ML20094G199
Text
,
.J-
,y w.
... m.
. a ;.w..
...... ~
a
~.
[
~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
.g )
l REGION lli iC m noosavsLT noao yI
.g otsN sLLYN,1LUNoIS 00m dp
-g.....
\\(
November 1, 1982 1
- MEMORANDUM FOR:
Those on Attached List i(
FROM:
T. N. Tambling, Chief. Program Support Section 4
SUBJECT:
REGION III SALP 3 SCHEDULE a
..g For your pla'nning the attached schedule has been developed for the a
region's SALP 3 effort. The schedules for Big Rock, LACBWR, Monticello, Palisades and Prairie Island have established dates since the SALP Board P
Meetings have been held already. The SALP input dates are fixed with all inputs due by that date. All other scheduled target dates are end of the week dates.
'tif In general the actual event dates.should be within plus or minus one week of the target date. Board and Licensee Meeting dates should be scheduled two to three weeks before the target date. Note that changes in the
-schedule will have an effect on subsequent event dates.
The following general criteria was used in developing this schedule.
1.
Inputs are due one month after the assessment period. This should allow adequate time to develop findings based upon activities that occurred at the end of the assessment period.
2.
Two to three weeks are provided to draft the integrated SALP Report and have it typed.
3.
The draft SALP Report is to be sent to the SALP Board one week prior to the meeting. SALP Board Meetings should be limited to approximately two per week.
4.
The preliminary SALP Report is to be sent to the SALP Board one week prior to the scheduled meeting.
5.
The licensee is provided twenty days to provide written coments on the SALP Report.
i.
6.
Three weeks are provided to issue the report after receiving the licensee coments.
4 Any questions or changes in the schedule should be directed to T. Tambling.
T. ed.Te -
T. N. Tambling, Chief Program Support Section Attach: As Stated 8408130244 840718
~
PDR FOIA RICE 84-96 PDR s.. m.m..
..,m=_,,
.=
ii
~
Pre. Draft SALP Board Pro. Draft Me: ting w/
Licens2a Licens o Final R: port Xss:(aent SALP 3 Input Sent to SALP Meeting Sent to Licensco Comments Coments issued to Period Due Board Liccns a Due R:ceiv:d Licens a l
07/01/81 08/31/82 09/03/82 10/18/82 10/28/82 11/26/82 12/17/82 06/30/82 BIG ROCK BRAIDWOOD 01/2a 02/18/83 02/25/83 03/18/83 04/01/82 04/29/83 05/20/83 01/01/82
- l BYRON 01/28 02/18/83 02/25/83 03/18/83 04/01/82 04/29/83 05/20/83 12/31/82 1
]i CALLAWAY 10/29 11/12/82 11/19/82 12/03/82 12/17/82 01/14/83 02/14/83 g(g i
CLINTON 10/29 11/26/82 12/03/82 12/24/82 01/14/83 02/11/83 03/04/83 10/01/81 l
]
09/30/82 j
i DAVIS-BESSE 04/29 05/13/83 05/20/83 06/10/83 06/24/83 07/22/83 08/12/83 04/01/82 i
i j
03/3 /l3 DUANE ARNOLD 04/2s 05/13/83 05/20/83 06/10/83 06/24/83 07/22/83 08/12/83 04/01/12 03/31/83 2
DRESDEN 01/2a 02/25/83 03/04/83 03/25/83 04/09/83 05/06/83 05/27/83
)
h2 D.C. COOK 04/25 05/27/83 06/03/83 06/24/83 07/08/83 08/05/83 08/26/83 FERMI 10/25 11/26/82 12/03/82 12/24/82 01/14/83 02/11/83 03/04/83
$/o /
f l'
KEWAUNEE 04/25 05/20/83 05/27/83 06/17/83 07/01/83 07/29/83 08/19/83
$/yly f j LA CROSSE 09/02/82 09/14/82 10/15/82 11/09/82 12/08/82 12/29/82 g/jgg 1
01/28 02/25/83 03/04/83 03/25/83 04/08/83 05/06/83 05/27/82 01/01/82 l
LA SALLE-2 01/n 02/18/83 02/25/83 03/18/83 04/01/83 04/29/83 05/20/83 12/31/82
- I MARBLE HILL 10/29 11/19/82 11/26/82 12/17/82 01/07/83 02/04/83 02/25/83~
h/
f
]
)02/11/83 02/18/83 03/04/83 03/18/83 04/15/83 05/06/83 I
I.
l MIDLAND 01/28 f
MONTICELLO 09/17/82 09/29/82 11/02/82 11/10/82 12/09/82 12/30/82 h/hf j
l PALISADES 09/14/82 09/20/82 10/22/82 10/28/82 11/26/82 12/17/82 0 /,
jl,!
$/
8j PERRY 10/29 11/19/82 11/26/82 12/17/82 01/07/83 02/04/83 02/25/83 j j POINT BEACH 04/29 05/20/83 05/27/83 06/17/83 07/01/83 07/29/83 08/19/83
[3ffh l
0 PRAIRIE ISLAND 09/22/82 09/27/82 11/02/82 11/10/82 12/09/82 12/30/82
}
6 j
QUAD-CITIES 01,/28 02/25/83 03/04/83 03/25/83 04/08/83 05/06/83 05/27/83 l
ZIMMER 04/29 05/27/83 06/03/83 06/24/83 07/08/83 08/05/83 08/26/83 h
l ZION 01/28 02/25/83 03/04/83 03/25/83 04/08/83 05/06/83 05/27/83
$/0/
f3 j 1
ff 4
/9px
.i I
1 MIIIAND SSER #2 j
.i PURPOSE:
I CLOSE OUT STAFF S0ILS EVIEW PRNIE " EXPLICIT PRIOR APPN/AL" 0F TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF SOILS ELATED ACTIVITIES i
1 PROVIE STAFF WARItG TESTIfu# ON SOILS PROVIE SUFFICIENT IWORMTION RR REGION III INSPECTORS PROVIE CRITERIA AND BASES IN LIEU OF AVAllABE SRP's i
9 4*
I
...m.
y 1
f HIGHLIGHTS
- Lt0ERPIlf1110 0F NJXILIARY BJILDING (AB) #0 SWS ACCEPTED
- BST FIX ACCEPTED
- DGB SURCHARGE #0 STRUCTURE ACtFIw (STAFF INDEPB0ENT ANftYSIS CONTIfUlfE l
- DO MTERIlE SYSTD1 E Ctrl w
- UNDERGR0l#0 PIPIfE Eu-Plw 1
- CRACKS IN C0fERETE AClulw j
_ SEISf11C l%RGIN CRITERIA #0 APPROACH ACL9KD i
i
=
t l
9 9
- e e
...p.
GKSTNOING REVIEW ITBE
- CONFIRFMTORY ISSlES
- SEISMIC FMRGIN RESULTS J#1RRY - APRIL,1983 l
- FSAR lEATE OF AS-BUILT CONDITIONS AND SHORT tem fullTORIfE
- DOC &BRATION OF CERTAIN Iff00tRTION FRm NRC IESIGN AUDIT
- TE0lNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW 00NITORIfE PROGRNO
- IfRERfML ISSUE: STAFF CONSULTANT PERFORMIfE It0EPB0ENT STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF DGB USING ACTUAL EASURED SEITLEFENT VAlDES t-D r
Lc
- /
k
{//,,
nl b
.IP. ins.M.EETING - DBMII.I.ER'S CCNFERENCE ROCM s
8:00 - 9:00 a.(m /,,..Qober 26 -I982 7
m 0F M N To review the MtC Region III' concerns with the In-Process Inspection Notices (IPINs) Program, and to M*'es methcds/ program changes to respond to the con-cern.
AGENDA 1.
Background - BHPock 2.
Review of NRC Concerns - BHPeck
' a) QC inspections are being ' terminated by the Inspectors due to too many open items. 'Ihis results in not all* deficiencies being identified.
,~.
~
b)' The IPIN is 'being used as an NCR, whrt it is in fact not an NCR.'
=
....,y'--
"~
.:c) Management does not know about all' dime =Hes because o
- y. g.g.wy
.g.
.s :
d) Discrepancies not identified be 26se of a) above,'cannot be tracked on a pimehunt and th re' era, are not known atht 1he NitCd
' g*gy...,
feels the open IR is not enough.- c.
s i*rr '
e) Dismyeid.es are not being trended because ofta) above.' J
/) Tin W,us t 4 ek44 E" r /J:dc.
3.
Proposed Changes to resolve problem - WSchaeffer 4..
Discussion
&4
/
1
.p;p%~
-n%-
7 n,.-
a.u a
p AM iifs../. 6eA40 ~ Wsa DBMiller
[ V
"'W
- Q f Mn:,/-N4ew& -~d
- BBF9Ch'
DI1 Johnson
'gj,.g.,,j r,L m 4
i MLCurland
(
p W5haeffer ELJones RD0rosz d44 Q t" M b M MDistrich l
EC5mith I.EDavis BHP 10/25/82
.n.-
ra II17ohnson DBM111er BHPeck
~
~
raon GWRowe Consumers carc October 26, 1982 POWaf sussect MIDI.AND PRCL7ECT GWO 7020 IPIN's & NRC CCNCERN INTERNAL Canasseonosmcc cc f
li On October 19 or 20 1982 Jack Gilmartin sted QC to return all non-signed off cosmodities to Eield Engineering for re-ion and verification. I feel if the following actions are implemented, Mr. Gardner's concerns should be sat-isfied.
With the reverification QC should inspect us ccesodity 100% and doctament any findiagn either on a NCR or IPIN, dapanding on the finding. This will allow trenling of the f4ndings and identifying those individuals who are not doing their jobs -- those identified can receive additional tra4ning, re-assigiment to a duty they can. handle or dismissal.
When an IPIN has been generated and engineering has completed it, QC should be required to reinspect within a certain time frame--say two weeks.. This method of
_ on would preclude a " log jam" of QC inspections th,st would remain un.
til and of the job.
g.
'Ihe next month or two there should be very few NCR's and IPIN's and when engine.idg-ering begins re-submitting coseodities to QC there sheuld be fewer IPIN's 4 NCR's -
than now exist, due to a better job of inspection. Field Engineering knows the
" burden of proof" is with them.
These actions should resolve the NRC's concerns involving trending of IPIN's, completion of the inspection which will identify all discrepancies and time-liness of QC inspection.
e
/
e e
V
.-~~,.v,.,
,-w,~--cw-w,,,
--~,w..
- ~.-
ll -]5 1
) 14. ee, isi a-w r />
hl Rc
.a i. 30..r. As. &
t l.
R<vtea
.411.e-secear a er iv 'r <.r w,v 1,.'.J
% 4.rs.I.
i coacrke r. a
,a W s iu,u.7 (eaer.,cd-o/ A4e l, acd'
. re7tr&
co Pield E~Gv" fvaM Q C. - &
~-
we vt.
l reow % -,.'.a-con,164exs a-f w=( L.
Ga-ax yl,e.
,Ye,Y eNp knc s.
w o & y - il l In-.}w'Ar rk~r i
.~ d A i,, p a lf a "prr,$d' alu y n gc- -
.T
- a. m X wo~
a..
>I eli a. W ~ a.::_ rte x a e r-m A~%d k & p p.
ad
& c n s, w,k a
.t w -e.cl a l/
la
.R n a h c/
pal/iq r
na me es-eRS lu.ca rec aack-w ra n e..
J, all Ob'cA caiu- " Y
$0 do cu nu "T+
, & cw E 2.%
av act.k h L ol by. r k.
t w.
a 4.
t. M v, *s 4d
'h. NI.A-v "l l n emi k
pr eaf i
f 8 rfrNk
-b fca.cwanoa wp Qus(.ny b.a 9 1,u : L-r %
7 w'l] nh comek ic-no r M
"8 e
,__.~.--_.._ __,~, --_,~,_-_.
M Ne Gw>
. 4 we.+
,om-#
=
e
. hd k -+OL
'>W
, T...
'I ' if --.y,a had a n d mry.7./ p fnb Ai
-EM 9d e.a
-u g, n, p y,~
nud
,s.~y n,.y s-sc.
yr s
~s -
n A
<+ o a ~
s. 9' &
ua su 4 ae
-ru
- nps-t rG s&
d d a w m -rL3 l. -r A h~.
t a'm p
W wN 3. 5-7.-ll han7.f m
.w d-Q w 38.V
~~t ner
+
v 3(SNcw W ~
~[
x
- '" M y --d.e-bade k & r/o
/d&72a
- t. -rune y
11a. j%(
4 g
pk da?
vi+ <".d th JIf } ga%
A e
S
/
e 6
0 a 'e4 _
w-m- - -.
w e n.
me y m e--~,yo_
- * - ~ * ~
r
="-
I "n / e u ni.,n, e/c sh4w Myptw ; n's at z;_
siid~J :s aac, y g,y, p u,
,. g, -
q
- qc,-;-
Edt ces. (w/zi) 9
!v a 6
2.
e c p,p l n
1
- Wa vs t-6.4.r d L A '- p a-9 % a.
- nc h
2'y PL
- rk-Ah p
~
g we.
hY/"
~M
's fM N
M' W
2 f
d.~w d dad Tw to
~~
T y
. [ We-?b',';-
" -~~
E. f.Z'N s Us u. e.
3 g g... g
. - N c/.
.~
. g,Q gy
,,,,s p,. c.j.
hsN WC @-
_r - -
~
c
~~ No out kvtaws 1'N,7 it'
"'*"f
.e 7
,.7 64 mm o udir-p+J(l sHf c 3,d Wir xu =
/, -re sa Ash d
ix-yo s, s h~~w
.- L r & ~ G --
f oc a/
e9 a
.p.wy ai) he dar.,6 7.ecl a
+ D A//w i L.%,.c. y e.gl na l
L f
4
{ ?n j'
e>i C.
