ML20078A496
| ML20078A496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1983 |
| From: | Locke R PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078A499 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309230290 | |
| Download: ML20078A496 (17) | |
Text
.-
rau.xi a1> con. : wn ,ne ,:
c j -
00CXETED USHC 1 ,
,' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 22 al.03 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' --
3 4 Before The Atomic Safety And Licensing Appeal Board g 5 6
)
7 In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company ) 50-323 0.L.
8 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power )
Flant, Units No. 1 and 2) ) (Construction Quality 9 ) Assurance) 10 11 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S 12 ANSWER TO JOINT INTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO REOPEN THE 13 RECORD ON THE ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE 14 15 16 On September 9, 1983, Joint Intervenors filed a 17 document styled a supplement to their motion to reopen the 18 record on construction quality assurance which included 19 copies of (1) a proposal by Nuclear Services Corporation 20 (NSC) for an independe'nt audit of one of the Diablo Canyon 21 construction contractors, Pullman Power Products Corp.
22 (" Pullman"), and (2) a report of the audit conducted by NSC 23 of Pullman, dated October 24, 1977.
24 On September 14, 1983, PGandE notified the Board 25 that it would respond to this supplement within the time
- 26 ///
8309230290 830921 PDR ADOCK 05000275 C PDR 0 50)
1
- ~
5 .
y 1 prescribed by the rules. In.accordance with that letter the f'
tc 2 followiIg-response is. submitted. -
3 BACKGROUND'~
! 4 On June 8, 1982, Joint Intervenors filed a motion 5 to;recpen the Diablo Canyon record alleging deficiencies in L 6 the quality program. After hearing argument on this and 7 other matters on April 14, 1983, the Board issued an order 8 on April 21, 1983 requiring Joint Intervenors to promptly 9 refile their imotion to reopen on construction quality 10 assurance and further required that all evidence that they
- . 11 claimed supported reopening should accompany that motion. If '
12 Notwithstanding that the Board had ordered the motion filed 13 promptly, Joint Intervenors did not file their motion until l , f 14 May 10, 1983. PGandE filed its response to that motion (and l' 15 Governor Deukmejian's) on May 31, 1983. On June 28, 1983,
.16 ,the Board issued an order setting an evidentiary hearing on 17 the mot' ions to reopen for July 19, 1983. A mini-hearing was I
, 18 then conducted on July 19-22, 1983 on the question of 19 construction quality assurance. At the close of the hearing 20 the parties were allowed to file closing briefs by August 4, 21 1983 on certain issues limited to the standards for
- 22 /// ;
3 4
-23 24 If The Board noted that on the eve of the argument the
- Joint Intervenors had filed certain documents with the 25 Board in an improper manner without seeking leave of
- the Board. (Appeal Board, Memo and Order, April 21,
! 26 1983, p. 2-4).
t
_. . - , _ _ . ~ . _ . - _ , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ - , , _ _ _ _ -
1 reopening a closed record. A decision on the motion has not
, 2 Leen issued by the Board.
3 THE SEPTEMBER 9, 1983 SUPPLEMENT 4 As they have many times in the past, Joint Inter-5 venors have completely ignored the established rules of 6 practice by dropping documents out of thin air on the Board 7 without requesting leave to file. Indeed, as noted above, 8 the Board admonished Joint Intervenors as recently as 9 April 21, 1983 to follow the established rules of practice 10 in filing documents with the Board. Suffice to say, the
, 11 instant filing falls into the same category and for that 12 reason alone should be ignored.
13 However, there is another and more fundamental 14 reason why the Board should refuse to entertain this sub-15 mittal. With any administrative proceeding there must be a 16 time when the evidentiary record is closed. The practical 17 principle of administrative finality must be applied in a 18 reasoned manner if an administrative matter is to be brought 19 to a logical and timely conclusion. See, ICC v. Jersey 20 City, 322 U.S. 503, 514 (1944).
l 21 In the instant case, Joint Intervenors have l
22 practiced a fine art of delay by continually filing 23 documents out of time or otherwise ignoring the .ules of I 24 practice. No cogent explanation or affidavit accompanies l
l_ 25 this " filing" to explain its lateness (the documents are l 26 more than five years old) or otherwise explain or sponsor 1
i l
_ _ ~ - -
1 the conclusions contained in this filing. Obviously, this 2 is not "new evidence" which has recently been generated and 3 which might arguably justify this eleventh-hour filing. Cf.
