ML20126L822

Notice of Violation from Insp on 781211-790125.Noncompliance Noted Determined to Be Matl False Statement

ML20126L822
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	12/09/1979
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:
Shared Package
ML20126L803	List: ML20126L799 ML20126L806 ML20126L819 ML20126L822 ML20126L828 ML20126L834 ML20126L838 ML20126L843 ML20126L848 ML20126L854 ML20126L859 ML20126L864 ML20126L873 ML20126L879 ML20126L885 ML20126L887
References
NUDOCS 8106090650
Download: ML20126L822 (3)

Text

,

I

/3 s CEC 6 1373 .

'V APPENDIX 8 NOTICE OF VIOLATION f '

Consumers Power Cocpany Docket No. 50-329 Occket No. 50-330 This refers to the investigation conducted by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement at the Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Midland, Michigan, at your offices in Jackson, Michigan, and at Sechtel Corporation, Ann Arbor, Michigan, of activities authorized by NRC License No,'CPPR-31 and No. CPPR-32.

Curing this investigation conducted on various cates between December 11, 1978 and January 25, 1979, the following apparent item of noncompliance was identified.

i The Midland Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) contains the following:

Section 2.5.4.5.3, Fill, states: "All fill and backfill were placed according to Table 2.5-9."

' Tacle 2.5-9, Minicum Compaction Criteria, contains the following:

.[- , ,

C}. '

Zone (1) Soil Comcaction Criteria

" Function . Designation Tvoe Decree ASTM Desicnation Support of Clay 95%

structures ASTM 0155g5T (modified)

(1) For zone designation see Table 2.5-10.

(2) The cethod was modifled to get 20,000 foot pounds of compactive energy per cubic foot of soil."

Section 2.5.4.10.1, Searing Capacity, states: " Table 2.5-14 shows the c:ntact stress benea .h footings sucject to static and static plus dynamic loadings, the foundation elevation, and tne type of supporting medium for l

various plant structures."

Table 2.5-It, Su=ary of Contact Stresses and Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Mat Foundations- Supporting Seismic Category I and II Structures, contains, in part; the following:

" Uni.. Succortine Soils Diesel Generator Controlled coccacted suficing conesive fill."

,a l

810 6 0'9 0(p 6C

l l

. $ j , .,.

/ -

,- - .-- ATTACHMENT 16

/

UNITED STATES OF AMIRICA NUCIE.AA REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION MMO- -- I MTEAD/ /PATM 1 BITORE TEE ATOMIC _SAFZTY AND I.ICENSING BOARD .

FF

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWIR COMPANY ) 50-330 w ) 4 l

\ D'.idland Nuclear Power Plant, )

, Unita 1 and 2) )

.. )

ANSWER TO WCTICE OF EEARING -

. i y on P,cembe.r 6,1979 the Acting Director of the

. ...-. . rffice of Nuclear Reactors Regulation and the Director of .,

the office of Inspection 'and Enforcement issued an order i <

l Modifying Construction Parmits No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82 (the ' Order"). On December 26, 1979 Ccesumers Power Ccapany

("Licens ee") filed a Request for Bearing purruant to 10 CFR

$2.204 and Part V of the Order. On March 14, 1980 the NRC issued a Notice of Bearing, appointing an Atomic safety and .

i l . , . Z.icensing scard and specifying the following issues for U

. adjudication .

1. whether the facts set forth in Part 2:

-" " " of the Directors' order of December 5, 1979 are corrects

2. whether that order should be sustained.

C~% on April 9, 1990 Ivan W. Smith, Esq. , Chairman of the

.+

l  ;

Ator.ic Safety and Iicensing Board, granted Licensee's request Eay a.e N

/

9

( .. W.. .

goo 59000T0 ..

._. . . . . . ~ _ . . . , . - _ _ ,_ _ , , , , - _ , . . . . , , . . _ . . , , . . _ . _ , _ . _ , , , . _ , , . , . . , _ _ _ -

. . . . - ~ . _ . - , , . , , - . _ . . . , - . . . , , , -,,r . _ _ _ _ , , _ _ , , _ _ , , _ , _ _ _ _ , . _ _ , _ _ _

(

N ,

~

for a one week extension in tima to answer the Notice of Bearing, a request that bac'. tacan agreed to by Willisat,J.

Olmstead, Esq., counsel for NRC staff.

Pursuant to 10 CTR $2.705, Licensee answers the I l

1:atice of } fearing as follows.

1 i I. Licens::s's position with respect to the first  ;

issue is as follows: -

(a) 11censee, without admitting that the following

" f acts " (to the extent they are facts and not opinions, conclusions or other non-factual allejsrfions) are ---*

' material allegation [s] of fact' under 10 CFR 52.705, responds to the ' facts" set forth in Part II of the -

^ -

Directors' order of WW 6,1979: $

(1) Admits the facts set forth in the first l

paragraph of page 1 and alleges that the Licensee also reported to the NRC and its consultants in ,

other reports, meetings, telephone conversations,  :

g letters and other cormunications regarding soil conditions under and around safety related structures - -

.y and systems, imeluding responses to requests made by the Staff pursuant to 10 CYR 50.54 (f) .

(2) In regard to the second paragraph, at .

pages 1-2, admits that an inestigation and inspec-i tion was made by NRC Inspectors from Region III and that the NRC pressulgated the referenced t reporns and denies the r-Nng allegations of

.- .- .;;r;e_;;

l

- e

. . .. e, I

i w emumm eme-+a ese-m * * * * * * * * * ** *e=e a se e e me + e

- .e.e e esee mame e e as -

-***e--e,-w.s--o-- meen--w-.rww-em,m. ,,,.w+.,y-. w - vv w er---,ew+,e-w-,-,,, _m, e yywe,,ew,-se,-ww-e-,se,-rye t y y e , w ee w, my c. y sw-e.-y-w..p-.,-re.-yw-e=.rw-+g-umme-w-v<-ww ....w-.-.r.w-- ,e-a,eeio-ee.-,,-,y

i

( =:.=

=_ .

that paragraph. Licensee does not interpret the .

last sentance in this paragraph, referring to the i

1

• details" of the NRC's findings as described in certain inspeetion reports, as material allega-tiens of facts requiring Licensee to ad'it or deny I Without restricting the t* in this proceeding.

j ge.arality of the foregoing and further answering .

that paragraph, Licensee dedies that the s was a l

• breakded in cuality assurance, and with raispect

~

e to subparagraph (5), Licensee alleges that the . . . . . .

Staff in the July 18, 1979 meeting requested that Licensee not amend its FSAR but rather ) teep the ..

• Staff informed of the status of the soils work by * *

.~~..~...

maana of 50.55(e) reports, which Licensee has O- done. *

(3) Licensee's responses to the specific factual allegat. ions set forth in Appendix A and Appendix B of the Directors' crder are set forth in the Appendix to this Answer. *

.e, (4) In regard to the paragraph that begins on the bottom of page 2 and continues to page 3, Licensee admits.that the Director, office of l Ituelear Reactor Regulation, requested information under 10 CTR 50.54 (f) and that Licensee respended to those requests. Licensee alleges that it also

=~ reported to the NRC and its consultants in meetings,

~ ::

• 6

• • ? k W M W $Q

- - . .. . . =

I l

=

\ _ _.

telephone conversations, letters, amendments to and tho' construction permit and operating license ether communications regarding soil conditions under and around safety related structures and ed to be taken

. systems and remedial steps or propes Licensee alleges that it has responded by Licensee. 19,.1979 request.

in a timely manner to the November In regard to the concluding paragraph of (5)-

page 3, Licensee admits the first and second .

sentance. Licensee denies the th.ird and fourth Licensee allegas that the final sentence sentances.

of the paragraph is not applicable siace Licenses 1- -

has provided the staff information sufficiant to I Therefore the staff does resolve these issues.

' have reasonable assurance that ility 'the affected safety-related portions of the Midland fac will be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public."

! 5taff'a d Licensse controverts the i-

~~

7 (b) A of characterization of the facts alleged in Appendix i l the Directors' Crdar as constituting ' infract ons. i s Licensee alas denies that the iacts alleged in Appand x

" violation.'

constitute a " material false statement' or a '

' 22.

