ML20093B495
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- n ... ~ ~ ji. A%LY'r p' " N J UNITED STATES . -y g.,.,,g *) NULt. tan nebuta UhY COMMishiuni m r e m m,o.c.rosss
- i. & /l b
p m.... Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330 k--- 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR: William S. Bivins, Acting Chief Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, DSE THRU: .e
- rry L. Johnson, Acting Section Leader gydrologicEngineeringSection,HMB,DSE v
FROM: Raymond O. Gonzales, Hydraulic Engineer Hydrologic Engineering Section, HMB, DSE
SUBJECT:
MEETING AND SITE VISIT - MIDLAND PLANT, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN The site visit took place on February.27-28,1980. The purpose was to acquaint NRC consultants with the plant and related soil settlement problems and to provide an opportunity for Consumers Power Company (CPCo) and its consultants to present an update of the soil settlement investigation program. An agenda of the meeting is provided on enclosure 1. is a list of attendees. Although all aspects of the soil settlement problems were discussed, (See enclosure 1) only those related to hydrologic engineering, e.g., dewatering, are discussed in this report. The following items were discussed at the meetings. The ends of the auxiliary building electrical penetration areas adjacent to the feedwater isolation valve pits are to be supported by caissons. Prior.to this underpinning operation, the underlying work areas will have to be dewatered. A temporary dewatering system has already been installed. In addition, several pumping wells have been drilled inside the turbine building. This dewatering system is not in operation at the present time. Another dewatering system has been installed just north of the Service Water Intake Structure. This system is being used to dewater a valve pit area and the area adjacent to a duct bank which was damaged during the soil boring operation. The valve pit area has been pumped dry and the withdrawal rate is averaging about 2 gallons per minute (gpm) per well. The capacity of each well is about 8 gpm. The design.'f the permanent dewatering system is essentially complete and will be submitted to NRC later this month as an am"dment to the FSAR. Pumping tests already conducted indicate that the source of groundwater recharge is seepage from the cooling pond through weep holes in the retaining walls adjacent to the Service Water Intake Structure (SWIS) and the Circulating Water Structure (CWS) f? ( 460' oY0 73
1 2 1 E ~T ZZZ ZT D kiilian S. B1ving Additic: '. :::;;;; :;; pears to be ce&: *" c:' t"e natural and backfill sands ir, the vicini., cf_:hese retaining v. i'..
- .c : rrent pr:possi is to install m
There will be six inch wells 2 wells-j;;' --'" cf the SWIS and tha spaced 20 feet sp?"t. Spacing however, will w ry somewhat because of under-ground utilities. In addition,- 20 backup wells will also be installed. These will be wired electrically so that one interruption does not affect all of the wells..This'systen will intercept the source of. recharge from the cooling pond. To. remove water that is already underneath the plant, it is proposed to install c several area wells throughout the site.. The majority of.these wells will be located in areas bordering the diesel building and the railroad bay where loose fill sands have been identified. i - Groundwater levels will be lowered pennanently to elevation 595 feet mean sea ' level datum (msl). Based on the soils investigations conducted both before and after the soil settlement problems surfaced, the applicant's. A-E,.Bechtel,. estimates that liquefaction is not a problem as long as groundwater levels are maintained below elevation 610 feet msl. In case.of a total dewatering system failure, the current estimate. is that it will take about 90 days for groundwater levels to rise from 595 feet msl to 610 feet msl. The applicant considers that this provides ~ sufficient time to install a backup system so it is not necessary for the dewater-ing system to be a safety related item. i To monitor the dewatering system for pumping of fines, the applicant proposes to monitor and limit the content of fine material to 20 parts per million and to limit the total removal of fines at each well to a total of one cubic yard. Should this li'it be exceeded, the well would be repaired or taken out of operation r and plugged. Groundwater levels will be monitored by using piezameters and one inch observation wells to be installed in the gravel pack of each dewatering well, Chemical analyses of the water being removed by the temporary dewatering system indicate that incrustation of the dewatering system could be a problem. To minimize this, censideration is being given to using plastic pipe for the system. 0 A4hk. Hydraulic Engineer f ymond 0. Gonzale,ing Section Hydrologic Engineej Hydrology-Meteororogy Branch, DSE
Enclosures:
As Stated cc: See attached page l l l 1 .,----,,-,,,,-r ,_,,,n ,.,. _,,,, ~., _ _ _,,., _ _
~ ~ ~ ~ " -. _ ~
- e. Bivins -
- b"4 7-e--
hanciosures D. Muller ... r,reger n', -ackson L eller . Kane D. Hood R. Gallagher, Region III R. J. Cook - NRC Resident Inspector - Midland Local PDR NRC PDR ACRS (18) R. Gonzales Y j 1 i 4 I 1 5 o i - _... _ _ _... _, _ - _ -... _,.. _, _. _ _. -. _.... -. _. _ - -. _. _ -,.. _ _. ~
= - - ~ - - - - -*~ ~ ~~~ ~ .a..- a u.: _ .ia .. :J "id!-nd Ciro 1.0 INTRODUCIlo.. C. **...'.ay 2.0.PRESENT STATUS OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS
- 1. Leone 2.1 Meetings with Consultants and options Discussed (Ilistorical) 5 2.2 Investigative Program
+ i A. Boring Program 4 B. Test Pits 1 C. Crack Monitoring and Strain Gauges D. Utilities 2.3 Settlement A. Area Noted B. Preload i C. Instrumentation 3.0 WORK ACTIVITY UPDATE J. Wanzeck 4 3.1 Summary of work activities and settlement surveys for all Category I structures and facilities founded partially or totally on fill 4.0 REMEDIAL WORK IN PROGRESS OR PLANNED (Q4, 12, 27, 31, 33 & 35) S. Afifi 4.1 Diesel Generator Structures 4.2 Service Water Pump Structures 4.3 Tank Farm 4.4 Diesel Oil Tanks 4.5 Underground Facilities 4.6 Auxiliary Bui'. ding and FW Isolation Valve Pits 4.7 Liquefaction Potential 5.0 EVALUATION OF PIPING.(Q16, 17, 18, 19 &.20) D. Riat 6.0 DEWATERING (Q24) B. Paris 7.0 ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION B. Dhar 7.1 Structural Investigation (Q14, 26, 28, 20,30 & 34) 7.2 Seismic Analysis (Q25) 7.3 Structural Adequacy with Respect to PSAR, FSAR, etc. 8.0 SITE TOUR All 9.0 CONSULTANTS
SUMMARY
Peck /ilendron/ Could/Davisson 10.0 DISCUSSION All 1
g. _..-.. m .a. u 1 -
- e:-
e A . ), ~ AtltliUttb - Censunsr 7:.r aarr' 'coca eaa-"1 tents G. S. Keele,"- R. 5. F eck T. C. Cooke - A. J. Henoron, Jr. T. Thiruvengacam C. H. Gould D. E. Horn M. T. Davisson Bechtel H. Burke S. Afifi D. Riat B. Dhar B. Paris J. Rotz J. Wanzeck K. Wiedner J. Rutgers L. Curtis A. Boos C. McConnel W. Ferris NRC NRC Consultants US Army Corps of Engineers L. Heller N. Gehring J. Kane J. Grundstrom T. Cappucci B. Otto F. Rinaldi W. Lawhead R. Gonales P. Hadala D. Hood J. Simpson G. Gallagher J. Norton R. Cook R. Erickson US Navy Weapons Center E-TEC P. Huang P. Chen J. Matra J. Brammer U-e muuP'e, y ,g _ - ~ ~,
h ' .7 d ~ Q M .. m. saw Federal Register / Vol. 45. No.104 / Wednesday May 28, 1980 / Notices 35949 / Jn; Panel, will rule on the toll free telephone c,all to Western, Reactor Regulation and the Director of t.. u.
- e etition and the Union at (800) 325-6000 (In h!!ssourt Inspection and Enforcement dated f
try designated Atomic (800) 342-6700).Th'e Western Union December 6.1979 which would prohib!t and censing Board willissue a operator should be given Datagram Consumers Power Company from. - of h:aring or an appropriate identification Nuinber 3737 and the performing certain soil.related activities following message addressed to Steven pending approval of amendments to the equested by $0 CFR 2.714. a A. Varga:(petitioner's name and construction permits Nos. CPPR 81 and - for 1: ave to intervene shall set telephone number): date pedtion was CPPR 82 which authorize the
- i. ;
sith prrticula'rity the Interest of matted): Indian Point Nuclear constructioh of two pressurized water
- iti nerin the proceeding. and Generatirig Plant. Unit No. 2: and reactors In htidland, hilchigan.
%t Int:r:st may be affected by the foublication date and page number of Consumers Power Company re' quested a , of th7 proceeding.The petition. L'his Feder'al Register notice). A copy of hearing on the Order.The Order of i l specifically explain the reasons the petition should also be sent to the December 6.1979 was not published in - ervention should be pennitted Executive f.egal Director. U.S. Nuclear.. the Federal Register.This Atomic Safety 7 articular reference to the - Regulatory Commission. Washington. 'and Ucensing Board, which has .:ng fact:rs:(1) the nature of the D.C. 20535, and to Joseph D. Block, P jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to
- l.
ner right under the Act to be made Esquire. Executive Vice President, the Notice of Hearing (45 FR at 18214). y ta the proceeding:(2) the nature Administrative. Consolidated Edison has determined that there should be a. i I .unt cf the petitioner's property,
- Company of New York. Inc.,4 Irving publication of the December 6.1979
.u!. cr cther interest in the
- Place, New York. New York 10003.,
. Order, which is attached hereto. In. ed!ng: and (3) the possible effect of attorney for the licensee. ~ addition to the information published + rier which may be entered in the Nontimely,illings of petitions for leave previously, notice Is given that by June - .I cling cn the petitioner s interest. to Intervene, amended petitions. 27.1980 any uson whose interest may Miti:n should also identify a ecific supplemental petitions and/or requests. be affected by this proceeding may file a [-
- gs)cf th) subject matterof a for hearing will not be entertained eding as to which petitioner absent a determination by the
. ". petition forleave to intervene.The
- petitions forleave to Intervene shall be s to intervene. Any person who Commission, the presiding officer or the.
filed in accordance with the F: < Nd a p;tition forleave to intervene ' Atomic Safety and I.icensing Board Commission s Rules omacua for a has been admitted as a party designated to rule on the petition and/or n.end his petition, but such an request, that the petitioner has made a - Domestic Ucensing ProceedingsIn to ad petition must satisfy the substantial showing of good cause for - CFR Part 2. lf a petition for leave to 4 hityr ulrements described . the granting of a late petition and/or Intemne is f!!ed, this Atornic Safsty 7,. and I.lcensing Board will rule on the ~ ) fifteen (15) days prior,to request.That determination will be -
- Pe tition.
u., '- / ?!at s based upon a balancing of the factors s rst pn.m.ing conferetica specified in iO CFR 2.714(a)(i}-{v) and. As required by 10 CFR I 2.7.14 a, hhd in the proceeding. the, 2.714(d). . petition for leave to Intervene shall set r shall file a supplement to the. For further; details with respect to this
- forth with particularity the interest of 2n to Intervene which must include. actian, see the licensee application for the petitioner In the proceeding and how of the c:ntentions which are increase la spent fuel storage capacity that Interest may be affeted by the 7
.! to ba lltigated In the matter, and dated September 7. i979, and the Fi.ral results of the proceeding.The petition I.,..' aes f;r cach contention set forth Design Repo'rt dated hfay 6,1980 which should explain speci!!cally the reasons .wasonable specificity. A petitioner. are available for public inspection at the why inte'evention should be permitted N!s to file such a supplement Commission's Public Document Room.,' with particular teference to the ,T-
- satisfies thesa requirements with. 1717 H Street. N.W., Washington, D.C.,
following factors:(1) the nt:tur' of the s A to at least one contention will and at the White Plains Public I.ibrary, petitfoner's righ under the Atomic -c
- armitted to participate as a 100hfartine Avenue White Plains.New Energy Act, as amended, to be made a p-York 10601.
- t party to the proceeding:(2) the nature W
a e e ot p o r s p oputy. ( +o rocaed n bject to any sted at Be esda, faryland this 19th day For the Nuc est Regu!atory Commission. proceeding: and (3) the possible effect of .$ c. and hav t eopp t t to Steven A. Var (ga. any order which may be entered in the 7, r 1"pate fully in the conduct of t e {,"fefit$on sh ul[als identify t e
- . Including tho' opportunity to Chief operet/As eoctas stenchNo. t.
n n! evidence and, cross examine Dmston o/l.icensii's. ises. tra o.c an.tsic J :.a s.e.m m..t specific aspect (s) of the subject matter' cquest for a heaYing or a p'etition of the proceeding as to which petitioner r - auma coes nw.u wishes to Intervene. se to laters ene shall be filtd with J cretary of the Commission. United Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (Docket Hos. 50-322 Ou. 53-330 OMI the first prehearing conference E' "8' 'n; ton, D.C. 20553. Attention: Consumers Power Co. IMidland Plant' time set by the board, the petitioner !!ag and Service Section, or may Units 1 and 2); Amended Hearing on shall file a supplement to the petition to ' ered ta the Corr. mission's Pubtle Order for htodification of CP ent Room.1717 lI Street, N.W., Inter'cene which must include a list of hfay 201980. the contentions which are sou;ht to be '
- Yg by the above date.
.p are filed during the last On h! arch 20.1930 the Commission litigated in the matter, and the bases for ') c the notice period. it is published a Notice of Hearing.45 FR each contention set forth with l .ted the petitioner or 182t4. on certain issues relative to an reasonable specificity. A petitioner who untative for thepetitioner Order hfodifying Construction Permits fails to file such a supplement which Wy ss inform therommiss!cn by a of the Acting Director of Nuclear satisfies these requirements with respect 1 1
~ ^' ~. ~4-- Federal Rc;4 ster / Vcl.15, No.104 / '.lyheeday. play S,1980 / Notices r ..,/ MG30 e ~~ been found unaccaptsbla withrut further to at ! cast cn,e contentl7n wi!! nit b3 (Ducket Nos. 30-329. 30-330] Staff analysis and questionsif the Staff had pct:-! ted to participate as a party. known that Category I structures had been Order htodifying Construction Permits placed in fact on random fill rather than Y Any person who has filed a petition fcr ! tare toIntertene or who has been In the hiatter of Consumers Power mpacted cohesis e fill as stated co to ad:r.! ted as a party may amend his Company (Midland Nuclear power Plant, UnHs 1 and 2). pctition.but such an amended petition NRCInvestigationof the DieselGenerator rr.ust satisfy the specificity requirements Building sett!cment, additionalinformation - ducribed above. Such amended
- g s.
was necessary to evaluate the impact on petitions may be filed,no later than 15 ne CMsumers Power Cornpany (the -. pjant sdety caused by soil conditions under Ucensee)is a holder of Construction Permits d s fety. ate tructures and - days p7ior to the first pre-hearing ccnference or'other time set by thef No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-62 which gda authorize the construction of two pressurized g .s related quality assurance program' board. %. n!!mely filings of petitions for !cava w;at cga on h1 arch 21.1979. the Director. Office of etors 1 d. e e gg np , { e g, to it.tervene, amended pelitions, or ' 1981 ard October 1.1982, for Unit 2 and Unit.,. Nuclear Reactor Regulation. formally requested under to CFR 50.54(f) of the sep;Ien-ental petitions will not be 1 respectively. Commission a regulations information enterti.!ned a'osent a determination by
- "'"'*I"8 'hhould be laten to modify,
- 'k '* d* '""i"*
the Atomic Safety andIJcensin3 oard II ~ whether action s B On August 52.1978 the Ucceree informed suspend or res oke the construction permit. that the petitioner bas made a the NRC Resident inspector at the Midland AdditionalInformation was requested by the st.bstantial showing of good cause for ite that unusual settlement of the Diesel Staffin leftcrs dated September 11.19 9 and s the granting of a late petition.%at Generator Building had occurred. The November 19.1979. The Ucensee responded determination will be based upon a Ucensee reported the matuer under to CFR to these letters. under oath. in letters dated-balancing of the factors specified in 10 50.53[e] of the Commission a regu!ations b/ April 24,1979. May 31,1979. July 9,1979. CFR I 2.714(a)(i)-(v) and i 2.714(d). telephone on September 7.1978.This ' August to.1979. Septernber 13.19 9. and A patition forleave to intervene must - notification was fo!!cwedby a series of. Nos ember 13.1979. The Ucensee has not yet interim reports dated September 29.1978, responded to the November 19.19 9 requests. - be E.'ed with the Secretary of the November 7.197s. December 21.1978. / Several of the Staffs requests wero ~ Comm! sfon.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory January S.1979. February 23.1979. April 3. i directed to the deiermination and Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555, 1979. June 25.1979. August 10.19 9 Justification of acceptance criteria to be Attention: Docketing and Service Branch September 5.1979, and Nos ember 2.1979. applied to various remedial measures taken or may be delivered to the Commission's Following the September 1978 notification, Public Document Room.1717 H Street. Inspectors from the :tegion III. One of . and proposed by the licensee. Such criteria. N.W., Washington. D.C., by June 27 Inspection and Enforcement, conducted an coupled with the details of the remedial oction, are necessary for the Staff to naluate. O.V 1980. A copy of the petition should also investigation over the period of October 1978 the technical ade user and propee nuary 1979. nis investigation be sent to the Executive Legal Director, throughpa breakdown in quality assurance.Implementation o the proposed action.no reveale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission. Information provided by the licensee fails to Washington. D.C. 20535 and to Michael related to soil construction actidtles under - provide such criteria.nerefore, based on and around safety.related structures and - review of the information provided by the, i I; Stiller. Esq,Isham, Lincoln and Beale. systems in that (1) certain design and.. Ucensee in response to the Staff questions. c6nstruction specifications related to the Staff cannot conclude at this time that the One FIrst National Plaza. Chicago' foundation type materfal properues and, Illino!s 60690, attorney for the Permittee. ' compaction requirements were not followed: safety issues associated with remedial action Documents pertaining to this (2) there as a lack of clear direction and taken or planned to be taken by the Ucensee procceding are available for - support between the contractor's 'ergineering to correct the soil deficiencies will be examination in the Commission's Public. ornce and construction site a: wett as withtaresolved. Without the resolution of these Docurnent Room, and in the custody of. the contractor's engineering ornce: (3) there issues the Sta!T does not have reasonable was a lack of control and supervision of plant assurance that the affuted safety related Mrs. Averill Packard.ne Crace Dow nu placement actMtles which contnbuted to portions of the Midland facitfry willbe Memorial f.ibrary.1710 West St. Inadequate compaction of foundation constructed and operated without undue sisk. Andrews Rd., Midland.Mich! an.nese materf ah [4] corrective action regarding to the health and safety of the public. - ' 8 do:umentsinclude the Appendices A' noncomformances relate'd to plant fill was ' and B of the Order Modifying insufncient or inadequate es evidenced by It! Co.struction Permits, reports and repeated deviations from specification Under the Atemic Energy Act of1934, as cc.-respondence referred to in the order. requirements: and (5) the FSAR contains amended, and the commissino's regulations.. Inconsistent. incorrect. and unsupported and the Answer to Notice of Hearing statements with respect to foundation type, activities authorized by construction ermita ' dated April 16.1930 by Consumers soil properties and settlement values.no or portions thereof may be suspende should details of these Andings are describedin the. the Commission find information which. Power Company. . ~ Inspection reports 50-329/78-12. 50-330/73 would warrant the Commission to refuse to Any questions or requests for. additionalinformation regarding the !! ! November 14.1978) and 50-329/76-20. 56 grant a construction permit on an original 330/78-20 (%farch 19.1979) which were sent application. We have concluded that the centent of this notice should be - to the ucensee on November 17.197s and quality assurance deficiencies invoMr g the,, addressed to the Chlef Hearing Counsel,. March 22.1979 respectively, settlement of the Diesel Generator Building and soil actMdes et.the Atidl.nd afte.the Of! ice of the Executive LegalDirector, ne items of noncomp!!ance resulting from false statement in the TSAR, and the U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC investigadon are described in unresolved safety Issue concerning the Washington. D.C. 20555. Appendix A to this Order. In addition. as adequacy of the remedial action to correct Eethesd'a. Afd., Afay 20.1980.. descritted in Appendix B to this order, a the defickneles in the soil construction under material false statement was made in the and around safety.retated strucipres and For the U.S.Nuc! car Regulatory FSAR in that the FSAR falsely stated that systerns are adequate bases to refne to grant 4 Commission. "All fill end backfill were placed according to a construction permit and that,therefore. ~ ltaa W. 5mith, ' . Table 2.5-9.* nis statement is materialin suspension of certain activities under c.r on,3temjcSofetyandL/ censing that this portion of the ISAR mould have,, e
- O e
f* hN f
e Fed:r:I Reg!st:r / Val. 45. Nr.104 / Wednisd$y. ht:y 28, 1930 / N:tices 35931 / Const.nct!on Permits No. CPPR-81 and No. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, D.C. 20535. Attentiom i CPFR-c is w stranted until the related safety Edson G. Case. Director. Division of Licensing. . 'h issues are reso!ved. Actirg Director. Q7/ce of.Welcor Reactor Dated at Bethesda h!aryland. this 13th day R#Ft/Od8-ofSfay 198o. p gy . For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Accordi gfy, pursuant to the Atomic ^ f Fnergy Act of 1954, as' amended. and the, f[.# #O## Dennis SL Crutchfield. f Commissicn's regulations in to CFR Parts g Chief Operating Reactors Bronch =3, Division g and 50. it is hereby ordered that. subject to officensing. enmz coes ism Part V of this Order. Construction Permits pm, m g No. CFPR-81 and No. CPPR-8: be modified (Docket No. 50-409), erwNG Cooe Ts Nit-If i: as fo!!aws: (tl PenEng the submission of an Dalry!and Power Coop.;isst ance of. amend:ne.t to the application se Ling Amendment to Provisionajoperating 4' approval of the remedial actions associated License f ~ with the soil activities for safety.related . The U.S. Nu'elear Regulatory Source Material Ucense No. STA-583 . structures and systems founded in and on Commission (the Commission) has Kerr McGee Chemical Corp - issued Amendment No. 20 to Provisional plant ful material and the' issuance of an - Operating License No. DPR-45, issued to Document Ro,om amend:nent to Construction Permits No. ~ 'Estabitshmentof LocalPubic CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82 authorizing the Dairyland Power Cooperative (the rer edial action. the following activitles are~ licensee). which revised the Technica!. Notice is hereby given that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prohibited:
- /
Specifications for opeiation of the has designated the West Chicago Public (a) Any placing.' compacting. or excavating 1.aCrosse Boiling Water reactor ', soil materials under or around safety related (LACBWR) located la Vernon County,
- Library as the official NRC Local Public Wisconsin.The a' endmentis effective Document Room for materfa!s relating to
, structures and systems. m J' the proposed decommissioning of the (b) Physicalimplementation of remedial.,: - as ofits date of!ssuance. action for correction of soil-realted problema The amendment allows a second
- Kerr htcGee Chemical Corporation extension to the current Cycle 6
' (Licensee) Rare Earths Facility in West under and around these. structures and ' cperation by changing the fuel depletion Chicago, Illinois.,. - systems, including but not limited to: ~ limit on the lead fuel from 15.600 WD/ All documents related to the )tfn7e nni o ervice water building, htRJ for all fuel assemblies to 15.600 !!censee's proposed decommissloning -(lii) Removal and replacement of fill htWD/htTU for any non. peripheral fpel and all subsequent documents will be beneath the feedwater isofation valve pit assembly. available for inspection and copying at The application for the amendment the West Chicago Public l.ibrary. 322 b (iv) Placing caissons at the ends of the complies with the standards and East Washington Street. West Chicago, ,7,, auxiliary building electrical penettrtion requirements of the Atomic Energy Act Illinois 60185.The 1.ibrary's hours of arus' Compaction ' nd loadI'ng activltles. of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the operation are 10:00 am to 9:00 prn (v) Commission's rcles and regulations.The htonday through Thursday, and 10x0 am (c) Construction work la soil materials . Commission has made appropriate to 5.00 pm Friday and Saturday. Self. under or around safety.related structure's and systecis suc!ias field insta!!ation of conduits '. findings as reqcired by the Act and the c._ service reproduction facilitie and pfping. E*'* ' 1. '.. :- Commission's rules and regulations in 10, available to the public at the cost of 15c (2) Paragraph (1) above shall n'ot apply to '. CFR Chapter I. which are set forth in the per printed page, license amendment Prior public notice g ggg g. any esplorf t:g. samp!!ng. or testing of soil of this amendment was not required parties In the Chicago area may contact samp!es associated with determining actual. since the amendment does not involve athe LPDR directly through h!rs. KaY soit propert!es on site which has the approval of the Director of Region !!!. Office of significant hazards consideration. Sauer, Reference 1.ibrarian, telephone The Commission has determined that Inspection and Enforcement.* the issuance of this amendtrent will not number (312) 231-1552. Parties outside the service area of the LPDR may result in any s!gnificant environmental address their requests for records to the V t The licensee or any person whose interest impact and that pursuant.to 10 CFR NRC's Public Document Rocci at 1717 H is af'ected by this Order may within 20 days 51.5(d)(4) an environmentalimpact Street N.W., Washington. D C. 20555 of the dve of this Order request a hearing statement or negative declaration and with respect to all or any part of this Order.' environmental impact appralsal need telephone number (202) 634-3273. The In the es ont a hearing is requested, the issues not be prepared in connection with cost of ordering records from the NRC Public Document Room is 8: per page. to be considered will be: Issuance of th!s amendment. (1) Whether the facts set forth in Part !! of For further' details with respect to this plus tax and postage. tha Order are correct: and action, see (1) the application for Questions concerning the availability (2) Whether this Order should be amendment dated April 1.1980.(2) of documents. NRC's licensing 86staine J. Amendment No. 20 to License No. Of R-procedures, or other questions Th:s order will become effectise on the 45 and (3) the Commission's related
