ML20063P878
| ML20063P878 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1982 |
| From: | Bernabei L, Devine T GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20063P875 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8210150457 | |
| Download: ML20063P878 (60) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the' Matter of: )
)-
THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC )
COMPANY , _e t _al . ) Docket No. 50-358 (William H. Zimmer Nuclear )
Power Station) )
s MVPP'S REPLY TO NRC STAFF AND APPLICANT RESPONSES 'IO MVPP'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF JULY 30, 1982 I. BACKGROUND ,
On August 20, 1982, the Miami valley Power Project ("MVPP")
filed a petition for Reconsideration with the Commission requesting that the Commission reconsider and vacate its Order of July 30, 1982 directing the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") to dismiss MVPP's proposed eight contentions. The Commission, in a 3-to-2 decision, held that the Board had not justified exercise .
of its sua sponte authority under 10 C.F.R. S 2.760a to admit as Board issues the proposed contentions.W
, MVPP also filed on Au' gust 20 and incorporated in its Petition for Reconsideration its Petition to Suspend Construction MCincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-82-20, 16 NRC (July 30, 1982.)
i 8210150457 821011
of the Zimmer plant which included a substantial amount of new information supporting the eight contentions.
Applicants opposed MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration on
, _ _._ the grounds that:
(1) MVPP has not met the legal standard required in petition-ing for reconsideration in that it has not demonstrated any legal error; (2) MVPP has not met the legal burden required to reopen the licensing proceedings; and, finally, (3) MVPP's petition lacks substantive merit in that it does not demonstrate that licensing hearings are necessary since the Commission will oversee the NRC Staff's monitoring of the problems at Zimmer.
The NRC Staff supported MVPP's petition and the reopening of the licensing hearings because of the " unique circumstances" present in the Zimmer case. The Staff argues that "a public hearing may help to restore public confidence in the safety of the Zimmer nuclear plant, which appears to have been seriously
~ eroded by disclosures concerning the breakdown of Applicants' quality assurance program." Staff Answer, at 2. The Staff also argues that MVPP's petition satisfies applicable legal standards.
Staff Answer, at 10-12.
k e
II. MVPP HAS SATISFIED THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR THE COMMISSION'S RECONSIDERATION IN SUBMITTING EX-TENSIVE-NEW EVIDENCE THAT THE STAFF IS NOT EQUIPPED TO MONITOR THE SERIOUS PROBLEMS AT ZIMMER AND THE QUALITY ASSURANCE DEFICIENCIES ARE MORE SERIOUS THAN PREVIOUSLY REPORTED.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company ("CG&E" or " Applicants")
argue that MVPP must demonstrate a legal error in the Commi~ssion's decision to invoke 10 C.F.R. S 2.771 and the Commission's authority to reconsider its prior decision. All NRC authority hold , however,
. to the contrary.
The Commission's authority to reconsider its decisions is
" inherent in the ability to decide in the first instance." Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), CLI-80-41, 12 NRC 650, 652 (1980). The Commission's inherent authority i
to oversee the Licensing Boards and the licensing process has con-sistently been held to be broad, in order that it can carry out its " overriding responsibility for assuring public health and safety in the operation of nuclear power facilities." In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point, Units 1, 2 and 3),
' CLI-75-8, NRC I/7518, 173 (1975). -
MVPP presented extensive new evidence that elaborated on previous arguments that reopening the Zimmer licensing proceedings was necessary to ensure public confidence in the plant, and would assist, not hinder, the Staff in its attempts to monitor the re-construction of Applicants' QA program. MVPP also presented evidence that deep divisions exist within the NRC Staff on policies, and argued that the public should have an input into these policy i
s
. , , , , . , . ,,,c .
-,--..,w..,,,- . ,- + v-
decisions. The Zimmer case has become symbolic as the nuclear plant most distrusted by the public. See Cincinnati Enquirer Editorial Page, September 13, 1982, attached and incorporated
~
herein as Attachment A. Former NRC Administrative Law Judge Louis J. Carter, in recen't testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce, called the Zimmer case "illus-trative of the Commission view that the Licensing Board even when joined by the Staff is not sufficient to justify reopening a case when there is evidence of a serious breakdown of quality assurance in construction of a nuclear generating station." See Summary of Carter Testimony, September 24, 1982, attached and incorporated herein as Attachment B. The NRC Staff itself recognized the terrible erosion of public confidence in the safety of the Zimmer plant. Staff Answer, at 7-8. These arguments were made, largely for the first time, in MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration. Events at Zimmer and before Congress since August 20, 1982, have only strengthened their logic. See Parts V and VI, infra.
Moreover, MVPP has presented a massive amount of new
~
documentation to support its eight contentions in its Petition to Suspend Construction. As stated in its Petition for Recon-sideration, it did not originally put this information before the Licensing Board because it believed it had presented sufficient evidence to support reopening the hearings.2/
[ Applicants' use of the Appeal Board decision in Catawba is inexplicable in that that decision involved publicly available documantary material. Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station,
~
An elaboration of previous arguments and submission of additional significant evidence provide precisely the required basis for reconsideration by the Commission. Tennessee valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 1B & 2B), ALAB-418, 6 NRC 1, 2 (1977); Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
(Virgil Sumner Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-81-26, 14 NRC 787, 790 (1981). It is when a petition presents no new basis, factual or legal, for reconsideration that the Commission declines to exercise its authority to reconsider and change its initial decision. Nuclear Engineering Co. (Sheffield Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site) , CLI-80-1,11 NRC 1, 5 (1980);
Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No . 1) , ALAB-4 77, 7 NRC 76 6, 76 8 (1978).
Moreover, the Commission cannot be compared to an appellate court and thereby barred from considering factual and documentary l evidence not in the record and presented to the Licensing Board.
The Commission, in exercising both its inherent supervisory powers over the licensing process and in its review of the Board's exercise of its sua sponte authority under 10 C.F.R. S 2.760a, has broad discretion to receive additional factual evidence nad I
(footnote 2 continuedT Units 1 and 2), 75Ak C87, 16 NRC (August 19, 1982). MVPP, in its two petit %';1i fi ad on August-76, 1982, has presented evidence that largely ois . g on the public record. Although the NRC may have considere.1 scam uf these materials in its multitude of pre-vious investigations, MVPP believes the NRC has misinterpreted in its reports the significance of a portion of this 'information.
This is especially true in the NRC's conclusion that CG&E had little control over, the QA program of Kaiser Engineering, Inc. ("KEI").
According to the documents within the NRC's possession, it is clear that since the mid-1970's CG&E haE dominated, and in most important respects directed, KEI's QA program, including its level of staff-See Part IV, i
ing and degree of independence from construction.
infra.
legal argument relevant to the issues before it. Therefore, Applicants' argument that MVPP may not supplement the record before the Commission in its Petition for Reconsideration (Applicants' Response, at 9-10) is simply wrong. Nuclear Engineer-ing Company, Inc., supra; Kansas Gas and Electric Company, supra.
III. MVPP HAS MET THE STANDARD FOR REOPENING THESE LICENSING HEARINGS IN PRESENTATION OF EXTENSIVE NEW EVIDENCE IN ITS PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO SUSPEND CONSTRUCTION.
. Applicant opposes MVPP's petition on the ground that MVPP has not met the standard for reopening by presentation of suf-ficient new evidence, and that ' has not been timely in presenting this evidence. The NRC Staff, particularly the Region III Staff, after a preliminary evaluation of MVPP's evidence, has informed the Commission that the documentary evidence submitted to the NRC "do(es] contain some new information of significance relating to certain of the contentions proposed by MVPP." Moreover, on September 24, 1982, Region III Administrator James Keppler sent a demand letter to CG&E which required CG&E to either admit, or ,
deny with explanation, each of the substantive allegations of MVPP's Petition to Suspend Construction. See Demand Letter, attached and incorporated herein as Attachment C. Despite CG&E's attempts to denigrate the significance of MVPP's submission, the NRC Staff has acknowledged that at least a portion of the infor-mation is new and significant, and all of MVPP's allegations are
~
k
.m - -
-__._=_--__.____.__rt
important enough to require a detailed response from CG&E.2!
As MVPP argued in its original Petition for Reconsideration, experts within and outside the NRC entertain serious differences of opinion about the significance of the QA problems at Zimmer.
Some NRC investigators and officials believe the problem was that CG&E directed and dominated Kaiser such that Kaiser could not staff and operate an adequate QA program, and that CG&E was deeply involved in QA deficiencies, including possible criminal falsifi-cation of QA records. Many believed the deficiencies so serious that they advocated suspending construction at the site until a corrective program was put in place.
MVPP believes the problems at Zimmer are not an aberration or result of lack of CG&E oversight. MVPP argues instead that CG&E, with full knowledge and warning of the possible serious safety consequences, deliberately instituted a minimal, and clearly deficient, QA program at Zimmer. See Part IV, infra.
The new evidence presented by MVPP demonstrates unequivocally that the IE Report and NRC staff were wrong in concluding that CG&E abdicated too much responsibility for the QA program to its contractor and that the CG&E-controlled Quality Confirmation Pro-gram ("QCP") will remedy the problems. In fact, the QCP has been l
seen organized and is being operated in much the same manner as
$.!I n its opposition to MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration CG&E chose not to respond to any of the serious allegations con-tained in MVPP's Petition to Suspend Construction on the ground that it would respond directly to the comments of the Director of Inspection and Enforcement. Applicants' Answer, at 8, n. 11.
(
the faulty QA program of the past. See MVPP Petition to Suspend Construction, at 92-105.
What is required to satisfy the public and those eager to ensure Zimmer's safety is a searching examination of CG&E's role in the QA failures and an independent audit and review of the quality of the constructed plant and Zimmer's current QA program.
Nothing short of clear and definite guidance from the Commission and an opening to public participation will, at this point, calm
,public fears about Zimmer's shortcomings and the Commission's ability to oversee the nuclear industry.
Therefore, contrary to CG&E's representations, MVPP has satisfied the standard for reopening the licensing proceedings, and demonstrated that the new evidence it has presented would materially affect the Board's decision. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361 (1981), citing with approval Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1),
ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320 (1978).
IV. NEW DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DISCLOSED TO MVPP SUPPORTS ITS ARGUMENT THAT THE NRC STAFF IS INCAPABLE, WITHOUT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, OF RESOLVING ZIMMER'S PROBLEMS TO THE PUBLIC'S SATISFACTION.
MVPP argued in its Petition that the NRC Staff was deeply divided in its analysis of the QA problems at Zimmer and the pro-posed resolution of these problems. Due to the importance of
9_
making the NRC, just as any federal agency, accountable to those it serves on basic health and safety issues affecting all citizens in the Cincinnati area, MVPP argued that these policy decisions should be made publicly. Applicants, entirely misinterpreting the thrust of MVPP's arguments, labeled them an onslaught on the "Com-mission's integrity" and an attempt "to demean the technical com-petence and professionalism of the NRC staff." Applicants' Answer, at 18-19.
Instead, MVPP believes that men and women of good faith may differ as to the significance of documentary and testimonial evidence, the proper application of the Commission's regulations, and the correct enforcement of its mandate to protect the public health and safety. Serious policy debates within any agency, especially one which holds important safety decisions within its control, only benefit from some degree of public scrutiny. This is the basic premise of our democratic form of government and Congress' intent in creating an NRC hearing process operating under the Administrative Procedure Act. To argue, as do Applicants, that hearings add little to assure the public of Zimmer's safety is to demonstrate, as Judge Carter aptly stated, " disrespect for the Congressional intent." See Attachment B, at 1.
Documents recently disclosed to MVPP counsel, pursuant to their request under the Freedom of Information Act, corroborate MVPP's basic argument that deep policy divisions and confusion exist within the NRC itself. Bert Davis of Region III listed i
chronologically meetings of the IE staff and between IE staff and ,
i
~
.,r .
-.,r ,ee-- w....e een,. . _. .. , , # -C
staff of the Office of Inspection and Audit ("OIA") concerning the investigation of QA problems at Zimmer. This chronology demonstrates that the NRC's investigation of possible criminal activity of senior CG&E officials was ' sacrificed because of bureaucratic wrangling between the two NRC offices and an un-willingness to take responsibility to ensure a thorough investigation.
The IE staff did not interview senior Kaiser and CG&E personnel who were suspected of possible involvement in or knowl-edge of falsification of QA records. . In response to a question from Commissioner Ahearne about.why no such statements were taken, the IE staff, in a memorandum sent to the Director of IE on October 28, 1981, said they had been directed by OIA not to interview or take signed statements from senior Kaiser and CG&E management because such interviews could taint a future criminal investigation. See October 28, 1981 Keppler Memorandum, attached and incorporated herein as Att'achment D.
James Cummings, Director of OIA, strongly objected to
! IE's memorandum and claimed that OIA never instructed IE not to take interviews. He also noted that the Department of Justice, which his office had consulted, said the NRC's interviewing of senior CG&E officials would not affect a future criminal investi-gation. OIA did in fact interview several senior officials of
, Kaiser and CG&E including Phil Gittings and William Schwiers.
l Shortly before the issuance of the IE Report, OIA" forwarded these l
interviews to IE. Neither the IE nor OIA reports discussed the *
--.===imie--=$=----ee... - - . . -
.. .--,...-e .m..-. .-.,%_,. .,
f C
substance of these interviews. The IE report enclosed .Mr. Schwiers '
interview without. comment as the last exhibit in its four inch report.
In essence possibly the most important portion of the NRC's investigation, that'into possible criminal activity of its licensee CG&E, was sacrificed because neither IE nor OIA wanted to take the responsibility for an obviously sensitive probe.
