ML20140G938
Text
.
[#
UNITED STATES
?g'n
?\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b(1.Y 1 j
i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Q /E
/
gar maa 3
NOTE T0:
Dave Fischer FR0t Darl Hood During our telephone discussion today regarding the upcoming ACRS subcommittee meeting for April 29 to discuss Midland soils matters, we agreed that the discussions would focus on the remedy rather than the cause of the soils problem. You noted, however, that some of the members did want to know more about this, and suggested that some background documents on the cause of the soils problem would be helpful.
The NRC's finding as to cause is indicated in our Order on Modification issued December 6,1979 to be due to a breakdown in quality assurance with respect to soils activities. The basis for our finding of a breakdown in QA is explained in great detail in the enclosed testimony filed June 8,1981. The testimony of Eugene Gallagher, which includes as attachments the Regions investigation reports (78-20 and 78-12), identifies the many QA deficiencies involved, from which we earlier concluded that the term " breakdown" is appropriate. The applicant subsequently agreed, by joint stipulation with the staff, not to contest the staff's finding that a QA breakdown in the soils areas existed as of December 6,1979. The stipulation went on to note that changes had been rade to the organization and procedures, and that the Staff now finds these areas to be acceptable.
Also enclosed is " Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law", filed Decmeber 30, 1981. This was filed December 30, 1981 in support of a partial initial decision to be issued by the Licensing Board only on the quality assurance aspects of the hearing. The document was updated March 26, 1982 by the enclosed "NRC Staff Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law."
These two documents are provided in response to your request for a concise summary of the QA hearing background.
At this time, further QA matters remain to be heard in the hearing and the exact date for the partial initial decision is somewhat uncertain.
From your review of these documents, I believe you will agree with me that to discuss the QA aspects of the soils problems with the subcommittee on April 29, 1982 would probably consume most of that dayl session. Moreover, since these matters have now been corrected to our satisfaction, such discussion would be less productive than discussions on the technical aspects of the renedial measures for affected structures and piping. Should the subconmittee desire discussions of-QA, I would ask for a separate session and would ask for Region III support.
8510080262 850930 PDR FOIA BRUNPER85-602 PDR g7 3 pg \\.0 2.
Dave Fischer If there are,other documents for which the subcomittee has interest, please do not hesitate to call me at 492-8474.
B het Darl Hood, Project Manager Licensing Branch #4 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
(3) g Y
kjk
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS To NRC. SM TUNW of HR.tuGini G ALLA6Hi%
1.
Seite:ber 29, 1975: Initial 10 CFR 50.55(e) Report from Consumers Power Co.
3> 2.
November 17, 1979: NRC Inspection Report 73-12.
3.
January 12, 1979: Summary of Cecember 4,1978 meeting.
2 Februa ry 23, 1979: NRC Presenta: ion of Preliminarv Investication
~
Findings of tne Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building.
1 5.
Maren 9,1979: Consumers Discussion of NRC Inspection Facts Resulting From NRC Investigation of_ the diesel generator building.
5.
Mar:h 21,1979: NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request Regarding Plant Fill.
7.
Maren 22, 1979: NRC Inspection Report 78-20.
8.
April 9,1979: NRC Inspection Report 79-06.
t 9.
Acril 24, 1979: Consumers Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f), Question 1.
- 10. June 5, 1979: NRC Inspection Report 79-10.
- 11. Au9us-10, 1979: Sechtel Review of U.S. Testing Co. Fiel: 5
_aboratory Tests on Soils.
- 12. Octooer 1, 1979: NRC Inspection Repor 79-19.
- 13. Oct:cer 15, '.979: Su.nmary of July la,1979 Meeting.
12
'jcve-oe-13, 1979:
onsu ers Response to 10 CFR 50.5 (';, Cuestion 3r:e *teci'f n; Cons ruction 3e -i:5.
i
'.5. ' ece :e-5 '.979:
'5.
- osi' 15, 195C: C:asure-s ans-e to '.otice Of, ear'r;.
". 7
- -:fessio.a' ^;ali#':a-tons o' fugene J. 3a'*agne.
t j
i
Stamiris' Contention 1 reacs as follows:
Consumers Power Company statements and esponses to NRC regarding soil settlement issues reflect a less than complete and candid dedication to providing information relevant to health and safety standards witn respect to resolving the soil settlement problems, as seen in:
al the material false statement in the FSAR (Order of Modification, Appendix B);
b) the failure to provide infor nation resolving geologic classification of the site which is pertinent to the seismic design input on soil settlement issues (Responses to FSAR Questions 361.4, 361.5, 361.7 and 362.9);
d) the failure to provide adequate acceptance criteria for remedial actions in response to 10 CFR 550.54(f) requests (as set forth in part II of tne Order of Modification);
and this managerial attitude necessitates stricter than usual regulatory supervision ( ALAB-106) to assure appropriate implementation of the remedial steps required by the Order Modifying Construction Permits, dated December 6,1979 April 20,1981 Suoplement to Contention 1 Examples of CPCo. reluctance to provide requested information 1.
3/31/80 NRC meeting notation of Applicant's reluctance to provide NRC consultants with requested information.
2.
Vol. III, tab 65 50-54f, 8/6/79 meeting, attitude that
" needlessly conservative decisions may be formulated on the 'what if' type questions" by the NRC on dewatering.
3 The 11/24/80 5.A.L.P. assessment on CPCo - NRR interface as presented by D. hooc in the following sta ments regarding soil settlement issues:
AMadmed S' gg7
v.
4-
"A big contributor to the inability to make meaningful progress in this matter is the quality of responses gotten. We have set some kind of record on the number of questions re-asked, which speaks poorly for CPCo-NRR interf ace....The bottomline is there seems to be i
a lack of appreciation or support of Staff review necessities and a tendency to push ahead despite the lack of proper assurances."
4.
The perfunctory manner in which CPCo. deponents answered questions. (I will taoulate examples from the depositions I attenced.)
Examples of information witnheld or incorrectly given:
5.
The failure of CPCo. to discuss the Administration Building settlement problem with the NRC, as they did with their consultants, in the early meetings on the DGB settlement.
6.
The false FSAR statements beyond the one cited as a
" material f alse statement" in the Dec. 6 Order, as discussed in the 4/3/79 Keppler-Thornburg memo, and the 6/13/79 Thornburg - Thompson memo.
t.f 7 pg
1 Stamiris Contention 2 reads as follcws:
Consumers Power Company's financial and time schedule pressu-es have directly and adversely affected resolu-tion o' soil settlement issues, which constitutes a com-promise of applicable health and safety regulations as demonstrated by:
a)
.the admission (in response to 150.5.t(f) question #1 requesting identification of deficiencies which contributed to soil settlement problems) that the FSAR was submitted early due to forecasted OL intervention, before ser:e of the material required to be included was available; pay 3 4 7 b) the choice of renedial actions being based in part en expediency, as noted in Consumers Power Company consultant R. B. Peck's statement of 3-10-79; i
c) the practice of substituting materials for those originally specified for " commercial reasons" (NCR QF203) or expediency, as in the use of concrete in electrical duct banks (p. 23 Keppler Report)*;
d) continued work on the diesel generator building while unresolved safety issues existed, which preciuded thorougn consideration of Option 2 - Removal and Replacement Plan; and e) the failure to freely comply with NRC testing requests to further evaluate soil settlements remediation, inasmuch as such programs are not allowed time for in the new completion schedule presented July 29,19S0.
1:ril 20. 1931 Succle ent to Contention 2 f
Furtne examp'es of the effect of financial and time pressures on soil settlement issues:
Examples Effect on soil settlement issues
- 1. 11/7/73 3echtel action
- 1. Roet causes not adeq. investigated.
item;" proceed with pre; ara-Organicational deficiencies not i
tions for preload as rapidly eliminated prior to proceeding as possible" with remediation t
j
- 2. 11/7/78 decision to fill
- 2. Affected piezometric measurements pond "im ediately, because the during preload amount of river nater avail-able for filling is restricted" 3, 11/7/78 "5 month period
- 3. The surcharge was removed at the is available in the schedule end of this 5 months despite for preloading" lack of NRC satisfaction that secondary consolidation was assured Marcn 22, 1979 keppler In'vestigation Report conducted by Region III, Dec. 78-Jan. 79.
93y.Ho$~l
- 4. Failute to grout gaps
- 4. Resulted in additional stresses prior to cutting of cuct to DGB which could have been banks, failure to cut con-avoided densate lines when first D
suggested, failure to break up mudmat at DG3
- 5. Choice to continue
- 5. Eliminated practical consideration construction of DG3 of Removal & Replacement Option
- 5. Early FSAR submittal
- 6. Precluded early detection of and inadequate review inconsistencies which could have of FSAR prevented some of the s.s. problems
- 7. Failure to reconstruct
- 7. Varying degrees of caution and geometry of area prior to conservatism were foregone in fill pie:ement, failure to favor of cost and Schedule anait W approval before advantages proceeding with Preload, selection of "least costly feasible alternative" for DG3.
- 8. Failure to excavate loose
- 8. Contributed to inadecuacy sands as comnitted to in PSAR of subsoils
- 9. Installation of preicad
- 9. Expenditures for preload instrumentation was subject instrumentation (CJD 11/1/78 to time pressure assoc. with memo) prior to for nal adoption frost prote: tion considerations of preload = premature comnitment
- 10. Apoeals to NRC to consider
- 10. If granted, would affect financial olight and schedule seismic.. soil settlement deadlines as in Seismic standards Oeferral Motion
- 11. Oesth and breadth of
- 11. Afforded less than optimum surcharge limited by practical conditions for surcharge consideration of CG3, Turbine 3.
structures
- 12. Changes to design (DGB foun-12. Contributed to settlement or dation), material, or proceedural stress problems and allowed soecifications without proper conflicts to go unnoticed as approval preventative indicators e
a i
s t
A.
Intervence Stamiris Contention 3 reads as follows:
Conssmers Power Coepany has not implemented its Quality Assurance Program regarding soil settlement issues according to 1C 0FR Part 50, Appendix 3 regulations, and this represents a repea:ed pattern of quality assurance deficiency reflecting a
___ managerial attitude inconsistent with implementation of Quality Assurance 9egulations with respect to soil settlement problems, since reasonaole assurance was ;f ven in past cases (ALAS-100 ALAS-106 and L3P-74-71) tnat proper quality assurance would ensue and it has not.
The Quality Assurance deficiencies regarding sofi settlement include:
a) 10 CFR Parti 53, Appendix 3. Criteria III, V, X and XVI as set forth in the Order of Mocification; p.3e C.4 'l
b) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 3, additional criteria denoted by roman numerals below:
I.
The Applicant has failed to assume responsibility for execution of the QA program through its failure to verify anc review FSAR statements (pp. 6-3 and p. 21, g
Keppler Repor-) and through its reliance en final test results not in accordance with specified requirecen:s (p.
16, Keppier Report);
II. Tne QA pr: gram was not carried out at:ording to written policies, procedures and instru::i:ns, in tna; oral direc:icns were reliec upon and repeatec deviations fran policies oc:urred regarding cocpa::icn pr:ce ures (p.
9-14, Keppler Re;cr );
V11. Contro. of ;urchases material has not been maintained, in that examination and testing of ba:kfill materials dic not occur in accordance witn regulations (NCR QF29, NCR QF147);
IX. C ntrol cf non-destructive testing was no:
ac:ceplisne: ty ;ualifiec personnel using cualified pr:cedures regar:ing a) scisture ::n:rol (Keppler Re: r: p. 14-15; QA Re;ues: 5D43, NCR;F552, 172, 174 and 199);
b) c: pa::t:n procedures (Ke;pler Report, p. 9 NCR QFS 65, 12C anc 130); and c) pian: fill work (pp. 24 and 25, Keppler Report);
XI. Tes prog-a s did net incorporate re;airements and a::eptance limits adequately in the areas referenced in a, b and c above, and do not meet these requirements regarding soil set:1ement remedial actions; XIII. Measures aere not adequately estatiisned to prevent damage :r eterioration of material regarding fros effe::s en ::rpa::ed fill (pp.16 and 17. Keppier Report);
XV. Measures were not taken to control ncn-conforming material in order to prevent the inadvertent use (NCR QF29 anc QF127);
c) tne se::lement of the Administration Building in 1977 should have served as e quality indicator, preventing the same inadequate procedures fr:m occurring in :ne 1978 construction of the diesel generator building causing its eve 'ial
' settlement.
?*P l g
.