- concerning the Local Public Document esp!rstin of the period which a hearina maY Safety Evaluat!an. Allof these items are Room Progra'm should be addressed to be re p.esteJ. or in the event a he. inns is ava!!able for p 2blic inspection at the hits. Jona I. Souder, Chief. Local Public '
) repenteJ. on the date specified in en Order Cornt.Ission's Public Document Room. Document Room Dranch. U.S. Nuclear rna 34 fuhirg the hearing. g737 g Srg,,g, g,w,, wa,s.ington, D.C., Regulatory Commission. Washingon. Deed at Dethesda, hfar> land, this 6th day and at the Lacrosse Public Library. 600 D.C. 20553 telephone number (301) 492-Of of Dne~.ber. tors. htain Street. Lacrosse. Wisconsin 54601. 7538. 6t A copy of iter.s (2) and (3) may be DMed at Be ida. Mar 3 and. this 20 de f j obtained upon fequest addressed to the o W ay,toen U.S. Nuclear R4;ulatory Commision, g
,,.,s L J MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Reid DATE: May 19,1980 FROM: Bernie Maguire COPIES TO: Tom Novak 213 W SUEU: NRC DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM STATUS REPORT June,1980 marks the completion of the second year of TERA's contract to assist the NRC in the installation of its Document Control System. It has been eighteen months since our initial discussions with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation during which TERA described the purpose of the Document Control System for all branches. It has been over twelve months since installation of the initial terminals in the Phillips Building. The reorganization of NRR presents on oppropriate opportunity to review the recent status of the NRC Document Control System and to discuss Document Control System products which may be of assistance in your forthcoming work efforts. These status meetings are being held with each NRR branch to expand the awareness of technical personnel about system capabilities. I would like to invite you and members of your branch to a meeting in Mr. Denton's conference room (P-440 Phillips Building) at I:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28. Should this time become inconvenient for your branch, please call me at x28600 to arrange a subsequent time. I look forward to responding to any questions you may have concerning the Document Control System during our meeting. BAM/loh ph PE b3 w SV ret C8 k.B y ,_----,.--7
& OE h k 'b ~ ' ]c <v%tRd %C o . One. ' cy sa aulu k c 'hhbtg d ch d 0 O)] g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DLAND OLMSTEAD/ /PATON BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD FF ) In the Matter of ) ) Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330 ) (Midland Nuclear Power Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) ) ANSWER TO NOTICE OF HEARING on December 6, 1979 the Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Director of U c the Office of Inspection and Enforcement issued an Order Modifying Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82 (the " Order"). On December 26, 1979 Consumers Power Company (" Licensee") filed a Request for Hearing pursuant to 10 CFR S2.204 and Part V of the Order. On March 14, 1980 the NRC issued a Notice of Hearing, appointing an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and specifying the following issues for 4 adjudication: 1. whether the facts set forth in Part II of the Directors' Order of December 6, 1979 are correct; 2. Whether that Order should be. sustained. On April 9, 1980 Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, granted Licensee's request MO - ktSpn$t ib 45 0 \\Ct 09 9,.CC % aEro O~7-Q-- - nea. .a
_n._ s for a one week extension in-time to answer the Notice of Hearing, a request that had been agreed to by William J. Olmstead, Esq., counsel for NRC staff. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.705, Licensee answers the Notice of Hearing as follows. I. Licensee's position with respect to the first issue is as follows: (r.) Licensee, without admitting that the following " facts" (to the extent they are facts and not opinions, conclusions or other non-factual allc. ions) are r- " material allegation (s) of fact" under 10 CFR 52.705, responds to the " facts" set forth in Part II of the Directors' order of December 6, 1979: (1) Admits the facts set forth in the first paragraph of page 1 and alleges that the Licensee also reported to the NRC and its consultants in oth2r reports, meetings, telephone conversations, letters and other communications regarding soil conditions under and around safety related structures and systems, including responses to requests made by the Staff pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54 (f). (2) In regard to the second paragraph, at pages 1-2, admits that an investigation and inspec-tion was made by NRC Inspectors from Region III i and that the NRC promulgated the referenced reports and denies the remaining allegations of = ::' ~
~~-~~ Licensee does not interpret tha that paragraph. a last sentence in this paragraph, referring to the " details" of the NRC's findings as described in certain inspection reports, as material allega-deny tions of facts requiring Licensee to admit or a Without restricting the them in this proceeding. generality of the foregoing and further answering that paragraph, Licensee denies that there was a " breakdown" in quality assurance, and with respect ~~~~ to subparagraph (5), Licensee alleges that the 1979 meeting requested that Staf f in the July 18, Licensee not amend its FSAR but rather keep the Staf f informed of the status of the soils work by means of 50.55(e) reports, which Licensee has done. Licensee's responses to the specific (3) factual allegations set forth in Appendix A and Appendix B of the Directors' order are set forth in the Appendix to this Answer. In regard to the paragraph that begins (4) on the bottom of page 2 and continues to page 3, Licensee admits that the Director, Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation, requested information that Licensee responded c?4 under 10 CFR 50.54(f) l Licensee alleges that it also to thode requests. reported to the NRC and its consultants in meetings, T m e row-- ---%4 -,,-._p----%-.-- 3-mur -.$-w,s-+- w-,w. -,-.we- -rw, rem-m-- --+-r,m -y-
- - ~ telephone conversations, letters, amendments to .1 ~ the construction permit and operating license and y other communications regarding soil conditions under and around safety related structures and systems and remedial steps or proposed to be taken Licensee alleges that it has responded by Licensee. 19, 1979 request. in a timely manner to the November In regard to the concluding paragraph of I (5) l page 3, Licensee admits the first and second Licensee denies the third and fourth ~ sentence. 3 Licensee alleges that the final sentence sentences. of the paragraph is not applicable since Licensee I has provided the staff information sufficient to i Therefore the staff does 4-I resolse these issues. have reasonable assurance that "the affected safety-related portions of the Midland facility i will be constructed and operated without undue s risk to the health and safety of the public." i Licensee controverts the NRC Staff's (b) characterization of the f acts alleged in t.ppendix A of l the Directors' order as constituting " infractions." i Licensee also denies that the facts alleged in Appendix B i j constitute a " material false statement" or a " violation." Licensee's position with respect to the i II. second issue specified in the Sotice of Hearing is that the 1 Order should not be sustained, for the following reasons which constitute affirmative defenses to the Order: i 4 i-r, w-y -,w.g,py-w ..*g-.* a- ,7,-=y----.pw, ,,-,,mm3wm e - w,. ry-erm.we,mm.--93s-w,.,,,.he-p w-m cw gew.g. app a9w-p,v e.- y t e r we e pe--e-v%ww=--gg -a etw+-gn.sh-=ew
4 (1) Licensee has provided the staff and its con-sultants with all the information requested regarding c the soil conditions under and around safety related structures and systems, including information relating ' Be, (tpield is to "the adequacy of the remedial action to correct the skvh Melo k bet cam *** deficiencies in the soil construction under and around n3me.$.k.W t.AvsE orifebird safety-related structures and systems." y gin y,p,4 (2) The information Licensee has provided and the remedial actions it has taken and proposes to take f Dec.W 4 'Feb. M M gq gggy including those set forth in Amendment Nos. 72,,74 and %q 4,g 4'u isnv.tsw.t.ml. 76 to its application for cor ruction permits and a.&g h.de t. operating licenses, and technical discussions with the wlet
- t*
NRC Staff and its consultants, resolves the " safety I issues associated with remedial actions related to soil deficiencies." 4 (3) The information Licensee has provided and the remedial actions it has taken and proposes to take, including those set forth in Amendment Nos. 72, 74 and 76 to its application for construction permits and operating licenses, and technical discussions with the 'Tobt,dt.eMuk.g.a NRC Staff and its consultants, provides " reasonable eqtho 4 her. Itib somnbds. assurance that the affected safety-related portions of fewie n the Midland facility will be constructed and operated without undue risk to the public health and safety." i \\ (4) Licensee contends that the alleged " quality assurance deficiencies involving the settlement of the - - - l. r-
Diesel Generator Building and soil activities at the ToQ Q,4 D Midland site" and the alleged " false statement in the FSAR" form neither a logical nor a legal basis upon which .the order's prohibition against the enumerated activities can be sustained. ( III. Licensee will appear by counsel and present evidence. Respectfully submitted, Michael I. Miller Attorney for Licensee DATED: April 16, 1980 ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500 s...
