ML19351D386
| ML19351D386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1980 |
| From: | Morse A COULEE REGION ENERGY COALITION |
| To: | DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351D387 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SC, NUDOCS 8010100054 | |
| Download: ML19351D386 (4) | |
Text
_ __ _________ -__________________________
s c
9 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
}GGEica 9
USNRO A
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN CCT, g p
L-Otan et me %
-2 ds Cn In the Matter of
)
)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE )
Docket No. 50-409-SC
)
(La Crosse Boiling Water
)
"p uC2g Reactor)
)
C.R.E.C. FIRST ROUND INTERROGATORIES TO LICENSEE 1.
Please explain the reasons for the differing conclusions reached by licensee and the NRC as to the return period for a.11 or.12 earthquake, based on seismicity probabilistic analyses.
2.
Provide all seismic probability studies that have been undertaken for the LACBWR region and relied upon by the parties. Specifically, what calculations and methodologies were used in arriving at said probabilistic conclusions.
3.
Please explain the coourence of the July, 1980, earthquake, centered in Kentucky and felt in Wisconsin, in a seismic region that had heretofore been determined as " safe", and the effects this quake must necessarily have on all probabalistic studies fer our region to date.
4.
Is southwestern Wisconsin less likely to sustain an earthquake equivalent in magnitude to the July, 1980, earthquake centered l
in Kentucky?
I 9506 l
8010 J o o g
So[
054
2 5 '. What are the probabilities of such a quake happening again in either areas?
6.
What magnitude earthquake would cause LACBWR to sustain damages that vauld be inimical to the health and safety of the public?
i 7.
What are the design criteria for a SSE at other rcractors in the LACBWR re e.g. Prairie Island, Point Beach, etc.?
E.
Does adequate motion data exist to make ground acceleration predictions for LACBWR7 If so, please provide all information and data used to evaluate and predict ground motion for the LACBWR area.
4 9.
What bases were used in establishing a.12g as the SSE for LACBWR,
,as opposed to.2g?
10.
Do you believe sufficient test data is available to accurately predict ground acceleration for disturbed soil similar to the landfill that makes up the LACHWR site? If so, why?
11.
Why does DPC assume return capabilities for safe shutdown and seismic probabilities are givens, as indicated on p. 40 of the September 11, 1980, prehearing conference transcript?
12.
What is the margin of error in the calculations uC
.3 in your calculations for seismic analyses, specifically for ground acceleration and seismic probability?
13.
For what reason did the Army Corp of Engineers WES study use a.2g l
ground acceleration model in their seismic analysis for LACBWR?
I
3 14.
On what basis do you discredit and/or discount the conclusions of the WES study?
15.
Please explain any change in interpretation that has evolved on j
your part as per the WES analysis. Additionally, please provide intervenors with a copy of any and all the WES studies done for LACWBR to date.
i 16.
Please describe in detail the " stipulation and settlement within i
the meaning of 10 CFR 2.203", as alluded to on pp. 40 and 41 of the September 11, 1980, prehearing conference transcript.
17.
Please provide intervenors with copies of any and all Dames and Moore analyses and other communication to DPC and NRG staff relative to the seismic and liquefaction potential.
18.
Please submit all information relevant to any soil dewatering methods either studied or proposed by DPC.
Include both estimated and incurred costs.
19.
What consulting firms other than Dames and Moore did licensee approach to assist them in'the seismic question?
20.
Why was a review by Dr. Seed sought and obtained by DPC as late as September 1979, several years after the site analysis had begun?
21.
Why have both the NRC staff and licensee chosen to rely on procedures developed by Dr. Seed? Why have not separate and independent procedures been established by the different parties, so as to allow for a realistic comparison and appraisal of conclusions.
4 22.'
Please list the names, titles and roles of all NRC personnel instrumental in NRC staff decision not to requast a dewatering system for LACHWR.
23.
Did licensee or its contractors ever utilize a blasting technique termed " flaring" in initial construction of the facility and its pilings? If so, is such a practice acceptable construction procedure according to NRC regulations? Please provide copies of all technical specifications for LACBWR relative to construction of the far.ility to ensure against soil liquefaction, e.g. the constre.ction criteria.
24.
CREC believes DPC has been remiss in serving all relative to the seismic site analysis. Please submit any and all documents
, pertaining to the seismic analysis not previously served on CREC.
Respectfully submitted, I
f2NR Anne K. Morse C.R.E.C.
Dated in La Crosse, WI this 2nd day of October, 1980 f
-.