ML20136B485
| ML20136B485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/21/1983 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136B092 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-293 NUDOCS 8601020624 | |
| Download: ML20136B485 (119) | |
Text
_
,7
~
'^
DRAFT
~..
REVIEW OF SWEDISH NUCLEAR P0kTR PROGRAM QA ACTIVITIES 1.UCLEAR REGULATORY C0511SSION Washingten. D. -C.
20555 June 21, 1983 DRAFT I
3 F0/A -#4-293 8601020624 851125 hwk PDR FOIA LEIGHTOB4-293 PDR
=
y
.s
{]
TABLE OF CONTENTS Y.,
/
~
I.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1
A.
Dates / Places of Field L'ork i
3.
Organizations / Personnel Contacted
~
1 C.
Organizations /Abbrevia tions 1
D.
Swedith Utilities / Nuclear Power Plants 2
E.
Licensing Practices, 4
II.
FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT TO SUCCESS OF S*='EDISH NUCI. EAR PROGRAM S
A.
List of Factors 5
B.
Discuss' ion of Factors 6
9 15TORMATION APPLICABLE FOR NRC INITIATIVES III.
11 O
IV.
INFORMATION APPLICABLE FOR FO'RD AMENDMEhi ALTERNATIVES 12 V.
CBSERVATIONS 12 i
A'.
Centracts 3.
Cost of OSK-3 12 13 C.
OSK Staffing 13 D.
Changing hequirements 13 E.
QA Standards r
14 Appendix 1 - Electrical Energy in Sweden
- Appendix 2 - Swedish ' Nuclear Units Appendix 3 - SKI Organization Appendix 4 - Inspection Plans
+
- 2)
I
'Ww m
ys-
+
4
-'-9--
+---ye-
+-y4
- -+
y.
W
-=w't--et wv-y
-@--g
,r
-mey v-
REVIEW OF S'.*EDISH NUCf. EAR ?C"ER PROGRAM QUALITY ASSURANCE AC~171 TIES n
This report su=marizes infor=ation obtained about quality assurance programs and activities as practiced in the Swedish nuclear power program.
Included is background infor=ation about the organizations involved in the Swedish program and a su:=iary of licensing practices, a listing of the factors felt to be reasons for the success of the Swedish program, and discussion concerning.those factors.
I.
_ BACKGROUND INFORMATION A.
Dates / Places of Field Work April 21 and 22, 1983/ Stockholm, Sweden - discussicas with Swedish Nuclear Power Inspeccorate personnel a:d representative's from two utilities and one NSSS supplier.
B.
Organizations / Personnel Contacted
~
Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate Lars G. Larsson - Director, Office of Inspection Erik Jansson ASEA-ATOM Bengt Langser - Manager, Quality Assurance and Nuclear Safety
' Swedish S. tate Power. Board Erik Olovson
. Manager, Quality Assurance
- Ulf Andersson - Sr. Engineer, Quality Assurance OKG AB Jan'Bergstroem - Quality Assurance' Manager
~
C.
Organizations / Abbreviations Organizations' involved?in the Svedish nuclear pcuer program and m.
s
]
abbreviations used in $his report are listed below:
+
a f
l
\\
^
1
,e-~-+-=s 8=P~*-* " '
^*
.-,-y-r
- t SKI Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (Statens Kaernkraftinspection) i SSI National Institute of Radiation Inspection i
. {
(Statens Stralskyddsinstitut)
I SA Swedish Plant Inspectorate i
i (Statens Anlaeggningsprovning)
ASS National Board of Occupational Safety and Health (Arbetarskyddsstyrelsen)
FKG,
Forscarks Kraf tgrupp AB (75% owned by SSPB) i OKG Oskarsham:nsverkets Kraf tgrupp AB
.SSPB Swedish State Power Board (Statens Vattenfallsverk)
SydKraft Sydsvenka Kraft AB l
BAR Barsebaeck (2 unit plant of Sydkraf':)
FOR Forsmark (3 unit plant of FKG) i
~
OSK Oskarsha=n (3 unit plant of OKG)
RIN Ringhals (4 unit plant of SSPB)
A-A ASEA-ATOM
-EE
- English Electric h{
~
i D.
J Swedish Utilities / Nuclear Power Plants e
The Swedish nuclear power program consists' of 10 operating units and 2 1
{
t under construction (OSK-3 and FOR-3). At the referendum on March 23,
" [
1980, the Swedish electorate voted to continue operating the 6 com-pleted units, to complete construction of~the 6 units under construc-r~
i tion or planned, and to gradually phase these out over a 25 year l
u
, period.. Subsequent to the referendum, the Minister of Energy estab-I T
lished that the long-term objective would be to utilize the 12 reactors r
-l during their technical lifetime (estimated at 25 years from start-up).-
Appendix 1 shows the sources of electrical energy in Sweden; current I
1 P
estinates are that, when coupleted, the 12 reactors will be able to supply between 45 and 50% of total electrical energy' consumption.
~
~
A-A has supplied the NSSS (BWR) for 9 of the units. Their first i-Swedish unit.(OSK-1) was a turn-key project.
A-A functions as.the A/E for the nachanical ' systems (from the NSSS to the turbine connection).
They also function as the construction manager / contractor for the 1'
l 2
t
']
1 ' '.[ ^
~7I YI N ~ * -'
~~*
etchanical systens, for which they subcontract components, piping, and installation, but retain responsibility for those activities. With
)
the exception'of RIN-1. Stal-Laval has supplied the turbine / generator 4
and related equipment.
The other 3 units have PWR NSSS's supplied by Westinghouse.
For these units, Westinghouse, through three of their divisions, was responsible _for the NSSS and mechanical syste=s to the turbi=e con-nection.
There are four utilities involved in the Swedish nuclear program.
As the Ovne'rs, they have overall responsibility for the design, construction, start-up and operation of the plants.
They are:
1.
SSPB which was originally established as a state coupany to d'e elop hydroelectric power (Its Swedish nane means " Waterfalls Wor _ks").
It then expanded to include both fossil and nuclear power plants. SSPB owns the Ringhals nuclear plant and has a 751 interest in FKG.
SSPB has functioned as the constructor for the contain=ent and i - : -
other structures for both Ringhals and Forsmark.
They are also responsible for. operation of those plants.
2.
FKG which was est'ablished to build the Forsmark nuclear plant.
It is owned by the SSPB and a consortium of local governments which
~ distribute the power within their jurisdictions.
i 3.
Sydkraft which is a privately owned utility originally established to develop hydroelectric power.
It now owns fossil plants and the Barsebaeck nuclear plant and is responsible for the operation of the Barsebaeck plant.
4 OKG which was established to build and operate the Oskarshana nuclear plant. It is owned by a consortium of the' local ge earn-ments which distribut,e the power and by Sydkraft which is the largest. shareholder of OKG.
o 3
s-e
Appendix 2 lists the nuclear units operating or being ecastructed in t
Sweden and some specific data about each of the units.
s E.
Licensing Practices NURIC/CR-2664 (Stevenson report) pages 49 through 64 provides a good description of the Swedish licensing practices for nuclear power plants and is reco== ended for those interested in a more detailed
~
su==ary than presented in this report.
1.
SKI is the regulatory agency for ad=inistering the licensing process for nuc' lear power plants and nuclear materials.
SKI's primary objective is to pro =ote safety in nuclear power plants, in facilities for handling, storage and processing of n'uclear nate-rials and radioactive vastes, and in the transportation of these naterials. -
The current organization of SKI is shown in Appendix 3.
SKI currently has about 80 employees.
2.
SSI is the regulatory agen'cy for matters cencerning protection against ionizing radiation regarding both occupational and envir-onmental exposure.
3.
SA is a non profit government-owned cocpany which performs inde-pendent third-party inspections and tests of pressure components and lifting devices. Within SA, the Nuclear Plant Inspection Depart =ent is responsible for design reviev,' fabrication / installation inspection, preservice inspection and inservice inspection of all
^
pressure ec=ponents in the nuclear power plants.
(See II.B.6 for more information on SA activities.)
'~
i Funding for SKI and. SSI is by fees paid 'by the licensees.
For SA, funding is by fees established for the specific inspectios and testing activities (ultimately paid for by the licensee).
The first step in the. licensing procedure is submittal of a PSAR with the a'pplication for license. The license covers site approval,
)
l construction and operation.
i l
l 4
f t. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
The vner is required to establish a Quality Assurance Progra=,
subject to SKI approval, which meets his PSAR co=mitments and the requirements of IOCFR50 Appendix B.
Regulatory guides issued by the NRC may be incorporated into the Swedish nuclear program following review for applicability by SKI.
Following issuance of the approval license, the Owner cust satisfy
_~
the SK1 that the license co==itments are being met as the plant is constructed and during the testing of components and systems through the hot functional test.
If acceptable to SKI and, also to SSI regarding radiation protection, permission may be granted to bring fuel into the plant.
Following SKI approval of the 7SAR, a fuel loading and reduced power operating permit is issued. SKI authorizes low power operation in sta'ges, and when radiation protection is acceptable to SSI, SKI r
vill issue an operating license.
II.
FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT TO SUCCESS OF SVEDISH NUCLEAR PROGRAM A.
The following factors are considered by the personnel contacted 'to be important to the apparent success of the Swedish nuclear power pro-gra=.
l 1.
Element of trust and cooperation between SKI and the utilities.
~
2: ~ ;2.- Establishing "special" inspection plans (and related fabricatien plans) prior to starting an activity.
3.
Experience of contractors in building nuclear power plants.
4 Continuity of personnel.
5.
Replication / standardization.
J
'5
~
~e-
..r.
r r.
.w c~
~
6.
Third party inspection.
7'.
Design reviews.
J 8.
QA Program Reviev t
i 5.
The factors outlined in II.A are discussed below.
1.
There is an element of trust and cooperation between SKI and the
~
utilities responsible for construction and operation of the nuclear plants, including daily contact which keeps SKI informed of what is happening at each of the plants. Reports of a more 4
formal naturc era made periodically (See NUREG CR-2664), but it is' felt that thei: infor=al relationship is the key-to. success. SKI- : -- - $
e has, one inspector per ' unit; this inspector is not a resident but has al=ost daily contact with' construction / operations personnel, j
other utility personnel, and with other SKI. personnel. The daily
't contact with SKI persennel was considered to be a sig'nificant factor in keeping SKI informed and nore important than having the b.C i
~
)
inspector in residence at the unit.
SKI representatives stated that the relationship between SKI
(
i and the utilities was not adversarial in nature.
This statement vas concurred with by representatives from SSPB, OKG and A-A.
2.
Inspectien plans (with their associated Hold Points) are con-I sidered a major factor in the success of the Swedish Nuclear i
Program.
General inspection plans for safety class items originally vare established by the utilities and approved by SKI.
This has
'[
I developed.into a standardized inspection plan issued by SKI.
This general inspection plan identifies the docunentation, inspections,
- j tests, and examinations which vill be required for various activities l
t such as design, pre-manufacturing activities, materials, fabrication, i.
finished component.s, installation, and final inspection of the completed system. These inspection plans are called general plans I
because at this stage the exact design of the components is not
[
l j
known.
l j
+
(
~*
..[:
l
. 6 w
eme,n
-.-g-nw
,e--
v
,ww-,-,w,<-e, n
v,wv --
+---er--
- r e, r- - m we, - w e r.w ywe,-,
.,.---,-vw.,--n-,-----,-wm--,--,wr v,ee--
- w m m - w w-, s
.-v,-w
Th' e general inspection plan (See Figure 4 for an exanple) lists'the responsibility for perfor=ing the specific tests, q
inspections, and examinations. This may be the manufacturer, SA, A-A, the Owner, or an independent inspection agency when designated by A-A or the Owner.
In any event, SA has a responsibility to perform, review, verify, and report certain of the tests, inspections or examinations as noted by the coding en the inspection plan. Similar plans were used for the Westinghouse
~
units.
The' general plan is not used for fabrication / installation; the I
fabricator / installer, based on the general inspection plan, must provide a "special"' inspection plan which covers the specific
.ite=s being fabricated / installed.
The fabricator / installer also provides a fabrication plan which lists the sequences of the
. operations, inspecticus, tests, and erasinations to be perforned.
The extent of the fabrication plan depends upon the requirenents of his QA Program which was previously approved as,part of the procurement process.
~-
'Following preparatien of the special inspection plans the
~
~
fabricator / installer submits them to A-A for approval and for forwarding to SA for approval. Following SA approval the vendor can proceed with the specific activities covered by the plan.
I 3.
Experience of contractors in building nuclear power plants is considered important for success.
A-A has supplied the NSSS for eleven power plants including nine in Sweden and two in Finland.
- t OSK-1 (Sweden) and TVO-1 (Finland) were turn-key proj ects.
In
}
their other nine units, A-A has been responsible for the design.
fabrication / procurement, and installation of the =echanical t
1 i
systens from the NSSS to the turbine connection.
)
Vith the exception of RIN-1. Stal-Laval has provided the turbine / generator unit.
A-A and Stal-Laval are jointly 3
t given responsibility for the interfaces between their systens.
This has apparently worked well.
On RIN-1, EE provided the
{
m turbine / generator unit. There were a number of interface problens between A-A and IE, reported.to be caused by EE.
It was reported that EE had little interface experience as most of their previous j
4
--w-
,,.--,r g
-g
,.-,-v-
.----,.s..-~w.
r--n
-w w
s-
-r-
vork had been under the direction of the Central Electricity Cenerating Board who had handled interface activities.
4
~
Continuity of personnel has been a contributing factor for success.
Most Swedish nuclear power plants have been built in a relatively short time period (four to six years). ' Exceptions have been RIN-1, which was delayed due to problems, and those plants under construction or avaiting start of construction in the 1978/1980 p,eriod. During that period, the uncertainty from political factors leading up to the March 23, 1980, referendum created a
~
, slow down in construction. L'ith essentially only three utilities, two NSSS suppliers, and a limited number of other contractors, i
much of the activity is perforced by experienced personnel who are with the job from start to finish.
... _ _ _ = _
5.
Replication /standardination is another key factor for success.
yor example, purchase contracts for OSK-2 included options for I
identical ecupenents for 3AR-1 and BAR-2.
This vas.true replication and enabled Sydkraft to bring these units on line according to the original schedule.
The two units under constructica, OSK-3 and FOR-3,lare essen-tially identical units, y0R-2 was a replica of FOR-1.
Replication / standardization was a criteria in 4 of the 9 A-A 4
units; this is considered to be a major factor in bringing those
~~
units on line on schedule.
6.
Official third. party inspectics is required by statute and.is performed by SA.
In its capacity as the official inspection and testing organization, SA is responsible for:
a.
Design. reviews (See II.B.7) b.
Performing, supervising, verifying, and reporting tests.
l inspections and examinaticus. required during fabri-cation / installation both at the power plant and at sub-
)
contractor locations.
Preservice inspection of ccupleted systems.
c.
I 8
i t
d.
Designating a supervisor (SA e=ployee) for eac' h nuclear power plant.
This supervisor cust be approved by SKI and is respon-
~
D sible to see that the power plant ceets the ' codes, standards
. /
and additional requirecents established by SKI which are applicable to the nuclear power system.
Following satisfactory hot functional tests, the supervisor reports to SKI that the plant is ready for fuel loading and start-up operations.
Inservice inspection of operating plants.
a.
In addition to the " official" inspection testing required by statute and performed by SA, further inspection and testing may be prescribed by the Owner.
The Owner normally designates an
~~ -' " '
independent inspection agency to perform such "non-official"
~' '
nspection and testing.
i
- 7.. Design reviews are perfor=ed by SA as part of their inspection g,
activities.
These review activities include review and approval-of drawings, stress calculations, and certain specifica-tions/ procedures _ for fabrication, installation or testing. Design reviews are performed on all pressure components and pressure containing systems which make up the nuclear power system.
Design reviews are part of the general inspection plan (See
~ ~
~
II.B.2).
Work cannot start until the design review by SA has been completed (accepted) for that particular activity. The Swedish approach to design review is to identify design problems prior to e
committing the. problem to hardware.
8.
Review of the Owner's QA Prograd is performed by SKI. A PSAP.
which includes the Owner's QA Program commitments is submitted as p' art of the licensing process. SKI reviews th.e Owner's QA Program in stages; the Owner must have developed the pregram elements applicable to the activity to.be,.lormed, and have obtained acceptance from SKI, prior to starting any safety related activities.
o 9
a-.e - gewge.ww m yw
,%..s===e--
.we.
o
It was stated that " formal" acceptance of the Owner's QA Program by SK! does not occur; SKI authorization for the Ovner to' proceed with a certain activity includes review and acceptance of applicable program elements.
III.
INF0EF.ATION A?PLICABLE FOR NRC INITIATIVES Review of the Swedish nuclear power program has generated infor=ation
~
which may be applicable to the NRC initiatives established in SECT 82-352,'
titled " Assurance of Quality" and subsequent correspondence. A discussion
.follows of how current practices in Sweden may suggest that a particular initiative could be effective.
A.
Near Ters Ocerating Licensees (NTOL) 1.
Liceisee Self Evaluation - No comment.
2.
Regienal Evaluation - No comment.
(::)
3.
Indeoendent Design Verification Program (ID7?)
The Swedish p~rogram does not require an IDVP. Overali design and designs of components and systems are reviewed for adequacy by SA on a continuing basis (See 11.3.7).
Through use of standardized
[I designs, review of the completed design occurs early in the
. ' construction program.
B.
Industrv Initiatives - No comment.
C.
NRC Construction Inspection Program 1.
Revised Procedures and Increased Resources It appears that SA, as an independent' government inspection agency,-in conjunction with SKI accecplishes the intent of this
~
initiative. 'The emphasis is en verifying technical criteria through inspection and testing rather than on records review cnly.
10
2.
Construction Aopraisal Team Inspection - No con =ent.
/-'S
.3.
Integrated Design Inspection i
This initiative is essentially satisfied by SA but on a continuing basis during construction, not at the operating license phase (See II.B.7).
4.
Evaluation of Reported Infornation This initiative is probably satisfied due to the small sire of the Swedish program.
SKI personnel stated that feedback'from the utilities for corrective action is excellent and enables them to correct potential problems before a crisis occurs.
4 D.
Designated Representatives 2
Designated representatives are not used nor are they required due to the presence of SA personnel at the site. Personnel contacted would discourage use of designated representatives.
E.
Management 1.
Seminars - No comment.
2.
Qualification / Certification of OA/0C Personnel The,Swedish program concentrates on qualification of the doers
~'
(crafts and companies) (See III.E.3), not the verifiers (QA/QC).
Qualification of QA/QC personnel is the responsibility of the
~
.e:ployer.
1 3.
Craftsmanship Swedish law requires that welders be tested each year by the employer with witnessing and approval by SA.
NDE personnel may.b'e qualified by SA, an authorized independent agency, or the employer, subject to review and approval by SA.
The ASS has a certification program for companies performing heat treating and manufact; sing j
welded pipe.
i 11
_9.,.,
..m.
-y-...
-,y_.
F.
Certification of QA/QC Programs No formal certification programs exist. However, the owner's program 1's reviewed by SKI in stages; the owner can't start any safety related work until the QA Program elements applicable for the work to be done are accepted by SKI (See II.B.8). -
9 IV.
INFORMATION APPLICABLE FOR FORD AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES Informati.a about the Swedish nuclear power which may be applicable to the' 7
Ford Acendment, Section 13 of NRC's FY 1983 Authorization Bill is dis-
. cussed below.
A.
More Prescriptive E Criteria - No comment.
B.
Conditioning CP on De=onstration of Management Ability Personnel
- contacted believed this'was a key factor in successfully
~
constructing a nuclear power plant and felt that this aspect was handled well, although informally, by SKI. Experienced personnel in key =anagement positions, including QA, was considered an essential criteria which must be satisfied prior to CP issuance.
C.
Review ly Association of Professionals - No com:ent.
D.
I=crove=ent of NRC's QA Program - No. comment.
~
- E.
Third-Party Audits /Inseections This alternative is basically. being met by SA design reviews, inspec-tions and tests.
(See II.B.6 and II.B.7).
V.
OBSERVATIONS The ite=s below include additional information about the Swedish nuclear V
power program.
A.
Contracts For the mechanical systems (NSSS through the turbine connection) and 12
turbine [ generator systems, a fixed price contract is nor= ally used.
This contract includes escalation based on increases in labor and
)
6.aterials.
Any amendments to the contract are negotiated with respect to price and delivery.
Contracts for structures are usually on a cost plus basis with significant bonuses for meeting established goals. No specific reascns could be given as to why these practices developed but they appear to work well.
~
4 B.
Cost of OSK-3 Construction of OKC's third unit was started in May 1980 following the I~
~
March referendum. This is an A-A 1060 megawatt BWR scheduled to start low power testing in April 1985 and to be in full commercial operation in October 1985. Current projected cost, including additional inter-est and a 10% annual inflation rate, is ll te 11.5 billion Swedish krenor (about $1.5 billion).
Interest is esticated to be about 30% of the total cost.
C.
7,
OKG Staffing 1
OKG currently operates OSK-1 and 2.
When OSK-3 is operational they esti= ate they will have a total of 750 employees; about 600 for operations, 100 for fuel storage activities, and 50 at the Stockholm head office. This utility has only the 3 cuclear units. Distribution
~
of power is through the shareholder organizations.
l' D., Changing Recuirements It is reported that most changes made during construction are Owner
~
initiated and are.usually made to incorporate changes in state-of-the-art which will affect operational availability.
SKI would only i
require changes and retrofits aftei a careful acalysis of the impact such a' change would have on the safety of the plant.
e e
4 13
.e
_,,_.4,
._,.y g-7_
7
-____,,.c_
,, _ _ --s,,....,_,,
.,y,..p
l I
E.
QA Standards E
+
According to SKI, the IAEA Code of Practice 50-C-QA, ISO Standard r
' 215, and 10CFR50 Appendix B set forth essentiaIly the sane QA Program
,q[
6
)
requirements.
Their preference is for ISO 6215 due to inclusion of the familiar 18 criteria, but described in more detail than Appendix B.
==
- eyem 44m 4
98 m~m g
DPp m.
=
m4 K
e h yempe m
,9m--
N--
+
T e
M n
i J
.m
,ame.,e
+-
-p-
=*
~.
6 o + -me
- e-e - -
b
- We e
WQ S
4
.w.
-. -= = war w+ =., - -
ha e
de O
e e
Y O
14
~
APPENDIX 1 Page 1 of 1
.]
/
Published by the Swedish Power Association Data for 1981, or at 1.1.82 Electricity consumption, orports and losses, milllon kWh (GWh)
Industr'f (incl. electric steam toilers) gas water and heat......
Tr a ns p, ortation.........................
41 678 2 251 Retalt 44 735 Total consumption 88 674 Exports 8 161 Transmission fosses on regular lines..
t 924 other transmission losses............
6 527 Total 103 456 Electricity production and impo ts.
million kWh (GWh)
Hyc roele ctric pla nts....................
54 786 N u cle ar pow e r..........................
36 037 Conventional thermal pcwor..........
5 135 including back pressure..... 4 625 Total procuction 99 958 imports 3 498 Total ~ 103 456
~
'T Gross consumption of electricity'1973 Source: Energy Statistics (DECO 19et)
Country Total
- Consumptiot consumption per capita
"~
GWh xwh N o rway.............
82 917 23 428 Canada.............
324 200 13 796 Icela nd.............
2 830 12 634 Sweden 96 357 11 640 USA................ 2 456 669 11 256 Luzemburg.........
3 658 10 278 Finland.............
29 741 8 363 New Zealand.......
21 912 7 052 Switzerland 39 525 8 237 Federal republic of G ermany..........
372 812 6 080 Australia...........
85 982 6 034
~ United Kingdom....
299 999 5 374 Belgium 51 020 5 185 Japan 549 6d3 5 132 De nmark............
25 451 4 $36 A us t ri a.............
36 810 4 903 The Netherlands 64 605 4 636 Fra n c e..............
244 626 4 $92 tretand..............
11 017 3 405 Italy.
166 657 3 293 Spain..............
104 288 2 810 Grtece...,.........
22 451 2 399 Unite 1 kilowett (kW)
= 1000 watt (W) 1 megawatt ilW.
= 1000 kW 1 gigawatt (GW)1
= 1000 000 kW
't 1 megawatt hour
= 1000 kilowatt hours (kWh) 1 gigawatt hour (GWh) = 1000 000 kWh 1 terawatt hour (TWh) = 1000 000 000 kWh
1 Con-Conacrcini struc-Operation tion orig.
actual Het Reactor.
Generntor ntage ached-or ex-HWe_
Type Supplier Supplier
(%)
ulo pected
?-
FORSHARKS KRAFTCRtlPI' AB Fornmark I (llppsala) 900 BWR ASEA-Atom
- Stal-Laval 100 7/78 12/80*
((
Fornmark 2 (Uppunin) 900 BWR ASEA-Atom Stal-Laval 100 7/80 7/81*
Fornmark 3 (Uppanla) 1050 BWR ASEA-Atom Stal-l.aval 40
/82 5/85*
p, y
OKC All Oskarnhamn I (Oskarshnen) 440 BWR ASEA-Atom Stal-Laval 100 2/72 Oskarshamn 2 (Oakarnhamn) 570 BWR ASEA-Atom BBC/Stal-Laval 100 8/74 12/74 Oskarahamn 3 (Oskarahamn) 1060 BWR ASEA-Atom Stal-Laval 40 12/83 11/85*
STATEllS VATTENFALLSVERK (SSPD)
Ringhals I (Varberg) 750 BWR
$ SEA-Atom EE kinghals 2 (Varberg) 800 PWR Westinghouse
.Stal-Laval_
100 6/73 2/76 100 7/74 5/75 Ringhals 3 (Varberg) 900 PWR' Westinghouse Stal-Laval 100 12/77 4/81*
Ringhals 4 (Varberg) 900 PWR Westinghouse Stal-Laval 100 7/79
/83*
SYDSVENKA KRAFT AB Barseback I (Halmo) 570 BWR ASEA-Atom Stal-Laval 100 7/75 7/75 Barseback 2 (Halmo) 570 BWR ASEA-Aton Stal-Laval 100 7/77 7/77 g;
a
- . Delays caused by political uncertainty - 1978 to March 1980 e
e l
i
~
g d
0 f
i I
j Tile SWCDISil NUCLEAR POWER INSPECTORATE - new organization from July 1st,1981 i"o
'o E'*
00ARD l
u DIRECTOR GENERAL INFORMATION SECRETARIAT 4
I I
OFFICE OF INSPECTION 0FFICE OF DEPARTMENT OF REGULATION AND RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION I
BARSEBACK SITE OlVISION DIVISION OF LICENSING AND SAFFTY ASSESSMENT FORSHARK SITE DIVISION O! VISION 0F SPENT FUEL OSKARSilAtti SITE DIVISION A 0 WASTE MANAGEMENT l
RiflCllALS SITE DIVI:10N DIVISION OF SYSTEMS AND E
RELI AlllLITY ANALYSIS DIVIS10ll 0F OTilER fluCLEAR O
lHSI All ATI0ils AllD SAFECtlARDS OlVISION OF RESEARCil 1
i i
f s
l-i i
i
.. ~.
APPENDIX 4 Page 1 of 2 1
I I
..,3...,
m
=
=
=
=
=
1 I
l t
.e
=1:n?w.1 y
g y
tu a
=
=
=
l 32
- 1 1.
t :g n = p art.:
sc E q 7.f r
s
. nn;=ws a
s
- 2*:
eteyu 4 syn s.u
. 22 2M E Xl ZX X
a g.
,1
..wp as Eg'
- l Yli. X,3 48'74, 3
3
.L
- .1.
3 aa.13a?=.1 72
- =, p.ys
~
g w
a
=
=
'3 1:1'
..53..: :
- l 5:= ?==11 "3 t :i 512g' e;wus.jpesga 3
.434.pt nr i
I e
.a.p a.orra 1
' J,
-w 2
eiw.ust:
r 9
.s'u rw est.t O
- ((
. u?a.smews 3
31
- :a !:
't**"asu it i s il 11 g
=a
.=,.n, 4=
=
a
- 1.. *. '
ofwaasu N"
-4 I-23
.=
15
.: J 22 17
.n
- =n a7=.s J.
32:
2 ef=anu 2.
Esitsi ja :
- 3
.8 18a.4
=
w:
3' 3 3 L ::J
- e.s.sn =.1 l:::;.1 :
er.anu
=
1-
.. wu C'
2
- =
-== t3 a==t 2
t::: I 2i g
etwariu 4:
ag
- :4 4
.2 2
22 S al e*?.****
- 2... I.a.*
tennen 8 No.3 a
1: e..
- 3. j :1..e t.
sus =3..u.sl2 3
t
=.
.f ste=.aasne i
=
.1. a a*
=
2*
". T * ]. 2 7 g.
"Tu.a e4
=
( 11 11
- 3 3 sp e=
u
=
=
=
=
3:
. A :..: :1 g
~I A-1~
J.
t.
t2" d
."p ut s':
4 4
- A g-s
- J:
2
.- L
- s..! !.
at.a.~ 4 4
n...:.
r 1
"g L
.1 II..a
(
i,t.
" a
=-
-=.a
. u. u.s 3
--e.
a a
=
,o 3
og
.:.i :
.tres.
gI 2
J,:
- a
.z R
y.
.: 4.:.:.;
4 s
O
- I 3 :3 g =. 2 2
2 5
r (4 w EG 2
?.:
- :=
- == 1
=
(
s
= :
?::
a I
a ma
- a l:
1 s
a
.: za s.
1 g.
(
5 1
.2 15423:2.
8 tl'
."I'
.. I' t o i
1 l'
- l' l.. l' t
Y
-. i' :I' =. =. 42 ti l
-l i
i 4
4 m.-
---m,v.
., - --, - - - +
.,.-,...-,.._,,,_egn..,,n
---am.,,m..,-,
e APPENDIX 4 Page 2 of 2 en.ignus
. p wa.e: a.gs
\\
a.t d l.1
- **Ts aa 8 p a s:
.e.3
(, :t
=
t 21: * - ;...
., 2 33 m
, * %.., p s.
=
- 2. 3
- 1. -
- enw:,, -
i
.g...
. -1
- 2..j n.t.a da.
sen a n==4.m.s 9
1.
. t.a tus.
sin n2.n
.n.,
.=
=
p
..,.1 8
.y u.t.a a.s w..e.*.
- e *=.
p..
=.w. p.a
=
4
(.*
2.
.; *.a.tt.:
E..
',.. ta p,e.;.
e.
3 e.-
4L
-+ :
- I 5 *'-
-3 I
"*."3
- ** ". 's e's p M
...s
,-:7
.p.n..s ese n.
( 38
.;: 22 n.t.s an
. Pers pa.a.8e. m.
- - : : tr c'.
.n *a4
- 1 '
... J.
2
...e me,.4,
. 3 sT3.t.a.1.u.c 4
e p.,4 8.g 1
g e
t* %
...-.s u.... as
'*t
- = =
.= =f Q n. Lea adas s
1 -
$..* i=. * - '..
t.
e
. v.p..g.a v. o n.
')
...n.a e.
g g 1 y,.,=...'
.i
)
2.
e.
as. p3
. j... '
.;;r,- -,M.-
I
-amn us.
=
.a.,..
y 1,....4.
.,seys,v.2, Sus =
y,.. r..
.a
- - p up.3. nun 3.,
<-. up. 44
<= -... -1 e
- g..,
.-r
.. a.
1 ee r
.p
- p. r. u..
, s.
p.f.?.e.'s 1,.=
ts 2
- ~
b.:.
r=rra t-
.r.
s
! j H., *J.i 4
4
" p ",f='t 1 =34 2.5'22*
- . 3..;
p.*f.77: net 1 9.s's p.
a
. n.3n ie
. s...ine y.rez m,.
D
- * * *. *2 <
. n.p.wie
..3 3;
- ~
T
- i p"r*.ra
~~
.s
.=
3
\\
j
-.l 7ey
.L j
f.,
I. #
.1 :-
(
F.:. r.1.
.-L
. :c g -.
E
. ~...
d,, e <....'.u.......
.a 4
- 4. w.asas g "-
a
.4 g-
=
s
.. 1
- s..
(sr
.'.~
< 5.9
..~
28 4.
d=2, u
b.
3
=,. *.....
eu.
=-
t ~~
g I.
=
e=6 c a g*g 4g
.g_.
a[
l. l
[
l l
-1
[
l l
l 3
l 1
ee..
7/n Study finds declining 3
construction leadtimes N"
for nukes being built monen s.eues
, (
A y; /s f, g.
the efracts.t debbecue deiay. a.m.
essaan eager
~
NNN pe.ed by manageme= and the enom tesnee ano deereeseeg fee ptenta new enderehne varietase tu leedtsene het de g
'. - \\,s,N' e
A new stedy published by the tiee.
of physseel plant dttfeeeeees. diffee.
. ' 8 e
tru Powee Reseeret feetaste ehewe enree se eenstroesien managesmeet e*
that noetese p&aat esmetreetsee need.
sporeech. etc. when esa cesse een.
\\
a beseg bedt. N4 fladtag sharply ees.
not espiaan the treed over tame.
j e
The resset see the twe. pert trend.
)
traderts other saadaes of neeleer een.
16ae sheen se the flgere The sehd hae l
F Toetase wheet show that leedtimes here steadely emerveeed ta a corrent een the left showe the leteCame tread 1
seeenge of sheet le yeere.
fee plaats with CPn seemed freen 19eg
". to The study. tseled. -Aa Analysaa of to 1971. Nee are the post-ternkey.
i pee.Calvert Chtfe-deceeeee plants.
Peeer Plant Coestreetten Leod T%er are, eeeemuaNy. the aerleer Times.* was done by Apotied Doet.
peseta new en operstaest Mermakeing Q
i asse Analyses, lee., a tienne Part.
est the data.eestter efforta and fee.
i s
Cahiernes esasehens Arm. It's meet reedeng for may etdety amenageetheek.
tenng een dehberste delay lesen a eng sheet the poseekdaty of es4enne te 8 pemes a year.g at a rete of 4 j
strasght hae 6aeressen Cemet reet tee new meseleer especty and eemeerned leedtnenes fee planta mesed CPe dee.
I sheet the empredertstehty of the leegth and east af eemetrertese.
og that pened 6acevooed from toegb.
r Se,eced oneseel amelytecal methods ly to meette to sheet as eneaths.
I A deseeetenesee teep op to about led to the seepeseeg fledesgs First, its monthe for planta semoed CPe se the Freeerehefs pletted constreeteen leadtame seenned as the time from 1971 and the years asemedbetely fee.
emmetrectase peraiet aseeame, to heel loweeg is shown sa the seeend part af leed approwess osmanes yue of CP ie.
the treed hee. These are the pients esaaee, met year of eemeletasem N Just new beeng eempieted and, for the ressemang one that the CP date mee, sneet part. sida ender enestreetnest i
arveretely represents the *regWo.
N eempteues datee fee meet et tery ers' et a peset than the gespee.
these plaats had to be teaculated eence eneet are endneaned. The researchere 8'*"'~~
I"***'#'****'"***"**
tsee date Alee, the reeeerebeen elemeneted emed otdety estimatee et se empet ta a model they eenstreeted to forceast
[
i
[
sgy sempleteen dates. The moetet predert.
Gesad t.' elf I get a CP e Mertemhre.
i a steady doghae frase the SIS. month 8914 and tesh 31 eneathe IMus emen.
I level back deve to the treed lose.
taened to the study as the euryneeag
"'*' 8 8e*==
rJf L Whees wen sa go from there? "We eeeerd erheeeed at $4. Leese 2 ehern deteheestel sere EPR.7 tned not te speestate "
get sta CP in 1977. It reeently atarted f
preseet scenesee alte,e pg essuemesee Chapet.
aAee e leedessee of eaay 7e ee the e
}
emeems ese ao J
Plants web cps seemed eAce le7s i
I are est beeng de& seed as morb be The rea these enerts. the stedy aeggeste. It
{
7s l and the see for the deseemstanosey serveests that they was be eempersed i
.,e, seeeee to be nearned as the to te e.ye.e isme frame see.
frees the stedy s j
.or ~
e-eeed b, e the ree;elstacy een sees with the long tene treedhae ee.n osce 3.e..A. nn
.,e,o,,e,,,,,od g-piant. Isamed CPe N
.eret - eeee pe,te,wier.w.e, e
Na tree m..
e to to me.te,,. ret. net e.
e oteesee on t l ee.ee..m e.
e, ' II **
f terefferte af the thMe mener meertree it segreene that eineetPortesse tre4 e h.,t. en e,e. rot endestryehethsef the 197'e the 1975 tsmeo 8er plaats eekted es the f astee j
,P t
e Caisert Chnt derspeen, the t975 l
s,se-rerry a,s. and ihe im em.
edt met c.ostanee to dethee. but edi i
-eme se t. ihe onde, yea, -e.
Conseeremo sesor eme ssee deel at Three Male la&and.
letary retchet effeet t
They were het et the front end af Meee the stede. -The empant of so.
theer enestrertone eyete by the Col.
destes.eede emerbs en ebeteeg, het oert 41effe eeert decommen w heen a seen et senseinese meseneses sense CF ese se assear snares amese a mereen eseamme forced the Aff sthe NR("o regola.
esteesese est of-orope eerk ese.ese tory p __.. -. to emedert elate.
by normai evaststeeme persiste '
Se the eentemoed onceeeee emevese-Pete teverisaearet e4 aneh.ee saf norte.
ble* Mte attrege the sentenere easte Itose eensee as esey ese enemmet are onesease es, se eserego mesoner -
er proprets emateed of t he perfearterT enrevene em tredtestre approre le ese
_; _ esement cheeks they had bres d nag. The sentroMoble only Iheewgh fenstemen.
stedy aers that aseded e sear betesee the CP date and the fares gemeevote tai eaterstase of the regulatere pre.
1 tamer e pose fee the fleet progrete offreted.
rees Withest segh change. leedtsetes 6 Prime to that. esye the -emay, et o ne onll penheldy armaes t he aeme see ct en sessener i
1 poseenie to begee enestrertone hefeste esentener to swee. of med ehre are
- a f Jtrgs plaats ery hreseest
- se 3 t/fgs
/ Oi roser ahe CP ese eGlcssNy enleteemed :Then ksem.em she sfeen. rney no e,ee ard a rest w
,,, q
- 8"'
J 7 f Ms
/
ef ecastreetese fore-presesseme hach.
Amester es the enasat eentrobotamme I
2,,,,,g, nes dm a,,,,,,,,,
Tm e,eees pre,pde,- ree.ny. the of tu, ody ae ste.areten..t-of tw i
,er.or es. gh me., of iwee
,_e of *ise 4. shee n 8 Gepe h
yy ) pggg ggiopegMe gre}egtg dgring j)q gjee.
en the flgere, the gaderlgepg Pegole=
eng phases of theer eneetreeteos, tery ratch
[
is p r eegs re, ytaseg.,te. sty e hu go,,,wa.
.soong 5.et effert one edentsAed se e
\\
tery le**eme learned from the eret-leadesene deles N euc her maree rest
,e-et af sueestron-devet eefe degenteel t
reenre em leanime metmal hherev N esedy <ees ih e esem, e. of
,n.harme ese pemet e and dehhmee i
o.em m
- 0# O com,6eted.,est sCP pi to i. d.
deiae in p-mei e t
9 g if7gd leet Fote the Iter $teste styghne 1,.glielle Three remed tosses eer, emeartbre0 f
I gee see CP se Meptembre, leT3 and the=egt en to-depth eeeeeeegnesen of
}
nee-,
k8 # 'e%8 teen loi meath ee no h the fe,e imod date: Men Onofre 2 set a l'P en Uete.
esmetr nene sa :n moeir r peninte =
l o
both essererere apre. end spot.le7J t
toe. le73 and laseh laes messethe and l
Capsenese se asse mege ELSC?stCutbetmesomes. Aes rame
(
i n
e$
r' t
t FO/A -N -M3 1
i
/
i J---
.c.-
... - - - - -. - -,.. _. ~.... - -... -. _ - -
1 e
I LILCO tries coating to slow superheater exfoliation
(*ltIC AGO-Th e neat ren.seele dem, enie prereu si estable fee retrefteting trested tobee.
te., hfe as ihe thrnam,.tmet,d ee.
emetrettaa of a poemeering hade,cor.
Le seperheaters that have mere run.
la the fell.ecale demametrateen at perheater tubes. hefoe, esf.. leet m resesse-reeteel prerese es corrently eedershie meteece. (Clentamt no an I.i LCtl. opploratese of the esatmg etil be ebeereed hv evaleauma theen l
sedrees, at I. mag Beland f.estteeg early '* ele ventage statsee Tk chre.
e se stee gaed as a eueptement to se rotere vence flased on tehorsiers g
C. e Giesemed staties. The eetrofit mate eampesed e duerned t= sater ehemersi eteamag of the tuben. sesar tut ema. e e aatenosie a meaime==
spy 4aret tee e se de crthed at the the perfare ehemsstre of the steel to the same p.peng est e maareten.no I.*e.yene secure hfe far sehre lef re Ameneta Poece l'enfeernre is a pe.
Produce a etshee scale that e otrongly The Lehre aree etraant eeth Vee.
say eagesferem e sf.dessee.an ere ~
per he Feette n' heeler..hoch deve6 banded to the tube and een t etfeie.
tas 475, a begil temprest er, ehelstang oped the procees. EPRI o bert ste. The nothere reported thee the selvent ARet Deeheng and bedre.
helped fhad the demonstratsee, and eesting sene retaree stale grea th by a teeteeg the ehreatete was pumped PWR SG cleaning
-i u t.co.
fanne.f ahm.
ih,eegt itonee. wirdihr eghibe pmen, w opg The pretene es based me raetens the
%mell.orele teste datens heck to mean etresse. tap 4 eene end esprelate=8 e
easede of esperheatee tubes e sth a 1979 have sheen that tD e ee.seertd in reserer t hreisgh t he me, theatre it H lil.A N 8e. n A - % ese e geon.
thromete nsatersal that mahee ferrit er eerke. acesedme te the papee. Pale.
and eteams eerem and est the himlee hoe he,e deseb ged f, e hrmes ells i
etect henese hhe stainlese. jt's in.
by.eede teste at Con Ed e 4eteria 4.
dresne and dee neemere to the punto cleaneng eteem genrestore se pre..er.
l
]
tended to redece the esfahatson of for etaanpee. showed that aAer tee emeteen hae The caessag o ne pesaped saed metev eeneter estreer paense. re.
i erse est eithe.epreteetn a morer years ihm u se me,=fw.m fw thn.eeh ea he best err.se e. mm..een paried t N r s uh..e I.ain.i re.-.
l uuse of iertene sie.6e -
en ime n f tremed emanneen towe ne pee e d a i.e.createem. oh e resor.
he. Tw
. enorm,a i.n d.e...
many poser planta,,
the Ameedeseg sepertester e tile there T.tamenative of eampero snee the t ok alree seng. e en a smone AirIn,.
The pepee etmee that in es the
- e. eehois te.: ear.hmee. freen ee.
tr. esme= on.e = e.e eneneveie.
mem.fElai dihe3teemi..re.
ed e4. ihe reeeeeen vesenees. A per (De are. Group.
6
.h ise m dea..arie m seca.,
si feeierre esd eme thei de._l..
i Cuts conerete-pourin9 abor costs 25%
',- " "d ", r.i a ihe e "h. e, Ihr
-'a
-.et, e. h' eet et t 8. ' e.e l
~~' ~ ~ ~
~ -" '
ies ha o
... es.d g
m 4
baeler emmede.
the ondertewee earte.n.tvo I..e l es
[
l'enetodeel t her as there. -The effee.
eemel teme sees enae j
l ii. e
(
i a*g
, n IDOs e o e ff0fn page 43 n.-
- c n
The reetweese snelsene eh-ee the The stede shoe that the re mee t
l tree eageenesare of dehberste delse.
beee no emereese en needtimeo fue (
[
':ft it regeens that et's e major farter en a ed po-er plante -The tone seren hee.
t few preseets. 43f the 3 eneehed en teewee trend e. Dee. W hen atl=e enri i
?
depth eely esght had earnenrant debt.
es made fue deenheeste delet e. e art ed.
- ( l erste delave. D'ese t am e esche. hmeet.
ly en gvee sh en eeestrecta..a tr e.4 6
4 er. stehherste series aressented f.c to tuero con he endent.ne,e '
j
,M
$U l
percent of total alense, eer an eversee
- 4. e et h the nueteer paent. t h'e
)
?
- g U et a nonent he pee presort. t se ihe auth.
et ed. sertiedred en en-drps h assed e.....e
[
et 18. dehbeeste delse areemeteel fee 2m faeed emastreetese ps sert.
Is
- ~
sely 4 perevet.or lee smeathe ef tetal ehem ed ee sseeste. eals la mema h.
f;,
}
delse. An eversal oversee that on.
af delse tem eenernea to t he 41 m.mt h.
chides the delaw factee ree, there.
enreentevesi et the aserege neerk se 3
' j 4 ** *" ear-fmee. uneet the real arende pr= pet ee of ahet to sum.nt he *nn..me b.
Kee reassesse esareteneel fue siebtee.
euehe hr esvamatees f e hs Aldween.
ete dela, eeve lead afee1h lowee detere by messeeeneet.
- 4 IO thaa poveierted and Anemetal otrose en Dinee needtsmee sfee feeed piene.
(.*I the stehe s dones s.esmererteen base esse theorest embetanteeste eeee The est her etessar leraarb a t he reest.
Some. I he.,es,.eme e,f e et#whsig g hesee Gepps eme, e.em,seg ues, geene.ee.c.e.e e.oor, g em eegne emsoe s, esse sseisyn e
esenee tree se eess d..emger easch em essed.".es. s tw.e seds ' t..e e*
ese W e one sneen sumaese f*ie =een g esas a musee meses se proces e rms o==nessig eseeed be tradetenne8 prehleme eetb ahet the ensametry hee le e en e-a me
, seriensq ene reemog W me seyweee esce me sneen se en a ee essesso labor sad emetenale end bv ehe eccle.
eempeeeete pner te Ihe etart af vue l
The sneen asemer 6esenese es e Ces W tienene Oeepe eave pas see eeurone esos er #egenstery espece. The ("Pdeale streetsee, et least e ett re.peet te p
s i
euespe e4 emeen eesung a mspeacemer o asese Ier one eoes eeur eum se yesponse The seelyseo etee o here o ersehle the rero.
leedtemee. f e the emeresece4 ens ermia f
I' woes,see eecnesesemire me. 60s com see W *e sneen se tar ser emtassapeemos posee the. Leeery retrhet e freet ree he.h-e se e.
eneetaf sereleanei re.,ewem en. e p
essener enee seeen ey s=peaenee ene assesse neue toen es as os.come e see W see eseo a fonetame of the *regeletary ers' en puse=0 deneg t he poet I *a s e er. b t=
i est one esser scene neve toen see 2S essere aback the p& eat to besat.
the treetsme escreeer o.h.,es ed a b driehecote delet e are encheded. of heen greeth essreesete beenssee eiw.re one ret, and a he feede re.,eered e
=ame. e l
take enoper enestree-tm.a pe=.e t. t.
I ew e-e a.treard thea iaen s e f
.s er--
a e...
t -
..r
-f...-.4, he,,, h, ao e,,,,, i t e h e.
e. e,
s
.,.,-,7m : e, * -,
7.,
l 4
e
'1.,
L i he e. een,e. se seeaieme. f..e
- s. $ <* '.
ym.e e e ydees e -
I
.p Me --
, eries was.. em..
.e re.
g ee he e h
e ee e
g se peeat pts.e sii harm f ete.t n. pr.
j
.,.7.,*
j i.
I sees met h..e.
e.a e
s - '.
- * ~
.y d
reee red &ohee ce rate. met s tibe tisses
(
. tunesseuse mans W m 91188' !aseer l'heert met a t he: %=
.- wg gg=
,eme 2 ofI,he et edy te doe seen eene e e
,,,,n, n,,, ggf, reneee en detad.
emmes gissgnussenheissessssong afieft aus 6..
,,,,,, h,e, fe,, e,e 4,,,,,, y.
d trig amo te essene use clamm er omhead umhL- ; -
pime e,,ede. thre copane does.ce-f
' ~
IEmpts estung % spummEtapesWmmense te,. Tites are fortar. **=ae'steat e se j
(
i adminnems tatsum sfemies ty Qspuma tag aM g.,,
emnetrerteen teegth t enm>.a. the
- g 7,.,J-en ammhssur1 hear ttugW" dualpe cts emm he'.s been e***ed a pe** '*e*
)
are and q he nedente of the nee ease hg
.s eee r==-e tres l
-..g m,ggg g.. g e h g
{
,'g"[*d',,,"""",',',"*
f
'3 q WAhannuseumgessengstesammaro O'l
(
r*
.,===ne-am== =*s i ma=an=W.*
ir,t h e.se,opa u
t, g ammeasfusmungmergestemnspinustnamune's, m.
,ee nt.., e e,,,,e.
1 e
p, I
mm IWeselstamb Angfiep assamucusa nimiPi '
- menepheste natore of praeegt. se
(
... ', simune persnessasme.
e h,th,,.e n-t et has a He W Le l
2,,
.,2..
y,3.
[ ;. smossammengesenseammien tmat A The sted..isard ihy peresas..r. en i
r g D,!. g,,, p e
- i efreet to the e eets ha ea (mo.a.
i k
... Le ;.3 ' -,,
.d,
- 3p,.,
espiaea the te,**d l
- . y rr.
e, J
i
-9 i.4,,,.t,.,,, O g,.t ea, f.,e.a e y,.h H. ^.
eh 4
,.,,,,gg,og gy,enegeg,cq ee.g 1, eg
[s3 g'-
,. i ee'
- 4. r,',...
etterges Of leed f,reeth e,tes8bespo f
- h
.n e,ih ihe etdei, e c...eems n.sedes-
.4 e
,*4 pd,
<',* i,q, 11
.an s
P e
]e s:
nem ore.e-. ~
e.g,gg,,,,,,e,,,,,,,,,,,,e, g
se,e.re st.t.i se stacnac tusse ese esseee. use.
r h
t l
t, l'
I r
i l
{' 'Q
.~.
~
~i!
@B&ite!!e Pacific North..est Labora'ories e.
P O. Boi 999 Richland, Washington U.S.A. 99352 Teicpnone iso 9: 375-2575 Teles15-28N 18 July 1963 w'-
Leland S. Behl General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue, MC 357 San Jose, California 95125
Dear Leland:
This is to confirm that the second meeting of the Review Group for the NRC Special Study of Nuclear Quality Assurance will be held on September 7 and 8 in Seattle.
Each of the nine group members has indicated his availability on these dates.
You will be advised of conference facility and accomodation arrangements as soon as. these have been determined.
George Coulb~ourn has volunteered a special treat for the group and staff on Friday morning, September 9, in the form of a tour through the Boeing Everett plant. This facility, which produces the 747s and 767s, is the world's largest production plant covering scme 65 acres under one roof.
Most group members have submitted written commentaries related to the meeting held in Washington, D.C., June 8 and 9.
We expect to have all contributions in hand by July 22 at which time the final report covering the first group meeting.,
will be complete. You will receive your copy shortly thereafter.
We look forward to another stimulating and productive session in Seattle in September.
r Very truly yours,
%AW/a L
bec: NRC/IE:
Battelle:
Bill Brach Marilyn Walsh, HARC Fred W. Albaugh Melinda lial1oy Mary McGuire, Dick DeYoung Bob Sorenson Ed Baker Harold Harty l
Bill Altman Jim Christensen
[
FWA:JAC:cg Brian Grimes Miles Patrick J:mes Taylor
[
EG&G Idaho, Inc.
'i NC-Kist & Assoc:
Larry Kubicek h
John Heidenreich Kenneth Carroll Richard Kleckner Dellon Assoc.,
f=0/ A - t%- Ut 3 q
G65 h
y
.),
'N DISTRIBUTION LIST O
Leland S. Bohl General Electric Company 175 CurtnersAvenue, MC 357, s
y San Jose, CA 94125 r
Robert V. Laney 24 Trout Farm Lane
.N i
Duxbury, liA 023">2 John L. Hansel Systems Development Corporation 800 Oak Ridge Turnpike Oak Ridge. TN 37830 I
~
John E. Gray IEAL 600 New Hampshire Avenue, R.W.
Washington, DC 20037 dhomas B. Cochran 1
Natural Resources Defense Council' 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006
, Spencer H. Bush Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory P.O. Box 999 R,ichland, WA 99352 1
~
j-John M. Amaral Bechtel Power Corporation P.O. Box 3965 San Francisco, CA 94119 George Coulbourn
. Boeing Engineering & Construction P.O. Box 3707, MS 9A-73 i Seattle, WA 98124 k
4
)
s 4
j s
C4BaHelle Pxific Northwest Laboratories P O. Son 999 Richland. %ashington U.5 A. 99352 Telephone (5097 375-2575 Tebi 15-2874 18 July 1983 George Coulbourn Coeing Engineering & Construction P.O. Box 3707, MS 9A-73 Seattle, Washington 98124
Dear George:
This is to confirm that the second meeting of the Review Group for the NRC Special Study of Nuclear Quality Assurance will be held September 7 and 8 in Seattle. Each of the nine group members has indicated his availability on these dates. You will be advised of conference facility and acconmodation arrangements as soon as these have been determined.
Thank you for your genemus offer to provide a tour of the 747-767 production plant for the group and staff on Friday morning, September 9.
The invitation has been extended to the review group menters and I anticipate considerable interest.
lest group mecbers have submitted written commentaries related to the meeting held in Washington, D.C., June 8 and 9.
We expect to have all contributions in hand by July 22, at which time the final report covering the first group meeting will be complete. You will receive your copy shortly thereafter.
We look' forward to another stimulating and productive session in Seattle in
~~
September.
tr ly yours, W it-Fred W. Albaugh bcc: NRC/IE:
Battelle:
Bill Brach Marilyn Walsh, HARC i
JWA:JAC:cg Melinda Malloy Mary McGuire, Dick DeYoung Bob Sorenson Ed Baker Harold Harty Bill Altman Jim Christensen Brian Grimes Miles Patrick James Taylor EG&G Idaho, Inc.
NC Kist & Assoc.:
Larry Kubicek John Heidenreich Kenneth Carroll Richard Kleckner Dellon Assoc.,
Bob Dellon
J (f@'
v U
]k.
i
- p. /
3 NRC SPECIAL STUDY OF NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE BRIEFING SLIDES FOR PRESENTATION i
i JUNE 8-9,1983 SPECIAL TOPIC: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE j
CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT T
k' W
-G
. ?-
N s
Y o
tz O
J e
i CLASSIFICATION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED 1
i ON THE CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT i
A. PRIVATE CITIZENS C. UTILITIES (1). CHRISTINE SIMMERS, MD l
(2) JERRY GIRTON,IN ~
(4) SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC, CA l
(3) MARVIN LEWIS, PA (12) PSE &' G, NJ (7) SUSAN HIATT, OH (13) HOUSTON L & P, TX (9) L.H. WILKIE, JR. AZ (16) FLORIDA P & L, FL
' (10) DANIEL GARLAND, WA (20) DUKE POWER CO. NC (14) NANCY COMPTON, TN (21) BALTIMORE G & E MD i
(27) CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING (19) L.D. GUSTAFSON, WA
{
(22) JOHN O'NEILL, MI CO. (CEI), OH (26) MARVIN LEWIS, PA AA IORS l
(28) WELLS EDDLEMAN, NC (11) THE NATIONAL BOARD OF BOILER AN B. CITIZEN ORGANIZATIONS P
T i
- 29) MANAG ENT NALYSIS CO,(MAC),
(6) SUFFOLK NUCLEAR STUDY GROUP, NY (30) INPO, GA i
I (18) UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, DC(UCS)
(24) AUDOBON SOCIETY, THE INDIANA SASSAFRAS (31) AMERICAN NUCLEAR INSURERS,
}
(25) SINNISSIPPI ALLIANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, (ANI), CN IL (SAFE)
E. A/Es, SUPPLIERS AND OTHERS 4
1 (5) TOWNSEND & BOTTUM, Mi j
i (8) AUTOMATIC SWITCH CO, NY (15) STONE AND WEBSTER, MA (17) POWER ENGINEERING SOC. OF THE IEEE,PA (23) AIF, DC i
i l
i l
-=_
t U
J
~
SUMMARY
OF COMMENTS ON THE CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT e THERE IS GENERAL AGREEMENT ON THE NEED TO IMPROVE CONSTRUCTION QA e IMPROVEMENT MUST COME THROUGH ATTACK ON THE ROOT CAUSES OF DEFICIENCIES e THERE ARE TWO ROOT CAUSES: UTILITY's MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT, AND CONTROL OF QA. NRC'S REQUIREMENTS, ORGANIZATION, AND ENFORCEMENT e MAJORITY FEELS THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT DOES NOT REALLY ADDRESS THESE ROOT CAUSES e THREE MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES:
A.
NO NEED TO DEVELOP ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS OVER AND ABOVE INPO'S AND NRC'S B.
NRC CANNOT IMPROVE ITSELF WITH PRESENT
'MIN DS ET'.
C.
CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT ITSELF NEEDS CLARIFICATION BEFORE PUBLIC CAN RESPOND s
www-ime--w
ew--ee-ev,--w-ww we -wwwwev---w-----
- - w-wi-w w--w-
+ w er---i---
, - + - -<_ew r--
e r-ww'
= =,-=+-
eei----w--,---e+--
---ve--r-----,-vw r,--e-*-=-*wr v.-ww-v-
D SECTION 13(b)1 0
j MORE PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO A/E CRITERIA j
e CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT IS MEANT BY MORE
{
PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH. ACT READS: " APPROACH l
WHICH IS PRESCRIPTIVE FOR DEFINING PRINCIPAL i
ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING CRITERIA." MOST i
COMMENTS ADDRESS MORE_ PRESCRIPTIVE QA i
e ALL NUCLEAR ORGANIZATIONS FEEL STRONGLY THAT A MORE PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH WOULD BE l
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE e NO NEED FOR MORE PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH SINCE INPO'S EVALUATION (PHASE II) DOES EVERYTHING THE ACT j
EXPECTS TO ACCOMPLISH i
e MORE PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO A/E CRITERIA WOULD NOT HAVE SOLVED THE ZlMMER, ETC. PROBLEM i'
e MORE PRESCRIPTIVE QA REQUIREMENTS COULD HAVE HELPED, ESPECIALLY WHEN APPLIED TO THE DESIGN 4
FUNCTION i
().
O J
SECTION 13(b)2
{
CONDITION ISSUANCE OF CP ON MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE 1
t e CONFUSION ABOUTTHE EMPHASIS OF THE PHRASE:
i
" LICENSEE IS CAPABLE OF INDEPENDENTLY MANAGING." IS THE FOCUS ON THE CAPABILITY OR ON THE INDEPENDENCE?
1 l
e THERE IS ALSO CONFUSION OF HOW MANAGEMENT CAN i
" DEMONSTRATE" ITS CAPABILITY OR ITS INDEPENDENCE i
e CONDITIONING THE CP ON CONFORMANCE WITH APPENDIX B SHOULD SATISFY THIS SECTION i
l e TO DEMONSTRATE CAPABILITY (AND INDEPENDENCE FROM DESIGN GROUP) PRIOR TO CP CLEARLY MEANS CONTRACTING WITH THIRD PARTY. (SEE SECTION 13(b)d5) i i
j f
l l
V q
.J j
SECTION 13(b)3 i
)
~
THlRD PARTY AUDITS OF NPP CONSTRUCTION i
4 e QA AUDITING ORGANIZATION ARE UNANIMOUS THAT THIRD PARTY INSPECTIONS ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN CURRENT PRACTICE e CONSTRUCTION AUDIT IS NOT ENOUGH.TO REESTABLISH CONFIDENCE j
SAFETY OF NPPs. NEED ALSO A KNOWLEDGEABLE DESIGN VERIFICATION e AN INDEPENDENT INSPECTION PROGRAM SHOULD HAVE THREE PHASES:
j TASK A SHOULD ASSURE THATTHE DESIGN CONFORMS WITH LICENSE j
APPLICATION TASK B SHOULD ASSURE THAT THE AS-BUILT PLANT CONFORMS TO THE
{
DESIGN
~
s TASK C SHOULD ASSURE THAT THE FIRST TWO TASKS ARE IMPLEM THE FIRST TWO TASKS ARE PRODUCT ORIENTED, WHILE TASK C IS THE i
PROCESS OF QA/QC t
e THE CAT INSPECTION, IF ADEQUATELY IMPLEMENTED, SHOULD SATISFY THIS SECTION e IN ORDER TO COMPARE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS INSPECTION PROGRAMS, ONE MUST BE ABLE TO MEASURE EFFECTIVENESS QUANTITATIVELY e THERE IS A STRONG CONSENSUS THAT, WHOEVER DOES THE INSPECTION (S),
THEY MUST BE VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE AREA UNDER REVIEW. N j
EXPERTISE IN CONSTRUCTION (PRODUCT ORIENTED) AS WELL AS IN QA (PROCESS ORIENTED) l
~
l 1
0
\\}
SECTION 13(b)4 IMPROVEMENT IN NRC'S ORGANIZATION METHODS AND QA PROGRAM e THERE IS ALMOST UNIFORM AGREEMENTTHAT NRC'S QA FUNCTION NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. THERE IS LESS AGREEMENT AS TO HOW TO ACHIEVE SUCH IMPROVEMENT e THE AIF CALLS FOR SIMPLIFIED, CLARIFIED AND MORE CONSISTENT NRC REQUIR EMENTS e THERE IS A LONG LIST OF SUGGESTIONN FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS RANGING FROM NRC DOING ALL INSPECTIONS (WITH 30 PEOPLE PER SITE) TO CITIZENS-PANELS WITH THE RIGHTTO HIRE AND FIRE ALL QA PERSONNEL e UCS DEVOTES SEVERAL PAGES TO THE CONFLICT BETWEEN APPENDIX A AND APPENDIX B INTERPRETATION OF GA REQUIREMENTS. SUGGESTS THAT THE STAFF REVIEW SHOULD ADDRESS WHAT CONSTITUTES COMPLIANCE WITH G D C-1 e SEVERAL COMMENTORS COMPLAIN ABOUT NRC INSPECTORS QUALIFICATIONS. "NRC INSPECTORS SEEM TO BE TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS WITH LITTLE QA PROGRAM KNOWLEDGE, HAVING TROUBLE IN RELATING SPECIFIC FINDINGS TO QAP WEAKNESS, WHICH IS THE REAL ROOT CAUSE."
_.__-.._---.-.--.<,----m
,--e,
---w- - - -
.,m-
,-e-e.,---
2.--
w,-.s e-i-,..,, - -
.-.w----,,..-i,-,.--%-.-..w---
y d
d l
SECTION 13(b)5 CONDITION ISSUANCE OF CP ON l
PRIOR COMMITMENT TO USE 3rd PARTY AUDITS f
i e CONFUSION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE l
BETWEEN 13(b)3 AND 13(b)5 l
e REQUIREMENTS FOR AN INDEPENDENT 1
INSPECTOR SHOULD CONSIDER THE OVERLAPPING AND DISRUPTIVE EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE AUDITS e ONE PROPOSES THAT THE NRC RESIDENT INSPECTOR SHOULD HEAD A TEAM OF PROPERLY SELECTED SPECIALISTS, AND THE LICENSEE SHOULD " CONTRACT" WITH THE NRC FOR THE NECESSARY QA SERVICES T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - * * " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
}
~. :},
^
--~-~
' gh..
l i
i NRC SPECIAL STUDY OF NUCLEAR i
-QUALITY ASSURANCE l
BRIEFING SLIDES FOR PRESENTATION JUNE 8,1983 BY J. TAYLOR, NRC 4
TOPIC: BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF PROJECT l
N mD Y$4 W
--,.-,,,---------_w_
~
O
.,)
1 i
NRC -dRGANIZATION -
i i
l COMMISSIONERS a
i l'
i EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR l
DIRCKS i
i l
}
\\
NUCLEAR NUCLEAR INSPECTION j
NUCLEAR MATERIAL REGULATORY AND 1
REACTOR SAFETY AND RESEARCH ENFORCEMENT REGULATION SAFEGUARDS MINOGUE DeYOUNG f
DENTON DAVIS j
j i
j 1
. - _ ~
Q OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT t
R.C. DeYOUNG, DIRECTOR J.H. SNIEZEK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR I
TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER C.W. THAYER, DIR ECTOR PROGRAM SUPPORT BRANCH J.L BLAHA, CHIEF ENFORCEMENT STAFF J.A. AXELRAD, ACTING DIRECTOR I
I DIVISION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY i
SAFEGUARDS, AND INSPECTION PREPAREDNESS AND PROGRAMS ENGINEERING RESPONSE J.M. TAYLOR, DIRECTOR E.L JORDAN, DIRECTOR B.K. GRIMES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR S.A. SCHWARTZ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR t
QUALITY ASSURANCE BRANCH ENGINEERING AND GENERIC N, CHIEF COMMUNICATIONS BRANCH R.L BAER, CHIEF REACTOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS EVENTS ANALYSIS BRANCH BRANCH W.R. MILLS, CHIEF R.F. HEISHMAN, CHIEF OPERATING REACTOR PROGRAMS INCIDENT RESPONSE BRANCH BRANCH K.E. PER KINS. CHIEF J.G. PARTLOW, CHIEF SAFEGUARDS AND MATERIALS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS BRANCH BRANCH Lt. COBB,' CHIEF F.G. PAG ANO, CHIEF s
__7__.__._ ___. _.
0 U
i l
BACKGROUND t
e OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS THERE HAS BEEN A SERIES OF WELL j
PUBLIClZED PROBLEMS REGARDING THE QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION (DESIGN AND ENGINEERING) AT SEVERAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PROJECTS e
PLANTS RECEIVING WIDESPREAD ATTENTION INCLUDE:
{
-MARBLE HILL j
-MIDLAND j
-ZIMMER l
-SOUTH TEXAS
-DIABLO CANYON e THE PERCEIVED SEVERITY OF THE QUALITY PROBLEMS AND THE ATTENDANT
{
PUBLICITY AND PUBLIC INTEREST HAVE CAUSED THE CONGRESS AND THE NRC COMMISSIONERS TO QUESTION l
-THE ABILITY OF INDUSTRY TO CONSTRUCT NUCLEAR PLANTS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC SAFETY l
-THE ABILITY OF THE NRC STAFF TO PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT INDUSTRY l
HAS CONSTRUCTED PLANTS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC SAFETY l
l e AS A RESULT, THE INDUSTRY AND THE NRC ARE JOINTLY FACING AN EROSION IN THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE IN OUR ABILITY TO BUILD, LICENSE, AND OPERATE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC SAFETY
- P I
9 e
~
.?
s k
u
U U
l COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR l
~!
j AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT l
~
t OVERSIGHT HEARING ON QUALITY ASSURANCE AT THE ZIMMER NUCLEAR STATION l
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MORRIS K. UDALL l
j TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14,9:45 a.m.
I On June 10 of this year the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing to consider the quality assurance (QA) breakdown at the Zimmer nuclear powerplant. In this case and possiblylothers there has been a widespread failure to adhere.to the NRC's quality j
I
' assurance requirements. At Zimmer, the severity of the problem was recognized only after construction was virtually complete. MY PRIMARY CONCERN NOW CENTERS ON THE NRC'S ABILITY TO DETERMINE THAT A REACTOR CAN BE. SAFELY OPERATED FOLLOWING A QA BREAKDOWN LIKE THAT ATZIMMER.
t i
To give some idea of the extent of the Zimmer problem, I will indicate briefly the nature of i
some of the issues that must be addressed prior to issuance of an operating license.
-Deficient weld procedures l
-Apparent falsification of weld procedure test data
-insufficient documentation to demonstrate that many of the 2000 welders who have worked ~at the Zimmer site were qualified for the work they performed. The NRC has informed me that, "The potential impact of the (inadequate) welder qualification records is that a ___
'3 t
U C
J
~
1 l
-The chemical and physical properties of certain safety related j
piping cannot be documented. The NRC staff has stated that, "The j
potential impact of the loss of traceable piping is that a substantial l
amount of such piping may have to be replaced."
l
-Significant quantities of safety related materials were purchased l
from vendors not qualified to supply such materials. The NRC has l
stated that, "The potential impact of the material purchases is that i
j installed materials may have to be replaced."
f While the June 10 hearing yielded useful qualitative information, NRC j
staff were vague with regard to specifics. Testimony at the hearing and subsequent correspondence CAUSES ME TO QUESTION I
WHETHER THE NRC STAFF IS ON TOP OF THE PROBLEM. Today's l
hearing is a direct result of my not being satisfied with information l
that we have been provided to date.
l In addition to our having been provided incomplete information, there are other disturbing aspects of this matter. I am concerned, as I said l
on June 10, that.the NRC staff has not required an independent audit l
of the Zimmer plant. IT SEEMS UNREALISTIC TO HAVE l
CONFIDENCE THAT THE COMPANY TH AT NEGLECTED QUALITY l
ASSURANCE FOR SO MANY YEARS WILL ON ITS OWN FULLY l
. UNCOVER THE DEFICIENCIES RESULTING FROM ITS NEGLECT.
- - An independent audit is even more important in view of the NRC l
suggesting that they have w=
o O
U No. C-14-82 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tel. 3D1/492-7716 4
REMARKS BY NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, CHAIRMAN U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATTHE INPO CONFERENCE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS i
OF
\\
l NUCLEAR FACILITIES ATLANTA, GEORGIA October 5,1982
" MEETING THE CHALLENGE FOR A NUCLEAR FUTURE" Your UTILITIES NEED PUBLIC CONFIDENCE TO SURVIVE AND PROSPER. It seems to me that confidence in civilian nuclear activities requires two things to happen: - first, nuclear power plants must provide reliable, affordable electricity without accidents for a long period of time; and, second, there must be a broad public perception that the nuclear industry maintains the highest standards, virtually unsurpassed anywhere else in business and the professions. Said in another way, I think confidence in civilian nuclear power requires solid indications of a genuine determination by you to run a very tight ship and to take firm responsibility for public safety.
For today let me concentrate on construction quality assurance.
I continue to be concerned that some of YOU NEED TO DO MORE TO SHORE UP YOUR OWN j
AND THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE IN THE QUALITY ASSURANCE OF YOUR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS.
QUALITY ASSURANCE, OR QA, SHOULD BE THE CENTRAL FOCUS NOW FOR ALL THE UTILITIES BUILDING NUCLEAR PLANTS. The Commission has considered quality assurance to be a key factor in the design and construction of nuclear power plants for many years. The problems that have been identified recently indicate that the fundamental cause of most design and construction j
defsciencies as the lack of total management commitment to quality.
i f
i
!(.---
~
u.
U J
~
CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMISSION INTEREST A NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS AND t
COMMISSION MEETINGS HAVE BEEN HELD RECENTLY ON THE SUBJECT OF QUALITY j
ASSURANCE IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY. RESULTS OF THIS HIGH LEVEL ATTENTION INCLUDE:
i i
{
e CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION REQUIRING NRC t
TO CONDUCT AN INDEPTH STUDY OF QUALITY IN l
CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING DESIGN AND i
ENGINEERING) THE STUDY MUST INCLUDE t
l PILOT PROGRAM TO TEST SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES 1
e COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A SERIES OF NRC i
INITIATIVES DESIGNED TO ASSURE QUALITY IN CONSTRUCTION AND NRC'S ABILITY TO MONITOR AND EVALUATE IT l
- c. -
~
(9 J
i i
[
CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT e SECTION'13 OF NRC'S FY 82-83 AUTHORIZATION ACT "x
e REQUIRES:
A.
ASSIGNMENT OF AT LEAST ONE RESIDENT INSPECTOR AT EVERY CONSTRUCTION SITE GREATER THAN 15%
COMPLETE (BY END OF FY 82)
~
B.
STUDY OF EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS FOR IMPROVING QUALITY IN CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN OF NUCLEAR REACTORS REQUIREMENT B ENTAILS:
e (1)
ANALYSIS OF QA/QC PROGRAMS AT REPRESENTATIVE SITES i
)
(2)
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS, INCLUDING PROGRAMS DESCRIBED IN THE ACT (3)
CONDUCT OF A PILOT PROGRAM TO TEST ONE OR 1
MORE OF THE SPECIFIED ALTERNATIVES (4)
OBTAINING INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC, LICENSEES, j
ACRS, AND PROFESSIONAL GROUPS (5)
PREPARING REPORT ON STUDY. DUE TO CONGRESS APRIL 4,1984
CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT STUDY e FIVE SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS DESCRIBED IN THE ACT ARE:
(1)
A MORE PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH FOR DEFINING PRINCIPAL ARCHITECTU$L AND ENGINEERING CRITERIA f
(2)
CONDITIONING CP ON Ll@ENSEE DEMONSTRATION OF ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE ITS QUALITY RESPONSIBLE (3)
USE OF AUDITORS / INSPECTORS FROM ASSOCIATIONS 3
OF PROFESSIONALS (4)
IMPROVEMENT OF NRC'S ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAMS FOR QA 1
(5)
CONDITIONING CP ON LICENSEE USE OF INDEPENDENT INSPECTORS TO AUDIT ITS QA PROGRAM e PILOT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS l
(1)
ALTERNATIVE (5) MUST BE TESTED l
(2)
OTHER ALTERNATIVES MAY BE TESTED (3)
PILOTS AT THREE OR MORE SITES UNDER CONSTRUCTION l
(4)
AT LEAST 2 SITES WITH REMEDIAL PROGRAMS UNDERWAY
.\\ (5)
AT LEAST 1 APPARENTLY SUCCESSFUL SITE t
a I
i f
~
o V
V l
ij INITIATIVES CONTAINED IN SECY-82-352, PAPER ENTITLED l
" ASSURANCE OF QUALITY,"
i (AUGUST 29,1982D i
i INITIATIVES ARE DESIGNED TO:
e ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL CONFIDENCE IN THE QUALITY OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES j
e IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT CONTROL OF QUALITY e IMPROVE THE NRC CAPABILITY TO EVALUATE THE
[
IMPLEMENTATION OF LICENSEE PROGRAMS i
e SATISFY THE DIRECTION PROVIDED THE NRC IN AN AMENDMENT ACCEPTED BYTHE HOUSE AND t
SENATE CONFEREES IN THEIR JOINT CONSIDERATION OF THE NRC'S FY 82-83 AUTHORIZATION BILL
)
{
i
}
1 I
b-
t; V
l J
^
?
.f NRC QUALITY ASSURANCE INITIATIVES INITIATIVE PRESENTATION 1.
CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT a.
STUDY OF EXISTING AND ALT $RNATIVE QA JUNE 8: ALTMAN, HARTY, PROGRAMS CARROLL (1) CASE STUDIES (2) REVIEW OF NRC, INDUSTRY, JUNE 9: BRACH AND GOVERNMENT QA PROGRAMS b.
SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL, AMENDMENT JUNE 8 & 9: SEVERAL ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS PR ESENTATIONS
~
c.
PILOT PROGR AMS JUNE 8: TAYLOR 2.
MEASURES AT NEAR-TERM OPERATING LICENSE FACILITIES
- a. SELF EVALUATION
- b. REGIONAL EVALUATION
- c. INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW 3.
INDUSTRY INITIATIVE 4.
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM
- a. PROCEDURE CHANGES
- b. CONSTRUCTION APPRAISAL TEAM (CAT)
INSPECTIONS JUNE 9: TAYLOR
- c. INTEGRATED DESIGN INSPECTIONS JUNE 9: TAYLOR
- d. EVALUATION OF REPORTED INFORMATION 5.
QUALIFICATION AND DESIGNATION OF QA/QC PERSONNEL
- a. QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QA/QC JUNE 9: MALLOY PERSONN'EL
- b. STUDY OF DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES JUNE 9: BRACH
o o
)
[
NRC'S QUALITY. ASSURANCE INITIATIVnS INITIATIVE
!i PR ESENTATION j
6.
MANAGEMENTS,
, o
... i n inu<o MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY SPECIAL TOPICS a.
f IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
' JUNE 9: MALLOY 1
b.
CRAFTSMANSHIP 7.
LONG-TERM REVIEW
(
CONTRACT AND PROCUREMENT JUNE 9: ALTMAN/WALSH a.
PROCESS JUNE 8: ALBAUGH/ GRIMES b.
REVIEW GROUP 8.
QUALITY ASSURANCE STAFF CONSOLIDATION 9.
STUDY OF A REAFFIRMATION i
PROGRAM JUNE 9: BRACH e
e
=
e a
~~
)
u O
^J g-1 i
l NRC SPECIAL STUDY OF NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE e
4 BRIEFING SLIDES FOR PRESENTATION i
4 JUNE 8,1983 l
BY F. ALBAUGH, BATTELLE PNL B. GRIMES, NRC l
l TOPIC: ROLE OF REVIEW GROUP i
1 i
73
- A+
s 9
m
u V
J ROLE OF REVIEW GROUP i
e STAFF HAS ASSEMBLED GROUP OF DISTINGUISHED PROFESSIONALS TO STUDY APPROACH, EFFORT, AND FINDINGS; TO SUGGEST IMPROVEMENTS AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVE i
e GROUP MEMBERS WILL PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS.
WILL MEET AS A GROUP BUT NO COLLEGIAL POSITION WILL t
l BE SOUGHT a GROUP SIZE OF 8-12. REPRESENT EXPERIENCE AND i
EXPERTISE IN FOLLOWING: -
-CONSTRUCTION, NUCLEAR AND NON-NUCLEAR
-PROJECT MANAGEMENT, NUCLEAR AND NON-NUCLEAR
~
-DESIGN ENGINEERING
-PLANT OPER ATIONS
-QUALITY ASSURANCE, NUCLEAR AND NON-NUCLEAR
-NATIONAL LABOR ATORIES
-A/E, NSSS
{
-NAVY, SHIP BUILDING
-PUBLIC ADVOCATACY e THREE TWO DAY MEETINGS PLANNED: JUNE, EARLY FALL, EARLY WINTER e REVIEW GROUP NOT REQUIRED BY CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT. ESTABLISHED TO ENHANCE-QUALITY OF l
REPORT y
)
O 3
- c:
i f
.-r; i
1 i
NRC SPECIAL STUDY OF NUCLEAR
?
1 QUALITY ASSURANCE i
BRIEFING SLIDES FOR PRESENTATION i
I JUNE 8,1983 BY
)
W. ALTMAN, NRC 1
TOPIC: NRC QA REVIEW ACTIVITIES 7xys.
.t e
s vJ
o O
I
~
CONTENTS OF PRESENTATION 1
STUDY OF EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE QA PROGRAMS e
- CASE STUDIES OF LICENSEE PROGRAMS 4
- REVIEW OF NRC, INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT i
QA PROGRAMS i
j e
SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS c
4 e
PILOT PROGRAMS i
1 SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES e
- QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QA/QC PERSONNEL i
- STUDY OF DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES l
- STUDY OF CONTRACTS AND PROCUREMENT t
PROCESSES i
r e
4
+
c.
O J
l
~
CONGRESSIONAL FORD AMENDMENT STUDY i
STUDY OF EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE j
PROGRAMS I
l j
EXISTING PROGRAMS e CASE STUDIES OF LICENSEE PROGRAMS i
-DETERMINE ROOT CAUSES OF SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF i
PROJECTS l
-ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PROGRAM
-USES DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH
-lNCLUDES SITE VISITS, REQUIRED INPUT
-CONDUCTED AT MARBLE HILL, VOGTLE, DIABLO CANYON
-TARGET OF 7-8, SPLIT BETWEEN PROBLEM PLANTS AND NON-PROBLEM PLANTS 4
i l
-USES CONTRACTOR SUPPORT t
-HAS MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION
-EMPHASIS ON GENERIC IMPLICATIONS
\\
l
\\
L~;.
O J
~
,, ~,.
CONGRESSIONAL FORD. AMENDMENT STUDY STUDY OF EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS o,
s
., is,.
e REVIEW OF NRC, INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT QA i
i PROGRAMS 1
-DETERMINE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF OUTSIDE PROGRAMS 1
f THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO NRC~
i.
-DETERMINE SHORTCOMINGS IN NRC PROGRAM i
-LOOKS BOTH AT WRITTEN PROGRAMS AND THEIR i
IMPLEMENTATION
-OUTSIDE PROGRAMS INCLUDE
-DOE (FFTF, GCEP)
L
-FAA (BOEING) i
-NAVY
-NASA l
l i
-REVIEW OF FOREIGN NUCLEAR PROGRAMS i
l
-WRITTEN PROGRAMS OF 7-8 COUNTRIES i
-POSSIBLE VISITS TO 2-3 COUNTRIES i
~
l
~
y G
J SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES
,p QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QA/QC PERSONNEL e NRC HAS FOUND UNQUALIFIED QC INSPECTORS AT SOME PLANTS e PROBLEM STILL OCCURRING e STAFF UNDERTAKING STUDY TO i
-DETERMINE EXTENT AND NATURE OF PROBLEM j
-DETERMINE WHAT QUALIFICATION AND/OR l
CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS ARE AVAILABLE AND THEIR APPLICABILITY
-DETERMINE. GAPS IN COVERAGE i
-DETERMINE' GAPS IN IMPLEh/IENTATION OF EXISTING j
STANDARDS i
-RECOMMEND COST-EFFECTIVE IMPROVEMENTS TO l
ADDRESS IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS
-PROVIDE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN e PRELIMINARY RESULTS EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE BEFORE l
B REPORT TO CONGRESS l
e STUDY NOT ON CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT CRITICAL i
PATH
q).
CONGRESSIONAL AICENDMENT PILQT J
PROGRAM PILOT PROGR AMS e ALTERNATIVE INPO PILOT e ALTERNATIVE PILOTS AT
-MARBLE HILL (TORREY PINES) l
-PALO VERDE (TORREY PINES)
-MIDLAND (TER A)
-POSSIBLY SOUTH TEXAS (MULTIPLE CONSULTANTS USING INPO METHODOLOGYi) i l
e ALL PILOTS INCLUDE ON SITE REVIEW BY SENIOR NRC l
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTORS i
e NRC CAT EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT PILOT PROGRAMS NEED TO (AND WILL) BE EVALUATED IN TERMS OF i
COVERAGE OF l
-MANAGEMENT
~
-QA l
7
-DESIGN PROCESS
-H AR DWAR E e EMPHASIS IS ON THE QUALITY OF THE HARDWARE VS l
PROGRAMMATIC ASPECTS-AND PAPERWORK.(i.e.,
l HISTORICAL AUDITING METHODS)
I l
l h-O U
~
~
CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT STUDY 4
SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS I'
PR ESENTATION (1) MORE PRESCRIPTIVE CRITERIA
-EXTENSIVE PREVIOUS WORK, DR AFT RULES JUNE 8: GRIMES / BAKER (2) CONDITIONING CP ON DEMONSTR ATION OF ABILITY TO MANAGE QUALITY RESPONSIBILITY
-lNCLUDED AS PART OF STUDY OF PROGRAM CERTIFICATION /
j R EAFFIRM ATION JUNE 9: BRACH (3) AUDITS / EVALUATIONS BY ASSOCIATIONS OF PROFESSIONALS
-lNPO CONSTRUCTION EVALUATIONS INCLUDED IN PILOT PROGRAM JUNE 8: TAYLOR j
-PLAN TO REVIEW ASME PROGRAM i
j (4)lMPROVEMENT OF NRC'S ORGANIZATION AND PROGR AMS
-QA REORGANIZATION l
-CAT JUNE 9: TAYLOR l
-IDI JUNE 9: TAYLOR l
-ANALYSIS OF NRC AND OUTSIDE PROGRAMS JUNE 9: BRACH i
(5) THIRD PARTY AUDITS j
-PlLOTS AT MARBLE HILL, PALO VERDE, MIDLAND AND POSSIBLY.
jl
~
SOUTH TEXAS JUNE 9: TAYLOR
-REVIEW OF OTHER AUDITS i
ALL FIVE ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED AS PART OF EACH CASE STUDY i
l i
E
l
' D-U
.)
SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES STUDY OF DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE (
j FAA HAS SYSTEM OF DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES (DR) e i
-DESIGNATED ENGINEERING REPRESENTATIVES (DER) l
-DESIGNATED MANUFACTURING INSPECTION i
{
REPRESENTATIVES (DMIR) i e
DMIRs AND DERs ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE MANUFACTURERS DEPUTIZED BY THE FAA TO REVIEW AND VERIFY CERTAIN l
ELEMENTS OF DESIGN (DER) OR ISSUE AIRWORTHINESS l
CERTIFICATES e
COMMISSION ASKED S-TAFF TO LOOK AT FAA SYSTEM TO l
DETERMINE POSSIBLE APPLICABILITY TO NRC'S INSPECTION l
PROGRAM
-FAA BRIEFING OF COMMISSION IN APRIL 1983 e
DR ISSUE RAISES LEGAL QUESTIONS, CONFLICT OF l
INTEREST, PUBLIC PERCEPTION LIABILITY
[
e STAFF ACTIVITIES j
-MEETINGS WITH FAA (WASHINGTON)
-VISIT TO FAA REGIONAL OFFICE (SEATTLE) l
-VISIT TO BOEING PLANT (SEATTLE)
I e
STATUS REPORT DUE TO COMMISSION IN JULY 1983 I
e DR ISSUE NOT INDEPENDENT OF OTHER STUDIES
\\
t I
O O
3 i
SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES t
CONTRACTS AND. PROCUREMENT PROCESS e QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FLOW FROM LICENSEE TO MAJOR AND SUBTLER CONTRACTORS THROUGH CONTRACTS e CHAIRMAN FEELS QUALITY HAS NOT BEENiS.UFlilCIENTLY STRESSED IN CONTRACTING PROCESS. STUDY RECOMMEND $dIBY N'R'C OFFICE OF'PDilidVWALUATION e CASE STUDY FINDINGS INDICATE CONTRACTING PRACTICES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO QUALITY PROBLEM IN SOME CASES I.
e STAFF UNDERTAKING STUDY TO
-CHARACTERIZE PAST AND EXISTING CONTRACTING AND l
- PROCUREMENT PRACTICES t
-DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH GERMANE QUALITY t
REQUIREMENTS FLOWTO CONTRACTORS AND SUBTIERS
-DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONTRACTING AND l
PROCUREMENT PRACTICES AFFECT QUALITY IN j
CONSTRUCTION
-DETERMINE EXTENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF NRC AND l
CLIENT OVERSIGHT e USES CONTRACTOR HELP -
e INTERIM REPORT DUE IN FALL OF 83. FINAL REPORT IN SPRING OF 84 j
e STUDY NOT ON CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT CRITICAL l
PATH i
I
n- @
0 0
J
. g NRC SPECIAL STUDY OF
[
NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE BRIEFING SLIDES FOR l
PRESENTATION JUNE 8,1983 BY l
~
W. ALTMAN, NRC h
TOPIC:
QA CASE STUDIES AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS
- T
~
l' 9
s e
M
\\
1
O G
CASE STUDY RESULTS PRIMARY ROOT CAUSES OF PROBLEMS l
LACK OF PRIOR NUCLEAR EXPERIENCE e
l
- LACK OF UNDERSTANDING
- COMPLEXITY OF PROJECT (FOSSIL MENTALITY) f
- INADEQUATE STAFFING
- OVER RELIANCE ON CONTRACTORS i
- FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE SYMPTOMS.
1 f.
~
e FAILURE TO SET UP AND EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES CONTROL OVER ALL ASPECTS OF PROJECT i
3
(;
- CONTR ACTORS 3
- DESIGN, ENGINEERING, AND CONSTRUCTION h
- DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY, DILUTED I
ACCOUNTABILITY
- FAILURE TO MANAGE PROJECT
'g.
O J
~
<a m.
3 i
i CASE STUDY RESULTS SECONDARY ROOT CASES OF PROBLEMS i
t
.c CHANGING ENVIRONMENT e
j,
- ERA OF MINIMAL UTILITY INVOLVEMENT OVER h
,7
- MORE COMPLEX PROJECTS
\\
J
- MORE STRINGENT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
- INCREASING LEVEL OF SCRUTINY 1
- INCREASING PUBLIC SKEPTICISM
- LONGER CONSTRUCTION PERIODS i
- CHANGING STATE OF ART
- EVENTS (TMI, BROWNS FERRY) i 1
4 4
e g
Q O
Q u.s yi CASE STUDY RESULTS t
SECONDARY ROOT CAUSES OF PROBLEMS FAILURE TO SEE MERIT IN FORMAL QUALITY PROGRAM e
- LACK OF SUPPORT FOR FUNCTION AND ORGANIZA
- INADEQUATE STAFFING
- LACK OF BACKING FOR QUALITY ORGANIZATION AND t
ITS FINDINGS
- COMMUNICATION PROBLEM
- FEAR OF EMPIRE 4
l NRC PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES o
- LICENSING FOCUS HAS BEEN ON FORM, NOT SUBSTANCE i
j
- NO REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY FOR CP j
-INSPECTION FOCUS HAS BEEN ON PAPER PROGRAM, NOT QUALITY OF PRODUCT
-IRREGULAR NON CONSTANT PRESENCE
- SLOW TO TAKE ACTION ON MANAGEMENT ISSUES
- FAILURE TO TREAT OR SELL QA AS A MANAGEMEN
- INCREASING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS i
G 1
i
O G
O
>u ne
'?
CASE STUDY RESULTS i
ROOT CAUSES OF SUCCESS i
i FIRM MANAGEMENT OF PROJECT e
- CLEAR DEFN. OF RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES i
j
- PROVISION OF ADEQUATE PROCEDURES, ESPECIALLY FOR INTERFACES
\\
I l
e EXPERIENCED DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT TEAM i
l 1
ORIGENTATION TOWARD AND ATTITUDE e
SUPPORTIVE OF QUALITY j
- ADEQUATE RESOURCES l
- LOOKS FOR PROBLEMS, j
- WELCOMES.lMPROVEMENTS
- VISIBLE SUPPORT BY TOP MANAGEMENT t
t i
,y
,,,,, o a
1 CASE STUDY RESULTS i
i
~
p.,
IMPLICATIONS FOR QA INITIATIVES i
j V
MANAGEMENT i
1.
SEMINARS l
YES 2.
QUALIFICATION / CERTIFICATION i
OF QA/QC PERSONNEL NO 3.
CRAFTSMANSHIP NO i
VI REAFFIRMATION PROGRAM i
YES 1
1 i
i l- - i
O U
r j
CASE STUDY RESULTS GENERIC IMPLICATIONS i
e PRIOR NUCLEAR EXPERIENCE DESIRABLE j
NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT 1
{
- NEED TO APRECIATE DIFFER $NCE FROM FOSSIL
- NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PROJECT ENTAILS t
i e
PROJECT MUST BE MANAGED
{
- DIFFERENT MIXES OF UTILITY, A/E, CM, AND CONTRACTOR POSSIBLE i
- NEED TO MANAGE INTERFACES
- NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MANAGEMENT i
OF PROJECT ENTAILS
(
MANAGEMENT BACKING NECESSARY FOR EFFECTIVE e
PROGRAM FOR ASSURANCE OF QUALITY
- RESOURCES i
j
- VISIBLE SUPPORT
- UNDERSTANDING
Q D
CASE STUDY R'ESULTS GENERIC IMPLICATIONS
' ~
J e
NEED QUALITY PEOPLE
- MANAGEMENT i
- PROJECT STAFF
{
- CONTR ACTORS
- QA/QC DEVELOPMENT OF TEAM SPIRIT HELPFUL e
+
- PROJECT DETERMINATION, COMMITMENT
- TOP MANAGEMENT IS PART OF TEAM j
- CONTRACTORS ARE PART OF TEAM i
- QA/QC IS PART OF TEAM e
NEED BETTER CONTROL OVER DESIGN PROCESS 1
- NRC, LICENSEES HAVE NOT FOCUSED ON DESIGN
- MORE QA ON CONSTRUCTION THAN DESIGN i
I
- QA HARDER TO IMPOSE ON DESIGN PROCESS l
j i
1
v U
.n r
p CASE STUDY RESULTS GEN ERIC, IMPLICATIONS e
NRC SHOULD
- FOCUS MORE ON MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY l
IN LICENSING l
- FOCUS MORE ON SUBSTANCE OF PROGRAM, LESS ON TRAPPINGS
- BE PRESENT EARLY IN PROJECT
- FOCUS MORE ON MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS t
IN INSPECTION j
- FOCUS MORE ON ACTUAL WORK, LESS ON i
PAPER PROGRAM
- TREAT QA AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL, NOT JUST A REQUIREMENT l
l
- PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THE DESIGN PROCESS 1
" " ^
9 o
O CASE STUDY RESULTS t
i,,.,s.
IMPLICATIONS FOR QA INITIATIVES WHICH QA INITIATIVES MIGHT HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE HAD THEY BEEN IN PLACE l
AT THE TIME i.
NTOL 1.
SELF EVALUATION 4
NO/NA 1
2.
REGIONAL EVALUATION
-NO/NA 3.
INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM NO/YES (YES, IF PERFORMED EARLIER'IN PROJECT) i II.
INDUSTRY INITIATIVES 1.
INPO ASSESSMENTS YES 2.
UTILITY SELF INITIATED LVALUATION (USING INPO DEPENDS I
METHODOLOGY)
I ON UTILITY i
111.
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM i
l 1.
REVISE PROCEDURES AND INCREASE RESOURCES YES
)
2.
CAT (WITH EMPHASIS ON MANAGEMENT)
YES 3.
INTEGRATED DESIGN INSPECTION
~
NO/YES l
(YES,IF PERFORMED EARLY ON IN PROJECT) 4.
EVALUATION OF REPORTED INFORMATION MAYBE IV.
DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES
\\
NOT CLEAR I
i i
V O
_)
CASE STUDY RUSULTS
~
i I
IMPLICATIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT ALTER NATIVES WHICH CONGRESSIONAL ALTERNATIVE MIGHT HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE HAD IT BEEN IN PLACE AT THE TIME (FOR THE CASES EXAMINED) 1.
MORE PRESCRIPTIVE A/E CRITERIA MAYBE I
(NO IF JUST MORE SPECIFIC. CRITERIA. WOULD HAVE TO GET ATTHE DESIGN AND DESIGN CONTROL l
PROCESS ITSELF) i i
2.
CONDITIONING CP ON DEMONSTRATION OF
}
MANAGEMENT ABILITY YES i'
j' 3.
REVIEW BY ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONALS YES - DEPENDS l:
ON GROUP, SCOPE AND i
DEPTH
}
I 4.
IMPROVE NRC'S PROGRAM YES i
4 5.
CONDITIONING CP ON COMMITMNNT TO USE INDEPENDENT INSPECTORS YES I
t
.a f1.
NRC SPECIAL STUDY OF NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE BRIEFING SLIDES FOR PRESENTATION JUNE 8,1983 BY J. TAYLOR, NRC
SUBJECT:
CONGRESSIONAL AMENDME T PILOT) OGRAM
)
i
-v i 7
e i
O O
J i
CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT PILOT PROGRAM 1
1 l
e AMENDMENT REQUIRES THE USE OF A PILOT PROGRAM TO DETERMINE j
WHICH ALTERNATIVE METHODS ARE EFFECTIVE IN ASSUMING QUALITY FIVE SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS DESCRIBED IN THE ACT ARE:
3 (1)
A MORE PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH FOR DEFINING PRINCIPAL ARCHITECTUAL' AND ENGINEERING CRITERIA (2)
CONDITIONING CP ON LICENSEE DEMONSTRATION OF ABILITY TO l
EFFECTIVELY MANAGE ITS QUALITY RESPONSIBILITY (3)
USE OF AUDITORS / INSPECTORS FROM ASSOCIATIONS OF PROFESSIONALS i
j (4)
IMPROVEMENT OF NRC'S ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAMS FOR QA l
(5)
CONDITIONING CP ON LICENSEE USE OF INDEPENDENT INSPECTORS TO AUDIT ITS QA PROGRAM e PILOT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE:
i j
(1) ALTERNATIVE (5) MUST BE TESTED
~
(2)
OTHER ALTERNATIVES MAY BE TESTED (3)
PILOTS AT THREE OR MORE SITES UNDER CONSTRUCTION (4) AT LEAST 2 SITES WITH REMEDIAL PROGRAMS UNDERWAY (5) AT LEAST 1 APPARENTLY SUCCESSFUL SITE i
,,n-.
--,---.--_,-n-,
m.--
,-,,e-
y.
Q CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT PILOT PROGRAM PILOT PROGR AM e ALTERNATIVE (3)INPO PILOT i
e ALTERNATIVE (5) PILOTS AT
- g.
j
-MARBLE HILL (TORREY PINES) i
{
-PALO VERDE (TORREY PINES)
MIDLAND (TERA)
. s.
4' '
j METHODOLOGY)-POSSIBLY SOUTH TEXAS (MULTIPLE CON j
i i
e ALL PILOTS INCLUDE ON SITE REVIEW BY SENIOR NRC C j
INSPECTORS N
e NRC CAT EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT PILOT PROGRAM j
EVALUATED IN TERMS OF COVERAGE OF ILL) BE 1
4
[
-MANAGEMENT
" g g g'
-QA
-- @ f**
- c "
i
-DESIGN PROCESS J
-HAR DWARE (AS-BUILT) i e EMPHASIS IS ON THE QUALITY OF THE HARDWARE VS PRO ASPECTS AND PAPERWORK (i.e.. HISTORICAL AUDITING I
ATIC i
f t
tj O
U i
{
PILOT PROGRAM - INPO i
e i
NEW INPO PROGRAM - FOCUS ON DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION I
?
i j
{
FIRST INPO EVALUATION IS OF:
e
- BEAVER VALLEY 2
- STONE AND WEBSTER (S&W)
SENIOR NRC MEMBER TO MONITOR AND EVALUATE i
e i
INPO EFFORT
- SR REACTOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER
- CAT LEADER i
- SOME 30 YRS OF UTILITY EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO NRC
- CONSTRUCTION SUPERIN.TENDENT
- VP POWER PRODUCTION i
- VP AND ASSISTANT CHIEF ENGINEER l
i s
l.
U O
J
~
o
,n 3 1' PILOT PROGRAM - INPO (cont'd) i NRC INVOLVEMENT IN FIRST INPO EFFORT e
l HAS INCLUDED:
- INPO, ATLANTA HQ 5/11-13/83
- S&W, BOSTON 5/16-20/83 j
- CONSTRUCTION SITE 5/23-27/83 I
N
}
PRELIMINARY RESULTS FO EVALUATION e
IDENTIFIED i
i
- SOME MODIFICATION TO CONSTRUCTION j
REVIEW NEEDED
- FOLLOW ON PLAN DEVELOPED I
t l
l C.s O
I 1
i PILOT PROGRAM - MARBLE HILL i
I 1
i INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION SCHEDULED e
- FOCUS IS DESIGN, QA AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
- WILL PROVIDE AN UPDATE OF MANAGEMENT
, ANALYSIS CORP. STUDY i,
l
- BEING PERFORNIED AT REQUEST OF NRC IE FOR CONGRESSIONAL AMENDI1ENT
- TORREY PINES TO CONDUCT STUDY I
- NRC TO MONITOR STUDY THROUGHOUT
- SCHEDULED TO BE INITIATED IN 6/83or M i
AND TAKE SOME 5-6 WEEKS 7
I I
i t
,,--.-.--,--..--...,_.-._,--.-__~_m._...__-
-..--.._,~....__-._..__--.-.~__-.._.__.-m.____
)
U O
)
o i
PILOT PROGRAM - PALO VERDE j
NRC EVALUATION EFFORT UNDE e
I i
\\
\\,
OF IDVP PROGRAMPERFORMED AT REQ FOCUS WAS ON DESIG' N AND QA t.
COMPLETED IN 10/82 BY TORREY PINES
, 1
- APS HAS ARRANGED FOR NRC TO HAVE COMPLETE ACCESS TO:
1 i-
- TORREY PINES i
- BECHTEL
- A#S HQ AND SITE i
l 6
.--- ----ee.-r-.-e--------
...-e-==--ee'
. +.=--se=----==.
we-e s
-e=ew-=-we-=w-ww-s-e--e, w ww w m ee
=------->=====+,.r----wwww-un---=m%we
-**.w,.w
-.ame,---ww---- - ---- - -w
'u O
J i
I l.'
PILOT PROGRAM - PALO VERDE
)
(cont'd) i l
- CURRENT SCHEDULED FOR NRC i
R EVIEW INCLUDES:
j
- TORREY PINES /APS BETHESDA PRESENTATION 6/2 l,
-TORREY PINES SAN DIEGO 6/27-30
- BECHTEL LA 7/1
~
- APS HQ AND SITE 7/5-9/8 i
c.r i
\\
?
j l
O O
r PILOT PROGRAM - MIDLAND l
l e
INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION SCHEDULED i
- BEING PERFORMED AT REQUEST
!7 OF NRC (NRR) AS PART OF lDVP r
PROGRAM
- FOCUS IS DESIGN
- TERA CORP. TO CONDUCT THE STUDY i
- METHODOLOGY REVIEWED BY NRC
- NRC TO MONITOR STUDY THROUGHOUT i
l
li
^
~ O o
!j l1
{j PILOT PROGRAM - MIDLAND l
(cont'd?
- SYSTEMS DESIGN TO BE VERIFIED Iji
- AUX. FEEDWATER SYSTEM
- STANDBY ELEC. POWER SYSTEM
- CONTROL ROOM HVAC l!
~
ll
- EFI ORT UNDERWAY IN EARLY MAY, WILL TAKE SOME 6 MONTHS l
ll e
NRC (IE) ENCOURAGED SCOPE
'l EXPANSION TO INCLUDE Q.A
.i PROJECT MANAGEMENT l
~
l
' ~ O O
J d
3 i
\\
PILOT PROGRAM - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EVALUATION SCHEDULE o
1
- FOCUS IS CONSTRUCTION AND QA
- USE OF 18 CONSULTANTS FROM 5 COMPANIES
- INPO CRITERIA TO BE UTILIZED
- INPO TO HAVE FULL TIME OB. SERVER
- NRC TO MONITOR STUDY THROUGHOUT i
{
- DOCUMENT REVIEWS, ORIENTATION AND I
EVALUATION ON SITE DURING 8/8-9/2/83 i
PERIOD i
i l
\\
'o G
,y
\\
. t ji.,.y_
a-j
)
i NRC SPECIAL STUDY OF NUCLEAR i
O.UALITY ASSURANCE BRIEFING SLIDES FOR PRESENTATION l
JUNE 8-9,1983 i
BY J. TAYLOR, NRC i
l TOPIC: CONSTRUCTION (CAT) AND DESIGN (IDI) ASSESSMENTS i
[
)
~
~b i
n t
4 4
2, 4
.t w
l I_.
.n v
,n U
O
)
CONSTRUCTION APPRAISAL TEAM (CAT) INSPECTIONS CAT INSPECTIONS ARE STRUCTURED TO:
1 e EXTEND PROVEN OPERATIONAL-ORIENTED PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TEAM (PAT) INSPECTION CONCEPT TO CONSTRUCTION t
e EVALUATE CONTROLS USED TO ENSURE AS-BUILT CONDITION COMPLIES WI APPROVED DESIGN BASIS (EMPHASIS ON HARDWARE INTEGRITY PLUS 4.
PROGRAMMATIC) e ASSESS EFFECTIVENESS OF REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF lE INSPECTION i
PROGRAM e PROVIDE MEANS OF MONITORING PROGRESS OF INPO EFFORT APPLIED TO CONSTRUCTION 1
e INCLUDE SITE AND CORPORATE OFFICE VISITS e ABOUT FOUR WEEKS ONSITE PER INSPECTION 3
CAT INSPECTION STATUS:
e PROCEDURES DEVELOPED, USED ElGHT TIMES ON TRIAL BASIS BY REGIONS AND ISSUED IN NOVEMBER 1982 e FIRST HEADQUARTERS CAT INSPECTION: TVA BELLEFONTE SEPTEMBER -
{
OCTOBER.1982 (1,400 MANHOURS)- REPORT ISSUED JANUARY 1983 j
e SECOND HEADQUARTERS CAT INSPECTION: TUGCO COMANCHE PEAK j.
JANUARY - MARCH 1983 (1,800 MANHOURS)- REPORT ISSUED APRIL 1983 e THIRD CAT INSPECTION UNDERWAY AT SUPPLY SYSTEM WNP-2 e WILL CONDUCT ABOUT FOUR PER YEAR - CONTRACTOR SUPPORT I
i i
1 BELLEFONTE CAT INSPECTION j
e FIRST NRC CAT e REPORT ISSUED JANUARY 13,1983 1,
i e NO MAJOR QA/QC BREAKDOWN OR PERVASIVE FAILURES i
{
IDENTIFIED 4
j.
F, e POTENTIAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IDENTIFIED AND SE.NT y.
[
L TO R 11 FOR REVIEW AND APPROPRIATE ACTION l
e KEY FINDINGS SHOWN IN FOLLOWING VIEWGRAPHS OF EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
SECTION OF NRC REPORT 50-438/82-32 AND 50-439/82-32 l
i l
g l
w
~
O c
BELLEFONTE s
s.
I APPENDIX A EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
3 AN ANNOUNCED CONSTRUCTION APPRAISAL TEAM (CAT) INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED ATTHE TENNESEE VALLEY AUTHORITY'S (TVA) BELLEFONTE NUCLEAR PLANT SITE...
{
OVER ALL CONCLUSIONS
... RESULTS OF THIS INSPECTION ARE TYPICAL OF THOSE FOUND AT LARGE CONSTRUCTION SIT i
WITHOUT A MAJOR OA/OC BREAKDOWN...
A NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES WERE IDENTIFIED BY...
TVA MANAGEMENT HAS NOT EFFECTIVELY USED IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES T PROVIDE SOLUTIONS TO IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS...
AREAS INSPECTED AND RESULTS i
OUALITY ASSURANCE:... NOT COMPLETELY EFFECTIVE... CONFIRMED BY THE HARDWARE j
FOUND...
PROJECT MANAGEMENT:... APPEARS ADEQUATE... REDUCE THE NUMBER OF HARDWARE j
DISCREPANCIES..
DESIGN CHANGES AND NONCONFORMANCES: SEVERAL PROGRAM WEAKNESSES WERE IDENTIFI NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT IN THE DESIGN INTERFACE...
ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION CONSTRUCTION: SEVER AL WEAKNESSES WERE IDENTIF j
I WELDING.NDE: A NUMBER OF HARDWARE DEFICIENCIES WERE IDENTIFIED...WERE FOR T
}
ISOLATED CASES...
MECHANICAL CON'STRUCTION: DEVIATIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS WERE OBSERVED.
DEFICIENCIES,... CONDITION OF THE INSTALLED HARDWARE WAS FOUND TO BE GENERALLY S ATISFACTORY...
t i
CIVIL. STRUCTURAL AND CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION:... MINOR PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS WERE IDENTIFIED... NEED FOR TIGHTER CONTROLS OVER CONCRETE... ACTIVITIES OC INSPECTOR EFFECTIVENESS: SIXTY-FIVE QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTORS WERE INTERV INSTANCES OF HARASSMENT OR INTIMIDATION WERE IDENTIFIED.
i MATERIAL TR ACEABILITY:... NO DEFICIENCIES WERE NOTED...
PROCUREMENT. RECEIPT AND STORAGE: THE ONSITE PROCUREMENT,... FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE...
j
{
SEVERAL DEVIATIONS FROM NRC REQUIREMENTS...
1 1
1 a.-.-. - -.
. o O
. :ll:
o 1
i COMANCHE PEAK CAT INSPECTION e SECOND NRC CA' T l.
j e REPORTISSUED APRIL 11,1983 l
e BREAKDOWN IN HVAC SYSTEM INSTALLATION, NO OTHER PERVASIVE FAILURES IDENTIFIED
~
i
{
e POTENTIAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IDENTIFIED AND SENT i
TO R IV FOR REVIEW AND APPROPRIATE ACTION '-
i I
i l
e KEY FINDINGS SHOWN IN FOLLOWING VIEWGRAPHS OF EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
SECTION OF NRC REPORT 50-445/83-18 AND 50-446/83-12
}
)
i i
b -
COMANCHE PEAK
~
\\*!'
eg a APPENDIX A EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
AN ANNOUNCED CONSTRUCTION APPRAISALTEAM(CAT)lNSPECTION WAS PE 1'
COMANCHE PEAK...
D AT THE OVERALL CONCLUSIONS TEAM FOUND FEW DEFICIENCIES IN ITS INSPECTION O
}
i
... CAT THEIDENTIFIED CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM WEAKNESSES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1.
... INDICATED A BREAKDOWN IN FABRICATION INSTALLATION. AND INSPE 2c... FAILURE TO MEET CRITERIA FOR SEPARATION OF SAFETY REL STRUCTURES AND PIPING...
ECHANICAL 3.
THE LATEST DESIGN DOCUMENTS...... LICENSEE'S OA PROGRAM 4
... A NUMBER OF,.. NONCONFORMING CONDITIONS WERE IDENTIFIED:...
6.
08TAINING CORRECTION...... LICENSEE *S QA AUDIT PROGRAM S 1
I IN
SUMMARY
...' IDENTIFIED WEAKNESSES REQUIRE INCREASED DEDICA
{
LEVELS...
ANAGEMENT AT ALL L
AREAS INSPECTED AND RESULTS REQUIREMENTS WERE OBSERVED... INADEQUA NS FROM INSPECTIONS... WERE NOT PERFORMED... MECHANICAL CONS ON...
SERVED...OC REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT FOR THE HVAC AREA... WELDING / NO i
l DANCE WITH 1
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS...CIVit AND STRUCTUR AL CONSTRUCT i
CE WITH SITE PROCUREMENT. STORAGE, AND MATERIAL TRACEASILITY:
... WERE FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE...
OC INSPECTOR EFFECTTIVENESS: SIXTY-THREE QUALITY CONTROL INSPE QUALITY ASSURANCE: THE LICENSEE *S QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRA INTERVIEWED..
EFFECTIVE..
N MORE I
DESIGN CHANGE CONTROLS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS:
4 HAVE AN ADEOt, FATE PROGRAM IN. PLACE AT THE TIME OF THIS IN l
INA8ILITY TO I
i a
Q
)
\\
INTEGRATED DESIGN INSPECTIONS ilDI) i THE IDI PROGRAM IS STRUCTURED TO:
,,'[
i e EXPAND THE NRC EXAMINATION OF QUALITY ASSURA j
PROCESS DESIGN I
1
(
e EVALUATE CONTROL OF THE DESIGN PROCESS
,.,,,,,m i
1, e ASSESS THE QUALITY OF DESIGN ACTIVITIES e TRACK DESIGN EVOLUTION ON A SELECTED SYSTEM B i
FORMULATION THROUGH DEVELOPMENTTRANSLATION CRITERIA CONFIGURATION ILT e TRACK PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED INTO A/E PROCESS i
}
e ABOUT THREE WEEKS' FIELD WORK PER INSPECTION k
i IDI PROGRAM STATUS:
e DESCRIBED IN SECY-82-352 (ASSURANCE OF QUALITY)
{
1 e EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND DRAFTINSPECTION PR DEVELOPED SEPTEMBER 1982 - OCTOBER 1982 i
ES e FIRST TRIAL IDI: UNION ELECTRIC CALLAWAY NOVEMBE i
(AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM)- REPORTISSUED APRIL BER 1982 i
e SECOND TRIAL IDI UNDERWAY AT COMMONWEALTH EDI i
i ON e WILL CONDUCT ABOUTTHREE PER YEAR - CONTRACTOR a
e i
t
g a
f
.,m CALLAWAY IDI
~
i e FIRST NRC IDI i
e REPORT ISSUED 4/4/83
~
s j
i e AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEIVI FOCUS i
e NO PERVASIVE BREAKDOWN 1
IDENTIFIED I
e KEY FINDINGS SHOWN IN FOLLOWING VIEWGRAPH OF NRC REPORT 50-483/82-22
.r
+
.s
n.
(d
)
v c
j.
+*
\\
i i
CALLAWAY MR. D.F. SCHNELL APR 4,1983
)
INSPECTION TEAM NO PERVASIVE BREAKDOW j
j PROMPT ATTENTION IS NEEDED FOR RESOLUTION OF THE SPE i
I
... MOST SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE FINDINGS...
i D
(1)... LACK OF FORMAL CONTROL OVER BECHTEL*S USE OF PLANT DES t
i NEWSLETTERS...
j j
(2)... AUXILIARY FEEDWATER PUMP TURBINE EXHAUST PIPE WAS SEISMIC CATEGORY I AND SAFETY GRADE THROUGHOUT ITS ENTIR AS (3)... ABILITY OF MOTOR CONTROLLERS TO WITHSTAND FAULT C CONSIDERED OR ASSURED...
BEEN i
(4)... NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT IN CONTROL OF THE DESIGN P CERTAIN AREAS...
N
)
L (5) THREE INSTANCES WERE IDENTIFIED WHERE SPECIFIC FSAR C M ET,...
E NOT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MATTERS IDENTIFIED... THE TE i
PROJECT MANAGEMENT TO BE A STRENGTH...
i RAL i
i I
j
}
I
O o
h BYRONIDI.
e SECOND NRC IDI i
)
e EFFORT CURRENTLY UNDERWAY, REPORT SCHEDULED FOR LATE JULY EARLY AUGU TIME FRAME e AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM FOCUS e WILL INCLUDE REVIEW OF COMMISSION EDISON
-SARGENT AND LUNDY
-NUCLEAR POWER SERVICES i
-a
--m-oww e-
. sww-e h e-m m-wvu-w w w-ww
---we-ww w-w w ww www-e--enm*-
-*m -www w e e-"
s v
' ' ' ~
i i
l i
l s
4 NRC SPECIAL STUDY OF NUCLEAR l
QUALITY ASSURANCE BRIEFING SLIDES FOR PRESENTATION i
l JUNE 9,1983 I
t BY l
E.W. BRACH, NRC TOPIC: REAFFIRMATION PROGRAM m~
M I
+
1 ih i
l
\\
i t-O
- s. _)
REAFFIRMATION PROGRAM i
e STUDY REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION AT SEPTEMBER i
[
1982 BRIEFING ON QA INITIATIVES e COMMISSION INTERESTED IN:
-CERTIFICATION OF QA PROGRAMS
-ESTABLISHMENT OF HOLD POINTS BETWEEN CP AND OL i
i e STAFF PAPER ON CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FORWARDED TO i
l COMMISSION IN JANUARY 1983 l
-HOLD POINTS AT MAJOR CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES
-REVIEW POINTS - ANNUAL NRC ASSESSMENT OF QA PROGRAM
-ACCEPTANCE-POINTS - QC TYPE INSPECTIONS CARRIED I
OUT BY NRC OR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES eCOMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO NO LONGER CONSIDER HOLD POINT CONCEPT BUT TO EXPLORE FURTHER THE l
CONCEPT OF NRC ASSESSMENT OF READINESS OF.QA j-PROGRAM AND DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE PROGRAM l
l l
i
- t O
)
i REAFFIRMATION PROGR M
i 1
OBJECTIVE l
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE STATE OF READINESS" OF A LICENSEE'S QA PROGRAM BEFORE INITIATING AND PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES i
BASIS FOR CONSIDERATION e AT CP, LICENSEE'S COMMITMENTS FOR QA PROGRAM AND i
PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY NRC e THE LICENSEE'S QA MANUAL AND PROCEDURES ARE SUBJECT TO NRC INSPECTION (NO FORMAL NRC REVIEW AND APPROVAL) o MANY RECENT PROBLEMS ATTRIBUTED TO LICENSEE'S i
FAILURE TO FULLY IMPLEMENT SAR COMMITMENTS e LONG PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN WHEN SOME COMMITMENTS ARE MADE AND THE QA PROGRAM i
DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED
i U
V J
ll CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM i
j, STATEMENTS OF READINESS i
e STATEMENTS BY LICENSEE OF READINESS OF QA PROGRAM AT MAJOR CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES M"W e READINESS Df QA MANUAL, PROCEDURES, PERSONNEL, AND EQUIPMENT I,
e REQUIRES LICENSEE TO STUDY, PLAN, DEVELOP, j
COORDINATE, AND SCHEDULE QA RELATED ACTIVITIES i~
- e. MILESTONES
~
-START OF SAFETY-RELATED CONCRETE AND STRUCTURAL STEEL
;?
