ML19309F813
| ML19309F813 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1980 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005010342 | |
| Download: ML19309F813 (1) | |
Text
Tt C-8005020 N h t
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4/30/80 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
[
l In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-330 1 (Modification of CP) llearing on Order for (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF
^AftENDED NOTICE OF HEARING 1.
On December 6, 1979, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment and the Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued an Order Modifying Construction Permits with respect to Midland, Units 1 and 2.
The Order specifically prohibited Consumers Power Company from perfoming certain soil-related activities pending approval of amendments to its construction pennits. Through inadvertence this Order was not published in the Federal Register nor does it appear that copies were sent to any persons other than the permittee (sometimes referred to as licensee), although the Order provided that:
The Licensee or any person whose interest is affected by this Order may within 20 days of this Order request a hearing with respect to all or any part of this Order.
Order at 6.
On December 26, 1979, pennittee filed a request for a ha ring with respect to the Order. No other person or entity filed a request for a hearing.
2.
Following a receipt of the permittee's request, the Commission published a notice of hearing with respect to the Order and designated this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to preside. 45 Fed. Reg.18214 (March 20,1980).
l l
O'.
The notice further provided that the Licensee should file its answer to the notice by no later than April 9, 1980; this time was later ex-tended by this Board until April 16, 1980, and an answer was filed by the Licensee on that date. No other pleadings have been filed in this proceeding.
3.
To insure that the public is provided with an opportunity to request a hearing in this matter, and to cure any defects created by the failure to publish in the Federal Register the December 6,1979 Order Modifying Construction Permits, the Staff hereby moves this Board for an Order amending the March 20, 1980 notice of hearing in this proceeding to l
provide an opportunity to interested persons to seek to intervene in this matter.
Because of the nature of this request, the relief sought 2/
is clearly within the jurisdiction of this Board 7 and fully consistent with the opportunity for hearing originally provided to the public in the December 6, 1979 Order initiating this action.
I i
l If Since parties to the ongoing operating licensing proceeding have raised, and there have been admitted, contentions relating to the soil foundation materials issue, we request that the Board serve copies of its amendment to the notice of hearing, if granted, upon all of the parties to that proceeding.
l 2f Licensing Boards have, for example, issued amended notices of hearing where there has been a change in the identity (of the joint applicants.
See, for example, Arizona Public Service Co. Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3), 40 Fed. _ Reg. 59495 (December 24,1975) and Northern States Power Co. (TyroneT 41 Fed. Reg 30218 (July 22,1976).
I m
4.
Attached hereto is a proposed Amended Notice of Hearing for the
~
Board's consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
_]
[
Stephen H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 30th day of April,1980.
l l
l I
l l
l
e UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COE'11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _
l In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 50-330 (Hearing on Order for (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Modification of CP)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF AN AMENDE.D NOTICE OF HEARING" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's inter-nal mail system, this 30th day of April,1980.
- Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Ms. Mary Sinclair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5711 Summerset Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Midland, Michigan 48640 Washington, D. C.
20555 Michael I. Miller, Esq.
l
- Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Martha E. Gibbs, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Caryl A. Bartelman, Esq.
liashington, D. C.
20555 Isham, Lincoln & Beale One Fi'st National Plaza r
Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 42nd Floor 6152 N. Verde Trail Chicago, Illinois 60603 Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Frank J. Kelley Washington, D. C.
20555 Attorney General of the State of Michigan Stewart H. Freeman
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Pane Assistant Attorney General U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
l Gregory T. Taylor Washington, D. C.
20555 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection D M sion
- Docketing and Service Section 720 Law Building Office of the Secretary Lansing, Michigan 48913 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
.t ron M. Cherry, Esq.
1 IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611
. Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
R. L. Davis, Esq.
Consumers Power Company J. E. Dicks, Esq.-
212 West Michigan Avenue L; f. Nute. Esq.
Jackson, Michigan 49201 The Dow Chemical Company Legal Dept., 47 Bldg.
Midland, Michigan 48640
?
fir. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Wendell H. Marshall, Vice President Midwest Environmental Protection Associates RfD 10 Midland, Michigan 48640
'ut N. ~%wi Sfephen H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff l
l
~
O e
a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 50-330
)
(Hearing on Order for (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
Modification of CP)
AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING On March 20, 1980, the Commission published a Notice of Hearing (45 Fed.
Reg.18214) on certain issues relative to an Order Modifying Construction Permits of the Acting Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Director of Inspection and Enforcement dated December 6,1979, which would prohibit Consumers Power Company from performing certain soil-related activities pending approval of amendments to the construction permits. Consumers Power Company requested a hearing on the Order. The Order of December 6, 1979 was not published in the Federal Register. This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to the Notice of Hearing (45 Fed. Reg.18214), has determined that there should be a publication of the December 6,1979 Order, which is attached hereto.
l In addition to the information published previously, notice is given that by (date) any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a petition for leave to intervene. The petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic l
Licensing Proceedings" in 10 C.F.R. Part 2.
If a petition for leave to 1
l intervene is filed, - is Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will rule on the request.
As required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding.
The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors:
(1)the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, finan-l cial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been ad-mitted as a party may ameri his petition, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, the petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
l.
1 A petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Comission, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C.
- 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Section, or may be delivered to the Com-mission's Public Document Roo,n,1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C..
by (date).
A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C.
- 20555, and to Michael I. Miller, Esq., Isham, Lincoln and Ceale, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60690, attorney for the Permittee. Any questions or requests for additional information regarding the content of this notice should be addressed to the Chief Hearing Ccunsel, Office of the Executive Legal Director, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555.
l Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, or supplemental petitions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the granting of a late petition. That i
determination will be based upn a balancing of the factors specified in l
10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1)-(v) and 5 2.714(d).
For the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this l
7:
e-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
In the Matter of
)
)
CORSUMERS 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 I respectively.
II On August 22, 1978, the Licensee infomed the NRC Resident Inspector at the Midland site that unusual settlement of the Diesel Generator Building had
(
c: curred. The Licensee reported the matter under 10 CFR 50.55(e) of the Cornission'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, l-June 25,1979, August 10, 1979, September 5,1979, and November 2,1979.
Folloving 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) ccrtain~ design i
and construction specifications related to foundation-type material properties DM wno0%'[
Jt
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 I
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 L structures had been placed in fact on random fill rather than controlled cocpacted cohesive fill as stated in the FSAR.
t As a result of questions raised during the NRC investigation of the DiesO h
Generator Building settlement, additional information was necessary to evaluate l
l 3
l 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 Co:nmission's re;;1ations infomation concerning these matters to detemine whether action should be taken to modify, suspend or revoke the construction permit.
Additional information was requested by the Staff in letters dated Septecber 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, i
1979, August 10, 1979, September 13, 1979, and November 13, 1979.
The Licensee has not yet responded to the November 19, 1979 requests.
I 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 proposed action.
The information provided by the licensee fails to provide such criteria.
Therefore, based on a review of the infomation 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 resolution of these issues the Staff does not have reasonable assurance that the affected safety-related portions of the Midland facility will be constructed and operated without undue risk tc the health and safety of the public.
e y
- I III Under the Ateefe 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 constructio.E 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 ctructures 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 m'odified as follows:
{
l l
(1) Pending the submission of an amendment to the application seeking approval l
l of the remedial actions associated with the soil activities for safety-l l
related structures and systems founded in and on plant fill material and i
\\
the issuance of an amend:ent to Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and t
I.
l l
(
and No. CPPR-82 authorizing the remedial action, the following activities are prohibited:
(a) any placing, coopacting, 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 a.round these structures and systems, including but not limited to:
(i) dewatering systems l
(ii) underpinning of service water building
\\
4 (iii) recoval 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 and piping.
i (2)
Paragraph (1) above shall not apply to any exploring, sampling,'or testing t
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.
DEC 8 B79 App 2ndix A NOTICE OF VIOLATION
(
Consumers Power Company Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330
~
This refers to the investigation conducted by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement at the Midland Nu: lear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Midland, Michigan, at your offices in Jackson, Michigan,land at Bechtel Corporation, Ann Arbor, Michigan of activities authorized by NRC License No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82.
Based on the results of the investigation conducted during the period December 11,1978. through January 25, 1979, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC require-ments as noted below. These items are infractions.
1.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III requires, in part, that measures shall be established and executed to assure that regulatory requirements and the design basis as specified in the license application for structures are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures and instructions. Also, it provides that measures shall be esstablished fer the identification and control of design inter-faces and for coordination among participating design organizations.
[
CPCo Topical Report CPC-1-A, Policy No. 3 Section 3.4 states, in part, "the assigned lead design group or o,rganization (i.e., the NSSS supplier, A&E supplier, or CPCo) assure that designs and materials are suitable and that they comply with design criteria and regulatory requirements."
CPCo is committed to ANSI N45.2 (1971), Section 4.1, which states, in part, " measures,shall be established and documented to assure that the applicable specified design requirements, such as a design basis, regulatory requirements... are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, or instructions."
Contrary to the above, measures did not assure that design bases were included in drawings and specifications nor did they provide for the identification and control of design interfaces.
As a result, inconsistencies were identified in the license application and in other design basis documents.
Specific examples are set forth below:
The FSAR is internally inconsistent in that FSAR Figure 2.5-4B a.
indicates settlement f on the order of pt-ance criteri IPLICATE DOCUMENT ings b
Entire document previously entered
_nto system under:
f Yh[
b ANO No. of pages:
DEC 8 1979 APPENDIX B NOTICE OF VIOLATION Consumers Power Company Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 f
i l
This refers to the investigation conducted by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement at the Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Midland, l
Michigan, at your offices in Jackson, Michigan, fand at Bechtel Corporation, Ann Arbor, Michigan, of activities authorized by NRC License No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82.
During this investigation conducted on various dates between December 11, 1978 and January 25, 1979, the following apparent item of noncompliance was identified.
The Midland Final Safety Analysis Report (F'SAR) contains the following:
Section 2.5.4.5.3, Fill, states: "All fill and backfill were placed according to Table 2.5-9."
Table 2.5-9, Minicu:a Compaction Criteria, contains the following:
(7)
Compaction Criteria
" Function Desionation h
Degree ASTM Designation
^
Support of Clay 95%
ASTMD155g6T structures (modified)
(1) For zone designation see Table 2.5-10.
(2) The method was modified to get 20,000 foot pounds of compactive energy per cubic foot of soil."
Section 2.5.4.10.1, Bearing Capacity, s'tates:
" Table 2.5-14 shows the contact stress beneath footings subject to static and static plus dynamic l
loadings, the foundation elevation, and the type of supporting medium for various plant structures."
Table 2.5-14, Suncary of Contact Stresses and Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Mat Foundations Supporting Seismic Category I. and II Structures, contains, in part; the following:
" Unit Supporting Soils Diesel Generator Controlled compacted Building cohesive fill."
l-79 /1 % o o G TI
DEC 8 579 Appendix B 2~
This infomation is false, in that materials other than controlled compacted
(
cohesive fill were used to support the diesel generator building and informa-tion presented concerning the supporting soils influenced the staff review of the FSAR.
e O
f t
s' I