ML20094M352
Text
r-e
+*g a8kg UNITED STATES k_
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^g 9lEGioN ttt 5
g
. 799 ROOSEVELY ROAO SLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 60137 g
N
/
i
\\ December 29, 1983 x._
MINORANDUM FOR: DPRP Technical Staff DE Technical Staff OSC Technical Staff FROM:
James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
"IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" VS " SAFETY RELATED" Enclosed for your information and use is a letter from Mr. Denton distinguishing between the terms "important to safety" and " safety related."
No::e that a copy of this letter has been provided reactor utility owners.
Qahmv be
-~
James G. Kappler Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
As stated
-cc w/ enclosure:
A. B. Davis 6
e e
8408150626 840718 PDR FOIA RICE 84-96 PDR
,-----,,,w
-w.n.
-.,,,w
.,,-,,,,,-----,--w-.-,
,---m,,,n n-n-yn-.
---,n v,
n,,,e,m,-,>w.s--
y j
i
- T Q
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
~
I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20585 E
Q.
' P3tf1CIPAL STAFF DEC 191983 Q
g7P
- )RA E!.5 F D
R '. A
-- A0 SCS 3GA
~
AL _
T3JF File IJJA T. 5. Ellis, III, Esq.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Mr. Ellis:
The Executive Director for Operations has asked me to respond to your letter of August 26, 1983, in which you express concern, on behalf of the Utility Safety Classification Group, over the NRC use of the terms "important to safety" and " safety-related." Your concern appears to be principally derived from recent licensing cases in which the meaning of these terms in regard to NRC qualij;y assurance requirements has been r.
at issue, and my memorandum to NRR personyl ofdov8Dher 20,1981 I agree that the use of these terms in a variety of contexts over the 4
past several years has not been consistent.
In recognition of this problem I attempted in my 1981 memorandum to NRR personnel to set forth definitions of these terms for use in all future regulatory documents
- and staff testimony before the adjudicatory boards. As you are aware, the position taken in that memorandum was that "important to safety" and
" safety-related" are not synonymous terms as used in Comission regulaticns applicable to nuclear power reactors. The former encompasses the broad scope of equipment covered by Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, the General Design Criteria, while the latter refers to a narrower subset of this class of equipment defined in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 Section VI(a)(1) and, more recently, in 10 CFR 50.49(b)(1). Based on such a distinction between these terms, it generally has been staff practice to apply the quality assurance requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 only to the narrower class of " safety-related" equipment, absent a specific regulation directing otherwise.
More importantly, however, this does not mean that there are no existing NRC requirements for quality standards or quality assurance programs for
'. the broader class of nuclear power plant equipment which does not meet the definition of " safety-related." General Design Criterion 1_ requires quality standards and a quality assurance program for all structures, sys'tems and components "important to safety." These requirements, like those of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, are " graded" in that GDC-1 mandates the application of quality standards and programs " commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be performed," and expressly allows the use of " generally recognized codes and standards" where applicable 7
@ r DEC 271985
-. ~.
4 T. S. Ellis -
and sufficient.
Documentation and record keeping requirements for such equipment are likewise graded.. Pursuant to our regulations, permittees or licensees are responsible for developing and implementing quality assurance programs for plant design and construction or for plant operation which meet the more general requirements of GDC-1 for plant equipment "important to safety," and the more prescriptive requirements of Appendix B for " safety-related". plant equipment.
This distinction between the tems "important to safety" and " safety-i related" has.been accepted in two recent adjudicatory decisions where l
the issue was squarely faced.
In the Matter of Metropolitan Edison Company,' et. al.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1),
Lighting Company (Tere (May ALAB-729, NRC 26, 1983):
In the' Matter of Long Island ham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-57, NRC (September 21, 1983). Moreover, the Commission itself recognized and endorsed a distinction between the terms in promulgating the Seismic and Geologic Sitin VI(a)(1) and VI(a)g Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants (see Section 1
(2) of Appendix 4 te -10 CFR P. art 100) and the Environmental Qualification Rule (see Supiileme$turpinformation and 10 CFR 50.49(b)). Also, in preparing this response, members of the licensing staff and legal staff reviewed all of the material on this subject provided by your letter, and have also reviewed numerous other regulatory documents, including both staff and Commission issuances over the past several years in which the terms " safety-related" and "important to safety" are used. While it is apparent that some confusion continues to exist with regard to the distinction between the terms, the staff is convinced that the position it has previously taken remains correct..
l The final point which I considered in responding to your letter is the consistency of NRC staff practice over 'the years with our position on this issue, and the technical basis for that practice. While previous staff licensing reviews were not specifically directed towards determining whether in fact pemittees or licensees have implemented quality assurance programs which adequately address all structures, systems, and components important to safety, this was not because of any concern over lack of regulatory requirements for this class of equipment. Rather, our practice was based upon the st.aff view that normal industry practice is generally acceptable for most equipment not covered by Appendix B within this class.
Nevertheless, in specific situations in the past where we have found that quality assurance requirements beyond normal industry practice were needed for equipment "important to safety," we have not hestitated in imposing additional requirements commensurate with the importance to safety of the equipment involved. We intend to continue that practice.
1
- f e
i
-m-e
.w.,
.----.,,...__m.,.
,r,m,__,,-w,w...,%
,mcy,w,- -,-,ww.,,w,m
,w.g.y..,-
w
,..ww,,-w,y,,mm_.-,
T. S. Ellis.
We note that in a more recent letter on this subject (comments dated October 27, 1983 on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Backfitting Requirements) you have stated that... " industry as a whole has generally applied design and quality standards to non-safety related structures, systems and components in a manner comensurate with the functions of such items in the overall safety and operation of the plant." The principal difference, then, between the NRC Staff position discussed above and that expressed in your letters appears to be your view that such actions by the industry are purely voluntary, with no regulatory underpinning; whereas, we have been and remain convinced that such actions are required by General Design Criterion 1.
I want to make it very clear that NRC regulatory jurisdiction involving a safety matter is not controlled by the use of the terms such as
" safety related" or "important to safety."
A' copy of your letters and this r,esponse are being sent to all pemittees and licensees for information..
SincereT.5 km y,
Wed WA2
': a.nste Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION Central Files MGarver (EDO 134%)
E0 Case MBridgars_.
HRDenton POR WJDircks LPDR JRoe
'I'TRehm VStello t
.i RDeYoung RMinogue j0
'~
F JD' avis I
/
GCunningham Q
kkU p
W PPAS TSpeis Q
F V
Cmyl RMattson RVollmer Vr HThompson MODIFIED TO INCORPORATE COMMENTS FROM THE EDO NGrace ntnyan /
......R....{,.j.........
......N R NR o nce>
... i EGCase:kb HP.De on SURNAh4Ch
..12./.i.)../.a 3....22L(Q.Ls2,,,,
e.n >
t f
% Consumers
'l POW 8f PRINQlPAL STAFF e
V 1A hvDPRP 7
OOEh0Nf
,J/RA DE
% /R A ORMSP-J unaspe e
ess uwiend, un 4ss40. (st7) esteep O
C
- 13 SGA ML
^
Dece er ;22,198.3.
' (NF 3
l File y,,/
x
\\ '
~
Mr S' R-Saranov Stone & Webster Michigan, Inc' P O Box 1963 Midland, MI' 48.'640
.._.n.
MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER GV3 7020 HANGER REINSPECTION File:
Bl.1.7, 0655 UFI:
99*08, 53*S0*04 seris1: CSC-7115 Attached are copies of memos written by J Christy, MPQAD on November 21, 1983 and December 6, 1983. These'should clarify the meeting note in Report No 23 regarding reinspection of 500 large bore hangers. Please advise us if more information is needed to resolve this issue.
(-
DLQ/DDJ/ kip cc: JGKeppler, NRC' w!a
,JJHarrison, NRC v/a
'RJCook, NRC 'v/ t.
s
' <U,We lla, MPQAD 'w/a v/a
'BHPecr., E C ^
NI{.eJ.chel,MEC v/a s
- (.,X
\\-
s
's 4
y, s
1-
,s
\\
g N
s
+
~
>\\
' \\ *,
.s 4
N
'N
, \\
- s
~
f To RAWells b
/
L f
JTChristy d Consumers reo og November 21, 1983 power 00NIN e ec P - MIDLAND' ENERGY' CENTER PROJECT
- > PROJECT CONCERNS RELATIVE TO DESIGN CON. TROL -
~
REDLINE REINSPECTION IMPACT ON THE HANGER'
'anam C'***"**"
REINSPECTION PROGRAM QC-JTC-83-62 3C.
. MEP. lumb
. HPLeonard WJFriedrich.
~~
'~'
The following data is submitted to support the required decision on the action plan for the subject. Project Concern:
1) 1768 hangers have Deen reinspected using the P-2.30 PQCI.
- 2) Based o.n. a_ 'suryey of.the. closed P-2.30s, between 69 and 73 percent were inspected using redlines (LA,'SH or FRL drawings). This is a population of approximatel'y '1250 reirispections.
- 3) Of the 1250 re' inspections in 2), approximately 450 wil1 have to be reinspected due to problems with disapproved, illegible or 4
" approved 'with comment" redlines.
~
- 4) Approximately 50% of all reinspections will' require another inspe: tion due to the decisi.on to remove paint _and. rust from welds.
- 5) All large bore hangers will require reinspection for the location criterion.
The data in 1-5 above can lead to the fol' lowing conclusion concerning reinspection af,ter redline incorporation:
i Completed P-2.30s P-2.30s using unacceptable.
P-2.30s which used redlir,es which probably redlines which must be using redlines (2) minus. reperformed (3) minus require weld reinspection-(50% of (2) )
1250 450 62,j, P-2.30s which used Number of hancers which will have to be redlines wnich are reinspected as a result of the subject mins part of population (3) proposed action plan.
(50% of (3) )
400 225 J
~~~~
This does not account for possible decisions related to NDE issues or IE Bulletin 79-14 issues.
l If you nave any questions concerning inis data please see me.
- JTC:mit e
e wr y
---,-,--w-.,-w
--v--n-=,=,--w,
--*- e
,rw,----w-,,--,
w,--
~,--*y
- - -,w gm---
-.---w.
-r---.v=--
-wm--+-
+
w-
- -. - - *- **- - =
. e
-e JChristy 73 MEP/
,J,,,
Consumers December 6, 1983 py)y(g[.
33,,
Onipany
. MIDEAi!D ENERGY CENTER PROJECT -
kesect HANGER REINSPECTION PROGRAM stc %* 6 CONSOLIDATED APPROACH TO RESTART
- = cse=%:c=cc MEP-83-52 cc '
CPiulsen MMcClain LMouring SWilliams CAnderson WJFriedrich FSchulmeister The.following reccamended actions deal with the restart of the Hanger Reinspection These actions were discussed and agreed upon by the MPQAD personnel Program.
flisted below.
M Plumb F Schulmeister C Paulsen M McClain -(NDE only)
L'Meuring 5 Maycheck'(NDE only)
C Anderson
.f*
for all inspections completed after the lifting of stop work ceder Redlines A:
- FSW-34,,only drawing / ISO's for which all redlines have been inccrporated'will be used.
All P $.30's *which were completed using redline drawings will be B:
reinspected for orientation and configuration using a drawing / ISO with incorporations completed.
Paint / Rust: Welds' are. being inspected with all paint and heavy rust removed.
Any weld.: inspected previously through paint or rust will be inspected again after cleaning.
\\
Due to stress calculati.on requirements for large' tore hangers, Location:
locations for all large bore hangers will be inspected to the H-ISC location.
Drawing
-ISO for pipe Conflicts A; There has been a conflict between L,~.. o 3 co.me< rtaration. The known cases have been ccr eected.
Any future
.ill be decumented on an NCR for indeterminate locatien casts and class break.
E: The ATMS will be ecmpletely updated by * '9 /B3 per Docu=ent Centrol. When FSV-34 is lifted the ATMS 11 be the controlling document to determine drawing revisier. status.
)
~~
.m
.m 2
\\
~
1 All ha'ngers with open C 1.52.'s will have to be closed. QA will
{
rewrite the'PQCI and training will be provided to certify f
[..
C-1.52's:
inspectors.
IIE Bulletin 79-14:
A dopy of the hanger sketch will be marked up as an as-built
.44 drawing during the P-2.30 re-inspection. This drawing will be retained by MPQAD-QC...This will centinue until a com=itment
.to 79-14 is made by MPQAD.
QARs/NCRs Against M-326 &
2 Because c'f 'he undispositioned QAR's and NCR's against these t
C-304:
specification's, PQCI P-2 30 will be revised to meet the
. mix)imum requ remen s of.the TSAR,and codes referenced in the i
t TSAR.
Note:
A) Undercut requirements under the new revision to P-2.3'o are seing to be revised. ~ B) skewed fillet weld criteria
~
is going'to be rsvised.
locommendations:
Request a freeze of P-2.30 inspection criteria until.the HR?
program has reached a stabilized level.
At that time changes would be discussed and added with concurrance of the assistant superintendent..
During the restart and fer the completion of the HRP, and to Summary:
facilitate the above actions, all hangers within the program will
(.
have a Rev. 5 IR.for P-2 30 opened. This could be only for a statement that' hone of the criteria changes affects this. hanger to a detailed inspection.. The scope of the IR would be'the governing factor for the amount of reinspection to the later Items needing reinspection will be determined by the AQAES rev.
for inspection ~atributes and the Assistant PFQCE for the
' ndividual hangers.
i j jf.6 D 9
Ge 9
e E
e I
e
(
O
~
["*%
UNITED STATES 3,..l%!) ;$
NUCLEAR REGULATOJV CO9 MISSION F pJtt IF wasHmcTos. o. c. 20sss yi
..j jf, gA becember. 20,1983 gg
(**g A
j 3-w Docket Nos: 50-329 hq M'
and 50-330 N
y x p--
Mr.'J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. ' Cook:
Subject:
' NRC 1983 Schedule for Midland Your-letter of October 28, 1983, reconenends deferring further Case Load Fore-cast Panel (CFP) meetings for Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 pending completion of your new Unit 2 schedule shortly after the first of the year. You note that Dow's termination and delays in approval of the CCP have invalidated the plan set forth and reviewed with the CFP in April 19-21, 1983. You provide no estimate when your decision for Unit 1 will be available.
Based upon the information and observations as of April I9-21,1983, the staff concluded that some months beyond the second quarter of 1986 was the earliest date that completion of Unit 2 could reasonably be expected, and that Unit I was expected to be completed about 6 to 9 months -thereafter. The staff's 1983~
projection assumed approval of.the Construction Completion Plan in May 1983.
The actual approval occurred on October 6, 1983. Subseouently, several stop work orders were issued by CPCo which are currently impacting all safety-related construction.
In a November 9,1983, press release, CPC 'a'iinounced preliminary indications that commercial operation of Unit 2 may be delayed until mid-1986, rather than i
February.1985, based upon the study to be completed by the end of 1983.
N Accordingly, fo'F out planning purposes, we intend to use September 1986 as cur planning date for completing the licensing review process for Unit 2.
