ML20070P390

Reply Opposing Applicant 830106 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821222 Memorandum & Order on Summary Disposition of Issue 3.Decision Consistent W/Previous Declarations on Scope of Issue 3.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20070P390
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	01/21/1983
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8301260329
Download: ML20070P390 (89)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ ~ p.ELxrsu colmESPONDENCR A i January 21, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMNISSION 0{,Q{JfD { Before the Atomi.c Safety and Licensine Board l 2A <[t10 4 In the Matter of ) L ) L . i N.. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC. ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos. 50-440 .e,. J!i.. - COMPANY, Et A1. ' ) 50-441 i ) (Operating License) , f,{1( . f. j !'.,>J.. W Q[.El,'j L,... .(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) .l"."~j.Qlg@ ) C

• d*".?y!pc.Ql!.y. Units '1 and 2) a.-

w ) 'n; p. ~ t, ..c.-. yN> ';f f.WQg;,yc 'OCRE REPLY TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDER o -[h$i7,C.OM. . ;M d. h, ', *... 6 10. OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S DECEMBER 22, 1982 MEMORAN- ' i. M % 3.,W?T,5;];.,.,!@] DUM AND ORDER ON

SUMMARY

DISPOSITIO'N OF ISSUE #3 %N,f y 7 On January 6, 1983, Applicants filed a motion requesting .lf&. that the Licensing Board reconsider its December 22, 1982 Memo -- Q randum and Order (granting the Staff's motion for summary dispo &;.n. F .y sition of Issue #3 except for four issues concerning the control. g, of contractors at PNPP) and grant the Staff's summary disposition motion in.its entirety. Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("OCRE") hereoy opposes Applicants' motion. I. The Board's Decision is not Inconsistent with its Previous Declarations as to the Scope of Issue #3 'ThehistoryofIssue#3has,unfortunately,beenoneof] s confusion. This confusion appears to be rooted in the somewhat t i I j Applicants, in footnote 2 at p. 2 of tneir motion, regard. tneir filing as an answer to a motion for litigable issues i (their enaracterization of Sunflower's answer to the Staff's motion). If Applicants indeed consider their motion to be such, it should oe rejected as untimely. Applicants were aware of the alleged deficiencies in Sunflower's filing since early December. An answer to that pleading should have been submitted long before tnis, and certainly before tne Board rendered its decision. If the Board accepts Applicants' motion as an answer to Sunflower's filing, then the Board snould also accept Sunflower's December 20 filing as timely. 8301260329 830121 s s )j PDR ADOCK 05000440 0 PDR

I unclear language found in Sunflower's Petition for Leave to Intervene, specifically, the Ninth Ground of Intervention. Following clarifier. tion and particularization of the contention b by Sunflower at tne Special Prehearing Conference, the Licensing q Board admitted the following issue: }ja Applicant has an inadequate quality assurance program that.j., has caused or is continuing to cause unsafe construction.4.:1: r (LBP-81-24, 14 NRC 175) J' '

4.-

However, in response to objections to the Special Prehearing'. Conference Memorandum and Order filed by Applicants (to whici : intervenors apparently were given to opportunity to reply), the .]- . e: Board later (LBP-81-35, 14 NRC 682) limited the scope of Issue #3e to "the stop work order, steps taken to remedy the deficiencies. C-that led to that order, and residual deficiencies related thereto. "- These phrases can, of course, be interpreted broadly,.as the l'-l 4 g Board essentially admitted in its order denying Sunflower's .9 M first attempt to expand Issue #3 (LBP-82-15, 15 NRC 555): Even old deficiencies may be related to the damage that. may have been caused by the quality assurance problems leading to the stop work order. More recent deficiencies may be related to tne effectiveness of the steps taken to remedy the previous deficiencies. Sunflower gives further substance to its interpretation that current deficiencies are related to the stop work order cy including in its answer to the Staff's summary disposition l motion an Exhibit C, a portion of NRC Isspecticn Report No. 50-440/82-09; 50-441/82-08, cated September 10, 1982, which indicates that Applicants' entize QA program is a result of the 1978 stop work order.. Thus, the Board's decision does not broaden the scope of Issue #3, as Applicants claim, but

rather narrows it to the control of contractors. (See slip cp. at 10, where Sunflower is denied the opportunity to litigate "other alleged deficiencies.") Applicants also err in their argument that the Board has-ob - improperly extended Issue #3 beyond the basis provided by Sun- 'f~' 'm: 3. .$. flower; Applicants claim this contradicts the guidance given in :rM-Q: AIAB-675,15 NRC 1105,1115 (1982). A closer readin6 of ALAB-675 4j[/ p @?inu '~ will show that the Appeal Board stated that it is improper to"h:P _ nll' 9t;yy expand a contention beyond an intervenor's self-imposed limitations. The only limitations placed on Issue #3 have been imposed by the o Board, at Applicants' suggestion. In fact, Sunflower has con-4c ~ sistently shown an interest in expanding Issue #3, not limiting '.!ff l it. Even Sunflower's intervention petition alluded to a broad .a. QA issue by using the phrase "the following but by no means the~ only deficiencies" in its Ninth Ground of Intervention. Given'-)j these circumstances, the Board's Memorandum and Order can certainly not been seen as improperly raising an issue sua sponte, as Applicants imply. It therefore must be concluded that the Board's December 22 Memorandum and Order is not inconsistent with the Board's previous

• 6 decisions on the scope of Issue #3.

II. Applicants' Allegations of Sunflower's " Failures" in Pur-suing Issue #3 are Unfounded Applicants claim that Sunflower has made various errors in pursuin6 this issue which should lead the Board to reconsider its Order. The first such assertion is that Sunflower's answer, by not including a separate statement of material. facts, did not comply with the Com=1ssion's requirements as specified in _y 10 CFR 2.749(a). Applicants also imply that this is inexcusable since Sunflower is represented by counsel. OCRE believes that the format of an answer to a motion for d. summary disposition is not a substantive requirement but is 'Nk. rather a procedural technicality. The issue at stake here, Jr the quality of construction of the Perry facility, is so importanf ' x.:,8 that such technicalities should not be used to exclude its con -- @ ~ .T sideration. Furthermore, the Appeal Board has indicated that a. ' '.,( licensing board's leniency (in considering the proficiency wi.th' which a party's filings are drafted) is to extend to both pro se :. litigants and counsel new to the field, as opposed to counsel-experienced in NRC practice. Kansas Gas and Electric Co.,(Wolf i Creek Generating Station), ALAB-279, 1 NRC 559, 576-77 (1975). u,- ,e -7 Applicants also claim that Sunflower's failure to supplement l,, J l'ts discovery responses concerning Issue #3 so as to include the' material relied upon in Sunflower's answer (particularly the Comstock violations) has place Applicants in an unfair position, since they could not anticipate Sunflower's arguments and respond to them in their answer supportingisummary disposition. This claim does not hold up under scrutiny. _2/ Applicants' complaint is inconsistent with their cnaracter-ization of Sunflower's answer as a motion for litigable issues. l even addressed by the Commission's regulations, l Sucn a motion is not l and tnus tnere are no criteria for its format. Applicants should I not, on one nand, consider sunflower's answer to be one type of simul-l filing to justify their motion for reconsideration, and, taneously, complain that it does not meet the requirements for. yet a cifferent type of filing. l 1 l 3 f First, there does not appear to be any requirement in 10 CFR 2.749 that a party supporting a motion for summary dis-position be put on notice of all the arEuments to be presented by a party opposing summary disposition. In fact, the only -[c.l.4 '~~ provision in 10 CFR 2.549 for reply briefs is for the party L 'U

V.

. opposing summary disposition. Also, the burden of proof is of. ;;...,,. ..,.h J ' -- upon the movant for summary disposition. It was up to the '] M+~* e-9b2 Staff (which possessed specialized knowledge of the deficiencids:t,$D.F citedbySunflower)todemonstratethatnogenuineissuesoffac't]'i- .'.I exist with respect to quality assurance at Perry. The Licensing.;c., i. Board correctly found that the Staff had not met its burden, and,'f;l;

-l C,

f. E especially, that the Staff's unsupported statements as to the adequacy of QA were not acceptable.

l' j[',' Neither Staff nor Applicants should have been surprised by. ;[hg "p Sunflower's answer. Sunflower used, as basis for its response,( g,;

• A * *.2 the Commission's Inspection Heports. Sunflower has, from the

'T h p,' ' ~ i beginning of this proceeding until the present, relied upon these Inspection Reports. Sunflower indicated this in its intervention petition. Both of its motions to expand Issue #3 included references to Inspection Reports. Applicants are certainly aware that Sunflower's counsel receives these reports from the NRC's hegion III. In fact, Applicants apparently anticipated Sunflower's use of Inspection Reports. In their Third Set of Interrogatories and hequent for Production of Docurents to Sunflower, dated September 30, 1982, Interrogatory #5, applicants asx for infor-mation within Sunflower's knowled e involving any QA or construc-S

tion deficiencies at PNPP. Applicants clearly state that s " Sunflower need not restate information contained in Applicants ' reports to the NhC or the NhC's inspection reports."

Thus,

.'.V Sunflower',s " failure" to identify the Comstock problems in its ,..g, discovery responses is no failure at all, but rather is c~on.- sistent with Applicants' instructions. The only failure in this $.l theirfailuretofuly[h;l

. y; instance can be attributed to Applicants

.,a. and completely respond to information in Inspection Reports lS[;'ff which they knew Sunflower was using. ?s 11 III. Quality Assurance is too Important to be Lef t to the-H;,

;

.J ',.y Staff's Review

~. _ a The importance of the quality of construction at a nuclea'r O ~ facility is uncontroverted; it should ~oe recalled that Chairman -" Palladino has frequently stated his concern with quality assuranSk ~ at nuclear power plants. Were the Licensing Board to follow '[ 'l Applicants' suggestion and grant the summary disposition motion. .l, in its entirety, this would in effect delegate this important matter to the Staff for resolution, a move expressly prohibited L by Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant; Units 1 and 2), ALAS-298, 2 NRC 730, 737 (1975), wherein the appeal Board stated: When governing statutes or regulations require a licensing board to make particular findings before granting an ap-plicant's requests, a board may not delegate its obligations to the staff. The responsibilities of the 'ooards are in. dependent of those of the staff under the Commission's system, and the ocard's duties cannot ce fulfilled by the staff, however conscientious its work may be. Furthermore, tne word " conscientious" cannot be used to 1 describe the Staff's work in enforcing QA at nuclear facilities. h

-7 The NRC Staff, particularly the Region III Inspection and En-forcement Office, nas failed so miserably to protect the public interest in its handling of QA at nuclear plants under construction that the litigation of Issue #3 in this proceeding is mandated. l, Indeed, the NhC's oehavior in the Zimmer case has achieved national 7 notoriety. OCRE submits an evidence of the Staff's malfeasance,. ~ 3:. .c9 e {. the following exhibits: @sR~s E., v,. an article appearing in The Wall Street Journal,E; December 15, 1982, which indicates that the NRC's initial probe of,the Zimmer construction flaws was superficial. An intensive investigation, forced by a public interest group, resulted in ~ a $200,000 fine, and ultimately, the Commission's, decision to halt safety-related construction. (See Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co, (Zimmer d Nuclear Power Station), CLI-82-33 (November 12, 1982)) This article further indicates that the Staff may have suppressed documents relating to. ' Zimmer requested through the Freedom of Information - Act by the public interest group. o- : another article appearing in the same edition of The Wall Street Journal which indicates that in-t. the early 1970s the (then) AEC may have falsified inspection reports. The obvious question is, are such practices still occurring? In any case, the'- Staff's crediollity as an independent inspector is at best decatable. I Prepared Statement of Thomas Devine, Legal Director of the Government Accountability Project (" GAP").- GAP has investigated several plants in Region III, o including Zimmer, Midland, and LaSalle. This statement rurtner shows that the Staff nas mis-lead tne puolic and possioly encangered its safety by ignoring warnings from some of its own inspectors. : a portion of " Statement of Billie Pirner Garde l (of GAP) on the Midland Nuclear Plant, June 29, 1982," whien again shows that the Nhc Staff, l instead of acting as an impartial regulator, cares more for the utilities' interests than those of the public. l OCRE must agree with Commissioner Asselstine in his dis- - senting opinion to Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Zimmer

_e_ 1982) 5/ that the Nuclear Power Station), CLI (July 30, public interest requires the litigation of QA contentions in a case where the NRC Staff failed to do its job. As the attach-ments described aoove amply indicate, there is no reason to i'M .. r q; believe that the NRC's failure to identify QA breakdowns is ' ' O. CommissionerAsselstine'sarguments...',.h.- confined to Zimmer alone. in favor of u, sing adjudicatory proceedings to air QA issues g hfy m.n 4

• j fd'l....

i ? .i, apply just as well to Ferry. lll In light of these revelations of the Region III Staff's .i. . I,

conduct, OCRE believes that the Staff's Inspection Reports cannot be accepted as "the last word" on the safety of construe c,qs..

tion but rather must ce considered as understatements. Applicants}d ', s. t argument that the complete September 27 Inspection Report shows'u that no QA breakdown occurred at Comstock cannot be accepted. ' ' '. "' Mi N' Instead, OCRE suspects that the violations identified therein- . ;i: s> are but the "tip of the iceberg." The Licensing Board is theredy'.l!, m...., fore justified in identifying Applicants' control of their '(([j["' ,.7, electrical contractor as an issue for trial. The Comstock investigation is also illustrative of the ting NRC action., The Staff role of worker allegations in promp/ 4 usually performs a ratner cursory review of plant construction. _3/ Tne Commission's majority decision has no bearing upon the instant question in this proceeding, since that decision involved the question of a licensing board's sua sponte authority to pursue the intervenor's contentions. _f/ NRC inspections at Ferry may have been even more cursory. Applicants' internal documents reveal that, in 1981, Nhc in-spections decreased dramatically, apparently due to the Reagan l administration's policies. Inspe ction coverage only later in ~ creased due to the Comstock allegations. See Sunflower's December 20 filing.

_g_ See Attachment 5, " Testimony of William J. Dircks," which admits that the NhC's inspections only cover 1-5% of the utility's inspection activities. More thorough reviews, like.tnat of Comstock at Ferry, are triggered by allegations received from. workers. 5/The Dircks testimony indicates that QA problems at;ig Marble Hill, another Region III plant, were first brought to._,: %.:. J. the NRC's attention by worker allegations. The testimony alsol,- admits that there have been shortcomings in the NRC's inspectihn.' program. Moreover, the testimony identifies some of the basic causes of QA troubles, among them an overreliance by the utility on, ,t. its contractors for maintaining a QA program and insufficient utility QA staff to control contractor activities. These are precisely the matters the Licensing Board has, rightly, identified for litigation. Applicants' use of the 1982 SALP Report as evidence that ~ 5l other contractors do not warrant investigation likewice cannot be accepted. Given the deficiencies of the Staff's inspection program, the probable explanation for the satisfactory ratings in all areas except Comstock is that the other areas were not 4 thoroughly investigated. One does not find what one does not look for. _5/ Interestingly, one of the Perry workers who alerted the NRC to Comstock's proolems was later fired, supposedly for having falsifiec credentials. OCHE believes that this incident should tnorougnly investigated to assure tnat Applicants have not oe taxen retaliatory measures against workers notifying the NRC of QA violations. _6/ Further evidence of Applicants' lack of control of other contractors is given in Sunflower's December 20 filing.

l l . l l Documents obtained by OCRE through the Freedom of Information l Act reveal that the Staff may not have looked very hard at Perry. See Attachment 6 (items included are circled on the list following I l the cover letter). These items indicate that the Staff's review - of allegations received about Perry was often superficial. The..fl' - .U ' r. l case was ccnsidered closed if the allegation was deemed too vs.gue"(- ' or in area outside the NRC's jurisdiction. No attempt was made-U.i,

..,

:en to determine whether these allegations Were indicative of more

{ i widespread trouble. These items fit too well the description 6f l the NRC's response in the Dircks testimony, i.e., " treating the symptom rather than finding the basic cause and correcting it." ,lge i i Item 7 of the FOIA response is particularly illustrative., ]'.i r Af ter receiving an allegation of a weld' crack coverup at a s,cecific area in the plant, the NRC Staff only reviewed Applicants' non-conformance reports and apparently conducted no inspections of its own. The Staff should have inspected the area itself, since a defect that is deliberately concealed is not likely to be documented on a nonconformance report. This reveals the Staff's poor judge. ment and lack of diligence in pursuing worker complaints. IV. Conclusion OCHE concludes that the Licensing Board's December 22 Memo-randum and Oi' der has correctly identified four areas to be further i investigated through litigation in this proceeding. These areas are too vital to the health and safety of the public to.be left to the Staff's review, which is often flawed. Only the Commission's l adjudicatory process will Assure that the truth aoout the safety of construction at Perry is fully known.

.u.- . Moreover, Applicants' arguments for reconsideration lack.", merit, as'has been shown above. 'Their motion for reconsidera- ' ' ' tion must be denied. c. Respectfully submittedi:',..,. ~ Susan L. Hia & i, &U M';l-tt .. t.i$;A. OCHE Representative .,j f e.f..ki'(W ~ 8275 Munson Rd. ~. Mentor, OR 44060 @q.. g. be $g h ji//q.1.._.. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE si (216)".255-3150 y gi-n ..~ " S, + '. J,~ '?;dThis is to certify that the foregoing OCHE REPLY TO APPLI-- Mh...b.hy,[.. 7.!t: J 7' ,s. rc'i/ : i - f McTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S DEC. , {'g.[y.. g CANTSi MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION were served 22, 1982 'c' ,'by/.3T deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, thisday o !;gR; cg y...;, y ,..-t. N 4;f.p c# " t h i SERVICE LIST- [4.p.y .i W. L. Peter B. Bloch, Chairinan

• Daniel D. iViltj Esq.

i

1. "6.d p i ~ ~

~ 4- ' Atomic Safety &. Licensing Board.. P.O. Box 08159 , T. bY - 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Cleveland,n.0.H.44108 9q;.lp Washington, D.C. 20555* 709I[i' ! .Dr. Jerry R. Kline - d " ', $. A. Atoin5c~ Safety & Licensing Boaid. .:.o. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n ~ II,Io Washington, D.C. 20555 .. Mr. Glenn O. Bright 1)f%' c. 3 Atomic' Safety & Licensing Board' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n-Washington, D.C. 20555 l Docketing & Service Sec' tion Office of the Secretary l l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. 20555 James M. Cutchin, IV, Esq. Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Jay Silberg, Esq. 1800 M Street, N.W. l Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

TroubIed Pf6iecth.$r.Au. srWuaku.,Q,;,d;,y,l,;,jy.l. s Constr.uction..-Halt $.t,s?' aut th,,un,1c,y of z1mme,aname af; ter.a former president of.Cincinnatt Gas)'; '4 ,J i AtNuclsarPla'nt Ra... i, and raises broad, unsettimg questions about ;. d,"m"a"1 s,uMtyM"$'/A, c *r#9 roes devond tne taie or oae:troutiee project ises-e ger g ~*.. .'in ..,f.' the nation's nuclear power.. program. One'.o.. ously at the mercy of the companies build :.'ly Unsstth.ng Qu.!..estion's ".; l question is now orriciais for the utmty ane.. ine the 91 nts ine up to a point. NRC offi.y , yh/. the NRC could have allowed'a plant with soi,. cla s agree mm mat argument.,*,They,' con-1 cede that the commission has the resourc y,...g.. ,. y. 7 ".' " .., r many problems to get so near completion. 'On.;e Is How. Facility.,n Oh,o:. i i< inotner is wnether tne zimmer experience m sample. only; sman part of moetum ... s....,..y c - ggy ,y,; . work done a,t a nuclear site..,"We' rely onilhe' ? - Got: So Near Co_.; _ s ?.. ;mpletion;:riants being built around the U.S. "It makesV.F 9.!*s"ays the NRC's MraKeppler.Wgd t "' g e case of zimmer..the:NRCueei 'C ', ~ < >With.So Man / s.Proble'.. C, one wonder how many other Zimmers might. Q, n y ', rnsu be jurm, out mere, says Democrat,e Rep.u.,1 ga ms.was abused. ' From a,qualim 4.s 0' 7.- ' C, .~. 2 2' ' g, (l u Moms K. Udall of Arnon(a,who has.heldSpec 1M.. Lassujanc,e, standpoint, this is.the.worstflant'. M hearings on~Zimmer 's. ig, M f.n.,.T *d'U'.N *. (M E. ,. i -*M I've e5 seen3 says Victor Gihnsky,'ione of l.. Similar, if less severe,' cases are'luiowii;[.j,'[. W,dk;i .U. us.. A N By,r%.PJonN R; EMsHwn.I.at E.h' r. In' late 1979,1following monthslof pressure. , the agency's five'ru!!ng. commissioners..,9 psed/ftepener e/ Tus ws: snrrt JddnNEWd, from local citllens' groups'and the'niedia; #,J.}, For its part.. Cincinnati Gas & Electric-o CINCINNATid-By.its. owner's reckoning the NRC conducted a specialinvestiga'tjon of... strongly defends its conduct'and the qua!!ty .the William H.i Zimmer. nuclear. plant.,loQ,i i the: South Texas nuclear power plant'being p)- J 'of the Zimmer plant. A spokesman for the cated about'28 miles frorri this.'cityfis 97%'.d ( built by Houston Lighting & Power Coc'and $* t J utility admits.that,,there :are fpaper work completed. The fate of the rema!ning.3Tish others; ;the J commission,r found ' problems,i - deficiencies"in the construction records and unclear... ' ? 4 ; % <i .t..'<. ) s.' ?,, 'f.d ' ranging from inadequate construction praci.'flR(, that some repairs are needed, but.h . Last month, based.on.giety'of sinic%' tices to safety inspectors being threatened.L .." Basically, we think the plant construction. a, var ,1th physical harm by construction workers'. 1. is safe and sound.".(Cincinnati, Gas & Elecy tural and. paper work irregularities at thes'. w 3 '*. tric, owns '40% of Zimmer; a unit of. Co-project; the federalcNuclear \\ Regulatory.! 'As a result, the NRC fined Houston Lighting'f r.'., Commission ordered'a halt to! construction '. 3100,000, andcconstruction.was stopped:for,.6 i : lumbus.. Ohio-based'Americanplectrie several, months (but.has, since. resumed)/.f($; 3 Po,wer Co. has'a'28.5% interest in,t 'of those parts of the plant deemed liecessary7 r , Then,:! ate last year, the.NRC 'actually ',- ' rest.) 'C ;.,"#: p,W,: 1 o,p.1% e',},N for safe' operation 'and shi. down.iCincinnati ; Gas l & Electric' Co:;'which is heading

• ab gave. permission.to Pacific Cas &/, Electric,M.
• g7oup of utilities building the:11.7 bi!! ion,9 Co.ito start operating its Dnblo Canyon nu'

..t "'. Whatever,the merits of the respective ar-840,000-kilowatt facility, had been predictingf. clear plant at,Avila, Beach. Calif.-onlyl.to';Q P guments, the fact is'that the NRC was get-the plant would be ready to'ioad fuel in the';, retract that go-ahead when PG&E'engmeers d '.,

b. ting; warning signals. since

• the; mid 1970s

' intrd quarter of 1983/Now the utility is reas;!. discovered that in analyzing the plant's abil,ij'l9 C.about problems at Ztmmer. However.,those [sessing.thit prediction, although'a spokes % ity to withstand an earthquake, the,utilityfr. j s!rnals -ranging,from complaintsjby plant 1, workers to some,0f,the commission's.own, I man says: "We,are absolutely. certain ths.'. 'had mistakenly used construction' data from '.,3 3 l' plant 'will'be* built Jand ' operated.'MM '& a companion. plant being builtit:the"sith.y a 6 routine inspection reports,went.largely un-James Keppler, the h' ad of the NRC's re-i ' Pending', resolution' of..thatiprobl'em['ithe;.J('- 8/ heeded untfl.one Thomas Applegate,'ap, e . eared on the; scene.*;'..,d% m;.pr;p r; sMn@e o;j$.ld p ' plant, remains. closed l b 'I'.'.tThere is also the possibility that'y giona!, inspection.;J office Onear,IChicago' % 4e 'i f *'

The. 31-yeanold Mr.'Applegate:Is:antun-doesn't have that' absolute: certainty.' Mr.'s Keppler, whose office oversees,the Zimmer!~

erating p! ants may have undetected defects '.D v likely figure for the role he has been playing plant, says there.ts a slim po'sibility.the' because federal safety regulators hed abouU.O in the Zimmer affair.. Aiprivate-detective s plant has too many deficiencies ever'to be. . inspecting them.. (See story'on e Page 22.),:;$ I. . with no nuclear background, he.ftrst.came licensed-which would be a first'iri410clearl .The safety of nuclear plants' received IE 5% 9 to Zimmer.in November 1979 in the course, history. And though he adds that the.mored tense pub!! city following the 1979 accident at.%. , of investigating.a' domestic' squabble;':the likely course is that the plant yll! eventually?' the Three' Mile Island nucle'ar Ifacility ln'4 ;d: h'tsband.o! the, couple involved happened to i +... ci:. m. be allowed to' operate, he goes on,to say:"' Pennsylvanta. Though the worst accident in 7! . work at. the' plant...,.

• 'It's impossible to give a' firm estimate (of the histcry of' commercial nuclear'.poweri W, During the domestic., prebe,,iMr. ' Apple-completion time).until you ha've ldentified" was caused by equipment failures'an'd oper.' N

p. gate uncovered. evidence of timecard cheat-i ; ing.by Zirrmer workers. He brought that to b W.' Gi

7' ator mistakes rather than construction'defi-[d.( I .ll the problems.'lN * " b' q. a ciencies, it was also due in'large' part t'o'the

the attention'.o!. utility officials, who.were A $200'000 Fine The trtb! ems, acccrd:rg to

'.e NR C and', failure cf cfficials in the government and'nu g sufficiently. impressed to hire hirri as an in-l vesugator at the' construction site in Decem- .I l cicar edusdy to ident:fy and

• effectively, ber 1979. A month later,-he was let go. The others, are manifo d: Ccr.strue!!an records l

M with simi!ar prob. cms that had oc are mis: : cr.. ave bu.1 C a te4 U.a at & n h fac m i.- ut.hty says his work was fimshed. Mr.. Alr sands of welds on the pl ant are believed to'. ' Inspection, Teams - ..u a 7 v-uposmg construction. problems jat..the 4 '.,.. l p!egate insists he was 1: red because he was c. be deficient; the quahty of steel and other ' material !s suspect. Added to that, safety in-In the wake of Three Mile Island [and' ' , M'i-k plant. - a spectors have testified to being, threatened spurred partly by the experience at Zim-Being dropped didn't daunt.,ir, App!e-and harassed trying to do their jobs. mer, the NRC has started an office of inves; gate. In early 19S0, on his own, he called the In November 1931. the NRC levied a $200." tigations.to probe allegations of safety: rule. NRC in Washington w:th his charges, which 000 Ime against Cinemnatt Gas & Electric.. violations at nuclear plants and has set up; included theft.of materials. and defective the largest Itne ever imNsed in connection ' teams of inspecters to make periodic visits ' welding at ZL tmer. He talked several times with a nuclear censtruction pmject. A year to sites. The agency has also begun holding'. to staff officials, he says, but didn't think later came the halt to all safety related con-seminars for top utility c!!!clals to impress 0' they were showing enough' interest l He then struction.' And a', federal grand jury.is.pr&- upon Uem the need to build plants l prop ". p! aced another call to the agency, demanded Ing pessible crimir.al violations by seme of erly.

+-

...J,. to speak with the top man and was con-those involved in buildmg the plant-netted with John Ahearne, the acting NRC chairman. " Twenty four hours later... two NRC invertigatcrs were at my front doct," he, reca!!s. . g'h, 4 p11AcMMEM /

?.o 'But the detective reas soon'to be disap-a pointed. The NRC investigation resulted in i only one, relatively minor, citation. "They . :.Though obviously pleased with parts of' I . just surfacely treated my &!!eratfons,". he the NRC reports, GAP fiercely disagreed ' asserts!"I've spent more time looking for a with'some' major conclusions. GAP argued ? lost dog ".(In hindsight, Nunzio Palladino, that'new building at Zimmer shouldn't go the. NRC's current chairman, agrees that ahead until all the problems in the extsting i ' the commission's initial probe of Mr. Apple: work had been identified. And the group as. j gate's charges should have,been more com. serted that given'the utility's past failures to ' prehensive.1 .,. ;.1 i.. follow construction rules at Zimmer, inde' to the. Press ' !.' '.'. ' 4. pendent engineers should be brought,in to Going'Mr. Applegate went' {o' tlie ress a' nil So e x plants probkms. !',r In support of its position', GAP in August ['l managed to generate a few stories, includ. . fil ed to the NRC 120 pages of further conten-1ngf a, lengthy,plete in the. Chicago; Sun- . %'I Times. And in May 1M/ he contacted the ' tions about problems at Zimmer.and sup- ,' :. m &, ~ l W Gof ernment / Accountability 5"! Project,\\* a l ! ported those contentions with another group W Washington, D.C. based private' group that < of docu nents numbering some 3.000 pages. % works to protect. whistle blowers, mostly in What's more, by this time, other agencies 6. w.- @the' government.?Though the private detec. and individuals were looking into matters at f J. }%'; *? tive,was a':privste' citizen,"lGAP took the Zimmer. The Justice Departmen*cier exam :

• Pt9.y it-

"; pg.. - ple,' began investigating possible criminal ' b EnterThomasN': inelG'AP'slegal'dfree, violations at.the plant; And in June, Rep.- M, / q 4 3., J case.' 'f,. i i:e-hearing on,the, situation ' p'! torr.In'the.31 year-old MrlDevdie, Mr Ap-plegate found someone willing andfabie to Udall held his first,3_,..g g ..gy 9 at. Zimmer,. g, %d MN.J ? 1 PPobe into matters at Zimmer. (In choosing d'F**bUU $'a career; Mr!.Devine says "I had to. decide 3nitruction HaltV#"NRC com"m'is'sio'n

• • A h,q.
• 'd Swheth'er to be a lawyer.or an investigative

. In Nov' ember, the' five 7,q p, ,- *( i Y remrter. So I became an investigative law-i,ers, by.a.3-2 vote, ordered construction at. '.Jyer."),Mr. Devine and his: colleagues at l Zitnmer hilted immed!ately, pending efforts, . ;"' 4 ' ' ,.t... to exploie fully th,,e growing list.of pr.oblems' GAP talked to every source sugge'sted by i ,' Mr. Applegate and followed every lead pro. l[;at.the plant.,7. ;,j.,,3.;.A.n t

• vided by the private detective'and then de-l

. Earlier.this year, GAP filed requests un. e der the Freedom.of InformationAct seeking-O. veloped new sources and' leads?of'their' 2. I' supporting documents and draft reports re - own.. / 'e GAP investigators felt th'ey had When th leased.to the NRC's investigations of,Zim,8 j lc' i. enough etidence of an inadequate investiga. "mer.;' GAP's Mr.'.Devine. says thc.requerts tion by the NRC, they went to the special Tere partly.; prompted by suspicions /that spartrol the. reports ah d been watered down,

- counsel 'of the Merit Systems Protection gtirely.p,;other sections ha,d been de

~ Board, a federal agency empowered to help' ete .and that s;.. 7 whistle blowing government employees. The . f,,,, g.{,,, -;,m j;. counsel / impressed: with' the. evidence, 1 ! min 1 response.to those requests.the JGC r ipushed the NRC for a, response to GAP's rtold GAP. that'the. commission's files didn't ' charges.'. C.' H D'se w'as' to' start new'in'/contain'any drafts of.the auditors' report on!

• r 8

, vestigations of Zimmer. One by the commis? ithe pin!tlal, Applegate, investigation.TBut' . The NRC's"respon C curces say that statement; though perhaps. ,. i g,,. g, ' /+.' s 'ston's internal auditors reviewed the NRC's' 1 technically. correct; wasn't.really true.f As. initial probe of Mr. Applegate's charges. Ap one NRC investigator involved in the report 'other looked at the qua!!ty of Zimmer's con ' told Congressman Udal!. he had had, draft- 'struction. ' C" i '. copies of the report in his: office ille but was. 'The latter probe,resulted in the $200.000 orJered to remove them after GAP filed its fine and a two-inch-thick report that found request. GAP recently filed suit.against the violations of 12 of 18 basic safety criteria for' NRC in a Washington federal court seeking . building a nuclear plant. The report also in- .a determination of whether NRC employees . cluded affidavits from workers who testified acted. illegally in handling;ihe requestsc' d t to alcohol and drug use by workers at Zim; gQ to' GAP's 'information re' ~ mer;Two plant guards testified to observing a l quests caused heated debate within.theNRC,' a bookm ing operation and gun raffles be-

gued that while the agency could fight pub'

%. !at!cn of Our. Rules' uc disclosure of certain documents, it was .The spokesman for, Cincinnat! Gas & ob!! gated under the law, at the very least, to } Electric says the utility paid the NRC fine "to avoid endless hearir.g" on an appeal and ' not because it agreed with a!! the fmdings. , identify.all the documents 11 had. What He says further that alleged incidents in,

• happened was a cover up,*,' asserts one NRC a

volving alcohol. guns.' drugs or bookmaking - ' of ficial., / would be *.'in violation of our ru!es." ' ,. James Cummings, the head of the'NRC's The probe by NRC's internal. auditors agreed with Mr. Applegate that the initja! j internal audit effice, says that because of ' pending litigation.he can't fully respond 'to NRC invest!gation of his charges was super. the charges of a cover up. But he does say: ficia.l. For example, the detective had said l "If you know all the facts.'it isn't fair to that deficient welds had been accepted for, ! paint us as being less than honest." use; he went on to cite three such welds ll c i The NRC investigating team said that charge couldn't be substantiated. But the - NRC's intemal auditors found that the com-mission's investigators had missed the fact that one of the cited.wc!ds had been re- .p aced after Mr A.pplegate made his a!!ega- ~: .12

• " ' ~ s.,.; ~M * * ;;' ' S ' ' '.

..,.# : y.,'. y: -~ k;THE;WAlil[STREE'd/JOURNAi.,MVednesday/. December 15,T!982 " 3 TDoc% Guts CreateDok&tEAbout VeradY" COfSafE..ty:Ref.o,YtsonS6. is'NddlearRants' .3' + 0 3:, y., n't " ' 1. '.'s. '.NRC. tn.1975.. F. :..'

1....N %.

h.. Y L'.. :. } '; afo wm, srazer Jovames,taffiteper. ;,? J.Besides reports being written for'inspec. . y. 'J.k A nutnber of nuclear power plants oper-tions' neverf. made,.this. inspector.. claimed that valid. inspection reports had been:ab. l ' ating in the U.S.'may have undiscovered de- 'fects because:of falsified federal' safety in.;te ble result of hiding construction deficiencies. ,M-

y.9

. spection ; reports..L.... T4.3 ' - i Documents..obtained under.the' Freedom :The inspector;also asserted that colleagues A G.3,.. ,co!Information Act from*the federal Nuclear were temporarily suspended from inspbeting ' Regulatory' Commission indicate.that in the : plants if they tried too, vigorously to do their , b'., p. ^ ? A ' ? ~.. [..V a 1 - W'l "

7. early 1970s'federeinspection. reports',were jobs.'i'. 4 f

written for. ir.spections, that weren't'ever .In' releasing the documents on this mat. m.

t' rithe NRC blotted out the name of the in-

, J /. 7, made on nuclear power plants under con ' e 'i ![struction/.Such reports are.an integral part.spectorhnaking the ' charges l' Aimost+.all O of.the process for determining.whether, a other names were similarly expunged. How-N

'yplant is built safely enough to. operate.,

ever/ what,1dentification ithere was, along .c. 7 The documents a so s ow,that despite ev: with' interviews with,NRC sources, indicate ,0 J,~y.' l h '.i the char' es involved federal inspection ac. L11dence of falsified reports /;NRC. officials g T made little effort to determine.whether un-tivities in the. southeaster]LESL.'.f ' x:

/,, C' Isafe plants had been allowed to operate... The1NRC inspector refused to give 0IA J.., Since 1975, the NRC has had an internal investigators. specific evidence to.back? up

h. watchdog known as the Office of Inspector his charges. He said he had given such.spee

e..and Auditor. Among other tasks. the O!A in- 'cifics. to : At'omic.. Energy: Commission t o!!il C

(l vestigates charges of misconduct on the part cials four'. years earlier and felt.his careet, of NRC ofhcials. But officla!s inside the had suffered for the effort?.,' d, NRC and other government officials contend Documents show the OIA investigators 6 the office lacks independence and isn't tough ' talked.to officials involved in the 1973 inves. W f ]. ' v rifficials. confirmed the find' A 'Nenough in pursuit of possible wrongdoing. tigation 'ransgressions ' serious ' enoughl.to i N ',.?lFor example, a 1981 report by the' General ing of } t g." Accounting. Office, an arm of Congress, said. prompt the transfer. of a number. of AEC C, ': 3 7the OIA regularly submits draft reports to en,;,;oyees. But'the OIA investigators foand. that all the records of the'AEC Investigation.

k. people being inve:Ugated and sometimeschanges the reports as a result of their com-had,been ; destroyed.I: i >,, i. *.

/

• H

' ments. . In a report, OIA investigator Lawrence J.-

)

The GA0 also contended the'01A has pre. Strickler concluded'that available evidence rnaturely terminated some investigations tended to support the inspector's charges. 1 and recommended that Congress consider Following that report, however, the NRC creating an inspector general's office for the Istopped its probe. Senlor.NRC staff officials decided against sending a' report on the mat-NRC. 'l. c .In responding to.the GAO report,'the ter to their bosses, the !!ve NRC*commis- ' NRC disputed many of its findings and said stoners, on the ground there wasn't anything the GAO failed to make a "convihcing case" the commissioners c5uld do. of the r.eed for an inspector general- . ' Jarnes Ct mmings. the head of the OIA The GAO report didn't touch on the mat-since 1978 and therefore not involved in el-ter of falsfied inspection reports, which ther the 1973 or 1977 probes, says he hasn't were the subject of an OIA investigation in -reopened the investigation partly because he 1977. In that year, according to the Freedom 'doesn't believe any falsification really -oc- . of Information Act documents. an NRC in curred "I've.never seen people in this - spector charged he had discovered faked in-agency make out phony inspection reports," ,. spection reports several years earlier while. he says. But he adds that if anybody did c working as inspector for the Atomic Energy make out such reports. It would be a "veryc N Comission, which was succeeded by the very serious situation." . ll '3)1 t - i f. ,k. . tg I f ;*A. A -77A C H/WM 2-

a Ed's 4 IldO PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS DEVINE, 4 LEGAL DIRECTOR OF THE hy j GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT g August 23, 1982 t.

q.a

.

ill. 4 ~ 'Q;: ;; *' .Last November, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") told the , <J, j(T.:;.,: ,:p s, r s < b :,7 -g ~ J. '. ' - .public it had taken dramatic action at the William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power -.jhWS,Qi

M

4.poy c. . Station by fining the owner-utility Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company $200,000,L.d !"}). m.g:u... .1 4.; a ' the largest of its kind in history. NRC's Region III Director James Keppler."!;'?fl;';';S, .,-. r. - , { 4 said that a Quality Confirmatii;:n Program ("QCP") run by CG&E would solve f 1, - Zimmer's problems. He explained that the utility had not been actively g,g ,:;e n ; ' T ' ' ' a'., N.t. d'.. involved with the quality assurance ("QA") collapse that led to the fine. Today we are releasing evidence proving beyond question that NRC ,. r# '.i.. P 9 officials knew this explanation -- offered publicly only af ter bitter internal f f debate -- was wrong, ,;.... J j q ;- ~+ p, g 51.: ~ s The Government Accountability Project (" GAP"), on behalf of the Miami 7:,. [.7 j i-w i Valley Power Project, is presenting its case against the Zimmer nuclear plant'.' ) l:. 2 Our case involves a 121-page petition and some 200 exhibits to the NRC j u 3 .w 3 Commissioners to-- (1) immediately suspend the construction permit; (2) replace 1 -1 the CG&E-led Quality Confirmation Program with a comprehensive third-party .i[, ] reinspection program that has full authority to enforce its findings; and '] rer.: ire an independent management audit of top COT.E and Kaiser personnel to learn the causes of the QA breakdown. Most significant, in a separate 52-page petition we are requesting the Commissioner's to reconsider their July 30, 1982 decision overruling the I l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") and refusing to reopen public l i licensing hearings into the issues we are discussing today. On the basis Ar(A ct-lIMMf 3

r.. of the NRC Staff's history of failure at Zimmer, public input into the legal process is essentih. e. We have been working on this case for over t'wo years. Today's petitions,%;f.,, 3w are the result of an intensive five-month, full-time investigation. [' Y ~ -,b o-Last November the NRC public]y admitted that the QA program at Zimm.. is!i ),,'. ..,9., _,. '.' 's tras " totally out o f control. " It still..is today.- The petition to stop . Qf.f.., p ;c a.

M

~ .e..<,. p.y ;, , s.s,

M.i yN! i s

.a '[: :. s construction exposes 101 instances where the owner, CG&E, or the contractor..}7,: . ^ '" p p;. W.. ~....Ar.ata.V!:. u w y,q,ylf.51..

, ; r-p.

w:., (. have violated the NRC's April 8, 1981 Immediate Action' Letter and Quality ' A..e. ,,.i. y > ;(,.. Confirmation Program. This program was supposed'to answer all the remaining"' ':[.,' questions about the safety of the plant: It cannot do that.

!

. st.- e..

TheproblcmsatZimmerarecontinuingbecauseCG&EisstillfirmlyiN.\\'j h charge of identifying and correcting its own previous policy decisions. Last, ' ' 7 I November the NRC said CG&E was guilty of benign neglect; that the owner had- .c.,. - not kept track of its contractor's misconduct.' Nothing could be further from. r,.

m..

a g. .2 '.id c,

Q,.,

the truth. 7. ..,,i.... , g" Our petition rietails 129 instances where CG&E was directly aware of l ~ f the quality assurance violations. These instances remain only a portion of-l; our evidence, but prove that this problem was not blissful ignorance. ,,. ) .s ':<MM - The most significant aspect of our disclosure is that the mess at Zimmer is the direct result of deliberate CG&E policies, made by top management l l in the early 1970's with full lmowledge of the consequences. The motive? To cut overall costs by not funding the QCP staff necessary to find the violations. The attachments to our petition disclose 112 instances where CG&E actively participated in or openly ordered the QA policies at issue. In the early 1970's the Kaiser Quality Assurance Manager warned it would be " impossible" to meet min'imum Atomic Energy Commission ("AEC") .s

_3-standards with the amount of money CC&E was spending. The documents reveal that top CG&E officials Dickhoner, Borgmann and Pandorf chose not to spend ..+ the money, except for occasional token budget increases. CG&E defined the..}; . ;. ; ;.? p ; r, tiny scope of the quality assurance program and enforced its judgment with .,g.f,,

r1n,..'

an iron hand. T > "" I." CG&E even had a representative who worked in th . QE. ; ' i': " * '"..M, ' offices to make sure the contractor toed the line. W .-.. x 40 4.. -~ $,.. g.c.M c ;g. '.h$,(i$D'N.('. For eight : years Kaiser -- and som '59y: h hh ~ e y. ;.. *.* - ; t* ikh. E.m!&,ks. }~ '",31'ITmemoranda complaining about the effects; these were to no avail until ...w ' '9 (.n., . April 1981, when an NRC Immediate Action Letter forced budget increases. . Ql/lJ. 4 g .4 The' QA officials who dissented too persistently were forced out - from QA Q,.;, r 3 y

;,,,. s... u -

' managers down to field inspectors. Zimmer represents much more than a decade-'.a:,.7,[l + p;..a. , a i long quality assurance breakdown. It was a decade-long strictly-enforced ' ' ' O.~ '. quality assurance abdication. S s, y - 4,:,.,. Since 1971 and particularly from 1974-76, CG&E has been waging a high, 9.g.s.. .p, [;f stakes gamble that nothing would go wrong, and that if it did, no one would ' gj.!l,y,a ~.- ~' 4 s-l,. s find out.. Unfortunately they lost their g uble. In f act, nearly everything [.lf,yf 4 has gone wrong that could have, and -- after today -- the public knows the M risks CG&E has been willing to impose through its financial shortcuts. In April 1981.g the NRC gave CG&E a way out through the Quality Confirmation Program and essentially stepped out of the picture'for six

n months af ter last November's " interim" report.

There is another story behind CG&E's rosey announcements in the company's "OK News" that the aptly-titled Quality Confirmation Program is confirming the quality of Zimmer. The utility has been scrambling desperately to avoid drastic expensive repair programs and further public exposure. By denying everything and gambling again that GAP was bluffing, they've largely gotten away with it. Until today. We weren't bluffing. h

l During the 1982 " post-reform" era at Zimmer,( 't.E has-- (1) told the NRC that almost all of some 500 current welders are properly-qualified, when the QA staff found just the opposite; ')': ;. .3.: replaced the industry-wide Nonconformance Reporting ("NR") 7 TI[q@'d. . y (2) largely system with a new informal substitute, after the NRC found that~.34.3i,;.q.:,- previous informal substitutes were illegal: DNT8FP 1z:f;.9.5k j{6 (3) established a policy to " identify" for " corrective action" the - QE.jMv$* f. quality control inspectors who were " habitual NR writers and [-f idyi.[,, 4, ,IW.,, deficiency generators"; and ,..,.Nik$i;g(!)f* - W h',D /N,M " 'I$i .yy, 7 ggg' j37 ~ askedforanexemptionfromnormalAmericanSocietyofMechanicalj,4;7-[9 'O.' ; 3'.~ i':(4 ) Engineers ("ASME") standards on some28,000 radiographs rejected $;hp,, 4" "/' '. by the NRC. The ASME. survey team also rejected CG&E's position. ly 'M5'y.- ..<. :a : ::4: - ~. Kaiser's post-reform site monstruction manager told the employees I'- . ': i.;,), .,. p.; .,Q after he began work last July, his goal was to return to the pre-April 19811/ ; a, f T:,)s C t c ., Ar4 - mode, when Kaiser had, everything going for it and was building one-of the....f.Q;,4; ~ ~ ' ' [ Y Y.,,.i[I'P. cheapest nuclear plants in the country. The Commis~sioner's response to .s. today's petitions will determine whether Kaiser meets that goal. As CG&E President Dickhoner has said h;"jm ; .':v W How did the NRC let this happen? g ..' y. p$k...e.' i; n the NRC has been around from the beginning. At least since 1976 when Kaiser. Quality Engineer Vic Griffin blew the whistle, the NRC has been on-notice."., ,[ .. g, ' Yet the NRC staf f lowered enforcement standards at Zimmer. For six years' the NRC has managed to keep a lid on Zimmer, to a level the public could. o, live with emotionally. We're convinced that last November's report and fine J - were just anoother part of t' hat strategy.' It offered a detailed snapshot-into part of the problem. But the investigations into the causes, the full scope, and the hardware effects of CG&E's non-QA program were either short-circuited, or censored. Even within the NRC there has been vigorous protest.throughout this period. Numerous NRC staf f inspectors and investigators have gone on record against the enforcement policies at Zimmer. For example, ' a 1981 NRC memoran-dum obtained under the Freedom of Information Act contains former Resident

4 5-Inspector Terry Harpster's account that he " screamed" about Zimmer at a 1978 ~ NRC management meeting. He found no NRC suppcrt. Meanwhile, Mr. Harpster reported that CG&E officials Borgmann and Schwiers went over his head to ,f,qdh,L.): complain about overly-aggressive enforcement and to seek revision of NRC /;.(

dai: hq$$?

inspection reports. In 1979 Mr. Harpster left the, site. .. ).G /;.,.l. p :

k@G.

- j.;, ' ' Last spring the NRC investigators and Resident Inspector Tom Danielscp-Q N . 3 ..&f f.').Yf q.l ],'A);'hih?ha < u _.g.. y.{. ;;@ ',;T recommended shutting down the plant. Otherinvestigatorsandinspectors;.{. N"y.gg, j.] g $49 xa. .,r % :?:C.Ulb ' had agreed with Mr. Daniels' decision. YetafteraMarch31 closed-door;EffpSifS! 9M ~ .y;; - y=w y.,Q i ~:, =p..y. ' (* :... , ['I meeting with Mr. Bergmann, Region III management overrulhd them. Instead,i," '...

.t;.

Region III turned the rest of the effort to identify and correct the damage, ' - ',[ Q

n. n.

.g over to the utility. After last April the Region III Zimmer investigation' R.',' Lk. .ve,.~u, was largely inactive for a year, other than writing up and shrinking what '. 2 , ~ ,3.. had been found already. Region III did not even impose a comprehensive ~ r ,c records retention requirement on CG&E. QG '. [ ' The utility's ability to destroy records -legally became significant, ./ :.+ s. I last summer, when NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor. ("OIA") opened a criminal investigation at Zimmer. The'OIA investigation could have solved ~ the mystery of what went wrong at Zimner. To determine criminal intent, " OIA investigators had to probe for the causes of the QA breakdown. July 8 and July 9,1981 OIA interviews with the Kaiser and CG&E QA chiefs, respec-tively, pointed the finger squarely at top CG&E management. At that point -- when the 'NRC probe reached the moment of truth -- the investigation was called off; suspended until June 1982 so it would not " interfere" with Region III's effort, which had been largely dormant since April. OIA never released a report on last summer's criminal investigation. Today we are releasing key interviews the investigators took frcm Kaiser QA Manager Phillip Cittings and QC Inspection. Supervisor Rex Baker, l ^

+

In short, the Commissioners' decision not to reopen the hearings does.

not square with reality. The Commissioners said that public oversight and participation in licensing hearings are unnecessary. On the basis'of today's(d;;. i: ,/ evidence, now more than ever the NRC/CG&E monopoly on the Zimmer cleanup mustfjf. - g. .e' .be' broken. It -is imperative that -- (1) a totally independent third party; ,'[ ~ the public have a j 6 J;N;;f replace CG&E to manage completion of the plant; and (2) ~'y -7 hto- ~C _ chance to r.onitor 'and debate the Staff's oversight effort through renew '. ', ~. .j;.O'. .cc - m-e !? licensing hearings. Otherwise, the Zimmer lesson may be to drastically stretch the limits'?i;3, ..[ 'of. how badly a util'ity can defy the Atomic Energy Act without the NRC removing.d,,j . e 4.gf 9e fi it from control of the coverup. That is just what will happen unless one icj .3-s 's t r Commissioner changes his mind and permits the licensing hearings that MVPP, - A* - - the NRC Staff and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board all have requested.

z. -. h1 Under the circumstances, there is no def ensible reason for the NRC'.f{4;..qb,'!"" '

~

• i to remove the public from the licensing process.

Its own hands are too dirty. ~ .' Nis? Cnly this spring -- when Kaiser and NRC whistleblowers gave up on the system - ' did MVPP learn the full scope of the NRC and CG&E's secret policies of the l' 3 9 last 6 and 11 years, respectively. The excuse that it is "too late" for public hearings is lame, even if presented in good faith. c ~ Fcr all of us, the Zimmer story raises a nagging question raised by Nhc Inspec:or F:cd !! aura last April 22 in an internal memorandum: The NRC shall determine why it failed so miserably, during its routine inspection program in identifying and correcting -the problems now surfacing at the Zimmer site. ... Corrective action must be taken to prevent recurrence. Our findings raise the question whether Zimmer's problems are an isolated case or whether our program has allowed similar problems to develop in other plants within our region. To answer that question R[egion) III must conduct similar team inspections at other RIII plants under construction as soon as possible. It is unfortunate that RIII management never acted on Mr. Mau'ra's advice, because it appears his fears about the Region-wide QA breakdown were completely

I )i c .s accurate. Along with GAP's work on behalf of the Miami Valley Power Project . at Zimmer, we have recently concluded a preliminary investigation into the.;,, 4 Midland Nuclear Power Station in Michigan, the LaSalle Nuclear Power Plant'.f*J.},. @""i!J.s.?!h l d .c;.;'L inIllinois,andaHeating,VentillatingandAirConditioningsubcontractor.k',2.. OV 2 r in Chicago that provided materials to three Region III nuclear plants.. 'In.D: Pj.j'n, 3 .: W.:.<' - e' .@s1Qp '+: 'Y.WR M ^ i? p ra.' " " '. - -each investigation we have followed the same tracks left at Zimmer. ' * ' '@%%N;:':d5 9.Y.l Ju

U N V,,.".? 'n'? ?.

T.$6.'.f' l$[@h_ ij.. Region III' Administrator Keppler has said that he could not assure thep:y q; cup;y;,@e : .- i. ~ z ,g

[

Public there were "So more Zimmers." ' Regrettably, Mr. Keppler may.have f m. ..s g, 'fi) understated his reservations. Neither he nor anyone can answer far too many > 2. 2, i 1 5 '@bl {E;- critical questions about the quality of the nuclear power plants in Region '.III. '/..i . :l l JIP

• We'think the public should know why.

h.h.,[, ,1 j m... i< ~ u- ,e

w.,.8......

.t". ,, " pF *.. o .e . v q9;? a, " * * ~ GAP has also requested that the Commission reconsider its decision of ~ ~ ' ordering the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to dismiss W.jj.j:; "J '. ph 7.y . July 30, 1982, l MVPP's eight contentions focusing on the quality assurance breakdown at ' ' f... '. . :. '9,: M -:v. g - i Zimmer and CG&E's lack of character and competence to operate a nuclear plant..j,. . ;;'.y;.- The Commission stated that it did not believe public licensing hearings s were necessary because the NRC Staff was monitoring progress at Zimmer through

• 7 the Quality Confirmation Program and continuing its investigation of alleged J.,

deficiencies. . = < MVPP and GAP believe that public oversight of the NRC is crucial in this case. The Commission, in finding that the Staff could handle the problems at Zimmer, was uninformed about the Staff's track record up to this point. The two petitions filed by GAP and MVPP emphasize to the Cemmission essentially l two points: D g f

~ ( (1) The Staf f has never disclosed publicly the true extent of the QA and hardware problems at Zimmer, nor the responsibility of CG&E official for t.hese finlures; '.V J.' ? - . ~'fy+.. y: e ". ct: ;. Af. ~ (2) CG&E, some of whose officers may be questioned in connection with ?N,k.UM; a criminal investigation for f alsification of QA records, has monitored and.M..m.T _%%.i, .g;-g-e. .. +,. '.hff:[u..3.,p r. p.,.- ~ .jh,N: 'r [. ,. (controlled the QA program at Zimmer since.1973. 3 g. dr. t ^.WW-3.. . [ d'? '. chi {,,;i. Contrary to Regicn III Administrator James.Keppler's report to' the d,k[Q. h[ f . s. ; ~,' t$.. 1. f y.?,f p;. i.uw ,.g ;?c. q. .. n Commission on June 7,1982, this.is not a case of the utility. abdicating aufg gtz.3.5 g l' h * ',&, ' '.hffhii5;', control to its contractor. ^ ... A i ,.4.. s The NRC Staff again and again has shown itself incapable of monitoring'g,:.n.c -:. ; f E b,T e t,t j,6 a s.. CGGE to ensure the safe construction of Zimmer: i J-3. ". i/ 'c:e,e .N y e.e,.s.7 (1) From 1977 to 1979 when it was informed by its own preoperations..- [t i.v ' - start-up inspector Terry Harpster about Zimmer's prbblems the NRC ignored 'the.:/ -, _. Harpster told his superiors in 1979 that Zimmer had no QA program 'q , reports. , e!.... s. .p c . for operations and that CG&E did not have the technical competence to operate l},i; cq ...9.. s ': 7.... . g ;,..;.:ij t, Zimmer. .,3 p.w.:, ; (2) The IE Report issued in November 1931 was severely censored.. .C Although the NRC fined CG&E $200,000 for the deficiencies uncovered by its % Y: investigators, in light of the evidence they uncovered, the fine was little ..}. > ~, more than a slap on the hand. The draft of the IE Report showed that the ' NRC knew that CG&E denied adequate staffing to Kaiser QA. This decision was made even though CG&E knew Kaiser could,not comply with NRC regulations without more personnel. The NRC was also.old that two Kaiser QA managers were forced to leave because they felt they could not do their jobs without more staff. Further information provided to the NRC showed that after a December 1980 meeting with the NRC about improper voiding of nonconformance reports, CG&E failed l

1 to take corrective actions even though officials knew it violated Commission regulations. d This kind of damaging information was deleted from the final IE Report, g j.g Mi The NRC was informed that worker intimidation and harassment ati.g.%.%j..;.e; (3) .m , Zimmer has.never.been caused by erratic outbursts of individual constructional(h',yk ' Q Qf'% ' Q4 It is instead the consequence of CG&E and Kaiser managementi.n;.j",r.,1.ls.- . ; workers alone. ff t ... e a.., a.. - ;-,: w ..s %,

9.yd.;;.s,.3 p

. n..a : y. " policies which pressure QA personnel not to hold up construction. ~ ' ' .x ~ .a:N:4% (4 ) The NRC and CG&E have agreed over the last nine years that certain >l,:1.',LW p.;r., QA practices do not violate NRC regulations', including improper purchase of.$.. Q

• l, l

c materials from non-approved. vendors and upgrading of materials to "es untial."' i., Y, i

g.w.

In the Spring of 1981, despite the recommendation of Region III inspec@ h.'t h ) . as :.- tors and investigators, Mr. Keppler refused to stop, the construction at Zimmer F le af ter a closed-door meeting with CG&E's Earl Borgmann. Later he turned dow'n GAP's request to stop construction at the site even though Zimmer's resident' ',

?

inspectors strongly supported a suspension of construction until the old., }q_,, ( g i; ;" i. problems had been sol'ved. ..t A nine-month delay in the IE investigation and an indefinite suspension i of the criminal probe have defeated any possibility of discovering the facts' at Zimmer. Even now, as the Quality Confirmation Program uncovers the severe " .,h. hardware and documentation faults at Zimmer, the NRC is responding to CG&E pressure to weaken its oversight of the plant. That is why licensing hearings are the only way the public can be sure Zimmer is being constructed and can be operated safely. MVPP and GAP, in filing thpo two petitions, have presented a large portion of the evidence they have collected during an investigation catalyzed by the NRC's failure adequately to monitor CG&E We believe that the Commission will agree, af ter reviewing the evidence we have presented, tha't licensing

s t . hearings are absolutely necessary to ensure rigorous public oversight of CG&E and of the NRC Staff. -4, r. +=/.. g a I .t. -r n,' a

• ^

f: *,, r.. ' '.-

• ,.4

'N

• 9
• ,I-O. k e ',

,,d,- 's, 4, *.. g.,'..'.',.! * ',8, k i

• • 8

, '/h[ d' 4 ,~ ,,..,' q f 3-a

3-,

...r..,,$,.,.,., z- ,w ?,pEZ ')7......;,.

..

• ff y '

.4 4 = ,9 e. I o Y I g t ; [* <.,,,. ' 1 1 J 4 k ^ ~~Qhk l 3 s_ m.

• 4-
• },

.: a

• e

/ &. \\ r. e 6

IN '[-l.[, Rh6 s. [';'k]f.D)f,;

c. i.

g j % C_.4 fil E A l T h _. .9n.y. :. : k .k$i '$.fi' d!ge? ~ We are concerned to see a pattern ofleniency that has compromised q p s 9. e..... .Ml.;* gp;p,n,. the regulatory concept. As we found at Zimmer, the NRC Region III staff gives b )y,- . % ":' n fj the benefit of the doubt _to_the_util_ity,far too often. We believe the utility will look;$ [ e v x ;. 7% rp,t .out for its own best interests. The NRC is paid by the taxpayers to look out for

• c.

76 " ,hb the public interest, qq.[ '$ g 4

• .W gg.,!.Q

..?. ii.. A Some examples of this pattern of leniency include: s.h. 57s,m@g.. .?M1 ,i

1. The NRC resolving " findings" only based on statements

$jf.

j,[ h.., with vested interest. .oA n, u. 4W).i..*.h 19:,.

2. The NBC acceptance of relaxed design and construction

$j[%($ specifications and procedures. 4 . d,h@.{f.f; k;T .f.W. ,,fp,N T

3. Scrious conflict of interest within investigations and gi W

'.h;gh. Qq:0N inspections.

i.W{gy}.kN 4

Continued acceptance of substandard material. Y$,?;$jif. :y' . 1 hi: . {l, '}-) g.S _, u

5. Few, if any, unannounced NRC inspections on site.

yp. Wfv.t.(

MOpOM

6. Excessive deferral to the financial hardships and time L#

deadlihes' of the utility, weighed against public safety standards,

3..;(.h,'y.

. t;' :;.. ...u. ;;... Even worse, the above structural flaws and patterns of non-compliance- ,.,.7.is';. Io' do not include the unacceptable potential for human error at Midland. We have yet ~t to find a single employee witness who has denied our witnesses charges of wide- , 3 c. spread drunkeness on the job at the construction site. It is difficult enough for a sober worker to construct any nuclear power plant safely. We shudder at the q consequences of drunken employees trying to cope with the handicaps at Midland.. Region III has begun to recognize the seriousness of the problems at l -} Midland, as evidenced by Mr. Kcppler's recent announcement of a special inspec ~,. g[. .b. ;;.sf.;.. tion team for Midland. .g. Shoddy work has been piling up for almost a decade, ..." 1, ' ', f

s, ~ ha 9 pgj TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. DIRCKS I BEFORE THE I ,s 1 c,... ^ SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT p.1.). + OF THE COMMITTEE ON IllTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS g UNITEDSTATESHOUSEOFREPkESENTATIVES

.i,

-t, WASHINGTON, D.C. .4: .r .:...c. 1-4

• ge i

e A f 1Ac m w M 6 e 49 t e S

OUAllTY ASSURANCE FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ~ THIS TESTIMONY ADDRESSES THE ADEQUACY OF QUALITY ASSURANCE AS IT APPLIES TO NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WHY IDENTI-FIED CONSTRUCTION OR QUALITY ASSURANCE DEFICIENCIES HAVE NOT BEEN DETECTED ON A MGRE TIMELY BASIS, AND ACTIONS BEING TAKEN.TO S6LVE, RECOGNIZED PROBLEMS.

2 s,

THE NRC LOOV,S TO THE POWER PLANT OWNERS, THE UTILITIES THEMSELVES, TO TAKE THE LEADERSHIP ROLE IN ASSURING THE QUALITY OF THEIR PLANTS AND OPERATIONS. THIS REQUIRES HEAVY EMPHASIS AND ACTIVE INVOLVE-MENT OF TOP LICENSEE MANAGEhENT'.'lN DA' PROGRAMS. CAREFUL ATTEN TION IS REQUIRED IN THE SELECTION OF ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS l-AND QA PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES FOR EACH TASK AND THEIR IMPLEMENT - ATION BY THE WORKERS ON THE J0B. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THERE MUST.;BE+- ADEQUATE RESOURCES OF QUALIFIED PERSONNEL AT MANAGEMENT, OPERAT- 'ING, AND STAFF. LEVELS. ~ NRC ASSESSES THE PERFORMANCE OF THE UTILITIES AND THEIR MAJOR CONTRACTORS DURING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. PHASES. THE-NRC-DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO REDO THIS WORK OR INSPECT'IT COMPLETELY.SINCE THE NRC RESOURCES ON A PARTICULAR PLANT ARE ONLY A SMALL FRACTION OF WHAT WE REQUIRE A UTILITY TO DEVOTE TO INSPECTION, CUALITY ~ CONTROL, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE. THE NRC'S REGIONAL OFFICES CARRY (bTASAMPLING INSPECTION PROGRAM AIMED AT' DETERMINING' COMPLIANCE. WITH THE PROGRAMMATIC COMMITMENTS. THE~RE'GULATORY REQUIREMENTS PLACE THE MAJ0D INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DUALITY ASSURANCE

O L. ON THE LICENSEE'S CONTRACTORS, AUDITED BY THE LICENSEE'S STAFF WHIC AND OVERVIEW OF THE LICENSEE'S A

t.yy?c,,

ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES. CONTRACTORS' QUALITY ;cq. ACTIVITIES, NRC INSPECTIONS COVER g }??[$ THE: INSPECTION ACTIVITIES PERFORMFT ~ e.

:.yy.;:-;

ELICENSECAND.ITS[5k CONTRACTORS. y"E.s M THE 11RC'S QUALITY ASSURANCE RE "l APPENDIX B TO PART 50 0F T1 TEE 16 6 NTAINED IN REGULATIONS, "OUALI OF FEDERAL AND FUEL REPROCESSING PLANTS."T .s. LANTS ~UPON WHICH THE NRC JUDGES T

• * ^

OF GA PROGRAMS.'THE K:& +. CRITERIA 0F APPENDIX 3 APPLY TO "~ 1 SAFETY-RELATED FUNCTIONS OF NUCLEAR PO t '" SYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS. R REACTOR STRUCTURES, t t QUALITY ASSURANCE IS DEFINED IN OU i PLANNED AND SYSTEMATIC ACTIONS NECESSARY, ONS AS "ALL THOSE ~' CONFIDENCE THAT A STRUCTURE, SYSTEM TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SATISFACTORILY IN SERVICE." OR COMPONENT WILL PERFORM HAVING SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE IN A POWER PLANT: i O THE DESIGN IS VERIFIED TO EE CO APPROPRIATE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS; CLUDE \\. l g

(... s O PROCUREMENT DOCUMENTS CONTAIN ADEQUATE INFORMATION AND ARE VERIFIED; '1 2:rf,, INSPECTION OF PARTS, MATERI ALS, AND PROCESSES ARE. Oi;:..'O 0 ~. ^k ..f'Gy.D.'.iu.', ~ TIMELY AND ADEQUATE; yk,tyj$2?"

?. e ]Q(

x INDESIGN,CONSTRUCTIONANDINSTA

~ 43. E 0 DEFICIENCIES

7',

.-.s... ARE IDENTIFIED AND APPROPRI.ATELY REMEDIED;- ...J ~ ;- u . o.: THE DA PROCESS IS AUDIT,ED AffD REPORTED TO AN ORGANI ' M_:.7iy 0 - :q ZATIONAL~ LEVEL CAPABLE OF ASSURING EFFECTIVE CORRE MEASURES; i;,,.. ' : ..i ;t;;y;tip . Q t,;; RECORDS ARE KEPT WHICH CLEARLY DEMONSTRA 0 OF ACTIVITIES AFFECTING QUALITY; AND s. l 0 THE ORGANIZATIONS PERFORMING QA FUNCTIONS HAVE SUFFICIENT. INDEPENDENCE AND AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT THESE ACTIVITIES.' THIS DISCUSSION WILL FOCUS ON SOME EXPERIENCES THAT HAVE AND CON-TINUE TO GENERATE WIDESPREAD PUBLIC INTEREST. SPECIFICALLY, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME SERIOUS' QUALITY ASSURANCE BREAKDOWNS WITH BROAD REPERCUSSIONS AT THE MARBLE HILL, MIDLAND, 2IMMER, SOUTH TEXAS, AND DIABLO CANYON CONSTRUCTION SITES."

i -4 MARBLE HILL IN 1979, WEAKNESSES llERE IDENTIFIED IN THE PROGRAM FOR THE FLACEMENT OF CONCRETE AND RELATED QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES'AT" hic ,.c THE MARBLE HILL NUCLEAR PLANT CONSTRUCTION SITE IN SOUTHERN N' . r.t. INDJANA. g.; ; [.g

9

.' $6 ' 'i; b . ~. WE INVESTIGATED THESE PROBLEMS WHEN A CONCRETE WORKER RAISED ALLEGATIONS THAT HONEYCOMBING, VOIDS AND SURFACE DEFECTS WERE BEING IMPROPERLY PATCHED. TilESE' LL'EGATIONS, WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SUBSTANTIATED, LED TO A BROADER INVESTIGATION THAT ADDRESSED OTHER AREAS OF WORK AT THE SITE.' ABOUT THE S'AME TIME, en CODE COMPLIANCE PROBLEMS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE INDIANA BOILER i P ~ CODE INSPECTOR AND THE NATIONAL BOARD OF BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL INSPECTORS. THESE EVENTS LED TO A HALTING OF ALL SAFETY-RELATED WORK AT THE SITE IN AUGUST 1979 -- A MOVE TAKEN BY THE UTILITY AND CONFIRMED' BY AN NRC ORDER. WORK WAS NOT PERMITTED BY THE NRC TO RESUME UNTIL DECEMBER 1980, SOME 16 MONTHS LATER, WHEN THE UTILITY'S QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM.--AND THAT OF ITS CONTRACTORS -- HAD BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY UPGRADED AND THE ADEQUACY OF COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION WORK HAD BEEN VERIFIED. DELAYS I'N CONSTRUCTION AND EFFORTS TO CORRECT THESE AND OTHER PROBLEMS'ARE ESTIMATED TO HAVE COST THE UTILITY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. 6

.a MIDLAND [ :.=. ^~

c IN THE CASE OF THE. MIDLAND FACILITY IN MICHIGAN, EXCESSIVE 4gg.

SETTLEM'ENTOFTHEDIESELGENERATORBUILDINGWASOBSERVEDIN1978 HE UNEXPECTED SETTLING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ATTRIBUTED TO INAD / AND'P00RLY.' COMPACTED S0ll UNDER THE BUILDING. SFURTHER INVES I ' . -j .w:f%?.l':$;;,' GATIOR BY THE LICENSEE REVEALED THAT OTHER SAFETY-RELATED SYSTEMstM- \\ AND STRUCTURES WERE AFFECTED. ALL OF THESE SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES 7' u. WERE NEARING COMPLETION AT THE TIME THE PROBLEM WAS 'DISCOVEREIP.. J.. .msh :: ' \\.. THE NRC'S INVESrIGATION DETERMINED ~TH'AT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTIONS M.' SPECIFICATIONS HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED DURING PLACEMENT OF THE SOIL.; -ax. . FILL MATERIALS AND THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF CONTROL AND SUPER 3~~* N~

1. ~

. ziEk. {VISIONOFTHESOILPLACEMENTACTIVITIESBYTHEUTILITYANDITSW,M ) CONTRACTORS. THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ASSURING PROPER SOIL,.n.( .".i.. ._a-COMPACTION AND DEMONSTRATING THE ADEQUACY OF THE PLANT DESIGN ARE2 SIGNIFICANT. THE MATTER HAS STILL NOT.BEEN RESOLVED AND THE-ISSUES ARE C'URRENTLY BEING LITIGATED BEFORE AN NRC. HEARING BOARD. ~ ZIMMER AT THE ZIMMER FACILITY IN SOUTHERN OHIO, THE NRC HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING ALLEGED QUALITY ASSURANCE IRREGULARITIES SINCE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. THIS INVESTIGATION EFF' ORT,.WHICH IS STILL ONGOING, STARTED WITH ALLEGATIONS FROM A COUPLE OF SOURCES, BUT SOON BROADENED TO MANY WORKERS AND EX-WORKERS. TO DATE WE HAVE. 6 ^ mm

{ INTERVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 100 INDIVIDUALS AND EXPENDED OVER 250 MAN-DAYS ONSITE PURSUING THESE ALLEGATIONS. w. g I m THECURRENTINVEETIGATIONHASIDENTIFIEDANUMBEROFQUALITY;$ph.; ASSURANCE-RELATED PROBLEMS AT THE ZIMMER SITE. THE MAJORITE.0Fb D :' c. . rp .....THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED TO DATE FOCUS ON THE INEFFECTIVENESS 20kd'j.p.dO "y2 ~

• CONTROLS IMPLEMt'NTED BY THE LICENSEE AND ITS. CONTRACTO

[$l i r .r ASSURING THE QUALITY OF WORK PERFORMED. IN THAT REGARD, NUMEROUS' W DEFICIENCIES HAVE BEEN FOUND CONCERNING TJACEABILITY OF MATERIALS, x.- }ANDLING OF NONCONFORMANG, {ERFACE'BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION ANDic m j, QUALITY CONTROL, OUALITY RECORDS, AND THE LICENSEE'S OVERVIEW'0Fi i ~ ONGOING WORK. ~ ~ . ;.l - = , THEIMPACTOFTHEIDENTIFIEDQUALITYASSURANCEDEFICIENCIES0NO[ THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED, AN EXTENSIVE l REVIEW OF THE AS BUILT PLANT IS CURRENTLY BEING PERFORMED. t ? I LIMITED INDEPENDENT MEASUREMENTS WERE PERFORMED BY THE NRC IN' ~ SELECTED AREAS OF CONCERN IN AN ATTEMPT TO CHARACTERIZE THE ACTUAL SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE DEFICIENCIES. ALTHOUGH A FEW PROBLEMS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION WERE IDENTIFIED, THE ~ MAJORITY OF THE TESTS AND EXAMINATIONS DISCLOSED NO HARDWARE PROBLEMS. BEFORE THE PLANT CAN BE LICENSED A COMPREHENS1'VE QUALITY CONFIR. MATION PROGRAM WILL HAVE TO BE CONDUCTED AND IDENTIFIED PROBLEM O

-7 AREAS RESOLVED. 3Y ITSELF, WITHOUT FACTORING IN NY REWORK, THE QUALITY CONFIRMATION PROGRAM WILL BE BOTH COSTLY AND TIME CONSUM- ~ ING. THE EFFECT OF THIS ON THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE OF THE PLANT 2 5.p,ig.i% REMAINS TO BE DETERMINED. J.,f '.~ w M M.L.d .;..e.y. --.. SOUTH TEXAS EN ed .gp:s.:.y v z .'..i fE '. IN JANUARY 1981, HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY (HL&P) ".. ' W INITIATED A DESIGN REVIEW OF THOSE PORTIONS OF THE ENGINEERING:?:* DESIGN WORK PERFORMED BY BR'0WN AN,D'R0DT, INC., (B&R) FOR THE.i >:. SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING, STATION (STP). THE)' PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW WAS TO ASCERTAIN THE OVERALL ADEQUACY;0F. 31 THE STP DESIGN. QUADREX CORPORATION WAS ASKED TO ASSIST HL&P..IN

o. m

.[ A REVIEW OF THE FOLLOWING B&R TECHNICAL DISCIPLINES: 1. CIVIL / STRUCTURAL x COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND CODES ELECTRICAL / INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL GE0 TECHNIC HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING i MECHANICAL NUCLEAR ANALYSIS PIPING AND SUPPORTS / STRESS AND SPECIAL STRESS RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL

- THE LICENSEE MET WITH QUADREX CORPORATION FDP THE FIRST TIME ON 4 JANUARY 16, 1981, AND SEVERAL OTHER TIMES IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY-1981, TO PLAN THE REVIEW. THE REVIEW BY QUADREX INVOLVED 12 "1' I .3 05 ENGINEERING CONSULTANT PERSONNEL WHO SPENT MORE THAN SIX WEEKS',Iff e;p a _.w ' AUDITING B8R DESIGN ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS AND INTERVIEWING ,. o + '- VA.RIOUS BaR DISCIPLINE ENGINEER,S, THE REPORT ON THE QUADREX.fij Q [. .. g.,.s EFF0,RT DATED MAY 1981, WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LICENSEE TO THE NRC4 LICENSING HEARING BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1981. BREIFLY, THE~ - QUADREX REPORT FOUND THAT BROWN & ROOT APPARENTLY FAILED TO _. );; b i PROPERLYIMPLEMENTTHEDAPROGRAM'IN[THEDESIGNAREABUTALSO' j FAILED TO PROPERLY IMPLEMENT AN OVERALL DESIGN PROCESS CONSISTENT. WITH THE NEEDS OF A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. 'AS A RESULT VERIFICA-3. TION OF DESIGN INFORMATION WAS APPARENTLY NOT PERFORMED IN A'p.l)..,', TIMELY MANNER, AND REGULATORY COMMITMENTS FOR SAFETY DID NOT-i APPEAR TO BE FULLY OR PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED TO SATISFY NRC REQUIRE-MENTS FOR LICENSAB4LITY, NRC INSPECTION REPORTS DATING BACK TO 1979 FOUND. PROBLEMS AT THE SOUTH TEXAS PLANT SIMILAR TO THOSE IDENTIFIED IN THE QUADREX REPORT. HOWEVER, THE AGENCY'S AUDITS DID NOT SURFACE THE NUMBER OF PROBLEMS SUGGESTED BY THE QUADREX REPORT. THOUGH WE WERE AWARE OF GA PROBLEMS AT SOUTH TEXAS AND HAD CITED THE LICENSEE ~ bFOR A BREAKD0hN IN THEIR QA PROGRAM IN APRIL 1980, THE MAGNITUDE OF POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WAS NOT FULLY APPRECIATED UNTIL WE FIRST REVIEWED THE REPORT IN AUGUST OF 1981, 1

_g. ~ IN LATE SEPTEMBER THE LICENSEE ANNOUNCED THA BEING REPLACED BY BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION AS WE INTEND TO CAREFULLY MONITOR HOW BECHTEL INVES M'.' ~ ' ' . M.+. - :- DISPOSES OF THE PROBLEMS SURFACED BY THE QUADREX REPOR /E ~?'.I..- }:;s. DIABLO CANYON

-. JN y.; ~ -

..e y d..;.d.y 5;;a.... v.

6:

0 ~ AT DIABLO CANYOh, THE PACIFIC GAS 8 ELECTRIC COMPANY (PGaEF

.c.

i '. X PROVIDED INCORRECT INFORMATION TO A EXPERT CONSULTANT, WHO USED n', THE INFORMATION IN DEVELOPIlliG THE.5El$MIC RESPONSE THE DESIGN OF CERTAIN SEISMIC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT R OUR INVESTIGATORS HAVE FOUND THAT THERE WAS A JA ^~ ..s - FORMALITY IN THE PROCEDURES USED FOR. VERIFYI INFORMATION TRANSFERRED BY PG8E TO ITS CONSULTANTS. THESE

y PROCEDURES DID.NOT COMPLY WITH OUR REQUIREMENTS CA FICATION OF DESIGN INFORMATION AT EACH STAGE OF

~ INDEPENDENT PERSON QUALIFIED IN THE PERTINENT DISCIPLI P. ROPER QUALITY ASSURANCE CONTROLS WERE NOT AND PROCUREMENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH. SERVICE-TYPE' CO NOR WERE DOCUMENT CONTROLS ADECUATE TO ASSURE THAT THOSE i DESIGN HAD READY ACCESS TO THE MOST RECENT INFORM BECAUSE OF THE INADEOUACY OF OA CONTROLS OVER D TION, PROCUREMENT AND THE TRANSMITTAL OF D0COMENTS'TO SERVICE CONTRACTORS, THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE DESIGNS BASEII ON THEIR ANALYSES IS NOW IN CUESTION.

I . t j AS A RESULT, THE STAFF HAS DECIDED THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT s ( REASON TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE PROCESS FOR SEISMIC DESIGN) TO REVIEW- -1 THE ADEOUACY OF OTHER PLANT DESIGN ASPECTS, PARTICULARLY THOSE V. - 7 .s.. ; r i L' THAT WERE BASED ON ENGINEERING INFORMATION DEVELOPED UNDER OTHER .. t 7 ;- j SERVICE-TYPE CONTRACTS; AND TO REVIEW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF:THE. b,'j .] i N 'UT.ILITY QAoPROGRAM IN THESE AREAS. $ 's.ikh.i i. .MQ : ? " a;;.:3, ". o s IN LOOV,ING AT THE MARBLE HILL, MIDLAND, ZIMMER, SOUTH TEXAS,,AND DI ABLO CANYON PROBLEMS, QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED AS TO WHY THE LICENSEE'S QUALITY ASSURANC PRUGEAMANDTHENRCINSPECTION PROGRAM HAD NOT IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEMS S0ONER. CLEARLY, IN EACH y E, THERE WAS AN OVERRELIANCE BY THE UTILITY ON ITS ' CONTRACTORS-FOR MAINTAINING A THOROUGH QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM. THE. 'J4 UTILITY'S OWN DA STAFF WAS TOO SMALL TO MAINTAIN _ SUFFICIENT. -SURVEILLANCE OVER THE WORK OF CONTRACTORS. IN TWO 0F THE CASES WE SAW INSTANCES WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT DOMINATED OR CONTROLLED THE QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM AND PERSONt!EL. AND, IN EACH OF THE CASES WHERE PROBLEMS HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED, THE CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY-BRdAD; T00 FREQUENTLY, THE RESPONSE WAS ONE OF TREATING THE SYMPTOM, RATHER g THAN FINDING THE BASIC CAUSE AND CORRECTING IT. i 4)h IN ANALYZING THE IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS AREAS, ONE CAN COM~ UP WITH A LIST OF IMMEDIATE CAUSES -- SUCH AS UNQUALIFIED WORKERS OR QC INSPECTORS, FALSIFIED RECORDS, INTIMIDATION O'F 00ALITY

_yy_ CONTROL INSPECTORS, LACK OF AUTHORITY, LACK OF COMMUNICATION, INADE0VATE STAFFING LEVELS, INADEQUATE CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS, ~ LACK OF SUPERVISION, POOR TO NONEXISTENT PROCEDURES, POOR DESIGN.. m

gn.i

-.

AND CHANGE CONTROL, DESIGN ERRORS, INADEQUATE ANALYSES, P00R' ' ,}.((,f.f@5 ' "'7 r.3 r' < QUALITY COMPONENTS, AND SO ON. MOST OF.THESE CAN BE TRACED'TO.. f ^ _.$ FA.ILURE.0F QUALITY ASSURANCE DUE TO INEFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT. Ihv y: ., g : [ CONTROL OF THE QA PROGRAM. THERE ARE A MYRIAD OF. EXCUSES AND M,

~;

s s. c. REASONS WHY MANAGEMENT FAILS. SOME ARE EXPLICIT FAILURES OF .g. 21. ERFORMANCE 0'R LACK OF ATTENTION. OTHER FAILURES ARISING FR0k POOR ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIdNS 5E"DN FICULT TO IDENT!FY THE '.' [:+' ' ~ NRC CANNOT TOLERATE THESE DEFECTS BECAUSE OF THEIR POTENTIAL IMPACT IN TERMS OF PUBLIC RISK. IT IS SURPRI5ING THAT SOME J LICENSEES ARE INSUFFICIENTLY CONCERNED ABOUT QUALITY ASSUP.AN Edf3 NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SA."ETY IMPLICATIONS BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE IMMENSE COST OF MISTAKES AND OF THE RESULTING DELAY IN l CONSTRUCTION. l u l GIVEN'THESE INSTANCES OF BREAKDOWNS IN MANAGEMENT CONTROL OF' l CONSTRUCTION CUALITY AND THE COMMISSION'S DISSAT'ISFACTION, THE ISSUE IS "WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT IT?" l WITHOUT DOUBT, THERE HAVE B'EEN SMORTCOMINGS IN THE NRC INSPECTION PROGRAM AT CONSTRUCTION SITES. THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE WE-HAVEFAILEDTOSEE'THEBREADTHORDEPTHOF'AIROBLE'M. WE IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF REQUIREMENTS WITH'0VT REQUIRING i THE CORRECTION OF THE BASIC CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. ADDITIONALLY, ~ \\ 3 J

( ... s.. WE MAY HAVE. SPENT TOO L!TTLE TIME WITH OUALITY CONTROL INSPECTORS' AND CONTRUCTION WORKERS TO GET THEIR VIEWS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION 0F QUALITY ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES AT THE SITE. HOWEVER, WE ARE TAKING, - STEPS TO ASSURE ATTENTION TO CONSTRUCTION Oh INCLUDING DESIGNATION e,

v. v 0F RESIDEN.T INSPECTORS AT ALL CONTRUCTION SITES.

i}'g L.if (, ;. ; THE COMMISSION HAS MADE OR IS CONSIDERING.A NUMBER OF CHANGES OF I ,ITS INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM TO INCREASE THE EMPHASIS ~ .' x ON IMPLEMENTATION OF QA PROGRAMS,'. LET'ME ADDRESS SIX SPECIFIC, ~ ~ ACTIVITIES: a. 1. IAS INDICATED AB0VE, NRC RESIDENT INSPECTORS HAVE BEEN OR WILL" ~ f BE STATIONED AT ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES WHERE ACTIVE CONSTRUC ' fTIONISPRESENTLYUNDERWAYANDTHEPROJECTISATLEAST1 l j PERCENT COMPLETE. BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE RESIDENT INSPECTION PROGRAM TO DATE, WE BELIEVE RESIDENT INSPECTORS l ENHANCE THE NRC'S hBILITY TO MONITOR QUALITY. ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES AND IDENTIFY THE SYMPTOMS OF BREhKDOWN IN MANAGEMENT CONTROL. l l 2. THERE HAS BEEN A TOUGHENING OF THE HRC'S ENFORCEMENT POSTURE OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND THE NRC'S REVISED ENFORCE-MENT POLICY HAS PLACED EMPHASIS ON DEALI'NG WITh POOR REGULA-TORY PERFORMANCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION AREAS.

o _13_ 3. WE HAVE COMPLETED A { RIAL PROGRAM OF TEAM INSPECTL0tts WHEREBY SEVERAL NRC INSPECTORS GO TO A CONSTRUCTION SITE-FOR, TWO TO THREE WEEKS TO DO A BROADr INTFNRTVE E PECTION OF ' 7'. s.. 9 M. ~ THE QUALITY dSSURANCE PROGRAM FOR ONGOING WORK. THIS- ~ ', ?.N.N f ' / _ ; <gn ' ~ APPROACH ENABLES NRC TO GAIN A TOTAL PROJECT PERSPECTIVElTO G A GREATER EXTENT THAN PAST, PRACTICE. THEADVANTAGEOFiTHIS!y-[, s.tm m.: ~ , DETAILED " SNAPSHOT" IS AN ENHANCED ABILITY TO EVALUATEje, '"op, i MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS. THE USE OF SUCH INSPECTION. TEAMS y ISEXTREMELYLIMITEDBYTHEAVAILABILITYOFINSPECTORS'AND:'![q. i v c FUNDS FOR THIS PURPOSE.' WITH AD51TIONAL RESOURCES, WE COULD.. ,.7;-c t. SENDINSPECTIONTEAMSTOEACHCONSTRUCTIONSITETODOM0'E~,,[ R COMPREHENSIVE INSPECTIONS U,, 3 ',I f;. THE NRC CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM IS UNDER REVISION'TO-

q. w ACCOMPLISH SEVERAL OBJECTIVES.

WEARERECASTINGINSPECTIONg,'j;. PROCEDURES TO DELETE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES OF LESSER IM t TANCE AND TO REDUCE DUPLICATION OF EFFORT BY RESIDENT AND REG I ONAL-BAS ED S PECJALLS_T__I.NS PECTORS. IN S.ITUATIONS WHERE j INSPECTOR RESOURCES LIMI.TATIONS PRECLUDE COMPLETING THE ENTIRE INSPECTION PROGRAM, WE ARE ORDERING OUR PRIORITIES SO, , g.AT THE MOST IMPORTANT INSPECTIONS WILL BE COMPLETED. e 1 t'

.c 1g_ 5. FORMALIZED PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS OF LICENSEE RE /- ~ .Z.c ..} PERFORMANCE ARE BEING CONDUCTED ANNUAL LY BY THE -l- >'9 ' :glinindF ATIC. ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE PROGRAM). THE ~ $ ~ ~u 'YI.id Nh";g:- 3 APPRAISALS,WHICHREVIEWTHECOLLECTIVENRCEXPERIENCEW 's n't?R BRING THE BROAD ISSUES OF PERFORMA EACH POWER REACTOR, 8'.y 3 a- - EFFEC.TIVENESS TO THE ATTENTJON OF SENIOR LICENS l' . l

7...-

.s. h;.,,.; -f . 6.. WE ARE NOW USING OUR OWN MOBILE LABORATORY "i . sc. ; TIVE EXAMINATION (NDE) AT CONS'TRUCTION SITES. THIS NDE-VAN. U; ~ $ sfit", + 0 HAS MULTIPLE CAPABILITIES THAT TNELUDE RADIOGRAPH DEVE U MENT, METAL LURGICAL ANAL YS IS', AND HARDNESS, ULTRAS'ONIC, ' DYE? , ;, o.~ ~' PENETRANT AND MAGNETIC PARTICLE TESTING. THE EXAMI'N b THAT WE PERFORM ARE INTENDED -TO CONFIRM QUALITY BA

p,kk;l;

~ SELECTIVE SAMPLING APPROACH, s ' 'jeg$.m.jjf] 4,e.i ( THE COMMISSION IS CONTINUING TO REVIEW ITS RESPON , u : ;. 'I' E THE N LEAR OA AREA IN ORDER TO DEVELOP IMPROVEMENTS IN - n. REQUIREMENTS, REVIEWING LICENSEE QA PROGRAMS, AND INSPECTION PRACTICES WHERE THEY ARE CA.LLED FOR,. i e I e e 9 e S e

s.d.j uog / jo UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [,. 3 g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 y O Q k / December 30, 1982 Docket Nos. 50-440/441 Ms.-Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Road IN RESPONSE REFER ~ ^" . v.. G Mentor, OH 44060 TO F0IA-82-545 .~ s

Dear Ms. Hiatt:

q!:.9,ik. ? ..q. y

,, which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of In iThis is in further response to your letter dated November 4,1982, in l

j . relating to the Perry Power Plant. 24 % ll.gQl.%* ~ + ;- M: Appendix A is a listing of documents relevant to your request.

.;u;n-During a telephone conversation between you and Nina Toms on -December 23,. -

,.l J 1982, you agreed to accept our deletion of names and other personalinforma ';.iy,e.. tD. M. 'l from employees of the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company or its mfiV contractors concerning a deficiency in construction or quality assurance ? 'C *- . at the Perry ~ plant. This agreement does not affect your right to appeal -,g' ',,.jdeletion of information, as provided in 10 CFR 9.11. r.- ~ ~ '... 2- .~ M~ Document 31 of Appendix A lists seven inspection reports which also y cover subjects pertinent to your request. These inspection reports have.,. 7 ~, quyer ' previously been placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR),1717 H Street,' SG ~ ~ ' v y.; A 'N.W., Washington, DC 20555, for public inspection and copying. You may l obtain copies of these inspection reports by writing directly to the %e PDR. The charge for copying records located in the PDR is five cents + i' 5 ,; 3[ (50.05) per page, as specified in 10 CFR 9.14(a). The charge for reproducing the enclosed 213 pages is $2.66. Seventy-five percent of the reproduction costs have been waived in accordance with 10 CFR 9.14a. You will be billed for the total amount of this request by our Division of Accounting separately. ~ ~ - g This completes NRC's action on your request. Sincerely, y f., h l ,((f [ M. Felton, Director f ' 4 Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration

Enclosures:

As stated b f ff*rlCW5?

Re: 101A-82-545 7.. f Appendix A 1. Inspection and Testing Check-Off Sheet, High Strength Batting Operation, August 8, 1977. (1 page) h Memorandum for. C. Noreli.:s from C. Williams, " Allegation Received by Licensee at Perry," September 4,1980. (2 pages) 3. Perry Nuclear Power Plant Nonconformance Report, February 25, 1981. (2 pages) 4. Lett.er to Newport News Industrial Corporation of Ohio, from D. J. Sreniawski, November 18, 1981. (23 pages) I' 5'; Memorandum for John Kinneman from Darrell Wiedeman, " Request for an Assist Inspection of Pullman Power Products, Williamsport, Pennsylvania,'.' December 2, 1981. (29pages) 6. Memorandum for Region III Files, Perry Power Plant, from C. H. Weil, " Vandalism - Filings in SCRAM Discharge Volume Pipe," January 26,1982.(5pages) .c .Y. Memorandum for Region III Files, from Charles H. Weil, " Allegations from a. ~ WEWS-TV, Channel 5, Cleveland, Ohio Concerning the Reactor Biological Shield. ? ' ' " " and Weld Crack Coverup," January 28, 1982. (8 pages) V..i: 8. Memorandum foo James G. Keppler, from J. A. Hind, " Construction Site mC Noncompliance Data for the Period 1976 Through 1980," February 5, 1982. (23 pages) j gig.'9. Letter to Agnaflux Corporation from D. G. Wiedeman, February 8,.1982.(29'p' ages) f. ~ ' h Memorandum for Charles E. Norelius from Robert F. Warnick, " Enclosed Memo from Investigation - Allegation Concerning Pullman Power Products at l. the Perry Site," February 9,1982. (6pages) 11.. Memorandum for Region III Files from C. H. Weil, " Allegation Received Concerniqg the Installation of Diesel Generators Without Having Approved Proc'edures in Effect Perry Nuclear Power Planta, March 17,1982. (2pages) 12. Memorandum for R. L. Spessard, from J. A. Hind, "An Addition to the Tabulation of Noncompliance History for Construction Sites '- 1976-1981," June 8, 1982. (2 pages)~ 13. Memorandum for James G. Keppler from L. Sucharski, "1981 Comparison Data for Operating and Construction Plants," July 8,1982. (13 pages) h Memorandum for Region III Files from Charles H. Weil, " Allegations Concerning Pullman Power Products at the Perry Site," July 8, 1982. (1 page) 15. Inspection Evaluation - Perry, May 1 - July 31,1982. (2 pages) 16. Inspection Evaluation - Perry, June 11, 1982. (2 pages) 1

? Re: F01A-82-545 s ..,f.:: t s Aopendix A ... J. i i y .f 17. Memorandum for Ciiarles E. Norelius, from J. E. Foster, "Intervenors ' '.1'... Goncerns Regarding the Cooling Tower Piping at the Perry Nuclear Power'.' ".- i . :%y,,('.'.. Plant," July 21, 1982. (2 pages) 21, ,j.. ",[ '18.' Inspection Evaluation - Perry, October 11-12, 1982. (3pages) , l[ ' Q ' Letter to Daniel D. Wilt from James G. Keppler, August 20,1982. (lipage .. u. $ ~ S d%j. Q. s: ... y' .$9 y,.

..IERP Recor.alendations, August 25,1982.(5pages)

'20.

w....

'l,5.0.21*.$ ' Inspection Evaluatica - Perry, October 12-13,1982.. (3 pages) [."jfi{kjl[ t ..r ;;,, m. f ', ';,i' 22. l Memorandum for W. J. Warif, from Charles E. Norelius, "E00-6072, .b.4,94@ Perry Plant Employee Shoddy Workmanship at the Plant - Letter sent '/".: ?..: ..from Congressman Metzenbaum, May 30, 1979.+ (8 pages) ~g,gq. un., l i. '.. 23. Memorandum for Region III Files, Perry, from James E. Foster, " Allegations O ~

h..v;.;.i(. : n

.ly.R, elative to Electrical Work at Perry," January 28,.1981. (22 pages) .:.g e u.

q 24 Letter' to individual from G. A. Phillip,' January 28,1981.(2pages),

A 7 p;9 ,f..f. g .', 'h. Letter to individual from G. A. Phillip, July 16,1981. (3 pages) ,}, . s '.. t + ' Q. I .a ~ e;;**.. t 26 .-.M... !I%.: n,h, Memorandum for Region III Files, from G. A. Phillip, "Rcactor Vessel /;, p,;; , N. Inner Steel at Perry," October 15, 1981. (2 pages). o.n. -... 27.' ' Memorandum for Region III Files, from G. A. Phillip, " Perry - Concern -:".'45t." ' U'l'llf t,'.r $H ' Regarding Fourdation Wo.rk. Received by Telephone," December 17,1981. - (2 pages),; M.g..

28. 'Memor.andum for Region III Files,.from C. H. Weil, " Perry. Nuclear Power Qeley.:$i Plant Units 1 & 2, Practical Joke - Alleged Threa,t Against the Life of a W/'

Quality Control Inspector Employed by the L. ~K. Comstock Company," f?%f ' December 31, 1981. (6pages) s .v 29. Memorandum for Region III Files, fr.om Robert F. Warnick, " Allegations Regarding Perry, Gilbert Associates," February 2,1981. (2 ? 'O 30. Memorandum for Region !!! Files, from Charles H. Weil, " Perry twciear Power Plant, Former Quality Control Inspector in Possession of False AWS Certificate," March 13, 1982. (2 pagesl 31. NRC Inspection Reports, 50-440/80-29, 81-16, 81-19, 82-01., 82-02, 82-04, and 82-08. (already available in PDR). / I uh

1-s.o. ~ (. 'g/t.:..< (/;.M.V ' A 4 .n,:

y...,

5 u:. : o:., c:w:a :.::e.

• . i %~'p !.:. / !

l; I t * %,

• C ",'.e t v.t.

t t. s:.e.t. 3 h . i n.:.c. :: m 41, # Fepten.ber 4, 1980

q..i.

g.*. ' ',ie. ' ? ;;:' n -l.k.id ) MEMORANDUM FOR: C. l.r? t lius, l.: istant to the Director.b 'a-

n. :n -

...v s...x '.G;r ~.ypJ ; C. llil l '.i r.s,1. e ic r. Chief, Engineering Support Section'.2,.Q)jy ; FROM: hea n c,r Cor.:t ri ' :n ano Engineering Support Branchtf;};ilcgig,r ;.' L;[,, .$l4cfr,.ik. '.. M tiL g $.. . ~r,., ' ' 4

SUBJECT:

ALLEGAT W: RECE3VEi i LICENSEE AT PERRY per

-Qgpgg 3.g.

v.

• b..?,y 1 m &.-

[ ~ W- ' Attached for your'infore:eticr. and use ir a copy of an internal CEI me ~ f ror:. the Perry Site which discusses r* allegation received by the $;t 7.4 Y ' ~ licensee. The allegation concerns improper sandblasting of the fl-[,% /. containment liner plate. The licensee is investigating, and the RIII l',q, Resident Inspector, Jack Hughes, is monitoring the licensee's .d.%.. . ;.' d. '.;[... jj,9l[, investigation. ,,j ..~. .L - :...t : v Mgq v.. v..ip g:pn. 44,

4. A. I

~

2. f./$r.,"

.f- ,......,e,4,.,, C. Williams, Section Chief .q.- Engineering Support Section 2 . y ". 9.g'... - L' ' J n,. - l t).,qt.4'yp: -+

Attachment:

N it S - ,.. f.n" '....:J,!@ As stated . :zh: ' cc: G. Tiorelli '/ W. i - J. Huohes .5%.' ...r;u t c

, s ; *.j.i. -

v. e' d c ,i 6 .Mh f f 4 W

.....i.. .... s..... i t.. :......1. ;, THC Cl VCLANo CLCCTRIC ILLUMI .T i t J G C D M PA r,;Y .,...e.. MEI I kJ M pac e,, =,: Atgust 25, h' aoo M S260 rnoM D. A. Pitzpatrick ATc exoNc 241 aoos W110 suoaccT RD:h7CJS ATmisTIONS ~ ... < *. s s,, 4 hU3:',b'.n,3 s . t. "

• I-1.'7..;W i.

09t*1tt

u. a. a m....

~ At approxifrately 12:30 p.m.. today, a p rscn w?c wished to rerrain9.?,,.'.Fj.; .., -: ev. ..2....n .onynous, called ne to inform rre that the. liner plate at the MNt%f.jp}ci f 6~.;ree ~ ..~..,e. location..in the Reactor Buile..y

• _r. 2.nproperly.nw..n'P?y,.t,,..

sand Q

.a ' '/..* 4f.g!c 1 :..'ted in either April or May.

& statc 5 Gat dare was oil'!f.EMWQ.m. t.i.. M e;p qq 1.,p [-.a rri::ci with the cand due to a faulty filter. Ha further stated 1)3M.'.0. [,'pC t... c'

.r.'"'7 "7

......gU ths.". O.B. Cannon painted over the oily steel and therefore, the ?';t ' f~ . +,'v.} 'c.

• A

'!,M.id.-{i.vD, plint job is not correct. ....l s 1 %bG}?. p1.Y, . v,ui.g':: %'ill you please have your appropriate inspector investigate 2. phyt,'. fQ, ,.. '. --;'o ~q this situ 3ticn. '. 'g. '.I' I;I' .m 3- .*..,..t ....,..'.. s 'l$ 1 . *,' wan -s '.a- '/ g--- _~ .? 7,M. ;.t. s b, y w.. "~ "4 a -t.sl,an - 4' f,' - ', y,. - l y, g',f I 7'* I .). .q.;.,y.;. y. q. ..- u !;ge:q/ > i. 4 4,' fi l,b.. ' g O ,

• I.j [,N.,

-,? 8 Iva'/llp ' 'U'p.i.yl* 5,;;f i**

• I 1

g l l t

• s

-r

/ ^ ~. (Investigatirn] ....,6,.. FilcQ 6. g D4 2 N [ .p 'I:lh.) ~: c HE'!OPJd!DUM FOR: Region III Files, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, ,:.. d,, 4,;g.,.g;.,. _l ,b y,.j,4 Docket 50-440 1 7 :y, ..;4.* RobertF.Warnick, Director,EnforcementandInvestigationlhf.h[ ~.4 ,,.y WJ.E THRU: - s.' o. Staff .. [Ik FROM: Chr.rles H. Weil, Investigator ALLF.GATIONS FROM WEUS-TV, CPJJmEL 5, CLEVELAND, ORIO' kk .h

SUBJECT:

' ';' f COUCERUD:G THE RP. ACTOR EIOLOGICAL SHIELD AND WELD CRACK COVERUP ,.%;h Wd.. ',, M$. yj EACKGROUND INFORMATION_

o../;.wi

.e On December 2,1981, Russel J. Marabito, Region III Public Affairs Of ficer,$ 2

p 4

was contacted by Eileen Cory, a reporter for WLMS frv, Channel 5, Clevelan Cory advised she had received information concerning:

1) voids in f,.Q.h' Ohio.

the concrete of the reactor biological shield; and 2) a steci crack was .1-covered up on the 599' elevation of Reactor Building 1. Marabito 's -m.,;, y. Q*.,, randun concerning the telephone call with Cory is attached (Attachment 1)... e t QMi% .,,g_, ~ )i ~P ' 1' me BIOI4,CICAL SITIELDING w a: .',i.UWh. f v Leonitra G. McGregor, Project Inspector, advised the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) had submitted interim reports on August 14, '. ' Th, 'k []f M and Decenber 18, 1931, concerning the density of the biological shield s.. M for Perry Units 1 and 2. CEI's interim reports (Attachments 2 and 3) vere subnitted under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55(e) and noted the .i e,p'n designed specific gravity for the heavyweight concrete placements had -' 'I l As a result, a chalky material, " soft enough to F,. l not been obtained. i ncratch with the fingernail and contains no ferrous aggregate", had de-f veloped in the top three inches of the bioshields for bot: reactors. l'cCregor continued,) n known radiation source was used to scan both biolo-gical shield valls to determine the radiation protection factoss. ' During these scans several voids, measuring approximately 4'x7', were detected j CEI was evaluating the concrete voids and would in the placed concrete. be notifying the Division of Reactor and Projects Inspection with their results. 1982, Emanuel Riley, General Supervisor of the Quality On January 13, Construction Section at the Perry site advised CEI was still evaluating the infornation pertaining to the voids in the biological shicids and the 10 CFE 50.55(e) report had not been finalized. .RI.I. $ 0.... I C" C. RI LI TTT F S r Warni k bu'* "' > U..e. i.. e.,.... M..c.G.,.,..r.....

~~ investigntion File No. 8185 50 2 S M Region Ill Files., t UELD CRACK COVER-Up .U Since the allegation, "there was a steel crack that was covered up at 599,'.J9.[64 'in Reactor Building 1", was not specific, the allegation could not be pur-

7. T '

3 sued through normal means (i.e., direct observation of the weld; interviews $.kh' of welders and quality control inspectors involved). Therefore, other l'W,I means had to be explored and the information derived from indirect sourcesh~,M$> e ' - ~ ; ;, On December 4 and 10, 1981, GaryLeidich,CEI'ssupervisingQualityAssurance',%' .J, n' Engineer at the Perry site was contacted. Leidichadvisedhehadaccompanieds.d. Cory during her tour of the Perry site on DecePer 2,1981. Leidich contin % c - ucd, he did not know who had spoken to Cory, buc she did talk to numerous Q employees of Newport News Shipbuilding (the welding contractor at the site) .f q.4._ u - ' throughout her visit. Leidich surmised that since Cory spoke mostly to $+ Newport employees, the allegation of a weld crack cover-up must have beeni W made by a Newport employee. Since the allegation appeared to have come f, % :. from a Newport employee, the assumption was made the weld in question mustl.. Q i . l,, have been made by Newport. Taking this information, the Nonconformance, q,(.qpjg ' '!;r Reports for Newport welds on the 599' elevation of Reactor Building I were6 reviewed. A Nonconformance Report within these parameters was not, found;.j g 3 S l however, Nonconformance Report No. CQC-3992 dealt with a crack weld made by Newport on the 612' elevation of Reactor Bu11 ding 1. -(The 612'.. f..' elevation is reached from the 599' floor.) The description ~of~the non = b;.ar-. conformance was,E"While sardblasting for painting', lealdage of mois~ture iS '(NG.~ "tP.# weld I-4.49 at the lower right hand corner of wall embed 41035 at approxi -Q4 9- 'mately 612' elevation aid 15 ~30' az." Leidich believed this Nonconformance closely described the VEWS-TV allegation of, "a steel crack,[ p.;, Report most ,4,. that was covered up at 599' in Reactor Building 1." l'W. 'l Jr') i.. On December 11, 1981, Carl F. Hubbuch, Construction Quality Engineer,' CO". v provided the following: During September 1981, Newport Quality Control ,M began to prepare a Nonconformance Report for generalized weld pitting of. ' on the 612' elevation in Reactor Building 1. While attachment plate weldr the inspector found he did not have sufficient informa-- ]j ' preparing the report, tion to complete the report and put the report aside to obtain more details. ' During the interim, the inspector's employment was terminated and the report was not finished. On approximately October 1, 1981, Newport released the area to Metalveld, Inc., for painting. When Metalweld began to work in the area, moisture on the weld for an attachment plate for a pipe hanger was observed. Subsequently, a Hold Tag was applied and the area was sealed ' off so the weld would not be painted. Since the area was sealed off, Metal-wald would not allow anyone, including Newport Quality Control, to enter the area. Therefore, Newport never finished the Nonconformance Report. l Subsequently, Nonconformance Report No. CQC-2392, pertaining to moisture on j the weld, was prepared by the CEI Quality Assurance Organization. This l Nonconformance Report was in the process of being dispositioned as of January 13, 1982. On January 13, 1982, Marabito recontacted Cory. Cory advised she did not have any additional information concerning the alleged weld crack cover up on the 599' elevation of Reactor Building 1. l e

Investigation. File No. 8185 Region III Files > CONCLUSIONS 4 These matters are considered closed. (1) CEI reported the initial prob-s lems with the biological shield to Region III in August and December 1981 ?.9.. l under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55(e) and was evaluating the later I developements involving the biological shields in preparation of. submitting ,' i ' s 10 CFR 50.55(e) report. The 50.55(e) report will be followed up and i closed out in the routine inspection program. (2) The information concern, ' %,. l ing a weld crack cover up on the 599' elevation of Reactor Building I was - " I'll' not specific and a cracked weld at that elevation could not be located. A cracked weld on the 612' elevation had been identified by the licensee.. +; q",p/,j,', y,; a,.. I and was being tracked on a 11onconformance Report. i. . ' ~.j.Q' 1 ',.o y q. 3.9. Charles H. Ueil Investigator ,.... v 3 4 5 ~ ?.fa, 0 Attachments: - +/.f.D,.gj. 1. Memo dtd 12/3/81-1tarabito to Warnick

[ '.* "

i 2. 10'CFR 50.55(e) Report dtd S/14/81 . N9 "' 3. 10 CFR 50.55(e) Report dtd 12/18/81 . ?'2 ' ' ' 1.. ....; : 4.:: i cc w/ attachments: ~ ~ -~ ],'yP{7 - i R. Marabito SRI, Perry .~4 C. E. Norelius ) R. L.'Soessard '"./ 1 J, li! l a 4 i l 1 i I I J 4 ..,,,,,n,-

uunsol.u.L: .A /,,, NUC. AR REGULATORY COMMISSION .(, 2 REctoN m .,7 l 795noor.tvco no,.o 8.,,' g GLE N E LLYN, lu sNoIS C,0137 ^ December 3, 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robe'rt Warnick, Director, Enforcement and Investigation Q; Staff FROM: Russel J. Marabito, Public Affairs Officer . [', 41, y. ' 'y '

SUBJECT:

PERRY ALL$ CATIONS FROM NEWS MEDIA .. ? a!. ' , C 2(.,9 -m Eileen Cory, a repo'rter for NEWS-TV in Cleveland,will be doing a report' WE on Perry NPS tonight (December 3)asanoutgrowthoftherecentproblems'.jyp at Perry involving a defective weld and the stop work cm cable pulling.- Ms. Cory talked to me yesterday, and again today, about a couple of .. g,j.{. allegations she received from a workman while her cariera crew was filming g.

,,gf'rjj,'i E

on site. She said as she was leaving Perry a workmar. told her all was-. not well at Perry, and gave her a couple of allegations. He said he QI ~

z would call her later with more specifics, but at this writing, he has

' im ' ' ' ~' - @$[.' ~ ^ d.:: not telephoned her. In her report on Perry tonight, she is going to say '[, she was given some allegations and has passed them on to the NRC for investigation. 44.1 3, .gl.p. ~ r. ci.[lW. The two allegations given to her---and as che gave them t.? me---were:, F.,q .g 4W T. (1) there is no concrete in two areas of the biological shield it Reactor Building 2. (2) there was a steel crack that was covered up " *' d}. ' at 599 in Reactor Building 1. She added that she heard there was some -,a ;.$.* + 4 ' ' iM'[ question on whether the piping contractor, Newport News, was using the 4 proper welding techniques. But she didn't know anythir:g more than that. ' ' y,:i.' 1 w.

.6 r

j ' '.q. // + Russel J. arabito 3 J. C. Keppler cc: d A. Phillip 4 S 9 Attachment One.

,y,p..n 'r QF 3--8,2.-00 i February 9, 1982 (0 ~ ' R ., s a,% ? - h'O!OPAIDUM FOR: Charles E. Norelius, Director, Dividion of Engineering 7i-and Technical Inspection '&[L j W FROM: Robert F. Warnick, Director, Enforcenent and Investigat[ ion, 3;i ' t Staff . i. q.;p,.,.,

SUBJECT:

CICLOSED ME!10 FROM INVESTIGATOR - ALLEGATION CONCERNING ~JMY ^'% PULI.MAH POWER PRODUCTS AT TIIE PERRY SITE T.'Wy-r ~ m.ma yn a. As documented in the attached memo, the alleger refuses to further information regarding his concerns and allegations. In addition,i 4 :,, ; i he has requested that the NRC not conduct an investigation. d ';f.R ' ' As agreed in our discussion of February 3,1982, this allegation (Investigati6n.1.. ..r t.' No. 82-01) is being referred to DETI for follovup during future routine 'E3)j inspections. This action was discussed with and concurred in by Streeter..g EIS would appreciate receiving a copy of each inspection report or_ merao , [ ?,/ which documents your findings _,regarding th.ese matters. J' a

i.j. 5.i.' -

f If you find that an investigator is needed, we will provide one. M. _ fi.* '

,;$h Y'i$*,'

^ r:, upp Robert F. Warnich, Director Enforcement and Investigation Staff O ? ;,,' ' :/

Attachment:

As stated . <;g cc v/ attachment: 'X' G.,11. 'Ueil R. L. Spessard J. F. Streeter SRI, Perry t e I-i =>:. RIII, p ) ,j,,,,, ,.u.d..Municsh,.qs,.,I,,,,,,,, N om >g ...t... 1 r

i ' ^, J *. o. ' IO Q h p ' ' %, Unit e o 51.:.1 L s 6, t'UCL R REGUL A10RY CO*/N.lSSION

• [*'}h**I'h

. ".. } rtGioN m C 7H HocM vf LT 8to AD C, A 2/.f GL E N ( L L YN. IL L t' ols F0137 \\..,... j FEB 4'DR? 3;E".ORANDU'i FOR: Region III Ti]es ~., T1RU: Robert F. Warnick, Director, Enforcenent and Investigation P Staff 3 - 7.y..

h. '

TRO:!: Char)es H.'Uefl, Investigator -:n. s

SUBJECT:

ALLEGATION CONCEPJiI:!G PULL"AN POWER PRODUCTS AT THE PERRY SITE D'} j, - tyin. ::. ' On January 8,1982, J. J. Harrison, SRI,1:arble Hill, provided the fol' lowing ' information to L. G. ?!cCregor, DRPI, and C. H. Ee11, EIS. 'f,.' 7 4 On Decenber 16, 1981, Harrison uas telephoned by an indivic:ual currently . ' W. ( enployed at the Perry site. Marrison advised he has known this individual ',3.3/l'n . h for approxinately ten years and considered the individual to be quite uM;fh-ti.. P rel'iable. The individual requested Earrison to not divu]se his nane. l'a, Earrison described the individual as, "close to ve3 ding activities", and ," '7 the individual provided the follouing information concerning Pullnan - p /,,. -

c Pouer Products, the nechanical subcontractor at the Perry site.

... - O- - Ce3 ding activitles h ,,&f l. The ve] ding procedures did not neet the appropriate AUS and ASF2 i code sections when originally uritten and when subsequent changes were (,O, ; nade. Also, the Procedure Oualification Records (PQRs) did not sup-port the procedure. s

)

2. Uelders were not qualified to the proper procedures or material thickness. 3. Ueld filler met al control was non-existent. Ueld rods uere mixed by - y type, size and heat nunber in the rod ovens. Rod issuance was a problem (i. e. stainless steel uas uelded with carbon steel rod). 4. QC and the A';I were not conducting inspections, rather " rubber stanping" their inspections on the ue: ding travelers.

.*a t er i 21 S t era re and "ai n t er.a n.,c e Safety and non-safety related equipnent cere nined together in the storage facilities.

Stock was not being rotated. Luhrication requirenents of stored riaterials were not net. Level A E 3 storage requirenents uere not being observed. Storage m ocedures cere jnadequate and records were not being properly maintainec. l

g-.y w

• ~iegion 13I Tiles 4

.- T[B o 9:7) . i

,onconformance Reports i

Nonconformance reports were inproperly dispositioned and/or closed-out by both OA and t he A'll. Nonconfornance reports were being inproperly voided. These were being done so as not to restrict the construction schedule. The ' ' Y-i5 CEI and Pu)3 nan construction nanagers were working " hand-in-hand" so the .... J.h W i con'struction schedule was not restricted. 'Y ' WNP ' ,.3e< "on-dest ruct ive Exaninat ions i,[$-, dl#sY l} /.M. ', sl'UG. UDE personne) vere not qua3ffied. Procedures and records were inadequate. Vn, yi.y?;p'. -

p. :

/ f' Piping ' i. n Q s j J:g 5 !!,b ! -.. -Q9, > ', : 3. The control of ptocedure revisions was inadequate. The crafts did not.

• g~. P.Q.

have the current. edition of revised procedures / drawings. Practices inplenented in the field uere not shown on the revisions of procedures / l $f.O drawines. i U[hf ' 2. Pipe fabrication uas a " big prob 3en area in general". M,,. . a ary.. f rc 3. The hanger erection procedures were inadequate. - Y3 3 ' y'1 op,w,., y s I'h?.M. f, 4. A recent RIII inspection, by Isa Yin, was considered to have identified h?.7' isolated problems, Pu]Inan fixed the specific problems, did not look at' e ff.}!1. the problems in a generic sense. , g.h. 5. i!ydrostatic procedures were inadequate and the procedures were not

• 'fj.,/;%.

.w followed. In several instances, hydro-testing uas done with valves Q'g*6,

• closed, but nothing uas done to identify and correct the valve positions.*... y Nig y

. ? 'w i w, 6. T3usgng and cleaning procedures uere not being followed. ,, m The CEI and Pullnan construction managers were working " hand-in' hand" so lj[, i the construction schedule uas not restricted. Many problems were identified i and corrected by oral instructions from the engineers and were not documented. Ingineers would be transferred so problems " fall through the cracks". The , e,1 transfers uere accomplished by Pullman having direct contact with CEI and ,yl " deals" being worked out. ~ On January 9,1982, ?!arrison contact ed the in'dividual.

!arrison informed the 4

indi vi d us) that specific information vould he needed in order to adequately pursue these areas. The individual stated he had given all the infornation he vould, as any specifies would point directly to hin. The individual ar' vised he was current 3y enp3oyed and the specific infornation vould jeopardize his job, as would an YnC investigation. The individual requested this infornation be 4 h

i2)e I;o. 9201 (.

.i.-

~.. ' .FEB A q ? P.ecion 117 .les - is r.W. i:, $ m. ' incorporated into an inspection of Pu13 nan's activities, so the responsibility for. contacting the :;RC would not point to him. Also, the indiv,idual stated.... a f;.'.'. ',', i, if the.?AC did not pursue these areas he uould contact the media.

W]y.

..:z .~..'....a 4 .2, !. - s ' ' e.. [*t** W b. R s.) FLO.2.w.kje , &MQ,W, fy

j..,..;Q

', ;,,j g)N'.c.W. Charles H.13eil Investiaator o ,,a..e .% g. gr. g p. L.h cc:. Charles E. :sorelius f.ch5 f f,! Corde]1 C.1.'113 $ ams - @<,s. ' s w.. W.,e." - .e e. -W . Dunne 11. Danie3 son M*?. .*HIO:? : iflh(6[ [h,.fp$ . S.fchard L. Spessard k '#. P 3,. 4-4 [il k John F. Streeter j.; p.Ay .,p, w-Leonard C. McCresor ic' - A 0 '.* p '%'.; h4 SRI, Perry

7..

... A, j, j] g;r} *. ( fl.%. ..e e i ,* r.J.* e ** p. ^ . '. h"' -1.. *.*r 't

• 1 N:)yAdy'.yA).f[;(i.' '

);j g ,S. c.. A* k*. y , ;f*t4,7 r.d: = 4yW*y $.9 es*,; a 'f ,4 i,-~ mp:g q!.e1..; .r... ru. t,.o... 'E,?f,6&.,.l!.f o d, l. ,. u f*v.. ; " *y.I.p: ,,n,. 4r.g...e r ; I,,. "d, f % ^ .E ;C9 *([.MM,1.Y. j' k. ~./. 1 4 @.:pt l<.,tTgy{I,f f ^r.J.o. g '1' t ls 4 m .,...q

.,.e.,,;v,.,. m 1

w > .'n.) .'.v.

t.. s..,

r?

r,n.-

r; y

* *Y * *g a 'I -

c.l,p ;;*i. + t 4 A.J.D )f{dt 219.* ' '. ( d '; 5 ' i . '[I(s.%.

• s'. 9):lh.t!,..* 4

' + 1; l ? i e ' e 4.... :. ....'l, te

• r-e f

i p d I a. .H l ,i _ f-r i % 9 t ,...t f

• 4

.sw-9e ~..,, -, ...w--. ~ r w --m -tg

,,..,q / b .E 'e e' - UrdlT E D sT AT ES ['-

s., } g NUCL1,dR REGULATORY COMMISSION df 3 -92.-CD/

p;g e R E GIOfJ lli 799 ROOSEVF LT RO AD e, g4s.,,/ g,, cLEN E LLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 July 8, 1982 ? ,. - 6, MEMORANDUM FOR: Region III Files . g.y;$idg.. THRU: Gerald A. Phi.1 ing Director, Office of Investig i i, Chicago-Field Office ~ ...e.e..;pi.MiW.,. m;- 'W4. ~, .FROM: -Charles H. Weil Investigator, Office' of Investigations' FF?? Chicago Field Office s.#.4, jf" MY$i2[fi W.. ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING PULLMAN POWER PRODUC

SUBJECT:

SITE (50-440;50-441)(EISN0.82-01) , g,pk,*, .2.ar:u%y'.; 1'-N s,l). and Technical Pr.ograms (DETP) was requested to examine seve By memorandum, dated February 9,1982, the RIII Division of Engineering TOL. tions concerning Pullman Power Products, the mechanical contractor at Wi 6.!^ the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. The allegations had been received by the.M.f, RIII Enforcement and Investigations Staff from J. J. Harrison, RIII d b Senior Resident Inspector a't the Marble Hill Nuclear Power Plant construc-Nph: ,.."r-tion siteMHarrison had obtained the information from a personal friend,~:4^ l-who was curtently employed at Perry and did not wish to be.. identified l4.,simg,y. .-m to RIII. , m. M'gc K. D. Ward and E. H. Nightinga l On February 23-26 and March 8-10, 1982, RIII DETP, conducted an inspection of Pullman Power Products at the PerryGy? site. Their inspec' ion results were contained in RIII Inspection Report ~ j,pjl No. 50-440/82-03; Su-441/82-03. t' g r d. On July 7,1982, Harrison advised he had been in contact with his friend '. ' and Harrison had been apprised that the inspection of Pullman Power s Products had corrected the individual's concerns. %gh?' as c,,. NJ No further action is contemplated by the Office of Investigations in this matter and it is considered closed. Charles H. Weil Investigator / / cc: R. F. Warnick l R. L. Spessard M. L. Gildner b

1..

g 'o Uf.'!TED sT ATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e n .E ~ REGIOtJ 111 0, 't [ 739 ROOSEVELT ROAD '%... +,g" GLEH ELLYU. EL ut:OIS COD 1 }{ July 21, 1982 . ' r7 MEMORANDUM FOR: Charles E. Norelius, Director, Division of Engineering 1 '6 ;-;; ; and Technical Programs FROM: J. E. Foster, Acting Director, Office of Investigations,'- ~ Chicago Field Office

SUBJECT:

INTERVENORS' CONCERNS REGARDING THE C00LJNG TOWER PIPINGI..P AT THE PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (50-440; 50-441) t.' (0I CHICAGO NO. 82-39) m The attached letter addresses the subject of potential damage to the J 'a',' ',4 _Y, piping between the Cooling tower and the Turbine Condensor at the P Nuclear Power Plant. The letter has been reviewed by.the OI Chicago ' "", e i,;s M-Field Office and an investigation does not appear to be warranted. OW However, preparation of a response by the technical engineering sta does appear to be in order. n: e 7j ., 3. - .Please review this matter with your staff and provide an appropriate ' . ~P 'T > = We would appreciate receiving a copy of your answer to ...,g response.. Also, the SRI-Perry has been provided wi th a copy of the t,' the letter. 'j.

i..: o letter for his information.

wO'T. ' ~ ..n g*qApW - 'L +.W'

: O-We plan no further action regarding this matter.

fqc ,:e,. . : '.ip ((M ' h. J. E. Foster, Acting Director Office of Investigations, W... Chica'go Field Office S ?) ',, l

Attachment:

Ltr dtd 5/14/82 l Wilt to Veppler cc w/ attachment: i R. L. Spessard ~ M. G. Gildner / R. F. Warnick =g

)

u..

h EG.s! AN. HESSI.ER & VANDEllifUllG A LCG AL P RO F' CS SIO N AL AS SOCI ATION ATT O R N CY S AT LAW as- "~ SulTC 102 e4 ARTIN J. WE G 64 A N (19t8 6977) 7301 CHIPPCWA ROAD s E YM VANDE BURG PET E R A. H CIS L C R (28s) Sze-zaso o A~,c u o.,,a May 14, 1982 4 '- n i o 's.o h -iff" ' v ~ I ~Fm...,. 3 James G. Keppler Nuclear Regulatory Commission ORT,PI] }- .d [, Regional Administrator - b-ID l' \\ ,.,,,.,7 s.:.g ; j.,

, 799 Roosevelt Road

~, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 .M. _L.?_ !., $.'m..h((W... ;:, u.

Dear Mr. Keppler:

} '{ g.,.j,g.,( wh ~ I am counsel for a group of intervenors in the Perry NuclearJ Q c% ~ .) Power Plan't. In this capacity, I have received information concernin~g a construction defect which I believe to be of sufficient seriousne's's 1 to reports of this kind when you and niembers of your staf to require an investigation. You indicated your receptiveness".'!i,1 ,pff with me several years ago. @:)},W, v.. I will try to be as specific as possible in describing the' unh5 defect. As I understand: it, there is a 12 foot diameter pipe thatsweu-goesfromthemainandauxiliaryturbinecondenserofUnit1togg2,b31 ~ i the Unit 1 cooling tower. This pipe is designed to carry water <yh.yg , Q)'n, y,} p, from the reactor to the cooling tower.

d,{ j Iamtoldthatthepipeitselfiseggshapedanditisnotsupposed.1pf.jMyco This implies a defect in the construction of. 's, i f '

am further told that the seams leak because the pipes';]?j.,/,- to be egg shaped. the pipe. I 1(. were not joined properly. Further, I am told that even though ,s l the pipe is buried 40 feet under the ground, an extremely heavy crane will pass over it during construction and this unnatural l pressure could cause the defective pipe to crack or break. 4 If my information is correct, then there seems to be a serious problem which could affect the safety of the public if the Plant ooes into operation. I would be interested in knowing whatever you may find out concerning this particular problem. ry trulymy ubs, \\(9md\\ b' b Daniel D. Wilt ( DDW*md MG 1 R C2?

l Q T 3 - 7. 2 - o 3 7 -l-AUG 2 01932 )(q iN s, P.r. Daniel D. Wilt Suite 102 '@My .- A 7301 Chippewa Road .'I.!'f. *. '7 i' ^ Brecksv111e, Ohio 44141 '. s.

• [..,ii j fi R f...

. n 4 %j:;,, ij!( f,,7[el '. Dea Mr. Vilt: ,.y,j > 1 w i.. Your letter of May 14, 1982 raiser a concern regarding the piping between i M.MO;j'.i We are aware of probler.s which the utility has had with that part .h'j " the cooling towers and the turbine condensers at the Perry Fuc. lear Power J Plant. O icular fiberglass piping; however, since that piping is not safety related, '. it does not com under liRC's jurisdiction or inspection program. 'Ihe pip- 'ti-ing in question does not carry radioactive reactor plant water, but instead, i5i,-), ' isusedtotransfercoolingwaterfromtheturbinecondenserstothecooling.N.%(- ' y,] towers. That. water is not required for the prevention or zcitigation of any hypothetical reactor plant accidents. .g, .Your interest in assuring the safe construction of the Perry Nuclear Power " ht. - ~. Plant is appreciated and is chared by this office. I hope that this letter,,,.4., ansvers your concern regarding the cooling tower piping. .i.' !li,44:

y. 's k.Yk MM.,. P Sincerely, i)..

Original signad by $ ~' " A. Bert Davic 1) h, James G. Eeppler Regional Administrator w S4 / i 7# 1 .d.n........up......... u n....

7. k L...y,Ah.

...ung. .e. ny,. u....... 6 ..P.8. e r..... ...D vis..... h. e PP.e l . xmeg.m,. r k...Spes s a rd% % W.)!... ..iu.s.... O k2 Thr iOw s

......c.-- A' g. ' ' 8 5 s, v'it T I O STAlfS f.'UC L E A R R F CUL A10 RY CO:.'.r!.5s ON f -h.f' f M aeot; ni tid' i l m s.oest vr os n o o t '."./g* /l4 h, c o r.., e t t v e.. i t e..c s s c o m p'. l'ay 30, 1979 MC:CC.NDUM FOR: W. J. Vard, XOOS TROM: Char 3es E. Norelius, Assistant to the Director ~ ~ ' - ,~ SU3 JECT: EDD-6072,8 PERRY P1 ANT EMPLOYEE -. SHODDY VOR109.RSHIP AT TlI5 PIANT - LETTER SENT TROM CONGRESS'iUi HETZENEAUM (A37S E63837F3) 9 Enc 3osed are copies of a letter dated May 24, 1979 ve sent to jconcerning his J etter to Senatot Metzenbaum, one of which j,.. .7 is' intended for for. arding to Senator Metzenbaum. Also enclosed.,. -l - A Y h".,. is a draf t cover letter-for that purpose and to closeout the ratter. This ma t t er was di scussed by G. A. Phillip with you on*.97& '; ' .",..(,.'~ May 22, 1979. 3. g i.> "*~~ Y Charles E. Norelius ~ . 'd.l'd-R.s Assistant to the Director " I

q; Encl osur es:

As Stated F- ,g?' 11 s.. g l 4 4 I

,,s*

• ~5.,,,

L.si! O 111.11 5

• [.

I f!DCLEAR M G Ut t.iORY,COr T.E IO,N id f (i i b k! c. c l ier 'D ... '. l tre 6 0 cst et ti w c s. o ~ ~

• /* -[-> g ciru rttvu. L ui.ons tois t

May 24, 1979 'c p dj'lf*.- y d.c. c ' ai; ?-0r!.. Dear . e v. This refers to your teJephone conversation on May 21, 1979 with. Mr. G. A. Phillip of this of fice concerning your letter to is/ Senat or Eo ard M. Metzenbaum regarding the Perry Nuc3 ear Plant, I;' which was referred to the hRC on April 16, 1979. 1 During this conversation you indicated that the\\ shoddy work

• about which you had expressed concern could not be identified '.

with safety-related eouipaent, systems or components and that-."g ' ~ you vere unable to provide any specific information which would'l g r enabl e us to condu'et an investigation. You indica t ed that ' the H'JNt., vork you had perforned at the Perry PJ ant for the M. J. Kelley MA" J Company, in all likelihood, uas not safety-re3ated. We have. subsequently confi m ed that the M. J. Kelley Co=pany has not perfor ted any saf ety related work at the Perry site. ~ ..Gey'.],- J. M t- .=,v: :.g 'v; s e. - .: ?.- -r

n As discussed our inspection and enforcement jurisdiction at~ nuclear.','

m y power plant construction sites is confined to safety-related itemsj % ; and activities. Por such items and activities, our inspection WW?M program does include examinations of welding procedures and practices ~ as well as the effectiveness of the QA-QC programs and activities ' gig % to assure shoddy work is identified and corrected.

1. ..d "

.e J a '-p Should you encounter any deficiencies in works.anship or materials at' the Perry site which can be identified as safety-related. ve encourage you to provide this information to us by letter or telephone. Our.z t elephone number is (312)B58-2660. t b Your interest and cocperation are appreciated. Sincerely yours, ... & l - James C. Kepp e Director cc: Sen." houard M. Metzenbaum J 9 4

t - ' p s * *

• o.9 u ; sit o si:.1ts s

a r y titlCL E AR RFGULA1GRY CC.".'!!EION ~M . t,%'~; / e,1..,o

U -

r, r cict :: e ?,5 s c,c's t vr ts m o e.o g,.Ss[ g ctcu r Ltvu att n.ois a u2t

• s,,*

a; . tt W t*-*- DRAFT ' Es. jD. .-. g; w ' E ' k.ks*0.1 Ms. Marsha Wiggin '/E3Mf'#,o ~ - l N.S Q,'ND - c/o The Honorable . Ad$i .. r.... tti!. a,. H. M. Metzenbaum Office United States Senate '. A.3 a . : w.. ' a.- Washington, D. C. 20510 ..'.;' ?.yd,; $ e; -tr - j .y....

Dear Ms. Viggin:

. ;,i., f. m.,. --.y. a.

y This refers to the letter from l t

-i.of.q, 2 ;. j;? referred =to ,. l. -j.g.f.(y'f,; d, - us by your letter dated April 16, 1979.

s,%M

. T, v. .. - py;qp;, gl.. by_ ,.f,.h.: On May 21, 1979 our Region III Office contacted 24, 1979 6 telephone. Enclosed is a copy of a.3etter dated May . e;,- --~~.~':. -- . n - -.- to - concerning the telephone conversation in which it. . 9:,:. ,'p1.. A.. .=: - r,;.,;,f. a vas agreed an investigation would not be appropriate at this ? a f.5 ~ .. ;. m '; a, irW ' time. Ifj..._..._.._. provid es infoma tion in the f uture concerning -. T.. ;-

9, defects or deficiencies regarding matters under our jurisdictionht lE.

?l' ,,,,y.U.. an investigation vill be cade. - 'A P] ease contact this, office if ue can be of further assistance. Sincerely, \\ 1 Inc]osure: As Stated s

...;*L'*.1'~~~ .**l

. : *.: ;.*. T :" :';:.*:1...* *: * ".*:. ~. :" :: ';*

.; 4 :..~..; ;. ".~.:.-.*..**.:-- .L

• • • / *.5.

....... :". ; :::.~. ~:~ *. '^ L.:. ~ ',.-..L - i-* *.*:'.: ::.T:; -T:". :. * .:::T,,~ :' '_~"""""""1=*~;'-*'. " ' *? *. :~'. .:..*;,';T.*L;;;';;.;;.;.:.;.*:.:.*~,.",,,,'..* ' :*. ;;* :.: _' :::*. ~.=*a";*:::" lL;*_J;, = * * * ;" *;**.::.,_,,,; *.,.:: ? - -- ' ' ;.;,,,.:.J:. * ".:a 2::.~ ::. :*.. .:*1.:^..._d ;.*." : L.;._;.;;.?:*-~;:::::::;'.:..;..- ,yp_ -.. v... _".. ~..- :.:::7..:._..=..s. .~::.,~.:.... ;7 .T. *:..:_:, :::::*;. ;;..*~..~~:. ~:- '- ='- ~ "~T _".*J;; *.~.;.=.==.~. v.;- g.;;; _. .,_ m.__ ~ 3;;;.3 ~ :* u-.. - - - - :. ::.=.::... _ -... :==.:=. - - - - =... ' - - - - --* *-"=" ""- ";;~;;;7;;;= '" *~.'" ~.:..-- ~ - - -- -- :.1 ~:: ~ '::U....... '

• L,1,L ~~ ~ ~ ~.~*~** * *.' :i.*.,. n ;~7::. :~. " a=.".::-=.=4"* * * ";*."*; ;.**' * ~ ~~ :_^ - ~

?; ;. ;7:",,,6,, :.~,, =. ~,".'a**L :,;;" _'- ' * - ~ ^ * -=- * ::

~a ' 7 ~ "-=~' - ~ - - * * * ' -

• • • s'.

t.,. g.O ;**.,. 0* '4 t - ~~ -

m..:.:;.7...,,.=-. ;.,...;.;._.:.: :.,.,,;.,7..g :::'..;- _ _.'.. g'...

_:.::.::..,.;:::;;.~z;, e .: :" ' = -_- ......_;==.-*T.- 1 **..-..":.":*. *- .:= ".T.L........

-=.:..._.........::=...

.;.= ; ....-=:. ~.. =.:.:.j;..?"Q.p:.; 5:: L}~;""."~.T.-;. j:g.yQj.X

h*;* -

._=..: :.. :j-...-J.:h_ ;.y=: :..u..=.. c j ggx.. p... =.=..... .V.. x..:~5... g -~w .s ~- :. :. ;

_::=......... u :::,a=.., :..._........ a

...e --,::= s - m.::_ m. _:==_.. v.-. - -- -- ~ ~ -- = ::: = = - - --- =.- -Qa=.::=::.k. 5W _ _;y:-.y:- 9.,.7.: :;: :===: =: =-n: =.v=. g_ ..: r -g gii .._:;... w.. ,. * - a; e a, ...._..n_,_. ....._._...;..=.,;...;.._,, =1-O...__--___.-"" ' " " = =, u" :d = :3";" f". N

• h..__

73 = =2 ._.m TII C C$.g' - i - - one: _sm.- - ."s".. m,e =.>.=. ~ =;=2-- --- -........,f. C .~ .~::...... .3 ;;;13 ; ys =g. ". ;C.

• = n:-

................. gn. :..g....g-_ . _.. =. W.*

• ?

===...an Qf } }$y 1y=/y m .t ..s.. -.:: g 4U =

= -

__ :=;;; Respectfully referreg g,, W =. _.:.- ""'1 ?'r Re9ulatory Commissio" b,a s h 1 n g 1.o n. D.C. 20 _...S..[ ~ ~ ~ ~ [ -..;..s-g..- m,; s::. / {, {:...:: -':=:::.::"

• +

- a..-*v. .. sy.gL y. ... n n.. ' m=eccause o+ t e estre of s office to be - i-- . responsive to all iDquiries and co=.3unications* ~ ~ ~ ?"" your consideratioD of the attached i*s Tequested..Your y$ogIDES ED viers, in duplicate form

• a1oog with return of the.

~ "~" ~ ~ " ' enclosure' will bc BPpreciated by (Please return to th Marshd W 991n. N h ntion of ) a; i t _. _. _ _. ~ = = = = =........ s '~-= = - - " = = " - - - - - ~ ~ = = = -.O..W..a..r..d_...Ya- , e 6. 2 e.. n...b..a...u..m.._.,_,__ ~~ - - =. = _. = = " = _. _.. - -....._ _...:.g 3 3=........_=;g-g .== .S.S.

=:

3 4 M:mwa o r= g -. = - .._. _.. 1 .== 4

==-=.==.=.1

==_= =_ ..... _= =... ~. =.. =.... = _ =. _ - =. _.... _ _ _..... =.... =... +...- = = - _.. .....:==:==...:.=.._.....:_... m......_=...=.- m. .._...==....; ..._.==:=::..._..... . =... _. =... =.. =.. _....... ,. 5._b._ _ _*.5 _?, _. 5_5.... $..... :"_ :*."...=..*. ".. :":. d *.*.....?..*.5_N.:: $5*5 b:N ' "*~.="".%"*.~.*~.~... ".-.I.*."*U'"l.*Z';l*~~-~~--+_"'*l.* Y*. .........":'..4...." .._=."...:'."............._.:... "... ".... '*^ ' ' * " ~ '..... :.*:."";':". '.' :~:::. ;":...... : =::.

• k.biY.,...=.*."....... 5=.4.'.T................_.:::.'.

5...b$... 5..M. :".. :' * :.'552.~6*:'..._.'._=.=...........=..::.......=......::==..=.==.====

........x.. . = - - - v:..: ...=...._..........=....:.n..=.-.==_=.. .?..:..G.:.:E..H... ". 2..E..i.5_..ii.=:===..:.. ..C" _ ?:2..:..L. ' = = ' '...- = = = = =

==-- ....' =s =_..:.. ..=.=.=......-.....==....-.,=,=_....r...=.=....=..=........_.=..;u..==...=..:=....=.::.....:.=....--......... ...m .. -.. -..== =..--- - run ... _.. =.... =... _ _. =........... =... =.. _... = =... ...~ .........n- - :-.'=.-

==...r._=.=...:.:.=_.......... = _..... _.. _..

a..:...:=..

r.

:n.......

-- r - =.;:::: : n= n -==~:. =...u.:.r =:: _............. ..._.-..x-- "====" - m==.;- v "= =.. _ =... u....:..n. ..r..,.._.=..=...=...=.=_:.....=::==..=.==.=......--------..-.. ......J';.::......."=.='"*- w 7..:..:.1. 7- ., e v_~~---- m,..___,_ ... ~ ~ -.. -. - ...... =.,.:.. : a..".: ll.J: ~. 4*, : 4 * * "...**-".*:',: n :.;*:7.=:"," " :.;.*.'".. =.

.~. .o r,..,,wv :.: --s n, .e_.,..r... n .;- A s =. d, ,.e -w = ~ ~. ....-:~,.* ~* ;y? 3. - m -.. - -. r -%.

• n

.. ~?; ~s

g ;.,.,. --..,

~_.;, - g . ?, ~, 7.y,. _ n.. m- -. ~ ~ .c. -c. ,..1...... _*...:..:..::.. :..= -.. u.. -s _ - _- _.. - +

:. ;=.:.-. =,.:-.. =.-. = :=..... =. c=.-... : - -

,.--.:,w.,.==---=.-------.=.-y.;..:..,.;...~~;....g, =-==:-. .-.....;._ _. =.. m...-, -=..=;,

-.

=.---;.=.. m -.: :. :: .=w.-.- ....7.....,.... y F..._~.~..... __-.. :.~::"..=. =".._".'~.~.2.:. ;.*;~.:... ,g ,.M'."..~ . l;.* r'. ~ ...~-. f e.

e..

...-~..,,_..-y....r....m........... _..,,...., ...ft ... =, t,.,  ::~.:: * *.~.~.** *. - ~ ~ * = = ' = .*r- 'p*=* .b .**g 'x** c , f =t*,. ' _,%.~.***.q.

..r:.~.-.... "........'

'*.;ra; ~- . -;.; a :.. - . ~' *s :

• . ::W

~.. .,... '. * = ~,. " *. *. , ---.i4*.*. e-*ek..,, "

1. e a -

.*7 .=.*a =..: e.

• g

. ; 7

• • r='* ; *. *** * * *.,-

.J.'=.4.*4.%*4..*.".*"""""'*"*.'=;"."2".J.'.r*4:L."J,*:. l ,-......f .b u. . -. ~ -. - ~ ~. .,.i.-.......

• .. -., s.,.

. e ........ -..'L** R. 1'*'.:..~;:n~u.~_-.......-..-~~....- . = m :::::.=::2 '"" .w a,,, Ng '.e o

• • • A-9,*-***

,,*S.3 t. }* *,* *'*' -...r*~a**.--.

• r?

.F.==,,,,=~=~.;:s- .....~~L=...

l....,,,.,..*".*.**.

~..'. ~... -....;. 1 :=:::::;;;;.- .... - - - - - -.. ~......... w... u,;. .'..a...~. w. *.., o ..,,o. ~....: =. ...... _..T..*.::;. ::: g .= .a ...y. . s. .sc.* s.r.r 5,=,,, .._......~."....."..;* .r g .a., ,g.

g -...

.; *,.,g. f,.

• *( '.7s M. J..
  • ?j *

.b. v ".r

• . _......... ~... -. -. _

..=

• ==.
• ~

( g_. g. .a.. .7_-*.-~.n~'="1 .. 7. ~. ...;:-~~~-....-................ v ' :_",.. =;. g;. -

1. s.

y;,... _

_. ~--;:.. ;;g '. - - -~~....T. p.=* .3 r*._,p L--,w. .;, ;::=, g,.~. = $ @ f ....C... "-*"".g,R r=*.=.=..*=..:.,..:=* t==J .e U"~~"-" .-J.*.****i.--.*-r.*. .; +, ** = r e g .,,_"*,u , -.;=.';.. ;;,,_..- t y = .?

• L 7=

.J - -?. .J.3- ~;,,=-- . =n f-L.. O p ~. ~ _.yf,o*.,.p Lwf.,":!:r==.

=.;.

.:=....-..._--....._.._....

v =4 .s.

=,

.-s,, ,...;.-...g .,..,,, = ..,_,,,;- gr;;;, g;, .= 3r .,g. = u.:. z. ,,o _ .,=..s. , r *

--

--..--;~..---

g .. ~... m

• .. n.:... p*.

/ * ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~.

• 2 J

."E'.' s. '..'e L=.*:4. - :r. r". ;:-: = '. rg.;,.,,.r.=..r.,, , r.=~.4 ',... _, ~... - - - - - - - -._ o L* ,..'..""...-.""..,,.b.:*;. g"" ;..-... .e 7 g., =..*. -- 3; g.a._......* i e s ,.__.;_~-"._.,. .?.*... = W_. N./* <d ..._... _ = _ _. _ _.... , -,,4Q.) . JD lip....*.=..=.==....-~~..~--~~-~~-...'..=._~. />T / = _..... 4.-. ~. ..~ ~. - - ~ - _ Q '.~:_"..*;_ ?" _W Al 4 ,9 W_ (YMp f),,,,sA, a. e 2.) p 1.2.3 a les., .) _ -...... ~ r v = i -. ::.=:n

n

===:- < u. .x.d = 4"s '.,. - _ -. s s.~ ---.... _... -... :._;:3 .m.. g,$g,_pg y-,,,,,2,. ~.:::5:; -- - : =e, l, _ x. A-***""*'"""** ,P"*'Y W)]

t ' W. d....%.-

. ud g f., I s n -~) D_ / A.)) J a t.. ~ i ^ Ns / p t(, 1*"V V" _-

p'

_y _,t.w.A O n ol_ s m n w =-- 8 ~-.. p --'-S ---'fn / l ^ d.J

,,,,e Jf

-~~ ..? 4 _ l' lb r. _m ... _.. = .u.u. =.=_:................. . - MR".&,

2.,s.

/ 3t_,,. ZyD'.- s ".;=. ::.:.J.. Q":."....,.. =..=...

==:I""*.;:l@l: ^ t s W. ? W fs ._ d s" v ) _j' &7 " <_.s, /&f.h/). . ~ hE AS.A:5 "= ~* -.=..=....._....._:.... s ..t/ > 1 s.- ...:=..:.:::=:. _...: :- ~~-.: =:: ::: = .s M., y - =........ ~..__ U vw, oa ~M2 ' .. _............ - -.. ~.. _v _ ~ - -

===.....

.._....=.r...r 4?'N = D+ __h. P'" ....??.* :k:=&- =. - x...... -:.5=.=. = Z,*: :; ".;..* ;'.r=;**g.._.._................ e,- ,~ b W-dtt_'.r::V ' s J_,,b' f .,rdf J

5=8?s:.:E.;E?W=======2}

^ / /. . =. '.. =.. =.. _. =.. =.... .. _....:.=. o 4 W./, 55'I'i5=: ; ; :E " ~t::~ m ":75 3 - /.4 e './ =.. -........ _.. ~~ _.4.**.__ / -_{i rd - ^~ V=.=iE".E*2.:n =_=;=.. ... =.= = = =. u- . -i-, ..... ~. 2-

=======:.=========..==: v..~.,.. -,-. ;.- .. =.. ~ 1. ~..,. .. r....... =.. -3.: nun.n:...u..=..........._:..... .... =...n _:n a..n..e...u.. r..=.....=.. _.e...e.. -. ..u.. =.....=...t.n..n._.:.=...:.r..:==..... ......._...._.=....=...=_...;:$.: -=............. .-. -..... ~..... ...n.=.=.=....m_.:.. ..._._..a......-...,_.a-.~....:..u.......=:=..-... ... =.. =. ......=...::...e... ..=._.......n._.

=

=u ..... ~ -.......

===..__.==......:.:==---- __=..s....... .......=....n...............:.................,..=:..-=...=..=.=....... .(yC..... .....-.s.$.g _...,.:.:=.=.." ' " ' ^ ^ ".....=..=..n~..: .:..:u..~.; ;::. ...T.,_ 8 36 ..i.h +3 g... ...p...... =.h."h P

.'. ; ;. :G.....:-~. '.".. F.. _*?E:Fih.~=.E . 5. - n:.. :

.. C.

...;;; =.:...?:?.:, ::2.i.'.* '. i!= -::.?:.i. ~ =. :. :. i ; Y:. ;;- ?.. .:- '= . -. ~ p_. _.;.. =:: .5:--i.'.._.: %.& f. _... - :=.: _ _ - : - '- : :3._...;.: =.:. ::_.; :.. =..=..L.-.=1..:::=,- '.?.t.=.. ::.&-..: -..: -,_: : - _. =... _. _ :---.=-:=.._=._ .-..-. :. :. = -.. - :... -:=.;=. _. ::::......... ---:='. .

• a:==

.: _-_.._:. n: : -

==

.r;:'..~ : -~.:.~~i ~ ~ =.:--_v : ~;. =: : ="-L -.~~: ;h. =. -. :L =^'. = 'E.~' :=--.-.-=.".. : -.";.." = ';}l= =li:.;; :~. - r.. :. _........ _... :.- - ;..u - =;* ':". =. ~ - - - ':-~=__:=.=.:.**.~."..r..-9.... J^.

,..L.;;*

• c. ~i,.

} _ = ;;.;==.*=. :... " .. q 7.. 1. -- < *.:. *. * =. * ; ; ~ -

.;.

y.'.~ i., *

. ' -* '. ~..- -Q.,,,,,:..: a:.;; r E:: _ - _.. -. ...--=.%...--...:.+ f .g. -~ w...... .4.'*- . ~ - 1_. " ~ J,m* =.:...;... W L'.;^ j~*** ~

3

. C;- .!~

:::.::u:.::: ::;re:1:=.

w ._:"..=~n-~..'c .~ p::. :~u:::: ~"'":== ,Q.._~~~.G.".....%;. ~ ~ p--_. _:..:' - - - ~..

• .. i,,... :. ? }:.=:======:= : =

~ = .2 .'.L..y -. ~ :...:, e.s ~ ='..,.-=---~..~2.*. '~ * ..~ ~~ _- _. :: q ..~..a...'.~..'..'".3.;.*'...-r

• ._ _ : -- - - ;=:.== '. W

. s #.~

,, -:- -- - - - -":.~- :::.. :.= :.. .. -... - ~ - .-3.. s.. ; v.;..-. - <..:: ~ :,.* v. ' 's "-, ~.. =. *.-.. -: . g..:.. -: '. -...'.' ~. p. ; :-,.,_. :,.....a. ...... :::=:==='=== "- .~ ,.1..s, L ..=*....;!" ',,,,..:."'.'.c,,:....,.. - s .; :--:..: ;;;....=....;.::... = u=-

• -- m

~;=v- --se. 1. 4 ~---r _... _ -.-~. ~.== ".:.T ~~ :, ---.4 e" ' ;-a.~.

==*,....;.'.. f.- .' ~ ; :-' ' - g.- m'*, P.' ' - ~ ~.,,. - * * . - * = * -.- C.: ... -..c....-,g.... :. g.. - s- .q.-:- *. m. ".;**... r,-5.c s ..~. .. - : -r:* s,.., ..'.q..'..:.....#,*. .. _.:.=.:.: ..s. er. s.,. ,, d.s e

.% ~~ 8

• ..~* **

- b...

• L q 3 : +; *' w' *e'===

--**J'=

• y
• s-

':.,...._.~.........,.....-....~---'" ~__.___^:. .= . = = * -

• =

., _ ;-r.v

• • . - s.,,r. -..,..,.

. w.. ;.~._~.. =~~ & e,, ;*. :l'..v** ' ;, o ,.. - ~ -.M~~%"*.. ..-..*r'.,.m;~~,=-

... * -: _..T'".;R..,

- := : -- - -. " 9,. M. .m '- y 4, S.: .~.,. ~-3*. =, r., ; - 4 .".T.,"' c,.;.. _. -.;=. :....==r'_

---

A

-e p_, F_..; : _- ----* ~....m .7 ' .L d:-- C */. c ". L. p--J ~:

~.~.-~.';;!. ~.

s-pf,.-%.

• f

,y, p:. -..- e . / y-J ~_ ---.. 3._:..y ~ '(

===.=- n.=.=. = ii -- u. W _.. -=_=: .___.______.._:....z..z=.-. / p=. - - _: _=-_._*, * - LU_> ' s- ~ *&dd./ C4 !e

...._ __.::==:52;-i~

m ,,v. s_. ,*/fs~/pM, ,,4,, -.:=--. ----...==1. -5=5 Y N ~ y ~). / J/ h ' f l J 5..-- s - a.MJM' ) _s s f b'

__...w.....~A.~~=

--*-~C-" ~ ~ '- :-.....::":: "".. : L s. Y /N .h. AJsV y -- _. -

,

f y p___. _ _,. 3-i' 4 ,/,',,,,%Y ./'8___ /' X" t _ -. -.. -. =. f d y_,,g,,g,,

= = = =

..-...... _. --~;;;:5 _g G_$.=. h ' ^.. CM' -{bo( [ ' *. 2-d. ~j' '.,4 *f. h=

-....-.., 29;

.c.....@

p. .) - =".;~~ ; = c (...... y f 4=.~~ ~ 1 ^52dAS-pA * /- T- / %:C:=:: o o -< "Md.2.- .,,J c.D ....T'& &C. . AC d4'~.4 <d N A _./' d,

h. _-...=..=.i e

-j Ad l%W _.;}

=:=....-..

n ~/*lA _.. _. _ _... =. - fp _ NW, ,,&'~" CYa E-Mk _r.-."AJ 7 \\ 5 :.. h.f _ 5,5l,, *~;I,f.* . f. \\~-:.'.-......=. - fW. - l ":;:c $ ~ ~.b55 e .:=.% 7 A O Q.A _Y Y h.;f_.;.:;. !hb.:} {;-h .3== =i:~_ " ~ ' u .29.:.f...=.. M 4 J_ _.4,dN'*=d U % -M*/' ^ ....... -.. = 5 ~E-......... .=.: =._.,--,

• /_ - = Md-d.)

Wr - (t./ ~?? YPDDt- * ,.,.7 y =; ;;;-l;;,;;; ;, = -e -s j -l-* --'_ :','; *.;.-~~.: ~- ll ' . ----y '~~.:^~,,;.... V. s

;;

; ;;;'.;; ;^ :*"'=.

,.....-.-.._= .. _....... - ~ ~... * - - Q2.2.*.* E *&-]{;;h'bh5* [_} ~^.T.~-}. ,} $5 L J A4 w.,J k E2??: b-~n_i

6u Wh.n YUIkk.$

w

' :- ::~ ~ ~.'

no

......'.* *~* :='~' (~"

~ ;"~; ; _ a--"-.,;.~..-.

= = "...

_U >Y^* N IE

',dll * '.

1 -... ~ ?W. 1 **' f="'" -A

• __/ &

r .. ~;; - - j._ g/,/-2A"'"y

• .'._' Y.

d,s &-/ y.,,$-*'W ' ~ s' ".2".*4" d;Z'J."] _",,,...;.,...7 a ,,C".**."_""';"_ -.; :. :..c ~e;;~;; - ~ - ..'*..':......-;_,,,, ;;;;;; ;?- ........... ~ - ' ' * - '. .,;y. =::, .T:.'.*:... .~.~T~~' ...~...n....... .. " ;:=: ~. ~ .......;; 12;; n.....,, z ;..' _ ;*.- .=~ .-'"3.. "'Z_.~, ..* ~ ".;:. '

• ** :?

"~"' g.;.g,, T.. '.~.~.: ~. ;. ; .......... ::::.. 2"'J.

• '.','.~l

, 3 ;; g'. -.. '.'::M. -_2.-.,'. - e: _'"- ".;;;;;3............;;,_. c. y..]

..a,..,.,,.. r II- - V ' ' *,.* "~ ~ "S.M.:~idE:'~O~:~* Z:'55Ei.G!.*:.E:*E .=E*==M~==.i=5.i=.@Eili"= :.E Ek .' l g r ...s.. -- ------.:_-.=====.-. ....=.=. = = 2====;=.=-.::": :,=: 1 e

= -

m. ..=:==:====..===....: . =.*..~ =. '.... ?.,. 4: T =E.== *2.=:. ^--EE==~ ~-2-V+

.. __=-c._ _ ---.:

,.7. :..g.r.=. g;;;,...5.,r, :: _ g _;. _ -l-. 'M'.=*.. 3 ~~%... :;:.~. 9fM" = il.;:l.Q:l[H..K.Tj:(

?= =

=

m ::-- : - ~__ = = = =..... -

::...:::=.:.

= = = ~ = = = - - ..=;=.2 ~

ii=====.=i5'i?E!*=====_=:"EEE

E..y.5.._=..=.;.5

;=.q "=="..

."=..g=w.

~ ^ .'".".... . 5.'...E..':..=... =i.T.. '..5.. E.... = . = -.. y f, ,.l.lk.;~f.". _- j.f.".Q:-._,}_"f~,"-Qi}.*..- ?- ".: & a J1 J p - I - ~~ 5.5." = *:;.s".".'." "=="-...:."~.=:.: = ~ -m z......w.... -.=..=.=............. g =._............._.c=.==_-.=: g-- ___fu =:..........=... ..w

==......_===...=:-..=.=.=..,. h p.A.)

="

3:~.3:. 3.,,- _- )M.b

":"".......... l"r_.--

.. t-:="::.-':~ ~ - 2 - -+ W W W M g / l55:ij=::;'. - =.....f$..f ~* m nd p...._ p..=.=..===r---- .:=_ = =...;=.. _r. . - - - - -. - - ~ ~. - - - - - - - -.. - p y _. o a~ "-"..;.*~C".**'.""::*:'".....-..*..--- ..-.._"._;*7.'"*P f :==--

==:=:== - -~ =. f f ~ v _-.r, y ..---.y---- ...- :;3: e ~ ~-W_ /'F ) ] l: Z'"" T. r"........... - n &-Q g~- 5.....;....._ ,'f / g ^"""' --.- M_W w go,.. p_.. _ d w ^ ]) r 1 ~~ 1 - j M> = t_ dd__,4 L v_ wE ggf;.2.Ja:: gz; -

== "- ... = s i---* M# g

=

1. d W,

y 7.,, f ~ ,.[ l d ~ ~ " " a // . J &' o N

gjQ,

, g.,.,YT h g ..n..--... .......;~;.. ; _n...._

*?

/ - - 7.- 1 /.) / p......... -........... _===..... ::::==

i==...===

Ja en-., .xa. c =www== ... := ;7..... / .~;".r.1......__.".2==";"."'n.. Q /.....-e ]p , f/D " - :: ="* "~~* ......."":=- ~ u 28.2 4/.sL.,,./ J g -. p j .7.... ,,,,, 5 .. - ~.. = ..-.5 y ;.. ;..~';;: :;

1_.7

,.w. ~ . ~..

",; ;;"r-

" 7;;;;~

=::

'".~..."""..".""":'.

.:=:...

=:"" """

.:=::. '"5

id.\\= --- " _ ' fij;"

.~~ '7)=

=

.. :.=jj[===. M._ ;.. ~ =.... '. ".. " ~~ "....r"- .;;;;;;_q;; ;3 "";"C':".:' =

== j ~'- ....:C. ':: 2 _. -. :..= .:...... ". = ..=2 .... '.;=...

==r g

=

.ig s... .-.-.ia.

o r t............G.,. +.. a. =....,. e.,..... .-r.... w.............. -............ e. . e 8. .g.. u......

• ,3..

. p1 e e,.. *,.... .g t.* ., s.. e. o.. e. ..= d.,., ...y .e

• g

..e..*... e.e. .N.,.t.*.. d .,e a 0 g e.. .....o [...-.... +... ". *.*..........~ ........+. .e .....*.. ~ ~ e,.* *,. .4 T g',.. .e *

• e

... e f...s .b..,,,.p*y... + . g.7,

• ....~...*.a....c.,.e.--."

o,, .,..>. e 8 a*

• *. *..... ~..* * ~a..-a..............

.m. ...... 99. e. t. e s. .. ~......... ~........... e e .mm. .a.....e. . ~. . m e. ,6. =. e a+ e e .o. a......-.................. -... ,a . r,=* 2. +

e..

.s .=. a .g.,... .......................... ~........ 1 = e ..a..... ....... ~...... 9= ~ . -.... -. +. ~....... .8... . e A. j - ~..-.........:.- g .. ~............. '- ~ -..... .........__...__..r... fjp j r- _ _ v ,or ,e e. 5. JJ y. 2 ~ g g - gg g y ._.a.,,.A. ....e.. g gg gg g O ....gs......h.~.....--..-...e..-.+ -........... ...e.... ...e.e l .g....... g sr .e..x.. i .......e ...e e......e a 8 -e.6 ^ ._w ..g.e .-he6 h... ...e.............C....m. ..g-. . g..,... y g g mm -. -.... - _ -. - - -....... * =. =. r e p gL.-_ .M*M*........ ..N....6 g .s.& a s,,,r p ........-.......__.e.,......h .... _....... ~ g ( -J 1. = W .w ..-...e_m....m..--- s g ,f-__ l w A. _j 7 u-- - - .. -..z.. ::=.-, 2 _. ~. _. / .J_.A,y.cL> ,.,,4, .,1 y A ..,,,b ,,g.(,,g, ~_ ._...... -:= f. s o J. <.'.H _. --U :-s._ , x_,,s p :* / ~:... _."'_ - - _.. ~.~""T 9 s o r- - ..........-~- m, w...--.. .._m., <-p t f ~ ~ ~ *. Qg r /_,,U } A7._.... .. ~~ ~E^E l. t.-..

c...

p l 1 l q. I a l o ( t... . i t .. - ~.._.... ~............. 7......... \\ ..= =:.= :-. :....:.: ::.. .. =.. i ___ _ - .g .-,m........, . _.....m g.., g

g...

I...3.. ....m,,,. .em..... ea m,.. g ^ '..-...a.#..*g.S8** .a.q'== ..e g n .f.,. .....r._*e .m 4 .....p.. g ....i.'.=.... .*.4.*e* 4'W4-...*..a 8*******94....e..g.a..**'-." ... - D..+..._ gg g. 3 gg .g. .g.qg g.. g. .."4.. 8..g"-'".9,"g*.*." 9-. 8*

• • O

..*_.*W88 ...N. ...g. .......,...+.. w".# ....8*'*.. '.8.8.*8 4..*988***.' ....."*+.DAe.. =M W ........s...M.g.4.g. ..-4-- g4.-. .=.m. g 940888 ..*h >*.*."*. =.

• m

..+.i.i.F..*******'O** ..g....._..*.*.. .-.."4.*"-... gg. .*.*esm.- ."*'8 ..m..... ...,.. _ = .=6 ...g ,s.,+..g.. gg,,.,,,pgy.._ ...g...*.,..,.,,...,.,.,g,.,,.,.. p,, ,,,.g g gg ,.,..g y..gg

• • • "9'...1"........ ' * '.

O.**:..... ..n.,.....si..m.._. '... ,g, 809*88..* * * * * * * * * ......4....

• EW*.......

,,,,,,g,,,g.. ...,..,,gg,,e,.,.,a,.,p,,.. .,..h..>.* ..h88_8"9'84* g .4. g '..&.e,, ,,,,gg .a. g

• O""

..e...... g . gg N.. ...hgp.-..

• • O.4..'.*.'t'.'.'......".. '.

.....i.c - -.....'g.... -+.P. gg... " g... ...gg. p.. .-......a e...e.+. ........... +.. g.- a.B4.'.+t ..._*.6 't ^* ....'g....'. .g.. . *....e._.' .".m.. * *. -*".*P 8.**... '. 9 '9h. e.. .e.* ....g .s t .nq f t t--. e p g 9*.= 6 t t W 'S

1. 9

._m . /g 3 e '- / bJ r.'l l t ' %'c, ~ s U*ial E D 51 A1 ES [,1.,..? i NUCL E AR R E GUL/0 ORY CC'/.!.'.lf SiON 5 ' :.'.'y,N. [E h E GiO!.' lit 4 Y m FN Et vi Li hot.o t l.4.j.ld[/ ct r u r t t vu :: unois f.om I 'Ja 2 8 1981 f a:.. A- ' N,..- hTTRANUJM FOR: Region III Files, 7imier, Investigative File 80-53 , :qvpp Q,Yt s)_ t 7.- Ch2rles E. Norelius, Assistant to the Director p,"' THRU: TKOM: Jaraes E. Foster, Investigator m lp.[Gj;,

SUBJECT:

ALLEGATIONS RELATIVE TO ELECTRICAL VORK AT PERRY [ '.h.(( P y.,j i..gyq,,, On June 16, 1980,; (an electrical QC inspector at the'

• lp -

Perry site from 12710/79 to 6/13/80) wrote to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) alleging that Mr. Steve Halprin, Lead elec-- 'J..c. trical QC inspector, was not qualified for his position at the Perry site, W /N:n (T,., U,'c and t. hat ~ QC procedures had been " bypassed". The 3etter was received by CEI on June 17, 1980, and it received review V:q: jgQ ' l and cocrient in a CEI r.,emorandum dated June 19, 1980. CEI sub se q u ently. 'j' ',t q and a copy of the letter. - advised the Resident Inspector of the letter, ' ' 1 I -+ '. vas forwarded to RIII. By memo dated June 26, 1980, Mr. C. Williams,. CS-Chief, Projects Section 2 transmitted the ' letter to Mr. C. E.'. Norelius for" W...T. = _.. .. action. Gop,ies. of this correspondence are attached to,this memorandum.:ey. < ec.v ~ I contacted the Resident Inspector (RI) on June 27, 1980, and requested'. a copy of the 3 etter to CEI, its envelope, and thefr. reviex and comments on'.,[N,:.. the letter. The RI indicated that he felt thatl had not und er J A. stood the QC system at Perry, since the Lead el'ectrical inspector was [3, only qualified to Level II, and his work erperience and training met ANSI 45.2.6 requir ements for, such certifica tion. The RI stated that CEI 3 ' t ?-[ hadwrittentof ' advising him that they had notified. the NRC of. f his concerns. 'Due to othY priority investigations, contact with L. tg 'd vas d e3 ayed. c on t a c t ed me a t approxicately 4 :30 p.m. on August 19, 1980. Ye talked IIr thirty ednuys, in what tuined ou*. to be a repetitive and d isjoir,ted discus sion. did not vish to discuss his letter of concern but stated tha't "they were not fol3 oving procedures" at Perry. Tol3oving several attecpts :to clarify this, he indicatsd that his concern related to_ the reaming of conduit during the construction process. - also provided the names of two people he felt should be con- 'tIeted to obtain more information. This inforcation was provided to the Resident Inspector on August 25, 1980. The concern relative to conduit reaming was revieued by the RI during inspections at Ferry. His initial reviews indicated unresolved catters relative to deburring (reaming) during the installation of some field cut conduit. These unresolved ite=s are docu=ented in IE Inspection Report 50/440/80-36; 50/441/80-35. Tnese itees pertain to conduit installed prior t o P.sy 15, 1980.

Region III Ti 3 es - ;'.f r. :.er 2 Jil: 2S GS1 Ersed on infcsreation supp]f ed t o the RI concerning conduit installation requirer +.nts prior to.b y 15,~ 1980, when a ec,r.pl et e cabh. tr ay arid conduit e insta3 3 atien procedure was developed, this unresolved itec was c3osed (IE Inspection Report 50-440/80-25; 50/441/80-23). A copy of this report

dQ.

e " fls-is al so a t tached. .l _S. 11. :. Eased on my di scussi on wi th ( wher ein he was ur.able to provide E ' '7.,, any other a)) ega ti on than the conduit reaming a3 3 egation above, and on the findings of the Resident Inspector, I see no basis for a fu13 investigation of this catter a,nd. r ecommend that this investigation case be closed. 1 ]?.':y): : i vill pr ovid e I' bith copies of the pertinent inspection reports. 4 ~ Si5 ; * / James E. Foster 6, Investigation Specialist ,A- ' s o. [, $/- " ^ At t a chr.en t s : N ' ..., J %. 1. Ltr dtd 6/16/80 2. CEI r.emo did 6/19/80 W 3. RIII memo dtd 6/23/80 4. IE Insp. Rpt. 50/440/80-25, 50-441/80-23 f r t c.y_. $9;c. s. ' cc w/o attachments: s f "d' J. 11egh es .E '.. J. Konklin . w.ro C. Milli ams

,. y t.

p- . h, - 'tb. i' * '.

• 'il

. U,";'t. I 9 a e G

. June 16,19S0 To k* nom it may Concern: Due to the workinE conditions, or should I say lack of uorking conditions, 1. I am terminating my employment vith Kaiser Engineers. v,0.* - .,:+, For the past s ix mon ths, (F.lcetrien1 Lead Quality Control).IwasunderthesupervisionofMr.SteveHalpinh. On many occasions, Mr. Halpin instructed me to bypass Procedures because he had made verbal agreements with Mr. Stewart (Quality Engineer Elec trical, CEI) and Mr. Ray Love (Quality Control. Manager Tulk L.K. Comstock). To rne, this was in gross disregard of Cons-truction Qualityi @ Assurance Procedures Volu*e ?. I was continually instructed by Mr. Halpin to consult with Mr. Tulk befo e generating any type of paperwork. Eut, the rnajor reason I didn't generate. !.{! paperwork was that Mr. Halpin stated that is cost too rnuch money. .6.',y m,,. .?.... In my opinion, Mr. N'alpin is not qualified to be an Electrical Lead 7EThi that he spent on a dairy form prior to being employed, here,d'efin-i eleven years ately.ines not qualify him to be in this position. Furthermore, his habitual % tardiness and lack of interest in his ' job further demons trate this;1ack of-fg, leadership and ability to perforTn. =. +. Mr. Halpin stated that on many occasions he had run'into a politic ~alava 11 g;.,64. .G x chile trying to back his men. There should be no politics involved in the,7+"jf'- Quality Control of a Nuclent Power Plant. ,.% D.4 '? j I feel that it is my duty as a concerned citizen and proponent of Nuclear ; Fever to notify the Regional Office of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'to i^ inves tiga te the nume rous problems that have been identified by Construction y 3. Qnniity Contrui. Une to the lack of approved Procedures and agreements made--.r[ l between the aboved mentioned, these problems are being covered up! [ . )v Kaiser Engineering has many qualified and dedicated pertonnel in Quality [' Control if only they were allowed to perform their jobs according to Procedures. They should be free from sectr-tive agreements between the Client, Contractor and Quality Control and also free frca political pressures. In the past few months I have come to the understanding that I was ne ed e d' ', - only for ray resume to satisfy a requirement and not for my electrical experieuce in the Muclear Field. ' It is with deep regret that I tender this resignation. Due to the fact n not abl e to perfor= Quality Control Surveillance / Inspection as it has to be perforned in a Nuclear Power Plant. Sincerely. L-

M 6 o t.",r ti a n e ; t A t,a s.1 s. g.ft gt

• • T-.-

e C cf.1 er s;t t* t. u p, a GI W s.1 "..;,&..;; Al e.9 e IL THE CLEVO AND CLECT RIC ILLL'MINATING COMFANY M [. b$f 'h U id p, o c g o, y,p 49 - m4 cx3 c June lo, 233o P. L. cibs on,'.-/ ( - ro W. J. Y.Ecer, a cc u W115 raos e r< o u c 232 noom TRO1 ALLEGATIONS OF QA PRO 3?>.M DITICI1]iCIES s u s.s ect w. c: M. R. Edel.ar. c. D. A. Fitzpatrick -...t.9 E. V. Knox W, @ i'./.;, v

5.

• c I received a certified letter, Attachment 1, fro:d

',7,h.ff!!, 17, 2930, T t ~ i,, ,elleging'certain deficiencies in our QA Progrs.= and its icy esen a-12/10 On June. ~ d.cas an Inspector in the CQC Electrical group frca ...f c.. '.,ip, tion. to6/13/50. f.t l y_ The allegations and my responses are listed,beloy., please, note that the alle-Q concerns. In most..S ~ getions as listed are my interpretation of8 cases, he h not specif2c e $.'$; j. J.;rf ' /Y-.. t d.-f, ]9 T,ffi .Sleve.Halpin, CQC Lead Electrical Inspector, instruc eCQC p M c.- l , $j Allegation 1: ' [ fyi'j ' 9Fhe to bypast. l ~~ '"~a5reements'"between Mr. Halpin; Mr. Stuart Tulk, CEI M ,"s c Lead Electr$ cal QE; and Mr. R. Love, QC Manager - L.K. [,%. Ceestock (2NP.P electrical contractor). < pg a - i h t.' _m did not understand i ' 'i.y-M. _.. To Q ? M.Nr p.. I can only. conclude that., + ;-3. Response 3a the orEaninstional relati6~sh'ip bet..een CQC and CQE. have an effective, coordinated QA Program on this project" T N ? M 4- ~ $$E? : reouires close cc:nnunication and a close working relation ' ..O. N., l This is particularly tnse at tbed.Y.fP-ship between CQC and CQE. ^ Each of these s.re responsi-It [{hlf9,' level of the Lead CQC and CQE. ble for implementation of portions of our QA Frogram. f is imperative that their efforts be coordinated to achieve, - i/[f,j, a unifor= approach to the contractor. It is also impera.- ^ -a tive that they work with and coordinate with the contrac-tor's QA/QC canagement. I Pnow of no cases where " agree-

g raents" were nsde which jeopardized tbe cuality of vork on

,f.f,l:ie I also know of no cases vbere our procedures ~ the project. (Construction Qua. lity Assurance Procedures Volume 2) were disr eEE.rd ed. l to consult Mr. Tulk prior A31etst' ion 2: Mr.Ha.lpindirected[ ~ ' ' ' ' to issmoce of "ptperwork". is referring te CQE consultation prior, I believe to issus.ncIof CQC Action Eequests (AR's). Because AR's are Pesponse 2: used to identify soft mre/progrr-mtic deficiencies' and be-l cause the contractor's soft are/QA Program is pr'icarily the responsibility of CQI (Reference CQS Frocedures Voltse 2 - r 0101,0504,0701,2001,1603), it bas b.een and receins CQC's I intent to consult vitb CQE prior to issuance of AR's con-cerning the se s.rcas. i U

94 6 H f.n):*.! L E. F:' ? 5. F* I e.1 01DJL CT 8 H t o c c' T N: DON va r. :t v:1.1 C4*.a '.hn.% TH C. C L EVE LA N D ELEC1RfC ILLUMINATING COMPANY A t.D e.a :! t m f *. G ts.f l PS. INC. eu4 MEMOR.ANDUM = exa c ito. 2 of Vo i+DeM TRoM oATC 27; PHoNC Room .p ri: G U S.J c CT .. M - 4 Response 2: This again is an eff ort to naintain a coordinated uniform .m.. , fM (COIiT) approach to the contractor. Similarly, bard =re noncon - fox Ences identified by CQE are nor=any brought to the e... l*1 %.i ~, attention of CQC for action. This consultation does not, ' f. and has not prevented CQC from issuing AR's stere appropri T -- ate. In fact, CQC Electrical group has issued 35 AR's against L.K. Comstock frca 7/27/78 through 6/12/80. Tne ;g[J((?, latest was issued on 6/6/80. .'f,,.l' r .t.D egation 3: " Paperwork" vas not issued because it " cost too much money".- ~ Q t: 4L. Response 3: In no case bas CQC failed to issue " paperwork" because it-J.w. jhT ', W. " costs too much money". CQC has attempted to eliminate It has Y Q' % unnecessarf or duplicate paperwork where possible. D9 been, and is, our philosophy that problems be resolved by j s h. mutual a5reement between CQC,' CQE and the contractor vben 4._J yhe contractor agrees to correct problems in a timely ran-y (' ~' ', C ~ - rper, or to identify-(i.e. documedt) the problem per bis ap- ~"v-proved program, it is generally not necessary for CQC or CQE-lffte ? 'to' duplicate that documentation. Exceptions are made for. . MW serious or repetitive problems sten CQC believes it neces-

4..

sary to identify noncomplie.nces per our program. This 3~ philosophy, too, is consistent with our procedures (Refer-3 rg 4'f D ence CQS Procedure 2-1001, paragraph 5.3.1). .~ T m ,- 2 Allegation 4: hoes not consider Mr. Halpin qualified to be !, ' h' Y L'esd E'~echical Inspector. l e. 9,0 y Response 4: In the first place, it is not, nor was it, function to judge Mr. Ps1 pin's cualificati6ns'. That rignt is reserved *to me as CQC Supervisor and TEI Project QO Fana-Eer. Mr. Ealpin bas 27 years of varied crperience, most of vbich is in the field of electrical and electronic manufac-I turing and instO Tation, including inspection, testing and trouble-shooting, knile Mr. Halpin did not ccme to Perry with previous nuclear plant construction experience, be did be.ve extensive experience (9 years) in aerospace electronics working within a formal QA/QC program co= parable to 10CFR50, Appendix B. In addition be bad experience in cc mercial and resicential electrical constructioq vbich is of ben'efit in overall job knowledge. L'r. Halpin's cualifications have been reviewed during internal audits, liRC inspections and ny own r evi ew. I believe F'r. Halpin is fully cualified.for his po-sition.

f % b AY f.L8C Ll e % f *P'. t h P.& '.I 8 + 0.d d = ~ (,, t o c 0.. tut io.c v.5:e4 ct L.* e.1 c=. o;; e,,~) .m t. TH E CLEVELAN D ELECTRIC I LL U !.'. l N AT I N G C O ! *..DANY '. E.M.,. 3 .w: no a.ut t e r re n t t as, nec. lt l' M MEMORANDUM ,' pro cy a. 3 ^ " -e t: TO RooH TROM OATC .. i,17.Nc,... s-PHONC RoDM '324, --r.; m.;t Uk : + 5U9 JECT

' m.

n5 ;:..y /jf;4r.~ _" Allegation 5: " politics" has had a negative effect on QA program ispiW^'l_ 1,.[,' mentation. y< *y%~/,.((g-g.

• M c9dy-n.v:

a se= antics standoointD2WM@t 6 . i.. v.c.= f:Respoi:se 5: " politics" is a loaded word fro: To one person it means lying, cheating and backstaSoing.N ,[$ ' .' L To another it means doing A]T.t' THING to avoid a conflict.."di[- p P [, 6 M M.F.- T.M(NkM'[If C To a third person it means handling situations in a dip.$t q,5 g E ; y. 'D-y pgre N "T:'. Ic stic 'and professional canner to best achieve a desiredk '[^["'f.d' goal, i.e. politics is the gresse thst keeps an organisti$nhp ff.,

• dh;.

functioninE smoothly. I do not know to what '* 'kM.kh a.f ("' ,(' refers in speaking of " pol 1 tics". I do knov3st CQC has Inot%@{.$ ~ and vm not refrain frcn identifying quality problems because%@U. 4 y:-(s.Y. N I also know that my' manage'kdh of any political considerations. ., ~p - ~ f,kS ment fully sbares this' position.

e....

~m..p .._ %~. jvas hired mere'.!y to fill e. slot vbereby'his['.,7J$,N ~ lle6ation 6: l 1, A resume vould bolster the appearance of the qualification)fA$ % - g, 7,.9.. ~M.m .. h i:. of CQC personne1... W 9 f,,. n.

m. ' -

W.,.w.... L.. - ,'va,s hired because of his back round and experi,e' primarily in the 'Er'eas of conduit installation and cable >p m. 5 -gh; -6 E s

s.. ~.c r,i.~e spon s e.:

. -... __a

'M.9 6.p".

'

Because of project delays in these areas there was#M7, "Y ling. less work than origina11ygnned during t of this year. [ ~ other areas sus as MCC ano switchgear inspection, ca g tray n ins' c11ation, and QC program verification. l j,h' p g Q ) approached these duties with a singular lacr-~of'entbusiasm.$ .gl His initiative was much less than expected. He was verbally'Q.jp 10,1980,f:ance on.a_.mr:.ber of occasions W... W notified of his inadegaate perfo Most recently on June w failure to iscrove his nerfor-mce vould result in his dismis-le.# ' " l .ul. His response was that be vou3d: "r..ke it easy on ne and

• resign as of June 30, 1930".

I was infomed Monday, June 16, ' 1930, that he bad teminated the previous Friday. I received the attached letter of resignation on Tuesday, June 17, 1930 4,,,. Allegation 7: 1.' - m' pin is an ineffective supervisor because of e.xcessive 4 tardiness and lack of interest in his job. ('f limponse 7: Mr. Ealpin's attenir.nce and prc ptness is a catter of super-visory concern and' does not impact ouality program implemen-9 te.ti on. Knile there have been problems, I bave addressed q those problems within nom.s1 cupervisory channels. I do not believe this item to be significent frc= gaality allegation i_ standpoint. I ..if

( st m out u ar,

v.t.~. r.a M eir.cect

) s s t Lc c o.*,w:. ecs. ua :s c.i vi n. n :s s. r~ c u y. .t :> ..M "J~ THE C L EV E LA N D C L E CT RIC l L i.U M I N AT I N G C C S'. P.A NY -h-

s. *.3 wst n t ac u.t i ~.s. !n c.

MEMORANDUM ' pts 7,% h c: ". 4 ro acoM raoM DATc -:- e y;;T ~m PHONC Room 'WVh hki:: S U 9.J E CT

1. E E*' -

-.3.a,-- y

• .I0..',,*

Y'g=~ % ' ':0l< C&w$1 i .: a o... u .d4.f%ih$Qf.y: -' g'pfkS[pjjd.f,b Allegation 8: Tne' above items as well as a 1sek of approved procedures./#F.i5 have resulted in " coverup" of. cuali'/ problems. W/gg%?qiy)- I believe the above responses refute / finaligghl;p Response 8: CQC has not and will nof~ coverup' E6yT =lityjg ,lf[ ~ allegation. prob 3 ems. My colicy is to implement as effective a QC f'B?%Wds? progrL1 as possible. Vnere deficiEDcies in our program?ff f ccce to my attention, I have instituted corrective seasures.52., r# lo fact, the entire electrical CQC program was revamped.about .+u.m a year ago because the existing program was considered'in-6ph ad equ ate. Tne number of quality problems identified and M)f,i K satisfactorily corrected over the past year speaks vee for2'Ghyf O our ccrsmitment to and implementation of an effective second-hQ. line surveiliance/ir.:spection program. J M ?. q p R s...c2it-y g+y: y3 q.t.ip- ~- -, s. In su=ary> I believe that[.___ } allegations are unfounded. JI.far E-a.t..- y y "o L .1 ther believe that much of his dissatisfaction stensed from.tvo sources: c + n 3 3..s:is.::.- 1)' $1's lack of understanding of our second-line function as opposed to ;/:1-.2rN. ~ $~.7 first-line inspection; 2). His personal lack' of confidence in the leadersbij ("g provided by Mr. Halpin. Neither of these, in my mind, is grounds forithe { I am confident that the CQC program in the,,e.lectrical,$g,'F.'; above allegations. p.. ' area, as well as other areas, can withstand the close scrutinyj- { ~.7C.

yIhD.,

's^[ M letter may cenerate. di'. M:. cav ; ' ~.. p In c. losing I would note that at no time during,I_ _._.... - - ' employment?$q:h';rs l at Perry did he ccme to me expressing serious. ccTerns aboudbe quality . 'ii ". of the hard are or QA Prog. ram implementation. To the best of my knowledge, .' g, he did not apprcach any other indivif ual in the managemertt of FNPP eitbcr..c Wh ~. .g;f If I nay prcvide further informstion on this matter, please let me know. l

s PIM/ sgb 4

Attach, u

i-D - e

f.h.dl. - [773 ~ ', 3 J'n-s y ...-u -q,. a .-c 1.:

• s>./ -

a,* 9.,. a. . s :. : I . "J.pW *. 1 'J U.' 2 P, fggj ? ~ y:-...C :.- s N.trres, - .. '~.O.4 1. v a.m,.. Ln.s.;r ..q.. -.s..r .. - s q '

• r
• 4 1. w.....W 3 7,

.,g e, a .. cj g.,- a- ..p..y... cy :. m' -. q.2,e.8. :.. p; I Mh ,. sk,h,k *;h. f ja b... Y~ . _. _ ~ r* k,.M~~f,, *figt, 1 'h DeSr $ -QT.1 23, Tais refers to our telephone conversations on Dece::ber 22 and 8. 50-440/80-29; .., j'y-;;jg get, Encios.ed is a copy of Inspection Report Fos. M g.ylf t1 50-441/S0-27 regarding the Perry Nuclear Perser Plant, Uni n 1 and 2. * *.g 1980.

1. . v...s

' h, f '. ..A Tour cooperation with us is appr eciated. v.., a,. e.s. n i.p';.3xu'M Mih~' b Sincerely, .va. y.

6., w '-ax nng

=..*q . ; 9 ;.'ty d U..u:.' s >+.,, W.'

• ; w:. ex..:-m 4.'[.#'Nh,9dN-

.:4 < r. P@, yyg:s Q l G. A. Ph11.11p P, .2 ff -. j i ;_. investigation Specialist "---

. : 333rf..[,a ~ w v.

~ -. ~ ~ ~ *= ,,.e.<., ,a .i 7.'f. _. ~ ..,r. x.., =, dl. M.~.1 h D. *..s;N *n';;. N EncloS:LT e' ' f'?PA% 75.,- As stated

• * *1 '.%t;. '.n o A ; *+ -;,-

s-d Of *[j, -1 i,.,.).m. '[M*,I.,0 M,,, ' fenpR,i,$b '.*t J.A.y}y-hp ~.; j.;}.cn :..- c y','

• • '.%.sh.'.

h (* E - '. - Q"'EW ' L.J. s.'le;f f,tij 'f.e+:r- 'J .,.. c sa .y .M, '+8. b 9 .',?,J,1 k._ r r ;- ->. ' ?lj. . }.i ' --- x _ -..... n...................................... . b 131p Q ib%

F UtJITEDSMTCS

.1

SS10N

'l'"' - /y * * :g'o ( NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC ,3...e ?.' e R EGIOtJ itt 3.r. gf n 7H AOostvf LT Po Ao ..... 4.d. +' ! N g y"4 i CLE P/ E L LYtJ. it.Lif40tS 60137

w...s...

Nh,m { ;" ,./ 2 5 $3f -w

• \\.e

~< ,:. er c. JAli 4.?,,%F?. 'p %. Q Yr!.., . '.j2%qq N,Yl - f.8

• J 'T '.i.E. t -

c ...,,.<1 i i Region III Files l OR.2_NDUM FOR: ' Assistant to the Direct ~ 'l T. fei N.t fd,' a9I Senior Investigation Specialis 't-49.-y THRU: c-L' J:-W(N k i. y ' C. A. Phillip, {? PER VELD hh$0 Y,fi FROM: PERRY - ALLEGATION OF AN IMPRO JontactedRegionhI113. 'x hi[ had been c.ade improper 7' ~

SUBJECT:

1980 an individual,l l and alleged a specific 'iie' dThe transcribe On Dece:::ber 18, ' i by telephone h 'I was defective. attached.co this meen.by J. Shapker and me d -l conversation are i,, v'as referred to J. Hughes, matter an i s {in'$$ ',is," "' ' ' was obtained from' hi' W2.dtfl Qua ).. I The mitter ~ .3 i versations. / 0 29; 50-441/80-27, spector who looked into the50-440 8 - l . r. ~~~?*'M gdI.([. : : sent to also been t. Inspection Report Nos.A copy of the report has=... tter is considered.close ' ~ u.- dZ .:.c L s attached. ... ),,, ' d.Jf~9, "S. further action is planned and the ma..-.- i : rec-u~.. 2: ** 96 : No ,~ h'.h{}.fc I 6t a; - .j: //' y . h. i;W.3. : v. ~. p.,,.' y .l .c. G. A. Phillipvestigation Specialista 3 4 q Senior In -. 7,. y.., 'p.u .' vum [,Yl,"MN.%i[;$ i-) } .hj. '.QFT' !!,98i.:- 'y W 1 i : Atta chments : / H.-. ,e.

i 4 f

As stated O . ;..,h]/' n - h.' N.. att achments: ~ 'i';q/;15 I w/o % '.f. 7,,..,.- cc C. Fiore111

V J. Konklin J. Hugh es

. y :,.. a t..... J. Shapker

4. ic;.

,.t 4 ,F h *) .,;t ,c.,.. ,) a 's * . b -[,5[:5 s t c.q. ....g9 '.); A

~ \\ _.', ) ' /,. ' . ) f.L //,_'.,, - ~ .; w /. t o s 4.' *. :e July 16,1981 ~.fg. ' j lMc :] a..,Q 1 ..':.'.'q v:. Z:: . v3, l

R.fi?fg#$uf,p

? ..x,. .i@@.; w.o. :..W

"

.+.. t'm.,.g.%..cv

.,c ,_I, k .,:k epw. Dea r.' q s ; d/.6D.> - kh fhh. M ([hl'E ~ .,J-% Your letter funkted) to the NRC in Washington, D.C. expressing c [3 aboutthesecurityadinistraticaatthePerryf>aclearPowerPlant:hss,@%kT j fy .,.j,,, 7'70* t-been referred to this of fice. Efforts to reach you by-telephone to-dis-5.J' O. cuss these concerns have been unsuccessful. I....T.s t.n.,we.. .3.- .@ :li,.

• *G'4.

This is to advise you that during the construction of nuclear power' ::M[ibp d.( plants and prior'.to the receipt of reactor fuel.on site, the NRC does'not"[T'?fD 1 icpose any securfly reQJirer.ents and the licensee,!:in this case the~ Cleve M 'c,, ~ - Electric Illusinating Ce,pany, is not required to r.ake any co miteents ".'jy.QkIII l-regarding security. We, therefore, have no basis for pursuing the satters(A f df",_ .. :

• v,4'. ?4.s Ik..

i contained in your letter. v.. ,m. us.t. -.v.m d F-~ The. s e u.a t t er. You may wish. to ? igg..,o g. 1+"a..._ . r:a. ting coepan.s. ray, howeve.r, b.e of int erest to the Cleveland Elect ric Illdr.i y, site contractors or local authorities. W G. communicate, directly with one or wre of those organizations. WSMmw :ds. ~ s r,$j:Hg Wg ,,, If you wish to discuss these catters further, please call ::.e collect athjpg i{,'.". 012)932-2500. ._ 'iyylMM.:p-i .. a. c(w:.!lda: t .. 4 vg, ~ t 'V<JPf[lc Sincerely, i. dE.y{.4.j. N.@ .!,i." i 7.. W t I [. ? . h): '.C),:: ' f 1. t

• 1 * 'S!fMJbl c.-

s.

.0:.g] y :.

G. A. Phillip ',; "j-.,.. J W....y Investigator cc: J. Hughes

4. 'r:e- -

R. F. 1.'a rni c k !. i., : l s, t ( ..,'. ! i q..

• r a v.

~ } n'.$. . J.. ' .:.~ .,t. i < :L W zw

e.t r /..R I I I RIII l

g fj.., g.y. L.-: s -h E ons

.[:,i- ,-Vi??[. ,. y;.- .': - ~ e

• 1 e r f

t.$ 4 o L f k I-J ~,.; -AbYzR6o/ s,.,=- s 01.s h - x. n . dWaAa m,. 0. C... iG.'. [e; W:;~ 2 6../1.-. & )* ,['h(.~i.i~'>U.5.\\, ..&,fh[hl /fg)bjl.u ? ,y, hk $di.< Ay'ALL do ALd&' ??*bs;o m j ~ _ uis s a =tj. y A J 6 _ J A X ~. M y " c jf) ~..~. : f t Wfl Q) U 'O' A /* a$:l,Qy w a e, - A, Cu" z ~m 'l a dWAbdu. M 89MM..ExM' _.7 m z.O G yod 6kne-f =a. J J A s '- fm w)wd ) l dMm ) ya ,'.A. wt sd m n. O

G &.$n . h g.O 4

• , ~.:

~ J [d A s ,. _ A p / A - A m a o m - w 3. dm .b:; ; Q 3:<. ma cu ......m.. y, W )J / (& [VW lD .. m 32r _ q.qry.., ' y..~ - 6 y,:r p_,,l} . 5 {e {f;],.fi:,' ;; ........ fA'W h f M ?.yf Y ><cfY f A ens = h $" / & kh $ l &^r- =e w +A ~p /kihf{? / ' w^ $ $ % a,_ ~ m o.o l u D. T T h A m k he-r? h m $ w"kW~"'/A Wkh I A ~_ m.. + _ ~ mng 3 D a.a w' m y_ I* . O. / A g ~aJs = g & m om ...v. sg;5 t;. J:.tr.'c;y;j j\\@. -h,, ry.,>. ~~ 1.' pk ~ ( f f,d.2-ast.2 / ./ - cla ~. J JAALW ~ s J. /- n A,A 4~- u n lL x-mAls aw.a,:6l. W n.-c b e~ 9 sgw. C.sr J'2AA9.i+*!1 -ss042 W M, L as> 7 - a p g m, e,1c-8 a .6 -=& a. . 29 w f x a sp gy,w ,w ~' ) hx ya/ } n. 47~ /n .L s 9

9 ~. I e ...r..- 06tober 15, 1981 T.q'gfin g n.r.e -

1,9Elp 4.

s. s,,- s ev,;:.: .. ? m,-i j. 5'.',. c, e ..:o

• 7!*

[ *0PJ '~u'f.; FO.". : Re; ion IIl Fileu .~,.p.,c, :.. '

R2.t4YLH.:.?:

~ T:.U : R. F. Uarnick, Director Enforcerent and Investigation i. EPM ' - ? jf9E N . ~, r. i Staff' ^ ..,.n., t,.u n - :.. .v .s

2. Jj'

+ Fl:0'h C. A. Pit 1311p, Investicator ..,e, nu..M...:

s.,.;

2 v..:.. 4 .w th.d.' h,! 1. ?., c: V.l.i /".k% "fT* SUFJECT: RF_ ACTOR VESSEL I;T:.*EP. STEEL AT PERRY c ' ..lel,1 m)$$D. l;s- .<a

• 5.nd8

? .',.g)*.'p t _ copy of a mee.orandun, dated October 5,19S1, R.. N. _Cardneri. L. n.. p s w..

A' t o C. C. U1114.a-'.s, same subj ect as above, which indicates a;...... J.

'.4.qi', ac4 Attached is a W.7 .,.i.I 7 '.2.-:, n '.. _j has information concerning a problem with the ~ '.-c. N, s.;M W . 4;a. reactor vessel inner steel. h

Y.. Cf.%,w,fdEW pw '.m

' s.t.a t e d ' On October $14, 1981 I cont.i,cted, 7 by telephone. - j.:,Q... 3 n.. ., :...pt. v. s,.. bsa no. ',.1 n n. .x i i u" ty, --..knowl. edge of.any proble:ns with any of the ha.rdware having to do;.vith the f,., :.f.. :.1,. t.h. 'd.:. C. ' 4 k, ~ - aa.. resctor vessel or the vessel itself. Ilc said he cou.1d not under. stand hov-N Q.'g...... , 1l therecould %e any basis forJ t:ry inouiry but he vould be hap 1.y tii cooperste y,3[pa.. 4 in iny vay he could. ' sounded genuinely puzzled by.cy call. . dy. W.Y.m? Q, '. I

w..

.;.g: g.h... In viev of the above, no further action is planned and the natter is. /:#u:t.'.yT@,,.3 t U ') I" ' ' ' " considered closed. ~ . ~ ;, p 8's,; . r.:.g., r . g; G.c.,,w.9;'.. g. 5 C. A. Phillin. ,fW.v.N Investigator p 5,[t ,i r, a .E' g Tnciostare: AS N t t.

• e d

~ cc v/ Enclosure : . t i C. U1111ms F. F.ntins R. Cntdner 8 a f .. ~) o8 3 *CL ) -.. p.,,,, ! y ...t'.e,. r. '..l..i.n../. c.. t.. ..V..a..r .c - ..............U'......... s . _. _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - _ _

N ~. ."s.~ s, n o.. >.-.: t' [ Q i . ~. s. o '. l'.'a ( 7<. o, ) y f s' %

• y

<)1.. ;./. /,. r r.. f a.^ g';4(.;?~ Oct oLer 5, 1931 y 7,i '~ d' (0 /C. 7 ( F.CDPMDU.'! TOR: C. C. 'J11112.~s, Acting Chief, Engineering Inspection Ercoch

• s;,.,. -

172)": P.. K. Cardner, Ecactor Inspector ..\\ L. }s* 7l, e. g s'a-iT.*'

.ffg; St15.3 ECI

RE.6CIOR VESSEL Im:~E STEEL AT PLERT y a.em c.-*..,. s

r..

During inspection of Perry Unit 1. control room an unidentified W;:{..h.n.YO ..t A ,h~. individual c.rprersed concerns regarding the reactor vessel inner steel. ,m.. Apparnotly, the paint /coatius was dsiective and st ainless steel was velded.,. ^^ ' =f m..

s.,. c<...,. ;

e to cover this steel. Apparently, during t.he. celding process, the steel's y,yQ,, -. *y agAD

:,r:b y3gg, ',f:[-g y

jp..

d T. s ?.;.E.7 hi e en.sile strength va.s " ruined". Vhi.le the individual ubo supplied this. - c'V.l+y,g.,'fM(;g l '- s y efss.. 'M 7 M inforration did not give his nare, he said that a certai.o!. . r..DW%.v#f.. S .nw;, e. ::.1,:yn.. .a'.:,. ~ ~ vould have more information. Be, requested that this bubject 5%'.MME.5.a- ~< . ya.s.y' + e- - - ~ 1.1. ;.. ;. ~- -- >t: rp r.m,,,,,,d,,w -. be handled dir.creetly' - v ~- o .-.....a ..r.- . w.J%.,.r,..r ..p 8 m. ..L,,.. .c.. u,.w i ~ r

n. w.pu e l4.~7.p'?i otA @; -

J i ': u. E. M.t. 2 ' ';,'.,;2f. f.f4C,. h. P.. Caraoer ' 7; : ~..~.gfj:u.. ;. ir ?.. ..m.... \\ ^. ?W Y l C.. <;>if' ~ ' I',*%,* b* 6 . ".7 5 ' '.d. '.. .3 ~ i .a t 1 r O W t b .-.e isw --"*MN l E P>. lli l - r.,:.,r ny.(. \\

T..estfgation Ti30 i No. E184

g 1 'l $M W-6@.

q n:.a . :e-j ... z .c. -z ' C-l. E. ', 4 ;

,'w.m-m ; - -

10+.[&i:$N5'V- ..:~... S. st '. ? Y-1 y I E RANDUM POR: Region III Files . 4),.;g'Apfy'l'.'~ - ik[n41d9'%' G U: Robert F. Wrnick, Director, r.cforce.=ent and Investigatio6M'fh.'L 3E3ff M. 4 '4'2 h i W 6 - ai ~

7. S OM:

~ C. A. Phillip,.. Investigator ...; %, Q ;. W N + p*. m O'.,*n. 5%. &y~ SEJICT: PE.RI - CONCM P2CARDIlK; FOUNDATION DDRI FICEITED BY. W.H'J^ 'l.6W TF.J? BONE 4$ d.I ~ J T ' p y.q,.W.:; . o.w c~. l '[Ffg-5 4 On Novenber 25, 1981._.I_rl,ce_iy_ad a telephone call fron an.indi ddua.1 vho ;i P !D % nw vas / .IT sa.id -

ctsted,

. lives in the vichi ty of the Ferry site and b..s read recent nevspaper ?.,.... a.!'p'.y J.j (,%F;,y '.. crticles ab cut problems at the site. indicated they aroused, con- 'E.JYC-S t, cern about so e information son gave ~ 'D ,- q ., s..nM,.4l.. y ~---.. Ac c o r. d.i ng to ',.. shont t,hr ee y e.a rs a go son, ncu 24 years old, had. a.cm.(c Me 'IE m-conversation in a bar vith a r:an who was working at the Perry site. The m g. contrate sections used in the foundation of "a_.big %g.jf. - ~ vnrker naid tlir'ei precas t ftg g ca ' round building" vere supposed to be velded or bolted together. Fe cau s e - ;r.J.V.- . h *;c ~' treoch vas too rarrow to accomplish the velding or bolting the workersF,;,(!jZ.Q].'{ the vere instructed to fill op the trench without doing it. 1',' f. # s,.. .;, M f : ' '"n.:,7; ;, q as advised that tore information was needed. c [ agreed to talk hth " son in an effort to obtain vore infor=ation end, if knovn, thens =e?k.d.21.[, of the worker. I said I would contact, again 'on Monday, Nove:nber 30, 1981... 6 On Novenber 30 I called l.-bo at that tfm said I ' had spob n to _ s on ; ;..g ' j on n.Ansigiving Tby, Nove.nber 26, and son could provide no additional f. info-.a t t m.

oc told be had never seen the vorier before or simee their cccrersatic,e tc t he bar a:5 d he d i d n ot' knov his n ene.

I i n f o rmed I would discuss the tatter with our inspection personnel but that there ~E3 ght not be suf ficient inforr.ation to pursue the r:stter. I have s ince d is cur.s ed th e n.s t t er vf th Trank Esvkins, Acting Chi e f, Plant Cya tc:m See ti c n. Euv".. ins advised -e tLe inforn.ation had no relationship --[h117 v g }i ..I...R I..I l R.IIT

rF

, g,,....R]1, j.. .,. _..i... f.... (. e m L a....... m. m,. v..,n

- - 1',s

4..r.a..

(" . v...., ;.-, ....c.m. e,

cc..

^. D;, r,g-t >.y... I .4:. i. 3..,... <p.,y.., s...

c..,,,.......

2 bEC 17 IS8i h'T'.b[h Region III Files c.: -.. q y e +. D,* Pj. h,.'... -(~L (f *N'gi,; ;,'

6 j:v.+ '.:.

to any foundation work at the site falling under our jurisdiction and that f y'3] / without more details could not reasonably be pursued. .%.s.-.. h'.a..m., 6 In view of the above, no further action is planned and the matter is con- 'V' sidered closed.

m.,.

n/v G. A. Phillip , i W -.,. - s J h..,., i..J Investic,ator ' e"4 h IE& cc: F. Hawkins P

. L. 7 '.7 s,e.,.'.-

" * 'en - "(F?e 4.' b 49 ,,7,, -,. b -'Nk* [*$b < MM'#3[f'rdr's?!.ad pyG:,- 9hd 'M.%lht1%Q.+> . @.pyyw . 'wy;Ipap.? .ua :c. L u .u.m>u.M. * * ~-. a. N ** * * ' d I ';r - ?e ]* 4$.* /* *,* * - .g,

• ===4..-- e m.

1 ,g.,.j),.d $NDapgw- - f * , f,1 ;.- a.-<. - , W,. =:7...p 3 4q, s.l*-:, .,* s ; Ve s .,G t4%%.a.5.;M..ilQ 4 -, ::.y 1,., :z. - s 4 ..o,4.9;y,H.g tp. y: <.

y -.

.s G:*.'.e';n)Q:w.y w:- M 3, .O i y ..'8. m.,. y: a,f: h :- t '.- :. o ... J-* ) ;W- - '* * ..,f'.k,..,..,p#",. - ' t,-r .', f. A. '.,\\.. I.[ ' y [:l2..sy s.*ay. r y;*.- ~ N u,4, :. s - a-p d. f,,t e ' ' ;F..

e g

e 7 to 't A 4 9 I .e g. t. : 4'. 1 i 'l e 4 9 e e e-D

., v, \\_ ..:n ~. ~ is : + Dececber 31, 1981 .4s-

• w p

u...n,- W... -s e,H :~:. .. e w'. &.,,, .t; ~ - M.~.itin% :, r'i.:.:yyn]i:2p &.6 ' Cri:%T$l$ I ,i M N FANDUli TOR: Re-gion III Files Robert F. Warnick, Director, Enforcerent and Investigatio'nsMW:' TERD: FUf.g; ,M,W.s.s. l: .4 5%i;.w Staff v .m.y.a.. -,,. FRO 11: C. H. '.7.eil, Investigator .i. Q 3g' U M; y-n. vt..,,.. rp.W4-vp ,m TI",GY hTCLEAR P7JER PLuiT UnTS 1 s 2 (50-440; 50-4i41)';3G[4%dp. is..

SUBJECT:

PRACIICAL J0KE - ALLEGED THREAT AGAINST THE LI QUALITY COVEROL D:SPECTOR UFLOYED BT THE L. K CO'5TOCE'. COMPANY ( RECION,III Ih7ESTIGATION No. 81-96). V 5g.g.Q.4.g.g ',,,, . M.pn.y}:.Q.Q

,;f$Ol.OG.f L <

s

k.,

m@d. m: i RECEIJT OF 'D;FOTWATION .,. v m yt c 4; - @- .~. t. g -n a Cbsries E. Weil, RIII Investigator, was advised by ;yMbgMp .s On Decc=ber 11, 1981, Toortas J. Wood =.an (Production Emsger for the L. E. Co: stock Cocpany) '.Ejh.h,[' and Clarence W. Eart (Catock's Quality Assurance Manager at t.be_ Perry..'..:f.pyy..?,. threatened the life of,' /r.9.v]E",dM..9. site) that Comstock craf t e:mloyee.s bd . c,' p.;,4.JN ~~ w .--i a Coestock Q :ality Control Inspector. 4 W W _tus %, d -- s. N'@l *!:?d%f.? a EACEGE0*JND Th70TJATION %,: A.h,_.9)*:;. j. '.. On Nove:2.er 20, 1981,l - l a Level II electrical inspector, prepared 9A.,:Tnis NR d V+4 t r.r'?. Nonconfor nce Acport (NR) No. IIC-814 (A ttachment 1). craf t vorher applying beat to conduit ne=ber ig24F3C, prior to theAs a re T a ~ identification varker. application of the conduit ' ' T[g.N.1,. 9~ I the Co: stock Ceneral Foreman and Forer.an involved in this r.atter vere .a l T relieved of th-ir supervinary positions and de=.oted to tbc journeyr:an l . -.' K . u.:. v:n. Icrel. ..g,#. ]vanapprisedbyseveralofhiscok.orkersinh[I On Nce:-ber 7, 1981, QwIity Control tis t craf t wohers h-d been overheard discussing the NE nnd the craf t workers _ vere overheard threatenf og .xritten by _ .discu.ss.ed the threats with I life. On Nccher 7th ' Subsequently, n'. # ..hrence Nitchell, Cowtock's Assistant PNduction Manager. C and on Dececher 10th WooA.-m, , Mitchell rpprised Wood an of the 1.ncident, _ jet imd discussed the threat.s. ?.e.r t <:nd ) A re. cord of this reet.ing vas unde by Wooh -m and Eart (Attach =smt 2). t Also,d vas percitted by bl=an smA Eart to co==>ent on the content of the record of the reeting (Attach::mt 3) and to rue a writCent:sta rs9CLOSE', concerning thi u ratter (Att..chvat 4). mnt .. -.. - ~ ~~:p'b* a U Ell.i. M. 9.f.V.t.R.I.TI G p.

s.

g 3 u..... 6.:p VciliqE l Varf cf. l s ...... n.m.. ....................;............... 3............................... t

1., ^ ~2, .., @1 a ; f.1,, . F.ce ! on III Ti] es n. .m.b " b,, I . >(.f..,h':3 pk,.6 /

?

?'.^.g..< 7-j N $ M.e,A ~ RIC30N III INYCSTICATION . t d-N:<. RIII investigationijW P " C. t -f P 4 H-T F. U The above-inforcation cas receiu-A Anr W the course of a ComstockQualityContr'olh.I,[' into allegations concerning the adequacy of the L. K. program at the Perry site (RIII Investigation No. 81-74; NRC Rpt. No. 50-440/81.19! - a.i.,1..,4Wg.;. and 50-441/81-19). n~ .t. - Iwas interviewed. ; advised he had $S.Q)N.J%?. i On December 11, 1981,! ~ He'found that his co-workers '~ ', ".l'IM,pg% i pursued this catter hieself. -- had fabricated the story. e ar J.n.g,;g,g . [ stated h'e had not had his life threateneo. His co 'orkers had concocted' thDKWS i story as a " thoughtless practical joke", as; had feit sorry for the /fIj.QV General Forecan and Foren.an Josing their jobs. advisedhehasnever;1dkd$lk intimidatedorharassedduring'hisemp]loy,antwithL.K.'Coc(f[h been threatened, O stock Company. stated he considered this matter to be closed and,'.w W;pjg%'.., t, . ~... .,me.n...- he did not wish it to be pursued by the NRC.

m

.n .yL,.':;%rdQbN. ' hQ rI -j. 0;3 P REGION III ACTION Z;*]Ne t1 M.b '.,'.}'.M4( 4.E l[M^ 4 8 IJ. life was not threatened. He has never been harassed or intimidated.

pif 3

dur'ing' int emplovment with L. K. Comstock;'therefore, no further actionl..is. W I f%. p' W. Mi ?.p L % '.im$g.. c" planned by Region III. This matter is considered closed. 1: fs.$, i.t,,, x: ..h

-n% + -

nf..9 nq..N}k<':

2_p *7 ~l t t1 r 1

g-

^%n.'W%9?. A#,@J.g, .W m'.,.r.* g. ,,A ~

.;.w.%d!.9 sy..~

A "Q@i@ C. H. Weil ,Ml4W le-F equ

g..

p -- W. Investigator m : W.. {, 1.ri. i, ;,dy,,;dd .O. s J d./ fa s:achment s : .w n .,y, Q:gg/ffj7 1. Cpy of L. K. Comstock NR No. .fg,,,. 4 g)l%gd,g 1 LKC-814, dtd 11/20/81

Qj

.jf 2. Cpy of Woodnan's & Hart's record ~ ligp,f.; j i of otg.I dtd 12/10/81 j 3. Cpy of jerdeptions to 7$G4. i isYM4: Voodcan's 6 Ha_r;.t's utg. record it,. Wkd$$It .ys. y ~. ~. ' 4. Cpy of .E. Comstock Corpany, , ~ ~ j..u - state,ent to 2' the L. dtd 12/11/S1 ...a ' ~, cc w/At tachments: . g.,g;9.,y, j '-M' I L. McCregor -.. '..L ,i .e l f -s l l 1

.,. y L.;..

6 8 g

. C l i M. i C... t h I' L/ td F E E i. ~.tr g.m,1*y/ NONC C 4f C Ev1.NC E R E. C P.T .x

• 4

-e ,.,y.'

u..., n s a

_ l_: _ _ p __._..,....r n s t.. +n nc i HOLD T AG# 1N.. . : i.... c. __.-___......,.__.._.]h/9IIR,7.4.F.3.C. C00DUJT j 1 cr c. w-r..,: y. g. 3 g C,I.8.1.4 0I 2 ,,qM.lcc.us.i.cw 1.1l2,018:1_. l.n. Pt './ L. F.. CO".5TOCK ,e....g - _. : it. c ::,0,4.,<$. s t o c,,, o., ..:.~* . <. E v 4'.E ut.a a..u. lcv E S'.JPH i + .2, v. u. ;.,.., f ov.cc l 'NSTALLED g v,.- ( g, ' v - t a A t %@) N/A

a a. g c,.< c."

3. 3. ~.111 t,-

/ si t u. i {...#

P. t W f'.MS' @..,( ,5P-F '.7,'2l,.- t w o u s.> e u c ' c4.Tsc:ay:- __O..s i a e r s e ' c s>c.". i s i !O 2 i -.;oa ir G3 i. i.e o n i ' "l;@ L. K CC?: STOCK '.'pl-lsoncA~cATier.y;-l ^ '. - l..' ' l (sP) F RDc K A se ..s.- I;D.,,.',, e a y.%..[,,'.T,4, INST A L L AT eo** ~..; 4 nTyst ]tEl fQuiP./WAT*L. @ fi _ -. -. ~ _. ~

• .E

? lgi v P C f.l,ll,a,.,_ l,r c o v c n n s u c% :.,l.*.1:f s u c t u c c A c c c v T r ~ c tLKC QA/QC PROCEDURE 4.3.2 g,f,'.,,',s,'at ouin tecum;:(l'Nl,ylg; cas 7 c as A A no ooc v1. wos.i 1il$ihhi@ , -.u _.

1.,,..

PRIOR TO APPLYING IDENT171C.G10N 9 ., w g,o g;3_ i uc ', o; 5,1]; "E " . v t su a,..e.3..., ...w };..,. w.,..;.;..c ~c o.a c t, u.u c c @p,.;,g coot ' m 'a,.Q. ion or w ^ (PROPANE BLOW TORCH) TO CONDUlT FOR'.:. -o,a. 3 COS'DUIT (IR24F3C), CRAFT UORKER APPLIED HE.AT .x. m s q' - ONDUIT. CABLE 30 SECONDS AT MAPTER LOCATION 2' FROM THE END OF a .us. m.. . PROXI_%sTELY '. $ ( ,l,. P - v rjam y,g; R2!.F3C IS IM5TALLED. .r,yx, '2h,l['_ '. U b 3f. '. N fc'AuSc"o M M'% Q ciusc INADEjATE SUPERVIS3ON .,,....., ';:n......)4). coot OM [M.,~c~cowron.6uct - ,'n'.f it ....... -..... + n1 "P: "'*..Q.;Wp;m <llt: t' g .,n -= l ,.f:p;w*pa.:t :. [: : 4 R w~. -), : f,...,. # ~ .. 'd;W ,y y : .....,.~.:... y,, a. "s.u ~, ,,.;;,x. ~- ute & sis m -. ,...,Q,y,_ n a P c s e c lp;,..., gg= _ m_ - . O 'cuor>< 'zi : O nc-^'a oi-.

w t' _)

o v/. ic, v -w.. .. h; .u;.s. n i.'4.,..,A;.oisp o si t io 7a . W.i s: v...9 - ! O sc n 5 a the time [./e ....y S-Tne General Foredan and Fore: ao in charge of supervising at s..V 1 ~.:,m-

.n 3.b sustincA,io :

re.>oved froc their duties. of tMs occuL,hce has been . -_~ _.. f

• i

-,=g..==.=_===--==-===~=-- d. .s class cas given on Procedure 4.3.2 and Tom eS7 is attr.che ..,,. ;<,.t;.s1 t m., o r. n c v t y.f..., ...:_.,,, y

.-l.;<

is ,.'....< 4 N t C.U h H A ~ C t v.*.. '.a'.. - ~ I ~wA n. 'L' - j3 g& Q1 n ~~ ~~~q C^ C / &J )) Ih.i!', f. I**' W'" g.p,f . _....,Y h., ( g p O H c D'*

• C or m
• h,

(' f .#1 's ,I e+ r-r* *N O v s I a r,- r o y 8 .~ D ~o rs E C W Q.y. f.5 J ( ~. (* I __d. s.. - l j n pe ( t, ' L ',.F. ]. u t v. t. - rn e o. o * 'o c a c vit. eG ~, 'f i ~ u-s a a i j .'W- ,,,tc "C'"D .L _ I rEFriC g*?"???

r a..,... h .i ~ . L. ;.w n ' \\<.- Dece ber J U' i o81 %,%JP f ?' ;", i[; ". a :,.:-- - d.h*.e4 ~ ' !.Q[*&. ?:-y

f. '

~- = ~,M 5 :: .j$. V. .m On 12 / 7 /.81. Mr. Clar ence Mitchril_. indicated in a conv er sa ti nn ha hadwith[,_" Inspector:

that,

' indicated he could put up v3th no one?.'Mi"% vanting to talk with him but couW not~~5ke the threats on his lif e as a J d.'. result;N5-of the General Forecan and Torer.an being reduc,ed to a Journeyman.ievel. _ ff.df. n

• }4%.-l4:

2 On 1 /10/81 at 3:10 p.m. I requested and Mr. Hart come.to'my; V office for a private c onv er sa ti on. ~ ~ ' ..p,.m n g3pc4+ Upon their ar rival I informed them I was - following u.g on a conversation'Mr.*$2."" Mi?chell had inf or.,ed ce_o_f that_ he had uf th I stated the above- [ '" paragraph and asked if in fact he ha5 beenoFserving any individuals r.ot vanting to talk with him in the perforcance of his duties or. if he had anyone to.:ards hih personally, his family or his property. .] ;((,gg.y nahe a threat . -. ~. _ _ stated he had not .,.q,.gy.u., 4 . his comment was made,as a result of the co=nents that a couple of the Q:e.xperie M9 - a CffInsne.ctors.- had made to him, to the effect, the Field is really upset with you. .fj,y,sf~'M$r M k.% n

• eiryp,An. q-I askedi to inform me, if he ever experienced any hostiliti es7from -

4_ any individual in regards to his performance of duties. s ta.t edj hejva.s77 ,m g q.very. sorry so sething like' that had to happen to the Foreman and Genefh17Forecan$1y"li

• M, i.'act$ons taken vere v'arranted in viev'of the serious situation which stated I regretted it also, but from a total canagement stand point believed the$.3?- -

l.v$ th' our Quali ty Control ef f orts on this proj ect. ..M...A.y.1 %wg. 9 u" . edIA T'., i'gy[W The biggest problem being Supervision not paying attention to the de^ tails.and ? - procedures!vh3ch they are responsible to observe and implement. fj,tg..l.((yjpj; he heard over the Tjeld P.A. that he to 'y - I' asked if there were any other itec.s of which I should be aware. ty$g. mentioned an ethnic slur that but that the slur did not cention his.name or Q.C. af filiation..He further stated Q' he appreciated our conversation and understood the whole situation much better.*iSI _. re-emphasized the fact I vould not tolerate any individual harassing or preventing " Quality Control personnel from doing their job and vould like to be personally I r fonned it it should ever occur. The discussion ended at approx $cately 3:25 p.m. I ~h 4'* g i _g.$ /&' w ' /2/N/lff / T. J. Woodman I h}r, t. 71.]n/YI e

( .") b a* w / /o, n 2i.'-h>' - %. Q.j. bdi,a JA q4' ysnait.auLip au <a. wtaa. L a a d,%q,.w-g % _wnM_ EJuekxta L S 46ix.s.w,Mty& at.JjawA %-o'~~l %AAN?W3, / . =. - -:'sNJ s k.dbs W D (yu. $$Y G u-m n 4 16 4~ ~ ozG W osu m s bu m w 2 % d! 4,0 m g y ibl Ad Aufp26 4 uc f}oD doQ 26 s m har & um bys w p A f. A Q a. O L 'A <a A O -+n Q ^

• 3 -

[f - t: 7,' ; + II Mk M d* M - >b - %/.14L & J L a k e. wnu S k l a !. m a i s A, d o y)%JL mow d44>n,%u-A A d %.4 x y-, x y u;4 - n 3 2 4M A w,y u a. (I f[( ~

a. .y is. / .L.- /w,.. -.. y / 4<. -

u.., c. r

/. .n/.u., ~ =.

.r.;;..

t v,c;u., % p}l'd J d.' 4.' d P,t2 h j /lu CC)'2nk A :. -ff. 445',7)$);[.f r 9

, ; : m-z.,/

/ y l' -.,. w w e o a . )Q !!.'!-rN.k 6 0 Y<.b + L/.J ; ?.g,/ .)' e.J Cl. <* / ./

r>; c M.v

..;M:%

J

• /

r ,1 f !.A $) 1. / ' t' &. At.f / '..: / d'd>h.~/ _'. v% /'h'L.E}/ J ! Js 'VL, fo.1. t 4i U./ d ..T:.;n:'.,q.

~

a

./.,,,d.,% -/4 P ,/- 'l/ D -?" /.t d.', / h. e l 9 'n 6ll.P b/-U 2 / s ,s:w -r .' ishl.% I.d; GA ,C ' 4.n 'I / ..; w a M:.%yt#V qq;r, p. '-Gi't/) E - Ad' d'2.{h O'7^'- M ., 4..g.;..,7. x. t u.-y.a.sc a. m ..t. >,m~ n -.' &.'J 't'. 4 2 L g

e. 31,. y V

• ?.

ky *' . ;.5. 4R. *:'* W,,'r%.... :e, 2 i'.&f r%$m$W.V'r':i n .a .s ,%,p@.,.,sf._. '..pylylM J'c T 7 e '.f.6 e %. a ts4. %.. W . g:?.Q +r k d.

~s-r-

I a . v.y;

h;*t4G+T.Q't@p k.

l

• . fe w

t

.:z.. m...

w...y e >,. // /9f / 2 3 F.. G I rt.i%.*.W.: 4, ~m.<.n ='..n.,y;g. w'.%.y. y,n.~, . r . s. m.n n r-

-.i.5$w;:t'.NWah

.. m-

g,w. q

g- , %;ar*-3.....?. ;i :. - e .Q T4. M [,hi:m ?n bl. l ~ \\ .}u. iiiCW yi;yr$'n -o. . - 'e.,;; i :. /.r ci.a... n y1vi.-. 2 .n.,y!.;&>cy,-u,o h ["

• h.',.7. k [d'.[,*

I l .+:.b.9.t< f.gW w,.e., i. u.a. ~., n:.7.p,1 .) s ... r 5.c ,.< W... o ..+:W.. e n

Ml~:

, c '.... '.. ... :.:n p.' 4; '.ez. G:. t : p... !L. - , - + P.d.t M, y:jf. : T p- ,* t-4 ) l [ t 4 t ATTAC'Fdl;T FOUR O

t :n i13c "o. U 65 . ~" W ~ } j; M A f. - ? i FEB 2 SS2 . ;.4.y + - .s. ' .,;,.g.,u... g r g pg 'I t i ihP.Wh. c C 0pR:DUM FOR: Region III Files, Terry a f.f,,. . c ..;. s . ~9U.,. Q.rn..N~.4.p.. .M "E TROM: Ja.:.es E. Foster, Investigator r

c

.. E,t. s TIl?tU: Robert F. Wrnick, Director, Enforcement and Investigationn. '.40.,aN$i.*ith..w... v.r Staff ~.1-b.='.M t e ni SUFJECT: ALLEG;sTIO:!S RICARD11 C PERET, GILEERT ASSOCIJJES' FT,984.vg:.0,.0,. 5 a,: '{** j 4 . :.m. .r. U f'J by t elephone by a;7 -.-..t..he.t.e..gion III Duty..Of ficer., .K. Eaker. vas. contacted - On Septecher 16, 19G1, K od i-c.t ( .g Perry site for approxi=ately si:c Jeeks, and was concerned about informatio ~ s cared that he had been ethloyed by the firc: of Gilbert Associate's'~Kr'the, Qgt h.ri.i- ^h..dg,.@d~ d l uhich had cc.7e to his attention. He nrovided the following allegations: ,w[,- t f .g p ,,;... r. s..e..;: 1. Taise 3.ssurptions are being used in pipe stress calculaticas. d.:.8,,[. d.., d ... c) c . -.. " 2. ~.The critirM utilized for pipe stress calculations have not been SNINiYW. ..vertfSea.w. j'/.S.Qidf:f w The concrete in the service water building would not hold supportst fo 3. s s.;.glcf 3)P an instrtnentat$on line The classification of the instrunentation' ,.2E'.9 % 4::v, a.,,9.,'. line vas then changed from safety-related to non safety-related.'

fx: 2ff =

. - -. -. -'for additional informa D d F O Several attecpts vere r.ade to recontact!I contacted h6by EcTefbone on the evenin 1 %$'2@[,, tion aed classification. September 29, 1981. Tie provided clarificat$ on to the effect that: . W .m ; <. ' Ile vas referring to " hand calcu3 ations" for stress analysis for small c M,4. 1. bore piping (2 inch diaseter and under). A " point los cantil ever'.' ' s ', ; ; _-l l calysis was the corr ect 2 r-thod. Ilo stress intensification was con-S sidered. ,i 2. 11 edge ane. hors in the service vater building vere " coning out of the gj.{. concrete" when torqued to specifi cation values. 9 3. Ec was concerned that tFerr.a1 egnesion was being ignored if a pipe ruc was 3 ess than appro:li:-at ely 25 feet and would not experience te=peratures of over appro::inately 110 degrees F, and no distinction i vas being made bet'. een carbon steci piping and stainless steci piping in these ca.es. ( / 7_)) { R174l}j. l ,1 ~ V t 7.w p Ell.(./j' l .,.k. I.I. I. ..;. R11.'. z., w' i I, l. .,/y.. 3 }$es g., 1 r ?; o.n.. spe aar'd....! earn:ck F -: >...res av. e./.c. ;:..I.Y i n g(.. ..... 7................p...... ...) o

I:.vc=tination File o. 5165 3 ~ FES 2 L:s t f ~ Tr ; ion III Ti es - T'erry 3:c-

. u

... <.. -

..p. . A. M....L.,.. ..,....cy.- 4 Inspector Isa Yinn vould be involved in revicuing bis concEr:is,,k-{ *. I edvised that cod vou3d,,he contacting him for seditional information and discussion. j $," I h.dicated that he wished to be confidential source. 7:f I u O.,n; u.,.m-w [ n Inspector Yin ccotseted ; discussed his concerns, and revieved 'the - e 4 areas of concern during 'an inspection conducted on nove ober 17-20, DecemberJ10.nyt@. Nos. 50-440/81-16, 50-441/S12-16~,,, $g: i and 11.and 15, 1981. (IE Inspection T.eport attached). Tnis. inspection resulted in three itens of noncor:pliance, each;7e!.,'Z' 1 ' ? ~. '., "n of Severity Level V. .z :".ve. s:m qn;;.e : ,~. "~ ~ ' Pipe stress calculation methods for small bore' piping '(the only site design iKb'rieft. -M.:! vr,rk at this tine) was found t'o be acceptable. Calculation cethods per;

{/d@dP;'

" guided canti3 cver" analysis were being utilized, ; + stress intensification f act ors. Tneraal expansion criteria were also.'. 5,' ' found to be acceptable. . ' s. ~.f.;.f.q,.. '~ 1 O.. A. : e 7-;. '"he concern regarding concrete in the service uater bu,i.lding cou3 d not be; *.{'4q.:'j.V** *.j ~ However, revieu of the progran for vedge ~Eype concrete expansion$l directly addressed due to its vagueness andl , desire to re=ain.t)g im-stW. and the appli cationT.p,

.nonymous.

anchors identified deficiencies in the everall program, .s Tnese deficiencies will'. 'q p; f.,c. of the program in the service unter bud 3 ding. require re-inspection of the installations already. nade in the building.;??.liptOn.1 '. .w. a:-:e.vw. .m -1

,..,1.y. g.g.,..:..,.

A =2nagement meeting uns held with licensee personnel on December 15, 1981tc;g->J ".6 y Discussion included planned inprovements in the sna11 bore piping program and reinspecti6n of equipr:ent previouslyys;g;y;g increase of audits in that ar ea, " 75 7:D4i;. installed. . ~. ' , N, ' y: G. E.aa,v. s M o ~ 7pis review should have adecuately covered the concerns expressed by 7 N ' Y.. r land I reco mend that this investigative case be closed. .,i. ', ',.M. r'.y[. - - Rj s ~.y., - Qg y..? v., . )..a; 'p .m;, 4;9:,e..i.4 Y. %... %;,W,7 Janes E. Fcster .7 Investigntor ' ~ ~,. g 'lI a ChD/* n t * !.s stated f 6 t c...e.......................-........-..............................................................-- l m.}}