ML20076N256
| ML20076N256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1983 |
| From: | Steptoe P CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076N260 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8307210259 | |
| Download: ML20076N256 (10) | |
Text
/0.
July 18, 1983 am,
~
5l' s
s/ '
9632 ss3
- h i
h u
3o 3GL 7-9&
fe#
c*ON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI
!? %._e BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-330-OM
)
50-329-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1
)
50-330-OL and 2)
)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MS. STAMIRIS' 'KOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON STAMIRIS CONTENTION 4" On June 27, 1983 Ms. Stamiris moved to reopen the record on Stamiris Contention 4 to consider "the integrity of the containment.and the soils underpinning operations founded upon the glacial till."
Tr. 17988-17992.
Ms. Stamiris' motion was based ~on "recent findings of the two and a half foot long cracks in the base of the-Unit 1 containment and NRC speculation about the effects of dewatering upon the glacial till layer."
Tr. 17989.
Ms. Stamiris' stated that "It appears likely that the containment cracks discovered in January are soils-related or caused by soils remedial measures."
-Tr.
17989.
The attached-affidavits from Dr. W. Gene Corley and Dr. Palanichamy Shunmugavel demonstrate:
8307210259 930718
[e -
PDR ADOCK 05000329 G.
PDR_
b L.
1.
The containment cracks occurred prior to the time the containment coating was applied in 1977.
Therefore, they are not related to dewatering or any soils remedial action.
2.
The containment crack patterns do not suggest that the cracks were caused by settlement.
Moreover, there has not been any unusual or unexpected settlement of the containments at Midland.
3.
The containment cracks are not unexpected in the locations where they are found and do not represent any safety problem.
This will be confirmed by mapping the cracks before and afterandbymonitoringthepracksduringthe structural integrity test.
In light of the foregoing explanation of the containment cracks, Ms. Stamiris' further concerns about the glacial till are without any basis in fact.
For example, Ms. Stamiris refers to what she correctly identifies as NRC
" speculation" concerning the effects of dewatering on the glacial till.
Tr. 17989.
Her source for this statement is a January 19, 1983 memo from Darl Hood recording telephone discussions between Applicant and the NRC Staff concerning the apparent differential settlement in various portions of the Auxiliary Building in the fall of 1982, prior to the start of underpinning.
Tr. 17990 (copy enclosed).
The document itself indicates that speculation about uneven settlement due to detwatering was only one of three "possible-explanations" for the settlement readings.
(January 19, 1983 1/
lThis pleading constitutes a commitment to carry out the crack monitoring program' described ~in Dr. Shunmugavel's affidavit and approved by Dr. Corley.
. Hood memo, at p. 3.)
The same document also shows that the NRC Staff and its consultant eventually came to a different conclusion, namely that "the relatively small settlement values and the trends of that data which have been recorded to date are a result of temperature changes."
Id. at p. 4.
It is apparent that Intervenors are confused as to the significance of the technical matters discussed in this document.
See Tr. 18478, 18482-89.
The only conclusion to be drawn from the January 19, 1983 Hood memo, when it is read as a whole, is that the instrumentation being used to monitor the Auxiliary Building underpinning is extremely sensitive, and that the data being recorded requires careful analysis.
Another example of apparent confusion appears at Tr. 17991, where Ms. Stamiris claims that:
" Stone & Webster reports of 1982 and 1983 indicate that unanticipated dewatering was necessary to control groundwater seepage in soils underpinning excavations, despite the operation of the wall intended for that purpose."
In fact, the Stone & Webster 90 day report (Applicant's Ex. 33) indicates that " Minor perched groundwater seepage was restricted to the drifts to piers E/W12" (Applicant's Ex. 33 at p. 5-6).
In addition, the Stone & Webster report indicates that at pier W12 there was " minor but steady groundwater seepage" while at pier E12 there -was "no water seepage" -(Applicant's Ex. 33 at p. 5-7).
Contrary to Ms. Stamiris' assertion,.this groundwater seepage was anticipated.
See SSER #2, S2.5.4.6.1.2, pp 2-49 to 2-50.. Also contrary to Ms. Stamiris' impression,.
the purpose of the freezewall is to minimize seepage of
... ggoundwater into the Auxiliary Building underpinning area from surrounding areas.
It was never expected to be 100% effective and it certainly was never designed to eliminate the possibility of encountering perched ground-water eithin the area enclosed by the freezewall.
See Burke, Tr. 5511-18; SSER #2 at pp. I-l to I-2.
This minor groundwater seepage at the Auxiliary Building obviously does not call into question " integrity" of the glacial till.
Finally, Ms. Stamiris claims at Tr. 17991 that there is no "OM evidence on whether the integrity of the glacial till is an adequate foundation for the safety-related structures as being affected by soils remedial measures or other soils conditions causing degradation in its essential foundation properties."
