to hard 572 to 582.5 9 ft to 13 ft Containment clay thick reinforced Buildings concrete mat do Main Very stiff to hard 562 to 579 5 ft to / ft Auxiliary clay tai::k reinforced i
Building concrete sat
~
Service Very stiff to hard 587 5 ft thick Water Pump clay reinforced Structure concrete mat (deeper portion) hbi5
f
- 's Table 2.1 Safety-Related Structures Founded on Plant FILL St ructure Supporting Foundation Original Original Soit Foundation Foundation pt.va*4nn Tve.
Control tower Plant fill 609Y 5ftthickY reinforced concrete mat.
Electrical Plant fill 609Y 5ftthickk penetration reinforced concrete II areas sat Feedwater Plant fill 615.5Y 4ftthickY isola, tion reinforced concrete valve pits mat Railroad bay Plant fill 630.5
_ ft thick reinforced concrete mat Service water Plant fill 617Y[
3ftthickreinforcedNM pump structure concrete mat h
l g
.o hk 7
Structure Supporting Foundation Original Original Soit Foundation Foundation Elat>At(en TVDe Diesel Plant fill 628 2.5 f t thick by generator 10 ft wideY building continuous reinforced concrete wall footing Diesel fuel Plant fill 61 2 3 ft thic k oil tanks cencrete pads Bor.ited water Plant fill 629 Continuous storage rein forced tanks concrete ring wall on 1.5 ft thick by 4 ft wide footings.
Notes:
(1) To be modified with permanent underpinning wall.
(2) To have original plant fitt removed and replaced with concrete and compacted granular fill.
G) Subjected to surcharging with sand fill.
Ga) Tanks filled with water, (fese t ting (4)
New ring wall foundation to be constructed for Unit 1 tank,
'A
- 9 AFT
s--
v-hh
, The variations in groundwater, river and cooling pond Levels '
that affect foundation design are discussed in Section 2.4 of the 6 SER.
2.5.4.1.3 Site Investigations g
Input into the final SSER wiLL include our summary of the sub-surface investigations that have been completed at the Midland site (e.g., number of borings and exploratory. investigations, type of drilling and sampling, geophysical investigations, etc.).
Pertinent references and figures wilL be cited.
c The staff evaluation wiLL conplude that the site investigatians are acceptable and adequate in identifying the important subsurface features and foundation conditions and they were completed in i
accordance with the guidelines recommended in R.G.
1.132,
" Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants".
i 2.5.4.2 Properties of Foundation Materials l
(Input into the final SSER wiLL describe the Laboratory and field t
testing that was completed (e.g.,
scope, types of testing, etc.)
4 and the range in results of significant soit properties (density, permeability, shear strength, compressibility characteristics, shear wave veolcities) under both static and dynamic Loading.
These properties wiLL be related to the specific foundation W 8 & dN $ pr 3 f y-p - - - o/ Ahe & '
1 5
l Osb
=- - ---- - - - - -
1 i
gy Layering described in section 2.5.4.1.1.
Pertinent references and figures that provide greater details on the test results wiLL be given.
1 The staff evaluation wiLL conclude that the Laboratory and field test results are acceptable with respect to adequacy, reasonable-ness of results and in meeting the applicable portions of the i
commission's regulations, SRP and R.G. 1.138,." Laboratory Investi=
gations of Soils for Engineering Analysis and Design of Nuclear-f Power Plants".
l t
2.5.4.3 Foundation Profil'es and Design Properties j
n (Input into the final $$ER wiLL include a staff evaluation of 1
)
the pertinent soit profiles and sectional views that present 4
the results of the subsurface investigations in relation to the i
final horizontal and vertical Locations'of aLL Category I l
l structures and utilities.
The important static and dynamic j
soil properties adopted in plant design wilL be discussed and related to the soit profiles.
I The staff evaluation wiLL conclude that the soit profiles and sectional views are adequate' and acceptable in correctly re-presenting the results of the subsurface investigations and that the adopted design properties are reasonable. [
I
DRAR
... 2.5.4.4 Foundation Treatment The following sections orovide the geotechnical engineering staff and its consultants evaluation of the techniques proposed by the applicant to treat the deficiencies in the plant fill and to assure Long term foundation stabit'ity.
2.5.4.4.1 Underpinning The main auxiliary building ~is founded on the very stiff to a
hard clay natural soil with foundations ranging between eleva-i tions 562 to 579 feet.
Beyond the main building at the southerty i
portion, the control tower and electrical penetration areas (EPA's), which are structurally connected to the main auxiLAary building, are founded at elevation 609 feet on inadequately 2
compacted plant fill varying up to 30 feet in thickness.
Large i
j volumes of concrete used as a replacement for structural back-fill in the excavations for the deeper auxiliary building and j
reactor. buildings are also found in the plant fill.
At the extremeties.of the EPA'si'the feedwater isolation valve pits (FIVP's) are Located and are founded on plant fill at elevation i
2-615.5 feet.
The FIVP's are st,ruc,turally separated from other m
l buildings but they do house s category.I piping that penetrates a
i several structures.
A soit profile view depicting the pertinent
&* vt 2.
- F i kit DM e a,e of. (r,
/
foundation information is presented on4 Figure AUX-38 of the hee r A$
g applicant's November 19, 1981 testimony L_"_._
^~LC.
3
,f i
00$5 p
.. ~.. ~ _ -
.. _ _ - ~ _
~...
e g
The low SPT blowcounts indicated at the auxiliary building area in the plant fill in the Late 1978 subsurface investigations caused concern for future differential settlements.
Since the control tower and EPA's were not designed to cantilever from the m&in auxiliary buildings the differential settlements could poter.tially cause structural stresses higher than allowable values, particularly if the structures were subjected to other 4,....
stresses required by design Lead combinations.
A one-foot deep void had also been discovered in one of the borings beneath the mud sat under the control tower in the late 1978 investigations.
Evidence of cracking at several Locations on the auxiliary build-ing were additional reasons for concern.
~
To assure Long term foundation stability, the applicant has proposed to underpin the control tower and EPA's with a new wht em permanent underpinning wallo ilL extend through the fill to the w
competent hard clay natural soil on which the main auxtLiary building is also founded.
The permanent underpinning wall wiLL ultimately be connected to the bottom of the existing sat f ounda -
tions after jacking of the structure loads has been held Long enough on the permanent wall to reduce future settlements to minimal values.
Foundation treatment for the inadequate pl' ant fill beneath the FIVP's consists of excavating the fill and an upp'er portion of
)
DRAFT
~ the hard clay and replacing it with approximately 30 feet of compacted granular fill and 4 feet of concrete fill.
The two fills wiLL be separated by a jacking stab that wiLL be used to remove the Load of the FIVP structures from the existing temporary supports and into the granular fill.
This procedure vill allow the major settlement of the granular fitL to occur while the jacks are in place and before transfer of the final Load to the permanent foundation is completed.
By performing this procedure, future settlement values'are anticipated to be minimal.
Presently the FIVP's are temporacity supported by an overhead steel structure ass k y with bolting to 'the exist-The * *erkre d at.rekWy ing concrete structure,t4 ret transfers the load to the adjacent 4
turbine buildi'ng and buttress access shafts.
Underpinning details and foundation treatment of the FIVP are presentr.d on f + res 2.
M 2.
4,84.6.:
,e
- **( %.*
A Figures 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-5 of the appli cant 's June 7,1982 submittal)
Based on the documents submitted by the applicant for modifying the foundations of the control tower, EPA's'and FIVP's, the staff and its consultants conclude that the permanent underpinning waLLfixisanacceptablesolutionforeL[sinating the plant i
fill problem in the auxiliary building area and, if properly carried out i'n the field, wiLL provide a stable and safe founda-j tion.
4 t
l a
J D%7 Several remaining review issues related to underpinning in the y13 auxiliary building area are Listed in.. i l, _ !. -
- 2.. '. QAir We consider these issues to be related to resolution of final design details, fulfillment in the field of important construction i
controls and FSAR documentation that is required to confirm actual as-built conditions.
4 conditions at the northerly portion of the service water pump structure (SWPS) are similar to the conditions beneath the control tower and EPA's in that this portion is also founded on th'e clay and sand plant fill and is structurally connected
~
to the southerly part of SWPS which is founded on the.deepeg, 1
j more competent, very dense sandy clay tiLL.
The concerns for differential settlement between the shallower, northerly portion which overlies the plant fill and the deeper clay tiLL supported l
portion along with the inducement of unacceptable structural i
f stresses into'this very rigid structure, has prompted the applicant to. require a new permanent underpinning wall to assure i
Long term foundation stability.
In addition, cracks have been observed in the SWPS at locations where they might be expected to develop, if differential settlements were occurring.
A profile of the foundation soils beneath the SWPS is presented S eret..-. of 64lo ruppte ~ e ef. (J'e m e.'
on Figure SWP-26 in the applicant's submittal dated December 31, g
1981). The proposed new permanent underpinning wall beneath l
the north portion of the SWPS wiLL extend through the fill to DMT
L' n
e e
~
at least elevation 587 feet which is the same bearing level as the existing deeper portion.
Views of underpinning details Yes 2.
- 4 2.
4 h ^ i=f = "" C G m :
are presented on igures sWP-14 and 15 of the December 31, 1981 repo rt).
s
- i. ' /*
'/ T Based on the documents provided by the applicant for under-pinning the SWPS, the NRC staff and its consultants conclude that the underpinning fix is an acceptable solution for eliminating the fill settlement problem and, if properly carried out in the field, wiLL provide a stable and safe foundation.
I 11 The remaining review issues related to the SWPS are summarized 27 i
in t4se & kle -
~.rf $si,e, p '-
f.
.Y 2.5.4 2 Surcharging of the Diesel Generator Building Area 4
The diesel generator building (DGB) is a reinforced concrete structure that is supported on continuous wall footings that are founded at elevation 628.
The footings rest on-approximately The stweim is fe*% dese.; bed f., Seefiks 3. t.a t d L% WMen ret.
o 25 feet of plant fi L L. g In July 1978, with the generator pedestals and approximately 60 percent of the OG8 completed, field settle =
ment measurements indicated larger than predicted values of settlement.
By December 1978, the largest measured settlement, located in the southeast corner of the building h
j W,ad reached 4.25 inches which already* exceeded the building's 40 year settlement prediction of 2.8 inches.
DRM
DRl T
. The applicant temporarily halted construction of the DGB and complete.d a subsurface exploration program in the plant fill in late 1978.
The results of these explorations revealed that the fill did not meet specified compaction requirements at aLL The fill points in the fill.awd was shown to be highly variable and a
ranged in consistency from very soft to very stiff for the cohesive soils and from very Loose to dense for the granular soils.
After considering'several alternatives for rectifying the inadequately compacted fill, the applicante on the advice ofitsconsultants,[eLectedtosurchargethepartiallycompleted structure with 20 feet of sand placeo above plant grade eleva-tion 634.
The sand fill was placed to approximately elevati,on 654 in each of the four interior of the DGB and < s e.'.
or
- yr.,*. 6 67 a 20 foot ';.-i
..._L distance around the :nti., w,,
$lons f he nedh vatt,where Ihe DGBis c/ese fa f 4e Msa be4/Hy, f he to feet of rod a vfe 4,j 7,,
perimeter of the DGS.4 Placement of surcharge fill was initiated fy,q in January 1979 and reached the maximum 20. feet-surcharge height #"N' '
At4 in April 1979 when 'approximately 94 percent of the DG8 structure 4 8 v84,,,'
% //A was completed.
The purpose of surcharging was to a.ccelerate
%4 the settlement of the cohesive fill soi.Ls under a Load that would produce vertical stresses at aLL dcpths in the fil.L in excess of those which would result during 6 plant operation.
The applicant's consultants recommended removal of the sand surcharge in mid-August 1979 following their favorable evalua-tion of the settlement and piezameter data recorded during the 9
DRAT
+
. l 4
l l
surcharge period.
The largest amount of additional settlement i
i
-recorded under the surcharge Load occurred in the southeast corner of 'the DGB and reached 3.20 inches, which resulted in l
a total settlement of 7.45 inches for this portion of the DGB structure.
The settlements measured before, during and after
/mers 2.
M z.
J /4)s noggfp '
l surcharging of the DGB are presented in Figures 27-10 through 3
27-13 of the applicant's response to NRC requests regarding j
G, <
plant fill, question number 2.
i Surcharging was intended to resolve the uncertainties related to future settlements of the cohesive fill soils but was acknowledged'to be limited in producing meaningful results,1,n l
the granular fill soils.
The concern for the safe oper.ation of the Midland plant due to the presence of the Loose granular fitL soils with potential for Liquefaction has been addressed i
i by the installation of the permanent dewatering system which i-24,,,gge)
- 2. S. w. +. Y 4 U %. T. T j
i s eew.... in the frii..!.e Sections cf this SSER.
4 l
The staff concurs with the applicant that the surcharge program i
l did accelerate the consolidation of the plant fill beneath the j
DGs and wiLL result in smaller and more tolerable settlements i;
during plant operation.
However, the staff also recognizes that surcharging the essentially completed DGB structure did nothing to avoid the undesirable and large total and differential settlements which did result, with the accompanying concerns
._._________,._..__,.....m_,_____
.,__.__,.m,_.m.-
r"
.. _.. a_...
a BRAR '
... for structural damage (warping) and stress inducement, including cracking of the reinforced concrete which are discussed in d...
3.s sectionf of this SSER.
The major objective of the NRC geotech-nical engineering staff and its conseiltants with respect to the adequacy of the DGB has been to correctly determine the amounts of total and differential settlements that have already occurred and which wilL occur in the future beneath the DGB'.
This basic settlement data is essential for use in a structural analysis that evaluates the effects of these settlement stresses in conjunction with other required Load combinations in order to
$4 f e evyeended />e/*%,,e reach an engineering conclusion on thet::f;
..;un of the
.y DGB.
n
'Several piezameter and settlement readings recorded in the field during the time of surcharging raised reasonable doubts before the staff and its consultant as to whether the futL surcharge Load was maintafned Long enough to cause the more compressible plant fill soils to reach secondary consolidation.
To resolve this concern the staff and its consultants requested additional explorations in the surcharged plant fill in order to recover undisturbed soil samples of fill that could be Laboratory tested j
for shear strength and compressibility characteristics.
A i s..- --
i l
DRAFT i
O
BRAFi
... - : :.... w. r e o 6. m.7
^id
--"- d 5 tt: ;,+ l. ; w.... ^ = a g w e. '. -
of thle * + = ' '
- gC0t f e.- E," ', 0." ? ? # 00
- ..d sevure6vry 6 c a 6 a ssy,
^
b is work was completed in the spring of 1981 and results furnished to the staff in July 1981.
The final conclusion reached by the staff and its consultant following our eva'Luation of the Laboratory results is the future settlements being adopted by the applicant for use in their structural analysis of the DGB is sufficiently conservative.
The future settlements being used cover the settlements which have been calculated for the more compressible zones of cohesive fill soils that were recovered in the NRC tequested borings where attainment of 100 percent primary consolidation ~was shown not to have been achieved. n The values of future settlement for the DGB which are acceptable F 6 ere 2.
eS thh.frg n, M = = ; = 2 4 to the staff are correctly presented ongFigure 1-3 in the appli-cant's June 1s 1982 submittal whia ;+ entitled " Structural Stresses Induced by Differential settlement of the Diesel Genera-tor Building" for the post surcharge period.
In this same Figure 1-3 the applicant has incorrectly indicated the settlements to be used for the presurcharge period in the structural analysis.
F m,e< t.
1,e % ss c A c s**rs < s The correct presurcharge settlement values are given on Figure 27-10 g
inResponsettoNRCkequestskegardinghLantkiL and should be used in the required structural analysis.
