ML20028B936
| ML20028B936 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1982 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028B937 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8212160728 | |
| Download: ML20028B936 (3) | |
Text
-
- t..
December 1, 1982 NOTE FOR: Region III Files
~
FROM:
Stephen H. Lewis, Regional Counsel
SUBJECT:
NOVEMBER 22, 1982 MEETING BE'NEEN REGION III AND CG&E REGARDING
" DEMAND FOR INFORMATION" IN RESPONSE TO MVPP S2.206 PETITION In response to the request of Commissioner Ahearne (October 28, 1982 meeting on Zicmer, open session, Tr. 64-67), representatives of Region III met with Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG&E) on November 22, 1982 at O' Hare Airport to assure that CGSE cicarly understood the September 24, 1982 " Demand
'for Information" issued unde'r 10 CFR 550.54(f) with respect to Miami valley Power Project's (MVPP) Petition to Suspend Construction of the Zicmer Station (August 20, 1982). The following persons were in attendance:
NRC, Region III Robert Warnick, Director, Office of Special Cases Dorvin Hunfef, Section Leader - Zimmer Section, Office of Special Cases Stephen Lewis, Regional Counsel CGSE Dennis Waymire, Engineering Department (designated coordinator for preparation of response to Demand for information)
Jchn Hoffun, Engineering Department
~
Jereme Vennemann, Legal Department Mark Vetterhahn, Outside Counsel H. J. Kaiser (HJK)
Patrick Hickey, Outside Counsel Erinley Varchol, HJK QA Administrator at Zimmer CGSE stated that representatives of HJK were in attendance because a sub-stantial portion of the assertions in the MVPP petition were within their sccpe of responsibility and HJK would be assisting in the preparation of those responses.
CGSE sought Region III's concurrence in the following canner of response:
1.
Allegations eay be grouped together for response where there is a com=cn theme.
2.
CGSE may respond by indicating that it does not contest certain alle-gations where those allegations repeat matters covered in the April 8, ONObb 74 copy Hof Been Sent to PDR
~
ATTACEMEET III
f i
s i
Region III Files 2
December 1, 1982 il 1981 Immediate' Action Letter or in the November 24, 1981 Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties, to which CG&E agreed or which it chose not to contest.
3.
Where CGEE believes responses to matters raised in the petition have been provided in documents already filed with the NRC staff and made available to the public, it may rely on references to those documents in its responses. Region III suggested that copies of such documents be attached to the response if they have not previously been provided to MVPP.
4.
Where allegations contain merely generalized statements, rather than
.any assertions about the Zimmer facility, CG&E may make "no response" notations.
5.
If certain allegations are based on information provided to the NRC, but not to CG&E, CG&E would only be expected to respond with the information it has on the general subjects of the allegations.
6.
Where_Cp&E is unable to locate the attachment referenced in a para-graph, it may so note,in its response and answer to the best of its ability. Where CG&E questions the weight of an attachment relied upon by MVPP, it may so note in its response.
Region III indicated that the manner of responding suggested by CG&E seemed I
reasonable. CG&E should, however, 'oe certain to provide an answer for each paragraph, even if only by brief notation.
Region III also advised CGSE that the response to the Demand and the
~
information generated in the preparation of the response should be shared' with whatever o'utside party (ies) is retained by CG&E to:
(1) conduct the independent management review, (2) assist it in the preparation of an, updated quality verification plan, (3) assist it in any proposal for I
continuation of construction activities, and (4) assist it in management of any further construction activities.
CGLE advised Region III that it did not appear possible to complete the response by the December 31, 1982 date set forth in the Demand. CG&E estimated that 3,000 person-hours would be required in the preparation of the response on its part alone, excluding HJK's time expenditure.
Region III advised CGSE that any request for an extension of the response should be made in writing to the Regional Adqinistrator. CGSE stated that it expected to file such a request during the week of November 29, 1982.
i l
Stephen H. Lewis r
l Regicnal Counsel RIII Lewis /np l
12/1/82
(
L
1 SUff.ARY OF THE PROGRESS OF QUALITY CONFIRMATION PROGRAM (QCP) TASK AREAS AS OF JULY, AUGUST, SEPTE!!BER, OCTOBER, AND NOVEMBER 1982 TASK AREA PERCENT COMPLETE / EXPECTED COMPLETION AS OF JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER I.
STRUCTURAL STEEL
- 35%
50%
57%
58%
67%
12/01/82 12/01/82 12/01/82 12/01/82 03/01/83 II.
VELD QUALITY
- 58%
62%
68%
70%
70%
Ill.
HEAT NUMBER 30%
33%
33%
36%
40%
TRACEABILITY
- IV.
SOCKET VELD FITUP 95%
96%
98%
98%
98%
10/01/82 10/01/82 12/01/82 12/01/82 03/01/83 V.
RADIOGRAPHS 97%
98%
98%
99%
99%
08/01/82 09/15/82 11/15/82 11/15/82 01/15/83 VI.
CABLE SEPARATION
- 52%
35%
44%
50%
55%
12/31/82 06/01/83 06/01/83 06/01/83 06/01/83 VfI. NONCONTORMANCES 40%
52%
61%
61%
61%
12/31/82 12/31/82 01/30/83 01/30/83 03/31/83 VIII.
EESIGN CONTROL AND 99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
VERIFICATION 08/15/82 12/15/82 02/28/83 IX.
EESIGN DOCUMENT 35%
<32%
<33%
<35%
<37%
CHANGES 12/31/82 04/15/83 04/15/83 06/01/83 06/30/83 X.
SUSCONTRACTOR QA 65%
75%
75%
78%
78%
PROGRAMS 09/15/82 10/15/82 10/30/82 12/31/82 02/28/83 XI.
AUDITS 72%
74%
80%
82%
82%
10/08/82 11/15/82 11/15/82 11/15/82 02/28/83 i
l
- Areas vieaed by Region III as potentially requiring a significant amount of rework.
watsti=c;ed cc pletion date to be determined.
i ATTACHMENT IV