ML20040C355

Response to ASLB 811211 Order Directing Parties to Comment on Intervenor Attempt to Withdraw Contention 8 Re Base Mats.Affidavits Encl Which Constitute Basis on Which to Dispose of Allegation Contained in Contention 8

ML20040C355
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	01/15/1982
From:	Bischoff C JOINT APPLICANTS - PALO VERDE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20040C356	List: ML20040C355 ML20040C364 ML20040C368
References
NUDOCS 8201270563
Download: ML20040C355 (4)

Text

'

, . l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA {0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ARIZONA )

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. STN 50-528

) STN 50- 0 A (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating ) STN 5 Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) ) 9

) A RECEIVED

-- -9 JAN 2 61982n= 'L

D JOINT APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO ITEMS is EWgourt am4

nz m eaca D LISTED IN BOARD'S ORDER CONCERNING SUA SPONTE ISSUE  % .,s stl gy '

By its Order Concerning Sua Sponte Issue, dated December 11, 1981, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(" Board") directed both the Joint Applicants and the NRC Staff to address by affidavit the allegation set forth in Intervenor Patricia Lee Hourihan's ("Intervenor") withdrawn Contention No. 8. Contention No. 8 provided as follows:

"The base mats for Units 1 and 2 are not structurally able to support the systems and equipment inside containment, because some of the concrete slump tests performed by Engineering Testing Labs for Units 1 and 2 were falsified."

The procedural history associated with Contention No. 8 is described in Joint Applicants' Motion to Dismiss Intervenor's Contention No. 8, dated October 1, 1981. In brief, during the discovery' stage of this proceeding, k))

5 Intervenor refused to answer several of Joint Applicants'-

interrogatories respecting Contention No. 8. Joint

//

Applicants filed a motion to compel Intervenor to answer such interrogatories. By its Memorandum and Order dated August 31, 1981, this Board ordered Intervenor to answer 8201270563 820115 PDR ADOCK 05000528 0 d

~

Joint Applicants' interrogatories not later than September 15, 1981. Following.Intervenor's failure to comply with the Board's order, Joint Applicants moved to dismiss Contention No. 8. Intervenor's response to the motion was to withdraw the contention, which prompted the Board to direct both Joint Applicants and the NRC Staff to address the issue by affidavit.

The Board suggested that the following items be discussed:

" (a) The procedures effected in making slump tests, in the context of the contention, and in making other tests which measure the strength and acceptability of concrete in general and in the structure of the base mats in particular.

(b) The interpretation of the results of these respective tests and the manner and impor-tance in which each is meaningful as a criterion for conformance to design specifications.

(c) The results of typical measurements on and near the days the alleged infractions occurred including tJte accuracies, precisions and uncer-

~

tainties in their results. (The dates above, together with any relevant laboratory test reports are to be supplied to the Joint Applicants and the Staff by Intervenor.)

(d) A citation of the industry standard (ASTM-and/or other) method of testing and a description of the mode of calibration of the test equipment on which the accuracy, aboJe, is based.

(e) Describe the quality assurance and quality control programs of the Joint Applicants, its architect, engineer and contractor used in the construction of the base mats." Order Concerning Sua Sponte Issue, at 2-3.

Items (a) , (b), (c) and (d) are addressed in the attached " Affidavit of A. Carter Rogers on Sua Sponte Issue."

Item (e) is addressed in the attached " Affidavit of John A.

Roedel on Sua Sponte Issue."

_2-t

4 With respect to Item (c) , Joint Applicants wish to bring to the Board's attention that, notwithstanding its direc-tion to Intervenor, Joint Applicants did not receive from Intervenor and have no knowledge of either the dates of the alleged infractions or any. relevant laboratory test reports.

Furthermore, the undersigned counsel for Joint Applicants hereby avows that on three separate occasions during the weeks of December 6 and 13, 1981, he telephoned Intervenor's residence in an attempt to obtain such information and left a request with the person answering that Ms. Hourihan return the call. On none of the three occasions was the telephone call returned. Because Intervenor failed to provide the dates and other information required pursuant to the Board's Order, Joint Applicants, in order to respond to Item (c) ,

reviewed summaries of the test results for each of the days when the basemats for Units 1 and 2 were placed.

The attached affidavits show that the containment basemat is the foundation for the containment building. It is designed to support the containment walls and the interior structures and vessels. The basemat is made of reinforced concrete and is cylindrical in shape, with a diameter of approximately 161 feet and a height of 10 feet, 6 inches.

The concrete tests which were performed in con-nection with the placement of the basemats for Units 1 and 2 and which measure or relate to the strength and/or accep-ability of the concrete are discussed in the attached affi-davits. The quality assurance and quality control programs used in the construction of the basemats are also described.

I

The facts presented therein indicate dhat, due to the number of people involved with the slump tests, and the surveillance and audits associated.with such tests, it is very unlikely that any of the slump test results were falsified. Furthermore, due to the fact that a slump test is used to confirm that the concrete being produced is of a consistent workability and is not a measurement of the strength of the concrete, even if some slump test results had been falsified, this would not have a bearing on whether the concrete meets its design strength specification.

The test which measures the strength of the concrete is the com-pressive strength test. Based on the summary of compressive strength test results presented in the attached " Affidavit of A. Carter Rogers on Sua Sponte Issue," it is clear that the concrete in the Units 1 and 2 basemats exceeds the design strength specification.

In summary, Joint Applicants submit that the facts set forth in the attached affidavits constitute a more than adequate basis on wnich to dispose of the allegation raised by Intervenor in her withdrawn Contention No. 8.

i l

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, By .

Arthur C. Gehr/ g Charles A. Bischoff

3100 Valley Bank Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Attorneys for Joint Applicants Date

January 15, 1982

,