ML20093H731
| ML20093H731 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1984 |
| From: | Romano F AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093H717 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8410160365 | |
| Download: ML20093H731 (72) | |
Text
.
AIR and WATER W Pollution Patrel W!"
BROAD AXE, PA. October 10, 1984 U.S. Nuclear Regulato-y Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 4 00T 15 21:50 i
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL In The Matter of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos.50-352 (Limerick Generating Station and 50-353 Units 1 and 2)
APPEAL OF AIR & WATER POLLUTION PATROL (ROMANO) RE ITS CONTENTIONS DENIED BY THE BOARD IN ITS SECOND PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION OF AUGUST 29, 1984 (2nd PID)
On September 10, 1984, Air and Water Pollution Patrol filed an appeal re its Contentions denied by the Board (in its Second Partial Initial Decision of August 29, 1984 (2nd PID), namely carburetor ice (V-4) and welding deficiencies (V-1)
As it relates to V-4, AWPP (Romano) contends:
Neither the Applicant nor the Staff have adequately considered the potential for carburetor icing on aircraft flying into the airspace that may be aff-ected by emissions from the Limerick cooling towers.
The Applicant's fundemental basis is that at a distance from the cooling towers of about a quarter of a mile, the temperature and hu-midity differences between the plume and the ambient air are insig-nificant.
, The Thomson Penn State test was used as the basis for that proof.
The Applicant's witnesses did not perform that test and, further, the purpose of that test was not the determination of how far the plume traveled.
The Applicant states the plumes would not present a potential carburetor icing hazard different from the naturally occurring atmos-phere, because an airplane could not remain in such a small region 8410160365 841010 PDR ADOCK 05000352 O PDR
c AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(2)
AWPP Appeal re its Contentions Denied by Board in 2nd PID continued:
of the plume for more than a few seconds. This is rebutted by the Staff's own witness Mr. Geier, who testified carburgtor ice can form
^
instantaneously. (Geier's written testimony at A-4) '
Furthermore, Applicant states that even if conditions in the en-tire plume, up to about 10 miles, were significantly different from the surrounding air, it would be highly unlikely that an airplane would, or even could, remain in the plume long enough for sufficient carburetor ice to accumulate to cause engine failurd, which the Appli-cant further states could be as much as eight minutes, is totally con-tradicted by Geier at A-4.*
At A-4 of 2nd PID the Board says there is ample timely notice to the pilot due to symptoms of the degraded engine performance, and gauges, that ice is accumulating. There are no gauges to tell that ice is forming in 99.9% of planes used in the Limerick area. Also Aereo Magazine November 1980, Alfred R. Puccinelli,page 8 states "
carb ice forms in a very underhanded manner. It can come on very rapidly, cuase its sometimes lethal effects and disappear before the FAA can detect it*" Further the Board was not told of the four or five similarities of the symptoms for carburetor ice as against other mal-functions as per water in gas, vapor lock, dirt in gas, improper gas.
Applicant avers that pilots must face normal variations in tem-perature and humidity conditions over relatively small changes in air-space locations of greater magnitude than variations which would be presented by cooling tower plumes. But AWPP states pilots are advised by Flight Service Stations at such conditions, whereas no advice is given for peculiar, localized conditions for a pilot unfamiliar with the Limerick reactor plume conditions.
Mr. Geier as a flight instructor also testified there is no FAA requirement to check for damage to rented airplanes before a plane is re-rented. Therefore, some mechanical problem could give the same symptoms as carburetor ice, and if caru.betor heat was applied, it could o " Safety Corner" by, Thomas A Horne " Carburetor Ice Still A Threat" as in AOPA Pilot, pl10 "... warning could be too late because it has been shown that carborotor ice can form & shut down an engine in h minute".
AIR and WATER m ._ Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(3)
AWPP Appeal re Its Contentions Denied By Board In 2nd PID continued:
reduce power to the point of a stall and possible tragedy.
Mr. Geier's written testimony stated the Limerick airport flight pattern was a standard lef t hand pattern, when in fact, because of the proximity of the towers, it was changed to left in one direction and right in the other direction. Further, Mr. Geier, testified that a pilot could always radio the Limerick field for information. But in cross examination by AWPP Mr. Geier admitted the fie'ld did not have to answer a calling pilot whether they were present in the field office or not. I state this to show the need especially at Limerick to avoid a tragedy, and the Board was wrongly influenced by Geier.
While Applicant and Staff (at A-6 of 2nd PID) testified all pilots were taught thoroughly on the use of carburetor heat, the Private Pilot a generally used instructional book for students shows barely more than 1 paragraph devoted to handling carbuertor ice. Totally undisputed.
The fact that pilots with as much experience as the Applicant's wit-nesses had carburetor ice accidents, indicated carburetor ice can sneak up on any pilot, but more so a student pilot who gets disorien-ted.*
At page 8 (of the 2nd PID) at A-8,the Board states an aircraft would not, indeed could not, reasonably remain within the influence of a plume within a quarter of a mile of the cooling tower for more than a few seconds, however, Mr. Geiger testified that ice can form instantaneously. Even \ mile and few seconds is longer than instan-taneously (also see forgoing reference Aerio Magazine-Puccinelli, p8 November 1980) and " Safety Corner" by Thomas Horne (precceding page).
