ML20091G807
Text
.
,\\
f, a,;Beu. "/ye y
\\
. La 1 l
Q tap l
-~
.x t
OCT 3 r1 G83
)
I i-it i
b s
MEMORANDUM FOR:
T. A. Reh.n, Ar.sistant for Operations, Office of the l
Executive Director for Operations s
N t
,N FROM:
James G. Keppler, Regional Atkiv.j strator s
o
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM GAP, EDO NO. 13676 s
Region III's proposed response to Billie Garde's letter. of October 14, 1983, i
to me is enclosed. Itwaselectronigallytransmitteptoyourofficeon October 31, 1983.
I
~
Although the control ticket indicates that the response should be prepared for your signature, I would like the opportunity to respond over my signature because the comments appear to be directed larely at RIII, actions.
s Ifyouhaveanyquestionsplea)etletusknow.*
t s
~ '
014f 8
~
QTM4-pt,l. &
s.
iames G. Keppler v
Regional Administrator i
g',
Enclosure:
As stated f
\\
\\
T
\\
r 1
i g,
!^
I i
t.
M_
, b' e
4 ;*
rg d
Wa is Le is Davis-Ke'ppler i
10/26/83
//.7/ py
\\
i C
8406040368 840517 e
j RICE 84-M PDR 1
s l
.+
l c
e
'I Docket No. 50-329 DRAFT Docket No. 50-330 i
i Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy Studies ATTN:
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Director, Citizens for Accountable Government 1901 Que Street, N.W.
4 Washington, DC 20009
Dear Ms. Garde:
This is in response to your letter to me of October 14, 1983 regarding NRC Region III's September 29, 1983 approval of Stone and Webster ("S&W") to conduct the third-party Construction Implementation Overview ("CIO") of Consumer Power Company's ("CPCo") Construction Completion Program. The views expressed in your letter have been previously expressed to the NRC staff and l
while we understand your position, we do not agree with it.
The bases for our I
findings that S&W and the particular individuals assigned to the CIO are competent to conduct the third party overview and have sufficient independence of CPCo so that there is no actual or apparent conflict of interest are set forth in our approval letter and enclosed analysis.
I 4
4l L
m-m m a - _ _._ n.
y
' *ye,
j 3
-f
..c-h,', -t q
c
=
'B.~P. Garde 2
DRAFT
, ~'
~
i, n
j,;-
]
I We respectfully disagree with your view that we "did not include a scintilla of
\\
public part.icipation" (letter, page 1) in the process of approval of S&W to conduct the CIO. We believe that we provided ample opportuair.y for public comment on S&W's qualifications to conduct the CIO. A listing of meetings t_
held on this subject at which public comments were invited and of discussions held between the' NRC staff and intervenors in the Midland proceeding is g
[
provided in the Director's Decision (DD-83-16) on your 10 CFR 2.206 request
&}
(page 17). Additionally, we note that Mr. Thomas Devine of yorr organization
~
' commented in a letter dated October 31, 1983 to me regarding the Zimmer facility that "[ alt Midland, Region III took a major s'.ep toward restoring the
(
NRC's credibility with a public that had been misled for years" (page 11).
We believe that the provisions we made for public comment on the proposal to l
use S&W to conduct the CIO are consish at with Commission practice.
We left it to CPCo to nominate a firm to conduct the CIO and confined our review to a determination of whether that nominee had the requisite competence and independence. This review process and its provisions for public comment are Y
similar to the staff's Plan of Action on Zimmer, which met with Commission b
approval.
}
f E
i A
i j
l t
s e
A ii m
l.
3 B. P. Garde 3
DRAFT Your interest in the CIO is appreciated. The montbly meetings between S&W, CPCO and the staff to discuss the progress of the CIO will be open to public observation and should permit you to assess the adequacy of S&W's performance. Any comments you provide to us will be fully considered.
Sincerely, James G. Keppler Regional Administrator I
cc w/1tr of 10/14/83 from Ms. Garde to I
Mr. Keppler:
See attached distribution list-1 i
RIII RIII RIII RIII-Warnick/ls Lewis Davis Keppler 10/31/83 t
.., *\\.
l p
l I
l B. P. Garde 4
DRAF1' l.
I cc w/1tr of 10/14/83 from Ms. Garde to Mr. Keppler:
DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII The Honorable Charles Bechhoefer, ASLB The Honorable Jerry Harbour, ASLB The Honorable Frederick P. Cowan, ASLB The Honorable Ralph S. Decker, ASLB William Paton, ELD Michael Miller Ronsld Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission j
Myron M. Cherry Barbara Stamiris Mary Sinclair Wendell Marshall j
Colonel Steve J. Gadler (P.E.)
Howard Levin (TERA) i l
Billie P. Garde, Government Accour.tability Project Lynne Bernabei, Governacnt Accountability Project Stone and Webster Michigan, Inc.
bec:
T. A. Rehm, EDO J. Stone, IE D. Eisenhut, DOL D. Hood, DOL i
J. Lieberman, ELD l
a,.
3
-r 1
7
.o '
~b Yh hl.A. l
[ t ;- - :::S~ C'TC '}
~
.mg m q ---
- ,
- P %, C3qs m cis
=.-
" [.d) P0,nci
,4 L.-
C0mpally E WJV -1 P12:05 CFF " 3: e...
o.a.r. oem : se4s w.n e.ra.n a..e. s
- a. m assai. <sm tes osso cogfQJ3g jp\\,,,
=3ANCH October 27, 1983 cc; NET WU!.'Eb
-3pc13 OH N i
noo.suTv n.C.... n,-
I pa t!iCIPI'9_
h er 4A y
Ms Lynne Bernabei 3/PF
'ir-f Government Accountability Project GA; K_,. -.s 1901 Q Street, NW vc T,.
[
c.tr Washington, DC 20009 2A0 MIDLAND PROJECT MIDLAND DOCKET NOS 50-329 OM; 50-330 OM RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES DATED OCTOBER 11, 1983 Dear Ms Bernabei Enclosed are Consumers Power Company's responses to Intervenor Barbara S tamiris ' Interrogatories to Consumers Power Company dated October 11, 1983.
The responses include as attachments those documents referenced but not provided by other means.- Relevant Consumers Power Company interpretations of the interrogatories are contained in the answers.
The responses do not address those questions objected to in CPCo Objections to Interrogatories and Document Production Requests of Barbara Stamiris dated October 11, 1983, as modified by Mr J E Brunner's letter of October 25, 1983 l
addressed to Ms Bernabei.
I 1
Very truly yours CWw V P Provenzano Q
CC OM/0L Service List
}
--83TTO3OO7v 831027
{
PDR ADOCK 05000 M i
G PDR N v10 $83].@
^
oc1083-0652a100
^
~
~
OM/0L SERVICE LIST Mr Frank J Kelley, Esq Atomic Safety & Licensini:UE7E-Attorney General of the Appeal Board T'"
State of Michigan U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
.Ms Carole Steinberg, Esq Washington, DC 20555g3 g, q g2,O,s Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Mr C R Stephens (3) 720 Law Building Chief, Docketing & Sftvices :t...
Lansing, MI 48913 U S Nuclear RegulatiffTMaisiip*sliin
Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20555 Mr Myron M Cherry, Esq Suite 3700 Ms Mary Sinclair Three First National Plaza 5711 Summerset Street Chicago, IL 60602 Midland, MI 48640 Mr Wendell H liarshall Mr William D Paton, Esq RFD 10 Counsel for the NRC Staff e'
Midland, MI 48640 U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 g'
Mr Charles Bechhoefer, Esq Atomic Safety & Licer. sing Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U S Nuclear Regulatory Cc.nmission U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr Frederick P Cowan Ms Barbara Stamiris 6152 N Verde Trail 5795 North River Road Apt B-125 Rt 3 Boca Raton, FL 33433 Freeland, MI 48623 Mr Fred Williams Mr Jerry Harbour Isham, Lincoln & Beale Atomic Safety & Licensing 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 325 Board Panel Washington, DC 20036 U S Nuclear Regulatory Commis'sion' l
Washington, DC 20555 Mr James E Brunner, Esq Mr M I Miller, Esq Consumers Power Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale i
212 West Michigan Avenue Three First National Plaza j
Jackson, MI 49201 52nd Floor l
Chicago,-Il 60602 1
Mr D F Judd Mr John Demeester, Esq Babcock & Wilcox Dow Chemical Building
'PO Box 1260 Michigan Division Lynchburg, VA 24505-Midland, MI 48640 4
Mr Steve Gadler, Esq Ms Lynne Bernabei 2120 Carter Avenue Government Accountability Project i
St Paul, MN 55108 1901 Q Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 9/3/83
.i miO583-0429a'.00-j
.}
l 4
1 4
e
- -. M:
-i.
