ML20094M873
Text
_i.......-~-----------
_mr s.--
_ n.._.
1 l
(.-
i.
N be N
P STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF Tif DIESEL GEbERATOR BUILDING -
ASSESSMENT OF TIE STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY Ato SERVICEABILITY AS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY SETTLEMENT ltOUCED CRACKING usuus e
9
'd a
T w
W L
e imme i
m M
hinum YD$hb$kAU 840718
~ T RICEB4-96 PDR TERA CORPORATION
p 1
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~
PAGE I.0 ABSTRACT l-1 L
2.0 OVERVIEW OF REVIEW PROCESS 2-1 c
3.0 BACKGROUND
DATA AND REFERENCES 3-1 r-4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 4-1 l'
S.O BASES FOR SAMPLE SELECTION S-1
[
6.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION 6-1 L
6.1 Building Performance Requirements 6-1 6.2 Acceptance Criteria 6-2 62.1 Structural Primary Loadings 6-3 6.2.2 Ss,tivii Loadings - Settlement Effects 6-4 6.3 Evaluation of DGB Performance Capability 6-8 6.3.1 Available Data 6-8 6.32 Midland Project Evaluations 6-9
[
6.3.2.1 Eval. of DGB Based on Cracking 6-10 6.3.2.2 Evol. of DGB Based on Settlement 6-10
~
6.3.3 IDCVP Evaluations 6-14 6.3.3.1 Building inspection 6-14 6.3.32 Settlement Data 6-14 6.3.3.3 Gross Stress Estimation 6-17 6.3.4 IDCVP Assessment / Interpretation of Results 6-18 6.4 Serviceability Future Capability and Monitoring 6-19 6.4.1 Midland Project Evaluation and Commitment 6-19 6.4.2 IDCVP Assessment 6-21
7.0 CONCLUSION
S 7-1 i
TERA CORFORATION
+_-
rI
)
1.0 ADSTRACT An engineering evaluation has been completed to assess the structural performance capability and serviceability of the Midiond plant diesel generator r
building (DGB) as potentially offected by settlement induced cracking.
The evaluation was initiated by TERA Corporation as part of the Midland independent Design and Construction Verification Program (IDCVP).
The o
performance requirements for the DGB were identified and the acceptance criteria for meeting these requirements were reviewed. Information generated g
by the Midland project as well as independent calculations and evoluotions by the IDCVP review team serve as input to the conclusions of the engineering evaluation. It was concluded that the existing cracks, generally being of small 7
size, are not indicative of a condition that would compromise the capability of 2
the DGB in meeting its intended performance requirements.
C
' (_
Furthermore, it was judged that significant future cracking is unanticipated and the DGB is expected to remain serviceable without 'further remedial action at this time. Consumers Power Company (CPC) commitments to verify continued serviceability were reviewed and found to be acceptabid.
Certain
~
recommendations bove been offered for consideration that are intended to improve available Information and reduce operational constraints.
>1
, a M
r t
I" l
, t.
I i
M l-l TERA CORPORATION
2.0 OVERVEW OF REVIEW PROCESS This engineering evoluotion was undertaken as part of a brooder assessment of the quality of the design and constructed product of the Midland plant Standby g--
l_
Electric Power (SEP) system. The specific scope of review documented herein includes a structural evaluation of the diesel generator building (DGB), the r-
[
structure which houses four emergency diesel generators which are principal components of the SEP system. The main emphasis of the review is on the civil / structural design considerations for the DGB and how settlement induced crocking may potentially offect the intended performance requirements.
Accordingly, this evoluotion addresses the following topics within the Midland IDCVP:
1 Topic 111.5 Civil / Structural Design Considerations i
e e
Topic 111.6 Foundations, and Topic 111.7 Concrete / Steel Design; e
1 therefore, representing partial fulfillment of the structural design, review scope pertaining to SEP system. This evaluation has required input from other ongoing topic reviews such as:
1 Topic 111.1 Seismic Design / Input to Equipment, and e
,a e
Topic ll1.2-2 Wind and Tornado Design / Missile Protection; t;
4 - a j
however, these evoluotions are documented under separate covers. The DGB construction / installation documentation reviews and the associated physical verification have not been completed and are not documented in this evaluation.
Accordingly, should the results of these evaluations affect the conclusions drawn herein, the engineering evaluation will be appropriately revised.
~
The review concept includes o determination of the DGB performance If requirements and important design inputs (i.e. engineering data and assumptions);
I-on evaluation of their occuracy, consistency, and adequocy; and on evoluotion of l
2-1 t '-
H ERA C@PGADON
__1_
^~ i 7.-7,,
the implementation of these commitments.
Current licensing criteria are utilized as a baseline os well as consideration of various other regulatory criteria which evolved during the licensing process. Given the unique circums'tances associated with the DGB design and construction processes, the IDCVP assessment used the intent of today's licensing criteria and corresponding r-L margins of safety and reliability.
.F The review draws upon two principal sources of information; that generated by e
the Midland project (e.g. Bechtel calculations, consultant reports, testimony, etc.) and by the IDCVP review team (e.g. independent calculations and evoluotions, etc.). Pertinent background dato and references are documented in
[
Section 3.0. Conclusions are reached through on integrated assessment of these dato, discussions with Midland project personnel, as well as engineering
]
Judgement.
,u The following individuals made technical contributions to this engineering evoluotion:
Structural Reviewer, Midland IDCVP and Senior Dr.Jormo Arros Structural Engineer, TERA Corporation
[
Dr. William J. Hall Member Senior Review Team, Midland IDCVP L-and Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois Consultant, Midland IDCVP, Professor of Civil Professor Myle J. Holley Engineering Emeritus, Massachusetts institute
. of Technology and President, lisraa, Holley
.c and Biggs, Inc.
Project Monoger, Midland IDCVP cnd Manager, Mr. Howard Levin Engineering, TERA Corporation Lead Technical Reviewer, Standby Electric Dr. Christion Mortgot
(
Power System Structural Review, Midland IDCVP and Principal Structural Engineer, TERA Corporation l
I-r 2-2
~
1 ERA CORPORATION
= - ~
..____..L__._._
The following chronology of external interactions transpired as part of this
- review, f
F t
Date Activity t
August 24,1983 Review team members observe NRC task force
'r meeting on structural rereview of DGB of Bechtel's L
Ann Arbor, Michigan offices.
F 6
November 17,1983 Review team members inspect diesel-generator building.
r-i; L
November 18,1983 Review team members discuss civil / structural design
{
considerations for the DGB and collect int'ormation of Bechtel's Ann Arbor, Michigan offices.
c-December 12-16,1983 Review team members review DGB finite element and seismic stick models at Bechtel's Ann Arbor, Michigan offices.
O Emo me b
P**
I
, w e
mums F
L.
e-m W
J een 2-3 TERA CORPORATION
_a_
s a
3.0 BACKGROUPO DATA AbD REFERENCES
[
The following table identifies references and sources of information that were selected for review and served as input to this engineering evaluation. The r
numbers in the left margin correspond to references made within the body of the
'k engineering evaluation.
- 7 i.
C
'?
L he ee h
'lL r
L em.e P
time M
i Y
e.us 6
3-1 TERA CORPORATION
l I
I I
C R
R I
I R
[
]
O O
n i
i R
R R
e i
f ATTAO9 DENT S, PI-3291 WI,IEW 2.
j REFERENCES / SOURCES OF INFORMATION is.7-z TOPIC TITLE Civil / Structural Desian Considerations. Foundations.
TOPIC NO.111. 5-2. I 11.6-2. pg 1
y 3 SI c urb'E al. of the Diesel Generator Blde ONT.E).NO.3201-001-031 0
12/30/8:
REV DATE ENGIPEERING A AT 4
M RE N N NT 1
ORIGINATING ORG./
IDENTIFICATION /
REV*
DATE TITLE i
AUTHOR NUMBER LOCATED TYPE
- j '
i Flie 0435.16/51:
3 l.
Bechtel Serial 22423 48 5/83 Final Safety Analysis Report Ann Arbor FSAR
- [
2.
NRC 50-329/330 0
10/21 Report on the Review of the Diesel 83 Generator Building, Midland Docket Report 8/24/ Midland Units I and 2 Ann Arbor, 11/18/8 5 4
O at Diesel Gen. Bldg. Exec. Summary Meeting 3
Bechtel at pp 9/8/
T imony of Karl Wiedner for the testimonbO7 10804-Il 0
82 M
and Plant Diesel Gen. Bldg.
Docket Testimony 4.
Wiedner File 48 16 6/1/
Technical Report-Structural ll 5
CPC B3.0.
erial 0
82 Stresses induced by Differential CPC, Jackson Report 17228 Settlement of the Diesel Generator Blda.
6.
CPC 3
9/79 hi}ynsetoNRCregardingMant Docket Report g-l 7
ACI ACI 318-77 ff ]ed Library Standard on e
8.
ACI ACI 349-76 kefat!I n!NNSkNc"uNj8
- 1 Library Standard 7/15/
Project 9
TERA PI-3201-009 3
83 Engineering Program Plan IDCVP Proj. Files Instruction E'
I 2/11/ Eval. of the Effect or. Structural Transcript at 0
Strength of Cracks in the Walls of 10950 Report 10.
Sozen 82 the Diesel Generator Building Report
[
II.
Peck 0
0 Transcript at 4/19/
E IityohkracksonServitructuresatM!Oland 11204 Report ts o 0
82 a
i 12.
Corley, et. al.
Plant 1M 13 CPC FSAR Ch. 16 45 9/82 Tech. Spec. 16.3/4.13 Settlement N
Ann Arbor FSAR Monitorina i c)
DGB Areas for Crack Width Monitor.
Partial /
l O ing During Operation of the Plant Ann Arbor,II/18/83 Corres.
l 14.
CPC Exhibit 29R 0
" ~ lne
!gde c
l/9/
Diesel Gen. Bldg. Reanalysis Using Ann Arbor Calc l.
l O 15 Bechtel DQ-52.0 (q) 2 3
Revised Sett1ement Load C
! Z
?-
j o
l
!l
ATTACHMENT B, Pl.M01-001,IGV 2.
1 REFERENCES / SOURCES OF Ilf0RMATION lil 5l.7-2Ill.6-2 2
i 3
Il PfGE 2 OF i
TOPIC TITLE Civil / Structural Deslan Considerations. Foundations.
TOPIC NO.
ENGitEERING EVA{Ip k
E af Nal. of the Diesel Generator Blda-CONT. R).NO.3201-001-031 REV O
DATE 12/30/8; M RE M E M NT ORIGINATING ORG./
IDENTIFICATlON/
REV.
DATE TITLE AUTHOR HUMBER LOCATED TYPE ll 8/z/
DGB Settlement Analysis - Load 16.
Bechtel DQ-52. l (Q) 1 82 Case lA Ann Arbor Calc S
^"*'Y
2s gggeIB j
17 Bechtel DQ-52.2(Q) 0 Ann Arbor Calc h28' DGB Surcharge condition (2A)
Ann Arbor Calc I
18.
Bechtel DQ-52.3(Q)
I g28' DGB Settlement for 40 yr Life (2B)
Ann Arbor Calc 19 Bechtel DQ-52.4(Q) o h7/
DGB Analysis for Uniform Torsion Ann Arbor Calc 20.
Bechtel DQ-52.6 (Q)
I h7# E Anal. Imposing 40 yr displace-Ann Arbor Calc 21.
Bechtel DQ-52.7(Q)
I h!c $k SeydI" Ann Arbor Calc 22.
Bechtel DQ-12(Q)
I con s/18 Optcon ACI-349 - Nonseismic load 4
1 23 Bechtel DQ-52.0-C7(Q) 0 82 Cases 7 Diesel Gen. Bldg.
Ann Arbor Calc Settlement Analysis (partial)
DGB L ad C d inati n (partial)
Ann Arbor Calc 24.
Bechtel DQ-52.0-C2(Q) o 5/12s DGB Settlement Analysis - Load.
1 25 Bechtel DQ-52.2-C5(Q) 0 82 Case IB - Free Body Analysis Ann Arbor Calc of Trial #3 (partial) 9/28/
DGB - Settlement Case 2A - Free 26.
Bechtel DQ-52.3-C7(Q) 0 83 Body Analysis on Best Fit (Sur-Ann Arbor Calc darge) (Partial) 1 5/12/
DGB Analysis - Free Body Analysis 27 Bechtel DQ-52.4-C4 (Q) 0 82 of Best Fit 40-Year Case Ann Arbor Calc h/II' DGB Roller Support (FSAR Criteria)
Ann Arbor Calc P
28.
Bechtel DQ-23-C4(Q) 0 h
29 Bechtel 5-110 l
11/11 Static s Dynamic Spring Constant 82 of DGB for Structural Stress Anal.
Ann Arbor Calc 2/22/
Update of Settlement Prediction i
30.
Bechtel S-175 3
82 DGB - After Surcharae Removal Ann Arbor Calc j
gI5/
gtggyDGB Between 9/14/79 O
31.
Bechtel S-238 0
Ann Arbor Calc li j
--p
. c..
4 _.
i ATIAC ENT H, Pl.3301.8H, MEV 2.
REFERENCES / SOURCES OF INFORMATION Ill.6-Civil /Struct. ural Design Considerations, Foundations, TR ND.
3 y
3,.
topic Tl1LE Concrete / Structural Steel 0
12/30/8; ENGIEERNG EVALUATION Strnetural Fual. nf the Diesel c n rmtnr Ri dcs'ONT. E). NO.
3201-001-03I REV DATE WERE/HOW DOCUMENT ORIGINATING ORG./
IDENTIFICATlON/
REY.
DALE TIT' ' _
J LOCA1ED TYPE AUTHOR NUMBER
/2/
Seismic Analysis o" DGB and DG Calc h3 32.
Bechtel**
SQ-147(Q)
I Pedestal Ann Arbor
[/ $8j(dyy,lyn f Set dement 33 Bechtel 0Q-52.11 (Q) 0 Ann Arbor Calc i
g/5 Settlement Data for DG3 Ann Arbor Drawing
[,
34.
Bechtel SK-C-2343-1/24 F
2 to Testimon File 0485 16 8/2/
Midland Concrete Wall Repair Agt.Corley@p.ll20f
-l -
35*
CPC Serial 18371 0
82 Program o
Letter Trip Report - Midland DGB Struc-
- l l(29/
tural Design Audit bocket Report
'f 36.
NRC 50-329/330 0
k*73[iho8lI*S' i
1975 Properties of Concrete Library Text Book 37 Neville h3
,f[c ura1 Anal],s1] of Dinel gyy ProJ.
._ 3 8.
TERA 3201-003-007 0
Calc
.n,,
8/12/
Response to NRC Qu'estion 26 Re:
3 39 Bechtel DQ-14(Q) 1 83 Diesel Generator Buildina Ann Arbor Calc hflis h[eaa fna e$tfM%
Ann Arbor Calc 40.
Bechtel-DQ-23(Q)
I 8
88.h Oz 4
rj 4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 4.1 LOAD COMBINATIONS I
l The loods and lood combinations employed for the original design and analysis r
were provided in the FSAR subsection 3.8.6.3 (revision 0, dated November 1977).
I These original design criteria did not contain settlement effects. Four odditional looding combinations were established and committed for consideration as a r
[
result of Question 15 of the NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill of September 1979. These loading combinations combined differential settlement with long-I term operating loods and either wind or the operating basis earthquake (OBE).
y As Wiedner (reference 4) and CPC (reference 5) point out these expressions are more stringent than the requirements of ACI 318 (reference 7), but less stringent than ACI 349 (re.~erence 8). In the latter case the looding combinations combine r-differential settlement with extreme foods such as tornadoes and the safe L
shutdown earthquake (SSE). Subsequently, in response to Question 26 of the NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, a commitment was mode to undertake a separate y
structural reonalysis of the DGB in accordance with ACI-349 as supplemented by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.142 for cornparison purpose only.
L.
The following loads were considered in the reonalysis:
(c) dead loods (D)
(b) effects of settlement combined with creep, shrinkoge and temperature (T)
L (c) live loods (L)
~
(d) wind loods (W)
F (e) tornado loods (W')
(f)
OBE loods (E)
(g)
SSE loods (E')
(h) thermal effects (To)
F I
!~
4-1 h
C TERA CORPORATI'ON l
- 7. -. -.....-.
7.,._.-_
i r
j lt is to be noted that thermal effects appear twice by virtue of the manner in which the loodtag combinations were developed.
The lood combination established and committed to in response to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Question 15 ore os follows:
r-i~
1.05 D + 1.28 L + 1.05 T
~
c.
I b.
1.4 D + 1.4 T L
c.
1.0 D + 1.0 L + 1.0 W + 1.0 T L.
d.
!.0 D + 1.0 L + 1.0 E + 1.0 T A number of lood cases appearing in the load combinations for Seismic Category I structures listed in FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3 do not occur in the diesel E
generator building and other lood combinations con be eliminated from the onalysis offer comparison with more severe loads or load equations (reference 5).
~
As a result the remaining lood combinations to be considered are:
e.
l.4 D + l.7 L f.
l.25 (D + L + W) + 1.0 To I
g.
l.4'(D + L'+ E) + 1.0 To lL h.
0.9 D + !.25 E + 1.0 To i_
I.
1.0 (D + L + E') + 1.0 To r-J.
l.0 (D + L + W') + 1.0 To L_
4.2 ALLOWABLE MATERIAL LIMITS ln occordonce with regulatory requirements, the maximum rebor tensile stress
[
allowed in the diesel generator building rebor should not exceed 0.90 f (where f y
y equals yield strength) for computation of section capacities. Because the diesel generator building rebor has on f value of 60 ksi, the maximum o!!owable tensile y
rebar stress due to flew al and axial loads is 54.0 ksi. Accordingly, reinforced concrete section capacities for the diesel generator building were based on this r
w.e E
TERA CORPORATION pmg em e te.tas- ;' - - -
9 q.ma
,. m w e
__.p1W+-*'
1 lL
~
maximum cil:wobla rebar stren value (54 ksi), a design conersta compressiva strength of 4000 psi and a maximum allowable concrete compressive strain level f
of 0.003 in./in.
.L.
.b.
a
'f is-l_
?..
=
i I"1 I
v m
aseno t
l l
P""
ema.
IL h
F L.
eme-4-3 TERA CORPORATIDN
-g N.
= *1s* W 4 % -'
e 4*
.. qet-g
.py p e, q.=
1.
l L
5.0 BASES FOR SAMPLE SELECTION
~
The diesel generator building (DGB) was selected for review because it serves an
,P important support function in providing protection against external hazards for k
the diesel generators which are integral components of the Standby Electric Power (SEP) System. The DGB falls within the sample selection boundaries p
{
defined in the iEngineering Program Plan (reference 9). Commitments were mode in this reference to review civil / structural design considerations for the m
DGB including foundations and concrete / steel design. Based on programmatic
~
commitments, emphasis is to be placed on structural performance and not
)
detailed soil mechanics aspects which are not within the scope of the Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification Program (IDCVP).
This engineering evaluation addresses the potential effects of settlement induced g
cracking on the ability of the DGB to meet its intended performance requirements. Accordingly, verification of the Midland project treatment of the settlement / crocking issues which have affected several structures at the Midland site is oddressed herein. While a structural review of the auxiliary building is also within the IDCVP scope as part of the Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) system
~
review, the specific settlement / cracking issue as it may affect the auxiliary building is not being treated directly by the IDCVP. Thus, this evaluation of the DGB represents the IDCVP sample addressing the settlement / cracking issues.
It is estimated that approximately one third of the project's calculations and evaluations oddressing the structural design of the DGB were selected for review.
Emphasis was placed on the selection of portions of the project's evaluations that address controlling design conditions (e.g. Important load combinations producing the highest predicted stresses or strains, as appropriate).
Principal project consultant reports were reviewed as well as other docketed Information that documents CPC commitments to the NRC (see section 3.0).
~
himes I
i 5-1 g
TERA CORPORATION
~
- W--
MwW
- v gr e _
we
6.0 ENGIPEERING EVALUATION 6.l - BUILDING PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS The diesel generator building (DGB) is a two story reinforced concrete box type o
building partitioned into four boys, each boy containing one diese! powered electric generator (see Figure 6-1). The purpose of the diesel generators is to supply - stoney electrical power to operate the Midland plant during power outages and to provide the nae===ary power to ensure safe shutdown of the plant in the event of a design basis event. Accordingly, the diesel generators and the
{
DGB are classifiM as Seismic Category 1, and as a result must maintain functionability during external events such as earthquakes and tornadoes.
N.
The DGB provides protection for the diesel generators and associated supply and e
service lines, instrurnents and equipment, assuring ready availability of this r
[_
supplementary power source. This protective function includes not only the normal sheltering of building contents from rain, snow, wind, and ice, but in addition, resistance to the effects of earthquakes and tornadoes including tornado generated missiles. It is these latter effects which are' of principal
~
structural interest, and which dictate a more massive type of construction than normally would be employed for shelter from the commonly considered weather extremes.
The DGB was founded on plant fill and constructed between the Fall of 1977 and 7
the Spring of 1979. During that period it was discovered that the building was experiencing on unusual rate of unequal settlement, and duct banks had made I
contact with the footings which led to building distortion and reinforced concrete crocking. The details of the settlement monitoring, duct structural modifications, and surcharge consolidation program are described in detail in references 3 and 5.
Y
!b ry 6-1 k
L" TERA CORPORATIDN l
l
i_
l 6.2 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA In response to applied loodings (dead, live, earthquake-induced, wind, tornado, tornado missiles) and certain seconoory effects such as settlement, local internal
,r-forces are developed throughout the structure. These lo. ol forces consist of ir-plane forces, sometimes termed membrane forces, and out-of-plane forces, i.e.,
1 transverse shear forces, and bending mornents. In design it is customary for the r-Internal forces associated with a particular loading to be multiplied by a specified "lood factor" and these lood factored sets must be combined for the several specified loadings to obtain what may be coiled a local internal demand.
This demand must not exceed the local " strength", i.e., copocity of the structure.
The acceptance criteria consists of the following:
Statements of the several different load combinations that must be
]
e satisfied, and the lood factors to be applied to each of the loodings C
(dead, live, tornado, etc.) within that combination.
e Specific expressions, or procedures, for determining the local strength which must not be exceeded.
It may be noted that certain of the specified lood combinations focus on serviceability of the structure. These do not include the infrequent extreme loadings, but incorporate relatively large lood factors to assure o modest
~-
demand /copacity ratio for (unfoetored) loodings experienced in normal operating conditions.
For the combinations which include extreme and rare foodings, p
. L.
safety in the sense of protecting personnel and equipment, yet retaining functionobility, is the primary consideration rather than serviceability. Thus crack widths, including those widths which may reflect yielding of the tension rebars, are not a consideration provided that they do not imply o I
reduction in the local strengths.
Accordingly, such specified factored load L
combinations typically incorporate smaller specified load factors. in effect a i
r larger demand /copacity ratio for these unfoctored lood combinations is L
occep,obie for,hese,o,e condi, ions.
I' I
i F
6-2 ERA C@POfW16N Y,- -. - _. _
~--
Y L-.
y
[
lt should be noted that the specifi:d cxpressions, or procedur:s, for detcrmining the local internal strength do not typically include any direct limitation on rebor tensile strain, or on crack widths which accompany such stroin, although there
~
ore indirect limitations for certain conditiets. (Note that the limiting condition y
specified by various ACI codes (references 7 and 8) are related to maximum
[
ollowable concrete compressive strains where o value of 0.003 in./in. is specified).
This strain reflects the fact that certain components of local F
\\
strength are not sensitive to rebor strain but only to the tensile yield strength of the rebars. As on example, full development of the local out-of-plane bending
$i strength of a slab, or beern, with a modest rebor ratio may imply tensile rebor l
~
strain into the yleid range. Indeed this is specificolly recognized by codes which specify that, for rebor stroins in excess of the elastic strain at yield stress the C
stress must be assumed to be constant at the yield stress value. This approoch often is overlooked because, for the majority of local conditions of interest it is
-aj computationally much more convenient to evoluote local sections on the I
assumption that the steel strains remain within the elastic range, and to compute r-
{
rebor stresses associated with the particular factored lood combination demand rather than to compute the local section strength, per se. In some cases this
]
opprooch is slightly conservative, but often there is no difference whatever.
However, the fact that there are circumstances, where small tensile rebor
~
strains into the yield range occur, yet are acceptable, and do not degrade the
~
L-required local strength, may be unrecognized because of the focus on elastic behavior inherent in the computation process. Margins of strength, os reflected r
[.
In codes, are implicitly based on the ductile behavior of structural systems os just noted.
L.
6.2.1 Structural Primary Loadings
~
The DGB must resist the following principal primary loodings:
FL e
Gravity-induced dead and live foods Earthquake-Induced loods e
r-L e
Tornado-induced differentloi air pressure e
Tornado-borne missiles 6-3
.1 ERA CORPORATON pg -
e%-
m
- + * *..
a
. - ~,
- - ^
- Gravity-induced loods produce out-of-plane shear forces and bending moments in the floor and roof systems and in portions of the walls immediately adjacent thereto. These loads also produce in-plane forces in the walls and, of course, bending moments and shear forces in the strip footings.
r Earthquake-Induced loods produce in-plane forces in the walls which are substantial, and more modest in-plane forces in floor and roof slabs. They also produce out-of-plane shear forces ~ in floor and roof slabs and walls.
I Tornodic winds produce in-plane and out-of-plane forces in walls and roofs.
g Tornado-Induced differential air pressures are the principal source of out-of-pione shear forces and bending moments in floor systems and walls, and they also produce in-plane forces.
O Tornado-borne missiles produce highly localized out-of-plane loading of the e
a walls.
The capacity of the wall to resist such missiles is evoluoted L.
Independently of all other loadings.
6.2.2 SecwAry Loadings Restrained non-lood-induced volume changes (e.g., due to concrete shrinkage and or temperature strains) may produce internal forces. It has long been recognized that these forces rarely have any significant effect on the local strengths, and in most cases they are neglected. The reasons relate directly to the ductility of the tension rebars, if the local strength is mobilized, by on imposed set of local t_
demand forces, it typically will be the some whether or not the forces associated with the non-lood induced effects are included. The difference will be that the f-tensile rebor strain, including some yield strain, will be larger when these secondary forces are
< Iuded. This yielding has the effect of decreasing, and sometimes completely eliminating, the local forces which were initioly introduced by the non-lood effect. It is for this reason that the forces associated with such non-load induced effects often are termed "self-relieving" or
~
sec w s ry.
