ML20215M196

Summary of 870318 & 19 Mgt Conference W/Util,Ebasco & BNL in Bethesda,Md Re Final Rept of Basemat Confirmatory Analyses Program.List of Attendees Encl

ML20215M196
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	04/28/1987
From:	Joshua Wilson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20215M198	List: ML20215M196 ML20215M644 ML20215M663
References
NUDOCS 8705130118
Download: ML20215M196 (7)

Text

'

e

. ENCLOSURE 1

[  %,, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D C. 20006

• g April 28, 1987 Docket No. 50-382 NOTE T0: Files FROM: J. H. Wilson, Pro ect Manager Pro"ect Directora e - IV i Division of Reactor Pro;ects - III, IV, V and Special Pro;ects

SUMMARY

OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL CONFERENCES BETWEEN NRC AND LP&L HELD ON MARCH 18 AND 19, 1987 IN BETHESDA MARYLANO CONCERNINGFINALREPORTOFBASEMATCONFIRMATORYANALYSESPROGRAM j AT WATERFORD 3 j ManagementConference-3/18/87 A management conference was held in Bethesda, Mar land on March 18, 1987 l between NRC and LP&L to discuss the recenti -subm tted Final Report on the basemat confirmatory analyses was required by a condition in the fi Waterford 3 operating license. program, Attachment 1 iswhic a ifst of attendees and their 1 affiliations.

1

, At this conference, the NRC staff expressed concerns about the following areas:

i

• Apparent lack of LP&L review of the basemat confirmatory analyses program and the final report itself.

The final report does not appear to address the specific technical concerns identified in the license condition.

1 l ' Certain areas of the report describe circumstances that appear to

! contradict the staff's understanding of the condition of the basemat.

• A new analysis using the old model was presented and the results i

from this analysis should be compared with those presented in the FSAR. ,

Many tactions of the report are poorly written and confusing.

! At the end of the conference the following conclusions were summarized:

• The physical conditiori of the basemat shows no signs of distress, contrary to what is calculated in some of the analyses.

• The final report is inadequate and lacks sufficient quality to satisfy the staff.

• The final report fails to address the root concern associated with l

the whole basemat issue, i.e., what is the status of the basemat.

I CONTACT:

, J. Wilson /NRR, PD - I

, 49 29403 M4taeus5.4 .I r-_.________________.__________.__.____.______.____

.g.

• 1987 at the A technical EBASCO discussion offices in New should take place York to review on March 19,l results of the the computationa confirmatory analyses and to discuss the quality of the report.

The closing remarks centered around the potential regulatory actions that might be necessary should the next day's technical conference fail to adequately satisfy the staff that there was still no safety issue associated with the basemat cracks. LP&L management assured the staff that they had their full attention and would commit whatever resources were necessary to reach acceptable final resolution of the basemat issue.

Technical Conference-March 19, 1987 As a followu) to the management conference held the previous day in Bethesda Maryland tecinical discussions were held on March 19, 1987 attheEBASCOoffIces in New York between the NRC staff and consultants (BNL) and LP&L and its consultants (EBASCO) to resolve the issues / concerns prompted by the staff's initial review of LP&L's Final Report of the basemat confirmatory analyses program at Waterford 3. A list of attendees and their affiliations is provided l

as Attachment 2.

1 During the introductory Final Report, LP&L neededremarks, to keepthe thestaff emphasized following points inthat,ind:in m revising the

• The audience for the report was not just the NRC and BNL technical staff, but the Commission, Appeal Board Panel, and the general public.

• The confirmatory analyses program should be tied back to the licensing basis for the plant and the report should draw conclusions about how and to what extent each analysis addresses the concerns that were raised during the licensing process. l l

' The new Final Report should specifically address the significance of any discrepancies between what is known now and what was filed in testimony by the various parties in the proceeding.

! ' The Final Report is to serve as the final summary document that summarizes i all aspects of the basemat including design, construction QA, allegations, significance of cracks etc. andshouldcontainachronolo discussionthatputsallof(heseaspectsintoperspective.gyandbrief

• The Final Report should present conclusions about the adequacy of the common foundation basemat to perform its intended function and should I clearly and compellingly support those conclusions.

Technical discussions involved the following areas:

' There was a general discussion of how material presented in the Final Report appeared to contradict the staff's understanding of current basemat conditions. Figure E-8 shows that the top of the basemat is under con-siderable tensile stress over about 70% of its surface, which is quite a different picture than the staff had in mind at the time of licensing.

• There was some discussion involving arguments about plastic hinges in areas of greatest tensile stress that would lead to redistribution of the load.

l

• The staff indicated that changes to the surveillance program might be a)proariate because the original program was designed to monitor a basemat t1at 1ad compression on the top of the basemat.

• Computation of loading combinations was not a simple process of adding up the construction sequence to dead and normal operating and seismic loads.

• There was a general discussion of quality and content of the report that was submitted, as well as some suggestions on what the scope and content of the revision should include.

• There were discussions of the possible changes in testimony that might be required to accommodate the new information in the report.

• All parties who filed testimony befnre the ASLAB should review that testimony and ensure that they identify contradictions that may exist between the testimony and their current understanding of basemat conditions, j l

At the end of the discussions, a summary was given of four areas that should be addressed in the revisions in the Final Report:

1. LP&L should provide a " road map" which relates the old analysis of record and the new analysis, tying the analysis back to the Harstead report and the licensing basis for the plant.

2. Given the characterization of the basemat as presently being in significant tension on top over a large area, three questions were raised. 1 1

a. What is the moment capacity of the mat? If one adds the construction stresses built in to the mat to the present loading, is the resultant stress still within the design ellowable?

b. If hinges were to develop in negative moment zones, what effect would they have on shear capacity?

c. If hinges develop, what is the effect on mat flexibility and the ,

I seismic response of the facility?

l l

l

I

3. The monitoring program should be modified to gather data etc that would <

l detectchangesinthestateofthebasematduetosignifIcantbending moments over a large area.

4. The report should be rewritten to describe what was done, what the results were and what the results mean. The ratio of text to figures should be increased to emphasize and analyse the results and sup>orting conclusions, 'i rather than just presenting the data. The idea that tw readers of the ,

report would include non-technical managers and members of the public should be kept in mind during preparation of the revised document. To i this end, the services of a technical editor would be helpful.  ;

LP&L committed to develop a detailed proposal of how they were going to approach resolution of the basemat issues that arose from the Final i Report and to present it for staff review within about a week and to e complete their rewrite / rework and submit a new Final Report about 2 months after the staff approved the approach concept. A tentative meeting date  !

for staff review was set for March 30, 1987. It was agreed that it would be appropriate for LP&L management to present its concept of approach to resolution to NRC management af ter NRC staff and BNL had had a chance to review the approach and prepare their recommendations.  ;

J.b. Wilson,ProjectManager Pro ect Directorate - IV ,

Div;ision of Reactor Pro;ects - !!!,  :

IV, V and Special Pro;ects

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ enclosures:  ;

See next page l

l

,w.---.,,. - . .m,,---n--~..--,,,._..-.--.---,-._,..n,----,, .-...,_----._.-_n-_...

Mr. Jerrold G. Dewease Waterford 3 Louisiana Power & Light Company l t cc:

l W. Malcolm Stevenson, Esq. Regional Administrator, Region IV

Monroe & Leman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

! 1432 Whitney Building Office of Executive Director for New Orleans, Louisiana 70103 Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Mr. E. Blake Arlington, Texas 76611 l

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 !i Street, NW Carole H. Burnstein, Esq. '

445 Walnut Street Washington, D.C. 20037 New Orleans, Louisiana 70118  ;

Mr. Gary L. Groesch .

Post Office Box 791169 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager New Orleans, Louisiana 70179-1169 Washington Nuclear Operations t Inc.  :

CombustionEngineering$uite1310 7910 Woodmont Avenue Mr. F. J. Drummond Pro'ect Manager - Nuclear Bethesda, Maryland IO814 {

i Lou siana Power & Light Company 317 Baronne Street Administrator New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 Mr.WilliamH. Spell Nuclear Energy Divis {on Office of Environmental Affairs Mr. K. W. Cook Post Office Box 14690  !

Nuclear Su) port and Licensing Manager Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898 l' Louisiana )ower & Light Company 317 Baronne Street President, Policy Jury New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 St. Charles Parris i Mahnville, Louisiana 70057 i Resident Ins)ector/Waterford NPS l Post Office lox 822 Mr. J. G. Dewease Killona, Louisiana 70066 Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations i

Loutstana Power and Light Company Mr. Ralph T. Lally 317 Baronne Street, Mail Unf t 17 i Manager of Quality Assurance New Orleans, Loutstana 70160 l Middle South Servles Inc. ,

PostOfficeBox61006 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 i

Chairman Louisiana Pubile Service Commission One American Place Suite 1630 BatonRouge,Loulslana 70825-1697 l

l I .

