ML20064L125
| ML20064L125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1981 |
| From: | Wessman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Moseley N NRC - SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REVIEW |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082180535 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-261, RTR-NUREG-0834, RTR-NUREG-834 NUDOCS 8203040538 | |
| Download: ML20064L125 (2) | |
Text
~ ~. J t
. p a tecoq a
D UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,*.***f DEC 18 E81 SSINS 8230 MEMO NDUM FOR:
N. C. Moseley, Chairman, SALP Review Group FROM:
R. H. Wessman l
SUBJECT:
MIDLAND HEARINGS AND DISCUSSION OF SALP ASSIGNMENT l
I In response to a hearing board request I testified at the Midland Hearings l
i on December 15, 1981.
I was asked to respond to questions regarding the SALP program in general and the Midland assessment in particular.
m-
- r-- r The applicant was particularly-interested-in what he considere'd'as errors in -
the Midland assessinent in-NUREG
._ In prsparing for the~ hearirig-I'identifi~ed ' T
+
several correction's to the Midl Performance Element Summary as shown on the attached copy of the summary.
ng the Hearing I was specifically asked whether I would recommend a, change'.to the SALP Review Group Assessment.
I committed to provide a copy of my suggested changes to the. Midland Performance Element-Summary for Review Group consideration but stated that any change to the Midland assessment could only be made by the SALP Review Group.
. = - -
R. H. Wessman '
- ~ ~
Office of Inspection and Enforcement- - -
(+
Encl: Midland Performance Element Summary cc:
C._Michelson, AE00 J. Sniezek, IE
- D. Eisenhut, NRR.
J. Keppler, RIII W. Paton, ELD l
D. Allison, IE l
-( q f
~-
2N34Y N d
5,i
)y s
MIDLAND PERFORMANCE ELEMENT
SUMMARY
Midland 1 & 2 Evaluation Period:
7/1/79 - 6/30/80 The Midland facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in three functional areas. These areas were quality ar,surance (including management and training),
substructures and foundations, and safety-related components.
In the area of quality assurance there were numerous items of noncompliance,
~
instances of unqualified QC inspectors, and instances of inadequate control l
of contractor activities. Ear 14er Most quality assurance problems associated with materials and placement of soils a'nd backfills were identified 4kw4fgr l
prior to t6e evaluation period.
The licensee was slow in responding to NRC concerns regarding. soil placement.. An NRC Order modifying the construction permit was issued to assure corrective action:.to the-soil-problems., Major-: -
deficiencies were': identified in quality assurance controls over the installation 4 EL of safety-relat~ed: heating,'. ventilating and air-conditioning componentsin. Thesterx==_
deficiencies res'ulted in the issuance of.an NRC Immediate' Action Letter confirming;r l the licensee's'stop work order and the imposition of civil penalties to assure corrective action.
Technical responses to NRR were occasionally inadequate but have shown improvement during the evaluation period.
t Midland received a relatively large number of items of noncompliance when compared with other power reactor facilities under construction.
During the l
evaluation the licensee initia~ted action _that. atl. owed _a_reorgantz,ation tp_be_
l implemented in-AugustF1980...-.-_=
l Deleted material -------
New material -"
e l
- -- - -