Under A-9 of 2nd PID the Board states that the Applicant, without any reasonable contradiction re differences in Keystone vs Limerick towers has established by the overwhelming preponderance of the evi-dence that the Limerick cooling tower plumes will not have temperature and moisture conditions significantly different from the ambient air see table 6 of Light Aircraft Piston Engino...carb. ice Krug testimony attachment B
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(4)
AWPP Appeal re Its Contentions Denied By Board In 2nd PID continued:
beyond a quarter mile from the tower. However, AWPP disputes that it is a " reasonable contradiction". The towers were different and nowhere in the Thomson test was carburetor ice at certain distances from the tower even mentioned.
At A-11 of 2nd PID the Board states the operation of towers of the type used at Limeri.ck creates visible plumes of water vapor which will condense to form a visible plume approximately 50 to 80 percent of the time. Therefore, as much as 50 percent of the time, the plume will be invisible, and pilot response to the possibility of carbur-etor ice connot take place to avoid carburetor ice. Also under A-ll the Board states the humidity content at or near full power will be saturated irrespective of ambient inlet air drawn into the tower.
This is contradictory to Smith at Tr-6639.
Re A-13 of 2nd PID, Smith at Tr 6408-10, says a plume rising in-to air that is already saturated and therefore .. will blend into and become part of the ambient cloud deck. AWPP contends that cloud deck could be at the pattern altitude of the Limerick air-port. Such low cloud deck in calm saturated air could move slowly over the airport traffic pattern as close as 1 mile away--which is more than k mile vertically and/or horizontally.
r AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(5)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied by Board in 2nd PID continued:
Smith, at Tr.6238,8334 C 6619, An stating plumes rise tar above 1000 feet, ' admitted' Pl umes beyond the mile principle, upon which the Applicant's entire case depends,is often the case.
.At A-15 of the 2nd PID, the testimony related to tests at the Keystone El ant re invisible plumo c, However, it was not the purpose of the Thomson Penn State Keystone experiment to sbudy invisible plumes, or distances from tower that the plume traveled. Further, none of the witnesses took part in the Thomson study of the Keystone cooling towers in Western Pennsylvania (App. Ex. 13). Further, no-where in thc thomson study is the word invisiible plume even used.
Smith, at Tr 6259, 6279,6405, and 6418 as per A-15 of 2nd PID refers to Applicant's witness stating the Keystone study "was expressly to ,
determine conditions inside and outside the visible and invisible plumes". It was not to study temperature and humidity at different distances from the tower upon which the Applicant claims its \ mile from tower basis for saying there will be no increa#cd potential for carburetor ice at Limerick. Further at A-15, top of p 12, Smith says the technique used at the Keystone plant experiment enabled the researchers to intersect the so-called invisible portion of the plume with great regularity. Tr 6262,6279, 6419-20,6459 (Smith) . But Smith contradicts such testimony (see Tr6260-lb) where he stated "they (Keystone] had a very difficult time finding anything at all,no matter what altitude they flew at, or how many passes they mado".
This testimony contradicts statement in A-16 of the 2nd PID.
Under A-18 of the 2nd PID, the last sentonce infers AWPP (Romano) did not contradict Tr.6424-25 by Smith and Tr.7033 by Markoc. But at this time I protest to your Panel that I was not given my legal right to cross examine- as my own witness a$ Judge Brenner had, be-fore the hearings, told me I would have.
r AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(6)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied by Board in 2nd PID continued:
At A-19 of the PID, the Board agreed with the 5 mile from tower principle which relied heavily cn the Thomson Keystone study. Ilow-ever, no where was distance from tower---or dewpoint discussed as proof that the wintensses' testimony was based on valid facts rather then biased opinion.
Under A-20, the Board's statement, page 14,that "AWPP's repre-sentative showed an unfortunate apparent inability t'a understand the testimony" is a personal attack on a citizen effort. It demonstrates that factual evidence is not the only basis in this case. Further, the Board takes obviously biased license in utating (p 14) that "AWPP seems to believe that the testimony that plumes will not affect carburetor icing beyond a quarter mile from the tower means that App-licant and Staff believe that plumes longer than a quarter mile will not exist". AWPP does not believe that at all. Itow can the Board deal in personal feelings as to what an intervonor thinks?
Because the Board so interprets AWPP's understanding, AWPP feels the Appeal Panel's duty in to insure I have an unbiased, non-personal judgement of AWPP's testimony as it re-examines the record. In the same A-20, the Board speaks of " uncontradicted" testimony by Appli-cant's witnesses. But AWPP showed contradictions by Smith (Tr. 6260 at 15 and at 6262 at 13-14-15) A further contradiction by Smith, as interpreted by the Board in A-13, and A-22, is shown when Smith at Tr. 6400-10 testified that a plume Nill blend int.o and becomo part of the ambient cloud deck." Fig. 9 (Cooling Towers and The Environ-ment (Smith, et al) shows plume r'asing over 3500 feet right through the cloud deck. Also, 3500 feet is far beyond \ mile .
At A-24 the Board incorrectly stated "AWPP's assertion that the Limerick cooling tower plumes will lead to increased aircraft carburetor icing ignores the fact that the conditions causing car-buretor ice formation are well understood and that steps have been
c
- /
AIR and WATER W Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(7)
I'dPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied by Board in 2nd PID continued:
taken to assure that it does not present a significant problem to pi-lots who are reasonably attentive. (Smith and Seymour, ff. Tr.6234,at 8; Geier, ff, Tr. 6883, at 2-4; Krug, f f . Tr. 6 8 8 3, at 2-3) " . AWPP ' states whil.
conditions causing carburetor ice are well understood, steps have not "been taken to assure that it does not present a significant problem to pilots who are reasonably attentive". See Attachment B of Mr.
