ML20094M268
Text
E YbHid o
.s UNITE 3 STATES
[/' *"%[*g NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMIS$10N nEoion its g
7es e.cosEvELT noAo "l
t GLEN ELLYN, ILLJNolS 60137
- g g
DEC. 2 0 me, MEMORANDUM FOR: James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator R. F. Warnich, Acting Director, Office of Special Cases FROM:
MIDLAND MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
SUBJECT:
The Enclosed are two :wnthly status reports for the Midland project.31, 1982.
first report is for the period August 1,1982 through October The Midland Section The second report is for the month of November.
of the Office of Special Cases is preparing these monthly reports to enable us to keep track of the important chronological happenings at Midland and to provide a mechanism for keeping IE and NRR informed.
The first-report proved to be repetitious of information contained in monthly inspection reports and too time consuming to prepare and read.
The second report is one page and contains all the salient information.
Future reports will follow the format of the November report.
RFIDA R. F. Warnick, Acting Director Office of Special Cases
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enc 1:
D. G. Eisenhut, NRR J. H. Sniezak, IE s.
e 8
03 840713 p
RICE 84-96 ppg
.e m -
= - -.
m.%._.._,,~,_.,..
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III MIDLAND MONTHLY STATUS REPORT AUGUST 1 - SEPTEMBER 30, 1982
A
~
q :e.z
~.
' "A.-
SUMMARY
OF THE MONTH Midland Inspection' Site Team efforts at the Midland Construction Site;
~ during : the ' month ' of. 0ctober ' we.re - concentrated.on. inspection of. the. Diesel Generator Building. dThe Diesel Generator Building was chosen to be repre-
[sentative'of the adequacy of construction on site. The in'spection had not been completed las of the end of the status report period and will be addres-sed in a subsequent status report.
' Remedial soils work is stopped until Quality Control Personnel are recerti-
-fied'per,an upgraded qualification program discussed in Section B.1.b.
LHeating', ventilation and air' conditioning (HVAC) work has been continuing under the_ Consumers Quality Control and Quality Assurance organization formed to control HVAC construction.
Items identified as relevant to the Part 21 of August, 1981 are reviewed, evaluated andfdispositioned.
(Sec-tion B.2)1
- Pertaining tolmisinstalled electrical cables, the licensee informed the NRC that 100% reinspection of-class 1E cables installed or-partially installed by March 15,:1982, was required. Also, during this status report period, the licensee reported a. potential 10 CFR'50.55(e) regarding unauthorized substitution of underrated cables. This unauthorized substitution was de-tected.as a result of Consumers Power Company modifying the reinspection requirements for cissa 1E cables in response to allegations received through
- a local television station.-
~ The~ licensee has agreed to'a_100% reinspection of all hangers installed in (nr 1980 and 'a sample reinspection of hangers installed _af ter January 1,1982.
- Ongoing inspections during October 1982 have found additional discrepancies
. pertaining to classification, installation and inspection of hangers in the Diesel Generator Building.'
B.
SIGNIFICANT MIDLAND ISSUES
-1.
Soils-Dufing-an) inspection,thelinspectorsdeterminedthatthelicensee
. a.
had apparently-violated the ASLB Order of April 30, 1982. The licensee excavated below the deep "Q" soils, without prior NRC-approval. 'The licensee' stated that prior approval was granted by NRR., Subsequently, RIII issued ~a CAL on August 12, 1982. The
' licensee commitments identified by the CAL included:
_ (1)' Stop all-remedial soils work.
to
- (2) Prior to lifting this Stop Work, the. licensee will obtain prior _ written approval of work activities.
-RIII has requested the OI to conduct an investigation into the r
matter.
I-RIII-and CPCo have established a Work Authorization Procedure to ensure further compliance to the ASLB Order.
E T
g
+
t' 9
s"VT'""
'""'FFt T tT V' f
'Y*-t'"+W'-*wytr--=e'wg-w v y-Mtme---yw-ow- - w' r +v wir y gtr-yv,rre ry ~v *v wemgwt<----ymy ge--y-yPggyty y--v-p-g.grv apr y wwy seeg 3 " y M
- y v et r" p vyg gg h yg
,,: s y y..
e b.
During the initiation of the CPCo recertification program for
~
~all Bechtel QC inspectors integrated into the soils QA/QC organi-s zation, the RIII inspectors determined the following while obser-ving several oral exams":
i
'(1) 'Ihe examiner would excessively repeat questions allowing the r
examinee several attempts to answer correctly.
(2) The examiner would mark questions NA when the examinee failed
. to answer correctly even though the question was relevant.
(3) _The technical portion of the exam lacked technical cont'ent necessary to establish the examinee's comprehension of the F
activity.
(4)- The examiner used a controlled copy of a PQCI to make.up the exam questions.which.was:different from another controlled copy obtained from the QC records vault.
Subsequently, RIII issued a CAL on September 24, 1982.
The licensee commitments identified by the CAL included:
(1)
Stop all remedial soils work except for freezewall, dewatering wells and auxiliary building instrumentation readings.
(2)
Suspend all requalifications.
(3)
Decertify all QC personnel previously certified.
Establish a retraining program for all QC personnel who (4) fail recertification.
(5) ' Develop written exams for recertification.
The NRC has reviewed the recertification program ~and authorized
-CPCo to commence remedial soils QC requalification activities on
.0ctober 28, 1982. All remedial work will remainistopped until such time as previously decertified QC personnel are requalified.
2.
HVAC (Zack)
In January,1981, the NRC levied a $38,000 civil Penalty against
+
- Consumers Power Company for-QA deficiencies in the installation of -
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. These QA T
~ deficiencics were noted during an investigation which transpired-from March,through July,1980. As a result.af this enforcement action,
~-
4
~
~~
4 s
2
A,..
9 l
y.
the, licensee removed responsibility for QA and QC functions for HVAC
- system. work from the subcontractorL(Zack Co.) and performs these func-
.tions using utility personnel. Removing QA/QC responsibility from the Zack= Company has resulted in apparent improvement in performance at ji the site.
- s In August,' 1982,;the NRC received allegations pertaining to QA/QC irreg-ularities
- at-the.Zack. Company. Chicago, Illinois factory.- Also, a potential :10 CFR' Part.21 notification was umade by. the Zack Company.to RIII pertaining to discrepancies between the welder of-record and the welder actually performing the weld. RIV, through the Vendor Inspection Program, performed an inspection of the Zack Company, Chicago.. Illinois operation. RIV had not issued the report on this matter at the time
.=-
this: report was prepared.
i It was' establish'd that the Midland Site did receive fabricated HVAC e
-items from Chicago. Illinois. However, Consumers Power Company per-
' forms a complete receipt inspection, including visual weld inspections.
r The tracking. system that Consumers-Power Company has established for HVAC items, allows'the licensee the ability to locate any nonconforming i
. item. Consumers Power Company also has established controls such that Lany.of~the suspect HVAC system components.would-not be covered by g
o
. ongoing work until it can be established whether rework will be neces-
=sary. LMany of the HVAC system: components are fabricated on site.
~ 3.
Electrical-During the special team inspection conducted in May, 1982, theLNRC
'i
-identified concerns in regards to the adequacy of inspections performed
.-by electrical Quality Control inspectors.. TheseLconcerns were the: result of the NRC's' review of. numerous Nonconformance Reports,(NCR) ' issued by E/
MPQAD personnel during reinspections of items previously inspected and-accepted by Bechtel QC inspectors. The NRC required the licensee to perform reinspections of the items:previously inspec'ted by the QC p&
inspectors associated with the MPQAD NCR's.
The licensee.in reports'
> submitted to the NRC in May and June, 1982, reported that of4 the11084 electrical cables-reinspected. 55 had been determined to be misrouted
-in one.or.more vias. This concern was upgraded to an item of noncom-
~pliance and is documented in Inspection. Report No. 50-329/82-06;L 50-330/82-06.
~
..On September _2, 1982, theflicensee was informed by-the NRC that a 100%-
' reinspection of. class 1E cables installed or partially-installed before ej:
. March ~15, :1982, was required.
In addition, the licensee was required to develop a sample overinspection program for those cables installed
,, e Tsfter March.15, 1982. The licensee, on October 15, 1982,- agreed to.
perform'these overinspections.
u um t.
O b"
~
3
[
=
'6',
Ev On. October 28,11982LConsumers Power Company-reported a potential
~ 50.55(e) ' issue regarding the unauthorized substitution' of class 1E cables'. This issue was identified by the licensee while performing the aforementioned reinspections. During the. week of October 11 fl982, a Detroit television. station had broadcast a se, ries of. reports concerning construction deficiencies at the Midland site. One of-the alleged deficiencies involved the unauthorized substitution of cables.
As a result of the alleged deficiency, Consumers Power Company QA e
inspectors modified the reinspection requirements for the. class 1E cable-reinspections. This modification, which involved determining.
. the proper cable type by reading the cable jacket inscriptions rather than the attached cable tags, resulted in the identification of the unauthorized substitutions.
4.
Mechanical i-During the NRC-Region III team inspection conducted in M y,1981, a
a Region III inspector observed that piping suspension system components were not constructed and installed in accordance with
~
. drawing and specification requirements. In addition, the inspector determined that QC inspectors had failed to identify the installation l
' deficiencies. '(Inspection Report No. 50-329/81-12; 50-330/81-12) t-
~
.In response to the inspector's finding the licensee performed an
~
overinspection and determined that a large percentage of rejectable hang'ers were not identified.during Bechtel QC inspections.
,s A request was made to the licensee for a 100% reinspection of all hangers installed in CY 1980, and a sample reinspection of hangers installed'after CY'1980. In a letter dated September 30, 1982, Consumers Power Company agreed to reinspect 100% of hangers installed
~
before January 1,1981, and a sample inspection of hangers installed after January 1, 1981.
s
. Inspection conducted during the month of October, 1982 has found addi-tional / problems. related to -the installation and inspection of-hangers in the Diesel Generator Building. The concern involves hangers that,
.are built to seismic category one standards, but are considered "non-Q"
{;
~ by~. system designation. Consumers has.taken exception to Reg. Guide 1.29 rf,~
. titled " Seismic Design Classification," which delineates requirements y
for non-Q systems which could impact safety related systems during ~a N
seismic event. -A;1etter from NRC Region III has been sent to NRR requesting resolution.
C.
CONSTRUCTION STATUS n
1.-
Soils Remedial soils activities performed by the licensee thus far in 1982 involve:
4 4
- +,
U
_n,
Permanent dewatering wells.
a.
b.
Temporary auxiliary building dewatering wells,
^
c.
Freezewall around auxiliary building.
d.
Auxiliary building underpinning access shafts to EL 609.
Modification work of overhead temporary FIVP support structure, e.
f.
Auxiliary building underpinning monitoring instrumentation.
2.
EVAC (Zack)
The licensee QA group has performed an audit of the on-site Zack Company Training and Documentation functions during October, 1982.
The audit report is not finalized, but the licensee indicated there were some " minor" findings. The Zack Company has retained a mechani-cal engineer (P.E.) as a Project Field Engineer on site and upgraded other staff positions.
The specifications for inspecting HVAC duct work has been modified to include a provision for rigorcusly testing with differential air pressure those isolated portions of duct work that have either reject-able or uninspectable welds that cannot be repaired without extensive rework. If the questionable welds maintain integrity throughout the-pressure testing, it is planned to make an acceptable engineer dispo-sition based on the test.
Consumers Power Company QA is performing a 100% overinspection on all ongoing welder qualification in accordance with an established and.
approved inspection plan. The individual performing the inspection must be certified by AWS as a qualified welding inspector.
Approximately 25% of all HVAC quality items have been accepted by the licensee.
3.
Electrical As of the date of this report, a significant amount of electrical cable installations, cable terminations, raceway installations, and equipment installations has been completed at the Midland Site. The bulk of present ongoing work activities continues to reflect these activities.
Overall electrical construction status is estimated to be as follows:
a.
Conduit installations 91%
b.
Wire and cable installations 91%
1 c.
Cable terminations 79%
~
d.
Cable tray installations 100%
e.
Equipment installations 98%
1 l
5 2%n wM:;y:rm... ; ~-72 --
.g.-,._
-_ _mm-.T v
s - u n _ g_,..
4 ~.
' Mechanical As of-the-date of this. report, a significant amount of small and'large bore piping has been completed at'the Midland Site. The bulk'of present--
. ongoing work activities involve hanger and instrument impulse-line
~
installation. LMechanical. construction status'is estimated to be as follows:-
-a.-
-Large pipe installations 98%
-b..
Large pipe hanger-installation 95%
c[
Small. pipe installation 95%-
.d..
Small pipe hanger
. 81%
- e.
Mechanical equipment 99%
5.
Miscellaneous-a.-
. Formation of Office of Special Cases In July,1982, the Regional Administrator formed the Office of.
~
Special Cases (OSC) and assign 3d Mr. R. F. Warnick as - the ' Acting Director. - This office has full. responsibility for inspection-1 activities at:the Midland and Zimmer nuclear. facilities.
q Under the direction' of ' the Acting Director, - OSC, - the Midland :
Section was formed consisting of -a section Chief, two Regional.
based inspectors, a Senior Resident Inspector, a Resident Inspec-tor, and a full-time Resident Secretary..
' The majority'of irispection. effort conducted by the Midland Section was related to the soils remedial. work. This work is described in Sections B.l.a..'and b.-of this report.
" b.'
' Stone and Webster Assessment 'of the Soils Remedial Work l
The' third party independ'ent assessment team reported to the' site
.on September 20, c1982.. ; Since that time, reports have been sent-
~to the Resident Inspector office
_A review of these reports-
~
ireveal no significant issues have been identified. Theae reports and Nonconformance Identification Reports are enclosed-as attach-
- ment A to this report.
COMMUNICATIONS'
'D.-
-1.
Enforcement Meetings l
.None J
6 d-m
.-_m_
M.n h Ni
2._
Management Meetings August 11, 1982_
Meeting with CPCo Management regarding soils remedial work taking place without prior staff authorization. Considered a potential viola-tion of a Board Order.
August' 26, 1982 &
Meeting between CPCo Senior Management, September 2, 1982 D. Eisenhut, and J. G. Keppler to discuss NRC's concerns with Midland and possible recommended solutions.
September 8, 1982 Meeting with CPCo management, NRR, and Region III to discuss Consumer's draft proposal for a third party independent assessment. No conclusions reached.
Licensee was advised.to submit their proposal formally.
September 15, 1982 Meeting between Region III and CPCo lawyers to establish when NRC investigation of GAP allegations would be completed.
September 28, 1982 Meeting between the Midland Inspection Site.
Team and members of Stone & Webster and Con-sumers Power Company to introduce the Third Party Independent Assessment Team for the remedial soils work.
October 29, 1982 Meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan between Region III, Region IV, and Bechtel management to discuss NRC concerns with Bechtel performance and recommended solution 3.
3.' 1 Public Meetings August 5, 1982 Meeting a Midland, Michigan between Region III and CPCo Management to discuss disagreements regarding the Systematic Assessment of Licensee' Performance (SALP) report and CPCo's May'17, 1982, response to this report.
September 29, 1982 Meeting in Midland, Michigan between Region III and CPCo Management regarding the requalifica-tion and certification of all Bechtel-QC person-nel at Midland.
a 7
2.
October 25i 1982=
Meeting in Bethesda, Maryland between NRR, Region III,.CPCo Management, and CPCo contract personnel.to discuss third party independent assessment.
' 4.
_ other Significant ' Meetings J
None
+-
t o
w-b O
+.
J 8
c:..
,e e.
i S FO?lEfJ-WEl?.ST:.R' ENGIN E ERING CORPORATION 6
245 SuvMtp S T a t a.T. 3 0 510 N. M Af.S & T-wsE 17 5 "a :,:: p e r s a L L c canth
- asst %ct 1o, P o t C1 r32s ke s t ris wast 02o07 m u in tta 94. coot
,; pop %
94 OW7 7
. DE S'Oh gg St ee g ge menytt Oh e
..gese
=.1.
4*
agecats
- .f = s.t h gnaw.h.teONS
.e C Ohtb.T8* #
a t.*.s t ph g mE et ter%G t..s
.. r..t 2.ecs e c t'ni t d S:at ; s.';uct (ar Regul atory Co a is si on S e p: e..5e r 29, 1982 Mi ilarid Sit e Keri ient Ins pection Of fice
.c-ut e :7 J.C.Nc. la ME. 06 Midl and, r1 48540 F ef. MPE-1 Attention Mr. R. Cook
Dear Sir:
- PI: DOCKET NO. 50-329/330 MID').Nr P!JiNT - UNITS 1 AND 2 IN._3_I_? :.r..E.NT.A_S.F. E__S_F.'_E.N_T_
OT Al'XII. IA RY _S UI.l.D.I N G. U_'O..E.FS.I. NNI N G A cc-py. c f
- h e *.r.?e pe Me nt Ass er sr. -n: of the t vi'# try F.ui' din g i~r(<-r pi nni ng
- b kl y T. q. r t ? o.
I f or the pe ri od S ep: e.-l+ r IC '. o ugh 2 6, 1982, i s encl osed r
ith thir lett er.
If y.,e 5 ave any qu e 5 t i cc.r, vi th res pe et to this re p: r t, please centact tn e at ( 617.1 '. f o - 2 067.
.'rery trn; y yours,
I I
tr:~l A. Stanley Luc Proj ect Ms::a ger Inc1osure ASL:ch t-i
.sW'
\\
e 4
.
- sg % I OCT 5 ra
e r.
J. O. No. 14 358 Mi dit.nd plant Uni t s I and 2-Indt pendent Arsessinent Auriliary Building Underpinning Weekl y R e tor t N o.]
Se pt embc r 19 through_2_6i 1982
-Tersonnel=on eice i
Stone '& We.bst er Engi nuri ng Cor;orati on (SaTC)
W. E. Kilker 9/20/82-9/26/S2 P. Barry 9/20/82-9/23/82 L. T. Rouen 9/20/82-9/24/S2 E. Hel singer 9/20/82-9/26/82 A.
Scott 9/20/S2-9/26/82 A. S. Lucks:
9/21/S2-9/23/82 Pars ons,' Erinker.hoff, Quade, & Douglas (FFQD)
P. Parish 9/21/S2-9/24/82 J. Ea:ner 9/22/82-9/2t/82 Ac tivi ti es This. re prt s tcc ari zes the first week of activi ti es and obs er va ti ons of the S*T.C i nde pendent arsessment tea = (including the 177J Mrst nn el).
Th e t e a=,
which at the present time cohsi sts of seven ergine ers repres enting Ceot ech-nical, Structural, Construction, and Quality A.csurance di s ci pli nes, arrived at the si te between Sept ember 20 and Sept cnl.er 22.
~
The ass essment team has established separate on-site office space and has contracted f or clerical assistance.
Introductions of all team meubers were made to on-site personnel repres enting Eecht el Engineering and Construction; Cons traer s Power ccr pany Qu alit y Assurance and Quality Control; Viss, Janney & Elstner (W.1&E) 2nstrsroentation Monitoring; and Merger. time Con.=truction. Tours and briefings of the various areas and ac ti vi ti es rel at ed to the,,underpi nni ng vere gi ven t hro ughout t he' veek at the recuest of 'the assessment t e am.
Included in th es e tours and bri efi ngs were the ir. place access shaf ts and FIVT superst ruct ure supports, the d ee ;--s e at ed benclearks and relative enti er. me a s u r e:.en t stations, the ext ens o:n et er and strain page i ns t r tra ent at i on ins: all ati ons, the crack mapp-ing, the WJ6E i ns t r tr:.e nt a t i or. moni t oring and dat a re cor ding station, the larmi ng and rei nf orci ng har f abri cat i on rheps, and the mat eri al t es t i ng l aborat o ry.-
-- Also, the ass essment trac periodi cally obr erved the work on the mock-up pier (located near the Outage Buil ding) and the j a: king st and mock-up (l oc at ed adj a:ent to the l agcing f abri cati on shop).
All lagging and shoring were in
. place on, the cock-up prior to the team's arris al on site, but observat i ons k
EX21435E.05
- w. re ma52 of thr - rei nf or ce ment inst all ati on and the pi ares: *.nt of usrec r et e i n the lever half of the pier. Three w.. c.hers of the atr.crsrint te cr e-ntered the pi e r for fi rs t 1.e nd obs erva t i ons of the inst all at i on.
The Quality Cont rol activities and docar.ient ation prepared prior to rele*ase f or concrete place.ent were described and/or provided as re qu es t ed by t he t eam mer.be rs.
Daily cicetings were held starting Sch>tenber 21 between personnel representing the as s es sment t<sm, Becht el E ngi neering and Cons t ruc t i on, ind Cons true rs Power Ccn.pany Engineering and Quality Assurance.
Tr.ese meetings provided a femat for the as s es se ent tcam to re ques t i nf ormat i on and cl ari fi cati on as well as to discuss observations.
Me.bers of the team have read ' the Su:r.ary of Soils-Eel at ~d Issues R eport and are reviewing applicable speci fications, drawings, cc.ns tructicn, -nd quality control pro cedur es, i ns t r t=.ent
- noni tori ng procedures, and p' s n t Qual i ty Assurance doctruents.
An assessment team Proj ect Manual has been prepared that i rcl udes the Proj ect Or ga ni za ti on Qu ality Assurance Plan and re por ti ng and doc tnent a ti on pro cedures.
Meetings Dat e E e pres ent ed Pur pos e 9/20/82 Stone & Webster Introduct i on to Cens.cers F ever Co.
Site Fersonnel Eechtel Mergentice 9/21/S2 Stone 6, Webster Daily Meeting
. thro :gh Parsons 9/25/82 Cons tners Power Co.
Becht el Observations The ass esscent team received f ull cooperation ~of on-site personnel. Ind e pe n-dent of fice space and t elephone co:cunication have been provided. Constners e
P er.ce r C o:pa ny and Ee cht el pe rs onnel have compli ed with team req;ests for access to exi sting installations, briefings, doctnents, and records.
I Troj ect Inginee r Prcj ect Manager t.
U 214358.05
g STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION 245 SUMMrn STarrT. Boston. MAssACHustTTS 1
Acontes ALL cOnnesPONDENet TO P.O. BOX Bats. BOSTON. MASS. 08107 w.u.Tetzx e4 oooi cea N.TawCTION
- *."'t,....
O'J.'1a
- 100!'.'a.
0*.".'J,u"4"l,'!."
United States Nuclear Regulatory Cournission October 12, 1982 Midland Site Resident Inspection Office Rcite 7 J.O.No. 14358 Midland, MI 48640 Ref. MPR-2 Attention Mr. R. Cook RE: DOCKET NO. 50-329/3'lG MIDLAND PLANT - UNITS 1 IJ'D 2 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING-REPORT NO. 2 A copy of the Independent Assessment of the Auxiliary Building Underpinning Weekly Report No. 2 for the period September 27 through October 3, 1982, is enclosed with this letter.
If you have any questions with respect to this report, please contact me at (617) 589-2067.
A. Stanley Lucks Project Manager Enclosure ASL:pms O
,e#"'
q%
BX214358-2
J.O.No. 14358 Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Independent Assessment Auxiliary Building Underpinning Weekly Report No. 2 September 27 through October 3,1982 Personnel on Site Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
W. E. Kilker 9/27/82-10/1/82 P. Barry 9/27/82-10/1/82 L. T. Rouen 9/27/82-10/1/82 B. Holsinger 9/27/82-10/1/82
.A.
Scott 9/27/82-10/1/82 A. S. Lucks 9/27/82-9/29/82 Parsons, Brinkeroff, Quade, & Douglas (PBQD)
P. Parish 9/27/82-10/1/82 J. Ratner 9/29/82-10/1/82 Act;vities The assessment ~ team continued their review of the reports, specifications, drawings and procedures in order to gain familiarity with the initial phases of
~
the pending underpinning work. The review concentrated on issued excavation, lagging, ground stabilization and concrete placement procedures. Discussions to resolve any questions concerning these procedures were held with Bechtel and Consumers Power site personnel. The plant QA program and Quality Control procedures on concrete and reinforcement were reviewed by QA team members.
The Assassment team and representatives of-Consumers Power Company met with NRC representatives. The role of the assessment team and the interaction with the various site groups, and the methods of reporting the team findings were discussed in this meeting.
Two of the team members attended a public meeting of the NRC and Consumers Power Company.
The discussion focused on the establishment of the Midland Plant QA program under Consumers Power Company administration and control and the certification of QC inspectors under the Consumers Power Company program, i
i e
BX214358-2
2 M tings Attended
. Data-Represented Purpcse 9/28/82 Stone & Webster Introduction of USNRC Consumers Power Co.
and Assessment Team. Discus-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory sion of Assessment Team's Conunission role.
9/29/82 Stone & Webster Public Meeting - Discussion Bechtel of QA Administration and USNRC QC Certification.
Public 9/30/82 Stone & Webster Presentation of Underpinning Consumers Power Co.
model.
Bechtel 10/1/82 Stone & Webster Weekly Soils Review Meeting Consumers Power Co.
Bechtel Mergentime 9/27/82 Stone & Webster Daily Meeting-through Consumers Power Co.
10/1/82 Bechtel Observations The Assessment Team has continued to receive cooperation of on-site personnel.
Team members observations, questions or ' suggestions have been given prompt and complete attention by the appropriate site personnel.
0Abt2 -
Gb Project Engineer sProject Manager U a
'BX214358-2
fr
' O. Y STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION 245 SUMMER STR4ET. BOSTON. M AssACHUSETTS ADDRESS alt. CORRESPONDENCE TO P.O. BOX 2325. BOSTON. M ASS. 02107 W. U. TELEX e4-000s on st C N.,m u C,10a6
'"'o'.',*o*,.
- 1"'.On".*,..
.".'A'".M" t*."
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 13, 1982 Midland Site Resident Inspection Office Route 7 J.0.No. 14358 Midland, MI 48640 Ref. MPR-3 Attention Mr. R. Cook RE: DOCKET NO. 50-329/330 MIDLAND PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF AUXILIARY EUILDING UNDERPINNING-REPORT NO. 3 A copy of the Independent Assessment of the Auxiliary Building Underpinning Weekly Report No. 3 for the period October 3 through October 9, 1982, is enclosed-with this letter.
If you have any questions with respect to this report, please contact me at (617) 389-2067.
& r/*
~Y W A. Stanley Lucks I
/ Project Manager f
Enclosure ASL:mmm O
,e#
~
.a O
~
a 4:. A.. A.
J.O.No. 14358 Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Independent Assessment Auxiliary Building Underpinning Weekly Report No. 3 October 3 through October 9, 1982 Personnel on Site Stone &' Webster Engineerlag Corporation (SWEC)
W. E. Kilker 10/5/82-10/8/82 P. Barry 10/4/82-10/8/82 L. T. Rouen 10/4/82-10/8/82 B. Holsinger 10/5/82-10/8/82 A. Scott 10/4/82-10/8/82 Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, & Douglas (PBQD)
P. Parish 10/4/82-10/8/82 J. Ratner 10/4/82-10/8/82 Activities The start of the underpinning work has been delayed pending the recertification of the Soils Remedial Quality Control Inspectors.
In the interim, the Assess-ment team members have completed the review of severdi of the construction
-- specifications and procedures associated with the initial phases of the under-pinning work. Team member questions or observations have been presented to site personnel for resolution.
Several of the team members toured the off-site concrete batch plant and received a briefing on the plant lay-out and production procedures. A general interest,
tour of the Auxiliary Building and Reactor-Containment Structure was given to all of the team members by site engineers.
Observations were made of the un'derpinning contractor performing routine back-packing maintenance with sand and excelsior on the access shafts' lagging.
1 O
V I
TV g~
2 1-
}
Meetings Attended Date Represented Purpose
- 10/8/82 Stone & Webster Weekly Soils Review Meeting Consumers Power Co.
Bechtel Mergentime 10/4/82 Stone & Webster Daily Meeting through' Consumers Power Co.
10/8/82 Bechtel Observations Familiarization with the specifications, drawings, and construction procedures associated with the initial phase of construction is generally complete.
Observations and questions from the-team members on the construction documents 4
have been discussed with site personnel.
u> + %
VW l'
Proj ect' Engineer Project Manager
.s lu o
Q---
p __ y STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION 245 SUMMER STREET. BOSTON. M ASS ACHUSETTS acoRE=S ALL CORRESPONoENOE TO P.O. BOX 2325. BOSTON. M ASS. 02107 W.U. TELEX. 94 0001 postON 94 0977 DEssGN C na nsLL. N.J.
m POn s DENWER EI AMeNATIONs CMtCAGO COhsu kTshG PORTLahD. OR EGON
$UCN. 0 c.
wA United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Octobe r 18, 1982 Midland Site Resident Inspection Office Route 7 J.L. No. 14358 Midland, MI 48640 Ref. MPR-4 Attention Mr. R. Cook.
RE : DOCKET NO. 50-329/330 MIDIAND PLAhT - UNITS 1 AND 2 INDEPENDEhT ASSESSFINT OF AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING REPORT NO. 4 A copy of the Independent Assessment of the Auxiliary Building Under-pinning Weekly Report No. 4 for the period October 10 through October 16, 1982, is enclosed with this letter.
If you have any questions with respect to this report, please contact me at (617) 589-2067.
A. Stanley L ks Project Manager Encl os ure 1
ASL:ck i
- e e
oe--"
t
'p)g BX214358-2 I
i
~
J.O.Ns. 14358 7+*
-;r - Midicnd Plcnt Units - 1 and. 2 Independent Assessment Auxiliary Building Underpinning-Weekly Report No. 4 October 10 through October 16, 1982 Fersonnel on Site Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
W. E. Kilker 10/12/82-10/15/82 P. Barry.
10/12/82-10/15/82 L. T. Rouen 10/11/82-10/15-82 B. Holsinger 10/11/82-10/15/82 A. Scott 10/11/82-10/15/82 Parsons, ~ Brinckerhoff, Quade, & Douglas (PB@)
J. Ratner 10/11/82-10/15/72
' Activities The Assessment Team completed the review of all construction specifications
. and procedures associated with the initial phases of the underpinning.
Faniliarization with the drawings and Quality Assurance / Quality Control procedures continued.
Discussions with site personnel were held.to resolve ~ questions and observations on the various construction documents.
Tema members read the portions of the NRC's Supplanent a1 Safety Evaluation
. Report No. 2 applicable to the Auxiliary Building Underpinning.
4 The team members attended the site Soils Training Classes on quality plans, soils work permits and coordination forms.
Meetings Attended Repres ent ed Pur pos e 10/11/82 Stone & Webster Daily Meetings through Consumers Power 10/15/82 Be ch,tel
-10/14/82 Stone & Webster Soils Renedial and Consumers Power Training Progran 10/15/82 Bechtel Courses Mergentime 10/15/82 Stone & Webster Weekly soils
. Cons tsners Power Review Meeting Bechtel Mergentime Observations - None Nhu S*i(-
. Proj ect Engineer Project Menager BX214358-2 1
'J O.No. 14358 Mid1:nd Plcnt Unita 1 -cnd 2 InC: pendent Assessment
. Auxiliary Building Underpinning STONE AN: WEESTEC. ENGINEEP.ING CORPORATION r,3N 0NF0F.v.ANCE IDEr,TIFICATION REPDF.7 10/2*/82 1
DATE OF NON 0hFDRMRNCE:
hiR fu ber IDENTIFICATION / LOCATION OF ITEMS: Procedupe for Mechanical Solicine of Reinforcement (MCP 16.000; Rev. 3.)
DESCRIPTION OF NONCONr0;".ANCE: Technical Snesification for Underninnine of Auxiliary Buildine and Feed-rater Isolation Valve Pits ('nra
~
n 11.5.3-g) reauires subcontractor's procedure for % chanien1 Splicing of Reinforcement to nrovide a meihod of mechanically locking the position _sp] Ices.
The Mergentime' Procedure does not urovida far_mnchanically l o c k i n g _ s_p_l i c e s.
i lhlTIATOR:
DATE:
PROJECT M:.NLGEMENT CONCURRENCE:
m ? d. hNAt/
k Sb!$w b,% M CORRECTIVE ACTION EY:
(lDEhiITV~TARNT!ITT0t TAKING CORRECi3VE AtlTDA) t{
IhlT!ATOR CONCURRENCE:
PROJECT MANAGEMENT C0r. URRENCE:
DATE:
rtje:- Fro:ecart E-2.C
~
Ai.athient 1 Fage 1 of 1 STONE AN? WEESTER ENGINEER!hG CORDORATION
~
N3NC0hT0Rv.*4CE IDENilFICAT13h REPORT DATE OF N0hC0hF02.v.ANCE: Octcber 28, 1982 NIR Nr.ber p
IDEN11FICAT10N/ LOCATION OF ITEv.5: Tech,ical Specification for Underrinnin, nr k.txiliary Euilding and Feedvater Isolation Valve Pits. and ansect ataa C1hm Series Drawings, located at VP4AD and QC.
DESCRIPTION OF h0N 3Nr0;v.ANCE : The MPQAD and QC controlled copfen nf the aheve Specification and Drawing are missins the followins ch uge Ao.curents:
QC's -
- 1) Specificatica - Specifiention Chance Fetice (SCN)
No. 12002, 12003. and 12004 QC and
- 2) Drawing C1h24 Drawing Cham _ge Notice (DCN) No. 7 VERAD Field Change Request (FCR)
No. Ch7h1 and Chl85.
Ih!T!' ?R:
DATE:
FROJECT M;hA~EMENT CONCURRENCr h
A *"f u _ U >: lx v A.5. b 1.
Barry. Hols er October 28.1982 CD:RECTIVE ACTION BY:
( DENTUT GT."AUUTTON tat]tGTDAEVI ACIDtU-s lhlTIATOR CONCURRENCE:
FP00ECT M'AAGEMENT CCNCURRENCE:
DATE:
..r.
t-3 s
x 1
STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION 245,SV,MME R STREET. BOSTON. M $5ACHUSETTS 2i A
ADDRESS kLL CORRESPONDENCE TO P.O. SOX 2325. SOSTON. M ASS.
1?O7 W.U. TELEX: 94 0001 sosTON pt 94 0977 ega oM pgPOR S
- R HILL N J, g
DENVER
\\
ERAMtNAfe0NS CMICA00
\\
CONSULTING ORTL AND. C A EGON wAsniN2roN. e c.
. g s,
y
(
4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
October 27, 1982 Midland Site Resident Inspecticn Office Route 7 J.O.No. 14358 Midland, MI 48640 Ref. MPR-5 Attention Mr. R. Cook
[
~
RE: DOCKET NO. 50-329/330 MIDLAND PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 1
INDEPENTENT ASSESSMENTS 0L AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING i
a_
REPORT No. 5-_
A copy of the Independent Assessment o[*(the Auxiliary Building Under-
~
pinning Weekly Report tio. 5 for the period October 17 through October 23 1982, is enclosed witti this letter. _,
If you have any questions with respect to this report,'please contact me at (617) 589-2067 A.StanleyLucksI
~ '
w, Project Manager 3
Enclosure 4
~'
ASL:nb 4
's
.s b
g m
'\\.
+
k
\\
M
\\..,
t 5 %
=
i y
1 e
,)
e-t L
N pg.p>'
w s
3pk I
4 34
+
W
.3.
.. int
~.
And 2
- c..
, ndent Assessment
. uxiliary Building Underpinning Weekly Report-No. 5 October 17 through October 23, 1982 Personnel on Site Sone & Webster Ehgineering Corporation (SWEC)
W.E. Kilker 10/18 - 10/20 P. Barry 10/18 - 10/22 L.T. Rouen 10/18 - 10/22
.B.
Holsinger 10/20 - 10/22 A. Scott 10/20 - 10/22 Activities The focus of the Assessment Team effort was the disposition of numerous questions that had been. raised over the past 3 weeks with respect to the pending underpinning construction specifications, drawings and procedures.- To this end, the team members had meetings and discussions
-with site engineering and construction personnel and resolved the majority of the items.
Pending items will be resolved within the
.next two weeks.
Team Members attended a critique meeting on the placement of rein-forcing' and concrete in the mock-up pier. The team was also represented at discussions of recently recorded settlement ~date.
Meetings Attended Date Represented Purpose 10/18 Rone & Webster Daily Meeting through Consumers Power 10/22 Bechtel 10/19 St.one & Webster Settlement Consumers Power Monitoring Bechtel Records Mergentime-10/19 St.one & Webster Critique of Consumers Power Mock-Up Pier-Bechtel Reinforcing St; eel-Merger. time and Concrete Placement 10/20 Rone & Webster Discussion of Bechtel Excavation ~and Mergentime Lagging Procedure 10/20 Rone & Webstt e Training Sessions on s
Bechtel Excavation and Lagging, Mergentime Jacking, and Soil St.abilization
~.-
G-4
'y i
8..,
J* g -
.J58
.. ant
. and 2' pendent Assessment
?
Naxiliary Building thderpinning
.3 1
\\
f1
,het'ingsAttended
'/
1
,. g s.
SEe 1
.U-Redresented
Purpose t
\\
1G/22'[,
if'~g Stone #&g Webster Resolution of Bechtal' J'
Observations and Questions-on Con-j 5
struction Specifications j
and Procedures t
4-Observattens s
3 s
x
,. D The Assessment. Team has completed,the review of the reports and construction
- h/
-documents applicable'to the initial phase of the underpinning work. Most
'~
.g -questions have been resolved by discussion with site personnel'.
The team will, commencing October 25, scale down it's ' presence on the site 5
'until actual start of constryction.
O
,kt
)
Nonconformance Identification" Reports f
(
i 1
.JNIR-No. 1 - Issued 10/21/82 - The Mergentime Procedure for splicing reir.fptcing bars did not address a specification requirement.
a ukt (L w/2, Ls. 3A a
Proje6t Engineer Project Manager-g.3 4-I s
t e
g:
g 5
. ' i=
^
j-s P
--,i
,e, t
4
?
)
3 h, s y
'}
l
^
O
[fa y,' [
4
,(/
t 4
Li '.
'r i
t y
?M
... -. i'.
B MIDLAND MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
' Midlar.d Site Inspection Team efforts at the. Midland Construction Site during the month-of November were concentrated on the completion of
{
the Diesel' Generator Building inspection. The inspection was completed on November 25 and the inspection report is currently being written.
Significant inspection findings are being evaluated by the Region III staff.
Remedial soils work continues based on a work agreement between the NRC and Consumers Power Company. Auxiliary building underpinning remains halted pending resolutf.1 of the independent third party assessment effort.
The licensee continued the reinspection of 100% of Class 1E cables installed or partially installed. No further underrated or undersized cables have been found as of the end of the status report period.
A 100% reinspection of all hangers installed in CY 1980 and a sample reinspection of hangers installed after January 1, 1982 is continuing by the licensee.
All' safety related welding on the heating, ventilating and air cendition-ing (HVAC) was stopped November 30, 1982 after the licensee determined
'that the Quality = Assurance Program for welder certification and procedure qualification was inadequate. Zack Company, the HVAC contractor, discontinued'all welding on safety related HVAC systems, laying off 151 craft workers.
9 O
i,.
CORSumBIS Power James W Cook CompaRy m,r,,,u,.,- r,j,,,,. t.,<.,,,<.,
n.d Co.struction General Offices: 1945 West Parnell Road, Jackson, MI 49201 * (517) 78& o453 PRINCIPAL STAFF ~
December 6, 1982 3
) ((,) g LOA ENF lf i 1.1P M O J3 /
i:n ?,_)
IPA 0 1:}
St% 9 1
BLo l
' James G Keppler J./if l
g Regional Administrator
(-
l j ;
US Nuclear Regulatory Commisssion OL
' FILE I.y (b Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER PROJECT -
SOILS START CONSTRUCTION OF PIER 12 -
FILE 0485.16 SERIAL 20262 REFERENCE 1) J W COOK LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1982 TO H R DENTON AND J G KEPPLER, SERIAL 18845
- 2) D B MILLER LETTER OF NOVEMBER 24, 1982 TO W D SHAFER, SERIAL CSC-6437 REGION III This letter responds to recent discussions with Region III regarding the resumption of construction of the soils remedial project, specifically piers 12 East and 12 West, and documents Consumers Power Company's implementation of the commitments listed in Reference 1 and overall readiness to resume construction.
In Reference 1, seven new commitments were made in order to enhance the implementation of the overall quality program and performance of the job with regard to the soils remedial work. The following is a listing of the commitments and discussion of their status:
1.
Retaining a third party to independently assess the implementation of the auxiliary building underpinning work.
Status: Stone and Webster and Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas are on site, are implementing the independent assessment program, and are fully prepared to assess underpinning construction activities.
2.
Integrating the soils QA and QC functions under the direction of MPQAD.
Status: The soils quality functions have been integrated under the direction of MPQAD. QC inspection personnel are being oc1182-3219a112 et 7
m e or
]
\\)O SERIAL 20262 2
recertified in accordance with MPQAD procedure 3M-1..
QC i
inspectors necessary to start Pier 12 are qualified. A certification schedule has been developed to insure that the required inspectors will be available to support construction activivites.
3.
Creating a " Soils" project organization with dedicated employees and a single-point accountability to accomplisa all work covered by the ASLB order.
Status: The soils team under the direction of J A Mooney is in place and is in charge of all work covered under the April 30, 1982 ASLB order; 4.
Establishing new and upgraded training activities, including a special
. quality indoctrination program, specific training in nederpinning activities, and the use of a mock-up test pit for underpinaing construction training.
Status: The training program has been upgraded and personnel involved in the soils remedial work have received the appropriate training.
The pier mock-up has been completed and procedural modifications as a result of the mock-up work have been incorporated into the specific construction procedures of-piers 12 E/W; 5.
Developing a Quality Improvement Program (QIP), specifically for soils remedial work.
Status: The QIP Program manual for soils was issued on September 24, 1982.
In addition, sup'ervisory orientation sessions have been initiated; 6.
Increasing senior management involvement in the soils remedial project through weekly, on-site management meetings wherein both work progress and quality activities are reviewed.
Status: The on-site meetings are held with management involvement as noted; 7.
Improving systems for tracking of and accounting for design commitments.
Status: The commitment list for Piers 12 E/W and for work through the end of the year has been issued. The total commitment list is in review and will be issued prior to December 22, 1982; In addition to the specific commitments above, the following is the status of related items (numbering system continued from above) for work on Piers 12 East and 12 West:
8.
The engineering specifications have been issued for construction (with changes from the mock-up incorporated as noted in 4 above);
oc1182-3219a112 v
,s
1,. -
SERIAL 20262 3
i.
9.
The engineering drawings have been issued for construction (with changes from the mock-up incorporated as noted in 4 above);
10.
The subcontractors construction procedures have been issued for construction (with changes from the mock-up incorporated as noted in 4 above);
11.
The PQCI's and PIPR's have been issued based on Item 10 above; Based on the discussion outlined above, CP Co believes that the soils program has been thoroughly and critically evaluated and that all prerequisites for successful implementation of Piers 12 East and 12. West have been accomplished.
The Company's program, with the initial overview from the independent implementation assessment team, and the continuing overview by the NRC staff and management should provide adequate assurance that the remedial soils activities will be successfully implemented.
Accordingly Consumers Power Company requests authorization to proceed with the work specified in Reference 2 which will specifically allow the start of Pier 12 West followed one week later by the start of Pier 12 East.
Consumers Power Company By James W Cook Sworn and subscribed to before me on this th day of December, 1982.
C O
s_ 4w 2Axtex_v now n
\\ /
Notary Public, Jackson County,-Mich My commission expires September 8. 198h JWC/JRS/jlh CC RJCook, Midland Resident Inspector DSHood, US NRC WDShafer, US NRC, Region III oc1182-3219a112
x
- g 1%
qf
- (
Carrectsd M -
5 12/9/,82,
. /J.
Yg B CODStimaiS h/'h.,,:c.l, N):
f PGWar Jernes W Cook f hUbhbNf We Nsdent - Prejuts, EmpneW
- g-,-
9 and Conumetion y f-
=
y'1
. Generet oMices: 1948 West PerneH Road, Jackeen, MI 49201 e (5171788 0463 December 3, 1982 _
..H R Denton, Director
' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Att: Division of Licensing:
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
~ MIDLAND NUCLEAR'C0 GENERATION PLANT DOCKET NOS 50-329-AND.50-330 QUALIFICATION OF INSPECTION, EXAMINATION AND TESTING AND AUDIT PERSONNEL FOR THE MIDLAND PROJECT FILE:
0.4.10 SERIAL: '19094 Rt.f erence s :- ~ (1) E G Adensam (NRC) letter to J W Cook, Eame Subject, dated October-5, 1982 (2); CPCo.CPC-1-A, " Quality Assurance Program Manual for' Nuclear Power Plants, Volume I, Policies"
.(3)
A B Davis (NRC) letter to J W Cook, Re: QC Training Program
~
and Written Exams for Remedial Soils, dated October 28, 1982 Reference'l asked for additional information-on-Consumers Power's position in regard.to Regulatory Guide 1.58, Revision 1.
This letter responds only for
- the Midle.,nd-Project for certification of personnel to the enclosed Procedure
- B-3M-1.
The procedure was issued October 25, 1982 and is utilized for all new certifications'in the' Midland Project Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD) and
'for recertification or new certification of Bechtel Quality Centrol Engineers utilized on'the Midland Jobsite'after February 1, 1983. The specific requests
- are-repeated below:along with our response.
- 1. 'Reques ed Information
" Describe the qualification requirements of those personnel responsible for reviewing and approving inspection, examination and test procedures land of' evaluating the~ adequacy of such procedures to accocplish the
. inspection, examination and test objectives.
(See Positten C.5)" -
CPCo Response
.In regard to Level III personnel capabilities, Section C.5 states; "In-addition, the individual should be capable of reviewing and approving inspection, examination, and testing procedures and of evaluating the
. adequacy of such' procedures to accomplish the inspection, examination, and test objectives.". Policy No 2 of our approved Topical Report (Reference
- provides the following " Exception / Interpretation"; "While a Level III C
OC1182-0014A-MPO11 1
.._ ~. - - _. -.. _ - - -,... _.
. - ~
I:;
2-V individual should be capable of reviewing and spproving inspection, examination and testing procedures and of evaluating the adeqsacy,of such procedures to: accomplish the inspection, examination and test objectives, this is not construed by Consumers Power Company as requiring personnel who reviev.,approvehor evaluate such procedures to be certified as Level' III personnel."
Both the Bechtel and Consumers programs require that the inspection planning' authorized for use at the Midland Jobsite be approved by both the inspection agency.and by MPQAD (Quality Assurance Engineering function).
The programs. require that supervisory level personnel provide the final
~
approvals for the inspection plans. For the most part, these individuals have been certified as either Level II or III."
The' program for certification of Level III personnel is consistent with Position C.S.
The minimum education and experience requirements for such personnel are identical to the requirements stated in Section 3.5.3 of ANSI-N45.2.6-1978.. These individuals must demonstrate proficiency in
[
Ewriting inspection plans. They must also demonstrate a thorough under-
. standing of the quality control program requirements by successfully
-passing a written examination.
Personnel who evaluate inrpection, examination and testing procedures as part of the independent evaluation process of an audit are qualified and certified to the requirements of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.146,,"Qualifi-cation of Quality Program Audit Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants."
- 2. ' Requested Information
" Describe in more detail the extent to which the procedures and record results of written, oral and on-the-job performance demonstration tests are documented and determined acceptable.
(See Position C.10)"
.CPCo Responte Section 5.7 of MPQAD Procedure B-3M-1 describes in detail the written examinations and performance demonstration tests used to determine initial capability or to racertify inspection personnel. The individual record of performance testa are maintained along with the answer sheets for each written examination.
.New employees who are candidates for inspection certification are being reviewed to assure that they will meet at least the minimum education and experience recommendations stipulated by Section 3.5 of ANSI N45.2.6 for the certification level for which they are candidates. Thus, for these candidates, Position C.10 is not applicable, r
4 I
- r,O b e
,~'-w--,
iE,--,--.-.,w,-,,,e..e.c,
.~mer-.~,...e
,-,-,.--,,..,--,,,-,w,.y,.
,--.-.we,.,.-e,.e,-e-,,r,--..m.,www-,,,r
n-3-
+.
Procedure B-3M-1 was rs/ie.;2d by the.NRC Region III staff. Their concurrence (Reference 3) on its content was obtained prior to their authorization for CPCo to connaence remedial soils QC requalification activities.
/s/ J W Cook JWC/WRB/lr
Enclosure:
Midland Project Quality Assurance Department Procedure No B-3M-1, Rev 1, dated 10/25/82, " Qualification and Certification of Inspection and Test Personnel" CC: RJCook, NRC Resident Inspector, Midland Site
' 45hafer, NRC Reg III RGardner, NRC Reg III e
JGKeppler, NRC Reg III RHernan, NRC Office of NRR J
OC1182-0014B-MP01
(.
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Midland Units 1 and 2 Docket No 50-329, 50-330 Letter Serial 1909h Dated December 3,1982 At.the' request of the Commission and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended and the Commission's Rules and Regulations thereunder, Concusers Power Company submits information regarding the ; implementation of the Consumers Power Company Quality Program for the Midland Plant.
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY By
/s/-J W Cook J W Cook, Vice President Projects, Engineering and Construction Sworn and subscribed before me this 6 day of Dece=ber,1962
/s/ Barbara P Townsend Notary Public Jackson County, Michigan
.My Commission Expires Sectember 8.198k l
o,c0982-0249a100
Enclosure to Sarial 1909L MIDLAND PROJECT Proc No B-3M-1 f7 EN QUALITY ASSURANCE Page 1 of 14 DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE Revision 1
's Compuy Date 10/25/62 QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF INSPECTION AND TEST PERSONNEL 1.0 PURPOSE To establish the requirements, responsibilities and procedure for the selection, training, qualification and certification of personnel, under the direction of the Midland Project Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD), who perform:
- Primary inspection / test / test verification -
7
- Overinspection/ test / test verification
- Source and receipt inspection / test hereinafter referred to as " inspection".
2.0 SCOPE This procedure applies to MPQAD personnel.who perform inspection or overinspection.
This procedure does not apply to any NDE personnel. (The corresponding -
procedure for NDE personnel is MPQAD Procedure B-4M.) This procedure also does not apply to firms engaged in subcontract work (eg, B&m' Construction Company) which have their own personnel certification procedures.
(Paragraph 5.1.4 addresses this subject.)
3.0 DEFINITIONS 3.1 Oualification - The characteristics or abilities gained through education / training or experience, or both, that enable an.
Individual to perform inspection and test functions.
3.2 Certifiestion - The action of determining, verifying and attesting in writing, as to the qualifications of a person to perform l
inspection and test functions.
3.3 PQCI - Project Quality Control Instruction which is prepared and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Bechtel Quality Control Notices Manual.
3.4 PIP - ProjeE.'t Inspection Plan which is prepared and imple=ented in
~
accordance with the requirements of MPQAD Procedure E-1M.
3.5 F,I_R - Field Inspection Report which is prepared and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Bechtel Quality Control Notices Manual.
, f ([-
,.g qa1082-4067a-1/.-167
~
Proc No B-3M-1 O~
MIDLAND PROJECT.
E QUALITY ASSURANCE
,3\\I' 3
3 DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE Date 10/25/82 T
C0mp3Hy QUt.LIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF INSPECTION AND TEST PERSONNEL Level Project Function L-I L-II L-III Reporting inspection and X
X testing results Supervising equivalent or lower level X
X personnel Certifying lower level personnel X
Evaluating the adequacy of specific pro-X grams used to train and test' inspection and testing personnel Th' Manager, MPQAD shall certify Level III persons when he 5.1.2 a
determines that these persons are qualified in accordance with the requirements of this procedure. Level III personnel, certified prior to issuance of this procedure, may be certified by the Manager, MPQAD based on documented evaluation of the candidates quslifications.
5.1.3 Within their disciplines, Level III personnel shall certify Level I and II persons in accordance with the requirements of this procedure. Level II personnel may be utilized to examine Level I or II candidates during performance 9,
demonstrations. Certifications, for inspectors performing inspections in areas such as receiving, storage an,d maintenance, may be given by any Level III person.
5.1.4 Level III personnel shall verify that inspection and test personnel who are employees of firms engaged in site subcontracted work (eg B&W, Construction Company and GEO) are certified by the firm consistent with the scope of the inspection services.
5.1.5 Certified personnel may perform the duties of persons certified to lower levels, but not conversely.
5.1.6 Level III personnel shall be certified on a discipline-by-discipline basis, as applicable. Disciplines include Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and Welding.
5.1.7 Level III personnel may implement any PQCI, PIP or FIR within the discipline without being certified specifically to that PQCI, PIP or FIR.
ga1082-4067a-14-167
Proc No B-3M-1 MIDLAND PROJECT
'3' 8 f I' C0!!S11riltf5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE 1 2 82 gg QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF INSFECTION AND TEST PERS0nT.L Qualification Questionaire, Attachment A, and submit it with a copy of his resume to the Discipline Supervisor or Level III. When a candidate is to be certified Level III, the questionaire and resume shall be submitted to the Manager, MPQAD.
5.3.2 The Discipline Supervisor, Level III peraon or Manager, MPQAD shall evaluate the completed Questionnaire and resume to determine if the candidate meets the minimum education and general axperience requirements contained below. The results of the evaluation shall be documented at the and of the Questionnaire and shall include any factors censidered in the evaluation.
5.4 Minimum Education and Experience Recuirements Effective as of the date of issue of this procedure, the minimum education and experience requirements for certification of newly hired candidates shall be as follows:
5.4.1 Level I 1.
Two years of related experience in equivalent inspection or test activities, or 2.
High school gr'aduation and six months of related experience in equivalent inspection or testing activities, or, 3.
Completion of college level work leading to an Associate Degree in a related discipline plus three months of related experience in equivalent inspection or testing activities.
5.4.2 Level II 1.
One year satisfactory performance as Level I in the corresponding inspection or test category or class, or 2.
High school graduation plus three years of related
' experience in equivalent inspection, or testing activities, or 3.
Completion of college level work leading to an Associate Degree in a related discipline plus one year related experience in equivalent inspection, or testing activities, or ga1082-4067a-14-167
l Proc No B-3M-1 MIDLAND PROJECT.
shn\\ '
QUALITY ASSURANCE g
DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE Date 10/25/82 Cgmpany QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF INSPECTION AND TEST PERSONNEL inspection and measuring equipment is current. that the measuring and test equipment is in proper condition for use, and that the inspection and test procedures are approved.
5.5.2 Level II.
A Level II person shall have all of the capabilities of a Level I person for the inspection or test category or class in question. Additionally, a Level II person shall have demonstrated capabilities in planning inspections and tests; in setting up tests including preparation and set-up of related equipment, as appropriate; in supervising or maintaining surveillance over the inspections and tests; in supervising and examining lower level personnel; in reporting inspection and testing results; and in evaluating the validity and acceptability of inspection and test results.
5.5.3 Level III ALevelIIIpersonshallhaveallYoftheespabilitiesofa Level II person for the inspection or test category or class in question. The individual shall also be capable of evaluating the adequacy of specific programs used to train and cast inspection and test personnel whose qualifications are covered by this procedure. In addition the individual shall be capable of rev: ewing and approving inspection and testing procedures and of evaluating the adequacy of activities to accomplish the inspection and test objectives.
5.6 Training Each candidate for Level I and II certification by MPQAD shall complete the training in both programmatic and technical requirements, as required by the training program. The training program shall be established and maintained by the Training Supervisor, who will obtain input from appropriate MPQAD sections, and be approved by the Manager, MPQAD and the appropriate Level III l
persons. Training of Level III persons shall be in accordance with Paragraph 5.2.
Records of training shall be maintained and shall contain the date of training, the duratien, the instructor, the l
topics covered, and the attendees.
l l
ga1082-4067a-14-167
2 Proc No B-3.M-1 MIDLAND PROJECT' Page 9 of 14 Consumers QUALITY ASSURANCE Retision 1 Ed Powtj DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE Company
- l
.a QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF INSPECTION AND EST PERSONNEL i
examination, candidates shall record their answers on separate answer sheets labelled with the code of the examination.
5.7.2.4 After administering the examination, all
- examinatica question and answer sheets shall be retrieved by the proctors (those who monitor the examinations) and returned to the Training Supervisor for grading.
5.7.2.5 The graded answer sheet, expected responses and
_ examination questions shall be returned to the appropriate Level III for evaluation. The Level III shall document his evaluation by signing the graded answer sheet.
In addition, for those candidates passing the examination, the Level III shall review any missed questions with the candidate to assure he understands the answers.
The Level III shall return the graded answer sheet, expected responses and examination questions to the Training-Supervisor. Grade'd answer sheets shall then be filed in the certification package.
5.7.3 Performance Demonstrations Each candidate for Level I or II certification shall demonstrate to the examiner his capability to inspect in accordance with the PQCI/ PIP and to prepare the inspection reports. The results of the performance demonstration shall be documented on ths Performance Demonstration Record (Attachment B).
5.7.4 Examination Requirements The programmatic examination shall consist of forty questiens as a mininum. The technical examination shall consist of a minimum of 80 percent of the technical l',
examination question pool.
The passing scores for the programmatic and technical examinations shall be 80 percent each.
Satisf actory accomplishment of the performance demonstrations shall be indicated by satisfactory completion of each identified check point.
qa1082-4067a-la-167
Proc No B-3M-1 MIDLAND PROJECT Page 11 of 14 CollSum8f5 QUALITY ASSURANCE fgg DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE o 25/62 A
QUALIFICATION AND CIRTIFICATION OF INSPECTION AND TIST PERSONNEL 5.8 Minimum Physical Recuirements Each candidate shall be physically capable of performing his j
assigned task. He shall be capable, with or without correction, of i
reading J-1 letters on a standard Jaeger test type chart at a
minimum of fifteen inches.
(Candidates whose annual eye examination has not expired as of the date of this procedure shall not be required to take a re-examination even though their existing eye examination may have been performed at a minimum of 12" instead of 15".
However, their next regularly scheduled annual eye examination shall be accomplished at a minimum of 15".)
Each candidate shall..with or without correction, have a minimum far distance vision of 20/40 by the Linear Snellen scale.
In addition.
each candidate shall be capable of distinguishing the difference between the primary colors on ten of the first eleven plates from an Ishihara Test Book. The vision examinations shall be performed by a professionally qualified individual. Candidates who fail to pass this color test may be given a. practical color examination to cover the specific inspection activities. _ Candidates who demonstrate to the Lavel III adequate color vision to perform the assigned inspectioa shall be considered as-having acceptable' color.-
vision. The Level III shall document the practical color examination results in a memorandum to the Training Supervisor and attach a copy of the memorandum to the candidates Vision Examination decord, Attachment C.
n --
Results of the examination shall be documented on the Vision Examination Record Form, Attachment C.
If corrective lenses are required to pass the examination, they shall be worn during performance of any inspection.
5.9 Certification The Training Supervisor shall gather the following forms and verify they are properly completed and signed prior to forwarding the forms to the applicable Level III person for review and final certification of the candidate:
Inspection / Test Personnel Qualifications Questionnaire, a.
Attachment A b.
Resume c.
Visual Examination Record, Attachment C i
d.
Results of the programmatic and PQCI/ PIP specific written examinations Performance Demonstration Record, Attachment B a.
)
qa1082-4067a-14-167 l
.~.
Proc No B-3M-1 gO,g MIDLAND PROJECT.
QUALITY ASSURANCE f*,8'I3
.sicn DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE Date 10/25/32 QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF INSPE:: TION AND TEST PERSONNEL 5.11 Revocation of Certification Certification shall be revoked or suspended by the original certifier or MPQAD management (Section Head or higher) at any t rie for the following reasons:
5.11.1 Termination of employment; 5.11.2 Failure to pass annual vision t'ests; 5.11.3 Gross or repetitive noncompliance with applicable requirements; 5.11.4 Lapse of performance of inspection-related tasks within a discipline for a period of one year or more; The reason (s) for the revocation shall be documented in a memorandum to the-Training Supervisor and actions shall be taken to prevent utilizatien of the person in the applicable inspection activities.
. ~.
5.12 Recertification In order to retain certification, Level I and II personnel shall be T
recertified by a Level III person every three years based on continuous, satisfactory performance. Racertification shall be documented by completion of the Annual Performance Evaluation Form, Attachment E by the Discipline Supervisor, and completion of a new Personnel Certification Form, Attachment D by a Level III person.
Level III personnel shall be racertified by the Manager, $PQAD every three years based on continuous satisf actory performance.
Recertification shall be documented by completion of the Annual Performance Evaluation Ferm, Attachment E, by the Discipline Supervisor and completion of a new Personnel Certification Form, Attachment D, by the Manager, MPQAD.
5.13 Records 5.13.1 The Training Supervisor shall establish and maintain a personnel file for each certified individual. This file shall contain as a minimum, the following:
~
a.
Inspection / Test Personnel Qualifications Questionnaire; b.
Resume; c.
All Vision Examination Record Forms, including past years; ga1082-4067a-14-167
ATTACHMENT A
<.. =
PAGE 1 or 2 f;. h, N Ce m ye f*. C.r.,..w wa.A. -.
r.-
.i -.
we ws iN /i%.t p
,. E.* E (f. 3 we****~*****
- M yf.).=s(g.--.m, m r- ~,_= w..(Q..s,,.- -g.. _- _ m.. _ N.M,.=..
v y..
=
s s i.
PA:I ; :? 2 1.
I.'.'E 191*TI! :.0. *:0 2.
E*.'OAi""3 3
a.
Iish Scheel Stad::a:e/Date b.
- r.aior CollesedeairseCate c.
7 dargradaate - UniversityCegroei' ate i
i t
a, 4.
Graduate
- .*mersity/tegree/:ste i
j I
3 O.*3IR CF.C&....A*.!
- ist as7 adiiticaal tertificati:as yh have s testi:g := "r::
pr:fessi nal =~.;etence in the field f e:41:eerir.s. stie::e :: 1;s'it tasarts:s issaet by a 21ste. ".ati:nal. :r Pr:tessi::s1 s:ciety. 73 ext =tiet 7 fessit s; i
Ihgi eer".:q registratica by 5: stet or A3*: tertifiestics ss t *ality I:g;:eer.
r,..
t I
70??A*, ::*!?I:" **:/.es. **, "?A
... List s=y :rarses, se=1 tra. : : ster !:r t; 4
traising you have :ospieted :n the sub.jects =f ins;e *1:n :: tes*1r.* 12:1?ities, i
and the.iate act isegt.t of suca trtir.1:4 sessicas act vorz:: ys.
W 4
8-E i
j
~re-
.#.,,r rv-
,-em_..
,,e.y--,w v. re-,,
,y,-.,v.,e_
,, 6 -,,,,.m
& - -,<m
,,-.,w w, -.,, -,.
ATTACHMENT B
^
rg==
PERF0?A%NCE DEMONST?.ATON l
..c= or
~,.
assa W =EIII I*A* 303 gr M T*.1 7e EMM WE'
&: a.7..W; :: ;.M&
N AWC+
M M3':S A~~'
1.
2.
l 3
I t.
J 5
6.
l T.
4 6.
l l
'~~
9.
I I
4 1
I 1,.
amm.
e 4
4 ear..s :r rni:s;w:: ::=:m==4
- n.u.un. - r. :: :s : r. ::::
be s
-.-.-----1 3.,,2 w,_
_.-..-...w
,..,,..y...~...,,..r.e-.e-.ws,-rw,..--,,,-,--r.----w..,,,%.%_%--,,,..-,,,,-4,-.,#.,
1 I
ATTAODENT C
]
1 1
m.,,.... g i n.,g I
. c -%
w eN
. c,a n::x
'V"IO"'L..
s.
.. n
(
= mere e s.e.e.
W..:y c:ww es.
-- =:ry 8.: d l
euautv aasv ca straa.ve,t l w.
a e
=e...
E 7.:.2 :.*..;6 4
.l NEAR : 3.A::I 7:!:C3'
- ' ** I'!I R.r.,..
T.A".?./C. :
+.c.sruzare.
2.
C.e n....
22 ea::_.I.-= n:.sm a-:*n n --".t a - ; = rm: :..
.ys :: a sm.a g:
sz ::a7: 4. _-: r :?.!
TAR D.
7 3..
.. ~..
._w.
en..
R.m.
v e..
.., ~
- c zz rus a ru.
2.
- e..,n_.. _
v..
+ a
.c= :: =m :a-m a :nn:= : :n 2 u-.: 2 :sr :=:at CC:.':R 7:!**.:'
7...r Cs.
.,e.
a..~..r., - -
C...,
3C7.'...
~
w..,..... _,s
.y a...
... ~. -
e a-:zr:. = e.- r.a. c:.. : -- n..
...a ::? t'== tr r- -':ar:
w: :s = :r := r:7n I:3.2 ta::.s n= As : cura =: :
a tr.- a:=:.
r :r...::w.
..:. :6..=. ui
... a. u.).
.:.s r :_-.....
2
.s s
A 4
a
---.,,.,n-.-
,e,,
..,.,-,,.,.,,,_.-,,,e
,,-.,a--
~
l,
W
- f.
4 ATTACHMENT D PAGE 1 OF 2
--,e..-
,.m Pc,,.fLg NN L cnii.- u.: N
..:s
,* W Tif em.e.m.en e,..u,:.a c..n C:=iisar..
agauty assumance :gpeefestof
==
.o..
T.J'.;.~.;..;..;;s
- sgg, EFFE:53 2:T.
ta=
st-=r r;; :=
7 pg 2
'B:2*:a:::*
225t=llr.;a :=
,As.5 T,..,.
I:"JOACO2 CC N-U I,
sn::r:e m.:A :nu:==
~
"3A.*.*. 0 JC3 72.? P.w.A::C I7A CAO:3 05!3 FACT 33
/
.= ~ A...
N
~... 3.,:.~~.T.;. ;3 *.C
,,...,.,.r
.T......,...,.,,
A
.....c~.......
.u...~-
f m
!*:':A".?I.;*.A"ACU. '7*A: t OA~It h
(
a w.---
,--1.,-,w.,.-
-,,.v,---v----,.,-w,w--3
--ww-wi.,--,,-p,,-.---+=,-,-.+w--,,.--,--c.----
.-e.w--,
W amcarn i
l I
NS?ECil0N/ TEST FERSONNEL
~
h"',ElLr ANNUAL FERF0PMANCE EVAUJAT.CN J6E,,,,,,
j
=
- A-119-3 i
23 ACCtatcABCZ w&M MPEAD Psuca:MtX 5-3M. 3I FIFICIDIA3CE OF TEI CD.":. a
- C 7IDUAL A>23 3Z*31 IAS RED ZYAI**A:ID. M FIF.03 007" " !! 23 IVA:**ATICI 3 TECM To
. LLA::ZJ.
GA2s f
e W
e W
L:.*A;E:
SA*3 FACT 3tf 3AZZl3 C3 3Z TC*; CIG:
FERT ItFA::: MC:CTll3:3G 1F3:05 22A'..ATICI e,
EFE :: TIC "I:H::A*/PGC:/?:?!) RITR23m "l?.A. -
- e*
C3ZR
< =o.=:
%*..A".U.T M
N eN
- e en e e
ee e
e S
--,w-,
~,. _,, -, -
,,,n..--ge,
.--------r--.-----,,re-.-cmw-,,n-~
n-
,,-,v,-w,--,,..
-e-em-,~~,uw---,-
w n-
7----
'77 lb v gggyg3 STATES e ','
>*.'8I&g $*g
- NUCLEAR RE!ULATCRY COMMISSION g
NEGION Ill f;
'S 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
'C
- ['
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 40137 k
DEC 0' 3 882'.
D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR MEMORANDUM FOR:
. R. F. Warnick, Acting Director, Of fice of Special Cases FROM:
RECOMMENDATION FOR NOTIFICATION OF LICENSING BOARD
SUBJECT:
Enclosed is a Preliminary Notification regarding the substantial reduction in the amount of safety-related work at the Midland site.
This' reduction is partially in response to NRC findings identified during an October-November,1982 inspection in the diesel generator building.
Region III has reviewed this information and perceives the issues identified in the enclosure to be material and relevant to the Midland OM/0L proceedings. We recommend that the Midland Licensing Board be notified.
If you have any questions or desire further information regarding this matter, please call me.
JPFQ)a n k R. F. Warnick, Acting Director Office of Special Cases
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enc 1:
A. B. Davis
+
W. D. Shafer
-R. N. Gardner
.R. B. Landsman R. J. Cook B. L. Burgess E. LJ Jordan, IE
,e<*
Dr,to: December 3 1982
?RELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE--PNO-III-82-131 This pr;ilaintry nstificctitn constitutto EARLY n:,tico cf cv:nts of POSSIBLE cofoty er public interest significcnca. Tho inferacticn is c3 initicily rsceived withtut vsri-Jitction or evaluation, and is basically all that is known by the staff on this date.
Licensee Emergency Classification:
-FC3111ty:
Consumers Power Company Notification of Unusual Event Midland Nuclear Power Station Alert Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-329 Site Area Emergency 50-330 General Emerg6ncy Midland, MI 48640 xx Not Applicable Subjcet:
MAJOR REDUCTION IN-SAFETY-RELATED WORK C nsumers Power Company notified Region III (Chicago) personnel December 2, 1982 that it was substantially reducing the amount of safety-related work at the Midland
-site.
The manual construction work force has been cut by 1,000, leaving a total of 4,000 Licensee and contractor personnel at the site.
R;gion III performed an inspection in October-November 1982 which identified significant quality assurance and equipment installation concerns in the diesel generator building.
Pcrtially in response to the NRC findings, the licensee is developing a new oroject completion plan to address these concerr.s and to improve the control of work activities.
This plan led to the reduction in work force. The licensee's plan includes reducing most safety-related construction work, recertifying all quality control personnel, and developing a program for a 100 per cent reinspection of all installed safety-related components and Ongoing inspection and maintenance activities, the remedial soils work, and structures.
nuclear steam supply system work being performed by Babcock and Wilcox are not affected by the work reduction. The licensee plans to develop engineering and construction teams, cach responsible for the completion of one or more safety-systems.
The licensee issued the attached news announcement on December 3,1982. Region III is r:sponding to news media inquiries.
The State of Michigan will be notified.
R:gion III personnel at the Midland site were notified of the licensee's actions during a This information is current aceting which began at 10:30 a.m. (EST), December 2, 1982.
as of 10 a.m. (EST) December 3,1982.
WS.
EYf; >f,,
1}7c
Contact:
W. Shafer R. Warnick A.B. Davis 384-384-2656 384-2599 384-2681 DISTRIBUTION:
H. St. //2.0/
MNBB /ov.~r Phillips/46G E/W ff [
Willste /r #9 Chairman Palladino EDO NRR IE NMSS OIA RES
Comm. Roberts ELD Air Rights /o/,e.
Comm. Asselstine SP INP0_..*./ge /
ADM:DMB NSAC /o.F DOT: Trans Only SECY ACRS Applicable Resident Site / 45'o CA PDR Regions I /of, II_/sES. IV /o Ar'. V /d4/
Licensee (Corporate Of fice) /pG-.
Ig@
k Rev. 11/19/87
O MIDIAND, December 3,1982 -- Consumets power Company has initiated The stems completion plan at the Midlan6 Nuclear Cogeneration Plant.
a new innovative approach will provide sore ef ficient control over the completion of work at the nuclear plant, according to Consumera Power Company Site Manager.
Donald B. Miller.
The Midland Plant is now 85 percent complete.
Ne have initiated this completion plan to develop a more detailed assess-ment of the work remaining to be done on the systems in the auxiliary building.
\\
The prograu diesel generator building and containment buildings," Miller said.
will be carried out by design and test engineers, quality assurance personnel and construction forces who will work as coordinated teams to implement the program."
Another major obje.ctive of the plan is to improve the project's performance Regulatory in meeting the regulations and expectations of the U $ Nuclear The program was outlined to the WitC at a meeting l
Commission, Miller added.
I l
Thursday.
Miller said implementation of the plan results in the reduction of the l
t manual construction workforce by 1,000, leaving approximately 4,000 peop e a The workforce had been gradually reduced in recent
' work on the Midland alte.
da months because of job completion in containment arass but the plan cause larger layoff.
Miller stated that additional specialized staff will be required to carry later.
out the program, and some of the construction force vill be recalled e
^
m__,,__
MW wcy,
,.s 2
i Miller also noted that work will continue on the nuclear steam supply systee,'the turbine building and miscellaneous systems.
% e first phase of the system completion program will be to remove a11 eoestruction material and temporary equipment from the buildings included in Each facility will then be cleaned, and the systes completion the program.
teams will carry out their reinspections on an area by area basis.
As each area is reinspected and the results analysed, the systese completion team will oversee the completion of any needed ressining work. The completed systems will then be turned over to consumers Power for checkout and startup testing.
Miller said that the systems completion program work will be done in parallel with underground foundation work. The Coyany has started part of the foundation work, but is avatting permission from the NRC to complete the underground work.
The foundation vill resolve the plant's soils compaction problem and add seismic protection to the plant to meet more stringent earthquake protection require-ments than were called for in the plant's i.11tial design. Because of the delay in completing the foundation work, the Company announced November 9 that it was re-evatusting the project completion dates and schedules.
O e
c
?
- r fr
- 3 f i
10/29/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
)
50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF R. J. COOK, R. B. LANDSMAN, R. N. CARDNER AND W. D. SHAFER WITH RESPECT TO QUALITY ASSURANCE Q.1 Please state your names and positions.
A.1 My name is Ronald J. Cook.
I am the Senior Resident Inspector for the NRC at the Midland Plant.
I attach a copy of ray professional qualifications.
My name is Ross B. Landsman.
I am an Inspector for the NRC (Region III) at the Midland Plant. My professional qualifications have previously been submitted in this proceeding.
My name is Ronald N. Gardner.
I am an Inspector for the NRC (RegionIII),assignedtotheMidlandPlant. My professional qualifications have been previously submitted in this proceeding.
My name is Wayne D. Shafer.
I am the Chief, Midland Section, Office of Special Cases for the NRC (Region III). A copy of rny professional qualifications is attached.
Q.2 Dr. Landsman and Mr. Gardner, has Regicn IM recently addressed the issue of the qualifications of Lechtel QC Inspectors at Midland?
(July 7,1982 Order, p. 4.)
d'Q h( @l(k3 CC k jM y W'E2 C
, m~s
,. y <
s i
(\\-
g e
t
+
0
[
t i
.q 4
, g~
s s
_ g '_
7
,s t
c, A.2c' Yes. There were several instances :in the past where the 1
A qualifications of Bechteh QC inspectors at Midland in the areas of mechanical and electrical work activities were questionable. Sea, for-T J gi-it,.
g s.
example, Inspec ion Reports 82-06'TAttachment 10, discussed at pages 5-6, infra) and 8 -07 (Attachment 1). As a result, Region III has urged CPC totake(controloftheQCfftivities,includingrequalifyingand
(
recertifying of-all Bechte1'QC inspectors to Cons 5mers Power Company's standards. CPC has agreed to do so..
Upon ' itnessing the' QC requalification oral exams for the soils w
3
-j :=
remedia1 { work, we determined that the_requalification effort was not
.._ - 7.7y x
acceptable ~. A Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) was issued on
~
/
!Ieptember 24,1982'(Attachmentla.),$
(~ApublicmeetingbetweenCPCandtheNRCwasheldonSeptember29, g
1982 to discuss the requalification and recertification of QC personnel g
involved in the remaining safety-related work at the Midland Plant.
~,
Duringthismeeting, thel.icenseecohittedtodevelopingaretraining 3.
program for QC personnei and.to use a combination of written and oral
\\
examinations for the QC requalification effort. At the time of this filing, CPC has not s'ubmitted its program.
k'N 6 g
g4 Wi k D6
! r. Landsman.and Mr. Gardner, what is your response to the questions Q;3 D
concerning the effects of structural movements during the under-pinning. process, posed by Judge Harbor at Trr 7122-7128? (July 7, 1982 0rder..p. 4.)
1
'A.3 Consumers Power Company's program for systematic detection of and
~, - x arresting of structure movement'is-described in Specification.
N 7220-C-200(Q), Revision 0 (Attachment 2). g N..
"a "N,
i 9
\\
h
The protective plan for arresting structure movement is implemented through procedures OP40, Monitoring, Reducing and Reporting (Attachment 3)andOP41,DataAcquisitionSystemInvestigation1 the
- Event of. Observed Large Movements (Attachment 4) which descr'ibe the methods for monitoring and assessing structure movement &nd load data.
The program and procedures have been reviewed by' Region III f
inspectors and n concerns were identified.-
gpgjt On August 23, 1982, we conducted an inspection e(82-18, pp. 3-4) kldi.tTIC N af (Attachment 5)ofinstalledunderpinninginstrumenta detemine th 04g capabilities of the computerized instrumentation system to monitor and rescond to simulated structural movements. We selected three instruments for testing.
For each of the selected instruments, baseline data were initially recorded. Then displacement shims were installed and the subsequent. computer printout examined to determine the system response to the simulated displacement.
An audible alam condition was noted after the 0.110 inch displacement shim was installed. The subsequent computer printout further identified the alann condition.
During each of the displacement simulations, the underpinning i
instrumentation system identified, within the allowable tolerances, the displacement simulated and, when required, the resulting alarm condition.
i l
The results of the tests performed on the selected instrumentation were acceptable. No!concernswereidentified, s
4 During the underpinning activities, the Bechtel Resident Structural Engineer will evaluate and trend the instrument data. The dec sion to proceedornottoproceedwiththeunderpinningactivities(SeeBoard J
.~,
.g
..(
h
' question at Tr. 7125) will be.made by Bechtel. Construction and must be consistent with the acceptance.criteIset forth on pp. 2-48 through
)
- - p./-
2-51 of SSER #2 Q.4 Dr. Landsman, describe the QA program for soils related activities (July 7, 1982 Order, p. 4.)
A.4 The Qua(ity Assurance Program for remedial soils activities is i
These procedures have been ['l described in'hPQP1'and MPQP2.(Attachment 6).
reviewed by the Staff and are addressed in Section 17 of the SSER #2.
)n 0 The Region III office will perform periodic inspections of the remedial soils work in progress. The major underpinning activities at pier 12, the first pier to be constructed, will be closely monitored by the Staff and additional critical underpinning activities will not be authorized until the Staff is assured that all quality elements have been met.
Q.5 Dr. Landsman, what is the Staff response to the various nonconformance reports referenced by the Board in its Orders of April 30,1982 and July 7, 1982?
A.5 The NRC Staff has reviewed NCR #M01-4-2-008 (Attachment 7A), NCR
- M-01-9-2-038(Attachment 7B),NCR#M-01-9-2-051(Attachment 7C),NCR
- 4245(Attachment 7D),NCR-4199(Attachment 7E). Region III has taken no action regarding these specific'nonconformance reports. The Staff recognizes that these reports represent instances where the quality assurance requirements were either not established or.not adequately x
implemented. However, the Staff feels that the Work Autho'rization Proi:edure (Attachment H to testimony of James Keppler) as well as N k
- 4L b
~
I l..
procedures implemented by Bechtel to contro1 excav6Eion on site should ensure that future work activities. in' the remedial soils area,will be p
accomplished in_accordsiice with the quality requirements.
~Q p' (
y',
g kl n.
a Q.6 Dr. Landsman, please discuss Staff Inspection Repo(82-0M /4
[
(Attachment 8).
(July 7,1982 Order, p. 4.)
A.6 This inspection report documents an inspection conducted in Febr a and March 1982, by me.
I identified one item of noncompliance and one deviation from a comitment as described below.
The item of noncompliance represented a s,ignificant weakness in the quality of the procedures being used for the remedial soils work. There were four examples of poor quality assurance ranging from " failure to review and approve" to inadequate procedure content. The s'ignificance of this violation was recognized by the assignment of a severity level IV classification.
The deviation addressed in Appendix B of the report identified a failure on the part of the licentee to comply with a comitment to provide additional qualified QA personnel. This commitment was made to me during a previous inspection (Inspection Report 81-12, pp. 16-17)
(Attachment 9).
It was m1 assessment that CPC's QA staff was not fully
~
adequate and was judged not to be comensurate with the complexity of the task.
)
Pagethreeoftheinspectionreport(82-05)detailsfurther comitments made by CPC regarding the previously described deviation.
(
This concern, however, is still under review and will be pursued in future inspections.
In addition, in the documented exit interview (p. 9
/
eA' w/ sune
ot'82-05).
I noted that it was clear that upper management was not playing an active role in conveying the principles of Quality Assurance to the working staff.
Q.7 Dr. Landsman and Mr. Gardner, please discuss Inspection Report 82-06 (Attachment 10).
(July 7,1982 Order, p. 4.)
A.7 This inspection report documents an inspection conducted in March r
1982 by us. The report contains two items of noncomplianc'a considered to 6
@{go-have a severity level IV significance.
The first noncompliance addresses CPC's failure to apply the Quality h
Assurance Program commitments to the installation of the underpinning i
instrumentation. This concern was identified on March 17 through 19,
.[v$
1982. We detennined that the installation work had been in'itiated on 0
'-)
March 11,1982, one day after CPC had been notified that all remaining underpinning activities were classified as "Q," therefore requiring the D
application of the Quality Assurance Program.
The second item of noncompliance addressed inadequate QC inspections in that fifty-five (55) class IE cables were inspected and accepted even though the cables were not correctly routed; and that class IE cables were inspected and accepted after nonconforming cable reel numbers were identified. These problems were identified during overinspections conducted oy CPC since May 1981.
The significance of these concerns are twofold. First, the installation of the cables was improper and second, the QC inspections, which are intended to identify improper installation, failed to do so.
The second concern reflects on the QC inspectors' ability to perform
inspections. To ensure that there are no other misrouted cables, CPC was directed by Region III to perform a 100% overinspection of.all safety related cables.
The concern about QC inspector qualifications is being addressed as described in the response to question 2 of this written test! mony.
Q.8 What is the Staff's response to the suggestion 1. the interim ACRS report of June 8,1982, that there be a broader asse.ssment of Midland's desi (July 7, 1982 Order, p. 5.) gn adequacy and construction quality.
A.8 Mr. Keppler addresses the third party independent assessment of Midland construction in his testimony.
Q.9 Dr. Landsman, what are the results of the Staff evalua' tion of drawing 7220-C-45 (July 7,1982 Order, p. 5.)
A.9 Staff requirements for this drawing were provided by the Staff on May.7, 1982, to Messrs. J. Mooney, J. Schaub and others of CPC. These were:
(1) The seismic Category I retaining wall to the east of the service water pump structure is shown to be located in the non-Q zone.
CPCo should review the drawing to provide for Q-listed control in the vicinity of this wall.
(2) The drawing should b: revised to provide.for Q control of soils activities for the emergency cooling water reservoir (ECWR), the concrete service water discharge lines, and the perimeter and baffle dikes
,;,pC(3104/'htc5
/g f,(r. %47 edjacent to the ECWR.
I (3) CPC should implement Q controls for two types of situations.
The first is that which is intended to occur outside the Q zone of
i
~
o 8-Drawing 7720-C-45, but actually occurs within that zone. The second is
-that which actually occurs.outside the Q zone of Drawing 7720-C-45 but nonetheless may impact safety related structures and systems. Examples include potential removal of fines by dewatering wells, improper location of borings near the Q boundary, and soil excavations at the boundary involving both Q and non-Q areas.
(4) CPCo should re-confirm that no seismic Category I underground utilities extend beyond the Q area bounds of the drawing.
CPC has submitted a revised Drawing 7720-C-45. With respect to (1) revisinc.the drawing to provide Q Controls for th3 perimeter and baffle dikes adjacent to the ECWR and (2) reconfirmation hy CPC that no seismic Category I underground utilities extend beyond the Q areas of the drawing, the Staff does not find the submittal acceptable. With respect to the other requirements for the drawing, mentioned above, the Staff finds the submittal acceptable.
n O
1 2
~.. -,
-e
-,,,v
....m
-,~,.e.
,.c
.-rr
-.. ---.-,_,_m..,,.-n-,-.,%c...
e w--,--wen,-w...-,,,--c w--.
.i RONALD J. COOK STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS l
My name is Ronald J. Cook.
I was born May 24, 1934 at Niles, Ohio.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission as the Senior Resident Inspector at the Midland Nuclear Plant.
I graduated from the Ohio State University in 1967 with a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering degree and again in 1974 with a Master of Science deoree.
I have worked with the AEC/NRC since April 1971 and have been the Senior Resident / Resident Inspector at the Midland site since July 1978 with responsibilities for planning, supervising and conducting NRC inspections of the construction activities at the site to determine whether the licensee is complying with the provisions of the construction permit.
Prior to inv61vement w'th the reactors under construction, I was a Regional Based
. Reactor Inspet, tor in the Nuclear Support Section for the Operating Reactors Cranch.
In this capacity, I primarily inspected operating reactors which had exNrienced mechanical, thermalhydraulic, vibration and corrosion events and assisted in the implementation of selected portions of the basic AEC/NRC inspection pagram.
Before joining the Nuclear Support Group, I was the Principal Inspector for the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor and the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station.
Pricr to joining the U.S. Atomic Energy Comission, I was the Operations Supervisor for the Ohio State Nuclear Reactor Laboratory and was responsible for the safe operation of this research facility.
In 1962-1963, I was a Licensed Reactor Operator and Instrumentation Machinist responsible for experiment equipment fabrication and installation and reactor operation at the NASA Plum Brook Research Reactor.
From 1958 to 1962, I was associated with the Navy Nuclear Program and was advanced to Chief Machinist's Mate and was a Qualified Chief riachinery Operator.
I was responsible for the implementation of safe construction, testing, maintenance and operation of the eight reactor complex of the U.S.S.
Enterprise CVA(N)-65 and the A1W dual reactor prototype plant for the U.S.S.
Enterprise.
I was an instructor and shift crew supervisor.
Prior to being assigned to the Navy huclear Program, I had been a First Class Machinist's Mate aboard the U.S.S. Irwin DD-794, a fossil fueled destroyer.
I was responsible for the safe operation and maintenance of the main propulsion steam plant.
Prior to joining the U.S. Navy, I was a Machir.ist Apprentice at the New York Central Railroad and performed maintenancs and overhaul on diesel and steam driven locomotives.
^
WAYNE D. SHAFER STATEMENT OF PROFESS,IONAL QUALIFICATIONS My name is Wayne D. Shafer. I was~ born October 11, 1937 at Chicago, Illinois.
I am employed by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the Chief, Midland Section, Office of Special Cases.
I graduated from Iowa State University in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering.
I worked for Argonne National Laboratory at the Experimental Boiling Water Reactor from 1959 to 1967.
I was a qualified Senior Operator and Assistant Shift Supervisor.
I worked for Ames Laboratory at the Ames Laberatory Research Reactor from 1967 to 1972. I was a qualified Chief Operator and Shift Supervisor.
I worked for Northern Indiana Public Service Company from 1972 to 1974.
I was an Engineer in the Nuclear Engineering Groun.
From October 1974 to March,1982, I was employed by the NRC/AEC as a Reactor Inspector and Inspection Specialist. As a Reactor' Inspector I was qualified to inspect Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) and Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs), and was a project inspector at four BWR facilities.
I was selected as an Inspection Specialist in November 1979. I have participated in five management appraisal inspections, one as a team leader. I served as the Acting Chief, Performance Appraisal Branch, from May 1980 to March 1982.
From March 1982 to July,1982, I served as the Chief, Management Program Section, Engineering Inspection Branch in Region III.
I received my present assignment in July,1982.
-c-ye.
.-....--.,-..p.,,
,,y
,,-..,,.,,-3.,,-y----