ATTACHMENT 1

\

List of Attendees and Their Affiliation I

3/18/87 Management Conference i

i in Bethesda, Maryland 1

i NRC D. Crutchfield  ;

i F. Schroeder j G. Knighton  :

4 P. Kuo i J. Wilson j S. Turk ,

! LP&L i '

] J. Cain i J. Dewease i R. Barkhurst K. Cook l R. Burski l C. Holley j J. Charnoff W. Cross

{

l

EBASCO i

j R. Stampley E. Ehasz  !

'f A. Wern

! P. Liu l

1 l

i i

1 i

l i

j

] ..

~ . _ - .. _. _. . . _ _ . __ __ ___ _ __

a Attachment 2

- List of Attendees and their affiliation - March 19, 1987 Technical Conference in Bethesda, Maryland 1

i NRC 1

P. T. Kuo J. Wilson BNL i L C. Costaf ino V. Miller' i A. Philippacopoulos l M. Reich i

I i LP&L i

R. Burski i I

K. Cook M. Holley l i

1 I 1 l

. EBASCO i

i A. Ferlito ,

j J. Houghtaling

J. Costello

! W. Wittich '

P. Liu i D. Nuta A. Wern 1

l t

I

} i 1

1 i

k I

., . ENCLOSURE 2 i # ~%

UNITED STATES 8' c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ l aAsHINGTON, D. C. 20066

, April 27,1987 NOTE T0: Files J FROM: J. H. Wilson, Project Manager  ;

j ProjectDirectorate-IV DivisionofReactorProjects-III, IV, V and Special Projects

SUBJECT:

SU MARY OF TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT DISCUSSIONS HELD IN BETHESDA ON t j MARCH 30, 1987 AND MARCH 31, 1987 CONCERNING BASEMAT SUMARY REPORT Technical discussions were held on March 30, 1987 in Bethesda Maryland between theNRCanditscontractorsandLouisianaPowerandLight(LPdL)anditscon-j

~

tractors to review the utility's a)proach to resolution of the issues that arose from the staff's review of tie Final Report of the basemat confirmatory analyses program at Waterford 3. A list of attendees is provided in Attach-ment 1. These discussions were a followup to a technical conference / audit held l in New York on March 19, 1987 during which the staff outlined areas that needed

to be addressed in the Final Report and at which the utility committed to develop an approach to resolution for staff review prior to the end of March, k

LP&L described in some detail the outline and contents of a new Final Report 1 l that would address the staff's concerns and which would provide a complete sun-1 mary'ofallissuesrelatedtothebasemat,notjusttheconfirmatoryanalyses.

l LP&L s proposed outline of the new Final Report is provided as Attachment 2.

The staff provided its comments on each section and concluded that the proposed

structure, contents and scope are generally acceptable.

Additional discussions focused on several areas as summarized below- l j l

! o LP&L and its contractors have reviewed their testimony presented 1 to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board and conclude that j the discussions contained therein are not inconsistent with the l l characterizations about the basemat that were presented in the Final Report. The staff, however, expressed concern that the i characterization of the basemat contained in the Final Report was

different from their understanding of the basemat which was the

basis for their licensing decision. The staff and BNL will have i

to review their testimony to determine whether they filed state-ments that may no longer be totally accurate in light of infor-mation contained in the Final Report.

i o Concerning the question about superposition of construction sequence

. loads with normal operating and dynamic loads, the staff indicated

! that two approaches would be acceptable:

i j 1. demonstrate that the total steel stress from combination of 1- construction sequence loads plus dead loads, plus normal operatingloads,plusseismIcloadsremainsbelowyield;or i

CONTACT:

1 J. Wilson, NRR/PD - IV 49-29403 .

i P 7(!/2 .D .! N 6pp

_ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . ~ _ . . _. _ ._ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _

L  :

h ,

I' .

2. demonstrate that change in mat stiffness would not affect the l response of structures and components.

J 4

o The basemat surveillance program would be modified as follows: ,

i i 1. Settlement Monitoring - LP&L proposed elimination of the 4 monitoring at points high on the walls, as there were ther-mal-induced and other movements not related to the basemat.

j. 2. Groundwater Chemistry - no changes. -

i l 3. Groundwater Level - no changes.

4. Crack Monitoring - Twelve additional sets of Whittemore strain

! gauges have been installed and LP&L proposes to monitor cracks  !

! of interest with the strain gauges, rather than continue the 4 i mapping of cracks. This would provide quantitative rather than ,

! subjective information on whether there were changes occurring l in crack width. It was agreed that strain gauge measurements j would be conducted on a quarterly basis for one year before ,

{ dropping back to the 18-month frequency specified in the moni-i toring program. Also, LP&L agreed to continue the program for i i two additional surveillance cycles and then allow a sunset" clause to take effect if no significant changes were recorded, i The staff concluded that modifications to the surveillance pro-1 gram, as outlined above, were acceptable, but expressed a desire i to have settlement monitoring, groundwater chemistry, and ground-l water level measurements taken concurrently to permit comparison.

4 j On March 31, 1987 a brief management conference was held which summarized i' 2 the previous day's technical discussions and described LP&L's concept of

! the scope and contents of a Final Report that would assure resolution of

! all basemat issues. Attachment 3 provides a list of attendees. NRC 1 management endorsed LP&L's approach and it was agreed that because addi -

l tionalanalyseswouldbenecessarytoresolvethecombinatlonofloads cuestions, the schedule for submittal of the Final ~ Report'should now be June 1 for a draft document and July 1 for the completed document.

Also, a technical meeting or conference call would take place in about i two weeks to look at the preliminary results of the load combination l analysis. NRC emphasized that maintaining a close working relationship

! would minimize schedular impacts and would assure the required quality product.

1-" -

p J.kWilson,ProjectManager

Proyect Directorate - IV DivisionofReactorProjects-III, l IV, V and Special Pro,jects

Enclosures:

l As stated t

I cc w/ enclosures:

See next page ..

l j

Mr. Jerrold G. Dewease Waterford 3 Louisiana Power & Light Company cc:

W. Malcolm Stevenson, Esq. Regional Administrator, Region IV Monroe & Leman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1432 Whitney Building Office of Executive Director for New Orleans, Louisiana 70103 Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Mr. E. Blake Arlington, Texas 76011 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW Carole H. Burnstein, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20037 445 Walnut Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 Mr. Gary L. Groesch Post Office Box 791169 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager New Orleans, Louisiana 70179-1169 Washington Nuclear Operations Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Mr. F. J. Drummond 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1310 Project Manager - Nuclear Bethesda, Maryland 10814 Louisiana Power & Light Company 317 Baronne Street Mr. William H. Spell, Administrator New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 Nuclear Energy Division Office of Environmental Affairs Mr. K. W. Cook Post Office Box 14690 Nuclear Su-) port and Licensing Manager Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898 Louisiana Power & Light Company 317 Baronne Street President, Policy Jury New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 St. Charles Parris Resident Ins)ector/Waterford NPS Post Office Box 822 Killona, Louisiana 70066 Mr. Ralph T. Lall l Mana er of Quali Assurance Midd e South Servies, Inc.

Post Office Box 61000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 Chairman Louisiana Public Service Commission One American Place, Suite 1630 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825-1697

ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES AND THEIR AFFILIATIONS - TECHNICAL DISCUSSIONS HELD ON MARCH 30 1987 IN BETHESDA MARYLAND NRC J. Wilson P. T. Kuo Z. Qiau l BNL M. Reich C. Costanio C. Miller -

M. Philappacopopoulos LP&L C. Cook R. Burski M. Holley W. Cross EBASCO ,

4 A. Wern P. Liu J. Costello l

l l

)

I

• ORAFT OUTLILNE -

• ', ATTACIDfENT 2

SUMMARY

REPORT - WATERFORD-3 BASEMAT DESIGN-AND ANALYSES I. Description of Basemat t

II. Design Philosophy III. Original Design Results IV. Construction of Basemat V. Occurrence of Cracks VI. Licensing Review, Analyses, and Tests VII. Confirmatory Analyses j

i VIII. Conclusions from Confirmatory Analyses IX. Crack Surveillance Program

X. Summary

! XI. References 5

XII. Bibliography XIII. Full Size Drawings l

1 I

i i

AO

• ' - ' ' -- - - - - w - , _ , _ _ . . , _ _ _ , , .

1 ATTACHMENT 3 4 LIST OF ATTENDEES - MANAGEMENT DISCUSSIONS 1 HELD ON MARCH 31, 1987 - BETHESDA, MARYLAND NRC F. Schroeder D. Crutchfield G. Knighton J. Calvo P. T. Kuo J. Wilson LP&L J. Dewease K. Cook R. Burski

! B. Churchill M. Holley W. Cross EBASCO J. Haughtaling A. Wern l

i l

. 8 J

r - .-- - - . - - - - - , , - - , - g > ,.; -

w ,-- ,-- , - - ,. -