ML20080T482

Forwards Guidance for Use in Deciding Whether to Recommend That Hearing Be Reopened.Hearing Should Be Reopened Based on Listed Reasons

ML20080T482
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	11/25/1983
From:	Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20080T401	List: ML20080T398 ML20080T422 ML20080T429 ML20080T433 ML20080T437 ML20080T448 ML20080T468 ML20080T482 ML20080T495 ML20081D128 ML20082N671
References
FOIA-83-707 NUDOCS 8403010282
Download: ML20080T482 (3)

Text

'

~,

[

g..iq

/

i

/.

• c.

UNITE D STATES

• ' i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,Ie 1

[

,y

~ '

8 WASHINGTON C C 20555 o*

t sN..../

w 5

November 25, 1983

[

=

i MEMORANDUM FOR:

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing

[

FROM:

Richard H. Vollmer, Pirector Division of Engineering

[

SUBJE'CT:

RECOMMENDATION RELATIVE TO REOPENING OF THE MIDLAND HEARINGS g

I Your staff requested that DE provide a recommendation on the need to 9

reopen the Midland hearing in light of any new information that might be contained in the task group report on the diesel generator building.

9 In conjunction with OILD we prepared the attached guidance for the staff to use in deciding whether to reconrnend that the hearing be reopened.

The task group report was reviewed by the Structural and Geotechnical S

Engineering Branch including those who participated in the hearings.

Their recomendations are attached.

I have reviewed these memoranda and have concluded that the f. earing should be reopened ( ~I;have, based.this s

E "conclus' ion on n e'fo~lloiing.

~

1.

At the hearing the applicant testified in behalf of its finite

, element analysis for calculating building stresses from founda -

i tion settlement.

Opinions were offered by thE saricuS staff f

including acce tance of, rejection of, and ne opinion on the 2

a;Dlicant's analysis. Ihe ta5k group repert ciscusses the applicant's finite element analysis and clearly indicates that T

the applicant's model will yield unconservative estimates of L

stresses and is considered to be inappropriate.

In view of the presently conflicting evidence before the Board on this E

issue, the Board may be assisted in reaching their conclusions by reviewing the expert opinion of the task group and its 5-basis.

Gi 2.

At the hearing the staff testified on the acceptability of the crack width approach to estimate settlement induced stresses.

The task group appears to call the present crack width studies for determining stresses into serious question. The report i

indicates that this approach could probably be used to demon-strate the DGB adequacy provided the analyses are sufficiently documented and shown to give results that are conservative.

_y The report also indicates that there is no written justifica-F tion showing that this method may be used for structures like the DGB.

Since the requested documentation will have to h

C/)- 3'QN 8403010282 831214 b

PDR FOIA E

GARDE 83-707 PDR h

Y/f

~

d

t Darrell G. Eisenhut.

Consis' of the assumpticns made, formulas used, input data,

.the calculations and results, the rolg of the documentation is significant with respect to the DGB adequacy. The Board should nave the benefit of reviewing this new evidence 10 reacn its conclusions.

3.

At the hearing the staff testified on the adequacy of the applicant's crack monitoring program. The transmittal letter for the task group states:

"There is evidence that the number of cracks in the DG8 is continuing to grow.

It is essential that a more accurate and reliable crack monitoring program be established." This conclusion points out that the Board a

should have the opportunity to review this area to ascertain for itself that there is reasonable assurance that an adequate program for monitoring the integrity of the DGB is in place.

The above three issues are not intended to be all encompassing, but are sufficient to reach the conclusion that the hearing should be reopened.

Ric(.ard H. Vol.1mer, Direc. tor

[

, Division of Engineering

Attachment:

As stated cc:

H. Denton J. Knight T. Nosak 5

G. Lear E. Adensam L. Heller P.T. Kuo J. Kane F. Rinaldi I

e 1

t

d Test to apply in deciding whether to recommend that the hearing be reopened.

1

!s there new evidence that modifies the ev,idence of record? For example, does the new evidence affect what was said by the witnesses (any or all) in such a way that something different wculd have been said if the information had been available before the testimony was given?

l The issue is one of "f airness to the board".

If our feeling is that the evidence would not change our conclusions but that the

. board neverths ess, should have the benefit of reviewing this new evidence to reach its conclusions then we should recommend-for reopening the record.

Are the facts or expert opinions in the DGB Task Report that are different fros f acts or expert epinions now in evidence before the Licensing Boa-d?

(Tne f a: s ar.d expert opinions referred to are significant facts and expert opinions, i.e., facts and expert opinions that could affect a conclusion with respect to the structural adequacy of the Diesel Generator Building.)

I h

.)