Krug's testimony, Light Aricraft Piston Engine, et".ep 10, table 6 showing even certified Flight Instructors involved with carburetor' ice-ing accidents.
At A-26, the Board reveals the Applicant relied on another indir-cet experiment in which their witnesses did not take part, namely, the use of an automobile engine on the ground. AWPP states that experi-monts not done with an airplane, where other air conditions enter into the experiment to more exacay normalize the effects in the air, invalidate the results.
The Board states, according to Seymour "such studies are done in a laboratory because it is difficult to find optimum conditions for carburetor ice accumulation occurring naturally".Tr.6507-08 (Seymour),
AWPP states, these optimum conditions are casily found as per Smith and Seymour. ff Tr. 6234 at 8-9. At A-27 p 17;68'F and 100% hum-idity la casiily found as stated in Smith 6234. Also sco weather records.
At A-27 it is repeated that without carburetor heat it would take eight minutes of flying time for enough carburetor ice to accumulate to cause a 25 rpm reduction in engine speed. AWPP repeats that Geler, admitted carburetor ice can form instantly but at ff Tr. 6883 at 2 his statements are opinion and not what happones with flyers. In fact his testimony at Tr. 6883 was an attempt to cancel his statement which ; undoes the Applicants position at A-27.
A-28 includes a further attempt to change the damaging testimony that carburetor ice can form instantaneously. This means carburetor
1 AIR and WATER '
Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(8)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied By Board in 2nd PID continued:
ice can and does form without warning. Further evidence that witness Geier contradicts himself is seen in his subsequent testimony (Tr. 7001-03 (Geier) . By the time carburetor ice forms, in particular during a landing at Limerick when the pi-lot could use' cxtra hands, engine failure could result in trag-edy, especially a student pilot who is forced into,a go-around.
The statement'of Smith Tr. 6249 flys against statements of Smith re saturated air conditions in the plume as stated previously herein. For example, three degrees lower and twen-ty percent higher humidity could result in conditions conduc-ive bowhat would be necessary in many cases to form carburetor icejas any physicist would agree. While Smith and Seymour again attempt to resurrect the quarter mile--8 minute princ-iple,the written testimony of Geier that carburetor ice can form instantly disproves their opinions.
Under A-31 and 32, it is the Board which is unrealistic regarding carburetor icing. The Board feels the solution, as biasedly presented by Applicant and Staff witnesses, to all problems that are, or appear to be due to carburetor icingsare solved by just depressing the crude carburetor heat leaver.
(See Krug, Attachment A, table 6 showing long experienced in-structors crashing due to complexity of the carburetor ice problems).
l The Board, because of ambigious testimony, missed the point that carburetor ice, too many times, does not show up until too late. For the Board to convey in A-33 that " carburetor ice can be removed in seconds by the use of carburetor heat (as per 6364-67; 6376-78; 6383-84; 6668-71 (Seymour) and Tr. 7004-05; ff 6883 at 4-5) is to set a trap that might bring possible tra-gedy to 50% of pilots flying in the Limerick area. Such state-ments ignore many confusing factors, at times when split-sec-
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrel l BROAD AXE, PA.
(9)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied By Board in 2nd PID continued:
ond decisions must be made, including freezing of the carbur-etor heat cable, preventing its use.
Also in A-33 the Board says "AWPP agrees that if carbur-etor heat is used, ice will not form (Tr. 6825)", but AWPP's agreement was conditioned on ice not yet having formed unknow-ingly beyond correction, and if the very confusing indications of carburetor ice is not a false alarm due to other causes that give the same indication as carburetor ice. (Indications like vapor lock, dirty gas, the wrong gas, magneto problems, or other engine malfunctions).
Also at A-33, Seymour (Tr. 3676-81; 6628-29) says " car-buretor ice would not cause instantaneous engine failure with-out significant noticable symptoms alerting the pilot to the problem". AWPP responds that if the problem reached "signifi-cant noticable symptoms", it would require split-second decis-ions, and the incorrect use of carburetor heat for a problem having the confusing symptoms of carburetor ice, but not due to carburetor ice, could result in power losa sufficient to cause engine damage, a stall and a probable crash. The AOPA Air Safety Foundation Operational Flyer, Volume 2, Number 1, last sentence of 2nd paragraph in 3rd colum on first page (enclosed) states: " Leaving the [ carburetor] heat on (as in the improper analysis of the symptom suggesting carburetor ice]
could seriously reduce the amount of power available and could (further] damage the engine. Thus the significant noticable symptoms Seymour talks about with the applica. tion of car-buretor heat could cause an accident rather than prevent it.
At ff Tr. 6883 at 4-5 Geier is quoted as saying "A tr-ained pilot would not be likely to confuse the indications of other engine problems,with the accumulation of carburetor iceI I
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(10)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied By Board in 2nd PID continued:
To show that statement is incorrect see Krug, Attachment B, Light Aircraft Piston Engine Carburetor Ice Detector / Warning Device Sensitivity / Effectiveness, June 1982, Federal Aviation Administration Introduction-page 1-enclosed.
At A-34, testimony the Board received led them to state that "a pilot should be able to remedy a carburetor ice prob-lem after detection", but as in forgoing reference (Krug, Att-achment B, p 1 at bottom) such testimony could not refute the fact that there is no instrument to detect carburetor ice.
