ML20052C665
| ML20052C665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1982 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C, Bechnoefer C, Cowman F, Decker R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, LBP-82-35, NUDOCS 8205050352 | |
| Download: ML20052C665 (23) | |
Text
-
,-~u UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 82 APR 30 P d 43 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD u-Before Administrative Judges:
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman o
Dr. Frederick F. Cowan Ralph S. Decker
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM In the Matter of
)
50-330 OM
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 9
)
50-3#
D (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
)
April 30, 198 d,'?
N' 0
0 g
gK( G #'hpg(i.$
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER g
(Imposing Certain Interim Conditions M
D#
Pending Issuance of Partial Initial Decision) h(
C)
//
.s 4,;
Pending before this Licensing Board are consolidated proceeding arising out of the NRC Staff's December 6, 1979 Order Modifying Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82 (0M proceeding), and the application by Consumers Power Co. for operating licenses for Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (0L proceeding).1/ The facility, currently under construction, consists of two pressurized water reactors located in Midland, Michigan.
-The Modification Order was generated as a result of the excessive settlement which occurred with respect to the f acility's diesel generator
-1/ The proceedings were consolidated at the request of Consumers Power Co.,
the Applicant in the OL proceeding and the Licensee in the OM proceeding (hereinafter referred to as " Consumers").
See Prehearing Conference Order, dated October 24,1980 (unpublished).
%D)
'~
J O
B O
P G
building and other plant structures.
Hearings which have been held te date concern the soils settlement issues raised by the Modification Order, as well as related contentions of intervenors in each of the proceedings.
(The majority of the soils settlement contentions have been sponsored by Ms.
Barbara Stamiris, an intervenor in the OM proceeding.) As reflected in our Memorandum _/ of October 2,1981, we have determined to issue 2
separate partial initial decisions dealing with varicus aspects of the soils issues. The first, now under preparation, deals with quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) and management attitude issues, as delineated in the October 2,1981 Memorandum. With limited exceptions, the record on these matters was closed on February 19, 1982, following some thirty-fivedaysofhearings.2./ The second will deal with proposed remedial actions to correct the soils settlement problems.
Hearings on these matters are not yet completed, partially as a result of the as-yet developing positions of all parties on these questions.
With respect to the QA/QC and management attitude issues, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and supplemental proposed findings and conclusions covering matters as to which the record was reopened, have been received from all interested parties, and Consumers has just recently filed its replies to each of the proposed and supplemental proposed findings and conclusions of the other parties. During the course of our
-2/ Memorandum (Concerning Telephone Conference Call of September 25 1981 and Applicant's Motion for Partial Decision), dated October 2,1981 (unpublished).
-3/ Certain aspects of these issues will remain open until our second partial initial decision.
review of these various filings, as well as of the entire record, we have determined that certain conditions governing further construction, as set forth in Section VI of this Memorandum and Order, should be put into effect immediately, pending the completion of our review and the issuance within approximately two or three months of our first Partial Initial Decision.4/ Our reasons follow.
I.
Background
Under construction permits such as are in effect for the Midland plants, a permittee may normally engage in construction activities in accordance with the principal architectural and engineering criteria and environmental commitments set forth in the application for the facility and the construction-permit hearing record, without seeking prior approval of the NRC Staff. The permittee undertakes such activities at its own risk; they are subject to Commission approval before an operating license may be granted.
See 10 C.F.R. 50.57; g. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
(Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), CLI-79-ll,10 NRC 733 (1979),
reversed on other grounds, sub nom. People of the State of Illinois v. NRC 4/ This procedure has been previously utilized by the Appeal Board with
~
respect to these very same reactors. ALAB-106, 6 AEC 182 (1973).
We note that, in a telephone conference call on April 28, 1982, the Staff indicated that it might reconsider certain earlier testimony expressing reasonable assurance that Consumers' QA program will be appropriately implemented with respect to future soils construction activities (Keppler, prepared testiony, p. 9, fol. Tr. 1864).
It requested that we cancel certain near-term hearings which we had scheduled,.and we did so. Memorandum and Order (Cancelling Evidentiary Hearings and Conference of Counsel or Pepresentatives), dated April 28, 1980(unpublished).
As a result, our first Partial Initial Decision could be delayed beyond the time frame we are now projecting.
i
- l (D.C. Cir. No. 80-1163, July 1,1981).
The December 6,1979 Modification Order would have modified this regime by prohibiting certain construction activities with respect to safety-related structures and systems affected by the soils settlement problems.which have been aired in the ongoing consolidated proceeding. The prohibited activities could not be undertaken absent (l) submission of an amendment to the application seeking approval of remedial actions, and (2) issuance of an amendment to the construction permits authorizing the remedial actions.1/ The Modification Order further provided that a hearing could be requested b'y Consumers or other interested person and, if it were, the Order would go into effect only as a result of an order made following the hearing.5/
The construction activities which the Modification Order would have prohibitedconsistofthefollowing:2/
(a) any placing, compacting, or excavating soil materials under or around safety related structures and systems; (b) physical implementation of remedial action for correction of soil-related problems under and around these structures and systems, including but not limited to:
(1) dewatering systems (ii) underpinning of service water building
~~5/ Modification Order, Part IV.
The Modification Order has been admitted into evidence as Stamiris Exh.
3, Attachment 15 (Tr.
2479).
6/ Modification Order, Part V.
~
7/ Modification Order, Part IV.
(iii) removal and replacement of fill beneath the feedwater isolation valve pit area (iv) placing caissons at the ends of the auxiliary building electrical penetration areas (v) compaction and loading activities; (c) construction work in soil materials under or around safety-related structures and systems such as field installation of conduits and piping.
Had the hearings in the OM proceeding not been requested, Consumers could not have undertaken any of the foregoing activities without submitting an amendment to its application and obtaining construction-permit amendments authorizing such activities.
Since the hearing was requested, the normal construction permit authority remains in effect, and no construction permit amendment (or other NRC authorization) needs to be sought in order for Consumers to engage in the activities in question.
Both the Modification Order (Part V) and the Commission's Notice of Hearing of March 14, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg.18214, March 20,1980) stated that this Board is to consider and decide the following issues:
(1) Whether the facts (concerning quality deficiencies) set forth in Part II of the Order are correct; and (2) Whether that Order should be sustained.
II.
Facts Underlying Modification Order One of the bases for the Modification Order was the allegation that there had been a breakdown in quality assurance related to soils.
Another i
e
. basis was that Consumers had not provided the information which the Staff and its consultants required to permit a thorough safety review of proposed remedial actions.8/ As a result of these deficiencies, the Staff concluded that it did not have reasonable assurance that the safety-related portions of the Midland facilities would be so constructed that they could be operated without undue risk to public health and safety.
With regard to the first basis, Consumers and the Staff entered into a stipulation on June 5,1981, in which Consumers conceded that prior to December 6,1979 there were quality assurance deficiencies related to soil construction activities.
Consumers agreed not to contest the Staff's conclusion that these deficiencies constituted a breakdown in quality I
assurance with respect to soils placement at Midland, and it acknowledged that the deficiencies constituted an adequate basis for issuance of the Order.9/ With regard to the second basis for the Order, the Staff and Consumers entered into two additional stipulations in which Consumers agreed not to contest that, as of December 6,1979, the NRC Staff had insufficient information to evaluate the proposed remedial actions for th.e auxiliary building, for the borated water storage tanks and underground piping.10,/
-8/ We are here making no findings and reaching no conclusions with respect to a third basis for the Order, an alleged material false statement. Hearings on that subject are not yet completed although we have heard testimony on the management-attitude aspects of the alleged statement.
9/
Applicant / Staff Joint Exh.1, following Tr.1175, admitted at Tr. 1188.
10/ Applicant / Staff Joint Exhs. 2 and 3, dated December 1,1981 and February 9,1982, respectively (Tr. 5447,7164).
As a result of these stipulations, we are able at an early stage of our review to conclude, with respect to the first hearing issue, that the facts set fcrth in Part II of the Modification Order (to the extent they relate to soils QA deficiencies and the adequacy on December 6,1979 of the Staff's information to review remedial actions) are correct and constituted an adequate basis for issuanc'e of the Order.
Consumers, the NRC Staff, and intervenor Barbara Stamiris each submitted proposed findings to this effect.E/
III.
Facts Giving Rise to Interim Requirements We have not yet completed our review of the second hearing issue--i.e.,
whether and, if so, to what extent, the Modification Order should be sustained.
Consumers has described this issue as "whether the safety issues
[giving rise to the facts set forth in Part II of the Modification Order]
have been resolved so that the quality assurance program with respect to soils is now being properly implemented and there is reasonable assurance such implementation will continue through the construction process."El Ms. Stamiris has described it somewhat similarly, as "whether as a result of revisions, improved implementation, and other f actors, this Board has reasonable assurance that the QA and QC programs will be appropriately implemented with respect to future soils construction and remedial activities".p/ However, they reach different answers to this question.
-11/ Consumers Proposed Findings 1 35; Staff Proposed Findings, 11 236-237; Stamiris Proposed Findings,110.
g / Consumers Proposed Findings, 1 37 [ sic; should be 36].
p/ Stamiris Proposed Findings,110.
- Cc,sumers asserts that, as a result of organipstional and procedural changes which it has put into effect since the issuance of the Modification Order, its QA program is now being properly implemented.
It urges us to find reasonable assurance that the future soils construction activities including the remedial actions taken as a result of inadequate soils placement will be accomplished in accordance with QA principles of public health and safety.EI On the other hand, although Ms. Stamiris concedes that Consumers' organizational changes' represent a " positive response",g/ she nonetheless concludes that the implementation of QA at Midland is inadequateg/ and that the same kind of problems and weaknesses currently exist as had lead to problems in the past.E/
She would have us put the Modification Order into effect and shut down soils-relatedconstructionimmediately.E/ The NRC Staff also gave its reasonable assurance that the QA program would be properly 14/ Consumers Proposed Findings, 11 81-83.
15/ Stamiris Proposed Findings, 1 222.
_16_/ Stamiris Proposed Findings,1221.
g/ Stamiris Proposed Findings. 1 225.
18/ Stamiris Proposed Findings, 1 254; Part III.C.
i l
implemented,E/althoughatleastoneofitswitnessesexpressedsome reservations (Tr. 2441-42 (Gallagher)).20_/
We do not at this point in our review express any opinion with respect to those positions--except to note that none of them is' baseless and all have evidentiary support. The resolution of this broad issue will, as we have seen, affect the degree to which and the manner in which soils-related construction activities (and particularly remedial actions) will be permitted to continue.2.I./
As background for our approach to this question, we deem it important to note that the QA/QC deficiencies which are addressed by the Modification Order are not the first instances where Consumers has experienced difficulty in properly implementing its QA/QC program. The Appeal Board pinpointed one such instance in ALAB-106 (fn. 4, supra), and it imposed conditions designed to alleviate the deficiencies which it found to exist.
Later, questions were raised concerning the QA/QC organization being utilized for this facility. ALAB-132, 6 AEC 431 (1973); ALAB-147, 6 AEC 636 (1973); ALAB-152, 6 AEC 816 (1973).
Subsequently, the Staff issued a show-cause order which M/ NRC Staff Proposed Findings, 1 375.
-20/ Mr. Gallagher stated that he supported Mr. Keppler's conclusions concerning implementation of the QA program " entirely" but added that he "would like to see some other things to be included" (Tr. 2455).
See also fn. 4, supra,12.
-21/ As we have pointed out (pp. 4-5, supra), the most stringent condition we could impose on those activities under the Modification Order would be to prohibit such activities pending submission of an amendment to the applications and issuance of construction-permit amendments authorizing remedial action. All or any portion of that condition could be put into effect.
Cf. Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Statiliii, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-10,11 NRC 438 (1980); Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach, Unit 1),
. was founded on other 0A/QC deficiencies, and additional corrective actions were mandated.
ALAB-283, 2 NRC 11 (1975), clarified, ALAB-315, 3 NRC 101 (1976).
During that show-cause proceeding, the Appeal Board remarked that "non-compliance with the Commission's quality assurance regulations is * *
- a problem which has plagued the construction of this facility." ALAB-270, 1 NRC 473, 476 (1975).2_2_/
With this history before us, early in this proceeding we expressed concern aoout the adequacy of and the potential ~ safety impact of ongoing construction activities (Tr. 754-55).
