ML20112B302

Applicant Reply to NRC 841217 Basemat Submittal in Answer to Joint Intervenor 831212 Motion to Reopen Record in Proceeding & in Response to ALAB-786.Cracks Do Not Affect Structural Adequacy of Basemat

ML20112B302
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	01/07/1985
From:	Churchill B LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
Shared Package
ML20112B305	List: ML20112B302 ML20112B329 ML20112B341 ML20112B347 ML20112B358
References
CON-#185-986 ALAB-786, OL, NUDOCS 8501100309
Download: ML20112B302 (16)

Text

,

d WED CC:; ye..M. .

y' DEtiCy January 7 .1985 CXyQED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .g yv_9 pg g Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board '

In the Matter of )

)

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382 OL

)

. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, )

Unit 3) )

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO NRC STAFF'S -

DECEMBER 17, 1984 BASEMAT SUBMITTAL

~.

I. INTRODUCTION ,

In ALAB-786, October 2, 1984, this Appeal Board posed cer-tain questions of the NRC Staff related to the cracks present in the concrete basemat of the Waterford 3 facility. The in-quiries were prompted by the Staff's August 7, 1984 answer to Joint Intervenors' December 12, 1983 motion to reopen the record in this proceeding. The Appeal Board extended leave for

- the other parties to reply to the Staff's response within three weeks thereafter. The Staff's response was filed on December 17, 1984. This filing, with its supporting affidavits, khO g PDR; sb3

_b

r.-

e constitutes Applicant's reply to the Staff's December 17 sub-mittal.

Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen consisted of nothing more than a one-paragraph cover page stapled to articles from an issue of Gambit newspaper.1/ Applicant opposed the motibn on January 17, 1984,. noting, inter alia, that the motion total-ly failed to meet the Commission's procedural, substantive, and evidentiary requirements for a motion to reopen a closed adju-dicatory record. The motion was also opposed by the Staff in its August 7, 1984 answer, supported.by affidavits, on the grounds that the motion failed to meet the fundamental require-ment of raising a significant safety issue.

The Appeal Board noted that the burden on the proponent of ~ .

~.

a motion to reopen is a " heavy" one, ALAB-786 at 3, and agreed that "there is little doubt" that the motion fails to meet the ,

standards for reopening. Id. at 4. The. Appeal Board stated that "a newspaper article alone does not provide a basis for reopening a closed adjudicatory record," Id. .at 3,-and that."if we had nothing more before us than Joint Intervenors' motion and convincing replies in opposition, we would likely be com-pelled to find that the request to reopen does not raise a sig-nificant safety issue and thus would deny the motion." Id. at 6.

1/ A previous motion to reopen, also related to the basemat, was filed by Joint Intervenors on July 25, 1983, and denied by the. Appeal Board in ALAB-753, 18 N.R.C. 1321 (1983).

l l

l f

.e

.v It is clear, therefore, that the motion, and certainly the

. allegations in the newspaper articles, is not competently be-

' fore'the Appeal Board. Yet the motion nonetheless seems to have taken on a life of its own. The' Staff, in its August 7 answer, noted that it had initiated an extensive inquiry into the allegations referred to in the newspaper articles. Staff Answer at 3-4. This, however, is something that the Staff would have done irrespective of whether the newspaper articles

- had been filed in a motion before the Appeal Board, just as the Staff regularly investigates allegations from other sources.

1Due Staff 'then stated that questions concerning the design ade-quacy of.the basemat came to its attention during the investi- ,

gation of the allegations, prompting it to undertake a review of certain design issues. LStaff Answer at.4-5. But here again, this is something the Staff would-do whether or not the .

instant uotion was before the Appeal Board. Nevertheless, the Staff's answer' consisted in the main of affidavits documenting its review of the basemat, concluding that the basemat was ade-quate and that a significant safety issue had not been-presented. This then prompted the Appeal Board's inquiries of the1 Staff and,.in turn, Licensee's instant filing in~ reply.