On this point of detection, at A-35 the Board states
" pilots are trained to apply heat at the first indication (de-tection' ) of an icing problem". But as referenced above by the FAA, there is no reliable instrument, let alone judgement of the pilot to know when there is, quoting the Board, "the first indication of icing". As quoted before in " Safety Cor-ner by Thomas Horne, April 1980 AOPA Pilot (top of page 110)
(enclosed) quote: "... ice can form and shut down an engine in less than half a minute under the right circumstances".--that's certainly in less than 3 minutes which Smith states in forgo-ing, and certainly shows engine failure would happen because the pilot has no reliable way of obtaining what the Board de-scribes as the first indication of an icing problem. That first indication , as statistics of fatalities show, could and does come after it is too late.
At Tr.6673-75 Seymour; and Krug (Tr. 7042) state "the po-tential for carubretor ice is less when the throttle is fully open, as at take off. But this is contradicted by Krug's Att-achment B, see Table 3, page 7, which shows carburetor ice tecidents at take of f which is always at full power, between 1976-1980 was 66 , whereas it was 15 at cruise power, that
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(11)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied By Board in 2nd PID continued:
is when throttle is not fully open.
At footnote 2, bottom of page 21 of the 2nd PID Geier (Tr. 7101-02) as it relates to the Limerick airport, and in his written testimony, he was wrong both in pattern direction and altitude, testifying that lowest heights at the airports would be above 1200 fed 4 again disproving the mfle from tow-er principle. As it relates to Geier's testimony dealing specifically with the Limerick airport, Applicant and Staff attorneys agreed to cvass out wrong facts about the Limerick airport before AWPP (Romano) had a chance to show, during cross examination, that Geier did not really know what the condit-ions ct the Liermick airport area were, and therefore, ressited
.i n - having baised the Board because of his high position with the FAA.
While it is not too important, I give an example of test-imony that could be misleading. The Board at A-36, on the basis of testimony by the Applicant and Staff witnesses, wrote that "the pilot normally applies carburetor heat on the down-wing leg "even if there is no indication of carburetor ice". The Board continues "an increase in engine rpm after the carburetor heat is applied is an indication that carbur-etor ice was present and the heat eliminated it".
First that is wrong because carburetor heat is applied not l on the start of the downwind leg, but is at the end, just be-i fore the base leg. The Board then is unfluenced to write that "an increase in engine prm after the carburetor heat is applied is an indication that carburetor ice was present and that the heat eliminated it". If that statement were correct it would
F -
]
AIR and WATER l Pollution Patrol !
BROAD AXE, PA.
(12)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied by Board in 2nd PID continued:
mean that varburetor ice was present before the pilot put on the carburetor heat--that is, before he knew it was there.
Thus the testimony that carburetor icing is easily detected is disproved. The fact that carbuertor ice sneaks up on the pilot, with conditions suddenly encountered as in the localized, high moisture conditions caused by the tower exhaust (35 million gal-lons per day). '
"As required" in a flight manual, as defined by Geier at Tr.6890; 7007-07 (see A-36) quote: "means that normal procedure is to leave tha carburetor heat on throughout the approach".
On its face thet is incorrect. "As required" means, as it states, carburetor heat is to be used when and if a pilot knows he needs it, and not routienly throughout the approach.
Under A-38, the Board's statement that it is not their conclusion that aircraft can have tragic accidents unless due to pilot failure to use well established procedures and avail-able equipment. AWPP again refers the Board to the references cited, and to the accidents cited, one reference being Krug's Attachment B--tables 6-7 etc and points (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) page 20 Krug attachment B.
Further under A-37 The Board states application of full power after carburetor heat is removed, ameliorates icing po-tential; That statement would suggest that the use of full power always lessens the icing potential . Table 6 of Krug, Attachment B, disputedly shows more carburetor ice accidents at takeoff (full power) than at cruse (less than full power).
And carburetor heat is not always removed in order to depend on full power to protect against carburetor icing. Under cer-l l
1 AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(13)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied By Board in 2nd PID continued:
icing conditions carburetor heat is applied purposely on take off with full power, demonstrating again, the complexity of the problem of carburetor ice and heat application .
AWPP agrees with the Board when the Board states, in A-38, that carburetor ice is a well recognized potential hazzard...
but it [the Board) fails to recognize that procedures and in-struments are not available, but Indroduction, p-l Krug, attach-ment B, previously referenced in full, will aid the Board in re-cognition of the problems and its deadly effects.
Under A-39, the Board states "any variation between the cooling tower plumes and the ambient air is insignificant when compared to the much larger normal temperature and moisture vari-ations over relatively small changes in location (meaning short distances] that pilots face in routine flights through ambient air". Unfortunately, no weather records were shown to prove such statement.
AWPP feels that conclusion resulted from biased, incomplete ambigious testimony. The k mile from tower at Limerick was not conclusively shown but was extrapolated from experiments mostly not done by Applicant's witnesses. The Board's conclusion is wrong because the effectiveness of carburetor heat preventing carburetor ice was not shown; the training of pilots to insure carburetor icing would not occur was not shown, and the presence of instruments to detect carburetor ice are not present in 99%
of the planes flying in the Limerick area, nor does the FAA app-rove them or consider them reliable. With a large percentage of students flying low over the reactor area and with a radio guide one mile from the reactor area, thus concentrating stud-ent and low-time flyers. the unsuspected, localized conditions
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied By Board in 2nd PID continued:
for carburetor ice insures increased potential for carburetor ice...and accidents.