Licensee's position with respect to the is that the second issue specified in the Notice of Hearing

==._

order should not be sustained, for the following reasons ,

==r Crder '

I which constitute affirmative defanses to the .

l se i e e,,w -e ,- - y ,%e+ y -wee ~ e w+ i-e w e-werev e e w .y- ew,,-eq.p,y - c,= - , *,- we w e ee- e v ew -+- wen,__ .-_w-e.em-www-e..-e.-e-+w---h--,+ewma.e---*-**ee-=m=~-e-e-=-e*---

l 1

9 g '.

(1) Licensee has provided the staff and its con-sultants with all the information requested regarding the soil conditions under and around safety related structures and syster.s, including information relating to "the adequacy of the remedial action to correct the deficiencies in the soil construction under and around safety-related structures and systems."

(2) The information Licensee has provided and the remedial actions it has taken and proposes to take including those set forth in Amendment Noe. 72, 74 and

. 76 to its application for construction permits and operating licenses, and'tachnical discussions with the i '

NRC staff and its consultants, resolves the ' safety

~ ~

issues associated with remedial actions related to soil deficienciet." 4 M'

(3) The informationf;.iesasse has provided and the I

remedial actions it has taken and proposes to take, including those set forth in Amandment Nos. 72, 74 and 76 to its application for construction permits and '- : t-operating licenses, and technical discussions with the KRC Staff and its consultants, provides " reasonable l assurance that the affected safety-related portions of the Midland facility will be constructed and operated without undue risk to the public health and safety."

(4) Lietnsee contends that the alleged ' quality Z- assurance deficiencies involving the settlement of the '

.===.

\

r l t

. . . . _ _ .. ~. . . . . . - - -

( w)

U

^

Diesel Generator Building and soil activities at .the l Midland site" and the alleged " false statement in the TSAR" for:. neither a logical nor a legal basis upon which the order's prohibition against the ent=nerated activities can be sustained.

III. Licensee will appear by counsel and present

evidence.

Respectfully submitted, bd.chael I. Pu.ller

f. ffff Attorney for Licarusee

_Z DATED: April 16, 1980 . ..

O_

v ISEAM, LINCOLN & BEALE one First National Plaza Suite 4200 chicago, Illinois 60603

! 312/558-7500 l

.'*- .:b 1

l l

1

..:.7" 4

~

'\ .

l _ . . . ._ . _. _

, . . . . _ . - . ~ . . . .

7' '. . .;

Q w -= j APPENDIX Licensee providas the following responses to'.the facts alleged in Appendix A of the Directors' Order A11ecration 1 - Licensee adr.its that it is comitted to ANSI N45.2-(1971). Licensee adr.its that a few ' inconsistencies were identified in the license application er.d in other design basis documents.* Licensee denies that in gsneral reasures established and axecuted were contrar/ to 10 CFR 50, Appendix 3, criterion III, CPCo Topical Report CPC-1-A,

~

f ~

Policy No. 3, section 3.4 and ANSI N45.2 (1971)', section 4.1.

(a) Licensee ad=its this allegation.. Licensee f alleges as set forth 1[its Lesponse to Quest.ica 23, ~

Part (1) [50.54 (f)), Revision 4,11/79, page 23-10 and 11, 1 that:

When the FSAR was prepared and reviewed, the major 1

! I backfill operations were complete. There were no known inconsistancies. . .related to FSAR Subsections therefore, these subssetions were 2.5.4 and 3.8.5 essentially inactive and were not subject to any further review. The inconsistencies within the FEAR were not detected. The inconsistency between Sub-l l

sections 2.5.4 and 3.8.5 with respect to the settle- .

.<- i l

mant values resulted because the taro subsections -

were prepared.by separate organizations (Geotechnical services and Civil F.ngineering), neither of which ,,

were aware of the multiple display of similar *

! r I

information in the opposite subsection. -'

> t

, ese l

l j The inconsistancies between TSAR subsections 2.5.4 J and 3.8.5 have been corrected via F5AR Revision 18 (February 28, 1979). ,

I (b) Licensee ade.its this allegation with respect

-[ -- to the diesel generator building. Licensee alleges,

,t 1 o

' 5

~l ,

t S

g=*w -We- woe..e-- p-me,, wy-,e,e,=-w-e+,

i 1

l I

, l f; $=

n===.=

liminary finding i as set forth in its respense to NRC Pre .

