ML20082M601

Forwards Const Implementation Overview,Rept 20 for Period 831024-28.No Mgt Review Committee Meetings Held During Reporting Period.Rept of Investigation of Allegation of Improper Welding Under Way.Open Item Matrix Encl

ML20082M601
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	10/31/1983
From:	Baranow S STONE & WEBSTER, INC.
To:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20082M450	List: ML20082M491 ML20082M507 ML20082M529 ML20082M543 ML20082M554 ML20082M565 ML20082M573 ML20082M585 ML20082M601
References
83-10-31, NUDOCS 8312060199
Download: ML20082M601 (30)

Text

o o.

STONE & WEBSTER MICHIGAN, INC.

P.O. Box 2325. BOSTON. M ASSACHUSETTS O2107 Mr. J. G. Keppler, Administrator, Region III October 31, 1983 Nuclear Regulatory Commission J.0. No.

14509 799 Roosevelt Road NRC File #83-10-31 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 RE: DOCKET NO. 50-329/330 MIDLAND PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 OVERVIEW 0F THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION PROGRAM REPORT NO. 20 A copy of the Construction Implementation Overview Report No. 20 for the period October 24, 1983 through October 28, 1983 is enclosed with this report. No Management Review Committee meetingswere held during this reporting period.

Matrices of Open Items, Hold Points, NIRs and evaluations of CCP activities, as appropriate, are attached.

In addition, a report in the investigation of an allegation of improper welding is underway.

Very truly yours, l

W S. W. Baranow Program Manager SWB/ka cc: JJHarrison, US NRC, Glen Ellyn, IL RCook, US NRC, Midland (Site)

DLQuamme, CPCo, Midland (Site)

RBKelly, S&W APAmoruso, S&W n

8312060199 83333o PDR ADOCK 05000329 i

O PDR l

l l

e m

']

)

.o Report No. 20 October 24, 1983 through October 28, 1983

-Personnel on Site Stone & Webster Michigan, Inc.

A. Amoruso D. Cooke R. Scallan S. Baranow R. Corson J. Seely F. Bearham J. Langston W. Sienkiewicz J. Barr C. Marrs A. Smith R. Carpeggiani D. MacBay J. Thompson J. Chawla T. Parker Meetings Attended Date Attendees Purpose October 24, 1983 Consumers Power Company Daily Staff through Bechtel Power Company Management Meetings October 28, 1983 Stone & Webster CIO MPQAD s

October 24, 1983 Consumers Power Company Bi-Weekly Staff Bechtel Power Company and Meetings with Stone & Webster CIO Team Supervisors MPQAD October 25, 1983 Consumers Power Company QVP/ Status Stone & Webster CIO Assessment Bechtel Power Company MPQAD October 26, 1983 Consumers Power Company Area Team and and Bechtel Power Company System Team October 27, 1983 Zack Review theting MPQAD Stone and Webster CIO October 27, 1983 Consumers Power Company NRR Meeting Bechtel Zack St'ne & Webster CIO o

October 28, 1983 CPCo NRC BPCo Exit Meeting MPQAD

.1 S&W CIO i

1 l

l 1

t JOB N0. 14509 MIDLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT REPORT NO. 20 PAGE 2

October 24, 1983 through.0ctober 28, 1983 - during this period, CIO

- attended daily staff management meetings and oi-weekly meetings with staff and team supervisors.

The main focus of attention during the week has been the Stop Work orders issued by MPQAD. At the dailymeetings details of current status and proposed actions are described as well as the logistics to resolve the problems in a timely manner.

Subjects discussed at the daily staff management meetings were:

• Stop Work Orders

• NCR Dispositions

• Delays in Dispositioning/ Closing NCRs

• Audit Findings

• NRC Concerns

• Document Control

• Training Progress l

• Progress with Procedure Issuance

• Major Meetings

• Status of System 38

• Other Administrative Activities

• Manpower Loading Subjects discussed at the bi-weekly meetings with staff, team supervisors and support personnel were:

• Training L

• Staffing to support Module 340 activities i

i.

• Punch List Coding 1

1

')

)

JOB N0. 14509 NIDLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT REPORT NO. 20 PAGE 3

. Meetings October 25, 1983 - QVP/ Status Assessment Meeting. This was the first QVP/ Status Assessment Meeting and it was held under the join' chaimanship of MPQAD (B. Palmer) and BPCo (T. Valenzano). T. Valenzano raade a brief statement explaining the purpose of the meeting. This initial meeting was to explain the format for future meetings.

A two part hand-out was distributed and a brief walk-through of typical agenda items was conducted.

B. Palmer stated that all-inaccessible items do not have to be completely evaluated for Phase I.

The agenda for the upcoming meeting between Mark Technologies (MT) and BPCo was described.

It was stated that MT had some findings against the design of the plant although the exact details were not known.

Training stated that the training of the teams was almost finished.

