ML20091G620
Text
,.
UNIT 5D STATES
^
e e
N. LEAR REGULATORY.COMMISSIO E
WASHINGTON, D. C.20056 c
%..... +*#
OCT 06 S&3 Docket Nos. 50-329 50-330 (10CFR2.206)
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy Studies 1091 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20009
Dear Ms. Garde:
9 This is in response to ycur letter of' June 13, 1983 on behalf of the Lone Tree Council and others, re:;uesting that the Ccrission take a number of actions with respect to the Midland Plant. Yo'.r letter was treated as a request for action under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regulations.
For the reasons set forth in the enclosed " Director's Decision" under 10 CFR 2.206, your request has been granted in part and denied in part.
f A copy of the decision will be referred to the Secretary for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. For ycur infomation, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice filed with the Office of the Federal Rigister for publication.
Sincerely,
. - Richard C. de/oung,. rector
. Office cf Ics)cetion and Enforcement Enciosures: as stated cc w/ encl.:
Consumers Power Company Michael. Miller, Esq.
l 8406040326 e40517 j
khE DISO g
-6 Y
Docket Nos. 50-329 OCTcBER 6 1983
~
50-330 (10CFR2.206)
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy Studies 1091 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20009
Dear Ms. Garde:
This is in response to your letter of June 13, 1983 on behalf of the Lone Tree Council and others, requesting that the Commission take a number of actions with respect to the Midland Plant. Your letter was treated as a recuest for action under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regulations.
For the reascns set forth in the enclosed " Director's Decision" under 10 CFR 2.206, your request has been granted in part and denied in part.
A copy of the decision will be referred to the Secretary for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. For your information, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely,
'0 R. % sinal signedBy, C; peyeg.
Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Insp.ction and Enforcement t
Enclosures:
as stated cc w/ encl.:
Consumers Power Company
~
Michael Miller, Esq.
Distribution S ECY------------------------by bl ueba g S, Lewis, RIII RCPB Reading OGC-------------------------by bluebag
.A. Warnick, RIII JC Stone, IE J. Lieberman, OELD----------by bluebag E. Adensam, NRR JM Taylor, IE 1
H. Denton, NRR W. Paton, OELO RC DeYoung, IE l
D. Eisenhut, NRR L. Cuoco, OELD E0013229 i
J. Keppler, RIII J. Resner, PPMB J. Douglas, IE i
G. Cunningham, ELD ELD Rdg J. Axelrad, IE E. Christenbury, GELD Central File
\\ hh*
.h Y<*
W/
{,
!\\
/
^
OFC %D DC:NRR g g:RIIhv g IE
'J ' :IE
- IE
- IE j
:-- g---------:--%
- ----}-
l NAFE :Murray est Eisenhut
- Keppler
- Stone '
- Heis man Partl T lor: D oung 1
:-----------:------------:------------:-----------:--- -------:---.<-------:---r------
. DATE:10/t//83ttla{d10/4/83
- 10/k/83
- 10/(/83
- IO/ /83
- 10/6 /83
- 10/V/83 3
e 4
- * ^ ' *
^)n-'
- 'y
_m,,
,e
a:
d'.
i.". y ;'
i.. '[E : I. c N,:.. -
b hb{l r.
- - v e-r + w[,.;
',{~ I 0;T CE S~3
[HJd l)./['
'*c
- e l
Docket Nos.60-329 S0-330 (10CFR2.206)
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde I
Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy' Studies 1091 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20009
Dear Ms. Garde:
T.6.is is in response to your letter of ilune 13, 1983 cn behalf of the Lone i
Tree Council and others, re:;uesting that the Cc--ission icke a number of actions with respect to the Midland Plant. Yo;.r letter was treated as a request for action under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regulations.
For the reasons set forth in the enclosed Director's Decision" under 10 CFR 2.206, your request has been granted in part and denied in part.
A copy of the decision will be referred to the Secretary for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206.
For ycur infomation, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely, f
.- Richerc C.
e cung, irector
.j Office :f Ics;cction and Enforce,ent
}
Enciosures: as stated t
i cc w/ encl.:
i Consumers Power Corgany 3
Michael Miller, Esq.
I
@T2a q i
bt^.y.G
Docket Nos. 50-329 OCT;EG E E53 50-330
)
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy Studies 1091 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20009 3
Dear Ms. Garde:
This is in response to your letter of June 13, 1983 on behalf of the Lone Tree Council and others, requesting j; hat the Comission take a number of actions with respect to the Midland Plant. Your letter was treated as a recuest for action under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regulations.
For the reascns set forth in the enclosed " Director's Decision" under 10 CFR 2.206, your request has been granted in part and denied in part.
A copy of the cecision will be referred to the Secretary for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. For your information, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely,
'Orf g1D81 Signed 3y' R. Ci Dereung.
Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
as stated cc w/. encl.:
Consumers Power Company Michael Miller, Esq.
