ML20093C226
Text
'
^^
-_.-._11 C 2.-
,,. ; /*, j m:g'g G
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l.
o
{
__ WASHINGTON, n_ c_ ~--
b
% * * * * ' sl j'
OCT 15 Iw2 n-Docket Nos. 50-329/330 i~
MEMORANDUM FORi Elinor Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing k
James P. Knight, Assistant Director THRU:
.I for Components & Structures Engineering Division of Engineering s
FROM:
George Lear, Chief Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING INPUT TO STAFF TESTIMONY Plant Name: Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Licensing Stage: OL Responsible Branch: Licensing Branch No. 4 D. Hood, PM Requested Completion Date: October 14, 1982 In response to a verbal request from W. Paton and M. Wilcove of OELD, i
attached is our input for staff testimony in preparation for the upcoming ASLB hearings scheduled for October 27 to November 4,1982.
Our input consists of two parts. Part I identifies sections in the SER and SSER #2 that describe the staff's safety evaluation of the permanent dewatering system. Part II identifies sections in the SER and SSER #2 3
that address specific contentions on dewatering.
Mr. Paton requested that we respond to Warren Contentions 2.A and 2.8 and Stamiris Contentions 4.C.b, 4.D.1, 4.0.2, and 4.D.3.
Of these, our input t
1 only addresses Warren Contention 2.A and Stamfris Contention 4.D.3.
Warren
- Contention 2.B and Stamiris' Contentions 4.D.1, 4.0.2 and part of l
4.C.b involve soils. issues and have been responded to by J. Kane.
1 j
Although a part of Stamiris Contention 4.C.b addresses' dewatering and its 1
relationship to the Service Water Pump Structure (SWPS) we interpret the i
contention as questioning the structural analysis of the SWPS, (e.g. what lI water levels were actually addressed in design), rather than the dewatering system. Thus the contention should be addressed by the Structural Engineering
)
' Branch.
1 pg'7fL3.6 W 4>
pf
(,
=
=
y, o
~
I.
Elinor Adensam 2-f This input was prepared by R. Gonzales who can be reached at ext. 25028.
li
%f' qwW George E. Lear, Chief Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch i
Division of Engineering cc w/o enc 1:
R. Yo11mer cc w/ enc 1:
W. Paton D. Hood M. Miller F. Schauer L. Heller J. Kane 4
M. Fliegel R. Gonzales Ik.l 9
d 0
L:
r
y
~
~-
,e
~
i
-~~ Midland PTantTUnitsTiiid Z 1
Docket numbers 50-329/330 j
Hydrologic Engineering Input
)
to Staff Testimony PART I Hearing Topic: Permanent Dewatering.
The following sections in the SER and/or SSER #2 contain the staff safety evaluation of the permanent dewatering system:
1_
(1) SER - sections 1.12.4, 2.4.S.1, 2.4.6.2, 2.4.6.3 and 2.4.6.4 (2) SSER #2 - sections 2.4.6.2, 2.4.6.3 and 2.4.6.4 4
PART II These cuntentions address dewatering:
Warren Contentions 2.A Stamiris Contentions 4.D.3 Warren Contention 2.A Because of the known seepage of water from the cooling pond into the fill soils in the power block area, pennanent dewatering' procedures being proposed by Consumers Power Company are inadequate, particularly in the event of increased water seepage, flooding, failure of pumping systems and power outages. Under these conditions, Consumers cannot provide reasonable assurance that stated maximum levels can be maintained.
Response - There are several parts to this contention. The following lists applicable parts of the SER and/or SSER #2 that address this contention:
(1) increased water seepage - Section 2.4.6.2 of the SER (see pages 2-25 and 2-26) describes the potential sources of recharge i.e., seepage, l
that were considered. These were as follows:
A) Tittabawassee River B) Bullock Creek C) Dow's Chemical Pond
- 0) Precipitation (rainfall) 1 (2) flooding - 1A,1B,1-D above concern flooding effects on the dewatering system.
Flooding from pipe leakage is covered in section 2.4.6.3 of the SER and the same section in the SSER.
(3) failure of pumping systems - Section 2.4.6.4 of the SSER #2 addresses potential pumping system failures (see Table 2.1 of the SSER).
e-
,n n--w-,p
-tepe m
ww-+
,m w
y,--.
v-o-
--w--
g
.=---
o y
- e a
2-1 i
e i
(4) power outages - A backup diesel is being provided.
(See section 2.4.6.4 3
of the SSER, - item 4 in the second to last paragraph).
'Stamiris Contention 4.D. part 3 Permanent dewatering (1)-----
i i
(2)-----
(3) to the extent subject to failure or degradation, would allow inadequate time in which to initiate shutdown, thereby necessitating reassessment of these times.
't Therefore, unless all the issues set forth in this contention are adequately resolved, the licensee actions in question should not be considered an accept-able remediation of soil settlement problems.
Response - The staff's evaluation of failure of the permanent dewatering system and its effect regarding the time available for mitigative measures has been provided in sections 2.4.6.2 and 2.4.6.4 of both the SER and SSER #2.
O 9
+
I 4
j
^
.. - - -. ~ -,
~
a
-r
.,3--,---,w----
--y,,
n---
- ~, -,, - -, -, -._ - - -
--m-
---, -,-, - +.,. - - - - - -
._. - -