6-4 TERA CORPORATION
- x m
e a-~
e.-w-*-
mes *e m_.
+
T L
In the design of m:st rsinf2rced concrata buildings the local inttrnal fore s arising from restrained shrinkoge and thermal strains as well as that induced by settlement are not included in the application of the strength criteria. In the
~
design of nuclear safety related concrete structures it is the occepted proctice to account for through-the-wolf thermal gradients, although shrinkoge effects are not typically included. Even accounting for the thermal gradients is a conservative.equirement the justification for which is at least debatable.
E' However they were accounted for in the DGB design as required by the acceptance criterio. It may be noted that underlying codes, from which the occeptance criteria were developed, typically colled for inclusion of these non-
~'
lood-induced forces with the lood-induced forces only where their structural 7
effects may be significant. In the case of the DGB 11 may reasonably be debated 5
whether such effects are indeed "significant", as envisioned by the code.
2
~
C in the initial design of the DGB 1t would not reasonbly have been assumed that the forces associated with foundation settlement could be significant nor, that they should be included with' the lood-Induced forces in the factored lood combinations. Clearly, the building was designed for continuous support on what I
was intended to be a relatively homogeneous soll medium. Thus the designer could justifiably assume that there would be little if any redistribution of the
~~
upward soll reactions on the strip footings due to major point-to-point variations in local stiffness of the supporting medium. When the build!ng was only partly completed it become evident that such stiffness variations did, in fact, exist i.e.,
~,
o very stiff support at the location of footing contact with ducts, together with poorly consolidated soil (low in stiffness, and non-uniform) elsewhere. These
[
conditions caused on extreme example of non-uniform settlement which did indeed induce internal forces sufficient to cause cracks in the walls of the then portially completed structure.
Upon noting that the settlement had led to interference between the foundation
~
and buried ducts, the unintended footing-to-duct connections were physically disengaged and the unsatisfactory foundation condition was corrected by a surcharge loading procedure. It is to be noted (reference 36) that the surcharge fooding procedure begon on January 26, 1979, incrementally, and that L
6-5 L
mcme L
l.
r-construction of the DGB continued thereaftzr. The final surcharge placem:nt f-
. took place between March 22,1979 and April 7,1979, just as the roof and parapet construction was completed. The nW=ntly completed DGB structure has been.in place, in its completed condition for more than four years with no indications of odditional distress in any way comparable to that associated with the footing-to-duct contact and the poorly consolidated soll. It may be argued that the structure now is supported as was intended at the time of design, that m
l the effects of any future differential settlement will not be significant, and that L.
the effects of such cracking as developed in the partially completed structure also are not significant to local internal strengths relied upon to resist the forces associated.with applied load combinations. From all this it would naturally
~
3 follow that the internal forces induced by differential settlements need not n
'~
necessarily be included with the load-induced forces in the combinations specified by the acceptance criterio. These arguments may be justified but,in fact, there is a licensing commitment to include the settlement-induced forces in the relevant lood combinations.
B s
Since the internal forces induced by a specific non-uniform settlement are self-relieving (as was described earlier, for thermally induced forces), why must they be included; i.e., when may their effects be "significant". In some structures the magnitude of possible future settlement may be uncertain, and there may be little or no prospect for monitoring of the settlement or the state of the i
structure during its service life. Accordingly, inclusion of settlement-induced forces in the design would be appropriate to limit the possible development of structural distress which would be costly to repair, or which in some special ecses, like a containment structure, may offect functionability by creation of large liner strains. For other structures these forces might prudently be included to avoid excessive yield strains in the tension rebars (and the associated large crack widths) which might degrade the local internal strength under some set of the local internoi forces ossociated with applied loods, particularly if no monitoring of the structure for such effects could be anticipated.
e L
For the DGB structure the principal structural elements are relatively h
accessible, and a monitoring program is planned. Nevertheless it is required to L
L 6-6 I
TERA CORPORATION
-w-m
-._.y
L demonstrata by appliettion of the r:l;vont accept:nco crittric, including the
~
effects of differential settlement, that the local internal strengths are not presently degraded and are unlikely to be degraded by any probable future differential settlements.
The acceptance criterio do not include any specification of the method by which the associated internal forces are to be T
determined.
This is on important consideration in any effort to apply the 1
occeptance criteria. There are essentioly three alternatives:
T 1-o)
One may assume o magnitude and distribution of differential settlement and impose this displacement pattern upon the structure. In contrast to the situation at the design stage the analyst for the DGB has settlement measurements to consider in arriving at the postulated differential settlements to be used,
~
g b)
One may postulate one or more perturbations of the distribution of upward soll reactions associated with dead load which may be associated with differential settlement, and determine the local internal forces for each. It will be apparent that this approach produces the E
forces due to dead loods plus differential settlement.
L This is not on unreasonable approoch, if sufficient attention is given to parametric vorlations, particularly if 7
the analyst locks dato on differential settlement which he considers sufficiently precise to use directly in method (a).
~
c)
One may postulate the local internal forces directly from b
the observed condition of on (existing) structure; i.e., the crock widths in the DGB. This is on option clearly not 9
available at the time of design.
i p
The method of imposed differential settlements may lead to unrealistically large i
internal forces unless the analysis con occount for cracking, and time-dependent f
concrete properties. The cost-benefit of such on analysis may not be Jusilfied, 7
[
particularly if other suitable options (b or c) exist.
The method of analyzing the dead lood condition for several postulated distributions of soll reaction is suitable, but it may be difficult to choose sets of T
distributions which cover the possible differential settlements but which are not unjustifiably extreme.
h 6-7 m
TERA CORPORATIDN wangee. ;-
. e,,pem e,pe, sm-_
For the DGB, which has been observed in its completed state for more than four years, inference of the internal local forces from the condition of the existing structure (c) seems to be the most attractive approach. It is the most direct. It
~
is particularly attractive since any significant changes in the condition of the structure will be observable during its service life. Observations related to this p
L opprooch follow.
6.3 EVALUATION OF BUILDING PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY The performance capability of the structure is to be==W in two steps: the
^
first one considering the building in its present state and the other addressing its structural integrity and serviceability over the next 40 years. Inputs to the
~
evoluotion are keyed to o number of elements such as: ovoilable physical dato, q
onalytical studies, understanding of concrete behavior and engineering L
Judgement.
6.3.1 Avollable Data The most important dato ovalloble to estimate the present state of stress in the
~
DGB consists of:
L 1.
Observations of the building as it exists today.
~
2.
The record of the crock monitoring program.
3.
The settlement history of the building.
The cracks have been surveyed on several occasions (Reference 3).
The
~
maximum crock width recorded during the monitoring progrom prior to isolation of the duct banks was 28 mils. After the isolation of the duct banks, the crocks decreased in size (testimony Peck and Weidner references 11 and 4 respectively) implying a stress decrease in the higher stressed areas. Presently the lorgest cracks are of the order of 20 mils. An evoluotion of the existing crocks has been r,
performed by two Bechtel consultants, Dr. Mete Sozen (reference 10) of the University of Illino's and Dr. W. Gene Corley (reference 12) of the Portiond I
Cement Association.
i I
6-8
~
TERA CORPORATbN
~ _. _
_. ~.
[
The building settlements have been monitored at clnse int:rvnis during the construction period and thereafter. Figure 6-2 presents the location of the settlement markers indicating where survey measurements are token. The data spans over a period of 5 years with measurements taken approximately every other week. This large amount of data allows one to follow the settlement
- r-i history through the stages of construction, duct bank isolation, surcharge period, dewatering, and up through the present. It also provides a means of assessing f
P
-[
potential random and systematic errors in the measurements. The Midiona project hos concluded that significant errors exist in the measurements due to a f
variety of circumstances. A study of these data is presented in the following
~
section.
J 6.3.2 Midland Project Evoluotions 2
The Midland project followed two separate approoches to estimate the state of stress in the building:
e study of the crocking history study of the settlement history.
e The future state of stress due to settlement was estimated based upon predicted j
settlements.
6.3.2.1 Evoluotion of DGB Based on Observed Crocking F
In its present condition the DGB has crocks which appear to be settlement-Induced or settlement-intensified, generally arising during the early construction 7
L phases. Maximum present crack widths are reported to be obout 20 miis, and or.
Sozen (reference 10) hos shown that the ossociated rebor stress os estimated in a region of numerous. crocks, adjacent to o duct bank penetration of the center wall, may be judged to be between 20 and 30 ksi. We find his evoluotion to be
["
reasonable incorporating techniques that are state of the art, widely accepted and supported by laboratory tests. Dr. Sozen also has argued that the presence of initial cracks does not degrade the capacity of a reinforced concrete element 6-9 TERA CORPORATION
. eemd; war
- _ ewone
_emene
- * * = - -
i P[
in any of the important structural modes; i.s., direct tensi n forca, direct compression force, in-plane shear force, and out-of-plane bending. Again, we I
agree with Dr. Sozen that precracks of the width thus for evidenced in the walls of the Midiond DGB would not significantly degrade capacities in the several l
P modes h.!W by the principal loadings, and in their required factored combinations.
1 P
I Dr. Sozen did not specifically address the possible influence of an initial rebar stress which is associated with a self-relieving internal force, that is, a force g(
caused by foundation settlement. He does not indicate his opinion whether or not the self-relieving internal force implied by the initial rebor stress should be included with the internal forces due to applied loadings or can be neglected because it is self-relieving. It is our understanding that the Bechtel evaluations of the DGB for the effects of dead lood plus foundation settlement did not utilize the initial rebor stress magnitude estimated by Dr. Sozen but rather a
computed it based on the settlement history of the building.
m M
6.3.2.2 Evaluation of DGB Based on Settlement History 1
m The settlement effects were modeled by Bechtel into the structure considering
[
four distinct time periods.
Measured or estimated settlement values f
corresponding to each of the time periods were used:
e Case IA:
3/28/78 to 8/15/78 (Structure partially completed to l
elevation 656.5')- A long hand calculation was used to determine the i
h stresses due to early settlements. The structure was assumed fully crocked and the stresses in the reinforcing steel were assessed based y
upon local strains corresponding to on imposed differential settlement (reference 16).
I F
e Case IB:
8/15/78 to 1/5/79 (Structure partially completed to
("
elevation 662.0.)- The duct banks were sepernted from the structure which caused the north wall to settle rapidly. (reference 17) 6-10 TERA CORPORATION w-*-
- -_ w E
_ _ pey,
-e-fwew*
m f
o Ccse 2A 1/5/79 to 8/3/79 (Structura in process of compistien.)-
Surcharge period. (reference 18) e Case 28: Forty year settlement composed of:
~
L e
measured settlements from 8/3/79 to 12/31/81, and predicted secondary consolidation settlement from 12/31/81 to e
12/31/2025. (reference 19)
IL The last three analyses used a finite element model having stiffness
~
corresponding to an uncrocked condition.
In these analyses the foundation stiffnesses have been varied, in an iterative process, to achieve final settlements
~
y approximating a set of target settlements. These target settlements were based u
upon a linear best fit through the measured settlement data. The analyses have been criticized (reference 2) because the analytically predicted settlements do not match variations in the measured settlements.
It is opprop-late to ask m
whether the iterated non-linear foundation stiffnesses are realistic since the target settlements were not the measured settlements but a linear best fit, essentially assuming rigid motion of the North and South walls. The best fit data were utilized in an attempt to deal with scatter in the measured data. Such scatter potentially due to either random or systematic errors was estimated to be of the order of plus or minus 0.125 inches.
In our cpinion the described method of accounting for foundation stiffnesses 6
utilizing the linear best fit data may not be satisfactory for correlation with observed cracking in relation to differential settlement.
We concur that settlement measurements may not be of sufficient accuracy to permit a precision computation of settlement-induced internal forces. Furthermore, the marker locations are spaced at wider intervals than would be desirable as input to analyses of building strains. Nevertheless, the general level of stress implied by the mognitude of cracking is not in contradiction to that which may be derived from the measured settlement data, realistically accounting for flexibility including consideration of phenomena such as creep (see section 6-11 TERA CORPORATION
- ~
,).'_'..
I -.
'~
6.3.3 for o mora detciled discussion). As discussed in Secti:n 6.2.2, on acct determination of secondary stress levels is of lesser importance given the nature of the loading and the fact that capacity is not adversely affected.
~
in separate sensitivity studies Bschtel engineers considered among others, the two following cases:
e I
The zero spring condition analysis (reference 3) which investigated L
e the structure's ellity to span any soft soli condition. A zero soil spring value was used at the junction of the south wall and east center wall. Soil values were increased linearly back to their original value within a distance of approximately 15 feet from the
~
zero spring.
The stresses in the building underwent moderate ri increase in the area of the bridging.
In our Judgement this is a O
reasonable approach, but one may ask whether the size and locations of such postulated " soft" zones were bounding.
L.
The imposed 40 year settlement analysis (reference 21) which forced e
the building to match the predicted settlement values at 10 points along the foundation. This analysis led to very large reaction forces F
of the points of imposed settlements, and some of these acted downward on the structure, i.e., implying tensions in the soil, which is not possible.
Moreover, the analysis indicated very large rebor tensile stresses, where of several points a multiple of the yield strength was indicated. Of course the structure does not display the p
L very wide crocks which would accompany such high stresses. For these reasons Bechtel engineers concluded that the settlement measurements connot be on occurate representation of the octual
{
settlement nonuniformities.
I' We have noted that the settlement data may not be an adequate basis for computing settlement effects.
However, we believe the described analysis j
exoggerates the effects of the displacement input data which was questioned by the project. Our reasons are that the analysis assumed uncrocked concrete and r
6-12 l
TERA CORPORATIDN Te o m w =,, %.
.p=.
_wm
+ j p
5,w ween. e
,,e ese 64w-e.-
w~.
'~
used the short-1:rm conersta modulus of slasticity. Appropriota reducticn of
~
the concrete modulus, to reflect creep under sustained loading, would have lead to reactions and internal forces perhaps 50 percent less than were obtained.
Decreases in stiffneu associated with concrete cracking could result in additional.large reductions.
An excellent discussion of the physical and F
J engineering significance of creep is found in chapter 6 of reference 37.
Perhaps more important, rebor stresses appear to have been computed on the assumption that the local internal tensile forces developed in the uncrocked concrete are unreduced by crocking, i.e., this unreduced force is imposed on the rebars. In our judgment this is not the best physical representation. The rebor stresses are expected to be more nearly indicated by the local strains in the c
concrete (uncrocked) than by the forces in the concrete (uncrocked). Thus, the rebor stresses are better opproximated by the product of steel modulus and
[
concrete strain (uncrocked); i.e., by the product of modular ratio, n, (Youngs modulus of the steel / Youngs modulus of the concrete) and concrete stress.
fsa n ic In contrast we believe that the following expression was used r-L is E.l.fc where p is the reinforcement ratio (rebor area /section area).
This later expression greatly overestimates rebor stress. To illustrate, for p = 0.0043 and n 8, the suggested opproach gives rebor stress about 1/30 of the Bechtel
=
[
computed value. While reality is likely in between, and the former expression it opproximate, we believe that it is a closer representation of the existing situation.
{-
L_
i L
w L_
6-13 TERA CORPORATI'ON
~. _.. _ _ _ _ - _ - -
{
6.3.3 IDCVP EVALUATIONS
~
ln addition to reviewing the information generated by the project and the studies performed by others, the IDCVP concentrated attention on two major elements in the review process:
p L.
o Observations of the building and its present state of crocking, and
{
e The settlement history of the building.
Settlement data Gross stress estimation 6.3.3.1 Building inspection EL A careful inspection of the building was performed together with a review of the crack mapping data. As it exists of present, many cracks of small size are
[
evident in the building but there is no evidence to support that these cracks are indicative of a high state of stress in the building and degraded capacity. Post experience and laboratory tests indicate that concrete elements in a state of distress -particularly stiff shear walls of the type in the DGB exhibit large deformations and crocks, much greater than present in the DGB. This would
~
probably be accompanied by scabbing and other phenomeno which are not opparent in the DGB.
Our conclusion from visual inspection of the building is that its state of stress is y
[
low and would not impair its performance and functionability.
A body of relevant information developed in industry, university and government programs and structural experience supports this conclusion.
F 6.3.3.2 Settlement Data L_
A study of the settlement data recorded between ll/24/78 and 8/28/80 is e-b presented in reference 5. We reproduced and expanded this analysis to include the most recent dato (reference 38). The two time periods covered were from 6-14 TERA CORPORATION mm eo puemww r oo<ew.
wr-w roe.
. t wo,,
-we-ese woom
L F-5/12/78 to 9/14/79 (rzf2rence 33) and 9/14/79 ta 8/23/83 (rsfarence 34). Our goal was two fold: (1) assess the overall deformation of the building with time and (2) l estimate the random error present in any one set of measurements. We studied the following dato.
F 1.
Cumulative settlement recorded overtime.
f
[
2.
Incremental settlement between successive readings.
e 3.
A measure of the curvature between any three consecutive markers along the foundation as it varies with time. The curvature d'; of marker i is defined as:
d'i = 0.5 (d _l + d;+ l) - di i
where d; is the total settlement.
O The quantity d" equals zero when the three points are on a L1 straight line; it remains constant in time if the three points move os a rigid body.
4.
A measure of the deformation of the building with respect to its rigid body motion.
The rigid body motion is
" removed' by computing the vertical position of all markers with respect to the plane defined by three corner markers.
This analysis was done both for each incremental reading and cumulatively.
An upper limit of the random error in any set of readings is given by the
^
[
maxirnum difference of incremental settlement between any two markers from L
one reading time to the next.
When the building has not experienced any settlement between two readings, this quantity is the random error; it bounds it P
L_.
otherwise. At the beginning of the record, this quantity is large where the building was undergoing large differential settlements and reading occuracy might have been reduced by marker transfer necessitated by the placement of surchcrge. However, this quantity decreases rapidly and offer June 1979 is never I
greater than 0.150". After the removal of the surcharge for the readings starting 9/19/79 which we will refer to os the recent readings, the random error is smaller p
than 0.125", 95 percent of the time which would give a random error of about 2 L
1/16 of on inch. This implies that a higher level of confidence con be given to the recent measurements.
6-15 TERA CORPORATION
,wp.___
_eyw,
w-,-
m m--e-
-..n w.
'~
Jumps in readings from one period ts the next ora sometimes irrge implying that the building would rapidly move up or down by a uniform amount. These jumps are attributed to systematic errors in locating the reference elevation.
u Figure 6-3 shows the incremental settlement for 6 time periods between July 1978 and August 1979 for the south wall of the DGB.
The first three I
measurements show large differential deformations and introduction of curvature in the wall.
The latter ones show stabilization of differential settlements implying that the wall is still settling but as a rigid unit, introducing
~
little additional in-plane bending. For more recent recordings the stabilizing
~
trend is even more noticeable. Study of the foundation curvature variation and 1
deformation of the building with respect to its rigid body motion point toward the some trend. This is supported by on evoluotion discussed in reference 4, where it was noted that the settlements occurring during the time periods 77 U
represented by lines e and d (reference 4, figure DGB-7), were those that are expected of a rigid body. In figure DGB-7, line e represents settlement during the surcharging period (1/79 - 8/79) and line d represents estimated settlement during the post-surcharge period (9/79 - 12/2025). The point here is that the
{
early crocking occurred when the building was only partially completed. Upon completion, the five sided (four walls and a roof) structure is now responding as a r
stiffer, essentially rigid body as would be expected.
Hence during its construction stage, the building underwent substantial p
L differential settlement that introduced in-plane curvature in the walls with resulting stress and cracking compounded with normal shrinkoge crocking. As the building was completed and the concrete oged, its tended to behave more and
~
more os a rigid unit, the whole foundation (or building) moving as a plane (or a unit). The recent data indicates that for the lost four years the building hos generally settled as a rigid body introducing relatively little odditional distortion in the structure. We expect this behovlor to persist in time.
One may speculate on the magnitude of the absolute settlements over the service life; however, these are of lesser structural concern to the building itself, and would only offect clearance to obstructions and connected items.
6-16 TERA CORPORAT16N me*=*. *w
_w
- ~ * *
- + - +
es w e+ _
wsw..
pe-,...~--
7 L
These 1:tter clements con accommodot2 some degree of distorti:n and con be
~
modified in the future if worronted.
6.3.3.3 Gross Stress Estimation f~
L' Even though we have noted that settlement data may not provide on acceptable basis for computing settlement effects, it is our opinion that if credit had been F
taken to account for creep and stress relaxation in young concrete, reduced stiffness associated with the geometry of the
[
uncompleted structure L
stiffness reduction due to crocking r-l' the exoct recorded settlement could have been imposed on the structure without r-generating stresses in gross contradiction to that observed via crack patterns in b
the DGB. This would have qualitative value to on overall understanding of building behovlor.
In order to improve our understanding of building behavicr and to generally qualify the influence of these effects, we modeled the north and south walls of the building using a simplified finite element model (reference 38). As a first
~
order check of our partial model, we reproduced the 40 year imposed settlement analysis performed by Bechtel on the uncrocked structure. We obtained stresses within 25 percent of Bechtel's which is reasonable considering the simplified model we used.
We imposed the recorded settlements on the incomplete wall for Case lA and IB and on the complete wall for Case 28. For crocked concrete, the stresses were computed as described in Section 6.3.2.2.
m.
m.
t L
6-17 TERA CORPORA 110N h*H*-
vw*
.. e em= ape.
,. -4 m n-.n,,e-.
I
{
The following oppr:ximot2 maximum v: lues cf stress wers obtcined:
LOADING STEEL
~
(ksi) r 1.
CASE IA I l.3 CASE IB 3.5 CASE 2A 4.6 This leads to a total stress of 19.4 ksi which is in good agreement with Dr.
}
Sozen's independent analysis (see section 6.3.2.1 and reference 10).
We recognize that the above analysis represents a simplified opproximation of the very complicated effects of creep and cracking but it provides o qualitative 2
estimate of the state of stress of the building.
r
[
We believe the results of our analyses, properly interpreted are both useful and positive, specifically.
~
e When modified for the effect of concrete creep and concrete cracking the foundation reactions when combined with reoctions due to dead lood, would not Imply a physically impossible state of tension stress in the soll.
o When the rebor tension stresses are properly determined, m
that is on the basis of strain in the uncrocked concrete F
rather than on the basis of stress in the uncrocked
- concrete, they are quite modest rather than unrealistically large.
L 6.3.4 IDCVP Assessment / Interpretation of Results 7
in our opinion the settlement-induced internal forces implied by the associated rebor stresses, as they presently exist in the Midland DGB will not degrade the copocities to resist the internal forces and moments caused by the factored load r-6-18 TERA CORPORABDN
[,, + m - e.weveme-emso wear== _
woweem
_ enseme w -
. esame
- e e.
.=e*-+e
=m=~m.
ae*.--+e.=*+-<
I combinations and ther2 fore the DGB is expected to mest its intended performance requirements. There is reason to believe os supported by recent observations, that the completed building is settling as a rigid unit based upon
~
the stabilized foundation properties. In this mode, the DGB copocity is not expected to be compromised over time. We believe that the settlement-induced, L
self-relieving, internal forces implied by the present crack widths and associated rebor stresses could safely be ignored in evoluoting the building. However, licensing criterio include certain lood combinations in which it is specifically required to include the settlement-induced Internal forces. Based upon our knowledge of ovallable margins associated with controlling lood combinations, we believe that compliance with these criteria con generally be demomtrated,
~
F oppropriately accounting for creep, relaxation and other phenomeno; however, b
we do not endorse such on endeavor because of the secondary nature of the settlement induced loods and the fact that copocity is unaffected.
r-a 6.4 SERVICEABILITY, FUTURE CAPABILITY, AND MONITORING The previous sections oddress the significance of settlement induced crocking on the performance capability of the DGB in its current condition. It is important that the DGB continue to meet specified performance requirements over its service life; hence, this section oddresses serviceability of the DGB ond.ony
~
actions that may be necessary to identify and mitigate potential future conditions which could compromise the DGB performance.
6.4.1 Midland Project Evoluotions and Commitments u
The effects of cracks on the serviceability of Midland plant structures were addressed in reference 12. Three principal issues were evoluoted:
1 Freezing and thowing resistance, r
e L
e Chemical attack, and e
Corrosion of reinforcement r.
L f
6-19 TERA CORPORATION W nn>ves**w eeeeeemer~ w wwowe-
. wrow..
,. om
~w...
.~-~e~
s a a m, _,,,
,ce.
a iL i
![
lt was concluded in rsf:rence 12 that observed cracks are not expected to have o significant influence on the derobility of the DGB.
Accordingly, remedial
~
measures such as epoxy injection were considered unnecessary to ensure long term performar.ce capabil'ty. Nevertheless, CPC committed (reference 35) to r-repair existing crocks which are 20 mils and larger (up to o point in length where L.
the crock remains 10 mils or lcrger) by epoxy injection and oppilcotion of a i
l concrete seolont to occessible surfaces.
I t
A Technical Specification (TS) 16.3/4.13 (reference 13) has been proposed to monitor settlement over the service life of the DGB. The specification requires
~
that the total settlement be measured (to nearest 0.01 foot) at least once every 90 days for the first year of operation. The frequency for subsequent years has
~
been left for future determination.
The total allowable settlement r3 corresponding to predictions for the service life (12/31/81 thru 12/31/2025) has l
J been specified at 12 markers.
Engineering evoluotions are required if total settlement reaches 80% of the oilowable values (Alert Limit). Additionally, the
[
inspection frequency is to be increased to once every 60 days if the 80% level has been reached.
~
If the DGB exceeds total allowable settlements, the plant must initiate actions to be in cold shutdown within 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> (Action Limit).
~
CPC has also committed to conduct a crack width monitor!ng program (reference 14) which includes individual crack width and cumulative crack width measurements at 3 locations over a 10 foot gage length. This program will be conducted once every year for the first five years of operation and at five year intervals thereafter. The following criteria apply:
Alert Limit Action Limit single crock 50 mils 60 mils cumulative cracks 150 mils 200 mills (over 10' gage length)
=
6-20 TERA CORPORATidN Pe** --
p " owe ems--
ww w==
_ www _
m..% +.
i 1
Identical actions os defined in T.S. 16.3/4.13 cra required if th:se limits ora reached.
6.4.2 lDCVP Assessment We concur with the conclusions drawn in reference 12 relative to the influence of existing cracks on the performance capability of the DGB ond its continued serviceability. While significant future cracking is unanticipated, it would only be in these circumstances that we would recommend remedial actions such as I
epoxy or sealant application to insure continued durability. Furthermore, should L
such procedures continue to be contemplated for purposes of potential increased protection, we urge that applications of any compounds not be mode in such o manner os to mask surfaces so that cracks are not visually accessible.
Notwithstanding the potential future inconvenience of removing compounds from selected surfaces, there is a poteitial that these compounds moy influence c
~
behovlor and modify surface expression of crocks, making future engineering evoluotions more difficult.
We reeve,mer.d that consideration be given to modifying T.S. 16.3/4.13. The following points summarize our evaluation and our recommendations.
Visual inspection - The building should be examined e
visually twice a year in concert with on evoluotion of settlement data to identify any unusual deviations in
~
crock patterns and gross changes in dimensions. This may represent an additional commitment.
e Total allowable settlement - These limits should be based upon structurol/ mechanical performance requirements considering items such as the physical clearances to obstructions (e.g. duct banks) and permissible deflections for attached items (e.g.
Incoming fuel lines).
Notwithstanding these considerations, absolute settlements and corresponding rigid body motion of the lE building is of minor concern to building performance l
capability other than as it might offect clearances to obstructions and connected items. The existing limits may trigger potentially unnecessary evoluotions. A 90-day survey interval appears reasonable for the first year of operation. This opproach may represent a redefinition of certain total allowable settlement limits.
L l-6-21 l
TERA CORPORATION,
e e
l
,x - - -
.. m
y I
e Differential settlement Diesel Generator Building Forces induced by differential motion within the DGB ore of interest, but generally only at a time at I
which crock width levels approoch on order of l
mognitude greater than has been observed.
Capacity is not expected to be degraded' for settlement induced cracks with sizes up to this b
general level. Even at this point, the residual state of secondary stress in the DGB may be low due to factors discussed in Section 6.3; however, one must evoluote shear transfer mechanics across crack boundaries of dimensions of the some order os the fracture surfoce roughness. It is recommended for consideration that limits for differential motion between points within the DGB (discounting all rigid body components of motion) be specified such that
~
these motions are correlated with potential future crock widths up to on order of mognitude greater than has been observed to date; thus providing functionally defined limits for differential rnovements. Remedial effort to protect external
~
surfaces may be considered at opproximately half these values.
The program may include development of an initial set of data which would provide o baseline for potential future reference.
Additional survey data would be collected in the future if indicated by the visual inspection program I
and obsolute settlement measurement surveys. If 6
odopted this approoch may represent a redefiniton of allowable settlement limits and a restructuring of the proposed tech specs.
~
Diesel Generator Pedestals
{
Although, relatively of lesser concern, at sue.h a time as the diesel generators are run for on extended period, potential differential movement of I.
the isolated diesel generator pedestals is of interest b
as such movement may offect connected lines.
Accordingly, we endorse continued monitoring of pedestal settlement and comparison to functionally defined differential movements.
We conclude that the committed crock monitoring program will produce results which are of engineering interest but not necessarily of safety significance.
Accordingly, we do not see a need to specify alert and oction limits based upon 6-22 4
TERA CORPORAT16N N ev e=
m
, - & * * ** *euweeN-N.me sfge ww e- + + + -
F this program.
Wa base this ' conclusion primarily on the limited number of
' I-locations to be monitored and the fact that oppropriate locations are difficult to determine a priori, not knowing how the building will behave in the future. One r-could specify locations based upon predictions of future response, but if the building responds as predicted, this will be of less interest then if it does not, in which cose alternate locations would be more desireable. This is related to our recommendation not to mask surfaces through application of new compounds.
in summary, we conclude that the performance chorocteristics of the DGB ore not likely to be compromised over its service life. Various commitmerns have been made by CPC to verify continued serviceability. While we conclude that several of these commitments may not be totolly necessary, we do not view that i
safety will be compromised by the specified actions. Certain improvements may be mode which may produce valuable information and reduce operational 4
constroints.
~'
m F
L e
a i
F L.
r 16 L
1 I
i 6-23 TERA CORPORATION s
tm.m. ws m ewh__ _
1* i P e*
.m+,*t,,
e r-~
- + - i
O O
mm...
b 1% q" 7 a
&%.43_ F W
f====
(
-*G 2-2
.a.
_. =
. = _.
s---
w L&SI l p. b.
CEl
..Nif'
-O-t GD e
r===
ag 9
}7 f
l e is iF I~ 9 i
-1 L-.:
L
/
. )
L a
l l m
Lk j: :.w p.
1
. M
__l d
f ri.\\- l l L r - _.li~hYrs L.
e-- e
-4 i QL.bw '
4_ j, i
nu a
m.
m.
m.
rues nas e amrt na a s est.T nem R. m a. ort as as a mAer-r i.
Uhr.
Ms.
Ms.
r
'm
=
==
i i
.i y
y w
n LW va-
- I
...8--
e r-;
e F
,i.
,7 y
EE.
- - - - ~
im j
m,
??
(
1p d, d......e m, p q M1 n e_,, r= i. I I
m ae r
_F"" r, Jfje
_J S aaw i
ur-e m.
g s
__ m
.,_ m b
W W
FIGURE 6-I DESEL GEERATOR BUILDING PLAN VEW MO SECTCONS a
J
l' l
Il 8
9 y
2 2
3 x
C
(
d l
]
p q
g l '
7
(,, s.
A.1 8
1_
[
I q
I K9 l
6g8 j(
l,,, l1 1
j X'
y2 0
g I
l S
N G O NI 3
ij 1(,i ll IT 4
DA X._1 1_
l LC l
I UO g
BL l
KS 2 RR l
2g8jl tI
).i 6 OE 1
' Ua E TK R AR g1 URA 2
I l
G EM
=
g I
F E T G N j
q j J(
i. d_1 E
y 9_
0 LM l
E E p
I S
E L T
I I
DT 3
M1 E
l 1
8 1.
l S
ha
.lt q
l i
7
_X2 2
5 q Il:f 1,&
9 6
l I
g C
I l
7 2
g 4 gIli
- 1. i l P
W x
)
)
p 4
3 I
2 2
g e
p
~
4 a
Myo 7!1 i
i
~
3 l
i
6 l_
H
-R g
u
-s a
S r
a ! !
g d
- l 3 B_i 5
~~
8 2
a m 0s g
8gle==ll 0
W 2
E*Ecce
- ssa
-E
-2 IgEER,g g_==: !
3111!
I!!!n L
L, 4
2 3
R.
E 2
2 t
4 4
4 (53CNI) 5 I
ia TERA CORPORATION p.. r-w
- I c
I
7.0 CONCLUSION
S
- L As the diesel generator building exists today it is quite capable of perforrning its Intended design functions. Many cracks of small size are evident in the existing 7i building but there is no evidence to suggest that these cracks - in spite of the various possible mechanisms of origin - generally of small size, would be (F
indicative of a condition that would suggest the DGB is incapable of performing its function. it is our belief that in its present condition'this building is fully 7
functional in all respects. Although we believe it is improbo' le, if excessive o
localized differential settlement is observed, remedial corrective measures could
~,
be undertaken to improve serviceability.
2 The committed monitoring program clearly will reveal any potential distress. It p
kI is suggested that a comprehensive visual inspection of DGB be carried out biannually (twice a year) in concert with the settlement measurement program.
In Section 6 Awe have offered certain recommendations for consideration that are intended to improve information collected. and reduce operational
~
constraints.
PDG l
lS 9
b m
mee m
muss s
s L-7-1
?
r TERA CORPORATION 1
I.
l r
.e y
(
s a
- 1 I'
r
(.p O
t
?%ktd, a ng-
%!.*p.o-no
- l l
Med.h M4 N
l' sm: 4.& JkR. k~n.
i 1
Mbac.~4 h99SW.dP.w.s.&C/d
&c.:I n /AS Ti Lo I n
k Uhw l I
i f* b Es
$~c
. Mr4p...._.._....
L.
- ll '
c~ L t h -a dncea.-st a cc-ez.
i%a, uMuskfLJ e yBdA.1-3p98 nu.4:1.. -.._.
.l
..bs,Adb~,5L. Q A L gnsQ l
i l
OL W=(,,,
i
.W.
5
.~
. _.... l l
i m..as-.
e.e-.
... + = -..
4_.
I
._......l...._.._...._
l.- -..
.. ll h
o
- g.g.;;~.,.;
e..9 y j
..j.;y..,. : ~ :. ;
'4.f,y;r..f t, li.;'- ':0.$fM % d'l '
v.
F"'
- W
" 4 isd i
a- ?. *
+
a a
- ..:1 u
(*
' 'm j ' ;
J $,,,. ' '
. h(; y,,
.y 3< ',
b, '
2
/
- y. r [ 5 W,Q~Cs wAkuh.
.;k..ga.G
- .,.M.- y{a % W'?'J, 'm.YY i
?.w.a.
. -vi..,. s'.R;r ; 5 9 ;f 4*U' N: ?.?'
. g,.,,p,i&s.:.-. <!-(W p.s,-/.i,.="?
- ?.. W
,A, ',. : r. req.7.
y.
- 1 -rT
., d.a; l.7.,
c
. upg - &.
.. T;..
!.2:.i q. y-t*~~ u u a.v*:1 t.:2,saa::r c.:.m,,1 -
Sh% -n,. ',2 -
j
.1,2 2 : > % ;'d % "'i?,ut
.-d
?- ~.:
- .C R.;f=c:s, :.. ;% :..: &:..:;;,.: uw' I
A r
- n '~..a 1 l
t b.-./.
U.S. NUC1.F. Alt RECUI.AT0;tY COMMIGSiON OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCm ENT
,A RECION III.
Report No.M--37.-Y? 4 i 80 d.$ J/7d Docket No6'A -h ?.Q M.31 3 License No [ - Il-k NS_- 81.
Licensee: b.de.,.
(k... d... h (Name/ Address) 8 jc,xg \\dgf fa,_, p j g j
$* ' Y'.t.o. ~. _ _N W
& 0 'Lo /
Taci1Lty Name:#ln"-lo':.d A bu f= <. h.
R }& G.
}
Inspection Als h b.ml
.hYdlwd //l?
~
A 4
=
(Location f diffiitrant from licensee address)
Inspection Conducted: h C -3 I. 14 W (Dates of inspec1fion)
Inspectors e
W_.
/
(signature)
(date signed)
(signature) /.
(date signed)
Approved bys h \\d i un a. v s, 6hr/
qu1(
n.v ur,e)
(date signed)
Inspection Sumarv k
G 8
I I
e e
,~,
i
'w P.C 1005 4/77 M%,
o,,,
.i-a-
.en..-..
. l.
p a
l N
1 I
I I
fiu$
smt-~j
~
h,Ju%cn0d~1&2, mw ap.Wt. awa i'
%'-33 o/7 -
)
I!
k.vA.e..Whl) & & f y ~l y c~q$umgats y.acWwwmupMw er~h p.. n ~t k Nc{c{$$w h u A<,)p<m.-
cs C[er.
/6 Wi% xs-ch_l. 4/4 &Ai_, QAa a i; A u ~c.c.<
7
._ k: & yf-w. h ~ t._lso L t,.2 e: 2 4 7
X2-,); a:urc h
!cj ;w A.W p&jQsend, xu c
n2pIc An ]~
v Jz % ~' a sta.4 i
d4 y
3H., u~4p!L tso A s-& s n pqq.
. fs& M,9acJ& pabJ L:ni
.L:
h
& h ~,_,
Q ~. ^7 7
s_.
WC.% 5 0'Wl0 h
/
.,,A N b
. _._.p p n,i.c!w M R rg /a n n j= &.,~ x
.-. %l&n.(t.tc 4 & & yl> - Q,L A n1. *g L'
.1;}n~y LL%
L u.e.66:.g_.
- fA A a-4; A wyLj%f ' &s%pe.....
l w. a 1 2 ~ c y..j @a q x, p / ~ L 1
. Wa.. y e e g w n'
/
c e.bwW /&A &a, rf /1. s C
(
/
t.
i t.wx c1 __._._ __ _...
0
._... ci(k m.4,m pr w;a-f*,
. _.. _ ;l.._..
a
_.. _.. _ 9 b
k.
L
e
_m.=
s
+ - -
r e
4 bi
/
.bb:?./M, 3 L g
)L.~.Cid s L
[. _ _. _._.
.EM w v p.m u!s.,Sq M de/w h /4 y llt em-l
-. x.9.e 4,.
q 6%ihA a~vTV _..
