ML20093C006
Text
_ _ _ _ _
,.0 * * *'%
LE h 3 m g.,
s
,6 UrJIT E D 51 ATE!,
y9 3 f ' >
</' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COT.if.ilSSIOfJ e., $ *k'dv'V,'l I n
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20Z5 W.%,,',,, j OCT 3 0 In1
~
i MEMDRANDUM FOR: Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing THRU:
Elinor G. Adensam, Chi '/
Licensing Branch No. 4 [7 Division of Licensing FROM:
Darl Hood, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
REVISED HEARING SCHEDULES FOR MIDLAND
Background
On October 16, 1981, and following internal discussions with the Division of Engi-neering and (by telephone) me, OELD participated in a conference call with Censumer's legal representatives and the Licensing Board to discuss revised sched-ules for the Midland soils hearing. The instant hearing is directed to the CP lovel of information needed to detemine the adequacy of proposed modifications to structures located on inadequately compacted fill. The revised schedele is requested by Consumers in order to better accommodate their insnediate construction schedules (i.e., to address first certain limited remedial activities said to be critical to their construction needs) for which it is perceived that NRC staff concurrence is possible prior to the hearing start.
Problem Alert The applicant considers the Auxiliary Building to be schedule critical.
Because the remedial actions for the Service Water Structure and Auxiliary Building are quite similar (especially for initial preparations), the applicant proposes that the two reviews be combined where possible. The NRC staff agreed to review certain r: cent submittals made by Consumers and to indicate on October 30, 1981, just what i
cinstruction activities are likely candidates. Two candidates identified during the discussion are (1) installation of the vertical access shafts for the Auxiliary Building and the Service Water Structure and (2) installation of'a freeze wall within the deeper soil layers around the Auxiliary Building to serve as an under-ground dam during excavation beneath the structures.
It was agreed that the hearing for construction activities for which agreement could be reached on the Auxiliary Building and Service Water Structure would be held December 1 - 4, 1981. Hearing testimony would be filed November 16, 1981.
Qyp de-M'tY HOV 6W
t I
It was also agreed that the riext hearing session after that would be December 14'-
18, 1981, and would discuss (1) seismic models for tie Auxiliary Building and Ser-
. vice Water Structure, (2) the Borated Water Storage Tanks, and (3) possibly the underground piping.Tertirony is to be filed November 30, 1981.
The hearing on the Diesel Generaton Building is deferred to Januarf 5 - 13, 1982, with testimony due December 21, 1981.
No further hearing sessions have 'buen established at this time, but several subjects remain. These include prennent dewatering, structural analysis and crack modeling for all structures on filt. Considering the present technical status, it is quite likely that significant carryuver from the December and January hearing sessions will occur.
Under the initial schedule, the hearing session was to be completed on December 18, o
1981. Now, completion of the hearfr,g sessions before the end of February 1982 appear unlikely. The OL SER, scheduled for issuance May 6,1982, may be paced by issuance of the Board's decision.
Problem i
l The NRC staff has not opposed the applicant's request to rearrange the hearing topics j
and schedules to accomodate the imediate construction impact concern 3.
The problem is'that these imediate construction activities are merely preparatory to a larger construction step, namely actual construction of underpinning. At present, it would appear to be highly unlikely, both from a technical review status and from a legal status,..that underpinning authorization by the staff can be granted by January 1, 1982, as needed by the applicant. The legal question involves whether staff concur-rence can be granted while the matter is still before the Board, and whether under-pinning constitutes a "significant hazards" consideration. The applicant's position is that 50.55(e) provides for continued construction and that structural foundations are not covered by principal architectural engineering criteria required by the CP.
If this larger step.can not be taken in early 1982 as the applicant wishes, then our present redirection ' constitutes a " hurry up and wait" situation achieved at the expense of a longer hearing schedule and increased potential of impact to the OL i
review and SER' issuance. The applicant intends to escalate its position that under-pinning construction can and must begin January 1,1982, to staff management.
l S
\\
i
e-
\\
),.
3-and achieveresults to to and capabilitiesneeded. Thewould ead l
1,1982,isof action l
limitationson Januarywhat cours
/
e 4
/
HRC staff e
uctures determin fsmentofinning of str
/
t should e j
l e
19 c Manager issuance M-aHood, Proj ctNo. 4 r
n Branch sing Darl Licensingof Licen Division 4
s
\\
t
\\
s Tt#T s%
\\
l
@OS pat 0B
\\
(.9s i
t
- s. s.
s.,
-u
- y. @t.99occi
$g. sosg, i
s s.te,o 1
3. 5, o
g a.
\\
\\-
--