ML20093C108

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Submits Proposed Schedule for Facility Soils Review
ML20093C108
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 06/25/1982
From: Adensam E
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Eisenhut D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19258A087 List: ... further results
References
CON-BX18-036, CON-BX18-36, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8206290161
Download: ML20093C108 (2)
v • d • e


Text

,.

~

.Aa.

&B t

[

O O

w I

DISTRIBUTION:

JUN 2 5 JSB2 Docket Nos. 50-329/330 g

Docket Nos: 50-373 DHood and 50-300 RHernan IOuncan EMORANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut Director g

Division of Licensing A

TEU:

Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director i

for Licensing Li Division of Licensing 1

j FROM:

Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing i

SU8 JECT:

MIDLAND SOILS REVIEW SCHEDULE 0

The proposed schedule for the soils review of Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 is as follows:

CPCo responds to Qa 6/15/82 Meeting on CPCs responses 6/25/82 Draft SSER to DL 7/9/82 Meetings on Draft SSER Week of 7/19/82 Audit Week of 7/26/82 Publish SSER 8/20/82 The schedule was determined with the assistance of Division of Engineering and was discussed with Messrs J. Mooney and J. Schaub of CPCo on June 15, 1982.

" Original Signed 3 :

7

/2/bh s

Elinor G. Adense, cntef Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing

}

cc:

H. Denton R. Vollmer J. P. Knight W. Paton i

l

_J Keppler, RIII

&2o47_pojg,j

..,,,..Duts..

3?fde w

'^i

...D.H..o..o..d../....... 3...

...E..M....e...s..a..m.......

.R..T..e..d.......o.........

sunnwe)

...... ~........ - -

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..

.. 0331.8.2.......... 6/b'.82........ 6$7/ 8 2..........

.................. ~.

...... ~.... ~.....

omy

...n.c. ronu_si_s_o_o.m u_n.cu c24o O_F F.I.CI A L R E CO R D CO PY_

.,3 s

usam =-uw p

.._,a.,

gm

,,,,.m.

.w.

f

~r-

,,,,y.

o UNITED STATES 1

/

f fn,,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY C'OMMISSION 9-g j

wAsMiNGTON, D. C. 20655 7

o e

...../

JUN.c 51932

^

f, Docket Nos: 50-329 and 50-330 y

p e-h MEMORANDUM FOR: ' Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director 1

^'

Division of Licensing THRU:

RobertL.Tedesco,AssigtDirector ti

. for Licensing g

d Division of Licensing g,

2 FROM:

Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing 4

i

SUBJECT:

MIDLAND SOILS REVIEW SCHEDULE 3

tij The proposed schedule for the soils review of Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 is as follows:

CPCo responds to Qs 6/15/82 Meeting on CPCo responses 6/25/82 3

s Draft SSER to DL 7/9/82 i

Meetings on Draft SSER Week of 7/19/82 2

Audit Week of 7/26/82 a

Publish SSER 8/20/82 i

The schedule was determined with the assistance of Division of Engineering and l

was discussed with Messrs J. Mooney and J. Schaub of CPCo on June 15, 1982.

~

V k

G...<.w )..-

. n,.. -

1 Elinor G. Adensam, Chief j

Licensing Branch No. 4 L

Division of Licensing

)$

cc:

H. Denton I

R. Vollmer j

J. P. Knight W. Paton

,5 J. Keppler, RIII j

3 l

i i

i 1

~

1__;h s

i M

g

}

DISTRIBUTION:

Docket Mos. 50-329/330 OM, OL M 2 51982 MDuncan 1

Docket Nos: 50-329 OM, OL DHood and 50-330 OM, OL DEisenhut/RPurple RTedesco.

WPaton Ms. Barbara Stsmiris RVollmer 5795 N. River HDenton Freeland, Michigan 48623

Dear Ms. Stamiris:

Thank you for your letters of April 3,1982, to Mr. H. Denton and of April 12, 1982, to me providing a brief account of kg events relating to the Midland soils issue, and the expression of your concerns.

