ML20213D966

Forwards Revised SER Input Incorporating Conclusion That Loose Backfill Affects safety-related Piping & Structures Minimally

ML20213D966
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	01/27/1982
From:	Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-0446, CON-WNP-446 NUDOCS 8202170122
Download: ML20213D966 (17)

Text

3

• 4 4

e s' V, g r,,

'es I

JM.' 2 7 E2

%CD20 9

l

~

FEC 2 19E> m,

\\

n:

2 :.nn r~~,.

~

J.-ap*y..a;~

Docket flo. 50-377

,s l

.A y,

d,} g_.

f1E!!0f?A*:Dt)fl FOR:

A. Schwencerr Chief s'

Licensing cranch f!o. 2 Divicion of Licensing THCU:

James P. Knichti Asshthnt Director for Components and Otrt.ctures Engineering Division of Engineering FR0ft:

George Learr Chief Hydrologic and Geotechnical Enginerring Dranch Division of Ennineering GlirJ CCT:

REVISIO!? TO DRf.FT SER - GCOTECH!iICAL EMGIf EERI!:G Plant flar.e: l'PPSS f!uclear Project f'o. 2 Licensing Gtage: CL Docket fiumber: 50-377 Responsible Dranch: LO-2: R. Autuckr LP:1 Review Status: SFR complete In the draf t FFR I submitted by memo to R. Tedesco on October 13,1901, ny Geotechnical Staf f thted oneoppen item which required the applicant to submit additional inforr.ation about a potentially reportable condition (10 CFR 50.55(e) Condition ilo.146) concerning coit backfitting, compaction, and testing. The applicant informed the f:RC staf f by telephone on !1 arch 20r 1981 of this potentially reportable condition and, in interin reports submitted to f:RC on April 22r September 1r and flovenber 22, 1931, they indicated that the cuality Class I backfitti placed after flay 1976 during the instattation of renote air intake piping, renote air intake structures, and standby service water pipatine with parattet duct banks, does not conform to PSA3 specification reouirements for relative density (Refs. le 2 and 3).

The applicant submitted the final report on this open iten on December 15, 1981 (Ref. 4) in which they concluded that, although the existing backfill in the excavations does not meet PSAR cpecifications, the effect m safety related utilities and structures is minimat. In additione they concluded that the potentially reportable condition is not reportable under the provision of 10 CFR 50.55(e).

.----.m

/

/r '...............

,N o ice >........................)

f..

sun auc)

BJO2170122 820127

.. - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.

~~.~..~---

~.-~~~.-~~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

AP' ADOCK 05000397 oy) y rec ronuiPt se r.ncu om d.,A$FFICIAL RECORD COPY wam au-a =

A. Schwencer JAli 2 ? 1982 The staff has reviewed the report submitted by the applicant (Ref. 4) ande concurs with the applicant that conditions resulting from potential static and dynamic settlement of the unsaturated loose soit zones in question will have no detrimental effects on safety related buried piping. In additions the staff agrees that, since none of the backfill in question is used to support seismic category I buildingsr the safety of these structures is not affected.

's We have incorporated the above conclusions into the enclosed revised SkR.

This draft SER input is due to you on February 12r 1902 (Bevill report). '

Sone minor edi.torial changes have also been included 16 the enclosed SER.

This review was prepared by Dr. Dinesh C. Guptar (x23324). You may contact hin if you wish clarification of the attached revision to our draft SER.

Reiertaces 1.

Letter fron R. G. Matlock, Washington Public Pov.$r Supply Systen, to R. II. Engelkens NRCr

Subject:

UPPSS Nuclear Project fio. 2 Potentially Reportable Condition - 10 CFR 50.55(e) Soit Dackfille compaction and Testing, dated April 22r 1931. Available in f:RC PDR for inspection and copying for a fee.

2.

Letter from R. G. Matlockr Uashington Public Fouer Supply Systen, to R. II. Engelken, f!RC,

Subject:

Supply Systen fbclear Project No. 2 Reportable Deficiency - 10 CFR 50.55(c) Mo.146 Potentially Reportable Condition on Coit Dackfille Compaction and Testing, dated September 1r 1981. Available in f:RC PDR for inspection and copying for a fee.

3.

Letter fron G. D. Poucheyr Washington Public Power Supply Systene to A. Schwencerr URC,

Subject:

Supply Systen fluclear Project No. 2 Quality Class I Soit Dackfill Test Prograni dated tiovember 12r 1901.