-.,.t
^
1
.. -. ~
q f
- ,,..~ 5 0 U
.{
$.,N-
~~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'83 HOV -1 PR:06 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-j,.,FF.g,]ggj.,
BRANCH
)
In the Maccer of:
)
Docket Nos 50-329 OM
)
50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos 50-329 OL
)
50-330 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) )
)
October 27, 1983 APPLICANT'S RESPONSES TO STAMIRIS INTERROGATORIES OF OCTOBER 11, 1983.
Note: Questions 1-5 are in the process of being answered and vill be sub-mitted at a later date.
QUESTION 6 Describe your understanding of the purpose of the May 20, 1982 meeting between r
Consumers and the NRC.
RESPONSE 6 Mr Mooney's understanding of the purpose of the May 20, 1982 meeting between i
I Consumers and the NRC, was to advise the NRC Sdaff was that it ".
. advised 1
l the NRC Staff that the duct bank was deeper than expected and explained the Company's latest plans..."
l QUESTION 7
- tat 'if any changes do you believe you should make in your prefiled testimony
=
_after having read the OI investigative reports.
i 831027 I
DA'X56CK 5000g RESPONSE 7 I
Mr Mooney does not believe any changes should be made in his prefiled testi-many after having read the OI investigative reports.
mil 083-5623A-MP03 i
a v
' ')
j 2
QUESTION 8 State your current position regarding whether or not Dr Landman told you at any time that he prohibited excavation below the Q duct bank without prior NRC i
approval.
RESPONSE 8 Mr Mooney's current position is stated in his profiled testimony.
QUESTION 9 Explain how the May 25, 1982 Memorandum approves excavation of the deep Q duct bank, as referenced on Page 15 of the Supplemental OI Report.
RESPONSE 9 The above referrace appears on Page 14 of the Supplemental OI Report and is being answered based on that premise.
l 4
1 l
The letter to Harold R Denton from J W Cook dated May 10, 1982, "ASLB Soils 1
1 Order" states in part, ".
. Remedial soils work previously approved by the NRC is continuing. Concurrence as to the scope of this work was obtained from Mr Darl Hood, and is as defined below:
... I.c. freeze wall installation, underground utility protection, soil removal cribbing and related work in support of the freeze wall installation, freeze wall monitoring and freeze wall activation..."
t i
mil 083-5623A-MP03 i
- i m
e
e
+
~5 3
The letter to J W Cook from D G Eisenhut dated May 25, 1982, " Completion of Scils Remedial Activities Review," responding to the May 10, 1982 letter states in Enclosure 4:
the Staff agrees that prior explicit concur-l rence for the activities listed by Paragraph I.c. of CP Co's letter, May 10, 1982 had been obtained from the Staff..."
i QUESTION 10 i
Identify all discussions, conversations, meetings or communications which l
mention, or refer to any way the following:
1 1
i a.
Dr Landsman had been called'to the Midland Site to inepect the deep Q duct j
bank before activation of the freezewall; i
b.
A need existed to stop the water flow beneath the deep Q duct bank; c.
the necessity to excavate to impervious ground beneath the duct bank; d.
QA planning determined the need for " sheeted pic" down to the duct bank; concern with " recharging"_ the zone below the deep Q duct bank; j
e.
f.
changes to the design of the duct bank or method of excavation of the duct i
i
. bank, for the period March 1.1982 through September 30, 1982;_
g.
deepening or exposing the deep Q duct bank, for the period March-1,1982 through September 30, 1982.
RESPONSE 10 s.
)k Savo had possession.of the following communications regarding NRC
- inspection before activation of the freezewall:
mil 083-5623A-MP03 k
g d
9
l
]
4 June 4,1982 letter from Don Horn to Messrs Bird, Marguglio and Dietrich (attachment 6 to Weil Report dated September 12, 1983).
OCR #0159 memorializes a conversation between Mr Savo and John Fisher; Mr Savo does not recall how or when he obtained the information conveyed.
(Copy attached) i
}
April 1, 1982 memo from Al Boos refers to audit by I&E of freezewall; I
,l Mr Savo was not present for the meetings which were the subject of this l
document.
(Copy attached) f Mr Savo does not recall any other specific cony'ersations, discussiens or
.s.
meetings concerning this subject.
b.
Mr Savo had possession of the following communications: A document
-l entitled, " Meeting March 12, 1983," refers to the propoced grout curtain which involved stopping the water flow beneath the deep Q duct bank; Mr Savo does n,c recall who published the document and does not' recall if he was present at that meeting.
(Copy attached)
The April 1, 1982 memo from Al Boos references procedures concerning l
stopping the water flow.- (Copy attached) l r
i l.
Mr'Sevo may have had a number of routine work related conversations which i
I couched upon this subject, however, he has no present recollection as to
.j any such specific conversation,' discussion.or meetings..
mil 083-5623A-MP03
. i:
l,'
e
.j
m J
c.
The April 1,1982 memo frca Al Boos ms;' refer to this subject.
f Mr Savo may have had a number of routine work related conversacier which included this subject, however, he has no present recollection as to any j
such specific conversations, discussions or meetings.
l i
d.
Mr Savo does not recall any disev.ssions, conversations, meetings or communications relating to the statement that "QA planning determaced the need for ' sheeted pic' down to the duct bank."
QA was not responsible for "fetermining the need" for a sheeted pit; the need was determined by the i
design group. Mr Savo may have become aware of the need for a sheeted pit i
l through routine job site meetings and conversations; however, he does not recall the specifics of any such meetings or conversstions.-
Mr Savo does not recall any discussions, conversations, meetings or e.
communications relating to the " concern with ' recharging' the zone below 4
the deep Q duct bank." To Mr Savo's kncvledge, there was not a concern regarding " recharging" ths zone below the deep Q duct bank, hevever, there was a concern regarding preventing the " recharging" of the area inside the 1
3
'reezevall. Mr Savo may have become aware of this latter concern from routine job site meetings and conversations, however, he does not recall i
I
.the specifics of any such meetings or conversations.
f.
Mr Savo and his group would have become aware of some design changes.
through their review cl draefugs and processing of Project Inspection l
l Plans and Reports (PIPR). Mr Savo does.not recall any specific'drevings-
~l mil 083-5623A-MP03 i
. ~ ~
I
T I
6' '
or PIPR's except: PIPR C-26F, Rev 0; PIPR C-26F, Rev 1; PIPR C-26I, Rev 0 i
(copies attached); and the April 1, 1982 memo from Al Boos. Mr Savo may have become aware of some changes 'in design through routine job site meetings and conversations, however, he does not recall the specifics of any such meeting or conversation.
g.
Mr Savo does not recall any discussions, conversations, meetings or communicacions relating to " deepening.
. the deep Q duct bank."
It is i
j Mr Savo's understanding that the elevation of deep Q duct bank was in-canded to and remained the same, i
I To the best of Mr Savo's recollection, the exposure of the deep Q duct bank was part of the work necessary for the activation of the freezewall,
[
therefore, the documents referred to in subsections (a)-(f), above, may I
refer to this subject. Mr Savo may also have become aware of the excava-tion and exposure of the deep Q duct bank through routine job site l
l meetings, conversations or QA planning activities, however, he does not
{
recall the specifics of any such meeting, conversation or planning l
activity.
i I
l QUESTION 11 Explain the factual basis for your'" belief that NRC..CPC or BPC had not finalized the plans for the deep Q duct bank at the time of the additional excavation."
i
.i.
mil 083-5623A-MP03
.4~
I a_j
7 i.
r 7
RESPONSE 11 Mr Savo believes that the statement contained in this question is the result of a nisunderstanding. Mr Savo's recollection is that Mr Weil asked him a question concerning why construction stopped after the Phase II excavation below the Deep Q duct bank had been completed. In response, nr Savo believes that he stated his recollection of events at that time to be that the design of the backfill (i.e., what type of material to use) was still in flux due to geotechnical considerations by NRR.
'l Although neicher Mr Savo nor his grcup bad responsibility for tracking NRC approvals, Mr Savo's belief that the NRR had not concurred in the design.of
+
the backfill below the deep Q duct bank is based on his general recollection of the Friday job site meetings and other general conversations on site.
Mr Savo has no specific rreollection of the details of any of the meetings and conversations mentioned above.
4 QUESTION 12 Identify all conversations, communications, discussions or meetings relating i
}
to obczining NRC approval for excavation of the deep Q duct bank or the construction of the free:ewall.
I a.
between yourself and the NRC; and b.
between yourself and Consumer and Bechtel.
T mil 083-5623A-MP03
,l
e-6 RESPONSE 12 a.
Mr Seve has no present recollection of any conversation, concunication or discussion with the NRC concerning approvals for excavation of the deep Q duct bank or for construction of the freezewall.
Mr Savo may have attended some NRC exit meeting.? during the applicable time period, however, he has no recollection of attending any meeting at which the obtaining of NRC approvals was discussed.
Neither Mr Savo nor his group had any responsibility for obtaining appro-f vals from the NRC during the applicable time period.
b.
Mr Sevo was present for some Friday job site meetings which discussed gener.al NRC approvals and restraints, however, he has no recollection of any meeting where the obtaining of NRC approvals fcr excavation of the -
i deep Q duct bank or for construction of the freezewall were specifically discussed.
4 1
Mr Savo had possession of the following communications which may relate to j
the obtaining of NRC approvals for excavation of the deep Q duct bank or for construction of the freezewall:
0CR #0159 memorializes a conversation between Mr Savo and John Fisher on
~
April 8, 1982; Mr Sevo does not recall how or when he obtained the inform-l 1
acion conveyed.
(Copy attached)
I I
i
-i A
i j
j mil 083-5623A-MP03 l
6
[g.
v fAf'
~
li m
' JALs
m 9
1 A document entitled, " Meeting March 12, 1982 " was sent to Mr Savo; he does not recall who published the document and does not recall if he was present at that meeting.
(Copy attached)
Mr Savo was sent a copy of the June 4, 1982 letter from Don Horn to Messrs 3ird, Marguglio and Dietrich which conveyed the minutes of the May 21, 1982 NRC exit meeting.
(See Attachmen. 6 to the Weil Report dated September 12, 1983.)
i l
{
To the best of Mr Sevo's recollection, he may have had routine job site discussions with numerous people during the applicable time period. He does not specifically recall if any of these conversations dealt with the obtaining of NRC approvals for excavation of the deep Q duct bank or for construction of the freezevall.
QUESTION 13 Explain the fsecual basis for the statement that the May 20, 1982 notes meant "the method of accomplishing the tapervious zone beneath the deep duct bank had not been approved, " referred to on Page 21.
t t
l RESPONSE 13
'l The statement contained in this question does not appear-on Page 21, however,-
it does appear on Page 23.
The answer to this question is based on the statement appetring on Page 23.
3 i
,i I
mil 083-5623A-MP03 i
I I
~
3, 10 Mr Savo's recollection is that as of May 20, 1982, the NRR was reviewing the design for accomplishment of Phase II, which was the creation of an impervious zone below the deep Q duct bank, and had not given its approval at that time (May 20, 1982).
QUESTION 14 Explain the following portions of your typed and handwritten notes for the May l
21, 1982 Remedial Soils Meeting:
I i
a.
" target freeze activation on Wednesday, May 26, 1982";
b.
" Pit 4 critical";
c.
" Clear space duct bank... Brien Palmer";
d.
"have QA... look at all pits for any quality concern before Dr Landsman looks at them.
- l RESPONSE 14 1
To the best of Mr Savo's recollection, the following is an explanation of his j
notes of May 21, 1982, which were made from a QA point of view:
I 4
The scheduling goal was to activate the freezewall on Wednesday, May 26 a.
1982.
i
- i b.
Pit 4 was the pit which provided the interface between the deep Q duct bank and the freezewall. Pit 4 was " critical" from the standpoint that it 4
had several outstanding items which had to be completed prior to the NRC
+
j j
inspecting the freezawall and giving its authorization to activate the f
l freezewall.
l mil 083-5623A-MP03' I
L
-b,,
4
,^,
11 c.
This item indicated a notification to Brien Palmer to assure, during the overinspection activities, that the required clear space was present beneath the deep Q duct bank. The clear space was a designed gap between the bottom of the deep Q duct bank and the existing soil prior to freeze-vall activation.
d.
This item is a notification to the QA overinspection group (Brien Palmer) to conduct a review of all pits to assure accomplishment of all quality p
l inspection, quality overinspections and the completion of all other open l
quality items before the NRC inspection of the monitoring pits.
NOTE: Mr Sevo's answers to interrogatories numbered 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 do not include information already provided in the Weil Report, dated September 1-2, 1983.
QUESTION 15 Explain the Diagram on Page 3 of the attachments.co the May 11, 1982 Ronk i
Memorandum, including but not limited to the meaning of the following:
a.
zone numbers listed; b.
codes used and/or listed; c.
planning schedule caption; 4
l d.
" sups soils, Consumers Power Company" in third top box from left; and-(
e.
initials "DRF 5/11/82" at bottom lef t corner of page.
Describe the purpose of this document.
l' "71083-5623A-MP03
- ).
S y
.+
12 1
RESPONSE 15 a.
Zone numbers allow graphically displaying the schedule information in an organized fashion. The number shown has no intrinsic meaning.
b.
Codes (called activity numbers) are used to organize the information in the computer files. The numbers are arbitrarily selected.
c.
The caption " Planning Schedule" is a standard title that is used with the i
" PROJECT /2" software program.
I d.
The words "SWPS SOIL CONSUNIRS POWER COMPANT" appearing in the third top
~
box from the left are cities that were entered into the program for this network before the network was used for the remadial soils detailed i
schedule or 90 day revolving schedule. The netwcrk was originally in-conded to model just the Service Water Pump Structure (SWPS) soils activi-ties.
The initials DFR 5/11/82 were placed on the document to indicate that it e.
was prepared under Mr Ronk's supervision and issued on May 11, 1982.
I QUESTION 16 f
Identify all activities or work listed in your May 11, 1982 memorandum that I
nad been submitted to the NRC for approval prior to May 11, 1782.
Identify all documents which refer, mention or evidence such prior submission of work and activities to_NRC for approval prior to May 11, 1982.
RESPONSE 16 Objection.
i l
mil 083-5623A-MP03 l
1
!r
~
m 13 l
1 1
l OUESTION 17 Identify all discussions, conversations, meetings, or communications with Mr Wheeler, Mr Schaub or Mr Mooney in period from March 1, 1982 through j
September 20, 1982 concerning:
a.
the daep Q duct bank; and b.
the relocation of the fireline, i
RESPONSE 17 Mr Ronk is not able to recall the time, place, participants or nature of any conversstion with Mr Wheeler, Mr Schaub, or Mr Mooney between March 1, 1982 and September 20, 1982 regarding the Deep Q duct bank and the relocation of the fireline.
QUESTION 18 j
Identify all meetings, discussicas, conversations,and communications between i
Consumers, Bechtel and Mergentine relating to activities and/or items to be covered by the ASLB Order, including but not limited to the May 5, May 6 and May 7, 1982 meetings referred to in May 11, 1982 Schaub Memorandum.
I RESPONSE 18 Objection, l
?
(
l i
mil 083-5623A-MP03 l
'1.,
T l
l 14 OUESTION 19 Zdentify all activities determined by Consumers or by Bechtel, during the period from April 30, 1982 through September 30, 1982, to be covered by the ASLB Order.
t Identify all documents v fch relate to, mention or refer to in any way the activities listed above.
i i
RESPONSE 19 i
Objection.
OUESTION 20 For the period March 1, 1982 to September 30, 1982, identify the person or persons responsible for determining (a) whether or not a certain work activity must receive NRC approval, and (b) whether an activi:7 or work is covered by the ASL3 Order, t
RESPONSE 20 Prior to April 30, 1980 the informal agreement between the Company and the NRC I
dictated which activities needed approval. After the April-30, 1980 Order.
l the Order defined those activities which needed approval. This May 5 confer-l ence call further delineated those activities requiring approval.
l l
l Mr Ronk's job description did not include keeping track of approvals,
,f therefore, he has no knowledge as to this subject.
mil 083-5623A-MP03
't w
G v
15 OUESTION 21 Explain why the June 23, 1982 and June 30, 1982 Soils Progress Schedule Status Reports include an asterisk indicating NRC review is required for both
" complete deep Q duct bank" and "relocats fire protection pipeline."
State all reason for removal and/or omission of the asterisk from these two activities from the July 7. July 14. July 21, and July 28, 1982 Soils Progress j
Schedule Status Reports.
I.
RESPONSE 21 The asterisk associated with " complete deep Q duct bank" was an indication that approval was needed for the permanent backfill of the excavation.
The asterisk associated with " relocate fire proteccion pipeline" was an indication that this new item of planned work was not yet approved.
l Mr R'onk and Mr Schaub do not remember exactly why the asterisks were removed.
I t
i l
QUESTION 22 Identify all person (s) responsible for determining:
which activities in the Status Reports required NRC approval; j
a.
b.
which activities listed in the Status Reports should be marked with an
. asterisk; c.
which activities should have asterisk removed; d.
which activities had received prior or required NRC approval.
t
' mil 083-5623A-MP03 l
\\
\\
~ '
~
4 16 I
RESPONSE 22 J R Schaub was responsible.
OUESTION 23 Explain all reasons for your refusal to or declination to provide a written statement to NRC investigators regarding the Office or Investigation investi-gations into violation of the ASLB Order.
I
~
RESPONSE 23 Mr Schaub did not believe that it was necessary to provide a written statement because he had already been interviewed by the investigators extensively and he felt that a written statement would be superfluous.
OUESTION 24 Describe the preparation of the Soils Progress Schedule Status Reports,
{
including the following:
a.
identification of all persons preparing tha reports; b.
all persons reviewing the reports; f
I c.
all persons who received the reports; and d.
all-persons who used the reports in any manner.
i i
.f i
Tor all such persons listed in subpart (d) above, state the use he/she made of the reports.
i mil 083-5623A-MP03
17 RESPONSE 24 a.
D F Ronk prepared the report, he was assisted by others within the sched-uling department; i
b.
The report was reviewed by J R Schaub; c.
R B Landsman and the persons listed as carbon copy recipients are the only f
peeple who the report was sent to; d.
R B Landsman was sent the report for purposes of planning his site visits relative to the status of construction.
OUESTION 25 i
Describe how the Short Term Action Plans were prepared o
a.
before June 31, 1983; and j
b.
after June 31, 1982.
I List all reasons for changing their method of preparation.
RESPONSE 25 Since there are only 30 days in June, this answer is based on a reference date.
of June 30, 1982. The short term action plans were prepared by David Ronk t
j before June 30, 1982. Af ter June 30, 1982, Dave Ronk and Jerome Koscielney i
jointly prepared the short term actico plans. Mr Kostielney was responsible for finding out the start and finish dates of the proposed work and to prepare the draft of the short term action plans to be approved by John Schaub. -.The reason for changing the method of preparation.vas to get'Jerome Kostielney
. involved in the soils work.
mil 083-5623A-MT03
.T
' '1
~
)
18 i
l l
OUESTION 26 Explain the method of determining which work activities were asterisked in these reports.
1 Identify all persons who participated in any way in the determination or whether or not to asterisk a particular work activity.
f RESPONSE 26 l
Work activities on the short term action plan were first updated and prepared on a dratt. The draft was then reviewed by Dave Ronk and/or John Schaub.
j Jerome Kostielney was then directed by John Schaub and/or Dave Ronk to put an i
asterisk by the appropriate work activities. Participants involved in putting i
I asterisks by work activities were John Schaub and Dave,Ronk.
QUESTION 27 Explain your understanding of the follovir.',qptatement when you received the July 8.1982 Memorand2m from Ronk, referenced on,Pages 28 and 29 of the i
Supplemental 01 Investigation: " Jerry please make sure that appropriate l
l t
activities get 2n*."
l i
Identify any reason (s) Ronk gave for writing this statement in his. memorandum l
of July 8, 1982.
l l
RESPONSE 27 I
This statement was just a reminder to make sure that appropriate activities got an asterisk.
~
mil 083-5623A-HT03 r
~
..~*..,
m 19 i
OCESTION 28 i
Explain what you meant when you stated to NRC investigators, "It's on there I assume I got the information," which is referenced on Page 29 of the Supple-t mental OI Report.
RESPONSE 28 Mr Koscielney does not recall making a statement "it's on there I assume I got the information." This statement means to him that if an asterisk was placed by a work activity, he would assume he got the information from John Schaub and/or Dave Ronk to put it on the report.
OUESTION 29 Describe your duties or responsibilities related to determining what activi-ties require NRC approval.
Describe your duties and responsibilities with respect to determine whether l
any activity listed in the Soils Project Schedule, Status Reports or the Short '
Term Action Plans i
a.
require prior NRC approval; and 1
b.
should be asterisked.
RESPONSE 29 Mr Kostielney assumes that this question refers to his responsibilities at.the time he was involved in preparing the short term action plans. His responsi-1 3
1 1 j
mil 083-5623A-MP03 i-
~
s 4
p
)
20 bility was to place an asterisk by an activity under the direction of John Schaub and/or Dave Ronk.
1 I
QUESTION 30 Describe your understanding of " minor excavation" as Mr Wheeler used it in describing the agreement between himself and Dr Landsman referenced on Page 31 of the OI Supplemental Report.
t t
4 RESPONSE 30 Because Mr Wieland was not working directly with excavation permits or work permits at the time of the incident which is the subject of alleged Board
._a Order violation, he was aware only in general terms of an arrangement between Dr Landsman and SMO personnel whereby some excavations were informally re-viewed af edr work had begun. Mr Wieland did not h' ave a precise understanding of the details of the arrangement at that time, however, since that time, this i
subject has been the topic of discussions. Mr Wieland's present understanding is that major excavations were work activities such as underpinning the auxiliary building and service water building; minor excavations were items of i
f lesser magnitude than the examples noted above.
.i i
.]
i I
i OUESTION 31 l
Identify all documents you read or reviewed prior to approving the excavation permits for the fireline relocation and deep Q bank excavation.
q r
f
' mil 083-5623A-MP03 i
l 1
'N i
21 identify whst portiva of these documents indicate the NRC gave prior approval l
l for the activity and/or that prior NRC approval was not required for the activity.
RESPONSE 31 Mr Murray signed the excavation permit for the deep Q duct bank only; he i
signed the work permit for the fireline relocation.
As to the fireline relocation, Mr Murray recalls that there was no documenta-tion which specifically dealt with the relocation. Since the activity covered under the Board order was the excavation in Q soils, it was Mr Murray's understanding that this activity was minor and therefore covered in the Wheeler-Landsman agreement. Mr Murray also recalls that prior to signing the work permit, he telephoned John Schaub to confirm the above reasoning.
Mr Murray does not specifically recall-signing the excavation permit for the i
deep Q duct bank nor does he recall any specific document which he reviewed.
e t
QUESTION 32 i
Describe all changes in the plans for the deep Q duct bank, including the
}
following:
r i.
a.
person suggesting the change; b.
person authorizing the change; 1
c.
time when change adopted; and d.
the reason / rationale for the change.
mil 083-5623A-HT03 i
p v
N
l l
N N
i
/
22 i
i Identify all documents constituting, mentioning, referring to or relating in any way to the above mentioned changes.
i RESPONSE 32 Mr Murray has no knowledge of the rationale for, who suggested, or,who authored, the changes in the deep Q duct bank design. This information is 1
outside the scope of his job description, QU*dSTION 33 i
Identify all Consumers or Bechtel investigations into the alleged violation of l
f the Board Order or the manner in which the Office of-Investigations' investi-gations were conducted.
J l
Identify all reports or other documents related to such Consumers or Bechtel investigations.
s i
RESPONSE 33
{
Consumers ' Power Company attorneys, J E Brunner and V P Provenzano, were present, either-jointly or individually, for most et the interviews conducted
-- a j
by Mr Weil as part of his supplemental investigation. Mr Brunner, I
{
Mr Provenzano and F C Williams (Consumers' attorney from Isham, Lincoln and Beale) conducted a number of follow-up interviews.
l Mr Brunner was also present during the interviews conducted by Mr Weil for the
-initial investigation; he also conducted follow-up interviews.
