ML20033B078
| ML20033B078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1981 |
| From: | Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Dickhoner W CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033B079 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-82-012, EA-82-12, NUDOCS 8111300348 | |
| Download: ML20033B078 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000358/1981013
Text
-
l)f/] b
hv.
.
.
[pavy'o.
UNITED STATES
, s
8
-
g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
B4
3
wAsnmorow. o. c.zossa
/.g
-
%
/
""'
NOV 2 41981
Occket No. 50-358
o
p~
-
construction Permit No. CPPR-88
9
h
EA 82-12
S
[
..a d
A
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company
b
N O V 2 7 19 3 7TO
ATTN: Mr. W. H. Dickhoner .
j p sN mwcu $
President
- =3 m
c-
yh
[M/'
139 East 4th Street
Cincinnati, OH 45201
s
,
Gentleman:
This refers to the investigation conducted by Region III during the period
January 12 to October 9,1981, of construction activities a,t tha Vm. H. Zimar
Nuclear Power Station.
The details of that investigation ara describcd in
Rcgion III investigation report No. 50-358/81-13.
The violations described
in Appendix A to this letter are cross-referenced to that report in accordance
with Appendix B to this letter.
The investigation was initiated as a result of allegations made to the HRC
by a Quality Control Inspector who formerly worked at the Zinner site and
-
by the Government Accountability Project of the Institute for Policy Studies
(a non governmantal agancy) on behalf of Mr. Thoraas Applegate.
The rtsults of
the continuing investigation reveal a widespread breakdown of your quality
assurance program as evidenced by numerous exaoples of nontoapliance with t'.cive v
of the eightu n different criteria for a quality assurance program as set forth
The cause of the breakdown was your failure to
exercise adequate oversight and control of your principal contractors to whor.
you had delegated the work of establishing and executing quality assurance
!
ptograms.
You thereby failed to fulfill your vital responsibility as described
in Criterion I of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, to assure the execution of a quclity
assurance program.
The potential safety concern of your quality assurance
program breakdown was discussed during an enforcement conference at our
Region III office in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, on August 5, 1981, attended by you
and members of your staff and the NRC Region III staff.
Two of the violations (Items A and 8 of Appendix A of this letter) are of
particular concern to us because of the very essential role they play in the
execution of an effective quality assurance program.
These two violations
relate to false records and to harassment / intimidation of quality control
v'
inspectors.
With regard to false records, the examples we identified raise serious questions
as to the accuracy of quality records at the site.
Our concern in this area
served as a major factor in requiring the conduct of a confirmation program to
be completed by you to furnish evidence of plant quality.
'
CERTIFIED MAIL
pkl
ETURNRECEIPTREQUESTED
8111300348 811124
$dg
PDR ADOCK 05000358
\\
o
D m d f.a ,.
3
.
.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric
-2-
,
,
Company
Because the NRC inspection program is a sampling program, the importance of
accurate quality records cannot be overemphasized. Accordingly, we have
addressed this matter as a separate violation and assessed a separate civil
penalty for it.
With regard to harassment / intimidation of quality control inspectors, we have
also addressed this matter as a separate violation and assessed a separate civil
penalty for it.
We determined that your construction contractor took some
action to stop the water dousing of quality control inspectors; however, thcse
actions did not stop the activity. Harassment / intimidation of quality control
inspectors is clearly a barrier to effective implementation of a quality
assurante program and results in loss of the organizational independence
described in Criterion I of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
The importance of this
matter is reflected in the recent amendment (Public Law 96-295, June 30,1980)
to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which added Section 235 relating to protection
of nucicar inspectors such as your quality control inspectors.
The impact of the identified quality assurance deficiencies on the actual
construction has yet to be determined. Limited independent measurements were
performed by the NRC in selected areas of concern in an attempt to characterize
the actual safety significance of these deficiencies. Although a few problems
requiring corrective action were identified (i.e., four unacceptably installed
pipe hangers), the majority of the NRC independent measurements did not dis-
close hardware problems. However, recognizing tt at significant construction
deficiencies could have resulted from the quality assurance problems identified
during this investigation, the NRC has required the establishment of a compre-
hensive quality confirmation program to determine the quality of plant systems
import. ant to nuclear safety. The NRC will confirm the adequacy of the program
and may make additional independent verifications. Deficiencies identified by
these programs will require resolution prior to issuance of an Operating License.
Notwithstanding the fact that serious construction deficiencies have not been
identified, in order to emphasize the need for licensees to have complete and
accurate records, to maintain a work atmosphere where quality assurance
,
personnel are not harassed or intimidated, and to assure implementation of an
effective quality assurance program which identifies and corrects construction
deficiencies, we propose to impose civil penalties in the cumulative amount of
Two Hundred Thousand Dollars for the matters in the Notice of Violation. We
expect that this penalty will result in an adequate deterrent against future
similar violations by you and other licensees of plants under construction.
Some of th[ examples in the Notice of Violation occurred subsequent to the
issuance of the revised enforcement policy and some prior to that time.
In
arriving at the amount of the proposed civil penalties we have exercised dis-
cretion, considered changes in the enforcement policy and considered the amount
of the civil penalties.that have been issued to licensees of other plants under
construction 'as well as 'the aumber of examples found of each violation and when
they occu.tred. We have for :onvenience and clarity categorized the items in
the NeU re of Violation at the Severity Levels described in accordance with the
Interim Enforcement Policy published in the Federal Register, 45 FR 66754
(October 7; 1980).
.
.
J'
s
y
ay
.
.
. ,
Cincinnati Gas and Electric
-3-
Company
The result:, of this investigation and our review of your 10 CFR 50, Appendix
B, noncocipliance history reveal an additional matter which is of significant
concern ta us. This matter concerns inadequate corrective actions.
The results
v'-
of our normal inspection program for the construction and testing of Zinner
indicate you were found in noncompliance f9rty-four times since Decerber 1979
with thirteen of the eighteen different cri'.eria of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
During our Sydematic Assessment of Licensee rerformance review on December 16,
1980, wa expressed concern with your relativaly poor performance in this area.
This poor history of compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, when considered with
the recent findings of the investigation indicates that your corrective actions
-
only addressed individual problesis and not underlying prograstatic causal factors.
Consequently, we request that you review your history of noncompliance with
10 Ci-R 50, Appendix B, for the past two years and in your response to this
lotter provide those steps you have taken to address and correct the underlying
,
programmt.ic causal factors related to the noncompliances.
You are required tc respond to the Notice of Violation and'in preparing your
responsa you should follow the instructions in Appendix A.
You should give
particular attention to those actions designed to assure continuing compliance
With NRC reoujremnt%,.Xm.'5Mait4%MpD&4MS--lettes M.d thter::5URG of -
- -
. . . .
future inspections will be considered in determining whether further enforce-
ment action is appropriate.
-
~'
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
>
,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure
1
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Appendix A are not
subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely,
l,
fll
//
f fM~ -
i
Richard C.
oung,
rector
Office of n pection and Enforectant
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A - Notice of Violation and
'
!
Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties
.
l
2.
Appendix B - Cross References:
Noncompliances to Report Details
i
,
cc:
i
See next page
l
.
_ , . ..
. . . -
. . . . . . _
--
=
.
r
i.
.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric
4-
-
' .
.
Company
,
cc w/ enc 1:
'
E. A. Borgmann, Senior Vice President,
Engineering Services and Electric Production
,
,
J. R. Schott, Plant Superintendent
a
DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII
Harold W. Kohn, Power Siting Commission
Citizens Against a Radioactive Environment
i
Helen W. Evans, State of Ohio
'
1
Thomas Applegate
~
Louis Clark, Director, GAP
,
Institute for Falicy Studies
,
!
4'
.
l'
,
,
e
i
h~
<
b
i
%
J
4
1
!
k
>
- , . . . .. ....--,,,_ _ _.._,
__.__,.-.-..-------._-..__.._._____-__.,__,,..._.,..,_.._....-._a....__.._~..__.,._,-,...--...----