ML19249D678

Orders Revised Schedule for ASLB Re Phase Ii.Nrc Will Issue SER by 790907.Written Testimony & Discovery Requests Re SER Are Due to 790921.Evidentiary Hearing Commence on 791010

ML19249D678
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	07/26/1979
From:	Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
TAC-08348, TAC-11299, TAC-13152, TAC-8348, NUDOCS 7909250196
Download: ML19249D678 (1)

Text

MRE ogf8 137:

unnD srxmS OF asatcA g g[9 g

NUCURR REGExIDKY OCMESSICH t

In the Matter of

)

U

)

N PORIIAND GENERAL ELECIRIC C3fANY, et al. )

Docket No. 50-344

1. DL'

)

(Trojan Nuclear Plant)

)

(Control MMS)

ORDER EStAMTWTNG Ft.Vibt.u SCHEDGE (July 26,1979)

The following schedule is hereby adopted by the Licensing Board to govern the course of Phase II of this proceeding:

September 7, 1979 SER issued by Staff.

September 21, 1979 Written testinony Med.

Last date for filing discovery requests on Staff's EER.

October 10, 1979 Evidentiary hearing cc::mences.

It is so ordered.

FDR THE AIOMIC SAFE 1Y KO LICENSING BOARD LThkA.a/

f/

Marshall E. Miller, Esq. chm"9m Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day of July 1979.

1027 204 790gg50ggg

o=

• f s,

UNITED STATES 3

/*

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• w h

-T '.

l.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS I

5.Y(

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

[

o,p # #

July 16,1979

%,s e

C=

oi 4

p bg'2.s/

, J a* /

Honorable Josep. M. Hendrie cTM*M Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com:nission g

Washington, DC 20555 Y

M EAII.LY GDEATING STATION, NUCLEAR 1 SI3 ECT:

Dear Dr. Hendrie:

12-14, 1979, the Advisory Committee on curing its 231st meeting, July Safeguards reviewed the design of the pile foundations for the Sailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1, being construered by the Northern Ree:to Indiana Public Service Cocpany (NIPSCO).

i AC.:.5 Subce=it:ee at a meeting held in Portage, Indiana f

The co=ittee also had the benefit of the documen July 9,1979 statements received from r, embers of the public.

n your letter dated June 8,1979, you made the f:ilowing rec.uest:

"The Co-.ission re:uests the Co=ittee to identify and address de significance (if any) of the engineering and safe:; issues arising from use of the shorter pilings as i.e lenger pilings.

In particular:

( '. ) is ep: sed ::

e use of shorter pilings a significant design change from the standpoint of engineering, and would it recuire significant alteration of other aspects of the design of

e facility; (2) what differences, if any, would there be ir. the safety of the facilitv. dec.endinc on whether

' anger or sh:::e pilings are used?"

driving T.e ',=ittee heard rep :ts on the experience to date relating to the 2e site, including the exploratory driving of the

f pi._s a:

i and pile t.e inter edded sand and clay layer, and the various b:r ngsOne Cor.ittee aisc

.he till ::

have been made ever the past fe. years.

.n::

be provided ring to the fac ::s Of safety ::

f the

ad :ss.5..a:

analyses re.

earieus leading combina:icns and to the expe::ed sa:tle ents o

.e a rd r e:c r s 0.-

ag ains:

3.ru::.::e5 s.:pp ::ed on piles.

1027 205 Does TO&/Sco63

~

5:norable Joseph F.. Hendrie July 16,1979 100ROR'8lM

~

"he Coc::tittee has identified only two potential safety iss:.ues arising from the use of the shorter piles as opposed to the longer pilets, and has con-cluded that neither of these will have any effect on the ssafety of the facility if the procedures proposed by NIPSCO or required iby the AC StaEf are followed.

Tne first of these results from the fact that some of the sexploratory longer piles were installed with the aid of high pressure water fiets which resulted in disturbance.of the soil (chiefly the sand) in the inter: bedded layer.

'Ihis disturbance is li=ited to only a snall portion of the founddation area at four locations.

Unless renedial measures are taken, the shorte r piles driven in these areas might be deficient in load-bearing capacity.

N!?5CO has preposed the use of " compaction piles" in the a reas of di'sturbed soil to densify the disturbed soil so that it will be able to provide su:por: ecuivalen to that in the other areas.

Tne NRC Staff believes that this procedure is acceptable, and the Cecaittee agrees, sutoject to compliance

rh the following procedures:

1.

Exploratien by borings or by penetration devices t:0 dete=ine the vertical and horizontal extent of ths2 disturbed areas.

2.

Compaction of the disturbed material by driving compaction piles.

3.

Verification b'y borings or by penetration devi'ces that all cf the disturbed soil has been compacted.

Derf min; a compression load test on at least one prod.:::icn pi.e i each disturbed area to verify i:ts lead-carrying capacity and load-deformation chara --

teristics.

N ?SCO has agreed to these procedures.

'~ne second issue resulting from the use of the shorter pil(es is the potential settlement of the supported structures.

':he settlement af ter construction weald have been expected to be essentially zero for the lo:nger pile foundation.

F: the shorter piles, the settlement has been estimated by NIPSCO to be on the order of wo inches.

Set:J.ecent of this.agnitude is not unusual for a

..:: lear c'a.: a.d

Cd have no significance to safe:y.

CJhe Cc==ittee has re: r. ended ::..s S ' Staf f, however, that the method of calculatinc the se :le en: be revie ed :: assure -hat it has een done cc..servativel.

1027 206 J

Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie July 16,1979 In addition, NIPSCO has proposed a program to measure settlenent-at numerous locations on the structures during operation of the plant, and t he NRC Staff has stated that such measurements will be required by the Technical Specifi-cations and that suitably conservative limits on permissible setT_lenents will be established.

In view of these commitments, the Committee bel.:ieves that potential settlements, even if greater than those now predicted,. would not represent a hazard to the public.

The NRC Staff is cont nuing its review of the foundation design, and the i

Cormittee believes that the remaining foundation-related issues, not related to the use of shorte. piles, can be resolved by the Staff.

In direct respense to the cuestions raised by your recuest, the AGS be.11 eves that:

1.

The use of shorter piling is not a significant design chztnge frot the standpaint of engineering.

2.

De use of shorter pilirs.rauld not recuire significant alteration of cther aspects of the design cf the facilit,j.

3.

Bere will be no difference in the safety of the facility depending en wtether longer or shorter pilings are used d.f the matters referred to above are treated as now progese:5.

Sincerely, Max W. Carbon Chairman Referen:es:

1.

Preliminary Safety Analysis Report on Bailly Generatin: Stat.i cn, Nuclear 1.

2.

Cesign Analysis and Installation of Driven H-Piles Foundation, Rep =rt SL-3629, set.itted cn March *, 1978.

3.

N;P500's Responses to lac Staff Questions, subcittM on Ju'y-14, 1978.

4.

Indicator ?ile Program, subnitted by NIPSCO to NRC on Septec ber 26, 1978.

5.

Supplementary Information on Driven H-Pile Foundation, NIPSCO, December 4, 1973.

6.

Le :er, C. 5.

Jassa;' c, NRC, to H. P. Lyle, N:?500, June 25, 1979.

Saill; Generating 5:a;ien, Nuclear 1 Construe:i:- Permit, '*a;- ;, 1_:74.

5.

epes: b,. :he ?:::er County Chap;er of the ::aa>..;;'.::n Leag ue of America, I..:., Fe'; r:Iri 2~, 1979.

9.

Ls :er, I. ". 5he rb, N;PSCO, Oc O. 3. Vassall, NRC, J..le 25, 1979.

1027 207