ML20091K895

Contents of Three-ring Notebook Maintained by W Paton

ML20091K895
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	05/01/1984
From:	Paton W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:
Shared Package
ML17198A223	List: IR 05000329/1981014 IR 05000329/1982013 IR 05000329/1983008 ML20090A052 ML20090A064 ML20090A067 ML20090A071 ML20090A076 ML20090A080 ML20090A090 ML20090A103 ML20090A106 ML20090A110 ML20090A367 ML20090A377 ML20090A397 ML20090A403 ML20090A447 ML20090A451 ML20090A456 ML20090A465 ML20090A481 ML20090A487 ML20090A491 ML20090A500 ML20090A504 ML20090A514 ML20090A517 ML20090A543 ML20090A547 ML20090A559 ML20090A590 ML20090A594 ML20090A600 ML20090A613 ML20090A614 ML20090A623 ML20090A626 ML20090A631 ML20090A637 ML20090A642 ML20090A656 ML20090A658 ML20090A673 ML20090A698 ML20090A703 ML20090A733 ML20090A741 ML20090A748 ML20090A751 ... further results
References
CON-BOX-01, CON-BOX-1, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8406070237
Download: ML20091K895 (51)

Text

l 1.5 M.&',w~.u u{ %n.. n w@iI,?NNfy's n.n$. N W M.~.

iWMS2$W W %iF9MV F

~T% Q'sWB:i D K Ti.? % W f M ' m; W W m,

..m e.

e

~?: Q LV,,Y j Q" @ f.,C & - jts'[#D.M.W.e' p L' ' 1

' f 7<W f M.o.,

+ lM,.P

. i

, 'y'

.a IR : h ?.N.. b. n,,i '8.r }. '

E

' #1 s

a t

I.

.', t s.-$o' #; x.

4 lt '

s aC

..h W:- ~*

's 6

~~*.-

l 7

g Q

)g;+h.

a y o

. - r,. ', T

,,e 6

~

,s N

.4 t

,a,

- g.

~.

7..

7" -

/

w i

4 7-t N.

3 e

1

,l

\\

t

, ~

- s.,. _, _-

..~ _.

')

gl [

'/

. h hkk E

(

'e

.t y

1 e

1.. h0 bkh p.fhfff k k l: m. p ; W @k.

A n E % n g +lw r.v gw m

,.2 r6,):

n;n. w* l*!' ' ih5.-

. m' '....

2. y.n u +$ $~;,V,.A. y,p *~ ;*%

pWfy Q

^

kj@y#m 'f 'a e 2. - m n. u,r.%.

~:

p,

.]

4., ',,5 9 ;., p @_

'q !.

t$g y,;Ap p

- r~

x

,f V<-

P# A t

., g}

• e 4. ~ 2f f dj&. %.P@Ly? s&, &p$.

% ce /. ~

.- nr f -.gr;1'

'e i

.p &;:'y,'L.*{ m g% W R Q %.^$sM.

s 9

ns f

Qff.im.$b mypw,fj ma&ps'?:fi,f:

'hN

$?p

^

a yl c,

n n

nakhIkhff fkhhh Ih b wg at,

bsk.;',yH.% u %e. n 4 w ;m. w m c w',m an

. _+- e

e.,

w A

-~b,' u" g y u.J> y;>r.. -=G :a, ~s

-. r)

A s T,Ws._. ; J. q:,M s;>4.;.. + S.L y e w. 6 v; 3 u,%.,n c

y:M

• yt 'l s

,p

3., ;.

,y, c

a

,-,7 a

~.e

-,y

.s--

-.? -.

a v.

n s*.yl!s? & 'y '

'N' *

/

- \\;..

+2 L

4

" b'.

L'.

.. 0z,A C f.s'&,", p' N.

M..M/ A' M,N... %,, t,,c.. +,. [ ~*l'.7'r. 9 :,

l

).,.-..,,", " M,ih,-

J.j}

3 i

. u s.

m sem

.W N'f b h {p;,

f.;yh

~

g.

w 7Q. v @@n.yQQ;%%sn...4,f s%,;.yWRNQ

. * ' g.

l

.t

.]s.

Y

' p.

~

?!Q&..,..' Q J W, pQ, a.,

a &.p.

c

. ~

${

Q X%?

~fl'*,*'!*h'N Y &

' N..N

! $ ?k.$ $ $* -

,J Vf**h 9 ll-h

. fl? h 'h A pk.hs%R )&f$?

.I[hN e,e Q.w(hhM(QhkhMh'Qh' *k.f**h q

1

' d.$.-

h h

c n.gewvpmmma ws.

p. am meum_ ggg.gr.wyQ.awguM.4a. w ps

. p)., we g.p g g y g g p, q q yg g g

. bi mmm' a.c m.g.,iv>sw w]w

• e. r.q u p f.w-a cNga Q -

2,3,.

h

.i N' NJ ', - ]

ryy hp l hi h c h k : N 5*f I.

. f. [

9..t 4h M.1 @ @p. E ?% V W l Q e y

e nw M

?gW;:+.,s. rWT ayH vn;,

m.

w

,J,.w.

i L.5 d "

n v<..,.

p..,. w w,.

~...

v..,

t

,n

+e s

v

- *~

5 -S i ' r. 'i,#.!M'E".

y y. < s Y.$Pf 3

. l' ~1' s'

s h,~h,.: f

'.k

.h

'....g+.,-..-l,>*,.', [.

.' a. :--

~

. n.. ~,. -

. m.

~

~c

,,.,.on..,

-~

w e

y, g

Y

~,",. '.

ir 49

'.I

'c.,

I

$4" D'g' '

4 q

4 *, #

3

.'.? n,n(.z N,.

o-c

.1..e.,. g* <.,.

j.

6v I

,' -l-)

q. y- ;., ;..}

i s

. 7 1

0 a

- s

?<.

2 1I 8406070237 840517

~

PDR FOIA R.

PDR ICE.84-96

... ~.

...._u

.....n_

P go, A@l

/AC

1. /

i

/

//,)3-O 2

m

-..... P* O I?D f_

s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA LBP.74 71 gep ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION and ses; ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD SI cont i'""

Michael L. Glaser, Chaisman

"" A Lester Kornblith, Jr., Siember U#'

Emineth A. Luabke, Steinber 130.it of11 In the Matter of Construction Permit Nos. 31 and 82

, 4,,

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Show Cause).

cin (

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)

September 25,1974 con.!

to le the v.

INITIAL DECISION APP' to be Appearances ti:nel fhe Michael 1. Mitter, Esq., and R. Rex Renfrow Ill, Esq., of

' 'T'" "

Isham, Lincoln, and Beale; Judd Bacon, Esq., and Paul

" #8 C Koval Esq., of Consumers Power Company; and Harold F.

ATP#

Reis Esq., and J. A. Bot. knight, Esq., of New man, Reis and J ij Axlerad for Consumers Power Company

"" * ')

li. a: J' Laurence M. Scoville, Jr., Esq., P. Robert Brown, Jr., Esq.,

Bartholomew P. Molloy, Esq., and Richard C. Marsh,'Esq.,

A. Try of Clark,. Klein, Winter, Parsons & Prewitt for Bechtel Power Corporation and Bechtel Associates Professional

^

Corporation

"'f

.a John Gerold Gleeson, Esq., and Leslie F. Nute, Esq., for

... e.U The Dow Chemical Company '

.. n ts

1. "'I#

Myron M. Cherry, Esq., for Saginaw. Sierra Intestenors James P. Murray, Esq., and Roy E. Kinsey, Jr., Esq.. for 3

AEC Regulatory Staff L u.s t u.s I \\l

.4

1. INT 110 DUCTION AND BACKGilOUND r u

.4,

e u..s

l. On December 3,1973, Consumers Power Co. (Consumers), by Or.'e: ti Show Cause, was crdered. bv the Atomic Energy Commission's Director *:

%/

584

\\

j

~~%

1

~.

t

~.

f N

P..

Regulation, to show cause why all activities under Censtruction Permit Nos 81 i

and 82 for the Alidland facilitics, hlidland Plant,1.' nits 1 and 2, should not be suspen led pending a showing by, Consumers that it was in compliance Eith the

, A.EC's regulations gov.erning quality assurance, and that it would continue to co,mply with such regulations,throughout construction. Consumers was granted construction permits Nos. Sl and 82 for the Klidiar.d l' nits by Initial Decision of

.m Atomic Safety and IJcensing Board issued on Deeer..5er 14, l')72. This Initial Decision was ultimately affirmed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal Board) after a series of decisions' on exceptions taken by certain of the parties to the constrdetion permit hearing proceedings.8

2. Dming the review process. the A nneal Bard, bn: ne of the history of the

,,, W.u,t failure of Consumers and its_architectanj!!qer 2

Rechtel Co.rg, to observe rguired quality as<urance practices and rocedures, Enrosed certain conditions'

- 52I P

g Consumers rela _ tin 5.to Consumers' quality assurance _ program. These

,'jg conditions, whidt tite Appeal Board termed as a " predicate for the permits now tgmain_ lit.cffect._ called for Consumers to file periodic reports either with the Arpeal floard or Staff, on Consumers quality assurance activities Th Appeal Board requested that, for its information, copies of all reports required e

to be filed with the Staff be forwarded to the Appeal Board by the Staff o timely basis, together with any comments that the Regulatory Staff may h na The Appeal Board also indicated it desired to receive Slaff enmmn11on the ave.

ieport required to be filed directly with the Appeal Board,and these comments were requested to include the results of any Staffinspection of Consumers The

'a)nd its archiscet engineer, Bechtel Corp., with resp Board's decision of 5f arch 26,1973 (ALAB.106, supra). assura y

A. The December 3,1973, Order to Show Cause 3.The Order to Show Cause issued by the Director of Regulation specified everal instances of non-compliance with quality assurance requirements Afore specifically, the Order to Show Cause stated that Comminion ins rescaled Crnsumcis'Joncprtfo1mance with gualigurance pre;peerie.= h

• ments involving concrete wmk Md teveRedjnadequate rem-keepin3 and had ram, require.

_reCealed serious deficiencies assoeisted with Cadwelding operations Cadw R \\l-73-2, JRI'eb.12, 1973); ALAB-101, RAl 73-2, $5(Feb 20'In te L* nits 1 and 2): AL AB-100, R tl 73 3, IE 614r.

.,1973); ALAB 106, R s173 3, 3316f ay 16,1973); ALAB.132, R Al 73-6, 43113une 286,1973); A t

R st 73-9, t 3NSept. IS,1973); ALA3152 RAl.73-lO, ElfaOct $

,1973p; ALAB-147, R \\l-73-il, IOO2t %m 26.19 73).

1973); ALAB 160,

' \\L Alt 152. sujira.

' AL AB 106, r:.pr.t at 186.

585 J'

~ ~ ~

l

_ _.... _....- / ~

l

i

~

is a pioecss for fu>ing together. etal bars used in icinf.uced c..n rete construction, and repsesents a critical step in constmetion of the Sh.fland E

faulity. The_Oyler to Show Cause also refensed to a memoiandum, dated November 26, l')73, f:om the Atomic Safety and I.iet n>ing Appeal Bo.ud to the Director of Regulation, which poli.ted to certain deficiencies in Cun>umers' implementation of its quality assusance program, and urged that appiopriate enforcement action be taken against Consumers. The Appeal Board al>o seferred to the (onditions it had imposed on COnsumeis in ALAB.106, and the his,giy_of the failme of Consumers and its aM.iteet.cnrincer to obsciveygeggity as>ue:mce oractices and procedures. The Director of Regulation indicated that the Appeal Board memorandum was: anted enmination of whether Comumers would comply with required quality assurance reguliements throughout the construction process, Thus, the Deecmber 3 Order suspended all Cadwelding opeiations at the Slidland plant site, ; ending fu"her order and deteimination by she Diiector of Regulation.

4.Thereafter, Consumers answered the Order _ to Show Cause, claiming 9moliance with AEC cuality assurar ce regulations,and urging that the Oider to Show Cause be dismissed. On December 24, the Saginaw.Sieira Intervenors (Saginaw),intervenors to the Commission's construction pe:mit hearing proceed.

ings imohing the Slidland facilities, requested a hea:Ing on the Order to Show Cause. Qn December 17,1973, as a result of a specialinspection, the Diiector of Regulation nsued a 51odification of Order to Show Cause, which hited the syension of Cdwet&pctivities at the Slidland plant siteJhe afodificatio-howeser, provided that all other previ>lons of the December 3,1973, Oider to f,

Show Cause would remain in effect._On December 18,1973, the Saginaw filed a petition to revoke t1 const uction Fermits.

N,

)

B. The Commi>> ion's January 21,19~4, Order for Hearing 5.On January 21,1974, the Commission issued a 51emorandum and Order denying Saginaw's petition to revoke, denying Consumers' 51otion to di>miss, and granting Saginaw's request for hearing. The Commission specified the following issues to be decided by this Atomic Safety and I.ieensing Beard f

(Board):

(1) Whether the licensee is in.plementing its quality assurance program in compliance with Commission replations; and C)Whether there is a ressenable assurance that such hnplementation will continue throughout the co:.struction process.

The Commi>>ien dizeeted this BNid to determine whether ' Con umers' comtruction permits should be mrdified. suspended or reveked, or ubether -

other setton is warranted by the record, in the event either of the two issues was decided adsersely to Consumers. Consumers, Sa;inaw, Dow Chemical Company (Dow), and the Regu'atory Staff were made parties to the f-s 586 g

i i

/

~ ~ - '

~ _ -....

n.

~

i 1

. -[.

.pioceeding. Bechtel Pmfe sional Cosporation and Bechtel Power Coiposation c

' ' t; !!and (lleshtel), Consumers' architect. engineer for t!:e Mi.Iland fasil,ities, fded a

/

i, dated gietition for intervention.

.l to ihe

., imei s*

C.The Procedural nackground of this Board's

..pri it e Conduct of fle:ning

ned

6. An initi:d pieheaiing conference was hel.1in Chica;;o,!!!inois.* The Board 4'") "I gianted Bechsel's petition, and pennitted it to p.uticip:ete as a paity.s The

, P Y I

llegulatory Staff announced t!.at it no longer supported ent;y of an order which

' "I 'I

would >uspend, modify or ot'.eswise aber Consumcis' const:uction permits.*

The StafCs announced position effectively placed Saginaw as the only p.nty to

. "I ' '

the pioceeding supporting modification of Co: >umers' pcimits. At this

,' Id' 'E picheating conference, howeser, the Board ruled that Consumers had the nin by ultimate burden of proof,and was required to demonstrate why its constinction

',""""8 peimits should not be suspended, sevoked or otheswise modified.'

7. The Board also indicated that the two issues specified in the Commission's Jamiary 21, 1973, Memorandum and Order co;.e cd construction actisities be3ond the Cadwelding activities which had precipitated the Order to Show

"# b Cause,' but that the hearing was limited to constinction of nuclear power plants as opposed to ope:ation.'

', ' f S. At this initial piehearing conference, counsel for Saginaw informed the g

!!oaid that he would be unable to proceed in the active representation of his

[ "",","'

dients' interests unless he neceised Pmancial assistance faom the Commission.

,y Accoidingly, counsel for Saginaw indie ted he would tile a petition with the

(

Commission within a few days requesting counsel r.d witness fees

9. Counsel for Dow informed the Board that his dient would not actisely pas ticipate in the Show Cause proceeding.' '

10.The Board informed all parties that it would require written testimony I Dider i

and a trial brief be filed with the Board piior to the heaiingin connection with

' ;m s.

the matters proposed to be addressed by evidence, and adopted a procedural izJ the I

l'at d

• The Board held the preheari 3 coverence, as wett as a subsequent prehearing conference on Stay 30,1974, in Chicago, to accomn oJane couns:1 for the Saginaw Group, im in who lud indicated that his appeara iet at any other to a:wn would be ineonsenient, and

• outJ w ork a financial ha Jihip on Saginaw Tr. 25.

.' Tr. 29.

i A in Fr. 22 33,4 S-49.

' Tr. 68.

' Tr. 4 3.

ncis

' Tr. 68.

'. et! er

" Counsel firit indicatcJ he moutJ file such petitlen with the Board. The Board,

.ot.es

h. weser, adslied counsel that it had no juri> diction to act on such petition, and suppsted

,,..,,g itut the petition be filed *ith the Commi>> ion. Tr. 28,83.

' ' l'r.11.

' 8 Tr. 56 58,7 7-83.

587

'w

=

• * * = = =..

i v

O

\\

sshedule for the pnweding. The date of Jr.e 25, 1974, was eslablished for gi,,

commencement of heating.

had i1.On Apsil 22,1974, enunsel for Sagin.w, Consmness and lieshtet sened c,n:

>ets of interrogatonics on the vaiivus poties to the pioseeding, instuding the, Staff. In addition, both Con >umers and Bechtel >ened a Reque>t to.timit Facts Chi on the Staff,and a Notice of Depo >ition on S ;inaw.

12. On Stay 10,1974 the Do.nd descimi:ad that amweis to (estain of the A.g intenogatories scived on 'the Staff by Sa;.naw were neeerary to a pro;v.,

deci> ion la the proseeding and were not seas, nably obtainable fmm any other g,c i,

somee. Thus, punuant to Section 2.718i) of the Comminion's Rufes of g

Practice,' 8 we cestified to the Commi>>it.a the question of whsiher the>e u.in

~

inteirogatories should be amwered by the Staff. In our eeitification, we Jun espiewed the view that the attitude of Caimers. eeeciativ tint or eior gr y management personnel, towaid compliance with Com " ion tennhtions and license requirements was iclevant and malesial to the resolution of the issue of future compliance, and recommended that the Staff be reouired to - rntide whatever available information it may p,osess respecting Consumers' ficemed activities which might icfleet u son Consumerc stvitude toward compliance with C0jumission regulation.

ieense require;r.ents. Without awaiting a Commis.

sion tuling, on.\\tay 22,1974, the Staff answeied the interrogato ies which the P"'i Board had certified. The Bo.nd's ruling with respect to the scope of peimissible

'I '

discovery was subsequently applied to the o'ejcetions of Consumers to Saginaw's Sd discoveiy request.

b.'t 13.On Stay 10, 1974, the Board also denied Saginaw's Slotion for an

(.

Estension of Time to file a sequest for the Production of documents. This order l,#

was based upon the sepie>entation of Con >.:mers that it had voluntarily ma.le I'# '

available to Saginaw fer in>pection and eor >ing all documents iefetenced in 1"'

Consumers' answers to intenogatories.

14.It was not until Stay 11,1974 that counsel for Saginaw tiled a Verified df Petition and Slotion to the Atomic Encigy Commission for E. pent Witnesses' M^

s Fees and Attorneys' Fees. The petition stated that unless such fees were

'hd3 forthcoming,, Saginsw would be unable to partleipate in a me.mingful mannes in "M

this proceeding, an? alleged that the participation of Saginaw was nece>sary co-for an adequate airing of the issues and c.spla: ation of the facts.e s P332 l$.On Stay 22, 1974, all parties. cicept Saginaw, filed answers to JI"'

intenogatories which weie liiected tr thinl by other parties. On Stay 21,1974, i

f Rd the day before answers to intenogatories were due from each party,Saginaw tiled metal motions which, in 5.bstance, requested an estension of the i

10 Cl>R f 2.71Sti)(1974).

In the Statier of Consumers Power Compan) OlidLid Plant. Units 1 ar.d 2).\\*entwo Petiiion. at rp. 2. 50!ay 11,19 74).

• '/J. ai p. 7.

588

-i

/,

- * " " ~ ~ '

nu e

i t

! l ;r. - y liwosciy pesiod fliese sequests were premi>ed on the f.et that the Comminion had not used upon Sagnaw's petition for fees which had been filed 10 days i

cailier.

l'ac 16.On Stay.t0,1974, the Board held a second ; schcaring confeience in N ts

' Chicago, !!!inois. After heasing oral sigument, the Board denied Sa;inaw's i

several requests, including a motion for continuance pending a Comminion f the decision on Sa;;inaw's petition for fees. The Board, however,gave Saginaw lease

[,

per i

to senew its. notion for continuance in the esent a favorable suling on its

'ter petition was foithcoming fiom the Commiolon. The floard ondeied Saginaw

' "I to an>wer intenogatories served upon it by June 5,1974. The Boaid also l'e seiterated its cailier suling on the bunden of pinof, but secoided Condimens Ontil June 10,1974, to pie >eni the Bo.nd with a memorand.;m of taw on the burden

' i 't of pmorin an administiative show cause proceeding.:

ad

17. The Bitud aho adopted a sesi ed schedule for t! : proceeding, as follows:

J "I A. Disemesy to close on June 17,1974;

' !c B.W itten te>timony from all parties due on June 28,1974; cd C. Tiial bilers due on July 8,1974; and with D. llearing to conunence in Slidland, Stichigan, on July 16,1974."

is.

18.On June 5,1974, Saginaw filed its answers to the interrogatories

.,9 piopounded by Consumers and Bechtcl. Shortly thereafter, Consumers filed a

'3.,

.\\!otion to Compel Answcrs to Interrogatories,on the ground that the answers of Saginaw were umesponshe and incomplete." The Board gianted this motion,8 8 but Saginaw did not respond.

• en 19.On June 5 and 6,1974, Bechtel and Co:. amers filed with the 3,

Commi > ion sc>ponses to Saginaw's petition for fees; seq.:esting that the petition

.Se denied. The Staff filed its answer to Saginaw's petitian for fees on June 10, 1974

,,.3

20. On June 10,1974, Consumers aho filed a 51oti, n to impose the Burden of Pioof on the Pioponent of an Order Suspending. Revoking or Otherwise 5fodif ing Constiuetion Peimit Nos. 81 and 82", in which Con <umers argued 3

that the proponent of an order modifying the construction peimits bears the

.,n ultimate burden of pioof. On June 12,1974, Bechtel t';ted a biiefia support cf Consumers' motion, arguing that the burden of proofin this proceeding sho31d io properly be placed on the Staff and/or Saginaw. On June 18. 1974 tha siaff

. 3, aho re9onded by stating that the burden of prooflay with the riiononent of the 3

Urst m anow t ause.saginaw filed no response.

.e

Tr.116.

fr.I15.

" Tr.114.135 136,139.

.J

" Tr. I 28.133,

" Ir.157,

" Tr.15 8.

589

... ~

~

~.

i

+

~ '

,b 21.On June 28, 1974, Consumers, Be

• tel and the. Staff Gled written en th testimony and exhibits with the Dnaid and..ther pastics. Saginaw filed no =

gi,, (

, wiitten testimony. On this date, the Board aba in'tiated a conference call to alt counsel, and advi>ed them that the_ Board, upea considening Consumers

• mTion it. it -

had a to change the.buiden of proof, had resersed its carti r mtine with respect to burden of proof, and was placing the burden of proof on the Staff sna "

, ey,,,

had.

Saginaw 8 8 2

22.On July 8,1974, trial briefs were Oled by Consumers, Bechtel and the Staff. No trial 1 ief was Gled by Saginaw, de>;ite a specific ender to do so from

,,f' l's the Board at 'he Stay 30,1974, prehearing conf sence:

g men,

if you have no witnesses, your trial brief onht to reflect that fact, or if you p.u tic don't haec a direct case, other than the can you make in cross-examiriation, p,n gic you should indicate this in your trial brief. We would want somethini, fro:n se ;uis

~

t hus,' '

you along these lines.8 3 i

" I' "#

23. On July 9,1974, the Board placed another conference call to counsel for 2N all pastics, for the expiess purpose of determir.ing whether Sa;inaw intended to J*3#

go fo ward with a psesentation, or othe wi>e appear, at the evidentiary hearing.

j SI8 A Counsel for Saginaw advi>ed the Board and the other panties that he would not i

l'"Y (

be participating on behalf of Saginaw, unless the Commission were to grant his Diie,1 petition for fees.

24.On July 10 1974, the Commission inued a afemorandum and Order R#d',h denying the Saginaw petition for fees. The Commission concluded that the~

f E#M petition must be denied for lack of a proper showing of need.

' ^1"l'l 25.On July 10,1974, the Board placed another conference call to counsel

'E for the parties to deie:mine whether Saginaw's counsel or Saginaw,in view of

~f

'S'";'"!

,the Conunission's July 10,- 1974, Stemorandum and Order.as intended to go I

' ^l"#

l forward. Coun>el for Saginaw advised the Bo.c4 that he would not be present at -

the evidentiary hearings.11owever, counsel did indicate he would participate further in the proceedings to the extent of tiling proposed findings of fact and cunelusions of law, as well as a memoran.!am requesting the Board to take

1. 1. • [

official notice of certain documents Saginaw Intended to rely upon to carry its

e soc burJen.8

• U 26.On July 10,1974, the Boud issued its written 5femorandum and Order the,'

ruling that the burden of proof in this proceeJing was on the Suff and Saginaw to il,e extent that these parties desired that Construction Permit Nos. 81 and 82 '

SJJati, be modified or revoked.

,a 8 8Tr.12a 125.

88Tr.152.

"Stemormdum and Order RAI.74-7,IUuty 10,1974L C

"See n. 24,suiire.

u

" Tr.153,

~i 7

590 S,.

D

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

S 4

-n

e i

. ;i.

1 1.o~

27.On July 16,1974, the Commioi.in iwued a M: moi.mdum and Onde:

8' on the question certified to it on May 14, 1974, conecaning whether or not the

• to.,il Staff was icquhed to answer Saginaw's interro;;atosies. The Commission ruled

..t i. n '

that the Staff should answer all interingatories with respect to which the Board

.st to had detennined that answers wcie necewary to a proper decision, and weic not 4 ~

if and seasonably obtainable from any other source. As we have noted, these answers l

had aheady been provided by the Staff on May 22,1974

.1 the 1

28.On July 16, 1974, pmsuant to a Notice and OrJcrfbr Commenecmcnt

6. m of &l.kuttary IIcaring28 dated June 17, 1974, the evidentiary hearing com.

meneed in Midland, Michigan, and continued through July 18,1974. All of the

• pu puties to the proceeding were present escept for Saginaw. Each of the other Nn, parties paesented testimony and pasticipated in cross namination. The Board

. bn required both Consumers and the Staff to present witnesses ' in addition to

(.

those who had submitted prepaied testimony. The Boaid also questioned various

., g,,,

witnesses that had been presented.

. y,,

29. The Staff presented four witnesses-Mr. Walter E. Vetter, the technical assistant to the Director of Diiectorate of Regulatory Operations, Region Ill;

.g Mr. Roger Rohrbacher, Principal Reactor Inspector for Directorate of Regula.

,, 7 ;,

tory Operations, Region III; Mr.CordellC. Williams, Resetor Inspector for i

Disectorate of Regulatory Ope:ations, Region !!!;and Mr. Dolphus E. Whitesell, 33, Reactor In>pection Specialist for Directorate of Regulatory Operations.

j

- g 30.In addition, Mr. James G. Keppler, the Discefor of Directorate of Regulatoiy Operations, Region Ill, appeared and gase testimony at the specific icquest of the Board,

'y.

i j

31.Conmmers presented four witnesses, including Mr. Russell C. Youndahl,

' Senior Vice President, and Mr. Stephen 11. Ilowell, Viec President. The Board

'i#

requested that Consumers make available Mr. Ralph Sewell, Nuclear Licensing

.t at Administ ator for Consumers, to answer the Board's - questions concerning statements he had given to the Directorate of Regulatory Operations in connection with an in estigation of Consumers' Pali <ades facility.

4 32.Bechtel presented ten witnesses, as well as a panel comprised of five penons.

33. Neither Saginaw's counsel nor anyone representing Saginaw appeared at the ceidentiary hearing.-

34. Following the Staff's diseet case, and after no evidence was offered by_

Saginaw. Consumers moved:

til That the Beard issue an order holding that Saginaw was in default under 10 CFR {2.707; and 4

5 8 '\\tema.inJum and Order. RAI.74 7. 40uly 16,1974)

' 30 f,.!. Reg 22447

" Tr. t 5 5. 4 39.

591

.(

-i

./

%2

~ - -. - -....

/

/

\\

q (21 That the proceeding t>e dismissed, since the 1)orden of proof had not tacen met.8 8 The Boaid denied this motion. The BoarJ.:!>o in.ficated it would give Saginaw until )nly 25,1974, to file its memorandum icquesting official notice to ly g

taken of certain documents. At the close of the evidentiary hearings on July 18,1974, Consumers senewed its motion to hold Saginaw in default and to dismiss the pmeceding on the giounds that the bmden of proof had not been me t.3 8 The Board inificated it would take this senewed motion under advisement.3* Our ruling on this motion is set forth below.

35.On July 25, 1974, the Board, hasing receised no memoiandum from Saginaw, issued,an Oider closisig the record. Propo>cd findings of fact and conclusions oflaw were submitted by Consumers and Bechteljointly, and by the Staff, on the specified date of August 12, l'174. No ieply findings were filed.

Saginaw did not file pmposed findings of fact or condusions oflaw. Itoweser, Saginaw filed a "Slotion" on August 12,1974, requesting a two-week extension in the deadline to file pmposed findings. The Board denied the "Slotion" for U

lack of good cause shown. Saginaw renewed its "Slotion" on August 26, 1974, and the Board again denied it for lack of good cause shown.

\\.

D. Consumers' Renewed Slotion 36.The Board has considered Consumers' renewed motion to hold Saginaw in default, and to dismiss this proceeding on the gmunds that the huiden of pioof has not been met. We deny this motion. While these appears to be ample piecedent for this Board to grant Consumers' motion, the Board believes that in the circumstances heie pie >ent, a determination is wairanted on the secord ie>pecting Consumers' compliance with Commi>sion quality assurance acquise-ments and the implementation of Consumers' quality a>surance progiam.

Indeed, we would not hase ordered hearings to proceed were it not for the fact L

that the Board believed substantial public interest questions existed regarding C

Consumers' compliance with Commission quality assurance requiiements and Consumers' implementation ofits quality assurance program.

a.

11. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Issue No.1

-t-t Whether the licensee is implementing its quality assurance program in compliance with Commiss'en regulations.

" Tr. 4 29-4 38.

' ' 1 r. 4 3 2.

" Tr. 590-5 93.

' ' Ir. 705.

' ' Tr. 7 0 7.

592

~'

^

~ ~ ~ ~

- '- -- ~ -- - ~ ~ - - ~

.)

l r~

.~...

~

,,, t

37. The first Assurance Program in compliance with the Commission's reg g

regulations governing quality assurance are set forth in 10 CFR Part 50

. The Appendix B. Although the language of Appendix B has not been amended in an

. be si nificant way since it originally became effective on July 27,1970,as intespretation ofits requirements has been chan;ing in sn evolutionary process the eser the years. I.icemec compliance with the Appendix has been evaluated by the Staff consistent with the interpretation which was in effect at the time of culuation.

38. The function of the Directorate of Reguistory 0; erations, as it relates to this case, is to conduct field inspections of the actisities of Consumers (

J eiinnacion) to obtain, by means of selective sampling inspections, reasonable and its assurance that licensed activities are in accord with the AEC's requiiements**

d-and are not, or will not be, inimical to the health and safety of the public This function, which in this case is carried out by personnel of the Region ill Office in Glen Ellyn, Illinois,is executed in accordance with guidelines provided by th Diicetorate of Regulate.ry Operations IIcadquarters Staff by experienced and e

isnowledgeable Regional Office impectors, assisted by sarious specialists and comultants. The principal activities by these personnel with respect to the Midl.md facility have mcInded:

(a) Examination of Consumers' and its contractor's QA and QC programs V

to epmpare the requirements and controls actually imposed by Consume s I

with commitments made o the Commission; r

s 2

(b) lnspections orquality controt reenids:_

1 (c) O_bservations of construction work in progress; and (d) Selective examinations of construction procedures.3 '

39. Limited precomtruction permit activities at the.\\lidland site commenced Consumers in November,1970, when extensive delays Const:uction Permit became apparent. Construction was resumed in June 1973 and has continued, with the brief surpension discussed herein, to the present Quality assurance activities, both by Consumers and by the Regulatory Staff, 38 howeser, began even before the start of construction in 1970.

g

40. The Klidland Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) was issued i

i Januay 13,1%9. Appendix 1B of the PSAR (which predated Appendix B of 10 on CFR l'.m 50) was a very brief description of the Quality Assurance Program for i

"3? M Rcr 10498

• • These requirements are found in the construction permit, i

provii.sna of the Atomic Tncrgy Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commis ion the arrlication, the (Tr. I h31.

I

Tr.154155. 34 t.34 2; 34 7 351: 35 7 366.

"Tc,timont of flowett, fetlowins Tr. 485.pp. 6 7.13.

593'

t n

(

s

./

- '~

i

l

,,e proposed facility." A men.f ment No.4 to the PSAR was i>>ued on October 2,1969, subsequent to the publication'* on Apiil 17,1909, of the pmposed Apivndix B. This amen huent was a c..n.;lete resision of the original quality a>>urance progi.mt* ' Anwmhnent No. 6 to the PSAR was iwued on December 29,1969, to nespond to the Comminion's sequest for a dessiiption of the manner in which the.\\lidiand Quality Assurance Piogram would be implemented. Amendment No.8 was issued on February 9,1970, to proside, pmsuant to the Commi>> ion's icquest, documentation of inteiface sesponsi.

bilities during design, pioeuienwns, cc.nstruction and pre. operational testing.

These amendments provi. fed more details than dese:ibed in the initial i>>uance of Appendix ID and spelled out mme specineally the s e>ponsibdities of Consumers, Beshiel, and B&W and the inteif.wes between these organiistions.*' Duiing 1970, the Diiectorate of Regulatoiy Operations (RO), then the Dhision of Compliance, carried out a number of inspections. Dming the period Sjptem.

ber 29 to October 1,1970, shmtly before Consumcis' suspension of constiuc.

tion, RO conducted a site in>pection duiing which defisiencies relating to the pt.wement of conenete weie identified. Con >umers and Bechtel evaluated the findings and took the actions they considered appropriate.*' RO was not able at that time to complete its inspection and evaluation of these concetive astions because of the cessation of con >tiuetion. Re inspection of these activities, howeser, did not occur in September 1973 **

41. Dming the 1970 1973 su> pension of construction, Consumers and Bechtel made numerous changes in the Quality Assurance Programs, some for intemal reasons and some in ie>ponse to the ALC's descloping interpretation of Appendix B.* 5 After sesumption of construction, inspections continued. In some cases deficiencies in the Quality Assur.ince Program were found and concetive actions taken.** On December 3,1973, the Director of Regulation 1,

i>>ued the Order to Show Canse, identifying thice specific examples which indicated a possible failure of Con >umers to im;'ement its Quolity A>surance Piogram in compliance with Conunission segulations. The>e cumples. each of which is discussed below, were:

(a) inspections occuning on September 29-October 1,1970, revealed several instances of Consumers' non.conformance with quality assuiance program requirements intohing concrete work. These matters were discussed by the Appeal Board in its.\\temorandum and Oider of.\\ larch 26,1972

" Licenice'> Eshibit K 5.

" 34 fed. Reg 6599.

• ' Lian ce*> thhitit K4.

"Te innon> of Recle), fellowing Tr. 458.rp. S 14

• '/1 at p.14

• Tr. 266 268.

Keeley, pp.14 19; ltow ell. rp. 5-13.

" Keeley.pp.19 35.

594 1

.i p a 3

/

../

Y

I

. sue.1.,n

,9,.,f the

.I N.

he on in.il (Al. \\ll 106). in i sued on con litin which ei!pti..d of

~.

(b)lnspectionsm on Consumers with respec w,uld be mposed certain V, involving inadequatseveral additio n

to prosile, additional asturance and unav.nilabilitons o

.c

,11 and 27,1973, re gram responsl.

e (c) inspections record keeping

il testing.

, Appendix R, Crite v ad e

conducted on November 6y o pro cedures deficieneles associated wi ounce Ca numers,f relating to quality o

These nce re Xill, XV and XVil.* ' constitute violations of 10 CT cords;and

' During of concrete icin

]%ision of R Past 50, Appendix B Conervie Plaecment

,,9, ars.

, Criteria 11, V,

c..nstrue

.,.,, g, site impectio, mentioned 42.OriSeptemb

.,1,d and 30, and on October I 6e n

concrete placement acti i at able at v ties, including the is ymr. duri immediately following thi R e actions n

O inspection, Consumers a dn ngs and took Og Ghwing(a) Buhtel co 4;g' s

mproper use of vibrators.**

l conume don:

n Bechtelevaluated regarding concrete samp!.

. eis and a

sibrator w k. This(b)Be htel establi<hedl se

' '# I '

c

~~

"I or a special crew specification ofall Q list concrete pou(c) Bechtel assign

' d. In sn and aality Control Engineer te proper us

, ' A*"

(d) Consumers field l

rs;5 '

e sequireme ts, including t kmrveillance d o full-time r

es which e e pours to insurepersonnel wer monitoring s

.r n

ance w

as required to transport ba ing of samples, and compliance with estab

. e ch of

43. Although constru i etween the batch plant and itional d ed inspectors were infconducted an impection at th sesc led a

the pourlocationocumen ct on e job site on January 6 7at the aanee

.sa Beehtel

,cu> ed ormed of the corrective a i y then suspended, RO lloweser,regarding the conesete deficienci

o. 1972 ct on undertaken by Consu.,

not able todue to the fact that co es noted in the previous RO i informed Consumeobserve implementation of nstruction had been halted mers and the nspection rs that these items w corrective

, the inspectors were. !

• 'In the ould remain in the followand, therefore, action Show Cau c. De.cmt ci 3 matter fGnun.rsfone C

.up status until o

' 't.t asp.14 1973.

r

• *1J."t.6.cnicei 1% hit;st Compen) ($16dtand Nat (* i 8 't,t.

. n ts 1 and 2). Order to P 2.

"Kc Icy,p.I4

'9

/

595

\\

i e.===.o

(

w t

esm. *.

(

enew_m,um.. am.

s<

-umm msman em x.. we we==.es h

u. w

e. w.

esm

.s ame =

==w,

mm__

/

(

sonsiiuetion sesmned and RO &ald se.,fy that the conectise procedinc> lud

.O been implemented.5 3

-14.Piion to the attual resumpiion of conciete activities in 1973, the flechtel Quality Assurance gioup conducted a teview of inspection reports and other documentation to deleimine whether or not fuither coercetive action was iequired in mder,to satisfy the conunitn ents made in 1970. As a iesult o,f this icview, an intensisc indoetiination and training program was implemented for peisonnel invohed in pl. icing and inspection of concrete work. This program contained, anmng other things, detailed instructions in the proper use of v.

tors. Detailed inspection p' ens were developed and implemented and ipiality assmance pensonnel were 'nstiu.ted to promptly identify and to take necewaiy astions to coneet any di.eier.incies noted dusing concrete ope ations.

In addition, Bechtel assigned -a Quality Connot repre>entative to full-time monitoring of test lab activities. AdJ!tional training and indoctiination iequiiements for Quality Control perior. net weie established, and the Bechtel

>;wification govesning testing of concrete v is updaicd to the latest sesisions of industry codes and standards.s e

45. On September 57,1973, at its first in pection following re activ.ition of construction at the Midl.md Plant, RO obscited the correctise action ielative to the concrete dcGelencies. RO determined that the deficiencies had been conected but that certain of these activities would be fuisher observed in suh>equent inspections.s s This was finsity consideied by RO to be resobed as a result of an in>pection on March 6-7,1974.s a Record Keeping Procedures 46.On September 10,11 and 27,1973, RO performed an inspection of Bechtel Engineering to evaluate compliance with the applicable quality assurance eilteria for design and procurement methities at Midland. In its sepoit of that inspection, RO cites denciencies in documentation contiol pioeedures.sv Although each of the discrepancies identified by RO had been presiously identified by Bechters Qnality Assurance Group ar d corrective action had been initiited,ss Bechtel completed correctise action in each of the fo!!owing areas:

(a) Retention of records common to area: affecting quality; (b) Maintaining cunent drawings in the Project Engineering stiek Gles; (c) Ptoecdures to prescribe control of interface actisities between design groups;

Tr. 2t>7 9;lleen ce's Eshibit CP-2.

"Teoimony of Deison, following Tr. 59 ?. pp.18 20.

' 8 Licen ce's INhibn CP.3.

Licen ce's *hhibn CP.19.

Lkensec's thhibit CP.12.

' ' Bechters lihibits Detion-17. -18. 19. -20 A. -20B. a nd -21.

596

(../

a

~

t ilud-(d) Pincedmes to paesesibe wntrol, iswr.ee and changes to Dee' tel's O

inaca nal Procedures.\\1anual; and

. r.

J (c) Amenifing the Nuclear Quality Assurance.\\tanual to provide Pmject 1

..tlier -

Engineering the Ocxibility to impose evolving q n!ity assmance requirements I

i was on senJors."

f this

47. Dming its inspection of January 10 11, 1974, RO reviewed the actions

{-

9 ;,

..! for l

taken to correct the denciencies in the abose areas and concluded that the (0'rective action taken was adequate and was being properly implemented.**

...,m

.se of I

i

!,,nd C;ntweld Splicing

- i.tke 48.On November 1,1973, the Bechtel Field Q::.ility Assurance Engineer

-ions.

found several completed Cadweld splices from which the asbestos packing had

':. time not been completely removed.*' lie issued an open Q.;ality Assurance Daily Log

..t i.in i

to the Bechtel Project Superintendent *8 which required emrecthe action piior Liel to covering the Cadwelds with concrete.*8 i

w of

49. On November 6 8,1973, RO carried out an inspection at the site that indicated to them that serious deficiencies existed with respect to Cadwelding.

.i.n of These defielencies related to void measurement tee!.niques and the associated

..e is acceptance criteria, the comprehensiveness of records to demonstrate correct t

Seen performance of Cadwelding, and the adequac> of :he existing procedures for ed in

. proper control and documentation of Cadweldir g activities. Str. Vetter testined

!aa that as a result, the Staff, on November 9, re. pes:ed in a telephone call to Consumers' Project Afanager that Cadwelding be sugended pending corrective action and seriew by the Staff of the coireethe setion. The Project 5fanager se>ponded that he, also, had felt that there had been major QA/QC pioblems associated with the Cadwelding, that a hold had been -! aced on the aetisities the r

no, g

tha,

.' previous day, that Consumers personnel had thorou;hly resiewed the matter,

\\

and that, as a result of their subsequent actions, they fe:t that the hold should be Q,n lified. lie was informed that it was the Staff positior: that all existingCadwc!ds

[

should be re inspected and requalified by properly qua:ified pe sonnel and that a gy

~. [, "

determination should be made by the regional office that an acceptable program for Cadwelding had been developed and implemented tefore work was resumed.

~ ' " '

Shortly afterwards, the Project Afanager confirmed that the Cadwelding had been suspended in accordance with the Staffs request.* *

" * '8"

50. As a result of that inspection, Consumers took a number of actions. In addition to requalifying the Cadwelds, Consumers undertook the following additional steps:

l 1

Dot,an, pp. 23 28.

1 t

• IAer eeN hhibit CP.16; Tr. 327

• ' Dot,on, p. 5; Be hters Eshibit Dotson.2.

I

Kette), p. 28.

• Tr. es01.

'l

• Tr. I 5S.190. 289-290; 317 321.

