ML20040C754
| ML20040C754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1982 |
| From: | Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201290204 | |
| Download: ML20040C754 (12) | |
Text
[
11 UNITED STATES
^
y B
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL j/
WASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555
,02
- s January 26, 1982
26 p MEMORANDUM FOR:
James Lieberman Y
F 4
Acting Director of Enforcement, I&E
/<
RECEIVED }3 FROM:
Ja '
e'lley 3
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the Catawba Operating Licensing
-~
g y ;gg i
Proceeding -- Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-41 6, nemEP cm maara 110C
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS OF DEFICIENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION AN '0FN 8
f PRESSURE
- TO /PPROVE FAULTY WORKMANSHIP AT CATAWB
/
.y c,
a At a recent prehearing conference in the Catawba operating license proceeding, a petitioner for intervention, Palmetto Alliance, advanced a contention concerning alleged substandard workmanship that included the s
following sentence.
"A number of former Duke Power Company construction workers, including a certified Quality Control Inspector,. have complained of systematic deficiencies in plant construction and company pressurd to approve faulty workmanship.
At the outset of the discussion of this contention, the Board made clear the seriousness with which it views such allegations. We said that we would make sure that these allegations were brought to your attention.
As indicated in the pages of the hearing transcript we are attaching, l
these and related ma*,ters may have already been looked into by I&E.
l l
I would appreciate your passing this information on to the appropriate people in the field and advising the Board about any information you may l
develop that may relate to the ongoing licensing proceeding.
Encl:
Transcript pages 116-126 cc:
Service List (w/o encl)
Y' cQO l
5/
/b l
l 8201290204 $ M 3 PDR ADOCK g PDR
(
o l
$16-1 MR. KETCHCN:, Mr. Chairmnn, our responsa on j,
Contsntion 5 is in our pleading similar to that in Contention 2 l 2.
It is dif.ficult to tell what this contention is 3
~
all abouC..
4
.5 As we point out, it is very generalized concerns.
it'is someNhot;,y%
N ague.
I cannot tell from reading d
6 To us, go
.{
7 this, contention whether 1 really answered or responded' to the contention in my earlier remarks this mroning in the 8
Od 9'
argument I made with respect to the Commission's interim
^
.e h
10 statement of. policy involving serious' accidents beyond design E
5 gi basis.
d '12 I'm referring to the June 1980 policy statement, I
Eo d
13 or some other generalized conce S
I'm n'ot told in this sontention what such-E 14 w
2 15 serious issues are, nor any basis for some unspecified 5
16-serious accidents being not now ---being now somehow plainly
,e e
d 17 cre'dible.
s
.y
^
18 So, I think this contention is just vague, E
l 19 nonspecific, and it"has no basis, in addition to the other b
i 8n 20 g arguments I've made with respect to contention 2, 5, and
' 10 in our re'apdnse earlier filed with this Board.
21 22 CH AI RMAN ' KELLEY :
Okay.
No.
6.
\\
23,
Le,t me just say, Mr. Guild, I'm looking at i
l 24 the last sentence of No.
6, which reads as follows:
"A I
25j number of formbr Duke Power Company construction workers,
e l
l f
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
..x 1
.s.
l b
Ejl6-3 s
1
- including a cartified quality control inspactor, hava 2
compl'ained of systematic deficiencies in plant construction 3
.and company pressure to approve faulty w'orkmanship."
l 4
l Now, that is a very serious complaint, and it is I
e 5
something that we will want to know more about, whether 6
it ends up as a contention or not, because we have a n
7 responsibility te look into matters like that.
E I
y 8
I suppose that these things can get a little Od 9
bit sticky in the sense that where situations like this N
o 10 arise, it may be that people who have spoken with you, or j
11 people who have spoken with people in your 5
g 12 organization, don't want it known, don't want their 5
13 names put out.
I don't know.
14 I appreciate that consideration.
But in the 2
15 course of speaking of this contention, if you would give us 5
y 16 a little more background, and what you are talking about, e
d 17 then we will see where we go with it.
We want to flag the E
E 18 fact that this is something that we certainly have picked up 5
19 on, and we are interested in.
M 20 MR. GUILD:
Let me have a moment, Mr. Chairman.
21 While we do not believe that it'is in all instances l
22 l
appropriate for the reasons alluded to by the Chairman, to l
23 l
put people on the spot who may have information that goes 24 to the core of the Commission's responsibility for seeing 25l that the plant is built safely, in this instance, two of i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
c hl6-4*
1
- the individuals who can bring information to bacr on this 2
quality assurance contention, because of their i
3 personal experience as former workers of the plant, are 4
Palmetto Alliance members, who have submitted affidavits to 5
this Board in support of Palmetto Alliance's original n.
5l 6
petition to intervene.
That is, Messrs. McAfee and R
R 7
Hoopingarner, both of whom reside in proximity to the N
g 8
facility.
d c
9*
CHAIRMAN KELLEY: The second name?
bg 10 MR. GUILD:
Hoopingarner, H-o-o-p-i-n-g-a-r-n-e-r, 6
5 11 the second.
j 12 Mr. Chairman, both of those individuals by 5
13 formally submitting affidavits in support of the Palmetto l
14 Alliance contention obviously are willing to be publicly C
15 associated with this specific part of the basis behind our 5
.16 quality assurance contention.
g M
d 17 So, to that extent, they have already gone public E
18 with it, and their names should be associated with it i
i 19 at this point, although we don't feel that is part of our t
M 20 obligation to support a contention with that evidentiary-type 21 information at this stage.
22 We also reference what we believe to be not only 23 a policy statement, which we think makes quality 24 assurance even more a concern in licensing process than 25 I heretofore, and that is the Commission's decision in the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
115
~
'jl6-S l'
GPU Federal Court claim case thet is referenced thero, 2
that places primary responsibility for seeing a plant is 3
built as it should be built and operated as it should be 4
' operated, not on the Commission whose limited Staff may o
5 include only one resident inspector at the site, but on the M
N 6
Applicant through a program of quality assurance that R
7 ultimately works.
M y
8 Again, it is more than simply a paper d
c 9
requirement of having a plan.
It is a requirement of z,
o g
10 having actual work that in up to standard through procedures j
11 that work in practice, and we believe that the references 3
l 12 to criticism of Duke's construction by the Commission's E
13 Licensee Performance Review Group, a below-average rating z
14 due to quality assurance and managment and training 15 problems at the plant, provide an additional basis for a 16
.j concern on quality assurance matters.
w d
17 CHAIRMAN KELLEY:
Would you be able to, not E
{
18 necessarily right here and now, but would you be able to get A"
19 g
any more specific about quality assurance in your statement n
20 that it is substandard?
Substandard in welding, 21 substandard in wiring, who knows what.
Do you have that 22 kind of information?
23,
Eventually, you will have to prove a case.
24
}
MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir, I do.
I'm not prepared to 25 go into detail at this point.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
[56-6 1-Let ma say, in tha one instcnce where this 2
Intervenor or this Petitioner sat down with the Company 3
staff and counsel, and this issue was addressed, the 4
dialogue went as follows:
We recognize that we have serious
'e 5
concerns on quality assurance, and that many of the -- much b
6 of the evidence in the form of documentation is in G
Q 7
your possession; we can be more precise and specific A
I 8
8 in this regard if we have access to that information.
O d
9 Will you make that information available?
To paraphrase b
g 10 the response from the Company, it was, we think, the j
11 way you stated it is fine as is, and we have no interest a
p 12 in essence in giving you anymore fuel for your fire.-
5 13 And at this stage of the proceeding, no, we won' t provi de you 14 further access to documentation; exercise your rights to C
15 discovery to flesh this out.
E 16 g
Both of the people that I have reference to are w
,j 17,
ready-and able to testify about personal knowledge with 5
l E
18 respect to construction deficiencies, and they are P
l 19 champing at the bit to some degree 'o explain in detail c
g n
20 what their concerns have been.
1 21 My advice to them, as counsel for the
~
22 organization, has been, at this stage of the proceeding, 23) what we are obligated to do is present a litigable contention, I
l 24 and that the orderly licensing process gives us the l
25 opportunity to, through discovery, obtain additional l
l i
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
L
\\
fjl6-7 1~
information and present our caso in cn orderly and effectiva 2
fashion, and that we intend to do.
I 3
CHAIRMAN KELLEY:
Just one further comment with 4
regard t'o the information about workers, former workers.
5 I appreciate you providing us with the two names.
e O
y 6
As a first matter, we will just simply be in touch with the R
7 NRC inspection and enforcement people to see whether they N
1 j
8 l
know about this, whether they have talked with these d
Q[
9 gentlemen and others, and then we will see where we go with zoy 10 this matter.
That is apart from the contention in the j
11 case, but it is something that we will look at as a general a
I j
12 principle.
E j
13 okay.
=
MR. KETCHEN:
f[r. Chairman, may I respond to that 14 j
M I
y 15 l
just on this one point?
16 g
CHAIRMAN KELLEY:
Yes.
W d
17 i MR. KETCHEN:
I, too, am champing at the bit.
5 5
18 I'm champing at the bit because, as you just alluded to, we
=H h
19 I do have an inspection and enforcement process.
As a M
i 20 l
matter of fact, the resident inspector is in the room, or 21 was in the room this morning.
I'm not sure he's here l
22 l
right now, but he was here this morning, as well as the 13 inspector that -- his boss back in Atlanta that is responsible 24f for the Duke plants, as far as the inspection is concerned.
l d
25h In this regard, I just want to point out to f
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
e i
[16-8 g
counsel for Palmetto Allianco end to tha public that this 2
is not* a game; that if they have specific problems with 3 l quality assurance construction, they should come forward 4
right now and give it to our inspection people, so we can e
5 look at it and get at the heart of the matter, and wait M
N d
6 for a resolution.
e Rg 7
If there are serious problems, it does no good I
8 to wait for a year, while the plant is being constructed.
O d
9 Those things shpuld be pointed out now, should be looked i
h 10 into now, and should be resolved nc.,
and as you point E
5 11 out, it should be a matter separate from the litigat_ ion.
d 12 But hearing this, I think there is some sort of z=
l 3
13 a gamesmanship here that, on these specific matters, it 5
14 is just a matter of holding back the specific information w
2 15 so that the contention can come in and this information E
16 can come out at the hearing.
S V.
d 17 j I just want to re-emphasize that we do have 5
E 18 an inspection and enforcement section with the Nuclear 5
19 Regulatory commission, and if we get specific information, 8n 20 not generalizations, we would go and investigate these 21 matters.
22 But we need more than very generalized 23,
accusations or allegations that are contained in the last i
24 line of this sentence, before we can go forward.
CHAIRMAN KELLEY:
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Ketchen.
25 3
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
123 l16-9 1'
I think th: iden of prompt rtrotting.end bringing 2
things out in the open is certainly one that is correct, and I
3 l
I agree with your statement.
4 Let me add, we say separate from the litigation.
e 5
That isn't to say it might not stay an issue in the litigation.
Cl 6
Yoa might seek to prove poor quality control.
But I Rg 7
think you want to get that in the hands of the quality
~
8 8
control people early, so they can do what they can do, so it n
d d
9 may or may not get in the case.
s g
10 MR. KETCHEN:
That is correct.
What I'm saying g
11 is, if there are serious concerns on the part of the w
I y
12 potential Intervenors here, I would think a responsibility 5
13 as a party and Intervenor in this proceeding, having
~
14 heard what you and I have'said this morning, would warrant 2
15 their bringing forth this information so that in fulfilling 5
j 16 our responsibility to the public, the Staff can go investigate 7:
~
b 17 it.
E l
5 18 We would be happy to recieve that information at
=V
{
17 any time.
n 20 CHAIRMAN KELLEY:
Lets go to Mr. McGarry now.
21 MR. McGARRY:
I think our responses are all set I
22 l
forth.
We maintain there is a lack of specificity, and 23,
I think Mr. Ketchen has just pointed out, and the 24 Board actually inquired, what safety-related areas are we 25 '
t'alking about.
We don't have to get down to minute detail, l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1*
'but it would bo helpful to know, are wo talking cbout 2
wiring, welding, or what are we talking about?
i 3
That is lacking.
4 There is a typographical error I would like to k
5 point out on page 42, four lines from the bottom, the U
6 last two words, "is and," should be stricken.
The entire R
7 next line should be stricken, and the word " program" on the A
g 8
secced to the last line should be stricken.
O d
9 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
What was the second deletion?
10 MR. McGARRY:
I'll read what should be stricken, E
{
11 Doctor.
"is and has been available in the NRC's local u
~
g 12 Applicant's OA program."
That all should be taken out.
E g
13 But we maintain that we have got'a QA. program that mj 14' has been approved by the NCC; that it was in the Cat'awba
$o 15 docket, the construction permit stage, of what is wrong E
16 with that particular program, aside from these allegations g
e d
17 of these individuals, which is a separate matter, which 5'$
18 may or may not be in these proceedings, but in general, what 5
{
19 is wrong with the program.
n 20 Let's have some specificity in that regard.
21 The fact that Catawba was rated below~ average 22 j
doesn't mean the plant was not constructed safely, and the 23,
controlling NUREG documents say that just because something l
is rated below average doesn't mean that it is unsafe.
24
.That is basically our position on that.
25 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
b 16-11
]
CHAIRMAN KELLEY:
Do you h va something also?
MR. GUILD:
Let me add on that, I'm informed that 2
i t
I 3
both of the named individuals have widely discussed 4
their c'omplaints with either NRC Staff or publicly, in a e
5 fashion that has been easily available to the Applicant, 3u 6
and, presumably, to the Regulatory Staff.
It's in the j
7 area.
But implicit in the pleading of that contention is 8
the allegation that there is pressure placed by the od 9
Applicant upon workers at the site, to quote the specific z'
O 10 language, " approve faulty workmanship."
e E
E 11 It is a little disingenuous for the Staff and
<?
I d
12 the surroundings of a formal hearing on the record 3
'd 13 in front of administrative judges to say, well, if you've S
14 got a problem, come forw'ard and talk about it, whether in 4
u 2
15 fact there are considerable systematic problems or E
16 barriers to workers on a job site who may know of problems that BW d
17
- implicate safety concerns in a nuclear construction 5
E 18 progras to come forward, and they do so at the risk of
=H:
19 themselves.
We don't have a laundry list of the people who i
20 are prepared to do so.
This should not be dispositive of 21 the matter.
I don't view it as a game, but we simply i
22 l
face a Staff which has strenuously opposed the legitimacy 23,
of this as an issue for this licensing case.
h 24 In the face of that, it surprises me somewhat
.i 25 to hear them say that we should be more forthcoming as a i
D ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
j 125 t
!1'6-12
- matter of pleading,when they oppose the issue itself to ba
)
considered by this Board.-
16 2
3 l
4 e
5 3a 3
6 1
e N
7 N
8
-8 N
Y c
9 io g
10 i
a_
E 11 I
d 12 5
=
j 13
=
s~ 14 w
2 15 E
I 16 B!=
i 17,
=
M 18 l 19 8n 20 l
21 l
22-l 23 !
i.
24 '
25l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I 4
.