ML19345C523
| ML19345C523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1980 |
| From: | Paton W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8012050420 | |
| Download: ML19345C523 (11) | |
Text
.
RECE!VTCCISTR!EUTION SLP.vicIs curr
.y FSO MCY 28 M411 27 m..
pr~*
,op e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 11/26/80 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-330-0M
)
50-329-0L (Midland P.lant, Units 1 and 2)
)
50-330-0L NRC STAFF INTERR0GATORIES TO CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(b), the NRC Staff serves the following inter-rogatories on Consumers Power Company.
In several interrogatories we have included requests for documents. The requests are made in the event you will respond absent a fomal Motion to Produce these Documents.
INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 1.
Infomation sought in these Interrogatories shall include infomation within the knowledge, possession, control or access of any agents, employees and independent contractors of Consumers Power Company.
2.
As used herein, " documents" includes, but is not limited to, subsurface investigation and foundation reports, geotechnical engineering calcula-tions, geotechnical evaluations and special study reports, construction plans and specifications, papers, photograph!, criteria, standards of g
80220so4 So.
2-review, recordings, memoranda, books, recoros, writings, letters, tele-grams, mailgrams, correspondence, notes and minutes of meetings or of conversations or of phone calls, interoffice, intra-agency or interagency memoranda or written communications of any nature, recordings of con-versations either_ in writing or upon any mechanical or electronic or electrical recording devices, notes, exhibits, appraisals, work papers,
- reports, studies, opinions, surveys, evaluations, projections, hypotheses, formulas, designs, drawings, manuals, notebooks, worksheets, contracts, agreements, letter agreements, diaries, desk calendars, charts, schedules, appointment books, punchcards and computer printout sheets, computer data, telecopier transmissions, directives, proposals, and all draf ts, revisions, and differing versions (whether formal or infomal) of any of the foregoing, and also all copies of any of the foregoing which differ in any way (including handwritten notations or other written or printed matter of any nature) from the original.
Interrogatory 1 As a result of settlement and inadequate compaction in the fill area, you have proposed remedial actions and you have agreed to re-analyze the seismic /
structural analyses of the Category I structures located in this area.
(a) Have you verified and evaluated any changes in the design safety margins available for any Category I structures by perfoming structural re-analysis?
(b)
If the answer to (a) is yes, please provide documents related to any structural re-analysis perfomed.
L(c)
If the answer to (a) is no,'please state the reasons for not performing that re-analysis.
(d)
If the answer to (a) is no, but you plan to make such re-analysis, please state when you plan to do so.
(e) ~Have you factored into any re-analysis information contained in, or resulting from, a letter from Robert Tedecso to Vice President J. Cook, dated October 14, 1980, concerning seismological input data acceptable to the Staff?
(f)
If the answer to (e) is yes, please provide copies of all documents relating to that re-analysis.
(g)
If the answer
.o (e) is no, please state if you plan to make an analysis incorporating that data, which structures you plan to re-analysis, and when you plan to do so.
(h)
If you believe re-analysis is not required for any such Category I structure, please state for each structure why such re-analysis is not requi red.
(i) Was the floor response spectra for the diesel generator building gener-ated on the assumption that the shear wave velocity would not be lower than 500 feet per second?
(j)
If the answer to Questien (1) is negative, please-state the assumption used with respect to snear wave velocity.
(k) How have you assured yourself that the soil shear wave velocity will not be less than 500. feet per second for the life of the plant?
Interroga tory. 2 Th2 fill material under the northern wing of the service water pump structure has been found to provide inadequate support. While the portion of the structure over the fill material is being supported by the main structure founded on natural material, through-cantilever action, it is stated in Management Corrective Action Report No. 24, Interim Report 6, issued Septem-ber 7,1978, that the total design loads cannot be supported by the main s tructu re.
Your proposed remedial action will utilize corbels attached to
the side of the structural wall by bolts. The corbels are to be supported by pilings placed underneath them.
(a) What alternative corrective actions did you consider for supporting the cantilevered portion of the Service Water Pump Structure?
