ML20093N751

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of NRC Recommendations of ASLB Position Re Stamiris Contention 2 Including Draft ASLB Proposed Findings & Input Into NRC Testimony Re Peck 790810 Statement on Electrical Penetration Area Structures
ML20093N751
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 10/19/1981
From: Kane J
NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML19258A087 List: ... further results
References
CON-BX17-016, CON-BX17-16, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408020127
Download: ML20093N751 (91)
v • d • e


Text

3., g. =,. n s -. g _..

=a..

n 4 t u.,

~.$

42 3 Cn h,,k en m@nh

()th r.

'/

5%,n,(a Gnwnvio., m.4c s.za -s1 iac. <=.,,,Jr.we.,qlwi s v.:..iao letc Eile.5N 21.u b g.,.w.i 4 r, a do p oo g49,..,nm 20.1 n.n q

h nsg(em M mem(as MLBhn15. na bgntIh%hnN B,

~

thWbbr, e Ww.x.\\

w H.m see<r p c.*

h M n.iz.

~

evtm Mt.6 h4. sq.,b[ c a,h.ho, 2Q) 3 37

'LN Oybc.n }v r==M rey) twJ pcLed n

I M b C g k h b beg k (dthg nCC 4 44r3 c,,,CC'ihnbCd J

  • ~s3 W TWA rp enu 6(ww% t.B

.a3 r.J c u s %,e nJ % A,h p L.,d d A t - k y, nt h c.,, h k., 2.. % Q k

h6 Moit4 C{puu.s<.4.,=, M h lvdt w d#. he h eis, 4 d.

.,,,s t%t

.=

k,,

  • N oexd q y(tk Cb 11.

4 i

bq, peis.r<4 (yj Ac ')

i A 2. - b,6 11 a cf}4.hd rawie r AB bg,,tnetraa,ahe.d icai,,ahrs

~

ne M

b, t resemi cphes msw.4,

sq g,A;

,,a

.,me, m v ~4, v

1 s

f, Thv, D M4 S <ri ha,,) wywSh he

$ L b - % Ykt.dec.3g h (t megg, Wi, ww,3 y *we% s.a,ua6dn=hlwd4i \\ $d,Ehlg

-... i SVf v.

<< u.u. m e

I% r l

y,hs mv.b o.cl 4 6 cAe.44 tss,;c mk Ase it-4,<sa t ~

~ iresti,% ci-S..ts i

WAdresitij ).f iTJM4.13 4 /'n Do n %)

bi We b md g5 pr 06Q %Is c egdence Mg,\\g(c. he hrcj k

=

4 1ktm l

j 6% dd 6c, yrs, ct 8,1 u,4 wik liv > o d r e v A

.c

= brwth}Lec. Scal rem.w.

f k esk.e. tLkden,mMj ke p ass adsey l

l egppggp7e4o71e lp&cxkbq.W.saub,@ss-Q.s3$

RICEB4-96 PDR

_, _ _ _,_ ]

. n..,,,,,

m g.- ~..=:; :. -+,3 = ~. ;

-_e=

,!.p

.g

.q

._w g m y.

.m

",~d i :s - !,

e t9 d.

,ic,

,i b psCo.,w t w 4.g 5-1sh Mcceu,2-,J-h.l A S

  • L fq E b 2

)

i T6, S Co.>t.,;, 3 u os k h.., cF h (S Nd)6,.M 4heil. 4 % L etie,~w n,ma gl.u,,,a t..oh - ugu w,wt.:.., s.

(c,.uc,#.JN ylocme t'yb a puldelhM) j

jk

.~

%cSco +p>hisw yeddedML64.<!4newyph he item b (.g.sd Me, u hPR.

d s c -sb c ts 1,9,a.b we dal nd uivea4 4fd 1

4h E4 sadv.up yogem klub 4 %.si nhwha (.6 h) hm 6 EI<d h e%uh. h mA MLDh>dnosephhedd,b[g.42:\\

% e.-,hd k i, w.

~

th sy s k hk. k u,,Jv Mtb $nds 'b,., c hjeucd Ih, cid,4 h to d

4-aspg4 %sy sy,ue+ G q.--st paa u kW calaneh rodut&, 4 scJsell k t

~

1

i. 2 w<a.

e h

orses wiNdpp agna 1

I i

l l

l I

s I.

I c

.~.7,__.,

_ __.. _.._ __ __g

2D.i.. i.~~~m

~

bMT i

\\

44l g

g. g 6"65 6

.. -,mi..o

<.m

..-,e.m n_m.

\\

.ete bulM6ag, Agency / Post) f bers b(CWh

{

3.

., u ft.yG i

i

'}

$y Action File Note and Retum 4

Approval For Clearance Per Conversation

f

';ie d 3

As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply

(

?,},h; Circulate For Your information.

See Me

8.
  • l n~ ment investisste signature fWdination Justify

, 'Q REMAaxa

,f A;.,hn

' hf 5.\\\\ts1 i73p

?

l

'I.bok vt.N ned 3 y dyg@ and had vnaje.1i

    • T 91 fN hr SVvnrrerg in W(g l

som<. rmnor Cornrnto Sood Ohd th*VO jfodd{h m f(cpflytj 2 b(C.

' l')

d

% b mong.

7 L

y goo WA% dx.oss%g camvnents t sn 1

w k

M,i cu% 2.-BtSI.'I.kvts 4 dMefenf olhct. h*W @,

jf i

? 2tB.

t i

kk?f i

i

. ':j ~

r

.,4

' t, 'df ;

l kk

, 9:

t;

.m,

~.

,)

i j

...,g'

,,, i.yle 1

j a

ht,-

S[fm,.r N

'.M. i.c.e 00 NOT use this fo'rm nr.,a RECORD of

.,i.

'.,*:l '

concurrences, .- _.

?

clearances. and sim r actions i

' x FROM:(Name, org. symbol, Agency / Post)

' Room No.-- Bidg.

g, i.

Mk '

Phone No.

l

'[

2-BL55 y

e 3043-102 lI OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76) *,

d reesseemos tv osa u e easa==sut reenn=e orrecs, ser& aso seesse FPtet let CFR) 301-11.201 8

f:

)

i.

3

=.

e e.,

h hs' hh6-es m m e.

to I l.%,rc i'

~

~.g 3c - ~

Sobed : Cc.,, mea on hp e6LB (ndin3, ppd by Euen keen

% d.

b 6.-

br.,e.,h j

o

~

y OpCIACbef.

UgGV O

R.

en o m t

t N

I ALnt del i4nc<@Jak.,.ithe AkJicyhpcm!

u& sbenk i,4u% \\ &4,9 At om na acwa&.

~

7 kk AA um v,4 mud Jun% k6ek we,de.

y sk aa oed recem,6hons.

,4.~.ck kb 9to '

h add d a m a nc.c a,. M %. bu p% f 44 yu.%. Pwsn in A bce,4o m.

.e see. y 4 4

Y1 Ne ccushon e@ek. mon) is necessoq bd Sy cc.,cludi$

sbb,nent is macc. orch.. New skdd kb. pwed ?

2 So tos Md was c,,e 4

~

kb bi kr.cuedion wecesso(q bd shdement ss irnccwaht. ka

-1:

4 m%e...a. 44% My bcennve

- - m-1 u w em m,-.m h acss-e,em, J ss te G

' =

0,*

x-

=

1 3.-

h 4-e D8g MM

- NgW me9,a+.

-'e6 Ww,gMi%.*.s

-Y

'd T

y e

e g

A m

o w

a m

1 a s.:

l g-c g

--, g t I

Qj bgEdgq-[h; [g{hM 4

  • ! k,l.3.E @,

.. d i j "[ !

,.hahh.

I " 3 f

I y 3 3 If %

- sl-.J {-

4 m g$.

g9 26*

> ;. g w. :..,.. q c.

a m

^

.by:f..

.u;w. n#.w

~

i

.&.i:

~1 i

.axw1

-.gFt.

i..

4.

ng

.,5g

.; =

g4 %ici5<,. g 's &,s.g%'82 i,.tr.

' g.

rf.<. m.

pkg

.1% 1 h,.y. A.gN

.y

...?~,r. A, l

<.,3...

v

?

. +,.

. h,sp 4,

7 S

]2ga g

1, 4

.~

8 3,g}1

~

t

. "s e.

9.:t ~

i%

..x l

.y & --s.a 1-g

-r-g n

- h;{ &... 1-e g.o -4 Eh3 a

t 2

@E.1

+5 2.e 2 j'

.g

,lr 2 a y y 3

'

  • A h-l R5

. j l

Wird a ~11 "avQ t '.a g,s i 3

g

@tQ c.

4 a1-e

,t flk

.- a d.f4

?,s a.

-3 44 y Q

p.:

FC o

=m a 2.-

-xs.. t

.a..g

- r Q. g 9.a

{::gp$ a.: 3., -g.- mr 3 g

poru r

.gg. Ld. mew.2 (-

3 -i a 5

-..q r

m.u h

^-4

- m j

~

g

.g.

,4

.y';'; E*

.'-s 'tY.5., c, i,, * ;dDE,h ;n m o

c

.?

2 2 1 g

~ ~%-

E.W. g 'g'

~^' W e I k@

.f-y' "E

G--2

' ts j

' iT

._,ig,aq - tr,C, K. g/~' g

  • g 7, y

z]3 '""

.s..

-1 a.

n g

e p

)

i

}

  • t;s'n % au*

~.

0

.o D

W

.~

,k

.iN dI l

l, l I

w h

)..-

~

~

d m, rf ~ mg}n~y'.y(g M. W.., W.

s

%p@p%.

W r.

.,~

a-5

~m, i i

.a e g

"..;w.=d

'~< b. :a h.?rs

}

,).%

y i

~

g

.m m

pg w

4 4

+u 8

+

-a w ! E q

=

~ ^

x;7,. P M.M,m.4,-

=,,y==v=-

x e

4 E

-4 3 m 3

. ~, ~

<-W G

t

.e r,,t 1

?,,

Y~

. f * *.%:5$

3 ')

t e

g a

i f B

-+

.+.

T ? ? '" * - {< W Y $ Y ~* Q '

~

f%

=

c g

4. }s h

.c

-s a

'ft-

?.

.)

lI l

e l.I l 1.. ' $5

  • ?: & $ ]

E E E $ R

  1. 3 It ;T 3 m

~t 2.h Q,~3 wdh E

c w

4 2

u g-1

& emu {

2- ~

3 m.%

%1 A s

- 2 n

>-eg,,

.,4

.#ve m,

=-

fa

.c p

' *$ a

,4 q

m 5

w r

3 m, p" a.

7.;s, M g..

2

._.ngs 3 *:

l

g; 3

n v$

.,'i..

2 r.

Eb j6 n

x.c a

? g ht;,][{'Nr%:pl1 ! is, T,2,h',

I-

-5 '.3

'd

{'

  • h*t J- _i..3 $

g 3 ) 3 E

k e

}.

E, o

-e IN E $ d $ p4 Th ".

. gM f.fM.,,,,,[ N@

. g E

~

k"T _

,$ Y

9..

Ih.x.....j hk-k$

~

}.

i g {g.,ij ih.4 h,'p*M

j [ 1 1

{

=. -,, e a

n:-

a wa,, 4 e-2.g f i..,.

~

I

..r 9 i

l} e

.w! ' h-3 3

1; g

t =*> N. gQ t i

  • n$

7 '-

= 2

=

k 2

'. 7 s

g1 5

e a

I

[.}

b

+

  • 3 dg@P g J j l l c

5 n

1 i a

=

M.4 }

3.. SI 8

E It x

e sa

.i. w d,

,4 d.

I ii0 W

-@y?. ;

9,,,,,' 3 i

g'

,,?g.y iW

-...-,-~~ -, _ -....

L.

+

i 4.

~

55. We note that Intervenor Stamiris' position is that all the examples stated in Contention 1, taken together, form a pattern which represents poor managerial attitude. We do not agree. Although we have found support for some of her examples, we do not conclude that these examples reflect on poor managerial attitude in general. Therefore, CPC's manage-f rial attitude does not necessitate stricter than usual regulatory super-i vision.

I i

56. Stamiris' Contention 2, as accepted by this Licensing Board in our i

October 24, 1980 Prehearing Conference Order Ruling on Contention and as supplemented by Intervenor Stamiris on April 26, 1981, states the folicwing:

)

Consumers Power Company's financial and time schedule pressures have 4

directly and adversely affected resolution of soil settlement issues.

which constitutes a compromise of applicable health and safety j

regulations as demonstrated by:

g (a) the admission (in response to i 50.54(f) question #1 requesting

.i identification of deficiencies which contributed to soil settle-

," ment problems) that the FSAR was submitted early due to forecasted t

3 OL intervention, before some of the material required to be included 4

was available; 7

1 4

(b) the choice of remedial actions being based in part on expediency, 9

j as noted in Consumers Power Company consul, tant R.B. Peck's statement j

.c ;

of 8-10-79;

-}

(c) The practice of substituting materials for those originally specified j

j for " commercial reasons" (NCR QF203) or expediency, as in the use of j

concrete in electrical duct banks,(p. 23 Keppler Report)*;

4

.i

(

]

5

  • March 22, 1979 Keppler Investigation Report conducted by Region III, Dec. 78 - Jan. 79..

3 I

i!

L=mM Y q W W f =- ~-y23p

}

y

.o

-l l

24 -

'l (d) continued work o'n the diesel generator building while unresolved

)

safety issues existed, which precluded thorough consideration of j-Option 2 - Removal and Replacement Plan; and (e) the failure to freely comply with NRC testing requests to further 1

evaluate soil settlements remediation, inasmuch as such programs

.f are not allowed time for in the new completion schedule presen.ted July 29, 1980.

[

4 1

April 20.1981 Supplement to Contention 2 t.

Further examples of the effect of financial and time pressures on j

soil settlement issues:

i y

Examples Effect on soil settlement issues i

1:

1.

11/7/78 Bechtel action 1.

Root causes not adeq. investi-J, item: " proceed with pre-gated. Organizational defi-8 parations for preload as ciencies not eliminated prior rapidly as possible" to proceeding with remediation 3

2.

11/7/78 decision to fill 2.

Affected piezametric measure-pond "immediately, because ments during preload 3

the amount of river water e

available for filling is a

restricted" 4

S 3.

11/7/78 "5-month period is 3.

The surcharge was removed at 5

available in the schedule

- the end of this 5 months

.".,for preloading"

~ --

despite lack of NRC satis-

.1 faction that secondary con-solidation was assured 4.

Failure to grout gaps prior 4.

Resulted in additional i

to cutting of duct banks -

stresses to DGB which could a

failure to cut condensate have been avoided f

1 lines when first suggested, 1

failure to break up mudmat o

1 at DGB l

l I c:

5.

Choice to continue con-5.

Eliminated practical con-j struction of DGB sideration of Removal &

Replacement Option 1

i

.[..

=

r-q ' ~ ; - yy_.._.

" ~,..

-3 ^

7

'. c ?.@ vf $$

f f ; *-

.%.,.,k,'f-

.o l

25 -

I

~]-

i 6.

Early FSAR submittal and 6.

Precluded early detection of 1nadequate review of FSAR inconsistencies which could l

have prevented some of the

^

L s.s. problems I

f 7.

Failure to reconstruct geo-7.

Varying degrees of cau-1l metry of area prior to fill tion and conservatism.

jl placement, failure to await were foregone in favor

}l NRC approval before prosaed-of cost and schedule 1

ing with Preload, selection advantages

?;

of "least costly feasible al-

[

ternative" for DG8 s:

'~

t 8.

Failure to excavate loose 8.

Contributed to inadequacy i-sands as committed to in PSAR of subsoils.

9.

Installation of preload in-9.

Expenditures for preload in-1 strumentation was subject to strumentation (CJD 11/1/78 1

time pressure assoc. with memo) prior to formal frost protection considerations adoption of preload = pre-5 mature commitment i

10. Appeals to NRC to consider 10.

If granted, would affect 1

financial plight and schedule seismic--soil settlement

. 'j deadlines as ir. Seismic standards Deferral Motion j

11. Depth and breadth of sur-
11. Afforded less than optimum f

charge limited by prac-conditions for surcharge 3

tical consideration of DGB,

~ ']n,;,,

Turbine B. structures g

a q

12. Changes to design (DGB foun-12.

Contributed to settlement dation), material, or pro-or stress problems and al-l ceedural [ sic] specifications lowed conflicts to go un-j G

without proper approval noticed as preventative indicators e

1

57. The Staff filed testimony by Darl Hood, Joseph Kane and Eugene Gallagher 4

1 in response to Stamiris' Contention 2.,The Staff's,prefiled testimony 4

a i

which follows Tr. 2530 is hereafter referred to as Staff Testimony on j

4 j

Contention 2.

CPC submitted testimony by Stephen Howell in response to 6

b o

% 9 i]

~

6-

...4

. s. -

I 5 f-[,[.

[... ~,' ;

~#

7. u :. g 1.

=

n

~.

v

~

s.:

'[

l,,

  • ~

.1

.?

tr,-

\\

i

.i I

-i Contention 2(a)and(d). Mr. Howell's prefiled testimony follows 1

i Tr.'2802.

It is hereafter referred to as Howell.

CPC submitted testi-y.

mony by Benjamin Marguglio in response to Contention 2(c). Mr. Marguglio's 3'

-3 prefiled testimony follows Tr.1425.

It is hereafter referred to as 4

N Marguglio.

CPC submitted testimony by James Cook in response to 1

1:

I Contention 2(e). Mr. Cook's prefiled testimony follows Tr.1693.

It is j

hereafter referred to as Cook. CPC also submitted testimony by Gilbert Keeley in response to Contention 2(a) and supplementary examples 8 3

and 9.

Mr. Keeley's prefiled testimony follows Tr.1163.

It is hereafter referred to as Keeley. Finally, CPC submitted testimony by Dr. Ralph Peck in response to supplementary examples 1, 2, 3 and 11 to Contention 2.

8-I Dr. Peck's testimony follows Tr. 3211.

It is hereafter referred to as Peck.

Intervenor Stamiris presented no direct testimony but rather at-tempted to rely on cross-examination to support Contention 2.

Intervenor t

Marshall conducted limited cross-examination of Staff and CPC witnesses.

3

}

I'

... a.. :-

- + -w cias t a -

. s.-

j :

58. During the hearing, Intervenor Stamiris conceded that cost and schedule q

~

considerations are a practical and realistic part of any nuclear plant n

1 project. Tr. 2853. She contends, however, that there have been unusual j

time and financial pressures at the Midland project and that these un-lj usual pressures have led to unusual responses by CPC. Tr. 2854. Although not expressly stated in Stamiris' Contention 2 it became apparent during

'l q

w j

J e

. (

~

  • ~~^

~ e

,'.~

s

%l...~ :.

d:.

.. p L, ~

.. f ",";'-y )l.;j;.; d L

~~l*

.:\\ _ L ' '

T

."r m ".

.;.y y.

p.

.s.

~

6~ &

!! $.% -.g..N

4:._.,b.

k-

,.; n. b. A.* G..~. ;L.' .; h%-

B..'_+2.r.>f.M@d..ig ;;..~n..n. -c.s.. c.g%,,g;-

t-

~

i.
n..

~

,. +. s y

... n. -

< - 42 ' !.R l4;W=:.% W:.,..,smi;'._ ;*?.5.% 3W

  • yT..,Lf;;* h;, ;2-T ?..w. r A Lf s

i d

.m *: 5,.

& wm i - m.m a. _ _ w - ~ n -

=-

e n

.t lr 3

i 4

-l

=

the course of the hearing that Intervenor Stamiris believed that the

~

i steam contract between CPC and Dow Chemical Company (Dow) was a major i

cause of the " financial and time schedule pressures" referred to in 9

4 Contention 2.

Accordingly, we allowed cross-examination of the witnesses 4

-1 on the contract between CPC and.Dow.