Based on all the above, AWPP's contention does have merit requirring special attention. Even if the quarter mile princi-ple were correct, a plane is permitted by FAA rules to fly with-in 500 feet of the reactor tower (another hazard potential) which is well within one-quarter mile. e While the Applicant's witnesses mostly gave opinions on tests they did not themsleves do, the opinions they gave were not fact, as shown by examples of contradictions and ambiguities in the witnesses own statements. Therefore, AWPP's contention that there was inadequate consideration for increased carburetor ice potential has merit, and pleads the Atomic Seafety and Lic-encing Appeal Panel consider the consequences'that can be a-voided. The Board must require a study under " socked in" stag-nant conditions that shut down many airports even when it occ-urs naturally. Such condition can result more often because of the Limerick plume. Further, with invisible moisture plume acc-umulations 50% of the time at Limerick a dead 3v invisible " sock-ed in" condition can trap unsuspecting student or low-time pi-lots.
In Summary, The Board was further impressed by the opinions of Applicant and Staff witnesses who stated carburetor ice was really not a problem first because it is easily detected if present. Second-ly, carburetor ice cannot be confused with any other indication.
Thirdly, carburetor ice is easily gotten rid of in just seconds by the pilot simply depressing the crude carburetor ice lever.
However, the references provided by AWPP, based on experi-ence and fact (and not opinion) refute the opinions on which the l
Board made its decision to discard AWPP's carburetor ice conten-
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrel BROAD AXE, PA. I (15)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied By Board in 2nd PID continued:
tion.
The references are facts including fatality figures that give tragic proof, the witnesses are wrong as detailed in Light Aircraft Piston Engine Carburetor Ice Detector /Narning Device, Sensitivity / Effectiveness June 1982 (DOT /FAA Ct. 8444). For example page 20, (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) where #4 stated " Performance degredation may not be caused by ice formation", thus refuting the Applicant and Staff witness testimony that every pilot knows the performance degradation means carburetor ice.(also see (2) & (6) .
The undeniable proof that the Applicant and Staff position lacked validity, as it relates to the simplicity of taking care of carburetor ice, must lead the Appeal Board to closely check AWPP's testimony that shows the " quarter mile from tower prin-ciple", upon which the Applicant and Staff will permit risk to pilots in the Limerick area, is similarly biased and not based on "beyond-a-reasonable-doubt" fact.
1 l
l
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrel BROAD AXE, PA.
(16)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied By Board In 2nd PID continued:
Relating to AWPP Contention VI-I:
Philadelphia Electric}s Quality Assurance and Quality Control program apparantly operated since begining of con-struction in 1974 on the principle that if the NRC inspectors find bad concrete, cut reinforcing rods, bad welds, or hun-dreds of other violations actually described in the hundreds and hundreds of reports of violations, then Applicant will fix it.
Therefore, as it relates to AWPP Contention VI-I, AWPP appeals the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board as delineated starting page 99 of the Second Partial Initial Decision dated Aug. 29, 1984.
I appeal because my contention was changed by the Board and in so doing emasculated the force of the contention.
That central contention as originally submitted by AWPP (Ro-mano) without doubt would show an absolute " Pattern of Care-lessness" (the oringinal contention). This pattern was read-ily demonstratable on the bisis of hundreds of official Nuc-lear Regulatory Commission Inspection and Engineering (IE) reports on inspections since 1974.
The reports AWPP studied, as an example give details on careless workmanship irrespective of where or what the activity was as it might ultimately affect safety of millions of people within thrity miles of Limerick. I refer to care-less workmanship in concrete mixing and placement (see IE report 76-09 dated 10/13/76). The carelessness did not just border on contempt, it actually and blatantly was contemp-tious of specified written procedure. The degree of contempt is obvious when following the finding of improperly mixed con-crete, the Quality Control Inspection Reports (see 76-09-03 enclosed) tried to hide the incident. Those who were respon-
1 1
. \
l AIR and WATER I Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(17)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied by Board in 2nd PID continued:
sible for reviewing the situation did not do so; that the de-cision to let the improperly mixed concrete remain was not done on the basis of an engineering analysis; and that the bad concrete mistake was not reported as per specified reporting procedure when mistakes are made. The foregoing suggests a purposeful effort bordering on the criminal as it relates to public safety. Subsequent to the improperly mixed and placed concrete incident, indications are that the incident must have involved much more concrete than reported in the 76-09-03 re-port. On removing scaffolding, huge voids in the drywell wall surrounding the reactor core were found, some as much as 67 I#d6 long in a 72 avch wall as described in IE Reports.
In the effort to determine what effect these voids would have on the integrity of the crucial drywell wall, it was ne-cessary to fire-cut the steel shell of the reactor pressure vessel. Four 10" X 12" sectons were cut out, and on the basis of those approximately four square feet out of possible thou-sands of square feet of the inside surface of the reactor pressure vessel, a decision not based on proper statistics was made that ruled the entire inside surface of the reactor dry well wall was free of voids. In that process, the four plates had to be re-welded back on to the steel shell, there-by creating another questionable weakened unit in the extreme-ly crucial reactor core area.