Available in fjRC PDR for inspection and copying for a fee.

4.

Letter from G. D. Douchey, Washington Public Power Supply Systen, to A. Erhwencer, URCr

Subject:

Nuclear Project flo. 2 Quality Class I Soil Beckfill Test Progran, dated December 15, 1901. Available in NRC PDR for inspection and copying for a fee.

Oddr.:i cigned by C:cte L.c:r George Learr Chief Hydrologic and Geotechnical Cngineering Crcnch Division of Engineering

Enclosure:

As stated DISTRIBUTION cc: See page 3 Docket File T

q HGEB Reading omet>

HGEB:DE.a%. -HGEB:DE HGEB:DE A/DfCSE:DE m,uce>...D.G,u,p,t,a /,n c.,,,LM,d,[%, p.c G,L e a,r,,,,,,,

,,J,,P,K,n i,g,h,t,,,,,,,

.1/. 2..:.. /.82......1/.

(.4../. 8. 2....,

1../ A. g./ 8. 2.........1/'. /82 cATe g

.s pe ronu os oseci nncu am OFFICIAL RECORD COPY weoosu-mwo

g 4

c

• t A. Schwencer,

00N 2 71982 j

cc: w/ enclosure i

G. Lear L. !!etter D. Gupta

.d O. Thompson it. Autuck F. Doddse Reg. V t

1 I

i

-i er 1

J t

I i

i i

o i

t or rica p su:=us >

omy Nac ronu sie om uncu ono OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usem. sen-uneo i

i

=

SER Input - Geotechnical Engineering WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2)

Docket Number 50-397 Prepared by:

D. Gupta, GESr HGEB, DE (Revised 1/19/82)

/

The following sections present the staff's geotechnical engineering review of the WNP-2 site and plant features as presented by the applicant, Washington Public Power Suoply System (WPPSS), in the Final Safety Analysis Report. The stability of subsurface materials and foundations (Section 2.5.4), the stability of slopes (Section 2.5.5) and embankments and dams (Section 2.5.6) have been evaluated in accordance with the criteria given in Accendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 3, and the current Standard Review Plan.

2.5.4 E+,"ifi+v -+ sob-

+=ca Materinte and rau-Ha+icne 2.5.4.1 cana-

The WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2) is located within the Hanford Reservation of the U.S. Department of Energy, approximately 12 miles north i

of Richland, Washington. The site is approximately 3 miles west of the Columbia River. Two other nuclear power plants, WNP-1 and WNP-4, are under construction about 1 mile east of the WNP-2 site.

. The safety related structuresi systems and components (SSC) which have been reviewed for foundation stability are listed in Table 3.2-1 of the WNP-2 FSAR.

The Category I structures include the reactor buildinge radwaste and control building, and diesel generator building located in the main powerblock area.

The seismic Category I ultimate heat sink (UHS) system consists of two concrete spray pondse tyo standby service water (SSW) pumphousess and pipelines and conduits between the pumphouses and the powerblock structures.

The spray ponds and the SSW pumphouses are located about 900 ft from the reactor building. A gravity flow makeup water supply line is provided from the circulating water pumphouse to the spray ponds to maintain the pond water at the required level The area around the site is a flate semi-arid plateau. The original ground surface elevation ranged from about 420 feet to 450 feet (ms't).

The final plant grades in the powerblock area and around the seismic Category I spray ponds are at elevat ion 440 feet (mst) and 434 feet (mst)r respectively.

2.5.6.2 3ebeurfaca cond it ions Except for a 2 to 3 foot thick zone of surficial soilse the material from the ground surface down to a depth of approximately 45 feetr or to elevat ion 395 f t (mst)r consists of loose to medium dense sand with occasional pieces of gravel. Below approximate elevation 395 ft (mst) the soils consist of very dense gravel or sandy graveli assumed to be

the middle member of the Ringold Formation. Though this gravelly zone contains relatively thin sitt and sand seams at various depthsr it is very dense throughout with standard penetration resistance blow counts consistently greater than 100 blows per foot. This 200 ft thick middle member extends to about elevation 190 f t (mst)r where it is underlain by a 300 ft thick lower member of the Ringold Formatidor a very denser interbedded gravel, sand and sitt. Basalt bedrock underlies the lower member at a depth of 557 feet (elevation -117 ft mst).

