ML20076L306

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for Issue 3 Re Adequacy of QA Program & Control of Const Contractors. Applicant Failed to Resolve Issue at 830524-27 Public Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20076L306
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	07/11/1983
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:
References
NUDOCS 8307190114
Download: ML20076L306 (36)

Text

r =x- _- m . z :.--- m = = ~ m : = _ x = ~ x ._ . -._ _ . . . . - - --

4- .

/.A.% ,/.xA s 1 UNITED STATES OF At.'. ERICA .. July'll,i-2987' 37 A. , 4-l ,

I;UCLEAR REGULATORY COD!ISSION /'

S %f,4 y-l f4 J(jz ~

C Before the Atomic Safeliv and Licensing Board 5 IS -8

~D $?.bc '0-3~ E

~

In the Matter of ) . 4'g;k'g . *.

g

)

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC. ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos. 50-44 g -\g COMPANY, Et A1.+ ) 50-44' W. ,

) (Operating License)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

) _ ._ . . .

- . ~ ......_w . ~

~

1. OCRE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF' FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

. = .

' ' , ' c, S '-

.7

, h Pursuant to .10 CFR. 2.754 (a) (2) and the Licensing Board's instructions (Tr. 1868-72), intervenor Ohio Citizens for )

. -. i Responsible Energy ("OCRE") hereby files its-proposed findings j

• l

. .,. x, .

1.#7 .OJof , ,

fact and conclusions ~of~ law in the form of'a proposed decision.

Summary '

^

I. .

j %',d,9.9; - -

W "

This decision'. deals'with Issue #3, which concerns the

u. :.~ j:.r. .

~-

]-? adequacy of' Applicants' quality assurance program in the

-( , construction'of .the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, and, particularly,

. . x. q. . . . . . .

.m n2.g G with CEI's. control;of contractors at Perry. This issue was 3 @hR: 1. * , ' O.M Wn a

. 'T@ the isubject 'of a' public hearing held May '24-27, 1983-in

+

'* -Painesville, Ohio. -

The main item of interest at the' hearing was CEI's control r .

of the electrical contractor, L.K. Comstock, which had been

, , the subject'of'a NRC Staff investigation (Report 81-19, Spetember 24, 1982). .The Staff's statements in that report

^

h 2.' suggesting afbreakdown in7 management'.s control;of construction activities prompted us to admit four issues of fact for further

.c

. exploration'at the hearing.

,l.,

We also ruled that the bur' den of

,T W y' 8307190114 830711 PDR ADOCK 05000440 el . _C; .

. mPDR _ -

h

wa , .- m .. -ww : = - w .a . .3: n. .x..--.=- s . - : -- ~ '

going forward shifted to Applicants; i.e., there is'a presumption that the-deficiencies (especially the programmatic aspects) cited in the 81-19 report have caused safety problems.

After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that our questions remain largely unanswered. Applicants' testimony, though extensive, failed to explain why they did not detect

_ 3 . .3 . _ _ the deficiencies uncovered by the Staff in the 81-19 inyestiga .

tion, nor-did it prove that no unsafe conditions exist. The Staff's testimony also did not explain fully the concerns made s

apparent in the investigation report. That a Staff inspector has different views than the members of the witness panel adds to our concern. Finally, our review of the 81-19 report and Applicants >E Quarterly. Reports (Board Exhibit #2) leads us to question further the adequacy of CEI's control of construction at Perry. ,

I Accordingly, we are reopening the record for the purpose of taking further evidence, particularly from the Staff inspector

~~

with differing views. Becauod Applicants have not met their s

m. .

- N? ~ burden of proof-with respect to Comstock, we are extending the. issue to ' encompass CEI's control of other safety-related a ~

contractors at Perry. At a future hearing we hope to recsive s

• evidence of sufficient quality to enable us to decide whether to impose any 1icense conditions, such as an ind,ependent third-

-party review of construction quality.

1

• v4  %-w * * +%t?

II. Backgrou.nd - of the~ Issue J'

^;A. ,4g Summary DispositionfDecision - -

In our Special Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order' '

(LBP- 81-2 4 , 14 NRC 175) we admitted the quality assurance con-a m & _ .

. . . . y w- . , , -

~ h tentioni submitted by. Sunflower A2 liance', et ali "as Issue' #3; .7 d, d"^

L_ ..' , ... - __ x w: a + ~_ A

~ '

c_m m w.,a _.~ -

~ :+  :=.3.2 < a-. ~ - "

-_ u +. _.w. K.

~

"

• TM P 6

~

which we defined as:

Applicant has an inadequate quali.ty assurance program

'that has caused or is continuing to cause unsafe con-struction.

On October 29, 1982 the NRC Staff filed a motion for 4., summary disposition of. Issue #3. In support of this motion the Staf f filed the ' affidavit of James E. Konklin and Cordell e "C. Williams. We found the-aff,idavit conclusory.and wanting in

.a:

. ::..r: x:. _

.w,

~

g .i 5:,:. d f,! factual; 9 detail,-especially when comparedito the concerns ,

j" ' identified by..the Staff.in the 81-19 report, which was cited T 1 M% . .

j'll ]' by' SurifloYer in :its .' defense. In our December 22, 1982 Memo-

~

p .

t . " . A e.

O 1, w e :.. randum m.

and Order .(Concerning Summary Disposition: Quality Assurance, Corbicula, and Scram Discharge Volume Contentions) f,# @  ??. . . . . -

$3 9,wu .5 ,.,= we1 stated'that:

Add. -staff's-conclusion is not buttressed.by supporting facts s:

n@r.gg;7 ,z and reasons and does not negate the existence of a genuine cW7 ,

iE [ . 9,.~:suppo'rted issue of fact. staff Even at trial,we statements were webe would to abrogating accept suchour un-

',j.h$sf

- v;, - 9 responsibility as judges and substituting the staff's

' judgement for our own.

' On ultimate issues of fact, we M _cmust'isee'the evidence fron which to reach our own in-dl dependent conclusions. (p. 9.of Memorandum and Order)

, c :w enyv cc M +f

n:q k sicm ..y e &v - t'he: deficiencies of the affidavit were . perpetuated hijf)&0;hhUnfortunately,. ' -

ge n c , -in:the Staff's conclusory testimony, which went to great lengths gJ.% o *

, ,to be protective of Applicants. *Hence, we find it appropriate

-;i to reopen the record to receive testimony from less biasea

-witnesses. .

In addition to'.the 81-19 report, Sunflower' cited the

'i+ f . .

'1fif_ TSystematic

_pgy:ay , m Assessment of' Licensee Performance (SALP 2) report.

- wf;P ~

In the-letterddated July'13, 1982 transmitting the SALP report, (EQ %

.. . y

44 ,

Region III administrator James Keppler stated that "there- was 4 .~.

• '. . t .

y,)@dh.:2% . .

W an obvious-breakdown in the control of activities" in the

. , ;-o g n ,. : _

3y

- $$?!t.6 ele'ctrical area.' f 1The : Staff's' concerns as to the programmatic

_w e ,3 - -

._:dm E:2 fre - < A c.st - % =m _ ._ _ _. _ % r._ n.m .u= , _m . _ .

L I

nature of the violations identified in the 81-19 report, as well as the fact that the problems with L.K. Comstock were not identified by Applican'ts' QA program nor by the NRC's inspection program, but rather by an investigation promp.ted by allegations, a description of which was not part of our record, led us to~

admit these four issues of material fact:

_ -b . :, _ , ,

'The existence,.c&use, seve'rity , duration, and extent of

+

7 --

an alleged instance in which applicant's quality assurance

- program-failed by not properly controlling its electrical contractors.

c Whether'the. alleged deficiencies in properly controlling electrical contractors extend to the proper control of other contractors.

-Whether deficiencies in the control of contractor activities

_have resulted in unsafe conditions at Perry.

Whether applicant has an adequate system for periodically reviewing,its program for assuring the quality of contractor a performance.and ascertaining and correcting deficiencies V . .that have arisen, particularly in. systems essential to safe plant operation.

Because we found the basic kind of management deficiencies suggested by the 81-19. report to-be far more troubling thae

'2 m _ 4.4. individual.noticonformances,mwe x- determined that a-genuine, issue -

.ss v-

'-;u,a ,-

, w

- u

.-of-fac.t existed.concerning compliance with the Commission'.s QA regulations. We also placed the burden on Applicants to

' demonstrate either that there were no important breakdowns in their management or that such breakdowns, if existing, did not create or leave undetected unsafe conditions.

Shortly lafter our. summary disposition decision,~ Applicants

- ' r,m m.

~.c , .,,

' moved for itsfreconsideration;' included with their motion was-

- -n - g .

^

a complete copy of lthe ,81--19 report.

~

(Sunflower had only filed'

' - t-portions of~.that documerit.in its reply'to the Staff's motion.) %.,

sh _. . 's n L L L ,. J L 'y 2s -v W Am=P

.Oursreading:of;theTcomp1'eteMf?

+.- :Wefdeclined"toIrecon5i' der'our(order.

=- - ';

n. D :. - '*-

.-m ?e - ,~ +

. Q__ ~-

x.- m. . a~: . z. - ..

.- _ _,, - . _ ..=_:...>.,. wu . _ . _ _ _

v.- . . . -

I investigation report also led us to believe that a causal connection existed between the 1978 stop work order (upon which~ Issue #3.was focused) and the electrical contractor problems. We reiterated our. interest in Appl. cants' i management overview QA system and nonconformance trend analysis system, (January 28, 1983 Memorandum-and Order (Reconsideration: Quality

+ M- n .. -,_ "

~

.. N Assurance) at.7-9.).

~4pt ;_ .

( 9 :% , B. fApplicable. Law and Guidance W Ap'plicants,are required by Appendix.B to 10 CFR Part 50 m

to have a quality assurance program for the construction of the Perry plant. We note that Criterion I, Organization, makes 1

the{ applicant responsible for the establishment and executi:on of the QA program. Criterion II, Quality Assurance Program,

.. ;%..pip _ requires the applicant-(as well as the management.of.other orga-

.rt

'd:, nizations participating in the QA program) to regularly review

~~ ._

the status and adequacy of the QA program. The key criterion W. pertaining to the Comsto6k' problem appears to be Criterion XVI,

. 'N -w 7 . .

d? [c .S,g.,; e. w h i c%p..,,wh f s m..

t a't e s :. < .,

A

. ~ ~ ,

Measures,i s hall;be established to assure.that conditions adverse to quality,.such as failunes, malfunctions,

~9 ' '

~ deficiencies, deviations, defective material and-equip-ment,_and nonconformances are promptly identified and

.. corrected. In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality,. the measures shall ass.ure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken

.to preclude repetition. The identification of the sig--

nificant. condition adverse to quality, the cause o_f the w: condition, and-the corrective action taken shall be

.y_ ' documented and. reported to appropriate levels of management.