The examples of departures from PSAR/FSAR design requirements and other deficiencies cited in your April 12, 1982, letter are the subjects of concern to the staff. As you observed at the last SALP meeting in Jackson, Michigan, Mr. Kappler is currently re-examining the applicant's QA performance and will provide results of this re-examination later this month. We are working in close coordination with Region III, particularly with the soils remedial effort. We also have the benefit of the ACRS letter of June 8,1982, which includes a recoamendation for a broader assessment of Midland's design adequacy and construction quality. The recommendations of the ACRS will be addressed in a supplement to the SER. As a party to the hearing, you will be kept informed of developments in these areas.

Regarding your question as to the purpose of the PSAR and FSAR, their contents are specified by 50.34 and provide the basis for the NRC's safety findings required by 10 CFR 50.35(a) and 50.57, which for the Midland Plant is indicated by Chapter 22 of \\

the SER. For our findings regarding public health and safety to be valid, then obviously the information in the FSAR which is material and relevant to these d-ings nust be accurate. However, design and construction of cosplex facilities such as nuclear power plants are, of necessity, dynamic processes, and our regulations and review procedures provide flexibility within the constraints of the construction permit for applicants to proceed with construction at their own risk.

This co@ination of accuracy and flexibility for change requires timely reports and amendments by applicants such that our review of the completed facility prior to-operation is based upon actual design, construction and procedures. Regarding the

[.

I l

l

" v 3 0 V 2 f, M 2.

==

=

mmxc

~

i.

s 4

q c,

j Ms. Barbara Stamiris 9 l

degree of risk assumed by applicants during construction, issuance of a construction

,j permit by.the Cosaission provides no assurance that an operating license will neces-

]

sarily follow. This point is well illustrated by the soil settlement problem at

i Midland in that favorable staff findings are contingent upon implementation of g

acceptable remedial actions prior to operating license issuance._

~

d Sincerely.

"Or igned 37 i

'f L 'f7hND _

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director t

Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1

t i

E' DIR N R HRDMton

  • NOTE: SEE PREVIOUS WHITE FOR CONCURRENCE

.6/A/82

.Lh.;9k.;k1.!.4.. 9E9.........D.L.Le..R.4......hD.;L.;9L......91B.;991...

9L.;.ke...t.y ama>

$p,t!p,q,a,y,,,

  • WPaton
  • g,M,9,g,9,gp,,,,,,,,,*3,Tgyg,1,q,o,,,,,,,,R,yp]Jgy,,,,,

nhy,t,,,

'.0,H,9,9,dj,h,,,,,,,,

sunmase n

.fBB.?..fGl.%.2

.56B2.

....f1.1.92.1........ 52.4B2....

.h D.4 8 2

.. bI /82 fr!LR....

amy we ronu m o wi m.uom OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam ini-am.

~-:-

-. - 7 :.

_=------m,=-

y,

~

.cmpa+as wyggnwv i

I..

. d_

Cl_

4._.

{

L s

a.

s DISTRIBUTION:

~

Docket Nos. 50-329/330 OM, OL LB #4 r/f

~

EAdensam i

Docket Nos: 50-329 OM, OL Euncan l

4 and 50-330 OM, OL DHood DEisenhut/RPurple

.~

l RTedesco WPaton 7

Ms. Barbara Stamir RVo11mer i

i 5795 N. River HDenton Freeland, Michigan' 23

Dear Ms. Stamiris:

Thank you for your letters April 3,1982, to Mr. H. Denton and of April 12, 1982, to me providing a brief acc t of key events relating to the Midland soils issue, and the expression of your co rns.

p The examples of departures from R/FSAR design requirements and other deficiencies cited in your April 21,1982, let are not new to us, and indeed, are the subjects of much intenst and considerable ivity by the NRC. As you observed at the last SALP meeting in Jackson, Michigan, Mr Keppler is currently re-examining the app 11-t cant's OA performance and will provide ults of this re-examination later this l

month. We are working in close coordina fon with Region III, particularly with the L

soils remedial effort. We also have the nefit of the ACRS letter of June 8,1982, which recommends a broader assessment.of M land's design adequacy and construction quality, and which Elso provides other prude t advice. The recommendations of the ACRS are being addressed by a supplement to t SER. As a party to the hearing, you L

will be kept infomed of developments in these reas.

Regarding your question as to the purpose of the SAR, its content is identified by 10 CFR 50.30(d), 50.33, 50-34(b), and 50.55(d), a provides the basis for the NRC's safety findings required by 10 CFR 50.57, which for Midland Plant is indicated by Chapter 22 of the SER. For our findings regardin

>ublic health and safety to be valid, then obviously the information in the FSAR whic is material and relevant to i

these findings must be accurate. However, design and c struction of complex facili-l ties such as nuclear power plants are, of necessity, dyn ic processes, and our regu-lations and review procedures provide flexibility within t constraints of the con-struction pemit for applicants to proceed with constructio at its own risk.

l This construction of accuracy and flexibility for change requi es timely reports and 1

amendments by applicants such that our review of the completed acility prior to operation is based upon actual design, construction and. procedu s.

Regardjng the y

e d

i 1

I5.2 ur T==::r:= L L= =-.--

=r:::re : z: =~m,

1.%.

gym m'

r_

. m.- y..

I u.

k-E h

4 s

L Ms. Haroara stamiris ;

degree of risk assumed by~ applicants during construction, issuance of a construction permit by the Copatission provides no assurance that an operating license will neces-j sarily follow..This point is well illustrated by the soil settlement probles at j

Midland'in that favorable staff \\ findings are contingent upon implementations of acceptable remedial actions prior to operating license issuance. -

\\

Sincerely, Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DIR:NRR HRDenton

  • NOTE: SEE PREVIOUS WHITE FOR CONCURRENCE n-6/ /82 c=>..D u n. n....u:Du La.#.4...0 ELD................... A;.Ul.f A..

.... D,1,R,,:,Q,0,E,,,,,,

,,,,Q,1,R,: D,L,,,,,

sura *=r) *Q}jp.gg/"hmg

  • MDuncan WPaton
  • EAdensam sco RVollmer DEisenhut

.../. 5/.82 "UUNk"~" IlkI/E5 5INIEI 571" 75E

""III Y"E 5

carr) n:c ro:u m no,soiunca ca4o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

__"..m._" "_-88

r-n.m,, --.

g mg vm, 7

?

~,

x m

B DISTRIBUTION:

Docket Nos. 50-329/330 OM, OL LB #4 r/f EAdensam MDuncan DHood Docket Mos: 50-329 OM, OL 50-330 OM, OL DEisenhut/RPurple and RTedesco WPaton g.*

RVollmer g

Ms. Barbara Stamiris HDenton

)

5795 N. River

[

. Freeland, Michigan 48623

Dear Ms. Stamiris:

1 Thank you for yourletters of April 3,1982, to Mr. H. Denton and of April 12, 1982, A

to Mr. R. Vollmer and me providing a'brief account of key events in the Midland i

soils hearing, a'nd expressing your concern whether quality assurance will be prop-erly iglemented in the future, particularly regarding the soils remedial work.

Messrs. Denton and Vollmer have asked me to provide this reply on their behalf.

J i

Because of the present status of these matters and the OM, OL hearing, it would not be appropriate for Mr. Denton, Mr. Vollmer, or me to conment upon the specifics

^

of your letters.

I can assure you, however, that the general subject matter is one of much interest and considerable activity by the NRC. We are working in close coordination with Region III, particularly for the unique and coglex activities associated with the future soils remedial effort. As a party in the OM, OL hearing to which these issues are material and relevant, you will be kept informed of developments in this area.

With respect to the inquiry in your April 12, 1982, letter concerning the purposes of the PSAR and FSAR, I have asked Darl Hood, Project Manager, to discuss this with you by telephone.