Evaluation of the success of the DG8 surcharge program is very much dependent on the final results of the structural analysis presented in the f
- - - ~
0207
... June 1, 1982 submittat and which is discussed in Section 3,8 of this $3ER.
The staff does not agree with the applicant's conctiision that the DGB had high structural flexibility prior a
to November 24, 1978 because the applicant has failed to allow for the rigid 30 inch tiiick concrete walls which were completed to elevation 654 prior to this time in its structural analysis.
In addition, the staff does not find the settlement data analysis presented as attachments to the June 1, 1982 submittal to be acceptable or meaningful because very important settlement records prior to November 24, 1978 were not considered in the settlement data analysis.
i F y re 2.f o f t % n tM (r,,,,.
Ve The staff._...fwnr
...d. that the settlements Listed on Figure 1-3 4
of the June 1,1982 submittah, af ter correcting for the pre-
. surcharge period values as previously indicated, i, c.a.i :d i
<>e be property addressed in the structural analysis of the OGB.
2.5.4.4.3 surcharging of the.Borsted storage Tank Foundations l
A s dr'seossed is.TCsf $& !b% / /E. 8s l
4 5he foundations of the two borated water storage tanks (BWsTs) l were constructed in July 1978 and in January 1979.
The erection of the tanks were completed by December 1979.
To demonstrate the adequacy of the plant fill supporting the tanks, the applicant
- - d:c..J ' filled the tanks with water / ;,'.. f:u-"st'e : in October 1980 M,. Nc-d M M h p-
^'
{
if &
Wii e
8 q
- 01. 0 i In January 1981, the applicant reported differential settlements between the ring wall foundations and the outside portions of the valve pits 0.;;._'.; :h. ;.c;h_c :...
FolLowing the applicant's investigation, which indicated cracks in the ring beam df Unit i tank as wide as.063 inch and.035 inch for Unit 2 tank, the applicant concluded that the observed differential settlements had occurred because there were larger foundation areas beneath the valve pits which resulted in Lower foundation d
pressures under the valve pits thay beneath the ring wall founda-tions.
The applicant further concluded that this nonunifdre loading condition created the differential settlements and the localized areas of overstress.
n The staff o es not agreewiththeapplicant'sconclusions)
Based on the results of the soils investigations of the fill in the tank farm area, on the results of plate load tests and i
on the observed total and differential settlements which did occur, /the staff concludes the behavior of the tank foundation is not indicative of a weLL compacted fill.
To correct the BWST foundation problem the applicant proposed three actions which included:
1.
surcharge the valve pits to reduce the amount of differential and future settlements.
This action was completed by February 1982 over a four month period.
.~.-,-,--,,-..-,..--,--,-,,---,n,,,
{
DRM
, 2.
Integrally construct a new reinforced concrete ring beam around the periphery of the existing cracked ring.
3.
Relevel the tank (Unit 1) which had experienced the largest settlements to the original construction tolerance.
Based on the results of field settlement records and design reports provided by the applicant, the staff agrees that future differential settlements wiLL be smaLL because of the surcharging which has been completed for both the valve pits and ring beam foundations.
The future settlements which are estimated to occur during 3merW64# plant operation have been enveloped an,d acceptably addressed in the structural analysis for the new ring beams.
For the above reasons the staff and its consultant
. conclude that the BWst foundations are acceptable and wiLL provide a stable and safe foundation.
2.3 several remaining review issues are Listed in War Nble odse g
t Air' 2*fC M
- :- 0.0.?.7 for the SW8T.
These issues deal with the develop.
ment of a Long term settlement monitoring plan during,__._
plant operation and FSAR documentation on the as-built conditions j
for the new ring beam fouridations and releveling operations which j
remain to be completed.
C.tsi
i
+
GW
... 2.5.4.4.4 Permanent Dewatering To eliminate concerns for Liquefaction potential of the inadequately compacted loose granular fill materials, the applicant has installed a permanent deuatering system.
f* *..N/r The staff's assessment of Liquefaction potential is --"-- "/in section 2.5.4.5.5 and the staff's evaluation of the proposed wf permanent dewatering system 1k presented in
^770 SER 1h Section 2.4.6.2.
The remaining review issues on permanent dewatering are primarily involved with resolution of OL Technical specification deta$,Ls 2
% f.rrn.
and are Listed on 7 Fable.3 of ::: tic.- 2t 1 7-2.5.4.4.5 Excavation and Backfill ine.___
- a"a d - t i ;..
u 6muns Tin y...;
.si
-n.
n n..
...n
((xcavationandreplacement with backfill /"
ai. 2:e:d f;. ;t.;.":'t?
wiLL also be completed beneath seismic Category I piping where Loose granular foundation fill soi'Ls* susceptible to Liquefaction have been shown to be present.
(The staf f's evaluation of previously submitted reports on under-L ground piping 4p%4 not completed.
l bbf I
.., The issues remaining in geotechnical engineering related to underground piping av Listed in Table.g',1 WN MA my 3-
---+4aa
' ^?jQ are concerned with the adequacy of the reinstallation program for the 26 inch diameter and 36 inch diameter service water piping (excavation and backfill details of foundation support),
the Long term settlement and strain monitoring programs and FSAR documentation of'as-built conditions.]
2.5.4.5 Foundatiod stability 2.5.4.5.1 searing capacity r-Input irCto the final $$tR wiLL cover the range of applied hearing pressures (static and dynamic loading) and be related to previously identified foundation Layering.
The results of computations establishing factors of safety wilL be provided.
The staff evaluation wiLL conclude that the resultind margins of safety against' bearing type' failure are' acceptable to the staff and are equal.to values found acceptable in conservative engineer-ingpractice.]
2.5.4.5.2 Vertical Movement
[ Input into.the final SSER wiLL summarine the settlement history oftheimportantseismiccategoryIstructuresandutilities.]
The following paragraphs cover only the auxiliary building and service water pump structure.
$\\b
I'
~
o.
gg;g The downward movement of the south end of the control tower relative to the south end of the spent fuel pool in the auxiliary building has been 0.24 inch / during the period July 1978 through August 1981.
Since the control tower was completed a year before settlement observations were negun, and since the largest settlements of the poorly compacted fitL are Likely to occur early in the loading, it is reasonable to expect tha,t differential settlementsof0.5to1.0inchf,ormore,mayhaveoccurredto date.
The downward movement of the east end of the east EPA relative to the adjacent control tower has been 0.2 inch during the period July 1978 through August 1981.
There has been negligible differen-tial settlement between the west end of the west EPA and the adjacent control tower.
The total settlement of'the control tower and the EPA's for the period July 1978 to August 1981 has been 0.5 to 0.7 inch.
The applicant has estimated the differential settlements that wiLL occur between the new underpinning wall and the auxiliary f.*
74 7 building h 40-year Life ;f th ;'a.;; to bet 3
a.
Maximum settlement of control tower relative 0.25 inch to suu1Liary building-i l
gg
... i b.
Maximum settlement of auxiliary' building 0.25 inch 1
relative to control tower The staff and its consultants consider estimate a. above to be the reasonable estimate and find it acceptable.
Both estimates have been used in the analysis of the structure to demonstrate that the FSAR Loading conditions plus these differential settle-ments wiLL not cause stresses greater than allowable stresses.
To accomplish this Limit on stresses, steel plates are to be added to the slab at elevation 659 in the auxiliary building to strengthen that critical Location.
11-The maximum measured differential settlement of the overhang of the SWPS relative to the po. tion founded on tilL has been about 0.1 inch.
The settlement observations were begun in May 1977, immediately after the foundation mat for the overhang had been placed.
Thus, these measurements represent aLL of the settle-ment that has occurred.
