ML20081K895
| ML20081K895 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1983 |
| From: | Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081D174 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8311140455 | |
| Download: ML20081K895 (2) | |
Text
.... _ _ _
{
a }'
dit:
UNITED STATES
.k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,(( ^
f" 3 REGION 888 5#
f 799 ROOSEVELT RO Ao 0,,
4 GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 40137 g '.v OCT 1 1 ss' MEMORANDUM FOR:
D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR
- j-FROM:
R. F. Warnick, Director, Office of Special Cases
SUBJECT:
NRC AUXILIARY BUILDING AUDIT On September 14 and 15, 1983, an NRC team comprised of Messrs. J. Kane and F. Rinaldi of NRR; Mr. R. Landsman of RIII and Consultants S. Poulous and G. Harstead, audited the licensee' reanalysis of the Midland Auxiliary Building. This audit was performed at the Bechtel Office in Ann Arbor, Michigat. As a result of the audit, the team identified several design concerns and issues requiring resolution. These are referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for action as appropriate, The design of the remedial soils slab fix at Elev. 659 (i.e. the eye bars) a.
was performed to ACI 318 and not to ACI 349. The acceptability of the licensee's decision to use ACI 318 in lieu of ACI 349 needs to be evaluated.
b.
~In view of the critical nature of the eye bars, the question arose as to the need for some type of monitoring on this fix (i.e. strain gages) due to the anticipated settlement over the life of the plant. Do moni-toring requirements need to be imposed?
c.
Because of the anticipated differential settlement expected to occur during the life of the plant, the control tower will be pulling away from the main auxiliary building. Has the mechanical branch determined that equipment between the two buildings can withstand this elongation?
i;
- d, The licensee performed an analysis on differential settlement of the i -
buildings that was different from that which the NRC anticipated. The l
staff expected the differential settlement to be measured between the edge j
of the main auxiliary building and the edge of the control tower.
In reality, the licensee performed an analysis using the center of the main auxiliary building as one point instead of the edge. Thus, for the requested 0.25" differential settlement analysis, the actual value was 0.17", and for the requested 0.50" differential, the actual value was 0.24".
Is the licensee's analysis acceptable to NRR7 i
e.
There appears to be a lot of confusion as to what upward building move-ments the licensee and NRC staff should allow during underpinning. What are the allowable upward movements during jacking operations?
f.
.The licensee stated that existing structures were analyzed according to ACI 318 as agreed to with NRR. The SSER #2 states that the buildings have been checked against ACI 349.
Is this acceptable to NRR?
3p XA Copy HaTBMSent tofDX
,9 M//
oyrr
-a 4 *n.
OCT 1 1 1983' D. G. Eisenhut 2
g.
The analysis of the existing structures has been performed by assuming that the existing settlement stresses will be removed during the permanent underpinning jacking. The audit team feels that the existing stresses cannot be jacked out in their entirety and must be included in
.2e final analysis of the building. What is the NRC position in regards to including existing settlement stresses in the analysis?
t Should you or members of your staff need additional information, please feel free to contact R. Landsman (388-5587).
RFuh&k R. F. Warnick, Director Office of Special Cases cc:
J. C. Stone, IE E. C. Adensam, NRR J. D. Kane, NRR
.F. Rinaldi, NRR 4
t o