-d ~% l APPENDIX Licensee provides 'tlus following responses to the J m f acts alleged in Appendix A of the Directors' Order: Allegation 1 - Licensee admits that it is committed Licensee admits that a few " inconsistencies to ANSI'N45.2 (1971). were identified in the license application and in other j Licensee denies that in general design basis documents." measures established and executed were contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, CPCo Topical Report CPC-1-A, Section 4.1. Policy No. 3, Section 3.4 and ANSI N45.2 (1971), Licensee Licensee admits this allegation. (a) alleges as set forth in its Response to Question 23, (50.54(f)], Revision 4, 11/79, page 23-10 and 11, Part (1) 4' that: When the FSAR was prepared and revi+wed, the major There were no backfill operations were complete. known inconsistencies...related to FSAR Subsections 2.5.4 and 3.8.5; therefore, these subsections were essentially inactive and were not subject to anyThe incensiste i j further review. The inconsistency between Sub-were not detected. sections 2.5.4 and 3.8.5 with respect to the settle-ment values resulted because the two subsections (Geotec i were prepared by separate organizationsServices and were aware of the multiple display of similar information in the opposite subsection. The inconsistencies between FSAR Subsections 2.5.4 and 3.8.5 have been corrected via FSAR Revision 18 (February 28, 1979). Licensee admits this allegation with respect (b) Licensee alleges, to the diesel generator building. ^*.. -m __,..._,_.,-_,_-._.._,yr_
^ e'. as set forth in its response to NRC Preliminary Finding .ss nw 9, that: The diesel generator building spread footingfoun + However, a was translated into the detail design. design change to the foundation was not recognized i to affect a previous settlement calculation, but us; this did not significantly affect settlement I r estimates.- Licensee denies this allegation with respect to the borated U Licensee's position is set forth I water storage tanks. l in more detail in the following statement taken from l-e its response to N.R.C. Preliminary Finding 9: f The borated water storage tanks are supported in part by a ring type spread footing, but most ofth is supported on fill (FSAR Figure 3.8-60). Settlem for the borated water storage tanks, conservatively used a uniform equivalent circular e 2.5.4.10.3 mat foundation having an applied, soil pressure of i The ring type 2,500 psf (FSAR Figure 2.5-47). spread footing pressure is 2,500 psf and the tank-applied pressure within the ring foundation isBecaus psf over most of the foundation area, this settlement 2,000 psf. l. l i estimate is conservative. I een The assumptions used for the borated tank settle-A ment calculations are appropriate for the type of I design utilized. Licensee admits this allegation. 1 (c) Licensee admits that the wrong compressibility (d) 1* factor was used for settlement calculations, but alleges i that it had a minor impact on the resultant values. 1 1 i Licensee admits this allegation. (e) i r 4 __ b*- ) ~ ~ ~ ~.,..,.. _.. _. _,. _,,, _., - _,., _ _ _,, _,..,.,,,.. _,, _,, _, _ mm_.___
e- - u n 1,. . ^* , w .f' (f) Licensee admits this-allegation. Allegation 2 - Licensee admits that it is committed to
- ANSI N45.2 (1971)- Section 6.
(a) Licensee denies that instructions provided to field construction for substituting lean concrete for Zone ' 2' material were contrary to 10 CFR 50, ippendix B, Criterion V, CPCo Topical Report CPC-1-A, Policy No. 5, Section 1.0 and ANSI N45.2 (1971), Section 6. Licensee denies that differential settlement of the Diesel Generator building was caused by substituting lean concrete for zone 2 material. Licensee's position is set forth in more detail in!the following statement taken from its response to NRC Preliminary Finding 11: Drawings and specifications permit the use of Zone 2 random fill material in plant area fill. Structural backfill was placed in 2-cal excavations in accordance with Specification
- 220-C-211.
Lean concrete was used to replace structural backfill' in confined areas as permitted by Specification 7220-C-211, Section 5.1.3 which states, "In absence of structural backfill materials described above... lean concrete, as specified in Specification 7220-C-230 may be used." Use of lean concrete in restricted areas is a normal construction practice and was controlled by the field engineer's approval after inspection of subgrade. The' diesel generator building settlement was restricted by the enlargement of the electrical duct banks. Concrete backfill was not used indiscriminate 1y. O,
- v s-g-we ens,4sn w
.m-a
s ~ -.- ~~-- (b) Licensee admits this allegation. (1) Licensee admits this allegation. admits that it is committed (2) Allegation jl - Licensee l Licensee denies that Quality Contro to ANSI N4'5.2 (1971). C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, Instruction C-1.02 is contrary to 10 1-A, Policy No.10, Criterion X, CPCo Topical Report CPCLicensee alleges, as Section 3.1 or ANSI N45.2 (1971). liminary Finding 13, that stated in CPCo response to NRC Pre to inspection Neither the characteristics subjector witn or witnessing ition or witnessing were changed; the degree of inspec was reduced by going to a survei inspection is plan. The decision to change to sampling izing that the questionable, in retrospect, recogne related to i bulk of the prior successful exper enc was being Canonie's activity and that a changeactivity performed by B made to have the was inadequate in The sampling (surveillance) plan r criteria that it did not specify conditions od sampling or a under which there would be increase return to 100% inspection. eral allegation Allegation 4 - Licensee denies the gen i t soils conditions of J that " measures did not assure tha t d to preclude repetition." adverse quality were promptly correc ed measures were contra Licensee denies that its actions ani n XVI and CPCo Topical to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criter o i i 1.0. Report CPC-1-A, Policy No. 16, Sect on the extent Licensee denies this allegation to following statement (a) that it is inconsistent with the NRC Preliminary taken from Licensee's response to Finding 6:._. _ - - -. -. - _ -, _ - _.
