Vogtle 3&4: Statement Of NRC on Registered Professional Engineers

Crutchley, Julie	Mar 13 (1 day ago)
to me, Sara, Sarenee, Sean, Stella, Dori

Dear Mr. Mulligan:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed its review of the concerns you raised relating to Westinghouse and Vogtle Units 3 and 4.  Our letter describing our review and conclusions is attached.  Please acknowledge your receipt of this message and its attachment via return email or phone call.  We would like to keep a copy of your receipt for our records.

Thank you for bringing these matters to our attention.  If you have any questions or comments on the attached letter, please contact a member of the NRC Headquarters Allegations Team via our group email, HQ_Allegations@nrc.gov, or contact us individually:

·         Ms. Dori Willis, Senior Office Allegation Coordinator (Dori.Willis@nrc.gov), 301-287-9423

·         Mr. Sean Meighan, Office Allegation Coordinator (Sean.Meighan@nrc.gov), 301-287-9094

·         Ms. Sarenee Hawkins, Office Allegation Coordinator (Sarenee.Hawkins@nrc.gov) , 301-287-9292

·         Ms. Sara Bernal-Taylor, Allegation Specialist (Sara.Bernal-Taylor@nrc.gov), 301-287-9296

·         Ms. Stella Opara, Allegation Specialist (Stella.Opara@nrc.gov), 301-287-9286

Regards,

Julie Crutchley

I wonder if this is a wave off in the FBI and others are investigating this? 

STATEMENT OF CONCERN ALLEGATION NO. NRO-2017-A-0015

CONCERN
 You received a call from an engineer who works at Vogtle.  This engineer claimed that he has “the same problem as what is going on at V.C. Summer,” which is that non-licensed engineers are signing off on safety-related diagrams/paperwork that should be signed off by licensed engineers.

NRC Response:
 In order to evaluate the concern, the NRC staff (1) evaluated the pertinent regulations; (2) reviewed the associated Post and Courier news article, the letter from the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPEs), and the Westinghouse Electric Company LLC’s (WEC’s) legal opinion on the use of Registered Professional Engineers (RPEs); (3) reviewed specific drawings that the reporter of the news article believed required a RPE’s approval; (4) compiled a list of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code requirements specifying RPE review of design reports and design specifications; (5) reviewed Regional and Vendor inspection reports associated with design reports and design specifications; (6) interviewed a sample of inspectors on the practice of ensuring whether a design report or design specification has been approved by a RPE; (7) reviewed excerpts from the State of South Carolina’s requirements regarding a utility’s use of RPEs; and (8) reviewed NRC guidance in inspection procedures (IPs) to determine if review of RPE documentation approval and personnel qualification are adequately addressed.

Regarding regulatory requirements, Criterion II, “Quality Assurance Program,” of Appendix B, “Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants,” to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” states in part, “The program shall provide for indoctrination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality as necessary to assure that suitable proficiency is achieved and maintained.”  This regulation would apply to engineers involved in the development of the AP1000 nuclear power plant safety-related design activities.  The NRC’s inspectors routinely assess the training and qualification of engineers.  

 The staff also reviewed the ASME Code to determine when a RPE’s approval is required to be verified by the NRC.  The AP1000 Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 5.2.1.1, requires compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a, “Codes and standards.”  In 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(1)(i), all ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III additions and addenda are incorporated by reference.  10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1) places certain conditions on Section III of the Code, but none of these regulatory conditions are associated with RPEs. 

 As an example, NRC staff would be required under 10 CFR 50.55a to verify a RPE’s approval on an ASME Code Form N5 associated with components manufactured to Code requirements.  This form is required to be signed by a RPE and is reviewed by the NRC as part of its inspection of the Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) related to that Code component. 

 Regional and Vendor inspectors only look for RPE approval when required to do so by applicable ASME Code requirements, but normally do not document it in an inspection report unless an associated issue is identified.  The associated Regional and Vendor related inspection procedures do not specifically require the NRC inspector to identify whether a design report or design

Is the NRC telling me we got no problem with RPEs because we don't inspect none qualified RPEs.

specification has been approved by a RPE.2  However, the NRC staff did identify one integrated inspection report (ADAMS Accession No. ML17226A0343) which documented in the Inspection Scope that the inspectors reviewed the qualification records for the RPEs that developed the squib valve and piping design specifications.  There was no further discussion as no qualification records issues were identified.  

With regards to the Post and Courier article, the NRC noted that information used to support the author’s position in the article did not state that WEC was using unlicensed or unqualified engineers.  The documents referenced by the reporter focused on the fact that WEC was not requiring a RPE’s approval of certain documents.  However, based on its review, the NRC staff concluded that not all documents need a RPE’s approval.  The specific drawings relied upon for the news article are examples of documents not requiring a RPE’s approval to meet NRC’s requirements.

In addition, when NRC inspections are performed, it is routine to review the qualifications of individuals performing the work.  Also, NRC inspectors often interview personnel in detail on specific work being performed.  These interviews ensure personnel are knowledgeable in their tasks.  There was no indication from the NRC inspection reports that unqualified individuals from WEC or its contractors were involved in the performance of work related to the AP1000 design.

Based on the NRC staff’s review, the NRC staff concluded that (1) there was no evidence of inspection report findings for unqualified personnel preparing design documents, and (2) design reports and design specifications that were required by NRC regulations to have RPE approval did so.  However, because the State of Georgia also has requirements related to professional licensure, you may wish to contact the Georgia Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors directly regarding your concern (http://sos.ga.gov/index.php/licensing/plb/22). 

As stated in our cover memo, we feel that our actions in this matter have been responsive to your concern and plan no further action.   Thank you for contacting the NRC. 

                                                 1 The ITAAC identified in the combined license are those inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria necessary and sufficient, when successfully completed by the licensee, to provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and will operate in conformity with the combined license, the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s rules and regulations. 2 The NRC staff is currently evaluating the value of adding a specific step in NRC inspection procedure(s) that ensures a RPE has appropriately approved the document (if required by the applicable ASME Code) when inspectors are reviewing design reports and design specification documents. 3 Public documents can be found on the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Management System (ADAMS) at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.