ML19345G894

Response in Opposition to NRC 810326 Request for Order Compelling Responses to Certain Interrogatories.Util Will File Supplemental Responses,But Objections Still Stand. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML19345G894
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/10/1981
From:	Brunner E CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19345G895	List: ML19345G894 ML19345G899
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104220669
Download: ML19345G894 (8)

Text

. .. - - - - - - . _ . . -

.- - .j

.. I%*.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

@TED CORRESPONDENCE BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-329-0M 50-330-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY , 50-329-OL 50-330-(Midland Plant, Unit's 1 and 2) < Wh 4 /@ B/ as e'

DOC'ETED .

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF (l-MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES APR 131981 * *4 DLz ti 2: Soetry */

w :, M ee -

2ac:a Introduction b .E C

On March 11, 1981, Applicant filed a Response to 9,. Interrogatories which had been presented by the NRC Staff on November 20, 1980. Following

,; receipt of Applicant's Response, the Staff, on March 26, 1981, filed a motion to compel answers to certain questions to which Applicant had objected, and to compel clarification of Applicant's responses to other questions.

While App.licant believes that its initial responses were both clear '

and complete, Applicant will shortly file a document entitled " Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories." Hopefully, this document will clear up the NRC Staff's concerns with Applicant's initial responses in areas upon which l there should be no argument. In other areas, particularly questions to which objections were filed, Applicant has amplified its initial responses and objections in the material which follows: y, Q'

y. j y

/  % ,9 5 t ~R C3 5  %

//

-  % N,g/is3 E S IJ.

~

y YF v #.e/

1 s

'orI @

810.4220 %7 g

___ _ _ _ _ . _ . - . . . . - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~

. . 2 The objections to Interrogatories 2(h) through 2(p), 2(q) through 2(s), and 3(a) through 3(e) are valid and should be sustained.

. These Interrogatories deal with the details of a design epproach which formerly was Applicant's design choice, but is no longer under consideration, i.e. the driven pile underpinning scheme for the service water pump structure.

At the time these Interrogatories were propunded, Applicant had notified the NRC Staff that it was considering alternative designs for the service water structure, but had not indicated that the driven pile design previously chosen had definitely been scrapped.

The details of a design not being proposed are not relevant to any 6

portion of the December 6,1979 Order, nor are they relevant to any matter within the Board's jurisdiction pursuant to the consolidation of OL issues with issues concerning the Order. In addition, the very process of answering these questions would be a waste of valuable technical and engineering resources, and would not in any manner advance the protection of the health l

l and safety of the public.

The NRC Staff apparently admits that a now rejected design proposal i

j is not relevant to the question whether or not Applicant's proposed fixes i

provide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will be protected. (See p.3 of NRC Staff Motion) Instead, the Staff hinges I

its continued pressing of these questions on the issue of whether or not adequate " acceptance criteria" had been supplied to the NRC Staff on December 6, 1979.

t I

. . - _ - . - - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ^

3 It is apparent from an inspection of the Staff's questions that they dea'l with the acceptability of the formerly proposed remedial activities and not with the issue of the provision of acceptance criteria by December 6,1979.

In fact , answers to the question would provide the Staff with net information as to the acceptance criteria supplied to the Staff on December 6,1979.

• Questions 2(h) through 2(p) request detailed informatida concerning a set of metallic bolts and braces which were to be used in a portion of the

, detailed design of the driven piles. Those questions are repeated here for convenience:

2(h) What analyses have you done to assure yourselves that the long longitudinal bolts which will be used in the remedial action will withstand the force produced in the binding mode?

2(i) Please provide copies of documents relating to any analysis identified in 2(h).

I 2(j) If no such analysis has been performed do you plan to do an analysis and if so when?

f 2(k) Do you have a plan for pre-service and in-service inspection of the integrity of the bolts during the life of the plant?

2(1) If the answer to 2(k) is yes, provide a copy or description of that plant.

2(m) If the answer to 2(k) is no, state the reasons that such a plan is not -

necessary.

2(n) What type of bracing (if any) will be provided to assure that the l vertical piling will resist horizontal forces?'

l

! 2(o) What analysis have you done to assure the adequacy of any horizontal l braces identified in 2(n).

2(p) Please provide a copy of any analysis identified in 2(o).

1 Questions 2(q) through 2(t) deal with seismic analysis of the rejected l

proposal. Questions 3(a) through 3(e) deal with " corbels", which are yet another design detail incorporated in Applicant's previous proposal. Those questions are also repeated here for convenience:

l l

l l

4

~

i 2(q) 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 (OBE)?

2(r) What analyses have you done to assure yourselves that the piling under l the service water pump structure will provide adequate vertical support after the occurrence of a postulated earthquake (SSE)?

2(s). Please provide a copy of any analysis identified in 2(g) and 2(r).

2(t) Did you factor into any analysis identified in 2(r) above the information l contained in a letter from Robert Tedesco to Vice President J. Cook dated October 14, 1980, concerning seismological input data acceptable to the Staff?

3(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.-

3(b) How have you assured yourselves that this friction-fit will be maintained under all the design loads for the building?

3(c) If the answer to 3(b) is based on ceses or other analysis please identify and provide copies of the analysis or test results.

L 3(d) How have you assured yourselves that the concrete 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.