~I mil 083-5623A-UP03
't l
'.I!
l g :.
i OCR #0159 Pao;t Cis, t NG mit m.t.:
j a
0:*.**.* ~ 1*1 AND CCNSTRUC?tCN -
O, ' !L ORAL COMMUNICATIONS RECORD ems.rn: w 0.4.9.20.1 i
CAS-0 rc: ) er 1
- E Al8l82
- n.we rt's:~u w =a msvu
,,,; y ew_.:.,u::m J Tisher - Remedial Soils Manager 24:00 PM m wugs)
( ;-sz:rcc:L = :m r H ~ ~"
l
' v.uor. rs
=
NiiC for oe.missio'n "to activate the freeze wall. M iv:.1-s L:c/cm sx= s 2:seca.s Mseussion with the l
i I
CPCs and Bechtel personnel had made a request to the NRC to allow partial
. x f.,;.y c=.it.u:::
e..- iv.stior. cf the free, vall leavine windows (unfrozen enes) at i.itersectiens with the t
i c-taried utilities.
t l
?.e NRC denied this request and stated that approval vill not be granted until the pits ereund the C utilities had been ecmpleted and ins;:ection by Dr R f.andsman of the NRC.
N-ission to activate the freeze vall vill be considered af ter these conditions have been
.et.
Ib ca-tial activation will be considered.
CO All Civil QAIs (KPCAD) h Td:ro, P14-41c A A *?cos. Eachtel-AA ANe rich, Bechtel-Midland
, N oar. Eechtel-Midland Sr.irker. Sechtel-Midland
- ~^.*- ?elie. Midiand
'!.*ce.e y, P14 -115 A l
SS 5e 5. F13-309A (04S5.16 File) i
!.'Swanborg, Eechtel-AA I
F & ve. Midl and 1
's I
g h
t 1
I s
s
-9 w _, _ _ _ _
T2Ec'D 412/82
-(LT2 c
- MEMO, FROM-AL BOOS
- c.c.:
1h.A To: Re=edial Soils Group MS Phases I and II Open Ite=s Dg6 to Summert Const uetion gg A two-day work session was held on KEN Tuesday, March 30, and 'Jed esday, gcq March 31, 1982, to develop a list of all open ite=s required to be TN co=pleted for Phase I work, and
,K'3R j
to support Phase II work.
g Attached is a listing of ite=s NS discussed. This list vill be JM b^
..,. g,
discussed fur.her at the,veekly ET re=edial soils schedule review meeting on Friday, April 2,1982.
$lT 2>MCTE:MGWh bCW -
AJ3/ket DES 4/1/.82 W% BE biscussdb, )
4g um nac, en Attach =ent MN v;;m R.S e
O Q o900VP4
.k. 3 E C E / 'l E a /y APR OG 10gg &y
!, ifC 10 NCE D
e 4
e
=
4 1
~
's~
1-
'sted belev are the.ain topics reviewed for preparatics of the 4
list':
I.
NRC items A.
NRC staff B.
I&E II.
E=gineering design releases (dravings, specifications, and consultant interface)
III. Material procure = ant IV. Procedure developnen:
V.
Inspection plans VI.
Construction l
1 1
e f
e 5
e 9
i 4
e 4
9 9
8 8
d 6
en 6
e a,
w
"r 4
s
~T
- 2'-
~
[htse I i
Scope - Free:evall, g;oundwater control.
FIV? jacking, access shaft to 609 feet, partial instrunenta:1en installation.
I.
KRC items 1
~~
~~
A.
Freezevall - Utility protection audit by I & E (Can va partial free =e? Flash
"~
3.
Croundwater control - No open ite=s freeze utility i
vindows?)
l C.
FIVP jacking - No open itens t
D.
Access shaft to 609 feet - No open items E.
Partial instrumentation installaciens 1.
Supply copy of C-1493 to NRC 2.
Details of strain monitoring systen for concrete and steel fr= 'as bea= a 659 II.
Engineeri=g design releases J
A.
Free:evall - DCis to C-1315 and 1.316 for shallow and deep utility protec: ion i
3.
Croundwater control 1.
Release of hold on dug C-(ej ectors south.of turbine building) 2.
Supply of veil data by Bechtel project engineer to Mergentime W
C.
FIVP jacking i
. Release cf dvg C-1494 1.
2.
Revise spec C-193 to allev vork to proceed on crack r.apping? IFC only for instr an: ins:alla:1cn 3.-
Engineering approval cf jack locations D.
Access shaft to 609 fee:
No cpen ite=s
-E.
Partial instrc=entation 1.
Issue dug' C-1493 for construction l
2.
Issue dvg C-1490 and 1491 fer addition of ninth DSTM 3.
Issue des C-vith 1 7:in cnincring det-ils (concrete s: rain and s: eel bea: a: 659 f: and 614'ft) i l
4.-
k'JE design details for racevay, vire. pulling, and ter=inations. to re=ove nanasenent stop vork L
,b k
g 3,,
!!I.'
Material procure =ent A.
Tree:evall - Utility protection =aterial by Mergentime 3.
Groundwater contrcl ' No open items i
k C.
TIV? jacking i
t 1.
Delivery of jacks (Mergentina)
I.
2.
Letter fro: MPQAD on acceptance of, jack =anufacturers' calibration program D.
Access shaft to 609 feet - No open ite=s E.
Partial instrumentation 1
i 1.
WJI procure =ent of strain =enitoring hardware 2.
Thermocouple.and vire (who buys?)
IV.
Procedure development A.
Free evall Procedures for shallev utility protection installation i
Soldier piles Eze and lagging Surcharg12.g Rebar & concrete
- 1 1.
Procedures for deep utility protection installation a.
driving sheet pile b.
instl of vales c.
excavation j
i.
around utility 11.
= ass exenvatics
_.l d.
contingency procedure for closure at top of.
clay under duct I
e.
concrete placement B.. Groundwater control (ejectors) - Resubmit and approve -
procedure for ejector installation using integrated inspection concept j'
-C.
TIYP jacking !- Issunnee of ' procedure OPa2 for errek utppi ; cud : enitering vi'l have to b2 in the in t9 rated for=at l ^
D.- Access. chaft to 609 feet
- No' epen ite=s t-I, a
r i
i
.t-
'"~
L.
ag i
9
^
l E.
Partial instrumen=ation 1
1.
Resub=1::a1 of WJZ procedures OP38 and 39 in inte5 rated vc:E plan 2.
Sub=1::a1 and approval of procedures OP40 (data processing) and O?41 (emergency plan) i 3.
Sub=1ttal and approval of procedure for strain monitoring hardware installa:Lon (integrated fo:ma:)
{
l T.
Inspection plans 1.
Freezevall - For utility protection installation l
B.
Groundwate control - No open ite:8 l
C.
FIV? jacking l
l 1.
Need overinspection plan for crack =apping
~}
2.
Kead inspection plan for jackd g D.
Access shaft to 609 feet - No open items.
I.
Partial inst:.:=entation 1.
Field inspection plan for racevay installation 2.
Field inspection plan for cable pulling 3.
Field inspection plan for ter=ina:1ons 4.
Revisions.co ?QCI-6.0 for i=st: =:ent installation inspection 5.
Inspection plan for strain monitoring hardware l
VI.
Construe:1on status A.
Should be included is above l
i
!t b
e h
f
-I
!1
.e s, wwa
-m f
.a.
-5,-
)
cs TP.C itens fa- '
'* l!.. 22 cud 3 I.
Phase 2A A.
Plan for pier. lead test during Phase 1A or plate load test in adj acent area prior to Phase li (not a restraint 3
l to construction) 3.
Plans for local groundvater control - restraint to 1A i.
C.
CPCo letter to NRC on QA philosophy, 3/,30/82 (hand carried)
D.
Basis for total settlements since 1977 piping connection E.
Criteria for connecting 2-inch % stea= generator drain lines i
F.
Provide results of 70 vs 30 kcf study for structural j-effects en aristing be41d4mg (2Q3) i II.
Phase 3 A.
Construction sequence i
3.
Develop tolerances for building move =ent based on 70 kef j
C.
Provide acceptance criteria for strain monitoring D.
Provide acceptance criteria for DMD 11,12, and 13 at el. 705 t
E.
'trovide increased reading frequency for fastrumentation for critical construction stages during Phase 3 (includes def of what the critical stages are)
F.
Provide results of loss of support study under IPA during j
long turbine building drif t ins:tlictica
-f III.
Phase la and B A.
Engineering design releases - Unless stated otherwise, dvgs are issued for construction:- If necessary, holds for construction vill be shown on Phase 23 vork, where j
Phase 2A and 3 vork are shown on the sa=e dvs.
Forecast I.
Is:uu icgic dugs 142' and 14'* '
31/E2 F i
C.
Issue dvss'C-1422 4/16/82 C-1423 4/16/82 C-1424 4/23/82
'C-1430 - lagging details fer ke p'iers 4/23/82_(3/31/52 C-1445 4/23/52 he eGur*4 e
ewehe'*-
NoI
' y;,
a
s s,
j Forecas:
C-1445-1 4/23/32 C-1445-2 4/23/32 C-1417 4/09/82 C-1417-1 4/09/S2 C-1427 1, 2, and 3 (for fab 3/31) 3/31/82 IFF opposite hand 1436 --
C-1434 4/23/82 IFC D.
Issue spec C-195, C-200Q, G-33 (ecuplers, grouts, sliding plates, echafoa=-grout f or piers-), C-208 (incorporating C-195) 1 IV.
Material procurenant l
A.
Steel sets I
B.
Sliding plates C.
Ithafos=
D.
Metal lagg1=g for ke piers E.
Jacks for ke piars F.
Delivery of jacks 1
C.
Grout I
E.
Pier instru=entation hardware (taltales, tubes, j
centering devices, gauges, etc.)
I.
Subcentract for ground stab'i' arion J.
GEE subcontract for rebar detailing, fabrication and installation V.
Procedures 4
A.
Prioriry - required i=sediately i
Procedure Descrie:1ee Procedure developnent (Q) 41 Welding procedure (Q) 15 Eandling and storage of nacerials (Q) 14
- u:2iry training tre r.m= (Q) i Docu=ent centrol (Q) 3.
Priority - requirad for drifts and pier shafts
~
Procedure' 3e---d--'en 12 Field fabrication of structural steel-(Q)
Note:
L 47 Continge:cy plan for ground loss (Q)
Is this inclu:
Devatering of local pockets (Q)
.in spec C-200; Construct 1os of access pits and drif ts -
and pier sh:f ts (Q)
- r'.'litt nd inst:111es rcch enci ers -
and ccptasion a:ch::s (Q) 17
-Renoval S3 structural and lean concrete (Q)'
gj 9
e e
~.
5 e -
,k
+
f
. c-3 7-C.
Priori:y - required for pier construe:Lon Procedure Descriptien 40 Placing and field bending rebar (Q) 32 Mechanical splicing of rebar* (Pox Hewle:
and Cadwelds) (Q)
Placing =iscellaneous i= bedded steel (Q)
Placanent of Pier concrete (Q) 11-1 Sandblasting (Q)
Installation of jacking p,la:es and stands (Q)
Load transfer for piers (excluding centrol tower) (Q)
Pabrication and threading of rebar (Q) 21 Repair of concrete (Q) f D.
Priority - other j
Procedure Descrietion 45 Concrete core drilling (Q) 9 Cons::ue:1cn of ac. cess shaf belev el. 609 (Q) 30 Drypacking (Q) 28 Grouting O
a 8
t l
1 i
i l
i i
i
l T
Heeting 3/12/82 QA Action Items:
(1 ) MPQA focal point for any more non-Q activities to be subnitted to the NRC.
(2 ) Q-plan for Spec. C-195 needs to be redone due to Wednesday meeting with NRC.
l (3) Q-plan for Spec. C-194 also needs to be revised per NRC l
meeting.
(4 )
NRR, Joe Cain, wants details on grout curtain proposed for area of freeze wall with deep duct bank.
(i) G&H subcontract to f abricate[ rebar will be non-Q.
QC will inspect f abrication activities.
(6 ) Jagdish -- the pressure grouting of the bNst cracks will be a "Q" order and "Q" procedure / drawings required per J. Merrey.,
{
(7) Call to NRC -- Don Horn to proof notes and distribute.
I (see attached sheetf prior to j
(8) The NRC has some restrictions I
start of Phase 2 activities.
Items attached to this QA list (to DEH only).
(1 ) Rough notes (2) Previous notes and action list i
(3) Non-Q list l
1 (a) Phase 2 (b) Completed activities
[
1 l
(4 ) Spec and drawing register remedials (5) Detailed schedule marked up i
7k (6) Activities listing required to start Phase 2 t
L j-
- 17) Schedule review meeting (8) NRR commitments prior to stait of Phase 2
]
j T
l t
d#
f
P ACJECT S. E N S::i!! K a.~
INSPEC 10N P. \\N
~
PR J.ErT-oman...c=s:a==,~ -m s:1 u u m 1.c i~=
i
.,. e-,.,
s
.. E!On AND REPORT r.: w u _
o m.1 r.:ne; ::: sit =1:3 unt.: se:
racn= ns?t=:cs r:.As.so:
n:u:
C-26F Installa:ica Inspection of Shee: Piles i
rzv: 0 f er Deep Q - Duct-3an -
' ;.t..T:
rdcJECI:
PEPA3J' BY/ ATE:
ROVID Y/DA;I:
s
- I*
Y'O,*02
l l
N/A Midland Units 1 & 2 j *-WW 4/Wlfg
.J y/t s/f 7,._
CN l
{ =ar:
Q
- /
CEAAA IR CMARACHT.1SU C D 3:K17 U OW t
IN1; 5 OATE a
1.0 PF.IREOUISITIS
.1.1 Prior :o installa:ica of shee: piles for 195-53-1 t
dee;i Q-due: bank all supe:visory s:r.ff c:
5.1,3.3,3.5 4
his designee shall be trained. All traini:y; sessien.s shall be docu=ented V/R - EP.100 Verify :he accep:a:$ce cf the subsequen/
C195-53-1 1.2 revisiens to shep drawing F7220-C-19548(1) 4.4
-1 are reviewed by M?QAD/QC pric: to i=ple=enza:ica v/R - E? - 100
~
2.0 INSTA1.1ATION OF SEEET PIlIS i
i 2.1 While :hreading :he adjacen; h e: piles C195-53-1 every c her sheet shall be p.lu= bed in 7.4 accordance with :he ref cref3ed drawings Shop Drawing l
and tack-velded :o the kla:e.
77220-C195 -
58(1) l V/R I? - S
[. 2 Pile driving shall be stopped at l'- 6" f r en Shop drawing top.of Q Dud:-bank.
T7220-C195-SS(1) j py,y,;a3:
References:
Shov avint: F7220 - C-lo5 - 5B(1) i Pr cedure:
77220 - C-lo5 1 4.4.. $
n-, s c_ n, e m.... i
/
/
d
.;;A:>2:7tN;5 :
I
.m.::, a n /:.m:
}..,un:mau:
4 e
m
-~s p
r w
~ e -;
~ S.
PROJECTS. ENtidI E RIN r ~ ' ces="
P RO~J F T 'IN. S P. F C Tl n h.'
PL A. Bt cuau;r assui;Arett :EPARTMitiT
.f, peggt v
v.
cw;m R l- 'O R 1 u.:u_or.2 AND.
l ou,.,
.: t:; :ssrc =tes r.t:: n so:
non: ssitnics rt.A.s xo:
C-26F trv 0 r w.citt tzrttex:t
- Rrv.r.s
.. yo-cEAAAc:IIIS:tC DISC 11rTioX gggg. s/DATI 1
{
2.3-Verify that the piles are' driven 5' to 20' C195-53-1 at a time and to approxi=ately the same 7.6
.l.ev..el.
v7R L'IP - S 2.4 kerify that the piles are driven to the C195-53-1
' design'. depth as shesa in the referenced 7.6 drawings, i,ttili:ing " Double acting ha==er."
ir/R - I? '- S
/
2.5 Yerify that if obstructions prevent' driving C195-53-1 of' sheet piles,. the piles surrounding 7.6 du..ct.-bank are. driven to the desired eleva-t t,1ons as dete=ined by the subcontractor,
-supervision.
t V/R L I? - S i
3.0 QUld.In*- CONTROL INS?ECTION & RECORDS
/
N /
3.1 Reviev QC inspection records including. >
Bechtel QC acou FIR-MPC NetTh' to verif y they are co=plete,j -
' rete and up-to-date.
^
- R-I?/?? - S 3.2 Reviev quality centrol training. records PSP G-8.1 4
th'aE QC personnel perf or=ing these inspec-Para 9.3 tions are' trained.
t R - IP /?? - S Verif y the QCE perf c:=ance c! inspection Bec'hte1 QC l
. l. 3.
I aetivities FIR-MFC-34 I
V I? /?? - S i
I l.,
l l
l l
i l
l l
~
T PROJECTS, E Nein g! AtNe A
c..-:=,. m P RC E C_t -
INSPECi10N Pg.N i= casuu=s-cuiun issmx:s mia:,m,
y.
~
V Ei.E i = r AND REPORT
?ACIlo7_,2, cal.!.1 I
- g
- ; :::syg=:cN T.E:0?.D ::0:
FEO. :C ins?I CIC.1 1:A2i 50:
CC.I:
C-26F Installa:ica Inspec:ica of Shee: Piles F.tv 1 fc Deep Q - Duct-Bank 2
F N ECI:
NPAM:8 W/L :E:
"Povts T/;/.::: M ' # b.
_] W& " :%. * \\ *'fh N.
n,
.* y(W; !
N/A Midland Units 1 & 2 j FI:
\\}
i
"]E.
txt$$,arg
~
- [
C3uAcmtsT:c DIsctIrnex gg 1.0
??lF20UISITES 1.1 Prior-to ins:alla:ien of sheet piles for C195-53-1 j
deep Q-due: bank all supervisory staff or-5.1,3.3.3.5
' his designee shall be trained.
All traininr 3
j sessicas'sha11 be documented v/R - h*? - 100 6
l.2 Verify the acceptance of the subsequent C195-53-1 a
revisicas to shep drawing F7220-C-195-58(1) 4.4
-1 are reviewed by MPQAD/QC pric to i=plenenta ics V/R - EP - 100 2.0 INSTAI.LATION OF S?2ET PII.IS l
2.1 While threading the adjacent sheet piles C195-53-1 every other sheet shall be plu= bed in 7.4 accor'snce vi:h the referenced drawings Shop Drawing and tack-welded to the tenplate.
77220-C195 -
58(1)
V/R - I? - S
^
2.2
?ile. driving 'shall be stopped at l'-6" fract Shop drawing tcp cf Q Dae:-bank.
F7220-C195-58(1) sur.s i
References:
Sheo Dravinet 77220 - C-195 - SS(1)
~
Preceduret 77 2 2 0 - C-1 c 5 1 n.
k.
1 N s._. 4 e.
t*_111 A /M vJt l
?
4 P
8 1
- Is l
O j
~
w e
},
%'l PRO.:t *S. cN:nNCEKni d
Ano c ns su: ::u-
% C:.'s = ::I
(' T
- pp n M.
. t QuauTY AOSUAAxcE Ipa ATMI.'i' vi ve
. p 3..ej
& TZ, AND RDORT
>= 2 er 2 4
racJzc: astrc:I:s r:x< so: C-26F
- .Jt r msrecne:t at::r.: so:
I I
uve m ac ZK atrz m :t xtwtr.s CRAIACTIIISTIC Des KIFTIoM u
IK*T' M /DA t l
No 1
I 2.3 Verify that driving of sheets vill be such C195-53-1 that the adjacent tips shall not exceed a 7.6 differen:ial of 20' nor any pile shall not ~
FCN 62040 i-be driven more than 20' a: e. time to main-tain verticality.
I V/R - I? - S 2.4 Verify that the piles are driven to the C195-53-1 j
design depth as shown in' the referenced 7.6 drawings, utilizing "i= pact ha==er."
FCN #1985 l
N/R IP - S d
2.5 Verify that if obstructions preven: driving C195-53-1 of sheet piles, the piles surounding 7.6 t
duct-bank are driven to the desir,ed eleva-tions as deter =ined by the sub.:entractor,.
. y...
l j
'supervis ion.
V/R - IP - S 3.0 QUA1.ITY CONTROL INSPECHON & P2C02DS 3.1 Reviev QC !.nspection recc ds including Bechtel QC I
sketch to verify they are co=plete, accu-FIR-MP C-2 4 rate and up-to-da:e.
R - I?/PP - S 3.2 Revieu quality control training records PS? G-8.1 that QC personnel perforning these inspec-Para 9.3 f
l tiens are trained.
R - I?/P? - 5 3.3 Verify the QCI perfor=ance of inspection Bechtel QC activities.
FIR-M? C-34 V - IP/?? - S 1
l l'
1 1
.I 3
i 1
w k-
I
\\
I M ;;b.=::
PRbJECT INSPECTION FiAN
,,., yyjj$ypil",,,.,
=
l 8
Ei AND REPORT
(
cu s.'
n 1_cr_.,
- ter
- ::srt=tes u::c ::o:
n:arn :::srt: :ex ru.s so:
nns:
l C-26I Installation Inspection of Access EY:
0.
Pit for Deen O Duet Bank n
.,3 FWCJECT:
PCPAhrD 3Y/01.7E:
/2* rov!: nf TI!
,s y
.,,,,(
- q. I %.- %
.~-
JagTishC. Shah 4/24/S{
N/A g[#f*
Midland Units 1 & 2 j
- 'It i
A ER csAAArrrnsrIc Drscnynox I
. 2NI-n
~
m 1.0 PRERIOUISITES 4-
~
1.1 Prior to installation of access pi for C195-59 i
Deep Q. Due: Bank, all supervisory staff or 5.1
~
j his designee shall be trained. All tra'iniEg sessions shall be docu=ented.
V - IP - H 1.2 All velders shall be qualified and certified C195-59 by Bechtel, prior to velding.
5.2
-H
' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
1.3 verify that a,cceptance of the susequent C195-59 revisions to the referenced shop drawing 4.3 M2, Rev 1 are reviewed by M?QAD and Quality Con:rol prior to i=ple=en ation.
V - I? - H 2.0 EXCAVATICN 1
2.1 Verif y that, if any perched water pockets C195-59 are =et, the devatering shall be i=ple=ented 7.1 pric: to further excavation.
I C195-64 V/R - I?/?? - S F7220-C195-53-1
' yaay,si.
REFEF.ENCIS : Mertenti=e Corooration crocedures:
7??O-C105-So-1 Shoo Drawine M-2 Rev 1 1
Bechtel Drawint:
C1316 (0) Rev' 1 Bechtel Snee:
C231 (0) Rev 21
- D'.T C$ i 4
+
,_y y --
_.m_r
PRcJt " ENGIN!!R!N:
ENOINEERING l
^.
AND C
- TRU *lON =
IID ION
- s
- P n ]s t u""
- i.tJ. S:O p C *i..} p,) 'PLAIgJ outurr issu. uct mismzur ~= =zeixwrur, nt e '*
- i R E. 0.r Ki r= 2 or 3
>=_1.cr_2 i
AND.
i r m L= :.xstL=1:3 r:.Ax xo:
s:
i
~
0 rm mzrmsed 1:WI5 mnu.s/ nan 5/DA3 csAu:=z:s :e : sextrnex au
. j
- .a
- outlined procedures for excava-C195.
i f ollowed as specified and the 8.1, 8.2
.s of exca.atica are controlled as 9.2, 9.4 and concurred by the con:: actor, Soils Group field engineer af ter
- icn with resident geo-technical
-S IION OT k'AI.IS & IAGOING i
O 1
l he sequence of installing vales &'
C195-59
~
is f ollowed as specified.
8.1, 8.2
-S i
. hat lagging & backpacking below C195-59 k is acce=plished as specified.
10.3 i
-S i
f alternate E - bea=s are used, C195-59 erlfy that steel c~nannels are 13.1 - 13.3
.nstalled as lagging and backpacking
.s accenplished in accordance with l
.pp;oved precedure.
(alternate) l
- -S i
- ?I.ACEMI:T,
- hat bef ore cencrece is placed, the C195-59
}
t-shall be app;cved by the onsite -
11.1 j rech Engineer.
t 2
. p.
i that =udnat :,: concrete is placed in C195-59 ace with project specification.
