ML20094M801
Text
'
- .. ls' y
J c~
l.
[
umito srArr.s NUCLEAH REGut.ATORY cOMMISs!ON p
-'g wAsmuorou. o.c.nasss l
t k' *T
,/
,JUN 1 0 E77 E<
MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard K. Hoefling. Office of the Executive Legal t
Director FROM:
- 6. W. Reircuth, Assistant Director, Division of Reactor Construction Inspection. IE
SUBJECT:
CONCURRENCE ON RESPONSE TO LETTER FR6M M. CHERRY DATED APRIL 27, 1977 We have a few proble:ns in concurring with the proposed answer as noted by the detailed co:nnents provided in the Enclosure. Please consider a redraft.
R. E. Shewmaker (27421) should be contacted for I
the details if you have questions.
- v. pl. Q.....
c.
h.
.. ew G. W. Reinmuth. Assisterit Director Division of Reactor Construction Inspection. IE
Enclosure:
Coments cc:
B. H. Grier, IE
/
R. E. Shewmaker, IE R. Powell, DPM 1
I.
D l
'f{40718
?/s-b>l een itse J 9:r,
-n
.,y-
.-,.,-.-._,-----,--,-4,ny,
..,,,,m,,-,e.... -,. - - - - - -,,, -
4
- ~
of, '
C0fMENTS ON REPLY TO CHERRY LTR. 4/27/77 I.
Note - On page 2, the B&W Topical Report BAW-10096A, Rev. 3 is not approved for Midland.
II.
' On page 3 - 1st paragraph.
The fact there were meetings between IE and CP and Bechtel is correct, but needed repairs to maintain a safely
' constructed facility did not require removal of concrete. The minor corrections which were needed, were made by drilling into existing concrete and grouting in reinforcing steel.
This is not an unusual procedure during construction.
In other words we
..need to point out that the margins which were provided that were in. excess of those the NRC requires as a minimum were sufficient to absorb the reductions in safety resulting from the error. This in fact means that the QA/QC requirements are set at such a high
. level in this particular area of construction activity that rather significant errors or problems must be in evidence before minimum safety is degraded.
Also in this paragraph the statement is made that the " overview program" by CPC "has been successful in that all errors have been 1
identified by the program and corrected prior to concrete placement". -
I disagree with this in two respects.
(1) We cannot attest that all errors have been identified; we can however, state that all significant errors have been identified and corrected by the QC program so that any errors remaining which are now embedded in concrete would have no significant 4
effect on the safety of the structures.
(2) The paragraph, I believe, leads the uninformed reader to the 1
. conclusion that our goal and requirements are that all errors must'be eliminated.
If my belief is correct the NRC will be continually chasing reported errors which in fact have little or no safety significance.
I suggest revisions; Replacement for paragraph 1 on Page 3.
"A series of meetings were held by the Office of Inspection and Enforcenent with Bechtel and Consumcrs Powcr Company in regard to these rebar errors, starting in January 1975. As a result of the technical meetings held it was detennined that the errors did not
,. I+ # 3/
require removal of concrete, but entailed drilling in existing (pJ concrete to grout in reinforcing stcc1 which is accepted construction practice.
The margins of structural safety that had been provided Vc were so much in excess of the minimum requirements that the error induced reductions were not significant from a safety standpoint.
It was determined that the errors were significant with regard to the required quality program so that the meetings culminated in a top g,
management meeting in May 1976. During this May 1976 meeting, 1
p gg n/
vs
[ Consumers Power Company cemitted to an " ov I
, 2nd QC inspection) of rebar placement for safety-relate This " overview" program j in addition to other corrective actions.has been succ d to d
structural safety have been identified by the program a The above description serves to d Licensee prior to concrete placement.
indicate to you the steps which are taken by the Staff an ce or to provide imediate corrective actions when quality assuran We recognize that quality control deficiencies are discovered.
h reinforcement placement errors, reinforcement omissio ll as at related to concrete structures will occur at Midlan Detection by the QA/QC program is our goal, so f t that those errors which on examination have a other facilities.
t be on structural safety, such that.the minimum requirements ca met, will be corrected, Page 3, 4th paragraph - Insert the underlined portion.
poem t.,
it ction III.
..... this letter contains six items requiring immed a e a specialist was at the site to review the oroblem and by the Licensee.
i Tentail relocation of three tendon sheat corrective action.
These insocctions and of the two penetration assemblies involved.
In addition......
} decisions will be documented en future IE reports. If Page 4 - End the last sentence of paragra IV.
placement errors.
lity Because of the delay in issuance of this letter, the special d
assurance inspection discussed at the bottom of Page 3 i
V.
We suggest that the language be revised been conducted.
generally as follows:
"A report of this inspection is now in
~
and add the following: preparation, and will be forwarded
'is %>lv (g
f2 s
x b'
l
, "@ p 1 lf W b' k C
/y yf e
w t^ -
1 p
[
f'", Y i
l
- j Se,&
UMTcD STATCS NUCLEAR REGULATOnY COMMISSION y
p,
.E wAsmuorow.o.c. zosee
\\+e..*/
e j
g T
<Y d
9' hf f y' V Jf V
tjf d
$"* # P,/a G+ #
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
h a
One IBM Plaza f
Chicago, Illinois 606.1 h,t 6 r
}f f
In the Matter of o
Coisumers power Company (Midla. d Plant, Units 1 and 2) 6 Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-339_
dearMr. Cherry:
This letter is in response to your letter dated April 27, 1977 relating your concerns regarding the adequacy of the quality assurance and quality control applicable to the construction of the Midland Plant of Consumers Power Company (Licensee) and the adequacy of the Regulatory Staff's actions regarding a recently reported construction error.
The Nuclear Regulatory Comsission considers quality assurance and quality control programs for construction and operation of nuclear power plants to be essential to provide adequate protection of the health and safet of the public.
In June 1970, the Conraission issued Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing plants." The criteria established in this Appendix forsted the nucleus upon which all quality assurance programs for nuclear power plants under construction or in operation must comply.
In addition, in the years since Appendix B was issued, the Commission and Industry have expended a large effort to develop regulatory guides, codes and standards, and procedures for implementing good quality assurance and quality control practicos. These efforts relied upon the experience gained from nuclear power plants which were under constructiun or in operation.
A quality " assurance program which has been approved by the NRC has inherent in its requirements the capability for seli-policing (audits), reporting, and correction of deficiencies.
In addition, the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement provides an independent in::pection audit function to assure that the quality assurance program is being implemented properly.
i N
9 t
k 1
~l
- s The MidlandIPlant is being constructed at the present time in accordance L
with a Consumers Power Company Quality Assurance Program, Topical Report CPC-1, Revision 5, which was approved by the Staff on November 26, 1976.
This topical. report CPC-1, Revision 5, describes the quality assurance
~
program which the. Licensee applies to those design, procurement, construction, and operation: of safety-related structures, systems, and components for the Midland; Plant. This quality assurance program satisfies the require-ments of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and follows the guidance provided by the NRC in:.
1.
" Guidance on-Quality Assurance Requirements during Design and. Procurement Phase of Nuclear Power Plants," WASH-1283, Rev.1,Mayl24,1974.
2.
" Guidance on Quality Assurance Requirements During the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants," WASH-1309, May 10, 1974.
l 3.
" Guidance ori Quality Assurance Requirements During Operations Phase of Nuclear Power Plants," WASH-1284, October 26,1973.
In addition to the CPC quality assurance program, the architect-engineer (Bechtel) and nuclear steam system supplier (Babcock & Wilcox) have NRC approved Quality Assurance Programs. The approved architect-engineer rogram is'the 8echtel Quality Assurance Program for Nuclear Power Plants p(Topical Report No. BQ-TOP-1, Revision 1A) and the approved nuclear steam system supplier program is the Babcock & Wilcox N.P.G.D. Quality Assurance Program for Nuclear Equipment (Topical Report No. BAW-10096A, Revision 3).
About 3 years ago a series of rebar placement errors occurred at the Midland Plant. The errors in a few cases involved improper spacing but most concerned omission of steel reinforcement bars.
Following a review of this matter by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, the following were ide'ntified as possible factors which might have led to the rebar
^ ' '
placement errors:
c' 1.
Failure of C Engineers to use source documents.
f g r'.# b 2.
Inadequate Inspection procedure.
'b 3.
Inadequate nspection plans.
4.
Poor consunication between design and building engineers l/ gY p) i t
5.
Lack of understanding by QC and field engineers ofg p.m.4 i
j t
(,,
,\\Ij4 6.
Errors in vendor fabrication drawings,
,h f',, h o/
7.
Incompletc QC inspections; c9,/
l
/
1
~
Y 4
[
,;,; ;,.e
\\
t -
F A series of meetings were held by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement 4
4
-with Bechtel and Consumers Power,Ccmpany in regard to these rebar errors, starting in January 1975 and culminating in a top management meeting in May 1976. During this May 1976 meeting, Consumers Power Company committed 4
to'an " overview" program -(i~.e., 2nd QC inspection) of rebar placement for safety-related structures.. in addition to other corrective actions. This
" overview" program has been successful in that all errors have been
,a===
c' identified by the program and corrected prior to concrete placement. The
-[
above description serves to indicate to you the steps which are taken by i
y y
the Staff and Licensee to provide immediate corrective actions when g
,,e quality assurance or quality control deficiencies are discovered.
l
-[-
The factors lea' ding to the April 19, 1977 tendon sheath placement error 1
at the Midland Plant are similar to those that led to the rebar error discussed above. As a result, Consumers Power Company has extended the
" overview" inspection program to include all embedments in safety-related j,
structures.
I n'
The Staff's Region III office of Insp6ction and Enforcement was notified of the Midland containment tendon sheath placement error on April 19,1977.
A description of this placement error is contained in the attached " Preliminary Notification" dated April 20, 1977.
Upon receipt of this information by the Region III Office of Inspection j
and Enforcement, an inspector was dispatched to the Midland site to review the circumstances and provide additional infomation on which to base a j
decision regarding further actions. As a result of this inspection, l.
discussions with the Licensee and internal discussions, an "Imediate Action Letter" was issued to the Licensee on April 29, 1977. A copy of this letter i
to the Licensee is enclosed. This letter contains six items requiring innediate action by the Licensee.
In addition, a meeting was conducted i
l by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement with the President of Consumers Power Company on May 5, 1977, at the Consumers Power Company corporate office in Jackson, Michigan. During this meeting, the detailed implementing methods l'or corrective actions described in the "Imediate Action Letter"
-were discussed in detail, along with the need for the Licensee to assure that the problems identified were not indicative of a broader problem with j
their overall QA program.
r Although the tendon shelth placement error is the first instance of a i-l lack of quality control in nearly a year, the Staff considers it important l
to take steps to independently verify the soundness of the Midland Plant quality assurance and quality control program.
In this regard, the Region III Office of Inspection and Enforcement will conduct a special quality l
assurance inspection at the Midland site during the week of May 23,1977 Which will be conducted by a team of inspectors. This inspection team t
I D
7 l
g i
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ -, _ -,. ~ _ _ - _... _. - -. _ _ _.,. _. _ _.
- 1
.d.....?
will consist of personnel from Region III, Headquarters, and another Region of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Findings which result from this inspection may require additional modification of implementing procedures to prevent the reoccurrent of embedment placement errors.
The Staff feels that the actions taken by Licensee and the Staff regarding these matters provide reasonable assurance that the Midland Plant. Units I and 2, will continue to be constructed and will be operated in a manner to assure protection of the health and safety of the public.
Sincerely,
.kf Richard K. Hoefli 9 Counsel.for NRC Staf Enclosure cc (w/ encl.):
Frederic J. Coufal, Esq.
Dr. J. Venn Leeds. Jr.
Dr. Emeth A. Luebke Myrnn M. Cherry, Esq.
Judd L. Bacon. Esq.
Honorable Curt T. Schneider Ms. Mary Sinclair Harold F. Reis. Esq.
L. F. Nute, Esq.
Mr. Steve Gadler R. Rex Renfrow, III. Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Sqfety and Licensing Appeal Panel Docketing and Service Section 6
V'
1 y
O+
/
s
.w.----,--.-...,----,-.--,--ex-
~,,,, -.- - - - -..
b.
g D
..g t
,d-MAR 151979
- n..
<. s c o....
Decket'Es.30-329 Decket Me.30-330 Comeumers Feuer % ry i
ATDI: W. Stephen B. Bouell Ties President 1945 West Farma11 Emed
- t==h
, MI 49201 m
~
a e1
'Ikis refers to the meetings conducted en Febraery 23, 1979, and March 5, 1979, between Comeumers Feuer Company, Bechtel Corporatime and ERC representatives held at the Engian III office. Listing of attendees to the meetings are enclosed am Attachment !a. 4.
N meetta.3:. conducted in connectica with e
the investigation of the settlement of the Hid1==d diesel I
generator building and plant area fill, represent a ---*4=-
atica of that affect.
A separate report of the investigatimo conducted during December 11-13, 18-20, 1978, and January 4-5, 9-11, 22-25, i
1979, by Hesers. g. J. callagher, C. A. Phillip and G. F. Maxwell of this office will be issued in the meer future.
J l
During the meeting of February 23, 1979, the NEC summmarized I
their pre 14=8-- y tuvosti-=*4-findings. hee=====vy findings are provided in At*=eh===t No. 1.
he meeting was sobeequently fo11 mund by a second meeting held on March 5,1979, during ehich % Feuer Company repre-sentatives r T f f to the preliminary investigation findings identified in Attachment No. 1.
h ee responses, ubich include a revised "Comeumers Pouer Company Disc===iaa of MRC Inspection Facts" report, are provided in Atemeh===ts Mo. 2 and No. 3.
Based en our investigation, review of your responses, as well as diae - lane during the March 5, 1979, meeting,'our ff=diaps are as follmes:
a.4 9
<.N e.
e..
.em e s..e3
- ~ ~
= _
n
=
--, ~ --*
~
.' ' ?
- b ~ '
',$ % e;
'.b.k ::.*Nd.L*' ' ' "
y
, o.
pe
/
gp
/
% Power '.-
y
...Campsey MAR 15 7379 g
w. s.
g' The quality aneurance program for ebeataine proper soil a.
compactima of the Mid1mm4 site uns defief==t la a member et areas.
-~
_ s...
1 b.
Seil of the type used la the f e eta = ef the dimesi generator building is also Imcated, to varying degrees, under other Class I structures and plant area piping.
Several imma*= rate statements are contained in the FgAE e.
with respect to the soil foundatlans.
L t
In additime to the above findiasm, we eentiamo to be concerned with the follauias matters:
Although you have stated that imedequate soil compactima s.
contributed to the set *1====* of the D/C h41Ai-, you i
1
'have not determined what other factors contributed to the settlement.
j b.
n 41., foundation materials were placed under other Class I s'tructures, identiftad om page 3 of Attach-
{
meat No. 3 us have concerne regarding the ability of i
the structures and ea-pa=.=e= to fulfill their intended design functions under all required design bases for the life of the plant.
i
{
We are concerned ubether your current emurse of actino 1
c.
l en the settlement, which consista of pralceding and l
commo11 dating the underlying supporting materials, l
will resolve the problem on a Imag term beeis.
1 de you are swore, the March 5, 1973, meeting was concluded i
j with your informing us that withis two weeks you -1d provida additional solis exploratory information that might account for i
l the differences between the fill supporting the diamal generator
- building and that of the other Class I structures.
You also stated that in the eveet the available informatima is faeuffi-I afast to denometrate resolutina of the sett1-t problem, a further course of actina would be serovided.
In that this matter is related to plant design, wi are feewarding it to our Mac Beadquarters staff for furthe. review and evaluation.
We will keep yee informed of their act. ion in this matter.
f.
t c_
\\
- * ~
~ n.*
m :. s.
W..s.<:.
- s... e
- t e
- "*'***M88"**uG*ub w, - e e
_,_,_,,__-_-*= ""'** -
i
,J
.a
.s
~
O 151BD c-==es Power ;
hr t
t Essed en a March 9, 1979, telephone conversation with a===h=e of year staff who informed us that the report cenemina no proprietary informaties, this report will be placed in the ERC's h
Public Document Room.
3 Sincerely,
.~
r.w
- ?.~.
I
~.c e ;o.. -
U y,,,,g, g,,,3,,
C w
?,...
Director Attachments:
, 1.
M C Pr===ae=tian of Investigatise Findings of the settlement of the Diesel Camerator Building and Flant Area Fill dtd 2/23/79 2.
c - es Power Company D4=e===4a= ef MRC Inspection Facts Bassiting from the NRC Investigati== of the Diesel Generator h ildias Settlement (revised 3/9/79) 3.
Consumers Power Compsey Response to MC question on the Coedittom of Soils Dadar All Other Plant Areas dtd 3/5/79 l
4.
'At*=-d-List at 2/23/79 and 3/5/79 Meetings oc w/stemeh===te:
Central Files Reproduction amit aC 20b t
PDE M FDR MSIC e-
)
j Ramaid r=11ma, Michigan Public l
gggyigg Pskummias h Dr. Wayne E. North p g, %, %
. ~;
n' s..
.a, w
.w..
i
- 4.,,,... -
r e
t RIII IIII RIII RIII RIII RIII f
Phillip/sr Gallagher Bayes Fiore111 Norelius Esppler L
3/15/79 r
e
_.,.,7....
....,,.,..e,
-.w,-
,.,_.e.,n-,..,_,-,,.
n
__-,n---.
hi D.
b D
Y
+
a w r-4 February 20, 1979
- N
- %..f'i 7
g
...!) &.'
~
Consumers Power Company
. Attention: Mr. S. E. Howell Vice President 1945 W. Parnall Road
, Jackson, MI 49201
~
Dear Mr. Howell:
This confirma our plana arranged between you and G. Fiore111 of our office to meet with you at 9:30 a.m. on February 23, 1979, and 9:30 a.m. on March 5,1979, at our regional office in Glen Ellyn, IL.
The purpose of the meetings are to discuss with you and members of your staff circumstances associated with the settiament of the diesel generator building and plant area fill.
Should you have any questions regarding this meeting, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, James G. Kappler Director
.i ect Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b FDR Local PDR NSIC TIC Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry, Chicago Pr. Wayne E. North a
R.I.I.I..
./........
F..i.o..r.a..l..1./.c.h......
. K....P.l..e..r...........
e== ame >
2/20/79
.../. 20/ 7 9 2
, sumc posu ne nm uma eue t..
s -.-*= n m m m
-995g30115'
V s rs a n.s AeB?
LLC w o,e e]
Oud~ n'e
\\.
v I.asexusp i.
a g s or sacA loud.
- 2. Asez
~
o
'l
?
\\
l soA 5.A.; M L y d '.
3 Gech <,oF ABeA 4C g)a
\\+. Sc WZera usYp & TAM ~,(y,to dAh..
c
"^'
$ seuym aup so d.d. a
~
s deO~4..
l t.i i.-
'l-
-'f swln%
f, Arvy n//x iwfa m f.
W, i
7.LT p W M f d M A 6AcMML / 67&.
j l9. $$ c4n !"
i a mr I
f I,I
,t.
l 9
's e
i..
M, i
g t
y 4
o.
l[,pa nee
. /~
o UNITED STATES
[, ' 4 i '
m E'
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
>E I,d REGION ill O
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD g[
oLEN ELLYN. BLLINols 60137
,o
- se
- April 30, 1980 4,#
y.s MEMORANDUM FOR:
G. Fiorelli, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch C
a THRU D. W. Hayes, Chief, Engineering Support Section 1 FROM:
E. J. Gallagher, Reactor 31spector
SUBJECT:
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 ANSWER TO NOTICE OF HEARING Refs (1) NRC Order Modifying Construction Permits
~~
dated December 6, 1979 (2) Consumers Power Company Answer to Notice of Hearing As per your request, the following are comments to Consurars 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) denies the statements made in the NRC order (pages 1-2) which states,...."This investigation revealed a breakdown in quality assurance related 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 proporties and compaction requirements were not followed (2) there was a lack of clear direction and support between the contractor's engineering office and construc-tion site as well as within the contractor's engineering offices (3) there was a lack of control and supervision of plant fill placement activities which contributed to inadequate compaction of foundation mat;erials (4) corrective action regarding nonconformances 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 founcation type, soil properties, and ettlement 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.
cy@(,o70532-
y J
.D l
t
'G. Fiore1111
. - 2' April 30, 1980 1
-2.
CPCO response (Appendix, page 2) denies the findings with respect to the. Borated Water Storage Tanks and states that,... The asstamptions used for the borated tank settlement calculations are appropriate for the type of design _ utilized".
Comunent -
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..
i 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".
Comunent 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 considiared acceptable for replacement of Zone 1 and 2".. This instruction was given without proper consideration and coordination, and its effect on other design basis, i.e. settlement effects. The instruc-tion which was implemented was therefore inadequate and contrary to
{
Criterion V.
4.
CPCO
- response (Agpendix, page 4) states, in part,..." Licensee denier that Quality Control Instruction C-1.02 is contrary to '10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X, CPCO Topical Report CPC 1-A, Policy No. 10, Section 3.1 or ANSI N45.2 (1971)".
Connent:
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 i
verify soils material was placed and compacted to design requirements.
i-l f
e
,_.r.,
,.,_m
~_,,..,m,,
-r,,._,,_,,r,,,,.,.,_.,,,_._._,..,_m__,,.,_,,,y,,,,,,,_i_,,,..,
,_,_....,,wn.mm,_,,
r.
5 G.'Fiorelli April 30, 1980 e
5.
CPCO response (Appendix, page 4) states, in part, that the...
" 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 contrazy to }0 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".
Comment:
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 compacted fill was 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., lif t 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.
?
E.U.Gallaghe'3h cc:
J. G. Keppler D. W. Hayes R. C. Knop T. Vandel
.e R. Cook
-se neau
/
'o UNITED STATES
,0 *,,,
- ,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
r e
REGION 811
['[f
(\\
79e ROOSEt ELT ROAD
- eg*..
<j GLEN ELLYN,ILLINOls 60137
,f*
lhrch 5, 1980 t
7 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Harold D. Thornburg, Director, Division of Reactor Operations Inspection, IE FROM:
James G. Keppler, Director
SUBJECT:
MIDLAND SOIL SETTLEMENT Enclosed is a memorandum from Mr. Gallagher, Region III Inspector, concerning the soil settlement problem at Midland. This memorandum should be forwarded to appropriate ASLB members once the Board has been appointed.
Our inspector is of the view that further construction should not be permitted until a technical review of the problem by NRC has been completed. We recognize that the licensee is proceeding at its own risk pending completion of the Hearing; however, we are concerned that the actual Hearing may not be conducted for several months. Prolonging this issue is neither in the best interest of the NRC or the licensee. We suggest, therefore, that a memorandum be sent to the Commission encouraging that they expedite the Hearing.
If you desire additional information concerning this matter, please let me know.
James G. Keppler Director
Enclosure:
Memo from E. J. Gallagher to G. Florelli, dtd 1/21/80 c w/o enclosure:
. Fiorelli h
L y
i G W 1
Li l( y
&f y a.
sy g o202 M n