ML20091F296
Text
R
,.s o ** *' Sg#
e.
uNiito st Atts. '
+*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
... ( [ h ma cioN I::
is
- a 7ef moostvtL1 moAo k h. ' '
[
sith t LLvw. ILuwoes sota?
,, v f March 14, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Director, DPRP Director, DE rector, DRMSP Director, SCS Director, DRMA TROM:
Pearl 7. Smidth, RIII FOIA Coordinator
SUBJECT:
FOIA REQUEST 84-158 The attached FOIA request has been received in RIII and MUST be given PRIORITY ATTENTION.
fe.5-
~
h Please check the applicable block and return the attached Form RIII/0959A 7.
Y' to the Director, DRMA at the Regional Administrator's 8:15 a.m. meeting on March 16, 1984 All documents subject to this request must be provided to me no later than
- COB, March 20, 1984 If the documents cannot be provided within the time required, the request for extension must be submitted to the Regional Administrator (using the Torn RIII/0959B attached) and approved by him.
1
'4 Thank you for your cooperation.
Pearl 7. Smidth RIII FOIA Coordinator Attachments:
-i 3.
TOIA Request 2.
Torm RIII/0959A l
3.
Form RIII/0959B i
ec w/atts:
A. B. Davis Steve Lewis W. B. Schultz i
J
\\
t I
I-8406020107 840517 PDR FOIA i
RICEB4-96 PDR t
4
,.y-
,c,-
,-,-.yw c
.4 r-
~
,7
' " GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADILITY PROJECT A
Ilrutitute for Policy Studies
-. 4 001 Que street. t4.W.. Weshington. D C 2000?
(202)234 9382 Mar 9 6,1984 h
pM OF INFORMM Mr. William Dircks ACT REQUEST Executive Director for Operations f gA /y-/f/
-- WS. Nucle 6r Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
.Rai FOIAB4-A-6 (F0!AS3-706)
~
Dear Mr. Dircks:
Your updated response to my January 17,1984 letter of inquiry regarding r07A83-706 did not answer my questions. __._I_will restate:then here and renn=*+ * = aae i fic res ponse:
1.
Did Mr. Novak creste or obtain any notes, reports, memos to the (4)<.de'tAwe=>.
file, make any trips to eith_e_r_ the Region III office or the Midland site during the September,.1982-December,1982, time period ?
2.
If they ever had such notes, etc., when were they destroyed, or IA de=M**
are they in someone else's possession 7 3.
Has the Region III OSC staff been requested to produce any notes. Yes. Oer memos etc. that they kept of Mr. Novak's meetings with them sur..e is reg 6rding the Midland plant?
aM,,Ad
~
4.
I requested, and re-state my request, for a Vaugh index for the 7 relevant documents.
~
'< ] look forward to your response within 20 days.
9-sincerely.
h -- UL Billie Pirner Garde Citizens Clinic Director s
/
. "...lLis:me 1
I 1
=
4 t.
(
i' l
I
~.
t 3
THOMAS M. NOVAE - MJDLAND PLANT TRAVEL TO GLEN ELLYN, IL AND MIDLAND /SAdIhAW,.M1 DATE PLACE PURPOSE i.
s 8/26/82 Glen Ellyn, IL Attend meeting with Consumers Region III Power management regarding
)
Midiend Plant.
Rental car 9/28-30/87 Midland /saginaw Attend QA meeting w/ Region III and applicant re: Midland Plant.
~~
Rental Car 2/8-9/83 Midland /.$aginaw Meeting with Midland Licensee
~
on QA and attendance of public meeting to discuss Midland.
Rental car 7/28/83 Chicago, IL Attend management meeting ' Region III Administrator, on Midland.
Accompanied by Darrell G. Eisenhut in rental car.
8/11-12/83 Midland, MI Attend public ameting on Midland
~
CCP and licensee SALP on Midland and Midland site visit.
Passenger in Darl Hood's Rental Car 8/24-25/83 Midland /saginaw Meeting with S&W on construction innlementation overview of the Midland CCP Rental car
~
10/11/83 Glen Ellyn, IL Enforcement Conference meeting Region Ill Passenger in Darl Hood's Rental Car 4.
T.
+,
--e.,-
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT memoranc.um DATE:
"I?r!.3:
SUBJECTS TO:
i 5
I 1
C w :o I c 1+e g l
- h e c er.fG H f
- r>
U Coof.
b o,ng,.;.,.
gm,-m., c,
- GFO 1983 0 - 421-526 (9142)
ke hwa I } /l W h M * ~ k l.;r.it:dGlates Nuclear Regulatory Commission A
Docket Numbers 50-329 & 50 330 1.
- %~- 4., t...4. PH %...... h.
ww+
-I.'-
- n. : 1._.! $.1 t
1 i
Lt. t t.1%(.. tM=f.. t.
t.- g 1,..
c '.1. - gu..s.g. f, d
j.,
.t i
3-1 u.2..
y 2
z.
e-.
4 6 C A* _
'4 '::" 0
-(gh"p'{
1* ~ i' g.f 4 u ::
'j!
Lb M
{. y' b.:
..:s i,nt ;
F)u'P'i.: tin i -
-:',".o 3 '1 0I y' 'n.,:
4 g
+-
_ ~1 t---}. 1,. " -' +,
p__;
u 1'n.;t ;4.P.
n.
n n
- r..>.". '
+
an
/--
+
... '.g,., ;:3. 3I
-- v.m. --- O g r c.:.
s
._j l nq 1
..m. _ _..,.,..
- .y.... m i
- a-n : A Ww ~
f>.I
.h d'I:b e
+
i,W..-.0.,
Midland Independent Design and s.
$z.J.._ P.
2 v...
Construction Verification Program W M.--
p I
py!
, an r qf'**
- a.h,a.t Tf h
' Ft T,
l E
..4:b
.s.
icL_L&:
n i:.
r.:m-ai
. y Le..]
8
.m.
iL
.1 Y
l
!t e'.-
C*
Sii.h.v,ii :
OY l
n-
.,s
..~
um 1
c/
...:.:, m, -
H; -
u.
wa
~
u
+yf.9 2L
- %jiid%, QM%~i 4 "? :.T J n- --
V
'C-'s
.e sM_. '..#, f?H
, T; ','.
h 1
i M. a2W.ys n <-.---rv-
- e 2= "C'pM %N.p..W!
pw'. o;;. :
?
rar-- L;w,.W ML
, 9..e '
i.,si.. n.. +.:-
3 C*. r M
'*N* &~'% jay Ie-r-=
r*l. PWE ~~ '
7*A
~
- %. ' -, v%
'a" s
)...f [ f
~R t
N f
li fi 6F. -., -
T? -
g s,g,,.k%
i
-!.-.- f' f n 4.ilmii ~
16 i 7
_g.9d.
w 2* y 4 's G F%pjp f
p.g..y *
-M-7
~
' % nEu,.,.ai,u
~
\\.
&j,y --
na
- a. ce
.y-
- - s--,,e,
,-f
.- ~...
.g. -
i i
im s(.
00w ~r 4m_.j c,..._ R ! -. l 9.g-g@;.=.m s.
- y..,..... r -
r.;..
=: +:
.y e
.n
....n m
.............................,3
---.v.
.<., 2 - m-e
- m...- -i-,
$e 47
,S.Se l
~ l QU e
v s.'
-(,
N~
{
b'Mtmkf 1 l. r-th'"
h.1' g ' i E e' h
[U
--4--------
+
/
MF 6t!'7'"f"W% pr.
.1!?i M'
.g M, 4 4 % ! m ; [:
MiM_F $
j
- 4. m, dM7
- i
..p m i Ai,
. q
.m g m.se
. - -.4 d o m***,A.
k:'"U lYl!bm 6--=
. $. m f.13:!i..,. Nib b
a
.zi-,
f e x.
- i
.v..c..,.
e m
3
. ; t.,. ;a
,w w
< & g,u.
8 pEr g= = -
q-
+
r s
. g,;_. g.rg-g.
.. e.,
~r l
TERA CORPORATION
..l W
I
De>iTo !n J.;:.;, - %Elu./
4.5 -
.i o
[cLs,.):h*Y b 4 at 4
5 v
s AGEPDA MEETING TO DISCUSS PLANS FOR COMPLETION OF TE MIDLAFO IDCVP MARCH 13,1984 BETESDA, MD e
PURPOSE - BECK (TERA) e INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND - LEVIN (TERA)
STATUS OF THE IDCVP RELATIONSHIP OF THE IDCVP AND ONGOING ACTIVITIES REVIEW OF IDCVP OBJECTIVES / PHILOSOPHY
SUMMARY
OF IDCVP COMPLETION PLANS COMPLETION OF THE DESIGN VERIFICATION - DOUGHERTY (TERA) l e
REVIEW OF IDVP METHODOLOGY EFFECT OF ONGOING DESIGN-RELATED ACTIVITIES SCOPE OF REVIEW / APPROACH TO SAMPLE SELECTION REVIEW AREA STATUS / FUTURE ACTIONS I
e COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION - TULODIESKI (TERA)
CURRENT STATUS AND ACTIVITIES QVP REVIEW FUTURE ACTIVITIES l
e
SUMMARY
OF IDCVP ENHANCEMENTS - LEVIN (TERA)
DISCUSSION - LEVIN (TERA), Ab4< RUM (NRC), GIBSON (CPC) -
e e
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AS REQUESTED BY OBSERVERS h
e
SUMMARY
- BECK (TERA)
'i TERA CORPORATION i
~- -
y y%
t
l i
}
PURPOSE 1
e TO DESCRIBE PLANS FOR COMPLETION OF THE MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM AS SUMMARIZED IN TERA'S FEBRUARY 10, 1984, LETTER TO NRC AND CPC.
I f
e d
e I
1 4
h
.j ERA CORPORADON
-,, ~ - -
., 1 7. 7,.
- , q.
m-
STATUS MIDLAFO IDCVP MSR 9 (2/IS/84)
- , J. w. repa e
PERCENTAGE COMPLETE IDVP = 64%
- QVP = 2Ry IDCVP = 51%
OCRs/FiNOiNG5 IDERTIFIED ACTIVE POTENTIAL OPEN ITEMS (P)
IS4 0 F4 OPEN ITEMS (0) 136 16 CONFIRMED ITEMS (C) 97 S8 FINDINGS (F) 20 12 RESOLVED ITEMS (R) 37 FINDING RESOLUTION (Z) 8 OBSERVATIONS (B) 23 P=OA+CA+FA+R+Z+B i
i e
CURRENT ACTIVITIES IDVP ICVP 1
l-BASE SCOPE X
OCR DISPOSITION X
X
[
l j,
REPORTS X
i l'
l i
1 ERA CORPORAllON i
M I
j 1
I INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE M'DLAto DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AFO THE MID Ato IDCV PROGRAM l 10 CFR 50. APPEPOlX A l ll f
.n e Res Gwiens e 0,uh,etry F5AR APOOTHER REVIEW OF DE5tCN UTILITY CRITERIA APO Steenrds COMMITMENTS COMMITMENT 5 e 9655 CriNrle
+
l DE5lGN INDLJT5 l
l' M N555 VDCOR I7 REVIEW OF tMPLEMENTNG ENCNEERING ImPLE MENTING DOCUMENTS STAPOARDS, DOCUMENTS PROCEDURE 5 il DE5&CN PROCESS I
e D.i Ca,ei e E-i l'
e QA/
Eveivations C>ECK OF CONFIRMATORY e Caladehare CALCULATIONS APC CALCULATIONS OR EVALUATIONS EVALUATIONS 1I I
l DE51CN CMANCES l 4
iDv o
i DE54GN OUTPUTS CDECK OF j
e%
DRAwNC5 APC 1
e $sselfesetiens
, SPECFICATIONS i
I f
1F 1f la l
i FASRICATION T E5 IU'E" DOCUMDifATION I
I k
o i'
SITE CON 5TRUCTION ACTIVITIES N
e Conserwesen Centrol e5 e
e WOC REVIEW OF STORACE REwtw &
e Erert.en, heel.
AND MANTENAfCE CONSTRUCTON/
=CIEEm"N e,lEE* *"-
c " "*"
4
[ FIELD CHANCES l h
o VERFICATONI OVER-N5PECTION N5TALLED 57RUCTV45 SYSTEMS APO VERFICATION OF ACTIVITIES COMPO>ENTS P>fYSICAL CO> FIGURATION
}
h g
REVIEW &
VERFICATION TURNOVER F0Pt ACTMTIES C
FUNCTIONAL TESTNG
'I -
h i,
mm.TIOh.
i DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION PROCESS MIDLAPO IOCV PROGRAM b.
n o
9
RELATIONSHIP OF TFE IOCVP A>O l
ONGOING ACTIVITIES j
e MIDLAND PROJECT STATUS CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION PROGRAM DESIGN CHANGES /RECONCILATION e
INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION DURING THE PROJECT COMPLETION CYCLE ROLE OF IDCVP VERTICAL SLIC'E ROLE OF CIO, ETC.
4 i
h i
ll TERA CORPCRATICN
)
t I
e g
I\\
USE OF INPOENT DESIGN AbD CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAMS TI-ROUGH Tif NUCLEAR PROECT COMPLETION CYCLE
. l 1
i g,o w
" VERTICAL SLICE"/EtO PRODUCT REVIEWS (V) m 6
- s
,.\\
b i
m g
N 910RIZONTAL SLICE"/ PROCESS REVIEWS (H) s Y=0
-- r I
I I
I I
I I
I YEAR OPERATIONS PROECT MANAGEMENT TESTING CONSTRUCTION DESIGN PLANNING '
\\.'
s QUALITY ASSURANCE LICENSING
^t l
\\
)\\ .
K,1Y1 4
a s
1, SPECIFIC DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION 4 WIT //
a
. PROGRAM SHOWING RELATIVE EMPHASIS OF VTs(IC/ ASD
' + HORIZONTAL SLICE REVIEWS My RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EPO PROD >73 % d,A Ato p PROCESS REVIEWS TO AN ASSESSMENT Cy GUAui. 4T A v SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE COMPLETION Ato IN1ERVAL OF Tik;E i
s
~.
. 6 4f k %
- s N
I, y
)
g 5
I
'4
^
I L
e,
{
+
b, g,
4 d' 4 4 9*=
f f,
._ ~,,
.g,
- l
\\
,(
[
J '.."h --
. At.:
.,_'s-b' f, t, e #-
~ ~.1 i.[3 /
. i
\\
9
\\ - -: N '
PHILOSOPHY OF REVIEW SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, e
COMPONENTS, AND STRUCTURES WHICH WILL FACILITATE:
AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF IMPORTANT PARAMETERS AFFECTING THE FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITY OF THE THREE SYSTEMS, AND I-THE ABILITY TO EXTRAPOLATE FINDINGS TO SIMILARLY l
DESIGNED FEATURES WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE e
CONSIDER POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FINDINGS WHICH WILL ALLOW A BALANCED VIEW OF OVERALL QUALITY ASSESS ROOT CAUSE AND EXTENT OF IDENTIFIED FINDINGS e
e REVIEW CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN TO ADDRESS FINDINGS l
i h
i J
4 1
i TERA CORPOlMTION
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _E
s
SUMMARY
OF IDCVP COMPLETION PLANS e
MAINTAIN EXISTING VERTICAL SLICE APPROACH IN IDVP j
END PRODUCT EMPHASIS SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW OF SELECTED ENGINEERING PROCESSES ONGOING CONFIRMATORY PROGRAMS (E.G.,
FIRE PROTECTION) o POSTPONEMENT OF SELECTED ICVP UNTIL PHASE I OF CCP SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW OF GVP DOCUMENTATION PROCESSES e
FOCUSED REVIEW OF IDENTIFIED PROCESS-RELATED ISSUES RESULTING FROM FINDINGS (E.G., FIELD CHANGE / DESIGN CHANGE CONTROL PROCESS) i i
I i
i TERA CORPORATION i
.d
O i
l COMPLETION OF Tif DESIGN VERIFICATION REVIEW OF IDVP METHODOLOGY EFFECT OF ONGOING DESIGN-RELAiLU AClIVIi165 SCOPE OF REVIEW / APPROACH TO SAMPLE SELECTION REVIEW AREA STATUS / FUTURE ACTIONS i
TERA CORPORATION
-3_
l
!NITIAL SAMPLE REVIEW MATRIX FOR Tif AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM MIDLAFO NOEPEbOENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM f
SCOPE OF REVIEW i
i 4n Ahn!
[~[4 Uy J
DESIGN AREA K
US
'l G u
s! E!
e6 l'il'ff 1.
AFW SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SYSTEM OPERATING LIMITS X
X X
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS X
SINGLE FAILURE X
X X
e TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS X
X SYSTEM ALIGNMENT /SWITCHOVER X
X REMOTE OPERATION AND SHUTDOWN X
SYSTEM ISOLATION /lNTERLOCKS X
X OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION X
e e
e COMPONENT FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS X
X X
X SYSTEM HYDRAULIC DESIGN X
X X
e SYSTEM FEAT REMOVAL CAPABILITY X
X X
e COOLING REQUIREMENTS X
WATER SUPPLIES X
X PRESERVICE TESTING / CAPABILITY FOR OPERATIONAL TESTING X
e o
e POWER SUPPLIES X
X e
ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS X
e e
PROTECTIVE DEVICES / SETTINGS X
X X
INSTRUMENTATION X
X X
X CONTROL SYSTEMS X
X X
e l
ACTUATION SYSTEMS X
e j
POE COMMITMENTS X
e e
MATERIALS SELECTION X
X FAILURE MODES AFC EFFECTS e
M X. HTIAL SCOPE OF REVIEW
@ DELETED SCOPE OF REVIEW e - ADDED SCOPE OF REVIEW
~++%
N e
w.
INITIAL SAMPLE REVIEW MATRIX FOR TW AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM MIDLAtO ltOEPEICENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM (CONTINUED)
SCOPE OF REVIEW i
i r1 e
1 [59 1 21 GE n
g4 DESIGN AREA Eu Rf 51 Es go hw Aw s
9 8
y,2 2 s
E II. AFW SYSTEM PROTECTION FEATURES SEISMIC D55lGN X
e PRESSURE BOUrOARY X
X X
X X
e PIPE / EQUIPMENT SUPPORT X
X X
X X
e EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION X
X X
X-HIGH ENERGY LINE BREAK ACCIDENTS X
e PIPE WHIP X
X X
X e JET lMPlNGEMENT X
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION X
e ENVIRONMENTAL ENVELOPES X
X X
X e EQUIPMENT GUALIFICATION X
X X
X e HVAC DESIGN X
Fete PROTECTION X
X X
MISSILE PROTECTION X
SYSTEM 51NTERACTION X
X X
ill STRUCTURES THAT HOUSE THE AFW SYSTEM SEISMIC DESIGN / INPUT TO EQUIPMENT X
X X
X WIND & TORNADO DESIGN / MISSILE PROTECTION X
FLOOD PROTECTION X
i
>ELBA LOADS X
CIVIL / STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS X
I e FOUPOATIONS X
X X
e CONCRETE /5 TEEL DESIGN X
X X
X e TAPES m
X - NTIAL SCOPE OF REVIEW
@ DELETED SCOPE OF REVIEW
- - ADDED SCOPE OF REVIEW 3
l b
g 1
Fh "q
'E
INITIAL SAMPLE REVIEW MATRIX FOR TE AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM MIDLAto INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM SCOPE OF REVIEW 4,I d E
"r hi D g
SYSTEM /COMPOPENT d
B *34 e! a lsl as i
W
~
suc2, W E
11 2
l.
MECHANICAL e EQUIPMENT X
X X
X X
e PIPING X
X X
X e PIPE SUPPORTS X
X X
X
- 11. ELECTRICAL e EQUIPMENT X
X X
X X
e TRAYS Ato SUPPORTS X
X e CONDUlT AND SUPPORTS X
x e CABLE X
X X
X X
llL INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL e INSTRUMENTS X
X X
X X
e PIPING / TUBING X
X o CABLE X
X IV. HVAC e EQUIPMENT X
X X
X X
e DUCTS AND SUPPORTS X
X l
l Y.
STRUCTURAL e FOUrOATIONS X
X e CONCRETE X
X X
e STRUCTURAL STEEL X
X X
VI. NDE/ MATERIAL TESTING PROGRAM X
M X NTIAL SCOPE OF REVIEW h DELETED SCOPE OF REVIEW
- . ADDED SCOPE OF REVIEW y
l j
i EFFECT ON IDVP OF ONGOING DESIGERELATED ACTIVITIES TOTAL NUMBER PERCENTAGE
' MEASURE NUMBER AFFECTED AFFECTED MATRIX XS 352 34 10 4
l LINE ITEMS 127 15 12 i
~
ENGINEERING 80 82 15 EVALUATIONS 1
t Y
~
j
' l.
TERA CORPORADON
- 'N w y..e i--.
h h
4 a
6
S SAMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA e
IMPORTANCE TO SAFETY b
e DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION INTERFACES e
ABILITY TO EXTRAPOLATE RESULTS e
DIVERSITY e
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE e
TESTABILITY a
i i
4 i
i l
4 I
I, 1 ERA CORPORATION
--.l
^
IDVP REVIEW APPROACH TO SAMPLE SELECTION FOR SPECIFIC DESIGN TOPICS ORIGINAL jl lDVP SAMPLE 1
9 P 1 P END PRODUCTS EPO PRODUCTS AVAIL ABLE NOT AVAILABLE 1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P COMPLETE PER SELECT EW END SELECT EW EPO SELECT INTERMEDIATE PRODUCTS MEETING PRODUCTS PARTIALLY Ato EPO PRODUCTS EPP Ato 6
DISPOSITION OCRs AMPLE SELECTION MEETING SAMPLE PARTIALLY MEETING CRITERIA SELECTION CRITERIA SAMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA 1P REVIEW ENGINEERING PROCESS FOR COMPLETING DESICN i
1 P INTEGRATE EPO FINAL OVP SAMPLE /
PRODUCT AFC 7
SAMPLE SELECTION 4 ENGINEERING PROCESS CRITERIA MET REVIEWS APO j
DISPOSITION OCRs i
i I
?
PREPARE INPUT TO i
DVP REPORTS ICVP l
I h
l s
4
REVIEW AREA STATUS 5
TECH SPECS PROPOSED STATUS ACTION e
IN DRAFT FORM e
VERIFY THAT PROCESS ENSURES COMPATIBILITY e
REVISED IN FSAR AMENDMENT OF TECH SPECS AND 49 DESIGN e
SPECIFIC NUMBERS NEED TO BE DEVELOPED e
TYPICAL OF PLANT AT THIS STAGE 4
i i
y i
f
-i
.i i
L 1
,j i
-j TERA CORPORATION l
.a
'1
I i
l l
REVIEW AREA STATUS t'
SEISMIC DESIGN / EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION PROPOSED STATUS ACTION e
APPROXIMATELY 70% COMPLETE e REVIEW AVAILABLE DOCUMENTATION e
OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR HAS e
SUBSTITUTE COMPONENTS SIGNIFICANT SCOPE FOR INCOMPLETE PACKAGES WHEN NECESSARY e
AFFECTS ALL 3 SYSTEMS IN e
REVIEW SORT PROCEDURE SAMPLE e
S0% OF PREVIOUSLY SELECTED PACKAGES NOT COMPLETE j
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION i
i 1
TERA CORPORATION
.j
REVIEW AREA STATUS HIGH EERGY Lite BREAK ACCIDENT PIPE WHIP / JET IMPlNGEMENT 1
PROPOSED STATUS ACTION e
BASIC EFFORT IS e
REVIEW PROCEDURES ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE e
WALKDOWN FOR FIELD RUN e
USE ICVP TO VERIFY OR FIELD LOCATED ITEMS RESULTS MUST BE DONE d
i 1
TERA CORPORATION
,[
,a
REVIEW AREA STATUS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION /EQ PROPOSED l
STATUS ACTION e
REV. I OF EQ REPORT e
NO CHANGE TO ISSUED 12/82 PROGRAM ASSUMING LAST PACKAGE IS AVAILABLE
)
e REV. 2 IS PLANNED e
REVIEW GL 'ALIFICATION PROGRAM FOR PACKAGE IF RESULTS NOT AVAILABLE t
e 3 PACKAGES WERE NOT 6
REVIEW TESTING PROGRAM COMPLETE, BUT 2 NOW ARE AND THE LAST ONE IS SCHEDULED PRIOR TO 3/31 e
ONE OTHER ITEM 15 IN TESTING AND IS SCHEDULED FOR MID-YEAR COMPLETION I
g i
1 ERA CORPORATION
~
te' i
I 5
'b
, i
REVIEW AREA STATUS FIRE PROTECTION PROPOSED STATUS ACTION e
FIRE HAZARDS STUDY BEING e
REVIEW PROGRAM FOR REVISED COMPLETION OF FIRE HAZARDS STUDY e
AFFECTS MULTIPLE AREAS OF PLANT e
OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR e
TERA ATTENDED NRC/CPC/
CONTRACTOR MEETING e
CONTRACTOR REVIEWING AREAS THAT OUR OCRs INDICATED NEEDED REVIEW
'Q,,
,,,c,,f0/l cn afbYo
'*/"#bA"" AY tlen A.,,) k.
,;b,,>?% W y n osaf Jy % M~e-KR'~%
h 4 shay # Arepolk..-r, i
TERA CORPORATION
~
- a a
5
'/<,'
e REVIEW AREA STATUS SYSTEMS INTERACTION PROPOSED
- STATUS ACTION e
PROGRAM HAS BEEN STARTED e
REVIEW PROGRAM IN DETAIL
~~ -~~
e ILKA MA5 KtVitWED PORTIONS e
USE ICVP TO VERIFY OF OF PROGRAM RESULTS o
PROGRAM BEING PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR i
e FIELD ACTIVITIES IN PROGRESS i
i f
I; 1 ERA CORPORATION i
8 e
g i.#
y
i 4
5 4
IPOEPEICENT CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (ICVP)
~ !
e ORIGINAL PLAN FOR ICVP EXECUTION l
i s
e INFLUENCE OF MIDLAND PROJECT ENVIRONMENT UPON ICVP 1
l COMPLETION ALTERATIONS TO ICVP EXECUTION PLAN NECESSARY TO RETAIN e
PRINCIPAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES I
I T
l t
1 1 ERA CORPO% TION i
l
' ff
'~t
}
ORIGINAL PLAN FOR ICVP EXECUTION e
PRINCIPAL OEUECTIVE: VERIFICATION OF THE QUALITY OF END PRODUCTS 1.E.,
DOCUMENTATION / PROCEDURES QUALITY VERIFICATION PACKAGES INSTALLED COMMODITIES AND COMPONENTS e
SCOPE AFW SEP CRHVAC REVIEW CATEGORY SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM 1.
VENDOR DOCUMENTATION X
X X
- 2. -
STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE X
X X
3.
CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION X
X X
4.
PHYSICAL VERIFICATION X
X X
S.
VERIFICATlON ACTIVITIES X
X X
e PLAN FOR EXECUTION OF SCOPE (REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN LOGICAL GROUPINGS) 1.
CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATlON AND j
PHYSICAL VERIFICATION I
2.
VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES E
3.
VENDOR DOCUMENTATION AND STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE l
l TERA CORPORATION
,.l
l 1
IWLUENCE OF MIDLAIO PROJECT ENVIRONMENT UPON ICVP COMPLETION e
FACTORS AFFECTING ICVP EXECUTION PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES TO COMPLETE PROJECT
+
RECERTIFICATION OF "O"-RELATED WORK CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION PROGRAM (CCP)
+
GUALITY VERIFICATION PROGRAM (OVP)
+
DOCUMENT / RECORD HANDLING PRACTICES
+
DELAYS TO PROGRAM EXECUTION APPROVAL OF CCP/QVP
+
+
STOP WORK ORDERS (FCR/FCN)
+
COMPLETION STATUS OF ZACK WORK e
INFLUENCE UPON ICVP SCOPE AFW SEP CRHVAC REVIEW CATEGORY SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM l.
VENDOR DOCUMENTATION X
X X
2.
STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE X
X X
3.
CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION 4.
PHYSICAL VERIFICATION S.
VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES X
X X
l TERA CORPORATION i
I lifLUENCE OF MIDLAto PROJECT ENVIRONMENT UPON ICVP COMPLETION e
PHYSICAL VERIFICATION-HOW AFFECTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ZACK, SELECTED COMMODITIES AND COMPONENTS WITHIN SYSTEM SAMPLE BOUNDARIES WILL BE RECERTIFIED (END PRODUCT UNAVAILABLE)
INSTALLED COMMODITIES AND COMPONENTS NOT CONSIDERED PROPERLY STATUSED PENDING COMPLETION OF CCP PHASE I REINSPECTION (ACCESSIBLE)
+
RECERTIFICATlON (INACCESSIBLE)
+
+
"TO DO" PUNCH LIST e
CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION - HOW AFFECTED REVIEWED INSTRUCTIONS AND PROCEDURES UNDERGOING REVISION (END-PRODUCT DIFFICULT TO DISCERN)
FINAL QUALITY VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION NOT COMPLETE / COLLATED (END. PRODUCT DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN AND VERIFY AS BEST AND FINAL)
INSPECTION RECORDS FOR ACCESSIBLE ITEMS TO BE SUPERCEDED BY CCP/QVP RECERTIFICATION PROCESS (END PRODUCT NOT AVAILABLE)
I i
TERA CORPORATION q
9 ALTERATIONS TO ICVP EXECUTION PLAN bECESSARY TO RETAIN PRINCIPAL GOALS A>0 OEUECTIVES e
PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVE: VERIFY THE QUALITY OF END PRODUCTS e
SCOPE AFW SEP CRHVAC REVIEW CATEGORY SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM l.
VENDOR DOCUMENTATION X
X X
2.
STOR. AGE AND MAINTENANCE X
X X
3.
CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION X
X X
4.
PHYSICAL VERIFICATION X
X X
5.
VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES X
X X
6.
