ML19344A157
| ML19344A157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1973 |
| From: | Bacon J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ALAB-147, NUDOCS 8008060451 | |
| Download: ML19344A157 (16) | |
Text
. _ _ _ . ._ _ _ .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY CONMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD i
l In the Matter of ) /
CONSIMERS POWER COM ANY Docket Nos 50-329 I
) and 50-330 (Midland Plsnt, Units 1 and 2) )
)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AIAB-147 l I
% ./
On September 18, 1973 this Appeal Board issued ALAB-147, in which it ecmcluded, at p.17:
"[T]he Saginaw Intervenors ' ' motion to enforce Com- l mission regulations' is denied. The. staff is di- '
rected, however, to take all necessary measures to obtain a prcanpt revision of the Bechtel QA organi- ;
zation in accordance with the views expressed in !
Part IV of this opinion, supra. This direction shall be cutomatically 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 circumstance, the autcnatic stay vill remain in effect pending further order of this Board."
l Part IV of the Appeal Board's opinion noted a "seeming deficiency" .'because "in one specific respect, Bechtel's Qg organiza-
-tion does not ecmply with Appendix B." The "seeming deficiency" related to the' fact that Bechtel's Quality Control Engineers, who carry out quality control inspections of specific construction work, " report to the Project Field Quality Control Engineer who, in 4
turn, reports to the Project Superintendent." (ALAB-147,'p.15) 800806,og g
[
- w-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 -bereinafter set forth, it is the position J
of Consumers Power Company ("the Applicant") that the Bechtel QA Organization complies 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 B 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 .
J' "shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recomend, or provide solutions; 'and to verify im- l plementation of solutions. In general', assurance 1 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 perfomed is independent of the individual or group directly responsible for. perfoming the specific activity." _(Emphasis supplied.)'
l The App).icant believes that' Criterion I is satisfied by l
, the present Bechtel'QA organization because the Quality Control s
> I l
s *"%
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" f vr performing the ccustruction 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 term "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 corporation'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 vould 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 for the work being ' inspected to satisfy Criterion I. First of all, the supervisory responsibility of the Project Superintendent 7
4
.is of necessity administrative and indirect in nature, rather than
. direct, since he would be physically incapable of directly super-vising the hundreds of employees working on the site at various tasks.
- Orgenizationally, as indicated on the attsched Figure A3, he- is at the seventh level away from the actual work.* The responsibilities of the various working levels subordinate to the Project Superin-tendent are as follows:
(1) Craftsmen. Craftsmen (e.g., electricians) are assigned to perfom a specific work activity. It is the product of this ac-tivity that will be inspected by the Quality Control Engineers. It
- .is expected that there vill be at least 1,700 craftsmen verking 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 making a preliminary inspection to detemine whether they have
- perfomed it properly.N (2) Foremen. The foreman assigns the craftsmen to specific work. He is the direct supervisor of their work, and has certain disciplinary responsibilities.- By virtue of labor agreements ne-gotiated with the different crafts,.the foremsn reports only-to his General Foreman. He does not report to the Craft Superintendent, who i
,
- As site. activity increases, it is possible that additional levels l
-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.
4.
r
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 General Fureman has direct responsibility for the perfomance of the foremen
. reporting to him, and indirect supervisory responsibility for the actual perfomance of the work by the craftsmen. It is anticipated that there vill be frcan 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, end 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 vith the Craft Superintendent who is the-lovest-level Bechtel management representative in the construc-
. tion organization. ~The' Craft Superintendent has direct supervisory l
- responsibility for the perfomance of the General Foreman and is only indirectly responsible for the actual construction work. The Craft I
I j - --
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 / Area superintendent. 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.vork. He has direct supervisory responsibility over the Craft Superintendents and only indirect supervisory responsibility
~
for the perfomance 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 l Superintendents and is cx11y indirectly responsible for the lower l levels. l 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 En6 1 neers, however. In contrast to those groups performing construction work and supervision, they are effectively 1
a 1
1
7 independent of the Project Superintendent in tems 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 Engineer also provides technical di-rection to the Project Field Quality Contro.'. Engineer and the Quality Control Engineers. The Project Superintendent's advice is sought with respect -to the assignment 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 may, of course, make reccu-mendations as to such matters, but the decisions an in the hands of the Chief Field Quality Control Engineer. The latter similarly retaint complete responsibility and control over the training of QC Enginee rs .
. The- Chief Field Quality Control Engineer does performance evaluati.ons and initiates salary increases for the Project Field Quality Control Engineer, _ subject culy to review by Bechtel's ' Division
, -* For nomal reporting purposes, the Project Field Quality Control l Engineer vill report to the Chief Field Quality Control Engineer
- through the newly-created position of Quality Centrol Supervisor.
The latter is : located in Bechtel's Ann Arbor, Michigan office.
l 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.
., = _
-8 Manager in San Francisco or his designee. The Project Superintendent is not consulted. An order for the increase is cc=mmicated to the affice manager at the project site in order to reflect the change on the payroll.
The Project Field Quality Control Engineer' does performance evaluations of, and reccennends 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 p a grades, and within governmental ~vage guidelines. They are then chann, sled through the Manager of Construction in the A,nn Arbor office for the same assurance. Such increases may be disapproved by the 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 t.- eviewed by, and is subject to the concurrence of, the Chief Field Quality Control Engineer.
An additional and perhaps even more impov+ ant riagree of in-d
- dependence 11s 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
- The PJQCE supervises the quality con-trol and inspection functions and sees i that the' quality of the work is properly inspected and documented. The PFQCE has 1
--, .,.7 , ,-
9 authority to stop work. This authority, exercised through the Project Superintendent, shall require insnediate stoppage of work operations or-construction activities deter-
- mined to be improperly controlled and where 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 C.th construction unless and until control point inspections are properly canpleted by the Quality Con-trol Engineer (Bechtel Field Inspection Manual, G-6, $313) .
Thus, the Quality Control Engineers are effectively inde-pendent of the Project Superintendent in . terms of being hired, i trained, specifically assigned and dismissed, and also with respect to salary increases. Through the Project Field Quality Control Engi- !
'neer to whom they report, and who is similarly independent, they may initiate a stop-work 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 responsibility to report to the Project 1
. Superintendent regarding overall project ' direction and: personnel de- g
)
-portment. Such relationships in no way create the kinds of dependence- /
i
10
- 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.
l 2. Criterion X of Appendix B, which governs QC
' inspections, requires only that the individ- .
uals perfor2ing QC inspections not be the 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 permit QC inspections to be made by individuals other than persons performing the activity being inspected and such persons' "immediate sucervisors."
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, whica provides in perti-nent part that j "A program for inspection of activities affecting
' quality shall be established and executed by or for the organization perfo m ing 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 Criterien I is thus~ clarified and made spe-cific for the QC Engineers' function: that function may be perfomed I
by the ~ same organization that perfomed the work so long as it is
! - performed by individuals different from those who perfomed the work.
L l
l i
I
^
11 That is the case here, so' that' the letter of Criterion X is satis-fied. Cf. In the Matter of Duke Power Capany (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 performing 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 assurance pro-gram during the design and construction phases of nuclear power plants, which are included in ANSI N45 2-1971, ' quality Assurance Program Re-quirements for Nuclear Power Plants ' are gener-ally acceptable and provide an adequate basis for emplying with the program requirements 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 Consnission'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 2834k, December 27, 1972.) Further, the Guides were specifically-issued as a " set of
- principles and specifications which vill represent an acceptable 4
s
12
. solution to the regulatory staff and Advisory Ccamittee on Reactor Safeguards on these issues." (37 Federal Register 13286, July 6, 1970.)- The provisions of ANSI N45 2-1971 indicate clearly that the Bechtel QA organization canplies with Appendix B. ANSI N45 2-1971 provides, in part, in Paragraph 3:
"The authority and responsibility of persons and organizations perfor:ning activities affecting quality shall be clearly established. Persons and organizations perfoming quality assurance functions shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to:
(1) identify quality problems; (2) initiate, recommend, or provide solu-tions, through designated channels:
(3) verify implementation of solutions; and (4) control further processing, delivery, or installation of a nonconforming item, deficiency, or unsatisfactory condition until proper disposition-ing has occurred.
"The person or organization responsible for de-
, fining and measuring 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 on the. effectiveness of the program.
- "The organizational. structure and the functional resDonsibility assignments shall be such that:
(1) attainment of quality objectives is accomplished by those who have been 4 assigned responsibility for-perfoming 1
- work; e.g. , the designer, the velder, j or the power plant operator. This may 1 include interim examinations, checks, l
l I
13 and inspections of the work by the individual performing the work.
(2) verification of confomance to estab-lished quality requirements is accom-plished by those who do not have direct responsibility for perfoming the work; e.g., the design reviewer, the checker, the inspector, or the tester, a
"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 domain of a single quality
~
assurance group. For example, it may be more ap-trepriate for design engineers to perform design reviews rather than quality assurance engineers because of the special competence required to per-fom these reviews. -Quality assurance enccupasses i many functions and activities and extends to var-
! ious levels in all participating organizations, from the top executive to all workers whose ac-tivities may influence quality." (Emphasis sup-plied)
Paragraph 3 indicates that the persons who are assigned responsibility for perfoming vork are persons such as designers or 1
velders. Verification of their work is to be accomplished by persons who are not perfoming the designing or velding such as a " design reviewer" or " inspector."
, ' ANSI Nk5 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 performing the activity to
. verify confomance to the documented instruc-tions, procedures, and drawings for acccuplish-ing the activity. Inspection activities to verify the quality of work shall be perfomed by persons other than those who perfomed the activity being inspected. Such persons shall not report dirtetly to the immediate super-visors who are responsible for the work being l
inspected. .. ." (Emphasis supplied).
~
14 Thus, ANSI N45 2-1971 allows inspection to be perfomed by persons
~
other than those who perform the activity being inspected and such persons ' "immetdate" supervisors. As was discussed hereinabove,-the
- i immediat'e 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. superintendents, discipline or area superintendents and the field superintendent. Therefore, it.is clear from the interpreta-tion expressed in~ ANSI N45 2-1971 that the Bechtel QA organization is in compliance with Appendix B of 10 CFR 50 since the quality Con-trol Engineers and the Project Field Quality Control Engineer do not I
report to the "immediate supervisori' of those performing the work being inspected.
Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Appeal Board grant its Petition for Reconsideration of Part IV -of ALAB-147'and render an opinion that the Bechtel QA~ program complies in all respects with the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50.
Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 28, 1973 /s/JuddL. Bacon l Judd L. Bacon Senior Attorney Consumers Power Company 212 W. Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Harold'F. Reis Newman, Reis & Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, IN Washington, Dc 20o36
- Of Counsel: Attorneys for Applicant
-Laurence M. Scoville, Jr.
Clark,.Klein, Winter, Parsons & Frewitt 16001st Federal Building -
Detroit,' Michigan 48226
,. .l
SEE FIGURE A )
1 FOR CONTINUATION A N FIEtn SUPERINTENDENT DISCIPLINE / AREA SUPERINTENDENT CRAFT SUPERINTENDENT GENERAL (CRAFT)
FOREMAN (CRAPI)
FOREMAN CRAPISMAN FIGURE A3
m 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 Memorand m in Support of Petition for Reconsidera-tion of ALAB-147, and that all of the allegations contained therein pertaining to Bechtel are true to the best of his knowledge, infor=ation and belief.
1
)
M.[M. Krout, Proj ect 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.
WN LEr $t'e m_L MARTHA MARIE HAl. COMB ry 0, amenaw M M My commission expires- us Smmi",ien Excires 214 77 L