To repeat, because the " Pattern of Carelessness" was im-properly denied, I appeal the decision of the Board because that integrity of the steel pressure vessel wall and the su-rrounding seven foot thick drywell concrete wall may be the cause of some future accident if not re-evaluated.
AIR and WATER i l
t - - Pollution Patrol !
BROAD AXE, PA.
(18)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied by Board in 2nd PID continued:
But there were hundreds and hundreds of other careless infractions involving such contemptious carelessness as throw-ing bundles of re-inforcing rods into concrete, careless of the effect on strength and the specified procedure requiring distances between rods (J. A(Mfp..aV /9 - 7&oS) . There were some instances of such contempt that some workers would anon-imously report such things as bolts that were put in place even though they could not reach the threads into which they were supposed to attach. There were reports of drills that could only be given out (because of damage they could do) with special sign-out and logging. When records were inspec-ted many drills were gone without any record...obviously sto-len, acain showing contempt of Quality Assurance and gener-ally lax control that even manifested itself in incidents of careless sabotage of electrical conduits.
In spite of hundreds of these items the Board would not permit looking into the " Pattern of Carelessness" contention AWPP wanted litigated.
In fact as stated, page 99 at D-2 of 2nd PID, the Board admits rejecting AWPP's contention, although the Board did not say it had done so prematurely since it v/ A ~ de/s had to...
but in its own arbitrary form which I protected at the Oct.
17-18, 1983 meeting on Phonexville, Pa.
The arguemnt that AWPP's instances of infractions were ,
taken from NRC inspection reports and, therefore,- known,did not at all minimize the description of carelessness while such argument also indicates laxity of the NRC in premiting repeat infractions as occured with welding. It was also un-fair for the Board to argue how AWPP found infractions since there was no other way for a citizen group to do it otherwise.
AIR and WATER l Pollution Patrel BROAD AXE, PA.
(19) l
\
AWPP Appeal Re Contention Denied by Board in 2nd PID continued: '
l i
AWPP (Romano) does think, however, that even mention of the point of AWPP's use of IE inspection reports for its infor-mation rather than some other way indicated bias by the Board.
During the period previous to the Board's premature re-jection, AWPP wrote persistantly that statements being made by the Applicant re the " Broomstick Affair" (IE 76-06-01),
were incorrect, and that the Board was in error in seeking AWPP's dismissal.
AWPP regards the above as an example of unfairness since the Board should not have written my contention was being re-jected while they looked into my allegations. They should have looked into the allegations (which were found to be true)
BEFORE AWPP's contention was rejected. Further evidence of bias by the Board is evident in the fact that after AWPP (Ro-mano) forced the Applicant to admit, after repeated statements that they inspected all welds, that they really did not do so, the Board improperly stated it was the Applicant who brought the lack of total inspection to the notice of the Board (see D-9 at page 104, where it states:"... incompleteness was dis-covered and corrected by Applicant...".
Further evidence of bias is seen under D-6, where the Board arbitrarily " held it was unnecessary for the Applicant to follow the normal course and file its proposed findings of fact first" because nothing AWPP said mattered, whereas every-thing the Applicant said had merit. In changing the normal course, it prejudged AWPP's case previous to the end of the hearing with adverse effect on continuance by its represen-tative, Mr. Romano, as Mr. Romano protested to Mr. Brenner at the time.
Further, AWPP totally rejects the statements in D-13,
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(20)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied by Board in 2nd PID continued:
page 105 that the facts, such as in the 76-06-01 Btoomstick Affair was truthfully stated. In fact Mr. Vincent Boyer, in excusing the improperly preformed weld stated in the March 15, 1984 Deposition of David T. Clohasy and Vincent S. Boyer at Philadelphia electric's 2300 Market Street building, at page 54, line 6, that a welder, following a specified procedure could in his " view" decide the weld's appropriateness. Per-haps that's why there were so many improperly performed welds.
Further showing that deviation from written specified proce-dure was condone'd all the way up to Mr. Boyer, Vice President for Nuclear Power for Philadelphia Electric, Mr. Boyer, in the effort to erase the careless example of improper welding, fo'llowed by improper inspection said.the inspector could use his own " judgement" (see Deposition page 92, from line 13 through page 93 line 22) , (see 76-06-01 Chronology Packet).
Enclosed is the Deposition showing evasion by Mr. Clohecy who appeared in place of Mr. Corcoran, whom we requested since he was head of the Quailty Assurance group. AWPP asks that Ti re theAppealBoardPanelreadthe[Nepo.sition which gives a picture different than the hearing testimony. d' go e There is no doubt that the inspector, underjFailure to Weld Structural Steel per AWS Code, in using a broomstick was not following the specified code...and that the improper-ly performed weld resulted. At Ceposition page 46, lines 8 to 12 Mr. Boyer defends the practice by rationalizing the ANS procedure;while stating what should be used, did not state what should not be used. Also related to the Broom-stick Affair and Mr. Boyer's rationalizing efforts, at page M
98, lines 7 to 10,AWPP asks Mr. Boyer to proveAall inaccess-able welds were inspected by chipping away the concrete.
AIR, and WATER Pollution Patrel BROAD AXE, PA.
(21)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied by Board in 2nd PID continued:
In the 2nd PID, page 100 at D-3, last pargaraph, the Board refused to admit Professor Iverson, statistician of Swarthmore College, because of a time technicality that should be made admissible, nevertheless, considering a citizen group without any attorney and without attorneys and resources of the Applicant. Further the Board states "in any event [ Pro-fessor Iverson's testimony] did not relate to any of AWPP's specified instances", and "was not sufficiently probative to-wards any matter relating to quality assurnace of welding to be admitted as late testimony" (Tr.10, 428-4 35, 11,931 (Brenner) .
