ML19344D751
| ML19344D751 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, 05000495 |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1979 |
| From: | Reinmuth G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344D724 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900509 NUDOCS 8004280098 | |
| Download: ML19344D751 (3) | |
Text
.
r.
,,#[
UNITED STATES y j e(y g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,;g { Y).j
/-
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555
%s AUG 101979 MEMORANDUM FOR:
K. V. Seyfrit, Din!ctor, RIV FROM:
G. W. Reinmuth, Assistant Director, Division of Reactor Construction Inspection, IE t
SUBJECT:
INSPECTION OF STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION (REPORT N0. 99900509/79-03)
A copy of the enclosed signed originals relative to the above subject inspection has been transmitted to Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) and is fonvard to you to distribute as required under LCVIP procedures.following the expiration of the 30 day proprietary review period. Prior to distribution, please call me to verify that SWEC has not submitted a request to withhold certain information from public disclosure.
With your distribution to POR please forward a copy of the enclosed documents to T. Combs, SECY for transmittal to the Honorable John D. Dingle as pranised in J. M. Hendrie's letter of June 27, 1979 (copy enclosed).
Background infomation on the enforcement issue relative to this case is summarized as follows. On July 24, 1979 J. Murray adivsed IE of ELD's position which was, that under curmnt legislation, rules and the intent of a prior position expressed in H. Shapar's November 30, 1978 memorandum to J. Davis,
that the proposed enforcement action (Notice of Violation) for issuance to Stone and Webster was not an authorized sanction and, in fact, the only sanction available to IE was a Notice of Noncompliance.
Further, in the event that the nonlicensee should select not to respond to IE's requested corrective action, no other direct enforcement sanctions are available to assure canpliance with the implementing provisions of 10 CFR Part 21. The Director, IE however, directed that tha inspection report be issued with inclusion of a Notice of Violation as appears necessary, in this case, to assure compliance with 10 CFR Part'21 and that the transmittal be prepared for his signature with another request for ELD concurrence.
J. Murray, in concurring, clarified in a note dated August 7,1979 to V. Stello -
"We believe we are on shaky legal ground when it comes to taking this enforcement action against a non-licensee for not complying with the so-called implementing provisions of Part 21. I believe, however, that we can develop a respectable argument to support such action, although the chances for such an argument ultimately prevailing are not high."
1 l
CONTACT:
M. W. Peranich, IE 49-27551
- "8H8
I K. V. Seyfrit AUG I 01979 XOOS has been assigned to prepare a staff paper on our statutory authority to impose civil penalties on a nonlicensee. We will keep you informed in th1s regard.
,3.;/
. c G. W. Reinmuth Assistant Director Division of Reactor Construction Inspection, IE
Enclosure:
Letter to SWEC dated 8/10/79 vienclosed: Notice of Violation, Notice of Deviation and Inspection Report No. 99900509/79-03 cc/w enclosure:
H. D. Thornburg IE U. Potapovs, RIV e
l J. C. Glynn, IE M. W. Peranich, IE cc w/o enclosure:
I W. Russell, NRR T. Combs,SECY B. H. Grier, RI l
J. P. O'Reilly, RII' I
J. G. Keppler, RIII R. H. Engelken,, RV b
b k
l I
l i
(
l
fam jo,,
UNITED STATES 8,
s.,({., g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.
].j WASHINGTON. D. C. 2oSS5
{
%7..c AUG 101979 Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Docket No. 99900509/79-03 ATTN:
Mr. W. F. Allen Jr.
i Chief Executive Officer 245 Summer Street Boston, Massachusetts 02107 j
Gentlemen:
This refers to the spacial inspection conducted by the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement at your facility on May 1-4, 1979, and to the discussions of our findings with you and the members of your staff at the conclusion of this inspection.
(
During the inspection, several instances were identified and documented in the j
enclosed inspection report where you failed to comply with NRC requirements.
The specific findings complete with reference to the applicable requirements are summarized in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Notice of Deviation.
l The main purpose of this inspection was to examine the measures which you have established for the reporting of defects and noncompliances under Part 21 of Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations and to verify, that these measures are being properly and effectively implemented. In particular, your past actions relative to two specific technical issues presently the subject of an extensive industry-wide analysis were selected for inspection. Your development and use of seismic computer codes with particular emphasis on the
[
use of algebraic methods for intra-modal summations, and the design methods j
for pipe support plates using rigid body assumptions, were the specific issues chosen. Also examined during the inspection of your design for pipe support
[
plates was your Quality Assurance program and its implementation relative to
[
corrective action for significant deficiencies as required by Criterion XVI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
Both of. the technical issues selected clearly involve basic components important to nuclear facility safety and in both cases, defects in analyses or installa-tion have~ been identified by the industry-wide analysis currently underway.
Based on current Commission actions, it is clear that a high potential did exist for these issues to be or to become substantial safety hazards, as L
defined under 10 CFR Part 21.
It is also clear that the Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation was involved in varying degrees in these issues and therefore under 10 CFR Part 21, shares the responsibility for assuring the appropriate evaluation and reporting of problems which are a substantial l
safety hazard.
l t
m- -,,,- _ _ _ _ _
s' l
f I
Stone and Webster Engineering AUG 10 B79 Corporation
(,
5 We did not find during this inspection that the " responsible officer" knowingly i
or consciously failed to provide the notification required by 10 CFR Part 21 in the cases reviewed. However, our inspectors found significant procedural deficiencies that impeded proper evaluation of such problems and passthrough l
of information to the Stone and Webster responsible reporting officer. Because j
significant safety matters with potential generic implications must be evaluated effectively and reported to NRC in a timely fashion, you are advised that proper corrective action must be taken promptly to comply with 10 CFR Part 21.
Please provide us within 30 days of your receipt of this letter a written i
statement containing (1) a description of the steps that have been taken or l
will be taken to correct these items, (2) description of the steps that have
{
been taken to prevent recurrence and (3) the date your cor ective actions and preventive measures will be completed.
As a result of the specific identified deficiencies in your Part 21 evaluation l
and reporting procedures, we are concerned that the Commission may not have l
[
been adequately informed, as required by 10 CFR Part 21.21(b)(3), of those l
l deviations that your company forwarded to NRC licensees for reporting under 10 CFR 50.55(e). You are therefore requested as a part of your corrective action, to reassess your past actions relative to those 50.55(e) reports and LERs submitted to the Commission by yonc clients after January 6,1978, for full conformance to Part 21 requirements. Should the results of your evaluations conclude that the Commission has not been adequately informed as required under Part 21, you are requested to provide in writing a statement addressing your corrective actions as noted above.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the Commission's " Rules of Practice,"Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter together with the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within thirty (30) days to this office to withhold such information from public disclosure.
Any such application must include a full statement of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the information is proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is j
contained in a separate part of the document. If we do not hear from you in i
this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.
1 l
6
~~
i i
Stone and Webster Engineering -
AUG 10 579 Corporation Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
/
m
/
i Vict lo, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Ecclosures:
(1) Notice of Violation (2) Notice of Deviation (3) Inspection Report No.
99900509/79-03 e
i e
l 9
L I
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Docket No. 99900509/79-03 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Based on the results of a special NRC inspection conducted on May 14, 1979, it I
appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with hTC requirements as indicated below:
A.
Section 21.21(a) of 10 CFR Part 21 requires corporations subject to these regulations to adopt appropriate procedures for evaluation of deviations or informing the licensee or purchaser of such deviations so that they may cause these deviations to be evaluated.
Contrary to this requirement, the procedures adopted by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) do not provide for the evaluation of deviations as intended under Part 21 or assure that all affected licensees or purchasers are adequately informed.
This is an infraction.
Specific procedural deficiencies contributing to the above finding are summarized below:
1.
Deviations occurring in the time period between issuance of a Construction Permit (CP) or Limited Work Authorization (LWA) and granting of an Operation License (OL) are directed to be evaluated only under procedures established to notify a customer of potential 50.55(e) items. The referenced procedure (QS16.2) does not provide I
for evaluation of deviations as required under Part 21 nor does it assure that all affected CP holders or purchasers are informed of such deviations.
(See paragraph D.3.b(1).)
2.
Instructions in memoranda dated October 21, 1977 (Ref. 3) assume l
incorrectly that once an LWA is issued the applicant is subject to 50.55(e) re;"lations and therefore the evaluation of deviations solely under procedure QS-16.2 is appropriate. (See paragraph D.3.b(1).)
3.
The Project Applicability Matrix for QS16.3, " Reporting Defects and Failures to Comply Under 10 CFR 21," designates applicability of this standard only to projects for which SWEC has an active contract.
Therefore, the procedures adopted by SWEC do not provide for evalua-tion of deviations associated with older facilities not currently subject to a contract between SWEC and the facility licensee.
(See paragraph D.3.b(2).)
i 4.
Paragraph 1.2 of QS16.3 states that this standard is applicable only l
to deviations in structures, systems, etc., which could create a l
Substantial safety hazard, thereby apparently limiting applicability l
of this standard only to the evaluation of "teportable deviations" 1
as defined under Part 21.
The mechanism for evaluation of conditions, such as deviation routinely identified by the QA program, which may result in " reportable deviations" has not been defined.
(See paragraph D.3.b(3).)
O o
k i 5.
Part 21 evaluation and reporting procedures applicable to the Engineering Department are in the form of Interim Instructions and Memoranda i
including " Temporary Guidelines for 10 CFR 21 Evaluations" dated October 31, 1977, which state that an Engineering Assurance procedure covering the Engineering Department responsibilities will be issued on or before January 6, 1978. Such procedure has not been issued and conflicting instructions concerning the evaluation of deviations i
currently exist between October 21, 1977, memoranda " interim imple-mentation of 10 CFR 21" and QS-16.3 which is the basic SWEC policy document for Part 21 implementation. Additionally, where QS-16.3 does discuss the basic responsibilities of the Engineering Department, it does not include or reference the specific " interim" instructions or guidance currently in effect for evaluation of deviations.
(See l
paragraph D.3.b.(4).)
~
6.
Engineering Department Memorandum No. 79-7, dated April 30, 1979 is intended, in part, to provide a systematic approach for re-examining SWEC initiated reporting under 10 CFR 50.55(e) for applicability under 10 CFR 21 to other plants. This is to be accomplished by automatically includio.g such items in the internal feedback Problem Report System (QS-16.1). The above instructions, however, apply to future reporting only and do not require a re-evaluation of licensee reporting initiated by SWEC since January 6,1978 as the means to complete 10 CFR 21 evaluations in determining whether additional follow-up reporting under Part 21 is necessary.
Also, QA-16.1 as currently written, contains no guidance for initiating or conducting a Part 21 evaluation.
(See paragraph D.3.b(5).)
7.
QS-16.3 permits the designated responsible officer to return information of a defect received following the completion of a part 21 evaluation to the previous reviewer and request that a re-evaluation be effected.
j This, in the case of SWEC, is considered contrary to the intent of 21.21(b)(1) requirements placed on the responsible officer and could result in violation of the requirements for reporting to the Commission in a timely manner.
(See paragraph D.3.b(6))
B.
Section 21.51 of 10 CFR Part 21 requires each corporation subject to i
l regulations of this part to prepare and maintain records sufficient to assure compliance with the regulations of this part.
Contrary to this requirement, the instructions of record QS-16.2 when in-voked by QS-16.3 without completing the evaluation of a deviation as out-lined under QS-16.3, are not sufficient to assure compliance with Section i
21.21(b)(1) and Section 21.21(b)(3) requirements established to assure the Commission is adequately informed of defects. In particular, based on instructions of QS-16.2 there is no assurance that SWEC initiated written reports submitted to the Commission under 50.55(e) can be relied on to contain all of the information in those cases where the item being l
reported under 50.55(e) is also a defect as defined under Part 21 and a separate Part 21 report is not issued.
