ML19331B057
| ML19331B057 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1973 |
| From: | Bacon J, Reis H CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ALAB-147, NUDOCS 8007250755 | |
| Download: ML19331B057 (16) | |
Text
e UNITED ETATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEF0FE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos 50-329
)
and 50-330
.(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
MEMORANDUM Hi SUFFORT OF PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AIAB-147 On September 18, 1973 this Appeal Board issued ALAB-147, in which it concluded, at p. 17:
"[T]he Saginav Intervenors ' ' motion to enforce Com-mission regulations' is denied. The staff is di-rected, however, to take all necessary measures to obtain a prapt revision of the Bechtel QA organi-zation 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 l
or the staff files a petition for reconsideration of Part IV. In such circumstance, the autmatic stay vill remain in effect pending fur.ther order of this Board."
Part IV of the Appeal Board's opinion noted a "seeming j
deficiency" because "in one specific respect, Bechtel's QA organiza-1 tion does not ecuply with Appendix B."
The "seeming deficiency" l
related to the fact that Bechtel's Quality Control Engineers, who carry out quality control inspecticus of specific construction vork, " report to the Project Field Quality Control Engineer sto, in turn, reports to the Project Superintendent." (ALAB-147, p.15) 8007250 7 6 5-i l
2 Since the Project Superintendent has cost and scheduling responsi-bilities, it was the conclusion of the Appeal Board that " steps must be promptly taken to revise that organization so that quality control engineers vill no longer be under the direction and control of the Project Superintendent." (Id. at p. 16)
For the reasons hereinafter set forth, it is the position of Consumers Power Ccrapany ("the Applicant") that the Bechtel QA Organization ccanplies with the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and does not need to be revised.
~
1.
The Project Field Quality Control Engineer and the Quality Control Engineers are inde-pendent of the individuals and groups "di-rectly responsible" for the work inspected by the QC Engineers, and Criterion I of Appendix 3 is therefore satisfied.
In noting a "seeming deficiency" in the Bechtel QA Organiza-tion, the Board has cited Criterion I of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B,
)
which provides that persons and organizations performing QA functions "shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate,
)
1 recommend, or provide solutions; and to verify im-plementation of solutions. In general, assurance of quality requires management measures which pro-vide that the individual or group assigned the re-sponsibility for checking, auditing, inspecting, or otherwise verifying that an activity has been correctly perfonned is independent of the individual or group directly responsible for perfonning the specific activity." (Emphasis supplied.)
The Applicant believes that Criterion I is satisfied by the present Bechtel QA organization because the Quality Control t
5
3 Engineers, as a group, are not part of the group that is "directly responsible" for perfoming the activities being inspected.
The Project Superintendent is not the individual or group "directly responsible" for performing the ecmstruction activities.
The Project Superintendent has supervisory responsibility for the entire project. In addition to his limited administrative responsi-bility over the Project Field Quality Control Engineer, who is re-sponsible only for quality control, he supervises the Field Super-intendent, who is responsible only for construction activities, and the Project Field Engineer, who is responsible only for site engi-neering.
~ ~ ~ ~
The tem "directly responsible" cannot be intended to re-fer to everyone who has some responsibility for cost or scheduling of the work, for such an interpretation could never be satisfied, no matter who on the corporatien's organization chart is selected to be the person or group responsible for QC activities. Even if there were a separate vice-president in charge of quality control, he vould report to a chief executive officer to whcm the vice-president having cost and scheduling responsibilities would also report.
Independence of the quality control function is thus a matter of degree. It is submitted that the Bechtel QC Engineers are more than sufficiently independent of those directly respon-sible fcr the work being inspected to satisfy Criterion I.
First of all, the supervisory responsibility of the Project Superintendent l
h is of necessity administrative and indirect in nature, rather than direct, since he vould be physically incapable of directly auper-vising the hundreds of employees workLng on the site at various tasks.
Organizationally, as indicated on the attached Figure A3, he is at the seventh level away from the actual work.* The responsibilities of the various working levels subordinate to the Proje,ct Superin-tendent are as follows:
(1) Craftsmen. Craftsmen (e.g., electriciens) are assigned to perfom a specific work activity. It is the product of this ac-tivity that vill be inspected by the Quality Control Engineers. It is expected that there vill be at least 1,700 craftsmen vorking at the site during various phases of construction. Pursuant to labor agreements, they will report only to their respective foremen. The craftsmen are directly responsible for performing the work and also for sking a preliminary inspection to detemine whether they have i
performed it properly.**
(2) Foremen. The foreman assigns the craftsmen to specific vork. He is the direct supervisor of their vork, and has certain disciplinary responsibilities. By virtue of labor agreements ne-gotiated with the different crafts, the foremen reports only to his General Foreman. He does not report to the Craft Superintendent, who As site activity increases, it is possible that additional levels of supervisory responsibility vill be added.