The total settlement of the SWPS has been about 3/8 inch since May 1977.
per f 4e CVPS The fact that the differential rettlement noted above 1s smaLL 4
indicate either, Ca) the poorty-compacted fill under the overhang has not settled significantly or (b) the overhang is x
W
q g{
... being supported as a cantilever and did not follow the fill settlement, which would mean a gap may be found beneath the overhang during underpinning.
Settlements predicted by the applicant after completion of the
.fw7.t underpinning wall of the4 overhang relative to the portion currently on the ti LL are 0.1 to 0.2 inch.
undt'/4**'A fe* ffag hFunnd 5 8 t
The staff considers these estimates of differential settlements j to be reasonable and~ acceptable.
2.5.4.5.3 Horizontal Movement n.
There have been no measurements made of horizontal movement to date, but settlements that may take place while underpinning the control tower'and EPA's may cause the top of these structures to move southward toward the turbine building.
Strain monitoring ihstruments are being installed to measure potential horizontal movements between aLL adjoining structures during underpinning.
In addition, horizontal strains that may' develop in-the SWPS wiLL'kHr' measured at critical L,ocations.
The staff and its consultants consider the strain monitoring program Clocations, frequency of readings, etc.) which has been' proposed during underpinning operations by the applicant to be acceptable, l
however, agreement on acceptable allowable strain Limits has not been reached.
F;'2 SIT we..
~
.._......_.....,....,_._...._..._..__,........._%....m,
h
. A permanent program for monitoring horizontal movements during gggenpumf plant operation has not been provided by the applicant.
2.5.4.5.4 Lateral Loads Input into the final SSER wiLL describe the computed earth pressures under both static and dynamic Loading and design methods wiLL be cited.
Pertinent references and figures wiLL be identified.
The staff is essentially in agreement with the applicant on design of Lateral Loads but the staff needs to complete its review of recently furnished sliding resistance and Lateraln.
soit pressure calculations for the SWPS under dynamic loading.
.2.5.4.5.5 Liquefact' ion Potential In February 1978 the staff in its review of the Midland FSAR forwarded Request 362.2 to the applicant seeking documentation on the method which was used to remove Loose natural sands (sands with less than 75% relative density) from the foundations of safety related structures as the applicant'had committed to do in the.PSAR.
In its response to Request 362.2 the applicant.
was unable to furnish documentation on the field operations completed to remove the Loose natural sands.
Instead, the applicant provided the results of boring explorations which were drilled in August and September of 1978 and in 1979 md;. :
e t
c u.
C
i shn l '~
(these borings were completed af ter site area fitL had been placed to plant grade) that did not indicate the presence of Loose natural sands beneath safety related structures.
Based on the results of aLL completed exploration pecgrams, including the Later 1978 'and 1979 standard penetration test data, the applicant concluded that the natural sands existing in the plant area have relative densities greater than 75%.
The two methods for analyzing safety against Liquefaction for the natural granular soils that the applicant has presented in FSAR Section 2.5.4.8 utilize the results of standard penetration test (SPT) blowcounts.
On the basis of'the high SPT valuesn.
recorded in the natural soils in the extensive subsurf ace investi-gation programs which have been completed, the applicant has concluded that there.are no Liquefiable natural granular soils benwath safety related structures at the Midland site.
The staffjg concur..in this finding.
e 'bg 4 In the same subsurface exploration program complete'd in late.
1978 and early 1979, following discovery of the diesel generator building (DGB) settlement problem, potentially Liquefiable granular soils were' discovered in the structural backfill placed beneath
^
certain seismic category I structures and underground utilities.
The aff ected f acilities included th( DGB, elect ri c'al penetration O
f
c ORAfT areas, railroad bay, cantilevered portion of the service water pump structure and a portion of the service water piping.
-In July 1979 the' applicant reported the findings of its Lique-faction studies using the results of the 1978 and 1979 explorations.
i In this study the applicant had adopted a peak ground surface acceleration of 0.12g, a groundwater Level at elevation 627
~ (operating level of' cooling pond)'and conservatively adopted aMagnitude7.5earthquakeforrelatingcyclicstressratich(
causing liquefaction with SPT values.
Of the three areas investi-gated for Liquefaction, the applicant concluded'that Liquefaction could be a problem at the DGB, was unlikely at the railroad bay n
area and was not a problem at. the auxiliary building control tower area.
In order to atLeviate its concerns for Liquefaction potentials the applicant ultimately selected the permanent dewater-
~
ing fix.
In May 1980, the staff's consultant, the C'orps.ofiEngineecs,.
concluded an independent' Liquefsetion" analysis guning the Seed-
) Idriss simplifi~ed method.
In the Corps study a groundwater Level at elevation 610 was sel'ected based on the applicants stated intention to maintain groundwater-below'this elevation, a Magnitude 6' earthquake and a peak ground surface acceleration of
/
0.19g.
The results of the Corps study indicated that fill soils k
?-
i f
h g
DRAFT
- .. are safe against liquefaction for earthquakes that would produce j
a peak ground surface acceleration up to 0.19g if the groundwater was maintained below elevation 610.
A minimum factor of safety equal to 1.5 was met using the simplified method of analysis.
The areas of the site where it is necessary to maintain the groundwater Levet below elevation 610 are the diesel generator building area and'the railq%ohbayarea.
The. problem with loose granular backfill soils previously identified in other areas Celectrical penetration areas, cantilevered portion of the service water pump structure and service water piping) is acceptabl['y resolved by the proposed underpinning and by excava-tion and backfill remedial measures that require properly compacted soils.
The staff concurs with the applicant's finding that the permanent dewateringssystem-sill' eliminate th'e potential for Liquefaction i
in the granular-backfill soils identified above.
An acceptable margin op$ safety ~against Liquefaction potential is available for earthquakes with.a peak ground surface acceleration up to 0.19g, which is more severe than the earthquakes used to establish
~~
the site-specific response spectrum at top of fitti provided the groundwater is maintained below elevation 610. 'SER section 2.4.6.2 discusse the permanent dewatering system and the staff's
,.. -,.4..
ba si s f o r leuuher N.that the groundwater wiLL be maintained below elevation 610 during plant operation.
i bib
I i 2.5.4.5.6 Dynam '. r, Loadi ng
] Input into the final SSER wiLL summarize the geotechnical engineer =
ing review efforts and SHAKE computer code studies that were completed to independently evaluate the reasonableness of the site-specific response spectrum for the top of plant fitL.
Pertinent reports'by consultants wiLL be referenced.
I 2.5.4.6 Instrumentation and Monitoring The following monitoring measurements are to be made during underpinning of the auxiliary building area and SWPS.
References describing the instruments, location and monitoring frequency are given for each type of measurement.
n.
Auxiliary building a.
Total and differential settlements of the control tower, EPA's, and FIVP's ~and total settlem~ent of the auxiliary building.
Drawings'C1490'(2/3/821, C1491 (2/3/82), C1493 4
g (5/21/82).
b.
Diff erential horizontal movements between'adj acent structures.
Drawings C1490'(2/3/82),'C1491 (2/3/82),
C1493 (5'/21/82).
c.- Strains in concrete at critical locations.
Drawings C1495 (5/21/82) and C1493 (5/21/82).
DRAFT y
- - - - - -..l
. ~. -...
~.. -
DRA3 d.
Settlement of alL temporary and permanent underpinning piers relative to the superstructures at top and bottom of F v e 2. _ eriussseM s~*u: W ?='-L'g W T'#' ~ '->
r piers. ^yo
~
4444pS. Nov. 1980, Fig. AUX 32).
underpinnin %
e.
Concrete stress in temporary and permanent g e- -
piers by means of Ca n stress cells near top and p
bottom.
( Afts, No v. 198 0, F i g. AUX 3 2 7.
A r
!\\
f.
Crack mapping.
(J an. 25,1982 'submitt al by appli cant).
g.
Water Levels in observation wells and piezometers.
Drawing SK-G-566 Rev. 1 (5714/82) and Specification 72 -C-198 (1/18/82).
[Documentationofrevisionsasagreeduponat June 25, 1982 meeting and in conference call of July 1, 1982 are to be provided by the applicant.]