597.

d it

... -. -.. - - - - -. ~.. -. -

a

O (a) An inercase in the number of Consumers' Field Q iality Assmance personnel from one, psior to it.e Nosember 6.S RO inspection, to four dming the c.uly pait of December; (b) Consumers' quality assmance pessom'iel were provided with proce.

dures requhing audits to determine that all safety.related metisities would be accomplished in accoidance with the requiiements of 10 CFR 50, Appendis B and ANSI S45.2 In addition to these program type audits, Field Quality Anurance persomul were also piosided procedmes requiring semification, by actual ob>enatic.n, that Beshtel wmk and instwtion Procedures for quality.related actisities were being implemented; (c) Consumers' field quality u>arance personnel were made icsponsible for sesiewing and approving all Be.htel Slaster Impection Plans to descimine whether these impection plans adequately as>ure the qu.dity of work function by prosiding adequate Quality Control acceptance parameters, adequate detail of the inspection function and adequate esidence that all quality.related aetisities were being propeily obsened and documented;and (d) Procedures for regular meetings between Consumers' General Office personnel and Consumers Field Qaality Assurance personnel were written and implemented. These procedures require one. day sisits every two weeks by the Slidland Quality Assurance Supervisor to the Slidland Site, one day e

visits esely two months by Consumers' Director of Quality Assurance Senices, and quarterly meetings between Consumers' Slidland Quality Assurance Services personnel wah the Vice President of Electric Plant Projects, the Director of Quality Assurance Senices and members of the 31idland Psoject Organi/.ation. s 3

k

51. Bechtel management also tock steps to verify that the Cadwelds were of proper quality, to dete:mine necessary revisions to the Sechtel Quality Assurance propam for Slidland and to insure that similar situations would not recur." This action included:

(a) Deselopment of more fo:malized procedmes for >pecialised work piocesses; (b) Requiring Quality Control Engineers to conduet quality acceptance and verification in>pections; (c)lmplementation of an action program to provide more timely sesponse to Quality Assurance / Quality Control findings; (d) Qualification of Quality Control Engineers in seeordance with waitien pioeedures covering quahfications, indoctrination, training, testing and certification in accordance wi:h requiiements of ANSI S45.2.6 and AEC Regulatory Guide 1.58; and

Keciey, pp. 29 30.

"Testiman3 of Yates. foltewing Tr. f *0. rp.1011.

598

(

)

l

.~

,a s

(e)lncie.ned mana;;ement and supenisory pe sonnef attention including L ' t * --

sisits to the site at least twise per } car by the Bethiel Vice Pse>ldent and j

Deputy. Division,\\ tanager, San Francisco Power Division,each quaract by the

% pio c.

Vice President and Area Slanager of the Ann Arbor area of0ce, and once odd be eseiy other month by the Ann Arbor Office Slanagcr of Construction.*'

J i il 50, Implementation of these astions was verified by Bechtel management ** and

aushis, l

directives weie issued to re emphasi/c Bechters commitment to Quality iiilial A s sm a nce.* '

.wti.in 52.Special inspections were canied out by the Staff at the site on i

Nosember 20.md 21 and December 6 and 7.1973, after Consume:s had noiined j

p nsible the Staff that necenary coirective actions had been completed. At the Erst of I

.inune the>e inspections, the Staff found.itat, although subst.intial conestise action f "v'k had been taken with sc>pect to the 'recific Cadweldiag piohlems, fmther action ac " 5 was nece>s.ory by Consomens with se;,ard to its anatpi. of the implicatieins of the

':at.ill l

Cadwelling problems to the overs?! implement:. tion of the.\\lidl.ind quality i

• ed; a' d j'

addiessed to this laster matter, the Sbff did not fii.d adequate documentation of j

assurance psogram. Although it afreated to the Staff that attention had been

! Offi't xiit ten such action.

- we. (s 53.The fact that the actions I;. ken by Consumers and its contractors ce i. y besucen November 9 and the Noveraber 2001 inspection did not enthcly ful0ll l

rance the St.ift's requiiements a; pears to have resulted, at least in large part, from a

• 't: atty lack of mutual undeistanding of what was required." On Nosember 21 the c P!. int Staff fusther clxified its position to iaclude the requirement that:

' of 11]

Consumers Power Company... dem3nstrate that the Midland quality J

.uutance' quality contsot programs had tmn ar styded for shurscomings by Consumers Power Company and... correctice action, indic.ted to be gnal,iy necev.ary as a result of [the] quality assurar.ce/ quality controt program

.:Id not shoitcomings analysis had been ad:quately prescribed.78

54. As a consequence of this claiineation, Consumers formahy documented 3 "k its acalpis of the programmatic a>pects of the Cadweld denciencies" and anothe RO in>pection was >deduled for December 3.1973. This in>pe tion was s

P8ie subequently cancelled by 110 and Consumers was notined shortly thereafier of the inuanee of the Order to Show Cause. The - cancelled inspection was

• 'i"'IY rescheduled and held on Deecmber 6 and 7,1973. During this inspei. tion, RO conclu led that the programmatic deficiencies, including management in olve.

'""I

'

• liv. hier. tTlutni Yatev5.

'sl 3 L C

' ' ) aies. pp.10-11.

• */J., lies hiera l'shibits Yates-6,.7. and 8.

" is.191,290.321 322.

• ' Is. Isa1; 21.5 216; 222 225,369 370; 509 511.

' ' I t.191.

Isoweit, n 19. Lt.xn ce's Tshibit K '.ini K 8.

• *ltam ell, id ;I i.en ec'il stuht CI' 14 599 y

u

G, ment, and special pi.blems nelating to Cadwelding at Slidland had been "U

Kiti>fastosily sesolved.

}

'i 55.On December 13, a alemurandum was sent by Dr. Knuth (Director of f

Regulatory Operations) to Str. Stunt /ing(Didetor of Regulation) ieconunending,8-that the Order to Show Came, which had been twicd on December 3,19 73,be

• modified to permit Cadwelding activities to resume.The Order to Show Cause 1

17,1973.t s was so modified on December

56. An additional re.hnpection was made on January 10 and I1,1974, to deteimine the Jegiee of implementation of the commitments made cailier, C

including those made in Comamers' answer to the Order to Show Cause. The Staff found that Qg>umers had taken~ammeritte action.

C

[57. Based upon the te>timony of the winnenes p5nted that Consumers is implementing its quality.musance pmgiam in compliance s

with the Commission's regulations.

B. Issue No. 2 Whether there is a rea>onable assurance that such implemmtnN t dll t

continue throughout the construction process.

SS. The second issue that must be decided by this Board is whether these is seasonable assurance that Consumers' implen entation of its quality assurance program in compliance with Commission regulations will continue throul,hota the construction proecss. The Board has analped the evidence of record and has classified such evidence into three general areas, which it believes will be r,

(

}

useful in deciding this twue. The first is the actions that Consumers and its contractors have taken in the past to establish an effectise program and to >earch out and put into effect impiovements in it. Tf e wond is the expressed points of elew amFintents of the senior personnelinvohedyhe third is the opinions of

)

gthe Staff's expert witnesses ard the bases for the.e opinions. With sespect particularly to the latter two areas, the Bo2rd realices that its judgments will ngesurily be somewhat subjective and will be based in part on ine Jeme.m the witnesses,which the Boaid has caiefully obsened and considered.

Actions by the Licensee 59.The setions taken by Consumers and its contractors to improve their the November 1970 suspension of quality assurance piogiams prior to construction base been di>eussed stspra." Subsequent to the suspension, on February 1,1971, a cospoiate reorganization was lasiliuicd by Consumers, in

Tr.192193:291:322 324;342:402804

Tr.196-20l;291292; 32.5 326.

Paragraph 40.

600 O

N-.

u__.

\\

,e

. =

= =..

s f 7 ' Men which overall se pomibility for specific corporate psojects was del e

i specified indithfuals. The philosophy underlying the new orcani/ati n. co u of

.'f' u

egated to individuals, projects could be properly supervised

o. unending on structure 3,I W.1,be l

e e t

coordinating corporate activity through various departmentalinterfacemple

%w C.su>e August 31, 1971, s.1 On i

surance Program Audit Manual was voluntanity upgraded I

? I. I"7 8. 'O s.

detailed procedures for implementation." Similady Consumers'prinide more I# C"lic'.

Communleations Guideline Stanual was issaed in De Cause. The Departmcntal in March of the following year. The Midhnd Project Procedures 5fa r s se which was required by these guidelines, was issued in October 1972 s

' #4 "I d'"Y

nual, l

? od tin.ls

60. In 5farch of 1972 Bechtel submitted to Consumers fo g

"ph..n e concurrence a policy statement revising and defining the policy and res o c

and bilities for the Quality Assurance Program of its Power and Industsia p nsi-Consumers' conunents on this statement were resched i

v s on.

accepted by Consumers in February of 1973.8 8 vas e

61.In an effort to obtain another perspective regarding Commis

.;3n w;is l

ssurance requirements, Ceramers employed the NUS Corporation uality l

j consultant to examine the Quality Assurance Program. NUS subm as a i

E unemner ia. rWL stating that Consumers had a complete and 5 ^#'O I5 r

audit ohn_NUS recommended that the QuMity.rssurance organizati

8.uk e aiiTIEiT yuh.Muance aetnities be expandea ecyon

'". h.iat on be given

<"d d"d f

unction ~s A'sTTesult on tius seport, yoamy Assurance activities were ex

. s will be mg lunetion.

Doal ty Assurance ore:mizatiom were civen creater, although no

' ei '

panded and the indmendence, l'ndd~the new organization, which became eff th

!" N

/

Assurance Administrator and he reported directly

."'""5"'

ee e Febru.

.isns of ua ty Picsident in charge of Electrie Plant Projects.:s % #* $3 teo ruput e Vice the QA the Commis_sion did not correctly understand the new o rcanization n15 "I lO8 0f were held with the RO staff to rectify this and as a res lt rgamzation. Discussions teoiga iintion was made on October 1 u, a further i

and directo s of service organi/ations and rep l

.e their Prnident, Electric Plant Projects. This reorganization resulted in a ce gn oc the Quality Assurance organization from the Midland Project o aration of

n. on rganization which

Kceto, pp, ! 4 15. Ilou ell, pp. 8 9.

" Keetcy. p.15: liom ett. p. 9.

"Kceley, p.18.

"Id. p.19.

'8

/J. pp.1518; Yates. pp. 2-h tie.-hters Fsh.tm Y-1 "t

llou ett. pp.11 Ik Lt.vnwe's I shit its l{-3 and l{-4 601

• • • • • • e===.e.w.em.= *= m eemmeemm em3. e nes ww-e - -

-.==.am.mmumme e. ee em 4.i.-.nw

w. e M

y, 1

r-1 had cost and scheduling sesponsibdities. This independent Quality Awmance on;:mi/ation was gisen responsibility for all aspects of Quality Anurance l

induding policy and huplementation. T!.c org miration and responsibilities iemain e>wntially the same today.'" Also, duiing 1973, additional staffing was provided for the quality assurance organteation, the Quality As>uranec Slannal and the Policies and Psoecdures Stanual were sevised, and a new Quality Assurance Seivices Depaitment Proceduies 51anual was wiliten to p: ovide pincedures for the new organization. s

. 62. Shostly after the icoiganization, Censumers asked NUS to make a new sesiew of the QA program" and, after the Cadwelding problem arose, expanded the awl:;nment to include a recommendation regarding the desirability of using a third party inspection oiganteatior> independent of both Consumcis and Bechtel.

ES recommended ag, inst such use of a third party inspection group. They did secommend, howeser, that consumers (1) incosposate peitinent require-ments of ANSI N45.2 standards into its Qu.dity Anurance Psogram, (2) consolidate Quality Assurance procedures into a single Quality Assurance

.1anual, (3) consolidate all Quality Assurance actisities (including operational)

\\

under a single Quality Assurance 31anager,(4) clearly define Quality Assurance responsibilities during pre-operational testing,(5) perfoim a detsited seriew of 4

the Bechtel and B1,W Quality Assur: nee P:ogram,(6) conduet a baseline audit of mincimi sendors ming a third patty ors.nisation,and (7) establish a Qualit Assuiance! Quality Control Surveillance. Inspection nogram tied to the 51idland construction schedule. With the exception of the consolidation of both gonstruction and operational Quality Assurance functions under one Quality 1

Assurance.\\laniger, and the recommendation regaiding third party baselit!c

)

audits of princit'al vendors, an activity already completed by Consumers' Project

('

Quality Assurance Servlees Department (PQASD) persenei. these NUS secom.

mendations have been fully implemented by inco potation into a resised Consumers' Omtitv A<surance blanual."

~

63.In recoenition of the usefulness of a periodic third party revie.v, Consuiners has retained the General Electric Suelear Engineering servises Apollo" Pup to review and comment on the resi>cd manual. That iesiew process is

[

IIiiderway and upon completion of the teview, a sevised manual and imple.

menting procedure will be issued. In addition, General Electric has icviewed the

/j audits which Consumers has completed. To date, General Electrie Apolla has p

4 not indicated that any major changes in the Consumers Quality Assurance

,,.g Y

d' "llowett. pp 141 $; Lt.enscei Eshibit 115.

I

'!!owett. p. !$.

/

"14..p.16.

14. p. 20.

"lJ., pp. 20 22; Licenscei Exhibit 1110.

"llow til, p. 2 2.

t 602 1

i

)

J

7\\

i Piossam would be Jesioble." Gencial Fle t i

• s,

conduct annual seriews of the Comumers Quality Ac r c A; flo has a!

purpmc of deteimining whether that program is beinumance Psogram for th l

, w as E ""1I and to offer recommendations for updating the P j

g properly implemented

,i ah;y segubtory and Indmiry standaids."

. :ogsam to meet evolving on the Slidbnd Project comply with both 10 CFR

,d siac ji at their procedures med S45.2 and to comider ANSI N45.2 as the contr !!'

new

., Appendix B and ANSI the Be hrel Quality Anurance Program Wh Od

,-]

n; document in evaluating o

of the audit. In NCR.61, dated April 1was conducted dur p

ga hici.

.. was used as one of the baes

" ey resi e its Nucicar Quality Assurance alanual t,1974, Consumers directed Be l-to comply with the acquirements of ANSI N45scituisem ire-I

'D e te ud established in crder connectise action of this nonconfo mance report "t Deehiel has complied with the Se d) 65.Similady, in August of 1973 Cons newly revised Quality Assurance Program to thumers directed B&W to apply i l

.e A ssurance Program."Consumeis became the first utility toput into effecte af

Thus, El the upgraded It&W Quality l

ii E

taken by both Consumers and Bechtel to u66. As a comcq

~.y J

?

roblem, additional steps were -

hme been desetibed in connection with issue No 1 "pgrade quality assuran

h

67. Consumers has also instituted two ty y

Bechiel construction and Quality Control persopes of field audits to assure

-e t /

training, that Bechtel inspection proc d

)

nnel have received effective doepmentation is provided. The flist of these audie ures are adequate and tha

\\

of using a cheek!ist provided in the Quality Assts, the pregram audit, con i

manual to review Bechtel field activities prior to co uranee Senices Procedures ifaster Impection Plan with the requirements li t d i

mparison of the Beehtel n the Preliminary Safety f

Analysis Report, Commission regulations specific se field, in addition to these program audits an im laho i

necinent of work in the is aho gvrformed by Consumers' PQASD personnel tp ememation audit sur j

and impection selivities are being 3ceemplished (a acco do mure that procedures and that approsed specifications are being met "

l r ance with approsed l

g s'

i "1. c P 91.

