ML20040F461
| ML20040F461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1982 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8202090226 | |
| Download: ML20040F461 (8) | |
Text
. -
UEf%P' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gp T3 -8 A*g:23 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'7 li ',
Before Administrative Judges:
i Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Ralph S. Decker SERVED FEB 8 1982 -
~
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM In the Matter of 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OL
)
50-330 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
February 5,1982 MEMORANDUM During the evidentiary hearing on February 2,1982, Judges Harbour and Decker outlined certain matters which the Board wishes the Applicant and NRC Staff to address concerning the QA program for the underpinning structures (Tr. 7122-28). Attached herewith are copies of those transcript pages with minor corrections.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
AA fts i use 1/
Charle's~ Bechhoefer, Chairp i
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE e
NN q,
//
i nEcmVED 3
01 b
40 FEB 31982>
~-
40 l 6 "EW$W ic:
g Q
s O
N 8202090226 820205 PDR ADOCK 05000329 0
I N.
1 I
objection to that?
(-[
MS. STAMIRIS:
No.
2 3
CHA'IRMAM DECHHOEFER:
Why don't we do that.
4 Is this -2 4 ?
e 5
MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
3-6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
Absent any objection,
^e.
7 that letter vill be introduced into evidence as Consumers M
8 Exhibit 24.
d d
9 (The document referred to, i
O 10 previously marked Consumers E
E 11 Exhibit No. 24 for identification,I
<?
6 12 was received in evidence.)
3o y.
y 13 CHAIR:1AM BECHEOEFER:
For identificatica purposes s-m g
14 it's a letter from Mr. Niller' to the Atomic Safety and m
{
15 Licensing Board panel dated February 1, 1982.
It's a e
y 16 two-page letter.
There was an attachment of several e
6 17 pages of transcript to which it referred.
E D
18 JUDGE HARDOUR:
I have a short statement P
E 19 concerning my interest and the Board's interest in the 8
20 future testimony on the quality assurance, quality control 5
so people will 21 program that accompanief the underpinningj I
22 know what our specific interests are:
23 I refer back to the prefiled testimony of --
24 I can't remember the hearing -- of the applicant's
(..
25 "
consul.tants, Burke, Curley, Gould, Johnson and so on.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
t
2' 9 'a 7123 l
1 The te stiraony, I believe, was that of Mr. Burkc on Page hh 2
31 to 32.
And they allow that there is a possibility 3
and I am quoting:
"A possibility that the underpinning i
4 could induce structure movement."
And they propose e
5 a three-fold approach to maintaining stresses within 8
{
6 acceptable limits.
These stresses are those which might R
7 i result from movement during thh underpinning operations.
I s.
n 8
8 The three-fold approach they have im* '- P - ' "
O d
9 2.
one)a systematic and accurate method for detecting structura og 10 movement.
Two, a plan for arresting structure movements E.
11 before thay reach unacceptable levels.
Three, a method 12 for monitoring and assessing structure movement and 5
j, data which results in placing a protective plan in tio 13 u>
14 effect.
- 1-4
{
15 a:
y 16 us 8
17 a
M 18
._i:
E 19 8
20 i
21 22 23 24
'O
,i 25 '
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2.
.PJA l
I Now, this was the conceptual description of fact.
(g 2
the objectives of the OA plan.
We are interested in 3
those.
The underpinning activities do have the potential 4
for producing irreversible damage in safety class y
5 structures or-for altering the conditions of the struc-N.
6 tures on which the seismic analyses are based.
There-8 7
fore, the underpinning activities must be done correctly.
g
[
8 This Board -- I don't say this humorously --
0d 9
does not want to hear'the remedial measures on the re-date,bdAUSE 10 r-
- Consumers o
medial measures em some future E
s
=
Q Power and their principal contractor, Bechtel,nLat his Il u
N I2 point necessitating the underpinning largely as a result ca 13
/~'
5 of faulty geotechnical tests and inspections which were
(,.-
m 14
.of very elementary standards
)
y 15
}theBoardwants to be assured that the quality e
j 16 assura'nce activities of these very complex activities, a
h I7 underpinning operations, are well thought out and carried a
{
18 out, well thought out in advance and carried out.
So P
h I9 referring to Item 1 of the three-fold approach, we n
20 would like to add that the system for detecting such 21 memovement must be reliable as well as accurate, large
.h 22 JdatA gaps should not exist, instruments should not be-23 covered up with sand.
We want to be apprised of the 24 plan for arresting s truc ture. movement that is mentioned 25 in Items 2 and 3 in the three-fold approach.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
b
7125 22
.tJ 2 I
We want to know what the movement criteria are 2
and how they were determined, what are the thresholds 3
l that would trigger the plan for arresting structure 4
movement, who will make the. hold point checks on 5
y structure movement and who will make the decision to na t%
6 proceed or not to proceed with the underpinning activities.