QUALITY VERIFICATION PROGRAM X X
X
,f 4
f i
i MRA CGPOfMDON l
),.
l e
PLAN FOR EXECUTION OF SCOPE VEtOOR DOCUMENTATION F
- A W/SEP/CRHVAC::
- ]
STORACE & MAINTENANCE
- AFw/SEP/CRHVAC -
- l C
TALLATION
.. AFW/CRHVAC. :]
[v AFW/CRHVAC/SEP -
-l PHYSICAL VERIFICATION
- i AFW/CRHVAC w l
[i :: AFW/CRHVAC/SEP - el VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES
- I OUALITY VERIFICATION PROGRAM "y
(QVP) ll%
1/M l185 7/M = ASSUMED DATE FOR CCP PHASE I COMPLETION ON SELECTED COMPONENTS Ato COMMODITIES i
e NEAR TERM l ~i/84 I
i OCR/ FINDING DISPOSITION VERIFICATION OF REVIEW RESULTS i
REVIEW OF QVP PROCESS
+ INTERFACE WITH STATUS ASSESSMENT TEAMS
+ REVIEW, IDENTIFY, AND UNDERSTAND ELEMENTS OF DOCUMENTATION (CONSIDERED) IMPORTANT TO ACCESSIBLE AND INACCESSIBLE ITEMS e
LONG TERM (7/84 - l/8S)
SITE MOBILIZATION CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION AND PHYSICAL VERIFICATION REVIEWS
~
I t
t TERA CORPORATION e
.f
SUAWAARY OF IDCVP EM4ANCEMENTS PRIMARY i
e AID EXTRAPOLATION OF RESULTS AND INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT e
IMPROVED EXECUTION COHESIVE REVIEW LESS SENSITIVE TO EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS i
e TIMELY RESULTS SECONDARY e
IMPROVED RESOURCE USAGE / SCHEDULE
- l l
i 1
l t
i e
i i
t i
f 6
TERA CORPORATION y
- :.;:..:s ;tN:;, S
.,: o-
1 i.
l MIDLAND NUCLEAR PLANT col @LETION PLAN REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS t
l CONSUhERS POWER COMPANY i
MARCH 22,1984 i
i l
l~
=
6
-p-P P
MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER COMPLETION PLAN REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS AGENDA I. INTRODUCTION (J.W. COOK)
N. STATUS ASSESSMENT / QUALITY VERIFICATION PROGRAM (QVP)
UPDATE (J.T. MINOR AND B. PALMER) n-e,w lit. ISSUES (D.L QUAMME)
IV. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (D.L QUAMME)
V. PROCESS CONTROLS (T. VALENZANO) re. g
. w.,
VI. CONCLUSIONS (J.W. COOK)
a-,
I a
e 4
g h
I l
l l
f Z
o g
4 O
O i
o
~
b o
O O
W e
Z i
1 i
'l 1
I l
t i,
l 1
MIDLAND NUCLEAR PLANT COMPLETION PLAN BACKGROUND 1
i e NEW SCHEDULE REQ'D -FALL '83
..I.i k l
i i
e PROECT STATUS CHANGED:
)
-CCP PROCEDURES l
4
-UNIT 1 DECOUPLING j.
i e PROJECT PLANNING TEAM FORMED u.....ce ~....
L l
i l
I l
b
I e DATA BASE EXTENSIVE
-TO-GO QUANTITIES
-REWORK ASSUMPTIONS
-UNIT RATES e PROJECT SCHEDULE
-BOTTOMS UP
-lNTEGRATED e MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES
-CCP ASSUMPTION VERIFICATION
-FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS 4
s l-l
- - - - -. - ~ -
_ __ [. -
/
.=
7
, w..
CONSTRUCTION CONPfLETIC#4 PROGRAM _
l g.-
1 -
/..
a E
~
. BASIC PRINCIPLES;'
~
A. MANAGEMEMT REVIEWS ARE SCHEDULED AND HELD OF (1) ACTIVaTY i
J' PLAldW8G FOR VERIFICATION AND STATUS ASSESSMENT AND (2)
~
RESULTS OF STATUS ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING PRIOR TC NEW.
YT
_ WORK ACTIVffY.
.B. A PROCESS IS IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT NO EXISTING NON-CONFORMANCE8 WILL BE COVERED UP BY MEW WORK. ACTIVITIES.
p
~
C. PROCEDURE
S TO CONTR06. WORK DEFINITION AND REA. EASE INCLUDING N
' DEFINITION OF INSFECTION REQUIREMENTS AND INSPECTION HOLD POINTS ARE IN PLACE.
D)' INSPECTION AND CONSTRUCTION FEMSONNEL INVOLVED MUST HAVE 7
RECEIVED ~ALL REQUIRED TRAINING.
v J
1 m,=e*
m i.1,3,, _
eau 1
i l
SECTION ll 1
STATUS ASSESSMENT /
QUALITY VERIFICATION PROGRAM (OVP)
UPDATE L
4 4
~
l t
h -
m.
4 a
w m
W
~*MM*
" em w
..h",w.,
,,.g
_rg,,
O i
e 9
ACTUAL START OF PHASE 1 STATUS ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES DECEMBER 13,1983 a
- r' J.,,,,.
ARCHITECTURAL S'/A MODULE 340 I
a i
1
?
=4 1
e-INSTALLATION STATUS ASSESSMENT MANHOURS
- 1ST FIVE MODULES i
i.
CIVIL MECH' ELECT INSTR TOTAL l
MODULE 102 1080 5480 1800 180 8640 l
120 4090 5980 4080 710 14,860 f
4 340 11,490 4730 2470 990 19,680 410 20 0
0 0
20 o
l 800 750 30 1710 0
2490 TOTAL 17,430 16,220 10,060 1880 45,590 EXPENDED THRU 3/9 15,000
- ROUNDED e
300_
12-r v.e M.~:
MODULE 102,120,340, 410,800 INSTALLATION STATUS ASSESSMENT
~
MANPOWER CURVE ACTUAL
____ PLAN
\\
/
\\
I I
100 I
g I
\\
g
\\
I
/
I\\s s BPCO r/
\\
'\\s _________________
s FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
- 4.-
e INSPECTIONS INITIATED (BY COMMODITY)
COMMODITY FE STATUS ASSESSMENT Mechanical Instrumentation X
t Electrical Instrumentation X
Mechanical Equipment (M-485)
X Electrical Equipment (E-62)
X Pipe Supports X
Valves (Welded)
X Valves (Mechanical)
Flued Heads Pipe Welds X
Pipe X
Concrete Pipe Cable Terminations X
Electrical Containment X
Penetration Assemblies Feed-Thru Adapter Modules Batteries / Racks Structural Steel & Framing X
Platform X
4 Equipment Supports X
Shield Plates X
Whip Restraints X
Jet Impingement Barriers X
l l
Fuel Racks I
Liner Plate X
Liner Plate Attachments X
Special Doors
.X t
Block Walls X
Air Locks
}
Concrete X
l t
o
't i
1 i
i r
' ~-
INSPECTIONS INITIATED (CONT.)
(BY COMMODITY)
FE STATUS ASSESSMEFr COMMODITY Concrete & Masonry Openings X
Decontaminable Coatings on X
Concrete
-Miscellaneous Q Coatings X
Cable Tray X
Conduit X
Conduit Supports X
Wireways & Supports Trenches for Cable Boxes & Supports X
Cable Tray Supports X
Slots 1
i s
I i
I THRU 3/9 NCR'S IDENTIFIED 184 l
Qe.4n =nvs~$/,)
- i
.i 1
l I
ee ser='
m4 m
e a
- D+4+4h+mi---
a w
,45 e, a mm.
Me 4 +*
E a
&*44e-as' l
l TRAINING PHASEI 4
l APPROX.NO.
APPROX.NO.OF OF PEOPLE PROC., DWG. & SPECS MECHANICAL 100 80 INSTRUMENTATION 10 60 i
ELECTRICAL 90 70 a
civil 70 70 WELDING 40 40 310 TOOL BOX REVIEW SESSIONS FOR THE CRAFTS........... 6 r,
BECHTEL SELF-APPRAISAL TEAM (SAT)
- CONCEPT INITIATED OCTOBER 1983
- PURPOSE:
TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ASSURANCE TO BECHTEL MANAGEMENT THAT BECHTEL RESPONSIBILITIES ARE BEING PROPERLY CARRIED OUT M
L
- SAT OPERATIONS:
I cC. a:2 )
- PROJECT FIELD ENGINEER (PFE)/ SELECT 5/ DIRECTS SAT l;
- MONITOR STATUS ASSESSMENT TEAM 8 PROGRESS
- PRIMARILY MODULE 340 c.J. ' 0-l9
(
o
!.?
U.
it' b'
--, ~.
SAT AREAS REVIEWED (AS OF 3/5/84)
- 1. CIVIL / ARCHITECTURAL (COATINGS) l l ;c
- 2. CIVIL (PIPE WHIP RESTRAINTS)
- 3. ELECTRICAL (TERMINATIONS) 7
- 4. ELECTRICAL (RACEWAY)
I'
- 5. INSTRUMENTATION o
E-
- 6. MECHANICAL (HANGERS)
- 7. MECHANICAL (PIPING) 4
- 8. WELDING (PIPING AND HANGERS) l 2 e.,u,.. u.....
.-.4.~-%%.wl...
2_..
,.,,... - o. _.,_
k.
l
~
SAT OBSERVATIONS
^
l l
i
'l FIELD ENGINEERING /MPQAD INiERFACE
^
I 4
~
FORM COMPLETION 2
I PROCEDURAL RE-EMPHASIS /GLARIFICATIONS i
15 1
i l
PROCESS EFFICIENCY / RECORD RETENTION 3
l l
l TL
l'
._m_____.__
a SAT CONCLUSIONS i
- 1. STATUS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING t
SATISFACTORILY
- 2. SITE MANAGEMENT WILL CONTINUE SAT MONITORING OF STATUS ASSESSMENT TEAM ACTIVITIES l
l-L
\\
^
e,,i, ~ ra...,
a rosv> ~~r-Y 'pIV'.
,(p\\p {, y *
, s..
j cv '.,,..
QVP/SA MANHOURS
- 1ST FIVE MODULES CIVIL MECH.
ELECT.
TOTAL MODULE 102 5270 8930 7800 22,000 120 5270 9730 7770 22,770 340 31,170 30,430 7170 68,770 1
410 3550 2120 8200 10,930 800 880 2270 3930 7080 TOTAL 46,140 53,480 31,930 131,550 s -
EXPENDED THRU 3/9 5300 m m,e a > />rs
,,n., y.'a by
- ROUNDED i
300 MODULE 102,120,340, 410, 800 QVP & INSPECTION STAT;US ASSESSMENT MANPOWER CURVE 200_
1
/
\\
. /
l 100 _
/
9'l.*'p./
g
' ~
/
MPQAD
\\.-..-..-.-..-. /
J ',...
/
, & 'Y
\\'
p'
\\
s EXCLUDES H.R.P.,,j
-[f
.I ex FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AdG SEP OCT NOV DEC e'
,=
i l
INSPECTIONS INITIATED (BY COMMODITY)
QVP COMMODITY Mechanical Instrumentation X
Electrical Instrumentation Mechanical Equipment (M-485)
X Electrical Equipment (E-62)
~
Pipe Supports X
Valves (Welded)
X Valves (Mechanical)
X Flued Heads X
Pipe Welds X
Pipe Concrete Pipe X
Cable Terminations Electrical Containment Penetration Assemblies Feed-Thru Adapter Modules Batteries / Racks X
Structural Steel (.