W ar.
h.
Fines in. discharge from dewatering wells.
(April 22,1982, p.
19).
Although this reference deals with the SWPS, this same monitoring wiLL be performed at the auxiliary buildings as agreed during conference call of July 1, 1982.
SWPS a.
Total settlements at four Locations around the structure and differential settlement between the north end of the
+
overhang and the portion now founded on tiLL CApril 19, A
1982, p. III-9yJMeeting, June 24-25, 1982).
b.
Strain of the concrete near the' roof Level at the interaction w
between the overhang and the deep portion.
(gpril19,1982, p.
III'-9).
i N [77 '
M d[
/
DRAFT
i e
s
--=
0
... l c.
Settlement of the underpinning piers relative to the under-l side of the foundation mat, at both top and bottom of the dir piers.
(April 19, 1982, p.
III-10).
4 d.
Concrete-stress levels within the underpinning piers near the top and bottom.
(April 19,~1982,.p. III-10).
A e.
Length and width of existing cracks and of any new cracks dr that develop throughout the structure.
(April 19, 1982, p.
4 III-10).
f.
Water Levels in observation wells and in piezometers in k
the sandy clay tiLL.
(April 22,1982yjconferencecaLLJuly 1-2, 1982).
g.
Fines in the dewatering wells discharge.
( April 22,1982, A
19xjConferencecall, JULY 1-2, 1982).
p.
4
'The differential settlements between the control tower and main auxiliary building,"and~ between the EPA's and the main auxiliary build'ing wiLL be used to control underpinning construction.
A trigger Limit wiLL be set at.which the applicant wiLL begin a re-evaluation of the behavior of the structure.
Also, a stop Limit wiLL be established at which the applicant wiLL stop under-pinning, shore up the drifts temporarity, evaluate the behavior of the structure, and alter the construction technique, if necessary, p
GfC n before proceeding.
These Limits have not been agreedjbut'currentL are as follows for th'e southerly end of the control tower:
g
//
T g,
SRA7
- l
.- a.,.
n
.., Trigger Stop Limit Limit t
MCGeotechnical staff 0.1 i n.
0.15 in.
Applicant 0.35 in.
0.7 in.
Strain gages at the auxiliary building wilL be used at two critical zones to monitor the strains in the concrete and to estimate the changes in stress in the reinforcing steel during underpinning.
The applicant has proposed that these strains not be used to control construction but that the differential settle =
ments alone be used.
The applicant has proposed use of a strain of 0.0014 as a stop Limit during underpinning.
The staff hats 1et not formulated a final position on this proposal.
With respect to underpinning the SWPS, the following Limits and actions to be taken have been established:
Differential settlement (Meeting, June 24-25, 1982):
Trigger Limit:
0.05 in.
Stop Limit:
0.07 in.
Strain in concrete:
To be resolved during audit.
8 3,i ~
u:tnM' i
e y-av y.
---_w n
..--.e.9-c9 i.---.-s.--,,,e..y-.pp,,pp.m,---y*_y.
- ,.._,,,m,,.
,m.
3._,-,.
-,s.,.
e w--
f-ER Settlement of Underpinning Piers:
After jacking loads have been applied to final design values, settlement wiLL be monitored until it has been shown that secondary compression of the bearing stratum is occurring.
(12/31/81, p.
50).
Width of Cracks
- Any new cracks exceeding 0.01 in. width and existing cracks exceeding 0.03 in, width wi LL be evaluat ed to determine whether underpinning should stop or continue (12/31/81, p.
50).
~
Water Levels' Water Levels witL be monitored to ensure that the ground water level has been Lowered to at least the top of the sandy clay tilL.
An evaluation of potential pervious layers in the bearing stratum below the underpinning piers wilL be made by continuous sampling in the six borings for the observation wells.
At locations where such pervious strata exist within 2 feet below the pier bottome the groundwater level wilL be lowered a minimum of 2 feet below the bottom of the pier excavation.
(Meeting, June 24-25,1982
- Conference catis, July 1-2, 1982).
g The monitoring programs proposed during underpinning for both the auxiliary building and SWPS are acceptable to the staff, i
The number of instruments is large and c:re must be taken to ensure that the significant measurements are interpreted by the applicant on a timely basis, i
i u ne,t. v nc a:
DRM
~
^
. l The applicant has indicated that information on Long term settle-offre f an ment monitoring during,;;;_.' plant ' - 1.. ~. r.j with action levels and remedial measures identified,wiLL b'e provided to propose)
HRC in a Technical Specification ;r:;-__'. in the fall of 1982.
g r
L
.5.4.7 Remaining Issues 2
The
_... OL safety review isssues listed on table 2,3 A
remain outstanding.
A '. '.
u-...was nave previvusu
/...
2=
1 II-l i
I e
h
=
... Table 2. 3 Remaining Issues structure I' sue Anticipated Method s
of Resolution Auxiliary building Resolution of allowable Meeting with (control tower, EPA's vertical differential applicant and FIVP's) settlement and strain that wiLL stop under-pinning construction "and require installation of temporary supports.
"~
Compaction control Future applicant specification for submittal.
granular fill beneath FIVP's.
6 Procedure for transer-Design audit ring final Loads to permanent underpinning wall.
Updated construction Future applicanct sequence for Phases submittal 3 and 4.
...---,r.
.m.,n--.,~
.-ye n,-,
v n..
,,.-.,,r.-,-,
,,.--nc,-,,-_
,-_-,,,,.,n,.. - - -, _, _
- _ ___..~_. _.._...___... _ 7. _- __. _..
.:lAFT
. Structure Issue Anticipated Method of Resolution Resolution of pier and Meeting with plate load test details applicant on maximum test Load, locations and time for performing test.
i.ong term settlement and Technical speci-strain monitoring plan fication proposal during plant operation by applicant (FALL of it,982)
FSAR documentation on Future applicant as-built conditions submittal (Following l
construction comple-i tion) r Design modification Future applicant at freezewaLL crossing submittal with duct banks Resolution of required Meeting with depths of construction applicant dewatering walls t
C E,! C i,.nrb !
e m,,
-+
,--,-,,.--,m-em..--.-.,-~-,-e..
--,--v.
,-m
-,--------,-------w,-
_._..s h
=
... Structure Issue Anticipsted Method of Resolution service Water Complete staff review Meeting with Pump Structure of sliding and lateral applicant soit pressure calcula-tions under dynamic Loading Resolution of pier and Meeting with plate Load test details applicant on maximum test load, locations, and-time n.
for performing test Resolution of required Future applicant depths of construction submittal, dewatering wells
\\
Procedure for transfer-Design audit i
ring loads from Jacks
)
to permanent wall and Locking off Long term settlement Technical speci-and strain monitoring fication proposal plan during plant opera-by applicant tion (FatL of 1982)
Th7^
f
DRAFT
. 1 Structure Issue Anticipated Method of Resolution FSAR documentation Future applicant on as-built condi-submittal tions (Following construction completion)
Borated Water Long term settlement Technical Specia Storage Tank-monitoring plan during fixation Proposal plant operation by applicant (FALL of 1982) 11 FSAR documentation Future appli cant on as-built condi-submittal tions (New ring (Following beam and releveling) construction completion)
Underground Piping Complete staff review Meeting with of applicant's sub-appli cant mittal on proposed re-installation of 26-inch 36-inch diameter pipes and Long term settlement and strain monitoring programs
..n.--
' iUe!
g a -
O
Q{}
'*. structure Issue Anticipated Method of Resolution Plant control re-Future technical stricting placement specification of heavy Loads over proposal by buried piping and applicant conduits FSAR documentation Future applicant on as-built condi-submittal tions (Reinstalla-(Following tion and monitoring) construct; ion completion)
Long item settlemet emi stMin Tuhneknt speerfg*shh c
l I
neniterly f en )**i% f nst f'*!***l by app /de, r.
e peretten.
Diesel Generator Completion of analysis Future applicant Building that uses correct submittal settlement values and structure rigidity.
Documentation of results with comparison to recorded and predicted settlements l
Long term se~ttlement Technical speci-monitoring plan during fication proposal plant operation by applicant
-l l
(FALL of 1982)
- u. u.: -- -
. ~ -.
,c.-
~. -
e
.. Structure Issue Anticipated Method of Resolution Permanent Dewatering Resolve availability Meeting with of 60 day period in applicant view of recharge rate in wells in railroad bay area Requirements on perma-Technical speci=
ner.t dewate ring system
'fication proposal during plant operation by applicant It-Miscellaneous Long term settlement Technical speci-monitoring plans dur-fication proposal ing plant operation for by applicant aLL structures not pre-CFaLL of 1982) viously identified in table I
e M
d,'s a
DRAFT 2.5.4.8 conclusions Pg Where possible, the staff's conclusion on-acceptability of Yueitted information has been given.
Final overaLL conclusion on plant safety requires resolution of remaining i ssues.
It -
9 1
4 b
o
~,.
\\
SEB_
1 3.7.1 Seismic Input The applicant has not completed his evaluation of the seismic Category I structures necessary for shutdown and continued heat removal to determine seismic safety margins resulting from application of site-specific spectra. In addition, the applicant plans to revise the criteria on damping values for cable trays, conduits, piping, tubing and their supports.
Upon completion of the staff's review of these evaluations, an additional supplement to the safety evaluation report wiLL be 1
issued.
l 3.7.2 Seismic Analysis Further discussion of the results of the Seismic Safety Margins Evaluation and the request for increase of Damping Values for cable trays, conduits, piping, tubing and their supports wiLL be provided in a future supplement, as discussed in Section 3.7.1.
The applicant was requested by the staff to determine that 1.5 x FSAR seismic response spectra analyses are conservative for the auxiliary building, SWPS, DG8 and BWST in comparison to requirements imposed by the.use of the site spectific response spectra. The staff has indicated that a comparison of the floor response spectra for each of the two criteria (1.5 x FSAR and i,
l, Site Specific Response Spectra) could provide such determination.
l l
The applicant has provided in his responses a conclusion stating e'
y' that, "the 1.5 x FSAR response spectra analysis is conservative for the auxiliary building and SWPS underpinnings, and the BWST foundation." However, the applicant has not provided the comparative displays requested by the staff and has Limited this evaluation to the 3GB, the BWST foundations, and the underpinnings for the auxiliary building and SWPS. The applicant also plans to evaluate the above structures in his Seismic Safety Margins Evaluation. CThe staf f plans to review the information on the underpinning for the auxiliary building and the SWPS, the DGB and the foundation for the BWST during an audit planned for July 27-30, L982.3 The review of the Seismic Safety Margins Evaluation wiLL*be scheduled after the docketing of this informa-tion.
Also, the applicant has provided a report that confirms the fact that the techniques used to calculate soil springs are adequate.
However, the staff requires that the three peaks in floor response spectra resulting from a variation of +30% of the soil stiffness should be enveloped. The applicant has provided this information as part of Revision 44 to the FSAR. In addition, in his (date) reply to Request 2.8 from Enclosure 8 of the staff's Letter of May 25,1982, the applicant states that the results of the incomplete analyses, designed to dismiss any concerns for possible structure-to-structure interaction between the SWPS and the circulating water intake structure (CWIS), wiLL show that e
e*"
--a
~, - - -, - - - -,
-,.,,--,-,.-,-,,--,-..---,,,,,w,----,.nn--
--~-,,--,w,,,
, ~.-,-----w,w--
. the available 1-inch gap is adequate to accomodate the postulated lateral movements. CThe staff intends to review and evaluate this analysis during the structural audit of July 27-30, L982.
Staff conclusions wiLL be added to this supplement following the audit.]
3.7.3 Siessic Subsystem Analysis Further discussion on the staff evaluation of the applicant's request for increased in allowable damping values wiLL'be provided in a future supplement as identified in Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2.
3.8.1 Concrete Containment Further discussion of the staff evaluation of the applicant's Seismic Safety Margins Report for the containment building wiLL be provided in a future supplement.
3.8.1.1. Ultimate capacity By Letter of June 8,1982, the applicant has been asked to perform and provide analyses that determine the ultimate capacity of the Midland containments. The pressure-retaining capacity of localized areas as weLL as the overaLL containment structures should be determined using as-built conditions.
0 y
r The analyses should be made on the basis of the allowable material strength specified in the Code. However, if the actual material properties (such as concrete cylinder compressive strength, mill test results of reinforcing steel and Liner plate, strength variations indicated by mill test certificates) and other uncertainties are available, the Lower and upper bounds of the containment capacities may be established statistically.
3.8.2 Concrete and Structural Steel Internal Structures Inside Containment Further discussion on the staff evaluation of the applicant's Seismic Safety Margins Report for the concrete and steel structures inside the containment building wiLL be provided in a future supplement.
3.8.3 other seismic Category I Structures Further discussion on the staff evaluation of the applicant's Seismic Safety Margins Report for other Category I Structures l
wiLL be provided in a future supplement.
i The applicant has designed the new BWST foundation rings and aLL of the underpinning structures for the auxiliary building, FIVP, and SWPS, to current staff acceptance criteria.
q
s 4 3.8.3.1 Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits For the auxiliary building, a continuous underpinning wall resting on undisturbed natural material (soil) wiLL be provided under the Control Tower (CT) and Electrical Penetration area (EPA) exterior walls. The modified foundation under each FIVP is as described in Section 2.5.4.4.1 of this SSER. The proposed underpinning under the EPAs consists of a 6-foot thick reinforced concrete wall that is 38 ft. high and is belled at the base to i
10 ft. in thickness. The CT underpinning walls are 6 ft. thick, 47 ft. high and-are belled at the base to 14 ft. in thickness.
ALL of the walls are constructed to act at continuous members under the perimeter of the structures. The entire wall system wiLL be founded on undisturbed natural material. The applicant has identified both temporary and permanent underpinning schemes.
The temporary support wiLL be used during the construction of I
the permanent foundation. Jacking forces are applied to the existing structure to provide adequate load transfer from the structure to the underpinning. The jacking force is determined so that the structure is not unduly stressed under dead load and Live load conditions. These jacking forces are trancmitted from the structure through the permanent underpinning wall to the bearing stratum. Dowels connect the ur.derpinning walls and I
the existing structures at the vertical and horizontal interfaces.
The dowels are designed to transfer shear and tension forces l
between the structure and the underpinning wall. In addition to l
+
~
s 1
6-the conventional Lap splice, Fox Howlett mechanical tapered thread splices wiLL be used in the reinforcing of th,e underpinning walls. CConclusions to be provided after audit. See Footnote *.3 3.8.3.2 Service Water Pump Structure 4
For the SWPS the underpinning consists of a 4-foot thick, reinforced concrete wall that is approximately 30 ft. high with a flared base. This underpinning wall is constructed to act as a continuous member under the perimeter of that portion of the structure founded on backfill material. A predetermined jacking force wiLL be applied to the full perimeter of the SWPS overhang during construction to provide adequate load transer f' rom 1
the structure to the underpinning wall. CConclusions to be provided after audit. See Footnote *.3 3.8.3.3 Borated Water Storage Tanks For the BWST foundation, a new reinforced concrete ring located j
on the periphery of the existing ring represents the proposed remedial fix. Shear connectors transfer shear forces from the existing ring wall to the new adjacent ring beam. CConclusions were provided in SER and wiLL be further discussed in Final SSER after audit. See Footnote *.3 I
r e..
.v,,e
..------o-----*s,
- w
.w w w,,
,m-
, -m y,.--v-,-,,.prm,,e m.-
---~~--w----,
m e-
--g,-wn,.n,,w-----,-ww-
b I
l
. 3.8.3.4 Diesel Generator Building The DG8 is a rectangular box-like reinforced concrete structure covering an area approximately 70 x 155 ft.
