ML20091B379

Findings & Conclusions Re Contention VI-I

ML20091B379
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	05/21/1984
From:	Romano F AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL
To:
Shared Package
ML20091B377	List: ML20091B374 ML20091B379
References
NUDOCS 8405300269
Download: ML20091B379 (13)

Text

.

AIR and WATER -

u3CYETC.

Pollution Patrol May 21,15""

BROAD M M U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 84 MY 29 P3:02 Washington, D.C. 20555 FF .: .W.

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING FOAR OC '- '

}Eh In the Matter Of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-352 (Limerick Generating Station 50-353 Units 1 and 2)

AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL (ROMANO) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE CONTENTION VI-I In answer to Judge Brenner's question at page 10,322, lines 11 and 12,it should be obvious that my answer, as a result of no counsel, indicated I did not understand that everything in the documents that the Applicant labeled references would be used as truth. It was cy intention to show the material in the documents lacked credibility.

My difficulty in hearing, together with Judge Brenner's statement of bad acoustics in the hearing room could be responsible for missing the significance of my saying I had no objection at page 10,322 line 14 which I now know prejucil :d my case even before it started. Then again misunderstanding was futher experienced as per page 10,324 line 24 and beyond where the Board also was confused. I feel AWPP's (Romano) rights were abrogated as early as when intervenors were requested to co-ordinate their contentions, including Counsel, so that when with the sudden withdrawal of Counsel, AUPP should have been advised to obtain counsel, or AWPP (Romano) should have been provided counsel by the Court as would be done in other cases involving a citizen suddenly without counsel.

So my first findidg is that, pitted against a battery of lawyers and wit-nesses of Applicant and Staff, obviously favoring the Applicant, a condition ex-isted which did not give equal chance to AWPP from the beginning. Further, the continuous pressure to speed up the hearing, together with the fact that I had a plan to conduct cross-examination which I repeatedly was told was incorrect, G

(2)

AWPP (Romano) Findings and Conclusions Re Contenilon VI-l continued:

further added to the pressure and confusion. Further, as per page 10,344, I was made to feel that I was not to question qualifications as per lines 15 and 16. In this regard, I felt further pressure as per page 10,364, lines 19 to 25, and page 10,365 lines 1 to 13.

I want to add at this point that being told repeatedly that I was getting no-where, what with the absence of Counsel to insure my rights and to provide guidance, the hearings ended with my being told that for all intents and purposes there really was no need for the Findings and Conclusion submission. As the record shows I ob-jected to being told such submission was useless since it appeared the ASLB had already decided the case. I now am submitting my Findings and Conclusions in order to preserve my right to appeal.

As it relates to Qaulity Assurance, Mr. Corcoran admitted, page 10,353 line 4 that sampling is a big part of auditing. . .but not " random, statistical sampling as many people are used to when they hear the word ' sampling'". This is an admission, cs Mr. Corcoran later admits, (as does Mr. Boyer) that sampling was not done by the non-biased random method, but by "j udgement". The proof that Mr. Corcoran did not appreciate the importance of proper sampling is uncontestadly obvious in his crbitrary " judgement" to use the " rule of thumb" thus, for no other reason than judgement he would select 10% of the welds. And even in such unscientific procedure, Mr. Corcoran's"10% rule of thumb" sampling of 423 welds was calculated to be 52 camples. That indicated Mr. Corcoran's total carelessness...a poor example of cupervisory capability. His " judgement", his " rule of thumb" procedure shows he permits an error of 25% (52 instead of 42). AWPP states that such misunderstanding cf the importance of precision of a supervisory person who audits a crucial wuld-ing program, merits noniconfidence in what ever auditing activity in which he was responsible, inparticular weld auditing, as per example above.

A t -

-f (3) 8 'AWPP (Romano) Findings and Conclusions re Contention VI-I continued:

Mr. Corcoran's answers to my questions were permitted to go far beyond my question, wherein he evasively repeated the description of his entire auditing pro-gram when I repeatedly asked him to stick to auditing of welds (see page 10,353, lines 12 to 18) (also see page 10,270, lines 13 to 18).