11.1, 11.2 Bechtel Spec' C231 (Q) 5.6, 11.00
-S 1
CON 7.01. I :SPECTION & RECORDS _
QC inspection rece:ds to verify they Applicable 3echtel QC.
piece, accurate and up-to-date.
^ '1 TIR/PQCI.
-5 o
9
'_.j,,
a 4
g g
r.
y_, - -
s 1
cn_.. =. w_ m. =_ c=.
c_=_ m~ e=_
'83 El-1 Pp:07 hereb/ certify that copies of the attached responses of Cons =ers ?cwer Oc=pany to Oisecvery Questicas of Intervenor Barbara Sta= iris d< i.e-E.sN. r.i.ev...
l
'J S yail, first class, postage prepaid, to the attached service list -dii l
27th day of Octcber, except for Lynne 3ernabei, 'dilliam Faton and Chairman 3echhoefer, v' o vere served by Federal Express.
n i
st WA W k Catherine M Gleeson f
I 1
1 i
o e
1 i
l e
.6 4
.e.--.
4 5-9
i 3
3
~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~.. -....
l
- "h:;
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'83 im -I m g ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'?F: - 7..,. y..
~rc-Docket NiE30-plS@Ua..
In the Matter of r
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 50-330 CM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket No 50-329 OL 50-330 OL AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES E BRL%1TR My name is James E Brunner. I am primarily responsible for providing a response to the interrogatory numbered 33 submitted by Barbara Stamiris on October 11, 1983. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the response to the above-mentioned interrogatory is true and correct.
Sworn and Subscribed Before me This M y of C
19S3 U2_
O W
Notary Public l
Jackson County, Michigan My Commission Expires [/8Y BL/,/i[b I
J l
i l
l 1
{
2 afl083-0645b100
+
p 4
1
_~ ;.. E_~ E ~
UNITED STATES OF A'IERICA NUCLEAR REGULATO.RY COMMISSION
'g3 lg ] g2g6 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C F,.g j,,, :,,,,,,
Dockht'No W}-3,29 OM In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 50-330 OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket No 50-329 OL 50-330 OL AFFIDAVIT OF JEROME E KOSTIELNEY 1
My name is Jerome E Kostielney. I am primarily responsible for providing responses to the interrogatories numbered 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 submitted by Barbara Stamiris on October 11, 1983. To the best of my knowledge and belief, f
the responses to the above-mentioned interrogatories are true and correct.
'&A
, 5' r>b SwornandSubscribedLeforemeThis/[
ay of /bh 1983 AWu1,
h 11.
- u. V
~
~ g/p Notary Public l'i11;..d County, Michigan
- L%ttp Hy Commission Expires 17942,'
d /6/3 P
1 i
s I
I
)]
af1083-0640a100
- 1
_m.
mi 1
O M E*ET
'R. = -
.. ~
. - r.....
~ ~ ~,,.. UNITED STATES OF AhERICA
'83 p]V -1 P12 06 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ ~ ~ '
I.I/,'.d,[ 3f.,7g.g. f-~
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
..s In the Matter of Docket No 50-329 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 50-330 OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket No 50-329 OL 50-330 OL AFFIDAVIT OF GLENN MURRAY My name is Glenn Murray. I am primarily responsible for providing responses to interrogatorias 31 and 32 submitted by Barbara Stamiris on October 11, 1983. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the responses to the above-mentioned interrogatories are true and correct.
P i
i 1
j j
Sworn and Subscribed Before me This '76 Day of d-1983
,,-y;;-;,7 o k
,, /f,,)
y Notary Public j
Mi4hemi County, Michigan My Commission ires mo.e/ d/9f6 t
t i
l l
l l
l l~
t i
e f
afl083-0639a100 1
..s 1
C:UETE?.
.*S UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g3 gj q ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Fr =~u..
In the Matter of Docket'NhIOk3[9}6}!
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 552350"0M j-(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket No 50-329 OL j
50-330 OL i
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID F RONK My name is David F Ronk. I am primarily responsible for providing responses to the interrogatories numbered 15 and 17 and jointly responsible for providing responses to interrogatories numbered 20, 21 and 22 submitted by Barbara Stamiris on Oce.ober 11, 1983. To the best of my knowledge and h aief, I
the responses to the above-mentioned interrogatories are true and correct.
l r
f
\\
p[/l(./b Sworn and Subscribed Before me Thisk Day of h.1983 a.,. A e
~ -., -
v-j Notary Public E l-.d County, Michigan 4
)
BAY l
My Commission Expires
/77A u
/983 1
l 1
af1083-0642a100 e
)
- %e,EE'
~
UNITED STATES OF A> ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO?D!ISSION
, 3 E' -1 M &
AT0t!IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CFF ii :: 38....
In the Matter of Do~ckiit',Naf. SP329 OM CONSUPERS POWER COMPANY 5" M'50-330 Ot!
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket No 50-329 OL 50-330 OL AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN R SCHAUB My name is John R Schaub. I am jointly responsibie for providing responses to interrogatories numbered 20, 21 and 22 and primarily responsible for providing i
responses to interrogatories numbered 23 and 24 submitted by Barbara Stamiris on October 11, 1983. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the responses to
.{
the above-mentioned interrogatories are true and correct.
'u f
-A.
Sworn and Subscribed Before me This2. U Day of h I'1983
)
hY hJ sag 4 jj Notary Public J
M.Liland County, Michigan d r if-My Commission E$pires V') 9 v p f d / O [ 6 i
j l
l l
I, l
.j -
l
?
i a f1083-0643a 100
~
i
- s h.
3
- * * ~ - ~ ~ "
- g _.
i.
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- $3 g3r q ATOMIC SAFETY A.D LICENSING BOARD V
i
- T ~~
=55;..
i In the Matter of DockE. M*dOMf5 Q!
]
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
~10-330 OM (Hidland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket No 50-329 OL i
50-330 OL I
t I
AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES A MOONEY My name is James A Mooney. I am primarily responsible for providing responses to the interrogatories numbered 6, 7, 8 and 9 submitted by Barbara Stamicis on October 11, 1983. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the responses to j-the above-mentioned interrogatories are true and correct.
I l
%Q s Sworn and Subscribed Before me This M J y of kb983 Ouve/'.R Y Notary Public Jackson County, Michigan My Commission Expires d/7IlMf(
/7[b I
e i
1 af1083-0644a100
,~1.
h.
').
^-
- '.-y'--
- * " ~ ~ _.
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'83 E' - I mg ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Cir.'.. :
5:..w Eikit5hj5b In the Matter of 329 OM CONSUMERS PO*wT.R COMPANY 50-330 OM j
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket No 50-329 OL 50-330 OL AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT SEVO i
My name is Robert Sevo. I am primarily responsible for providing responses to i
the interrogatories numbered 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 submitted by Barbara Stamiris on October 11, 1983. To the test of my knowledge and belief, the responses to the above-mentioned interrogatories are true and correct.
e, 4
Affirmed nd Subscribed Before me This,@/
Day of M1983 ili 0
,ilbu i
~
- 8 s
Notary Public t
Midland County, Michigan e
l Hy Commission Expires W)ftA,c.M
/9b t
I.
l t.
t I
l l
r af1083-0641a100 I
t 9
+
,y n
1
..f...,_....-.-
.. - - ~ -
t
.- t ----
i.
WITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCII.AR REGULATORY CO.TIISSION
.g3 gg j g7 g ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CFF.E
~5...
In the Matter of DockI~i.Clo'd50(*[2IOS i
CONSUMERS PO'GR COMPANY
~50-330 OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket No 50-329 OL I
50-330 OL l
I AFFIDAVIT OF R03hT.Y H WIELAND My name is Rodney H Wieland. I am primarily responsible for providing a response to Interrogatory 30 rubmitted by Barbara Stamiris on October 11, 1983. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the response to the. above-mentioned interrogatory is true and correct.
6 1
y
/
A AffirmedandSubscribedBeforemeThisS/
Day of/
( 1983 No L
Notary Public Mrd-1-and County, Michigan ca ;
My Commission Expires JM r vN M / Y f6 L,
i l
l l
l I~
af1083-0638a100-12 s
L
-