ML19339D062
| ML19339D062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1981 |
| From: | Farnell A CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Stamiris B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339D056 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8102170181 | |
| Download: ML19339D062 (12) | |
Text
. _ - -
j
()
UNITED STATUS OF AMERICA j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
)
i 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)
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S INTERROGATORIES TO INTERVENOR BARBARA S_TAMIRIS i
Consumers Power Company hereby submits to intervenor Barbara Stamiris the following interrogatories to be answered separately, under oath.
Interrogatories regarding Stamiris Contention 1 1A.
Define the phrase "less than complete and candid dedication to providing information" as set forth in your Contention 1.
1B.
Set forth with particularity each example, other than those set forth in Contention 1, upon which you rely to support the portion of Contention 1 which reads
[
1
" Consumers Power Company statements and responses to NRC j
regarding soil settlement issues reflect a less than com-plete and candid dedication to providing information relevant l
8102170 gg,g
to health and safety standards with respect to resolving the soil settlement problems."
1C.
Define " adequate acceptance criteria" as that term is used in your contention ld.
1D.
Set forth with particularity how each " acceptance criteria" provided by Consumers Power is inadequate.
1E.
Set forth with particularity the basis for your contention that "information resolving geologic classifi-cation of the site...is pertinent to the seismic design input on soil settlement issues."
1F.
Define the term " managerial attitude" as used in your Contention 1.
1G.
Explain in what manner Consumers Power Company's managerial attitude necessitates stricter than usual regulatory supervision (ALAB - 106) to assure appropriate implementation of the remedial steps required by the Order Modifying Construction Permits, dated December 6, 1979.
1H.
Set forth with particularity the specifics of the " stricter than usual regulatory supervision" you believe is necessary to assure appropriate implementation of the remedial steps required by the order Modifying Construction Permits, dated December 6, 1979.
Interrogatories regarding Stamiris Contention 2 2A.
Set forth with particularity each example, other than those included in your Contention 2, which l
l I
)
(
demonstrates that " Consumers Power Company's financial and 1
time schedule pressures have directly and adversely affected l
resolution of soil settlement issues."
i 2B.
For each example listed in response to Interrogatory 2A set forth with particularity the basis for your contention that each "directly and adversely affected resolution of soil settlement issues."
2C.
Set forth with particularity the basis for i
your contention that because "the FSAR was submitted early due to forecasted OL intervention, before some of the material f
required to be included was available" this "directly and adversely affected resolution of soil settlement issues."
i Further explain how this " constitutes a compromise of j
4 applicable health and safety regulations" and set forth each 1
l such health and safety regulation.
[
i i
2D.
Set forth with particularity any basis other than that provided in your contention, for your contention that "the choice of remedial actions being based in part on l
expediency."
2E.
Set forth with particularity the basis for i
i j
your contention that because "the choice of remedial actions (is] based in part on expediency" this "directly and adversely
{
affected resolution of soil settlement issues."
Explain l
with particularity how this " constitutes a compromise of applicable health and safety regulations" and set forth each such health and safety regulation.
l
. i s
2F.
Set forth with particularity the basis for l
your contention that "the practice of substituting materials for those originally specified for ' commercial reasons' or expediency" has adversely affected renalution of soil settle-ment issues.
Explain with particularity how this " constitutes a compromise of applicable health and safety regulations" i
and set forth each such health and safety regulation.
I j
2G.
Set forth with particularity any basis other i
than that provided in your contention for your contention that Consumers Power has " substitute (d) materials for those j
originally specified for ' commercial reasons' or expediency."
2H.
For each item listed in response to Interroga-tory 2G set forth with particularity how each "directly and adversely affected resolution of soil settlement issues."
i Explain with particularity how this " constitutes a compromise of applicable health and safety regulations" and set forth each such health and safety regulation.
2I.
Set forth with particularity the basis for your contention that Consume.s Power did not thoroughly consider Option 2 -Removal and Replacement Plan.
2J.
det forth with particularity the basis'for your contention that "the failure to freely comply with NRC testing requests to further evaluate soil settlements remedia-i tion [ sic]" " constitutes a compromise of applicable health and safety regulations" and set forth each such health and safety regulation.
5 9 -
3 J
_ ~. _..,,,,
Interrocatories regarding Stamiris Contention 3 3A.
Define " managerial attitude inconsistent with implementation of Quality Assurance Regulations" as that term is used in your contention.
3B.
Set forth with particularity each " Quality Assurance deficienc[y] regarding soil settlement," not set forth in your Contention 3.
3C.
Set forth with particularity any basis, other than that provided in the Contention, for your contention that "the Applicant has failed to assume responsibility for execution of the QA program through its failure to verify and review FSAR statements."
3D.
Set forth with particularity any basis, other than that provided in the Contention, for your contention that "the Applicant has failed to assume responsibility for execution of the QA program... through its reliance on final test results not in accordance with specified requirements."
3E.
Set forth with particularity any basis, other than that provided in the Contention, for your contention that "the QA program was not carried out according to written policies, procedures and instructions, in that oral directions were relied upon on."
3F.
Set forth with particularity any basis, other than that provided in the Contention, for your contention that "the QA program was not carried out according to.
written policies, procedures and instructions, in that... repeated deviations occured (sic] regarding compaction procedures."
3G.
Set forth with particularity any basis, other I
than that provided in the Contention, for your contention I
that "[c]ontrol of purchased material has not been maintained, in that examination and testing of backfill materials did not occur in accordance with regulations."
3H.
Set forth with particularity any basis, other than that provided in the Contention, for your contention that "[c]ontrol of non-destructive testing was not accomplished by qualified personnel using qualified procedures regarding moisture control."
3I.
Explain and set forth with particularity as to in what way, according to your contention, "[T]est programs did not incorporate requirements and acceptance limits adequately in the areas referenced in a, b and c above."
3J.
Explain and set forth with particularity as to in what way "[T]est programs...do not meet these requirements regarding soil settlement remedial actions."
3K.
Set forth with particularity any basis, other than that provided in the Contention, for your contention that "[mleasures were not adequately established to prevent damage or deterioration of material regarding frost effects on compacted fill."
3L.
Set forth with particularity any basis, other than that provided in the Contention, for your contention that "[m]easures were not taken to control non-conforming material in order to prevent the inadvertent use."
3M.
Set forth with particularity the basis for your contention that the settlement of the Administration Building in 1977 should have served as a quality indicator, preventing the same inadequate procedures from occurring in the 1978 construction of the diesel generator building causing its eventual settlement."
3N.
Set forth with particularity "the inadequate procedures" referred to in your Contention 3C.
Interrogatories ragarding Stamiris Contention 4 4A.
Set forth with particularity the basis for your contention that
[p] reloading of the diesel generator building does not preclude an unacceptable degree of furtl.er differential settlement of diesel generator building,"
define the term " unacceptable degree of further differential settlement" and quantify the amount of settlerent that would be " unacceptable."
4B.
Set forth with particularity the basis for i
your contention that unknown locations of cohesionless soil pockets" "does not allow proper evaluation of compaction procedures."
4C, Has preloading of the diesel generator building
" adversely affect (ed] underlying piping, conduits or nearby.
w w
w, ww-
i structures?"
If the answer is yes, set forth with particularity each underlyir g pipe, each conduit and each " nearby structure" that has been adversely affected.
As to each underlying pipe, each conduit and each nearby structure that has been adversely affected, set forth with particularity in what way it has been adversely affected.
4D.
Set forth with particularity the basis for your contention that preloading of the diesel generator building " yields effects not scientifically isolated from the effects of a rise in cooling water and therefore not measured properly."
4E.
Set forth with particularity the basis for your contention that the cooling pond dikes "were built with the same improper soils and procedures" and set forth with particularity any basis, other than that provided in the Contention, for your contention.
4F.
Set forth with particularity each of the
" untested assumptions" referred to in your contention 4c..
4G.
Set forth with par + cularity the " inadequate evaluation of dynamic responses" referred to in your contentien 4c.
4H.
Set forth with particularity each item, other than those set forth in the contention, that constitute "such things" as that term is used in your contention 4c.
4I.
Will permanent dewatering "cause an unacceptable degree of further settlement in safety reisted structures
_g_
due to the anticipated drawndown effect?"
If the answer is yes, set forth with particularity the basis for that assertion.
Also set forth with particularity each safety related structure that will be so affected and set forth with particularity in what way each structure has been affected.
4J.
Set forth with particularity the basis for your contention that " permanent dewatering, to the extent subject to failure or degradation, would allow inadequate time ;.:..shich '.c initiat2 :nu td;;;r.,
.a._- ;.,. 2 -j. 2 ;.u _
- _r.g reassessment of these times. "
l Interrogatories regarding Stamiris Contention 5 5A.
-Set forth with particularity the basis for your contention that the Staff does not have reasonable
_ assurance if Consumers Power does not respond fully and totally to Staff requests.
Background Interrogatories 1.
Set forth your educational background, including a.
College attended b.
Degree granted c.
Courses taken and any other education in geotechnical science, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, quality assurance..
2.
Set forth the approximate number of hours you have spent working on the Midland soils settlement issues.
3.
Set forth with particularity each document, pleading, deposition, book or other written material you have examined, either briefly or in detail, regarding the Midland soils settlement issue.
4.
Set forth the date, persons involved in the communication and the substance of each oral or written communication (including any documents that you have either sent or received) you have had with:
(a) any employee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or any of its consultants regarding the Midland soils settlement issues; (b) any newspaper, magazine, radio station, television station or other media organization.
Sincerely, b-Alan S.
Farnell Counsel for Consumers Power Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALI:
One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500 l
lo.
-v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-OM
)
50-330-OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
50-329-OM
)
50-330-OM
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Alan S.
Farnell, hereby certify that a copy of Consumers Power Company's Interrogatories to Intervenor Sharon K. Warren and Consumers Power Company's Interrogatories to Intervenor Barbara Stamiris were served upon all persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 9th of February, 1981.
b.M h~
Alan S.
Farnell 4
w
SERVICE LIST Frank J. Kelley, Esq.
Steve Galdler, Esq.
Attorney General of the 2120 Carter Avenue State of Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Stewart H.
Freeman, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel Gregory T.
Taylor, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20555 Environmental Protection Div.
720 Law Building Mr.
C. R. Stephens Lansing, Michigan 48913 Chief, Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary Myron M.
Cherry, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission One IBM Plaza Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Street Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Midland, Michigan 48640 RFD 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 William D.
Paton, Esq.
Counsel for the NRC Staff Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Pnl. Washington, D.C.
20555 l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Washington, D.C.
20555 6152 N.
Verde Trail Apt. B-125 Barbara Stamiris Boca Raton, Florida 33433 5795 North River Road Route 3 Mr. Gustave A.
Linnenberger Freeland, Michigan 48623 Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory "7m.
Sharon K. Warren Washington, D.C. 20555 636 Hillcrest Midland, Michigan 48640 Carroll E. Mahaney Babcock & Wilcox P.
O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 James E. Brunner, Esq.
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201
.