ML20093N677
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ - _ - b D k W m .o O STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH g KONSUMERPOWERCOMPANY-MIDLANDNPP ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES ~. INTERROGATORY QUESTION 2: i j State which "of the Staff's requests were directed [as of or before ] December 6,1979] to the dettrmination and justification of acceptance j criteria to be applied to various remedial measures taken" (Order at j .j page 3) and which portion of each request was directed. i ANSWER: The concerns identified in the Second Request for Information and during i j the initial evaluation of the settlement problem include the following items: 4 (1) For the containment, we require that you evaluate the structure t at critical locations (base mat, intermediate floor level and at the springing line) to determine that the use of ACI 359 Code in j conjunction with SRP 3.8.1 would result in adequate safety margins j for these structures. For this assessment, actual material properties may be used, if properly justified. l (2) For critical sections of other Category I structures (base mat, I j an intermediate elevation and an upper elevation) both inside and l
- outside containment, we require that you provide an assessment as L
i to the extent to which these structures can meet the requirements of current ACI 318 Code in conjunction with SRP 3.8.3 and 3.8.4. L This assessment should justify the conclusion that adequate margins of safety exist for these structures using current Codes. i< For this assessment, actual material properties may be used if properly justified. 8408020099 840718 PDR FOIA RICE 84-96 PDR
y v ,-~..,.m i Page 2 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP 4 INTERROGATORY QUESTION 2 ANSWER CONTINUED l (3) For all other Cateogry I structures, the same type of curves as .t!j those presented for the containment (FSAR 3.7-66 and 67) should i! Also, compare the floor response spectra computed I be provided. at critical locations using your original seismic input and o. Ii. method and those outlined in Regulatory Guides 1.60, 1.61, and q d 1.92 for the contaiment and other Category I structures. The safety significance of any difference resulting from the 'i comparison should be assessed. (4) For the seismic Category I structures which are located upon backfill and which are experiencing settlement in excess of that predicted, provide an assessment that will assure the ti j ability of these stru:tures to withstand appropriate loading
- i combinations (including SSE) throughout plant life. Describe 9lj how stresses associated with differential settlement of the q
g structural foundations and any corrective activities have o been or will be factored into these evaluations. A comparison =j of the stresses predicted due to settlement to those allowable d P stresses pemitted by the ACI Code should be provided. i-(5) For the Category I piping systems modify your FSAR to reference n BP-TOP-1 Revision 3 and identify and justify all exceptions t [ or alternate approaches which you take to Revision 3. V 6 3 d1 n i [1
_z 9 Page 3_of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP INTERR0GATORY QUESTION 2 ANSWER CONTINUED 1
- i-(6)
Investigate the soil properties and the foundation characteristics of fj all the areas affected by the fill material or as modified by any a proposed changes. On the basis of the soil properties and foundation characteristics thus detemined, conduct a new seismic analysis to account for the revised soil-structure interaction effect and the j new structural response. The structural response spectra should tie ~ used to detemine the new seismic loads-to be incorporated into a [.. revised structural analysis of Category I structures. All details ii of this investigation should be provided for the staff's review and .i evaluation. l )I j (7) Your proposed method of re-evaluation'of Category I structures which are founded partially or totally on fill, as outlined in t ll the response to Question 15, is not acceptable. The structural N. analysis should be conducted using the current NRC criteria, p d f.e., the Standard Review Plan-(Sections 3.8.4 and 3.8.5) or the 3 f: current ACI-349 Code supplemented by the appropriate Regulatory n Guide (Regulatory Guide 1.142), so that the margins of safety l; .can be assessed. j! p. (8) With reference to your response to Questien 4, it was stated that the preliminary estimate for the residual settlement for the f ~ ~ ' diesel generator building for the 40-year'~ plant life is on the ~ ~ - ~ ' - - order of 1 inch. In this connection, specify the following: l r .-- ---~. .= = = - -=
-= -v Page 4 of ANSWERS TO INTERR0GATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP a INTERROGATORY QUESTION 2 ANSWER CONTINUED } a. Is this estimate based on static condition only or does it include soil shakedown due to operational vibration and/ or an earthquake event? If the answer is negative, what would be the total predicted settlement? In your response, i describe your method of analysis of settlement. .b...What is the accuracy of the result of your analysis? State the possible upper bound of the settlement. c. Investigate the effect of a concrete mat foundation Dee Recommendation (5)) for this building and provide the results. d. Evaluate the effect of the impingement of the electrical l i ducts on the foundation during the surcharging operation, including the effect of the construction slabs that were located below the electrical ducts. i (9) With reference to Question 14, you did not answer the basic questions regarding the causes of the cracks, significance of the extent of the j crack, and their consequences. In view of the above, you are requested to conduct detailes' snd comprehensive study which would ant,wer these a questions. It is noted that large areas of the auxiliary building are marked as temporarily or permanently inaccessible. Indicate how you [ plan to investigate the extent of the cracks in those areas. Since these cracks exceed the recommendations provided in applicable industry codes, you should address this concern in your reply. i
__g ~ ] Page 5 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP 3 [ INTERROGATORY QUESTION 2 ANSWER CONTINUED k .(10) Review of your response to Question 7 indicates that the electrical duct banks have r.ot been designed in accordance with the same criteria as those applicable to other Category I structures. 'r The electrical duct banks are considered to be a vital link between diesel generators and other parts of the plant. The acceptance of these ducts should be based on the use of the structural criteria for Category I structures as provided in the appropriate sections of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) and Regulatory Guides. Passing of a rabbit through the duct banks l cannot be substituted for such criteria. You are requested, therefore, to perform an analysis of the affected duct banks using the criteria applicable to other Category I structures. (11) The response to 50.54(f) request reported the following in con-sistencies between data used for structural design of the diesel generator building and the data contained in the FSAR. a. A uniform load of 3,000 psf was used rather than the 4,000 psf shown.in Figure 2.5-47 in the FSAR. t b. The calculations assumed a mat foundation rather than a spread footing foundation, which is the actual design ll a condition. O c. The results of these erroneous calculations were included in the FSAR.
_=_ ~ .--~-,_n~ [ Page 6 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP f_ INTERROGATORY QUESTION 2 ANSWER CONTINUED e.. Please clarify these apparent inconsistencies. In addition, state if settlements have been noted for the other Category I structures in question other than the Diesel Generator 2 Building. (12) In response to our previous Question 13, it was indicated that the floor response spectra for the diesel generator building were generated on the assumption that the shear 0 wave velocity will be lower than 500 fps. Describe the basis for this assumption. Describe the surveillance plan for all of the structures in question during the life span of the plant by which you will be able to monitor the soil conditions to ascertain in the future that your assumption is valid. (13) Investigate Auxiliary Building tower for any permanent damage that may 'have been caused by the bad soil foundation under the wing structures that span from the central tower of the Auxiliary Building.- 1 (14) Investigate the option of providing a foundation supported on solid soil for the north wing of the service water building. 3 ~ ' ~ ~ l15f ~i.' af the bhr~ahdia~t'er storage tankslo ' 0iif Eheir~iaxfium l'oad' ~ ~~ ~- ~ ~~ o 9 ~ capacity and continue.the investigation of the settlement and crack patterns. Submit a plan for this surveillance for our review. I h
e Page 7 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP dj INTERROGATORY QUESTION 2 ANSWER CONTINUED l-(16) Categorize, design, and test the dewatering system in its entirety ]j or in part to remain operational during an earthquake event. s h Justify your assumption that only a portion of this dewatering 4 j system will survive an earthquake event in view of the fact that i you qualify all of the wells as a Category I component. .1 {- (17) Use of site dependent input design spectra is acceptable if the input spectra are reviewed and accepted by Geosciences Branch (GSB) (Ref. SRP Section 2.5). ]j. (18) Methods for implementing the soil-structure interaction analysis should include both the half space lumped spring and mass a representation and the finite element appraoches. Category I structures, systems and components should be designed to responses obtained by any one of the following methods: o a. Envelope of results of the two methods;
- '\\
,i
- )
b. Results of one method with conservative design con-d j sideration of impact from use of the other method; and c. Combination of (c} and (b) with provision of adequate l] conservatism in design. 'e m p= 3 4 EM%S e e -mew -- N ( -q
.w.
- .g.3_ a 1
- y 1
Page 8 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMFR POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP 9 INTERROGATORY QUESTION 2 ANSWER CONTINUED (19) Consideration of the effects due to accidental torsional forces in design (as a minimum,' the 5% times base dimension off-setting criteria should apply). (20) Deletion of Table 3.7.2-1, " Acceptable Methods for Soil-Structure i] Interaction Analysis" and adopt acceptance criteria of 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) stated _in. Section.3.7.1..... _. [ (21) Use of Regulatory Guides 1.92 and 1.122. 1 (22).. Case-by-case acceptance of the use of a single seismic instrumentation system for sites with multiple plants (more than 2 plants). i i ]\\ L l a
c m- .n Page 9 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP INTERROGATORY QUESTION 3: State and explain the reasons why "such [ acceptance criteria], coupled with the details of the remedial action, are necessary for the Staff to evaluate the technical adequacy and proper implementation of the proposed action." (Order at page 3.) 1j ANSWER: f The Structural Engineering Branch utilizes criteria developed in the form of Regulations, Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plans, Topical Reports, and Branch Fcsitions. The information requested is related to criteria identified in the above related documents. Therefore, the applicant's j answers to our questions are necessary for the Staff safety evaluation of l the Midland NPP. INTERROGATORY QUESTION 4: l State and explain the basis for the statement, at page 3 of the Order, that "the informa. tion provided by the licensee fails to provide such criteria." (Acceptance criteria.) (Order at page 3.) ANSWER: The Staff has identified differences in criteria or lack of criteria for area of review related to the structural review of the Midlar.d NPP. Al so, the settlement problem of most of the Category I structures has added to the differences and lack of criteria for the Midland NPP FSAR. In addition, areas that were foun.i adequate need to be re-investigated to examine the effect of settlement and changed material and physical parameters. D WWh4 %Me-'= m 6th he o ~- = - -
~, 7.... - .g. w~i t '1 l o Page 10 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP h, INTERROGATORY QUESTION 5: State with particularity each item of information the Staff requested up h and until December 6,1979 with regard to acceptance criteria. r ANSWER: h The outstanding items identified in the answer to Interrogatory (2) are ~ 7 the items outstanding in the. structural review as of December 6,1979. ]; Additional concerns have been identified from the current review 4 (i.e. reactor vessel hold-down bolts, borated water tank cracks, j improper models for the dynamic analysis of certain structures, etc.). I INTERROGATORY QUESTION 6: With regard to each item of information identified in response to Interrogatary 5, state: (a) the identity of the request; (b) whether 4 Consumers resposided to that request; (c) the identity of the communi-cation that the Staff considered Consumers response to the request; e (d) whether the Staff considered the response adequate; (e) the identity of the communicrtion by which the Staff connunicated its position as to the adequacy of the response; (f) the basis for the Staff's position regarding adequacy or inadequacy of Consumers response; and (g) the Staff personnel responsible for detemining whether Consumers' response was adequate or inadequate. ._....-._. ANSWER: - Consumer Power Company has addressed many of our concerns and has eliminated some of them. The simplest approach to address the . 4: h .. o
~.._. _ - _ _ - - ~ _m, .m.. m% b' t; Page 11 of ANSWERS TO INTERR0GATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP i INTERR0CATORY QUESTION 6 ANSWER CONTINUED' questions of which items of concerns have been resolved and which ones remain as items of safety concern is to state the items that remain, in addition to other items that have been identified during the current review h and from the site investigation at the Midland NPP. The items that are d still a concern to us, at this point, are identified in the answer to Interrogatory (7). The Staff responsible for the determination of the adequacy /inedequacy of the' responses are as follows: James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering l ' ;1 Franz P. Schauer, Chief t Structural Engineering Branch Frank Rinaldi, Senior Structitral Engineer Structural Engineering Branch P. Huang, Consultant NWSC ) 't J. Matra, Consultant [ NWSC ~ e l e. 7' @M =_
- m. y __._.s . ----- n---- - - em Page 12 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP INTERROGATORY OUESTION 7: State with particularity each item of infomat' ion the Staff requested after December 6,1979 with regard to acceptance criteria. ANSWER: The concerns identified by the Staff after December 6,1979, include the items not resolved from the previous list of concerns and concerns resulting + from the additional investigations conducted by the applicant and by the Staff. j fI Some of these additional concerns have been. identified-recently by the applicant (i.e. reactor vessel hold-down bolts, improper modeling of some Category I structures, damage to the foundation of the borated water tanks, etc.). These items are acknowledged by the Staff as problem areas. The other I areas of safety concern include the following: l (1) As a result of settlement and ir. adequate compaction in the fill area, the applicant has agreed to re-run the seismic / y structural analyses of the Category I structures located in this area. We require that the applicant verify and evaluate h p any changes in the design safety margins available for all H [ applicable Category I structures, by performing a structural re-analysis using the resulting seismic forces. p (2) As a result of the strengthening measures planned for the q' auxiliary building and the service water intake structure. ~ '~~ ~through"the~use 'of Jcaissons' and-~pilesTrespectively, the foundation of these structures will be different from the L
w_. 7 L Page 13 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP l-( INTERROGATORY QUESTION 7 ANSWER CONTINUED I original design. Such a change will require a new seismic / structural analysis. In addition, since the floor response spectra for the diesel generator building were generated on the assumption that the shear wave velocity would not be lower than 500 FPS, we require that monitoring of the soil properties 3 , be undertaken throughout the period of consolidation in order ~ ~ 'to verify the validity of thit'as%mption. Also, the applicant l is required to report and eval. ate any variations from the minimum p assumed value of 500 FPS. 1 (3) The fill material under the nothern part.of the service 0 water puap structure remains an'open item. While the portion of the structure over the fill material is being supported by the rest of the structure founded on natural material, through cantilever action, it is stated in the Management Corrective Action Report, Interim Report 6 issued September 7,1978, that the total design loads cannot be supported by the main structure. The proposed . corrective acticn recommends the. placing of pilings along g the north wall of the structure. The following concerns regarding this proposed corrective action, need to be addressed: =e-... ..-+ + ~. < e w -, mwe ..w. ...a ,.,w. r .g 4 mi = _x
=.w u,. ~ .~.g._ a Page 14 of ANSWERS TO INTERkOGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP INTERROGATORY QUESTION 7 ANSWER CONTINUED 1 a. The corrective action does not provide the type of foundation Il. support that was considered in the original design, which provided stable solid soil support along the fourdation of the structure. The corrective action only provides coa-centrated supports along the wall through the use of piles, corbels, and bolts. This new design needs to be identified U and the details e* the analysis and results be fully reviewed.
- a.,
b. The methods of attaching corbels by using long longitudina? bolts through the. walls. requires the bolts to resist bending forces. This is not an effective way of utilizing bolts, since bolts provide low strength in the bending mode. Other corrective design.nethods, that more closely comply 4-with the design intent, should be considered and compared. In any event details of this bolt design and analysis needs to be provided for our safety review. c. In the proposEJ re-analysis of the service water pump structure for seismic loading, the manner in which piling will be modeled is not clear. It appears that the vertical t i piling may not resist horizontal forces unless proper bracing is provided. In addition, the applicant should evaluate as to whether or not the piling will still be an effective way of providing vertical support after the j occurrence of a postulated earthquake (OBE). y E
.-.e y.. g _.. _ m a [ Page'15 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP h-I INTERROGATORY QUESTION 7 ANSWER CONTINUED (4) In the response to Question 15 of the NRC request, regarding 0 plant fill, it is stated that, " differential settlement primarily induces additional strain, which is a self-limiting effect and does not affect the ultimate strength of the structural members." Additional clarification of this statement is needed. Due to differential settlement the foundations of Category I structures, in the plant filt areas,~ have become drastically diffe~ rent from the original design. Consequently, the new structural systems should be evaluated to determine that all of the design loads, load combications and stress / strain limits identified 4 l current NRC criteria are satisfied. i (5) The applicant responses to Questions 14, 28, and 29 of the ~ NRC request regarding the causes of cracks due to settlement, t the significance of the extent of cracks, and the consequences . of cracking, provide insight into the existing condition of the Category I structures. However, additional information is needed for the evaluation of the Category I structures, as follows: 1 q Provide the tension field data, if any, under the design a. load combinations at all crack locations for each Category . -- I structure. b. Provide an analysis that will show the limiting tension ij field. condition in which a crack 'will not propagate. l A n _ - = -=
, m.. m _ 7- ,.m Page 16.of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP f INTERROGATORY QUESTION 7 ANSWER CONTINUED c. Demonstrate that the existing cracks will not propagate further as result of any postulated additional settlement. b ~ d. Demonstrate that adequate corrective plans, in regard to the adverse effects of corrosion of the reinforcing bars in the cracked areas, have been formulated and that quality assurance / g J control procedures have been carefully identified and evaluated. 9 L (6) Since the fill was replaced by other material, such as lean
- j concrete,.in the vicinity of the auxiliary building and of the feeawater valve pits, the soil properties of the foundation material have been changed.
It is recommended that new soil propertfes (e.g. damping values and shear modulus) be used in the revised seismic analysis to determine the structural y adequacy of all of the pertinent Category I structures. A new soil-structure interaction analysis should be conducted by the applicant and a summary of the assumptions, models, and results should be provided for our review. Alsop all" structural / seismic analyses should-be-conducted using-the revised seismic loading and current NRC criteria so that margins of safety can be determind against currently acceptable L -.... . -. -,.- __ - loads and standards.-In addition, all analyses should include . the effects of soil settlement, as identified in the revised load combination equations, and include an evaluation of significant local cracked areas, as per Question 5 criteria. ~ ~
7 p e _ - - = - - - = - - - - x s-Page 17 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP j INTERROGATORY QUESTION 7 ANSWER CONTINUED i (7) The applicant has not established the effectiveness of the groundwater well system..These wells are needed to control the ground water level and prevent soil-liquefaction. The f proposed dewatering system should be categorized iri its entirety or in part, as per the determination of the system and geoscience technical personnel, as Category I systems and should be designed and constructed to resist ~the h loads of OBE/SSE and other pertinent loads. (8) The reactor venel support system remains as an open item since it is undergoing a re-evaluation by the applicant. Provide the final design and analysis for our review. (9) Since the design of other Category I and internal concrete structures were completed before 1973 the load combinations presented in the FSAR are not in accordance with all of the } ~ current NRC criteria. Specifically, the Staff has adopted as the acceptable criteria ACI-349 modified by the exceptions identified in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.142. The applicant has not yet compared the degree of conservatism of the Midland NPP design for the two criteric, with respect to the load com-g L bination and with respect to related acceptable allowable = stress / strain criteria. Demonstrate that the criteria (load combinations and acceptance limits) are equivalent in safety scope. ed
,,www __w_ __ +- ._ =. r i 5 f Page 18 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF C0hSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP i t 4 I INTERROGATORY QUESTION 7 ANSWER CONTINUED. (10) The Tornado Missile Spectra does not fully comply with the R, current NRC criteria. Specifically, the applicant has not 4j considered the three steel pipe missiles (3" dia., 6" dia., p 12" dial). From a structural point of view the 12" diameter f steel pipe controls the design of the concrete barriers. Therefore, further evaluation of the tornado missile barriers is required. In addition, the applicant should demonstrate l that the vents used to reduce the differential pressure in -N' other Category I structures are adequate to resist any postulated missile impact. 4 i-i' (11), Confimatory independent seismic analyses of the containment structure, service water pump' structure and the diesel - a generator building are undcrway. Additional data to those a presented in the FSAR are required. It is requested that h -the following data be forwarded-to NRC-for the structures mentioned above: 3.n 1. Lump mass models; ,j T 2. Stiffness value for each member; I 3. Mass at each nodes point; 4. Spring constants used in the analysis (K,, C,, K, gxg,fy, C ); and 4 x _.y--_ 5. Seismic inputs of the modified Taft N21E 1952 record used in this analysis. d --.e
.c &-,2 ,~-.u, Page 19 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP INTERROGATORY QUESTION 8: With regard to each item of information identified in response to interrogatory 7. state: (a) the identity of the request; (b) whether . Consumers responded to that request; (c) the identity of the communi- -cation that the Staff considered Consumers response to the request; (d) whether the Staff considered th resporta adequate; (e) the identity of the communication by which the Staff communicated its / position as,to the adequacy. or inadequacy of the response; (f.) the basis fer the Staff's position regarding adequacy or inadequacy of Consumers response; and (g) the Staff personnel responsible for determining whether. Consumers' response was adequate or inadequate. fi ANSWER: Consumer Power Ccapany has attempted to answer most of the con erns identified in Interrogatory (7). However, the earliest attempt to answer these questions is dated November,1980. This date ind' cates that, factoring ~ g in the actual time for document mailing, the mail time into/in NRC, holiday period, scheduling period, etc., the review has not been completed at this time. The Staff will communicate the degree of acceptance of ( any replies to our ~ safety concerns as soon as possible. Some Staff positions have been reviewed by the applicant during the deposition i. of Staff / Consultants to.tt.e Structural Engineering Branch. However, the {..__.._.__ resolution of certain problems identified recently will take a longer period of time for its review / discussion / resolution. The basis for the determination of the adequacy / inadequacy will be the Staff criteria. i The Staff responsible for these determinations is the same as stated at the end of the answer to Interrogatory (6). l l t-
7 _ z.m x _m &. m-a p-Page 20 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGMORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP r INTERROGATORY QUESTION 9: J Excluding the information provided in response to Interrogatory 5, state w 4 with particularity each item of information the Staff felt was necessary, gj as of December 6,1979, for Consumers to provide in order for the Staff I u to have concluded that "the safety issues associated with remedial action taken or planned to be taken by the licensee to correct the soil deficiencies will be resolved." (Order at page 3.) 3 1 ANSWER: 4 As of December 6,1979, the Structural Engineering Branch Staff had no other concern other than those stated in Interrogatory (2) and acknowledged tn-Interrogatory (5). After the review of subsequent submittals from the j applicant the Structural Engincering Branch's Staff had the concerns I identified in our answer to Interrogatory (7). Note that additional "-- " concerns related to the re&ctor vessel hold-down bolts, modeling of-certain Category I structures and additional damage to foundation of the borated water tanks have been identified by the app'icant and a acknowledged by the Staff."However, no resolution of these new concerns have been accomplished. i. 4 ,.m -4.- ee meneas en- -e museen...
- w. ema %,emq> wsme-.- ww m- - - - -
we-< w. .. = = eseum J h' l 4 ),, . ~ _ _.,
, = - - _, - ..:w 3 XX_< ^ = - 'M + a s A Page 21 of ' ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP INTERROGATORY QUESTION 10: For each item of information set forth in response to Interrogatory 9, state (a) whether the Staff has requested Consumers to provids such information; (b) the identity of each request by the Staff to Consumers: (c) the identity of the communication that the Staff considered Consumers' response to the request; (d) whether Consumers' response was deemed adequate by the Staff; (e) the identity of the connuni-cation by which the Staff's evaluation of Consumers' response was communicated to Consumers; (f) the basis for the Staff's position regarding adequacy or inadequacy of Consumers' response; and (g) the Staff personnel responsible for determining whether Consumers' response was adequate or inadequate. ANSWER: No additional concerns other than those identified in Interrogatory (2) and (7) and the other three new concerns stated in our answer to Interrogatory (9) have been identified. Any communication on these new items has been directed through the Project Manager. The Structural Engineering Branch Staff awaits a proposed resolution from the applicant on the problems with the foundation of the borated water tanks and the improper modeling of certain Category I structures. The proposed concept for the resolution of the problem related to the reactor vessel hold-down bolts appears adequate from the point of view of a construction permit. However, final acceptance will be given after a careful review of the design / analysis / assumptions / l .n k O mm ..n
g -~_ + - _ _ w _- n= -_m M l' Page 22 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP l INTERROGATORY QUESTION 10 ANSWER CONTINUED I l-models/results for the proposed fix. The Staff responsible for 1 determining the adequacy / inadequacy of the applicant's proposed design is the same as stated at the end of the answer to 1 Interrogatory (6). INTERROGATORY QUESTION 11: Excluding the information provided in response to Interrogatory 7, state with particularity each item of information the Staff feels, I as of the date of answering this Interrogatory, is necessary for !j Consumers to provide in order for the Staff to conclude that "the safety issues associated with remedial action taken or planned e to be taken by the licensee to correct the soil deficiencies will be 1 i resolved." (Order at page 3.) 6 i ANSWER: 1 To account for the effect of the soil deficiency, an acceptable answer by Consumer Power Company to the concerns identified in b our answer to Interrogatory (7) and the new concerns identified at the end of our answer to Interrogatory (10) would be sufficient c to resolve the staff concerns related to'the structural safety of Category I structures. WM +^ W M ~'
y _. ~_ , c;w .m 9 Page 23 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP INTERROGATORY QUESTION 12: ~ For each item of information-set.forth in response to Interrogatory 11 state: y (a) whether the Staff had requested Consumers to provide such information: (b) the ldentity of each request by the Staff to Consumers; (c) the identity e of the communication that the Staff considered Consumers' response; (d) I whether Consumers' response was deemed adequate by the Staff; (e) the identity of the communication by which the Staff's evaluation of Consumers' response was communicated to Consumers; (f) the basis for the .. j Staff's response; and (g) the Staff personnel responsible for determining whether Consumers' response was adequate or inadequate. I ANSWER: i Since no new questions are of concern at this time to the Staff other than those identified in the answers to Interrogatory (7) as supplemented in the answers to Interrogatories (8), (9) and (10), no new information can be supplied by the Structural Engineering Staff on this Interrogatory (12). t 'V -s M'- M@ + M6 = W
O Page 24 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOP.IES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP INTERROGATORY QUESTION 13,: State with particularity each acceptance criteria which Consumers Power L Company had up until December 6,1979, provided to the Staff. ANSWER: Acceptance criteria which Consumers Power Company had up until December 6, 1979 provided the Staff is as follows: 1 (1) Wind Design Criteria (SRP 3.1.1). (2) Tornado Design Criteria (SRP 3.3.2). (3) Water Level (Flood) Design Criteria (SRP 3.4.2). 'I f (4) Barrier Design Criteria (SRP 3.5.3). (5) Seismic Input Criteria (SRP 3.7.1). (6) Seismic System and Subsystem Analysis Criteria (SRP 3.7.2 and 3.7.3). (7) Seismic Instrumentation Criteria (SRP 3.7.4). n (8) Concrete Containment Criteria (SRP 3.8.1). (9) Concrete and Structural' Steel Internal Structures Criteria (SRP 3.8.3).' " ~ (10) Other Category I Structures Criteria (SRP 3.8.4). .(11)_. Foundation-(SRP 3.-8.5).
- r_ z._....
However, note that.not all of..the criteria provided was found complete and/or acceptable. NNee - e4> aseese w - an. f m __
~. = ~ = .a- _ _m . ( y{. Page 25 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP INTERROGATORY QUESTION 14:- l As of December 6,1979 with regard to each criteria identified in your answer to Interrogatory 12 state whether Consumers had submitted sufficient information to justify each acceptance criteria. If Consumers had not N submitted sufficient information, state with particularity which information Consumers had failed to supply. 3 l ANSWER: The applicant has provided answers to most of our concerns, identified prior to December 6,1979. However, as we stated before in our answer to 1 Interrogatory (2); those were the itams not yet resolved, as of December 6 l 1979. i t INTERROGATORY QUESTION 15: j .. Excluding the acceptance criteria. identified in response to Interrogatory 13, state with particularity each acceptance criteria which Consumers has to date provided to the Staff. ANSWER: The status of the acceptance criteria which Consumers Power Company provided P the Staff is summarized below: (1) Wind Design Criteria - CPC0 has conformed with our criteria. p4 M.S 4m+ W 6 MN e. __ 6 644-- _h 4
y m gw ._. 2. =.:. .~ m+ 3, l 3 1_ l Page 26 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP . INTERROGATORY QUESTION 15 ANSWER CONTINUED (2) Tornado Design. Criteria - CPC0 has conformed with the exception of two open items listed below: t a. Tornado missile spectra does not fully comply with the current NRC missile criteria; and b. Demonstrate that the vents in all Category I structures ] are adequate to resist missile impact. (3) Water Level Flood Design Criteria - CPC0 conforms with our criteria with the exception of the open item listed below: a. Soil liquefaction problem. t I (4) Barrier Design Criteria - CPC0 conforms to our criteria with the exception of the open item listed below: a. Seismic Category I systems and components may not be adequately. protected.against missile impact dua to r. I the above open items in item (2). (5) Seismic Input Criteria - CPC0 conforms to the above criteria. However, the spectra proposed by the applicant was not accepted by the Geosciences Branch. ~ M Mehe. emper h w m examange g-e w _a
+ ~ =g L Page 27 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP INTERROGATORY QUESTION 15 ANSWER CONTINUED lJ (6) Seismic Sistem and Subsystem Analysis Criteria - CPC0 conformed h to our criteria with the exception of the open item listed below: I r a. Settlement and inadequate soil compaction require re-analysis i. ( of Category I structures in plant fill area. J (7) Seismic Instrumentation Criteria - CPC0 has conformed with our criteria. (8) Concrete Containment Criteria - CPC0 has conformed with the above_critaria..with the exception of the.open item. listed 1 j below: 1 'l Applicant has not demonstrated the degree of conservatism a. used in the Midland design with respect to the load combinations and related to our acceptance criteria. t (9) Concrete <and Structural Steel. Internal Structures. Criteria - CPC0 has conformed with our criteria with the exception of the open items listed belowt i a. Load combination presented in FSAR are not fully in compliance with our requirements. Specifically ACI-349, modified as per Regulatory. Guide 1.142; ~. _ _ _... _ _ -.- b. Information on the use of masonry walls in Category I structures is needed; and .1 l W u- -______-_M_.
wm .- _=__-=:_ o ~ o Page 28 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP r INTERROGATORY QUESTION 15 ANSWER CONTINUED c. Re-analysis of Reactor Yessel Support System 1 (Bolt failure). (10) Other Category I Structures Criteria - CPC0 conforms to our criteria with the exception of the following open items: a. Load combinations for concrete structures are not " fully in compliance with our requirements specifically ACI-349, modified as per Regulatory Guide 1.142; b. Extensite soil settlement and related wall. cracking ,\\ observed in various Category I structures must be addressed and evaluated in sufficient details ace'eptable to the Staff; and c. Proposed corrective actions need to be addressed and evaluated in sufficient details acceptable to the Staff. (11) Foundations - CPC0 conforms with our criteria with the exception of the following open items: ) a. Settlement and inadequate compaction of the foundations material: .._-._....._.__ (1)..New soil propertiespand L __ J p
- 4. -. %. o
n.-=n.__...-...- g 0 t Page 29 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP N ) INTERROGATORYQUESTION15 ANSI [ERCONTINUED (ii) Structural / seismic re-analysis: Include effects of settlement and revised load combination were appropriate. b. Cracking of Category I structures: ~, (i) Provide tension field data; i (ii) Provide limiting tension field conditions during which the cracks will not propagate; 4 (iii) Show that existing cracks shall not propagate further i j due to settlement; ) (iv) Show corrective plans in. regard to corrosion of e reinforcing bars in crack areas; and 1 (v) Propose a load as part of the load combinations which accounts for the effects of the cracks in the Category I structures. c. Floor response spectra: (1) Surveillance of soil properties to be conducted through out entire period of consolidation to-f verify the validity of the assumed soil properties. 1 _. =. - ~
.m - m. -= [ Page 30 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP INTERROGATORY QUESTION 15 ANSWER CONTINUED d. Corrective actions under consideration: f (1) Proposed corrective action for the service water building cannot be accepted unless further analysis is performed and presented to the Staff for our evaluation and acceptance; i, (ii) Berated water storage tanks (cracks in foundation ring) - Propose a. solution and perform applicable analyses for Staff evaluation; (iii) Dewatering system - Provide analyses if it is i categorized as a Category I system; and - ~ (iv) Improper modeling~of* Category I structures - Identify in detail all improper models for Category I (! structures, propose correct / proper structural models for these structures and present and justify the new results, including the available safety margins. D 1 + .-wo, -.4%. .m.. r p1 d + m
7 .--4-.- sm -- L,.
- Page 31 of ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF CONSUMER POWER COMPANY - MIDLAND NPP INTERROGATORY QUESTION 16:
With regard to each criteria identified in your answer to Interrogatory 15 state whether Consumers has submitted sufficient information to justify each acceptance criteria. If Consumers has not submitted sufficient information, state with particularity which information Consumers has ~ failed to supply. L ANSWER: Consumer Power Company has submitted some information to resolve many of the structural safety concerns outstanding in the review. Note that any j of the submittals provided toward the end of December 1980 have not been -I reviewed in full. In addition, note that some of the problem areas recently identified, with the exception of the reactor vessel hold-down bolts, have not been addressed by the applicant in any formal matter. The other open items have been discussed in detail in our answers to Interrogatories (7) and (15). H b d +
15 MU bd j' 34 ~~pe~g wh Ac.Wf0 MC.ctyddd%p t, wu h Uwas,4 UNI ED STATES 'g + ,[,' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 1.,...../
i: 9 MAR 171981 ~f Docket No.: 50-329/330 -I r! MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FROM: James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components & Structures, DE (
SUBJECT:
RESPONSES TO CONSUMERS' POWER FIRST SET OF l1 INTERROGATORIES FROM THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING .j BRANCH (MIDLAND SETTLEMENT ISSUE) a Find enclosed input from the MES responding to the first set of interro-gatories issued by Consumers Power concerning soil settlement, dated i November 17, 1980. These responses are primarily concerned with buried l l piping and were prepared by A. J. Cappucci with technical assistance l from ETEC. Drafts of these responses were provided to Darl Hood of your I staff to assist him in meeting the dea lines set by the ASLB. e , James P. Knight, Assistant Director for ( ivision of Engineering / Components 'I Structures 1)
Enclosure:
As stated j cc w/o enc 1: R. Vollmer W. Patton i cc w/ encl: R. Bosnak H. Bramer F. Cherny D. Hood H. Levin L. Auge ETEC F. Riraldi J. Ka Q R. Gonzales D. Gupta 19
l Responses to Consumers' J First Set of Interrogatories j l 1. Not applicable. 2. The 50.54(f) questions 17 thru 20 were directed to acceptance criteria. 1 The portions of these questions so directed are: j. (a) 50.54(f) question 17 - A. portion of this question concerning the assurance of code allowable conditions and proper remedial action. 5 (b) 50.54(f) question 18 - All of this question related to acceptance criteria. (c) 50.54(f) question 19 - A portion of this question requires defining ]; acceptance criteria for excesssive deformations. l (d) 50.54(f) question 20 - All of this question related to acceptance 4 criteria. 3. The acceptance. criteria coupled with the details of the remedial action is necessary to evaluate the technical adequacy and proper implementation of the proposed action. The acceptance criteria from ASME Section III, AWWA or some other defined acceptance criteria is required to detemine whether or i l not the piping in question will perform its. intended function. That is to g' maintain its pressure boundary integrity and allow unrestricted design flow.
- j If the piping does not meet its. defined acceptance criteria, then remedial action must take place, this could mean further analysis or repair such as 5
rebedding the piping. The staff must,have confidence that the remedial l action will either demonstrate that the piping can perform its intended function or rtturn the piping to a physical state where its performance is assured. Thereforerth =W must_ evaluate _the_ proposed _actjons. i< lj 4 4. In the responses to the 50.54(f) questions (17 thru 19) acceptance criteria and the basis for this criteria was either non-existant or weakly presented. ~ Sp'cifically: 4 (a) There was no commitment to use.the 3.05-limit of NC-3652.3 of ASME SectionIII} Division 1. However,intSble17-2oftheresponsesto -.I the50.54(f questions there is an indication that the code calculations were used. (b) In terms of seismic category I piping between structures references are made to applicable codes, however, there was no indication as to which codes or what specific acceptance criteria the piping would meet. h (c) There was no basis for selection criteria for determining ivhich piping-would be profiled. f 5. Up and until December 6,1979, each item the staff requested with reguard to acceptance criteria with reference to seismic category I piping is listed below. ~ (a) In 50.54(f) question 17 the staff requested acceptance criteria for meeting code allowables. i ~ _____.___-_-_La___:____. M
r _ e: (b) Again, in 50.54(f) question 18 the staff requested acceptance criteria concerning compliance with the code allowables. (c) In 50.54(f) question 19 acceptance criteria was requested defining excessive defomation. (d) In 50.54(f) question 20 acceptance criteria was required to define acceptable loads on components and supports produced by pipe deformations a i due to settlement. ij 6. -Saqa;l 50.54(f) question 17 I b,1 yes ]j f response to 50.54(f) question 17, rehision 2, 7/79 I c I d'i no l 1/ . l l elll There was not comitment to use 3.05 criteria of the ASME Code, 'i I f I onlyanindicationthatitwascompafedwiththeactualstrectesdue 1 to settlement for illustrative purposes. l (g) R. Stephens/A. Cappucci + MEB/NRR i j -Sb(a;l 50.54(f) question 18 l 1 i b,1 yes 1 I J responses to 50.54(f) questions 18, revision 2, 7/79 i I ll no l 1/ f) There was no detailed description of the acceptance criteria; provided only that they would comply with the applicable codes. More details as to the stress limits used would be required. (g) R. Stephens/A. Cappucci & MEB/NRR -Sc(b 50.54(f) question 19 a I yes I response to 50.54(f) question 19.. revision 2 u7/79 _ not determined prior to 12-6-79 I ( The adequacy of the acceptance criteria for determining the acceptable deformation limits was under review pending the results of the surcharge program" u y ll R. Stephens/A. Cappucci i> MEB/NRR i 1/. -5d ll 3b.54(f) question 20 1 yes 3 c 1 responsesto50.54(f) question 20, revision 2,7/79 d,i no 2. e'l 1/ fll Ko acceptance criteria was defined, only a statement that there was an indication that the loads on components were within the allowables. (g) R. Stephens/A. Cappucci 4> MEB/NRR 0 7. Each item of acceptance criteria the staff. requested after December 6, 1979 is listed below. This information was requested by ETEC and subsequently transmitted by the staff after review. L (a) The criteria which addresses pipe buckling. (b) The criteria for the selection of piping to be profiled. (c) The criteria for the change in piping curvature, f L 1/ Enclosure 3 to " Summary of January 16, 1980 Meeting on Supplemental Requests ~ Regarding Plant Fill," dated February 4, 1980. Fj-M = = - ~
n- ~ a _. m., ,..:, w_. 8. 7a(a) Document givea at a meeting between Consumers' Power and NRC on January 16, 1980 yes in response to questions 17 ti 34, revision 5 no e conference call on 9/8/80 f The criteria does not consider the local buckling or crippling i stresses due to high bending stresses in the large diameter thin walled piping. The buckling stresses due to earth loads, vehicular and railroad traffic, etc. are based on uniform soil properties. From the pipe profiles it is apparent that this is not the case. i g) A. Cappucci, MEB/J. Brammer, ETEC 7b a see7a(a)abohe i b ps yj c response to 50.54(f) question 17, revision 5 d no 1 e conference call on 9/8/80 j f There was not sufficient information as to the total piping involved, the prox'imity of the non-profiled to the profiled piping, the i i percentage of piping profiled, soil characteristics in the area of j concern, etc. Due to changes in slope of some of the profiled piping. it would then appear that the soil characteristics vary. l (g) A. Cappucci, MEB/J. Bramer, ETEC 7c a see 7a(a) above b no none-not applicable i not applicable The rate of change on the slope or the radius of curvature of the piping detemines the bending stress more than the overall deflection. (. This requestWs liiade on that basis.7f'~a satisfact5ry aTTUwiibre-~ stress and strain criteria is presented with an acceptable stress analysis, the criteria for the changein piping curvature would not a g be required. (g) A. Cappucci, MIB/J. Bramer, ETEC It should also be noted that ETEC had concerns about the small piping associated with.the Diesel Generators. The diesel fuel lines in particular. l4 ETEC requested acceptance criteria for compliance with. the Code for these L lines. A. J..Cappucci determined that Consumer's original discussion of D these lines was acceptable. 9. (a) That all the Seismic Category I piping be profiled. (b) That remedial action be specified if stresses due tc. settlement approached or.were beyond the code allowables. (c) That details as to the calculational schemes and cssumptions for. determining stresses due to settlement and other combined loads be submitted and reviewed.. (d) That the results of the analysis of nozzle. loads be submitted. (e) That a monitoring program be established over,the life time of the plant to monitor future settlements. (f) That future settlements be included in the presented analysis.
m m m,,- _ - --
- 10. 9a(al yes bh~50.54(f) question 17 1 responseto50.54(f) question 17, revision 2 h
l no )l The criteria for selection of the piping to be. profiled appears to unknown be based on the soil in the same proximity as being homogeneous. There is no evidence that this is the case. (g) R. Stephens/A. Cappucci ) MEB/NRR 9bl;b) a) yes ( 50.54(f) question 17
- d response to 50.54(f) question 17, revision 2 I c I
no dle unknown I f The ~ response to 50.54(f) question 17 stated that the stresses due to settlement would be well below the code allowables as indicated y q in table 17-2. Therefore, it was indicated that remedial action was not planned. This was not responsive because (1) all piping was not profiled (2) future settlements had not been predicted and (3) the results of the surcharge program had not been established. (g) R. Stephens/A. Cappucci 5 MEB/NRR 9c a no b, (c), (d) and (f) - not applicable j g R. Stephens/A. Cappucci 'P MEB/NRR c 9d a no b, (c), (d) and (f) - not applicable g R. St,ephens/A, Cappucci P MEB/NRR 9el; ),1 yes I 50.54(f) question 18 I j response-to 50:54tf) question-187Tevision 2" 1 I no l'e)h unknown (f The response to the above question (9e(c)) indicated no plans for a monitoring program if the settlements remain within the predicted range. I was not clear as to the time frame and methods for verifying the predicted ranges. () R. Stephens/A. Cappucci 4> MEB/NRR 9fl; )1 yes L I 50.54(f( questions 17,18 and 19 I J responses to 50.54(f) questions 17, 18 and 19, revision 2 tl, )i I no unknown f l h response to 50.54(f) 17 - no information as to the settlements over the lifetime of the plant / response to 50.54(f) 18 - adequate / response j to 50.54(f) 19 - no information as to the predicted deformations
- 11. The following is a list of information the staff will require to conclude that the safety issues associated with remedial action to be taken to correct so11 deficiencies with requard to underground piping will be resolved. This
( list does not include responses to interrogatory 7. X L h j [ LV
n.+-_,, n = -x.
- w.,,., _
(a) A final stress
- ysis of the Seismic Category I piping.
S (b):Anexplanatiot, e the relatively rapid changes in some of the piping prm es and the magnitude of the loads which cause these r
- changes, j
(c) The actual-and predicted clearances after 40 years of Seismic Category u I piping at building penetrations.
- (
- 1 (d) The loads and stresses on the piping at their termination points J
(anchors, equipment,largerpipe,etc.), tti (e) From the January 20, 1981 meeting provide method and basis for normalizing )d the profile data prior to performing the stress analysis and used of 3" inch future settlement data. If a non-linear analysis is to be per-b formed provide the analysis methodology with a summary of the results. Li Include a presentation of the margin to the allowable for settle- ?j! ment only and the same for the margin to failure onsidering all primary and secondary stresses. g g g)4 /, g )
- 12. lla(a yes j
(b letter from Robert L. Tedesco to Mr. J. W. Cook dated October 20, 1980. 4 (c letter from J. W. Cook to R. L. Tedesco dated November 14, 1980 d including a document entitled, " Summary of Settlement Stress Calculations for Buried Piping". no conference call on January 14, 1981 j. f) The Bechtel Stress Analysis appeared to be unconservative and did not give a true representation of the actual stresses in the piping. There were questions as to which profiles were used and the justification for the boundary conditions assumed. An ETEC stress analysis-- demonstrated much higher stresses than the Bechtel report. It should also be.noted that.at.the January 20. 1981 me_eting Bechtel stated that subsequent analysis had shown much higher stresses for certain lines. g) A. Cappucci, MEB/J. Bramer, ETEC 11b,c&d a yes b,' meeting of January 20, 1981 c d bConsumers' has not responded to e these requests j f g) A. Cappucci, MEB/J. Branner, ETEC lle(a) No. After the January 20,1981 meeting.a preliminary response to Consumers' presentation and questions was drafted and sent to the ProjectManager(D. Hood). ~ L b, (c), (d.), e),(f)- Not applicable, g A. Cappuce, MEB/ J. Brammer, ETEC 13)' Consumers' Power Company has submitted the following acceptance criteria concerning the stresses and deflection of the buried piping due to ground settlement.
- 1) The stresses will meet the ASME Section III, Division I, Subsection NC, Equation 10aCoderequirement(3Sc).
r i
7 _. - - -, -.. __ m m _. _ _ _ -j
- 2) AWA criteria concerning the allowable radial deflections of buried piping.
d
- 14. Consumers' has submitted sufficient information on the criteria identified in the response to interrogatory 13 to justify each acceptance criteria if in fact they meet it.
- 15. Other than the criteria listed ir reponse to interrogatory 13, neither ETEC or the MEB has knowledge of any other criteria which Consumers' has
- i supplied concerning buried piping.
't i
- 16. See the response to interrogatory 15.
~
- 17. Not applicable.
4 a ] 2 .j 6 ro. k i e k 9 i, t ,i e m -+ w _Y . m .. m ma,,mb
..- L--- - L---- :. Ja. E. L;----. --- 5, O h O 3gg . We se.s (,hexoykes 1 (Ab&d u CL hp c4hr (vt3 O N b EW5We 3/26/ "/ e C l: J' g Q ^ h y b.~..I D l* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMitISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD [ i In the Matter of ) -i / ) Occket Nos. 50-329-0M & OL CONSUMERS POWER CWPANY ) 50-330-0M & OL i ) (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) NRC STAFF t'OTION TO C0l:PEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES 4 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(f) of the Commission's regulations, the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby respect-4 fully moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Soard) in the above-captioned proceeding for an Order compelling answers to certain interrogatories on the ground that Consumers Power Ccmpany (Applicant) has failed to answer interrogatories which are within the scope of discovery in this proceeding. 1 I. SACXGROUND I On November 26, 1980, the Staff propounded 9 interrogatories, each having a number of subparts, and served them on the Applicant. On March 11,1981, answers to some of these interrogatories were served @O7 upon the Staff. However, Applicant either gave incomplete answers to .I certain interrogatories or failed to answer them completely, thus l/ necessitating the filing of this motion. a j ..n -.n.-.--.- .~.,.q
- ~
= ^ .ma v
- ._ m.. s _ __
73 ..L I.: t=- I-II. ARGUMENT ln l A. Applicant has improperly failed to answer ~l' Interrogatories 1(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(h) through 2(s), 3(a) through 3(e), 5(a), e] 5(c), and 9(c). l Interrogatory 1(a) asks the Applicant whether a structural re-analysis
- ]
1 has been performed to verify and evaluate any changes in the design safety 2 margins for any Category I structures. In its answer Applicant merely j states that, with regard to the diesel generator butiding, a structural i re-analysis has been completed. Applicant further states that with regard to the service water pump structure, the auxiliary building, and the berated water storage tanks seismic / structural analyses are in. i progress. Applicant makes no reference to changes in design safety i margins at all. The answer does not state whether any such changes I were either veri' fed or evaluated.
- k, The Commission's rules of practice specifically provide that, for the purposes of motions to compel answers to interrogatories, an evasive or incomplete response shall be treated as a failure to answer or I
respond. 10 C.F.R I 2.740(f)(1). Applicant's answer to interrogatory 1(a)'is incomplete in that no reference is made to changes in the design safety margins available for e:ch Category I structure. Applicant should be required to give a complete answer to interrogatory 1(a). Interrogatory 2(b) asks whether Applicant had previously considered using a stable solid foundation support of the cantilevered portion of the service water pump structure down to the glacial till, rather than the concentrated support design originally chosen by the Applicant as a i II- - -
^ .:::;_..n _,. 1 y
- d remedial action. The response given is that both the present proposal (wall footings) and the previous piles proposal would give a stable u
Q foundation to the structure. This does not answer the interrogatory posed by the Staff. The Staff merely asked whether the stable footing j idea was considered at the time the piles design was chosen. Therefore, 1 Applicant has given at best an incomplete answer to this interrogatory.
