ML20049K060
| ML20049K060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1982 |
| From: | Paton W, Wilcove M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049K052 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8203290359 | |
| Download: ML20049K060 (20) | |
Text
r
- 134 -
3/26/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tti!SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL 50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SALP 376. In August 1981, the NRC published the Systematic Appraisal of Licensee Performance (SALP) applicable to Midland for the period July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980.
(StaffExhibit7). SALP contains both an overall ranking of plants, divided into those in operation and those under construction, as well as brief critiques of each plant.
377. The SALP program involves two major steps. First, a regional team inspects the plant and prepares an evaluation, the results of which are sent to the SALP headquarters staff in Washington, D.C.
At headquarters, the " Review Group" then utilizes the input from the regions, input from the NRR project manager for each plant and data assembled by the SALP staff to develop the ratings and critiques for the plants.
(Tr. 6146-47).
378. The regional SALP evaluation for Midland, issued in December 1980, was received into evidence.
(CPC Exhibit 6 cnd Staff Exhibit 8).
It was mentioned at paragraphs 230 and 251 of the Nuclear Regulatory e2O3290359 B20326
[DRADOCK05000 tried U
I
- 135,
Connission Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated December 30, 1981. At those paragraphs, the Staff states that the regional SALP evaluation discussed two significant quality assurance problems identified subsequent to the December 6,1979 Order; deficient anchor bolts in the reactor pressure vessel and HVAC deficiencies. The overall assessment of CPC's performance at Midland was considered
" adequate." (Staff Exhibit 8, p. 3).
379. At the hearing on December 1,1981, the Board reopened the record to pemit the introduction of the SALP report (Staff Exhibit 7).
(Tr. 5412).
In particular, the Board expressed interest in the Midland plant critique found at pages B-2 to B-3 of the SALP report.
(Tr. 5426).
The overall ranking of the plants was held to be irrelevant.
(Tr. 5429).
380. The Staff testimony on the SALP report was provided by Richard Wessman, Senior Staff member for SALP and Darl Hood, Project Manager.
(Tr. 6145). Mr. Wessman testified that he was responsible for the part of the SALP report which addressed the Midland facility.
(Tr.6149).
381. As stated above, the evaluation period for the Midland site was from July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980.
(StaffExhibit7,p.B-2). The Staff and the Applicant have stipulated to the existence of quality assurance deficiencies prior to December 6, 1979.
(Joint Exhibit 1).
Accordingly, to the extent that SALP addresses the period prior to December 6,1979, its probative value with respect to matters remaining in issue before the Board is limited.
382. Mr. Wessman testified to certain minor changes he would make to the SALP report.
(Tr. 6162-64).
His first suggested change was that
- 136 -
l most quality assurance deficiencies associated with soils settlement occurred prior to the evaluation period. The second change was that a stop work order issued after discovery of major deficiencies in the heating, ventilating and air-conditioning components was issued not by the NRC but by the Applicant. The NRC confimed the stop work order in an immediate action letter.
(Tr. 6162-63).
383. As previously stated, the regional SALP team found the overall performance at Midland to be adequate.
(CPC Exhibit 6, Staff Exhibit 8).
On cross-examination, Mr. Wessman testified that regional assessments are more timely and are made by people more closely associated with licensee activities than are the assessments contained in the national SALP
, report.
(Tr. 6123). Nonetheless, the national perspective is highly valuable.
(Tr. 6406).
384. Mr. Wessman admitted that since the SALP headquarters staff cannot read all documents and minutes of meetings which transpired during the evaluation period, the SALP headquarters tust rely upon summary information.
(Tr. 6345). Considering resource limitations, Mr. Wessman nonetheless stated that the SALP mechanism brought forth the best information available at the time.
(Tr. 6346).
385. The Board does not question the competency or reliability of the SALP report.
It is, however, of limited utility in the proceeding pending before this Board. There had already been in this proceeding a voluminous amount of evidence describing deficiencies in quality assurance which had existed at the site and steps which the Applicant has taken since that time to correct them. The SALP report in essence.
contains a capsulized sumary of the same information offered in greater
- 137 detail through evidence already received.
It does not contain information substantially different from that already received and does not alter the Board's findings in any manner.
AUDIT REPORT F-77-32 386. At the hearing session on December 16, 1981, the Board noted that audits from 1974 to 1977 documented many nonconfomances with respect to soils.
(Tr.6498). The Board questioned Mr. Marguglio as to the extent to which CPC management considered these audit reports before proceeding with construction.
(Tr.6498-6528).
In particular, the Board was concerned with Audit Report F-77-32.
(Board Exhibit 3). This audit was a " record review" of reports covering plant fill and structural backfill from 1974 to 1977. A " record review" is essentially an examination of the records of tests and test results to determine whether cr not there was compliance with specifications.
(Tr. 7962).
387. The Audit Report documented numerous "failing" tests, which indicated that certain soils had been improperly placed. Retests in Q areas (areas subject to quality assurance requirements of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50) were taken to determine if passing tests could clear the failing tests.
(Tr. 6580). CPC witness Donald Horn testified that there was some reworking of the material before retesting. (Tr. 8019).
In all but three cases, subsequent passing tests indicated that the soils placement was acceptable. Where retests continued to'show improper density, the placements were removed, replaced and recompacted and the results indicated acceptability.
(Tr.6580). Non-Q items were document-ed in non-conformance reports for further investigation.
(Tr. 6507).
Y
- 138 -
388. It was subsequently discovered, in the latter part of 1978, that the retests were also inaccurate due to deficiencies in the procedures of U.S. Testing Company.
(Tr.6504,6583). CPC witness Marguglio testified that had the retests not incorrectly shown the soil to be properly placed, he would have questioned whether or not to put structure on top of the soil.
(Tr. 6583).
389. When questioned as to the validity of using a subsequ nt passing test to clear a failing test, Mr. Marguglio stated that CPC accepts neither test until it determines which one was done properly and which one was not.
If CPC is unable to determine that one test was performed properly and the other, improperly, it accepts neither test.
(Tr.6574-75).
390. Mr. Marguglio further testified that he was confident that there was never an attempt to continue testing the soils placement until a test finally passed, even though certain language of the Audit Report indicates othemise.
(Tr. 6516-7). The Applicant has since begun to conduct training sessions to insure that audit and nonconformance reports contain precise language.
(Tr.6519).
391. The Audit Report makes no mention of the grade beam settlement because the tests referenced in the audit were perfonned prior to the identification of the grade beam settlement.
(Tr. 6579).
392. Staff witness Gallagher testified that he had reservations about the use of a subsequent passing test to clear a failing test.
(Tr.6803). However, he did not believe that the practice reflected a bad managerial attitude.
(Tr. 6803-07).
~
- 139.-
393. Donald Horn, Section Head of the MPQAD Civil Area Division, offered testimony on both the grade beam settlement and Audit Report F-77-32. At the time of both occurances, Mr. Horn was Quality Assurance Engineering supervisor.
(Tr.7959).
394. Even though a high number of failing tests vere ultimately cleared by passing tests, Mr. Horn testified that the auait, nonetheless, revealed a lack of compliance with~ compaction requirements.
(Tr. 7997).
395. Staff Inspection Report 78-20 documented approximately thirteen non-conformances involving such quality assurance deficiencies as failure to inspect incoming backfill material, moisture content, compaction requirements, etc. Nonconfonnances documented on Inspecticn Report 78-20 took place between 1974 and 1977.
(Tr. 8011-12).
396. Mr. Horn testified that the nonconformance reports described in Inspection Report 78-20 did not indicate to the Applicant that the soils problem might be widespread.
(Tr. 8014).
397. CPC witnesses Bird and Marguglio admitted that despite the numerous problems documented in audit and nonconformance reports, no member of the MPQAD suggested that a trend of quality assurance deficiencies was forning.
(Tr. 6508-11).
398. Mr. Marguglio testified that at the time of the first pour of the Diesel Generator Building, he had no knowledge of the grade beam settlement of the Administration Building. Since the administration building is a non-safety related structure, it was outside of the scope of Mr. Marguglio's responsibilities at the time.
(Tr.6585-86). When Mr. Keeley, project manager of the site, learned of the grade beam settlement, he caused additional borings to be made and concluded that
- 140.-
the condition was localized.
(Tr. 6587). He therefore chose not to tell Mr. Marguglio of the problem until the summer of 1978. (Tr. 6586-87).
399. Mr. Horn, however, testified that he was informed of the grade beam settlement at the time it happened (Tr. 7959). Donald Sibble of the Project Management Organization (PMO) informed Mr. Horn of the problem.
(Tr. 7969).
400. After PM0 discovered the' settlement they took five borings in the area around the administration building, two borings in the evaporator building area and one south of the area where the diesel generator building is now located.
(Tr. 7976). Based on the borings the settlement appeared to CPC to be isolated.
(Tr. 7961).
401. Since the administration building was not Q listed and the problem appeared isolated, Mr. Horn did not feel the need to contact Mr. Marguglio or any of the other management in the QA department.
(Tr. 7961). There was no quality assurance overview of the administration building.
(Tr. 79641 402. After the settlement of the diesel generator building, additional borings were taken. The results indicated both inadequate material and insufficient packing of the material.
(Tr. 7980). Upon reviewing these results, about three or four months after the settlement of the diesel generator building, Mr. Horn recognized a connection between the settlement of the administration building and of the diesel generator building.
(Tr. 7980).
403. Mr. Horn admitted that he knew that the specifications for soils placement were the same at the administration building as at the power block.
(Tr. 8009). Nonetheless, he believed that the fact that
141 _
the administration building was not Q listed was a pioper consideration in assessing the implications the grade beam settlement had on other construction.
(Tr. 8009-10).
404. Mr. Horn described steps that the Applicant has taken to improve integration of the inspection of Q and non-Q related construction. Bechtel, Inc. and other subcontractors are responsible for assuring the quality of non-Q structures.
(Tr. 8017). They have begun to meet recently weekly with other personnel responsible for soils remedial work, both Q and non-Q.
(Tr. 8017-18).
405. Various procedures have been instituted to provide better integration between Q and non-Q related construction. There have been many changes in the designation of Q and non-Q structures based upon CPC statements made in response to Staff requests under 10 C.F.R. 650.54(f).
Extensive corrective actions have also been taken which apply to both Q and non-Q construction.
(Tr.8023). New procedures are being instituted to provide greater integration of Q and non-Q construction, where appropriate.
In 1977, there were no procedures by which Q and non-Q inspectors were able to fir.. aut about problems not in their area.
(Tr.8022). MPQAD now looks at non-Q procedures and specifications to determine if their procedures would pose problems in the Q area.
l (Tr. 7964).
406. The Board has previously concluded that the grade beam settlement should have served as a quality assurance indicator relating to the subsequent construction of the DGB (Nuclear Regulatory Comission Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated December 30, 1981, 1 225). The Board also found that CPC should have
- 142 -
informed the NRC at an earlier date of the grade beam settlement.
(_I d.,
1 101-108). The Board adheres to its conclusion that in light of Soils deficiencies indicated by Inspection Report 78-20 and the grade beam settlement, CPC should have recognized a widespread soils problem. There should also have been greater conrnunication within the quality assurance department of the grade beam problem. Had the procedures of U.S. Testing Company been satisfactory, the passing tests indicated in Audit Report F-77-32 might also have indicated that the soils problems were widespread. Because those procedures were deficient, they did not so indicate (as discussed in the Staff's original Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law). CPC has, however, stipulated to deficiencies in quality assurance prior to December 6,1979.
(JointExhibit1,following Tr. 1175). The above-mentioned deficiencies in quality assurance are therefore encompassed by that stipulation. The Board also finds that integration of quality assurance for Q and non-Q related structures has improved and is now adequate.
MPQAD RE0RGANIZATION l
l 407. In the sessions conducted during the summer of 1901, the parties address at length the function of the Midland Project Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD). The Board made favorable findings in l
l paragraphs 308 through 312.
In paragraph 313 the Board noted the reorganization which we address below.
408. On November 20, 1981, the Applicant changed the organizational l
l structure of the MPQAD. Mr. Marguglio became the director of the MPQAD and assumed direct line responsibilty for the Department. Mr. Bird
143.-
remained manager of the MPQAD. The position of site quality assurance superintendent was abolished and Mr. Turnbull, who formerly occupied this position, became the Assistant Manager for Administration and Special Projects. The Applicant presented w. change at the hearing on December 16, 1981 through CPC Exhibits 19 and 20.
409. Although there was no longer a full time site QA superintendent, Mr. Marguglio was to spend at least three days per week at the site and Mr. Bird would spend approximately two days per week on site.
(Tr. 6448-49.) The inclusion of Mr. Marguglio in the MPQAD organization would bring more senior experienced personnel into the project (Tr. 6452).
410. Prior to the hearing, there had been limited communication to the NRC of the change. Ron Cook, Resident Inspector, was informed of the changes (Tr. 7086-87). Staff witness Keppler also testified that he believes others within the NRC were also informed of the change in organization.
(Tr. 7086.) Prior to the hearing in December, 1980, he, however, merely received a " cursory call" from Mr. Cook saying that CPC l
had " enhanced the organization."
(Tr. 7048.) Mr. Keppler also stated I
l that while it would have been prudent for CPC to have more fully explained the reorganization to the Staff prior to implementation, they were not required to do so.
(Tr.7044-45.) Staff witness Gallagher believes that CPC should have offered a fonnal documentary submittal of the change prior to implementation.
(Tr. 6747-48.)
411. Mr. Keppler testified that he was concerned that the change in organization might negate his testimony given during the summer of 1981 in which he approved the !!PQAD organization (Tr. 7034). He, therefore, l
l
- 144 -
called a meeting of Staff and CPC to discuss the reorganization (Tr. 7033).
412. At the meeting, Mr. Keppler infonned CPC that they needed to convince him that the reorganization did not represent a degradation of the MPQAD. Until the new organization was investigated and approved, Mr. Keppler could not stand by his prior testimony.
(Tr. 7036-37.)
However, Mr. Keppler believed that CPC was convinced that the reorganization was an improvement.
(Tr. 7036.)
413. At the meeting, CPC agreed to retain the position of QA superintendent, which fir. Turnbull formerly held (Tr. 7037). Effective February 1,1982, Mr. Marvin L. Curland assumed that position.
(Tr. 6926.)
414. At the hearing of February 2, 1982, CPC submitted a detailed description of the reorganization with an accompanying chart (CPC Exhibit 21).
415. Mr. Marguglio, Mr. Bird, and Mr. Turnbull will continue to assume their positions pursuant to the November 20, 1981 reorganization.
416. Mr. Marguglio still plans to spend at least 60% of his working time on site and Mr. Bird will continue to spend 40% of his time at Midland (Tr. 7006-08).
417. Under the reorganization, Mr. Marguglio is the head of the department and Mr. Bird is his deputy.
(Tr.7022.) Mr. Marguglio has delegated to Mr. Bird responsibility for the QA Services and HVAC QA sections.
(CPC Exhibit 22, Enclosure 3 p. 2). Mr. Turnbull has been delegated responsibility for the administration section of the MPQAD (Id.
pp.2-3).
- 145.-
418. CPC's guide to the reorganization of the MPQAD showed that i
Mr. Curland repor+3 to Mr. Bird, manager of the MPQAD.
(CPC Exhibit 21,, p. 2). However, Mr. Marguglio testified that although Mr. Bird has authority to direct the site superintendent, he will not do so unless Mr. Marguglio is out of the state. Nonnally, Mr. Curland will report to Mr. Marguglio.
(Tr.7022-23.) Mr. Marguglio qualified this testimony by stating that for certain items which Mr. Marguglio has delegated to Mr. Bird, Mr. Curland will report directly to Mr. Bird (Tr. 7025).
419. Staff witness Keppler stated that both CPC's testimony as to the discussion of authority between Mr. Bird and Mr. Marguglio and the corresponding discussion in CPC Exhibit 21 were confusing (Tr. 7038).
It was his understanding that Mr. Marguglio is ultimately in charge and Mr. Bird, while he riay handle certain responsibilities for Mr. Marguglio, is his deputy. Mr. Curland would, therefore, report to Mr. Marguglio.
(Tr.7039.)
420. Mr. Keppler would have preferred Mr. Marguglio to have said that when he is not at the site, Mr. Bird will make all decisions.
If MPQAD must track down Mr. Marguglio to seek authorization or approval, Mr. Keppler will have to observe that procedure to see if it works.
(Tr.7097.) However, Mr. Keppler does believe that Mr. Curland will have l
sufficient authority to sign off on problems. Difficulties should therefore not arise from the need to track down Mr. Marguglio to secure his approval.
(Tr. 7097.)
421. Since the position of site QA superintendent remains intact, Mr. Keppler remains satisfied with the organization of the MPQAD.
- 146 -
(Tr. 7037.) As Mr. Marguglio's position as director of the MPQAD now provides additional management effort on site, the new organization should enhance the MPQAD.
Id.
422. Mr. Marguglio testified that he reinstated the position of site quality assurance superintendent in response to NRC demands.
(Tr. 6926.)
He does not know whether the reinstitution of the position of site quality assurance superintender.c is an improvement over the organizational structure as it was originally changed on November 20, 1981. The organization is, however, better than it was before Mr. Marguglio became director of the MPQAD.
(Tr.6947.)
423. When asked whether he was concerned that CPC reinstituted the position of site quality assurance superintendent merely in acquiescence to the NRC, Mr. Keppler replied that he was not.
In the regulatory process, differing views between the licensee and the regulators are not uncommon.
(Tr. 7053.)
424. Mr. Keppler stated that he would be concerned if there were a pattern of acquierence to the NRC.
(Tr. 7054.) He feels, however, that CPC has not acquiesced more than any other licensee and that they are not attempting merely to get by with the minimum.
(Tr.7062-63.)
425. Intervenor Stamiris attempted to determine if Mr. Turnbull's aggressive pursuit of quality assurance deficiencies documented in Audits M-01-72-1 and M-01-24-1-02 (CPC Exhibits 22 and 23) led to his change in position. Mr. Marguglio testified that Mr. Turnbull was properly aggressive in pursuing appropriate action by Bechtel on the audit findings and denied that there was a connection between his response to the audit findings and his transfer to his new responsibilities.
- 147 -
(Tr. 6979-80.) Ms. Stamiris was not otherwise able to show such a connection.
426. The Board finds that the organization of the MPQAD remains acceptable.
QUALIFICATIONS OF BECHTEL QC (ELECTRICAL) PERSONNEL 427. Mr. Ronald Gardner, reactor inspector (electrical), Plant Systems Section, Region III, offered testinony (following Tr. 8037; "Gardner") as to item 2,Section IV of Inspection Report 81-12 (Staff Exhibit 1). This item concerned potential deficiencies in the qualifications of electrical quality control (QC) inspectors employed by Bechtel, Inc. As noted in item j of Inspection Report 81-20, (October 6-9,1981), the item remains open.
(See Tr. 5413-14).
428. In the NRC inspection concluded in May 1981, (Inspection Report 81-12, Staff Exhibit 1), Region III inspectors observed that MPQAD engineers were identifying numerous occasions in which electrical QC inspectors employed by Bechtel, Inc. were accepting nonconfonning j
conditions. These instances primarily occurred in cable pulling and cable termination activities. MPQAD engineers documented these instances onnoncompliancereports(NCR's).
(Gardner, p. 2).
429. Nine Bechtel QC inspectors had the above-mentioned NCR's written against them.
(Tr. 8035). NRC Staff members conducting the May 1981 inspection examined the qualifications of three of the nine Bechtel inspectors and observed two potential deficiencies. They had little or no prior QC experience and Bechtel was certifying them as cable pulling
- 148 -
and cable termination inspectors within three weeks of their reporting dates.
(Gardner, p. 2).
430. Mr. Gardner explained why he considered the deficiencies to be only " potential." On-the-job training may be an acceptable substitute for limited experience or education. Bechtel, however, was not documenting such training, thereby hindering Mr. Gardner in his efforts to detennine whether or not such training existed. The certification of inspectors within three weeks of their reporting date did not trouble Mr. Gardner provided those inspectors demonstrated the knowledge necessary to perform an adequate inspection.
(Tr. 8042).
431. After discovering the potential deficiencies described above, the NRC inspectors required CPC to verify the adequacy of the training, qualifications and examination process of Bechtel QC personnel and to determine if previous inspections performed by the nine Bechtel QC inspectors were acceptable.
(Gardner, p. 2).
432. In response to the Staff's request that CPC verify the adequacy of Bechtel's training and certification program, CPC conducted two audits, numbered M-01-24-1, dated June 2 to July 3, 1981 and M-01-72-1, dated November 2 to flovember 6,1981.
(CPC Exhibits 23 and 22, i
l respectively).
l 433. As a result of these audits, Bechtel is now documenting on the job training as part of its certifici. tion / training process for QC l
inspectors.
(Gardner, p. 3).
l 434. Mr. Gardner testified that he was aware that Bechtel originally disagreed with the MPQAD that ANSI standard N45.2.6 required
_ 149 documentation of on-the-job training. He believes, however, that Bechtel is doing a satisfactory job of documenting on-the-job training.
435. MPQAD has also agreed to overview Bechtel's certification /
training process for QC inspectors.
(Gardner, p. 3). MPQAD will oversee the certification of all Bechtel inspectors who do not meet the full education and experience requirements of the ANSI code. The certification of inspectors who meet or exceed the educational and experience factors will be overviewed on a periodic basis.
(Tr.8096-97). MPQAD will have sufficient information about the background of the inspector being certified to properly overview the certification.
(Tr. 8097).
436. Audit No. M-01-72-1 found Bechtel's training / certification program to be satisfactory.
In reaching their conclusion, the CPC auditors examined records related to inspector qualifications and found no deficiencies. Both oral and performance demonstration examinations were witnessed and werc found to have been properly conducted. An evaluation of the Bechtel certifying examiners showed that they met MPQAD program requirements.
Finally, the auditors witnessed inspections performed by recently certified inspectors and found that these t
i inspections were in compliance with all procedures and inspection plan requirements.
(CPC Exhibit 22).
437. To further determine whether Bechtel's QC training and certification program was acceptable, Mr. Gardner selected three QC inspectors to be questioned concerning quality control instructions for which they had been certified. Each inspector had been hired in 1981, had no prior QC experience and was certified within approximately three
- 150.-
months of his reporting date.
In answering Mr. Gardner's questions, each inspector demonstrated acceptable knowledge in the areas in which he was questioned.
(Gardner, p. 3).
438. Mr. Gardner did not believe that the certification process was too subjective.
Examiners must ask two questions in at least six areas of the particular type of certification being sought. Furthemore, Bechtel examiners are asking more than the mimimum number of questions.
(Tr. 8055-57). MPQAD overview of the certification process will insure that certifying examiners ask proper questions.
(Tr. 8057).
439. The certification also requires training and a performance test by the Applicant in a narrow segment of the type of inspection for which he is being certified.
(Tr. 8082-83).
440. The Staff is satisfied that Bechtel's certification program now meets all NRC requirements.
(Gardner, p. 4).
441. ANSI Standard N45.2.6, recognized by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.58, permits waiver of the educational and experience requirements contained therein.
Staff witness Gallagher previously testified that he believed that the waiver provisions had been abused at both the Midland site and at other sites.
(Nuclear Regulatory Comission Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, December 30,1981,1303). Mr. Gardner did not believe that the Applicant had abused the waiver provision.
Furthermore, the documentation of on the job training by Bechtel and MPQAD overview of the certification process should be a sufficient safeguard against abuse of the waiver provision.
(Gardner, pp. 3-4).
442. Mr. Gardner testified as to the status of CPC's commitment to overinspect the work of the nine inspectors against whom NCR's were
- 151 -
written. Overinspection involves determination of acceptability of inspections previously perfonned. Gardner, p. 2.
Overinspection covers the period from initial certification to retraining after an NCR is issued.
(Tr. 8036).
443. CPC has done a complete overinspection of the work of eight of the nine QC inspectors.
(Tr.8036).
444. The other inspector, Mr. Urbany, had done 1147 inspections from the time of his initial certification until he was retrained. Due to the volume of Mr. Urbany's inspections, CPC committed to overinspect 250 of those inspections.
(Tr.8036). Since at least one misrouted cable was identified during those overinspections, the NRC requested CPC to overinspect 250 more of Mr. Urbany's inspections. Upon this subsequent overinspection, twenty-nine more misrouted cables were found.
(Id.) The NRC has therefore requested CPC to do a 100% overinspection of Mr. Urbany's work and make a full report of the overinspections for NRC review.
(M. ) The Applicant has not yet agreed to continue overinspecting Mr. Urbany's work.
(M. ) CPC is still reviewing the data to determine whether or not they will agree to do so.
(Tr.8070).
Although the Board finds no indication in Applicant's Supplemental Proposed Findings that this matter is still open, we expect further testimony from the Staff regarding its conclusions with respect to the overinspection.
445. At the time of Mr. Gardner's testimony,1084 cables had been overinspected. Sixty one were found to be misrouted (a 5.6% error factor),(Tr.8089). Mr. Urbany's error factor is 6.3%.
(Tr.8090). He is no longer employed by Bechtel, Inc.
(Tr.8098).
- 152 --
446. Mr. Gardner has not yet determined the root cause of the misrouted cables.
(Tr. 8091). He testified, however, that Mr. Urbany, who had the highest percentage of errors of the nine inspectors, exceeded ANSI education and experience requriements. He therefore, does not see a correlation between percentage of errors and education and experience.
(Tr. 8091).
447. The Board finds that the certification process for electrical QC inspectors is adequate. As the Staff has not yet closed out the overinspection of the work performed by the nine inspectors who received NCR's, the Board will make findings concerning the overinspection at a later date.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW There is no change in the conclusions of law set forth by the Staff on page 131 of its December 30, 1981 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Respectfully submitted, M
Michael N. Wilcove Counsel for NRC Staff W
I l
William D. Paton l
Counsel for NRC Staff 1
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland e
this 26th day of March, 1982 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0t991SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL 50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuc) ear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or as indicated by a double asterisk by express delivery service, this 26th day of March,1982:
- Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Frank J. Kelley Administrative Judge Attorney General of the State Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of Michigan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Steward H. Freeman Washington, D.C.
20555 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Ralph S. Decker 525 W.0ttawa St., 720 Law Bldg.
Administrative Judge Lansing, Michigan 48913 Route #4, Box 190D Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summersat Street Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Midland, Michigan 48640 Administrative Judge 6152 N. Verde Trail
- Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Apt. B-125 Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale
- Dr. Jerry Harbour One First National Plaza Administrative Judge 42nd Floor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Chicago, Illinois 60603 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 James E. Brunner, Esq.
Consumers Pcwer Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201
Ms. Barbara Stamiris
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5795 N. River U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Freeland, Michigan 48623 Washington, D.C.
20555 James R. Kates
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 203 S. Washington Avenue Panel Saginaw, Michigan 48605 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Wendell H. Marshall, Vice President Midwest Environmental Protection
- Doc,keting and Service Section Associates Office of the Secretary RFD 10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Midland, Michigan 48640 Washington, D.C.
20555 Jeann Linsley Steve J. Gadler, P.E.
Bay City Times 2120 Carter Avenue 311 Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55108 Bay City, Michigan 48706 Frederick C. Williams Paul C. Rau Isham, Lincoln & Beale Midland Daily News 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW 124 Mcdonald Street Washington, D.C.
20036 Midland, Michigan 48640 Myron M. Cherry Cherry & Flynn Suite 3700 Three First National Plaza Chicago, IL 60602 l
bA\\ WM Michael N. Wilcove Counsel for NRC Staff l
l
- e men.ep.en e
~~
p