ML20034E321

Partially Deleted Commission Correspondence to Obtain Approval of Notice of Hearing Re Consumer Power Co (Midland Nuclear Power Plants) Order Modifying Construction Permits

ML20034E321
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	02/07/1980
From:	Malsch M NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20034E275	List: ML20034E272 ML20034E315 ML20034E321
References
FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-20, NUDOCS 9302250300
Download: ML20034E321 (26)

Text

'

e h1D uni 1 ED STATES O

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

^

SECY-A-80-20 February 7, 1980 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5.cd" ADJUDICATORY OwdtM beM/ib b

For:

The Commissioners fg From:

Martin G. Malsch b C64 d I

Deputy General Counsel Sh w k- 'dd D H

Subject:

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (MIDLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2) ORDER MODIFYING CONS,TRUC-g 6d To obtain Commission _ approval of TION PERMITS g

hc*-

tice of p

Purpose:

Hearing on this Order.[

Discussion:

On December 10, 1979, the Directors of NRR and I&E jointly issued an Order Modifying Construc-tion Permits for Consumers Power Company's Mid-land Nuclear Power Plant (Attachment 1).

The Directors' Order is based on several investiga-tions which revealed a breakdown in quality assur-ance related to soil construction activities under.

and around safety-related structures and systems:

Consumers' failure to justify acceptance cri-teria necessary for determining the adequacy of

, Consumers' proposed remedial actions; and an alleged material' false statement in the JSAR.

The Order would prohibit Consumers from per-In'omWan b 12 reccid "" e,#

forming certain soil-related activities pend-jn e0 gRe mth th cedacicf frhragon ing NRC approval of amendments to the construc-

[0%

tion permits.

However, the Order does not U-Q

- provide for any separate action specifically-addressed to the alleged material false statement.

The Director, I&E informed us that after considering the available alter-natives he considered that the proposed amendment to the construction permits pro-vides appropriate and sufficient agency action if the ame ment proceedine is not F Y. I unduly delayed.*)

U The Order is not immediately effective.

The Acting Director, NRR informed us that in his opinion there was no public i==ediate effectiveness.

Gy.F

_ health and safety basis to support L~

Contact:

iof Sheldon L. Trubatch, GC kv 2

X-43224 9302250300 921123!

PDR FOIA CILINSK92-436 PDR cr u r s

4

)

2 1

m e

h b -[)N i

On December 26, 1979, Consumer requested a hearing pursuant to Part V of the Order'

[ Attachment 2}.

See, 10 CFR 2.204.

In that rcquest, Consumers noted that issues sub-stantially identical to those addressed by the Order of December 10 have been placed in contention by two intervenors in the pro-t cceding on the proposed issuance of operating licenses for this facility.

The Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for that proceeding agrees that the issues are substantially similar.

The Director, NRR transmitted Consumers '

jrequest to you on January 21, 1980 [ Attach-ment 3).

10 CFR 2.204 provides_that if a 3, licensee requests a hearing, the license amendment will become ef fective 'on' the date-specified in an order made lowing the

,_____ hearing. is a draft Notice of e v

Hearing f~or the Secretary issue on your c

~

7 behalf.

That notice directs the existing sj fLicensingBoardtoconsidertheissuesstated j.

in the Directors' Order.

The Chairman of the

p Licensing Board agrees with this disposition.

j J/

Consumers has indicated that it will move to consolidate all proceedings considering these f l

issues.

I The Notice also directs the Licensing Board, in the event Consumers moves for consolida-tion, to consider whether the consolidation

(',, /'

of this proceeding with other NRC proceedings would adversely af fect the expeditious resolu-tion of the issues. stated in the Directors' i

Order.

i

3

Gi ('

G y' l Recommendation:

fAuthorizetheSecretarytoissuetheNotice of Hearing y

/1,.

]'

?

g g $dt.,,

//

l Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel Attachments:

1.

Directors' Order 2.

Ltr, 12/26/79, from Co.sumers 3.

Memo, 1/21/80, Director, NRR to Comm.

{ Draft Notice of Hearinh 87d 4

Comissioners' coments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, February 22, 1980.

Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT February 14, 1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and coment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments +

may be expected.

This paper is tentatively scheduled for affimation at an Open Meeting during the Week of March 3, 1980. Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Comt.ission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.

DISTRIBUTION i

Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Secretariat i

I i

I i

b

" ~ ~ ~ ~ -

1 1

F s

. t i

- v i

y I) m.

L b,

b ATTACHMENT 1 t

s T

.-+

Yan-.

m l

i h

a s

t J

?

)

)

P

- i

-I

?

7'

.s i

7 i

a

~ f s

r.

[1i "h

~i

.. p 4'

- J e

' i,

{

E

.r

"==

:

.... =. :, =.=,. t... z,....

=~

-e I

+

a t

50-33:

3 -

.o t, \\ ? gcj 6..

.~.

+

r.!-

I ---

3*

k..~

p;

?

Consumers Pe*er ' Company 5'.

' TT.: Mr. 5:.ephen H. Howell Vice.c esident

^-

1945 West-Parnall Road M D at~

g Jackson, MI 4S201 i

P Gentlemen:

1 Thi: letter transmits to you an Order Modifying Construction Permits No.

CFPR-81 and No. CFPR-82. This action is being.taken as. a result of' findings by inspectors frcs Region III, Office of Inspection and Enfercement made.

curin2 the Perict of 0ctober 1973 to January 1579, and the conclusions of the-1 NRC staff after revieving responses to the 10 CFR 50.5?(f) request;of March' 21 j

1979, regarding the proposed re:aedial work under and around safety-relatec'

(

stre:tures and systets at the site, se:e of which is currently underway. ' The '

1 Drcer pertains to the prchlems associated with the ' soil fcundation' materials at the site.

l

-)

As part of the C-der there are twe Notices Of Violatien.

The first Noti:e Of -

I Weistion is *ppe-dix A which contains inf ermatica concerning.four infract-::ns.

-l

.ith several exa.:les, all cf wnd:h relate :: the scil founcation oretie:s.

l

'es second Nc: ice of-Viole. tion, A endix E,. : ntains inferration centerr'r.; ar, j

i.en of con cepliance which was dnercined to be a caterial f alse. state e.t; A:.i

,s that ::r.sumers re er Company cay ta<e as a result efltnis Order are:

ss: riced in ne :rcer.

Sir:erely, Sincersly, f [ D.J l

fi V

..d A / 6.Q f:sfg::*G; 1

V

,9's 3,9 4 1

,h.-

Ecs:n G. Case Victor._5tenc',Wr.

I Acting Director Director-Office of Nuclear Reactor Office cf Inspectior' ll Regi ation and Enfcrcement.

t C r er P.0 ifyir.;. 03ns*.-'UctiCn

.f e

n !,

....... :. c...e.. L;:, :... r -

a w

w.

...s

en:ix -

i

er.:fr E

........;3 i

~.=.. ',. : 9 : :. :..c. r..,

3 I~

9 e

q 2

o

+.,

us, _:n 5 ::..:.c r.:.. r.e.. r..-. -

l

??. ' ::

sJ CONSUMERS POWIR COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-329 (Midland Nuclear Power Plant,

)

50-330 Units 1 and 2).

)

OEDER HSDIFYING CONSTRUCTION cE:.MITS

)

I t

The Consu:ers Power Cc=pany (the Licensee) is a holder of Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-E2 which authorize the construction of two pressurized i

water rea: tors in Midland, Michigan. The construction permits expire on i

0:tober 1,19S1 and 0:tober 1,19E2, for Unit 2 and Unit I respectively.

[

II I

I L

On Ac;ust 22,197E, tr.e Licensee informed the NRC Resicent Inspect:r at the Midit..d site that unusual se*tlerer,t ef the Diesel Ge erator Stilding had f

c::urred. The Licensee reported the catter ender 1: CFR 50.55(e) of the

.i t

Cc= issien's recuisti:r.s ty telephone en September 7,1972.

inis n:tif t:Etien i

)

was f lle ed by a series of interic reports dated Se;tember 29, 1978, hovember 7,1575, Cece:ber 21, IS7E, January 5,197S, February 23, 1979, April 2, 1975, June 25,1979, Ae;.si 10,1979 Se:ter:er 5,1979, c-Neverter 2, 1979.

Ec11c.is; -he Septer.cer 1578 notification, inspec: cts frc= the Regien III, i

Cf fice of Inspection and Enforcement, conducted an investigation over the k

perict cf Oct:ber 197E thrcugh January 1979. This investigatien reveried a breatt: r in cuality assurance relate: to soil cer.r: :tien activities unda-

)

anc arcur.d safety-relatet structures and systens in :nat (1) certain oesign i

: ig ior,spe:*.fi:E ict.s rei!*.ed 1: f 0un ZI':

-}O2 CE!!"#cI cr:rirtie!

l

~

17.:

r I

~

t t

'. L..

I i:.. -

4 :. : rt.5 c.5 2 e n:t.:

c.

cire::ien an: support betweer the contractor's engineering office anc ::nstru:-

l tion site as well as within the contractor's engineering office; (3) there was l

a lack of control and supervision of plant fill placement a:tivities which

Ontributed to inadequate ec:; action of foundatien caterial; (4) corrective t

action regarding noncomformantes related to plant fill was insufficient or

\\

inadequate as evidence by repeated deviations from specification requirements;

[

and (5) the FSAR contains inconsistent, incorre:t, and unsupported statements i

with respect to foundation ?>?e, soil preperties and settlement values.

The i

cetails cf these findings are described in the inspection reports 50-229,/78-12, 50-320/7E-12 (Noventer 14, 1578) and 50-225/72-20, 5.-330/78-20 (March 19, l

1979) which were sent to the Licensee on ?:eventer 17, 1978 and March 22, 1979 respectively.

i The items of none:coliance resulting frc the NRC investigation are des:ribed in A;;en:ix A to this Or:er. In additien, as ces rited in Appendix E : this Orcer, a rate-ial f alse statsment was ca:e ir the F5AE in :nat the F5 AE faise'.

f stated that ".Ali fill and ta:kfill were pla:ed a:::rcing :: Tacle 2.5-5." 7nis statement is caterial in tnat this pertien of the FSAR would have been founc unacceptthie without further Staff analysis and questions if the Staff had kno n that Category I structures had been place: in fact on rando fill rather-tr.an centrclied :::pa:tet ::nesive fill as sta:ce in the FSAR.

w b

te ow 8'

1. 8 8

W

-*#+

8 e

e..

s.

w kye

(

1-t^: -

. 2

.: : :: ::.* :.~..':.

saf e;y-related structures and systems in and on piant fill, and the Licensee's related quality assurance program. On March 21, 1979, the Director, Office of Nu: lear Reacter Regulation, formally recuested under 10 CFR 50.54(f) of the Ccamissien's regulations informatien :encerning these catters to deter.ine whether action should be taken to modify, suspend or revoke the construction per=it.

Additional information was requested by the Staff in letters dated September 11,197S and Novecher 19, 1979. The Lice'nsee responded to these r

letters, under oath, ir. letters dated April 24,1979, May 31,1979, July 9, 1:-79, August 10, 1979, Septecte r 13, 1979, and Neverter 13, 1979.

The Li.censee t

has n:t yet resp:nced to the Novetter 19, 1979 re: vests.

Se,e ai of the Staf f's re;uests were directed : tre cetermination and b

,cstification of acce; tan:e criteria tc be ap: lie: t various remedial reasures

Eken and preposed by the licensee.

Such criteria, ccuple: with the details cf int re.edial E::i:~., are necessary f:r the Staff : evaiUa*e thE te:hnical a::' r.

The information 1:e:.1:y an: pre;e-i:plerenttlien cf ine prc::se:

:.i:ed by 'tr.e licensee fails to Orcvide such criteria.

Therefore, based en E

e.'iew of the infercation provice: ty the Licensee in response to the Staff Staff Cannet Conclude at this tiOF that the safety issues ques-icas, thE assc:iated with reiedial action taken Dr planned 10 te taken by the Licensee Witncut the resciutier c' to :: rert the scil ceficiencies e#.li ba resti e.

tnese issues the 5 aff coes not have reasonable assurantb that the affe::e; sif E,-ri.a e: p:rti c r.: cf tSe ".i:~.an0 ft:ility *,* ce ::nstru: ed art Of tne u:,ir.

vith Ut un:ve ri3k 10 thi nealth and f a et;

t I E:

?

i f

n:ar r.e A:::ic Energy A: of 1954, as a:encec, an: ::a ;;rmissi

t. s l

t regulations, activities authorized by construction permits or portions thereof~

=ay be suspended should the Cer. issien find infor tt en wtich would va rant i

tne C:::ission to refese to grant a constructier. permit en an original applica-ti on. 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 censtruction under a.d at und safety-related structures and systems are adequate rases to refuse to crant a constru: tion permit and that, therefore, suspension l

~

Of certain activities under Construction Permits N. CFFR-$1 and No. CP?R-52 is warrar.ted until the related safety is sues are res:1ved.

,o.

A

?

A.::::ingly, pursuant to the Ato:i Energy Act of.1554, as amended, an: the

~:-

c. a. :.-

..: r'..: :. :. : v. g r.- : r. :.

u,.e r.,

u, r. :, a...

n......,.:

4

. e n..,3 c. n. z... S -,

..- z.5in.s z 4 :

z:: t: Far ',' c f -hi s Ortir, Cons tr ::icn Ee r~'15 * : 0?I ~ 1 E'0 -

1 CFFF.-I2 he. :tified as foile 's:

l (1) Fending the submissien cf an amendment to the application seeking approval 5

.f the remedial a:ticns Essc:ia ed with the soil activities for szfety-6 em

.eww e

• w e

.wt*

• • e b

i he s s uaIe e O En bIeI.U$eIe O Obs =Iu = cre EII 0.

I b

=

f A

_ I k

4 t

^

1

t t

F r

z. ;:

tre ;rchibited:

r i

(a) any placing, cc.; acting, or excavating soil materials under or arounc saf ety related structures and systers;

~

(b) physical implementation of remedial action for correction of i

soil-related proble=s under and around these structures and systems, including but not limited to:

(i) desatering systems (ii) underpinning of service water building.

~

?

(iii) re: eval and replacenent of fill beneath the feed-ater isolation valve pit area (iv) pla:ing caissons at the ends of the auxiliary building i

electrical penetration areas (v) cc:pa:tien and ica:ing activities; f

r

(:) constru:sf on work in soil r.aterials un:er or around safety-related

)

structures and systems such as field installation of conduits and ii P P nG-(2)

tra;raph (~) at:ve shall not apply to any expicring, sampling, cr testir.;

t f s:i1 sar;'.es as seriatec with cetermining a::uai scil ;rtperties.cn

{

site.ti:n nas tna approval cf tne Director cf F.egion III, Offi:e cf Ins;,ec*.icn anc Enforcement.

l

Ine Licensee er any persen whose interest is affe::s: by tnis Or er r y within 20 days of the date of this Order request a hearing with respe:t to all or any part of this Order.

In the event a hearin; is requested, the issues te be considered will be:

(1) whether the facts set forth in Part II of this Grder $re correct; and (2) whether this Order should be sustained.

?

This Order will beccee effective en tre ex;iratict. of the period curir.; which i

a hearin; nay be requested, or in the esent a hearing is recuested, en the P

date spe:ified in an Order made fellc-'ing the hearing.

1 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CDP. MISSION

~

'3 Yjb -

h,

' & e:

n.

n scs:n G. Case, Ayting Director Victor Stello, Jr.,g Dire:::r gDffice of Nuclear Reactor Office cf Inspection

^!

Regulation and Enforcement t

Atta:hments:

1.

Appendix A 2.

Appendix E Detec at ie nssda, Marylar.d, j

this 6 W.-

day of Dece :er, 1979.

~

i l

-2

~;:

_~_-

.;;c2;.:. :;-21.

... ;rs.- :

1-

.:..;ary C::kt NO. 50-23:

This refers to the investigation conducted by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement at the Midland Hu: lear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Midland, Michi;an, at your offices in Jackson, Michigan,.and at Secntel Corporation, Ann Arbor, Michigan of activities authori:ec ey NRC License No. CPPR-El and No. CPPR-82.

Based on the results of the investigation conducted during the period-December 11, 1975 through January 25, 1979, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC require-cents as noted below. These items are infraction <,.

1 1.

10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Criterion III requires, in part, that ceasures shall be established and executed to assure that regulat:ry requirements r

and the design basis as specified in the license application for stru:tures are correctly translated into specifications, crawings, procedures and instrettions. Also, it provides that measures shall be established for the identification and control of cesign inter-l f aces ~ and for cc rdination among participating design organications.

CPCo Topical F.epert CPC-1-A, Policy N:. 3, Se: tion 3.4 states, in part, "ine assigned leao cesign group or organi:ation-(i.e., the N555 su plier, ALE se: plier, or CDCo) assure that designs and rateriais are suitable and that iney comply with design criteria art regulatory requirements."

C;Co is :om itted to ANSI N'5.2 (1971), Se:ti:n 4.1, wrich states, in part, "retsures sna11 be established and cocumente: to assure that the Ep;iitable specified design re:uire ants, su:7 as a casi;n r

basis, re;ulatory re;uirE ents... are correctly-translate: int:

e specifi~ cati ns, trasings, pt::edures, or instru:: ions.

Contrary to the above, measures did n:t assure that design bases

• ere included in dravings 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 do:uments.

Specific examples are set forth below:

Tha F5A. is internally inconsistent in that FSAR Figure 2.5 'I a.

ir. dica es settlement of the Diesel Generator Suilding to be ca the orcer of 3" while FEAR Se: tion 3.8.5.5 (stre:tural accep.-

an:a cri erit)_ indica:es settlemen s on snallow sgread fcotin;s

?

i s

i L.

6 4.3

. : --- l

~.........: :::. ~.

s nai'. c.- ;;re ac ice-in,:.

b.

The design settlement calculatiens fer the diesel generator and borated water storage tanks were perforced on the assumption of unifore cat foundations while thec( foundations were designed and constrc:ted as spread footing founcati ns.

c.

The settlerent calculations for the Diesel Generator Euilding indicated a load intensity of 3000 PSF while the FSAR, Figure 2.5-47, sho<s a load intensity of 4000 PSF, as actually constructed.

d.

The settlement calculatiens for the Diesel Generator Building were based on an index of compressibility of the plant fill between elevations 603 and 534 of 0.001.

These settlement values were sh:<n in FSAR Figure 2.5-48.

However, FSAR, Table 2.5-16, indicates an incex cf compressibi'.ity of the same plant fill to be 0.003.

PSAR, Ar.end:ent 3, indi:sted that if filling and backfilling e.

operaticas are discentinued during periods of cold weather, all frc:en seil would be recoved or recerpacted prior to the resump-tion of operaticns. Bechtei specifica-ion C-210 6:es not specif-ically incF.:e inst uctic.s f r removai e' frc:an/ thawed compacted niterial upon resurption of w:rx after win er periods.

f.

PSAR Arendrent 3 indicates t at cchesienless 5:i1 (sand) would be cc pacted to 85% relative density acecrding to ASTM D-204c.

Hewever, Ee:ntei specifica-icn C-210, Se:tien 13.7.2 re;; ire:

cohesionless soil to be cer:a:ted to n:t less than E:% relative censity.

2.

10 CFR 50, A::en:ix 5, Criterier \\ re: vires, i. : art, that activities s'ft: ting quality shall be prescrited and ac:ce:lisned in accordance with documented ins ructions, precedures or crasings.

CP o Topical Rep:rt CPC-I-A, Policy No. 5, Section 1.0 states, in part, that, " Instructions for centro 11ing and performing a:tivities affecting quality of equipment or operation during design, construc-tion and operations phase of the nuclear power plant such as procure-tsr. manufacturing, construction, installation, inspecticn, -testin;

... are cc:urented in instru:tiens, protecuras, soetifica-icns..

. tnese docu ents previce qualitative and evanititive acce:tance criteria for ce:entining it;ortan activities have been satisfact:rily a::::tlisned."

r

. :: :: ::- # ef t- : '?

v: 5. g '- - ~~ '

- r r ti

~~; *

.a t

#. :. 5:: :12 a.'. : r 0

e a::Or;. 3:40 a ;;:'.. :... J

• r.3 :

l instru::icas, pro ecures, or cravings."

Cor.trary to the above, instructions provided to field constru--

a.

tien for substituting lean concrete for Zone 2 material did not at:ress the differing founcation properties which would result i

in cifferen:ial settlemsnt of the Diesel Genera cr Euiicing.

b.

Also, contrary to the above, certain activities were. net accom-plished according to instructions and procedures, in that:

(1) The co:paction criteria used for fill material va's 20,000 ft-lbs (Bechtel modified proctor test) rather than a co:pactive energy of 56,000,ft-lbs as specified in Sechtel Specification C-210, Section 13.7.

(2) Scils activities were net at:ceplished under tne continueus scpervisien of a cualified soils engineer wno would perform in place censity tests in the ccmpacted fill to verify i

that all materials are placed and cceps:ted in accordan:e with specification driteria.

This is required by Bechtel 5;ecification C-501 as well as PSAP., Amendment ? (Dames and MO:re Rep:rt, page 16).

10 CFR *L, A::en:ix 5, Criterion X re:uires, in part, that a program 1.

f or i s:ertion cf activities affectin; cuality shall be establisnt:

to verify confctmance wi n the cc: rented instructions, and exe: te procedures and crawings for at:ceplishing the activity. _

?;c Tc:ical Re;:rt CPC 1-A, Policy N:. IC, Se:tien 3.1, states, in t'It "w:rk activities a e accor;1istec acco-dir.g to app ove:

a rt, pro:e: gras er instru:t' ens v.Mch include ins;e:-icn n:1c 00ints l

rey nd Sitt work c:es n:t proceet until the ins;ection is cciplete Or.ri'.*.in : nsent f or 0.cassing tne inspection has teen receive:

from ine organization authorized to perform the inspe:tiens."

.:PCo is :om:ited to ANSI N45.2 (1971), which states, in part, "A l

program for inspection of activities affecting quality shall be estaolished and executed by or for the organization performing the i

activity to verify confctmance to the documented instructions, pre:ecures, and drawings for accetplishing the activity."

n:-ar te the abcve, Quality Centr:1 Instre:tien C-1.02, tne orc;-a.m for ins:ecticn of cc:pacted backfill issued on Detece-IE, 1975, did not provice for inspection hold points to verify that soil

-:-x.ar satisf a:: -ily at: tplisnad a: rdin; t:

umented

',str.:tions.

I i

t

r l

2 :

t:

it ;

...ity se: ;; faiieras, c2ficiEr.Cie!, c e f i '.'.. * : ~ i r'e a i EI.:

n n:Onfermar.:es are pror;tiy icentified and c:rre ;et.

In case cf significant c nditions adverse to quality, measures shall assure that corrective action is taken to preclude repetition.

CPC: Tcoical Ee;;rt CPC- -A, Policy N:.15, Sectien 1.0 states, in part, corra:tive action is that action taken to correct and pre-cle:e re:urren:e cf significant conditions adverse to the cuality cf items or operations. Corrective action includes an evaluation of the conditions that led to a nonconformance, the disposition of the nonconformance and enepletion of the actions necessary to prevent or reduce the possibility of recurrence."

Contrary to the above, ceasures did not assure that soils conditions of adverse quality were promptly corrected to preclude repetition.

For extT le:

a.

As of January 25, 1579, toisture control in fill esterial had not been established nor adecuate direction given to implement this specification requirement.

The finding that tne field was r,ot perforcing coisture control tests as required Dy specifi-cation C-210 was identified in Quality A:tien Recuest 5D-40, dated July 22, 1977.

i Corrective action re; arcing nonconforman:e reports related te plant fill as insufficient er inadecuate tc pre:1ude repeti-tion as evic'enced by re:eated ceviatiens fr soe:ifi:ati:n re:uirements.

For exartie, non:enf orman:e reports hc. CP~o v.

s.

s s

.r..c. :. c c.. s. n j

- :. 3.:,

-:.:c, (,: e.c, n.:..

/, C r..i

, r z... 7..- c..-

w r.urder:es examples cf re:eated n:n::rf:- ar.:Es in the sa a areas ;f piant fill c nstruction I

l 6

i

?

I i

t f

i l

I k

i P

I i

t a

l

4

.nsr i,s ?:.cr C::pa y

. : :.;e s. 5;-22E i

Oc:ke: N:. 5C-330 This refers to the investigation conducted by the Office of Inspection and Snic~;erent at the Midland Nu: lear Power Plant, Units 1 anc 2, ".iCand, Micni;En, at your offices in Jackson, Michigan, 'and at Eecntel Corporation, Aa.n Arb r, Michigan, cf a:tivities authori:ed by NRC t.icense No. CFFR-51 and ho. CFPR-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 Micland Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) contains the folleving:

Sectic 2.5. 4.5. 3, Fiil, states: *All fill and backfill were placed i

a: orcing to Table 2.5-9.*

Table 2. 5-9, Mini:u: Cc:: action Criteria, contains the following:

Cee:Ectien Crite-ie 2:ne -)

Soi; f.

"runction Desicnation Ty:e Degree t.STM Des': a 'en Scrocrt cf Clav 95%

ASTM D 155 2s-557

~

s ructures (codified)

(1) Fcr :ene cesignation see Table 2.5-1C.

'2) Tne rath:c was c:tifiec to ge; 2C,0CC fo t poents of :::ca:tiSe eretcy cer :ubic fc t of s:il."

5ecticn 2.5.4.10.1, Esarir.; Capacuy, states:

"Tatie 2.5-14 shcws the conta:t stress beneath fe: tings subject to static and static plus dynari:

leadings, the founda. ion elevation. an: the type of supporting medium f r 6 avioi.:s piant structures.* -

Tabl e 2. 5-14, Su=ary of Contact Stresses and Ultimate Eearing Capa:ity fer Mat Foundaticns Supporting Seismic Category I and II Structures, contains, in part; the fcilowin;:

"Urit Secoortin; 5:ils

iese! Gererat:r Centrolled cecoa:ted 5;il:in; cchesive fiil."