A hearing at th'e operating stage of a licensing proceeding 11s not an absolute or automatic right. It is heavily qualified by placing well defined responsibilities on those seeking the hearing, much more so if a closed record is sought to be 4

T

r

. reopened. Moreover, motions to reopen reords in operating license proceedings, as in this case, usually occur when the plant is ready or nearly ready for operation and the applicant is most vulnerable to the potential for delay.2/ It is ironic that the failure of Joint Intervenors to even attempt to meet the. standards for filing a motion to reopen, with its inherent failure to define and support the issues sought to be liti-gat $d, is in large part responsible for the burgeoning efforts being undertaken to come to closure on the motion. Very little nexus can be found between the copius documents that have been filed, including this one, and the motion that started the pro-cess. Applicant urges that the lack of merit of the' motion not be lost in the shuffle, and that the Appeal Board, upon consid-eration of the filings of the parties in response to ALAB-786, deny the motion to reopen. .

[

- 2/_ A license authorizing fuel loading and operation at up to

'five: percent of power was issued on December 18, 1984. Fuel loading began on.that date-and was completed on December 23.

Initial criticality is scheduled for February.18, _1985. The

_ plant:is expected to have completed low power _ physics testing

and to be ready to begin ascension to 100 percent power on

, . February 28._ See Attachment 1-(January 4, 1985 letter from Applicant to NRC Staff).

i i.

L

II. COMMENTS ON THE STAFF'S RESPONSES TO THE APPEAL BOARD'S INQUIRIES In ALAB-786, the Appeal Board posed eight inquiries to the Staff. The numerous affidavits filed by the Staff in response on December 17 have answered those inquiries. The affidavits have also reaffirmed the Staff's conclusions, and those of Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), of the structural adequa-cy of the Waterford 3 basemat. See Staff Affidavit (Knight) at 3-6, 35-36, 38; Staff Affidavit (Reich, et al.) at 4-5 and Attachment 1 at 2-3. Similarly, affidavits submitted herewith by Applicant demonstrate that the cracking has not impaired the structural adequacy of the basemat. See Affidavit of Joseph L.

~

Ehasz,. Chief Civil Engineer, Ebasco Services, Inc., and Affida-vit of Professor Myle J. Holley, Jr.

In Applicant's view, the Staff's December 17, 1984 sub- ,

mittal has been responsive to the Appeal Board's inquiries.

Applicant's comments on the Staff's response to each of the Ap-peal Board's inquiries, supported as appropriate by affida-vits,3/ is presented below.

1. The Appeal Board-found the Staff's conclusions at pages 5-6 of its August 7, 1984 answer to the motion to be 3/ In addition to the affidavits of Mr. Ehasz and Professor Holley, Applicant is'providing the affidavits of Kenneth W.

Cook, Applicant's. Nuclear Support and Licensing Manager, and Raymond F. Burski, Jr., Applicant's Engineering and Nuclear Safety Manager.

. I

O i

~

l

" tentative and conditional." ALAB-786 at 7. That concern in

- this and other of the Appeal Board's inquiries seems to stem largely from the fact that the Staff had not at that time com-

. 1 pleted its resolution of matters identified in the Staff's let-l ter of June 13, 1984 to Applicant. See Id. at 7-11. The Staff l l

responded that,' in each case, resolution of the applicable l

l issues in the June 13 letter as they pertain to the basemat has enabled the Staff to confirm its August 7 conclusions. Staff Affidavit (Shewmaker) at 2-12, 15-18; Staff Affidavit l 1

(Crutchfield) at 5-6.4/

l The Appeal Board also observed that the Staff's con-l clusions at pages 6-7 of its answer concerning the review of l l . - -

basemat design (as opposed to construction) were "similarly l tentative." ALAB-786 at 7-8. Presumably the Appeal Board is referring to the Staff's statement at page 6 of its answer that .

" improved analyses are required to be performed by the Appli-cant." The analyses referred to are summarized at page 27 of l the July 18, 1984 BNL reports / and discussed at pages 14-19 and' 24-25 of that document. BNL recommende'd (page 27) that the analyses be " refined", and that it did not anticipate that such 4/ The Staff has identified Issues 7, 10, 11, 14, 19, and 20 l of the June 13, 1984 letter as being in some way pertinent to the basemat. See Staff Affidavit (Shewmaker) at 17-18. The above cited portions of the Staff's affidavits address each one l of those issues.

5/ The BNL report was submitted with the Staff's July 25, .i '

1984 motion for an extension of time.

I' i

e

" refinement" would lead to major changes in the calculated stress levels.

