ML20094P654
Text
'
'. =-
-}
r:
~
i
~
- ).
~s 4
p 7
x I.
]
0 q
w.-
STATEMENT OF BILLIE PIRNER GARDE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT ON THE MIDLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 4
WASHINGTON, D.C.
April 25, 1984
's.,_.
Citizens Clinic for Accountable Government Government Accountability Project 1901 Que Street, Northwest Washington, D.C.
20009 Telephone: 202/232-8550 8408170312 840718 PDR FOIA RICEB4-96 PDR
l a.
My name is Billie Pirner Garde.
I am the Citizens Clinic Director of the Government Accountability Project.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you today about the Midland Nuclear Power Plant--a project which I have monitored for over the past two years.
I.
_ BACKGROUND GAP is a public interest investigative law firm in Washington, D.C.
The purpose of its program is to broaden the understanding of the vital role of the public employee in preventing waste and corruption, to offer legal and strategic counsel to whistleblowers, to provide a unique legal education for law students, to bring meaningful and significant reform to the government workplace, and to expose government actions that are repressive, wasteful, or illegal and that pose a threat to the health and safety of the' American public Presently the Project provides a program of multi-level assistance for government employees who report illegal, wasteful or improper actions by their agencies.
GAP regularly monitors governmental reforms, offers expertise to Executive Branch offices and agencies, and responds to requests by Congress and state legislatures for analysis of legislation to make government more accountable to the public.
GAP also includes a Citizens Clinic for Accountable Government.
The l
clinical program, modeled after GAP's successful Legal Clinic, assists and instructs citizens groups and individuals who seek to uncover government mis-conduct, monitor government investigations or force regulatory agencies to l
L w
j h.
i recognize significant public health and safety dangers.
It is the Citizens Clinic, with GAP investiqators, that has adopted the Midland case.
Since its inception, GAP has seen the adverse effect of misdirected government investigations on whistleblowers and communities. Large institutions that are the focus ofinvestigations--whether they be a public utility ignoring safety issues, government contractors bilking the taxpayers, a factory polluting a neighborhood, or a government agency controlled by corrupt private interest--will
" clobber" the community or public interest groups with the conclusions of any official probe that does not clearly prove wrongdoing. An inconclusive result gets translated by public relations departments of the institution that is the subject of the probe into " total exoneration."
In the wake, are often left cynical, intimidated, harassed, and sometimes broken victims who had the audacity to challenge a local power structure.
Public interest or community groups can sometimes reverse the result, but it is an incredible uphill struggle. As word of its accomplishments has gotten out, individuals and citizen-oriented groups have sought GAP consultation. Often those requests focus on how to force local and state governments to confront major community problems, how to monitor government efforts once initiated, how to encourage agencies to take effective and appropriate action, and how to turn white-washes into exposes.
It is this skill that GAP and the Clinic was asked to bring to Midland.
Since 1975, GAP has provided legal and other assistance to those who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, mismanagement and health and safety h'azards.
In fact, since 1979, we have legally represented nearly 130 such individuals.
1 l
s-II.
FEBRUARY 10,198410 CFR 2.206 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION Pending before this. Commission is a February 10, 1984 supplemental petition, filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
Our supplemental petition requested that the Commission itself take review of the Director's Decisions which have been issued by Mr. Richard C. De Young regarding the Midland nuclear power plant.I We request in that petition that the Commission:
(1) Require that all ongoing activitiy, including the " soils work" be included under the Order of Modification of Consumer's Power Companys' (CPCo) construction permit for the Midland Plant.
(Petition, page 13-15.)
(2) Ru.ove CPCo from managerial responsibility of the QA/QC
~
function at the Midland plant, replacing them with an i
independent third-party with the responsibility to report simultaneously to both the NRC and CPCo.
(Petition, page 20-22.)
In support of those requests we highlighted some of'the more recent problems which have plagued the Midland project and the Midland regulatory program.
The reason that we made the supplementary request is because we have no confidence in the ability or willingness of Consumers' Power Company to heal itsel f.
4 More importantly, we have lost faith in the key NRC decisionmakers' judgment to discern critical points in the inspection and enforcement process of this plant.
I Director's Decisions 83-16 and 84-02 issued in response to the June 13, 1983 Petition (" Petition") to the Commission on behalf of the Lone Tree' Council and other concerned citizens.
.~
~..
s l.
III. MANAGEMENT BREAKDOWN i
i Those problems represent a continuation of a managerial attitude that simply cannot be accepted by this Commission if voluntary disclosure of problems
'is to be a cornerstone of safe nuclear power.
Consumers' Power Company, its Midland project, and its regulatory history should be an embarrasment to this Commission.
This is a multi-billion dollar nuclear plant that nu one wants or needs.
It is an engineering nightmare, a financial disaster, and a construction boondoggle.
It is a political headache, and a regulatory muddle.
The NRC staff would like you and the public to believe that the cause of Midland's problems are a mystery. Both the staff and the utility would like you to believe that regardless of the cause of the problems -- as yet undetermined, or the extent of the problems -- as yet unknown, everything is under control at the Midland project.
4 Only a fool would believe that. The project is out of financial, regulatory and construction control.
1 It is CPCo's regulatory manipulation that GAP wishes to insure the Commissioners are aware of.
I understand that the Commission resists interfering in the day-to-day operat. ions of the staff.
However, when the actions of certain factions of the staff have the effect of erasing a several hundred thousand dollar regulatory effort, it is incumbent upon you to demand some accountability of your staff.
The increased regulatory effort, the inspection of the Diesel Generator Building, the requirement for a management audit, the modification of the Construction Permit -- all are positive efforts.
I commend both Mr. Keppler and Mr. Eisenhut (continued on next page)
5-
)
It is for this reason that we urge you to review the basis for the following staff actions:
a.
Repeated reprieves by the NRC Regional Administrator Since 1974 Mr. Keppler has given CPCo the benefit of the doubt by withdrawing or modifying his position regarding CPCo's failures in construction QA.
For example, at the end of the cad welding show cause hearing (LBP73-74),
Mr. Keppler stated that he had "put aside" his " serious reservations" about their past performances because he noted "a very discernible change over the past several months." He specifically referenced their commitments, dir ussions.
QA reorganization, and their changes in attitude.
Less than a year later the soils compaction problems began to occur.
The new QA reorganization neither detected nor prevented the fatal soils problems.
In 1981, as part of a stipulation between Consumers and the NRC, Mr.
Keppler gave his " reasonable assurance" that the soils work would be completed all right.
But by 1982, Mr. Keppler was faced with the results of the first systematic licensing appraisal (SALP) team report -- a resounding below average.
He also received devastating critiques of CPCo's attitude -- argumentative, non-responsive, and devious -- from his staff, for those efforts undertaken to discern and control the Midland problems.
Further, I have nothing but respect for regional inspectors on this plant that I have worked with for the past two years.
In fact, this Commission would see and hear far less of GAP and the whistleblowers if it had more inspectors of the integrity, and caliber, of Jay Harrison and Ross Landsman and the rest of the Office of Special Cases Team.
m
--m--
e w
yy-, _ - -
,w--
,,.m
,m.,--m,-,e,
,,w,w,,-,,-,--.y-.-m,--,,m,,--,.-,.,, -,,,,,,,,-,
~~ l His response to the SALP report was the formation of the Office of Special Cases Team and the DGB inspection. The results of the team's inspection concluded that the QA/QC problems on site were far worse than he had thought.
However, in December 1982, he allowed the soils underpinning effort to get underway. The month after his OSC Team was recommending a shutdown of the plant because of major QA/QC problems.
In March 1983 Mr. Keppler conditioned his " reasonable assurance" on third-party cverviews and extra NRC inspection efforts.
Mr. Keppler told the ASLB board that he would report back on the program after it was in operation for six months. Given the setbacks in the CCP, we don't expect that to be before July 1984 b.
Continued efforts on the part of the staff to undermine the significance of the DGB problems As mentioned in the February 10 Petition (page 3), two " final" d
versions of the Brookhaven report on the DGB appear.
The first, Attachment A, was sent by cover letter on October 17, 1983, to the Structural Engineering Branch t
of the NRC.
It contained five conclusions.
However, by October 21, 1983 --
the date the report was publicly issued by NRR -- it contained a " sixth" conclusion.
(See Attachment B.)
I We acknowledge that the staff has left the record in the OM proceed-ings open on the DGB issue, however, work continues as if all is well with the building.
c.
Continued decline in the implementation of corrective action program i
l Historically, Consumers' has not been able to implement any program I
adequately.
4 i
.i b
z.v
....a.
7-As far back as 1973, the original Midland licensing appeal board members felt so strongly about QA violations that the Director of Regulations pointed out that even though the Appeals Board could not take action on the IE findings --
i Had the construction permit proceeding still been befora our Board at the time that the results of the November 6-8 inspection were announced, it is a virtual certainly that we would have ordered forthwith a cessation of all construction activities..
3 CPCo's attitude has never changed. In the summer of 1982, the resident inspector wrote the following about a statement made by CPCo to the NRC regarding the insignificance of several SALP findings:
I The [CPC0] statement would support removal of the license until such time as a complete purge of CPCo management has transpired and an attitude realignment has occurred to the extent that CPCo enjoys a tolerance for mediocrity commensurate with the NRC.
In the September 16, 1983 letter from Mr. Keppler to Mr. Cook trans-mitting the third SALP report, the following statements were made:
i From my perspective your efforts to implement your Quality Control program at the Midland nuclear plant clearly were ineffective -- this was exemplified by our rating the soils and foundation functional areas as category 3 and by our identification during the DGB inspection of numerous weaknesses in the implementation of your QA program.
I As recently as last month at the monthly public meeting on the Construction Completion Progam and soils overview program, Stone & Webster reported that an additional 25 NCR's about inadequate crack mapping had to be issued. Jay Harrison summed up the problem with the statement:
l Th.e program is not being properly implemented --
that's the bottom line.
3 November 26, 1973 Letter from L. Manning Muntzing, Director of Regulations, Quality Assurance Deficiencies Encountered at Midland Facility, p. 2.
re:
.1,.
-._.3_.
y,.._., _._ _... -__..
,,,,,.,-_.._._,,,,m
,-.z.m-.-.-.,,
.--..,y.-
,.- =,.
i
(
. 8-j
- d.. Staff efforts to intervene with the Public Service Commission on 'oehalf of CPCo.
I:
It has recently come to our attention that Mr. Keprier has planned a meeting, at the request of Consumers', with the state Public Service Commission.
We do not think such a meeting is appropriate given the d'esparate financial straits of the Company. Essentially we would view such a meeting as stepping totally outside of the scope of the regulatory function and into the role of project advocate.
e.
The Caseload Forecast Panel Exceptions (CLFP) for CPCo As stated in the February 10, 1984 letter, the activities for last year raised serious questions as to the reliability and credibility of that function of the NRC.
We strongly urge the Commission to review the basis and explanations for last year's CLFP projections, and to convene immediately the CLFP for this year.
- Finally, f.
The staff withdrawal of the recommended civil penalty On October 19, 1983 a civil penalty Enforcement Notice 83-69 of
$100,000.00 was proposed for the '82 excavation of soil material from below the deep "Q" duct bank and subsequent fireline relocation activities in "Q" soils area.
(See Attachment C.)
That action was withdrawn on October 31, 1983 and a meeting scheduled with a CPCo attorney.
(See Attachment D.) The civil penalty was subsequently completely dropped -- and a management appraisal agreed to.4 That management audit proposal will be the subject of a public meeting May 4, 1984 regarding the inadequacy of its methodology, scope, and the lack of independence of one of the proposed auditors.
o
[
.g.
The decision violates all enforcement policies of the agency.
IV. CONCLUSION The cumulative effect of this situation is exactly what one would expect. CPCo has been richly rewarded for learning how 'to thwart the commis-I sion's regulations.
It has avoided civil penalties, waylaid completion fore-cast disclosures, circumvented NRC-issued stop-work orders, undermined regional inspectors, and used the NRC as a shield against its nervous investors.
At the same time it continues to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to an adequate independent management appraisal, and to take the highest advantage of the loophole in the reinspection program which allows CPCo to j
reinspect itself.
This company and its Midland plant have lost credibility on every front.
Investors laugh at it, the public despises it.
Editorials in all the major Michigan papers have called for abandonment. There is no money to finish it, there is no need for the electricity after it's finished, there is no customer for the steam it was built to produce. The ratepayers don't want it, the Attorney General has vowed he'll fight every penny of its inclusion in the rate base.
Yet the plant inches along at a price for interest alone of over a million dollars a day.
At some point.this Commission must accept part of the responsibility for this plant. We have asked you to hold your staff accountable, to close the loopholes in the Contruction Completion Program, to take Consumers' Power Company out of the position of being responsible for guaranteeing the quality of the plant, of discovering its own problems, and finally to subject the soils work to the same construction permit modification as the rest of the plant.
. I This Commission has recently taken an expanded interest in the troubled nuclear construction projects in this country. Midland is at the head of the list. We do not believe you can adequately review this complex project with its mammouth problems without probing the root causes of those problems within the Commission itself.
4 1
1 e
Attachment A BROCKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY ASSOCIATED UNIVERSillES. INC.
,i
.-(
Departaent of Nuclear Energy Bullding 129 U, ton tong 19and. New Yorir 11973 I
(516)287s 2448 FTS 666' Uctober 17, 1983 Dr. P.T. Kuo Structural Engineering Branch Boem No. 550 millips 31ds.
US Nuclear Regulatory Conc:ission 752tTllarfoM Avenue Bethesda, E 20814 i
Dear Dr. Kuo:
Enclosed, please find our Final Report on the Midland Project entitled
- Review of Diesel Generator Building at Micland Plant".
Please note, tile Professors Miller and Costantino wre assigned the authorship to the report, other staff re.,bers of the Structural Analysis Division also participated during varia2s phases of the review.
'er) truly
< rs, L
,M$b O
i Morr is Reich, Head Stn ctural Analysis Division L
Ja teclosure 1
i g-iwk 3ee-
/3/f
K }~
m Attachment A 1
The ' documentation of the crack analyses used to determine stresses is not sufficient. There is no calculation on record which calculates stresses in all of the walls using this method.
There is also no written justification showing that the method say be used for structures like the DG8.
4 Concern 4: CRACK MONITORING This concern deals with the lack of a good crack monitoring system and specification of action to be taken if the cracks exceed certain limits. As stated in Section 3.0, it is our opinion that the planned crack monitoring system is not adequate. More reliable gauges (e.g., Whitemore Strain Gauges) should be placed in areas where cracking is now evident. These gauges can be used. even af ter crack repairs are made.
Two limits are now defined in the current crack monitoring program.
If i
the crack wicth reaches.05" (Action Limit) a ameting will be held to evaluate what steps to take when the cracks reach the next limit.
The.next upset limit is set at.06" (Alert Limit).
It is our opinion that the form of this plan is adequate, but that the specific threshold numbers must be based on a resolu-tion of the current settlement stresses.. A safety margin must be left for the other potential loading events, such as tornado or seismic loads, with the re-Paining allowable stress allocated to future potential settlements.
Once this limit was reached the only solution would be to make a struc-tural repair. The exact form of this repair would depend on the location and J
extent of the crack which exceeded the limit. The planned response could not specify the nature of the repair, but could indicate that an exceedance of the Alert Limit would result in a struttural repair rather than performing addi-tional analyses.
~
5.0 CONCLUSION
S Based on the review of the studies performed to demonstrate the adequaqy of the DG8, the following conclusions are drawn:
16-h
. ~ ~ -
.,r y
-,---.,.,,_-,,,.,__,,,,.-,-,,,.,,.,,..,._,.w
_.,nn,,
m_-n--,w w,-,--,.,
Attachment A 1.
The settlement data indicates that primary consolidation of the fill is completed. However, it is recommended that the anomolies in the documentation of the settlement history be resolved. (See last paragraph of Section 2.2).
2.
It is unlikely that a satisfactory stress analysis can be performed based on the measured settlement data.
It is recommended that settlenent stresses be estinated from the crack width data.
The existing work that has been done in this area must be completely documented.
3.
It appears that the number of cracks in the DGB are con-tinuing to increase.
It is essential that a better crack nonitoring program be established as outlined in Section 3.0.
4.
The upset crack width levels specified in the crack monitoring program should be chosen so that a sufficient stress margin is available to resist the critical load combinations.
5.
If the Alert Limit (in crack width) were exceeded, specific structural repairs should be mandated.
I
- l l
.-..--.-~..L..,-r
~.~.
' Attachment B s
1@G93- 066
'g UNITED STATES 1/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
j
.,I WASmNGTON. D. C. 20586
\\o..../
OLT S1 ED MEMORANDUM FOR: James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering pq/t 7,,.j Division of Engineering FROM:
Pao-Tsin Kuo, Section Leader
~,
l Structural Engineering Section B gg 0
l Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch
.U (A '/d/
Division of Engineering ONRR
SUBJECT:
REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING AT MIDLAND
References:
1.
Memo from R. F. Wanick, Region III to D. 6. Eisenhut NRR/DE, " Evaluation of Dr. Landsman's Concerns Regarding the Diesel Generator Building at Midland," dated July 21, 1983.
2.
Memo from R. H. Vollmer, DE to D. G. Eisenhut, DL
" Evaluation of Dr. Landsman's Concerns Regarding Diesel Generator Building at Midland," dated July 21, 1983.
i Pursuant to Reference 2 above, a task group, consisting of three members of the Structural Engineering staff and a consultant team of Brookhaven National Laboratory, was fomed to re-evaluate the structural design and construction adequacy of the Midland Diesel Generator Building (DGB). The group, headed by P. T. Kuo, reviewed the design review documents and the construction reports; physically inspected the building; interviewed concerned individuals, including Dr. Landsman; and prepared a final report on the adequacy of the Midland NPP Diesel Generator Building. The final report on the adequacy of the Midland DGB is enclosed.
The task group's conclusions and recomendations are sumarized as follows:
1.
The settlement data indicate that the fill under the DGB is well into the secondary consolidation phase so that large additional settlements are not anticipated; 2.
It is judged that there is reasonable assurance that the structural integrity of the DGB will be maintained and its functional requirement l
fulfilled.
However, it is difficult to show that the stresses in the DGB can meet the criteria of ths FSAR.
The stresses due to settlement were either underestimated or overestimated by the Applicant's previous analyses; I
i l'
1 Attachment B The documentation of the crack analyses used to detennine stresses is not sufficient. There is no calculation on record which calculates stresses in all of the walls using this method. There is also no written justification showing that the method may be used for structures like the DGB.
Concern 4: CRACK K)NITORING This concern deals with the lack of a good crack monitoring system and specification of action to be taken if the cracks exceed certain limits.
As stated in Section 3.0, it is our opinion that the planned crack monitoring systen is not adequate.
More reliable gages (e.g., Whitenore Strain Gages) should be placed in areas where cracking is now evident. These gages can be used even af ter crack repairs are made.
Two limits are now defined in the current crack monitoring program.
If the crack width reaches.05" (Action Limit) a meeting will be held to evaluate what steps to take when the cracks reach the next limit.
The next upset limit is set at.06" (Alert Limit).
It is our opinion that the fonn of this plan is adequate, but that the specific threshold numbers must be based on a resolu-tion of the current settlemnt stresses.
A safety margin must be left for the other potential loading events, such as tornado or seismic loads, with the re-maining allowable stress allocated to future potential settelments.
Once this limit was reached the only solution would be to make a struc-tural repair.
The exact fonn of this repair would depend on the location and extent of the crack which exceeded the limit.
The planned response could not specify the nature of the repair, but could indicate that an exceedance of the Alert Limit would result in a structural repair rather than performing addi-tional analyses.
5.0 COELUSIONS Based on the review of the studies perfonned to demonstrate the adequacy of the DGB, the following conclusions are drawn:
y s
Attachment B 1.
The settlement data indicates that primary consolidation of the fill is completed. However.. it is recommended that the ananolies in the documentation of the settlement history be resolved. (See last paragraph of Section 2.2).
2.
It is unlikely that a satisfactory stress analysis can be performed based on the measured settlement data.
It is recommended that settlement stresses be estimated from the crack width data.
The existing work that has been done in this area must be completely documented.
3.
It appears that th'e number of cracks in the DGB are con-tinuing to increase..
It is essential that a better crack monitoring program be established as outlined in Section 3.0.
4.
The upset crack width levels specified in the crack monitoring program should be chosen so that a sufficient stress margin is available to resist the critical load combinati ons.
5.
If the Alert Limit (in crack width) were exceeded, specific structural repairs should be mandated.
- 6. While significant cracking has occurred in the DGB, it is our opinion that the structure will continue to fulfill its functional requirement.
This conclusion is based on the f act that stressesinduced in the structure by all other extreme loadings are small.
9 l
.Y_... _.[
~ sA.
~
~
Attachme.. R October 20, 1983 EN 83-t;9
,. {
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ENFORCEMENT ACTION Licensee: Consumers Power Company Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330
Subject:
PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $100,000 This is to infom the Comission that a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars (5100,000) will be issued on or about October 26, 1983 to Consumers Power Company. This action is based on excavation and fireline relocation activities performed by the licensee in "Q" soils without prior NRC authori:ation.
It should be noted that the licensee has not been specifically informed of the enforcement action. The Regional Administrator has been authori:ed by the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement to sign this action. The schedule of issuance and notification is:
Mailing of Notice October 26, 1983 Telephone Notification of Licensee October 26, 1983 A news release has been prepared and will be issued about the time the licensee receives the Notice. The State of Michigan will be notified.
/
1 The licensee has thirty days from the date of the Notice in which to respond.
Following NRC evaluation of the response, the civil penalty ncy be remitted, mitigated, or imposed by Order.
Contact:
G. Klingler, IE 24923 J. Axelrad, IE 24909 Distribution:
H 5t MNB3 Phillips EW e
Willste Chaiman Palladino EDO NRR IE
~
NMSS Comm. Gilinsky DED/ROGR OI RES
^-
Com. Roberts ELD OIA
=
Com. Asselstine PA AEOD Comm. Bernthal d
ACRS Air Rights, -
SECY SP l
CA RM Regional Offices MAIL G PE RI RIV ADM: Doc. Ngt. Br.
RII.
- RV e RIII PRELIMINARY INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNTIL OCTOBER 26, 1983 9
- \\,
{I' SS35GEttM90-tPST020 PDR I&E EN-83-069 PDR 4y.
- d L
(]}
()
Attachment'C
,,s
October 19, 1983 2
ME":'EANDUM FOR:
Jane A. Axelrad, Director, Enforcement Staff, IE FROM:
W. M. Schultz, Enforcement Coordinator, Region III SLL~ECT :
CONSbY.RS POWER COMPANY - MIDLA E PROPOSED CIVIL PE The enclosed.oeuments.p:oposing civil penalty action under the NRC. Enforce-ment Policy are f.orwarded for your. review and concurrence..
i
.Oc July 28,1982, an NRC inspector determined that the licensee had excavated s:i caterial fror below the deep "Q" duct bank and initiated fireline reloca-tien activities in "Q" so'ils without prior NRC authorization.
Further, the excavation of soil caterial below the deep "Q" duct bank was contrary to previous directives of the NRC staff which instructed the licensee that such excavation was not authorized.
(OI Investigation Report,No. 3-82-061)
These actions violated paragraph 2.G. of the Midland Construction Permits, as amended on May 26, 1982.
Based on the Enforcement Policy, we have classified this violation as a Severity level III and have developed the enforcement package proposing a 5100,000 civil penalty. To emphasize the severity of the violation and the 3
need for CPCo management to ensure that steps are taken to preclude future recurrence of this violation we have ceneluded that a $100,000 is a;;ropriate.
An Enforcement Conference was held on October civil penalty Region III, between Consumers Power Co:pany and the NRC Staff to discuss the 11, 1983, in violation.
In view of the history of significant problems experienced during the con-stru: tion cf the Midland nuclear facil:ty and the failare of CPCc emnagement tc prevent the re:urrence of such prc1:ets, Regicr 4. - is considering an Crder which will require the licensee to have a.
Ode *ndent comprehensive l
W
$. //p/n.w Y1
- lOy,
Attachment C Jane A. Axelrad 2
10/19/83 r y.agement review conducted. Thatproposedorderwillfollowfor$your review.
i W. H. Schultz Enforcement Coordinator
~
Attacheents:
1.
Dft Itr to licensee w/ Notice of Violation and Proposed
. Imposition of Civi.1 Penal,ty e c vla t t a cFrer.t s :
.'a es Li et e rr.an, ELD Re gi =r.a1 Inf orcer.ent Cecrdinators, RI, RII, RIV, RV RITI g RIII RI I RIII RIII RIII FITT RIII 1 9
gm:
lu un J
W' 1
f L-L Kepple,r Garcr.er/g L
phan Harrison Earnick Lew s Schultz Davis IC!
53 seIo\\ b3 stl0l0 jf. jj yy \\oA*).sy I'lO I
Iil g}
j
DhArt vh fg U
Attachment C cc w/ encl:
DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Eesident inspector, R111 tee Honorable Charles Bechhoefer, ASLB f
Th'e Honorable Jerry Harbour, ASLB The Honorable Frederick P. Cowan, ASLB The Honorable Ralph S. Decker, ASLB William Paton, ILD Michael Miller
. Ronald Callen, Michigan Fub'. 2 e Se r. i ce Con-is s ier.
Myron M. Cherry Barbara Stamiris Mary S2nelair
~
Vendell Marshall Colonel Steve J. Gadler (P.E.)
H: ard Levin (IIRA)
Billie P. Garde, Government Acccuntability Prcject
'.y-.e Ee rr.abei, G:.ve rn e--
Ac c ur.tability Proje:t e
Attachment C Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 5
Consumers Power Company A77N:
Mr. John D. Selby President 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 Cer.t lemen :
This refers to the investigation conducted by the Office of Investigation during the period January 3 through August 8,1983, of activit'es at the Midland Euclear Plant authorized by NRC Const_ruction Permits No. CPPR-81 and Ec. CPPR-82.
Th2s investigation revealed that Consumers Power Co=pany (CPCo) had excavated scil material from below the deep "Q" duct bank and initiated fireline reloca-tien activities in "Q" soils without prior NRC authcrization.
Purther, the e> avatier. ci stil e.aterial telow the dee; "Q" d.r: har.l. was ec:.tra ry to 7:evious direct:ves of the N3: staff which instructed the licer.see that such I
ex:avation was nct authorized. These actions vie:ated paragraph 2.G. of the i
M:dland Construction Permit, as amended on May 26, 19S2.
T
(-}
Q DRAFT Attachment C Af ter consultation with Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforce-I have been authorized to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation ment.
and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 to eEphasize the need for you to construct your facility in accordance with the Construction Permit.
The violation in the Notice has been categorized as a Severity Level 11] violation as described in the General Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions (Appendix C to 10 CPR Part 2).
A civil penalty of $100,000 is being proposed because of the significance of the management breakdern discussed abovt.
- - yc-r response to this letter, please follow the instruct
- ons in the Notice.
Your response should specifically address corrective actions you have taken or plan to take to improve management effectiveness for ensuring that Construction Permit requirements are met. Your written reply to this letter and the results of future inspections will be considered in deter-ining whether further enforcement action is appropriate.
Ir. acccrdante with Sectico 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Pederal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the er:3:s ures vill be placed ir. the NRC's Psblic Locu er.: Ec:-
a G
l l
l t
L
(
Attachment C The response directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not sub'ect j
to the clearance procedure of the Office of Man'agement and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely, 1
1 1
i l
James G. Xeppler Regional Administrator i
In:lesure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty k
r-y DRAFT
[N[]
fw)
Attachment C NOTICE OT VIOLATION AND
. PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY
~
f Consumers Power Company Docket No. 50-329 Midland Energy Center Docket No. 50-330 -
M2dland, Michigan Construction Permit No. CPPR-81 Construction Fercit No. CPPR-82 EA 83-On July 28, 1982, an NRC inspector determined that the licensee had excavated soil material from below the deep "Q" duct bank, and had initiated fireline relocation activities in "Q" soils without prior NRC authorization. These actions violated paragraph 2.G. of the Midland Construction Permits, as atended on May 26, 1952.
Tc erphasize the need for the licensee to construct its facility in accordance v:tr tr.e Ccr.streetser. Fere:ts, we prc;ese to irrese a Civil Pet.alty in the an:er.: of $100,000.
It acccrdar.re with General Policy and Procedure ic N-; Er.f cic er er. Arti er.r. (1
- CTE Pa rt 2, Appendix C) 47 TE 9917 (March 9, 19E2),
and pursuant te Sectiet 23a cf the Ato::e EnerEy Act of 195', as arended
("Act"), 42 L'.S.C. 22E2, P'96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205, the particular vielation att the associated c:vil per.alty is set fcrth below.
O O
Attachment C Construction Perrits No.CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82, paragraph 2.G.(1) and 2.G.(1)s state, in part,The applicant shall obtain explicit prior approval
]
fro the NRC staff...before proceeding with the following soils-related shivities...any placing, corpacting, excavating, or drilling soil saterials aiound safety-related structures and systems."
Contrary to the above, the licensee excavated soil material below the deep "Q" duct bank on July 23, 1982, and initiated fireline relocation activites i t. "Q** seils or. July 27, 1982, without prior NRC authorization. Further, the excavation of soil material below i.he deep Q" duet bank was contrary te g re.ic us directives of the enc staff on.May 20, 21, and 26,1982 whieb instructed the licensee that such excavation was not authorized.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supp'lement II) (Civil Penalty -
$100,000).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Consumers Power Cor.pany is hereby required to sub:rit to the D: rector, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.ission, k'ashington, D.C. 20555 and a copy to the Ettict.a1 Ai.ir.istrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatery Ce:.tissior., Reg::n III, in E :.sevelt Ecad, Glen Ellyn, 11 60137, within 30 days of the date of this N uce a written statemeist er explar.aticr., :nclud:n; for the alleget v:elatien; (1) at ;ss:cr. or der.ial of the alleged viciation; (2) the reasons for the v:clation, if acLitted; (3) the correet:ve steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) the corrective steps which will be taker,to aveid l
l i
L.
DRATT (l)
(
Attachment C j
further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause siovn.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this risponse shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CTR 2.201, Consumers Power Coepany may pay the civil penalty,in the
~
amount of $100,000 or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer.
Should Consumers Power Ccepany fail to answer within the. time specified, the Director', O'ffice.of Inspection and Enfcrce er.t will issue an crder imp; sing the civil penalty propesed above.
Should Ccr.sumers Power Ccepany elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CTR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty such answer say:
(1) deny the 1
violatier. listed in the Notice, in whole or 'in part; (2) demonstrate extenuating circunstances; (3) show error'in this Notice; or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer may request recission or citigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors contained in Section IV(B) of 10 CTK part 2, Appendix C, should be addressed.
Any written answer in accordance with 10 CTr. 2.205 i
sh: Lid be set f orth separately f ror the statement or expiar.atier. in reply j
- _rs ar.
- te 1: CTF. 2.201, but cay ir.cerp: rate statements er explanatient by spec 2f ac refe rence (e.g., citing page and paragraph nuclerr) te avoid repetition.
Ccr.samers power Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CTE 2.205, regarding the procedures for imposing.a civil penalty.
l l
t
e-O O
DRATT attecament C tyen failure to pay any civil penalty due, which has been subsequently deter:rined in accordane.
with the applicable provisions of 10 CTR 2.205, this a,atter may be referrW to the Attorney General, and the penalty n'nless com-piomised, remitted, or sitigated, may be collected by civil setion pursuant tESection234eoftheAct, 42 U.S.C. 2282.
FOR TE NUCI. EAR REGL*LATORY COMISSION James G. Xeppler Regional Administrator O
e e
t l
l l
4
^
a Attachment D October 31, 1983 EN 83-69A W
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ENFORCEMENT ACTION Licensee:
Consumers Power Company Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330
Subject:
d)DIFICATION TO EN 83-69 This is to inform the Comission that the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty discussed in EN 83-69 was not issued on October 26, 1983. Another enforcement conference is scheduled for November 4,1983 to discuss the excavation and fire-line relocation activities.
A decision on whether to propose enforcement action will be made after that meeting.
Contact:
G. Klingler, IE 24923 J. Axelrad, IE 24909 Distribution:
H St O. M MNBB Phillipsl.' M EW Willste f.' 2.3 Chairman Palladino EDO NRR IE NMSS Com. Gilinsky DED/ROGR OI RES Comm. Roberts ELD OIA Comm. Asselstine PA AE00 Comm. Bernthal
~ 3o -
(
ACRS Air Rights SECY SP CA RM PE Reg'onal Offices MAIL RI 3 RIV.*V3 ADM: Doc. Mgt. Br.
RI RV RII N
C T
'i-
~
1 L.
g g
i'
..... g ;; e5iG31 7
gN69A PDR hI x 33 l
4
REGULATdDr lh OH4ATION DISTRIcui10N SYSTEM (RID 3) Attac unt 0 ACCESSION NCR: 83110300ce DUC.DATE: 83/10/31 NOTARIZLD: ho DOCKET s FACIL: 50-329 Midland Plant, unit 1, Consumers Power Co.
05000329 50-330 Midlano plant, unit 2, Consumers Power Co.
05000330 AUTH.NAME AUTMdR AFFILIATION ALIhGLLR,G.
Director's uffice, office of Insoection and Enforcement g-
\\
l ARELMAO,J.
Director *a uffice, Office of Inspection ana Enforcement NECIP.tdAME NECIPIdNI nFFILIAT104 SuoJECT: EN=83-069A:on 84192o, notice of violation & proposed iyposition of civil penalty aiscussed in EN=83=069 not issueo. Enforcement conference scneduled for 831104 to d,iscuss excavation h fire line relocation activities.
DISTRIBUTION CODE IE343 COPIES RECEIVED LTR 31 ENCL db SIZE:____
TITLE: Enforcement Notice (E 0
~
NOTES:IE/ STONE,J. Icy all matl.
05000329 IE/SIONE,J. icy all Matt.
05000330 MECIPIENT LOFIES RECIPIENT COPIES 10 CODE /hAME LTTR ENCL ID CODL/NAME LTTR ENCL
'NTERNAL: IE/ES FILE 01 1
i
- XTERhAL
- LPDR 1
WRC POD 1
NSIC 1
NTIS I
0TES:
't I
l 0
l l
l l
0 ICIALNUMBER p!
CF COP 1ES HEwulRED: LTTR ENCL 6
.Skw' fuk/re Mes hx3 3 - r-s'&
Solh}L 7L-7f
$ IRK M M MMkS4sc i) RenkF 6 parry kYcatr,I kwird by Anx Arhar u+-
,g 4
casinJean WGA0 do u+ 4/h n erb ather why g St'le -9 An Ark,-
As-4 udYiw* cmshh.n
)
J
- 3) Gh[GC yhrW f 64l do-d endr,)
r) as. Thhy s4v Ykmdohg
- 3r A/bR'S mierth AE fare 6
oY2e <
k ibw rue as
)<dre.
t 7,
v't A' C 9P & * " S v) w.tk dwh pshayes
F-g 8
/
dt#
pv Gkf **yst,+ fryva+
)
i l
\\
e i
1
3-pse cm why Streu
%hden -+
cnhwI pp<3 4typ6s d en/<y w da & c,4 s wI
-v see.
see_ d p n a w a m u i
Wein IV co'rNVM&T wWof c.T i
- gp aj e)M
- M5 &
edtW y>ot cl0 N 18 -y M
,4 0
C{ssed flLA
@P a
f"lz svCF-)\\cfd.cK
-y s e f@
F4
/
fkeE y
i
F-l
\\.
f h
e Gd*
re /ine.
$4 he i
,-m4
-w.w,-,,_n.--,---,.---.-.--,,.a..
,._-,,-,.e---_
,._,,.-__-,-wwremw..
r-2 /2 e &.-:.
P *e 'by iy ll.Ti v..
[
GC traiw 3 g cM.
cn sc
- yec,
/,
s', -
I g.
Avst ft,.4 Mit-s
/s[tMy 9 unnkL n
]hd tyg l
I. sknps A teords.? enttltsks Lpt kw+shkd teer phary 2.
l a.
pu+ 9-A e<< tAlsivons not av kks i
4 L 6 w t.
e.ysysd-w irs l$ 'f'Rd n,F rwst reyMnds f MSA -T3-zr-osi J.
6.
L5 dd at net ewkhdot.,r 7
Ig wt kks M., p I
(Ah
% mA ?a eh yd tM s.
P.p.
i 7
t,g e,se+ gem kenfeJe-w.
L'Is f D6 b4) atnul -us'sy nL=r %lrw
Cerf> +4n.hu) yt bet) scrylfked-yrtaf ryerf l(.
1Yk.ss%
sekl*lt
& c'b 6 fyt y ?
11.
l3
%er of f6CE tGenh Af @ reced y N o f A rse / do if
/,f.
fVami.3 rearb d th kles
% <!w 1
<>nN de (ntwnb ya)
Ib.
p
% +3ey d N cf /tScen iwt' fi y lme I7.
IV0 5 f f c n M N Y es N N N b W inh.p d br 1s.
c hwdd unrs s slityks notkh, fwdul &h/y l-
- z. Dm hs uq(,4+s $r rus-Ibda s fact's t n h & W 3nc y k to C+Yr/$ $
3.
I,$ et
- k. W slers ora l"wum br MW U
(hcorub re[%c m rect's f.
S.
h7 fQG
.sh ?
F
+
p m pk h+ an nt dynk
- s. m nm.+ms%hY f
ac fu.,Anss
/tekhlsf.s(vnpa) to y art w
left-
^
24 fu{ed - i w r. 4 4,L gg. - :.
L..
et)$
y f Y i f 0 G L'.s f.s h+)
L Novf L
}f ena. awe cks a fsfal ac op.,,
s d k (&hed +
y
-m
,\\
l l
f#'
\\p\\\\
YO 5L +%ln's nyar e v<~
.n
..... _.. _.