(See paragraph D.3.e.).
This is a deficiency.
I e
i C.
Section 21.6 of 10 CFR Part 21 requires that corporations subject to these l
regulations post in a conspicuous position the regulations in this part, Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and procedures adopted pursuant to the regulations in this part.
If posting of the regulations or procedures is not practicable, a notice describing the regulations / procedures including the name of individual to whom reports may be made and location where the regulations / procedures may be examined can be substituted.
I r
Contrary to the above, the Part 21 poster used by SWEC does not include i
" procedures adopted pursuant to the regulations in this part" or otherwise describe such procedures and state where they may be examined.
(See paragraph D.4.a.)
This is a deficiency.
I
[
l Y
I l
i l
h I
~
i Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Docket No. 99900509 i
NOTICE OF DEVIATION Based on the results of a special NRC inspection conducted on May 1-4, 1979, it appears that one of your quality assurance activities was not conducted in accordance with a commitment of your Standard Nuclear QA Program (SWS QAP 1-74, Rev C) on how the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50. Appendix B will be satisfied.
D.
Pursuant to Criterion XVI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Section 16 (corrective Action) of Topical Report SWS QAP 1-74, Rev C requires that measures be established to assure that significant (major and recurring) conditions adverse to quality including deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected.
Also that the condition, their cause and the corrective actions taken be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management.
The identification of problems which may require generic corrective action and the initiation of such corrective action with the S&W organization are controlled by Quality Standard QS-16.1.
" Problem Reports." QS-16.1 l
provides for the issuance of problem reports to initiate and document corrective action when significant generic problems requiring correction are identified.
Contrary to the above, a problem report requiring formalized and auditable corrective / preventative action was not issued following the discovery that improper design assumptions had been used in calculating anchor bolt loads for pipe support base plates and sufficient bases for failure to issue a problem report were not documented. The corrective action which had been initiated was not sufficiently defined with respect to applicability to completed designs, installed hardware or verification of compliance.
(See paragraph F.)
f This is a deviation.
I l
f[h{h Q
t i
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION l
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEnINT i
Report of a Special Inspection Docket No.
99900509/79-03 Company: Stone & Webster Engineering Corp 245 Summer Street Boston, Massachusetts 02107 Inspection Conducted: May 1-4, 1979 Inspectors:
- g.,C.,GryfE/,' Sdnior Mechanical Engineer Date V
Inspection and Enforcement, Headquarters Y
'?7:Kkf
?
M. W. Peranich, Senior Electrical Engineer Date Inspection and Enforcement, Headquarters h//Sl
'h7.nn b h Y*h$
Uldis Potapovs, Chief, Vendor Inspection Branch Date l
Inspection and Enforcement, Region IV Approved by:
I >/
/1 T/ 71 G. W. Reinmuth, Assistant Director Date l
Reactor Construction Inspection Inspection and Enforcement, Headquarters Inspection Summary Special Inspection on May 1 thru 4,1979 (Docket No. 99900509/79-03)
Areas Inspected: Review of procedures and controls adopted by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) to implement the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 including the assessment of SWEC compliance with 10 CFR Part 21 for two items identified in IE Bulletins 79-07 (Seismic Stress Analysis of Safety-Related Piping) and 79-02 (Pipe Support Base Plate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor. Bolts). Also reviewed were Quality Assurance measures and their imple-l mentation relative to Criterion XVI (Corrective Action) of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
Results: The inspection resulted in the identification of one infraction, two deficiencies, and one deviation. The findings of noncompliance pertain to 10 C ns (infraction), 2) assuring that r) and 3) posting of pro-DUPLICATE DOCUMENT i.ns to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B cedu requ inspection of seismic and 1
ce r
Entire document previously entered
]sofnonco g
into sy-tem _ unde :
ils Section of the report.
tion ff h0 0
~
ANO No. of pages:
l M tuo V6sTf
,