I 9, that d footing is, The diesel generator building sprea foundation, which constitutesi the However, design ized a

bas was translated into the detail des 3culation, gn.

design change to the foundation ttlement wasbut not recogn to affect a previour settlement cathis did 'ot significa estimat, h berated this allegation with respect to t e Licenses den 1% Licensee's position is set forth water storage tanks. k from in more detail in the following statement ta en ,

44 **y Finding 9: *

... .h.s response to N.R,C. Prel =

• ted in The berated water storage tanks most are of suppor part by a ring type spread footing, )but k bott.cm, which the lead is applied across the tan subsection -

is supported on fill (FSAR Figure 3.8-60 tanks, O~ Settlement 2 5 4.10.3 calculations for the berated water storaget discussed l circular in FSAR ure of conservatively used aThe uniform ring type equiva ansat f f and the tank-2,500 psf (FSAR Figurp 2.5-47) . ~

i n is spread footing pressure is 2,500 ps applied pressure within the ring foundat oBecause t 2,000 paf.

psf over most of the foundation area, t .

estimate is conservative.***

k settle- . ;..s4 '

The assumptions used for the borated the type tanof

~"

. . . ment calculatiens are appropriata for -

design utilised.

Licensee admits this allegation. ibility l (c)

Licensee admits that the wrong but ecupress alleges (d) i f actor was used for settlement calculat d tant values. ons, that it had a mi.nor impact on the res /

= = .

(e)

Licensee ad=its this allegation.

8 I Dem:ie:: ...

\

e

-.,'.'_,-m..'~-

1 l

i '(f) Licensee a M ts this allegation. I Allegatien 2 Licensee admits that it is comeditted to ANSI M45.2 (1971) Section 6.

~

(a) Licensee .danies that instructions provided to field construction for substituning' lean concrete for

' Zone 2 material were centrary to 10 CrR 50, ippendix 3, criterion V, CPCo Topical Report CPC-1-A, Policy No. 5, Section 1.0 and ANSI N43.2 (1971) , Section 6. Licensee r .

denies that differential settiament of the Diesel Generator building was caused by erubstituting lean ._.

concrete for Zone 2 material. Licensee's position is set forth in more detail in the folicwing statement .

-. taken from its response to NRC Preli a mq Finding 11:

Dravings and specifications permit the use of sone 2 random fill material in plant area fill.

structural backfill was placed in local excavations f in accordance with specification 1220-C-211. Lean i

concrete was used to repisce structural backfill in confined areas as permitted by Specification 7220-C-211, section 5.1.3 which states , "In absence of structural backfill materials described above...

lean concrete, as specified in specification 7220-C-230 may be used.' Use of lean concrete in

• restricted areas is a normal construction practice and was contzelled by the field engineer's approval AV

..af ter inspection of subgrade. .'.

i The diesel generator building settlement was -

restricted by the aniargement of the electrical .

duet banks. Concrete backfill was not .used indi scr4

• m taly. l f.

i

.'$.S' p'

em m e. e m.e 3

q

. y

~ , - . ~ . , , ,

I . . .. . _ . . .

, ;. _ , - . _ . ---~J,. . . .-_,,... _ .- _. -.-_..... _ ... ~._ -_ _ _ ._. _ ,_-~,... _.,.--.__......_- _._____._ ___.___ _ ,_ _ _ __

• l w

v ._ .

(b)

Licensee admits this allegation.

(1) .

Licensee ad=its this allegation. I i

(2) it is come.itted

' A11ecation 3_ - Lie'ensee admits that Licensee denies that Quality Centrol to ANSI N45.2 (1971). 50, Appendix B, Instructien C-1.02 is contrary to 10 c.T.R. i No. 10, criterion X, CPCo Topical Report Licensee CPC 1-A, alleges, as pol cy (1971).

Section 3.1 or ANSI N45.2 y Finding 13, that stated in CPCo response to NRC Preliminarinspection itnessing Meither the characteristics(sarpling) subject toor witnes were changed; the degree of inspectwas reduc Plan. ction is The decision to change to samplingrelated inspeitoing that the *

'C- questionable, in retrospect, recogr. z bulk of the prior successful Bechtel. experiencecanon made to have the activity performed inadequateby in r criteria The sampling (surveillance) plan was pling er a that it did not specify conditions ounder which return to 100% inspection. eneral allegation h

Allegation 4 - Licensee deniss t e g

- , ils conditions of that 'zeasures did not assure that so d to preclude repetition."

.. M

' adverse quality were promptly corrected measures vers contrary

' Licensee denies that its actions anion XVI and CPCo Topical to 10 CTR 50, edix 3, criter 1.0.

l h extent Report(a)CPC-1-A, Polley No.16, SectionLicens thefollowingstatsmeg t '

,~

that it is inconsistent with NRC Prelirl. nary 3_..

- - taken frca Licensee's response to  :

Finding 6: -

( 4 .

G l s ,

~ ~ '

" ~ ~ " ~'~ '

, ... .,..: .. . - - - . - . - - - - - - - - - . . .- = -- .- .- -

.-. - .. .. .=- - - . - .

1 l

m.

44 Section 12.6.1, states Specification 7220-C-210, in part:

"Insefar as practicable... materials which require moisture control, shall be moisture- The.

conditioned in the water cont'snt during compaction shall not be borrow areas. . ..

more than 2 percentage points below optimumm percentage peines above optimum moisture content....

. . .af ter the placement of loose material on the embankment fill, the moisture contant shall be further adjusted as necessary to bring such material within the moistureconte.at lir.its On July 22, 1977 Bechtel QA identified in CAR SD-40 that the measuraments priorfield to and did during notplacement take moisture of the control backfill, but rather relied(after on the corrpaction) moisture soil results taken from the in-place t density tests to control asisture, As shown in Attachment 1, prior to August 1,1977, borrow area or when the loose fill was placedth Moisture measurements -

prior to or during compaction.were made af ter compaction and the results of both served as the acceptance criteria.

l From August 1,1977, to the cessation.of fill 1977-1978 operation with the onset of the winterDuring this time, season, there was a change. i moisture measuramants were made at the borrow . d;-

area, but the measurements were not compared toAgain, i

l M laboratory standards. l were made when the loose fill was placed prior to or during compaction. Hoisture measurements were l

made after compaction and the For data were use this which served as the acceptance criteria. ding

~

l period, the data from moisture measuraments '

w density tests, have been reviewed again andth found to be beyond + 26 of optimum.

s.=c s k TE_L...:: '

s  !

a i

e

• • ~I * .. ' . . . , , , , ****5..~.= - . . . . , , , , _ , , ,

t .

( .u I

de either For 1978; moisture measurements but not ma fill were was in the borrow area ormeasurements when the loose I

placed prior to compaction, These or both, were compared '.,

I 3 during ec=paction. Also during this period, fter compaction l

' '.. to laboratcry standards. ith the moisture measurements were made ved as a and the data were used in conjunction wdensit e acceptance criteria, measuraments made after compaction werefor which the again for this period and the cases identified. te measurements post-compaction moisture data indica beyond 3, 24 of optimum have been i ds are Moisture measura =ents for the three t ofper theo now considered not to have met andthe timeinten-acing of fill opera

- specification regarding Prior to m the location ill be - - - . .

the measurements.

for the 1979 season, this requirement w I

clearly redefined. -

h Z_ .

Final acceptance density criteria weresp ~

inception of the project. sary Moisture part of the final measurements density tests. were e not takaa as a In-process moisture control consistantly criteria wer clearly specified and were wtClarifications without nd interpretatio implemented.

of the specification were made specification changes. to 1978, "During i

Licenses further alleges that pr orel in the field as -M the Compaction" was interpretediby and personn teding. .

t action it entire process of placing, formance compact i ngLicensse (b) reports initially took with regard to noncenfill did not pr related to plant fill construction.

4 at a later date in the area of plant

=. .

k

( (.

e

[ Ga --

~r -=- ..

. . . . . . . .. . . - .  : . . . . .'. L . . . . . _ .

J '

l Licensee alleges that its corrective action, including l those it initially took, substantially reduced the number i

of nonconfomances- at a later data in the area of plant l ,

fill construction. Licensee's position is set forth in the pertinent portion of its response to NRC Preliminary

- Finding 8.

- \ s

• ( i:

j' *I Licensee has the following response tn Appendix 3: ,,

l Licensee admits that the excerpts of documents

[.

cited at pagn 1 of Appendix 3 are correct. Licensee alleges, as set forth in its response to NRC Preliminary Finding 3, ,,

r~ thatt

/

FSAR Table 2.5-9 provides compaction criteria and zone designation both of which are design bases.

Inadvertently omittad from this table was the number "2" in the column used for " Zone Designation" for the " Support of Structures." Also inadvertantly omitted wara . the words "and sand" in the column used tta designate the

• Soil Type" for the ' Support

' of Structures." FSAR Table 2.5-10 provides a

! definition of zone 2 materials. These materials l

were used consistent with the recommandations -:

contained in the Dames and Moore report included l in the PSAR. FSAR Table 2.5-14 summarizes contact stresses, estimated bearing capacity and f actors of safety for the supporting soils given in the table for each structural unit. However, some of these supporting soils specified in Table 2.5-14 were intentionally not the same as the design bases soils described- (cr intended to have been described) in Table 2.5-9. The supporting soils specified in 2.5-14 were those used for the l conservative calculations given in that table.

l -

1

~- TSAR Table 2.5-9 was revised to correct the inadvertent omissions and Table 2.5-14 vaa revised to reflect

":.::..~

~~

the design bases centained in the PSAR (as translated into the actual design) rather than to reflect the material used for calculational purposes.

l t - . .._:._.._ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - ._

. . - ... - . . .....,-..,~..-,.,...,,,.e..-v....-. ......r--4.w..e.,~.,..,.v.-....... ,._........,.,...--..*..,.+,.,.-emne...-----

- ~ . - . - . -. - -

1 1

1 l

, .- 1

\

Therefore, Licensee, der.ies that the excerpted infor=ation ,

t.

is ' false.* *

'1 t

Licensee admits that "matarials 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. Licassee has no knowledge or information suffielent to form a belief as to whether "information presented concerning the supporting soils' influenced the staff review

. . . . /

of the FSAR." . .

ode .ee

M i

l 0 n on.

I ***

l .

(

O 1

i i , .

4 l

\

g.

_ _ I

'~ -- , , . . _ , , , *

• Ne 44 ele e e.. e e.

,<-<y-,. - . ,,---e -

n,yv,.,,'..rw-,.e,.n.,www..,e#,.cw.,n-.,,e,.,.~--w,,-,- = w , -e -- v w,sw-,-~w,,,,y-,-

l l

, l O (;'_- . . <<"" --

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RICULATORY CCMMISSION l

BITORE THE ATCMIC SAFZUY AND LICINSING BOARD

_ 1,

)

In the flatter of -

) .

)

CONSUMIRS PCh7R COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329

) 50-330 .

(Midland Nuclear Power Plant, )

Unita 1 and 2) )

)

CERTI FICA ~i., OF SERVICZ

, I, ' Alan 5. Farnell, hereby certify that copies of sty " Notice of Appearance" and of Applicant's ' Answer to -

Notice of Hearing" were served upon the persons shown in the ..

/  %~

I attached service List by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 16th day of April,1980.

s A- L4 su, p %,1

u. .. . -meu 1

\

1 -

.[.2:-

==  ;

0 . ,

l t

• ' ' ** ~

.~ .. . . , . . . . - . . .

. _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . - . _ . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . . , . . . _ _ _ . , _ . ~ . . . . _ . _ ._...._ _ . . _

1 l

l t  %. ,

f.

Gr- ,

CONSTRUC'"ICM PERMIT STRVICT LTSI I ,irshall E. Miller, Esq. Mr. Steve cadler 2120 Carter Avenue kirman St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 r

comle safety & Licensing Bea'rd

• v.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Conn. Norton Hatlie, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Attorney at Law ,

Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr. P. o. Box 103 Navarre, Minnesota 55392 Atomic safety & Licensing Boud 10807.Atwell Richard K. Hoefling, Esq.

Rouston, Texas 77096 counsel to NRC Staff' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. E:ceth A. Luebke Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Atomic safety a Licensing Board Panel

. Washington, D.C. 20555 D.s. Nuclear Regulatory ccamission .-

~~

washingten, D.C.~20555 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.

One IBM Plaza Atomic safety & Licensing Appeal Panel Chicago, Illinois 60611 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

-. -.2ndd L. Bacca, Esq.

-.'-. ...snsumers Power company Docketing & Service section

(

'12 West Michigan Avenue ackson, Michigas 49201 office of the secretary II.S. Nuclear Regulatc17 Commibsion Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Surenerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Barold F. Reis, Esq.

Robert Lewenstein, Esq.

Iowanstein, Newman, Reic &

.Axelrad $.

1025 ConneMeut Avenue -

Mashington, D.C. 30036 - 4 e

d k

. t.

- - t ,

f

..'. E~

C-... ..

op O1  :. ,

e h^ -- - -- .I..

%--pr w e-+=.yn.y, w -y w *%--y*e-+--g*,,-pq y-,-,e- .wa--er e- e ce- ne g =., ww w.*w--e.-++=- .--ewwg.ve d - me.e e mi et -e w m ie-,n--m+=amwew ur o- s awww e <a 4was + w--- e emem weved w w' w-momw -e b w e -- m e- e r -+er*et--v---t-+*

ATTACHMENT 17 EUGENE J. GALLAGHER OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEME!!T U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I am a Civ.il Engineer in the Division of Resident and Regional Reactor In3pection,- Reactor Engineering Branch, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.

I received a Bachelor.of Engineering Degree in Civil Engineerin'g from Villanova University in11973 and a Master of Science Degree in Civil / Structural Engineering from Polytechnical Institute of New York in 1974. I am a registered Professional Engineer in the States of Illinois-(#37828), Florida (#29114) and Louisiana (116376). I an a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, American Concrete Institute and Tau Beta Pi National Engineering Honor Society.

In my present work at the NRC, I provide technical assistance in the area of civil engineering to Regional offices and resident inspectors with particular enphasis on the design and construction of reinforced and l

prestressed concrete structures, foundations, structural steel buildings and in structural testing and surveillance. In addition, I provide j

L A(

% /

)

technical input for the development and interpretation of industry codes, I standards and regulatory requirements relating to inspection activities.

From 1973 to 1981 I was a nember of the NRC Region 3 inspection staff responsible for the inspections of civil engineering aspects of plants under construction and in operation. This included the Inspection of laboratory and field testing of concrete, steel and. soils materials, earth embankments and dams, material sources, piping systems and

. reinforced and prestressed concrete structures. In addition, a review of I management controls and quality assurance programs were performed at l plants under construction. I participated in approximately 90 inspections of; reactor facilities.

l Prior to joining the NRC Staff I was employed by ESASCO Services, Inc. in i .New York City from 1973 to 1978. I performed designs of reinforced l concrete and steel structures, design of hydraulic and water supply systems and preparation of specifications for construction. .From 1976 to 1978, I was the civil resident engineer at the Waterford 3 Nuclear Plant site responsible for providing technical assistance to construction, During 1972 and 1973 I was employed by Valley Forge Laboratory in Devon, l PA. performing inspection and testing on concrete, steel and soil materials, t '

lV <

L l

l 1 l

- 2

-ADDITIONAL NRC TRAINING Fundamentals of Inspection, URC, February 1973'(40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />) '!

BWR Fundamentals Course,61RC, March 1973 (40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />)

- Concrete Technology and Codes, Portland Cement Assoc., May 1978 (80

~

hours)

- Quality Assurance. Course, NRC, August 1978 (40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />)

Nondestructive Examination and Codes, Rockwell Int'1. , August 1978(120' hours)

PWR Fundamentals Course, NRC, November 1973 (40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />)

-Welding 41etallurgy, Ohio State University, September 1980 (80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br />) i O

I O e i

v e w -c^ ,+-=r.- ,-.re-,----..r,eiswwme,r,,w-,,. w .,ws...+, ,-w si,i.,-ca,m.,.y..---+.wm.w,.,,.w,,#,,~,,m-ww,,w-,,www,y+wrm,w.,.-ye,-,-=p,,,-wr--- y----,y e,-~ -v.-,=- ,ye--