ML20090B688
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ o k ~ a UNITED STATES g y g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g .8 PRINCIPAL STAFF %,,,,,, / c:7 71r2 g O/'A l i)N F Docket Nos:.50-329 OM, OL Eq__ J V.@%M + _S 1:00 and 50-330 OM, OL 2,E g_ l i p.csl sti.n I 0 cTP t I i MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director nt i i for Licensing OL l j.:l LE AgdV Division of Licensing ~' THRU: ElinorG.Adensam,ChieN Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing FROM: Melanie A. Miller, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
ADMITTED MIDLAND CONTENTIONS Enclosed is a tabular listing of all contentions accepted by the board for litigation (Attachment 1). The table is provided for informational purposes and will ba continuously updated as changes in contention status occur. The intervenor's name and contention number are listed with a corresponding key phrase provided for each contention for easy reference. Additionally, the date under the contention number refers to the year it was accepted by the board and is listed to avoid confusion in redundant contention numbers. summarizes the contentions and the reviewers responsible for testimony. This attachment is also subject to change. . We are sending this table to responsible reviewers by copy of this memorandum. If there are questions, I can be reached at X24259. 0a.rm r l Melanie A. Miller, Project Manager j Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page l "T 2 91982 i e l N ~ cta w l N ) f l O 'l,? ? ,3 ? .N N e!$
a t 1 i ATTACHMENT 1 i ADMITTED MIDLAND CONTENTIONS s I t l E i. { k i I f 4 l l l
Admitted Midland Contentions Contention # Key Phrase Contention Sinclair 3 severe accidents The assessment of the likelihood and (1982) severity of " severe accidents" (or class 9 accidents) in the DES is inadequate in that it relies for methodology and prob-ability of occurrence of severe accidents on the Rasmussen Report (WASH-1400) DES 5-45-66. However, a new NRC report reveals that the Rasmussen methodology, at least as it pertains to more severe accidents (total meltdown), significantly understates the risk of such accidents by a factor of 20. 1 Precursors to Potential Severe Core Damage Accidents: 1969-1979, a Status Report, NUREG/CR/2497 (June 1982). This report shows that probabilities of severe accidents should be derived on the basis of actual accident sequences and significant events, rather than the Rasmussen methodology. The failure of the DES to incorporate this analysis cripples the entire Class 9 analysis of the DES. s Sinclair 5 cooling pond The staff DEIS is deficient in that it (1982) continues to base its analysis of the cooling pond's effectiveness in controlling thennal discharges (DEIS at 4-6) and ice and fog generation (DEIS at 5-9) on a study i based on cooling pond perfonnance in a sub-stantially different climatic region. Instead, the DEIS should analyze infonnation from the Dresden, Illinois nuclear facility (or other data from a camparabley sized and situated facility) for both purposes, and present the baseline data from that facility to allow the agency and the public to reach an informed decision on the adverse affects of the cooling pond. Sinclair 7 synergism The issue of synergism between chemicals and (1982) radiation (Contention 61, (old 55) Contentions of Mary Sinclair,1978) must be re-opened based on a new study.. Scientists at Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico,-. have conducted tests sponsored by the NRC on polymer cable insulation and jacketing used in nuclear power containment buildings. (Indus-trial Research and Development, June,1WE)~~ t l O
-2 Contention # Key Phrase Contention They have found that long-term low doses of gamma radiation degrades many polymers more l than do equal doses administered at higher rates in shorter testing times. Besides the dose rate effect,.the researchers have also found that synergistic effects can occur when polymers are exposed to radiation and mildly elevated temperatures. Dr. Roger Clough, of j Sandia National Laboratory, has stated that I the present testing method underestimates the I long-term effects and synergisms that display themselves only in longer tests. This study indicates that the useful life of the plant I will be shortened considerably because of this problem. Sinclair 6 QA-Howa rd See Enclosure 1 (1982) Sinclair 8 QA-records , The Zack Company of Chicago which has been the (1982) contractor responsible for the heating, cooling and ventilating system of the Midland nuclear i plant has filed a non-compliance report with j the NRC on or abour August 4,1982, indicating that two sets of records -- a shop record and. l a QA record -- which are required to be kept to guarantee the integrity of the welds and therefore, must be signed by the same welder, were, in fact, signed by two different persons. This violates the federal standards for docu-mentation for safety-related systems in a nuclear power plant. This breakdown in quality control.means the principal method that the NRC has for guaranteeing the integrity of the welds in the HVAC system (which is aircady built into a large part of the plant) ~has failed and that therefore the protection of the public health and safety cannot be guaranteed as required by 10 CFR 50.57(1), 50.57(2), and 50.57(3) and Part 50, Appendix B. Sinclair 16 QA-welders In the Part 21 report that _ Zack Co. filed which (1982) was signed by Dave Calkins of Zack and prepared by r{oward McGrance of Consuners Power Co., it was disclosed that 140 Travelers showed unver-ified welder qualifications for fabrication welds. Without qualified welders for this largc t I i
. i Contention f Key Phrase _ Contention number of welds, the necessary guarantee for the protection of the public health and safety cannot be met as required by 10 CFR { 50.57(1), 50.57(2) and 50.57(3). In addition, this report indicates that the quality assurance in I construction of these plants has nct been met as required by Part 50, Appendix B. + Sinclair 24 ground stability The present site for the Midland facility is (1979) not only inappropriate for the reasons set -forth in Contention 9, but also affirmatively unsafe. Serious questions have been raised concerning the ground stability of portions of the site. At least one of the essential buildings of the reactor complex is reported sinking, and con-struction has been halted on that building. As a result of the serious and unresolved questions concerning ground stability, the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3) and 50.57(a)(6) ,cannot be made. Sinclair 27 evacuation Recently discovered information indicates that (1979) the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards conditioned the acceptability of the present Midland site for the project on the existence of a highly effective evacuation system. However, no adequate evacuation plans exist. Aerial surveys of traffic conducted during the con-struction permit stage of these proceedings, j and taken during shift changes, indicated that j evacuation in an acceptable time cannot be accompli shed. Further, relying on the evacu-ation plans of Dow Chemical Company is inade-quate. During the evacuation following the recent chlorine leak, evacuation procedures i were chaotic and all communications were either jammed or ineffectual. In fact at an NRC conference held in Midland Michigan on. 3 l September 8,1978, both the County Road Com-mission and the Midland Planning Commission i admitted that they have not considered evacu-i ation routes. As a result, the findings required by 10 CFR $50.57(a)(3)(1) and 50.57(a)(6) cannot be made. t I i
. Contention # Key Phrase Contention Sinclair 28 ater hammer Contention 28 deals with the water hammer (1982) problem of pressurized water reactors of the Midland type. This problem is identified as one of the unresolved safety issues applicable i to Midland 1 & 2 in the SER, C-4. Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) plants with an internal auxiliary i feedwater (AFW) feed ring of the same design as Midland in recent events, have shown a marked susceptibility to internal damage of the feed ring as a result of water hammer. From this, reduced cooling in the steam gen-erators could occur as a result of inadequate AFW flow following loss of nonnal feedwater i fl ow. (NRC Response to Interrogatory 7) i Since this effect involves critical safety systems, the Task A-1 report (Jan.,1980) st9tes that systematic review procedures in the OL review process will require the Appli-cant to: 1) address potential water hammer problems in various systems; 2) demonstrate s that there are adequate design features and
- 3) expand the preoperational testing program to insure that these design features and operating procedures do prevent damaging water hammer events.