-START OF SAFETY-RELATED PIPING
-START OF INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL CABLE AND SYSTEMS
-START OF PREOPER ATIONAL TESTING
-CHANGE IN THE PRIMARY CONTRACTOR FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE e NRC INSPECTION OF THE LICENSEE'S READINESS ANNUAL REVIEWS e ANNUAL INSPECTION BY NRC TO APPRAISE LICENSEE PAST PERFORMANCE AND READINESS TO CONTINUE ACTIVITIES e PROVIDN INPUTTd NRC SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP)
O U
)
9 i
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENTS OF READINESS l
e AMENDMENTTO CP
. /t 3 :; :rsu i
i
..r, e STATEMENT REQUIRED, e.g.,120 DAYS BEFORE SCHEDULED INITIATION OF NEW ACTIVITY e NRC INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S READINESS I
e LICENSEE PROCEEDS ACCORDING TO SCHEDULE UNLESS i
ADVISED OTHERWISE BY NRC e REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT OF INSPECTION PROCEDURES ANNUAL REVIEW -
e ANNUAL NRC INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S QA PERFORMANCE AND READINESS e BUILDS ON INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S STATEMENT OF READINESS e SERVES AS INPUTTO NRC SALP e QA WOULD BE IDENTIFIED AS SEPARATE FUNCTIONAL AREA IN SALP i
e REQUIRES DEVELOPIVIENT OF INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND REVISION OF SALP
' (.:
U J
~
NRC SPECIAL STUDY OF NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE BRIEFING SLIDES FOR PRESENTATION JUNE 9,1983 BY E.W. BR ACH, NRC TOPIC: DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES T
1 T4 2
f t
N
c O
a DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES (DRD DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE PROGRAM e FAA IS AUTHORIZED TO DELEGATE TO PRIVATE PERSONS CERTAIN FUNCTIONS OF THE FAA. THESE FUNCTIONS INCLUDE:
e EXAMINATION e
INSPECTION e
TESTING
~
e FAA IS TO SET STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS ON THE DRs RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY AND TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF THE DRs ACTIVITIES
t.
o DESIGNATED REPR ESENTATIVES l
BACKGROUND i
e AFTER WORLD WAR 11, THE AVIATION INDUSTRY GREW RAPIDLY AND THE FAA WORKLOAD GREATLY INCREASED i
e FAA WAS FACED WITH BUDGET / RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS e DR PROGRAM SEEN BY FAA AS EFFICIENT i
AND ECONOMICAL j
e IN 1950, FAA ESTIMATED THE DR PROGRAM WOULD SAVE THE GOVERNMENT $4-5 MILLION PER YEAR 1
~
'(
0
.)
TYPES OF DESIGNATED l
i REPRESENTATIVES e DESIGNATED ENGINEERING REPR ESENTATIVE (DER)
-REVIEWS ENGINEERING REPORTS, DRAWINGS, DATA, AND TESTS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL ASPECTS OF THE
~
FAA REGULATIONS
-APPROXIMATELY 800 DERs e DESIGNATED MANUFACTURING INSPECTION REPRESENTATIVE (DMIR) i t
-lNSPECTS AIRCRAFT AND COMPONENTS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE i
MANUFACTURED CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED DESIGN, SPECIFICATIONS, AND QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
-APPROXIMATELY 500 DMIRs 1
i
O O
)
l l\\
I HOW THE DR PROGRAM WORKS l
7 5
f
{
e CANDIDATES ARE RECOMMENDED TO FAA BY INDUSTRY p
l l
e SELECTION IS MADE BY FAA i
i
-BASED ON YEARS OF EXPERIENCE'AND EDUCATION
-BASED ON AT LEAST ONE YEAR WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH FAA e DR SALARY IS PAID BY INDUSTRY e DR IS TO FOLLOW FAA PERSONNEL STANDARDS OF i
CONDUCT e WORK IS SCHEDULED BY FAA i
-WORK ACTIVITIES REQUIRE OBJECTIVE DECISIONS, BASED ON ESTABLISHED CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTANCE /
REJECTANCE
-lNTERPRETATION OF REQUIREMENTS REMAINS WITH FAA e REPORTS DIRECTLY TO FAA e DR TERM IS 12 MONTHS
?
-DESIGNATION MAY BE RENEWED
-DESIGNATION MAY BE TERMINATED AT ANY TIME DUE TO J
POOR PERFORMANCE i
I
~
~ u O
)
l l
1 FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR NRC 4
i e TRANSFERABILITY TO NUCLEAR PLANT DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION
)
l e EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAM l
l e ADDITIONAL ASSURANCE l
l e LEGAL QUESTIONS I
l e POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST i
i j
e PUBLIC PERCEPTION i
e LIABILITY l
e ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM e COST OF PROGRAM e SCOPE OF PROGRAM i
8
l D
G
)
i.
I CONSIDERATIONS FOR A DR PROGRAM FOR THE NRC i
THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE WOULD BE AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED BY A LICENSEE, ARCHITECT / ENGINEER, APPLICANT, OR OTHER FIRM'WHO WOULD BE SELECTED AND DESIGNATED BY THE NRC TO PERFORM CERTAIN SPECIFIED i
ACTIVITIES i
OBJECTIVE:
TO PROVIDE GREATER ASSURANCE THAT WORK ACTIVITIES ARE BEING CORRECTLY CARRIED i
OUT, BY DIRECT OBSERVATION, TESTING, AND i
VERIFICATION'OF COMPLETED ACTIVITIES t
TO EXPAND INSPECTION RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO NRC TO INCREASE LEVEL OF l
COVERAGE. WOULD NOT REDUCE NRC INSPECTION EFFORT OR REPLACE CURRENT PROGRAMS i
,--,,,,.-n
- - - -,..... ~. - - - -., -... - - - -...,
j _ _
U U
.)
\\
l l
i
)
DR STUDY - GENERAL e INTERIM STATUS REPORT IN JULY 83 I
i t
e BEING PURSUED IN CONJUNCTION WITH STUDY OF NRC AND OUTSIDE PROGRAMS i
e WILL BE ANALYSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH 5 CONGRESSIONAL ALTERNATIVES i
i
~
~
l _ _ _u _
v o
i I
tl POSSIBLE WORK ACTIVITIES OF AN i
NRC DR t
i I
e THE DR WOULD CARRY OUT ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE VERY I
SIMILAR TO CURRENT LICENSEE QUALITY CONTROL l
INSPECTION ACTIVITIES
-lNCLUDES DIRECT OBSERVATION, TESTING, AND 3
l CERTIFICATION OF THE ACCEPTANCE /REJECTANCE OF l
THE COMPLETED ACTIVITY l
-CERTIFICATION PROVIDED TO THE NRC i
-CERTIFICATION WOULD SATISFY THE LICENSEE'S QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS e NRC WOULD IDENTIFY DR INSPECTION POINTS e CURRENT NRC REQUIREMENTS (APPENDIX B, CRITERION X)
REQUIRE DESIGNATION OF HOLDPOINTS FOR INSPECTION
-PROGRAM BEING CONSIDERED SHOULD NOT REQUIRE LICENSEES TO INCREASE STAFF OR IDENTIFY NEW POINTS FOR INSPECTION e METHODOLOGY-BEING DEVEi OPED FOR SELECTING THOSE POINTS THAT WOUI D REQUIRE DR INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION i
~
- - - _ ~ -
U d
J Ii QUALIFICATIONS f!
e NRC WOULD ESTABLISH BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE l;
REQUIREMENTS e
THE LICENSEE AND/OR CONTRACTOR WOULD RECOMMEND CANDIDATES e
NRC WOULD SELECT PERSONNEL i
i TERM OF DUTY i
i e
APPOINTMENTS FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE AND CONTINUED NEED OF SERVICE COULD RESULT l
IN RENEWAL l
e UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OR PERSONAL REQUEST BY THE DR WOULD RESULT IN TERMINATION C
SUPERVISION e
THE SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR (SRI) WOULD SUPERVISE THE DR.
.s DR WOULD SPENT A FRACTION OF HIS/HER TIME CARRYING OUT T
NRC RESPONSIBILITIES i
[
e IN THE ABSENCE OFTHE SRI, THE DR WOULD BE SUPERVISED BY REGIONAL SECTION CHIEF i
TRAINING e
BEFORE PERFORMING ANY WORK AS A DR FOR THE NRC, THE DR i
l WOULD RECEIVE A SPECIFIED AMOUNT OFTRAINING THE TRAINING AND ORIENTATION FOR EACH DR WOULD BE e
STANDARDIZED j
j t
l i
SALARY e PAY AND BENEFITS WOULD BE CONTINUED BY THE DR'S FULL-TIME EMPLOYER l
e A SPECIAL SALARY SCALE (FOR EXAMPLE, AN ADDITIONAL 5 PERCENT SALARY INCREASE)
MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN RECOGNITION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DR POSITION IN THE LICENSEE'S STAFF i
REPORTING AND DECISION MAKING e RESULTS OF INSPECTION EFFORTS WOULD BE a
GIVEN TO THE SRI e NON-COMPLIANCE WOULD BE REPORTED TO THE SRI FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION o DR DECISIONS OF ACCEPTANCE /
j REJECTANCE WOULD BE BASED ON j
PREDETERMINED CRITERION i
L i
u O
)
l I
NRC SPECIAL STUDY OF NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE i
l BRIEFING SLIDES FOR PRESENTATION i
JUNE 9-1983 e
BY M. MALLOY, NRC i
TOPIC: QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QA QC l
PERSONNEL i
)
M l
~
7 k
e4 1
3 4
1, l
l
i K.,
CO
)
i 1
I BACKGROUND i
i e NRC HAS FOUND UNQUALIFIED INSPECTORS AT SOME PLANTS 3
i l
-MARBLE HILL l
l
-SOUTH TEXAS i
i e PROBLEM STILL OCCURING i
i'
-CAT INSPECTIONS l
-FEEDBACK FROM REGIONS i
i, e IE MANAGEMENT HAS MADE ADDRESSING THIS l
PROBLEM A HIGH PRIORITY i
l 1
i
O (d
..)
APPROACH
~
e TIGHTEN ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING l
QUALIFICATION STANDARDS i
-FEEDBACK FROM REGIONS i
-lSSUANCE OF IE BULLETIN l
e UPGRADE STANDARDS
-ENDORSEMENT OF EPRI STANDARD FOR NDE PERSONNEL 4
e MAJOR REVIEW OF PROBLEM i
1 i
l l
O O
)
REVIEVt i
e STAFF UNDERTAKING STUDY TO l
-DETERMINE EXTENT AND NATURE OF PROBLEM 1
-DETERMINE ROOT CAUSES OF PROBLEM.
l l
-DETERMINE EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING PROGRAMS i
-DETERMINE GAPS IN COVERAGE l
-DETERMINE GAPS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING STANDARDS
-PROVIDE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN i
e PRELIMINARY RESULTS EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE BEFORE REPORT TO CONGRESS
)
i e STUDY NOT ON FORD AMENDMENT CRITICAL PATH
?
~
t
G
.@ r.
-)
3
)
j t-l NDE PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR t
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPER ATION l
. CODE CTWITIES NON-CODE ACTIVITIES
- 10 CFR 50.55a 10 CFR APPENDIX B 10 CFR 50 APP B i
CODES & STDS CRITERlON 11 CRITERION 11 1
1 i r 1 r 1r i
'TO ASME CODE TO RG 1.58 TO RG 1.58 1 F 1 r 1 r SNT-TC-1 A PLUS
-TC-1 A ADDITIONAL CODE 4
1 PROVISIONS l
i.
- SPECIFIES ASME CbDE kND ADDENDN AND LIMih TIONS THEREUPON
{
APPROVED FOR USE j
- NEARLY EVERY STATE REQUIRES USE OF ASME CODE IN ADDITION TO ilE l
REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR l
j
. O O
D 9, ;. q i
i l
NRC SPECIAL STUDY OF NUCLEAR l
QUALITY ASSURANCE li BRIEFING SLIDES FOR PRESENTATION t
JUNE 9,1983 BY E.W. BRACH, NRC AND M.G. PATRICK, PNL j
TOPIC: REVIEW'OF NRC, INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT QA PROGRAMS T
2L >s
- rk.c L
f w
i I
,i
.r...,
.,,.,-,,-n.,
..,..,.-_..,,._-..,-~,,,,_,---,s._,..
.. - - + -. - - - - - - _, _ - -
- G O
J REVIEW OF NRC, INDUSTRY, AND GOVERNMENT 1
QA PROGRAMS s
OBJECTIVES:
1.
REVIEWTHE QA PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES OF:
i THE COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY e
I SELECTED DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES AND ASSOCIATED e
REGULATORY AGENCIES SELECTED FOREIGN NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRIES e
i 2.
{
IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND APPLICABILITY OF THE QA PROGRAM AND PRACTICES OF THESE OUTSIDE PROGRAMS TO THE NUCLEAR POWER !NDUSTRY I
j.
3.
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS WHERE CHANGES TO NRC PROGRAMS AND REQUIREMENTS MAY BE APPROPRIATE l
s i
. O O
3 i
INDUSTRIES AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES i
l PROPOSED FOR REVIEW l-AVIATION INDUSTRY (FAA) e SPACE INDUSTRY (NASA) e 4
NUCLEAR SHIPYARDS (US NAVY) i e
e GOVERNMENT OWNED NUCLEAR FACILITIES (DOE)
)
l l
i e
j t
1
O G
.)
i 2-1 i
j i
i CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTION OF i
l OUTSIDE PROGRAMS FOR REVIEW i
j HIGHLY COMPLEX TECHNOLOGY e
i e
HIGH QUALITY STANDARD RCQUIREMENTS L
GOALS OF VERY LOW FAILURE RATES e
1 i
(),.
i j
4
\\
l u,~
Q' b
ELEMENTS OF REVIEW-1.
AUTHORITY
/
CONTROLLING LAWS o
l REGULATIONS e
i 2.
ORGANIZATION FACTORS l
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES e
STRUCTURE (ORGANIZATION CHART, FUNCTIONS, AUTHORITY 1
e l
i AND RESPONSIBILITIES)
~
[.
i
~
RELATIONS WITH REGULATED GROUPS e
.?
e RESOURCES a
i i
i 3.
AGENCY'S PROGRAM TO ASSURE QUALITY IN REGULATED INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES e
y i
REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS (LICENSE OR CERTIFICATE) e INSPECTION PROGRAM e
i ENFORCEMENT SANCTIONS e
QUALIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF AGENCY PERSONNEL e
AUD,lTS
~~
e
~
~ - ' ~
~
~-
~~
~
~~
O O
ELEMENTS OF REVIEW (cont'd) 3 4.
REGULATED INDUSTRY'S PROGRAM FOR ASSURANCE OF QUALITY i
e AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY IN REGULATED ORGANIZATION DELEGATION OF QA AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY (E.G.,
e SUBCONTRACTORS) l e
DOCUMENTATION OF QA PROGRAM l
e IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES e
REVIEW AND AUDIT PRACTICES e
QUALIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL l
5.
ASSURANCE OF QUAllTY MEASUREMENTS
{
i e
FAILURE RATE GOALS l
e PROBABILITY STUDIES OF MEASUREMENTS l
e VALUE/ IMPACT GUIDELINES i
{
ENGIN,EERING JUD,GEMENT AND EXPERIENCE e
i i
.m 9
c 9
9 3
.~-
t 1 p q
REVIEW PLAN 6
i PHASE I-INTERIM REPORT OCTOBER 1983 INCLUDES e
REVIEW OF NRC, DOE (FFTF), FAA, AND NAVAL SHIPYARDS, AND A LITERATURE REVIEW OF j
FOREIGN NUCLEAR PROGRAMS i
)
{
e WILL PROVIDE INPUT TO CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT REPORT i
l e
PHASE 11 - FINAL REPORT MARCH 1984 ADDS REVIEW OF DOE (GCEP), NASA, AND FOREIGN i
NUCLEAR PROGRAMS (AS APPROPRIATE), AND A LITERATURE REVIEW OF OTHER DOMESTIC l
INDUSTRIES l
i i
__m m
,.m
_.m-
. ~ --
- ~=.
. Q
,)
~
ACTIONS TO DATE FEBRUARY 1983 NRC AND PNL MEETING TO DISCUSS STATEMENT e
OF WORK MARCH 1983 AGREEMENT FINALIZED WITH PNL e
APRIL 1983 ASSESSMENT PLAN DEVELOPED e
NRC AND PNL REVIEW TEAM MEETING e
LITERATURE REVIEW FOR PHASE i STARTED e
e FOREIGN REVIEW EFFORT INITIATED (SWEDEN) i MAY 1983 INITIAL CONTACT MADE.WITH DOE HQS (2 MEETINGS e
INITIAL CONTACT MADE WITH FAA HQS (2 MEETINGS e
i 1.
REVIEW OF NRC QA PROGRAM INITIATED e
(5 INTERVIEWS) 3 INITIATED LITERATURE REVIEW OF NAVY SHIPYARD e
I QA PROGRAM FIELD VISIT MADE TO DOE /RICHLAND OFFICE e
AND FFTF i
FIELD VISIT MADE TO FAA/ SEATTLE OFFICE e
AND E'OEING INITIAL CONTACT MADE WIT'i CANADA e
t i
-o o
.I t
PRELIMINARY INFORMATION THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS PRESENTLY BEING ASSESSED FOR EFFECTIVENESS AND PRACTICALITY FOR NRC PROGRAMS e
- QUALITY ASSURANCE CONSIDERED TO BE A.LINE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION (INTEGRATED)
- GRADED QUALITY ASSURANCE APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE PROJECT
- FFTF BUILT AS A " LICENSABLE" FACILITY e
FAA L
L p
- DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE PROGRAM PROVIDES AN EXTENSION OF FAA INSPECTION RESOURCES j
- CONTROL EXERCISED OVER SUPPLIERS OF PARTS AND EQUlPMENT i
- FAA REVIEWS QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM j
- FAA INSPECTS FACILITIES
{
- FAA " LICENSES" THE DESIGNER, PARTS MANUFACTURER, ASSEMBLER, AND OPERATOR 1
- i
-