ML19305E611

Transcript of 800507 Briefing in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-65. Morning Session

ML19305E611
Person / Time
Site:	Marble Hill
Issue date:	05/07/1980
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML19305E612	List: ML19305E611 ML19305E615 ML19305E621
References
REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-80-213, NUDOCS 8005200108
Download: ML19305E611 (66)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ - _ _. 't 8 0052 00 k A { j ,i I C UNITED odTES OF AMERICA ^ r .0 Hill NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7-80 3 rroll i 930 BRIEFING ON RESUMPTION OF CONSTRUCTICN OF b 6 j MARBLE HILL r. w Al 8 d d 9 ~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130 10 'j 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. j jj Wednesday, May 7, 1980 d 12 5 3 e mm ssion met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. 13 5 BEFORE: g 34 N b 15 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman of the Commission 2 ) UTCTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner g is v5 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Commissioner j7, a 18 PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner E NRC STAFF PRESENT: j9 2 M ONMD BICKWIT, General Counsel 20 21l SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary E. HANRAHAN 3 C. WILLIAMS 23 H. SHAPAR 24 ; V. STELLO 25 i J. G. KEPPLER i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

2 1 P~ROCEEDINGS 2 (10:00 a.m.) 3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: The Commission meets this morning 4 to hear from the Director of Inspection and Enforcement on g 5 matters relating to the Marble Hill facility. We had issued a 8 j 6 series of papers in the past, one of which was an order issued R 7 on March 14, and as part of that we said that we requested the s j 8 Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement to brief dn 9 the Commission prior to lifting the order suspending construction Y 10 at Marble Hill. E j 11 This tracks with, I think, the approach the Commission 3 ( 12 has been taking over~the last year to involve itself more closely 5 13 in many of the more major issues. This also, I would have to l 14 agree, points out that we are following some of the actions that 5j 15 were recommended to us by Mr. Moffett as a result of a series = g 16 of hearings that he held. W p 17 Vic, I see you have some of your troops with you and 5 { 18 lots of papers here in front of us. So we have the morning. A { 19 MR. STELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we might n 20 have the first slide? And while that is going on let me introduce 21 Mr. Keppler, who is the Director of our Regional 3 office. We 22 have Williams who will be doing the briefing this morning in 23 detail. But before we get there I want to return to that order i i 24 ' that you referred to earlier, which required a number of actions 25 on my part, and to summarize for you the things that were in the i i i i

3 I order that have been done. To the extent that you wish to get 2! into any of those this morning, we are prepared to do that. 3 We have gone through the Sassafras Audubon Socie',y i 4' filings. There are, I think, roughly eleven documents related g 5, to that particular issue, some of which contain a list of n 3 6, questions and concerns. R 7 We have been through each of those to convince Aj 8 ourselves that we are handling each of them, in our judgment d 9 9 satisfactorily, are prepared to go through them if need be this z h 10 morning. E i, 5 11 ' The correspondence related to these issues we hope to 3 y 12 have complete before the resumption of construction is granted. 5 ( _ y 13 There are draft replies in various stages, some of which have = h I4 already been completed'and set out and others I hope to have done E g 15 if we can, early next week. = j 16 We have conducted extensive investigations into the l d N 17 ! issues that have come up as a result of allegations, our own 2 } 18 investigations. We are aware of the investigations that have been P g" 19 done by the FBI and have been briefed on the results of those 20 4 investigations to again assure ourselves that nothing has come i i 21 I up that we haven' t properly accounted for in the program we will 22 ; be outlining for you today. I 23 i I should remark that their investigation, however, is 24 l pending. It is not complete. They have not decided on the 25 ' matter as of this time. E Al nFRMON RFAORTING COMP ANY. INC.

\\ 4 1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Can you talk here about what the r 2 scope of their investigation is? 3 MR. STELLO: Very generally, it deals with an issue 4 related to whether or not some of the construction activity e 5 where they had to make a repair was done so incorrectly, and 5 h 6! there was attempt to cover up the need for that repair, to R 7 withhold that kind of information from the NRC. That is the K ] 8 substance of the FBI inquiry, and also, we have looked into that d i d 9 matter ourselves. Y 10 You have already indicated we were to brief the I E 11 Commission before the order was to be lifted and to not take any I 12 action on lifting the order until five days after the briefing. =3g 13 We fully intend to comply with those two requirements of the m 14 order, and we will be in the next several days preparing the $[ 15 necessary documents to take the action that will implement the x 4 16 l g program we will be describing to you this morning. e d 17 The last item of the order is the actual meat of the { 18 presentation, which is a review of the problem.itself, a brief h 19 background, and then finally getting into describing the g 20 corrective actions that have been taken in the overall program 21 that we think is meaningful in terms of allowing the 12 construction to resume, given that our satisfactory items that i l 23l are completed and the whole points are identified in Appendix C 24ll to the paper that we provided you prior to the briefing. 25 So with that, Cordell. i J L ___ ___OLDE@SQ1R_EPORTING_ COMP ANY, INC,

h e 1 Mr.. WILLIAMS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and other j i 2 I members of the Commission. It is my pleasure to appear before 3 you today to present the status of the staff's findings and 4 evaluations concerning the confirmatory order issued on August 15c i 1979 for the Fublic Service of Indiana, Marble Hill facility. 3 6 I am Cordell Williams, construction project section a i 8 7l chief, located in Region 3, Offices of Inspection' and n 8 8 a Enforcement. d d 9 g j This presentation includes facility information, h 10 significant construction events leading to the issuance of the z= 5 11 ! g l order, a description of the licensees' ongoing corrective I d 12 actions and the NRC Region 3's inspection and confirmatory Z 5 13 activities. E 14 y First slide, please? z 9 15 g The Marble Hill facility is located in southern g" 16 Indiana, immediately west of the Ohio River and approximately C 17 a i d ten miles south of the little town of Madison, Indiana. It till x \\ 18 ' utilize 2 - 4 loop Westinghouse designed pressurized water = 19 l reactors, each capable of producing a net electrical output of 20 j approximately 1130 megawatts. 21 I The limited work authorization which initiated the 22 ! l first safety-related work at the site was issued in August 1977. 23 ' The construction permit was issued in April of 1978. 24 i i The following slides will show in part the status of 25, l construction at the site at this time. The first slide here i ALDERSON REPORTING GGMPANYa INC.

6 1j provides an overview of the construction site. In the I immediate foreground we have a batch plant and to the lef t of the i 2l l"#9*'. dark structure there is the Unit 2 containment, and to the 3 right we have the Unit 1 containment. 4 Next slide? 51 e 6 6l This slide presents a closeup view of the two 4g containments. We can see on the right that Unit 1 containment g 7 as approximately 75 percent of the concrete in place, and on the 8 'l left, Unit 1 only has the concrete -- I am sorry, the containment 9 i lining erected. In the immediate foreground we have the z l j jj components of the polar cranes that will ultimately be installed 3 within the two structures. d 12 E l h13 Next slide? a Here we have a view showing once again the Unit 1 3 14 Q b! 15 ntainment, with the construction opening on the right side B 3 16 there. In the diagram, the first still structure we see there 3W is the auxiliary building and immediately behind, the taller g 37 W b 18 still structure, is the turbine building. h Next slide? j9 8" Here we have a closeup view of the Unit 2 containment 20 21l showing the intricacies, if you will, of the installation of the reinf reing still with equipment hatch to the left, the opening l 22 there about mid-screen, and to the right the white circles are 23 24 l the end caps on certain of the penetrations through containment. l Slide B? 25 i l i ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.

7 I Since April 1979 there have been a number of 2 significant occurrences which led to the suspension of 3 construction in August of 1979. Among these NRC 3 performed 41 a special inspection, or several special instructions in early l April 1979, wherein we identified significant problems with the s 6l placement of concrete. a U"; As a result of identification of these" problems NRC n 8 8 3 followed up with an escalated enforcement action meeting, a d 6 9 g wherein we discussed the issues of the corrective actions with 9 5 10 the licensee and indicated that the issues had to be resolved z= 2 11 l in an expedient fashion. j d 12 2 Shortly thereafter, in May of 1979, NRC received E 13 g allegations wherein it was alleged that certain concrete 3 14 y deficiencies, herein described as honeycombs, were being 9 15 covered up without benefit of proper corrective actions being 16 y taken. d 17 l g l Shortly thereafter, in June, NRC was also informed E 18 l = of additional allegations involving testing of concrete prior 19 l to its placement. i 20 During June and July of this year, I am sorry, of 21 1979, NRC confirmed the central substance of the allegations 22 l involving the coverup of concrete patches. 23 ; Parts of the issues involving the concrete coverup 24 l are currently under Justice Department investigation.

However, 25 assuming that all of the allegations are true, action has been i

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

I' taken by the licensee at NRC to preclude recurrence of the (, 2 alleged events. 3 Here in this slide we have an example of honeycombing (* 4 as it occurs in a concrete structure. To the immediate left g 5 of the rebar, the reinforcing still we see there, we see a void 8 5 0 and further to the left of that void we see the evidence of R 7 misconsolidation that is the failure of the sides of the k 0' concrete to fully fill the voids between the rock of the l d 6 9 j aggregate. 10 Next slide? E: E COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Cordell? 3 f MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Q f COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Who is the contractor for 3 14 construction? Is there a single overall construction management 's b contractor? z d MR. WILLIAMS: The construction management is being W II done by PSI. The constructor responsible for civil-work, the IO concrete work we are looking at here, is being managed by their ab jo g contractor Newburg. COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Yes. 21 14R. WILLIAMS: This slide shows the reinforcement 22 j still that is included within most concrete structures. Here we i 23 ' see the complexities that are introduced by the congestion. In 24 ' the immediate righthand corner of that slide, the upper righthand 25 corner, we see one of the embeds, an embedded steel structure i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYo INC.

I that will be used either as an anchor or foundation subsequently. o 2 This congestion contributes to the occurrence of honeycombing. 3 Honeycombing itself is something that is expected and planned 4 for within large civil enterprise of this sort. I 5l Next slide? e b t j 6 Here we have another example of the occurrence of R 7 the alleged events, the allegations as presented by Mr. Cutshell. Ml 8 In the center of that slide we have a six-inch long pencil to dd 9 give you some evidence as to size. This is one of the areas .zo h 10 that had been previously improperly prepared. At the borders 4 IIli E of that patch, the chipped out area, you see a dark area. That in I I2 was the repair material, the dry pack, that had been placed E .a 13 5 over these misconsolidated areas. m i I4 In this instance we have had the licensee, after n g 15 identification of this patch, by alleger Mr. Cutshell, and the z d I0 subsequent confirmation by NRC, you simply struck it and it us f I7 fell, we had them dig back to show that all the honeycombing a { 18 had not been previously removed. In this instance it is three P" 19 g to four inches deep, and it involves this rebar, the [l 20 reinforcement still that is very near the surface. 2I Next slide? 22 Here we have another example of the same thing. In 23 this instance the honeycombing has occurred in a floor or deck 24 and the supporting beam. 25 i once again the honeycombing only involved the outer i l' , ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYo INCA y

10 surfaces of the structure. In this instance it has not been r> 2I completely removed because we decided very early to simply have 3 the evidence be demonstrative of the finding and the allegation. f' 4 The tag that we see there, hanging there, is a 3 subsequent -- 9] 6l COMMISSIONER EENDRIE: Cordell, how far up does the 8"; honeycombing go? So far what we have seen is just failure N 3 8 of consolidation in the cover concrete. a d c 9 MR. WILLIAMS: So far those are the only areas that jo P 10 i have been identified by Mr. Cutshell, and so far those are the = f only areas that we have subsequently confirmed. c' 12 ' Z Now additional steps have been taken to assure that 3 13 4 g similar voiding and other discontinuities have been essentially 3 14 2 avoided within the volume of the concrete. 9 15 a COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Well, these things need to be ] 16 g patched because you don't want the steel bare in there, but the 6 17 loss of that layer, I assume that the down is down, and the a z 5 18 = loss of that bottom layer isn't contributing much to the beam 9" 19 l strength anyway. 20 But it is generally then the cover concrete that 21 hasn't consolidated here? l 22 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. It is is the complexity, if you will, of having the congestion of the rebar and the form which 24 I j is of course quite necessary at that interface, and of course 25 l the conditions of the concrete at the time of placement and its ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYn INC,

11 I i handling contribute to this. l 2' COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Yes. MR. WILLIAMS: But the occurrence of honeycombing 4i itself is not an indication of inadequacy. The fault in this g 5 instance is simply the failure to properly identify, included in 9k6 a QA system, and make it visible and otherwise repaired. n E' 7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Now what is it that assures A b you that this is only going on at the surface and that back in d* 9 ]. is hard and solid? oH 10 g MR. WILLIAMS: The first assurance, if you will, is history, but of course we can't rely entirely on that in prior d 12 E experiences in placing concrete. But secondly, in those 3 E instances where it is at the surface, it is removed to the extent 3 14 that it involves the remaining volumes of the concrete. = 9 15 Q Now in the instance of our interest here we have z ? 16 ! g gone further and had certain volumetric examinations performed, d 17 l titled microseismic evaluation of bulk concrete, if you will. z j = 18 l What in fact happens is you place a transducer on the surface = h 19 l of the concrete, you initiate a small seismic event by striking j 20l it with a hammer, thereby propagating sound waves through the 21 volume, and you listen to the echoes. With fairly sophisticated 22 electronic gear you suppress the noise and -- I am sorry, static 23 and reflections from expected surfaces like the re-steel, and 24 i what you have left is essentially a picture of major 25 discontinuities, those that are larger than aggregate, and in the i i l ALDERSON_ REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

-l 12 II \\ instances of this inspection air bubbles as small as a quarter e 2 of an inch, when they were on a plane and in an aggregate 3 condition, where they represented a major interface. 4 Slide? }- 'Here is another example, once again of what I call 0 'l -{ here the superficial honeycombing, roughly three to four inches n 8 7 g deep. We have dug back to the first layer of reinforcement N 8 8 a steel. The honeycombing in some instances goes beyond there d 6 9 several inches. We are expecting it to. Once again we are g o h 10 merely uncovering those alleged conditions as reported by our =hII first alleger in this area. d f 12 ' Now in this slide you also see a gri' pattern that 3 j has been laid out above that honeycomb condition. This was a 3 14 ' subsequent event wherein we use tha microseismic test technique b to make an evaluation of the prtential, if you will, or the z 16 y possible inclusion of major voiding within that wall. 17 l d Now this honeycombing here is possible to the extent 'm 18 that we would expect to see some there, and you would look for = 19 ) it because we have got not only the re-steel, but we have got a 20 l major penetration, as represented by that pipe, which makes it 21 1 more difficult to place concrete from the top, get it to properly 22 flow under and properly ir.volved in all the enforcement, l 23 reinforcement steel. 8 24 ! j Next slide? 25 ' Now further to assure ourselves that the microseismic ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

13 I technique was capable of determining significant inclusions, 2 voiding and honeycombing within the volume of the concrete, and 3 capable of getting this useful information for additional 4 assurance, we also were -- I am sorry? COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Does voiding just mean larger +{ honeycombing? What is the difference between a void and a N 8 7 honeycomb? n (- 8 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it is actually what the word d 9 .j says. It is an open space. There isn't anything there. Honeycombing says that the rock, the large parts of the concrete = E 11 g are there, but the fines, the cement case, isn't, or if it is d 12 z there it is inadequately involving the aggregate. E 13 To go beyond those test results which are essentially 3 E 14 ' g electronic in nature and we can't see back there, we and the 2 15 g licensee agreed that certain destructive tests had to occur. ? 16 j In this instance it was coring. That core is approximately C 17 d three inches in diameter. E= 18 Now that core was taken at a location wherein the =H" 19 l ultrasonic test technique had indicated that there was an 20 unplanned for reflector, a void or a honeycomb. Now in this 21 instance we were also interested in determining, making a 22 determination as to the conservatism of the test. 23 The evaluation indicated that there were certain-24 li bare plane at a given depth. The cores were made, and indeed, 25 ; we did find small entrapped, a plane of small entrapped air i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l

14 I j bubbles. 2l On the immediate left of the 4 and under the 3 alphabet A, there is an example of one of those. It is roughly 4l I three-eighths of an inch in diameter, very typical of all 5 g construction involving concrete. And in this instance, though a 3 6 it was a reflector, it demonstrated that we were on an R o" 7 extraordinarily conservative side in approaching'our statistical N 8 8, measurement in this fashion. a dn 9 ?- Next slide? E 10 j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: When you do your transducer 5 a 11 g measurement, what kind of a cone of area are you actually 6 12 E measuring? md 13 j j MR. NILLIAMS: All right. This transducer is really E 14 y an array of devices. There are five elements, five energy 5 15 g transducers within a frame that is roughly eight inches in 16 diameter. You can't speak of it in the same context that you I C 17 d would radii. It is not that directional, and it isn't intended E I m 18 l to be. U 19 ' l It has a very broad -- the electronics, the front 5 20 end, the transducer has a very broad frequency response. 21l What you do is place that cone, and you can go as far as eight 22 inches away, a foot and a half away, and strike the bulk of the 23 concrete. And it listens to information coming from any i 24 i j direction, whether you have generated radio waves -- 25 All right. l i I OLDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, I

15 l I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Roughly, what size region would f, 2 you then end up measuring? 3 MR. WILLIAMS: It varies with depth, as I am sure you 4 recognize. There is a schedule that is a part of the procedure e 5 z that defines the zone of interest for a given depth. Once 3 6I you find sensitivity, if you get a back echoe from the back R

• E 7

surface that is of a given amplitude then you are' sensitive A! O enough. d }". What defines that area of interest, the cone that we 9 h10 speak of here, it is not a number that I can give you here. I = 5 II would have to consult that chart, but in each, instance there was a f enough overlap in 'the placement of the grids to assure that we S t 13 ' j had at least 50 percent overlap and sensitivity capability = I4 to here and interface, a problem ringing in the volume of the 2 9 15 g concrete. 1 g 16 CHAIRY3N AHEARNE: Did you do those measurements only A C 17 in the areas where Mr. Cutshell had said there were weaknesses, T. 18 or did you do other areas? H" 19 i 8 i MR. WILLIAMS: No. This examination was not -- n 20 certainly it drew from, the fact that it occurred when it did i I 21 drew from our receipt of allegations. NRC had requested it in 22 l May when we first -- I am sorry, May and April, when we first 1 23 identified difficulties with placement. Therefore, when we used 24 this technique, we were interested in an assessment by statistical 25 examination of the entire volume of concrete. And the criteria i i ALDERSOM REPORTIMG COMPNM7, ONC,

16 1 used to select the sample areas was not tied to location of 2l l identified superficial problems. 3l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: But did I understand you correctly 4i i earlier to say that the areas where you did find problems were 3 the areas where Mr. Cutshell had suggested? a 3 6 a MR. WILLIAMS: No. If I did give that bit of S"; information, it was incorrect and not the conclusion to be n 8 8 drawn. a do 9 The areas where we found reflectors were areas other j [y 10 than those where Mr. Cutshell had pointed out deficient = E 11 ' g concrete patching and other than those where we had likewise d' 12 3 identified the same problem. 13 They were chosen at random based upon the areas of E 14 y examination, based upon wall section, the degree of congestion, _2 15 g the nature of the pour, elevation and other criteria within T 16 y that family. 6 17 ! CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Maybe I am getting you ahead of g E 18 = your presentation? Were you going to then reach some conclusion 19 8 i about what you found as a result of those examinations? 20 MR. WILLIAMS: In a broader fashion. We can speak 21li i to it specifically here. By my best understanding and 22 l recollection, the findings have not disclosed, the findings by 23 the ultrasonic technique have not disclosed any rejectable 24 ' condition. 25 ' l Excuse ne just a second here. i i L ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

7, 1 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What is a rejectable f~- 2 condition? 3 MR. WILLIAMS: A rejectable condition is -- I can't j 4l give you an answer any more comprehensively than one i.1 one e 5 g wherein either-the misconsolidation or other anomaly would N 3 6i l undermine the structural integrity of the structure, the wall or Ea 7 i-the floor, as defined by the design. n 8 8 It would take a design. evaluation to speak to that d d 9 g question very specifically; however, for quality control 6 10 E purposes, the quality control procedures will define = 5 11 j honeycombing, much as we have seen, as the pictures represented 'i 12 i j j

here, and this is repaired without benefit or any need for any 4

13 i further analysis. E 14 s But now had we during, had they during their x 9 15 j ultrasonic evaluation found a large anomaly, a large inclusion, l 16, j that would have made for some evaluation. They would have to y 17 x l make a decision at that time. Ew 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Are you saying then that N 19 l l conditions which would have been rejected had they been found i 20 i i by the normal QA, QC procedures would not necessarily be i 21 l' rejectable conditions as you are defining them for purposes of 22 < the results of the ultrasonic testing? i 23 ; i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: The point is that the external ; 24 l l problems, the honeycombing on the outside, at least the sort 25 .of stuff that is shown in.the pictures, which is rather shallow ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC._,

18 I and just goes down to the first rebar layer, is concern rather more for the loss of protection to the reinforcing steel than it 3 is from a strength standpoint? So that you want to repair all j 4l l those' areas, not because the structure may be weaker than the 5 j design basis, but rather to restore the protective cover which 6l the designers want over'the first rebar layers, for corrosion g 8* I protection and long-term stability. n 8 8 Now when you get into the internals of the structure, a d 6 9 j where any substantial void would be a structural concern, then c P 10 j indeed you look and see how big a signal you get and then = E 11 g decide whether you need to core to validate the acoustical o 12 signal, or whether it is a small one so that whatever object is z S 13 g causing the reflection is small enough so as not to be of E 14 W constructural concern. 9 15 2 You see, there is a quantitative difference in the -- z ? 16 y COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, what does the QA, QC -- 6 17 i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: -- basis for repair. az M 18 = COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What assurance does the w" 19 ] QA, QC procedure give you against voiding? Are there voids 20 which had they been found in the. course of QA, QC work would have 21 immediately been fixed but which would be too small to be of 22 significance from the point of view of what we would consider i 23 ' to be rejectable? l 24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: I guess I am not quite getting 25 t the right play. The whole proposition is a quality assurance and l l 6

19 1 1 1 j quality control exercise on the product here. 1 2 1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes. What I am really after 3 j is just whether at this point in time under our testing I 4' procedures, using as a yardstick the question of whether it e 5 threatens the overall integrity of the structure we would wind 3 6-up not ordering the fixing of things that a QA, QC person might e 7 n; flag and say, wait a minute, that has got to be d'one over, if he n 8 8 caught it on the day of the pour or something of that sort. a d 9 g COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: That probably is possible. og 10 z That is, if you had been coming along with a set of lifts in the = i concrete and you now have a rough surface down there in the I d 12 z wall, and the QA man comes by and sees, I don't know, a patch c 13 g of sand has been kicked down on it, if they are running a good E 14 5 tight well-controlled construction effort he will see that M 9 15 Q the construction foreman blows that stuff off there before they x 16 y lay the next lift on it. 6 17 G Now if it doesn't get removed and you pour on top of Ew 18 = it, then later on you are going to have to decide whether the 19 l l unconsolidated volume that that represents is of a significant 20 ! l enough size to go in and have to pound the whole thing out and i 21 1 go back and repour. And if it is, why, then this kind of 22 testing is pretty sensitive. It is getting a lot better than it 23 ' used to be, I must say, to judge by your report, Cordell. 24 l l MR. WILLIAMS: Our experience has surprised me, if 25 l you will. I ALDERSON REPORTING CQMPANY, INC. t

s 20 I ? COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Yes. (~ 2 MR. WILLIAMS: They were able to define a very small 3 plane of air bubbles less than a quarter to three-eighths 4 inch in diameter and less than two inches -- 5 g COMMISSIONER EENDRIE: Well, anyway, you know if you ] 6 i pick up something that appears to be large enough to be of ^n*" 7 concern, why, typically you will core to confirm 'what is going f8 on, because you can replug a core relatively easily in the wall, d c; 9 and if you find it is, no, it is not a big deal, why, you z h 10 probably from a structural standpoint in some ways making a ? 11 major repair is a matter that has to be done with great care 3 y 12 to make sure that what you put back in fact now brings the whole 5 y 13 { structure up. So if you don't have to do that, why, you wil'1 = l 14 avoid the possible pitfalls that go along that route. g 15 One point I will make about the sensitivity of this x g 16 stuff, if indeed you are consistently picking up small voids, w h I7 a quarter, half-inch voids, and then on the occasions when you E 3 18 have picked one up and cored are able to verify that indeed P "g 19 you are finding things like that, it suggests a pretty decent n 20 continuity of the bulk concrete product. 2I MR. WILLIAMS: That is the conclusion that was drawn -- 22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Because you wouldn't get nice 23 ' clean signals like that if you didn't have pretty good quality 24 material, you know, except at the location of the bubble itself, 25 i which is no great shakes as a structural -- ALDERSOM REPORTING COMP ANYJN_C, N

21 I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could I just return to what 2 I understood Peter's question to be? You are drawing a 3 distinction between something which needs to be fixed and 4 something which is "rej ectable," is that right? 5 j MR. WILLIAMS: I am not following your question at 9 i 6! this point. R

• S 7

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I understocd -- Al 8 MR. WILLIAMS: Go ahead. O c[ 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The structure, as I understood 29 h 10 it, which had these surface flaws, would be required to be 5 4 II repaired. 3 i N II MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. 5 1 5 13 I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But you' didn't regard that l 14 as rejectable? b= 15 g MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. = d 0 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Rejectable means what? You W u 17 put a jackhammer to it and -- x 18 MR. WILLIAMS: In this instance, given a patch much H I9 3 like either of the ones we saw before, this occurred during the n 20 j placement of the concrete. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right. 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Some -- -- maybe -- -- in the high 23 I plate of the slide -- I am sorry, the form is removed. It is 24 i l at that time that you identify a honeycomb condition. Now the 25 the proper series of events is that the craftsman removing it ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

O 22 I and their foreman would have notified QC or QC would have been 2 there by routine, by virtue of their routine involvement, it 3 was noted and identified this honeycomb condition and prescribed 4 a corrective action which would involve turn, jackha'amering it I y l out, back to sound concrete, giving it a configuration that ,6{ makes it easy to patch, not jagged and rather oddly shaped as S" we saw there, but one with very positive corners.' They would n 8 8 have been instructed to remove even sound concrete beyond that a d 9 j outer surface of re-steel, so that the patch itself will involve o t 10 y an anchor mechanically, once it is set up to the rebar. = E 11 g To that extent those conditions were rejectable. I d 12 z Now that is only for that patch. It is a control mechanism, = = 13 s a quality control device assuring that all such patches are E 14 W addressed. 9 15 g Now there are other quality control devices that -- T 16 g COMf'ISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, let's see, I didn't 6 17 understand your earlier comment when you said you found nothing w= 18 = which was rejectable. 19 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Different subject. 20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: That was with the ultrasonic, 21 not ultrasonic. That means that the acoustic -- 22 MR. WILLIAMS: Beyond the surface. 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Beyond what you'had seen at 24 i the surface. 25l MR. WILLIAMS: A subsequent act. We would evaluate i I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

23 I the volume of the concrete. To date we have not identified f 2 anything rejectable. CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Thank you, Now that we have 4 brought you far out, we will come back in. 5 g MR. WILLIAMS: Now, subsequently to identification {' of -- I am sorry, subsequent to the confirmation by NRC and the 6 E" 7 licensee of the accuracy, if you will, of allegations by Mr, c n 8 8 Cutshell, NRC issued two immediate action letters in June and a dd 9 July of 1979. These instructions required that the licensee j o P 10 - corrects certain process control activities involving the j 2 = i 11 ll Placement of concrete and instructed the licensee to E<W i 12 j expeditiously accomplish the ultrasonic examination we were 3 i j l previously discussing, and it also asks that they identify and E 14 l correct all the nonconforming patches at the site, k 9 15 E Of course the fundamental requirement there was that x 16 g all concrete civil activities were to stop until these I 6 17 corrections had been made and restarted with 100 percent NRC l w 5 w 18 overview and involvement in their activities. j = s i 19 i l-l These actions were not effective. The nonconformance 20 has continued, speaking to inherent deficiencies in either 21 i program implementation, qualifications of personnel. l 22l The other significant event that occurred during this i 23 I period of time -- l!' 24 i i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, how could the ? I 25 nonconformances have continued if they had stopped work? t i i I / VU5T3fff/ I!

24 I MR. WILLIAMS: The issue of stop work order instructed j 2 the licensee to take corrective actions in the form of training 3 j personnel, correcting procedures that appeared deficient by j 4 i j our evaluation. i l l We would then lift the stop work for demonstration + 0 { of capability. During these demonstrations they f ailed again E"; to show adequacy. We issued another stop work immediate action N 8 8 letter, then went through the same series of events. It was d c 9 likewise not effective. g o P 10 j And that speaks to larger problems than immediate I h problems of placement or immediate conditions or adversities d 12 l E that they may have encountered in the area that we watched. c d 13 COMMISSIONER RENDRIE: Reinforced concrete is pretty 14 ! g forgiving stuff. It is not a bad place to see whether your 9 15 i j l QA machinery is working, because later on on the job you get into T 16 ) some things that are not so forgiving, end if you can't keep d 17 ! the concrete work up to snuff, why, it is'high time to stop and = 18 = reevaluate before you get on to these other areas. u" 19 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Forgiving in the sense that 20 it is r'elatively easy to fix? 21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Not only relatively -- well, 22 j it depends on whether you are the guy that has to handle the i 23 jackhammer. You know, the jackhammer operator may not think it is 24 ! l Very easy to fix, but you know, it is at least simple in 25 ; principle. l ' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYg INC.

5 25 I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: We are having some experience with that right now. COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: No, but more particularly, 4 forgiving in a structural sense, in a well-designed section 3 you have to work hard to make enough errors to really destroy a 3 6 structural integrity. The stuff can stand a lot of mistreatment. e n 3 7 j That doesn' t suggest that it is allowed, because 'we are looking n 8 8 for high quality here, and as I say, but it is a good place a dc 9 g to see whether your.QA organization is working. And if it is o t 10 y not, why, there is a gcod place to stop and fix it. = E 11 g MR. WILLIAMS: Now the other significant event d 12 3 occurred in this same reriod of time was the issuance by the c i l c 13 I National Board of Wall and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, their E 14 g findings as documented in the report dated July 10th, 1979. 9 15 g Now excuse my brevity, it was a very large report ? 16 y and it documented numerous items and issues of nonconformance. 6 17 ' But principally it involved the quality documentation, the a 5 I w 18 i = paper that speaks to quality of piping, much like the piping 19 l we observe here on this slide. 20 It also involved the authority of PSI in purchasing 21 ! I and handling and distributing that piping to its subcontractors 22 l and the relatienship between PSI and its subcontractors at the 23 - site with the responsibility to install this piping. 24 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: This is the handling of the 25 ! l piping on site after it has been received? l l A t-

26 MR. WILLIAMS: And prior to. The quality 2 documentation that speaks to its quality was at issue. The 3 authority of the licensees in terms of their N stamp commitments 4 and their decision to become an N stampholder, and the relation-ship between the subcontractors at the site who were installing 3 6 the piping, and the licensee. = COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What precisely was the M 8 8 problem? Was the licensee not involved in this process a dd n ~ -j sufficiently? o P 10 MR. WILLIAMS: He was very much involved in the E 11 j process, but the involvement had not been in conformance with d 12 E the Code. = d 13 ! j ~ COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: In what way? E 14 l d MR. WILLIAMS: The licensee made the decision that k 1 9 15 i j it would be the N stampholder. The licensee had not made the ? 16 y overt commission by hiring the necessary third party inspection d 17 ! w agency. They had not subjected itself to survey by the ASME Ew 18 = Code in the State of Indiana to determine the adequacy of their w I 19 g quality assurance program separate from the 10 CFR, Part 50, 20 Appendix B program. 21 Various third party inspectors for the contractors 22 at the site were having difficulties in their estimation in acquiring competent paper to speak to the quality of the 24l l materials that their companies were in possession of. 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Had they applied for the N stamp i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

27 certificate? 2l MR. WILLIAMS: No, they had not, not at that time. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: - - -- as though they had? l 4l l MR. WILLIAMS: They were acting as though they had, but -- n 3 6! 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could you give me a 60-second En 7 primer on the significance of being an N stamphol' der? N 8 8 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Do you want me to try? dn 9 g MR. WILLIAMS: I will yield to you, sir. og 10 z COMMISSIONER RENDRIE: And you supplement. =5 11 j j j In normal construction contracting practice, if you d 12 I Z l wanted to buy a batch of pipe like this, why, you would decide 2 13 5 what kind you wanted in the design sense and put out a bid for E 14 d it and somebody would be low bidder, and you would give him the k 2 15 g job and he would send you the pipe with a transportation sheet T 16 that says here is the pipe you ordered on order number so and a 37 ~ d so against your purchase order so and so, and you would paint 5m 18 = that on the pipe and send it to the warehouse at the site and 19 l so on. 20l The N stamp business is a totally different game, 21 I { and people who have done ordinary power plant construction, for 1 22 I instance, and think that moving into the nuclear field and in i 23 ' particular becoming an N stampholder is just sort of more the 24 4 l same, go through a terrible shock. It is a different world. 25 Each piece of pipe comes with a great thick sheaf of QM51%EC%89U~i(5k; M.

28 1 documentation that authenticates its material properties, the 2 tests that were made on those heaps, and the fabrication and 3 the pipe and everybody that touched it is signed off there. And 4 the N stampholder, by george, he is on the hook with the Code e 5 g I committee to make sure all of that is there and to stand behind a 3 6 all of the fabrication procedures as being strictly according n 8 7 to Section 3 of the Code and so on. n 8 8 And as I say, people who have worked with other a dc 9 g sections of the ASME Code and think, well, Section 3, we will o 10 z just go on and move into that, you know hire two more guys and = another secretary and we can do that, oh, boy, do they get into d 12 Z trouble. 3 13 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, Cordell said something 5 { 14 about the utility choosing to be an N stampholder. Could it be 9 15 g otherwise than for them to be an N. stamp -- T 16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Yes. i 17 ! w COMMITSIONER GILINSKY: What would be the 5m 18 = alternative? 19 i l MR?.. WILLIAMS: The alternative is to delegate that 20 responsibility to some contractive agency. 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I see, the architect 22 ! l engineer or -- 23 ' li i MR. WILLIAMS: Could be an example. 24 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: The engineer constructor on 25 i l other sites would typically be the N stampholder. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY INC. 9

29 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now what do we require here, 2 just that someone be an N'stampholder? COMMISSIONER HENDRIE : We require that the i 4 significant portions from our standpoint of the plant be built i to Section 3 requirements of the ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel 3 6' e I Code, and that in turn requires that that be done, that the E"; fabrication be by N stampholders who fabricate, End the n b constructors, assemblers the same and so on. d ) d 9I g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is there a requirement in that S I j 10 l path for an N stampholder to have an independent set of E 11 ' p inspectors? J 12 i E CHAIRMAN ' AHEARNE :.. Well, the Code itself has a 4 13 g whole series of requirements on quality assurance for an N stamp-E 14 g holder, and part of getting an N stamp is the Boiler Code E 15 ' E Committee on N stamps comes down and grills the organization m y' 16 1 and make sure it has those appendages to it. ( 17 a MR..STELLO: Ybu. care'" required to contract with an E w 18 = authorized inspection agency for that purpose. s i 19 i j, j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The utility could not have 20 I been unaware of what the requirements for being an N stampholder I 21 are? 22 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Is this their first nuclear power 23 plant? 24 l MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 25 CHAI1BiAN AHEARNE: This is their first? i i i b

l 30 1i j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What was the problem? l MR. WILLIAMS: Why did they not do so in a timely l 3' fashion? I 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What.is our understanding of l l the problem? 8 6 MR. WILLIAMS: It was our conclusion, as documented ,n R 7 in an earlier report in August was that it was, the salient n2 8 contributing factors was lack of a good understanding of the a dn 9 g requirements. I characterized it much earlier as being ch 10 E arrogance, ignorance, and expediency. = E 11 g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That seems to be fairly "J 12 z clear. i 3 j *a f MR. WILLIAMS: The circumstances have significantly E 14 ' changed since that time. e 9 15 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: On all three? = 7 16 ] MR. WILLIAMS: On all three. F 17 d COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Or at least the first two. 18 { = CEAIRMAN AHEARNE: According to one of these letters = 5 19 i from, I guess from the Indiana board, they criticized the j 20 company for applying 'for an interim letter instead of the 21 certificate. 22 ! COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That is the result? 23 ' CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: That is the result. 24 I MR. STELLO: They are in the process of getting an 25 N stamp. They obviously cannot get one until they are allowed I OLDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. t

G 31 I to start doing some work, and you have to show through 2 implementation before you can actually get the stamp. 3 CHAIRMAN AHSARNE: In order to get the stamp must 4 construction be underway? e 5 g MR. STELLO: Yes. I guess in principle they can't i 3 6 get the stamp until they actually start to show through the n 8 7 process of their QA system that everything is acceptable before n 8 8 the stamp is actually awarded. a d 9 g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Who actually gives the stamp oH 10 5 out? Who do they get the stamp from? I understand it is the = E 11 g ASME, but who is it in fact, a local committee or what? d 12 3 MR. WILLIAMS: No, in this instance the Subcommittee =d 13 g on Nuclear Certification will receive a report from their E 14 d inspection and evaluation team that will either recommend that 'm 9 15 g a stamp be given or recommend that another survey be performed, ? 16 y denied. 6 17 I i Now the series of events in response to the Code's ax 5 18 = requirement, Section 3 of the Code, is that the licensee or 4 19 l whoever the owner is decides who will be then stampholder. At 20 that point he then is obliged to develop a quality acsurance 21 program that meets the requirements of the ASME Section 3. That 22 is Section NA-4000. 23 ' Secondly, he is obliged to submit this program to i 24 i j the reviewing team for their concurrence and comment. Once you l 25 have gotten beyond that, we have got an acceptable program I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

32 I documented, then there is a need to demonstrate that your 2 organization and your staff and your craftsmen are capable of 3 j meeting that program. i 4! At this point the licensee or the owner has his 3 j demonstration survey. The ASME team will come in, examine each a 8 i 6l portion of the Code and watch the implementation of those 8n 7 activities. If they find conformance to the requirements and-n 8 8 the licensee demonstrates that it is capable acrobs the board, d6 9 g then an N stamp is issued. 10 After the acceptance of the QA program, an interim = E 11 g letter is issued. It prevents the licensee or the owner from d 12 E getting into the chicken-before-the-egg syndrome, if y0u will. 4: 13 g You have got to have a stamp to make a product. But you have E 14 g got to do something in order to demonstrate -- 5 15 G CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: But it sounds like you are already z ~ 16 l there on that syndrome, and then I think what Mr. Stello said 17 i d i and I thought what you said is that in order for them to get E2 18 = the stamp they must have construction underway. But I thought 19 l in answer to Commissioner Hendrie's point, I thought the answer 20 ! was yes, you must have an N stamp in order to do the 21 construction. 22 ! So I am not yet clear how you both manage to do it -- I 23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: You have to get it; John, you 24 ! l have to be in the process, as Cordell has lined out here, and 25 ' it requires -- t ALDERSOM REPORTWG COMP ANY, INC.

l 33 I j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: You have to be in the process of 2 applying for it? 3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Yes. 4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: So our requirements don't require j someone to actually have it. They have to be in the process of 5 0 applying for it. En 7 MR. STELLO: Well, along the sequence'that is laid n 8 8 a out here. dn 9 j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: You follow tht. Code and that is o P 10 j the Code process. I MR. STELLO: Well, you actually are starting to do e 12 z things before it is finally awarded. I guess you could have =" 13 l gotten one if you had built a nuclear plant before. E 14 g CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Clearly, there are other people P 15 m could have got it, yes. x g, 16 MR. STELLO: Yes, but if it is your first time, I ( 17 i would think -- o E l w 18 i i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Yes, so then the answer is to the H 19 ! 3 specific questions, one of the questions that Mr. Moffett had 1 20 l l raised was, should PSI be permitted to resume construction 21 I without benefit of the N certificate. And your answer is they 22 1 l can't get the N certificate until they are allowed to begin 6 23 ' construction. Is that correct? 24 MR. STELLO: They will not be able to -- as I under-25 ' stand it -- actually have an N stamp until they are allowed to I I u nrnsnw arpnarma enumawv mc

t 34 resume. Is that correct? 2 Can they actually be given the N stamp before they 3 start their -- MR. WILLIAMS: They must demonstrate capability to f e 5 l E the ASME survey team before they can acquire an N stamp. 3 6I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: I suppose at least in En 7 principle it is possible to go off to the edge of the site and n 8 8 direct a series of prototypical installations, piping, machinery d 1 6 9 l g and all the rest of it, and to carry out on that dummy set of i oh 10 g prototypical installations all of the operations that they = E 11 l g need to show the Code committee. d 12 y But since that involves pretty, you know, for E 13 3 something like constructing a power plant, why, there is a E 14 y lot of it and nobody has felt it useful or necessary to go and = 9 15 spend some millions over there on a set of dummy objects. ? 16 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I wonder if you could round G 17 l 1 y out my education on the N stamp by telling me who pays for the E 18 = ASME surveys. i 19 l l MR. WILLIAMS: In the instance of PSI? 20 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, just assume it is the l l 21! same location. 22 i MR. WILLIAMS: The owner pays for the survey. 23 ' ( COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Pays the ASME? 24ll MR. WILLIAMS: Submits a fee, several thousands of 25l dollars, makes the request, makes other contacts, prepares; I I ____ALDERSON REPORTING CONI 2ANY. INC._ -m

l 3S I himself for the examination. 2 COMMISSIONER'GILINSKY: Now, the survey team are 3 presumably members of the ASME from various organizations? 4 MR. WILLIAMS : And various consultants. 5 y COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And they serve in their 9 k 0 capacity as consultants to the ASME? I presume they are not on R

• S 7

the payroll of some other organization while they' are surveying A k 0 this site? d* ~. 9 MR. WILLIAMS: By my experiences the consMitants zCg 10 have been either retired experts in the area or full-time 3_! II employees of the ASME. S 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Oh, of the ASME? So in other o{ 13 words, they wouldn't be pulling somebody off from another i 3 14 board, plant, or somewhere -- e0 15 MR. WILLIAMS: Sometimes that is necessary. The I team -- 2 ( 17 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I mean some other 6 18 l m i. area and -- 19ll H" i 1 j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: What do they do? 20 I 1 i MR. WILLIAMS: The teams are composed variously j 21 j of members of the indu ry, and sometimes they are retired 22 experts in the area. Often NRC inspectors have participated I l 23 ' 1 as a team member. In fact, I was associated with a team that i ! I 24 i l reviewed the Marble Hill AQAM, their QA program responsive to 1 25 i NA-4000. i I l i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYa INC. .l.

36 'I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: That is a third party system. j 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But in that capacity you 3 were employed by the ASME? MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir. I was employed byfthe U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I sat as a witness on that team N I 3 6i g and commented as appropriate. n R 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I see, but yod were not a n b member of the team? d 6 9 3-MR. WILLIAMS: I was a member of the team, but -- F lo j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We had better get on with = Si 11 ' it. it ci 12 3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: We can have a separate briefing. j =:f 13 (Laughter.) E 14 id COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It sounds like an important 9 9 15 g subject. T 16 y CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Well, it is, d 17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Vic, go back to the

a 2

en 18 = inefficiency, ignorance and arrogance or whatever it was. That w I 19 g one really,-- 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Cordell, why don't you move on? 21 i The ASME essentially said that they did not have an N stamp, 22 and called them to task, and what, essentially said you can't 23 l continue? 24 l l MR. WILLIAMS: That was the conclusion. Actually 25 l there it another imparted element here, and that is the State i f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

37 1 j of Indiana, the State of Indiana Boiler and Pressure Vessel 2' Code, which enforces the ASME Code within the State of Indiana 3 as a part of their administrative law, and the problem is 4 describing the law part. e 5 Second to that, the State of Indiana has a state 6l' inspector at the site, a'd it was this inspector in contact n 3 .I h' with the contractor's inspector at the site who raised the n 8 8l little issue and had it eventually put before the national d n 9 g board, initiating the inspection that brought forth the report F io j that indited all the issues that we have before us now. i = 1 5 11 j . CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I see. All right. i d 12 y MR. WILLIAMS: The last significant thing that E 13 5 l occurred during 1979, leading to order, was the NRC Region 3's E 14 l y l management assessment of Public Service of Indiana, as reported E 15 j in our inspection dated July 26 through August the 23rd. In l 16 that inspection we concluded that the QA program commitments d 17 were inadequately implemented. That included -- az 18 = CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Across the board. 19 l MR. WILLIAMS: It was completely across the board. 20 Next slide? 21 i i Based on those issues that we have just discussed, 22 NRC issued an order on August 13th, and the basis for that was 23 ! failure, as I stated before, to implement the QA program. The 24 i i elements of that were, one, insufficient management and 25 i management controls on the part of PSI, insufficient technical ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

38 1 j qualification of personnel on the part of PSI and insufficiently 2l experienced personnel. 3 Contributing to that basis was the confirmation of 4 the allegations regarding the concrete patches by NRC and PSI, I e 5 g numerous noncompliances involving ASME Code requirements as we l 8 6 discussed earlier, numerous noncompliances involving civil e 8" activities separate from the patches, the control of concrete N 8 8 and concrete placement, the control of form preparation, and a d:! 9 numerous noncompliances involving the records of the activities j b 10 i that we have just described here, such as special processes and = E 11 g the control of contractor activities. "J 12 ' E Next viewgraph? cd 13 1 E E 14 pac y &2 g 15 w rroll g 16 71 g 17 w= M 18 < h 19 k 20 i l 21! 22 i i 23 ' 24 : 1 I i l I ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.

' If j+ *f ' C sl7 ' ,,. 4 39

ffg, 1

COMMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could I just get back to ,,c6 2 your word " arrogance"? Was it that the utility thougnt that 3 this was a job it could handle and thought it was doing a i 4 satisfactory job, or simply that they felt that they didn't 5 need to do any more than they were doing? 6 MR. WILLIAMS: In my using that characterization, 7 when I describe it as being the utility's, a characterization 8 that I lay on the utility, I am speaking about that level of 9 the utility's management that have the responsibility for this 10 ASME effort, the level where it apparently stopped, which was . 11 fairly high in their organization at the site, the quality 12 assurance management, if you will, who were fully cognizant of 13 the problems and difficulties identified by the third party 14 inspectors long before the National Board got involved. 15 Their failure to resolve those problems with the 16 local inspectors, their failure to interface in a 17 comprehensive and open fashion with the State of Indiana were 18 things that I found to be el2 ply arrogance and ignorance. 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: But did they elevate that at all to the upper management of PSI? 21 l MR. WILLIAMS: The significance of their failures at 22 that level had not been properly assessed and by all of my 23 evaluations had not gone *, levels of management within PSI 24 that could have taken a comprehensive corrective action. 25 COMMICSIONER AHEARNE: The converse would also'have I l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, k

o 40 1 to be true, that the upper levels of PSI management were not 2 keeping close touch. 3 MR. WILLIAMS: Precisely; and that was the first of 4 the findings: failure to have adequate management involvement 1 5 and control. Supervision. It is essentially a management 6 problem, from my' point of view. 7 COMMISSIONER EENDRIE: We have got a couple of 8 reorganization plans that we are surplusing. If it would 9 help, we could just forward them out, some leftover ones. 10 (Laughter.) 11 MR. WILLIAMS: Now I would like to talk about things 12 the licencee has done since we have identified all of these 13 adversities at the site. Since the issuance of the order, the ) 14 licensee has acquired an 1.? dependent organization to analyze 15 their management, their organization, their schemes, their 16 methods of communicating and doing things. I'7 The organization hired was Management Analysis 18 Company, and the report that they generated was dated October q 19 2,1979. This report in all of its essential substance agreed j 20 with the finding that NRC made in early August, August 3rd, in 21 our report 7911. 22 Subsequently the licensee has, in a number of 23 iterations, revised their quality assurance and quality 24 control procedures in their entirety. The same process, the 25 same revisions as necessary are being conducted for the ALDERSch. ?EPORTING COMPANY, INC,

41 1 contractors at the site and elsewhere. 2 The licensee has made a significant increase in the 3 qualifications in terms of experience and background and the 4 numbers as appropriate for their on-site staff for the 5 management of this project. For example, prior to the order, 6 there were approximately 78 professional and management 7 personnel at the site directly representing PSI. At this 8 time, there are more than 108. This is within professional and 9 management organizations. 10 The licensee has examined all existing 11 contracts to make a determination of any conditions that might 12 be adverse to quality, and has drawn its conclusions. 13 The licensee is in the process and has completed, in 1-4 some instances, the verification of all materials received 15 prior to the work stoppage. Every product, piping assembly, 16 cement, aggregate, nuts and bolts, everything that was 17 received prior to the stoppage is being reevaluated in terms 18 of the quality documenation that supports to it, to make a 19 determination that it conforms to the construction permit 20 requirement. 21 The licensee is in the process of verifying that all 22 existing construction method design requirements, the MINOW 23 test that was discussed earlier, the microseismic examination 24 of concrete, is one of the examples of elements that are being 25 put in place here. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

42 1 The licensee has established a program and is 2 substantially along the way in resolving the findings of the 3 National Board. They introduced a 14-point program for 4 resolution to the State of Indiana in January of 1980. 5 The licensee has been in the process and has 6 substantially resolved the NRC findings during this period of 7 time, and there have been a significant number. 8 Lastly, the licensee has maintained and 9 implemented programs to maintain the integrity of materials 10 stored in place at the site. 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Have there ever been any 12 changes among the persons responsible foi these programs? 13 MR. WILLIAMS: Very significant changes. 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: As just mentioned a moment ago, 15 part of the problem was that there was not a flow of 16 information up and a control down at senior levels. What I'7 change has been made that might indicate that PSI at a more 18 senior level is keeping track? 19 MR. WILLIAMS: The most significant of those changes 20 now is that senior corporate management, that is, Mr. William 21 Shields, is now stationed at the site, has located his 22 household in the immediate vicinity of the site. 23 COMMISIONER GILINSKY: What position does he hold in 24 the company? 25 MR. WILLIAMS: Vice president. The principal ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

43 1 engineering and QA organizations, parts of which were 2 previously in Indianapolis, have now all been moved to the 3 site. Much of the procurement activity now originates at the 4 site. With this close proximity and just the facility of 5 having the guy across the hall, this contributes significantly 6 to the ultimate success of their endeavor and the resolution 7 of our proble=s, with it. 8 MR. STELLO: Some further oganizational changes 9 were made. When I heard about them I asked that the 10 Commission be informed, and I understand you got a copy of the 11 letter identifying some further changes in the company which 12 take further responsibilities that Shields had away and pretty 13 much make his sole job the Marble Hill nuclear plant. 14 CHAIRMAN AREARNE: You can't be heard in the back. 15 MR. STELLO: that is unusual. 16 (General laughter.) 17 MR. STELLO: Okay. There were some further 18 organizational changes, and I think there was a letter to the 19 Commissioners and you all should have a copy. 20 CHAIRMAN AREARNE: Now, this corporation that you 21 mentioned, when they did this review I imagine they ended up 22 with a bunch of recommendations. Did you agree with the 23 recommendations? 24 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. They were in essential agreement 25 with the findings the NRC had made August 3rd of 1979 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

44 1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Has the company taken exception or 2 not implemented any of those recommendations, that you know 3 of? 4 MR. WILLIAMS: To my knowledge, most all of the 5 recommendations, in terms of their large scope -- the broader 6 definitions, if you will -- have been implemented. Action has 7 been taken for cach of the areas NRC identified, and the 8 principal areas, I was in agreement with this, yes. 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is there a recognition on 10 their part that they had acted improperly before as opposed to 11 simply acted in a way that we didn't like? 12 MR. WILLIAMS: Without doubt, from my point of view, 13 sir. 14 MR. STELLO: I would underscore that. That is my 15 belief, too, that they recognize that they now had major 16 problems, and really understand the need to turn things 17 around. There is little question in my mind that that 18 recognition is there throughout the whole corporation. 19 MR. WILLIAMS: Next slide, please. 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Do any of these changes reach 21 the contractor organization as well, or are you -- 22 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. The same changes, the same con'iderations, the same findings across the board.through j 23 a ) 24 organizations at the site, as appropriate. Some of the 25 contractor organizations are performing quite adequately. 1 I l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

45 1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Now, what can you say about 2 the enforceability of these changes and proposed changes. 3 They, I take it, are not license conditions. What are they? 4 What form do they take and what do you enforce against in the 5 future? 6 MR. WILLIAMS: In principle, our enforcement will be 7 Appendix B rules. We enforce them directly, and when we have 8 a problem, we cite those as items in nonconformance.

Now, 9

their implementing program or QA requirements will be part of 10 the application. There will be a document that clearly 11 identifies what this program is. We expect that they will 12 implement it. 13 Whenever there is a failure on their behalf to 14 implement it, we don't cite them against those detailed 15 procedures; we go immediately to the regulations, to Appendix i 16 B. This is an area I think, incidentally, I might add, that I 17 do believe is worth looking at. 'I think recent experience has 18 indicated we probably ought to spend some time looking at this 19 very issue; and we are. 20 CdMMISSIONER HENDRIE: The issue being? 21 MR. STELLO: The question of license requirements or 22. conditions for construction permits. 23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Beyond that, the more general 24 one that Peter raises periodically of what is it that you 25 enforce against. That is, tnere are a number of detailed ALDERSON e4EPORTING COMPANY, INC, m m

46 1 measures which are laid out in the staff report saying here 2 are all these recommendations, and here is what they are doing 3 or have done or have agreed to do. 4 Now, is their maintenance of those detailed fixes a 5 matter against which you can enforce? That is, if one of 6 these resolutions of a recommendation, if they decide,to stop 7 doing that, is that something you can cite them on? It is more 8 than just license conditions. Those things could be license 9 conditions, but, God, then the license begins to look like the 10 public library. There must be a better way. 11 I think we ought to have an intermediate enforcement 12 action which would be called the " Displeasure of the 13 Director." If somebody out there doesn't do good and 14 displeases the director -- 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Of course, there are always 16 enforcement actions they have already taken, the kind that get 17 them to stop work. 18 MR. SHAPAR: There is always the possibility of 19 issuing a precise order requiring to do specific things we 20 feel the regulations themselves have not been complied with. 21 In a sense, that is what has been done with the order that has 22 been issued. 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Just one other question about 24 that. Can these conditions in the order that has bean issued 25 be the basis for civil penalties, leaving aside the question l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

o 47 1 of stop work orders and citations. Can these conditions now be 2 penalized against if they are violated? 3 MR. STELLO: 'Sure. 4 MR. BICKWIT: Wait a minute. These are conditions 5 that you are imposing as a condition to restart? Are these 6 going to be made part of the license? I don't believe so. 7 MR. STELLO: No; but if there is a failure to do 8 these things and we already have an enforcement action, if 9 there is a failure, and I say we will use Appendix B as the 10 basis, we can cite them and issue a civil penalty. 11 MR. BICKWIT: Will it be clear that any violation of 12 these conditions will be a violation of Appendix B? 13 MR. STELLO: " Any means all? I would have to use my 14 judgment, but in principle the answer is yes. 15 MR. BICKWIT: I think that is the answer to your 16 question. To the extent that the answer is yes, then you can 17 impose civil penalties. 18 MR. WILLIAMS: Subsequent to the issuance of the 19 order, NRC, Region 3 inspection staff has been in the 20 process of' examining the licensee's programs for verification 21 of material and construction, that which existed prior to the 22 order, examining the changes the licensee has made to staffing 23 and qualifications and number and confirming.that th6se 24 changes are appropriate. 25 They have examined the changes to the quality ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

48 1 assurance manuals, procedures and detailed instructions for 2 any activity covered by these documents. We have been 3 participating in and shall continue to participate in the 4 related activities of the ASME Code, National Board, and the 5 State of Indiana Pressure Vessel Board. 6 We have been conducting inspections of existing 7 construction and storage materials at the site; principally 8 through activities of our resident inspector, and full support 9 from the Region 3 offices in Glen Ellyn. And we have been 10 coordinating NRC activities with the U.S. Attorney's.0ffice as 11 appropriate, involving the allegations. 12 These activities are continuing at this time. 13 Substantial progress has been made in all areas. 14 COMMISSIONER CILINSKY: What is the status of the ,15 U.S. Attorney's involvement? 16 MR. STELLO: They still have the matter under 17 consideration, the FBI investigation and the Justice 18 Department consideration. They have not reached a final 19 conclusion. We are aware of what they have done and have had 20 very good communication with them, but they have not made a 21 decision yet. 22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Now, one of the issues that they 23 would be addressing, is it correct, in the Sassafras 24 submission they had identified a former cement inspector, an 25 employee of U.S. Testing, who stated in his sworn transcript ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

49 1 one of the inspection reports was falsified. Is that one of 2 the issues being looked at? 3 MR. STELLO: I feel a little uncomfortab,le in talking 4 about the specific issues. 5 COMMISSINER HENDRIE: I think, particularly in view of 6 some recent history, we ought not to sit here and see how far 7 we can press the Director of I&E on these Justice Department 8 matters. 9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: All right. Before we finish, 10 though, I will ask -- one of the items he is requested to do 11 is be prepared to address the issues raised in the Sassafras 12 statement. That is one of the issues I would like to at 13 least -- 14 MR. STELLO: We can deal with the issue from our 15 knowledge. We have looked at all of these issues ourself and 16 are prepared to deal with them on the basis of our own 17 knowledge. 18 MR. WILLIAMS: Next slide, please. 19 Construction restart considerations at this time. 20 The complexities of the construction at the site are such that 21 the licensee must demonstrate capability in any area a step at 22 a time. The total adequacy of each activity will be 23 completely evaluated by NRC Region 3 24 That is, restart of construction should proceed 3 incrementally as approved and overviewed by the Nuclear ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

50 1 Regulatory Commission. 2 Before the start of any activity, the licensee must i 3 have all pertinent quality assurance, quality control 4 programs, and instructions fully established. His project 5 management, quality assurance organizations and engineering 6 staff must be verified to be in place and appropriately 7 qualified. 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission confirmation of each of 9 the above activities will be completed. 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Who is the constructer? 11 MR. WILLIAMS: Newburg is the principal civil 12 contractor at the site and constructer by definition. But PSI 13 is its own generalist. 14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: As I understand it, Indiana 15 Public Service here is filling that construction management 16 function, which on another site, I don't know, you might find 17 Stone and Webster doing or Bechtel doing on contract for a 18 utility. So if you ask who is the constructer here, I think 19 it is PSI. 20 They are directing the subcontracts in the various 21 specialty areas and pulling it all together, and it is their 22 ball of wax to make it all work and go together and do it 23 right. 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now, is there an architect 25 engineer? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

51 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Sargeant and Lundy in Chicago. 2 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But they are not involved in 3 the supervision of construction. 4 MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly they support the engineering 5 effort and the design effort. In fact, they are it. The 6 manager for the site, the manager of the construction, is PSI, 7 and the various organizations like the Materia 1s Management 8 Analysis Corporation, have been contracted by them. But it is 9 a PSI responsibility. 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: So there is some one person at the 11 site whose' title is Manager of Construction, or Site 12 Superintendent? 13 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. We have had several iterations, 14 changes with the names of those titles, but that is cor. rect. 15 The principal corporate director, if you will, of construction 16 is Bill Shields at the site at this time. I'7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: So Shields, then, is -- well, let's 18 see. He is in charge of everything with respect to the plant. 19 Is that correct? 20 MR. WILLIAMS: Precisely. 21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Does he have some one individual 22 working for him who is responsible for the actual physical -- 23 .MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. If I may consult staff, I 24 can get that information for you. The project director is 25 George Brown, and he likewise has a staff of several others. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

52 1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: And Brown is also PSI. 2 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you. Is it unusual 4 for a utility in its first nuclear ventare to supervise the 5 construction itself? 6 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: No. Probably a majority of 7 plants are built by an engineer constructer for a utility, but 8 cases in which the utility manages the construction itself, 9 this is certainly,not unique. 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I mean on the first time out. 11 MR. STELLO: I don't know what the statistics are, but 12 those utilities that have managed their construction for their 13 fossil-fired plants are those which are the family of 14 utilities which would -- 15 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Commonwealth Ed, PG&E, TVA, 16 Niagara Mohawk. There are a whole series who have 17 traditionally done a lot of their own engineering. I think as 18 sort of a general matter, quite apart from the difficulties 19 this project has gotten itself into, I think nothing we say 20 here ought to imply that that is a bad configuration. 21 There is, in fact, a considerable merit in a utility i 22 having an engineering organization that they feel is strong l 23 enough to manage the construction of a plant, and the utility, 1 24 after all, is going to operate it for 30 or 40 years and they 25 have a considerable incentive to build it right. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

53 1 So if they get in there and put all the resources in 2 and pay attention to everything, I think it leaves them in a 3 strengthened position to operate and maintain the plant in a I 4 sound way. 5 Now, what I judge happened here is that PSI didn't 6 fully appreciate what it was like to do nuclear grade 7 construction, and things just sort of got ahead of them. 8 And I think if they now settle down and carry out the detailed 9 steps as prescribed here, I think they will be the better for 10 it and the station, in the long run, will be the better for 11 it. 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Some of the outfits that you 13 mentioned are among the biggest in the country and have got 1-4 substantial engineering staffs. 15 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Yes, that is right. The 16 strength and ability to do its own projects of a utility 17 engineering force is generally scaled to the utility size. 18 Small utilities will seldom have enough construction activity 19 to justify maintaining that kind of staff. 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: What size is PSI as a utility? 21 MR. STELLO: How do you characterize? Do you mean in 22 total numbers of employees, megawatts of electricity, or -- 23 MR. KEPPLER: It handles just the southern part of 24 Indiana, so it is a pretty small utility. I don't know the 25 number of people. But I think your statement is correct. I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

54 1 think the company did assume they could build this plant like 2 they have built other fossil plants, not realizing the type of 3 expertise and overview that was needed to assure the job was 4 done properly. 5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Why don't you continue? 6 MR. WILLIAMS: As I said before, at this point in 7 time in our consideration for restart, the principal 8 conclusion is that things must proceed in an incremental or 9 stepwise fashion. Receipt inspection is the first of the 10 activities that we will consider for restart. That is, the 11 receiving products from off-site manufacturers and 12 constructers onto the site, putting it in storage or 13 distributing it out to the various contractors, who will 14 eventually do the construction. 15 NRC has identified the considerations and documents 16 which must be completed before restart, before a restart 17 recommendation, such as: special process procedures in place, 18 those detailed procedures that a receipg clerk would implement 19 or his recordskeeper would taplement; that the qualification 20 of the staff has been verified by NRC; and that the management l 21 controls extend from the clerk that files the record to Mr. 22 Shields. l l 23 After this activity has been started and has been 24 delaonstrated by the licensee to be acceptable as far as 25 performance of PSI is concerned, then other construction ALDEMcf4 REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

ss l 1 activities can be initiated, such as the civil work, concrete 2 placement, mechanical structural, electrical, and ASME 3 code-related piping. 4 Once again, these activitics would be started in an 5 incremental fashion with 100 percent NRC overview and 6 confinaation. 7 Now, none of these four activities outlined above 8 could proceed until NRC has confirmed that the required staff 9 overall, QC procedures, management controls, material and 10 construction verification, that is, the verification that the 11 . existing materials and existing structures are good, have been 12 ' satisfactorily completed. 13 Then IE still recommend an incremental resumption of 14 these construction activities. 15 Based on review of the examination by the NRC Office 16 of Inspection and Enfo' cement, the Office of Nuclear Reactor 17 Reg 41951on, wae conclude that the licensee has at this time 18 compret sively responded to the order, identified the cause 19 of the deficiencies in the QA program implementation and other 20 areas, and' has taken or is in the process of taking the steps 21 to preclude recurrence. 22 Based on completed as well as planned corrective ZI actions, we find that sufficient progress has been made ty the 24 licensee to consider permitting resumption of safety-related 25 construction work in an incremental stepwise fashion. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

I 56 l l 1 This work will proceed with confirmation by NRC, i l 2 through examination of established hold points, that l l 3 corrective actions have been effective. 4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: If I could then get back to Baker 5 or Cordell, I am not sure which one, the Sassafras issues. 6 That was one of the specific items that you were interested 7 in. 8 MR. STELLO: Yes. Do you want to go through each 9 one? 10 MR. WILLIAMS: Specific ones. 11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I guess I myself asked about a 12 couple of ones. One relates to U.S. Testing. U.S. Testing's 13 role is what? What is the role of U.S. Testing? 14 MR. WILLIAMS: U.S, Testing at this site is 15 principally responsible for performing the tests of civil 16 activities: soils, concrete, aggregate. 17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: As subcontractor to Newburg? 18 MR. WILLIAMS: Let me clarify that. Yes, a 19 subcontractor to Newburg, correct. 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: All right. Now, in the Sassafras 21 they talked about a former cement inspector. It said his 22 init:ial report indicated a failure of the cement batch but was 23 changed to show that it had passed. Another was that he was 24 instructed by U.S. Testing to wait for a good batch of cement 25 before sampling it. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, l

57 1 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: If he was good enough to squint 2 at the concrete before testing and judge which batches were 3 going to produce test cylinders that eat strength, he is going 4 to be a very wealthy man because he is undoubtedly the most 5 valuable construction worker now alive in the United States of 8 America. He can save enormous amounts of money to people who 7 are pouring concrete. 8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Well, I didn't read the whole 9 section. There are other parts about being poured in rain, 10 curing temperatures recorded when no one was present. j 11 MR. WILLIAMS: While all of the issues of that 12 allegation have not been fully

• aolved and, in fact, certain 13 procedures are still in process in terms of getting in contact t

14 with the gentleman and going further with it, we have taken 15 actions to preclude the recurrence of any event of that sort; 16 but moreover, we have taken, in our instructions through the 17 licensee, actions to demonstrate that the existing concrete 18 currently meets the quality requirement, and that those 19 procedures -- if, indeed, it was a procedural 20 deficiency'-- that control that work have been improved to the 21 extent chat any issues that could have been open at that time 22 are currently covered, if you will, or will ultimately be 23 resolved. 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Have we talked to this guy? 25 MR. STELLO: This is an individual, I recall, who ALDERSON REPcRT1.1G COMPANY, INC,

58 1 came to the Commission -- we got authority to issue a subpoena 2 to the gentleman and he did not show up at that time. We are 3 in the process of having that subpoena enforced by Justice. 4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: So we have certainly been trying to 5 talk to him but he has been relatively unwilling. 6 MR. STELLO: I think that is a fair statement. 7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Then I guess the only other issue 8 I really have is on the ASME section there is a request here 9 about the Hartfo'd nuclear inspector from Cherney (?) 10 Construction Corporation being instructed not to provide 11 services to PSI. 12 MR. WILLIAMS: That is completely reasonable. The I 13 selection services provided by Hartford are paid-for services 14 by the contracting person, in this instance Cherney. That 15 inspector, representing Cherney's interest, could not involve 16 himself in PSI's interest or anyone else's interest at that 17 site. 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: On that same page from which 19 John was quoting there is a phrase that I don't think you used 20 in the briefing, but apparently there are affidavits charging 21 flaws in the concrete work, including something called heavy 22 faults. What would they be? 23 MR. WILLIAMS: Heavy? 24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Heavy fadts in the case of 25 the reactor containment building. What would they be? ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

59 1 MR. WILLIAMS: I am not acquainted with those remarks. 2 Are you? 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: These are apparently from the 4 affidavits of people named Rogers, Mortenson and Bolston (?). 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, my best recollection is those 6 were craftsmen on the site. I don't recognize heavy faults as 7 having been an issue. I don't remember that language. I don't 8 know what it means. 9 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: I was going to say I don't to know, either. It is not a recognizable colloquialism for 1.1 soinething I have ever heard of. 12 MR. STELLO: I don't know. Is that one of the 13 affidavits that came in some time ago? 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I don't have the affidavit. It 15 is from the Sassafras Audubon Society's request for hearin - 16 It is the paragraph above the one John was reading from 17 regarding U.S. Testing. The phrase " heavy faults" is in 18

quotes, s

19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Of course, it has been a long 20 time since'I have been young, and the word " heavy" has gone 21 through a whole cycle of slang use. Heavy faults. 22 MR. WILLIAMS: By my best recollection, this has to 23 do with the report, at least one of these gentleman, Stanley 24 Mortenson (?), of cracks in the concrete, superficial cracks 25 at the surface that had water leaking. We have pursued that e ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. m

60 1 with them and had them identify the several areas. We 2 concluded that there were no signficant defects there at all. 3 It is stress cracking 'that occurs at the surface of 4 concrete. The water was there because of puddling above, and 5 some of it was groundwater but the structure is incomplete and i 6 we felt it was normal. In fact, we didn't pursue it beyond 7 that. 8 The gentlemen that I recall talking with, who were 9 civil expertised, appeared to be satisfied with the 10 explanations that were given. We saw nothing there that 11 should be described s.s heavy faults, whatever that has come to 12 mean in this document. 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It was mentioned in the 14 Regovan (?) inquiries that the Commission ought to be 15 embarking on a review of the relationship between financial 16 constraints generally and safety. Do you have any sense of 17 the extent to which fixed price contracts have played a role ~ 18 in any of the practices that you have come across? 19 MR. WILLIAMS: Personal opinion? 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes. 21 MR. WILLIAMS: It is reflected somewhat in our finding 22 in our report on August 3rd. The nature of the contract 23 itself is not inherently deficient, fixed price or a contract 24 scrived at in another fashion. But when other elements, 25 principal elements such as faulty assurance, faulty con rol, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346

61 1 and the leadership at the site are defective, that conditions 2 adverse to quality will occur. 3 And that seemingly is independent of the nature of 4 the contract. That is a gut response, if you will, sir. 5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I have two other questions. One 6 qv.estion was: In the information paper that you sent out, you 7 raentioned that at the public meeting you held, the NRC 8 indicated it retained a technically qualified consultant to 9 assist the staff in the review. I guess I was a little 10 curious as to whether that was meant to imply that you did not 11 feel like the staff was technically qualified, or you were 12 trying to get an outside individual to provide comments. 13 MR. WILLIAMS: The question came up from Mr. Dattilo 1-4 in our meeting. Let me remark at the outset that although we 15 did not have the recorder there, we have done the best we 16 could in transcribing the meeting and have sent transcripts up 17 to the Commission and will make them available, as we 18 indicated, to people in the community. 19 The issue that came up was the group that Mr. Datt11o 20 was representing wanted to know if it was possible to have an 21 outside consultant that was generally acceptable to both them 22 and to us involved to give an independent look. It seemed to 23 me that the concern that they had, that this was a good idea. 24 I met with Mr. Datt11o this morning to try to outline a way in 25 which to do just that, engage a consultant, which in my view l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, t

1 62 1 is very beneficial to us as well in trying to make the 2 assessment. 3 I think we do have the resources available within the 4 Commission and we could do it, but the press of other business 5 would cause it to take a little bit longer than I like. But 6 given that we had this suggestion, it seemed to me a good idea 7 with which we could satisfy our own needs and the needs of the 8 group that has the concerns. 9 I think if we could work this out, in my opinion it 10 would go a long way in making the group out there feel more 11 comfortable with the, adequacy of the job that I know we have 12 done and we are doing. 13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: The only other question was you 14 mentioned this would be an incremental series of actions, 15 constant NRC review. Who will actually have the control 16 there. Jim, will that be you? 17 MR. KEPPLER: We haven't decided that yet. 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I see. I gather it will be either 19 Jim or Vic, is that correct? 20 MR. KEPPLER: Yes, one or the other. 21 CHAIRMAN AREARNE: I would like to call to the 22 attention of my colleagues that in the order that we sent out, 23 we said the Director of Inspection and Enforcement will brief 24 the Commission prior to lifting the order suspending 25 construction, and that following that briefing,, construction i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

63 1 may resume at the Director's discretion unless otherwise 1 2 ordered by the Commission, but in any event not earlier than 3 five days after the briefing. 4 For myself, I'am satisfied with the briefing. 5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: In view of the staff support, 6 the briefing and discussion this morning, I am satisfied that 7 the Director is proceeding in a prudent and reasonable way. 8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I think we put the five days 9 in there to allow for reflection and -- 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Oh, yes. I just wanted to call 11 everybody's attention -- 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Certainly if~no one objects 13 within five days - 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Well, it is the Commission that 15 has to object. 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: If the Commission does not 17 object within five days - 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I wanted to compliment you on 19 the briefing. I thought it was a very fine briefing. 20 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir. 21 MR. BICKdIT: I just want to make clear that I 22 understand what is being done. You are not going to lift the 23 order at this point. What you are contemplating, as I 24 understand it, is a series of incremental confirmations that 25 certain construction activities can take place without ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, -1 .n.

o l 64 ^ 1 endangering public health and safety. 2 MR. STELLO: It is incremental, and Appendix C 3 specifies the particular hold points, and it is our intent to 4 let that particular activity start, to look at how well they 5 have done befode the next step would start, and if they don't 6 do well, to not permit the sequence of steps that follow. In 7 fact, we may rescind the first one. l 8 MR. BICKWIT: The order remains in e'ffect while you 9 are making these incremental confirmations. 10 MR. SHAPAR: Well, if all steps go well and they go 11 through all the increments, the order will have effectively 12 been lifted. 13 MR. BICKWIT: Ultimately. My only question is, as 14 you are incrementally confirming that various steps can take 15 place, that the order will stay in effect. 16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Part of those steps are 17 construction. 18 MR. BICKWIT: I know that. The order stays in effect 19 with respect to the remaining construction activities. 20 MR. STELLO: I guess I ought to ask you a question. 21 Right now they can't do anything. 22 MR. BICKWIT: Right. t 23 MR. STELLO: We are going to pick up the cover and 24 let them do a little bit. Has the order been lifted when we I 25 do that? l l l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

65 1 MR. BICKWIT: No. 2 MR. STELLO: Okay. Then the answer is no, we haven't 2 lifted the order. 4 MR. SHAPAR: The order is being compliad with rather 5 than lifted. 6 MR. BICKWIT: I am satisfied. 7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Cordell, thank you very much. That 8 was excellent. 9 (Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the briefing was 10 adjourned.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

.( -s This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: Driefing on Resumption of Construction of Marble !!ill - Date of Proceeding: May 7, 1980 s Docket liumber: Place of Proceeding: Washington, D. C. were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission. Shirley Wolf ) Official Reporter (Typed) i != E!% &Wh v Official Reporter (Signature) -}}