On the opening day of the hearing, the Staff responded to our inquiry by presenting testimony regarding soils-related construction of the type that would be going on during the period of time before we could issue a decision governing construction encompassed by the Modification Order.23/ From that testimony, it appeared to us that Consumers was at that time consulting with and seeking approval of the Staff before engaging in any of the construction activities there under consideration--i.e_., installation of 20 permanent back-up interceptor wells in the area near the Service Water Structure and the Circulating Water Intake Structure, and surcharging of the two valve pits
,22/ See also Board Exhs. l A and 1B (Tr.1875), which contain a summary of problems experienced at Midland since the start of construction.
,23/ Testimony and Supplemental Testimony of Darl S. Hood, both following Tr.
1097.
.. which are adjacent to each of the Borated Water Storage Tanks.2y Although all of the outstanding questions raised by the Staff concerning those proposed remedial activities had not then been resolved, the Staff
~
expressed its " reasonable assurance" that the activities would be performed in an acceptable manner.E/ We interpret that reasonable assurance conclusion as premised upon Consumers' affording the Staff the opportunity toreviewtheproposedresolutionoftheunresolvedquestions.E/
In addition, Consumers advised us that, in February, 1980, it had voluntarily committed not to proceed with further remedial actions without Staff review and concurrence.27/ (Insofar as the record reflects, thie commitment appears to have been an oral one, not reduced to writing prior to its incorporation into testimony in this proceeding.)
That Consumers will provide the Staff with sufficient information to permit a thorough safety review is inherent in this commitment.
We find no indication in the record that Consumers has failed to honor this commitment.
For its part, the Staff agreed that it would accept information through meetings and presentations rather than an amendment to
---24/ Hood, prepared testimony, p. 2.
Those were the only two soils-related activities then under way or planned to be undertaken by Consumers in the near term (Tr. 1112).
25/ Hood, supplemental testimony, p. 3.
Subsequently, on December 10, 1981, the Staff approved the installation of 5 additional temporary dewatering wells.
Staff Exh.13 (Tr. 6901).
26/ Hood, prepared testimony, p'.
3; supp. test., pp. 2,3; Tr. 1113-14, l
1119.
l l
27/ Testimony of Gilbert S. Keeley, fol. Tr.1163, p.13.
l
. the application.
Beyond the two matters about which the Staff initially testified, the Staff has utilized this arrangement to approve such activities as construction of access shafts and a freezewall in preparation for underpinning the auxiliary building and feedwater isolation valve pits,E/ and any drilling activities near seismic Category I underground utilities and structures (Tr. 5485-86).
During the hearing, Consumers agreed that the commitment would be extended to the matter of crack evaluation, a question which Consumers judged to be less important than does the Staff (Tr. 5735-38). As far as we are aware, certain additional remedial actions to which the commitment is being applied are currently under review or in progress.
From the present stage of our review, it appears that Consumers' voluntary agreement has resulted in adequate. Staff surve!11ance of the proposed remedial actions covered thereby, prior to Consumers' commencement.
of the remedial actions. Consumers itself has acknowledged the usefulness to it of its consultation with the Staff prior to the initiation of remedial activities (Tr. 5660-61).
At this time, we are making no changes to the procedures utilized under this arrangement.
It is important to note, however, that Consumers' ccamitment does not extend to all the activities which Part IV of the Modification Order would l
have prohibited (Tr. 1202-1212,1390).
The scope of the oral commitment is not clearly defined.
While it appears essentially to cover those major l
-28/ Letter dated November 24, 1981, from Darl Hood (NRC) to James W.
Cook (CPC) (Staff Exh. 5, Tr. 5467).
' remedial actions within the scope of Section 1(b), but not activities falling within Sections 1(a) and 1(c), of Part IV of the December 1979 Order (Tr. 1420-1422), there is some ambiguity whether certain activities may fall within Section 1(b) or one of the other categories.
Although we have no objection to the Staff / Consumers working relationship for those portions of the remedial work to which the commitment applies, several matters of record cause us to be dissatisfied with the limited scope of activities covered. More specifically, as a result of the matters described in this section of this Memorandum and Order, augmented by the related information appearing in Part IV, we are of the view that certain activities outside the scope of Consumers' commitment but within the coverage of the prohibition in the Modification Order should be subject to prior Staff review and approval.