Sincerely, i

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:

H. Denton

[h R. Vollmer

/

')

-(V r

i>

  • 3

,ooi OIR/NRR vf

/

\\

HR0enton

  • NOTE KFF PRFVIOut WHITE FOR ronettmikuk

/

5/ /82 r

ome S..QL;.LE.14...... LA:,0L:LE ia.....0ELDb..y.0 AD.:L:

. MR.:DQE.

..ER:DL.

=>

0.ti9.9.d./.hms...lt@nEAn

..*WP.A.tRD....

Am....3I sr.o...

RVa1.lmer.

DE.1 W om>..E/.5/.82.......... 5/.5/.82

... 5/RJ.82.....5/$a2 22

.. 5I /AL.

51 182.

~

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom mi-mm me ronn ais osen mcu ne4o

,,. 7._. -.

_7_7.

., _ - -, m - w _

,.m,..

. =.,., ~ w,gmumas. y

)

s

{

}

,~ 9 c

L DISTRIBUTION:

j Docket Nos. 50-329/330 OM, OL j

LB #4 r/f

'"88" i'

Docket Nos: 50-329 OM, OL

. -Y-1 and 50-330 OM, OL Do DEisenhut/RPurple RTedesco i

Ms. Barbara Stamirts WPaton 5795 N. River RYollmer 4

Freeland, Michigan 48623 HDenton i

Dear Ms. Stamiris:

lp

{

Thank you for you letters of April 3,1982 to Mr. H. Denton and of Apr114 1982, y

to Mr. R. Vollmer 'and me providing a brief account of key events in the Midland

~

h soils hearing, and expressing your concern whether quality assurance will be prop-1 erly implemented in the future, particularly regarding the soils remedial work.

Messrs. Denton and Vollmer have asked me to provide this reply on their behalf.

Because of the present status of these matters and the OM, OL hearing, it would not be appropriate for Mr. Denton, Mr. Vollmer, or me to comment upon the specifics of your letters. I can assure you, however, that the general subject matter is one of much interest and considerable activity by the NRC. We are working in close coordination with Region III, particularly for the unique and complex activities associated with the future soils remedial effort. As a party in the OM, OL hearing y

to which these issues are material and relevant, you will be kept infomed of developments in this area.

g Sincerely, Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:

H. Denton R. Vollmer

/

DIR/NRR HRDenton y

,l; L

5/ /A2

.....t....Lo:RLp#4 9E9.v

..#.L;.LS..B........ AQ;.L;#.L..........Qia;##L......... 013:0L......

L ome.,.E.t.LS...f4

.omuR... edin n:.........mt.m...l.....aduum......aadum.....

mtuu..........ansshut.

^

L un..5J.5Ja2.......... 5)../82....... 5DAlA2....... 51....]At......... 51....).0.1.......... 51...19.?............ 91....J.9.1......

L i mo rom m onowu aseo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom i

-n.a y,

m r._.g. ;._ %.w.

u y.gmqq yyg G

\\

UNITED STATES

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

  • y.

f f

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20084 s

I

\\.....

JI).1 : a 192 1.

I Docket Nos: 50-329 OM, OL-i and 50-330 OM, OL

}

15, J

Ms. Barbara Stamiris e

5795 N. River

- i-Freeland, Michigan 48523

Dear Ms. Stamiris:

. Thank you for your letters of April 3,1982, to Mr. H. Denton and of April 12, 1982, j

to me providing a brief account of kgy events relating to the Midland soils iss,ue, ll and the expression of your concerns.

1 The exagles of. departures from PSAR/FSAR design requirements and other deficiencies i

cited in your April 12, 1982, letter are the subjects of concern to the staff. As you observed at the last SALP meeting in Jackson, Michigan, Mr. Keppler is currently 1

re-examining the applicant's QA performance and will provide results of this re-examination later this month. We are working in close coordination with Region III, particularly with the soils remedial effort. We also have the benefit of the 4

i ACRS letter of June 8,1982, which includes a reconnendation for a broader assessment of Midland's design adequacy and construction quality. The reconnendations of the

' ACRS will be addressed in a supplement to the SER. As a party to the hearing, you s

j will be kept informed of developments in these areas.

Regarding your question as to the purpose of the PSAR and FSAR, their contents are specified by 50.34 and provide the basis for the NRC's safety findings required by l

10 CFR 50.35(a) and 50.57, which for the Midland Plant is indicated by Chapter 22 of the SER. For our findings regarding public health and safety to be valid, then obviously the information in the FSAR which is material and relevant to these find-i ings must be accurate. However, design and construction of complex facilities such j

as nuclear power plants are, of necessity, dynamic processes, and our regulations and review proceduras provide flexibility within the constraints of the construction j

permit for applicants to proceed with construction at their own risk.

I This combination of accuracy and flexibility for change requires timely reports and l

l amendments by applicants such that our review of the completed f acility prior to operation is based upon actual design, construction.and procedures. Regarding the t

i h

,4.

y w

l-O

-Qn.I, a n f,, 22 3

,vw vr---7 U!t j d404-

.._]ee m e-es h -:eee weemg*M g.pp

. m.

w.-

. a.

w -

,.. <,.. p a..,., a,,,..ss~ 4.es y w.

I_

9' j

4 2-Ms. Barbara Stamiris

)

i 4

a degree of risk assumed by applicants during construction, issuance of a construction permit by the Comission provides no assurance that an operating license will neces-i sarily follow. This point is well illustrated by the soil settlement problem at j

Midland in that favorable staff findings are contingent upon inplementation of acceptable remedial actions prior to operating license issuarce.

1 Sincerely, g

A A

Darrell G. Eisenhut,yDirector 3

l Division of Licensing 1

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

.I E

t Il t

i

,i d

-t e

U h

l l:

e li l23 l'

l, ll

--.m.._...______

[

JUN 2 31982 i

)

l Docket Nos.:

50-329/330 OM, OL APPLICANT:

Consumers Power Company FACILITY:

Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 i

SUBJECT:

Sumary of June 15, 1982, Meeting on Soils Review Schedule l

On June 15, 1982, the NRC Staff met in Bethesda, Maryland with Consumers Power Company (the Applicant), to discuss the status of schedule development for review of soils remedial actions for Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.

Meeting attendees are listed in Enclosure 1.

f The basis for the review schedule presently being developed by NRR for completion of the sofis remedial actions is the applicant's letter of June 14,1982 responding to the staff's request for information (Enclosure 8 of D. Eisenhut's letter of May 25,1982). The staff outlined the oeneral approach and tentative schedule (Enclosure 2) planned for completion of the review.

As 'an additional agenda item, Mr. J. Schaub noted that the "FIVP proof load test" (for which the NRC indicated in its letter of May 25,1982 that it did not recognize as having been previously approved) was an unfortunate choice of words. The applicant's intent was to refer to the discussion at previous NRC audit meetings in which the applicant discussed plans to transfer the full weight of the FIVP to the overhead support beans as part of " Phase 2" of the Auxiliary Building underpinnina sequence logic.

The applicant will issue a letter of clarification to the NRC in the near future.

5 Darl Hood, Project Manager Licensing Branch flo. 4 Division of Lice'nsisg

Enclosures:

As stated cc: See next page

  • See Previous White

,Y Gf'O'N$--

...../..DL AD L

f'

.....DL : LB #4 LA:DL:\\B#4 DL:L OPMCSh

... ~.....

.n.

.a...u...a

= =... * * * * = = *

. m a a =* = =~ ~

  • * * * = = = = = * * * *

.g g..

.Q

  • DHood:eb MDailean
  • EAdensar.

g,7 e3 co,,,,,,

0..

DATE)l-

" " " ~ ~ " -

" " ~ * = = -

WC @nM P

  • O77'r'\\'

~'

~'

' " ':d*3

w-

  1. # td 4%)

Am 1

1

E 'v' r

,s

/h;&r a G/eo W M -e

& ~/ Lw

/

0 hak rp

+.

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20093C108&oldid=4330069"