- {
App 1tcant should be compelled to give a straightforward answer. In interrogatory 2(c) the Staff requested information as to what .I structural analyses the Appitcant perfonned for each of the alternative jj remedial actions it had considered. The Applicant in interrogatory 2(a) , identified four such alternatives. Interrogatory 2(c) only mentions two 4 I of those alternatives. Therefore, the answer to this interrogatory is j incomplete and should be required to be supplemented. t Applicant's objection to inierrogatories 2(h) through 2(p) is i .I ] invalid and the answers to interrogatories 2(q) through 2(s) are j incomplete. In interrogatories 2(h) through 2(s), the Staff requests .i details concerning the design advocated as a remedial action until very
- l recently. The Applicant's response is that, since this design is no l
longer proposed, its detatis are not relevant to this proceeding. This i i objection ignores both the scope of discovery and the scope of this
- i
.fi proceeding. This proceeding is not ifmited to the adequacy of proposed 1 ] remedies at the liidland Plant. One of the primary issues is whether the l ] unresolved safety issues as of December 6,1979 were such as to warrant i the issuance of the December 6,1979 Order Hodifying Construction Pennits. The status of the proposed remedy at the service water l structure prior to December 6,1979 is directly relevant to that issue. 5 3 . = --:
=
-: ~ - x-j,..' '
- l 1
. r The scope of discovery is defined in 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(b)(1) of the L Conunission's regulations. According to this regulation: Fl " Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not ]- privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding..." In addition discovery may be had of any information reasonably calculated 1 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Jd. Interrogatories designed to gain information about the situation as it existed as of '4 } December 6,1979, are relevant to matters in controversy in this proceed-ing, and might lead to the discrvery of admissible evidence concerning j these matters. This applies to infonnation concerning both the problem - at the 111diand facility, and the action proposed by the Applicant'to renedy that problem. Therefore, interrogatories 2(h) through 2(p) fall j both within the scope of discovery and the scope of this proceeding. l Applicant should be compelled to answer them. _I I .i In interrogatories 2(q) through 2(s), the Staff inquires concerning i-various analyses relating to the pile design. Applicant's answer is that it is engaged in analyses of the new design and will provide them when they are completed. This does not answer the interrogatories posed by the Staff. Since the Staff's concern with the pile design is within the scope of discovery as set forth in 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(b)(1), Applicant p should be compelled to answer these interrogatories. Interrogatories 3(a) through 3(e) also refer to the design no longer i proposed by the Applicant. Applicant's answers refer back to interrogatory 2(h) through 2(p) where an objection is made to those interrogatories as L e ameaum amm e e:. -*****"***-'M
. =- e _ w w .- :.u. - _+- 1 Ja i 5-C f rrelevant. For the same reasons as stated above, these interrogatories ) are within the scope of discovery and of the proceeding. Applicant should be compelled to respond to these interrogatories. nj Interrogatory 5(a) asks whether Applicant has performed analyses which provide tension field data under design load combinations at any crack locations for each of the Category I structures at the itidland facility. ]' Applicant's answer is unclear, in that it is difficult for the Staff to identify which structures have received such analyses and which structures ]! have not. For. example, the diesel generator b'uilding is not mentioned at all in response to this interrogatory. Other structures are m'entioned I-only to say that certain cracking is not a problem with regard to them. 1 i There is no indication of whether this conclusion was reachedjy means of analysis which would provide tension field data or not. Therefore, the answer to interrogatory 5(a) is incomplete and Applicant should be required to supplement the answer. l Interrogatory 5(c) requests the reasons why analyses which provide tension field data were not performed, if in response to interrogatory
- i 4
5(a) Applicant answered that such analyses were not perfomed. Applicant I merely refers the Staff back to its response te interrogatory 5(a). As 'l pointed out above, the answer to interrogatory 5(a) is unclear. The 3 H Staff is unable to determine whether or not the analyses in interrogatory 5(a) .] 'd were perfarned for each seismic Category I structure. Therefore, reference back to interrogatory 5(a) does not allow the Staff to ascertain the reasons why such analyses were not performed. Applicant should be required to suppionent its answer to interrogatory 5(c). 1 1 r=- m a
p N '..* ..I J 4 .4 ] Interrogatory 9(c) requests information concerning what changes, if rw ,j any, occurred in the rattle space for the piping of the Category I valve >4 pit adjacent to the diesel. generator building. The response provided seems to give such infonnation for the rattle space within the diesel .I
- j generator building penetrations.' This was not the infonnation requested.
l Therefore, Appitcant's answer to interrogatory 9(c) is incomplete, and .;;j Applicant should be required to supplement that answer. l!l B. Applicant has either inadequately answered is or completely (b) 6(b), 6(f), and 8, all of failed to answer Interrogatories 1(b),1(f), 5 which request documentation of previously .I illicited responses. ll Interrogatory 1(b) requests the Applicant to provide the Staff with i j documentation of its response to interrogatory 1(a). The Applicant in ~ its response states that such infonnation will be provided with regard to the diesel generator building "in the near future." No specific time is q given when such documents will be provided. In interrogatories 5(b), l. 6(b), 6(f), and 8. Applicant states that the documentation of its e responses in those areas will be provided "along with the structural tl '1il re-analysis package." The Staff is aware that an audit is to be con-ducted at Sechtel beginning on April 20, 1981. From the answers given by Applicant it is unclear whether these documents will be provided at this particular audit or at some unspecified date in the future. Therefore, the antuers to these interrogatories are incomplete, and 1 Applicant should be compelled to supplement them with some definite tice 4 i. ~,...~ 2-..$, ,... OY..... _.,. _ -. ~ _ _ _. -. _ - -. - .-..--,--.7
vm + ,.+ n f. i i p l ) p 7 {- ] period within which the Staff can expect to be permitted to inspect the l requesteddocuments.M Applicant has objected to providing any documents relating to the seismic analysis of any total design margins in excess of those stated in the PSAR, on the ground that the subject of whether certain seismological input data was considered by the Applicant goes beyond the scope of this n h proceeding as set forth in the order dated December 6,1979.M The N Apnlicant in interrogatory 1(f) agrees to provide only those documents which relate to analyses performed for the service water pump structure .j 4 and the borated water storage tank and the auxiliary building. Applicant 4 objects to providing documents relating to the total design margins, for i the diesel generator building and the analysis discussed in the October 14, 1979 letter from Robert Tedesco. Applicant's objection is not valid. The scope of discovery is j' defined by 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations. Discovery is permissible with regard to all matters in controversy in the L proceeding, and of matters which might lead to admissible evidence. Jd,. I It is the Staff's position that the interrogatory about seismic design is properly within the scope of this proceeding. On March 18, 1981 n y While these requests for documents were not made in a separate i request for the production of documents, requests with regard to them should nevertheless be considered by this Board since the L requests refer to the immediately preceding interrogatory, and l represent a method of document discovery chosen for the convenience of the parties. 133,4A Moore's Federal Practice,133.22. y This objection is first set forth in the response to interrogatory 1(e). However. Applicant goes on to give an adequate answer to interrogatory 1(e). Anended and Additional Responses to Certain flRC Staff Interrogator,ies Dated 11/26/80 (l' arch 20,1981). 1 ? _. ~ - rT. r=rnrn-c . a r--- ~ = = u-- -~+
cu, z~= _ _._ _ _ m_c_.r:-a . - m m 3 y,
- Tjy,
- ( k Applicant filed a Motion to Defer Consideration of Seismic Issues Until f 1 the Operating License Proceeding. It is the Staff's position that these A seismic interrogatories are relevant to matters in controversy in this proceeding and might lead to admissible evidence in this proceeding. Therefore, the documents requested in 1(f) fall within the scope of discovery and Applicant should be required to provide them. The Staff suggests the Board's ruling on this question be made at the same time as 't its ruling on Applicant's March 18, 1981 Motion. N III. CONC.USION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff concludes that: 1) Applicant should be compelled to give responses to interrogatories 1(a), 2(b), 2(h) through 2(s), 3(a) through 3(e), 5(a), 5(c) and 3(c); 2) Appplicant should also be compelled to provide the documents requested in interrogatory 1(f); and 3) Applicant should be compelled to give a date certain by which the Staff will be able to inspect the documents requested in Interrogatories 1(b), 5(b), 6(b), 6(f) and 8. Reso fully s bmitted. P. William Paton Counsel for NRC Staff Oated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day of March,1981. ( -...
~ x- .w a e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329-0M & OL 50-330-0M & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 aad 2) 1 w $q! CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i i I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 26th day of March,1981. ~ i
- Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Ms. Mary Sinclair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5711 Sunnerset Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Midland, Michigan 48640 Washington, D.C. 20555 Philip P. Steptoe, Esq. Administrative Judge Ralph S. Decker Michael I. Miller, Esq. Route f4, Box 1900 Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq. Cambridge, MD 21613 Alan S. Farnell Esq. Isham, Lincoln Beale Cne First National Plaza Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 42nd Floor 6152 N. Verde Trail Chicago, Illinois 60603 Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Frank J. Kelley U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney General of the State Washington 0.C.
20555 of Michigan Steward H. Freeman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney Gancral Appeal Board Panel Gregory T. Taylor U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccanission j
Assistant Attorney General. Washington, D.C. 20555 Environmental Protection Division 720 Law Guilding
- 0ccketing and Service Section Lansing, Michigan 48913 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocaission "yron M. Cherry, Esq.
L'ashington, D.C. 20555 1 IGM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 606Il m ese * - - we m . - + - - -.... w- - wee. po w. ,c. ,- ee< - e. - se r-- e goeyaww w . go
.x w w x .~, ..n 1 t u 3, t .l James E. 8:unner, Esq. Jeann Linsley
- l Consumers Power Company Bay City Times N
212 West Michigan Avenue 311 Fifth Street Jackson, Michigan 49201 Bay City, Michigan 48706 Ms.' Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Freciand, Michigan '48623 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 ,.,a Wendell H. Marshall, Vice President Midwest Environmental Protection i? Associates V RF0 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 James R. Kates 4 203 S. Washington Avenue I Saginaw, Michigan 48605 A I 7 , ' William aton f Couns or NRC ff I l I l i _w
-~__w. (- - J.koe,c e w ea u ts; e* UNIT 2DiSTATES OF AMERICA h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before thf'A'tomib Safety'$and Licensing Board .] i j ) In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-329-OL ) 50-330-OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-329-OM ) 50-330-OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2). ) p.1.- /J..a i Olmdub I CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ppr 1 MOTION TO COMPEL NRC STAFF fe h W /** Nf7 TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES 13 THROUGH 16 Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.740(f) Consumers Power Company i (" Consumers Power"), by its attorneys, moves for an order i compelling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff ("NRC Staff") I to answer Interrogatories 13 through 16. 1
===1. Background=== On November 12, 1980,. Consumers Power filed its q first and only set of interrogatories. During the Prehearing I Conference the NRC agreed to answer the interrogatories by l February 25th. Part of the Staff's " answer" was to object to interrogatories 13 through 16. 1 2. The Interrogatories Objected To The NRC Staff objected to the following interrogatories: 13. State with particularity each acceptance PQQMd criteria which Consumers Power Company had up until December 6,1979 provided to the Staff. M v 4"161 ^ ya p A l' 6Y) N A f 1 .w
n.&_ - u. m..._ .a 1 _ _ _ _ m z l j 14. As of December 6,1979 with regard to each p criteria identified in your answer to interrogatory 13 state whether Consumers had submitted sufficient infoiuation to justify each acceptance criteria. If consumers had not submitted sufficient information, state with particularity which information Consumers had failed to supply. 15. Excluding the acceptance criteria identified in response to interrogatory 13, state with particularity each acceptance criteria which consumers has to date provided to the Staff. 16. With regard to each criteria identified in 'l your answer to interrogatory 15 state whether Consumers has submitted sufficient information to justify each ~ acceptance criteria. If Consumers has not submitted sufficient information, state with particularity which information consumers has failed to supply. These interrogatories call for the NRC compilation of acceptance criteria submitted by Consumers Power and the NRC Staff's position and analysis of whether these criteria t were sufficiently justified. l 3. The NRC Staff's Objections to the Interrogatories I With its usual clarity the Staff has set forth its } " reasons" for its objections. As best as we can decipher the 1 grounds are: 1 i A. The NRC Staff never " tabulated" any acceptance criteria found in Consumers Power's submittals. B. If the NRC Staff was " forced" to " sort through voluminous documents provided by Consumers Power for the purpose of tabulating any acceptance criteria that may be found therei.1..." it would be "an inappropriate burden on the Staff." C. NRC Staff answers to other interrogatories contain the information requested by the objected to interrogatories. -.. -
m t ~x c i.. 4. Consumers Power's Arguments in Support of its Motion 4 i To Cospel !1 A.
Background
One of the grounds on which the December 6, 1979 Order (" Order") was based was that Consumers Power, prior to December 6, 1979, had failed to provide the Staff with acceptance criteria. The Order stated that: g Several of the staff's requests were directed to the determination and justification of acceptance criteria to be applied to various remedial measures taken and proposed by the licensee.... The information provided by the licensee fails to provide such criteria. The issue of acceptance criteria, their determination and justification, is therefore crucial to the hearing and to Consumers Power's defense. 3. Contrary to its stated Position The NRC Staff Must Have " Tabulated" Consumers Power's Acceptance Criteria The Order on its face appears to place the burden on Consumers Power to have submitted acceptance criteria to the NRC. The NRC Staff's response to Interrogatory 1 states "the standards (acceptance criteria) to be used by the licensee to make its judgment or decision that proposed remedial measures are acceptable was sought by the NRC for its review." This makes it clear that the NRC expected consumers Power to submit acceptance criteria and then the Staff would review the acceptance criteria and the information submitted with it for purposes of " determination and justifica-tion" of the acceptance criteria. l 4 h% _-_ _. -
.q - 3 z 1 s,. s _- ~ m 1 Therefore, the Order is really stating that either no acceptance criteria were submitted or that if such criteria were submitted they were determined not to be sufficiently justified. Hence if the Order is in fact based on the grounds set forth in the order then the NRC Staff must have tabulated any acceptance criteria provided by consumers Power.-1/Lierefore, the information responsive to interrogatories 13 and 14 must have been in existence as of December 6, ,y 1979. As to interrogatories 15 and 16, dealing with December 10, 1979 to date, the NRC Staff appa ently is } taking the position that consumers Power has still not l j provided all the acceptance criteria required or not justified them to the NRC Staff's satisfaction. The NRC Staff must also have compiled the requested information and data in order to support that position. C. If the NRC Staff has not " tabulated" Consumers Power's Acceptance Criteria then it has an Obligation to do So Now As demonstrated in the previous section the NRC ] Staff should have done such a compilation in order to support h the statements found in the Order. If it has not yet done so y then it should do so now because such a compilation is needed in order for it to answer a portion of interrogatories 14 and 16,,i_. e_. to def. ermine "if Consumers had submitted I 1/ If the NRC feels that consumers Power has not provided l' jng acceptance criteria it should so state. !i' _4_ l ..m. --+,e - e - - - +=*== ==,--me---
--.u. 0 sufficient information to justify each acceptance criteria." It is obvious that a compilation of the acceptance criteria n 1 is necessary in order to make such a determination. D. The Information Requested in Interrogatories 13 Through 16 has not been Provided by Answers to other Consumers Power Interrogatories A review of the NRC Staff's answers to Consumers } Power's interrogatories demonstrates that the requested information has not been provided in response to other interrogatories. Indeed the NRC does not cite any portion of any interrogatory answer in support of its apparent position that the information has been provided. j The NRC Staff's apparent position that the information g } has already been provided in answers to other interrogatories is extremely interesting. In the first place it seems a bit inconsistent to state on one hand that no compilation of acceptance criteria has been done and then state that information which is based on such a compilation has already been provided to Consumers Power. If a compilation has not been done, then it follows that the information which is 2 based on it is not in existence. Conclusion The foregoing demonstrates that the motion compelling the NRC Staff to answer' interrogatories 13 through 16 should ' f.
2 .I .i I' be granted. Respectfully submitted ,ja L r nd Alan S. Farnell Attorney for Consumers Power Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza -1 Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500 d i 4 i h'
m_-. - -1 p_-. 1 U UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ) 't In the Matter of ) ) CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329-OM r. ) 50-330-OM j (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL 'l ) 50-330-OL ) 'l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Alan S. Farnell, hereby certify that a copy of Consumers Power Company's Motion to Compel NRC Staff to Answer Interrogatories 13 Through 16 was served upon all + I persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the l United States mail, first class, this 12th day of March, 1981. & 4. M i Alan S. Farnell i li; a s gr e. l w L me-ee-noe wm em a-,-e.mmm-w.+,.-,.___ wemy
-4, e a q SERVICE LIST w Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Steve Galdler, Esq. -t Attorney General of the 2120 Carter Avenue State of Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Stewart H. Freeman, Esq. Assistart Attorney General Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Pn3 Gregory T. Taylor, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D.C. 20555 Environmental Protection Div. 720 Law Building Mr. C. R. Stephens Lansing, Michigan 48913 Chief, Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary Myron M. Cherry, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One IBM Plaza Washington, D.C. 20555 Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Mary Sinclair l 5711 Summerset Street i Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Midland, Michigan 48640 RFD 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 William D. Paton, Esq. Counsel for the NRC Staff { Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Pnl. Washington, D.C. 20555 I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com. Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Washington, D.C. 20555 6152 N. Verde Trail Apt. B-125 Barbara Stamiris Boca Raton, Florida 33433 5795 North River Road Route 3 Administrative Judge Ralph S. Decker Freeland, Michigan 48623 Route No. 4, box 190D Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Carroll E. Mahaney Babcock & Wilcox P. O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 James E. Brunner, Esq. Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201
~ . - n._. l tv c/,O.41/ I
- t,
u 4 J 3 f) f t b )kM UNITED STATES OF A'tERicA NUCLEAR RECULsTORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMI(.kATETY; AND LICE $$1NG BOARD 't L 'l In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-329-0M 50-330-c.! i 50-329-OL CONSISIERS PCWER COMPANY 50-330-OL 4 (Midland Plant, Units I and 2) Qa~fo y Nok e f I 3 APPLICANT'S SUPPI.EME: ITAL RESPONSES TO FRC STAFF INTERT00AIO.ti.S DATED 11/26/60 hr ocan 'f5 W FI Question 1(a) 3 The analyses referred to in our initial response described or will describe -) ,the extent of design safety margins. f I i Ouestion 2(b) lt (The question posed here was so vague that Applicant was unable to ' determine what time period was referenced. Further, the question and the Staff ~ Motion to Compel argumentative 1y assumes that the driven pile design would not provide a stable footing, which is not true.) o With respect to whether or not a vall footing design was given censidera:ien prior to the decision to utilize driven piles, to cl.e best of Applicant's present recollection, the answer is no. gucetion 2(e) ,d The only structural analyses performed are those mentioned in our initir.1 response to this Interrogatory. 6 S
z, = -n. a s.a~~ - - { -. x a Qucsrian Qa)) The initial response to Question 5(a) referred to an analysis which predicts s That analysis,was future rebar stresses due to dif ferential settlement. per formed for the diesel generator building. This may not be a " tension No such field analysis," as the term is being used by the NRC Staf f. analysis has been performed for the auxiliary building or the service water I t 1 since neither building has demonstrated nor is expected to pump structure, demonstrate appreciable u tf ferential settlement after the implementation of 1 i remedial action. In the final design of the underpinning schemes for these structures long-term movement of the underpinning elements will be ~1 considered. ] ~1 ,i With respect to the borated water storage tank ring foundation, preliminary finite element analyses using soils springs and a 3-dimensional finite element model of the structure and the soil were performed. The latest such analysis predicted high etcment stresses in the vicinity of an observed cra:k 'n the ring foundation and formed the basis for the conclusion that remedial action is necessary. Because of the necessity of deciding upon remedial steps and undertaking further analysis based upon such steps, a final structural analy<is has not been completed. ( Other than the above, no analysis taking into account increased rebar stresses due to dif ferential settlement or predicting future crack size has J been perfbrmed. ? 'l (Note: Applicant invites discussion with the NRC Staf f on this matter in the event the Staf f has follow-up or concerns. ) l l l
..1 ._m-1 s- / { ja.stian if.) The analysis for the diesel generator building, which predicts olcment 41 stresses due to predicted dif ferential setticment, provides informition
- vhich is believed to be similar to that provided by a tension field analysis
- 1 j
of an.homegenous structure. (See the response to 5(a))
- fj
'Jith respect to the other structures, the reason for not performing an analysis of the type described with respect to Question 5(a) above for the. diesel generator building were given in A; plicant's initial response. Q;estion Mc), Apparently, Applicent misinterpreted the question. The information with respect to rattlespace for the valve pits is provided belows f The initial readings were taken on November 13, 1978 for the rattlespaces ) for piping entering the service water valve pits. The final readings were l, taken on 2:ay 2,1980 af ter removal of the surcharge. VALVE PIT VERTICAL HO RI ?O';TA *w PEN. t LINE # MOVEMENT MIN. CAP MOVEMENT 21:N. JAP SWVP f1 4 n A 26" 1JBD-2 1/2 1 1/4 - 1/4 2 l B 26"-OHBC-54 0 1 - 1/4 1 7/8 C 26*-1JBD-1 1/8 1 3/4 - 1/8 1 1/4 D 26"-OllBC-53 + 1/8 1 3/8 , - 1/8 1 7/8 SWVP'l2 A 26"-2JBD-2 D 2 6 "-OllB C-5 6 1/8 1 3/4 1/4 1 C 26"-2JDD-1 0 1 + 1/8 7/3 D 2 6 "-OlmC-5 5 1 3/4 1/8 1 7/t
l 6 l a pipe r. oves up ecis t ive ta ;....ct: a tica Dtte:tionst Veretcai + pipe moves down relative to' penetration j llorizontal + pipe moves cast relative to penetration j pipo rove.4 mm relativ's *., pene t t a t.. :. u lIl ll (tlI Question 1(b) P.ased upon the statements made by the NRC Staff during their recent structural aud(t, the documents requested in the Interrogatory were ] Provided during the structural audit, excepting certain documents with respect to the service water pump structure which Applicant has y cor.nitted to sending to the NRC Staf f. I e i i i t a l h
, 6 _. 1 .m D Q) l' -[ y, ( ~ .4. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 7 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50- 329-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-0M ) 50-329-OL (Midland, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL ) ) COUNTY OF WASHTENAW) )ss STATE OF MICHIGAN ) .) [ AFFIDAVIT OF NEAL SWANBERG Neal Swanberg, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is en-
- loyed.by Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, as an Assistant Project Engineer; that he is responsible for providing supplemental 4
i responses to NRC Staff Interrogatories dated 11/26/80, No. 9(c), and that,to the best of his knowledge and belief the above information and ' the answers to the above interrogatories are true and correct. l Neal Swanberg ~ Subscribed and sworn to before== this 2 ' d,- cf k vt U;31. [ $db Not_ary Public, Washtenaw County, Michigan =. -
- e. Nim My Co==ission Expires:
~.T TTJ ' " ~"- .....,...a-.......,...-..... i t_'
q_ -e - =m% e. .m
- s.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b..a BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD [j In the Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50-329-0M l ! CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-0M H ) 50-329-OL ~ (liidland, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL j[l l ) ) i H.1
- ee1 COUNTY OF WASHTENAW)
)ss STATE OF MICHIGAN ) 1 9 AFFIDAVIT OF BIMAL DEAR l Bimal Dhar, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is ecployed ,i l4 .by Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, as an Eng neer ng Super-ll i i }l l t visor; that he is responsible for providing Supplecental Responses to NRC Staff Interrogatories dated 11/26/80, Nos.' 1(a), 2(b), 2(c), 5(a), I and 5(c), and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above i fj information and the answers to the above interrogatories are true and i, .;) correct. b -l l 1 ]} g: I Bimal Dhar I J ..J-Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 4' 1981. e' A MM a Notary Public, Washtenaw County, r Michigan y My Co==ission Expires )l;t t 6 MdNf i~ El II.II*.! A. ?ICC3.....__.... 3, v.-- ren.Y IMIq. ^- :..* ( r.Y CW25 510 h : a s =-
- * : - 4 j
l. t -:t
p&. QQ l U.S. ECLEAR REGEATORY ColetISEON 1j In the matter of-Docket Mos. 50-329 CH,E C. r.co. Mina.4 riant 50-no ce,a 1,,d 2 0 60tI N $ *f*?1
- m
\\lt \\ 4 /V i / \\ l Y kh[,, -{ BERME THE ADMIC S3FERI: AND.UCIBENG BOARD p M , a.,. S1 m. Wl e %.w t e -- -:\\ r y i APR 91981 '-i 3 "===== = ty/ OPPOENG APPUC AN"3 MOTION TO DEFER CONEDERATIO g Cff!:e:f ne nc.,g gi! ~ 9 A/ 3/6/8t INrsRv!NoR Auswm 1's-46 CF SELSMIC IS3GES UNT"2, THE OPERATING UCINSE P90CIEl%3G WR a Is e : N \\- b \\ ,'%c346k l' This seissio motion begi.ns 4th the statement that at the socorsi prehearing conference
- the NRC Staff renegLng on an agreement ereviously worked out 4th applicant, proposed that the scope of this soil settlement hearing be expanded to include sdsuie issues.*
Whether or not the NRC Staff was renegLag on an informal agreement is irrelev nt. The scope of this soil settlement oroceeding already includsd a seisuie issues as set forth in my contentions ib, lac, arsi ladt in the many references to seisuie issues contained in part II of the December 6,1960 Order (50-Sf questions, aseeptance criteria, and unresolved safety issues regarding remedial actionsh and in Mr. Linenburger* s statoment at the last prehearing conferense that "this boarti 411 absolutely not ignore s' Lasie e f in arriving at its decision about the adequery of pronosed remedial actions.* i I For these reasons alone, it seems clear that the motion cannot be l granted. But an examination of this motion and its supporting arguments is important for many other reasons. ^A hh " ~ " * " C 73 [b$ lf f ll#., I v l
W ~ v,i-a ~.4 ',. -. j I. IIANISAIION OF AFFLIC ANIS ARGIG2ITS AS FRESDITED. Having made irrelevant arguments about the Staff posLtion, the s Applicant arouses. the Staff of a misreading of the Dairyiand esses. The Applicant points out that ML4and is not an operating reactor like Ddryland" ~ i e and-*thus for ML4and unlike Ddrfland,.MeterraL of condderation of seLanie ssues until the 0.1. pressedag 411 not have any adverse effect on the> i public health and safety.'p.16 Applicant draws the concludon that Midland's ~ seisnie deferral does not pose a health and safety threat simply because it is not an operating reactor. In as doing, he concedes that a facility that overates 4thout saisnie updates does represent a threat to publie health and safety. 'Aat he as' ually is sayiss then is that because MLdland l t is not presently an ooerating resetor, it does not oresently reoresent a threat to sublic health and safety. Aoulicants second argiament is that
- definitive safety findings can be deferred in the NRC licendag process until operation is antuall7 licensed.' They can g in se doing sublic health and safety is not jeopardized.
