ML18037A261

Responds to 800215 & 0509 Requests for Review of Plant Geotechnical Investigations.Util Should Evaluate Safety Implications of Crack in Reactor Bldg North Wall

ML18037A261
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	05/30/1980
From:	Wilkinson T ARMY, DEPT. OF, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
To:	Mcmullen R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NCBED-DF, NUDOCS 8006060384
Download: ML18037A261 (8)

Text

Rs."ULA >SR'+>I'>FURNATIo>> olsTRIOUTIo'I st's>l (Rios) 'QI/I ACCESSIOf'f NBH:8006 060384 OOC ~ DATE: 80/0 5/30 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET F AC I 'ne IMi le Point I'fuclear Stat iong Unit ls Niagara Powe 05000220 0 410 Sf' ~ile Point Nuclear Stat ions Unit 2r f4iagara aloha 05000410 A TB ~ f~. >c, AUTHOR AFFTLI AT IOff r'ILK I>CSUN s T. A. ArfTtysOept,of s Cor os of F n91neers HF C I P ~ sf A ~}E REC 1P IF f4 I AFF IL I A I ION

~C'fULLENRH ~ Geosciences Branch SUslSECT: Responds to 800215 8 0509 reques ts for review of plant-geotechnical investigations'til should evaluate safety implications of crock in reactor bldg north wall, DIS fH IBUT ION CODE: 6021S COPIES RECEIVEf) :LTH E'fCI SIZE:

TITLE: Dual Review Hesponsibi lity (DOR 8 OPM)

~ fOTES:

HEC IP IENT CUP IES HEC IPIENT COPIES I0 COOF /i%A>~1E L T TR Ef'f IO CODE/i<AME '> TH EN ACTIuf'. 05 f'fn P.POW,~W~~~<1 06 BC Cg>3>ZmKy 5 A f) 8.6RX'maS LA O4B¹8>'CuR gy INTERNAL: ') G F IL 1 02 ffRC PI)R 1 18 I~E 2 13 TA/EDO 14 CORE PERF BR 1 15 Ei'lGR BR 1 16 REAC SFTY BR 1 17 EEB 1 1>3 PLANT SYS BH 1 19 EFLT THT SYS 1 20 BR IRKRAN 21 EPB OOR 1 22 OPERA LIC BR 1 23 GEOSCI BR 2 25 QAB 1 26 'lECH ENG BR 1 27 STRUC EluG BR 1 28 HATL ENG OR 1 29 HERC SYS BH 1 30 ANALYSIS BH 1 31 AUX SYS UR 1 l 32 CONTAIN SYS 1 "33 I ff C SYS OR 1 34 POlvER SYS BR 1

'35 ACCONT AfJLYS 1 1 36 HAO ASST BH 1 37 K IRK'>AfOOD 1 36 HYD FETOR BR 1 Af) FOR ENG 1 AD PLANT SYS l AO SITE ANLfS 1 AD SITE TECH 1 AO/CORE 8 Cf)IWT 1 DIHECTOR >ERR 1 OELD 1

.EXTERNAL: 03 LPOR 1 1 04 NSIC 39 ACRS 10 10

'JUX e 580 0

TOTAL IA>bblBEH UF COPIES HEQU [RED: LTTR ~ ENCL

0 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BUFFALO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1776 NIAGARA STREET BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14207 NCBED-DF 30 Hay 1980 Hr. Richard McMullen Geology and Seismology Section Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Dick:

Reference your transmittal dated 15 february 1980, and our verbal conversation on 9 May 1980, requesting our review of geotechnical investigations performed at Niagara Mohawk's Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.

We have reviewed Niagara Mohawk's responses to several of the questions posed to them in your memorandum dated 11 May 1979. As discussed with you previously, at the present time we will only be providing comments regarding Niagara Mohawk's response to Question 361.22. Since many of the questions regarding the investigation performed at Unit 2 are interrelated, I would prefer to withhold commenting on any specific response until all questions have been addressed by Niagara Mohawk.

Regarding the response to Question 361.22, it appears that the Utility has altered its position on the postulated cause for the crack in the north wall of the Unit 1 Reactor Building. At the meeting held on 24 April 1977, Niagara

.Mohawk indicated that the crack was 'suspected to be caused by rock squeeze of excavation walls. In their response to Question 361.22, Niagara Mohawk now states that the cause of the crack has not been determined. The 3-foot wide slot between the rock and substructure walls would seem to preclude wall con-vergence from horizontal rock squeeze as a likely cause for cracking.

However, as stated in the response, small movements of the foundation rock supporting the adjoining Screenwell Building's west wall, could produce suf-ficient load to cause cracking in the Reactor Building wall. Expansion of concrete comprising the west wall of the Screenwell Building was mentioned as another possible cause..

It is my opinion that the Utility should be required to evaluate the signifi-cance of the crack in the Unit 1 Reactor Building wall with respect to the safe operation of the plant. Further, they should undertake studies, beyond the simple monitoring of physical changes of the crack, in order to determine if possible its exact cause. The need for possible remedial treatment at Qp>

8006060 ~ ~'(

NCBEO-DP Mr. Richard Mc Mullen Unit 1 and the need for design and construction modification at Unit 2 should be thoroughly addressed by the Utility.

We look forward to receiving a copy of Niagara Mohawk's responses to the balance of the questions relating to the Unit 2 geologic investigation.

Sincerely,

~/'j.Lkkl'HOMAS A. ILKINSON District Geologist

VRC FoRM 196 2-7$ )

U.S. NUCLEAR REQULATORV COMMISSION OOCKET NUMSER 8V- 2dO FII E NUMSER

. /

NRC OISTRIBUTlON FOR'ART50 DOCK ET MATE RlAL 0 Mr. J. M. Toennies FROM:

of the Army OATS OF 0OCUM EN T Dept Niagara Mohawk Pwr Corp Buffalo, N.Y. 14207 Paul F. Gaume OATE RECEIVEO Syracuse, N.Y.

I ETTER C1NOTORIZEO. PROP ~ INPUT' 0 RM NUMSER OF COPIES RECEIVEO C} OR IOINAI. ~NCLASSIFIEO PCOPV /CC ~

ESCRIPTION Forwarding Dept of the Army's permit allowing Applicant to construct a submerged intake structure and a submerged discharge .

structure connected to shore by tunnel No 1, and a submerged intake structure connected to shore No 2 in Lake Ontario at: Subject Facility, Oswego County, N Y PLANT NAME: NINE MILE POINT UNITS 1 Bc 2 jcm 06/07/78 J It=WC.C FOR ACTION/INFORMATION . ENVIROÃiENTAL ASSIGNED AD:

CH CHIEF: BRANCH CHIEF:

PROJECT MANAGER: uolte.is LIC. ASST: >UOCA U B. HARLESS INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS SITE SAFETY Q emR 5B- <<.4 ENVIRON AVALYSIS DENTON C NJLLER T

GOSS'ICK G STAFF EVGIVEERIVG T D TTO VVIRON TECH CT RS ERNST BALL ~

CTOR SAFETY ROSS ILL (2) iVOVAK ROSZTOCZY YSIS CHECK VO LWR EX I ERNAL DISTRIBUTION CONTROL NUMBER PDR:

TIC C

BEG V (J. HAilCHETT) 7- ~ . i'O;i-16 CYS SENT CATEGOR.