ML20215M336

Summary of 870330 & 31 Mgt Discussions W/Util,Bnl & Ebasco in Bethesda,Md Re Basemat Summary Rept.List of Attendees & Draft Outline of Summary Rept on Basemate Design & Analyses Encl

ML20215M336
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	04/27/1987
From:	Joshua Wilson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8705130192
Download: ML20215M336 (7)

Text

.. sM (bC p1 u - m_

.a aeo t

'/

! ' 'w*o

~go UNITED STATES

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3- .j wAssimoTom, p. c. 2osss .

April 27,1987

. g. .

• ,,.c f .

liOTET0: Files 4

FROM: J. H. Wilson, Project Manager "*

ProjectDirectorate-IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects

SUMMARY

OF TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT DISCUSSIONS HELD IN BETHESDA ON MARCH 30, 1987 AND MARCH 31, 1987 CONCERNING BASEMAT

SUMMARY

REPORT Technical discussions were held on March 30, 1987 in Bethesda Maryland between theNRCanditscontractorsandLouisianaPowerandLight(LPdL)anditscon-tractors to review the utility's approach to resolution of the issues that i

arose from the :taff's review of the 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 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.

LP&L described in some detail the outline and contents of a new Final Report that would address the staff's concerns and which would provide a complete sum-1 mary'of all issues.related to the basemat, not just the confirmatory analyses.

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.

l Additional discussions focused on several areas as summarized below:

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

Concerning the question about superposition of construction sequence o

loads with normal operating and dynamic loads, the staff indicated that two approaches would be acceptable:

1. demonstrate that the total steel stress from combination of

! construction sequence loads, plus dead loads, plus normal operating loads, plus seismic loads remains below yield; or CONTACT: e7o513o192 s70427 DR ADOCK 0500 2 J. Wilson, NRR/PD - IV p 49-29403

_p. April 27,1987 L

2. demonstrate that change in mat stiffness would not affect the

response of structures and components.

o The basemat surveillance program would be modified as follows:

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

2. Groundwater Chemistry - no changes.

3. Groundwater Level - no changes.

4. Crack Monitoring - Twelve additional sets of Whittemore strain gauges have been installed and LP&L pro)oses to monitor cracks of interest with the strain gauges, ratier than continue the maaping of cracks. This would provide quantitative rather than su)jective information on whether there were changes occurring in crack width. It was agreed that strain gauge measurements would be conducted on a quarterly basis for one year before dropping back to the 18-month frequency specified in the moni-toring program. Also, LP&L agreed to continue the program for two additional surveillance cycles and then allow a sunset" clause to take effect if no significant changes were recorded.

The staff concluded that modifications to the surveillance pro-gram, as outlined above, were acceptable, but expressed a desire to have settlement monitoring, groundwater chemistry, and ground-water level measurements taken concurrently to permit comparison.

On March 31, 1987 a brief management conference was held which summarized 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 management endorsed LP&L's approach and it was agreed that, because addi-tional analyses would be necessary to resolve the combination of loads questions, 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 two weeks to look at the preliminary results of the load combination analysis. NRC emphasized that maintaining a close working relationship would minimize schedular impacts and would assure the required quality product. (g J. H. Wilson, Project Manager ProjectDirectorate-IV DivisionofReactorProjects-III, IV, V and Special Projects

Enclosures:

DISTRIBUTION As stated

• Docket File; NRC PDR Local PDR JACalvo PD4 Reading JWilson cc w/ enclosures: OGC-Bethesda EJordan BGrimes See next page ACRS(10) PTKuo ZQiau

• See Previous Concurrences:

PD4* PD4* PD4* MEB*

JWilson:as PNoonan JACalvo PTKuo 4/27/87 4/27/87 4/27/87 4/27/87

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

o The basemat surveillance program would be modified as follows:

1. Settlement Monitoring - LP&L proposed elimination of the-monitoring at points high on the walls as there were ther-mal-inducedandothermovementsnotrelatedtothebasemat.