Because the NRC Staff never resolved the issue of whether CG&E officials falsified QA documents and made misrepresentations to the NRC, it is re-emerging. MVPP believes that the NRC, having shown itself to be immobilized'in making the hard decisions, should not be allowed to continue to let these problems fester.
The issue of whether or not CG&E has made misrepresentations to the NRC Staff and the Ccmmission and whether CG&E has the charac-ter and integrity to conform to and comply with NRC regulations must be finally settled. At this point the only way this matter will be resolved will be through public hearings. The pu"lic hasabsolutelynoreasontobelievethattheJUtcStaffa-dthe
/
Commission can themselves without public sc'rutiny resolve the matter.
The documents recently disclosed to MVPP also demonstrate
{-
that one of the examples of censorship discussed in MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration was debated within the NRC prior to i issuance of the IE Report. The affidavit of John R. Booth, a
'former Kaiser QC inspector, outlined pressure from Kaiser engi-neering on the Kaiser QA program. This affidavit was excluded I
- from the IE Report even though one reviewer of a draft of that l
n_.
t_ , m.
_ _ Es
report stated strongly that the Booth affidavit should be in-cluded in the report and moreover "need[ed] to be evaluated for new allegations...." See Booth Affidavit and Reviewer's Com-
. tents, attached and incorporated herein as Attachment F. Exclu-sion of the Booth affidavit fundamentally changed the substance of the report and the conclusions the NRC Staff drew in the report.
MVPP has also learned that the NRC had in its possession during the investigation, many documents that illustrate that
,CG&E largely controlled Kaiser's OA program, and contrary to the NRC's statements, delegated little control to its contractor.
These documents were forwarded to Region III by CG&E on August 20, 1981, and by Kaiser on August 14, 1981. See Cover Letters of CG&E and Kaiser, attached and incorporated herein as Attachments G-1 and G-2. They demonstrate clearly the struggle between CG&E and its contractor over the QA program's staffing and degree of inde-pendence from construction and engineering. The struggle came to a head in the spring of 1975 when Edward C. Pandor, CG&E Principal Quality Assurance and Standarts Engineer, outlined for W.J. Friedrich, then Kaiser QA Manager, the changes he wanted made in Kaiser's QA program. Essentially he told Kaiser to reduce and simplify its complex paperwork system; place responsibility for nonconformance reports in the hands of Construction Engineering, "the most knowledgeable party"; and transfer " routine activities" from the QA program to Construction Engineering. See March 18, 1975 Pandorf Letter, attached and incorporated herein as Attach-ment H. ,
1 s
l 1 - . _ _
Kaiser considered these changes so significant that D.H. Williams, Vice President of Kaiser's Corporate Power Division responded to thc letter. Apparently fearful that Kaiser would be pressured into violations of NRC regulations, Mr.
Williams stated clearly that Kaiser would shortly need addi-tional inspection personnel; would not transfer QA functions to construction because the NRC required field quality assurance ft ;-
tions such as auditing, surveillance and inspection to be inde-pendent from construction; and would continue to maintain an extensive paperwork system because that was necessary to ensure that historical plant records were maintained and the plant met high safety standards. See March 21, 1975 Williams' Letter, attached and incorporated herein as Attachment I.
The NRC Staff concluded, with these documents in its possession, that CG&E abdice.ced too much control to its contractor and was not aware of the deficiencies in the QA program at Zimmer.
However, these documents paint a different picture. CG&E, despite the protests and warnings of its contractor, insisted on downgrading the program, beginning at least in 1975. Apparently .
it pressured Kaiser, with threats and finally by fiat, to cut QA staff to an inadequate level and subjugate the QA program to con-l struction. Clearly the NRC needs to take another look, this time within the public's view, at the persons responsible for the QA i breakdown at Zimmer.
Finally, the NRC Staff's rhetoric about toughening controls over CG&E has often been misleading. NRC actions do not match the rhetoric. The public by now does not believe that the NRC t
is carefully and critically protecting the public safety. For example, the NRC announced that it was reducing dual inspection by CG&E at Zimmer from 100 percent to 50 percent. However, the mege actual program the NRC put into effect on July 15, 1982, was much different. The program began with 50 percent reinspection and 15 percent surveillance inspection, defined as something less than reinspection. However each and every month thereafter the level of reinspection and surveillance can be reduced if CG&E
'and Kaiser meet certain tests. The reinspection could be reduced within one month by 10 percent per month if CG&E-accepted inspection and contractor inspections correlated more than 90 percent of the time and, if CG&E-surveillance inspections and contractor inspec-tions correlated more than 95 percent of the time. Therefore within five months, theoretically, CG&E could be free of any reinspection responsibilities. This is not the program the NRC so elegantly packaged for public consumption. See Site Communique Number 15, Revision No. 1, attached and incorporated herein as Attachment J.
Clearly the public does not trust the NRC Staff to carry out its duties and make the necessary hard decisions without public scrutiny.
\
V. NRC FUBLIC STATEMENTS SINCE AUGUST 20, 1982 DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL SUBSTITUTE TO PUBLIC PAR-TICIPATION THROUGH LICENSING HEARINGS.
A major premise of the Commission's July 30 order was that NRC Staff investigations and informal public meetings could effectively substitute for licensing hearings to assure meaningful public participation in the reform program at Zimmer.
Even beyond the staff brief, the public statements of NRC representatives since MVPP's August 20 Petition for Reconsid-eration demonstrate that this is totally unrealistic.
First, NDC staff policy has become internally contradictory so that it can no longer serve as a consistent " final" solution to the quality assurance breakdown at Zimmer. In effect, the NRC Staff has become the best witness against its own policy conclusions. Under these circumstances formal hearings on the record are essential to assure the public that its legal right to a safe nuclear plant is protected.
To illustrate, at September 14 Congressional hearings Regi.on III Administrator Keppler rejected CG&E's assessment
~
that the Quality Confirmation Program will be completed by early 1983. He stated that CG&E could not possibly predict, at this point, the date by which repairs would be completed, i
since the full extent of the problems at Zimmer had not yet been determined. At the September 16 hearings of the Environ-l mental Advisory Council ("EAC") to the Cincinnati City Council, Mr. Keppler went further and dismissed CG&E's prediction as
" wild speculation," possible only if the utility had prejudged
(
.-,,,-..m--y ,-,,.. . , - - , , . - -. _ -.., _ y s,.- .,.,.-..-m-_-- . , - , - . - - - - , - - _ __
, _ . _ = _ _ _ _ _ _
the results by presuming it would not find anything wrong with the constructed plant.
On the surface, Mr. Keppler's judgments appear to disqualify
~' ~
CG&E from. continuing to control the fact-finding process that will determine the fate of the plant. Yet at the same time he insists in allowing CG&E to control the chief reform effort at Zimmer, the Quality Confirmation Program, so that the utility can gain on-the-job experience. (This explanation obviously ignores the conflict-of-interest which CG&E has exploited in the pa s t . ) The public surely should be able to question whether or not CG&E should be placed in control of the QCP when its judgment has proven so poor in the past and when its current policy statements are dismissed by the NRC as speculative.
Similarly, on September 14 and 16, 1982, Mr. Keppler announced that a third-party audit would be instituted at Zimmer, but only after the Quality Confirmation Program had progressed to the point of defining the issues'to be resolved.
In light of the bias he attributed to CG&E at the AEC hearings, the scope and effectiveness of the proposed third-party audit is questionable at best. Mr. Keppler's combined policies ensure that the assessment of CG&E as to the problems at Zimmer will establish the bounds of any independent review. Mr.
Keppler conceded later that if CG&E is not dedicated to com-pleting its job properly, an after-the-fact audit is not an adequate substitute for CG&E's poor performance. He added that there is a serious question whether the utility can complete the job properly. In light of these contradictions.
t
the NRC staff decisions should not be above the systematic reviev that licensing hearings are designed to provide.
Secondly, there is no structural substitute for licensing hearings. Informal meetings, in practice, have made.a mockery of public education, much less served as input into public safety decisions. For example, at one August meeting, CG&E imposed a gag order on questions from the public; NRC representa-l tives did nothing to challenge the restriction.
Similarly, CG&E refused to participate in Cincinnati's EAC hearings, after this respected body of corporate, academic and civic leaders voted 16 to 2 to provide the community a substitute for adjudicatory NRC hearings. CG&E told the EAC chairman that it acted on the advice of its public relations firm in consistently declining the AEC's invitations. CG&E told Congress that it acted on the advice of its counsel not to prejudice its legal position should licensing hearings be reopened. It is clear that the interest of the public is not coincident with, and is probably adversary to, CG&E's interes:.
9
Licensing hearings would structurally fill this loophole in corporate accountability. As Congressman Ottinger stated at October 1 congressional hearings, even the best staff performance is no substitute for having a- witness on the staff answer questions under oath. At the same hearings, Commissioner Asselstine and NRC General Counsel Bickwith agreed that cross-examination is necessary to resolve matters in dispute. Putting the issue in perspective, Commissioner Asselstine explained that submitting petitions or telephoning the NRC staff is not the same thing as being able to cross-examine witnesses and develop issues through the legal hearing process. He concluded that anything less would effectively foreclose the public 'from the NRC's program.
VI. THE COMMISSION MUST REOPEN ZIMMER LICENSING HEARINGS TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH ITS PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT OCTOBER l' CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS.
On October 1 the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power held oversight hearings on the NRC.
l The focus of the hearings was to investigate;whether the Commission had interfered with the licensing hearings at Indian Point in New York, and at Zimmer. If the Commissioners and the NRC General Counsel are to maintain any shred of consistency with their testimony, the Zimmer licensing hearings must be reopened to examine the facts of the quality assurance breakdown.
Initially, NRC General Counsel Bickwith stated that the Atomic ts.
Energy Act requires hearings when material facts are in dispute.
~
He concluded that the law is clear on this point. -
l Only Commissioner Roberts questioned the legal basis for the l !
- 19 _ .
NRC General Counsel's conclusion. All five Commissioners agreed with Congressman Ottinger, however, that hearings with an opportunity for cross-examination under oath should occur when there are questions of fact in dispute on significant issues. The qualifier was that formal hearings are inappropriate to resolve technical issues.
Congressman Ottinger reconfirmed this position with each of the five Commissioners with the explicit goal of determing whether there was a consensus. There was a consensus at that time.
For the Commissioners' statements to have credibility, MVPP's contentions must be heard in reopened licensing hearings.
Disputes,over material facts epitomize the MVPP contentions.
CG&E has scornfully rejected MVPP's contentions en masse, both through public statements and its legal pleadings to date.
MVPP has not presented novel theories of quality assurance.
To prove the significance of its allegations, MVPP has relied on NRC conclusions with respect to analogous charges,pfofessional codes, and the policy judgments of the auditors and quality assur-
! ance departments at the plant. What is at issue in this case is
~
l not the nature of the quality assurance rules. It is whether CG&E has honored the rules, and whether it has been honest in describing its program to the NRC and the public.
Further, it appears that the Commissioners would support renewed licensing hearir.gs if certain factual errors underlying its position were corrected. For instance, Chairman Palladino explained that hearings were unnecessary because MVPP's conten-I l tions merely repeated problems already raised in NRC investigations.
As seen above (s upra , at 6), the Chairman was mistaken. His view is
4 .
also inconsistent with Mr. Keppler's September 24 Demand for Information, which requires the utility to admit or justify its denial of. every allegation in MVPP's August 20 Petition to Suspend Construction. That petition presented the specific evidence and ,
allegations behind the licensing challenge.
Commissioner Ahearne minimized the need for licensing hearings, because in his view the staff effectively follows through I
on witness allegations. MVPP is not' challenging the staff's performance at other power plants. But Commissioner Ahearne was mistaken with respect to Zimmer. He apparently overlooked the l NRC's assessment just last November that.NRC staff investigations at Zimmer h' ave not met the minimal standards of any government investigation. He apparently overlooked the 1982 affidavits i
i submitted by MVPP from witnesses who complained that NRC staff investigators drastically shrank the scope of or failed to even i
record the interviews. MVPP also had renewed confidence in the NRC staff until'its counsel was confronted with a sobering dose of reality this spring from witnesses and FOIA documents. The
/'
l Commissioners should also accept reality.
Finally, Commissioner Ahearne emphasized that the NRC would ,
not close-the door on the individuals who raise serious safety issues. But he explained that Mr. Thomas Applegate raised those l
issues, more than MVPP. The distinction is technical at cest.
l The Government Accountability Project (" GAP") is counsel for both Mr. Applegate and MVPP. MVPP brought Mr. Applegate to
- Washington, D.C. to seek GAP's assistance. GAP conducted the- .
l .
investigation for Mr. Applegate that was the catalyst for both i
4 .
, - , - - - - - _ , . - , . . , - . . - - ..,_._._,...._.____,___._.__-m_ __.- -_ .. .__,._ _ - _ ... _ _ _ __.-.-_... __ _ _ -._._ __ _ __
, last November's-OIA report and record fine against CG&E.
GAP was still serving as Mr'. Applegate's counsel when new evidence became available this spring that the NRC staff had failed to disclose significant evidence which cast doubt on the Commission's reform program. At MVPP's request and with Mr.
Applegate's consent, GAP agreed to replace MVPP's departing counsel and seek reopening of the licensing hearings to which MVFP was already an intervenor. On MVPP's behalf, in August GAP submitted i
the results of its investigation -- over 3,000 pages of new documentary evidence and affidavits that supported the MVPP lidensing challenge.
It* is not relevant whether Mr. Applegate, MVPP, or their common counsel deserve the credit for publicly exposing the quality assurance breakdown at Zimmer. What is relevant is that the public revealed the serious nature of the threat, not the NRC. Under these circumstances, there is no excuse to close the door on full public participation in resolving the factual disputes that are intensifying over the safety of Zimmer.
l ,
l es e O
G r
l
i l
J l
l VII CONCLUSION. l For all the above reasons, MVPP requests that the Commission reconsider and vacate its Order of July 30, 1982, and allow reopening of the licensing hearings and litigation of MVPP's proposed eight contentions, to assure the public of the safe construction and safe operation of the Zimmer nuclear power plant.
Respectfully submitted, W SM
/
Thomas Devine 1
$ ] .Q Lynns Bernabei ve M Attorneys for Petitioner-Interven:r Miami Valley Power Project Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Q Street, N.W.
_ Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-9382 .
DATED: October 11,1982 s
ATTACIE4Elfr A CINCINNATI ENQUIRER Editorial Page September 13, 1982
~
a n.
N<. cy~,:ew k,.1 kw ? si d
.m 1.~ -
v- -
2 !bu.
.. z.,+ ic;.~;r,-.
[],1 ' - .:4 :)?' - ',.'rf 4 .T\'. *[
f&x 5Q. ,if.,..;$1).;V
,g . 93.4 y g
.. 7 i4 .i. ,, ...
m :, g.
?
Y?P :h ! Il j6' IM
~.
4
~
.rw . m ,h:c,m.
e es cas M[khl w
$fsj{ b
. ,~ , -
$r [
3 e n , L.'? ~Y$}[..
~
SW ;; l2 % -
i %5z- ...
- TiK,TSKLWE E9KIS,. DO GET So TITEd%!"
m *= =*e ** - * * -
_y e ,g ame-==
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l .
1
a
/
j ._., ._ .- _. _ - _ L-
. . ,
- 3v--. .;. ~.
_ _-2.,.
,. e nr a
- ;% ~, -fre_ w- .....;. _. ._
__,.. - ...- ~ .- t
^
t ,. ATTACHNENT B ~
f e .
I i -
UNITED STATES NOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES I
i J
Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the Committer on Energy and Commerce Testimony of Louis J. Carter Administrative Judge Formerly USNRC Atomic Safety & Licensing Board f ,f b
September 24, 1982 '*
g t.
e I
?
i1.
E I h e
8
- r L
I 1
i i
t -- - - - . . __.
,... n n_ .-- .mm .= w s .~~ ~ ? ' ~ '
- y_ _---- -- ~y__ _ _ _ _
s-
.__ ,,1w~ _
,1.+. ? -.-~,w.. -
/
~ _ - . . .
, . . ,,. .-.m.. . . . - . - , . . . . ,
- av.
.,L...--__ _
...g ...- - % , . . . . - . . .
e
- September 24, 1982
- . TESTIMONY OF LOUIS J. CARTER FORMERLY ADMINISTRATIV* JUDCE ATOMIC SATETT & LICENSING a0ARD, USNRC Though I am not se expert in Nuclear Regulation, I have 30 years ex-perience in the conduct of Administrative Proceedings. I objected in my resignation letter to the Commission excusing itself from the ex parte rule, however, I have no knowledge of such having been received.only i
e that the rule should have applied to*the Commissioners as well as the Judges.
The Zimmer Case is illustrative of the Commission view that the Licensing Board even when joined by the Staff is not sufficient to justify reopening a case when there is evidence of a serious breakdown
- of quality assurance in construction of a nuclear generating station.
Such action effectively denies the public an opportunity to participate in the regulatory process. The Commission's holding that " formal legal procedures add little to the effectiveness of the review of technical issues shows d'isrespect for the Congressional intent to create a hearing procedure to operate under the Administrative Procedure Act.
It was not legal procedures that caused TMI nor was it legal proced-ures that saae the deficiencias FEMA found in the Indian Point Energ-ency Response Plans.
The straw that broke my judicial back was the August 20th opinion of the NRC explaining why it reversed the Board's unanimous Order to per-u mit the silent observation by representatives of UCS/NTFIRC to observe the contro10r& ring the March 3rd emergency planning exercise even if they had y
.to stand behind barriers. Comassioner Cilinsky termed the Commission's
./ action silly since 20 other observers were present and that the Commission should have trusted the Board with whom the Staff agreed. I agree.
I recommend a Public Advocate to represent the public interest of othere than the Licenrees before the NRC. This person would be appointed by the President for a five (5) year term and be funded by assesraente of utilities. Thus, ratepayers who now provide funds for the Licensees lawyers and witnesses would do likewise for themselves.
A correct result can come only from a complete record which depends en competent attorneys and experts fairly compensated. Unfortunately.
the Equal Access To Justice Act is no help. The large print giveth and the emelt print taketh away. New is the time for the Congress to give 4 NRC intervenors what has been provided in 100 other statutes - necessary j fundius. --- -
r
/:..s secg'o ATTACHMENT C -
g UNITED STATE
<! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY vo. .n.w.v..
) $
e I jy ,I RE210N ill 799 noosevrLi noAo
%,l**W4/ ottu aLtvu, attancis sois7 SEP 2 4 G32' ,
Docket No. 50-358 ..
Construction Permit No. CPPR-88 1
Cincinnati Gas and Electric I Company ATIN: Mr. Earl A. Borgmann Senior Vice President "
Engineering Services and ,
Electric Production 139 East 4th Street ,
Cincinnati, OH 45201 Gentlemen:
Enclosed for your response is a " Demand for Information" issued pursuant to the Commission's authority under section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act and 10 CFR,50.54(f) of the Commission's regulations. The " Demand for Information" makes reference to and requires a response to certain aspects of the Miami Valley Power Project's Petition to Suspend Construction of the Zimmer Station dated August 20, 1982. It is our understanding that Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company or its representatives have a copy of the' petition within its possession. If this understanding is incorrect, we will provide you a copy of the petition. You will note that the petition has been referred to the NRC staff for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206.
l A response to the " Demand for Information" is required by December 31, 1982, though an extension of time for response may be requested for good cause. Your response to the " Demand for Information" will be used in determining'whether Construction Permit No. CPPR-88 should be modified, suspended, or revoked.
j e
e 1 .
1 .
i 4
)
. - _ - . - - - - - - -- - - ~ ~'-
t f :* .
, l Cincinnat Gas and Electric 2 iP g .f .u, ,
l Company - - - !
t-W .,..~?.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact - -
'p
- A l R. F. Warnick (312-932-2500).
Sincerely, . .
~~ ~
i,t(~Iame.s G. Keppler l
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Demand for Information
'cc w/ enc 1:
"J. R. Schott, Plant Superintendent , .
"DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS) ~
Resident Inspector, RIII Harold W. Kohn, Power Siting Commission .
Citizens Against a Radioactive - '
Environment t Helen W. Evans, State of Ohio , r -
Robert M. Quillin, Ohio -
Department of Health Thomas Applegate ! -
, 't .
Thomas Devine, Associate '
Director, Institute for '
Policy Studies Dave Martin, Office of . . _ , .. ..
Attorney General R. DeYoung, IE .. ... ... . ..
.S. Richardson, IE (HQ) f' S. Burns, ELD G. Dick, h~4R , .. <
Troy Conner, Esq.
Louis Clark 1<,
. 1 .
j
~
~ '
I.'I 1 9
8 eh 04 7 F . I*
, , .. ... . .. ....."7.. - h a.
[
e
UNITED STATES OF A" ERICA NUCLEAR REGl*.* A~' CRY CC.T!ISS;CM t
I
\
In the Matter of .
)-
.)
CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ) DocketNo.30-358
) Construction Permit No. CPPR-88 j (William H. Zimmer Nuclear ')
Power Station) ;) 1
- ~ ~
1 -- 2
- . r 6 DEMAND FOR INFORMATION -
i
. ;t . . . . .
i;.'
5
- c. -
~. > e.. --
- i - *
- j. _
I -
4
. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (CGSE) holds Construction Permit .
~~
. No. CPPR-88 which authorizes construction of the William H. Zimmer' Nuclear
- l Power Station in Moscow, Ohio. Over the past two years, significant defi- ,
ciencies have been identified in the quality assurance and quality control program for the Zimmer project. These deficiencies raise serious questions
^ .
cbout the adequacy of the constructed Zimmer station. In April 1981; NRC .'
Region III had issued an Immediate Action Letter to confirm CGSE coccitments to initiate corrective' measures to ensure adherence to quality assurance requirements.
CGLE has also developed a Quality Confirmatien Program intended to address deficiencies in the quality assurance program and to i:
4 t ^ -
N
. 1 ensure adequate corrective action for construction deficiencies. On the basis of an NRC Region III investigation in 1981, the NRC imposed civil penalties in'the amount of $200,000 for violations of the Commission's quality assurance requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
II On August 20, 1982, the Miami Valley Power Project, an intervenor in the Zimmer operating license proceeding that is represented by the Government Accountability Project, filed a petition with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The petitioner requests that the Commission immediately ,
suspend construction of the Zimmer station, replace the Quality Confirma-tion Program with a third party reinspection program, and require an independent audit of CG&E's and the principal contractor's (Henry J. Kaiser Company) management. The petition has been referred to the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement for appropriate act'fon in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. The petition contains numerous allegations of quality I
assurance and construction deficiencies and further alleges that CG&E's Quality Confirmation Program is inadequate to correct stuh' deficiencies.
III In order for the Co:r. mission to determine whether the Zirr:er station has i
been constructed in accordance with applicable requiremc2ts and to deter- .
I
- C' _
.m. , _
3 mine whether the Zimmer construction permit should be modified, suspended, or revoked, the hTC requires additional information concerning the extent and significance of quality assurance and construction deficiencies at the Zimmer station and the adequacy of CG&E's Quality Confirmation Program.
IV Accordingly, in order to determine whether Construction Permit No. CPPR-81} shculd be modified, suspended, or revoked, Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co;npany is hereby required to submit to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, the following information in writing and under oath or ,
affirmation pursuant to section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Tmended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f) of the Commission's regulations:
(1) Admit or deny each of the allegations applicable to the licensee's and its principal contractor's or subcontractor's performance contained in Paragraphs 19 through 273 of the Miami Valley Power Project's Petition to Suspend Construction of the Zimmer Station.
If the allegations are not admitted, explain the basis for not admitting the allegations; (2) Identify the manner in which the Quality Confirmation Program addresses the. type of existing or potential quality assurance or construction deficiencies and problems identified in each of the .
N
- . - .~.. --
4 above allegations. If the Quality Confirmation Program does not address such deficiencies or problec:s, describe the manner in which CG&E will ensure such deficiencies or p'roblems are corrected; The information requested above shall be submitted by December 31, 1982.
Extension of time for response may be granted for good cause.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C01D!ISSION
. e * . . .
- =
l .
g James G. Keppler I
Regional Administrator l
NRC Region III Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois ,
?
o this .79 hday of September 1982 f .
e
- n -- -= m v m nw w , : : ng
[,' . , UNITED STATES -
'% - ATTACHMEIC D NUCLEAR REGULATORY CON mssinctov. o. c. 2csss 3 . '(g.,j,pl,,.;,;7 ,c
% , ,( , . *; October 28, 1981 MEMORA?IDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr. , Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM: James G. Keppler, Director Region III
SUBJECT:
ZIMMER COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 27, 1981 At yesterday's Commission meeting, Commissioner Ahearne questioned why the Region III investigation of the Zimmer allegations did not include taking a We were unable signed statement from Mr. Gittings, forTacr Kaiser QA Manager.
to answer the question at the meeting and we indicated we would get back to Commissioner Ahearne with an answer on this matter. Pertinent information obtained from our Investigator, Mr. McCarten, is provided below: .
- 1. From the beginning of the investigation there was a fairly close working relationship between Region III and 01A because of the alleged falsification of records. In IE's investigation, the decision not to interview senior Kaiser and licensee personnel who may have been connected with these records, let alone obtain signed statements from them, was based on instructions received from OIA (Messrs Puglia and Gamble). This decision applied to Messrs liarshall, Oltz, and Schwiers---as well as Mr. Gittings. '
- 2. Following discussions with the U. S. Attorney who was interested in the case, OIA representatives (Sinclair and Puglia), in the conduct of their investigation of potential criminal issues, interviewed Messrs Oltz and Gittings in June and July 1981. Mr. McCarten participated in the inter-views. The interview with Mr. Oltz was taped; however, the interview with Mr. Gittings was not taped (a decision made by OIA).
- 3. As far as we know, 01A interviews with Messrs Marshall and Schwiers have not yet been conducted.
s wh , o James G. Kepp'er, Director Region III I
w G r, /a SW C S
r , _, ATTACHMENT E -
r ' - , ., ,
e -
1/12/81 Start Investigation Onsite 1/12-16/81 McCarten and 0J. *.m 2 site 1/13/81 Interviewed Gittings 36 /S// M ,
1/14/81 Interviewed oltz 1/15/81 Interviewed Marshall and Gittings 1/16/81 Interviewed Schwiers 1/26-30/81 McCarten to Marble Hill and Perry - Interview i Seven Former QC Inspectors Barrett at Zimmer K 2/3/81 Phone Call With Bernard Gilday, Assistant U.S. Attorney in Cincinnati - Applegate Allegation About Drunks, etc. and Jurisdiction, Interest by Their Offices 2/9-13/81 Onsite Investigation - Seven Region III Team 3 gI&WWNn/ N/Yk O N Nd /T Qf . h 2/1p/81 _
'20 Schwiers OM M 2/17-20/81 Onsite Investigation - Seven Region III Team 2/23-27/81 Onsite Investigation - Seven Region III Team 2/25/81 Interviewed 01tz 2/26/81 Meeting in Region III with CAP /Applegate Art Schneblin (OIA), Gilbert (HQ), Region III People Informal Discussion by McCarten with Schneblin About
. Voided NRs and NR Log 3/9-13/81 Onsite by Region III Team ,
.5 O/Co.53/dM W/f#
GiE ] -
3/2 0'81 4
M Schwiers A
ON /// /M,46tal/C/UN'?