The subsurface conditions at the WNP-2 site were determined from extensive field and laboratory investigations. Some information gathered for the adjacent WNP-1 and WNP-4 projects was also utilized to define these conditions.

Ida s Tm_..e+4catinns To establish the stratigraphy and engineering properties of the soil and rock beneath seismic Category I structures, 32 borings were drilled at the plant site and near vicinity. Three of these bore holes were deep borings ranging in depths from 846 feet to 947 feet below original ground surface; the other 29 borings were drilled to depths ranging from 58 feet to 250 feet below the original ground surface.

w mm

~

J,

Because of the granulari cohesionless nature of the soil at the siter only a few, undisturbed samples were attempted and recovered. A specially fabricated 4.5 inch outside diameter steel thick walle drive-barrel sampler was used to advance the hole. The barrel was drivene extracted from holer emptied, reinserted in the hole and the operation repeated.

./

Samples of soil were obtained at 2.5 feet depth intervals by driving 3-inch diameter thin walled steel tubes into the soil at the bottom of the hole. The caving of the hole was prevented by cdvancing a six-inch inside diameter steel casing with the hole and continuously adding drilling mud during drilling. Emphasis during this investigation was placed on obtaining soit penetration test values at 5 feet intervals using a conventional split spoon sampler.

The rock was cored in the three deep borings. Wireline diamond coring tools were used to ebtain continuous core. Coring time in minutes per foot as well as percentage recovery were recorded.

Field explorations included 4 Dutch Cone penetration probes to depths ranging from 32 feet to 43 feet, 2 test pits (8 feet deep) and a test trench,15 feet deeo, diagonally across the reactor site.

Geoohysical studies performed at the site included seismic refraction surveys, uphole/ downhole and cross-hole seismic velocity measurements and a suite of neutron and gamma ray logs in boreholes.

O

The applicant's field exploration studies show that there are no areas of actual or potential subsurface uplift, subsidence or.collapser no deformation zonese shearse jointse fractures or folds, and no zones of alteration, irregular weathering or structural weakness which could adversely affect plant safety. The staff finds these conclusions to be t

reasonable and acceptable.

Imhnratory Investications Soil and rock characteristics required for the analyses of the static and dynamic stability of subsurface materials and foundations under seismic Category I structures were established using laboratory tests which included moisture contente grain size testse classification tests, maximum / minimum density tests, compaction characteristics, permeability, triaxiale resonant columni and stress and strain controlled dynamic t riaxial tests. Chemical analyses on rock samples were also performed.

Test procedures and results of these tests are described by the applicant in Appendix 2.5G of the WNP-2 FSAR. The test procedures used by the applicant on in situ soil and rock samples are in accordance with the state of the art and are acceptacle to staf f.

The laboratory test results are reascnable and arer therefore, also acceptable; the staff's evaluation of the laboratory maximum density tests performed on compacted backfill material is presented in Section 2.5.4.3.

I 1

+

Subsurf ace Soil and Rock Properties Applicant's field and laboratory investigations indicated that the upper 40 feet of the in situ glacio-fluvial soils ranged from moderately dense to very loose. Therefore, it was decided to excavate down to about 40 feet (elevation 395 feet), or lower, to the top of Ringold Formation and to backfill up to the base of the seismic Category I fo/undations with granular soil compacted by vibratory compacting equipment to a minimum of 75%

relative density and an average of 85% relative density, as determined by ASTM D2049-69. Staf f's evaluation of the backfill under various seismic Category I structures is presented in section 2.5.4.3 of the SER.

i The underlying Ringold Formation below approximate elevation 395 feet was determined by the applicant to have been preloaded by several hundred feet of overburden which has been subsequently eroded. This Formation is very denser exhibiting standard penetration resistance blow counts consistently greater than 100 blows per foot. Between a depth of 45 and 105 feet from the l

surface, the compressional wave velocity averages 5,600 fps. At depths of over 105 ft. the P wave velocity is greater than 10,000 fps. Based on the standard penetration resistance data as well as the geophysical wave velocity dater the applicant concluded, and staff agreese that the Ringold Formation has " rock like" seismic characteristics.

e For static analyses of seismic Category I foundations, the applicant used the modulus of elasticity (E) of the soit deposit underneath the foundations to calculate settlements. The following conservative values (for settlement calculations) were used by the applicant (FSAR Appendix 2.5E).

t Depth 0 to 40 ft, E = 25,000 psi Depth 40 to 107 f t, E = 60,000 psi Depth 107 to 420 f t, E = 90,000 psi Based on the geophysical tests, resonant column tests and the dynamic triaxial tests, the applicant obtained the strain dependent shear moduli and damping curves for these soils. These results are presented in the FSAR Appendix 2.5G.

The following values of dynamic shear moduli for the soils were selected on the basis of calculations for the soil strain levels developed in the soil-structure interaction analyses which used a Lumped mass model on an i

elastic half space with strain independent soil properties.

Shear Modulus, nei i

Mode

_ Lower bound Averaoe Upoer bound Horizontal Translation 50,000 75,000 100,000 SS and Rocking Vertical 80,000 120,000 160,000 i

+

1 t

Based on computed strain levels, the applicant selected a value of 5 percent for the internal damping of the soil. The geometric damping was computed using the formulas given by Richart, Hall, and Woods (1970). However, to be conservative, the applicant did not use geometric damping values, but used soil damping values in the analytical model for soil structure interaction which did not exceed the following:

Soit Damping Coefficier.ts Used in SSI Model (Percent of Critical Damping)-

Mode Operating Bases Safe Shutdown SS 55 Earthcuake Earthouake Rocking 5

7 Translation (horizontal 10 10 SS and vertical)

The staff considers the static and dynamic soil parameters used by the applicant for stability and seismic response evaluations of foundations to be reasonable and acceptable.

Greundwatar Level The groundwater level at the plant site is at about elevation 380 feet (mst).. Seasonal variations are less than 10 ft.

However, the design basis groundwater level is based on the possible construction of the Ben Franklin Dam at River Mile 348 on the Columbia River. Because of this

~

h l j consideration, a groundwater elevatio'n of 4?O feet (mst) has been assumed for design. Staff's evaluation of the grour.dwater conditions at the site

,are presented in Section 2.4 of the SER.

2.5.4.3 Evaluation of Foundatiens Beneath atL seismic Category I structural foundations /, the existing upper loose sandy material was excavated down to the underlying very dense Ringold gravel and replaced in a denser state by compaction. The excavations to the Ringold formation extended down to 385 feet (msL) to 392 feet (mst) with some localized areas as deep as 375.8 feet (msL).

The thickness of the compacted backfill and the main foundation features of the principal seismic Category I plant structures are shown on Table 1.

C,ovnpar.real Sm.cJut4411-1 The backfilling, compaction and testing of soils under and around the seismic Category I structures were specified to conform to a minimum relative density of 75 percent and an average of 85 percent relative densityr as determined by ASTM D2049-69. This backfill was placed before May 1976 and was found by the applicant to conform to the specification requirements.

The staff concludes that the compacted backfill to the above specified requirements should provide adequate succort for the plant facilities.

Af ter May 1976, excavations were made in this backfill for installation of the remote air intake piping, the remote air intake structures, and the standby service water pipeline with parattel duct banks. Backfill

_.______,_.___,_.___.______-.7m.-.

m.

,.-_.__.___._.,m___.

,,_y

Tshto 1 i

Foundation Features of Princioal Seismic Cateaory I Structures i

Approximate a

Foundation Thickness of Soi Area Load Area Load I

Foundation Length Width s5 33 SS Elevation, SS Back fit t Deneath SS DL + LL S3 DL + LL + EQ Strueture Tvne (ff (fti ft (MSL)

Foundation, ft (tsf M (t s f)

Reactor Building Mat 157 147 406 15 6.8 22.5 adwaste & Control Mat 212 163 429 37 3.5 11.5 Bldg.

Dieset Generator Bldg Strip Footing 161 80 435 45 3.8 4.6

' Spray Ponds St rip Footing 250 250 417 27 1.1 3.6

$3 and Stab i

Category I pipe Continuous Duct Bank

~

Continuous

{

l A

(Final grade is at elevat ion 440 feet around the plant structures and elevat ion 434 feet

)

0 around i

the spray ponds.

i I

• varying thicknesses j

1 l

s,

subsequently used in these excavations was found by the applicant not to conform to the above Quality Class I specifications with respect to gradation and compaction. The specifications called for the excavation backfill material to be compacted to an average relative density of 85 percents with a minimum relative density of 75 percent. In additione

/

the backfill materials were specified to consist of inorganic sand or sand and gravel mixtures which were free of boulders and cobbles greater than 3 ' inches and contained 5 percent or less fine grained, non plactic

.t materials passing a 200 mesh sieve. Applicant's investigations of the backfilled excavation areas indicated that the majority of this backfill was poorly graded sand containing from 4 to 10 percent fines. Also, the compacted density was found to be erratic and varied from toose to very dense with extreme values of SPT blow counts ranging from 3 to 100.

The design ground water table at the site is lower than the bottom of the excavation for the pipeliness ducts and air intake structures, and thereforer the backfill in question is above the plant design water table.

The applicant has investigated the effect of the backfill that does not fully meet specification requirements on safety related utilitiet and structures and has concluded that these soils in the excavation backfill will have no detrimental effect on safety related buried piping and seismic Category I structures. The staff finds that, since the piping

.-- _- ~

_ - _ = - _ - _ _ -. -

I 5 i i

is adequately supported on backfill compacted to the required specified density'and the backfill above the piping is unsaturated with no 1

i i

potential for L.iquefaction, the non conforming fill should have no t

detrimental effect on safety related buried piping. The staff has also concluded that, since none of the backfill in question is used to support seismicCategoryIbuildings,thesafetyoIthesestructuresis not affected.

i Bearine Cacaci+y l

The applicant has provided for a safety factor in excess of 3 in i

{

calculating allowable static design bearing capacity. The staff agrees that this margin of safety is adequate for the support of the plant j

facilities.

i

)

s.,+1.-.-.,

1 The applicant has presented the estimated static and dynamic settlements of Seismic Category I structures in FSAR Tables 2.5-12 and 2.5-13, respectively. The allowable settlement criterion is presented on 1

Figure 21 of the FSAR Appendix 2.5F.

The measured settlement data are l'

j given in Apoendix 2.5H of the FSAR and in response to staf f ouestion 0362.010.

The data indicate that the maximum total and dif ferential Settlements of various seismic Category structures are less than 0.6 l

l inches. Also the total settlements in 2.5 years since completion of structures has been less than 0.1 inch, and thus the rate of post-j construction settlements has been very small. The applicant has i

i

)

..e.--.

-w.,,.,,-

-,.,----,-.,,.,_,-,.nn~.,.---,-,,-,_,_,,.,.-,ng-,_e.,-w

,-n,.w,.,,.g---,-m,--.m,,._v-

,,---,-_w,--,

-,7----

i i

, l l

concluded and the staf f agrees that these smaLL amounts of total and differential settlements and the smalL rate of post construction settlements should be of insignificant consequence to the safety of the l

plant structures and their appurtenances.

4

~

Eseth preceur e.

f

{

The applicant has designed aLL subsurface walls to resist static and J.

dynamic lateral earth pressures exerted by compacted backfill. The 4

i computation procedure is consistent with the method described by Seed i

1 and Whitman (1970) to calculate dynanic Lateral loads in combination f

with static at-rest pressures (coefficient of static earth pressure at rest equal to 0.5).

This procedure is in accordance with the state-of-the-art and is acceptable to the Staff.

i L4euefnet4en Detent 4at The studies made by the applicant to evaluate liquefaction potential show i

j that the foundation soils are not potentially ticuefiable. The undisturbed t

Ringold gravel is very dense. The compacted backfill under seismic l

i Category I structures has been placed to a relative density in excess of 75 percent and the backfill has been shown to be stable when subjected to the design safe shutdown earthquake loading of 0.259 effective peak acceleration (see Section 2.5.2 of the SER).

1 i

1 i

i l

1

n 2.5.4.4 rnnetosion Based on the applicant's design criteria and construction reports and on the results of applicant's investigations, laboratory and field tests, and analyses presented in the FSAR, the staff has concluded that the site and plant foundations will be adequate to safely support the WPPSS t

Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2), and to permit the safe operation of the ultimate heat sink system in accordance with the requirements of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.

2.5.4.5 o=*

o-ce-Richart, J r., F.

E., Hall, Jr., J.R., and Woods, R.D., V4 brat iens of Soil s and Foundatiens, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, 1970.

Seed, H.

B., and Whitman, R.V. (1970), " Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads," ASCE Specialty Conference, Lateral Stresses and Earth Retaining Structures,1970.

2.5.5 sessi'ity of stenas_

There are no stooes, either natural or manmade, the failure of which could adversely affect the safety of WNP-2.

2.5.6 E-bsakaente mad be-c.

There are no embankments and dams at the WNP-2 site for fleod protection or for impounding cooling water required for the operation of the nuclear power plant.

s jp, 2, 1%'

DISTRIBUTION:

See attached list J.3Dohiitf&GM-37

~~ _..c.j HEMORNIDUM FOR:

A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing FROM:

R. Auluck, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 2, DL

/

SUBJECT:

FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH WASHINGTO'l PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS)

DATE & TIME:

Tuesday, February 9,1982 8:00 AM LOCATION:

NRC, Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 PURPOSE:

Status of WNP-2 Design Review Verification Progran (See Attached Agenda)

PARTICIPAf.'TS :

NRC WPPSS B. Faulkenberry R. Matlock R. Dodds G. Bouchey A. D' Angelo R. Glasscock J. Conway R. Nelson and D. Haist support staff J. Elin R. Auluck Original signed by:

R. Auluck, Project !?anager Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing cc: See next page eeuw1woIav-020127 PDR ADOCK 05000397 A

PDR ome< > Ok.:ARR P B,; A.0.WJ.C.,,,,..........,l,,,,,,,,,,,

sun m e> R,

.....,y.,,,, A5 shy,qng,q,r,,,,,

,,1,/.23/. 8. 2..........

.1../....L /. 8.,2..,,,,,,,

om>

e,nc romi sis tio-eas t.ncu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom ta'-aw

s AGENDA INTRODUCTION - R.G. Matlock BACKGROUND AND APPROACH TO RESOLVE - B.A. Holmberg How issue was identified What were the issues Actions taken and intent of actions t

COMPLIANCE WITH PROGRAM COMMITMENTS - R.T. Johnson Regulatory Guide 1.64, Commitment Chronology Compliance Matrix ( Appendix B, N45.2, N45.2.11)

Audit History Example - System Desi cooling water system)gn Review (e.g., Reactor Building closed CONTRACTOR SURVEY RESULTS - M.R. Steelman Objectives Scope Results BURNS AND ROE DESIGN PROCESS ANALYSIS - B.A. Holmberg/R.T. Johnson SPECIAL BURNS AND ROE SYSTEM DESIGN REVIEWS - B. A. Holmberg DESIGN EVALUATION BY OTHERS - B. A. Holmberg/J.M. Yatabe i

CONCLUSION - R.G. Matlock j

l i

i h

O l

Mr. R. L. Ferguson Managing Director Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 cc:

Nicholas Reynolds, Esquire Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 I

~

Richard Q. Oufgley, Esquire Washington Pubite Power Supply System P. O Box 968 g

Richland, Washington 99352 Nicholas Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fifth Avenue Olynpia, Wahington 98504 Roger Nelson, Licensing Manager Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. O. K. Earle, Project Licensing Supervisor Burns and Roe, Incorporated 601 Williams Boulevard Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. Richard Feil U.S.N.R.C. Resident Inspector WPPSS-2 NPS P.O. Box 69 Richland, Washington 99352 9

i W

.e

. MEETING NOTICE DISTRIBUTI N:

DATE:

TDociieMRh NRC, Region I Branch Reading File NRC, Region II NRC PDR NRC, Region III Local PDR NRC, Region IV NSIC NRC, Region V TERA jf@&

E.G. Case NRC

Participants:

\\

E D.G. Eisenhut/R. Purple J

T. Novak B. Faulkenberry

((

E03fpE

\\\\

S. Varga R. Dodds if O

D. Vassallo J4.,,2 A. D' Angelo

- ut 3 750-R.A. Clark (O

.,'UbM(( h

'C\\

4 8 d2 J.F. Stolz J. Conway #

D. Haist 3

R. Tedesco J. Elin s/

B.J. Youngblood R. Auluck

9 )W A. Schwencer N

F. Miraglia E. Adensam J.R. Mi'11er G.C. Lainas T. Ippolito W.T. Russell 1d: Applicant Service List D.M. Crutchfield R.H. Vollmer Branch: Licensing Branch No. 2 R.J. Mattson H. Thompson Project Manager:

R. Auluck V. Moore S.H. Han'auer Licensing Assistant: E. Hyl to n J.P. Knight W.V. Johnston D.R. Muller P.S. Check R.W. Houston L.S. Rubenstein F. Schroeder M.L. Ernst Attorney, OELD OI&E OSD (7)

ACRS (16)

Resident inspector a

9 e