"Kecicy pr. 32 33.

?

"11. rr. 33 34

'l.!.. p. 31 I

"rau Jrh* !0 and $1 r:< pre.

'j s

" Eccio, rr. 54 603

?

\\

)

...... ~.

a 4

.~.

~

s to. In addition to these field actisities, PQASD >.hedales an.1 wnJnet> (1) andits of llechte! Engineciing. Pro tnement, Inspe.:.. n am ! Qnality A>suiance; i

s r3 G).mdits of t!AW En,incesing, Pmemement,Quuty Assmance and fabrication i

fnilities; and (3) audits of majm suppliers." Con > mens and 13echtel base both aho instituted additional training aethities. Consamens imtituted a fonnat j

j, liaining program for all of its Quality Assurance pei>onnel in 1973." It was expanded in 1974 to include the use of outside, as well asConsumens,pensonnel to conduct the liaining. The training of new empioyees and the actraining of present employees will be a continning pmeess."

69.Similaily, lhhters indoetiination and training pnigram continned to cvohe ilnough the addition of moic detailed and compichen>he iequhements.

Piesently, each Quality Assus.ince Engineer is requhed to compfeic an in. depth, compichensive training program wn>isting of clas> room preparation,on thejob expeilence and paiticipation in diffe' rent kl ds of audits. Quality Control n

Engineers are ecitified under a program designed to comply with ANSI N45.2.6 and Regulatoiy Guide 1.58." The iraining program for En;,ineers and De>igners has become more foimal and mote cumprehensise.'" Bechiel's Psoeuiement inspection training program also has euntinued to esobe to the point where it piesently includes certification, recertification und supplementasy sessions tailored to meet specific needs. This program is eunently being upgraded to e

meet the sequTrements of ANSI S45.2.6 and N45.2.12.8" s

1.ieensee's afanagement Pu>ition

70. Russell C. Youngdahl, Senior Vice President in charge of all aspects of Comumers' electric generating and transmission planning. construction, opera.

tion and maintenance, including nuclear generating stations, paesented testimony on this subject. Mr.Youngdahl is one executive lesel below the chief esecutise

('

officer. Mr. Yonned3hPs nicetstion of the attitude of the Pn dbnr 3nd Chainnan of the Board of Directors toward Quality Assuiance has been $mg.nf.

insistence on the highest standards of Quality Assurance; this attitude has been expressed in the presence of representatives of the Commission.'" S!r. Young-dahl testified that the Commission's rules and negolations, as well as license requirements, are regarded by Consumers' management as the eq'aivalent of statutes and, as such, are comidered binding on the Company and its emplo)ces.'"' Mr.Youngdahl stated that,although the management has always

' 'lJ.. p. 6.

' *llou cit. p. 22.

IJ.; Keeley. pp. 4 5.

• Ie,tunun> on Tu.Ler, fo!!owing Ts. M3. rp.

• 9.

'" Testimon> of Stanine1. following Tr.126, pp.1I 12.

'" Teoinwns of Southard. following Tr. 641. rp. !-6.

"' Tr. 5 2ti.3 29.

'"Tesumon> of Youn:J4ht, foltosing Tr. $19. P. 6.

604

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

.' ~~ ~*

~ *.... _.... -.

]

I

(

)

w

l t

t

\\

r d'g s

...s O

q

.s 1) demanded quality in its work at least equal to industr standards, its approach

. n.e; has evolved from one of primary ieliance on its erg.neesing constructor to a e

.... n more fonnullied r6!iance upon its own Qualityfuurance organization and b..th program 8 Ip order to form 311v document,thigapproach, Mr. Yourahl on j.

mal March 29,1974,inued a Quality Astur ince Poliev st:.:cment which committed t a is the entire electric orgmi/ation, including both the cperating group and the

m. I projects group, to implement a Quality Anurance pLa which meets both 10

. ; of Cl R 50, Appendix B and ANSI N45.2..In order en nut a certain that this policy implemented by the operating gioup, a Director

. 3,

~perens u as nmed on June 1.19 74.'."

~

kgge d to nr nintov

. m s.

71..u r h m - 4.hr

"""~

s personal imoTGinent in the QA proecss sanges from.

.fih,

%0 d.rily review of EPP activities to monthly review ei PQASD activities lie b

,.j..b partielpated in meetings with Bechtel senior

.tml mangement following the ember 6 8, 1973, RO gpcetion]t which it w:s streued that 0"athyb

, yv

. 2.6

_ssuTance unpicmemauan must be7mproved and tbt Bechtel manarement eis

-must be more closely invohed in quality assurance at Midland. It was his _ h

. r.t suggestion to procure a third party review of the Mif'sno Ouality Assura e it Pm"ra m. ~

g ms

72. Ib1P3fi<adeskNuefear Plant investication by the Commission and the t

to United States Departihent of Justice stimulated the p blication of a manage.

j ment directive which explicitly set forth responsibilities for reporting violations of Commission rules, regulations and license requi::ments. Thit

Mwtivs, tenuires notiGeation in itmfommission by Consum:rs of all items which are "I ('

f

'as to whether or not they are in fact violations.8"3cemed to be vio

13. rhe Board requested that Consumers make RWh B Sewell Naclear ~

"F

}'

Licensing Ad.ninistrator for operating nuclear power plants. available for questioning on the attitude of sen:or te.anagement persor::el toward compliance with Con;ms< ion rules and reculations.'" The Board.;uestioned Mr SewcII regarding statements given the RO staff 5 connection whh the operation of the

a>cous radwaste system at the Palisades plant during 1972.'" The Board's I

concern was that. in this it'ttance, extraordinary steps ms) have ber 6 rect the attention of Consumers management to impor: ant safety matterF" Mr.Sewc!! testified that it was Consumers' intent to fally comply with all l'

Commission rules, regule'.ns and licensing requirements.8 8 8 s

Mr. Sewelts

'"YA n;dahl pp. 3 4

'" Yran;Jahl.p. 5: Licensee's Tshibit Y 2.

"". oun;Jahl pp. 4-5.

'" Youngdahl. p. 6; Lk ensee's tshibit Y-3.

'"Tr.199 402: and 439.

"* Is. 54f. 5 4 7

' " Tr. 5 6 3.

' Tr. 564 605 I

N,'

• • • • 8e w e

>>e e enem no ee gspa ehe.he em.m..

m. e m g --

e, e

,m

r f

statement described his normal channels of communication within thc' com-pany. 51r.Sewell cetaed that he did not have to take extraordinary steps to afirMeme'nt's attention to his request to the Paliwles operating [

siliTf to perforni concetise snaintenance on the gaseous radwaste system.'f' Soon after he communicated his concerns, the operating personnel at Palisades perfoimed extensive.uintenance on the system,'" and therefoie, he did not

~3eck manacement affirnation on his poe: ion.

74.Steplyen 11. !!owell, Viec President in iharge of Electric Pl.mt Projects, hasing direct responeility for design, construction and construaion quality assurance activities for nucicar power rLnts, testified at the heaiing. lie stated O

that the policy of Consumers is.ind has always been to comply'with al! laws, I. M ordinances, regulations and rules and to require its contractors to do the 0

I y,

same. h!r.llonell stated that his perception of the attitude of his superiors toward Quality Assurance was that they believed it to be important and that h

they had manifested this belief to him on numerous occasions. '

gt p

)s g(IT

75. The attituife toward compliance with Commission rules and regulations i

8 6

Q t'

forth by Gilbert 5.1 Kc*vt Director of Proiect _Ouality taurance was set d

p Department Services in response to 's Board question as to why the future g %D implementation of the Slidland Quality Assurance Program will be better than its past implementation in terms of effectiveness:

p e

I Now there is no doubt in my mind (that) we have been implementing [the upgraded QA program carried out si,ce Oct.1,1973},if the AEC feels that q

they want us to psovide more visib:fity on any of these functions we are

)

j domg, we re gomg to do it as far as I am concerned.

L As i say, I have been given that responsibility to implement or to set QA policy and to see that the poficy is impfemented, not only by Consumers Power Company but by B&W and Bechtel.8 ' 8 g,

76.In order to insure that manage:uent personnel remains informed of Quality Assurance actisities at the Slid!and site, Consumers has had periodic in-depth status meetings among its ma: agement personnel for a number of years.'" On February I,1974, the requirement for these meetings was formalized so as to require at least quarterly meetings between Vice President, EPP, and repiesentatises of General Office Quality Assurance, Slidland Field

[

Quahty Assusance and the 51idland Project. Reports of these meetings are l

' ' 8 Tr. 559 562.

• ' ' Tr. 5 64-5 65.

' " Tr. 5a b 550.

• " Tr. 5 63-5 65.

i

' "llow cil, pp. 4 5.

pf[

l

'"Tr. 502 503,507 W

' ' ' Tr. 4 77

'd h

'h *

(

'" no. a.p. a.

p}

a g

y Is t

au.

(

1. p$.@

@p, h d, j^l i *L GOS f'

y g--S r(y {9

,J.F,<

~.. -

_.......-..-__-,y.._.--.

y..

'n

- - ~

\\

l submitted to the Senior Vice President.: ao These formal procedures further #

,y,,,,

,,3 n,g y require one. day visits eve y two weeks to the Midland site by the MidlandI Quality Assur.mce Supervisor and one. day si its every two months by the

,,i gg

,i i a liiiccior of Qnality Auusance Services.

j In a.ldition, PQASD submits a

. hades monthly resume of Quality Aourance actisit'es to the Vice Picsident,1:PP and

'l n 4 ilunngh him, to the Senior Vice Presiden. The Vice President,1:PP, further iesiews all audit

. icen, pos ts.' 2 8 reports, nonconformance reports and RO impeetion re-

[,,,hty For example, when a Consumers nonconform.mce report (NCR) is i

p1Cb inued and the responsible Quality Anurance indisidual has made

,,,,c a Vice President, liPP, is contemporareously advised n a

i. w,

' i i!.e 4

, c,9,tg Staffs Views on Puture Compliance 2 ihat j

77. Th' StafP views on the question of future compliance are embodied primarily in. r. 'etter's prepared testimony and in the Boards direct e.samina-i "'5 ion of Mr V

. etter and Mr. Keppler. After testifying that:

• e Qshortcomings in irrpfementation of the Mid'snd quality assurance / quali 8:He control programs have been identified and carrected, and Q Consumers _

iltn i'ower company Managament personnel have demongrpid awa*eness of i

need to become involved. and stay involved, v.:th quality assurance / quality

't.e control programs designeo to assure proper construction of the Midland

, tb at Plant,s a e

. ear [

(

3. Vetter concluded that " reasonable assurance new exists that compliance will continue finouchout the construction period" a a s t(M 78.Mr. Keppler was asked by the Board to c! aracterite quality assurance r rs e

pio;; ram at Midland as it compared to that at other ^icifiti s under construction g#

in his region. lie stated as his opinion thatM)was "probably comparable"f

D

,,7 but suggested that his inspectors might be in a better position to make suctrag$

juhment. When polled, they conem red with Mr. Keppler's assessment.8 8 '

g

,g

, or 79.Mr. Keppler was asked by the Board w; hat esidence he would inck for in oider to determine whether or not it was likely that a licensee would comply w,,

with the rules and requirementsin the future.' 2' After pointing out that with e

. n,,

'd new licensee he can only inspeet to determine whether the licensee is satisfying

.ie

'" Young,Lht. p. 4: then eciITtubit Y 1.

"

• Keele). p. 30.

' " t te n ett, p. 24

' ' ' Tr. 504.

' " Tr. 201202. The ba es for t!i =tatement appear at Tr. 104 201.

' " fr. 201

' Tr. 3 7 7 3 78.

Ir.39.t H5.

• " Tr. 3 '9 007 f

m g

• • h-.,

.w-p

.Whe# 6 N '

• 8-O*

"**"O

^

~*

I e commitments made to the Diie ;turate of 1.kensing,'" he went on to say that in the ca>e of a licen ce who has had ;.iesious nuclear eweiicoce. he looks i

b4 NgIe imi neifmmance of the utility in teams of their ability to comply with g

.p their commitments in the past." Among the actions that he considers are:

theg that managemUit has taken with respect to making sure t f

commitments are being met, that

. provided, that there's a plan of action faid out to see that the commitments are fulfilled and that there is a p,rograr. of audit developed to fotfow up and assuie that the commitments are fulfilled.

I S0. After responding affirmatively to the question of whether he had I

comidered the past performance of Co: >umers Power Company from this f

st.mdpoint, he was asked for his views on the peiform.mee.8 3 8 lie prefaced his an> war by pointing out,that one must an>ider this que> tion in the light of ch.mges in the regulatory inspection and.:r.foicement progiams, lie pointed out i

that the Big Rock Point facility was "over ten years old" and that the Palisades plant "was licensed around 1970".'82 During the intenening time, many changes, in addition to adoption of the.;uality assurance criteria, have taken I' lace. Originally there were seiy few pla..ts and the program for dealine with int structured than it is today",

siol4tions and noncomplimee m, rim "w t

M..y biing based more on efforts tobrineliee:'>ees into compliance tisan on resort to enforcement setions. As there came to be more and more licemees and the peifoimance was not "as good as had 1-een bored for" stioneer enfoicement practices were adopted.' *

• With this ir.tioduction,.\\tr. Keppler testified that these had been "many situations that we dealt with on Big Rock Point and in the early stages of Palisades which I would characterize as a negative attitude on the part of a licensee" and that he is "on record as having been conecined about

[

(

ci onne M N<umers Power Cemn:mv". !!e then testified thatde 1;ite the iie serious rescivations about past perfor:- ance "it is my slew that we have seen I

Qdiscernible chance oser the past se.cral months... that has been feetored into our thinking on this case: charges in organization structure, changes in facing up to commitments, and dealing with commitments" and that "they had u,emed to (sce un to this nroblem in a :.uch more professionalway than I h seen them face up to any other pioblem; that they had convinced themsches of

' " Tr. 380.

• " Tr. h0-3 81.

• " Tr.383.

'"The Board note,that the constru. tion termit for Big Roek Point was I sued stay 31.

1060. and the operating (i.cnst August 30.19tp7. and that the comparable dates for Pabade, were \\ tar.h 14.1967 and %! arch 24. W71. These differeners from Str. Kerrier's secctiestionsenhance,rather than detract fio: his point.

