ML20095A197

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Determines That Info Transmitted by 830721 Memo Should Be Issued as Board Notification 83-106
ML20095A197
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 07/18/1984
From: Eisenhut D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Novak T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19258A087 List: ... further results
References
CON-BX18-028, CON-BX18-28, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408210404
Download: ML20095A197 (1)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- _a.--. ~~ "'"M' ,. :a;- ' t'I4 i,- . n f Mruq% 8 UNITED STATES 8 h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~ h WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 0 8 %,,*****y MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing ~ FROM: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing S0BJECT: BOARD NOTIFICATION 83-106 I have determined that the information transmitted to me by the enclosed memorandum (memo Warnick to Eisenhut dtd 7/21/83) should be fomarded to - the board and parties for Midland according to the procedure of Office Letter No.19. Please issue this as BN 83-106. / arre isenhut, irector Division of Licensing i

Enclosure:

As Stated 1 fjjB g o4 e40718 RICEB4-96 pop .-<--s- - ~ < - - .au...._~ ~.--.._n

- g g. 3-,g3,x .a..:: .~... -.:......./. ....:..~,.- ~.-..- u.. ~ a c, y,..t.3.g .o- ,3

i. v. a.

h g,,;,,.. c ns ;4 g.,, yyl; .G, fi h.$ '%~Qd ?- .m.g. a,4,,,._q., s,;;g..g v

.z
s.i.. y. Wf. f./_ w,., m n-.g.,.

ay .g c ._ j.p' -M Q. .n. u.a g e. .p. M.,g,. g. :.. i = 7 s, t ' e f.?.+ %. - . " M >> p g. Q g C g 'j g.g:~ ...J' ej c,. a.u.. ; ., w - q ff ~ ^ %y . t y, ', *;* r?....'- s *? metLg.t r . r, u x, w.we ~. - .,, 3. /-;p w w.g &

, yg.;.-.,,yc,3%

hh. 1 e S r W'.'M Docket Nos: 50-329 OM. OL >n ~ _n, and.50-330 OM. OL -" W 3 F.m.g.g .. c. m ~ am /, .. % w a .v . ay ;m ..c m .-., a,,,

.,.y s cg.p>j:c

',p. .s. ~4 . ~.1.e3 l y. %) F.' M .; j m s 4 _m . 3,1: '. '.: J s, rea; ~<:wr M E, I. 4 [* , ;.,(* . * ' ~ - C f '- u m a~ p v , --## &g:B - 7p. MEMORANDUM FOR: The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ~f ' for the Midland Plant'. Units 1 and 2 W E S.s g FRON:- Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director . -g:pp,qg3 for Licensing. Division of Licensing e y 5 ~.m., s e e r!. M '4,- s -i;$

SUBJECT:

80ARD NOTIFICAfION - NEW INFORMATION RELATING WM Ed.1 TO SOILS REMEDIAL M)RK. WELDING AND THE DOW

  1. 'TR CONTRACT (BN 83-106) j fh.,

~ ~ ~ ..r n iy This information is provided in accordance with the present NRC procedures regard-q. i "2'. -' j ing Board Notification. .". 4 % ; , f.

.l.;.

-The following information deals with new developments in various aspects of the P,7 Midland project. Portions of the notification may be relevant to the Midland OM/0Lc " , 'S ! proceedings in areas of soils remedial work. HVAC systems, Quality Assurance and ~ 2( 7~ the Dow Chemical legal proceedings. q

1. - og g g-Any additional information relevant to these issues will be pro.ided in a future -

Board Notification.

f. Q,

."t \\ \\% 1.t r>~? s =. y

m. x
v. ;.

.e Thomas M. Novak. Assistant Director f for Licensing ~' ~ ~ s. ^ Division of Licensing ~.,,. e-J.,

. r w
  • t

.c .. + .s -t + w 4 ~ DL:LB #4 TA:DL DL:LB #4 AD:L:DL HM111er/hmc SBlack EAdensam TNovak 7/ /83 7/ /83 7/ /83 7/ /83 -,,e ,,,.,,w._.,. , * -r y .m.a e. n r e e ~- rs 4'. s ..-..1,,.

_L

...____,.___.__.,,._m,_,--

W u*.. e.g.l., & &k .G 2 E., ? ' ' Y. 4 g a.. 4:w..a.m }.Q a. . c y: q.ggg.gg@.gg *.. E. h f.k Q ? ? & ; k. h. W.q g '*9- ~* ._,2..,.,,. 5

  1. ,s m.e.u W. u gy. s....

