ML20062M958

Restated Contentions 6,8 & 16 Re QA Program.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20062M958
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	08/13/1982
From:	Bishop L HARMON & WEISS, SINNISSIPPI ALLIANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (SAFE)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208200257
Download: ML20062M958 (8)

Text

,_._. . - . . . . . . . -- _-

ty 5-00lKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMElllCA ,

NUCLEAR ItEGULATORY COMMISSION

..'82 Ago 19 pg;93 . .

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

~ y . , ,, ._

OCh 32 cancy Effg In the Matter of: ) l

,[ ,

) Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMEltS POWEll COMPANY ) 50-330

) v (Midland Plant, Units I and 2) ) Operating License ,

MARY SINCLAllt'S IIESTAT'ED CONTENTION #G. 8, & 16 August 13, 1982 Contention G.

NltC regulations at 10 CFil Part 50, Appendix B require that applicants for operating licenses develop and implement a quality assurance program for the protection of the public from improper materials or unworkmanlike practices. This QA program includes such elements as procurement docu- [

ment control, control of purchased material, equipment, and services, proper inspections and handling of nonconforming materials, corrective actions, and audits by trained personnel, flowever, the affidavit attached to this contention and summarized below shows clearly that the QA program for the Midland

( plant was not in compliance with thcee requirements, and that therefore, quality assurance and control cannot be established at the Midland nuclear plant.

As basis for this contention, intervenor Mary Sinclair references the afD-davit of Mr. Albert T. Iloward, a former Quality Assurance Documentation-Supervisor for Zack Company, (from October 19, 1981 through April 30,- 1982) which was under contract to supply equipment for the heating, ventilating and j nir conditioning (IIVAC) system of the Midland plant.

Ills affidavit documents the complete breakdown of the QA' program for the Midland plant, leading to his dismissal for refusing to conform to Zack's improper l

l . QA practices. Those improper practices, with regard to the Midland plant spe .

l cifically, or all of Zack's nuclear clients generally, are detailed as.follows:

l i! "~'

8208200257 820813 gDRADOCK 05000329 PDR g /

c

1 110 ward states that his supervisor, Mr. Calkins, had investigated and reported the QA problems Zack was having with the Midland plant to the Midlar.d Site Manager as early as August 28,1981. (at 4) 2 As n result of this report, " major QA reorganizations" were undertaken at Midland, to correct improper QA documentation. Id.

3 Soon after lioward's promotion to Supervisor of the Documents Assurance Depart-ment, lloward became aware of " serious deficiencies"In QA documentation. (at 5).

4 On November 18, 1981, a Midland QQ contract employee directed Iloward to sign a form attesting to having completed the requisite training for his position, in spite of the fact that 110 ward did not receive such training. Id.

5. On November 30, 1981, lloward reviewed reports which summarized various QA deficiencies at Midland, including such terms as:

"certs altered"; " white out used and retyped"; and " heat number altered to agree with certification"; missing signatures; certifications missing; lack of test data for purchases; correspondence that steel had been purchased without verification and traceability; and stickers indicating compliance with professional standards. As the summary noted on the latter item, " Authenticity of the signatures is question-able." (at6).

6. On November 30, 1981, lloward also received a report from Calkins describing the " breakdown of the quality assurance program", resulting in, inter alla, improper modifications to documents. Id.

j 7 The report described in 16 concluded that the corrective action recommended l was to " promise -- with a plan -- not to repeat the misconduct." No " offenders" were to be dismissed. (at7).

8. Bechtel communicated to Zack in a December 21, 1982 letter that the reported i

deficiencies (see 111, 5) were a " paperwork problem", and that it was their opinion that "It is highly probable that Zack ordered correct materials for the Midland project from their subtler vendors and that the vendors' intent was to comply with Zack's purchase order requirements." (emphasis added), lloward disagreed strongly with Bechtel's attempt to minimize the seriousness of the QA document breakdown at Zack. (at9).

I

m

9. Iloward states that the Zack " internal report / audit" of Bechtel's QA documen-tation (in Y 8) was seriously deficient in that it knowingly understated the number of purchase orders to be evaluated, and therefore that Zack's assurance to Bechtel that a " total document audit" was compicted was " simply not true." (at 10).

10 lioward reports that "several times" he discussed with Zack management that

" delivered materials did not conform to site speelfications, and that many of Zack's vendors were unapproved as suppliers of material to nuclear sites." (at II).

11. Iloward's affidavit then states that a Mr. Perry contacted Commonwealth Edison QA manager about the deficiency in delivered materials, who then contacted Consumers Power at the Midland site. Consumers apparently then contacted the president of Zack, who informed lioward that she "did not appreciate our calls outside the conipany. " (at II,12).

12. On November 5,1980, the Bechtel Power Corporation sent a letter to the Zack Company. Iloward reports that the letter "makes it clear that Bechtel Power Corporation had sufficient knowledge of material being shipped to the site in non-conforming cond'ition." (at 14).

13. Iloward states that a September,1981 letter to the Zack Company from U.S.

Steel describes a " serious misunderstanding" regarding purchases of steel for 3G purchase orders at all three sites (including Midland). !!oward states that the letter points out that the 7.ack

" confirming orders" all read " Safety-Related". The U.S. Steel letter points out that first,the orders had not been purchased as

" Safety-Related"; and second, that since the purchase orders were not called in as safety-related, they were not handled through the "V&T" (Verification and Testing) program." (at 16),

lloward points out that the use of the term " Safety-Related" implied that the items received the quality verification required by regulation, which was inaccurate. Id.

14. Mr. Iloward's affidavit states further that Zack did not confine its purchases to those from " approved" vendors.

"Another vendor, the Delta Screw Company, also failed a fall audit.

A fall 1981 Zack letter from Mr. Calkins allegedly removed Delta Screw Co. from the approved vendors list for failure to comply with the requirements of a Quality Assurance program as required by the NRC. Ilowever, I knew that Zack Company did not follow its

4'

_.i _

own " approved vendors list." A list of the P.O s from December 21, 1981 to February 1982 reveals that, in fact, Delta Screw received approximately 38 purchase orders from the Zack Company before being put back on the approved vendors list in February 1982." (at 18),

15. Iloward also describes that Zack personnel were not adequately trained to perform their duties. This lack of training included the president of Zack, who

" assured the utility management that all problems relating to the Zack QA/QC breakdown were under control and her personal supervision". (at 18, ID).

10. Iloward's affidavit describes the notes of a meeting on November 3,1981, at the Midlaud site, with all relevant QA personnel in attendance. The notes show that the principal purpose of the meeting was to decide "whether or not to report the QA breakdown.under 10 CFR 50.55(e) to the NHC". (atID). The notes further state that Zack was to "try to get material certified to federal specifications", and to " revise or clarify existing requirements so that the pur-chases would be acceptable." Id.

17. Iloward describes a steadily increasing level of " intimidation and verbal abuse" from management, apparently designed to induce Iloward's resignation. (at 22).

18 Howard then states that he confided in Mr. Leonard of MPQAD (at Midland).

of the " awkward difficulties" with QA at Zack. (at 22), lie advised IIoward that he recognized 7,ack's "large number of problems over the years,"and that he should report any specific allegations under a confidentiality agreement. Id.

19. On April.13,1982, floward called Leonard and reported QA problems at Zack, t'

lloward reported these allegations officially through the MPQAD allegation system-l on April 15 (at 23).

20. Despite Leonard's promise of confidentiality, Howard reports that "on April 16, .

t 1982, Mr. Calkins [his supervisor at Zack] called me into his office and told me I had betrayed him and that he was not going to speak to me anymore", d.

21. Soon after his visit with Calkins, Howard received a copy of a memorandum from the president of Zack to all employees. "Without mentioning me by name, this memo referred to and then (ented the allegations I had made to Mr. Leonard.

It also denied us access to the files without upper management permission". Id.

i l

Y 22 After a short review of the Zack files, Mr. Leonard informed floward that he failed to find anything wrong "of substance" with the 7.nck QA documents.

Mr. Leonard stated to lioward that "I was fired once, too, you know." (at 24).

23 On April 30, 1982, lioward was fired by the president of Zack for "incom-petence". Nevertheless, she acknowledged that Zack's QA performance was

" appalling". (at 21, 25).

21 On May 3,1982, lloward reported the QA deficiencies at Zack to NHC inves-tigators. (at 25). While he left with them documents relating " alterations",

"possible forgeries", and admissions by Zack that it's failure to qualify vendors was a " serious program deficiency", the NRC has not contacted Ifoward further until July 21,1982 (the date of the affidavit). Although he called and visited the office several times, no interest was shown t'y the NHC in his revelations. (at 26).

Contention 8 The Zack Company of Chicago which has been the contractor responsible for the heating, cooling and ventilating system of the Midland nuclear plant has filed a non-compliance report with the NHC on or about August 4,1982, indicating that two sets of records--a shop record and a QA record--which are required to be kept to guarantee the integrity of the welds and therefore, must be signed by the same welder, were, in fact, signed by two different persons. This violates the federal standards for documentation for safety-related systems in a nuclear power plant. This breakdown in quality control means the principal method that the NRC has for guaranteeing the integrity of the welds in the llVAC system (which is already built into a large part of the plant) has failed and that therefore the pro-tection of the public health and safety cannot be guaranteed as required by 10 CFR II 50.57(1), 50.57(2), and 50.57 (3) and Part 50, Appendix 11 Contention 16 In the Part 21 report that Zack Co. filed which was signed by Dave Calkins of Zack andprepared by lloward McGrance of Consumers Power Co., it was dis-closed that 140 Travelers showed unverified welder qualifications for fabrication welds. Without qualified welders for this large number of welds, the necessary

. .. \'

, - o-guarantee for the protection of the public health and safety cannot be met as required by 10 CF1150.57(1), 50.57g2) and 50.57(3). Ir; addition, this report indicates thit the quality rssurance in construction of these plants has not been met as reoutred by l' art 50, Appendix B.

Respectfully submitted, s

A 0 -

/

/u' Lee L. Bishop liarmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, NW E00 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 Attorney for Mary Sinclair l

l l

I r

i s

% - 4 y- y y w e . y

IWlTI:D ST ATI:.'i OF AM.l lil CA NIIt*! E AR lil%;tli AToltY CdfdtI SS t uti DM

~

nEroHi: Tui: Atomic san;Tv ANo i.ici:rniirunonno ,

s

__._.____._..y ,

'c2 !!0019 P2:03 In the Matter Of )

con SUMI;RS l' owl;H c0MI'ANY I

)

thickeI N hI ihh fh' 00149) oM I

Dock e i. Non. OI.

( Hid land Pl.in t , Lleii t a 1 .in s t . ) ',30 712')rg_ 3 py g

)

CERT 1l'ICATE OF ;iER I VCE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MOTICE OF APPEARANCE in the above-captioned proceeding has been served on the following by hand, as indicated by asterisk, the 12th day of August, 1982, and by deposit in the U.S.

! mail, first class, postage prepaid this 17th day of i

August, 1982, to the following:

l

• Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Frank J. Kelley l

Administrative Judge Attorney General of the State Atomic Safety and Licensing Soard of Michigan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co mission Steward H. Freeman Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Ralph S. Decker 525 W. Ottawa St., 720 Law Bldg.

Adr.iinistrative Judge Lansing, Michigan 48313 Route #4, Box 190D Carabridge, Maryland 21613 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan i

Administrative Judge ,

6152 N. Verde Trail Michael 1. Miller. Esq.

Apt. B-125 Ronald G. Zamarin Esq. -

Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Alan S. Farnell,' Esq.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale ,

• Dr. Jerry Harbour Three First National Plaza Administrative Judge 42nd Floor .

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Chicago, Illinois 60603 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D.C. 20555

• James E. Brunner, Esq.

Consumers Power Cortpany 212 West Hichigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 l

i

Ms. Barbara Stamiris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5795 N. %iver U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissiol Freeland, Michigan 48623 Washington, D.C. 20555 James R. Kates Atomic Safety and Licensing Appea 203 5. Washin'gton Avenue Panel Saginaw, Michigan 48605 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissioi l Washington, D.C.~ 20555

• Wendell H. Mjrshall, President Mapleton Intervenors Docketing and Service Section l RFD 10 Office of the Secretary 1

Midland, Michigan 18840 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissia Washington, D.C. 20555 Wayne Hearn Steve J. Gadler, P.E.

Bay City Times 2320 Carter Avenue 311 Fifth St'reet St. Paul, MN 55108 Bay City, Michigan 48706 Frederick C. Williams

• Paul C. Rau Isham, Lincoln & Beale

Mi'dland Dai.ly,. News 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW 124 Mcdonald Street Washington, D.C. 20036 Midland, Mi~higan c 48640 Myron M. Cherry, p.c.

• w2111 am D. Paton Peter Flynn, p.c. office of Executive Leg al Cherry & Flynn Director Three First National Plaza u. S. Nuclear Reg ul ato ry Suite 3700 commission Chicago, IL 60602 Washington, D .C . 20006 T. J. Creswell Michigan Division Legal Department Dow Chemical Cog any Midland, Michigan 48640 l

Augu s t 19, 1982 Date:

1.co I.. llistiop l

• Delivered by hand August 12, 1982 l

t l n 0