We will reevaluate 'our projection in 1984.
Sincerely, Q
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensino Division of Licensing cc: See next page DEC23 gg3 c
t/
c -
-.--..---,-.--.---..-,---.-,-l
MIDLAND
^
Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President
~
Consumers Power Company 1945. West Parnall Road Jackson.. Michigan 49201 up cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Division of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Department of Public Health Isham, Lincoln & Beale P.O. Box 33035
. Three First National Plaza.
Lansing, Michigan 48909 Sist floor -
- Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue James E. Brunner, Esq.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Consuners - Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Michigan 48640 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48647 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Stewart H. ' Freeman Freeland, Michigan 48623 Assistant Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental K'. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Protection Division Consumers Power Company 720 Law Building 212 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 Jackson, Michigan 49201 l
Mr. Wendell Marshall
- Mr. Walt Apley Route 10 clo Mr. Max Clausen Midland, Michigan 48640 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PNWL)
Battelle Blvd.
Mr. R. B. Borsum SIGMA IV Building Nuclear Power Generation Division Richland, Washington 99352 Babcock & Wilcox 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 Mr. I. Charak, Manager Bethesda, Maryland 20814 NRC Assistance Project i
Argonne National Laboratory Cherry & Flynn 9700 South Cass Avenue Suite 3700 Argonne, Illinois 60439 Three First National Plaza
~
Chicago, Illinois 60
, _.602 James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
_ _ __.._ _ _ __ _ _.._.._ - _...~._._-_.. _ _. _.,_. _ _.____...-_. _ -.-._.. _
., < ~ ~ ~
Mr. J. W. Cook 2-cc: Mr. Ron Callen
~
Michigan Public Service Commission 6545_ Mercantile Way P.O.. Sox 30221 1
Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Paul Rau Midland Daily News 124 Mcdonald Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Billie Pirner Garde D. rector, Citizens Clinic
.for Accountable Government Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009 Mr. Howard Levin,' Project Manager TERA Corporation
- 7101 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Ms. Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project 1901 Q Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009 e
0
,--,---,m-
,,r-e-r-..,
we...
w..,an,,,...,. _...
n..;
aw-
,-wen,--
---,.v.~,.,,--~,,
~vp.
w
,~
,s
~<
UNITED STATES
'^'*'f***'
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r PRINCIPFL cn cF _1
\\;,,,j. j wasmorow. o. c.rosas
( p,/
~
. y ) j,Fl c,
j/RAl' A/R/4
%gg
' h ks 91 -
j December 15, 1983 hI ejrtd
$DA
^
i ENF i
g.
~
/
m ChaTries Bechhoefer Esq.
Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Administrative Judge
- 6152 N. Verde Trail Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL and 50-330 OM & OL'
Dear Administrative Judges:
Enclosed are the following:
(1) Confinnatory Order for Modification of Construction Permits (Effective Immediately), dated October 6,1983.
(2) Director's Decision, dated' October 6,1983, granting in part and denying in part a request for action filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
I 2.206, by Fillie Pirner Garde on behalf of the Lone Tree Counsel and others.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.206(c), the Director's Decision is pending before the Commission for its possible review.
Sincerely, N
\\NQ sk n Michael N. Wilcove Counsel for NRC Staff cc: See page 2 x*
i--
hw
- ,sc-e-T
- rmy-tr--s--4
+---e--t--~-
grg>-*w-Nyi,ww^v 1,-w--t--9--g-r--#+=
s-
-*-wwwww9g ip-e--Wew,*-+-eeW*ww-*-y99eme-WR'"7--*
& N 9"7"*82*TD""#1F-'*1"F T
T"
..g
-=
2-
~
. =,
cc:- Frank J. Kelley -
Steward H. Freeman Ms. Mary Sinclair Michael I. Miller, Esq.. [~ '
Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Alan S. Farnell, Esq. -
2 James E. Brunner, Esq.
Ms. Barbara Stamiris
[iamesR.Kates J
Wendell H. Marshall Wayne Hearn Paul C. Rau Myron M. Cherry Pett.r Flynn T. J. Creswell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Steve J. Gadler Atomic Safety and Licensing Frederick C. Williams Appeal Board Panel Lynne Bernabei Samuel A. Haubold, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section Howard A. Levin J
e
~
4 l
l l
/p * -.. %j
~
UNITED STATES j, ]
g NUCLEAR REGULAi'ORY COMMISSION
. g g., g } l
~
OCTOBER $ 2 13 *
- ~ ~ '
wasmwenu. o. c.nsss
%*n-c 4
{
4
(:-
Docket No. 50-329
~
~J.
50-330
- 5....-
Mr.'3ames W. Cook ~
~
1 Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Cook:
Enclose,d please find a Confirmatory Order for Modification of Construction Fermits (Effective Immediately) for the Midland Plant issued this day.
In accordance Lith 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice,"
Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely, W
. _. ~.
Richard C.
e oung, rector Office of In pectio and Enforcement i
Enclosure:
Confirmatory Order
~
f cc:
Michael Miller, Esq.
i Billie Pirner Garde, GovernmentAccountability_Pr.ojec.t...
l 6-n
../
(,.
p.,,
_._.,,-w.
,m,_-..
-w
,-..,, - - - - -.- + -
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM!15510N l'n the Matter 'of
..- r
'~:'
Docket No. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
-50v330 (Midland Plant Units I and 2)
EA-83-109 CONFIRMATORY ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF p
CON 5TRUCTION PERMITS (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY)
Consumers Power Company (the " licensee") is the holder of constructio.n permits CPPR-81 and CPPP-82 issued by the Atomic Energy Comission (now
'the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, hereafter "Comission"), which authorize the construction of the Midland. Plant, Units I and 2 (the
" facility"). The facility is under sonstruc*ien in Midland, Michigan.
II Since the start of construction, the facility has experienced significant
- ~
quality assurance ("QA") problems.' Altho:igh' the licensee tooR horrecti' e v
actions in ea:h case, problems continue ~d'to Be'h perien~ced in b e implementation of its QA program.
An NRC Region III inspection, comenced in Octcber 1962 and-completed in -
January 1983, identified signifirint problems,dth the QA-inspectierr
-~
process and with the conformance to design documents of installed compiinentsintheDieselGeneratorBuilding("DGB"). These findings were identified to the licensee in an exit meeting following the inspection
-in November 482. The licensee subsequently made similar findings in other areas of the facility.
In view of 1) the widespread nature of the problems identified, 2) the history of QA problems at the facility,
- 2,.-
and 3) the ineffectiveness of past corrective actions to resolve these j
problems, the NRC staff requested the licensee to develop a comprehensive program to verify the adequacy of previous construction and to assure the adequacy of future construction.
On December 2,1982, the lic'edkee direct'ed that the ma.jority of safety related work at the site be halted add presented to the staff the outlines of a Construction Completion Program ("CCP"). By letter dated December 30,1982, the NRC confirmed the licensee's stopping work and other commitments undertaken by the licensee.
In accordance with.those commitments, the CCP was formally submitted to the staff on [anuary 10, 1983.
Tne CCP is a progran to provide guidance in t.he planning 'and management of the construction and QA activities necessary for completion of the facility in accordance with Commission regulations.
The CCP has ur.dergone revisions in response to questions and coments raised by the staff and by members of the public and was submitted in final form on
~'
u.
Augurt 26, 19,83.
~
Part. of the CCP is a Construction Implementation Overview ("CIO") to be l
ccnducted by an independent third party. The CIO effort is described in the C~P and documents provided to NRC on April 6 and 11. May 19, August 30 and
- a.. -.
September 9,19E3.
~
l P
e p.
i o
y,
--,.7,
-p-
,,-y 4-em.-
y
- 3..-
The CIO was necessitated by the NRC staff's loss of confidence in the,,licen.
'.S see alone to implement an effective QA program. In response to this concern, the licensee has comitted to keep the CIO in effect until the licensee has demonstrated to the NRC staff that a third party overview is.dof konger necessary to provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be constructed in
- v codipliance with the Comission',s, QA criteria (10 CFR Part 50, AppendixB). The licensee has proposed and the staff has. approved, by latter dated ' September 29, 1983 Stone and Webster Eng4neering Corporation to perfom
.the CIO.
III
~
The NRC staff has conducted a review of the CCP and has concluded that it constitutes a pregram which provides reasonable assurance that the facility can be satisfactorily comp 12ted in accordance with Comission requirements.
I have concluded that the activities halted by the licensee 4 -.
on December 2,1982, may resume provided they are conducted in accordance with the CCP.
I, therefore, find that the public health, safety and interest requires that any continuation of construction be in accordance with the CCP and that the CCP be confirmed Ly order made immediately effective.
~
...~.. _.:.
r...
IV Ac.cordingly, pursuant to Sections 103 and 1611 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR Fr ts 2 and 50, ar Construction Pemits CPPR-81 and CPPR-82 are hereby modified to include the following provisions:
w.
l e
,.,,,w-
-,,.-.----.---,.G.--------.,----
n-n
-w~
, --- -.,.-, n_,, - - -,
..w,
3.
~4~
The licensee shall adhere to the Construction Completion a.
[
Program, dated August 26, 1983, for the duration of i
3.. _
i
- construction of the facility.
}.,.
w
/hb.
The licensee shall maintain in effect the Construction' Implementation Overvi,ew provision of the Construction Completion Program with the Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation as the third party overviewer until the Regionai
~
Administrator, NRC Region III., finds in writing that the third party overview is no longer necessary to provide reasonable assuran'ce that the facility can, be constructed in compliance with'10 CFR Part 50.
c.
The licensee may make changes to the Construction Completion Program provided such changes (1) do not decrease its effectiveness, (2) are submitted to the Regional Administrator s
with appropriate justification, and (3) are approved in uriting by the Regional Administrator prior to their implementation.
V
- r.. -.
- -.... ~.
The. license may request a hearing on this Order within 25 days of the date of this Order. Any request for hearing shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
,-,---__,-.,_,..,_,..--.-----.,-------n,-
,.,,,-.,e
-,w-
-.__,_--n,..n-,,----
-.m
x
- 5. -
Comission, Wa,shington, D.C. 20555.
A copy of the request shall also,.b,e,
sent to the Executive Legal Director at the same address and to the c
Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn,
-t, Illinois 60137. A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE I MEDIATE EFFECTIY5 NESS OF SECTION IV 0F THIS ORDER.
If a hearing is to be held concerning this Droer, the Comission will issue an order designating the time and place o' hearing.
If a hearihg
,is held, the, issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
~
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a! 67-
/
Richard C.
e)oung, rector r)ffice of ypection an.d Enforcement p
Dated gday of October,1983 Bethesda, Maryland,
- ' ~
~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' '
this 6 4
.t
. gen p
e
(
C' Occiet Hos. 50-329 007csta g
);33 50-330 (10 CFR 2.206)
K'
!!s. Billie Pirner Garde Goverr-int Accountability Project f
^
Institute for Policy Studies 1091 Q n Stre'et, N.W.
Washington,.D.C.
20009
Dear Ms. Garde:
This is in response to your letter of June 13, 1983 on behalf of the Lone Tree Council and others, requesting that the Comission take a number of actions sith respect to the Midland Plant.
Your letter was treated as a re'cuest.for action under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regulations.
For the reasons set forth in the enclosed " Director's Decisien" under 10 FF. 2.206, your request has been granted in part and cenied in part.
A ::py cf the decision will be referred to tha Secretary for the Co:: mission's review in accordance with 70'CFR 2.~206.
For your information, I have also enciosed a copy of the notice filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely,
'0'f.st i1 sin E. C pef:u::g. eny" Richard C. C= Young, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
as stated cc v/ encl.:
Cor.su ers Power Cocpany Michael Miller, Esq.
e9 9
\\
m.
??
3
\\~-
DD.s3. n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~C'
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CD."?.ISSION ' -
- ~
OEFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Richard C. DeYoung. Director In the Matter of
.A CONSLF_.ERS. POWER. COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 50-330 (Midland Nuclear Power Plant.
g, Units 1 and 2)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION Utl DER 10 CFR 2.206
- r.t ciuction
= *
- By letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) dated June 13, 1983, ii' lie Firner Garde of the Government Acccuntal:ility Freject, en behalf of the Lone Tree Council and others (hereinafter referred to as the etitioners), requested that, a=n; cther relief, the NRC take im.adiate action with regard to the Midland project... The letter wa.s. re fer.re.d to the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement for treatment as a request fer action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 cf the Cc=.issien's regulations.
C*r, July 22, 1983, Edward L. Jordan, Acting Director of the Office of Inspec-tion and Enforcement, acknowledged receipt of the petition and informed the petitioners that their request for imediate action was denied.
Mr. Jordan noted that safety-related work at the Midland site had been stopped, with the exception of certain specified activities, and that the NF.C staff was closely m
j.
k V
(
n following the current activities at the Midland site. Mr. Jordan furthe,r,,
noted that Consumers Power Company had agreed not to proceed with implement-ation of a construction completion program until such a prtgram ita[been reviewed by the NRC. The staff expected to be able to complete its evaluation of thscreque'st before final action was taken on that program. Consequently, Mr. Jordan concluded that " continuation of currently authorized activities at Midland should not affect the staff's ability to grant the requested relief."
Letter from Edward 1.. Jordan, Acting Director, Offii:e of Inspection and' Enforcement to Billie Pirner Garde (July 22, ISE3). The staff has now co.sleted its evaluation of the petition, and fer the reasons stated herein,.
.he.recuest is gran'tec in part and denied in part.
Issues Raised Petitioners requested that the following six actions be taken by the Co r.ission:
Modify the Construction Pemit (Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) to include mandatory "ho'id points" on th~e balante-of-plent-(BOP) work and incorporate the current Atomic Safety and Licensing' Board (ASLB or Board) ordered " hold points" on the soils remedial work into the Midland Construction perr.it (sic).
Psequire a management audit of Consumers Power Cc:pany (CFCo) by ar, independent, competent management audd.t4ng fim.that-w?.11 determina the causes of the management failures that have resulted in the soils settlement-disester-end-the recently-4?icovered-Qu+14ty Assurance b rea kdown.
Reject 'the Construction Completion Plan (CCP) as currently proposed, including a rejection of Stone and k'ebster to ccnduct the third party audit of the plant.
Instead a truly independent, cc petent, anc credible third party auditor should be selected with public participation in the process.
M P
'W 2
6 y
, ~
p,
-ge
,.y..
..,m..
.,_.-,.,...-y_i,y.-e--.__,9.-
c Remove, the Quality Assurance / Quality Control. function from the.,,.
Midland Project Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD) and*repiace them with an independent team of QA/QC personnel that reports simultaneously to the NRC and CPC6 management.
~ ' " - - -
Increase the assignment of NRC personnel to include addi$1onal technical and inspection personnel as requested by the Midland Section of the Office of Special Cases.
3 I
Re' quire a detailed review of the soils settlement resolution as outlined in the. Supplemental Safety Evaluation.Repert, incorporating' a technical analysis of the implementation of the underpinning project at the current stage of completion.
Petition at 2.
The fifth issue relates to a matter of internal Comission organization and staffing, namely the allocation of staff to inspection of facilities. -The staff is expecting to augment inspection personnel available
- c <.cri en Midland. However, the creation of pcsitions tithin the Office cf
~.
Special Cases is a matter that will be detemined by the Comission budget For these reasons, the staff is not considering this' aspect of the cr cess.
request in this decision.
Backorcund The Consumers Power Company (CPCo or licensee) holds Construction Pernits
~~
fio. CPPR-51 (Unit 1) and No. CPPR-82 (Unit 2),-issued-ty ite -Atomic-Energy Comissicn in 1972, which authorized constructtor. tf the tidinh-flant.
~ '
The Midland nucles' 71 ant is T6ca'ted in Midlanc7Yichigzn, ca.
consists
~
r of two pressurized water reactors of Babcock and Wilcox design and related facilities for use in the comercial generation of electric power.
Since the sten of construction, Midland has experienced significant construction problems attributable to deficiencies in implementation of t
i 3
l..
-m.
._.,,.-..m.-.
-. ~.[.
(
('
e.
its quality assurance (QA) program. M Following the identification cf these. problems, the licensee took. action to identify the cause an'd correct each problem. Steps were also taken to upgrade the Midland QA program.
t Nevertheless, the licensee continued to ~ xperience problems in the e
P ic:pls5entati'on of its quality assurance program.
In 1980, the licensee reorganized ts QA departrnent so as to increase the' involvement of hish level CPto management in onsite'QA activities. Among its other tasks, the reorganized QA department, called the Midland Project Quality ' Assurance Department (MPQAD), was given the resp'ensibility for quality -
ccr.trci (CC)'of hea' ting, ventilation and air ccnditioning (HVAC) work in
- ha'ce cf the HVAC' co'nbractor, Zack Company.'
In l'ay 19El, the IEC conducted a special, in-de th team inspec-ion of Ine t'.idland site to examine the status of implementation and effec-iveness cf the QA program.
Based on this inspection, Region III concluded that the newly
.- e :.
..- 1_/
Significant construction problems identified to date include:
1973 - cadweld splicing' deficiencies 197.5 - rebar omissions 1577 - hulge in the Unit 2 Contain ar.t !.iner Flate 1977 - tendon shcath location errors.
1976 - discovery of soil settlement problem 1980 24ce-Company-Aeat-ieg,.ventilaticri, aed a4- -i.itioning deficiencies 1980 - reactor pressure vessel anchor stud failures 1981
' piping suspension system installation deficiencies 1982 - electrical cable misinsta11ations Several of these deficiencies resulted in the Cox.iss' ion taking escalated enforcement action.
4
,.,,-,,---r a-m,
.--_-,~,n,-
,,-w,-m w.
,--m.-
(
, ff organized QA program was acceptable. _See Inspection Reports 50-329/81,12j,
.I 50-330/81-12. The special team did, however, identify deficiencies.in pre-vious QC inspections of piping supports and restraints, and electrJeal cable installations.2/ QC functions were furt'her reorganized by the'libsee's intefratien.of the QC organization of its architect-engineer, Bechtel Power Corporatich, into MPQAD in Septergber 1982. This reorganization reflected the.recomendations of the NRC staff. As part of this change, the licensee also undertook to retrain and recertify all previously certified Bechtel QC' inspectors.
fievertheless, cer.struction difficulties continued to be identified at the ~
"ireand site. An inspectien'conducte(during t'he period 'of Oct'ober'1982 through January 1983 found significant problems with equipment in the diesel ge. era cr building. The subsequent identification of similar findings by CFCc in other p:rtions cf the plant prompted the licensee to halt the majority cf the safety related werk activities in December 19,E2.
In view of the histcry
'd of QA problems at the Midland plant and the lack of effec.t.iveness.of corrective actions to implement an adequate quality assurance program, the NRC indicated to the licensee that it Was necessary to develCp a ec prehensive program to verify the acetuacy cf previous construction activities and to assure the adequacy of future construction.
In view of the licensee's perfomance history, such an 2/
As a result of staff discussions about the seriousness of such findings and of similar indications of deficiencies as identified in the Syster-atic Assessner.t of Licensee Performance Report issued in Aptil 1952, a special Midland Section in Region III was formed in July 1982. The Midland Section devoted increased attention to inspection of the Midland facilityWncluding upgrading the QC program of the project's constructor, the Bechtel Power Corporation.
e o
e g
em.
aan 4
5
(..
(
.^
effort was neces,sary to restore staff's confidence in CPCo's ability tp,. properly construct the Midland plants.
.g Consequently, CPCo discussed with the liR'C the concept of a construction -
co.g. fetion program which would address the concerns raised by the staff.
These discussions were followed by a fonnal submittal of the Midland Con-struction Completion Program (CCP).
Th,e, CCP is the licensee's program for the pitnning and management of the con-structi5n and quality activities necessary for its completion of the construc ?
-ic. cf the Midland facility.
An important aspect of the CCP is the third
- tr y cverview, which is designed to provide additienti assurance as to the effectiveness of the CCP. In response to co rnents from the fir'C and members cf
- *.e public, the CCP underwent several revisions. As revised and submitted by the licensee on August 26,1983,0 the CCF includes:
(1) tiRC hold peints; (2) 2.s requirement for ICD; reinspection of accessible installat, ions; (3),
s the intecration of Bechtel's OC program with M,PQAD; (4) the,retrai,ning and recertification of QC inspectors; (5) the general training of licensee and cer. ractor personnel in quality requirements for nuclear work, requirements cf ne C F, safety orientation and inspection, anc work procedures; (6) the revi-stor,, as necessary, of Project Quality Control Instructions (PQCI's); (7) CCP team, training; and (5) an independent third party overvie*: of CCP activities.
af The Petition was apparently based upon the June 3,1983 version of the CCP.
Subwquent versions of the CCP, as described in this decision, acdress a number of issues raised by petitioners.
g e
se.
O e
6
E
\\
t 2
The CCP is divided into two phases.
Phase 1 consists of a systematic.r,eyiew of the safety-related systems and areas of the plant. This review will be
~
conducted on an area-byTerea basis and will be done by teams with 'responsi-
. F.
hility for particular systems.
Phase 1 'is intended to provide a clear idenSfication of remaining installation work, including any necessary
,o rework and'an up-to-date inspectio,n,to verify the quality of existing work.
i Phase 2 will take the results of the Phase I review'and complete any netes-
~
sary werk or rework, thereby bringing the pro, ject to completion. The teams crganized for Phase 1 activities will continue as the responsible organiza-ticr.a1 units to ecmblete the work in Phase 2.
It should be noted that the CCP does not include the remedial soils program, r.u: lear steam supply system installation, HY/.C installatien, and the reinspection of pipe hangers and electrical cable. The remedial soils a:tivities are being cicsely inspected under the conditiens of the ccnstruc-s.
tien permits which implement the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's April 30,1982, order and under a work authorization procedure. Therefore, the staff does not consider it necess:ry to receire the remedial soils a:tivities tc te included in the CCP. " Controls crer the scils work have been implemented under a separate program. Similarly, reinspection of the pipe hangers and electrical cable were not included in Phase I of the CCP because that reinspection is being done under a separate co=nitment to the
!G.C.
See letters from James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, fiEC Region i
III to James W. Cook, Consumers Power Company (August 30, September 2,1982).
!..:iear Steam Supply System installation and H','AC insta11tticr were not drawn into question by, the diesel generator building inspection.
7 D
.9
.. ! Y..
(
(
...y_
The staff has no,t developed facts to indicate that installation of then,,,
systems should be included in the CCP. However, these activities will.be included in the construction implementation overview to be conducted by the third party overviewer.