. hn M
s
~
z 4
l
~'
4
- =
a#-
9 N O
~ ; l. pJ g
w 1sa 7
e e
9 O
I j U s /sbb c,
-tm e
i
&'hN,h '**%
$ U *-
IN W S
- O h [ll f&
O e
U S
I I
e I
q o.
e..
0 6
,3 e
'N 'U../
s' a.
j, e
1
,m i
a..
t 9
e E
o O
4 g
d'
~~
_________r----
! y....
~
ik n'vaa
,e R.,C.
g
,o.4 r/W i~sf ch 'm
)
1'- prow
- e ub.A er ho/
Ma&
s aus & s [ f y m m c4 % f ad p roda cf -
,w
.a w-s.~
c~/~, #s t
'i
-to bhk.
t 4
1.. 1_
b*
-p b ewo,-
'[
5 44 4 O
- 4 0 M_
7"*zf, e
Md
'I s.q
,. n. r<. _. L 1
- k.. &nt-4e L 'J u 1
pl&
6
.. _j sr.h'~s sag + e-.y k ~
..@.4y l.
an s.-
-J. J.39g
- T*'
I$h i
,1 g
a rs y, c
-a, u y,
p /
u s
yAs cc~, I I 7M[
lI-Jgnic pla' kb A p&*
i
-,0 %, ail r/<>a b k :
~ W de A clu L ad-ZIU~~E-
t I
- ?
W.i r~ w d p
.2 ; h q uv L 7 E
- A, - u s n g.i
- i. 4 racA f - p z=~ ~ "ra A " ~ ~ q e do.
z.-r.al c,-
rLy 4 a.d a
'd f ~" "c4 y
f D2 d
- sisa i.v e a n.e,w o dv ~ L d. W ~ 4 A u
- ~s~e n.p.s t.
n op zm).
/
y M.
c~.,
oba..n 7 Js 1.sw y
)
N 7
r...
+
f
....e gr-,a,a a M
k
-ne <ups -r.a. t g
- 1sk-aqS!DG?($+,N4)
Q k. W.g e k.a?
3 W
I r.
t>
~lE'" U m S & bifh5 e
~
g 0t y
)
<~
l 4
4 e
le r_--
w
-v-t ww 93-----awwe v
m yt-vw--
wr
-wtw-*
++4
- =
-w y
T a-A A.
Ao 1D+-
m fpr 9.~) A '
t a
1 Consumers c.
r POW 8T C'j C0mp5HY z-r Midland Projets Offwe Midland Protect: PO Box 1963.Mdand. MI 48640 45171 631 8650 April 21, 1983 Mr.' Jay Rarrison US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Clan Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAND ENERGT CENIE1It PEEiECT - CTlRT7ICATION OF CPCO POSITIONS File:
1.1.5 Serial
22124 Per request of Mr. Ron Cardner to Roy A. Wells during an exic meeting at the Midland Site on February 18, 1983, this letter confirms Consumers Power Company's positions in the areas noted,below:
TRAINING RECARDING IPINS l
Personnel are being trained that IPINS are no longer authorized for use on the Midland Project.
In addition, training emphasizes that once an inspection is l
initiated, it will be complaced to the point of construction completion and that all nonconforming conditions observed will be documented on a nonconfor-l.
mance report.
Procedures presently being vricten for verificacion and statusing activities required by the Construction Completion Plan (CCP) will cover Inspection' Reports (IR) that have an associated IPIN to assure that inspections ara corplete and that all existing nonconformances are documanced.
Personnel will be trained in these procedures.
HOW TO HANDLE INSPECTION REPORTS WITH IPINS Closed irs During the verificatiop phase of the Construction Completion Plan (CCP), all closed Inspection Reports (irs) that had IPINS associated with them will be 100~.
verified by physical reinspection where possible and by documentation verifica-tion where attributes are inaccessible. Any nonconforming condition observed will be documenced on a nonconformance report.
Correction of nonconforming con-l dicions previously noted on the IPIN will be specifically verified.
This pro-cess will assure that the item being reinspectsd has received a total verification.
1 O-) 1_L L I D rh 3 1%
l 0 7w e> " **#0 ~ W, m
=.:.-
1,C '
- i Ocen irs All items with an open IR and a-partial inspection will be completely reinspected during the systems statusing phase of the CCP.
This will be done as part of the System Completion Teams Phase 1 responsibility.
Inspections will be done using 4
revised PQCIs and any nonconforming conditions will be documented on.nonconfor-
)
mance reports. During the reinspection, nonconforming conditions previously identified on an IPIN will be specifically reverified and, if they still exist, will then be documented on a nonconformance report as part of the normal rain-spection process. This process will assure that nonconforming conditions will l
be properly documented, that rework will not cover up a nonconforming condition, tad that all units receive a total inspection before the IR can be closed.
PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATIONS BT QA/0C PERSONNEL In order to minimize the peer pressure that might be experienced by Level II/III personnel administering performance demonstrations for Project Quality Contr,el Instructions (PQCIs) as part of the QCE racertification process, the following cpproach is being used:
Balance of Plant POCIs
' Performance demonstrations for QC personnel are being given by Level II/III personnel assigned to Balance of Plant - QA.
Soils PQCIs e
Performance demonstrations for QC personnel are being given by Level II/III personnel who do not have an established peer relationship with the QC inspector being tested.
Bechtel QC personnel are administering performance demonstrations to Contractor QC personnel and conversely, Contractor QC personnel administer performance demonstrations to Bechtel QC personnel.
Personnel assigned to QA section of the Soils organization administer performance demonstrations to 'either Bechtel or Contractor QC personnel.
The above should be responsive to Mr R Gardner's questions.
As appropriate, the
?
chove concepts will be incorporated into formal procedures.
l l.
"#31" CONSUMEU POWER CO/APAN4 CC JWCook
{
f{
DBMiller JIBrunner APR 2 51983
+
I BCC MLCurland WRBird civil.
GFEvert DATaggart FIED QUAUTY ASSURANCE JKMeisenheimer HPLeonard M!DWD, MICl!!GAN WJTriedrich I
-- Be sure we have procedures where necessary.
.
t
. _M,'diAlnyedk -Lolk
,,j i.e_pz.
, u s.c
%.e.uses x.
.. c ~ e _u ma.y. g ca, s._coc.4
- Jb4
- .Jt__'T d-.L.L.N_ _
'/
d.-
h F4<,4.. nvA=e.s M
be..L l <...._.._.
-g._RI A-
... A M. L.,.k'3..:!tl<__
_k. h o
s
_73
/'"
A 1.wm e===vm t.aev 4.
%,f yp
+.___t.+._f_plek~
~
% 4)__sp*<-
E-M.4-u_,,,A _,..*
w_.,,ee..
A
&-7,3_334. A%
-h L
A.-3 &
mQ O
C..2.5.5.AC4 G
e.u. A='. -
I (P..,7.2.r
/"w <* ~~-
-h.e._sy.% W N w)vsA-l Jw %
w.% )_& ' 4 naAS c-zsser 6%_.c' y
A.ea '*
V E' e
O
_ >wn f cg_+-
.s h s,. ~ d se d Q w
-n. ~uA< :.J t~_ UdhD- -f ~ U-G1m,o It k ] l* d NO b 4._.b1soh h w 'p v
_b._S.+.~u.A.~ A
//vM-. L [* y d._.
b_E_ y #lN
_ L 4 ^ 2 % < -f. _ N + ~ _-=
zt..s. Ay- -
3 A -e y. w +
4.. _ d__- 4 } J.
-* 7
./ d
.Nd. _eh
_-_ddkl z) a-liv.fwp _=L.k._& k=_Lp,
e y
cQ %
f..!- /,J4.h:- A M J d.A r.ar..-4t< _wv.ch A - A-6 __
W..
-,s
--,-ym em,.
We gu
-w'ew y,g.--
-y m-
,,,,g------
y
-ww--y
-s>-
--.yimmy
,y-pye
,-ww-m-y rev 9 y==.
1 up p.c.
e n.c-s -a-coc.P wm j
3c D sic-m -
- d. u.D
.+t a.
Ad u L_,
_a4
- J
._u.
%:y %. e A M-*h _.Uek bkey k c.
b._E4A sk.aA e A.ahy.. A '-
Ch._
a)_c-~d e.
C.- Au'y-
%) Ah!,1J.. m l_sk & M y e<
A G g Au'y L=#
3 d) 1-
'.%1 %
d SLd k
._m ww Me i
i e
sk M 7% A.
%_oks.'*- A k w
o-.e. A a m>a e'7
-- 3 1
2]
R.444d W C-M L,leiJ_(h_w MIA 9
&lA Y C. U
~
s1 %A m AcA -
A.._ 9. p JAs
=s-MuLy
.pua w-c a -4 3=c
.e l- _
De h. -
Wk +.k 1v=}7 8c.
n 0
j ; _.
- h. kE4 -M Me4ak s_d< Q _'J encgl bW s -. - & 4 t _ c.
@>.._.D h a+
3 e = w..I_
.. T M EM _Skh.. *A...h. J.u'y _.e
= _EE'*
- j l
.. ___e Q3 ' p<.d - '-
c+ h
. *'Aa-..+
z
..s) % $_% -.A-Ad y_e J.d f l
u e.. m c.-q, m g u a A J. J N u. M +h-4a yEq 4,.s $ -
h, E^i.Zi^3.JJ M ( w+.~
,,.n A d~,'L
'-+
nc- -
bf pee. A w.~L. c'y 2,
- =
=
= = : -==. :- - =- = = ;-
R L am wm t.a.
'4 Wee
.-G G* m 4
.. e e
-w
$.e.ma. e e.*
. - we.
m ee es eesp _ gr e.
empo,-
. _... _ _.... @ 4..r--\\ q_C.~ tu4_J_A:7. J.-.--eh.h_
- t
- _- t_!
c
.4 fa _. 4.p*.W -
,.
a e=s _ daw.\\*N~e-(L*s *
- t.. et a.
S A A EE
,,k t
AJ - u 2 O <r a
m I
y4 f3n_ C.)OCc fJw N%%
25 W
AJAC 4-v
- f dr4**
an-
- edv=.#
a\\
Md hb I
f I
kh Aok % e : - C, Um &
A.1 Atk.1Jo
_- ^-
. M~
^ ^3' "f
N NNMd.I h%
e.e.L.
wAM N
- W-23 v
h _
be..
k.e-t.h.
U
- 9. -
G-s-
w_ewg 4 A u.
- s. g M
w v
r se.
=***.lD 8
9_n '<
4 - a+J hLh n.d 3s ew
~
f o _..
w h...> A d d
--4 a).J_w. d*- nje=gT
- 4....
....Q c 4-.A -.
n
-.. D c~ %. ~A. - m_ 4. -- w kmp_..
4 s.>+ W 9
W e
e
- -, = - - +
. +, -
.-e
..--,se w.,-.vs, c
w,---,w.,~--,---.c- - - -. - * - - - -.. _,,. _ _ _., _ _ _ _, _, _ _ _ _ _
.-r,
,.,,-,,,,..r
...w-.w.---,,,
--r,-,-,--.r,,--,--.r.
-g
,-w--
,.e,
N % Ea t.
nj i.Jes.
t aa s ee.s ex-i - 4 e e.
4*
A4.M b__c %l.
a _ y A... p i u. J ) _
...Y._.
A 7 % _..)
_... _ __.. d)
Chi.g E
A 1...r d
_.-A~% L.w.C.L,pm.A N
Q _tM A _.y. &. D pi.e%<y_y7 A h
jLs r_
mtv s,orw
. c.. ~* A.A 4.e c A
,4 H-i am A
- 4. w_ J_q_A\\ h&W _ - G Ch r %=h_kM A %db WM:
e a um.e
.t -..a-u-..x-s:.
.)Q l
A Ln:A l
%uaa % n a m s "
- n. : - -
M&== -5:-
k_MSc A
4 sec.
J
% -k A.
e 14
% X.G6 4
94% bd _3.9*5 g A.b__q M -
I' A _l.+1+11,k 4... M e I
1
.. _G w J
?J
}1E h._h w.._k....C-I *
- 1 h ~=~:-q._ _ f w._. c-15s~....
0.. _ -
. _ _ ~... ___ M,._..J..'.,
R
._&/=. 4 1,
.__.____...__.[._g.___64t.o.__+
+
=-
~ y..-
r'f.p-t
$. _lY_ _ _ _.
~
)
[f) ;
d 2.
q
/&
Co
)
j 3)
'l:PC.ktth -
o-e.
9t_ d) CAS de&. - Je Ay; J-.6=4d -
+4
- /Nfd R
pr I)]s)b yE &&
cnen
I e
....n/ a/s.c-
.M A u kX b) o ~
G -.. u M-R.to E
%... ~._, A.
- .....-......_ W -
Ge=d CM hsa
- ~
J ed.xL'. - +
~
'<saa -wk; %ak o.n z_ C. &_Au h..
,M a i)._ thal,m W f,A ^_h J d'.-
luo l J
& LL
-.. A r
I i :
I i.-
1*
'q
'4 1
, 1 t.
1 t i
I i
l t
s
.....,_ /\\
QCFM-9975 Bechtel Power Corooration Inter-office Memorandum
. g er8" '
- D. t.. Daniels January 14, 1983
'7 3
g, Midland Project, Units 1 & 2 E. Smith seim kQuality Control Monthly Quality Control Report No.12 a,
)
i-Detailed below is the Quality Control Monthly Report for November 27, 1982 through December 31, 1982.
e I
INSPECTION ACTIVITIES
,,l ' f A.
