ML19344A303

AEC Petition for Reconsideration of Part IV of ALAB-147 Re Bechtel QA Organization Compliance W/Section I of App B to 10CFR50.Requests Matter Be Certified to Commission If Aslab Declines Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19344A303
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	09/28/1973
From:	Kartalia D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML19344A300	List: ML19344A299 ML19344A303
References
ALAB-147, NUDOCS 8008070677
Download: ML19344A303 (6)

Text

._

- )

l]

}

9/28/73

[ gg

' J g p g p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY CCO.i!,IISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD -

In the Matter of

~ )

)

. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

).

Docket Nos. 50-329

)

50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)

)

AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S PETITION FOR

-RECONSIDERATION OF PART IV OF ALAB-147 -

In Part IV of ALAB-147 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeel Board I

identified, subject to possible reconsideration upon receipt of the views of the applicant or the AEC Regulatory, Staff' a "seeming deficiency" in the.3cchtel qualitc cscurance or;:anisation. In the Bechtel organization,.

as depicted on'a chart previously_ filed by the applicant,2/ the supervisory quality, control engineer reports to the Project Superintendent, an official who also has cost and scheduling responsibilities. The Board in ALkB-147 concluded that this aspect of the Bechtel organization did not meet the require-

- ment of Section I of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 that QA personnel be "inde-t penuent of the individu l or group directly responsible for performing the o

specific activity" which is subject to QA monitoring.

1/-

' g/.

' (September 18,1973).

. RAI -

-" Memorandum Expressing the Views of th' Applicant, Consumers e

~

. Power Company Concerning the Regulatory Staff's Submission in

Compliance with ALAB-132" (August 10, 1973), Attachment 'A,

. Figure ~A.

e M 68070

~

ma,._.

udwj._.w. _.;_.. u i._,.

_ _..a

?

]

9 3

3;

_q, _

J "In' Appendix B to'10 CFR Part 50, the Commission has recognized that QA c

[

personnel need considerable independence in' order properly'to carry out I

l their assigned function.Section I addresses the problem of guaranteeing.

.such indepen'dence in two ways: First, by defining the.QA function and '

~

[

imposing a general, overriding requirement for whatever independence '

l

.y

_ ~,

is.necessary to the performance of that function:

j Such persons.and organizations [ performing QA l-functions]!shall have sufficient authority and F

organizational freedom to identify quality problems; l

to initiate,: recommend, or provide solutions) and

]

' to verify implementation of solutions; and second, by proscribing close organizational affinity between those responsible for the performance of activities and those responsible for

~

verifying the correctness of such performance:

In general, assurance of quality requires manage-ment measures which provide that the individual 4

}

or group assigned the responsibility for checking,

~

auditing, inspecting, or otherwise verifying that an activity has been correctly performed is inde-

pendent of the individual or group directly responsi-ble for

performing the specific activity.

~

1 i.

i

~We have concluded that the-Bechtel plan sa'tisfies both of these requirements..

• l

. 3-We recognize, however, that one can reach no mor$ than a provisional con-

. conclusion through scrutiny of a QA organization plan prior to its implementation.

~

~

The first requirement of Section I,' discussed suora, provides a basis for dealing

-. ~

.I Twith this' problem.1With respect to the Midland Plant'(and every other power c:

k..

4 j.'

2-

.. [. q

,.h.

_t

-C.

i i

-u.,

. s.,.. x

.~

~..

~.

reactor uhder construction), the AEC Regulatory. Staff, through the inspection

~

. activities of its Directorate of Regulatory Operations, seeks to determine whether QA personnel in reality "have sufficient authority and organizational

- freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, or provide j

solutions; and to verify implementation of. solutions".

1-The specific question raised by the Board is whether the Bechtel organization i

violates the second requirement of Section I. In our view, it does not.

The broad principle reflected in the second requirement, is, of course, that no individual should be the ultimate judge of his own work. Manifestly, hpwever, it is not possible to achieve within a single organization absolute separation of those who perform activities and those who pass on the accepta-bility of such performance. Inevitably at some level in the organization there

'.will be an individual or group responsible for both functions. For this reason, the Commission in Section I carefully described the degree of affinity which is unacceptable per s_e,. That section requires only that QA_ personnel be e

" independent of the individual or group directly responsible for performing

'the specific activity % (emphasis added).

Presumably, if the Commission had intended in all cases to require separation L of QA personnel from'an individual in the position of the Bechtel Project

~

' Superintendent..it would have' utilized other, broader terms in Section I.

i

r L=a f dwhc x =i M=

. + = -

""m

4_4

+

~

w.3.7..

g.3

. 4..

a

.y lThe'Bechtel Project Superintendent is in fact more than one organizational

-.-e step rem 6ved from direct responsibility for'such specific activities as welding, y

~

~

installing rebar, and pouring concrete, fin our view, considered as a bare

- phn,;ths Bechtel organization cle'arly provides the measure of separation.

