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 A 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 F AC I'ne 0 410 Sf'A TB~f~.>c, r'ILK I>CSUN s T.A.HF C I P~sf A~}E~C'fULLENRH

~060384 OOC~DATE: 80/0 IMi le Point I'fuclear Stat~ile Point Nuclear Stat AUTHOR AFFTLI AT IOff ArfTtysOept,of s Cor os of F REC 1P IF f4 I AFF IL I A I ION Geosciences Branch 5/30 NOTARIZED:

NO DOCKET iong Unit ls Niagara Powe 05000220 ions Unit 2r f4iagara aloha 05000410 n91neers SUslSECT: Responds to 800215 8 0509 reques geotechnical investigations'til implications of crock in reactor DIS f H IBUT ION CODE: 6021S COPIES RECEIVEf)TITLE: Dual Review Hesponsibi

~fOTES: ts for review of plant-should evaluate safety bldg north wall,:LTH E'fCI SIZE: lity (DOR 8 OPM)HEC IP IENT CUP IES I 0 COOF/i%A>~1E L T TR Ef'f ACTIuf'.05 f'fn P.POW,~W~~~<1 A f)8.6RX'maS HEC IPIENT COPIES IO CODE/i<AME

'>TH EN 06 BC Cg>3>ZmKy 5 LA O4B¹8>'CuR gy INTERNAL: ')G F IL 18 I~E 14 CORE PERF BR 16 REAC SFTY BR 1>3 PLANT SYS BH 20 BR IRKRAN 22 OPERA LIC BR 25 QAB 27 STRUC EluG BR 29 HERC SYS BH 31 AUX SYS UR"33 I ff C SYS OR'35 ACCONT AfJLYS 37 K IRK'>AfOOD Af)FOR ENG AO SITE ANLfS AO/CORE 8 Cf)IWT OELD.EXTERNAL:

03 LPOR 39 ACRS 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 02 ffRC PI)R 13 TA/EDO 15 Ei'lGR BR 17 EEB 19 EFLT THT SYS 21 EPB OOR 23 GEOSCI BR 26'lECH ENG BR 28 HATL ENG OR 30 ANALYSIS BH 32 CONTAIN SYS 34 POlvER SYS BR 36 HAO ASST BH 36 HYD FETOR BR AD PLANT SYS AD SITE TECH DIHECTOR>ERR 04 NSIC 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1'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 cance of the crack in safe operation of the the simple monitoring if possible its exact the Utility should be required to evaluate the signifi-the Unit 1 Reactor Building wall with respect to the plant.Further, they should undertake studies, beyond of physical changes of the crack, in order to determine 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

U.S.NUCLEAR REQULATORV COMMISSION ET TE VRC FoRM 196 2-7$)NRC OISTRIBUTlON FOR'ART50 DOCK MA RlAL OOCKET NUM SER 8V-2dO./FII E NUMSER 0 Mr.J.M.Toennies Niagara Mohawk Pwr Corp Syracuse, N.Y.FROM: Dept of the Army Buffalo, N.Y.14207 Paul F.Gaume OATS OF 0OCUM EN T OATE RECEIVEO I ETTER C}OR IOINAI.PCOPV C1NOTORIZEO.

~NCLASSIFIEO PROP~INPUT'0 RM NUMSER OF COPIES RECEIVEO/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: PROJECT MANAGER: LIC.ASST: BRANCH CHIEF: uolte.is>UOCA U emR 5B-<<.4 B.HARLESS INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS SITE SAFETY Q ENVIRON AVALYSIS DENTON C NJLLER T GOSS'ICK G STAFF EVGIVEERIVG T D TTO CT RS VVIRON TECH ERNST BALL~CTOR SAFETY ROSS iVOVAK ILL (2)ROSZTOCZY CHECK VO LWR YSIS PDR: TIC C BEG V (J.HAilCHETT) 16 CYS SENT CATEGOR.EX I ERNAL DISTRIBUTION CONTROL NUMBER 7-~.i'O;i-