2. Groundwater Chemistry - no chan'ges.

3. Groundwater Level - no changes.

4. Twelve additional sets of Whittemore strain Crack gauges Monitoring have been installed and LP&L of interest with the strain gauges, pro)oses ratier thantocontinue monitor the cracks mapping of cracks. This would provide quantitative rather than subjectiveinformationonwhethertherewerechangesoccurring in crack width. It was agreed that strain gauge measurements would be conducted on a quarterly basis for one year before dropping back to the 18-month frecuency specified in the moni-toring program. Also, LP&L agreec to continue the program for two additional surveillance cycles and then allow a " sunset" clause to take effect if no significant changes were recorded.

The staff concluded that modifications to the surveillance pro-gram, as outlined above, were acceptable, but expressed a desire to have settlement monitoring, groundwater chemistry, and ground-water level measurements taken concurrently to permit comparison.

On March 31, 1987 a brief management conference was held which summarized 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 management endorsed LP&L's approach and it was agreed that, because addi-tional analyses would be necessary to resolve the combination of loads 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 two weeks to look at the preliminary results of the load combination analysis. NRC emphasized that maintaining a close working relationship-would minimize schedular impacts and would assure the required quality product.

J. H. Wilson, Project Manager ProjectDirectorate-IV DivisionofReactorProjects-III, IV, V and Special Projects Attachments: DISTRIBUTION As stated Docket File NRC POR Local PDR JACalvo PD4 Reading JWilson cc w/ attachments: 0GC-Bethesda EJordan BGrimes  ;

See next page . ACRS(10) PTKuo ZQiau 1 PD4 4 PO4 /lK MEB JWilso PNoonan JACalvo PTKuc <  !

-4/27/87f 4&7/87 4/27/87 4/fq87 l 1

]

. 6 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,DFrector 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 ProjectManager-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 Support and Licensing Manager Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898 Louisiana Power & Light Company 317 Baronne Street President, Policy Jury New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 St. Charles Parris Mahnville, Louisiana 70057 Resident Inspector /Waterford NPS Post Office Box 822 ,

Killona, Louisiana 70066 Mr. Ralph T. Lally Manager of Quality Assurance Middle 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 y - - . .- - -- --

ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES AND THEIR AFFILIATIONS - TECHNICAL DISCUSSIONS

. - HELD ON MARCH 30 1987 IN BETHESDA MARYLAND NRC e ,

g .

J. Wilson P. T. Kuo

-Z. Qiau BNL M. Reich C. Costanio C. Miller M. Philappacopopoulos LP&L C. Cook R. Burski

- M. Holley W. Cross EBASCO A. Wern P. Liu J. Costello a

f e

w yr , p g- ,p4- ..e_..s- _ ., . -,__.y..p-_.-.. , . _ , _ _ . . _ m

_y_--giy.,wg- -

-r---- -e'r -"t'--r r'-- --'Pv- *w- -

T M- '

-w ---9*

e .*

DRAFT OUTLILNE

SUMMARY

REPORT - WATERFORO-3 BASEMAT DESIGN AND ANALYSES .

I. Description of Basemat ,

II. Design Philosophy g_

3

• III. Original Design Results IV. Construction of Basemat V. Occurrence of Cracks VI. Licensing Review, Analyses, and Tests VII. Confirmatory Analyses VIII. Conclusions from Confirmatory Analyses l

IX. Crack Surveillance Program X. Summary XI. References ,

XII. Bibliography XIII. Full Size Drawings 4

l y ,- .--- -------

r- .- - - -- -

7. - , , _ _ - .

"sy . .:1.-

'pl l

. i;"

ATTACHMENT 3 i

LIST OF ATTENDEES - MANAGEMENT DISCUSSIONS p HELD ON MARCH 31, 1987 - BETHESDA, MARYLAND

(

NRC u

> s-F..Schroeder D. Crutctfield lG. Knighten-J. Calvo

'P. T. Kuo J.. Wilson ,

LP&L J. Dewease K. Cook R. Burski B.-Churchill M. Holley

<  :/.,, W. Cross s,

.e

( "

EBASCO D , J. Haughtaling

A. Wern ii I

4 t

i O

. . _ , . . _