However, the SER does not indicate that these criteria have been met by the Applicant. As a result of this omission, the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)(1) and 50.57(a)(6) can-not be made. Sinclair 30 tube integrity The degradation of steam tube integrity due to (1982) corrosion induced wastage, cracking reduction in tube diameter, and vibration indad cracks is a serious unresolved safety problem at the Midland nuclear plant. It is admitted that the chemistry of the cooling water is critical to prevention of steam tube failure, (NUREG-0836). However, the fact that these plants depend on cooling water from the cooling pond increases l the likelihood of corrosion and poor water chemistry because the DEIS states that the plant l dewatering system will first be discharged to i the cooling pond. (DEIS at 5-2). That means that many wastes, including radioactive f i i w
?. . e l Contention # Key Phrase Contention i materials from leaks and spills on the reactor site, can enter the cooling pond and disrupt the chemistry of the pond. Therefore, due to this contribution of an undetermined amount and quality of ground dewatering inflows to the cooling pond, the NRC's bland assurance that corrosion is unlikely due to the lack of sodium thiosulfate, is unsatisfactory. (NRC l Response to Interrogatroy 9.j.) In fact, due to the contribution of groundwater, the NRC is.. e not fully aware of the likely constituents of-the cooling pond, and the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)(i) and 50.57(a)(6) cannot be made. Stamiris Ib, c cost benefit NRC's economic cost benefit analysis of the DES (1982) is faulty and misleading because it:
- b. underestimates decommissioning costs
- c. overestimates lifespan of Unit 1 s
Stamiris 2 internal reporting CPC/NRC internal reporting systems intended to (1982) allow plant workers to raise concerns or criti-(consolidated with cisms about inadequate workmanship or practices Sinclair 6) are ineffective because they have resulted in job losses due to QA/QC reporting. (Midland Daily News articles dated 7/20/82,6/28/82, and Howard affidavit. 7/30/82) Stamiris 6 groundwater The NRC risk assessment in the DES does not con-(1982) sider potential effects of pennanent dewatering on groundwater relationships. Stamiris 8 audit The ACRS has recommended an assessment of j (1982) Midland's design adequacy and construction quality in their 6/18/82 report (SER Supplement 1, Appendix G). In order to assure that this r audit be thorough and objective, it must be i l performed by an independent third party of a l competing contractir.3 firm. Such a requirement was imposed by the ASLB in the Houston Power and Light, 50-498 and 50-499 OL proceeding. l 4/30/82. And, due to the pattern of design deficiencies (4/20/82 SALP, p.16) such an independent audit is necessary to assure the design integrity of this plant. However, the t i l i
- ~ a 6-Contention # Key phrase Contention NRC has not required (SER Supplement 1, p. 19-2(1)), and CPC has not committed (7/9/82 Tedesco to Cook letter) to such an independent audit. Stami ri s la, b, d managerial attitude See Enclosure 2 (1980) Stamiris Ea-d schedule pressures See Enclosure 3 (1980) Stamiris 3 QA-soils See Enclosure 4 (1980) i .i Stamiris 4 inadequate remediation See Enclosure 5 (1980) Marshall 2 settling Present geological conditions, according to (1979) newspaper accounts, is causing the settling of the generator building at the Nuclear s Power Plant site. Warren 1 fill soil The camposition of the fill soil used to pre-(1980) pare the site of the Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2 is not of sufficient quality to assure that pre-loading techniques have permanently corrected soil settlement problems. The NRC has indicated the random fill dirt was used for backfill. The components of random fill can include loose rock, broken concrete, sand, silt, ashes, etc. all of which cannot be com-i pacted through pre-loading procedures. Warren 2 seepage A. Because of the known seepage of water fran the cooling pond into the fill soils in the power block area, permanent dewatering pro-i cedures being proposed by Consumers Power j Company are inadequate, particularly in the event of increased water seepage, flooding, failure of punping systems and power outages. Under these conditions, Consumers cannot pro-vide reasonable assurance that stated maximum levels can be maintained. 1 I i.
3. . l ~ B. Given the facts alleged in Contention 2. A. and considering also that the Saginaw Valley is built upon centuries of silt deposits, these highly permeable soils which underlie, in part, the diesel generator building and other class I structures may be adversely affected by increased water levels producing liquefaction of these soils. The following will also be affected: r
- 1) borated water tanks
- 2) diesel fuel oil tanks.
Warren 3 DGB stress Pre-loading procedures undertaken by Consumers (1980) Power have induced stresses on the deisel generating building-structure and have reduced the ability of this structure to perform its essential functions under that stress. Those remedial actions that have been taken have pro-duced uneven settlement and caused inordinate stress on the structure and circulating water lines, fuel oil lines, and electrical conduit. s i 9 E I
l G Od j l ? ; % 2#N 3 :1n Q:.f L 4 6 &f *?l.W,UA.I I ~ Y { c ??l..- ? : Y d.E {l L. i ~~ Enclosure i Sinclair Contention #6 I NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B require that applicants for oper-ating licenses develop and implement a quality assurance program for the protection of the public from improper materials or unworkmanlike practices. This QA program i includes such elements as procurement document control, control of purchased material, I equipent, and services, proper inspections and handling of nonconforming materials, corrective actions, and audits by trained personnel. However, the affidavit attached to this contention and samarized below shows clearly that the QA program for the Midland plant was not in compliance with these requirements, and that therefore, quality assurance and control cannot be established at the Midland nuclear plant. As basis for this contention, intervenor Mary Sinclair references the affidavit of Mr. Albert T. Howard, a fonner Quality Assurance Docmentation Supervisor for Zack i Company, (from October 19, 1981 through April 30,1982) which was under contract to I supply equipnent for the heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system of l the Midland plant. i His affidavit documents the complete breakdown of the QA program for the Midland l plant, leading to his dismissal for refusing to confrom to Zack's improper QA prac-tices. Those improper practices, with regard to the Midland plant specifically, or all of Zack's nuclear clients generally, are detailed as follows: 1. Howard states that his supervisor, Mr. Calkins, had investigated and reported the QA problems Zack was having with the Midland plant to the Midland plant to the Midland Site Manager as early as August 28, 1981. (at 4) 2. As a result of this report, " major QA reorganizations" were undertaken at Midland, to correct improper QA doctanentation. M. 3. Soon after Howard's promotion to Supervisor of the Doctanents Assurance Department, Howard became aware of " serious deficiencies" in QA docu-mentation. (at 5). 4. On November 18, 1981, a Midland QQ contract employee directed Howard j to sign a form attesting to having completed the requisite training { for his position, in spite of the fact that Howard did not receive such training. Id_. i 5. On November 30, 1981, Howard reviewed reports which summarized various QA deficiencies at Midland, including such terms as: "certs altered"; " white out used and retyped"; and " heat number altered to agree with certification"; missing signa-tures; certifications missing; lack of test data for pur-chases; correspondence that steel had been purchased without verification and traceability; and stickers indicating com-pliance with professional standards. As the summary noted on the latter item, " Authenticity of the signatures is l questionable." (at6). E i
v ~ s., 's 6. On November 30, 1981 Howard also received a. report from Calkins Y-describing the " breakdown of the quality assurance program", resulting in, inter alia, improper modifications to documents. Id. 7. The report described int 6 concluded that the corrective action recommettded was to " promise -- with a plan -- not to repeat the + j misconduct." .No, " offenders" were to be dismissed. (at7). t i 8. Be'chtel communicated to Zack in a December 21,1992 [ sic], letter that the reported deficiencies (see 1, 5) were a " paperwork problem", and that it was their opinion that "It is highly probable that Zack ordered correct materials for the Midland prpjer,t from their sub-tier vendors and that the vendors' intent was to comply with Zack's purchase order requirements." (emphasis added). Howard disagreed j strongly with Bechtel's attenpt to minimize the seriousness of the QA document breakdown at Zack. (at9). i Howard states that the Zack " internal report / audit" of Bechtel's QA 9. docunentation (in
- 8) was seriously deficient in that it knowingly understated the number of purchase orders to be evaluated, and therefore that Zack's assurance to Bechtel tnat a " total docunent audit" was completed was " simply not true." (at 10).
- 10. Howard reports that "several times" he discussed with Zack manage-ment that " delivered materials did not conform to site specifica-tions, and that many of Zack's vendors'were unapproved as suppliers of material to nuclear sites." (at 11)'.
- 11. Howard's affidavit then : States that a Mr. Perry contacted Common-wealth Edison QA manager about the deficiency in delivered materials, who then contacted Consumers Power at the Midland site.
Consumers apparently then contacted the president at Zack, who infonned Howard that she "did not appreciate our calls outside the company." (at11,12). q ' 12. On November 5,1980, tne Bdchtel Power Corporation sent a letter to the Zack Company. Howard reports that the letter "makes it clear that Bechtel Power Corporation had sufficient knowledge of material being shipped to the site in nonconforming con'diticn." (at 14). l
- 13. Howabd states that a September 1981 letter to Zack Company from U.S.
Steel describes a " serious misunderstanding" regarding purchases of f . steel fof 26 purchase orders at all three sites (including Midland). l l p 1 g \\ k l t W 3 T,. I I., p \\ t g ..,,, V n \\, \\
i, Howard states that the letter points out that the Zack " confirming orders" all read " Safety-Related". The U.S. Steel letter points out that first, the orders had not been purchased as " Safety-Related"; and second, that since the purchase orders were not called in as safety-related, ) they were, not handled through the " vat" (Verification and i Testing) program." (at 16). I-Howard points out that the use of the. term " Safety-Related" implied that the items received the quality verification required by regula-tion, which was inaccurate. M.
- 14. Mr. Howard's affidavit states futher that Zack did not confine its j
purchases to those from " approved" vendors. i "Another vendor, the Delta Screw Company, also failed a fall i audit. A fall 1981 Zack letter from Mr. Calkins allegedly i removed Delta Screw Co. from the approved vendors list for i failure to comply with the requirements of a Quality Assur-ance program-as required by the NRC. However, I knew that Zack Company did not follow its own ' approved vendors list". l A list of the P.O.s from December 21, 1981 to February 1982 reveals that, in fact, Delta Screw received approximately 38 purchase orders from the Zack Company befon e being put back on the approved vendors list in February 1982." (at 18).
- 15. Howard also describes that Zack personnel were not adequately trained to perfom their_ duties. This lack of training, included the president of Zack, who " assured the utility management that all problems relating 1
j to the Zack QA/QC breakdown were under control and her personal super-vision". (at18,19).
- 16. Howard's affidavit describes the notes of a meeting on November 3,1981, at the Midland site, with all relevant QA personnel in attendance. The notes show that the principal purpose of the meeting was to decide "whether or not to report the QA breakdown under 10 CFR 50.55(e) to the NRC".
(at 19). The notes further state that Zack was to "try to get i material certified to federal specifications", and to " revise or clarify existing requirements so that the purchases would be acceptable." M.
- 17. Howard describes a steadily increasing level of " intimidation and verbal abuse" from management, apparently designed to induce Howard's resigna-ti on. (at 22).
i ~! j . - ~ ,.....m.- ,-r+
- y., ~.
4 y
7 s 3 -r. T W / f, J g. pc' y x. i I o. ~ o. ,e ^ ' e k'. j __ k i , ; i s' '/
- 18. Howtrd then states tha'; beicarfMed ln Mr. Lecnard of MPQAD (at Midland) of the "awkwarajiffic% ties" with QA et Zack. (at 22).
u g.'j# He advised Howard thWhe recc9ntzed Zack's "large number of pro- "+ ,n' blems, over tna years,"; entP thut he should report any specific m/ f
- allegations,'nder r confidentiality agreement.
_I,dd w I s ji l /
- 19. On Adril 13",,1dN,'Fpwiird:ctileb Eeenard and report QA problems at Zeck. Howard raported these al,legat, ions officially through the j
,.MPQA0 allagation system on'Ap/il 15R (at 23).,., {. 'sy,' /
- 20. Despite Leonarc's promisenf confMentiality, Howard reports that "on April 16, 1982, Mr.,Crhins [hr supervisor at lock] called me into his office'a',dntoldfnie I had 06trayed him a'id that he was not v
b;.c .. going td, l, eak to mE'hnynore". .I.d ,',b .o' f 21M Scond,fl iter his visit with Calkins,>Howard received a copy of a memo-lt
- f%
,( ~k j 3 ^ ? 'i ' 'cEnd% ;from the presi@nt uf"Zack tc't all, empioyees. "Wfthout i/; L;nhationintme by name, this, memo,rgferred to and then denied the ~ /. 5~^ allegations' Phad made to Mr. Leonard. It also denied us access to. ? [ the filesMthout upperTiranagerst pem ssion". Id.. m, ,1 ~~ r b. /,
- 22. Af ter 4-short review'o'f thk.Zack fjles, Mr. Leonard 'infomed Howard
^ that-he;yfailed to' find anything wrong,.*of scbstance" with the Zack QA docanents. Mr. Leonard stated to, Roward :that "I,was fired once,
- /
too,'icu know." (at 24). ~ 'h _ ~ w 1 f c 23. On April 3V1987. 86 ward was,firbd by thi president of Zack for ..,it ?, "incmpent.ence". Nevertheless 'she ackn5wicedged that Zack's QA l_ c performante aan " appalling *.^ T(at 2G"25)./ =- 1 l .y, ..^ ' j 24; On.May 3.1962,, Howard reported the QA'd6ficiencies at Zack to .i l NRC investigators. (at25). While he left with them docanents ,,4 ! " ' relatint'altefations",'"possible forgenes"/ and admissions by 12 sZack that4t'.s failure to qualifi_. vendors was a " serious program diffciency", the NRC has not ecntacted Howard further until 4' 4, / July 2101982 (the date of thi. affidavit)'. Although ne called ~ l,g y V and visited the office *several ties', no interest was shown by tW tGC' f a his revelations. ' (at,26). O V j w w a r f. 't / 4 ,y %j.,. ' s, g +. V, / ? y -{ .e ( _w 1 f .f[ y e r ~ z'. o j + ..) >ly ' &'l ~ / i f u i + 4 e / ;y a .i.. d _ "[7y h -/ 7-wie ,,a.:~;- m ; i $y ,;f>I 'f,l, / .c ,,, y,p v p.Q. u e' . / g f. ! ' . sp. s. . A,. 1 n> r ,p r k,
- 4..
1 E E Stamiris Contention 1 (1980) Consumers Power Company-statement and responses to NRC regarding soil settlement issues reflect a less than complete-and candid dedication to providing infonnation relevant to health and safety standards with respect to resolving the soil settlement problems, as seen in: (a) the material false statement in the FSAR (Order of Modification, , Appendix B);- i (b) the failure to provide infomation resolving geologic classifica-tion of the site which is pertinent to the seismic design input on soil settlement issues (Responses to FSAR Questions 361.4, 361.5, 361.7 and 362.9); j (d) the failure to provide adequate acceptance criteria for remedial actions in response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) requests (as set forth in Part 11 of the Order of Modification); ~ and this managerial attitude necessitates stricter than usual regulatory supervision (ALAB-106) to assure appropriate implementation'of the remedial steps required by the 4 Order Modifying Construction Pemits, dated December 6,1979.