October 26 and 27, 1983 - Area and System Team Review Meetings. At these meetings, any item that is considered to be a restraint is discussed.

Action person (s) are assigned to pursue the resolutions for removing restraints. Also discussed isthe schedule for completing actions assigned to each restraint item and the progress in meeting the schedule.

October 27, 1983 - US NRR Meeting. At this meeting,the agenda items were related to the design cf the HVAC System.

Specific agenda items were:

• Results of Tensile Testing cf HVAC Welds

• Material Traceability of Red Head and Hilti Bolts

• Calculations on Prying of Expansion Anchor Bolts

• Review of calculations of Dome Supports

• Discrepancy between drawing and specification on hanger spacing:

drawing revised to reflect as built conditions which comply with specification requirements l

No open items were identified by the US NRR

}

k

.~

)

i J08 NO.

14509 MIDLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT REPORT N0. 20 0

PAGE 4 October 28, 1983, US NRC - Exit Meeting. At this meeting the following 6 pen HVAC related agenda items were discussed.

1) Report RPT 8308 - hardness testing of three A-307 bolts indicated values of 102 and 104 on the Brinnell scale, maximum allowable is 100. The out of specification values were considered acceptable by US NRC.

2) Report RPT 8318-8319 - sixty-eight (68) samples of the bronze welding of hangers, supports and duct work weretensile tested, bend tested and micro-etched.

Results ;of the tests were satisfactory and accepted by the US NRC.

3) Of eleven allegations received by the US NRC during 1979, 1980 and 1981, ten were considered to be closed items. The eleventh item is considered satisfactory, however the US NRC has this as an open item for tracking purposes.

ACTIVITIES

1. Training Records a) sampling of training records of the Construction Field Engineering Staff and the Construction General Services Organization is continuing during this period.

b) a review of the origin and 'the adequacy of the Construction Training Matrix is underway.

c) NIR 006 has been issued October 27, 1983 to address disrepancies observed during the sample inspection of Construction Training Records of Teams 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26, (27/28) 29, 30, 31, (32/33), BH0 Team Staff.

2) CIO witnessed the tensile testing of 90 HVAC welded specimens in accordance with Zack Company proposal titled " Program to Evaluate Past Welding to Photon Procedures'.' The tensile testing was performed at the CPCo laboratory in Jackson, Michigan and was in accordance with

, approved CPCo procedure Number MET-11 " Tension Testing of Weld Assemblies."

Specimen types were:

e 30 each - sheet to sheet welding 30 each - sheet to structure welding 30 each - structure to structure welding

r...

i JOB NO.

14509 MIDLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT REPORT NO. 20 i

PAGE 5 The results X11 results exceeded the calculated in service load values.

were considered satisfactory and were documented on MP-MIS-Z-039, " Program to Evaluate Past Welding to Photon Procedures."

i

3) Allegation On October 26, 1983 - CIO received an anonymGus nhone call at 1:10 PM alleging that welding was being performed, contrary t6 authorized procedures.

"Bechtel Weld Procedures, PI-T-B Specifically the party alleged that:

and P1-A-LH, were unapproved for the sequence they were being used."

-The party stated that there were numerous carbon steel socket welds in the Turbine and Auxiliary Buildings that were originally made using the l

' SMAW (P1-A-LH) process. The welds were undersized end the balance of the weld was made using the TIG (P1-T-A) process.

CIO immediately notified the US NRC (Mr. R. Cook) and CPCo (Mr. B. Peck) of the allegation and advised that an investigation of the allegation would f

CIO conducted its own investigation in the plant crea, and be conducted.

the inspection of a weld on line EBD-103 revealed that a weld had originally been made using the SMAW process and a partial weld (probably a repair) had f

been placed over the original deposited weld filler metal. This observation confirmed that the allegation had merit and should be further investigated.

CIO then notified BPCo, (Mr. G. Hierzer) who immeciately made Mr. L. Harrison (BPCo) available to assist in the investigation.

On October 27 - CIO met with Messrs. L. Harrison and S. Sprague (BPCo). CIO l

was shown an approved chart that indicated that both weld procedures were authorized for the welds on the EBD system. (NOTE:

It was also determined that the EBD system was in fact non-Q)

CIO will obtain copies of portions of the ASME III Code applicable to Midland as well as copies of inspection records on a Q system to complete the investigation into the allegation.

The initial finding by CIO is that the welds were made in a sequence described by the informant and thatthe sequence is authorized and approved.

It is anticipated that the investigation will be concluded during week

~

ending November 4,1983.

1 l

l

)

~

J0B NO.

14509 MIDLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT REPORT N0. 20 PAGE 6 GENERAL

~

$1)Signedaffidavits,withcopiesofresumes'ofthefolsowingStone& Webster personnel have been transmitted to Mr. J. J. Harrison, US NRC, Glen Ellyn, IL.