'(

59. Mr. Howell, Executive Vice President of CPC, testified to the general

,lt tems of the steam contract between CPC and Dow. He explained that the

.3 i

4) contract called for CPC's best efforts and provided that if CPC cannot i

t

~1.

1 supply processed steam to the Dow plant by December 31, 1984 Dow has j

1 the option to withdraw from the contract with appropriate payment of 4

A costs. Tr. 2850. Mr. Howell added that Dow's costs, should it choose I

to withdraw from the contract, would be in the neighborhood of a half j

million dollars.

Id.

i 1

2 y

60. Mr. gook, Vice President of CPC, testified that in the latter part of- ~

1 1979 CPC realized that the Midland Plant could not be completed on the T

then existing schedule. Cook, p. 5.

Although Mr) Cook was not part of j

the Midland project at the time, he opined that. this realization resulted

+-

yj from Three Mile Island requirements and from an analysis by CPC and li t

L Bechtel on the status of the project. Tr. 1718. Mr. Cook admitted that

}

the revised completion dates presented by Bechtel in 1979 extended beyond l

~

]

the December 1984 steam contract.date. Tr. 1719. He explained that CPC i

was strongly motivat'ed to improve on Bechtel's estimated completion dates s

but that the steam contract with Dow was not the major reason behind the -

,[:

motivation.

Ed. 4 r,~

L.-4.,: '.. ~,...

.t p u.g.. a ::.c.y.~ u. e

.a

'~ " W :-; W m.s. : ? b **:'.tw'~ :'.

-,.i y[ $.3 *, ~'?[;;;.y.a.:q ;9:; ' - '

l

(

9

..xgRj.;g,, G.,g;.{fgs.j:y7j;], }:[-Q. Qg.y...,,, l;..*-.

t

........:,..~.,.~,&w5'".'*-....,*. L'1:, :

~

2'y.

.g

..?

W.*

D.....

... v sp w.La"* ?W

- ~~

.-x. lp 'a..~; ;i.:. M.=e.6 f:

' Z... ;*.':.'*d as,;;.~r,. '

e..l*

  • C~; ~ ' W.-

m!h;y,',' L'-:- e..:

,;.. v

+W.m.y.g.g r."n a =%4r p v:,;d6.=r~ p, Q. y ?

, p..

ey -

n.

t m

w y,

~ _ _. _.

i x

l

  • i

]

61. Staff testimony of Mr. Hood responded to Stamiris' Contention 2(a) which 1

l addressed early submission of the FSAR. Mr. Hood's direct testimony j

l l

referred to a written statement by CPC which indicated that the FCAR was y'

submitted early in order to provide additional time for the operating L

.j license hearings due to anticipated intervention. Staff Testimony on I

b 0 l Contention 2, p. 7.

Mr. Hood testified that the Midland FSAR was tend-l l

l1 ered to the NRC in August 1977.

Id.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.101, the Staff J

1 perfomed an acceptance review and determined that the FSAR was suf-ficiently complete for docketing.

Id. Mr. Hood testified that it is not I

s unusual for the Staff to accept and initiate review of an FSAR without in-clusion of all the material which eventually will be required for com-pletion of that review.

Id., p. 8; Tr. 3693.

In addition, Mr. Hood ex-plained that the difficulty associated with certain FSAR statements, i.e.

composition and compaction requirements of the fill, did not involve in-formation excludad from early versions of the FSAR, but rather involved their accuracy.

Id. Thus, the Staff concluded that early submission of the FSAR had no bearing on the soil settlement problems, nor did it com-

'i r

promise applicable health and safety regulations.

Id., p. 9.

i t it ii

62. CPC testimony of Mr. Howell on Stamiris' Contention 2(a) was substantially f

Ll consistent with the Staff testimony.

Mr.' Howell testified that CPC's li o

j decision to file the FSAR early was influenced by. he expectation of a t

)

- l lengthy hearing associated with. public intervention and not by improper'

~

motives. Howell, p. 20. His testimony explained that the NRC reviewed 2

the FSAR and found it acceptable for docketing.

Id. Mr. Howell noted 2.'.y ]g.:

~

{

~?..

t

.(,.

~

f....

h., ? ?.,

>I.

.. _.w

.- w

~. :

y *p *,

'*f,"'-

,.. g f.

.r.e

.,q'Q

,e

.y-3.

~'&

k{;. l

  • y; h *

?

  • ,.M
Ty?.

.i. fffL. $-l j

~ '

L

~

a

},*.

o.

4~

.t m

s k ;

i l

t,Mt revision and supplementation of the FSAR following its initial

.... n.. -

q. _.

4

~

filing isity;iical.

Id. ~pp. 9-10.

He concluded that early submittal of I

l the FSAR did not contribute to the FSAR inconsistencies. Tr. 2869-70.

1

63. Based on the facts presented above, the Boardx finds no support for '

1 i !

Contention 2(a). All of the testimony indicated that there was nothing f 'i q

' unusual with CPC's early submission of the FEAR. Furthermore, we note t

, that both the Staff and CPC witnesses did not believe there was any connection between the early FSAR submittal and the FSAR inconsistencies c

,that wers discovered later. Thus, we find that early submittal of,the FSAR did not directly or adversely affect resolution of soi1 settlement issues.

64. Staff testimony of Mr. Kane responded to Stamiris' Contention 2(b).

's Mr. Kane testified that the Staff's understanding of the " expediency"

~~

statement attributed to Dr. Peck was that the proposed remedies to under-

.w,..

-mu..

a.

pin.the electrical penetration area structures and the feedwater isolation i

valve pits could be comp 19ted within the constructfon schedule which thea existed. Tr. 3681. Mr. Kane referred to the/ August 10, 1979, y

50.55(e) interim report from Mr. Howell to Mr.,Keppler attached to which was a document containing Dr. Peck's' allege,d " expediency" statement.

-~

5 Mr. Kane stated that the Staff was not concerned with Dr. Peck's state-s..

l{

mentaince the underpinning design. ultimately would have to be reviewed o p ad.

~

m%..

l and apprceched by the Staff.

IdTThe Staff c~oncTuded tfiat Dr. Peck's'

~

i a.

....u-j statement did not demonstrate financial and time schedule pressures which

. t' s a..... a a

. =, ~.

2 t,

adversely affec ed resolution of the soil httlement issues.

O:<;7. & v.-5'%.* yy @: M N Tr. 3682.'

~W

+ n -- ;

L.;. L :

t

. L?m y,5,.i:.g g-07:

. ~

r:

..~

.: 3:s ;: q_h?[.V.h.h,-

~.

l: Gik'Y M L ;WW%~.ca?.'

~

.f s.. $

$.+ ;q hl'l

. : 2:LT=N' $ mas::

bh.lf.

k.

m:.

' A.k**( '*,'.., y: 2.7. ?, M. r : =.L M__. L. % $ Y C.

.. T '.Th; 2.

n g y.4. fs. _

k f g ;M hWh h 2 c

-i t%

.Q*g*..

'a -

@.7 A

  • $ W ",'.'Q

, E.;

6 caw;-:-MO f. REM 5NEkb.

y gWi$fp3.MiB;ngg.;m

  • e-4

)

i 21 30 9

1 1

4

~

4 Dr. Peck gave no direct testimony on Contention 2 (b) nor was he

65. :..

+-e...

-~

cross-examined on the subject.

l J. i 3

t Based on the facts presented abcve, the Board finds no support for, j

66.

Contention 2(b). We note that Intervenor Stamiris chose neither to question Dr. Feck concerning the " expediency" statement nor to intro-duce the document containing the statement. Furthennore, the only 1t

. testimony offered on Contention 2(b) concluded that it did not represent C

an example of financial and time pressures which adversely affected resolution of the soil settlement problem.

4 i

b

67. Staff testimony of Mr. Gallagher responded.to Stamiris' Contention 2(c).

t Contention 2(c) referred to NCR QF 203 (nonconfonnance report) as an example of when materials were substituted for those originally specified -

(

for commercial reasons. Staff testimony on Contention 2 attached NCR I

QF 203 which identified three instances where user test reports for granular soil material did not meet specification gradation limits. See i

e.

In one of the three instances (use'r test report 0836) the t

[

]

NCR stated that the nonconfonning material was, accepted for commercial a

Staff Testimony on Contention 2, pp'. 8-9; Attachment 2, pp. 5-6.

j reasons.

s'

' j Mr. Gallagher testified that the in-process corrective action for the i

5 three' cases was found acceptable based on a review of the facts.

Staff 4,j Testimony on contention 2, p.10." He concluded that none of the three "

l-nonconforming conditions adversely or directly affected resolution of f:

,i i

TJ

'E the soil settlement issue.

Id. -

1

...L A

-x -

. n -

3. '

, '. 4.

.r :d. K,, j..,..).};~w'~3y f R

. T

~.

., 'y._ _., '.r

,. }. s.,%

l~

r

<:t g

,n-

.a...... '".m

..?,

' ?..

. +..

5

.Y

~t*'*,,

.,w. s.a},

t.

y ** d

~

gE,

..c

- u c..

  • y ; {,[ [

l'y';j'd.

.". g *. n.' t *./,,. 's,...o{.'s..... -~, }.i } ' 2 ;,.g.R g',

    • ' N 7 p as --

. L.

~., -

., e -

4}*,

f*

k*

"$e lh?'

.Q ?,.h,

{; _

^

L. %. 4 4 + %. M w e M N H M S L== W n: Y ::= p 2 c[ a y w 3: M _ _..

  • w

wJ.

35

- j

[

31 -

t

68. Contention 2(c) cited the use of concrete in electrical duct banks which

.f

-]

was addressed in inspection report 78-20 as an example of expediency.

.i 1.

v.

[1 Mr. Gallagher testified that investigation report 78-20 was not concerned i

with the substitution of lean concrete for soil bu't instead was concerned

'd that design contro% did not verify whether the substitution of concrete y

q j

would affect the ' design interface of the structure. Staff Testimony on S

=

1 Contention 2, p.10.

In addition, expediency was not the issue in in-3

,j

{

vestigation report 78-20. Thb iss e was the adequacy of the design co-j

.i i

ordination associated with the substitution of concrete in the electrical j

I li i

,i duct bank area.

Id. Mr. Gallagher testified that concrete was sub-1 4

stituted for soil for ease of construction; he explained that it would 4

have been difficult to compact soil in the small areas surrounding the electrical duct banks. Tr. 2566. He concluded that the substitution of 1

i the lean condrete had nothing to do with expediency or time and financial j

E pressures. Tr. 2563, 2567, 2572.

In fact, Mr. Gallagher testified that T

he is not aware of any instances where time and financial pressures af-

..-...----~~m-

,. : a,..

=

fected soil settlement actions taken by CPC. Tr. 2542.

n e

$,i

69. CPC testimony of Mr. Marguglio responded to Conte.ntion 2(c).

His testi-1 many was similar to that provided by the. Staff; With respect to NCR

j

]

QF 203, Mr. Margugliu testified that the materials in question complied E ;

with the construction specifications. Marguglio, p. 41. He explained r; J, l

that the NCR had been written because the materials did not satisfy the 1

p 1-standards found in the " receiving inspection plan".

Id. Thatpignwas P ;

. r

[ [

an internally developed documen't which had stricter requirem'ents for the i-N oe g

.-g p

T g

a

-~..-m

  • . a' c v sm 5 gp

..g.g

......~.j....y,$'

.s y r. ~.

,y

.. I

  • I' n

,, ~.

p,

,, {f -.

E,

'..'~' dS

  • ~ ~

[_

= 4,'

d j'Q')& [f*(e'umd

, ' D %.a'[ *

,?**

".'-*".- u "**

,',. ".i~'i

.f l

' '*' } f L. ~. }

  • J...

j'y 3s5

.,,_,,L 7. ;

,.w w d

'.m.4 '.( = w.).M-5 % h &L? %-s %.

? L : p%.L.::i.u'.iG:--&3.M -n.G&.V.%.sfpg p ~egaw: t :s 5m:w;gg -

f.q.ce.- c:W -

g.pMM x n d : W d d M ?.e. w. yJ s k d u? M b @c:19. au--Am nj y%x gg g

ra&na.nt%2M.

w z n z,.

m.

~. _ _ _

y.

.'- r

~,,

32 -

i

.. 3 ; _.

I materials than the " requirements found in the construction specifica-

~

e.;,e.w p:.e.

tions.

Id.. Mr. Marguglio concluded that the receiving plan was '

1 q-incorrect and that in fact material that met the construction specifica-tions had been used. Id.

{

o.; - -

.a

70. With respect to the substitution of lean concrete for soils materials, 3

Mr. Marguglio testified that the substitution was made because of the

.j difficulty in compacting soils material around the electrical duct banks.

e aarguglio, p. 41. The substitution was in accordance with construction I

specification C-211' which provided for the use of lean concrete instead of soils material.

Id. Mr. Marguglio concluded that there was no basis for-a c

the allegation in Contention 2(c) that financial and schedule pressures j

compelled CPC to take certain actions involving soils' materials that com-promised health and safety and caused the DGB settlement. Marguglio, 1

pp. 41-42.

.._...m..__._

..n

. e.:..

......,..e

~. _.

1

}

71. Based on the facts presented above, the Board finds no support fcr t

1 n

Stamiris' Contention 2(c). We note that none of the actions which the L

i

/

j contention cited either resulted in a compromise of health and safety

ll 1

regulations or adversely affected the soil settlement problem.

l) i l1 e

3 t

72. Staff testimony of Mr. Hood responded to S'tamirts' Contention 2(d).

i',

I The Staff, disagreeing with the. contention, stated that continued work

  • p t.

'a

  • ' ~
  • o_W "e

4,.

i-A a

. Q

' g~'.5%h 3b.

'.?-. a* rat 5.

>;,i;. m. :....~ -

2-l,Y.

- ~

(1,'i ~

~.,47 '..

.. u; c ';

3

~

+

,..+

....-Y m.t. :~). *w+!, ' e V.

.. ::^ ;

_.,.., ' 'g.,,*...

  • O., a. 4....: 3,. ;, s.r. ~ - *-,

t S

  • JG ? --.
i. -

-* e; -

i [.

~ g?;,

u

~-

.u

=,

g a *.

( g [,

y, ' i

.e, y g

,., l N.

s-*

.i*'5",','.

,.._.T...

e

  • T

.a

.r.-

.t,

- o,. m..,

. e-m' =,. ey 3

. t.. r y + * *-

Q. f.

.2

.*.,., [.,

[.,, ;, u,'h',*,.

. ~.s.

a-2.n :,x,,. :,3,,[.",,..

I.

7,. y ; 3,

.1

+

q mc4 7.,...

,y+*-

,g,

.e

+

l y,

.,. 9..

~4.1.. :.- v. ? y r~.F% e.. - * -.m. ~ =.m-g;... IN M

,. ye

--%. -q.y.,;s.3gyr u,,.:.

p. tnt.:2.fyGG2Mw..,:.

l@ k N2?M2-5N$$NS9$[$ @ ;EGIG $$w'%;.;M M}MMl?fd M

..v'

.~

y a

f.

f. ;}

i.-

I

~

- =.,

-.... t.,..

-Q, on the DGB did not foreclose consideration.of the removal _ and replace-

l

.~.u.

2..j g.:

.z,.

ment option as a viable alternative. Staff Testimony on Contention 2, i.].

.~ -

C p.'11.

During cross-examination,' Mr. Hood clarified that he used the

<Jl

'i j

word " viable" in the sense that the removal and replacement option.is J

1._

1, technically possible or feasible; his use of the word did not address q'

)I the economics of the option. Tr. 4307, 4310. He commented that'

' {.". ',

implementation of the removal and replacement option in 1981 would be

_jf 3

more difficult t.1.an implementation in 1978 because of several structures i

ad,Jacent to the DGB which had not been constructed in 1978. Tr. 4311.

4 Mr. Hood concluded that the removal and replacement option remains a l

viable alternative should it prove necessary.

Staff Testimony on Contention 2, p.11. The Staff further noted that the decision to' con-tinue construction on the DGB involved considerable financial risk since

{

in the event the preload was not successful, the removal and replacement option would have to be implemented. _ Id.,

~~

~

v.g -,

-_.-.'%e...

j ',

p ; ]-

i s _-

73. On cross-examination, Mr. Hood testified that Dr. Peck considered both

'j r

1 the removal and replacement option and the surcharge option acceptable

[.

Y approaches at the December 4. '1978 meeting. Tc. 4231; see Staff Testimony n,

+

e

-l.

on Contention 2, Attachment 11. He testified further that he had no direct evidence that Dr. Peck felt that the removal and replacement op-en n..

l tion was batter from an engineering standpoint than the surcharge option.

.. p,..

Tr. 4426. 4 i+q ' 2

. e. - __.

J.-

4 s

q;:.,,..

  • . :. ~

}q

.c

.~= [ } '_., 3..q : ".,, :.,.

g';

. :. ;, + a.:.

' ;.i * '.

74.

9 The direct testimony.of Mr. Howell responded to Stamirls' Contention 2(d) u d.;,48:2 2 7.~ m,- ;, : W g a.: p.. u ": v 4 : p..

.? p 3 m ;,, -

, n-yg r:,:.sW O ', @o..

Mr. Howell's testimony submitted that both the premise and conclusion of;h, pch,'.J.

..... g. gn - n. y :-. m,. z.

=... c ~ e m.

.a _, -. :

a.g,,

hh

)

"G,

--lT.

.$,,k.

'k-

,f,,

s i

  • h

_ O NN h,;-

m,'; y e':-,p.. g a @hst -]m'b 'i-.g. (.gyg';

[w^e.' '- -*'

wemw s.w. w,rmw;p,,,

g., L M.w

.h. %

w-T; @

w.aq a* r1G

~ GM4cc4%,2 hM.. M.L%&,RA5DE%.

i,N -

w

3

.=

a

},

~

Contention 2(d)wereincorrect. Howell, p. 21. He stated that the con-m

~

u.

tention is factually incorrect since work on the DGB was stopped on i-August 1978 soon after the excessive settlement was discovered and was not-

'I

~!,

resumed until a complete investigation determined the cause of the settle-

~!

ment and the safety consequences of resuming construction.,

Id. Further-

.5 l;J more, construction was resumed with the concurrence of the soils consul-.i'-

f 4

tants who had recommended surcharging as an appropriate remedy.

Id.

[,

4 I

Tr. 2872. Mr. Howell testified that adding more weight to the structure '

f by continuing with construction could only complement the surcharge

~

program.

Howell, p. 21.

j.

A i

75 Mr. Howell's testimony described the process by which the remedy for the e;

l DGB was selected.

Initially the best consultants in the field were i

retained.

Howell, p. 22. Their task was to present remedial options to i

the project management. Id. Out of six options that were developed only i Xi'"

m, two were found suitable - surcharging the DGB or removing and replacing-a the UGB. Howell, pp. 22-23. The consultants ultimately reconnended the l1 7..

fonner option and CPC chose to proceed with the surcha'rge program.

l1

.I l

Howell, p. 23.

J s

a;'

~

)

s l!

76. Mr. Howell testified that only after a v'iable technical solution to the;

~

~

L1 lj DGB' settlement was found were other ' factors such as cost and construction -.

a y.-

l schedule considered. Howell, p. 22.

In this regard, Mr. Howell stated.. f.

-h ; J 4 :.c. x.

- m.

a.

7...g,

ll that CPC's philosophy has always been that.the technica p

1;-+..:. g..

c ~,

p.:s...

solution is a prerequisite to the consideration of its time and financial ~

.r lt

- McMiM:f.Pnw;;M WtM sp?.'J.M.F@viyittsj

.. a.c.:;. 5.The surcharge option was the more a consequences.

Id.

p--

..y

~;;.%xm.y l gyp.Q?7, q..,

% g u n: 4 5 %.;,': % l Q % $ g g m yggy.qig. gig _yg bf.

b r

nhim

~.... _.,

._._m y

i.

r.

.w.

se.

s

?.

,,,2.']( .' : *.'-

~

~

-e.

T

, ~,...

, 4-?y-.?cx' :...:.:.

...; ;.. c,.;L.

\\..

. M.

is nce not only was it technically adequate but also because it was same 3y

-w.

p

' ~

m 9,. ::q%.. ; -

n c. 3 what less expensive and time consuming than the removal and replacement t

~'

1 solution.

Howell, p. 23. Moreover, the surcharge approach did not pre-

)

clude the removal 'and replacement option. Mr. Howell's testimony con-

.g_._.,,..

,,n

~

. g.

w

.1 cluded that, in view of the results of the surcharge program,1t had not fi _

/

L j

~

compromised any applicable health and safety regulations. Howell, p. 24.

-g, i

.s.

j f

~. -

1

77. On cross-examination, Mr. Howell testified that the surcharge option had-c.

4n..

not been adopted for all practical purposes in October 1978. Tr. 2886. ' q '~

~

3 3

4-t 2'

While Mr. Howell personally does not advocate the removal and replacement c

option, he stated that the option is both technically and economically feasible. Tr. 2887-88.

g 4

i

.1

. s l

78. Mr. Keeley testified on cross-examination that the removal and replace-1 f

l

, ment option was carefully considered prior t6 the decision to proceed l

"~ ~ w *

~

. ~..'. C. K '.

. y-

" '~*

~

-'d with.the surcharge option. Tr. 1273. He admitta, howner, that he '

~~d 1

t recalled no indepth discussion of the removal and, replacement option in T

either 50.55(e) or 50.54(f) submittals. Tr. 1407 He stated that the 7

removal and replacement option was ruled out in late fall of' 1978 and

]

that the surcharge program was formally adopted in December 1978.

Tr. 1243-44. Mr. Keeley testified, as did Mr. Howell, that the removal. 4..

J

..u.

and replacement option was economically feasible should circumstance ; M.T

.,,, v w - ; a'a % ; v.- /..

J.B' W

'E require its implementation. Tr. 1351.

g,-- -

. 3. g M9pg..g :: :y. ;

.e

. l ;4. l_

& f jg.t Q :: q t. j j

~ -

On cross-examination, Dr. Peck testified that' work on t U.' :1-79.

y c; - l.

yy.u.;

, ; ;:g.._ qQ^y.5.L-

.o, t

CN y b.y,p;, -x.

- T., :,: ;zu::;2 -;-g g;,4r*.

'.yp.%;:.;,s :,;,m;.5:;.l%i'ug 5Q..

h."ll.5{. h C.=.ij C:.:{n.h k 5 @ $ Y la${ k $ k$ ${i ? e: 0

-.r.

.+.

p:

q; n

%w;%

y

. g Sg=2 g4s g p qM,

~

- % ;* f s.

W 'M 4

L

.. I.

.W N5

r __

t g

+^T i

on I

surcharge was placed. Tr. 3347. He stated that he and Dr. Hendron funn

.. r w..

...... C, m F,-

. q...a.,

j ally recomended the surcharge option to Bechtel and CPC at the ~ _ " M.'

.g3_ j November 7,1978 meeting in Champaign. Illinois. Tr. 3414; see Stamiris

-[ -

~.

  • 3 i

exhibit 22.

~, y g

~J

80. Dr. Peck testified that after assessink the removal and replacement d

option on its geotechnical merits he concluded that it would result in j

m..4 71 an inferior foundation compared to the foundation that would result from

'y 14 1

a, a

~j surcharging the DGB. Tr. 3337-39. Thus, although he could not recall.

]

4 1

precisely what he had said a,t the December 4,1978 meeting with th.e NRC,..-

.t v: 3

..x q

he doubted that he had said anything to the effect of "[s]hort of removing all of the fill above the hard glacial till, a 'preload program' O

~

would be the best approach." Tr. 3342-43; see Staff Testimony on 1

u i

1 Contention 1 Attachment 11, p. 3.

J

.J 1

1 4

2M

81. Consistent with the testimony of other witnesses. Dr. Peck stated that the

-- -- - - ~

em

.. _... _:_.:. J3 3

i removal and replacement option could still be implemented at this date.

j q

Tr. 3477. He added, however, that it would be somewhat difficult because 1-j of the relatively confined area around the DGB. Ir. 3473-74.

.]

4 4

?

.+

4 3

82. Dr. Hendron testified that the surcharge option had not been selected for

,-l g

J,

~f

q all practical purposes in October 1978. Tr. 4074.

In this regard, he '-

a },,3 3

y.z..

r: -

stated that his coments during the October 8,1978 inspection and dis-t..

a 9

.~

+g z.

> ~. =

3 9 ?iv e 2 f = Q.

~

1 cussion indicated that surchargihg was one possible way of approaching..il".d}

.a.m., MD W'.'+',5f.. g '

lI

~ '

.s. ~., vCdL. ::

i

. w m s;.p-g @,..

u-

, y M.'..n. 3:,.;W

.3

'i?

e M4;.C,2 r 13 L.;.J.

,..( i.il.hi..'*q,: k?{ :dw'&-7.-.M' $ Y:f-y2 hti.'.C'*d.?$a'$2WN'W"g': y[' h}m g - *L, a- -

.L

=-

h t'

l<

ww. e%.

wa a

., m.anw...a gw pG n

,p;

, =.

~

c Pu23

--. y,:, s.p.4n ;qp.;g gq. pg,;p> : pgv.gyyz gp;;g&y y;w$

w.y= :- i-p

.c c

v-3; A

~

.o

,u

- -*Lg;g+. p x,.,

J

. f. } &.. :f.'l,., &. f.q. :... =.

. = :,l',

.a l

a; w.....

P-the problem, not that surcharging ~was the'only or recommended approach. J.J*"

ms.,,..

~

. n z.~:= s rzu.y3 Tr. 4010; see Stamiris exhibit 20. Dr. Hendron stated that all options,-

.m

...:-=,

1 including the removal and replacement of the DGB and fill, were discussed -

, g.

^

a g.

openly at the November'6,1978 meeting. Tr. 4037, 4045-46, 4048, 4074; f '3. 7.C vc,

.11 1
,

r Dr. Hendron testified that he was not aware of M ;E,

c...q.

j see Stamiris exhibit 22.

~.

_..y ;, w.m q 1

anyone who thought that he believed that the removal and. replacement,-s.. : c.

~

c q

A

,s

. -- 2 a

.,.;]~-,4 A d.

.i option was superior to the surcharge option. Tr. 4049.

Nor did he ever.

a

?,FN]

think that it was a better option. Id. ~

. %w+..

y x

4

. ~

. ~ ~..

83. Based on the facts presented above, the Board finds no support for

.p Contention 2(d). Although there was little documentary evidence of how thoroughly the removal and replacement option was considered,"we

~

note that four witnesses testified that it was considered prior to l

adoption of the surcharge program and we have no reason to question their credibility. Moreover, neither continued work on the DGB.nor

  • c..

n +..

-.. ::;;c ~.

j thejurcharge program precluded implementation of the removal and re '"y J,

placement option. As all the witnesses testified,- that option could 1,3

~

p oU be implemented today should it become necessary. )

.4 e-

~.. ;

. c..

+,J

+ :,.

. 84. Although the Staff and CPC submitted direct testimony in response to 2y Stamiris' Contention 2(e), Staff Testimony on Contention 2, pp.11-12;.

" O?.

~

~

1 1 Cook, pp.19-21, Intervenor Stamiris subsequently withdrew that part y,;c j;;.y

~..

a >:- - : y

_y'm.

1.u of Contention 2.

Intervenor Statement of Intent to Omit (.ertain Con..... ~d.b

. q,.c.g.m... -:.,.. m.,..,;;- w. _ =--.e,.Q

.~

Accordingly, we make no finding with respect. ;. {c.M'q tentions, June 1, 1981.

- ; g.
-g 2.ginf;~aT f.y. _._ i 3.~ Vg(/MhM8;;;4MQ l l[T

. r;f..

. m.; s

a. 2 7..'.7F. ~ ~ fo Co'ntention 2(e.i?MdS$$#NN%p $-4:r -s% & Whp L.y~d[$h ' 'N pd m; --:;hh;<.w,g; 'j.r-:d3:'y t f-f* 5 5

W .eff,h ' l w-. .r - y+w w - W n"

2 a
d. }., QC]b. ;':'r.n.v: 7, ' '~ -

ngy?m.erfsyy.>g.r5;p'eqq,.Rpp.5 i

  • h.'b W S 7-.

.} '

y. ;N mygggt 'm

9;[ q r _.n f 3 4 ~ =:%V* ,o } a x i, ~ E. x-d 85., Staff testimony of Mr. Hood responded to item 1 in Stamiris' supplement- - g.. '= d.2." 2 :F ". A - Va '. - " :p:<. -j ^ ~ Item 1 referred to notes of a November 7,' 1978 meeting .;;4 to Contention 2. ~, m. 7 which' included the following action item: "[p3roceed with preparations ~ ~c 'i .,~ for preload as rapidly as possible." Staff Testimony on Contention 2 .m ~. t. Mr. Hood testified that the action item , _ j.J.,

p. 12; Attachment 3, p. 5.

..,?. ?'. appeared to result from a discussion during the meeting which indicated .mn r l that a 5-month period was available in the schedule for preloading and , ~ >. that Dr. Peck recommended proceeding with the instrumentation and preload 1 q l as rapidly as possible. Id. pp. 12-13; Id., p. 2. 4 t Mr. Hood testified that the investigations into the root causes of 86. the soil settlement and the possible organizational deficiencies were not canpleted as of November 7,1978, nor prior to proceeding with 1 Staff Testimony on Contention 2, p.13. In fact. the DGB surcharge. + the Staff had told CPC during a December 4,1978 meeting that "while, -] d 7 7. y. attention to remedial action is important, determination of the exact t. - ~.... 'j cause is also quite important for verifying the adequacy of the remedial f ,q to other structures, action, assessing the extent of the matter relativ4 j {}t ) Id.; see ld and in precluding repetition of such matters in the future." - ~;.. - d' Staff Testimony on Contention 1. Attachment 11,,"p. 7. The Staff's _T j J .f$h ~~ ~J M interest in identifying root causes was reflected also in 50.54(f) - r -n.y Q') Request I which was issued on March 21,' 1979. Staff Testimony on Con- ,.,q& ,p p ] tention 2, p.13; Tr. 4314. Whil,e Mr. Hood agreed with item lto the ~ "l.cNif i,C . = y. -= p c,,_ ~. x. 3 L. extent that the surcharge was started prior to the iden ? '5S? '. ? ~ ' ,G.. T. m ~, ,.m+ Q$:/W .a.. x. %r..e4 e%,;'f pq;. 4 e:. s., , y ; '. :q;ayg;.g_.g.4,p-g;gQ,.; ychs, D % w. m.=:.t.,-.: X:G T.% n. ....,.'. [ l[ w.y;p :.g Q :g V':% p.3 ,yn.qi;g., p.p. '~. '. ~,. - S. y '. .c l Q L,*' ~ g .~ g. w + c: ~.x hb ((. $.

i

I --.e._,.., .. ~ ~ 3..y .s 2. rl 2 ^i. ' N,M.5,Y.1[hb5'N..s.- 25-" : 9'y,c.w t ~..: _ ' 7., 1 AI reached no conclusion 'on Mfd;m c ~, '.y root causes. and organizational deficiencies,.he_ W;%.-ML:..n.;%Qg4:a:.~.: n..y. & ?. . a..C.41.w.m n;<.; ? ; : y . ::~. whether the above facts adversely affected resolution of soil settlement kdf% E [

., ~.. m/'

~: ~ ; .L : v r..., :. '

.."
. o c; E

E Od } issues or compromised pertinent health and safety regulations.~ W %.%.b ~. .~ . : m ;.:M i .; SQW < 1

2. n. '. _,

,,. *.g,.. -~ 7. -.~.., .y .{ , 87.,The direct testimony of Dr. Peck responded to item I in Stamiris' supple,a.4@ i sqn g#A.F- .w t.,..,g:g. g s6

m. s h.fe..

ment to Contention 2. _ He testified that since the fill was obviously. - ..a '. ' v.;r;-P. 5 J. l, setting progressively under i.ts own weight and contained clay which would...-99*2 .. e. .a . _ '** A.[,.*,',,.., lG y r a tt -..h. cause progressive settlement, no more infonnation on root causes was-Gg".3,J 1 1" -+

  • L % y pem -

A needed to conclude that surcharging was the appropriate remedy. Peck,' 4-s p g ]_ 'j J =. a .,.:.,:, s.7. ~ t He noted that the surcharge could be in place and producing'its .5M

p. 2.

i beneficial effects while the organizational deficiencies, if any, were (. remedied. Id. 4 2

88. On cross-examination, Dr. Peck defined root causes as those factors that he should know about as an engineer in order to solve the specific en-

.+ ,.a 7.1; x;,:: 2 -- - - r.,-- ~ ~.. gineering problem presented.by-the DGB...T. 3219. He stated that...- _M.CC ~ e -] organizational deficiencies were irrelevant in terms of reaching his ^ ' ^ ' .i .1,. decision to proceed with the surcharge. Tr. 3226. He admitted, however. - 7 .j that organizational deficiencies were not irrelev, ant in terms of imple-2' ..a.;. 7 s '~ menting his surcharge program. Tr. 3221.~ j.. u. _. 3 ..c 6,:i s ' . a.g ...~. .. q.,, m ~~1.'

89. With' respect to scheduling pressures,'Dr. Peck testified that he was a-

.. = /, ware of the fact that there were schedules associated with the DGB sur-wry. + He recalled, $ g. J.

. gggg.

3 ~ - - -- -... - c-g g n. . g _-p...; % f. .WgW Tr. 3346. . charge which Bechtel and CPC wanted to meet.

  • ..n, =i.'k' %.A &;e.k S 5^?. m$

~~ ~ h y . m :z... k m aw wym%.-.* .., -... s. _..,...,.m:m.,; _. %w.w.... mw x-w. ::.. mg-. a .,g . f* e.**e. -p%4 ; - QF'. ' 3 Q. ?.l W.Qm 4{q'52.MM}* i}.&$-f'*y..$.

m. *. e 4 f*-+Q4 ;

~*^ w To..

  • * [< 4 7* e.., d 9..,,,' y j i ***' + ce* %, -..,

.3.2 v - *" *. j 9 Q.. _3,Qffyz&m&.g.4 w.w s.J,*

  • 7

.,-*A., TglQ , % w. e* g m -e: ** .-+1 (h, .. af 2' !fd.g %.y.sg. _.m.m +. ,.,... - _ m..w. :. I

w .:~ .....,.__e. o + .e e. N W,, l U. > a ...~.n. 4 ,. fj ;;.;. w 1[ e; -.- w.e ;... ..t R-

.;.n,:.,

.. ~ y . w : w. c c );;- ; I ,(7 however, that he did hot start working immediately; thus, some etter.>d WF .a:n N CC -V.:..*,L% dp %)@4."..DP " ' '.:.VvaiW'W - a--d by scheduling pressures l' ~. took priority over the a MIeO < m.- y.;.. m -:2. y.pparent urgency cause J . v;+. u. ;c < ~ .. ;,.9%.. w w., ~.y.. Tr. 3346..- . s,. s L -, ?,.-a

w...
- j.,.

g.-; 9.... g --~ -c ; _,, - =m ..:n.:1,, . Q. :...w '.... - s,r.n. : , :.w.- On cross-examinatiE both Mr. Keeley and Mr. Howell stated that the de-O.'ri.67 90. .l , ~. -. : N termination of root causes of the DGB settlement was not necessary prior.- 'R:.y rgp::-3 y . g -W a -~ m: %...; * '. ~ u to undertaking remedial. measures. Tr.1242, 2941. Mr. Howell recalled. .i.-,71 . a. 3 c, J s i%gf g, .A I + - * -. that at the time the decision to surcharge was made the identification

y. L ~.1 4

2....

e....w of roo. causes.was under investigation. Tr. 2941. He added that he was 9L._ a t

not aware of any organizational deficiencies in the quality assuran'ce~ ~. f.7W c, ~ ' 'I' yJC /~ program. Id. Mr. Keeley testified that root causes were not clearly; established until Question 23 was answered in November 1979. Tr. 1242; 2 4 see Marguglio, p. 39. However, he stated that the " people problem" which j in part had caused the DGB settlement had been identified and resolved,,, d I .) .,,... _ prior to proceeding with any remedial actions. Tr. 1243, 1288-89. ~_ -i m,a c.-- ,,-...m, , ; _ m._... _ _, .y . _u.... w .m. -._ _... u.m ;f ;. - - am=w ,j y 1-z. ]

91. Based on the facts presented above, the Board finds that root causes

,-i r .2 1 Y l were not fully identified and remedied prior to starting the surcharge D- / J program. In the absence of probative evidence to support Intervenor 4 Stamiris' claim that the failure to adequately investigate root causes i 1,. j was due to financial and time pressures, however, we deny the claim. ' I,'... ' t In. fac't, in light of CPC's claim that there was no need to consider'; 9' Y ?r,', c. l' wt..m. _ n-j.y p: root causes, its failure to do so can hardly be attributed to financialifyP.,; I

,.y y_. g j y -

. m-y,442;p ;,, __ y. and time pressures., We note, however, that prudent engineering E [: i' . f s w T;,.p'. %. 1. c

.:.7y. %:n M : v. '.

--~. * ;4 %r,4 f ,...'_, ; g. .. w, p . ;7 ; %55!/$9:m!..j.i..ny'f$.~i.hTE,'Md.%sw$ J.. ;. '). 7,?,,y y '~ + -. f. y.. g,, c,

  • Er N T M yh[!.Y NI' -.,IM

,h,,2*..k'/dh r' ' " 'rt-Ghf.k Q5 f % $ @ s w: M i 7 M ?. Mp wwWam w2 a!=s.v. = ~. g n.v. 4 w x.,.....e*x. w:.- w,k* >m a -a w -..~. ;. -...,.m.- g. - u-s. w. - ' n...., w,,,'d '2 e *, 4 "* .'.74 [:-

4..y n.w r...ag.. :.y, s.

-e 7 .r .N M 5 U_.o'.M*U $ h't, [. g Q $ *f" a

  • y

__u.h. L, u z ) I }n e... a.

.c. -. y _,.. ;4,.. . - m. *. - y 4.,,o,,,

y. __

,~ M 41 - c. .. y s.. 7 - nG n;. ;t.ns -X. 5.6.; .a5%n.; _a, e r&a y.w..&s. %

n.,

s - w ~ s ~~ u a- .. v.. n. n. .... :c.x... . cc.: . :.a. y.: w. ..j. s y 1 s mitM. .u. ?n:;n>W5+ v a :..'. ::;wr.m.... 8

?

NY are made afteE consideringime"and financial factors and.that such,, i t >.. " ' ~ M % ; C i k. % 2.q ~ P + W u W,W-n -M MI U.5% - W.< considerations are in no'way improper. The' adequacy of the surcharge . ' i E.' 3'f ..;.m ~ p..g y, will be addressed at future hearings.~..i ~

w%.;?-

.,.3.6 f l L.:. +. w..: ; : y. . 3, f.';.4 pg,....y I. 7:4 + 24g ~

  • ~. t

), /- - -* m..;;:,;L. m. W. -. :. L. ,. 4.g'.. ,.~..e

92. Staff testimony of Mr. Kane responded to item 2 in Stamiris' supplementi:2;-- Q;.

jm

,-4-c.

v a 7 :_.- ':,; m-s r== 2~ to Contention 2. The' statement referenced in item 2 regarding filling. -r P q l .t n

a. '
  • g..
  • . :,.... y..

. r g : + :. ' y 2. m i;..

2..s

,3 3l the cooling pond imediately was.fou.nd in Bechtel meeting notes. Staff..i g ;y.f.-Q };l .c < '. m gg.. ,n .n, w.e,.c 3 ) Testimony on Contention 2, p.14; Attachment 3, p. 2. Mr. Kane testified f!a._9.- ] -u .. g.. p.- - .r y L $ j that CPC's decision to fill the cooling pond "immediately because of the WC a I j- %.J.p j s ~.? . >. w.% ... _.g _;< 1 ~ ~ "'% amount of river water available for filling is restricted" did affect the piezometric measurements during the surcharge. Staff Testimony on Con-I; tention 2, p.14. Mr. Kane explained that the coincident effects on -l piezometric monitoring caused by seepage from the raised pond and excess 2 pore water pressures under the surcharge were identified by the Staff and '.1> I its consultants..t.he,U.S. Anny Corps of Engineer, as an important reason. t .,.ye. M, r,py %. .rre, *st-

  • ]_- ps 44 *s ]..,i*****g""'y-j

.p ..e ~.#.-- e .4 q. for being~ unable to fully accept CPC's conclusion regarding the success ~ .+ of the surcharge program. Id.; Attachment 4. Indeed, the Staff has _ : 1 e t ,a ? .j insisted on additional borings and laboratory tests in order to verify ~..d.J "n J .s

l the effectiveness of the surcharge program. Staff Testimony on Conten-

+. s 4- ~9 q 4' ~)..,.. .l tion 2, p. 14; Tr. 4149. Mr. Kane concluded that schedule pressures did ~ '~ l ..., Q compel CPC to accept less than the best sequence in the pond raising-

g

+ s f, . j! , surcharge placement operations and that these press,ures may have 7 nm c.. ~. A 2-tr.' ~ u..-

.:..a u.

.Ie ' ~ adversely affected resolution of the soil settlement issues. Id.- aP 4.a.'jl.L- .- 7,g,. n. y.g cg.j 3p7.,.. o.... .,,,. y..,.g y. -. g[;. cg}

' ~: #*l.f ;i : ;?.. :.:.%'h.2 f?:.m:;.-:: C.,,

n ..1-l L, l-?,=..: n.% a... o.c .p w v.,., _ -m -m~ - c e.s: ~ . n =.w eu. ~a v l. O. m" e p m- .a e .t. w.& y% n:~g3Ti M" r u.4 ~+ ~ 4{t f(. :. NW.gM.~b.M4 ti&@$,*.'.;:en,7.22.d,h.. Nw;3 e e w u . ~~:(S %v =. Y ?-: g .g j,y' l l $ $: c ;... L $ %.~ 1.. h:q %:,;..m d p...n- - c rn r-fM . $w M..u.~s.$.m u..$-[$,$$. N.n, n,N 6 2 M kj @4.., c. b . w. %, c. q c g ~ s-n .n. ~~.- ...n,., m .o.. x ....m. .s i _

g. _,

9 On cross-examination Mr. Kane gave a detailed explanation of how the ~ 93. raising of the pond affected the piezametric measurements. He explained that piezometers were one of the devices being used to evaluate the ef-fectiveness of the surcharge. Tr. 4148. Mr. Kane testified that the -l .I 1 simultaneous raising of the. pond and placement of the surcharge compl'i-cated evaluation of the piezometric data because the piezometers were ,i reflecting not only the influence of the surcharge but also the influence Id. of the rising water table due to the filling of the cooling pond. w l He indicated that the Staff had difficulty in factoring out of the piezo-1 metric readings the effect of the pond raising. Id. Mr. Kane stated i that, during depositions of Bechtel personnel, the Staff, without success, requested an explanation of how to separate the effects of the two events. J d_. Mr. Kane opined that the fact that Bechtel deponents directed the Staff to Dr. Peck for.an explanation indicated the diffi-culty that both Bechtel and the Staff were having in evaluating the s, effect of the pond raising on the rising piezometric level. Id. Mr. Kane testified that another problem associated:with the raising of 94. i the pond was the concern that the fill had originally been placed dry 7 of optimum and that as a result of seepage from"the pond there would be T additional compressibility of the fill. Tr. 4148. He explained that it was important to fully saturate the, fill to make sure that softening I and compression occured. Tr. 4149. In this regard, he stated that the Staff is not convinced that the fill was fully saturated during the l surcharge. Tr. 4443, 4466-67. Mr. Kane noted that the fact that the f v ~ ~ ~ - - w~ ~,-:...- L: = = - -

z

f 4 ~, ,w e [ { .l majority of piezometers did not respond to the surcharge load as pre-dicted increased the Staff's uncertainty regarding full saturation of I the fill. Tr. 4443. In Mr. Kane's opinion, interpretation of piezometer 1 data would have been considerably easier had the pond level been raised, 1 the soil saturated, and the surcharge then placed. Tr. 4149. Such an i j approach, he explained, would have established a baseline for measuring the piezometer levels. Id. / 2 y

95. On cross-examination, Mr. Kane stated that he had no evidence that IN \\ y v.M sM b

Dr. Peck was not able to evaluate the piezometer readings because of the rise in groundwater level associated with the filling of the coolir.g j f) pond. Tr. 4415.

96. The dire'ct testimony of Dr. Peck responded to item 2 in Stamiris' sup-plement to Contention 2.

Dr. Peck testified that he and Dr. Hendron made 1 4 i the recommendation to raise the pond level and thereby submerge the piezo-3 'I , j meter tips and the surrounding sands. Peck, pp They recomended this 3 .] course of action in order to avoid the complexitids in measurement that j j / at { would be introduced by pore-air pressures assuming the plant fill contain- ] ed large amounts of air. Id. Dr. Peck stated that there was no evidence that, if the pond was raised to its maximuni level, the groundwater beneath the DG8 would reach a stable elevation. Id. In view of this consider-ation, Dr. Peck submitted that the best course of action was to allow the pond level to rise quickly and to proceed th the surcharging. Id. On c.rossh[g*mua oa,hy.9 tex Mej M r mah f 6 odah 1 e A,n w <*1 i p'J%a.y

q. 4 coa.g pi A.

e#.s m i . =. A

R s-g 44 W(

97. Another reason advance'd for raising the pond level was the hypothesis that the clays in the fill might be dry of optimum and thus it would ij be desirable to submerge as much of the clay as possible. Peck, p. 4.

nem Nt % g'P r*P

  • f*
l M

f h" This hypothesis, however, was later proven to be wrong. Tr. 3231. uns not ratnW t Ponst mMMaj q

98. On cross-examination, Dr. Peck explained the complexities that are as-

) sociated with measuring the pore pressure of partially saturated soils. Tr. 3227. Specifically, if soils are only partially saturated, there is .I air pressure as well as water pressure in the soil. Id. Dr. Peck stated that the instruments used to measure air and water pressure are much . l more complex than piezameters which simply measure water pressure. Id. l,

99. To measure water pressure, Dr. Peck explained that 100 percent saturation l

1s not required; however, to get satisfactory readings the free water sur-i; face must be above the piezometer sensor. Tr. 3227-28. Dr. Peck admitted i J lj that the soils were only partially saturated up to the foundation level of f i., i*l 628 feet at the. time the surcharge was placed. Tr. 3230. He also noted l I that stand pipe piezometers, not the complex instruments which measure t b both water and air pressure, were relied on exclusively to measure pore p q L pressure. Id. 1 3 100. Dr. Peck testified that the piezometer levels refl5cted in a general way the rising and falling levels of the cooling pond. Tr. 3240. He con-cluded that the effects of the rising level of the cooling pond introduced i i an additional consideration to his interpretation of the piezometer data i _-. R OM" but did not give him any difficulty in his interpretation. Tr. 3464-65. +=ba ,.j 5p e ei

3 ). , I 101. On cross-examination "Dr. Peck stated that some of the piezometers gave anomalous readings. Tr. 3241, 3244-45. In his opinion, however, it j is not unusual for piezometers to occasionally give such readings. s.j Tr. 3241. Dr. Peck explained that the anomalous readings were not the i fault of the instruments but the result of misreadings, miscalculations and misplottings. Tr. 3250. In short, he stated that most of the j; anomalies were bookkeeping errors. Id. Dr. Peck added that most of the 5 anomalous readings have now been satisfactorily explained and that there J i

j remain only several isolated examples of anomalous readings.

Id. He testified that overall a surprising number of the piezometer readings were consistent with each other. Tr. 3241-42. Dr. Peck concluded that 3 the piezometers gave accurate readings for all practical engineering purposes. Tr. 3230-31. 102. On cross-examination, Dr. Peck confirmed that during a November 7,1978 i meeting he, along with the other consultants, suggested that the best seg nce would be to place the preload and then to quickly raise the cool-j I ing pond to its operating level. Tr. 3236; Staff Testimony on Contention t / 'g l

2. Attachment 3, p. 2.

However, as the meeting notes reflected, it was decided to fill the cooling pond immediately and to simultaneously place the surcharge. Id. 1 f 4 103. On redirect. Dr. Peck testified that it was his understanding of the "best ll l sequence" statement in the meeting notes that the placement of the sur- } charge and the raising of the cooling pond could be carried out either j d. i )! s - -.:T.:.;<, a..xnu

a ~ J J d a. .1 simultaneously or consecutively. Tr. 3464. In his opinion, the sim-f ultaneous implementation of the two operations was appropriate. Id. l 'l 104. On cross-examination, Dr. Hendron stated that the piezometers in the j vicinity of the DGB could have been reflecting the influences of both i j the rise in the pond level and placement of the surcharge. Tr. 4096. 1 105. Based on the facts presented above, the Board finds that the decision to raise the cooling pond level did affect the piezometric measurements

  • l 1

as alleged in item 2 of Stamiris' Contention 2. With respect to whether the best sequence was followed in raising the cooling pond, not only 6 1 does the Staff testimony conflict with CPC testimony but also the testi-nony of th,eJPA-itness appeared to be self-contradictory. We note that insofar a he Staff's need for the borings resulted from the decision 1 to raise the pond at the same time as placing the surcharge, the decision ) 1 may have adversely affected the timely resolution of the soil settlement issues. We do find, however, that there was no probative evidence that l 1 CPC's decision to fill the pond immediately was d'he to ' time or financial l pressures and accordingly deny this portion of Intervenor Stamiris' 4 l Contention. As stated above, the adequacy of' the surcharge will be N r addressed at future hearings. i l t 1 =.

_y m. ' 106. Staff testimony of Mr. Kane responded to item 3 in Stamiris' supplement to Contention 2. The Staff testimony noted that the minutes of a November 7,1978 meeting among CPC, Bechtel and Bechtel's consultants indicated that a 5-month period was available in the schedule for pre-4 loading. Staff Testimony on Contention 2, p.15; Attachment 3, p. 2. The Staff agreed with item 3 insofar as it alleged that the surcharge was removed without the Staff being satisfied that secondary consolida-s ) tion was assured. Staff Testimony on contention 2, p.15. The Staff ackr.owledged, however, that CPC did gNe the Staff advance notice of l l its decision to remove the surcharge. Id. 1 4 107. Mr. Kane testified that the reason the Staff was not satisfied with the ( ) effectiveness of the surchhrge program was due to CPC's practice of not i 4 identifying acceptable criteria to the Staff before implementing the re-medial action. Staff Testimony on Contention 2, p.15; see Attachment 5,

p. 2.

Mr. Kane concluded that the Staff's determination regarding second- [ 2 ary consolidation and the success of the surcharge program will depend on p p the review of the boring data and the laboratory t;est results. Staff Test-y ( .imony on Contention 2, p. 16. i j { 108. CPC testimony of Dr. Peck responded to item 3 in Stamiris' supplement to Contention 2. He testified that on August 15, 1979, when he approved the removal of the surcharge, the settlement and piezometric data conclusively demonstrated completion of primar'y consolidation. Peck, p. 4. Dr. Peck 1 stated that the decision to remove the surcharge was not dictated by any _=

a, -V i 3 - 48.- predetermined duration. Id. In response to item 3, Dr. Peck submitted j that the NRC had no logical technical basis for believing secondary con-5 solidation had not been achieved. Id. Si ,i j 109. On cross-examinati n. Dr. Peck clarified that no one from the NRC ever told him that the Staff firmly believed that secondary consolidation i had not been achieved. Tr. 3238. In Dr. Peck's view, however, the Staff i 1 ] possessed information which provided the technical basis for the con-j clusion t at secondar nsolidation had been achieved. Tr. 3276-77. I dm M on h mins p h 6 j .hr. m %d-N bl.9m.,,q %.im3.ms a s.1 p ,q.Ltu&h o%ro. me wit 61 t.F.W, % 64,neswedb p ha esyease b M K en 3 110. Dr. Peck testified that the statements made on pages 3-4 of Attachment 4 I to Mr. Singh's testimony are all technical statements. Tr. 3462. He s: added that if they were correct they would also be logical statements. Id. Dr. Peck concluded that those statements did not form a logical r technical basis for the judgment that secondary consolidation had not ,j i e been achieved during the surcharge program. Tr. 3469. j 1 1 2 111. With respect to the statement in the November 7,!1978 meeting notes that j a "5-month period is available in the schedule fo'r preloading", Dr. Peck i 4 did not recall somyne stating that only a 5-month period was available. I Tr. 32?6. He empharized that no time constraints were placed on him with d regard to the time available for executing the su.rcharge. Tr. 3349-50. L Dr. Peck. testified that while he was aware of a certain urgency asscciated ' with the surcharge program, he did not let' schedule considerations I t ,i q !4* [

1 p influence his judgment on how long the surcharge must be kept in place. Tr. 3348. -j i 112. Dr. Hendron testified that the key to the success of a surcharge is the i I length of time it is in place. Tr. 4050. He stated that he was not q aware of a 5-month schedule factor related to the time available for implementation of the surcharge. Id. However, he did coment that .] whenever somebody made a comment at a meeting about how many months were

I j

available for the surcharga he and Dr. Peck cut short such comments. 9 1 Tr. 4050-51. Dr. Hendron testified that the decision to remove the e surcharge was based on the settlement and piezometric data, not on scheduling constraints. Tr. 4051. s 113. Based on the facts set forth above, the Board finds that although the November 7,1978 meeting notes state that a "5-month period is available j +;

I in the schedule for preloading", the consultants' decision as to when to

-j ',1 remove the surcharge was not influenced by any such scheduling concerns. i l Thus, in the absence of probative evidence demonstrating that the timing of the surcharge removal was dictated by schedule'or financial considera- "..J i tions, we deny item 3. We further find that the surcharge was removed before the NRC was satisfied that secondary consolidation had been 3 .l, j L achieved. We note that the issue of whether the timing of the surcharge J 4 i removal has adversely affected res'olution of the soils issue will, be addressed when testimony on the boring data and laboratory test results l is provided.

  • I l

a L a g {649"*"Nf.. m.w, -~%Ww.C - i s-2-SLWJ WA8rf, Z_ -r._: adATMnh 20

^ U 4 114. Staff testimony of Mr. Kane responded to item 4 in Stamiris' supple-3 } j ment 'to Contention 2. Item 4 alleged that the failure to take certain i actions resulted in additional, avoidable stresses to the DGB. With ] respect to the failure to grout the gaps prior to cutting the duct banks, 11 the Staff could not conclude that grouting the gaps prior to isolating 1 j the duct banks would have been the better approach. Staff Testimony on Contention 2, p. 17. Mr. Kane testified that there are advantages and 1. disadvantages associated with the decision to grout prior and the dect-l sion' to grout after isolating the duct banks. Id. Mr. Kane surmised that the decision not to grout the gaps prior to isolating the duct banks probably resulted in some immediate stress relief in bay areas 3 and 4 when the duct banks were actually released. Id., pp. 17-18. He added it was uncertain as to the extent that beneficial reduction in additional stresses to other portions of the DGB would have resulted I i had the grouting been done prior to cutting the duct banks. Id., p. 18. a 3 t i 115. With respect to the alleged failure to cut the condensate lines, the Staff testified that it understood that the lines had ai:tually been cut. Staff 1\\ Ji i d Testimony on Contention 2, p.18. The Staff therefore concluded that the k' cut lines did not cause additional stress to the DGB. Id. 4' w ) ~ 1 116. With respect to breakip] up the mudmat' beneath the DGB, the Staff stated 1I that this decision probably lessened the stresses imposed during the sur-charge since the DGB's foundation was stiffer and better able to span any soft soil areas. Staff Testimony on Contention 2, p.18. On the other .j (__

,1 q 1. I-j hand, the decision not to break up the mudmat reduced the effectiveness 1 of the surcharge in consolidating the softer foundation soils which were i bridged by the foundation and the mudmat. Id. pp. 18-19. 1 J i 'l 117. The Staff Testimony concluded that the three actions referenced in l, item 4 did not adversely affect resolution of the soil settlement issues. r j Staff Testimony on Contention 2, p. 19.