The exterior walls are 30 inches thick, while three 18 in. interior walls divide the box into four bays approximately equal in size. The founda-tion of the exterior and interior walls of the DG8 consists of a continuous reinforced concrete footing, 10 ft. wide and 2'
-6" thick with the base at elevation 628 ft.
The walls rise from an elevation of 628 ft. (bottom of footing) to 680 ft. (top of roof stab). The diesel generators rest on 6'
-6" thick concrete pedestals. The DGB is located on plant f1LL.
As discussed in Section 2.5.4 of this supplement, the applicant investigated the excessive differential settlement of the DGB foundation, concluded that the plant fill was not sufficiently compacted and was subject to potential liquefaction, and implemented a surcharge and dewat' ring program as remedial action. The early e
investigation also showed that the four electrical duct banks that were supported on the deeper more competent natural clay but which penetrated the diesel generator building from below, were resulting in resistance to the DG8 settlement in localized areas thus resulting in formation of cracks. To eliminate this problem a positive clearance between the building foundation and the duct bank was provided prior to placement of the surcharge.
. The staff review during the evaluation of the remedial action proposed and completed for the DGB, has focused upon the cause and elimination of the excessive differential sawclement condition, the applicant's structural acceptance criteria, the determination of proper soil and structural models to be used for additional analyses and evaluation of present and future conditions of the structure, the evaluation of the cracks developed during the differential settlement and duct impingement load mechanism and in the establishment of an adequate differential settlement and crack monitoring and repair program. The surcharge of t5e DGB accelerated settlement and produced soils with improved engineering properties. These properties have been used in both the static and seismic re-analyses of the DG8. Differential settlement, both measured and the 40 year prediction, has been included in the Midland load combinations. Differential settlement loads have been included in the applicable load combinat. ions. Also, a new set of soil spring constants with varying properties (one vertical and one horizontal at each foundation boundary node point) representing the non-homogeneous nature of the soil conditions were developed and used in the finite element model. A set of soil spring constants was developed for the Long ters (settlement, 40 year) and short term (tornadoes, earthquakes) Loadings. The applicant has also committed to re-analyze the DG8 in accordance with current staff criteria (ACI 349 as supplemented with R-G 1.141).
- - - - - - - - - - * - ^ ~ - '
' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' '
'~
~~ ^
a.----.-
o L-
. The applicant has performed three new analyses of the DGB, one for each of the configurations and Loadings existing before, during and after surchage. The applicant has proposed to run a hypothetical case in which part of the foundation support has zero spring stiffness and the remaining support equivalent spring stiffnesses. The applicant proposes thi. case as an upper bound on the differential settlement calculations for the foundation structure. The staff recommendation for settlements to be used for this analysis is given in section 2.5.4.4.2 of this supplement. CThe final SSER will report the staff's conclusions following submittal of the required analysis.3 3.8.3.5 Cracks The applicant has shown, by example where necessary, that esising cracks do not affect significantly the strength in tensfon, compression, and shear of properly reinforced concrete elements. Evidence from the field and from the Laboratory has been presented to indicate that reinforced concrete structures wiLL develop their design strength even if they do have "precracks", provided the structure has been proportioned and detailed to resist the design load combinations. In addition, the applicant proposed a monitoring plan to detect differential l
settlement of the structure and the propagation and enlargement of new and existing cracks, along with an independent evaluation i
l l
f
\\
._m_
L evaluation of conditions which exceed predetermined limits acceptable to the staff, and a crack repair program acceptable to the staff. CStaff conclusions later.3
- Footnote:
CThe applicant has responded to various staff requests for information. However, the staff has indicted some concerns and has identified most of them in memoranda dated June 15 and 28, 1982. This information and few additional concerns have been discussed with the applicant in a meeting held in Bethesda on June 25, 1982 (see minutes of meeting). Based on the dis-cussions and commitments taken place at the June 25,1982 meeting, the staff can conclude that the staff concerns become confirmatory issues to be resolved at the structural audit scheduled for 1
July 27-30, 1982.3 3.8.4 Foundations Discussion of information on foundations for this supplement is presented in Section 3.8.3.
3.8.5 Masonry walls SER Section 3.8.2 noted, as a confirmatiroy issue, that the applicant had been asked to comply with staff criteria on masonry walls in seismic Category I structures. The issue also was identified as Item 3 in SER Section 1.8.
The applicant has provided the criteria that he intends to follow in the evaluation of the masonry walls within seismic Category I structures.
5
,a O
~
. s-c
& The general requirements with respect to materials, testing, analysis, design, construction and inspection related to the design and construction of seismic Category I masonry walls conform to the requirements of Appendix A to the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800), Section 3.8.4, "NRC Criteria for Safety Related Masonry Walls". Conformance with Appendix A to Standard Review Plan Section 3.8.4 is acceptable to the staff.
l The loads and Load combinations used in the analysis and design of seismic Category I masonry walls are in conformance with staff criteria and are, therefore, acceptable.
However, the use of concrete expansion anchors to attach piping and equipment to masonry walls is disallowed by staff criteria.
The applicant's specifications for the installation of concrete expansion anchors rely upon installation torque to determine the required Load capacity of the installed anchors. Test data supplied by the applicant to qualify the use of expansion anchors in masonry walls ind'icate that there is no reliable relationship between installation tor,que and load capacity. This fact is highlighted by the following comment taken from the " Report on the Testing of Concrete Expansion Anchors and Grouted Anchors Installed in Concrete Blockwalls", by Bechtel Associates 1
Professional Corporation, August,1980:
m
~_
4 N
s
> F*
"If the Long and short embedment lengths are treated separately, there is no clear relationship between the recorded installation l
torgue and the tension failure load. This clearly deemphasizes the importance of the installation torque...".
b Furthermore, the test data submitted by the applicant indicates that the mode of failure is by bolt slip or pull-out. This is a sudden and unpredictable mode of failure and is unacceptable to the staff.
With the exception of the expansion anchors used to support piping and equipment in masonry walls, the criteria used in the l
design analysis of the seismic Category I masonry walls to account for anticipated loadings that may he imposed upon the structures during their service Lifetime are in conformance with the staff's criteria for masonry walls, and with codes, standards and specifications acceptable to the staff. We conclude that in the event of earthquakes and various postulated accidents, the seismic Category I masonry walls wiLL withstand the specified design conditions without impairment of structural integrity. Conformance with these criteria constitutes an acceptable basis for
{
satisfying, in part, the requirements of GDC 2 and 4.
Accordinglp, confirmatory issue 3 in SER Section 1.8 is closed, but a new open item is added to SER Section 1.7 regarding expansion aachors used in masonry walls.
j' q
-- ~,-
-~ ~~ ~ -*"~~~ ~' "^~~~"~~~
n
-(,
b
^
l Mechanical Engineering 3.9.3.1 Loading Combinations, Design Transients and Stress Limits
[Later]
The applicant has indicated that the settlement induced stresses in the replaced 36" service water pipe considerably exceed the stress allcwable (3Sc), when subjected to an assumed maximum settlement of it inches. He has also stated that these large stresses are fictitious and result from the conservative boundary conditions which were assumed in the analysis.
He has, however, not yet been able to provide any analytical justification that if more realistic boundary conditions were to be assumed, the stresses due to settlement would be reduced to 3Sc.
We will require that the applicant perfonn an analysis with a conservative settlement profile which will show that the stresses due to settlement do not exceed the allowable stress value of 3Sc when subjected to a maximum settlement of it inches.
If this cannot be shown, he will be required to provide a soil foundation such that the expected settlement will not induce stresses in excess of the allowable stress value.
l l
l dh?I, o
y,
- ;ip %q'g UNITED STATES j
. y3 gj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7, s,y,,!n / !