- April 20,1981, Supplement to Contention 1 Examples of CPCo. reluctance to provide requested infomation:
1. 3/31/80 NRC meeting notation of Applicant's reluctance to provide NRC consultants with requested information. 2 2. Vol. III, Tab 65 50-54f, 8/6/79 meeting, attitude that " needlessly i conservative decisions may be fomulated on the 'what it' type questions" by the NRC on dewatering. 3. The 11/24/80 S. A.L.P. assessment on CPCo. - NRR inferface as pre-j. sented by D. Hood in tTp following statements regarding soil settle-ment issues: A big contributor to the inability to make meaningful pro - gress in this matter is the quality of responses gotten. i We have set some kind of record on the number of questions j l re-asked, which speaks poorly for CPCo.-NRR interface. ...The bottomline -is there seems to be a lack of apprecia-tion or support of Staff-review necessities and a tendency.,.' { to push ahead despite the lack of proper assurances."
- 4. - The perfunctory manner in which CPCo. deponents answered questions. (I will tabulate examples from the depositions I attended.)
i
- These items have previously been litigated.
t. i e4e v-e.. v m e .e e, r w .egr.++> msg -+ yv mv. m 9 to
2-Examples of information withheld or incorrectly given: 5. The failure of CPCo. to discuss the Administration Building settlement l problem with the NRC, as they did with their consultants, in the early meetings on the DGB settlement. 6. The false FSAR statements beyond the one cited as a " material false state-ment" in the D'ecember 6 Order, as discussed in the 4/3/79 Keppler - Thornburg memo, and the 6/13/79 Thornburg - Thompson memo. I I e y -- 7 -rt-,e
- Stamiris Contention 2 (1980)
Consmers Power Company's financial and time schedule pressures have directly and adversely affected resoluties if soil settlement issues, which constitutes a compromise of applicable health ud safety regulations as demonstrated by: a) the admission (in response to 50.54(f) question #1 requesting identification of deficiencies which contributed to soil settlement { problems) that the FSAR was submitted early due to forecasted OL l intervention, before some of the material required to be included was available: l b) the choice of ' remedial actions being based in part on expediency, I as noted in Co7smers Power Company consultant R. B. Peck's state-ment of 8-10-79; c) the practice of substituting materials for those originally speci-fied for " commercial reasons" (NCR QF203) or expediency, as in the use of concrete in electrical duct banks (p. 23 Keppler Report) **; d) continued work on the diesel generator building while unresolved safety issues existed, which precluded thorough consideration of Option 2 - Removal and Replacement Plan.
- April 20,1981, Supplement to Cutention 2 Further examples of the effect of financial and time pressures on soil settle-ment issues:
Examples Effect on soil settlement issues 1. 11/7/78 Bechtel action item: 1. Root causes not adeq. investi- " proceed with preparations for gated. Organizational defi-preload as rapidly as possible" ciencies not eliminated prior to proceeding with remediation I, 11/7/78 decision to fill pond 2. Affected piezometric measure- "immediately, because the ments during preload 4 amount of river water avail-l able for filling is restricted" 3. 11/7/78 "5-month period is 3. The surcharge was removed at the available in the schedule ~ for end of this 5 months despite preloading" lack of NRC satisfaction that secondary consolidation was assured t
- These items have previously been litigated
- March 22,1979, Keppler Investigation Report conducted by Region III, Dec. 78-Jan. 79.
t i i
2-l 4. Failure to grout gaps prior to 4. Resulted in additional stresses l cutting of duct banks, failure to DGB which could have been to cut condensate lines when avoided first suggested, failure to break up mudmat at DGB i 5. Choice to continue construction 5. Eliminated practical considera-of DGB tion of Removal & Replacement Option 6. Early FSAR submittal and inade-6. Precluded early detection of i quate review of FSAR inconsistencies which could have prevented some of the s.s. pro-blems l 7. Failure to reconstruct geometry 7. Varying degrees of caution and of area prior to fill placement, conservatism were foregone in failure to await NRC approval in favor of cost and schedule before proceeding with Preload, advantages selection of "least costly feasible alternative" for DGB s 8. Failure to excavate loose sands 8. Contributed to inadequacy of as committed to in PSAR subsoils 1 9. Installation of preload instru-9. Expenditures for preload instru-mentation was subject to time mentation (CJD 11/1/78 memo) pressure assoc. with frost pro-prior to formal adoption of pre-tection considerations load = prematrue cunmitment q i ~
- 10. Appeals to NRC to consider 10.
If granted, would affect seismic-- financial plight and schedule soil settlement standards deadlines as in Seismic Defer-ral Motion
- 11. Depth and breadth of surcharge
- 11. Afforded less than optimum con-limited by practical considera-ditions for surcharge tion of.DGB, Turbine B. struc-tures
- 12. Changes to design (DGB founda-
- 12. Contributed to settlenent or
~ tion), material, or proceedural stress problems and allowed con- [ sic] specifications without-flicts to go unnoticed as pre-proper approval ventative indicators 8 4 l --,y,.-----.,. -,,v. y w n v-- w -.+.-
Encicsure 4
- Stamiris Contention 3 (1980) j Consumers Power Company has not implemented its Quality Assurance Program regarding soil settlement issues according to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B regula-tions, and this represents a repeated pattern of quality assurance deficiency i
reflecting a managerial attitude inconsistent with implementation of Quality Assurance Regulations with respect to soil settlement problems, since reason-able assurance was given in past cases (ALAB-100, ALAB-106 and LBP-74-71) that i proper quality assurance would ensure and it has not. The Quality Assura,nce deficiencies regarding soil settlement include: a) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criteria III, V, X and XVI as set forth in the Order of Modification; b) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, additional criteria denoted by roman numerals below; [ I. The Applicant has failed to assume responsibility for execution of the QA program through its failure to verify and review FSAR statements (pp. 6-8 and p. 21 Keppler Report) and through its reliance on final test results not in accordance with specified requirements (p.16 Keppler Report); II. The QA program was not carried out according to written policies, procedures and instruction, in that oral directions were relied upon and repeated deviations from policies occurred regarding compaction procedures (p. 9-14, Keppler Report); VII. Control of purchased material has not been maintained, in that examination and testing of backfill materials did not occur in accordance with regulations (NRC QF29, NRCQF147); IX. Control of non-destructive testing was not accomplished I by qualified personnel using qualified procedures regarding a) moisture control (Keppler Report p.14-16; QA Request 5040, NRC QFS52, 172, 174 and 199); 4 b) compaction procedures (Keppler Report, p. 9; NRC QFS 68,120 and 130); and c) plant fill work (pp 24 and 25. Keppler -Report); ]
- These items have previously been litigated.
t
1 -l XI. Test programs did not incorporate requirements and accep-j tance limits adequately in the areas referenced in a, b and c above, and do not meet these requirements regarding soil settlement remedial actions; XIII. Measures were not adequately established to prevent damage or deterioration of material regarding frost effects on compacted fill (pp.16 and 17, Keppler Report); XV. Measures were not taken to control non-conforming material in order to prevent the inadvertent use (NRC QF29 and QF127); c) the settlement of the Administration Building in 1977 should have served as a quality indicator, preventing the same inadequate proce-dures from occurring in the 1978 construction of the diesel generator building causing its eventual settlement. l s e l i I i I T
Stamiris Contention 4 (1980) l Constsners Power Company perfonned and proposed remedial actions regarding soils t settlement that are inadequate as presented because: l l A. Preloading of the diesel generator building
- 1) does not change the composition of the improper soils to meet the original PSAR specifications;
- 2) does not preclude an unacceptable degree of further differential settlement of diesel generator building;
- 3) does not allow proper evaluation of compaction procedures because of unknown locations of cohesionless soil pockets; 1
- 4) may adversely affect underlying piping, conduits or nearby struc-tures; and
- 5) yields effects not scientifically isolated from the effects of a rise in cooling water and therefore not measured properly;
- B.