AWPP appeals that statistics are very much involved with any quality assurance and quality control program.
Dr. Iverson's testimony and/or cross examination could have aided the record in determining whether auditing of welds were done on sufficiently valid statistical sampling methods. Dr. Iverson's statistical analysis would have shown the shortcoming evidenced in the " deposition" of Mr. Boyer and Mr. Clohecy who used structured " judgement" in weld samp-ling, rather than random sampling and scientific statistical pro 6edures. (see page 98 starting with line 17 through page 103, line 16).
On the basis of the statements in the forgoing deposi-tion, it is very questionable as to whether proper sampling and auditing was used as the basis for public safety involved in hundreds of welding infractions. l The Appeal Board, keeping in mind the history of constru-ction at nuclear plants, keeping in mind that anonymous re-ports of bad welding have come to the attention of the NRC and that even harrassment of NRC inspectors had only come to light at the Zimmer plant, and not by NRC inspectors. Also
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
( 2.2)
AWPP Appeal Re Contentions Denied by Board in 2nd PID continued:
keep in mind Applicant has the option of converting to coal or oil...just as the owners of Zimmer, in the interest of b y n e .<lve'u public safety, decided wnen 3 the NRC did not adequately see the danger to the public.
Respectfully submitted, Air & Water Pollu ion Patrol
...> a s c.4, , pu.K FFiink . Romano, Chairman 61 Forest Ave.
Ambler, Pa. 19002 l
1 1
1
h
. _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ = . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . .._
r . . ..
l
. ? *
-4 - t.
~
.\ f ,
/ -
Npr-to ' '
Y' \> .
Y}%
p . 1 l y '. .
v~
~
L.i # '
ATTACHMENT 1 / ,
Letter from R. T. Carlson to V. S. Boyer, dated 11/10/76, ,
transmitting NRC IE Inspection Report No. 50-353/76-06 O
e e
/ -
.' I.s O
I,* \
1l
. i \ -
- .\
s,
.\ .
k
.\
e e 1
+ .
l e e
1 l
e he,u re-- . . s .u_ .,,, -
l
, - 1
- l
,}. . y/ h t
G O [ .
q[t/ /
f';D
===="8 l W
\g- ..
l.\h.
p ( .
- A.q . y
. p '"~.r. .
l . un.no'ssu a [ ,,
! 88Ct. CAR RECT!LATOftY C .rt.155 tot 3
[, p% * * **
..=,
g, f".COtOff 8 . .
7 7 ., ** # f *
&se was.m awtte e st*3 tg.** ** * * ==!.f .
metec or eeutgaa. eg e.eeswd[wa*ees. - .
s *
- ***** Novecher 10, 1976 ., . ,
I .
Philsd=3p'his Ele:ccic Co=pany License ::o. C??R-107 Accentici : :'.r. 7. S. Y.oyee ,
Inspeccion .*:,. *
. 76-06 .
- l Vice Presidesc
- Doclec :*o. 50-153 -
- Engineerin;;. and Research . .
2201 Market Scree: - .
- Philadelp'sta, l'e=csylvania 19101 _
Cestleser$: . ,
"I*nis refers co ha inspeccica conducced by :*.e. A. Toch of this offic.e on ,
Cc:oser 16, 19-.22, 1976 at the I.iuerich.Genere:i=;; scscios of zecivi:ics '
authorized by :3:: License :*o. C???.-107 asi ,co the discussic=s c0 eur findir[;;s held by :::. Toch .:ich :*r. ,.f. Co'rcoran' of your s:sff at the cencidsion of the .inspeccion, cr.d co a'subsequenc telepho=e discussion .
betwe.en Yr. To h asf. :'.r. Corcorsa on ::ove:.ber 2,1976.
Areas cr.z=iped d=ri=; this inspeccion are described in the' Office of' .
Inspeccion and E=ferce= enc Inspection Reper .which is e Issed with this le:cer. **ichis . these aress, the inspectics consisted of selec fve exeninacfrina .of :rr cedures and re: resent ':1 T recrris. '--WCV: ' lith pars.nc ci, au.uce: macs. =a.*a ay the inspec:or, and observatices oy cne inspector. .
Based on the resulcr of this inspaccion, it appears cbsc cerczin of your accivicies were cc: cotilucced in cuil'ec=pliance with ::7.C require =en:s,
~
as set forth i=- the :~ccice of '.'iolation, esclosed herevich as Appendisc -
A. These ice =s of nonco=plia:ce have *ocen categorized into the levels
- as described f.s sur correspoedence to yois daced Dece=Ser 31 1977.. This notice is sent to you pursuant to che provisiens of soccion 2.201 of the
'3C's " Rules of Prac: ice", Far: 2 Title 10. Code of Federal F.e ulscior.s.
Section 2.201 requires you to subsic to this office, vi:his cucacy (20) days of your receip: of this cocice, a vr! teen state =ene or explanscion ~
/
in reply i=cludi=;;: (1) corrective s eps chich haire been caken '.sy y:u and the results achieved; (2) correceive step's which vill be taken. to avoid further ice =s of nonco=pliasce; and (3) che dste . dica full coinplisnce
~
will be achieved.
