ML20065K858

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Notes Re Facility Evaluation for Jul 1979-June 1980
ML20065K858
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Midland
Issue date: 06/30/1980
From:
NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML082180535 List:
References
FOIA-82-261 NUDOCS 8210080161
Download: ML20065K858 (8)
v • d • e


Text

, y_

MIDLAND Evaluation Period: 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 I.

General Reference

.j. [

During the appraisal period several major problem 1.

W. -.

areas were identified or had been previously

':O;q identified which indicated a poorly functioning Quality Assurance Program.

These included soils by, ~.,'

compaction problems (excessive settling of safety related structures); qualification of quality pi G.7 control inspections, and significant quality

,-t^

assurance program problems associated with the

&;q;3 i

Zack Company installation of heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) at the facility.

y!.,. :. '

~ A major reorganization of the licensee's quality j 'f ' '. "

assurance organization was initiated during the EN.@

review period.

This reorganization was not im-y/ :4 mediately effective but has been upgraded since KN $(;

that time.

All Zack (HVAC) Company quality y

assurance functions have been taken over by the lp licensee's quality assurance organization.

M%;.,.

A special Region III quality assurance inspection IE Inspection Reports

$Y.Q$.)

1 team reviewed the licensee's quality assurance No. 50-329/81-12;

$2 N4 program performance in May of 1981. While there 50-330/81-12 I,@Yi

  • Sh were several items of noncortpliance identified as gMf f a result of this inspection, the overall finding -

ths /M was that the company's reorganization of their quality assurance department had resulted in an improved and acceptable performance in this area.

II.

Specific A.

Contention l

"The Midland facility displayed evidence of weakness in..... quality assurance (including management and training)...."

1.

The qualifications of several quality IE Inspection Reporte control inspectors involved in the over-No. 50-329/79-19; view of containment post tensioning 50-330/79-19 activities were found to be deficient.

2.

NRC Actions Following notification on July 26, 1979, IE Inspection Reports

~

by the licensee pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e)

No. 50-329/79-22; of receiving nonconforming containment 50-330/79-22 building prestressing wire tendons, and Item of Noncompliancc

[..

the NRC finding of unqualified QA inspec-

"QC Inspectors Not

\\

tors the following ac_tions were taken:

Qualified" B210000161 020712 PDR FDIA UDELLS2-261 PDR

?

Informed the licensee, during the Enforcement Meeting c

h.-

inspection of September 11-14, 1979, to discuss QC t

that NRC inspection findings indica-personnel qual-ted that none of Bechtel's quality ifications 10/25/79 control inspectors about to be assigned to the inspection and testing of the containment prestressing system had

i any prior related work experience.

Compared qualification records of IE Inspection Reports j

eleven quality control personnel to No. 50-329/79-23; I

the requirements of Regulatory Guide 50-330/79-23 l

1.58 and ANSI N45.26 and concluded that none of the inspectors met the IE Inspection Reports w

qualification requirements for either No. 50-329/80-04; pl _ -

1 experience or education.

50-330/80-04 yng;;m

. li Issued an item of noncompliance (in-IE Inspection Reports i f' % 3

- i.

fraction for using personnel in the No. 50-329/80-09;

~ -l'I containment prestressing system that 50-330/80-09

',% A were not qualified to the requirement IE Inspection Reports

.; 9, Regulatory Guide 1.58 and ANSI No. 50-329/79-19;

, Si N45.26).

50-330/79-19 N A"IS3 Performed an inspection on October 10- IE Inspection Reports 12, 1979. The quality control inspec-No. 50-329/79-22; tors (five Level I and three tevel II) 50-330/79-22 ng m.

9f Kgj were given a yritten examination to evaluate the level of knowleoge of the rQ j'

pre < ' essing inspectof'!s involved with

'" T the laspection and review of the pre-L stressing system.

The results indicate that certain QC inspectors, both Level I and Level II were not considered to be qualified.

.This inspection was followed up by a.

IE Inspection Reports

~

management meeting on October 25, No. 50-329/79-23; 1979.

50-330-79-23 Performed an inspection on March 25-IE Inspection Reports 27, 1980; reviewed testing results No. 50-329/80-04; of quality control inspectors and 50-330/80-04; found them to be qualified.

Inspec-50-329/80-09; tion Performed March 25-27, 1980 50-330/80-09 3.

Licensee Corrective Action Following the September 11-14, 1979 item IE Inspection Reports item of noncompliance the following ac-No. 50-229/79-19; 50-330/79-19 tions were taken by the licensee:

i i

- - - - - _ - -. ~ - -,. - - _

Bechtel committed to retest three Items of nonconformance c

(<',.

Level II and seven Level I inspectors r.e., QC inspector involved in tendon inspection.

qualification.

Bechtel committed to have a person onsite with prior post-tensioning experience and qualified as a Level II in accordance with ANSI N45.2.6-1973.

~-

Consumer's Power Company agreed to IE Inspection Reports.

relieve QC inspectors from regular No. 50-229/79-22; duties until Consumers and NRC 50-330/79-22 2

could evaluate requiements of their M

inspection function.

3 B.

Contention

-/.

"The Midland facility displayed evidence of we aness in.... sub-L 4 structures and foundations...."

~8

.j3 1.

Basis

,: ?

The Licensee's overview of a contractor's 7

(Bechtel Corporation) Quality Assurance

-- d performance in the area of soils compaction ydj

, failed to identify significant quality as-fr[g gQ;,

surance/ quality control deficiencies in a Egj Qg; timely manner.

wc

(' M

.The failure to assure proper soils compac-10 CFR 50.55e

~

tion prior to the construction of structures 9/29/78, 11/7/78 t,

has resulted in excessive settlement of 12/21/78, 1/5/79 several safety-related structures. These 2/23/79 include:

Diesel Generator Building and 4/3/79, 6/23/79 Foundation Borated Water Storage Tank Foundations 8/10/79 Service Water Structure 9/5/79 While extensive programs have been ident-Letter Howell to ifiad and corrective actions are in Keppler 2/7/80 t

l progress, none of the above problems have been finally resolved.

Hearings are in progress.

2.

NRC Actions she initial review of this matter was con-10 CFR 50.55(e) 9/27/78

, ducted by Region III personnel. The Memo 11/1/78 Keppler responsibility for the evaluations and to Thornburg k'

l 1

. 1

f resolution of this problem was transfer-Memo 11/17/78 Reinmuth red to NRR on November 1, 1978. NRC to Vassallo issued an order modifying the plant IE Inspection Reports

~'

construction permits on December 6, No. 329/78-12; 1979.

Follow-up inspections have 329/78-20; 329/79-06; been conducted by Region III 329/79-19 inspectors.

The review and evaluation of the li-10 CFR 50.54(b) 3/21/79 censee's proposed remedial actions is 11/19/79, 4/24/79,

+-

currently in progress by NRR and IE.

5/31/79

-lf.

3.

Licensee Corrective Actions l.

The licensee filed an ammendment 72 to its Consumers Power Co.

application on December 19, 1979 and pro =

Ammendment 72 J_.. J posed remedial actions for which commission 12/19/79 4l;3 approval is sought.

.:2 4 y

Prepared a program (part of Amendment 72) ff which included the following areas:

Letters from:

S.H. Howell to

'J J.G. Keppler;

.!d Installation of a permanent de-G.S. Keeley to P. 2 watering system.

J.G. Keppler, i.'-i Settlement criteria and settlement dated 4/24/79; Gs.

monitoring programs S.H. Howell to 3qi

.ef"t61

- quality assurance organizations.

dated 5/31/79 Reorganization of the company H.R. Denton, ri Pre-loading of affected structures

.and 7/2/79.

$li and monitoring prcgrams tI) assure f4 full settlement of structures prior

':-N placing structures in use.

C.

Contention The Midland facility displayed evidence of weakness in safety-related components.

1.

Basis The licensee's overview of a contractor's (Zack Company) quality assurance perform-ance in the installation of' heating, l

ventilation, and air conditioning systems failed to identify significant quality assurance / quality control problems in a timely manner.

A Region III investigation into alleg-IE Inspection Reports

-~~

~

ations regarding the Zack Company quality No. 50-329/80-10; assurance performance revealed that twelve 50-330/60-11 (18 of the twenty-one allegations of poor per-items of noncom-D-

formance were substantiated.

pliance)

F 2.

NRC Actions A special investigation was conducted IE Inspection Reports (March 6 - July 31, 1980) regarding No. 50-329/80-10; allegations concerning the quality 50-330/80-11 (18 assurance performance of the Zack items of noncom-Company in the installation of safety-pliance) related heating, ventilation and air conditioning. (HVAC)

An immediate action letter was issued IAL 50-329 5

March 21, 1980, which stopped all IAL 50-330 3/21/80 safety-related Zack Company H.V.A.C.

4 ;;

work on the site.

This action was taken after it was determined that Y@

~

continued items of noncomformance "a

existed in the Zack Company's in-

'M plementation of their Quality

-; id Assurance Program.

.gni Q1y A management enforcement meeting was IE Inspection Report

ig held in the Region III offices to re-No. 50-329/80-14 view the licensee's proposed correc -

Management Enforcement i f, tive actions.

Meeting 5/2/80

-xp ph'$

Ci'vil Penalty Issued ($38,000.00)

Docket No. 329 EA-80-56 Civil Penalty Mfi 1/8/81

%yy

,y

+..

%d The licensee committed t3 a program Letter:

Keppler to and schedule for the resolution of all Howell 5/22/80.

~

of the sreas of concern regarding the Letter:

Cook to Zack Comapny HVAC installation. Upon Keppler 6/30/80.

verification that these items were ac-ceptably completed or in progress, I

the NRC permitted resumption of work Zack Co. released from Stop Work Order of March 20, 1980, by letter from Bechtel dated 8/14/80.

IE Inspection Reports No. 50-329/80-26; 50-330/80-27; 50-329/80-21; 50-330/80-22; 50-329/80-23; 50-330/80-24 3.

Licensee Corrective Actions I

The most significant licensee actions IE Inspection Reports taken were to reorganize, the Consumers No. 50-329/81-08;

Power Company Quality Assurance Organ-50-330/81-08 ization and to take over all of the Zack Company Quality Control functions.

D.

Contention "In the area of quality assurance there were numerous items of noncompliance, instances of unqualified QC inspectors, and in-stances of inadequate control of contractor activities."

1.

Basis Major examples are the same as identified in Contentions A, B, and C.

2.

NRC Actions Major examples are the same as identified in Contentions A, B, and C.

3.

Licensee Corrective Actions Major examples are the same as identified in Contentions A, B,

~

and C.

E.

Cer.tention

.7/s fE9?;

" Earlier qualit'y assurance problems associated with materials and

'*2 placement of soils and backfilling were,identi.fied during the evaluation period."

1.

Bas,is Same as identified in Contention B.

2.

NRC Actions

~

Saee as identified in Content, ion B.

3.

Licensee Corrective Actions Same as identified in Contention B.

F.

Contention I

"The licensee was slow in responding to NRC concerns regarding soil placement."

1.

Basis These concerns are still not fully resolved.

~

Same 'as identified in Contention B.

(

. _ _ _ ~.

('

2.

NRC Actions Same as identified in Contention B.

3.

Licensee Corrective Actions Same as identified in Contention B.

G.

Contention "An NRC Order modifying the construction permit was issued to assure corrective action to the soil problems."

1.

Basis

~

Same as identified in Contention B.

2.

NRC Actions Same as identified in Contention B.

3.

Licensee Corrective Actions Same as identified in Contention B.

H.

Contention

((CT'h

$$J

" Major deficiencies were identified in quality assurance controls

~

over the installation of safety-related. heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning components."

1.

Basis Same as identified in Contention C.

[

2.

NRC Actions l

Same as identified in Contention C.

3.

Licensee Corrective Actions Same as identified in Contention C.

I.

Contention

" Midland received a relatively large number of items of noncompliance when compared with other power reactor facilities under construction."

1.

Basis

~

The number of items of noncompliance was IE Inspection Reports slightly below average prior to including No. 50-329/80-10; l

the items of noncompliance that resulted 50-330/80-11;

.from the investigation of the Zack Com-50-329/80-35; i

pany (18).

Thus, during the SALP-1 period 50-330/80-36 there were a total of 37 items of non-(SALP) compliance for this site (combined for Units 1 and 2).

2.

NRC Actions Same as identified in Contention C.

IE Inspection Reports No. 50-329/80-10; 50-330/80-11 Docket No. 50-329; Docke No. 50-330 EA-80-56 Civil Penalty 1/7/81 i

3.

Licensee Corrective Actions Same as identified in Contention C.

Letter: James W. Cook to V. Stello 1/30/81 J.

Contention "These deficiencies resulted in the issuance of an NRC stop work. order and the imposition of civil penalties to assure corrective action."

(

The deficiencies refered to and NRC actions takne are discussed in Contention C above.

I

. ['

K.

Contention

" Technical responses to NRR were occassicnally inadequate but have shown improvement during the evaluation period."

Response items during this SALP evaluation period have principally dealt with the soil settlement issue, the B&W Sensitivity and Post-THI matters.

The applicants respcnse to the B&W Sensitivity and Post-TMI matters have shown a marked improvement conpared to responses prior to the review i

period and are judged above average in responsiveness. The applicant's responses to the soil settlement requests were untimely and inadequate prior to December 6,1971 and contributed to issuance of an Order which, in essence, would susp'end soils construction activities until the staff received the information (criteria) needed to determine the adequacy of proposed remedial actions. As provided by the Order, the applicant requested a hearing on the Order, and thereby stayed the effectiveness of the Order pending Licensing Board ruling.

l l

l

__

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20065K858&oldid=4437651"