Slope stability of cooling pond dikes is not assured because they were built with the same improper so.ils and procedures (NRC QF172); C. Remedial soil settlement actions are based on untested assumptions and inadequate evaluation of dynamic responses of those structures to such things as dewatering, differential soil settlement, and seismic charac-teristics: a. Auxiliary Building Electrical Penetration Areas and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits i b. Service Water Intake Building and its Retaining Walls c. Borated Water Storage Tanks i d. Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks; i f D. Permanent dewatering i l
- 1) would change the water table, soil and seismic characteristics of the dewatered site from their originally approved PSAR charac-teristics - characteristics on which the safety and integrity of the plant were based, thereby necessitating a reevaluation of these characteristics for affected Category I structures; i
j
- These items have previously been litigated.
1 i 4
j 2-
- 2) may cause an unacceptable degree of further settlement in safety related structures due to the anticipated drawdown effect;
- 3) to the extent subject to failure or degradation, would allow inadequate time in which to initiate shutdown, thereby neces-sitating reassessment of these times.
Therefore, unless all the issues set forth in this contention are adequately , ~ resolved, the licensee actions in question should not be considered an acceptable remediation of soil settlement problems. i e t. s l I i i t i ? i =w am.--- y -r-w--- --m'- 'W T i'Pt' T- -'"TN '-MNF-" Oe-T' P'"'t t
- 'N*
-' + "'"v
ATTACHMENT 2 Summary of Contentions to be Litigated Contention Key Phrase Reviewer (s) i j Sinclair 3 severe accidents Frank Rowsome Sinclair 5 cooling pond Jim Carson and Stave Tsai, ANL I Sinclair 7 synergism Hal Walker l Sinclair 6 QA - Howard Wayne Shafer, RIII i j Sinclair 8 QA - records Wayne Shafer, RIII l Sinclair 16 QA - welders Wayne Shafer, RIII Sinclair 24 ground stability Joe Kane, J. P. Kright Sinclair 27 evacuation Dave Rohrer -Sinclair 28 water hammer Bill LeFave, Al Serkiz Sinclair 30 tube integrity Cy Cheng, Ray Gonzales Stamiris Ib, Ic cost benefit Barry Elliot, Maurice Messier, (1982) Nick Fields, Frank Cardile Stamiris 6 groundwater Joe Kane, Ray Gonzales Stamiris 8 audit Darl Hood Stamiris ld managerial attitude Joe Kane (1980) Stamiris 4 inadequate remediation Joe Kane, Ray Gonzales, (1980) Frank Rinaldi j Marshall 2 settling Joe Kane, J. P. Knight l Warren 1 fill soil Joe Kane i Warren 2 seepage Joe Kane, Ray Gonzales, Frank Rinaldi Warren 3 DGB stress Joe Kane, J. P. Knight, Frank Rinaldi, Paul Chen 1 t i f w m y
T s E-! yo mA. wbe. c)&Mu L. ov c te. s Sh b u\\ U \\C b ) LM wL Q h k hrt Dn Q y s q%7 os h.rdc W. qv %we, %aMA 3 qcoaue % s t9' s-%%W4. '. O
- b m< %L
, k b\\d b hoc,\\ % W& > -(, % innskw6 as %s pg k.h %% D SWh Tk k\\.A Q%4 1% wyk p usS Nbk. AW hw4 %g ec Ac s Agg) Q,g Mk N %m s i l [x s .,w-. _..r +._..g ..c
j 832077 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADILITY PROJECT Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Ove Street. N.W., Washington. D.C. 20009 (202)234-9382 y 1 'b April 15, 1983 aN rt prd'O^ Mr. Michael Wilcove, Esqu1N* ld C#"# h a Office of Executive Le' gal, Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission fufg Waiaington, D.C. 20555
- f
.d.. hh N4' Re:. Consumera Power Company May j20 jg J;' Mid1'and Plant. Units 1 and 2 Docket # 50-329/330-0M, 50-329/330-OL
Dear Mr. Wilcove:
This is to confirm the questions that I read to you over the telephone this morning regarding Ms. Stamiris' document requests on the Construction Completion Program ("CCP") and ongoing inspection and enforcement action. First, Ms. Stamiris requests the fo1~1owing: 1) Documents related to ongoing-inspections which involve any issue of willful cr deliberate violation of any NRC regulation, any law, or any Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") order 2) Documents related to ongoing investigations which involve any l issue of willf ul or deliberate wrongdoing or willful or deliberate violation of any NRC regulation, any law, or any ASLB ceder. 3) Documents related to the CCP: (a) For the period September.17, 1982 to the present NRC meeting notes and correspondence between Consumers Power Company ("CPC") f and the NRC relating to implementation of the CCP and other than that which appears on the public record, (b) All documents relating to the retraining of QA and QC 3 Personnel; and (Mung, q\\%g rQ, pq % M. Q M.{ Q g g g (c) All documents related to CPC's ability, character, or competence to oversee and manage the CCP. As I mentioned to you yesterday, I believe these requests are included within the scope of Ha. Stamiris' document request Nos. 1 and 5. Sincerely yours, 3) r LB' f-QU LYNNE;BERNABE1 * - Staff' Counsel 43.-
-4 v71 e- }' period of time in which to review these documents and prepare for ff" cross-examination. She does not believe the NRC Staff's eleventh-La hour production of docum nts satisfies their responsibility to ~ produce documents a reasonable period prior to the hearings, (.... C. Ms. Stamiris Would Define the " Independent Audits" Included in Document" Request No. 5 in a Different Manner Than Did.th'e NRC Staff in Its Submission . yp,4, pa of April 15, 1983. / r. Stamiris, whi.le'.Egreeing.with all other,NRC Staff repre-Ms. sentations concerning agreement between them, would define those independent audits included within the scope of Document Request No. 5 in a different man 5er. She would define those independent audits covered by the request in the following ways y (1) the TERA vertical slice audit; (2) the Stone & Webster overview of QA implementation of soils work: (3) the original plans for a " horizontal view," which has s bect. recently replaced by the construction implementation overview. D. Ms. Stamiris Has Requested Information on Ongoing Inspections and Enforcements Which the NRC Staff Is Currently Attempting to Satisfy. Ms. Stamiris specifically requested, in her counsel's oral request to Mr. Wilcove, confirmed in an April 18, 1983 letter, the following: (1) Documents related to ongoing inspections which involve iny issue of willful or deliberate violations of any NRC regula- ,9 4 l tion, any law, or any Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") l order; / ' ~ ~ ~ l
d T h -s. .ff( Stamiris' counsel on Thursifay, April 14, 1983. As additional Staff e-documents are received by'.' Staff dounsel, subject to any legal objections 1 that may become applicable wtier) Staff counsel review the documents, we will permit Ms. Stamiris c unsel to copy them.. In its Memorandutn afd~n d, r dated April 5,1983, the Board directed .or intervenor Stamiris' coun[el to me.et with.the. Staff and negotiate with c _9 respect to Ms. Stamiris' / request for production of documents. On Ms.I.ernabei and Ms. Garde met with Staff Thursday, April 14, 1983 B counsel. The Board also directed the Staff to answer by Friday, l l April 15th, delineating triose aspects of the discovery request which rer.ain in dispute. That discussion has been described above. The 4 folicwing agreements were worked out with Ms. Stamiris' counsel: i Intervenor Stamiris' counsel and Staff counsel addressed the second portion of document request #1 and reached the d following understanding. Staff counsel will contact the office of investigations to inquire into a listing for
- gthou, identification of any ongoing inspections involving the issue h
of any willful or deliberate violaticn of any NRC regulation. law, or ASt.B order. Pursuant to agreement with intervenor Stamiris' counsel Staff counsel agreed to contact Mr. Warnick 4 of Regior. III to determine whether Region III had any engoir.g inspections of this nature. Mr. Warnick advised that they did f' not. The Staff corstrues document request 2 as being encompassed by document request 1 and will therefore treat it accordingly. Intervenor Stamiris agreed to exclude from ther scope of document request 4 documents addressing the evaluation of the design of the underpinning. Intervenor Stamiris and Staff counsel agreed that the term " independent audits" used in the document request 5 refers to third party reviews that the Staff has considered since early ( )(1) assessment of soils remedial work by 1982: specifica11 Stone & Webster the " vertical slice" audit of three selected plant systems by TERA and (3) a construction inplementation overview. 4 b [ 1 l-m... l
@I j.if ',.. H a. i#T e. If Intervenor Stamir'is' counsel limited the first portion of document request 7 to infomation relative to the March 1982 SALP report that was developed after the issuance of the report. With respect to the second portion of document request 7, the NRC Staff jntends to supply the documents requested. /O ~ -L Staff counsel agreed,.to, pake. docutents available to intervenor's r-ccunsel as scan as the documents become available. Intervenor's counsel indicated that if she is' not 'able to receive. documents from Region III until Wednesday or Thursday.of: the week of April 18 she presently intends to ask the Board to del'ay the proceeding ~. The Staff will oppose -.. ~ such request. es - If Ms. Stamiris, or her counsel, has any disagreement with the Staff's characterization of the negotiations with respect to her document recuest, we request that we be contacted as scon' possible. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above the Staff believes that Intervenor Stamiris' request for production of documents does not comply with aplicable Comission regulations providing for discovery against the Staff. However, the Staff has trade and is continuir.g to make a good faith effort to satisfy significant portions of the request in order to avoid. delay in the hearing on quality assurance issues. Respectfully submitted, WilliamiD. Paton Counsel for NRC Staff D6ted at Bethesda,liaryland this 15th day of April,1983 ik [ / -w
e --a. /C,1D 3 4g +*g""'%g,7% UNITED STATES ) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c.( REGION lit 799 ROOSEVELT Ro AD y GLEN ELLYN, ILLINolS 60137
- 'g '
,o APR 22 mg3
- ~
- MEMORANDUM FOR: William D. Paton, Counsel for NRC Staff FROM:
R. F. Warnick, Director, Office of Special Cases
SUBJECT:
INTERVENOR REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY IN THE MIDLAND HEARING My April 20, 1983 memorandun to you transmitted the documents requested by the Government Accountability Project (GAP). The memo also indicated that additional documents requested verbally by GAP would be provided by Region III in the near future. In addition to providing documents on the Construction Completion Program, we are also providing two documents in response to the earlier request. These are listed in Attachment A and are numbered according to GAP's previous request. If you have any questions, please let me know. RF k)A R. F. Warnick, Director Office of Special Cases Attachments: A. Listing of pertinent documents B. Documents listed in attachment A cc w/ attachments A and B: PDR LPDR i j cc w/ attachment. A: See attached distribution list I f i i ~ I I i .h.h 1
APR 2 21983 W. D. Paton. l j cc w/ attachment A: Resident Inspector, RIII 4 The Honorable Charles Bechhoefer, ASLB The Honorable Jerry Harbour, ASLB The Honorable Frederick P. Cowan, ASLB The Honorable Ralph S. Decker, ASLB Michael Miller Ronald Callen, Michig'an Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry Barbara Stamiris Mary Sinclair Wendell Marshall Colonel Steve J. Gadler (P. E.) Howard Levin TERA Billie P. Garde, GAP t i 1 I i I 1 l
+ i Attachment A i PREVIOUS CAP REQUEST REQUEST 5 Report from Stone and Webster Michigan, Inc. dated April, 1983 on Independent Assessment of Underpinning: 90-Day Report. REQUEST 7 Memo (Keppler to Hind and Warnick) dated April 18, 1983, regarding SALP appraisals of Zimmer and Midland; copy attached. CAP LETTER DATED APRIL 15, 1983 Requests 1 and 2 regarding ongoing investigations should be referred to the Office of Investigations rather than Region Ill i Additional documents related to the CCP: A. DOCUMENTS FROM R. J. COOK FILE ON CCP 1. CPCo letter to J. G. Keppler from J. W. Cook dated 3/29/83, Subj ect: Response to Support Reinspection 2. NRC letter to J. W. Cook from J. C. Keppler dated 3/28/83,
Subject:
CCP 3. CPCo meno to J. W. Cook from D. B. Miller dated 3/31/83, i Subj ect: Midland Nuclear Cogeneration Plant CCP Coordination 4. CPCo internal correspondence to J. W. Cook from D. B. Miller dated 3/23/82,
Subject:
Midland Nuclear Cogeneration Plant i i-CCP Coordination 5. CPCo letter to L. E. Davis (Bechtel) from D. B. Miller dated 3/3/83,
Subject:
Bechtel Field Administrative Guidelines 6. CPCo News Release dated 12/3/82 7. CPCo internal correspondence to J. W. Cook and J. A. Rutgers from D. B. Miller dated 3/7/83,
Subject:
Midland Nuclear Cogeneration Plant CCP Coordination l 8. CPCo internal correspondence to J. W. Cook from D. B. Miller dated 4/8/83,
Subject:
Midland Nuclear Cogeneration Plant j CCP Coordination Letter #3 with Attachments t
) B. CCP SAMPLING BASIS FOR VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOLDER (BLB) 9. One page handwritten notes MPQAD/CPCo/NRC Meeting 3/1/82
- 10. A List of all PQCI's with Quantity and Sampling Information 11.
Quality Verification Program Midland Nuclear Cogeneration Plant Units 1 and 2 C. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION PLAN FOLDER (BLB)
- 12. Draft Administrative Guideline - System Team Charter
- 13. Translation of December 2 Logic Chart to January 7 CCP Submittal
- 14. CCP Work Schedule dated 12/02/82
- 15. CPCo letter from J. W. Cook to J. G. Keppler dated 1/10/83,
Subject:
Construction Completion Program
- 16. NRC Agenda on meeting to discuss Diesel Generator Building 17.
Handwritten notes on CCP Public Meeting 2/8/83 (3 pgs.)
- 18. Third Party Reviews
- 19. CPCo Agenda for Construction Completion Program meeting
- 20. Midland Independent Design Verification Program for the AFW System and Another System to be Determined dated 2/8/83 i
21. CPCo letter from D. B. Miller to J. A. Rutgers (Bechtel),
Subject:
Construction Completion Program with attachment " Ground Rules"
- 22. Memo for D. G. Eisenhut from R. F. Warnick dated 12/03/82,
Subject:
Recommendation for Notification of Licensing Board t 23. CPCo memo to Distribution List from J. W. Cook dated 12/9/82,
Subject:
Regulatory Interface - Construction Completion Program 24. CPCo draft letter from J. W. Cook to H. R. Denton,
Subject:
Quality Program Implementation for Soils Remedial Work i l
- 25. Analysis of Current and Future Quality Activities with Regard to l
Remedial Soils Work i
- 26. Draft letter from J. W. Cook to H. R. Denton and J. G. Keppler dated 9/10/82,
Subject:
Quality Program Implementation.
- 27. Presentation to NRC - Construction Completion Program 2
I
.- s .[ 28. Systems Completion Draft Release j i
- 29. Telefax - Reduction of Most Safety-Related Work l
30. CPCo letter from D. B. Miller to L. E. Davis,
Subject:
Bechtel Field Administrative Guidelines dated 3/3/83 with letter of 3/10/83 rewording paragraph 2 of the 3/3/83 letter D. DOCUMENTS FROM R. J. COOK - CCP
- 31. A list of all PQCI's with Quantity and Sampling Information 32.
Schedule Chart dated 1/31/83 I
- 33. Work Schedule dated 12/02/82 34.
NRC letter to J. W. Cook from J. G. Keppler dated 3/28/83 requesting additional information on the CCP
- 35. CPCo organization chart dated 8/30/82 (2) 36.
Significant Features of Integrated MPQAD QA/QC Organization dated 12/14/82 37. Resume of William J. Friedrich
- 38. Handwritten organization charts (3)
- 39. Test Program Continuation dated 12/9/82 with attachments 40.
CPCo news release regarding the CCP
- 41. Presentation to NRC CCP 42.
Draft news release Dec2mber 1982
- 43. Systems Completion Draft Release dated December 1982 l
l
- 44. PN - Major Reduction in Safety-Related Work dated December 3,1982 l
- 45. Handwritten note dated 12/2/82 (Presentation for Cet Well Program)
- 46. Memo for D. G. Eisenhut from R. F. Warnick dated 12/03/82,
Subject:
Recommendation for Notification of Licensing Board 47. CPCo memo to Distribution List from J. W. Cook dated 12/9/82,
Subject:
Regulatory Interface - Construction Completion Program 48. Handwritten notes dated 12/2/82 - NRC Comments on CPCo-CCP f l
- 49. CPCo letter to J. W. Cook to J. G. Keppler dated 1/10/83,
Subject:
l Construction Completion Program l l 3 e
__ - l -s d 3 i k
- 50. Draft Administrative Guideline - System Team Charter i
i 51. I page handwritten notes l ~ l
- 52. Memo from Bruce Peck to Ron Cook dated 1/10/83 with attachment -
CPCo letter for J. A. Rutgers (Bechtel Associates) from D. B. Miller i dated 1/7/83 with attached list of Ground Rules i
- 53. Five pages handwritten notes E.
DOCUMENTS FROM ROSS 1.ANDSMAN - CCP
- 54. Handwritten notes
- 55. CPCo letter from J. W. Cook to J. G. Keppler dated 1/10/83,
Subject:
Construction Completion Program
- 56. Quality Verification Program Midland Nuclear Cogeneration Plant Units 1 and 2 4
i l i h 4 e
o RR0 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT Inst "tute for PoHcy Studies 1901 Que Sueet. N.W.. Woshington. D.C. 20009 (202)234 9382 April 15, 1983 Mr. Michael W11 cove, Esquire Office of Executive L'egal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Consumers Power Company Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket # 50-329/330-0M, 50-329/330-OL
Dear Mr. Wilcove:
This is to confirm the questions that i read to you over the telephone this morning regarding Ms. Stamiris' document requests on the Construction Completion Program ("CCP") and ongoing inspection and enforcement action. First, Ms. Stamiris requests the following: 1) Documents related to ongoing inspections which involve any issue of willful or deliberate violation of any NRC regulation, any law, or any Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") order 2) Documents related to ongoing investigations which involve any issue of willful or deliberate wrongdoing or willful or deliberate vio.iatica of any NP.C regulation, any 1sw, or any ASLB order. 3) Documents related to the CCP: (a) For the period September 17, 1982 to the present NRC meeting notes and correspondence between Consumers Power Company ("CPc") and the NRC relating to implementation of the CCP and other than that which appears on the public record, (b) All documents relating to the retraining of QA and QC personnel; and (c) All documents related to CPC's ability, character, or l competence to oversee and manage the CCP. j As I mentioned to you yesterday, I believe these requests are included within the scope of Ms. Stamiris' document requent Nos. 1 and.5. ,g Sincerely youra, z a( \\f.%f - I= b _n e m m eem m ez [ Staff Counsel )
.g GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT Inst'tute for PoNcy Studies 1901 Que Street. N.W., Woshington. D.C. 20009 (202)234-9362 l April 15, 1983 Mr. Michael Wilcova, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Consumera Power Company Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket # 50-329/330-0M, 50-329/330-OL Dear Mr. Wilcove This is to confirm the questions that I read to you over the telephone this morning regarding Ms. Stamiris' document requests on the Construction Completion Program ("CCP") and ongoing inspection and enforcement action. First, Ms. Stamiris requests the following: 1) Documents related to ongoing inspections which involve any issue of willful or deliberate violation of any NRC regulation, any law, or any Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") order 2) Documents related to ongoing investigations which involve any issue of willful or deliberate wrongdoing or v111ful or deliberate vioJatir.n of any NP.C regulation, any 1sw, or acy ATLB order. l ~ 3) Documents related to the CCP: (a) For the period September 17, 1982 to the present NRC meeting notes and correspondence between Consumers Power Company ("CPC") and the NRC relating to implementation of the CCP and other than that which appears on the public record, i (b) All documents relating to the retraining of QA and QC personnell and (c) All documents related to CPC's ability, character, or 1 competence to oversee and manage'the CCP. As I mentioned to you yesterday, I believe these requests are included within the scope of Ms. Stamiris' document request Nos. 1 and.5. [/ Sincerely youre, p 4 Rh LYNNg BERNABEI staff Counsel 4. w
4danv2 L., n.vt. 3, w - tw nDW L paMa, ~ d/FA 8 j.{ h[ g,gffg V w.,, .u g u 5.m y. n:<ixir 4,yk,w E.'Li , :fJ, 4 .c.a a .is s ?' i '83 ??R 7 P2:13 - l77: pf*fcb vTITED STATES OF AMERICA ) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p,[ -l ] Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1 In the Matter of ) ASLBP Nos. 7.8-389-03 OL i ) 80-429-02,SP , CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Ur ts 1 and 2) ~ I' 50-330 OM INTERVENOR BARBARA STAMIRIS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION d j OF DOCUMENTS TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF { TO: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Intervenor Barbara Stamiris, pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order of April 6, 1983, hereby requests the Nuclear j Regulatory Commission (" Commission" or "NRC") Staff to produce ~and make available for inspection and/or copying' each document in the possession or custody of the NRC Staff or subject to the control of f i the NRC Staff, its agents, or its attorneys,as requested below' 1 i DEFINITIONS As used herein, and unless the context otherwise requires, 'i ~ the terms: j l l (a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission or "NRC" shall mean the' Nuclear Regulatory Commission, its branches,-departments, offices, l j sections, subdivisions, its present 'and former conunissioners, adminis-l l - trators, management, employees, agents, representatives, consultants or officials, or their agents, attorneys, or. representatives. 63 N 4amai 407 ~ t T N ADUCM 0 329 g 0 pg ._.y y y e-g yc.- --m*1v-,- w y-#ep. 3 w gw,v--w -m, 9 ..,y mg. e-y
O ~g 4 (b) " Document" shall mean every writing of every type or description, and every othe.r instrument or device by which, through which, or on which information has been recorded and/or preserved,. including but not limited to memoranda, notes, letters, drawings, files, graphs, charts, photographs, slide presentations, handwritten notes, logs, ledgers, studies, data sheets, appointment calendars, telephone messages, voice recordings and other data compilations or i other media on which or through which information of any type is i j transmitted, recorded or preserved. (c) " Communication" shall mean communication, discussion, conversation, letter, memorandum, telephone' call, message or direction whether written or oral, or whether'in person, by telephone, or by mail. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 1. Any and all documents relating in any way to the special inspection conducted by the Office of Special Cases, Midland Section, concerning the diesel generator building at the Midland nuclear power plant, NRC Inspection and Enforcement Report Nos. 50-329/82-22 and j 50-330/82-22, and any other investigation of systems which affect in any way the diesel generator building, including but not limited to ( ongoing NRC investigations. For any such ongoing NRC investigation, I i' describe the nature and scope of the investigation. 2. Any and all documents relating in any way to communications l between Region III and any other office,. or branch of the NRC, or be-i l j tween offices, branches or divisions of the NRC, concerning (a) the reports mentioned in Document Request No. 1 above, or (b) the investi-gatio'ns listed in Document Request No. 1 above. n i _-__-,----m_. .,. ~ _ - - - _
~ . 3. Any and all documents prepared by Region III in the 1980 to 1983 period which relate in any way to comparisons of the Midland I nuclear power plant to other nuclear plants in terms of the following: (a) the number of noncompliances found by the NRC; (b) the number of 50.55e reports filed by Consumers Power' Company ("CPC"); and (c) the overall rating of the Midland plant as compared i i to other plants in Region III and other plants under con-struction in the Unit'ed States. 4. Any and all documents, including any technical analyses performed by or submitted to the NRC, relating to: (a) the NRC decision to allow underpinning work to commence in December.1982 at the Midland plant; (b) the NRC decision in February 1983 to allow under-pinning work to be done under safety-related structures at the Midland plant; and (c) the NRC consideration and assessment of F.I.V.P. jacking and cracking for the period January 1983 to the j present. I 5. Any and all documents relating in any way to independent audits at Midland; the NRC's review acceptance criteria for these audits; and NRC cctions taken in response to these audits. 6. Any and all documents relating to the special investigation I initiated by the Spessard memorandum of April 19, 1982, and to issues i discussed in that memorandum. 7. Any and all documents relating to the March 1982 SALP Report, and the NRC's decision to postpone the SALP Report scheduled for the Spring of 1983. If no written documents exist regarding the m bn. -...m. ...mmmmmmmmm. ...mm sms_ammmmiah_ . mumm..
~ ~ ~ 's >\\ 4 'r. ) \\ N,, 1 3 3 T 'g x b ... T 1 c, 4-( s s, NRC's decisior. to postpone the 1983' SALP -Retx.,rt, explain the position, reasoning and >. recommendations of each of the follcwing persons re-specting the NRC's decision to postpone the SALP Report: (a) We.yne Shaffer; -(b) Robert Warnick; and (c) James Keppler. 8. Confirm in writing the NRC Staff's previous representations h { that no documents exist which relate in any way to: s (a) the NRC. Staff's differing opinions on the enforce-i s ment action 'to be. taken in response to the NRC Inspection and 't Enforcement Report Nos. 50-329/82-22 and 50-330/82c22; and (b) the May, August and September 1982 stop-work orders r issued by CPC and the CPC decisions to lift these stop-work orders. I q Respectfully submitted, 4 L BERNABEI 'i. \\ MENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT the't nstitute for Policy Studies I j 1901 Q Street, N., E. Washington, D. C. 20009 j V 202/234-9382 Attorney for;Intervenor Barbara Stamiris 5 DATED:' April 7, 1983 k t .s t q e z \\ r l e 7 \\ ,) s s
- g_~
Y?% \\ o u s. ( i if 3
t ~. l 1 j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION liefore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board * ~ \\ i In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos. 50-329-OL ) 50-330-OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-329-OM ) 50-330-OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) ) l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Intervenor Barbara Stamiris' Request for Production of Documents to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff were mailed, proper postage prenaid, this 7th day of April , 1983, tot Michael I. Miller, Esq. Mr. Roger W. Huston Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq. Suite 220 i Alan 5. Farnell, Esq. 7910 Woodsont Avenue Isham, Lincoln & Beale Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Three First National Plaza, 51st floor Mr. R. 8. Borsum l Chicago, Illinois 60602 Nuclear Power Generation Division Babcock & Wilcox James E. Brunner Esq. 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 Constners Power Company Bethesda, Maryland 20814 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Cherry & Flynn Suite 3700 Ms. Mary Sincialr Three First National Plaza 5711 Summerset Drive Chicago, Illinois 60602 l Midland, Michigan 48640 i Stewart H. Freeman Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Assistant Attorney General Division of Radiological Health State of Michigan Environmental Department of Public Health Protection Division P.O. Sc 33035 720 Law Building Lansing, Michigan 48909 Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Wendell Marshall 2120 Carter Avenue Route 10 St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Midland, Michigan 48640 9 n. -.w. -,...-.,,c ,. _ _,,,,, -, - -. - ~ n s
o ?> , f. ' ,.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission kd1ndDa y News Resident Inspector: Office 124 Mcdonald Street Midland, Michigan 48640 nd, Michigan 48640 Ms. Barbara Stamiris Commander Naval Surface Weapons Center 5795 N. River ATTN: P. C. Huang Freeland, Michigan 48623 White Oak Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr. Paul A. Perry. Secretary Constners Power Company Mr. L. J. Auge Manager 212 W. Michigan Avenue Facility Design Engineering i Jacksort, Michigan 49201 Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Box 1449 . Mr. Walt Apley Canoga Park, California 91304 c/o Mr. Max Clausen Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PIBIL). Mr. Neil Gehring Battelle Blvd. U.S. Corps of Engineers SIGMA IV Building NCEED - T Richland, Washington 99352 7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue Mr. I. Charak, Manager Detroit, Michigan 48226 .NRC Assistance Project Argonne National Laboratory
- Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
9700 South Cass Avenue Atomic Safety & L: censing Board Argonne, Illinois 60439 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis'sion, Dr. Frecerick P. Cowan Region III - Apt. 8-125 799 Roosevelt Road 6125 N. Verde Trail Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 ~ . Lee L. Bishop
- Jerry Harbour, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hhingtn 2 tre N.W., Suite 506 D 5 Washington, D. C. 20006 Mr. Ron Callen Geotechnical Engineers, Inc. ATTN: Dr. Steve J. Poulos Michigan Public Service Commission 1017 Main Street 6545 Mercantile Way Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 P.O. Box 30221 Lansing, Michigan 48909 I
- Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- William D. Paton Washington, D. C. 20555 Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C. 20555 L /A-c h A
LYh
- t. BERNABEI
- Delivered through NRC internal mail.
1 .... ~ - - - -}}