ML20079Q316
| ML20079Q316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1984 |
| From: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079Q303 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8402010098 | |
| Download: ML20079Q316 (311) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . 00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA w MI 31 N1:2g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . 0FFICE OF SECFiTAFJ. 00CKEltNu & SEPVib. BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BRANCH In the Matter of: ) Docket No. 50-329 OM
) 50-330 OM
. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY -) Docket No. 50-329 OL
) 50-330 OL (Midland Plant Units 1 & 2) )
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S PROPOSED SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON QUALITY ASSURANCE ISSUES January 27, 1984 8402010098 840127 PDR ADOCK 05000329 G pm
PROPOSED LEGAL OPINION t I. Introduction This Partial Initial Decision concerns the quality assurance ("QA") issues in the portion of the consolidated Midland OM-OL proceeding dealing with soils remedial measures. In-this Decision we first develop the applicable legal princi-ples to guide our evaluation of the extensive record before us and then proceed to make extensive Findings of Fact (" Findings") followed by Conclusions of Law. A. Issues From The Modification Order The OM portion of the proceeding arose out of an Order for Modification of the Construction Permits issued by the NRC Staff pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.204 on December 6, 1979. The Order, after reciting the problems with soils place-ment at the Midland site on which the Staff relied as basis for the Order, set forth the issues which could be contested in a f hearing should Consumers Power Company (" Consumers Power " or "the Applicant") request one, as it did. The two basic issues from the Modification order which we were originally required to decide in this proceeding were: whether the facts upon which the Order was based were correct and were a sufficient basis for the Order; and whether 2 the Order should be sustained.1 As we nota elsewhere Appli-Order Modifying Construction Permits, December 6, 1979, at p. 6. See paragraphs 35 and 562 of our Findings,
cant has by stipulation agreed not to contest the sufficiency of the facts described in the Order as a basis for the Order. On that basis we have already found in the affirmative on the first question in our interim Order of April 30, 1982, Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-35, 15 N.R.C. 1060, 1064 (1982). In our interim Order, LBP-82-35, we authorized amend-ments to the Midland Construction Permits which prohibited, absent exp.'.icit NRC Staff approval, all soils-related activi-ties which would have been prohibited by the December 6 Order pending submission of an amendment to the construction permit application and issuance of an amendment to the construction permits authorizing the remedial actions. Id. at 1062, 1072. We stressed that we were not at [that] time requiring the submission or approval of any amendments to the applica-tions for construction permits (as provided by the Modification Order). In our opinion, the Staff consultation and approval which we [were] requiring [would) achieve the substantive results we believe[d] necessary without adding certain procedural require-ments of an application for a construction permit amendment which, in the present context, do not appear to be necessary to attain the safety goals which we believe should be achieved. Id. at 1072. We brsed this conclusion in part on the Staff's agreement "that it would accept information through meetings and presentations rather than an amendment to the application" and in part on a conclusion that the then voluntary agreement by Consumers Power not to proceed with certain remedial work without prior Staff approval had "resulted in adequate Staff
surveillance of the proposed remedial actions covered thereby, prior to Consumers' commencement of the remedial actions." Id. at 1067. We also indicated in LBP-82-35 that we had "not yet completed our review of the second hearing issue -- i.e.,
"whether and, if so, to what extent, the Modification Order should be sustained." Id. at 1064-65. We noted that all par-ties in essence agreed that this issue was equivalent to the issue of whether quality ausurance and quality control were being and were likely to be in the future properly implemented in the soils work at the site. Id. at 1065. We further indi-cated that we would, in our Partial Initial Decision, " reexamine the terms and conditions which we [were there) imposing on an interim basis." We stated that we might then " reaffirm, expand, or remove" the terms and conditions imposed in that Order. We analyze the basis for resolving the quality assurance / quality control issue below.
B. Issues From The Contentions Three of the OM contentions of Ms. Stamiric raise issues related to soils quality assurance. The general allega-tion of the first of Ms. Stamiris' Contentions states: Consumers Power Company statements and re-sponses to NRC regarding soil settlement issues reflect a less than complete and candid dedication to providing information relevant to health and safety standards with respect to resolving the soil settle-ment problems, . . . and this managerial attitude necessitates stricter than usual regulatory supervision (ALAB-106) to assure appropriate implementation of the remedial
steps required by the Order Modifying Con-struction Permits, dated December 6, 1979. The general allegation of the second of these contentions states: . Consumers Power Company's financial and time schedule pressures have directly and adversely affected resolution of soil settle-ment issues, which constitutes a compromise of applicable health and safety regulations The general allegation of the third of these three contentions states: Consumers Power Company has not implemented its Quality Assurance Program regarding soil settlement issues according to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B regulations, and this represents a repeated pattern of quality assurance deficiency reflecting a mancgerial attitude inconsistent with implementation of Quality Assurance Regulations with re-spect to soil settlement problems, sin:e reasonable assurance was given in pact cases (ALAB-100, ALAB-106 and LBP-74-71) that proper quality assurance would ensue and it has not. Because these contentions raise the general issue of management attitude's effect on quality assurance / quality control imple-mentation, we are faced with questions of what evidence is probative with respect to management attitude and what that l evidence implies regarding the proper completion of the plant. We develop below the analysis of regulation and case law which enable us resolve these issues as well. l II. Applicable Law The legal principles governing this decision flow from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended), 42 U.S.C. $ 2011 et seg., and the Commission's regulations thereunder, as
contained in Volume 10 of the Code cf Federal Regulations, including Part 50, Appendix B. As 10 C.F.R. $ 2.204 and other sections in Subpart B of Fart 2 make clear, what is at issue in a modification proceeding is an amendment to the construction permit. Thus the underlying legal standards we must apply are those pertinent to construction permits and amendments thereto. A. Applicable Standards For QA Findings In a construction permit hearing, part of the informa-tion required to be supplied to enable the Licensing Board to make the required findings concerns the Applicant's quality assurance program. Section 50.34 of 10 C.F.R. requires that the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, which is part of the Construction Permit application, cop.tain a description of a Quality Assurance Program meeting the requirements of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.3 The fundamental finding required by 10 C.F.R. $ 50.35(a), however, also requires us to find that "the proposed facility can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without uudue risk to the health and safety of the public." (Emphasis 3 Appendix B defines quality assurance as comprising "all those planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system or component will perform satisfactorily in service. Quality assurance includes quality control, which comprises those quality assurance actions related to the physical characteristics of a material. struc-ture, component, or system which provide a means to control the quality of the material, structure, component, or system to predetermined requirements." In accordance with this defini-tion, we use the term " quality assurance" or its abbreviation QA in this Opinion to encompass quality control unless the context dictates otherwise.
added.) "he basis for this finding is in part technical informa-tion establishir.g the adequa'cy of the designs of the technical matters at issue.4 However, in the face of the existing record relating to QA performance at the Midland site, we must make a finding on the likelihood of future acceptable QA implementa-tion at Midland. If we are unable to make an unqualified affirmative finding on that question, in order to make the general finding we must also examine all other measures beyond the Ar.plicant's quality assurance program put in place by the Applicant and reviewed by the Staff to assure proper construc-tion. Evidence of past performance is probative on the issue of likelihood of future good performance. The Appeal Board indicated in Duquesne Light Compeny (Beaver Valley Power Station,- Unit 2), ALAB-240, 8 A.E.C. 829, 833 (1974) that " actual performance at an ongoing construction project is a factor which must be taken into account in evaluating the likelihood that the established QA program for another project will be implemented." This rationale was recently applied in Nashington Public Power System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1), LBP-83-66, slip opinion at 10 (October 14, 1983) in deciding that basis existed for the admission of construction pers. tit quality assur-ance contentions. See also Carolina Fover and Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Flant, Units 1, 2, 3, end 4), 4 Our other Partial Initial Decision deals with these technical matters for the remedial soils program with one excep-tion, the adequacy of the Diesel Generator Building curcharging program.
LBP-79-19, 10 N.R.C. 37, 60 (1979). However, we must also emphasize that perfection in either construction or quality assurance implementation i s not a regulatory requirement. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, I:1c . (Indian Point j Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-188, 7 A.E.C. 323, 334 (1974); Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), LBP-82-109, 16 N.R.C. 1826, 1847 (1982). The Callaway Appeal Board recently indicated that in reviewing construction and quality assurance deficiencies, Licensing Boards must decide whether these deficiencies have real significance with respect to the final as-built condition of the plant. In Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), ALAB '40, Slip Opinion (September 14, 1983) at 1-3, the
]
Appeal Board stated: In any project even remotely approaching in magnitude and complexity the erection of a nuclear power plant, there inevitably will be some construction defects tied to~ quality ' assurance lapses. It would therefore be totally unreasonable to hinge the grant of an NRC operating license upon a demonstra-tion of error-free construction. Nor is such a result mandated by either the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's implementing regulations. What they require is simply a finding of reasonable assurance that, as built, the facility can and will be operated without i endangering the public health and safety. 42 U.S.C. $$ 2133(d), 2232(a); 10 CFR $
.50.57(a)(3)(i). Thus, in examining claims of quality assurance deficiencies, one must look to the implication of those deficien-cies in terms of safe plant operation.
Obviously, this inquiry necassitates care-ful consideration of whether all ascertained construction errors have been cured. Even if this is established to be the case, how-ever, there may remain a question whether
there has been a breakdown in quality assur-ance procedures of sufficient dimensions to raise legitimate doubt as to the overall integrity of the facility and its safety-related structures and components. A demon-stration of a pervasive failure to carry out the quality assurance program might well stand in the way of the requisite safety finding. (Footnote omitted.) We agree with and follow the Appeal Board's approach. We therefore take as the required fundamental inquiry in this phase of the proceeding whether, despite problems with quality assurance implementation at Midland, there are programs in place, including, but not limited to, the quality assurance program, which will eradicate all legitimate doubt as to the overall integrity of the facility's safety related structures and components. We examine in our findings, therefore, whether quality verification commitments are sufficient to root out any significant undetected errors, and whether programs beyond the quality assurance program, including the Work Authorization Procedure and third-party oversight, will assure that no signifi-cant undetected errors are created in the future.5 We consider the approach of the Shoreham Licensing Board to be appropriate to our situation, and we will examine 5 We must also determine the likelihood that "all ascer-tained construction errors [will] have been cured," Callaway, ALAB-740, slip opinion at 2, by the time soils remedial work is completed. We have no significant doubt that all known soils construction flaws will be remedied by the time the plant is ready to operate. Consumers Power has been extremely conscien-tious about remedying problems once known. And, with our own and the NRC Staff's continuing scrutiny, it is beyond reasonable expectation that a known error could slide by unrepaired.
_g. whether we will be able to apply its words equally well to Midland at the time soils remedial work is completed: Design, construction and installation at Shoreham has been affected by the long period of construction and the changing requirements of the A.E.C. and NRC during this period. Stepping back from the details of errors made, we have focused on the overall performance of LILCO and the Staff at Shoreham. Our perception is that neither has been perfect, nor could it have been with realistic use of resources. Nor is perfect performance expected by the Commis-sion. We do conclude, however, that both LILCO and the Staff have had effective programs for identifying and e rrecting deficiencies. . . . The County's listing of breakdowns, tcken as it is from LILCO's and the Staff's own inspection and audit findings is unarguably lengthy. To judge the significance, one must not only look at the nature of each finding, but judge the overall significance in terms of the totality of the programs. What was done, or will be done, to assure that potential deficiencies do not and will not affect overall plant performar es ad-versely? Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-57, slip opinion at 206-08 (emphasis added). This question comes down to whether Consumers Power and the Staff together have created and implemented effective programs to accomplish the remedial soils work which will identify and , correct any soils construction deficiencies which may occur. B. Applicable Standards For Specific Management Attitude Findings We admitted Ms. Stamiris' OM management attitude contentions in our Prehearing Conference Order Ruling on Conten-i
tions and on Consolidation of Proceedings, dated October 27, 1980. We based that admission in part on the fact that Ms. Stamiris was not the first to raise questions regarding manage-ment attitude as a prerequisite for adequate quality assurance implementation. As early as 1973 the Appeal Board considered whether it had " reasonable assurance that the applicant and its architect-engineer would carry out the terms of the [ quality assurance] program to the letter." Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-106, 6 A.E.C. 182, 184 (1973). The Appeal Board indicated that an important considera-tion in making its " reasonable assurance" determination was the matter of " managerial attituda." It continued, "Unless there is willingness -- indeed, desire -- on the part of the responsi-ble officials to carry it out to the letter, no program is likely to be successful." Id. at 184. The term " attitude" denotes a state of mind, a quality at once evanescent and difficult of proof. The ALA3-106 App'eal Board characterized it in terms of " willingness" and
" desire." One Licensing Board which has more recently examined questions analogous to those before us considered management attitude to be equivalent to management " motivation and per-sonal commitment," Carolina Power and Light Compant (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4), LBP-79-19, J10 NRC'37, 51'-52 (1979). An important element in evaluating the credibility of management motivation and commitment to quality assurance,-it said, is forthright recognition of past problems. Id. at 51.
. . . . 8 N ~
3_
*- \ .
, e . w ex _
- j- 11 s
-s. ,
.y -
n The ALAB-lO6 Appeal Board, in evaluating whether the. apqlicant's managerial attitude was acceptable, implicitly - 3 x- - .- Xfound that pTst implementation failures are ih. obative of what it-called " managerial attitude." 6 A.E.C. at 185. However, it a y ' did*no'~tsfind tliat such evidence was c'onclusive on the question N.s , qw
-g-N of ~ managerial.., attitude.
N .
+ '
7 , j .;Past failures 6fm. QK management _therefore ;. ; may not be ignored,\b'dt , changes, in approach and col-rection of $ast f ailures w g. should be gi" fen the most wdight in considering whether an appli-n;, ~ cant now has the' requisite character or attitude to continue to s - . construct a nuclear pow 6r PfantC In.Vircinia)lectric & Power s -N Co.,\(North Anna Nuclear Power' station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-77-68,
4 , ,
6,NRC 1127.(1977), the utilit'y's managem'ent g conceded that it x- .
, s had7 - erred in the past,'btit the', Licensing ,
s, Board believed substan-tial improvemeri,t had been,made. ,Th'e Board concluded that in the-light of the current"manige_m,ent-responsiveness in correct-
% s ing it' ems of. noncom'pliance and its commitment to safe operation y wA g*gG __ ,
of ,the f acility*in compli'ance Vith all applicable requirements, C \\ \ . the utility;h'ads demonstrdted i'ts commitment and qualification -
, .c , ,
to run the facility? 6 NRC at 1151. As the Shearon Harris
, n' o ,
t Licensing Board stated: '"h'hile motivation is important, a more h - reliable indicator of manigement' attitude toward nuclear safety N. . m and quali.ty is the commitmentz of the corporation's resources and its performance.'" ' 10 N.R.C., at 56 (emphasis added). See also
~
e
'x ,,
4 % Washington-Public Powfr,,cupply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project
%'t No. We 1),'LBP-83,6'6,. sslip- op ,g
% inion'(October 14, 1983) at 10.
havebeforeus'Exten)sivAevidence.ofwhatweconsidertobea s 1037 D. New Organization: Creation Of Soils-Project And MPQAD Scils Section 37d. In its April 1 82.SALP II report, the NRC Ste.ff questioned the. Midland Quality Assurance Department's ("MPQAD")
ability to monitbr properly the remedial soils work.1038 At a
~
meeting on June 26, 1982 to discuss that report, Mr. Keppler addressed the continuing QA/QC concern in the soils work.1039 During this s6me period, he announced the formation of the Office of Spe'clal Cases, a team of\NRC inspectors assigned exclusively to the Midlandsand Zimmer projects and supervised n ~ 1035 - Keppler,' october 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assuranEe, Attachment H, following Tr. 15111. 1036
-Landsman, Tr. 1,4617I ,
1037 Landsman, Tr?.' 14685. A ~' i 1038 's ' ~ ~ Stamiris Exhibit No. 55. - 1039 '
~Keppler Tr. 15162-15163. .-
g, - ' s . M,4
, . . 3,'. ., . . _
. . , _ , . -- - t
e
-252-by Mr. Warnick, and within that Offica a Midland Section under the direction of Mr. Wayne Shafer.1040 371. At the same time the NRC Staff was looking into this issue, Applicant began its own comprehensive review of the soils remedial work and its attendant QA/QC concerns.1041 In-cluded in this evaluation were examinations of the resources committed to the soils project and the overall soils QA/QC effort including the need for improved QA implementation.1042 In July 1982 James Meir.enheimer, an experienced geotechnical engineer, was assigned to Midland and appointed MPQAD Soils Superintendent for civil and remedial soils work.1043 372. At an August 26, 1982 meeting with the NRC Staff, the Applicant announced, among other things, the forma-tion of a new soils project organization. The separate MPQAD soils organization headed by Mr. Meisenheimer was also an-nounced.1044 The soils project organization provides for single-point accountability for the performance of remedial i
j 1040 Keppler, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at pp. 3-4, following Tr. 15111; Keppler, Tr. 15164, 15533. Mr. Keppler also testified as to the structure of the Special Cases team and the memberc' various responsibilities. See Keppler, Tr. 15533-15537. 1041 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at
- p. 3, following Tr. 17017.
1042 _I _d . 1043 Wells, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 1-2, following Tr. 18027. 1044 Keppler, Tr. 15195; Wells, prepared testimony.on quality assurance at pp. 1-2, following Tr. 18027.
-253-soils work. Mr. Mooney became the single point of accountabil-ity for all remedial soils work, other than MPQAD functions.1045 373. The engineering and construction supervisors in charge of soils work report operationally to a Bechtel Assis-tant Project Manager who reports to Mr. Mooney. Scheduling groups were reorganized and also report directly to Mr. Mooney.
Weekly meetings involving Engineering, Construction, and Qual-ity grcups facilitate coordination of activities in the soils area. Mr. Mooney testified that the soils project organization also brings a higher level management presence on-site through a field soils manager, an assi.stant resident project engineer, and the MPQAD soils superintendent, Mr. Meisenheimer.1046 374. During testimony, Dr. Landsman expressed the 4 opinion that certain MPQAD supervisory personnel were not qualified for their positions. Specifically, he was concerned that Mr. Meisenheimer lacked experience in quality assurance supervision.1047 However, Dr. Landsman did not question Mr. Meisenheimer's technical expertise in soils engineering work.1048 375. Further testimony revealed that Mr. Meisenheimer brought to his job 13 years of engineering and design exper-ience on at least 7 nuclear projects during which time he 1045 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at
- p. 16, following Tr. 17017.
1046 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at pp. 15-17, following Tr. 17017. 1047' Landsman, Tr. 14535-14537. 1048 Landsman, Tr. 16471.
-254-operated under QA programs at high levels.lO49 The position he holds is unique in nuclear power projects.1050 Dr. Landsman acknowledged that it would be rare to find someone with exper-ience in both soils engineering and quality assurance manage-ment. He did not claim that Consumers Power, by hiring Mr.
Meisenheimer, deliberately overlooked someone with both an extensive quality background and the requisite technical know-ledge for the underpinning work.1051 Mr. Meisenheimer also testified as to his experience, especially as it related to quality assurance.1052 He indicated that several of his pre-vious assignments involved significant quality control responsi-bility.1053 In addition, Mr. Wells testified that various of the top managerial personnel within MPQAD who Dr. Landsman thought were unqualified for their QA positions had ten years or more QA/QC experience and were well qualified for their positions.1054 376. The opinions expressed by Dr. Landsman with regard to the qualifications of MPQAD personnel and other personnel in the soils area were his personal opinions and not 1049 Wells, Tr. 18199. 1050 J. Cook, Tr. 18200-18201. 1051 Landsman, Tr. 16474-16475. 1052 See Consumers Power Exhibit No. 34; Meisenheimer, Tr. 19613-19633. 1053 _I_d. 1054 Wells, Tr. 18204-18205. See ,also Landsman, Tr. 14535-14538, 14540.
-25S-i shared by the Staff.1055 In fact, when Dr. Landsman's fellow inspectors were polled as to their own opinions, they either disagreed with Dr. Landsman's asse.ssment or withheld judgment as to individuals' qualifications.1056 Mr. Shafer noted that there is no regulatory requirement which details the requisite experience for supervisors of QA organizations.1057 According to Mr. Keppler, any Staff concerns regarding MPQAD personnel qualifications would be raised by him, and he has never re-ceived a Staff recommendation for the removal of any MPQAD personnel.1058 Specifically, he has never been told by Dr.
Landsmar. that Mr. Meisenheimer is unqualified.1059 Based upon the evidence presented, we do not conclude that Mr. Meisen-heimer is unqualified for his position. E. S,eptember 17, 1982 Proposals 377. Darrell-Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licens-ing, NRR, and James Keppler, Regional Administrator of Region III, met with Consumers Power's top corporate management repre-l l- sentatives, Messrs. Selby and J. Cook, and with the project l j manager for soils, Mr. Mooney, on August 26, 1982 to discuss 1055 R. Cook, Gardner, Landsman and Shafer, March 25, 1983 l prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at p. 5, following Tr. 14374; Landsman, Tr. 165'9-16540. J 56 R. Cook, Shafer, Gardner, Tr. 16448-16456; Gardner, Tr. 16478, 16529. 1057 Shafer, Tr. 16446. 1058 Keppler, Tr. 15587-15588. 1059 _I_d.
-256-the NRC Staff's concerns regarding Consumers Power's QA/QC implementation including soils activities.1060 There was general discussion at that meeting of the need to increase Consumers Power's raanagement involvement in QA in light of the Staff's view that Bechtel should not continue in a lead role with regard to QC.1061 Mr. Keppler asked nat Consumers Power 1062 and promptly formulate a proposal to address these concerns Consumers responded with an outline of proposals at a Septem-ber 2, 1982 meeting.1063 378. At the request of Mr. Keppler for further de-tails,1064 Consumers Power later submitted two latters on Sept- :
ember 17, 1982 to Messrs. Keppler and Denton which set forth measures the Applicant intended to take in order to upgrade quality assurance implementation.1065 The first of these let-ters (Serial No. 18845) describes changes in the soils area, and the second (Serial No. 18850) relates to balance of plant 60 Keppler, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at pp. 4-5, following Tr. 15111. 1061 See paragraph 464 infra. See also Shafer, Tr. 14530; Gardner, Tr. 14452-14453, Landsman, Tr. 14923; Shafer, Tr. ' 16300. 1062 Keppler, Tr. 15201, 15221. Keppler, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at pp. 4-5, following Tr. 15111; Keppler, Tr. 15201: Mooney, Tr. 17058-17060. 1064 Keppler, Tr. 15201-15203, 15207; Mooney, Tr. 17058- ) 17059. 1065 Keppler, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect'to quality assurance, Attachments E and F, following Tr. 15111.
-257-work.1066 According to one member of the Office of Special Cases Midland team, the September 17, 1982 letter (Serial No.
18845) represented a written commitment to changes that had been under development for some time.1067 The proposal incor-porated the following major changes:
- 1. retention of an independent third party to assess implementation of underpinning work;
- 2. integration of soils QA and QC under MPQAD;
- 3. creation of a soils project with single point accountability;
- 4. upgraded QC inspection training espe-cially in underpinning work;
- 5. development of a specific QIP for soils remedial work;
- 6. increased Consume *:s Power management
- involvement in soils QA; l 7. improvement of design commitment l tracking and accounting. 1068 I
l 379. According to Mr. Mooney, the actions taken pursuant to this plan have proven very effective in the soils 1069 area. While there was apparently no formal Staff approval of the September 17, 1982 letter (Serial No. 18845),1070 Mr. 1066 Id. The second September 17, 1982 letter (Serial No. 18850) is discussed in paragraph 451 infra. 1067' Gardner, Tr. 14454. 1068 See Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soil works at pp. 4-24, following Tr. 17017. 069 Mooney, Tr. 17171. 1070 Keppler, Tr. 15242-15257.
-258-Keppler testified that the NRC Staff was reasonably satisfied with the plan.1071 It appears that analogues of many of the changes committed to in this letter were incorporated into the CCP and formally approved there.
- 1. S & W third party review 380. We believe that a significant innovation on the part of Consumers Power was the commitment in the September 17 letter (Serial No. 18845) to retain an independent third party to assess implementation of underpinning work.1072 This commit-ment was made after the previously mentioned events during 1982 which raised concerns on the part of Consumers Power management and the NRC Staff with the progress and performance of the soils remedial work and QA implementation. 073 The commitment has broadened significantly since the original September 17 proposal.
381. Consumers Power selected Stone & Webster Engin-eering Corporation ("S&W"), an engineering and construction firm, to conduct this third party review. S&W sought assist-ance from' Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas (" Parsons"), an engineering, design, planning and construction management firm (referred to jointly as the "S&W/ Parsons team").1074 ggg ; is c large engineering and construction organization with 071 Keppler, Tr. 15257. 1072 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at
- p. 4, following Tr. 17017.
1073 _I_d . 1074 Id. at p. 6.
-259-considerable experience in designing and building nuclear power plants.1075 It has successfully conducted similiar independent assessments at the Summer and Diablo Canyon Nuclear Stations.
Parsons has special expertise in the area of soils construction and, in particular, underpinning work. 076 It .ias conducted fcundations, tunnelling, excavation and underpinning work on such projects as the San Francisco, Washington D.C., Baltimore and Atlanta Mass Transit Systems.1077 382. Mr. Mocney, Consumer Power's Executive Manager -- Midland Project Office, reviewed the resumes of S&W team mem-bers before they were permanently assigned to Midland. 078 Their credentials demonstrate that they are highly qualified professionals with many years experience in soils construc-tion.1079 Following a meeting on September 2,'1982 with the NRC during which Consumers Power described its Action Plan for the soils work, the necessary contracts were signed and the S&W/ Parsons team was on site by September 20, 1982.1080 1075 Id. at p. 7. 1076
--Id.
1077 l Id. at p. 8. 1078 Mooney, T1. 17260. 1079 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at
- p. 8, following Tr. 17017; Consumers Power Exhibit No. 33, Appendix B. While some of the S&W team members had worked at nuclear power plants which had some QA difficulties, there was no evidence that the particular individuals were in any way involved in the difficulties. See Mooney, Tr. 17267; J. Cook, Tr.
18544-18545; Keppler, Tr. 15445-15446, 15464. 1080 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at
- p. 6, following Tr. 17017.
- y. - . . . , . . , ,. - - , e -..
-260-383. In 1982 NRC Commissioner Palladino in a letter to Congressmen Ottinger and Dingell established independence and competence criteric against which the NRC Staff evaluates third psrty reviewers of work at nuclear plants (the "Palladino Criteria").1081 Using these criteria, the NRC Staff assessed Consumers Power's use of the S&W/ Pars 6ns team.1082 Speci-fically, on November 5, 1982, the NRC convened a public meeting to discuss, among other thir.gs, the.S&W/ Parsons team's creden-tials and independence; at thin meeting Consumers Power pre-sented the qualifications of all those assigned to the S&W/
Persons team.1083 Consumers Power made several submittals to the NRC Staff regarding questions raised both at and after this meeting.1084 As it had done at other plants, the NRC Staff also carefully reviewed the team.1085 They examined, among other things, whether the S&W/ Parsons organizations and the individuals from the organizations assigned to work at Midland were free from ties with Consumers Power, whether the team had adequate technical competence, and whether the individual team members had been involved with acceptable work on other pro-081 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at pp. 2-3 and Attachment 2, following Tr. 15114; Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soil works at p. 8, following Tr. 17017. 082 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at pp. 2-3, following Tr. 15114. Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at l p. 7-8, following Tr. 17017. See alsc Stamiris Exhibit No. 93. 1084 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at l
- p. 7, following Tr. 17017.
CBS Keppler, Tr. 15418.
-261-jects.1086 In the case of S&W, the Region III NRC Staff acknow-ledged their reputation for competence in QA and engineering.1087 Further, the NRC Staff screened the specific individuals in-volved and consulted with different NRC regional offices cen-cerning the competence of both the companies hired and person-nel assigned.1088 On February 24, 1983, after making this review, the NRC Staff approved the S&W/ Parsons team as both sufficiently competent and independent to conduct the Midland third party remedial work review.1089 384. On December 9, 1982 Consumers Power received authorization to start work on underpinning piers W12 and E12. 090 Yet, as noted, the Staff did not approve the S&W/
Parsons team until February 24, 1983. Mr. Keppler testified, however, that the Staff had reviewed the team and could have 4 approved it much earlier.1091 385. The scope of the third party soils assessment encompasses both a review of the Midland soils design documents and construction plans and observation of construction itself.1092 1086 Keppler, Tr. 15433-15435, 15447; Sinclair Exhibit No. 3. 1087 Keppler, Tr. 15445. 1088 Keppler, Tr. 15464, 15458, 15475. 089 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with re-spect to quality assurance, Attachment 1, following Tr. 15114. 1090 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at p. 3, following Tr. 15114. 1091 Keppler, Tr. 15420. 1092 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at
- p. 6, following Tr. 17017.
-262-This assessment is intended to assure that (1) the design intent is implemented; (2) construction is consistent with industry standards; (3) the quality assurance program is satis-factorily implemented; and '(4) construction is performed in accordance with construction documents.1093 This review also includes an assessment of the qualifications of soils QC inspectors and an examination of the underpinning of the auxiliary building ar.d service water pump structure being done by Mergentime and Spencer, White & Prentis.1094 Although originally scheduled to cover at least three months, the actual duration of the review will be determined by the team itself.1095 We have received reports from S&W which indicate that its review is ongoing.
The review will continue until the team is fully satisfied.1096 386. In February, 1983, the NRC Staff discussed with Consumers Power the need to increase the scope of the review.1097 Subsequently, the scope was amended to include several specific line items, particularly a QA overview and an assessment of design work packages to assure both their accuracy and adequacy before the packages are submitted to the NRC Staff for their review and approval under the Work Authorization Procedure.1098 l l - M.; Mooney, Tr. 17233. 1094 l Mooney, Tr. 17247, 17336; Mooney, prepared testimony l on remedial soils work at pp. 11-12, following Tr. 17017. 1095 Mooney, Tr. 17225; Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at pp. 11-12, following Tr. 17017. 1096
. See pararaphs 421-423 infra.
1097 Mooney, Tr. 17228. Mooney, Tr. 17249, 17252-17253, 17255-17256.
-263-387. There is continual communication among the parties involved with the soils assessment. The S&W/ Parsons ,
team holds daily meetings with Consumers Power and Bech'el L personnel; the NRC Staff is invited to these meetings.1099 The daily meetings and their results are summarized in weekly reports, which also include a description of the activities the team has observed, the quality documents and records reviewed, the observations made concerning work activities, and the progress made in closing out findings or Nonconformance Identi-fication Reports ("NIRs").1100 These weekly reports are sent to the NRC Staff.1101 Through use of NIRs, the team records its findings of work which has deviated from procedures, codes,
' specifications or proper construction practices.1102 NIRs are held "open" until Consumers Power provides the team with a resolution of the problem which is acceptable to the team.1103 Only the S&W/ Parsons team has authority to actually close cut an NIR.1104 388. As of April, 1983, the S&W/ Parsons team had already conducted extensive reviews of the remedial soils
( 1099 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at
- p. 13, following Tr. 17017 ~.
j 1100 Id. at pp. 13-14; Mooney, Tr. 17278-17279. i 1101 l M-1102 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at pp.'13-14, following Tr. 17017. 1103 _I_d. 1104 Mooney, Tr. 17280-17281. l i-I- L I - . . . _ . . , . _ . - .- .- _ . . , . - - _ _ , _ . . _ . - _ _ , _ , , . . - _ . - - - - _ . . . _ . - - , . . - - - _ , --
r
-264- ,
. work;1105 -
Among other things, it had examined the vertical
; access. shaft, the. material storage area, the test facility and off-site batch plant, and QA documents.1106 S&W/ Parsons reviewers had observed excavation, and the placing of reinforcements on Piers W-12 and E-12 and the concreting of. Pier W-12.1107 They had reviewed underpinning drawings, procedures, related docu-ments and the performance of Consumers Power QA/QC personnel ;
involved with them.1108 33g,s assessment of performance of the I underpinning work is described in paragraphs 421-423 infra. [ 2. Retraining and recertification of coils QC inspectors _
' ~
389. Another measure undertaken by Applicant in re-
'sponse to the August 26,.1982 and September 2, 1982 meetings with'the NRC: Staff was the commitment to retrain and recertify t-all' soils QC inspectors.1109 Region III inspectors conducted an. inspection of the QC recertification process in September of 1982 and determined that there were problems with the manner in which the examinations for certification were.being administered.
The inspectors also observed'that a QA examiner was using a i controlled. copy'of a Project Quality Control Instruction ("PQCI") 1105- Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at , Epp. 2, 12-13, following Tr. 17017. l' 1106- .Id. 1 1107 I d '. l 1108 ,d. A 1109 ! .Id. at p. 15; Wells, prepared testimony on quality
~
i assurance at p. 4, following Tr. 18027. I r
. - . . . , , . , . ,, - -,4 , . ~ - - - . . . ,_.c , . . ~ . . . . ,__m_. .-...m . _ -...-. _ _... __- . _ _ - . . . .
-265-which differed from another controlled copy of the PQCI which was obtained from the QC records vault.ll10 390. On September 24, 1982, Region III issued a confirmatory action letter which was the oulmination of Staff review of the administration cf oral examinations and which included commitments for the recertification process.1111 Consumers Power's commitments included the issuance of a stop work order for virtually all work on remedial soils with some exceptions, the suspension of all examinations relating to remedial soils QC inspector requalifications, the decertifica-tion of all remedial soils QC personnel previously certified, the establishment of a retraining program for all QC personnel
! who fail the recertification exams, and the development of a written examination for all remedial soils QC recertifica-tions.1112' While the recertification program was first admin- , istered only in the soils quality organization,, the program has i since been extended to apply to all QC personnel. Mr. Wells testified that all QC personnel certified to the inspection f plans which support soils work have already been subject to the l upgraded program.1113 110 R. Cook, Gardner, Landsman and Shafer, March 25, 1983
- prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment Ib, following Tr. 14374.
1111-l.
.-Id.
.1112 The remedial soils work which was not subject to Iji .
! the stop work order was the continuous activity such as main-I
'tenance of the freeze wall.
i 113 - Wells, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 4-5, following Tr. 18027.
-266-
- 3. Quality Improvement Program 391. Mr. Mooney of Consumers Power described the separate Quality Improvement Program ("QIP") established for the soils prcject at the site.1114 The QIP is a means used by management to stress quality improvement to workers and crafts-people and to provide measurements and recogaition of quality improvement.1115 The program was originally began for Bechtel craftspeople in November 1981. In September 1982, a separate 4 QIP was established for the soils project. The program is intended to instill in workers the attitude of doing the job 1
right the first time, to measure worker performance, to recog-nize quality performance, and to encourage suggestions for improvements.1116 Mr. Rutgers was of the opinion that the QIP has resulted in improved performance at the plant.1117 1114 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at. pp. 19-20, following Tr. 17017. 1115 Mooney, Tr. 17078-17082; Rutgers, Tr. 18656-18657; l i see also Shafer, Tr. 16729-16731. l In'his prepared testimony, Dr. Landsman criticized the upper management of Consumers Power for not playing an active role in conveying principles of quality assurance to the i working level construction staff so as to insure that QA princi- ! ples were being properly carried out. R. Cook, Landsman, i Gardner and Shafer, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony at l pp. 5-6 and Attachment 8, following Tr. 11344. We do not find r support in the record upon which we can reach such a conclu-i sion. 1116 Mooney, Tr. 17078-17082; Rutgers, Tr. 18654-18657; j see also'Shafer, Tr. 16729-16731. 111 Rutgers, Tr. 18113-18114. I
-267-F. Quality Plans 392. MPQP-1 and MPQP-2 are the Midland Plant quality plans which describe the basic QA program controls to be applied to items and activities associated with the remedial soils work and underpinning activities at the plant site. The scope of MPQP-1 and MPQP-2 covers SWPS underpinning work, Auxiliary Building underpinning work and work in the feed water isolation valve pit areas. The plans also apply to both safety related and non-safety related remedial soils activities.1118 393. MPQP-1 provides a detailed written description of.the application of Applicant's and Bechtel's QA programs to
~
the work performed by the two underpinning subcontractors at the plant site without their own Nuclear QA program. 119 The plan describes the principal QA management organizations at the pl nt site, details the interface between these organizations, and defines their QA functions. Detailed implementation pro-cedures developed under Applicant's general QA program to cover all phases of the underpinning work are also referenced where O ! applicable in the text of MPQP-1. 1118 Gilray, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony relative to the quality assurance program for underpinning activities at pp. 1-2, 4, following Tr. 16854. 1119 Bird, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 7, following Tr. 16975; Landsman, Tr. 16899, 16921-16924. Under existing Consumers Power and Bechtel Topical Reports each sub-contractor at the plant site is required to har's such a QA plan. Landsman, Tr. 16919-16920. The two main underpinning subcontrac-tors at.the plant site without their own QA plans are Mergentime l and Spencer, White and Prentis. Landsman, Tr. 16875, 16924. 1120 Bird, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 7, following Tr. 16975; Bird, Tr. 16976-16977.
-268-394. MPQP-2 documents Applicant's overall commitment that remedial soils work and activities be covered by QA program controls previously approved by the NRC in existing Consumers Power and Bechtel Topical Reports. The plan spe:ifically provides that MPQAD will review and assure that design docu-ments, procurement orders and implementing procedures contain appropriate quality requirements and that work activities include adequate inspection plans and are properly audited to verify that they are correctly being carried out. MPQP-2 also contains the commitment to have prior Region III concurrence before any soils work is excluded from QA program coverage.
Additionally, the scope of MPQP-2 was written to be consistent with the requirements of this Licensing Board's April 30, 1982 Order.1121 395. Drafts of MPQP-2 and MPQP-1, Rev. 3, were coor-dinated with the NRC prior to issuance.11~"~ Initial responsi-bility for reviewing MPQP-1 and MPQP-2 at the NRC was assigned to Dr. Ross Landsman, Region III inspector for Midland Plant underpinning activities and Mr. John W. Gilray, principal QA Engineer in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Upon i completion of their initial review, Dr. Landsman and Mr. Gilray found the plans to be conditionally acceptable. Revised drafts l of MPQP-1 and MPQP-2 incorporating the Staff's acceptance i 1 Gilray, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony relative to the quality assurance progrom for underpinning activities at I pp. 2, 4-5, following Tr. 16854; Bird, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 8, following Tr. 16975. Bird, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 8-9, following Tr. 16975.
J a269-conditions were submitted by Applicant to the NRC for approval on August 9, 1982. Revision 3 of MPQP-1 and the original issue of MPQP-2 received unconditional NRC Staff approval on Septem-ber 16, 1982.1123 396. Applicant has revised MPQP-1 and MPQP-2 from time-to-time to ensure that they remain current. The latest revisions of the plans are contained in MPQP-1, Rev. 5 and MPQP-2, Rev.1.1124 Responsibility for reviewing revisions to the plans subsequent to MPQP-1, Rev. 3 and MPQP-2, Rev. O has rested with Dr. Landsman and Mr. Wayne D. Shafer of NRC Region III.1125 Dr. Landsman and Mr. Shafer testified that they have reviewed all subsequent revisions to MPQP-1 and MPQP-2, includ-1 23 Gilray, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony relative to the quality assurance program for underpinning activities at pp. 2-3, following Tr. 16854. Approval was obtained from the Office of NRR and is ccntained in Chapter 17 of Supplement No. 2 of the Midland SER, Staff Exhibit No. 14 dated October 1982 (NUREG-0793). Id. at
- p. 3.
1124 Gilray, Landsman and Shafer, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to the quality assurance program for underpinning activities at p. 2, following Tr. 16859; Shafer Tr. 16861. In addition, Applicant has submitted a draft copy of Revision 6 to MPQP-1 to the NRC for its review. See Consumers Power Exhibit No. 44. 125 Gilray, Landsman and Shafer, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to the quality assurance program for underpinning activities at pp. 2-3, following Tr. 16859. Revisions are approved under the NRC and Consumers Power work authorization procedures. Bird, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 9, following Tr. 16975. Witness Shafer stated that Mr. Gilray at NRR will no longer review future changes in MPQP-1 and MPQP-2 unless such changes also result in a change to Applicant's Topical Report. Shafer, Tr. 16861.
-270-
~ ing.the then most'recent revisions,.MPQP-1, Rev. 5 and MPQP-2, Rev. 1, and have found them te be acceptable.1126 397. According to Dr. Landsman, the NRC Staff believes that MPQP-1 and MPQP-2 contain all the necessary language to provide adequate QA plans for the underpinning and remedial soils activities at the Midland Plant site.1127 Mr. Gilray p testified that the NRC Staff also believes that the plans 5
-comply with-previously approved QA requirements described in Applicant's and Bechtel's Topical Reports and in our April 30, 1982 Order.1128 Additionally, Dr. Landsman and Mr. Shafer indicated that they have found the change in MPQP-1 to document the incorporation of QC responsibility into MPQAD to be an improvement in the plan. Mr. Gilray added that the revision to Applicant's Topical Report, CPC-I-A, Rev. 13, reflecting this change is. acceptable to the NRC.1129 i 1126 Gilray,' Landsman and Shafer, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to the quality assurance program for underpinning activities at p. 3, following Tr. 16859. The one change in MPQP-1 that Dr. Landsman and Mr. Shafer found to be significant is the change which reflects the fact that all QC responsibility has been removed from the Bechtel organization and assigned to MPQAD. This change was first reflected in MPQP-1, Rev. 4 and has been carried over to MPQP-1, Rev. 5.
Gilray, Landsman and Shafer, prepared testimony at p. 3, follow- ' i ing'Tr. 16854; Shafer Tr. 16863-16866. 1127 - Landsman, Tr. 16871. See also Gilray, Landsman and Shafer, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to the quality assurance program for underpinning activities at p. 3, l-following Tr. 16859. 1128 Gilray, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony relative
~
to the quality assurance program for underpinning activities at pp. 4-5, following Tr. 16854. l 1129 .Gilray, Landsman and Shafer, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to the quality assurance program for
- underpinning activities at p. 3,.following Tr. 16859.
l
T
-271-398. Based on the foregoing findings, we conclude '
that, as written, MPQP-1 and MPQP-2 contain sufficiently de-tailed QA instructions for the two underpinning subcontractors without their own Nuclear QA plans at the Midland Plant site. The Board finds reasonable assurance that Applicant has ade-quately instituted QA program coverage for all remedial soils activities and underpinning work at the Midland Plant.1130 G. Assessment Of Recent Remedial
' Soils Work Implementation 399. Beginning in the summer of 1982, the NRC Staff authorized work preliminary to the actual underpinning work for the Auxiliary Building. On December 9, 1982, the Staff author-ized Consumers Power to begin excavation work for the installa-tion of piers W12 and E12.1131 Mr. Keppler relied upon the recommendations of Dr. Landsman and the Midland Section in releasing this soils work.1132 400. The NRC Staff and S&W both concluded that the underpinning work authorized on December 9, 1982 was satisfac-torily performed. As a result, the Staff has authorized further underpinning work to continue.1133 Dr. Landsman testified that, 1
1130 See December 6, 1979 Modification Order at pp. 3-4~; April 30, 1982 Order at pp. 15-16, 21. 1131 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at
- p. 21, following Tr. 17017.
1132 Keppler, Tr. 15310, 15293-15294. 1133 See Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at pp. 21-24, following Tr. 17017; see also paragraphs 421-422 infra. ?-
-272-although he is concerned with the performance of soils QA management personnel, he believes Mergentime and soils QC personnel are doing a satisfactory job on the underpinning work.1134 Dr. Landsman reached this conclusion even though the Staff had concluded that Consumers Power's performance in soils remedial work had declined during the period of the SALP III appraisal and was rated a " low three."ll35 Moreover, the Staff has not discovered any problems with the performance of the underpinning work significant enough to warrant a recommenda-tion to Mr. Keppler that remedial soils work should be halted.1136 401. Mr. Mooney of Consumers Power testified that he believes implementation of remedial soils work has been improv-ing since mid-September 1982. Likewise, Mr. J. Cook concluded that implementation of the remedial soils program has been successful.1137 Nevertheless Consumers Power has taken seriously the recent negative comments of the Staff in the SALP III report and is committed to performing the remedial soils work 1134 Landsman, Tr. 16904-15905, 16920.
l 1135 Staff Exhibit No. 24 at p. 1; R. Cook and Landsman, Tr. 20658-20663. 36 Keppler, Tr. 15321-15323; Shafer, Tr. 16550; R. Cook, l Gardner, Landsman and Shafer, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at p. 5, following Tr. 14374. We note that Consumers Power received a Category III rating for the soils area in both the SALP II and SALP III l reports. These reports are discussed in paragraphs 539-547 infra. The specific incidents supporting the rating have been drawn to our attention, and we have considered them in reaching our conclusions. 1137 Mooney, Tr. 17120; J. Cook, Tr. 18414-18415. l l
-273-to a level satisfactory to the Staff.1133 In the following section, we address specifically recent incidents which have taken place in the remedial soils area and which are relevant
- to the SALP III report period.
H. Specific Quality Incidents Encountered In . Remedial Soils Work Since December 1982 ) 402. We heard evidence concerning a number of incidents '
- related to the remedial soils work which occurred during 1983.
'We-also received into evidence S&W's first written assessment of the underpinning work. These matters are described below.
We find that-none of the incidents referred to present a safety concern and that the matters have all been satisfactorily resolved. We further find that the first S&W written appraisal was quite positive. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that soils remedial work can continue with NRC Staff approval. 4
- 1. Violation of hold tags 403. Dr. Ross Landsman raised a concern with the by-passing of hold tags in the underpinning work.1139 Adjacent to the access shafts near the feedwater isolatio.. valve pits and under the turbine building, there are drifts (horizontal. tunnels) which act as access ways to permit excavation of materials and
- - movement-r under the turbine ' building.1140 The surface at the L
L top of the' drifts is not smooth because of the use of air 1138 See paragraph 547 infra. ' 1139 Landsman, Tr. 16692-16693. 1140
- l. Mooney, Tr. 17402-17404.
l ~
-274-hammers to remove the turbine building concrete mud slab.
Plates are bolted to the topa of the drifts and these plates were installed according to in-plant Hilti-bolt specificatfons. Because of the rough surface, these specifications are inappro-priate for underground work, and more than a 1/16-inch gap between the plate and the concrete resulted in many places. This resulted in conditions which did not conform to the specifi-cations as written, and when QC personnel did an inspection they attached hold tags to the plates.1141 404. Workers who had been using the drifts for several weeks prior to the inspection walked through the drifts after the hold tags were in place and began working. By walking through the tunnel, they had, in effect, technically by-passed the hold tags.1142 These hold tag violations occurred on May 9, 1983. The field coils organization ("FSO") immediately stopped work informally and sent 53 workers home that day. -On May 10, 1983, the problem was resolved between FSO and MPQAD and work was resumed. Stone and Webster informed the NRC resident inspectors.of the incident.1143 405. The Board finds that the incident involving the by-passing of hold tags in the underpinning drift is not indica-tive of either poor QA implementation or poor management atti-( ( tude. The applicant identified the problems with the base i 1141 l M. 1142 . _I_d. 1143 Stamiris Exhibit No. 89, attaching May 13, 1983 memo-l randum from Warnick to Eisenhut; Mooney, Tr. 17337-17338.
-275-plates and with the by-passing of the hold tags and promptly resolved these items.
- 2. Shallow probing 406. On February 10, 1983, construction personnel were performing a shallow probing operation to the north of the service water pump structure.1144 The purpose of the probing was to locate buried utilities. Because a mudmat which had been poured adjacent to a Q duct bank obstructed the search, it had to be removed from the search area. The mud mat was physically attached to the duct bank because of the way the concrete had been poured. In order to separate the mudmat from the duct bank, a' workman with a pneumatic drill had to drill a straight line of 14 holes in the mud mat at the line of connection to the duct bank so that the mud mat could be broken free of the duct bank and removed.1145 During this drilling process the workman failed to maintain the drill, which was hand held, in a perfectly vertical orientation. The very presence of the i
! concrete mudmat prevented the workman from seeing the bottom i corner of the duct bank below and adjacent to the mud mat. 1 Because of the drill's offset from the vertical, the hand-held drill nicked the bottom edge of the duct bank in 14 different locations.1146 Since Q concrete is a different color from 1144 Wheeler, Tr. 11410. 1145 Landsman, Tr. 14725; Wheeler, Tr. 18833. 1146 See Stamiris Exhibit No. 54. See also Wheeler, Tr. 18833-18834.
l
-276-non-Q concrete, the mistake became apparent as soon as the duct l
bank was exposed. l 407. On February 14, Consumers Power issued NCR number FSO-050 with respect to this incident.1147 Applicant's witness on this subject characterized the work resulting in the drilling of the duct bank as somewhat careless. NRC Inspector Ross Landsman indicated that the root cause of the nonconformance was lack of attention to detail on the part of the workers.1148 Mr. Mooney testified that conduit was not exposed as a result of this incident.1149
- 3. Jacking of the FIVP 408. Dr. Landsman expressed concerns during 1982 that the existing grillage support system would not hold the full weight of the feedwater isolation valve pic ("FIVP") and that the rock anchors which attached the grillage assembly into the roof of the FIVP were inadequate. One of his major concerns was whether the weight of a concrete mudmat attached to the undersides of the FIVPs had been considered in the design of the support system. He also contended that Consumers Power resisted the NRC's recommendation for jacking the FIVP for a year because following the recommendation would delay Consumers
- Power's construction schedule.11 0 l
i 1147 See Stamiris Exhibit No. 54. Even though the NCR is on l a Bechtel form, because MPQAD is totally integrated, the form was . prepared and submitted by the Applicant. Landsman, Tr. 14727. 1148 Landsman, Tr. 14731. 1149 Mooney, Tr. 17175-17176. 1150 Landsman, Tr. 14632-14634. l
-277-409. Concerning the disagreement between Consumers Power and the NRC as to whether or not to do a load test, Mr.
Mooney of Consumers Power testified.that Consumers' was not motivated by a concern"for schedule, but rather that Consumers Power was concerned that lifting the FIVP might detune the support system, which had been: adjusted after the prior load test to even out loads. Detuning would mean that each bolt would no-longer carryJits specified-load.ll51 Mr. Wheeler testified that the jacking of the FIVP that was originally done in June of 1981 was for a greater load than what was done in the second proof load jacking required by the NRC Staff which took' place after Consumers Power had completed modifications to the support system. Mr. Wheeler testified that, since the second proof-load jacking was.done to a value less than the original jacking, it was unnecessary. Moreover, Mr. Wheeler confirmed that Consumers Power had been reluctant to do the second jacking because of the possibility that it might detune the support system that had been modified.ll52 410. Mr. Mooney recalled that the disagreement as to whether to do the second jacking and how much load to use ! lasted possibly a couple of months. He said that_Dr. Landsman l- ! was concerned that the load should be increased to include the load of a mud mat attached to the FIVPs. Consumers Power took i the position that the mud mat would be broken off during the excavation and that the support system would never experience l 1 51 Mooney, Tr. 17145. 1152 . Wheeler, Tr. 18879-18883, 18861. s e- - i,c,_ _, . , , , . r . .., w. -.---% -m, ,
,.r - , - - -- .-e--r- ~ - - - - - --r---_-w-. , ..- - - ,
-278-the load of the mud mat. The NRC Staff did not accept Consumers Power's position and Consumers Power agreed to perform the FIVP load test.1153 411. Dr. Landsman discussed two items of concern that were encountered during the seccnd jacking of the FIVP. The first item concerned cracking of the top slab of the FIVP during the jacking. The second matter involved a concern that
.i the-subcontractor which was recording data during the jacking had waited the wrong amount of time after the jacks were re-leased to record the data.1154 One crack in the FIVP exceeded the alert level,1155 and as a result, the consultant, Construc-tion Technology Labs ("CTL"), was notified. Dr. Corley of CTL, as required by the crack monitoring specification, reported to Bechtel within 1/2 hour after inspecting the crack as to whether Bechtel could resume construction. His recommendation was affirmative. The consultant also prepared a report to Consumers Power dated February 19, 1983 which was supplied to the NRC.1156 Consumers Power followed the procedure which was required as part of the crack monitoring program for the FIVP. CTL made recommendations concerning the cracking and identified the t
- probable cause as increased load associated with a locked l
l hanger at the_ roof of the FIVP for Unit 1. Minor cracking occurred in Unit 2 of the FIVP but it was in different loca-1153 Mooney, Tr. 17143-17145. 1154 Landsman and R. Cook, Tr. 14636-14640.
' 1 Mooney, Tr. 17145-17146, 17020.
1156 Landsman, Tr. 14641-14642. i l l
m
-279-tions from the cracking in Unit 1 and was believed to be caused by residual stress.1157 412. With regard to the NRC Staff's contention that data was not recorded within the proper time period, Mr. Mooney testified that data was required to be taken within one hour of release of the jacking. The subcontractor had taken the data five minutes after the release. Accordingly, Mr. Mooney believed that the procedures had been properly followed. In response to a request by Mr. R. Cook, data was also taken later.
- 4. Pier 11 West load test 413. A load test was planned for Pier 11 West for the purpose of confirming the design parameters that had been assumed for the auxiliary building permanent underpinning wall.1159 Carlson stress meters were to be used to measure the load on the pier. In the course of preparing for and undertak-ing the load test, three different issues arose. The first of these was a problem with the interface between two different l
PQCIs. The second issue related to' the transfer of information l from one PQCI to a revised PQCI. The third matter had to do L with the load test itself and'the inability to transfer the full load to the bottom of the hier. 414. With regard to the first of the three issues, Mr. Robert Wheeler of Consumers Power testified that he was at l Mooney, Tr. 1701817p21, 17146-17148. 1158 Mooney,' Tr. 17150-55"; 1159 Landsman, Tr. 1466'4-14666. ' a b
-280-a meeting in Glen Ellyn on April 20, 1983 with members of the Region III Staff. During this meeting, he received a telephone call from someone at the site. The caller informed him that there was a potential problem with PQCIs related to the Carlson stress meters. Mr. Wheeler instructed the caller to discuss the matter with MPQAD and to call him back if there was a problem.1160 Dr. Landsman knew of the potential problem with the PQCIs at the time of the Glen Ellyn meeting on April 20, 1983. At hearings, he criticized Mr. Wheeler and other Consumers Power's employees who were present at the meeting for not informing him of the problem at the meeting. Dr. Landsman acknowledged that he did not inquire of them as to the PQCI problem because he was testing to see whether they would volun- .
teer the information.1161 Mr. Wheeler testified that he did not believe he had an obligation to inform the NRC staff of the potential problem at the April 20, 1983 meeting.1162 Dr. Landsman had indicated to Consumers Power employees that they l should have all necessary information available before relaying l l it to the NRC Staff in order to avoid misunderstandings in the coils area. Mr. Wheeler believed he did not have adequate information at the April 20, 1983 meeting to convey to the NRC Staff.1164 1 1 60 Wheeler, Tr. 18786-18787. 1161 Landsman, Tr. 16792-16793, 16832-16833, 16694-16695. 1162 Wheeler, Tr. 18786-18787. l 1163 Landsman, Tr. 16519-16520. 1164 Wheeler, Tr. 18786-18787.
-281-415. The next day at the site, Mr. Whe31er followed up on this matter at a morning staff meeting. He was informed that the concern had been resolved and determined that there was no need to report the matter to the NRC Staff. The concern had been that there were two PQCIs, one relating to the pouring of the pier itself and the other relating to the Carlson meters, each of which included the requirement that the other one be closed out first.1166 The matter was resolved by modifying the PQCI related to the Carlson meters. This modification was done by issuing a new PQCI for the meters and discontinuing the old one.
416. During that same week, Consumers Power sought authorization from the NRC Staff to start the load test. Mr. Mooney discussed the load test with members of the Region III Staff and, in response to a question from Mr. Warnick concerning testing of the instrumentation, Mr. Mooney replied that to the best of his knowledge there were no problems.1169 Following this conversation, Mr. Mooney ordered that a complete review of cll documentation associated with Pier 11 West be undertaken. This review found no problems.1170 The Pier 11 West load test was begun on April 25, 1983.1171 1165
--Id.
1 66 Mooney, Tr. 17180-17181; Wneeler, Tr. 18788. 1167 Mooney, Tr. 17181. 1168 Wheeler, Tr. 18904. 169 Mooney, Tr. 17179-17180. 11 O Mooney, Tr. 17180. 1171 Mooney, Tr. 17356.
-282-417. On or about May 5, 1983, the NRC Staff requested that Consumers Power provide all documentation for the Pier 11
, West load test. In gathering the information for the Staff, Consumers Power QA discovered the second concern with the Carlson PQCIs. Signatures and information had been improperly transferred to the Carlson meter inspection record which was revised as a result of the April 20, 1983 discovery of the earlier PQCI interface problem. Consumers Power on May 5, 1983 immediately informed representatives of the NRC Staff concern-ing the problem discovered with the transfer of information to the revised PQCI~and inspection record.11 2 418. The third issue referred to the load readings obtained from the Carlson stress meters. Consumers Power attributed the problem with transferring the full load to the bottom of the pier to a problem with the anti-friction system not working properly.1173 Rather than conducting a second pier load test, Consumers Power chose to resolve the problem by reanalyzing the auxiliary building using a parametric study with 1/2-inch for the differential settlement.1174 on the
- basis of that analysis, Consumers Power has concluded that the l
11 2 i Mooney, Tr. 17356; Wheeler, Tr. 18910-11. See also l Wells, Tr. 18646-18647; Mooney, Tr. 17181. Mr. Wells and Mr. Mooney testified that a QC inspector was temporarily suspended l for retraining due to a violation of procedure in transferring l information on the inspection record for the load test Carlson gauges. i 11 3 Mooney, Tr. 17162. 1174 Mooney, Tr. 17162-17163, 17170. I
-w w - - - - - -
-283-building could undergo that amount of differential settlement and yet not be structurally compromised.ll75 419. We find that Consumers Power acted reasonably in dealing with the three concerns which arose relating to the f Pier.ll West load test. These three incidents do not evidence poor management attitude or an unwillingness to communicate with the NRC. Rather, we find that Mr. Mooney and Mr. Wheeler l
were careful to inform the NRC Staff of matters of concern about which they had complete information. In addition, Appli-cant discovered these problems and responded quickly and appro-priately to them. . l S. EPA wings 420. Prior to starting the underpinning work, instru-mentation was installed to monitor movements of the auxiliary building. During the time in which Consumers Power was at-tempting to obtain base line data, the readings indicated that
- the electrical penetration area (" EPA") of the auxiliary build-l 11 See also Region III OSC Inspection Report 50-329/
Id. 83-13-and 50-330/83-14, dated October 25, 1983, pp. 6-7. This inspection report indicates that the item concerning the pier load test " remains open pending the licensee's final design and a subsequent audit of'the calculations and new remedial fixes." On September 14 and 15, 1983, the NRC and its consultants audited the revised calculations for the design adequacy of the auxiliary building reflecting the results of an underpinning
- pier load test. .A recent Board notification from NRR states that additional information received by the NRC during this l
audit " calls into question the validity of the assumptions upon l which the Staff's acceptance of the underpinning design was l based." The information is presently being reviewed by NRR. See Board Notification Regarding Midland Auxiliary Building l Underpinning (BN 83-174) from Thomas M. Novak, dated November 21, j 1983. .
-284-O ing_was rising. Dr. Landsraan testified that the NRR staff and its consultants believed that the base line data recorded was accurate and attributed the recorded upward movement of the EPA to temperature variations between the inside and the out-side of the building.11 Mr. Mooney testified that while the EPA wings did appear to rise for a short period of time, the data trend has since reversed and the building has been perform-ing as predicted.1178 .
I. S&W's assessment of under-pinning work 421. In April 1983, S&W issued a report of the results of'their independent assessment of the first 90 days of under-pinning work at the Midland site.1179 S&W concluded that the underpinning work was performed in accordance with design intent and that the quality of the work was in keeping with the standards defined by Project documents. In addition, the S&W report indicates that soils MPQAD personnel have adequate qualifications, training, and ability. The MFQAD soils group is described as having a good understanding and appreciation of the intent and philosphy of QA and QC, and the implementation of inspection plans and reports is described as having been satisfactorily accomplished.1180 1176 Mooney, Tr. 17345-17347. 11 Landsman, Tr. 14671-14674. 1178 Mooney, Tr. 17169. 1179 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 33. 1180 Id. at p. S-2.
-285-422. We also make note of a report issued by the NRC 4
Staff after these matters were considered in evidentiary hear-ings. By letter dated November 4, 1983, Mr. R. F. Warnick, Director of the Office of Special Cases, transmitted to this Board and the parties I & E report number 50-3291/83-24 (OSC); 50-330/83-25 (OSC) together with S&W weekly reports and minutes of a public meeting between the Staff, S&W personnel, and Consumers Power representatives. This~ report and the attach-ments discuss the overall status of the independent assessment of uncerpinning and remedial soils activities, as well as the Construction Implementative Overview activities.1181 During the meeting which was the subject of the report, S&W summarized the independent assessment of underpinning and remedial soils work for the period September 20, 1982 through September 30, 1983. They reported the following conclusions: The undcrpinning that has been installed is of a very high quality. The Quality Assurance staff are performing as an efisctive quality organization. l
- All of the organizations involved in the l underpinning have demonstrated a positive attitude and concern towards quality.
The instrumen':ation system installed to monitor building movements adds to the confidence in the success of the under-pinning work. Both Consumers Power and Bechtel have been responsive to the requests and needs of the Assessment Team. 1101 Letter from R. F. Warnick to J. W. Cook, dated Novem-ber 4, 1983 and accompanying enclosures.
-286-Currentl'1 14 of the 15 NIRs have been closed out. Seven of the NIRs were related to Specifications or Construction Proce-dures, six were related to QA Procedures, and two were hardware related.
From time-to-time the Assessment Team has stated that the completions of underpinning piers, from excavation to load transfer, should be accomplished in a more timely manner. This item is still of concern to the Assessment Team, although some improve-ment has taken place and Quality has not been impacted. 1182 423. We make no findings regarding the substance of S&W's conclusions in this latter report. Nevertheless, we are aware of the fact that S&W appears to be performing its job as it should and that the third party review for soils appears thus far to be effective. J. Conclusion 424. Based on the foregoing improvements in the remedial soils program, this Board finds that there is reason-able assurance that the remedial soils work will be carried out in'such a manner that at the completion of construction all construction errors significant to safety will have been detected and corrected. Thus, we have reasonable assurance that the soils remedial work will be completed in accordance with design and regulatory requirements. In this regard, we place consider-able reliance on Mr. Keppler's October 29, 1982 written testi-mony, in which he states: 1182 _I _d .
-287-Based upon (1) the third party assets-ments of the plant which will be performed, (2) the increased NRC inspection effort, and (3) the work authorization contcols by the NRC, I believe that soils remedial work at the Midland plant may continue. 1183 We find that all of Mr. Keppler's conditions for continued soils work have been and continue to be met. For the present, we also find that, under the existing system of third party oversight backed up by NRC Staff inspection and the Work Authorization Procedure, Consumers Power is performing remedial soils work adequately. ife do not find that either the soils QA program or its implementation is inadequate, but we do follow Mr. Keppler in believing that, at present, we cannot rely on the QA program alone to assure proper construction.1184 We acknowledge that at some futu.e time, . based upon satisfactory performance by Consumers Power, the Regional Administrator may relax these conditions by modifying or rescinding the third party overviews and the Work Authorization Procedure. It is also possible that, at some later time, we may be prepared to revise our finding f' regarding relience on implementation of the QA program.
l l 425. This record also includes extensive testimony dealing with other quality assurance implementation issues. We next examine these other issues primarily as background to our soils QA determination, especially insofar as they support inferences regarding management attitude and regarding the likelihood of proper completion of soils work. 1183 Keppler, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at p. 6,~following Tr. 15111. 1184 See Id.; Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at pp. 5-6, following Tr.' 15114.
-288-III. THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING INSPECTION 426. In the Fall of 1982, as a result of concerns regarding recertification of QC inspectors and other concerns, the Midland Section of the Region III Office of Special Cases
-considered whether a Staff-ordered shutdown of work at the Midland Plant was appropriate. Concluding that it lacked information sufficient to justify a shutdown in the balance of plant work, the Midland Section decided to conduct an intensive inspection of a portion of the non-soils related work.1185 Accordingly, NRC Region III inspectors conducted a special in-spection of the diesel generator building (hereinafter called the "DGB Inspection") on October 12 - November 25, 1982, and January 19-21, 1983. The results of that inspection were issued in Report No. 50-329/82-22, 50-330/82-22, dated Feb-ruary 8, 1983. The findings of the DGB Inspection resulted in the issuance of Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties EA83-3, dated February 8, 1983 ("NOV EA83-3").1186 427. NOV EA83-3 included two major findings related to the quality function at Midland. The first was the misuse by some QC inspectors of (now obsolete) inspection documents known as In Process Inspection Notices ("IPINs").1187 The 1185 Landsman, Tr. 14940; Gardner,.Tr. 14934-14935; Shafer, Tr. 14931. 1186 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachments 3 and 4, following Tr. 15114. 1187 Wells, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 9-13, following Tr. 18027.
-289-second violation cited was for a list of miscellaneous items.1188 The NRC Staff considered the results of the DGB inspection to 'be evidence of a breakdown in the implementation of the quality 1189 assurance program.
428. In responses dated March 10, June 24, and July 12, 1983, Consumers Power admitted the violations cited in the February 8 NOV EA83-3.1190 In responding to the NOV EA83-3 items, Consumers Power-identified the reasons for each viola-tion and the corrective action proposed to address the specific violation and the generic or programmatic implication of the
. violation.1191 We' discuss the' violations in more detail below.
A. NOV EA83-3 Item A - IPINS 429. With regard to the misuse of IPINs, NOV EA83-3 indicated that supervisory quality control personnel had directed , quality control inspectors ("QCEs") to suspend in process inspections if too many nonconformances were discovered. Upon , suspension, work was tc be returned to construction for rework. 1 88 See paragraphs 430, 438-448 infra. 109 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment 3 at p. 1, following Tr. 15114. 1 90 B. Peck, prepared tectimony, Attachment I, following Tr. 18921; Consumers Power Exhibits Nos. 49, 51. Two of the - NOV EA83-3 items were only admitted in part. These were Items B-1.a and B-1.f. 1191- See Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect-to quality assurance, Attachment 3 at pp. 9-10 of Enclosure, following Tr. 15114; B. Peck, prepared testimony, Attachment, following Tr. 18921; Consumers Power Exhibits Nos.
- 49, 51. See also Shafer, Tr. 15012-15018.
-290-In NOV EA83-3, the NRC Staff also indicated that follow up inspections on some IPINs were closed after reviewing only the deficiencies stated on the IPIN, thus creating the potential 92 for a part of some inspections to be missed or not performed.
430. The inspectors advised Consumers Power Company of the preliminary results of the DGB Inspection in informal weekly exit meetings and in a formal NRC exit meeting on Novem-ber 23, 1982.11 3 Those meetings revealed the NRC's general concerns with IPINs.1194 The Staff's concerns at that time were two-fold: first, there was concern that because the IPIN did not serve the purpose of an NCR, i.e., it would not be picked up as a nonconforming-item; secondly, there was concern that, under certain circumstances, a QCE vould document defi-ciencies found on an IPIN, but terminate the inspection before completion and return the item to construction for re-work, and thus there may have been some deficiencies which were not recorded and trended.1195 The practice leading to the latter concern later became known as the " return option." 431. Consumers Power promptly took significant actions to alleviate the then recognized problems with IPINs. The return option was discontinued on site by the Project Field i l l 1192 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment 3 at p. 2 of Enclocure and Attachment 7, following Tr. 15114; B. Peck, prepared testi-l mony,' Attachment 1, following Tr. 18921. 1193 Shafer, Tr. 15075; Wells, prepared testimony on l quality assurance at pp. 9-10, following Tr. 18027. 1194 Wells, Tr. 18182. 1195 Wells, Tr. 18183-18184. l
. , , - - .-. - -~ - - _ . . .- . .. , . - . - . . - - -
-291-f l
Quality Control Engineer, E. Smith, through a letter, dated November 19, 1982, sent to all QCEs. This letter, in i effect, mandated that QCEs complete all inspections once begun and that IPINs identify all deficiencies found, thus addressing the most prominent part of the Staff's then expressed concerns with IPINs. Although an NRC inspector doubted that Mr. Smith's direction had been received by all persons on the field, the concern about incomplete inspections was as a prac-tical matter eliminated by Consumers Power's halt of balance-of-plant safety-related work in December, 1982. Consumers Power communicated the work stoppage to the NRC Office of Special Cases on December 2, 1982.1198 432.. James Meisenheimer terminated the use of IPINs in soils work by the issuance of a memorandum, dated Decem-ber 13, 1982, thereby demonstrating that IPINs in the soils area were specifically addressed prior to January, 1983.1199 Prior to the issuance of the December 13th memorandum, Mr. Meisenheimer's group reviewed the use of IPINs in the soils I area and did not find any problems in the way they had been utilized since the start of remedial soils work.1200 Mr. Meisenheimer based his decision to discontinue IPINs on a 1 6 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 36. 119 Gardner, Tr. 16271-16272. 1198 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at p. 4, following Tr. 15114. 1199 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 52; see also Consumers Power Exhibit No. 53. 1200 Meisenheimer, Tr. 19639-19640. l 1 .
l l l
-292- ,
j desire for conservatism; since there was no need for both the IPIN and NCR processes, and since there was concern over the use of IPINs in the balance of plant, he did not want to worry about the use of IPINs when remedial soils work recommenced later that month.1201 433. Only shortly before formal discussions of the
-DGB Inspection findings were held at the enforcement conference on January 18, 1983, did Consumers Power. Company become aware B
of the Staff's specific concern that IPIN practices could result in missed inspections.1202 The identification of this IPIN issue as a special concern to the Staff occurred the day
'before the enforcement conference and was based upon a review 03 of the DGB Inspection findings by senior I&E management.
After the January 18 discussions, Mr. J. Cook directed Roy Wells to start an investigation to determine how IPINs were being used,1204 and Mr. Wells formally terminated the use of IPINS for all non-soils related work on January 25, 1983.1205 434. Mr. Wells specifically directed the IPIN task force to review QC inspection procedures (focusing on the IPIN process), to determine how inspectors had been implementing the procedures in practice, to determine what management instruc-1 01 Meisenheimer, Tr. 19697. 1202-Wells, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 9-10, following Tr. 18027. 1203 J. Cook, Tr. 18273. 1204 Wells, prepared testimony on quality assurance at l p. II,.following Tr. 18027. 1205 L Ij!. at pp. 12-13; Consumers Power Exhibit No. 38. l l
-293-
'tions had been issued regarding the use of IPINs, and to sum-marize the effects that the use of IPINs had or may have had on the integrity of the inspection process.1206 (The task force's findings are fully described in Consumers Power's response to NOV EA83-3.1207) 435. The task force determined that the return option was a process in which, if a QCE conducting an initial inspec-tion determined that parts or components covered by a given inspection activity had a large number of nonconforming condi-tions, the QCE had the option of terminating the inspection before completing the activity and returning the hardware to construction for rework after all observed deficiencies were documented on an IPIN. The task force concluded that the return option, by itself, would not have resulted in a missed inspection, so long as the QCE engaged in closing out the Inspection Record ("IR") followed the written procedure by satisfying himself that all items included in the activity, but not encompassed by the IPIN, were in fact inspected (either personally or by the QCE originating the IPIN). Some QCE's (not more than 10% of those the task force contacted) lacked a full understanding of the requirement to satisfy themselves that all items on an activity had been fully inspected before closing that IR activity with an IPIN. This misunderstand-1206 Id. at pp. 11-12.
1207 See B. Peck, prepared testimony, Attachment 1, following Tr. 18921. 1208 B. Peck, prepared testimony, Attachment 1 at pp. Al-7, following Tr. 18921.
-294-i ing may have been induced in part by the fact that the IPIN procedures failed to specify how the return option should be handled, either initially or in closing out IR activities.1209 l
l 436. As a recult of the task force's findings, Con-sumers Power Company committed to extensive corrective actions. All QCEs will now be explicitly instructed in this recurtifica-tion training to complete all inspections and document all conditions observed on NCRs. Consumers will also perform a 100% verification of all past QC inspections which involved an IPIN, regardless.of whether or how the IPIN was dispositioned. 210 437. In May, 1983, Consumers Power Company directed its effort at resolving the Staff's specific concerns with past IPINs to the soils area. Soils QA personnel questioned all soils QCEs remaining on site concerning the use of the return y option. They determined that even though some QCEs had used l the return option, the practice of soils QCEs had been to l perform a 100% reinspection of the inspection attribute after l an IPIN had been generated.1211 QA in any event performed a 100% reinspection of irs with IPINs (where attributes were accessible). Becsuse a large majority of soils work has been 2 subject to QA overinspection, the NRC has allowed Consumers Power to take credit for reinspection where there has been a 1209 See Id. at p. Al-1. 1210 Wells, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 12-13, following Tr. 18027. 1 Meisenheimer, Tr. 19645. 212 Meisenheimer, Tr. 19696.
-295-100% QA overinspection and the records show that all of the work was overinspected and completed.1 13 As a result of these efforts, Consumers Power Company has determined that there was no work relating to soils in which IPINs were misused such that a partial inspection was done and the reinspection missed inspecting some activities not encompassed by the IPIN.1214 B. NOV EA83-3 Item B - Other DGB Inspection Findings 438. Bruce Peck and Walter Bird of Consumers Power presented testimony concerning Consumers Power's response to Item B of the NOV. A panel of NRC staff witnesses also testi-fied concerning the miscellaneous items of the DGB inspection.
However, the NRC Staff at the time when they testified had not yet finalized their response to the Applicant's response to NOV EA83-3.1215 439. Since Consumers Power admitted fully all but two examples of the violaticns cited in Item B of the NOV, many of these issues were not explored at all on cross-examination. However, certain of the issues were discussed in detail. These items include the following: 1) the 16,000 inspection backlog, ! 2) the DGB exhaust system, 3) Armor stone for the perimeter i dike, and 4) the use of field change notices ("FCNs") and field change requests (FCRs") in place of the use of nonconformance reports ("NCRs"). 1213 Meisenheimer, Tr. 19703. .
- 1214 Meisenheimer, Tr. 19654.
1215 Gardner and Shafer, Tr. 14399-14400. E
-296-
- 1. Inspection backlog 440. In the cover letter to NOV EA83-3, Mr. Keppler referred to a backlog of almost 16,000 inspections. The letter indicated that this backlog resulted from management not schedul-Ing inspections in a timely and efficient manner.1216 441. In response to the Staff's concern about the backlog of inspections, Consumers Power reviewed the status of inspection records. The results of this review were documented in Consumers Power's response to NOV EA83-3.1217 The review disclosed that approximately 16,000 inspection records remained open, but only in about 1,200 of these cases was work ready for
_further inspection. Therefore, the actual backlog of uncom-pleted inspections was 1,200.1218 Mr. Bird testified that this analysis of the open inspection records would probably not have been available to the Staff prior to the submittal of the NOV 1
'EA83-3 response.1219 Moreover, Mr. Bird testified that he did not consider the actual backlog of 1,200 inspections to be un-usual.1220 Staff testimony did not dispute this conclusion.
l 2. DGB exhaust muffler system l-442.. Item B-2.a of NOV EA83-3 cited Consumers Power for failure to indicate material identity of the installed - 1216 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment 3 at p. 1. following Tr. 15114. B. Peck, prepared testimony, Attachment I at p. A2-3, L following Tr. 18921. 1218 Id. 9 See also Bird, Tr. 19058-19059. Bird, Tr. 19046-19047. l O Bird, Tr. 19019.
I I
-297-muffler saddle supports and plates for the DG exhaust system in design drawings and specifications.1221 In its March 10, 1983 response to.this item, Consumers Power stated that the noncon-forming condition was indeterminate and that further informa-tion was being requested from the vendors.1222 In its June 24, 1983 response, Consumers Power stated that new information had just been received from the vendor and was being evaluated.1223 On July 12, 1983, the Applicant admitted this violation and explained the reasons for the violation and the corrective action which was planned.1224 443. Mr. R. Cook stated that he and other members of the NRC believed the first response to item B-2.a was inappro-priate because they were of the opinion that adequate informa-tion was available to Consumers Power to respond fully in the March 10, 1983 letter.1225 Mr. Peck explained that the delay in responding to this item of concern resulted from the fact that Consumers Power had to research the documentation of two j levels of subsuppliers in order to develop its response.1226 l
l 1221 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Enclosure to Attachment 3 at p. 5, following Tr. 15114. i 1222 l B. Peck, prepared testimony, Attachment 1 at p. j A2-19, following Tr. 18921. 1223 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 49, Attachment 1 at p. 4. 1224 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 51, Attachment 1. 1225 R. Cook, Tr. 19505. 1226 B. Peck, Tr. 19560-19561.
-298-444. Mr. R. Cook also expressed concern about the adequacy of the specifications for the DG exhaust muffler saddle supports and plates which were supplied by Bechtel to the vendor, TransAmerica DeLaval, Inc. ("TDI"). In response to questioning from counsel for the NRC, Mr. R. Cook stated that he did not perform a complete review of all the informa-tion which Bechtel supplied to TDI in ordering this material.
Therefore, he was unable to conclude whether or not Bechtel provided TDI with sufficient information so that, if TDI had performed properly, the right materials would have been pro-vided.1227 Later, Mr. R. Cook testified that Bechtel's failure to specify te TDI that the components were to be subject to the QA requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, contributed to the problem.1228 However, Mr. R. Cook was unaware of the QA specifications which were supplied to TDI by Bechtel.1229 In addition, Mr. R. Cook was unwilling to testify that the procure-30 and he agreed ment procedure used by Bechtel was deficient, i that the specifications supplied by Bechtel included all of the codes and standards which would be applicable to seismic Cate-gory I components of the DG exhaust silencer .=ystem. 445. Consumers Power admitted the violation stated in l Item B-2.a and explained that the violation was the result of a 1227 R. Cook, Tr. 19503-19505. 1228 R. Cook, Tr. 19530.
- 1229 R. Cook, Tr. 19553; see B. Peck, Tr. 19573-19574.
1230 R. Cook, Tr. 19530. 231 .R. Cook, Tr. 19532-19533.
-299-failure by TDI to properly implement design intenc and a fail-ure by Bechtel project engineering to properly recognize and correct the problem.
232 Because Bechtel lacked the expertise to design and construct a DG system, a performance oriented specification was used to procure the DG system from TDI.1233 The procurement documents included performance specifications which specified that QA requirements applied to all components and assemblies of the DG system which affected the reliability and ability of the equipment to perform its design function. The package of procurement documents also included the codes, standards, and QA requirements which TDI was to follow for such components and assemblies.1234 The specifications required that TDI submit a list of the components and assemblies it considered to be Q to Bechtel project engineering for review.1235 TDI failed to classify the muffle saddle supports and plates as Q, and project engineering failed to properly review the list of-Q items proposed by TDI which would have revealed this 1 36' Consumers Power acknowledged that it was ultimately error. l responsible to the NRC for these errors. 1 32 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 51 Attachment 1 at p. 2; ! B. Peck, Tr. 19558-19559. 1233 B. Peck, Tr. 19566; Consumers Power Exhibit No. 51. 1234 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 51 Attachment 1 at pp. 2-3; B. Peck, Tr. 19566, 19573-19574, 19470-19471. See also R. Cook, Tr. 19532-19533. l 1235 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 51 Attachment 1 at p. 2; B.~ Peck, Tr. 19471-19472. 36 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 51 Attachment 1 at pp. 2-l 3; B. Peck, Tr. 19558-19559. 237 B. Peck, Tr. 19479-19480, 19483, 19559. _ _ _ _ . . ~ _ ~ ~
-300-446. As part of the response to this NOV EA83-3 Item, Consumers Power stated that Bechtel project engineering was investigating to determine whether TDI had failed to specify other components as Q which should have been Q. For all per-formance-oriented procirements, a review is being done to verify that safety related items were designated as such by the vendors in accordance with design requirements.1238 In addi-tion, all rework necessary as a result of this NOV EA83-3 -finding will be done.1239
- 3. Armor Stone 447. Item B-2.f of NOV EA83-3 charged that the Armor Stone for a Q portion of the perimeter dike was purchased with- <
out quality controls.1240. Dr. Landsman expressed concern that placement of non-Q Armor Stone could impair the integrity of the dike and impact the ultimate heat sink.1241 Consumers Power admitted this violation and determined that it was the result of failure to translate NRC requirements into design and pro-curement documents. Consumers Power proposed to revise the ! applicable specifications and drawings to ensure that the total I area of the dike adjacent to the ultimate heat is designated Q l l 1 38 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 51 Attachment 1 at pp. 3-4; B. Peck, Tr. 19461-19464, 19475-19476. 1239 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 51 Attachment I at pp. 3-4; B. Peck, Tr. 19480-19482. 1240 B. Peck, prepared testimony, Attachment I at p. 3 A2-26, following Tr. 18921. 1241 Landsman, Tr. 15823-15824. l l l
-301-and that installation of Armor Stone in that area will be per-formed in conformance to Q requirements.1242
- 4. Use of FCNs and FCRs 448. Consumers Power's supplemental response to Item B-4.a of NOV EA83-3 prompted a number of questions concerning the proper use of field change notices ("FCNs") and field 4
change requests ("FCRs"). Witnesses for Consumers Power testified that whenever a nonconforming condition exists after an installation is completed, a noncompliance report ("NCR") must be written. FCNs and FCRs are used as a means of accept-ing work as-is. Before an installation is completed, an FCR or FCN can be written to modify the design documents without an NCR being required. Once construction is completed, if there is a nonconforming condition, then an NCR must be written, even if it is eventually dispositioned to "use as-is." An FCN or FCR may then also be written to document the decision to use as-is and to close out the NCR.1244 C. Conclusions 449. There has been evidence presented that there was a breakdown in QA implementation in connection with the DGB 1242 B. Peck, prepared testimony, Attachment I at p. A2-26, following Tr. 18921. 1243 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 49; B. Peck and Bird, Tr. 18976-18985. 1244 B. Peck and Bird, Tr. 18976-18985. See also, Wells and Rutgers, Tr. 18635-18641.
-302-Inspection. For our purposes, the DGB findings are relevant only to.the extent to which they may reflect programmatic difficulties which may also exist in the soils area. In this regard, we note that the new corrective actions proposed by Consumers Power-(discussed in the next section of these find-ings) appear adequate to resolve both the specific and the generic and programmatic concerns raised. The Board further finds that Consumers Power's actions in response to the find-ings of the DGB inspection, including the initiation of the Construction Completion Program discussed at paragraphs 461 to 503 infra, demonstrate a proper concern for quality assurance on the part of Consumers Power's management. Finally, Consumers Power Company demonstrated responsiveness to NRC Staff concerns by thoroughly investigating the NOV EA83-3 findings to deter-mine the causes of the violations and by responding with com-prehensive proposals for corrective action.
i i d 1.
-303-IV. IMPROVEMENTS IN BALANCE OF PLANT CONSTRUC-TION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION A. Introduction 450. The DGB Inspection was but one of several major developments which pointed-te the need for funciamental changes in the construction and quality assurance organizations for balance of plant work being performed under the direction of Bechtel. A comprehensive plan for the completion of safety related balance of plant work known as the Construction Comple-tion Program ("CCP") evolved from the responses of Consumers Power and the NRC Staff to the balance of plant problems which accumulated during 1982.1245 Before the DGB Inspection, how-ever, there were less comprehensive efforts at improvement directed specifically to QA/QC organization and implementation.
These efforts resulted in significant personnel changes and reorganizations which were ultimately incorporated into the CCP. Nevertheless, because of the importance of the QA and QC changes, and because of their relation to specific findings i relating to QA organization and personnel from the earlier hearings, we develop these separately. B. Changes in the QA/QC Program and Implementation
- 1. Integration of QC into MPQAD 451. In the September 17, 1982 letter (Serial No.
18850) related to balance of plant work, the Applicant proposed 1245 J. Cook, Tr. 18298-18300. See also J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 4, following Tr.~18025.
-304- . assuming the responsibility for directing balance of plant QC functions from Bechtel (in addition to those already assumed for soils and HVAC) by placing the QC function under the direct supervision of MPQAD and by integrating inspection resources of both Bechtel and Consumers Power. This change was implemented on January 17, 1983.1246 The Staff viewed the assumption by Consumers Power of the QC functions of Bechtel for the balance of plant as a positive factor in ensuring an improvement in QA program implementation.1247 The Staff also considered the fact that Consumers Power promptly accepted the Staff's recommenda-tion and that the NRC Staff did not have to order the remedial actioni a positive factor.1248
- 2. MPQAD top management per-sonnel changes 452. In October of 1982, Roy Wells assumed responsi-bility as the Executive Manager, MPQAD. He is located at the site, and MPQAD is his sole responsibility. He reports directly to Mr. J. Cook. The appointment of Mr. Wells took place concur-l 1246 Wells, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 5, following Tr. 18027. Consumers Power Exhibit No. 46 ill-ustrates the current organization of MPQAD.
The September 17, 1982 letter (Serial No. 18850) also discussed a proposed Independent Design and Construction Verifi-cation ("IDCV") which was an expanded approach for assessing the design quality of the project. The IDCV will be discussed infra at paragraphs 493-497. 1247 Keppler, Tr. 15579. 1248 Keppler, Tr. 15657-15661. I t
-305-rently with other changes in the QA organization and was re-ported to this Board via a letter dated November 5, 1982.1249 453. Mr. J. Cook' selected Mr. Wells for the position i of Executive Manager, MPQAD, based on Mr. Wells' performance record as a manager. .The tasks of coordinating the various QA departments.and dealing with the NRC Staff necessitated superior administrative and managerial skills. Mr. J. Cook, after making this assessment and prior to appointing Mr. Wells, discussed his proposal with Messrs. Shafer, Keppler and Warnick.
Mr. J.. Cook stated he would not make the assignment if the NRC e Staff could not be supportive. In response, Messrs. Shafer, Keppler and Warnick agreed to give Mr. Wells a chance and judge him by his subsequent performance.1250 , 1249 Wells, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 2-3, following Tr. 18027. 1250 J. Cook, Tr. 18699-18700.
- Dr. Landsman-expressed some concern regarding the lack of QA experience of certain MPQAD supervisory personnel,
~ including Mr. Wells. The question of Mr. Meiseinheimer's qualifications is addressed supra at paragraph 375. These con-cerns represented the personal opinion of Dr. Landsman and are
~
not.the Staff's official position. The Staff's position on this issue is that there are no regulatory requirements specifying l the' level of quality experience necessary; therefore, the Staff I will nonitor commitments made by MPQAD management until it is satisfied with their performance. R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner l .and Shafer, October:29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to L quality assurance at p. 2, following Tr. 11344; R. Cook, Gardner, ! Landsman and Shafer, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with re- ! spect to quality assurance at.pp. 3-5, following Tr. 14374. Mr. Wells testified as to his qualifications and pointed out that his limited QA background is amply supple-mented by his assistant, Mr. Curland, who has 20 years of QA experience. Wells, Tr. 18197-18199. When questioned specific-ally on whether Mr. Wells was qualified to serve as Executive Manager, MPQAD, the opinions of various Staff members were as (Footnote 1250 continued on page 306) l
-305-454. At the time balance-of-plant QC functions were incorporated under MPQAD, the Applicant sought to fill the supervisory positions with the most qualified personnel. The NRC Staff had expressed concern over having Bechtel QC inspec-tors reporting to Bechtel supervisors.1251 Mr. Wells was aware of the Staff's concern but felt that, at the time, he had the best people for the job. If the organization did not operate (Footnote 1250 continued from page 305) follows: Mr. Shafer -- the head of the Midland Office of Special Cases -- thought Mr. Wells was qualified; Mr. R. Cook thought Mr. Wells was qualified as long as the counsel of people more experienced in QA was available; Mr. Gardner agreed with Mr.
Shafer as long as Mr. Wells performed in an adequate manner. R. Cook, Gardner, Shafer, Tr. 16448-16450. The Staff views Mr. Wells assuming this position as a positive addition in insuring that the QA program at Midland will be implemented in accordance with regulatory requirements. Keppler, Tr. 15577-15579. NRC Staff also addressed incidents of concern involv-ing Mr. Wells which have occurred since his appointment as Executive Manager of MPQAD. One such event involved the Staff's concern that the training and recertification of QC inspectors was-being conducted at too fast a pace. Gardner, Tr. 16686-16689; see also paragraph 454 infra. The Staff also voiced some concern over whether Consumers Power had agreed to perform a 100% reinspection of any inspector who failed a programmatic exam. Mr. Wells stated there was a misunderstanding in this area which was the result of his not having been at the Septem- [ ber 1982 meeting when the issue was discussed. That meeting l was prior in time to his taking over as Executive Manager of MPQAD. Wells, Tr. 18173-18176. A third item addressed by the
. Staff witnesses was Mr. Wells' handling of the problems with In Process Inspection Notices (IPINs). This matter is discussed in paragraphs 429-437 supra. The fourth item addressed by the i Staff witnesses was a change, initiated by Mr. Wells for the purpose of clarification, to a quality trend graph which resulted in the deletion of an annotation which stated that Bechtel QC and Bechtel construction had an agreement not to write IPINs.
Shafer, Tr. 16255-16256. The NRC concluded that there was no intent on the part of MPQAD management to deceive the NRC Staff or to confuse the IPIN issue by changing a quality record. Staff Exhibit No. 18 - Inspection Summary at p. 3; Shafer, Tr. 15961; Wells, Tr. 18184. 1251 R. Cook and Shafer, Tr. 16301-16302.
-307-to his satisfaction, he would then take steps to remove people.
The Staff found Mr. Wells' approach to be acceptable at the 52 We agree. time of hearing. 3 .. Retraining and recertification of QC inspectors 455. As discussed in paragraph 390 supra, the recer-tification program for QC personnel was extended beyond soils to balance of plant. Dr. Landsman and Mr. Gardner testified that they have continued to monitor the training and recertifi-cation of QC inspectors.1253 The NRC expressed concern that training was proceeding too fast in the first quarter of 1983, resulting in unprepared instructors and trainees' questions not being adequately answered.1254 Consumers Power was also aware of these problems and initiated a slow-down in the pace of training which coincided with the NRC Staff's review of this situation. In the early part of March, 1983, a training super-visor suggested to Mr. Wells that training be suspended for one week.1255 Although some disagreement may exist as to the reason behind the initial suspension of training for the one-week period, the Staff did give credit to Applicant for acknow-1 edging the problem, suspending the training program and taking l i 1252 Keppler, Tr. 15616. R. Cook, Gardner, Landsman and Shafer, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at p. 2, following Tr. 14374. I 1254 Id. at pp. 2-3. 1 55 Wells, Tr. 18195-18197. l
. w. _ . _ ,
-308-t steps to improv? it.1256 Applicant was also credited with making the determination to suspend training for a longer period of time after the initial one-week suspension in order to revise the PQCIP to which the QC inspectors were being certified.1257 Dr. Landsman and Mr. Gardner found no signifi-cant problems with any other portion of the retraining and recertification program.1258 456. On January 10, 1983, Mr. J. Cook sent a letter to Region III regarding the Construction Completion Program.
Attached to that letter was a dccument detailing the proposed CCP. Section 3.0 set forth the QA/QC organization changes outlined above and described the recertification process for QC inspectors which had been revised to include commitments made during the September 29, 1982 meeting. The recertification process, originally scheduled for completion on April 1, 1983, embodied certification to Project Quality Control Instructions ("PQCIs") which the inspectors were required to implement and training and examination in accordance with MPQAD Procedure B-3M-1.1259 MPQAD Procedure B-3M-1 was written to provide I l 1256 R. Cook, Gardner, Landsman and Shafer, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at pp.
.2-3, following Tr. 14374.
Gardner, Tr. 16257. R. Cook, Gardner, Landsman and Shafer, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at p. 3, following Tr. 14374. 1259 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment 6 at p. 7, following Tr. 15114.
-309-Consumers Power's commitment to Reg. Guide 158.1 which endorses ANSI N45.2.6, 1978.1260 457. Applicant did not complete recertification of all QC inspectors by April 1, 1983 for sev~ral reasons. Under the CCP, PQcIs are being reviewed and revised as necessary in order to put them into a consistent format and to have specifi-cations clearly set out.1261 On March 7, 1983, Consumers Power suspended training to PQCIs until the PQCIs had been reviewed and revised. After the review and revision process, the PQCIs were to be used as part of the training for QC inspectors.1262 Consumers Power QA engineers are responsible for reviewing and approving the PQCIs. The entire process is subject to review by the NRC Staff. Dr. Landsman testified that he believed the evaluations of PQCIs being undertaken by the QA engineers were 263 adequate. He further testified that in the case of a PQCI which is revised after training has taken place, a determina-tion will be made as to whether training and recertification is nececsary.
64 458. Other factors contributing to the slower than planned recertification were the work shutdown following the DGB inspection and an influx of new inspection personnel for expanded inspections. Regardless of the date of completion of 1260 Bird, Tr. 16981, 17002; Shafer, Tr. 16865. 1261 Wells, Tr. 18658. 1262 Gardner, Tr. 16794-16795. 1263 Id.; Landsman, Tr. 16873. 1264 Landsma's, Tr. 16794-16795.
-310-recertification, no QC inspectors will do an inspection or reinspection until after recertification.1265 459. The Board finds that the recertification program for QC inspectors is being properly implemented. Further, Con-sumers Power has shown initiative in this area and has also been responsive to NRC Staff concerns. The Board has confi-dence that the reorganized MPQAD organization can effectively retrain and recertify QC inspectors and train and certify new QC inspection personnel. The NRC Staff's continuing attention to this matter provides further assurance that QC inspection personnel at the site will be properly qualified both as to general QC requirements and as to specific PQCIs.
- 4. Phase 4 Trend Program 460. When we heard testimony in the summer of 1983, Consumers Power was in the process of making changes to the trending program which were intended to culminate in the Phase 4 trend analysic.1266 The purpose of these changes was to l
develop ~a more statistically sound trend analysis which would be responsive to NRC Staff concerns, the self initiated evalua-I tion findings, and the biennial audit results. Phase 4 was l being designed to detect changes in the rates of nonconformances in selected performance areas and for selected nonconforming ( categories. Data from inspections will be used to generate weekly trend graphs which will display percent defective curves l 1265 Wells, Tr. 18671-18672. ' 1266 Bird, prepared testimo:ty on quality assurance at p. 6, following Tr. 16975; Tr. 19184-19185. l l
-311-and to calculate control limits. In this manner, the Phase 4 program is intended to serve as a near real time indicator of problem areas requiring attention and to provide useful informa-tion for determination of root cause and generation of correc-tive action.1267 Use of a computer to process the data will result in faster detection of problem areas.1268 Reports generated under the Phase 4 pregram will be provided weekly to QA organizations and the line organizations and monthly to 269 management.
C. The Construction Completion Program 461. The CCP is a composite of several tentative programs develuped by Consumers Power in response to develop-ments during 1980. It appears to us that the formal program for the CCP developed principally after the results of the Diesel Generator Buiding ("DGB") Inspection became substan-tially known to Consumers Power, although it incorporated some measures which Consumers Power had previously committed to as a result of earlier interactions with the Region III Staff and other measures which Consumers Power believed were essential to l l successful completion of the plant. l 462. There appear to have been three almost indepen-dent chains of events leading up to the creation of the CCP. l
267 Bird, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p.
! 6-7, following Tr. 16975; Bird, Tr. 19186-19187, 19189, 19191-l 19192. 68 Bird, Tr. 19212-19213. 1269 Bird, Tr. 19190. l
-312-The first chain developed out of Consumers Power's initial response to the Staff's SALP II report. Mr. Keppler, the Regional Administrator, testified in substance that, because of the continued lack of progress in the quality area and because of the Applicant's originally argumentative response (later withdrawn) to the SALP II evaluation, Region III and NRR consulted during the summer of 1982 about possible measures that could be developed to deal with the Midland Project.1 0 463. At a July 26, 1982 meeting with NRR, Mr. Keppler, some members of the Region III Staff, and NRR recommended seeking commitments from Consumers Power (1) to an independent design review, and (2) to independent third party monitoring of QA implementation.1271 Later, however, Mr. Warnick and members of the Office of Special Cases ("OSC") indicated that the real causes of the problems at Midland were unknown and therefore the proposed cure was too specific.1272 The Midland Section of the OSC produced its own different set of recommendations.
These included increased inspection, independent " vertical L slice" review of a safety related system, and having QC report , to Consumers Power instead of to Bechtel.1 However, Darrell 1 i 1270 Keppler, Tr. 15164-15166. See also paragraphs 539-545 infra. 1 1 ( Keppler, Tr. 15165-15166; Keppler, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attach-ment D, Enclosure 3, following Tr. 15111. 2 I Keppler, Tr. 15166-15167; Keppler, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attach-ment D, following Tr. 35111. 3 Keppler, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment D, Enclosure 4, follow-l ing Tr. 15111. l
-313-Eisenhut, Director of Licensing for NRR, was not completely satisfied with the Midland Section's recommendations either 1274 Mr. Keppler testified that he did not at that time adopt any particular set of recommendations as his own position because he had not been able to identify the cause of problems at Mid-land.1275 In fact, Mr. Keppler formed the Midland Section of the Office of Special Cases precisely because he did not know what was not working properly at the site.1276 464. Mr. Keppler did, however, have a meeting with Messrs. Selby and J. Cook of Consumers Power and Messrs. Eisenhut and Novak from NRR on August 26, 1982.1277 ME. Keppler, at that meeting, paraphrased the various recommendations which had 8
been made by the Midland Section and NRR.1 These included an independent design review and independent third party moni-toring of site QA functioning, augmented NRC inspection, moving the QC function from Bechtel's control to Consumers Power's control, and other miscellaneous suggestions.1279 This meeting was the first mention of a new program to Consumers Power.1280 1274 Keppler, Tr. 15178. 1275 _Id. 1276 Landsman, Tr. 14820-14821. 1277 See paragraph 377 supra and sources there cited. l 1278 Id.; Keppler, Tr. 15178. 1279 Keppler, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment C and Attachment D at Enclosures 3 and 4, following Tr. 15111. 1280 Keppler, Tr. 15178-15179.
-314-At this meeting, Mr. Keppler told Consumers Power that it should come up with a program on its own initiative.1281 He did not specify required details of such'a program, but left it to Consumers Power to develop its own alternatives.1 82 465. Consumers Power presented a proposal for a program at a subsequent meeting on September 2, 1982 in a draft letter which reflected in a general way some of the NRC recom-mendations, but which Mr. Keppler and the Staff considered to be lacking in specificity in a number of areas.1283 The Staff reviewed the drafts Consumers Power submitted at the September 2, 1982 meeting, suggested changec, and indicated the need for more detail.1204 'The Consumers Power's draft letters were intended in'part to meet the previously expressed Staff concerns.1285 Mr. Keppler indicated that he would have been concerned had Consuraers Power not come up with a response to the serious con-cerns expressed by the Staff in August,1286 and we conclude that Consumers Power made timely and diligent efforts to respond to the Staff concerns. The dialogue between Consumers Power and the Staff culminated in the letters of September 37, 1982.1287 1
Keppler, Tr. 15190. 1282 Keppler, Tr. 15205-15207. 1 83 Keppler, Tr. 15202-15203. 1284 Keppler, Tr. 15213. 1285 Keppler, Tr. 15217-15219; Stamiris Exhibit No. 65 at
- p. 1.
86 Keppler, Tr. 15212. 1287 See paragraph 378 supra.
-315-466. In the September 17 letter (Serial No. 18550),
- Consumers Power proposed to take over the quality control function for balance of plant and integrate it into MPQAD, to conduct reviews of the " vertical slice" type and of the broad
" horizontal" type using the guidelines of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.1 88 While this review was broader than what the industry standard required at the time,1 89 it did not fully satisfy the Staff.1290 The Construction Imple-mentation overview and the Independent Design and Construction Verification Plan eventually replaced these proposals.1291 467. The second major chain of events leading to the creation of the CCP revolved around construction problems lead-4 ing to the Applicant's realization that, even aside from regula-tory problems, the Project was not making satisfactory progress with construction and system turnovers.1292 Mr. J. Cook testi-fied that this analysis of project progress was the second most important event-leading up to the CCP.1 ' Project management began internally discussing the possibility of organizing con-1200 l
J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance, Attachment 2 at pp. 1-2, following Tr. 18025. Consumers Power had already decided to integrate the soils QC function into MPQAD. See paragraphs 378, 389-390 supra. 1 89 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 3, 18, following Tr. 18025. 1290 Keppler, Tr. 15254-15256. 291 See paragraphs 492-503 infra. l 1292 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 3-4, following Tr. 18025.
'1293 Id.; J. Cook, Tr. 18287.
l l l
-316-struction forces into " teams" as a result of these problems in September, 1982. The team concept was derived from use of a simi-lar concept at the WPPS-2 plant for completion of construction.1294 I
WPPS-2 personnel visited Midland and later, sometime in November, Midland personnel visited WPPS-2.1295 Consumers Power and Bec: 1 management continued to study the team concept during the time the NRC inspectors were conducting the DGB Inspection. The final decision to adopt the team concept was made around Thanksgiving after the November 23 DGB Inspection exit meeting.1296 468. The third, and most important, major factor influencing the decision to institute the CCP was the DGB Inspection. On November 10, 1982, after conducting the initial portion of the DGB Inspection, members of the NRC Midland section team, Messrs. Burgess, R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and
-Shafer, met to discuss their findings.1297 As a result o' the initial DGB Inspection findings, the inspectors considered at that meeting the need for shutting down all safety related
- work. Mr. Gardner testified that he believed the NRC Staff l
inspection team was " unanimous" that they had evidence which would allow them to recommend a shutdown.1290 ' Mr. Warnick was 1294 J. Cook, Tr. 18298 . J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 3, following Tr. 18025. 95
-J. Cook, Tr. .18298-18299.
1296 J. Cook, Tr. 18300-18301. 1297 Shafer, Tr. 15066-15067. 1298 Shafer, Tr. 15068-15069. 1299 Gardner, Tr. 15071. l t-I
-317-1 l
aware that the Midland Section wanted to stop work, and he 00 Throughout the conveyed this information to Mr. Keppler. period of the DGB Inspection, the NRC inspection team had weekly " exit" meetings with representatives of Consumers Power at which they discussed problems found during the inspection. The final exit meeting of the first phase of the Inspection on November 23, 1982, was the subject of extensive testimony. At this meeting that the Staff informed Consumers Power that they were going to recommend escalated enforcement action and that there was considerable sentiment within the Midland NRC team for stopping all work.1301 However, the NRC Staff members did not indicate that they had irrevocably decided to recommend issuance of a stop work order,1302 and the Staff sought to allow Consumers Power to recognize the problems found in the DGB Inspection and to take appropriate steps to solve those prob-lems.1303 Consumers Power shut down most safety related work at the site well before the Staff issued its draft report.1304 469. Consumers Power generally agreed with the ap-l proach suggested by the Staff at the November 23, 1982 meeting. l l Consumers Power recognized the magnitude of the problems re-l ( vealed by the DGB Inspection and realized that it needed to 1300 Shafer and Gardner, Tr. 15072; Keppler, Tr. 15543, 15304. 1301 Shafer and Gardner, Tr. 15079-15080; J. Cook, Tr. j 18746-18748. 1302 B. Peck, Tr. 18929. 1303 B. Peck, Tr. 18929-A. 1304 Shafer, Tr. 15074; note 1310 infra. l-
-318-consider stopping work at the site.1305 Consumers Power at that meeting outlined a plan which it was already developing which would also attempt to deal with the problems revealed by the DGB Inspection. The NRC indicated that it would be desirable for Consumers Power to complete the details of this plan so as to address the findings of the DGB Inspection by December 7, 1982 in order to assist Region III in a scheduled meeting with NRR.
470. Mr. J. Cook testified specifically that the multiple findings of the DGB Inspection, taken together, in his mind represented a lack of appropriate discipline and control,1 08 and the perception of that lack was a factor in prompting the decision to institute the CCP.1309 471. Consequently, on or about December 2, 1982, Consumers Power stopped balance of plant safety related work at the site, except for NSSS installation by Babcock & Wilcox Co., HVAC installation by Zack Company (with QA/QC provided by Consumers Power); post-system-turnover work under the direct control of Consumers Power; and hanger and cable reinspections already being conducted under separately established commitments l 1305 J. Cook, Tr. 18400-18401, 18412-18413, 18530; B. Peck, Tr. 18929-B. 1306 B. Peck, Tr. 18929-B - 18929-C. l 1307 _I_d. 308 J. Cook, Tr. 18412-18413. 309 Id.; J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 3, following Tr. 18025. See also para-graphs 524-525 infra. l
-319-to the NRC. Soils remedial work continuci under the Work Authorization Procedure, and design and engineering support work continued as well. In addition, on that date, Consumers Power presented its concept.of the Construction Completion Program to the NRC.1311 This program was developed, inter alia, to address the programmatic and generic QA/QC concerns raised in the second item of the Notice of Violation.
472. Consumers Power Company recognized the need for d Comprehensive plan to improve QA implementation in the pro-ject so as to complete construction in accordance with regula-tory requirements. The CCP presented a comprehansive and systematic plan for resolving the problems of the project.1313
- 1. The CCP Proper 473. A major feature of the CCP is the Quality Verifi-cation Program ("QVP"), sometimes referred to in the testimony as the " backward look." As Mr. Keppler testified, a logical
- step at Midland was to require construction verification and review of activity in progress.1314 After the DGB Inspection, Consumers Power added to its proposals a complete review of all l
1310 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality j assurance at pp. 5, 16 and Attachment 1 - CCP Plan Document l Section 9.0 at p. 20, following Tr. 18025. 1311 _Id. 312 B. Peck, prepared testimony at p. 2, following Tr. 18921. See also paragraph 427 supra. 1313 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance, Attachment 1, following Tr. 18025. 1314 Keppler, Tr. 15508. t
-320-completed safety related work independent of the " vertical slice."1315 For the purpose of providing the necessary assur-ance that regulatory requirements are met on the Midland pro-ject, the QVP includes a complete backward look at installed i
components and materials in safety related portions of the plant. The proposal for a " backward look" was formally put forward in a January 10, 1983 letter.1316 The QVP was not part of the September 27 letter nor was the idea raised in the September discussions with the Staff.1317 474. An important aspect of the CCP (as finally 8 documented) was the integration of balance-of-plant QC into MPQAD, thus placing the entire quality control function under Consumers Power's direct management for the first time. As previously noted,1319 the Midland Section had recommended that Consumers Power take over the quality control function from Bechtel in the late summer of 1982. Consumers Power had, in 1981, taken over the QC function for the Zack Company, the subcontractor for the heating, ventilating, and air condition-ing (HVAC) work. In addition, Consumers Power had previously O integrated the soils QC function into MPQAD. Thus there 1315 Keppler, Tr. 15270-15272. 1316 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance, Attachment 1 at p. 1, following Tr. 18025. See also Shafer, Tr. 16023-16026. - 1317 Keppler, Tr. 15269. 1318 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 48. 1319 See paragraphs 377-378, 464 supra. 1320 Id.; Cook, Tr. 18210-18211, 18214.
-321-was ample precedent for Consumers Power to rely on in taking over balance of plant QC.
475. The idea of a third party overview of QA imple-mentation first appeared in the NRR-Region III August sugges-tions 1321 which were probably conveyed to Consumers Power in paraphrased form, but the two Consumers Power September 17, 1982 letters for both soils and balance of plant focused on a broader type of third party review for the continuation of work.1322 Mr. J. Cook testified that both the Staff and Consumers Power came up with the idea of using third party reviews because such reviews have become "a way of doing busi-ness in the current environment."1323 476. At some time after the completion of the DGB In-spection, the Staff asked Consumers Power to take the new pro-posals it had developed for the CCP and put them together with the prior proposals, especially overview, contained in the September 17, 1982 letter in one package to facilitate NRC review.1324 When Consumers Power stopped work at the site, they presented orally to the Staff at the site the features of the augmented CCP.1 The Staff, probably after the Decem-ber 7, 1982 meeting between Region III and NRR, requested that 1321 See paragraph 380 supra. 1322 Keppler, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachments E & F, following Tr. 15111. Keppler, Tr. 15269-15272. 1323 J. Cook, Tr. 18302. 1324 Keppler, Tr. 15272. 1325 Keppler, Tr. 15279.
-322-the Applicant combine the new material with the older proposals from September in a single document.1326 The request may have taken place later in December.1327 The result was Consumers Power's January.10, 1983 letter setting forth the plan now known as the CCP.1328 The January 10 letter was a composite which included some proposals from the September 17 letter, some from a later October 4, 1982 letter, and the third party . 1329 review program.
477. As conceived in the January 10 letter, the CCP established a number of goals. Mr. J. Cook set these forth in his testimony: significantly reduce safety-related con-struction by the prime contractor and clear the plant of construction equipment and materials in affected areas; review equipment status to assure that proper layup precautions are in place; , absorb the prime contractor's Quality Control function into the Company's QA department and reorganize to assure effec-tive management and single point account-ability; l l recertify quality control inspcetors and strengthen the inspection process; , bring quality inspections up to date: 1326 Keppler, Tr. 15278. 1327 Keppler, Tr. 15280. 1328 Keppler, Tr. 15279. See also J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance, Attachment 1, follow-ing Tr. 18025; Censumers Power Exhibit No. 48. 1329 J. Cook, Tr. 18301-18302.
-323-verify quality inspections on completed work; review the adequacy of certain QA program elements; completely survey the plant and develop an accurate and up-to-date status report on construction completion; reorganize the construction production forces into teams on a system or area basis to conduct the status assessment; complete construction under the direction of the same team that carried out the statusing; provide for a formal management review program to monitor CCP activities; and establish a third-party review.1330 478. The CCP tasks are broken down into two phases.
The goals of Phase 1 are to obtain a definitive picture of exactly what work had been completed as of the shutdown and simultaneously to conduct a definitive review of the adequacy of past quality inspections of completed work via reinspection and review of quality documentation. The goal of Phase 2 l is completion of construction under an improved quality assurance-quality control program which will assure that remaining work 332 The plant is to be conforms to designs and specifications. divided into many distinct segments or " modules" and a con-i 1330 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality l assurance at pp. 5-6, following Tr. 18025.
- 1331
- Id. at p. 6.
1332 Id. i I I
-324-
, struction team, including a QA representative, will be assigned to each system or area.1333
- 479. In the January 10 submittal, Consumers Power broke'down the elements o'f the CCP into eight headings
- prepara-tion of the plant, QA/QC organization changes, program plan-i 'ning, program implementation, quality program review, third parcy reviews, system layup, and continuing work activities.1334 Preparation of the plant and system layup took place in Decem-ber, 1982'and January and February, 1983. These activities consisted of clearing the safety related buildings of tools, equipment, uninstalled materials, and debris, and protecting completed systems or portions thereof from deterioration during the period of inactivity.1335
~
Certain safety-related work,
'specifically NSSS work, HVAC installation, Consumers Power's own post system' turnover work, hanger and cable reinspections under prior separate commitments to the NRC, and remedial soils work were not included within the scope of the CCP or the 6
December 2 work stoppage. 480. We have already noted that in August of 1982 l l. 1 Consumers Power took over the QC function in the soils area and [ -pla'ced it under the direction of Mr. Meisenheimer, the Soils
~
Quality Superintendent. Mr. J. Cook's September 17 letter 1333 Id. J1334; Id.'at p. 7. 335~ Id..at'pp. 7-8, 16. 1336 Id.-at p. 16. _I 1
I
-325-l (Serial No. 18850) documented Consumers Power's commitment to extend this reform to balance of plant work. Consumers Powers carried forward that commitment into the CCP. Consumers Power
( advised the NRC Staff of the structure of the new QA organiza-tion on December 15, 1982 and placed the new organization into effect on January 17, 1983.1337 481. Mr. Wells described the new organization, which he heads, and its staffing. Mr. Wells, as Executive Manager of MPQAD reports directly to Mr. J. Cook, and the top echelon QA managers now report to Mr. Wells. These include Mr. Bird, Manager of the Quality Services and Audit Division, Mr. Friedrich, QC Division Superintendent, Mr. Curland, Principal Technical Advisor, Mr. Meisenheimer, Remedial Soils Division Superintendent, Mr. Leonard, Plant Assurance Division General Superintendent, and Mr. Ewert, Administration and Training l Division Head.1338 Mr. Wells testified that the integration of QC into MPQAD was important, but that it alone would not lead I
- to an improved QA organization. The integration coupled with l all the other steps Consumers Power had taken would, however, l
i lead to a stronger organization. Further, the integration of QC into-MPQAD would create single point accountability for the entire quality activity.1339 Mr. Wells has that single point I 337 Id. at p. 8; Stamiris Exhibit No. 48. 1338 Wells, Tr. 18015-18019; Consumers Power Exhibit No. 46; Wells, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 5 and i Attachment 2,.following Tr. 18027. 1339 Wells, Tr. 18208-18210. l
-326-of accountability.1340 In addition to these organizational changes, the CCP includes a quality program review, which is directed toward resolving the generic issues raised by the DGB Inspection.1341 As Mr. Gardner from Region III stated, in order for the Staff to assess favorably the adequacy of the CCP verification program, Consumers Power had to address, in the program, areas of potential nonconformance which might exist in the plant but had not yet been identified as indicated by the DGB Inspection.1342 482. Program planning and program implementation represent the heart of the CCP. Phase 1 and Phase 2 both have planning and implementation aspects. Phase 1 planning consists of planning a team organization for each " module" to conduct the assessment status of construction. It also includes plan-ning for the reinspection program of completed work (conducted 4
by MPQAD, not the teams) which constitutes the QVP. Phase 1 implementation involves executing the plans for those two I activities. Phase 2 planning involves developing work pro-cedures for the completion of construction and establishing ! scheduling taethods as well as training team members. Again, implementation simply means execution of those plans.1344 The 1340 Wells, Tr. 18668. 1341 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 15, following Tr. 18025. See paragraphs 426-449 supra. 1342 Gardner, Tr. 15026-15027. 1343 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality l assurance at pp. 9-11, following Tr. 18025. 1344 Id. at 12-14.
-327-CCP also involves management reviews at the end of both Phase 1 planning and Phase 2 planning.1345 483. Of the various aspects of the CCP, the details of the QVP are among the most important to the Board. First, the " team" members do not perform the QVP reinspection;1346 rather, retrained and recertified QC inspectors do the rein-spection.1347 484. For inaccessible systems, documentation review will be performed.1348 Mr. Shafer testified that currently accessible systems will not be made inaccessible because Consumers Power will not start additional work on those systems until the reinspection is completed.1349 Moreover, there was in the past a program to do a 100% reinspection of rebar in concrete, one of the major inaccessible items.1350 Originally, Consumero Power did not propose to do a 100% reinspection of accessible past work; rather, it wished to use a sample approach until some predetermined fraction of deficiencies appeared.1351 The NRC Staff, however, urged 100% reinspection, and Mr. Keppler ultimately testified that 100% reinspection would be required 1345 Id. at 14.
1346 Rutgers and Wells, Tr. 15316-18317. 1347 Wells, Tr. 18670-18673. 1348 Gardner, Tr. 16046; J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 12, following Tr. 18025. 1349 Gardner and Shafer, Tr. 16085-16087. 1350 Gardner, Tr. 16753; R. Cook, Tr. 16755-16756. 1351 Gardne9 -en Tr. 16040.
-328-unless Consumers Power could justify a lesser amount to the Staff's satisfaction.1352 Consumers Power did ultimately commit to 100% reinspection of closed inspection records for accessible systems.1353 This 100% reinspection will cover closed IPINs and DRs as well as NCRs.1354 There is a provision in the QVP for Consumers Power to ask the NRC Region III that reinspection be reduced below 100% if a sufficient baseline of low deficiencies is established.1355 485. Mr. J. Cook agreed that the QVP is necessary to remove any doubt about the adequacy of past construction.1356 According to Mr. Wells, the QVP will verify the quality of all hardwart; installed and inspected before December 2, 1983.1357 d In this manner, the QVP will assist us in reaching a licensing decision for the Midland Plant. A document review for inaccessi-ble items is part of the process.1358 The Applicant conducted a management review of the QVP in April of 1983 and found that 352 Keppler, Tr. 15383-15384. J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance, Attachment 4, follow-l ing Tr. 18025.
1353 Shafer, Tr. 16801; Wells, Tr. 18662-18665; J. Cook, Tr. 18329-18330; Consumers Power Exhibit No. 48. 1354 J. Cook, Tr. 18490; Wells, Tr. 18492, 18560-1G561; 1 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 48, Attachment 1 at pp. 11-12. 1355 Wells, Tr. 18556-18562; Consumers Power Exhibit r No. 48, Attachment 1. 1356 J. Cook, Tr. 18375-18378. 1357 Wells, Tr. 18254-18257, 1358 _Id.
-329-some additional work needed to be done on the program before it could begin.1359 486. Another issue which the June 10 letter resolved was the issue of NRC hold points; the NRC Staff wanted explicit 60 hold points, and Consumers Power put them in. The June 10 letter also established some specific third party 1361 hold points.1362 The third party will audit the accuracy of the management reviews necessary to initiate Phase 1 of the CCP.
There are additional hold points at the end of all Phase 1 Management Reviews in conjunction with the release of Phase 2 work. 487. Another issue regarding the appropriateness of the structure of the CCP was the presence of QA representative on construction completion teams. A question was raised that the required independence of QA personnel could be compromised by this arrangement. However, Mr. J. Cook indicated that the QA team representative would only take schedule direction from team management; all substantive QA direction would come from O MPQAD management. Furthermore, Mr. Gardner of the Region III Inspection Staff testified that he did not believe that the l presence of QA or QC personnel on teams violated 10 C.F.R. i 1 0' J. Cook and Wells, Tr. 18344-18347. 1360 J. Cook, Tr. 18327-18330. 1361 See paragraph 502 infra. L 1362~ J. Cook, Tr. 18333-18341. 1363 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 7, following Tr. 18025. i c -
-330-64 Thus we find the proposed arrangement Part 50, Appendix B.
to be acceptable. 488. Mr. Keppler in general appeared to be enthu-siastic about the CCP. He stated, for example, that if the CCP and related overview programs had been in place our April 30, 1982 Order might not have been necessary.1365 He stated that he did not want a work authorization procedure for the balance of plant work like that used to approve soils work.1366 He also testified concerning the extensiveness of the steps being taken at Midland, including the third-party review of all ongoing work in soils and balance of plant, a major quality verification program also overviewed by a third party, plus intense scrutiny by the NRC Midland Section.1367 Mr. Keppler believed that NRC Staff oversight, coupled with the other programs, gave him the confidence necessary for allowing work to proceed at the site.1368 489. This effort should be sufficient to provide confidence to the.NRC Staff, the Board, and the public that the l plant will be completed in accordance with regulatory require-ments.1369 Mr. Keppler volunteered to return personally during 1364 Gardner, Tr. 16072-16075. 1365 Keppler, Tr. 15673. 366 Keppler, Tr. 15625-15629. [ 67 Keppler, Tr. 15626-15627. 1368 Keppler, Tr. 15509-15510. 1369 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at pp. 5-6, following Tr. 15114.
-331-the OL phase of the licensing hearings to inform us as to how the CCP is working.1 O With those programs, the number of NRC Staff members assigned to oversee Midland, he said, was suffi-cient.1371 Mr. Keppler, in noting that Consumers Power will manage the QVP,1372 indicated that it was important that Consumers Power have this responsibility because the Applicant will ultimately have to to run the plant a:id determine quality issues involved in that undertaking.1373 Mr. Keppler recalled saying at the February 8, 1983 public meeting in Midland that he believed that comprehensive programs would prove completed construction at Midland to be sound.1374 The basis for this statement was the QVP, the third party overviews, and the inde-pendent design and construction reviews (vertical slice).1375 490. Other Staff members testified as to their confi-dence as well. Mr. Gardner testified that independent overview of a construction completion program was a unique feature of the Midland program.1376 Messrs. Harrison and R. Cook testified that, although they had observed a decline in QA performance at Midland since 1981, the new controls put in place gave them confidence that the plant could be completed properly.1377 i
Keppler, Tr. 15631-15632. 1371 Keppler, Tr. 15352. l Keppler, Tr. 15376. 373 Keppler, Tr. 15378. 1374 Keppler, Tr. 15381. Keppler, Tr. 15382. 1 6 Gardner, Tr. 16751. 1377 R. Cook, Tr. 21185-21188. t
-332-491. The Staff had recommended that Mr. Keppler lock Consumers Power into the CCP 'with a confirmatory order, so that Consumers Power could not deviate from the Program without Staff approval.1378 Mr. Keppler indicated that there would probably be some sort of confirmatory order when the CCP was approved.1379 He felt that the CCP was very close to approval in May, when he testified.1380 We observe that Richard DeYoung, Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, issued a " Confirmatory Order for Modification of Construction Permits (Effective Imme-diately)" on October 6, 1983.1381 This order modifies the Midland Construction Permits to require Consumers Power to ad-4 here to the CCP subject to certain conditions. The Board is
- encouraged by the development and Staff approval of the CCP and we find no need to impose additional formal constraints regard-ing the CCP on Consumers Power in the form of a Board order.1382 l
- 2. Third party reviews ,
- a. Introduction l
492. During the summer of 1982, Consumers Power began l planning some type of independent review, recognizing that the 1 NRC had recently begun requiring similar assessments from all l 1378 ,Shafer, Tr. 15043. 1379 Keppler, Tr. 15125-15126. 1380 Keppler, Tr. 15675. 1381 Attachment to Letter from Michael Wilcove to the Board and parties, dated December 15, 1983. 82 We note that, under the Confirmatory Order, the Regional Administrator'has the discretion to modify or eliminate require-ments of the CCP, including those concerning third party reviews.
l
-333-other nuclear plants nearing completion.1383 On July 9, 1982 the NRC Staff made a formal request for such a review at Midland.1384 In October, Consumers Power made an initial proposal for the review which included (1) a design verifica-tion by an independent reviewer; (2) the Consumers Power bien-nial QA program audit conducted by MAC; and (3) a self-initiated construction project evaluation ("SIE") to be coordinated through INPO, an industry group.1385 The Staff advised Consumers Power that it could not accept the MAC biennial audit or the SIE as part of the review because MAC lacked sufficient 6 However, another independence under the Palladino criteria.
independent review covering non-soils construction, the Con-struction Implementation Overview ("CIO"), was added later as part of this CCP.1387 Mr. Keppler considers these third party reviews essential to his " reasonable assurance" that the past and current work at Midland is properly done.1388
- b. IDCVP
, 493. The Independent Design and Construction Verifi-I cation Program ("IDCVP") is an examination of all aspects -- 1 l 1383 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 6 and 17-18, following Tr. 18025; J. Cook, Tr. 18301-18302. l 1384 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 18, following Tr. 18025. 385 Id. at p. 18 and Attachment 5. 386 Id. at p. 18; Keppler, Tr. 15254-15255. J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality l assurance at p. 19, following Tr. 18025. 1388 Keppler, Tr. 15131, 15134-15135, 15382-15383.
-334-l historical and current -- of the design and construction of several selected safety-related systems.1389 It is a so-called " vertical slice" review to ensure that the particular system will function in riccordance with its safety design bases and that the licenring commitments attendant to it have been imple-mented properly.1390 Initially, Consumers Power proposed that the IDCVP only involve the Unit 2 Auxiliary Feedwater System.1391 However, the NRC Staff suggested that other systems be in-cluded.1392 In December 1982, Consumers Power expanded the IDCVP to cover the diesel generator electric power system and the habitability aspects of the control room HVAC as well. 393 In the design area, the review will consist of an examination of each system's design criteria and commitments, implementa-tion documents, calculations and evaluations, combination of calculations or evaluations, and drawings and specifications.1394 In the construction area, the review will involve an examina- -tion of supplier documents, storage and maintenance documents, construction installation documents, verification activities l
395 Further, and verification of physical configuration. 1389 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 19-20, following Tr. 18025. 1390 _I_d. 1391 _I_d_ . 1392 Keppler, Tr. 15256-15250. 1393 J. Cook, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 20-22 and Attachment 6, following Tr. 18025. 1394 Id. at p. 22. 1395 Id. at pp. 22-23.
-335-Consumers Power committed E.o augment the scope of the IDCVP in order to accons.odate design review findings with generic implica-tions including any additional areas of other systems.1396 494. Consumers Power chose the TERA Corporation
(" TERA"),'a firm which specializes in providing consulting services for all areas of the nuclea'r industry, to complete Midland's IDCVP. TERA was seleSted from among a group of three potential contractors.1397 It was selected for the strength of its technical compe"ence and QA program and its direct experi-ence with other similar review programs at such nuclear plants as Diablo Canyon, Grand Gulf and Palo Verde.1398 The TERA team assigned to Midland includes personnel experienced in mechani-cal, electrical, structural and thermal hydraulic evaluations of system design.1399 The TERA review taam meets the indepen-dence standard set out in the Palladino Criteria.1400
~
495. In March 1983, the NRC Staff issued a protocol for IDCVP communications among all the parties; Consumers Power instructed TERA to develop procedures embracing the protocol l concepts.1401 The results of the TERA team's IDCVP will be re-l ported concurrently to the NRC and Consumers Power through the l i 1396 Id. at p. 23. 1397 . at p. 20. l
- l. 1398
_Id. 1399 . at p. 21. 1400 . at p. 21; see also pa.y.gg.p, <33 supra. 1401 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 24 and Attachment 4 at Enclosure I, following
-Tr. 18025.
i
-336-issuance of findings and the submission of a final report.1402 This procedure was issued by TERA in its QA Plan on November 11, 1982 and submitted to the NRC Staff on February 9, 1983.1403 496. As of the presentation of the testimony, TERA had becun the design verification of the Auxiliary Feedwater
("AFW") System; it has already issued an initial status report, with findings, based on'this examination.1404 The design verification of the diesel generator electric power system and habitability aspects of the control room HVAC had not yet begun at the time of the testimony.1405 TERA's construction verifi-cation will not continue until the CCP, Phase 1 activities to determine installation and inspection status of the systems, has been implemented.1406 497. In the initial TERA report, the only finding Consumers Power censidered significant at the time of the hearings was that the plant design requirements calling for the AFW equipment to be battery powered had not been met.1407 The TERA report made several other findings: one related to the ! adequa y of the nuclear steam supply system ("NSSS") perfor-1402 Id. at p. 24. I 1403 Id. 1404 Id. at p. 23; J. Cook, Tr. 18359-18364; Stamiris Exhibit No. 101. 1405 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 23-24, following Tr. 18025. 1406 Id. at p. 24. l 1407 Cook, Tr. 18360-18361. J.
-337-mance requirement for the AFW system; another involved the feed only good generator systems performance during a steam genera-tor tube failure folloved by loss of off-site power; another concerned the fact that a horizontal snubber hanger was found some distance from its design location.le^a '
Fine of these had previously been discovered by Bechtel or Consumers Power.1409 However, at the time of the testimony, Consumers Power had not yet completed its investigation of the TERA findings and could not confirm whether these items were correct or significant.1410 For example, in its partially completed review of the hanger finding, Consumers Power discovered that there were approved design drawinge for the hangers and it is possible the TERA team was unaware of the change process.1411 Finally, the TERA team also found some interface problems between Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) and Bechtel. 4 That problem had also been noted in a 1982 Bechtel design review, but only as a general state-ment of industry concern.1413 Consumers Power expected any design review to be structured so as to address the question.1414 1408 J. Cook, Tr. 18359-18364; Stamiris Exhibit No. 101, Attachment 3, C-005, C-25, C-32. 1400
~
J. Cook and Rutgers, Tr. 18364. l 1410 J. Cook and Rutgers, Tr. 18364-18365. 1411 Rutgers, Tr. 18365. 1412 J. Cook, Tr. 18366.
-1413 J. Cook, Tr. 18366-18372.
1414 _Id. 5
- y - - - . - _ - . . _ , ,
-338-
- c. Construction Implementa-tion Overview 498. The other major third party review is the Con-struction Implementation Overview (CIO), involving observation and evaluation of the site's non-soils construction activi-ties.1415 The CIO was modeled after the construction overview in the soils area; it is intended to provide confidence that the work at the site is performed in accordance with all pro-cedures and requirements and that Consumers Power's CCP commit-ments are fulfilled.1416 Consumers Power initially presented the concept of the CIO to the NRC Staff on December 2, 1982.1417 A short time later, it confirmed the CCP program with the NRC Staff and assured them that the CCP activities would be eval-uated through the process of the CIO.1418 The NRC Region III Administrator presently views the CIO as an essential element of his findings of reasonable assurance that Midland will be constructed in accordance with regulatory requirements.1419 499. Consumers Power chose S&W to act as third party reviewer for the CIO.1420 It had initially considered both TERA and S&W for the contract because both companies were 1415 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 24-25, following Tr. 18025.
1416 _I_d. . 1417 Id. at p. 25. 1418 Id. and Attachment 1 at Enclosure pp. 16-18. 1419 Keppler, Tr. 15131. 1420 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 25, following Tr. 18025.
-339-already familiar with Midland procedures and activities as participants in the IDCVP and the third party soils review.1421 S&W was ultimately selected over TERA because its size and experience better equips it to deal with the scope of the CIO, and because the CIO could interfere with TERA's concurrent in-volvement with the IDCVP.1422 33g.s corporate qualifications of independence and competence have already been discussed in these findings.1423 The NRC Staff has determined that with regard to the Midland Project, S&W has met the Palladino Criteria.1424 500. The particular S&W team assembled to conduct the CIO is competent for the task and independent enough from Con-sumers Power to accomplish it.1425 The team includes members experienced in QA/QC control and construction activities in the electrical, mechanical, instruments and controls, and special 1426 process areas.
501. In the CIO, S&W will assess the adequacy of and compliance with CCP procedures and inspection plans and will review aspects of construction activities.1 Specifically, a 1421 _I_d . 1422 Id. at pp. 25-26. I 1423 See paragraph 303 supra, for a discussion of S&W organizational qualifications and independence from Consumers Power. 1424 _Id. 1425 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality _ assurance at pp. 26-27, following Tr. 18025. 1426 _Id_. 1427 Id. at p. 28.
-340-field team will monitor, at the site, the effectiveness of CCP and other activities, using special procedures, checklists and sampling techniques to evaluate the:
Adequacy of controls and practices in the Quality Assurance Program to determine that design information is incorporated in installed hardware;
- Conformance of installed hardware to design information in specifications and drawings; Completeness of Consumers Power's and Bechtel's. procedures regarding construction activities, personnel qualifications, training programs, and organizational practices; Compliance of the CCP Teams with prescribed procedures; Compliance of Quality Control personnel with procedures; Compliance of construction activities with ,
procedures. 1428 The CIO will also include audits of the management reviews of the CCP describcd earlier.1429 502. Finally, in response to an NRC inquiry, Consumers Power included in the CIO commitments to establish key hold points for the third party reviewers, to honor those hold points and to assure that critical parameters of the CCP pro-gram are in place before its next step proceeds.1430 . Certain 1428 _Id. 1429 _Id. 1430 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at Attachment 3, pp. 1-2, following Tr. 18025; J. Cook, Tr. 18327-18330.
-341-of the hold points were formally documented in Consumers Power's letters to the NRC Staff on June 3 and June 10, 1983 and in the CCP itself.1431 Consumers Power has agreed not to go forward with CCP implementation beyond the hold points until the third party reviewer is satisfied, documents the satisfaction and concurs that the CCP should continue.1432 It should be noted that the hold points for the first phase were in place at the time of the hearing.1433 There will probably be similar hold points on the seco d phase.1434 The placement of other hold -
points will be oetermined by Consumers Power with the concur-rence of the NRC Staff.1435 503. S&W will hold weekly progress meetings to dis-cuss its CIO activities with Consumers Power, its contractors 40 In addition, on a monthly basis, the and the NRC Staff. CIO site team will submit their observations to an S&W Senior Overview Committee, comprised of members of S&W's senior manage-ment, for review.1437 However, any serious programmatic observa-tions made by the site team are to be immediately reviewed by 1431 J. Cook, Tr. 18327-18334. 1432 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 28-29 and Attachment 3 at pp. 1-2, following l Tr. 18025; Consumers Power Exhibit No. 48 at pp. 31-32; Cook, ! Tr. 18334. 1433 J. Cook, Tr. 18335-18337. 1434 J. Cook, Tr. 18337-18338. 1435 J. Cook, Tr. 18338-18342. t 436 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 29, following Tr. 18025. 1437 Id.
-342-the Senior Overview Committee to determine if the observation is significant enough to report to Consumers Power and the NRC.1438 After six months of operation, S&W will submit an initial C70 report to both the NRC and Consumers Power, eval-uating the Midland Project's cumulative performance.1439 Based on these findings, Consumers Power will recommend to the NRC whether any modifications should be made to S&W's CIO reponsi-bilities; the modifications must be agreed upon by the NRC.1440 The CIO will continue until Consumers Power and the NRC have confidence in the adequacy of the Midland QA program.1441 D. Conclusion 504. Based on Mr. Keppler's statements in his March 25, 1983 written testimony that, in order to have reasonable assur-ance that Consumers Power can complete the plant in accordance with regulatory requirements, he would need an independent overview of construction, an independent design and construc-tion verification, and NRC Staff oversight of construction.and
.QA activities,1442 all of which are to be found in the CCP, , and, based on the NRC Staff's review and approval of the CCP, 1438 _I_d . 1439 _I_d. 1440 _I_d. 1441 Id. at pp. 29-30. 1442 Keppler, March 25, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance at p. 6, following Tr. 15114. See also notes 1367-1368 at p. 329, supra.
-343-we find that there is reasonable assurance that Consumers Power will complete the balance of plant work properly and will demonstrate that past construction either has been performed in accordance with regulatory requirements or will be replaced with work of requisite quality.
505. This Board finds that the IDCVP and CIO are comprehensive measures formulated by Consumers Power to ensure adequate completion of the Midland facility. We agree with the NRC Staff that the third party overviews and verifications are important to providing reasonable assurance that the plant will operate effectively, safely and in accordance with the quality assurance objectives and requirements of the regulations. We are impressed with the competence and independence of those chosen to conduct the third party assessments -- S&W and TERA. We are similarly impressed with the commitment Consumers Power has made to implement the reviews and integrate their results into the Midland Project. This commitment together with the reviews themselves and the improvements put in place in the soils area give us the requisite assurance that the soile remedial activities will be completed in accordance with all regulatory requirements.
-344-V. ISSUES RELATED TO THE CONTENTIONS 506. We have dealt thus far with the broader aspects of quality assurance implementation in remedial soils work. We have also examined the broad implications of quality assurance problems in belance of plant work and of programs proposed for the resolution of those problems. We have not lost sight, however, of the specific contentions in this phase of the proceeding relating to quality assurance, namely, the first three Contentions of Ms. Stamiris.1443 It is to those that we now turn our attention. We have heard evidence in the reopened hearings which is relevant to the general allegations of each of those three' contentions as we understand them. We deal with each contention-and the related evidence in turn.
A. Lack Of Candor 507. In its general allegation, Ms. Stamiris' Con-tention No. I states: Consumers Power Company statements and responses to NRC regarding noil settlement issues reflect a less than complete and candid dedication to providing information relevant to health and saf.:ty standards with respect to resolving the soil settle-l ment problems, . . . and this manageri 1 attitude necessitates stricter than um 11 regulatory supervision (ALAB-lO6) to at+are appropriate implementation of the remed.si steps required by the Order Modifying Construction Permits, dated December 6, 1979. 1443 See Prehearing Conference Order Ruling on Contentions and on Consolidation of Proceedings, dated October 24, 1980.
- . ~ . . . - _ . _ . - _ ____ _ _ . _ .__- _.
-345-508. We have dealt with the specifics of the examples of the Contention and further examples from answers to in-terrogatories in paragraphs 85-138 of these Findings supra. We found in summary in paragraph 139 of these Findings supra.that none of the evidence relating to the examples Ms. Stamiris listed under Contention 1 indicated either separately or taken as a whole that Consumers Power. management had been wanting or recalcitrant in providing safety information to the NRC Staff.
We did note, however, the occasional existence of technical disputes between Consumers Power's engineering staff and NRC engineering Staff, all of which were resolved to the Staff's satisfaction. 509. Since the reopening of the record, we have also heard evidence on what have come to be termed " communications problems" between Consumers Power and the Staff. We examine the evidence on these matters to ascertain whether they have any bearing on the contention's allagation of a management attitude which engenders lack of candor.
- 510. The staff brought to our attention a number of matters which they characterized as poor communications with the NRC Staff. For example, Staff members brought to our i
l attention what they considered to be a problem of obtaining information from Consumers Power and Bechtel employees. They expressed the opinion that there had been a reluctance on the part of these personnel to provide information.to NRC inspec-i se , , - - -
i r
-346-tors and.to speak candidly with the Staff.1444 Two Staff members also criticized Consumers Power for having supplied them with information which they considered misleading.1445 511. Concerning the assertion that project staff mem-bers are reluctant to provide information to the NRC, Mr.
Rutgers, the Bechtel Project Manager, testified that Bechtel as aus organization :is not reluctant to provide the NRC Staff with information. To the contrary, he said, Bechtel's concern that 4 the:NRC Staff should be_eupplied with accurate and timely
. responses-to questions prompted the issuance of memoranda which were designed to identify specific individuals within Bechtel who could provide correct and authoritative information in given subject areas.1446 We also note that Mr. Shafer of the IRC identified a December, 1982 Consumers Power memorandum'as
~1444 Landsman and R. Cook, Tr. 14396-14404, 14417-14419.
Dr. Landsman further criticized Consumers Power for L _not keeping him promptly informed of certain problems. One example in this regard was the U.S. Testing audit results. Another concerned a problem which arose with the interface between two different PQCIs. Landsman, Tr. 16791-16794. i Both of these situations were explained as not repre-senting communication problams. Mr. R. Cook and Mr. Gardner stated that communication of the audit results from Consumers Power was adequate. R. Cook and Gardner, Tr. 16791-16792. With regard tolthe PQCI interface problem, Mr. Wheeler stated
- - that-he believed communication of this problem to Dr. Landsman would have been premature. Wheeler, Tr. 18787. Mr. Wheeler's approach was consistent with Dr. Landsman's expressed position j that Consumers Power should make certain that it supply complete l- information to the NRC Staff in order to avoid misunderstandings.
!- See Landsman, Tr. 16519-16520. 1445 R. Cook and Landsman, Tr. 17485-17499. j 1446 Rutgers, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 20-23, following Tr. 18035; Tr. 18085-18092. , t 7-+ -aweeM-ver1,-wmw----- -
-347-an attempt by Consumers Power to insure that erroneous informa-tion concerning the CCP wa not supplied to the NRC Staff.1447 512. Mr. Shaifer further testified that he is unaware of any further problems in obtaining information from Consumers Power.1448 Mr. Gardner also testified that, at the present time, he did not find a reluctance on the part of Consumers Power to discuss information with NRC inspectors.I449 More-over, Dr. Landsman now receives daily phone calls concerning significant events in soils work at the site.1450 While Mr.
Harrison of the NRC Staff testified that communication diffi-culties have in the past been a significant problem for Consumers Power, he believed communications between Consumers Power and the NRC Staff have improved.1451 513. Mr. J. Cook of Consumers Power testified that he is concerned about full and candid communications between Consumers Power and the NRC Staff. He stated that he is attempt-ing to keep the NRC fully informed of site activities and that he has asked the Staff for assistance in resolving the communi-1447 Shafer, Tr. 14709-14717; Stamiris Exhibit No. 53. Dr. Landsman did identify a Staff exhibit written by a Bechtel supervisor in the MPQAD as indicating to him that it was unacceptable for some individuals in MPQAD to discuss matters with NRC inspectors. Landsman, Tr. 14417-14419; Staff Exhibit No. 19. 1448 Shafer, Tr. 16521-16523. 1449 Gardner, Tr. 16522. 1450 Landsman, Tr. 16524; Mooney, Tr. 17047-17049. 1451 Harrison, Tr. 21166-21167.
- -348-cations concerns raised by Dr. Landsman.1452 Mr. Howell testi-fled that he intends to examine the interactions between Con-sumers Power and the NRC Staff and seek to improve their rela-
. 1453 tionship. ,
514. We discuss at length below in section V.I A, paragraphs 561-589 a series of events involving accusations that Bechtel and Consumers Power personnel had made or condoned material false statements with respect to the status of under-pinning instrumentation. We conclude in section VI.A that no material false statements were made. 515. Even before all the evidence was in, however, at a time when a number of Staff members believed that false statements had been made, virtually no Staff witness was will-ing to attribute malice to any of the statements. With regard to the assertion that Consumers Power had supplied misleading information to the NRC Staff, Mr. Keppler testified that he would not attribute dishonesty or deception to Consumers Power.14 4 Likewise, most members of the Staff did not con-clude that the statements made concerning the completion status of the underpinning instrumentation were made with the inten-tion of deliberately misleading the NRC. Even Dr. Landsman and Mr. R. Cook, who were critical of Consumers Power with respect 1452 J. Cook, Tr. 18418. 1453 Howell, Tr. 20940, 20943. 1454 Keppler, Tr. 15121. i
-349-to this incident, refused to testify that they believed that Mr. Boos deliberately misled them.1455 516. Mr. Mooney also testified as to his efforts to always be truthful and forthright with Dr. Landsman. He empha-cized that he has never intentionally misled Dr. Landsman.1456 Dr. Landsman himself indicated that, after initial rough spots, 457 Mr. Mooney's communications with the Staff have improved greatly.
And, Mr. Hood of the NRC Staff acknowledged again, as he did in the earlier round of hearings,1458 that some of the responsibility for communications failures lies with the NRC Staff.1459 517. The other investigation discussed infra in sec-tion VI relates to allegations of a violation of our April 30, 1982 Order, LPB-82-35. This entire matter was rife with failures of communication, primarily failures of reception by Consumers Power management, but at least some errors in transmission by the Staff as well.1460 Yet, despite the obviously strong feelings on both the Consumers Power and NRC Staff sides regard-ing this issue, Mr. Joseph Kane of the NRR Staff stated with respect to Mr. Mooney, one of the principal actors for Consumers Power in this dispute, as follows: 1455 Landsman and R. Cook, Tr. 17530-17534; see paragraph 579 infra; Staff Exhibit No. 22. 1456 Mooney, Tr. 17050; see also, Kane, Tr. 21875-21876. 1457 Landsman, Tr. 20881-20882. 1458 See paragraph 589 infra. 1459 See paragraph 589 infra. 1460 See paragraphs 590 to 670 for details of this inci-dent.
-350-I made a statement with respect to, I.
think, Mr. Mooney should have known, and I believe that, but I think what that does is create an impression, in my mind, that I may not have confidence in Mr. Mooney, and I have had many sessions with Mr. Mooney where they have been difficult, but I have always found him to_be fair. Our differ-ences continue, but I think he has been fair, I think he is honest, and I think he has integrity. I think his coming on board on the Midland project has helped this
- project move along in the right direction.
!- So if anything I said yesterday gave an indication other than that, I think that is not my proper position. 1461 Mr. Darl Hood, NRR Project Manager for Midland, also testified that Mr. Mooney had made a definite improvement in communica-tions between Consumers Power and NRR.1462 In addition, a
- comment was included in the SALP III report relating to improve-I ment'in the soils area which was intended to indicate that communications had substantially improved in the area of tech-
, nical submissions in the time period of the SALP III report.1463 518. In one instance, relating to loose sands beneath the service water piping, Consumers Power mistakenly provided incomplete information to the NRC Staff. However, the record is_ clear that the Applicant in that instance did not mislead the Staff, but rather failed to fully apprise itself of the results of a Bechtel Geotechnical Engineering Group lique-l faction evaluation prior to a March 3, 1982 meeting. As soon t
as Applicant became aware that the information supplied to the 1461 Kane, Tr.~21875-21876. 1462 Hood, Tr. 20777-20779. i 1463 Hood, Tr. 20883.
-351-Staff was incomplete, it immediately corrected the error. This incident is discussed in section A.3.b, paragraphs 704-708 of Appendix A, 510. We do find that Consumers Power has experienced difficulty in communicating with the NRC Staff. However, as we have noted. representatives of Consumers Power and Becntel demonstrated a sensitivity to the problem and the resolve necessary to eradicate it. Indirect evidence of the Appli-cant's concern can also be seen in the issuance of memoranda aimed at ensuring the release of accurate information, the institution of daily phone calls to Dr. Landsman, and senior management efforts directed at examining the interactions between Consumers Power and the Staff and at improving those relations.
520. Most important, however, we find no reliable evidence of intentional withholding of information on the part of any Consumers Power personnel representatives. To the extent that there were mistakes of communication, we find that they were honest mistakes. We have found absolutely no evi-dence of lack of candor regarding the transmission of important safety information to the NRC. We do believe there was a time When there were many technical matters at issue between Consumers Power and the Staff when Applicant did not give sufficient weight to Staff views regarding the implementation of NRC requirements, but instead argued with the Staff. We believe, however, that Consumers Power has since come to a recognition that Staff views regarding implementation of NRC requirements
,,ys- - - -- - - ,w- -,- -,v.--- ,
-352-are entitled to great weight, and therefore now believes in general that it should agree with Staff views. Thus we per-ceive currently that Consumers Power is committed to under-standing and meeting NRC requirements. Thus, we readopt with respect to this later phase of the hearings the substance of the conclusion we reached supra in paragraph 1.39.
B. . Cost And Schedule Pressure 521. Stamiris Contention No. 2 reads in pertinent part: Consumers Pever Company's financial and time schedule pressures have directly and
. adversely affected resolution of soil settlement issues, which constitutes a compromise of applicable health and safety regulations . . . .
We examined in paragraphs 140-235 both the specific instances Ms. Stamiris proffered in support of this Contention and the general issues of whether we could find, on the 1981 record, that financial and scheduling pressures had adversely affected resolution of soils settlement issues and led to the compromis-l ing of NRC health and safety regulations. 522. We found in paragraph 236 of our Findings supra that none of the specific instances raised by Ms. Stamiris
. indicated that financial and scheduling pressures had, as of f
I 1981, adversely affected Consumers Power's resolution of soils settlement issues. We also found that cost and schedule con-siderations were properly taken into account but did not com-promise. proper resolution of the soils settlement issues. 523. During this most recent phase of the quality assurance hearings, we have heard at least one Staff member use l-I
-. . _ - ~ -. .-. - . - . . . - . - - - __ - - - - _ . . _ _ , . . - . - - -- ,.- - , ---
-353-the phrase " putting cost and schedule ahead of quality" in describing the cause of cne or more QA failures. Thus, we find it necessary to examine whether any of the evidence adduced in the reopened hearings should cause us to reevaluate the conclu-sion we reached in paragraph 236.
524. Mr. J. Cook of Consumers Power testified convinc-ingly that placing cost and schedule ahead of quality was not a reason that the Midland Project had QA implementation problems. Mr. J. Cook ascribed the QA problems experienced to a number of factors, some external to the project organization and some internal. With respect to external factors, he alluded among others to the uniqueness of the cogeneration design, the age of the design of the plant envelope, and the changing regulatory requirements over the decade during which the plant has been under construction. With respect to internal factors, Mr. J. Cook pointed to two items, failure to attain sufficient disci-pline in the work process so as to meet Consumers Power's and the NRC's expectations, and misplaced reliance on the quality control function as part of the construction process instead of as part of the quality verification process.1464 525. Moreover, when the management of Consumers Power became aware that their own and the NRC Staff's expectations for disciplined adherence to procedures and requirements were not being fully met, Consumers Power developed and adopted the CCP in order to exert more discipline over the remaining con-struction activities and to generate a set of acceptable design 1464 J. Cook, Tr. 18006.
i
-354-documents and inspection records.1465 We find that the institu-tion of the CCP implies a high priority for safety and quality on the part of Consumers Power.
526. Mr. J. Cook further explained that none of the three factors, cost, schedule, or quality, could be viewed in isolation. He stated that these factors are inexorably linked in achieving an efficient execution of the project: "if the quality is not achieved the other two attributes will suffer."1466 527. Mr. Rutgers, Bechtel Power's Project Manager for Midland, echoed Mr. J. Cook in rejecting the notion that con-cern for cost and schedule was the cause for the breakdown in QA or for construction problems experienced at the site.1467 He stated that cost, schedule, and quality were all essential on a project such as Midland and that he believed that cost and schedule objectives are best served by doing work right the first time. He stressed that top management of both Consumers Power and Bechtel have emphasized that quality is the first priority for the Midland Project.1468 528. On the Staff side, Dr. Landsman, the inspector assigned specifically to soils remedial work, expressed the opinion that one of the causes of the problems at Midland has I been placing concern with cost and schedule ahead of concern 1465 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 3-4, following Tr. 18025. 1466 J. Cook, Tr. 18004. 1467 Rutgers, Tr. 18155-18164. 1468 Rutgers, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 23-24, following Tr. 18035. L
l-l -355-for quality.1469 Mr. Gardner felt that at one point schedule pressures had affected adversely the quality of recertification
. training for QC inspectors.1470 Mr. Keppler, the Regional Administrator, testified, however, that the NRC Staff has not reached a consensus as to the cause of QA implementation pro-blems at Midland, and he further stated that he personally found no basis for concluding that Consumers Power has put cost and schedule ahead of quality.1471 529. Several Staff members believe that financial and schedule pressures have had a causal effect adverse to' quality, and two Consumers Power witnesses implied that the causal . relationship works in the reverse direct?.on, i.e., good quality helps cost and schedule. In the face of this conflicting testimony,. we are most inclined in any. event to rely heavily on the testimony of Mr. Keppler, the most experienced regulator who testified before us. Thus we find no evidence in the recent session which causes us to reverse or modify our earlier conclusion reached in' paragraph 236 of these Findings.
1469 Landsman, Tr. 14692, 16539-16541, 16824-16825, 16920. See also, Gardner, Tr. 14481-14484; Keppler, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect te quality assurance, Attachment 2 at pp. 6-7 and Attachment D at Enclosure 4, following Tr. 15111. Mr. R. Cook also made-several general comments critical of the quality of workmanship at the Midland Plant. He referred to the workmanship at Midland as " slipshod" or "choddy." R. Cook, Tr. 14394, 14442-14443. We find such general subjective ccmments to be of little value in reaching our conclusions, and we-further i note'that the ultimate concern of the NRC is whether regulatory rsquirements are met. See R. Cook, Tr. 16214-16216; Keppler, Tr. 15115-15116, 15606. 1470 Gardner, Tr. 14484. 1471 Keppler, Tr. 15122, 15380.
-356-C. Repeated Patterns Of QA Deficiencies Re-lating To Management Attitude . 530. The third Contention of Ms. Stamiris relating to quality assurance states, in pertinent part:
Consumers Power Company has not implemented its Quality Assurance Program regarding soil settlement issues according to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B regulations, and this represents a repeated pattern of quality assurance deficiency reflecting, a manager-ial attitude. inconsistent with implementa-tion of Quality Assurance Regulations with respect to soil settlement problems, since reasonable assurance was given in past cases (ALAB-100, ALAB-lO6 and LBP-74-71) that proper quality assurance would ensue and it has not. We considered the specifics of the example originally raised by Ms. Stamiris as basis for this contention supra in paragraphs 237-251. We concluded in paragraph 252 that Consumers Power had taken corrective action with respect to each cited defi-ciency and that the NRC Staff had been satisfied with the resolution of those items. We did note, however, that the Contention had a generic-aspect. We stated in that paragraph:
"the thrust of the contention is that these past soils defi-ciencies display a pattern of conduct by Consumers Power's l
management of failures to properly implement the quality assur-ance program. This pattern, it is alleged, presently demon-strates an attitude inconsistent with the principles of quality assurance . . . ."1472 531. We also noted in paragraph 252 that Consumers Power had agreed by stipulation not to contest the fact that 1472 See paragraph 252 supra.
-357-certain deficiencies in soils work constituted a quality assur-ance breakdown in soils and we pondered what weight such a stipulation should be given in an evaluation of the then exist-ing Consumers Power management attitude toward quality assurance.
We found "little evidence that an inappropriate management attitude [ hadj perpetuated a ' pattern of frequency' of improper quality assurance implementation . . . ."1473 We also stated:
"If our evaluation [of management attitude] considers past quality assurance implemenation failures, we must also take into account the positive steps Consumers Power management has taken to remedy the soils quality assurance deficiencies."2474 We also placed considerable weight on specific evidence of positive management responses to the soils quality assurance ,
deficiencies.1475 532. We have heard extensive evidence in the most recent phase of the QA hearings on errors of judgment and implementation made by or under the direction of Consumers Power. We repeat, if we are to draw any inferences from those deficiencies, we must also take into account the corresponding positive steps management took to remedy deficiencies. We find, despite the not inconsiderable numbers of QA problems experienced and the seriousness of some of those problems, that the present management attitude of Consumers Pouer is most convincingly demonstrated by the steps it has taken to remedy ' 1473 See paragraphs 253, 283 supra. , 1474 See paragraph 284 supra. i 1475 See paragraphs 256-257 supra. t i
-358-QA problems. We also find that the specific programs now in place both in soils and balance of plant work demonstrate a serious and continuing concern for quality in the construction of the Midland plant.
533. First, we note that Consumers Power has, over the more than four years since the inception of this proceed-ing, taken a more and more active and involved role in the management of the quality aspects of this project. This in-volvement began with the takeover of the QA/QC program from the Zack Company on site, continued with the formation of MPQAD, in which Consumers took over the QA function from Bechtel, and continued with the most recent assumption of QC responsibility from Bechtel in both the soils and balance of plant areas.1476 534. We also find the increasing level of senior management attention to the problems of the job encouraging. Mr. J. Cook and Mr. Howell testified concerning the reorganiza-tion of the upper management structure at Consumers Power which occurred in August of 1983. This reorganization was done for j the purpose of bringing additional senior management attention ! and involvement to'the Project.1477 Mr. J. Cook retains full responsibility for the Midland Project and now devotes 100 l percent of his time to the Midland effort.1478 Mr. Wells states that Mr. J. Cook is highly supportive of the quality 1476 See paragraphs 44-49, 389-390, 451-454 supra. 1477 Howell, Tr. 20924. 14 8 J. Cook, Tr. 20933. See also Harrison and R. Cook, l Tr. 21162-21165; J. Cook, Tr. 21131.
-359-functions.1479 Mr. Howell now has direct line responsibility for the Midland Project supervising Mr. J. Cook. Mr. Howell reports to Mr. Selby. Mr. Howell explained, however, that Mr.
J. Cook's responsibilities with respect to Midland have not diminished but rather that the reorganization would result in the allocation of additional senior management attention to and involvement in the Midland Project, since Mr. Howell will be able to devote a greater amount of time to the Midland Project than Mr. Selby has been able to in the past.1480 535. In the area of remedial soils work, Mr. James Mooney has single point accountability for the soils work, and thus his testimony regarding senior management attention is most important for assessing Consumers Power's commitment to quality in remedial solis.1481 Mr. Mooney explaine,,d that in the soils area specifically, extensive high level senior manage-ment involvement from Mr. J. Cook and Mr. Selby continues.1482 Mr. Selby is briefed concerning progress at the plant at bi-monthly meetings and he is also kept informed of significant i happenings at the site.1483 l l 536. We have also seen that Consumers Power has taken further steps to resolve lingering problems and differences 1479 J. Cook and Howell, Tr. 20926, Wells prepared testi-l mony on quality assurance at pp. 2-3, following Tr. 18027. 1480 Howell, Tr. 20924-20927. l 1481 Mooney, Tr. 17025. 1482 Mooney, Tr. 17086-17088, 17313. 1483
.I_d_ .
i
. - ~
-360-with the Staff regarding training and certification of QC inspectors. As we have noted supra, Consumers Power committed to a retraining and recertification program for QC inspectors.
Initial differences between the Staff and Consumers Power over the viability of retraining former Bechtel QC supervisors in supervisory positions in the new QC organization have been resolved.1404 Moreover, when the Staff voiced concern about QC retraining being rushed, Consumers Power took immediate action to alleviate the concer,n. Mr. Wells of Consumers Power testi-fied that suspension of the retraining and recertification of QC inspectors was a result of recognition on the part of Consumers Power of a problem with the pace of retraining and recertification and in remedying that situation.1485 537. We have also described the diesel generator building inspection and the other events leading up to the institution of the CCP. Consumers Power was responsible for initiating the CCP and halting most safety-related work at the site in December of 1982.1486 The CCP was both conceived by and is being managed by Consumers Power.1487 Mr. Keppler stated that prior to the time of the DGB inspection and the December, 1982 stop work, he would have rated Consumers Power's initiative negatively because of the amount of influence which 1484 See paragraph 455 supra. 1485 Wells, Tr. 18196-18197; see also, Gardner, Tr. 14481-14484. See paragraph 455 supra. 1486 J. Cook, April 11, 1983 prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 2-5, following Tr. 18025. 1487 Id. at p. 31.
. . = -. .
-361-the Staff had to exert over proposed actions such as the Septem-ber 17, 1982 proposals for third party reviews.1488 Since the DGB inspection and the stop work by Consumers Power in December of'1982, however, Mr. Keppler believes that Consumers Power's initiative has improved.1489 Mr. Keppler credited Consumers Power with having taken the initiative in a number of othe.
actions, some of which occurred prior to December of 1982, which he viewed as positive indications that he could have reasonable assurance that the plant will be completed properly. These include the appointment of Mr. Wells as head of MPQAD, the choice and retention of Stone & Webster for the third party overview for soils, and a number of the proposals included in the CCP.1490 538. Based upon this record, we are of the opinion that Consumers Power has shown considerable initiative in responding to regulatory concerns on the Midland Project. The fact that Consumers Power adopted some changes that were based on NRC Staff recommendations is hardly evidence of poor manage-ment attitude. However, the fact that Consumers Power has shown sustained initiative toward improving performance at the plant is evidence of a good management attitude. 539. One set of events in which Consumers Power in the end demonstrated positive management attitude by taking 1488 Keppler, Tr. 15657-15658. 1489 Keppler, Tr. 15657-15658. 1490 Keppler, Tr. 15579-15581; see also Keppler, Tr. 15660.
-362-vigorous steps to correct a problem, admittedly self inflicted, concerned the SALP II response. The NRC Staff justifiably criticized Consumers Power for having taken an argumentative approach in its original SALP II response. In the SALP II assessment, Consumers Power received a Category III rating in the following functional areas: (a) soils and foundations; (b) electrical power supply and distribution; (c) piping systems and supports; (d) design control and design changes; and (e) reporting requirements and corrective action.1491 540. A public meeting was held on April 26, 1982, at which time Mr. Keppler and members of the NRC Region III Staff met with Consumers Power Company personnel in Jackson, Michigan to present the Applicant with the observations and findings of the SALP II Board. At that meeting, both Mr. Keppler and Mr.
R. Cook expressed their beliefs that the soils area had not shown any substantial improvement during the SALP II period of July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1981.1492 541. On May 17, 1982, Consumers Power Company issued its first response to the SALP II report. In its response, Consumers Power took exception both to conclusions expressed in the report I and to specifics enumerated therein. The response was argumenta-tive in tone and contained incorrect information and statements which could not be fully defended when challenged.1493
-1491 Shafer, Tr. 14776; Stamiris Exhibit No. 55.
Keppler, Tr. 15161-15162; see also Stamiris Exhibit i No. 55.
- 1493 J. Cook, Tr. 18389-18390; Keppler, October 29, 1982
! prepared testimony on quality assurance, Attachment B at p. 6, following Tr. 15111; Landsman, Tr. 14838. l
-363-542. At the request of Consumers Power, a second public SALP II meeting was scheduled for and held on June 26, 1982. The main thrust of the meeting was a discussion as to the apparent discrepancies'between the position taken by the NRC inspectors and the' Applicant's~resh nse.1494 Consumers Fower Company's posi-tion at the meeting corresponded with the representations made in its May, 1982 response. Both Mr. Keppler and Dr. Landsman ex-pressed their displeasure with the SALP II response.1495 543. As a result of the misunderstandings and dif-ferences o'f opinion demonstrated at the June, 1982 meeting, the Applicant reconsidered its response. An additional Staff /
Consumers Power' meeting was scheduled for August 5, 1982.1496 1494 Landsman,-Tr. 14838. 1495 Keppler, Tr. 15164, 15409; Landsman, Tr. 14838. 1496 Prior to that date, members of the Staff reviewed and formulated specific comments based on the Applicant's SALP II response. In his notes, Wayne Shnfer indicated that he felt the Applicant had spent too much time trying to " justify its behavior" instead of determining why it hadn't met its original commitments. However, Mr. Shafer indicated that the comments he made were intended only for Staff use and were neither intended to be nor actually were conveyed to the Applicant in that manner. See Shafer, Tr. 14800-14801. l l Mr. R. Cook also prepared comments in anticipation of l the August 5 meeting. Mr. R. Cook felt that Consumers Power's l May 17, 1982 response reflected negatively on the Applicant's Quality Assurance and management attitude because it rebutted in an argumentative fashion findings which the Staff felt were a fair assessment of Consumers Power performance. Mr. R. Cook also stated that he felt Consumers Power was responsive only to strong enforcement action. Mr. R. Cook's prepared comments stated that based on' Consumers Power's response which stated that seven items of noncompliance (IONC) was not excessive, he felt the Applicant's attitude toward noncompliances could warrant removal of 'its license until the Company's management was completely purged.' Mr. R. Cook noted, however, that Consumers Power Company had reconsidered its response relating to the SALP II Report, thereby rendering this a dead issue. See R. Cook, Tr. 15976-15977, 15969-15971, 15982-15983; see also Gardner, Tr. 14867. .
-364-l 544. Mr. J. Cook attributed the quality of the ini-tial SALP II response to bad staff work.1497 Mr. J. Cook immediately took steps both to improve the Staff work and ,
repair the relationship with the NRC Staff. Following the June, 1982 SALP II meeting, Mr. J. Cook gave Mr. Wells responsi-bility for working out the concerns associated with Consumers Power's initial response to P.a SALP II report and developing a correct and temperate response.1499 Consumers Power conducted a specific investigation of the facts in dispute. Under Mr.
-Wells' direction, Consumers Power acknowledged the criticisms brought against its initial response to the SALP II report and recognized that such criticisms were justified. Shortly there-after, the individual responsible for drafting the first re-sponse was transferred to a position outside the project and Mr. Wells replaced him as head of MPQAD.1499 We consider these actions to be evidence of a commitment to prompt and vigorous correction of mistakes.
545. At the August 5, 1982 meeting, Consumers Power informed the Staff that it was in the process of reevaluating and revising its SALP II response in light of the information
-received at meetings with the Staff and a more detailed review l
l. 1497 J. Cook, Tr. 18388-18390. - 1498 J. Cook, Tr. 18391, 18699; Shafer and Gardner, Tr. L 14867-14868, 14870-14871. i 1499 - See Keppler, Tr. 15577, 15660; Shafer, Tr. 16805; Wells, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 3 follow-
.ing Tr. 18027; Wells Tr. 18441-18445.
-365-with its own personnel.1500 Consumers Power ultimately sent a revised response which the Staff found acceptable.1501 During the hesrings, Mr. J. Cook also stated that he considered it a " management failure" on his part to have sent the initial SALP II response.1502 We find this candor to be evidence of a forthright attitude conducive to recognizing and correcting errors.
546. A preliminary SALP III report, covering the period of July 1, 1981 through March 31, 1983, was issued on July 21, 1983. In that report, Consumers Power's soils and foundation work were once again determined to be a Category III under the SALP rating system. 547. In its September 6, 1983 response to the SALP III report, Consumers Power indicated that it was committed to taking whatever steps were necessary to achieve the quality performance level that both the NRC Staff and Consumers Power desire.1503 Mr. Harrison of the NRC Staff testified that Consumers Power demonstrated a more positive attitude in re-sponding to the SALP III report. He felt the SALP III response stood on its own as a " typical, positive SALP response."1504 i Mr. Harrison stated that he was encouraged by the Applicant's l 1 00 Gardner, Tr. 14868. 501 Shafer, Tr. 14802. 1502 J. Cook, 18389-18390. 1503 Harrison, Tr. 20693-20695, 20698. 1504 Harrison, Tr. 20695.
_ . . . = . . - . - _ _ ~. ,. . _. _--
- ._.--__m .. _ ___ . - . . _ . . _ . _ _. . .
- 366-response since he perceived a change in responses from argumenta-tive to non-argumentative. Recognizing the problem and wanting to strive to achieve the recommendations of the Staff was deemed a very positive step forward in resolving the issues.1505 D. Conclusion With Respect to Management Attitude ,
s 548. We acknowledge the candor with which Consumers Power's management described the problems which have taken
; place at the Midland site. We find encouraging Consumers Power's initiatives in developing the prcgrams necessary to l achieve compliance with regulatory requirement. Objective evidence of Consumers Power's positive management attitude includes the creation of the soils project, the integration of QC into MPQAD, the development of the CCP, and increased re-
- ceptivity to criticisms and recommendations of the NRC Staff as shown by the revised SALP II response and the SALP III response.
Management has not only been receptive to NRC concerns, but has also taken initiative to improve QA/QC and to improve communi-cations between Consumers Power and the NRC. Senior management , involvement in the Midland Project is extensive and management I personnel are committed to quality at the Midland Site. Extra-ordinary efforts are being made by Consumers Power to complete
. both the remedial soils work and the balance of plant work in l conformance with regulatory requirements. We also find no l
05 Harrison, Tr. 20775. 1
-
- v ~ - , , , , , - - ,,y v----,-. ,--r---4 , ..-.,,-r--,,-,n-, - , , , --r.- ---,-e. - , - - , - - , - ,-+--,,,w.,n.,-- .,n,
-367-evidence whatsoever of any willful failure to adhere to regula-tory requirements.
549. During the testimony, we heard a number of expressions of subjective judgments by members of the NRC Staff as to Consumers Power's management attitude. Subjective evi-dance of attitude is inherently unreliable, constituting as it does one person's mental impression of another person's state of mind. Moreover, the import of the word " attitude" is diffi-cult to ascertain, and ascribing a single " attitude" to a loosely defined corporate body, " management," which is really a collection of individuals, is at best difficult. Thus, we find these expressions, though sincere and well intended, to be minimally probative with respect to the likelihood of future acceptable performance compared to the testimony about the remedial measures we have discussed.
~
550. We have also noted that the term " inattention to detail" was used to describe one of the causes of the soils problems. Indeed, a Staff witness in the earlier round of hearings believed that inattention to detail reflected adversely on. Consumers Power's management attitude. This term has also recurred repeatedly durirg the most recent round of hearings and has been ascribed as a " root cause" of the continuing problems at Midland, both in soils and in balance of plant. Since, however, we find the term " inattention to detail" to be little more than a tautology for " mistakes with respect to details", we find this term of little use in analyzing the
-368-management attitude of Consumers Power in the quality assurance program at Midland.
551. The Board finds that Consumers Power has a management attitude which is committed to completing the Midland Plant in conformity with all regulatory requirements. We are therefore convinced that Consumers Poser has a management attitude which is, overall, satisfactory. E. Stamiris Contention 1(d) 552. Stamiris Contention 1(d) states: Consumers Power Company statements and responses to NRC regarding soil settlement issues reflect a less than complete and candid dedication to providing information relevant to health and safety standards with respect to resolving the soil settle-ment problems, as seen in: (d) the failure to provide adequate accep-tance criteria for remedial actions in response to 10 CFR $50.54 (f) requests (as set forth in Part II of the Ordcr of Modifi-cation) and this managerial attitude necessitates stricter than usual regulatory supervision (ALAB-lO6) to assure appropriate implementa-tion of the remedial steps required by the l Order Modifying Construction Permits, dated ! December 6, 1979. 1506 553. In her answer to Applicant's interrogatories dated April 20, 1981, Ms. Stamiris admitted: 1506 l Stamiris Contention 1(d).
-369-ID. I am not familiar with each of the acceptance criteria provided by CPCo, nor do I consider myself qualified to comment on their geotechnical merits. Rather, I consider Consumer's failure to provide necessary information such as this, as virtual defiance of the regulatory process.
The Applicant has said (in these 50-54f q. on acceptance criteria, in FSAR Q. on geologic classification, and at their 8/29/80 meeting to appeal the additional boring requests) that they do not agree , that the information requested by the NRC is necessary. The regulatory agency must be the sole judge of what information is or is not necessary to its ultimate purpose of protecting public safety interests. By questioning the judgment of the regulators in this way, CPCo has failed to provide adequate acceptance as requested. 1507 554. Stamiris Contention 1(d) was net specifically addressed in the parties' 1981 proposed findings on quality assurance and management attitude issues because we anticipated further evidence addressing the technical adequacy of the acceptance criteria proposed by Applicant for its remedial 1508 However, since that time Applicant and the Staff measures. have entered into stipulations by which Applicant has agreed l not to contest that as of December 6, 1979, the NRC Staff had insufficient information to evaluate Applicant's proposed t f remedial actions. In these stipulations, Applicant also agreed I l not to contest that the absence of such information constituted i i an adequate basis for the issuance of the December 6, 1979 1 07 Intervenor (Stamiris) answers to Applicant's Inter-rogatories, dated April 20, 1981. 1 08 See Memorandum (Concerning Telephone Conference Call l of September 25, 1981 and Applicant's Motion for Partial Deci-sion) dated October 2, 1981 at p.5. i l l l
-370-Modification Order.1509 The effect of these stipulations was to allow the Applicant and the Staff to focus their evidentiary presentations on the adequacy of the remedial measures as they existed on the date of the hearings, rather than on the histori-cal issue of the adequacy of remedial measures proposed as of December 6, 1979.1510 555. Applicant has never conceded, however, that the reasons why the NRC Staff had insufficient information concern-ing remedial measures as of December 6, 1979 was because of "less than complete and candid dedication to providing [such) information ..." on the part of Applicant. Indeed, the evidence in the record effectively rebuts this assertion.
Prior to December 6, 1979, Consumers Power Company's management assumed that the answers to 50.54(f) questions submitted up to 1509 See Joint Exhibit No. 2 (auxiliary building), Joint Exhibit No. 3 (BWSTs and underground piping), Joint Exhibit No. 4 (SWPS), Joint Exhibit No. 5 (DGB). The language in our stipulation for the diesel gener-ator building differs somewhat from that in the other stipula-tions. Among other things, this is attributable to the fact that the remedial measures for the DGB had already been carried out before December 6, 1979. See also Hood, Tr. 10613-10616; Weidner, Tr. 10902-10904. 510 Applicant's proposals for some of the remedial measures changed after December 6, 1979, in part because of further NRC Staff review, in part because of the increased seismic design basis for such remedial actions proposed in the October 14, 1980 Tedesco letter. Holt Exhibit No. 3. See Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Remedial Soils Issues, dated August 5, 1983, at paragraphs 51-51, 231 (as corrected in Applicant's January 3, 1984 Reply to the NRC Staff's Responsive Findings.) 1511 See Keeley, prepared testimony at pp. 11-15, follow-ing Tr. 1163; see also paragraphs 107-120, 139 supra.
-371-that time, as well as the information provided in 50.55(e) reports, were adequately responsive to the information the Staff. required for technical adequacy.1512 The Staff had not informed Applicant otherwise.1513 556. In addition to citing "50.54(f) questions on acceptance criteria", Ms. Stamiris' April 20, 1981 interroga-tory answer refers to "FSAR questions on geologic classifica-tion" in support of Contention 1(d). That subject has already been addressed in connection with Stamiris Contention 1(b) in paragraphs 91-94 supra.
557. The third reference in Ms. Stamiris' April 26, 1981 interrogatory response is to Applicant's 1980 appeal to 3. NRC Staff management of the NRC Staff's request for additional borings.1514 This Licensing Board has already ruled with respect to this contentien that an applicant's exercise of its legal rights may not be the basis for condemnation, absent soma 1512 On November 19, 1979 the Staff had sent 50.54(f) Questions 24-35, which were received by Applicant on November 26, 1979. The answers to these questions were not due by . December 6, 1979. Keeley, prepared testimony at p. 14, follow-j ing Tr. 1163. 1513 See paragraphs 109, 112-113, 116, 120-121 supra. 1514 Applicant does not believe this " example" is properly within the scope of Stamiris Contention 1(d) because the NRC Staff request for additional borings came after the December 6, 1979 Modi fication Order. Moreover, we believe Ms. Stamiris has withdrawn this issue from litigation since she withdrew corre-sponding contentions 2(e) and 5 by letter dated June 1, 1981. Nevertheless, Applicant tenders proposed findings on this subject without waiving any legal objection.
-372-indication that such exercise was motivated by improper consid- y erations.1515 558. In this instance, the motive for Applicant's appeal was that its consultant Dr. Ralph Peck, a world-renowned authority on soils engineering, expressed his conviction that these borings were not necessary, and in fact, were likely to produce undependable data.1516 This was an opinion which Dr.
Peck continued to express in these hearings.1517 559. The NRC Staff geotechnical reviewer, while 3 strongly disagreeing about the need for the additional borings, did not believe Applicant's appeal reflected adversely on Consumers Power's management attitude.1518 Applicant even-tually accomodated the Staff's request for additional borings and the results were used by the NRC Staff in its review. Prehearing Conference Order Ruling on Contentions and on Consolidation of Proceedings, dated October 24, 1980 at pp. 5-6. 1 16 See J. Cook, prepared testimony at pp. 19-21, follow-ing Tr. 1693. 1517 R. Peck, prepared testimony on DGB surcharge at
- p. 80, following Tr. 10180: R. Peck, Tr. 3362-3364. See also Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Remedial Soils Issues, dated August 5, 1983, at paragraph 133 and n. 251.
1518 Kane, Tr. 4149-4150. I 19 See e.g., SSER #2 (Staff Exhibit No. 14), $2.5.4.4.2 at p. 2-31; J. Cook, prepared testimony at pp. 19-20, following Tr. 1693.
-373-560. The Licensing Board concludes that Applicant's decision on the basis of its consultant's advice to appeal the Staff's request for additional borings was not improperly motivated. Insofar as this incident is within the scope of Stamiris Contention 1(d), we find it to be without merit.
Overall, we find that the references in Stamiris Contention ( 1(d) and the corresponding interrogatory response do not demon-strate a less than complete and candid dedication to supplying information. =
-374-VI. ALLEGATIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS A. Allegations of a Material False State-ment: The Cable Pulling Incident 561. Consumers Power ant the NRC Staff began discuss-ing che extent to which quality assurance requirements would be applied to the proposed underpinning work and how those require-ments would be implemented in late 1981 or early 1982. Subse-quently, NRC Staff members Dr. Landsman and Mr. R. Cook accused the Bechtel Assistant Project Manager, Alan Boos, of having made false statements in a meeting and in a conference call relating to quality assurance requirements. The Staff allega-tions triggered an investigation by a Region III investigator (now a member of the Office of Investigations), Charles Weil.
Mr. Weil issued his Investigation Report on September 14, 1982.1520 Region III issued the Report under a cover letter from Mr. Keppler dated January 18, 1983 which stated: "While the investigation failed to provide conclusive evidence that a material false statement was made with respect to the status of the underpinning instrumentation, several members of my staff believed they were misled by remarks made by Consumers Power Company and Bechtel employees during the meeting in Washington, D.C., on March 10 and the subsequent telephone call on March 12, 1982."1 21 We heard testimony on the allegations of misleading statements from Staff witnesses and from Consumers Power witnesses. 1520 Staff Exhibit No. 22. 1521~ _I_d.
-375-From the testimony of the various witnesses, we are able to piece together the following summary of the facts.
562. The Bechtel engineers and their consultants who developed the program for conducting the underpinning work for the auxiliary building originally broke the work down into
~three " phases."1522 Phase 1 encompassed preparatory work, including, inter alia, freeze wall installation and activation, construction dewatering, and partial excavation of access shafts at the ends of the electrical penetration wings of the auxiliary building.1523 The excavation of the access shafts was the initial step of the underpinning, but Phase 1 work encompassed only excavation down to elevation 609. This eleva-tion marked the end of Phase 1 work because excavation beyond that point would involve tunnelling under the turbine building and undermining support of the feedwater isolation valve pit and the electrical penetration area.1524 563. Under the then existing plans, Phase 2 work could not proceed before the necessary instrumentation to monitor auxiliary building movement was in place.1525 The 1522 See generally Burke, Corley, Gould, Johnson and i
Sozen, prepared testimony regarding remedial measures at pp. , 14-29, following Tr. 5509. l 1523 See generally, Appendix I of SSER #2, (Staff Exhibit No. 14) dated October, 1982. 52 (Eee generallh Id ; urke, Corley, Gould, Johnson and Sozen, re)Sind~tlnTIftfoi garding remedial measures at pp. 18-27, following Tr. 5509; Burke, Tr. 5536-5540. l 1525 See generally Burke, Corley, Gould, Johnson and Sozen, l prepared testimony regarding remedial measures at p. 29, follow-ing Tr. 5509; Mooney and Wheeler, prepared testimeny concerning l the alleged violations of the April 30 ASLB Order and the March 1982 cable-pulling incident at p. 12, following Tr. 19983.
-376-required instruments were both absolute movement detectors which used deepseated bench marks as references and differ-ential movement detectors which measured differential movement between, e.g., the electrical penetration wing and the con-tainment.1526 The number and locations of monitoring instru-ments changed during the time period in question, and the final number and locations of all monitoring instruments which the NRC Staff eventually required were not determined until after the alleged material false statements occurred.1 564. The meeting at issue and the related telephone conversation took place on March 10 and March 12, 1982 respec-tively. Many subjects were discussed in addition to instrumen-tation locations and status. At the time of the March 10 meeting and March 12 telephone call, the construction drawings called for 21 instrument locations, 10 of which needed to be ,
installed prior to the start of Phase 2 work. Two of these 10 locations utilized only mechanical instruments with no electrical output.1 $ The other eight were electrical instru-ment locations and required 30 cables.1530 It is clear in 526 Burke, Corley, Gould, Johnson and Sozen, prepared testimony regarding remedial measures at pp. 32-34, following Tr. 5509; Burke, Tr. 5524-5525. 1527 See paragraph 586,' infra. 1528 Black, prepared testimony at p. 6, following Tr. 19778; Glass, prepared testimony at pp. 3-4 and Ex. 1, follow-ing Tr. 19790. 1529 _I_d. 1530 Black, prepared testimony at pp. 13-14, following Tr. 19778; Glass, prepared testimony at pp. 7-6, following Tr. 19790. l
-377-retrospect, although it was not understood at the time, that Bechtel and Consumers Power personnel thought of instrument installation as Phase I work because it was necessary for the start of Phase 2, and that the NRC Staff considered instrumenta-tion installation to be the initial part of Phase 2 work.1531 565. According to the testimony of Dr. Landsman, during February of 1982 he had a number of unsatisfactory exchanges with Consumers Power over the application of Quality Assurance requirements to underpinning work. For example, the soldier piles supporting the walls of the access shaft wera to bs partly a Q installation and partly a non-Q installation ,
because the line of demarcation between Q and non-Q soil as it then existed ran through the area of the shaft excavation. Dr. Landsman believed that these types of distinctions were unneces-sary and that all of the work should be Q.1 33 Consumers Power, on the other hand, maintained the position that only work directly under Q structures, or which became part of the permanent support for Q structures, had to be Q.1534 Dr. l
'1531 Mooney and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning the alleged violations of the April 30 ASLB Order and the March
! 1982 cable-pulling incident at p. 12, following Tr. 19983; l Boos, 20119-20120; Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit XII at pp. 2-l 3; Hood, Tr. 17761. 1532 - Dr. Landsman believed that these disputes were the result of a' concern on the part of Applicant that the NRC Staff would write a large number of noncompliances in the soils remedial work if QA requirements were applied to all of the ! underpinning work. Landsman,.Tr. 17474. Mr. R. Cook further i explained this concern by giving an example. The example he
- l. gave concerned whether quality requirements would be required l for the procurement of wood. R. Cook, Tr. 17478-17479.
533 Landsman, Tr. 17435, 17480, 17896.
~1534 Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit XIV.
-378-l Landsman (and others) wanted QA requirements to be applied to all work activities in soil within a broad perimeter around the safety-related buildings, including all underpinning work.
566. In order to resolve the dispute, Dr. Landsman requested NRR to convene a meeting with the Applicant at which the NRC Staff would state its position.1 36 NRR arranged an all day meeting on March 10, 1982. Consumers Power, apparently in anticipation of the NRC Staff's position, came into this meeting with an intermediate position in which it proposed that work under Q structures or which would constitute permanent support for Q structures would be Q, and other work connected with the underpinning would fall into a new category which CPCo called "QA". The essence of the "QA" designation was that work in this category would be covered by the QA/QC program but the NRC Staff would not be permitted to cite the Applicant for violations or deviations from requirements in this work.1537 567. After lengthy discussion, the Staff recessed the meeting in order to caucus. During the recess, in addition to coming to a consensus at the working level that Consumers l Power's proposal should be rejected, Darl Hood, the NRR project manager for Midland, and others, reviewed their decision with Mr. Vollmer who concurred with the decision.1538 The review by i l 1 35' Landsman, Tr. 17427', 17435, 17896. 1536 Landsman, Tr. 17436, 17673. 1537 Staff. Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit XIV; Landsman, Weil and R. Cook, Tr. 17467-17473. 1538 Hood, Tr. 17783-17784.
-379-Mr. Vollmer left only Mr. Denton as a possible avenue of appeal within the NRC Staff.1539 568. When the Staff returned to the meeting, Mr. Hood informed Consumers Power that the Staff rejected the Appli-cant's proposal and would require all underpinning work to be Q,1540 regardless of location and irrespective of whether tem-porary or permanent. There is no evidence, however, that the Staff conveyed to Consumers Power that NRC management personnel had already reviewed and approved the workint. Staff's position, thereby preempting at least some of the possible levels of appeal for Consumers Power within the Staff.1541 Thus the testimony of Mr. Mooney that he had to confer with others in Consumers Power management before committing to the NRC posi-tion and that he believed that the Applicant had avenues of appeal within the Staff is understandable despite the Staff's apparent belief that there could be no further change in the Staff position.1542 569. During the discussion, Mr. Hood, who was speak-ing for the Staff, indicated that the Staff's position was that from that date forward all underpinning work was to be Q.1543 At that point in the meeting, Mr. Boos remarked that he had to call the site and stop all underpinning work immediately be-1539 Hood, Tr. 17942-17943.
l 1540 Hood, Tr. 17784. 1541 Boos and Mooney, Tr. 20005-20008. 1542 Boos and Mooney, Tr. 20005-20006, 20041-20042. 1543 Landsman, Tr. 17427.
-380-cause of the Staff's decision.1544 Mr. Hood indicated that he had not meant the Staff's position to be so draconian. Rather, he indicated, the Staff meant that the requirement that work be 2 did not attach to ongoing work and really did not come into play until Phase 2 work commenced.1545 It is clear in retro-spect that this dual criterion set forth by Mr. Hood in the heat of the meeting caused no small part of the ensuing confu-sion. It appears, for example, that at least one Staff member, Dr. Landsman, did not remember any discussion regarding the difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 at all.1546 It is clear from his meeting notes, however, that Mr. Hood himself emphasized that. Phase 1 - Phase 2 distinction.1547 As an illustration of what the Staff exempted from its March 10th decision, the ex-ample was given by Dr. Landsman that excavation and installation of supports for access shafts could be completed down to eleva-tion 609, the end of Phase 1 excavation. 548 570. The Consumers Power and Bechtel personnel present at the meeting did not immediately apprehend precisely how the decision as expressed was to be applied.1549 Dr. Landsman's example of the access shefts may have caused additional con-f 1544 Landsman, Tr. 17427-17428; Boos, Tr. 20002-20003.
1545 Hood, Tr. 17757; Boos, Tr. 20003: Mooney Tr. 20131. 1546 Landsman, Tr. 17434-17435. 1547 Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit XIV. 1548 Id.; Landsman, Tr. 17427-17428, 17768-17769. 1549 Mooney and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning the alleged violations of the April 30 ASLB Order and the March l 1982 cable-pulling incident at pp. 10-12, following Tr. 19983.
-381-fusion, because Dr. Landsman interpreted it as an example, and indeed the only example, of " ongoing work," but the example is equally susceptible to interpretation as being part of Phase 1 work.
571. At this point, the testimony diverges as to what was said at the meeting. Staff witnesses Dr. Landsman and Mr. R. Cook testified that Mr. Boos described the status of under-pinning instrument installation in such a manner as to give them the impression that the activity was nearly complete. However, neither witness could recall the words Mr. Boos used.1550 Mr. Hood did not recall any specific statements regarding instrument status.1551 In fact most of the people interviewed by Mr. Weil could not recall any discussion of instrumentation at all.1552 According to Mr. Boos, he had not gone to the meeting intending to discuss instrument installa-tion scheduling; whatever mention was made of instrumentation was in the course of discussing the Q vs. non-Q question.1563 The only other Staff member to have a specific memory of Mr. Boos' statements did not testify in the hearing but stated in his sworn statement to the 2nvestigator: "During the course of the March 10 meeting I do recall a statement by Mr. A. Boos that indicated that monitoring instrumentation had been installed. 1550 Landsman and Cook, Tr. 17427-17429; Landsman, Tr. 17780. 1551 Hood, Tr. 17762-17765. 1552 Weil, Tr. 17429. 1553 Boos, Tr. 19999-20000. See also Mooney, Tr. 20001. l l
-382-This statement was givet by Mr. Boos as a side comment to the main discussion which was focused on Q-listing of important underpinning operations. In my opinion the statement by Mr.
Boos was given as a status of instrumentation installation in a very general sense and was not intended to specifically iden-tify the instrumentation which had already been installed."1554 572. After the meeting, Consumers Power and Bechtel personnel were still uncertain as to how the Staff position would apply to specific work activities.1555 As a result, Mr. Boos had a draft table prepared which showed Consumers. Power's and Bechtel's understanding of what work would be Q and what work non-Q. Included on this table was an entry which showed instrumentation installation as non-Q, with instrumentation checkout and calibration being Q.1556 573. On Friday, March 12, after the regular weekly project meeting, representatives of Consumers Power and Bechtel initiated a conference call to the Region III Staff in Glen 557 Ellyn, Illinois. Dr. Landsman and Mr. Boyd were present in Glen Ellyn during the phone call, and Mr. R. Cook was present at the Consumers Power /Bechtel end of the call. Mr. Boos and other representatives from Bechtel and Consumers Power were present during the telephone call.'558 At Consumers Power's 1554 Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit XV at p. 1. 1555 Mooney, Tr. 20008. 1556 Boos and Mooney, Tr. 20008-20012. l 1557 Mooney, Tr. 20008; Boos, Tr. 20064. 1558 Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit I at p. 1. I
-383-request, a secretary took' shorthand notes from which she typed a nearly verbatim transcript of the telephone conversation.1359 574. Mr. Boos opened his' discussion with a statement which included the following: "[0]ne of the first things we did this morning was to draw up a list of those items which either have
-been completed or [are) in process or are proposed which we feel can, in fact, be treated as non-Q items "(emphasis added). 60 Later in.the call, in the course of stating that monitoring instrument installation would be non-Q but checkout of the system would be Q, Mr. Boos stated: "Our instrumentation is essentially well under way. Wiring has been pulled - raceway has been' installed, etc."1561 575. On March 17, Dr. Landsman and Mr. Gardner began
,t a three day-inspection of the remedial soils work. On March 17 or 18, these inspectors visited the Data Acquisition Room on , the roof of the auxiliary building where the monitoring equip- , ment for the settlement instrumentation was to be located.1562 With them was Michael Schaeffer, MPQAD Electrical /Instrumenta-tion and Controls Section Head. Mr. Schaeffer had not been involved with the underpinning instrumentation before and knew nothing about.it, since it had not come under MPQAD's pur-63 view. He indicated to Dr. Landsman and Mr. Gardner a total ( .-
'1559 ~Mooney, Tr. 20009.
-1560 Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit I at p. 1.
1561 Id. at p. 6. 1562 Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit IV at p. 1. 1563 Boos and Mooney, Tr. 20135. l
r
-384-lack of knowledge of any quality control or goality assurance requirements for the instrumentation installation.1564 In Mr.
Schaeffer's words from his sworn statement to the NRC Inves-tigator: "My response to Mr. Gardner ['s inquiry about quality requirements) was that I was totally unaware that the Electrical Metallic Tubing (EMT)/ Conduit and cable pulling installation 1 activities concerning Instrumentation for the Underpinning were Q, or under the Midland Project Quality Assurance Program. Immediately after my conversation with Mr. Gardner, I started inquiring about the subject with the MPQAD Soils Group and learned that Consumers Power Company believed these activities were non-Q (not under the Midland Project Quality Assurance Program) and that the NRC believed that these activities were Q-listed."1565 576. Dr. Landsman indicated in his statements to the investigator and in his oral testimony that Mr. Schaeffer told him that cable pulling for the instrumentation had begun on March 11, 1982 (one day after the March 10 meeting).1566 i
-According to Mr. Weil, Mr. Schaeffer did not recall making such 6
l a statement to Dr. Landsman. However, assuming that Mr. Schaeffer did make the statement alluded to, other testimony l 1564 Gardner, Tr. 17819-17821. 565 Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit VIII at p. 1. t 1566 Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit II at p. 2; Landsman, Tr. 17674-17675. See also, Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit IV at
- p. 1.
1567 Weil, Tr. 17677. l~ i l f [_
-385-to be discussed infra indicates that he was wrong, i.e., that cable pulling actually started much earlier than March 11.
577. Mr. Gardner indicated that he determined by visual observation on March 17 that approximately 10% of the instrumentation cables or somewhere around 16 cables had been pulled.1568 Dr. Landsman and Mr. R. Cook testified that they observed on that day that approximately 8 to 10 cables out of approximately 160 had been installed.1569 However, there was no indication that they had counted cables precisely, and Mr. R. Cook acknowledged that there could have been as many as 16 cables installed at that time.1570 Mr. Schaeffer, who also observed the installation, indicated that approximately 20% of the instrumentation system, including not only cable and conduit but also data acquisition computer and peripherals, power supply, and terminal boards had been installed as of March 18.1571 According to the NRC Investigator's report, evidently based on an interview with Bechtel Field Engineer Richard Black, 32 cables had been pulled and 16 of those had been removed from the Data Acquisition Room as of March 19, 1982.1b 568 Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit IV at p. 1; Gardner, Tr. 17819-17821, 17910-17912. 1569 Landsman, Tr. 17430-17431, 17910; R. Cook, Tr. 17910-17911. 1570 See R. Cook, Tr. 17910-17911. 1571 Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit VIII at pp. 1-2. 1572 Staff Exhibit No. 22 at p. 10. b . __ __
-386-578. One of the difficulties in interpreting the per-centage estimates of Dr. Landsman and Mr. Gardner is that the required total number of instrument cables was changing during the time period in question. As we conclude from testimony discussed above, 30 cables were originally required for the Phase 2 underpinning. As of a March 8 telephone call with NRR, CPCo had committed to some unknown number of additional instru-ments and cables, but these were not yet reflected in the " matrix" drawing (C-1493) used by the field engineers to govern installation.1573 By March 17, according to Mr. Swanberg's statement to the Investigator, 159 cables were required.1574 As of March 30, according to Mr. Black's statement to the investigator, 213 cables were required for the complete instru-mentation system.1575 It appears, therefore, that even as of the March 10 meeting, the required number of cables had in-creased but this new information had not been communicated to field personnel, at least in construction drawings.1576 579. Dr. Landsman and Mr. R. Cook concluded from their and Mr. Gardner's observations on March 18 that they had been misled by statements in the March 10 meeting and in the March 12 telephone call.1577 Their conclusion triggered an 1573 Hood, Tr. 17751-17755; Glass, Tr. 19911-19913.
1574 Staff Exhibit No. 22 at pp. 10-11. 1575 Id. at p. 10. 1575 Glass, Tr. 19911-19913. 1577 Landsman and Cook, Tr. 17514-17516, 17530-l'534.
-387-investigation by then Region III Investigator Charles H. Weil.
Mr. Weil testified orally, and in substance agreed with Dr. Landsman and Mr. Cook that Mr. Boos had " lied" at the meeting and in the telephone call.1578 By " lying" Mr. Weil indicated that he meant only that Mr. Boos had made a factually incorrect statement, not that he had intended to mislead.1579 Both Mr. R. Cook and Dr. Landsman indicated a belief that Mr. Boos had possibly intentionally misled the Staff. Mr. R. Cook based this belief on his view that Mr. Boos was an authoritative source who should have known the truth.1580 However, both Mr. R. Cook and Dr. Landsman were reluctant to testify that Mr. Boos had deliberately misled them.1581 We conclude from other evidence, however, that even Mr. Weil's interpretation of Mr. Boos' statements is incorrect. 580. Consumers Power presented testimony of two Bechtel Field Engineers, Richard T. Black and Pamela S. Glass, who had supervisory responsibility for the installation of the conduit und cable for the underpinning instrumentation. Mr. Black as lead raceway engineer supervised the installation of conduit and cable, and Ms. Glass was a subordinate supervisor under Mr. Black.1582 According to Mr. Black, his first involve-l 1578 Weil, Tr. 17696-17697. 1579 _I_d. 1580 Tr. 17875-17880. 1581 Landsman and Cook, Tr. 17530-17534. 1582 Black, prepared testimony at p. 1, following Tr. j 19778; Glass, prepared testimony at p. 2, following Tr. 19790.
-388-ment in the instrumentation work was a meeting on February 8 in
.Mr. Velanzano's office, at which Mr. Black received information about the planned instrument installation, including the fact that the instrumentation was temporary, i.e., only to be in-stalled for 18 months, and the fact that the instrumentation was a non-Q installation.1583 581. A memorandum dated February 11, 1982 from J.
Fisher to L.E. Davis indicated that as of that date Bechtel needed to install instruments at 10 locations in order for Phase 2 work to begin.1 84 Further, the constraints of the then projected start of. Phase 2 work and the time needed for installing and baselining instrumentation dictated a completion (or near completion) date for conduit and wiring for the re-quired instruments of March 1. Later, according to the testi-
~
mony of Mr. Boos and Ms. Glass, the date for completion of the wiring slipped to March 7 or 8.1585 Mr. Black ard Ms. Glass testified that the conduit and cable installation met or nearly met this target date.1 86 Mr. Black also testified that at least by February-20 e some raceway (conduit and related fix-tures) had been installed.1587 Material withdrawal slips 1583 Black, prepared testimony at pp. 3-4, following Tr. 19778; Tr. 19910-19911. 1584' Black, Tr. 19865; Consumers Power' Exhibit No. 56; see also Black, Tr. 19865-19866. 1585 -See Boos, Tr. 19985-19994; Glass, prepared testimony at p. 4, following Tr. 19790. 1586 Glass and Black, Tr. 19898-19903. 1587 Black, prepared testimony at p. 9, following Tr. 19778.
-389-confirm that at least by February 21 conduit installation had begun.1588 Both Mr. Black and Ms. Glass testified that actual cable pulling began either the day the cable arrived on site or the day after.1589 The delivery receipt shows that the cable arrived on February 26, 1983, making the latest possible start-ing date for cable pulling February 27.1590 582. Mr. Black also testified that he attended two weekly project meetings, one on March 5, and one, judging from the circumstances, which must have been on March 12. Mr. Boos was present at both meetings.1591 At the March 5 meeting, Black said, he informed those present at the meeting, including Mr. Boos, either directly or through Mr. Simpson, that he
- t. (pected the cable installation for the 8 electrical instrument lccations then thought needed to start Phase 2 to be completed by March 7.1592 At the second meeting on March 12, he informed those present, including Mr. Boos, that all these cables had been pulled.15S3 Mr. Black testified that the conduit installa-tion and cable pulling for those locations was completed at least by March 10 and possibly as early as March 8.1594 1588 Glass, Tr. 19793_19795; Consumers Power Exhibit No. 54; Glass, prepared testimony at pp. 5-6, following Tr. 19790.
1589 Black, prepared testimony at p. 11, following Tr. 19778; Tr. 19905-19907. 1590 . at p. 11 and Exhibit 3. 1591 . at pp. 12-13. 1592 _Id. 1593 . at pp. 13-14. 1594 Black, Tr. 19901-19903. l
-390-583. Ms. Glass and Mr. Black also testified that because of an interference with a wall of the turbine building penthouse, cable from the instruments on the east electrical penetrating wing, which had to pass along the north wall of the penthouse, had to be pulled back from the Data Acquisition room in order to allow removal and relocation of the conduit.1595 Mr. Black testified that this pullback occurred between March 12 and March 18 and that he did not learn of it until after the March 12th meeting.1596 Ms. Glass, who later surveyed the work in May of 1982, testified that the work at the time of her survey was in the same condition as it was on the shutdown date, March 19, and that approximately half of the previously installed cables had been pulled back from the data acquisition room and coiled on the roof of the turbine building.1597 This left approximately fifteen cables remaining in the data acquisi-tion room.1598 584. We conclude from all the evidence before us that these 15 cables were present in the Data Acquisition Room when Dr. Landsman, Mr. Gardner, and Mr. Schaeffer viewed them. We also conclude from all the evidence that cable pulling for the 1595 Black, prepared testimony at pp. 14-15, following Tr.
19778; Glass, prepared testimony at pp. 6-8, following Tr. 19790. 596 Black, prepared testimony at p. 16, following Tr. 19778; Black, Tr. 19924-19925. 1597 Glass, prepared testimony at pp. 7-8, following Tr. 19790; Tr. 19904. 1598 Black, prepared testimony at p. 16, following Tr. 19778.
t
)
-391-eight electrical instrument locations then perceived to be necessary for Phase 2 was c5mplete by at least March 10.
585. Dr. Landsman's and Mr. R. Cook's account of what Mr. Boos said at the March 10 meeting cannot be given much weight because, by their own testimony it was their subjective impression of 'what had been said rather than their firm recol-lection of what had objectively transpired.1599 Dr. Landsman in particular failed completely to recall Mr'. Hood's use of a Phase 1 vs. Phase 2 criterion for applying'Q controls to work in addition to the ongoing _ work. "1600 The most we can con-clude is, from Mr. Xane's written statement in the Investiga-tion Report, that Mr. Boos at the' meeting alluded to instrumen-tation status without trying to give a definitive status of the state of the work.1601 1 586. There is no controversy at all about what Mr. Boos said in the March 12 telephone call -- the transcript
. 1 shows that he stated that instrumentation was " essentially well under way."160"0 Mr. Boos testified that . instrumentation con-sisted of several activities.in a'ddition to' conduit installa-I tion and cable pulling, such as monitoring equipment installa-O tion, instrument installation, and termination. Mr. Boos
'599 Landsman, R. Cook and Weil, Tr. 17428-17429.
1600 Landsman, Tr. 17434-17435. 1601 Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit XV. l 1602 Id. at Exhibit 1 at p. 6. 1603 Boos,'Tr. 20026-20028, 20077, 20083-20084. I
-392-testified that, even computing on the basis of the increased number _of' instruments known to be needed by March 12, taking into account all work that had been done by that date, one third to one half of the instrumentation work was complete as
- 604 of that date. He testified that he considered this state of work to be well described by the term "well underway," and
' apologized for the addition of the work " essentially" as possi-
. bly bad diction but not changing the meaning of the phrase or making it misleading.1605 We agree with Mr. Boos on all counts. 587. In contrast, Dr. Landsman construed both the statement at the March 10 meeting and in the March 12 telephone call ~to have indicated substantial completion of the instrumenta-tion work.1606 Dr. Landsman, under cross examination on that portion of his sworn' statement in the investigation report which refers to the criterion set down at the March 10 meeting for work-allowed to be non-Q as work " begun" before March 10, indicated that he used the word " begun" in that context to mean
" essentially-complete."1607 In view of Dr. Landsman's and Mr.
Cook's demonstrated lack of recall of what was actually said at the March 10 meeting and Dr. Landsman's admission of semantic j confusion between beginning and completing an activity, we can l
~ 1604 Boos, Tr. 20085-20088.
1605 Boos, Tr. 20128. 1606 Landsman, Tr. 17430-17431; see also R. Cook, Tr. . 17789-17791. 1607 Landsman, Tr. 17803-17805; see also Landsman, Tr. 17795-17796.
-393-only conclude that if Dr. Landsman and Mr. R. Cook were misled as a result of the meeting and telephone call, the misunderstand-ing arose from their own subjective misapprehension and misunder-standing of what was said rather than from the objective state-ments of others.
588. We find that Mr. Boos likely made a statement about instrumentation cable and conduit installation at the March 10 meeting. However, this statement was based on accur-ate information at the preceding Friday's weekly project meet-ing furnished to him by Mr. Black or by Mr. Simpson based on information from Mr. Black. In any event, the statement was not intended (or construed by the only NRC Staff member who remembered it) as a precise status report intended to secure NRC approval for performing instrument installation non-Q. We find furth9r that Mr. Boos' use of the phrase " essentially well underway" in the March 12 telephone call may have not been l l completely descriptive but was based on accurate and up to date l l information furnished to him that same day. Thus we conclude that Mr. Boos did not make either a material false statement or even a misleading statement in either the meeting or the con-l ference call. 589. We note, however, that there was considerable difficulty in communications between the Staff and Consumers Power despite extensive meetings and telephone calls. One of the principal misunderstandings was the belief by Consumers Power that instrumentation was part of Phase 1 work at the same time the Staff believed it was part of Phase 2. Darl Hood, the
- ~ , ~
A
-394-Midland Project Manager, stated in his written statement to the Investigator that he did not become aware of Censumers Power's view until a March 30 meeting.1608 Mr. Hood indicated there (and in his oral testimony) that this discovery indicated to him that communications were lacking and that the NRC shared some of the blame for this.1609 We find, therefore, that there - may have been considerable miscommunication by both Consumers Power and the NRC Staff, but there were no misleading statements, either intentional or unintentional. Accordingly, nothing arising out of this incident is material to our decision regard-ing quality assurance implementation or even the more limited issues of management attitude.
B. Alleged Board Order Violations
- 1. Overview 590. On August 11, 1982, representatives of the Applicant and the NRC Staff met to address allegations by Dr.
Landsman that the Applicant had violated this Licensing Board's April 30, 1982 Order.1610 Dr. Landsman's position was that two excavation activities constituted violations of the Order: (1) the excavation beneath an electrical duct bank commonly referred to as the " Deep Q" duct bank, and (2) the relocation of a buried fire protection line. During the course of the 1608 Staff Exhibit No. 22, Exhibit XII at pp. 2-3. 1609 Id.: Hood, Tr. 17761, 17766. 1610 Hood and Landsman, TI. 21644-21647. See paragraphs 347-353 supra for a discussion of the April 30 Order.
395-meeting, Applicant denied having violated the April 30 Order.1611 Subsequently,.Dr. Landsman prepared a memorandum dated August 24, 1982, formalizing the charge of violations.1612 591. Following the August 11 meeting, the matter was referred to the NRC Office of Investigations ("OI"). OI con-ducted its initial investigation between January 3 and March 30, 1983. In a June 2, 1983 memorandum to James Keppler, Benjamin Hayes, Director, Office of Investigations, presented an over-view of OI's conclusions. The memorandum indicated that while a " clear difference of opinion" was established, OI was not able to develop sufficient. objective evidence to support the contention of either party. Mr. Hayes also concluded that further investigative effort was unlikely to resolve this issue. The memorandum stated that the investigation was closed.1613 592. At the request of Region III, on July 11, 1983, OI reopened its investigation. OI's second investigation, which was completed on August 8, 1983 and which is reported in a supplemental investigation report, reached a markedly differ-1611 _I__d_ . 1612 See Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 2. 1613 See Staff Exhibit No. 29. Despite requests by Staff counsel and by the Board, OI declined to provide either Mr. Hayes or his deputy, Mr. Fortuna, as a witness in this proceed-ing. None of the Staff witnesses had knowledge of the circum-stances under which Staff Exhibit No. 29 was prepared, and we admitted it for the limited purpose of showing that OI took a position regarding the investigation, but not for the truth of the matters stated therein. We made the same ruling with respect to the second to last paragraph of the cover letter to the second OI investigation report, Staff Exhibit No. 28 at p. 2; Tr. 21671-21672.
-396-ent conclusion from that of the first investigation. The cover letter to the second investigation report, authored by Mr. Hayes, states that the weight of the evidence developed during the supplemental investigation supports the conclusion that Appli-cant violated the April 30 Order.1614 593. We held hearings concerning the above-mentioned allegations were held on various days between October 31 and November 9, 1983, and on December 3, 1983. The NRC Staff testi-mony was presented by Ross Landsman, Ronald Cook and Darl Hood, as well as by Charles Weil and Harold Walker, who among others conducted the investigation on behalf of OI. James Mooney and Robert Wheeler presented prefiled direct testimony on behalf of the Applicant. The Staff, Ms. Stamiris and this Board requested that John Schaub, Applicant's Assistant Project Manager for the Soils Project, appear for cross-examination, and he did so.
John Donnell, a former employee of a contractor at the Midland site, testified-at the December 3, 1983 hearing. ~ 594. The evidentiary record on the subject of the 1-alleged violations has been fully developed. Numerous exhibits I have been admitted into evidence. Extensive cross-examination has been conducted. Although the Applicant and the NRC Staff are in some disagreement as to overall conclusions, many of the underlying facts are not in dispute. ! 2. The Deep Q duct bank 595. The first excavation allegedly in violation of i our Order occurred at the location where the Deep Q duct bank 1614 See Staff Exhibits No. 27 and No. 28. l __
-397-intersects the freezewall. The freezewall consists of a series of underground pipes through which refrigerant is pumped. The soil down to the impervious till layer is thereby frozen, stopping the flow of groundwater. Once the groundwater flow is stopped, the excavation for underpinnings under the Auxiliary Building can be made in relatively dry soil.
65 596. In a November, 1981 letter, the NRC Staff approved the installation of the freezewall.1616 This approval encom-passed all steps short of activating the freezewall equipment.1617 As a basis for its approval, the Staff noted that none of the steps involved in installing the freezewall was irreversible. 618 597. In prefiled testimony admitted into evidence in December of 1981, the Staff, while confirming its approval of the freezewall installation, set out certain licensing condi-tions precedent to freezewall activation.1619 One such condi-tion required documentation that the freezewall, when activated, 1615 Burke, Corley, Gould, Johnson and Sozen, prepared testimony regarding remedial measures for the auxiliary build-l ing at p. 17, following Tr. 5509. 1616 In December of 1981, Darl Hood Staff Exhibit No. 5. ! . testified concerning the Staff's review of the freezewall. He was unaware whether NRR had reviewed the working drawings prior i to approval of the freezewall. Hood, Tr. 5489-5491. Some draw-l ings, specifications and other information had been received by l the Staff. Hood, Tr. 5490. Hood could not state, however, whether the Staff believed that the information provided by the Applicant to that date constituted a commitment. Hood, Tr. 5490. 1617 Hood, Tr. 5489; Kane, Tr. 21699. 1618 Staff Exhibit No. 5 at p. 1; Hood, Tr. 21703-21704. 1619 Hood, Kane and Singh, prepared testimony concerning the remedial underpinning of the auxiliary building area, Table l
.A.20 at p. 1, following Tr. 5839.
l
-398-would not adversely affect Seismic Category I structures, conduits and piping.1620 598. In its initial technical proposals regarding the four freezewall utility crossings, the Applicant suggested that no physical protection of the utilities was necessary.1621 After further discussions with the NRC Staff, the Applicant proposed a method of protection involving excavation of the soils surrounding the underground utilities and within the zone of influence of the freezewall. The resulting gap between the utility and adjacent soils would protect the utility from heaving of the frozen ground.
599. In a letter dated January 6, 1982, the Applicant documented its proposal.1622 Attached to the letter is a summary of the measures the Applicant suggested for the pro-tection of underground utilities and structures. Also attached to the letter are sketches showing a plan and profile view of each of the crossings. In each instance, the profile 1620 At four separate locations, the freezewall crosses , safety-related underground utilities. At each of these .oca-tions, a method had to be devised to protect the utility from potential damage due to the heaving of frozen soil while main-taining the integrity of the freezewall. See generally, Mooney and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning the alleged violations of the April 30 ASLB Order and the March 1982 cable-pulling incident at p. 7, following Tr. 19983; Hood and Kane, Tr. 21692. 1621 Kant, Tr. 21692. 1622' See Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 14. 1623 The utility crossing designated " Crossing 3" in the January 6 letter is the Deep Q electrical duct bank. The crossing designated " Crossing 1" is another electrical duct bank (hereinafter referred to as the " shallow duct bank"). The crossing designated " Crossing 2" is actually two separate crossings of service water piping.
-399-sketches show an excavation down to and slightly below the utility. The sketches indicate a gap between the bottom of the
-utilities and the bottom of the excavation, but show neither dimensions nor detailed plans.1624 Because of the absence of details'and dimensions, Applicant's witnesses described the sketches attached to the-January 6 letter as " conceptual draw-
~ings."1625 The report attached to the January 6 letter, how-ever does contain some specifics. For example, the report indicates that the Deep Q duct bank is 22 feet deep at cross-ing 3, with a 6-inch to one foot gap between the exposed duct bank and the top of the excavation.1626 600. In correspondence dated February 12, 1982, the 4
, NRC Staff approved the activation of the freezewall, subject to 1-the Applicant's proposals regarding protection of underground l utilities presented in the January 6, 1982Lletter and certain additional conditions beyond those set forth in December 1981. [ Work commenced at all four utility crossings prior to April 30, 1982.1627 In the course of construction, the Applicant added certain features not shown in the January 6 sketches to the
. designs for. protecting utilities where they crossed the freeze-wall. The final configuration of the utility crossings is 1624 Wheeler, Tr. 22341.
1625 ~ See Wheeler, Tr. 22341; Mooney, Tr. 22351. 1626 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 14, enclosed report at p.~3. 627 Wheeler, Tr. 21953-21964; Mooney, Tr. 22350-22351; e; Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 4, Letter from R. Tedesco to l J. Cook dated February 12, 1982 (last document). ,
-400-accurately depicted, in all respects save one, in Consumers Power Exhibit No. 60.1628 601. At crossings 1, 2 and 3 as shown on Consumers Power Exhibit No. 60, the Applicant modified the initial design by imposing a load on or " surcharging" the bottom of the excava-tions in order to compensate for the weight of the soil lost to the excavation. Partly to accommodate the surcharge load and partly to permit human access below the utility, Applicant excavated a trench approximately ten feet in depth below the bottom of the utility at crossing 1. The bottom four feet of this trench is backfilled with concrete, creating a base for the receipt of the surcharge load.1629 A somewhat similar approach is employed at crossings 2 and 3.1630 602. Dr. Landsman testified that, in effect, he had no objections to the modifications that had been made to the O Consumers Power Exhibit No. 60, at Figure 5, shows a concrete " plug" extending approximately 11 feet below the bottom of the Deep Q duct bank. This was never installed. In place of the concrete plug, there is currently an open excava-tion having the same dimensions as the plug. It is this excava-tion which allegedly violated our Order.
It should be noted that the crossing locations in Exhibit 60 are numbered differently from those of the January 6 letter. The shallow duct bank is represented as Crossing 1 in both the January 6 letter and Exhibit No. 60. Crossing 2 of the January 6 letter was divided into two crossings, designated Crossings 2 and 3 in Exhibit No. 60. Crossing 4 in Exhibit No. 60,'the Deep Q duct bank, is the same as Crossing 3 in the January 6 letter. -See Kane, Tr. 21706-21707. Hereinafter, the designations used in Exhibit No. 60 will be adhered to, unless otherwise specified. 1629 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 60, Figure 2. 1630 Landsman, Tr. 21573; Consumers Power Exhibit No. 60, Figures 3 and 4.
-401-first three crossings. With respect to crossing 1, he had been made aware of a number of field conditions which made it neces-sary to extend the excavation deeper than that depicted in the . January 6 letter. Because of the presence of other utilities, the excavation was being carried out in very close quarters.
As a practical matter, the hole had to be made large enough to accommodate an individual digging the soil away from the duct bank. In addition, a large concrete mud mat had to be broken up, resulting in a larger hole.1631 603. Dr. Landsman also testified regarding crossings 2 and 3. He thought he had discussed the surcharging of these crossings with Mr. Kane, but could not recall exactly when. He noted that if the Applicant, on its own accord, desired to sur-charge the pits, he had no objection. Dr. Landsman was primarily concerned that the 6-inch gap between the utility and adjacent soils in the zone of influence cf the freezewall would be maintained.1632 604. As a result of field conditions encountered during excavation, the Applicant also varied its plans for crossing 4. Initially, Consumers Power intended to insert the freeze elements in a manner which would have frozen the soils directly beneath the duct bank. However, this plan was abandoned when Consumers Power discovered that the duct bank was deeper than expected so as to preclude proper insertion of the freeze elements where needed. As an alternative plan, Applicant 1631 Landsman, Tr. 21753-21754. 1632 _Id-r -
-402-decided to excavate the soils from below the duct bank and install a plug which would serve in place of the freezewall of that location.1633 605. On April 30, 1982, in the midst of Applicant's freezewall crossing excavation activities, we issued our " Memo-randum and Order (Imposing Certain Interim Conditions Pending Issuance of a Partial Initial Decision)." Following the issu-ance of the Order, Applicant sought to establish the precise limits of the Staff's prior approval of soils-related activi-ties. To that end, Applicant sent a letter to the Staff dated May 10, 1982, describing, inter alia, the freeze wall activities for which it believed prior approval had been obtained.1634 The letter addressed three categories of work: (1) remedial soils work which had been previously approved by the NRC and was continuing, (2) work previously approved which was not then underway, and (3) work which had been initiated with NRC cogni-zance, but which was no longer proceeding because explicit written approval had not been obtained. " Freeze wall installa-tion, underground utility protection, soil removal [,] cribbing and related work in support of the freeze wall installation, l freeze wall monitoring and freeze wall activation" were included in the first category.1635 1633 Mooney and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning the alleged violations of the April 30 ASLB Order and the March 1982 cable-pulling incident at pp. 7-8, following Tr. 19983.
1634 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 3. 1635 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 3 at p. 2.
-403-606. On May 20, 1982, during a break in an ACRS site
- ' tour'which was then in progress, the Applicant and the Staff 1 convened an impromptu meeting. The meeting was attended by
' Messrs. Kane, Hood and Landsman of the Staff, and by a number i of individuals from Consumers Power Company and Bechtel.
636 Notice of.this meeting ~had-not been provided to the public in F 'accordance with NRR's open meetings. policy; hence, Mr. Hood requested that no notes be taken and no minutes of the meeting
.be prepared.1637 One of the purposes of the meeting was to i discuss:the freezewall utility crossings, although a number of different technical subjects were addressed.1638 During the course of the meeting, the Staff'was advised of the final, as completed configuration of freezewall crossings 1, 2 and'3, as well as the_new proposal for crossing 4.1639
; See Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 8 at p. 1; see
.also Landsman, Tr. 21549.
1637' . Hood, Tr. 21725-21726. 1638- See generally, Mooney, Tr. 22457-22459; see Staff Exhibit-No. 26, Attachment 8. 1639 Hood and Kane, Tr.. 21729-21730; Kane, Tr. 21739- , 21740i. Landsman,JTr. 21754-21755,.21757. Dr. Landsman in fact knew that the Deep Q duct bank was deeper.than originally anticipated prior to the May 20 meeting. Landsman, Tr. 21722. l Mr. Kane previously knew that crossings 1,-2 and~3.had been
- -equipped with concrete base mats for the surcharge load. Kane,
'Dr. 21735. -During the portion of the site tour preceding the meeting, Mr. Hood saw surcharges in place, and both he and lir. Kane examined some of the crossings. Kane and Hood, Tr.
21724;JHood, Tr. 21732. During the meeting, Applicant showed L the-Staff drawings depicting the actual condition of crossings 1, 2 and 3,'as well as the detailed proposal for crossing 4. Hood and Kane, Tr. 21721; Landsman and Kane, Tr. 21748-21749, p 21879. , l L ~ . . . _ . . . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . . _
-404-607. During the May 20 meeting, there was consider-able discussion about the method proposed by Applicant to backfill the excavations at the utility crossing points. The Staff was concerned that the concrete base mats at crossings 1, 2, and 3, and the proposed concrete plug at crossing 4, would create a zone of incompressible material and, consecuently, differential settlement. From a reading of the transcript as a whole, it is apparent that the type of backfill to be used in the excavations was the focus of discussions at the meeting relating to the utility crossing points.1640 This is also apparent from the notes of John Fisher, Bechtel's Remedial Soils Manager, who prepared the only surviving contemporanecas record of the meeting.1641 608. In addition to the backfill discussions, however, Dr. Landsman advised Applicant during the meeting not to dig 4
beneath the Deep Q duct bank without receiving NRC approval. Dr. Landsman testified that he " looked someone in the eye," probably Mr. Mooney or Mr. Schaub, when he gave this direc-tive.1643 609. Dr. Landsman's admonition was recorded in the handwritten notes of John Fisher. Mr. Fisher's notes contain the following entry: "We will proceed w/ exposing utility & not 1640 See Kane and Hood, Tr. 21845-21846; Kane, Tr. 21763. 1641 See Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 8. 1642 See Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 8; Landsman, Tr. 21653; Hood and Kane, Tr. 21761-21762; Kane, Tr. 21764. 1643 Landsman, Tr. 21653, 21764.
-405-proceed with excavating the pit below deep Q until NRC ap-proval."1644 Mr. Fisher, however, filed away his notes and did not circulate them within the Applicant's organization until after Landsman's allegation surfaced.1645 610. Another set of notes was prepared by Robert E.
Sevo, an employee of MPQAD in the soils area. Sevo's notes contain two relevant entries. The first entry, which corrobo-rates John Fisher's notes, states: "No further deepening of the deep duct bank until NRR Concurrance after [ sic]". The second entry, however, contradicts the Fisher notes and the first Sevo entry: " Deep duct bank opened up to allow freeze to start - then finish excavation to till."1646 611. Applicant's management was not aware of the existence of either Mr. Fisher's or Mr. Sevo's notes. And, because of Mr. Hood's directive, no official minutes of the neeting were kept.1647 Thus, Applicant's management did not 1644 See Consumers Power Exhibit No. 65; Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 8. Mr. Fisher, in a statement given to NRC Investigator Weil, said "the statement in my notes concerning excavation below the deep Q duct bank is written in ink in my notes, in contrast to most of the rest of my notes which were written in pencil. Most likely, this indicates the entry was made after the meeting . . . . Staff Exhibit No. 27, Attach-ment 7 at p. 2. 1645 Staff Exhibit No. 27, Attachment 7 at p. 2. 1646 Staff Exhibit No. 27, Attachment 17 at pp. 1-2. Mr. Sevo acknowledged the notes as hic, but had no independent recollection of the May 20 meeting, could not recall discussing the entry with anyone, and did not look at the notes or show them to anyone until Investigator Weil asked to see his files. Staff Exhibit No. 27, Attachment 16 at p. 2. 1647 Kane, Tr. 21725-21726.
-406-have access to any written memoranda reflecting Dr. Landsman's statement.1648 612. Although Mr. Mooney does not dispute that Dr.
~
l- Landsman's warning was given, neither does he recall hearing it, and he left the May 20 meeting with the impression that the NRC had no objections to Applicant's plans for excavating under the Deep Q duct bank.1649 Mr. Schaub, who also attended the meeting, testified that, in a separate discussion, Mr. Kane had approved both the excavation under the Deep Q duct bank and the proposed backfilling technique, provided such activities were carried out at Applicant's commercial risk.1650 Mr. Hood recalled this discussion between Schaub and Kane, but testified that the opposite conclusion had been reached, namely, that Kane would not approve the above activities at Applicant's commercial risk.1651 Mr. Kane himself could not recall any discussions with regard to " commercial risk."1652 613. At the May 20 meeting, the NRC Staff did not i admonish the Applicant about or charge the Applicant with l ' violating'our Order by modifying crossings 1, 2, and 3, which 1648 In'an inspection report dated September 22, 1982, IE documented aspects of the meeting. This report was issued l after the excavation under the Deep Q duct bank had taken j place. 1649 Mooney and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning the alleged violations of the April 30 ASLB Order and the March i 1982 cable-pulling incident at pp. 4-5, following Tr. 19983. 1. 650 Schaub, Tr. 22504, 22505-22506. 1651 Hood, Tr. 21559. 1652 Kane, Tr. 21852c i
-407-modifications _had been completed between April 30 and May 20.1653 The Staff also did not ask the Applicant to reverse the steps taken at these crossings, even though reversal was clearly possible.1654 614. On May 21, the Region III Inspectors onsite conducted an exit meeting. This exit meeting was attended by a number of individuals from the Applicant, Bechtel and the NRC.1655 Dr. Landsman has stated that he repeated his warning 656 not to dig under the Deep Q duct bank at this meeting. Dr.
Landsman also announced at this meeting that he had discovered no items of noncompliance during his inspection on the preced-ing day.1657 615. Minutes of the exit meeting were prepared on June 4 for Donald Horn's signature by Applicant's Brian Palmer, an em-ployee of Mr. Horn. Mr. Horn read the minutes before their issuance, but does not recall discussing the portion relating 6 to the Deep Q duct bank with Mr. Palmer. The minutes contain the following reference to the Deep Q duct bank:
" Landsman confirmed-his understanding that the excavation would 1653 Kane, Tr. 21739.
l 1654 Kane, Tr. 21867. 1655 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 9 at p. 4. 1656 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 2 at p. 2. 1657 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 9 at p. 3. 1658 Staff Exhibit No. 27, Attachment 8 at p. 1.
-408-be terminated a short distance below the duct bank rather than lower as originally planned."1659 616. According to John Fisher, the above-quoted statement was in error since it did not reflect the Applicant's actual plans as of May 21.1660 Mr. Schaub testified that the reference reflected the need to stop the excavation below the duct bank long enough for Dr. Landsman to observe the utility protection pits prior to activation of the freezewall, rather than a prohibition against digging beneath the utility. Dr.
Landsman had given this instruction at the meeting the day 661 Mr. Palmer confirmed Mr. Schaub's understanding before. of the reference in a statement given to NRC Investigator Weil, although Mr. Palmer admitted that his memory on the subject was
. dim. 1662 Glen Murray, an employee of Applicant's onsite construc- ' tion organization, provided yet a third interpretation. In a written statement taken by Investigator Weil, Mr. Murray explained that his understanding was that Dr. Landsman's comment was intended to apply to an earlier proposal to make a full width excavation from the bottom of the duct bank down to the top of i '1650 James Mooney, in testimony and in a statement made to l
l Investigator Weil, confirmed that the was on the distribution l list for the minutes and that he probably read them shortly after thier issuance. However, he does not recall noticing the referenced prohibition against excavation under the Deep Q duct bank, and was not made aware of the prohibition until Landsman raised the issue in August. See Staff Exhibit No. 27, Attach-ment 11; Mooney, Tr. 22415; see also Weil, Tr. 22226. 1660 Staff Exhibit No. 27, Attachment 7 at p. 2. 1661 Schaub, Tr. 22534-22535; see also Staff Exhibit No. j- 26, Attachment 8 at p. 1. 1662 Staff Exhibit No. 27, Attachment 9. I
-409-the clay till, Mr. Murray did not believe Dr. Landsman's admonition was. intended to apply to the partial width shaft cut-off trench that was finally decided upon and excavated.1663 617. In a letter dated May 25, 1982, which was par-tially in response to the Applicant's May 10 letter, the Staff announced the approach it would take in reviewing the bal.ance of the soils remedial activities at the Midland Plant. Enclo-sure 4 to the letter specifically addressed some of the items in the Applicant's May 10 letter, including the freezewall and utility protection. The letter indicated that, in the future, the Staff would discontinue its practice of approving individual construction steps and instead complete its review as an inte-grated package. Importantly, those activities for which Staff review was substantially completed as of April 1, 1982, were approved.1664 618. The salient features of the May 25 letter are as follows: (1) it confirms prior approval of the " soil removal" and "tnderground utility protection" activities listed in paragraph 1(c) of Applicant's May 10 letter; (2) it withholds confirmation of "related activities in support of the freeze-wall", also listed.in paragraph I(c) of the May 10 letter; (3) 663 Staff Exhibit No. 27, Attachment 30.
664 See Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 4. According to Mr. Hood, the May 25 letter took into account facts revealed at the May 20 meeting. Hood, Tr. 21799, 21810-21811. However, the letter was, for the most part, drafted by Mr. Hood prior to May 20, with input from Mr. Kane. Kane, Tr. 21793, 21657. Dr. Landsman reviewed a draft of the letter. Landsman, Tr. 21789. The letter was in substance regarded by Mr. Hood as a response to the Applicant's May 10 letter. Hood, Tr. 21360.
-410-it indicates that the Staff relied on, , inter alia, November 16 and November 24, 1981, and January 6, 1982 letters from Appli-cant to Harold Denton, and November 19, 1981 ASLB Hearing testimony of J. P. Gould, as the basis for Staff review and ,
approval of the above items;1665 (4) it lists open items (e.g., that a report analyzing whether backfill would lead to differential settlement at the utility crossings was required), but contains no languege specifically mentioning the Deep Q duct bank or the excavation under it; and (5) it provides that
"[a]ny deviation must be reported and approved by the [S]taff."1666 1665 The November 16 and 24, 1981 letters have neither been introduced nor admitted into evidence. The January 6, 1982 letter is Attachment 14 to Staff Exhibit No. 26.
1666 The meaning of this phrase, which may be found in the final paragraph of Enclosure 4 to the May 24 letter, is some-what confusing. The entire paragraph provides:
"In summary, ambiguity associated with CPC's use of the term ' Phase 1 work' and 'related
[ freeze wall] work' preclude confirmation of specific prior approval of these activi-ties. Similarly, failure by CPCo to identify the particular existing construction dewater-ing wells preclude us from determing whether
- previous Staff concurrence had been indicated.
I No description or discussion is provided for a 'FIVP proof load test' and no record of prior Staff approval can be located. Consequently, continuation of these activi-l ties in conformance with the foregoing i staff comments will be in accordance with the Board Memorandum and Order of April 30, 1982. Any deviations must be reported and approved by the staff." ! This language is separated from the discussion of concurrence of freezewall activities in paragraph I(c) by a number of different items. Moreover, paragraph I(c) provides that expli-cit concurrence for freezewall installation, underground utility protection, soil' removal and cribbing (but not "related work in i support of the freezewall installation") had been obtained from the Staff prior to our April 30 Order.
-411-619. The NRC Staff and the Applicant have different interpretations of the May 25 letter, stemming in part from dif-ferent interpretations of the above-described events which pre-ceded the issuance of the letter. Mr. Mooney testified that the letter confirmed.his understanding that the installation and activation of the freezewall, of which the utility protection proposals were a part, had been approved prier to April 30, 1982. In accordance with this understanding, the modifications in the freezewall crossings, made in part after April 30, were merely field variations upon an already approved conceptual design and within the intended scope of the original approval.
In his opinion, the excavation under the Deep Q duct bank was one such field modification, within the activity " utility protection."1667 620. Mr. Hood expressed a different view of the let-ter, which he had drafted. While admitting that the letter took.into account the facts disclosed by Applicant at the May 20 meeting, he testified that the basis upon which the Enclo-sure 4, paragraph I(c) items had been approved was limited to the references recited in Enclosure 4, particularly the Jan-uary 6, 1982 letter of the Applicant. In Mr. Hood's opinion, since the January 6 letter omits mention of an excavation beneath:the Deep Q duct bank, no such excavation was approved 668 by Enclosure 4 to the May 25 letter. 1667 Mooney, Tr. 22360-22362. 1668 Hood, Tr. 21360-21362. w-w x
l
-412-621. Mr.. Hood stated that he intended the May 25 let-ter to warn the Applicant to refrain from excavating under the Deep Q duct bank by including the reference to "related items in support of.the freezewall." Because of the informal character of the May 20 meeting, Mr. Hood avoided making a direct refer-ence to the prohibition in his letter, but chose instead to use the same'words that the Applicant had used in its May 10 let-
'ter.1669 Mr. Hood also cited the "any deviations" language of Enclosure 4 as a warning to the Applicant.1 Mr. Hood fur-ther testified that the reference to the utility crossings in
-Enclosure 4 was to the Deep Q duct bank, not to the other three crossings.1671 622. In the Board's opinion, since the Staff's reserva-tions about "related activites" in its May 25 letter dealt with activities which the Applicant had placed in the category of previously approved and ongoing work in its May 10 letter, the
. Applicant had a duty to clear up the confusion upon receipt of the May 25 letter. Mr. Mooney testified that he went to Mr.
Hood shortly after receipt of the May 25 letter to ask why the Staff' refused confirmation of "related activities." Mr. Mooney l has stated that he explained to Mr. Hood what had been intended l~ ! by "related activities", but has agreed that the Deep Q duct bank was'not discussed.167~' l ! 1669 See Hood, Tr. 21360-21361, 21802-21804. , 1670 See Hood, Tr. 21805. 1671 Hood, Tr. 21834. 1672 Mooney, Tr. 21972-21973.
, .. ~. , , .- .- . . , - ~ . ----- -.- --__,-,..--,,-, - . , - - . . - -
-413-623. Following the issuance of the May 25 letter, there continued to be a misunderstanding between Applicant and the Staff with regard to the approval status of the Deep Q duct bank excavation. For example, in late July, the NRC conducted a design audit in Ann Arbor. Applicant prepared the agenda for this audit, and included as one item all of the freezewall crossings.1673 The Applicant indicated on the agenda that the status of the freezewall crossings was " confirmatory," acknow-1 edging that Applicant still owed the Staff documentation regarding the concrete backfill of the crossings.1674 624. Applicant's agenda formed the working draft used by the NRC during the meeting. This agenda listed the "SSER Status" of the " Design Modification Freezewall Crossing with Duct Banks" as a " Confirmatory Item." And, the Staff's intended purpose for the audit was to obtain a list of every open soils-related item.1676 The Staff subtracted from or otherwise changed the draft agenda as it saw fit during the audit, and items drawn from other lists prepared by the Staff prior to the audit were added as necessary.1677 Mr. Hood, however, testified that with respect to the agenda item relat-ing to the freezewall crossings, no changes had been made l
1673 Hood, Tr. 21814-21815. 1674 Hood, Tr. 21815-21816; Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attach-ment 16. 1675 Hood, Tr. 21815. 1676 Hood, Tr. 21826. 1677 Hood, Tr. 21854-21855.
-414-during the audit and no changes were subsequently made from the initial draft up to the time when minutes of the audit were published by Mr. Hood on November 12, 1982.1678 In the meeting summary subsequently prepared by Mr. Hood, the freezewall crossings item was described as " confirmatory." 0 '
625. During the time frame of the confusion surround-ing the Deep Q duct bank excavation, because of problems en-countered in excavations and drilling during the first quarter of 1982, the Applicant developed an excavation permit system. This system requires, among other things, that a representative from Applicant's organization sign excavation permits, signi-fying that all necessary NRC approvals have been obtained. Mr.-Robert Wheeler, Applicant's Remedial Soils Section Head, was the official responsible for signing-off on behalf of Consumers Power Company Construction. 626. Between April 30 and June 11, 1982, Mr. Wheeler sought and obtained Dr. Landsman's specific approval for every excavation request or permit at the Midland site, so as to make 1678 Hood, Tr. 21853-21857; Staff Exhibit 26, Attach-ment 16. 1679 Hood, Tr. 21818. The Midland SER (NUREG-0793), at p. 1-15, defines a
" Confirmatory Issue" as an item'"for which the staff has reason-able assurance that the appropriate regulatory requirements
.will be met by the applicant (and therefore the health and safety of the public), but for which certain confirmatory information has not yet been provided by the applicant." See also Hood, Tr. 21817-21819. 1680 A discussion of the excavation permit system may be found at paragraphs 365 to 367, supra. 1681 See Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 10.
-415-certain that whatever NRC approvals were required were, in 682 fact, given. Within this time period, Dr. Landsman speci-fically reviewed and approved such excavations as a 72-inch diameter pond fill repair, a hole for a freezewall element ex-tending 54 feet below grade, a slope layback plan, and an addi-tional Auxiliary Building deep-seated benchmark. Landsman also approved excavations for fence post holes.1683 Dr. Landsman could not recall documenting his approval of the additional Auxiliary Building deep-seated benchmark or"the expansion of the freeze hole to 54 feet below grade. He had not documented the approval of any fence post hole excavations.1684 627. On June 11, 1982, Mr. Wheeler and Dr. Landsman discussed the excavation permit system. Dr. Landsman indicated that the system was acceptable, although he had previously 1682 Landsman, Tr. 21919-21921.
1683 See Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 10. Dr. Landsman explained that the freeze hole approval related to an extension or deepening of an already existing hole, and that il could be regarded as a minor design change. He further explained that the hole was a part of the freezewall which had already been approved by the NRC. Landsman, Tr. 21917-21918. Dr. Landsman testified that the deep-seated benchmark excavation which he had approved was identical to the other deep-seated benchmarks previously approved by NRR, and hence was "no problem." Landsman, Tr. 21922-21923. Dr. Landsman also testified that the 72-inch pond fill repair had been brought to him for approval, and that he had approved excavation permits for fence post holes. Tr. 21921, 21927-21928. Dr. Landsman could not state whether any of these excavations, except for the 72-inch pond fill repair, were outside quality-related s_ils at the Midland jobsite. With regard to the 72-inch pond fill repair, he suggested that NRR was treating it as within its jurisdiction, as it became one of the major items discussed at the May 20 meeting. Landsman, Tr. 21921-21922. 1684 Landsman, Tr. 21925-21928.
~416-objected to certain portions of it.1685 Dr. Landsman also indicated that he no longer wished to review all excavation permits before work started; he told Mr. Wheeler that he would review the paperwork on all excavations having complete excava-tion permits between his site visits, and that the excavation permit procedure should be followed.1686 Dr. Landsman also stated that he would review excavation permits for major excava-tions, such as the excavation for the service water underpinn-ing, before work started.1687 f
628. Mr. Wheeler documented his June 11 discussions with Dr. Landsman in a handwritten note made contemporaneously with the discussion. The note reads: " Excavation permit procedure is OK - He will review signed off permits from site visit to site visit. He is only concerned with major excava-tions such as.SWS underpinning."1688 629. Dr. Landsman had some difficulty recalling the substance of his' June 11 discussion with Mr. Wheeler.1689 Eventually, Dr. Landsman conceded that he had, in fact, told Mr. Wheeler he did not want to review in advance excavation permits except for major excavations such as the service water pump structure underpinning.1690 However, Dr. Landsman added a 1685 Landsman, Tr. 21907; Wheeler, Tr. 22005-22006. 1686 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 10 at pp. 1-2. 1687 Landsman, Tr. 21934. 1688 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 10 at p. 4. 1689 Landsman, Tr. 21557, 21561-21562; Landsman and Weil, Tr. 21901-21911. 1690 Landsman, Tr. 21934.
-417-qualification: He understood the agreement to apply only to work previously approved by NRR. Dr. Landsman admitted, how-ever, that he had not mentioned this caveat to Mr. Wheeler when discussing the matter.1691 Thus, as the record now stands, Mr.
' Wheeler and Dr. Landsman are in accord as to the terms of their agreement as openly expressed by the parties on June 11, 1982.
630. Mr. Wheeler's perception as to whether the agreement applied'only to previously approved work differed from Dr.. Landsman's. Mr. Wheeler concluded that Dr. Landsman had given approva1 to go ahead with routine, non-drilled exca-vations under the' excavation permit system, subject to Staff review after the fact. He had anticipated that the Staff would eventually find that sufficient controls were in place to justify a broad, work release for routine excavations at the jobsite, and correctly believed that a broad work release was 69 within the Staff's powers under our April 30 Order. 631. On two occasions'after reaching the agreement with Dr. Landsman, Mr. Wheeler asked Dr. Landsman to review i permits after-the-fact, in ordar to carry out our instructions to clarify activities for which the Applicant sought specific l 693 Based on his practice at the l approval under our Order. , s time 'of making fortnightly visits to the jobsite, Dr. Landsman 1 testified that the excavation permits provided by Mr. Wheeler 16g1 Landsman, Tr. 21557.-21558, 21911, 21935, 21938. 1692 s Staff Exhibit No. 26,' Attachment 10 at p. 1. 1693 ' Wheeler, Tr.'22103'-22105. See also Mooney, Tr. 22103. ! A -
~
t- ,- , - . - ,
-418-for the review were not more than two weeks old.1694 On both occasions, Dr. Landsman declined to review the proffered excava-tion permits.1695 632. Mr. Wheeler understood the phrase " major excava-tion", as used by Dr. Landsman, in terms of the potential for hitting an underground obstruction, rather than in terms of the number of man-hours involved in the excavation activity. A drilled excavation involves a greater likelihood of hitting an object than does an open excavation which provides greater visibility.1696 633. Mr. Wheeler was questioned extensively concern-ing the application of his agreement with Dr. Landsman in particular cases. A chart prepared by Mr. Wheeler in antici-pation of the August 11, 1982 enforcement meeting was used in this questioning. This' chart displayed the first nine work I
permits issued at the Midland site, their dates, their signa-l tors, and the source of confirmation of NRC approval.1697 g listing of 1982 NRC discussion items covering the time frame I late May to early July, 1982, prepared by Wheeler, was also used in the questioning.1698
-1694 Landsman, Tr. 22212.
i 16 5 Wheeler, Tr. 22407-22408. 10' See Wheeler, Tr. 22404-22405. 1697 Stamiris Exhibit No. 123; Wheeler, Tr. 21987. j 1698 Stamiris Exhibit No. 131; Wheeler, Tr. 22462. Wheeler was questioned regarding the "NRC Approval Discussion Items" items listed beside 6/23/82. He recalled having a discussion with Dr. Landsman about the item " anode installations", but had I (Footnote 1698 continued on page 419) 1
r . . T -419-I'j# .
- \
s' *
. r 634. Shortly after the agreement with Dr. Landsman was reached, Mr. Wheeler advised members of his staff, parti-699 cularly Glenn Murray and Denald Sibbald, of the agreement.
't .
j . Mr. Wheeler also sho'w'ed the individuals who worked for him the note he made of his agreement witli Dr. Landsman.1700 Mr. Wheele'r di not recall having
- discussions with his staff relat-g ,
ing to either the Deep Q duct bank work permit or excavation p'ermit' Se'iore they were is ued,. .although that would have been
t *
- the usuallpractice.170'* Donald Sib' bald, Applicant's Technical
& t ,
u ,
-Section-Engineer who signed the work perm!t on July 22, indi-cated that! he may :have sp5k,en with John 'S<:haub ~about NRC approvals buthewasnotcertain.17b2' Mr. Wheeler's work for.the permit, '
permit chart, referred to supra, indicates that Mr.= Schaub confirmed NRC 'approv'a$'o;f the work permit, but Mr. Wheeler has 4 s , testified that this chart was prepared shortly before the
' , s , u ;
August ,s 15 enforcement meeting', and that it represented Mr. " yr
- ) Y
/ <
j , (Footnote 1698scontinued from page 418)
;- )
forgotten whether h'e asked for approval. Wheeler, Tr. 22462-22464. .This operation"in'volved drilling. Wheeler, Tr. 22464. With respect to.theiitem Antitled "BWST Crack Repair," he be-lieved he asked Landsman'for, approval. . Wheeler, Tr. 22467.
.This item involved more thanjust excavation. Wheeler, Tr.
22479-22480. He also asked Landsman for approval of'the " wells for'72 line"11 tem.and the five additional dewatering wells" item. Wheeler, Tr. 22467-22468. 1J , 1699 St f d Exhkb tI. No.?'2,6, Attachment 10; 'f 1700-Wheeler, Tri 224,84.
/ ,
1701 See Wheeler,'Tr. 21993-21994. 1702 Staff Exhibit,Nd. 26, Attachment 13. -
# +
r l w 1 ? - c
# 'l t
\ ..
1
.+ .
-420-Sibbald's uncertain recollection at the time.1703 Mr. Wheeler had no specific knowledge that Mr. Sibbald had contacted anyone before signing the work permit, and Mr. Schaub himself does not recall being approached by Mr. Sibbald about the permit.1704 635. Based on the agreement between Mr. Wheeler and Dr. Landsman, Mr. Murray signed the excavation permit for the Deep Q duct bank on July 21. Mr. Murray believes that he probably contacted Mr. Wheeler before signing, but could not recall with certainty.1705 on the basis of the signed permits, the excavation began on July 23, 1982.1706 636. On July.28, Dr. Landsman first became aware that the Deep Q duct bank excavation was continuing. When he became ' aware of the excavation, he told someone at the site that he 1 03 Wheeler, Tr. 21990.
04 Wheeler, Tr. 21991; Schaub, Tr. 22492-22493. 1 05 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 12 at p. 2. 1706 Consumers Power Exhibit No. 63 at p. 1. During the time period involving the excavation below the Deep Q duct bank and the fire protection line relocation (discussed infra), Applicant published weekly schedules of proposed work, sending copies to both Dr. Landsman and Mr. Hood. See Staff Exhibit No. 27, Attachment 20. These schedules hsd asterisks placed next to various work items to indicate "NRC review required." The asterisks appeared sporadically in conjunction with references to the Deep Q duct bank excavation and fire protection line relocation. The significance of these schedules and asterisks has been the subject of much specula-tion in this proceeding. For example, Mr. Schaub had no clear . recollection as to why the asterisks appeared or disappeared. Schaub, Tr. 22527-22531. Nor was there a clear understanding of what "NRC review required" meant in this context. Schaub, Tr. 22527-22530. The one thing that is clear is that neither the Applicant nor the Staff used these schedules for tracking NRC approvals for work items. Landsman and Hood, Tr. 22265; see Staff Exhibit No. 27, Attachments 23, 27 and 30. u -
-421-had prohibited it, but he does not recall who this person was. 1707 637, Mr. Wheeler testified that his staff first became aware of Dr. Landsman's concern on July 29. The excava-tion was then promptly halted, except for certain clean-up activities and steps necessary to secure the excavation.1 08 638. We have heard testimony as to whether the Deep Q excavation was " major" or " minor." The quantity of soil removed, approximately 16 cubic yards,1709 is sli ht in comparison to the " major" excavations contemplated at the Midland site. For example, the service water pump structure underpinning excava-tion referred to by Dr. Landsman, as reported in Mr. Wheeler's June 11 note, involved over 800 cubic yards.1 10 639. Mr. Kane testified that, based on quantity of soil, the Deep Q excavation was minor, but that it was major 1
from a safety standpoint. Mr. Kane expressed technical concerns regarding the proposal to use concrete backfill in the trench under the duct bank but, apart from objecting to divid-ing the job into two separate tasks, he expressed no concerns with the excavation itself.1712 For example, he saw no major 1707 Landsman, Tr. 22266. 1 08 Wheeler, Tr. 22091-22092, 22097. 1 09 Wheeler, Tr. 22406. 1 10 Wheeler, Tr. 22406. 1711 Kane, Tr. 21565. 1712 Kane, Tr. 21846-21847, Kane, Tr. 21863.
-422-problem with the hole being open for a year; thus, the 12 foot by 3-3/4 foot pit under the duct bank has remained untouched since July 30, 1982.1713 Dr. Landsman has no technical problem with the excavation as it exists today, although he has charac-terized the excavation as major.1714 We conclude that the excavation is clearly reversible, and that its having been dug or its remaining unfilled has little safety significance.
640. On December 3, 1983, we heard testimony from John L. Donnell, a former employee of a contractor on the Midland site who held the position of remedial soils QA super-visor. Dr. Landsman and Mr. R. Cook assert that Mr. Donnell told them that the Applicant knew it did not have prior approval to excavate below the Deep Q duct bank, and that Mr. Donnell lost his job by arguing with Applicant's manage-ment about the approval status of the excavation before the work commenced.1715 Mr. Donnell, however, does not recall making those statements to either Dr. Landsman or Mr. R. Cook, although he does rememoer meeting with Landsman and Mr. R. Cook shortly after being discharged.1 16 Mr. Donnell suggested l thst there may have been some confusion between the Deep Q duct-( bank incident and a drilling incident involving the same duct 1713 Kane, Tr. 21847. 1714 Landsman, Tr. 21773. [ 1715 Staff Exhibit No. 27, Attachments 1 and 2; Landsman, Tr. 21357-21359; Cook, Tr. 21374-21375. 1 16 Donnell, deposition testimony at pp. 33-36, following Tr. 22573. l l
-423-bank.1 1 He denied, however, that he lost his job for any reason other than the NRC's desire to have a geotechnical engineer hired in his place.1718 641. Although Mr. Donnell believes that our Order required all soils work to be approved before commencement,1719 he does not recall the specifics of the approval status of the excavation beneath the Deep Q duct bank.1720 Mr. Donnell acknowledged that he signed the excavation permit for the Deep Q duct bank excavation on behalf of MPQAD prior to commencement of the work, and is certain that he would not have signed that 1
permit if he had any doubts about NRC approval at the time.1 in signing the excavation permit, Mr. Donnell relied upon Glen Murray's signature, which was already on the document, as an indication that NRC approval had been obtained. Mr. Donnell had confidence in the way that Mr. Murray and Mr. Wheeler (Murray's supervisor) performed their jobs, and believed that they were conscientious in following our April 30 Order.1723 11 Donnell, deposition testimony at pp. 83-85, following Tr. 22573. 1 8 Staff Exhibit No. 31, pp. 90-91: Donnell, Tr. 22605-22606. I1 See Staff Exhibit No. 31, pp. 98, 102; Donnell, Tr. 22616-22617. 1 0 Donnell, deposition testimony at pp. 37-39, following Tr. 22573. 1721 Donnell, deposition testimony at pp. 27-28, following Tr. 22573. 1 2 Id. at pp. 28-29; see also Donnell, Tr. 22577-22580, 22618-22619. 1 23 Staff Exhibit No. 31 at pp. 87-88. _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ .\
-424-642. Although the record is replete with seemingly contradictory statements concerning Mr. Donnell's actions and involvement with the excavation beneath the Deep Q duct bank, we are not persuaded that Mr. Donnell was aware that NRC approval was lacking. Nor are we persuaded that Mr. Donnell believed that the Appl $ cant was aware that a problem with NRC approval existed prior to commencement of the excavation beneath the Deep Q duct bank.
- 3. Conclusions regarding Deep Q Duct Bank 643. Before finding whether a violation of our Order took place based on the above facts, we first must decide the applicable standard for.our decision.
644. Our April 30, 1982 Order requires that certain activities not be undertaken _without NRC " approval" -- a term having both subjective and objective implications. One stan-dard that could be derived from the Order would be to make approval dependent upon the Staff's subjective intentions: In other words, that an activity was approved only if the Staff l intended to approve it. By this criterion, however, the mere allegation of a violation results in a violation, since the l l Staff would not likely misrepresent its subjective intentions. 645. The above approach, however, is at odds with l l principles of fair play and eglity; in effect, it makes the Applicant strictly responsible for determining actual NRC l L intentions, however expressed. Although we expect the Appli-cant to observe high standards of conduct, we reject a legal l
-425-test based solely on the subjective intentions of the Etaff in favor of a more balanced, objective approach. In our opinion, if the Applicant had a reasonably valid basis for believing that an activity was approved, then it has not violated our . April 30 Order. Under this standard, the Staff's subjective intentions are relevant, but not controlling.
646. In applying the adopted standard to the facts before us, we give considerable weight to the oral directives of Dr. Landsman. Applicant clearly did not give appropriate attention to Dr. Landsman's warnings at the May 20 and May 21 meetings. Although the May 20 meeting was, by Mr. Hood's orders, not formally documented, it nevertheless falls on the Applicant to fully understand and carry out Staff requirements -- even those expressed orally. The Sevo and Fisher notes referenced supra demonstrate that they at one time knew of Dr. Landsman's directive. Unfortunately, neither was in the chain of command for confirming NRC approvals, and both stated that Dr. Landsman's directive did not come to mind when the work commenced. Still, the references in their notes indicate that Dr. Landsman had spoken in an understandable way on May 20. The Applicant clearly bears some responsibility for failing to absorb Dr. Landsman's statements. 647. Given the fact that Dr. Landsman's directive was missed by responsible Consumers Power management personnel, we can understand how Mr. Mooney concluded that the Deep Q excavation was a part of the freezewall, and was thus approved prior to April 30. Mr. Mooney's misunderstanding of this issue
-426-had its genesis before the May 20 meeting and continued there-after, partly because Dr. Landsman's warnings were not caught and partly because of somewhat mixed signals being sent by the Staff.
648. The treatment by the Staff of the other three crossing modifications, the fact that the May 25 letter approved soil removal (when the only soil removal left was under the Deep Q), the fact that the same letter approved " utility pro-tection" without direct restriction and addressed the need for a backfill report without ever mentioning excavation under the duct bank, and the fact that Staff did not change the desig-nation " confirmatory" in the soils audit draft all contributed to the misunderstanding. Also, the procedural aspects of the communications -- the lack of documentation regarding the May 20 meeting, the tardiness of IE's inspection report and the absence of NRC documentation of the Wheeler / Landsman agree-ment 1724 -- helped cause the problem as well. Because the l Staff was engaged in an abnormally detailed and comprehensive review, of which the duct bank was only a small part,1 25 it 1 i was all the more important to maintain communications safe-guards. Since the adopt 2on on August 12, 1982, of a written work author 2zation procedure by Applicant and Region III, no further problems with alleged Order violations have arisen. l 649. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we conclude that l the events culminating in the May 25 letter created an obligation 1724 Landsman, Tr. 21932-21935. 5 See Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 4.
-427-on Applicant's part to inquire about uncertainties concerning Staff approval of freezewall-related activities. The Applicant must have known that ambiguitles existed upon receipt of the May.25 letter, which letter withheld confirmation of approval on one of-the items the Applicant was continuing work on (i.e.,
"related activities" in support of the freezewall). This reservation incorporated information discussed at the May 20 meeting, and was intended by the Staff as a warning directly relating to the Deep Q duct bank. It presented Applicant with an opportunity to put an end to any confusion stemming from the May 20 and May 21 discussions concerning utility protection plans.
650. The Applicant, in fact, did inquire about the Staff's reservations about "related activities." Unfortunately, during'the resulting discussion between Mr. Mooney and Mr.
-Hood, Mr. Hood failed to connect the restriction in the May 25 letter to the Deep Q duct bank. Mr. Mooney's attempt to clear up this ambiguity is significant, not only because it indicates Mr. Mooney's attitude at the time, but also because, after the inquiry, Applicant had a reasonable basis for believing that the May 25 letter approved the " utility protection" activities without a testriction regarding the deep Q duct bank. Thus, it is understandable that Mr. Mooney took no action to prevent the work from starting.
651. On June 11, Mr. Wheeler entered into a verbal agreement with Dr. Landsman. To Mr. Wheeler's credit, he had started out by taking all excavation permits to Dr. Landsman
-428-for specific approval. This was probably required by our April 30 Order, which covers literally every excavation in Q-soils at the jobsite. When Landsman decided not to review all permits, a task which was most likely curdensome, Mr.
Wheeler thought he had obtained Landsman's permission to pro-ceed with minor excavations, subject to Landsman's review after work' started. Mr. Wheeler documented this agreement in a hand-written note made at the time. 652. Mr. Wheeler and Dr. Landsman did not communicate clearly, partly because of the lack of clarity regarding the relationship between NRR and Region III in the approval process. Dr. Landsman allowed Mr. Wheeler broad discretion anc has re-spect for his technical judgment.1726 At the time of their oral agreement, Dr. Landsman believed that NRR was approving work for purposes of compliance with our Order.1727 Mr. Wheeler, on the other hand, concluded that, once Dr. Landsman had con-temporaneously endorsed the generic excavation permit s'y stem, this indicated that Region III had authority to enter into (and did enter into) what in effect was the approval of an inte-grated package.1 28 653. We cannot conclude that Dr. Landsman's unverbal-ized qualification -- that the agreement applied only to pre-viously approved work -- can be viewed objee.tively as part of 1726 Landsman, Tr. 21914. 1 27 Landsman, Tr. 21557-21558, 21911, 21934; see also paragraph 629 supra. 1 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 10; see also para-graph 630 supra.
-429-the agreement. Although Mr. Wheeler and Dr. Landsman share blame for not communicating more precisely on this point, in a sense the problem related to the interface between IE and NRR.
Our Order explicitly asks the Staff to give attention to the coordination of approvals. In addition, Dr. Landsman's failure to mention the qualification or document the understanding, as was his responsibility under our May 5 Memorandum and Order, prevented detection of any confesion. In light of these con-siderations, we conclude that the Wheeler / Landsman agreement, like the May 25 letter, provides in part a reasonably valid basis for Applicant's belief that the excavation under the deep Q Duct bank has been approved. 654. Even under the terms of the Wheeler / Landsman agreement, the duct bank excavation could oi l y be deemed approved if it were a " minor" excavation. On this issue there is a con-flict in testimony between Applicant and the Staff. We con-clude that there was a reasonable basis for the Applicant's believing the excavation was minor. On June 11, Mr. Wheeler and Dr. Landsman discussed major work in terms of the service water pump structure underpinning. By any criteria -- amount of soil removed, safety significance or number of man-hours o involved --the Deep Q excavation was minor by comparison. If the excavation had major consequence, it could have been easily filled in, but this hasn't been the case. Mr. Kane testified that the excavation had major safety significance, but the basis for his conclusion was that it was the first step leading to the placement of a concrete plug. In sum, no plausible
-430-safety imp 6rtance of the excavation alone has been set forth in the record.
655. Although the question is close, we find from a preponderance of the evidence that the Applicant did have a reasonably valid basis for believing that the excavation under the Deep Q duct bank was approved. In drawing this conclusion, we do nLt excuse the Applicant for failing to absorb Dr. Landsman's warnings. We observe, however, that a number of miscommunica-tions between Applicant and Staff came into play which pre-vented detection of the misunderstanding. Thus, we find that the excavation under the Deep Q duct bank did not violate our April 30. order. 656. By reaching this conclusion, we do not blame the -Staff for the communication p oblems that arose. We only point out factors tending to ameliorate an unduly harsh finding against Applicant. Eor example, apart from its apparent diffi-culty in executing communications, Applicant's behavior gener-ally indicates a high degree of respect for our April 30 Order. The Applicant placed Mr. Wheeler in charge of obtaining approvals, and Mr. Wheeler originally brought literally everything to Dr. Landsman for specific review. Furthermore, it is evident that Mr. Wheeler was, above all, concerned with trying to honor our Order. In addition, Applicant put into effect written pro-cedures to control work approvals, and attempted on May 10 to obtain explicit clarification of previously approved items. We cannot now conclude that the mistakes and miscommunications which occurred during the first month of transition following
-431-our April 30 Order taint all efforts that Applicant took to observe the Order.
665. We conclude that the basic cause of this contro-versy was poor communications, compounded by a lack of effective documentation in circumstances too complex to be handled on a purely oral basis. In short, we find no careless disregard for our Order on the part of Applicant.
- 4. Relocation of the Fire Line 658. The second excavation allegedly in violation of our Order involves the relocation of a buried fire protection ,
line.1729 659. In the summer of 1982, Applicant planned certain excavations to rebed and replace service water piping. As an ancillery task, Applicant desired to relocate a fire line to an area where it would not be damaged by these planned excavations. The old fire line, located near the circulating water intake structure, was to be abandoned, and a new line was to be in-stalled at a nearby location. Neither the old line nor the new line was designated Category I.1 30 660. Applicant's decision to commence with the fire line' relocation was made after Mr. Wheeler's June 11, 1982 discussion with Dr. Landsman, where Dr.- Landsman told Mr. Wheeler that he only wished to review in advance the permits 1 29 See Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 2 1730 Mooney and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning the alleged violations of the April 30 ASLB Order and the March 1982 cable-pulling incident at pp. 3, 9-10, following Tr. 19983.
-432-for major excavations.1 31 Mr. Sibbald, who signed the excava-tion permit for the fire line on July 26, does not specifically recall whether he discussed the permit with anyone before signing.1 32 Mr. Murray, who signed the work permit for this excavation on July 27, believes that he contacted Mr. Schaub before signing the permit, and recalls that the two of them decided that the work was " minor" under the terms of the Wheeler / Landsman agreement. Mr. Schaub, however, does not recall such a discussion with Mr. Murray.1 33 Mr. Wheeler does not recall whether he had discussions with Messrs. Sibbald, Murray or Schaub about either of the permits before they were signed.1734 661. The fire line relocation commenced on July 30 and ended on August 5.1735 The excavation involved the digging of a 75 foot trench approximatoly 7 to 8 feet deep, and the removal of approximately 200 cubic yards of soil.1 36 The line itself is not Seismic Catetory 1, but the excavation passed in 1 31 Mooney and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning the alleged violations of the April 30 ASLB Order and the March 1982 cable-pulling incident at p. 3, following Tr. 19983. See paragraphs 627 to 632, supra, for a discussion of the Wheeler /
Landsman agreement. 1 32 Staff Exhibit 26, Attachment 13. 33 Staff Exhibit 26, Attachment 12 at p. 2: Schaub, Tr. 22494-22495. 1734 - Wheeler, Tr. 21993-21994. 35 Wheeler, Tr. 22398. 36 Landsman, Tr. 21553-21554; Wheeler, Tr. 22406.
-433-close proximity to and exposed safety related utilities.1737 The' record reflects no problems that occured as a result of this excavation.
662. With respect to the issue of whether this was a
" major" or a " minor" excavation under the Wheeler / Landsman agreement, we heard testimony concerning the number of man-hours expended on the task. Mr. John Simpson, a Bechtel scheduler, stated that the work took approximately 300 man-hours.1738 Ron Cook, an NRC Inspector, thought that the 300 hour figure might ,
be slightly understated, but did not offer his own estimate.1739 Dr. Landsman testified that one backhoe could do the work in an hour, and that the 300 hour estimate must include more work than just the excavation.1740 663. Based on the evidence in the record, we find that the fire line excavation was " minor" under the terms of the Wheeler / Landsman agreement. The excavation had no safety significance, was completed in relatively few man-hours, and did not involve soil removal of the same magnitude as the SWPS underpinning.1741 Accordingly, we find that this excavation did not violate our April 30 Order. i 1 37 Mooney and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning the alleged violations of the April 30 ASLB Order and the March 1982 cable-pulling incident at p. 3, following Tr. 19983; Landsman, Tr. 21556-21557. l 1 38 Staff Exhibit No. 27 at p. 34. 1739 R. Cook, Tr. 21556, 21944. 1740 Landsman, Tr. 21554, 21944. j' 1741 See Landsman, Tr. 21933-21934.
-434-l 664. In his August 24, 1982 memorandum, Dr. Landsman indicates that he discovered the fire line excavation on August 4.1742 He has testified that he balieves he informed Applicant or Bechtel of the violation on that same day, but that he does not recall who he spoke with.1743 665. The fire line excavation work was completed on August 5. No stop work order was issued until August 9, however, because Mr. Wheeler's group was not apprised of Dr. Landsman's objections until the later date.1774 A June 2, 1983 inspection report confirms that the Applicant formally stopped work on the 9th after being advised of a potential Order violation.1745 666. Dr. Landsman has testified that the excavation for the fire line was a deliberate violation of our April 30 Order, because the excavation took place after Applicant had been advised of Dr. Landsman's complaint regarding the Deep Q duct bank.1746 Mr. Wheeler, however, explained that, as he understood it, Dr. Landsman's concern regarding the Deep Q excavation was that it took place contrary to Dr. Landsman's specific directive not to proceed with that work.1747 Mr.
1742 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 2 at p. 2. 1743 Tr. 22220. 1744 Wheeler, Tr. 22109, 22398. l 1745 See Staff Exhibit 26, Attachment 17. This document was prepared by Mr. Shafer. Dr. Landsman apparently never discussed with Mr. Shafer whether Landsman's statement in his l August 4, 1982 memorandum should be included in Shafer's inspec-tion report. Tr. 22292-22294. 1746 Landsman, Tr. 21643. 1747 Wheeler, Tr. 21982-21983. l l l
I
-435-Wheeler testified that no question had been raised concerning Applicant's interpretation of the June 11 Wheeler / Landsman Agree-ment.1740 Once Mr. Wheeler was informed of Dr. Landsman's concern with the fire line excavation, the work was promptly stopped.1749
- 5. Conclusions Regarding Fire Line 667. With respect to the allegations concerning the re-location of the fire line, we employ the same objective approach we used in considering the Deep Q duct bank excavation. Thus, if Applicant had a reasonably valid basis for believing that an activity was approved, it has not violated our April 30 order.
668. In applying the adopted standard to the facts before us, we find that the Applicant had a reasonably valid basis for concluding that the fire line excavation was allowable. Applicant acted reasonably in believing that this excavation was
" minor" under the terms of the Wheeler / Landsman Agreement. More-over, all Staff objections to the Deep Q excavation appeared to be based on the fact that the Staff had previously articulated a specific directive not to proceed with that work: no questions were raised concerning Applicant's interpretation of the Wheeler /
Landsman agreement. We therefore conclude that the excavation for the fire line relocation did not violate our April 30 Order. We further find that there was a reasonable basis to Mr. Wheeler's belief that Dr. Landsman's concerns were limited to the Deep Q duct bank and that Consumers Power did not deliberately ignore Dr. Landsman's directives by excavating for the fire line relocation. 48 Wheeler, Tr. 21982-21983. 1749 Wheeler, Tr. 22397-22398.
-436-VII. CONCLUSION 669. We have previously made known our concerns about the status of quality assurance implementation by Consumers Power in our Order of April 30, 1982. That Order was prompted by soils-related problems, both actual and potential. The effect of the April 30 Order is to require explicit Staff approval prior to undertaking any of the activities specified in the original December 6, 1979 Modification Order. The Construction Permits for the Midland Plant have been amended to reflect the April 30 Order. While it is apparent that, immedi-ately subsequent to the entry of our Order, misunderstandings regarding the scope of Staff approvals arose, it now seems to us that the routine of securing NRC Staff approval before work activities are begun is well understood and functioning properly.
670. The April 30, 1982 Order was expressly made subject to further modification or revocation, if appropriate. We believe that the April 30, 1982 Order should be continued in l effect. However, we see no need for augmentation of the Order. Its provisions, when taken together with the comprehensive CCP and the manag4 ment changes mentioned above does provide an acceptable basis for concluding that there is reasonable assur-ance that the soils remedial activities can be completed 3.n accordance with regulatory requirements. The third party reviews called for in the CCP and in the remedial soils area and the level of the NRC Staff involvement in day to day con-
-437-struction activities are among the most stringent yet imple-mented for nuclear power plants and provide adequate means for measuring Consumers Power's performance in both the soils area and balance of plant. We especially agree with those witnesses of the NRC Staff who asserted that it was Consumers Power's performance under the CCP which would be determinative of the effectiveness of that program and its indication of improved management attitude. In addition, we take note of Mr. Keppler's testimony that Consumers Power's recent performance at the Palisades nuclear plant demonstrates that Consumers Power Company can take on serious problems and correct them.1 50 The measures adopted at Midland appear to us to be significant steps toward improving the quality of work at that site.
Moreover, under NRC regulations and under our April 30, Order, the Staff has the tools to control and evaluate construction activities at Midland and has been diligent in exercising those controls. Accordingly, we see no reason for modifying the April 30 Order and leave it in place. i l 50 Keppler, Tr. 15154, 15415-15416.
l
-438-CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Licensing Board has reviewed the evidence sub-mitted by the parties in this proceeding and the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the par-ties. Based on the preponderance of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of record, the Board makes the follow-ing conclusions of law:
671. As we concluded in our April 30, 1982 Order at page 7, the soils-related quality assurance deficiencies set forth in Part II and in Appendix A of the " Order Modifying Construction Permits" (dated December 6, 1979) were an ade-quate basis for the issuance of the Modification order. 672. An unintentional, but materially false, state-ment was made in the FSAR in that the FSAR falsely stated that "all fill and backfill were placed according to Table 2.5-9." This material false statement, described in Appendix B of the December 6, 1979 " Order Modifying Construction Permits," was an adequate basis for issuance of that Order.1 51 673. The December 6, 1979 " Order Modifying Construc-tion Permits" should be sustained only insofar as it conforms with the Board'& April 30, 1982 " Memorandum and Order (Imposing 1 51 See Joint Exhibit No. 6. The Board did not take direct evidence on this matter because Consumers Power Company, in a joint stipulation with the NRC Staff, agreed not to contest that the material false statement was made and that it consti-tuted an adequate basis for issuance of the December 6, 1979 Order. We note further that Applicant and Staff agree that ! this false statement was unintentional. Joint Exhibit No. 6. No evidence was presented to contradict this conclusion, and we therefore also find that the false statement was unintentional.
-039-Certain Interim Conditions Pending Issuance of Partial Initial Decision)". In light of events subsequent to the December 6 Order, the suspension of activities which that Order would require prior to amendment of the application seeking approval for soils remedial activities for safety-related structures and systems and prior to amendment of Construction Permits No.
CPPR-81 and No. CCPR-83 is no longer justified. The Board finds that continuation of its April 30, 1982 Order will be fully effective to accomplish the purposes of the December 6, 1979 Order. The Board further notes that continuation of its April 30, 1982 Order is preferable because the experience which has been gained in the implementation of that Order since it was first issued demonstrates that implementation of that Order is now effective and efficient. The Board also concludes that the fleribility afforded the Staff in determining the manner in which our April 30, 1982 Order is implemented is necessary to meet the changing conditions of a nuclear project. 674. Consume'rs Power C:mpany's quality assurance program complies with the quality assurance requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. 675. Consumers Power Company's management understands and accepts its responsibilities to ensure proper implementa-tion of quality assurance during the remainder of construction activities on the Midland Project and has taken effective t measures to carry out this responsibility, i 676. Consumers Power Company's management is committed to ensuring that the remedial measures it has chosen for the i
-440-O purpose of resolving the soils settlement problems and the balance of plant quality assurance implementation problems are being, and will continue to be, properly implemented.
677. With continuation of our April 30, 1982 Order and with the commitments made by Consumers Power Company to third-party reviews and the Construction Completion Program, the Board has reasonable assurance that proper implementation of quality assurance requirements will continue throughout the remedial work associated with soils settlement and throughout the balance of the construction process on the Midland Project. ORDER 678. In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and 10 CFR 552.760, 2.762, 2.764, 2.785, and 2.786, it is hereby ORDERED:
- 1. that the " Order Modifying Construction Permits" dated December 6, 1979 will be vacated,
- 2. that the Board's April 30, 1982 " Memorandum and Order (Imposing Certain Interim Conditions Pending Issuance of Partial Initial Decision)" is continued in effect.
It is further ORDERED that this Partial Initial Decision shall be immediately effective as of the date of issuance and shall constitute the final action of the Com-4 mission forty-five (45) days after issuance thereof, subject to any review pursuant to the above-cited Rules of Practice. 679. Within ten (10) days after service of this Par-tial Initial Decision, any party may take an appeal to the Com-
-441-mission by the filing of a notice of appeal. A brief in support of the appeal should be filed within thirty (30) days thereaf ter [ forty (40) days in the case of the Staff).
Within thirty (30) days of the filing and service of the brief [ forty (4 0) days in the case of the Staff), any party may file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal. THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Administrative Judge Frederick P. Cowan 4 Administrative Judge i Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge i P \
-442-APPENDIX A SPECIFIC QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSTRUCTION CONCERNS AND THEIR RESOLUTIONS 680. As we noted in the main body of our Findings, we have heard testimony on a number of specific incidents or con-cerns which have arisen over the past two years. In one instance we have specifically called for testimony on certain items. In other cases the Staff raised the specific issues in testimony.
We set forth our specific findings on these matters for complete-ness, but, with one minor exceptien noted below, we have found no common thread running through these incidents which would be helpful to us in analyzing the soilo quality assurance imple-mentation or management attitude of Consumers Power management. A. Soils-Related Incidents
- 1. Introduction 681. Since February, 1982, when the record on QA/QC was first closed, a number of drilling and excavation incidents have occurred at the site.1752 We describe below specific incidents discussed in testimony and the resolution of each of
'these.
- 2. Testimony on drilling and other soils incidents called for by the Board 682. When we reopened the record on QA/QC and manage-ment attitude, we requested that the parties present testimony 1752 Mooney, prepared testimony on remedial soils work at
- p. 3, following Tr. 17017. -
. -443-on five specific nonconformance reports. These nonconformances all related to excavations in the soils area. These nonconfor-mances, in hindsight, indicated the need for the Excavation Permit Procedure which Consumers Power adopted in May, 1982.
Otherwise, however, they show no common mode of failure or common cause,
- a. Consumers Power Nonconformance Report No. M01-4-2-OO8, Rev. 1.
683. Sometime prior to February 2, 1982, a 42-inch diameter by 40-foot deep hole was drilled within the "Q"-fill area at approximate grid location E 539, S 5135.1 53 This hole was drilled for a 36-inch diameter closed-bottom casing, which was set in the hole to accommodate construction equipment that was to be supported by an overhead crane.1754 The difference between the diameter of the hole and the diameter of the casing left a 3-inch gap between the casing and the surrounding fill. This gap was not grouted or packed with any other material;l 55 thus, the imsupported surrounding fill was able to loosen and collapse.1 56 1753 See R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and Shafer, October 29, l l 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance. Attachment 7A, following Tr. 11391. l 1754 Bird, Tr. 11433-11434, 11843. 55 Bird, Tr. 11431-11432. 1 56 See R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and Shafer, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment 7A, following Tr. 11391. After the site dewatering recharge test was initiated, the casing floated up, rising approximately 4 feet, and water and fallen material accumulated at the bottom of the hole. See Bird, Tr. 11431-11433.
-444-634. At the time the hole was drilled, Bechtel's construction practice was to place such excavations within the 57 control of Field Engineering. Field Engineering adminis-tered an excavation permit system, and a permit under this system was in fact issued for the drilling of the hole.1 58 The Field Engineering system involved a check to insure that no underground utilities would be disturbed. Moreover, the Bechtel specification then applicable to this drilling, C-211, required that backfilling of excavations meet certain require-ments, including the involvement of the on-site Geotechnical Engineer. However, the Field gineering permit system was not a formal part of the site QA program; at the time of the inci-dent, there were no formal quality controls applicable to excavation. And, the actual drilling of the hole was not required to be done under the supervision of the on-site Geo-technical Engineer.1 59 685. On February 2e 1982, Applicant issued NCR number Mol-4-2-008 and placed a hold tag on the 42-inch clameter hole.1760 The NCR was prepared because MPQAD desired to have specific controls established and documented to eqver excava-1 57 l Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five specified NCRs at p. 2, following Tr. 11408.
1 58 Bird, Tr. 11413, 11429. Id. See also Bird and L _ Wheeler, Tr. 11603-11604. 1 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five ! specified NCRs at pp. 2-3, following Tr. 11408; Tr. 11429-11430. 1 60 See R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and Shafer, October 29, i 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, i Attachment 7A, following Tr. 11391. l l L
.c t
-445-
,'s, tion--in'ludibgdrilling--in"Q"-fillareas,becausesuch c
activities-{even'though not themselves " safety related") could s affect the quality of "Q"-fill and could potentially impact "Q" - listed utilities.1 61 Partially,as a result of this NCR, Consumers Power adopted a new Excavation Permit Procedure, FIC 5.100.1762 This procedure is discussed supra at paragraphs 365 to 367.
- b. Consumers Power Nonconformance Report No. M01-9-2-038 .
686. 01 or about Februtry 26, 1982, two 4-inch diameter by 48-fo'ot, deep holes were drilled at approximate grid locations S 4959, E 527 and S 4971, E 562, respectively.1 63 The hole at approximate' grid location S 4959, E 527 was in "Q"-fill.1764 t, s ' 1 61 Bird and Whbel'er' prepared testimony concerning five speci'fied NCRs at pp.'3-4,'following Tr. 11408; see Bird, Tr. 11428-11429.. Ms.>Stamiris;has suggested that the lack of drillingEsupervision b sthe on-site Geotechnical Engineer was a major failing with~the' prior system and thus, inferentially, a principal motivating force for the adoption of the new excava-tion permit procedure'.(FIC'5.100, appended as Attachment 1 to Bird'and Wheeler following Tr. 11408).
' 'the Tr'. prepared
- testimony ll427fil428'.- Howeveof,l Walter R. Bird expressed the opinion
.that this 'was !not the -ca,ri se. Mr'. Bird indicated that sound practices were;used in thel actual drilling, and that a Geo-technical Engineer would have most likely have found it appro-priate to allow:the drillers to proceed as they did. Bird, Tr.
i 11428. 1 62 ? See Bird and W eeler, prepared testimony concerning five specified NCRs at pp'; . 3, 8, and Attachment 1, following Tr. 11408. s. 1 63 See R. Cook,' Landsman, Gardneh and Shafer, October 28,
~1982' prepared testimony'with respect to quality assurance, Attachment 7B, ,following Tr. 11391.
64 SeealkoLBirdandWheeler, prepared testimony Id. concerning qfive specified NCRs at p. 3, following Tr. 11408.
- 1. s
.' \
h S n_____._______._____________._________.__-_____________ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-446-Both holes were test borings to obtain information on soil conditions in the vicinity of the freeze wall.1 65 687. Under the Bechtel Field Engineering administered excavation permit system discussed at paragraphs 365 to 368, supra, Bechtel Quality Control monitored the drilling of these two test borings.1 66 After the drilling of the hole in "Q"-fill, the hole was backfilled by pouring grout into the hole from the surface;1767 The on-site Geotechnical Engineer was present during the pouring.1 68 While the methods used for drilling and soil stablization of the test borings were not specifically covered by instructions, procedures or drawings, they were in accordance with construction practice that was accepted at that time.1769 688. On March 8, 1982, Consumers Power issued NCR number MOl-9-2-038.1770 This NCR was prepared because MPQAD desired to have specific controls established and documented to cover excavation and drilling in "Q"-fill areas, because such 1765 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five
- specified NCRs at p. 3, following Tr. 11408.
1766 See R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and Shafer, October 29, l 1982 prepared testimony with respect te auality assurance, Attachment 7B at p. 1, following Tr. 11391. l 1 67 Id. at p. 3. 1 68 See Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five specified NCRs at p. 3, following Tr. 11408; Bird, Tr. I 11425. 1 69 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five specified NCRs at p. 3, following Tr. 11408. ,, 1 0 See R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and Shafer, October 29, l 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance,
' Attachment 7B, following Tr. 11391.
l
;' ,r l
.j ; >
; ;;Y b ,
E i
-447 '
,L activities (even though not themselves " safety related") could
. ., affect the ,quali.ty of "Q"-fill snd could potentially impact "Q" -
liste ut lities.1 .f Partially as a result of this NCR, t> Consumers? Iower adoptet the, new Excavation Permit Procedure,
.st ', 4 ( -
FIC 5.10G; which is discussed supra at paragraphs 365 to 367.1772 .
't -
9"l /, j v' '
, s c. Consumers Power Nonconformance
, , Report No. MOl-9-2-051
,- )
r 689.,On April 14',A 982, A;splicant was performing
& i..
certt.inIrem,edial work'on the Unit No., 2 Borated Water Storage j' Tar k c < This work involhed'the installation of a new concrete
,s ! ';
. , a' , ,
t-ing be'am foundation surrounding the old . foundation, and re-e%,
quired the removal of c.rv exitting electrical duct bank.1774 During the excavation'o s . 6/ she duct' bank, concrete providing
, s .
p g 1
.. s t
(
, lateral r+
support to the'- i fi1Z ur;cprneath the southwest corner of s , the BWST , valve pit-was ina'dv$rtently removed, allowing the fill w
3+
"j _: t . ,
~g to stipe ,into the voi ' ' created by. the, ,s removal of the duct 7 ..
bank.1775 .a / -
', e v
't,'l f.f ) : ,0 *f I ,- t j y i< * * ', V ut . , , , ,
1771/ 'See Bird and hheeler, p::epared testimony concerning - - 1 7- f. , . efive s}beified NCRs at p. 3, falluying Tr. 11408; see Bird, Tr.
* ' f
, 1,1428-1,1429. ); ,
e
~
~
' ! 1772 6 Eeg Fird rnd W?A'celer,' prepared testimony concerning g
4 c five specified.NCRs'at pp. 3, 8, and Attachment 1, following Tr.*11408. 't j See'A.l-Cook. 1773 /
*il' dshan, L'an' Gardner and Shafer, October 29, 1982 prepared testinhony%itli! respect to quality assurance, Attachment 7C, following gr. 11391; Bird, Tr. 11420.
1774 5-Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five specified NCRs at p. 6, following Tr. 11408; Landsman, Tr. 11929. ' J'
/ Bird, Tr. 1 421; , Landsman, Tr. 11876, 11929-11930.
/ ..
- i. L
- i-p
.* I ;;) .' ,
I- . j
-448-690. Immediate action was taken to correct the result-ing void under the valve pit foundation. Loose, disturbed material was removed from the undermined area. Forms were placed as required around the excavation, and concrete was poured. During the pouring, concrete vibrators were used to prevent the formation of pockets or voids. The work was moni- -tored by the on-site Geotechnical and Field Engineers, inspected by Bechtel Quality Control, and observed by MPQAD.1 6 691. On April 21, 1982, Applicant issued NCR number M01-9-2-051.1777 This NCR indicated the need to revise the Bechtel Engineering administered excavation permit system to provide for stricter controls so as to protect structures or utilities encountered within the proximity of the excavation.
This concern has been addressed by Applicant in FIC 5.100, the new Excavation Permit Procedure,1778 is discussed supra at paragraphs 365 to 367.
- d. Bechtel Nonconformance Report No. 4199 l
692. On April 24, 1982, an obstruction was encountered while drilling an ejector well for the freeze wall monitoring pit. Bechtel Field Engineering believed that the obstruction l 6 See R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and Shafer, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, ! Attachment 7C, following Tr. 11391. ! 1777 _I_d. 1778 See Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five specified NCRs at p. 6-and Attachment 1, following Tr. 11408.
L.
-449-was the concrete overpour around a deep "Q" electrical duct bank, and drilling continued until the drilling fluid or " mud" was lost. Subsequently, on or about April 28, drilling mud was observed coming out of conduits in the Auxiliary Building.1779 693'. It was determined that the obstruction was actually the "Q" duct bank, and that the drilling had pene-trated both the duct bank and some of the conduits inside.
This penetration allowed the drilling mud to escape from the hole and flow to the lowest point of the duct bank -- the O Auxiliary Building. A subsequent investigation revealed that the duct bank was penetrated because the drilling rig had 81 been mispositioned by several feet. 694. On April 28, Consumers Power's Site Manager issued a written stop work directive applicable to all drilling operations and shert-piling activities by Mergentime Corpora-tion and its. subcontractors.1 The next day, Bechtel ini-tiated NCR number 4199.1 83 On May 19, Applicant issued FSW-22, 1779 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five specified NCRs at p. 4, following Tr. 11408; Bird, Tr. 11437-11438. 1 80 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five specified NCRs at p. 4, following Tr. 11408; Bird, Tr. 11613-11615. 1 O1 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five specified NCRs at p. 4, following Tr. 11408; Bird, Tr. 11598-11599. 1 82 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five specified NCRs at p. 4, following Tr. 11408: Bird, Tr. 11509-11512, 11536-11539. See also Stamiris Exhibit No. 39. 1783 See-R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and Shafer, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment 7E, following Tr. 11391. Applicant became aware of the nenconformance in the same time frame as Bechtel, and, as Bechtel had already initiated an NCR, determined that it was not necessary to duplicate the effort. Bird, Tr. 11507-11508.
-450-a formal stop work order.1784 Such a document was not prepared earlier because the work had already been stopped by the Site Manager; nevertheless FSW-22 was initiated in order to provide for tracking and close-out of the corrective action required to rescind the stop work.1785 The stop work was lifted on May 26 after the implementation of the new Excavation Permit Proce-dure, FIC 5.100, discussed supra at paragraphs 365 to 367.1786
- e. Bechtel Nonconformance Report No. 4245 695. On May 18, 1982, an obstruction was encountered during the drilling of Observation Well No. 4 ("Obs. No. 4"),
and drilling was stopped.1 87 On May 19, the on-site Geotech-nical Engineer reviewed the drawings in his possession, and, on failing to locate any known utility, allowed the drilling of Obs. No. 4 to resume. After several hours of drilling, soil O subsidence was noted in the area adjacent to the drilling. It was determined that this subsidence was due to the presence 1784 Stamiris Exhibit No. 40. 1785 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five ! specified NCRs at p. 4-5, following Tr. 11408; Bird, Tr. 11450, 11519-11526. 1 86 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony concerning five specified NCRs at p. 5, following Tr. 11408; Bird, Tr. 11446, 11504L. 1O Wheeler, Tr. 11750. Obs. No. 4 is part of the perma-nent dewatering system and will be used to monitor groundwater levels in the area where it is located. Wheeler, Tr. 11693. See also Consumers Power Exhibit No. 31. 1788 Wheeler, Tr. 11750-11751
-451-of a 24 to 36-inch diameter, 9-foot deep underground void near the casing to the well.
696. After the void was discovered, on May 19, Con-sumers Power's Site Management, MPQAD and Bechtel QC concurred that the work on obs. No. 4 should be stopped and that Bechtel should issue an activity hold 1 90 Because the activity hold had been issued, no formal stop work order was prepared. Contemporaneously, Bechtel initiated NCR number 4245 relating to the incident.1 'l 697. "fter an investigation, it was determined that . the obstruction referred to in paragraph 703, supra, was a non "Q" 12-inch diameter condensate drain line.1 92 The drillers and the on-site Geotechnical Engineer were unaware of the possibility of hitting this line because the drawing showing the presence of the line was not on the li st of drawings to be 93 reviewed prior to and during drilling. The line was ac-tually penetrated by the casing of the well as the casing was 1789 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony regarding 5 specified NCRs at p. 5, following Tr. 11408; R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and Shafer, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment 7D, following Tr. 11391; Bird, Tr. llSO2-ll504B. 1 90 See Stamiris Exhibit No. 43. 1791 Wheeler, Tr. 11633; Bird, Tr. 11493; R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and Shafer, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment 7D, following Tr. 11391; Tr. 11502-11504B. 1 2 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony regarding 5 specified NCRs at p. 5, following Tr. 11408; Wheeler Tr. 11814. 1793 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony regarding 5 specified NCRs at p. 5, following Tr. 11408.
-452-being advanced into the ground,' rather than by the drill bit of the cable drill tool.1794
, 698. It is believed that the impact and associated vibration of the well casing striking the condensate drain line may have contributed to the formation of the void.1795 The remainder of the void is thought to have been caused by the
" bailing" or water and drilled material removal action of the drilling rig that was used and the manner in which the rig was advanced into the ground. As the drill and casing were advanced into sand below the water table, a suction was created by the bailing action of the rig. It is believed that this suction pulled backfill material from outside the casing down to the bottom of the hole and up through the casing.1796 699. Consumers Power has revised the specification for well drilling to restrict the position of the bailer in relation to the bottom of the well casing. This should limit excess _ soil removal in any future application of the drilling s technique used for Obs. No. 4.I 9 In addition, the new Excava-tion Permit Procedure, FIC 5.100, discussed supra, require inclusion in the permit submittal a listing of drawings, by l
-1794 Wheeler, Tr. 11815-11816.
1795 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony regarding 5 specified NCRs at p. 5, following Tr. 11408. 1 96 - Hendron, Tr. G647-8648; Bird, Tr. 11620; Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony regarding 5 specified NCRs at p. 5, l- following Tr. 11408. 1797 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony regarding 5 l specified NCRs at p. 5, following Tr. 11408. f l l
-453-discipline, which represent the most complete information available on all underground utilities at the site, and which must be reviewed prior to excavation or drilling.1798
- 3. Other soils-related incidents and disputes
- a. Slope layback mismatch 700. Drawings specifying the trench excavation for
. the auxiliary building access shafts near the turbine building called for a slope layback of 1 vertical to 1.5 horizontal.
However, during a tour of the site, an NRC inspector observed that the layback was being concreted at a slope nearly 1 verti-cal to 1 horizontal.1 '9 This work was being supervised by a Bechtel Field Engineer.1800 Consumers Power attributed the slope discrepancy to the difficulty in determining a reference point for the horizontal dimension.1801 701. After the discrepancy was discovered, Project Engineering prepared a Field Change Notice ("FCN") to reflect the as-built condition of the slope layback. However, as the 1798 Bird and Wheeler, prepared testimony regarding 5 specified NCRs at p. 5 and Attachment 1, following Tr. 11408. See also paragraphs 365-367 supra. 1799 Bird, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 1-2, following 16975; R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and Shafer, prepared testimony with' respect to quality assurance, Attach-ment 5 at pp. 4-5, following Tr. 11391. 1800 Bird, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 2, following 16975; R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and Shafer, pre-pared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment 5~at p. 5, following Tr. 11391. 1801 Bird, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 2, following 16975. r .. . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - )
-454-slope layback had already been completed, an NCR should have been issued rather than the FCN. MPQAD later issued NCR M01-4-2-109.1802 702. Project Engineering has since reviewed the as-built condition of the slope layback and determined that a reworking of the slope is not required. A design. change has been processed to change the slope requirement to 1 vertical to 1 to 1.5 horizontal. The slope conforms to the requirement.1803 703. On November 2, 1982, training sessions were conducted to augment prior training received by the Field Engineers. The Field Soils Organization conducted training for a' >f its Field Engineers in the proper use of FCNs and the need to prepare NCRs. The Resident Geotechnical Engineer conducted training for all on-site Geotechnical Soils Engineers and Resident Geotechnical Engineers in the responsibilities of the on-site Geotechnical Engineer as they relate to the new site Excavation Permit System.
04
- b. Loose sands beneath the service water piping 704. In July, 1980, based on a review of Applicant's logs of borings drilled in 1979, the NRC Staff became aware that loose sands existed beneath the service water piping 1802 Bird, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p.
'2, following 16975. See also R. Cook, Landsman, Gardner and Shafer, prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment 5 at p. 5, following Tr. 11391.
1803 Bird, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 2, following Tr. 16975.
1804 Id. at pp. 2-3.
-455-located to the north of the Service Water Pump Structure (SWPS) and the Circulating Water Intake Structure (CWIS).1805 The Staff was concerned that these loose sands could impact the service water piping because, under maximum design earthquake loading, such sands have the potential to liquify.1806 How-ever, it was the Staff's belief, based on Applicant's response to 10 C.F.R. 50.54, Question 47, Parts la and Ib, that the liquefaction potential would be adequately addressed by main-taining this area in a dewatered condition during plant opera-tion. Prior to March 3, 1982, Staff reviews of dewatering and liquefaction had been based on the assumption that the ground-water level in the plant power block area would be controlled to elevation 595 and limited to elevation 610, thus addressing 807 On March 3, 1982, the NRC Staff the liquefaction concern.
and its consultants met with the Applicant and Bechtel to discuss site dewatering criteria for the Midland plant. During the course of the meeting, it became apparent that there was a misunderstanding between the Staff and the Applicant as to the design basis-for the dewatering system. Contrary to the Staft's understanding, noted above, Applicant stated that, based on an evaluation of site data by Bechtel's Geotechnical Engineering Group, groundwater levels at areas other than the Diesel Generator 1805 Hood, prepared testimony regarding loose sands beneath service water piping at pp. 1-2, following Tr. 12144; Tr. 12318. 1806 A summary of the liquefaction and dewatering issue may be found in Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Remedial Soils Issues at p. 273. 1807 Hood, prepared testimony regat iing loose sands be-neath service water piping at p. 2 and Att.chment 2, following Tr. 12144; Kane, Tr. 12167-12168.
-456-Building (DGB) and the Railroad Bay Area of the Auxiliary Building (RAB) did not need to be controlled to elevation 595 nor limited to elevation 610. Applicant indicated that the foundations of the DGB and the RBA were the only structures for which liquefaction was a concern, and asked the Staff to agree that groundwater control could be limited to these two areas.1808 Applicant did not-discuss the loose sands to the north of the 09 SWPS and CWIS.
705. Because the Bechtel Geotechnical Engineering Group evaluation had not yet been provided to the Staff, and because no member 'of the Geotechnical Engineering Group was present at the March 3 meeting to answer questions regarding details of the evaluation or its conclusions,1810 the Staff did 1308 Hood, prepared testimony regarding loose sands beneath service water piping at p. 2 and Attachment 2, following Tr. 12144; Tr. 12145, Budzik, Tr. 12188-12191. Applicant's witness Dennis M. Budzik offered an explanation for the confusion as to the design basis of the dewatering system. The system includes interceptor wells near the Service Water Pump Structure to remove groundwater seeping into the power block area from the l cooling pond, and additional site dewatering wells to remove groundwater that evades the interceptor wells. This configura-tion was deemed easier than the installation of dewatering wells around the DGB and the RBA, and has the effect of dewater-i ing the entire site to some extent. Site-wide dewatering, how-l ever, was not intended by the Applicant as a design basis for j the system. Budzik, Tr. 12190-12192. 1809 Budzik, Tr. 12163; Kane, Tr, 12168; Budzik, Tr. 12192-12193. 10 See Hood, Tr. 12145-22146. Mr. Budzik testified that i no members of the Geotechnical Engineering Group were present because the Applicant did not believe that liquefaction would be an issue at the meeting. The group's evaluation had not
.been provided for this same raason, and also because Applicant had previously submitted the raw data to the Staff. Applicant was aware that the Staff's consultant, Dr. Hada'a, had indepen-dently evaluated the data. Budzik, Tr. 12195-12196.
-457-not agree that liquefaction potential without groundwater control could be limited to the DGB and the RBA. Instead, the Staff requested the Applicant to submit the liquefaction evalua-811 tion for foundation soils above elevation 610.
706. On March 12, James Meisenheimer called Joseph Kane of the NRC Staff. Mr. Meisenheimer indicated that he had mailed the Bechtel Geotechnical Engineering Group liquefaction evaluation to Dr. Hadala, the Staff's consultant, as requested at the March 3 meeting. According to Mr. Meisenheimer, the evaluation confirmed that loose sands existed in the plant fill above elevation 610 at locations other than the DGB and the RBA.1812 Mr. Meisenheimer committed to addressing the Staff's concerns regarding the loose sands beneath the 26-inch diameter service water lines north of the SWPS and the CWIS by removing the loose sands and replacing them with either lean concrete or stabilized soils.1813 The NRC Staff has concurred with the Applicant that this replacement would obviate the need to maintain the water level in this area at or below elevation 595, thus allowing Applicant to limit dewatering to the DGB and 1011 Hood, prepared testimony regarding loose sands beneath service water piping at p. 3 and Attachment 2, following Tr. 12144. 1812 Hood, prepared testimony regarding loose sands beneath service water piping, Attachment 1, following Tr. 12144. 1813 Hood, prepared testimony regarding loose sands be-neath service water piping, Attachment 1, following Tr. 12144. A summary of Applicant's commitment to rebed portions of these 26-inch diameter lines may be found in Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Remedial Soils Issues at pp. 235-242.
-458-the RBA.
O4 Mr. Meisenheimer's telephone call, however, was 1
- the NRC Staff's first notification of the proposed replacement 5
work.1 l 707. During the Licensing Board hearings held on February 17 and 18, 1983, there was much cross examination regarding Applicant's state of knowledge during the March 3, 1982 meeting as to the loose sands north of the SWPS and the CWIS. For example, both Darl Hood and Joseph Kane of the NRC Staff, who were both present at the March 3 meeting, recalled Applicant expressing an awareness of the Bechtel liquefaction 10 Neither Mr. Hood nor Mr. Kane, however, could evaluation. testify whether Applicant indicated that the evaluation had been reduced to a written report or if Applicant had actually reviewed the evaluation or any written report derived there-from.101 708. Dennis Budzik, who was present at the March 3 meeting on behalf of the Applicant, testified that no written report from the Bechtel Geotechnical Engineering group con-
- erning liquefaction potential at the site was in existence at the time of the meeting.181C Mr. Budzik further testified that 1814 Hood, prepared testimony regarding loose sands be-neath service water piping, Attachment 1, following Tr. 12144; see also Hood, Tr. 12146.
1815 Hood, prepared testimony regarding loose sands be-neath service water piping, Attachment 1, following Tr. 12144. 1816 Hood, Tr. 12158, 12162. 1817 Hood, Tr. 12157-12158, 12162. 1818 Budzik, Tr. 12195-12196, 12216-12218.
-459-(1) he did not discuss the liquefaction issue with the Bechtel Engineering Group prior to the meeting and did not look closely at the liquefaction issue because he believed that it had been previously resolved;1819 (2) that, at the time of the meeting, he was only aware of two areas (the DGB and the RBA) where there was a potential for liquefaction; 80 and (3) that during the meeting he unintentionally gave the Staff incomplete informa-tion.1321 Once Mr. Budzik became aware of the complete facts, he relayed this information to Mr. Hood.1822
- c. ME-55 and the rotary drilling dispute 709. In March of 1982, Consumers Power met with the NRC Staff to discuss the temporary construction dewatering wells that were to be drilled for the service water pump struc-ture. At the meeting, the Company provided the Staff with a detailed procedure for the installation of the wells. The rotary drilling method was specified as a part of that procedure.
The Staff reviewed the procedure and, in the opinion of one of Consumers Power's witnesses, concluded, inter alia, that the rotary drilling method was acceptable for this application. Prior to this meeting, 72 of 76 temporary dewatering wells had been drilled for the auxiliary building using the rotary drill-ing method. Based on these events, Consumers Power personnel 1819 Budzik, Tr. 12201, 12209-12210, 12236-12237, 12188. 1820 Budzik, Tr. 12201-12202. 1821 Budzik, Tr. 12256. 1822 Budzik, Tr. 12193, 12302.
-460-believed that the rotary drilling method was acceptable to the Staff.1823 710. On April 30, 1982, this Licensing Board issued its Memorandum and Order (Imposing Certain Interim Conditions Pending Issuance of Partial Initial Decision). Because of the April 30 order, Consumers Power prepared and mailed a letter to the NRC Staff on May 10 outlining Applicant's understanding of 4
work that had previously been authorized by the Staff. This letter included references to the auxiliary building and ser-vice water pump structure temporary dewatering wells.1824 On May 25, the Staff responded to the May 10 letter, describing the Staff's opinion of the work approvals that Applicant had previously received.1825 711. On May 26, Consumers Power personnel telephoned the Staff to inquire if they could proceed with the installation of additional temporary dewatering wells, including the well designated as ME-55, for the auxiliary building. During the telephone call, the Staff expressed concerna regarding the monitoring of fines in the wells, and Consumers Power agreed to implement the monitoring criteria; however, there was no dis-cussion regarding the method of drilling the wells. Company personnel believed that the May 26 telephone call fulfilled the 1 Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 2, following Tr. 18784; Tr. 18788-18789.
1824 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 3; Wheeler, Tr. 18789. 1825 Staff Exhibit No. 26, Attachment 4; Gilray, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony for underpinning activities, Attachment 1, followir.g Tr. 16854; Wheeler, Tr. 18789.
l l'
-461-I j applicable requirements for Staff notification with respect to
- -the additional temporary wells for the auxiliary building.1826 712. In late May or early June,. Consumers Power contacted the Region III NRC inspectors to set up a meeting to discuss the May 25-NRC Staff letter. The purpose of this meeting-was to insure that all parties had a complete under-
-standing and were in agreement as to the extent of authorized work activities at the site.1827 The meeting was held on June 10. During the meeting, a question was raised as to whether the rotary or cable. tool method was appropriate for the drilling of the additional temporary dewatering wells at the auxiliary building.1828 713. Because of the uncertainty regarding the appro-priate drilling method, the parties decided to contact Mr.
Joseph Kane of NRR. Mr. Kane concluded that, according to the May 25 letter, the cable tool method should be used. It was not clear, however, what NRR's or the NRC Staff's concerns were regarding the rotary method. 714. Based on Mr. Kane's interpretation of the May 25 letter and the need to resolve the apparent confusion, Appli-I cant on June 11 issued a stop work letter covering temporary 1826 Wheeler, prepared testimony-on quality assurance at pp. 2-3, following Tr. 18784; Wheeler, Tr. 18789-18790. [ 1827 Wheeler, Tr. 18790. 1828 Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 3, following Tr. 18784; Wheeler, Tr. 18791.
1829 Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 3, following Tr. 18784; Wheeler, Tr. 18791.
~462-well ME-55. No drilling had taken place. Subsequently, during a June 25, 1982 audit and meeting with the NRC Staff, the acceptability of the rotary method for drilling the additional auxiliary building wells was confirmed.1830 In addition, other temporary dewatering wells have been so effective in reducing .the water levels in the plant area that Consumers Power has elected not to install ME-55.1831
- d. The feedwater isolation valve pit load test dispute 715. Portions of the structural steel supports for the feedwater isolation valve pit ("FIVP") were originally in-32 stalled by the Applicant in 1971 as a non "Q" structure. A non "Q" load test was successfully conducted in June of 1981 to demonstrate that the steel support system was capable of sup-33 porting the calculated weight of the FIVP.
716. In June of 1982, Consumers Power presented a plan to the NRC Staff which called for modifications to the FIVP support system. Applicant proposed the modifications to provide increased margins of safety.1834 In a letter from Con-830 Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 3, following Tr. 18784; Wheeler, Tr. 18791.
1831 Wheeler, Tr. 18815-18816. 1832 Wheeler, Tr. 18855; Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assuranca at p. 4, following Tr. 18784. 833 Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 4, following Tr. 18784.
1834 Id. Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 4, following Tr. 18784. i
- __ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ }
-463-sumers Power to Harold Denton dated June 18, 1982, an attachment entitled " Supplemental Information on Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits" described the construction restriction related to excava-tion near the FIVP, i.e., that the support system adequacy would be verified prior to excavating under the FIVP. It was Applicant's position that the FIVP support modification and the new proof load test were only required for excavation work directly under the FIVP. Therefore, Applicant believed that excavations which did not go directly under the FIVP could begin prior to completion of the FIVP support modifications or
. 1836 proof load testing.
717. The NRC Staff was originally of the opinion that proof load testing of the modified structural steel should take place before any excavation. In addition, the Staff requested that Consumers Power inspect the structure, even though it had been installed non "Q". Applicant inspected the structure and noted several differences from design drawings or specifi-cations. These differences were reviewed and approved by Engineering as is.1 0 1835 Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 4, following Tr. 18784.
1836 Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 4, following Tr. 18784.
1837 R. Cook, Tr. 18878-18879; Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 5, following Tr. 18784. 1838 Keppler, prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment B, paragraph 4, following Tr. 15111; Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assurance at p. 5, following Tr. 18784.
l
-464-718. After several discussions between Applicant and the Staff, it was agreed that the modifications and the new load test did not have to be completed prior to the underpin-ning excavation of the drift to pier 12.1839 -Thus,. Consumers Power was allowed to proceed with excavation work that was not directly under the FIVP.1840
- 4. Conclusion 719. The Board finds very little in the above litany of difficulties of common origin. We did note that the drilling problems discussed above indicated a need for formal procedures and have resulted in the introduction of the Excavation Permit System. The only common problem pointed up by the latter problems has been a tendency for Consumers Power and the Staff to miscommunicate. This problem appears to have ameliorated in recent months.
t B. Concerns About Cracking
- 1. Cracks in the containment 720. In an NRC inspection report, the Staff noted that cracks had been found in the containment wall which had not been previously reported by Consumers Power.1841 Staff witnesses testified that the fact that Consumers Power did not 1839 Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 5, following Tr. 18784.
1840 Wheeler, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 5, following Tr. 18784.
1841 Shafer and Landsman, Tr. 14594-14600.
-465-discover these cracks was not indicative of a problem with the applicant's QA program since there was no requirement to moni-tor the containment building for cracks.184~9 721. On June 27, 1983, Ms. Stamiris moved to reopen the OM record in order to litigate questions concerning the containment cracks. This Board denied that motion on the grounds that Ms. Stamirit had failed to establish a set of facts which would bring these issues under OM contention four and on the grounds that safety concerns were of insufficient significance to warrant a reopening of the record. However, the Board required that Consumers Power undertake a crack monitoring program to which it committed itself in its response to Ms. Stamiris' motion.1843
- 2. SWPS cracking 722. Dr. Landsman raised a concern about cracking in the service water pump structure ("SWPS").1844 Mr. Mooney testified that he was familiar with cracks in the SWPS. How-ever, Mr. Mooney was not aware of any new cracks which had developed recently. He believed that the incident to which Dr.
Landsman referred had to do with the fact that, at a routine l mapping of the SWPS cracks, there was an indication that cer-tain of the cracks may have grown since the previous mapping to the point where they reached the 0.030 inch alert limit. In 1842 _I_d. 1843 ASLB Memorandum and Order dated August 17, 1983. 1844 Landsman, Tr. 14659. 4
I
.--466-accordance with procedures, Consumers Power brought CTL on site in order to evaluate these cracks. CTL measured the cracks and determined that they were the same cracks as had been previously evaluated and that they had not in fact increased in width. A copy of CTL's report on the SWPS cracks was provided to Dr.
Landsman.1845 C. Miscellaneous Balance of Plant Concerns
- 1. Reinspection of electrical cable installations 723. Mr. John Rutgers, Bechtel's Manager for the Mid-land Plant, testified concerning the adequacy of the reinspection program for electrical cables. The qualifications of certain electrical QC inspectors were questioned as a result of a May, 1981 NRC inspection.IO40 MPQAD initially performed overinspec-tions of 100 percent of the work done by all but one of these inspectors and of 50 percent of the work done by the one remain-ing inspector. This overinspection involved a check of 1,084 cables; 55 cables were found to be misinstalled in part. The results'of the overinspections were analyzed in order to ensure that each identified problem was understood and appropriate 1845 Mooney, Tr. 17154-17156.
1846 Rutgers, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 2, following Tr. 18035, see also, paragraphs 330-337 of Con-sumers Power Company's Proposed Supplemental Findings of Fact and Law for Partial Initial Decision on Quality Assurance and Management Attitude Issues; at 427-447 of CPCo's Response to the NRC Staff Proposed Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclu-sions of Law for Partial Initial Decision on Quality Assurance and Management Attitude Issues.
. _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _________ _J
-467-corrective action taken. For the types of misinstallations which could cause a problem for safety if they occurred else-where in the plant, actions were taken to identify and dispose of the concerns.1847 724. The NRC Staff believed that all the misinstalla-tions were of safety significance and rejected Consumers Power's proposed corrective action. The Staff requested that all Class lE cables be reinspected in order to ensure correct routing.1848 Consumers Power agreed to do this reinspection. As of the date of Mr. Rutgers' testimony, the reinspection was approximately 91 percent complete. Because Consumers Power has undertaken a 100 percent' reinspection of all Class lE cables, the NRC Staff's concern that only a partial overinspection was done has been addressed.1849 -
- 2. Reinspection of pipe support installation 725. A May, 1981 NRC Inspection revealed nonconform-ance in the area of pipe support installations. In response, MPQAD overinspected a sample of 123 pipe supports installed
. prior to January 1, 1981 in order to assess the acceptability 1847 Gardner, Tr. 14386; Rutgers, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 2-4, following Tr. 18035.
1848 Rutgers, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 2-4, following Tr. 16035. 1849 Rutgers, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 4, following Tr. 18035) Keppler, October 29, 1983 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment A at p.
2 and Attachment B at p. 1, following Tr. 15111; see also, Rutgers, Tr. 18048-18055.
-468-of the original installations and inspections. Fifty-five of the 123 supports inspected were found to have at least one nonconforming condition. However, Consumers Power concluded that none of the nonconforming conditions presented a safety ,
concern. These findings were presented to the NRC Staff in a report submitted in August, 1982. The report analyzed the nonconforming conditions and classified them into 14 groups. The analysis was done, according to Mr. Rutgers, in order to assist in ensuring that the problem was understood and for the purpose of determining the significance of the nonconformances and the appropriate corrective actions.1850 726. The NRC Staff believed that the nonconforming conditions were all of safety significance and that a complete reinspection was needed to ensure that all misinstallations were identified. The NRC requested that Consumers Power rein-spect all pipe supports installed prior to January, 1981 and reinspect samples of pipe supports installed after that date.1851 727. The hanger reinspection program developed by Consumers Power provides for the reinspection of all installed pipe supports regardless of when they were installed or turned over. In addition, other improvements, such as checkoff lists for craftspeople and field engineers, simplification of specifi-cation interpretation. and an improved space control program, 1850 Rutgers, prepared testimony on quality assuranceat pp. 5-6, following Tr. 18035. 1851 Rutgers, prepared testimony on quality assurance at
- p. 7, following Tr. 18035.
-469-were adopted to improve the quality of pipe support installa-tions. Consumers Power also decided to revise the applicable Project Quality Control Instructions. Mr. Rutgers testified that the reinspections and the planned corrective actions would ensure the adequacy of pipe support construction.1852
- 3. Material storage 728. Mr. Shafer and Mr. R. Cook of the NRC Staff testified concerning engoing problems in the area of material storage and maintenance. They indicated that Consumers Power should take greater initiative in this area in identifying and correcting problems.1853 Mr. Rutgers testified that Consumers Power and Bechtel are both committed to proper storage and maintenance. He acknowledged that problems related to storage have occurred, but he also emphasized that corrective steps have been taken when such problems have arisen. Actions that have been taken to respond to concerns with regard to material storage include a task force that was active in 1980, routine auditing, computerization for tracking storage intervals, weekly checks of the Poseyville lay-down area by field engineer-ing, retraining of procurement personnel responsible for marking steel, and formal quality control inspections undertaken weekly rather than monthly.1854 1852 Id. at pp. 7-8; see also, Rutgers, Tr. 18056-18080.
1853 Shafer and R. Cook, Tr. 14390-14393. 1854 Rutgers, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 10-13, following Tr. 18035; Rutgers, Tr. 18094-18097.
1 L
-470-
- 4. Support of electrical cables 729. Concerns were raised concerning the support of electrical cables awaiting routing or termination. Mr.
Rutgers described the difficulties inherent in fulfilling in-process requirements for the installation of cables. He stressed that there was awareness of the problem involving adequate cable coil support and end-capping. To address the problem, prompt action has been taken to correct nonconforming conditions in this area and construction management anc.'. the electrical superintendents advise their supervisors and foremen to call for improved performance in this area. These actions are in addition to the procedures which provide instruction concerning support of cable coils. There is now also a check for proper coil support in the in-process inspection PQCI. This instruction requires weekly inspection of selected plant areas for conformance to coil support installation attributes. A continuing orientation program for electrical supervisors, foremen, and craftspersons in the electrical field installation procedures was also cited by Mr. Rutgers as indicating the commitment of the project to adequate support of cable coils.
- 5. Design adequacy 730. Dr. Landsman testified that there are obvious design deficiencies at the plant which reflect an inability on 1
Keppler, October 29, 1982 prepared testimony with respect to quality assurance, Attachment B, paragraph 5, fol-lowing Tr. 15111. 1856 Rutgers, prepared testimony on quality assurance at pp. 13-15, following Tr. 18035; Futgers, Tr. 18097-18103. i - -
-471-the part of the engineers to adequately design the plant.
Landsman gave as an example of the design of the control tower and electrical penetration areas which he said were canti-levered off of the main auxiliary and placed on compacted fill.1857 He also took issue with the design of the service 4 water pump structure cantilever with the back of the structure sitting on compacted fill. Finally, he cited the design of the diesel generator building with a spread footing on fill material as being another deficiency. He stated that "[n]o engineering company would ever design cantilever structures like that."1858 By describing these structures as having design deficiencies, . Dr. Landsman explained that he was stating his opinion con-cerning the adequacy of the design, but did not mean that the original designs would not have been licensable.1859 Messrs. R. Cook, Shafer, and Gardner did not express opinions concern-ing the design adequacy because they believed it was a matter outside their technical knowledge.1860 Dr. Landsman had not previously communicated his concerns regarding design to anyone in the NRC. 1857 The control tower and electrical penetration areas were not designed to cantilever from the main auxiliary build-ing. See Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of. Law.on Remedial Soils Issues, dated August 5, 1983, at paragraph 216. 1858 Landsman, Tr. 15059-15060; see also Landsman, Tr. 16306-16320, 16589-16591. 1859 Landsman, Tr. 16807-16817. 1860 R. Cook, Shafer, and Gardner, Tr. 16319-16320, 1861 Landsman, Tr. 16317-16319, 16428-16329, 16434.
-472-l 731. Mr. Hood of NRR stated that the use of spread footings is not considered a design deficiency per se. The NRC has found the DGB to be acceptable.1862 Mr. Thomas, a civil engineer with experience in nuclear plant design, testified that the auxiliary buildings at Palo Verde were designed with stepped foundations resting partially on fill and partially on natural material and that the NRC found this foundation design to be acceptable. He further testified that the DGB at the Turkey Point plant was supported by a spread footing and placed on fill material. In addition, the DGBs at Palo Verde have spread footings and are partially founded on fill material.1863 Mt. Thomas' purpose in testifying as to these other plants was to support his opinion that it is not contrary to accepted engineering practice to design the foundations of the DGB anf.
auxiliary building in a way that Dr. Landsman described. He disagreed with Dr. Landsman's statement that no one would design structures in that way.1864 1862 Hood, Tr. 16424-16425, 16431-16432. Board Notifica-l tion 83-165, dated October 26, 1983, concerns a report on the adequacy of the DGB, that was prepared as a result of the concerns expressed by Dr. Landsman. The NRC is currently reviewing the report to determine the impact, if any, on exist-ing Staff positions. The report concluded that "there is reasonable assurance that the structural integrity of the DGB will be maintained and its functional requirement fulfilled." However, the report questions whether the stresses in the DGB can meet the FSAR criteria. The Board has left open the ques-tion of whether further hearings related to this report are needed. Tr. 21314-21317. 863 Thomas, Tr. 20221-20225. l 1864 Thomas, Tr. 20229, 20235-20237, 20239-20240, 20258-20261, 20283-20287. <
1 s x 9- -473- , c
- 6. Design v. As-Built
' condition of the plant
/ 732. The results of the DGB inspection indicate a
' problem with adhering to design requirements.1865
- Other exam-pies cited of the as-bui$t condition of the plant not being as indicated on design draw [ngs. include problems with the location
\,.
of underground utilities, the structural steel for the FIVP, 66 and the pl"., cement of lean concrete backfill beneath the FIVP. Consumers Power;has incorporated reviews in the CCP which address the question of the conformance of the as-built condi-tion of the plant with the drawings.1867
\ '7 . Welding procedures
' 733. On November 30, 1982, approximately 150 Zack workers were' laid off'due to concerns with certification to L .
welding procedures that were discovered during an MPQAD audit. In April 1983, appr.oximately 60 additional welders were laid off at Photon Testing Laboratories, a Zack subcontractor, . because of the improper certification to welding procedures.1868 The' shutdown of the Zack HVAC work demonstrates the effective-ness of the MPQAD organization in identifying the problem and taking all necessary a tions to correct it.1869 865 Gardner, Tr. 15051-15052; Landsman, Tr. 15055; Landsman
* ' and R. Cook, Tr.315766-1,5768.
1866 Landsman, Tr. 14621, 15Y75-15790.
, - 1867 J. Cook, Tr. 18475-18476: R. Cock, Tr. 15767-15769;
' see also, Paragraphs 492-503, infr'a.s 68 Wells and J. Cook, 18221-18223, 18259-18260.
' 1869 J. Cook, Tr. 18348-18349.
j
~.
ftidiand Of4/Ot. licarings
'Exhib'its IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE It!
AT Tit. AT Tit. EV I t>E!1CE DATI: Ol' PFOM TO SUBJECT . EX1tI DIT DOCUMENT DOCUMUt4T 1866 1875 7/13/81 Keppler TI:ornbury Midland Summary iteport lu>.s rd la 2/15/79 ' Memo 15 e',6 1875 7/13/81 Piorelli (flitC) Midland Construction lioard Ib 10/18/79 Memo Status as of 10/1/79 fleetings of 2/23/79 and 1868 1875 7/13/81 Keppler Itowell Hoard Ic 3/15/79 Letter 3/5/79 (tiftC prelim. investiqatton findings and CPCo responses) 1869 1875 7/13/81 Keppler Thornburj Meetings of 2/21/79 and Board Id 3/12/79 Memo 3/5/79 tietween flitC, CPCo and Hechtel 2523 2523 7/16/81 3 pages includinq letter board 2 transmittinig PSAR amendment No. 3 (Dames
- 6. Moore report) to NitC and letter transmitting report to 15cchtel (First 3 pages to Stamiris Ex. 5) 6530 6530 12/16/81 Soil placement Ilecords Iscard 3 11/4/77 Audit fleport CPCo P 77-32 9
e
}
k_[~ tiidland OM/Of.Ilearin g Exhibits s DATE OF ., - IDENTIFIED IN TVIDENCE DATE I!! EXIIIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT PROM TO SUBJECT . ,-@T TR. AT Tf.~ EVIDENCE Joint 1 6/5/81 Stipulation ()A .1171 1188 7/8/81 (Applicant / , Staff) Joint 2 12/3/81 Stipulation Aux. Bldg. 5437 5447, . 12/,! / 81 (Applicant /
~
~-
Staff) ^
-3 %
~
i . Joint 3 2/9/81 Stipulation EWST and undergrounr1 7162 ,71(4 g ,* #16/82 Applicant / piping *- > Staff) - Joint 4 --- Stipulation SWps 9638 9619 , 11/19/82 - (Applicant / - Staff) N.
.Toint 5 ---
Stipulation DGB 10613 10616 12/8/82 (Applicant / s Staff) Joint 6 1/31/83 Stipulation F1aterial False State- 11321 11344 2/14/83 2/7/83 (Applicant / ment in FSAR re: Pill Staff) & Backfill was unan-tentional. A
e Midland OM/OL llearings Exhibits DATE OF IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN TO SUBJECT AT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE EXIIIBIT . DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FROM SSRS Proposed Midland SSRS 4540 4540 .0/13/81 Holt 1 for origanal ground Figure 1.2 surface (modified at longer periods) , 51 critically damped SSRS 84tii percentile SSRS 4540 4540 10/13/81 Holt 2 - Pigure 7 for top of fill material and design spectrum for Midland, St critically damped Tedesco J. Cook Seismological input for 4540 4540 10/13/81 Holt 3 10/14/80 Letter Midland Wood & Modified Mercalli 4540 4540 10/13/81 flolt 4 1931 Article in uulletin of Neumann Intensity Scale Scismological Soc. of America Weston CPCo Midland SSRS, Part I: 4540 4540 10/13/81 tiolt 5 2/81 Report Respcnse Spectra-SSE Geo-physical Original Ground Surface CPCo Midland SSRS, Addendum 4540 4540 10/13/81 IIol t 6 6/81 Report Weston Geo- to Part I physical
.o e
Midland OM/OL licarinos Exhibit's DATE OF EXIIIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT PROM TO IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN SUBJECT AT TR. AT TR. EVIDCliCE liolt 7 1/81 Report Weston CPeo basis for :tejection of 4540 4540 Geo- 10/13/81 1966 Parkfield Earthqu ke physical Accolitograms for use in Midland SSRS Ilol t 8 4/81 Report Weston CPCo Midland SSRS, Part II: 4540 4540 Geo- 10/33f81 Response Spectra Appli-physical cable for the Top of-Plant Fill Material liolt 9 2/81 Report Weston CPCo Midland SSPS, Part III: 4540 4540 Goa- 10/13/81 Seismic Ilazard Analysts physical liol t 10 - Typed Summary of Applicant's 4551 4551 Summary 10/13/81 Position with respect to w/ attached Midland SSRS (summary of Figs. 1-5 the formal probabalistic analysis in ilolt Ex. 9) stol t 11 - SSRS 84th percentile SSRS for 5117 Figure 7 5118 20/15/81 (op of fill material and (modified) design spectrum for fliaeand, ' 5% critically damped. (Identical to IIol t -Ex. 2, expect response spectr.: modified in low frequency and to coincide with Mid-land design spectrum, i.e., FSAR spectrum)
i Midland OM/OL llearings Exhibits DATE OF IDENTIFIED IN EVIDEtiCE DATE IN PROkt TO SUBJECT AT TR. AT TR. EV lt>8MCC EXXIDIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT Staff 1 7/13/81 Letter Keppler Cook Transmitting I&E 1889 1891 7/13/81 81-12 regarding 5/18-22/81 MPOAD assessment Cook Keppler Response to Immediate 3018 3030 8/5/81 Staff 2 7/27/81 Letter Action totter (IAL) of 5.*22/81 re: Small Bore Piping Cook Denton Transmitting Fooaward- 3491 3491 8/7/81 Staff 3 7/27/81 Letter Clyde Consultants' final report dated 7/1/81 MAC Final OA Audit 3732 3732 8/8/81 Staff 4 5/27/81 llanagement Report Analysis 19PO Parthquake consultant flRC Attachment to tJUREG 4712 4775 10/14/81 Staff 5 (First One) Frequency to NRC Report CR 1577 "An - Map Approach to Seismic Zonation for Sitinq l ' Nuclear Flectric Power Generating Facilities in E.4 stern U.S." l l Tedesco Cook Staff Consurrence for 5447 5467 12/1/81 i l Staff 5 11/24/81 Latter (Second One) (NRC Staff) Construction of Access Shafts and Freeze Pall in Preparation for ,I Underpinning Aux. O l d.i . and Feedwater Isolation valve pits I I
6 Midland OM/OL !!carinos Exhioits DATE OF IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN EXIIIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FROM TO SUBJECT AT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE Staff 6 9/30/81 Letter; Seis- Cook Denton seismic Models and 6065 6060 12/14/81 mi c Model Re- Aux. Bldg. soils ports for Aux, remedial work bldg. and SUPS Staff 7 8/81 SALP Appraisal NRC - SALP Licensee Assessments - 6162 6429 12/16/81 (NUREG 0834) Iteview Pinal Report Group Staff 8 1/2/81 Letter Keppler Moseley Transmittinq 6166 6170 12/15/81 (1) Action Plan re-sultina from 11/24/30 meeting (2) Report of 11/24/80 meeting, ir.c lud i ng I6r 80-35 and 80-36. Staff 9 5/81 SALP Working wessman's Used by 'tidland Assessment 6170 6173 12/15/81 Paper super- national vision SALP team Staff 10 3/31/01 SALP Input ilood as Midland Assessment: i.174 6175 12/15/81 Memo Project Based on comments at Manaqer 11/24/80 meetinq but also information ac-ouired in the inter-vening period. Staff IIA 4/23/81 Computer Office of Wessman Midland Non compla- 6177 6179 12/15/81 Staff 11B Printouts I&E ances far 1979-80
O
.I M ulland Opa/OL Hea rings Exhibits DATE OF IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN EXIIIBlT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FROM 70 SUBJECT AT TR. AT TR. EV! BENCE Staff 12 11/30/81 MPOAD Report- CPCo Midland QA reorgani- 6707 6711 12/17/81 ing Ito l a t ion- zation as of 11/81 ships (Draft)
Staff 13 12/10/81 Memo liood Telephone Conf. Call 6900 6901 12/17/81 12/8/81 re: additional temporary dewatering wells Staff 14 SERs SER, SSER 81, SSER 82 8714 11/15/82 Errata Staff 15 3/17/81 SCRE 12 CPCo Pipe Corrosion 8968 8971 11/16/82 Staff 16 . Figure Bechtel Settlement of DGB 10403 10404 12/7/82 post-9/14/79 Staff 17 7/19/82 PES 12661 12662 3/9/83 Staff 18 4/7/83 Itt 83-03 JGK CPCo Documenting noncon- 14407 14411 4/27/83 formances with Attach-ment 10 forms rather than the required corrective action forms Staff 19 2/82 Ilandw; i t ten Sevo 5 items; headed "Pri- 14417 14420 4/27/83 note crity Itens - Civil" Staff 20 Resume Land sman Landsman's quali fica- 14517 14518 4/28/83 tions
9 Midland OM/oL Hearings Exhibits DATE OF IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT PROM TO SUBJECT AT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE Staff 21 Chronology JGK Midland Chronology 15486 15487 5/3/83 Since 7/81 Ilearings (Prepared by JGK in preparation for hearings) Stafi 22 1/18/83 IR-82-13 JGK JWC Investigation of 4/6- :7422 17529 6/8/83 6/17/82 into whether misicading info was given to NRC on 3/19 and 3/12 re installa-tion of undarpinning instrumentation. Staff 23 3/4/83 Report Dechtel Peck Affidavit & DGB 20587 20587 9/20/83 Dewatering settlement Report Staff 24 7/1/81- Report NRC CPCo SALP III report with 20640 20642 9/21/83 3/31/83 attachments, cover letter: 9/16/83 Keppler to Cook Staff 25 9/15/83 Figure Bechtel Drawing re: Settlement 21217 21217 10/31/83 Marker Location Plan, DGB
,,. . _ = .- . ._.
Midirnd OM/OL H7mrings Exhibits DATE OF- IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FROM TO SUBJECT AT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE EXHIBIT Staff 26 6/2/83 Investigative 01 Investigative Report re: 21331 21349 11/1/83 Report violation of Board Order . Staff 27 9/12/83 Investigative 01 Investigative Report re 21332- '21349 11/1/83 (minus pps. 4- Report violation of Board Order 5 of Att. 4? Staff 28 9/12/83 Memo Keppler Havas Memo re: Midland NPS-Alleged 21355 21675 11/2/83 Violation of Board Order r Staff 29 6/2/83 Memo Keppler Hayes Memo re: Midland NPS-Alleged 21356 21951 11/4/83 Violation of Board Order Staff 30 7/19/82 Letter Purple Cock Letter re: SSER No. 11 on 22226 22228 11/8/83
- Soils Related Issues Staff 31 10/15/83 Deposition Deposition of John J. Donnell 22601 22602 12/3/83
. taken in Las Vegas on 10/15/83 Staff 32 10/27/83 Ct. Paper CPCo Stamiris Applicants Responses to 22659 22660 12/3/83 Stamiris Interrogatories of 4
10/11/83. (Responses to 021 & 22) i Staff 33 8/24/82 Memo Landsman Shafer Re: meeting on 5/20/82 to 22666 22667 12/3/83 discuss deep "Q" duct bank 4 i 1 1
- - , ,, _ . _ . . _. - 1 . -.
4 Midlrnd OM/OL durings - Exhibits IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE- DATE IN
.DATE OF .
AT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FROM TO SUBJECT' Keppler. Fitzgerald Requesting 01 investigation 22669 22670 12/3/83 Staff 34 8/20/82. Memo of Board Order violation . re: Landsman's inspection i i h t t i l'
Hidland OM/OL llearings Exhibits IDENTI- IN EVI- DATE DATF: OF FIED AT DENCE IN DOCUMENT FHOM TO Su n.* ECT TR. AT TH. EVIDENCE EXilIB1T DOCUMENT CPCo 1 1975-81 !!andwritten Tabulates QA, OC and 1516 1518 7/10/81 Tabulation manual personnel on site between 12/75 and 7/81 Keppler Cook I 6 E 80-10 1644 1647 7/10/81 CPCo 2 1/12/81 Letter and 80-11 re: Zack (!!VAC) allegations-CPCo 3 1/30/81 Letter Cook Stello CPCo Hesponse 1644 1647 7/10/81 to Zack non comptsance allegacions CPCo 4 11/20/81 Letter Cherry Keppler CPCo withholdina Info 2027 2043 7/13/81 from NHC and allegations re: resident. instector CPCo 5 12/14/81 Le t te r Keppler cherry Hesponse to !!/20/78 2029 2043 7/13/81 letter (with attachments) i l l I . - _ . a
Midland OM/O!, !! earings Exhibits IDENTI- IN EVI- DATE DATE OF FIED AT DENCE IN EXIIIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FitOM TO SUBJECT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE CPCo 6 12/18/80 Letter Keppler Cook I & C 80-35, 80-36 2037 2043 7/13/81 re: SALP CPCo 7 8/24/79 Memo llood Pilo 8/16/79 internal meeting 2691 2696 7/17/81 on stati's of soils settlement CPCo 8 Draft notes Turnbull 2766 2777 7/17/81 (typed)
" Trend Analysis" CPCo 9 4/20/81 " Discussion Keating Trend analysis review 2768 2777 7/17/b1 copy, Summary meeting of 4/10/81 of Meeting on Trend #nalysis."
o
Midland C:4/OL Hearings Exhibits IDENTI- IN EVI- DATE DATE Of FIED AT DENCE IN EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT Pl(OM TO SUBJECT TR. AT 58. EVIDENCE CPCo 10 post llandwritten Trending 2770 2777 7/17/81 4/10/81 notes (4 pp.) (follows generally the outline of CPCo Ex. 9) CPCo 11 5/19/S1 Memo Turnbull fli rd Trend Program Phase III 2772 2777 7/17/81 l Ma r quis t io Dietrich CPCo 12 6/16/81 MPOA Site Trend Analysis Phase III 2774 2777 7/17/81 Operating Manual CPCo 13 7/13/81 MPQAD 3061 6062 8/ 5/81 Organization Chart i l
Midland OM/OL llearings Exhibits IDENTI- IN EVI- DATE DATE OF FIED AT DENCE It3 EXIIIDIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT PROM TO SUBJECT TR. AT TR. EVIDEeCE CPCo 14 2/ 9/81 Letter Cook Keppler Response to 1/12/81 3195 3918 h/10/81 letter transmitting I 6.E 80-32/80-33 CPCo 15 "Line Width- Johnson, Cra.k sizes 5578 Miles;" Corley et al. 5757 12/ 2/81 11/24/81 Letter Todesco to Cook CPCo 16 10/26/81 Woodward- Woodward- CPCO Aux. Didq. Test Results: 5760 Clyde Report Clyde 5774 12/ 2/81 Soil boring and testing (Part 2) program. - CPCo 17 10/13/81 Letter Keppler Cook Payment of $38,000 civil 6297 6306 12/15/ul penalty by CPCo
4 Midland GM/OL !Ica rings Exhibits IDENTI- IN EVI- DATE DATE OP FIED AT DENCE IN EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT PHOM TO S UBJECT TH. AT TH. EVIDENCE CPCo 18 2/ 3/81 Letter D. Thompson Howell Payment of 538,000 civil 6301 3606 (NHC) 12/15/81 (CPCo) penalty by CPCo CPCo 19 12/ 3/81 Letter Brunner Dechhoeffer New MPOAD 6440 6446 12/16/81 organization CPCo 20 11/23/81 Organiza- CPCo MPOAD reorganization- 6444 6446 12/16/81 tion chart CPCO 21 1/26/82 Letter Cook Keppler QA Heorganization' 6919 6922 2/ 2/82
Enclosures:
(1) QA Topacal Report (Chart) (2) QA Topical Report (Chart) (3) QA Department Procedure (4) OA Chart dated 1/22/82 CPCo 22 12/14/81 Audit CPCo Dechtel OC anspector tratn- 6937 6940 2/ 2/82 Report ing program 11/2-6/81 Attachments: il) Audit observations (2) Audit checklists d
. Midland OM/OL llearings Exhibits IDENTI- IN EVI- DATE DATE OP FIED AT DENCE IN EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DOCbdENT PI(OM TO SUHJECT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE CPCo 23 7/24/81 Audit CPCo Hechtel QC inspector train- 6937 6940 2/ 2/82 itepor t i n.:
6/2-7/3/81 Attachments: (1) Ar it Finding Reports (2) 10/29/81 Letter Turnbull to bechtel re: Unre-solved Items ( 3) 10/15/81 Letter Turn-bull to Dechtel re: unresolved Item 03 (4) 10/9/81 Letter Bechtel to Turnbull re: Ult I 's . CPCo 24 2/ 1/82 Letter Miller board IIold point testimony of BW>t 7120 7122 2/ 2/82 subject to misinterpretation CPCo 25 Group of itesponse to liarbour ques t ion 7939 7946 2,'19c 8 2 Boring Logs re: wh.it the rot.ition or tor-and Charts sion of bwST valve pit would be if racking occurred.
Midland OM/OL llearings Exhibits IDENTI- IN EVI- DATE DATE OP I'IED AT DENCE IN EXIIIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FROM TO SUBJECT TN. AT TR. EVIDENCE CPCo 26 Ilendron 8627 8628 drawing 11/15/82 CPCo 27 Drawing Aux. Oldg. deflection 9428 9428 11/18/82 CPCo 28 Drawing SWPS 9541 9541 11/19/82 CPCo 29 (R) Drawing DGB Crack 11070 11073 12/10/83 monitoring CPCo 30 Report Matra (NRC) DGD Structural Reanalysts 11126 Ill2A 12/10/82 CPCo 31 Calculat on DPCo OBS-4 sheet 117E2 11752 2/16/83 CPCo 32 3/28/83 Savage Dep Savage Steam Generator 14111 Delevant por-tions desig-na t est in App 11-cant's letter to
'he Licensing board, dated 4/12/83, and in the NRC Staff's letter to the Licensing Board, dated 5/13/83 CPCo 33 neport S6W Independent Assessnwnt ot 15581 17344 6/17/83 Underpinning: 90 d.sy re-port (gtcen baniter)
' Midland OM/OL Hearingr3 Exhibits
- " IDENTI- IN EVI- DATE DATE OF EXHIBIT ' DOCUMENT FIED AT DENCE IN DOCUMENT FROM- TO SUBJECT TR. A? TR. EVIDENCE CPCo 34 9/9/82 Resume Meisenheimer J. Meisenheimer qualifi- 15589 19636 7/30/93 cations CPCo 35' 4/13/83 Pargraph Sucharski Noncompliances for Reg. III 16231 16285 5/6/83
.; R. III Plants under construction _ . -
' CPCo 36 11/19/82 Memo Smith CQCE . QC position or inspections 16267 6/29/83 (Bechtel QC) and documentation of defi- 18711 cienciess recommend use of IPINs and/or NCRS. ~ CPCo 37 12/ 2/82 Letter Curland. Smith See Ex. 36. Use of IPINs to 16275 (Bechtel AC) 6/29/83.
be eliminated. 18711 CPCo 38 1/26/83 Letter Wells. Rutgers ~ Elimination of use of IPINS 16280 6/29/83 18711 CPCo 39 FSAR Palo Verde Drawing from Palo Verde Drawing 16392 Not in FSAR Fig. 2.5-76 Amend 7 evidence CPCo 40 FSAR' Byron Dyron and Raidwood FSAR Drawing 16400 Not in Braidwood Fig. 3.8-45 evidence r L i 4 I Y 4
Midland OM/OL IIearings Exhibits { IDENTI- IN EVI- DATE DATE OF FIED AT DENCE- IN EXIIIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT ritOM TO SUBJECT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE CPCo 41 Piqure, 4 pp. South Texas South Texas Project -- 16401 Not in Fig . - 1, 3- 1 evidence CPCo 42 50.54(f) CPeo 01 and 023 (portions) 16415 Not in Response evidence (portion) CPoo 43 Pigure Monticello Monticello PSAR fig., 16435 Not in describes a structure evidence using spread footing foundation on con.pacted fill. CPCo 44 5/ 6/83 Letter D.D. Miller NRC/ Revision 6 to MPQP-1 16978 17013 6/ 4/83 , llarrison CPCo 45 4/ 6/82 Notes Weil 1.pri l 6 Interview with 17716 17959 6/10/83 Landsman; includes Landsman's notes from either 4/6 or 3/10. l CPCo 46 Organizatior Wells MPOAD 18015 18024 6/27/83 ! Chart CPCo 47 Memo lierzer Rutgers Clartfy MPOAD's assump- 18020 18024 6/27/83 (Dechtel's tion of QC tasks. Midlacd Site Mgr.)
ftidland C;t/OL liea r ings Exhibits IDENTI- IN EVI- DATE DATE OF FIED AT DEt!CE IN EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT ritott TO SUBJ ECT TR. AT TR. EVIDi'NCE CPCo 48 6/10/83 Letter CPCo t;RC Describes current status 18021 18024 6/27/83 of documentation re: CCP CPCo 49 6/24/83 Ietter Cook NRC Additional info requested 18922 18926 6/30/83 on response to N.O.V. CPCo 50 5/12/83 OA doc / report Don Miller Itarrison/ Letter uith attached " Eval- 19184 19184 7/28/83 NRC uation of Pressures in lines of grouting equip-ment. 1 CPCo 51 7/12/83 Letter Cook Keppler Letter to NRC re amend (d 19459 19459 7/29/83 l response to NRC Region III l l letter dated 5/23/83 CPCo 52 12/13/82 Memo Meisenheimer MPOAD Discontinuing IPIll usage in 19637 19639 7/30/83 Soils soils area l 'PCo 53 7/11/83 Oral commun- Meisenheimer NRC call re update Fegion 19650 19651 7/30/83 ication rccord III on IPIt:s used for soil work. CPCo 54 2/20/82 & Memo w/atuu1*unf> List of materials rc with- 8/1/83 2/21/82 drawal slips to release materials in craftsman CPCo 55 2/24/82 Daily Time Daily time reports for 8/1/03 Sheets electricians r 1 ,
^ %M e
- e
#0 %
% ' T
j Midland OM/OL Hearings Exhibits IDENTI- IN EVI- DATE DATE OF FIED AT DENCE IN EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DOCOMENT Pi<OM TO SUBJECT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE CPCo 57 2/82 Pages from Pages Mr. Thomas received Not admit. PCAR re re Midland's foundation Midland .icsign for Aux Bldy re-visions 41, 18, 21, 47, 42 j CPCo 58 7/15/83 Ietter w/ Mooney Harrison / CPCo written response to 8/3/82 attachments NRC NBC's questions re drilling in soil nea r SUPS , in Q. Concrete and S&W report 41 questions CPCo 59 7/12/83- Handwritten Written Notes fr. Handwritten notes of 21425 21494 11/1/83 7/15/S3 notes by Walker conversa- Donnell comments tions w/ J. Donnell CPCo 60 5 figures 5 figures of Utility 21705 22053 11/4/83 Crossings at freeze wall , CPCo 61 12/21/81 Letter NRC, Hood CPCo Letter, Telecon Sumraary of 21691 21952 11/4/83 l conversation re: frec.. I wall effects CPCo 62 6/18/83 Notes Weil Handwritten notes of 21899 21952 11/4/83 interview w/ Landsman 1
1 f Midland OM/OL Hearings Exhibits DATE OF IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FROM TO SUBJECT AT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE CPCo 63 Events Chronology of events for 21960 22428 11/4/83 Pit $4, deep Q l CPCo 64 4/20/82- Notes Handwritten notes by Wheeler 22118 not admitted j 1/6/83 re: deep Q duct bank CPCo 65 7/12/83 Notes Weil Handwritten notes of Weil re 22132 22161 11/7/83 interview w/J. Fisher CPCo 66 7/27/83 Notes Weil Handwritten notes by Weil re 22136 22161 11/7/83 his interview w/ Landsman I CPCo 67 7/14/83 Letter Mooney Land sman Letter re: progress schedule 22142 22161 11/1/83 for dated 7/14/82 Schaub CPCo 68 7/21/82 Letter Schaub Landsman letter res progress schedule 22142 22161 11/7/83 dated 7/21/82 CPCo 69 7/28/82 Letter Schaub Landsman Letter re: progress schedule 22142 22161 11/7/83 dated 7/28/82 CPCo 70 Report Applicant Report re: measures to 22149 11/7/83 protect Seismic I Utilities from freezewall activation CPCo 71 3/16/83 Notes Weil Handwritten notes of tele- 22151 22161 11/7/83 phone conf, w/ Harbour & Dechhoeffer
l j il E NC 3 I !f 8 E / ED a TI / AV 1 DE 1 E C 3t E D I . VR ET NT IA D E I F I . TR 9 NT 7 E 3 DT 2 IA 2 r e t n i Ct I N f a ol s e g sz n et i t e r oit a T n/ e C w l I s E ,s t J l w L i B i e O b U lei
/ i S l v M h O x E
d n a l d i O M T t l Gf
?
i l P M T i, e N l E l M i U C ds lt e O ao D bN l T PN 3 OE 8 M / EU 3 TC 1 AO / DD 7 T 2 I 7 B I o I I C X P E C lli , l l l, lllllll l:ll ?
Midland OM/OL 11ea rt nqs Exh i ts i t s DATE OF IDE!3TIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN EXiiIDIT DOCUMENT DOCUt1ENT FROM TO SUIGECT AT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE Stamiris 1 12/4/78 Memo Keeley/ Pile DOB settlement meeting 1516 1518 7/10/81 T.C.Cooke l 7/9/81 Stamiris 2 7/9/80 Audit Finding llorn 1461 1461 I.cport 3177 8/5/81 (Entered
' Nice)
Stamiris 3 7/11/01 NRC Staff OA Program Implementation 1770 2479 7/15/81 Testimony Prior to 12/6/79 (Gallagher) Stamiris 3 9/29f78 Initial CPCo Keppler DGB settlement Attachment 50.50(e) 1 Report Stamiris 3 11/17/78 I&E 78-12 NRC DCD settlement, etc. Attachment 2 l l l l 1
flidlanil OM/OL Ih ar t nqs [ Exhibiti DATE OF IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN EXilIDIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FItOM TO SUnJECT AT TR. AT TH. EVIDENCE Stamiris 3 1/12/79 Summary of Ilood Structural settlements l Attachment 3 12/4/78 l Stamiris 3 2/23/79 NPC Presenta- DGB Settlement and Plant i Attachment 4 tion of Prelim. Area rill ' Investigation Pindings of DGB Settlement Stamiris 3 3/9/79 CPCo Discussion Attachment 5 of NRC Inspect-ion Facts re-sulting from DGB l Investigation i l Stamiris 3 3/21/79 50.54(f) Denton llowel l Plant Fill Inquiry Attachment 6 Request l l Stamiris 3 3/22/79 I&E 78-20 DGB settlement and ade;u. icy Attachment 7 of plant area fall l l Stamiris 3 4/9/79 I&E 79-06 Soil boring progran ans! l Attachment 8 plant area fill settl. ment I monitoring Stmairis 3 4/24/79 CPCo Response CPCo NRC QA Attachment 9 to 50.54(f) Question 1 l
M i d l a nd OM /01. II. .. r i m i s Exhibits DATE OF IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN EXilIDIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FROM TO SUBJf:CT AT TH. AT TR. EVIDNECE Stamiris 3 6/6/79 I&E 79-10 Failure to properly t rar.s-Attachment 10 l a.t e FSAR design requirements into specs and procedures Stamiris 3 8/10/79 Hechtel Review Attachment 11 of US Testing Field & lab Tests on Soils Stamiris 3 10/1/79 ISE 79-19 Inadequate design control; Attachment 12 inadequate OA personr.el qualifications Stmairis 3 10/16/79 Summary of Ilood soil deficiencies Attachment 13 7/18/79 Meeting Stamiris 3 11/13/79 CPCo Response CPCo NRC Supplement request for Attachment 14 to 50.54(f) additional soils l Questaon 23 settlement information l Stamiris 3 12/6/79 Order NRC CPCo Madifies Cor.struction Attachment 15 Permits Stamiris 3 4/16/80 CPCo Answer Attachment 16 to Notice of lica r.i ng
f. Midland Of t/Ot. Ilo.a r t nqs Exhibits DATE OF IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE EXHIDIT DATE IN DOCUMENT DOCUMENT Fi<OM TO SUHJECT AT TR. AT TR. EVlbENCE Stamiris 3 Professional Attachment 17 Qualifications of Gallagher Stamiris 4 5/26/81 Iutter Stamiris Keppler Attachments: (1) 11/26/73 "OA 2192 wdwn: Deficiencies"; (2) 4/6/81 2196 Intervencr's Answer Oppostnq CPCo flot ion ; (3) 7/9.'80 " Plan-ning Peports"; (4) 8/8/80 "Mqmt . Corrective Action Pequ;st." Stamiris 5 8/13/69; PSAR CPCo; NHC; Dames & Moore Report Ameniinent : 2486 To r err,a n n 3/15/69 Amendment Dames & bechtel pp. 1, 9, 10, 11, aral p.ege in ID form: No. 3 Moore entitled, "NHC Prelarn. 2524 (Dames & Moore Panding 4." Report) Stamiris 6 9/28/78 Meeting notes Afifi. Settlements of structurs s r.outh 2532 251H 7/16/81 of the t u r bi ne leu t i d a rd s wh i ch are founded on fill Stamiris 7 12/4/78 Dechtel D. Dhar CPCo-NRC-Itechtel rwettnq rc 2629 1831 8/4/81 1 l Meeting Notes DGH and other- se t t t err.en t 3 s l
\
l l l l
M n d 1.arul GM /OL llea r i nir s Exhibits DATE OP IDEtJTIFIED It3 EVIDENCE DATE !!J EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FROM TO SUluCCT AT TR. AT TH. EVIDEtJCE Stariris 8 11/1/78 tiotes of Dtiairi n c l i f f l'i le Status - DGit 2874 Not in 10/18/78 (Soi1 & Instrumentation Evadence* l meet.ing koek Inst r. ) l Stamiris 8A Map of DGB Attached to Stamiris 8 3436 Wdwn: soil instr. 3923 locations Stamiris 9 10/18/78 10/18/78 Ma r s.ha l l File Site visit by John Dur.nnelif f 2876 Not in Meet ing flotes (Dechtcl) Evidence
- Stamaris 10 11/6/78 Memo Marshall Atifi 10/18/78 meeting and planned 2885 Not in (Bechtel) DCD surcharge i n s t rutnen ta t ion Evidence
- Stamiris 11 11/7/78 Letter flowe ll Keppler Transmits interim 50.55{e) 2891 2892 8/4/81 report on DGB se t t lerwn t Stamiris 12 8/11/80 MCARR CPCo Deport tio . HPL-1 2918 2924 8/4/81 l 8/11/80 (M jmt. re: Part 21 report en j Corrective pipe whip restraints Action
( nequest/ l Re;4 r t ) 1
- Still open as of end of 8/4/81.
l l
Midland OM /OI. IIca rinos I:xhibi t s DATE OF II>ENTIFIED IN EVIDE!3CE DATE It3 EXilIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FitOM TO SUl1 JECT AT Tk. AT tit . EVIDENCE Stamiris 13 11/1/78 Letter Martinez Keeley Confirming 10/25/78 rwe t i nil 3254 3372 8/6/81 (llec h t e l ) re: continuation of work on DGli pending final decision on remedial measures Stamiris 14 12/20/79 Memo ite l o t i Aftfi Valitlity of Sondex readings 3255 3266 8/6/81 (Soil e, leock Instru-n,e n t.a t i on ) l Stamiris 15 10/18/78 Letter t>e c k Afifi Confirming 11/6/78 arrival 3286 1172 8/6/81 in Ur12ana, and questinn re l reinability of 1,rine-ftelt! subsidence data in FSAR I Stamiris 16 11/6/78 Handwritten Meetinq in Champaign 3154 Not in
!!ecting Notes Evidence Stamiris 17 Resp (inse to CPCo NRC DGli Preload 3405 1405 8/7/81 50.54(f)
Question 21 Stamiris 18 12/lL/78 Memo Peck File 12 / H _' 7 H consultant r..rtinq 14G6 1429 H/7/H1 re: DGis surchasq.2 g.:ogeom
i -
)
;b .
Midland OM/OL ilcarinos Exhibits. DATE.0P IDENTIFIED 'IN EVIDENCE. 'DATE IN EXIIIDIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT. PitOM . ,TO SultJECT AT TIG AT TIG EVIDENCE;
'Stamiris 19 9/29-30/77 Doring Log' liole No..D at DGil - 3437 ~4339 8/13/91
;Stamiris 20 . 10/8/78 Meeting Notes Afifi File 10/8/78 Meeting with 4008 4041 8/11/81
'(Early draft) llendron re: DGit Stamiris 21 10/8/78 Meeting Notes Afifi. Pile 10/8/78 Meeting with 4008 udwn: .4030 (Final draft) liendron re: DGir
,Stamiris 22 11/17/78 Letter. Ilend ron _ Afifi. Summary of 11/7/78 4039 4057 8/11/81
-Champaign meeting Stamiris 23 11/16/78 Meeting Notes -Swanberg* Pile Dechtol/CPCo/liendron 4039 4068: 8/11/81
(!!ech tcl) meeting re: instru-mentation and pre-
-loading Stamiris 24 11/21/78 Memo Peck Pile DGB settlement. concerns 4039 4035. 8/11/91 Stamiris 25' 10/25/79 Meeting Notes 10/25/79 Ann Arteor. 4039 4094 8/11/81 meeting w/llechtel, CPCo,Hendron, could l Stamiris 26 12/20/78 Memo Peck ~ File 12/14/78 Meeting w/ 4061 Not in itechtel re: DGli Evidence" settlement
- Still open as of end of 8/11/81 1
l l
s tiidland OM/OL Ilearinqs Exhibits DATE OF IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATL IN EXilIBIT DOCUttENT DOCUtiCNT PROM TG SUBJECT AT TR. .\T TR. LVIDE!;CC Stamiris 27 9/29/77 noring Log llolcl No. E at Evap- 4290 4339 8/13/81 orator and Aux. boiler 'luilding Stamiris 28 1/8/81 1.e t te r ("SALP Keppler Cook 11/24/80, 12/2 and 5352 5352 10/16/81 Ite po r t " ) 12/17/HO momt. meet-ings I&E 80-36/ R0-37 ret OA, control of Dechtel, timeli-ness of <focumentation Stamiris 29 9/1/81 Internal Rutqers Cook t1 CAR 24 - rinal iteporc 5353 5353 10/16/81 Dechtel (llechtel- (DGil Settlement) Report Proi. Ptg r. ) Stamiris 30 4/24/79 Graphs: (1) Attachments P6E to 5696 5397a* 12/1/81 Option 1 -- Stamiris's ll/16/H1 Preloadino Request. of DGn soils-(2) dates of I DGD surcharqe i application j Stamiris 31 1/8/82 Letter J. G. Bloom Board CPCo 1/7/H2 "ews 7113 7135 2/2/82 Helease re construe-tion cutt increases
** Clarification at Tr. 5977 (12/3/81) g
- r
~. Midland OM/OL Ilearirdl s Exhibits, .
.~
'DATE OF .
IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE ~ DATE.IN. EXHIBIT . DOCUMENT- DOCUMENT ^ FitOM TO SUBJECT AT TR. AT:TR. EVIDENCE Stamiris 32 2/5/82. Memo tionil ' JSummarv of 1/26/H2- 7466 7485' '2/17/82 TC re: surcharge results for BWST foundations Stamirisl33'- 1/15/82~ Letter. N RC - Cook . Transmitting 1/8/82 7477- Not in geotechnical con- Evidence sultant's conmaints
- l. (IINS) on DUST foundation Stamiris 34 10/20/80 Letter Tedesco cook' Report for details of 7809 7822 '
'2/18/82 stress analyses for ;
underground piping Stamiris 35 10/16/80 Memo llood Summary of 7/18/79 -7827 7838 '2/18/82
. meeting on soil deficiencies
.. j Stamiris 36 11/22/79 Report itechtel Pipe Corrosion 9390 9392. 11/18/82 l l
Stamiris 37 1/26/81 Report itechtel Pipe Corrosion 9390 9192 11/18/82 Stamiris 38' 7/27/82' Trip Report .bechtel Pipe Corrosion 9390 9392 11/18/82 Stamiris 39 4/28/82 Letter D.' Miller -Davis Confirm Stop Work 11592 11600 2/15/83 Stamiris-40 5/19/82 FSW-22 Dird Stop Mergentime 11647 11649- 2/15/83 i St.amiris 41 5/19/82 ' Oral Com Sevo .Stop Kelly 11715 11715 2 ' I t> > u s
Midland OM/OL Ilearinits - Exhibits
-DATE OF. .
. IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE II; EXHIBIT DOCUMENT- DOCUMENT' FROM TO . SullJECT . . AT Tid . AT TR. EVIDENCE ;j
'Stamiris 42' 5/26/d2 ietter and ~ lli rd .Hughes. Dri1 ling' void 11741 11741 2/16/83.
ScitE 51
.Stamiris.43- 5/19/82 Activity.liold Hechtel Iloid on Olis-4 and '11742 11743- .2/16/83 OllS-1A .Stamiris 44 _2/3/83 List CPCo Pipes hat by drilling 11758 11759 2/16/83 Stamiris-45 12/23/80- Letter Staff Marshall Dewaterinq Wells 13626 _ !!ot in evidence Stamiris~46' 12/10/82 Draft' Status' . Burgess Shafer Monthly Status Peport 14492- 14492 4/27/83 Report (NitC) - tbrough Constrt cion Status Stamiris 47- 9/2/82 Letter Wirnick CPCo Noncompliance item 14547 14547 4/28/83 82-05-02 (a6b) sta11 va1id .Stamiris 48 12/15/82 . Oral Commun- Wells tiells and Shafer dis- 14547 14547 4/28/83 ication cussion of OA/OC organization plan Stamiris 49 10/29/82 Memo Warnick Novak iteq Guide 1.29 Excep- 14587 14587 4/28/83 tions Stamiris 50 3/4/83 IR 83-01 Nite inspection of 1/11- 14645 14646 4/28/93 l 14/83; Notice-of t
Violation ret no , documentation in weld . ! fabrication problem l l
y 4
, Midland 'OM/OL ' Ilea ri ngs Exhibits
.DATE OP'- IDENTIFIED IN EVIDEMCE -DATE IN EXHIBIT- DOCUMENT DOCUMENT- , FROM TO SUDJECT AT.TR. NT TR . 'EVIDENCC
~
Stamiris_S1 .2/83 Heport Corley CPCo. Site visit to evalu.ite 14643 uithdrawn: crack reported 2/18/H3 14749 in roof of feedwater isolation valve pit Stamiris 52 2/3/83 Letter S. Poulous..Kane Electrical Penetration 14671' 14749 A/18/83 (G( u t ech- -Area: plotting of data
. - nical 1:nqi- . ,
neering) j
. j Stamiris 53 12/9/82 CPCo memo J. Cook Requlatorv interface - 14709 14749 f./28/83 'l CCP Stamiris 54 2/14/R3 NRC Aechtel Drilling into.SNP Duct- 14724 '14749 4/28/83 Rev. Bank 3/24/83 Stamiris SS S/4/H2 SALP Rpt. NRC Period 7/1/80-6/30/H1 14764 14806 4/29/83 Stamiris 56 S/17/82 CFCo Response CPCo NRC .SALP response 14781 14806 4/29/83 to SALP Stamiris 57 Handwritten Shafer , Comnents on CPeo SAI.P 14781 14806 4/29/83-notes resuonse Stamiris 58 Typed copy of . H. Cook Comments on CPCo SAI.P 14808 15983 S/5/83
, comments on- response I
.SALP reJponse.
Stamiris 59 Handwritten [ Landsman?] 6/21/83 SALP meetino 14834 14916 4/2'>/83 l notes l
Ptidland OM/OL llearin<rs Exhibits DATE OP .DENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN EXIIIDIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT l' ROM TO Sull.1ECT AT TR. AT TR. EVIDEtiLE Stamiris 60 10/1/81 Memo (includes Pirtle Boyd Supplemental sat.P 14840 14916 4/29/83 9/22/81 memo) input from DUTI. Stamiris 61 8/6/82 Memo !< . Cook Spessard I:xtend SAI.P III 14897 14916 4/29/83 period 1 btamiris 62 4/1/83 Memo Keppler DeYounr3 S A 9.I' . Zimmer and 14306 14916 4/29/83
~
(IE) tiidland Stamiris 63 4/18/83 Memo F ppler Ilind and S A1.I' . Zimmer and 14910 14916 4/29/83 Warnick tindland i i i
s . . _ - . - - . . - . . - - 4 Midland OM/OL IIearings . [Exhi'aits ~
- DATE OP, IDENTIFIED IN' EVIDENCE' DATE IN ,
EXHIBIT ' DOCUMENT DOCUMENT > FitOM TO SUllJECT - AT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE-Stamiris 64 9/22/82 Meno'(with . Itood Summary of 9/8/82 mect- '14964 Not in,
,9/7/82 dra f t' ing (Staff & Moency) on' evidence "
letter) soils related QA. improve-ments Stamiris 65 9/24/82 Memo Warnick- Keppler. - Review of CPCo commit- '14990 '15093 4/30/83 ments by Midland Section ! Stamiris 66 11/24/82 CPCo meeting H. Peck 11/23/82 Meetinq,with .15092 15092 4/30/83 notes. NRC Stamiris 67 7/82 to Activity Log. Shafer Chronology of ' Mittland 15092 15092 4/30/83 3/83 Section Activities, l 7/82 to 3/83 Stamiris 68 Log (pp. 1-50) Adensam llandwritten notes ret 15720 Nst'in .5/4/83 CAP 41iscovery request . evidence for BS but will
" travel with the record."
Sco Tr. TT732 Stamiris 69 9/10/82. Draft Letter CPCo NRC Summarizinq review' dis- 15739 15741 5/4/83
.cussions on soiIs remedial construction i
i 1 4
- ' ' ' ~ - ' '
H., ', ,, 4 . i
. Midland OM/Ol.Ilearinqs Exhibits
'DATE OP-
. EXHIBIT' DOCUMENT DOCUMENT-PROM IDENTIFIED. IN EVIDENCE DATE IN.
TO SUBJECT ~ AT TR. ' AT . Tit. EVIDENCE-lStamiris 70- 9/10/82 DrafL Letter ;CPCo. NRC Materia 1;in addition tc that 15739- 15741 5/4/83
'in;Stamiris Exh 69, re:
Total CA implementation" Stamiris 71 Undated . Draft Ixtter N14C , CPCo Responding to two Sept. 17 15741- 15742 5/4/83 (Keg'ple r) letters from JWC (drafts of'which are Stam.-Exh. 69-70) Stamiris 72 ' Notes - NitR . Comments'on Proposed lutter 15741 16333 (Comments) .from Keppler (Stam. I:xh. 71). 5/6/83 5
- Stamiris 73 Testimony 1.ast paqe of draft of'JGK's 15753 Draft 15755 5/4/83 10/29/82-testimony Stamiris 74 12/21/82 Memo liernan .Novak 12/7/82 meeting on Midland. 15756- 15756 5/4/83 (HitC) 'OA Implementation Stamiris 75 9/7/62 Memo (w/o- llood Summary of R/17/82 meeting 15756
~
'15756 5/4/83 enclosures) on soils-related construction release.
Stamiris 76 7/21/82 QAR P-189 IPINs indentifyinq defiesen .. 15757 15757 5/4/83 cies reinstallation of under-pinninq instrumentation: con-
.cern about repetitiveness of deficiencies.
O , Midland OM/OL llea rings Exhibits-DATE OF EXHIBIT DOCUMENT- DOCUMENT FilOM TO SU. LECT IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN AT Tit. AT Tit. EVIDENCE Stamiris 77 C. Klinger Midland Enforcement Package: 15757 15758 5/4/83 (IE) general consents Stamiris 78 8/18/82 QAR F-197. Quality indicator Graph for 15950 Not in period 6/16-7/15/82 indica- evidence ting potential cdverse trend. Stamiris 79 Handwritten notes Notes from 12/7/82 meeting 16006 Not in evidence Stamiris 80 Notes / Slide Goals of OC integration into 16608 Not an presentation MPOAD (fiom brugess' files - evidence perhaps generated by Wells) Stam1ris 81 12/3/82 Letter Cook Denton Qualification of inspection, 16620 16694 6/2/83 examination, and tenting - audit personnel at Midland. Stamiris 82 2/24/83 Oral Co,nmun- Ewert Performance demonst ratioris 16641 unication 16655 6/2/83 for inspector qu.ilafseations Itecord
-- schedule chanites.
Stamiris 83 8/19/82 Letter w/PQCI Dechtel Turnbull Soil Stabilization 16645 7220 Not in cvidence
.ex .. .
s
' Midland OM/OL Hearings-Exhibi ts -
'DATE OP- .
IDENTIFIED- 'IN EVIDENCE 'DATE IN'
-UXHIBIT: ' DOCUMENT
- DOCUMENT -PHOM TO SUBJECT- AT Th. AT TR. EVIDENCE
.Stamiris 84 10/25/82[' MPQAD Davia- ' MPOAD - Procadures're OC'ecrtifica- 16648 16659 6/2/83
' tion Request tion
- No.'21
- Stamiris. 85 - No Date CPCo Handout. Indep. 3rd Party'Heviews -- 16659_ 16679 6/2/63 (Indep., Design Vurification'--
Construction Implementation
- Overview -- Soils Hemedial .
Activities. (Gardner's ccpy, l with-his notes). l l Stamiris 86 No Date CPCo handout. CCP_ Quality Activities, 16665 16679 6/2/83 l to Caseload Reinspection. Scope 6 forecast panel Assumptions Stamiris 87 12/82- Phone b)J .B. Davad 16716 Not in. 12/83 Reg.-III evidence Stamirts 88 10/2/81 Policy Stmt. Selby' CPCo 6 Midland Quality Policy 16728 16730. 6/2/83 Wahl Dechtel '-Presentation by Selby 6 Employees--Wahl-
-]
Stamiris 89 5/24/83 Board Notif- Novak- ASLB hold Tag V!olation during 17040 17050 6/4/83 ication remedaal underpinning con-struction Stamiris 90 3/12/82 Letter Hood Summary of 3/10/82 meeting on 17187 17188 6/b/83 QA in remedial foundation work i I 1' i ~_ - :
~
e Midland OM/OL IIcarings s Exhnbits IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DA*lE IN DATE Ol' AT TH. AT TR. CVIDLiiCE DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FROM TO SUBJECT ExillBIT Bechtel CPCo Note: Portion same as 17188 17189 6/6/83 Stamiris 91 10/4/82 Transmittal Stamiris 78 QAR F-197 (w/ Trend Graph) Shows IPINs upgraded to NCHs 17202 17202 6/7/b3 Stamiris 92 2/12/82- IPIN log (Spring-Suncer 1982, 19[.p. ) l 10/4/b2 flood Sunmary of 11/5/82 meetang on 17225 17293 6/7/83 Staiairis 9 3 11/22/82 Le t t e r Inle}endent Assessment of tlndet'ptnning at Aux. Is i dy . l IR and NLV 17642 Not in Stamiris 94 IR for evidence Nine Mile Point Heg. III CPeo Weil investigation tnto 17528 17529 6/8/83 Stamtris 95 1/18/83 3 crafts and whether CPCo made mtbleadtnq final cover letter statements to N!(C anspectors on 3/10 6 3/12. Weil Information from interviews 17921 17921 6/10/83 l Stamiris 96 5/82- llanowr itten with k. Islack 6/82 notes Shewman 1d157 18452 6/28/83 Stamiris 97 11/19/82 Heport to Novak ACRS Engineering mark-up of CCP 18306 Withdrawn: Stamiris 98 1/12/83 11ech t ei 18455
h. Midland OM/OL lir irings e Exhibits IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN DATE OF AT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE DOCUMENT DOCUMENT PROM TO SUBJECT EXIIIBIT 11 . Lee D. Miller 18323 18457 6/28/83 Stamiris 99 11andwr itt en notes Keeley Bechtel Design Neview. Note: 18356 18512 6/29/83 Stamiris 100 7/29/82 Memo SS thru 4.4, plus conclusion (Portions) l is in evidence BPCo Keeley Hidland IDV (proposed) 18604 6/29/83 Stamiris 100A 5/28/82 Memo APW System 18359 18461 6/28/83 Stamiris 101 5/27/83 Re por t TERA (co.er date) Ilydrostatio testinq 18402 18461 6/28/83 Stamiris 102 9/20- Audit Report l 9/29/82 I 18866 Stamiris 103 QAR F-120 NCH tM01-5-22-166 19966 18'367 7/1/83 Stamiris 104 11/16/82 NCR Stamiris 105 DPCo Procurena!nt doe.. Certificate 18991 of Conformance
.d :-I 1 .
e e Midland OM/OL Hearings Exhil'its IDENTIFIED IN. EVIDENCE DATE.IN DATE OF . AT TR. AT TR. - EVIDENCE PROM. TO SUDJECT EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT Re Delaval Inc.. replacement - 7/20/83
~ Stamiris 105 1/10/80' Bechtel mat- ' [Delancy 'of anchor plates for exhaust crial receiv..
. ing report. silencer with attached OC
' ~
inspection record-
..S&W's concern re procedure 19218 19250 7/28/83'
-Stamiris 106 7/14/83 -OAR Johnson- Meisen-heimer PSPG-3.2 unclear-
.Keppler Letter transmitting remedies .19228 19250 7/28/83 Stamiris'107 7/22/03 8304 el Cook.
for 50.55(e) re Pobb Interlock-Relays Auxiliary Feedwater Sys During"6/27/83 QA inspector 19232 19350 7/28/83 Stamiris 108 7/11/83 NCR MOI-- subcontractor's supervisory 9-3-170 . workers-found.not qualified Audit Report MOI-19-3 w/att 19238 19250 7/28/83 Stamiris 109 7/6/83 March Audit APR OIP-13F IU Report of Dechtel 19526 19530 Stamiris 110 WITHDRAWN 19531 Withdraws: 28 IPINs on temp backfill 10707 19729 7/30/83-Stamiris 111 1/28/83- NCR FSO-038 I ' L .. l I' l
Midland OM/OL'Ilearings Exhibits DATE OF IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN FROM TO SUBJECT AT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT Stamiris 112 3/12/82 Remedial Soils Meeting notes re 3/12/82 19884 .19891 8/1/83 weekly schedule meeting Review Mtg with CPCo-Mergentime-Becl.tel Stamiris 113 undated 2 pages of R. Black Pam Glass llandwritten notes re cable 19953 19963 8/1/83 handwritten pulling, questions of Black notes to Glass Stamiris 114 3/5/82 Remedial soils Meeting notes re progress of 20016 20105 8/2/83 . weekly schedule remedial soils work under- l review meeting pinning l Stamiris 115 undated Handwritten last Bechtel instrumentation 20100 20105 8/2/83 page (4) of draft engineers concerns re installation Stamiris 116 7/11/83 NCR MOL-4-3-169 MPQAD Deficient POCI 20367 20399 8/3/83 Stamiris 117 6/26/83 S&W report 41 Lucks NRC/ Cook Minutes of meeting on 6/27 20883 20399 8/3/83 through 7/1/83 Stamiris 118 8/29/80 CPCo memo of Sullivan Memo of meeting re: CPCo-NRC 9/22/83 meeting management meeting on Schedule
& Licensing
" Nuclear Future" Paul Rau Interview w/Selby id'd only Stamiris 119 9/22/83 Midland Daily News, pg. 14 i
l I l r l l I .- .. - - - .
'V Midland 'OM/OL Hearings Exhibits 1 DATE OF IDENTIFIED IN' EVIDENCE DATE IN EXHIBIT' DOCUME 'T - DOCUMENT. PROM. TO SUBJECT -AT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE.
, Stamiris'120 7/13/83' llandwritten Weil's Handwritten note re: 21520 21661 11/2/83 l" Notes meeting w/!!orn - l l l Stamiris 121 .1/11/83 Ilandwritten Weil's 'nandwritten notes re- 21532 21661 11/2/83 Notes . meeting w/Sibbeld Stamiris 122 6/29/02 Guideline Appli- Administrative guideline - 21539 '21662 '11/2/83 cant c-11.0 to Revision 8 Remedial Soils Work Permit System
-Stamiris 123 'v to 8 Log Applicant ~
Remedial Soils Work Permit 21547 21662 11/2/83 of 1982 Log for 6 fto 8 of 1982 Stamiris 124 3/5/82 . Notes' Dechtel CPCo fleeting NotesIRemedial Soils 21617 21663 11/2/83
-Dechtel Weekly Schedule Review-Mergent..ne Meeting Stamiris 125 4/23/82 Notes Bechtel CPCo- Meeting Notes; Remedial Soils 21617 21663 11/2/83 Dechtel' Weekly Schedule Review Mergentime Meeting Stamiris 126 5/14/82 Notes Bechtel CPCo flecting Notes l Remedial Soils 21621 21663 11/2/83 Jechtel Weekly Schedule Review Hergentine Meeting Stamiris 127 5/21/52 Notes Bechtel CPCo R'eting Notes 1 Remedial Soils 21625 21663 :11/2/83 Bechtel Weekly Schedule Review Mergentime Meeting Stamiris 128 10/21/83 Letter Keppler Cook NRC Letter re: meeting on 21657 21664 11/2'83 10/11/83, enforcement conf %
between NRC & CPCo I
- w. . . , _ .
Midlana OM/OL Hearings
. Exhibits-DATE OF .
IDENTIFIED .IN EVIDENCE DATE.IH .
' EXHIBIT- DOCUMENT DOCUMENT .FROM TO: -SUBJECT' AT TR. A'.' TR . EVIDENCE Stamiris'129. 8/2/82 Record by Record of telephone call re: 21686 21689 ' 11/ 3/8 3 :.
Whocler ASLB/NRC work authorization to Schaub Stamiris 130 Notes Davis ,Dert Davis' Notes 22012 .not admitted 11/4/83 , but will- ! travel w/ ! record i Stamiris 131 8/10/82 List: Applicant List of subjects discussed 22071 22098 -11/7/83 w/NRC prior to enforcement i meeting on 8/11/83 ) Stamiris 132 8/3/82 Notes Notes'of. phone call between 22076 '22098 11/7/83 Wheeler & Lancisman; d/3/82 Stamiris 133 7/23/83 Schedule Remedial..Soilg ticekly . 22081- 22098 11/7/83 Schedule mtqI*w/Jttachments Stamiris 134 7/27- Reports Shift reports for 7/27- 22095 22098 11/7/83 7/30/82 7/30/82 Stamiris 135 Statements ' Office of OI Policy Statements 22244 .22333 11/8/83 Investig-ation l Stamiris 136 Notes J. Brunner Handwritten notes of. 22269 11/8/83 Brunner's interview w/Pisher i I s . .
C , Midlrnd OM/OL Hrarings Exhibits l IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE DATE IN DATE OF AT TR. AT TR. EVIDENCE
-DOCUMENT DOCUMENT FROM TO' SUBJECT.
EXHIBIT - J. Brunner Hanndwritten notes of Netzela 22277' 11/8/83
.Stamiris 137 Notes
& Weil interview by Brunner & Weil .
Weil Wells notes of interview 22391 22393 11/9/83 Stamiris 138 7/27/82 Notes , w/Schaub on 7/27.&'7/28/82 Repor't Mergentime. Bechtel Daily Report re 22438 11/9/83 Stamiris 139- .7/23/82 - deep Q pit 94 installation 11/27/83. Cobrt paper. CPCo Stamiris Applicants responses to 22658 22659 12/3/83 Stamiris 140 Stamiris Interrogatories 14, 23, 31 and 19(a)
.Keppler Region Meeting ~with Selby & Howell 22660 22663 12/3/83 Stamiris 141 10/31/83 Memo ' III files re: need for independent audit I
1 l l [ l I l L_
a
-s 2
~
s . . s s m2 . s s .s . . s - . ~ ~ ~
~ s
,. . .s .s .s .s -
. e- . ..
v .
.l.*,
. .e .
l
.t. . ..
o - u. e. e
- - .....i.- .E2,..
M .
- c.
E,m s s .
~
as e o ed
=
a ~. ..~. - .
.a.. . . .e - - - - e 1 .
. 3:
u ... & u - L at
, a.
n n e . . U.
. .C.
, u
. o. -
- e. -
W n. n. O,, E aJ M **
. s s , .
2
,e
. .., -.s -
. u . ,a --.
s. e
=
=
. I ..
3
~a sc
. ,n .
.ss ..
- = a. > , o.. . f .e-.s b
a 3.=
.. .e.
h
= . .
E
^ ;t a t i i 3a =
w . i.
?.
- e W2
= u a
- 8" ou E.
t e .2 . 1 x - s a . .e .,- x - . .-
- .- . = m ar om
~
.f r.e C 89
- a. e.
D e a k E >= .e. .c.
.- e. e. O u
- n. m.e 3. E W
, . a. .. O. .
4 E W 3E E t. bE . ** - O ** . . - .
.s . s s .
1 W .* N .s e
.e s
c.
.s
.e 4 s N s e me .s ** .se > >
I 9
.e se M M . . . > .
b b b he b !
.E. .b. a - .IS
. - - .b.
E. a .e e me e e e .e m. O
- - - - .E. -e M E N N M W W g
. _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _d
6 3~ .
00LKETED < USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .84 JAN 31 R1 :21 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINEFiBOArRCELi<t.!A" 60LnuinitTA SEFvue BRANCH In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
) 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units l'&.2) ) 50-330 OL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rebecca J. Lauer, one of the attorneys for Consumers Power Company, hereby certify that ccpies of the following documents were. served upon all persons shown on the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, this 27th day of January, L1984:
- 1. Consumers Power Company's Proposed Second Supplemental. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Partial Initial Decision on Quality-Assurance Issues, including a Pro-posed Legal Opinion, _
~2. Cross-Reference to Consumers Power Company's
[ Previously Filed Proposed Findings and Re . sponses to Proposed Findings on Quality Assurance Issues, including'a cover letter, t and
- 3. cover letter to the Administrative Judges, dated January 27, 1984.
/- O' ~
- Rebecca J. Lauer ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
- Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago,1 Illinois '60602
-(312) 558-7500 DATED: January 27, 1984
[ L
F- *' W-SERVICE LIST Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Attorney General of the Atomic Safety & Licensing State of Michigan Board Panel Carole Steinberg, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 Environmental Protection Div. 720 Law Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 6152 North Verde Trail Apt. #B-125 Cherry & Flynn Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Three First National Plaza Suite 3700 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Washington, DC 20555 4625 South Saginaw Road Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Scott W. Stucky Chief, Docketing & Services Mr. Steve Gadler U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 2120 Carter Avenue Office of the Secretary St. Paul,-Minnesota 55108 Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Mary Sinclair William D. Paton, Esq. 5711 Summerset Street Counsel for the NRC Staff Midland, Michigan 48640 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, DC 20555 James E. Brunner, Esq. Consumers Power Company Atomic Safety & Licensing 212 West Michigan Avenue Board Fanel Jackson, Michigan 49201 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, DC 20555 Mr. D. F. Judd
-Babcock & Wilcox Mr. Jerry Harbour P.O. Box 1260 Atomic Safety & Licensing Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, DC 20555 Ms.. Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road Route #3 Ms. Lynne Bernabei Freeland, Michigan 48623 Mr. Thomas Devine i Mr. Louis Clark Government Accountability Samuel A. Haubold, Esq. Project of the Institute Kirkland & Ellis for Policy Studies 200-East Randolph Drive 1901 "Q" Street, N.W. Chicago, Illinois 60601 Washington, DC 20009
)
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - --- - _-____ a - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_j}}