'"Tr. 3S3 384 OS

._l

('v j

e

i

.s s

tis, V

dat it took to do the inb :md they were askine see: s to do it."'".\\lt. Kepple -

l 'ols identified the recent events that chaeacterized the "sery discernible chanre" as

) wnh inchiding the careful consideration on the part of the company senested in the 4

.t

.:l' efommitments3erarding the Onality Anurance P:aciam contained in the it th2

. response to the Order to Show Cause, thet5cm i Wetween the Staff and b wo Consumers' senior management personnel regat fing the Palisades matter, the rats goremiration3both at the alte and at the home office to focus more a and man, iment imohement in the problems being es;*eilenced anCIiances id attitude ~m the part of the people with whom,inspecto:s had been dealing.

~- 1,d I'*Y

'"'E## "" E E '* * "

,?

reaching conclusions such as tho>e of.\\lr. Keppler stated above the Board asked alt.Keppler to pimide a general dewription he inspection program for +

.[

reactors under construction.'" IIis deceilotion,

$nd the testimonv reardin#

the program by the other Staff witnesses, haUed the Beiaid to ecmelude that the

'['

$Iaii nas an active and etTestive program that is capable of detecting sis dewlions from the Committion's requirements. Although the Board does not consider it necessary to recite the details of the program here,we note that the j

general approach includes enlarging the inspection effort in cases where the

][g' findings indleate a need for such intensification.' # 8 F

l

_ As one Staff witnest characteriied it. "we che th, cit in its e * *v wheel". This philosophy in the slew of the Board, should assist in the detection of incipient adverse quality assurance tiends before they become major problems and before they se> ult in difficult.to. correct

.,3 hardware defielencies. In this re>pect we also note the

, [f jneressingly effective enforcement procedmes of the StaiY'" and Str. Keppler's

,3 g

• sucition that "if the company fails to the up to its oMications that we're not um afraid to step in -nd stop construction iust like we dict tW t_ime.' '"

23 #

82. Ba>cd upon consideration of the entire evi.*entiary record in this proceedine, the Board concludes thatahhouch there ' we been ovettinr.i of compliance and of attitude re udine OA in the rm there is reasonable suurance that implementation of the Midl:md O A orumra will continue to Se 7

conducted in compliance with Commission requirements t' sing the remainder ~

of the con <truction nrocete__We take partleular note of.\\lt. Keppler's statement i

that "... if the company fails to live up to its obligations that we're(the Staff) not afraid to step in and stop construction...."(Tr..tS6).

'"Tr. 3.sMR6. The ither Sutf u nnes c. were aAcJ for their (turacterirations Con.umers' attuude. Their answers, which assee whh Mr. Mcppier*n. appear at Tr

' " Tr,.t g.3 6 9.

'"Mr. Vetter's dexription of the pro; ram as it relates to thh case (Tr.

.417-421.

6:

tseen diseu *cd with respect to Is ue No.1.

1841851 has

• "Tr. 3!7 361. See at o Tr. 347 3!I and 405 407 r'.

• " Tr. 34 7 349: 3 72 3 76.

' " Tr. 38a.tg3: 3g 7; yyl.393,

' " Tr. 38ti.

609 i

W

~

~ ~ ~

1

s m

(

a r

y 3 -

\\*

, ;< [a. ' i '

j ". J A

e "g

fj -

3

, s ;* _,

/,, s). '

h' til. CONCLUSIO.NS 01: LAW

.\\

y,

83. Itahd upon the foiegoing fin. lings of f.eet, and unmn con >idesation of the r,

/ s 3

entire esidentiaiy recond in this

.ceeding, the Board concludes as follows:

"f g

/M 1.Consnmers is imi&nw ting _its qu/ity a>surance program in compli.

f.t ance with Comminion re;;ulations;

~q 4

5 4

2.There is seasonabic anurance that >ach implementation will continue l[',{ /

tluou;hout the constaustion piosess; f

3.Consiniction Pennit Nos. 81 and 82 issued to Consumeis Power 3

4 Company for the.\\lidland Pl. int, I.' nits I.ind 2, should not be >uspended, 4

moJ;fied or lebt;cd.

']

s

,'9

?

IV. O R Dlitt WilEREFORE,it is ORDERED,in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act

.* '5 of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's Rules and Regulations, that this s

J s'

pn.eceding lytajuinated.

It is rusticI,, ORDERED, in accordance with Sections 2.760, 2.762, 2.764 c.

4 2.785 and 2186 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, that tlus initial Decision

\\

shall be effee.ive immediately, and shall constitute the final action of the

.b 5 '{

Commission foni).fi e (45) days after the date ofissuance hereof, subject to any 3

N resiew pursuant to the Conunission's Rules of Practice and the Commission's 51emorandum and Order and Notice of licaiing, dated January 21,1974.

j' Eucptions to this initial Decision may be tiled by any party to this pioceeding

's within seven (7) days after service of this 1.itial Decision. Within fifteen (15) days thereafter (twenty (20) days in the case of the Regulatory Statf), any party 4 i, b filing such exceptions shall file a brief in support of such exceptions. Within l

j *{

fifteen (15) days after service of the brief of the party or parties filing-cxecptions (twenty (20) days in the case of the Regulatory Staff), any other party to this proeceding may file a brief in support of, or in oppo>ition to, exceptions which have been filed.

.1 t

I ATO511C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l-Emmeth A. Luebke y

't )

Lester Koir.blith,Jr.

• s Sliehael L. Gla>cr

, (j (ds

[Issed a

• Bethe>d s..\\laryland, t

s this.pth'djy of Septe aber,1974.

1 3

1

/

g 610 y

, s

~

e

,1

{ ' '

. 7. z s

o n

P

-)

,s 4

/

1 O.

6 4

A,

". ?

1 MRc

' 'n C2

~

l

/

l

/V JS S6 RECul'E OF PROFEGGIO:!AL X;D EDU'XIO:~AL ETI3ICIC2 Gilbert, S. Keeley Residenec: 6103 Crest Road Jackson,l'ichigan 49203 (517) 784-6742 Work:

Consu=crs Power Company 1945 West Farrn11 Road -.

Jackson,;<!ichigan'49201 (517) 788-0321 I.

Professional Sc:crience n.

July,1975 to Present. Project !?.anager on Midicud I!uelcar Power Plann

)

which is a dual-purpose r.uclear plant designed to supply 1300.:e a :stts electrical to the Consu=cra Peucr s/ stem and up to 4,000,000 lb/hr Of process steam to the Dow Cucaical Cc=pany. Up until :.:crch, IMO, I had overall responsibility for the licensing, derign, contruction, testing, costs, scheduling and contr2ct administre. tion of contracts

(

between Consumers and its principal suppliers and between Consumers and Dow Chemical for this Q3.1 billion Project ntil fuel lo':. ding takes place. Upon appointment of a Vice-President for '~idland in

!! arch of 1980, my responsibilities as Project :Ianager were cia.nced to include desi n, construction, testing and administration of contracts.

6 b.

November,1973 to July,1975. Appointed Director of Quality Assurance Services for nuclear and conventional power plants' desi;;n and construc-tien. Responsibility for: Building up staff of C/s personnel, seeinc that they were given training, setting QA policies for the Com.t.ny, and preparing necessary QA Procram Manuals and Procedures. Supervise staff of Il people (6 in General Office and 5 at Midland Plant Site) 4 who have e:cpertise in areas of Mcchanical, Electrical, Civil, Instru-rcentation and Control, and Non-destructive h amination (1:IE). This staff reviews and approves QA Progra s of ltrchitect-Engineers, Suppliers, and Construction Contractors and conducts audits and surveillance.for impicuentation of quality-related activities. The staff is spokosnan for Consumers Pot cr on I!RC Regulaton Operations inspections on site.

1970 to Havenber, 1973 Director of Electric Plant Projects Eni:ineer-ing. Supervised staff of four Euclear 2ngineers, three I*cchanical Engineers, one i.etallurgical Engineer, two Civil 2ngineers, one Instrurentation and Control En;;ineer, and one Electrical En;incer.

This staff was responsibic for: Dcveloping. Consumers Power design bases for Euclcar and Conventional p:r. cr plants; ccveloping inputs

(

,/

for specifications.for Consttaern ra'. tor prim contractors such 23 i

~

~

e 2

's i

boi}er, I!SSS, and turbine / generator; reviewing designs and specifica-tions produced by Architect-Engineer; writing pre-operatio.al and hot n

functional tests and reviewing test results; reviewing recom.endations made by Architect-Engineer on procurement of pouer plant equipment; technical revice of potential suppliers for placement on Consumers Power Approved Lidders List; and assisting in licensing activities with the 13C or State.

c.

1968 to 1970. Supervisory Nuclear Engineer. Supervised staff of _two Engineers. Responsib'.e for: t'riting up specifications for nuclear fuel; performing evaluation of fuel bids and recom=ending supplier; review of engineered safeguards systems, reactor protective systems,-

radwaste systems, and nucicar instrumentation systers to assure they -

met latest industry standards and N:C criteria; assisted in AEC licensing activities; and compiled site ceteorological data and made J

dose calculations.

d.

1963 to 1970. nuclear Engineer. Reviewed designs of nuclear plant engineered safeguards systems, reactor protective systems, radraste-j systems, and nuclear instrumentation systems to assure they met latest industry standards and C C criteria. Urote up specifications for nuclear fuel, did fuel cost calculations, recomended fuel supplier, m

and assisted in writing fuel contract. Initially performed as Project Engineer on Palisades Plant for assembly and review of PS1R and-

[

organized Start-up Test Program for Palisades.

e. - 1961 to 1963. Start-up Engineer at Big Roch Point Plant. - Responsible.-

i for Consumers Pouer review of preoperational test procedures. Responsi--

ble for running tests. Evaluated test results with assistance from other Consumers Power personnel, EGSS personnel and AE personnel.

4-Obtained EC Cold License on the plant and functioned temporarily as Shift-Supervisor until additional Consumers Power. personnel were qualified.

f.

1955 to 1961. Engineer in Atomic Power Division of 17estinghouse Electric Corporation.: From 1955 to 1956, I was Reactor Engineer on the S1'i Plant at the Navy Reactor Test Facility (I327), JIdaho, with responsibilities in the areas of reactor operations and plant-instru-mentation, including the qualification of Savy reactor plant operators.

From 1956 to 1957, I was Senior Engineer in the S1U Engineering Group,

~

concerned with the design and procuremont of nuclear instrumentation g

and reactor protective system equipment.,During part of 1957, I was'a-member of the ?Iestinghouse start-up crew at the Shippingport Atomic j

Power Plant responsible ~ for various phases of reactor plant check-out and had prime responsibility for qualification of the' utility's reactor plc.nt operators and for initini criticality operations.- In 1953 and!

- 1959, _ I was plant Reactor Engineer for' the A1U Plant at I:2F, Idaho, responsible for reactor plant instrumentation. testing.and qualifica-tion of Havy reactor plant operators. From 1959.to 1960,~ :I was Supervisor of the A1H Instrument Shop with responsibility for-settingf

'k s

-up all instrumentation for AlW Plant testing. From 1960 to=1961, If 1 was AlW Chief Operator Trainee, receiving training in all aspects' of

-A1U Plant operation.:

.4

's

- l N

-~,

, -. _ ~

, ~ _ - -

I 3

g.

1949 to 1955 Electrical maintenance'and start-up with Pacific Gas and Electric in conventional steam plants. Four years of this time was as Electrical l'aintenance Foreman at PG&E's Antioch Steas Generat-in6 Plant supervicing five electricians.

h.

1943 to 1949 Tect Engineer for General Electric Co in Schenectady, New York. Assigned as Test Engineer in areas of induction notors, electronic control and armament controls.

II.

Educational Ec)erience a.

1940 - Graduate of Topeka, "ansas High School.

b.

1942 - Graduate of Eansas City, Missouri Junior College with Associate Science Degree in Engineering.

c.

1946 to 1948.' Attended University of Mis:ouri at Rolla and graduated with B.3. in Electrical Ea.gineering.

"B+" average. Member of Tau Beta Pi and Phi Kappa Phi national ~ honorary fraternities.

d.

1953 - Taught relay courses to PG&E Electricians.

e.

1958 to 1961. Post-5raduate cources from University of Idaho e.d ension g

at Idaho Falls. 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />' credit towards Masters in Electrical Engin-eering for such courses as Advanced Engineering Math, Pulse and Digital Circuits and Trancistor Circuits.

f.

1965 semester course at University of Michig2n on Co=puter Solutions to Transmission Line Problems.

g.

1968 semester Welding Technology night course at Jackson Junior College.

h.

1974 - Assisted in conducting training of Consumers Power 5 personnel on nuclear power plant systems; AEC and Industry @ requirements.

Attended courses we arranged in % Program Evaluation, IC I Section 3,-

and 1:DE.

i. 1974 - Taking one semester Jackson Junior College night course 'in ICE (Radiography, Diepenetrant and I'.asparticle) with lab work.

III. Cornittee and Society Medership a.

1964 to 1973 1:eder of Consumers Pouer Company. Safety, Audit and Review Board for it Huclear Pouer Plants.

1

'b. 1964 to.1970. Mc*cr of IEEE nuclear Power Standards Group involved l

(,j in writing electrical standards for nuclear power ple.nts.-

4

1+

r,

c.,1970 to 1975 I!enber of ASME 1k5.2 Standards Co=tittee writing QA Standard: to supplement Appendix B to 10 CEI 50.

d.

1972 to 1975 Chairnan of As2 ti45.2.13 ITork Group vriting QA Standard "Q,us.lity Assurance Requirenents for Control of Procure-ment of Items and Services for i;uclear Power' Plants."

!!cmber of Tau Beta Pi, Eational Engineering Honorary Fraternity, e.

f.

Registered I:ngineer in State of Eichigan, g.

!!enber of Eichigan Soci,ety of Professional Engineers.

m -

k t

' k-Octobsr 22,-198o

M R.C. W U l M,

.k!2.1k c @N,

j A.u

-l Resume Thomas C.'Cooke s

Education and Training Graduation, LaGrange H. S., LaGrange, Ohio 1953 1957. - Graduation, Ohio University', ' Athens, Ohio, BSCE- '

Engineer Offi'er Ba' sic Course,1Ft.,Belvoir, VA 1957 c

Hobart Welding Inspection Course, Troy, Ohio

'1961 1963 - CPM Seminar 1966 - Fall,out Shelter Analysis, Grand Rapids,- MI 1968

. Nuclear Steam Supply Design Lecture Series, Windsor, CT 1968 - Public Utilities Report,'Home Study 1970's - Various Utility Sponsored Mauagement Courses, MI Experience Upon graduation from. Ohio University, I served as Second Lieutenant'and J

eventually as First Lieutenant in,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the

~c cap'acity of Platoon Commander and Assistant Operations Of ficer in a con-struction battalion. Typical projects included roads, bridges, rifle ranges, cottages, rock crushers, transmission lines, etc.

/

My career with a major utility has provided me with the opportunity to become involved in many varied construction projects with progressively more respon-y sible assignments.