The first of these matters which gives us concern is that of underground piping. Consumers proceeded with work associated with underground piping which carries cooling water essential to safety without 4
seeking or receiving formal Staff concurrence (Tr. 7784,7788a). This work would clearly have been prohibited under Part IV, Section 1(c) of the Modification Order, and it could also be interpreted as falling within Section1(b)(Tr.7788c). The record is confusing as to whether the Staff regarded Consumers' commitment as in f act covering that type of remedial action (Tr.
7781-7783,7788a-7790,7894-7901).29/ The Staff expressed
-29/ We disagree with Consumers' response to Ms. Stamiris' Proposed Findings and Conclusions,1.8, pp. 6-7.
- 14 the opinion that underground piping should be covered by the commitment (Tr.
7788c,7789,7899).
Underground piping was of concern to the Staff prior to its.issuanceoftheModificationOrder.E/ One reason we believe it essential that safety-related activities such as the rebedding of piping should have prior full Staff review and concurrence is that once such work is performed and the piping then recovered with earth, it is no longer accessible for inspection for such concerns as have been identified during the course of this heari.eg--e_.3., corrosion (Tr. 7683-86,7827-35),
deformation (Tr. 7913-14), quality of foundation soils (Tr. 7911), pipe welds (Tr. 7652-56), and condition of pipe wrapping materials (Tr.
- 7860, 7914-15).
Therefore, adequate QA/QC surveillance is fundamental to assuring safety. The Staff has expressed its desire, in f act, to review such matters as compaction criteria and procedures prior to the work taking place, and to be able to inspect the work while being performed (Tr. 7899).
Moreover, the Staff has statcd that it had insufficient soil-profile information to evaluatedistortioninpipesburiedinsoilswhichhavesettled.3._1/
The second reason for our requiring further Staff review and approval prior to the start of soils-related construction differs from the first in that it does not stem from a single type of construction activity.
- Rather, it pervades the entire spectrum of soils-related construction activities.
As a result of Board questioning, we have some doubt whether, in the absence 30]
I.E. Rept. 79-06, dated April 4,1979 (Stamiris Exh. 3, Att.
8, at p.5).
H / Kane, prepared testimony, fol. Tr. 7752, p. 3.
of Staff review and approval, Consumers would carry out certain remedial soils activities using appropriate QA procedures and principles.
Its witnesses presenting the remedial plans for the auxiliary building were unsure of the manner in which QA principles would be applied to that operation (Tr. 5530-32). With respect to the engineering of the remedial actions, Consumers was able to describe the QA procedures it had already followed (Tr. 5718-20), but it also indicated that it did not consider the engineering a problem area and was therefore not applying any specialized procedures to those activities (Tr. 5622)--despite the f act that it had to formulate and rework its plans four different times before it obtained a system acceptable to the Staff (Tr. 5647-58). Consumers does not appear to have obtained Staff approval with respect to the engineering QA procedures which it had followed (Tr. 5750).
Furthermore, Consumers seems to have a tendency to treat as many structures as possible as non-Q-listed (and, hence, as not subject to QA controls) (Tr.
5626,5671-72).
For these reasons, we are not completely satisfied as to the extent to which QA plans and controls are to be applied by Consumers to underpinning activities.
In particular, we are concerned about areas adjacent to, but not necessarily directly under, safety-class structures.
These activities include boring of large diameter, closely spaced holes for soldier piles which would penetrate low shear-strength soil layers at elevations below the foundations of adjacent safety-class structures (Tr. 5674-79; 5765-71), and essentially all underpinning activities beneath the turbine building the failure or tilting of which might influence the safety or future seismic
- resistance of the adjacent safety-class structures (Tr. 6083-85; 7125-27).
These potential QA/QC gaps lead us to believe that, at least in the near future, the commencement of safety-related activities of this type should be subject to the Staff's approval--particularly as to whether specific activities are to be covered or not covered by an appropriate QA pl an. 3,.2_/
t IV. Related Matters Substantiating The Need for Interim Conditions Certain matters which have been the subject of.notificctions by various parties to the Board tend to accentuate what we regard as the need for the interim conditions we are imposing. These matters have not yet been the subject of evidentiary hearings, and we express no final view as to their accuracy or import.
Nonetheless, we regard these matters as closely relevant to the facts on which we have taken evidence and pertinent to our determination that interim conditions should be imposed.