I find that Mr. Corcoran's long evasive statements were necessary to hide

, 'the very minimal experience and capability he, and most of those he supervised, possessed (see pages 10,361 and 10.362). Mr. Corcoran feels his very limited ex-

-pertence nevertheless qualified him to be an extremely critical supervisor of Quality Assurance in the construction of a multi-billion dollar nuclear reactor nuclear facility where the safety of millions of people is involved. This make-chift, inbred' system also indicts the Nuclear Reguletory Cocmission's inspection cystem in the' Limerick instance, as it has in the many plants which hold inexcus-cble defective Bechtel construction defects. Corroborating the use of the ques-tionable Bechtel inbred system Mr. Frank Coyle became a " Lead Auditor" one month 9

sfter becoming an apprentice auditor. He had, as per page 10,365, line 9, a "one week course in lead auditing". And that was an inbred Bechtel course. In asking Mr. Coyle to limit our discussion of auditing to welding, again, following the lead of Mr. Corcoran, Mr. Coyle refuses to do so as per page 10,365, line 14, Relative to welding, his answer (line 19) shows the lack of appreciation of the importance of welding to safety of the public. After admitting, page 10,365, line 17, that he had no specific training in welding inspection. Mr. Coyle admits he inspected welds without proper training and experience as per his answer to my question at line 22, page 10,365.

Further evidence of the unscientific and quickie methods used in the Quality Assurance program at Limerick which involves welding related activity is seen in Mr. Coyle's statement page 10,374 lines 21, 22, 23. In answereing how he calcu-

(4)

AWPP (Romano) Findings and Conclusions re Contention VI-I continued:

-lates pipe stress analysis. Mr. Coyle fails to explain how he knows "what the material can withstand" upon which he "just calculate (s) the wall thickness required".

Inspite of questions and answers at page 10,375, lines 15 to 25, Mr.

Coyle could no longer evade giving away that he actually did not understand, nor

-was qualified to do testing of pipe stress. Mr. Wetterhahn objected to my question cnd was sustained on the basis of " asked and answered" even though Mr. Coyle avoided answering to that specific point. On page 10.378 Mr. Coyle, line 16 and 17, further corroborated Quality Assurance inspectors and supervisors at Limerick do not appre-ciate nor use scientific statistical welding inspection sampling. The denial of

. a professional statistician (Dr. Iverson) to cross-examine, in effect, prevented proof that the sampling done at Limerick was improper as it relates to achievment of the highest level of confidence which the public safety merits. I find that the ctatements in the defense of the qualifications of Mr. Corcoran and Mr. Coyle re

. w21 ding Quality Assurance were trite, qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient to assure scientifically correct inspection and proper follow-up corrective action.

As it relates to Inspector Clohecy, in spite of an evident effort to further svade, page 10,384, lines.4 to 9, another indication is given of inspectors suddenly and miniminally qualified by the Applicant's inbred training program, to assure walds do not, once the plant is in operation, fail and therefy possibly contribute to a-nuclear accident.

It is unfortunate that scientific random sampling was not done, and when it ccme to the possibility that the proffered witness, Dr. Iverson, could "for other rsasons such as significance and so on" (page 10,416, lines 17 to 21),Mr. Wetter-bzhn objected on dates and listings without concern for the significance that was intended in the above page and line numbers. As it relates to the same page, line t

(5)

PP (Romano) Findings and C .

onclusions re Contention -

VI I continued:

~ 21 cnd 22 the meeting of D

g ta manner ec. 27, 1983 of sampling welds. was not specifica l ly a meeting re-That meeting also ony, v20 for the purpose of M attended by Mr. Robert t3 canrch all records f r. Corcoran and Mr. Wetterhah or what we n instructing us pta th2 Board to might want relative to weldin

\

state that when we asked Mr g activities.

fic' items, instead of answe i

'cv cion with waste of ou r ng, he told me to write

. Wetterhahn him how to find certain on that. The re-4,(during which there was r time required the depositi more on we took on March evasion).

trth2r indications nana i cignificance of Mr. Wetterhahn sure tostatistics ng of beofandthe the un lack of an un of the sampling methods of Dr. Iverson's testimonys i used and the In total pages 10,418 to p seen on page 10.418, lines 12 10, pzg2 10,416 age 10,430, the was never significance which was mentio ned allowed to be tested.Ms. Hodgdon's Q9ctlines16to20indicatesshedoesnot ell ccmpling irrespective understand statement of activity- that statistics en-bec;use the record would no . Lines 15 and 16 prove it had si g-to s21scted". t exc,1ude the important The whole question question of "how the

.nd:p;nd1ntly--not inbred surveyed of Quality Assurance ng could re weldi o focus in on the demonstrated weak weld, had a professional statisti n been y en pegs 10.436, lines 12-16).