4 In The Matter of Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile
~
5 Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1) LBP-82-34A, 15 NRC 914 6 (1982)). Indeed it was a similar filing in April of this 7 year which prompted this Board to require the filing of new 8 motions and a subsequent " mini-hearing" on the construction 9 quality assurance issue. Manifestly this process takes time 10 to accomplish and the delay which results serves the stated 11 purpose of the Joint Intervenors to delay or stop the 12 operation of Diablo Canyon. If this information had been 13 produced at the July hearing PGandE could have responded to 14 it as appropriate. Therefore, to allow Joint Intervenors to 15 proffer it at this time would be rewarding such conduct.
16 Accordingly, we urge the Board to refuse to consider the 17 Supplement in its deliberations on the motion.
18 Notwithstanding our foregoing arguments in 19 opposition to the receipt and consideration of these 20 materials at this late date, PGandE, in accord with its 21 September 14 letter, conducted an in depth review of the 22 events and subsequent actions surrounding the NSC audit.
23 If the Board decides to consider the Supplement 24 filed by Joint Intervenors, PGandE requests leave to file 25 the affidavit of Russell P. Wischow in explanation of, and 26 ///
l 1 in rebuttal to, the Joint Intervenors' filing. 2/ As 2 explained in our September 14, 1983 letter, this additional 3 information places the NSC audit in perspective and confirms 4 that both Pullman and PGandE had acceptable programs in 5 effect for construction quality assurance at Diablo Canyon 6 during the time in question.
7 In reviewing this information we believe that _t 8 must be kept in mind that audits are by nature documents 9 that portray a negative picture. Their purpose is to point 10 out any possible deficiencies that must be addressed. Over 11 the years, hundreds of audits have been conducted. Many of 12 these audits have generated findings. These findings have 13 then been reviewed and appropriate corrective action taken.
14 Where indicated, program improvements have been 15 incorporated. Obviously it would be totally unreasonable to 16 expect error-free construction at a nuclear plant. Such a 17 result is not mandated by the Atomic Energy Act or the 18 Commission's regulations. Rather you look to see that 19 20 2_/ Attached to the Wischow affidavit are the following documents: (1) Statement of Qualifications of 21 Russell P. Wischow; (2) ASME Certificates - M. W.
Kellogg Co., Div. of Pullman, Inc. Diablo Canyon Work, 22 dated December 18, 1972 and October 14, 1977; (3) NSC Audit, dated October 24, 1977; (4) Pullman Review, 23 dated April 11, 1978; (5) PGandE Audit No. 80422 dated June 12, 1978; (6) PGandE Review of Nuclear Services 24 Corporation Audit Findings, dated June 16, 1978; (7) PGandE Non-Conformance Reports DCO-78-RM-004 and 25 005; Minor Variance Reports M-3723, M-3724, M-3725, and M-3726; and (8) NRC Inspection Report 50-275/78-10, 26 50-323/78-10, dated July 26, 1978.
- ._. . . , - - _ _ = ,
1 identified construction errors have been cured in order to 2 give reasonable assurance that the plant can be operated 3 without endangering the public health and safety. M the 4 Matter of Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1) 5 ALAB-740, Slip. Opinion pp. 1-3, (Cep. 14, 1983.) Thus, one 6 audit in isolation cannot give an accurate picture of an 7 overall quality program. Rather, it must be looked at as a 8 part of an overall program and a tool for management to use 9 along with others to assure high quality performance.
10 1971-1977 PULLMAN POWER PRODUCTS SCOPE OF WORK AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM 11
! 12 During the 1971-1977 time period encompassed by 13 the NSC audit, Pullman was the principal piping contractor I 14 for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2. y' The prime
.15 piping contract was written to include power plant piping 16 and associated supports with the exception of the main 17 reactor coolant loops (which were done by Wismer and 18 Becker), the majority of the fire protection system, and the 19 plant embedded piping. The erection of all rupture 20 ///
l 21
- 22 3/ Much of the following information has been obtained from PGandE records and is attested to in the attached j
23 affidavit of Russell P. Wischow who was PGandE's Direc-tor of Quality Assurance at the time of the NSC audit.
l 24 As Mr. Wischow states, the results of the NSC audit j were not communicated to him until early 1978. Accord-25 ingly, he could not have testified as to its results in the October 1977 hearings. (Wischow Affidavit, 26 para. 3.)
! ,. , _ _ _ _ _ . _ . __ ._ _ _ - . . . , . _ _ , . _ __ - _ _ ~ _ _ ._ - . .__ _
1 V
1 restraints was also included. The contreet with Pullman j 2 : included the inspection and documentation necessary to 3 demonstrate compliance with quality requirements.