.n. 1 states Specification 7220-C-210, Section 12.6., in part: hich " Insofar as practicable... materials wrequi i t re-The conditioned in the borrow areas.... ll not be water content during compaction sha timum more than 2 percentage points below op than 2 moisture content and shall not be morep Content.... terial on ...af ter the placement of loose ma ntent the embankment fill, the moisture co y to shall be further adjusted as necessar bring such material within the moisture content limits required for compaction. i d in OAR Bechtel QA identif ei ture control On July 22, 1977 SD-40 that the field did not take mo s ent of the measurements prior to and during placembac i t re results tion) soil taken from the in-place (af ter cc-mac density tests to control moistur. 'ugust 1, 1977, As shown in Attachment 1, prior t-nade at the there were no moisture measurement. l ed borrow area or when the loose fill was p acMoisture measu prior to or during compaction. density tests, were made af ter compaction, as wereand the re ptance criteria. f fill From August 1,1977, to the cessation o 1977-1978 winter operation with the onset of theDuring this time, season, there was a change. w moisture measurements were made at the bo ared to area, but the measurements were not compAgain, no mois laboratory standards.when the loose fill was placed prior to were Moisture measurementsused in were made or during compaction. made after compaction and the data were h results of conjunction with the density tests, t e i For this which served as the acceptance criter a. nts made after compaction, in conjunction d density tests, have been reviewed again an were thirteen individual moisture measurements found to be beyond + 2% of optimum. ~===a a
- =. -
T 22. ".2 1 4
- 1. ;
?. ~- p For-1978, moisture measurements.were made either t l was -in the borrow areaf or when the loose fil d prior to compaction, or both, but notThese measure . place Also during this period, during cor.paction. to laboratory standards. moisture measurements were made after compaction
- ,q and the data were used in conjunction with the density tests, the results of which served as
. Subsequently, moisture 4 measurements <:nade after compaction were reviewed ' acceptance criteria. again for this period and the cases for which the post-compaction moisture data indicate measurements beyond + 24 of optimum have been identified. l id re Mois'sureomeasurements for the three per o s a c now considered not to have met the intent of the f specification regarding the location and time oPrior to c i for the 1979 season,.this requirement will be the measurements. redefined. Final acceptance density critaria were clearly r l specified and were'implee. anted from the inception of the project. Moisture measurements were taken es a necessary j q l part of the final density tests. In-process moisture control criteria were not i t consistently J b ' clearly specified 'and were nc-Clarifications nd interpretations implemented. of'the specification were made without i ,o specification changes. Licensee further alleges that prior to 1978, "During l i-d as the Compaction" was interpreted by personnel in the fiel l f entire process of placing, cor.pacting and t- .ing. l Licensee admits that the corrective action it j l (b) i h regard to nonconformance reports j i initially took w t [ related to plant fill did not prevent nonconformances at a later date in the area of plant fill construction. l i t. 4 4 f i I I 4
- -{
1 m. --..e
..a.._ 1, ? Licensee alleges that.its corrective action, including ~ those.it initially took, substantially reduced the number of nonconformances at a later date in the area of plant fill construction. Licensee's position is set forth in the pertinent portion of its response to NRC Preliminary Finding 8. Licensee has the following response to Appendix B Licensee admits that the excer; nf documents l t-I cited at page 1 of Appendix B are correct. Licensee alleges, as set forth in its response to NRC Preliminary Finding 3, thatt FSAR Table 2.5-9 provides compaction criteria and zone designation both of which are design bases. Inadvertently omitted from this table was the number "2" in the column used for " Zone Designation" for the " Support of Structures." Also inadvertently omitted were the words "and sand" in the column used to designate the " Soil Type" for the ' Support of Structures." FSAR Table 2.5-10 provides a definition of Zone 2 materials. These materials were used consistent with the recommendations contained in the Dames and Moore report included in the PSAR. FSAR Table 2.5-14 summarizes contact stresses, estimated bearing capacity and factors of safety for the supporting soils given in the table for each structural unit. However, some of these supporting soils specified in Table 2.5-14 were intentionally not the same as the design bases soils described (or intended to have been described) in Table 2.5-9. The supporting soils specified in 2.5-14 were those used for the ( conservative calculations given in that table. FSAR Table 2.5-9 was revised to correct the inadvertent l omissions and Table 2.5-14 was revised to reflect i the design bases contained in the PSAR (as translated into the actual design) rather;than to reflect the material used for calculational purposes.. ma
..2.:=---.:-----------.-:-:----------.-:--=-;...._.....-.... m, Therefore, Licensee, denies that the excerpted information s 3 is " false." Lice'nsee ad=its that " materials other than controlled n compacted. cohesive fill were used to support the diesel Licensee alleges that only controlled generator building." and compacted fill was used to support the Diesel Generator has no knowledge or information sufficient Building. Licensea. to form a belief as to whether "information presented concerning the supporting soils influenced the staff review of the FSAR." 3 4 1 a l t 9 .. k b i
- ~~--..-.
~
- g e._g&
att UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA?S ) ,m ) In the Matter of ) ) Docket Nos. 50-329 50-330 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) ) (Midland Nuclear Power Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) _) CERTIFICATE OF SERNICE I, Alan S. Farnell, hereby certify that copies " Ar.swer to of my " Notice of Appearance" and of Applicant's in the Notice of Hearing" were served upon the persons shown t
- mail, attached Service List by deposit in the United Sta es first class, this 16th day of April, 1980
, u, :.,[ j Alan S. Farnell /// [
o. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT SERVICE LIST Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Mr. Steve Gadler Cha1rman 2120 Carter Avenue Atomic Safety & Licensing Board S t. Paul, Minnesota 55108 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. ' Washington, D.C. 20555 Norton Hatlie, Esq. Attorney at Law Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr. P. O. Box 103 Atomic Safety &. Licensing Board Navarre, Minnesota 55392 10807 Atwell Houston, Texas.77096 Richard K. Hoefling, Esq. Counsel to NRC Staff Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=m. Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear L.:ulatory Commission Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 l One IBM Plaza j Chicago, Illinois 60611 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Judd L. Bacon, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 Consumers-Power Company 212. West Michigan Avenue Docketing / Service Section Jackson, Michigan 49201 Office of.,he Secretary U.S. Nuclei.r Regulatory Commission Ms.-Mary Sinclair Washington, D.C. 20555 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Harold F. Reis, Esq. Robert Lowenstein, Esq. Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D.C. 20036 W esip w m .--.w+ 4 %,.e c._ ,4 .,,,.m 4_,., _, __.___.______________-_._________________m_._
__.2.-_.c_____.__ r U, ITED STATES N
- o
,!M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- y~
/ j A _ I2, eI REQlONlil ' Y 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD r cLEN EltYN. ILLINOls 60137 N I April 30, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR: G. Fiorelli, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch V tc D. W. Hayes, Chief, Engineering Support Section 1 'nIRU E FROM: E. J. Gallagher, Reactor Inspector CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2
SUBJECT:
ANSWER TO NOTICE OF HEARING (1) NRC Order Modifying Construction Permits Ref: dated December 6, 1979 (2) Consumers Power Companf Answer to Notice of Hearing As per your request, the following are comments to Consumers Power Company (CPCO) submittal entitled " Answer to Notice of Hearing" regarding the Midland Unit 1 and 2 construction project: 1. CPCO response (pages 2-3) denics the statements made in the NRC order (pages 1-2) which states, ...."This investigation revealed, a breakdown in quality assurance relatz d to soil construction activities under and around safety-related structures and systems in that (1) certain design and construction specifications related to foundation-type. material properties and compaction requirements were not followed; (2) there was a lack of clear direction and support between the contractor's engineering of fice and construc-tion site as well as within the. contractor's engineering of fice; (3) there was a lack of control and supervision of plant fill placement activities which contributed to inadequate compaction of foundation material; (4) corrective action regarding nonconfomances related to plant fill was insufficient or inadequate as evidenced by repeated deviations from specification requirements; and (5)' the FSAR contains inconsistent, incorrect, and unsupported statements with respect to foundation type, soil properties, and setticment values".- Comment _: A " breakdown in quality assurance" did substantially occur in the soil construction activities and the list of five items above were contributing factors to the failure of the -licensee to control the backfill and its placement and compaction at the Midland site. ,m. n
.[ ^ J f G. Florelli April 30, 1980 1 I 2. CPCO response (Appendix, page 2) denies the findings with respect to the Borated Water Storage Tanks and states that,... The assumptions used for the borated tank settinment calculations are appropriate for the type of design utilized". Comment: A uniform rigid mat foundation will not behave in the same manner as a flexible circular ring wall foundation. The inspection finding indicated the lack of design control interface and verification between the geo-technical group who performed settlement calculations under the assump-tion of a uniform rigid mat foundation while the civil / structural group performed a design and analysis of the BWST using a flexible ring wall foundation. 3.' ~ CPCO response (Appendix, page 3) states, in part, that the.. " Licensee denies that instructions provided to field construction for substituting lean concrete for Zone 2 material were contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V". Comment: Lean concrete material was permitted to be used indiscriminate 1y by the Bechtel letter dated December 27, 1974 which states, " lean concrete back-fill is considered acceptable for replacement of Zone 1 and 2". This instruction was given without proper consideratior,and coordination, and its. effect on other design basis, i.e. settlement ef fects. The instruc- ^ tion which was bnplemented was therefore inadequate and contrary to criterion V. 4. CPCO response (Appendix, page 4) states, in part,..." Licensee denies that Quality Control Instruction C-1.02 is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X, CPCO Tbpical Report CPC 1-A, Policy No. 10, Section 3.1 or ANSI N45.2 (1971)". Comment: QCI 1.02 (quality control instruction for soil placement) did not provide a comprehensive and adequate program of inspection of activities affecting the quality of safety-related structures. The QCI permitted a random surveillance of an activity which required 100% inspection in order to verify soils material was placed and compacted to design requirements. l
u _. _ __ '.*, /? ,a ~.f G.'Fiorelli April 30, 1980 i 5. CPCO response (Appendix, page 4) states, in part, that the... y,. " Licensee denies the general allegation that " measures did not assure that soils conditions of adverse quality were promptly corrected to preclude repetition". Licensee denies that its actions and measures were contrary to ]O CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI". Comment Adequate measures were not taken by the licensee to preclude repetitive nonconforming condition adverse to quality by virtue of recurring deviations of moisture control and the erroneous selection of laboratory standard used in attempting to achieve the required compaction. 6. CPCO response (Appendix, page 8) states, in part, that the.." Licensee admits that " materials other than controlled compacted cohesive fill were used to support the Diesel Generator Building". Licensee alleges that only controlled and compacted fill was used to support the Diesel Generator Building". Coment: Material other than cohesive fill was used to support the Diesel Generator Building. The material was random fill. which was of any classification and consistency. However, controlled and ampacted fill w?.s not used. The compaction of material was not controlled by either its consistency or by the method of compaction. The equipment used in attempting to compact the fill was not qualified to a particular method of compaction, i.e., lift thickness, material type, and equipment used, and therefore not placed under controlled conditions. It was later determined that the method used could not be qualified to achieve the required density of the fill. CPCO's response to the NRC order admits to a number of technical details of Appendix A of the order. The items admitted to are consistent with previous NRC findings. If there are any questions regarding the above, please let me know. \\ g 1 i E.'J. Gallagh cc: J. G. Keppler D. W. Hayes R. C. Knop T. Vandel R. Cook w+
~ - f**- f---~ } ~ ^,-}-- Q [ - M U ii V' -l f
- 1
<> s, ,; (.. qq -pk % c sel - ( h At Y a m J ^ ^ o~,. 'V () ' f[ s amth' LE 'bWT-< g$N& v y Q g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ( ,y '4,4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION / w Ju.f i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2 In the Matter.of ) ) CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329-0M ) 50-330-0M (Hidland Plant, Unit's 1 and 2) ) In the Matter of ) ) CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329-0L ) 50-330-0L (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL CONSOLIDATION INTRODUCTION On May 27, 1980, Consumers Power Company (Consumers) filed a motion to con-solidate for discovery, evidentiary presentation and fact finding purposes, issues relating to soil conditions and plant fill material in three pro-ceedings: (1) the hearing requested by Consumers with respect to a December 6, 1979 Order Modifying Construction Permits (for ease of reference, this will be referred to as the enforcement hearing); (2) the operating license hearing; and (3) any hearing which may be requested and ordered in connection with amendments filed in accordance with Paragraph IV(1) of d,,.
l f '. l r the December 6,1979 Order (for ease of reference, this will' be referred to as the construction permit amendment hearing).1! While the N.7C Staff bell' eves Consumers' motion is prenature and should be held in abeyance pending the period during which petitions for leave to intervene nuy be filed and ruled on, it seems appropriate to identify at this time some of the procedu'ral considerations which should be addressed by the parties and the Board in the event one or more proceedings' are . consolidated.2/ DISCUSSION
===1. Background=== On December 6,1979, the Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement signed an order modifying the two construction permits held by Consumers for the Midland Plant. The December 6,1979 Order recites that in August 1978 Consumers had informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that unusual settlement of the diesel. generator building had occurred (December 6,1979' Order, p.1.) The Order states that further investigation by the Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment revealed a breakdown in quality assurance related to soil construction 1/ Consumers Power Company " Motion for Partial Consolidation," p.1. 2/ As is more fully. discussed below, the three proceedings differ with l respect to persons entitled to participate, the issues, and the burden l of going forward with the evidence. l e .w n
- - --,-,,,e r
--,w--- -s-. - - - --=- - -, - r-- --m-ve, -,e .,-.-ew=a w-eee,-e- ~--o-,-+ +. -
y7 3-activities under and around safety related structures and systems. (Decem-ber 6,1979. Order, p.1.) Appendix A to the Order sets out the iteras of noncompliance found by the NRC investigation. Appendix B to the Order sets out a material false statement alleged to have been made in the FSAR. 0n March 21, 1979, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, for-mally requested, under 10 C.F.R. I 50.54(f), information concerning the. l' above matters to detennine whether action should be taken to modify, suspend or revoke the construction permits. (December 6,1979 Order, p. 3.) The Staff concluded that the quality assurance deficiencies involving the settlement of the diesel generator building and soil activities, the false statement in the FSAR, and the unresolved safety issue concerning the ade-5 quacy of the remedial action to correct the deficiencies in the soil con- . struction under and around safety related structures and systems were ade-quate bases to refuse to grant a construction pennit and that, therefore, suspension of certain activities under the construction pennits was war-ranted. (December 6,1979 Order, p. 4.) i Consumer's construction pennits were modified by prohibiting certain speci-fled soil construction activities pendinq the submission of an amendrent'to ~ the Application seeking approval of remedial actions, associated with those soil construction activities and the issuance of an amendment to the con-struction pennits authorizing the remedial actions. (December 6,1979 Order, p. 4.) .r ._y .--..._,_y ,._-,p.. .,.,,..,,,.,,,_,,m ..__-.w___,_.__ m+_.,g_,,,cy.e,w..