_.. % 8. f.u/L 2.aD5 l=S-M ! R. N lak, [lu~, QA C k-~
(
y y
i G. 16.cL f g A-Ne w,'~
_..._.. l b'.1%g,y, A4 i pc~~p, Oudd 6 ba f $ (wv=~u
..._ _.1W h,; h W 4
~
7f 7
A._ R.-w cR, A e
' -w
& _ W B%us.,@Paub6p8 MbelOc t 9
..LA /k4.,ua u. Aw wwa u.am fuebSL0dj'. $A 6 m 9
- 6. h w.,,B + W b j a t c a A U
BuJta Cnp. %.Ljucht R.
b
.e sT. 6.dmck,bw @ c. k[a-/v4 /gwh
.. A l._ _
l
.ee.--c.
.g...a.
^*~
Y wc +-te s-p w~qpa.___
il,~,.gu.L}$N$huhAIx5wf>5E.T.~
A -L.bl nnc~nsu-c v'. c-4.. _ __.. _..... __.. _. _.._
__..,//4,Ar il i,
3,
..-..._....~......m.
g 6
,es.-
...,m..
.-e.-
T e
6 p
3 h)$OW5hMN
=
l.^
T.
.osA.,
j,9 p Kd c W ie -cA u n w a u q ul 2.~6
// My u< /y L w 4 9 - fc au w ey st J 4 W
4
!! Q y vw ee-ml
. m q u zk.
. b~ k <u An~4 -(f: seceu;/-/u c Aclb mlie-Q;e.,pk n-cl-i lef$55,cd*n.; E %a l.a2r a m a.e b-cGdfoL.L.twye a L /1y n. A G n
IWL, '
. b.).i 6 4 a. h c//.u f %
a w -(.e A m/.& ^CA.* k%,.A &&14%
a,
a.
0M%LA*t/Q/I./AL-
./M s
...2-80 SSfc) W N..d 7 W1'*
d f E..c l b p E n k de' S c.,6,. f
... - - -1 k s R.....
- QE iss-as].EvdA-M)-W E.
~~
b fA..w.hptsir puu4 nm M /c %. x..e, J d A. % c, y w % (..
C,p e d i i '. - 2 L. s s &la y bl< L a d a ~.
olt. ~Ack) ' d Md i
lV&4+uTAIn,-l.1;d<le21% A
$f-4L&L}/p& 4.
eci~. -. -
%!4ng's nl
,,.m
._....!ll3 su&:V~t%pm.4lzaYlm
+
ua n
uu
..-..J99~/:kjow l
s.
<~
n du ku.w f l.h.a qrl.
Ll l
. -.. iyfw.W.st-Af The
' 6y'....
We72~ >- t-2:7,/ 9 7& _ _-._
'l
I I
.O
//4
?.f..;/
- / _
I Y*,&
?
t ft Y
fp s
f RN W
f W w,,.A-cl< /L::
k b)'. s^",Lc-cL edi$ ed 4.1, c.
l f
l_!Y',L. 4C
'?"'5'" f.?f', l.
J
'&w
- i ste g kcJt% G. b IYhvY.*
5 l0~ja.
i a 4cG2e6n:,su.k-.4-
%m S
1 ( A1. g/ww 'id rdk C C h. & 4.:~. W p e k n f ~ % -d-17<c-c,4.';c
'_.J.4m/s-7
%.n p&.
-us en e
. f-T ' j /e c[WL;A uA- (.d>Jk.)>daf NEN.
Y
(
- )
h4 S
A
/ % }'~ Y-Y& A D%azp@A
-s
~;p J a n e & 4 O ' * ~u~t,,4+.h ' be.s Ac-~~~e-c,~d k n Q.
i 'N Nkt. ObN se Y h % r. A fi w &. $
ky~&.aPSdu&Jan~GRLfm._
,k im_wd un O
N Mg c..
.*.. **.==.= * -- = ~~ - +.j= ' Y 8
-=**
- e b
.f p%4, f
- k f.
M. t
%. b l.AY A.lw b~lgg.A g w JJ-M N)c.'Z a
ff5I1N.Gk
%'~f....
l
._ - $,L.1.i..f e X.-j jou % ' tf a M q, i n Pkihil - -
/
%..w_a est. &~-w. un L~
._.__ A C( 2% L~.puhl.
p I
I
t-r t
Y 3
c cbd.i.!"'/~~b..sei C
v I
lW A.t-75 lc'A' N J
A
. _...._ 4 exwlpd 6ttu M ~uj~dA._
!y.eJ J. ' '13 t i s 'L L,c y.
A
. ac. ln, c.4 e;a-te a. s. >9 &
r a
,e.~.
u n.n vn-L cc)
. h.
?ael-nW. %cy,0sf,-d6ec & u v
4 ypqau.-q C/m%ulcL&joc2d w-i.4a' s
!w-~$.n de 7ay,wa he.c.YckdA 40 lcey c Xu-cedm
-. _..,'etg <~Dabt. t/ca Tic,' d Ec-c J.r!cd j
.a o..._.
p t z. k at k 6 -A....
.i
.___j..!/hw. _. _ _ _ _ _..
bnkje.>
,, k.e, afwCy/cA(/d.c gulA.;/h@
y p ua s
' ri
. _ _.y p
__flekun.<.w 4 a(~a.z(.JXew c Nb_
u[{
r,.w.nc~.~ q e+r.~ ;c A fc.c.n -.
g o p s e g.; - c a A M 1 L w 5 6 ! %. y. t L G N _ %.._
w ~jo Q i-d n a e M.L-ly..kL.'.
l. u.ny csw ;~c.,.:c-acLd j, & 4 ___..
i e
l.-
..j% lu q.,c. y ' % A p 4 m e A e g. A h.~u j.
_h.c h.c~rt.I~ d c 4 - 7 B ~ c. _._.._....._
i o
I!
4-.
!i.-
- _ il
..._. y
-......-_.U-
g e64
, = =... '
.'I i
2 f.
ev C f' v'Q W a LNe d as.l4 x 4,4. H I u u. A XL r4.
l l
+;= % w.& Ar rLJJ Adn
..l;asq)k%duj.66.;s Luw'
%ym#4rk.bE..c &f.m. 4 3Altn-L h
i w a a a/ M 3-.
w 6.A <_ era Mdaf.-w. NAA 9
Ac.L.
ni$)i u>94. Je aph~ th.sia l
yl 6,a w ~ L.i L w - c
~ de,w...
a d i n & A 4.
!L(pcL.sjnb.oy2i%_ Mea a/9.~:u :~t id l
7
.-.(ph.<- R yev % fTle.ppc %.
'M 6aC.,,,
f h
_._. d h a d d'(/ %
iOdli M.4..Wla. G o.q p, s n'~p d M -
itc Td m%.
.. - -_-. iw&.co-A.=(. oyL CRa) k. t JLf4'--_..
<4stchQtL.hp,ct9 1
d ites _ L M 47 pK Lo-e_ u c
/
c L k M M M u d f 'tfz,-} b n_. c.iv2t.l,-t -
A3.RdskA%)tsJA. '
Sn G t %uu,g u 4 _
d
...._._l m. -us M rn...
. _ _._. \\ dl k m V., up d;qmJ.Mifyh & l&-..
W 4-A n a.u Q cbx.
-.......- lbs. ' ev.t,~ k '2,/919..
r
_ew,...m.
.. _ _ _ _.. 9.._...
p
r I.
~
\\
e s
=
Y'
$,,)
ii i
9.e A t d m % i J s. % h n
[
% b y L p [c w % p' p+ e M t k.. l v s fw a f pc.aA.tk dmt!A ~
n on rlw ks H Ajob.~fhv-1 e b.
r{.(
' al.e eo L,ac A&crlh-c
\\
[*'I:
, JA.s.+M P [7U*'.l**/
j i
. il ', Av
% %l L: - f/v% /
9 c
v
'M CA,,co.,*.N/ d. m '$ k (f! b 0A&v,<~&ot &(cA%%-c.R/s le~
on~af y 9 2 txus J.s..M.da w w a u$ e$n -l-c~ m.r
./GJ~4c4cp n.t wh.
6%w.d m wA.A-A-tA~MAJ-<-
w 1
p J-( +g-a.e 2 L 2 9 (- ef % &.ak Jax
. HasuqAmpt k m s w c a d ; s u a, u m -..,
-w.an
._.. L w u a%:. L e% 4 c.~~(_t. a % u~
Joo~ts
.3a.IN2 C gA X O W h K OE5~}(5 %
M p& l k ) p ~ 3 h a e n 'bl-e 8 A.2-..
e u r wo. n. ML_..
A0C ij
_.A-c.I.
A y'9.ftdd.c.1.-rgg/u p.W M
p
,~
!,oM An taAda-wMM._.
1 1
fr ndn.W n AvTA.odydzkk-u. -c.--.
_ $ 4 f w eb - 4 p -} J J. a
.,,,A. un
.-... 3 % n c b 3 < 3 W L kl-<1 d~ ne.<i s.u d u y
\\
i
.._..- h a ck &L.< o~d6-,~lhaD6-l%f m e. 10su W
-. bLsy:.g_.ilOn!i T/L..w ' M w.k c'Ltpu
\\c A LL y
._.!Os.k f d a!.',&, % c, L k w bQidQ.. -
. du%L. bl of'i.'.,c, R& club 6%2L.-e in
%w.',.. <
L. :. u... f.
i
_s"!
--=ws-<
.-me.m.
.n
{
r f
%t 1
1 b
\\,\\llp c $ca g w a 4 4 ',L )c.. u ~ e 4
.i...
04 6, W.r( -
!f(( h h t.4trJN*e
! % aa.c M ( %31 S.$d b. M /
d /a b ( 4 y/c A t j'.7&c4f.'S
?W
._. l._ yu. 4 4. h.,.Jg -xra c. d e+o-tice
\\
i am., - w 'fu/, ( Q.dC4 wpc
- Jwe. o A 's o is - o i Ic-c ' bi u.ckik-tz. Ak.--.
td-~c olo
.._._.l& vnekAe,1-y.-}d.~% ng M J M Kot M n 3.c i-N l
-ala. 9n7 b tw
._- }(ML V14y~'.'r~(naek,ww L u!
.se 54Ak j
I
.xtuks y
_..._ __. %l w m /0 4 72 2 h. L' a H. cl..~
c.~ 6 J A.p - w a p e n,-sso w v fy
.._....- W & M.
b -ela,.sd7. exb. in.14. N z.2R.... -.
joLy*. -tL apc, m/4,~J;.e.M Aa c w
._._. _ ! < u d c 6. d c - t / u J.A Aut. c
U e L L cAJ-s u A ; 3 /w u..cg i cJ
- f.....h/D t e u ~ L --
~!%L:
a ecpu+l.
Q A).
! /4-M~L ez.i7L, cfsc-njd.cQ
- t. ~ ed-c -e.b - -...
1
~*
.+ M 8
W d'?
./'
L.
.t J
Wq c/aAprpas.e4La<-.m%g
. m :c 4 b - t.1. s J c n w s n p u.l. - x - _
^
& n t'< 2 d Cene
'- $. c n V L 4..
~ ' "
^ '
y
_.._._. p u.c y w - a x. c., % q p J. & g ( y _ _
-.. pulexx make.4. i.a.y wL. w~ i.n -.
-ilo mA..$lu. L<..p/.<..e.:..*fcL(& 'u.c.t a.~.L._
.d-%.L*c-fca s %. I 6 - m,-t. A. M.i<., w r..
- i l
. hM,sc-4. A fa-6. emt/w laA
.-d Kdzu.-t;/ +<ac L u.-- i A 'it c 6.cnx.
yI I. I L
a--
.m 1.
.a.
,j s
.s
,,,,,%4,%
,....em---,-e.
h*"'"
- -"~#
1 a
g b
J d:cl5$&
m L c a ' r-c $'d.. d x c J a _. A h
/J&-
mk Yb^
l p%c&uu._ ur3p;..ci D'a A h~l<a.c-1
" OL w,A4_ gl. p=%c. C.A.e<~fo.-~
4-
_ u w u s p _ 9, _~.
4
. }V.l'lMAortv>hsgw[uJu-?
1 DM< tke,a 6%9<a%1b'-~-f.m~~7 Vcy %,b w u y VlAQ. dea ~Rlk y ilge.pa. di.p q <
M. u[,eu r 4 fac-L s ma-jdab-M4 pa-h%
..._. p. e{
- a en s
- . x.. -.
(
t
[
W Dl
... Acm. ti.e css., wl e,. d t u h 2 L&L 6--
M s.cm % se & L;.w s- +M
.h % A.4 khA..u % Lyte.M.
l
)$ ({X.&..cndsc4% q y;fa]safa~~%..
.1
- ~4-k
_kan as Lo! eAd>%y_;.hp{p&la
}
I
}e.cc. a i
k W t y / ~.a x ( Q e d e.
e
.i
.c
.mne~ <cje9 Mcen
$' w m G4 & cl4.
7 7%
i..
l d
f
-- pu1.E eL.. n~'-(c O.u.a,cg~L 4--effM..
q l
. - -. S - k J. b )<. % M.e./
. a J~d. p:
~.
Ac
]!/</,,16A pn % %.L s i vATL L.n -.~ b < m.,,x._ b A.
M :s~k.
7
..Qu,. ). -e,AA.ndM.
p..._....__._._..._....___._...._..._..._
il
?
i.
i 9
5
.)4h d a $ N_[-e.ul..fua /c L !h L < g &.4 l
I y
a
/
l f0b' % A M.% u.
g a
i
<!/ f_st.