  • g j

1 i i 118. On cross-examination, Mr. Kane testif' fed that although the consultants ?, 1 4 initially recommended grouting the gaps prior to isolating the duct banks, it was his understanding that, upon further reflection, th'e consultants 5 and Bechtel concluded it was not necessary to grout the gaps. Tr. 4172-75. 'I, Mr. Kane stated that the gaps have now been grouted. Tr. 4177. Mr. Hood 1 interjected that the grouting occurred after the December 1979 Order. Id. I g 119. On further cross-examination, Mr. Kane testified that he was aware of j a the fact that the NRC was notified by Interim Report No. 4, dated 4 I February 16, 1979, that the condensate lines had been cut and that j there would be surveillance of the cut lines. Tr. 4404. Mr. Hood J' believed that the condensate lines had been cut after-the start of the } surcharge program but. prior to the placemdnt of the total surcharge. I ii Tr. 4199. Jl Li j; ,t I 120. While CPC witnesses did not file any direct testimony on item 4, Drs. Peck

.;I and Hendron were cross-examined on the matter.

i lj ul j l lw -- - =;r............. ..>;n r-g :. _, r..... v,_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - .,2.,,.S ! y

~ ~ -l a } .t 121. Dr. Peck testified that at the November 1978 meeting several people may ~ I have suggested grouting the gaps before releasing the duct banks. b .] _ Tr. 3365. Further thought was given to the matter, however, and as fl Dr. Peck recalled, the decision was that prior grouting was not necessary. I .) l Id. Dr. Peck added,that the issue of when to grout was of minor concern to him and that he had no strong preference on the issue. Tr.'3366.,On in 'I the other hand, Dr. Hendron thought it advisable to grout the gaps prior l to releasing the duct banks. Tr. 4054;lsee Stamiris exhibit 22, p. 5. [ He stated that had the gaps been grouted, the load distribution would 3 have been more uniform. Tr. 4054-55. Nevertheless, Dr. Hendron believed that the building was stong enough to take the differential load. Tr. 4055. Furthennore, he did not think that the failure to grout the s gaps affected the effectiveness of the surcharge. Tr. 4103. 122. With respect to the failure to break up the mudmat, Dr. Peck testified i .{ .j that it was neither necessary nor desirable to take such action. Tr. 3383. t = .i He recalled that the matter had been discussed but was deemed to be of [1 q' ~. 1 little significance to the DGB problem. Id. Indeed, Dr. Peck stated that { 4 j he had neither an original recommendation nor a.. suggestion on how to deal } with the mudmat. Tr. 3409-10. If the mudmat has not already broken up j , }, ] and if it should break up in the future, Dr. Peck concluded that such action would not result in significant additional ettlement of the DGB. s l Tr. 3471.' 1 l L l l _m T M

~ { .. ) l il 123. Dr. Hendron testified that he did not remember recomending that the -f mudmat beneath the DG8 be broken up. Tr. 4078. Nor did he remember h l whether any of the other consultants made the recommendation. Tr. 4080. Like Dr. Peck Dr. Hendron stated that he had no strong views on the 2 sebject of breaking up the mudmat. Tr. 4078. He indicated that the [ mudmat probably was broken up during the surcharge considering the 'l fact that it was constructed from unreinforced and quite thin concrete. 1 Tr. 4080, 4103. I 124. With respect to cutting the condensate lines, Dr. Hendron testifed that he may have made such a recommendation. Tr. 4058. He did recall that the recommendation to cut the lines was followed and that he had not specified a time frame in which they must be cut. Tr. 4059, 4062. i 125. Based on the facts set forth above, we find no support for item 4 to 3, Contention 2. There was no evidence that the alleged failures to grout _ __ j l the gaps, to cut the condensate lines and to break up the mudmat were .] 1 6 the result of time or finan,cial pressures. Moreov.er, there was no evidence demonstrating that these failures adverseiy affected resolution I of the soil settlement issues. j i 126. Staff testimony of Mr. Kane responded to item 5 in.Stamiris' supplement to Contention 2. Mr. Kane testiffe'd that item 5 alleged essentially the j same facts as Contention 2(d),'i.e. that the decision to continue work on the DGB was' dictated by time and financial pressures and eliminated E >4..n.-- 'd. .5 I S. S.~? h '~ ~~' ~ l Y T. ? '?"^ Y".l [ .T.'I..W ~ ~

T i ' ~ y. el V g. consideration of the removal and replacement option. Staff Testimony ] on Contention 2, p.19. Mr. Kane stated that CPC's decision to con- ), tinue construction of the DGB does make it more difficult and costly to proceed with the removal and replacement option, but that it does not eliminate the option. Id. The Staff concluded that CPC's decision k to proceed with coristruction evidenced its willingness to proceed at its own risk. Id. Furthermore, the Staff did not view CPC's decision ,4 l in this regard as having an adverse impact on the resolution of the l I soil settlement matter. Id. g j 4 j .4 127. Neither CPC nor Intervenor Stamiris adduced direct testimony on item 5. 4 I 128. Based on the facts presented above, the B'oard finds that item 5 alleges 3 matters identical to Contention 2(d). Accordingly, as stated in para-j - ? graph 83, we find no support for the claim that continued work on the i j DGB precluded consideration or implementation of the removal and replacement option. I 1 1 b } 129. Staff testimony of Mr.' Hood responded to item 6 ih Stamirls' supplement to Contention 2. Mr. Hood testified that, had the FSAR been tendered in j August 1978 instead of August 1977, little'or no detection of incon- '1 ]. sistencies related to soil settlement problems would have occurred during f this interval. Staff Testimony on' Contention 2, p. 20. The basis for the Staff's position on this matter was set forth in CPC's response to 50.54(f) Request 1. Id. That response explained that the inconsistencies 4 j ,,;f- .,q, a..y : -, c7:,m; - ~,

RI 4 , ll V { r between the FSAR and the PSAR which related to the DGB settlement were 4 j found*in sections of the FSAR that were inactive since the work had been a 4 completed.. Id. Because of the inactive status of these FSAR sections. 1 1 they would not have been reviewed and hence the inconsistencies would L not have been found. Id. Ll j' 1! s l 130. On cross-examination, Mr. Hood reiterated that early submittal of the I 9 4 FSAR made no difference in tenns of detecting or precluding the in-0 ~s i consistencies. Tr. 4317, 4322. il l .{ 131. Intervenor Stamiris submitted that item 6 was not directed to the timing ['. of the FSAR submission but rather with its inadequate review. Tr. 4323. 'lf Mr. Hood responded that if the draft sections of the FSAR had been .) 1 rigorously reviewed, the incorrect statements would have be.en found. 4 Tr. 4324. Mr. Hood postulated further that had the inconsistencies been 1 discovered, it probably would have simply resulted in the correction of - } ~ 1 }, a calculation. Tr. 4327. He doubted seriously that early detection of j the inconsistencies would have revealed the existdnce of a sail settle-i 3 l ment problem. Id.; Tr. 4341. i ) i t j 132. Neither CPC nor Intervenor Stamfris presented direct testimony in response to item 6. J 133. Based on the facts set forth above, the Board finds no support for I I item 6. We note that the claim in item 6 is very similar to the claim t I i t 1 ,1 A l ,.k* ,? '": s**.*T.*- 0 2Yh

  • g*g

..J t%

cr [. in Contention 2(a). There, we found that early submittal of the FSAR did not directly or adversely affect resolution of soil settlement

[.

issues. See paragraph 63. We make the same finding here. In addition, 1 there was no evidence indicating that early detection of the incon-j } sistencies would have prevented the soil settlement problems. l i 1 q 134. Staff testimony of Mr. Kane responded to items 7, 9 and 11 in Stamiris' , j. supplement to Contention 2.. The Staff viewed items 7, 9 and 11 as al-3 ? legations relating to the adequacy and' conservatism of the DGB surcharge 1 4 program and therefore responded to them collectively. Staff Testimony on Contention 2, pp. 20-21. The Staff acknowledged that decisions made by CPC are influenced by cost and schedule considerations. Id., p. 20. The Staff did not view these considerations as inappropriate, but rather recognized them as legitimate concerns of an applicant. Id. These l ~1 l concerns were taken into considerat' ion;when the Staff exercised its re-j j gulatory responsibility of firmly insisting upon acceptable margins of d safety necessary to protect the public's health and safety. Id. With .j I respect to item 11, the Staff submitted that the lignificant issue was 't not whether the optimum conditions prevailed duri5g the surcharge but + J j whether the surcharge was successfully execute [. Id. - The latter issue 4 l will be addressed later in conjunction with the evidentiary hearing S 'i involving the adequacy of the surcharge program..id,. The Staff con-f) j cluded that the examples listed in' items 7, 9 and 11 did not adversely affect resolution of the soil settlement problem. Id. It l i d - -- -. -~.

3,,-, - - ~..-~-
.,...

.. c.

... t.. p + s. 2 135. On cross-examination, Mr. Kane testified that the Staff's conclusion 7 l that items 7, 9 and 11 have not adversely affected resolution of the 4 n3 'j soil settlement issue was dependent on the fact that the removal and 1 i replacement option is still an alternative. Tr. 4348-49. In fact, the 'N Staff had testified earlier that the removal and replacement option 4 1 s remains a viable. alternative should it prove necessary. Staff Testi-j mony on Contention 2, p. 11. g a .g _j + i ? 136. With respect to item 7, Mr. Kane testified that no one from the NRC i 7 s' l told CPC not to proceed with the surcharge. Tr. 4412, 4455. In this -y connectic9, Mr. Hood tes'tified that he did not recall CPC specifically 7 requesting the Staff to approve the surcharge program. Tr. 4169. In-deed, the reason Mr. Hood stated that CPC was proceeding at its own j risk with the surcharge program was precisely because the Staff could }( not conclude that the DGB after the surcharge would meet the regulatory I requirements. Tr. 2664 2678; see Staff Testimony on Contention 1, I , Attachment 11, p. 7. j 7 137. With respect to item 11. Mr. Kane further testified that the uneven settlement of the DGB th:t J 6J O= th: :$ d r : was not affected i .I net b b bes M dig - p j by the amount of surcharge appliede Tr. 4362. He explained that the 4 smaller amount of settlement that occurred on the. north side of the DGB I (near the Turbine Butiding) was the result of the compressibility of the 1 l materials not the weight of the surcharge. Tr. 4363. i l ,[, ...._. y-n. =.... _.. m

~ . ? '. c', ] l U 138. CPC did not adduce direct restimony on items 7 and 11; however, .I Drs. Peck and Hendron were cross-examined on item 11. CPC witness Keeley filed direct testimony in response to item 9. Mr. Ke y was d j not cross-examinattomon item 9 but Mr. Howell was. 'l 139. With respect to item 9, Mr. Keeley testified that while various r fai i ] measures were being evaluated, a field engineer recommended, and the DGB 4 6 Task Force decided, that certain instr.umentation related to the surcharge 1 option be installed prior to the placement of frost p'rotection.

Keeley,

? A l pp. 8-9. Mr. Keeley explained that since certain surcharge instrumenta-h tion required subsurface installation, it was advantageous to install that instrumentation prior to placement of the frost protection (a thin ^@ ~ r layer of fill placed over existing grade to protect the lower layers j from freezing during the surcharge). Id., p. 9. Mr. Keeley concluded 3 that although certain instrumentation was installed before the final .a selection of the surcharge option, the cost of the instrumention and its .j g

?

installation was minimal and had no effect on the choice of remedial J 4 action. Id. a 1 4 _] j ~ j 140. On cross-examination, Mr. Howell testified that' some surcharge instru-g i j mentation work was done in the Fall of 1978 before the decison was made 9 j to surcharge the DGB. Tr. 2872, 2885., Mr. 'Howell, did not believe that CPC's actions in this regard were improper or inconsistent with good management. Tr. 2885-86. He added that it was prudent for management to have contingency plans or to pursue parallel approaches to the problem I s I I l 1 y '-;--y p.-,. . ~ ......-.c-.. .n - m =a. w e. - :-. w.. - ~

lc. .4 ' P kN il !)). before a final decision was made. Tr. 2836. Mr. Howell estimated that 'l ]- the cost of the insi.rumentation installation was in the range of tens of \\ .j e j thousands of dollars and that that cost constituted only a few percent i y' \\ 1 of the total cost of the surcharge program. Tr. 2395. Mr. Howell, like a L .s 1;\\ j Mr. Keeley, concluded that the cos't of the instrumentation installation ,1 r Q had no effect on the selection of the surcharge option. Tr. 2980. .{ j 141. With respect to item 11. Dr. Peck testiffed that the DGB settled [ t } pi i somewhat less on the north side adjacent to the Turbine Building. p i Tr. 3283. Dr. Peck postulated that the amount of settlement near the h Turbine Building may have been due to the sand fill in the area. Id. t Dr. Hendron likewise testified that the DGB settled more on the south ~ i than the north side. Tr'.'4064. He explained that this phenomenon was J due to the type of soils beneath the DGB and not to the magnitude of 1 the surcharge. Id. i 1 .O' 142. Based on the facts set forth above, the Board finds no evidentiary 1 i support for items 7, 9 and 11 in Contention 2. We agree with CPC 4 1 and the Staff that cost and schedule factors cre legitimate concerns. i 4 We find no evidence to show that those concerns, as they related to 1 j ? items 7, 9 and 11, adversely affected resolution of the soil settlement [ issues. 1 'i 143. Staff testimony of Mr. Kane responded to item 8 in Stamiris' supplement i l to Contention 2. Mr. Kane testified that in February 1978 the Staff t t I .t ll .) 4 .1 !-{ 1 - - - - -.. ~.. _

s/,,. 1 ] 3 j l i 'i issued FSAR question 362.2 which sought documentation from CPC of the .l metho'd used to remove the loose natural sands (sands with less than j 75%. relative density) from the foundations of safety related structures .I ~ as committed to in the PSAR. Staff Testimony on Contention 2, p. 22. i In response to question 362.2 CPC provided the results of boring explora-tions which had been drilled in August and September of 1978 and addi-J is i tional explorations made in 1979. 'Id., These borings were all drilled ,) i I } ? after the area fill had been placed.,Id. The results of these borings 7 1 did not indicate the presence of loose' natural sands beneath saf ty i j s related structures. Id. Thus, the Staff was unable to conclude that j CPC failed to excavate the loose natural sands as committed to in the j PSAR or that this failure contributed to the inadequacy of the sub-f; soils. Id. 4 i f it 144. On cross-examination, Mr. Kane attempted to clarify his direct testimony. -f, He explained that when question 362.2 was issued, CPC did not have the 4 e j documentation which the question requested. Tr. 4365..As a result, j r! CPC took various borings to determine whether loose sands were present 1, i in certain areas. Id. The blow counts from the borings indicated that [- 1 the sands were not loose. Id. l 145. Mr. Kane testified that he believed the sand ere the same ones that pursuant to the PSAR were to be removed However, due to the placement r_A-of the fill, they now had different properties. T.. ;^L Nevertheless, 1 il !tq J 1 l 4-4p. Q iL ..:4 v--~i-- w,-m.~.v = w h.mm . _::.7 n: =.

1 l l 61 - + j he stated that he could not conclude that CPC had failed to excavate the Toose sands. Tr. 4381-82. 1 h 146. CPC witness [. Keeley responded to item 8 in Stamiris' supplement to i Contention 2. His testimony was similar to that of the Staff. He explained that analyses of the borings, which were done in response to ~ FSAR question 362.2, indicated that the, naturally occurring sands at the

l.

site met the density requirements with.the exception of a few isolated lenses of no significance to safety related structures. Keeley, p.16. 4 I 'I Mr. Keeley indicated that the matter was discussed with the Staff in i April 1979'and was considered a closed issue. Id,. He concluded that d f resolution of the loose sands issue was unrelated to financial and time pressures. Keeley, p. 17. In fact, Mr. Keeley asserted that CPC had j taken the necessary steps and had incurred the necessary expense, both j 4 i in money and time, to insure that a satisfactory technical solution j j was achieved. Id. 'i 147. On cross-examination, Mr. Keeley testified that the borings were taken j because CPC could not prove that the loose sands in fact had been j .c removed. Tr. 1294-96. When Mr. Keeley's attention was directeo to .t page 2 of Attachment C of Stamiris exhibit 1, he admitted that the document indicated that the' sands had not been removed. Tr. 1296. With regard to the statement in the document that "[1]t was too late to econo-1 mically excavate the loose sands since they had for the most part been covered by backfill" Mr. Keeley stated that he would be remiss in his [.-Ii t : l i ~ l. L. ._,.xm.a =.,- w. .--a.,e.g..,.c.

+

x crn-- I

y-q!- - -.. .., a a 1 i outtes as a project manager if he did not consider cost and l schedule factors when making engineering decisions. _Id_. Further-j more, in this case, the sands were round to be adequately compacted and therefore their presence did not compromise the safety of any structure. Tr. 1297 3 j 1 3 i 148. Based on the facts set forth above, the Board finds no support for 1 .j item 8. Although CPC admitted that the. loose sands had not been i ? removed, there was no evidence demonstiating that the ' failure to remove was the result of undue or improper financial or schedule pressures. In addition, we find that the failure to remove the loose sands neither compromised the safety of any structures nor adversely.affected resolu-7 tion of the coil settlement issues. 1 V 149. Staff testimony of Mr. Hood responded to item 10 in Stamiris' supplement { to Contention 2. Mr. Hood concluded that the resolution of the. " Seismic h, ? Deferral Motion" was in accord with the Staff's position and did not = compromise applicable health and safety regulations. Staff Testimony 1 t on Contentioin 2, p. 22; Tr. 4366-68. 0 3 150. CPC witnesses presented no direct testinony on item 10. Nor were they cross-examined with respect to the " Seismic Deferr,a1 Motion". ~ f 151. Based on the facts set forth aboye, we find that CPC's " Seismic Deferral Motion" did not represent time and financial pressures which adversely i n- . c_. p ,... R.

. ~. - - - - - - - - = ,(,

3u o

((, j~ affected resolution of the soil settlement issues. Accordingly, we a find.no support for iten 10 to Contention 2. 'l 1 { 152. Staff testimony of Mr. Hood responded to item 12 in'Stamiris' supple- ,i ment to Contention 2. Mr. Hood stated that the alleged changes to' j design,' material or procedural specifications were manifestations of tho' .] 1 quality assurance breakdown prior to December 6,1979. Staff Testimony

i on Contention 2, p.' 23. Mr. Hood concluded that the quality assurance

} -g : program satisfied all NRC criteria and that the Staff now has reasonable 7; assurance that quality assurana.e and quality centrol programs will be j appropriately implemented with respect to future soils construction activities. Id. 4't ,153. On cross-examination, Mr. Hood explained that his reasonable assurance conclusion with respect to quality assurance implementation was based on k 3 the testimony of Messrs. Keppler and Gilray. -Tr. 4371. He clarified 4 i A that his direct testimony did not imply that the changes to design. j-1 material or procedural specifications should not have been made without ( N' the Staff's approval. Tr. 4430. Mr. Hood further clarified that his

r direct testimony did not conclude that these changes were caused by time 4*

w or schedule pressures. Id i i a 1 c 1 154. Neither CPC nor Intervenor Stamiris adduced any dircct testimony on g -A item 12. -) 2 8 e I 'L-- 3 .~ T ;M t i 3'f, ' f,' f ~ 'l,,'[ "" w ,,. g., o { .'.*5 { *7{ N *]*g

  • []

,p *

  • DOL -'.

,,,,y,,.. ' 4]. 4.N-

  • _ g - +,, '.;

.., g. i,g w.. .. R. 'e: f g s- !,,e 7vpp o-.. n o -i j l .,1 ' 'rl .l ,j .i

i 155.. Based on the facts set forth above, the Board finds no support for

-]. 'I item 12. While the quality assurance deficiencies in part caused the I 1 DG8 settlement problem, there was no showing that these deficiencies - J l either resulted from time or financial pressures or adversely affected -) I a the resolution of the soil settlement issue. j ..j 2 ]g l ~ i 1 t 5 l 1 a 9 .t .o. s. 9 ? ..,J -4.h b. 4 .j to i 4- .j v. s it g ~g qs, 3 t e f 'eq* 't i 'd $'::.;.f%- . n,,. : 4 .m ,4,,...' [ ~ _~

k "3) Y QC$hQ%be C~., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM!i!SSION j f BEFORE THE AT0t11C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) f I C0ftSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL l 50-330 01 & OL (fiidland Plant Units 1 and 2) ) t TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH T, KANE WITH RESPECT TO THE QUALITY f QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PRIOR TO DECEFEER 6,1979 t Q.1. Please state your name and position with the NRC. A. fly name is Joseph D. Kane. My position with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is Principal Geotechnir.al Engineer and I am assigned to the Geotechnical Engineering Section of the Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Q.2. Have you prepared a statement of professional qualifications? A. Yes. A copy of this statement is attached. Q.3. Please state the nature of the responsibilities that you have had with respect to the !!idland Plant, Units 1 & 2. A. !!y review involvement with the liidland project essentially began in !1ovember 1979 when I was assigned the responsibility of serving as technical nonitor for the interagency contract between the tir.C and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District (hereafter the Corps). The purpose of this interagency contract was to obtain the L l

. Q. \\., service of expert technical personnel from the Corps to assist the liRC in the safety review of the flidland project in the field of geotechnical engineering. ity responsibilities as contract technical i monitor include assisting the Corps in their review efforts, examining and commenting on their evaluation reports and coordinating the Corps review efforts with other f1RC Branches in technical areas of overlapping safety c cern. In addition I have assisted in preparation of interrogatories and responses to interrogatories with regards to the soil settlement problem at the 141dland plant. Since fiovember 1979 qy involvement in the review of the ;11dland project has steadily increased to the point that it is now the major portion of my work at 11RC. In addition to' responding F to Consumers appeal actions (e.g., the appeal of the June 30, 1980 request for additional borings and laboratory testing) and participation in discovery deposition proceedings, I an extensively involved in the assessment of the adequacy of the renedial measures proposed by Consumers. These remedial fixes are necessary to address the nany problems caused by the unanticipated settlenent of safety related' structures and piping due to the improperly compacted plant fill. o Q.4. Please state tne purpose of this testimony. A. The purpcse of this testimony is to supplement the testimony prepared by Eugene J. Gallagher. In response to question 32, Mr. '1 Gallagher stated that quality assurance deficiencies resulted in the plant b

i.__.___._. .E-------- -: l,! fill being insufficiently compacted. My fe,stimoriy iremonstrate.s'thati- [1\\ if the original compaction control requirements set forth in the PSAR had been' followed, the plant fill settlement problem would not I have occurred. ,F i-Q.5. What is the basis for your response to Question ~ 4? f. A. As indicated in Mr. Gallagher's testimony in response to Question 22 the NRC at the PSAR licensing stage considered the designated p 1. mininum compaction criteria and recommended moisture content placement control to be design and construction commitments by CPC. (The compaction criteria and moisture control requirement at the PSAR stage are summarized in Table 2.5.4, sheet 3 of the FSAR in O response to NRC question 362.15). The significance of these Q' :, commitments is extremely important to the expected perfomance of the plant fill. The engineering profession widely recognizes the importance of adequate controls on compaction and noisture content for soils which are intended to satisfactorily support structures. This wide recognition comes about because of the acknowledged relationship between the state of a soil's compactness and the soil's accepted behavior as an engineering material. CPC, when they indicated that soils which were to support structures would be I compacted to a stated percentage of a laboratory established maximun density at a moisture content near optitrJa, were, in effect, convincing the NRC Staff at the CP Stage that engineering properties of compressibility and shear strength would be acceptable. What has i-been experienced at Midland (i.e., the plant fill significantly [ ,m g e, __ _ s4-*-- + wu mm'* -o

  • - -+*

w"~ ' * * * * ~ ' * ' ' ' '

n 4-w settling under its own weight; foundation supporting safety related structures having very low penetration resistance to spoon samplers; f and extensive cracking of structures founded on compacted fill) i f-proves that soils were not compacted to the designated mininum i-compaction criteria established at the PSAR stage. Q.6. Do other engineers share your conclusion that the cause of the plant fill settlement problem resulted from inadequate compaction or construction of an unsatisfactcry plant fill? A. Yes. Engineers from both the Corps and the NRC staff have the opinion that inadequate compaction and failure to attain the minimun compaction criteria' designated at the PSAR stage are the major reasons for the settlement problem at Midland. In addition, in my opinion, statements obtained in the discovery depositions from Bechtel and their consultants support this conclusion. The following is from lines 7-10 at page 97 of the deposition of Sherif Afifi (Bechtel employee) taken on October 29, 1980; BY MR.PATON: Q. Doctor, do you have any opinion as to what caused the extensive settlement problem in the plant fill at Nidiand? A. Inadequate compaction. The following is from lines 18-25 at page 15 and lines 1-3 at page 16 of the deposition of Dr. Ralph B. Peck (Bechtel consultant) taken on January 13, 1981; Q. All right. What is your opinion of the quality of the soils placement that had taken place prior to your being hired on the Midland project? (3 g.6 I

... ~ 1 il l I! 9

(p

[l t, IR. FARNELL: Are you talking about the whole power plant? Or are you talking about specific parts of it? ,jj. HR. JONES: The soils portions of the project with which he was pl closely associated.- p 'J A. My opinion, or perhaps you could say it was r1y conclusion was i-~!j that the fill beneath the diesel generator building area and sone neighboring areas was not a satisfactory fill. 'l i' The following is from lines 5-16 at page 41 of the deposition of Dr. [ Alfred J. Hendron (Bechtel consultant) taken on January 27, 1981; b Q. With respect to your construction of the fill do you have any opinion as to the quality of that work? ,j Were you going to speak?. I t HS. BLOOM: Yes, I was going to - I think we have outlined what kind of work we are talking about here. MR. JONES: ' Construction of fill? i. THE WITNESS: I think when a fill is settle two to four inches under its own weight, and some places have a very low slow [ sic] count which obviously something went wrong and I cannot say whose fault or what it might have been, but, there were some bad fills there, not as good as it should have been. I shouldn't say bad fills, there is a differencs. L i t ,t, k, i i t ,,e.,,_ _m .+a---- - + * ~

f S.- . n. 9 s PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE [ NAME: Joseph D. Kane h I ADDRESS: 7421 Miller Fall Road I. Derwood, MD 20855 h EDUCATION: B.S. Civil Engineering 196*. ff Villanova University L. p M.S. Civil Engineering 1973 Villanova University [ Post-degree studies. Soils and Foundation Engineering University of California 1972 University of Maryland 1978 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION: Registered Professional Engineer (1966) - Pennsylvania 12032E PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY: 2r. ~'i American Society of Civil Engineers EMPLOYMENT POSITIONS: February 1980 - Present Principal Geotechnical Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 1977 - February 1980 Geotechnical Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission s October 1975 - May 1977 Soils Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission August 1973 - October 1975 Supervisory Civil Engineer Chief. Soils Design Section U.S. Arny Corps of Enginecrs.

i Philadelphia District January 1963 - August 1973 Civil Engineer l~

Soils Design Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District i' January 1962 - January 1963 Design Engineer 1 McCormick - Taylor Associates Philadelphia, Pa. I t' - w -y 4-..es* v i = * *wga gasim. +.sme-.

r ~ I i Professional Qualifications - .fm 7 and Experience .l v Joseph D. Kane j II Ll PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE SUMARY I 1975 to Present In NRC Division of Engineering, Geotechnical Engine 6 ring i Section, Mr. Kane has specialized in soil mechanics and J. i foundation engineering. Experiences in this position l have included the following: a. Evaluation of the foundation adequacy of proposed I sites for nuclear facilities with respect to design and operational safety. This work has included i' evaluation of geotechnical, soils and rock mechanics. foundation and earthquake engineering related aspects. The results of this review effort are sununarized in a safety evaluation report for each of the proposed facilities which have included nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel reprocessing plants and uranium mill tailings waste systems. b. Serving as a technical adviser for soil and foundation engineering related aspects in the development of regulatory guides, acceptance and performance criteria that are intended to assure construction and operational safety of nuclear facilities. c. Serving as a technical representative for the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on the NRC Adyisory Group concerned with federai dam safety. d. Serving as an instructor for the Office of State Programs in the training of state personnel who are responsible for construction and operational inspe::tions of uranium mill tailings embankment retention systems. 1963 to 1975 During this period Mr. Kane was employed with the U.S. Arnty Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District and attained the position, Chief. Soils Design Section. Foundations and Materials Branch, in 1973. Professional experiences with the Corps of Engineers have included the following: a. The embankment ano foundation design of four large multi-purpose earth and rockfill dams with appurtenant structures (spillways, inlet and outlet structures, control towers, flood protection facilities, etc.). Responsibilities ranged from the initial planning of t. l ..m w -wi._..%.iw.. ,ou,_ ,g p. --ei w%

r I l I /D., Professional Qualifications,' ('"j and Experience Joseph D. Kane ?: P subsurface investigations to select the most 5 feasible sites through all design stages which I were culminated in the final preparation of [ construction plans and specifications. This work i included planning and evaluation of laboratory testing programs, studies on slope stability, seepage control and dewatering systems, settlement, b bearing capacity, liquefaction embankment safety instrumentation and slope protection. b. Served as a technical consultant to field offices charged with construction inspections for assuring completion of structures in compliance with design analysis and contract specifications. Participated in the development of needed modifications during construction whenever significant changed site conditions were uncovered. c. Directed the efforts of engineers in the Soils Design Section in other fields of civil work projects that A included the embankment and foundation design of Q'? levees, waterfront pi.le supported structures and ~ disposal basins for the retention of hydraulic dredge waste. 1962 to 1963 Served as design and project engineer for private consulting firm. This work included the design of large federally funded highways, a race track and various structures constructed to provide a Pennsylvania State park marina. t 5 g g o.y-p unu m e = = e. 6 w +e.an. om ., wen. w.,%

c. / Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-329/330 Input Into NRC Staff Testimony l Prepared by: Joseph Kane Stamiris Contention No. 2b) A. The Staff's understanding of Dr. R. B. Peck's statement of August 10, 1979 (Refer to 50.55(e) Interim Reports, document transmitted in letter of August 10, 1979 from S. Howell to J. Keppler, Section 5, Page 5) is that the proposed operations to underpin the Electrical Penetration Area Structures and the Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits were suitable for being completed within the construction schedule which existed at that time. The Staff did not have problems with this statement by Dr. Peck I since the statement itself did not eliminate the establishment and need for approval by the staff of a proper underpinning design nor of requiring high quality construction with appropriate controls. The 1 Staff is unable to conclude that Dr. Peck's statement demonstrated financial and time schedule pressures on Consumers that adversely affected res'olution of the soil settlement issue. [ P l 1 '4 + - - -... ~ _. -.. ..,.,_._.m.

n T[$[m ^"A i ybseko rvwg Odh 4 3 This is a portion of the testimony of Ralph B. Peck. I reside at 1101 Warm Sands Drive SE, Albuquerque, New i Mexico. I graduated from Rensselear Polytechnic Institute' in 1934 with the degree of Civil Engineer and in 1937 4 t received the degree of Doctor of Civil Engineering with a major in Structures. From April 1938 to January 1939 I attended the Graduate School of Engineering, Harvard University, where I attended the courses in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering and served as a laboratory assistant to Professor Arthur Casagrande. I am a registered Structural Engineer in the State of Illinois and was a member of the Illinois Structural I am re-Engineering Examining Board from 1959 to 1969. gistered as a Professional Engineer in Illinois and Hawaii, and as a Civil Engineer in California. My detailed experience l record will be attached to my testimony concerning the diesel generator building preload. I am a consultant to Bechtel with regard to certain I have geotechnical aspects of the Midland Project site. 6 been associated with the Midland plant from September 28, 1978 b os to date. The purpose of this testimony is to address certain j' contentions of Barbara Stamiris. These contentions and my l 1. I response follow. T y 3 A

o ~ STAMIRIS ANSWERS TO CONSUMERS POWER INTERROGA*1tRIE1 ON CONTENTION 2 j i Further examples of the effect of financial 2A. Table A i and time pressures on soil settlement issues:* + 2A. Example 1. 11/7/78 Bechtel action item: " proceed with l f preparations for preload as rapidly as possible" i 2B. Effect on soil settlement issues _ Root causes not adeq. investigated, organizational 1. deficiencies not eliminated prior to proceeding with remediation Dr. Peck's Response It is noted that the quoted statement deals with " preparations for preload," not the actual institution p,.& ~,0 Moreover, since it was obvious that the fill vs'? ci of the preload. ,\\h was settling progressively under its own weight and was known to contain clay which would cause a progressive settlement, no w mES'# further information was needed regarding " root causes" to i ~ conclude that surcharging would be appropriate he surcharge -tly. ' r dnom_ could be acting and producing its beneficial cts while 4} g M organizational deficiencies, if any, were being remedied. 2A. Example 11/7/78 decision to fill pond "immediately, l 2. because the amount of river water available for filling is t I l restricted" j t " Consumers Power Company's financial

  • Contention 2 reads:

^ and time schedule pressures have directly and adversely affected resolution of soil settlement issues, which constitutes a compromise of applicable health and safety regulations as demonstrated byt" l_

~~~ l,- l3 l ' 2B. Effect on soil settlement issues .t i 2. Affected piezometric measurements during preload Dr. Peck's Response 4. / In order to avoid the complexities in measurement that would be introduced by pore-air pressures if the plant f .i I /, fill were to contain large amounts of air, Dr. Hendron and I i concurred in the desirability of allowing the pond level to rise so that the tips of the piezometers and their surrounding capsules'of sand would be below groundwater level. The effect. d tNeub E ,p'aof the presence of air would thus be minimiz6.TJi. pt hp cr4 %c - 4 I hs ban secded tgc 9 On If groundwater level beneath the Diesel Generator ,es

bp.N Building could have been held at a constant high level throughout i

,a. the surcharge process, constant base conditions for interpretation of excess pore pressures would have existed. However, it was not possible to raise the pond quickly to a==v4=um elevation and maintain it at that maximum level, and there /1pl* was no evidence that, even if this were done, the groundwater 4; levels beneath the Diesel Generator Building would necessarily J + reach a stable elevation. It was my opinion that the best 4 course of action, taking into account these considerations, was to allow the pond level to rise as rapidly as possible 1 and to proceed with the surcharging. }; j Furthermore, filling the pond had a beneficial f effect on the piesometric measurements, in that submergence of the piesometer tips permitted the use of reliable standpipe-type j piemometers without introducing excessivte time lags. ?. T i e' ,-~

- -... _ ~. - o r 1

i Finally, addition, since at this early stage of investigation ul the hypothesis was still being entertained that the clays might be dry of optimum, it was considered desirable to b

submerge as much of the clay as possible. The implications of these decisions in the light of the observed behavior are considered subsequently in my testimony concerning the Diesel I Generator Building preload. 2A. Example 3. 11/7/78 "5 month period is available in the schedule for preloading" 3. Effect on soil settlement issues f The surcharge was removed at the end of this 5 months despite lack of NRC satisfaction that secondary consolidation was assured Dr. Peck's Response 15, 1979 ,,fL I approved removal of the surcharge on August / because both settlement and piezametric data conclusively 3 demonstrated completion of primary consolidation. The timing i t1p'..i g of this approval was unrelated to any predetermined duration, ? 'd The NRC had no logical technical basis,for believing secondary y l consolidation had not been achieved. } i 2A. Example l Depth and breadth of surcharge limited by practical 11. i consideration of DGB, Turbine B. structures f n 4 'I' 4' i f ' ~ ~ -- - -~ g

,~. I 1 i 11. Effect on soil settlement issues i i Afforded less than otpimum conditions for surcharge ~ Dr. Peck's Response t Quite properly, when surcharging was being considered, j a review of available space was made to determine whether there was sufficient area to place a surcharge fill needed to achieve the necessary stress levels in the subsoil. Adequate area and vertical space were available to obtain needed surcharge stresses, except adjacent to the Turbine I Building. There a retaining system was constructed to permit placement of enough surcharge to achieve the needed l stress levels. Thus conditions were fully sufficient for successful surcharge. l l l M ..O i h (, 4 d ) t i 4 e iI -s-t 4 A I- = - -

-~~.-- - -.....__.-. __- j t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Beftre the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j ) In the Matter of ) Docket Nos.-50-329-OL l } 50-330-OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-329-OM }- 50-330-OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) I STATE OF ILLINOIS) l ) SS. COUNTY OF COOK ) AFFIDAVIT OF RALPH B. PECK I am Ralph B. Peck. I am presently consultant to Bechtel with regard to certain geotechnical aspects of the Midland Project site. Based upon knowledge, information and belief the attached testimony is true and correct. 4 _4 4 1 Ralph e. Peck .=9 .a SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN 'IO BEFORE ME THIS 30TH DAY j ! OF , 1981. f,! c>e V,6.r..* ( 2 ,e Nothry Public / M.* ! P ! f My Comunission Expires: I '/ h l l l 1 iA =- l:

- - w.- -..... -. _. " '4 O h -C. g (;, c #

  1. . c7

~, ~!r. .f A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . ij NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i } .t t ) .{ In the Matter of ) ) Jl CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329-OM I ) 50-330-OM J (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL ) 50-330-OL l 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Alan S. Farnell, hereby certify that a copy of the testimony of Enlph 3. Peck dealing with certain Stamiris contentions was served upon all persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 30th day of June, 1981. 'O / '_A h-Alan S. Farnell T 1

  • *f

'l .). i k) g. 4 i! .I 1 Lj I .l i .g 1 1 a

i SERVICE LIST Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Steve Galdier, Esq. Attorney General of the 2120 Carter Avenue State of Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Carole Steinberg, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Pnl. Environmental Protection Div. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 720 Law Building Washington, D.C. 20555 Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. C. R. Stephens Chief, Docketing & Service Section Myron M. Cherry, Esq. One IBM Plaza Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Ms. Mary Sinclair RFD 10 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Midland, Michigan 48640 f, Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. William D. Paton, Esq. I Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Pnl. Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel 6152 N. Verde Trail U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apt. B-125 Washington, D.C. 20555 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Barbara Stamiris Admin. Judge Ralph S. Decker 5795 North River Road Route No. 4, box'190D Route 3 Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Freeland, Michigan 48623 Carroll E. Mahaney Babcock & Wilcox P. O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 .4 James E. Brunner, Esq. Consumers Power Company 4 212 West Michigan Avenue 'j Jackson, Michigan 49201 5 i 4 4 + I a i en I

== a ym. .***irm.e .. = 1 A 'T .4# l L.-- _OL. -_&_Ekk%$$SNl$$$p

  • _%M, ;:-:-

1 h+5 ~~2 ^ &., y l0 M $i & =,5?$ @En h.~y ees XWWi ,Q ~.. :- . -W k k L 'l gg a .m _ggg,gm. fNW W ?, " gfhy~ m^5$h_l~ ~ e.. -g m..v a. w l ENYSW *4$b ekY* Q ~ r.,gnw$p'v.c%4%m=qc,g;ds & + d \\Wu Mu ct .i 5%& mM3 w_ o ~- N TS @_ USEE._L% 'Tsh d; @ 5Adil5@ n- %. gvFM{o.k. bn*, r n. e e E w Y'J30 d. Nree&C r.%" -* *"* i MIfS e,cbc. m, etad-p&. W.m An: c Q ^ ?. =,,exyx, 7..... m._ _ M(;, ~ h.... 7.. TG(S_a_. o.,,. . mm %:.:% % _0 p[. 7 %. ~ ~ s .. ~.m 4 32 Ml hh47 (ekhM' 10 .N,M.f:SkM. M, w w y' 1UM, ~..M,.,,,M bl..I. n.b.c. bbk5 bb 8 ',*ha U n.nn c n. n MJ M b gG 6'pj" .j g a wsd%; 4 e gig ssypr r e w y n &+ v % u : m w* w.* w. si.cp% e w O_g_ ymft Nih;MOU;$1MMk 'l'%y;Mg E L7 3%5k%t&%M4DM??W i MGW.W

w. M t M g" 4 $4E* WTit @ d n.y g.M s & s

_.m... s. 3t ,(& ,. y n ,. ~ g}f Mi&f, * '

x n tw h, v.n.9 x

x

,,..y n9 q.e r.

... g[..gI" .k Nf.

  • p g

y = e b;fssw QJW# W 1: wmuqw qsgwy j bl,n. k, M w,e-V2:*MW *

  1. %. f..

wwo m m' x .kt ?u 2 9 #. ? W &. m ^ e I g-u. ~ h$$ h %w9.9gg0@y;jw,?%. l,611 tC k p%gqc. &,M W merg 5p?> m 3 R-y1 5kJst D.~W L-x R de$$$ s';@PC i W i $ $ A E. W. %. W.. s. n. ~ d. ii m.mm.. m .m h$ hk,h' h 3 {' ?h? s[ R e bf99W WM WQEMMISMGuMWNYSF awmy@ w ww.m&w nLc=hwame mmm Nm ,g-- m@ep h M ^b-ga5 m2.ee. . Weph e -e.e.= q .-he. geh M gn M /M J w,e" ,,4g .s doghem. [ 7" -, ", - -..,, -.dum-e N,,----_--%.he%, -, -, ~.. - - - -. - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - -

l Raspongon to NRC Questions j

Midland 1&2 ~- <3. i f.} - &j / Question 362.2 (2.5.4.5.1) Question and the resulting discussion on Page 8.00-1 included in Amendme t Number 9 to your PSAR stated that all natural sands with relat ve densities less than 75% would be removed beneath j all Class I structures and beneath non-Class 1 structures so sited that their failure could endanger the adjacent Class 1 structures. \\ Discuss the methods employed' in mapping and removing 8 [l the sands having less than 75% relative density. Provide plan and sectional ' figures showing the areas where these materials h, were removed. ' Figure A9-2 of the PSAR which' displays subsurface profiles _ of Class 1 piping should be updated to show removal of sands of less th'an 75% relative density and be presented in the e Figure 2.5 21 of the FSAR shows' loose sands beneath the i FSAR. t 'i Class 1 tanks although they were to have been removed. Explain .( this inconsistency *,, and provide propdr documentation of as-built ] conditions. (\\ i^ Responses 1 Numerous borings were ade in Augyst and September 1978 to determine that all nat al sands dith relative densities less than 75% had been remov d beneath/ all Class I structures, piping, and non-Class I structur s so thgt their f ailure could not endanger the adjacent Class I structures. These boring locations t are shown in Figure 2.5-46A. fill has been placed in th4 plan / to a 35 foot thick compacted Up t area to achieve a final plant grade elevation of 634 feet \\ \\ Split spoon samples were obtai ed for the natural sands encountered using a standard ' lit spoon sampler. This procedure utilized a 140-pound hammer f 41ing 30 inches to drive a \\. l-3/8 inch inside diameter sp y spoon sampler ( ASTM D 1586). Blows required to advance th sampler through each 6 inch increment were recorded. Th standard penetration test blowcount J is the number of blows corre on ' g to the last foot of sampler

l penetration.

Standard pene ratio test blowcounts are presented d in these boring logs. A ta latio of the blowcounts associated with the natural sands is s,own in_ ble_2J -25. Thepe-logs and !j! VWated3DTIcTOss-sect.ionsfwillbep\\ resented in a later C amendment. J Dh f / The blowcount obtained f rom the standard penetration test can be h !] used as a ineasure of the r<tlative densi of sand in situ as i; described by Gibbs and Hol :s.03 Based o such a relationship, a Il ti standard penetration test <ith the range f 20 to 25 blows would ({ be required to obtain 75% relative densit (see (i FSAR Figure 2.5-42). By e xamining all the borings, most 'l blowcounts of the natural sands are greatl in excess of the - 4 i required blowcount range of 20 to 25 blows th the exception of o i the few sand lenses encountered in the follo ing borings. q i l Revision 15 I Q&R 2.5-3 11/78 f 1 i.L--

R3sponas to NRC Quantions Midland 1&2

i B1 wcount Boring Number

' Elevation (b/ows/ft) (

j j

DG-7 604 17 DG-7 601 17 DG-7 600 10 DG-7 599 15 DG-28 601 9 15 CT-1 603 11

j It is seen that the existing natu 1 sa de are dense with a relative density much greater than 5%.

The sand lenses with the s g relatively low blowcounts encountere n borings DG-7, DG-9, i: DG-28,.and CT-1 are isolated and will ot endanger the integrity p-{ of plant structures. ti ("H.J. Gibbs and W.G. Holtz, "Re earch on etermining the i Density of Sands by Spoon Pen tration Tes,ing," Proceedings-Fourth International Conferen e on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol I/ (1957), London, England, pp 35-39 l'l' ( i j, i 1 1 ,) q i 1 \\ 1 Revision 15 4 QER 2.5-4 11/78 ) i 1__ _ -- 6

Racponses to NRC Quastions Midland 1&2 4 Question 362.2 (2.5.4.5.1) ) i Question 1 and the resulting discussior,on Page 8.00-1 included in Amendment Number 9 to your PSAR staced that all natural sands with relative densities less than 75% would be removed beneath all Class I structures and beneath non-Class 1 stru tures so sited that their failure could endanger the adjace t Class 1 structures. Discuss the methods employed in mapp'ng and removing the sands having less than 75% relative density. Provide plan 8 and sectional figures showin~ the areas where ese materials were removed. Figure A9-2 of the PSAR which'd plays subsurface profiles of Class 1 piping sh uld be updated show removal of sands of less than 75% relati density and b presented in the FSAR. Figure 2.5-21 of the FS shows loose sands beneath the Class 1 tanks although they we e to have be removed. Explain this inconsistency, and provid proper do entation of as-built conditions. { Responses In 1970, 61 soil borings were ma e at e possible locations of CategoryIstructuresandsystems}to nvestigate loose surficial sands. These were shallow depth nor'ngs with depths ranging from 9 to 40 feet. The borings were des ' gnated D-1 through D-60 and are included in Appendix 2A. The cations of the borings are shown on FSAR Figure 2.5-17. It is seen from Figure 2.5-42 th t tandard penetration blowcount values of 10 to 15 blows per fo t e required at depths from zero to 15 feet for a-relative dens.ty of 75%. Examination of Table 2.5-25 and the boring 1 s shows the D-borings had the blowcounts necessary for rel ive de nsities in excess of 75%. g Standard penetration blowcou ts wer recorded at various depths in these borings. Blowcoun values are in excess of 20 blows per foot with one exceptio. Boreho e D-48 (refer to j Table 2.5-25) indicated o blowcoun of five at an elevation 18 approximately 595 feet. owever, bo ehole D-48A, located 5 feet away from D-48, showed a inimum blo ount of 20 at approximatell 600 feet elevation. i:!* Shortly after the D-bor ngs were completed, project activities were postponed from 19 0 to 1973 beca se soil borings under one - of the Category'I tan were not made til 1978. The subsurface profile shown in Figu e 2.5-21, Rev 1 January 8, 1979), indicated the possibl existence of lo se sands. ii N (LDurina to7a/ numerou soil borings wer made in the tank farm area and elsewhere il the plant area. ese borings are d.' l' L, E, D, Do, Q, a d CT, and their locations designated T, C, H el T N are included in Figwe 2.5-17. The bor g logs are included in Y Appendix 2A. I i: r d t }j Q&R 2.5-3 Revision 18 l; 2/79 }r ir eI 0 =+ : - - --

-t' ~ Rtop n300 to NRC Qucations Midland 1&2 4 =, j The plant area no'w consists of man-made ill ranging from 25 to ~J' 35 feet high. Undhr this condition, at dard penetration J b1cwcount values o 20 to 25 blows per oot are requiredH8 for a I

i relative density of 75% at depths betw en 25 to 35 feet As can be

?,~ COcn from Figure 2.5 42. The T-borin in the tank farm area I }l rsgister blowcounts more than the ain'aum for a relative density of 75% (refer to Tabl 2.5-25). Ther fore, the sands can be cicssified as moderate y dense to de se. Based on this, the cubsurface profile,.Fi re 2.5-21, h a been revised excluding the

[

po sible existence of 1 se sands. 18 A few borings elsewhere i the plan area, namely DG-7, DG-28, i, and CT-l~, indicate blowco ts of 9 :o 17 blows per foot at elcvations of 599 to 604 fe t. Th se are isolated lenses and P. - will not endanger the integ 'ty of Category I structures. lj i Ecced on the_ facts discussed ov, it is concluded that the 4 curficial sands existing in the ant area have relative dsnsities greater than 75%. 1 k

i HiH.J. Gibbs and W.G. Holtz,"jlesea h on Determining the Density of sands by spoon Penetrati n Testing," Proceedings-Fourth International Conferdnce on S il Mechanics and 33 Foundation Engineering, Vo18 I (1957), London, England, 4

pp 35-39 l i [ \\ \\ \\ q 1 ! !r ~,' g* (:, e 1 i !I l]> i! l h1 i I 't l-1 i Q&R 2.5-4 Revision 18 l 2/79 i l

4.- .E ~?

i_"

R2spon3s3 to NRC Quastion3 d Midland 1&2 q 't

I Question 362.2 (2.5.4.5.1) j q

1 Question 1 and the resulting discussion on Page 8.00-1 included ~ in Amendment Number 9 to your PSAR stated that all natural sands

j with relative densities less than 75% would be removed beneath all Class I structures and beneath non-Class 1 structures so 1

sited that their failure could endanger the adjacent Class 1 structures. Discuss the methods employed in mapping and removing the sands having less than 75% relative density. Provide plan 8 and sectional figures showing the areas where these materials S-were removed. Figure A9-2 of the PSAR which displays subsurface ,j profiles of Class 1 piping should be updated to show removal of l sands of less than 75% relative density and be presented in the FSAR. Figure 2.5-21 of the FSAR shows loose sands beneath the Class 1. tanks although they were to have been removed. Explain ( this inconsistency, and provide proper documentation of as-built conditions. l9' Responses !i In 1970, 61 soil borings were made at the possible locations of Category I structures and systems to investigate loose surficial i,' sands. These were shallow depth borings with depths ranging from 9 to 40 feet. The borings were designated D-1 through D-60 and are included in Appendix 2A. The locations of the borings are shown on FSAR Figure 2.5-17. It is seen from Figure 2.5-42 that standard penetration blowcount values of 10 to 15 blows per foot are required at depths from i. zero to 15 feet for a relative density of 75%. Examination of s Table 2.5-25 and the boring logs shows the D-borings had the l blowcounts necessary for relative densities in excess of 75%. Standard penetration blowcounts were recorded'at various depths i in these borings. Blowcount values were in excess of 20 blows i per foot with one exception. Borehole D-48 (refer to Table 2.5-25) indicated one blowcount of five at an elevation 18

2 approximately 595 feet.

However, borehole D-48A, located 5 feet 'I away from D-48, showed a minimum blowcount of 20 at approximately N 600 feet elevation. n l :' - Shortly after the D-borings were completed, project activities 't were postponed from 1970 to 1973. Because soil borings under one

i of the seismic' Catego
f I tanks were not made until 1978, the 8l subsurface profile.sitown 'in Figure 2.5-21, Rev 1 (January 8, 1979), indicated thei possible existence of loose sands.

) d d i' Numerous soil borings were made in the tank farm area and l30~ elsewhere in the plant area. These borings are designated T, l i LN E, D, D Q, and CT, and their locations are included 18 C,H[g,ure,2.5-17. The boring logs are included in Appendix 2A. i in F a, ,l l. q' l Q&R 2.5-3 Revision 30 10/80 f d l n Al ll~ r -- - n : nn r - rrr l l

___._=..__T ~ ~ Rrpan000 to NRC QuOctions l Midland 1&2 4

Ia The plant area now consists of man-made fill ranging from 25 to i

4 35 feet high. Under this condition,-standard penetration r8 blowcount values of 20 to 25 blows per foot are requiredH8 for a relative density of 75% at depths between 25 to 35 feet as can be seen from Figure 2.5-42. The T-borings in the tank farm area ~1 register blowcounts more than the minimum for a relative density J' of 75% (refer to Table 2.5-25). Therefore, the sands can be classified as moderately dense to dense. Based on this, the +- subsurface profile, Figure 2.5-21, has been revised excluding the possible existence of loose sands. 18 A few borings elsewhere in the plant area, namely DG-7, DG-28, and CT-1, indicate blowcounts of 9 to 17 blows per foot at elevations of 599 to 604 feet. These are isolated lenses and will not endanger the integrity of Category I structures.' r. Based on the facts discussed above, it is concluded that the

]

surficial sands existing in the plant area have relative r: densities greater than 75%. I I. ? MlH.J. Gibbs and W.G. Holtz, "Research on Determining the Density of Sands by Spoon Penetration Test, ting," Proceedings-Fourth International Conference ~ on Soil Mechanics and 13 Foundation Engineering, Vol I (1957), London, England, pp 35-39 \\ i ?

I ij 1

1 l 1 Q&R 2.5-4 Revision 18 2/79 i e e i; i b.

j

Dj'.~

? M E w por'Nra. C '

(,p] a uu. was% mew t-m 1]k $ygeM c Midland Plant,50-329, 330 Units 1 and 2 - u,4 Docket No. s j j Tg g gInput Into NRC Staff Testimony Prepared by: Joseph Kane x 5 Stamiris Contention No. 2b) A. The Staff's understanding of Dr. R. B. Peck's statement of August 10, ..a k 1979 (Rafer to 50.55(e) Interim Reports, document transmitted in letter 4 g of August 10, 1979 from S. Howell to J. Keppler, Section 5, page 5) is ,d that the proposed operations to underpin the Electrical' Penetration Area ? Structures and the Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits were suitable for y being completed within the construction schedule which existed at that h time. The Staff did not have problems with this statement by Dr. Peck since the statement itself did not eliminate the establishment a.nd need for approval by the staff of a proper underpinning design nor of requiring high quality construction with appropriate controls. The Staff is unable to conclude that Dr. Peck's statement demonstrated financial and time schedule pressure's pn Consugers that adversely,af ted resolution mi -u wev i of the soil settlement issueA hm g by-D6.- Pec erdtrectly' g atement-g. affect-resolution of the sciLset410-'ent issus-M ~! l Supplement to Stamiris Contention No. 2 Item 2 A. The.St.aff. agrees with Stamiris contention no. 7, iterh 2, that Consumers ( p decision to fill the cooling pond "ininediately, because the amount of ll river water available for filling is restricted" (Refer to 50.54(f), I l ) documents. Vol. 4. Tab 12,' Page 2) did affect the piezometric measurements

j during preloading. The coincident eff6 cts on piezometric' monitoring byV 4tqspg # fio &.
  • -.e e.--

- - * = =

/ l (. . > i, { caused by seepage still developing from the raised pond and also due to the development of excess pore water pressures under the surcharge loading was identified in the past by the Staff and its Consultant as being an important reason for not being able to fully accept Consumer's conclusion on the effectiveness of the surcharge program. To overcome this problem the NRC has attempted to independently verify the effectiveness of the surcharge program by requiring the additional borings and laboratory testing fortheDiselGehnator Bbt dg %.e. scJ,ed Weisuer Chd comp.I bwn h ildi foundation oils. The,\\ ear wo t e. ~ V accpence g%g, pect rusing Sore 1Aree %cemened 0-oyer on5 4 Os %s ps.wres hu Supplement to Stamiris Contention No. 2. Item 3) *g adverstcha, resolvhon Me O CdeL a \\ A. The Staff agrees with Stamiris that the minutes of a meeting held November 7,1978 between Consumers, Bechtel and their Consultants does indicate "a 5-month period is available in the schedule for preloading". (Refer to 50.54(f) documents, Vol. 4, Tab 12 Page 2). The Staff also agrees with the Stamiris contention that the surcharge was removed without & jCAsdy 4suby_L% gess p.j ~ NRC being sum fied t.it :::: dry cr-eaudation wac ace"M. a There re,ce5er.: 9y NDr ee nat== tis?ied-but-ifis admittted-that" - p onsumers did notify the NRC of their intentions to remove the surcharge fil,1 prior, to actually removing it. The reasons this situation developed can be traced to Co'risumers past position of not identifying the criteria i that would be acceptable to the NRC staff in advance of completing the remedial action. Consumers position and resulting difficulty that it presented to the Staff is illustrated in the following paragraph taken from the "Sumary of July 18, 1979 Me'eting on Soil Deficiencies 1

7 C.: y i I at the Midla'nd Plant Site" (Attachment 1) which states: 1 "The staff noted that the response to its 10 CFR 50.54 requests for acceptance criteria for remedial a'b.'tions (e.g., questions 4 6 etc.) had not-resulted in identification of criteria in advance of the remedial action. Rather the reply notes that the .e criteria will be determined during or after the remedial action. The staff stated that this approach by the applicant does not provide for timely staff feedback at 'the outset, but rather the staff must await results of the program to determine what t . acceptance criteria were used and if they are acceptable. Thus, the remedial action is being conducted entirely at the l. applicant's own risk." 1 The learning process which NRC underwent through the year 1979 - understanding the full extent of the ' plant fill settlement problem at the Midland site; realizing the potential difficulties that could develop'in permitting Consumers to proceed with other remedial work at their own risk - were all important factors which were considered-by the NRC prior to issuing the December 6 1979 Order. y Supplement to Stamiris Contention No. 2. Item 4) 4 I \\ j A. The Staff does agree that grouting of the gaps between the footings and the foundation soils of the Diesel Generator Building (Refer to a 3 50.54(f) documents. Vol. 4. Tab 12 Page 3) prior to cutting the duct gf .. banks and surchargir.g would have resulted in lower stresses being imposed j_ on the Diesel Generator Building. l It is the Staff's understanding that the condensate lines were actually t cut prior to surcharging and therefore, these unconnected lines were not 0 j-a cause of additional stresses to the Diesel Generator Building. } D .f em 9

