ML20093N896
Text
-.
hem
@ VWedi don PC-
-)
b, M
l#
E A c.c(
)
I l
.--A
'[
'h
', q, UNITED STATES
.1 E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. f. ( g, #
,a h
h.g
- 1. (s p..ca/rI wasMiwoTom.o.c. oses u
Di REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 9
Office of l
Investigations h
TITLE:
Midland Nuclear Power Plant Alleged Violation of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order
?y 7..
t CASE NUMBER:
3-82-061
- 1..
i SUPPLEMENTAL:
DN 50-329; 50-330 DATE: SEP 12 1983 9
1' CONTROL OFFICE:
Chicago STATUS:
SUPPLEMENTAL l
PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION:
July 11-August 8, 1983 i
REPORTING INVESTIGATOR:
//
i g narles H.
, Investigator Office of I estigations Field Office, Region III
- i ;
PARTICIPATING PERSONNEL:
David M. Galanti. Investigator Office of Investigations Field Offica 2
Region III i
d.
James N. Kalkman, Investigator a;
Office of Investigations Field Office Region III lb Harold G. Walker, Investigator
]d.
Office of Investigations Field Office Region III REVIEWED BY:
i A
uga'ne T. Pawlik / Wirecitor P Office of Invesfigations Field Office
,i.
Region III
~
i
/
8408020194 840718 l
1 i
l4 -
j
- _= ;. -
4
- -- _=
j :-
3 1
.t t
g 1
REVIEWED BY:
M
//
WH lTam J. Warn, Director Division of Fi41d Operations Office of Investigations
/
ts
.?
itie- 'Uflin n -
J. 4 Rose 6hrtuna, Deputy ~ irector
' ti.j Offic sf Investigati n 11 e
}
APPROVED BY:
/h BYo B. Hayes @ igafions ectpr Office of Inves
't s
,/,
es e
4 e
.1
. l "N f
., +
b.
a o
- }
. '.,e y
g d
h i
I a
I n
l l
~
I i l v.
... =
6
. Y.......
N.....
. u.:.c. +.:.
~..
~
l
}
SUMMARY
c.i This investigation was reopened at the request of the Regional Administrator, y
NRC hegion III, to conduct additional interviews in determining the circum-q stances surrounding the alleged violation of the April 30, 1982, ASLB Order y
requiring Consumers Power Company (CPCo) to obtain prior NRC approval before excavating in the remedial soils program at the Midland Nuclear Power Plant.
q Two Region III inspectors stated a former CPCo Soils Remedial Quality Assurance
~:)
(QA) Supervisor alleged that his employment with CPCo was terminated when he I-raised the issue of CPCo possibly violating a prohibition against digging beneath i
the deep Q duct bank. The former QA supervisor when interviewed, however, stated
)
,.y he was laid off, not teminated when the remedial soils group was reorganized.
d The former supervisor advised though, that it was consen knowledge at the Midland
.I facility that the NRC Soils Inspector had prohibited the excavation beneath the j}' **.
deep Q duct bank. The Bechtel Underpinning' Contracts Manager's notes of a meet-ing with the inspector on May 20, 1982 stated in part, "cannot proceed with l
9 excavating the pit below deep Q until NRC approval." The Underpinning Contracts
./
[ ',"
Manager stated he did not remember any details of the discussion upon which n
'? i those notes were based.
1; i
The signer of a memorandum recounting the events of a May 21, 1982, exit meeting with the inspector stated he was not present at the meeting and the memorandum was prepared for his signature by one of his employees. The author of the minutes 3
of the May 21, 1982 NRC exit meeting stated the memorandum was accurate and dealt 3
g with utility protection during freezewall activation and not the depth of utility
(
monitoring gits. The CPCo Vice President stated he did not recall having read 1.'
s that memorandum. The Vice President stated he did not become distinctly aware i
of the memorandum.until preparing for a conference concerning the alleged vio-m lation of the ASLB Order with NRC Region III in August 1982. The CPCo Executive Manager stated he attended both meetings in May 1982 and he did not recall the i
j inspector making a statement prohibiting the excavation beneath the deep Q duct D.
bank. The Executive Manager stated although he was a recipient of the memorandum
- I of the May 21, 1982 meeting he did not specifically recall reading those minutes.
]l The CPCo Midland Construction Manager advised he was not responsible for the L
soils remedial work and only ha'd a general knowledge of the soils remedial work il l
including the freezewall crossing of the deep Q duct bank. The Site Construction 9i ManaCer did not recall the memorandum of the May 21, 1982, meeting with the ~
JJ inspector. The Superintendent of the Plant Assurance Division stated he did not ii recall attending the May 21, 1982 meeting. The Superintendent stated he was 4'
listed to receive a copy of the memorandum of the meeting,.but soils remedial V
4~
work was outside his area of responsibility and he discarded the memorandum.
M The CPCo Midland Project Office Engineer recalled attending the May 1982 meetings h
and recalled receiving a copy of the memorandum.of the May 21, 1982 meeting.
4:
He recalled he read the minutes of the meeting, apaximately one week after p
issuance, but the minutes did not mean anything to him.
Others interviewed stated no one, including the former QA Supervisor, raised the 1
issue that CPCo was in violation of the inspector's prohibition against exca-l-
vating beneath the duct bank. The Superintendent of Underpinning Verification reviewed his notes of a May 20, 1982 meeting held in preparation for an NRC exit meeting the following day. These ' notes stated in part, "no further deepening of the deep duct bank until NRR concurrence..." The Verification Superintendent stated his notes meant that the method of accomplishing the impervious zone beneath the deep duct had not been approved.
, j 1
j.
-n n---
,n,.
a
-~ w.
sm=- r:. - : n. =c -- -
-.v.:
r-.cw.
.--,. u,.,..
.., ~
- j g
r*
The Planning and Scheduling Section Head produced copies of weekly Soils Schedule y
Status Reports addressed to the inspector with Short Term Action Plans attached.
- ~
The June 23 and 26, 1982 Short Term Action Plans were marked "* Complete Deep Q Duct Bank,
- Relocate Fire Protection Pipeline" with the asterisk explained on 11.
the bottom of the page by the statement, "*NRC Review Required." The Soils Re-i medial Section personnel responsible for approving permits for excavations stated they either did not use the Short Tenn Action Plans in approving permits, or they
..j.
did not recall seeing the plans. The inspector stated he only used the action plans and status reports to schedule his inspections.
,.C, i The Midland Project Office Engineer advised he was responsible for the Short Ters fi.!
Action Plans, and the NRC review required for " Complete Deep Q Duct Bank" meant to him that the backfill had not received NRC approval. The engineer further p!i 7
stated the asterisk denoting "NRC Review Required" did not mean the entire work activity had not been approved, rather "some element" still needed NRC approval.
'l:
The engineer advised the NRC review required for " Relocate Fire Protection Pipeline" meant to him that CPCo was waiting for NRC approval. The engineer stated the asterisk for "NRC Review Required" before " Relocate Fire Protection Pipeline" had been omitted in error as "somebody screwed-up in part, myself" in preparing the July 7,1982 Short Term Action Plan. Additionally, the Project i
Office Engineer stated it was the Soils Remedial Section Head's responsibility to know the status of NRC_ approvals before approving a construction activity.
s
(
(
i;
,i!
l i
b i?
-i i,
dl l.li ((
i I
1 i
- -.._--_. -=
.I.
l y.-
J.'C -
4 DETATT E
.N J:
- Purpose of Investination
~1,
,4 The purpose of this investigation was to obtain additional information in i
determining the circumstances by which Consumers Power Company (CPCo) allegedly
- j violated the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) April 30, 1982, Order
.;i amending the construction permits for the Midland Nuclear Power Plant. This
.p!
Order required CPCo to receive approval from the NRC prior to bearinning any
,j ?}
excavation for soils remedial work at the Midland f=e414ty.
,9l'
.*a; j.$
- .)
_=
. E i
4 e
h b
9
)
P
' l
>t
- } j l
l 1..,
4
'!e cJ J
.j
.1
- i_.)
l.
,a i\\:
l 8 *A-I *
+
t I
\\t l
l
.s.
.,_m, e--..c
=eN---
~ -.
q-
--. - w - -
.m
.~ _.._ _.. _.
...2--
4 3
l
] [.
1 Backaround d.
q On April 30, 1983, the Midland ASLB anidaded the Midland Nuclear Power Plant V
Construction Permits "to require that the permit holder obtain explicit prior
.I approval from the NRC Staff (to the extent such approval has not already been i
obtained) before proceeding with the following soils-related activities, and that these activities with the exception of those already approved by the NRC, and those that the Staff agrees are not critical, shall be controlled by a 1,
Staff-approved Qualit.y Assurance Plan:
4 4
(a) Any placing, compacting, excavating or drilling soil materials around I
safety-related structures and systems...(c) construction work in soil meterials under or around safety-related structures and systems, such as cij field installation, or rebodding, of conduits and piping...."
,A' On July 28, 1982 NBC Inspector Ross B. LANDSMAN was at the Midland plant and
~j found CPCo had excavated beneath the " deep Q duct bank" without receiving prior
-];
approval from the NRC as required by the April 30, 1982, ASLB Order. On -
August Jo, 1982. LANDSMAN was again at the Midlan/ site and found CPCo had excavated for the relocation of a fire protection pipeline without first
- 1 receiving the required NRC approval.
q, j
The Office of Investigations was requested by the NRC Region III Alm 4nistrator
~
to determine the circumstances in which CPCo allegedly violated the April 30, 1982, ASLB Drder by excavating beneath the deep Q duct bank and the fire line
.i relocation.' The investigation was conducted during the period January 3
- I ^
through March 30, 1983 and reported in a Report of Investigation, dated June 2, 1983. On July 8, 1983, the Region III Regional Administrator
,;. I requested the investigation be reopened to conduce additional interviews
\\
concerning meetings between the NRC Staff and CPCo at the Midland site during the period May 19 through 21, 1982. Notes and minutes of these meetings were
. I made by CPCo or Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC) employees at the time of the
{,
meetings and were incorporated as Attachments 8 and 9 of the June 2, 1983 Report of Investigation. The Regional Administrator also requested the Office of Investigations interview John L. DONNELL, formerly a sc.ils remedial j
inspector at the Midland facility, whose employment was allegedly terminated j;
for notifying CPCo of LANDSMAN's prohibition against excavating below the deep
't Q duct bank.
~
a, i
e
'l,
'I j:.
l-t n.
c-(_.,,[
\\..
t I
2 i
l )'
. +... _.. ~ - - -
_.. = *
- _p
,sa m
H**'B'
... ~.
w f.
[,
4 o
Interview of 8PC Underpinning Contracts Manager On July 12, 1983, Jonn F. FISHER' Bechtel Underpinning Contracts Manager, was interviewed by Investigators J. N. KALKMAN and C. H. WEIL in the presence of CPCo Attorney J. E. BRUNNER. BRUNNER was present at FISHER's request.
Jj On May 20, 1982, he attended a meeting at the Midland site with the NRC and CPCo soils remedial staffs. FISHER stated he did not remember the details of 1:
the discussions; however, he did recall NRC's Joseph KANE was concerned with point loadir.g in Monitoring Pit No. 4 (the deep Q duct bank). FISHER recalled the discussions during this meeting surrounded the type of backfill to be used i
in Pit 4.
I FISHER reviewed his handwritten notes of the May 20, 1982 meeting'(Attachment E
5). Paragraph A4 of FISHER's handwritten notes stated, " Pit No. 4 backfill is M
questioned-material might have to come out because of concern in No. 2.
(Back-1:
fill and Differental Settlement) We will proceed w/ exposing utility and not_
R JLroceed with excavating the pit below doen o until nm. anorovai.-. _FTSHER~ stated 7:
he cou'1d not recall LANDSMAN making this statement; however, FISHER stated he did not dispute the statement was made since it was in his personal notes.
FISHER noted portions.of his notes, including a portion of paragraph A4, were written in both pen and pencil. FISHER advised he did not know whether the combination of pen and pe :11 indicated he was using two types of writing imple-ments while taking the notes, or whether he added the sections of the notes in ink after the conclusion of the meeting. FISHER thought it was entirely possible r-the sections of his notes in ink were made after the meeting and summarized the subject matter.
(FISHER's notes in Attachment 5 have been marked with brackets i[
() to indicate the material written in ink.)
FISHER stated he attended LANDSMAN's May 21, 1982 exit meeting, but he did not-recall LANDSMAN making a statement that the excavation beneath the deep Q duct bank was not approved by the NRC. FISHER advised he was not a recipient of the meeting minutes of LANDSMAN's May 21, 1982 exit meeting (Attachment 6).
FISHER advised he did not recall discussing the meetings or his notes of the meetings with anyone.
l' FISHER stated since he did not readily recall LANDSMAN's prohibition against
.j!
excavating beneath the duct bank, he did not realize the possibility of violat-r ing the ASLB Order. FISHER advised it was not his or BPC's re:sponsibility to j,
detemine if CPCo had received prior NRC approval before starting an excavation.
F'
?.
FISHER continued, he did not attend all meetings between CPCo and the NRC and it J.;
would be entirely possible for the NRC to approve specific soils remedial work activities at a meeting he did not attend. FISHER stated it was therefore u
possible for work to be approved by the NRC without his knowledge.
l j:).:
Additionally, FISHER provided a written statement (Attachment 7).
c
.I
/~
l 6
I
~......
p 7
7.
p I
\\.
~ !.
M"
wd x4L sy 7typ pre eg D
a
. V(..
(s#L l,?
,e
.o m-a,
,,aa
~_)
. h f##**
6.uu,
^
g b
r i
,c.
u.
n
..i. n ~
- c; c. :
r 4 J,- W
,,. % D a, r.atf n_J e
~
y
)W:
PA, k < y, A:. : =, sf, _ xdl, &
^
- i. c
.Ipxe ca, AG,,c ',
H
- r n'-
./
- 4. ;' Jn#-L P4s.,
r
- {$
' A :- S
.7"' Ei. !
A.
~
f~
l P'f:&p M
~
L " ~
y--)z A4$.
4
. jl p46
-4.
G A
& -., J'.
- =:
y.;
J+ xyJ A
-+ a..-4 / - NG >.
q{
.i.
c
- .at
@c.
A~
AA _
G ',
I e
.4 p L rt 4.&_1f A ^.
r.46 e. &.--,-- ;
.! L.26
~
.: 6..
=-
1,
, f f b-Y k^ -
N
- -/
~
W-
^ ---?
.y
}L4ui n.
/ =
j,,
- n. r - 'w c
lA y-x yy,Ay w &
a v
)r
. A.u7 dp e
/. 4 w
7 3
r y=f me.
}..e. n 1
- 464 L &
- l !
g a e-4 a _ -. + - /
,,,e, _i ii A.' 2.1. ' / A r ~ ? A %, sma;,
3e b.
^^ -
-I O
.s,;. 4 ~ ?c p ~,t +.:
~
.a k.;
y c-n - gw
_ nd
== L A 4a p.
. s,s.
-. _ +. ~
h w
- /s,,,,,--
+
wff-
!"= 8 '- -
M&*
/
~
f J.
1.[)
y
_j =.
a -se, - s re.
4 w e.
A g ;6 7x y f -- 4.
.i. 9
/,=>. A p,. s. ~e A.,.g gu.g
- y a
3
... _.. -... - =. -. -
c
.4
~
LC.,-
..i_P, '_.;..
..,X:ss.
.. i
. __x.,.._
- ..g.
f.*
- a
. s.:
.rt$
g.
u =.
,h, e.
~
c?.
s-f.
- l-a,
U ce s-W.
~
~
f -
N ih S~'- l ^ A
.J M i
/ O A*g w
,;p-.
a, V:
- 4,.n-
- = -
)
xi.. $
A L 2
.z.
ay. ~
n-
]._
e
_jg a-s c.x > w g.e,o f.'
f5.. om ~ 4 a
?
yp--
s,.
l.:.
o, a s t
J. _ n.a
,a n r
i' y ~& y,, - _' _
_ g &
r./ L A _ -
- -x-et-L' rp.a.). p x. u
,dbg
.e a =f.1 5, b.pa a Z/
-. /- V.
P Q
,t
=
. 'w
&. No, -
cevasa+.
1
- , /,
M,b./ r ;t/ Q
,_t s
-..- 3
- p. _ _ -
3
.t
?
r--
.'.l
/
2 $
f
.4-
.7+ 3 -- ).
Wa; i s%
-2
~
,;--)
1
-L
.,s.
t s
,M-
.*f. 6 1-
/ - _- -
Q A#!- - 4 ' y -n ')
l s
-s,f M (.c~ r )
Ae. - _~-- A <be A :__ 4i &
q w,e*
A->
m?
s.
~
e eL EI
. W g, 4 (p.
C# s,j/
di.
zs )
j
( f ')
'4
~
1 1
1
_. =..
-_=
- - - =.
- - = -.
.___3.._.
. _. _, - - - - - ~. _. - -
m m.a,-
l i l
! [.
[
Interview of CPCo Executive Manager
~
d On July 12, 1983, James A. MOONEY, CPCo Executive Manager in the Midland i
Project Office was interviewed by Investigators J. N. KALKMAN and C. H. WEIL d:
in the presence of CPCo Attorney J. E. ~ BRUNNER; the latter was present at MOONEY's request.
t.
MOONEY advised on April 30, 1982, the Midland ASLB issued an Order requiring prior approval from the NRC before excavating in the soils remedial program.
M On approximately May 5, 1982, the ASLB explained to the concerned parties that verbal acceptability, followed by written confirmation, by the NRC Staff was
}
q sufficient to constitute prior approval.
p
~j On May 10, 1982, CPCo sent a letter to NRR listing areas in the soils remedial j
l ij work that CPCo believed had been approved by the NRC prior to the issuance of i
y the ASLB Order. MOONEY stated at that time NRR was the NRC's primary approval
- y, authority. MOONEY advised the May 10, 1982, CPCo letter to NRR described the i,i areas in which CPCo felt prior approvals had been given and the reasons for i;
feeling prior approvals had been granted.
MOONEY stated a meeting was held between CPCo and members of the NRC Staff on May 20, 1982, at the Midland Site during a lull in the Advisory Comittee on
'{-
Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) site tour. MOONEY advised the CPCo Staff presented
~
changes in the soils remedial program to LANDSMAN, KANE, and Darl HOOD during that meeting. MOONEY stated the surcharging of Monitoring Pits 1, 2 and 3 was
[
the topic of the meeting. MOONEY recal_ led the NRC_S_taff NES_surgrhed_toAag of CPCo's oronated methodofocy for surcharging tha hhttoDLQf_the_ pits and was.
con _cerned with the nossibility ofJiifferenti l settlement in the Dits. MOONEY A
advised at the time of the May 20, 1982 meeting Monitoring Pit No. 4 was not A
surcharged. MOONEY further advised the NRC was ouite concerned with the pro-posed method of backfilling the pit with concrete. MOONEY stated he did not remember anything being said about an excavation beneath the deep Q duct bank (Monitoring Pit No. 4). MOONEY stated the majority of the discussions at the meeting were with NRR's KANE. MOONEY stated he did not specifically " recall
{;
anything that Ross (LANDSMAN) comunicated."
/
MOONEY' stated he "did not have a recollection" of the May 21, 1982 meeting.
- i nj i MOONEY stated the first time he became consciously aware that LANDSMAN may have j!
made a statement prohibiting the excavation beneath the Q duct bank was after-.
LANDSMAN had discovered that excavation. MOONEY advised at first he denied dI LANDSMAN had made the prohibition, but now does not dispute LANDSMAN's statement 1
after having reviewed the minutes of the meetings. MOONEY reiterated he did not
{1 recall LANDSMAN specifically stating a prohibition against the excavation beneath 4
the deep Q duct bank. After being shown the minutes of LANDSMANS's May 21, 1982 exit meeting (Attachment 6), MOONEY stated he felt he may have previously read
+
4 the memorandum because he was on distribution for that memo. MOONEY stated he
- b did not recall having read the memo.
['
MOONEY advised he did not leave the May 20, 1982 CPCo-NRC meeting with any con-
- l -
cern over the excavation beneath the deep Q duct bank. MOONEY stated he
,A.
specifically recalled the issue was backfilling that excavation. MOONEY stated I
13
,j
...___..._._._._..._...nn
. _ u._
f.1,0.
I; -
-;5,.T
=
=-
a p'
q he did not recall LANDSMAN, or any one else, saying "do not proceed with exca-vating the monitoring pit." MOONEY stated the type of backfill had still not been decided upon as the pit cannot b6' backfilled until the heaving stops.
.y:
MOONEY stated neither FISHER 'nor HORN brought to his attention LANDSMAN's prohibition against digging beneath the deep C Duct Bank. Additionally,
.?;
MOONEY stated he did not recall anyone else bringing that issue to his y
attention. MOONEY further stated that NRR's May 25, 1982 letter approved the
+
excavation beneath the deep Q duct bank.
j.i MOONEY provided a written statement (Attachment 11). M00NEY's previously sub-
^
mitted testimony to the ASLB on the subject of the alleged violation of the ASLB Order is Attachment 12..
G F*
- 1
-w 4 -!
m
.(
N..
I i
,4 h
'f :
]:
p a:
a a
,I E
1
. :.1 i
- .y.
-t -
/*
1
- N
(
l 14
--g_--.-.---__
~ _..
, r-
__+2,tzs ametree_..
---l
.m-
-m d.
. h *,*
].
~
a-a.;f 3.,
Drawinz Review
. y -.
on July 14, 1983, the drawings for Monitoring Pit No. 4 were reviewed by 4
a i:
Investigator C. H. WEIL with the assistance of FISHER, MOONEY, and LANDSMAN in the presence of CPCo Attorney J. E. BRUNNER.
-)
f' The first drawing in the sequence for Moottoring Pit No. 4 was Mergentine-Hanson Drawing No. FW-6, Rev. O, dated November 25, 1981, tit ~e " Plan, Profile, j.
Freesswall and Boring." This drawing was for borings in conjunction with the plan to freeze the soil beneath the duct bank. The second drawing in the t
4 sequence was Bechtel Drawing No. C-1316(Q), Rev. O, dated February 1,1982,
.;j titled "Yardwork, Freesevall, Plan and Profile." Sheet 7 of drawing C-1316(Q),
jq Rev. O, duplicated the profile sections of Mergentine-Banson Drawing FW-6.
.j s
,,'j This Bechtel drawing included different plan views.
I 1
1 18 FISHER stated during March 1982 soil boring began and the top of the duct bank M
was found at the 600' elevation, instead of the 610' elevation as shown in the
.p drawin's. Subsequently, Drawing Change Notice (DCN) No. 1-C-1316(Q) was issued h
J t, "to provide cribbing utilities above freesswall." This DCN did not
}'
incorporate the change in the elevation of the top of the duct bank from 610 to 600 feet. Revision No. I to Bechtel Drawing C-1316(Q) was issued on g
April 9, 1982 to show the correct elevation of the duct bank at the 600'
, 3 l
1evel. Note 3 of drawing revision No. I stated " cribbing No. 4 shall be excavated to impervious material and backfilled with lean concrete-no 3
monitoring or surcharge is reg'd."
Note 4 to drawing revision No. I stated g
" temporary cribbing shall be designed and constructed by either subcontractor 4 - ',. ~
at safety-related water lines and Duct Banks shown on Table 1.
Design shall
{'
be reviewed and approved by field engineering."
The next drawing in this sequence was Mergentine Drawing F7220-C195-58-2, M-2, Revision 0, for Monitoring Pit No. 4.
This drawing t.as approved by Bechtel on April 9, 1982 and showed the top,of the clay at 586' level, the bottom of the duct at the 598' level and the top of ths duct at 601' alevation. Ravision
,'i No I to the drawing was approved by Bechtel on April 22, 1982. Revision No. 1 I{i showed the sheet pile pit stopped at elevation 580', or 5' below the clay line.
- l The bottom of the duct bank was listed at 598' level, the top of the clay at the 586' level and the sheet pile to be driven to the 580' level. Revision 2
]l of this drawing was approved by Bechtel on April 27, 1982 and refined the ensi-J.
nearing notes. Revision No. 3 was approved by Bechtel on April 30, 1982, to -
.4; show the " wale" elevation. Revision No. 4 was submitted by Mergentine on M
May 19, 1982 and received by Bechtel on May 20, 1982. Revision 4 was approved (i l*
by 3echtel on May 21, 1982. Revision 4 divided drawing F7220-C195-58-2 into two sheets. Sheet No. 2 indicated the saae depths as the previous revisions.
, +
l[l LANDSMAN stated he may have previously seen Revision 4. Sheet No. 2; however, j
LANDSMAN was not certain he had seen any of the revisions prior to Revision 4.
.j Sheet No. 2 of the drawing was revised on June 18, 1982 without changing any of the detail information pertaining to Monitoring Pit No. 4.
t j
MOONET stated he was aware of these changes as they were taking place. MOONEY 1
stated KANE was shown the drawing on May 20. 1982 to===1=4a th= concept jhangeforusingleanconcreteasabackfill. MOONEY advised these drawings have never been formally submitted to am.
\\(
i j
21 1
i i
.m.
^ = =
~ - L.= ~..
A A
-Interview of MPQAD Superintendent of Underp4n' 4== Verification d
On July 19, 1983 Robert E. SEVO, BPC Superintendent of Underpinning Verifica-1-
tion-MPQAD, was interviewed by Investigator C. H. WEIL in the presence of
]
RIII Inspector Bruce L. BURGESS and CPCo Attorneys J. E. BRUNNER and 4
V. P. PROVENZANO.
gj SEVO recalled LANDSMAN had Neon called to the Midland facility to inspect the deep Q duct bank before CPCo could activate the freesswall. SEVO stated he j,
did not have the responsibility for ensuring that NRC approvals had been obtained prior to beginning an excavation. SEVO advised it was SCHAUB's and
,n M00NEY's responsibility to insure NRC approval had been obtained prior to starting an excavation.
.[j
'8 l SEVO advised he was responsible for preparing and reviewing design drawings.
I m
procedures, and inspection plans. In that position SEVO learned _of_the_ne.ed to stop the water flow beneath the deep q duct bank by excavae4== to
^l 4:
impervious ground benameh ch= daae h==h.
SEVO advised through QA planning he
};
was aware of the need for a " sheeted pit" down to the duct bank. He stated he was also aware of a concern with " recharging" the zone below the deep Q duct
]-
bank; however, SEVO stated he did not know the detail changes to the excavation below the duct bank. SEVO noted that during this time frame there vere many changes to the design and this included many discussions with NRR.
SEVO described the deep Q duct bank excavation as opening the ground to the depth of the duct bank, driving sheet piling, and observing the soil conditions
' [
at that level. SEVO advised by exposing the duct bank CPCo could inspect and
'g determine the solution to the problem. CPCo could then prepara a plan for i
submission to the NRC. SEVO continued, from the duct bank 1sval the w
excavation would be deepened to impervious ground. SEVO stated he did not know when discussions occurred or when the decision was made to deepen the duct bank. Additionally, SEVO advised he did not know when the excavation 1.
beneath the duct bank to deepen the duct bank began. SEVO stated he never personally inspected any of the excavation activities for the deep Q duct
..l bank.
i F !
SEVO stated he did not recall attending LANDSMAN's May 21, 1982 exit meeting.
ai l SEVO was shown a copy of the minutes of that meeting (Attachment 6) and SEVO
- j noted he was not in attendance. However, he was on the distribution list for _
fI that memorandum. In reviewing the memorandum during the interview, SEVO i
stated he did not feel that LANDSMAN's comuments concerning the deep Q duct O'
bank implied a prohibition against further work. SEVO stated "on that day we 7
would not go to the deepening of the deep Q duct bank." SEVO stated, the t
point he was making was that LANDSMAN's statement applied only to "that day."
'l
,SEVO stated LANDSMAN's inspection prior to freezewall activation included the J
deep Q duct bank excavation and in approving the freezavall activation 1
LANDSMAN approved the duct bank excavation.
1
- i SEVO advised he usually attended the weekly job site soils remedial meeting on Fridays. SEVO stated that from attending those meetings he was aware NRR
'2-may not have approved the additional excavation at the time of the work. SEVO stated he believed NRR, CPCo, or BPC had not finalized the plans for the deep Q duct bank at the time of the additional excavation due to design and a4 22 1
~
2 o'
. M,.'i.
. -, ~,
J J... --. -
l---
C- - -
tn '
d
- I
],
~
y.
i
'j (.
33 geotechnical considerations. With further questioning in this area, SEVO
,d stated only construction status, schedules, and designs were discussed at the
.W Friday meetings and not the status of NRC approvals. SEVO stated he did not N/
know the status of NRC approvals. SEYO further stated he came to this opinion 1-based on his conversations with job site personnel. From these ccaversations SEVO formed his opinion that at the time the freezewall was activated any j-additional work on the duct bank pit was acceptable to the NRC. SEVO did not
}j.,
recall with whom he had had the conversations. SEVO also stated he had
'l learned LANDSMAN was at odds with NER concerning the geotechnical issues; however, SEvo could not provide any specific information on the geotechnical
,1
,)?
issues. Additionally, SEVO stated no one ever mentioned NRC hold points on il-the deep Q duct bank excavation at the Priday scheduling meetings. SEVO
].]
advised he did not attend any other meetings where utility protection was l[
discussed and he never spoke to LANDSMAN about the duct bank excavation.
QI SEVO provided a written statement (Attachment 16).
,i}
s
' 4J SEV0's" personal notes and files were reviewed. One set of notes, be-4-4==
" PIP 1 6A and 6B need updating for NRC review," dated May 20, 1982 stated in Mt part, "NRC Exit Meeting 9 a.m. tomorrow...for activation next...No further e-deepening of the deep duct bank until NER concurrence after... Deep duct bank opened up to allow (illegible) start (illegible)..." SEVO stated he did not remember when or where the,asating recorded in his notes took place. SEYO thought it may have occurred on the afternoon of May 30, 1982 et approximately 3 or 4 p.m.; however, SEVO thought it was possible the meeting started earlier or later. SEVO thought his notes of May 20, 1982 may have dealt with a seeting being held pre 14=4W1y to the NRC exit meeting scheduled for the i
next day. SEVO stated the words in his notes meant the method of accom-p11shing the tapervious zone beneath the deep duct bank had not been approved.
SEVO stated he did not know who else attended the meeting although there was a notation about SCHAUB. SEVO thought that note may have meant to talk to SCHAUB about another matter. SEVO stated that had he thought there was a 4
problem with NRC approval not having been obtained before beginning the excavation to deepen the duct bank he would have contacted CPCo, probably SCHAUB. These notes are appended as Attmehment 17.
5 t ].i SEV0's notes (both handwritten and typed) for " Remedial Soils Meeting of i
fj 5/21/82" were reviewed. SEVO stated that after refreshing his memory with his
.c j ;
notes he believed the topic of discussion had been freezewall activation. A --
d, portion of those notes states " target
- freeze activation on Wednesday, q!
May 26, 1982.
- Pit 4 critical. Dr. LANDSMAN here on Wes. Clear space duct V
bank... Brian PALMER
- have QA (Chuck and other) look at all pits for any quality concern before Dr. LANDSMAN looks at them (play LANDSMAN)..." SEV0's M.
notes of the May 21, 1982 meeting are appended as Attachment 18.
4p
.Another document in SEV0's file was a May 11, 1982, letter from SCHAUB to
'Q, Allen J. BOOS, BPC Assistant Project Manager (Attachment 19). This
.1 memorandum, titled " Soils Remedial Work-Response To ASLB Order," stated in y-part, " memorandum Serial 14794 dated May 11, 1982, which provides a schedule (p
of activities which we believe are covered by the April 30, 1982 ASLB order in u!
which we anticipate receiving authorization to proceed from the NRC in the near lj future is attached for your information..." Attached to this memorandum was
.I t
23 i
q
.--...,L....
^
-e.i-
=:..c...~...--.
1 l.
l'.~
j the referenced Serial 14794, same title, from D. P. RONlt to J. R. SCHAUB and J. A. N00NEY. RONK's memorandum stated in part, "the April 30, 1982 ASLB Order requires explicit approval from the NRC staff before proceeding with certain soils related activities....We met with representatives of Bechtel and Mergentine to detail the work covered by the Order intended to be initiated within the next three months. The attached schedule summarizes that work and could be used as a outline for a meeting with the NRC to obtain concurrence to proceed with the affected work...I understand that we will not be submitting this package to the NRC for several days pending receipt of the limited receipt on some work..."
An attachment to RONK's memorandum stated, " Work f.
Areas Addressed in Order Which are Proposed to Receive Explicit NRC Authorization to Proceed.. 2. Dewatering-anw414=7 building, s. Utility Pro-
.,).
taction Pits
- 1. Deep Q Duct Bank." The Remedial Soils Details Schedule dated
' l!
May 11, 1982, was also attached to RONK's memorandum. Zone 51 Deep Q Duct Bank j],
Monitoring Pit in that schedule contained detailed scheduling information pertaining to the monitoring pit.
q!
Also found in SEV0's files were several issues of meeting notes for the
.l, Remedial Soils Weekly Schedule Review Meeting.
(A full set of these meeting
.i notes were obtained and were reviewed elsewhere in this report.) Additionally, SEVO had a file he had titled NRC Exception List. SEV0's NRC Exception List was reviewed and did not disclosa any information identifiable with the deep Q duct bank excavation.
I I
'i.-
! \\.'N I
i l4 i <
i 4
I i
1 i
)
~
n s
1
.. (
e 24
,a 4
g
,j_l_.
4... -
3...c
_ 7,. -
ord k kh1P \\kMO(def W? n ham nmon k Anuy %hdiu @N )qM '60 M rd2Mt. hvch6%c C.4-
}mde[
f j
9d, 1
.3 below the duet bank and installing a plug, either of clay or
'] '. ( concrete, which would serve in place of the free'zewall at that j
- . g location.
~
At the May-20 meeting, the NRR repre'sentatives expressed
~
3 concern with the manner in which the Company would, permanently
..n backfill the excavation around the duct bank, as wall as A:i" excavations made to monitor the heaving of soil at other L,'!
locations.
NRR was concerned that concrete would be harder than
.s
.'!j the surrounding soil and therefore might cause differential
- !i
- l settlement if left there pairmanently.
Discussions relating to -
.j j
t this permanent backfill question were not completed at this
?.-
[
meeting, but to my knowledge, no one from.the Company understood NRR's concern as relating to the excavation, as opposed to the lI permanent backfill.
This point is highly relevant, since the s
Company would not have permitted this excavation to proceed if we believed NRR had tW4 cal problems with it.
i After this issue was raised in Dr. Landsman's memo, I was
-I advised that,Mr. John Fischer, a Bechtel employee, had personal
- r.
[:.;
- notes of the May 20, 1982, meeting indicating that the Company would n'ot proceed with excavating the pit below the duct bank t
!F "until NRC approval."
I do not remember 'such a commitment being 4;
made at the meeting, nor do,I recall anyone from the staff i
Ml requesting such a commitment.
However, I do not dispute that the
- (
E.'
statement apparently was made at the meeting.
- b,
.j-When I left the May 20 meeting, I understood the need for further contact from NRR on the backfill, but felt that the
/
3
.{
s ia
,s 4
--.-..4.h-..
-e.
v.
s,
^
=.
.=.
= = :-
= = - -
-=
mm m
.... -..[--
1
~
i 4
4 [(
~
Company and'NRR were in agreement on the excavation itself.
However, quite apart rom my understanding of the meeting, NRR yz
.j) gave explicit approval for the excavation in a letter date'd
-j
~
May 25, 1982, four days ~ after the meeting.
The May 25' letter C
states that excavations directly beneath th'e deep-Q duct bank had -
p ii.1]
been approved.
The letter also makes a clear distinction between-
~-
l.h.
~excavating and backfilling, which at the time served to confixa
]i my uhderstanding of NRR's concerns.
~
') s
- u o
- I had further discussions with representatives of NRR on l*
j, this matter at a soils audit held July 27-30, 1982, at Bechtel's
>~
i Ann Arbor office.
Asmy noties and the NRC meeting sum! nary, dated c.'
November 12, 1982, indicate, discussion at this audit once again i
focused on the backfill and did not relate to the excavation
- s. s itself.
At the audit, NRR again advised the Company that a
[
report was necessary pr: or to permanently backf4114ng any of the excavation pits.
No such condition was placed on excavating soil.
.i i c; ;-
4
- QS.
Mr.Mooney,doyouhaveanythingtoaddonthefirabNo j
0 j}
relocation question?
s d,,
!.i AS.
Mr. Wheeler explains his basis for believing this work Lp g.
had been approved.
The fireline relocation job, while
. I-clearly falling within the sc9pe of the April 30 Order, was only ancillary to' the soils remedial work.
That is not to
(-
- \\
{
- l l\\
ll l-
==
PWD"
"*-%.+ae'N
"%-*""N' N*'E'd'""*
~
~
~
.? -
- m..-.. : - ---
- - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - -- - - - ~
~ " ' " ~ ' ~ ~ ~
- .gi.
N
~
a.
f Interview of Midland Project Office Engineer M
On July 12, 1983, John R. SCEMB, Engineer in the Midland Project Office was 2
interviewed by Investigators J. N. KALIMAN and C. H. liEIL in the presence of CPCo Attorney J. E. BRUNNER.
=
'}-
SCHAUB stated he recalled seeing the memorandum of LANDSMAN's May 21, 1982 i
exit meeting (Attachment 6) within approximately ons week of the meeting.
SCHAUR stated nothing in the memorandum was inconsistent with the meeting.
SCHAUB stated he did not recall LANDSMAN making a statement at that meeting
.i'j8 that CPCo ves not authorized to excavate 'benasch the deep Q duct bank. SCEAUB
- 'l stated he recalled the discussions surrounded the use of concrete as backfill j,
for the monitoring pits and most of the discussion was addressed to NRR's Joe (jj KANE.
SCRAUB stated he recalled KANE was asked if CPCo could proceed with the
~
excavation, using concrete at CPCo's risk. SCHAUB stated KANE did not approve
,4
-l<
the use of concrete but did =11aw CPCo to nroemed at its c-rc4=1 riek.
SCHAUB declined to provide a written statement. Attachment M is the Report r,
of Interview.
d G
.)
4-
't I
4 I9
.N. (
1.
i 1
. as:
.h
.'l,
- {!
t
. 4, 8
=
+
- k ^
i
+
t 1
1 4
l b
j i
17 3
s4
- eeEew.
W-
w l,, ~. 4 4 j
I Report of Interview John 1*.
SCHAUB
?
July 12, 1983
},
N4d1==d, Michigan j
j On July 12,1983, John 1. SCHAUB, Engineer in the Midland Project Office was
. j,,
interviewed by Investigators J. N. YAf h AN and C. H. WEIL in the presence of q.
CPCo Actorney J. E. BRUNNEE.
1.
..~-
SCHAUB stated he recalled attending a meeting with the NRC Staff at the f
Mid1==d facility on May 20, 1982. During this meeting the four utility
,f' monitoring pits were reyieved. The bulk of their discussions centered around
~l..
Monitoring Pit No. 4 for the deep Q duct bank freesswall crossing. CPCo fj discussed the use of concrete as backfill in this pit and this was met with 1-objections by the NRC Staff. NBA's Joe EANE would not approve the use of Y,
concrete as a backfill material. SCHAUB recalled asking EANE if CPCo could
.f proceed at their commercial risk and install the concrete as backfill knowing
'g that,at a later date EANE may not approve the concrete and it would have to be c,4 removed. SCHAUB recalled that LANDSMAN's participation was limited at the Ie May 20, 1982 meeting as EANE was the principal speaker.
~r SCHAUB stated he also attended a May 21, 1982 meeting with LANDSMAK at tha
- (-
Midland site. SCHAUB advised he did not recall LANDSMAN making any state-4 :
ments prohibiting the excavation beneath the deep Q duct bank. SCHAUB I}'.
recalled talking to LANDSMAN about freezewall activation and LANDSMAN r
indicated he wanted to be able to see under the duct bank before approving
)
the fressewall activation.
g
~
SCHAUB stated he recalled seeing the memorandum of the May 21, 1982 meeting
- l with LANDSMAN (Attmeh==nt 6.)
SCBAUB thought he saw the memorandum ji approximately one week after its issuance and in reading the memorandum did j
not recall snything significant from the meeting.
4 L J8 SCHAUB. stated no one at the Midland site raised a question of whether LANDSMAN i
had prohibited the excavation beneath the deep Q duct bank while the work was f!
in progress.
Ij SCHAUB stated he would not make a written statement. When questioned on thia-point SCHAUB stated "it's sound personal advice to myself."
e y
I a
Charles H. Weil, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office
[
Region III
~ *:
L-s
/'
t
,1
~.
T l
1 3-82-061; Atch 15
.l
~----" -
~
p
~
.[,
h1 w
kf M h
4 t
- j 11 Results of Interview with John R. SCHAUB, January 12. 1983 j
\\
j On January 12, 1983,~ John R. SCHAUB, Engineer in the Midland Project Office, provided the following information to Investigator C. H. WEIL in the presence e.1 of.CPC0 Attorney J. E. BRUNNER:
~!
jl
.On May 20, 1982, a meeting was held at the Midland site with NRC's Darl HOOD, Joseph KANE and LANDSMAN. This meeting concerned the remedial soils' work
-i at the Midland Plant, including an excavation beneath the deep Q duct bank.
'j~
A part of the discussion was a January 6, 1982 letter (Attachment 14 to the
,.]
Report of Investigation from CPC0 to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
~
Figure 7 of that letter indicates an excavation of one foot beneath the duct t
.' i bank.)
CPCO's original plan called to dig under the duct bank and angle the freeze
- 1-wall beneath. CPC0 encountered a problem because the hole beneath the duct i
bank was not sufficient and could not freeze. The new plan was to dig approx-j
.' i instely ten feet deeper to clay and refill beneath the duct bank with "some material." Their objective was to -use a solid material to stop the water flow ll beneath the duct bank. They discussed the use of concrete or clay, but did not come to a final decision of the material to be used. CPC0 asked KANE if 4 e CPC0 could proceed with the excavation and use concrete backfill. SCHAUB understood _KANE approved the use of concrete at CPCO's commercial risk.
t
~
SCHAUB did not hear again of the deep Q duct bank until July 29, 1982. On July 29, he was at Bechtel Power Company's offices in Ann Arbor, MI, for an NRC audit by KANE. While in Ann Arbor, SCHAUB received a telephone call. from the Midland site. He was told LANDSMAN was objecting to the excavation
. beneath the duct bank and SCHAUB was questioned if the material to be used in the deep Q duct bank had changed since the May 20 discussion. SCHAUB thought LANDSMAN's objection was the backfill, not the excavation. SCHAUB talked to KANE and asked KANE if,there were problems with using concrete in the duct bank excavation, recognizing this would be done at CPCO's consercial risk.
..ji A decision on the use of concrete was not made.
I!
SCHAUB stated CPC0 was not under any obligation from any source to get prior approvals for excavation before the April 30, 1982, M'idland ASLB Order. With the issuance of that Order it was his understanding that when NRR gave approvals construction could proceed. SCHAUB felt the freeze wall and bridging of the utilities had been approved by NRR prior to the issuance of the Order.
!{
SCHAUB recalled the deep Q duct bank excavation had been discussed at one of (j
LANDSMAN's exit meetings, but did not think LANDSMAN had made a point con-(.
cerning the duct bank.
'i
.}
SCHAUB stated he did not have any involvement with the relocation of the fire i
i line.
j; SCHAUB declined to provide a written statement.
il]
l 3-82-061; Attachment 15 K
I i
1,
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES C
8 o
s 5
g mmm. o. c. 2nse y-3 3.,...../
~
October 5, 1983 y
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge Administrative Judge
.f Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission e
Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 1
Administrative Judge 6152 N. Verde Trail Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 i
In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Units 1 and-2)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL and 50-330 OM & OL
Dear Administrative Judges:
Enclosed is a copy of a memorandum from Ben B. Hayes, Director, Office of Investigations, 'to James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, Region III, dated September 12, 1983 which transmitted a copy of the supplemental Office of Investigation (01) report concerning the alleged violation of the Board Order. The transmittal memorandum was not released at the same time as the report because 01 permission was required, and their permission was only recently granted.
This letter also serves as fonnal notice of the delivery of copies of the supplemental OI report to the Board and the parties during the week of i
September 12, 1983. The other persons named on the service' list shall receive a copy of this report with this letter and the transmittal memorandum discussed above.
[i Sincerely,
/
1i Donald F. Hasse 1 q
Counsel for NRC Staff M)N Nathene A. Wright
/
Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures: See page 2 D
d 0 g
g
~
~
>+
1 l
~
". 2'.
7 l
cc:
Frank J. Kelley Steward H. Freeman
- Ms. Mary Sinclair Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
.)
James E. Brunner, Esq.
- Ms. Barbara Stamiris James R. Kates
- Wendell H. Marshall Wayne Hearn Paul C. Rau 0
Myron M. Cherry Peter Flynn
~f; T. J. Creswell
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Steve J. Gadler.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel
- Frederick C. Williams
- Lynne Bernabei Samuel A. Haubold, Esq.
Docketing & Service Section Howard A. Levin OI Supplemental Report hand-delivered OI Supplemental Report sent by express mail q
t i
v e
O me 1.
5
. lp 1
I
.--.m..
~.
-.