\

sampling program (admitted by oman9) feels the j Board knowedkh ind th2 balancing effect of .

e very lop-sided adversarial p osition b

rMiUBd$ and more so for the permitting Dr. stify, lverson to te e escondary to technicaliti record, so that again, concern f or the stes to AWPP's March 6 list of imes offered egal staffs.by high priced l proprieties as it relates to samp-

._..m.. .

._o__

(6)

AWPP (Romano) Findings and Conclusions re Contention VI-I continued:

ling,fics 4PI stated the gus.4rtal was- an ers=p1p of the improper sampling. L felt that introduced the activity which would be contested. Again the need to list every piece involved in the questioned activity was felt unnecessary because of lay-man inexperience. Further on the same pag 9 lines 16 to 22 mischaracterized my cffort. I did not ask that X,Y, and Z be omitted. I believe it is the Applicant which did not want AWPP to include X,Y and Z.

In total Judge Brenner is correct as he states in lines 23 to 25 that for "a complex administrative proceeding such as this one" special preparation is necessary.

This, without the guidance of counsel in the appreciation and preparation of test-imony prevented proper preparation which, in effect, denied intervenor full pro-tection on the one hand, and prevented completion of the record on the other hand.

The absence of counsel also prevented AWPP from properly using witness Dr.

Iverson, who would have shown how erroneous the sampling of welds, a very crucial l

cctivity, was conducted by Applicant.

As I, or anyone else read the transcript, take for example page 10,451, lines 5 to 24, it is obvious that a citizen, without counsel and in a complex adminis-trative procedure, cannot help but fail to properly present naterial according to formally required courtroom procedure, that could be crucial to the safety of the public.

This difficulty was further exacerbated by AWPP (Romano) having been required to change plans. For example, when Dr. Iverson was not permitted to testify, I had to change plans within a fifteen minute break and then was repremanded for being no more than one or two minutes late on a courtroom clock which was five minutes fast.

It is important to state that my submitted Contention was that in the construct-

(7)

AWPP (Romano) Findings and Conclusions re Contention VI-l continued:

ion of the Limerick reactor there was a pattern of carelessness in the various activities, such as concrete, electrical, welding, Quality Assurence involving e cdb inspection etc. The Contention would have been rejectedAhad AWPP not insisted and forced out that there was falsification of records and evidence of improper welding records. AWPP's Contention as submitted was not simply as stated on page 10,466 at lines 12 to 16, but AWPP as per Judge Brenner's reply, page 10,467 at line 2, included checking erroneous welding inspection, sampling, etc.

which then remained hidden because our witness, statistician, Dr. lverson, was not permitted to point out the deficiencies.

AWPP (Romano) feels the Applicant's witnesses, as supported by their Counsel enlongated.their answers thereby evading the question. An example is had on page 10.467, line 25 where AWPP (Romano) asks whether Mr. Corcoran, Quality Assurance Supervisor for the Applicant, has written procedures for his subordinates to follow. The answer given by Mr. Corcoran on page 10,468, lines 3 to 11 gives an apparantly memorized statement (stated the same way numerous times during the hearing), that does not state yes or no as to whether he had written procedures to insure proper select, ion (or any type of selection) of welds. He answers at 10 and 11 saying "so we have procedures which describe how to scope audits". I did not ask him if he had procedures for scoping audits.

At page 10.468 Judge Morris asks to inject himself for a moment (line 12-13).

In that injection it was found that Mr. Corcoran's group did not do inspections of the completed weld (page 10,468 line 19) even though he had created the impress-ion it was he who supervised welding. This impression was re-inforced when he came with Mr. Wettherhan on Dec. 27, 1983 to the document room to help in check-ing welding imfractions.

But Mr. Corcoran stated every safety-related weld is inspected (same page 1

'V (8) 7 AWPP (Romano) Findings and Conclusions re Contention VI-I continued:

line-21-22) even though he didn't do it. On the basis of the 76-06-01 case where repeated changes in having inspected all welds were later found not to have been inspected. I find that Mr. Corcoran again g&ve his opinion since we did not have the inspectros there to prove 100% inspectionr. The fact that Mr. Corcoran and the Applicant know they substituted surveillance for 100% inspection (even claiming 100% was too severe) further proves Mr. Corcoran's use of opinion. Though-out pages 10,471 and 10,472 it is evident Mr. Corcoran does not appreciate proper statistical procedure,and-terminology. AWPP 246A re 50-352/80-21 and 353/80-19 criticizes surveillances as conducted by PECO's Corcoran using improper sampling methods. The same report speaks of suspicion by the NRC of PECO's less than 100%

inspection.