4 _4_ i With regards to not breaking up the mudmat beneath the Diesel Generator I' Building, it is likely this decision lessened the stresses imposed during surcharging since the structure fourYdation was stiffer and better able to span any soft soil areas that may have existed. There is a trade off however, in that not breaking up the mud mat reduced the effectiveness of the surcharge, in consolidating the softer foundation scils which were being bridged by the structur foundation and mudmat. W } If in the future during plant operation, new or extended cracking of the wall footings and mudmat were to occur, redistribution of' loading pressu.es could result and ossibly lead to additional settlement. i t: d$ h hv

e. conc.ludq ndd nt% vee. exon,p hshd m %A coMe To th 4

n %e. {odu(t rodt' i A be censidereci as aw exo Ic.(_h,be schedJlt yn:vvd: s i shck.covi sc o 6 an3abSe Qect o, h reoMon ' %( sm) sethent me.c, A. Supplement to Stamiris Contention No. 2 Item 5) 1 A. Consumer!s decision to continue construction of the Diesel Generator Building does make it more difficult and costly to select the removal and replacement option, but it does not eliminat this option.Yt kSt* Ns kciuer h Conse.-evs as tbed wb PCeed om ok but not as on m1 vase egad en re.soiobn he.Mwi teMiemenr 70%. 3 Supplement to Stamiris Contention No. 2. Item 7, 9 and 11) %. $4 15 uncedoin al b ht. m%mq {.bsbd SeoMf *h0(**O, "E7'"*"$ 3 A. 4 The Staff recognizes that decisions' and actions by Consuniers are a ] naturally affected by cost and schedule considerations. The Staff views j 9 and 11 of[, wAl i s the intent of Items 7 tamiris contention as questions on g k' ' the ad,e,quatgy and conservativeness of the selected preloading solutioit to

  1. m
j remedy the plant fill settlement,p.-d!=
t the Diesel Generator Building d

,.4 t 3 with the acknowledgement of the financial and schedule pressures on N Consumers. The Staff does'not feel that these competing concerns are 4 ?. it 3 l v o 1 1 p 'i k A- -. ~. :...... .-...._._.N .~

j ~., ' irreconcilable, but rather views its regulatory responsibility as i }f recognizing the needs of the Applicants, but yet, firmly insisting on a reasonable margin of safety that assures. protection of the health and safety of the public.Yt. Shdlbc(hve cc CIddt3 b a+ b C /C M 'J lu b Ck M IIe ilj o.d ll be. bot adhenth 0.L-ecked YtJOIJbon 4 bt. TAik %% e t usue.. n Suppleinent to Stamiris Contention No. 2, Item.8) ~ A. The following Staff testimony is directed to discussions on the natural 1 sands since it was the loose natural sand materials which Consumers had committed to removing in the PSAR. o The NRC Staff in February 1978 in their review of the;FSAR questioned Consumers (Q 362.2) and required documentation on the method Consumers used to remove the loose sands (sands with less than 75 percent relative drednes density) from the foundations of Class I safety related,as they had committed to do in the PSAR. Consumers, in subsequent submittals in response to NRC Question 3'62.2, provided the results of boring E explorations which had been drilled in August and September,1978 and in 1979. Fortunately for Consumers, the late results and evaluation of the boring information which they have documented did not indicate the presence of loose natural sands beneath Class 1 safety related structures. Based on these facts the Staff is unable to conclude that Consumers ~ i failed to exca/ ate -loose sands as comitted to in the PSAR and that a this failure had contributed to the inadequacy of the subsoils.- i g e q w., a ---nn - -.-~~ ~ -- ~ e -.. ~

r i 2-t i [ 2. ncial and ricerTchedulgh ConsumersPowerCompany's.yf l, @3brCsyv.g dir'ectly 3fid id~vErieIp.. affecited_Ereso3h- ~ tio6f_so1L gett.@_ent is_siek which constitutes a i compromise of applicable health and safety regulations l as demonstrated by: a) the admission (in response to 550.54(f) question #1 requesting identification of deficiencies which contributed r,, soil set,tlement problems) that the FSAR was submitted early due to forecasted OL \\ i-intervention, before some of the material'irequired i + to be included was available; i s g,5 4, Sed.S,WpoFM b { ombwc1hjee 5 b) the' choice of remedial actions being based in part g s ha b w to r.sem. 'fb ....c on ediency s noted in Censumers Power Company consultant R. B. Peck's statement of 8-10-79; g c) the practice of substituting materials for those l . O' originally specified for '.' commercial reasons" (NCR QF203) or expediency, ais in the. use of concrete in electrical duct banks (p. 23 Keppler Report)*; 5 d) continued work on the diesel generator building while g unresolved safety issues existed, which precluded f thorough consideration of Option 2 - Removal and Replacement Plan; and i c March 22, 1979 Keppler Investigation Report conducted by ~ Region III, Dec. 78-Jan. 79. t y. - - -.. ~ - - - ~ ---~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~~~'T " ' ~ ~ ~ * ^~ ~~~~~

w-1 t o) tha failura to freely comply with NRC testing requesti )O' to further evaluate soil settlements remediation, i inasmuch as such programs are not allowed time for i in the new completion schedule presented July 29, 4 1980. '1.to - ei L glemd b Gdeden a. i E. [f.. Further examples of the effect of financial and ti:r.c pressur [ cn' soil settlement issues: Tabit A,... 2A. Examples i, 2B,Effect on so!! sett!cment issuc:: i !. !!/7/73.cechtel action ~ \\.

1. Root causes not ader.

item:' proceed with prepara-Investigated, Organizational deffefencies not 4 tions for preload as rapidly 6 i eliminated prior to proceeding as possible" with remed!ation

n. --. -
2. 11/7/78 decision to f!!!
2. Affected piezometric measurements p

pond "Immediately, because the during preload cmaunt of river water ava!!- q'L (.ToWg ) ab!c for filling is restricted" .:= ^ 1 11/7/78 "5 month period m 3.The surcharge was removed at the ,tr. cva!!able in,the schedule end of this S months despite

for preloading" I

lacit of f RC satisfaction.that ,1 t L secondary consolidation was assured N

1. fotture to grout gaps

^

4. Resulted in additional stresses

>rtor to cuttIn2 of du t ?nnk::, failure to c/T0dt

  • @d to DGB which could have been c

ut con- } avoided ~l 'tensate !!nes when Ist gf@$ ugg0sted, failure to rock un mud .L.._ _ _ -. ma t, a t. DGB _ ~ ~, *~

~ 7 + g G auw T.a

e. Wotso n A
coot,

{_. j' f

6. Cho!'ce to continue
5. Eliminated practical consideration

. 1 jLcon:truction of DGB of Re= oval & Replacement Opt f or. i

6. Early FSAR submittal 62 Precluded early detection of

! ond fr adeouate review inconsistencies which could ha';c

P of FSAT.

prevented

  • s me of the s.s. prob 1 cms

~- ! -- 7. Failure to recons truct

7. Varying degrees of caution and

~ gace.ctry of area prior'to conservatism were foregone in- .! f!!! placement,"f'a'ilure to favor of cost and schedule u._ t.wai_t NRC approval before advantages proceed!n2 with Preloaf, wwyb,M ss!cct ion of "! east costly i feasible alternative" for DG3 _ i f D

68. Tallure to excavate loose
8. Contributed to Inadequacy sands as cortmitted to in PSAR of subsolls piu.y%f.t ke $g ' i di n~ L. gI.'.h'a

, i i ~~ S l i f, L.. Ins tallat Ion of preload Q.Expendituresforpreiosd instrumentation was subject Instrumentation (CJD 11/1/78 to t!ste pressure assoc. with memo) prior to formal adootten ,' frost protection considerations of preload : premature commitment

10. Appeals to NRC to constder-

!?. If granted, would affect . financial plight and schedule selsnic -so!! settienent 4 i ' dead 1ines cs in Seismic

1 standards i

I cferral !.'at ion j = i 9 'll. Depth and breadth of the f,frorded less than opticura % urcharCc limited by practical conditions for surcharge considerrtion of DGB, Turbine B.str uctures J N

1;v-

. b. o Changes to' des!gn (DGB found- !i IJ,. Contributed to settlement or i l j:t lon), caterial, or proceedural strets prcb! cms and a!! owed !f ' spcrificatfor.r without proper conflicts to 90 ynnoticed as ,pprevtl E preventative indicators J_ _.. L_ _._; i - ((

r ',*, s - l#/y flan D !$ hed 3" [ Dl$/ U1 6\\ f ^ \\ Units 1 and 2 Midland Plant,50-329, 330 t Docket No. J. i Input Into NRC Staff Testimony Prepared by: Joseph Kane MM C Stamiris Contention No. 2b) / 'f A. The Staff's understanding of Dr. R. B. Peck's statement of August 10, 1979 (Refer to 50.55(e) Interim Reports, document transmitted in letter 1 of August 10, 1979 from S. Howell to J. Keppler, Section 5, page 5) is l that the proposed cperations to underpin the Electricaf Penetration Area Structures and the Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits were suitable for being completed within the construction schedule which existed at that I time. The Staff did not have problems with this statement by Dr. Peck since the statement itself did not eliminate the establishment and need for approval by the staff of a proper underpinning design nor of requiring high quality construction with appropriate controls. The Staff is unable to conclude that Dr. Peck's statement demonstrated financial and time schedule pressure's on Consumers that adversely affected resolution of the soil settlement issue.. -The A.~... uj- ;.. L., :::: : = = y F,k on Jo-W ] S ~ Supplement to Stamiris Contention No. 2. Item 2 .( Ot. efN ll A. The, Staff. agrees with Stamiris contention no. 2, item 2,pthat Consumers o #5ed !j decision to fill the' cooling pond "imediately, because the amount of C ll .y r e river water available for filling is restricted" (Referto50.54(f), 8 k j documents, Vol. 4. Tab 12, Page 2) did affecf the pNzometric measurements j !l during preloading. The coincident effects on piezametric monitoring j o l$ th3(8tik t Wetes (E $O tQvs ch setk Dtr men om._. wma y.hh A.% u ned+o W'asoWtab s fm 4 - Isso s, devthred Wheen co vo, en and W4F on $hh 4Im M "M*W f q 4 _7

i .[ ' bas =4 h myrm3 sokJmb(fatswg KnM be8ern hua3 surdege.

  • '. L % den u k ird<oicd buaus, p M h gg No od %, I[h (f

k 'ht*b)%%.,htxtghp.gi%?iidea_ e 1 _j caused by seepage still developing from the raised pond and also due to the development of excess pore water pressures under the surcharge loading hCorp 4Enpers,

uwe,

~ >'l ssde identified i "l,_. by the Staff and 'its Consultant, as being an 3 important reason for not being able to fully accept Consumer's conclusion g s U E Mhb on the effectiveness of the surcharge program. To overcome this problem

! n.2t

.( the NRC has attempted to independently verify the effectiveness of the surcharge program by requiring the additional borings and laboratory testing j for the Diesel Generator Bu"1d undati on soils. t i i senedA jossu(ts Ono qompi h., stoJ4 uaolck 9% a has t M ue m e. irs k p.ed taia n --June conso<>,exs4 CyeMeW.o % e % pts,wg g Q ftseh hery St.M o t, eme Supplement to Stamiris Contention No. 2, Item 3) l A. The Staff agrees with Stamiris that the minutes of a mebting held Be.ddek November 7,1978 between Consumers, Bechtel and their Consultants does indicate "a 5-month period is available in the sch d e for pr;eloading". therir ) (Refer to 50.54(f) documents, Vol. 4. Tab 12. Page 2). The Staff also agrees with the Stashiris contention that the surcharge was removed without A NRC being satisfied that secondary consolidation was assured.j 3, f j l' R> / huseW .-}.... 1,.... - . "" O.c.. ^ - - + 4 "4 - dt'is admitted thatI j / Consumers did notify the NRC of their intentions to remove the surcharge s -AMcW: :AFi$EF-" -- A i ( 4+"=+4a= (. fill prior to actually removing it. The reasonsg. g ~ rochcw can be traced to Cdasumers%pu2;;.ist. of not identifying the criteria n f that would be acceptable to the NRC staff in advance of' completing 5 nrOtt k 4 the remedial action. Consumers Mm4t+cn and resulting difficulty that t's 3 18 ii it presented to the Staff is illustrated in the following paragraph taken from the "Sumary of July 18, 1979 Meeting on Soil Deficiencies k g0 s_ R .y

l l: ll - ) J! f at the Midland Plant Site" (Attachment 1) which states: i "The staff noted that the response to.its 10 CFR 50.54 requests i for acceptance criteria for remedial a'c'tions (e.g., questions 4 6 etc.) had not resulted in identification of criteria in advance of the remedial action. Rather the reply notes that the criteria will be determined during or after the remedial action. .j The staff stated that this approach by the applicant does not provide for timely staff feedback at 'the outset, but rather { the staff must await results of the program to determine what acceptance criteria were use.2 and if they are acceptable. Thus, the remedial action is being conducted entirely at the f J applicant's own risk." g.j. gdf _ ' _ c,- I CC The learning process which NRC underwent through the year 1979 aph - understanding the full extent of the plant fill s nt problem at the Midland site; rea difficulties that could develop in permitting ers to proceed w remedial work at their ow - were'all important factors which were consi e e NRC prior to issuing the December 6',1979 Order. Supplement to Stamiris Contention No. 2. Item 4) s adott.4o taff does agree tha {,groutiepet the gaps 4 n the footings 6 06 A. T gg b and the founda s of the Dies enerator Biiilding (Refer to pi

12. Page 3) utting the duct t

50.54(f) documents Vol. 4camd odAho%\\ pr -4 a l . banks and surcha p;= d b.:. rn ?tM *- ?r:r stress 4dimposed .i ~ e on the D Generator Building. It is the Staff's understanding that the condensate lines were actually cut prior to surcharging and therefore, these unconnected lines were not t i a cause of additional stresses to the Diesel Generator Building. caCN'S5*E-Y l'vw Y ' h y p,9 L t % c !

  • Y V I't b & ( W V f

s a w p t!6ue. e d a n s s l r

i ~,.. ~. -4 I l I I I I With regards to not breaking up the mudmat beneath the Diesel Generator a Building, it is likely this decision lessened the stresses imposed during surcharging since the structure fouiidation was stiffer and better able to span any soft soil areas that may have existed. There is a trade off however, in that not breaking up the mud mat reduced the j 1, effectiveness of the surcharge, in consolidating the softer foundation i i 8-soils which were being bridged by the structures foundation and mudmat. e l i ) If in the future during plant operation, new or extended cracking of the wall footings and mudmat were to occur, redistribution of' loading pressures kC could result and ossibly lead to dditional settlement.M m M CO O^lb oh 4h % tt

t. w c. O n t 'f E S tet CSC g

4 t co nst efeci as on ex of tk be s e Vltymswd

ii 2

%e auft 0 ada erse e@tct o, %e rareloho,ed t son setheni 1stve.c, h dw <sw) n 4 Supplement to-Stamiris Contention No. Item 5) o-a234; A. Consumer!s decision to continue constructio i of-the-Diesel Generator sa y y, Building does make it more difficult and costly to select the removal and 4f replacement optig bu it does not eliminat this option.Yt b *EW3 Os dociuen nsevers as r ib k yeoceed o Scv OWa 08 bD Nhd*M >'*t Wa8 3 3 h vtydi ehd on reJohhon t %ni Schlemed prob. s ,53$ Supplement to Stamiris Contention No. 2. Item 7, ) and 11)frforc=M,

c. B g A. iiThe st ff recognize ~s that~ cisi d action e Consumers are

' t. kinaiD ,,} N-her.oosbek eomt ~%e.St4 ts uncedom as b m / 7 ,'5 g _ _ _ _ - s o of naturally affected by cost and schedule considerations. The Staff views 4 -f 4 ' Tett d s

g the intent of Items 7 9 and 11 of Sta s contention as questions on i L; g

3' oj

  • f'.

>j3I the ad.e,quAcy and conservativeness o the selected preloading solution to y 0> -s-I t asJ jQ3 remedy the plant fb'1 settlement penhhm at the Diesel Generator Building, 'fp m et tu u-g a,,----e

e,; m;ee ;g ;;=;,, a_, ;; a g e,

-etmrumeff. The Staff does'not feel that these competing concerns are E ~$r c l k m; w w

  • Ori-T.181 Q

i

  • )

1

q l';..*:. ~' 5 t irreconcilable, but rather views its regulatory responsibility as recognizing the needs of the Applicants, but yet, firmly insisting on a reasonable margin of safety that assures. protection of the health and safety of the public. M. M b f h ft conc N t3 N N h MN i -{ th h iljowdl) kW. O CLdhtnth % N YUONon4 bt%! 56%e 4 usue.. e Supplement to Stamiris Contention No. 2, Item '8) j A. The following Staff testimony is directed to discussions on the natural f sands since it was the loose natural sand materials which Consumers had committed to removing in the PSAR. l '4 FSAR questioned l The fC Staff in Febr ary 197g)in their review of the g (A ed. Consumers (Q 362.2) and required documentation on the msthod Consumers used to remove the loose sands (sands with less than 75 percent relative

sfrodres I

tr.sity) from the foundations of Class I safety related,as they had I committed to do in the PSAR. Consumers, in subsequent submittals in l response to NRC Question 3'62.2, provided the results of boring orations which had been drilled in August and September [1978 and hCionk in 1979. The late results and evaluation of C.onwetti he the boring infonnation which theymaguir documented did not indicate the presence of loose natural sands beneath Class 1 safety related structures. Based on these facts the Staff is unable to conclude that Consumers 'l failed to excavate icose sands as consnitted to in the PSAR and that .l l

l l

this failure had contributed to the inadequacy of the subsoils.- a 2 e i I 1~~Z~_1__ ___7_ __Tr _~_~__r__1 -_r

c 5 o,7 %1

  • 5 *
,\\

.= 1 L_ Q4 mi i i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 91ISSION L BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD r. In the Matter of ) F ) 1 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL 50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) i NRC STAFF TESTIMONY IN RESPONSE TO STAMIRIS CONTENTION NO. 5 Q.1. Please state your name and position with the NRC. A. .My name is Joseph D. Kane. My position with the U.Sl Nuclear Regulatory Commission is Principal Geotechnical Engineer and I am assigned to the Geotechnical Engineering Section of the Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A Q.2. Have you prepared a statement of professional qualifications? l A. Yes. A copy of this statement is attached. o t Q.3. Please state the nature of your responsibilities with respect to the 1; i ', Midla'nd Flant, Units 1 and 2. 1 1.. A. Since November 1979 I have served as the technical monitor for the l,! Midland portion of an interagency contractual agreement between the 1 l l; NRC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District (hereafter 1 1 I N^

. theCorps). By this contract the Corps has been assisting the NRC staff in the safety review of the Midland Project in the field of geotechnical engineering. In addition td'r and as a consequence of, my serving as contract technical monitor, I have become directly involved in the assessment of the adequacy of the remedial measures f which have bean peoposed by onsumers to correct the plant fill settlement problem. Q.4. Please state the purpose of this testimony. A. The purpose of this testimony is to provide the NRL taff response to Stamiris Contention No. 5. Q.5. What is the Staff's position with respect to Contention No. 5? A. Contention No. 5 reads as follows: 5. The additional information and testing requested of Consumers Power Company by the NRC and its consultant, the Anny Corps of Engineers, on June 30, 1980 and August 4,1980, is essential to the Staff's evaluation of Consumers Power Company s remedial soils set.tlement action. Without this information and testing, the '} ' Staff does not have ' easonable assurance that the plant can be 4 r 1 operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public t 1 a i (part II, p. 3, Order of Modification). The requests must therefore 3 be responded to fully and complied with totally. j-4 ci b i 1 -=

J 4 7.., ;.. y_ _3_ 4 j~ The following paragraphs indicate the status of Consumer's response to l .tiie Staff's positions and requests for information that is reflected in Stamiris's Contention No. 5. Because thE-June 30,1980 (Attachment 1) and August 4, 1980 (Attachment 2) letters are directed to different aspects of the Midland review, we will discuss them separately and

.l attempt to indicate the current status of the contents of these letters.

y In the June 30, 1980 letter, the Staff requested Consumers to perforin j I additional explorations and 'aboratory testing to support certain l geotechnical engineering assumptions on the plant fill settlement problem and on proposed remedial measures. On August 29, 1980 at a meeting in Midland (Attachment 3) Consumers appealed the Staff position requiring additional explorations and testing to the NRC Division Director of Engineering. Based on new information presented at the August 29, 1980 i meeting and in a subsequ,ent report submittal dated September 14, 1980, the --t l' scope of explorations requested by the staff was modified. The subsequent g f decision by NRC Management to require the additional soil borings and yl laboratory testing and deny the appeal is documented in NRC letter of { L November 10, 1980 toConsumers(Attachment 4), o 1 1 In late. February 1981. Constners ' verbally indicated to NRC that their k I i l f ai plans were to complete the NRC requested borings and testing, while still g i indicating their disagreement with the need for this work. This decision 3 !f by Consumers was forinally documented in ~their letter of March 23, 1981 i (Attachment 5)totheNRC. f' )< g 3 k 1 f'

j

_) i

,u s e . c. s r -4 L'

h The requested borings were completed by mid-May 1981. During the conduct of the borings in the field the Staff was continuously kept informed of these activities by both Consquers and the Staff's consultant the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers. Arrangements to have the Corps a'c the site and observe almost-the entire drilling and sampling program had been made by NRC in response to Consumers invitation to I

have witnesses directly observe these activities. l l Lt. l l l Consumers has indicated th<a laboratory test results will be submitted in stages beginning in early June 1981 as this work is completed and + analyzed by them. It is the Staff's intention to evaluate the -laboratory data as it is submitted and as permitted by the staff time demands of the sunner hearings. The Staff plans to summarize their-evaluation of this infonnation, with the help of the Corps, and provide testimony to the ASLB by the time of the fall hearings. \\ The second letter referred to in Stamiris Contention No. 5 is the August 4,1980 letter (Attachment 2) from the NRC to Consumers. This j letter transmitted a report from the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers l (July 7.1980) which identified unresolved issues related to geotechnical 3 .4 .. engineering and provided reconmendations on a course of action for 4 r l resolving those issues. ' i s I. 'h 4 1 1 ,I ,x .N' j p w

r, r i

  • ,\\

'.*c j s-e i -j In response to the August 4,1980 letter, Consumers on November 21, l. 1980 submitted Amendment 85 to their Application for Construction Pennits and Operating Licenses. ThissuhittalbyConsumers,which fills several volumes and addresses the unresolvsi safety review issues j of structures and components founded on.the plant fill, was reviewed 4 I by the NRC and their Consultants. The results, of this review in the field of geotechnical engineering are cor.tained in the Corps letter report of April 16,1981 (Attachment 6). The content of the Corps I letter report is the best reflection of the current status of the Midland review in the area of geotechnical engineering. This letter was the \\ subject of extensive discussions between the Staff and Consumers and ~ their consultants during meetings held in Bethesda on May-5,-6.and 7,. 1981. t j. 1 \\ hw 0 4 i k } i j s i g il

.,.i G, z ~

n. -

"ASL 3// { ~ O m - ~ l Y 1 4 .=~ j i -c f\\ \\ + s. i t e f a 1 5 4 4 l I 4 t i 4 4- ..}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20093N751&oldid=4327408"