This preliminary inspection is in addition to and not in lieu of, the quality control and quality assurance inspections and audits required by the quality assurance program.
5 is the first level of Bechtel non-manual supervision, or to higher levels of supervision. By labor agreement, the number of foremen on the project is in direct proportion to the number of craftsmen, and there vill be at least 100 foremen.
(3) General Foremen. The foreman reports to a General Foreman who gives him work assignments and directions. The Geners'.
Foreman has direct responsibility for the perfomance of the foremen reporting to him, and indirect supervisory responsibility for the actual performance of the work by the craftsmen. It is anticipated that there vill be frca 30 to 40 General Foremen assigned to the Midland project.
(4) Craft Superintendent. The General Foreman reports to the Craft Superintendent, who provides the General Foreman with manpower and a work schedule. The Craft Superintendent is the first level of Bechtel's non-manual supervision. Even if it were to be argued, contrary to fact, that the craftsmen are not "directly re-sponsible" for the work they perform, and that the foreman and General Foreman are not directly responsible for such work because they are union employees, " direct responsibility" as that tem is used in Appendix B must at least rest with the Craft Superintendent who is the lowest-level Bechtel management representative in the ccustruc-tion organi:
4 :n. The Craft Superintendent has direct supervisory responsibility for the performance of the General Foreman and is only indirectly responsible for the actual construction vork. The Craft
6 Superintendent also has the authority to accept or reject craftsmen who report to the site at the request of the Field Superintendent.
It is anticipated that there vill be from 30 to 40 Craft Superinten-dents on the project during various phases of construction.
(5) Discipline /AreaSuperintendent. The Discipline Super-intendent is in charge of several Craft Superintendents of the same trade discipline. If he is in charge of Craft Superintendents repre-senting several disciplines, he is called an " Area Superintendent."
He assigns work to the Craft Superintendents and monitors the prog-ress of the work. He has direct supervisory responsibility over the Craft Superintendents and only indirect supervisory responsibility for the performance of actual construction. At the peak of constnte-tion activities, there vill be at least three or four Discipline or Area Superintendents assigned to the project.
(6) Field Superintendent. The single Field Superintendent assigned to the site directly supervises the Discipline and Area j
Superintendents and is only indirectly responsible for the lover levels.
The Project Superintendent is thus considerably removed from those performing the work inspected by the QC Engineer, and this degree of remoteness is sufficient to satisfy Criterion I of Appendix B.
Bechtel has established an even greater degree of indepen-dence for the QC Engineers, however. In contrast to those groups performing construction work and supervision, they are effectively i
7 1
i independent of the Project Superintendent in terms of hiring and dismissal, training, assignment, pay, and ability to initiate a stop-vork order.
Thus, the assignment, hiring, training and dismissal of Quality Control Engineers is determined by the Chief Field Quality Control Engineer in Bechtel's San Francisco office, upon the reccm-mendation of the Project Field Quality Control Engineer at the site.*
The Chief Field Quality Control Enginer also provides technical di-rection to the Project Field Quality Control Engineer and the Quality Control Engineers. The Project Superintendent's advice is sought with respect to the assign::aent of Quality Control Engineers, but only as to the total number necessary for the work planned.
His concurrence is not sought with respect to the hiring or dismissal of the QC Engineers. He cay, of course, make recom-mendations as to such matters, but the decisions are in the hands of the Chief Field Quality Control Engineer. The latter similarly retains complete responsibility and control over the training of QC Engineers.
The Chief Field Quality Control Engineer dcas performance evaluations and initiates salary increases for the Project Field Quality Control Engineer, subject culy to review by Bechtel's Division
- For nol nal reporting purposes, the Project Field Quality Control Engineer vill report to the Chief Field Quality Control Engineer through the newly-created position of Quality Control Supervisor.
The latter is located in Bechtel's Ann Arbor, Michigan office.
He provides technical support to the project, but is not respon-sible for hiring, dismissal, assignment, training or pay of the Quality Control Engineers or the Project Field Quality Control Engineer.
k
8 Manager in San Francisco or his designee. The Project Superintendent is not consulted. An order for the increase is cc=mmicated to the office mana6er at the project site in order to reflect the change on the payroll.
The Project Field Quality Control Engineer does performance evaluations of, and reconsnends salary increases for, the Quality Con-
)
trol Engineers. The recommendations are channeled through the proj-ect construction organization only to assure that they are within the limits established by Bechtel's personnel policy for the various pay grades, and within governmental wage guidelines. They are then channeled through the Manager of Constructicn in the Ann Arbor office for the same assurance. Such increases may be disapproved by the i
Project Superintendent or the Manager of Construction only if they do not fall within such policy limits and guidelines. If an increase is disapproved, the disapproval vill be reviewed by, and is subject to the concurrence of, the Chief Field Quality Control Engineer.
An additional and perhaps even more important degree of in-dependence is provided by the fact that the Project Field quality Control Engineer has the authority to stop work for quality-related matters, as stated in G-1, Section 3.8 of the current Bechtel Field Inspection Manual:
"3.8 Project Field Quality Control Engineer m The P MCE supervises the quality con-trol and inspection functions and sees that the quality of the work is properly inspected and documented. The PMCE has t
i 9
9 authority to stop work. This authority, exercised through the Project Superintendent, shall require immediate stoppage of work operations or construction activities deter-mined to be improperly controlled and dere corrective action would be extensive or may not be fully effective.***"
(Emphasis supplied)
The Project Superintendent cannot countermand such a stop-vork order.
Moreover, he cannot order a quality control inspection to be by-passed, and he cannot proceed with construction unless and until control point inspections are properly empleted by the Quality Con-trol Engineer (Bechtel Field Inspection Manual, G-6, 53 13).
Thus, the Quality Control Engineers are effectively inde-pendent of the Project Superintendent in terms of being hired, trained, specifically assigned and dismissed, and also with respect to salary increases. Through the Projcct Field Quality Control Engi-neer to wh m they report, and who is similarly independent, they may initiate a stop-vork order if quality control requirements are not met. This functional independence is certainly not impaired by the fact that the Project Superintendent coordinates the activities of the Quality Control Engineers with the construction forces so that an appropriate number of them can be assigned to the site by the Chief Field Quality Control Engineer for the work activities planned, or by the fact that the Project Superintendent is indi-rectly responsible for administrative paperwork regarding the Quality Control Engineers, or by the fact that the Project Field Quality Con-trol Engineer has a limited responsibilitv to report to the Project Superintendent regarding overall project direction and personnel de-portment.
Such relationships in no way create the kinds of dependence
10 i
upon the Project Superintendent that vould impair the effectiveness of a Quality Control Engineer's perfomance of his duties under the Bechtel Quality Assurance Program.
The Bechtel QA Organization therefore complies with both the letter and spirit of Criterion I of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
2.
Criterion X of Appendix B, which governs QC inspections, requires only that the individ-uals performing QC inspections not be the l
same individuals that perfomed the work be-ing inspected; AEC Regulatory Guide 1.28, by means of ANSI N45 2-1971, interprets this re-quirement to pemit QC inspections to be made by individuals other than persons performing the activity being inspected and such persons' "immediate supervisors."
With respect to the inspection of activities affecting quality--the function carried out by the Bechtel Quality Control Engineers--the general organizational guideline of Criterion I of Appendix B is made specific by Criterion X, which provides in perti-nent part that "A program for inspection of activities affecting quality shall be established and executed by or for the organizc. tion perfo ming the activity to verify confomance with the documented instructions, procedures, and drawings for acccuplishing the ac-tivity. Such inspection shall be performed by in-dividuals other than those who perfomed the activity being inspected. * * * " (Emphasis supplied.)
The general guideline of Criterion I is thus clarified and made spe-cific for the QC Engineers' function: that function may be performed by the same organization that perfomed the work so long as it is perfomed by individuals different from those who performed the work.
11 That is the case here, so that the letter of Criterion X is satis-fIsd. Cf. In the Matter of Duke Power Ccapany (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-128, Dkt Nos. 50-369, 50-370, where the Appeal Board found on the basis of Criterion III that in-dividuals perfoming QA functions may be from the same organization as other individuals who perform design vork being verified or checked.
Criterion III is analogous to Criterion X.
The conclusion that Bechtel's QA organization meets the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 is supported by AEC Regulatory Guide 1.28 (formerly Safety Guide 28), which provides that:
"The general requirements and guidelines for es-tablishing and executing a quality aseurance pro-gram during the design and construction phases of nuclear power plants, which are included in ANSI Nk5 2-1971, ' Quality Assurance Program Re-quirements for Nuclear Power Plants' are gener-ally acceptable and provide an adequate basis for ccuplying with the program zwquirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50."
ANSI N45 2-1971 was approved by the American National Stand-ards Institute and was adopted by the Atomic Energy Commission's Regu-latory Staff to augment the guidance given to applicants and licensees in the regulations. One of the primary purposes of the Regulatory Guides is "to describe and make available the methods acceptable to the AEC Regulatory Staff of implementing specific parts of the Com-mission's Regulations." (37 Federal Register 2854h, December 27, 1972.) Further, the Guides were specifically issued as a " set of principles and specifications which vill represent an acceptable I
l i
12 solution to the regulatory staff and Advisory Ccanittee on Reactor Safeguards on these issues." (37 Federal Register 13286, July 6, 1970.) The provisions of ANSI Nk5 2-1971 indicate clearly that the Bechtel QA organization ecunplies with Appendix B.
ANSI Nk5 2-1971 provides, in part, in Paragraph 3:
"The authority and responsibility of persons and organizations perfoming activities affecting quality shall be clearly established. Persons and organizations perfomin6 quality assurance functions shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to:
i (1) identify quality problems; (2) initiate, reconsnend, or provide solu-tions, through designated channels; 1
(3) verify implementation of solutions; and (k) control further processing, delivery, or installation of a nonconfoming item, deficiency, or unsatisfactory condition until proper disposition-ing has occurred.
"The person or organization responsible for de-fining and meesuring the overall effectiveness of the quality assurance program shall be designated, shall be sufficiently independent from the pres-sures of production, shall have direct access to responsible management at a level where appropriate action can be required, and shall report regularly en the effectiveness of the program.
"The organizational structure and the functional responsibility assignments shall be such that:
(1) attainment of quality objectives is accomplished by those who have been assigned responsibility for perfoming vork; e.g., the designer, the velder, or the power plant operator. This may include interim examinations, checks,
13 and inspections of the work by the individual perfoming the work.
(2) verification of confomance to estab-lished quality requirements is accom-Flished by those who do not have direct responsibility for perfoming the work; e.g., the design reviewer, the checker, the inspector, or the tester.
"In structuring the organization and assigning re-sponsibility, quality assurance should be recognized as an interdisciplinary function involving many or-ganizational components and, therefore, should not be regarded as the sole dcx::ain of a single quality assurance group. For example, it may be more ap-propriate for design engineers to perfor:n design reviews rather than quality assurance engineers because of the special competence required to per-form these reviews. Quality assurance enecxnpasses many functions and activities and extends to var-ious levels in all participating organizations, frcan the top executive to all workers whose ac-tivities may influence quality." (E:nphasis sup-plied)
Paragraph 3 indicates that the persons who are assigned responsibility for perfoming work are persons such as designers or velders. Verification of their work is to be accomplished by persons i
who are not performing the designing or velding such as a " design reviewer" or " inspector."
ANSI N45 2-1971 further provides in Paragraph 11:
"A program for inspection of activities affecting quality shall be established and executed by or for the organizaticn terforming the activity to verify confomance to the documented instruc-tions, procedures, and drawings for acecznplish-ing the activity. Inspection activities to verify the quality of work shall be perfomed by persons other than those who performed the activity being inspected. Such persons shall not report directly to the immediate super-visors who are responsible for the work being inspected.
." (Emphasis supplied) h
14 Thus, ANSI N45 2-1971 allows inspection to be perfomed by persons other than those who perfom the activity being inspet. tad suid such persions ' "immediate" supervisors. As was discussed hereinabove, the imediate supervisors of those perfoming the work are their foremen in the Bechtel construction organization. Non-immediate supervisors of the persons performing the work would include general foremen, craft superietendents, discipline or area superintendents and the field superintcncent. Therefore, it is clear from the interprete-tion expressed in ANSI N45 2-1971 that the Bechtel QA organization is in compliance with Appeadix B of 10 CFR 50 since the quality Con-trol Engineers and the Project Field Quality Control Engineer do not report to the "imediate supervisors" of those perfoming the work being inspected.
Accordingly, the Applicant respectibily requests that the Appeal Board grant its Petition for Reconsideration of Part IV of ALAB-lk7 and render an opinion that the Bechtel QA program complies in all respects with the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50.
Respectibily submitted, Dated: September 28, 1973
/s/JuddL. Bacon Judd L. Bacon Senior Attorney Consumers Power Company 212 W. Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Harold F. Reis Newman, Reis & Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Of Counsel:
Attorneys for Applicant Laurence M. Scoville, Jr.
Clark, Klein, Winter, Parsons & Previtt 1600 1st Federal Building Detroit, Michigan 48226
SEE FIGURE A FOR CONTINUATION 4 N FIELD SUPERINTEIEENT DISCIPLINE / AREA SUPERINTENDENT CRAM SUPERINTENDENT GENERAL (CRAFf) l FORE EN i
i (CRAPI)
FORE %N CRAPIS RN FIGURE A3
VERIFICATION STATE OF MICHIGAN )
) SS.
COUNTY OF WASHTENAW)
Milton M. Krout, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is employed by Bechtel as Project Manager for the Midland project, that he has read the foregoing Memorandum in Support of Petition for Reconsidera-tion of ALAB-147, and that all of the allegations contained therein~pertaihing to Bechtel are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
1 MKx i
M.[M. Krout, Project Ma' nager Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State this 28th day of September, A.D. 1973.
AN t tEr $G n,g MARTHA MARIE HALCOMB aWenaw M. %
c.
My commission expires,-
ud Nmmdien Expires 214 77 i
.,.