ML19329F578

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Repts 50-329/73-10 & 50-330/73-10 on 731010-11.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Qa Manuals & Procedures & Interviews W/Personnel
ML19329F578
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 11/13/1973
From: Knop R, Rohrbacher R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML19329F577 List:
References
50-329-73-09, 50-329-73-9, 50-330-73-09, 50-330-73-9, NUDOCS 8007010586
Download: ML19329F578 (6)


See also: IR 05000329/1973010

Text

.

-

O..

'

..

'

V

U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS

<

REGION III* -

Report of Construction Inspection

RO Inspection Report No. 050-329/73-09

RO Inspection Report No. 050-330/73-09

Licen'see:

Cor:sumers Power Company

1945 Parnall Road

Jackson, Michigan

49201

Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2

Licenses No. CPPR-81

Midland, Michigan

and No. CPPR-82

Category: A

q

Type of Licensee:

PWR (B&W) - Unit 1, 650 Mwe

Unit 2, 818 Mwe

O

-

Type of Inspection:

Special, Announced

Dates.of Inspection:

October 10 and 11, 1973

'

.

Dates of Previous Inspection:

September 5 - 7, 1973

'

h

WM

Principal Inspector:

R. A. Rohrbacher

//-/3'7.3

,

(Date)

l

Accompanying Inspectors: None

Other Accompanying Personnel: None

'D

"

Reviewed By:

R. C. Kn# p, Senior R ctor Inspector

//

3 /73

Reactor Construction Branch

/ (Date)

v

-

t

800701D N 6

-.

.

..-

--

_

'

.

M

bb

e

'

.

.

,

.

.

'

p

.

d

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

r

Enforcement Action

  • . ,

A.

Violations

No violations of AEC requirements were identified.

B.

Safety Matters

No safety matters were identified.

Licen'see Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters

Not applicable to this special inspection.

Design Changes

l

Not applicable.

Unusual Occurrences

No unusual' occurrences were identified.

[/

1

N-

Other Significant Findings

1

A.

Current Findings

l

The Consumers Power Company (CP) QA organizational structure has been

modified and expanded. The CP Project Quality Assurance Services

Department (PQASD) is headed by a director and consists of a general

office staff (located in Jackson, Michigan) and field staffs (located

at each construction site).

The general office staff presently consists

of a quality assurance administrator and a quality assurance engineer.

Two additional personnel are in the process of being hired.

This general

office staff is to be utilized for all CP construction projects, and each

project will be assigned a project QA engineer.

The Midland Project QA

field organization structure is to re=ain as it presently exists, but

two or more QA engineers are to De added as actisicy increases during 1974.

G. S. Keeley has been appointed Director of PQASD, effective October 1,

1973, reporting to the Vice President for Electric Plant Projects (Design

and Construction).

H. W. Slager has been hired recently as a QA engineer

i

by CP.

Mr. Slager's education and experience include the field of

metallurgy.

O)

2-

-

%,,

~

.

D

- - -

.m

n

g

-

w

- -

-, --, - - -, -

. . - .

-,

.

.

,

'

.

..

'

.

'

.

-

.

,

,

.

'

B.

Unresolved Matters

'~

No new unresolved matters were identified.

C.

' Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Matters

CP Quality Assurance Manual (R0 Inspection Report No. 050-329/73-06

and No. 050-330/73-06)

Previously, it was determined that the CP Quality Assurance Manual (QAM)

for the Midland Project lacked, or was inconsistent with, certain require-

y

ments of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.

Most of the significant discrepancies

to the QAM are corrected. CP indicated that the remaining inconsistencies

l

would be corrected by appropriate changes to the QAM and to pertinent

references. This matter remains open pending review of the changes to be

made.

(Results of Inspection)

,

)

(Other previously reported unresolved matters are not applicable to this

i

special inspection.)

4

Management Interview

A.

The following persons attended the management interview at the conclusion

of the inspection.

Consumers Power Company (CP)

'

1

.

.

j

G. S. Keeley, Director of Quality Assurance Services

'

  • W. E. Gessler, Project Manager

,

  • A. J. Birkle, Metallurgical Engineer

]

  • M. P. Hanson, Project Engineer

,

i

  • Part Time

1

B.

Matters discussed and comments, on the part of management personnel,

were as follows:

.

The inspector stated that the primary purpose of the special inspection

was to evaluate the current QAM relative to the requirements of 10 CFR

j

'Part 50, Appendix B.

The inspector further stated that, although most

$-

of the previously identified discrepancies are corrected, certain detailed

requirements are not yet included or not sufficiently explicit in the QAM.

f*

Discussions on these matters, during the inspection, were summarized at

this time. CP stated that the comments made by the inspector, relative

to these discrepancies, were understood and that CP would make appropriate

'

changes to the QAM and pertinent references as required.

(Results of

Inspection)

1

\\

'd

-3-

-

-

s

4

.

.

,

..n,.

, ,

,_--..y.,,..

,.

. , , - .

,

,,

,

, , . , , _ , _

,

,,_,,-n-,__,,,.

,._,

.

L

  • .

,

,

,

.

.

, - ~ ,

f\\~ ')

REPORT DETAILS

.

Persons Contacted

. . ,

In addition to the individuals listed under the Management Interview section

of this report, H. W. Slager, Quality Assurance Engineer, CP, was contacted

during the inspection.

Results of Inspection

Review of CP Quality Assurance Fbnual

Discr'pancies identified during this review of the QAM for the Midland Project

e

are listed below.

These discrepancies were discussed with the licensee, and

corrective action proposed by the licensee was considered to be adequate.

Some of the discrepancies involved incorrect reference to other manuals, or

,

sections of other manuals, identified in the QAM. The licensee stated that

these references would be checked for accuracy and that appropriate corrections

would be made.

4

1.

Section 1 - Organization

'~S

This section (on sheet 2) indicates that the project superintendent has

-

some QA functions that are also delegated to the PQASD. The inspector

stated that, although it is acceptable for the project superintendent

to have the authority to icentify quality problems, to stop work if

quality requirements are not met, etc., measures must exist to assure

that the QA organization has the same responsibility and authority

which cannot be unduely influenced by the project superintendent.

By

way of clarification, the inspector further stated that the manual must

be clear that the QA organization has full authority to take adequate,

independent action concerning QA functions.

The QAM does not reflect the recent changes, discussed under the Current

Findings section of this report, in the CP QA organization structure.

CP stated that the QAM will be revised to reflect these changes.

2.

Section 3 - Design Control

This section (on sheet 3) states that methods of identifying and con-

trolling design interfaces shall be delineated by Bechtel procedures.

However, the referenced procedure (Section II, No. 6, of the Bechtel

Nuclear QA Manual) does not address this matter adequately.

(See RO

Inspection Report No. 050-329/73-08 and No. 050-330/73-08 for details

and apparent violations of AEC requirements relative to this matter.)

[h

>

?

Q)

-4-

~

,

. . . .

..

.

-.

. . - -

-

, - - - ,

--

.

.-

- -_. . -- .

.- -

-

.

-

-

-

.

-

  • <

.

.

.

'

- -

,

,

,

.

.

'

O

V

3.

Section 10 - Inspection

A Babcock and Wilcox Company QA Plan, relative to an internal inspection

'

program, exists but is not identified or, referenced in this section of

the QAM.

4.

Section 15 - Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components

"

It is not clear how records (documentation) relating to nonconforming

materials, parts, or components are to be controlled, reviewed, filed,

etc. Although the manual contains appropriate commitments in this area

-

of QA, procedural control mechanisms have not been identified.

.

1

1

I

r

I

.

1

i

9

.

I

i

.

4

4

4

LO

>

-

-

-

<

.

- - - -w

-

.r-.---

.w.--

%

,- ,--.-. - ,,.,

..-.--e-e

w,

.--w---,w,-,-:

,-wy-w.-

-wv.-=-

,

v.-,

. w

y-,

---=.-.-we-w--w=

4-,

-

'

-

-

,

.

.*

/

/ f.;

k

UNITED STATES

V

I

'.

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

i

,

DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE

,, tr

l

REGION til

ug, p

799 ROOSEVELT R,OAD

TELEPHONC

GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOls 60137

(st2) ess.zeso

..

050-329/73-09

A.

RO Inspection Report No.

050-330/73-09

..

r.

Transmittal Date

November 15, 1973

.

Distribution:

Distribution:

RO Chief, FS&EB

RO Chief, FS&EB

RO:HQ (5)

RO:HQ (4)

-

DR Central Files _

L:D/D for Fuel & Materials

Regulatory Standards (3)

DR Central Files

Licensing (13)

RO Files

RO Files

,

-

B .' RO Inquiry Report No.

.

Transmittal Date

-

t

Distribution:

Distribution:

RO Chief, FS&EB

RO Chief, FS&EB

RO:HQ (5)

RO:HQ

DR Central Files ~

DR Central Files

Regulatory Standards (3)

RO Files

Licensing (13)

RO Files

C.

Incident Notification From:

(Licensee & Docket No. (or License No.)

w

Transmittal Date

Distribution:

Distribution:

RO Chief, FS&EB

RO chief, FS&EB

RO:HQ (4)

RO:HQ (4)

Licensing (4)

L:D/D for Fuel & Materials

DR Central Files

DR Central Files

RO Files

RO Files

-

s

_