.S. .W. %, ,.y.o,f s.. ~

  1. .. '?

Nhf".LJ-*":>*./'.) ;. f.)w w ' ~,. ~ ~s. o ,7 ON,e..+- Mpo ? ~,..-&: j & & & $5hlf f

h. )' j h..' y

. 6 m m 5_ . R"l, h,5_.dh,m.5 h7. ff;[$.,3: x.._.4.x_k$?I$hh;. h.g _. m S k,W&l,A c,g. ec6 's @ *g?rg% m._-y,...th s .um. c, _.% e.,., 4,, . ~. v (-' _' " Z. + *.v bN$ f . [ .....a. 'l 4 wk:,.jY.y i., [. l 2.2 Docket Nos: 50-329 OM, OL and 50-330 OM, CL f. _,,[' ' l'MG@.M$Q/F#f% J.

w.-,. y en gf y,g%%$

, 4,v c .s m g. ..s . a f;, y. ,,..,.,. L. ; Qu%M3:74.%gy ,,w 3, cam ww mp.r ~. g-,,e..- m'.wpg M... ~ FEMORANDUM FOR: The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ' ' "'.JM@@S%yF j n 'S ~ for the_ Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2. -+: oc a nr i 'iMM , 4; '- e -y -; tu,1b54.W:&m.&.n:.6 Z. FROM: Thomas M. Novak* Assistant Director _,"w>. .g: - - D'. r GM.w.w ~- r j for Licerr.dng, Division of Licensing f- ~ G%g; fq SU6 JECT: BOARD NOTIFICATION - NEW INFORMATION RELATING.,,/.m '. s '? CONTRACT (BN 83-105) . [.. y - f T 4 ; p.. m:.p ~.. ~u -Q TO SDILS REMEDIAL NORK, WELDING AMD THE 00W /. . -?ggy M an a /

- % wwg; y.

Q.M This information is provided in accordance with the present NRC procedures regard %..A f1 ing Board Notification. ~: ..- ~ : - -.. ', X.;b n D The following information deals with'new developmentr'in various aspects of the - T'y ; i <.~ +r m lM. Midland project. Portions of the notification may/be relevant to the Midland OM/0

r..y proceedings.

I% 2,.M .3 j -~ ,nmag ,w '[ A. On July.11,1983,.the licensee suspended / ell Service Water Pump Struc-Ml$ 0 ture (SMPS) related-dewatering well drilling because on July 9,1983, . %Q in two separate drillings obstructions drilling in the vicinity of the SWPS r/were encountered. Presently, emains stopped pending comple- ' &y i tion of, corrective action. On July 20, 1983, the NRC was informed that one of the obstructicas was concrete pipe and not the bedding .1 material as originally thought../

  • ":t F~.

The 'most recent Stone & Webster we,ekly report ' indicates several pro- .p 8. ~blems including antimely resolu, tion of outstanding NCR's. The pro- ...;. g., blems defined in the S&W report indicate a continuing lack of atten-l@v ^ tion to detail in implementation of soils remedial work.. The licensee's response to Region III's question as to why soils work <, ;d. ~ should continue is attached. .. fi t i _.On June 29,1983, resumption of safety-related welding work on the f d:J ],! L s. -l .D ', C. P Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning systems was authorized'by 'l ~ C., . the NRC. The wort had been suspended November 30,1982. ~ .,n.. /, D. 'The lead welding engineer in" the remedial soils program was fired ,J June 29, 1983. The firing followed a investigation into his ~ 't P;' L 1 instructing an individual to falsify weld rod withdrawal slips. 'L l3w ' This incident has no safety significance since the welding involved ~ ~ structures considered temporary. ~ ' ~ -l r - I l-f

<.j a.(

g b; ~ N - O*h

_____l, I

~.,,,,,,L__ .------~---E ~ ~ - " -*-" "~~'~~"~~'*~ ' ~~ ~ '~ ~ ..,,m.,-- r~~

v ~v W 7;,

~:. ) ' ^

. a,,,.,.j.,,. h j j -~ x-g.* ~y-gg7,yIw;Q,%a L-..4..-.~.,, ..,.~;.-e -:.c.p y.s q m M,; g, w w r w y + w >v 7...- p e 4... p, w

..g~e.., n~.

3 ....: g.9npg.v4.,.,.y... y.%.e.m..a.a,v.a.,,,;y

c. m, m+ p g

.,, c%. ..u. % m .MG w.a.-S.,,.,.

n, x.r.u m y m..

m>,mw,:%n.a.m.,i:g MM

  • a. ;W,.,. T.. ', ~n.n. V:.>:

43ryn. jfpeW L 8 -w y . ;n.,y.. c.. <:p &:; *u.* m.y % WQ.m:$2,.. c ~ _'.. /j..pgf., 4.a ; m.p ; g.q,*,.....,- .w

  1. ~

w. se. r y .n~.a. ar.

r. 7,* s.

w, _A. \\..) .,..,4, m 3 j%,,g%... g.. F., N,.,,j. . %,.., -f.;, D Q ; 4-

i. b j

7 .n, F,t.J t.. , t, s...e u..- .4 o. c n,,, m. e j ry e.. ;.,;a... y~ p~ gr. m..,m... w_ w. w e, e :c ,w. u. m :n.mm.w..eme..gn.wwg.wy.,n.. n. uw y e n

c...

y ,,m. m mv.....e w.w. n g w . e- . c... m,..; w.;. m,g.....w w. %q. .,y.. 2. ~<,. -. m m g9 w. . _ s-o.: ,.,. m..#..., e. ..e. , eyn, m.~ 9;}~ g y.c H. G.y Q :q. y > y3 @ Q.R_yg W.4l*ifft g%eyty +. ~. .n. ~~.4

w. m. n

.,.n 3.s.m,4, a_.. . m. o n,,

r..

c., x. gnM p.eenss%.mnM .g ~ 'Ei 'On July 14 1983[Dow Chemical ' Company filed suit again' t, onsumers .; :p ~./g The. suit claims Consumers 1,..;.%, s ,5 Power Company attempting to(terminate the contract invojving - lN,9 M .. ' Consumers supplying process steam to Dow. A ^ W has sisrepresented.their ability to complete Midla within reason-, ggy 1 R '5.? u abl.e,. time a~nd cost. LX ~ +.,f.r.O.W , :a w.L

a. - < n *;m d

, s.m. y.~ <~,a. ..,..~..,,s.,r.~ v.t : i ,. :.v.,... ~ -. .e

=

m. .m..m% ../ m. .e.+ m~ s

~..

.r:.f .z.=: .~._- . ? m~. :,mm.. m 3 ~me ...;, w ,. ;;m sm ~.. 3 ; ,~ . m+. e..m v .a. ~ ..1,.. A ;>. Mb aas.W. r.

  1. .n..,.'

.m ~,, v fo;:o,%:.9..w. w. @ g-... E. ...dQ m e v Thomas M.)fovak, Assistant Director 7, jg.]@d. 9 .s. - - for Licensing .* A, n..:W.4. g: ; -3_ u v.d,,%.~ 6;g. Division of. Licensing; . q g ; -l g,+ 1..g .v. . ~ *. - .*n,u 's c q.imf 7;,:p . n. + gy

i. ;.
y. _ - c::

?. mg qQ;ja ,y,.. +

  • y s...

m- .s,... m :- ca,o m.. ,+, , ":n w M.m... s , ~ 9y m::,. s * .g m. ..'e+.y me. ' s

  • r., +se...

..9 g.. . ;.e :.;, w w l;. c m .w y, .,. m.. y.,. (,, _ _ ',, +, .a v .; w g _ e. s.f_e . L J, .*C [' y,. ,,-~c-.. c y,,. m. m..- m;. ym;.w .x. ,v.,. n, ,' a.. . ;, m.:I n a. .-w..- m =, '. 1 a 1

v.
  • N V

t *6 0 . t ., w ;.~ ;.,. ;. g c.g.-w:, 4 r..- ..^ n-. =; .g . ar- ~...,. t e. ,. a,,..g

s....a.~,.... ;.,.e m

f.,- ~.m n. -.,m y,4., v..n. s. ,..a . ~ . t q.*.-,.k.e <t ~ 4

2. [

?~ ~.y...'.*h*A.$* 5

_;. ;r.< * - t* & - '

. ". +. -., "., .-O,s...q.. .,..s. .u. ,4 ...... - 1.Ql,. a,..: .+r s.. , c.,...m pof.,, _ r.. z .a,,,.. .......r.-.,., ..s. .L '. . ~, _y ,u. y s. .. ~. ,v.,,a.):,.. +,. .~ /: .-,a S

m.,A, y.,

a ..-.ye . _ /> g-s m-w ,..~ y.. ,.e;x, +

g...,..

.,, s - j,. ~ 2,

v.,:

a: ., w ~., n. .c. ,. +, L * *1 ?"* D' b stV.G. J. ~. u/. s ".-; y;. b I. .V,, n .. 4 (;

  • .,, f.% -..