3(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.*

l It is apparent from mere inspection that these questions were drafted for the purpose of obtaining technical information with respect to the former design proposal, and have nothing to do with information supplied to the Staff prior to December 6,1979. In fact, the questions have no connection with information supplied to the Staff without regard to time. The questions were apparently presented so that the Staff could acquire technical knowledge concerning the details of a "fix" which, at the time the question was propounded, was still being presented as the choice.

• None of the design details under scrutiny in these questions are incorporated in, or have any relevance to the present remedial proposal for the service water pump structure. With respect to the seismic analyses of the present wall footing desi'gn, Applicant has already committed to provide the NRC Staff with such information whe- ic is developed.(See Response to Question 1(b),.11/26/80 NRC Inte'rrogatories to CPCO)

- +- -- ww----,.--,,ev-v---y ,w,. ,,---,,-g,- ,-,-w,, ---,e-.,,9- ws-.-we------arr --

.w-,- - - , . - ---.r--- - - - .,w-- + +pr+-- w~e. -w-eame,---+,w-.y,---,p, i-.--,------------*y

_ _ _ _ . - . . . . . _ . . _ . ___ _ .d

. 5 Furtheruore, any information concerning acceptance criteria with respect to the driven pile underpinning scheme which was supplied to the Staff prior to December 6, 1979, would already be in the hands of the Staff. The record of information and criteria provided to the NRC Staff prior to December 6, 1979 is equally available to the NRC e

Staff and Applicant.

Finally, the very process of responding to these questions would be vasteful of valuable engineering time and resources, which could be better spent on viable design activities. None of the information requested would provide any benefit to the NRC in carrying out its function of reviewing actual design proposals, a point silently conceded in Staff Counsel's brief, since it was not advanced as a l reason for Staff insistence that responses be provided.

C For the rimsons outlined above, Applicant's objections to

Interrogatories 2(h) through 2(p), 2(q) through 2(t), and 3(a) through 3(e) should be sustained.

Applicant's objections to Interrogatories dealing with and refusal to supply documents pertaining to seismic input data as delineated in the October 14, 1980 letter from Robert Tedesco to Vice President Cook should be sustained.

l 1

l Applicant has objected to questions scattered throughout the NRC Staff Interrogatories, i.e., questions 1(e), 2(e), 2(t), 1(f), etc.,

requesting information as to how a letter dated October 14, 1980 from RLTedesco to JWCook was taken into account in structural analyses of various structures pertinent to this case. The October 14, 1980 letter from RLTedesco to JWCook, along with background and subsequent events associated with it, were described at great length in " Applicant's Motion to Defer Consideration of Seismic Questions", dated March 18, 1981.

l l

~

'.' 6 Briefly, the letter announced a changed NRC Staff position with respect to the seismic input criteria applicable to the entire Midland site.

Applicant has filed a motion contesting the ground for considering such issues now and maintaining that consideration of the seismic criteria applicable to the entire site must avait the operating license hearing.

Applicant believes that it would be appropriate to await an ASLB decision on that motion before responding to these questions.

Respectfully Submitted.

--- 1 Jcmes E. Brunner Dne of the attorneys for Consumers Power Co.

g 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 (517) 788-1257 m ____ _._

I

. , j

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' D TA CCPl @ agDENCB BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-329-0M 50-330-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 50-329-OL 50-330-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) e D

~Y COOK".TED f, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE *Ib N ~

W APR 131981

• C

. a "-

g Cffes Of :he .%

W: 4 0: . := '

I hereby certify that copies of Applicant's Response to NRC Staff ht

.j {<

Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, along with copies of 6 letter to Barbara Stamiris with attachments and affidavit regarding questions 1, 9,11 and 14 of Stamiris ' January 14, 1981 Discovery Request; also copies of letter to Wm. Paton with attached affidavits pertaining to NRC Staf f Interrogatories Nos.12,15 and 16, were served upon the following persons by depositing copies thereof in the United States Mail, first class postage on this 10th day of April, 1981.

Frank J. K"elley, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq.

Attorney General of the Isham, Lincoln & Beale State of Michigan One First National Plaza Stewart H. Freeman, Esq. Suite 4200 Assistant Attorney General Chicago, Illinois 60603 Gregory T. Taylor Assistant Attorney General Mr. Steve Gadler 720 Law Building 2120 Carter Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Myron M. Cherry, Esq. D. F. Judd, Sr. Project Manager One IBM Plaza Babcock & Wilcox Suite 4501 P. O. Box 1260 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Pa-RFD 10 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio Midland, Michigan 48640 Washington, D. C. 20555

a a Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Mr. C. R. Stephens, Chief U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Docketing & Service Section Washington, D. C. 20555 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Washington, D. C. 20555 6152 N. Verde Trail Apt. 3-125 Soca Raton, Florida 33433 '

l l

l i

i Lester Kornblich, Jr.

Accmic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ^

Ralph S. Decker, Esq.

Route 4, Box 1900 Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 l

William D. Paton, Esq.

Counsel for the NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conan.

Washington', D. C. 20555 l

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conan.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road Route 3 Freeland, Michigan 48623 V

James E. Brunner Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 l

l l

.. . . _ _ _- .____ _ __ . _ _ . _ , _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ ____ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _