ML19329E278
| ML19329E278 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1973 |
| From: | Cusato E NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ALAB-147, NUDOCS 8006120579 | |
| Download: ML19329E278 (17) | |
Text
.t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION co o)
N UN ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 2
SEP131973* C Dr. John H. Buck, Member
{
p g, w
-p William C. Parler, Member ren: masess trina A
I
)
e N
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
Mr. Harold F. Reis, Washington, D.C.,
(Mr. Judd L. Bacon, Jackson, Michigan, of counsel) for the applicant, Consumers Power Company.
Mr. Myron M. Cherry, Chicago, Illinois, for the Saginaw Intervenors (Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group, et. al.).
Mr. David E. Kartalia, for the AEC Regulatory Staff MEMORANDUM AND ORDER September 18, 1973 (ALAB-147) 1! we called upon the regulatory staff In ALAB-132 to assist us in our evaluation of the quality assurance (QA) report which, pursuant to condition 1 in ALAB-106 2/,
the applicant in this construction permit proceeding had furnished to us on May 25, 1973.
In compliance with J/
RAI-73-6 431 (June 28, 1973).
2/
RAI-73-3 182 (Maren 26, 1973).
8006120 [ k f C
. ALAB-132, the staf f transmitted on July 20, 1973 (1) its comments on the applicant's May 25 report; and (2) its own report of a field inspection of the Midland facility which had been conducted by the Directorate of Regulatory Operations on June 26-28, 1973.
At the request of a member of this Board, we were thereafter supplied with several other reports covering staff inspections relating to the Midland faci.lity which had taken place at various times between August 19, 1971 and June 15, 1973.
In response to the invitation contained in our order of July 26, 1973, both the Saginaw Intervenors and the applicant filed memoranda expressing their views on the staff's submissions.
For its part, the applicant endorsed the staff's conclusion that "the [<QA] program described in the [.May 25] report is adequate to establish the condition of construction work already performed and the condition of materials now in storage at the site, and to assure appropriate corrective action with respect to any nonconforming work or material important to safety."
.ne intervenors, on the other hand, reiterated previously asserted doubts respecting the proper implementation by the applicant and its architect-engineer of a satisfactory i
- QA program and, additionally, raised a question in the same regard respecting the vendor of the Midland pressure vessels.
Further, the memorandum criticized the manner in which the regulatory staff was discharging its com-I pliance responsibilities in the QA area.
Along with their memorandum, the intervenors filed a " motion to enforce Commission's regulations".
We were asked in the motion either "to revoke * *
- or * *
- t; stay the effect of the construction permits until such I
time as there has been a definitive and unequivocal finding" r
that the applicant, the architect-engineer and the pressure vessel vendor "have complied and will comply with the Atomic Energy Commission regulations with respect to quality assurance and quality control in connection with the construction of" the Midland facili^y.
'he motion went on "[a]lternatively" to request that wu enter an
)
order to show cause why such relief should not be granted.
Oppositions to the motion were received from both the applicant and the staff.
)
i I.
The purpose underlying the directives to the applicant and the staff contained in ALAB-106 and ALAB-132, respect-ively, fully appears from those decisions and need not be f
,e
~
! 4 dwelt upon at any length here.
Suffice it to say that those directives were not motivated by an inclination to pass still further
- judgment upon past shortcomings on the part of the applicant or its architect-engineer in the implementation of appropriate QA procedures.
Rather, condition 1 in ALAB-106 (and thus our decision in ALAB-132) were addressed principally to obtaining confirmation that, irrespective of the nature and extent of any such earlier shortcomings, adequate QA action was now being undertaken to insure that "the construction work already performed and the materials now on the site are in satisfactory condition".
RAI-73-3 at 186.
For their part, the other conditions in ALAB-106 focused upon QA activities in the course of the resumed construction.
In short, while it 51s prior QA inadequacies (disclosed by the record adduced before the Licensing Board) which occasioned ALAB-106, the conditions which we there imposed were intended to be remedial and not punitive; i.e.,
they were designed to make certain that those inadequacies were being rectified.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It is in this context that we have considered the applicant's May 25 report, the staff's various inspection reports and the other submissions of the parties.
II.
1.
As we noted in ALAB-132, RAI-73-6 at 435, the applicant's May 25 report contained:
(1) a description of the inventory and inspection control procedures being undertaken to assure that the construction work already performed and the materials stored on site are in satisfactory condition; (2) an identification of the qualification and responsibilities of specialists performing the inspections and examinations; (3) a description of the calibration procedure utilized for controlling the accuracy of measuring and test equipment employed in the quality assurance program; and-(4) a summary of the results of inspections which had been conducted as of the date the report was prepared.
We went on to hold that, on its face, the report fulfilled condition 1 of ALAB-106; i.e.,
that it adequately described the quality assurance actions being undertaken to assure that "the construction work already performed and the materials now on the site are in satisfactory condition notwithstanding the extended period during wnich the applicant had suspended construction and placed the materials on site in a standby status" (ibid).
In this connection, we expressly rejected not only certain
i 1
, assertions made by the intervenors respecting the facial completeness of the report but, as well, the contention that the report reflected an intentional evasion of critical problems.
At the same time, however, we made it clear that we were not able, on the basis of the report alone, "to conclude that the steps which the applicant has taken, or is taking, will assure adequate QA for the resumed construction".
RAI-73-6 at 436.
We pointed out that, to make this determination (i.e., to " evaluate in a meaningful way the applicant's report" and to assess "the adequacy of the applicant's QA program at the time it resumed construction"), we needed the assistance of "those properly charged with enforcement responsibility"
-- namely, the regulatory staff (ibid).
l
- 2. We are satisfied from our review of the staff's report of its June 26-28, 1973 inspection, taken in conjunction with the applicant's May 25 report, that there is now a reasonable assurance that appropriate QA action is being taken by the applicant with respect to the construction work which has been, and is being, performed on the Midland facility. 3/
Specifically, the inspection report provides sufficient
_3/ We treat the QA activities of the architect-engineer separately, infra pp. 13-17.
. confirmation of the impression which we derived from the applicant's report: that, while perfection may not have been achieved, d! the applicant has a basically acceptable QA organization and is now undertaking suit-able measures to implement an acceptable QA program.-5/
It is, of course, true that, as the staff's inspec-tion report makes clear, there is still much to be done in determining precisely which site-stored materials and components are not presently in satisfactory condition and must, therefore, be restored or replaced.
But this disclosure, which scarcely was surprising in light of j
relatively recent resumption of construction activities after a substantial shutdown period, does not bear upon the question before us.
_4/
There is always room for improvement in the QA area.
5/ We find the intervenors' criticisms of the June 26-28 inspection report to be unpersuasive.
For example:
(1) Intervenors assert that the report contains nothing to indicate that the inspectors made a visual examination of items covered by the report.
This claim is plainly refuted by express statements on pages 8 and 9 of the report.
(2)
Intervenors take the statement in the report (pg. 2) that "[n]o significant safety items were identified" to mean that the inspectors did identify "insigni-ficant" safety items.
They then complain thst the report fails to specify the criteria employed in making the " qualitative" judgment as to what is or is not "significant".
We do not, however, read the conclusory statement in question, particularly in the context in which it appears, as at all implying that the inspectors chose to ignore any matter caming
_to their attention which might have had safety implications, whether large or small.
t i Once again, that question is whether this applicant is properly implementing a QA program which complies with the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
In view of the special circumstances of this case which occasioned ALAB-106, the answer to that question obviously does involve, inter alia, consideration of whether there has been an identification by the applicant of possible problem areas (e.g., substandard materials) and the initiation of such steps as may be necessary to pinpoint the deficiencies and to make certain that appropriate corrective measures are taken.
But to conclude, as we have, that the applicant is rectifying the prior QA inadequacies to which we pointed in ALAB-106 does not require us to find that the QA personnel have completed their task and that all of the problems related to materials and workmanship have already been resolved.
Determinations of that kind are for the staff to make during the course of its on-going regulatory control of the construction process. 6/
It is neither desirable nor feasible for adjudicatory boards to go beyond that which we have sought to do here; i e.,
to resolve those issues as may have been raised by the parties or suggested by the record respecting either the adequacy of the applicant's prescribed QA practices and procedures
_6/
The staff should be aided by the reports which the applicant must submit on a regular basis by virtue of conditions 2 through 4 imposed by ALAB-106.
.-_m..--__.,,,-
..--..--m,.,...-r-
_9_
or the likelihood that those practices and procedures will be observed. 2/
III.
A Although ALAB-132 itself required the submission i
of a report only with respect to a post-March 26,1973 staff inspection, as above noted we subsequently requested and obtained reports of a number of prior on-site inspec-tions and management meetings.
For reasons already stated, our purpose in seeking these additional reports was not to catalogue further the QA shortcomings of the applicant and its architect-engineer during either the previous phase of construction or the lengthy shutdown period.
Rather, we thought the reports might provide useful background information in our evaluation of the June 26-28 inspection report.
_7/
Such resolution may require the imposition of conditions such as those specified in ALAB-106.
As we have pointed out, we do no-t regard such conditions as affecting the staff's responsibility to monitor closely the QA activities of the appli-cant -- or to preclude the staff from taking any additional remedial action which it might believe necessary.
RAI-73-3 at 186.
- to -
1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not pause to consider such questions as whether the earlier reports suggest that better storage arrangements might have been made during the shutdown period so as to obviate the oxidation difficulties which were in fact encountered.
Even if such were the case, what is of present moment is that appropriate measures are being taken to assure the adequacy of all of the stored material as construction is being resumed.
- 2. The intervenors urge, however, that several of these reports raise doubts respecting the QA performance of the pressure vessel vendor.
While ALAB-106 and ALAB-132 were not addressed to any such issue, we have never-theless examined the assigned bases for this claim.
Our conclusion is that the claim is insubstantial and does not warrant our further inquiry into the matter of the QA activities of the vendor.
--8/
It appears that, in one instance, the intervenors have relied upon what was very likely a typographical error.
To support an assertion that the vendor was "still in noncompliance with Commission regulations" as of the time of an inspection conducted on June 14-15, 1973, the intervenors. pointed to the following statement at p.
8 of the report of that inspection:
j An interview was conducted with the [ vendor's]
QC engineering manager relative to the QA pro-gram reaudit check sheet, which was concerned with changes to the [ vendor's] program that could effect compliance with the 18 criteria of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
No problems were encountered.
(Emphasis supplied).
(Continued)
=-
. 3. Intervenors raise still another new question; this one relating to staff performance.
Although not obligated to do so, in view of the on-going compliance l
responsibilities vested in the staff we have decided to consider the question.
Specifically, intervenors assert a demonstrated failure on the part of the staff to follow-up properly on disclosed instances of non-compliance.
In this con-nection, they contend that the staff report of the Febr2ary 23, 1973 special meeting with the applicant's management indicates that there were no unresolved matters; "yet in the three previous reports there were several matters raised but apparently never attended to t.iereafter".
A review of those previous reports reflects that the principal issues raised were with relation to the oxidation of stored materials; the completeness of the pressure vessel vendor's documentation of weld rods; and the inspection reports of the architect-engineer.
_8/ (Contd.)
We think the applicant is almost certainly correct in its supposition that the inspector meant the underscored word to be " affect" rather than "effect".
For we are told by the applicant, without contra-diction by the staff, that The changes in question were to lessen subvendor documentation requirements by requiring certain data relating to material properties only when required for QA purposes, rather than in every instance, as had been [the vendor's] practice.
)
i
. a.
As to the oxidation question, the report of the February 23, 1973 meeting itself provides the answer to the intervenors' complaint of staff inattentiveness.
On page 2, the inspector specifically noted:
Some construction materials, stored at the site, such as containment liner plates, are exposed to the weather and, as a result, are rusting and will require cleaning prior to Construction previously completed and use.
materials stored at the site will be inspected for acceptability by the [ applicant] and/or his agent prior to resumption of work.
We see no possible basis for legitimate criticism of this approach.
b.
The report of the February 23 meeting also indicates (p. 3) that one of the subjects discussed thereat was the " matter of incomplete documentation of weld rod used by [the vendor] for the Midland Plant steam generators".
That this problem was deemed by the vendor and the staff not to be restricted to the Midland facility is reflected by the fact that it was investigated by the vendor on a broader basis.
The results of that investigation, and the corrective measures which were taken, are de~ tailed in a topical report issued by the vendor in January 1973 --
i i.e., prior to the February 23 meeting of the staff with management. E! Here too, we can discern no foundation for a claim of staff dereliction.
_9/
Babcock & Wilcox 1402, " Investigation of Steam Generator Weld Records".
13 -
c.
Finally, intervenors note that there is no specific acknowledgement in the staff inspection reports of the receipt of reports from the architect-engineer on inspections which the latter was to conduct in connection with the protection and preservation of materials in service.
But it scarcely follows that the staff neglected to insure that the inspections were in fact undertaken and the required reports furnished.
In any event, the applicant tells us that it had routinely received the reports from the architect-engineer and had later forwarded them to the Directorate of Regulatory Operations.
IV.
In ALAB-106, we noted that we had reviewed the QA manuals for both the applicant and its architect-engineer
[Bechtel] and had found that "as presently revised [they appeared] to present a satisfactory overall program to meet the quality assurance criteria of Appendix B" to 10 CFR Part 50.
The documents we now have been furnished suggest, however, that, in one specific respect, Bechtel's QA organization does not comply with Appendix B.
This seeming deficiency could affect Bechtel's ability to implement properly its overall program and, therefore, warrants our attention under the principles previously enunciated by us in this proceeding.
__ 1. The report of the June 26-28, 1973 inspection reflects that the staff had recently been sent a modified organization chart for the architect engineer.
According to the report (p. 10 ) :
Although this modified chart was a little more detailed than the previous one, it was more confusing because six types of reporting and directing : responsibility lines were used.
Explanation and discussion of this chart with CP and Bechtel personnel during the current inspection provided some clarification.
A Bechtel representative stated that the QA engineers do monitor and audit the work of the QC engineers.
An explanation of the QA portion of the chart was fairly clear and appeared to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
However, the chart shows the Project Field QC Engineer (to whom the QC engineers report) reporting directly to the Project Superintendent.
This Project Superin-tendent has cost and scheduling responsibilities.
That is, he has construction (craft) superin-tendents, a materials supervisor and field engineers under his direction.
A representative of Bechtel stated that the QC engineers inspect, check and otherwise verify correctness of work performed by others (employees of subcontractors), but they also perform the same QC function for other Bechtel subgroups that ultimately report to the same project superintendent.
Consequently, the QC engineers do not appear to be free from influence and control of groups doing the work.
Conversely, a project superintendent who has QC engineers working for him does exercise some controlling and directing function over them.
This remains an open issue to be resolved during the next site inspection, currently scheduled to be performed on July 18-20, 1973.
, In an appended supplement to the report, dated July 19, 1973, the staff opined, however, that "[t]he Bechtel organization structure now establishes an appropriate reporting level."
The structure to which the supplement referred is evidently that which is shown in the Bechtel organization charts which were submitted to us by the applicant as an attachment to its August 10, 1973 memorandum.
It appears from those charts that the Bechtel quality control engineers
-- who, if we understand the organization correctly, are basically responsible for carrying out the QC function at the construction working level -- still report to the Project Field Quality Control Engineer who, in turn, reports to the Project Superintendent.
As the compliance inspector noted in his report, this latter official has cost and scheduling responsibilities.
(" Organization") of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 expressly provides:
The authority and duties of persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions shall be clearly established and delineated in writing.
Such persons and organizations shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation.of solutions.
In general, assurance of quality 7
requires management measures which provide that the individual or group assigned the responsi-bility for checking, auditing,' inspecting, or otherwise verifying that an activity has been correctly performed is independent of the individual or group directly responsible for performing the specific activity.
, In our view, this proviso makes unacceptable an arrange-ment under which quality control engineers are responsible to an official possessing such duties as those assigned to the Project Superintendent here-involved.
Our conclusion in this regard is not affected by the fact that it also appears from the charts that the work of the quality control engineers is audited by both Bechtel and Consumers Power quality assurance engineers, who are independent of the Project Superintendent and all other officials having immediate responsibility for the cost and scheduling aspects of construction.
As we read Appendix B, it is not enough that the auditing engineers be " independent of the individual or group directly responsible for performing the specific activity".
Rather, that requirement applies as well to the engineers doing the initial " checking" and " inspecting" -- here, the quality control engineers.
1
- 3. If our apprehension of the present Bechtel organi-j zation and of the requirements of Appendix B is correct, it follows that steps must be promptly taken to revise f
that organization so that the quality control engineers i
will no longer be under the direction and control of the Project Superintendent.1S!
Since, however, the applicant 10/
We have found no other QA problem pertaining to j
Bechtel which requires a direction of corrective j
action.
~
~.
.-.u._
- 17.-
and the staff have not spoken directly to the matter, we think that they should be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause, if any there be, why such action is not necessary to assure compliance with the regulation.
V.
For the foregoing reasons, the Saginaw Intervenors'
" motion to enforce Commission regulations" is denied.
The staff is directed, however, to take all necessary measures to obtain a prompt revision of the Bechtel QA organizationb1! in accordance with the views expressed in Part IV of this opinion, supra.
This direction shall be automatically stayed if, within 10 days of the entry of this order, either the applicant or the staff files a petition for reconsideration of Part IV.
In such circum-stance, the automatic stay will remain in effect pending further order of this Board.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD J,
. ( p<A*b
Esther G. Cusato Secretary to the Appeal Board 11/
The term "QAa,as employed in our opinions in this case, encompasses both quality assurance and quality control.
l L