(b) Was one of the alternatives considered to provide a stable solid founda-tion support of the cantilever portion of the structure down to the glacial till rather than the concentrated support design eventually chosen?
(c) What structural analyses for each of these alternatives did you perfom?
(d) Please provide copies of documents relating to any analysis described in 2(c) above.
(e) Did you factor into any analysis identified in 2(c) above the infor-mat'% c.ontained in a letter from Robert Tedesco to Vice. President J. Cook, dated October 14, 1980, concerning seismological input data acceptable to the Staff ?
(f) Explain why each of the alternatives identified in 2(a) above was rejected or accepted.
(g)
For those alternatives that were rejected, but for which no analysis was identified in 2(c) above, give the reasons for not considering those alternatives.
(h) What analyses have you done to assure yourselves that the long longi-tudinal bolts which will be used in the remedial action will withstand the force produced in the bending mode?
(i) Please provide copies of documents relating to any analysis identified in 2(h).
(j)
If no such analysis has been perfomed do you plan to do an analysis and if so when?
(k) 90 you have a plan for pre-service and in-service inspection of the integrity of the bolts during the life of the plant?
(1) If the answer to 2(k) is yes, provide a copy or description of that plan.
(m)
If the answer to 2(k) is no, state the reasons that such a plan is not necessary.
(n) What type of bracing (if any) will be provided to assure that the vertical piling will resist horizontal forces?
(o) What analysis have you done to assure the adequacy of any horizontal braces identified in 2(n).
(p) Please provide a copy of any analysis identified in 2(o).
(q) What analyses have you done to assure yourselves that the pilin under the service water pump structure will provide adequate vertical support after the occurrence of a postulated earthquake (OBE)?
(r) What analyses have you done to assure yourselves that the piling under the service water pump structure will provide adequate vertical support after the occurrence of a postulated earthquake (SSE)?
(s) Please provide a copy of any analysis identified in 2(q) and 2(r).
(t) Did you factor into any analysis identified in 2(r) above the infor-mation contained in a letter from Robert Tedesco to Vice President J. Cook, dated October 14, 1980, concerning seismological input data acceptable to the Staff?
Interrogatory 3 The following questions refer to the remedial actions at the service water pump structure.
(a)
Is the corbel design such that it depends upon a friction-fit with the service water pump structure's north wall resulting from the pre-tensioning of the long longitudinal bolts.
(b) How have you assured yourselves that this friction-fit will be main-tained under all the design loads for the building?
(c)
If the answer to 3(b) is based on tests or other analysis please identify and provide copies of the analysis or test results.
(d) How have you assured yourself that the c Sate at the interface between the corbel and the Service Water Pump Structure can adequately resist bearing pressures developed as a result of pre-tensioning of the bolts.
(e)
If the answer to 3(d) is based on tests or other analysis please identify and provide copies of the analysis or test results.
9.
Interrogatory 4 In the response to Question 15 of the NRC request, regarding plant fill, it is stated that, " differential settlement primarily induces additional strain, which is a self-limiting effect and does not affect the ultimate strength of the structural members." Additional clarification of this statement is needed.
(a) Why do you cla. Wy the resulting strains as self-limiting in nature?
(b) How do you reconcile your statement quoted above with your statement concerning the Service Water Pump Structure in the Management Corrective Action Report No. 24, Interim Report 6, issued September 7,1978 that the total design loads cannot be supported by the main structure.
Interrogatory 5 Your responses to Questions 14, 28. and 29 of the NRC request regarding the causes of cracks due to settlement, the significance of the extent of cracks, and the consequences of cracking, addressed only the existing condition of the Category I structures.
(a) Have you performed analyses w11ch provide tension field data under the design load combinations at any crack locations for each Category I s tructu re.
(b)
Provide documents relating to data or analysis described in Part (a).
(c)
If the answer to (a) is no, state why it is not necessary to perform that analysis.
(d) Have you performed any analyses to show the limiting tension field conditions in which a crack will not propagate.