Distribution S ECY ------------------------by bl u eba g S. Lewis, RIII RCPB Readine OGC-------------------------by bluebag A. Warnick, RIII JC Stone, IE t
J. Lieberman, OELD----------by bluebag E. Adensam, NRR JM Taylor, IE H. Denton, NRR W. Faton, OELD RC DeYoung, IE D. Eisenhut, NRR L. Cuoco, OELD EDO 13229 J. Keppler, RIII J. Resner, PPMB J. Douglas IF G. Cunningham, ELD ELD Rd9 J. Axelrad, IE E. Christenbury, GELD Central File l.
Mh,0 D
\\
5.cv ms*'-
.h
- ?.
W/
(-
h
/
n
' OFC 0:hRRj pgt:RIlgvg
\\g;---- J '-----:------------:-\\\\
IE-
- IE y
- IE
: s-
,.-------:----t---
9 NW.E :Murray em Eisenhut
- Keppler 9: Stone '
- Heishman Partl or: D oun.
:--- r------
DATE :10/ t//83 MWg10/s: /E3
- 10/k/83
- 10/.(/83
- 10/ /83
- 10/
/83
- 10/t'/83 Dq /
s
..
- 5. = ? *.
UNITED STATES OF AMEF.ICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C~~
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Richard C. DeYoung, Director In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
M-330
)
~
(Midland Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.205 t
,.nt"CCJction r-t By letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) dated June 13, 1983, Eii. lie Pirner Garde of the Government Accountability Project, on behalf of the Lone Tree Council and others (hereinafter referred to as the
. ;,atitioners), requested that, among other re. lief, the NRC take it=. adiate action with regard to the Midland project. The letter wa.s referre.d to the.
m Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement for treatment as a l
re: est fer action pursutnt to 10 CFR 2.206 cf the Comission's regulations.
On July 22, 1983, Edward L. Jordan, Acting Director of the Office of Inspec-r
-....~.. _.
tion and Enforcement,- acknowledged receipt of the petition and infcmed the petitioners that their-request for innediate action was denied. Mr.. Jordan notec that safety-related work at the Midland site had been stopped, with the exception of certain specified activities, and that the NRC staff was closely
.+
P e
. u.o e
.I
,e--,
w
- fell.-ing the current activities at ths Midland site.
,Mr. Jordan furth,e,r noted that Consumers Power Company had agreed not to proceed with implement-ation of a construction completion program until such a program had been reviewed by the NRC. The staff expected to be able to complete its evaluation of the request before final action was taken on that program.
Consequently, i
Mr. Jordan concluded that " continuation of currently authorized activities at F.idland should not affect the staff's ability to grant the requested relief."
Letter from Edward L. Jordan, Acting Director, Offic'e of Inspection and-Enforcement to Billie Pirner Garde (July 22, ISE3). The staff has now co=pleted its evaluation of the petit' ion, and for the reasons stated herein, i
the recuest is gran'ted in part and denied in cart.
r-Issues Raised Petitioners requested that the following six actions be taken by the
~
Coamission:
Modify the Construction Permit (Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units '1 and 2) tt lnclude mandatory "horld points" on the balante-of-plant-(BOP) work and incorporate the current Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ( ASLB or Board) ordered " hold points" on the scils remedial work into the Midland Construction permit (sic).
l Rcquire a management audit of Consumers Power Ccmpany (CFCc) by an inoependent, competent management aud.it.i.ng finn.that-w4.ll determine the causes of the manaaement failures that have resulted in the soils settlement-disaster-end-the recently-44scovered-Qua44ty Assurance I
breakdown.
l Reject-tha Construction Completion Flan (CCP) as currently proposed, including a rejection of Stone and k'ebster to conduct the third party audit of the plant. Instead a truly independent, competent, and credible third party auditor should be selected with public
_ participation in the process.
i
.s
}
- 1 r
a l
5 t,.
Remove, the Quality Assurance / Quality Con rci. function from tbt,
Midland Project Quality Assurance Departtnent (MPQAD) and replace 1
them with an independent team of QA/QC personnel that reports simultaneously to tne tiRC and CPCo management.
increase the assignment of fiRC personnel to include additional technical and inspection personnel as Yequested by the Midland Section of the Office of Special Cases.
i Require a detailed review of the soils settlement resolution as outlined in the Suppleraental Safety Evaluation Report, incorporatingi i
a technical analysis of the implementation of the underpinning project at the current stage of completion.
.~
i Petition at 1.
The fifth issue relates to a matter of internal Conrnis,sion I
organization and staffing, namely the allocation of staff to inspection of s
5 facilities. The staff is expecting to augment inspection personnel available j
- . v. c r,. c r. Mi ci a r.c. hcwever, the creation of pcsitions within the Office of Special Cases is a matter that will be detemined by the Comission budget process. For these reasons, the staff is not considering this aspect of the request in this decision.
i Backoround The Consumers Power Company (CPCo or licensee) ho'ds Construction Pemits fic. CPPR-El (Unit 1) and lio. CPP3-82 (Unit 2),* issued by the %tomic-Energy h
Comission in 1972, which authorized constructtrn tf the tidlnt-Plant.
i
=
- -~~~~
The Midland nuclear lilani~is T5catec sh Kidland~tichigan, imt consists 7
I of two pressurized water reactors of Babcock anc Wilcox design and related facilities for use in the cotriercial generation of electric power.
M E
Since the start = of constructicn, Midland has experienccd significant construction problems attributable to deficiencies in irplementatic. of p
3 t
s
its quality assurance (OA) prograt. l
Follwin;.he icentification of these problems, the licensee took action to identify the cause arid correct each problem. Steps were also taken to upgrade the Midland QA program.
Nevertheless, the licensee continued to experienee prcblens in the implementation of its quality assurance prograr..
In 1980, the licensee recrganizedits QA department so as to increase the involvement of high level CPCo management in onsite'QA activities. Among l
its other tasks, the reorganized QA department, called the Midland Project l
Quality' Assurance Department (MPQAD),' was given the resp'onsibility for quality i
j ccr. trol (OC)'of hea' ting, ventilation and air crnditioning (HVAC) work in place of the HVAC contractor, Zack Company.
.t.
In May 1981, the NRC conducted a special, in-depth team inspection of the Midland site to examine the status of implementation and effectiveness of the t
QA program. Based on this inspection, Region III concluded that the newly I -
p.
m.
.I J_/
Significant construction problems identified to date include:
1973 - cadweld splicing deficiencies 1974 - rebar ocissions l
1977 - bulge in the Unit 2 Contain.cr.t Liner Flate j.
1977
. tendon sheath location errors __.
1978 - discovery of soil settlement problem 1980 - 24c4-Comany-heat 4eg..ventilatiori, and_ air ennd.itioning l
deficiencies l
1980 - reactor pressure vessel anchor stud failures l
1981 - piping suspension system installatior, deficiencies-1982 - electrical cable misinstallations'
.Several of these deficiencies resulted in the Co cission taking i
escalated enforcement action.-
l
.g t
4
.)
i
organized QA procram was acceptable. See Inspection F.e;cr:s 50-325/E2.12,;
. e.
50-330/81-12. The special team did, however, identify deficiencies.in pre-vious QC inspections of piping supports and restraints, and electrical cable
. installations.2/ QC functions were further reorganized by the licensee's integration of the QC organization of its architect-engineer, Bechtel Power l
Corporation, into MPQAD in Septemb.er 1982. This reorganization reflected I
the recommendations of the NRC staff. As part of this change,'the licensee also undertook 9bo retrain and recertify all previously certified Bechtel' QC'
+
inspectors.
I Nevertheless, construction difficulties continued to be identified at the r-t i
P.iciand site. An inspection conducted during the period of October 1982 through January 1983 found significant problems with equipment in the diesel generator building. The subsequent identification of similar findings by CFCo in other portions of the plant prompted the licensee to halt the majority of the safety related work activities 1,n December 19,82.
In view of the history of OA problems at the Midland plant and the la.ck o..f effect.iveness.of corrective
.. ~
actions to implement an adequate quality assurance program, the NRC indicated to the licensee that it was necessary to develc; a comprehensive program to verify the acequacy of previous construction activities and tc assure the adecuacy of i
future construction. In view of the licensee's performance history, such an e..---
I-
- i 2/
As a result-of staff discussions about the seriousness of such findines and of similar indications of deficiencies as identified in the Syste5-atic Assessment of Licensee Perfornance Report issued in April 1982, a special Midland Section in Region III was forned in July 1982. The E
Midland Section devoted increased attention to inspection of'the Midland i
facilityi=Jncluding upgrading the QC progran of the project's i
constructor, the Bechtel Power Corporation.
l l
L n
l' o
l z
~
effort was neces,sary to restore staff's conficence ir, CPCc's ability to. properly construct the Midland plants.
c Consequently, CPCo discussed with the NP.C the concept of a construction completion program which would address the concerns raised by the staff.
These discussions were followed by a fonnal submittal of the Midland Con-struction Completion Program (CCP).
~
Tne, CCP is the licensee's program for the planning and management of the con-struction and quality activities nece'ssary for its completion of the construc '
ric. cf the Midland facility. An important aspect of the CCP is the third par:. cverview, which is designed to provide alcitional assurance as to the effectiveness of the CCP. In response to connents from the NRC and members cf tr.e public, the CCP underwent several revisions. As revised anc submitted by the licensee on August 26,1983,SI the CCF includes:
(1)NRChold. points; (2) the requirement for 100t reinspection of accessible inst'allations; (3) the integration of Bechtel's QC pregram with hPQA.D. ; (4) t.he.retrai..ning and.
4 recertification of QC inspectors; (5) the general training of licensee and cor. tractor personnel in quality requirements for nuclear work, requirements of the CCF, safety orientation and inspection, anc work procedures; (6) the revi-a sior., as necessary, of Project Quality Control Instructions (PQCI'.s); (7) CCP t
a..--
j team training; and (S) an independent third party overview of CCP activities.
4/
The Petition was apparently based upon the' Jane 3,1983 version of the CCP. Suksequent versions of the CCP, as described in this decision, i
address a number of issues raised by petitioners.
6 a
I J.
?
ine CCF is divided into two phases.
Fnase I consisti cf a systemnic reyiep of the safety-related systems and. areas of the plant. This reviek will be 4
conducted on an area-by-area basis and will be done by teams with responsi-bility for particular systems.
Phase 1 'is intended to provide a clear identification of remaining installation work, including any necessary rework and an up-to-date inspecti,on to verify the quality of existing work.
l I
~
Phase 2 will take the results of the Phase I review and complete any neces-
~
f l
sary work or rework, thereby bringing the project toxompletion. The teams
{
crganized for Phase 1 activities will continue as the responsible organiza-tier.al units tc complete the work in Phase 2.
r-l It should be noted that the CCP does not include the remedial soils program, r.uclear steam supply system installation, HVAC installation, and the reinspection of pipe hangers and electrical cable. The remedial soils t
i activities are being closely inspacted under the conditiens of the construc-tion pennits which implement the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's
~
1.pril 30,1982, order and under a work authorization procedu-e. Therefore, the staff does not consider it necessary to rect [ ire the remedial soils a:-ivities tc ce 'ncluded in the CCF. 'Ccntrois over the soils work have i
been implemented under a separate program. Sir.ilarly, reinspection of the pipe hangers and electrical cable were not included in Phase I of the CCP because that reinspe.uon is being done under a separate commitment to the liRC. See letters from James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, fiRC Region III to James W. Cook, Consumers Power Company (August 30, September 2,- 1982).
.+
!. clear Steam Supply System installatien and HVAC installation were not I
draws irto. question by,the diesel generator building inspection.
I i
l 7
1
The staff hts no,t developed facts to indicate that installation of thes.e,,.
systems should be included in the CCP. However, these activities -will.be c
included in the construction implementation overview to be conducted by the third party overviewer.
~
The CCP is designed to address ti)e generic applicability of the problems iden-tified by the NRC's inspection of the diesel generator building. The objeetive of the CCP is to look at the plant hardware and equipment, identify-existing
~
pt.cblems, correct these problems and complete construction of the plant.
2 siceraticr. cf Issues Raised
}
1.
Modification of Midland Construction Pemits Petitioners request that the Comission modify the MHland construction perrits in two respects: 1) require " hold points' at various s3 ages of the i
i construction completion process; and, 2) incorporate those. hold p,oints
,, c meerning remedial soils work previously author.ized by the Atomic Safety and 1.icensing Board panel with jurisdiction over the Midland proceeding.
The hold points are fundamental elements of the Midland CCP. As used by both the sthff and petitioners, hold point's refer to predetermined stages beyond which activities cannot proceed until authorized. Only when such prior work is found to be satisfactory will new work be authorized under the CCP.
In this j
rest.rd, the petitioners requested that three specific hold points be incor-i perated into the CCP to require NRC or thirc party review prior to continuation t
of work.
t I
6 t
l 1
Eased on their revie of an early version of the CCF, petitioners asserteo that.the Midland project had been detrimentally affected by the Tack,of e
organizational freedom for its QA staff. See Petition at 13. Accordingly, the petitioners requested that a hold point be incorporated into the CCP whereby the success of the proposed program for the retraining and recertifi-cation of QA/QC personnel would be evaluated before any actual work was I-authorized under Phase 1 of the CCP. jd_. at 13,15. Subsequent to its initial discussions with the staff concerning development of a comprehensive-construction completion program,E the licen'see began preliminary work, such as team training and recertification of QC inspectors in preparation for its I
anticipated Phase l' activities, quality verification pregram and status assess-nants. The NRC was infomed when training and recertification of QA/QC person-nel and CCP team training woulu oegin, and conducted a review of the, licensee's sctions. The staff suggested that the licensee undertake additional work before proceeding with some of its training effort. Consequently, the retraining holc peint requested by petitioners has already been satis #ied by the staff.
~
A
~
-5/
On December 2,1982, when CPCo first discussed a construction completion plan with the NRC suff, CPCo was infomed by Recion III staff that it would be necessary to inco porate NRC hold points.
The staff identified four points at which it would require NRC inspe crs4c review-co.pleted work before the next activity could be undertaker.. These hold points were identified as*
1.
Review and-appreval ef training-and r-ece'rtidircat4*-of-QC inspectors befcre beginning Fhase 1; l
2.
Review and approval of CCP team training before beginning Phase 1; 3.
Review and approval of the Quality Verification Program (QVP) and status anessments before beginning Phase 1; I
4.
Reviser and approval of the progran for rework or systems completicn p--
1 work before becir;r.ing Phase 2.
I
.e g
g P
The ' petitioners,also viewed the prcpesed CCF at lacting in comprehensive _ ness.
To remedy this deficiency, petitioners proposed that "either a third. party or N?.C ' hold point' be contained in the reinspection Phase I activities [of the t
CCF3 to detertnine the adequacy of the ' accessible systems' approach.'O Petiticn at 13.
As described in section three, infra, a third party will be conducting an extensive. overview of the CCP and other construction completion ac.ivities. '
The fact that. the third party overviewer will also have hold point controls over the licensee should provide additional asr trance that construction is
- :ceedinc in accerdance with all applicable re:uire erts. See Consumers r-Eceer Compariy, Construction Completion Program ( August 2E, ige 3) at 34. The NP.C and the third party will monitor the reinspection activities. The staff be'.ieves that these monitoring activities will provice the control sou'ght by the petitioners in their request to establish a hold point during Phase 1 reir.spection te deterir.ine the adequacy of the accessible syste.s approach.
!=
w g..
The third hold point requested by petitioners derives from another criticism cf the proposed CCF - the failure of that plan te specify inspection procedures ar.'c evaluation criteria. See Petition at 10-11. Accordingly, petitioners re:uest a systematic and thorough review of the construction and quality work packages which will be completed as a prerequisite to initiation of new con-struction work unoer Phase 2 of the CCP.
Id. at 11.
.+
-6/
ine accessible systems approach refers to the extent of reinspection nnder the CCP.
Inaccessible areas of the plant will be reinspected by utilizing 2 records review and destructive and non-destructive i
testing as required. See Consumers Power Company, Construction Completion Program (August 26,1983) at 22-23.
i 10 i
I t
(_.
The CCp requires, that representative CCr.struction and cuality work pac}.a_0es,t:5 reviewed to assure that any completed work is consistent with sta'tements made c
by the licensee in both its Final Safety Analysis Report and Quality Assurance Topical Report.
In addition, the third party overviewer will be using sampling techniques and reviewing selected work and quality packages prior to ano during Phase II. Should the results of,this sampling approach identify inadequate i
work packages, the sampling size will be increased as necessarh to provide the needed assurance that work packages are adequately reviewed. Moreover,'the'NRC staff, in perfoming its inspectiorf activities, will overview this entire process, including reviewing selected quality and work packages.
l v-1 In sum.ary, the staff believes that those hold points it has inccrpcrated into the CCP, when viewed in the aggregate, substantially satisfy the hold points requested by petitioners. The licensee is recuired tt adhere to these hold points as part of the CCP in confomance with the Confirmatory Order for Modification of Construction Pemits (Effective Immediately).
With respect to the second aspect of the requested relief, incorporation of l
NRC hold points authorized by the Licensing Board's A;ril 30, 1982, Memorandum and Orcer, the petitioners' request has' been satisfiet by previous action of l
the Com11ssion. By amendment dated May 26,1982,.the hold points ordered by i
the Board were incorporated into the construction pemits. See 47 Fed.
Reg. 23999 (June 2, 1982). Accordingly, the construction pemits already prchibit CPCo frco perfoming the following activities without " explicit I
i prior approval" from the staff:
.+
(a) any placing, compacting, excavating, er drilling scii materials around safety-related structures and systems; l
- u_
II i
(b) phyrical implementation of re,ecial action for correction.
of soil-related problems unoer and around -safety-related ~.
structures and systems, including but not limited to:.
(i) dewatering systems (ii) underpinning of service water building (iii) removal and replacement of fill beneath the feedwater isolation valve pit areas, auxiliary buCding electrical penetration areas,and control tower, '.nd beneath the i
turbine building (iv) placing of underpinning supports beneath any of the structures listed in (iii) above t
(v) compaction and loading activities; (c) construction work in soil materials under or around safety-related structures and systems such as field installation, or rebeddinc, cf ccnduits and pipinc.
ctstruction Fermits No. CPPR-51 and CFFR-82,' Amendment Nc. 3 (May 26,15E2).
~
2.
Maracement audit of CPCo The petitioners request that the'NRC require a management audit of CPCo's
~
~
performar.ce on the Midland project. ' The sta'ff dce3 not believe that 'a * '
sanagement audit is necessary at this tipe'as li condition"f5r*goTrig forwrd' t
.u with the CCP.
I The staff expects that the CCP, with its built-in hold points and third party cverview, should provide an effe: tive process-to satis--
factorily complete construction at Midland, wite-the-previes quality assurance problems. "The third party overview tope'ther-wittr-the $ planned I
staff inspection activities should provide infomation to determine the adequacy of the licensee's implementation of the CCP. Nevertheless, the staff will continue to review infomation concerning the licensee's peMorrince-4mther areas to detemine whether an audit is required.
(
12 4
3.
F.eiection of Construction Com letion Procrat and inird Party Overview Orcanizatis..
-s In requesting that the Commission reject the Midland construction completion plan, petitioners based their position on the unacceptability of the Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (S&W) to conduct the third party overview of j
i Petition' rs raised three. objections to the selection of S&W: the i
the CCP.
e failure of JCW to meet the' Commission's criteria for the independence required of a third party, see Petition at 19; the failu rof S&W to submit a mihimaily adecuate audit proposal, jd. at 18-19; and the lack of public participation in the selection of S&W as the third party review organization for the Midland rr: ject.
. at 19-20.
i
- 1
(
l In support of its argament that S&W is act sufficiently independent to monitor implementation of the CCP, the petitioners asserted that "under both a literal
. l and realistic reading of the Commission's primary financial criteria,...the l'
l third party not have any direct previous involve ent with the Company.",
Petition at 19. In order to evaluate whether an audit org'anization is suffi-ciently independent to conduct a third party review, the Commission generally I
utilizes the guidance originally set forth in a letter frcr, Chairman Palladine Ic Representatives Ottinger and Dingell. The Commission's standard does not require that a proposed third party reviewer have.had no previous involvement 4
with thc utility whose program it will be reviewing. Rather, the criteria require that the audit organization, including those employees who will be participating in the third party review, will not be reviewing specific 1
e e.
e op e
13
activities in wnich they were previously invcived. See Letter froci Chair-
~:*-*
man Palladino -to Representatives Ottinger and Dingell (Feb.1,19'82), Attach-ment 1, at 1.
Petitioners stated that S&W's role as the overviewer of remedial scils work at Midland prohibits that org'anization from serving in the same
}
capacity for the CCP. The staff disagrees. Since the remedial soils activi-l ties are outside the scope of the,,CCP, S&W will not be called upon te review its own work. Consequently, the staff does not agree that S&W's overview activities will conflict with the. established independence criteria.E ~~
-7/
The' petitioners questioned why T' ERA was discualified from consideration as the overvie.wer under the CCP while S&W was net discualified on the crcunc of independence. See Petition a: Ig. TERA's discualification r-cas :asec on -he poten:iai er conflic ca: coJc be raised by TERA overview unoer the CCF cf oeterminations -hat TERA had previously made under the Independent Design and Constriction Verification Program (IDCVP) of the adequacy of the construction of the Auxiliary Feedwater j
System, the onsite emergency AC power supplies and the HVAC system for the control room. Since TERA has been a:; reved by the NRC to perfom the IDCVP, the staff cetermined that TEFJ. wculd net satisfy the Comission j
independence criteria for the third party overview of the CCP. See letter i
from James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, Region III to James W. Cook, Cer.sumers Power Company (March 28,1983)at3.
~
~
n.
s'
.O
~
1
~
~*...e..
l
.A l
(
.e 14 j
I The written prog,rac cocuments being utilized to cirectly control and implement the Construction Implementation Overview (CIO) programk/ and o
l the applicable S&W corporate master program documents 9/ have been reviewed by the staff. These documents are representative of the scope and depth cf the S&W overview. The NRC staff also met with S&W on August 25,1983, in Midland Michigan in order to gai,n, additional insight into the total S&W
!~
l program. Tased upon its document review and discussions with S&W at the August 25,.1983, seeting, the staff has found the-55W proposal to constitute an
~
acceptable third party overview program. To provide additional assurance that the third party audit is being proper'ly implemented, the CIO program will also te audited independently by the S&W corporate cuality assurance staff. NRC 1
M.s;ec ors will also monitor the adequacy of the CIO program.
f E/
The documents written expressly for the CIO include:
~
1.
CIO Program Document dated April 1,1983 2.
CIO Quality Assurance Plan.
~* '-'
3.
Thirt! Party CIO Plan.
l 4.
CIO Assessment Procedure, 10.01.
~
E.
Nonconfomance Identification and Reporting Procedure,15.01.
6.
A detailed attribute checklist for each CFC+- Freect Quality--
Control Instruction (PQCI).
t 7.
A detailed checklist to review generk-types cf.regthements (for non-PQCI activities); e.g., QA Audits and Surveil. lances.
i' E.
Additional-Quality control Instruction-es neeeec-se-provide -
adecuate overview control.
i 9/
The following S&W corporate master program documents will also be utili:ed for the CIO, as required:
1.
QA Topical Report SWSQAP 1-74A, S&W Standard Nuclear Quality Assurance Program.
1--
2.
S&W Guality Standards; e.g., for cuality sampling.
S.
S&W Quality Assurance Directives.
i 1
I e
ans O
15 s
j
Of paniculer co,ncern to the petitioners was the number. of personnel wh.ith.
I S&W had assigned to the Midland overview. See Petition at 18. The number of cualified people will vary with the demand of the work activities to be over-viewed. S&W's CIO staffing plan currently has nine people assigned at the l
Midianc site and there are planned increases to 32 people as work activities progress. These numbers, however, are only estimates and S&W has represented that it will consnit whatever personnel are necessary to conduct the CIO.
Furthemore, the number of personnel utilized by Sd is not subject to limita-
~
ti.cn by CPCo.
i SD r as already begun to review prelininary i:tivities of the licensee in r-pregratier. for initiatier. of the CCP.E This effort has identified various
' concerns and one nonconfonnance that required CPCo action to resolve. The
!!:.C staff has reviewed the CIO activities perfomed to date and has found this overview, including actions taken by CPCo, to be of the quality expected of a
+
. third party overview.
=:
1-
..-. ~.
.g 1 ~. / Tr.e actisities being overviewed have included the followinc CCP and I
non-CCP activities:
i Program and jfocedure reviews'" "-
Review of PQCI's.
Review of MP0AD QA/QC personnel training and certification.
Review of general training of CPCo and Bechtel personnel, including construction craftspersor.s.
Review of CCP ilanagement Reviews.
Review of System Interaction Walkdowns.
Review of Design Documents.
j--.
l O
e O
16 i
O
t
' The purpose of t,he independent third party overvie7 s to provice acci;ioni) i l
~
e.ssurance that the CCP is adequate and will be properly implemented., This
+
overview requirement was necessitated by the loss of NRC staff confidence in CPCo to successfully implew.-+ a quality assurance program for the Midland project. The CIO will remain in place at the Midland site until the necessary I
level of confidenc' in the ability. of the licensee to construct the Midland i-e project has bcen restored to the satisfaction of the NRC staffN Given that
~
the third party overview is expected to continue until NRC confidence ih the 3
Midland project is restored, petitioners' criticism that the CIO is of insuffi-cient duration appears unfounded.