In the Staff's December 17 response, BNL reiterated -

its recommendation that the " detailed confirmatory calculations be performed, although we do not anticipate that these analyses will lead to any substantially different results..." Staff Af-fidavit (Reich, et al.) at 4. The Staff noted that prior to exceeding 5% power, Applicant will submit for Staff review and approval a detailed commitment to perform confirmatory analy-sis, and the' confirmatory analyses wi11 be submitted for Staff review prior to restart after the first refueling cycle. Staff Affidavit (Knight) at 37.

2. At ALAB-786, pages 8-9, the Appeal Board noted an ap- , ,

parent inconsistency between the Staff's August 7 answer and Issue 10 of the Staff's' June 13, 1984 letter regarding in- -

spector qualifications. This was addressed and resolved by the Staff in its response as noted above in Item 1. Staff Affida-vit (Ghewmaker) at 2-6.

3. Similarly, the Appeal Board noted an apparent incon-sistency between the Staff's August 7 answer and Issue 7 of the June 13 letter relating to missing records for the in-place density test of a certain backfill. area. ALAB-786 at 10-11.

This also was addressed and resolved by the Staff as discussed

.in Item 1 above. Staff Affidavit (Shewmaker) at 6-12.

o

O The Appeal Board also questioned at page 11 of ALAB-786, note 11, whether the determination of adequacy of certain existing analyses is well founded in light of the miss-ing backfill test records. As noted in Staff Affidavit (Shewmaker) at 11-12, however, the Staff has since determined that all in-place soil density test results are available, re-flecting both the testing frequency and the test results.

4. . .The Appeal Board asked why, if the cracks are be-

'lieved by BNL to have been caused "before placement of the

. backfill," they were not discovered before May 1983. ALAB-786

-atL11-12. In response, the Staff referred the Appeal Board to-an October 26, 1984 letter from Applicant to the Staff which addressed-that question. Staff Affidavit (Knight) at 6-7. As' stated'in the : attached Affidavit of Kenneth W. Cook, the cracks were formed prior..to 1977, but.the outside areas adjacent to- .

the reactor containment building where the c racks of interest occurred were congested with construction materials and water.

The cracks were not discovered until construction in those

-areas was completed and cleanup activities were taking place-subsequent to May 1983.

5. The Appeal Board was unable to determine from the Staff's August 7-answer whether the Staff had interviewed the -

individuals identified in the Gambit articles. -ALAB-786 at 12-13. The Staff described at'langth inLits December 17 re-sponse how.it'had met with and interviewed the individuals

identified in the articles, as well as many others. Staff Af-fidavit (Crutchfield) at 2-6.

6. The Appeal Board expressed an interest in the current views of two Staff employees, Dr. John S. Ma and Dr. Raman Pichumani, who had submitted affidavits with the Staff's answer to Joint Intervenors' previous motion to reopen. ALAB-786 at

'13-14. Included in the Staff's December 17 response were the views.of Dr. Ma, Staff Affidavit (Ma), and.a letter and report written by Dr. John 1T. Chen, the geotechnical engineering re-

' viewer who assumed Dr. Pichumani's review responsibilities for Waterford-3, Staff Affidavit (Knight), Attachment 1. See Staff Affidavit (Pichumani). -

Dr. Ma raised questions regarding the adequacy of the ,

~~

basemat in its cracked condition which the Staff, BNL, and

' Applicant extensively' evaluated and found not to be of concern. ..

See' Staff Affidavit (Knight) at 27-34; Staff Affidavit (Reich,

.et al.) at 4 and Attachment 1, Appendix F; Holley Affidavit at 2-16; and Ehasz Affidavit at'3-16.

The principal area of inconsistency between the views.

-of Dr. Ma and those of.the Staff, BNL~, and Applicant appears to

'be a generalized concern on the part of Dr. Ma that shear transfer.across the face of the crack may be impaired to an unknown and possibly significant extent. As demonstrated by the -other affidavits, ' however, this is clearly not the case.