=
W
- SMINGTON. D. c. 20555 7
= ">J
- /
AUG II ses Docket Nos. 50-329, 50-330 OM, OL l
Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President -
~--
Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jacksc, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Cook:
Subject:
Request for Additional Information Regarding Seismic Margin' Review - Volume II':
Reactor Containment ~ Building Sections 1.8 and 3.7.2.2 of Supplement 2 to the SER identified seismic margin studies as a confirmatory issue for Hidland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Your letter of March 30, 1983, forwarded Volume II of the Seismic Margin Review by Structural Mechanics Associates for NRC review. The NRC staff has reviewed Volume II and finds that additional information identified by is needed to complete this review.
The reporting and/or :ecordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Should you have questions regarding Enclosure 1, contact our Licensing Project Manager, Darl Hood, at (301) 492-7484.
Your response within 30 days of receipt of this letter is requested.
Sincerely, k
u
/
Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
l As stated cc: See next page I
l I
i 0
-Ql[Q&
~~
MIDLAND Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company
.1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc:
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chie'f"
Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Division of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Department of Public Health Isham, Lincoln & Beale P.O. Box 33035 Three First National Plaza, Lansing, Michigan 48909 Sist floor
- Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue James E. Brunner, Esq.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Michigan 48640 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Stewart H. Freeman Freeland, Michigan 48623 Assistant Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Protection Division.
Consumers Power Company 1
720 Law Building 212 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 Jackson, Michigan 49201 i
Mr. Wendell Marshall Mr. Walt Apley Route 10 c/o Mr. Max Clausan Midland, Michigan 48640 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PNWL)
Battelle Blvd.
Mr. R. B. Borsum SIGMA IV Building Nuclear Power Generation Division Richland, Washington 99352 Babcock & Wilcox 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 Mr. I..Charak, Manager Bethesda, Maryland 20814 NRC Assistance Project Argonne National Laboratory i
Cherry & Flynn 9700 South Cass Avenue Suite 3700 Argonne, Illinois 60439 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 O
9 e
7 2'
V
Mr. J. W. Cook
' 1 1
-cc: Mr. Ron Callen Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantfie Way P.O. Box 30221 Lansing, Michigan 48009-Mr. Paul Rau Midland Daily-News 124 Mcdonald Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Billie Pirner Garde Director, Citizens Clinic
~
for Accountable Government Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009 Mr. Howard Levin, Project Manager TERA Corporation 7101 W'3consin Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Ms. Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project
.1901 Q Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009
~.
e k
6 l
l
'5 q
Supplanental page to the Midland OM, OL' Service List Mr. J.- W. Cook.
cc: Commander, Naval Surface Weapons Center ATTN:
P. C. Huang White Oak Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Box 1449 Canoga Park, California 91,304 Mr. Neil Gehring U.S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan-Apt. B-125 6125 N.. Verde Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Jerry Harbour, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.
ATTN: Dr. Steve J. Poulos 1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 C
O l
t l
~
.r b
---.r-._-----,,-__.,--a-,
,,,---,--,,,-.,,,,_,,,,,-n,w,,,n---
,-_ -. -, -,, -,.,.e.,-n,
--r--
I a
ENCLOSURE 1 REOUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
'l30.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH 130.30 With respect to Volume II, Seismic Margin Review:. Reactor Containcient Buf1dibg*,. forwarded.by y.our.lette.c.af t4 arch.30,.1S83,.
provide the following information:
130.-30.1 The response spectra in Figures II-5-3 through 6, -10 through -22, -24
-27, -30, -33, -36 and -39 show valleys. This does not seem consistent with the previously made statement that the peaks of three soil stiffnesses would be connected so as to eliminate valleys and, therefore, cover possible intermediate soil stiffnesses. Please discuss this inconsistency.
130.30.2 Section 5 of the report pres 2nts in-structure response spectra for internal structures. However, none are provided for the steam generators and the reactor vessel. Please provide these missing spectra or justify their omission.
130.30.3 Table II-3-4 of the report provides comparison between the accelerations from the direct integration and modal superposition.
Please provide a comparison of these values with the values of the peak modal accelerations calculated from the response spectrum method.
130.30.4 For Equation 3-3.you"have detemined the capacity utilizing the load factors as unity.
It may be reasonable to utilize a load factor greater than unity for the pressure and the equivalent operating basis earthquake. We would consider a factor of.1.25 for these two terms in Equation 3-3.
Please provide the results of this st uy and a comparison with current results from Equation 3-3.
130.30.5 Field reports have indicated cracks in the outside surfaces of the containment structures. These cracks have been described as thru-cracks at buttresses locations. Please address the following concerns:
(a) State if your evaluation has considered these cracks in the determination of the seismic margins and provide a discussion on the subject.
(b)
If these cracks have not been considered in your evaluation, provide a discussion addressing the reasons for the omission of this condition or l
provide ydur proposed method of evaluating the i
effects of these reported cracks in the deter-mination of tne seismic margins to current code allowables and, if necessary, the seismic margins to failure.
1
[
UNITED STATES
- e-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
g h.*.'
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
{
e
.,f-May 4, 1983
)
Docket Nos: '50-329 and 50-330 Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers-Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 i
Dear Mr. Cook:
j
Subject:
SER Open Item 2: Turbine Missiles Sections 1.7 and 3.5.1.3 of. the SER for Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, identified turbine missiles to be an open item.
The NRC staff has reviewed the Midland Plant with regard to the turbine missile issue. We conclude that the probability of unacceptable damage to safety-related systans and components due to turbine missiles will be acceptably low (i.e., less than 10-' per year) if the turbine missile generation pMability is maintained at 10-5 per reactor year or less for the life of the plant by an acceptable mainte-nance program.
Accordingly, your commitment to one of the two options below will enable the bC staff to reclassify the open item on turbine missiles as a confinnatory ites:
Option 1 Submit for NRC approval, within three years of obtaining an operating license, a turbine system maintenance program based on the manufacturer's calculations of missile generation probabilities.
l Option 2 3
a) Volumetrically inspect all low pressure turbine rotors at the second refueling outage and every other refueling outage there-after until a maintenance program is approved by the staff, and b) Conduct turbine steam valve maintenance (following initiation of power output) in accordance with present NRC recommendations as stated in SRP Section 10.2, Criterion II.5 of NUREG-0800.
l Should you have any questions on the above, please contact the Licensing Project Manager, Mr. Darl S. Hood, at (301) 492-8474.
Sincerely, Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director Div i ensing cc: See next page
)
o O
MIDLAND i
Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consmers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Division of Radiological Health i
Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Department of Public Health Isham, Lincoln & Beale P.O. Box 33035 Three First National Plaza, Lansing, Michigan 48909 Sist floor
- Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue James E. Brunner, Esq.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Michigan 48640 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Stewart H. Freeman Freeland, Michigan 48623 Assistant Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Pfotection Divfsio,n Constners Power Company 720 Law Building.
212 W. Michigan Avence Lansing, Michigan 48913 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Wendell Marshall Mr. Walt Apley l
Route 10 c/o Mr. Max Clausen Midland, Michigan 48640 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PleiL)
Battelle Blvd.
Mr. Roger W. Huston SIGMA IV Building Suite 220 Richland, Washington 99352 7910 Woodmont Avenue
~
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. I. Charak, Manager NRC Assistance Project Mr. R. B. Borsus Argonne National Laboratory Nuclear Power Generation Division 9700 South Cass Avenue Babcock & Wilcox Argonne, Illinois 60439 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, j
Cherry & Flynn Region III I
Suite 3700 799 Roosevelt Road l
Three First National Plaza Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 j
' Chicago, Illinois 60602
~..,
4 S
1 f
r
?
e i
Mr. J. W. Cook cc: Lee L. Bishop Hannon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D. C.
20006 Mr. Ron Callen Michigan. Public Service Commission j
6545 Mercantile Way P.O. Box 30221 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Paul Rau Midland Daily News 124 Mcdonald Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Billie Pirner Garde Director, Citizens Clinic for Accountable Government Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009 Mr. Howard Levin, Project Manager TERA Corporation 7101 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Ms. Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project i
1901 Q Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009
. -, _, _ _ _, _ -. _,, -., -