] For socording to the Atomie Energy Act "public safety (is)s paramount issue N at every stage in procesdag apnliestions.for cosenercial use of rstelear power.* (11 -l l Applicant further dLfferentiates MLdland from Dairyland saying,
- because a, design bada earthquake hash formally established for the-Midland sLte, a change in this deden beds would be a 'backfit' decidon which pursuant to 10 CFR 53-109uould require that there be a finding that
(!) C.F.Co. MLGand Plant UnLts 1 & 2, EAB 315,1975, n.103 s = w 'W- '~ ,m.. -hy' .=* ---g,e p.,
1 \\ such action-411 provide ' substantial additional protection Wiich is reqdred for the public health and safety or the common defense and security
- p.5 Snah a 'baskfit'findLag seems almost a gLven. For if at Ddry land the hof the most resent and conserv tive seisato a
e standard was deemed neessaary for safety, them.the Biatg of seismie standards for itidLand undd be neoessary for the same reasons. Applicant conaludes his arguments by declaring that *uncertdnty i ooneerning possLhle basictits reqdred by a redefined SSE* is ="finanei al riskaw6 and he makes numerous legal citations sunporting the statement that "the licensee always builds at 1+.s own risir.* These statements,true in themselves,do not mean that it is a financial risk 2.GlZn. Here and in Jones Cookh attached-affidavit,the Applicant infers that the seLaute 4 uncertainty rpresents a financial risk as encased to a health and safety i. l risk. and does so in the absence of any suocorting arguments. In reality the basLs for each of these arguments is the see : that neither public health and safety intreets, nor the IGC regulations d intended to safeguard. these intreets 411 be violated by the granting of this motion.te defer seLanie issues to the 0.1.newcoedLng. It is this one baste argument that I intend to refute. 1 II. ElaMINATION OF AITL*Calff'S ARGINElrIS IN THEDL FULL IMPLICATIONS i Tliere are certait inoonsistensies if not contradictions involved in 1 the statements in this mottose skioh must be W % By the title of the l I action and the statements therein,. Aunliaast says clearly he is diling to ( ,,j ...s 1 e i',- ~~ f~
- N '
..... i .M -~
.m y n ,1 a ?:) a defer prior MC approval or agroment on final seismio standards to proceed at his own finapoial risk (the risk being dether or suit he will meet NIC i seisuto standards in the end). But idsether he intends to meet MC standards n I so deferred is not statadi, a AceLisant is diling to gLve un the *reductiorin:riska gained freer { preliminary seismLrdeaism reconsiderationstth the % because *it means j .1 lengthy delays in this proceeding and tir the start'up of the Midland unLts.* p.6,7. So stated, the Apeliaant is 4111ag to risk the ultiwate dLsacaroval e plonf smrt' up of his actions beo sse he s'annot afford the consomitant delay'in waiting 6 a to be sure of Ms astions. It must follow thes,that neither can he afford 4 I disaporoval in the end, for that too would mean delay to plant start up. 77 his own anoount of f9 n ne4 al inflexibility, he a'an't afford to f all short of the final seissio standards, yet he
- strongly urges this ii board to defer until the 0.L., adng-the issue of whether the seksuLe dest girba4Ls established at the esp. stage far the Midland niant: ( by diott he seeks to proceed ) is adequate.p.9. Apelioant has incorporatv. intat he
'4 deems
- a reasonable
- margLit over FSAE sdsuis criteria,. but er.Ty to
- >]
remedLal work,emeluding the structures affected.by such worir,(p.7 Thiruvengadee affidavit).. Nevertheless:he 2 believes thatt
- all outstanding suissio-t questions een be suooessfully resolved.* p.3A i
b ~ Uit If ultimate MC seisuLe standards are not incorporated now, they cover can be,for the Analisant ear.t afford correction to completed strooturse.at the 0.b stage apr more than he easr afford delay now. Dien the effect of thLs mottostbeoemos onor at merely of deferral of sessuie consLderatione,but one, of oomrprouLs. to K smLaute standards, particularly if compronLee is the ody way to espe-1 drat by then 411 he a completed r t
== 4 9
y: -. ~ t.,-.. li d 0 4 $3 to k billion dollar famility. In finapsial straits as difficult as these(and portrayed in Jees e Cook's attaphed affidavit). it would* seem-that Consimers Power Company would have began pushing the RC te got same agreement on seisnie standards in 17/8 den they first "tearned that the NRC Staff *had' any" oennern about the sugnLtude of the hesign bads earthquake appmvod at the 5 e.p. stase.' p. 7 For Consumers has certainly not been reluctant to criticise 3 1 inc slowness or resource allocation decidons in the past* when ther 3 did not meet theLP owr ends.. tec DespLte manerous attempts to obtain adequate resolution of sdantle issues (in FSAR questions 361.2,.4,.7,.9; in 5-3kf requests regarding j meceptance criteria for soil settlement remediation; and in many meetings involving these issues since 1978), acceptable seismic input parasteters still have not been. established. The october 1,198o Tedesco letter 4 went so far as to suggest two seceptable seismic' aporeaches to C.P.Co. But now, den progress was-just begLnning with the Ate-specifie apurosch, Consumers says that this analysts is tco late and too time consmuing. Furthermore, Conseners says althoudt ther are pursuing this Ate-spoeifle approach wLth the NC, they *have nett aanseded that the dodgn buds M of the MLdland plant approved at the e.p. stage is inapproariate, or h, tirat the Michigan basimis not a seoarats testante province.' (p.4, 1 r.' Thiruvengades affida it) v i I believe that applicanth arguments 'as examined in thdr full 1 implications *sare veer revealing if not self defeating. Yet more important I-issues must be explored regarding the ' proceed at own risk
- requesten this motion.
i I L _setby 1.tt.r. of 12/to/no,t/16/st toinc : 6/13/so a s/25/so -tings C.r.-me l 14 h - h euse = dlbgpee .m + ee., ?
- =
( e i. h III. FROCEID #2 OWN FINA1CIAL RISE BEOSS A FUBLIC HNALE& SAFEfY RISK (I Iw:.11 now returw to my ortsLaal intention to refute the Amplicant's tr y 1 1 W hade argument that he should be suowed to defer asksmio oendderations' l) beease tua represents a finansial risk to the Applioant as opposed to e (i ll a health and safety risk to the publie-Applicant by this motion seeks. H to proceed at Ms ousn fineneial risk in estsmLe aatters just as he did in sei?. settlement matters in 1976. I do not deny Apolicanth eldas that allodng the licensee to build at its own financial risk is the established i j lac policy, but I d11'hereby show how this accepted practice is at varianne 1 dth the ultimate and overriding reesonsiM11ty'of the ImC' as mandated by the Atode Energy Act " that'oublie safety is the: fir,t, last, and a permanent eend.8.sratics in any decidon on the issuame of a construction permit or a license to operate a noclear facility." (2) Both construction perdt and coerators license decisions are imolved 1 J in this motion..The origLeal, c:,p. decidon is questioned beea se of u l 4od.fteant dedsp. changes dich led to the Order Modifytas C nstreetion o l Permits (ascordLag to to CFR S-100)', and 0.L. daddons are imolved beeanse this is a consolidated' proceeding, nac pragstes snows ' proceed at eierrisk' arrangements, yet lac } rmaalati_ena, mandate presentiors of health and safety risks I sutedt thatt j this caradoxical situation mounts to idtat is almost arr imposdMe chargo l to the ERC. Finanstal condderations effect, safety,just, as safety condderations offset finanses The two eennot for all practical purposes be superatadi, i But if such separation is attempted as in the ease of ' proceed at oint risk
- i-
- s!
'pe s
- t-
- s'*
e
- 1 ~
1 l (2) EAIF 315, p. 93 1 e ~ ~ ^ ~ - N.- 4# 6N ,, L E.IT U"P5- ,,.'.74.7d = ,.y ggv
.-m-------. ' g--;. m. m-9 y e q .A \\ s N agreements,' the ult!.wate risk of dLaapproval undertaken by the applioant ~ at one point, cannot:later be denLed.,as matter dat the consequences. 1%e ultimate compronLos msgates the element of risk l involved', and regulation !I gLves way to liosame. Yet usidiing of prsetieal finapoial oonstderations agaLI.st safety condderations beoemes almost una oidable aar a result of these 'oun risk' v policies. The oostly and difficult-consequensee of such nelicies can be illustrated by the ease in point of the DLeeel Generator Building-(D2) at ltidland. I 211 briarly review the history of this one aspect of the I soil settlement matters to show how publie heal.th and safety is att stake in any 'at own risk
- arrangement like the one sought in this motiorr.
The settlement of the D3 was first noted den the building was in its inLtial stages im 1978. Sines themits construction has proceeded ' at C;P.Cos. ove risk' concurrent eth its remedLattorr. The adoption of the Preloss option and the resumption of work on the D3 took place 4 thin only a few months of its initial settlement discovery, before root causes had, been thoroudily analysed,. and, before the th11 implications 4 of soil settlement problems and theLr effects were understood by either C.P.Co. d (j or the !GIC ( the potential for liquefaction for example ). When asked by the IEtcin 1979 te defend thdr choice of the Preload E k Option over the Nemoval and Replacement. Option for fill (10CFR 50-96f q.21) t Consumers replied, (pert d(5) )*Prelandtag ves the least oostly feedm alternative for aereestim actiors Also, constrwtionof the structure carr contisse dile the sureharge loadi's BuLas applied. Thus, this alternative r (~ d1l minLuise the imposti on the anastreettom.sehedule.' l'l-s. Il l e ~~ ~. a __ ___- - <__ . t
...., nuw 2 -; n ~ ; wa.w --... c i l l [ t h L! By taking the estions that they'did, idies they did, C.F.Co. chose c( i: noti to thoroudly condder the most conservative Remoral and Replasmeest i Option.1 hat now as a result:of thdr choicote pressed 6 full and-for considerattom of the removal andt replassment b progresdvoly negated 5 Few individuals 4thim the MC, or C.F.Co. I dare to 'say, seuld 'I-i frankly deny that stat-- :
- 7"> fast. Eac peroommel have themselves sxpressed Q
oeneerrever the realities of these policies at MLdland. (see attached Chilk neus on nossLMe ez-parte contest $ Yet the fast remrdas that the D(B now stands virtually couplete, j deeptte serious questions regarding its subseils asuiits settlement effects. Removal and replanament of its faulty all is no longer a vishle option for i-i f C.F.Co. in lidst of anancial statements made in this motion 6(Ironiaally, the Removal and Replacement option was rejected in 1978 or the basis of cost,despite the fast that*it afforded the most conserv tive solutiong a .l and nowit appears that' removal and replassment' in 1978 might have been the most viable anansial option presisely bggggg it was the most conservative.' d Full and fair evaluation of safetr questions by the MLC at the end -4 of 'own risk ** proceedings t:::x;, extremely difacult if ret impossiMe
- }
inten struetures or sations are oesmoleted. Yet that is precisely idtat the a [,j Applieant seeks once agda im.this seisde motion.to proceed. ~ ~ As a reemit of 'at. oint risic
- policies, MilC safety decisions arer eIerated te 'urake-as-er-break-us' financial decidons and held up as such to the NLC and now to this very Atemio-Safety and Licensing Board.as in James Cook's attsshed affidavit to this notion.
){. .w., ~ e., ., e v ,w ,-n m w n
r n ~ ~ ' ' ' f The' Applicant almost cha11anges the IEtC and the ASLB on their literal I interpretation of ' at oist risk
- agreements. Can the 181C carry through on-its implicit power to demand removal.and replacement of subseils, or sdania update, orany other safety deoidon;if it: escries 4th it the i
certain doom of the idiale plant? The tressadeus burdensof such weighty and k unsavory deoidons eakes theur almost impossLble, and in looking for ways to help a utility out.of such predioassents, publie health and safety q'e is w,
- , sed.
.:1 ?* It must be remembered that C.F.Cb. not only could have been more m careful and less hurried 'about proceeding in soil settlement matters, f they should have been more aareful and less hurried in soil settlement satters, for *a construction permit carries 4th it to concomitant right to opergte the completed facility. Rather, to obtain an operating license, the ( Atomic Energy) Aot requires the utility to shoulder once agaim the burden of proving tan the Comunission (at a public hearing if need be) that it has, inter alia, constrooted the plant in conforimity 4th its analication, the Act, and the CassuLssions rules and regulations. And even at a .d this late stage.the Act permits the Casudssion to dthhold the license .1 -1 for g>od osuse. It was not happenstanee that Congress structured Atonio Energy not proceedures in this manner. Rather, it was intentionally done to make eartdn that publie safety was a paranount issue. at seery stage in procesdag applications for oosamercial use of nasalear power.* (3) l. l.c b f. (3) &# 315, p.103 l L 9 O 9 i-l '- L ~.-m
y ___ a - ^ ^
- J F-- i-L-----
__. K.- G- ~ r i a J l Therefore, dem I' ask this Board, by* denying this motion, to begin to change dat has become assepted Elc practice of allowing N ' proceed at own risk' poliaies, I apr not seeking to change the rules of the see as it may at first appear. dat I do seek is the change of .^ dat has bosome apeopted prestice, im order thd the rules of the see -1 are upheld. 'i
- }
Proceed at osasi risk polides foros all parties involved into an .i 'l unrealistia*ierld of extremes. The MC, oesusLtted *to conduct iMW=t q f analysLs and reachii ':- '-t consludons on 4 ether reasorrable assuranse q of plant safety esist(s)** (4) must make such independent safety deeidons totally asLde from financial realities that way spell certain doom to the Applicant. The Applicant is forood to cha11 mage that ultimate authority if in.T.he and it is his only hope of saving his plant. So in response, I i too aust challange the NRC" and this Board on their ultimate authority. Since the Apolicant has smLd in effect 'you can't make your decisions apart from these financial realities', I e forced to sar. ,1 'yos must make your decidens apart frour those financial realities.' All safety questions in this soil settlement,Ps.aCr4 insinding seLanie oner, eust be based on purely soientifia* amt technical groussis, rather than 5 4l based everrin part or practical finanuial considerations.
- i j
I ask yes to presume,for instanse,that the DS were still in its L initial stages, as seaits settlement, was first disoovered isr 1979. l. l i i .i (4) NIC 3rAFF's Alis5R TO INfERROGEMIES FILED BT C.F.W.g 5-329 % S-33 CH-Cl4 In the matter of" Midland Flant, UnLts i ar 2t Interrogatory l ~ Answer 1, p.2,} referring to S.R.F. sostions 2.5.4 and 2.5 5 F*.25,1981 l l I ~ o M - w ee-o e y,, .-w- -.+wv.. -r- -y-yg r w m - .3,-- = m
im --_.. e :. 4:_n . ~' EnowLng what is knout now, and for the greatest part could ha e been known v prior to its remediation,would the safety related deoidons for the DGB be any easLerf.Byen more importantly would the decidone themselves be .,q any different under these aireamstanses? These rhetorical questions are A> relevant to the presset notions For this is a action that oompells the dessio udates eLther ag,gg ngy.gr,, $st as the removal and regissement of famity fill was a now or never desisLosir 1978. The salient question must finally be asked, Wo is really taking the risk in a ' proceed at your oist risk
- arrangement 7 The answr is the publia 'first, last*, and always*. For 4 ether seenking of financial oosts i;
or safety costs, it is not the applicant do bears the ultimate risk, i It is we the publio who util pay the price for the Midland nuolear plant. This motion cannot be granted without seriously endangering the health and safety of a public totally deoendent not only on the bade ' ~ i tenants of the NilC regulations, but also on the actual prestices armi 1 l, polietes as carried out by the Mir. -l For this reason, a thoroudt and complete analysLa of ultimate seisuie i! j standards must ooaur now, as an integral part of remedial soil settlement j ft:mes and the structures affected by them. If such analyds entalls delay [j to this soil. settlement proceeding, then that is-unfortunate, but not " l ~l ~ nearly so unfortunate as the imaliestions of'33,doing sunk an analysis. i. [ Tor noelear safety transgreedone osse *at least as serious a threat to h publie health api safety
- as the Federal Safety asts in which.
- Congress (has) t j
deemed the safety condderatione at stake more important than any financial i l detriment to the party involved.* (5) (5) ALair 315, p.109 'daAl.dA.4.,MDL'rr$5u =
- b.b vf.- I ~ Ecdd kbok8g t s-9 7 2D&JDZ2?CS 'b \\D ll '/ t \\ p~b '.6 ,e c. ~ 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA APR '. - e 1 3 mW d 5 61981 > ; (,,'] ons j NUCTEAR RECULATORY CCMMISSION f' g' ORE THE ATQCC SATITY AND LICENSING BOARD arg**e C]8 g ';'-@ l y 4 L.i ^I d ~ In che Maccer of Docket Nos. 50-329-0M 50-330-cM I CONSUMERS POWER, COMPANY 50-329-OL Ll 50-330-OL l (Midland Planc, Unies 1 and 2) s r ,J l U.. - >l / l/ j l f j.fu p U g 'a. n RESPONSES TO STAMIRIS' INTERROCATCRIES 2 AND 3 ? l (The response to chose questions is provided pursuanc to che agreement j reached between the parties, as consnemoraced in the accached letter from Consumers Counsel James E. 3 runner to Ms. Barbara Scamiris. ) Except as specifically noced below, there were no differences of opinion, { suggestions, or comments; recosamendacions act followed; or changed } l recounnendacions with respect to che following items: " Duet banks" - Trom our review of the records, we could find no differences of opinion, - reconusendacions, or suggestions on this maccer. Discussions pertaining to this subject occurred in the early meetings, and in a letter dated 17 November 1978, Dr. Hendron specifically recounnended chat ch.e duct banks be cuc, as they were probably holding up the diesel generacor building. This recosamendacion was followed, and the duct banks were cut prior to preloading. " Turbine building" - Early discussions concerning the curbine building referred to che problem of supporting the curbine building walls. (Noce: The curbine ad/ 4 p'). 96
- Il n__
n a,an I ~ 6 p 9 @ehe' we-- W*-"
y-2- n o .1 E l building is not a Category I Structure. While answering this question, l Applicant specifically reserves any and all relevancy objections e possibly pertaining to it.) Suggestions for protecting the walls of l the turbine building included bracing, tie-backs, and use of counterfold walls. There were no apparent differences of opinion, suggestions. L" or recommendations. Applicant ended up using all of these methods. I ] " Removal of preload" - This subject was discussed in Tabs 7,15, 66 and 70 of the Index to Consultant Casamunications. Nearly all of the early discussions made passing reference to the fact that the preload could be removed when i settlements reached reasonable levels. Other language used included j "when sufficient consolidation has occurred." On June 27, 1979 the Consultants predicted that the preload could be removed in approximately c> I 5 S weeks from that date. In Tab 70 (July 2,1979) the Consultants jointly stated that the preload removal could begin in August, roughly I i corresponding to the 8-week period. Actual removal began 7 weeks from June 27, 1979, but memory and file documents indicate that both Consultants Hendron and Peck gave approval ~ j prior to the beginning of surcharge removal. The decision as to when the preload could be. removed was made by a special task group consisting of appointed Bechtel/ Consumers personnel. This task group made most of the early decisions on remedial activities, subject to management review and based on consultant advice along with the engineering judgment of appointees to the task group. e y
7 _ - - ~ '=z n ~ s 3- ]_ "Use of gratings" - ii ij 2e term " gratings" was used to refer to a structural slab l j. connecting the diesel generator pedestals with the building. De l thinking was that the gratings could replace backfilltin the region above foundation level, and this would reduce the dead load imposed 1 I above the foundation elevation. A censultant suggested rather early in the meeting process (November 7, 1978) that the feasibility 4 I of gratings could be considered. Cratings were considered by the cask group, which decided against them. While gratings would reduce the dead loads, the absence of fill above foundation level ,+ if gratings were used would also reduce the calculated factor of -i safety against a bearing capacity failure. Because of that trade e j off, it was determined that gratings would not provide any appreciable advantage, and hence gratings were not used. '{ 2ere were no apparent differences in the opinions, suggestions, !ia or comments made by consultants on this issue. ?jn " Grouting of gaps" - .Ou November 17, 1978, Dr. Hendron recommended that grouting be carried out before cutting the duce tanks and after surcharging. De task group felt that grouting prior to cutting the duct banks could prevent the relieving of structural stresses caused by the support of duct banks. D e grouting was eventually carried out after preloading. We could find no differences in opinion or it ii suggestions made by the consultants on this issue. t -ww.4-W =e ew & gg
. m a _-
- m----------------------.---
~ s , u -4 "The mudsat foundation" - l At a meeting dated November 7, 1978, (Tab 12) a suggestion to breakup the mudsat prior to preloading was attributed to the h} consultants, while consultant Peck later indicated that it need not be broken up. Applicant cannot determine and cannot recall i whether there was,'in fact, a difference of opinion on this point or whether the Peck statement was made after further -l considerati~on. The task group determined not to break up the L mudmac, based upon the final recommendation of Dr. Peck that it was not important to the success of the preload operation. i .3 "Other actions concerning the effects of the preload" - Applicant is not aware of any differences of opinion or suggestions, changed recommendations, or recommendations not followed on this subject. " Ocher remedial actions" - 'I Applicant is not aware of any differences of opinion or suggestions between and among, the consultants on the other remedial fixes. The sama is true with respect to changed recommendations or reconsendations not followed. Applicant notes that the proposed remedial fix for the service water pump structure has been changed, but this change can be attributed to a need for larger seismic margins due to the NRC Staff's October 14, 1980 letter. 4 rather than any changes in consultant reconnendations. 1 l l l r _w
=.: ^ - '- a __-.m s' 4 " Timing of the cooling pond filling in relacion to the placement of the preload" There were no differences of opinion or suggestions, changes in recommendations, or recosmendations which were not followed on i this matter. Our review of the documents and memory determined + that both consultants suggested that the cooling pond elevation [j be raised to maximum level while the preload was being applied. l " Cutting of condensate line" - } The problem of the condensate line possibly holding up settlement was discussed at the early meetings. There may have been a consultant suggestion respecting this matter, but we are unable la to confirm that possibility..The line was cut at the turbine i building,and secclement marker on the coe.densate line were monitored to determine whether or not the line was interfering 4 with sectisment. From those settlement readings it was determined i that the lines were not interfering with settlement, so that further cutting was deemed unnecessary. We could find no differences of opinion or suggestions of' consultants on this feature. i " Borings in cooling pond area" - There were no differences of opinion or suggestions, changed recommendations, or recommendations not followed on this subject, except as described below. Applicant notes tha': despite consultant suggestions to the contrary, Applicant has decided to take borings in the cooling pond dike. The reason for not following consultant ~~ (p +~~
= _ _ _ Lx o f I~ advice on this feature is the insistence of the NRC Staff that such borings be taken. In some rather early meetings the subject of dike horings was discussed, and the only consultant recosamendacions were that such borings would be unnecessary. l i With respect to che items in Tab 8 of volume 4 of the 10 C71 1 1 50.54f Responses to Questions Ressrding Plane Fill, Applicant could discern no differences of opinion, recommendations, suggestions, changed recosamendacicas, or recommendacions noc l followed with respect to che following items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and t 9. 5 c. ^ f, With respect to "Iceur 5", this suggestion was not carried auc because exact records of all fill cruckloads were not kept, and 6 reconstruction of the filling process would have been impossible. The task group also did not feel that carrying out this suggestion was necessary for making the preload solucion work. ( " Ices 6" is the same as the " gratings" issue, discussed above. ( With respect to " Ices 7", see che Response to Scamiris ' Interrogatory Ember 4, indicating when attempts were made to u contact the NRC during the early meeting stage. (Applicant did v contact Mr. Heller on November 8, 1978 with an invicacion to visit the site. Mr. Heller indicated ac chac time that he could e t
? __ i * 's..'.
- ,,, G. Q
^* .y e I not visit the site until the scheduled December site inspection.) In Applicant's opinion, the thrust of the suggescion was ast, since Mr. Heller did either see some excavations or saw photographs taken at his request. In answering the sbeve questions, Applicant limited its review i to file documents relating to the above specific issues. Applican't can also state that it knows of no other specific differences of t' opinion, suggestions, recommendations, changed reconnendations, d; or recommendations not followed. t sq 'a e r Y. 4 ~~ r -_M
r-a. +- --w y .x. r .~ ~ t am n "NN UNITED STATES CF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN SEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 3 CARD t In the Matter of ) DCCFIT NOS. '50-329-CM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-CM ) 50-329-OL (Midland, Units 1 and 2 ) 50-329-OL ) ) i AFFIDAVIT OF NEAL SWANBERG j Neal Swanberg, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is employed by Bechtel' Associates Professional Corporation, as an l Assistant Project Engineer; that he is j'ointly responsible with Sherif Afifi for providing answers to Interrogatories 2 and 3 of I Barbra Stamiris Discovery Request, dated Cecember 4,1980, to consumers Power Company; and that to the best of his knowledge and j, belief the above information and the answers to 'the above interrogatories are true and correct. t i Neal Swancerg 1, ~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this IC day of 3 5. /. , 1981 ~ ca% 1 s b.l - w J. Q g# Notary Public, Washtenaw 2 County, Michigan 11-6 M, 5' 0 Ng My Commission Expires:).k 64.<.S 4.; 016s* p seents! g wist []
- ,Fash T
g
- =.......
- i I
a-l q 4 i w
p ec.. 6 i. UNITED STATES CF AMERICA CORRESPONDM NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION .7 e BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) DCCKET NOS. 50-329-CM 8 CCNSUMERS PCWER COMPANY ) 50-330-CM ) 50-3'29-OL (Midland, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL ) ) AFFIDAVIT OF SHERIF AFIFI Sherif Afifi, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is employed by Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, as an
- 1 Engineerine Supervisor; that he is jointly responsible with
-) i t Neal Swanberg for providing answers to Interrogatories 2 and 3 !I;j of 3arbra Stamiris Oiscovery, Request, dated December 4, 1980, to l .is Consumers Power Company; and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above information and the answers to the above interrogatories are true and correct. ~ -t ,7,. Sherif A1121 Subscribed and' sworn to before me this Yc day of %,,_./, 1981 .-t 1 J @ 'b 4' .v ~ & ,2. t - - ~ - f C:r:cm2 Notary Public, Washtenaw County, Michigan "~ t. ? APR 8 1981.. T C }$ My Commission Expires: /.. 4s Ayy s l c: l F._ d r- ---.,,..--.e-n,
_.3 .3.bwe. + !, Qf % '8 I 1% i emi% ~"~ ~ d ..., 3., et31 p I.-. I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ',_5 11 6 1981
- 11 v '-
s n k u,,, g7 kg APR NUCLEAR REGuuTORY Cone!ISSION p g C.:..:
- urrts 7 w"g *;:a b,,ica
+t:/.\\.T, / EFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETT AND LICENSING BOARD s
- e
.v. ; W q3 .4 ) the htter of ) Docket Nos. 50-329-0K ) 50-330-0K ) 50-329-OL (Midised Planc, Units 1 sad 2 ) / -l, / <\\ e J /- l.,, J.l CONSUMERS POWER CCMPANTS' RESPCNSE To INTERVE;0R REQUESTS 1/14/S1 -l Discoverv Request _1 !l NRC nspection Report 50-329/330 78-12 notes "Cther Activities to be Planned i '. li (1) Possible core borings in cooling pond d1*a area to verify integrity of dikes." Provide documents as a basig for this statement a::d relating to the 1.j decision on this matter as it was first considered. ji
Response
1 Since this stacament was made by the NRC in an inspection report, it is impossible for Applicant to determine which, if any, documents were relied upon in making i However, with respect to the cooling pond dike, some consideration was given to borings in early meetings (See Tab 12, Volume 4, 50.54f Responses), during i
- I which it was decided that tha dikes would not present a problem and that borings need not be taken. Since that time, the NRC Staff has submitted a request that borings be taken in the dike, which Applicant has acceded to.
Applicant la now in the process of taking borings in the dike. ? Discovery Request 2 t Were any audits conducted covering soil settlement matters (including QA QC aspects) which have not been presented. to the NRC7 If so, provide chase findinsa.
Response
The documents requested are produced at the Midland Service Center. a- - som ~ su%.Levwu, I g T#' =.. - .. =
L ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - w c - ., - > -. ~
- w ~
l i i l = l ' P Discovery Request 3 ,) How much time is allotted in the cst recent completion schedule for 1 reediation of soil settlement matters and for responses to NRC testing and boring requests!- ! t.
Response
( l: The time allotted for the various soil settlement remedial.sessures is shown on the document "SCILS SIITI.EENT - STUDT" provided as an at =-h=mac to these responses. That document includes a study of the schedule pertaining 8 to the response to the NBC's boring request. It should be noted that the ) provided schedule is pre 14=4nney in nature and is subject to change or revision [ at any time, t I Discoverv Request 4 l l When was the Mad *4=tration 3uilding begun! h e was the means of tecording settlement for the u=4*4=tration Building and when was that means established? Resoonse N civil and structural construction of =d=4n4=tration building was started during June 1977. .1 h means of tecording settlement is and was to periodically survey the settle-ment markers that. art installed on the building from a known b-neh=nek. The survey data thus obe=4nad is transcribed onto a drawing. m settlement, if any, f of each marker, is then doduced from the surmy data for each period and plotted on a time scale graph to observe its trend. Settlement monitoring for Ad=4n4=- . tration Ba4Tdia began on Septesber 16, 1978. (The grade been failure was dis-covered prior to the settlement monitoring program.) Discovery Request 5 Provide the 3echtel reports as to the cause of the u-4a4=tration Ba41d4== settlement and whether it was an isolated problem, or any other reports recoueanding procedural changes steeming from this event. I V
Response
I Produced at Midland Service Center. l ~ ~ ~
.A: ~ ) -- s -o ~~ 3 Discovery Request 6 Describe the Established Foundation Data Survey Program for the diesel generator building. When was it established, and by whom? 4
Response
f The foundation data survey program was and is implemented by installing surveying markers on the walls, floors or pedestaiir, and by conducting periodic. surveys using ar=nd ed 'urveying techniques. These survey results are re-s viewed, and the set.lement for each markar is calculated for each surveyhg period. The settlement values thus obtained 'are tabulated on design dravhgs, which are issued periodically, and then reviewed by the design and the geoc= ha+a=1_ engineering groups. l After review, the settlement of each. markar is plotted on a cima scale graph to l, observe its trend. Settlement values are then conpared against predicted ] settlements. These settlement data are reported in tha final safety analysis report or in updates of other licensing reports. t The first settlement re=Aing frem the progran was taken during July of 1978, based on arkars installed in May of,the same year. This nonitoring program was 5-established by 3echtel Associates professional Corporacion by neans of issuing a specification and drawings during 1977. Discovery Raousse 7 Wars any settlements noted formally or informally prior to July 1978 to the diesel generator building? If so provide these observations.
Response
} No. Discovery Request 8 I When was Dr. Peck or any other soil settlement consultant first told of the settlement of the Administration Building? Provide any documents recording dis-cussion of the AA=4nfstration Building with soil settlement consultants. 9
n m_ _ - _~~,,
- f..
.._._2..__.---- 1 .4
Response
Applicant objects to e,his question, on the ground -Jsat it is irrelevant and in-i .asterial. Subject to that objection, Applicant answers as follows: ] Des. Peck and Hendron were not directly involved with the Administration Building i ,) settlement matter. Dr. Hendron recalls that he was made aware of the previous .- l problem with the Administration Building in one of the earliest meetings he 1 attended regarding the diesel generator building netter. Upon inquiry, Dr. Peck did not recall h&ving heard of the M=fnf atration. Building problem. (.g -j There are no documents recording the above discusalons, to the best of Applicant's knowledge. Discovery Request 9 When was the NRC first informed of the settlement of the Mafnistration Building? i I Relate the circumstances of this initial disclosure. t 4 I Ra m ase q ,;i j The NRC was first informed of the settlement.of the Administration Buildfsg dur1ng the site favestigation by Mr. Callagher, (Region III, I.E.) which took place October 24 - 27, 1978. ] Discoverv Request 10 g d d Amendment 3 to the FSAR eliminated the origina*. site devotering plan. Provida ^ documents relevent to this decision.
Response
Applicant objects to this request on the ground that it calls for information which is irrelevant to these proceedings. Discovery Request 11 At the July 29, 1980 Caseload Forecast Panel Meeting in Midland, mention ves made of C.P.Co. loans to Bechtel and other subcontractorsin the interest of staying 1 on schedule. Describe the extent of these loans sad the circumstances surround-3 ing them. 'l c. by ,-..i_.-'_..~,.,. _z
- c..
~
Response
The only loans mentioned at the July 29, 1980 case load panel meeting concerned the loening of Consumers engineering or technical personnel to Bechtel. Discoverr Request 12 [ 9ere there any established requirements regarding groundwater elevations and their effects on plant foundations and structures in 19787 If so, proride these documents. Imponse ~ In 1978, the morani high water table was assumed to be at E1. 627', and dr. ring the probable anziman flood the water surface elevatio.a at the site, includir s ~5e effect of wave runup, would be El. 635.5'. Planc foundations and structures has en designed for the effects of water at these elevations as discussed in the JdT =d l FSAR section 3.8.6. I 3 Discoverr Esquest 13 h e work has been done since April 1980 on the diesel generator building and y what percent complete is the building? ' l. L.}
- = Pons *
]{ Installation of anchanical and electrical equipment aas been and is continuing as an ongoing activity. Since April, 1980 minor concrete placements such as curbs, equipment pads, and grade slabs have been coupleted. As of December 31, 1980, the total facility was.74 percent complete, and the concrete work was 99 percent complete. I s. Ii Discoverr Emovest 14 lc!;j. he procedure or systen is followed to record or correct poor employee per-foramaca by Bechsel or C.F.Co? Have any employees with jobs relating to soil settlement matters been fired or received seem type of warning related to job perforsmace? If so provide these records. i i i w-
_s m u.. s m q~_ m -m , a Resnouse Employees of both Bechtal and Consumars are given periodic performance i appraisals. The sasuer to the question posed in the second seatsace is "no". ? Discover 7 Beeaoot 13 j On page 26 of NBC Inspection Esport 30-329/330 78-20, anation is ande of the QC inspector who was prMdy responsib1e for the plant fill work who is no longer employed by Bechtei. Provide the name of this individual, his position, and the date of his employment, and forwarding address.- r MERESES. The name of the QC inspector referenced is Daryle Osbors. His position was Quality Control Engineer / Assistant I.ead Civ11 Quality Control Engineer. He was employed at the site from September 8,1973, through July 21, 1978. His last knova forwarding address is 13025 SW.107th Terrace, Miami, Florida, 33186. 6 Discovery Request 16 Provida che names and addresses of any other QA or QC personnel with jobe re- ~ 1 acing to soil sectiement from 1973-1980 uho are no longer employed by Bechtal '[ or C.F.Co. l App 117.ame objects to this quaseisa es, the grounds that it ta irrelevant, in- .teria1.a.4 rd 4 4 4 i, i 1 .t ' f. l '~ ,_._.._T,.i. E ; E,. - _.,. __ _._, _, 1_ ' 'E.'i.[C.,_._.,.._,.,_._._,._.___._...____. ._./_,--._-
7 _ m.. ~x x 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA % CO J NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CCHMISSION 'BEFCRE THE ATCMIC SAFETT AND LICENSING BOARD l In the Mattar of' ) DOCIET NOS. 50-329-0M r d' CONSUMERS POWER COMPANT. ) 50-330H3K ) 50-329-OL (Midland, Units.1 and 2) ) 50-329H)L a ) .1- ) County of Washtense) D )ss State of Michigan ) ws"c'9 it-gg 6 1981 *.- l - s (S g nf. : hW g, i Is s AFFIVAVIT OF ALAN 3005 Ema D a 1 Alan Boos, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the 4 i Assistant Project Manager, Midland Project, Bechtel Power Corporation *~~ that he is primarily responsible for providing an answer to Barbara Stamiris' Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 14 to Consumers Power Company; and that to the ] best of his knowledge and belief the above information and the answer to the above interrogatory is true and correct. x id w w Subscribed and sworn to before as this 4fa day of h 4*1981. i ds-Notary Public, Washtenaw County Michigan My Commission Expires: M,///g 3rtIL*3 A li~?$ pay c3..:Ct2 5t* g [ 3fej' m :2.r.s sG7.3G:1~r44 l i . [ N9* UT WM ~c-.--
r. ,,a ..uw- ~ u :==V .M = CD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA tgD '~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETT AND LICENSING 30ARD In the Matter of ) DOCEET NOS. 50-329-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-0M ) 50-329-OL (Midland, Units 1 and 2) ) d 50-329-OL ) 'b ) / coCman (g APR 61981 * :~ ~ County of Washtenaw) ,4 )ss Cir.a cf :- 5,cnbry State of Michigan ) W"; i W t ob AFFIDAVIT 07 NEAL SWANBERG l t 1 Neal Swanberg, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the i i B Assistant Project Engineer, Midland Project, 3echtel Associates Professional ~ Corporation; that he is primarily responsible for providing an answer to Barbarz Stamiris' Interrogatories 3, 4, 6, 8,12,13, and 15 to Consumers Power Company; and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above information and the answers to the above interrogatories are true and correct. ~ Neal Swanberg Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30 day of M 2,, d 1981. k kw ' - / Notary Public, Washtenaw County, Michigan My Commission Expires: bhJo /9/A
- e'~ % C:
93b4~~ _j.h.t-:M [..~3: M z yy,~ ~,13,.a .:-- w e**s w;- 4 w = s_ FLE.. - h.
- w ee. Nsw e4+em.+-B M 'swMa "7w w T-
.m_.. q \\
- '-1 memm5 IN'IERRO% tor,lEr e,d, m,,, s<c, o
k \\ F.. _ N f. ~ occxtr NUf.!BER gaan,atmL FAC.D.3RM07 OM,0 M*' -l/'8/ q /b'u I/ rj w lu.rris.s-JA W t.: Qwxy da Va@l \\ w n e w a.. L bG CD-G AtRM / i, O A / [c2 8 8 / f t l r 'bik LYo. W s u + 't omamm o3 mm-MAR i6193t,f,/t '~3 g.. 3
- se e
s cn .. _.- 5 a z u u sa v u v ~
- f#
.- ;._,,= w. - ~ ...x.. . ~., _- _.x 2 ~ 1 + 73..9, c.oRRESPONDENCE U.S. NUC22AR REGUIATORY'CQaefISSION I: *.he matter of Decket Nos. 50-329 OM OL C.P.C. Midland Plant Units 1 a 2 50.t?0 CE OL BEFORE TZE ATOMIC SAFE Y AND LICINSING BOARD -l INTERVEliOR REEPONSE TO C.P.CO.1/19/81 DISCOVERY REPLT 4 FOR NOTICE OF THE BOARD ~ 1/26/81-
- .Q]
In the intreet of moving forward with substantive issues,I will hereby d [l set forth my objeetions te Censumer's reply informally. I have also included alarifying and fellow up questions te my 12/4/80 request. c. e ,, \\ W f I s i (Instruotions and definitions as stated in 12/4/80 request) 4 l 8' hao USNPt PERTAINING TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS g""' k f6 g J
- 1. xesponse is satisfastery.
- 2. Re sponse is incomplete.
vf a) What are the most recent estimates for total soil settlement oests (including various oempletion sehedule paths) assumir.g ourrent remediation [ preposals are acceptablef b) Pleave explain these estimates, breaking them down into their component parts. a) What are the mest recent estimates for total soil settlement oests if f Removal and Replacement after Freloading (Option 3) (50-54ff21) were new necessary? d) Will any portion of these soil settlement oosts be inelude1 in requests before the Michige Publia Servie. Consission as a part of eenstruction eests ' ' * 'E 6i-oosts to be ultimately included in the ratebasef N & 1 I S e,,We-m .-e==+.4 w-e ssay--+.m. e,,e-w--em-e w,,w es,-- e w v. gp wheg-eg _ ye
- - ~ c,,..-. a : a.a. ~ ~ ~ ^ c ' ' i~w. ' a.. ,-s y e) If the anseer to d) is yea [p'I'ea'se desseiBe and explain such antieipated / reque sts~. ~
- 3. Response is insemplete and dooumonte provided de not respond to W of the request.
4 I reauested 4Mamentation of"allediseussions eeneerning and leading up te, C. P. Cw! s deoision to appeal the IRC reauests for additional berings,*.. net of the appeal itself,enee the final decision had been made. ( The meeting summaries as.'. notes provided did not sever these preliminary analysis as requested. I would oensider any meeting notes er other eessounications on the subject .c of additional berings during July and August 1980 to be relevant to my W request and diseeverable(aesording to the parenthetioal discussion at the MdIrd # W i end of it a page a of the ooteber 24,198o Prehearing conferenee een n ;.e. j Iwould ask that any objoetiens to producing such desuments be specifically stated and explained. .l
- 4. Response is inoemplete.
I recuested deeumentation of any discussions er eensiderations of possible ' lawsuits intelving soil settlement matters". One doonment was provided. Flesse state and exclain the yivelege or objection t by which further dooument requests are here refused.
- 5. Response is satisfactory.that ne such documents exist. '
I requested documentation of "allaeptions ever eensidered. (whether formal er i L informal, tentative er souplete) for eerreetion of the Administration Building settlement". a) 1 thy are thers ne records or desuments eenoerning eerreetion of,VLdministratian ' Building settlement (inaluding the chosen option)T L b) On what basis was the decision to remove and replaos the faulty fill under the Administration Building madet I ,. : L __ __ ___ %--- ~ - 33 7
x- ..u_ L - ~ .::s: - Gw L > - - ( e e) Who made this (5b) deeisient ~ d) When was this (5b) decisica andet ~ h e) Desoribe and explain any alternative eergeetive actions ever eensidered and ) i rejoeted for the Administraties Building,1f suoh eensiderations were mad,e. 1 \\ l FERTAINIES TO IETrnanaATORIES I am seting en the und' erstanding that responses te diseevery requests are to be researshed with the intent of finding answers it they exist to g r y questionis pened. I de not eensider to be adequate an individual response y mad. t,.,..t., e.r,res.nt m.d.e.receu.oti.n. ,.ue, m., ,j makes ne attempt to review the period in anestion,er include the rescenses f of persons involved,
- 1. Response to la is satisfactory.
q j Request Ib asks""Eho makes the final decisions on which actions are taksa or will be taken.f In sentence 2 define the phrase " depending en its importance" more precisely.Similarly define the phrase"in the case of decisions of lesser i_.portanee" in the last sentense. What oriteria (Sftne "importanoe" warranting management review in eseh instaneet c) Were any decisions of the Bechtel Project Engineer on soil settlement j mattern later modified by neohtel er censumer's Project Management aeviset Pleses describe and explain any such decisions and modifications.
- 2. Response is incomplete and does not respond to the auesties asked.
r ] hequest 2a asks "Did your eensultants ever differ in their reconsnendations on soil settlement matters (including tentative stages)? I am particularly intreated in differing opinions of censultants Peak s'ad in tentative stages er " miner differences of opinien" to use your Weddren words. l l1 \\ I T_' ~ 7-(*i_
m : - - __,m.., -m 2..._,.- _ a. s u >m a '.b a) Did you eensummieste with eensultants Peek Eendron er Gould asking their input in reopease to this question as youi answer impliest Please provide desumentation of any such requests, giving the date of the .requist. b) What is the working relationship of cenaultants Peak,Hendron,and Gouldt e) Did tensultaats Peek and Eendron ever differ in ressannendations or approaehes to actions senaerning the Electrieal Ductsg urbine Buildi=g., removal.t ? T f j proteadpuse of gratinget grouting of gaps;the mud sat foundation;er any other 't a actions eeneerning the effects of the preloadier other remedial actionst t .I d) If the previous answer is yes,what were these differenees,and how were they re a.vs i Ij re solvedt (Original request Za)
- 3. Response is insemplete and Jees not respond to the parenthetioal cualitioations
- of the roouest.
i Reauest sa asks "What,1f any, original recesmiendations of consultants (whether 'l formal er inferiaal, tentative er eemplete) were later changed or not fellowed 7 m) In respondint,P ease address,but de not limit your response.te; the feMewing l items: 1) Timing of eeeling pond filling in relation to placement of preload '
- 2) Breaking up of and mat
- 3) Greuting of gaps between festings and mud mat (D.G. Building)
- 4) Use of gratings (D.G. Bui& ding)
P
- 5) Cutting of eendensate line
- 6) Turbine Building stressee
- 7) Berings in oeeling pond dike ares b')(as in original recueet) Explain the reason for such ohanges er departures n
.(excepting change from greuting to permanent dewatering). a) (as in original request)-What was thodesision making process for eaoli of i such changes or deps.rtures7 l . -.._m
e. ._ _ w - - - - - - - - ---- - n --- =w- :. >4 ,-,a w -m 0 ' r, w- -.. w,....:. _.
- {.*i.
d) Did you eemmuniente with your eensultants,asking. their input in response f to this auestian as your answer impliest gd. Flossesprovide deoumentation and dates of any such requests.
- 4. Response is evasive, ignoring the words " prior te ", and thersfere unresponsive.
Request 4a asks,"Nas IRC geoteohaisal staff input sought in aar way prier to the deeision to preload stated in the Nov. 71978 meeting (4882) regarding h soil settlement matteraf Il ] The decision to use the Preload Option ( formally set forth at the Nov. 7,1978 - L l1 meeting and noted in IRC. Investigation 78-12 taking place. on Cot. 24-27,1978) iJ seems to have been made without any IRC gestechnical eensultation. j a) Please explain and describe the timing and extent of NRC goetechnisal 5 eenaultation prier to the decision to select the Preload Option. l b) (formerly 4d) Was suoh input (4a) over suggested by anyonef If se by whom, il was it nade, when was it made, and how was it responded to7 i e) In responding to these guestions please include but de not limit yourself 3 to statements made by A.J. Hendron in file 33 0.1 serial CSC-3674 notes of the Nov.71978 meeting recording disappointment regarding NRC not having seen the .l 1 Te st pits. j u Respectfully Submitted, ) k&\\,,l-dAA. e Barbara Stamiris q Copies to ASLB Chr.irman Beehoeffer NRC Counsel Wm. Paton C;P.Co. Counsel Alan Farnell Secretary NRC ~n..---
x= = - - - --_:--..-- ---; a: ::.; .-k 1 FJ4 !sD CORFS.sm-JNDE.N4:h j U.S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMIs3 ION In the matter of Dooket No s. 50-209 [1 C.P.Co. Midland Plant I n-no Units 1 & 2 Ow a 01. 5 \\ y, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETT & LICENSING BOARD / wee 0 I IETIIVINOR 4' REQUEST FOR EKTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION TO 6 I O IS8f > COMPE11 DISCOVERY FROM APPLICANT 3/11/81 Ogics,, g 3 [j '"*ggs% e 1 g .) db v [ Censumert 2/27/81 Response to my 1(/26/80 interrogatories failed to .1 satisfy me regarding questions 2'and'3 among others. Following their objection te questions 2 and 3, aeplicant stated " Applicant is willing to discuss its objections to these qusstions with the Intervener in an attempt to arrive at a eempromise if she wishes." Upon attempting te eentaet to-oenteet Mr. Brunner and Mr. Farnell es March 10,1981,I was inferswd they were out of town for the. week. By the time Mr. Brunner returns my call,the ten day limit will have passed for my response. I new see,in recheeking the reference to the ten day limit stated in 'theP/27/81PrehearingConferenee. Memorandum,that it is "within ten days of sen4aa" I was to respond not ten days from the day I _r =a=4" the desument, 4 ~ (3/2/81) as I had thought. I hope that I will, be afforded some flexibility en these dates if ne satisfaetery eempromise een be reached when I discuss m these matters with the appliennt next week. I would propose, that I be allows' four days fe11 ewing my oenversation j with Mr. Brunner in which to file attien to eenpell' disoevery,1f.necessary. p i Barbara Stasiris 171 t a * ~ : ~~ v ~-a p
u ~. - - w- -) , Y h O 'l, h MI ~ .~ ,1 - - - I gyg Y NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.SilSSION - hM CL 'O/ r: nm In the Matter of ) 1 CONSUMERS POWER COMFMY ~ 0-33 -0 ]a (Midland, Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-330-OL ) 50-329-OL 1 -) CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR (BAREARA STAMIRIS) DISCOVERY REQUEST OR " RESPONSE" 0F JANUARY 26, 1981 \\ Consuners Power Company (hereafter referred to as " Applicant") hereby D responds to a document submitted by Ms. Stamiris and entitled "Intervenor Response to Consumers Power Company's January, 1980 Discovery Reply for % Notice of the Board," dated January 26, 1981. The aforementioned document ( is styled in the form of a reply to Applicant's December 19, 1980 Response to Ms. Stamiris' Initial' Discovery Raquesti and contains comments on Applicant's % response, as well as additional questions. I i, k The history of these requests and responses can thus be summarized as follows: a 12/4/80 Stamiris' "Intervenor Requests of l. Consumers Power Company" -(hereinaf ter ,1 referred to as "Stamiris' Initial Request") 1/19/81 Consumers Power Company's Response to Intervenor Requests ('Donsumers Power Company's Initial Response") 1/26/81 Stamiris' "Intervenor Response to Consumers Power Company's 12/19/80 Discovery Reply" ("Stamiris' Reply") 1 i 0 2/27/81 Consumers' " Response to 1/26/81 Stamiris Submission 1 i i and Supplemental Answers to 12/4/80 Request (Consumers 1 1 1 Power Company Response No. 2") I S M Y $1 n, aoI u-r~'r 9 g_ -- _.. - - ~- - - - - - ~ -
n n_ _ _~ _w m.. ,_-_x ~ ~ Document Request No. 2 f Ms. Stamiris' reply indicates that Consumers Power Company's Response No. 1 is "inco,mplete" with respect to this document request. The request j called for certain documents concerning " cost and schedule impact data" i of " soil' settlement matters", but contained no interrogatories on that subject L matter. The reply has no objection to the docu::ient production, but does include certain interrogatories on the subject addressed in the initial document request. Therefore, Applicant concludes that the Intervenor, by using the term " incomplete", did not intend to object to Applicant's Response to her initial request. Rather, we interpret the use of that term to indicate that the Intervenor has fonow-up e questions on this subject matter. These questions are addressed below. All of the documents within document Request No. 2 of the 12/4/80 Discovery ' ' ' Request have been produced at the: Midland' Service Center-of Consumers Power r Company. Since the filing of Consumers Power Company's Response No.1 Bechtel has initiated development of additional cost and schedule projections. Documents } relevant to this effort will be supplied when the projections are completed. 4 ANSWERS TO INTERROCATORIES PERTAINING TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2 2(a) Question What are the mcst recent estimates for total soil settlement costs (including various completion schedule paths) assuming current remed,iation proposals are acceptable? Answer The estimates provided reflect the most recent estimates for total soil settlement costs which have been communicated by Bechtel and reviewed by Consumers Power Company personnel. These estimatis assume -l the accomplishment of remedial actions within the current project schedule milestone requirements. The total for all of these estimates is $16,920,000, i _ _ =
.a:- = - ' - ~ ' "- 3-e 2(b) Question Please explain these estimates, breaking them down into their component parts. l.nswer The estimate worksheets and computer printouts provided indicate the camponent costs. Typically, the costs are identified with the following components: 1. Direct Field Costs The total cost of all materiala and improvements forming a i permanent part of the finished project and of all Bechtel cad subcontract labor-engaged in installing or erecting such materials i or performing such improvements. 2. Distributable Field Costs Bechtel material and labor costs which cannot be identified 't j with specific direct operations in the construction of a plant and 4 either (1). are supporting. services' by nature or.(2) a,pply to several direct operations'such'rnat a logical allocation to each separate operation cannot readily be made. 3. Engineering Costs The' total cost of All technical engineering and design activities including technical consultants and services performed by,Bechtel in connection with a given project. 4. Other Home Office Costs l The total cost of all management, service and ' clerical activities performed by Bechtel in connection with a given project. Since n a
. x_ _4_ s y these costs are either ' supporting services or overhead costs by nature and not readily identified'to a separate operation, they are ? usually allocated to a givat project based on the amount of Bechtel technical engineering services. On the computer printouts, a series of numbers appear in sequences of two lines. The first line constitutes direct costs; the second line constituter the distributable costs. The column headings include: 9 (starting under " total field costs) material, subcontracts, manual labor, non manual labor, engineering and home office. I 2(c) Question h What are the'most recent estimates for total soil settlement c6sta if Removal and Replacement after Preloading (Option 3) (50-54ff21) were now necessary? Answer The most recent estimates on this matter are contained in the Answer to 10 CFR 50.54 f, Question 21. l 2(d) Question Will any portion of these soil settlement costs be included in requests before the Michigan Public Service Commission as a part of construction costs or costs to be ultimately included in the rate base? Answer Applicant objects to this question on the ground that it'is irrelevant. 1 l
= =
- =:3 1 2(e) Question o
If the answer to (d) is yes, please describe'and explain such anticipated requests. I Answer L See part (d) of the response to this question. Document Request No. 3 l-bj The initial document request dated December 4,1980 from Ms. Stamiris encompassed discussions "concerning and l'eadirig up to" the decision to appeal the NRC's boring request. Applicant interpreted the request as calling for minutes of meetings concerning the appeal within the NRC Staff, as well as other documents regarding discussions which occurred prior to that time. The fact that y sooo documents beyond the " intent" of the request were produced is not a 1 J ground for objecting'to the response, providing all of those documen'ts ~ within the scope of the request were supplied. While Intervenor's Response does clarify somewhat the " intent" of the request Applicant believes that it has now presented all documents within the scope of the request as amended 0 i or clarified in the Stamiris Reply of 1/26/81, except for the following: i -1 (1) All nonprivileged documents within the scope of the request but in the sole pos-session of Bechtel's consultants have not yet been produced, but will be produced within the next four weeks; (2) applicant claims the attorney-client privilege with respect to one document, which contains a rendition of information and opinions given to counsel at a meeting between Consumera Project Management'and a' Company lawyer. Document Request No. 4 Applicant has supplied the one unprivileged document within the scope of this request. The attorney-client and work-product privilege is claimed with respect to one other document, production of which is also objected to on the ground that it is irrelevant to this proce.eding. The document in question is a memorandum between Lawyers and their clients concerning a technical legal
n. _~ _------------------;-n-n ' ~ _ -
- w e
t 6-question in connection with possible 1,awsuits. kTheattorney-clientprivileges Y[ protects communications between a lawyer and his' client. According to 4 Moore's Federal Practice, Paragraph 26.60(2), " Ordinarily, communications between a client ]; [I and his attorney are privil'eged and may not 6e inquired into in discovery r proceedings any more than at the trial." The work product privilege protects the mental efforts of attorneys in anticipation of litigation. Since the document in question is both an attorney-client communication and a rendition of the mental fopressions of counsel, it is privileged under either theo'ry). Document Request No. 5 Applicant interpreted the initial requese as calling for documents other than the chosen option. ilhile Applicant objects to producing documents "concerning the chosen option," all. such documents fall within the scope of Item 5 of Stamiris' 1/14/81 Request. The documents requested in Item 5 (of the 1/14/81 Request) are now producable l at the Midland Service Center. h ANSleERS TO INTERROCATORIES PERTAINING TO DOCUMENT REQUEST No. 5 5(a) Question lihy are there no records or documents concerning correction of Administration Building settlement (including the chosen option)? Answer p See the above Reponse under Document Request No. 5. 5(b) Quesilon. s On what basis was the decision to remove and replace the faulty fill under ,the Administration Building madef Answer Applicant objects to this question on the ground that it is irrelevant to this case., o w. _._____3g- ,,-.-~~ ~ +.-+-wnn,. ---e,-
_ = - =~: L (' 5(c) Question r ( Who made this (5b) decision? o M Answer L See the answer to 5(b)' L 5(d) Question When was this (Sb) decision made? Answer r. See the answer to 5(b) F j 5(e) Question ? Describe and explain any alternative corrective actions ever considered and, rejected for the Administration Building, if such considerations were a ( made. Answer ~ l' See the answer to 5(b). INTERROCATORIES t Additions to Question 1
Response
With reference to Bechtel, the phrase " depending on its importance" refers to the degree of cost, schedule, licensing, or quality impact of a particulse decision on the project.' The Project Engineer and the Project Manager for Bechtel maintain open lines of communication, which enables them to assess the relative importance of a particular decision with respect to the above criteria. They l are assisted in the procedure by other Bechtel members of the Midland Project k Staff who have detailed knowledge of individual issues. Regarding Consumers Power Company, the phrase "in the case of decisions of lesser importance " defines those decisions having little or no effects on cost, schedule, licensing, or quality. Any decision which would involve a commitment 1 .%....o, __~ w,-------,e w. w -+.-- --
p w,g u. , a:. g ..z
.;.--L---;-----
.G w 2. (
- I U
[ of resources beyond that previously approved by the project manager would h L require approval by the Project Manager or by higher authorities within the T Company. iP) Additional Response to Interrogatories 2 and 3 Applicant objects to the questions set forth in the " Reply" document { of 1/26/81, as well as the questions set forth in the Initial Request F as interpreted in the broad sense of the " Reply" document, on the following grounds: (1) The questions are vague and unintalligible. (2) The questions are burdensome. l (3) The questions ask for information which is equally available to the intervenor through documents which are on the public record. h As we pointed'out in our initial response, the interrogatories in question i I cover a period of over two years during which numerous meetings, conversa-l tions, consultations, phone calls, or other oral or written communications were exchanged or held. The questions attempt to approach matters which involved complex and detailed technical analysis at the earliest possible stage of discussion. The questions are unlimited as to scope, detail, issue, , time, place or person. Further, it is impossible to precisely determine what is meant by the parenthetical expressions contained in the questions, which seem to contradict the language used elsewhere in the Interrogatories. Applicant is willing to discuss its objections to these questions with the Intervenor in an attempt to arrive at a compromise if she wishes. 1 L =~
- m -w, _= g-t Il V h Additions to Question 4 4
Response
g P l.{ The matter of planned activities was discussed with Gene Callagher, the
- l..
h geotechnical inspector from Region III, during an inspection of October 24-Li 27, 1978. Other than that communication, Applicant is not presently aware of any communication with the NRC geotechnical staff prior to November 7, s 1978 concerning the preload proposal. During the above conversation, Callagher was advised of Applicant's tentative l Plans to preload the diesel building. 4(b) Question (Formerly 4d)._ Was such input (4a) over suggested by anyone? If so by whom, was it made, when was it made, and how was it responded to?
Response
50. 4(c) Question j In responding to'these questions; please include, but do not limit yourself, to statements made by A.J. Hendron in file B3.0.3 sesial CSC-3674 notes of the Novemb'er 7,1978 meeting recordit.g disappaintment regarding NRC not having seIen the test pits.
Response
During the November 7,1978 meeting, Dr. Hendron indicated that it would be desirable for Dr. Heller to see the test pits. At that time Applicant was concerned, and it is believed Dr. Hendron was concerned, ~ that Heller would not be able to observe subsurface conditions first-j .em ~m-
=,, -.- m a u w e :. s, hand prior to pre-loading, since any excavation would be filled by the 3 pre-1 cad itcelf. Heller did observe subsurface conditions during his 1j December, 1978 site visit. However, as can be readily ascertained from 4 j the above, Hendron's comment was limited to the test pit issue and did .{ not concern the decision to pre-load the diesel generator building, so that it is not an example of a suggestion under question 4b (formerly 4d). h' y i t E e J c. --wy _. - ; 4-
- ,.~.
y. g,,5 s. .c + .s UNITED STATES OF AMF.RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 33 - (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) 33 -0 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Response to Interrogatory (Barbara Stamiris) Discovery Request dated January 26, 1981, were served upon the following persons by depositing copies thereof in the United States Mail, first class postage on this O ay of February, 1981. ] Frank J. Kelley,- Esq. Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Attorney General of the 6152 N. Verde Trail State of Michigan Apt. B-125 Stewart H. Freeman, Esq. Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Assistant Attorney General Gregory T. Taylor, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq. j Assistant Attorney General Isham, Lincoln & Beale 720 Law Building One First National Plaza '5 Lansing, Michigan 48913 Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Myron M. Cherry, Esq. One IBM Plaza Mr. Steve Cadler 3 Suite 4501 2120 Carter Avenue l Chicago, Illinois 60611 St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall D. F. Judd, Sr. Project Manager RFD 10 Babcock &Wilcox Midland, Michigan 48640 P. O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. I Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrt. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Custave Linenberger Mr. C. R. Stephens, Chief J Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Docketing & Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coc:nission Washington, D. C. 20555 ) J
w_.. ~ Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Streat j Midland, Michigan 48640
- jj William D. Paton, Esq.
i Counsel for the NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road i Route 3 Freeland, Michigan 48623 Lester Kornblith, Jr. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. { Washington, D. C. 20555 i j Sharon K. Warren.:c -. 636 Hillcresel 2 - ~4----- I Midland, Michigan 48640 ti James E. Brunner i h s 1
v,.c-x: a~n ~ ~ _
- - - 4: :iG_:= = " <
,g 4 f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- t BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD q
In the Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50-329-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-0M it ) 50-329-OL -i (Midland, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL ) ) AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM JONES William Jones, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is employed by Bechtel Power Corporation, as the Project Cost / Schedule I Supervisor for the Midland Froject; that he is responsible for providing i answers to supplemental questions pertaining to document request Number 2 (contained in the January 26, 1981 Stamiris "Respase"); and that to i the best of his knowledge and belief the above information and the answers to the above interrogatories are true and correct. p~ WilliamJonef / h+k Subscribed and sworn to before as thia day of February, 1981 4dink d mhwh m Notary P lic Washtenaw CountM Michiga p ~ My Commission Expirest '7/c)I[ k/ WfNDY t. TAytog } I
- orcryPublic,Westese,g n Cc% Expires 7 2141 M*e-*=*e-y
,y y, '". ~ g T
... c.. v._, m. n= --.1-T 1 - w' ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ..j' In the Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50-329-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-0M ') 50-329-OL i; (Midland, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL ) ) 71 AFFIDAVIT OF ALAN B005 '1 Alan Boos, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the Assistant Project Manager, Midland Project, Bechtel Power Corporation; e that he is jointly responsible along with Gilbert S. Keeley for the l l Responses to Additional Questions pertaining to Stamiris; Interrogatory 6 i No. I contained. in the "Intervenor Response" D cument dated January 26, j j 1981; and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above information and the answers to the above interrogatories are true and correct. i s -u-Alan Boos Subscribed and sworn to before as this /8IkdayofFebruary,1981 o.-dk it' l$.< w, _Notary Public, Washtenaw County, Michigan Esoz.C A.'120t3 My Commission Expirest;ce .! - T.:0,
- m-- Te co.,x::3
- u u.a w s w
0','.:0,s m y h.
~ 1;; mwwmmm _ -m: u-r. j t j ~ UNITED STATES CF AMERICA f NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fD11SSION i 7 + 4 t.. t l In the Matter of ) k* DOCKET NOS. 50-329-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY * ) 50-330-0M 1 ) 3 50-329-OL (Hidland, Units 1 and 2) ) f' 50-330-OL '{ ) g ) 1 t f I k STATE OF HICHICAN) 5 b )ss . COUNTY OF JACKSON) AFFIDAVIT OF GILBERT KEELEY ,.2 Gubert Keeley, being, duly sworn, deposes and says that he is employed by Consumers Power Company as Project Manager, Midland Project; that he is jointly responsible with Al Boos for providing a response to 4 t additional questions respecting Stamiris' Interrogatory No.1; that he is primarily responsible for providing responses to additional questions.. u.. - o respecting Stamiris' Interrogatory No. 4; and that to the best of his j j . ), knowledje in'd b'e1.ief the above information and the answers to the above ,4 ( Interrogatories are true and correct. ) .(/ $f// '\\ Guben xen ' Subscribed and sworn to before he this,/ day'of j February, 1981.
- !
- ,y)pa,..Da
~ Not'ary Public/ Jackson' C# Michigan ify Commission kxpires CECILTA P.ARIE WARFIED . NOTARY P'J3LIC, HII.LSDAI2 00..MICS MY CGEIssIcy EXPIRIS JUL.03.1983 Acting in Jackson County ~ e .M e t n. - - - - ~ ~ - * - * - * ~ ~ * * ~ ~ ~ ~ =, * =m.* *Q _ se ~ * * ~ 4 ,.-m.m .si _____.____________._.__.___.m
_m. u j.gOnt.,
- =*
-j =.=c a.e==:ca wagg t i U. 3. EUC12&R REGU1ATORT Numamm l In the matter of Deeket Res. 50-329 OM OL C.F. Co. Midland Plant 50-3w OM OL Unite 132 3 t~ coy l l BEFORE TER ATCMIC SAFETT & LI2EER M BQ&ED 1/22/81 C q L ! M-30 Mat, @ WT105 TO EETEND TIME p0E IIIETANT'DISCOVEEr Y O{fa cJ$ / - ~~ :.. G.:.'2s . T: 6 I would like to request an exteneles of diesevery time,liai 1 ? l quentiene whiek may arise related to deeeeente in this preseeding p which i j I have met had assese... Simee the ruling prekibitting provisies of tremeeripts to interveners, none of these documente have been available at the Midland Publie Deeunente Room. C.F.Co. mafellRC reopenses to my 12/4/80 and 12/18/80 requeste have been late and ineemplete asking follow up questione impossible by the eleoe of diesevery Jan. 23rd. q I have internally agreed with C.F.Co. atterney Alan Farnell(Dee. 31 1960 I i l phone eenversaties) not te objeet to these delays Ae long me I be permitted ~ similar flexibility in submitting further questiene (12/14/81 requeste) and fellow up questione. I would estead the same roguest to the NBC regarding guestiene related to %.$a.., desumembrecuests. . :. t s. I would ask that the board allow me to ask questions on the testimony I would aloe like te dieeues at the prehearing eenforence I have not so a. whether I might be permittef te eheek out these transeripts from the Publie p ,t,.r. ny wl.f.o reau.et.1,.at re,.est ,oun. e -,.r .... ut s..r.at.d.-. ~ Q l gjkTbq '"Ef,/ u DJam.- Respectfully Submitted .A-v.4, y cr $ s ~ m.
^ ^~ 0 ,e SELATED CORRE5MLSEsch UNITED STATM OF AMERICA EUCLEAR EMUIATOET 080E183305 Doeket Noe.50-329 45 ,.j In the Matter of 50-330 ON Cesenaere Fewer Co. 30-329 OL 50-330 OL Midland Flaat Unite 1 & 2 3Ef035 TER A20EIC SAFETT AED LICIESIBS 30&BD s ~ ' ' INTENWORE3455750FCOBEUMERSPOWEEOSFAIT1/14/81 In aseerdamse with 10 CFR 3.74Ch and 2.741 Intervenor Barbara Stamirie 3 serves on Ceasesore Fever Co. the following interrogatories and deeuneat requestes (Instnettene and definitiene a. stat.4 in 12/4/s0 request) .,. c -.;
- 1. NBC Imepeetion Esport 50-339/33078-12 astee 'Other Aetivities to be l
Planned (1) Feesible eere borings in eeeling pond dike area te verify i j integrity of dikes."Frevide desumente as a basis for this statement sa4 relating to the desistem en this mattersas it woe first eensidered.
- 2. Were any audite eenducted eevering soil settlement matters (ineluding GA QC aspeets) which have met been presented to the NECT If ee, provide these findinge.
- 3. New mueh time is alleted in the meet reeest completies sehedule for remediaties of soil settlement mattere and for reopeases to NRC testing and boring requestof
- 4. Men woe the Administratien Building beguaf What was the scene of z
Q recording settleneatfor,the Adaisistration Building and when was that /
- '.w '
PIM/ [ $ means esta'b1'ished[" ' .( g
- f...'
9 C~,. ..C,/ c. Of b l (
- l,"l?cf,j%
s i, n .~ i:.:;,., ..s y
- ^*'"-*-e ww-
+.....,m.w...,.
". =... u -. .o
- . s ad..e oht.1 re rte a.
.. eaus.., e.. met,ati.a ~ Building settiennent and whether it was.na inelated problem,or any other reporte receousanding procedural ehanges stemusing from this event. ^l , /
- 6. Describe the 3etablieked Foundaties Data Survey Fregram for the Diesel Gener' iter Building.
When was it established,and by whout ,7 .j
- 7. We'.*e any settlemente metN formally er internally prior to July 1978*
i int Abe, heel gmerator buildiq f 4 If se provide d ose eheervattene. i
- 8. Whos was Dr. Fook er any other soil settlement sesoultant first td14 et the settleenat of the himistratisa Buildiag? Provide any deeumonte recording dieeuseiwat of the Administraties Building with soil settlement i
sensulus'd. / 4
- v. When wa's the ESC first informed of the settlement of the Administration Bu11 dins / Relate the circumstanees of this initial diseleeure.
d l'O. Asseemdment 3 te he PSAR eliminated the original ette dewatering plas rr. vide d.eument. r.ye, mat to tht. deoi.t.a. i
- 11. At the July 29,1940 Caseload Foreenet Fanen Weeting in Midland,menties made of C.F.Ce. lease to Beehtel and other subsentreeters in the intreet was of staying en sehedule. Dooeribe'the estest of d ese;1eans and the oireum-etanese surrounding them.
t
- 12. Were there any established requiressato regarding groundenter elevatiene and their effecte en pletA foundations and structures in 19701 If se,
Provide these doeumonte.. I - - = ww,. S
9- .,.s. x..
- 13. ht work has been deze eineerApril 1980 en the Diesel Generater p
Buildingf Ilhat pereent eemplete is the building asef
- 14. ht pree dure er system is fellowed to reeerd er eerreet peer employee perforumaeetby Beektel er C.F.'Co.1 Iave any employees withbjehe relating
~ ' to een setti at matt.,e seem fired.e.,eeerved e e ty,e of warai relted te job performameet If se provide these recorde.
- 15. Da page 26 et MEC Inspecties Report 50-329f330 78-20,neaties is made of the QC inspeeter who was primarily roepensible for the plaat till work who f.e no longer employed by Beehtel. Provide the name of this individual, his peetties, and the dapoyamais Wieydent, mad forwarding address.
{ 1a. rr.vid. th. as e and addr.se.e.f any.th.r cA.c qC p.r.e=.1 f with jebe relating to seil settlenest from 1975-1980 who are ne lenger employed by Beehtel or C.P. Co. Am L.aL. j ' aq, d f.u t. &,c,g 6, k p q_. -- w. Yh trn. NR.e,em aa N it- , Asa. e-
. s l RELATED CORRESPON3NCE t-e sy 0;",'.*~. ' ,.) f9- ~ e 2 ansa q'.;' ' r. . Ofi::e of B.s fecei:y 9 M Gk@ C:nc y osa e om sin w.= us w n 4 a m www mei. Ism asosso rol l January 23, 1981 g ^ ' '
- 5j I
Ms Barbara Stamiris-5795 North River Road Route 3 Freeland, MI k8263
Dear Ms Stamiris:
s. Attached is a copy of an Affidavit of Sherif Afifi, which, due to mailing ^ delays, was not included with the interrogatory answer previously i submitted. lI Very truly yours. f
- gy J
a q joemes E 3x,r2nar } I g .j: i Q E[ G + e f.i e ( 'l l gz
- ...... s....
y i 1 ..s _ ~
C....._ .L.
- .o:
, a w;. \\\\il , s .i s, f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j 'g 37 Qg NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION p iggf & C 6 '"s i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 10ARD g // 4// In the Matter of ) ^' CONSCHIRS POWER COMPANY ) DOCEET NOS. l. ) 50-329-0M 50-330-0M ) 50-329-OL - -..
- il-(Midland, Units 1 and 2)
) ~ T 50-329-CL ) i
- 1
) .] t
- i.
.e 1 i AFFIDAVIT OF SHERIF AFIFI et: Sherif Afifi, being duly sworn, deposes and says chai: he is employed by Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, as an Engineering Supervisor; that he is jointly responsible with Neal Swanburg for providing answers to Barbara Stamiris' Interrogatories to Consumers Power Company Number 2-3; and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above information and the answers to the above interrogatories are true and correct. 4 n.* Sherif Afifi i il Subscribed and sworn to before me this , /- day of M n. , 1981. ,/ /g. a.m .r Notary Public, Washtenau Co. Michigan _ Ny Commission Expires: %:~ .r.. La : (,j9f*: - ~ ~.. - _ u. T~t.- it.::i
- 2:.:-.1- : ". -.... :^ c:,,----
x:: c:x:.:ss:::,2:c::.~.1.;;v.20.:8 p;. -. ~. .. ~ k I ,~ .S, ,e, e t' ~
- n. ; _
1 ~ -s&
, m ic a'. .= i 9 e ~ A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE * \\ 4 James E Brunner hereby certifies that he served a copy of the Affidavit of Sherif Afifi pertaining to answers submitted to Barbara Stamiris Interrogatories, by placing a copy of same in the asil, first class pojtaje prepaid, addressed to the following: G 1 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board US Nuclear Regulatory Consission W Washington, DC'20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel f" \\?C h n ) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission f ./,9 Washington, DC 20555 f 1 + I Charles Bechhoefer, Esq f5 M, $$ P y Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel p j US Nuclear Regulatory Commission g.g s @. S g ce a Washington, DC 20555 c:d .g p Myron M Cherry, Esq n One IBM Plaza, Suite 4501 gy g i Chicago, IL 60611 4 Dr Frederick P Cowan 6152 N Verde Trail, Apt B-125 ~ ) ,4 Boca Ratoa, FL 33433 .J .-_ __i
- N Mr Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue d'd St Paul, MN 55108
.r- ~ n p' D F Judd, Se, Project; Manager Babcock & Wilcox. PO Box 1260 j!. Lynchburg, VA 24505 { / Frank J Kelley, Esq ~ i Attorney General of the State of Michigan 1 Stewart H Freeman, Esq 2 Assistant Attorney General. Gregory T Taylor, Esq .st . Assistant Attorney;. General, Environmental Protection Division 720 Law Building J. Lansing, MI 48913 Pl Gustave.Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 I o g. u
y y x.a_- '--s ; = -*-'l- '% "'"* '*. - u,;+ ; a =x:=m-m p fi;.- 2 p Mr Wendell R Marshall 1 r' RFD 10 b ~ +a W Midland, MI 48640 +
- 9 Michael Miller, Esq 4
O Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza, Suite 4200 9. Chicago, IL 60603 William D Paton, Esg Counsel for the NRC Staff r- [ US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Q Washington, DC 20555 L
- i
- , g Ms Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Street 9
Midland, MI 48640 d 1,^. ? I Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road 1 Route 3 - " 'id W Freeland, MI 48623 _f d,. @ - [b ^# Mr C R Stephens .1; Chief, Docketing & Service Section '] Office of the Secretary q US Nuclear Regulatory Commission q Washington, DC 20555 Sharon X Warren b 636 Hiller est (3 Midland, MI 48640 .m
- .a
- s...
v.; r' L ..4 I. .J O b. .~p.; ; rl 4 n Dated: -January 23,:1981 ~ gg f g - - .... ~. .. - -..~. James E Brunner d j 1 !~
- 1,
.A. e' e i L
- i bi
,w
.[~,' ~. m, RELATED CORRESPonDCE ] I 4 S b= l.; L1 'd 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4 I APR i.d 1981 =. $ 9 NUCLEAR REGULATORT COMMISSION L s,c.u o M N "oimwoe E' l,l muSC - s== m 9' ".J APR 8 1981
- 9 FORE THE ATOMIC SAFETT AND LICENSING 30ARD Ch e:w n,in
/ W. f & Cgty ~' N j 6 are ) the heter of J Docket Nos. 50-329-0M. fj2 CCNSUMERS POWER COMPANT ) (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) b CONStMERS POWER COMPANT'S ANSW R TO NRC STAFF INTERROCATORIES (Dated 1/2/81) i Interrocaterv 1 Your cesponse to Question 17 in " Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill" cegarding piping founded in the plant area. fill, states: "When two pipelines were parallel and in the smas proximit7, only one was profiled." 6 1(a) Define "same proximity" an used in the above quotation. l Resoonse As stated i= the response. to Questien 17 of Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, pipelines in the "same prnrd_,ity" are defined as j parallel pipelines a few feet apart placed at the same elevation. The ~ typical distance between lines ranges from 2? to 6' with the==vd== being ] 18.5'.
- j 1(b)
In view of the random nature and varying properties of the fill, what assurance exists that the sectie:nent of the profiled pipelines is sim41mv to pip.t 4-cot profiled? j 1(c) What assurance exists that future settia-t of the profiled pipelines [ w111 be s4=47mr to pipelines not profiled? 1 p ,, s.,a. ; = :. G. I . _.... ~.. -
'n ^ s; L ~.. b . m w Resnonse Applicant is still evaluating available information on the matter. When such evaluations are completed Applicant will provide responses to these questions.
- 1 Interrosatorv 2
( Your response to Question 17 in " Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Till" includes a Figure 17-1 showing the locations of some, but act all, ofthepipinglistedinhable17-1ofthatresponse. Do you have sketches like that of Figure 17-1 identifying the location of the reamining piping j listed in Table 17-l? If yes,' please provide copies. Resnonse l i Figures 17-1 and 19-1 of Responses.co NAC Requests Regarding Plant Fill were intended to.show only the location of pipes to be profiled. Figure 1 (attached L i shows the location of all buried Seismic. Category I piping in the yard. .i Jnterrosatorvl !I The legend for Figure 17-1 of your response to question 17 in " Response to -I NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill" makes reference to a Note il and a Note #2. Neither note is shown. State the contents of thsea tun actes, if they exist.
Response
Notes 1 and 1 were inadvertantly left off Figure 17-1 of Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plane Fill. Notes 1 and 2 read as follows: 1. Profile measurements of the pipe inverts shown as a heavy line on this drawing shall be performed in i accordance with Specification 7220-C-82(Q), Section 8.0 ~ 2. Profile=== - ements of the pipes shoun.as heavy lines shall be performed by optical methods (standard transit and level). 9
u u,m._ ___ m w ~ : -. nea e r _. F o v k.h Interrosatorv 4 g Figure 17-2 of your response to Question 17 in " Responses to NRC Requests i Regarding Plant Y111" regarding piping founded in the plant area fill shows some. differences between profiles of a given pipe taken on different dates. Specifically, the profiles for pipeline 20" - 1HCD-169 between stations 3+00 and 4+30 show a decrease in slope changes (i.e., a smoothing out) and relocation of certain peaks when the March / April 1979 profile is compared to the July 1979 profile. How do you explain the difference of these two profiles? l-Resoonse ? I The accuracy of the pipe profile readings taken by Goldberg, Zoino, Dunni+'f and Associates (GZD) has been stated as being +0.01 feet. This accuracy would -i, account for minor differences in profile elevations. I There were also some differences in elevaticus in excess of.02 feet. Tho,a .i t j are explained as follows: a r ] 1. After rev1 swing relevant data used in plotting the profiles 41 for pipeline 20' - 1HCD - 169 and contacting GZD, it was i !I discovered that a typographical error had been ande in producing l] ~ the April,1979 data tables at stations 3+20 and 3+30 for ~l pipeline 20' - 1HCD - 169. The corrected April. 1979 profile shows a close correlation with the July, 1979 prof 11a at these locations. I 2. The peak in the April,1979 profile at station 3+90 appears 1 en be the rsault of a bad reading at an elbow. With the method of pulling the pipe profile sage through the pipe, it was e 1 .J mm
w =_ .. _. ~ a_-
- 4 3.., v
~ 9 h' possible for the profile sage to be pulled up the 1 Ed side of the pipe at bends or obstructions. The } small diameter (20 inches) and geometry of the pipe prohibited having a person in the pipe to derify that
- ],
the prefile sage was on the invert. The closer spacing of readings for the July, 1979 profile shows a very smooth elevation transition around this elbow. It is highly >=m,=17 that the pipe and elbow have experienced i che extreme movements suggested by the profiles in the n short time span from April to July. Therefore, it has 4 l been concluded that the elevation recorded in the April, I 'I 1979 profile for the elbow at station 3+90 is approximately 4 inches too high. l l Interrosatory 5 ~ i \\ 4 figure 19-1 of your responsa to Question 19 in "Rasponses to NEC Requests i j Regarding Plant Fill" regarding piping founded in the plant area fill shows )i some differences between profiles of a given pipe taken on difference dates. J l Specifically, the profile for pipeline 10" - OEBC-27 caken September 1979 ~ is at a higher elevation chan the profile of that same line takaa in January 1979. How do you reconcile these differences. Resoonse Relevant data used in plotting the profiles for pipeline 10"-CEBC-27 have been reviewed. After contacting GED it was discovered that an incorrect reference elevation had been used in computing the September 1979 profile elevations for pipeline 10"-0EBC-27. To correct the September 1979 readings, 0.5 foot should be subtracted from all elevations except the readout point elevation. The corrected elevations still show a slight upwerd movement of the an ,p,e -.-r ve - p . sr r - - d.
A. ^~^ ^ - ~ ,,La e = .n n ~ 5 pipeline. However, the novament is within the 12 02 foot accuracy of the Pipe profile sage. Drawings indicating the corre:c readings, along with
- 1 other corrected profiles, are provided with -desa responses.
~ Interrosatory 6 Figure 19-1 of your response to Question 19 in " Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill" regarding piping founded in the plant area fill shows ,u } some differences between profiles of a given pipe as enhan on different dates. Specifically, the prof 11'e for pipeline 8" E1H3C-81====wed in September 1979 l is at a deeper elevation than the profile of this pipeline taken in January h. 1979 and the change in slope for the September 1979 profila is not as great } l as for the January 1979 profile. How do you reconcile this behavior? -J",,
Response
~~ According to Note 1 on Figure 19-1 of the response to Question 19 in Responses to NEC nequests Regarding Plant 7111, it was concluded that the readout point elevation was disturbed and moved approximately 5 innhas between the time GZD 1 profiled the lina (January,1979) and the time the reference point elevation was established by Bechtel survey. The slight change in slope along the line in the September profile can be accounced for by settlement due to the diesel generator building preload. Interrosstory 7 Have any und .M pip-N-other than those for which the profiled results are reportad in your responses to Questions 17 and,19 of " Responses en NRC ~ Requests Regarding Plant Fill", and which are not provided in response to Interrogatory 2 herein, been measured for profile? As to any affirmative reply, please describe the results and any sketches of profile results. ee -e 4 -,.m v,=W9w ~ vM
.a.s. a c: . Response d There are no underground pipelines, other than those listed in the response to Question 17 and 19 of the 10.CFR 50.54 f Request Regarding l Plant Fill, which have been measured for profile in their normal operating 4 condition. The term natual operating condition is used to refer to pipes which have been embedded and fully backfined. The fonowing four pipes were surveyed optically with all overburden removed, q L (i.e. no backfill). 8" - 133C-81 (Also profiled by GZD) 8" - 1H3C-82 10" - CH3C-28 4" - OJBV-739 (Non-Q pipeline)
- i All of the above pipes were rebodded in the same trench foHowing the preloed..
1'; i Since 1: is impossible to determine if there was movemene in the above pipe I l while the overburden was being rueoved, these profiles are not regarded as reliable indications of pipe movement during differencial sectiement, and were not included in the profile summary in Tabla 17-1. Jnterrosatore 8 Scace the principal architectural and enpinaaring criteria provided pursuant to 10 CFR, 5 50.35 to which each of the fonowing structures and components vers designed. (or were to have been d=4-4) with respect en soil g-y-U.ies foundar4an support and performance during severe natural phaa - =: (1) Diesel Generator Building (2) Auxiliary Building g
e.. e3 - . Y AR - - s
- ._L.,i '
f 7- [ I (3) Service Water Intake Structure and integral retaining walls 'i g (4) Feedwater Isolation valve Pits (5) Underground seismic Category I piping and conducts g (6) Underground piping other than seismic Category I piping, located beneath or near seismic Category I structures an'd components (7) Borated water storage tanks and ring support (8) Underground diesel fuel oil storage tanks and fuel oil lines J .j (9) Cooling pond dikes Rasconse The principal engineering and architectural' criteria provided pursuant to 4 10 C7"A 50.35 are contained in the Mid1=nd Plant preliminary safety analyses report (PSR), which is hereby incorporated by reference in this answer. i
- I While -Jte PSG contains such criteria,-noe all design information in the PS R 1a regarded as " principal criteria." The regulation in question, 10 CFR 50.35, indicates that the principal criteria met be "inetadad" in
- i the PSM, but does not exclude the addition of supplements 1 information en
] further delineate or describe design details. a + q d. The Midland place PSR has a sumery of principal criteria in section 1.4 and appendix IC. As stated la section 1.4, "the specific architectural and engineering criteria and design features are der =41=d in later sections of the PS R." Interrosatorr 9 Identify all principal architectural and engineering criteria identified in your answer to Interrogatory 8 which will not be met unless the remedial i actions proposed or completed for the soils placed and compacted at the ~ MidTand site are implemented. j _ _,4
- n. a:.
=v. .,a = ;, =. ~ 8-
- r. ;
Response
j Applicant objects to this question on the ground that it is irrelevant to .j these proceedings, . i a i i The question calls for an identification of those principle criteria which ~ s i
- j would not be met without remedial action. To respond co'the question, Applicant
..t ] would be required to undertake a technical analysis to determine the ability of j a non-applicable design to meet the principle criteria. Such an exercise would .t .A be a vaste of resources from an engineering standpoint, and would produce a result which is not relevant to these proceedings, which are considering a new design based on remedial fixec. { Interrogatorr 10 Midland ?SAR Section 2.8.4.1, as last anended on May 28, 1969, states the .C '. e t following design criteria for fill and backfill: "All fill and backfill i l materials are adequately compacted to insure stability of the fill and to pro-- .I t vide adequate support for structures fm:nded on this fill wi hout excessive 'l'; settlements." Il 7) ~ l .1 7J e ++ 4 1 A e. v w
p-,. n :- u,:-~. y - x. _ _,; =_= l .. p 10(a) With respect to this criterion, define " excessive settlements". Rassonse l The term " excessive settlements" refers to settlements in structures l 4 which would produce structural stresses such that the structure's ' behavior is unacceptable l's either normal operating or accident conditions. 10(b) With respect to this criterion, define " adequately compacted".
Response
14 The term " adequately compacted" refers to a state of compaction such ] that excessive settlements do not occur and adequate stability characteristics are achieved, and that there is reasonable assursace i of such results for the future. The PSAR contains a reco=: ended method l for maating the adequately compacted criteria, which is set out in the i
- i so-called Dames & Moore Report of March 15, 1969, as follows.
A l' ) l RECOMMENDED MINDitDt COMPACTION CRITERIA ON-SITE ON-SITT. SAND SOITS CLAY SOILS 1 PURPOSE OF FILI, PERCENT REIATIVE DENSITT* PERN OF MA.M. DENSITT** I l i Support of Structures 85 100 adjacent to ~, Structures 75 95 i ' Area Pil.L.(Not supporting or adjacent to structures) 70 90 Mar 1=== sad Minisma density of sand sofis should be determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. Test Designation D-2049-64T Maximum dry density and opednum moisture content should be determined-
- j in accordance with A.S.T.M. Test Designation D-698, modified to require 20,000 foot-pounds of compactive energy per. cubic foot of soil.
j i .d
L- -e =t'A. .L--- _-.c h 4 %S.8a: $ E -_- ' D- .r 10 -
- J 10(c) Was this design criterion mac for the fills and backfills as originally placed and compacted (i.e., prior to the surcharge program) beneath or adjacent to the Diesel Generator Building?
- .q a.s.onse No.
10(d) Has this design criterion been mac for the fills and backfills which were subjected to the Diesel Generator Building surcharge - l program? I Res,onse 1 ]. Yes. 10(e) Was this design criterion met for the fills and backfills as originally placed and compacted beneath or adjacent to the Auxiliary lj Building? n.s - s. 50. 10(f) Will this design criterion be met once the proposed remedial action i for the Auxiliary Building has been completed? i j
Response
\\ l With respect to portions of the structure which will be founded 1 .l upon plant fill onca remedial actions are taken, the answer is T yes. With respecc to other par.4 of the structure, no credit .1 for the support provided by the fill will be taken in the 'j foundation design, even thougn the fill underlying er adjacent to sections of \\ '} the structure which will be underpinned does provide some support. 10(g) If the answer to Interrogatory 10(f) is no, what design criterion will be met?
Response
Not applicable 10(h). Was the design criterion quoted above met for the fills and
- t backfills as originally placed and compacted beneath or adjacent to the Service Water Intake Structures?
N w
-.1 g +._ m-2 .1 Resoonse -.= 1-No. l 10(i) Will the design criterion quoced absve.be met once che proposed j
- xsedial accion for tha service Water ! stake Structur e 'i... '.4 3 i
canalecad? .jj-
Response
l} No credic for any vertical support provided by the fill underlying or adjacent to the underpinned porcion of the structure will be taken in the foundation design, even though such fill will provide some vertical support. I,, The fill adjacent to che service water pump struc:ure will provide an i .l 4 adequace contribucion to :he laceral support of :he strue:ure for normal operating and accident condicions. a 10(j) If the answer to Interrogatory 10(i) is no, what design cri:erion will be see? 1 Rasoonse See che Response to 10(j).
- a f
10(k) Did the original fill and backfilis placed inside and beneath the ring 8 supports of :he Barated Water Storage Tanka meet the quoted desi&u .] criterion? 1
Response
No. 'I 10(1) Do che existing fills and backfills placed inside and beneath the ring supports of the 3erated Water Storage Tanks meet the quoted design criterion?
Response
No. 10(m) If the answer to Interrogatory 10(l) is ne, what design criterion is met?
Response
Applicant-is presently evaluating remedial action for this structure. When such evaluations are complaced, Applicant will provide a response i i to this interrogatory. f I ~ ~
,.v
- .: wm.
~.. . =_ a _ _ _. a ~ - ~ p ~ ~. _ 10(n) Was the quoted design criterion met for the fills and backfills placed and compacted in the vicinity of the Diesel Fuel 011 Storage Tanks? ~_ Resoonsa Yes. 10(o) Was all of the fill for the Diesel Fuel 011 Storage Tanks placed originally to the requirements of Zone 2 saterials? Respottse { Tes. 3J ' 'j - 10(p) If the answer to 10(o) is so, what areas were not placed to Zone 2 j requirements; on.what basis was this material accepted? Resoonse ,} Not applicable. . l 10(q) Was the design criterion quoted above met for the filla and bade'itt= 1i as originally placed and; compacted beneath and adjacent to the Feedvatar I { Isolation valve Pits? 1 4. tassonse No. l 1C(6 Will the design criterim quotad above be ret once che pr: posed twi=T 4 j. act.1on for the Feedtater Isolacton valve Pits has been completed?
- Response,
- j Ther above criterion no longer applisa, and will nor apply to.ha Feed-3 I
_ water Isolation valva Pita once remedial activitiae respecting thosa structures are completed. 10(s) If the answer to Interrogatory 10(r) is no, what design criterion will be sec7 4
Response
coce remedial activities are implemented, all of the plant fill directly beneath these structures will be replaced by concrete. No credit will be taken for any suuport of fills adjacent to these structures in the foundation design for normal operating or accident conditions. .\\ ~ -t x
- _y
. _. _v w -~ -4, ~ ~ ~ ri 13 - s 'l i 10(t) Has the design criterion quoted above been met for the cooli38 Pcad dikes? If yes, state how this was determined. If no, what design .] criterion was met? .I
Response
} _ Applicant objects on the ground that the cooling pond dike id not related to 'l and, hence, the design criteria applicable to it 7 the safety of the plant i f'.j l zenot relevant to these proceedings. (See the response to Interrogatory 13) Subject to that objection, Applicant answers as follows: Yes; see the document antitled " Discussion of Applicant's Position on the Need for Additional 3crings", dated September 14, 1980. 1 Interresatorv 11 j For all structures and components listed in Interrogatory 8, list all design l-bases (as design basis is defined in 10 CFR 50.2(u) of' significance to safear ;:--:r ? which depend upon adequate foundation supporr or soi.L related properties and which would not be mac unless rammlial serious are implemented. I
Response
1 Applicant objects, for the reasons set forth in the ResponJe to Interrogatory 9. by 9 n. g
c; ~ -i ) .w....
- m.. _. _
14 i l l Interrosaterv 12 When, if ever, was your intent to include lean concrete as a Zone 2 material {j first conveyed to the NBC7 To whom and by what means of c - = h ation uns t this intent conveyed to NRC7 i
Response
The definition of Zone 2 material as "any sacerial free of humus, organic 2 i or other deletarious macacial" was provided in the Midland Plant ?SAR (July 29, 1977). If there was any doubt concerning the use of lean concrete as a Zone 2 material af ter the TSAR was submitted, Applicant has no record of any communication specifically dealing with the use of concrete prior to i I Mr. Gallagher's October 24 - 27, 1978 inspection, at which time he i. determined 'that lean concrete had been used as a part of the raddos fill mat erial.' 6 Interrosatory 13 Have you performed, et do you famow of the existecca of, any studios of the consequences of failure forehe Midhad cooling poM dika? If yss, l' provide copies of er s reference to these studies. If so, what is the justification for not performing such studies?
Response
Applicant objects en this question, on the following grounds: Applicant has contended, and still contends, that the cooling pond dike is not related to the safe shstdown of the planc, and, hence, is not " safety-related" as that l. cars is used in the December 6,1979 Order. Hence, Applicant believes the dike L. is outside the scope of this hearing. In the first pre-hearing conference order j ; (dated 10/24/80), the Board indicated that the dike could not be deemed non-safety-related as a matter of law. This interrogstory apparently deals with the
([ ::- - ~ ,1=_+ .n a... -. -., J-.el 6 U. Iy [ environmental,as opposed to safety, aspects of the dike. I In that. respect, the Board made passing reference to the dike, but l f-indicated that the issue to be considered was the " settlement" of the dike. From the limited ruling of the Board in the first pre-hearing conference, Applicant is unable to determine whether this request falls l vichin the scope of the present hearing and reserves its response until issues concerning the dikes are clarified. Also, this question is not relevant to the only admitted contention concerning the dike, Stamiris' Contention 43, which relates to " slope stability" st of dihe slopes.
- t 1)
Interrogatorv 14 ~ Have you performed, or do you know of the existance.of, any studies of 4l the probability of failure of the Midland cooling pond dike? If yes, provide copies of or references to chase studies. If no, whac is.che justif.1 cation for uct performing such studies? } Rossense See Hasponse to Interrogatory 13. i'; i Interrosatore 15 In your responses to NRC requests 24h and 51 ccacerning permanent dewatering 4 you used a specific yield coefficient of 14 percent for det=Maias the volume of ground water to be removed from storage within the plant dikes. In detetuining average permeability, you used a value of 30 percent for effective porosity. Under wate.r table conditions such as exist at 3tidiand, " specific yield" - the same as " effective porosity". Provide justification for using two diff'erent percentages. t . ~ -. - ~ w
w :s 4
- e _, __
~ .: s.-...... Y lo - G ? [
Response
The 14 percent specific yield used to decernine the volume of ground water to be removed from storage is a weighted average based on the proportion of saturated natural and backfill materials between elevation 595 (permanent devatoring system operating level) and elevation 625 (average Ib ground water' level prior to devataring). It was calculated that 58 percent t N of the materials consist of c' lay or silty clay, 37 percent is sand, and 5 percent is occupied by structures. Using the corresponding specific yield values given by Davis and De Wiest, 1966, (5 percent for clay and silty clay, and 30 percent sands) results in an averase specific yield of 14 percent for the saturated materials between elevation 595 and elevation 615. If the meterials 1' between elevation 595 and 625 consisted only of sand, then the specific yiela 5~ would be 30 percent. .i In determining the apparent perumbility, the flow was assumed to occur only l through the sand. Thus, an effective porosity of 30 percent for sand was used ,i in the eque. tion to deternine the apparent permashility along the flow path, as ay a result of pond fillies. The effective porosity for the sand in this case is 5 the same as the specifi: yiald fer sand. Therefore, there is no conflict between the vainaa used, since an averager specific. yield of 14% was used for g saturated materials between elevation D 595 and 625, and an effective porosity of 30% was used for sand in determining the apper me permashility. 4 REFERENCE q
- Davis, S., R. J. M. De Wiest, Hvdrolosv, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
- New York, 1966. -=n w F ~
.: L : ~. v-INTERRCCATORY 16 In your response to Request 24 concerning permanent devatoring, you used q an error function equation to define veter level rise. This. equation gs] l g ( $ as follows: i h=R 1 - erf 41t5: n 6 In applying t,his equation, you used 0.1 fset for h,1.6 feet for 3 and ' f 20 fegt for h.. g In Request, 49, we asked for additional information on why 20 feet had been used for h when h is defined as the average depth of water. Tour response j; to Request 49 was that the values of h and R are auch smaller because they represent the changes. in head above the eriginal potentiometric surface while the value of h is the thickness of natural sands through which the seepage from the cooling pond is assumed to flow. u The equation that you used to model groundwater flow, from 2ese, 1972, assumes g horizontal is,ervious betten as a datum free which the carns h, 3 and j h are measured. It is not clear why y r's are using one daten, i.e., the 1 original potentionstric surface (approxinately 622 feet) to measure h and f H and another lower datur (approx 1=ately elevation 607 to measure h. ! e ci 8.sve you perfor ed any studies or do you know of the exisgence of any, studies .l done using a single datum f:ca which to censure h. E and h ? If yes, (a) identify these studies, ' l (b) do these studies justify your use of two different daruns, and (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, please state the justification f provided 1:r these studies. .j Provide your justification for usin.g eme differef.t datums ad show that ~ i your resultant groundwater rebound time is at least as conserrative as the ja rebound time vould be if courputed using a single datum as in 3 ear,1972. d ~
RESPONSE
o l-a .i f A single reference plane free which to measure h, R and h is discussed in p 8 3 ear, 1972. The justification of the use of the two reference planes is v presented below. This is followed by a discussion exp1 mining the choice r of the natural sand thickness to represent the aversge depth of flow. -p L l _a
. - _, _,v -- q.,. f / '.. 0 The latter discussion is based on physical considerations on'the actusi g l flow system which had not been explicitly included with the numerg1l 6 f 2 4 application. k Tuo reference planes were used in the equai: ion given in response to NRC l. Question 24 to provide a more simplified description of the actual physical conditions. It can be shown that this formulation is equivalent to the i, one obtained using the approach taken by 3 ear 1972, in Paragraph 8.4.1, Example 1. J W 3 ear 1971 considers the linearized partial differential equation for flow p in the (xz) direction with no accretion and an i pervious, hori=ontal bottom: l hh
- b
= e 3 ear 1972, Equation 3.4.5 L, 4 hx Ide to5erher with the boundary an/. initial conditions: l h = M, (or3 = o), z > o, e i o q j h = D (or Q = E, - 5: r*o,t>e ij { 7 v%re the terme are defined in Figure 8.4.1 of 3 ear 1972. f:;: i .I S Fnt the case where the coolics poet is raised, the following boundary conditicas 03 i apply P h=Ne ( or 77 = o), x=o e>o h = D (or ?t = R - D), z>o, e<o g-e E A solution to this equation which satisfies the above boundary conditions is: l b' s b f.. k i. =
n n. a .- +, .g... _ _. _. ~ _.. m., s. s. 19 - t >P 71 (=, t) = cR, - D) erf d.. (1) 021642 e f ( It can be seen from Figure 8.4.1, 3 ear 1972, that: 5 h=R -3(x,t). ~
- i o
p ,1
- Thus, 9
h=R (R - D) erf ar.. (2) o o . For the sake of clarity, 'let the subscript 'l' designate the variables used 3 g in the equation discussed in Interrogatory 15, l namely. hg = Change in head at x, 31 = Change in head at x = o. r L f' The above veriables are shown on Exhibit I, whila the variables h, N, R,, and D refer to Tigura 8.4.1 of 3,es,e,1972. h .\\ We then have the alationships: { h=hg + D, R,- = Eg + D, and h " <l. Substitutica into Equation (2) yields: 1 hg+D=Ng+D-(Rg + D - D) erfst i "1 - 3 1 (t - erf = ). (n l e - --e ~ w< ' ________.m___
ru a; ; gxx- _z_ J 20 - Thus, Equation (3) which assumes two reference planes, is equivalent to y Equation (2). The results obtained with both equations will then be identical. The approach used in the numerical application differs from that derived from Bear 1972, in the use of 5, the average depth of flow. In our response, i h was redefined to represent the thickness through which flow occurs, E, g as shown on Exhibic 1. Because of the large difference in permeabilities f. between the backfill clay (see'Tigure 24-5, in response to NRC Question 24) 1 and the natural sends, effectively no flow would take place through the backfill clays. f l4 l arrrarne: 3 1 'li ') 3 ear, Jacob, Dvnamies of 71uids _in Pornus '!edia, Asterican Elsevier Fuhlishing i I .I Company, Inc., New York,1972. 1 ',4 g G ~ 1 e S e 9 9 W 89 S e ese e.eune e e es u
) _. ;; 1 n. ~ .f...__.._- _n_ 02I642 ra t i r. DIESEL GENERATOR } SUILDING
- CCCLING PCND
?) / / / / '+ g 1 l 6 7 / 8ACKFILL CLAY /H g 7 n: / // o / o cr t/ / / / / / / / / 7 / t 7 a i E (SEE NOTE) aj NATURAL SAND
- . y y
n /X N/VOY/X NNNX/(/WNA/)UX N/A x x=0 '1
- q
- )
1
- j NCm!:
j - ~ ., s, =z L Session 8.4.1, parayosto 1 and 3. r s BECHTEL mas Annen M!DLAND POWER PLANT DEFINITION CF PARAMETERS INTEMRCGATORY 16 ace n e n Aws wa wi. e m ey a-7220 ExwistT t 0 iM-M ^ %M
- n. - u- --
- w -u + _ ~. _ L - .C.A=. t + .v o y %NDg UNITEn STATES OF AMERICA 4* NUCLEAR REGULATORT Cate!ISSION 3Ey0RE THE' ATOMIC SAT"""I A1 D LICINSING BOARD In the Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50-329-oM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-0M ) 50-329-OL d (Midland, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL U ) A \\\\91l D COUNTT OF WA. M AW) 7 )ss m STATE OF MICHIGAN ) t ipg 6\\98T ' 5 3 "I I 'l .un ..a "A* W _lh?.n,Y. Neal Swanberg, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is employed by 3echtel Associates Professional Corpoestion, as an Assistant Project Engineer that he is responsible for providing answers to NRC l Staff Interrogatories to Consumers Power Company Nu: bars 1 through 7 (ad 10, char er.; the best of his knowledge a:vi belief the above inforsseion i . sad :ha answers to the above interrogateries are true an.i correct. a 5 0 J-k Novi Swanberg Subscribed and sworn to before me this.-f/$ day of NI.'i., /v,1981. / .h::. s c AN, W Notary Public, Washtenaw County Michigan My Commission Expires: 'Euc.4._losh /pJ f s .. ~~ 1. rJC j .Y-'" D*.Up ' #.' Y.*4* F,Q
- =W a c==2m m---
m a,;im e + - e gir* g .: _ _ _A_- -m- "'-
- W46 w
2. 3 ~ = - q ~
- 88 %.= %
4 o g; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ? NUCLEAR REGULATORT COMMISSION RE5'0Kf. THE ATOMIC SAFITT AND LICINSING 30ARD In the Mat +.ar of ) DOCKZT NOS. 50-329-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANT ) 50-330-0M i ) 50-329-OL .i (Midland, Units 1 and 2),. ) 50-329-OL ) <1l19f i } 4 'o. COUNTT ct WASBTENAW) /. c;...,,,. Y )s it. ~,-- SaTr or MICarca.N ) APR 6 1981 * :~i y ) ft. : n: i' 00 *.*; i Service / J ~] . AFFIDAUT OF DOMAC.D F. LIVIS f to / ,/ e 4 8 Donald 7. Lewis, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is 1 employed by 3echtel Associates ?rofessional Corporation, as an Assistant Project Engineer (acting): ' that he is responsible for providing answem ra.>.s-to NRC Staff Interrogatories c'a Coasumers Power Company Number 8 *nd that to the best of hia knowi.edan.and belief the above information and the ~' answers to the above iurarrogmccries are true and currect.