Receiving Inspections if\\14,508 1.
Total IR's issued to date
/
2.
Total IR's closed to date
/'.
14,403 p
{
105*
3.
Total IR's remaining open s
69 4.
Opened IR's this period I,.
58
- 5. - Closed IR's this period
[/\\
Number corrected by actual count.
A. '
S.
Installation Inspections 1.
Total IR's issued to date 177,275 2.
Total IR's closed to date 169,595 3.
Total IR's remaining open 8,758*
4.
Opened IR's this period 554 5.
Closed IR's this period 8,629 Number corrected oy actual count.
C.
Nonconformance Reports j_
I 1.
Total NCR's issued to date 4,763*
2.
Total.NCR's closed to date 4,400 t
3.
Total NCR's renaining open 363*
i II 4.
Opened NCR's this period 38
{~
- t -
5.
Closed NCR's this period 44 6.
Closed NCRs reopened this period N
1 3e Does not include 7 NCRs which were transferred to FSO this month.
D.
Discrepancy Reports /IPINS DR'S HINS 1.
Total DR's/I PINS issued to date C 4,f56.)
(4 VD 2.
Total DR's/IPINS closed to date 4,836 3,546 3.
Total DR's/I PINS remaining open 20 819
_.-h,E s
m.
we.._4 w-.
n%EM4 b.h mw41 maa m. *
. em ae 4M'
.m weep
=amme ceeme. w 7
1 o' *
.r '
MEETING WITH NRC TO REVIEW CONSTRUCTION CCNPETION PROGRAM December 2, 1982 7
1.
Opening Remarks by J. Cook.
- Review the plan we have prepared in response to the generic concerns from
^
the recent inspection.
]
- We have started to implement parts of the plan.
1;
' ~
- We would like to meet periodically with NRC to let them know where we are
- on the plan.
2.
Review of Handout by DBMiller.
3.
Review of Chart by DBMiller.
Zone 1 - Preparation for inspection; cleanup, equipment removal, evaluate manpower; will have laid-off 1100. people by 12/6/82'.
Zone 7.- Layup Coordinator - Technical Department Zone 2 - QA/AC Activities We will resolve how to document the reinspections.
Zone 4 - Develop Teams Assign systems to them.-
Train Teams Zone 6 - Resolve generic concerns.
Zone 5 - Main Line Management Reviews Reinspection Evaluations 4.
Questions on cable reinspection and hanger reinspection.
Types of individual performing the inspections.
l MLCurland reviewed the basic plan for hanger reinspection program.
5.
Post Atrnover Work We, feel we have tight controls over this work. Our CWR program.
Shafer concerned over QC training'not having been given to people doing in-l spections of GSO work.
lr
- 6. ' Question from R. Cook on a missed inspection found on a turned over system, ie one of the skipped IPIN's.
I
- Reinspection program includes turned over and non-turned over systems.
.Everything.
- h"nat kind of work does GSO do?
Correction of 10E's, temp. flush piping.
-No "new" work.
j
- Modifications type work? DCP's g
w eh
ma+---
=...
.s--
-g~
_.._i__...____.
_~
1
~'
i
- NRC wants assurances that GSO work can be done right and inspected properly.
They want some bounds on what they can do.
3
- DBM GSO is dedicated organization.
TE's control - CWR Prompt QC inspection TE reinspection
- Wayne suggests turnover systems be the first ones looked att Most of these are electric.
7.
Recent Zack problems.
- Some questions.
!i No audit for 2 years - Why?
l What kind of QC inspections?
8.
Weekly Status reports - Give to NRC.
Regular, perhaps monthly,-meetings with NRC.
'9.
Question from Warnick on team organization.
Refer to handout. chart.
DBM explained on a flip chart sketch.
Concem over case of a " strong Superintendent" - Checks and balances.
~ Construction cannot override satisfactory system completion.
Deficiencies will be documented.
Dispositioned by Engineering.
This concept successfully being used at WPPSS-2.
-QC " coordinator" will sit with the team - not all inspectors.
- (This is a big concern of'Ron Cook's. We need to get back to Ron Cook on this.)
- 10. Review of Evaluation criteria, matc'hing them up with the elements of the plan by DBM111er.
i
~
'11.
Shafer - What is going to change within Supts. and FE's.
(;
Team' Training, emphasize doing it right the first time. Better define the exact expectations of work.
Re-emphasize the QIP.
- 12. How are we going to submit /fomalize this to NRC7 JWCook says we will write-up our plan and fomally submit it. This could be done by the end of December,1982. Warnick needs something next week.
Need to work this out with Keppler.
- 13. NRC wants to concur with any changes to reduce the program we presented today.
f 14
- Need to work out details of the GSO activity for the plan.
- 15. Third Party look.at Const uction.
, = - ::: z.~r.r.,
- T L C : :L.
L :X: L -.- L.._,-. 21 LL.LL
J.L_
^
~
~
. Idrnick feels this should b2 postpon;d until after we get our plan going.
Repair III and NRR are meeting next week on this subject.
16.
NRC would like some " hold points" in our program to look at things.
get back to us on this.
They will gram of our plant. -
Also, on how they will continue their inspection pro-17.
NRC needs an internal meeting to make sure.we have addressed'all of their concerns.
's
- 18. Mr. Warnick observed that this was a good effort.
4 s
i J
e e
4 4
e e
I e
0 0
BHP 12/2/82 i
I
- K l2,-
_ jrr -.. ~_.. _
~ ; 2:-,-____
4 I
ATENDANCE LIST 4
NAME C(NPANY Bruce H. Peck
' - CPCo Bob McCue CPCo I
M. L.'Curland CPCol
~
r
.,. [
R. A. Wells CPCo
. t g
B. L. Burgess'.
NRC R.I.
f R. J. Cook-NRC Reinspection f
' ' " ~
~
.S R. F. Warnick NRC E
w.'D. Shafer NRC
[
i R. R. Lee CPCo/MAC c
Patrick Corcoran Bechtel Res. Proj. Engr.
R. K. Vassar-Bechtel Mgr. Project Ops.
[
John Rutgers Bechtel Jim Cook CPCo D. B.. Miller CPCo k
I-t 5
I s
L a
0 L
'b k
I 4
. - ~..
' E
[-
r.r.,-J,.
'3 BWMarguglio, JSC-220A CONSUMERS POWER CO.
- [
TJSu111 van, P24-624A RECEIVED j.
raow
,RWHuston, Bethesda
.JUL 161982 CORSumBTS ons July 15, 1982 Site M5r.
Power sumacc7 PERCEPTION OF MIDLAND QA Midland Project Company INTcANAL coa cseoNocace I'>;
RWH82-60 JWCook, P26-336B Mtiiller, Isham, Lincoln & Beale cc JAMooney, P14-Il5A DMBudzik, P24-517A
!4 9DBM111er, Midland WRBird, P14-418A WBuckman, P26-213A DJVandeWalle, P24-614B J7 Fir 11t, JSC-230A The Staff briefed the Commission today regarding their initiatives to improve Quality Assurance at construction sites The briefing itself was inconclusive and somewhat disjointed.. I have attached for your information the' slides which were used. The discussion during this briefing served to perpetuate an image of' Midland as a plant with major and on-going quality assurance problems. The extent of this perception makes it apparent that a failure to effect a change in this perception could have a major impact on the Midland
~
~
5 licensing process and could spill over into a more general affect on Consumers Power Company's plants.
c An underlying basis-for new QA initiatives was stated to be "the five plants" which have had major problems.
It is significant that, despite not having a listing in front of them,'none of the Commissioners found it necessary to ask who the five plants were. Later in the discussion a backup s11de was used (see attachment) which was not included in the handout package before the Commissioners.
It listed the five plants and the principal areas of their QA problems in the following order:
'3 i.
1.
Zimmer
[
2.
Diablo Canyon '
3.
Midland 4.
Marble Hill i -
5.
South Texas
(
This slide was headed " Summary of Recent Problems" (emphasis added).
Much Commission questioning centered upon whether these were isolated examp'les or whether they were only a function of the NRC having looked harder at these c
projects.. The Staff chose to answer in two ways.
First, they cited inspection experience from which they conclude that, although they have looked somewhat harder at these five plants, they have reasonable assurance that other projects have not had problems of similar magnitude.
Second, they pointed out that the areas in which these; problems,first turned up were quite obvious; soils settlement under safety related structures was specifically cited as one of two examples. The Staff noted that;in all cases the obvious problem was a symptom of underlying management inattention and lack of concern for a quality product; in all cases "when we looked harder, we found problems in other areas
- stemming from the same root cause."
j A
-,-m,-,
..,,w.,,,w
,-...,_-_~,~.-,%..m.,,~..--,,.,m,---m**
,-,,..,_.m.-.,%.-m---w..+-y
- --c.-+
~
4 While not directly related'~to Midland or some subset of "the five plants",
fuel was added to the fire by an Ahearne statement that several senior utility j
executives have privately told him that they do not believe that there are any QA problems, but rather that the whole issue is another example of overzealous regulation on the part of the NRC Staff.
While not specifically not tied back l
co anything this " revelation" seemed to establish a tone that industry still isn't taking these things seriously.
Com=1ssioners Roberts and Asselstein both relied on experiences from recent trips to c'onstruction plants in trying to keep things in perspective. For those plants the Commissioners had vf aited, management attention, and positive 1
initiatives outside those required by the NRC were recognized to exist. I believe that it is imperative that we take some action to provida.the same kind of personal contact with Midland.
Under tha current licensing process the Cotanission will have to eventually decide whether Midland is ready to be licensed.
Their decision will not be I
based on a detailed personal review as were the Staff's decisions which went Etato the SER. The overall climate and preconceived prejudices of the Commissioners as they enter into deliberation about such a decision could have a very significant affect on its outcome. It is my belief that our position 7
I will be interpreted better if the Commission has a personal feel for the fact that we have been addressing this issue for years, and that we are not t
Johnnie-Come-Lately's looking for a license.
I recommend that we write the Chairman attempting to defuse the coupling of Midland to "the five plants" and specifically pointing out that the
- acknowledged breakdown which was associated with our soils problems occurred several years ago and is not a currently ongoing problem.
I believe that it would be to our advantage to invite the Chairman or any of his colleagues to visit the site. We might also request an opportunity to meet in open session with the whole Commission to. discuss what we are doing about quality assurance. I recognize that any of these actions will serve to raise publically issues which might be used against us, and that it is quite possible that we will have to answer difficult and somewhat unfriendly questions. As I stated before however, I firmly believe that these questions L/
will.have to be answered in the long run anyway, and that it will be to our l'
considerable advantage in the long run to, address them now rather than later.
1 I am available at your convenience to discuss any questions, to further discuss this particular briefing or to provide any background information thac you may desire. Please do not hesitate to call.
t RWH/bh 2
e 9
4
~7KY
~ j-._.-_----- --.- - -.- -.J:
L...,,
~ - -
~ * ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' "
~
PROBLEM SOURE INDUSTRY QA PROGRAMS CONTAIN APPROPRIATE ELENNT
- f PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH IffLEMENTATION l>CK OF T6P MANAGEMENT ComITENT TO QUALITY INADEQUATE DETECTION OF PROBLEMSa INADEQUATE CmRECTIVE AcTIce E
DETECT / CORRECT SYMPTOMS MTE UNDERSTANDING OF SCOPE AND 6%GNIRJDE
~
INSUFFICIENT EFFORT ON DESIGN REVIEW SALP BENEFICIAL a
- t n
ALLEGATIONS R
ARE A VALUABLE AND EFFECTIVE PART OF ROUTINE INSPECTION PROGRAM CO N FROM DGPLOYEES/PUBLIC/ M IA NRC LOOKS INTO ALL ALLEGATIONS
- i I
4 (PREPARED FROM NOTES, NOT PART OF HANDOUTS) i amese e '
=**-e = *
~ * * ' *
^
~
\\
SlJPARY OF RE&NT PROP [FMS s
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES 9
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURAL STEEL WELDS AT ZIMER
- l SEISMIC DESIGN ERRORS AT DIABLO CANYON INADEQUATE SOIL COMPACTIONIkT MIDUWD.
VOIDS IN CONCRETE STRUCTURES AT MARBLE HILL DESIGN DEFICIENCIES AT SOUTH. TEXAS (PROBLEM AT THESE SITES WAS A LACK OF MANAGEMENT
~
~
CONCERN AND ATTENTION OVER QUALITY, THE ABOVE WERE SYMPTOMS AND WHEN WE LOOKED ELSEWHERE.AT THESE SITES WE FOUND OTHER PROBLEMS STEM 11NG FROM SAME - JORDAN.)
1 e
(PREPARED FROM NOTES - NOT PART OF PANDOUTS) 3 4
.; w v w..
,~....
c.;
s a
..e_.*
.c-
. g. 2. 'S. -
1_.
,4-
.g:
a,. 2,
..r 4
~ #. :.# '.- -
'SLIOES FOR'
.,i w
- J.** o!,& *.'.'.. *.. :
a.
..'.9 L
..,.'...2..~.:..*.*..,......+
.v-
,...a
+,,. m~...
- ...r, 3 e.,., c.
.z ~.
. e... -....,.
a
..~~......s.,..
,..n..: y......f...u - -
/,...,. - :......,.j,...,-.
<,...,,s..
.p,
.c.-
. y.;.,.
. 3,..
,g...........,......_ q:; l..; y.,
p.:Ncq.,..p ; * -
,;:Lg.;*;;;..,..
..:., >g..: ',.
g.
- .l : '.. :. f.
v.5.g.y.;. j, ; -
.. com555 gay ggggpgyg:
.;. a..t...y..e.: 7 9. :g. ;.l3
..s...:..,...
g
'g p
8.
- b
- M.
OK.
r F
QUALITY ASSURANCE INITIATIVES' I
t E
P a
JULY 15; 1982~
J g.
(*.'-
f
'4 4**
s g'.
t O'
-b g
e i
e y
m m.a,,_
.n s~s<+w.=o%k-ok*'-'"
' = ~ * * ' * * " * * " *
- ~ ~"
?
. j-G.n ce per--.
useo.
- E sAcx;uf
~0UALITY' ASSURANCE -
.S o c o x u.s i c.
N (r
.F.
I-s'
+
- > p s n rn o A.1..
\\
cs mre.a...
INTRODUCTION
.J.
,.g.
. r:
THE COMPLEXITY AND EXTENT OF THE QA'. PROBLEM 5' Ib'ENTIFIED' AT: SEVERAL N'bC
."O POWER PLANTS:UNDER CONSTRUCTION. HAVE: CAUSED. WIDESPREAD CONCERM.. "./. +
~
~
7 c.,c;
..-:.,b.
.f..c :. % :.7.'...
- :-(..
'. :.:.= % q r..-:. -;.5. 2..
.. 6 L _:.
.,..; 3 g g :'..73 97..
- n,.
.F:'.:. 2 -
' <,,1.u.-H-y.W
- TQ,..,: CONGRESSIONAL,. OVERSIGHT. HEARINGSEON:'.Q.;AF HAVE.. BEE MM
-:,p>. p;..:,;;
.u.,,.. ;
m.:,,y.y.:._..s: -:-G:e=..
'o, a.
- w REPRESENTATIVE 5b.h
- .. :
..: 4....t-
.r n *....-;. B.l.':~.;t:
+.. :., :
.r.c y.r,'.q ft8-.w?.W.b.'n-
.L%.a $.M.,;y.M. 3r.
- 'J.;.K M e....
- ' ':.,ii".&'=C+
- ~ =. '
4;
. e* ;. :~r.i. : +:
.- i '.,,.*. : a, p-
,a c--.
- v.
,. G c :
.r,....,
- r.v t-
. &;:a;Y'.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY' AND EN. VIRONMENT5,; C
. s:.
.r
- ~gv 1.--.
- . :,s,.r.
- 1?- v.:
.w:-
.s
- . a n e-M..
y.: "* 4. -..
?;.
.. - n.:. e'
- s..
~
.1
...u...
d
~
?EE@~2#1(5" t.d ' N; f;..
'3 '
?.>.7 ^
AN!1-INSULAR AFFAIRS
. NOVEMBER,1971981b
.- ?
k.
- _..v.... :..
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY,. AND NATURAL' RESOURCES,
' COMMITTEE ON GOVERNM.ENT.0PERATIONS --DECEMBER 14, 1981' NOVEMBER 27,.1981 - CHAIRMAN DIRECTED ST'AFF TO ASSEMBLE APPROACHES TO
' STRENGTHEN.QA.
DECEMBER 1,1981 - CHAIRMAN PALLADINU, IN A SPEECH TO AIF, CHALLENGED THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TO REEXAMINE A'NO UPGRADE ITS QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS JANUARY 29, 1982 - NRC STAFF BRIEFED COMMISSION ON PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS OF VARIOUS QA INITIATIVES 7
, FEBRUARY 4, 1982 - INPO BRIEFED COMMISSION ON INDUSTRY ACTIONS l
l FEBRUARY ~10', 1982.- STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE MORE DEFINITIVE PLAN, INCLUDING SCHEDULE AND RESOURCES MARCH 4,.1982 - QA PRESENTATION TO ACRS.
AffRIL 12, 1982 - MEETING WITH INFO TO EXCHANGE QUALITY ASSURANCE INFORMATION MAY 19, 1982 - SENIOR AGENCY-MANAGEMENT MEETING TO DISCUSS QA STRATEGY '
51 N e '!c. '.
~
..m,, ----,.-e.---,---,,,w--m,--,,-----n.-.,-,--..-----.--,.w,..-
n--,-.,.-r,
- ~ - - - - - - - -
.,n
~c,
( w...
a-
.s; v
~.
-2
- n '--
CATEGORIES. OF INITIATIVES'-
..-^
....-n...,......
+
n.
.c.
..r.
. +
y :.....
s
~
.. ' ~... - -..
s
.~
=. ~.
..u
-. i. a..
i:.
a
~
1 y '..
I.
CONFIDENCE IN OUXLITY-
....-.T..'..e ;'
- i...d.'..
. '.y-l... -
.,..O,., p,.: ;.
s
.w
. a.
.. C. a U
- m...._.
... c.
.:; R...g.. u... u.......
. f.: t......: =.l.h. C,. LC.... ~ : l
,..:.:. y
.n..
x.
".?1.> T.;'..^..
.d %.: m..
%.M.. :
. - i.eD.;,. 3. ~.M...S ; tQi..:. ;.+w. 2.,.25.::.% i. @c:.
G
.w..-..
..- w
. y' r.,
FREQUEN.CY..- ANG; SE. VERI.TY'.0FQ&. BREAKDOWNS $..,_
2'2.,.?;..'. ~:W34p<:s.2.@..}1 w.
..:.r.' :...
i s. 9K. :.:. ~
... ~..,. g:..a._,x p ?. &.
.6 -
.p
. " h.a,g... q. -~,.,2.g. :.:.
.:. :. p u...y.,, e.id *.
u..
?..g '..d, i.;
. '. ' M,c.EF..!T.W.x N. *
= -
. M: *, > * '_'. l.mT.'4Wiff 7.' :.:.~l nw..,. ?... a,;g Q : \\~
=r. ;.,-. ".,.,' 1. n J.T
- r'f.w~..
.a......
.4:.,.=cf.;;~fy.** k;:
'.X..,-
q.E. ;'-Q**:
. M.,g/s s-E ' ".IDELAYS'. DE NRC RECOGNI.T. IO*0G SCOPE!.,AND EXTENT. OF,B,REAKD Q:.,.,.,'v.'~
D.-
6 t.
..r..
.....e..
..w w.v.n
.,;.g y...*
..= ~.. 7 w :..
.. c:.
PAST NRC ~ EFFORTS EMPHASIZED' PROGRAM' CONTENT, FORMAT' ANT STRUCTURE' '
I POTENTIAL FAILURE OF QA Td' PRODUCE' INTENDED RESULT h
5
', II. MANAGEMENT OF QUALITY INADEQUATE TRAINING INADEQUATE DIRECTION INADEQUATE ATTENTION III. LONG-TERM REVIEW
~
I
~
REVIEW PROGRAM TO G0 BEYOND SHORT-TERM EFF. ORTS j
NEED TO FOCUS ON VIEWPOINTS OF NRC, INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC 1
S I
m
_r'.,.- 1,..s p a
- i.. '?
INITIATI'VE' OETAILS'.. -?(. .:..',~, ~
- e..s..
J;.7 - e, I.. . CONFIDENCE IN QUALITT'.' ~ !.r.. .. :r:;=.;:.u.' i. :.. ' - - ~:w %.. ..n:.j... i.f.:r. % *,. 's. s.., _..
- n
.+ .....;..~..- ..r,;.e.,..n..-. s..... ~ . 41/.. " SAS,dONSTRUCTION-INSPECTION PROGRAM'OEVELOPMENTS- '1N,A,%. +....E$g-r.y.p n:p ~. ;.. $> ' 2.. 2 5 Q ~ 5 N $. V.T. % E.~ - i d i '..'.' O. 3.. '. '. a..:.r J,.*: :.... ..... l. ;i......':.;!.. - w r- ..,.. + e c -~.:n--;-3.g.g@;..,$.:s. , 't ' J. /J.i, ' " *.,...../. PROGRAM'.HAS:.CHANGEUe0VER.YEARSO(MOSTLY' ADDITIONS):. f!": T An44;f 1 T . r.. s..:. .1 ..i.-n...: -m--... ...v.- ..Q$!..F. :.Z.crph E: CONSTRUCTION.:.ENH 1979,1980: ..r. -5.ee Mn. p'.:.:.2:Ab.W - IND. 3.:. w@m.q;..t.g.:_. .a.m....ANCEMENT. PROGRAM'F.%~ :.W:.Mi h ? V ".r.' _ ...., q.. e . :.. w. o.- -.:.- w,~7 1 i':4'.t9;?.--l?.=>.r '3 LOWUF.OE ALLEGATI,ONSE?:? /1 -.W.i V ' '. .m m:- .- =. 2:. -.. c, > n e m i.y.uia. .~: 'S .~ ^ $ /.FOL . :n. .,....W.. .E..::.. .._' v.,.- MAJOR REVISION IR-PROGRESS ~TTMATCH PROGRAM TO' AVAILABLE~ . ~. RESOURCES. ". - INCREASE EMPHASIS ON' OBSERVATION OF WORK J -- DECREASE. RECORDS REVIEW ' -INCREASE' EMPHASIS ON INSPECTION OF DESIGN AND DESIGN CHANGES ' RESIDENT INSPECTOR NOW' AT ALL SITES >_,15% COMPLETE 1 B. CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT TEAM INSPECTION PAT TYPE INSPECTIONS AT SELECTED CONSTRUCTION SITES COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT LICENSEE MANAGEMENT-INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF REGIONS INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F INPO s C. MEASURES.AT NEAR-TERM OPERATING LICENSE FACILITIES c SELF-EVALUATION-REGIONAL EVALUATION INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW Slide No. 3
- Mvh'm F N9 *D4e.e.a'.p'.
% 44 WM h !#* s .e"+.uF% s ' d die }. **. Aa. . #8 '" ' - Of s-^ * ' - - '*****M~
- * " ^ " ' ' #
z., r.. ~.. - . ;.c: ~ ~~. r -. s ,.~;... ~~ INITIATIVE DETAILS "(..c6nt'd}- ? ~~ : .+ +. ..4... > 1. i c y.. ':... D.... INTEGRATED DESIGN INSPECTION.i.c ' ~F.". .. -.,.c., /r ? t. ' Q..,.
- a. u, :. ;>.s : :;.,.. -
s ..'..g. .,.t..,, ::.. ; e - ?
- a. :
.~. _?:.,C..,. ..,... m g... a.. r: c.mp;.~ .s ..2..,. i A;.R;W, y, -- ' 4 ',.* . :.. w...> :.... u. .m.
- s.m....
... v;.
- ~. S.A.MP..LE,: CA. LCU.LATI0tt:.CHECK
- ., d4 r 2.. u@;.,,.i;i.
- 4...
' REVIEWiSELECTEIL:S.YSTEM AND/OR:STR ~3E. -...:.: &.P.=.,:.;2.is. M.;. P S. g p
- 5.'e :
s .y., f: :::- s: ., e. y .s,... Gifiri: ..s,,0.%...M. ~..$::~e.z.;..,g.g4.y:c g.g. -.y.. _,.,o,%.. . y.r
- c...C. u: ;.....,.
..a. m...,..:-. ._ s:: h- '..::,,.JAS:. BUILT...VERIF.ICA.T..I0.ftfW...u. J'. M, REVIEW.DESIGNZ INTERF.ACESri.".4,..G=:.... _ wf., x.. :.e, m. -~ F ,J... ~ . F...,. ,...s .e.. n.
- . n...
..a , f.:y,,.., .'f; :. - ;.F. -e. d.I l - <:e. ~. ;.'.. MANAGEMENT OF TOTAL DESIGW "2 . y'l~ ' ... s: -
- s.
~ t 4 E. . EVALUATION OF REPORTED:INFORMATION IMPROVED ~ SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF 50.55(E) AND PART 21 REPORTS - COMPUTERIZED DIAGNOSIS: p t -1 i l 4 4 F. ENFORCEMENT STRONG ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS FOR QA BREAKDOWNS o ( INDUSTRY INITIATIVE. G. INPO DEVELOP CRITERIA SELF EVALUATIONS DECISION ON INPO EVALUATIONS e Slide No. 4 ,y w --3... g. -w e, . +. - . ~ _... .s...w. -w-w e- - -.- ,- +. -. r%-y
a _4 . N. =. 's ..,tc I,' ..~k s.: -^.. 4 '. : ;. r n.r:...:..: .c.!..;, m... -.,- 1,. s - (................ ~ - m.. ~ ~ INITIAnVE' OETAIf.S* (cont'd). m.. ',___'?- .. n.:. .c .~ IL. MANAGEMENTROF QUALITtl,[-),. k, ;.;..e. . u: - . c.. < ;.w..-. ~ _ - ~ .j @.;. :.. y._. w.u..%......r .. r ;e u., c. %p a j ~; p.g r-u p( -:..- w -.e.. - x v-.,.,a(a:.wy.::e.s.,.y..-. <p:.,.........., .,..e ..:. ~:. t n - -x:s.u.-:,:"u..r w.r...:. ..m. .r <..aw 2.. .e Eh.l..c 'ibhNNbw...4.h. ~:;p.:.. :.9a;y:s-Ws a M e.c.-:..: ?.. ;.::... .a....:a i N.5 h+: h N k N ..u k kd.5sN.w.-w ;.-~ p$h..s.:-:.. hf'[:C ....m M [v.
- TM.
INS @ M G C TEMANAGEMENT: SEMINARS
- .':'": h.;;.v:y=w~ pz:y;s.zp:<EANQlEICENSEEEQUAt'I.T#IMPR
,w,.W. s .w 7: :'; c =r. rs ai:w,:q ~? ; --r,s:,.. s-s. :NA c.
- .; -(f;u,. n,-a
. x.c m.~._. :.y;%. AW.g. bp sa7; s ;+:.. ... ~.. =. !.'. '.:q T. ypg.
- i
..:.2,_12.a D, -g=,,.;., p: h;g.. =' -lf7G:';.qg9..-*r.-: &b. IW.. ......9. 0* '""8 ',. J" "-WFIMPROVE,' ATTI.TUDEAND"PERFORMANCEF: W.' ^ La ar~ s'r 6 c.is.o PERSONAL' COMMITNENI 0F SENIdR' MANAGERS CONTINUING. SERIES' 0F SEMINARS. C PROVIDE FEEDBACK.ON ACHIEVEMENTS UPGRADE QUALITY AND CERTIFICATION.0F QA/QC PERSONNEL o COMMUNICATION SYSTEM TO MANAGEMENT FOR SUGG'. STING QUALITY / IMPROVEMENTS AND FOR COMMUNICATING ALLEGATIONS TO NRC r B. CRAFTSMANSHIP 3 (om m sss eortert.s Oor/r-w r-NFC. artvowc0 tu - a rtos. DISCUSS IMPROVEMENTS WITH MAJOR TRADE UNIONS QA/QC ACTIVITIES MUST REACH THE CRAFTSMAN ASSURE GOOD CRAFTSMANSHIP 5 Slide No. 5 ,.,w..,n_. .s -, = + =..- - * ~ _ <. ~.-.^^~~**~*-".*,..--_****.'._'.*....'.*-.c'. ~. -. -. - -. -., - -.,.,.. ,.,m,. n..r,.
.....o... i,.y g. r .. e..., - ; r,,. =.:. ::=. :.. s.,. .. ~.. I. x.. .=. .~ s ..i. .ie- ,i ~ g*.: '.' ~, ; ~
- ).,,
? g ..a
- 1..;J......,,
~...y......... '&s f, .. INITIATIVE DETAILS' {conU dl-. --.. .. q.. 7E. s.~ v.y~~.,, i . ;.....:., e.... .1, p.. .. e..: . r .,m..~.. . 3.c 4..,.. a.. .1- ~- e.~e.,. v.y&.... ;:.~..n y. v.. :.,.o.u. ..r:.
- z. w;,;.,.....
.,. r. 3.. .s s. g. av. :m.. :..:e. .vu mw.. ..., i 4. .. k i. a ...,.m...... u .....u.... . c... ;;y... ......... a.. m,.s.%am:.-:.e...,.. w..e. m... :.. 2..:.c. x,c.n..,w.u a.v.. w v. -:=... :...-.:. o,yyw.-. .c$h.~- a- :r v....v a;..s.sh ? .... r ......t. D.:Y... :...... r.. k.h* Y5I Y:h,.,. .Y?:, y. g. Lv;c*$ Q:.%.h,c.$ Y $ ?. N :h.:: f,.i. # :r:#C.?. y. S h<-z %q %..s . 5k ?b ^. ?..... ; i,s.w.y. ;. 5..,.'. 2... +,. \\.. 2 ' u?.r p::.yw. ~j
- a.
w . :i.~ ~; w" ? + '---. c:::: pg.ff.,f{ III'.: LONG-TER!t REVIER$y..,.. = v. +,;i.,.,. ; 7.,'.,.-..J.g,' i-( ; '. r.- ..e.. :.. -. .n . REVIEW EXISTING AND CONTINUING QA PROBLEMS EXAMINE RESULTS OF EARLIER INITIATIVES EXAMINE SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS t a f CONTRACTOR ASSISTANCE Q.ucsTscet 9 netat. O ole-M M.s-M ADVISORY PANEL ss loa;rw - phr (Lmm~ ser ei=~ <ms A*La' 13m dG-Lo04*C filant ems a A.r-a .rt:vuns of W6 cwJ~ 1='tLom
- TW~ $ Pt.Ar"T I 1
5 1 r 4, t Jf Slide No. 6
__ _., 3 i 1
- a..
l N.atFACILIT[ES i 1- .i. g J j I i l l ~ ' - PLANT 5 MET.WITH TO DATEj. - .c 3 - l. .t j I l 1 j DIABLO. CANYON T r L.. - -SAW.ONCFRG. i I;... ' * '... - ...;. ;.._. -,i. . ?.. g.:..#. e. r> ' i
- ?,. SUSQUEMANNA w
i, '. ? W
- .:. su m Eg M..d.
..a.,..?. :f.: gjp :...w;.:.W c ;*.'. 'i '.;.. I 41..;r. t I:... g. :,...,.. 7...:.;.. .;:t:, n. ; -g s.... :.; g. ;yg_a..y&.,,...Q. ;, ; t..< u .n
- . x.:,;
. W..... :. -- . :.v ...._ s. ? ., y* .,. p. --.,. 5 5.,_- .c y:
- v.. s..
..u...... -... n. ,.:....n~c.l.:w :.:. :J+~,@hp.M-lJ:r._.y ..s . s.--e. .c. z e a.-- - :. . Vii':.: - .*-Ff.AsALLElr ?.- ' i. = 7;5.'-:34; '.:':e.;: :.r. :;97/?'iC5-4#'.:a:.. 3 Ei% fD4 I f2 ? ,. yy' .s- .c
- a.a..
- 9. -.. =; y,.. <. - '
3,r:.... t,.g. .. ;.w :. y g g},s g :.....- e- - 1 .......: w, c .,.. WATTS ~ 0-.'
- 1..
sT. Luc 1E i PALO VERDE' l . WATERFORD. i. i .H_EASURES AT NTOL FACI.LI' IES-i +- T s* i 1 I e SELF' EVALUATION g-. . Try2. COMPREHENSIVE.S' ELF EVALUATION 4 0F EFFECTIVENESS. OF QA PROGRAM 1..:u '.. ' 2 i ',* -FOR 0ESIGN'AN.D CONSTRUCTION'.- ~.r t - ML v .i ' CERTIFICATION BY LICENSEE IllAT FACILITY DESIGNED; CONSTRUCTED. .!'? Alh TESTho IN ACCORDAtlCE WITH FSAR~. AHD OTHER LICENSING a, f l COW 4LTMENTS REGIDIAL EVAI ' TION EXPANDED PRE-1.!! CENSING REVIEF 6" M MS 4
- t
.5 i :: REGION PARTICIPATES'WITH KRRg vi% 9TOL MEETING WITH APPLICANT 1 i e ] -)',. . ' INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIElf - ~* j
- - t A EVAttfATION OFfQUALIT.Y.0F DESIGN BASED ON DETAILED EXA9mATION OF
) i.. SAMPLE i, ConPLETED FOR-(ASAl.l.E AtID SAN ONOFFE. ~ IN PROGRESS ATl0THER PLANTS WITH EXCCPTION OF VATTS F.AR i [ e, u.. .a u.- r _ __ -
- w-
.y,m. __..-.~......__,.,__.__---.----,a j
a e,.. j { s.. t- .o. o o. A.
- 4
- e
.A e e i i; i t e
- s I
3, 6 ,t + O* g 2 j 9 m i e. g . /. - [ ~ e .e I.. [. 4 .j ,%.~E,, t. 4-
- ]
.p~.- s a.. ..wa y.* =* ') . _,. *..5.,. ; w. t..m.. -.Rz:.t s.
- y... r w.
~ . ~.gy. -? - e ..-cy ' ....r.. :--.m t '. .t..-
- .~-
- .+#"*'
a.. . 4
- u. - ~
s.. 3.
- s t
^
- s.- y i-;...~4....,& -.
. ~ i. M.,r. e..h r.. 4.,.c >s Q: -.. ...g ~ f.:.a,. g.. 9. a... -.-. , ~.. ~. ;;,., w.- ,n ~ /. s -u r-~..r.. .....,.v.h..,1.i: ff . mn =.- 4 v.. a. '. pct / a 4
- tt. #' -;
.,..c...-'.4-s a. 7-C - 2 4.=. .g...rs"-.*.',;..'E,,"',*.m-. f (- D t's ;.szt:: r-w :..*.,..;f*g. '. g'.. A.%.,;y.wa r.. t N ,,~,y*. .,,.., g.., '... ,, i ' '_" ' yCA .3y. ' *.,.g f. 3
- w
....~.s.z-- c,., 4* L.,_.- - 3 at. -. ~*. W.%.M.- y 0
- ~,,
~ - * ' *, * * .t.*.,,.,+?* ex ' et :,x..- . * -* h,, g, g%g 4.* ** - a 1-8 .E
- P 5
i . c a: -~ w :Ci-D*.. y .*.?. ~ r.c. g.+.s.MJ -u :,: ; ;. ;.r.-392 :. -Q.( '. g <. *s. r",.. 'is: *3. :- . n-? - r<- - - 1 .;.r %~ agi =- 2 . N+ yf. :. :O -l:.-~ g,2; ;: - <. - +
- e..W
.a.. ?. ,_-Q. g.'n : =. .,p:<-t-?- -g m; *., '* ' -d,A. l. >; :1*s-
- . " n '. :, ~-
- ? '.".:.
. N.. e.-:. ., u. _-... - ~m. .~ r ,j j Q '> - 6 1 t 3 0 F. l
- y(
r c o 8 % i Q e .-=. z O A 8: i 'l 'l s u 3.- i . 9 1 c at T g-583 r'. d c.r, ). - A t m u. v e-- 3 L 6
==- m e vp-( ~
== d y p i gQ3Q u cr.' tM t 2 v l
- n K
l-u ~ 'd \\.. g A-w m m =: t,J g - l s. 3 &j.'*5 LJ 3 .) k, E m {f 'f h f. 'f. l - qQ. t a. m l D \\s-' A w o w gg ( M cf w s ct N-m cc US Ot N y
- ly.
.2 Wll T G +8C r*= 8 ) (Y.. '
- E I
s.n w l g %=a
- d:
Z Q k* bL ub', t M I* w n. w e I w 3 P=- e-o .= s f. d u =.=s Q e W W H w e >C G LM t.J e \\ h ( ~ .....,,em.p a. M.'.he. g g A p g*,g e4 g, M *.W..e g-wg
i b .yf To JWCook 5 raon RAWella Consumers Power one January 17, 1 3 Company
- d E "
INTEGRATION OF BECHTEL QC INTO MPQAD Conntsponotwet inve n.w Cc JAmoney WRBird JKMeisenheimer GSKeeley WJFriedrich GFEwert FWBuckman MLCurland DBMiller HPLeonard The attached letter from me to JARutgers, formally establishes the transfer of the Midland Project quality control function from Bechtel to Consumers Power Company effective January 17, 1983 jln 9 e I l l t
~. 4 0 .p. .r. f". / Cri3'Jm2f3
- z......
"J NU) gi,y A g,g, Y-j k & Manny Ma&and hoject office Midland Prosect: PO Box 1963.Midiend MI 4864o. (5171631855o January 17, 1983 Mr. John Rutgers Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation P O Box 1000 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 MIDLAND PROJECT QA/QC INTEGRATION File:
1.1 Serial
20655 Effective January 17, 1983, the existing IdJ.dland Project Bechtel Quality Control function becomes part of the integrated project quality assurance operation of MPQAD. The lead QC supervisors now report to Bill Friedrich, QC Superintendent, who in turn reports to Roy Wells, Executive Manager of MPQAD. = The MPQAD Procedures Manual and the Bechtel QCNM have been revised'as re-quired to reflect this new reporting relationship. Additional changes to Consumers and Bechtel policy manuals will be accomplished by February 17, 1983 In addition, further revisions to the procedures are being considered in those cases where improved work efficiencies can be achieved by consoli- 'dation. The support and cooperation of all involved will be required to make this transition occur smoothly and without disruption to the ongoing quality assurance activities. I am personally committed to support the quality assurance function of the project and to insure that this recent change result's in an effective and integratedteffort. If you become aware of any problems or impediments that you believe could prevent us from achieving our overall quality assurance objectives, please let me know. cc: LEDavis DLDaniels WDGreenwell MADietrich -i--- m
,e +- -1J QCM 83-1 T-Bechtel Power Corporation inter-office Memorandum Te Distribution Date January 13, 1983 subiest . Quality control Organization From D.L. Daniels Changes- ' Midland Project 7220 Of Construction Units 1 and 2 Copies to File M10 At Ann Arbor D. Fredianani a'l-
- 5. Kirker D. Presslar-E. Smith-L rJi lii'rk y Effective January 17, 1983, the Bechtel Quality Control organization win become integrated into Midland Project Quality Assurance Depart-i~
ment. The following Bechtel personnel changes are being made: . Stu Kirker win assume a new position of PFQCE-Civil Dale Presslar will assume a new position of PFQCE-Electrical' . Dave Fredianelli will assume the position of PFQCE-Mechanical / Pipe /Wedling ASME All the present personnel reporting to Stu, Dale, and Dave [ will r== min in their present positions. . Eugene Smith win r===4n on site to coordinate the transition of the group for the, next two to three months, reporting to R. Wells. Upon completion of that assignment, Eugene will be assigned to the Ann Arbor office reporting to the chief a construction quality control engineer. His position in Ann Arbor win be quality control supervisor for the Midland j proj ect. The Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM), Bechtel Quality Assurance Manual (BQAM) and the Quality Control Notices Manual (QCNM) are being l l revised to show the new organization and the program for the Midland jobsite, and will be issued in the near future. Your continued cooperation and support to Eugene, Stu, Dale, and Dave in their new positions is appreciated. Y4 'is D.L. Daniels ~ Distribution: L.H. Curtis L.E. Davis M.A.'Dietrich W.D. Greenwell P.K. Hansen D. Lavelle J.A. Rutgers h n:h ..r _ _ _ _ ;rrn _ _z.n _. _ _. _. _.__ _ ZZZ i.1~2
y}g.a - T c ;,
- 4. n.. -.> N. _ > w va.
p.z-g g ,. s. .... 1. _ I My_fM/b /..% n_. z t &. M,. MM. ^ ='s.... ..__... A/bs. o.y_.MJaAs..rHe_ c cz:ss&os.s rp._ rue _ ~ ...._...A.R_C._./ 9J a _ St/ g kJt(_L. A O D R. m.s._ y g._c __ ._. _.... C o./U CETt.A) 2. A PTen A e"Gey/M G> 'THE7IL._.._.. . Mo/CT*.. (D~(n SLbG NCR). Bu7' DBn]Volb R C &klN %.. Ih6'ETTU G IN YOM A. 9FFICS 13.jlAl/E% _..........I. N 6 D 0..4 OT M6ED....THe AE P04T To Do tdhAT tes-l . _.. __T..h. uA_T.... D..o...A)o T & D t M G T.o M/G IT. FDt?._. '.I.l. sPo..eT ~ _ _..I.. _.U_. &_WSN_.T_W_.%.Ef 0 A.S._0? 0U.R~..h'5.Pog&_W f Co m mFN T...T. o.THG_.FF'F Et-r OM A.T..LE.M. T. 2 bit 4F.T. I._ .....G__ o_.ss4.M n'EE O_ED._.___I. _. Don!'i L.IXE TH.IS_kt_MD 0F_ NOTE .j _.__ I VE 4.0'C.To.. G u.E _yo.u..II G.M__A_ L.3 o F_2.DA MS.G "..___ ____ Don.I.nillah 'I/, w. _ 1/g / ? 1..__. -~ [
- 3...P__ S.
3~ D o D O T.5_G_E.. _A C(_E._'A_.k PI,C.Tu fl. T.. __o F...___ k " W Oft.K FA-C)$ 4 6.FS_" o l'2. 4W_If(1. AlG b.l.l.<.f LT_..I.M4T_._W0.Bl D.. 3uf.F0R.T Cug,_.5.T.A_Trin.F.6/TJ l THAT A I _J_TEW1_EO.R__lhlP. R_D Css.S__lo a P O'.-[t o/V / IAtfe G.g.ATED W T. H COMS T/EuCTio A> /k Se-G.y._e n/cys c40u.LD &E l/hF L.sEMs5/Ts0. [ .k .T h to v couviu LGB TVAT T1.tr c_on/II/2.u.c_rtoA/ ^ 2 o 1 U.N O UbE N._.0. 4.D M._!.O_W_U.%H.. D.E@ To T ..._ _ _.. t U CL u O E .I M S P._. H o Lb.. poi N-Q...YGT _THs ResPons w l 5_4YS_'THA.T l.5 H0 W_. ca_E_'LL. D o._.s.T.. __. / ...._....f...,/_*. u_. r. ..- Q _ g. _. ->.-w ;. w..d e...J...._,_. o 0.Y Y.. bM t Y
- ?
) s :. x A s. 1, &.,. 0 J a f hGk m. .xo L, u 'w,n } 1, =.
]j,- 4 ~ S CONFIDENTIAL. gi JOHN A.RUTGERS. } / O' >+ R.A. Wells // .c si Attached is some staff work on identification of walkdown variances I have had'done. ~~ This is not intended as a proposal a sor p snt. a. but just essa keep this confidential. ~
- such, If you snouAs nave any questions, please call Gary Richardson.
Extension 7989 l i '. John JAM hc 12/21/82 Attachment l t [ 5 ~ ******* ^*= _.-....en t- [ l. l f i t e 4 ~ ..--.-,.....-._,_.._-._,-._,-,.-,-,-_,-.-.-.--_n_-,-.,,,w-..,,
~. _ _ _ _ _ _ -_.
- q..
4 L o i ~ TO: J.A. Rutgers 12/14/82 ~ Per your request, here is a method to idectify acd control all conflicts or-deficiencies discovered during CCP walkdowns and reinspections. This method does not supersede the use of FCRs or NCRs, but rather utilizes 4 them as appropriate. The scope of this methodology is limited to reinspections performed on past work and possibly some engineering walkdowns. This methodology is not intended to apply to future work. Some items accomplished by this, in addition to what is accomplished by .~ FCRs and NCRs are listed below: -1. Formally identifies all incomplete work, conflicts, and deficiencies regardless of installation status. 2. Provides a quick and easy disposition for all incomplete items. 3. Eliminates the use of IFINs for the reinspections. 4. Identifies and controls all incorrect work, including tagging, regardless of QC inspection status. 5. Allows "af ter the fact" FCRs, but requires clear identification of the same to engineering. 6. Ensures punchlisting of all remaining work, including replacements and rework. 7. Requires QC concurrence with status, disposition and closecut. l Advantages: 1. Ensures the documentation of all conflicts. i l 2. Provides easy separation of work to go, deficiencies and QC missed l for trending and corrective action. 3. Ensures changes do not cover up nonconformances. l 4. Allows continued use of FCRs for non-inspected items. Disadvantages: 1. Increases paper work. 2. Requires new field procedures. 3. Involves QC in the status decision. l 4. Will require some sort of log for tracking. 1 I _ _ -._. _ _ __. _,.~ c
.j i.- I._. .R E/Nss*Ec.7?oN_ Vsfse/Abcf 19E"?*047"_ .YA0' I. ,Too 93.10 M o or s un eno JCC7~ 17"d"M OJF5 C4s#77aN : po d, Dst Auss e //nAtr* No.* ,$ YS 11lrF4 : DATF EX/$7*/NG. CeA/D/7/CA/ *.(NIINM SKM) r. i _. i _.. R E P d.4 7 7 0 4 Y : o Air
- S 779'77/S.. dM._./N 3 !"A-4 LA 77#A/ :
l l c,e u s nesA::ZIOU weeAc nor* CDMMmit '~ ~ * ' ' '
- cowsrwoe,rswN AAJe A C sN2)*es!r*4/
l l Cens*A,ar7E39 70 &~A/th/Rt D63)GN- - I l Censistsored wane coMotgyr evT~ N0 qc /useet:rteA/ I I eo.etruemw ' Lemsiera sc qc susegeries cons xa,w-e C OMMEWM.. i-l DarTV4M /Nem 6 Y.* p&rt ec ~ Concuteswes ! Onra-Dl!Pa.3/770A/*:. _ _ _ l I I CotsPkGT1r* /M.s?-MLA-710N Past. pts ICN O Ist* 3 i il*N Coa 6eAA4ete *. I l .I t REJCt;;7"_ ANO f.EP A A C &~ PFE l l l Rr W eA>c As adscAsee'n das,aew. t c q cas"
- l pra no asic l
l gcg jggro: r . ace es : -c, onir C eMM cNis ' I NCA 779G Afs*A/dp R V A. s+00 Llno 7t? PVNCH A J s r-Dhrarl No. or arrGt OA Tar
- A7*
l ADA C La3 E as/T~ ; Acc eY TwCE l Ff,* .tvo*e~n. ', $ C *. ,.-.v- ,.-,w-,,e.-,,m- .--.--.._...~-,_m
- m....
il K too lv n' e T 8 y ns u s rA Y w< "6 W C o egn N no/ C i t L i n s L t. o )D t u A u nr r c ains N M rr y C o r ) E p s p M c e t eT y sC c Z u r ee e t. F t e, R s C ) En r 9 nN o AC M 7 N r) C 7 c <. d ne H e n cS e C A e s. s IH C / A s nec '0 W 'N ~E V R s it n t. - el 5. '3 )R 9 n o e 'i 1 r . t t / 0 + t t C 'L t s C R A 9 ,;I i' o M / 2 2 .I 's o s F n/ V ta e y 5 e e t A ('r. .l. sy e3 e2 E c-h nA ~ A s.I nL j
- s Dn t,,U (R s
- T G
L I A rH D 'r E' ueHwt s eC A E e E f s. s c R ew eG o seBh / - n P,s A F y o n xe i' l D - I.' ~< 4 n e Al V 3' l 4 } .3 J C u 1 v. r T 4 n.S N A s0 M n /. A A6 T e f. w .I'l iil t a x L s e E V wii;t n H lL E L t WuC e5 l iil . i / + A. N M A / V / e. t s t s v T Cili AI w!cE N
- 1 S
e .,:V 'A i .>ii* t s a c r w.n r t. i / E e A,&n.M e id' ko d pi. 1l N,c lu l.:l.' o F; Yl D el, n e 5 F.$r T n C l A.,, i S C o \\ A Hit i/ c;N ;i ib / L o - 3 'L u [Iiln.9. el. !n,f. ' ttu /s,c o' S r A s s t C e6 l M s - riy l e iI Wltft td,T[
- C wls n-f T
1 y u. T r Y. , i - I s A sr R . E ns e S N s s S Vs a* .u i' t s ad D R D y.8 t- ,. Do E d w.N y 1 .U e N I / P W f no I c D / in
- ,l,
l i..,!! .t w7 xe ~ x ll ' nn ai n e o .+ t h 'E rw t nY e 1 T a t a 1 E vt a o i. A e7 a sT r r a s t E L c m e. . nnv 1 % h oee i i, n M L 2 o s r P-i - .i - s s o r o .n sH M.e gP 5 C c = ct rs N N ue
- - >. u o l
l ii w.w u c -
- t I
. f !/ sc I:* l,l J .'lih -... ;l iC A l v .I i/s e s. n 4E l* - ;.~
- ii!.
'l
- ,'I l
' '.i.* , - - i
- l
-l g' e l :- ll ..* i' i i; n,l; I iI .I i i' cI :; 1 14'!. I I' f l ) ...,....
- u..,. +.~....
.. _ ',....la. men. tation. of;.the.. Construction Com lecion;.-.-. m.
- n. o ram. - -,l~. ~
7.. ~ Pr , ' ~ * . +-cre'.:w.. L. y.i :.- +.-::.: i %. :..'.;. :1: W:,.:*=3.~. *. ' s ,. :.,~1r=.:. ~.~m # * - :- - .....,..;. n .\\ s ~ g
- y.;...".?... M:.;.s, ~.A y.
,. ~, .....=ii.*:3.n. *.. - 's-..,*.*;.,.,,.,-l . ej.. .n - .n ,e .s a
- .. ':::.e.
e. s .tp.cy
- u. ;.-.e..y. -
- : :.L g.
- .s..
v.4.-
- y
.~.y.. . ~y. p l . '.sf;No hiring or organizational changes are toibe made. prior to CPCo g.: ~. f i; ..'.s- ..s. .y...c. .. a..,7.m,;...,~. m... :--. - - . n:. ..<.;n.e-. ^,-...... -z..-..,.. .. :.. ~ ' '.S.: T '; .m- ~. i . F. !J l .~.-%r.~ approva 'of the team charters and procedure's.5!' . ",.-i. ~~ ...:t.m;a-
- a...-:. : ~....
- .,o.. -
- ~..: t:-
. -... ~. :,;. g......:,.- w
- .. i,.. -...:,.
sWit:-:.hi.3:p: ', ..=c=~:.::..x. 3.: -u;;.::. g-...,.t;l %: )M *' R.:. E.%.Q
- ..a.....
-. (- .' i. i <. +..
- .c.9. y.... :. --
- .:-L y'.L
.~
- '2M.' No Bechtel work is ' authorized;$
This. includes construction'statusing of ..L%Tt,f i.:.:.:c.u".... , d. a ;:.....'",,the, systems.. -.:..h.".: - '. '.E 5... e -There are. RC hold points and management review cycles,~ , f.~.O','.f N
- p
- g.. r., n- :. 7<.:. -.e r
.g .s .:-:.JC required prior to any. work by' a team. [ ..:.::y ;... g. a - ..: n This. direction does not ' apply to non-Q.... ~ ..T'.:qa.. .w.;.. -.. ~.,.... ., @ Q...j : k :~.QTl.. :.;-.; ~ :n. .r =. '. ~. m. .:e. -: Q:.,n- ^ W.r.o.~-.o-y 2 .y.. ~fE f h:l:..~ ? n R 'd*.. ...s \\
- .C
.C. . W y:.y;.1.-3 W.n.. wA. p. '%. .L. 5.-G :h.. e. Q-.
- tQ.. y..
.t .. p.' 3W JThei pilot team can be. formed.. ,;g.. procedure.,. .&.. V .+.).:.s{can be developed;bu,...v.% and '... -f;%: 4 M ".:::-umW;'~~" h..e Item,21E iJ-l.- - N..fqp :f8.. /must.b, fe ; comp 'L C.. ' M.,:: % =;.:.: ' n*-i.. e. y y %' M* - 6:i - lied.w.4it5.U.".N'.'.y..A 2s-'~ T *. -5. t- = ~ 3 -M . NNik.; :.. l. >:'i' Mig,,y~ S 4 ~ y.:........ w (* ..}.M7' - n. '-%. g%'.' gg.i 't. G.M e M.....,i,* rg.-- '. : ~ - )(jfI~ /Mf8M.sk.u.k5..'g._,.m atatus.ing'need.no..t;be ~i{,.g .e', h..m -done,..~o.n. turne l 2';.. Phase'I F 4,- x1 ....v.... .m. ,.s ".?&A r d .^.L- - ~:..~..>- %... q'7T :V. "= C'O'Wg F.~M " 'i% '- ; ?t.- n f-I '
- * *'.: ". systems. Only Phase I inspection and Quality verification will be due A f *.
on these systems.. .m.. .s v.. ~. ,.e.s. - , 5l, Overtime restrictions are still in effect at the jobsite as per previous e Bechtel CPCo discussions. n.
- 6. 'Two months have elapsed since the CCP was initiated and little progress has been made on T/0 of the 140 non-Q systems. This lack of progress has our secondary plant testing on hold. We need to emphasize this work so that our total resources can later work the remaining systems.
..4P*6.m..Jhs..a*'*Mr-. .*t e ..im* ~w.. e-g
4 4 i -- t Page 2 i 7. We have a basic concern with the Team / System assignments: a) Some teams have three members, some have 20 .. K ..~ -.v..- i b) Some teams have one 3-alpha systems, some have 20 s3-al'pha systems >..; ;f,_ ,.1. I feel each team should have additional' systems so that when their. 2 assignment is complete, they have others to work. ',.. -c . j 8. I feel the CPCo involvement in the team has been given to Bechtel but.I need to have a detailed mffC4e46/ M with you sa the team. .,? _p * ,. At your earlier request, I have not disuessed the CCP,in detail withr ur to address.-the abovf',' ' y * :.-tw- . -....,,;,.2:cy;.;. - =. V. I feel that that cowsunication mustt noaIocc..a.. Leo. /.., 2....:. c - "~p :q- ; - ~ ~m -:q u on the.CCPl.iE=;g,
- woo C y-- _s
'st-n.: =e so that no misdirection.is'give.n.-
- g,
~ ..;.z;: -- :. .= i. ' L. ..w
- y n
y, 5.,%-
- C T'*-,.,,,, ;e -
-r. c ,r. 'g,,yy . gs,3 : t g ,,,.,an, ,<, :..... :;-- ' * ~~
- 1...
. :. * ; s .*.* > = rI. . y......-.. ;.y -;.., s .s a I. l l { o
- 4. s.
.s
- .s.=
- -*= wa am e, e s
- =..
arw-w 4.... I I +,,.. - ~ e ---w ,--e-- -g-w- --ey-----e-----.- .-+w-y,e ---e-w-
r--+ew--s
- - - - + .---.r ---i%-- w-.y----'v--.-e---W'
,.m.m .w.emm.na..m.w n. nam.m. . +. v.w.. u...n.w y jlGE S B/1f3 M Tf4 kd % WiiW16/ W W E W 6i n n M W E ir e p MMM#M%%RMMcW5mVMWw MMtwnswwwnw @@!MMMMdey%iEpiThKrE%ip;4ed @f4&EfA%E.@fi 4@RR(1EMM;.MMsWsEiMMMMMBE MEi.26@W2E .$2M'$ill;nliW?)Wk2eWQWMWW ww m m $ m L a P m $ $ { f -] E2m9%pd&u.M m mue a a e ws&m2,WkWM Fqu&am w m. w Wn u m m p, a r m u y p g u s. ya,. y p.prf ymn ,.u.n. g 3.m.;,pfky,..g hy.,.m.
- r..
s y/.7.. ,g g w,, g v m v m,%.3 Q 4 g. .s y ut gw if IN.N:@@MsD~DN/Mbr[ah, a rdp;.xmn., kNU((or.mu;y hD NM~ fdh 8' ,' ':.w.g4 "e.#89. dd t.L.A,tt.M..K._...p,.w.w;n.mm .w +. s. w i
- f.. u. ' '.8'd ' K_
p, i884......J.f.a "I t'7fp4.., 7.-. ~. ~. I x r _a CWW 2,QL[MWggf, @y.3drt%%,.s yjx.My m y b g 3..g1 M a ] m f. 2. f Q .J r y : y.\\ j m.e.$.. w "Sl:w w,:p e W. r. s .p. ! I'D.E... s.k., n..,.pfW m. r a .y.y..,Mh. g ydy'g%h,*gl.; yM..m [d' .h... _.. ffch.~ .l .. [n. TN INE,- I'C' . lk p. '. yQ C'g.m p**'g;u.e.k$k.)Q &m.. m p:P2%gb ....m - 4 Q ',.~ n'n'.;Q% i,,[<M k.,.p. mt .m .:;j f % c' ffyQ,y;@ g:4"' y. Myy ;? Q,;f f...y &3 9 5 rg5 M yg a g wag V 4 ta 4p,eNyh..pW*h c_. ~ 10g l eg h[ Rt .w
- E i ?m m.
w:v.a. .w.,.wg* d .sy W ' ~ght1y&y.:n%.,L,y&m..y%p@/QhQy.,&... a..,.M, m.ya..,J.r 'W w .Q., Q...w...w.,[ Num ' 't ~JS. i . 1 g g5L . s.a Y, Xj .fa 5ay}ec:Q'ry[ ,y y=7 H s%EA.M $x.%%%XjP'*.,+,.f.;$o g.,U 4;n%u.}.%.,.,.%...LtfM... .V:; M O M 2r: d .,,, $.$. _y,gy/ k. q'..,.p'...k
- 7...
..... ~.. . q. ..,.. m. .. g h,,p...t...
- [1I A
dh s~ D.h ,?- b IhVbi'MNk~.,t..,. i e, ..,r .. ~. .. y.. ,~...,..m..,,.
- m. o m
I h.w p-.. m}. k p. ?' .- a.' k...l ,. - -. sti%Er d - .o.w.". 4; *e n ~M Dq??r..m l ww?"&g.mY. N MSwY " Y W' dS g us$Y5 $ClC %.Qy9Ry_pg%g-pp'g6*Ax noQyQ3yyy t= m W m. m &::.:. w.&..n .= A. w..an.e. w =::a:. v + -.e, r:,e.. m ..m[..s..y..j.3... mt f -.k: .%..n. : p * .; e. ..,,,.t.n h; i i. r.3 ,, m.I ' c.,,. v;.g 3. . g y) ... n 2 pgg,1,.,. m-h?'fa e. e a h. ~. f.g gadPambe. Se.; h a &. : 4,, g d @ ', g, sI8,cp 5;, 0- ,.m
- s u? Mv GWeu.-pm
.c u i g m y g q p% 2 2 W M L W l' a.se!gggig (i. %.Mgg@g UJs&y/JW AMiAfiYd Vt LWW.M"44;p W rgnMa.c61 ' $ N t a A c {t,c d A];l1 5 S M E N E f ; D&gg.424 a' l W EN
- i.tpm,9 w.g.st p p W g[p;u g&kkglst.1%
r er /- q w r % t ; g g i. M . u Ag,..M.m LLgzu;&px$nYygWWqA ' +I E56yNht6 "~.g. n n. u .,. ww d :% D.q QflL M.5%urV:. m'% t.be. W .,d .."kr W Q t % % p;G; MM Tikf &W'a W 4 W Q Mf,. a '. p g % g y L i g a ?,p m y a ) Q g 5 8 % 5 q a r~ g d G y g g ;; g t t& hg _z.Ex Hw% hew e%w v % Q.M:e c. a p y.q.q:g.pgig g g ggg g g.g g [g g;w p,;.u.1 g w y ny x k, w ks,.u k; e s y w p# W tijyI#%4.o%WLW%._dnep ls . hRsk Wer e4 _i. t. Baxw.6,v.%sa win hum ; wwy j r:W.m age W haam464%r,L4;,M4&M
_-__m 4 M g 9 Y wdageng'xpsswagg: pegwmpM t wasm%WAM,4jgwyts .A g g y vq g 596Tims' g H,EJ. % M Q
- WMNb m a m a w$ j @ pu w $ M M e & 2/$lf d u P w
wiW*Mmmgw?: r M QQjk0t%@ K G1 M nR W rEn M in2Mi M C $itT &??a p p Mkii M weagMampiW t&EtL W ( M M 9 % d M M, M W Cdn Q st M
.l%+;2 % ' cF.QQbylfM&,W[i%lWf*" ^ fSNlif$q a
.un.
%4~ T.' _Rsegg"L"t!..
f(13 GjiddtRGiMl&Cs.%Q,tt%Tt&feW%Ed3f3
- hfMgMcMMMM7HMIi&MXVF WuMWr#"
.ym #97gyg. 7 ;gg@g.,vggggg;.9,pegggy ... i 4 e3QMwne %AW%%%Ac%.LMWHink y[M pig;#g;%;ggiegppgyy e sseypggygg;gyLqy u.. :.n -:guqqmgygegy az;; MhWgiWQ '1A%$w$a&WideiliGaWJ!%fTefky t.U % ggewgs mem,gsgr pg .$~9usyHawm&warwesawmms@twr w .c, &w m?g g,;p M 9 &; p; m if mag +W%%m*em bu /iOEMM;fd%s 9MJA. W 5Ww
- u. s e.n gy f vgi -
gM m y Ag s i, W wygtpg of:.u.LZ Nw idaestL F :l=iiettis&WL , \\FwfLIWWpMpupM&M PW1 M Wi:%w : q r n 2.1 g, 4 4 6,d s. g s p M. M
- t. t J:w g.
.....:... 9 h...,..... -m G is. Min: is.~% s+ra,k4.4. Ga ys n a,a p,y c.' .. o In h.s % f*'.. wa. a ni. p.,,,y..cm e,s k, f dinvre..%h a ver1.4 b,9.o,{,A.?,.. une.Lis...% 4<< need -w A rn 'd.PDV8 IM #d1 WI 4.. O f &.._..N M-.Ib. 4r e. 370.4.4 J. 4 . h. 'r. LL) & VL.. % D V'O fd$91 b... O & t,4 W-( 4a T2 yemim t tasaebutbee ^r199 O % Ar.S A... f r c$[a es,'t P... M &. as We d -.4a.._LaAs. ' a b -f.4 firAg 7c. 5, ' N Mc ~ ..kf$w$$?2%Y k$ b #NhhbG..he l ..M a..Le s.+ .-~1 8.s.m.~.g Ik a %}y s.Ld5 . Dwe.qwer.. i.tk. 4o c.am >lexiy. 4 tm d ce.9 es m %.a k < s na . J.k sve,3. R4 % 64.d.Ae. m em ll,W+ hsA er d,%
- w. n s w, n _g c
- a. 14.v,
+$i.,,.. i;t ptg+ n..cf- %e,..._.. ' IW - added # we as % dawls % he.so hee..a she.s At. av_: ha b e,, w s o., SA c P, 9et' So,eHei y 9lC ctg' .k/nI T< q SAL P i; .het.Y'.. Z Lote.Ws,. A W N 'i e & ki l S I w ' 4........ so. .. Ct ceo*M lO $ sed 'l CB'.G.... Th aa ich. W s ?. Is o s.* R.. '.a+.. w &$ m....W... o..{eal.f{ ~ Ca ss a,-e. l ( [ i 1 i 8 p l* l ..Oe 4 e .^ ...a... .a ..a e4 j E J t t WW7*YW- "*-**TM'T"'"' w t*-N*e-y.-*v-NP-wWw ww.e.ee _._,._-.m. m'1- -Grf ef W W Fw -
- Femi e7 2,7e S ,CI IPI INCD CHGGT i . S h. '5 T.lF'" V CODStim ~ CUPPED FROM Midland Daily News page 1
- power 1
Li j CUPPED BY I m echler @a C0mpBRy + DATE OF ISSUE '6/22/82 CITY Midland . He said because of the complexity'of l. He said the prob!cm apparently does, the soil corrective work - which ~ not originate with Cook, who he said has T. Involves tunneling underground to add a " good attitude." But Keppler added.j new foundations tosome buildings-the ! " tory from his people as to It sounds like he's not getting the full NRC wants to have " comfort that this s plant will be QA*d in a very excellent hap'pening at the site." ' ~ h!,o,n. At this moment, we don't have Cook left at the meet!ng's. conclusion! - t 1 .without commenting. But the man in CONSUMERS VICE PRESIDENT ' charge of QA for the Midland plant, James W. Cook, the utility's man la Walter R.' Bird, said Censumers needs to L ', f charge of the Midland project, said the " sit down, think about it and come up ' 3 NRC's uncertainty poses "a very with the best positive plan of action to difficult problem to react to unless your get it resolved, as Mr. Keppler said.". By PAULRAU Inspectors can tell us what's bothering the,m., I believe we,ve'tried 'very hard to meeting with Consumers after he talks KEPPI.ER HAD proposed another Daily News staff writer - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission,, respond and we will continue to to his inspectors. Keppler also said he still deeply. troubled by continuing, respond to the' requirements if they are plans to talk to Harold Denton, NRC - roblems at the Midland nuclear plant, spelled out for us. When you speak, we director of nuclear reactor regulation, as formed a special team to oversee listen," Cook told Keppler. some work done atthe plant. In April, the NRC rated the. Midland. about the Midland situation. It was ! Denton who recently convened a special James Keppler, director of the NRC,s plant oelow average for construction meeting of nuclear experts to study the R gion III office in Illinois, told quality in five areas, including soils, a soft roblems. Consumers Power Co. officials Monday negative rating exceeded only-bylthat I summer, during a ' federal in Jackson that he has formed a special for. the Zimmer plant. 'Ibe, rating hea.astring on the so[I pro 61eins, Keppler Inspection section - just as he has for covered 11 unfinished nuclear p!hnts la ' testifled that he believed future QA at the troubled Zimmer nuclear tant in the elght-state RegionIII. Midland wf!I be adequate th. protect Ohio - to put extra scrutiny on,ldland Despite top-levet NRC scrutiny in the public safety despite the past problems. construction. t,s ye still would rate the soil worfL below Keppler said Monday he now feels "very past y, ear,"Keppler said his inspectors Because of. the recent problems,
- I don t know what it is g
working right, r said' Midland project.,Kep average today. To me, t at's a. ungasy" about that testimony and may bothersome stata, ment. I do know{, a year Cl y, son e ,s have to return before an Atomic Safety wrong. It's not proceeding as s g ago we felt very comfortable with this and I.lcensing Board panel to clarify or proceed. project. Since then,Ifind we've come uP against one mishap or another," he said._ change his statement."I've led that hearing "I HAVE TO' wonder, can~ Consumers t (* do the job? That's a question on my mind - Keppler said communications may be believe the remedial work is proceeding l right now,"Keppler said. a big part of the problem. "We don't with the satisfaction of the (NRC) staff. .Keppler said the team, which he have the same difficulty' communicating At the moment, that isn't so," Keppler I f:rmed last week, eventually will with the other utilities in'the region. We, said. comprise three. to five inspectors have failed to convince you there are "It seems like every time we stick our operating out of the Illinois office. Such bigger problems on that site than you. note into an area (while inspecting), we sections normally inspect four nuclear feelthere are..
- areh't happy " Keppler told Consumers.
plants, but Keppler said this one will be "We feel you need to be less defensive He later told reporters 'here with this "I'm almost c:ncerned solely with the Midland plant, about things. Either. convince us our embarrassed to fee sitting He said establishing the special concerns are wrong, or focus the degree of discomfort about the project." section is a " reaction to the frustration" necessary attention to correct them," he ' i the NRC feels with the Midland project. told Consumers. specifically with the implementation of Quality Assurance (QA) programs. PRESSED BY REPORTERS afterthe QA programs are designed to assure meeting to more fully define the that nuclear plants are built according to oroblems at Midland, Keppler said the specifications, and to not only find large amount of work underway at the e construction problems but to prevent plant may be preventing Consumers i them from occurring. Consumers has from paying enough attention to quality, cdmitted that QA has been deficient,at The utility is struggling to finish the 53.39 the Midland plant. billion plant in time to honor an Keppler said there is nothing wrong end of 1984 steam contract with the Dow with the Midland QA program itself, but Chemical Co. that when Consumers implements it, the He said the extenslve work to f!x the l result is foul-ups. He pointed to several soit problems is the equivalent. In his ! l recent problemg with a $120 mit!!on view, of a third reactor being built on the i program designed to correct soll site. "Maybe there's too much work dificiencies which have led to cracked going on. It's the only site being restored cnd sinkingbuildings. to what it was Intended'to lie. There "I'm not looking for zero mistakes. should be Ilttle left to second guessing as The problem is, I don't know what the to how wellthe workis being done. I p'rcblem is," Keppler told Consumers. "I don't feel they (Consumers) are I'm just not sure what it Is we want. I going the extra yard right ,_ _ recognize that's.an awl 6 ward position to, Keppler told reporters. now," ]'
- c
.'.f,-,.sfe
- OLIPPING OHGCT
'j CUPPED FROM Midland Daily News page 3 g CODSum6fS
- k..
I UE -l CUPPED BY KLBuechler .q'j*# Company ~,. DATE OF ISSUs 6/23/82 CITY Midland ~ Consumers;s report. cra.. 1 icizes ~- 1 h_NRC. ratingi .... e. l By PAULR'AU ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ QA manual, when in fact the problems l IN A THICK REBUTTAL document, were spotted jointly by the NRC and l DailyNews staff writer. the utility said:. r. plantworkers. Factsat errors, omissions and' und. . The SALP. report, considerably KEPPLER SAID during Monday's I overstates the actual severity of meeting that the NRC " flatly disagrees" f necessarily harsh judgments by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission all j, construction problems; with that contention, and the two sides i contributed to a low NRC rating,of '
- The 1 report contains factual errors each gave their version of how the 4 and omissions; 7
- Some violations listed in the latest,. problemswiththemanualwerefound.
( construction quality at the Midland Consumers assured the NRC that : R . nuclear plant. Consumers Power Co. SALP report actually occurred years - remaining work to correct soil problems
- l said in a report critical of the NRC ago orin the previous rating period, uclear plant can be done to the at the n.s complete satisfaction, and said
.rati .For example, Consumers said seven of, If ese exaggerations are corrected /? agency the NRC could reach a more positive eight Quality Assurance (QA) program It sees no need for Ke[eralboard.plerto' ch violations found during a May,198,1t 1981 testimonyto a fe .q conclusion about construction quality at (- t . the plant than was presented in April in . NRC inspection are duplicated - and Keppler has testified that plant QA. l!
- the NRC's Systematic Assessment of.-
thus double-counted - in other sections programs. ill be adequate to assure' w 1 Licensee Performance (SALP) report.; of theSALPreport..' safe operation of the plant, but has said: . In another instance, Consumers said it he now is "very uneasy",about that-l the utility said in a rebuttal document. - Consumers and the NRC clashed over was unfairly downgraded when an NRC testimony due to recent QA problems. inspector discovered in 1980 that a 1973 In the end, the two sides agreed to- '. the SALP report Monday in Jackson at a' meeting requested by Consumers to giv8f ordee for. welding electrodes failed to meet and try to resolve their differences. a high-ranHnr NRC official the "com* specify the proper code. The ut!!!ty over the SALP rating, although officials - l4 olete story" about the way his NRC questioned why it should be cited for an for both sides questioned whether doing - laspection team compiled the negative. event which occurred seven years before so wi!!be productive... ' ~i I Midland report. -. - the SALP rating period of July 1980 to OVERALL, the latest $ ALP report l The official l NRC Region III Admin-June 1981.* ' said Consumers needs to improve its ' istrator James Keppler, responded tha,t The NRC also 'added 17 ventilation compliance with regulatory standards in
- Consumers should be "less, defensive system non-conformances to the latest five areas, including sollst that per-about NRC criticism and should put SALP rating because it said they were formane in five other areas is satisfac-L-
more effort into correcting problems at accidentally excluded from an' ear!Ier tory; and that two areas are above, il thenuclearplant.. , t rating; Consumers argued the earlier average. 1 lI Keppler also s'aggested Consumers report should be amended rather than Keppler has callad this latest rating ~ I/
- went too far in critiquing the NRC's slanting the current SALP rating with
" fairly negative," while Consumers has .said it is disapp*ointed with the report's l* SALP report. He admitted NRC inspec. old violations. tors will" call a few things wrong" when The utility also complained that the " negative tone / lj l they. Inspect the
- plant -and. write SALP ratings are inconsistent because The NRC could help Consumers, the la two areas where the NRC found no < ut!!!ty said, if the lead NRC ins tor non.conformance reports.
"But the kind of feedback we got from. ' violations, one was rated category 1 were on-site more often as the work was nothing like what we got back (above average regulatory - per* proceeds and if NRC can decide on the km other licensees (utilities seeking : formance) while the other was' rated final design for that work before the licenses to operate nuclear plants)." c category 2 (average regulatory per ; majorconstructionphase. Cook said he is not asking that any of Keppler told Consumers officials Mon. formance). Consumers also claimed the NRC 15 the SALP findings be changed, and an i da[5n'sumers V!cEPresident James W.,j unfairly took credit for finding NRC official said after the meeting the Cook said the utility felt an ob!!gation to, deficiencies in a drilling subcontractor's ; agency has no in give Keppler all the facts be ind the ; SALP report. even at the risk of, ' WALTER R. BIRD, QA m'anager at the Midland plant, said Consumers was incurring the NRC's anger.. surprised at the NRC's reaction to the SALP rebuttal "Our intent was not to be critical of S ALP; it was to assure that Mr. Keppler had the full details on the items in i SALP," Bird said after the meeting. He ' said the rebuttal document was written primarily by Benjamin W. Marguglio, Consumers' director of envir6 omental and QA programs. m
h rm C7 2 79 CLIPPINO OHGCT 000SUESII CUPPED FROM Midland Daily News pace 4 POW 8f CUPPED BY KLBuechler C0mpany DATE OF ISSUs 6/24/82 CITY Midland r -- - 7. - -.. ~ ~- .P si: .e.%. e- = M..% N RC5 stab 2 ;;&e:s.c:.:concsrnC$n ~ ~~ need,t6 be1alla,yed=,.,.. .,g, 2r .n ...r. It's, disturbing that. Con- -,. sumers' Power Co. has. been; O u r.~.v t,e w..-. l Unable.to a!!ay the concerns of: the Nuclear Regulatory Com - mission ' staff over Quality . Assurance "at.I the Midland ' 7'jy'.,1 *..,' ~]..
- f.,. ; '
,'. g. nuclear plant.r6t:.. J c..E ". deadline with the Dow Chemical . It is imperative that the plant 7 Co.. to provide'^p'r6c'ess'steamf troubled almost since birth with f the* ~ delays and cost,1y.' mistake.s, sallT corn. pressure.'to; cut regulatory. ers increases.?Those? press ~ into operation with~ an. ultra-Tsures'.c'an :be 'and:.should ?be. clean bill of health. This ls fresisted.' 'J.P'.:-O'*'L ' h a necessary if the public is to have. The consequences"'Ef W not. confidence In its safety and. comistet.ing the. plant
- wo'uld bet.
",. ~_. extreme, but, the consequences - reliability. But Consumers ;is having.of.completiiig it inadequately repeated difficulty 'ohtainin9 would be even more so. Safety, that clean bill of heal.th from the./. considerationsaside,. a~~ ' ' ' rileasure of the a large, N RC staff... Most troubling are the reserv-is riding on reliable operation of ations of James Keppler, direc*.the plant: ~ for. of the NRC's Region" 111. The NRC is an arm of the most,; office, who': testified.last sum' 7 pro 1ucleaf. admlnistration. In ; mer 'that he b'elieved futu're Washington in some time.a lf its Quality Assurancd at Midland staff people can,',t be, convinced ~ would.be' adequatec.to protect that all is.well at the,Mildiand, public safety. Now,' however, he plant,'then. Midlanders oubht to ~ . says' he feefs "very. Uneasyl' be,considering -andJfacing the h' e * "h"" l about that testimony and may implications, as difficult as They I have to clarify or change,it. T may be. El have to wonder," he said in, Many Midlande'rs, including a -meeting with Consumers the Daily News; have supported j ofUcials in Jdckson Monday, the completion of,the nuclear plant through thick and thin l' "can Consumers do the job?" l+ Such rese'vations timply but always with the qual ' r I have to be overcomb before the,.Ification that it be shown.to be built to run safely and reliably.. plant goes on line... j As the project nears both its ' That support and : tha{' l ccdipletion and a contract qualification - standi;',' M . v.. e W * " * ~.mp. .e.m m ..,me., .s, .a, ,,y
g.o,.pe ,'. c a'.i P' P I N G OMCGT e=% ~ UPPED FROM i.ie Bay City Times Dace 6 A f V-CQQSUMS[S C f L Power CLIPPED BY KLBuechler y DATE OF ISSus 4/27/82 CITY Midland 4, e.... U.S. report hits yidland. nuke' plant l construction. -~ ]~ ~The secodd annual report 16cludes the"very same By DAN SPICKLER- 'May 1981 period of his inspection. But instead of af . sooth Nas swee. * , glowing report,it says Consumers needs to pay more. attention to soils and foundations work, piping systems 4 JACKSON.2.The U.S. NucleERegulatory Com'- and supports, plant electrical power distribution.de.. 'inission has released a generally negative report sign control and reporting, as required to the NRC.,.. on construction performance at Consumers Power ~. "Maybe its just a ' generally negative reporting Co.'s nuclear plant nearing completion in Midland.. board. I don t know. I,11 have to talk it over with the The report issued,here Monday is in contrast to staff," ~ Keppler said. "Nevertheless, five category : an earlier positive report. Both were based on' three (lowest acceptable) ratings is more than we've studies concluded last summer just one month seen at any of the other plants in the midwest region, except one of them," he said. "I didn't expect the "aparti y In May, the NRC said things were going fine at - number of threes to be that high here." the site of the $3.3 billion project. But Monday's : In every area receiving the "needs more attention"- report based on an annual year-long assessment of designation except for piping, the NRC said informally ' activity that ended in June 1981, said a number of that a report completed today would probably say the
- areas needed improvement then and still need same thing about those areas
,_t! at they need more improvement now. attention. NRC officials admit, however, that perhaps "This wasn't,whaE I3as, expecting. It's" dis 5p' the company is doing a better job of reporting, follow- ~ I"I " pointing," said Jarnes G. Keppler, midwest region-I" I' o categorieshipport systems (heating,'veht 5 at administrator of the NRC, who presented nIy , findings in the preliminary Systematic Assessment. Ing air conditioning) and fire protection were given of Licensee. Performance. He met with utility : the "needs less attention" d'signation, the highest e officials at the SheratonInn here. . I -.J rating. Support systems work has been particularly He said he's confused because the report does not. aggressive following.the 338,000 fine proposed against agree with the generally high marks Consumers re ConsumersinJanuary 1981fordefectivequality assur-ceived from Keppler after his own eight-man inspec ance work by a subcontractor, Zack Co. of Chicago, l j tion team studied the plantin May 1981. officials said. That inspection was used by Keppler to form the basis of his remarks presented at the opening of I special NRC hearings last summer on the plant's soil foundation work. Keppler's remarks then were consid-ered generally positive on the company's ability to l obtain an operating license for Midland. l l l ( ._ _ _ _ _ _ _. I_T~ T '_ _ _ __ Z ~ M ~ ' l, _ __ _ _ J.-7.ZZ CC n Z _}}