ML20090A514
| ML20090A514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/26/1979 |
| From: | Mark Miller ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A223 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BOX-13, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8002120480 | |
| Download: ML20090A514 (2) | |
Text
p-p w. e.
i.
c
,y ISHAM LINCOLN & BEALE
~
..J cceesatoms e Law ON. Fle., N A,t.Nat sta t e FOmtva t.
.= ;,, v.mLON. 8.. u,No,.... CoNo FLOO#
.z.c j
l
......O
,m.......
1
............o
'* * * "7,* ' "," 'd.' '
~3 j
~'" December 26, 1979 uo4 E. h8 r
AlLLLsc
.Ef6mw gkL
/F# ft,abj d&
Cf./.$lL$-
Mr. Edson G. Case f
fi1)./ff Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 j'
Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-329, 50-330 I
Request for' Hearing Gentlemen:
I Consumers Power Company ("Lic'ensce"), by its l
attorneys, hereby requests a hearing in accordance with Part i
V of the Order Modifying Construction Permits issued in these dockets and dated December 6, 1979.
On-December 19, Licensee filed Amendment No. 72 to its application for. construction permits and operating licenses for the Midland Plant; the Amendment seeks Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval for remedial actions associated
]
with the soil activities for safety related structures and l
systems founded in and on plant-fill material.
In addition, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board constituted to conduct the operating license stage evidentiary hearing for the Midland Plant, by Order dated February-23, 1979, admitted t
Mary sinclair's Contention 24 and intervenor Wendell Marshall's contention 2, both of which deal with the subject of the
~ diesel generator-building settlement.
~
. Licensee believes that the issues to be heard in i
connection with this Request.for Hearing, Contentions 24 and 2 in the operating license hearing-and any hearing which may -
1 be required in connection with Licensee's Amendment No. 72 to its application for-construction permits and operating licenses are substantially identical.
At an appropriate j
f g
b
Mr. Edcon G. C2EQ Mr. Victor-Stello, Jr.
December 26, 1979 Page Two stage in this proceeding, Licensea will move, pursuant to 10
_/
C.F.R. S 2.716, to consolidate all'the proceedings which are j
considering these issues.
In this way one evidentiary j
presentation may be made on this subject.
..Very ttuly yours, 9
Michael I. Miller MIM:cem cc:
Service List e
i i
M e
l
+
s O e
9
'Y
o usetTt3 sTATts c,
g NUCLEAs REGULATORY COMMISSION
$g
% el-l
,,f w AsHINGTON. D. C. 20555 f
FEB 4 1980 Docket Nos.: 50-329/330 APPLICANT:
CONSUMER POWER COMPANY FACILITY:
MIDLAND PLANT, UNITS 1 & 2
SUBJECT:
SutttARY OF JANUARY 16, 1980 MEETING ON SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL On January 16, 1980 the NRC staff and its consultants from the U.S.
Corps of Engineers met with Consumer Power Company and Bechtel Corporation in Bethesda, Maryland. Attendees are listed in Enclosure 1.
The principal purpose of this meeting was to discuss the status of the staff's supplemental requests for additional infomation regarding plant fill settlement and effects.
These requests were issued November 19, 1979.
Earlier requests issued March 21, 1979 were discussed to a lesser extent.
Enclosqre 2 is the meeting agenda.
The staff's renuests of March 21 and November 19, 1979 were issued on the basis of Section 50.54(f) to 10 CFR 50, which is applicable to construction permits by virtue of Section 50.55(c).
I modification of the Midland construction pemits was subsequentlyThe staff' issued December 6, 1979. Consequently, it was recognized that any replies outstanding after Decerrber 6,1979 were no longer needed in the 50.54(f) context, but that replies should be submitted nevertheless since the December 6 order states that the absence of certain information prevents the staff from reaching essential conclusions.
It was suggested that the replies be submitted in the normal "Q-1, Q-2" context typically associated with the radiological safety reviews of nuclear power plants.
The applicant also reported that the Decembar 6 order, its subsequent request for hearing, and FSAR Amendment 72 provides the basis for concluding its 50.55(e) reports mgarding this matter, as further reporting would be by FSAR amendments and by hearing documents, as may be appropriate.
The applicant acknowledged its intent to further update the FSAR to reflect appmpriate changes associated with the soils settlement matter at an appropriate point in the future; in the interim, those FSAR sections which am subject to change will_ be flagged.
Staff coments based upon review of the ap(plicants reply to question 15 through 20 were provided as a handout Enclosure 3 hereto). These corments relate to mechanical engineering effects of the' soil settlement
\\g b W45 5
/ 2 2-W S f0 o a J. m m s s, a ~>
WJ Y L Wf f
> FEB 4 500 d
which are being reviewed with the assistance of a staff's consultant, Energy Technology Engineering Center.
The proposed responses to questions 24 through 35, 4 and 14 were summarized by the applicant and Bechtel. Since these responses will be submitted on the docket within two to three weeks, no sumary of these presentations is provided in this report. The response to questions 25 and 26 involve seismic analyses which require additional time to corrplete prior to submittal of a final reply. Copies of the vugraph slides used during these presentations are maintained by the staff's Licensing Project Manager and are available upon request.
PA #..__Z>
Darl S. Hood, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch #4 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
As s,tated cc: See next page
(
e S
1 l
r-.,
--,-.--,.-..--..,e..-
w,.,.,,,., -
l l
s p
C'onsumers Power Company kt ces:
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. 5. H. Howell 1 sham,t.incoln & Reale Vice President Suite 4200 Consumers Power Company One First National Plaza 212 West Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60603 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
Mr. Larry Auge Managing Attorney Energy Technology Engineering Center Consumers Power Company Canoga Park, California 91304 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. William Lawhead U. S. Corps of Engineers Mr. Paul A. Perry NCEED - T Secretary 477 Michigan Avenue Consumers Power Company 7th Floor 212 W. Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Drive
[
Midland, Michigan 48640 Frank.J. Kelley, Esq.
Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Protection Division 720 Law Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Wendell Marshall Route 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 Grant J. Merritt, Eso.
Thompson, Nielsen, Klaverkamp 4 James 4444 105 Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Mr. Don van Farowe, Chief Olvision of Radiological Health Departwent of Public Health P. O. Box 33035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 i
Resident Inspector / Midland NPS I.
c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission P. O. Box 1927 Midland, Michigan 48640
ENCLOSURE 1 i.
l LIST OF ATTENDEES JANUARY 16, 1980 Name Organization Darl Hood DPM/NRR Joe Kubinski COE Detroit Dist.
William Paris, Jr.
Bechtel-Geotech Jo Wayzeck Bechtel - Geo Tech S. S. Afifi Bechtel W. R. Ferris Bechtel Morothwell Bechtel K. Wiedner Bechtel Gil Keeley Consumers Power T. C. Cooke Consumers Power F. Schauer NRC-SEB J. J. Zabritski Consumers Power Co.
S. Lo Bechtel 1
T. E. Johnson Bechtel John F. Norton COE NC Division Chicago James W. Simpson Army Corps NCO Chicago William Lawhead U. S. Army COE, Detroit i
R. E. Lipinski NRC-SEB i
Gene Gallagher NRC Region III:IE
'(
Ross Landsman NRC Region III:IE Daniel M. Gillen NRC - NMSS A. J. Cappucci NRC/ DSS /MEB R. O. Bosnak NRC/ DSS /MEB H. L. Brammer NRC/ DSS /MEB l
I I
e
ENCLOSURE 2
.i MEETING WITH NRC STAFF IN BETHESDA ?!D
~
January 16, 1980 Agenda I.
INTRODUCTION : Gil Keeley, Purpose of meeting; background, etc II. WORK ACTIVITY UPDATE : Jim Wanzeck Sumnary of verk activities and settler.ent surveys for all Category I structures and facilities founded partially or totally on fill III. 10 CFR 50 5h(f) REQUESTS
' Presentation of Infonnaticn related to:
1 Question #h - Soils Engineerin6.and Civil / Structural Afifi s
Supplemental Questions #27, 31, 33 and 35 - Coils Engineering s Supplemental' question #2h - Devaterinc' Question #1h - Civil / Structural s
Supplemental Questions #28, 29, 30 and 34 - Civil / Structural Ted Supplemental Questions #25 and 26 - Seise.ic Analysis Johnson IV. FORMAT AND SCHEWLE OF FUTURE RESPONSES (50 55(e), 50.5k(f), FSAR)
ATTENDEES:
Bechtel Consumers Pover S Afiff G S Keel cy T Johnson T C Cooke S Lo J J Zab-itski W Paris M Rothwell J Wanseek K Wiedner W Ten is t
GSKeeley/cc 1/15/80
- r. L _ _
I
{
0;*C F7 5-l
'{ %,
ENCLOSURE 3 COMMENTS ON 50.54(f) RESPONSES FOR MIDLAND (MEB)
- i 1.
GENERAL l
A review of the Response to Questions 16-20 of the subject document indicates that the applicant proposes to impose the 3.0 Sg criterion of subparagraph NC-3652.3(b) of the ASME B&PVC,Section III and the St radial deformation limit of the AWWA. Additional criteria which address buckling of the piping should be imposed since neither of the two proposed criteria are based on this failure mode. Additionally, criteria compliance analyses should be based on maximum expected differ-ential settlement over the life of the plant.
2.
RESPONSE TO QUdSTION 16. PAGE 16-1
/
The response addresses stresses based on representative pipes being
'(
profiled, i.e. on current local settlements.
The response should be modified to include settlements over the life of the plant.
3.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 17 PAGE 17-1, PARA.1 If all Seismic Category I piping is not to be profiled, criteria for selection of piping to be profiled should be documented.
)
l 4
RESDONSE TO QUESTION 17, PAGE 17-2 PARA. 2
{
The calculation assumes that the curvature is constant over the length of pipe.
In general, this condition will not be met.
Criteria for changes in curvature should be addressed.
l i
9 3'
L
2-
.(
5.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 17, PAGE 17-3, PARA. 2 If the settlement stresses are based on current profiles only, the analy' sis should be extended to include settlements over the life of the plant and effects of change in curvature (See item 3).
6.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 17 The question regarding measures to be taken to alleviate conditions if settlement stresses approach code allowables or cannot be determined has i
not been addressed.
7.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 18 PAGE 18-1, PARA. 2 & 3 It is not clear that most of the anticipated differential settlement will occur by the time of final closure (Para. 2).. Provisions for effects of f
settlements occuring after final closure should be specified.- The evaluations of Para. 3 addresses this issue partially.
l 8.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 18. PAGE 18-2, PARA. 2 & 3 l
Criteria for assessment of the flexibility of piping to accomodate more than the expected differential settlement should be specified.
9.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 19, PAGE319-1 TO 19-3 The disposition of this response will be delayed pending receipt and review of evaluations based on the preload program (See last paragraph on Page 19-3).
i
- 10. RESPONSE TO QUESTION 20 The first paragraph of the response is acceptable. However, the remainder
(
of the response requires clarification.
t l,*
'T
.. -.