ML20024B667

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony of Vd Hedges,Jw Anderson & Je Karr Responding to ASLB Areas of Interest 5 & 6.Owners Mgt Organization Described.Westinghouse,Ge,Atomics Intl,S&W & Burns & Roe Are Project Contractors.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20024B667
Person / Time
Site: Clinch River
Issue date: 07/08/1983
From: James Anderson, Hedges V, Karr J
ENERGY, DEPT. OF, JOINT APPLICANTS - CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20024B656 List:
References
NUDOCS 8307110168
Download: ML20024B667 (40)
v • d • e


Text

-

C' 7/8/83 v- 'u

/

//

p>oes 01

?"*

-r I. g w 81983?

e-

_1

${v'h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M

BEFDRE INE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of

)

)

UNITED STATES DEDARTMENT OF ENERGY

)

)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

)

Docket No. 50-537

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

)

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor.lant)

)

)

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO BOAPD AREAS OF INTEREST 5 AND 6-Dated: July 5, 1983 I

B307110168 830700 PDR ADOCK 05000537 T

PDR

Q1.

What are the elements of the Owner's management organization for the CRBRP?

A1.

The CRBRP Project Office is the Owner's management organization. This function includes the responsibility to contract, manage, and carry out the Project consistent with its objectives. he Project'0ffice is staffed by personnel from DOE, WA and Project Management Corporation (PMC) to form a unified management organization with overall responsi-bility for the plant. DOE is the plant Owner and has lead management responsibility. DOE is also the nuclear fuel supplier. WA is respon-sible for plant operation and maintenance. PMC is responsible for administering the interest of the utility industry with respect to the Project, and provides personnel and financial support to the Project.

Rese organizations are contractually joined to manage and complete design, construction, and operation of the Project.

Q2.

Who are the principal Project contractors?

A2.

he Project Office has contracted with the following organizations to carry out the Project: Westinghouse, General Electric, Atomics Inter-national, Stone and Webster, and Burns and Roe.

Q3 What are the responsibilities of Westinghouse?

A3 Westir.ghouse Electric Corporation, Advanced Energy Systens Division (AESD), is the Nuclear Steam Supply System Supplier (NSSS/S) and is responsible for the overall design and manufacture of the Nuclear Steam Supply Systen (NSSS). AESD is also specifically responsible for the

i' 2-design and manufacture of reactor and reactor enclosure systems, primary l,

soditan heat transport systen, and related components and controls.

Q4.

What are the responsibilities of General Electric?

A4.

General Electric Corporation, Advanced Reactor Systems Department (GE-ARSD), is a Reactor Manufacturer (RM). In this capacity it is a major contractor for the NSSS/S and is responsible for the design and manufacture of the intennediate heat transport system, and related systems and controls.

QS.

What are the responsibilities of Atomics International?

AS.

Rockwell International Energy Systems Group, Atomics International Divi-sion (ESG-AI), is a Reactor Manufacturer (RM). In this capacity it is a major contractor for the NSSS/S and is responsible for the design and manufacture of fuel handling systems, auxiliary soditmi systems, reactor plant maintenance system, and related systems and controls.

Q6.

What are the responsibilities of Burns and Roe?

A6.

Burns and Roe, Incorporated (B&R) is the Architect-Engineer (AE) for the overall plant, including Balance of Plant (BOP) and portions of the NSSS.

QT.

What are the responsibilities of Stone and Webster?

i A7.

Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) is the Plant Constructor and will function as both a construction manager and the Plant construc-tion contractor.

w.

' Q8.

How do the Owner's management organization and principal contractor organizations interact to divide authority and functional responsibili-ties?

AB.

The division of authority and functional responsibility among the afore-mentioned Project participants is depicted in the following chart:

CRBRP PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

^

CRBRP PROJECT OFFICE I

tJSSS SUPPLIER h

uTi'iry 3og

'"PA E"C AACHITECT/

ENGirJEER MANUFACTURERS ATOMICS 3

INTERNATtoNAL M

CONSTRUCTOR h

OPERATOR b

TEfJNESSEE 3

VottFy t,t Ty ntttTw f

FUEL SUPPLIER h

DOE-RICHLAND ATI Q9.

How has the Project implemented the Quality Assurance Progran?

A9.

The Project has implemented an integrated management control system that providen the visibility, procedures and techniques for control of the Project. Within this overall management system of control, the Quality Assurance Program for CRBRP is a disciplined system for accomplishing those activities affecting quality as required by 10 CFR Part 50, RDT Standard F 2-2 and the NRC Standard Review Plan,. From a broad 1

-4_

l l

perspective, quality assurance is a management system of checks and bal-l l'

lances that is an integral part of the Owner's management system for the entire Project. In other words, the Owner's Project Office organi-zation has central management and control over Project activities. 'Ihe Overall Quality Assurance Program for the Project is described in Section 17 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), as well as in the Project's Quality Assurance Manual. Further, the Project policies and instructions which are inter-organizational are included in the Management Policies and Requirenents (MPR) docunent which has been imposed as a requirenent upon the Project participants.

Q10. What is quality assurance?

A10. Quality assurance (QA) consists of all those planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system, or component will perfonn satisfactorily in service.

Q11. What is quallity control?

A11. Quality control is included in quality assurance and consists of those quality assurance actions related to the physical characteristics of a material, structure, component, or system which provide a means to con-trol the quality of the material, structure, component, or system to j

predetennined requirenents.

l l

Q12. How has authority and responsibility for quality assurance and control been assigned among the Project Office and the various contractors?

I A12. When the Project Office assigned responsibilities for work activities to each contractor, this assigrunent carried with it the responsibility to I

n

.n.

. plan, implement and manage integrated quality assurance programs over the particular contractor's contractual scope of work. h e contractors have responded by developing their own policies and procedures to implanent their portion of the overall program.

Q13. What are the QA functional authorities and responsibilities.of the Project Office?

A13. he Owner's (Project Office) authorities and responsibilities include management of the Owner program and those activities which are a part of establishing the overall program. R ose authorities and responsibili-ties are depicted as follows:

OVERALL PROGRAM POLICY OBJECTIVES

  • RESPONSIBILITY
  • REQUIREMENTS
  • CONTROL AND VERIFICATION If PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

. AI ASSURANCE

  • ORGANIZATION

+00CUMENTATION

  • AUDITS ANO REVIEWS
  • CORRECTIVE ACTION
1. PLANNING
l. RESPONSIBILITY
1. POttilES AND
1. OUALITY AUDITS
  • ENGINEERING HOLDS
3. QUALITY AND PROCIOURES
2. M AN AGEMENT ASSURANCE AUTHORITY
2. OUAL TY RECORDS REVIEWS PHOGR AM INDEx
2. TRAINING AND 3.

STATUS

  • U8RISUAL OCCURRENCE
3. PERSONNEL QUAL 6F6 CAT 40N Q14. What are the QA functional authorities and responsibilities of the NSSS Supplier and the Reactor Manufacturers?

. A14. The NSSS Supplier / Reactor Manufacturer authorities and responsibilities include management of the QA program for their scope of supply and those program elements applicatle to the assigned responsibilities for design, procurement and manufacturing. 'Ihese authorities and responsibilities are depicted as follows:

NSSS/RM PROGRAM ACTIVITIES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

  • OUALITY ASSURANCE
  • ORGANLZATION
  • OOCUMENTATION
  • AUDITS ANO REVIEWS
  • CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
1. PLANNING
1. RESPONSIB8LITY ANO
l. POLICIES ANO
l. OUALITY AUDITS
  • ENGINEERINGHOLDS AUTHORITY PROCEDURES
2. MANAGEMENT
2. OUALITY ASSURANCE 2. TRAINING AND
2. OUALITY RECOROS REVIEWS
  • UNUSUAL PROGRAMINDEX INOOCTRINADON 1 OUALITYSTATUS OCCUMENCE
3. PERSONNEL REPORTS REPORTS OUAL4tCATICN PROCUREMENT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCUREMENT PLANNING PLANNING DESIGN PLANNING PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS INSPECTION MD TEST PLM DESIGN DEFINITION AND CONTROL PROCUREMENT D0rtMENT REVIEW MATERIAL. 10ENTIFICAT!0N AND CONTROL
1. DE51GN CRITERIA E $

T

1. FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS PROCESSES
3. ENGINEERING STUDIES
2. ACCEPTABLE SOURCE LISTS
2. PROCESS QUALIFICATION
4. PARTS. MATERIALS AND PROCESSES
3. PRE-AWARD EVALUATION
3. NONDESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION
5. DESIGN DESCRIPTIONS
4. INTERCHANGE OF SOURCE
4. CLEANING CAPABILITY INFORMATION
6. SPECIFICATIONS. DRAWINGS AND INSTRUCTIONS CONTROL OF CONFIGURATION
7. IDENTIFICATION
1. CONTRACT CHANGE CONTROL
8. ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA
2. AS-BUILT VERIFICAfl0N
9. INTERFACE CONTROL EQUIPE NT CALIBRATION ANO STANDA@S
4. INSPECTION STAW S IN0 M ION DOCLMENT REVIEW AND CONTROL SOURCE SURVEILLANCE AND
5. CERTIFICATION
1. DOCUMENT REVIEWS ENT M E
2. DOCUMENT CONTROL EQU! MENT CE!BRATION MD STANDACS
3. ElIGINEERING DRAWING LISTS
1. PLANNING AND IltSPECTION
1. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION
2. 00CtMENTATION
2. CONTROL OF INSPECT!0M MEASURING
3. DISPOSITION OF RECEIVED AND TEST EQUIPMENT FAILURE REPORT!IIG AND ITEMS
3. CR18 RATION STMDARDS I'

CoeffROL OF NONCONF0fMING

4. DISCREPANT EQUIPMENT C

OL 0F RECEIVED ITEMS CONTROL OF NONCONFORMING ITEMS CORRECTIVE ACTION HANDLING. PRESERVATION. PACKAGING.

STORAGE AND SHIFPING

1. HANDLIIIG
2. PRESERVATION. PACIAGING AND STORAGE
3. SN!PPING

7 Q15. What are the QA functional authorities and responsibilities of the Architect-Engineer?

A15. The Architect-Engineer authorities and responsibilities include manage-ment of the QA progra for its scope of supply, and those prograrn elenents applicable to the assigned responsibilities for design, procure-ment, and manufacturing. 'Ihese authorities and responsibilities are depicted as follows:

A-E PROGRAM ACTIVITIES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

+ OUALITY ASSURANCE + ORGANIZATION

  • DOCUMENTATION
  • AUDITS AND REVIEWS
  • CORRECTNE ACTION PROGRAM
1. PL ANNING
1. RESPONS181LITY AND
1. POLICIES AND
1. QUALITY AUDITS
  • ENG4NEERINGHOLOS AUTHORITY PROCEDURES
2. MANAGEMENT
2. QUAUTY ASSURANCE 2. TRAINING AND
2. OUALITY RECOROS REVIEWS
  • UNUSUAL PROGRAMINDEX INDOCTRINATION

'3. QUALITY STATUS OCCURRENCE

3. PERSOssNEL REPORTS REPORTS j

OUALIFICATION DE51GN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCURDIENT RMUFACTUR!aeG. FABRICAf!0lt AND ASSDSLY DESIGN PLANNING PROCUREMENT PLANNING DE$lGN DEFINITION AND CONTROL PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS

1. DESIGN CRITERIA PROCUREMENT 00CtPIENT REVIEW p
2. CODES. STANDARDS AND EVALUATION AND SELECT!0M 0F PRACTICES PROCUREMENT SOURCES CONTROL OF PROCESSES
3. ENGINEERING STUDIES
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. FA8 T