The CCP is designed to address tije. generic applicability of the problems iden-tified by the NRC's inspection of the diesel generator building. The objective of the CCP.is to look at the plant hardware and equipment, identify existing" pr,c,blems, correct these problems and complete construction of the plant.
Ceasideration cf Issues Raised
~-
~?
1.
Modification of Midland Construction Permits Petitioners request that the Cor:r.ission modify the liidiand construction per.its in two respects: 1) require, " hold poir.ts(at various s3 aces of ths construction completion process; and, 2) incorporate thos.e, hold points concerning remedial soils work previously authorized by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel with jurisdiction over the Midland proceedine.
The hcid points are fundamental e.lements of the Midland CCP.
As used by both
~
the staff and petitioners, hold point's refer to predetermined stages beyond' which activities cannot proceed until authorized. Only when such prior work is found to be satisfactory will now work be authorized under.the CCP'.' In this regard, the petitioners requested that three specific hold points be incor-porated into tne CCP to require liRC or third party review prior to continuation of work.
8
k
(.
l ~ g..'..'
Based on their review of an early version of the CCP, p'etitioners asserted
~
7
~
that.the Midland project had been detrimentally affected by the lack,of organizational freedom for its QA staff.
See Petition at 13. Acjordingly, the petitioners requested that a hold po' int be incorporated into the CCP whereby the success of the proposed program for the retraining and racertifi-cation of QA/QC personnel would be evaluated before any actual work was I
authorized under Phase 1 of 'the CCP. Jd. at 13,15. Subsequeht to its initial discussions with the staff concerning development of a comprehensive' construction completion programh/
e licensee began preliminary work, such th as team training and recertification of QC inspectors in preparation for its ar.:jcisated Phase l' activities, quality verification prcgram and status assess-
~
ments.
The liRC was informed when training and rece'rtification of QA/QC person-nel and CCP team training would begin, and conducted a review.of the licensee's ac-icr.s.
The staff suggested that the licensee uncertake acditional werk tefere proceeding with some of its training effort. Consequently, the retraining hcid peint requested by petitieners has already been satisfied by the staff.
s
_5_/
On December 2,1982, when CPCo first discussed a construction completion plan with the NRC staff, CPCo was infomed by Region III staff that it wculd be necessary to incorporate NRC hold points. The staff identif.ied fcur peints at which it woulo regyire NRC. inspec.crs.-to review-cGr.oleted werk befcre the next activity could be undertaker.. These hold points were icentified as:
1.
Review and-approval-ef training-and rece'rtinsat4or.-cf-QC- -
inspectors before beginning Phase 1; 2.
Review and approval of CCP team training before beginning Phase 1; 3.
Review'and approval of the Quality Verification Program (QVP) and status assessments before beginning Phase 1; 4
Re r!+: and approval of the program for rework or systems completicn o-werk before beginning Phase 2.
m
.e
.u.
g.
3 9
-m y.-
5 I.
(,
_c The petitioners also viewed the proposed C.CP as lacking. in comprehensi,v,e. ness.
To remedy this deficiency, petitioners proposed that "either a third. party or N?.C ' hold point' be contained in the reinspection Phase I activities [of the
~
- u;.
CCF] to determine the adequacy of the ' accessible systems' approacii."O Petikienat13.
As described in section three, infra, a third party will be conducting an extansive. overview of the CCP and other construction completion activities. ~
The, fact that the third. party overviewer will also have hold point controls
'over the'11censee should provide additional assurance that construction is
- cceeding in accordance with al1 applicable re:;cirements.
See Consumers Pc-er Company, ConstructioK' Completion PrograrI(August 26, ISE3) at '34 The ~
NP.C and the third party will monitor the reinspection activities. The staff teMeves that these monitoring activities will provice the control sought by the petitioners in their request to establish a hold point during Pha.se 1 rainspectica te determine the adequacy of th;e ace,essible syste s approach.
_g, The third hold point requested by petitioners derives from another criticism-cf the proposed CCP - the failure of that plan te specify inspection procedures a..c evaluation criteria. See Petition at 10-11. Accordingly, petitioners recuest a systematic and thorough review of the construction and quality werk
--... ~,. _
packaces which will be completed as a prerequisite to initiation of new con-struction work under Phase 2 of the CCP.
Id. at 11.
6/
Tne accessible systems approach refers to the extent of reinspection uncer the CCP.
Inaccessible areas of the plant will be reinspected by utilizing.a records review and destructive and non-destructive testing as required. See Consumers Power Company, Construction Completion Program (August 26,1283) at 22-23.
10
3
(
1 The CCP requires, that representative construction and quality work pac,k.a.ges.be
~
reviewed to assure that any completed work is consistent with statements made by the licensee in both its Final Safety Analysis, Report and Quality Assurance L.
Topical Report.
In addition, the third party overviewer will b'e using sampling techniques and reviewing selected work and quality packages prior to and during Phase II. 'Should the results ofJhis sampling approach identify inadequate 1
-work-packages, the sampling size will be increased as necessary to provide the needed assurance that work packages are adequately reviewed. Moreover," the "NRC
, staff, in performing its inspection activities, will overview this entire process, including reviewing selected quality and work packages.
'In sumary, the~ staff believes that those hoid' points it has incor# crated'inte
~
the CCP, when viewed in the aggregate, substantially satisfy.the hold points re:p.ested by petitioners.
The licensee is required to adhere to these hold points as part of the CCP in conformance with the Confirmatory Order for I*cdification of Construction Permits. (Effective I,c:nediately).
. ~.
With respect to the second aspect of the requested relief, incorporation of
!G: helo peints ruthorized by the Licensing Board's April 30, 1982, Mem:randum and Orcer, the petitioners' request has been satisfiec by previous action of the Comnission.
By amendment dated May 26, 1982,.the hold points ordered by
- r..-.
the Board were incorporated into the construction permits.
See 47 Fed.
Reg. 23999 (June 2, 1982). Accordingly, the construction permits already prohibit CPCo from perfortning the following activities a'ithout 'iexplicit prier approval" from the staff:
(a) any placing, compacting, excavating, or drilling soil materials around safety-related structures and systems; e
O a
11 r--
, ~
-,n.,----,---.-n---.,--,_,----ww-,-,~,,--,----,v y------,
,--,--w..--.n--
e, - -,
g--.----
-n~-<e--,,--w,
.(.
(
, u__.
(b) p,hysical implementation of remedial acti.on for correctic.n.
of soil-related problems under and around safety-r. elated,~,
structures and systems, including but not limited to:,
(i) dewatering systems y
(ii) underpinning of service water building
'Y 3
(iii) removal and replacement of fill beneath the feedwater isolation valve pit areas, auxiliary building electrical penetration are,as,and control tower, and beneath-the turbine building (iv) placing of underpinning supports beneath any of the structures listed in (iii) above (v) compaction and loading activities;
- (c) construction work in soil materials under or around safe.ty-related structures and systems such as field installation, or rebedding, of cer.cuits anc piping.
.~
r.struction Femits lio. CPPR-81 and.CPPR~-82, k endmer.t'lic. 3 {May 26,1982). -
2.
Manacement audit of CPCo The petitioners request thr.t the h'RC require a management audit of CPCo's
~ ~
parfer=ance on the Midland project.
- The stiff ddet not believe that 'a * '
canagement audit is necessary at this tiria'as a cohdition"f5r goTrig forwtrd-
- ~ -
' with the'CCP. The staff expects that the CCP, with its built-in hold points' anc third party overview, should provide an effective process-to-satis -
fac crily complete construction at Midland, witoc=t the-previmuality
~
assurance problect."The third panf overview tegether with-the planned staff, inspection activities should provide information to detemine the adequacy of the licensee's implementation of the CCP. lievertheless, the staff wil.1' continue to review infomation concerning the licensee's pt 'ornncehther areas to detemine whether an audit is required.
1 e
e e
eum em 12
,m.-.. -
. ~... -. -
.,.m._m,. _,.-_ _. +.. -., -
,.,.._._._-,-y
--.-e.._....
ca.
(-
'\\
(
x s
,.g.-
n
~-
p Q
activi its in which they were prev.iously involved. ' See Letter from Chair-r man Palla'dino y.o Representatives Ottingerand Dingell (Feb.1,1982), Attach-c a
ment,1. at,1.
Petitioners stated that 5sW's role.as the overviewe'r of remedial soils kork at Midland prohibits that 'org'anization from ser.ing in be same
~
p capacityfor.the,CCP. The staff disagrees. Since the 'racedial soils activi-g s
ties are outside' the scope of the...CC.P, S&W-will net be called upon to review t
it.sownjo4..
s c
, Consequently, the staff does not agree that 5&W's overview
+ 1 activitics will.. conflict with the.astablished in' dependence criteria.E -
\\
s
..'*Q v
7/
The'patitichers questioned why TERA was discualified from consideration as the overvie.wer under the CCP while SR' was not discualified on the crcund of independence. See Petition at C.:.
TERA's diss nlification
,~ias based on the.petentiaTier cenflict cat could be raised,by TEP.A overvied under the CCP of deteminations..at TERA had previously made s
uncer the Independent Design and Construc-ica Verification Program (IDCVP) of the adequacy of the construction of the Auxiliary Feedwater
?
the control sc:r.
Since TERA has been t ;-cred by the NRC io perform System, the onsita emergency AC power su;;11es and the HVAC system for
' s,._
~
the IDCVP, the ltaff.detemined that TG.A wculd not satisfy,the Comission independence criteria <for the third party overview of'the CCP. See letter frc, James G.Jeppler, Reg".onal Administra.or,' b;ien 111 10 Jeres W. Cook, i*
Censumers. Power' Co:.;my (March 28.1983)at2.,
A.
s.
. e.._.
s
. 1
...s c t
~\\
u...
,s s
x
.W
.M.
.g e
\\
- -.....~..
- r.. -.
< s
- s.,
- 4 m
N' s
s s
k s
%s t
,Js-g1s.
.N
~
t
\\
,g
\\
' \\. '
. (
s e
- \\'
4..
.,L
.x.
g
.(
7 n
'n s.,
s l\\s\\
l s 's.
~*
b-w
~-
(
(
.-.. /4 The written prog, ram documents being utilized to directly control and,_,
...g.
implement the Construction Implementation Overview (CIO) program /.and.
theapplicableS&WcorporatemasterprogramdocumentsEl have been ' reviewed
- 4.
by the staff. These documents ari repre'sentative of the scope and depth of th( S&W overview. The NRC staff also met with S&W on August 25, 1983, in Midland, Michigan in order to gai,n, additional insight into the total S&W I-program. liased upon its document review and discussions with S&W at the August 25 1983, meeting, the staff has found the SiW proposal to constitute' an 3cceptable third party overview ' program.
To provide additional assurance that the third party audit is being properly implemented, the CIO program will also be audited $ dependently by the S&W corporate cuality assurance staff.
TiRC ir.s;e: ors sill also moniter the adecuacy of the CIO program.
E,/
Tr.e docurar.ts written expressly for the CIO, include:
CY 1.
CIO Program Document dated April 1,1983.
~
2.
CIO Quality Assurance Plan.
3.
Third Party CIO Plan.
4.
CIO Assessment Pro:edure,10.01.
5.
tionconformance Identification and Reporting Precedure,15.01.
6.
A detailed attribute checklist for each CPCe-Prtec-t Quality--
Con.rci Instruction (PQCI).
7.
A detailed checklist to review generic +ypes sf.regi4mrents (for non-PQCI activities); e.g., QA Audits and Surveillances.
8.
Additional-Quatity Cw. avl Instruction es needed-+e-provide -
adecuate overview control.
9j ine following S&W corporate master program documents will also be utilized for the CIO, as required:
1..
QA Topical Report SWSQAp 1-74A, S&W Standard fiuclear Quality Assurance Program.
2.
S&V4ality Standards; e.g., for cuality sampling.
3.
S&W Quality Assurance Directives.
m.e O
0 15
. Z..
(
(
- w-Of particular coptern to the petitioners was the number of personnel wh i-S&W had assigned to the Midland overview.
See Petition at 18. The number of cualified people will vary with tne demand of the work activities. h be o
.p. _
viewed.
S&W's CIO staffing plan currer.tly has nine people assigned at the b
A Midland site' and there are planned increases to 32 people as work activities
(
?
These numbers, however,. are only estimates and S&W has represented progress.
thatMt will comit whatever personnel are necessary to conduct the CIO Furtherinore, the number of personnel utilized by S&W is not subject to limita-
~
ti.on by CPCo.
50 tai-already begun to review preliminary activities of the licensee in
- reaationforinitiationoftheCCP.E Thi$ effort har identified various concems and one nonconforir.ance that required CPto action to resolve.
The N:.~ staff has reviewed the CIO activities perfermed to date and has found this overview, including actions taken by CPCo, to be of the cuality expected of a
, third party overview.
.e
.y
[.2.
~
1~!
Tne activities bein5 overviewed have inciucec the following CCP and
~
t"~
ncn-CCP activities:
Program arid procecure reviews'
~-
Review of PQCI's.
3 Review of MPQAD QA/QC personnel training 'and certification.
Review of general tra.ining of CPCo and Bechtel personnel, including construction craftspersons.
Review of CCP lianagement Reviews.
Review of System Interactien Walkdowns.
Review of Design Documents.
s.
.e s
Ib' 3
_y.._.-.
(
(
The purpose of t,he independent third party overview is.to provide addi,t.i.c,na) assurance that the CCP is adequate and will be properly implemented.. This overview requirement was necessitated by the loss of I;RC staff confidence in CPCo to successfully implement a quality' assurance program for the Midland project.
The CIO will remain in place at the Midland site until the necessary level of c'onfidenc'e in the ability of the licensee to construct the Midland i -
project has been restored to the satisfaction of the liRC staffW Given that the third. party overview is expected to continue until NRC confidence in the
~
F.idland projstt is restored, pe'itioners' criticism that the CIO is of insuffi-t cient duration appears unfounded.
0;pc~rtuni y has teen provi3ed to the public to participate in the selection of S&W as the third party overviewer, and to co: cent on the CCP itself.
A meeting was heic on February 8,1953, between CPCc ar.d the staff to discuss the CCP.
Dr. August 11, ISE3, the staff met with the intervernors, representativcs of t.he Gcverr. ment Acccuntability Project (GAP) and the !.cne Tree Ccuncil to discuss the CCP and the CIO.
Subsequently, on August 25, 1933,
.t.h.e.staf.f. met. with S.&W p
to discuss the CIO. These meetings were conducted in Midland, Michigan and were cper. to cublic observation.
Evening sessier.s to receive public cc:mer.ts i
regarc'ir.; the CCP were held on February 8, ar.c August 11, 1983.' Similarly, public cc:ments were received following the August 11 and August 25, 1953, i
meetings. Several additional meetings between the staff, intervenors and a representative of GAP tc discuss the CCP and CIO have also been held.
.+
1.* /
l ine staff anticipates that the third parti overview will be a long ter effort.
p.
17
--p
,q w
-,w w
g y
.(.
(
The petitioners', reference in its request to " closed do,or" meetings app,'e.ars.
~
to refer to working level meetings that have been held principail'y between
~
ths Midland section of the Region III staff and CPCo site personnel, and, in
.L some cases, S&W onsite personnel. See Petition at 19. Such meetin'gs continue to be necessary to enable the NRC staff to achieve a full understanding of the CCP, inclu'ing the CIO, and to dis, charge its inspection duties.
d For the reasons set forth above,. petitioners' request to reject the selke-
~
ti,on of S&W to conduct the CIO,'and to reject the CCP, is denied. E s
Re,3 val cf the' Licensee from Pritary Resocr.sibility for the Midland 4
- .aJ.
y !.ssurance Procram The petitioners request that MPQAD be relieved of responsibility for the QA/QC fur.:tien at the Midland plant and that an inde;er. dent team of OA/QC personnel be created which would report simultaneously to the NF.C staff and CPCo.
In se; pert cf their request, petitioners cite m::c.h cf the same history of QA/QC deficiencies that the staff summarized in the backgrcund section o.f this decision. See Petition at 20.
_.~..
12/ The staff has approved S&W to conduct the CIQ. See Staff. Evaluation of ConsumersePower Company-Preposal ::o Use-Stone-and Wehter MicMgan, Inc. to Conduct the Third Party Construction Implementation Overview of the Midland Nuclear Plant (Sept. 29,1953).
.+
.es.
O IS
- _,. _ _... ~. _., _._
(
(
The changes that.,CPCo has most recently instituted through develo the CCP should improve -its capability to discharge its responsibilit
... _nder yu applicable Comission regulations, such as 10 CFR.50.34(a)(j to 10 CFR Part 50, which require the establishment and execution o program.
While Criterion I of Appendix B pemits a construction permit hold i
to delegate to other organizations. the detailed execution of the QA ram!
the history of the Midland project makes it clear that the licensee h as retained too little control over the QA/QC program.' CPCo seems to be' ceeding in a positive direction by integrating the implementation of th function formerly under the control of Bechtel into the MPQAD This consoli-caticn of c.utlity control and cuality assura.ce ' functions should reinforc seitration ' bet' ween the QC function, which 'will be assumed by MPQ construction function, which will remain with Bechtel.
While it might be permissible under Appendix B te 10 CFR Part 50 for CPC to retair, an independent organizatio.n to execute the QA/QC program
,the
~ licensee remains ultimately responsible for the establishment and executio of the program.
As stated above, the staff considers the strengthening of M?"C to be a positive step in improving CPCc's capability to assure the 0
cuality cf construction df the Midland facility.
In view cf the relatively short existence of the. MPQAD, there does not currently exist any justification o-for requiring CPCo to retain an outside organization to execute the QA/QC program.
Therefore, this aspect of petitioners' request is denied.
Petitioners also requested that the indepencent QA/QC team report sim
---a to Ine fiP.C and to CPCo management. The petitieners apparently intendet -hat eQ O
19 w-
.c w-v-
,m y
-c w -
,y
.,-w.,=,,
,-----.---e-e+.
-wew---.-.-,
,we y.- - - -- - - - -
+-----r-n
,p-c-me
(.
(.
l..Q[. = - * :.,
the NRC would be involved in making management decisions regarding construc-
~
tion of the facility based upon the reports of the indepe,ndent QA'/QC, team.'
There appears to be no basis for this extraordina.ry departure froni the NRC's
. (
regulatory function. Accordingly, this aspect of the petition is denied.
5.
-Detailed Review of Soils Settlement Resolution
~
The petitioners requested that the staff conduct a detailed review of,the resol:: tion of the soils settlement problems, including a technical analysis cf tre inple$antati'on of the underpinning project at the current stage of cc..le:icn.
petition at 23.
In its supportini discussion, the petition foc:: sed upon the questionable structural integrity of the diesel generator i;;iI Ci rg.
A detailed review of the program for resolution of the soils settlement problem T'
has previously been conducted by the NRC staff and its consultants. In 1979 the U.S. Anry Corps of Engineers was contracted to assist the staff in the 2,.,-
safety review of the Midland project in the field of,geotechnical engineering.
After the soils problem became known, additional assistance tc the staff in specialized engineering fields (structural, mechanical, and uncerpinning) was ob zined from the U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Center, Harstead Engineering Associates, Geotechnical Engineers, Inc., and Energy Technology Engineering Cer.:er. These consultants assisted in the review of technical studies, par-ticipated in design audits, visited the site, provided input to the Safety o...
Eval;;ation Report, and provided expert testimony tefere the A cmic Safety and l
1
~
20
,-.---y7 c---
p
..w,-
.---%,,.7,
- -. ~, - -
7w---
w-
--,%.n
--,.,,re,.,...,,..-w,---,.--..,-pr
-o,-
u,: ' '
(
(
Licensing Board., Thus, the approach to the resolution.of the soils se,tt.lement issue has been thoroughly studied by the staff and its consultants...
The implementation of the remedial soils activities is being closely followed as p' art of the NRC's inspection program. This inspection effort ir.cludes
-ongoing te'chnical ' review of the remedial soils program and its iniplementationl by a Region III soils specialist. Technicalexpertisetoeva[uateimplementa-tion is also provided by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation'.
Additionally, the NRC is utilizing Geotechnical Engineers Inc. in assessing aspects of the remedial soils and underpinning activities.
In addition, the sciis settlebent cuestion has been in litigation.for over two years before an Atcric Safety and Licensirig Board. Consequer.tly, the relief recuested with regard to the soils settlement issue has been substantially satisfied by prior ac-ion cf the Comission.
Along with review of the soils.settl.ement issue, petitioners requested that another study of the seismic desien deficiencies.of the M.i.dland pl. ant, with erphasis on the diesel generator building, be conducted. The petitioners fu-ther recuested that this review would be conducted by a "non-nuclear construction consultant." See Petition at 23.
..... ~.
The NRC staff has initiated a task force study by consultants from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and NRC structural engineers to evaluate concerns j
about the structural integrity of the diesel generator building raised by a 1
NRC Region III inspector in testimon'y before the Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Comittee on In erior and Insular Affairs.
Following their review, a report will be issuec addressing the concerns raised by the inspector. Decisions on whether.further actions are required will be 21
(
i
- . ~ ~=:
nade based upon.,that report. Additional details on the. task force werg. pro.-
vided to the Government Accountability Project by letter dated A gust 10, 1983, and in Board Notifications83-109 and E3-142, which'were transmitted to GAP on July 27 and September 22, 1983, respe'etively.
As to the ' request that a review of. the diesel generator builoing be conducted by a "non-nuclear construction consultant", BNL has established an expert team to resolve the concerns raised.by the Region-III inspector. Exper'tise ra.ther than the label "non nuclear construction censultant" should be the governir$g criteria. The staff has reviewed the cualifications of the team re-tsrs and is satisifed with their-experience. The tesk force study cur-:
re--iy in 'progre's substantially satisfies th[s aspect of the petition.
s Tr.e e:ition also appears to be requesting ar. additional revier cf the seisric design of structures other than the diesel generator building.
Petitioners ha.e not, however, stated any basis,why additipnal, reviews beyond, tho,se re-g
] flected in the Safety Evaluation deport and Supple _ments are_necessary. The, s
y.. staff do.es not believe that an additional review by an outside organization.
l cf the facility's seismic design is required at this. time.
t I
Conclusion l.
t.
Based upon the foregoing docussion, I have granted the petition in part and
- denied it in part.
l o.
l 22
-e
,,,-,---,y r.,.,-,-n-,
e,-,-,--er-,--.,--n,e,e,--m--
.m,-----
w
,,n
, - -