a 4 In Part V of the Order, the Licensee or any person whose interest was affected by the Order were given 20 days to request a hearing with respect to all or any part of the Order. In the event of a hearing, the issues to be con-sidered were stated: "(1) whether the facts set forth in Part II of this Order are correct; and (2) whether this Order should be sustained." (Decem-ber 6,1979 Order, p. 6.) The Order was to become effective on the expira' tion of the period during i I which a hearing may be requested or, in the event a hearing was requested, on the date specified in an order made following the hearing. (December 6, 1979 Order, p. 6.) [ On December 26, 1979, Consumers requested a hearing in accordance with Part V of the Order Modifying Construction Pennits. On March 20, 1980, the Com-mission published in the Federal Register (45 Fed. Reg. 18214-5) a Notice of Evidentiary Hearing. In the Notice, the Commission stated that if Con-sumers moved to consolidate this proceeding with other NRC proceedings which involve substantially identical issues, the Board should consider whether such consolidation would adversely affect the expeditious resolution of the issues. Notice of opportunity for intervention was not provided in the Commission's March 20, 1980 Federal Register notice. On May 28, 1980, the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ap-pointed by the Commission in its March 20, 1980 Federal Register notice caused to be published in the Federal Register an amended notice of evidentiary e
. hearing with respect to the order modifying construction remits (45 Fed. Reg.35P47). The May 28,'1980 Federal Register notice published as an attachment the December 6,1979 Order and, in addition, gave notice that by June 27, 1980 any persons whose interest may be affected by this proceeding could file a petition for leave to intervene. Consumers' motion envisions consolidation of issues in three proceedings: the hearing on the December 6th Order, the operating license hearing soil settlement contentions and any possible hearing on CP amendments which may be ordered in the future. In the operating license hearin'g, two contentions related to the soil con-struction activities were accepted by the Board in a Special Prehearing Conference Order dated February 23, 1979. Contention No. 24 of Intervenor Mary Sinclair, as interpreted by the Board, relates to the type of material used by Consumers under one of the essential buildings. The contention was accepted conditioned. on the Board's agreement with Staf f's comment that the question appeared not to be one of site suitability, but rather of the type of material used by Consumers. In any event, the Board stated that a suit-able restatement of the contention was to be provided by Intervenor.E Such a restatement has not been filed to date. In addition, the Licensing Boa'rd' l stated with respect to Contention '2 of the Mapleton Intervenors: "This is the same issue as Sinclair Contention 24 It is accepted as it relates to settling of the Midland diesel generator building."1/ y Special Prehearing Conference Order, dated February 23, 1979, p. 8. 4) Id., p. 21. ~ \\
3 e Paragraph IV(1) of the December 6,1979 Order Modifying Construction Pennits prohibits certain specified soil construction activities pending the sub-mission of an' amendment to the application seeking approval of remedial actions and the issuance of an amendment to. the two construction pemits. Consumers filed amendment 72 to their application for On December 19, 1979. I' construction pennits and operating licenses. Amendment 72 contains a state- ? ment that it is submitted in accordance with Paragraph IV(1) of the Order Modify.ing Construction Permits dated December 6,1979. That would indicate ' that the amendment is intended to be an application which would lead to the j issuance of amendments to the construction pennits. There is nothing on the 1 face of amendment 72, however, to distinguish it from the many other amend-ments filed by Consumers for which construction permit amendments are not required.M The December 6,1979 Order required Consumers to submit an amendment to its application seeking approval _ of an amendment to its construction pennits if it desired to undertake soil activity remedial actions. Consumers has requested a hearing on-the Order but that request presumably should n'ot be construed as a request for a hearing on any CP amendments which this Board ultimately may determine are necessary.M Thus, a question is posed 5/ Typically, detailed review of design changes by construction permit holders is deferred to the operating license review stage. "Although a sufficiently major change could warrant a construction pennit anend-ment, a review of 88 extant construction permits indicated that none r had been amended for a design change...." Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), CLI-79-11, 10 NRC 733, 735 (December 12,1979). y In fact Consumers indicates its uncertainty about such a contigency by urging consolidation of "... any hearing which may, b_e_ requested...." a e (emphasis added)
.,.C s?' concerning whether this Licensing Board can take actions to consolidate issues which might arise in some future proceeding not now noticed or even detennined to be required. If the Licensing Board detennines in the enforcement portion of this pro-l I l ce'eding that amendment 72 does not give rise to a required amendment to the construction pennits, there will be no CP amendment hearing to be consoli-dated. If it is detennined that the construction pennits require amend-ment, then arguably the third type of proceeding suggested by Consumers, i.e., a hearing which may be requested and ordered -in connection with con-struction pennit amendments, might arise. However, this Board could well l determine to order the construction permits amended as a logical result of l its hearing on the Order, thus obviating the need for further applications and approvals by Consumers. The course selected depends in part on the way in which issues are framed, parties' interests are defined and the Commission's delegations are interpreted. 2. The issues The issues in the hearing involving the Order Modifying Construction Permits ' are as stated on p. 6 of that Order: (1) whether the facts set forth in Part II of this Order are correct; (2) whether this Order should be sus tained. The facts set forth in Part II are those which support the NRC's conclusion that the quality assurance deficiencies involving the settlement of the diesel generator building and soil activities at the Midland site, the false statement in the FSAR, and the unresolved safety issue concerning
1 the adequacy of the remedial action to correct the deficiencies in the soil l $ -j,^' i construction under and around safety related structures and systens are ade-quate bases to refuse to grant a construction permit and that, therefore, suspension of certain activi, ties under the two construction permits is war-ranted until the related safety issues are resolved. (December 6,1979 Order, p. 4.) ? The issues in the operating license hearing will be whether the remedial actions proposed by Consumers in amendments to their application for con-struction pennits and operating licenses filed beginning on December 19, 1979 meet the regulatory requirements appropriate for the issuance of oper-ating licenses. (10 C.F.R. 9 50.57.) i The issue to be considered in any hearing which may be requested and ordered in connection with Paragraph IV(1) of the December 6,1979 Order is whether the remedial actions proposed by Consumers in amendments to their applica-tion for construction permits and operating licenses filed beginning on December 19, 1979 meet the regulatory requirements appropriate to the issuance of construction permits (10 C.F.R. 5 50.35) and amendments to construction pennits (10 C.F.R. 9 50.91). Any consolidation order, therefore,. would have to carefully delineate the issues and the application regul'atory requirements upon which findings and conclusions must be maan to insure that the appropriate evidentiary standards were met.
- e-*=**
-w ~ -,- -+
1 / f..E ' ) i 3 Standards of Evidence In Consumers Power' Company (Midland Plant,, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-315, 3 NRC 101(1976), the Appeal Board indicated that, with respect to the enforceirent i hearing, the Staff would have the burden of going forward with evidence ) I sufficient to make out a prima facie case'. The Appeal Board modified its discussion of the burden of going forward, however, by ruling that the burden must be met "... at a minimum..." by. coming forward " initially with evidence sufficient to cause a reasonable licensing board to inquire further." (ALAB-315, supra at 112.) Based on its consideration of Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-5, 7 AEC 19 (1974), the Appeal Board reserved judgment on whether, in fact, it would be necessary to produce a prima facie case. Although in the context of the evidentiary hearing this discussion may prove to be academic, all parties should at least be aware that the burden of going forward.with the evidence is not the same for each of the hearings. The Staff would have no burden to go forward with the evidence in either the operating. license hearing or the construction permit amendment hearing. 4. Parties in Interest Another issue to be weighed 'in consideration of proceedings is whether th'e various interests of different participants will be appropriately recognized. The class of persons having an affected interest in one proceeding will not necessarily be the same class of persons having an affected interest in one e
v . ri! . t 1 - 10 of the other proceedings. The detennination of which interests are af fected depends in part on the scope of the proceeding. While the notice of hearing for this proceeding and the notice for the OL proceeding are adequate to put persons affected by the results of those proceedings on notice, it does not necessarily follow that the entire class of persons affected by a future decision to modify the construction permits is on notice. For example, if this Board determines to modify Consumers' c'onstruction permits on mattrrs related to soil activities rather than suspend'such activities as indicated in the December 6th Order, then all persons affected by the action have been properly notified and consolidation of issues and parties could enhance administrative efficiency'. On the other hand, if the Board determines to sustain the Order in all its particulars, Consumers would require a separate amendment to its construction pennits. The in-terests affected at that point inight theoretically be different than those identified in this proceeding or in the OL proceeding. Res judicata and collateral estoppel doctrines could, of course, be argued but it is doubtful whether a consolidation order rendered at some prior time could be construed to have bound a party with interest who did not have actual or constructive l l notice that a result of this proceeding might be a remedy which went beyond the issues set forth in the December 6th Order. +'e ev ,e w- --m-,-- --w -w.
y i CONCLUSION 9 The NRC Staff' urges the Board to hold ruling on Consumers' motion in abey-ance pending its ruling on any intervention petitions which may be recel'ved in this proceeding. In addition the Board should consider consolidation after an opportunity has been given to the parties to consider and brief the issues related to consolidation including but not limited to the considera-tions set out above.. Respectfully submitted, William D. Paton Counsel for NRC Staff William J. Olmstead Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of , 1980. l ,-,}}