-The shear capacity of the basemat is not adversely affected by f

)

1 the cracks because the well-documented phenomenon of shear l l

-friction results in a-shear capacity of the basemat which is almost twice the shear demand. Staff Affidavit (Reich, et al.), Attachment 1 at 12-13 and Appendix F at 6-7; Holley Affi-davit at 4-5. Dr. Ma also appears to have ignored the exter-nally applied _ compressive force across the face of the crack provided by soil and water pressures. In so.doing, Dr. Ma seems to have misconstrued some of the conclusions of the re-

-search he himself has cited, including the fact that when suf-ficient external forces are present, as they are in the

. Waterford 3 basemat, the shear transfer capability which is developed across the face of the crack is comparable to that in

' ~

the uncracked condition. See Ehasz Affidavit at 4-7; Holley Affidavit at 2-3, 4-5; Staff Affidavit (Reich, et al.),

Attachment'l at 12-13, 14-15 and Appendix F at 6-7; Staff Affi- ,

Ldavit-(Knight) at 32.

Similarly, Dr. Ma's concern that the seismic response of the basemat might be significantly altered to some unknown extent seems to stem.from the same fundamental omission in his:

. presentation. His position-is based on the assumption that-

"the crack is wide and there is-no' contact between concrete

' surfaces;across a crack." Ma Affidavit at 17. -Such an assump-L tion,- however, is clearly erroneous because of the substantial compressive force across the face of the cracks in the I' Waterford 3.basemat,=and because of the modest width of the

basemat cracks as determined by actual measurement. Dr. Ma inexplicably does not address the presence of the compressive forces, or the fact that there are no other forces which would separate the faces of the crack to eliminate the contact be-tween them. Because the cracks will cause neither a signifi-cant effect on the shear behavior of the basemat nor a signifi-cant-increase in the flexure of the basemat, the dynamic response of the basemat will not be significantly affected.

Ehasz Affidavit at 7-9; Holley Affidavit at 10-11; Staff Affi-davit-(Reich, et al.), Attachment 1 at 13, 14-15 and Appendix F at 7-9; Staff Affidavit (Knight) at 32.

Dr. Chen's views, presented in Attachment 1 to the affidavit of James P. Knight, are concerned primarily with the

~.

~"

cause of the cracking. As discussed in the Ehasz Affidavit at

~10-16, Dr. Chen (and Dr. Ma) have expressed the view that the .

differential settlement of the basemat which caused the

-cracking may have been due to non-uniform soils beneath the basemat. The uniform settlement and cracking patterns, how-ever, together with preconstruction soil tests, suggest that the differential settlement occurred on uniform-soils. See.

Staff Affidavit (Reich, et al.), Attachment 1, Appendix F at 10-16 and Appendix G. In.any event, the difference would ap-i pear to-be academic at this point, as future settlement of the basemat is expected to be negligible. As concluded by Dr. Chen

. at page 9 of his report,

_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ fl

e l l

l (a) The plant foundation design, the  !

" compensated" foundation concept, is sound.and acceptable. The soil bearing capacity is adequate and future settle-ment should be negligible.

.7. The Appeal Board also asked for the current views of Robert E.:Philleo, the Staff's independent concrete consultknt, taking into account the results of the nondestructive testing (NDT)'of the basemat. ALAB-786 at 14. Mr. Philleo's views, including h'is conclusion that the NDT results did not alter his conclusion of the structural adequacy of the basemat, were pro-vided by.the' Staff in its December 17. submittal. See Staff Af-fidavitD(Knight) at 11-12, 15-16, and Attachment 2; Staff Affi-Ldavit (Shewmaker) at 14-15.

8. M&ie Appeal Board also noted an apparent discrepancy 3 -

in-a document-submitted.with-Applicant's-January 13, 1984 an-swer to the metion about the location of a particular ,

reinforcing bar cadweld. ALAB-786 at 14-15. The Staff noted in. response that both'an October' 26,.1984. letter from Applicant on this point'and the St'aff's independent review of Applicant's cadweld data indicated that the discrepancy resulted from an error in the: transposition of data during the-preparation of Applicant's report. Asia result:of the Appeal Board's inquiry, Hboth Applicant.and the Staff identified other errors in the re-port. 'They were,'however, of a minor, clerical or typographi-1:.

.calinature, and were not indicative of' problems.with the reliability of data.used in the report, and did not affect the

-1 h

.4 -

k-conclusions of the report. See Staff Affidavit (Shewmaker) at 12-14; Burski Affidavit.

