ML19269F388
| ML19269F388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1979 |
| From: | Case E, Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269F386 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912200645 | |
| Download: ML19269F388 (6) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-329 (Midland Nuclear Power Plant,
)
50-330 Units 1 and 2)
)
ORDER MODIFYING CONSTRUCTION PERMITS I
The Consumers Power Company (the Licensee) is a holder of Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82 which authorize the construction of two pressurized water reactors in Midland Michigan.
The construction permits expire on October 1, 1981 and October 1, 1982, for Unit 2 and Unit 1 respectively.
II On August 22, 1978, the Licensee informed the NRC Resident Inspector at the Midland site that unusual settlement of the Diesel Generator Building had occurred. The Licensee reported the matter under 10 CFR 50.55(e) of the Commission's regulations by telephone on September 7, 1978.
This notification was followed by a series of interim reports dated September 29, 1978, November 7, 1978, December 21, 1978, January 5,1979, February 23, 1979, April 3, 1979, June 25, 1979, August 10, 1979, September 5, 1979, and November 2, 1979.
Following the September 1978 notification, inspectors from the Region III, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, conducted an investigation over the period of October 1978 through January 1979.
This investigation revealed a breakdown in quality assurance related to soil construction activities under and around safety-related structures and systems in that (1) certain design and construction specifications related to foundation-type material properties 2163 293 7 9122 00 b f[
2-and compaction requirements were not followed; (2) there was a lack of clear direction and support between the contractor's engineering office and construc-tion site as well as within the contractor's engineering office; (3) there was a lack of control and supervision of plant fill placement activities which contributed to inadequate compaction of foundation material; (4) corrective action regarding noncomformances related to plant fill was insufficient or inadequate as evidence by repeated deviations from specification requirements; and (5) the FSAR contains inconsistent, incorrect, and unsupported statements with respect to foundation type, soil properties and settlement values.
The details of these findings are described in the inspection reports 50-329/78-12, 50-330/78-12 (November 14, 1978) and 50-329/78-20, 50-330/78-20 (March 19, 1979) which were sent to the Licensee on November 17, 1978 and March 22, 1979 respectively.
The items of noncompliance resulting from the NRC investigation are described in Appendix A to this Order.
In addition, as described in Appendix B to this Order, a material false statement was made in the FSAR in that the FSAR falsely stated that "All fill and backfill were placed according to Table 2.5-9." This statement is material in that this portion of the FSAR would have been found unacceptable without further Staff analysis and questions if the Staff had' known that Category I structures had been placed in fact on random fill rather than controlled compacted cohesive fill as stated in the FSAR.
As a result of questions raised during the NRC investigation of the Diesel Generator Building settlement additional information was necessary to evaluate 2163 294
3-the impact on plant safety caused by soil conditions under and around safety-related structures and systems in and on plant fill, and the Licensee's related quality assurance program.
On March 21, 1979, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, formally requested under 10 CFR 50.54(f) of the Commission's regulations information concerning these matters to determine whether action should be taken to modify, suspend or revoke the construction permit.
Additional information was requested by the Staff in letters dated September 11, 1979 and November 19, 1979.
The Licensee responded to these letters, under oath, in letters dated April 24,1979, May 31,1979, July 9, 1979, August 10, 1979, September 13, 1979, and November 13, 1979.
The Licensee has not yet responded to the November 19, 1979 requests.
Several of the Staff's requests were directed to the determination and justification of acceptance criteria to be applied to various remedial measures taken and proposed by the licensee.
Such criteria, coupled with the details of the remedial action, are necessary for the Staff to evaluate the technical adequacy and proper implementation of the propossa action.
The information provided by the licensee fails to provide such criteria.
Therefore, based on a review of the information provided by the Licensee in response to the Staff questions, the Staff cannot conclude at this time that the safety issues associated with remedial action taken or planned to be taken by the Licensee to correct the soil deficiencies will be resolved.
Without the resclJtion of these issues the Staff does not have reaconable assurance that the affected safety-related portions of the Midland facility will be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
2163 295 III Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations, activities authorized by construction permits or portions thereof may be suspended should the Commission find information which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a construction permit on an original applica-tion. We have concluded that the quality assurance deficiencies involving the settlement of the Diesel Generator Building and soil activities at the Midland site, the false statement in the FSAR, and the unresolved safety issue concerning the adequacy of the remedial action to correct the deficiencies in the soil construction under and around safety-related structures and systems are adequate bases to refuse to grant a construction permit and that, therefore, suspension of certain activities under Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82 is warranted until the related safety issues are resolved.
IV Accordingly, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, subject to Part V of this Order, Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and No.
CPPR-82 be modified as follows:
(1) Pending the submission of an amendment to the application seeking approval of the remedial actions associated with the soil activities for safety-related structures and systems founded in and on plant fill material and the isSJanCe of an amendment to Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and 2163 2i?6 and No. CPPR-82 authorizing the remedial action, the following activities are prohibited:
(a)
?ny placing, compacting, or excavating soil materials under or around safety related structures and systems; (b) physical implementation of remedial action for correction of soil-related problems under and around these structures and systems, including but not limited to:
(i) dewatering systems (ii) underpinning of service water building (iii) removal and replacement of fill beneath the feedwater isolation valve pit area (iv) placing caissons at the ends of the auxiliary building electrical penetration areas (v) compaction and loading activities; (c) construction work in soil materials under or around safety-related structures and systems such as field installation of conduits an'd piping.
(2) Paragraph (1) above shall not apply to any exploring, sampling, or testing of soil samples associated with determining actual soil properties on site which has the approval of the Director of Region III, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
2163 297
V The Licensee or any person whose interest is affected by this Order may within 20 days of the date of this' Order request a hearing with respect to all or any part of this Order.
In the event a hearing is requested, the issues to be considered will be:
(1) whether the facts set forth in Part II of this Order are correct; and (2) whether this Order should be sustained.
This Order will become effective on the expiration of the period during which a hearing may be requested, or in the event a hearing is requested, on the date specified in an Order made following the hearing.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f,,/ n f
"w Kson G. Case, Ayting Director Victor Stello, Jr.g Director f ffice of Nuclear Reactor Office of Inspect' ion D
Regulation and Enforcement Attachments:
1.
Appendix A 2.
Appendix B Datt t Bethesda, Maryland, 2163 298 this day of December, 1979.
.