A o~
jbz k. L.<.tua.Lb.c% @L. Lylg%
}w r ibsn ls.A. 4 oenim r m a.,,~L.~u-A y + d c(. d e d. y - t } 4 /o i p J a t
,Jp stssw w c.4. wi < 9~.-/ -th
^
W-Ad 0 p
%~,p ew,~; %ypa auu.c.ga4j~~y+~p p~.
f e-l#d Lv4 u
mvmsk 1
i i
c L w & e L M+ 9 L - c c
a~ e Al-L:,.
e.uA y-t ah.o - I \\s a.,A ? (.%c Ad<axL I
,Ok y&Li. cbA.~ - /so A. k<-,,- twle-. W..-..
p h 'n a' a a q ~ a y w w. x.- -
W ch dt k vid66(L &tfq,o.a.c2A lc W[@la~;.e. om~!a lAfvaejm
... % &.<,/ u A h l< 6 A z. 1 /a..
W h t o.-.J,- o i A
.. -bdsu y &
ua~/ d 6 ~im u4 4 p A 7dC l%LLJ M
,e m '.Lm.dn~c3aA.
1;x nf md.&c!4Aa14 imeL.%.o-c_k
_halsk. m)s ~j % ~ L u d in e t d.u ~
i l
. / ~.7
-,o ~ p cc ul, ho a - 4. /4 m C L L. w u c~usk.
p saabsc.u,1tsw.ct __ _
._._...pfc4,.}.jor.:s - a.~-( olk;nkt1,d k M.~.<
\\k~ CVa cf rc~cc-fM.
in-/c
_..._%b.~6'{D.Zclae4Comhu.a21,v/~$;y._.
y
. pa.
. ~.._. _ _.-
9 4
4
'I
< 3
/ 6 9
u.
h i
e q
4 4
3 j
$Wu1)w 'cEik MMtl2. dpN%6
.e.AkA dc~,W W /-u A ic A z d L1
/
. _ _. 9ib
-OMb b
/
/
e
% e u n' h f & Y I - 1 % C b (A N
$LU k
J J4.
.% ~- b A A W G W 2, a f d ~ m n O c' %.I s.. _.
I l"'
WA =s, n 78. dlne.,b.he e.b pru~,,w.,, e.cA..
e-e M
_ M/ p Nu. $.e M _.. _
4
.k bw., ukA.,c.
._._ _.... hp/j e i= %.$sbL p epaa 4 4 1
.gimi.>
-ee.m.=W*_.
.gpup..
m.-
e.h 4+_e emp.o g.pa--
.mmm.ey..-a..
3.
._m.
I i.N ee.u.
ese Mmew.e-D e.m.
..s e.
e gem.p a-.sm.
g.e-Pe.
@-.ukD.*w we.
.h
.>-mus.i.
is e..-
. m emeew
,e m..
-.m
.h
.g G.r g.
m
.m
.a pmm.e e
.ey e
m.m.O e.pp e.w_
.N-MD 6 64
~ ^* l,
y
.v 1
4, i
4
- 4. _.
-.l s.._.._....__..
l
.6 a
,+:_,a m
b O
b
-l
_/
/
9 - p.:.Lt.
U -t u~K Jlp
'p,J.& A4 _ ~
V-i 4 jil
- L G7Lp %M
~
amim e g
Wi>ed ep. -oc 44 N
$c.
u w 4-
,.g g y" u -
t,nM Mof<.%
^
.i m.l. Lk e
- %'msu l e T k w O $ b
].
ua
. e' i / Qu / C 5b d. j k. kk$ $
~ ^
l'//T-[.WbyA
..4 4.k 4 - c/<. 6 d G ~:-.p g. g,,d,.
',
- i) Yr'
... ?. i.. '~~ *.; '
~.
3 w
7 '*.[ I i
.,, 3 N
..,,s}, l e
' 6-
~' (;}
4,
.d N
D f
9
~,
e g
as
. u... _. ;,_ a _ _,'
~ - - * - -
r.
-,.m.
,' ~~~~ " e-j o
4 I
l I
l aj l
..l l
- l
.~
e are 5
OG c
(cnf 3 c a y e n u m<
sceu v
" Y 4WoNKM. s u p
' !>. h
@A J W a' 1
c
- t. 3C,+
QA 9-k&
9 W K S 4 w Apac,
($ '
C E. $ q a k n L L ~ t
/ L OMW
$ D. )&%
4 6. fwk R
,1%IdwQ ~pesu oe z, gi YI-c f, y,
M W 98 L y e
l I
8 9
e g
h
- y. l.l/-l 7;,
p w i y. u y..,.
SC/
~ ' k N
' E :.z -({ Y \\L
- )d..,~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
c A1 % A ul' YW au pswi + us-4 cs d a( A '94 % 1 * *4 w ol,0 l W -)
e i
%deLycg $ S W):loe n Wml o
& jz e& A J rh /LM h %tf'A f%~4 # CUSN
%atitL Af W Y~'>)'djoi- --
^"r ~
2/ j da s M p e M q e^.. p
. 1 p~
r int y I911.
,7 =wLWM L f, ? ~ a X b s c L M uen.
1 CL Mke p&t,$W2 wk sLe <<
jWc $-h M,M Mw k o
~
n
- "a v.,
e.o,,
eo
~
QtLk
,G,,. :.p.L /u allcwsi4 gy3045 CMu "A-%Q w A
&A AA cF9.no efr&h m p -.L t? ~ P k M g/w Lky-at LE w
ji m.,a. d.
A ca (, a. f..
+Mk '
d5 uca~s, ji,[x j~!_, Ly
&t i A D & "$y$ & &%
p % na~~-
O
~
-~-,-._,-.,,__,}
~~
e 4.nm 4 g
6 m
e.
S s e e e t a n g a x ; & m.;
h!'"l'1W h*% Sd~bbhh4yaL, a n ta ag a m i
,t a 4 d =k 28 @ sMi
& 4 L[ Ly t pk 4~1< At"& a%M4 g 'x 1y> x l' Ap. e nLa>A g
womeA ud A A~CIe jfW :.sjej,iSA&C77//~LA -
n da.
ppn N%
/Lla~Cc~~&<[./ ehY jflo. Afd/2.
2D3 4 k
& < b sk m k
&_ss wgum %
q b J A-t ~ p k W eLmta m p
~
nam a,,
- -S
+,-
O ere W
g - n Le CaJrG psm&hhhN W h5 tbAh" j
wn-2aoenem fm a 64
( 3 4c Q' a AW, gaf. dk A'A{ "h
%n qw aLy Efu~t pe'O^
^*
W6 A ~ W ' M "'
$>ai /AleAC '/[ANM t
44 45w gee zom 0
tk alb M'"1 w p)ra M k DThi% s A
-4piuAyA.Aah p'4 5(&
r s hay y
sdA M W h
-g M.$,:;,Lupunuh4 0fR~
fjh._ f W
s eca wkL~ gag j : l z w& y G 4 j a y - Q Q-p n e, > ~p
=' R"i fl m
n44 F rL
&A.
mi c c
',1 t "
- p ~ ; fv p %-t'7"~ p -
wimem 4
es ak #
n
,.5
(
=ps
=
l l
~?
L
~~
/
n,y _ g Y a.s. g,;g %,,h d(
b M
ng x
%^e Aw,og
-n-M keda &+
e
- G
=t t ~ a s n K e~Wa ecT4y, 4
~
2 H
h t-KM
- fe m t L a&
6 A J W i ~,z rk &' s A A k
,F o
_4.,
--.. ~. _
e f
0% dofhkM4aoy&ugn
>1% xs vnauxs waas
,h=u T,4WL 0 8 Af
- k. yt~,w,nm 9
a odA AT A - Q "[4674 M Q h~ A It #4 d C
dk ;a4/dd4(M w +
bM eMctb% AW&&
s A 4 % 6ti %
t21L k & % d Cao n s % ~ ~ f m L JA A W /4 wh w 6e_SC&AM t f
e n
d Ad%ga &heg%' ec pJM v 6 'Xer
<A @ M& na % ka Yf
/0 /9 '7 f, 7
l I
l l
i
4
. er a
+
.A h
. dena44 A 454 a..
. 4 M*Jr - Jwd -
.4 W
we.*
O I
O
%2 M Q'%#%1k BsIJ ALyg_
4
/d-1 Q, St y d 3, 19, 9
~ Ou h 9 - p k
h hg 7
t Abd num/~ L y
y G~ W M
~
tw n iw&atwdapuua b~IA Ak
$kupp/4 cal ~; @ wk qtt h L 24 hf9LW -s,en. w pifcA. syi n CMd4 L
w t S;. p;L @ A"e } " W pg&
t
= "~
~
a..
e
=s.,
// @ 1) W w q csk#i me s ~ q u 4} ~ r L un
~
'M MfhdOr & / w 2
M I
% W.Q N&c IdetJM A
k gp*
sci 9A emap W aa4 %
keiAu W </+Ah M i a Q @u ; t t u & o ab w
Aa Qu n_L. %k i;&& An, ik O
I i
i l
o
............... ~
... -. ~
o
,M >~Jm a zi-m 3
8 A f w )~T p d - W s A k:6t L
w A% lyM, tat kl M z 9% JJA/t rr-87AM ue,q de % A a M 4 an a 4 JLLM? pMW pp-aqa wHku~%
4 n a wbeg w w;le h b M hum AtAt 5 tb N)*h~4
&i%
Gm
- %A d
& e.
ALa
& a&&: gA4CM 4 e
p n96' A :g a t+~L n
SW%M-d CwQt haA A
tat da c cr-n zk $k @" A mr R Y
I
~?%
Yl kre-< Y Q w &
a 99",e
,e
--_y
,p_
e t
5 e.
L u% ~ frugls. % ce?
u 4 Se coe reue d.
McMa emye Q t w i d h a b n ci d W b%
y
&4 n,, ce a a sain e
4@fsp AgA-(da. essl ~ Q ( jLufig sp cP& Np w a v g g % M.-e M h daA A Wh aW mtaei n wgg m wblaw f.s caak % ' used n F 4 M esa k& c& cduc 4 AA.gg4RiwAM i
s keL#g gu%
wtp
%pm
~d 4 4 Matt m"u 7
a-i Wa jK" dr. L% '
- tdi1h h y% @2e.a%
ee c
sk u m o % b, g@'
est c
kid h :w 0 g /
CW s~
- A m mawvam JA w & wt1.k p%q 9cEp4M p4le/
vn A + t-e 71,01, b M A MA i 54 7,3 f
~
M NNb4 A7 e. b p A 4 tifo l
AC w
WW a
7.,4 %m pes %(%wtUdbd h%1
@cra sre%% et:4kcw c
% ay nM % Law &aAl e paghnW -M A pp
? T4%< co cPen]
L m
a > d $n O
y
e It c4 D
F '. g ' g % p d a t S ~ L < ~
es% "- h*gAa cor u..,
zwo
- s 4 c ers, &,
y p af-7/9/
c L4 rr I
g fja hY L'
f i
\\
=l
4 8
4 e
g o
D Pld w W. C0%
Jy RW 94nd A W apt sJ ap 27, /1,1 s1Abu-4 7 e a c. ; p m a ~ t c P u,a n 4
6 e
I l
E
~
~'
~ ~ T::~
. S O
t
=..
OU@ -.
g lt'CPE So
./E' hl-Q)~}ol
[b[
/NyoN j%.dkj 13 shkc4f," 9-+d d
h
(
Ga WkTA 1, /9 > 1 tbD: aAA A'N g
M co-W&;a9 94
% g
. cr-sy ema M An ?h Y
H pw~ 'e, <<% an, A
g p
,-+~ s,
~
g
^p,L le a
y' ' f3%~wu
,e e. ;;. =-a i -
c
& +,x c
i C
a
.--4et4 m
.e6 G
(22,o ff CA Bf # /
x, d w q u m. ~,,,
$82-A Of 4 y) 6
&~%
po p, L
^
03p;.
as Um e
n m-
- .e em
.,e
.._..a,._________.__
~~"**w--....
Sq & w q b d e k O & u'02 L 4 W Ly-~ W h W &, J) C Q & g
?
m.sts u
wn WR %dssB ff Ab-rg&+ b%gW Gd4 bwm
% s o d <A L M o th c et - ~y a 6 -//; % p
='
b
/uA G pt g l & W e &,2 4 ~
h Ak t
g en% e wLgT cr i
w y 4 sc-, f aA 4 p w A OT*
klin f_W
, a e6 5
&W d
S( T-8 7 j n f Q
- g i(%
M -t 3 w % d W ~
W2 Jm 94 92~l d-8 7 Pl dJh
%LA AptAM d& A pl MA
m
.o
- l.;..
\\/
i TELEPHC,NE CALL Midland Project GWO 7020
/
DBMiller Route T. C. Coo' By og PMO-Construetion DARichards To File Of
- *I l
Date Nove' mber 29 19 78 Time 2:10 P.M.
N B 3.0.3 Subj ect Call from Starr Eby - Midland Daily News in regards File to Diesel Generator Building Settlement 4
Starr called relative to A? News Release regarding Diesel Generator Building Sinking".
She had a question concerning which other buildings were indicating excessive settle-I responded that I was unsure what buildings were referred to in th'e news release; ment.
~
however, we were not concerned with other buildings settlement at this time.
Starr then asked what exactly was Consumers Power doing to stop the Diesel Generator l
Building Settlement.
I explained that we in essence simply were adding weight to coc-
'solidate fill material, thereby stopping settlement of Diesel Generator Building.
To clarify the issue I had to explain the concept of concrete wall & footers, the fact that no ground floor slab has been placed, the estimate that we will place approximately 15-20' of sand (meximum) inside and outside the exterior of the Diesel Generator Building in approximately two weeks and an analogy of the cooling pond and power block and imper-vious exterior dike seal as compared with say a plastic wash -basin with a styrofome or sponge section in one corner representing the power block area which would allow water j
to penetrate same while not allowing this water to leak through exterior seal into the outside ground water table.
Starr then ' requested that she be notified when we started our actual fill operation.
I agreed to do so unless due to the press of other business it slipped my mind.
1 O'L Qj t
i yw yzThgxG% W Em @ m =EiC c
l O
4 d
C C
A__,-_,..,_--
k,Q i
r.
To File TCCookb
'p
'I\\ij
[8D rno 4 ggsg DArc June 13, 1979 4Ng */
N NQ C0H192Dil suoaccT MIDLAND PROJECT CWO 7020 -
A/
NRC SITE TOUR AND OBSERVATION OF TEST PITS File: 0460.2 Serial: CSC-4138
,,,c m comarseonecuce cc
- Attendecs CSKeeley, P14-408B DBMiller JJZabritski, P14-416
- Bechtel and Consumers attendees only.
I.
Individuals Present:
71
)
Sherif S. Afifi Bechtel Assistant Chief Soils Engineer R. E. Lipinski DSS /NRC J. P. Knight DSS /NRC Daniel M. Gillen DSS /NRC C. A. Hunt P. A.' Martinez Consumers Power Executive Civil Engineer Bechtel Project Manager
~
- A. J. Boos Bechtel Project Field' Engineer
- R. J. Cook Resident Inspector /NRC
~ ' " ~
- T. E. Vandel (Entrance only)
US NRC Region III Lyman Heller US NRC NRR T. E. Johnson Bechtel Chief Civil / Structural Engineer K. Dhar Bechtel Supervisory Engineer T. C. Cooke Consumers Power Project Superintendent D. E. Sibbald K. Wied Consumers Power Senior Construction Advisor
- D. Horn,ner Bechtel Engineering Manager Consumers Power Quality Assurance Group Supervisor / Civil R. M. Wheeler Consumers Power Civil Section Head
- Part time II.
Discussion Tour Comments A.
The individuals from the NRC were extremely interested in cracks in the Auxiliary Building, Service Water Building, and Diesel Cenerator Building.
Many questions were asked regarding differential settlement.
They seect to be under the impression that there was a great deal of building settle-ment other than the Diesel Cenerator Building and that large cracks exist somewhere on the site. We continually had to reiterate the fact that remedial actions were based on soil borings which showed questionable material and not settlement problems.
Mr. Lipinski, in particular, was vary interested in why we had cracks and analysis regarding same.
B.
During the tour it was apparent that the NRC's questions were oriented C
towards scismology aspects. They were also interested in whethe or not we had re-reviewed the different seismic conditions in the light of our a
e C
r Pega 2 concrete backfill revisions for the Auxiliary. Building, wing walls,
..etc., since the addition of concrete could cause new reactions and forces requiring reanalysis.
It was noted that the concrete. backfill would be ' separated from the structures by styrofoam and not tied to the structures.
I The NRR alluded to possibly more stringent carth-quake requirements.
4 C.
When observing the test pits, Mr. Heller expected more sand in the
" random fill".
It was noted that sand was used primarily around utilities and next to buildings.
D.. Mr. Heller appears to be of the view that the simpler engineering fix.on the service water overhang,. such as ' concrete backfill as op-posed to more complex remedial action, would stand a much better chance of passing review, due at. least partially to the fact that much of the available manpower in Washington was involved with Three Mile Island and also.because simple. straightforward engineering prac-tices will be much easier to discuss in any hearing process.
The NRR was informed that ' piling at the Service Water structure was only for vertical load and that no moments were involved.-
It appears that possibly Mr. Knight's staff has been reduced from about fifty to near eight, with the forty people being tied up on Three Mile Island activ-ities.
There will be a corresponding cutback in the normal amount of licensing activities that will be undertaken by his staff over the next several months.
d- ~
'NRR noted that they should receive copies of any Diesel Generator
+- -
R.
.A
-M
~
(total site related).natcrial that is being transmitted to Region III directly from the licensee.
It also appears that Mr. Knight is more interested in resolving the Midland fill problems in the near future on a "real time basis" as opposed to later review and approval func-tions such as might be found in going the FSAR route.
(Note: Consumer Power Company has been attempting for weeks to arrange a mseting with NRR but it was not until the week of June 4,1979 that we were able <
to set a meeting date with them of July 10, 1979.) He recognized that presently the licensee was involved,in answering the same or-possibly similar questions on three. fronts, namely the I&E questions, 50.54f responses and future FSAR revisions, and agreed that it would be bene-i l
'ficial to all parties to consolidate these areas.
During the tour it also appeared that in the-future NRR may become much more deeply involved in the details in all licensing aspects than they have in the past.
F.
It would appear that we should provide more rationale and better argu-4 ments for support of duct bank and pipes and man holes, valve pits, etc. during the seismic event.
We have to vnrify or prove that duct banks, for example, will not ' shear during the earthquake.
Mr. Heller was of the opinion that our responses on the safety aspects concerning the borated water storage tank lines will have to be extremely con-servative, and that at this point in time for our responses to be accepted, he would be inclined to'say that questionable material should t
be removed-and fixed rather than going through some complex explanation as to why it was " acceptable as is" since this was a Category One item which would be required during the postulated accident conditions.
I 1
i i
>'. p gy 3,
i.
c.
. ~ ~
L[u
. Generally the NRR' personnel appeared to find the information gathered during the tour and observation of the t'est pits to.be of value and the type of information which would expedit'e ti. air decision making process.
T e
-p1w O
e LV, * - T ' se e
, e e
e e
i 1
i e
+
1$
e W
Oi 0
e
,,,,..._.,_,,,.,1
/,
- (),
fa/ ASzz ceL y
Ost Du 4, n,1
~
0 1 Imd Q 04 fak pc
<6 l-had& 4A/tec n
e w Al<(
- 1 ~ h 4!!!L A AB N 7
f f4% h D gr 8 On kd 4 @
7 ad es
@+Lpc p ~t de k 1 A
9 aW pH wq<Aug
& L # 4 & & A $ p - ~+
7 M a4 mm. % Amhs
$ V l w e. J i c k r k p u a q O
_________.__._________________________.___._.___m
m Ma L Qa fm \\
~
of#nym w9xy/nyedwta w @
ye
' W & 4 }2uh d u W & &
a WLG4 yam se+Wl-put,Adky uit +4 O
'~
~'
a e
e.
l' A h
.C W w-yea 1
(19 n q u w
gf e m
y ht +
e s t y M a a 'u k t ~ (f ~ j a 6 eh q A'~_
a L c D a & fas di e k da/si &sA& wAM.
o e
G O
_-_---_:X--
---__L
~_T:_
L -_ '-T :-' r---
x
o-c 1 4 /LL 40
.W ohm *Ln& w b~H 4 %
y 4in4p
(~apa. %
Ax1 b mensi h h/fk N fL1 YMf q_
W w e_w u-ps( A
)
c
a.
T, v--
gg g-Tw_
_-g------
---3--
w-,
7 G
e 1 k a Na-c tan kbcrh@ eW
/
sa
+g atsu akq-lLWSY y4nia+Lf4 %g et y J9-) e~p aa%.
[
p d& Q n
~
w - au k
- pa% tHd uwJn/$du sdQ& nq,uum
~
Alet t i m n;t w p a d 4 &
h (t~ & [ & d d k A &t L l p -
SL%-aw +
l
6
.....-mew----.!
..--.c
'mm..
r e
e
-~
e any k uana u sd <= + _A oL@&
r(&L 42'c esk shtAsi l'sy n W 4 &.
kN swaawa
)w
. +~ e, h 4
-&-a % mfes r
twux e
l c
J
4p.2:26 6,-----'3
%w w= 3-w:7---
'v v- -T M
9
(
e pw
//,a9 d ul/ A g // & e a1 ;4,dif14 e di se k 'k Aa 5 csvnce aN la sw/ '
ade h
&,vii o~t L,/gd& n %
he Kf w
' '( LDi w 7
r
&k BRA f NAd y, yd x
p AM s uts
[Sub
/2ENNI b hDW{&kh~%
l ~z s% A, w' % qs&4
'a
~
i
%e % htd.q n~e-f /c A k
d
,u pc 42 5' kk da e L esid$!A
.h
/Q eMe>f.%!
g iv -
L mf a wn En Wl dYh 1
O nl O OV L
f gocaeec w, Wde tw %
apA Ck/u L
g = f L.haL'y &a ce Ln tc_f g t";8 Q k A
k J^ ~ ^~7 m
-m
3WWWIiE
.i.
O b
?
d-0%sk /e,0~ff%M,AL w
t_ ap eA 2 12e r ~ d $ 6 R d 4 1 l v %
y 84gaus:e % W a y t t D A, Q b ir2 p/ 4A -N 7
sn -
.dARaJ m!2?k!?fD +Lx QsL q~~~~
bk a w % +s e c-
- 4m L&'t+
Af As a~ e A, A l
6 u,+ ~ ~ c n tag fx J
NR.
E M-MW LA h n
t LeLL x 4~Li(A) a 66 pf&% iazthbd su r,+ /a h a cg a W enw&w os N
j A
& M d
svLa& s>N 7
t ek l- %
V~ckQ eJA tu <L 24 L.T
(
Q f f R c6
?
% a% e~qLars &AQ h
e
4
~'
e o
-6 c wa qA &a A
%-/k cJdLeM
/an & An O /S w Lek " !"
y N
u % ;s pA c4e y. Lla.
hA h M R S4 N -[A cM
'h Q
(o A 0W, l
I 9
r i
e b
O-se e
d sah Alt & h,A46
/
/
.Ku eg D&
c>aL &
Ah, i ~ awl +(%&p& drL@<y.
Jyg cu m as g4
.~
}
m
[
N V
O a y L((t m d 24 A k
~
S i
e
.. +
..g
D gr O
4 S
%.\\? H l 0
ed
~k I-31 n,9 O.
l'SfL M L&
NA6 W ekkaM d.c8068f1 g (yge-ew
%. T c.c 4 n.c f a (pag BP z.e W7 M n.e N
Jl 1
+
m
C PROJEC TS. ENGINEER!hG Coltsumers AND CONSTRUCTION-l POW 8f CUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTFAENT c= m ORAL COMMUNICATIONS RECORD o.$.2 ( rQ c-,.in -
MN PAu l er I I/17[79 J.L. Conw/. R.c,.ukuncy AxSuwd ;
u.ruc rme=u. rancrear:a mu er comnums f.d.GAuAedL f)JPL iM\\
/
/
g 14 4'l maarums) m L
-p a w enerc=murm C6.T b.Ac.4 de..
meue er Mtbt.AND Quwr/ QowmeAmc4 or Qon,ud (octQnL h*o*WGL-rmncs Am/cm macrs amne, Mt c-mo,oca_ das ene w ne nesects or ras -restmq
= -r
or Bemn QoAuw coxact W% Pee. eeft Amsmans in buscos kapocas vb T $ 6 Itxeon. *79-10.
T L.de igrcAMeb IMt Gn.tAsaett nar hAsen cc tus kescer.s cr 7%e h Ttsvinn ) *1~tW LEVEL.1 QC brTeustomuuc. soSelbliscQ obit;L Bf MN%b
-ro RetuttM To His PCtswiens Rss9cusihttenEs Aub A LeNc6 GR Nsewn.V isth lu %CSf *T1ENSioOINA dnLL TAKE nts ht.A(.E,.
- b. kW.AAWEfL IRbicATED IT QAS ch
% OS IF QE (ButTCb Tb kn. ass RM. kr octt._ ow 0 Rxsc. Non. re h. elm @tated cr Teos Br.3w ccmPutm!h.
de Aesuewe Wus AssSteus.
b.T INbit.MiEh 'TMPtt' ALL T*eNbd (45DELTicQ QN *Tu6 CM6 @6 GG tuwsou_ is beins, thewnriso ven_ M1 Astrnam_. twoo tuswoo:nce ItammeAknal,
AC. meal QAf. IMCCMDLCMa. ht' G4 T'skC, Aub QCobb h6 lue.u3 heb 44 AkTi h.CShontG Tb T&G i
1 OQ.koulek 1 T E b\\, e r T* ~79-10 A3 (tngc M Sy h%., Qu. Lact,d..
3 bk..
ET)ltsse.b Als cStutoM TM66 nc LONS SollplLAM Tk8K' AkNous Missco Au4 Qoesttals Es Pec.4%Y cu %s 9ckrohMAucs Mmed.
e.t.ko F. S. me.u "T". C..bodC h. c. M A % oc.tso
- 4. L. C.ctu.ci b. %. Nu.ca--
cs, s. K cc
- l b.A. To e 'T
.