Framing X
Platfors X
Equipment Supports Shield Plates f
Whip Restraints X
X Jet Impingement Barriers Fuel Racks j
Liner Plate I
Liner Plate Attachments X
j Special Doors X
Block Walls Air Incks X
Concrete s
4 f
I
I f
QVP COMMODITY X
Concrete & Masonry Openings t
X Decontaminable Coatings on Concrete X
Miscellaneous q Coatings X
Cable Tray X
Conduit X
Conduit Supports X
Wireways & Supports Trenches for Cable X
Boxes & Supports
~
Cable Tray Supports Slots THRU 3/9. __
~'
i NCR'S IDENTIFIED 133 ed *I ryvraa.yJ ;a J s
\\
{
dwea in.r.p.ec.; a i
i
..T
(.
.-m.nn-m-
" ~ ~
~'
l MPQAD L
INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION STATUS I
f I
CERTIFICATION GOAL (ALL WORK):
L, 1.239 (ESTIMATE AS OF 2/22/84) e+
1 -
TOTAL NO. CERTIFICATIONS ACCOMPLISHED:
688 (AS OF 2/22/84) i
% GOAL ACCOMPLISHED = 688 x 100 = 55.5%
1239 i
f s*
4..
h.
=- -
~
l QVP ASSESSMENT TEAM
,,, u. ~ 1 u r,: : :...-
cave nn...y,aa a INITIATED DECEMBER 1983 y
ESTABLISHED TO ASSESS ADEQUACY OF QVP CONTROLS
. TEAM COMPOSITION r
- QUALITY CONTROL l
g
- VERIFICATION PROGRAM MGMT GROUP INSPECTION EVALUATION
- QUALITY ADVISORS STAFF PROJECT ASSURANCE ENGINEERING p
a
- ~ - -- _.. -
,. ~ _ _ _ _.....
AREAS REVIEWED l
INSPECTION METHODS AND PROCEDURES
}
USE AND CONTROL OF FORMS PROGRAM PROCEDURES (ow e-3 m
a COMPLIANCE WITH QVP DOCUMENT.
i, i
REPORTS 4
COMMUNICATION AND INTERFACES
~
CONTROL OF ACTION ITEMS I
w
M..e w&N6 "
m SL.-.8hM mhamM, y
_w,e.,%.,
=.
~
9 QVP ASSESSMENT TEAM CONCLUSIONS
- 1. QVP PROCESS IS PROCEEDING IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER i
- 2. QVP ASSESSMENT TEAM REVI EWS WILL CONTINUE s
a a
e a+.-
A
---s.-
,~m-a e
I I
I i
M m
ZO
$a
-h CO co V'-
g i
l i
1
)
r-
.i l
l l
l
1 T
ISSUES
- 1. MPQAD PHASE I WORKLOAD MUCH GREATER THAN COMPLETION TEAM PHASE I SCOPE
- 2. LACK OF Q-RELATED WORK IN 1984
- 3. RELEASE BY MODULE DOES NOT TOTALLY SUPPORT i
SYSTEM TURNOVER LOGIC i..
i.
l l
l
SCHEDULE BASES i
PHASE I QUANTITIES / MANHOURS STATUS ASSESSMENT (BECHTEL SCOPE)
QUANTITIES g
MECHANICAL V
LARGE PIPE 26,000 L.F.
6,500 LARGE PIPE HANGERS 3,500 EA.
23,000 SMALL PIPE 39,800 L.F.
9,500 SMALL PIPE HANGERS 6,200 EA.
27,000 MISC 4,000 S/T 70,000 ELECTRICAL TERMINATI()NS 44,200 EA.
12,200 EQUIPMENT 300 EA.
3,800
/
16,M I
INSTRUMENTATION TUBING 35,200 L.F.
7,000 RACEWAY i
SUPPORTS 6,700 EA.
40,000 11,000 COMMODITY LISTS DEVELOPMENT
,000 AREA 1,310 TONS 20,100 STRUCTURAL STEEL 1
i PLATFORMS 460 TONS 18,300 l
WHIP RESTRAINTS a JET BARRIERS 320 EA.
6,500 l.
BLOCKWALLS 290 EA.
6,900 i'
MISC.
27,400 79,200 TOTAL 223,200
SCHEDULE BASES PHASE I QUANTITIES / MANHOURS TOTAL TOTAL 1R'S HOURS STATUS ASSESSMENT (MPQAD SCOPE) 4,500 44,000 ELECTRICAL 2,800 80,6UO MECHANICli 2,500 110,600 ClVIL 1,500 14,500 HANGERS SUBTOTAL 8,500 249,700 QUALITY VERIFICATION PROGRAM (MPQAD SCOPE) 30,750 211,500 ELECTRICAL 64,000 147;000 MECHANICAL 26,500 84,300 CIVIL SUBTOTAL 128,250 442,800 HANGER REINSPECTION PROGRAM (MPQAD SCOPE) 5,800 110,600 HANGERS 9
GRAND TOTAL 142,550 803,100 i
l i
L'
,.u m.
a-m4 G
e l
Z 0
M
"".)
i z
a O_
8
\\
O
?
IJJ z
Wo D.
i i
I 9
n,
P i
i POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
.I
- 1. MPQAD PHASE I WORKLOAD MUCH GREATER THAN COMPLETION TEAM SCOPE e DESTATUS INSPECTION RECORDS DUE TO DESIGN CHANGES TO AVOID DUPLICATE REINSPECTIONS e DECOUPLE AREA COMMODITIES AND VERIFY INDEPENDENTLY FROM PHASE 11 SYSTEM RELEASE TO LEVELIZE WORK LOAD i.
- QVP ON TURNED-OVER SYSTEMS DONE PRIOR TO l
1:
FUNCTIONAL TESTING
'~
'is 1:
l:
o
{
~
1 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS t
l (CONTINUED) l' i-
- 2. LACK OF Q-RELATED WORK IN 1984 i
e PIPE HANGER COMPLETION FOLLOWING THE HANGER I
REINSPECTION EFFORT e INSTALLATION OF WATER TIGHT DOORS e COMPLETION OF ELECTRICAL PANELS AND TERMINATIONS y
~
e COMPLETION OF ELECTRICAL RACEWAY AND SUPPORTS e COMPLETION OF INSTRUMENT TUBING e REPAlR/ REWORK / REPLACE ITEMS RELATING TO DISPOSITION OF NCR'S I
i
1 1
?.
=
1 4
1 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) i i
- 3. RELEASE BY MODULE DOES NOT SUPPORT SYSTEM TURNOVER LOGIC e UTILIZE SPECIAL PROCEDURES OF CCP FOR SYSTEM RELEASES i
TO SUPPORT NEAR-TERM MILESTONES e
e TOTAL SYSTEM APPROACH.
Next-ARD flad h e,.: /
4
re
~zz
..._0 s. __.-
_ {
' - i i
+
POTENTIAL SOLOTIONS
SUMMARY
(-
't e
e SOME ITEMS ARE ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THE CCP
~
l' l
..?
L GOLUTIONS IDENTIFIED CONFORM TO THE PASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION PROGRAM (CCP) e PROCESS CONTROLS ARE iN PLACE TO ACCOMPLISH THESE ADDITIONAL 'VORK.lTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CCP
~
l 6
I h,i._
.a h
e.
t J
8r Z
z O
OO
-h G
O Lu 8
&)
o oc Q.
l i
5 4
.d
! S i
i I
i
.. i
[
PROCESS CONTROLS 1
PHASE I PROCESS e SCOPE e STATUS oPRODUCT 4
o ~
PHASE I INTERFACE WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES e IN ACCESSABILITY REVIEW e NON CONFORMANCE INSPECTION l
b i
I
L l.
CCP PHASE I PROCESS T
l.
1 IDeNTIF1-l CATION s
COtet0006TY UST & DWG'S I
OPEN IR'S coCU-SAENTATION UNINSPECTED CLOSED STATUS
.COndt40DITIES l
LATIO98 SA
)
NCR'S cro^
NCR'S TO GO CORAPLETED WORK WORK CWP d'Ej\\#
k'
- "'8 REvlsED COnsTn uca.
mesencnon p [e IPuescpsT 5
TO GO I
STATU.
1 l
m r
pq WORK seasseAEN I V ST e
f fg
~~
AREA COOOHHBIA _ _.l '
OPEN IR'S e
CLOSED OR'S l
l~
asoouta 1
MMM 5/CP n
g 1
PHASE I INTERFACE WITH CGNSTRtJCTION ACTIVITIES W-F.QCESS _
PACKAGE BECHTEL CGSO - CWR'S SECHTEL 5.0.P. - CWP'S,s,,s, MCHTEL 5.0.P. S/C - CWP'S ZACK S/C - TRAVELER / WORK RELEASE S & W SJC - FCP's /WOfut RELEASE CONSTR.
REVEW FOR WORK A38JTY ABS BIACCESSASSJTY OF Q-fTEMS
- Q* AND *Q* BfTERFACE NON *Q*& OTNER WORK NOT AFFECTED BY CCP 8
M AD RE MLEASE REVEW WORK INSPECTION -+
REQUIRED g4 INSPECT PQCIR-l AS REQUIRED MON CONFORMING CONDITION F.E.
INSPECTION DISPOSITION *'
TO CLOSE I
4 4.
_m 2
m
+=sh
- ,eue-s.
4
+hwwa dungar e e---
g as4.e em @.T e4#
gyr--
h e
d O
m*
CONCLUSIONS
~
THE CONTROL PROCESS AND PROCEDURES AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST WITH MINOR ADJUSTMENTS ARE ADEQUATE TO ACCOMPLISH THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF CCP
,[
=
k
--.--- +
e i
I E
z Z
O 1
O 8
a b
O O
z m
8 u>
l
)
l l
t I
t
,f l
l st,
,.., ~ -
-, ~, -. - -.
~e-
--~~r-.-
---w=
-, * = - - ' * ' - * ' - - * ~ - * *
- ^ ' * * " " ' " * * " * " "
- l
~
L
_ CONCLUSIONS Id SHORT TERM PROGRAM :
e CARRY OUT ALL ACTIVITIES UNDER PRESENT PROGRAMS, j
TRAINING & PROCEDURES e DEVELOP BASIS OF NRC, SHD PARTY CONFIDENCE BY PROJECT PERFORMANCE L
e COMPLETE EVALUATION & DEVELOP CONCLUSIONS FROM PROJECT PLANNING REVIEW e CONTINUE TO REVIEW INITIATIVES INDIVIDUALLY IN DETAIL i
WITH NRC I
L..
C
s
-i-.~-
L..a L.
.~
, c.
.i.-
CONCLUSIONS 1:
ALL CHANGES TO EXISTING PROCEDURES WILL BE SUBJECT TO:
CAREFUL TRANSITION:
e MANAGEMENT REVIEW l
e PROCEDURE REVISION I
e TRAINING i
e PROCESS CONTROLS l
f CHANGES WILL BE RECOMMENDED AS NECESSARY-TWO CRITERIA:
i e MEET CCP BASIC PRINCIPLES i
e RUN PROJECT WITH MAXIMUM EFFECTIVENESS
[
U I-I i
1
e' a J ma5
-e'
- = *. =
..se-e m
4<
~
/,,-
I CONCLUSIONS l-e i
SHORT TERM MILESTONES:
e APRIL 10,1984 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING:
l SCHEDULE & COST CONCLUSIONS e COST DETAILS MID-JUNE 1984:
i e CASE LOAD FORECAST PANEL REVIEW
,e/Ag d h : >. a b:c i- !9' u>ut se I
i i
i I.
}
r.
f.
gg),
g..
s_.
8 :cenetmsm
='
=~ u-F3r:cr l
C Com Eny L"~;",_
Mieend Prepost Po ses 1983. M eend. MI 44840 + (S17) 83186So
.alNCIPAL ST'..
^ 29#
March 15, 1984 D/RF JE A/RA O-4w TA u W
Mu
" _ _ #"I N Mr J E Karr 9
P-
-_r Stone & Webster Michigan, Inc NVW P O Box 1963 Midland, MI 48640 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER GWO 7020 STONE & WEBSTER LETTER SWMCP-008, DATED JANUARY-10, 1984 File: B1.1.7, 0655.3 UFI: 53*50*04, 99*08 Serial: CSC-7457 f
l
REFERENCE:
CPCo letter CSC-7189, dated January 19, 1984.
~
In pursuance of your letter dated January 10,1984, SWMCP-008, disenssions of the Hanger Reinspection Program (HRP) between Stone & Webster, CPCo Site Management and MPQAD have established the following resolutions co.ithe concerns
{
addressed in your letter.
A gross listing of hangers has been given to your staff in the fera. of a MIRs computer printout. This listing is based on all large and small bore hangers with closed P2.10 reports. In some cases, duplication exists where hangers i
have more than one closed P2.10.
Af ter. evaluating this list against the commodity list, the hangers that fall into CCP were deleted. This is how the base number of hangers in the HRP has been determined.
i The base number of hangers in the HRP at this time, as determined above, is 6064. This includes the spray ring header supports. Please note that this amount is subject to decrease due to "destatusing" of supports. A hanger is destatused from the program and placed in status assessment for the following i
reasons; design changes, deletion of a support, seismic re-analysis or changes to a support which subsequent rework is required.
At the present, a weekly " Hanger Reinspection Program" meeting is held. This i
is on Tuesday, at 8:00 am located in the MPQAD Conference Room, trailer 125..
This meeting is chaired by Frank Schulmeister (x6341) and will status' inspections completed and forecasted as well as other related HRP Action Items.
Frank is a'
responsible for and will be the contact for information regarding the total number of hangers involved in the HRP.
4 In addition, through Mark Plum (MPQAD), arrangenents can be made to accompany an engineer during field inspection or review records of field inspections.
At this time, a "short term" (three week) schedule projection is being developed as well as a "long term" schedule and will be available in the near term.
This projection assumes that drawings and access to inspection areas are 1
available.
MAR 2 21984 qqc$WgA.
4 c
w
Page 2 CSC-7457 Should you or your staff have any questions on the subject, contact John Berry at extencion 6405.
&M DLQ/JPB/ kip cc: DDJohnson BHPeck NIReichel TASpelman
~
JGKeppler, Regional Administrator, Region III JJHarrison, Chief, Midland Section. Region III RJCook, NRC Resident Inspector RAWells, MPQAD i
e e
6 5
i N
9
[-
)
N 7
.eI O'
s (gpr>*
- "80%
UNITED STATES
~
0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 's
^
'*([f'
.4
- Q REGloN til l
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD s
,A '
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
%, ' %s MAR 191934 MEMORANDUM FOR: James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator FROM:
R. F. Warnick, Director, Office of Special Cases
SUBJECT:
MONTHLY STATUS REPORT FOR FEBRUARY, 1984 Attached is the status report for the Midland Project for the period of February 1 - February 29, 1984.
RFuJnJA R. F. Warnick, Director Office of Special Cases Attachment As stated cc w/ attachment:
D. G. Eisenhut, NRR J. M. Taylor, IE A. B. Davis, RIII DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS) o$ kY
3, - -
^o UNITED STATES
^,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
REGION 111 o
7se nooseveLT noao
%g.....[
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINol8 80137 March 15, 1984 P
MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. F. Warnick, Director, Office of Special C.ises FROM:
R. J. Cook, Senior Resident Inspector, Midland Site
SUBJECT:
MONTHLY STATUS REPORT 1
Attached is the status report for the Midland Nuclear Construction Site covering the period of February 1,1984, through February 29, 1984.
The status report conta' ins the input from each member of the Midland Inspection Site Team of the Office of Special Cases.
s R. J. Cook Senior Resident Inspector Midland Site Resident Office cc/ attachments J. J. Harrison R. B. Landsman R. N. Gardner B. L. Burgess I
l t
I.
I f
p-l pr BY o
.+
e I
f f'
- i. o
.=
.s )
SUMMARY
OF SIGNIFICANT MIDLAND ISSUES 1.
Document control Stop Work Orders During the reporting period, the licensee completely lifted the nine Stop Work Orders imposed because of irregularities encountered in
- the handling of Field Change Requests (FCRs) and Field Change Notices (FCNs). The mechanical discipline, which was the last remaining dis-cipline affected by the Stop Work Orders, was -released for work upon the' complete lifting of the orders.
2.
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
The Stop Work invoked against installation of HVAC systems because of irregularities in handling Field Change Notices. (FCNs) and Field Change Requests. (FCRs) was lifted on February 9,1984.
Since then, the licensee has embarked on a re-familiarization training program for those welders who were previously qualified.- The program involves
~
two days of classroom instruction and three days of welding demonstra-tions. There are presently 14 welders authorized to work and six addi-tional welders are in training. Work is progressing in the control room and fabricati,on shop. The backlog of Receipt Inspections are being updated.
3.
Babcock & Wilcox The Stop Work for Class 1 hangers placed in October, 1983, is still in effect and corrective action inqplementation for work resumption is continuing. Corrective action includes 1004 hanger reinspection'and personnel retraining. Work not affected by the Stop Work includes the completion of various Field Change Authorizations (FCAs) and upgrading the Field Control Procedures (FCPs) expected to be completed sometime in mid-April.
4.
Remedial Soils Work Authorization The following remedial soils work activity was authorized by RIII-during the report period. utilizing the CPCo/NRC Work Authorization procedure.
- Installation of additional vertical monitoring instrumentation on 1
Control Tower wall.
l 5.
Status Assessment (S/A) and Quality Verification Program (QVP) '
.]
Status Assessment ' (S/A) ~ and Quality Verification -Program (QVP) - continued ~
j during the report period in the five modules released late October, J1983.=
.i In Module 410 (Turbine Building El. 614').S/A was -considered couplete
.1 since all."Q" comunodities appeared 'on closed QC inspection records.. The five modules represent lapproximately 10% of total plant modules. -~ QVP
'i activities have resulted in the generation of.Nonconformance. Reports (NCRs) in virtually every discipline' inspected.-
3 ee.
p
,I x
y
+
s
~
r a
4
i e
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT memoranc.um DATEt N
sueJECT8 TOs I
r
~
d V 3
L ap l e),.
\\ r t o c.
l i
i orTroMAL FORM NO. t 0 S
M (4t CFM) t 01 11.6 8010-814 l
- GPO s 1983 0 - 421-$26 (9142)
- s
^*
- s
.j.
.-..y J
. t).
,, ' %s *
- -:. i :: :.m..t. u.w.s~.~.--
- 4.w.. :. c.r.
- o. s y%%...
2;.. ~...F. c.
...:e.k *M*A,%..
w............-
u,'..
.a
,_.......~.'~.s
.. ~
... ~. - -
.,.w a..R......
.y<.
.> A
. e,:.. x..,...,.... y..s
+ g..-
9
~...
FROM-ACTION CONTROL DATES CONTROL NO.
5,,
"gi,do R". h
= ** **
2/17/84 14032 L3ne Tree Council DATE OF DOCUMENT
=a'"am' 1/30/84 To-PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE I
or.
,= amy Chairman Palladino c,.uauu.
FILE LOCATION QEXEcurws mm Crom orma-MYeem oEscReTios Khamn usuo O as, oar O orwn seEc:AL instructions OR REMARKS mywie Request NRC increase the number of
- /RINCIPAL STAFF NRC inspectors at Midland MA Acpap 9/RA DE ne n..
4/RA DRMSF j ' ?i-l:
ass e so to ous woauaro aoun*
PA0 5cs v
RC ORMA
/
, :gn DeYoung. IE 2/3/84 5(J.eppler SGA m.
Stollo ENF File
.fij 9
I,...
f I
.h
(
NRC FORM 232 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR CPERATIONS en PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
~ $_41 a. F. k._. _
. 5M.2 M.,7 ". '-
' * *. 4 4 *.,e. i 4 -*-.,
.f Q*.. s
- ~
. "...., **. - **f. ; '
a:
. cs.
....s...$l, N.,,
~
....$-^. A r$l.
.,,,g....
- F..'4 Mf ','f,..'- -A= r ~..
?-***"+
O ?. i). ~P.V.%%.4 /.. W11.pr1f.wre12N. :*t.
/.Wer.%. e.V=.*..* ~.-
.~..I-
. y,...... -.
~
...e..
.u,
^..
c 6
,1
.m....
?
..t'..,.
..,....,.......s,
-.... =
. '=
.f....
54 #$ e.am g es e w,....m
..e p.
. e aosp..
i..,.,..,.".,w....%s..U."."'.e.,,.f. 1.C. 4...'.:/.,. T 'M. p wa' E 'es'.,
.'.e 'ay.. p. go.e. Ms.4.J.=
5.=.*
Va**.e
....f.*FIW'rF2 8'*
W,r
.n
.v n.
9 no i
y t
e, a.ne4ssey+.. em.ame 4 t' #
- 5 N
~. -
ak' 4
[A. '.
... R
- =.
+w.. e e.em gpun e,.
NLHBER: 84-0116 LOGGING DATE: 2/2/84 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
Leo R. Romo AFFILIATION:
Lone Tree Council' LETTER DATE:
1/30/84 FILE CODE:
ADDRESSEE:
Palladino
SUBJECT:
Req the NRC to increase the number of inspectors at the Midland facility ACTION:
Direct Reply.... Suspense: Feb 10
.lse'd Cff.
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket
,,,,g SPECIAL HANDLING:
None FOR THE COMMISSION: Billie e
e j
I t
i FEB 8 #
~
..I I
2 A.-~~.....
E
r 3
s unc t ncc vuunun.
P. O. Box 421 Essenville, Michigan 48732 JOSEPN SMEER AN, ATTORNEY PATRICI A ME A RRON. CHILO M u CAfiON WOR ERS OF Aug A
SARSARA RLIM ASZEW R.
TTORNEY S U I C TE PROrtSSOR OF CMEMISTRY, DELTA
- TERRY MERCER PRESIDENT QUINTER SURNETT M D' OR Davec DALGARN. ASSOCIATE
' FATHER JOMN GUSSENSAUtn PROrtSSOR OF SiOLOGY. SYSC January 30, 1984 Nunzio Palladino United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Palladino,
I read with great dismay the enclosed article in our local press.
M r. Marabito of Region III says the " extent of the quality assurance problems at Midland are not as pervasive as they were at Zimmer."
This certainly is not encouraging for the many citizens who for years have wanted increased NRC involvement at Midland.-
Mr. James Keppler, Region III administrator, reviewed a partial list of the Quality Assurance problems at Midland before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment on June This, and the fact that the 16, 1983.
(which will identify problems) make Mr. Marabito's statement aConstruct bit premature.
On January 20, 1984, I spoke with an official in Mr. Richard DeYoung's office on the subject of increased NRC inspectors.
was referred to a response Mr. DeYoung made to a citizen'sI petition on October 6, 1983.
be determined by "the Commission budget process."-In it he indicated that this w 50-329, 50-330, 10CFR 2206, p.3)
(Docket No.
Limerick, it would seem that additional inspectors could be ad without expanding the budget.
working on 15 years of errors.
There are only five inspectors the NRC not to do this.
Indeed, it would seem foolish for My request is simple.
of NRC inspectors at Midland?Will you please increase the number l
I look forward to your response.
t Sincerely, 4 O f GYM.T I
Leo R. Romo ONoCorresponding Secretary
. orc AN,nar O~S Lisf ao rOR. NTericAfios Pu=RostS g
a C L~}$ E. E E.Y
&,h%'555$.S?N A
^
~
I'
.o
.e w.~
g g.
, w
, r.y p.-.. p. g.,7,..y% 3.g. 3 9
-- l3 - -
1;
. f-
&_. :. 2.?..
w---~~.
p..
g e
..\\.:..
=^
.w
,e
{
. w.;7. A....
.i.
.f
...... ?. :
. EURSDAyrfANUARY28,1984' ' *.The Sacinaw NEWS.M..
- T iM; ore NBQinsp
- ecidrssou,.,s...btk.i.
c r
mj. a :. _.
....x.
[ Groupwantsstaffshiftedfromnuke'plantsk..a'tilounderedi
)
lBY KEITH NAUGHTON ". C%.*, 'lfleult M,,.Gon in the nuclear W,1979 because it dound quaDity *'i; industry today,'t Ms. Garde said.. assurance and management prob.,,,
News Staff Writer.,
A nuclearpowerwatchdog group "It would take,a minimum.of a 71emsattheplant. f.. M 7.. ' ~,..
duenpeopletoeffectivelymonitor WH the Midland staff'is not'in,
.is pressuring the U.S. Nuclear Reg-n-
the Iconstructiost completion' pro @.creasedJin size,3t: will. slow the,.
ulatory Commission to beef up its;Tgraml.1,ess man thatjeopardises%t's==fruction;, pro
~
e staffinspecting the Midland Nucle.
- =-
.~ : integrityof theprogram."'
tually delay-the completion 4f.
gpijijit.
~ Government AEcountabt!!!y Pro.'. ile A five-man NRC team monitors,;1the. project,Ms
..e
. ject..a Washington based citizens ~ the Midland plant now.,,with.two. mc,You/.'could thave aa situation - 7 '
l group,'will send a ~Jetter to 'the - ;sitefull time.,. members of the team at theplant firhere people *are ' s
- commission Friday urging it to-
..... r. :* Mtwiddling their th'umbs,. waiting for M The NRC.has not determined.:JanNRCinspector,'.'shesaid..
ishift inspectors who had been as.. hat it will do with the had tars ? The utility does aQt l
Isigned to nuclear projects that w from Zimmer. and Marble Hill, size of the NRC team w have floundered recently to the NRC spokesman Russ Marabito Midland team.
simpact on implementation of the' said.
c -~.
' In the past two weeks, two Mid,
. -Etenstruction program, Consumers
- I western nuclear plants have halted "Some of,them may k shifted! spokesmanJamesStoreysaid.
-l/
Teenstruction - the Zimmer Nucle, over to possibly the.RidlandMN NRC.is noticheduled,-un-hr Plant in Ohio and the Marble jplanug.,Ma[abitosaid gj,--Mdertheplaniredralted,jo;getthatb' -
pill!NuclearPlantin Indiana....;. y.:. Zimmer.had a staff of.eight full',,lavolved sin the.da.y-to day) pro W-c-The three Ohio utilities that own f ime inspectors with thrye, t
~eessM"ANRCardered Dasame
!Zimmer ' announced Saturday the ' tors onc eall'.irbeneveryn ErThe
' plant will be converted to a coal-f.3ut Midla'.F.., %.M. -h Marabito. re tired operation. Public Service of nd does not)aeed:*as";pletion plan for*ttsplant after fedf.
l Indiana closed Marble Hill Jan 16 ilarge a ' staff because it 1s not'as eral inspectors,found several'+-
because the utility ran out of mon-troubled as Zimmer was,hesaid... quality assurance. problems at the k.. '
[ y to complete it. Billie Garde, an investigator for. ance problems-Jat Midland 1
"The extent of the quality hssur ~4 plant in 1982. 3 -...9 #* N.
' }
,e
~
.._ _._._... jibe.ds a l~arg_er NRC'sfailHcause "ZlaEibef"MatabitoII18.not as pervasiveras they were-at.Mepieased w citizens group, said Midland a mee
.. y ;../JaQrtethrWRC EtAfr6t'II-addi.
for the " comprehensive" comple. Marble Hillis not similar:in any. tsonalstaffingisnecpsary.
stion ' program the plant,'is way to Midland because it was not M*That's really a ' question the a j undergoing.
- a tro ubled *p'lant,. Ma ra bito ' WRC has to determine /J. It's their l
,. The construction completion' ' claimed.' '.
7 ele and responsibility 16'~ deter-l ~
- l, program is the most stringent,
- But the NRC stopped all safety mine the staff that is needed'here,"
most comprehensive sad most difi related construction atMarble Hill...$toreysaid...
.u:r~c.. ~ 3.
- l
. a.s 2
2, t
l
~
(
l N
O
- - ~ ~,. -
y#;, m.
U$1TED STATES 8.
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsHmoton, p. c.2 cess
. k-ISR 121594 Docket Nos. 50-329 i
50-330 1
1
~
Mr. Leo R. Ram 1
Corresponding Secretary i
Lone Tree Council P. O. Box 421
~
Essexville, MI 48732
Dear Mr. Romo:
1 j
This refers to your letters of January 30, 1984, to the Connissioners requesting an increase in the number of NRC inspectors at the Consumers Power Company's i
j-(CPCo) Midland facility.
The NRC now has three resident inspectors located at the Midland site, an j
additional three individuals in the Region III office assigned full time to the l
Midland project, and additional inspection specialists from the Region III Division of Engineering who spend time onsite as needed. Additionally,an J
NRC Resident Site Supervisor has been selected for Midland and will report to the site in the near future. Currently allocated resources for Midland sub-l stantially exceed the 1.5 manyears/ year that have been allocated for a normal nuclear plant construction site.
~
NRC is in the process of approving a contract with a national laboratory for assistance with the technical inspection program at Midland, approximately two man-years.of effort., In the interim, two Argonne contract engineers, formerly assigned to Zinner, have been temporarily assigned to provide inspection j
assistance at Midland.
In addition, the NRC required CPCo to have an independent third party overview the remedial soils work activities and an independent third party overview the i
Construction Completion Program (CCP) activities. On February 24 1983, Stone and Webster (S&W) was approved by the NRC to overview the remedial soils 2
activities.. S&W currently has eight individuals onsite involve.d in this effort. On September 29, 1983, S&W was approved by(completely different from the NRC to overview the CCP activities.
S&W currently has 32 individuals those involved in the remedial soils overview) onsite involved in overviewing i
CCP activities. The S&W overview staffs can be increased as the workload j
increases.
The NRC inspection effort is further augmented by the NRC initiated and i
approved Independent Design and Construction Verification Program being per-formed by approximately 10 professionals from the TERA Corporation. This program is currently ongoing and is to provide additional assurance regarding the adequacy of, design and con'struction for Midland.-
I f
1 w, ~
3
2-Mr. Leo R. Romo
- Also, for your information, this office issued a Confinnatory Order on January 12, 1984 to the licensee. The order basically requires a review to be performed by an independent consultant of the Midland corporate and site management ttructure and supervisory personnel. We expect the licensee to submit his plan on this matter in accordance with the order in the near future.
The recent 10 CFR 2.206 petition on behalf of the Lone Tree Council by Billie Pirner Garde, Governuent Accountability Project, also addresses the issue of NRC inspection personnel at Midl'and, as.well as other issues.
A*
decision in this regard will be issued by me in a reasonable time.
In regard to your question on the utilization of resources which have been allocated to other facilities, this matter is currently under review by the NRC and your suggestions will be given appropriate consideration.
Sincerely,
_ /t
,.. I Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of In(pection and Enforcement
%9 i
b
+
b p
a i
s g.
Y a
-~
AMitdt' use Teo states k
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$lON a
neosom ses I
7eo moossysLT noAo
/
eta = stov=. swwoes som w o m-Lone Tree Council ATTN: Mr. Leo R. Romo Corresponding Secretary P. O. Box 421 Essexv111e', MI 48732
Dear Mr. Romo:
i This is in response to your letter dated May 31, 1983, in which you expressed your thoughts about Consumers Power Company's independent third party design and construction verification program (IDCVP) and the construction completion program (CCP) including the independent third party construction implementa-tion overview (CIO).
~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~~
The IDCVP at Midland is a detailed awa=ination of design adequscy and construction quality using as a basis three safety-related systems. A copy of TERA's plan for the IDCVP is attached for your information (Attachment 1).
}
The IDCVP proposed for Midland is similar to, but more extensive than, independent reviews conducted at other plants. TERA selected the auxiliary feedwater system using the selection criteria on pages 14 and 15 of The NRC agrees that these are appropriate selection criteria.
l The NRC selected a second system, standby electrical power, for the IDCVP from the three candidate systems identified by Consumers Power Company. The three candidate systems were se1%cted by Consumers Power Company based on l
systems important to probabilistic risk assessment analysis. The third system, control room heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, was selected independently by the NRC, not from the candidate systems. Our choice of the second and third systems was made in part after considering i
siis3sestions made by members of the public. A copy of TERA's first status report (Attachment 2), is also attached for your information and as you can see, the TERA team already has identified and confirmed items on the auxiliary feedwater system which may become significant findings. The extent to which TERA will examine construction is detailed in Section 3.2 of 1'
The program scope for the three selected systems will concentrate on the criteria of the as-built conditions versus the design criteria. Additional sampling and verification, however, will be conducted
}
j on other systems if discrepancies or problems are found allowing program flexibility as discussed in Section 3.2.7 of Attachment 1.
1 l
- j p7dh[$
t j
a 9
)
~ ~ - - - - - -
--v
~~
- ~ - - - - - - ~ " -
,,s..-..
a
-o
.w t
+..
+.
A.
1.one Tree Council.
,g-gg You have also raised a concern regarding the NRC's permitting stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) to start the CIO prior to the NRC having completed its review of the Consumers Power Company proposal for the third party overview. Region III felt it was desirable to have the overview program begin in order to assure that Consumers Power Company CCP systems are working properly. The SWEC overview presently involves nine people onsite performing the CIO. These activities started on April 28, 1983.
The CIO is not a 100% inspection, rather it is an audit of Consumers Power Company's implementation of the CCP. In addition, the NRC Nidland team will be reviewing the quality of the CPCo CCP and the SWEC CIO to assure adequate implementation. It should also be noted that the CCP has not been approved to date by the NRC. CPCo CCP activities have been limited to program preparation and some training.
We believe the actions.being taken should provide assurance to the community that the plant has been constructed safely. We believe the intent of the three actions you suggest will be accomplished by the CCP and the third party programs in place.
We hope this is responsive to your concerns. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
4 1
j Sincerely, Orlsinal signed by A. Bert Davis James 0. Kappler Regional Administrator Attachmenet As stated A
ec w/ attachment and ler dtd 5/31/83:
See attached distribution list i
c pae e.n
- m. s.t p>
shes
.a.r.t.qg,....s.g... a.....
9r.......
....)
- p...w....
..................sy:.......
....p.......A.
i e -> s.v.a.a..v...s...
g
. w n m.......... u
.t.
. u...
>. v.....
1
~.>s.m.....m................se.p........
...g..a....s..s......
...kn...m.............u....n...........
....Q.. rj.
apy Uc romu sia no.soiwecw erao nee r i A e oc'r-mon r'orw 4
s u.
I Lone Tree Council fJUN 2 8 1o93 cc w/ attachment and ler dtd 5/31/83:
DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector RIII The Honorable Charles Bechhoefer, ASLB The Honorable Jerry Harbour, ASLB The Honorable Frederick P. Cowan, ASLB The Honorable Ralph S. Decker ASLB William Paton, ELD Michael Miller Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry Barbara Stamiris Mary Sinclair Wendell Marshall Colonel Steve J. Gadler (P.E.)
Howard Levin, TERA Billie P. Carde, Government Accountability Project Lynne Bernabei, Government Accountability Project 4
0 I
f 1
i i
4 1
i 2
i i
)
i-us.wuct.E AR R EGUL ATORY COMMISSION g, c,,,,,,
ACTION ITEM CONTROL FORM A. INITIATING OF FICE A$$1GNED TR ACKING NUMBER 03.
D4.Afl gm. DATE OF REPORT 06.DATE CJ TRANSACTION PRIORI Y TYPE
- 01. SE NDING C2.5E OVENCE NUMBE R OFFICE h
- 08. REQUESTED
- 07. F ACILITY
- 09. P E OUESTE R WONTH DAY VIAR b
O f W
hQ a
4
- 10. DESCRIPTION
{'[ f f
f f h.h h W g n i L
i n M 2 d l WC h
I b l A A'h 4
r E. AC1lOf.' OF F ICE F 011 FO2 FO2 F04 F Ot (Hot HO7 HOElHOE M10 H11 l H1; CL RE C(lvit.'G OF FICI I:rece a ti rc. *** r*ron etW
[51 A F ; IF H! D CDP.esit T eor, g;tir C F i F.! Ot. AC! t C.'.I L i.;,,
.s.
u)\\A R d\\ l EX 0 6 3' O T 3 16 AN58 E R IN F OR'.i Allot.'
0716 ANST F A O A11 c' 1 h AN5r E P, AtilD*.
OL1R ANSFf R COLL
,,,3,,.3,,
g,,
C L OSI OUT INF ORMATION
- 09. M Ate-10. CL OSt. 11. CL Os t 001 O ATE 12.RE QUE51
' 08. CLOSEOUT ACTION HOURS Otf1 CODE *ao**S a Da*
ve**
ACKNOWLE DGED l.f t'
] 0 k { 9 0 f 8 th 0 h k 0
b b 0b dnu JaesudWt
%h a..
l l
I i
l l
I l
fos Op6KE3 i
e LONE TREE COUNCIL vh P. O. 80 421 g
n,.. a.. w sio.,48722 Ad isory Board
,,,,,,,,u,,,,,,,,,,,,
aan.:=et.t,','. =i'.n,......
- =,"'a~~~~"a*
...'.'.'.'. '",.'.'i.' ' ' ^ r ",.. ~.
'~
g, = >,,,,,,,,,
....n..og,=..
..........,c
..L,.
- a r.a.:t,":~.ex.av:::
..U..
May 31, 1983
- PAUCIPAL STAFF I V
tcs Jy, Dames Keppler kdV NV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/IE W8 Region III d5?-
8P i I
799 Roosevelt Road MI DV L
[-
Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 t
I
Dear Mr. Keppler,
hh Thank you for the prompt reply regarding an independent audit of the planned Midland nuclear Power Plant.
Unfortunately, we are disturbed by your ending paragraph in which you imply that letting Consumers Power Company reinspect its own work does not make a mockery of the NRC's commitment to ensuring safe construction.
You adt., "particularly in view of third party inspections and other actions being taken under the Construction Completion Plan."
Let us look at these " third party" inspections and the CCP.
As we understand it, an audit is an examination for the purpose of verification--in this case a safely constructed nuclear plant.
Our understanding, and please correct us if we are wrong, is that Consumers Power selects what TERA Corporation will inspect (with NRC approval).
To use an analogy, if we are audited by the Internal Revenue Service we get to choose those parts of our finances we would like disclosed.
Of course, this is ludicrous.
Yet Consumers seemingly has that power.
In addition, it has selected, and the NRC has approved, the Auxiliary Feedwater System, which has been reviewed and approved recently.
An audit is usually thought to be complete and very thorough.
While it is reassuring that the heating ventilation, and air conditioning system, and the emergency power, system might be reviewed, it appears that TERA will be focusing mainly on the design of these systems rather th.an the construction--a very distinct difference.
Concerning the CCP, your letter disguises the fact that i
there would probably be no CCP had it not been forcibly suggested i
by the NRC.
The plan was not a result of the utility's initiative.
This does not create a feeling of confidence in the
)
'O.G. NI. 160 N.
LI.T.O,0 ID. ef e,6C. TION PU. 0...
ONLv
@gofoW6 l
aun s an
.m.
I
~:...
l utility's commitment to do the job properly.
In a related matter, Consumers Power announced that, unless told otherwise by the NRC, they would begin their Construction Implementation Overview (CIO) on April 18, 1983.
Publicly, the NRC has remained silent.
Regarding the selection of outside firms as third party inspectors and citizen input, you have previously stated that the 1
public will not have a vote in this since you don't believe in the shared process of decision making." (Midland Daily News, May 4,
1983)
We find it ironic that the licensee has chosen the areas for re-inspection as well as the inspectors, and obviously is able to share in this process, yet citizens are denied it.
In summary, there are several questions that are raised:
1.
What new light will be shed by a re-evaluation of the Auxiliary reedwater system?
2.
Would you explain the extent to which TERA Corporation will examine construction as well as design?
3.
Regarding the CIO--
a.
Did it begin April 18, 1983, as' announced by Consumers?
b.
If so, have you approved of the plan?
c.
Has Stone and Webster, therefore, been approved?
d.
If so, will it include a 100% review as promised by Consumers in December, 19827 We have different ideas on what a third party audit should encompass.
It does not seem unreasonable that a truly independent audit should:
I 1.
Include a full scope overview of completed construction done by the third party rather that the utility.
2.
Consist of a thorough inspection of as-is construction, as well as the design of the plant.
3.
Be selected solely by the NRC (or allow the public the same voice as the utility)
It would seem that this approach would totally assure our community that the plant has been constructed safely.
Would you explain why this method is not possible?
Mr. Keppler, we know that the Midland plants have become an albatross f or you.
You have indicated several times that your role is that of regulator, not builder.
We understand your position, but one cannot ignore the many quality assurance breakdowns and poor construction record of Consumers Power.
To use your own words, "You wonder af ter so man { screw-ups whether i
the utility is capable of doing the job right.
(Interview, WXYI-TV, Fr.~.1,19 82) 1 2
l s
+
),
.-7
/
b
- 1
c.
Fe hope our comments are seriously considered.. Again, thank
~
you for the quick response.
Further detailed. infurmation, especially regarding the CIO, would be most welcomed.
Sin erely, v
QW M1Y
. Leo R. Romo Corresponding Escretary-cc:
V. Stello, EDO H. Denton, IE R. DeYoung, NRR c.
.D.
Eisenhut, NRR
'DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS) y,,'
Resident Inspector, RIII The Honorable Charles Bechtotfer,-
_ASLB The Honorable Jerry Harbour, ASLB The Honorable Fre$drick P. Cowan, ASLB The Honorable Ralph'S. Decker, ASLB William Paton, ELD Michael Miller Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry
(
Barbara Stamirls' Mary Sincitir Wendell Marshall Colonel Steve J. Galder (P.E.)
Howard Levin, TERA Billie P. Garde, Government Accountability Project 4
1 0
Y p.
'i t
9'
/
r 3
i
/f]
e 9%
me
+
ux
~
4 8
m' p
]
'