I have worke'd as part of the owner's team responsible for significant, portions of several large projects and have often had sole re-sponsibility on smaller projects involving reciprocating and jet compressors, steam heating plants demolition and rebuilding, underground steam mains, associated electrical, mechanical and instrumentation for the above and mod-ifications projects. At my last assignment, I was responsible for management of the entire checkout and preoperation test program at a 790 MW nuclear facility to the point of fuel. load. After fuel load, I was assigned to modifications work at that facility as Project Superintendent. Presently, I am Project Superintende.nt responsible for construction of a twin nuclear co generation facility.

Typicall'y the above assignments have included working with contractors,

~

subcentra'ctors and various archit'ect engineer organizations. I have been very involved in inspection, testing, coordination, procurement, technical problems, invoice approval, permits, safety, security, fire protection, public relations, labor relations, expediting, scheduling, permits'and

~

startup. Much of the work has been accomp1.ished utilizing cost plus, unit price, lump sum and incentive contracts. During the past few years, I have also gained co.nsiderable experie~ce in dealing with financial.elowdowns, n

changing government regulations, regulatory enforcement, legal proceedings, hearings and' changes in design.

(

Q 6

e e

Chronology s-~r i

T

-Jun 57 - Aug 57 Graduate Student in Training Program Utility

\\

Aug 57 - Aug 39 -

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

~

Ft. Belvoir, VA Ft. Hood, TX Sep'59 - Feb 60 - Graduate Student in Training Program Utility Feb 60 - Oct 60 - Field Construction Assistant - Gas 24" and 26" Cross

1. ~

j Country Pipeline 3

Field Construction Assistant - 51ectric 265 MW Fossil Oct 60 - Mar 61 e

Civil Work F,ield Construction Assistant - Electric 265 MW Fossil Mar 61 - Jun 62 Piping Jun 62 - Jun 63 - Field Construction Supervisor - Electric 265 MW Fossil Piping & Startup Field Construction Supervisor - Electric Gas Compressor j

Jun 63 - Jun 64 Station Jun 64 - Jun 65 - Field Construction Supervisor - Electric Steam Heating Plant

~

Field Construction Supervisor - Electric 380 MW Fossil Jun 65 - Oct.65 UP Boiler Oct 65 - Mar 67 - General Engineer Instrumentation

& Piping Assistant Field Construction Superintendent'

& Startup Mar 67 - Jul 67 Jul 67 - Aug 68 - Assistant Field Construction Superintendent 790 MW Nuclear.

Aug 68 - Mar 71 - General Supervisor 790 MW Nuclear Startup Mar 71 - Dec 72 - Project Superintendent 790 MW Nuclear Modifications Jan 73 - Present - Project Superintendent Twin 800 MW Nuclear Cogeneratios 4

e L.

G

'l O

Miscellaneous High Schoc1 Valedictorian

,j a

College Graduate Cum Laude i

Organizations:

Phi Eta Sigma Freshman Honorary Tau Beta Pi Engineer Honorary American Nuclear Society Registra' tion:

Michigan Progessional Engineer Ohio Professional Engineer --

Publications:

Article.for " Military Engineer" Co-authored paper for 1976 ANS convention h

e

+

b 9

b e

9 0

e e

4 e

9

-'g

\\

G 9

4 S

0 9

W

+

N

$50. -

10 3

j.--

I Resume

'],

Thomas C.'Cooke Education and Training Graduation, LaGrange H.

S., LaGrange, Ohio 1953 1957. - Graduation, Ohio University',' Athens Ohio, BSCE'~

Engineer Offi'cer Ba' sic Course, 7t. Belvoir, VA 1

1957

~ 1961 - Hobart Welding Inspection Course,' Troy, Ohio CPM Seminar 1963 Fallout Shelter Analysis, Grand Rapids, MI 1966 1968

. Nuclear Steam Supply Design Lecture Series, Windsor, CT Public Utilities Report, Home Study 1968 1970's - Various Utility Sponsored Management Courses, MI Experience Upon graduation from Ohio University, I served as Second Lieutenant'and eventually as-First Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the cap'acity of Platoon Commander and Assistant Operations Officer in a con-struction battalion. Typical projects included roads, bridges, rifle ranges, cottages, rock crushers, transmission lines, etc.

My career with a major utility has provided me with the opportunity to become involved in many varied construction projects with progressively more respon-sible assignments.

I have worke'd as part of the owner's team responsible for significant, portions of several large projects and have often had sole re-sponsibility on smaller projects involving reciprocating and jet compressors, steam heating plants demolition and rebuilding, underground steam mains, associated electrical, mechanical and instrumentation for the above and mod-ifications projects. At my last assignment, I was responsible for management of the entire checkout and preoperation test program at a 790 MW nuclear facility to the point of fuel. load. After fuel load, I was assigned to modifications work at that facility as Project Superintendent. Presently, I am Project St.perintendent responsible for construction of a twin nuclear co generation facility.

the above assignments have includ'ed working.vith contractors, Typically'etors and various archit'ect engineer organizations.

subcontra I h' ave been-very involved in inspection, testing, coordination, procurement, technical problems, invoice approval, permits, safety, security, fire protection, public relations, labor relations, expediting, scheduling, permits land startup. Much of the work has been accomplished utilizing cost plus, unit price,' lump sum and incentive contracts. During the past few years, I have also gained considerable experience in. dealing with financial slowdowns, changing government regulations, regulatory' enforcement, legal proceedings, hearings and' changes in design.

i e

9 e

t 9

e 9

e D

g

~~

Chronology 1

g-,

Graduate Student in Training Program Utility Jun 57 - Aug 57 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ft. Belvoir,*VA Aug 57 - Auk 59 Ft. Hood, TX Graduate Student in Training Program Utility Sep 59 - Feb 60 Field Construction Assistant - Gas 24" and 26" Cross Feb 60 - Oct 60 Country Pipeline Field Construction Assistant - Electric 265 MW Fossil Oct 60 - Mar 61 Civil Work F.ield Construct' ion Assistant - Electric 265 MW Fossil Mar 61

'un 62 Piping Field Construction Supervisor - Electric 265 MW Fossil Jun 62 - Jun 63 Piping & Startup field Construction Supervisor - Electric Gas Compressor

)

Jun 63 - Jun 64 Station Field Construction Supervisor - Electric Steam Heating Jun 64 - Jun 65 Plant Field Construction Supervisor - Electric 380 MW Fossil Jun 65 - Oct 65 UP Boiler General Engineer Instrumentation Oct 65 - Mar 67

& Piping Assistant Field Construction Superintendent

& Startup Mar 67 - Jul 67 Assistant Field Construction Superintendent 790 MW Nuclear, Jul 67 - Aug 68 General Supervisor 790 MW Nuclear Aug 68 - Mar 71 Startup Project Superintendent 790 MW Nuclear Mar 71 - Dec 72 Modifications Jan 73 - Present - Project Superintendent Twin 800 MW Nuclear CogeneratioC 0

6 8

1 Q

Miscellaneous High School Valedictorian

• ~

College Graduate Cum Laude l

- Organizations:

i Phi Eta Sigma Freshman Honorary I

Tau Beta Pi Engineer Honorary American Nuclear Society 4

Registration:

Michigan Progessional '-;lneer Ohio Professiona1 EnFI :eer '

Publications:

A Article.for " Military Engineer" Co-authored paper for 1976 ANS convention j

i l

't

=,.

b k

4 l

t 9

0 4

e i

a g

3 e

b D

0 O

I l

A)R.csy6& A

~

I?

k..:.,'\\ 09 tis!!m3f3 i $2 CC#k)

T

./

A (.

'.1FD'33r s

• . g;.l CDmyBil' u

]

.m t.*;dlead Project: P.o. Ooa 1063. Midlend. Machig.a 48640 Area Code 517 633C951 September 8, 1977 Mr. J. F. Neugen Bechtel Power Corporation P.O. Box 2167 Midland, MI 48640 MIDLAND PROJECT GWO-7020. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING /CRADE BEAM FAILURE 1 2538 ]

File: 0130 On August 25 we became aware of the situation regarding settlement of the subject beam.

Inasmuch as this particular item could fall under the provisions of Article 9 of the Bechtel Power / Consumers Power Company contract regarding

' #g repair of defective work gt contractor's expense, we are requesting that..you advise us as to the reasons for this failure and set up a separate account for i

costs incurred for removal and repair of came (engineering and construction).

I would anticipate that your response to this office would' include come dis-cussion as to why the incident should or should not come under the provisions of Article 9 of the contract.

1 T. C. Cooke Project Superintendent TCC/pp 4,%

e g gs ter _ *

• ~-

,pe

,m

,. y -

l.'

...,., > ?.' q (

- Bechtel Power Corporation

~

\\

~.;U' a '6 f'

paa one, ao, eter ep u assas. uieniosa <es<a g.;,p.6 september 23, 1977

. t4'N.,S)-

l Constrners Power Company I gg(4, Uli.E l

P. O. Box 1963 4

Midland, MI 48640 I-Attention:

T. C. Cooke l

'~

Job'7220 Midland Project Administration Building Gnade Beam Failure BCCC 2794

Dear Mr. Cooke:

~

,)

Reference:

T. C. Cooke's letter to J. F. Newgen, Serial No. 2538 dated September 8,1977 1

n

~

We are in receipt of the~ reference correspondence and wish to advise i

I that we are still investigating the failure to determine the reason.

}

A separate account for the cost of reiedial work has been established.

This does not, however, include distributables and design engineeri'ng support which would require nodification to our present costing i

sys tem.

i We will keep you advised of all developments regardilig this matter and provide you with a response to your letter once the investigation

{

is complete and a determination made.

I.

Very truly yours,

?

s'

./Gc. s i

. Ne' gen t

-l JIN/JD0/af t

I l

j' b

M E

E', y,,

c

~ ~ *

~ ~

,) !!", IL; !? !!.t/ G 1.

U

~

' ]" \\\\."

~

s Post Office Box 2167 Mid!and. MecNgan 48640 MIDLAND PLANT PROJECT MIDLAND. r,IICHIGAN December 30, 1977 g

Consumers Power Company.

i P. O. Box 1963 Midland, HI 48640 Attention: Mr. T. C. Cooke Job 7220 Hidland Project Settlement of Administration

~

Building Grade Beam at-0.4 Line BCCC-3010

Dear Mr. Cooke:

~

September 8,1977 (Serial 2533) gen - CCBC-1155 - dated T. C. Cooke letter to J. F. New

Reference:

This letter is written in response to the reference letter and provides an update on our investigation of the subject incident.

Investigation of the area during the removal of the fill and testing performed on this material indicates

' that the major contributing factor to the failure ~ was compaction at a value

/

lower than that.mquired by the' specification. Since United States Testing -

Company was directly involved'ulth the testing of the material during installation, we are investigating their liability. We will keep you apprised of subsequent actions in this matter.

Per your request, the costs associated with the re-moval and repair of the grade beam have been maintained in 'a separate account.

~ Very truly yours, fn

' //#7 evgen JFN/AJB/jae r.

h

• -'"~r-~~'*"1 '. }!

i l ' j ;! !. *;y;j ;j h:j e.e v

.,,y

\\,

g

_, ~

!l {l

)i i

j ldi li I j:

i i

ii s.

i

'y pa l u

i: ij i

.i

@ ;-)

N!i l'U,d' I's s 3:13

[MS~@$35 ID

..t

.i i i.!

,ii!:.,! U,1 t':

I "i

2 i'p'yfy '

i ! !l,. ! li l l d i_i _

I f!Eli:!

I s

.i

(

l g

va e Q

gr- *.***

• WC'.."#C"WWWW?'.7.'[* '.WNg. bEI.

.N

,i. Y # U % D ;r... -

.y

,,7..-_

qy.;

f.-f..g'596';.p;,$9f.i.1;6fGiF.;, h.".il$ylf.:a.gyf;'-L c,['g y*S.r r c - %..

y.. m.m

, m.

g{@

..pv..,.g:...g..g;

I

.~

~

pg.c sia *K

./:h Osnsum313 I 52I" M Q.1 ?D'R3r f

l-y u

,/

CDmpulll'

/

e.,w erwwu r o. e., iss3. Mm.ad mcw.a 4suo. 4, c. s 37 sas.oesi o

September 8, 1977 l

Mr. J. F. Newgen Bechtel Power Corporation P.O. Box 2167 Midland, MI 48640 9

MIDLAND PROJECT GWO-7020- ADMINISTRATION BUILDING /CRADE BEMI FAILURE 2538 ]

j File

0130' On August 25 we became aware of the situation regarding settlement of the subject beam.

Inasmuch as this particular item could fal.1 under the provisions of Article 9 of the Bechtel Power / Consumers Power Company contract regarding repair of defective work at contractor's expense, we are requesting that.you

1. r-.

advise us as to the reasons for this failure and set up a separate account for i

costs incurred for removal and repair of same (engineering and construction).

I would anticipate that your response to this office would' include some dis-cussion as to why the incident should or should not come under the provisions of Articia 9 of the contract.

e O

e T. C. Cooke Project Superintendent TCC/pp e

g l

0

• /

4 6

O

. enne..'#

N WD eso e-

.y r' -

I

.... n e

,j,.-,;.-

Bechtel Power Corporation

, n '4 6 D

Pop Omce Box 2167

.; p JJ

gCi u.a.no. u;cs,.a 4ss4o

/ 0.O '

September 23, 1977 j

9

,p

,p.

l

{ CEgp,, pli,.E 1

Consuners Power Company P. O. Box 1963 g

I Midland, MI 48640 k

d Attention:

T. C. Cooke a

Job'7220 Midland Project Administration Building Grade Beam Failure BCCC 2794

Dear Mr. Cooke:

')

Reference:

T. C. Cooke's letter to J. F. Newgen, Serial No. 2538 dated September 8,1977 i

~

We are in receipt of the' reference correspondence and wish to advise that we are still investigating the failure to determine the reason.

A separate account for the cost of reinedial work has been established.

Tnis does not, however, include distributables and design engineeripg support which would quire redification to our present costing system.

We will keep you advised of all developments regarding this matter and provide you with a response to your letter once the investigation is complete and a determination made.