The wsakness of Mr. Corcoran's supervision and understanding of Quality Assur-ance in evident every time he cannot answer a question, going into long evasive ans-wers, such as my question at page 10,476, line 14 and his answer at line 19 to page 10,477 at line 15 and his answer at line 20.

As it relates to 76-06-01 I am submitting the indisputable facts that must be a prime example of the weak and careless Qulaity Assurance program involving welding and record keeping. Further it indicates the poor quality of those involved in the Quality Assurance program and the inspections of welds.

As it realtes to 76-06-01 Mr. Manley at page 10,566, line 19 to 21 says aids (like the broomstick ) are not commercially available, whereas Dr. Fisher said they were. And at page 10,570 line 15 to 22 Mr. Corcoran's supervisory capability is questionable as it relates to rationalizing low-quality work. On page 10,571 line 6, Mr. Corcoran states there are over several million welds at Limerick. The descriptions by Mr. Corcoran of weld quality and inspection requires serious study by the ASEB with "several million welds" involved at Li aerick. The 76-06-01 affair required that Mr. Toth was present. To not have him present prevented the

o

... ._ (9)

'AWPP (Romano) Findings and Conclusions re Contention VI-I continued:

t'

. prevented the veryemost important points in controversey to remain unresolved, which non-resolution resulted in the favor of the Applicant ra.ther than the public. Page 10.599 to page 10,600 demonstrates why without Mr. Toth present my reading that P. E. tried to prevent Mr. Toth from re-inspecti ng the welds was not resolved.

When AWPP (Romano) asked at page 10,609, line 13 if Mr. Corcoran didn't think a better picutre of the entire 76-06-01 question would be had with all inspectors in-volved present, Mr. Wetterhahn, at page 10.609 lines 17 and 18 objected on the basis such common sense was beyond the competence of the witness.

The Bechtel inpsector involved with the 76-06-01 broomstick affair was separ-ated (as used by theApplicant) on the same day the subject weld was re-inspected and found non-conforming but found to be recorded as 0.K. and meeting final veri-fication. It' is obvious to any outsider that the welds, being so deficient were too likely never inspected at all. Isn't that why the inspector was " fired" ?

Applicant claims, however, the separation was a desision of the inspector unre-lated to his inspection duty which Mr. Boyer defended (see question page 10,606 at line 25 to page 10,607 lines 1 to 3, and Boyed answer same page lines 4 and 5.

Also see question and answer same page lines 6 to 15 inclusive.

In answer to the very important question page 10,611 at line 8 as to means by which Quality Assurance Supervisor Mr. Corcoran can assure that an inspector has actually inspected a weld, Mr. Corcoran gives a totally unconvincing answer, lines 11 to 22, page 10,611.

As it relates to Mr. Ferretti and Quality Assurance Mr. Corcoran tried to cover up the absence of Mr. Ferretti's initials on the weld (page 10,615 at line

12) but continuing to page 10,616, through Judge Brennefs questions at line 12 and Mr. Corcoran's evasive answers at line 15 to 21.

AWPP (Romano's) conclusion is the welding and inspection and Mr. Corcoran's

. (10) v -

AWPP (Romano) Findings and Conclusions re Contention VI-I continued:

efforts to whitewash every infraction and suspicious development creates no confidence in any group of citizens listening as jurors.

Mr. Corcoran denied at page 10,845, line 19 to 21 that the NRC cautioned Appli-cant on delays in weld inspections because it could affect access to subsequent, proper inspection of welds. Mr. Corcoran asked that AWPP (Romano) identify when that occurred. Judge Brenner identified it at page 10,846, line 25, but then spared Mr. Corcoran who had denied.he received such caution by, on page 10,847, lines 6 to 8, not.allwoing its use to disprove Mr. Corcoran's denial.

Another indication of sloppy Quality Assurance is evident on page 10,886 line 15 where I ask Mr. Corcoran about thermometers received by a non-qualified Schneider Co. inspector. These thermometers were found to be totally deficient as it relatet to correct readings of the temperature of an oven in which welding rods are heat treated. Mr. Corcoran's answer at lines 22 to 25 indicates that the Quality Control engineer or inspector were deficient in their work because the welding rods were in fact, found by the NRC inspector 100 be improperly heat-treated on the one hand, and found cracked or mercury-separated thermometers,as would have to be the case to have different readings on repeated tries. Further the report showed the inspectors did not know the proper method of thermometer cal-ibration since they finally used the temperature of the oven to calibrate the m th c-w K( Gn d'8 thermometers which is backward. Nowheregdid they state that proper calibration 3dch by American Society of Testing Materials standardized thermomethers. While the Judges may not permit the prorvious statement on the basis of listings, an inspec-tion would show this abysmal deficiency. O, S c Lddu e f s se de +b d4 h [b f E"'I On page 10,932, via questions by Ms. Hodgdon relating to velds that had been inspected by "a certain inspector" (implying Mr. Ferretti and 76-06-01) it is drsclosed against Mr. Boyer's affidavit of September 29, 1983 declaring the accessible and inaccessible welds involved in the 76-06-01 broomstick affair were

e_ .

(11) i e  !

VI-I continued-WPP (Romano) Findings and Conclusions re Contention .

a 10,932 that he inspected all. (finally) taken care of, Dr. Fisher states on page il of 1984.

solds in question as late as March or Apr i k affair" started in 1976 Wh;reas the number of welds involved in the "broomst c 29, 1983 Affi-Boyer's September l involved 350 welds culminated per Mr. Vincent (page 10,933, Cnd 1235, how could Dr. Fisher consult on all these in 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> d vit ct l l tions?

lin o 10 and 11) including inspection of engineering ca cu a t been resolved

' 76-06-01 has no AWPP finds that the entire controversy of tvEn with expert Fisher's ef fort. line 23..AWPP (Romano)

On page 11,046, the hearing is concluded starting at feels the Applicant's witnesses, inparticular c:ntrcry to line 15 of above page, Mr. C;rcoran, were shown to be weak and evasive.

inasmuch as the Findings and Conclusions re-Further AWPP (Romano) feels that on page 11,049 line 6 predjuidices the statement port is routine and fair to permit, de, and it is it implies a decision against AWPP has been ma AWPP'c case in that i s as I stated page 11,050 at u ]l;ss for AWPP to submit Findings and Conclus on ,

lina 10. have provided Counsel the Courts in a case of this typs should AWPP finds that ss-examination based on co that an intervenor would know how to structure isolated its cro infractions cases of welding h

th:

testimony of the Applicant rathern t an decisions by the Supreme Court relative to Recent obtcined through Discovery. ld make counsel mandatory in rccourse a citizen has before judges and lawyers wou this specific case. f i ns since the some IE reports have indicated welding in ract o It seems that continue until If this is so, this Contention must #

March 6 listing deadline. D #

3<4. M^

those items are investigated. /fa

(12)

V

_AWPP (Romano) Findings and Conclusions re Contention VI-I continued:

The 76-06-01 Broomstick Affair" is the tip of an iceberg at Limerick of Titanic proportions.

Starting with the discovery of one(?) welder's denied non-qualifying action and disgraceful performance that speaks of Limerick's Quality Assurance supervision, plus the Bechtel and Licensee inspectors' obvious contempt for the need to inspect welds that are not easily accessible then re- ,

cording such welds as 0.K., but with no intitals of the inspector on the weld as was required. (another indication he never inspected that weld and who knows how many others) altogether paints a picture of an accident waiting to happen .

But the more contemptible effort by the Quality Assurance and Welding In -

spection groups, and the Applicant's highest officers in having their Counsel mtke /f repeated $tatements to create a coverup of evidence of wholesale  :

careless n:ssA ound'at other construction activities of the Bechtel people who are build -

ing Limerick, proves that the effort now is to protect billions rather than con-sideration of the safety of the people, ,

1 4

Respectfully submitted, s

\.

• b MJ .: .

AIR 4 WATER POL UTION PATROL FrankAL. Romano ~, Chairman R. . %

~

~; ,

y -Q,

. r'z ,)w:wp-~J

.n 2..xm r O 2 #~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• .m q n N

me

~..

b w

2 R

L*u 4'.;

41*f, o b