AND ASSEMBLY

4. PAR 5. MATERIALS AND
2. ACCEPTABLE SOURCE LISTS OCESSES H

FMM

3. PRE-AWARD EVALUAT!(pt
5. DE51GN DESCRIPT!GNS
4. INTERCHANGE OF SOURCE
6. SPECIFICATIONS. ORAWINGS CAPABILITY INFORMATI(yg
4. CLEANING AND INSTRUCTIONS CONTROL OF CONFIGURATION INSPECTION AND TESTS
7. IDENTIFICATION
1. CONTRACT CHANGE CONTROL
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
8. ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA
2. AS-BUILT VERIFICATION
2. PROC N RES
9. INTERFACE CONTROL EQUIPIENT CALIBRATION AND
3. COMPLETED ITEM INSPECTION AND TEST D0ctfqENT REVIEW AND CONTROL STANDARDS
4. INSPECTION STATUS IN0! CATION
1. DOCUMENT REVIEWS SOURCE SURVEILLANCE AND
5. CERTIFICATION
2. DOCUMENT CONTROL DOCUMENT CONTROL
3. ENGINEERING DRAWING LISTS EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION AND STANDARDS
1. PLANNING AND INSPECTION M5!GN REVIEWS
1. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION DEVELOPMENT
2. CONTROL OF INSPECTION MEASURING FAILURE REPORTIleG AND y

CORRECTIVE ACTION

3. CALIBRATION $TANDARDS IM5
4. D!$CREPANT EQUIPMENT ST QUALITY CONTROL AND CONTROL OF RECEIVED ITDes CONTROL OF N0leCONF0054!NG ITEMS CORRECTIVE ACTION MRROLING. PRESERVATION. PACKAGING.

STORAGE AND SHIPPING

1. HANDLING
2. PRESERVATION PACKAGING AND STORAGE
3. SHIPPING

l l

~

8-l Q16e What are the QA functional authorities and responsibilities of the i

Constructor?

l A16* 'Ihe Constructor Program authorities and responsibilities include manage-ment of the QA program for its scope of supply and those program elements applicable to the assigned responsibilities for procurement, manufactur-ing and construction. 'Ihese authorities and responsibilities are depicted as follows:

CONSTRUCTOR PROGRAM ACTIVITIES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

  • OUALITY ASSURANCE
  • ORGANIZATION
  • DOCUMENTATION
  • AUDITS AND
  • CORRECTIVE PROGRAM REVIEWS ACTION
1. PLANNING
1. RESPONSIBILITY
1. POLICIES AND
1. OUALITY AUDITS AND PROCEDURES
  • ENGlNEERWG
2. QU AlffY
2. M ANAGEMENT ASSURANCE AUTHORIT)
2. QUAtlTY RECORDS REVIEWS HOLDS PROGRAM INDEX
2. TRAINING AND
3. QUALITY STATUS
  • M SUAL INOOCTR4 NATION REPORTS 3, pgngogggggt OCCURRENCE OUAttPICATION REPORTS PROCUREMENT MANUFACTURING. FABRICATION CONSTRUCTION AND AND A55DELY INSTALLATION PROCURENENT PLANNING PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS PROCUREMENT 000UMENT REVIEW EVALUAfl0N AND SELECTION OF PROCUREMENT SOURCES CONTROL OF PROCESSES CONTROL OF CONFIGURATION
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLV CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT PROCESSES
2. ACCEPTABLE SOURCE L1575
3. PRE-AWARO EVALUATim ESS QUALIFICATION CONTROL

. NONDESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION

1. MATERIAL HANDLING AND
4. INTERCHANGE OF SOURCE CAPABILITV INFORMATION
4. CLEANING CLEAMING CONTROL CONTROL OF CONFIGURATION litSPECTION AND TEST $
2. SPECIAL PROCESS CONTROL
1. CONTRACT CHANGE CONTROL
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
3. TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION
2. AS-BUILT VERIFICATION
2. PROCEDURES
4. INTERFACE CONTROL EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION AND
3. C(MPLETED ITEM INSPECTION AND TEST
5. EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION ANO

$TANDAR05

4. INSPECTION STATUS IM0! CATION SOURCE SURVEILLANCE AND
5. CERTIFICATION IIIMS INSPECTION CtMENT CONTROL
7. STATISTICAL QUALITY CONTROL RECEIVING INSPECTION 10N AND SMDARDS W MM
1. PLANNING AND INSPECTION
2. 00CtMENTAT10N
2. CONTROL 0F INSPECTION NEASURING
1. SOURCE INSPECTION
3. Of P05 TION OF RECEIVED AND TEST EQUIPMENT
2. RECE!VING INSPECTION 3*
3. $1TE INSPECTION CONTROL 0F NONCONFOIPIIIIG ITEg
4. O!$CREPA C EQUIPfENT
4. INSTALLATION CONTROL OF RECEIVED ITIM5 STA QUALITT CONTROL AND TESTING. OPERATION AND RAINTENANCE CGtTROL OF te0NCONF0fPflNG ITEM 5
1. START UP 0F EQUIPMENT AMO CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTDtS MANOLING. PRESERVATION. PActAGING.
2. PREOPERATION TESTING STORAGE AND $ HIPPING
3. G'ERATION AND MAINTENANCE
1. HANDLING
2. PRESERVAT!001. PACIAGIIIG AND STORAGE
3. SHIPPING

l 9-Q17. What are the QA functional authorities and responsibilities of the Fuel Supplier?

A17. The Fuel Supplier authorities and responsibilities include the management of the QA progra for its scope of supply and those program elements applicable to the assigned responsibilities for procurment and manufac-turing. These authorities and responsibilities are depict [ed as follows:

l FUEL SUPPLIER PROGRAM ACTIVITIES NIOGRAM MANA0tMENT

  • OUALITY ASSURANCE
  • ORGAMZATION
  • DOCUMENTATION
  • AUDITS ANDREVIEWS
  • CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
1. PLANNING
1. RESPONSIBillTY AND
1. POLICIES AND
1. OUALITY AUDITS
  • ENGINEERINGHOLOS AUTHORITY PROCEDURES
2. MANAGEMENT
2. OUALITYASSURANCE 2. TRAINING AND
2. OUALITYRECORDS REVIEWS
  • UNUSUAL PROGRAM MDEX INDOCTRINATION
3. OUALITYSTATUS OCCURRENCE
3. PERSONNEL REPORTS REPORTS OUALsHCATION PROCURDIENT MNRIFACTURING. FABRICATION AIS ASSDSLY I

PROCUREMENT PLANNING PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT REVIEld EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF PROCUREMENT SOURCES CONTROL OF PROCESSES

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. FABRICATIOK AND ASSEMBLY
2. ACCEPTABLE SOURCE LISTS
3. PRE-AidARD EVALUATI(pl
4. INTERCHANGE OF SOURCE CAPABILITY INFORMATION
4. CLEANING CONTROL OF CONFIGURATION INSPECTION AND TESTS
1. CONTRACT CHANGE CONTROL
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
2. AS-8UILT VERIFICATION
2. PROCEDURES EQUIPf(NT CALIBRATION AND
3. COMPLETED ITEM INSPECTION AND TEST STANDARDS
4. INSPECTION STATUS INDICATION SOURCE SURVE!LLANCE AllD
5. CERTIFICATION INSPECTION gq RECEIVING INSPECTION EQUIPMENT CAL!BRATION AND STANDARDS
1. PLANNING AND INSPECTION
1. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION ATION
2. CONTROL OF INSPECTION MEASURING l
3. DISPOSITION OF RECE!VED AND TEST EQUIPMDIT ITEMS
3. CALIBRATION STANDARDS C

OF NONCo m LNG

4. 015CRIPANT EQUIPMENT STA M ITT CONTRA AND CONTROL Or itECEIVED ITDes CONTROL OF NOIICONF0feq!NG 17D45 CORRECT!YE ACTION MANDLIIeG. PRESERVATION. PACKAGING.

STORAGE AND SHIPPING

1. MANDLING
2. PRESERVAT10ft. PACKAGING AND STORAGE
3. SHIPP!IIG

_ 10 _

Q18e What are the QA functional authorities and responsibilities of the Operator?

\\

A18* 'Ihe Operator authorities and responsibilities include management of the QA progran for operations and those progra elements applicable to the assigned responsibilities for operation, maintenance and modification.

These authorities and responsibilities are depicted as follows:

OPERATOR PROGRAM ACITIVITES PROGR AM M AN AGEMENT

  • OUALITY ASSURANCE
  • ORGANIZATION
  • DOCUMENTATION
  • AUDITS ANDREviEWS
  • CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
  • ENGINEERINGHOLDS
t. PLANNING
1. ftESPONSIBillTY ANO
l. POttCIES ANO
f. OUALITY AUDITS AUTHORITY PROCEDURES
2. MANAGEMENT
2. OUAltTY ASSUR ANCE 2. TRA4NING AND
2. OUALITY RECORDS REVIEWS
  • UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE PROGRAM INDEX INDOCTRINATION
3. OUALITYSTATUS REPORTS
3. PERSOfedEL REPORTS OUAttFICATION OPERATION. MAINTDIAflCE Ale M00!FICATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
1. RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY
2. TRAINING AND CERT!F!tATION OPERATING CONTROL
1. OPERATING OBJECTIVES
2. PROCIOURES
3. AS-BUILT VERIFICATION
4. TEC:4NICAL $PECIFICATIONS
5. 00CLMENT CONTROL
6. OPERATION REVIDf5 MAINTENANCE CONTROL
1. MAINTENANCE POLICY
2. WORK INSTRUCTIONS
3. SPECIAL PROCE55ES
4. PARTS AND MATERIALS
5. 00CtMENTS
6. MAINTINAf0CE REVIEW MOO!FICATIONS

$URVE!LLMCI IIISPECTION AND TESTING EQUIPNENT CAL!$ RATION AND STANDAR05 IleCIDENT ltEPORT!IeG AND CORRECTIVE ACTION i

' Q19. How will these program functions be coordinated and integrated?

A19. Re coordination and integration of these program functions are accom-plished by a program organization with three levels of control. This organization is illustrated as follows:

l j

..m.

I l

[==- l [

. ".;* l

==

l.=. l,,,,,,

t-.::.-1 I -- 1 I =.' l 1

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

.I.-o l p-o-11..

l[ me. ll.~o il mo. 11 -oll... ]l==. ll=~aIi-a..-7 1 ma. ll

-a lla-I I

I I

I

.[..eg i

..l 1

-.l

[--ol I--n 1 4.-.. i 1--l 1

--l 4. a. l 4.~ l l.-- p 4.-ol 4.-ull.-a F

~"

1 4... a l 4 -,-..l 4..

.l[.

.p 4.

.l 4- -.11-...p I -. I

{-... l 4-l 4 - mi 4 - -l i

.{ -- l 1

I I

I I

- 1 I

l l

lI""""'I di l

L-a=.. j l== l I===a l l==== l I== a ll==. I I=a-.ll.-.I

__________~

The first level of control includes the system, component, material and service suppliers. Their quality assurance programs are primarily qual-ity control programs concerned with direct control and verification through analysis, review, inspection, examination and testing. Eis l

l level requires the performer of an activity to implement a system of checks and balances that provide direct control over his work process.

De second level of control includes the program participants that have direct or indirect interfaces with each other and the Owner. H e NSSS Supplier and Constructor are examples of this level of participation.

These portions of the overall program are management-type programs with

responsibilities for the quality assurance functions such as surveil-lance, audit, interface coordination, and lower-tier program integration functions including overview of the lower-tier quality control proces-ses.

Tne Owner portion of the program is the third level of control. The Owner is responsible for the overall program and its adequacy. The Owner program is a management-type program with audit and surveillance activi-ties for verification of participant performance, interface coordination and program integration functions including the coordination of fabrica-tion and construction efforts for the Project.

It should be noted that the NRC Staff also performs doctanentation re-views, review and acceptance of the organization structures within the program and an overview of the management control functions performed on each level of the Project Quality Assurance Program structure.

Q20. How will this system minimize QA oversights?

A20. This system is designed to provide the inspections and review functions, the verification and overview of those functions, and the checks and rechecks necessary to assure the quality required for this plant. The entire quality assurance program is a major part of the management con-trol systems which cut across all levels of Project activities. A strong Owner organization to coordinate and integrate the design, fabrication and construction effort serves to minimize problems with qurlity, espe-cially where interfacing is involved. The coordination of interfacing systems is controlled through a formal review and approval cycle that provides the necessary safeguards for proper system integration. An example of the interface review cycle is illustrated in the figure on Page 12 by the care of the origination of a change request by the Con-structor. h e AE provides the initial review of the requested change as l

the designer, but is required to obtain a review by the NSSS/S as the designer of systems that interface with the AE system under change. The Project Office fonnally reviews and approves the final version of the f

recomended change. h e approved change is then transmitted to the AE for incorporation into the design doctanentation for issue.

INCORPORATE AE CHANGE

/\\

PROJECT 0FFICE

^

REVIEW APPROVAL

, INTERFACE NSSS

' REVIEW AE REVIEW SUPPLIER g

CONCURRENCf

}\\

ORIG CMNGE CONSTRUCTOR l

. Q21.- How is the system for interface control related to the Project's overall design control process?

A21. h e Project's interface control system is a fundamental part of the con-trol process, he CRBRP Project objectives have been translated into four tiers of requirements for the design.

h e first tier includes a set of design guidelines which define the design characteristics and criteria for the Project.

Examples of design characteristics include the ntsnber of locps (three), the power level (approximately 1000 W t), and the design lifetime (30 years). Examples of design guidelines include high availability, low containment leakage (less than 0.1% per day) and low refueling time (less than 20 days per year).

he design guidelines then flow down to the second tier requirements in the Overall Plant Design Description (OPDD). The OPDD defines the char-acteristics and criteria for the plant as a whole. h e OPDD includes, for example, general design criteria, codes and standards (e.g., ASME, IEEE), availability requirements, and maintenance requirements. W e OPDD also identifies the 56 plant systems ar.d defines the scope of each.

D e OPDD requirenents flow down to the third tier requirements for each of the 56 Syste Design Descriptions (SDDs). For each plant system, the SDD defines the system performance requirements, including the interface requirements between systems. Rese interface requirements include, for l

a given systen, all interface requirements imposed on it by other systems and the specific interface requirements imposed on other systems by the given system. h e SDD also provides a description of each system and the components within that systen. Finally, the SDD provides operation, maintenance, and test requirenents for the particular system.

l* he requirements of the SDD flow down to the fourth tier to form require-ments for Project specifications. The Project specifications establish l

detailed design requirements necessary to meet the performance require-ments set forth in the SDD.

Rese four descending tiers of requirements - from the Project objec-l tives and design guidelines, to the overall plant design description, to system design descriptions, and finally, to Project specifications -

assure that the Project objectives are an integral part of each level of the design.

he Applicants have established systems for in-process measurement and control over work activities to assure that the Project objectives will be met. h e Applicants have established a system of management and con-trol of which a major portion is the Project Quclity Assurance Program.

This program crovides assurance that throughout the process of design, manufacturing, construction and operation, procedures are adhered to and that doctznentation is both traceable and complete. Contributing to this program and a basic part of it are the Project's systems for,1) design reviews, and 2) configuration management.

Q22. How are design reviews carried out?

A22. Design reviews must be conducted for systems and subsystems of the plant.

W e design reviews are conducted by teams of independent reviewers which, for any given system or subsystem, include the disciplines necessary for review of the technical subject at hand. The design review teams eval-uate a given system or subsystem against the requirements of the SDD and OPDD and, if any deficiencies are noted, recomend actions to assure that these requirenents are met.

i

. As a minimum, design reviews are conducted for system or subsystem at each of three principal stages of design:

(a) conceptual, (b) prelimin-ary, and (c) final. At the conceptual design stage (at approximately 30% design completion), a review is conducted at the system and subsystem level. At the preliminary design stage (at roughly 60% design comple-tion), a design review is conducted at the system, subsystem and compo-nent level. At the final design stage (when the design is essentially complete), the design is reviewed at the system, subsystem and component level to assure that the SDD and OPDD requirements are met.

In addition to the three stages of design review discussed above, special design reviews are conducted on an as-needed basis for key systems and subsystems, key components, and for purposes of systems integration. In terms of key systems and subsystems, examples include the core restraint system review and the heterogeneous core review. In terms of key compo-nents, examples of reviews include those conducted for the reactor vassel and the main sodium pumps. In terms of systems integration reviews, exanples include the availability review of the nuclear steam supply system, and the maintainability review conducted for the head access area.

Q23. How is configuration management carried out?

A23. The second major element used for in-process measurement and control to assure that the Project objectives will be met is configuration manage-ment. 'Ihe Project has implemented a fonnal configuration management plan whereby elements of each given system design are baselined, i.e., for-mally approved and established as the reference plant design. As results are obtained from a design review, the Project proceeds to enter the

. design infomation into the configuration management systen or " baseline" it, as the Project calls it.

At the conceptual design stage, the system requirements in the SDDs are baselined. At the preliminary design stage, the system descriptions in the SDDs are baselined. At the final design stage, the procedures for operations, maintenance and tests are baselined.

After a system design is baselined, any changes proposed to that design require a review and approval of an engineering change proposal before the change is implemented. Each engineering change proposal is reviewed to insure that a change satisfies the higher tier and interface require-ments established for that system.

Q24. How are functional levels of QA effort defined for particular plant systems?

A24. During the design control process described ebove, each system and com-ponent is characterized as to its plant function. For CRBRP, the char-acterization of function provides appropriate consideration for the importance of the function performed by the item relative to safety.

In this regard, the CRBRP Project has defined four categories for systems and components based upon the following functions:

I.

Pennanent Plant-Safety Related Structures, systems and components that prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents that could cause a risk to the health and safety of the public (e.g., PHTS components).

Category I is further divided into three safety classes (in accor-dance with Regulatory Guide 1.26) which are:

~

\\

. ~

Safety Class (SC) 1 - Those components:

8 Which comprise part of the reactor coolant boundary;

  1. Which are used to perfom scran functions under any plant conditions; and
  • 'Which maintain core geometry to provide core support and whose failure could initiate a core disruptive accident.

Safety Class 2 - Those components not in SC-1:

Which are required to maintain an adequate reactor r:.olant inventory following a reactor coolant boundary letty Which are a,part or extension of the reactor contalrnent boundary; Which are required to remove rerAdval heat fra the reactor s

core or from the spent fuel storage oud wiicse single fail.

ure following any plant condition constitutes a loss-of-safety function, or which are not nonnally operating or cannot be tested adequately during normal power operations; and Whose single failure could cause a loss-of-safety function a

of other SC-2 components.

Safety Class 3 - Those components not in SC 7 or SCl2:'

Which are required to remove residual heat from the reactor core or from spent fuel storage; s

y

,a

+

m m

V

l 19 -

~

' Whose failure could result in the loss-of-safety function of another component (e.g., loss of cooling to components which require cooling for accomplishments of their safety function);

  • Which are extensions of the reactor coolant, boundary and are capable of being isolated from that boundary during all modes of nomal reactor operation by two valves, each of which is either nomally closed or capable of remote clo-sure; and
  • Whose failure could result in the release to the environ-ment of radioactivity and would result in calculated poten-

~

- tial exposures at the site boundary in excess of 0.5 rem whole body (or its equivalent).

II. Pemanent Plant-Operationally Significant Structures, systes and components not covered in I above, but whose failure to function at full design rating will affect the o

ability of the CRBRP to function at its designed rating and which are r:ot essential for a safe shutdown or shutdown heat reoval.

Failure of the items in this category would not endanger public safety (e.g., turbine generator and associated service equipment).

III.

Permanent Plant-Non-Operationally Related Structures,. systems and components whose failure to function would

, not cause damage to safety-class structures, systens or components.

l This category covers itens used to support nomal plant operations, but are not essential to the ability of the CRBRP to function at t

r i

l l

(

x UL

7

. its designed rating; do not contain radioactive material; or whose failure could not rt:sult in the release of radioactive material (e.g., administrative building, yard drains, parking lot).

IV. Non-Permanent Plant Non-permanent plant structures, systems and components required for plant construction activities which do not become part of the per-manent plant. This category includes site preparation and improve-ment activities (e.g., temporary construction equipnent and build-ings).

Given these definitions of categories and safety classes, each designer must evaluate his equipnent according to its function in the plant and detenniae the appropriate classification.

The resulting classification is entered into the configuration management data bank and is reflected, as a minimm, in each equipment or technical specification, the equipment list, equipnent schedule status report, valve list and instrment list. For CRBRP it is important to note that All plant equipnent is c]assified and is in the data bank for all of the systems, not just those designated as safety related.

Q25. How are functional levels of QA effort applied to particular equipment, given the classifications of that equipment?

.A25. The Project's Quality Assurance Program is applied, in a graded manner, to the systems, structures, components and activities of the Project, regardless of their classification. In implenenting the Project's graded approach to quality assurance, nine levels of program requirements have been developed which may be applied based on the importance of items or

the importance of items or services to the plant's function. These nine I

levels range fra total quality assurance management (10 CFR 50, Appen-dix B, RDT F 2-2) to the standard manufacturing process of a supplier.

Within the nine levels, both the level of quality assurance management and administration and the degree of quality control inspection, testing and documentation are varied. The selection of the appropriate level of quality assurance is made using the technical judgement of the design engineer, the cognizant Project Office engineer, and the quality assur-ance engineers in the design and Project Office organizations.

To guide the selection, a matrix has been developed which takes into account the following factors:

  • Whether the Plant its is in the NSSS or the BOP.

Its classification as to unit type (structure, component, material or service).

  • Its service function in the plant.

Parts of the plant perform basic engineering fuentions which are characterized as mechanical; electri-cal, instrumentation and control; or civil-structural.

  • Its plant applict. tion. Parts of the plant perform their mechanical functions by fluid systems or by non-fluid systems; their electrical, instrumentation and control functions by electrical, hydraulic or pneumatic systems; and their civil-structural functions by soils, cencrete and metal.
  • Its systen application. Plant systems are divided according to cool-ant or non.-coolant service.

A coolant systen is comprised of structures, components, or materials that come in direct contact with

. coolant, including those items which fom an integral part of struc-tures, components, or materials which come in contact with coolant.

  • Its pressure application.

Pressure applications are divided according to fluid boundary or non-fluid boundary service. The fluid boundary is that portion of structures, components, and materials which con-tacts and confinas fluid or by which fluid passes.

  • Its temperature application. Temperature applications are diviced according to high and low temperature service. High temperature service applies to those structures, components, and materials which are subject to temperatures in excess of 800o F.

Its safety category and classification as discussed in Q/A 24 above.

8 Its production category, i.e., whether the Plant item is available only as a specially designed and manufactured product, comonly referred to as an engineered unit, as a pre-engineered unit which is manufactured from an existing design, as a custczn unit which is routinely manufactured with options to suit a particular set of perfomance requirements, or is available in a less specialized form as a standard manufactured product.

Based on these criteria, the matrix provides recomended levels of qual-ity assurance to apply to the plant item. For each plant item, the recommended quality assurance programs and activities derived from the matrix are specifically reviewed and examined by the cognizant technical and quality assurance disciplines to assure that the appropriate level of QA effort is applied. This process for application of quality assurance program levels is depicted in the following flow chart.

I l

En e.! li!.

!l-llln!alml e:5

~

a

_t111.111L illi l i l l l l l l i i,,,*

r e e e e e e e e C

C C k C

C C

C C I,

T T T T] T T TT'

<a a

ur u n 1

5 g

lI C

T i

i i

3 m

18 t

~ ~

5 1.

1 1

l

~

  • Eb t

t E

I 62 l

"g[":

I' l

5 l

8 ll t-i a

T T

T 7

Eill a

n-l 8 ll as E8 r$I IE.3 3

i is g! !! !! !! s!

a a n a.s

's "i =l it i

=5 E

i I

T I

s

- Q26. What are examples of how this matrix can be applied?

l, A26. Examples of how this matrix can be applied are as follows:

The matrix choices that would be made for the sodim pmps, for exam-ple, are that the tmits are part of the NSSS rather than the BOP; they are components rather than a structure, material or service; they have a basic mechanical function rather than electrical, instru-mentation and control or civil / structural engineering function; they have a fluid system plant application rather than a non-fluid; they have a sodim system application rather than non-sodim; they have a fluid boundary pressure application rather than non-fluid; they have a high temperature application (above 8000F) rather than low tempera-ture; they perform functions that are essential for safe operation (safety related) rather than non-safety related; and they are engi-neered units rather than pre-engineered custs, or standard units.

The suggested quality assurance program for these units is a Type 1 program which is one that is developed and implanented in accordance with RDT Standard F 2-2 which, when applied, would satisfy the cri-teria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.

For the sodim ptaps, a Type 1 pro-gram was in fact invoked that consists of an F 2-2 program which is a quality assurance program requiring implementation activities in the management and planning; design; procurement; manufacturing; fabrica-tion and assembly and quality assurance audit areas. This Type 1 program means that by implementating RDT Standard F 2-2 requirements certain quality assurance program activities such as documentation of management and planning efforts; establishing design controls and verifying design activities; specifying quality assurance require-ments in all phases of procurement, manufacturing, fabrication and

activities, and assuring that these activities conform to drawings, specifications and standards; and that construction and installation efforts include assurance that required quality is maintained. We cognizant RM, NSSS Supplier and Owner audit and provide surveillance over this program to assure proper impl eentation.

Another example is the condensate pmps. R ey are part of the BOP syste; they are components; their engineering function is mechani-cal; they have a fluid syste plant application; they have a non-sodim systs application; they have a fluid boundary pressure application; they have low taperature application; they are not essential for uare operation of the plant (non-safety-related); and they are cust e units rather than engineered, pre-engineered or standard units. For the condensate peps a Type 5 quality assurance program was selected which includes the necessary high reliability requirements for this BOP component. A Type 5 program is one which is executed in accordance with Project or company specifications.

For this program, the requirments are written into the technical specification and include, as a minimm, such items as controlled docmentation, tests and inspections with independent test staff personnel, specific calibration requirments, audits and material /-

component traceability throughout the manufacturing process. To be more specific, this 7pe 5 program means that the vendor shall imple-ment and maintain a docmented quality assurance program including as a minim m such el ments as controlled issuance of engineering docments and changes, inspection and testing accomplished using l

instruction and procedures, identity of itms maintained by use of l

{

. l l

Shop orders or travelers, an independent inspection staff and means l

l of controlling nonconfonning items, and finally a doctanented system l

l for inspection and test equipment calibration and control. This prograrn establishes primarily hands-on quality control practices.

The AE and Owner audit and provide surveillance over this program to assure proper implementation.

1 In stamary, there are several similarities in these two programs, such as implementation of a doctanented quality assurance program which includes elements such as design control, manufacturing, fabrication and assembly activities control using procedures or instructions and independence in the test and inspection staff. he primary difference is that the Type 1 program requires quality assurance programmatic practices, while the l

Type 5 program primarily defines quality assurance work oriented (quality control type) practices.

Q27. How would you stenarize the essential elements of the Project's system for application of functional levels of QA effort?

l A27. he CRBRP system will identify specific levels of quality assurance 1

effort for every component in the plant on a systematic basis. In addi-tion, the levels of quality assurance effort applied will be graded in relation to the unit's importance to the plant function and the complex-ity of the unit.

Q28. How will the Project assure that accurate as-built plans and specifica-tions will be available when needed?

A28. All of the principal design doctanents are maintained by the configuration management systen once they are baselined. As noted in Q/A 23 above, the

.n-configuration management system has been implemented by the CRBRP Project Office and imposed as a requiran:.nt on all Project participants. Change requests, deviations, and waivers are identified, docmented and reviewed by the designer and interfacing disciplines, approved at the proper level and incorporated into plant baseline docmentation. h e accomplishment of these activities is verified by the performer, and audited by the Owner and the NRC. he as-built configuration is, therefore, maintained throughout the various phases of plant design, fabrication, construction and operation. he baselined docmentation will be required to r eflect the as-built configuration of that structure, system or component at any given time in the plant construction cycle. B is doc m entation is maintained and stored in a quality records system which provides the necessary docmentation retrieval system for using the baselined docmen-tation.

l' '

I STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS i

l Vernon Dale Hedges l

Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project Office l

Tennessee Valley Authority l

l From December 1982 to the present, I have been t.he Assistant Director for Quality Assurance of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project Office, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

I am a Tennessee Valley Authority employee.

My responsibilities are devising, directing, and assuring effective execution of the Project's Quality Assurance Program.

I am also responsible for organizing, staffing and managing the Project Office Quality Assurance Division in execution of activities to fulfill the owner responsibilities for establishment and adequacy of the overall Project Quality Assurance Program.

I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Education from Southern Illinois University in 1950, and a Master of Science degree in Industrial Education from the University of Illinois in 1955.

From 1966 to 1973, I was employed with EG&G, Incorporated, Las Vegas, Nevada.

I was assigned to establish a Product Assurance System to meet NASA requirements.

After six months, I became the Director of the Technical Support Division.

My responsibilities included Quality Assurance / Fabrication Control, Environmental Measurements Department, Communication Services Department, Electromechanical Manuf acturing Department, Electronic Fabrication Department, Plant Maintenance Department,

Program Management, and Training.

From 1973 to 1974, I was the Director of Safety eith EG&G, Incorporated.

This was a special assignment to establich policy and training to meet the OSHA legislation.

From 1974 to 1976, I was the Manager of Administration with EG&G, Incor por ated.

In this position, I managed the accounting, industrial relations, computer operations, f

procurement and warehousing, and general services (security, safety, and technical reporting) departments.

From April 1976 to November 1979, I was the Chief, Quality Improvement, Quality Assurance Division of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project Office (CRBRP/PO).

I was employed by the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The QI Branch was responsible for the review and evaluation of activities affecting quality for trend analysis, nonconformance control and disposition, and the Project training and indoctrination activities.

l From November 1979 to December 1982, I was the Chief, Quality verification, Quality Assurance Division, of the Clinch l

River Breeder Reactor Plant Project Office (CRBRP/PO).

I was employed by the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The responsibilities of the QV Branch were the quality verification aspects of the program which' included the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) and the Belance of Plant (BOP), coordinating quality assurance i

program interf aces between the Project Office and other participants, verifying and evaluating quality achievement in the work performance of major Project participants, planning and directing the conduct of internal audits of Project Office quality assurance programs and external audits of contractor quality assurance programs.

Another branch responsibility was supervising the planning, coordinating performance and fdllow up inspections of items and services, which included the performance of selected civil, structural, electrical, mechanical and welding inspections and nondestructive examinations.

I am a member of the American Society for Quality control.

i 4

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS Joe W. Anderson Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 155 MIB-K Knoxville, TN 37902 I joined the General Manager's Office of TVA in 'May 1982, to serve as the Manager of Quality Assurance and to head a new office of quality assurance for the management and direction of TVA's Quality Assurance Program.

I remain in that position to date.

I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical l

Engineering from the University of Tennessee in 1957 and a Master 1

I of Science degree from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville in 1967.

Since that time I have updated my knowledge in specialized areas with occasional short courses in the University of Tennessee.

Following graduation from UTK in 1957, I joined Combustion Engineering, Inc., in their Special Products Engineering Department, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

I began as an Analytical Engineer.

In that capacity I was responsible for perf orming thermal, hydraulic, and structural calculations in the e

analysis of nuclear plant components.

During my Jast year with the c'ompany, I was transferred to the position of Mechanical Engineer.

I was responsible for the design and manuf acture of nuclear power plant components.

From October 1960 to January 1974, I served in various l

pocitions for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Union l

l l

Carbide Corporation Nuclear Division, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

I began as a Design Engineer and Assistant Supervisor of the Equipment, Design, and Development Group and before I left ORNL I had become the Program Manager of the HTGR Fuel Recycle Development Program.

As Program Manager, I was responsible for the overall program planning and the management of projects to design, construct, and operate pilot scale plants for developing and demonstrating processes and equipment for nuclear fuels reprocessing and refabrication.

In January of 1974, I joined the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant staff as the Manager of Quality Assurance and Head of the PMC Quality Assurance Department.

I was responsible for the establishment and conduct of the CRBRP's quality assurance program.

My duties included organizing, staffing, and managing the PMC Quality Assurance Department in execution of the owner portion of the program.

From May 1976 to May 1982, I served as the Chief of Quality Assurance for CRBRP.

As the Chief, I was responsible for devising, directing, and assuring effective execution of the project's quality assurance program.

Other duties included organizing, staffing, and managing the Project Office Quality Assurance Division in execution of activities to fulfill the owner responsibilities for establishment and adequacy of the overall project quality assurance program.

I am a Licensed Professional Engineer in Mechanical Engineering registered with the State of Tennessee and a member of the American Society Mechanical Engineers.

I have

participated in the National Standards Program since 1967, and I am now a member of the ASME Committee on Nuclear Quality Assurance as well as the American National Standards Committ'e, e

2-1, on Quality Assurance.

e u-i

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS Joel E. Karr Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 From January 1980 to present, I have served as Acting Project Quality Assurance Manager for the CRBRP Project responsible for the management and administration of the overall Stone & Webster Quality Assurance Program as applicable to the Stone & Webster scope of work on the project, including the administration of quality assurance and quality control personnel assigned to the Project.

I received a Bachelor of Science in Engineering in 1968 from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

In July 1973, following discharge from the U.S. Coast Guard as a commissioned officer, I joined Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts, where I have been assigned to several major nuclear projects performing tasks related to program development and evaluation for construction, operation, and nuclear fuels management licensing, procedure development and evaluation, QA program administration and overall QA program management.

As QC Engineer (July 1973), I developed systems and procedures for control of quality related activities for construction of nuclear power plants.

I also served on a corporate committee tasked with development of company records management system.

In January 1975, as QA Engineer, I performed

. quality assurance services related to nuclear project licensing, SWEC QA topical reports for submission to NRC, quality control procedure development at a construction site, and quality assurance systems.

I assisted several utilities in developing their own quality assurance programs and procedures for construction, operation, and nuclear fuels for their nuclear plants.

I was also involved in evaluation of existing utility quality assurance programs and the development of utility portions of safety analysis reports.

From April 1976 to May 1978, I was assigned to the CRBRP.

As a QA Engineer, my duties included the development of initial plans and procedures for quality activities and quality assurance portion of safety analysis report.

Later, as a QA Section Supervisor, I was responsible to the Project QA Manager for the operation of the Quality Assurance Project Office.

I was then assigned as Acting Project QA Manager, responsible for the management and administration of the overall SWEC quality assurance program for the project, including the administration of quality assurance and quality control personnel assigned to the project.

From May 1978 to December 1979, I was Project Quality Assurance Manager for the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Project (Niagara Mohawk Power Company) in Scriba, New York.~ I had overall authority and responsibility for administration of project quality assurance functions, including field quality control, procurement quality assurance, and project auditing.

I was also

responsible for direction and control of project-related quality assurance administrative activities and operations at "She projec'.

as well as at the construction site.

\\a

I am a member of the American Society for daality Control.

O

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFOPI THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of

)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

)

)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

)

Docket No. 50-537

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

)

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant)

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Service has been effected on this date by personal delivery or first-class mail to the following:

Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (2 copies by hand)

Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

l Director Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California West Side Road Bodega Bay, California 94923 (Air Express)

Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger i

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board l

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com=ission i

East-West Towers 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (by hand)

  • Stuart Treby, Esq.

Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Elaine I. Chan, Esq.

Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.

Office of Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 (2 copies by hand)

  • Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

  • Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

  • Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 (original, 3 copies, and return copy)

William M. Leech, Jr., Attorney General William B. Hubbard, Chief Deputy Attorney General Michael D. Pearigen, Assistant Attorney General State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Oak Ridge Public Library Civic Center Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esquire Lewis E. Wallace, Esquire W. Walter LaRoche, Esquire James F. Burger, Esquire Edward J. Vigluicci, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 (2 copies) i

3-Lawson McGhee Public Library 500 West Church Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 William E. Lantrip, Esquire Attorney fer the City of Oak Ridge Municipal Building Post Office Box 1 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Leon Silverstrom, Esquire William D. Luck, Esquire U. S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Room 6B-256--Forrestal Building Washington, D. C.

20585 (4 copies by hand)

Commissioner James Cotham Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development Andrew Jackson Building, Suite 10007 Nashville, Tennessee 37219 7

George L.

ar '

Attorne or Project Management Corporation DATED: July 8, 1983

  • /

Denotes hand delivery to 1717 "H"

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

u-____

~

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20024B667&oldid=4628152"