III. CONCLUSION 4

4 1 Dun affidavits submitted in answer to the motion to reopen and'in' response to.ALAB-786 describe extensive testing and evaluation of the significance of the basemat cracks, and over-I whelmingly support the conclusions of the Staff, Brookhaven Na-tional Laboratory, Ebasco Services, Inc., and Professor Myle J.

Holley, Jr., that the cracks do not significantly. affect the structural-adequacy of the Waterford 3 basemat. Accordingly, the. motion to reopen has not raised a significant safety or en-

~

vironmental issue which would have affected the results.of the .

hearings below necessary to sustain.a motion to reopen a closed adjudicatory record. .

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE t

By Brik"e WY Churchill, P.C.

i Counsel for Applicant

i. 1800 M Street, N.W.

1 Washington, D.C. 20036 5

(202) 822-1000

. Dated: January 7, 1984 l

4 i

f

ATTACHPENT 1 LoulSIANA 242 cunoNcE mm P O W E R Si L I G H T! P O box 60C8 . NEW CRLEANs. LOUISIANA 70174

)

. (5C43 366 2345 runum January 4, 1985 norn s. trooicx i Senior Vice Presacent Nuc: ear Coerations Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation W3P85-0023 Attention: Mr. G. W. Knighton, Chief 3-A1.01.04 Licensing Branch No. 3 A4.05 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Re'ulatory g Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-382 ) ._

MAJOR MILESTONES FOR OPERATING LICENSE y-On December 19, 1984 I transmitted a copy of the WSES #3 " Post Core Load Milestones" schedule to Mr. R. D. Martin in Region IV in response to his

• Staff's verbal request. A somewhat broadened internal schedule which I transmitted to Mr. Martin was not meant to alter or circumvent the schedule we had previously discussed with Mr. D. G. Eisenhut during our readiness reviews. The schedule provided to Mr. Martin was intended to supply some detail of our activities between fuel load and the commencement of Post Core Hot Functional Testing (PCHFT). Since the remainder of the schedule is dependent on achieving this milestone (PCHFT) we felt the remaining milestones should not be further detailed on this schedule, however, as you can note, the overall commercial operation date does not change. My staff conitors progress daily and continues to work to the schedule discussed with Mr. Eisenhut, and I am still confident that schedule is achievable.

Attached is a tabulation of the milestones (both projected and actual dates) for the sequence of events at Waterford 3 operating under Facility Operating License No. NPF-26. Our schedule continues to show that the issuance of an amended license granting full power operation is needed by February 26, 1985 to assure commercial operation in early June.

l l

_b

7 Mr. G. W. Knighton W3P85-0023 Page 2 This schedule information is provided so that the NRC Staff fully understands the Waterford 3 licensing needs and can plan for the required briefing to the NRC Commissioners and completion of Staff activities in support of the full power operating license issue. LP&L proposes to provide you updates to the attached milestone schedule and regular reports on plant activities so that NRC Staff can track the progress of the Waterford 3 operating license activities. In addition, the Region IV resident inspectors will be aware of our detailed activities as progress is made.

Very truly yours, L

) -

s t ..

, ul l ' _

R. S. Leddick Senior.Vice President - Nuclear Operations .

RSL:RMN:GEW:sms Attachment ec: D.G. Eisenhut, R.D. Martin, D.M..Crutchfield, J.H. Wilson, NRC Resident Inspectors Office,-E.L. Blake, W.M. Stevenson, l

l l

l l

l 1* *=- w .---w - . . ...-- _ _ _ _ _ , _

1 h

9 W3PS5-0023 WATERFORD 3 MAJOR MILESTONES SEQUENCE OF EVENTS PROJECTED ACTUAL

1) Enter Mode 6 - Begin Core Load 12/19/84 12/18/84

2) Complete Co,re Load 12/23/84

3) Enter Mode 5 1/3/85 12/30/84

4) Enter Mode 4 - Begin PCHFT 1/13/85

5) Enter Mode 3 1/21/85

6) Enter Mode 2 2/18/85 (Initial Criticality and Begin Low }: __

Power Physics Testing) L"

7) NRC Issuance Full Power OL 2/26/85 ' J--

8) Enter Mode 1 2/28/85

9) Begin Power Ascension Testing 2/28/85

10) Begin Commercial Operation 6/08/85

-ww----m------e- ---- r----e w