ML19331B133
| ML19331B133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1973 |
| From: | Reis H CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ALAB-106, NUDOCS 8007250824 | |
| Download: ML19331B133 (26) | |
Text
-.
frM 4
~
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC' SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD N
In the Matter of
)
~
.)
CONSUMEPS POWER COMPANY
~ )-
Dockec Nos.
0-329 6
)
and 5-s (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
e OPPOSITION OF CONSUMEPS POWER COMPANY TO SAGINAW INTERVENOPS '
" MOTION TO ENFORCE COFD1ISSION'S REGULATIONS" The Saginaw Intervenors have filed a motion with this Board entitled " Motion to Enforce Commission's Regulations."
The motion requests this Board "to revoke the construction permits [ authorizing construction of the Midland Plant] or in the alternative to stay the effect of the construction permits until such time as there has been a definitive and unequivocal finding that Consumers Power Company, Bechtel Corporation and Babcock and Wilcox have complied and will comply with the Atomic Energy Commission regulations with respect to quality 1/
assurance and quality control.
Also in the alterna-tive, the Intervenors request that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal Board) enter an order "to show cause why the construction permits of Consumers Power Company should not be revoked or stayed pending resolution" of this l_/
Motion to Enforce Commission's Regulations, p.
1.
i 8007250 M y g
f
. 2/
same question.-
Finally, the Intervenors request the Appeal Board to " schedule hearings in connection with this motion.
."-3/
4/
The motion, read by itself, is unaccompanied by facts,-
reasoning or_ legal argument.
It is, therefore, a nullity, de.
ficient under the rules of the Commission and should be summarily denied.
See 10 C.F.R.
SS 2.730 (b), 2.732 (1973).
Insofar as the motion requests suspension of the effective-ness of the Midland construction permits, it is so deficient as to preclude even being considered as a motion for a stay.
The motion does not merely f ail to meet any of the standards which courts and federal agencies have applied in ruling on requests for stays of final agency decisions; it does not even attempt to make the required showing.
- See, e.g., Boston Edisor Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-81, WASH-1218 (S uppl. 1) p. 546 (Nov. 15, 1972); Wisconsin Electric & Wisconsin Michigan Power Companies (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-58, WASH-1218 p.
450 (June 20, 1972).
If the Appeal Board determines that the stay issue should be considered in the present context, 2/
Id. pp. 1-2.
3,/ _ Id. p.
3.
4,/
To be sure the motion (p. 2) contains the conclusory statement that "As a result of the inspection reports submitted to the Board and the parties under date of letters from Mr. Kartalia of July 20, 1973, and July 24, 1973, it is clear that there is a lack of appropriate QA and QC safeguards However, the motion contains no factual support whatsoever for that statement.
w
. Consumers Power. Company hereby requests an opportunity to address the legal issues and equitable factors uhich would have to be considered.
It may be that support for the Saginaw Intervenors' motica was intended to be provided by their simultaneously-filed Com-
- ments on the Regulatory staff's July 20 and 24, 1973 filings,
which Comments twice refer to'the motion.
The Saginaw Comments were invited by the Appeal Board by its order of July 26, 1973, which extended to both Consumers Power Company and the Saginaw Intervenors an opportunity to " file a memorandum on or before August 10, 1973, for the purpose of expressing their views on the July 20, 1973, submission of the Regulatory Staff.
and also on "the materials submitted by the Staff on July 24,6/
1973, in response to the request of a member of the Board."-
Yet it' seems clear from ALAB-106, ALAB-123 and the Appeal Board's order of July 26, 1973, that the Board has decided to,
determine whether QA at Midland is adequate to permit continued construction after matching Consumers Power's Condition 1 report-5/ Saginaw Comments, pp.11, 16.
6/
The July 20, 1973, - submission of the Regulatory Staff con-sisted of a report of an inspection of the Midland site conducted by the Directorate of Regulatory Operations during June 26-2 8,- 197 3 (R.O. Inspection Report 050-329&330/73-05),
a supplement to that report and the staff's. comments on the Applicant's-May-25, 1973, report, in compliance with-ALAB-132, RAI-73-6, pp. 436-437.
On July 24, the staff submitted copies of DRO reports of inspections made during the two-year period during which construction activities at the' plant site were-suspended.
t
4_
against the Regulatory staff's inspection report and considering the comments thereon of the staff, Saginaw Intervenors and 7/
~
Consumers Power.
In addition, as evidenced by the July 26, 1973, order, the Board apparently originally contemplated the simultaneous : filing by the Saginaw Intervenors and Consumers Power Company of views on the Regulatory staff's subnission of July 20, 1973.
From this it could be assumed that the Appeal Board felt that it would then be in a position itself to make the determination without any further filings from any of the parties.
~~
Consumers Power Company filed its comments on August 10, 1973, as required by the Board's July 26, 1973, order.
On that day, instead of filing, the Saginaw Intervenors moved for an extension of time "up to and including Monday, August 20, 1973."
This motion was granted on August 14, 1973.
How-ever, even the extended date was not met.
The Saginaw Intervenors ' Comments were not filed until August 21, 1973, 7,/
ALAB-106 " disposed of the issue which had been raised with respect to quality assurance and quality control.
(ALAB-123, RAI-73-5, p.
331)
In ALAB-106 the Appeal Board determined that the QA programs of Consumers Power Company and its architect engineer meet the requirements of the Commission's regulations.
However, the Board expressed concern about the implementation of those regulations and imposed four additional QA conditions to which the out-standing construction permits would "be deemed subject (ALAB-106, RAI-73-3, pp. 184-186)
~ because of " unavoidable reproduction problems at Intervenor's 8/
counsel's law office."-
'Moreover, there was served together with Saginaw Inter-
- venors ' Comments a letter dated August 21, 1973, to counsel for the Regulatory staff concerning certain information requests and the " Motion to Enforce Commission's Regulations", which is the subject of this answer in opposition.
Accordingly, although, as indicated above, the Board apparently had not contemplated further filings respecting the inspection reports, the Saginaw Comments were filed with and refer to the motion; and there may be some intended relationship between the two.
Generally, the Saginaw Comments ~are characterized by 9/
hyperbole and invective-which are as unconvincing as they are unjustified.
In this connection, much is made of the alleged practice of the inspectors to take the word of others 10/
rather than to make independent inspections.
- However, 8/
See Saginaw attorney's " Proof of Service."
No motion for a further extension was filed.
We believe that the adequacy of the explanation and the significance of the absence of a motion for a further extension or to permit late filing are matters which the Appeal. Board itself must determine in connection with the administration of its docket.
We do, however, emphasize that.f ailure by one litigant to comply with procedural. regula-tions not only impairs the public's business; it also works injustices and hardships on other litigants.
9/
E.g.,
" cavalier and paper disposition" (p. 4) ; " shoddy inspection
. procedures" (p. 5) ; " cavalier manner and method of inspection" (p. 10 ) ; "an insult to anyone 's intelligence" (p. 11) ; "almost criminal" (p. 15).
10/ Id. pp. 6, 9, 10, 14.
- what is ignored is that the inspection reports clearly disclose that substantial independent inspection'is in fact conducted.--11/
In the same spirit, perversely unfavorable inferences are drawn from wholly favorable language in the inspection reports.
For example, references to the absence of "immediate" signifi-12/_
cant safety matters or of "significant" safety items are read to indicate that there may exist "long run" safety matters or that there are difficult problems concerning what constitutes significant and insignificant safety items.
Similarly, with respect to a description of methods as up to "the standards of the industry", it is argued that those standards "may or 13/
may not be in compliance with the regulations."--
Basically all this legalistic speculation about the possible implications of language comes down to nothing more than a complaint that inspections are conducted by inspectors and inspection reports are written by inspectors -- not by lawyers.
Neither the in-vective nor the speculation should be permitted to obscure the fact that Consumers Power Company's May 25, 1973, report was satisfactory and that the subsequent full field inspection of
-11/
- See, e.g.,
R.O.
Inspection Report 050-329&330/73-05, pp. 6, 9.
See also Memorandum Expressing the Views of the Applicant, Consumers Power Company, Concerning the Regulatory Staff's Submission in Compliance with ALAB-132, p.
8, n.
19.
12/
Saginaw Comments, pp.
8, 14.
13_/
Saginaw Comments, p.
9.
w 14/
June-26-28, 1973,-~
confirmed this fact.
Also, throughout their comments, the Saginaw Intervenors ignore one critical point, i.e.,
that construction of the Midland Units has been shutdown since December 10-11 of.1970.
As a result, matters unresolved during the period of shutdown have on occasion necessarily been left for resolution upon start-up of construction.
For example, where a question arises relating to qualification of personnel to perform certain types of work, this question cannot be resolved during shutdown since no persons are then performing that type of work.
In addition, an attempt is made to exaggerate and place out of context a few specific matters dealt with in the inspec-tion reports.
For example, repeated reference is made to corrosion and oxidation resulting from the storage of materials on site after construction was suspended.~~15/ However, the mos t this does is reinforces the Appeal Board's view that the prob-lem of storage of materials during the suspension of construction required particular attention.
The inspection report submitted by the Regulatory staff.on July 20, 1973, particularly its 14/
R.O. Inspection Report 050-329&330/73-05.
The satisfactory nature of the QA at Midland was summarized and reconfirmed by an internal Directorate of Regulations memorandum dated July 9, 1973, which was furnished to counsel for the Saginaw Intervenors in the letter to him of' August 9, 1973, from counsel to the Regulatory staff.
15/
Saginaw Comments, e.g.,
pp.
2, 3, 5, 15.
16,/
R.O. 050-329&330/73-05.
. three-page appendix, makes it clear that measures are being taken which are fully adequate to deal with materials on site and to ass ure the in+.egrity of structural concrete.
The following comments are offered with respect to in-spection report items referred to in the Saginaw Comments, and characterized by the Saginaw Intervenors as " startling revelations" evidencing noncompliance with QA/QC procedures.--17/
It should startle no one to learn that the alleged deficiencies are without substance and result from misconstruction or misunderstanding of the inspection reports.
The-following-replies answer the allegations of Intervenors in the order set forth in the Saginaw Comments.
A.
Inspection Report 71-02 (Inspection of 8/19/71) 1.
The Saginaw Intervenors allege that Bechtel QC pro-cedures have been inadequate for two years, referring to page 2 of the Report.
The reference is apparently
-tu St atus of Previously Reported Unresolved Items,"
consisting of failure to conduct concrete slump sampling in accordance with the latest revision of ASTM-C-172-68, and an apparent need to upgrade the Bechtel QC inspection force.
Intervenors know full well that construction was halted for approximately two years.
There was no need to resolve these items prior to resumption of con-struction, and the Report notes that these items would be followed up at that time.
17/
Saginaw Comments, p. 3.
t
, 2.
Intervenors assert that the Report shows that safety may be compromised because of " oxidation resulting from improper storage at the site."
There was notiling improper about the storage.
Adequate procedures have been implemented to assure-that all of the materials are suitable for their intended uses, as described in Applicant's Condition 1 report to the Board pursuant to ALAB-106.
3.
Intervenors note that the future availability of a Bechtel report was mentioned on page 5 of the Inspection Report, but that there is. no indication that it was fi led or reviewed.
As stated on page 3 of the Report, Applicant had requested Bechtel to conduct an inspection during the week 'of August 23,.'1971.
Bechtel did so on August 24, 1971, and in a repc - t-to Applicant dated November 8, 1971, concluded that the methods of corrosion control were sufficient to allow utilization of the, materials within the next two years.
This is the report referred to at page 5 of the Inspection Report.
It was made available to the Compliance Division on November 19, 1971.
Such submittals were not made automatically, but rather upon specific request by Compliance.
4.
Intervenors complain that page 5 of the Report discloses that certain corrective action relating to the activities
. of concrete testing laboratories "was intentionally delayed some two years
. without any finding that they in fact are in conformance with regulations."
The activities giving rise to the need for. corrective action did not result in any nonconformances in the concrete as placed.- The corrective action was outlined in a February 5, 1971 letter from R. C. Youngdahl of 18/
Consumers Power to B. H. Grier of CO7 in response to a lett'er dated January 18, 1971, as mentioned on page 2 of Report 71-02.
At page 5,- the Report concludes that the new procedures appeared to be adequate to overcome the shortcomings noted in an earlier inspection.
There was neither a need nor an opportunity to implement the corrective action before arrangements were made to utilice such laboratory services following the shutdown period.
5.
The Intervenors' reference (Item 3, page 4' of Comments) to "another report" to be prepared by Bechtel refers to the same report discussed in Item 3 above.
B.
Inspection Report 72-01 (Inspection of 9/7/72) 1.
Intervenors allege that "This report indicates that the -
oxidation still exists a year after discovery of this occurrence and nothing was done about it."
They omit
--18/
"CO" 1is a reference to the former Division of Compliance now part of the Directorate of Regulatory Operations (RO).
.~. centioning that the exidation was not found to be a nonco=plianca, a nonconfor=ance, or a safety proble=.
The inspectors merely observed that surface corrosion exists. - See Item A.2 above.
2.
Intervenors next allege that two Bechtel _ reports "noted as 'to be reviewed' by CO (page 3, para 3, and~ pa9a 4, para 2b)" are not shown as having been received or -
reviewed by 00.
In-point of fact, the report centioned-on page 3 was not noted as "to be reviewed" by CO.
This report, which was submitted to Consu=ers Pcwer on October 27,1972, cvered an inspection in October 1972 which disclosed that all materials in storage were
~
in satisfactory condition.
The report mentioned cn page 4, para 2b. of the Inspection Report covered a site inspection =ade by Bechtel corrosion experts on May 17, 1972.
This report was submitted to Consu=ers Power en June. 16, 1972, and forwarded to CO by letter of October 24, 1972.
The 'Octcher 24 letter mentioned that a -report of the October inspection would be avail-able in Nove=ber 1972, but CO did not request a copy
~
of this' report.
3.
Intervenors complain that the Inspection Report states that Consu=ers-Power's reports indicate no ite=s of nonco=pliance.or' nonconformance, and Intervencrs make the f actually unsupported statement that "yet this
. inspection report and previous ones indicate several areas of noncompliancs and nonconformance."
The Consumers Power reports referred to are weekly reports for the period January 14 to August 19, 1972, covering site storage, foundation structures, site security systems, and " comments." - The reports disclosed no items of noncompliance or nonconformance with respect to these matters - because there were none during this period.
4.
Intervenors next allege that it is indicated on page 6 of the Inspection Report that " minimum wall-thickness requirements may be breached" due to " oxidation and other deterioration resulting from improper storage" and that CO's f ailure to halt all activities in the vendors' shops until the site was " adequately prepared" was a further indication of " shoddy inspection procedures."
Actually, the Report states only that "The inspectors commented that the minimum wall thickness requirements [ sic]
of the plates could possibly be reduced below required thickness by the oxidation. "
As previously noted, pro-cedures have ~been established and are being implemented to assure that any plates of a less than acceptable thickness are identified and replaced.
Intervenors' reference to activities in vendors' shops appears to be inapposite.
As the Inspection Report notes at page 4, item 2. a, ru) new materials had been received at the site for nine months.
Nor were any received thereafter, until construction activities were-resumed in mid-1973.
, 5.
Finally,'Intervenors question whether a Bechtel report due in October.1972 was ever received or reviewed by CO.-
This is the same Bechtel report referred to on page 3, para B of the Inspection Report and covered in Item 2 above.
C.
Inspection Report 72-2 (Inspection of 8/28-9/1/72) 1.
Intervenors-question whether improper B&W documentation
(" keeping -improper records and -recording matters _ every ninety days rather.than every thirty days") referred to in Section III of the Report has adversely affected Midland components.
This item con'cerns periodic B&W inspections of Midland pressurizer components stored at B&W f acilities, ' and' refers to a B&W internal pro-cedure (12-2QP-106 Revision' 0) applicable during the shutdown period.
The procedure did not establish an -
inspection frequency.
That frequency was established
'by B&W by means of a written notice of deviation from its f abrication process sheets.
The AEC inspector made no finding of~nonconformance, and Intervenors have evidently' misconstrued.the use of the term " deviation."
As the Report notes, B&W was actaally inspecting every 30 days, and' agreed to. require documentation of the 30-day, as well as the 90-day, findings.
- 2.
.Intervenors.somehow discover,-at pages 2-3 of1the Report, " problems in storing steam generators without any. indication.
.that.the requested inspection allegedly occurred or was ever reviewed -
by RO or CO."
The Report evidences no " problem" in storage -- it merely indicates that since the duration of the storage period was unknown,.there-would be periodic inspections to assure protection against damage and contamination, and reports of L
the inspections.
The inspections and reports' have been made, as. verified.bv a documentation review
~
in Inspection Report 73-03 (May 24-25, '1973), p. 7, where it was noted that the licensee had conducted a thorough audit of records rei.4 ting'to material in the shop:
"A total of six B&W audits, covering material storage plus the governing -
procedure, were reviewed.
In addition, the B&W manufacturing engineer was inter--
viewed concerning the condition of the material during storage.
The representative; satisfied himself that the mate rial was-
-stored properly and was -in good shape when removed from storage."
D.
Inspection Report-73-01 (Inspection' of 2/23/73) 1.
Intervenors again connent on the oxidation of stored material.
As already stated many times, all problemt regarding this oxidation either have been resolved or will be resolved utilizing the procedures set forth in Applicant's Condition 1 report filed pursuant to ALAB-106.
.u-
. 2.
Intervenors note that this Report states that there are nc unresolved matters, whereas the previous three reports contained "several matters which were raised but apparent %*
never thereafter attended to."
Those matters are not identified.
The immediately preceding report covered an inspection of B&W facilities.
The next previous report (72-01) identifies only the previously reported oxidation as an unresolved item.
The third report (71-02) again identifies oxidation as an unresolved item, and identifies as previously reported unresolved items certain matters which were to be left unresolved until resumption of construction.
Intervenors have not identified a single item that was "never thereafter attended to."
3.
Intervenors complain that a report of incomplete documenta-tion of weld rod used by B&W for the steam generators "was never followed up and in f act was totally ignored."
The matter was not ignored; it was followed up.
In fact, the incomplete documentation referred to was disclosed.
by Consumers Power QA, and B&W subsequently issued a l
topical report on weld rod in steam generators (BAW-14 02),
which was transmitted to AEC-DRO by letter of January 30, 1973.
Obviously'this matter is receiving continuing attention.
- E.-
Inspection Report 73-02 (Inspection _ of April 17, 1973) 1.
Intervenors state that "the bottom of page two of this report indicates that the Bechtel organizational chart is not in compliance with regulations."
However, the Report merely states that the chart "was not clear relative to lines of reporting responsibility and lines of technical direction."
Intervenors' reference to paragraph F.2 on page 4 of the Report relates to the same iten.
The matter was left open pending review of a modified organizational chart, and has since been resolved.
See Inspection Report 73-05, Supplement dated July 19, 1973; " Memorandum Expressing the Views of the Applicant, Consumers Power Company, Concerning the Regulatory Staff's Submission in Compliance with ALAB-132" submitted to the Appeal Board on August 10, 1973, at p.
9' and Appendix A (affidavit of William S.
Gibbons).
2.
Intervenors state that " Paragraph B at page four indicates that Bechtel is to be responsible for site construction whereas the regulations require that the licensee assume these obligations. "
The regulations contemplate that the licensee will be responsible for the construction, but do not preclude delegation of the work itself.
- See, e.g.,
10 CFR Part 50 App. B, Criterion I.
1
. F.
Inspection Report 73-03 (Inspection of May 24-25, 1973) 1.
Intervenors' " obvious inference" that there are signifi-cant safety mattere of a long-run nature has been the subject of a prior comment.
See p. 6 supra.
2.
Intervenors mistakenly state that no mention is made about the " lack of documentation for the steam generators."
Item 4.b on page 9 of the Report bears on the incomplete steam generator weld material' documentation.
3.
Also bearing on the documentation question is item B.3 on page 4, cited by. Intervenors as an instance of an AEC inspector's taking the word of a licensee's repre-sentative "that he ' believes that no problem exists. '"
In fact,.iten B.1 (which refers to item 4.b on page 9) says that "it is believed that no problem exists," which could be the inspector's conclusion as easily as that -
of the licensee's representative.
Even if Intervenors are correct, however, it must be remembered that this particular inspection was a " licensee vendor audit surveillance inspection" -- in other words, the AEC inspector's job during this inspection was to see how well the licensee conducted a QA audit in the vendor's shop.
In this instance, he concluded that "the licenree representative very capably performed the audit and was
-most thorough and diligent in his. review."
k
- 4.
Contrary:to Intervenors' -allegation, there is no mention
-in para ~2a,-page 6, ofl improper B&W QA.
5.
The ndssing documentation relating to. heat treat'and material grain. size-data for certain internal hardware-was properly identified, and a nonconformance ~ report issued. by the licensee's representativ'e. -The Report thus evidences the fact that the licensee's QA' procedures i
are working.
The licensee's representative' stated that he would review the missing documents on his:next' audit.
The hardware is not identified'as " safeguard materials."
The matter of documentation o'f weld. material for the steam generators (characterized as "an important safety.
component") has already-been' discussed.
6.
Intervenors cite as an improper practice "The failure to make a finding of-compliance with code and regulations specified."
In chastising DRO for its supposed reliance on the word of Applicant's inspector, Intervenors. reveal _
.their lack of understanding.of this particular-type of inspection, which is designed to audit the Applicant's QA inspection.
DRO, in such an inspection, merely seeks' to verify the performance of the Applicant's inspector, and-does not limit its own future inspections regarding_
any - problems that may exist.
This Report, moreover, found no violations of AEC requirements by Applicant's' inspector.
- -.. G.
Inspection' Report 73-04 (Inspection of June 14-15, 1973) 1.
Again, Intervenors infer from'a finding of "no immediate, significant safety-matters" that some non-immedizte safety matters must have been encountered during the inspection.
The inference is wholly unsupported.
F urthermore, "non-immediate safety matters" yould-have to be reported by the licensee under 10 CFR 50.55(e),
Appendix B, and a licensee's failure to notify AEC of any such deficiency would be a nonconformance and would be so indicated in the Inspection Report.
2.
Again, Intervenors-chide the AEC inspector for taking the licensee's word "rather than doing the work himself."
Intervenors ignore the fact that Report 73-04, like 73-03, covered a licensee vendor audit surveillance inspection.
The portion-of the inspection report referred to (para B) covered " principal topics of discussion by the licensee representative and comments, by the vendor management personnel."
This inspection was a review of the audit procedure utilized by the licensee, not of the work itself, and there is no suggestion in the Report that AEC necessarily accepted the conclusions of Consumers Power's inspector.
3.
The assertion that "the. inspection reveals that Babcock and Wilcox is still in noncompliance with Commission regulations" is incorrect.
Item 4 on page E of the Report
)
. states:
An. interview was conducted with the S&W QC engineering manager relative to the QA program reaudit check sheet, which was ' concerned with changes to the B&W program that could effect compliance with the 18 criteria of 10'CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
No problems were en-countered."
We suspect that the inspector' meant that the changes could affect compliance with the 18 criteria, not effect-such compliance.
The changes in question were to. lessen subvendor documentation requirements by requiring' certain data relating to material properties only when required for QA purposes, rather than in every instance, as had been B&W's practica.
H.
Inspection Report 73-05 (Inspection of 6/25-6/28/73)
The Saginaw Intervenors also make nine allegations with reference to materials contained in Inspection Report 73-05, covering the June 26-28, 1973 inspection of the Midland site.
The following paragraphs are numbered to correspond with the Intervenors ' allegations.
1.
Intervenors assert that "There is no evidence that this inspection report [ sic] was a physical inspection."
However, page 8 of the Report makes clear reference to a visual e:: amination by RO inspectors.
There'is als.7 a later reference to visual inspection of rebar tie wires.
-. 2.
Intervonors infer from a. finding of.no "significant" safety items that there must have been insignificant ones, and claim that this must be a subjective judgment which, for lack of standards or criteria, is-inadequate to resolve a matter against intervenors.
As is made clear above, the inference is _ unsupported.
3.-
Intervenors complain that numerous items from prior reports remain unresolved, or that their resolution has not been : reflected in documents provided to the Board and Intervenors.
Report 73-05. indicates that no previously identified matters remain unresolved, a con-clusion borne out by_ our responses to the Intervenors' comments on the prior reports.
Intervenors also question what standards are used to determine the need for ncn-conformance reports.
Such standards are set forth in Applicant's Condition 1 report under ALA3-106.
4.
InterVC'Jrs Co= plain that Construction Continues despitel oxidation and _ Sae tie wire problem.
They are wrong on both counts.
The oxidation matter has been resolved by the adoption and implementation of procedures to assure that all. of the affected components are suitable.
Hatters
' relating to rebar tie wire are also being handled in the same manner.
The report (p.'9) states that the licensee l
l will examine and test the wire.
The report also states (p. 2) that:
"This matter will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection."
. 5.
The :Intervonors here allege that "the status of the Bechtel compliance with regulations is unresolved."
The statement is wholly incorrect.
See " Memorandum-Expressing the Views-of the Applicant, Consumers' Power Company, Concerning the Regulatory Staff's Submission in Compliance with ALAB-132," submitted to the' Appeal Board on August 10, 1973, p. 4.
6.
In this paragrapt the Intervenors assert that the in-spection1 report relies too heavily upon the licensee and upon Bechtel.
This is another way of complaining that insufficient personal inspection is conducted.
As we have previously pointed out, the contention is without merit..
7.. The: Intervenors. allege that the restoration problem has not been resolved.
The Intervenors' fail to realize that there is no restoration problem unless it is determined that corrosion has so advanced as to violate specifi-cations for minimum wall requirements.
As has been.
previously mentioned, many inspection reports have con-cluded that oxidation has not so sufficiently advanced-
~ to create any. problems of restoration.
However, it may again.be worthuhile to state that prior to erection a complote examination of each and every item will be undertaken to determine the extent-of corrosion and:the necessity for restoration.
1 1
-23.
8..
The Intervonors' allegation of an " inadequate soil analysis" and " wipe program" _is unfounded.
The RO did not find the " program" to be inadequate.
It was Consumers Power which stated that it would recommence the sampling upon resumption of construction activities.
The RO found no violations of AEC requirements.
- Second, the soil-analysis is not up.to date because it was not analyzed during the shutdown.
Finally, information received from-soil analysisiis not essential until stain-less steel material arrives on site, a time still well in the future.
9.
'The Saginaw Intervenors' - assertions in this paragraph :are without substance. - The purpose od this Appendix was to determine the " Status of Irplementation of Condition 1 of ALAB-106."- As such it is not vague or incomplete.
The lack of any definitive finding is an indication that everything is proceeding according to the inspection plan submitted in conjunction with the Condition 1 report-filed by Consumers Power pursuant to ALAB-106.
In view of the foregoing,it is clear that the inspecting arm of the AEC has. fully met its obligations and performed its duties and that all of the matters referred to by the Saginaw Intervenors have been satisfactorily resolved or are in the process of being resolved pursuant to appropriate procedures, including those 1
h
. can'J.unicated to th0 Board and the parties in the Cc:ndi. tion 1 report filed by Consu:aers Pouer Cor.pany pursuant to ALAD-10G.
Accordingly, even if the Saginaw motion is read in the light of Saginaw's Corr.ents, the motion is uithout merit and should be dismissed.
Respectf ully subritted, hA~
A/vf
?
/
i ildrold F.
Rais "
Newman, Reis & Axelrad 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20035 Attorneys for Applicant, Consumers Power Company Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
Of Counsel Dated:
August 31, 1973
UNITED STATES OF AMEPlCA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330
)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " Opposition of Consumers Power Company to Saginaw Intervenors' ' Motion to Enforce Commission's Regulations'",
dated August 31, 1973, in the~ above-captioned matter, have been served on the following in person or by deposit in the United States mail, first class or airmail, this 31st day of August, 1973.
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman William J. Ginster, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite 4, Merrill Building Appeal Board Saginaw, Michigan 48602 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.
C.
20545-James A. Kendall, Esq.
135 N. Saginaw Road Dr. John H. Buck, Member Midland, Michigan 48640 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Consumers Power Company Washington, D.
C.
20545 212 West Michigan ' Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 William C. Parler, Esq., Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard G. Smith, Esq.
Appeal Board Smith '& Brooker, P. C.
U.'S. Atomic Energy Commission 730 Washington Avenue Washington, D. C.
20545 Bay City, Michigan 48706 Mr. Paul C. Bender Milton R. Wessel, Esq.
Secretary Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays U. S. Atomic Energy Commission and Handler Washington, D.
C.
20545 425 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Mr. Frank W. Karas (20)
Chief, Public Proceedings Branch James N. O ' Connor, Esq.
Office of the Secretary-of the The Dow Chemical Company Commission 2030 Dow Center U. S. Atomic _ Energy Commission Midland, Michigan 48640 Washington, D.
C.
20545 Myron M. Cherry, Esq. (2)
David E. Kartalia, Esq.
Jenner & Block U. S. Atomic Energy Commission One IBM Plaza Washington, D.
C.
20545 Chicago, Illinois 60611
e
. Irving-Like, Esq.
Howard J. Vogel, Esq.
Reilly, Like and Schneider.
Knittle & Vogel 200 West Main 1154 East Grain Exchange 31dg.
Babylon, New ' fork 11702 412' South 4th Street Hon. William H. Ward Assistant Attorney General State of Kansas Topeka, Kansas 66612 Harold F.
Reis k