ML19354C313
| ML19354C313 | |
| 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) |
| References | |
| ALAB-147, NUDOCS 8006190698 | |
| Download: ML19354C313 (6) | |
Text
'
..:. m m _ -
am,, ~.me a.mm,.,_.:
.--.m,_,._.
- 9/28/73 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE?iSING APPEAL BOARD In'the Matter of
)
/
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Dock.et Nos
)
50-330 h
3 D0 EO (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
j ocT 11973= @
Qj. T 6
AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDEP.ATION OF PART IV OF ALAB-147 g.,.
cr.:ica
/
2
%l i nd \\
' 'In Part IV of ALAB-147 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board id'entified, subject to possible reconsideration upon receipt of the views of the applicant or the AEC Regulatory Staff, a "seeming deficiency" in the Bechtel quality assurance organization. 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 i
.who also has cost and scheduling responsibilities. The Board in ALAB-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-pendent of the individual or group directly responsible for performing the specific activity" which is subject to QA monitoring.
1/
RAI (September 18,1973).
" Memorandum Expressing the Views of the Applicant, Consumers Power Company, Concerning the Regulatory Staff's Submission in Compliance with ALAB-132" (August 10,1973), Attachment A, l.
Figure A.
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR W M i
80.06190f p p
- pp
,~_m~m
. = _.
..... m y__.
e In Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, the Commission has recognized that GA '
personnel need considerable independence in order properly to carry out their assigned function.Section I addresses the problem of guaranteeing such independence in two ways: First, by defining the QA function and imposing a general, overriding requirement for whatever independence is necessary to the performance of that function:
Such persons and organizations (performing QA functions] shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and to v'erify implementation of solutions; and s,econd, 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 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.
4 We have concluded that the Bechtel plan satisfies both of these requirements.
i s
I We recognize, however, that one can reach no more than a provisional con-conclusion through scrutiny.of a QA organization plan prior to its implementation.
The first requiiement of Section I, discussed supra, provides a basis for dealing with this problem. With respect to the Midland Plant (and every o'ther power e
nr
,,n
a r
h e...
-a
__('
I
- _m"_"
F b
h-
~
3-reactor'under construction), the AEC Regulatory Staff, through the inspection activities of its Directorate of Regulatory Operations, seeks to determine whether QA personnelin reality "have sufficient authority and organizational freedom tr identify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, or provide l
l solutions;. and to verify implementation of solutions".
The specific question raised by the Board is whether the Bechtel organization 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, however, 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 j
will be an individual or group responsible for both functions. For this reason, j
the Commission in Section I carefully described the degree of affinity which I
is unacceptable per se. That section requires only that QA personnel be
" independent of the individual or group directly responsible for performing l
the specific activity". (emphasis added).
Presumably, if the Commission had intended in all cases to require separation of QA personnel from an individualin the position of the Bechtel Project I
' Superintendent, it wo.uld have utilized other, broader terms in Section I.
e O
The Bechtel Project F,erintendent is in fact more thar 'te organizational step removed from direct responsibility for such specific activities as welding, installing rebar, and pouring concrete. In our. view, considered as a bare plan, the Bechtel organization clearly provides the measure of separation necessary under Section I.
Of course, as indicated above, Bechtel's actual QA performance under the plan will be monitored in the field.
Accordingly, we hereby petition the Appeal Board to reconsider Part IV of ALAB-147 and to det' ermine 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 that this matter be certified to the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 2.785(d)(1) as a major and novel question of law.
Respectfully submitted,
', pp David E. Kartalia Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff
~
l Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 28th day of September,1973 1/
It should be noted that the QC engineers are actually independent of the Project Superintendent to a significant extent, since he does not have
. responsibility for their salary administration and performance review.
In addition, as*noted by the Bodrd in ALAB-147 (slip opinion, p.16),
the work of the QC engineers is audited by Bechtel and Consumers Power QA engineers who are entirely independent of the Project Superintendent.
-4/
In this connection we note the matter here at issue has generic signi-ficance. The staff has reviewed, and.is reviewing, other applications in accordance with the position outlined herein.
WFMSEM%WD * ' 9 (AN.% * *
- 1*'4 *M%*I 9.V " M'"e'W FF. #
N4**.~'.
.**l N %**
- "e--
.w e-
-..v
br. c : :?hsNk :.= - x5-L_
5.:
.b5 -_.~ 4 6 --
ei v
m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD cu In the Matter of
)
/
)
d/'
DOCKETED A
^
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 UNEC (p
OCT 11973* IS
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
Omce ct u tatary
- rnMn Pr m ss g
g.
ar n a
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE a
g I hereby certify that copies of "AEC Reaulatory Staff's Petition for
. Reconsideration of Part IV of ALAS-]47", dated Seoter er 28,1973, in the caotioned matter, have been served on the f-'M!
a by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail,... 3 i8th 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 Washington, D. C.
20545 435 West 116th Street New York, New York 10027 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Dr. David B. Hall Board
-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 Board University of Houston U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 3801 Cullen Boulevard Washington, D. C. 20545 Houston, Texas 77004 Howard J. Vogel, Esq.
Harold Reis, Esq.
Knittle and Vogel Newman, Reis and Axelrad 814 Flour Exchange Building 1100 Conriecticut Avenue, N. W.
310 Fourth Avenue South Washington, D. C. 20036 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 e
O
1.
- - 6:i.
% _ _ _ Di : _. 31L
< c *' e -
a; =L.,
^-
3 2-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 Chicago, Illinois 60602 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Honorable Vern Miller Attorney General Milton R. Wessel, Esq.
Topeka, Kansas 66601 Kay, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler Richard G. Smith, Esq.
425 Park Avenue Smith and Brooker, P.C.
New York, New York 10022 703 Washington Avenue Bay City, Michigan' 47806 James N. O' Conner The Dow Chemical Company Atomic 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 Proceedings Staff Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Office of the Secretary of the Jenner and Block Commission 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 c.l?
O S
David E. Kartalia
' Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff w