ML17277B228
| ML17277B228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1983 |
| From: | Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Rosolie E NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401030424 | |
| Download: ML17277B228 (9) | |
Text
gp,g REG(g(
~0+
~
Wp A
I 1
I Q
Cy
~+*++
Docket No. 50-397 (10 CFR 2.206)
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORV COMMISSlON WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 December 20, 1983 Nr.
Eugene Rosolie, Director Coalition for Safe Power 410 Governor Building 408 S.W.
Second Avenue
- Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Rosolie:
On November 9,
1983, I informed you that I had received the petition of the Coa'lition for Safe Power dated October 14, 1983 (Petition), requesting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission institute show cause proceedings pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(a) to determine whether the construction permit for the Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project No.
2 (WNP-2) should be
- revoked, a stay of construction
- imposed, the pending application for an operating license
- denied, and hearings instituted before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
The Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is contemplating the issuance of a license to the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS or applicant) to permit fuel loading and low power testing for the WNP-2 facility.
This authorization may be followed by subsequent Commission authorizations permitting operation of the facility at elevated power levels.
This imminent licensing action by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is supported by both the Region V Office of the Commission and the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Furthermore, this contemplated action follows appropriate consideration of the issues raised in the Petition.
Because part of the Petition requested denial of the pending application for an operating license for the WNP-2 facility, I am taking this opportunity to apprise you of the consideration which has been given to the Petition prior to authorizing operation of the WNP-2 facility.
An extensive review of the Petition has been conducted jointly by the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Inspection and Enforcement, and Region V.
The substantive review of the issues raised in the Petition has been completed.
.The Petition raises essentially five issues.
The first is'sue. concerns allegations of numerous failures by WPPSS to implement an adequate quality assurance program at the WNP-2 facility as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 8, "guality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Aeprocessing Plants."
The Petition discusses a number of areas wherein it is alleged that the quality assurance provisions of Appendix B have not been
( 840lp30420 apgpgp= ~---
Nr.
Eugene Rosolie December 20, 1983 met.
Such areas include design control, record control, worker qualifications, and materials control.
The Petition refers to various inspections and reviews conducted by either Region V or the Office of Inspection and Enforcement in support of the contention that quality assurance at the WNP-2 facility is deficient.
The staff s inspection and enforcement activities frequently find deficiencies in construction activities at nuclear power plants.
It is not surprising, therefore, that such deficiencies were identified in the NRC inspection reports referenced in the Petition.
Such inspection activities routinely result in enforcement
- actions, open items, and unresolved items at construction sites throughout the nuclear industry.
NRC inspection activities have as their purpose the auditing of construction of nuclear facilities with the view to assuring that the overall construction program in place at a construction site is effective in ensuring that proper quality standards are maintained.
Isolated deficiencies in the program would not, necessarily undermine the program to such an extent as to give rise to a significant safety concern.
And, given the magnitude of construction activities associated with completing a nuclear power plant, even numerous deficiencies in such construction activities would not necessarily give rise to a significant safety concern.
As has been recently recognized by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board,'t would be unreasonable to hinge the grant of an NRC operating license upon a demonstration of error-free construction.
What is required in any inquiry is a careful consideration of whether all ascertained construction errors have been cured and whether there has been a breakdown in quality assurance procedures of sufficient dimension to raise legitimate doubt as to the overall integrity of the facility and its safety-related structures and components.~
At WNP-2, the quality assurance program experienced break down before 1980.
The NRC inspection reports for that period show that quality assurance problems were identified by NRC inspectors and appropriate enforcement actions were taken in accordance with NRC enforcement policies.
These included issuance of notices of noncompliance and subsequent enforcement conferences in 1978 and 1979; confirmatory action letters in late 1979 for limited stop work actions on pipe whip restraints and the sacrificial shield wall; issuance of a civil penalty and project wide confirmatory stop work letter in June 1980; and the June 1980 10 CFR 50.54(f) request to the applicant, which resulted in the massive project wide reviews and reinspections during 1980 through 1983.
NRC ins'pection reports show that the applicant was very responsive and cooperative in devoting resources to determine where unresolved deficiencies
.existed and,taking corrective actions.
The initial wor'k restart program'nvolved a task force of job-shop personnel to perform an independent review of work procedures of each active site contractor.
The August 1980 arrival Union Electric Com an (Callaway Plant, Unit 1),
ALAB-740, September 14, 1983, Slip op., p.2 NRC Id.
Mr.
Eugene Rosolie December 20, 1983 of this team on-site had an immediate impact in prompting contractors to commence internal programs to define and plan corrective actions on previously identified deficiencies.
Actions by the task force resulted in improvements in job speci-fications and the contractors'ork procedures.
Attention was also focused upon the adequacy of existing records to support assurance of quality of existing and future installations.
NRC inspection reports show that in July 1981 the applicant.devoted resources to perform reinspections of prior completed work (referred to as the gVP program).
Some contractors were already involved in major programs of this type due to implementation of generic corrective action plans arising from earlier audit findings.
The applicant's quality assurance staff performed reviews of records of closed contracts and equipment suppliers, and a new construction manager (Bechtel Corporation) managed and performed independent reinspections of previously completed work.
NRC inspection reports identified some weaknesses in these efforts during 1980 through 1983.
The reports also describe the additional corrective actions taken by the applicant.
In early 1983, the Region V office conducted a special review of the reverification program commitments, and held a management meeting with the applicant to clarify the original commitments.
The applicant was cooperative in committing additional resources to the reverification effort, and further enforcement action was not necessary.
The Region V staff has reviewed the results of the corrective action programs, including the restart program and gVP efforts, and has concluded that corrective action results of the previous enforcement actions have been sufficient.
The applicant's final reports of these efforts have been reviewed by the NRC staff and found accep'able.
Documentation of the final phases of the NRC reviews is in progress.
The construction activities at the WNP-2 facility have been carefully monitor ed by Region V.
Region V has also conducted Systematic Appraisals of Licensee Performance (SALP) reviews of licensee management annually since 1980.
The Office of Inspection and Enforcement has independently performed a Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) inspection of the quality of construction activities at WNP-2.
The NRC staff is currently reviewing the applicant's responses to the CAT issues.
The interim review indicates that as-built Category I structures at WNP-2 have met the intent of FSAR commitments and the applicable SRP provisions.
- Further, the deviations found during the Stone and Webster review of the as-built piping and supports at WNP-2 will not have a significant effect on the structural integrity of the supports.
Therefore, the staff finds no reason to preclude WNP-2 from operating up to.5X of rated thermal power.'rior to exceeding 5X of rated thermal power, the staff's completed detail review will be reported as part of the SER supplement for the full power amendment.
In addition, the Region V office has reviewed each of the individual items raised by the Petition as supporting an allegation of a deficiency in the applicant's quality assurance program.
The NRC staff has concluded -that the majority of the items referred to in the Petition relating to the adequacy of the quality assurance program at WNP-2 have been resolved.
Some open inspection
Mr.
Eugene Rosolie December 20, 1983 items do remain at this time and some of these items encompass areas raised in the Petition.
Such a list of open items at a time close to licensing of a facility is not unusual.
Again, given the complex nature of a nuclear facility and the many systems which are called upon to function to support its operation, a number of open items generally remain which require resolution as the applicant approaches that point in time at which it wishes to undertake fuel loading activities.
As has been the case with other commercial nuclear facilities licensed for operation, the NRC staff wi 11 assure that these open items are resolved prior to the issuance of an operating license, or that the operating license wi 11 be appropriately conditioned to ensure that the open items do not present a safety concern.
A second issue in the Petition concerns conformance of the facility with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, "General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants."
The Petition alleges nonconformance with a variety of the General Design Criteria in such areas as electrical circuits, structures, and fluid systems.
The Petition alleges that these nonconformances make operation of the facility an unacceptable risk.
The Petition further asserts the need for an Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) to be completed prior to the licensing of operation of the WNP-2 facility.
The staft has recognized the need for such a program at the WNP-2 facility and indeed such a program has been undertaken and completed by the applicant.
In November 1982, the NRC staff met with the applicant to discuss the appli-cant's gA program and to determine whether additional assurance was needed in light of recent design deficiencies found at other facilities.
The applicant outlined a comprehensive plant verification program that had been developed and was in the process;iof being implemented.
As part of that program, WPPSS indicated its in'tentioh to perform an independent design verification of three safety-related systems.
To provide a degree of independence, the program would use WPPSS personnel who had not been, and would not be, involved directly with the WNP-2 project.
- Also, WPPSS contracted for the services of Technical Audit Associates Incorporated (TAA) in order to provide a high level of inde-pendent management assessment of this design verification program.
The NRC staff is receptive to new initiatives by the industry and evaluates them objectively based on their merits.
In this case, the NRC staff supported the MPPSS initiative to obtain additional assurance on the as-built design of the WNP-2 facility.
The WPPSS report on design verification has been completed and is available in the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 8 Street, NM, Mashington, DC, and at the Local Public Document Room which is located at the Richland City Library, Swift and Northgate Streets,
- Richland, Washington.
C The WNP-2 design verification program has been completed.
The NRC staff is currently reviewing both the applicant's report and the Technical Audit Associates'eport.
The results of the staff's preliminary review indicate that it is acceptable and there are no major deficiencies in the WNP-2 design process or in the gA program.
Therefore, the statf finds no reason to preclude WNP-2 from operating up to 5%%uo'f rated thermal power.
Prior to exceeding 5X of rated thermal power, the staff's completed detail review will be reported as part of the SER supplement for the full power amendment.
Mr. Eugene Rosolie December 20, 1983 The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has completed a thorough review of the WNP-2 facility, including its conformance to the General Design Criteria, and has concluded that the facility as constructed meets these criteria.
Prior to an operating license being issued for the WNP-2 facility, the NRC staff will have made the further finding called for by 10 CFR Section 50.47(a)(1) that construction of the WNP-2 facility has been substantially completed in con-formity with the construction permit and the application as
- amended, the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
- amended, and the rules and regulations of the Commission, including the General Design Criteria..
This licensing action will take into consideration the matters raised in the Petition and will be based upon the resolution of remaining open items or upon appropriate conditioning of the license to ensure that these items do not pose a safety concern as discussed above.
A third issue raised by the Petition relates to allegations made by Mr. Stewart Sandier, in an affidavit attached to the Petition, concerning the lack of quality construction and effective quality assurance at WNP-2 site, principally in the area of welding.
The Sandier affidavit has been evaluated by the NRC staff.
The results of the preliminary evaluation are that all issues raised by the affadavit have been satisfactorily resolved.
The staff s detailed evaluation will be included in my.formal decision.
The fourth issue raised in the Petition concerns the competence of WPPSS manage-ment to properly operate the WNP-2 facility.
The Petition alleges that WPPSS management has failed to maintain an adequate quality assurance program to
. ensure that design and construction of WNP-2 has met applicable requirements.
The Petition refers to a variety of sources including SALP and CAT findings as supporting the Coal'jtion's position that WPPSS management is not qualified to operate the WNP-2 facility.
The technical and management competence of WPPSS to operate the WNP-2 facility has been reviewed by the NRC staff in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Section 50.40(b) and the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800), Section
- 13. 1.
The results are reported in the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0892, dated March 1982) related to the operation of WNP-2.
The NRC staff has concluded that the applicant has complied with all appropriate Commission requirements in the area ot management competence and is qualified to oPerate the WNP-2 facility.
The fifth and final issue raised in the Petition questions the propriety of the conduct of NRC personnel in their review of matters related to the WNP-2 facility.
Paragraph 94 of the Petition alleges lack of decisive actions on the part of Region V to ensure that the applicant met commitments and regulatory require-
...... ments.
In Paragraph 95; the Petition alleges as an, NRC impropriety informal.
'elease of information to licensees.
The Petition has been referred to the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor for review and consideration to determine whether any improper conduct occurred on the part of NRC personnel.
That issue is separate from the issue of whether the allegations in the Petition raise any health or safety concerns.
Based upon my review of the extensive inspection and enforcement effort conducted by Region V, and by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, I am convinced that these efforts remain untainted by any possible NRC personnel impropriety and thus form an adequate basis upon which to make determinations regarding the possible existence of any health and safety
Hr.
Eugene Rosolie December 20, 1983 concerns raised by the allegations of the Petition.
While the Petition asserts that the CAT team findings show that Region V has not vigorously pursued its inspection and enforcement responsibilities, I find the opposite to be true.
The CAT team's findings of no pervasive breakdown in the quality assurance activities at the WNP-2 facility confirm that Region V has been effective in overseeing the applicant's response to the earlier quality program breakdown to reduce construction errors to an acceptable level.
Therefore, on the basis of my preliminary reviews, I do not intend to grant the relief sought by the Petition.
My formal decision in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(b) will be issued in the reasonably near future.
Sincerely, Richard C.
DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Files NRC PDR Local PDR JSniezek RCDeYoung JMTaylor RHeishman JStone JPartlow HRDenton DEisenhut EChristenbury, OELD JLieberman, OELD
- LCuoco, OELD
- WPaton, OELD RHoefling, OELD LChandler, OELD CMiles
- SChilk, SECY
- HPlaine, OGC
~For previous concurrences see attached ORC IE: RCPB IE: RCPB IE: D/
S P
VYanez (2)
TNovak RAuluck ASchwencer EHylton WDircks JRoe TRehm VStello MBridgers (EDO-13662)
JDouglas JMartin, Region V
- AJohnson, Region V
JAxelrad GMessenger, OIA
- RDodd, Region V
Region V
~RDodds 12/19/83 OELD NRR $
"JLieberman J
12/19/83 12/2P/83 12 p ~~V Rllll~j~
R IE:
y or
~,'RC ou 0/83 12kd~V83
V I
pl II
Ar...
Eugene Rosolie Therefore, on the basis of my preliminary reviews, I do not intend to grant the relief sought by the Petition.
My formal decision in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(b) will be issued in the reasonably near future.
Sincerely, Richard C.
DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement DISTRIBUTION.'ocket Files NRC PDR Local PDR JSniezek RCDeYoung JMTaylor RHeishman JStone JPartlow HRDenton DEisenhut EChristenbury, OELD JLieberman, OELD
- LCuoco, OELD
- MPaton, OELD RHoefling, OELD LChandler, OELD CMiles
- SChilk, SECY
VYanez (2)
TNovak RAuluck ASchwencer EHylton MDircks JRoe TRehm VStello MBridgers (EDO-13662)
JDouglas JMartin, Region V
- AJohnson, Region V
JAxelrad GMessenger, OIA
- RDodd, Region V
IE: RCPB IE:
CPB JStone:esp RHei hman 12/i] /82 12
/83 IE:0/OASIP JGPartlow 12/
/83 Region V
12/i f/83 OELD NRR 12/I I/83 12/
/83 f(Q IE: D/DIR JMTaylor 12/
/83 IE: DIR RCDeYoung 12/
/83
4 l