R CS 7
As an individual observation, I am ccncerned E
i 8
8 about the very close proximity, the small gap between the )= rirQlRLen$
0 9
the turbine building and structures.
I am
.zo h
10 concerned that vertical settlement along the east-west
=
5 II interfaco between the turbine structure, turbine building B
g 12 and adjacent structures, could result in significant --
I3 l c
lEc 5
that is, differential settlement along that interface
(-
c m
h I4 where the underpinning /is taking place to result in eo 15 b
significant closing of the small gap between the struc-e Sf tures.
That gap reduction might result in structure-to-m h
I7 structure impaqtduring even a small earthquake and e
produce significantfee5Klargerinternal IO loads than the C
19 8
earthquake alone.
n 20 Now, this may not be a problem.
I don't know I
the nature of the construction of the turbine building.
22 And the turbine building, of course, is not a seismic b45 23 '
category 1 structure.
But i t 2% also the potential for I
24 l
117.p a,c t1.n9 th e adjacent seismic category 1 structures.
(
25 JUDGE D E C l:E R :
My interest, Mr. Miller, runs ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
/M ;
3 71 more to the relationship between the construction and I
h.!f 2
quality assurance plans.
I don't know, for example, 3
whether or not the quality people review the construc-4 tion figures, nor do I know whether the quality people are relied on in any way or whether or not they are simplye 5
g e.4 6
observers and policemen.
g R
8 7
MR. MILLER:
I woulql just,like to we will be Og 8
in a position to certainly respond to Judge Decker's 0
d 9
y.
comments.
Just listening to Judge Harbour's statements o
o though, some of the questions perhaps go well beyond 10 3
5 II quality assurance issues or may and really deal with
'a y
12-some aspects of the structural analysis, 1ar example, Ea 13 tF 5
of the turbine building.
W.,
=
I4 t22 U
2 15 y
16 as d
17 E
~$
18 P"
19 8n 20 21 22 23 24
.li 25 l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
h771rt.1 I
7127
)
JUDGE HARBOUR:
W c l l,
.I do know that the plan 2
includes the monito' ring of the turbine building presently.
3 MR. MILLER:
Right.
4 JUDGE HARBOUR:
That is included in the current e
5 Plan.
X N
h 6
MR. MILLER:I was thinking about your comment 7
about hou the turbine building is constructed and 8
what the likelihood is of a gap that exists between the 0
o 9
turbine building and the auxiliary turbine building --
i 0
10 JUDGE HARBOUR:
Well, my comment was made he,ra o
E 5
11 because I believe, and I am not certain of it, but I
<n o
12 believe the gap-is like two or three inches between the Eo d
13 structures, and because of the height of the structure E
14 relative to its base dimension, a ona-inch settlement at NC
=
0 15 the base can result in an inch and a half horizcntal 5
16 closure of the gap at the top.
Ea 6
17 MR. MILLER: I see.
E M
18 JUDGE HARBOUR:
That is simple geometry.
19 Nou, they are planning to measure relative horizontal and 8n 20 vertical movements between the turbine building and the 21 adjacent structures and all the turbine buildings, but 22 I was not able to determine the heights and levels at 23 which those horizontal relative movements would be 24 moni.tored from the few examples of drawings that I had.
25 g MR. PATON:
Mr. Chairman, is it the Board's ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
.~c
)
intent that we address the issues at,the next hearing,.
f
};
2 the hearing of February 16th?
3 CIIAIRMAN BECI!!!OE'FER :
Yes, we would assume so.
4 UR. MILLER:
I am sorry, I beg the board's 5
pardon.
I did not hear the answer.
m N
d 6
CHAIRMAN BEClIHOEFER:
- Yes, o
N R
7 MR. MILLER:
February 16th?
8 8
CHAIRMAN BECHiiOEFER :
Yes, that's what,wa had a
o 9
assumed, during that week.
k Og 10 I might say, as a result of our cancelling
_e h
11 the hearing tomorrow on the QC matter, we have ascertained' B
y 12 that this room is available~the Saturday after the week
~o y
13 if we have to carry over.
I hope we do not, but Saturday, (i#
~
14 if necessary we would stiy through Saturday.
He do not
~
2 15 hope to, but if necessary we would.
g 16 MR. MILLER: I should inform the board that we a
6 17 will do our best to get knowledgeable witnesses here U
18 to respond to these questions. If there is any difficulty w
g in having those people available during that week because 19 20 of prior commitments or whatever, we will let the Board 21 know promptly, the Board and other parties.
22 CI:5IRMAN BECHilOEFER :
The other matter that 23 the Board wanted to discuss and maybe we will have to 24 wait until after the next session, but we wanted to figure 25 out a schedule for supplemental proposed findings.
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l I
_