As one example of this type, representing an activity we believe should be covered by the commitment, the Board has been informed by way of a Consumers' Non-Conformance Report that a 42-inch diameter hole was drilled to a depth of 40 feet within the "Q" fill area, apparently without proper authority; without the development of, or adherence to, written procedures; 32/ We understand that Consumers later indicated that monito' ring
~~~
instruments would be placed before commencing underpinning activities to measure horizontal movements between the turbine building and adjacent structures "in response to questions raised by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board". Memorandum dated March 11, 1982 from Darl Hood, Summary of March 8, 1982 Telephone Conversation Regarding Soil Spring Stiffnesses for Auxiliary Building Underpinning and Phase 11 Construction.
- 17 without the participation of the On-Site Geotechnical Engineer; and without adequate QA/QC surveillance, if any.3_3/ We hasten to point out that we have not yet heard evidence on this report and expr[ss no view as to its accuracy.
It appears, however, to describe the type of activity which is encompassed by the prohibition in Part IV, Section 1(a) of the Modification Order. Moreover, if the NCR is accurate, the activity would constitute a prime example of the kind of work which we believe should be subject to prior Staff review and concurrence.
Additionally, we have also recently been notified of loose sands located in the plant fill north of the Service Water Structure and Circulating Water Intake Structure. This loose sand reportedly underlies about 500 feet of seismic Category I pipe. We understand that Consumers has decided to remove and replace this material to avoid potential liquefaction problems.3_4/ Once again, we express no view as to the validity of this information. But considering the vagueness as to the limits of Consumers' comitment -and the apparent potential effect on public safety of these construction activities should the plant later be allowed to operate, we deem it necessary at this time to eliminate any uncertainty and
-33/ NCR # M01-4-2-008 Rev.1, dated February 25, 1982, transmitted to the Board and parties by letter dated March 12, 1982, from James E.
Brunner, CPC. The Board requested that it be provided with audit reports of this type (Tr. 5975-76).
-34/' Memorandum from Darl Hood, Notification of Loose Sands Beneath Service Water Piping, March 16, 1982.
See also letter from James W.
Cook to Harold R. Denton, Additional Information Concerning Safety Grade Buried Piping, March 16, 1982.
1 to require that any remedial actions intended to rectify this matter receive full Staff review and concurrence before being undertaken.
Finally, the Board notes that the Staff has disagreed with Consumers.5/ over the extent of QA coverage and control of the 3
underpinning activities beneath the safety-class and adjacent non-safety class buildings. The disagreement apparently has been resolved by Consumers' agreeing that essentially all underpinning activities would be subject to Q-controls, except for certain already completed activities and certain agreed-upon non-critical activities.El Although the Board recognizes that these disagreements may reflect genuine differences of interpretation of requirements in Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. 50, we deem it important to public safety that, pending the completion of our QA review, the Staff's more conservative interpretation should apply to remedial work activites, some of which are, or shortly will be, in progress.
Accordingly we have made the elements of that agreement part of this Interim Order. Again, while we express no views as to the validity of those matters brought to our attention.outside the actual hearings, they represent the kinds of issues that were alleged in the December 6,1979 Modification 35/ Memorandum dated March 12, 1982, from Darl Hood, subject:
Summary of March 10, 1982 Meeting Concerning Quality Assurance To Be Applied To Remedial Foundation Work.
-36/ Letter, James W. Cook (CPC) to J. G. Keppler (NRC), dated April 5,
1982, subject:
Quality Assurance for Remedial Foundation Work.
I
_ 19 -
Order, and that were the subject of ongoing efforts by the Staff and Consumers to resolve them.
~
V.
Description of Interim Requirements I
As a result of the various safety problems which we have described in Section III, above, the potential and related problems described in Section IV, above, and the imminence of the commencement of additional t
safety-related work activities on remedial measures for the soils settlement problems which we have been considering, we find it necessary to act now to remove ambiguities in Consumers' commitment to obtain prior Staff approval for remedial measures.
Pending the completion of our review of the record and issuance of a partial initial decision, we are requiring that the construction permits be amended L, prohibit (in the absence of Staff approval) the same activities as would have been prohibited by Section IV of the Modification Order.
(We are updating the requirement to take account of certain developments which have occurred since December 6, 1979.) This requirement would not apply to any of the activities as to which the NRC has already given its approval.
