ML19344A243
| ML19344A243 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1980 |
| From: | Mark Miller CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008070614 | |
| Download: ML19344A243 (15) | |
Text
-_ . _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ . -_ _____
?' ~
r e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
l
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330
)
(Midland Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) ) l f )
i ANSWER TO NOTICE OF HEARING On December 6, 1979 the Acting Director of the l
Office of Nuclear Reactors Regulation and the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement issued an Order Modifying Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82
~
(the " Order"). On December 26, 1979 Consumers Power Company j
(" Licensee") . filed a Request for Hearing pursuant to 10 CFR -
S2.204 and Part V of the Order. On March 14, 1980 the NRC issued a Notice of Hearing, appointing an Atomic Safety and l 1 _j Licensing Board and specifying the following issues for j
~
adjudication:
l
- l. whether the facts set forth in Part II 1
of the. Directors' Order of December 6, !
1979 are correct; !
- 2. whether that Order should be sustained.
On April 9, 1980 Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, granted Licensee's request,
,- -)
l
, ri -
l for~a_one week extension in time to answer the Notice of i
Hearing, a request-that had been agreed to by William J.
4
.Olmstead, Esq., counsel for NRC staff, i Purauant to 10 CFR S2.705, Licensee answers the Notice of Hearing as follows.
1 I. Licensee's position with respect to the first
- issue is as follows
- 1
, (a) Licensee, without admitting that the following
" facts" (to the extent they are facts and not opinions, conclusions or other non-factual all(. ions) are -
- " material allegation [s] of fact" under 10 CFR S2.705, 4
responds to the " facts" set forth in Part II of the Directors' order of December 6, 1979:
i- (1)' Admits the facts set forth in the first i paragraph of page 1 and alleges that the Licensee also reported to the NRC and its consultants in
. other reports, meetings, telephone conversations, 4
letters and other communications regarding soil-I conditions under and around safety _related structures -
and systems, including responses to requests made by the Staff pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54 (f) . ,
(2) In regard to the second paragraph, at pages 1-2, admits that an investigation and inspec-
+
tion ~was made by NRC Inspectors from Region III and that the NRC promulgated the referenced reports and denies the remaining allegations of
y r w 1
.r 1
- that paragraph. Licensee does not interpret the last sentence in this paragraph, referring to the
" details"'of the NRC's findings as described in 1
certain inspection reporta, as material allega-tions of facts requiring Licensee to admit'or deny them in'this proceeding. Without restricting the l generality of the foregoing and further answering i
{ that paragraph, Licensee denies that there was a
" breakdown" in quality assurance, and with respect to subparagraph (5), Licensee alleges that the
? Staff in the July 18, 1979 meeting requested that.
.I Licensee not amend its FSAR but rather keep the
]~ Staff informed of the status of the soils work by means of 50.55 (e) reports, which Licensee has 4
done.
~~
l
'(3) Licensee's responses to the specific factual allegations set forth in A)pendix A and i
l Appendix B of the Directors' Order are set forth in the Appendix to this Answer. -'
[ (4) In regard to the paragraph t hat begins
. on the bottom of .page 2 and continues tu page 3, Licensee adraits that the Director, . Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, requested information under 10 CFR 50.54 (f) and that Licensee responded to.those requests. Licensee alleges that it also
- . reported.to the NRC and its consultants in meetings, i
'3-1 e _
l
,.- .m telephone conversations, letters, amendments to the construction permit and operating licease and __
r other communications regarding soil conditions under and around safety related structures and systems and remedial steps or proposed to be taken by Licensee. Licensee alleges that it has responded in a timely manner to the November 19, 1979 request.
(5) In regard to the concluding paragraph of page 3, Licensee admits the first and second sentence. Licensee denies the third and fourth sentences. Licensee alleges that the final sentence of the paragraph is not applicable since Licensee has provided the Staff information sufficient to resolve these issues. Therefore the Staff does have reasonable assurance that "the affected safety-related portions of the Midland facility will be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public."
(b)
Licensee controverts the NRC Staff's characterization of the facts alleged in Appendix A of the Directors' Order as constituting " infractions."
Licensee also denies that the facts alleged in Appendix B constitute a " material false statement" or a " violation."
II. Licensee's position with respect to the second issue specified in the Notice of Hearing is that the Order should not be sustained, for the following reasons which constitute affirmative defenses to the Order:
_ , -s. .,
1 (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 systems, including information relating to "the adequacy of the remedial action to correct the
.f 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 Nos. 72, 74 and 76 to its app 21:ation for construction permits and operating licenses, and technical discussions with the NRC Staff and its consultants, resolves the " safety
. issues associated with remedial actions related to soil deficiencies."
The information Licensee has provided and the (3) remedial actions it has taken and proposes to take, including those set forth-in Amendment Nos. 72, 74 and 76 to its application for construction permits and _.
operating licenses, and technical discussions with the NRC Staff and its consultants, provides " reasonable _
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) Licensee contends that the alleged " quality ;
assurance deficiencies involving the settlement of the i
t' 1
i
_s n
Diesel Generator Building _and soil activities at the Midland site" and the alleged " false statement in the @
FSAR" form neither a logical nor a legal basis upon which the order's prohibition against the enumerated activities can be sustained.
III. Licensee will appear by Counsel and present evidence.
Respectfully submitted, t WUG Michael I. Miller Attorney for Licensee DATED: April 16, 1980 ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza Suite 4200 -
Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500-I
-~
APPENDIX Licensee provides the following responses to the facts alleged in Appendix A of the Directors' Order:
Allecation 1 - Licensee admits that it is committed to ANSI N45.2 (1971). Licensee admits that a few " inconsistencies were identified in the license application and in other design basis documents." Licensee denies that in general measures established and executed were contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, CPCo Topical Report CPC-1-A, Policy No. 3, Section 3.4 and ANSI N45.2 (1971), Section 4.1.
(a) Licensee admf.ts this allegation. Licensee alleges as set forth in its Response to Question 23, Part (1) [50.54 (f)], Revision 4,11/79, page 23-10 and 11, that:
When the FSAR was prepared and reviewed, the major backfill operations were complete. There were no -~
known inconsistencies...related to FSAR Subsections 2.5.4 and 3.8.5; therefore, these subsections were essentially inactive and were not subject to any further review. The inconsistencies within the FSAR were not detected. The inconsistency between Sub-sections 2.5.4 and 3.8.5 with respect to the settle-ment values resulted because the two subsections -
were prepared by separate organizations (Geotechnical Services and Civil Engineering), neither of which were aware of the multiple display of similar information in the opposite subsection.
The inconsistencies between FSAR Subsections 2.5.4 and 3.8.5 have been corrected via FSAR Revision 18 (February 28, 1979).
(b) Licensee admits this allegation with respect to the diesel generator building. Licensee alleges,
. , m -
'as set-forth in its response to NRC Preliminary Finding 9, that:
The diesel generator building spread footing N foundation, which constitutes the design basis,
-was translated into the detail design. However,:a
' design change to the foundation was not recognized to affect a previous settlement calculation, but this did not significantly affect settlement estimates.
Licensee denies this allegation with respect to the horated water storage tanks. Licensee's position is set forth in mora detail in the following statement taken from its response to N.R.C. Preliminarr _inding 9:
The borated water storage tanks are supported in part by a ring type spread footing, but most of ;
the load is applied across the tank bottom, which <
I is supported . on fill (FSAR Figure 3. 8-60) . '
Settlement calculations discussed in FSAR Subsection 2.5.4.10.3 for the borated water storage-tanks, ,
conservatively used a uniform equivalent circular !
mat foundation having an applied soil pressure of 2,500 psf (FSAR Figure .2.5-47) . The ring type j
spread footing pressure is 2,500 psf and the tank-
. applied pressure within the ring foundation is J 2,000 psf. Because the actual pressure is 2,000 psf overimost:of the foundation area, this settlement -
estimate is conservative.
The assumptions used for the borated tank settle-ment calculations are appropriate for the type of design utilized.
J Licensee admits this allegation. j (c) !
(d) Lirensee admits that the wrong compressibility factor was used for settlement calculations, but. alleges
-that it had a minor impact on the resultant values.
(e) Licensee 1 admits this allegation. l
n .~
e
- s. -
-(f) Licensee admits this. allegation.
Allegation 2 - Licensee admits that it is committed to ANSI N45;2 (1971) Section 6.
-(a) Licensee denies that. instructions provided to i
field construction for substituting lean concrete for Zone 2 material were contrary to 10-CFR 50, Abpendix B, Criterion V, CPCo Topical Report CPC-1-A, Policy No. 5,
, Section 1.0 and ANSI N45.2 (1971) , Section 6. Licensee denies that differential settlement of the Diesel 4
- Generatcr building was caused by substituting lean concrete for Zone 2 material. Licensee's position is
- set forth in more detail in the follcaing statement-taken from its response to NRC Preliminary Finding 11
Drawings and specifications permit the use of Zone 2 random fill material in plant area fill.
Structural backfill was placed in 2ccal excavations in accordance with Specification ;;20-C-211. Lean concrete was used to replace structural backfill ~;
in' confined areas as permitted by Specification 1 7220-C-211, Section 5.1.3 which states, "In absence 1 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 controlled by the field engineer's approval after inspection of subgrade. i The diesel generator building settlement was restricted by the enlargement of the electrical -
duct banks. Concrete backfill was not used indiscriminately.
4 4'
.m .^
m 1
f' L(b).
-(1) Licensee admits this allegation.
~
-(2) Licensee admits this allegation.
]
t
- i. Allegation 3 ' Licensee admits that it is committed i
l- to ANSI N45.2 (1971). Licensee denies that Quality Control j Instruction C-1.02 is contrary to 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, Criterion X, CPCo Topical Report CPC 1-A, Policy No. 10, Section 3.1 or ANSI N45.2 (1971). Licensee alleges, as.
1 i stated in CPCo response to NRC Preliminary. Finding 13, that: :
3 Neither the characteristics subject to inspection .
F or witnessing the type of inspection or witnessing
, -were changed; the degree of inspection or witnessing was reduced by going to a surveillance (sampling) plan.
2 The decision to change to sampling inspection is
- questionable, in retrospect, recognizing that the
- bulk of the frior successfu1~ experience related to j Canonie's activity and that a change was being made.to have the activity. performed by Bechtel.
I i The sampling (surveillance) plan was inadequate in _,
that it did not specify conditions or criteria j under which there would be increased sampling or a
~
i return to 100% inspection.
l Allegation 4 - Licensee denies the general allegation that " measures'did not assure that soils conditions of 1
adverse. quality were promptly corrected to preclude repetition."
Licensee denies that its actions and measures were contrary
. to 10 CFR 50,-Appendix B, Criterion XVI and CPCo Topical
- Report CPC-1-A, Policy No. 16, Section 1.0.
(a) Licensee denies this allegation to the extent that it is inconsistent with the following statement taken from Licensee's responso to NRC Preliminary n ~
. Finding 6:
- ~. .
4 ,
a s, -
Specification 7220-C-210, Section 12.6.1, states
'in part:-
"1
" Insofar as practicable... materials which ?j require moisture' control, shall be moisture-conditioned'in the borrow. areas.... The water content during compaction shall not be more than 2 percentage points below optimum -
. moisture content and shall not be more than 2 percentage points above optimum moisture I content.... l
\
...afterLthe placemant of-loose l material on the embankment fill, the moisture content shall be further adjusted as necessary to
~ bring such material within the moisture
~
, content limits required for compaction."
On July'22, 1977.Bechtel QA identified in..QAR SD-40 that the field did not take moisture control measurements prior to and during placement of the . i i
backfill, but rather relied on.the moisture results taken from the in-place (after compaction) soil density tests to control moisture.
As shown'in Attachment.1, prior ti rugust 1, 1977,
, there were no moisture'measuremente nade at the- .
borrow' area or.when the loose fill'was placed prior to or during compaction. Moisture measurements were made after compaction,.as were density tests, _-
and the results of both served as the acceptance criteria. -
From August 1, 1977,~to the cessation of fill operation with the onset of the winter 1977-1978 season,.there was a change. During this time,
- moisture measurements were made at the borrow ~
area, but the measurements were not compared to laboratory standards. Again, no moisture measurements were made-when the loose-fill was placed prior to or'during compaction. Moisture measurements were made after compaction and the data were used in conjunction.with the density tests,.the results of
.which. served as the acceptance' criteria. For this '
! period, the data from moisture measurements made after compaction, in conjunction with the corresponding density tests, have been reviewed again and thirteen. individual moisture measurements were found to be beyond + 2%'of optimum.
l l
.- , .- -- - - - . .: . - ....a-.. - . . .
, m ~
For 1978, moisture measurements were made either in the borrow area or when the loose fill was placed _ prior to compaction, or both, but not ;-
These measurements were compared during compaction.
to laboratory standards. Also during this period,
-moisture measurements were made after compaction and the data were used in conjunction wi;h the density tests, the results of which served as acceptance criteria. Subsequently, moisture measurements made after compaction were reviewed.
again' for this period and the cases for which the post-compaction moisture data indicate measurements beyond + 2% of optimum have been identified.
Moisture measurements for the three periods are now considered not to have met the intent of the specification regarding the location and time of the measurements. Prior to commencing fill operations for the 1979 season, this requirement will be redefined.
- Final acceptance density criteria were clearly specified and were implemented from the 4 inception of the project.
4 Moisture measurements were taken as a necessary I
part of the final density tests.
In-process moisture control criteria were not
- clearly specified and were not consistently
- implemented. Clarifications mnd interpretations of the specification were made without specification changes.
Licensee further alleges that prior to 1978, "During Compaction" was interpreted by personnel in the field as the entire process of placing, compacting and testing.
(b) Licensee admits that the corrective action it initially took with regard to nonconformance reports related to plant fill did not prevent nonconformances at a later date in the area of plant fill construction.
i 4
t- , . . .
. ~ ."
L / .
j_ Licensee alleges that its corrective action, including-those it initially took, substantially reduced the number a
j of nonconformances at a_later date-in the area of plant '] ;
- fill construction. Licensee's position is set forth in the pertinent portion of its response to NRC Preliminary i . Finding 8.
u l
?
i Licensee has the following response to Appendix B:
Licensee admits that the excer; of documents
~
l- . cited at page l of Appendix B are correct. Licensee alleges, i i
- . as set forth in its response to NRC Preliminary Finding 3, p
f~
that:-
j FSAR Table 2.5-9 provides compaction criteria and
- zone designation both of which are design bases.
l Inadvertently onitted from this table was the i number "2" in the column used for " Zone Designation" i forJthe " Support of Structures." Also inadvertently _m i omitted' were the words "and sand" in the column used to designate the " Soil Type" for the " Support -
{ of S tructures. " FSAR Table 2.5-10 provides a 2
defin'. tion of Zone 2 materials. These materials were used ' consistent with the recommendations 1- contained in the Dames and Moore report included in-the PSAR.
~
FSAR Table 2.5-14 summarizes contact
! stresses, estimated bearing capacity and factors I of ' safety for the supporting soils given in the 1 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 (or intended to have been described) in Table 2 5-9 The supporting soils specified in 2.5-14 were those used for the conservative calculations given in that table.
~
FSAR Table 2.5-9 was revised to correct the inadvertent omissions and Table 2.5-14 was revised to reflect the ~ design bases contained in .the PSAR - (as translated into the . actual design) rather than to reflect the material used-for calculational purposes, i.
~7-c r - -
+e < - ", +=m-+-----,-----e TNF'-Y-Y f -
?-tM'+*f*W* W
2 Therefore, Licensee, denies.that the excerpted information is " false."
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. Licensee has no knowledge or information sufficient i
to form a belief as to whether "information presented concerning the supporting soils influenced the staff review of the FSAR."
{
4 1
l m
1 i
_i 1
^{
I f
l J
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
~@
BEFORE THE ATOMIC- SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
) -
)
In the !%tter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-329
-CONSUMERS POWER ^ COMPANY 50-330 .
)
)
(Midland Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF' SERVICE L
I, Alan S. Farnell, hereby certify that copies of my " Notice of-Appearance" and of' Applicant's " Answer to Notice of Hearing" were served upon the persons shown in the il,
. attached Service List by deposit in the United States ma
.first-class,.this 16th day of April, 1980. ,
9
- 1
(. $ 1
- f , -r G .
ff -
Alan S. Farnell [
O a
r -
h ,_ m ~
l l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y s
)
In the Matter of )
) ,,
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) s
) Docket Nos. N'50-329 430 ~~
(Midland Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) ) 1
) 1 i
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ,
l l
Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney
' herewith enters his appearance on behalf of Applicant, Consumers Power Company, 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, 1
Michigan 49201, in the above-captioned proceeding. In accord- l ance with 10 CFR S2.713, the following information is provided: )
Name: Alan S. Farnell _,
Address: Isham, Lincoln & Beale j One First National Plaza l Suite 4200 l Chicago, Illinois 60603 l Telephone Number: 312/558-7500 -j 1
Admissions: District of Columbia Court of i Appeals Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, First Department United States District Court for the Southern District of New York i United States Court of Appeals !
for the Second circuit.
DATEu: April 7, 1980 b- . b, 4 Alan S. Farnell !
ISHAM,-LINCOLN & BEALE
- One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603
! 312/558-7500 4