(e)
Provide documents relating to data or analysis described in Part (d).
(f)
If the answer to (d) is no, state why you do not believe it is necessary to perform that analysis.
(g) What analyses have you perfomed prior to loading or surcharging of any structures or tanks to assure that existing cracks will not further propagate?
Interrogatory 6 Since the fill was replaced by other material, such as lean concrete, in the vicinity of the auxiliary building and of the feedwater valve pits, the soil properties of the foundation material have been changed.
(a) Have you performed new seismic / structural analyses that utilizes the new' soil properties, (e.g. damping valves and shear modules).
(b)
If the answer to (a) is yes, please provide documents relating to such seismic / structural analysis.
(c)
If the answer to (a) is no, please state the reasons for not perfoming such new seismic / structural analysis.
(d)
If the answer to (a) is no, please state your basis for concluding that these structures will comply with current NRC criteria.
(e)
If the answer to (a) is yes, have you perfomed a new soils structural interaction analysis for the auxiliary building and the feedwater isolation valve pits.
(f)
If the answer to (e) is yes, please provide documents relating to that analysis.
Interrogatory 7 Your replies to date indicate that the effectiveness of the proposed ground water well system has not yet been established. These wells will be needed to control the ground-water. level and prevent soil-liquifaction.
(a) Will the pemanent dewatering system be designed to withstand the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE)?
(
(b)
If no, will-the permanent dewatering system be designed to withstand any lesser ground vibratory motion?
(c)
If the answer to (a).is no, have you evaluated the impact of soil liquification on any soil supported Category I structure.
(d)
If no, why not?
(e)
If the answer to (b) is yes, what ground vibratory motion has been considered?
(f)
If the answer to (a) is yes, have you perfomed any analysis based upon information contained in or resulting from a letter from Robert Tedesco to Vice President J. Cook dated October 14, 1980 concerning seismological input data acceptable to the Staff?
(g)
If the answer to (f) is yes, what changes in the dewatering system design and ground water drawdown levels were determined to be needed.
Interrogatory 8 In connection with your seismic analysis of the service water pump structure and the diesel generator building have you daveloped:
(1) Lump mass models (2) Stiffness value for each member (3) Mass at each nodes point (4) Spring constants used in the analysis (K, C, K, C, K,, C,) and (5) Seismic g
g x
x inputs of the modified Taft N21E 1952 record used in this analysis. As to any affirmative answer, please provide copies.
Interrogatory 9 With respect to the seismic Category I valve pits located in the fill adjacent of the east and west side of the diesel generator building:
(?) What changes, if any, occurred to these pits during the diesel generator surcharge program?
i l
{
--9 (b) Do any cracks exist'in these pits?_
(c) What changes, if any, occurred in the rattle space for the piping during the diesel generator building surcharge program?
Respectfully submitted, William D. Paton Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day of November, 1980.
L m
p_,
m.,
y_.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'In the Matter.of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-0M & OL
)
50-330-0M & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifv that copies of "NRC STAFF INTERROGATORIES TO CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 26th day of November, 1980:
- Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Ms. Mary Sinclair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5711 Summerset Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Midland, Michigan 48640 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 42nd Floor 6152 N. Verde Trail Chicago, Illinois 60603 Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel' Frank J. Kelley V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Attorney General of the State Washington, D.C.
20555 of Michigan Steward H. Freeman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing-Assistant Attorney General Appeal Board Panel Gregory T. Taylor U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20555 Environmental Protection Division 720 Law Building
- Docketing cand Service Section Lansing, Michigan 48913 Office of tne Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
' Washington, D.C.
20555 1 IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611
- 6. se '
S -
James E. Brunner, Esq.
Consumers Power; Company.
212 West Michigan Avenue
- Jackson, Michigan 49201 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Freeland, Michigan 48623 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Wendell H. Marshall, Vice President Midwest-Environmental Protection Associates-RFD 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Sharon K. Warren 636 Hillcrest Midland, Michigan 48640
/
4 William D. Paton -
Counsel for NRC Staff
.i
-. ~, _,
-