4, C;p:r unity has been providec to the public to participate in the selection of S&W as the third party overviewer, and to cocrnent on the CCP itself. A meeting l
was heic on February 8,1983, between CPCo and the staff to discuss the CCP.
Cn August 13, 1983, the staff met with the intervernors, iepresentatives of the Gcvernment Accountability Project (GAP) and jhe Lone Tree Council to discuss the CCP and the CIO. Subseouently, on August 25, 1983, t.h.e.staf.f. met with S.&W to discuss the CIO. These meetingr, were conducted in Midland, Michigan and were cpen to public observation. Evening sessions to receive cublic co::rnents l
regarcir.; the CCF were held on February 8, ar.c August 11,19E~. Simila rly, public co::ments were received following the August 11 and August 25, 1983, e.- -
meetings. Several additional meetings between the staff, intervenors and a representative of GAP to discuss the CCP and CIO have also been held.
i H/ Tne staff anticipates that the third party overview will be a long term effort.
d*
- w dSP 17 l
t k
~
The petitioners ', reference in its request to ' closed door meetings app,e.ars.
to refer to working level meetings that have been held principally between c.
the Midland section of the Region III staff and CPCo site personnel, and, in some cases, S&W onsite personnel. See Petition et 19.
Such meetings continue i
t to be necessary to enable the NRC staff to achieve a full understanding of the CCP, including the CIO, and to discharge its inspection duties.
For the reasons set forth above, petitioners' request to reject the selec ti,on of S&W to conduct the CIO, and to reject the CCP, is denied. J2,/
4 Removal cf the' Licensee from Pritary Resocr.sibility fer the Midland r-
.uais y Assurance Pro; ram 1
l The petitioners request that MPQAD be relieved of responsibility for the QA/QC fur.ction at the Midland plant and that an independent teat of QA/QC personnel bc created which would report simu.ltaneously to the NRC staff and CPCo. In suppcrt of t. heir request, petitioners cite much cf the same history of QA/CC
~'-
deficiencies that the staff sucnarized in the background section of this decision. See Petition at 20.
1 12/ The staff has approved S&W to conduct the CIQ. See Staff Evaluation of Consumers' Power Company-Proposal 1:o Use-Stone-enc +ebeter Michigan, Inc. to Conduct the Third Party Construction Im;1ementation Overview cf the Midland Nuclear Plant (Sept. 29,1983).
.+
-e 9
e m
ww e
18 m
W =
)
The changes T. hat CPCo has most recently instituted through development.cf...
the CCP should improve its capability to discharge its responsibility under applicable Cornission regulations, such as 10 CFR 50.34(a)(7) and Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, which require the establishmedt and execution of a QA/QC program. While Criterion I of Appendix 5 pemits a construction permit holder to delegate to other organizatlons. the detailed execution of the QA/QC program,.
the history of the Midland project makes it clear that the licensee has
~
retained too little control over the QA/QC program. CPCo seems to be p'ro-t ceeding in a positive direction by integrating the implementation of the QC i
I function formerly under the control of Bechtel into the MPQAD. This consoli-catien of cuality centrol and ouality assurance functicns should reinforce the separation between the QC function, which will be assumet by M?QAD, anc the construction function, which will remain with Bechtel.
I While it might be pemissible under Appendix 5 to 10 CFR Part 50 for CPCo to r,etain an independent organization to execute.,the QA/QC,prograp, the, licensee remains ultimately responsible for the es_tablishment and.,executi,on, of the program. As stated above, the staff considers the strengthening of
":CA' to be a positive step in improving CPCo's capability to assure the c.ality of construction of the Midland facility. In view cf the relatively I-shcrt existence of the MPQAD, there does not currently exist any justification
.... ~.
j for requiring CPCo to retain an outside organization to execute the QA/QC program. Therefore, this aspect of petitioners' request is denied.
Petitioners also requested that the independent QA/QC team report simultaneously
.+
to the NRC and to CPCo management. The petitioners apparently intended that r-Ib
l j
' the NRC would be involved in naking management cecisions regarding constme-l tion of the facility based upon the reports of the independent QK/QC team.
There appears to be no basis for this extraordinary departure from the NRC's reculatory function. Accordingly, this aspect of-the petition is denied.
5.
. Detailed Review 1of Soils Settlement Resolution
~
The petitioners requested that the staff conduct a detailed review of the resolution of the soils settleaent problems, including a technical analysis
~
cf the imoleh.ntation of the underpinning project at the current stage of I
l cc=le:icn.
Petition at 23. In its supportini ciscussion, the petition focused upon the questionable structural integrity of the diesel generator buiicing.