4 The Quality Assurance Program associated with this 5 contract was originally written to accommodate the 6 requirements of. the 1968 edition of applicable parts of the 7
4 ASME Nuclear Pressure Vessel Code (USA B-31.7). This 8 compliance was reviewed by the State of California who 9 requested that it be modified to incorporate the Quality 10 Assurance requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure 11 Vessel Code, (ASME Section III) 1971 Edition. These 12 commitments are consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 1
13 50, Appendix B and became part of the program manual.
14 The Pullman program was subjected to the review !
15 and extensive onsite survey by the ASME who granted Pullman i
16 NA and NPT-stamps in 1972. These NA and NPT stamps specific
! 17 to Diablo Canyon were recertified by ASME in 1977 following f 18 an updating audit. (Wischow Affidavt, Attachment 2) 4/ For 19 ASME code certified work, the NRC Regulatory Guides provide
. 20 that this Quality Assurance Program is a recognized means of 1 21 meeting .the intent of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. Appropriate 22 quality procedures were provided for all non-code work 23 performed by Pullman. The Quality Assurance Program was i 24 25 4f Interestingly, this audit survey.by ASME was conducted from August 29-31, 1977 during the audit conducted by 26 NSC-(August 22 through September 20, 1977).
1 then submitted to PGandE and approved, after review and 2 comment, to control Pullman's work in accordance with the 3 requirements of PGandE's specifications.
4 NSC AUDIT OF PULLMAN POWER PRODUCT QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM 6 At the request of PGandE to further confirm the 7 quality of the installed materials at Diablo Canyon NSC was 8 contracted by Pullman to perform an independent audit of the 9 installed piping components and supports in August 1977.
10 The actual audit was conducted from August 22 to 11 September 20, 1977. Thereafter, a report of the findings 12 was submitted to Pullman on October 24, 1977. This report 13 contained a number of very sweeping and generalized 14 assertions and conclusions. (Wischow Affidavit, 15 Attachment 3.)
16 In areas requiring evaluation and interpretation, i
17 the auditors measured the quality of the work effort against 18 then current (August 1977) ANSI Standards, Nuclear 19 Regulatory Commission Regulations, and Regulatory Guides.
20 This approach did not comport with the stated purpose of the 21 audit to evaluate the work effort against the codes, 22 regulations, and standards in effect at the particular tine 23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 1 the work was being performed. Sj The problem apparently 2 arose from the auditors' erroneous interpretation that 3 organizations must "backfit" work done to previous codes and 4 standards to meet current standards. This erroneous 5 interpretation and approach to the audit had the practical 6 effect of invalidating much of the entire NSC effort.
7 PULLMAN POWER PRODUCTS RESPONSE TO THE NSC AUDIT 8
9 After receipt of the NSC audit report, Pullman 10 determined to conduct their own an in-depth review of the 11 findings (Wischow Affidavit, Attachment 4). This review 12 consisted of a point-by-point evaluation and rebuttal of .
13 each of the NSC Report findings. In its response, Pullman 14 15 SJ The NSC proposal defined the scope of the audit as 16 including a review of (1) the overall adequacy of the existing quality assurance program against current NRC l 17 requirements, (2) the implementation of the quality l assurance program, and (3) the workmanship of l 18 field-fabricated and installed items. (NSC Proposal,
- p. 2.) Where the auditors went astray was in applying 19 current NRC requirements to the installed work rather than to the existing program. The audit report itself 20 provi( V that the audit scope and purpose was to evaluate the work effort against the codes and l
21 standards in effect at the particular time that the l work was being performed. However, the Report goes on l 22 to state that "in areas requiring interpretation, the quality of the work effort at Diablo Canyon was 23 measured against the current [1977] ANSI Standards and i Regulatory Guides, accepted today as valid interpreta-24 tions of regulatory requirements. Moreover, they also cautioned that the long time span and the specific time 25 interval of the work effort had to be considered when reading the report. (Wischow Affidavit, Attachment 3, l 26 p. 2.)
9_
1 drew attention to the fact that the audited work took place 2 over a time period spanning 1971 to 1977. Pullman noted 3 that the audit team did not adhere to their definition of 4 the scope and purpose of the audit which was to evaluate 5 work against those codes and standards in effect at the time 6 the work was performed. (Wischow Affidavit, Attachment 4,
'7 p. 2.) Instead, NSC inappropriately applied 1977 8 requiremente retrospectively to the prior work, thus 9 producing invalid findings.
10 The Fullman review and analysis, following the 11 format of the NSC report, was organized into the 18 criteria 12 matching 10 CFR 50 Appendix B. Within this framework the 13 NSC report contained 137 findings of which 58 were 14 favorable. With those 58 favorable findings the Pullman 15 review agreed. As for each of the remaining 79 findings the 16 Pullman responses were formulated in three categories:
17 disagreement with the finding (25); providing additional 18 explanation to clarify program compliance (29); and 19 corrective actions taken as a result of the findings (25).
20 The twenty-five (25) findings with corrective action to be 21 taken were software specific, i.e. paperwork improvements.
22 None required correcting hardware deficiencies.
23 Subsequently, these actions were all documented and 24 dispositioned in accordance with Pullman and PGandE quality 25 requirements.
26 _///
1 .The NSC Audit Report and Pullman's Response were 2 then formally forwarded to PGandE cn April 11, 1978.
3 (Wischow Affidavit, para. 3.)
4 PGandE'S REVIEW OF THE NSC AUDIT AND PULLMAN'S RESPONSES 5
6 As the licensee responsible for the overall 7 quality of the plant, PGandE performed a detailed, 8 finding-by-finding review of the NSC audit findings and 9 Pullman's responses. (Wischow Affidavit, Attachment 6) . A 10 PGandE Quality Assurance audit team retraced the steps of 11 the NSC auditors to verify the validity of alleged 12 deficiencies. The following conclusions were reached by the 13 PGandE QA auditors:
14
- Many of NSC's findings resulted from an incorrect 15 NSC interpretation of requirements. NSC audited 16 to codes and standards that did not apply and to 17 NSC guidelines (opinions).
18
- Many NSC findings were simply incorrect or could
, 19 not be supported by objective evidence. They i
20 apparently were not adequately researched before 21 conclusions were reached.
22 Pullman's responses to NSC findings were in 23 general correct. Pullman could have strengthened 24 their responses to many of the findings by 25 addressing the applicable codes, standards, or 26 guidelines involved.
l l
i l
1 o As a result of this review, PGandE concluded that 2 the NSC audit did not give an accurate measure of 3 the overall Pullman quality program.
4 5 PGandE AUDIT OF THE PULLMAN POWER PRO-DUCTS OUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM 6
7 In order to confirm that no deficiencies had 8 inadvertently occurred in the physical work, PGandE 9 conducted a thorough audit of the Pullman Quality Assurance 10 Program during April and May 1978. (Wischow Affidavit, 11 Attachment 5). The audit consisted of an in-depth 12 assessment of Pullman's quality program and a detailed 13 inspection of selected installed hardware. The PGandE audit 14 plan was formulated by utilizing codes and standards that 15 were thoroughly researched and verified to be applicable to 16 the time the work was performed.
17 The PGandE audit concluded that Pullman's program 18 essentially fulfilled contract requirements and complied j 19 with requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel 20 code, 1971 edition and, hence, the requirements of Appendix 21 B. Where deficiencies were identified, they were documented 22 in accordance with Quality Assurance procedures and 23 subsequently corrected. (Wischow Affidavit, Attachment 5.)
24 In this connection, PGandE initiated two Nonconformance 25 Reports (DCO-78-RM-004 and -005) and four Minor Variation 26 Reports (MVR-M-3723, -3724, -3725, and -3726). These l
i l
A.
1 problem' reports, which were initiated in mid-June 1978, were 2 all closed by ' early 1979. All problems which had been 3 identified were promptly corrected and the disposition 4 appropriately documented. (Wischow Affidavit, Attachment 7) 5 NRC INSPECTION EFFORTS 6 Another' aspect not to be overlooked with regard to 7 the Pullman work covered by the NSC audit was the ongoing 8 NRC inspection effort.
9 During this period of construction NRC Region V
- 10 Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) Inspectors were conducting
! - 11 unannounced site inspections on roughly a monthly basis.
1 12 NRC Inspection Report 50-275/78-10, 50-323/78-10 documents l 13 the inspection performed on July 10-13, 1978. (Wischow
'14 Affidavit, Attachment 8.) Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the
- 15 details portion of the NRC Inspection report describe the 16 reviews that NRC inspectors made on a routine basis of 17 Quality Assurance audits and nonconformance rep'orting.
18 Paragraph 10 describes an examination of the nine Quality 19 Assurance audits performed during the period from May 25, 20 :1978, through July 6, 1978. The NRC Inspection report 21 concludes that fourteen findings were identified and that 22 corrective actions had been initiated.
. 23 Paragraph 11 describes the review of PGandE Non-
. 24 conformance and Minor Variation Reports' generated since 25 June 3, 1978. PGandE Nonconformance and Minor Variation 26 Reports dealing with Quality Assurance Audit No. 80422 were 1 generated from June 12 to June 15, 1978. The report goes on 2 to say all deficiencies appeared to be properly classified 3 as either an NCR or MVR and no items of non-compliance with 4 NRC requirements were identified by the inspectors during 5 the review.
6 This process reflects that NRC I&E monitored site 7 auditing and problem-solving actions on a routine basis to 8 assure that PGandE and its contractors adhered to quality 9 requirements.
10 CONCLUSION 11 As the foregoing information reflects, the NSC 12 audit was neither an accurate nor a total assessment of the 13 Pullman Quality Assurance Program.
14 Indeed the NSC audit precipitated other audits, 15 which disclosed that the Pullman quality program was an 16 overall acceptable program needing only minor improvements 17 in some areas. Any identified deficiencies were documented 18 in accordance with approved Quality Assurance procedures and 19 promptly corrected.
l l 20 Contrary to Joint Intervenors' assertions, the NSC l
21 audit findings were thoroughly analyzed and appropriate 22 action taken. More importantly, the response to the NSC 23 audit by PGandE and Pullman demonstrates a fully functioning 24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
l
1 cud effective quality program. Therefore, we urge that the 2 Board deny the Motion to Reopen.
3 4 Respectfully submitted, 5 ROBERT OHLBACH PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.
6 RICHARD F. LOCKE Pacific Gas and Electric Company 7 P. O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 8 (415) 781-4211 9 ARTHUR C. GEHR Snell & Wilmer 10 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, AZ 85073 11 (602) 257-7288 12 BRUCE NORTON Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
13 P. O. Box 10569 Phoenix, AZ 85064 14 (602) 955-2446 15 Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company 16 17 18 By __/
Richard F. Locke 19 l
20 DATED: September 21, 1983.
22 23 24 25 26
i' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
1.Y In the Matter of '
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-275 83 SEP 22 m 03
) Docket No. 50-323 ~
Dicbio Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, ) CFa .
Unito 1 and 2 - )
)
00C$nf,Stfcf
3R CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document (s) of Pacific Gas and Electric Company has i (hnvo) been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
.Judga John F. Wolf 'Mrs; Sandra A. Silver Chairman 1760 Alisal Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission W3Dhington DC 20555 Mr. Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street Judga Glenn O. Bright San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory' Commission
- John Phillips, Esq.
Washington DC 20555 Joel Reynolds, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest Judge Jerry R. Kline 10951 W. Pico Blvd. - Suite 300 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Los Angeles CA 90064 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wach'ngton i DC 20555 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
I P. O. Box 1178 Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg Oklahoma City OK 73101 c/o Betsy Umhoffer 1493 Southwood Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Sen Luis Obispo CA 93401 Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Bank Center Jcnice E. Kerr, Esq. Phoenix AZ 85073 Public Utilities Commission
- Bruce Norton, Esq.
State of California 5246 State Building Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
350 McAllister Street P. O. Box 10569 Phoenix AZ 85064 Sen Francisco CA 94102 Mrs. Raye Fleming Chairman 1920 Mattie Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Sh911 Beach CA 93449 Board Panel US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Mr. Frederick Eissler _,
Scanic Shoreline Preservation '
Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Scnta Barbara CA 93105
- Via Sky Courier
Chnirman
- Judge Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Wcchington DC 20555 US Nuclear Regulatory C;; mission.
Washington DC 20555
- S cretary -
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Judge W. Reed Johnson W2ahington DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Attn: Docketing and Service US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Section Washington DC 20555
- Lnwrence J. Chandler, Esq.
- Judge John H. Buck H2nry J. McGurren Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Office of Executive Legal Directcr US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wnchington DC 20555 Washington DC 20555 Mr. Richard B. Hubbard
- Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq.
MHB Technical Associates Susan L. Durbin, Esq.
1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K Peter H. Kaufman, Esq.
San Jose CA 95125 3580 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 800 Los Angeles CA 90010 Mr. Carl Nedberger Talogram Tribune
- Maurice Axelrad, Esq.
P. O. Box 112 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, and Snn Luis Obispo CA 93402 Axelrad, P.C.
1025 Connecticut Ave NW Washington DC 20036
/
Dcto: September 21, 1983
/
Pichard F. Locke
- Via Sky Courier