3/23-27/81 Region III Team Onsite 3/25/81 Gittings Interviewed on QA Staffing fb
-v .
3/30/81 Sinclair and Gamble in Region III to Discuss Current Zimmer Investigation McCarten believes this is date he discussed parallel proceedings with Gamble and he was instructed to not interview.(Oltz. Schwiers, Gittings and Marshall) 4/17/81 Brief David Upchurch (FBI - Cincinnati Of fice) on Applegate Issues. Told we are investigating falsification and OIA would be doing it.
4/22/81 . Meeting with B. Gilday, D. Everett, J. Sinclair, and J. McCarten to discuss falsification issues (NRs, material traceability). Sinclair indicated he would discuss outcome of meeting Everett proposed joint investigation by I&E and OIA. Everett wanted to be briefed. Sinclair didn't think we would do joint investigation.
-) April - May Conference calls between Cummings office, D. Everett, and representatives of U.S. Attorney's Office in Cincinnati jX 5/5/81 Cummings called B. Davis to discuss parallel proceedings.
(Same subject as April - May conference calls abova.)
Cummings said he was not directing RIII in any way.
Cummings offered assistance but feld IE:HQ would decline offer.
I l Y. 5/6/81 Art Schneblin called Davis and said OIA would participate ~
in criminal aspects of investigation.
% 5/15/81 Cummings called Davis about parallel proceedings.
5/20/81 Joint OIA (Sinclair) and IE (Ted Gilbert) interview of Ricky Cantrell in San Onofre, California.
l l
-~
5/26/81 Memo from DOJ:HQ to Cummings resolving parallel proceedings issue. If they ask, we should tell them but we don't have to volunteer the information.
5/26-28/81 OIA in Region III to interview Region III personnel about current Zimmer investigation.
6/1/81 Memo from Cummings to Stello advising of DOJ position on paraliel proceedings.
6/2-5/81 Barrett, McCarten, Schapker, Gamble, and Puglia are onsite at Zimmer.
6/4/81 Interviewed Oltz and taped - Gamble, Puglia, and McCarten 6/8-9/81 Cummings. Sinclair, Gamble, Puglia interviewed McCarten at Holiday Inn in Florence, Kentucky.
6/10/81 Cummings, Sinclair, Camble, Puglia, and McCarten onsite at Zimmer OIA interviewed Sctiock about facts of Phillip investigaion of Applegate allegations (WR-K-811) 6/11/81 Sinclair, Gamble Puglia onsite.
7s 6/15/81 Cummings called Bert Davis and discussed recent OIA interviews and matters OIA considers significant relative to Zimmer investigation.
6/19/81 OIA sends transcript of Oltz interview of 6/4/81.
7/7-8/81 Sinclair, Puglia, and McCarten onsite. Sinclair directed interview not taped. Neither OIA nor IE took statements (each investigator independently -
decided not to take a statement).
7/8/81 Sinclair, Puglia, and McCarten interviewed Gittings.
8/4/81 Foster memo on report content, lack of statements.
Memo was discussed with Keppler and Davis.
i e
-c . , -.
{ .- .
(,I v
~
- M
-u u m vor as < ,4 -
em 9 W 4- cA.-v a c"f P h w w%.
- L4 E GM A
? - % *W 4% 14%m & tLL
,s -2 % m_
- ~ g a J '
c.4
~ 3. m - ,
o.e OM '
Of A o vw,
& fn - J f,1 C- %b gM o/h if %.
e 7 -
e 4
g e
W f %S 44 e
^
l l
l
~
l i
t I
d a
e
/
I
! F 6'/3' d C -
- TJld 4 M,
}vos up , G,j19'.a & .
m&& r c- t M -l a m
&b gk
-k & y < M c yE
&y. D -
a ut<;uew.aa./,4J w
. a wu u fA s a M. M uQ -
e O
~ + . ,
9 4
e
.* r
/. .'
2d cd , 7)c g t,g g,0 y
da .
9 A % ~ _
I l
t I
(
1 .
- c 6/// [ G%, 4_ % 2L A a_ a swnA.
+h-u A ,c1 b Gia.4y , *dJ h R f-sotw +)er . n.ua v y n a ca.
r4*c A xt a 4 C. . m 2. h. eu, poth.:, y GJJhy n-7
,yQ $ ' 3A @ C f z " n . sw c J 3
A pv A b-va.c-
. * ? c~ - g ,rL~,
$ t. tf om .h.kcC M W 2,L- J u c. cM .
u.- L - % ,. c4 n},x , qata m . , s .- sa
&u L
- J A L 2. nw-Nk-Aata ~J q zbla mA.
%' s~ ekl A w . >, - % w sM W wn, J % UR
% ~ ra, n f -b - f-
- -
- S om L}B PJ G&, g4 g ( G C 9 .,) d h [
m u . m
@ m a A a~-,
,pug s
.u h
. w d y s S_, >w w at s
J uh&L da $ % >M up m 61L 'tg -
ut.A, b % - M u,L.h o_.
bol'
% % .bm_. .
f
~-
2,m- T *) %
// f t4ch v.
O 6.r A m D s hx-.D uvAJ . v4 ;& ]sj M a J aa~=,
t d' ,
i
' i rw~L L- & i
+ y tz ge A cm. ,
- s ra ~t w i ey-T m
gn, .b Q nR!s 004
- A I n >. u ~-
W 0\
ca, @ f Mman fan w] a !!
2 3y#j_ os tc SM4 . m c q (c) u + m. -.
Ad ;
e s~y nw w ,
o>n J -s. 'G%- _
29, u - <~,&> 1 9 itaw,3 , + w< . g .A w .h % ,
v%va- a uw no G.3L~j .
PA c tw t:~L q4 % Jw
% w. v s ,, v c s ,7&n4 i
l l
w O
i
e e
8:~;
& wLt u w l .'Dg t p L, h J p.p b_ ed Q M 9.4 a u.
n' k.-L M m L yg %b sl L % w /2.s + nd 7
- w. o>n MM& ny K W. 0/A MM, A V) M a u s u u. so u .
d4~ b A R % cy % M4 w y MK <m h93 , x y% U=h SQ n3 M -at t w e s M -
W (s) _ v3 b u e.rn i s vaa nd -s,f ud, 4 m, -
9 p !~
M , sd> a m m) .w. R.nc cif, MjCm widLs- Ld M 9 @ - p- p}$.;A* eh-y
- a=es
== m m .tb & g % W4 g nL p ;ea aba nu!a '
sy .6 - w *t .n &,&
L A is a-4 + p h w pp &nn + ge r.-h , oin s .
w g m. m a a - _
{%iOy b Pot - o n. nW w t lay
>c mn J - u q%
~ t.
3 +4Q. % v) -Wd W W [e Q .
yL >~ 4LP T zu. , v 4 4.4 ,
& s & A- .c.
l
%, u g M % c/ . sM l A LL a+ %m Q-
%O w R sh J QL-aJhh e+ M, 19 3
F*rh r"- M-TA c, [ NpA.
il N '[ d> .h J '
MM 6 U um t &
)H u wL M L JW .
K- 2- s a A42~.M ~ mb b j
up a m'
~ ~ a. ,.
Tiq~J
% M&.
K- u<" uA k edd Q , e pn._
K- n w4w J&w 'b -
u, we .
c w / u ~ pduz ._
f4 u% g f~ 01h , % me tia _
Q K- w c & k e.
g om c%.
M L tn4L C3c)
-rd % S M,
+ sdU ' '
dt 7
~ __
C d + fu. t Q, Q __
gL p X J .- + M-J W % A) m 5 % &i K - n ojn <L A. sk4 % A M w-p WQ-t _
n ..
-m - r-J - w am .A .2m o
I S.
e
- 90 P
G s y L a'a> D u u Jw M GL - d) eL, d sM ~ '
S-9 .Y ,
yh wA % Mrub.M~ ~fc . ~
Q M w
% -t. u_
A h 7 a o p-L p .
w' m u m L y qp g om O
S 90 c4L {.-
}7 C A g .
-u s A ~ tL P A Ayir. ;
6
- Ike. ~ 3 6 - p SJ i M%
s u Je j
LJ & .
9 '
i d L'M & h . i
~ DW re kW O
O a- ~
n . r, : _._.
. , m cemny-- r;-3
^ * -
ATTACHMENT F -
A P
& M #mnxan sp/ . w. '
e
$ y/%2l<a d -
- A.oMA.
I V cn 4 /a: he gd~ A, ?2 p' Oywo?
.aa R
- p>a ayy, is cf; c
%c2,!n&;re 2rd&a-
/
B~<}$a 22J%;sjh-f7/76A
.-_ z on A ~
~
A / _
O e
MI
~ . . ,
4-INTERVIEW OF, OHN R. BOOTH N._
John R. BOOTH, level II Quality Control (Q/C) Inspecto was interviewed n February 9 and 20, 1981 by NRC Investigators Edward C. Gilbert and Peter E. Baci. Mr.f00Ti related he has been employed as a Q/C inspector at the following Nuclear Power Stations: North Anna from November 1, 1980 to the present; Zimmer from August 1 to October 31, 1980; and Summer from approximately January 1978 to August 1980.
Mr. OTH emarked that while he was employed by the Butler Service Group, Inc.
at Zimmer, working conditions were entirely different than at the other nuclear -
power stations. He explained that all echelons of Kaiser Engineering personnel emphasized production and barely tolerated the Quality Assurance (Q/A) Program and its inspe:: tors. In this respect, he informed there was no cooperation between craft personnel and the Q/C inspectors since the inspectors received minimum respect and were constantly being challenged regarding their inspection findings.
Mr. 00T) tated that-due to the influence of Kaiser Engineering over the Q/A Program it was extremely difficult for him to initiate a non-conformance report (NCR). He explained that prior to preparing an NCR, he was required to discuss thesituationwithhisimmediatesupervisor,hayneBIEHLE)aKaiseremployee.
He continued that i Mr[BIEHLE)oncurredwiththenecessityofpreparingan NCR, he Mr. BIE;!LE) Jave him an NCR form and assigned a control number to the NCR. Headded,however,thathesubmittedveryfewNCR'ssinceMr.(BIEHLE) hillip GITTINGS, the Q/A Manager) and other Kaiser personnel disagreed with many of his findings. He advised that when his proposed NCR was disapproved, either the deficiency was not corrected or it was handled informally, by "in-house" documents with no accountability, identified as Hanger Inspection or Surveillance l Forms. .
l l
i
_ =
.u. -
Mr. 00TH advised he voluntarily terminated his employment at Zimmer due to the restrictions placed upon the Q/C inspectors and the apparent lack of confidence Kaiser personnel displayed in his professional competence. He added that he subsequently heard a rumor that he would have been fired since Kaiser supervisory personnel were of the opinion his rejection' rate unnecessar-ily delayed construction. Mr.(BOOTH'ssignedswornstatementisEnclosure(A). ,
e e
O O
9 O
O 0
S 9
9
- . . _ N
^. ^'* ATTACllMEUT G . .ud 6 -2.
. i. ,
Tile CINCINNATJ GAS & ELECTitIC COAfl'ANY August 20, 1901 QA-1481 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Con:nission Region III Wm.11. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Moscow, Ohio 45153 Attention: Mr. F. T. Daniels, Senior Resident Inspector RE: WM.11. Z1! TIER NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT I DOCUMENTS REQUESTED FROM MR. P. S. GITTINGS - I IlJK/QA, W. O. #57300-957, JOB E-5590 Gentlemen:
Enclosed is llenry J. Kaiser 1ctter KC-15694-Q, regarding several letters and other correspondence., requested by the NRC from Mr. P. S.
Gittings.
The Cincinnati. Gas 6 Elcetric has reviewed this letter and the !
referenced correspondence and is now transmitting the package to you per the request in the referenced llenry J. Kaiser 1ctter.
If there are any questions, please contact me or Mr. D. J.
Schulte.
Very truly yours, Tile CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY I .
I By
- M U
H. . SAGER MANAGER, QUALITY ASSURANCE DJS:ec cc: D. Howard [
P. Kyner l J. Watkins E. A. Borgmann M. F. Rulli
, , , . A
. g HENR Y nl. KAISER CONPA N Y
- P o Box 201 MO5 cow oH;o 45153 August 14, 1981 KC-15694-Q The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Wm. H. Zimmer Site 4 P.O. Box 201 ,
Moscow, Ohio 45153 1
Attention: Mr. H.R. Sager Quality Assurance Manager
Dear Sir:
Prior to Mr. Phil Gittings leaving the Zimmer Site, the NRC requested an interview with him, this interview was in connection with the ongoing NRC investigations that were being conducted over the past year. This interview resulted in Mr. Gittings referring to several correspondences that had been transmitted ;
back and fo'.th between CG&E and Kaiser. The NRC requested (
that Mr. Ph11 Gittings produce these correspondences.
I am f orwarding the ref erence correspondences to you for your action and transaittal to the NRC. .
Ve truly ours, P. Kyner HJK Site Quality Assurance Manager l PRK/pc cc: D. Howard .
File 9
A RAvpoND INTERNATION AL COMPANY C
- m. .
Date Letter 2-20-74 KC-1760-Q 10-14-74 KC-2643-Q 11- 1-74 McMahon to Williams 10-30-74 ,
K12-7 11- 1-74 KC-2754-Q 1-15-75 KEB-12 1-30-75 McMahon to Friedrich 2-17-75 ,
Friedrich to McMahon
~
3- 4-75 KEF--5
~
3-18-75 Fandorf to Friedrich 3-21-75 Williams to Pandorf 3-26-75 Friedrich to McMahon 3-31-75 Minutes of CG6E & KEI Meeting 4-11-75 Friedrich to Borgmann 4-16-75 Williams to Pandorf .
8- 1-75 Friedrich to McMahon 12-26-75 Schwicro to Cray 11-30-75 Knox to Williams
" ~
. ATTACIE4ENT H t.-.,<-
. ,* N- 1.
- 3. ,.k., n. . . p n ,::c
% .. 'e; .y m:y,n: . ...e.yPH:~;m.t
- av e..v. .. .e,
%m . v;M b[6. . . .9. * ,
Q,
, THE CINC1NNATI GAS &, ELEC7'R1C COMPANY p y:7. .e y*}h..g we a -
5 . . .q;w'Ei:5AF"_t$
... -- c mr.m m.u, c mo, + mu M d . March IS, 1975 -- M ' ' t" -
, M g e/ -
- i W[ J- Friedih .
O gp e_ :t .Q/0. ' T. P Ec.% hon f~~V~'~ '
Jir. W. J. Friedrich Yaiser Engineers, Inc.
g g ,[/m . .'r Q ry ;.*y *,f. ...
Fro.glf;.,,/u Meit.h V.
~ P. O. Box 2 01 ** '
i'E* ??Pf Y ' ~~
. . . . . . .. .No.ccow, Ohio...45153' . .
,::e.' ':. .. . .' :' "y ;' _' .
- e. ; , ; ..., . . : < .+ . .: .- .
.,..' . 12: , 10. E, znU'.ER NUCLT.AR POWER Puur s.::.
G ',: - . . . , , .y 6:, .e.<,..
- QUALIT1 ASSUPJ.HCP., . -
- /
- 9'.,l..
. . . W.O. S'/300-960, 703 I-5590 Daar Mr. Friedrich: . .
s .
.- . ...i- m9,. .. ,- e.
- r. . .. .
- Ac ve" discussed at a r.ceting in your offica on March ll,
~' 1975, 3 am convinc,ed that the r3I QA/QC. organization on the .
i
. thMm. H. Iim.ar Project ca.c.a,oj_nrovide for.- cotin, .m utilization or A Sng.;.neers and Inspectors in the organizat.lon. In writa.n g~
- this lethea uy1Y; ~to su=2.rire my ir.pressions'of tha ' g veshnesses which I feel exist, and the correc:ive acticas which appec apprcprat.t. unis 127ter is not a directica. It is Written to set forth ntf thoughts and to invite consideration and V
, co:ct,ents by you and by anyone else who wishes to mJ:e *a contribution. *
- t. .... :r ?. ... ;:
.a..,.<. , .. ..
- 1. .-
Inson: tion
. '.; Mr.e'".. r' '
7 .. , . . . .
In the original c' oncept of contracting Vith KEI ac the
,' constructor for thh project, r.any of us assur.ed that 'KEI would' perform direct craft supervision without engaging subcontractors for post of the erection and installation vorh. Under that
, ... . .. concept hn! would be required to provide the first ..leye3...of .
~ inspactica for routine and ccntinuing surveill'ance, which I define as a Quality Centrol function. The XEI inspection section was -
,* devci,oped to provide this capability, and was placed under the' supervision of the Site GA Hana5cr. , <:. .I . '
)
.2. Direct donstruction .. .. ... . . . . . .**_ . .
, ~ ' "l:, * ..
l IEI is parforming concrete placement, piping erection; -
and electrical constructica directly, and is responsible 'for the
' inspection and OC in these activitics. Ecccure of the nagnitude y of the work FEI has engaged specialists such ac Hutting and
- i. j Hagnaflux to assist in the inspct: tion vork. -
t * , ., .
?r -
l
- p. . ;., - - -
,t s- .
L. .- e
,g .
- 7. . . . . .
En. H. Zinner Nuclear Pover Plant
~
- 2
' *l." ; ' Paac 2 Res ."
D.. i .
Ouality Assurance
~
.. * * / ' '.
- s. .. . ..
, , . . . , '.:.l-
. , .s . .
3 .' Subcontractorn
.*."..s.t.
- =
'Each subcontractor who is involved in any field' work . *
, , which is categorized as Essential, Class I, Safety Related) 'or
, hSME Secticn III by the designer is required to supply CQA P.anuel j and to be capable of fulfilling his cc::.mitments for dupplying
- inspectipn personnel and QA documentation. . . . f6,: .
.:10..,' : ;"
~ .:.h : i::i C '
'. .' As it has worked out C3&I che on the job sith3!gdod OA program and perforrnd ac dascribed above on the ccatninment .
/'- ' liner installation'under Y2! CA surveillanc-e and neriodic+
- p. auditing, on the other p, appear to have left the' end of the spectrum, inipection of rebar placernent Inla.hd-Rycrson/Elinger raostly un !
. to F.EI incpectors. FSI should have recuired the 'subcentractor' to do to attempthic job, a change.but at this late date it would :
p:robabfvMa l. .,;.,,,,1;.,:;.. ;;.i.
unwise
. ,r .7%., . . ,.
s.
3 5.,; . . . . .
, An new cubcontracters start work on tha' -jbb,f.du..chMas
Reactor Controls on reactor component installation,. Bristol on !
structural steel, and Waldinger/nB on hAC, they are required to :
. fulfill their _OC ebligations under KEI CA surveill'an.ce.. ..
...n..
,. v..,.. . . . .
- 4. Instructions. Procedures , and Plans , ', '."$."?(:
. . . .. wi. ,
.TE s
KEI ceems to have .adented on overly ec:~ ole >i%ar er wofk
, sXEter, which has required too r.uch ti a2 and effo..t %' the -
7 OA Engineers. If these activitics continue in tha
- future, the
- Oh Engineers vill not be able to function effectively on their prar.ary duties of surveillance and auditing. -
~ ~
. b. .. ..
. . . J., . -.,
- s ; *
. . . . . .. s.
Some of the' paper work on which the OA Engineers 'have obviously spent time is described belev: -
~n -
.t
. . . . . . . . v ..
. . . . ~. . . . . -
.,. , ..c.+r. . .w. . w...>..
,3 a. 07sP 'Ihe XSI OA Manual is made .up of. Quality -
,, . Assurance Procedures, with cae responsive to each
. . of the 18 OA criteria in 10CFR50 appendix S. Tnese
,- are cc:tplete ev. cept for occasional . updating,. and. are .!
not cub 3'ect to criticisa. *
.,- . ?
.l'
'- .. b. OACHI J This is a " Quality ' Assurance Icons 5ruction' Methods Instruction. " The index shows'that 3S of
- f,7, these have b5cn prepared dealing. vitb a variety of . !
[h *
.l* '
subjects such as office procedures, reports, construction cathods, testing, handling and storage.
l
} Many of these have been prepared by QA Engineers.
, I feel that a OA nethc0 or procedure. should be limited
.. ,/ y p to one which generates CA documentation, and that
/ nany of thes'e should be soecifieLas ccari.truction or
!Y/
~EiUin'genent diredh'es.
t ..
. . ..4 -
g
. ,, ?
5
'.(
. ?.h
- Tos Taiser Engineers, Inc.
'h. , Re$ 15. H, Zirr-lar Nuclear Power P.lant Page 3 gp -
Oual: tty Assurance
- n. . n. .
~,
, , .t .
=.... .f
- c, SPPH - The Special Processes P.mcedures Manual
.- ,y contains about 50 procedures for f abrication, velding,
,,F' ,
proof testing, ND2, and dort:.entatien, all of 9hich vere prepared en the job, with approva.ls by Oakland .
y'.i , . -
and by the Site h' eld /2O3 OA Engineer. They are very
't. detailed, and represent a creat deal of work. I find
'Td'(-
'it hard to icagine that su5h documents, and part.icularl;
- - , .. ., qualified welding procedurcs, were not
- al. ready -
i availabic within the Kaiser Engineers organization.
- 6. .- ..
- u. ,. .- .
',. '.... d. CIP - A Constrection Inspection Plan is.'n l step .by-step
. cyrection .to an 'inspecter detailing the" points he
- . . should look for throughout an entire construction
. process. -
i
[.
The plans which we have seen go far'beyon the -
. reasonable detail which should be 'recuired. . A plan
((O should be ceneric rather than srecific, and sho'uld !
jL p " form the basis For a check list which is to be filled
~
f ,.
r out by an anspactor. *
\p
' f.A .
In try opinion a constructica 'p1'an should be developed
- -s g .C ' , by the pecple responsible for ccnetruction. An inspector nhould utilize a construction ~ plan in following the process of the work. The inspection,re vould be a check list based on the conscruction clan.'po '
For any ga5cric plan the documentation of' incpec' tion, !
should be designated to be more thorough for an -
{
Essential . activity than for a Hon-Essential one , i since the Essential de t=entation will .be ;;' '
subject' to !
more detailed QA auditing. -
l .. I unders tand that we have not seen all..of,1.th'e CIp's, ;
o- .- but the ones ve have seen have been prdpared by j
,, wQA__En n g.ine_e rs . I further have been told that r.ost of - '
h/ / /. khen required However, I wouldfor thelikeproject to see have been written.
this responsibi'lity
- l ': *
- p r. i f ren:ved frca the OA Ingineers inn.ediately.
=- .
,p$c.
, DDC and Nn Preparation - A Design Docurant Change is a request to tne des.tgner to permit a deviation from
.the original design. Normally it is' prepared before 1
or during construction.
l l* . A Nonconforman s Repodt is used to docu=unt an aspect' l -
b
, o'f constructicn which is at variance from the dasign.
l ;- '
~
L Up until thi's tire, so-e of these reports have been -
, initiated and prepared by QA Engineers. . ,
9, e
r p-- .
a-g .
..T m Kaiser Engineers, Inc. -
1: *
. peg W.. H. Zir.rer !!uclear PC.39r Plant -
Page 4 l Outlity Assurance _
- . - s
. . . . . . ~. .
)
It is ny opinion that the EEI procedures shot $1d .
place the responsibility for these reports on ,
.! construction Enginaarinc for work for whi'ch.that . . i 0* b b- 0 activity is directly responsible. Obvious ly. , the
- i "t. inspectors who find nonconformances would have an w
I
".3
.%e inpute but the preparatica should go.hackitoethe.nost knowledgeabic party, Vnich is Construction .Ertgiscering.
i -
. Certainly the preparation should nota be<done by QA Engineers. Their responsibility in these.::atters is i
.. . ,. . . to audit 'to assure that. the . procedures.- a. re-carried out. .
If the procedures are correct and the act. .w' ties are
'T - carried out in accordance with the proced.nres, the j,- ,,j. Work done will be in ec=pliance with approved" designs. .
r- V Contractors should also be instructed .to..use.:the DDC -
Ij -
and UR pbcedures when applicable. - . . .O.' -
. . .'.:.:i+.5d6.-
, . . . . " .. ~n:: .
In this connection, there should be nnMatory"r'ules
]
'. as to when a. DDC or a UF. is required.. 'Ihis jri '
t ' provent foot-dragging and finger-pointing. ..' .' -
l
=? Q.d
- i-%.-
- 5. Feceivine And warehousin: .'-> . Q: ."g
, . . q . -
We have been trying to revise the Receiving-frocAdu'res to place nere responsibility on the varehouse and recei'ving inspectors, , and t'o relieve the OA Engineer of routine duties.- Another ob-jective
- D is to put greater emohasis on the assurance of: control-.of Essential
~ ,
i ccaponen.ts . .
' . I :rM;'
.. .GW i- .
- n ;;- ..-
- 6. Conc 1esion
. .':k f':!? {t q ;;'.: :~.. .. .-
.:. : w ..?
s i
. . I have included the foregoing ciscussion to' acconstrate
. the point I mde at our meeting; namely, that-the .33I'QA Engineers .
-" have picked un so nany paperwork and inspection functions that they- j
- cannot concen'trate. on the sufveillance auditing whi'ch 'in 'their !
basic resoonsibility. At the neeting, when I asked that you consider ; i removing issuect:.ch frc= the QA activity, you expressed concarn i
!.I that your QA' P.anual and nany procedures would have to be drastically ,
- i. altered, which might involve us in new reviews by the NRC and' Asim .. .
'.' . Tnerefore my present request is a comprc=ise by which you ./
vill naintain your OA/00 organization as is, but will work with -
/ -
l I Construction Enaineering and Inspection to turn over the ro,utine 'l i aci.iyities to them~.
.j ,
,7 , h*, '.,' .. . t
- . . .. . t
.Y *
"' The dutics of OA Engineering vill be redefined so as' to ,
concentrate on surveillance and audits ei KE1 construction and of f all subcontractors on the project to assure that procedural require-l '* ments are being fulfilled and that the required documentation is
. ( provided. In the event of noncooperation or noncompliance in any f*s \ of these areas, the responsibility for ebtaining correctj.ve..actica -
t (- . N _ _ _
;3,.t.
.. c x ,. Tot .,
KH ser Engineers, In c.
}p' . Re: im. H. Sim.ar 1 uclear Power Plant j'O'".. . .
Quality Assurance . - .ge5 Pa 9- . . will first fall upon KEI QA Ingidecring, and vill be docmented A lb for owner review. If the noncorplicace persists, the c.atter will
- v' then be:cce subject to direct action by the C.G.& E. GA&S Section,.
.. , and . finally by C.G.& E. Management. .
*1, Your P.er.ponse .
After you have had time 'to review thi'c letter and to dnalyre,its ramifications viF*i. +ha EEI organization , pleace -
. a d va.c c r.c , and ve vill hola. another naeting to c3.ccass '.the . -
' ' subject in further detail. We have_a_n d gx_o Cl,_atte m pendin :,
' b_ut- I should like to sucnend c: tion on all of them until the basic _
progran diccussed herein is sett1c;i. p - p Very truly yours, . 4ful
* ~
.. . TF.E CDJCINNATI C '.S F TLICTRIC COF.PARY .
Uf J , h 2 if w d..cA ) gDKARD C. PANDOPJ[ - Priscipal Quality' Ascurancela Standards Ingineer General Engineering Department ECP:jeb -
. cc: V. P. McMahon .~. i -
D..R. McSparri.n *
. n. v. Di hhener - '
E. A. Borgrann - , (. , . . , C. W. Deringhaus -
- f. J. '.-
< 5 R. J. Van Veen , [ * -
r.- T.ig'
. R. L. Dirr -
.. ,. , j ."
if. W. Schviers e . ,. .
.- . , .3., . . ,.,
~ . .
s>p1.L c .r
<.9 (s c.
1< H,.~.,d.., a j~
,. w aw
- n. hf .
u igym wy
..y.c -
~.
- , ram 9i1 00 % ,q 4, bl .
.- . % *. s -
/'.*\r A' < V W. 6 '
, . 01 .
* . i. * ' ' *
(
* . i 9 !.
L--
- = -
~ . .
- m. m a;=;.
~
4 .. ATTACHMENT I
, f(f_{f39*jg ,
.
- ENG/NEERS , .
K AIS C R E t< GIN C E R S. IN C.
- K AIS E R C ENT E R a 3 0 0 L A e( C LID E D RIV E ._
O AKL AND. C ALtF OR NI A 9460s .
.f*D %;~a .
. April 16,197c 3- ,,,..,
.,'Z, '. .* . * %. ,.
., f ' 'A,
., s.
if , ' ,
~}. Q o pJ[. 9v, i. 'u . Vg<':;:, 4,? .::: \
fph e s,, v ' I C -, gde.Sq I# 'Q-l'~ Mr. Edward C. Pandorf a v" ~ , . c ' ,
" General Engineering Department . T.
. .~r . '-h I M G , N'}T,,$.
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co=pany Y
~
s %, I,,' 7/
%. 5.':. 4 9
. 139 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
- i.)/pfW , W/7gg-@q!N
Dear Mr. Pandorf:
In your letter of March 18, 1975 to Bill Friedrich you expressed numerous concerns and thoughts with respect to the KEI Quality Assurance organization,. specific points on methods of operation, and corrective actions which appear to you to be appropriate. I think, as managers, it is important that we periodically review our program and the objectives and performance of the organization, and I appreciate your suggestion that we make such a review at this . stage in the project. Before responding to each item in your letter, I believe it is important to cover the basis for developeent of the present KEI progrem. Kaiser En5i neers' interpretation of the requirements of 10Cr7 50, Appendix B, is that the field quality anurance functions, which include auditing, surveillance, _a nd inspection, are to be kept in-dependent of the actual construction organization. Most, if not all, , present day major nuclear projects follow this concept. Adoption of , this approach precludes performance of inspection functions by personnel
. reporting through the construction organization.
This position was taken after careful review of' industry practices and problems on past nuclear projects in regard to QA, programs and actual experience of our personnel on other nuclear projects. As you know, this area is of current interest to intervenors and we belicve that our approach climinates the possibility of question on any con-
. flict of interest.
The KEI program is based upon advanced planning and effective control. We believe that this is essential to make certain that the required inspections are identified and properly performed with a minimum expen-diture of inspection time. Equally important, our experience has been that through careful advanced planning many issues with regard to re-quirements are raised and resolved in the office prior to work being - performed,.rather than in the field in the midst of operations, resulting
. .. --- O
5, . u , Mr. . Edward C. Pandorf . .
.Xpril 16, 1975 in omissions, unnecessary delays, and work stoppages. In addition, through the planning process, all personnel involved become more knowledgeable of the requirements that may affect their. areas of
. responsibility, which in turn contributes to the buccess of the overall project. .
In your conclusions you suggest transferring some functions from
. quality assurance to construction personnel. In addition to avoiding ,
. any question of conflict of interest, we, as managers, are interested
. . in maintaining a maximum utilization of canpower with clearly defined responsibilities. To transfer functions which might require hiring of
' additional personnel in the construction organization to perform these functions and possibly dilute the controls, defeats this objective.
I'ere are currently five qual.ity engineers assigned to the site Quality Assurance organization, which we feel is minimal but adequate to per-
, fom the quality assurance functions of our program during the course of this project. There is a need for additional inspection personnel as the volume of the job expands, and we will be reviewing our necas with CG&E in this area very shortly. ,
Tbc basic quality assurance functions as defined in the recent amend-ment .to 100FR50 on Organization are: "(a) assuring that an appropriate quality assurance program is established and effectively executed and (b) verifying, such as by checking, auditing and inspection that activi-
' tics affecting the safety-related functions have been correctly per-
. formed." A brief sumary of the specific functions of the quality engineers and inspectors in our program is as follows: ,
Quality Engineers * *
. 'o Plan the inspection program in their respective discipline, based upon the requirements of the drawings and specifications.
o Perfom evaluation of sc1ceted KEI suppliers quality assurance programs. o Review purchase orders for inclusion of quality' assurance '. requirements. . o Prepare calibration procedures. . o Monitor changes to configuration documents to assure incorporation
- into plans and instructions.
'_ o Perfom surveillance and audits. .<-
o Review quality documentation for completeness and compliance.
,o Provide technical assistance to inspectors, as required, including preparation of nonconformance reports.
. .~. .
Mr. Edward C. pandorf
; , ,. . April 16,1975 ' . o , . - -
Inspectors - o Perform receiving, special process, installation' inspections. - o Monitor calibration. - o Document inspections. - ~
. o Document nonconformances. . . , .
o Verify qualifications of personnel, where required. For the quality engineer to be effective and contribute to the overall success of the program, he must be knowledgeable of all the requirements in his discipline as well as related disciplines that may affect his area of responsibility. He accomplishes this by preparing CIp's and QACMI's
.- which are used by the inspector in assuring that the drawings and speci-fications,. regulatory guides and code requirements are consistent and provide technical direction to the inspectors, in lieu of each inspector providing his own interpretation and jud ment. 6 The inspector implements the quality assurance program by verifying the characteristics outlined in the Inspection plan. He has the authority to stop work, delay pours when they are not ready, and identify deficien-
' cies by reporting them on nonconformance reports so that they receive the proper attention and disposition. The inspector works very closely with the QA engineer, thus minimizing the number of personnel required to assure complete compliance.
- We believe the program as defined above does provide for efficient con-duct of the work and, when viewed with the NRC requirements of 10CFR50, provides optimum overall use of project manpower. '
~~
. The following are co=ments to the numbered. topics in your letter. *
. 1. Inspection . .
It is nomal practice on nuclear power projects to subcontract - 2pecialty items such as containment liner, field erected tanks, ctc. Your assertion that KEI is providing first level of in- - spection as'the constructor is valid and we vill continue to provide this service for the work we do. When vork is subcontracted, . Whether it be by CG&E or III, we vill expect satisfactory QA pro- . grams to be part of the agreement. It is our intent to enforce an tems of the subcontracts including QA requirements. When sub-contractors fail to perfom as expected, we have an' obligation to see that the requirecents of the drawings and specifications are cocplied with. . .- . . g % . .
Mr. Edward C. Pandorf - le- . April 16, 1975
, m _
- 2. Direct Construction
- Wii.h respect to your co=ents on Direct Construction, !bgnaflux was contracted because they provide a ~ specialty service of non-
. destructive examination, and it was never intended that KEI
. perform radiography and ultrasonic testing. Use of a specialty
. con' tractor, such as Ma6nailux, is standard practice on nuclear projects throughout the country. ,
Nutting was engaged by KEI at the direction of CGE. reference .
- letter A. E. Rotnenoerg to D. R. McSparrin, dated August 31, 1971,
- a 'to perform soils' testing, concrete testing, rebar testing, batch plant inspection and other tests, such as slump, te:perature cnd air content. . . . .
3 subcontractors
- We agree with your statement that each subcontractor involved in any field work categorized as Essential, Class I, Safety-Related or ASME Section III must supply a QA program which includes in-spection and documentation. -
It has been our policy to review each subcontractor on the basis of the type of work to be perforced, the magnitude of this work, the nature of their organization, and the potential impac t of
. possible errors, and to make a detereination as to the level of control to be required by KEI QA. With regard to CBI they did come on the job with a good QA program and did perform well. KEI QA limited their efforts to monitoring this program. With regard to the rebar placecent program, a decision was made early in the program, with concurrence by CG&E personnel, that it would be necessary to have KEI QA perform a thorough inspection of the rebar ,-
installation prior to placement of concrete. . .
. Regarding subsequent subcontractors, such as Reactor Controls, Bristol, etc., where an adequate QA program is defined and i=ple- .
mented, the KEI efforts will be limited to surveillance and auditing. Since these QA nrocrams have been approvedjtv.CGES, we suggest a joint review of these programs by CG&E and EFI and the establish-ment of the ground rules for KEI to follow in controlling these " subcontractors. . 3 Instructions, Procedures and plans 4 !Te aErce with your opinion that the QA engineers spent considerable ti6e c." paperwork; however, planning and organizing are a part of
- their fundamental duties and involves much paperwork. This is the method of operation in which they have cotaplete control, continuous tnonitorinh and a full understanding of their area of responsibility.
The speciA'ic types of paperwork you mentioned we elaborate on are as follows:
* . 9
- e **
e . . O
, r-<
. . '~ *
--____-_____m. . -
.m *
,', . , Mr. Edward C. Pandorf . April 16,1975 a) ..QAP -- Quality Assurance Procedures are 'the responsibilii,y
- of the Site Quality Assurance Manager because they establish
. - policy and the QA engineer spends very little time on the
- initiation or changing thereof. .
b)' QACMI -- Quality Assurance - Construction Methods Instructions. Included in this category are two types of instructions, namely 7~ (1) Quality Assurance Instructions and (2) Construction Methods
- Instructions. The Quality Assurance Instructions are prepared
.:-- by quality engineers an concu1Tation vith ons.tr.uction per-EcnrRil, anci Diii Construct, ion _]iet,bosq.Jostruu.t..icas.,gre ptepar,ed
(- by construction personnel. ,. 10CFR50, Appendix B, requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions. When core detailed procedures are required than specified. elsewhere in the Quality Assurance Manual for implementation of the quality assurance requirements of CGE:E, GE, NRC, ASME and YSI, a Quality
> Assurance - Construction Methods Instruction is prepared in order
. I to ensure compliance with the requirements and to effect uniformity
- .of inspections. This is outlined in further detail 5 QAP #8 ~
of the QA Manual. . s 2 In addition to meeting requirements, QA.CMI's are essential to KEI's Quality Assurance Program; it is a direct and positive
;- communication between the QA engineer and the inspector.
Without them our program would be weak and ineffective. We .
- vill make every effort to limit thc= to those which generate
-QA documentation as you requested. '
~
c) SPFM -- Kaiser Engineers has in the past had welding procedures
~
- I' for their numerous projects in other fields but it was explained
carly in the negotiation for this job that, because of the stringent requirements on a nuclcar project, specific procedures
,- -vould be developed for this job to make certain that the latest
~
! . 3 - regulatory guides and code requirc=ents were met.
=c . . . .
l . d) CIP -- A Construction Inspection Plan serves as an instruction _E.T.to the inspector as you stated in your letter. We agree that
- these inspection plans should be generic whenever possible.
l
~ " A recent decision in the piping area to use isometrics, for I -example, now allows us to use a more generic inspection plan l on piping. We are reviewing other areas to see if generic plans l . ' ','can.be used rather than specific p3 ans.
4 l ~ -Construction planning is performed by the Construction Department.
--- Quality engineers prepare inspection planning, when required.
~
l I* Where the construction plans can be directly utilized as part
+
ti of the inspection documentation, as in the case of isometrics,
~
every attempt is made to do so. To transfer the responsibility
- .; n .i.
~ -
. u. ! .-- : . ,
- . O -
a - - . ~ .- --
- u. ,w m- ,-
a.A Mr. Edward C. Pandorf , April 16, 1975 of writing the inspection plans vould require additional con-
. ,,struction personnel, more coordination and, in our opinion, dilute the efforts of the program with an increase in site man-
. power. It is therefore our intent to continue having the quality engineers prepare inspection planning. . ,
. c)' DDC and IIR preparation -- Your definition of a Design Document
. Change and I!onconfor=ance Report is correct and they are from ,
time to time initiated and prepared by a QA engineer. You st.At q_that this should be the i es.ponsibilityJf Con.s.tnic.tf on Egg and the inspectors who find nonconformances vould
. rencer so:r.c input. DDC's are nor:: ally initiated by Construction Endi neering. IIR's are prepared by inspectors or QA engineers to '
report conditions which do not conform to drawings or specification requirements. This method meets the requirements of 100550, Appendix D, and permits organizational freedom to identify quality problems. .
"As for the rules as to when a DDC or liR is required, they are:
i Rule 1 -- A DDC is written before the fact. , Rule 2 -- An IIR is written after the fact. - I believe these rules have been adhered I.o throughout the job. 5 Receivine and uarehousing . . For proper management control and manpower . utilization, we feel that the existing operation has bcon proven to be effective and, there-fore, changes in the program would be unwarrnnted at this time. -
-6. Conclusion *
~ '
'To meet the requirements ol' 10CFR50 involves much paperwork to provide .
historical plant records and to substantiate that plant meets the high standards required for public safety. k'e believe ottr program is responsive in this regard and do not feel the quality engineers are unnecessarily burdened. *
. The duties of the quality engineers are as vo defined, and we feel
. the corrent level of staffing of QA engineers is ninimal but adequate
~
for the project. t . . - We vill continue to review the activities of these enginecrc to see
. . that they are not involved in other routine tasks that should be .
handled by others. In addition, every attempt vill continue to be made to ninimise the paperwork on the , project. , D .
- g. . * .
. , , e. . .
~ ~ ' ~~ '
p m u,w .
1
,. .. Mrs Then.rd C PcMorf ... ' ~7 , . - April .w, M , . . .
- r. . .
.c .
ac. .. . ..s. Y. Mter yor hrte hr.d rm opp 6rtunity to review ou: co==ents, ve vil1" + '.*~--*.. '"-
... ".; i'" );o pleased to coet with you to reco1te rmy outatendi:'s ite=s and-
~ "'
JG.@.%l..*:'.V..r.ct.chcutu1agrcc=cnt'cntheprozrc=. - *-
. :. t. ]::.c.
,:f.f.'.'":".(:..~. ~ [ . . .
p n ,c,y ~~ n .r. 1m .: :., - , 7. n.~ . .m. .. ... .. m. . - v y . ,e ~.<<: v.". -.. ~ . ~ ; .~ .--~~ - . . -- - .-~. ~- , ~. > ~.. ~ ~~.
~
-* ... . ....,...3..*
. :...,;. . ':^. *
. . , .- .- - : s
: ? . a.. . * ? .d,: : ;.; ,
... ..:. ..c..... ...; : ..,. .... ... Vcry truly yours . ,
.w .y ,
.i - s .c ......s..i...
.."y. . . ; ...
,..)..g..
', . w.p.
. y4l. . .
- I %AISER P"GErdRS, Dic. - ,-
- f. '. .'y.
s.<
- m. . ... .... '.4
^
. . . . -:,u - '.~~ w .'. ._.. *'w.-
.. . c, . Sl" tied BY.
w.
- . . :. .. . .:. < .. . < a .s....,.. ,.
. . . .. . .. .... . .::. .: ... .w. ;c.,; : ,.,.~ ;;. w
;. * . '.'ORIGillnL . . .........,
. ... . . . . _,. ~.a.u .
- 1. ,. . - .:n :. :..z. . . .. ..
. m.
. s;.
s::- . .. :. . .
.. .' ~.
.. . . D. H. VilLLlAMS .
s.. ",; :,.- . . w
.,7.7~,?~. 9 5.'H. M111$c=3 p.y. c.T.G N; .' .* :.: :*},.,..-)27. .,..
.}( .'. e : 6.,:::~ ...,. . :.:. ~~;.M*'::q';;
- .::.5 '..~" :.F:;
.. s p q. c . .. . c . . . .
rv-.;--r .-- VL e e . Prc =id ent
. ~==. ' *
~ - . u-w.m.:,.
, . . >w: ; .e. .O.. -mys,. z..n r m> . - .- - .. w-.:~,
~.. .. . Power DLytston .-
--. -. ~f. .s -- :. c .- . ~~ ,.~ .
, . .v.'.: .,
... . . . .. - a : . ..
. -. .u a.
- r. . . n. . , .,.
. . . . :.. :A......: ; * . ,. 'm:
. . .. C ?. '&. .. '. .o , '. . n
. : .... .., .' *~D W:ad 1 L .
... .. . . . . .. t. .- . . ..., .
%. . ,. . . . . . . . c . ., : . .,,.
- - .. ,w.
- . c .
ces
~
h, . H . D w~.,., c.,. i. . .
- q: ; : .:.
i .. - . .. s. : <.. . . v , . e. , . n : * .s .
, .).~
.' . . ....; N. h , $37o-- L.nn .r., . _ . . . . . . , . , . . . .~.'.
... . . .,. ..~*: . ,<.(;,,. . . t .A, l l:.: _ ...s. .o, .~ ,.,'.. .. .L. y.,,..,'a,,....,.,.,..,. , ; . ,T.
J, Friear$ ch . -
. , . -.t. . .. '.~.y. w. .. . . . . . ~ .w.*- -:. 'i. .. . . c .. -:, . .. . . . .
. .* : :. . .' :. . ~.. :'. V C.., . .. . . ,. ..
.: ; 2.M . .
- y. y. w. .r a.,,a . . .;.,. .. :: .. . ..,.....:
,.. t : ,m. :. .
.,: .......: .;. . . ..< : <.~ . 's :~. . ., .c. . :, . , :,.v n..
. .s es.
t......,
..t:a .-..;<-
.< . ..u.:. .
v* . , ' - U* * ~ ~.
'.Cn
': ~.. : ' ;' .=
- . ;. s . - C.C.G=y *: .
" ~ ~ - F .
.n.
.xp q; :.,n.~ . y~.w..,..v. ..y p ,m. . .. :. ~ ~.;<. .
t W.n..; r*.c'r,"~.mW,..x:~r mye:n. s . .: . .w.w;.-p,;=.e,9. ,m,w%..v. .._ : r.; .,. .9. ...:.w,s..e ,... .:.w% m, . .4y
. .. q ._ : .;. :;.;; . . y. y , .
- c. *.. . .
.. ' . , : .4.. . :L ..:. , .,'.:
. . . r A b. c: R..J. Vo1T -..k...' .. . . * :.. ., . . .
- . . :. .' J. . ,'
^
s . . .
. . G . L . Bo.verts m.. . . . . ~
- r. .. . . .
..... .,~ .... . :. , c. . . .. .,..
Le.....
.c..:
. ... s .- . , .. . . .. ..~. .
, : % ;s r
...*. . o. , *q' ,
.. . . >. . , * . o V..c. G :. . . . . . . . . . ,. .. *, .;, .;. , ;. .w. . . ~i 5- :.L..;..
..L... c;.n: , .;... .:. t, . : : ch.*.n. 4 ;-:.~:.
. . . . * : . .:.h, s 3, .a.i .. :G ,. ;;. ,. :.. k!. :
L y
. f.*,d' p.. : . - . *
.3,..
,..;.,,,* .V' ' =,
. .l ,
...*(,.
* *.. .. . ,; , . , : ab.,.
.s .. . . ,;. a*....;... ; '*. \ W ' , * ' ' ,. :a .
. .:a? q :,n,. . .
- e.e s,.:. . .n...-.e....~.~
. . a.~. e .,. . .;. . .. . ::..
. . r: .:...-.'ew.,. n*.: ?? :.s... t . .. *s .. .. V
' ::. < ;, ' . . ,:' . ':. ' .. ' .c.;;* */
1
.r .. x.* :..*
.;: . ~. . ~ : e. T .' ...s
..n .*4. -.,3..
.. n a.
.c .
g . s 4 . - . .. - . . . . . c..y q, % f 7, .= . . - =. ..$ s . , , .~ . . , -. . , e ,. e ,s p .g . r.r- t .t..** *P .**-. ! y a P ",r y"*.*1* *.*f . , 9' .* e .' ."1.
- q. .t f.~.s . as. . r y,. *- .m e. g *, .,. .. : .,. .
. . ......,..:,3.....
g
. .., . ... . <.. r. .. 2.:
. , . - .. - a.. ..
. . .. .s..
- o . . . , . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . g .~ ,.(. ,'....,,z.. ;.. ., . . :
..n...* .%. ..
.. .... ** f... :.,su .
u..
,. .r. . ,, . . .
,t . . g ... . .- . ..6. . . . . . . . . .. .. . t ,.: . . .i
.. .. g.
. .s .
*: ~, ., ..c.. , < ,
, r, (;: .*'o. ..;., ,, '[. : , i ' .;<4
-c...:..s u-
?,. -
.. ' ;;.* :). ?p l.g} ,, .
k,o**:' ,. .
. .. .~ Q' . ,*~ . .
.s.: . .'c.' .~: ; .s) * ., .:.y . s,. 1, . _ .,. ) .; -ps . ?p y,.w .' .v.~es '. a . C. .;.'. '.v g. -l _ : _'. Q . . * . ... .* .
.* e. . ' . .
.~...a.
.. ..q.
. g . i. . .
..J.. ,.. y;;. ,.o; ; ; e,,,.,. g* * . :e t
- g. ., s . .-
. .n - .
. ,;3 s/l,.: q , .y. .;*g ,,.. . '
,L.4:;l;r .
.~. : , . ,. ,.. . . , .
,5,.,.. . * . . * ' *,.. .s ~;',
'.\ ,: ; . ,
.. ,. * . f.n.,~ . . -j tr ' , . _ .. ; +
% s. .
,...,,.g.
g . .. . . . t.n. . . . .- **, . *
.; .. . . ...s>.- . . r,. 2 .,:-.. ,; . : . .;;
s h... .. .,. .
,s..,.....'* .. .o~ . . . : .. .y .- .. . . . . +
- r
. .. . ., .: i.+ ?q .. ..
. .. . .. . . . -. . . . , . s..
. s. - .s
..- - ., .e.<.- ..',~;..r.
P
- y. ... .
. .-. ... .. . .. .r,
. .<;. ... .-. .... . .. .,..t....m. e~
....,.;......s.., .,.- . : 4 , . g .
* - <. . :. c . ,. . : :.. . .<, . . , , . . y. . :5 .~
o >r....
. . . . .... s. -
.,,.n. )' .: s .,
.. ....s. .. . , . ..,:.. . ... . . . > . .
...~...a.
.;._.. ..t .
* ..,,c g . 1.' .
.,.'.s.. , ; .h. .c '.,{!* , .; , , ~ ~'-]::Q: ..'; .g;;. e __ ,.. ,. , ?'; . '
- j s. . :. .
_ ,; . . :. .':;,y', .'
...s...
y-i,.
.-s- ..
,.~.*..;......,.
,. ,c
=
. . . . .,l...3...:...e. .
. .y ,,
. .-v..... . . ~* ; . r...f 7. . . . . *
. ~ . .. . - ... .. .r e. : ;. .
g _'.. .,:, :
. , . , ' ;r
-.. .. . , .Pcf.e,. .'a
..r,....-.m.
- v. f..,-);g
. . . .~,,: ., ; . , l.-
. . ..,s.:..- . .;. , ;; f-.. ,t- ..
.s . . ; - ' ,
- r. c. ,g - .g. ,' ;rp;,
* .c z s .
. ,:. .r. . . , o,.,..w..--<
.. 7 , . .-. .s
; . ~; .c , . . . ,. < ... . . . . . *.';. t.. ' ..
- s. . ' .. ..- . . . . .. . .
.s.. *
.y.;; . . .e. . :. h. :s.. ... . v. . =..<: .
. .;.r. .....
. .,s
... * , t ;. t'; . . v ..s -; ".;**%.:.. ..1 .-..
. . '>..;;t..,.~;;. .
. .. .% '. . . , N . ~ . -
'a-
. . . s . . . . .
- w. .. <; ,t;;. . ; . .~,. . y. i . .> :4 .:.'.J.:M;.C: ;;.: .'.:: 3 c:..:.'.~. i U ,%'.m : ': %..G; . s .. ' '. :. d.J. .Ci.s..:. ::,c,an.. a. . v'G s...e...'.* * . .... . .
- . . , . . .n
.,y,. .
.. g * .. 4 . -
..*. ' .' ;r ., :
- a , . , ~p - j '
. '(. .. .
. .. .l. . .. ...;. *.,');. p:'.~. ; ; ,
- f. .
o .g r . . . g 4, *.
- y ~. . . .
- s.,. .e *: . . . . . . . . . . . .* !......- .
.. \ . . . '. . ... ...
. ~ . . . . ;.
,. % ..... . .s .. y. c 4~~. 2 .~~~t: m c ~ ;a ~~= 'm' ,.-
~.m . r9.- = . ..y:: ~;ym.m -vv s:- .w ,q. .~::2r - . *.,sc syn.;y; <~.t.-p,rs.: v.e . r:*: : .w: m. y
- L- ..v .. , .. ..... ..
.~...t,,.'.,.*-.a".~. .s
.o
. . ..e... ....
~ .
..kr; . - d. ,.. , * : ..
p:.'s....; . .-
, . ' .. . . . - .- c. '.. ; *. \; * ..:. : i . '+.: ~ ,i.s : * ;.~ .,.s..,.:<::
. : *..L
.. ,.,; ,. ...,r....-~.-...:.,.
- t. . , . ,
a- * * *.
, . . . .. : . .s:, ; - : . ..
, , . . g . ,;., r l.;j , .,.
,}*...,.s,..
, ,, : . ,. . y;_
. .q'. t. . -,
n.; ! .~ ? .. ..~s. -. , . . . , . . .: , o.
- .. .* .t. .s - . . . . . . .- . . . .
.. . a . ,; . . ;c.
. ; d .:. f....y . ; ' , . .. .. . .; . . 2 ;,:,....~: ' .r .:g. ; ; ;;..,: W.
. . t. ; . . *'..;.., .
- i. . '.:.,;; . . *: , ;sy. .y',G q . ; -: y .;. '. ' ** . ,. 4 ':,.!:'. .. ':
. .
- l .~ . : .' .
.: ' : . * ' ..*. . .*..';. . e. . .u:.s:.
- Y :i .. :.,;a .. :.,:; u .. .;; k ,..,:,::,.:,,
. .. : . ,.L:.. .. ..
. .. . . . , . <., .; ,~;i.; ;.:,.:a;;..j. ,::.; &,; ..;. ;:.,u. ,;,Lj.:;;3_
y.;'...;2.'. 9:< ,e.. y:. : ..s..; . . . , .: < . ' ..';M? .; w .- ..r:.
- r. s ; . . .. . . . ... <. * : .
.r
,..,..;..... ...- ..,a..,...
- . . . . , . o . 4. . .. ? . . . - . . . . . :. r.: . . .
. s, . - . ,.,..e . .
. ., , ~ . . . . .. ... <- , .. .. . . . . . . . .
~, .
- i. r
w, n - - - .
~-
ATTACIIMTwf J m.
,(. 3 * ,
SITE COMMUNIQUE NUMBER 15 - REVISION H0. 1 - DATE WRITTEN: 7/15/82 DATE EFFECTIVE: 7/23/82
~
SUBJECT:
' Transition from 100% Dual Inspection by CG&E to Surveillance PURPOSE: This Communique outlines the steps being talen to implement the transition from 100% dual inspection to the combination dual - inspection and surveillance to final construction surveillance
, . program. .This Communique also outlines the commitments to the NRC for adjusting the levels of reinspection and surveillance ,
each month. ( DIRECTIVE: (A) Action Items for transition from dual inspection surveillance;
- 1. CG&E shall provide inspection perstnnel .for dual inspection 1 i surveillance with HJK inspectors as required by the
, levels as defined in Section B. Wiere dual inspection is required as per the guidelines in Section B, CGLE shall directly pair a CGDE inspector with a HJK inspector. Where surveillance is required CG&E shall assign a suffi-cient number of inspectors to co:naly uith the level or surveillance as defined an Section B. 4
- 2. For a monitoring basis dual inspection shall be grouped in the following categories: (ref. Att. "A")
- 3. For all dual inspections CG&E dual inspectors shall be assigned directly to HJK inspectors to permit notification
- by direct person-to-person contact. The assignment of
' CG&E dual inspectors to HJK inspecPrs,shall be accomplished randomly on a weekly basis in a tiareter that will satisfy the pre-determined levels of dual inspection coverage.
- 4. For those inspections which are to te dual inspected by CG&E, CG&E will perform the inspectica after the HJK inspector has - .
j indicated acceptance by stamping the paperwork. ;(Exception -- l an inspection process which must be witnessed by both inspec2 i-tors simultaneously such as prehea.t or torquing by craft
. personnel,etc.).
l
- 5. Surveillance notification shall be determined by the ,,
responsible HJr, and CG&E lead inspector on a daily basis - at the start of the work shift. For those inspections which
- are to be surveillanced by CG&E, CG3E shall assign inspectors i- to cover activities as required by the rules as defined in i Section B to obtain the necessary surveillance activity per-l - centage. On a weekly basis, the recuired inspection manpower-will be adjusted up or down to obtain the required quota on a l
i . monthly basis. t
- 6. HJK will no longer be required to provide duplicate inspection documentation for CG&E's use 'in the work packages. The CG&E l
dual inspection personnel and surveillance personnel Page 1 of 3 et *Wbe.%a2 semm ,,e,
* - = = =**.%..# n .2-<w o
t }:
<;Y ,
. SITE COMMUNIQUE DIRECTIVE: (continued)
- 3. If the results of (1) are > .90 and the results of (2) are > .95 for the month tEt these activities are being analiied,thenthereinspectionlevelmaybedecreased by 10 for every 100 contractor accepted inspections per-
- formed (see Attachment #2 & #3).
The guidelines for adjusting the surveillance level, which is '
, initially set at 15 for every 100 contractor accepted inspection performed, are as follows:
- 1. Compare CG&E surveillance with satisfactory inspection
. performance to the total number of contractor inspections .
- which were monitored by CG&E surveillance.
- 2. Compare CG&E accepted inspections to contractor accepted inspections which were reinspected by CG&E.
. 3. If the, results of (1) are > .95 and the results of (2)
~
are > .90 for the month tEt these activities are being analiied,thenthesurveillancemaybedecreasedby5for "every 100 contractor accepted inspections performed. The .
- minimum level of surveillance shall be 10 for every 100 contractor accepted inspections performed (see Attachment
#3).
- 4. If the results of (1) are > .95, and the results of (2) are > .90, the surveillanE level will be increased by 5 for Ech .10 increment that (2) s less than .90 (see Attachment #3).
- 5. If the results of (1) are > .95, and the results of (2) are > .90, the surveillanE level will be increased by 5 for Wery 100 accepted contractor inspections performed for cach .10 increment that (1) is less than .95 (see Attachment
#3).
- 6. If the results of (1) are > .95 and the results of (2) are
< .90, the surveillance 1 Eel will be increased by 5 for Wery 100 accepted contractor inspections performed for each
- .10 increment the (1) is less than .95 (see Attachment #2 &
#3).
SpECIAL CONDITI0flS: This Site Communique shall not be implemented until HJK and CG&E procedures (GIP-12 and 10-QA-04) are revised, issued, and training /r is completed. 7 AUTHORIZATION SIGNATURES hW[gf//, */ 77NL [c e4 7- M-fu CG&E CONST. MANAGER DATE llJK PROJECT MANADER DATE 11Lu
. C t__ 7 a- rc 7- n -
DATE liJK QA MAN DATE CG& QA M/jiAGER
. ?. .
, , SI '. C051 UNIQUE ,'.
DIRECTIVE: (continued) , , will utilize the !!JK work packages, inspection plans,
, and procedure's for instructions for performing their inspections. The results of the CG&E dual inspection will be documented on the daily activity report. The results of the CG&E surveillance will be documented on the CG&E surveillance report and the daily activity
. report for the inspection count. ,
- f. IfJK QC will have to publish the method used to count
. inspections, based on the administrative system now in use. When CGSE participates in an HJK inspection, either -
. by performing dual inspection or surveillance, the two
- inspectors will agree upon the number of " reject" and
. " accept" inspections performed and record this on their
. respective daily activity reports.
,. 8. Each !!JK inspection discipline will have to provide CG&E
.with a "QC inspection activity report", showing the number
,of" accept", " reject" and " total" inspections. This report will be transmitted to the CGSE director of QC technicians on a weekly and monthly basis as defined in liJK Administrative Directive No. QA-FS.
(B) Rules,for monitoring surveillance program. When the surveillanc'e program to reduce 100", reinspection is implemented, the initial levels of reinspection and surveillance will be the following: .
~
- 50'of every 100 contractor accepted inspections will be covc.ed by reinspection, and, -
- 15 of every 100 contractor accepted inspections will be
- covered by surveillance.
!!cnthly, these levels of reinspection and surveillance will be adjusted, based on the results obtained from CG&E's 'reinspections and surveillances of the contractors inspection for that month.
The guidelines for adjusting the reinspection level, which is initially set at 50 for every 100 contractor accepted inspections performed, are as follows:
- 1. Compart CG&E accepted inspections to the contractor accepted inspections which were reinspected by CG&E.
- 2. Compare CGSE surveillance with satisfactory inspection performance to the total number of contractor inspections which were monitored by CG&E surveillance.
Page 2 of 3 p-r , k _ fM~ u
., , , . , v O
O Ate cbment at
~ -
~
Total !!umbe'r of, Contractors ~ In s pe c ti on s----------- . -100%
< - 90 Contractors ..-
- rejected " '
80 inspections ,
*- - 70
, Total number of _. .. __ __J00% -
contractors accepted . Inspections 60
. SURVEILLU:CE -~
_ 90 PROG 11Ri _ _ 50 _ m 80 - __. 40
-_ 30 .
70 .
.~ ~
-~
20 l'nitial icvel of coverage by both
- s. 60 10 Surveillance 6 liinimum icvel --
Reinspection; of Surveillance 0 Maxit::um Icvel of - 50 Reinspection (50%) . . _ _ 40 . l Reinspection . per I.A.L. . l _ _ 30 t
- _ 20 l
1 - L 10 l
- 9. Minimum 1cvel of Scinspection 1
=_p ~
- -.o.
g- , -_ g
~
Attachmentd2 . Adjustments of dnspection and surveillance icvels due to reinspection resul'ts. X = CG&E Accepted Inspections , Contractor Accepted Inspections Reinspected by CC&E Y ,a CGLE Surveillances with Satisfactory Inspection Results
- Contractor Accepted Inspectiens Monitored by CCLE
* ?
IF , THEN . L
.90 - X Reduce reinspec' tion level by 10 out of every 100, contractor accepted inspections perfor=ed, provided that Y .95.
x . . Increase surveillance icvel by 5 out of every 100 contractor
.80 - X 4..90 -
accepted inspections perforced.
- 4. .
,70 - X <.8C Increase,surveillanceicvelbyk0outof.cvery100 contractor accepted inspections performed.
,60b X 4.70 Increase surveillance icvel by 15 out of'every 100 contractor -
accepted inspections performed. . . 50fi X 4.60 Increase surveillance icvel by 20 out of eve f 100 contractor accepted inspections perfortaed. t 6 9e .. _ mesman ge go _ ememammi..m m _ c- .i
(,,,/ - U .
,Attachmtne #3 ..
Adjustments of the surveillance icv'el due' to surveillance results. X = CCLE Ac'cepted Inspect, ions , Contractor Accepted Inspections Reinspected by CG6E Y = CCLE Surveill'a6c'es with Satisf a : tory inspection Results . . Contractor Accepted Inspections Monitored by CG&E-
- TFIN l' IF .
}
)
L . Reduce surveillance icvel by 5 out of every 100 contractor accepted
. .95 - Y inspections' perfomed, provided that X D .90. ]
.85 b Y L.95' Increacc curveillance icvel by 5 out of every 100 contractor g accepted. inspections performed. .
.75 L- Y 4.85 ' Increase surveillance icyc1 by 10 out of every 100 contractor accepted inspections performed.' , ,
~
.65 L- Y 4.75 Increase surveillance icvel by 15 out of, evci;y 100 contractor.
accepted
- inspections perfomed.
.55 L- Y 4.65 Increase curveillance icvel by 20 out of every 100 contractor accepted inspections performed. . .
.45 b Y L .55 Increase surveillance icvel by 25 out of every 100 cant.ractor necepted inspections performed. l
?
e S e k a...
. o g __ . . . . . . . .
e . ,. < .
- ATTACHMENT "A" SUBJECTi TRAllSITION FROM 100" DUAL flSPECTION BY CG&E TO SURVEILLAtlCE INSPECTI0ft CATEGORIES:
A. INSPECTI0tl ACTIVITIES CIVIL / STRUCTURAL .
. TO IllCLUDE: . PAlflT SHOP, .
QUALIFICAT10!i TEST SHOP . FABRICATION SHOP , B. INSPECTI0ll ACTIVITIES PIPE SUPPORT HAllGERS
' C. IllSPECTION ACTIVITIES ,
PIPIl!G D. IttSPECTIO:t ACTIVITIES ELEC'IRICAL E. IllSPECTI0:1 ACTIVITIES 1!AREHOUSE RECEIVI!1G e G e O
- e s
N r
Wg O CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing MVPP's Reply to NRC Staff and Applicants' Responses to MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration and MVPP's Motion for Leave to File Reply have been served by mailing copics first class postage prepaid, this 5th day of October, 1982. l(f<__ 0 Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino Dr. Stianley M. Livingston U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, DC 20555 1005 Calle Largo Sante Fe, New Mexico 87501 0 Commissioner John F. Ahearne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and Washington, DC 20555 ' Licensing let+eal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnlasion
- Commissioner James K. As selsti ne . Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Pan 21
- Commissioner Thomas ?d. Roberts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC Wachington, DC 20555 20555 .
Robert F. Warnick
- Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Director, Enforcement and U.S. Nucloac Regulatory Commission Investigation Washington, DC 20555 NRC Region III 799 Roosevelt Road 0 Leonard Bichuit, Esquire Glen Ellyn, IL 6'0137 General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deborah Faber Webb, Esquire Wa sh.ing ton , DC 20555 7967 Alexandria Pike Alexandria, KY 41001 1
- Judge John 11. Frye, III '
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Andrew B. Dennison, Esquire Board Attorney at Law U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 200 Main Street Wa shing ton , DC 20555 Batavia, Ohio 45103
- Charles A. Barth, Esquire Troy B. Conner, Esquire .,
Counsel for the N3C Staff Conner and Uetterhahn " Office of the Executive Legal Director 1747 Pennsylvania Ave. NW j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20006 l Washington, DC. 20555 John D. Woliver, Esquire Dr. Frank F. Hooper Clermont County Community Co ncil Administrative Judge Box 181 School of Natural Resources Batavia, Ohio 45103 , University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 s ODelivered through NRC interr 'l mails. e.
. o-~ 2 Brian Cassidy, Esquire Regional Counsel Federal Emergency 11anagement Agency - Region I John W. t!cCormack POCH Boston, Mass.
02109 George E. Pattison, Esquire Prosecuting Attorney of Clermont County, Ohio 462 Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103
- Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 David K. Martin, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Acting Director, Division of Environmental Law !
209 St. Clai.r Street Frankfort, KY 40601 William J. Moran, Esquire Vice President and General Counsel The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company PO Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201
/1 A ~G' JA ^" %
LyniBernabei I
/
- Delivered through NRC Internal Mails.
1 1 1
-}}