.d.- ,4 g, em C s ,,*r .c s ..c.y.,,.. w 1-' +, =%' 'A,...9 ' 4*; #; %Qjsy> ' n., y

.Q*;~J ~*~. W (2R c".:j~~. '; &_-{

x ~.m w. . ~.~., +u:.,39.4 ffs. ..w, <, p :[w. ec.w. r ..,..c. av;.1} ~'. w 2. n. .cl \\ pz

. ye '*

h > g _ W ;._ ; ;,..",. ;.

ua. -

. 4

4.,. c...v.

.'.,4 f*~ ...,. c..g,@ 4 %. ~.s o c c. .,a w...o ;.e.,s w:.,.... w:c,,.u, m-. ,. 7. .. av. u. ,wo,w .. s.

s

. %.. m.. ,- -. m..,.,.u m,. s.m, 3. .m .z ,,...m.a.y, . f,. e p* y^ %*

  • a

,..n.n ;c f*T *~ *... r a c y. .y ' ~ ~., .*g,, v ;, ', p, - g. 'J s _.~ ..s. -n 3: = ' ^ e, . n ?. <s,.. r.. p.,. ,n ,,a ; mp. # r.w, mc F. g... c.,. . g .g,., 4,. -... .~

n.g

.Sm.a:, ,.,6 5 .n ,s ,+ y ,5< w.. n. c t

. y.e:
e s s

... n. .. r -... :

A.,'-, y. yay

~. m

n. -.. ; s

.. p., ,'e w, 9/ ~ ...q:..1 ., - J. 4 ;.;f a ~ J*4.;j .\\. . ** ; -\\ .f O n. .. y;. f..( _ s w., ~... u,. - n,,e s n...--

y. w g..,
s...

p g. m.9,w . u. :. + ;. e. w u.w=.. n. 4 , m _.s.- .. u .e. .c o ~. s.- .u % v... =. v. f ,,~.3.. s fy. t p,,,,.3.,i n .,. ~., s. .- +. . h's, + 'e .l .i -.- ~ .\\ .C,'N, r .;1 j c DL:LB #4 TA:DL .AD:L:DL .wv i., t. Se W L MMiller/ hec SBlack TN5af J w. . 7/ ' /83 7/. /83 .7/m/83 w aQ. - a~ f.e.e.. % @ b..x. <.} n.c,' - -. --n, -,_, p.., m : ,,.,v, -~.-,.~

~ ~

~~ v.f -,m, e _a e l s 3

~ ~~ ~.- { ]T QALM b = 6 /No 7 ENCLOSURE

  • pic Ouunro smes

,,.[ s!*g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g ( p, nacios m f *- 799 moose VELT McAo ctEN ELLYN. ILLINol5 6,0,lg7, UUI. T 9tgf \\ MEMORANDUM FOR: R. F. Warnick, Director, Office of Special Cases J.bl* THRU: J. Barrison, Chief, Section 2. Midland FROM: R. B. Landsman, Reactor Inspector

SUBJECT:

DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING CONCERNS AT MIDLAND At the recent hearing before C' ngressman Udall's subcommittee, I expressed o my concern regarding the structural adequacy of the diesel generator building because of numerous structural cracks that have occurred throughout the building over the years. I also expressed the same concern during the recent ASLB hearings. Mr. Eisenhut has requested me to document the basis of my concerns about the building so an independent review group can analyze them. My first concern deals with the finite element analysis that Consumers Power Company (CPCo) used to show that the building is structurally sound Their model of the building assumed a very rigid structure without any cracks. The building has numerous cracks, reducing the rigidity of the structure. The effects of these cracks have not been taken into account in the analysis. CPCo's interpretation of the settlement data as a stra,ight line approximation always stems from their position that the building is too rigid to deform as indicated by actual settlement readings The settlement of the building occurred over a period of time during different phases of construction. It is this time dependent effect that was also not used in their model. Even CPCo expert Dr. Corely testified at the ASLB hearings that the analysis should have "taken into account cracking and time dependent effects" in order to give correct results. of ficial position, as stated by Dr. Schauer, on CPCo's analysis wasFinally, the staff's staff takes no position with regard to that ' analysis." "The My second concern deals with the acceptance of the diesel generator building in the SSER #2 which was subject to the results of an analysis to be performed by the NRC consultants using the actual settlement val The consultants testified at the ASLB hearing that this analysis gave ues. unacceptable.results and this portion of the SSER should be stricken are basing their unacceptable results and comments on their finding of They LtbO ( ~p w w <ss.,4 y ; ~r

R. F. Warnick. very high stresses obtained in areas where no cracks exist. Th ere fore, the actual settlement values are not accurate enough (are in error) to be used in an analysis. The consultants, as well as CPCo, ran a linear analysis (structure always in the elastic range) instead of a plastic analysis which would allow a redistribution of loads in the structure. Th ere for,e, supposed areas of high stress, where cracks are not located, may not exist due to redistribution of loads. Finally, the staff's official position, as stated by Mr. Rinaldi, on this analysis as perforned by the consultants, was that the actual settlement values could not be relied upon to determine if the diesel generator building meets regulatory requirements. My third concerm deals with the fact that we are not following normal engineering practice in accepting the building by using a crack analysis approach because there is no practical method available today to analyze a complex structure with cracks in it. The basis of this concern is that there are no formulas available that can estimate stresses in a complex stress field like those which exist in this building. Thus, the evaluation of the structure based on the staff's crack analysis using empirical-unproven formulas to determine the rebar stresses is unacceptable. My fourth concern deals with the staff accepting the building by relying on a crack monitoring program to evaluate the stresses during the service' life of the building. If cracks exceed certain levels, reco=mendations will be made for maintaining the structural integrity of the building. The basis for my concern deals with the lack of crack size criteria and the lack of formulated corrective action to be taken when the allowed crack sizes are exceeded. These concerns which I have just enumerated are also shared by me=bers of Mr. Vollmer's engineering staff, as well as their consultant. These concerns were documented in the ASLB hearing transcripts of December 10, 1982, prior to my ever expressing my concerns before the ASLB hearing or Congressran Udall's subcommittee. In summary, since it is impossible to analyze this severely cracked structure to the total staff's approval I recommend some remedial structural fixes be undertaken to ensure the structural integrity of the building. to provide an adequate margin of safety. 4M Q ut lwx Ross B. Landsman ( Reactor Inspector cc: DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS) l

~ 1 .w' d_ ~ February 18, 1983 BOARD NOTIFICATION NO.83-16 ~ Document Control 50-329/330 OM, OL NRC PDR PRC System NSIC Project Manager 'D. Hood M. Duncan T. Novak/M. Stine. D.' Eisenhut/R. Purple M'. Williams H. Denton/E. Case PPAS J. Youngblood A. Schwencer G. Knighton R. Vollmer R. Mattson S. Hanauer H. Thompson Attorney, OELD E. L. Jordan, DEQA: I&E J. M. Taylor, DRP: ISE Regional Administrator, Region Resident Inspector W. J. Dircks, EDO (3) E. Christenbury, OELD (1) J. Scinto, OELD (1) A. Bennette, OELD (1) w/enci ? 'l

o 4-February 18, 1983 Docket Nos: 50-329 OM, OL and 50-330 OM, OL MEMORANDUM FOR: The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 FROM: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

NOTIFICAT10't 0F VIOLATION A*!D PROPOSED IMPUSITION OF CIVIL PEtMLTIES (BN-83-16) In accordance with present MRC procedures regarding Board Hotifications, the enclosed notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties issued February 8,1983, is being provided as infonnation material and relevant to safety issues in the Midland OM/0L proceeding. This Notice of Violation was based en Constriers Power Cor.pany's (CPCo) failure to implement an adequate quality assur-ance program as it related to the installation of electrical, mechanical and civil corponents in the diesel generator building and the action of quality con-trol (CC) supervisors instructing OC inspection to suspend inspection if exces-sive ceficiancies were found during the performance of inspection. This notifi-cation further supplements my letter of December 7,1982, (tl4-82-126) which, in part, forwarded a Preliminary Notification of a significant reduction in safety-related work-in-progress inposed by CPCo as a result of significant quality assurance and equipment concerns identified by this NRC inspection. Also enclosed is a press release regarding this matter. 3 Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated .1)L/ O e -- e - r pt,n.-> m wq w-~ NOTE: SEE PREVIOUS WHITE FOR CONCURRENCE cmesp QL:.LB..J.4........QL ;.LB..J.4..... $;A - sua==e> *.DHood/.hnc... .*.EAdensam... ...INov.ak....... 2/,15/.8. 3........... 2./.1. 5../. 8. 3....... . 2.././f./. 8. 3..... e,re > Nac ronu sie oo.aoi Nacu ono OFFIClAL RECORD COPY uso,o. m i-m _. _}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20095A197&oldid=4322881"