- .s N
0 cws}' Y Donald F. Lewis I r; Subscribed and euern to before as t' tis 2 d day of E? w d 1981. t l ./ r i A; k...h A. ,G.w i Notary Public, Washtensur Canacy, Michigan t / My Commission Expires: Nh,,. 6Mz,g,FA / .- *. ?. :.-...,, ,~ J g...,.... +. -- :--e..,., :.,u. i 4.. r k i? . i l ~ -~ ---w-,. J
w -w_ u. i. ? ~ b~., %2ED CWtRESPRNDENCE f occumo k N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR ?ZGULtIORY CCHMISSION 4 APR 61981
- A-m
- ...cfneR-.wy BE70RE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 30ARD 4
- :..,1;msta 6
In the 'Maccer of ) II ) Docket Nos. 50-329-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANT ) 50-330-0M i ) 50-329-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-330-cL ) ) i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Responses to Scamiris' 1/14/81 Discovery Request,. Responses to the NRC Staff Interrogatories dated 1/2/81, and Responses to Questions 3 and 4 of Scamiris' 12/4/80 Discovery Request vich attached affidavits were served upon the following persons by j depositing copies thereof in the United States Mail, first class postage . ce this day of April, 1981. (Including drawings "SK - C - 745, Rev. A, SK - C - 675, Rev. C., and SK - C - 650, Rev D., with Paton copy e 1 only) < Frank J. iCalley, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq. Attorney General of the Isham, Mscoln & Scale Stata of !!ichtsan One First National Plaza Stewart M. Freeman, Esq. Saite 4:00 Assistant Attorney General Chicago, Illinois 60603 Gregory T. Taylor Assistant Accorney Geceral Mr. Steva G441er 720 Law Bufiding y Lansteg, Michigan 449'1 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Mzanesota 55108 M.on M. Cherry, Esq. T Cne I3M ? lass D. T. Judd, Sr. Project Manager ^ Sabcock & Wileoz Suite 4501 P. O. Box 1260 Chicago, Illinots 60611 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall RFD 10 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Pan f Midland, Michigan 44640 Q. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Counission I Washington, D. C. 20535 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Mr. C. R. Stephens, Chief Docketing & Service Section U. $. Nuclear Regulatory h. Washington, D. C. 20555 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Esgulatory Coma Washington, D. C. 20555 6152 N. Verde Trail Apt. 3-125 Boca-Raton, Florida 33433 p 1 d g
n =; .=-~ - -w- + - - - a= ~ q b-)Uw -. ~..
- ~
g _. - e.
- j g,'
I 4" . Lester Kornblich, Jr. Accaic Safety & Licensing Board U. 5. Nuclear Regulacory Comunission Washington, D. C. 20555 I 2alph S. ,cker, Esq. Route 4, Box 1900 ~ Cambridge, Maryland 21613 5 -Ms. Mary Sinclair k 5711 Summerset Screet Midland, Michigan 48640 William D. Paton, Esq. Counsel for the NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear 143ulacory Comm. Washingcon, D. C. 20555 ' Atomic Safecy & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, D. C. 20555 I 3arbara Scamiris $795 North River Road j Rouce 3 Freeland, Michigan 48623 4 ~ James 1. 3 runner _ Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 4920L W fe. k ,,4 I' m l h l
c d to n b - h(0 N Q(o Ste.c sm-r w it. c e n oru e 5 toywr aA ISHAM LINCOLN & BEALE b,' ~ i3t25 k g p COUNSELORS AT LAW to ONC FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA FORTv SCCOND FLOOM CHICAGO stLINOa5 60003 f' . g' TCLCPHONC 382=SSS*7tOO TELCx:2 S288 6 +) .a twawG' oes cs,eC C tif e CONNECTK wt ed N**C. M w. E' SWITC 325
- {
WASwekO10m. 0 C 70036 March 20, 1981 .1 William D. Paton, Esq. 1 Counsel for the NRC Staff ? U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Bill:
l We have review'e'd the NRC Staff's Answers to Interrogatories filed by Consumers Power Company. As you know, we have filed a motion to compel regarding the interro-gatories'the NRC Staff has refused'to answer. We understand that the Staff is preparing a response to that motion and that the response will be filed April 1st, the day before the prehearing conference. Our review of the Staff's answers reveals several answers that require clarification and/or additional response. j from the Staff. Rather than filing a motion or follow 'up j interrogatories with regard to those items, we have herewith ] set forth our concerns and request that you give us your 1 response prior to the April.2nd prehearing conference. I our first concern is the use of the word "primarily" at page 9, and " essentially" at pages 35, 38 and 42 of your answer. These words qualify the answers so as to not make them fully responsive to our interrogatories. We request an { explanation of the degree of qualification and' revision of ] the answers so that they are in fact responsive. We. note that the answer to interrogatory 11 states -d that because the Staff has not completed its review of l information submitted by Consumers Power that it cannot answer the interrogatory. We request an answer to the interrogatory as soon as the review is completed, in any event, within a reasonable time prior to May 18th. We also note that Table 8-1 contains responnes for 1
- 50. 54 (f) requests 39-53 that state that the Staff's consideration of response adequacy is under review and that the neccasity i
for Staff follow-up requests or communications to Consumers .s J h
Sj ~ y ( ', o ', 't Power has not been determined yet.. We request that Table 8-1 and the other portilons of the answer to interrogatory 8 l i,., be updated as soon as the review is completed, in any eventi, l'i - within a. reasonable time prior to May 18th. We also ro.,es,t ~ that you' provide us with the same information with regnr.1 to our answers to your interrogatories. Please call me if you have any questions. Otheivise, I shall expect your timely response. Sincerely, b. Alan S. Farnell ASF:jp cc: Midland OM/OL Service List i. e. a 'e i 8 .g 1. 1 .p l }9 1 .i
- 4\\
n;. ~ v
C ~ t ,f a Jr.s/ el .T CO V) STATES OF AMERICA MC($ GULATORY COMMISSION i rsj LEFORE THE !TGiIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N 'D b M%#$ In the Ma er of ~ , ),, T" Docket Nos. 50-329-0M a ~ CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-OL j ) 30-329-OL q (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) -1 50-330-OL ) -q ) .i ~! AMENDED AND ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO i CERTAIN NRC STAFF INTERROCATORIES DATED 11/26/80 i j Interrogatorv 4 In tha response to Question 15'of the NRC request, regarding plant fill, it is ?! statad that, " differential, settlement primarily induces additional strain, which 1 is a self-limiting effect and does not affect the ultimate strength of the structural members." Additional clarification of this statement is needed.- ( 4(a) Why do you classify the resulting strains as self-limiting. in nature?
Response
The term "self-limiting" is a shorthand expression for the behavior of a structure under strain-induced loads such as settlement in the absence of a bearing capacity failure. i Based on the characteristics of supporting soils and the imposed load from a structure, the predicted settlement of the structure can be calculated, over its i8 its lifetime. l l To evaluate the effect of settlement on the strticture, the settlement can.be divided into the following: (1) Uniform settlement (rigid body translation) l -] (2) Differential settlement li l i (a) Tilting (rigid body rotation) .i ( (b) Curvature 1 ,1.
~ ' _~ ./ .;. V . Rigid body action of the structure, both translation and rotation, does h. .not cause any strain in the structure. ;Therefore, it is of no concern .bc in the evaluation of structural adequacy. In contrast, curysture La the structure due to settlement will cause additional strain in the structure. j-Therefore, the effects of curvature induced dua to settlenent need-to be investigated. 3 .1 Curvature and Stress h. When a structural element is subjected to curvature (0), censile strain 13 , ); is induced in the convex side and compressive strain in the concave side ' .a1- ] of the element (Figure 1)'. For a concrete structural element, the (' theoretical relat1onship between curvature and soment'can be established. ~ j based on the stress-strain relationship o' f concrete and reinforcing steel. 1 ! '} An idealized soment-curvature plot of an under-reinforced concrete section I ( similar to those used in the Midland Diesel Generator Building is shown .in Figure 2. As can be seen from Figure 2, the curvature increases linearly as the moment is increased, up to the moment My, corresponding to the point. of yielding for the tensile steel. Beyond that point, any increase in curvature would not increase the moment in the structural element. The maximum curvature that can be induced in the element is Ou, corresponding' i fl to an ultimate concrete strain of.003. b Behavior.of Structures Subjected to Loads The loads applied on a structure can be divided into two categories: (1) Externally applied forces (2) Externally applied strains I. Z __. ..Z a. --_c_____-_, - - ~ ~ ~
.g_. _,. i,. 3- .p When structures are subjected to externally applied forces, internal W forces and moments must be induced in the structure.to rescors sr;;1c 1 equilibrium between external and internal forces. An-issrasse in i 1 curvature beyond 9y* is not useful in resisting such externel ferce, eM j as no additional internal moment is mobilized due to the additional i a t, curvature. .) q l When an externally applied strain due to settlement is applied to a I structure, the. structure must be capable of accommodating additional strain imposed on it without failure. Since no net external forces are s,'l 3-i applied by that process, the induced strain need not cause internal forces in th 2 A Therefore, even if a structure has already reached Ord'e structure. u to an externally applied force, the structure can still resist externally i applied strain so long as the resul' tant curvature is less than Gu. More- .i k ~over, the behavior of the structure would be the same regardless of which i' ! I influence-the settlement strain or the external force -is applied first. i' I'): For example, let "M " be the scaent induced in.the structure due to 4 ul external forces and49 be the additional curvature induced due to settlement. In the elastic range, let AM be 'the increase in moment due to 4 9. If.(M4 + AM) is less than My, the additional ' curvature due to settlement will cause the additional moment corresponding to the curvature ,J (A9). (Figure 3) .i 4 On the other hand if (M + A M) is greater than My as in (Figure 4), 'the .'l t structure will see a moment equal to My with an increase in curvature equal to 6 9. The increase in moment due to curvature in this instance (i.e. ~l
- See attached figure 2 i
OO m ,,p
s_.m ~ 7 . / i i Figure 4) is less. than it vould be were the yield moment high i enough such that M +4 M<My. If M My, there is no increase = .g f in moment. Since A M is not required to restore static balance, w the structure vill be stable even if4M = 0, as long as cha additional curvature AD does noc result in a curvature of the structure greater than Ou. Conclusion A The stress induced in.a structure due to settlement can vary from zero
- .I
} co a maximum of a proportionality constant
- multiplied by the induced curvature.
The actual s ress is assigned.by the structure itself depending on its capacity to resist stress af ter allowing for any stress t. requirements due to external forces. i .j 't b e
- I
hkekstic l l 'l J
__e A n-A --n -E,w_ t *, p . / s b Y e Duct %g/ = a \\ / f~/'me n f 1j' .'l I ~ -; j I j i i e hrf 4 3 I 'y / c/ Te ~ o If% i e 4 d O. w C ( qp, .J w / S c. + g y. r - y% a-4 4 "i -1 ] 6 i l l } f i
a. 2 u, x. t n _)
- 1. -
- .. /
f'
- 5 i
l
- 1
't, N ' l u M - \\ ll
- 3 iS 4
~l I t c d@ M y--_ 8 / i i 1% '- - / l l i vj ),, I v. l 4 1 l i i q - n I i . i
- 1
- w l
e6 i ,s ( .i r$
- B t
4 f4 M f W h .f 2. 4
- ;.s.
w.._ / u: p {al. ~ V, + II- /"' 4(b) How do you reconcile your statement quoted above with your statacent / concerning the Service Water Pump Structure in the Managemast Cc;ressive Action Report No. 24, Interim Report 6. issued September 7, 1978 that the total design loads cannot be supported by the main structure. Resnonse For purposes of the underpinning design of the foundations of the 1 7' service water pump structure, no credit was taken for any bearing i 3. capacity in the fill material. Under these circumstances the self-1 limitinganalysisdescrpedintheResponsetoInterrogatory4(a) p does not apply, since the ae'chanism for producing possible strains in the structure is not limited to settlement. t ( .I w + !J e i t I i 1 l
y __ ~ a- = "~~- c* y Interrogatory 1(e) and 1(f) (Amended Responses)- l I 5 7 1(e) Have you factored into any re-analysis information containe? h ~ or resulting from, a letter from Robert Tedesco to Vice Frasider.: J. Cook dated October 14, 1980, concerning seismological input data acceptable to the Staff? "]
Response
Applicant objects on che' ground that this question goes beyond the limited ^ jurisdiction conferred by the December 6, 1979 Order, that 'l_ 'i i the seismic re-analysis requested by Mr. Tedesco in the October 14, t / 1980 letter should be reserved for the operating license hearing, and, v. hence, that it is irrevelant to these proceedings. Subject to that objection Applicant answers as follows: The pending seismic re-analy- -t sis requested in the October 14,1980.Tedesco letter has been considered s'l in arriving at the following approach towards designing and analyzing { the remedial fixes for the auxiliary building electrical penetration '1
- j area, the service water pump structure, and the borated water storsge i
j tank ring foundation:- Seismic forces obtained by application of FSAR M input c.riteria (i.e. modified Housner spectra and maximum acceleration j; anchored at.12 g) will be increased by a reasonable margin. Forces !p thus determined will be combined with other loads in accordance with applicable load combinations in arriving at design parameters for the v s remedial measures. In addition, with respect to the Diesel Generator 51 d A Building, Bechtel is attempting to evaluate the total margin which ' actually exists in excess of FSAR seismic design criteria. When discussions with the NRC Staff respecting possible redefinition 2 of seismic criteria applicable to the entire Midland site are completed, Applicant will evaluate the necessity for seismic re-analyses of any.or s' all Category I Structures, including those founded partly or entirely on plant fill. 1 . pg _ see N. J 591 'N * - ~~'mw
\\ ---2' ~~ . u.~... I? (. .fY,,. h 1(f) -[ If the answer (e) 'is yes, please provide copies of all documents relating to that re-analysis. m
- p..
Response
The documents pertaining to the design analyses of the remedial fixes for the service water pump structure, the auxiliary building 1
- 4
<] and the-borated water storage tank ring foundation (using the approach spelled out in the response to 1(e)) will be provided, as stated in the response to question (b). Applicant objects to O providing documents relating to the analysis of total margin in 4 excess of FSAR seismic design criteria for the Diesel Generator Building, for the reasons stated in the first sentence of Applicant's g' ': ' response to question 1(e). For the same reason, Applicant objects -a to providing in this proceeding future seismic re-analyses of l Midland structures as requested by the October 14, 1980 Tedesco k a letter. ) i, j ili e .) .1 -_e_
k,.; _a .__c .ia- .j r. o-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RECULATORY COFD!ISSION g- [ BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A>'D LICENSINC BOARD I, ' g-In the Matter of ) i CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329-0M ) 50-330-0M 3, . (Midland, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL i 'l ) 50-329-OL { 3 i 1
- j COUNTY OF WASHTENAW)
I )ss I FTATE OF MICHICAN ) .{ i 1 AFFIDAVIT OF BIMAL DEAR i. -l Bimal Dhar, being duly sworn, deposes and says ' hat he is employed i c l by Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation,'as an Engineering Superviser; that he is responsible for providing an answer to Consumers Power Company's 9 i Answer to NRC Staff Inter osatery No. 4 dated 11/26/80, and that.co tha best of his knowledge and belief the above information and the answer to the above Interrogatory is true and correct. .) ' b /imalDhar 4 .W h;l Subscribed and sworn to before me this /3 day of March, 1981. K l . Je t J,. h ~ 0.s., a Notary Public, Washtenaw Cotinty, Michigan My Connission Expires: Y.'.4.....,4-v, If 9/ / ( i:727.*.I A. "*:0 !;c:AM P'JI'::, L'~!!".100. :::0); KZ CQ7. CSS 103 J.1. i 4V.30.1562 T e e 1 T" 4 - -- y _
e. 1_ v. ~ y-I ' 'd W^ ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION iE BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD y j .In the Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50-329-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-0M ) ~ (Midland, Units 1 and 2) )_ 50-329-OL 50-329-OL ) ) COUNTY OF WASHTENAW) F )ss STATE OF MICHICAN ) AFFIDAVIT'0F NEAL-SWANBERG Neal Swanberg, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is j b employed by Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, as an Assistant Project Engineer; that he is responsible for providing amended responses to NRC Staff Interrogatories.co Consumers Power Company Numbers 1(e) I l and (f) and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above infor- ] -i untion and the answers to the above interrogstories are true and correct. 4 / .g,. Neal Swanberg' / Subscribed and' sworn to before me this / hn day of );o 1981. .a / . / / W,, J: V Misu Notatt Public, Washtenaw County, Michigan n My Commission Expires: % i" /,4/l*.* .n _ w
- -;"2".".\\. :: :: *
- .J.s 7
- ::.~. '
s- { h2 CG;*;'.!!;;;J M.. - ;.'.;.,;*:*" i 4i \\ - 1
~ .u w, n '. ~ n.
- ..s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CO.'DfISSION
\\ In the Matter of ) i CONSUMIRS POWER COMPANY ) et s. 329 ]3 0 } (Midland Plants. Units 1 and 2 50" 030]0 ) l l l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i 4 I hereby certify that copies of Amended and Additional Responses to Y-Certain NRC Staff Interrogatories Dated 11/26/80, with attached affidavits, were i served upon the following persons by depositing copies thereof in the United States Mail, first class postage on this 20th I day of March, 1981. t k Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Attorney General of the Michael Miller, Esq. State of Michigan Isham, Lincoln & Beale Stewart H. Freeman, Esq., One First National Plaza Assistant Attorney General Suite 4200 Gregory T. Taylor, Esq. Chicago, Illinois 60603 Assistant Attorney General 720 Law Building Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 Ti St. Paul, K!nnesota 55108 Myron M. Cherry, Esq. 5 One IBM Plaza D. F. Judd, Sr. Project Manager f Suite 4501 Babcock & Wilcox P. G. Box 1260 7 - Chicago, Illinois 60611 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall' t RFD 10 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Midland, Michigan 48640 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -Washington, D. C. 20555 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Mr. C. R. Stephens Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary Dr. Frederick P. Cowan U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6152 N. Verde Trail Washington, D. C. 10555 s. Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 _. gggesup MMM
.t l ,Y * ~ ='. ;n:. 9 Lester Kornblith, Jr. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nucisar Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Ralph S. Decker, Esq. Rou:e 4, Box 1900 Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Street i Midland, Michigan 48640 I Wi'liam D. Paton, Esq. Counsel fer the NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j '*ashington, D. C. 20535 33 1 ,- j Atemic Safe:y & Licensing Board Panel i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D. C. 20555 ' 4 i Barbara Sta iris 5795 North River Road ( Route 3 1* * / g i Treeland, Michigan 48623 J c-4.,. ". r.v.16, James E. Brunner Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue 't Jackson, Michigan 49201 1 i i e 0 t oe
- )
'I 1 t .+ _,, l
. n ': ~ ~_s ~. I s. w (i s Lt3ftL e, OtFA;Tast NT ~ -. o, .., ~,.. .ne,I e e.ese e.. .<4 ConsumeE 1; t rwsawa L ........e O f}g?ft f i y o g po,e,,s. won e,. s w se f company ' ~ ~ ~ - - G Seese d erase 'e 8ensend 8 Gab e Selsser 5 se pse e Generet Off 6ces: 212 West M'chigers Avenue. Jackson. MI 49201 * (S1?) 784 05S0 '# ~ Frenese M Sortemese J e so e, Leme, Osewd Chartes O Deemen J es=o e, March 9, 1981 A*"",[, o*',", n F G.a. - naherd L Mennes e 0"' George F Med e Lensrene M Moe.esay-wwwAKnw is A A8 Amon o niece n Dee d A PAtesensa Poista M nedis Masset P 7 Jon n nomineen f oes.e a need s cre Ja.cery A sende o sn e.. Williain D. Paton
- '"ud8",s" ****
AT e Counsel for the NRC Staff oa e ' v's a= UeS. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Theadeee J vesse Washington, D.C. 20555 ,f,, aus F
Dear Mr. Paton:
Attached hereto are Responses to NRC Staff Interrogatories dated November ) 26, 1980. The Applicant will file Responses to the Third Set of NRC j Staff Interrogatories prior to the prehearing conference presently scheduled for April 2,1981. - p Very truly yours,
- c. :e.
vt:a $hva a James E. Brunner vl q' yl Enclosure " T,y ,n . e f 7.'~ .s. p pu '8 .. ' q 2 g .\\ \\ k h8 di oo^ v s r '7f l L,9 h - o j,,, p m- ~ _i
.e ]V ~ - 10 y f Interrogatory 4 11-In the response to Question 15 of the NRC request, regarding plant fill, it is 5' stated that, " differential settlement primarily induces additional strain, l which is a self-limiting effect and does not affect the ultimate strength of I the structural members." Additional clarification of this statement is needed. 4(a) Why do you classify the resulting strains as self-limiting in nature? 4(b) How do you reconcile your statement quoted above with your statement .{ concerning the Service Water Pump Structure in the Management Corrective j Action Report No. 24, Interim Report 6, issued September 7, 1978 that the total design loada cannot be supported by the main-structure. h l Responsa j Applicant will provide a response'to this Interrogatory prior to the prehearing conference scheduled April 2, 1981. 1 t .] 1 t O ~
m r :_ '.Y ' 11 - Interrogatory 5 Your response to Questions 14, 28 and 29 of the, NRC request regarding she -a causes of cracks due to settlement, the significance of the escent of creeks, and the consequences of cracking, addressed only the existing condition of the Category I structures. .I 5(a) Have you performed analyses which provide tension field data under I design load combinations at any crack locations for each Category I-structure.
Response
There is a possibility that future differential settlement could cause larger rebar stresses and new or larger cracks. In such an instance, the larger cracks may be indicative of increased rebar stresses. However, j g since the design analysis of the structure assumes zero tensile strength for concrete, the existence of any crack would not be significant except i ?. l as an indicator of rebar stresses (and except for corrosion effects). To account for the possibility of increased rebar stresses due to future differential settlement, Applicant has conservatively analyzed maximum 4 rebar stresses which would be produced by future differential settlement. The method directly predicts future rebar stresses without predicting J future crack sizes. J f Wigh regard to the auxiliary building and the service water pump structure, since neither building is expected to undergo appreciable differential i, - settlement in the future, the problem of " crack propagation", which f F p evidences rebar stresses produced by such settlement, does not exist. With respect to the borated water storage tank, Applicant will determine the necessity of further crack evaluation following its decision on remedial actions to be undertakan. L f" - "~~ ~ rm}}