E D

w

p.a-.-a~s.~.n--..~..-v,..

s... ~. - ~ -.---... ~ ~. ~ ~... -.. ~ -., --.. - - - -. -..

~.+~---,.-o.~x,

- I s

l f-

.e.

1 I

e.

3....

.s e.

2 -

.L,,,,;)c..g.,.

L_.

~ 5.. s. e.

.s

-. e-

4. e. a

..t....

w w.. e... : F.,....

!=

.... +

.4

.. e

......t.-

r

.. G T 'nfee e.

I R

' l l-.

a l_

-,i g.

h 4

h Ig3 l-6-

t

.,. 3 b

f o

n l'

_.g d

l l;

i, -

t 1

s.a g:

t I.

l' i-i

?

I 1

)

C 4 -

l t-

. 1 l

t p

.j t

8-l l

'1 l

' I 4

'j 7

I a

i i

1 s.-

I

- t I

l 1

't.

i s

i

)

a I

l 6

i f

b a

Y,

7. t

-r I

,. I

~

3 l

l F

A l

l c

1

-t i

.e f

i 3

'f j'

k.'

i 1-l:.

1

!. j*

.f 1

i 3:

i,.'.

eurt w w 'pr 9P W utgMTWUd$' ' W 'vM M @ VW.W 3 ww 'rwrp 9 4' N'-7 t

'fwe*+.?R 4s hasse--r-**-ww ud +vm v*g==-

e-e.

s.--.-

h..',,w e,.neya we

-.m.rs.e m

e.m ame a mame ww.aal 4wur wmW9e NmG'M

[

.N 4

)

k ATTACHMENT 2 e

k I

h

!'s F

.. f i

6

}

?

!r a

l 7

r k

?

s

=an

i e

ISHAM. LINCOLN & BEALE

,,)

COVNSELC8t5 AT LAW e

Ong Ft#51 hatschat plata

,08'v-S C C O w D

• tOO R Ca*Ca

. et t'*sO'S 4 C 4 03 TEtts2S888

/,t6E PwCwt 3*f s t e + ?tOO

.....,0.O...C, 109 0 st=; st a g g e, = m Sivtuva FLOO#

enf UON

~'~

' D'e'c embe r 26, 1979 hNW

[(p)G$444W,

.e t w

/ f # $ t p l y 'c u b G L^

CXul an. jg Case Mr. Edson G.

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.

Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Re:

Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-329, 50-330 Recuest for Hearing Gentlemen:

Consumers Power Corpany

(" Licensee"), by its i

attorneys, hereby requests a hearing in accordance with Part V of the Order Modifying Construction Permits issued in these dockets and dated December 6, 1979.

On December 19, Licensee filed Amendment No. 72 to its application for construction permits and operating licenses for the Midland Plant; the Amendment seeks-Nuclear Pegulatory Commission approval for remedial actions associated with the soil activities for safety related structures and In addition, systems founded in and on plant fill material.

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board constituted to conduct the operating license stage evidentiary hearing for the 1979, admitted Midland Plant, by Order dated February 23, Mary Sinclair's Contention 24 and intervenor Wendell Marshall's Contention 2, both of which deal with the subject of the i

diesel generator building settlement.

Licensee believes that the issues to be heard in-connection with this Request for Hearing, Contentions 24 and 2 in the operating license hearing and any hearing which may _

be required in connection with Licensee's Amendment No. 72 to its application for construction permits and operating licenses are substantially identical.

At an appropriate i

/

4 Mr. Edson G. Case Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.

December 26, 1979 Page Two stage in this proceeding, Licensee will move, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

S 2.716, to consolidate all the proceedings which are considering these issues.

In this way one evidentiary presentation may be made on this subject.

very truly yours, I // h 1

.~,

y.-

~

Michael I. Miller MIM:cem cc:

Service List 4

I e

9 n

. _m o

i r

h I

L

- t f-i.

t

, b N

s I

b t

)

t i

. e

?

r L

9 4.

n.

i ATTACHMENT 3 J

F 4

k f

9 4

--t

.i 1

i 4

b t

[

~

r 1

4

.. k t

f i

d b

- t b

. 1 e

9 4

4 f

R

\\

.'l

..Y

SLC 49

• C p 0

2

'o UNITED STATES

[N-NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.t W ASHINGT ON. D. C. 20555

'o E

9.....,0 4

JAN 211980 MEMORANDUM FOR: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary -

FROM:

Harold R. Denton, Director, NRR

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FDP A HEARING -- MIDLAND ORDER I am forwarding with this memorandum for Commission action a request filed by the Licensee, Consumers Power Company, for a hearing on the

" Order Modifying Construction Permits", which was issued jointly on December 6,1979, by the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and of Inspection and Enforcement. This Order prohibits the Licensee j

from performing certain soil-related activities pending approval of amendments to the Licensee's construction permits which would authorize remedial actions concerning soil conditions.

As the Commission and you may be aware, a proceeding on proposed issuance of operating licenses is presently pending before' an Atomic j

Safety and Licensing Board which includes contentions concerning building settlement at the Midland site.

In addition, the Licensee has requ sted an amendment to its construction permits and has filed an amendment to its operating license applications which seek approval of remedial act;ons associated with soil conditions at the site.

AZ+

n Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated above cc: M ickwit, OGC E. Hanrahan, OPE J

L. Gossick, EDO V. Stello, IE

l.

t

/

' f

. t i

i f

y

- t

,t

. k P

P

. t,

-i

,P t

f I

t

,?

ATTACHMENT 4 i

e f

r 9

P 1

. 1 i

?

P 2

t

. 6 t

.P

. h 5:

?

+

9 I

I e

e I

l b

e 9

- )

b 4

4

- P f

9 4

e

.,)

e i

t y

n

f i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0KHISSION

)

In the l'atter of Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 50-330 (itidland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

NOTICE OF HEARING Consumers Power Company (CPCo) is currently constructing the Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, under Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82 issued by the Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission. On December 6,1979, the Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) jointly served on CPCo 'an Order Modifying Construction Permits (Order) which would prohibit CPCo from per-forming certain soil-related activities pending approval of amendments to the i

The Directors based their Order on several investiga-construction pennits.

tions which reveale: a breakdown in quality assurance related to soil con-struction activities ender and around safety-related structures and systems, and CPCo's failure to respond to Staff's formal requests under 10 CFR 50.54(f) for acceptance criteria necessary for the evaluation of technical adequacy and proper implementation of proposed remedial actions. Consequently, the Directors determined that they cannot conclude, on the basis of the information provided P

by CPCo, that safety issues associated with remedial actions related to soil deficiencies will be resolved; and found that they do not have reasonable-assurance that the affected safety-related portions of the Midland facility l

will be constructed and operated without undue risk to the pubite health and l

safety.

1 i

2 CPCo filed a Request for Hearing pursuant to Part Y On December 26, 1979, of the Order. See,10 CFR 2.204.

In that Request, CPCo referred to other i

pending NRC proceedings which it believes involve issues substantially identical to those addressed by the Order of December 10. CPCo also stated its intention to move, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.716, to consolidate all the proceedings which are considering these issues.

10 CFR 2.204 provides that if a licensce demands a hearing, the license j

i amendment will become effective on the date specified in an order made following Accordingly, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the hearing.

i and 10 CFR Part 2 of the Commission's regulations, notice is hereby given that a -

(

hearing will be held before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board composed of Ivan k'. Smith, Esq., Chairman, Dr. Frederick P. Cowan, and fir. Gustave A.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board shall consider and decide Linnenberger.

the following issues:

i whether the facts set forth in Part II of the Directors' Order of 1.

Decerber 6,1979, are correct; and i

2.

whether that Order should be sustained.

i In addition, if CPCo moves to consoldate this proceeding with other liRC pro-i ceedings which involve substantially identical issues, the Board shall consider whether such consolidation would adversely affect the expeditious resolution of f

i the issues stated above.

A prehearing conference shall be held by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board at a date and place to be set by the Board to consider pertinent matters The date and place of I

in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice.

l l

1 1

3 the hearing will be set at or af ter the prehearing conference and will be noticed in the Federal _ Reaister.

Pursuant to CFR 2.705, an answer to this Notice may be filed by the Licen-see not later than twenty (20) days from the date of publication of this Notice l

in the Federal Reaister.

The Commission authorizes an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board f

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.785 to exercise the authority to perfonn the review func-l tions which would otherwise be exercised and performed by the Commission, sub-The Appeal Board ject to Commission review, as appropriate, under 10 CFR 2.785.

will be designated pursuant 10 CFR 2.787 and notice as to membership will be published in the _ Federal Register.

For the Commission S41'JEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission Dated at Vashington, DC, this day of February,1980.

-l l

l 4

+

-