Contrary to this assertion, the characteristics of the glacial till have been addressed thoroughly in this proceeding.
- See, e.g.
Prepared Testimony of Edmund M.
Burke, W.
Gene Corley, James P.
Gould, Theodore E. Johnson, and Mete Sozen Regarding Remedial Measures for the Midland Plant Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits, Volume 1, Section 8, especially pp. 50-51 and 56, following Tr. 5509; Prepared Testimony of Alan Boos, Edmund M.
Burke, James P.
Gould, and Palanichamy Shunmugavel Concerning Midland Plant Service Water Pump Structure, Volume 1, Section 8,' esp. pp. 31-32, 34-36, and 39 following Tr. 9490;. Woods, prepared testimony on seismic shake-down, following Tr. 11547; Woods, prepared testimony on lique-faction, following Tr. 9745; SSER #2, S 2.5.4; Kane, Tr. 9812-27.
l
)
The above testimony explicitly takes into account the effect of dewatering on settlement predictions, bearing capacity, seismic shakedown, and liquefaction.
In addition, Dr. Peck has explained why dewatering leads to settlement in the glacial till.
Tr. 10432-33, 10461-65.
See also Kane, Tr.
9814-18, 9826-27.
If there is any reason, other than dewatering, for Ms. Stamiris' concern that the glacial till may be "affected" or " degraded" by " soils remedial measures or other soils conditions", she has not stated what it is.
See Tr. 17995-96.
Since in this case the facts show there is no safety concern, it is unnecessary to do more than outline the appropriate legal standards which the Board should apply in dismissing Ms. Stamiris' Motion to Reopen the Record.
A party seeking to add a new contention after the close of the record must satisfy the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR S 2.714(d), the standards for admitting a late-filed contention set forth in 10 CFR S 2.714 (a) (1),
and the criteria established in the case law for reopening the record.
See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2), CLI-82-39, slip opinion at 4, 16 NRC (December 23, 1982), citing Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 364 (1981);
Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2)
ALAB-730, slip opinion at p.
10 and n.7, 17 NRC
-(June 2, 1983). ~ As. summarized by the Appeal Board in_ Fermi, supra, to l-justify reopening a proceeding, a party.must show that the matter
r it wishes to have considered is (1) timely presented, (2) addressed to a significant issue, and (3) susceptible of altering the result previously reached.
Finally, in the context of a motion to reopen the record, the Licensing Board may take into account affidavits and other evidentiary material as if ruling on a motion for summary disposition.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Station) ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523-24 (1973).
Cf. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) Appeal Board Order (June 28, 1983).2/
2/
In this case, as Ms. Stamiris apparently concedes, the record on remedial soils issues is substantially complete, even though the Board has not issued an order formally closing the record.
With respect to containment cracks, Ms.
Stamiris' Motion clearly seeks to raise a new issue which has not previously been a matter in controversy in this proceeding.
This is true notwithstanding the fact that there have been occasional references in the testimony to the containments.
- See, e.g.
Kane, Tr. 9818-23.
Therefore, the standards set forth in Diablo Canyon, CLI-82-39, supra, and Vermont Yankee, ALAB-138, supra, for reopening the record are clearly applicable.
With respect to the integrity of the glt'ial till, we note that there is one remaining open item which might conceivably relate to Ms. Stamiris' concern.
The NRC Staff has not yet responded to Dr. Peck's affidavit
~
dated March 4, 1983 and served on all parties on April 19, 1983.
Dr. Peck's affidavit defends his long term estimate of secondary settlement of the DGB by attributing certain recent settlement trends to deuatering settlement in the till.
See also Peck, Tr. 10404-17, 10428-34, 10461-63.
Ms. Stamiris has not mentioned this open item in her Motion to Reopen the Record and Applicant is unsure whether it relates to her I
concern, which-seems to focus on the containments and the remedial underpinning work, not cn1 the DGB.
Tr. 17989, 17995.
We do not believe the existence of this open item precludes the Board from applying the standards set forth in Vermont Yankee, ALAB-138, supra, to Ms. Stamiris' Motion.
j
F~
~
1
) In this instance, Ms. Stamiris has failed at the very outset to supply a basis with reasonable specificity for her new contentions.
Applicant and the NRC Staff should not be forced to guess what Ms. Stamiris think's is wrong with the glacial till or how it is allegedly being "affected" or " degraded". Ms. Stamiris admits that her motion is based on "NRC speculation", Tr. 17998; speculation which the January 19, 1983 Hood memo itself demonstrates was only entertained momentarily.
Similarly, the affidavits of Dr.
Corley and Dr. Shunmugavel establish that the containment cracks observed do not provide any basis for concern about the structural integrity of the containments and are not related to remedial soils actions or the integrity of the glacial till.
Ms. Stamiris has failed to address the standards for late-filed contentions set forth in 10 CFR S 2.714 (a).
Applicant believes that Ms. Stamiris has not given an adequate explanation of why, being informed of the existence of cracks in March 1983 through Inspection Report 83-01 (Stamiris Exhibit 50), she waited until June 27, 1983 to make her motion.
See 10 CFR S 2.714 (a) (1) (i) ; Tr. 17996.
- Further, with all due respect to Ms. Stamiris, it appears unlikely that she has expertise to contribute in developing a sound record on the containment. crack issue.
Similarly, Applicant
' believes Ms. Stamiris has already had the opportunity in this hearing to provide all the assistance she can provide on the glacial till issue.
l'O CFR S 2.714 (a) (1) (iii).
Addressing the structural adequacy and geotechnical performance t"
f.
. of the containment structures would certainly broaden the o
issues in this OM:OL proceeding and would likely result in substantial delay, especially if as Ms. Stamiris apparently proposes these issues must be considered before a Partial Initial Decision can be written in the " soils" portion of this proceeding.
10 CFR S 2.714 (a) (1) (v).
Finally, the NRC Staff has the ongoing responsibility to protect Ms. Stamiris' interest. 10 CFR S 2. 714 (a) (1) (ii)
If further information should come to light which supplies some reasonable basis for Ms. Stamiris' concerns, she can ask the NRC Staff to investigate pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.206.
On balance, we believe that the standards for late-filed contentions set forth in 10 CFR S 2.714 (a) have not been met.
We believe that Ms. Stamiris has not shown that the issues she seeks to reopen the record on - the containment cracks and the effect of dewatering on the adequacy of the glacial till - have " major significance to plant safety" or that the record would be altered in any way if it is reopened.
Therefore she has not satisfied the standards for reopening the record set forth in Vermont Yankee, supra, ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523.
Accordingly, Ms. Stamiris' Motion to Reopen the Record should be denied.
Respe u ly s i ted, I
b p
- hbhy Phjlip P. Sfeptoe /
One of the Attorneys for Consumers Power Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale 3 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558 7500 Dated:
L
g-o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-330-OM
)
50-329-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1
)
50-330-OL and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
Philip P. Steptoe, one of the attorneys for Consumers Power Company, hereby certify that a copy of " Applicant's Response to Ms. Stamiris' ' Motion to Reopen The Record on Stamiris Contention 4'" was served upon all persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 18th day of July, 1982.
Persons identified with an asterisk were served by Express Mail or Federal Express.
l/
I e
L. " \\ 8 v[N
%, C ____ _
Philip P. Steptoe '(1 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 18th day of July, 1983.
J.*t.it)
. Notary Public My Commission Expires January 14.198Z
' SERVICE LIST FrankLJ..Kelley,'Esq.
Steve Gadler, Esq.
Attorney General'of the-2120 Carter Avenue State of Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Carole-Steinberg, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety & Licensing Environmental Protection Div.
Appeal Panel
- 720 Law Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Lansing,-Michigan 48913-Washington, D. C.
20555 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Mr. Scott W. Stucky Cherry & Flynn Chief, Docketing & Services Suite 3700 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Three-First National Plaza Office of the Secretary Chicago,. Illinois 60602 Washington, D. C.
'20555 Mr. WendellLH. Marshall
- Ms. Mary Sinclair 4625.S.-Saginaw Road 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Midland, Michigan 48640 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
- William D. Paton, Esq.
Atomic' Safety & Licensing Counsel for the NRC Staff l Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing
- - Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Board Panel 6152 N.' Verde Trail-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Apt. B-125 Washington, D..C.
20555 Boca Raton,. Florida 33433
- Ms. Barbara Stamiris Mr.
D._F. Judd 5795 North _ River R6ad--
Babcock & Wilcox-Route;3 P. O. Box 1260
~ Freeland, Michigan 48623~
Lynchburg, Virginia.24505-
,Dr. Jerry Harbour.
James E..Brunner,cEsq.
Atomic Safety-& Licensing.
. Consumers ~ Power Company Board Panel 212 West. Michigan Avenue
=U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Comm'.
J Jackson, _' Mibhigan _ 49201
_- Washington', ' D. C.
20555
-Lynne Bernabei
.Mr.. James-G...Keppler fThomas Devine Director:
Louis Clark'
. Nuclear!RegulatoryLCommission Government Accountability _ Project'-
RegionLIII:
of the Institute'for. Policy Studies.799. Roosevelt Road L1901 Q Street, N.W.
Glen'Ellyn, Illinois. 60137
' Washington,.D. C.; 20009.
9 Y
+k 4
r T
^
n m +. _
g; 3
,