Very truly yours, f

',fW(---'

.,Ne gen JIN/JD0/af

.\\

,. ~

(

V WMMN$ '

"e,

~

lO $ llp !7 0,Yl l~s

~~

~~~'~~~

o-Post Office Box 2167 Midland. Mectngan 48640

'e MID!.AND Ft. ANT PROJECT oilDLAND. t<llCHIGAN Decenter 30,1977 O

Consumers Power Company.

P. O. Box 1963 Midland, HI 48640 Attention: Mr. T. C. Cooke Job 7220 Midland Project Settlement of Administration Building Grade Beam at -

0.4 Line SCCC-3010

Dear Mr. Cooke:

September; 8,1977 (Serial 2538) gen - CCBC-ll55 - dated T. C. Cooke letter to J. F. New

Reference:

s. -

This letter is written in response to the reference letter and provides an update on our investigation of the subject incident.

Investigation of the area during the removal of the fill and testing performed on this material indicates

' that the major contributing factor to the failure was compaction at a value r'~

lower than that.nquired by the; specification. Since United States Testing -

Company was directly involved'with the testing of the material during installation, we are investigating their liability. We will keep you apprised of subsequent actions in this matter. Per your request, the costs associated with the re-moval and repair of the grade beam have been maintained in 'a separate account.

j

' Very truly yours,

/

\\

N7

/.

gen 2

JFN/AJB/jae S.

I i

N

,.,_ i :xo i,

-- c ;-,---~ g i:,

i

! *., j.. ! ;!.

IIk,I l

I ll

- k!

b 5.G :

t.I ' ',

o-i 4

i cry y,

[...,

is i HH UsM98 STI D

,0 Nii M

i D-l 1:1 3

E,,

,, g::ji:!,ll;1j'

%p,,.j li:

i i i-i!

3 4

.(,

,i, ll l

- t il !

i,[ il:!:il:

, l li l l

I

--y W

t

._...--_.-e k.;;.m*.a.w.%:.m*<;>.*.u:ma.yp;r

.u,ay s

! 5{

• no

. :.s:...g..,.,w..s. q 9.,.w.. g.qy;c g..e n

cr..;;.:::, yf;.; ;,.4.p.r. s.

,g-g -

s..,...

. g, y.. m,j,e,;f g

, :;m g q,

.w

-e-e

lll2.$ 0. A $ k

,.in, l;) (M4.J m ad l< 4

,P smR N

t g

1.4 PRINCIPAL ARCHITEC1 URAL AND ENGINEERING CRITERIA FOR DESIGN f

The principal architectural and engineering criteria for design for the plant are summarized below.

(See also Appendix 1C.) The specific architectural and engineering criteria and design features are detailed in later sections.

1.4.1 PIAIR DESIGN

{ Principal structures and equipc:ent which may serve either to prevent accidents or to mitigate their consequences are designed, fabricated, and erected in ac-cordance with applicable codes and to withstand the most severe earthquakes, flooding conditions, windstorms, snow loads, temperature and other deleterious natural phenomena which could be expected _to occur at the site during the life-11 time of these units. Principal structures and equipment are sized for the maximum expected NSS and turbine generator outputs. Each I:SS will be housed in a separate reactor building and will function independently such that failure of one unit will not result in unsafe condition of the other.

1.4.2 REACTOR The reactors are of tha pressurized water type, fueled with slightly enriched uranium dioxide.

The reactors and associated auxiliary systems are essentian y S

identical.

Neutron absorption for reactivity control is provided by control rods and by dissolved boric acid in the coolant. The boren chemical shim system is func-tionany independent of the control rod system.

For all operating conditions, the control rods are capable of providing an adequate chutdown margin at hot, zero power conditions following a trip, even

.ith the most reactive rod stuck in the funy withdrawn position.

The boron chemical shim system is capable of adding boric acid to the reactor coolant at a rate sufficient to maintain an adequate shutdown margin during reactor system cooldown at the mari== design rate fonowing a reactor trip.

The combined response of the Doppler (fuel temperature coefficient), the mod-erator temperature coefficient,.the moderator void coefficient and the modera-tor pressure coefficient to an increase in reactor themal power is a decrease in reactivity. In addition, the reactor power transient remains bounded and damped in response to any finite changes in any operating variable.

i Automatic and redundant reactor trips are provided to prevent anticipated j

plant transients from producing fuel or clad damage.-

• l.4 3

' REACTOR COOLANT AND AUXILIARY SYST1D(S i

Heat removal systems are provided which can safely accommodate core heat out-i put under all credible circumstances. Each of these heat removal systems has sufficient.redusdancy to provide reliable operation under a u credible circum-stances.

s' 1.4.4' REACTOR RJILDING,

4 k/. The reactor buildings, including the associated access openings and penetra-tions, are designed to contain the mari== pressures resulting from postulated

?

I f

1,

i 2

loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCA) in which (a) the total energy contained in g

the reactor coolant system water is assumed to be released into the reactor

[

building through a double-ended break of any one of the primary coolant j) pipes, (b) there is a simultaneous loss of external electric power, (c) heat is transferred from the reactor to the reactor building atmosphere by water supplied from the emergency core cooling system (ECCS), (d) either the reactor building air recirculation and cooling units function or the reactor building spray system functions, and (e) the engineered safeguards including safety injection do not operate until 25 to 40 seconds following the accident.

Selected penetrations are provided with either a seal water injection system or are continuously pressurized with air at a pressure greater than building design pressure.

Means are provided for pressure and ieak rate testing of the reactor building system including provisions for leak rate testing of piping and electrical penetrations that rely en gasketed seals or sealing compounds.

1.4 5 ENGINEERED SAFEGUARDS Engineered safeguards ' systems with redundant features are incorporated in the plant design which, in conjunction with the reactor building system, provide

' a high degree of assurance that the release of fission products to the envi-ronment fonoving any credible loss-of-coolant accident will not exceed the reference doses set forth in 10 CFR, Part 100.

1.4.6 INSTRUMENIATION AND CONTROL Interlocks and automatic protective systems are provided along with adminis-trative controls to insure safe operation of the plant. A reactor protective system is provided to initiate reactor trip if the reactor approaches an operating'11mit. An engineered safeguards actuation system is provided to initiate these systems upon detection of IOCA.

. Sufficient redundancy is instaned to pemit periodic testing of the reactor protective systems and so that failure or removal from service of any one protective system component or portion of the system viu not preclude reactor trip or other safety action when required.

1.4 7 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS Normal, standby and emergency sources of auxiliary electrical power are pro-vided to assure safe and orderly shutdown of the plant and the ability to l maintain a safe shutdown condition under a n credible circumstances.

i 1.4.8 RADICACTIVE WASTES The radioactive vaste treatment system is designed so that discharge of radio-7 activity to the environment is in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR, Part 20.

T 1.4 9 SHIELDING AND ACCESS CONTROL A

The plant is provided with a centralized' control room having adequate shield-h ing to permit occupancy during a u credible accident situations. The 4

1-16 Amendment No. 2

{

5/28/69

l W

radiation shielding in the plant, in combination with plant radiation control

(

procedures, insures that operating personnel do not receive radiation expo-aures in excess of the applicable limits of 10 GR, Part 20, during nor=al operation and maintenance.

l 1.4.10 FUEL HANDLING AND STORAGE Fuel handling and storage facilities are provided for the safe handling, stor-age, and shipnent of fuel and will preclude accidental criticality.

1.4.11 PROCESS STEAM Process steam from the plant will meet regulations as to radioactivity con-tent, within the applicable limits of 10 GR,- Part 20.

15 RESEARtlH AND DEVEIDPMENT REQUIREMENTS The research and developtent programs that have been initiated to establish final design or to demonstrate the capability of the design for future opera-

'i tion at a higher poveglevel are summarized as follows:

4 151 XENON OSCILIATIONS An analysis to evaluate the possibility of xenon oscillations throughout core life is under way. A modal analysis to determine critical parameters has been 3

completed, and the detailed spatial calculations are in progress. If it is detemined that such oscillations may occur, appropriate design changes to i

eliminate or control the oscillations vill be incorporated.

See also 3 2.2.2 3 1

152 THERMAL AND HYDRAULIC PROGRAMS BW is conducting a continuous research and developnent program for heat transfer and fluid flow investigations applicable to the design of the Midland units. Two important aspects of this program are:

Reactor Vessel Flow Distribution and Pressure Drop Tests a.

A 1/6-scale model of the vessel and internals is under test to i

o measure the flow distribution to the core, fluid mixing in the 0

vessel and core, and the distribution of pressure drop within i

the reactor vessel.

(

b.

Fuel Assembly Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow Test

[

g Critical heat flux data have been obtained on single-channel tubular and annular test sections with uniform and nonuniform g

heat fluxes, and on the multiple rod fuel assemblies with uni-form heat fluxes.* These data have been obtained for a range of pressure, temperature, and mass velocities encompassing the C

reactor design conditions. This work is being extended to

[

c l-17 1;

fY I

D id $4 "d f SAlf gz/td N*b

~

C 1.4 PRINCIPAL ARCHITECIUP.AL AND ENGINEERING CRITERIA FOR DESIGN The principal architectural and engineering criteria for design for the plant are su=mariied below. (See also Appendix 1C.) The specific architectural and engineering criteria and design features are detailed in later sections.

1.4.1 PLANT DESIGN i Principal structures and equipment which may serve either to prevent accidents or to mitigate their consequences are designed, fabricated, and erected in ac-l cordance with applicable codes and to withstand the most severe earthquakes, j flooding conditions, vindstoms, snow leads, te=perature ahd other deleterious

! natural phenomena which could be expected to occur at the site during the life-h time of these units. Principal structures an'd equipent are sized for the maximum expected NSS and turbine generator outputs. Each NSS vill be housed in a separate reactor building and vill function independently such that failure of one unit vill not result in unsafe condition of the other.

1.4.2 REAC20R The reactors are of the pressurized water type, fueled with slightly enriched

)

uranium dioxide.

The reactors and associated auxiliary systems are essentially identical.

Neutron absorption for reactivity control is provided by control rods and by dissolved boric acid in the coolant. The boron chemical shim system is fune-3 tionally independent of the control rod system.

For all operating conditions, the control rods are capable of providing an adequate shutdown margin at hot, zero power conditions following a trip, even with the most reactive rod stuck in the fully withdrawn position.

The boron chemical shim system is capable of adding boric acid to the reactor coolant at a rate sufficient to maintain an adequate shutdown margin during reactor system cooldown at the maximum design rate following a reactor trip.

a The combined response of the Doppler (fuel temperature coefficient), the mod-erator temperature coefficient, the moderator void coefficient and the modera-tor pressure coefficient to an increase in reactor thermal power is a decrease l

in reactivity. In addition, the reactor power transient remains bounded and damped in response to any finite changes in any operating variable.

Automatic and redundant reactor trips are provided to prevent anticipeted plant transients from producing fuel or clad damage.

• l.4 3 REACTOR COOLANT AND AUXILIARY SYSTD4S llHeat remova'l systems are provided which can safely accommodate core put under all credible circumstances. Each of these heat removal systems has sufficient redundancy to provide reliable operation under all credible circum-e stances.

g a

1.4.4 REAcr0R BUILDING d

V The reactor buildings, including the associated access openings and penetra-tions, are designed to contain the maximum pressures resulting from postulated 1-15

l i

loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCA) in which (a) the total energy contained in the reactor coolant system water is assumed to be released into the reactor

(

building through a double-ended break of any one of the primary coolant

_ jf pipes, (b) there is a simultaneous loss of external electric power, (c) heat is transferred from the reactor to the reactor building atmosphere i by water supplied from the emergency core cooling system (ECCS), (d) either the reactor building air recirculation s.nd cooling units function or the reactor building spray system functions, and (e) the engineered safeguards including safety injection do not operate until 25 to 40 seconds following the accident.

Selected penetrations are provided with either a seal vater injection system or are continuously pressurized with air at a pressure greater than building design pressure.

Means are provided for pressure and le.1k rate testing of the reactor building system including provisions for leak rate testing of piping and electrical penetrations that rely on gasketed seals or sealing compounds.

1.4 5 ENGINEERED SAFEUARDS Engineered safeguards systems with redundant features are incorporated in the plant design which, in conjunction with the reactor building system, provide a high degree of assurance that the release of fission products to the envi-ronment fonowing any credible loss-of-coolant accident win not exceed the reference doses set forth in 10 CFR, Part 100.

1.4.6 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL Interlocks and automatic protective systems are provided along with adminis-trative controls to insure safe operation of the plant. A reactor protective system is provided to initiate reactor trip if the reactor approaches an operating' limit. An engineered safeguards actuation system is provided to initiate these systems upon detection of ICCA.

6 Sufficient redundancy is instaned to pemit periodic testing of the reactor protective systems and so that failure or removal from service of any one Protective system component or portion of the system will not preclude reactor trip or other safety action when required.

j 1.4 7 ELECTRICAL SYSTDIS Nomal, standby and emergency sources of auxiliary electrical power are pro-vided to assure safe and orderly shutdown of the plant and the ability to

-] maintain a safe shutdown condition under an credible circu;nstances.

}_

l.4.8 RADICACTIVE WASTES The radioactive vaste treatment system is designed so that discharge of radio-activity to the environment is in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR, Part 20.

O 1.4 9 MMING AND ACCESS CONTROL The plant is provided with a centralized' control room having adequate shield-ing to pemit occupancy during an credible accident situations. The 1-16 Amendment No. 2

~

5/a8/69

%(

radiation shielding in the plant, in combination with plant radiation control procedures, insures that operating personnel do not receive radiation expo-sures in excess of the applicable limits of 10 CFR, Part 20, during normal operation and maintenance.

i 1.4.10 FUEL HANDLING AND STORAGE Fuel handling and storage facilities are provided for the safe handling, stor-age, and shipment of fuel and will preclude accidental criticality.

1.4.11 PROCESS STEAM Process steam from the plant will meet regMlations as to radioactivity cen-tent, within the applicable limits of 10 CFR, Part 20.

15 RESEARCH AND DEVEIAPMENT REQUIREMENTS The research and development programs that have been initiated to establish final design or to demonstrate the capability of the design for future opera-tion at a higher power level.are summarized as follows:

151 XENON OSCII2ATIONS j*

An analysis to evaluate the possibility of xenon oscillations throughout core life is under way. A modal analysis to determine critical parameters has been i

y --

completed, and the detailed spatial calculations are in pzcgress. If it is J

determined that such oscillations may occur, appropriate design changes to g

eliminate or control the oscillations will be incorporated.

I See also 3 2.2.2 3 152 THERMAL AND HYDRt.ULIC PROGRAMS i

38N is conducting a continuous research and development program for heat j

transfer and fluid flow investigations applicable to the design of the Midland

(

units. Two important aspects of this program are:

f Reactor Vessel Flow Distribution and Pressure Drop Tests a.

C

.1 A 1/6-scale model of the vessel and internals is under test to measure the flow distribution to the core, fluid mixing in the vessel and core, and the distribution of pressure drop within 9

the reactor vessel.

{

b.

Fuel Assembly Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow Test l

C Critical heat flux data have been obtained on single-channel tubular and annular test sections with unifom and nonuniform b

heat fluxes, and on the multiple rod fuel assemblies with uni-form heat fluxes.* These data have been obtained for a range of pressure, temperature, and mass velocities encompassing the C

reactor design conditions. This work is being extended to 1-17 i

~

1 pm

~

\\> b

{

,4 u

f

(

U i

N M k cc +

vta-bb W%

g I

a