.,g 4

' necessary.under Section I.3l4 Of course,~ as indicated above, Bechtel's actual l

- QA performance.under the plan will be monitored in the field.

i-Accordingly, we^hereby petition the Appeal Board to reconsider Part IV of-L ALAB-147 and to_defermins that the Bechtel.QA organization complies with.

-Section I~of Appendix B to.10 CFR Part 50. ;In the event the Board declines

' to change its prior determination of noncompliance with Section I, we ask l

that this matter be certified to the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 2.785(d)(1).

i i

as a major and novel' question of law.g/ _'

Respectfully submitted,

~

bu y

r J

David E. Kartalia Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff -

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland-.

this 28th day'_of September,1973 f..

L g/

~

t' (It should be noted.that the QC engineers are actually independent of the Project Superintendent to a significant extent, since he does not have

,E Jresponsibility for their salary administration'and performance review.

lL Infaddition,'as'noted by 'the Board in ALAB-147f(slip opinion', p.16),

b-

the work of the QC engineers is audit'ed by Bechtel and Consumers Power

'~ ~

JQA' engineers who are entirely-ind'ependent of the Project Superintendent.

~

S' In this connection'we note the matter here at issue has generic signi-p,

?

b ]

.jficancei The~ staff has reviewed, an'd is reviewing, other applications -

in accordance with.the position outlined herein.

L

~

E a.

6 7

~

g 1

y-__-

E s

l

+c+;2 "Tjj"[,_ ;_

^

~

..A...

..~...A N.- - a. -

- - -. ~ _,

t - ;-

m.y

.:M u

• ~

g q.

n g/

..,. s

, 7. :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 7

BEFORE THE' ATOMIC ' SAFETY AND' LICENSING APPEAL' BOARD k

In the Matter of

-).

)

O iCONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

')

Docket Nos.' 50-329

.)

50-330

.'(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)'

-)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ilhereby certify that conies tof "AEC Regulatory Staff's Petition for Reconsideration of Part IV of ALAB-]47", dated September 28,1973, in

.the-cactioned matter,-have:been served on the followino by deposit in the' United ' States mail', first class or air mail, this.28th day of September, 1970:

Alan S.,Rosenthal, Chairman Arthur.W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman

~ Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-Board Columbia University School of Law U, S. Atomic Energy Commission.

Box,38 i

Washington,-D. C. '20545 435 West 116th Street a

New York; New York 10027 Dr. John H. Buck-

~

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal-Dr. David B. Hall JBoard Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory

~ U. S. Atomic Energy Commission ~

. P. O. Box 1663 Washington, D. C. 20545 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544

~ William C.;Parler, Esq..

Dr. Clark Goodman

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal-Professor 'of Physics'

' Boar'd..

University of Houston"

=U.. S.' Atomic Energy Commission

'3801 Cullen Boulevard-l.

Washington, D. C. ! 20545 '

Houston, Texas 77004.

e l

' ~ Howard J. Vo' gel, Esq.

Harold Reis, Esq.

Knittle and}Vogel'

' Newman, Reis and Axelrad l

=

< 814 Flour Exchange Building-

~ 1100 Connecticut Avenue,~ N. W..

3 310 Fourth ' Avenue South ~

~

Washing' ton, D. C.

20036

~ i Minneapolis 1 Mihnesota155415 l

q,

4-d 4

m-x d

' -- E

+ -

w zu a y 3

=,-

s

l,. *

~

Irving Like, Esq.-

James 'A.~ Kendall, Esq.

Reilly, Like and Schneider 135 N. Saginaw Road 200 West Main Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Babylon, New York.11702.

David Comey, Esq.

- Harold P. ' Graves, Esq.

109 North Dearborn Street Vice President and General Counsel' Suite 1001 Consumers Power Company Chicage, Illinois 60602 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Honorabl Vern Miller Attorney General Milton R. Wessel, Esq.

JTopeka, Kansas 66601 Kay, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and I:andler Richard G. Smith, Esq.

' 425 Park Avenue Smith and Brooker, P.C.

New York, New York 10022 703 Washington Ave'nue -

Bay City, Michigan 47806 James N. O' Conner The Dow Chemical Company Atemic Safety and Licensing Board 2030 Dow Center Panel Midland, Michigan 48640 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.

20545 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal.

Midland, Michigan - 48640 Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Honorable William H. Ward Washington, D. C. 20545 Assistant Attorney General Topeka, Kansas 60601 Mr. Frank W. Karas Chief, Public Procee;'ings Staff Myron M. Cherry, Es.q.

Office of the Secretary of the

.l Jennerland Block Commission i

One IBM Plaza U. S; Atomic Energy Commission

- Chicago, Illinois 60603 Washington, D. C. 20545

. William J. Ginster, Esq.

Suite 4

~

' Merril Building.

Saginaw,- Michigan 48602

1. C O t Stt David E. Kartalia A

i

~ Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Y

l a

'\\==Esq ww mN,e gr=.

l'

l. 4 :.

-