Nor does it dictate the manner in which the Staff may exercise its review--i.e., whether piecemeal (individual construction steps) or as an integrated package.
In addition, for the reasons we have outlined, we are requiring that certain of these activities 9
6
be ;sverned by a QA plan.38/ We have pointed out that some of the material which we have considered in this order has not yet been the subject of a completed evidentiary hearing; indeed, the scope of our QA requirement is premised in part upon an apparent agreement between Consumers and the Staff contained in material of this sort.
Letter of James C. Cook, fn. 36, supra. We expect Consumers and the NRC Staff to present testimony on these open items at a later evidentiary session.
We stress that in our forthcoming Partial Initial Decision we will reexamine the terms and conditions which we are here imposing on an interim basis.
At that time, we may reaffirm, expand or remove them.
Until such time, however, we find that the Modification Order should be made effective to the extent which we have described.
We stress that we are not at this time requiring the submission or approval of any amendments to the applications for construction permits (as provided by the Modification Order).
In our opinion, the Staff consultation and approval which we are requiring will achieve the substantive results we believe necessary without adding certain procedural requirements of an application for a construction permit amendment which, in the present context, do not appear to be necessary to attain the safety goals which we believe should be achieved.
38/ To require a QA plan for safety-related remedial soils construction
~
activities is consistent with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.34(a)(7). We note that the large-scale underpinning and other remedial activities which are being undertaken are sufficiently distinct from the activities contemplated during the construction-permit review as to warrant a supplementation of the applicable QA program.
VI. Order Based on the foregoing, it is, this 30th day of April,1982 ORDERED That the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.764(b), is authorized to amend Construction Permits CPPR-81 and CPPR-82 as follows:
(1) Construction Permits CPPR-81 and CPPR-82 shall be amended to require that the permit holder obtain explicit prior approval from the NRC Staff (to the extent such approval has not already been obtained) before proceeding with the following soils-related activities, and that these activities, with the exception of those already approved by the NRC, and those that the Staff agrees are not critical, shall be controlled by a Staff-approved Quality Assurance Plan:
(a) any placing, compacting, excavating, or drilling soil materials around safety-related structures and systems; (b) physical implementation of remedial action for correction of soil-related problems under and around safety-related structures and systems, including but not limited to:
(i) dewatering systems (ii) underpinning of service water building (iii) removal and replacement of fill beneath the feedwater isolation valve pit areas, auxiliary building electrical penetration areas and control tower,' and beneath the turbine building
(iv) placing of underpinning supports beneath any of the structures listed in (iii) above (v) compaction and loading activities; (c) construction work in soil materials under or around safety-related structures and systems such as field installation, or rebedding, of conduits and piping.
(2) Paragraph (1) above shall not apply to remedial actions approved by the NRC Staff prior to the effective date of this Order, nor to any exploring, sampling, or testing of soil samples associated with determining actual soil properties on site which has the approval of the Director of Region III, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
These testing activities, however, shall be controlled by a Staff-approved Quality Assurance plan which includes procedures for controlling excavation or drilling activities more than 6-feet deep in "Q" areas.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 7.760, 2.762, 2.764(a), 2.785 and 2.786, this Memorandum and Order shall be effective immediately upon issuance and shall constitute the final action of the Commission on the matters considered herein forty-five (45) days after issuance, subject to any review pursuant to the above-cited Rules of Practice. Exceptions to this Memorandum and Order may be filed by any party within ten (10) days after its. service.
A brief in support of the exceptions shall be filed within thirty (30) days thereafter (forty (40) days in the case of the NRC Staff). Within thirty (30) days of the filing and service of the brief of l
the appellant (forty (40) days in the case of the NRC Staff), any other party may file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the exceptio'ns.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD AAlw A}tR Charles Becnhoefer, Chaffman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE F
Ad eM k y
Dr. Frederick P. Cowan, Member ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
~
Ralphf. Decker, Member ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 30th day of April,1982.
Judge Jerry Harbour, who has served as a technical interrogator and an alternate Board member during portions of the hearings concerning management attitude and quality assurance matters, and who has replaced Judge Decker for the forthcoming segments of the consolidated OL-0M proceeding (with the exception of the first Partial Initial Decision and orders, such as this one, which are integral to that Decision), supports the rulings and reasoning included in this Memorandum and Order.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _