ML20085B865

Presents Info Proving Hughes Allegations Intimately Connected W/Noncompliance Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-454/82-05,Item 19 Re Reinsp Program

ML20085B865
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	07/05/1983
From:	Whicher J BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FOR THE PUBLIC INTERES
To:	Callahan A, Cole R, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8307080488
Download: ML20085B865 (6)

Text

"

I '

s )gBusiness BPI and Professional People for the Public interest 109 North

Dearborn Street,

Suite 1300

( '3' .

Chicago, Illinois 60602f,. gTe% hone: (312) 6415570 j

/y ~ g July 5, 1983 AY W Jf,,

~j s 1 Y Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Dr. Richard F. Gole Administrative Judge and Chairman Admir.istrati.ve Atomic Safety'and 9tidyf?- g Atomic Safety and Licensing" Boar'd /~-

Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callahan Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5 Union Carbide Corporation P.O. Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Re: In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)

Decket No. 50-454 50-455

Dear Administrative Judges:

The Board's June 21, 1983 " Memorandum and Order Reopening the Evidentiary Record" contemplated:

"a presentation of the I&E findings 454/32-05-19 and 455/82-02-19 leading to the reinspection program and an explanation of the considerations which lead I&E to the con 01:1sion that the reinspection program satisfies the findings if such be the case. If any aspect of the cited I&E findings relate to the allegations against Hatfield currently under investigation by the NRC and the subject of the order above, that information should be presented in detail."

Memorandum and Order Reopening Evidentiary Record at 4-5.

l h r;;,; ,,. =".=  ::= ,.':;-  :=::n,  ;" ,_ m '=.-- -

~~ c",5 ac r." *"#a77;,.. L c.L ~ ~ o-~ -=,;n ,,,,

$$,'"CTL S" % ','."l C 2 "'"'"f0""* *" $".*1* "*" ""'" D1*c #"'I

o' co a '

"'v'J$'1,,

i EE '**f' 0. u.,

m,,

, o ,,., ..

'%',J,

- a n., 4

- .. ~ , D,INU'., Q,';", ';".',*,*,,,,,,,,

,,,_<t

-,,,. a.

EDi'u R BL on J Voltre t;/,""  !*f, L,f,~" /' ',;7 "fo% , =? ,,f.f, j, , w,, ,

.-o.... -o~ w.- ^"=<= aa.a a Ld'<a

(

8307000488 830705 PDR ADOCK 05000454 G PDR

,Ws,O;7

During the conference call of June 29, 1983, attorneys for Commonwealth Edison raised an apparent objection to presenting evidence on the 82-05 program and, at the Board's invitation, presented a series of documents which it contends shows that 62-05 and the reinspection program " involve an issue distinct from that raised by Mr. Hughes." (Letter to Board from Bruce D. Becker, dated June 29, 1983). Thus, Edison is in the position of reques-ting the Board to reconsider its ruling of June 21, 1983 to the extent that ruling involves an evidentiary presentation related to 82-05 and the reinspection program.

The Board's ruling ordering this presentation was apparently based on three documents: the Region III prefiled testimony concerning the finding in 82-05-19 that "QA/QC supervisors and inspectors not adequately qualified and/or trained"; Mr. Tuet-ken's May 9 affidavit (at 13) which involves the 82-05-19 rein-spection program; and the affidavit of Region III officials Hayes and Connaughton relating to a " comprehensive program to reinspect work... initiated primarily because of questionable practices, identified by the NRC, of certifying quality control inspec-t o r s . . . ." (at 16 ) .

Intervenors hereby show the Board that the allegations raised by Mr. Hughes are indeed intimately connected with findings of 82-05-19, 1/

The starting point in this inquiry must be the actual fin-dings of 82-05-19 The Notice of Violation Appendix to 82-05 states, at p.2, with respect to this particular violation:

"10 CFR, Appendix B, Criterion II - Quality Assurance Pro'g-ram states in part, 'The program shall provide for indoc-trination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality as necessary to assure that suitable proficiency is achieved and maintained.'"

A series of ANSI standards are then listed, and the conclusion is stated at p.3:

" Contrary to the above, certain contractor QA/QC supervisors and inspectors were not adequately qualified and/or trained to perform safety-related inspection functions. Examples of apparent noncompliance are identified in paragraph h.(2) of the attached report."

The inspection summary, at pages 67 and 69 provides some illumi-nation on just what Region III inspectors discovered when inspec-ting compliance with 10 CFR App. B:

1/ Although the documents, as well as Edison and the staff, are silent on this matter, it is possible that Mr. Hughes himself may even have been one of the inspectors involved in the 82-05-19 reinspection program.

2

a

" Noncompliance (454/82-05-19: 455/82-04-19)

Based on a review of training qualification and certifi-cation records of a minimum of ten percent of the OA/QC personnel working for contractors performing safety-related work it is apparent that an effective program does not exist to ensure that a nuitable evaluation of initial capabilities is performed, that written cer-tification is provided in an appropriate form, nd that qualification criteria is established.

Certain contractor QA/QC supervisors and inspectors were not adequately qualified and/or trained to perform safety-related inspection functions. The following examples of apparent noncompliance were identified.

eee

e. Contractor - Hatfield Electric Company (1) The certification records for three (3) of the nine (9) inspection qualifinntions reviewed did not contain a Certification Evaluation Sheet.

(2) The certification record for one (1) of the nine (9) QC inspection qualifications reviewed did not have records of examinations or work samples.

(3) The certification records for two (2) of the nine (9) QC inspector qualifications reviewed did not provide complete evaluation and justi-fication for certification to perform the level of inspection identified. (emphasis added)

Edison first responded on July 30, 1982 (letter from W.L.

Stiede to J.G. Keppler). Region III apparently was dissatisfied with that response in three respects:

(1) No committment for a date of completion for review of contractors no longer on site; no plans to verify the adequacy of inspections conducted by unqualified inspectors.

(2) The need for action with respect to assuring adequacy of quality of inspections performed by inspectors who had been

' improperly trained and qualified, and later re-examined and cer-tified.

(3) The need for action to insure that all contractor QA manuals commit to training, qualification, and certification in accordance with ANSI N 45.2.6-1978. (see September 22, 1982 l letter f rom C.E. Norelius to Cordell Reed.)

Edison responded to Mr. Norelius' letter on November 5,1982 (letter from Mr. Stiede to Mr. Keppler) and again on February 23, 3

m O

1983 with a more detailed plan (letter from Mr. Stiede to Mr.

Keppler).

In ensence, then, on the basis of the text of 80-05-19, Edison and Region III correspondence, Mr. Teutken's affidavit, and the affidavit of Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connaughton, Hatfield was improperly qualifying (by training and testing) and certifying inspectors. The importance of ANSI N45.2.6 lies not in what it may or may not require, but in the fact that the standard is a guideline for qualification and certification, and that standard was not being followed.

It it clear that, in spite of Edison's committments to ensure that its contractors change this practice, Ha t field's qualification and certification program was still not in compli-ance while Mr. Hughes was at Byron. That is, the violations uncovered in 82-05-19 are still occuring. As the Board found in its June 21 " Memorandum and Order Ruling on Intervenors' Motion to Admit Testimony of John Hughes":

"[Mr. Hughes] seemed to be rather positive in his memory that he was certified as a QA inspector and betan working in that capacity within two weeks of his assignment to Hatfield on October 1, 1982. Tr. 7059-60; Tr. 7208-09, 7P16. If this is the case, Mr. Hughes' testimony that his training was only perfunctory gathers more credibility.

He would scarcely, if at all, have had time for the training reflected in the Hatfield records. Applicant's effort to demonstrate that he could not have been certi-fled to work as an inspector before October 29 centers .

around Mr. Hughes' GED (high school equvalency) certifi-cate bearing that date. Applicants Deposition Exhibit 37.

High school or its equivalent is essential to certification as a QA inspector. However the GED certificate indicates that Mr. Hughes passed his equivalency test on October 14 and he stated fact about then.thatTr.

he received informal notification of 7201-02. [ footnote omitted).

eea Mr. Hughes' persistence in his claim that his precerti-fication employment was very brief and his specific reference to at least two documents which could corroborate his claira is appropriate haspegsuadedtheBoardthatafurtherinquiry 7

Mr. Hughes testified that the QA supervisor sent him a small brief memo telling him that he was certified as a Level II Hanger Inspector. Tr. 7208-09. He also tes-tified that he had received a preliminary notification card that he had passed the GED test. Tr. 7201."

4 l

y In sum, Mr. Hughes' account of his certification and quali-fication process reflects the very same types of violations found by NRC inspectors during their review of Hatfield's records.

In addition, both Edison and the staff have relied exten-sively on the 82-05-19 reinspection program to buttress their assertions that, to the extent anythi ng in Mr. Hughes' testimony has a bearing on the safety of the Byron plant, the reinspection program will uncover and resolve any extant problems. At the same time, both seek to avoid presenting any evidence of the substance of that program.

Edison has not established the absence of relationship between 82-05-19 and Mr. Hughes' allegations. Indeed, Inter-venors shown that the program and Mr. Hughes' testimony are directly related, for the same violations continue. Therefore, a full evidentiary presentation on findings of 82-05-19 and the resulting program of reinspection should be made, as the Board has correctly ruled.

Very truly yours, Jane M. Whicher JMW/11 cc: Service List l

5

m I

SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith , Chairnan Adminis trative Judge Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor.nission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Uashington, D.C. 20555 Commis s ion

• Washington , D.C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callahan Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary of Union Carbide Corporation the Commission P.O. Box Y ATTH: Docketing & Service Oak Ridge, Tennessee Section 38730 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge David Thomas, Esq.

Atonic Safety and Licensing Board 77 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 60621 Uashington, D.C. 20555 .

Alan P. Bielawski , Erq .

Isham Lincoln & Beale Joseph Callo, Esq.

Three first flational Plaza Isham Lincoln 6 Beale Chicago. IL 60603 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Room 325 Uashington, D.C. 20036 Ms. lietty Johnson 1907 St rat ford Lane Ito ck fo rd. IL 01107

.