ML20093N844

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony of Ds Hood & J Kane Re Matl False Statement Identified in NRC 791206 Mod Order
ML20093N844
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 01/31/1983
From: Hood D, Kane J
NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML19258A087 List: ... further results
References
CON-BX17-021, CON-BX17-21, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408020178
Download: ML20093N844 (3)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. db .. MiDLArMb -MhTc.h\\ FALSE. ~ j' hM. Mg3 grAwmgg7-January, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 50-330 (MidlandPlant, Units 1and2) NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF DARL S. H000 AND JOSEPH KANE ON MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT IDENTIFIED IN NRC'S MODFICATION ORDER OF DECEMBER 6, 1979 Q1. Please state your names and positions with the NRC. A1. My name is Darl S. Hood. I am the Project Manager for the Midland Plant application for operating licenses. I have served in this position for the Midland Plant since August 29, 1977. My name is Joseph Kane. I am a Principal Geotechnical Engineer within the Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. I have been involved with the NRC's geotechnical review of the Midland application for operating j licenses since Novenber 1979. j Q2. Have you prepared statements of professional qualifications. A2. Yes. Copies of these statements have been previously submitted in this hearing. fjj80h78040710 RICED 4-96 j ppg 88 ws et aw I

~~ - - - .s J.* 2 l Q3. Please state the purpose of this testimony. j A3. The purpose of this testimIony is to address the material false j statement in appendix 8 to the Order Modifying Construction .i Pemits, dated December 6,1979. l Q4. What is the NRC Staff position with respect to this material false statement? A4. The material false statement described in Appendix 8 to the Order i" Modifying Construction Pemits, was made in Section 2.5.4.5.3 of the FSAR. That section provided that "all fill and backfill were placed according to Table 2.5-9". Had the Staff relied on this statement, it would or could have erroneously concluded'that the fill and backfill placed for the support of structures and the Diesel Generatoring Building consisted of " clay" (Table 2.5-9 under " Soil Types") or " controlled compacted cohesive fill" (Table 2.5-14 under " Supporting Soils") which had been compacted, as a minimum, to 95% of ASTM 0 1557-66 T mcdified to 9et 20,000 foot-pour.ds of compactive energy per cubic foot of soil (see Table 2.5-9 under i "CompactionCriteria"). The reality of the situation is that the j fill and backfill beneath the structures and the Diesel Generator i Building are neither " clay" nor a " controlled compacted cohesive { fill",,but consist of a heterogeneous mixture of sand, clay, silt l and lean concrete, and the minimum compaction. criterion stated s having been achieved by the quoted statement from FSAR l Section 2.5.4.5.3 was not achdeved. I e g i e-e m ew- .w.

y q r. l 'L ,j Therefore, a conclusion by the Staff that the fills and backfills L l were of a different type or had been compacted to known minimum standards would have been eroneous and would or could have precluded a more probing analysis or further questfoning. Based .i upon the FSAR infonnation, the Staff would or could have concluded i-that the structure was adequately supported, that it would not -] -. . experience detrimental settlement, that its foundations would >Iq remain stable under both static and earthquake loading, and that -t the fill properties would be a least equai to design values provided in the FSAR. The Staff's conclusion would have been relevant to the NRC findings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. i 50.57(3) for issuance of operat'ing licenses and would have contribu'ted to a finding that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public. QS. The answer to Q4 indicates that the FSAR was false in at least two respects;'(1) Ehe nature of the fill and (2) the compaction criteria. Which of these two respects is material to the Staff's '1 jgeotechnical safety review? 1 j. AS. As noted during the August 13, 1981 hearing session .l (Transcript 4426-7), the false statement concerning the compaction j criteria.was material. . s, .v 1 4 l ~ ^ t / -a ',j e- ~ ~~ -- a

j .y 1 Document Name:

}*

TESTIMONY OF HOOD AND KANE Requestor's ID: 'i KARENT

d...

Author's Name: i Document Connents: >j. i .} .l i 't ~- ...l n 1. ? f f 2 1 -i _1 'W m I f I*t

t. :7 J

t .I l i eq t; I i *< /

l,' t,, k. i,. 1 .4 1 I { January 17, 1983 .4 0'f.,X QE0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

    • .o3.,.., !9 IFO :53 s.t BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i

In the Matter of ) ) Docket Nos. 50-329-OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-OM j. ) 50-329-OL 'j (Midland Plant, Units 1 ) 50-330-OL 1-and 2) ) ? APPLICANT'S SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO CLOSE THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT On December 6, 1979 the Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Directcr of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement issued an Order Modifying Construction Permits (" Order") which would have prohibited Consumers Power Company from performing certain ]- soil-related activities at the Midland Plant pending approval 1 ] of amendments to its construction permits. One of the bases ..i. for the issuance of the Order identified in Part III thereof q.4

j was a " false statement in the FSAR".

Part II of the Order .: t { identifies this false statement (at p. 2):

\\

,i GOOGS9000PGSetw 1 PDR ADOCK 05000329 03 .] O P-- o , Q[- _ ~ _. _ _. _ _ _ [ ] ] ]._y ]~{~~~_ T_.TQ_i.(_ i. _

~.-~.* g '.~ T Q _

~T. N

[] .1 fj. (A]s described in Appendix B to this Order, j l a material false statement was made in the FSAR in that the FSAR falsely stated that "All fill and backfill were placed according to Table 2.5-9." This statement is material in that this portion of the FSAR would have been found una'cceptable without further Staff analysis and questions if the Staff had known that Category I structures had been placed in fact on random fill rather than controlled compacted cohesive fill as stated in the FSAR. i Applicant requested a hearing with respect to the y Order on December 26, 1979 which led to the appointment of ~ r {' . this Licensing Board on March 14, 1980. The Commission's March 14, 1980 Order states: The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board shall consider and decide the following issues: 1. Whether the facts set forth in Part II of + the Directors' Order of December 6, 1979 are correct, and 2. Whether that Order should be sustained. See also December 6, 1979 Order at p. 6. Subsequently certain interested persons were allowed to intervene, contentions were admitted', and the proceeding ~. 0, arising out of the December 6,1979 Order (the "OM" or " Soils" s

  • proceeding) was consolidated with the Midland operating license proceeding.

Prehearing Conference Order Ruling on Contentions and on Consolidation of Proceedings dated October 24, 1980. M ~!'. The two general issues identified in the Commission's March 14, -t 1980 Order, together with intervenors' specific contentions, represent the matters in controversy which this Board must decide. 4 v e G,e

i cj ~, 1 2 Only one of intervenors' contentions, Stamiris i

i..

contention 1(a), relates to the material false statement allegation in the December 6,1979 Order.1/ That contention has been fully litigated in the evidentiary hearings held in July and August of 1981, and the parties have submitted j-findings of fact as to this contention. ! b i 4-, 1 l -[ f. 1/ Stamiris contention 1(a) states: " Consumers Power Company statements and responses to NRC regarding soil settlement issues re.flect a less than complete and candid dedication to providing information i relevant to health and safety standards with respect to ] resolving ~the soil settlement problems, as seen in: ( h (a) the material false statement in the FSAR (Order of ~ Modification, Appendix B). " 1 41 There are no matters in controversy in the operating' license 1 portion of this consolidated proceeding which relate to the j-material false statement allegation. See 10 CFR S 2.760a. 3p 4j 2/ See Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions

.3.

of Law dated October 28,1981 at pp. 62-65; Stamiris Proposed fj Findings of Fact submitted on December 10, 1981 at pp. 34-40; '} NRC Staff Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated December 30, 1981 at pp. 17-21. .f ~ a D j 4 t: , -i $'ky

^ ! .t 1 "l' -l -4 In its October 2, 1981 Memorandum (Concerning i Telephone Conference Call of September 25, 1981 and Appli- /-. cant's Motion for Partial Decision) the Licensing Board j. granted Applicant's request that it issue a partial initial i decision with respect to Stamiris contention 1(a) and other { quality assurance and " management attitude" issues.3/ .l ] In so doing, however, the Board observed with respect to .}1 the material false - statement: l' Testimony has already been received on the " management attitude" aspects of the state-7]. ment, but the parties have not yet addressed 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission , ]i Washington, D.C. 20555 James E. Brunner, Esq. Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 . s. l l' l 'i e d' E.......

~ i.: e...... b 1 q. ]( 'I Ms. Barbara Stamiris

  • Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board 5795 N. River U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Freeland, Michigan 48623 Washington, D.C.

20555 ..s. 'j James R. Kates

  • Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 203 S. Washington Avenue Panel Saginaw, Michigan 48605 U.S. Nuclear Regulato'.ry Cominission Washington, D.C.

20555 Wendell H. Marshall, President Mapleton Intervenors

  • Docketing and Service Section

)j-RFD 10 Cffice of the Secretary Midland, Michigan 48640 U.S. Nuclear Reg'ulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Wayne Hearn Steve J. Gadler, P.E. Bay. City Times 2120 Carter Avenue ~~- 311 Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55108 Bay City, Michigan 48706 Frederick C. Williams ~i Paul C. Rau Isham, Lincoln & Beale Midland Daily News 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW 124 Mcdonald Street Washington, D.C. 20036 Midland, Michigan 48640 Lee L. Bishop ( Myron M. Cherry, p.c. Harmon & Weiss Peter Flynn, p.c. 1725 I Street;.N.W. Cherry & Flynn Suite 506 Three First National Plaza Washington, D.C. 20006 Suite 3700 i Chicago, -IL 60602 T. J. Creswell Michigan Division Legal Department Dow Chemical Company 1 Midland, Michigan 48640 z. N,/ Michael N. Wilcove Counsel for NRC Staff [ r l l ( ,}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20093N844&oldid=4327374"