• Mr. C. A. Marrs, Consultant Field Quality Control Division reported to job site on October 24, 1983

• Mr. D. M. MacBay, Level II Inspector, Mechanical, reported to job site on October 24, 1983 t

2) Copies of revised CIO procedures, instructions are attached for information.

• Project Quality Assurance Plan Rev. 2

• Third Party Construction Implementation Overview Rev. 2 October 26, 1983

• QCI 10.05 Rev. 0 October 14, 1983 CIO Monitoring Inspection

0CI 15.02 Rev. 0 October 7,1983 Trend Analyses I

i 7

STullE & UEll3TEll MICillilAli, IllC.

CONSIRUCI.l0li (Hl'l.EMENI AIlull DVEllVIEW

~

4 tillt LUG Sul41Alty H ill HPQAD DATE DATE DATE HO.

NCR HO. "

SUBJECT OF DISP. 8Y CLOSED REMARKS OAR NO.

ISSUE MPQAD i

NIR issued us closed-no cor-i i

001 N/A Training Records 8/15/83 8/15/83 8/17/83 rective action required l

002 QAR Forms from both procedures 8-3M and RT 00005 8-3M-1 are intennixed in training 10/4/83 10/12/83 records l

003 QAR Yearly vision examination was exceeded 10/4/83 10/12/83 RT 00006 OJT training records not available in RT 00007 training records. Revision number not 10/4/83 10/12/83 004 listed on 0JT Record

~

i l

Memo to CPCo ad-QAR Personnel Certification Fonn QA-116-1, vising that NIR-005 RT 00011 Attacliment D is unavailable in record 10/4/83 10/12/83 10/20/83 can be closed out, 003 i

files Records.for Level II l

certifications have l

been verified by CIO i

Discrepancies in three areas of i

006 Construction Training Records 10/27/83 QCI 15.01 ATTACllMEllT 4.3 ItEV. 2

i

$ TONE & WEBSTER MICHIGAN, INC.

CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION,0VERVIEW HOLD POINT LOG SUMM1RY i

e ORIGINATING CPCo RESPONSE STATUS CLOSE-0VT i'

NO.

SUBJECT DOC /DATE DOC /DATE OPEN/ CLOSED DOC /DATE l

j 001 Adequacy of drawings A8 - large bore pipe Report No. 6 Letter Closed Report No. 9 2

hangers. CIO established Hold Point when MPQAD 7/25/83 8/9/83 8/15/83 issued 2 NCRs against the use of red-lined I'

j drawings which were voided.by Project j

Engineering.

2 1

i 002 Material traceability of installed hangers (E3).

Report No. 6 Letter Closed Report No. 9 CPCo response dated 7/1/83 indicated report on 7/25/83 8/9/83 8/15/83 l

material traceability was to be issued in a timely manner. Due to uncertainty of when the report would be issued, a Hold Point was established by CIO.

003 Has a,progran been developed and responsibilities Report No. 6 Letter Closed

' Report No. 9 established for personnel assigned to process 7/25/83 8/9/83 8/15/83 nonconformances?

t l

Has a meeting been held with Project Engineering to discuss methodology of processing non-conformances?

S

=

l STONE & WEBSTER MICHIGAN, INC.

CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW HOLD POINT LOG

SUMMARY

4 ORIGINATING CPCo RESPONSE STATUS CLOSE-0VT NO.

SUBJECT DOC /DATE DOC /DATE OPEN/ CLOSED DOC /DATE 004 Evaluation of Phase I Management Review Report No. 1 Letters Closed CIO Letter Committee meetings.

6/3/83 7/1/83 to J.G.Keppler through 8/9/83 dated 10/12/83.

Letter of 6/30/83 i

005 CPCo has committed to develop a Vendor Report No. 18 Open Equipment Verification Program. Program is 10/17/83 required before implementation of Phase II.

t 006 NIRs 002, 003, 004 and 005 issued as a result Report No. 18 Open of sampling inspections of 45 MPQAD Training.

Records. Corrective action must be completed before any inspections can be performed by the 1

'm 45 personnel in. question.

007 EvalbationofManagementReviewofresultsof Report No. 19 Open Phase I activities. Evaluation of Management 10/24/83 Review Connittee plans and procedures for Phase II implementation.

l l

.I

)

STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION QC1 15.01

• httachman 4.1 NONCONFORMANCE IDENTIFICATION REPORT PAGE 1 0F 2 DATE OF NONCONFORMANCE:

NI NUMBER 006 g

, OCTOBER 27, 1983 IDENTIFICATION / LOCATION OF ITEMS:

sECHTEL DOCUMENT CONTROL CENTER DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE:

During the review of 2054 non-manual Construction Training Records, three areas of discrepancies were oliserved which were not in compliance with the requirements of FPG-2.000 Rev. 5. " Training of Construction Personnel." (The following Teams i

were evaluated #5, 6, 8, 9,12,13,16,17,19, 20, 25, 26, (27/28), 29, 30,31, 32/33), BHO Team Staff.

'(See attached for descriptions of Discrepancies)

/ du k 1 on nh PROGRAM MGR d a aa9 INITIATOR g

M 3d////

DATE e/ohe 26 /983 DATE CORRECTIVE ACTION BY:

IDENTIFY ORGANIZATION TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION l

VERIFICATION SAT UNSAT NEW NIR#

CONCURRENCE INITIATOR PROGRAM MGR DATE DATE DATE REMARKS

i o

NIR 006

)

I

.1) Course Rosters Attachment D to FPG-2.000 exhibited one or more of the following discrepancies.

BLOCK NO.

ENTRY RE0UIRED ENTRY RECORDED 1

1 CCP DWG.No. FIG.No.

I 2

(a) Name of lesson Either a~.b, or c missing (b) Procedures (c) Revision 6

Location of Session Bechtel 10 Q) Signature Either a or b missing (b) Print Last Name 5

Instructor Name Instructor Department In addition many entries

/

were left blank

2) Reading Records Attachment C to FPG-2.000 exhibited one or more of the following discrepancies:

Reading Record

1) The department and or assignment lines are illegible or incomplete.

2') Assigned reading performed on October 11, 1983 and September 29, 1983 were not documented on Reading Fom Attachment C, Rev. 5.

3) Team Records and TSR (Training Status Report) show training completed Document Control Files showed no record of training. For example:

NAME TEAM #

TRAINING REOUIREMENT DISCREPANCY Kranzfelder Management FPD-2.000 Code 2 No Record in File J. Hull 32/33 M-204 Code 5 No Record in File In addition to these violations, inconsistency was noted in 4 areas:

(1) Modification to records, some lined through, signed and dated and others simply lined through. (2) Some entries on course register are completed using pencil while most are in ink.

(3) Difficulty is experienced in de-temining the accuracy of records where attendance at a course carries credit for several others.

(4) Some entries carried the revisien number to procedures and some omitted the revision. (5) Proper " Course Roster Fom as listed in Procedure FPG-2.000 were not utilized. (6) Some courses on Rosters contain infomation not identical to matrix listing.

It is recommended that the disposition to this NIR include a committment to verify training records of each individual prior to status assessment assignment.

4

g e

e t

a

'0 t/

ut On-e em su s

oc l o CD de so l

sC n

u/

e tn p

ae O

tp S. O e

ee stna oD p/

e sten Re m ou Cc Po T

CD N

.A CL NP e

I t

5

,N O

ga NI nD AT i/

o3 GA tt N8 O

I R an

/

i ES ne t8 l

CNN im r1 I EO gu o/

HGI ic p7 0T ro e

RCA OD R

E V

TRR SAE DES ELD WCO

- U

&NO I

EDC NN OA TL O

SD tM nS I

M e/

mD pA iQ s

uP n

qM o

E O

i t

r a

om v

da r

nr e

eg s

Vo b

r O

wP e

in e

vo ei rt a oc ti f l

dier h'

ee NV no G

i tr 0

a e 3

vb 0

r m e u sN bO 4

J I

j

!1

)

)

Revision 2 Page 1 J.O. No. 14509 Midland Plant Units 1 & 2 Consumer Power Company Third Party Construction Implementation Overview PROJECT QllALITY ASSURANCE PLAN Dates:

Approvals:

b6&

$ BAY /A///5 Program Manager CK OeArbe--ZM toes Chief Engineer Engineering Assurance l

06Ys} M AD.19 D

/

Rahager

~'

/

Quality Assurance SCOPE This procedure describes the quality assurance plan for activities performed by Stone & Webster Michigan (S&W) for the Consumers Power Company's (CPCo) Midland The work involved in this third party overview is Plant-Units One and Two.

described in applicable CPCo specifications and procedures and shall be accom-plished in the following manner:

Development of an overview program and preparation of a Project Quality Plan.

a.

Review of the design and construction documents to gain f amiliarity with the b.

work.

Assessment of the adequacy of technical and related administrative construc-c.

tion and quality procedures.

degree of compliance with technical and administrative d.

Assessment of the construction and quality procedures,

e.. Assessments are made by conducting audits, monitoring (surveillance) inspec-tions, and redundant (sample) inspections.

f. - Daily reviews as necessary with the Owner to obtain any clarifying information The Owner and project doctnents that are needed to carry out this program.an work.

Submittal of brief weekly progress reports and a final report to the NRC with g.

a copy to CPCo.

be responsiole for implementing corrective action, however, h.

S&W will not their professional opinion may be requested.

. - - = -.

Revision 2 U

N Page 2 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND. ACTIVITIES 1

I.

ORGANIZATION The overall Stone & Web' ster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). organization is depicted in SWSQAP 1-74A (Section I). A Program Manager will-function as the 4

site leader for the third party overview. Project organization is described in the Project Program Plan.

II.

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM The overall SWEC quality assurance program is designed to provide assurance The SWEC that all SWEC activities-are accomplished in a controlled manner.

corporate QA program complies with 10CFR50, Appendix B, and NRC Regulatory Guides, and is described in an NRC approved topical report, SWSQAP 1-74A,

" Standard Nuclear Quality Assurance Program."

I This quality assurance plan shall be maintained up-to-date to reflect any l-changes in the scope of S&W work.

This quality assurance plan identifies the procedures which implement the overall QA program as it applies to the S&W scope.

Insof ar as possible, When applicable standard SWEC procedures will be used to govern the work.

standard procedures do not fit project circumstances, project procedures will be, issued to govern the work. Variances from standard SWEC procedures will be approved according to Quality Standard (QS) 5.1 and Engineering Assurance 4

Procedure (EAP) 5.7.

Personnel performing activities in accordance with this plan requiring quali-fication and certification will be qualified and certified in accordance with Quality Standard 2.12 and Quality Assurance Directive 2.5.

flI.

DESIGN CONTROL (Not within the S&W scope)

IV.

PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT CONTROL Consulting Services, as required, are procured in accordance with Engineering Assurance Procedures 4.1 and 4.15, which are supplemented by Project Proce-4 l

dure (PP) (LATER).

V.

INSTRUCTIONS, PROCEDURES, AND DRAWINGS L

S&W procedures, including variances, are prepared and controlled in ac-cordance with Section II of this QA plan.

(Instructions, drawings and specifications are not within the S&W scope).

l VI.

DOCUMENT CONTROL Plans, procedures, instructions, and document:: prepared and implemented by 2

S&W will be controlled per PP (later).

Revision 2 i !

)

Page 3

~

VII.

CONTROL OF PURCHASED MATERIAL, PARTS, EQUIPMENT, AND SERVICES (Control of Purchased Material, Parts and Equipment - not within the S&W J

scope).

Control of Services is in accordance with Engineering Ass rance Procedure 7.1.

VIII.

IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF MATERIAL, PARTS, AND COMPONENTS (Not within the S&W scope) 1 IX.

CONTROL OF SPECIAL PROCESS (Not within the S&W scope)

X.

INSPECTION _

Monitoring inspections are conducted on a surveillance basis to assess on-

/

2 going CCP activities.

Redundant sample inspections are conducted after ac-ceptance of an area, commodity, or product by CPCo as a final assessment measure.

4 XI.

TEST CONTROL (Not within the S&W scope)

XII.

CONTROL OF MEASURING AND TEST EQUIPMENT (Not within the S&W scope) e XIII.

HANDLING, STORAGE, AND SHIPPING (Not within the S&W scope)

XIV.

INSPECTION, TEST, AND OPERATING STATUS (Not within the S&W scope)

XV.

NONCONFORMING MATERIAL, PARTS, OR COMPONENTS Nonconformances observed by S&W during monitoring and sample inspections are These reports will be used reported in writing to the NRC with copy to CPCo.in establishing the inspection by trend analysis.

XVI.

CORRECTIVE ACTION l

The criteria for the identification of conditions that require review to determine reportability under 10CFR50.55(e) and/or 10CFR21" are defined in Identified conditions are pro-QS/EAP-16.2 and QS/EAP-16.3, respectively.

cessed for review / evaluation in accordance with Project Procedure "Noncon-formance Identification and Reporting."

Revision 2 Page 4 XVII.

QUdLITY ASSURANCE RECORDS c

S&W General Policy and Procedure for records collection, retention, and turn-over to Consumers Power Company are described in Q5-17.1, EAP-17.2 and QAD-17.1 and as detailed in the scope under items f. and g.

QAD-17.1 and EAP-17.2 are supplemented by PP (LATER).

XVIII.

AUDITS Audits of the S&W CIO program are performed in accordance with QS-18.1 and

(

QAD's 18.1 and 18.2.

90 e

i e

{

.,,_,_m.__

I

)

J.0.No. 14509 Date October 26,19E '

Midland Plant Units 1 & 2 Revision p

THIRD PARTY CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW-Approval:

u Date /e/M/f'3 Manager Quality Assurance /

/

tt DateNhft0

' Program Managet 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE To e'stablish a program whereby Stone & Webster Michigan (S&W) performs in-(2 dependent evaluations and verifications of the Consumers Power Company (CPCo)

Construction Completion Program, (CCP) reports progress, observations, and non-l conformances to the program; specifically, to verify:

1.1 Management performance is adequate in the following areas:

A.

Establishment of the Management Review Committee B.

Duties and responsibilities of the Review Committee are clearly defined C.

Procedures governing the actions of the Review Committee are in place D.

Management reviews are complete, effective, and conducted in ac-cordance with the requirements of the CCP Program 1.2 CCP procedures, instructions, inspection plans, records, and prerequisites for inspections /reinspections have been satisfactorily approved prior to implementation.

1.3 Specific CPCo comitments to the NRC are identified to facilitate track-ing; dates for compliance (as appropriate) are adequately identified; appropriate action parties are clearly identified; comitted actions have been satisfactorily ~ resolved.

1.4 Procedures, prerequisites, and reinspection attributes in References 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 have been approved by the Management Review Committee.

1

t 1 Revision 2

)

Page 2 Personnel assigned to implement the CCP Program have been properly 1.5 trained, qualified. and certified in accordance with the requirements of ANSI-N45.2.6; SNT-TC-1A and MPQAD Procedure B-3M-1, Qualification and Certification of Inspection and Test Personnel.

Construction and craft personnel shall be trained to meet the requirements of..the Construction Training Procedure FPG-2.000.

1.6 The effectiveness of the Quality Verification Program based on witnessing inspections /reinspections of selected component installation, fabrication and review of applicable test / inspection reports and records.

1./ Measures have been developed to ensure that NRC hold points are clearly identified and controls are in evidence to prevent continuance of work pending clearance of the hold points, n

2.0 REFERENCES

2.1 Quality Verification Program Document, April 16, 1983 2.2 Construction Completion Program a.

Letters J.W. Cook to the NRC:

January 10, 1983 April 6, 1983 April 22, 1983 August 26, 1983 2

i 2.3 Nonconformance Identification. and Reporting Procedure 3.0 ATTACHMENTS 3.1 Evaluation Attribute Checklist 3.2 Verification Attribute Checklist 3.3 Nonconformance Identification Report 4.0 DEFINITIONS 4.1 Construction Completion Program (CCP) c A program to provide guidance in planning and management of design and quality activities necessary for completion of construction of the plant and verification of completed work.

4.2 Quality Verification Program (QVP) l An element of the CCP used to confirm the quality status of safety related procurement and construction activities completed and inspected by the Engineer-Constructor personnel prior to December 2,1982.

4.3 Evaluation Assessment of quality related activities based upon review of procedures, L

plans, instructions, inspection reports, test results and additional commitments.

t I Revision 2

)

Page 3 5

NOTE Documentation resulting from resolution of CPCo commitments to the NRC and NRC Hold Points shall be 100% reviewed to verify that proper corrective action has been accom-plished.

4.4 Verification Confinning, substantiating or assuring that CCP and QVP requirements have

/ 2 been implemented and are adequate. Verification actions may include docu-N mentation, hardware and management systems.

4 NOTE Verification of the CCP and QVP Programs will be accomplished by monitoring and sam-

/ 2 pie inspections in sufficient detail to en-N sure adequate CPCo implementation.

5.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS All personnel assigned quality assurance program evaluation responsibil-5.1 ities shall be certified auditors in accordance with ANSI-N45.2.23 and applicable SWEC procedures.

All personnel assigned construction verification responsibilities shall be 5.2 certified inspectors in accordance with ANSI-N45.2.6 and applicable SWEC procedures and possess the appropriate combination of education, ex-perience and training.

The Third Party Construction Implementation Overview (CIO) program will be 5.3 structured to determine, by evaluation of predetermined procedures and instructions, the quality practices utilized in the construction of the Midland Plant Units 1, 2, and the effectiveness of those practices.

5.4 A site team will be established to monitor the effectiveness of the Con-

.struction Completion Program. The team will consist of a Program Manager and two functional groups.

One group will assess the completeness of compliance with procedures and inspection plans being used to complete the The other group will review certain aspects of construction activi-work.

ties which relate to the performance of the Quality Control Inspection These two groups will use special procedures, attribute check-Program.

lists, and random sampling techniques to evaluate the following:

Adequacy and implementation of CPCo procedures regarding construc-A.

tion activities, personnel qualification, training programs, and organizational practices.

Compliance of Construction Completion Program teams to prescribed B.

procedures.

Revision 2

()

)

Page 4 C.

Compliance of Midland Project Quality Assurance (MPQAD) personnel to applicable inspection procedures.

D.

Compliance of' construction activities to applicabl,e procedures, i

5.5 The Frogram Manager shall maintain communications with the NRC and CPCo Site Manager. Monthly progress meetings shall be held with the NRC and CPCo to discuss progress and report on nonconformance and observations.

5.6 Programmatic nonconformances of a serious nature shall be immediately reported to the NRC and CPCo.

6.0 PROCEDURES 6.1 The following procedures shall be prepared to control the activities of the Construction Implementation Overview (CIO) teams.

A.

Quality Control Instruction 10.01 Construction Implementation Overview Assessment

, 6.2 The site teams shall develop attribute checklists Tor each evaluation and verification activity. Attributes shall be selected from the CCP, PQCI's, CPCo committments to the NRC and other applicable requirements.

6.3 Auditors assigned to conduct evaluations shall, utilizing attribute check-lists, verify that acceptable quality practices are evident in the per-

~

formance of each activity.

The results of each evaluation shall be documented on the attribute check-list to ensure repeatability. Sumaries of the results shall be tabulated weekly for presentation to the NRC and CPCo.

l 6.4 Inspectors assigned to conduct verification shall, utilizing the check-list, monitor the activities of CPCo personnel involved in CCP and QVP l

activities.

6.5 All systems verified shall be identified and documented to assure repeat-ability.

l 6.6 Nonconformances identified in conjunction with this procedure shall be y

documented on a Nonconformance Identification Report (NIR) and processed 2

N in accordance with Reference 2.3 of this procedure.

7.0 REPORTS 7.1 The following reports will be submitted to NRC and CPCo and S&W by the Program Manager.

A.

Weekly Progress Reports d -

B.

Monthly Meeting Reports N

C.

Final Reports on Construction Completion

- I Revision 2 1

\\.)

Page 5 Weekly Progress Reports will be submitted 7.2 Weekly Progress Reports to the USNRC and CPCo.

7.3 Monthly Meeting Repor't - The Monthly Meeting Report shall consist of the minutes of monthly meetings conducted by the USNRC with the public in attendance. Copies of the minutes of the meetings shall be transmitted to the USNRC and CPCo.

7.4 Final Report - A final report will be submitted 30 days af ter completion of the program.

The report will sumarize the S&W assessment.

The final report will be submitted by the Program Manager to the NRC, CPCo and S&W.

e e

_._m..

.r.

T-3 91 R E V.

oATE PREPAREo BY STONE E WEBSTER; QCI No.10.05 0

1 r.

//m J.C. Thcrnoson o!Vi st,oN LOCATION MIDLAND

. QUALITY are'ic^ai'ivv 4eeaoverav CONTROL MIDLA m

-McLews

1. N/D INSTRUCTION Os-4. 2 e

CIO MONITORING INSPECTION 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE To establish a system for planning, conducting and documenting Construction Implementation Overview (CIO) inspections.

This QCI shall be applicable to Babcock Wilcox, NSSS and Zack HVAC activities.

2.0 REFERENCES

2.1 QCI 10.01 - CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT 3.0 ATTACHMENTS 3.1 None 4.0 GENERAL 4.1 The CIO Program shall assure proper implementation of QA/QC programs through systematic evaluations of records, methods, procedures, and acti-vities.

Inspections shall assure conformance of materials, processes and/or services to the requirements specified in engineering, construction and QA/QC documents and procedures. An inspectior, checklist, as deli-neated in Reference 2.1, shall be used as the basis for monitoring inspec-tions.

4.2 As a minimum, the monitoring program shall encompass each quality related,

activity or each section of the QA program being monitored as indicated on the inspection schedule.

l 4.3 CIO shall perform all monitcring inspection functions, i.e.,

prepare schedules, inspection checklists; perform monitoring inspections and docu-ment results.

4.4 Monitoring inspection results shall be documented and reported in ac-cordance with Paragraph 5.3.

[

4.5 Responsibilities 4.5.1 The CIO Program Manager is responsible for the implementation and control of the Monitoring Inspection Program at the construction site.

4.5.2 The CIO Program Manager is also responsible for evaluating results and effectivity of the program.

1

/

) QCI 10.05 Revision 2 of 3 L'

L 1

5.0 PROCEDURE 5.1 Scheduling Schedules of monitoring inspection activities shall be based on 5.1.1 workload and areas where activities to be monitored are in pro-gress, where known or potential problem areas exist, and where the review of NCRs indicates negative trends.

5.1.2 CIO shall prepare a monitoring schedule on a semi-annual basis and update it to reflect changes when deemed necessary.

Additional inspection of products or processes may be performed 5.1.3 based on types of activities in progress. These inspections are not scheduled but are supplemental to the required inspections.

They shall be doctsnented in accordance with Paragraph 5.3.

5.2 Attribute Checklist CIO shall prepare attribute checklists for all monitoring inspec-5.2.1 tion activities indicated on the inspection schedule using the applicab'e document:; that effect quality, i.e., PQCI's, specifi-cations, codes, contractor QA/QC programs, engineering and con-struction department procedures, etc.

The attribute checklist delineates specific items that require inspection.

In preparing attribute checklists, the responsible monitoring in-5.2.2 spector shall interf ace with the appropriate Babcock & Wilcox/Mid-land Plant Quality Assurance Department (BW/MPQAD) inspector as necessary to ass,ure that the pertinent activity will be adequately monitored.

5.2.3 An attribute checklist will be established as a' standard and define the minimisn requirements fos ne inspection.

The inspector may add additional attributes L conditions warrant, e.g.,

adverse l

Attributes that are not cpplicable to a specific inspec-trends.

l tion shall be identified as N/A and not be deleted.

l 5.2.4 All specifications, procedures, drawings, etc., and revisions j

thereto used during monitoring shall be referenced on the check-list.

The monitoring results shall be transmitted to the NRC and CPCo 5.2.5 summarizing the risults of the inspections.

All checklists shall be prepared in accordance with the require-5.2.6 ments of Reference 2.1.

5.3 Monitoring Inspection Reporting The result of scheduled and unscheduled monitoring inspections 5.3.1 checklist. All results shall be docunented using the attribute shall be described in sufficient detai' to ensure repeatability of P

inspections.

1

~.. - -

QCI 10.05 1 ;

)

Page 3 of 3

(-

5.3.2 The attribute checklist shall document all areas, items and de-tails observed.

It shall also identify both satisf actory and unsatisf actory findings.

5.4 Maintenance of Docum'entation 5.4.1 CIO shall maintain a file of all completed attribute checklists, and related documentation.

s' e

e h immi w inmi ms ie i i i i i

T-3 91 QCINO.

R E V.

DAT E.

PREPARED BY STONE S WEBSTER 15.02 0

f/82 W.H. Grieves olvisioN LOCATION MIDLAND QUALITY APPLICABILITY APPROVER BY

>14ard n/dc CONTROL HIDLAND

'REs PROCEDURE l

AY Nk 33 1

INSTRUCTION n/A f

SUBJECT TREND ANALYSIS i

l 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE To establish the procedure for evaluation of CIO verification and evaluation results for the purpose of identifying significant and recurring quality l

problems.

I

2.0 REFERENCES

,e i

2.1 SWEC Third Par ty Construction Implementation Overview (CIO).

l l

2.2 SWEC Project Quality Assurance Plan.

l 2.3 Construction Completion Program.

l 3.0 ATTACHMENTS l

~

3.1 Quality Trend Report 4.0 CENERAL 4.1 CIO activities are designed to assess the Midland Station QA Program i

implementation through the performance of evaluations / verifications and l

the analysis of results.

Analysis will be performed to determine effective implementation of the PQCI's and the effectiveness of the CCP teams.

5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 1

5.1 Evaluation / Verification Supervision:

5.1.1 Review and approval of CIO attribute checklists.

5.1.2 Review and evaluation of evaluation / verification results for the purpose of identifying significant and recurring quality l

problems.

5.2 Evaluation /Verificatio'n Personnel:

5.2.1 Performing and documenting CIO evaluations / verifications.

5.2.2 Updacing the CIO Evaluation / Verification Status Log as acti-l vities are performed.

)

)

QC4 65.02 6.0 PROCEDURE 6.1 The Evaluation / Verification Supervisors shall review the Evaluation /-

Verification Status Log on a monthly basis for significant and recurring quality problems.

6.2 Results of the analysis shall be documented on a monthly Quality Trend Report (QTR) from the Program Manager to the Regional Administrator. The QTR shall contain as a minimum:

6.2.1 A summary of CIO activities within the month and cumulative.

Checklists Initiated Teams Evaluated s'

Sampled Lots Passed Sampled Lots Failed NIR's Issued 6.2.2 A detailed b'reakdown of checklists completed for each team, both for the month and cumulative.

Total Checklists Total Observations Unsatisfactory Observation Sample Lots Rejected Number of NIR's Issued Narrative summary of conclusions based on review of the' activities and the individual unsat observations.

6.2.3 A detailed breakdown of checklists completed for each PQCI, both for the month and cumulative.

Total Checklists Total Observations Unsatisfactory Observations Sample Lots Rejected Number of NIR's Issued Narrative summary of conclusions based on review of the activities and the individual unsat observations.

6.2.4 Trend charts may be included to graphically display negative trends determined either'by PQCI or team, as applicable.

6.3 Significant problem ar'eas identified in the QTR shall be addressed by l

j separate memo to CPCo for corrective action.

l t

I 2 of 2

CIO HONTHLY TREND REPORT I.

SUMMARY

PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE A.

Checklists Completed B.

Teams Assessed C.

PQCI's Assessed D.

Passed Lots E.'

Failed Lots F.

NIR's Issued

g$

Y#

-gp_

ama w"

Y k

I

e k

i

~

CIO HONTHLY TREND REPORT.

II.

TEAM ASSESSMENTS TEAM TOTAL-REJECTED TOTAL UNSAT NO.

CHECKLIST LOTS OBSERVATIONS OBTERVATIONS NIK's PERIOD TOTAL PERIOD TOTAL PERIOD TOTAL PERIOD TOTAL PERIOD TOTAL

)

^~

i

'~

\\

~

i i

i j

m>

A 4.

n>.-

t

• U.

n

'o omyn j

w

i W

i

~

i CONCLUSIONS:

e j

~ _

i O

CIO MONTHLY TREND REPORT-1 l

III.

PQCI ASSESSMENTS TOTAL REJECTED TOTAL UNSAT PQCI CHECKLISTS LOTS OBSERVATIONS OBSERVATIONS NIR's NO.

TITLE PERIOD TOTAL PERIOD TOTAL PERIOD TOTAL PERIOD TOTAL PERIOD TOTAL 9

P m>o EYP

~

• M.

w p: c E

• w Y

CONCLUSIONS:

9 a

l 1

i

.. _. - _.