A cetailed review of the program for resolution cf the soils settlement problem
' _ - has previously been conducted by the NRC staff and its consultants. In 1979 -
t.he U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers was contracted to assist the staff in the safety review of the Midland project in the field of geotechnical engineering.
t
]
After the soils problem became known, additicnsi assistance to the staff in specialized engineering fields (structural, mechanical, and underpinning) was r.- - -
obtained from the U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Center, Harstead Engineering Associates, Geotechnical Engineers, Inc., and Energy Technology Engineering Center. These consultants assisted in the review of technical studies, par-ticipated in design audits, visited the site, provided input to the Safety
.+
Evaluation Report, and provided expert testimony before the Atomic Safety and
- e
.use e
20 8
14
.g
Licensing Board., Thus, the approach to the resciution of the stils se_t.t.l.e. ment issue has been thoroughly studied by the staff and its consultants..
The implementation of the remedial soils activities is being closely followed as part of the NRC's inspection program. This inspection effort includes ongoing technical ' eview of -the remedial soils program cnd its implementation ! '
r by a Region III soils specialist. Technical expertise to evalbate implementa-tion is also provided by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation *.'
]
Additionally, the NRC is utilizing Geotechnical Engineers Inc. in assessing aspects of the remedial soils and underpinning activities. In addition, the soils settlebent cuestien has been in litigation for over two years before an r-I Atcmic Safety and Licensing Scard. Consequer.tly, the relief recuested with regard to the soils settlement issue has been substantially satisfied by prior action of the Commission.
Along with revie,: cf the soils settlement issue, petiticners requested that u-
'another study of the seismic design deficiencies of the Midland plant, with
. ~.
emphasis on the diesel generator building, be conducted. The petitioners further recuested that this review would be concutted by a "non-nuclear construction censultant." See Petitier$ at E3.
s.
The NRC staff has initiated a task force study by consultants from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and NRC structural engineers to_ evaluate concerns about the structural integrf ty of the diesel generator building raised by a l
NRC Region III inspector in testimony before the Subconi.ittee on Energy and
.+
the Environment of the House Committee on Interict an-Insular Affairs.
Following their review, a report will be issued addressing the concerns raised by the inspector. Deci.sions.on_whether.further actions are required will be 21 i
r
1 made based upon.that report. Additional details on the task force were.. pro-vided to the Government Accountability Project by letter dated August 10, 1983,
~
r and in Board hetifications83-109 and 83-142, which were transmitted to GAP
+
on July 27 and September 22, 1983, respectively.
i
{
As to the request that a review of. the diesel generator building be conducted by a "non-nuclear construction consultant", BNL has established an expert team to resolve the concerns raised by the Region-li! inspector. Expertise
~
ra.ther than the label "non nuclear construction censultant" should be the i
covernine criteria. The staff has reviewed the cualifications of the team l
re-ers anc is satisifed with their experience. The task force study cur-rer:iy ir, progress substantially satisfies this aspect of the petition.
Tne petition also appears to be recuesting an additional review: cf the seismic design of structures other than the ciesel generator building. Petitioners have not, however, stated any basi,s yhy additiongl reviews, beyond, tho,se r,e-j s-flected in the Safety Evaluation Report and Suppl.e._ments a..r.e_ne.ces.s.ary. The.
_ staff does not believe that an additional review.by an outside organization cf the facility's seismic design is recuirec at this time.
__.~.
Conclusion l
Based upon the foregoing discussion, I have granted the petition in part and cenied it in part.
+
.em e
9 e
l A ccpy of this c,ecision will be filed with the Office cf the Secretary..o.f..the Comt.ission for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of
+
the Conraission's regulations.
This decision will become the final action of the Con.ission twenty.'ive days after date of issuance unless the Comission, i
on its own motion, institutes a review of the decision within that time.
~.3.
P
}ff.:
=
=
Richard C. D Ypung, Di tor 1
Office of In ection and Enforcement Cated at Bethesda, Maryland, this.6thday of October 1983 v-t
.-- -. ~..
~
- 4
.h e
g *.*.
N ee be gmg g gg.
g i
r
=
7 1
23 a
[7590-013;-
- -=-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ ~ - ' -
i
[ Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330) i
~
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
{
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
I ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 l
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Inspection and t
j E'nforcement, has issued a decision concerning a petition dated June 13, 1953, filed by Bi.111e Pirner Garde of the Government Accountability r-Frcf ect cr. ber.alf of the Lone Tree Councii acc :thers. The petitier.ers
]
l had requested that the Corr.ission take a number of actions with respect to the Midland Plant. The Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, has decided to grant in part and deny in part the petitioners' request.
i ~
The reasons for this decision are 'explaine'd ir.'a " Director's Decision" s
under 10 CFR 2.206 (DD-83-16 ), which fs'available for~ hu61ic Trispectidn '
~~
in thE Convaission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.,
1 1.'ashington,' D.C. 20555, and in the Local Public Doc: nent-Room for the -
3 Midland Plant, located at the Grace Dow Memorici.ibrery, N'. St.
Andrews Road, MidTind, P.ichT?&n,- 48640'~-
l Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th - day cf Octcber,1983.
t l
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-+
t P.ichard C.
epoung,Di ctor I
.0ffice cf 1 rpection and Enforcement 3
l N. _ _ d
[
1 db y
,