'M , ,

(Emphasis . added . )

At the. hearing there was some discussion of-the underlined

. _ phrase, an'd we asked the parties to- identify any regula> tory

.E. _x WW( .2L griidanceJ on lthis point - (Tr. ' 1594-99). Altnough the-parties did g;p. .,

C 4W - , _

i _ ,

n m._ . _a = _ -

E & E .2. l~ait . z___m -. A.u.a - .=1- .. .- -

not identify any such guidance, we view Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 2, General Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions, as suggestive interpretation on the question of whether corrective action must be prompt.

We find Appendix C to suggest strongly that corrective action must indeed be prompt. Subpart I, Introduction and

- ; . .;. M . ,

Purpose, identifies the purpose of the NRC enforcement program

.a;.:6 t . ,

". g j.as the promoti'on and' protection of the public health and safety by, interg_alia, :

. - e: - .

, . - ensuring compliance with NRC regulations and license conditions; and

- obtaining prompt' correction of noncompliance.

Furthermore, in subpart IV.B.is.the'following statement:

NRC attaches great importance to comprehensive licensee programs for detection, correction, and reporting of

- '. ." problems.that may constitute, or lead to, violation of regulatory requirements. This is emphasized by giving

, credit'for effective licensee audit programs when licensees find, correct, and report problems expeditiously and effectively.

• t *Accordingly, the NRC has developed criteria for-increasing

.g - .

Yg d"* i K or, g.: decreasing civil'penalt'ies, as appropriate,-in. response.to jl ~

'licens'ee actions, or, lack thereof.

Subpart IV. B. 1, Prompt Identification and Reporting, allows for a 50% reduction of the r .

base civil penalty if a licensee identifies the violation and reports it to the-NRC.. However, "no consideration is to be given to this factor if the licensee does not take immediate action to correct the problem upon discovery." .,,n.

, , y. . . -

-Subpart IV'.B.2,' Corrective Action'to Prevent Recurrence, .1 allows ' reduction of the civil penalty only if the licensee's

. corrective. achion, has been unusually prompt and extensive. _ ,The ' m

~

~

-: s;i%

.-y- ,; b ' : l .- .t-

~~'M 7 $*2

-- m .c =

^

".C

• v

'C

az.:-.= ::: . -- --. z=w-- w:a .mm - :7-r .m ww-civil penalty may be increased if corrective action is not

~

prompt or is only minimally acceptab1e.

We conclude.from these excerpts that the correction (as well as identification) of nonconformances.must be prompt.

We realize, of course, that Appendix C pertains to enforcement actions which are not within our. jurisdiction in an operating

"~ ~~~ '

ligense proceeding. -While Appendix C provid$s useful guidance

...?. .

.1[~ y. for interpreting the -requirements of 10 CFR S 50 Ap~pendix B,

' CIT v.m

,it is insufficient authority upon whien to rely for the task we must address, i.e., the possible issuance of an operating "v

7, license. We have continually stressed that our interest in QA a

at Perry is focused on the safety implications of noncompliances.

, fi. , *4 e In the absence of any authority to the contrary, we accept the

' ~ '

_f , .

L view that nuclear plant safety is conditional upon compliance

' [,[ hawith the-Commission's regulations. This view is' consistent with Appeal Board precedent. In Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, y -

JM n;52,8 29 (1973),'; the Appeal, Board stated:

7 Wh%.1 S'

'. G- .

git cannot be argued that, even though the reactor does n.l3, 'not comply with the criteria, it should receive an un-

_ 1. " restricted, full-power, full-term license on the ground that there is reasonable assurance that it can operate without s

adversely affecting the public health and safety. Such

_ an argument might be. factually supportable, but would constitute:an indirect attack on the applicable commission regulations. Again, the point to be made is a simple one:

reactors must not be licensed unless they comply with all appl ~icable standards.,

7 , Mh/>See also Maine Yanke'e Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic

'+ .

Power Station), ALAB-161, 6 AEC-1003, 1010 (1973). '

Thus, in. determining the effect QA violations have'on

, , ,our' licensing decisions, we shall use this standard: 10 CFR

. - > p y ,, . -

s i _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ ._

Mt.. .wy?="~ .2 - ._.D =a.X:

~ ~

. - - ~~.-.- .:.& >.

-B- -

S 50 Appendix 1:B,.as interpreted using the criteria of 10 CFR S2 Appendix C as guidance,.must have been complied with before a license can be granted.

, III. Relationship Between Applicants and 1-K. Comstock .

Both Applicants and Staff submitted prefiled direct testimony pertaining to QA at Perry. However, we found this

' ~ "2-~~,2- '

testimony toadonsist more of generalities.than specifics.

~ '

u. ~

.f , Consequently, we' requested Applicants at the hearing-to pro-

~ vide us with a ' detailed chronology of the relationship between -

CEI and L.K..Gomstock, their electrical contractor (Tr. 1006-7).

. Applicants did provide this chronology (Tr. 14 8 9-154 3) , which -

dealt With.the selection of Comstock early in construction, the progress'of electrical work on the project, and CEI's oversight of Comstock, primarily through the audit program.

Although CEI conducted audits of Comstock and had identified some problems, particularly the OA/QC staffing shortage, we are concerned that'-the 81-19 investigation discovered many problems

~

Se r of;which Applicants.were unaware. It would.seem.that.aniadequate

+

OA program would:have detected these problems.

Eurthermore, we question the effectiveness of CEI's'

. corrective. action-measures. For. example, eveh though CEI .

became concern,ed abo.ut the Comstock QA/QC staffing level, in relation to craft manpower, in October 1979 (Tr'. 15 0 4 ) , 'the problem was not corrected until 1982 (Tr. 15 32-37) .

1 L . . y CEI's _

~

explanation,ithat there:was an industry-wide shortage.of^

qualifiedelbetrical..inspectorsatthattime (Applicants ' -

Testimony atL28; ..Tr. 1513-14) is plausib'le , but' insufficient s:  ;&-1 .c -

. .m -

m .. . .

( gu,x ~

_ ; .a

?

. in that. it' 'iIif_ apparent' t'o ti'sTtiiat' other actionsi might" have7 ~

a

TC_

. . , _ _ _ _ _ - . - a _n L . a.: - - _u a._. _ -_ _ ..

_9_

alleviated the problem.In particular, Applicants might have slowed. work to a level that could be covered by the available QA/QC staff. Applicants' chronology (Tr. 1506-29) indicated that safety-related electrical work accelerated in 1980-81.

This situation led to a backlog in-inspections during M.~

n s

.that period -(Testimony at 29) . This situation has supposedly

. _4 . _ _ . been corrected (Tr. 1540). However, we take official notice

- 1, of a.recently-issued.NRC inspection 1 report,-N6. 50-440/83-08, '

A

~[ . 50--441/83--07, dated May 16, 1983 (which we have attached) .

. W This-inspection, which was conducted March 1-3, 1983,- included

. a.

. private interviews of CEI and Comstock personnel. Among the

~e concerns '.dentified 'in these interviews w' as an: apparent

_ $.:.p . .

J , ; "signific.nt electrical inspection backiog" .(p p . 12-13). That 7~- this problem was identified in March 1983, after. Applicants t;:6 ..

jy./' claimed-it had.been corrected, seems anomalous and leads us to

' %. a . question,the crddibility of Applicants' testimony.

. q. . . .

.. We are also troubled that CEI's corrective actions ~only

.w .

' D O. began!-t'o[be effective-after the NRC's investigation, and, in

& & N % & . p. h Y :: k . w ..

M n F S " particular, after the meetings between NRC.and..CEI's management.

i.

g 'This is' reminiscent.of the 1978 w'ork stoppage. In that situation, CEI stopped work in response to concerns identified w .

. by an-NRC inpsection conducted at the end of 1977 (Tr. 1071).

, CEI's present QA program is the result of the NRC's concerns identifie'd in-the February,8, 1978 immediate action letter og;d', J(Applicants ' . Testimony at -15; see also B'oard Exhibit #2,

, s, _

. 1 l

g T " Introduction"). We fear that this may be indicative of a g

c t pattern in'which CEI takes effective corrective action only i

• f..

,. when faced ith NRC enforcement action.

L .1.1 i

_"-- _ _ m a .m

cf 2.:*; -. -' u ._ -_; _ . 22 ....c _N _.-- . _ _ _ _ . .a- u,_- Lz- q J

IV. Timeliness of Corrective Action Applicants in their testimony ('pp . 20-21) identify the corrective action mechanisms used to control safety-related work at Perry. These include.the'nonconformance report (NR),

used to identify hardware deficiencies, the action request (AR),

used to identify procedural or programmatic problems, and the

> _A . . _ q

~

' corrective action re* quest (CAR), used to identify serious

. q.; _ , :a y ,,,,

y+ " programmatic. deficiencies. The Staff's 81-19 investigation,

~

..as well'as the(July 1982 SALP report, identified the' timeliness n

n of corrective action measures as a problem contributing to the deficiencies in the electrical area. For this reason we

' investigated.this situation at the hearing.

. um-A. Number of Open NRs, ARs, and CARS The 81-19 investigation revealed that as of February 24,

. 11982, 28 observation audits had not been answered by L.K. Comstock (81-19.at 92-93). None of the other contractors had this large

. j a number.of open audits (Id.). There were 13 findings from 7 .

3:.s , M. action r. .,

audit j.

. reports

< s -

open,

- u 9 of them for over a yeare.(Id. ) . ,

m 3 . ,.

1. This. situation was described by the Staff as "an-integral part of the problems" associated with CEI's management overview of

~'

Comstock (Id.). _

A review of Applicants' " Assessment of Quality Assurance

- Program Effectivness for the Perry Nuclear Power' Plant" (Board Exhibit #2, or " Quarterly' Reports"). reveals this'to be a _

, . , n,

I' continuing problem throughout the. construction of Perry. In

. v . ..

the First Quarterfl979 the contractor audit program is described

, g w as'being?"behind schedule." In the First Quarter 1980 it is g 9 - . , -

,3 v . .2 .

, . ,. m g % .

stated!th'at'"little progressLwas.made byfcontractors'd 6 ring:thef 7 L ~

.n* - . - -_ <.z. --

h ~ . i: :- : . a. i :.2 -.. . u. .- -

.=.=..: - .-. : - - .~2.=..-- .

l first quarter ir. closing open nonconformances, action requests, and deficiency reports . . . this inability to obtair. resolution and to closecut noncompliances remains a problem which must be resolved in the immediate future." In the Second Quarter 1980,

• ^ .

'it is~noted'that " problems still exist in the closecut of audit findings and in meeting the~ schedule for contractor audits."

Sj A.-. - . Only occasionally are.the,. numbers of open ARs (proj ect- -

-b . . , .

. wide') given..=lFor ..

the Fourth Quarter 1979,~165 ARs were open.

L .

~

r,; .

5 c This number; . ~.. .rose ,

to 219 in the First Quarter 1980. In the w- .

g -

~

'I ) 'Second' Quarter.c1980 the number war.157. For the Third Quarter

.1981, there were.150. ~The significance.of these numbers'alone w .

17 is difficult:to.~ determine; however, the statements quoted above

. 2," ' "

t y ,

' 9 "suggest that. timely AR closeout has been a problem at Perry.

1 The closecut of nonconformance reports appears to be an Y - .; < '

. . ~ .

u -260 even ~ The' number of'open NRs for each quarter

..; ?.; '~ . great.er1:. problem.

is tabulated below.

CL First Quarter:1979' ~

448

~

. Na.l g5Second

. ~ -l Quarter-c1979 511

'..C'*.$y[~N*irdQuarter;1979

' - 'e" Th M MNb~ . -

(not available)

. ;; . 2. . ,

~ *s Fourth Quarter 1979-624 s

First Quarter.'.1980 712 Second. Quarter 1980 ~729 Third Quarter 1980 10004- ,

f~ Fourth Quarter 1980

, -. O -

973-s

- , , , 3 11liNFirst Quarteri1981'- (not available) a; Second Quarter 198L 1000+

l

' Third-Quarter;1981 1100

.e s>_ av..;;3. Fourth: Quarter. 1981. 1200 a.k.m e gq' . , r. p

.G w 2

%,C.

~ x ...:.-...

m .+s w. .

.u

. ~ .

m

- ,_ .. ~.

F.irst Quarter 1982 1420 Second Quarter 1982 (not available)

Thir'd Quarter 1982 2057

' Fourth ~ Quarter.1982 2300

~First'~ Quarter 1983 1800

'--M 9 - G.These numbers reveal a growing and continuing problem.

'c .

~ M M hy App 15 cants'icomments in their reports amplify this concern.

v* ; g q;t . -

For. instance,' in the Third Quarter 1980, the control of

• 4

?,].;, ' f r-'- ,.

open NRs is considered a " project-wide problem'..' In the Fourth M N" Quarter 1981, it is stated that "nonconformance' report closecut has been a recurring problem for each quarter.of 1981 . .. .

+ J' this trend must'be reversed in the near" future." In.the First

~

Quarter 1982-it is stated that insufficient attention was being

^ ^

g'iven'"to timeliness of implementing. dispositions or to m;

identifying and correcting true causes." -As with the ARs, these

' statements lead.us to believe that these numbers.are excessive. .

s..

',vL . , 1, B. ~ Degree of Delay in NR/AR/ CAR Closecut x

vi 9;;e . . s . . ..~r  ;.g. ..

' ** 'M We~found.above!that Criterion XVI of. Appendix.B tos10 CF.R. ,%

S .50, interp'reted with the guidance of 10 CFR S 2. Appendix LC,

' requires prompt and-effective corrective action to be taken in response to identifi'ed nonconformances and deficiencies.

We'believe4that the closecut of deficiencies identified ,

by NRs and ARs has not be,en prompt. Applicants testified that e

O,

w  %

12 NRs have be'en open .for' over 4 years (Tr.1164) . The: Fourth.,' -

'^;

. .m .

m!w .

, x S, .

~ ' y g .

Quarter'1980= report. indicates.that,. at that time, the oldestr.

open NR was issued.in September 1976, and that such oiLd NRs :

i ~

.,. . . u .

h ~: require 1"..) considerable ,- ,.v difficulty" :1: to;close.s W 7 % 7 M.gc + pims9 N

e .,

-g

u. ', - ~ = -

J+ 1 .

j. '

• = . .

3;g ,

22E

.m.

7n  :.x s._.;_ . # w . _. - -- . . . __. r - 1 ._ 1 . ___;~ a ..' m Since this is Applicants' mechanism for acheiving corrective action, we must conclude that their corrective action has not been

~

prompt. Since we found above .that plant safety is demonstrated by compliance with the Commission's regulations, we must conclude that Applicants have not met their burden of proof in demonstrating that unsafe conditions do not exist, as they have not complied

_ . . . . _ with Criterion XVI of Appendix B. ,

m e, -g '

2MG- V. Significance of the 81-19 Investigation -

. ; $ ;; .From October 1981 through March 1982 the NRC conducted an

. .. u.

investigation-into the activities of CEI's electrical contractor, 4ft - L.K. Comstock. At-the summary disposition stage, we found the violations and deficiencies revealed by.this-investigation to be of sufficient gravity to warrant a. hearing on the matter.

~

g. We admitted the 81-19 report 'as : Board Exhibit #3 (Tr. 1618).

ta -

We discuss: below .the significance of the investigation, and

',-w T of.the Staff's testimony.

1 i$.: .

A. The:81-19 Investigation

'r ,

-yh 35 ' -How;the.In.vestigation.was Initiated

yfQ ~ sl .

. - V, -

. .Unlike the other violations , identified by the NRC at Perry,

- those documented in the 81-19 report were not discovered through

' the NRC's routine inspection program. .Rather, they were iden-tified as the result of an investigation which was prompted by the allegations of current and former workers at' Perry. Although the specific allegations could not be substantiated, the NRC

~

inspectors identified a variety of noncompliances with the A

Commission's regulations.

s g 4

..-1 p- a, a s

"3 g L- t .._j

~ -..-.~.

M i ~-L.-.:1 ~.&  : -. ~ .. .

4 , .

.g o

' We are concerned that certain statements in Applicants' "W' Quarterly Reports suggest that, had it not been for these 9 individuals' allegations,,the Comstock problem might not-have

~ been detected by the.NRC. The reports for the First, Second, M

,' y

[' and Third Quarters of 1981 describe a substantial reduction.

N4 in NRC inspection coverage for those quarters (Tr. 1759-62).

n. .

7~ -

The figures given by~the Staff during cross-examination appear

,.,.81 w 3%- - to substantiate this, as the large number of inspector-hours W

M

~in'the Fourth Quarter 1981 (824) are largely due to the 81-19 g e w c-e investigation (711' inspector-hours) (Tr . '176 3) . This leads us m

na .to believe that the Comstock problem might have gone undetected, ML :1 -

had it not been for the allegors.

Y. _y -

.1JJ

~We are concerned that the Staff did not contact Individual e ,

13 A, whose. allegations prompted the investigation, before issuing

.gg- .

/j the 81-19 report to see if his/her concerns were completely a .q rm t': _ covered -(Tr. 1569-71). We are also' troubled that the NRC Staff WW:h -did not investigate the vaildity of Applicants' reasons for Ni% ' '

"2 .

< -firing one of;the. individuals who,made allegations relating to 1/

i

? _ ,

T' '

4_  : .

( the 81-19 investigation (Tr. 1839-43) 7 Such' conduct on the

@Mg au part of the Staff does not , build confidence on the part of its mvg .

my .

ai s witnesses. .

wm w'M:;

-;i s

M( 1/ Applicants claim that the individual was fired for employment and education data .(Tr. 1193-1215).

~

falsifying They did Jgb admit that they. suspected that the. person was making 3%%j . .u AQ.; . '- allegatiohs torthe NRC, but.their reasons for suspecting-this seem.ill'ogical. We are unable to reach'atconclusion,

?e7

[* L

- without-further inforration, as to'whether'the person was j%j f justifiably discharged.. We think it appropriate that.the' d 'y , NRC Staff,.in protecting its witnesses, seek independent g confirmation of the truthfulness of Applicants'.representa -

'tions innsuchJsituations.

' ~

A- , y - ~ k- m q y. e g:n, .

pl%

.  : i -. .

zh._ .- - ,

, -. ' s, m= ._

s' .

G_

~ '

w . .-

w. 2. : - u.. L .2 2 u 2.

l 2.._ Number and feverity.of Specific Violations The NRC's inspectors, in the course of the 81-19 investiga-tion, discovered 9 specific violations of the Commission's requirements, as documented in Appendix A to.:the 81-19 report. I

.These violations dealt with the following parts of 10 CFR S 50 Appendix B: Criterion III, Design Control; Criterion V,

_ .v . ,. _ . Instructions,y Procedures,.and Drawings.; Criterion VII, Control 7

[W" - of Purchased Material, Equipment,.and Services; Criterion X, w.z ,

'iJ Inspection; Criterion-XIII, Handling, Storage, and Shipping;

-%. + . ,, .; ,

[y : Criterion XV,5 Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or. Components; and 79'

, n

. Criterion XVI, Corrective Action.. Twenty-four individual findings e

.were identified; many of these were unresolved i.tems, in N.m ,

.' G ~ addition to'the 9 violations. The findings concerned a variety

, of procedures ,and equipment, from cable pulling,, electrical

- [ 7' penetratio,ns, housekeeping, and conduit separation to management

%{ .. overview of the Comstock QA program. 'Six of the'noncompliances m :I -wererrated Severity Level IV,.While the others were Severity Level 41!( :, : .. ,

N.5 %

6 DN: . : n . '..

h

A.

f[ t @b (:,V.;,.'The cable" pulling were violations'noted jointly severe enough to. warrant byworkCEI.and.the a.stop on that N y

ac.tivity : (81 '19 Report. at 13-15 ; _ 'Tr.. 1277, 1527).

The variety of findings in a number of different areas s .

of Comstock's activities is suggestive of a pervasive problem with that contractor. -The Staff apparently agreed, as an enforcement conference was, held on June 18, 1982 with regard to ,the;81-19. findings (Staff Testimony at '16) ,- The Staff

~

Y dtE,y.1c;.

testified that an enforcement conference is a prerequisiste toca

[ q.

~

i possible e'scalated enforcement action, and is typical where fhim w:g u there:is a large number of issues which are fairly complex and

. u-m .o 1 4 _m 2 . ._ _a 1

z.==. a:ar. - -k .+.- : =w. -. ~ . J.. - . :: ' :. . . -.- - -.- = .. L - .. . .

serious (Tr. 1772). The only previous enforcement conference concerning Perry pertained to the.1978 stop work problem (Tr.

F 1773).

We note that 10 CFR S 2 Appendix C also describes enforcement conferences. Subpart B states that " enforcement conferences ^

are normally conducted for all Severity Level I, II, and III

,....w.-. .

! violations and.for 5'everity Level IV violations that are con-sidered symptomatic of' program deficiencies, rather'than L' isolated concerns."

2 These, along with the statements made by Region III administrator James Keppler in his letters.to CEI dated July 13, 1982 (SALP 2) and September 27, 1982 (81-19), indicate that

~

I the~Comstock violations were quite serious. We are especially concerned,that the difficulties with Comstock are symptomatic ofl project-widedeficiencies.

3. Applicants' Failure to Detect the Infractions p . ,

CEI was not aware of-the violations and unresolved items 6 ,

V:Y -uncovered by;-the NRC investigation, (Tr. 1587).. Upon examination

.of the-81-19 report, it is apparent.that virtually every finding therein was identified by the NRC inspector, who'then informed CEI of the situation (e.g., 81-19 at 15, 18, 67, 75, 76, 82-82 85, 86-87,.89-90). CEI was even unaware of a fire which occurred in an area which the NRC, a few days earlier, had warned was a

~

potential fire hazard (81-19 at 67-68). ,

Of ' greater: concern..than the . specific infractions is CEI's -

? . -

ignorance of.the programmatic problems identified by the in-

+.

vestigation.-jThe.81-19. report, p. 95,. clearly states' that CEI

- . ~'

r =m7 , ~ :n

. had; failed totidentifyEthe Comstock problems and'that-this:

"Je e- _. .

O:.2i .; -- -:.~2= . x -;;:. a. : L. _ . x.  :;s . , z .

- =. _-

failure stems from not investigating the below-standard ratings of Comstock contained in the Quarterly Reports and the Contractor Performance Reports.

The Staff's witnesses also expressed their opinion that CEI should have been aware of these problems and implementing corrective action. Mr. Williams stated that "the licensee had

fyp -. . . ..

- , . . ~ .f .. plenty,of evidence for drastic action" (Tr. 1623). He had even s .

B .

y , . , ,\

IT'NR A . suggested to;CEI management that L.K. Comstock be r'eplaced as

,y #

. xy.yR.w; ,...elecrrical contractor.at Perry (Tr. 1624, 1775-76).

. ;;c

% Because of the project-wide implications of a management

@. overview deficiency (as'.well as the . slow closecut of NRs project-r?

1.'.77 wide, :ns(described; above) . we ,have examined the Quarterly ' Reports sc., '. .

(Board Exhibit'#2) to determine if other contractors have had

-JTa @ X : satisfactory.or below standard ratings ~for extended periods of

. ~ .a .y.-: _,

'((.{ time., The 'following lists those contractors having satisf actory-y

~

ratings fromlthe Fourth Quarter ~1981 (when the individual ratings

( l'Jb , '

e

- @P G

$were first available) to the First Quarter 1983:

EPE,i - - ,

Pullman Power, Comstock, Metalweld, 2.Jmq, N NU rh %.iFourth Quarter.1981':' Johnson Controls, PBI .

A.; y .

fg. 9 ' .

2 i First Quarter 1982: . Pullman Power, Comstock, Metalweld, '

'" Johnson Controls, PBI I Second Quarter-1982: Pullman Power, Comstock, Metalweld, Johnson Controls, PBI, Automatiic Sprinkler Third Quarter 1982: ' Pullman Power, Comstock, Me.talweld, Johnson Controls ~, PBI, Automatic Sprinkler, j BISCO,-Cicirello Construction, National

'J , aglf- - Mobile Concrete, Great Lakes Construction. +

, 15& .

O ,c . , .

...a .n a.

xy , z.

. .m

-. p.

2/ We riote that ." satisfactory" is defined as adequate, but with

~

! q, deficiencies'which,. if left uncorrected, may reshlt in adverse effects on quality. See 81-19 at 94.

L.

1 g+ % , . ,

y ,

.. ( ) :. .

A a__-. _ .

p a,.:- - -. . . . . :. m' .

J. - -

I

' Fourth Quarter 1982: Pullman Power, Comstock, PBI, General Electric First Quarter 1983: Pullman Power, Comstock, Johnson Controls, PBI, Automatic Sprinkler, BISCO, Dick Corp., General Electric, Robert Irsay It thus appears that repetitive satisfactory ratings have been assigned-to Comstock, Pullman Power, PBI, and Johnson

__ c_., a Controls. We also note that, for the Second Quarter of 1981,

~

the quarterly report contains the statement that '.' Pullman Power Products' (PPP) performance h'as been ra,ted below ' standard for the past five (5) consecutive months." Earlier reports (1979-80), identified Newport News and General Electrid as problem contractors. Because we have no'way of knowingEwhether CEIs management overview'of QA was fuhetioning with respect to'other contractors, we find it prudent to reopen the d.ecord to take evidence on CEI's control of all safety-related, con-

. tractors at Perry.

B. Staff Testimony Qualifications of Staff Witnesses l.

Thel NRC' Staff prese'nted as witnesses four individuals: -

Cord' ell Williams,' James Konklin,-Max Gildner, and George Maxwell.

Voir dire conducted by the intervenors revealed that only Mr.

Williams was invol'v ed in the 81-19 investigation . (Tr. 1572).

However, his involvement was not extensive (Tr. 1576-78).

Mr. Williams primarily. acted as a supervisor of the inspectors

conducting

the . investigation (Tr. 1606-10). _Further, it became apparent .that Mr. Williams did not always precisely recall all' the= details:of.the-investigation or the extent of'his, involvement in ;it (Tr; vl609, . ,15 77., 1622, 1744, 1768). ' m-f.'

'n

,5

, s

m. _. .

- U" ' . -

s : -h.n a  ; = - ~R s: L :i.: . .. .,: '._ w . : ; : ., : -m- m. .. :. .

A

We found most of the Staff's testimony to be protective of. Applicants, although questioning'by intervenors and ourselves

~

-did elicit some candid responses. We. find such an attitude on' the part of Staff witnesses to be unnecessary (as Applicants are quite :: capable of defending themselves) , counterproductive (as such an attitude. on the ptrt of the Staff makes it difficult

-;.2

~

a - . . . .

to distinguish. fact from.opini'on), and improper (as the Staff

• Y b-wm.%w .y .. ~ ,te- -

lI. ?f~ 3 !'.should not3. sup' port.an application; see Carolina Power and Light i

l M % . ., '. 't , t Units 1-4), LBP-79-19, 10 llrWg,%, . (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,

e. - ,-

7.

, %Jg NRC . 37,- modified and affirmed, ALAB-577, 11 NRC 18 (1980)).

c. -

.,. <t.J 2.^ The Inspedtor.with Different Views

• . g . s. 4, r . .g ,

y ,..

.. . m.

x >. #

a M(.w , .%. C. c  %: . . .We !were. surprised . to learn .at the start of!'the hearing that

> ; g.g:

~

t%q l

> ~ . an inspector who ' conducted the 81-19 investigat ion had proposed J.2, g., changes to ,the . testimony .(Tr. .

1011)..'Thu May 18, 1983 memorandum

Jg ':g  ; ,2' ,  % .

. ;4. .. p, m m ..a.. ,., ..from/ James'.Keppler..to Guy Cunningham. indicates'that the principal

.. ..=. y ~ . ...

'. . . . _ electric &l inspector and investigator involved.with the 81-19

Q  ?

w report. felt that the testimony did not convey the significance

- ;.&.w. .

t %.  %

T -

2:ff'Eh;gfof(the < 81--19,; findings nor .the NRC's ef forts that.were required '

<?-+ ~f % Q , % : ,. - - Q':Y

~to' secure corrective action.

, ,. " -&W

. m, 2, At the hearing.we felt that the proposed changes were merely i

changes in tone.and did not represent any differing, facts (Tr.

l' i

l 1799). We stated that intervenors would have to prove that the r

person had different facts before he could be called to testify

,9:. A; . (Tr. 1814). .

We.now, realize that this is an unduly. harsh standard.

7 ~The more appropriate standard is the one we established in our n ,

" December 23, 1982 Memorandum and Order (Concerning Discovery

,;, r

~

S , ,

from Staff on Hydrogen Issue), in which we stated that "OCRE

- @g. -

Q- 3,y ,.

+

v k as

.m s_. . 4- a i

may not be required to know what the staff's views are before it obtains them. To erect that requirement would make a mockery of the discovery ~ process." Hence, we are rescinding the require-ment we set at the hearing.

We now realize that much of the testimony given by the Staff witnesses consisted of opinion rather than fact. Even

. . . . - ~

if the inspector does not have different facts, it would be

~

unfair tb; allow the opinions of certain staff witnesses become part of-the record without also including the differing opinions of the inspector who conducted much of the 81-19 investigation.

We also find that intervenors' attempts to elicit information on the inspector's views from the witness panel to be unfruitful, as the answers obtain consisted of hearsay. We are further led

~

by certain portions of the testimony to suspect that the in-spector may have different facts. It seems that there were lengthy and repeated discussions "taking the better part of

. the last week and a half" prior to the hearing between the Staff witnessas and the . inspector . (Tr. 1855).concerning.the l latter's proposed changes to the testimony. It seems/unlikely.

l-

.that such discussions would occur over mere differences in tone.

l Accordingly, we find that the inspector's views are essential to our record, which we are reopening for this and i

other reasons.

VI. Loss of Sunflower's Lawyer-Just prior to the beginning of the hearing, Daniel D. Wilt, counsel for Sunflower Alliance, the-lead intervenor on Issue #3, resigned. We are concerned that this event may'have prejudiced Sunflower. (Sunflower's other counsel, - Terry Lodge, . could not

ec.em r a=_m m . - _ m. m _ - _ _ _.m _ __

l i

be present at the hearing until Friday, May 27 because of prior commitments.) We understand that Sunflower had relied upon Mr. Wilt to conduct some of the research on Comstock

- documents in preparation for the hearing. We are especially

- concerned that Sunflower.may~notrhave enjoyed full rights to cross-examination.

1. The.right to' cross-examine witnesses in administrative

, I[ proceedings _isconferredbystatute; see Admimistrative Pro-The NRC's Appeal Board has also-held-4 cedure Act, 5 USC .556 (d) .

'( g

" -

• e;;L hat t intervenors have the right to.make their case by cross-exam-Tennessee Valley Authority ,Hartsville

. f 4.ination. ( Nuclear Plant,

. . Units lA,22Ay 1B, 2B), ALAB-463, 7 NRC 341 -(1978) . The Appeal

. p

~'

WBoard has further stated'that.a Licensing Board's action in

!~ keeping with its schedule for hearing despite.intervenors'

- assertions that they were unable to prepare-for cross-examination

,'W

=~. ' was an error requiring the reopening of the hearing.

Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly. Generating Station) , ALAB-249, e ..w . ,.

t ., - '..N 8 AEC 9 80 ;(19 7 4) . We further note that the. Administrative

- A n ' w l G .. w . . u ....:... .

u s. vegg e N,k 5 USC' 555 (b) , entitles participants in administrative

- ' proceedings-to be represented by counsel of their choice. '(See

! '. ~

l also Franks Flower Express, 219 NLRB 149 (1975), concerning t s .

circumstance. involving loss of principal counsel.)

We are aware th'at'Mr. Lodge was desirous of conducting cross-examination of Applicants' witnesses. In light of the

( . above precedent, we realize that he should have been afforded

" }thisopportunity.' For.this reason, as well as the other reasons-

~

.a discussed above, we are. reopening the~ record on this i'ssue. .

v .

• * *' b l 6 .

, 'j,; l ..

.w. - ., . . v.' ,

,,=

'i

y;m ,

n=.-m -

' s .

~

w . w.

N s. --

.g p 2 , ,s s  %

' \.

+ ,

s ,

's ,

t 7 1 .s oe VII. Miscellansoes Armiments- - -

e ~

.s p s, N -, . _

s ', 1 At the hearing we rt:quected p"sepaitiestoaddhssthe ,

q finality of this decision for appee", in light of 'an Odp~ublished 4 -

Appeal Board decision'in-the Big Rock ~

?cint. Case.'Bec9nse we

,- ~, s

~

are reopening the record on thEs~ issue; sucli considefation is

, m unnecesse.ry at this aime. HoQever,.'We notq that it is both x s

s . . s . K

),,' ... improper (see Pacifik Gas and 'Electi*ic 'f0ieblo .Ca'nyon Nuclear '

s .1 v  :..

. ./ y

- Power Plant,' Units 1.and .2R, $LABe59D, 11 NRC 744 (1989)) and \

s  ; s. , ,s.

m unf air to rely on - an'unpublis'hed order. which would not be - ; '

.u. ,. .~- .

available to the parties.s ,g 3

ORDER. g' '

, i - .n e

, ~w .

, .s , s For all of the foregoing reason -

it'is this , day of

.s _-s 1583 ORDERED ' ' - *

', , , \ 'i Q'a that the record in the N artter.Sf Issue #3,' concernin.sg \t 1.

t . - - CEI's N. .

control of contractors at 1he Perr-pNuclear Powe;- Plknt, is

',.s  ; , ,4 reopened. \ ,

' _7 ,

~

. s_ ,

.m 1 2. the issue.shallf.be expanded to encompass '.611 :n.fety-related. -

.,. M: .

.s s _

~ -

N ,

, contre.ctors at-PNPP. -

- ~

\_ s

.s- ,.

i

., s

, g,

. '3 . the parties shall have opportunity for further discovery, ' . .. % - .

~

. s _ ,,

m s

including.that against the.NItC Stetf.'in the matter of the *incpector ,_

i , -

.a .~. ; q whodisagreeswiththeNta.ff's-tes5.imony'. , , '

m s

- ~-

s. ~.,,

4. these matters 'shall r+' cortestes at public hearing to be s . W

• g s

held at a future da:;e.

x, ~

4* * '

? .

.m w IT IS SO ORDERED.,- -

- " c e.-

ys

~

t jg -

ss ,, Respectfully subm'tted, a i . * ~ s

, 2.

.~

A.. - - d

_. .. , , .[#' u i. '

.; Susan L. Hiatt , , -

n..

[F..-

3 ti. ~-

4 %.

OCRE Re'presertative - ,

M.[ . - _ . _ l .I , 'h *

~ =. -n..-- - . . - - - - - - - - - - -- .-- __- - --

' ' f.' .

c CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i This is to' certify that copies of the: foregoing OCRE'S

_ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW were served by osit.in the U.,S.:Mii D -irst class, po' stage prepaid, this

// day of. July SB3"to ho,se on the service list below.

teh, c

b s

!- **- g,. c %

I'~i4.: ' , e e . $.'9 .

a[

t _

9* * -Y. 6 \ b Susan L. Hiatt OCRE R'epresentative gid].,@+~ s

~ -

'i3.' 8275 Munson Rd.

f,n y'# Y/

Mentor, OH 44060

~.

4: 4 .

G, g\ ~

(216) 255-3158' I.hu,. . Ilaii a

r, #. . - .t *j, ,

'.gM

-ib J-

. %.i';%

w . . . .

1 ,2,,.~}. 4.

,~ . G); r,

+

,24a.* .

I~N', '; SERVICE LIST

' (ppy  ;-

.,3 Terry Lodge, Esq.

-Peter B'.' Bloch, Chairman i 1. .i L . Atomic' Safety-& Licensing Board . McCormack, Pommeranz, &

$1['5'?

Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Lodge

,- d?,:M . 'U.S. 824 National Bank Bldg.

~' Washington,'D.C. 20555 Toledo, OH 43604

.j Dr. Jerry [R. Kline L th"' Atomic Safety.& Licensing Board.

• NV [ i_.. U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,'D.C. 20555 .

,.h r Mr..Glenir O. Bright

i. . y'g;;((,~

4- . Atomic Safety'& Licensing Board j . [, $.n U.S.fN'ucle,ar Regulatory. 20555-Commission

-V yl/% : Washington,tD.C.-

W.En- .-

.9 ' James.M. Cutchin, IV, Esq.

nid ,

E.; Office of the' Executive Lega,1 Director

-U'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

^

' . Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

'~

Jay Silberg., Esq.

N Shaw, Pittman; Potts, & Trowbridge

}

" ~

1800 M Street, NW n . Washington, D.C. 20036 ,

i_ .wi. ' ^ n .

F' ,;N -

Docketing 7&' Service _ Branch .

jg ; } ! [).f4." L . Of fi'ce of 'the Secretary ,,

, ., % g

.n+ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission 20555

[" ,

Washington, D.C. - ,_

t-Ie 2 _r -

• G

' Atomic. Safety &, Licensing. Appeal Board Panel ~

[ :U.S.tNuclearjRegulatory Commission _ -

.g A!@gl ' +; Washington,ND.C.. 20555 r *  ;--

L J .i? h e _

4

. W._m , l

n- _- _ . - . . . . - .~, ~ ~.~.- ..- - .-. . . - -. . .

e

.s .,

I MAY 161993 5

n I.

-. ^

Docket No. 50-440 Docket No. 50-441

- + / W The Cleveland Electric Illuminat'ing '

.."1

.mn p Compan a 3

.s

. ".g ' . , ATTN: : Mr. Murra . R Edelman - i

,...Vice President Q- ' i ~-

Q' '

, ' }; Nuclear Group. .

~ . i .4 - Post Office Box 5000

2. , Cleveland, OH 44101 -l .

~

Gentlemen: . L i

.i j ,

.. This refers to the routine safe'ty inspection conducted by' Messrs.

P. A. Barrett, K. R. Naidu and P. R. Pelke of this office on March 1-3, 1933, of activities at Perry Nuclear , Power: Plant, Units I and 2, authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-148 and No. CPPR-149 and.to the discussion on March 11, 1983, of our findings' with.Mr. C. M. Shuster and others of your

, staff at the conclusion of the inspection. .

The enclosed copy of our inspec' tion report identifies areas ' examined during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consist'd of a selective e

examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel.'  ;

_ l-

~No items of noncompliance with NRC re'quirements were identified during the

, M.[. l iE ocourseiof.this. inspection.17. s y* ,j m '

?

. , 6;i: p: ;,

= *

. ..  ;,. 1

\b. :

s

a. p yd - .

v:

(.

r- In accorfance with 10 CFR'2.790(a), a, copy of this letter and the enclosure (s) will be' placed in' the NRC.Public Document Room unless jou notify this.offi~ce, i

. by telephone, within ten days of the :date of this letter and. submit wrftten *

application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of s the date'of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the re-quirements of 2.790(b)(1). 'If we do'not hear.from you in this regard within

'the specified periods noted above, a: copy of th'.s letter and the enclosed inspection report will be p' laced in the Public Document Room.

< .. n s  ; , .s (

'l ,.

}

, . . d 'I

.'. ; , _ . .-. ..g'. N .

• • s' u.C ?

.n'

-. l: W .4'*. U'~'.'***

'. f s,.s

. ' 'q'.n;: :s> '% -

~n a ~- . >

=,I l! ,ql

~

Y Nfg ? '

j

. l j' c' -

,f .

. J.w -

dt . [; .l, , ..

s.

L, t ". .l, .g

: i, - 1. , -

,.w  %^

p , .

. .: r ..< \ -

1 ' .y r; y, , 1 3: s 4~y, --' .;

}.4t

{-

1. -- s ,. M .i N j' . .. vin i- .

r + 01- -

4 n. sw a;? :9y , < .

var g+y, - v

-m,7, ; ;-;w"_

,_,'ig,.

s y;m,, ,

..uw : 4.,33; y

.: ,; ,%.m .

e- 3 .

qq;g; .

_ ,, <. _:n _

w a y _ m m / ,. p :, w y m w a y: A?aM: ~ :a V- :n.+ ;e4%u+ ~ -

,- ~ .-- . . . - - - - _ - ..- .w -_=:

,ys t.

. 2 The Cleveland Electric .

• MAY 161983

, Illum!nating Company . '

e

.p We will. gladly discuss any questions' you have concerning this inspection.

Sincerely,

e. '

t ,. .

l l Ni Icf. :1 tica:d !:y U. 3. Littfe" i

.Ip^e .

O g

m  ! -

W. S. Little, Chief

, - fd-;. :.7.- ,, ,I {.EngineeringBranch2 a , ; r,. s , -

'A.p?

Enclosure:

js.kg;.:1' ';((No.'50-440/83-08(DE) InspectionReports! and I

.xW i" No.'50-441/83-07(DE)- '

i ge : ..

n,.g ~ --  :. ' ;r:

s

~ -

m N- .ec w/ enc 1: .

" ' 'Qj; J. Waldron, Plant Manager i l y- -L. Beck, General Supervisor [ '.

Eid,' ' Licensing and Fuels Management '

~ f ,E,9 2 ,.

. _DMB/

- Document Control Desk (RIDS.) i '

41 Resident Inspector, RIII '

Ha rold W. Kohn, Ohio EPA

,(.;>,. f

• - l Daniel D. Wilt, Attorney i

';. . gJames W. Harris , State of Ohio . '

A' Robert H. Quillin, Ohio .'-  !

h$ d.. . Department'of Health P '

l s

iW.. .S , .:

/:e 7 l .'

/ ga.j.g. , ,N ' , -

.?p+: -

i

'm u.

c. - i

.'.j,.

. . m ,4 .

,- > hfil. .

. . . .i ~;

• M,?.+*V[s N,(. .-4," t%fj? W, M N:'f '

, ~

l

• 4 x :. .:.,g.p u . . .

l' 8 Fa

.- p.L y f.

l

, t' i

t.s <

a i .

.m;a .,- .c r -1

< ' fe. , % ,,_ , -. , , . ,  ;

s ca 7' 'j.  : i 5}yytd qn - -

u l

.+ -

c y g. .

1 J , ,  : i;

'W 3RIII RIII" RIII RI

>,h . R '7B 31**lI",, ; l b -RI{I /

g? '

l7 - ffr &r RII)/

//,,

ystwhrrett/sv A.Nj dukyQ..

elke- 'Kopklin E %A 05/06/a3f .,Q' skh3 iQ ai sozly -

fittl' -

MAhhw Me^2- 6 -------

A- a  % - V . J-

• m w mm v ..- .  :.wm  :.w.. n.------ . = - - . . x w. --

r U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III Reports No. 50-440/83-08(DE); 50-441/83-07(DE)

Docket Nos. 50-440; 50-441  : Licenses No. CPPR-148; CPPR-149 Licensee: Cleveland Electric Illuminating company

~ ^ * " --

Post Office Box 5000, ,

~

Cleveland, OH 44101; .

' Facility Name: PerryNuclearPo'werIlants, Units 1and2 .

t ,

Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, OH; Inspection Conducted: March 12 3' and 11, 1983 Inspectors:

fd. Y P. A. Barrett r .

d' /'l-[f 3 g [ . Date i.hNI$h#

• r /n /t >>.

. Date f.h. k P. R. Pelke I

• f/12/83 Date W

N. Merriweather

'l i

8 //:L /g 3 i; * '

Date~

j. i j- . . . . . -

, -- j Accompanie'. By: J. F. Foster (3/2-3/83)

C.C. Williams'(3/2h/83). -

s Approved By:

f f.

W jQL,' n

. Williams, Chief .

f / / R / 5.-7 Plant Systems Section -

.' Dats

Inspection Summary .

l Inspection on March 1-3 and_11, 1983* (Report No.- 50-440/83-08(DE);

50-441/83-07(DE)). , m , .1 -

~

' Areas. Inspected: Followup to noncomplian'ce item 440/83-06-01; 441/83-06-01

.(failure to provide-QA control over de'ficiencies addressed in L.' K..Comstock- .

' Task Force. review checklists and letters);' review of L'. K. Comstock personnel' qualifications; and general.dircussions with L. K. Comstock QA/QC and traft

-personnel. The . inspection involved 'a, total' of. 94 inspector-hours onsite by , i: ,

.six NRC inspectors. ~ ,u. .a -syea r . v. c=

~ . - :w - . .;c

.. ~ .r. .-

~ *' ~m

. ' ' ' _sr-

.[:; _ {,le : 8 l <*'I _' - ft. s

~ .

l' *; -

.~j-) --

e _. _ _ -.. g _

s,

' SN l

._ _ iic__1;:-

• J_ _AAi , . . - e.e :_ ' _1. : .w='

.n s . *v - . - 1 L4 2*n -I

a2 -v. _

- - - - v . . _hu. . -A-~x.N------- - - - -- s>d------

I e

Results: Of the three areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. ' -

s t I e

e 4

0 h 4 I .

e e

t se

• 6 m 9 O ge " g a

gg 9 w a ne

.. 9 4- --- *

, , .1-  :

-e , o i

' i

• l I

e I

e

. O t

I e

e

' O

' 4 a -

e I

4

.) '

i

- 4 e B

l

- &*. p .

s el L

T- .

6

, * $ e O

I g

I- .

.e 4

7 6

2- - i '

, -e

,.; , p _ '~:; ~ * . t.

i

, q,0,. ir . . , r., w * ,-

.4 ; ~ ,, * *-

,  ? :.% u..

n

)

!- t V, i s e '

4 .

h $

, e i

e 0

1 e

s 4 g

• e 9

I 4

' t

,2 5 +

i .

, I

. p 4

6 0

e 0 a s

, O g- .

O s- .

a I

4* .*

j '5 1, - ,.. a. 3

a wa uca_m .# - m.m. m m- w. = ;m _a

. c. m.z 2-.~ =m -----m---

7 v.

e 1

f. ,

i k)ETAILS t

i .

,y 1. Persons Contacted '

c .

Cleveland Electric-Illuminating Company (CEI) s ..

-e

'*C. M. Shuster, Manager, Quality Assurance Department  :

, F. R. Stead,- Manager,: Nuclear Engineering Department J. M. Lastovka, General Supervising Engineer, Nuclear. Construction

. . . , . Engineering  ;

'-^;-

• E. Riley, General Supervi' sing Engineer, CQS -

ArP EB.-D.'Walrath, General-Supervising Engineer, OQS a Q'.DN, .*J..S. Kerr, Supervisor,.CQS. 1

• W' ,.T G. Swansinger, Supervisor; PAQS

., G. R. Leidich, Senior Project Engineer '

*'O . *

>KJ C. Kaplan, Senior Engineering Technician, PAQS.

/M  !*V. K. Higaki, Quality Engineer'

_ 7 . R. P. Jadgchew, General. Supervising Engineer, Nuclear Construction

.p .

• Administration i i

.r 4

> (:M "

All the above persons attended the interim exit interview on March 3, 1983. Other personnel were coniacted during the inspection.

.1.7, '? . = , , .

.* Attended'the final exit interview at Region III,-Glen Ellyn, Illinois 4

office on March 11, 1983. - -

' (/2.

' Licensee Actions on Previously identified Items 3- .

b'- . -

(Open) Noncompliance (440/83-06-01; 441/83-06-01): Failure to provide f ' '. QA control over deficiencies addressed in L. K. Comstock Task. Force

. review checklists and letters. ,During this inspection the Region III

- '~.7, linspectors reviewed the recent efforts by the licensee' to' provide QA M0;. idJ '.', control over _.the The generic deficiencies addressed 1 m s M t.3:inithe L.jK. Coms(above deficiencies.tock:lett'ers.had.been designated.as " con J.k M the"concerni had~rece'ntly been' documented on QA controlled CQS '

- * ' - - . Surv>.illance/ Inspection' Reports'(SIRS) and L..K. Comstock~~ Inspection .

, . f Reports (irs).'. - .

~

., e '

The dispositions of concerns in:five of the six areas were evaluated

-s by the, Region III inspectors: j. *

a. Circuits - Task Force lNo. 41- i

. s. .

(1) . Concern 1 did nop appear to have any safety. significance.

,y- .

Concern.2 ciated that,a QC inspector other:than the first line

~

i t, ., , (2) . ,x

,, *  ; QC ? inspector

who;nactually performed the inspectioniwas signing'.iN.L e

• y/

aV %'s the< blue'irec'ordl Eopy :of > the cable pull = (installation) slip. - 4 -

,' M Discussion with!t.he:in'dividual', who identified this concern,[ y' N

' revealed that he';was addressing the signature of the QC _. W s

"; i ~ inspector who wa's reviewing the QC' records:for a'dequacy and , e

~

.-.i.' completeness.n The Region III inspector, discussed and reviewed-

^

. 'f yQ 3 [ yl ;Q ; & .., :.gigg f & { jW.. $j., w

+

qp h ' '["-s O v:

~

,,O; .pg'yg$$& s.s $

igg g~ aw _0. Lu 7A 4' camsihm c._ 'o - . e u. -

> wh

p. s , mm . . - . _ _ . - - . _ . . - - - ~ m. --- ...-m-J the documentation process for cable pulls. The documentation process, which' did allow a review signature by a QC inspector other than the first line QC inspector, appeared to be in full compliance with the QA requirements. The Region III inspector concurred with the licensee's conclusion that this concern had no adverse impact ori the current work activities.

.rR. . . , - ~

]

(3) Concern 3 stated the L. K. Comstock cable pulling procedure did not specifically call out when tension measuring / limiting devices are to.be us,ed.

_.JC.:.. _

gy SIR SE-1330 dated February 22, 1983, and LKC IR 5327, Revision 1, 1,yq$; ' s . - : dated FebruaryL20,.1983, appeared to establish adequate controls

,D -

' to assure thatlall cables which have been pulled without ten-

" $;.G

' $ ;T' -

sion devices will bejidentified, controlled, and dispositioned.

f,o.

The current LKC Procedure 4.3.3 dated November 15,'1982,

[?[) ,J.N * - ' -

V . l... Form 105appearedtolestablishadequaterequirementsfor

, .o verification of cable pull tension devices.

vG. ' -

- (4)J Co' n cern 4 stated that I.KC cable pulling Procedure 4.3.3 did not "N -

!b[', address how Rac'eway and Cable Installation Modification forms

~(RCIMs),,which are issued af ter completion of cable pulling, are reviewed an'd inc6rporated into circuit packages. In

g:[e.  :; ~.

addition, there was no system to control such RCIM's.

" ' ~

RCIM'sweredeslignchangedocuments.

'?;ri.1 l A

• a  :

1 i f' '

$i$,N

' SIR SE-1331 dat.ed February 21', 1983, described the current

~, program which was being used to control the above concern.

'Ni?" The described program essentially stated when a RCIM which u '

Ei .E -

affects a. cable; design is issued, the respective cable pull

.g@ , 4:  : slip will be denoted.with the RCIM number until the change

' can be incorporated into the slip. Appropriate rework will LtM2 W M 9..;

s4.r.g!,%w J7s. be initiated including any required QC verifications.

- q . y m.,* a.. . :.-~ .

i t, ->

gy. , %

~

4 The Region III inspector discussed and reviewed the current ZAs y (, program.. ' The control' of two RCIM's (1202 and 1674) was C >

evaluated With respec,t to,the current program. RCIM 1202 specified a change in type of tr:eway which affected the routing of several cables. RCId 1674 specified a change in cable type 'for cable IE12F 31B, which ~had. already .been installed and accepted by QC. In both cases,'the cable pull slips:, which,are included in tne circuit packages, had the chang'e addressed in the RCIM already -incorporated or had the lRCIM number denoted. For RCIM 1674 dated January.13,1983,'

u M. the LKC QC Inspectien: Checklist, Form 105A, dated February 14, 1983,. indicated:that the change required by the-RCIM, had M3 P [-m

' "' been completed a'nd-verified by QC. .Therefore, the_ program 7c g described-Lin SIR SE-1331 appeared to be functioning.

A- . '. ,n o

'Y ' ' SIR!SE-1331 also stated that'the LKC procedures were is the

'J,, m ,

process n of being revised to incori., orate the above pragram.

IO y  ;* * *

• 2

W el m

.. 4 .

s

.q; .

a . ~ ,

p ,

_gs.

-+8

&T * '

1

e - m . m . - - - ~ .- __=._ __ _-

e *

(5) Concern 6statedthat!LKCProcedure4.3.3,"CablePul'.ing",

specified that cable pulled into trays by hand does not require a tension cieasuring/ limiting device as long as a man is stationed every 100 feet. There is no way to assure that the manufacturers recommended maximum pulling tension was not exceeded, especially in the case of cables with a maximum pulling tension below 100 pounds, '

i 1 SIR SE-1333 dated February 22, 1983, appeared to establish adequate control:and evaluation of the above concern.

/: L -- The Region III, inspector reviewed the current revisions of LKC Procedure 4.3.3. ,The procedure appeared to establish adequate requirements for assuring that tension me.asuring*

.,,l ,

limiting devices!were bsed when necessary. The practice of periodically stationing individuals along the cable tray routing to assist in hand laying cables in trays, is an industry accepted practice for assuring cable tensions are not exceeded. i a  :

NOTE: This practic'e was not applied to cables being pulled through extended lengths of conduit, where excessive pulling tensions were possible.

~

(6)' Concern 9 stated:that the Level II review on both pull and termination documentation appears to be totally inadequate as evidenced by the inordinate amount of very obvious dis-crepancies noted-on the Task Force Circuit Package Review

. E-; >

Checklists. b

,, _ . .;. - i ,

The licensee SIRiSE-1336 fated February 24, 1983, appeared to adequatcly document the above concern within the QA Program.

>  ; However, the Region III inspector could not arrive at the same

-J . .

,'~317.'. '-.4thatconclusion

, i as the licensee. The licensee's conclusion stated there was .no(impact on current work caused by this concern.- "

y p, p.N.;g.'6' "iYet,E '

J no, evaluation' of the types of discrepancies, identified by

,the Task Force, had been made. Therefore, without knowing the

types of disc.repancies; the Region III inspector was unable to m evaluate whether or not the curren*. werk was being performed in

- the same discrepant manner.

s . .

SIR SE-1336 also indicated that training concerning'the general responsibilities 'of a Level II versus Level I had been given to all QC'nspectors.

i The relevance of this training appeared to be insignificant because the types of discrepan'cies were unknown.  ;.

1 -

~

The licensee'also provided SIRS (e.g., SE-1234 and SE-1253 both_ .- r dated February 13!,1983) which indicatedi that a second review

~

~.

~

.was made ot the LKC. circuit document packages. The licensee-

~

4 stated that during the?second reviews, no significant dis-t crepancies were identified. e

. .. . . 7-

! 4

(* v .

L 6' ru ,.

9 .a , -p p-

,s

,y

.g e

[ - -

)h .g l P [f c .

~

0,*

• N~~' '

Au YM%<e=mm

.- [ __. ex 1<nd$ w - m1

pm 2 u - L _ __.. m-- m.w . m- . .- m _-

e *

.i

• a 4

' t

)

' s The licensee provided letter PY-S/ CON 5709 QA dated February 14, 1983, addressed to the LKC QC Manager. The letter

- stated that an individual from CEI was now assigned as part of the LKC Turnover, Records Review Group. The licensee stated that part of this individual's' responsibilities was to. resolve the task force discrepancies and prevent future discrepancies.

(7) Concern 10statedthatfperiodicsurveillancebyQCofmegger (cable insulation resistance test) activities, as required-by LKC Procedure 4.3.18 is almost nonexistent.

' P- - LKC Procedure 4.3.18 dated May 6, 1980, Paragraph 3.4.1 states,

-in part, " Craft personnel shall cenduct tests and record data. . .

" '. - 'A QC inspector will periodically mcnitor and verify the 4"[ h

' performance of te,sts..t."

7 j . ; j"

'- .The . licensee SIR ;SE-1343 dated February 25, 1983, indicated

' ;D _

that the LKC procedure >was being revised to more clearly define

~a periodic surveillance of megger tests. The SIR indicated that L . , bj , . , 7 ,, . LKC QC is complyi'ng with their program and that there is no

~- ~-

adverse. impact on current work.

. c' . - . .'

On March .. 14, 1983, during a phone conversation, the CEI General V s. Supervising Engineer, Construction Quality.Section stated that the LKC procedural regnirements for meggering were in addition

- i ,

to the licensee's IEEE-336 1971 commitments. The supervisor

~

stated that the IEEE-336 commitments were being fulfilled by the CEI test department with personnel qualified to ANSI N45.2.6.

' f'*% o

, -, This item is unresolved pending review of the test department meggering program (440/83-08-01; 441/83-07-01).

,'g.,X. 4cA

i. .b' . -Electrical Penetrations - Task Force No. 26

. .. . ": . ~ ~ , ,

M. (1) Concern IA stated records indicate that verification of the

, -"dk -ff .. / fitup and2 tack weld ofithe penetration to the containment

~ 1 EhYk*h.wP' ' ' # vesselinozzle (CVN)'was signed off prior t'o weld rod issuance.

y .

' .f LKC subsequently! verified through discussions with Pullman

~ - -

Power Products (PPP) personnel that the TF reviewer misinter-preted the significance of ,the dates on the weld rod issuance tickets.

s (2) Conce'rn 13. stated the Weld Process Sheets were not. completed.

PPP stated that the documents reviewed by the TF reviewers

- were tlhe reference copies and that additional information was 4

provided in the final documents. .

-(3)~ .; Concern 2lstatedallthedocumentswerenottransmittedtothe s owner. This' was; subsequently accomplished.

'(4). Concern 3, stated'a backing ring was not used as required by

y. ,

2.

Specification SP-33; nor was a consumable insert used as shown on the Westinghouse (the manufacturer) drawing E 40048 for the 4

installation of medium voltage penetrations. NCR 1769 Nas I i ( L. ~ [. , " , ..

h{y 7,scy, h[ . , , f( - ,,i' ,

1'

, .2 i I' s * - '(_

_: ,. . s ' f; .

'_{ h_ 1

y m= _ - ~. m ~ -~_w...- - . - . - - --

p .. .

g .

< 4 .

initiated on February 8, 1983, on this matter. The NRC Report No. 440/83-06; 441/83-06 identifies this matter as an item of noncompliance. ; The necessary reviews have not been completed.

LKC initiated Stop Work Notification - 11 (SW-11) on February 11, c '

1983. The Region III inspector informed the cognizant licensee individual that SW-11 and the corrective action to be taken

~

. ,- , , o were not specific. Prior to the conclusion of the inspection,

, l SWN-11 Revision; I was initiated which states that work shall not be resumed until.LKC witnessed and documented that the requirements of'SP-33 Revision IV Items 5:08.1.4a through.c have been accomplished. Additionally, CEI letter PY-S/ CON J:&- ~ , 5820 QA dated March'3, 1983, to LKC imposed:a mandatory hold

' point on the welding'of Unit 2 electrical penetrations to

~ N,. _, S . enable CQS to verify >. compliance to.the SP-33 requirements'.

, x- .

~. -

e.

N 5' -

^

(5) Concern 4 stated one ' additional penetration was installed i j ,L1 -

without specific authorization. Engineering' Change Notice

'w -

. 73 * ' (ECN).9252-33-2035 Revision A dated December 3, 1982, was.

ON , issued to add penetration 1-R73-S029 to Specification SP-33.

~TO .,.

• W

.'(6) tConcern 5 stated there were discrepancies in the dates on

! M Q ,' . which LKC QC'inspectois uncrated penetrations *and verified

-- d r[ ' ,' ' shipping damage;. SIR SE-1387 dated February 27, 1983, resol'ved p..~..-

a - .  %. .

this concern.  ;

?

(7) Concern 6 stated LKC Nonconformance Reports we're reissued under I

"cm -

" a new revision,;16 months after the original .was written. This K _ ' , [N ,- '. N,CR related to paint ' damage sustained.during handling.

, t.

. SIR-1388 adequately d.ocuments the paint scratches. The delay c 1 appears to be related.'.to contract contractor interface problems.

' . @a

~ ,. .+

.m s

• E ',* -(8) LConcern 7 stated rewo'rk was performed to close NCR 881. The

'. Rework Form is not recognized as a sanctioned document-in the n

L #; 1: % ;,-4.h ' ' ' ' LKC A QA Program.} Procedure 4.3.32 dated July 2, 1982, was '

j'ff.76[y[@ M ., @ Tidevelqped fverify that 5he stoNork address jerformed Rework Forms and provide was satisfactory. Rework *

~

~ QC; coverag - ~~

l .-

'g;p,E _, , No.^103391was issued'to close LKC NCR 881. NCR 881 was.

c, y'  ; g/g /  : initiated to. identify'that line Item-5 on'the installation checklist for penetration 1-R72-S002 was left blank (unsighed o -by QC' inspector).

a. ~

. V '

J (9)~. Concern 8 stated records indicate that PPP welders consumed -

excessive amounts of weld rod.to weld electrical penetrations 1-R72-S003,,S004, S007 and S019 and'that no repair process sheets were used. . SIR SE-1390 documents this concern.

i *

,  :(10) Conc'rn 9 stated the records indicate that-even though the base e

.s

% 3a -

[ metal-wasbui'lt-uponjpenetration' nozzle 11-R72-S003,.PPPdid - 'M '-

% '. a ., +

inot' generate anLNCR.iSIR SE-1391-documents this condition.-

%y .<  ;,

9

• %. 4y- ... . -

+ , j - -; , > . *; * , , 4- . .

s '

.[ p ,,

a

~

~.

m s .; ;. s  ;- .t .

c-q t_

Lh k'N ,r

?

} *

. ,: -v . -

yd @. b f , ' b m

-W :

p .,:. i[ j [, ,

[ L, bG ,,%.d .

• 5, '

6 4

- .< z m. .g. 3. g

.a .

gg;.:

u,; n, ew-g

- . a. ~W n. q.;'Af z -; {. n. ,x N[tg

. m ,,,. ..

a,7.Q; w:;..:

, Afg gn

gi$

. s. e p 9wg4g + "

,i _' $ 5

-4 3 N '

'^

2= n.- z. :a --. .w ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _

r

~ .

' (11). Concern 10 stated ina'dequate inspections were performed on the maintenance of electr.ical penetrations during storage.

Region III action on ;this matter is addressed se.parately in NRC Report No. 440/83-06; 441/83-06. .

c. Electrical'Eauipment'- Task Force No. 29 CEI and LKC have initiated SIRS and irs, respectively, on the following concerns as appropriate:

2 .

(1) . Concern 1 stated LKC Quality Control inspectors had been per-forming inspections and signing' for acceptance of inspections-

.f_. outside of their areas of certification. Areas included

/

Switchgear, Terminati'on Cabinets, Rotating Equipment and -

i e ..?',

e Penetrations. Typical examples were as follows:

4 a? ,

~

.(a) Inspectors;who were not certifiedsand therefore not i J';c_ d , _ - 4

' qualified ierformed inspections and signed off on Class 1E y  : O- t 1 .g, Switchgear and Termination Cabinet Installations checklists.

M's W.F s. i .

j'

1. 2. , (b). Inspectorsiwho were not certified and therefore not

'" i q.'fl

~

qualified performed inspections on Stu'd Velding inspections TM

~ ,',, Forms. -

,, ~ ; ;, f, r. .

T l[ (c) Inspectors: certified to Level I requirements performed

<3 ' ' f. . inspections and signed off instead-of Level II inspectors.

f_ a

.g. g ,.,o[' .

p T ". .-

,. .~

." ;'.. (d) . An inspector, who was not certified in Insulation Resistance

? j X.94w; . .

', 29 . _ ' J '%f.  : Test Reports, co-signed on inspection reports.

. 3 w g p@ p ._.'~. -_- -4 ,

g . - (e) Inspectors.not certified in Material Receiving signed '

b' ', f ,  ; * - Material Re'ceipt; Reports. Nonconformance reports'1795

$.

• M ,*

and 1797 were prepared on February 22, 1983. The licensee A r. ; /g . j '

documented'.the above deficiencies on a Deviation Analysis y

stC7 ' y > * .;, t...y-Report'(DAK) on February 28, 1983.

h % Sp'f ' % ji o-

'3, Concern 2' stated, no standardized method was used to f 1 out n.

F. . .

u- ~(2)

Form 21 Inspection Resistance / Continuity Test Report. The forms r

29 ~ . cz;

^2 - were altered by the craft'to suit their own' interpretation.

1.2 Often, the results were not decipherable. LKC initiated IR 5388-g ' dated February 17, 1983. CEI initiated SIR-SE-1363 and SE-1365 i on February 20-and 23, 1983, respectively'. LKC initiated IR 5407 ~

7 dated: February 16, 1983, to review and assess meggering' reports 3}.j ' performed prior to August 1982. During August 1982, training p sessions were' conducted to assure that LKC craft persons under-stand the. procedural requirements. Subsequently, CEI performed B f ~

Q ,. , audits and deterinined ,that procedural requirements were being, iq' iSQ;p - -

_ ;followed. , .,,

U

['Y - s.

Q. t i . ,

l:

h'I . .. # NOTE: . /This item has already been' discussed in NRC y; @ ..

>  : Item 440/83-08-01;.441/83-07-01, of this report.

m p 3 .'.: ,

p .

O hi. _( 3) -Concern 2A appeared to be a duplicate of 2 above.

bn: ry y , ' ,

l3, j,C (f.' l' , ._' '

,;,) O + e Q.5

[

'(

g W

.W;L.M -

_ , - ~ . , .

. + .

e ___ m .____m e ,. ~ ~ . . -

_. ~

s i l (4) Concern 2B stated I.KC!craf tsmen used the infinity symbol (m) extensively instead of documenting the exact resistance reading on ohms, megaohms, etc. SIR SE-1356 and LKC IR 5406 were initiated. l l NOTE: NRC Item 440/83-08-01; 441/83-07-01, this report.

(5) Concern 3 stated additional information on the documents that

- should govern the I.KC : installation of electrical equipment .is not listed in Specificiation SP-33. SIR SE-1362 and IR 5389

, . dated February 25 and'17, 1983, respectively, document this

" -F- '

concern. ..

, ~

'. %.. .g-@. 4 .: (6) Concern 4 stated;all e!quipment packages reviewed had numerous

/ _s ,

< inspections thatl had not been performed. . SIR SE-1394 and 3- IR 5390 dated February 23 and 17, 1983, respectively, document i , C' #i. ,

y.

- this conceru. [

_ 9

,$ (7) _ Concern 5 stated la lar'ge number of original Material Receiving Mt[ ~ Z~

Reports were lost and.that, attempts to redocument the Receipt Inspection without any, backup information are being made.

ere " . SIR SE-1364 and IR 5391 dated February 23 and.17,1983, respec-B.. .

. tively, document,this ' concern. -

=l ,s ' .

[

(8) Generic Concern G1 which stated there is a lack of IEEE-323 "m

certifications oil NR CQC 1226 which documents tne lack of the

_:7 same. There is also a problem with tracing the Conditional

^ % ,.;- -

' ~

,Raleases (CRs) to the panels since most CRs are.also missing.

w'

.4-! z r.. - SIR SE-1287 and IR 5.409 dated February 21 and 16, -1983>

x. .: respectively, document:this concern.

-f (

a . , S. .

c ,

, , (9) Generic Concern G2 sta'ted forms were not properly fil' led out.

s@&

.o This item has been addressed in Item 4 above.

': fg4 E ." . 3

.  %.5 -p ,

Q a

. M.ip. M d;l.(10): Generic' Concern G3, stated all Form 62 Warehouse' Issue tickets

.~~ " .were poor quality repr'oductions. SIR SE-1396 states that this e

concern.is not a' problem. The poor quality .of the forms are',

3 .

replaced at.the time of turnover by using the originals that are kept at the warehouse.. -

l C - (11) Generic' Concern G4 stated many forms were missing from each equipment package. SIR-SE-1395 dated February 26,'1983 docu-ments this concern. The problem is being corrected at the time of LKC turnover review, d .' . Hangers - Task Force No. 31'; and Task Force No-. 36;-Civil - Task

.  : Force No. 13 ,,

j

.. v ~

k.' (1) (TF-31;, Concern 7 and TF-36,. Concern 2 stated that there has

' beenl no~ ca,libration due date for the Magnetic Particle Test - -

Equipment recorded 'on Form 70, Magnetic Particle Inspection

' Report, for any hangers that were Magnetic Particle Tested.

' - The licensee determined that this concern does'not impact

., J 9 , " ;d;LV b.<

.-~-e,- C~ ~ .: ,

m.

.7. t w py 4 -s p .

.S ; ..

,ny %

, - c. -

.-g-rc.

j p ,,,, y

. xv s

4; g. ,. -.4 , ,

,- , , ,,., p QE hi@i 7 di W Ah LM? ?M m._ -,& s @. . _47hs

> u.

7_ _ _ - . ..

..= ,

w q J- -

i 1

t current'or previous work using Magnetic Particle Test Yokes since calibration records show that there has been no lapse u 7 in the calibration of the four yokes owned by LKC. The 9 inspector reviewed -the calibration records for the four yokes.

The records-indicated that the calibration had been adequately

.$ maintained. I.KC is revising Procedure 4.7.8 to incorporate a q  :: calibration expiration date on Form 70.

4 (2) TF-31,'Concernk1statedthatQualityControlacceptedtorques

. ; on Form 99 after the torque wrench calibration due date had i

expi red _. This concern was generated due to a misunderstanding

$n~J * - ~ .of Form 49 by the Task Force reviewers. The inspector verified 9;y '. , f _

' ~

that Form 99 has been revised to mipimize the possibility of

y. ss: -

exceedingthec$ibrationexpirationdate.

l -

k ' '

~'(3) TF-31,. Concern 14 stated technical-direction identified on

$M '

.' f: tdrawings has bee'n rendered illegible by the document control thV'

^

- stamp and noted ; inspection documentation. The licensee deter-4; mined that this concern does not affect field installation s ' .i .. _ mi. .since the "as-bu'ilts";in the Records Trailer are not.the drawings used fo'r direction or instructions.

.f.w.

puv .

. id s-

,m

.;y'f.f ' ~

T '

(4).TF-32, Concern 2'2andfTF-36,Co~ncern8 stated'that. inspection w a 37 '~. v.

~

notes were chang'es by< an inspector other than the original

{W[7 D jQ L' , _

J l inspector who documented the inspection. The licensee's cor-rective action does not include a generic review of hanger 4:p.f1N .

,; ; drawing packagesjand addresses one specific example. The M ys..' *

,; /. .

licensee agreed.to evaluate this concern during the CQS Hanger g._i g, 7 y.' '

Audit. t- .;

g c' y .;f ; i ~ 1.:/ -- . .

M "' The inspector.reviewe'd the. tentative scope of the CEI CQS Hanger f-e -

., , Audit whicli will inc1'ude b6t not be limited to:

+

p u .. .

] ; g .e

W A review of 700 hanger packages (approximately 25% of the a

{t~ fttotal' support hangers).

4 :h.,pjf 7 .. , t, - A$ . . .

Q T _~;s. .. Theauditisto,beco5ductedbythree; auditors (1 Quality m e ge Engineer, 1 Electrical / Weld Inspector, and 1 Electrical-n 2i - - Inspector). -

?

- t y{;~ The tentative scope did:not include sevsral of.the Task Force j; ' '. .

concerns. The inspector. recommends that' the -following concerns h

-be addressed in .the addit:'

?W ..

%. TF-31 TF-3'6 TF-31 ' TF-36 fg ->

Concern Concern; - . Concern ~ Concern n n..

.sy. - .

,gp s

pm< _. ,

4 -

L1 16 'S db '.

6L  : 3 I 19-h l ;.4 - ; 20' s ,M$y W' ?8l .0 ig ,

1 22 8 4Q4

$19 ~

10, ill l 9; *-

"24

,23 10

- G3 '

' n[ w \'. I.

$$bkh tw b ',

. , s g{y ', '

n; q x w _ _a. ,

X .:n

y- .,

8 TF-31 .TF-36' TF-31 TF-36 Concern Concern Concern Concern 12, 13 i 13 l 26 11 14 14 15 ,

,- G1

. A25%FieldInspectiobof700hangersforverificationof welder and weld inspector stamps.

The licensee stated and provided documentatic,n which indicated that

' ~ '.' ' '- '

they had performed extensive reviews, during this inspection, of all' audits of contractorsjand all 1982 contractor correspondence. The licensee stated that based.on these reviews, there was,no evidence of any other contractor, working outside the QA program.

-In addition, the licensee p'rovided copies of letters dated March 2,

, 1983, to'each:of the r'espective safety related contractors. The letters' essentially.provided strong directions to all organizations

, ,. y to work,within the established QA program.

a j J _' Based on the above reviews, the above Task Force con'cerns now' appear to be , adequately controlled within the QA program. This item remains

' . M

/ -

open pending verification that the respective SIRS and irs are being

'  ; properly resolved; and verification that TF-40 concerning personnel qualifications, has been properly controlled and resolved.

r ?.s 7"

'(Closed) Unresolved Item (440/83-06-07; 441/83-06-07): Detrimental affects of zero purge pressure on electrical penetrations. Westinghouse.(the manu-

.- .facturer'of the penetrations) seat a letter from Mr. W. Lankenau Project .

. Engineer dated February 17, 1983'., to Mr. R. Bonner, CEI. The-letter

- ' stated that the purpose ofithe penetration pressurization was to provide

. .a means'of determining leak rate'as required by IEEE Standard 317-1 W ,

- iParagraph 5.1.3. : Additionally,. Westinghouse sent a telefax from

a a*%.Mr.

W.' Lankenau to. CEI dated March 2,1983, which stated in part, "It is~

+ Wi Wes1!inghouse's' opinion that if t'he pressure was to drop to:zero,-the

.elec.trica1 'integr. ity of the assembly would not be compromised. . ."

\

3. Functional or Program Areas Inspected- -

-* a. ( Qualification and Certification of Quality Control Personnel To perform:this inspection the following documents were reviewed:

. Ernst.- Comstock QA/QC. Manual

. 'CEI Attachment Specification (SP-709-4549-00)

. . ANSI N45.2 6.(1973)',_ Qualification'of Inspection, Examination, 2

and. Testing Personnel for-the Constructica Phase of Nuclear

' '~ Power Plants' '

-p

. LKC QC Procedure No. 4,1.4, Qualification and Certification-

. .-of; Quality Control Personnel q ,  % .

7

1. +

. .., i s ;W ,

1 , v. ,b - , ,

. 3

, c , .

y Y:N  :.2 . -+L". ._ _ ( s hi l y ;), ~$-qp- . LN ,

_u, - L,