D '.
t) t
- I
( _
. s ,
' ~
e I
i .
. I i In accorda=ce dkth Sectica 2.790 of the *.?.C's **3ules of Fractice". Part
- 2. Title *3. Cole of Federal Regulacions e copy of this letter and the '
enclos. ares vill be pieced in the :2C's Public Docu=ent Roo=. If this report c==:sias any infor acios chac you (or your contracter) believe to ,
be proprfu:ary, p is necessarf chac you =ike a vri:cen application vichin 20 days to this office to wichhold such infor .acios from public -
. disciosure. Any such applicacion must bu acco=panied by an affidavic ' ,
executed 1,7 che os:ner of the infor=acion. which identifies the docusenc
.or pari sc=;h: to be withheld and which concains a scace:est of reasons which Addresses with specificity the ice =s which will *oe considered by the Co iz.,1r,n as 11sced in subparagraph ($') (I.) of Seccion 2.790. Tne infor= ri:= sou,ht ce be wichheld shall ha i=corporaced as far as possible into a se;:arste part of the affidavic. If we do not hear fro = you in s this retard within the specified period, the report will be placed in '
the Pub *.ic :ac1=:e:c Racs.
i -
- Should yo a Ex.e any questions ccacerning .chis inspeccion, we vill be '
Pleased .r. discuss ches with you.
Sincerely, i . .
&s i- sa /f kRobertk YT. Carlson.
fo Chief" _
- Reaccoe Construccion s-d Engineering -
. Support Branch
Enclosures:
- 3. Appe= dix A ::ocice of violacion
- 2. IE Ir.speccion Report No. 50-353/76-06 i
--a ~ ------m--,,-.~----e,- -..we -,, - - - - - - - - , - - - - g----- r -mp-----&-w- -,e -w- --
-g ,--, ---- - - , - -mm-,,, e w,
~~ .
'e
. ,. . p ;.
e j tcro 12 ,, [ .
6n 75) Cc**3 .
.Q 1 .
t
' RECIO:t I
/ .
50-353/7G N.
_ Dochet 1:o: 50-353 IE Inspection Ec;ert No: .
Philadelphia Electric C r osne
- License ::o: C???.-107 Licensec: -
~
Friority:
2301.:arkec screet
- s A
f
- Philadelphia. ?cc=sylvs=1a 19:01 Cacer.ory: _ ,
SafcCu:rds ~ -
Croup:
Tocacfc=: L1= crick. 7ennsylvania .
Type of I.iccasec: St*R - 1065 :'.*c (CE) , .
Routine, Una==cunced ~
Tyg.4 of 7:.s;.setlor: .
October 16. lo.22, 197t.
Dates of Ins;ceti:n:
July 2f.-2S 1976 -
Daces o.. ,revIcus Idepeccion: -
/ -p pd?
7 e' i 0# [<8!-f* e, P.cporting Inspec:=r: .* . DATE .
~A . D.' Toth Res6 tor !=st.cccor ,
None Acccupseyi:C Inspec: ors: -
. DATE- -
DATE .
DATE Ctice Accespanying ?c:senac1: _ *
+ DATE[
M
/
C<I _
Revicted Ey:
r R.' Ke Lat c. .eting Ch,ici.' construction Freicces Scacion / D/[E
- Suppere Eranck
' actor n- ructien g:2.;:L=eerist;. .
l
. ; \
w _. ~ -- :
~ _ . _ _
l
( _
)
. , , , Q-:__ ~^^'%'"'ELWW$M<E%eA%t.1*tM'~* W'**& ' *' -
^- A
' t. ..
e 6
- 1 si
! e
- ![.
'.1
/ ' .J - '
g
- i.
- s
/ *
- s n
i
- License No. C?PK-107 rg-t APPENtify. A .
- 0TICE OF YT0*v*.TT0;* .
Based on the resuics of the ::P.C inspection co decce.! on occober 16,15- - -
22, 197G. it appests chac certsin cf you 'se:ivicten vere no: conde::ed in full cocpliance sich condicions of your :.~.d yacill:7 1.icense ::o.
CPPR-107 as indics:ed belo.r. These ice =s see infrae:icas. .
A. 10 CFR 50. Appendix 2. Cri:crion IT. re,cires. In parc. casures shall be eses 511shed to assure thsc special processes. Includis; y ecliing, ...are concen12cd and acen:::Lizhed by qustified persennel ,
usia.g qustified precedures in acc=rdsace vich a;plicable ecd.s, standseds, specifications, criteria and other specist require- .
cenes." .
k:oncestytotheabove,the'escsblished:.essureswereinsufficit.n to assure that veldir.:: et strue: ural scuel c= 5epte=ber 22. I?M was acco=plished in accordsece vi:h the applicable A's-D.I.1. '~s e fillet velds en s:ructursi steel bess c'e==cccices se elevatic: 233.
colt-m- 22,C ==d *.:. .iid ::: =sec :he q" ty raquir:: ants if th.
AVS Secucturst Veldi=g Code. -
Velding electrode holders were used actached to eicension sticks which were noc "desi;ned oc sanufactured so as to ensbie gustified welders...co accein the resvics prescribed" in the n*5 code. nor vere procedures alcernacivelf qualified to escahlish thsc secep able veld quality could be actsined with such scicks. Quality control surveillance inspeccions conducted and cocc=ented did not identify and effect correction of the condition.
E. 10 C51t 50. Appendix 3. Criterion I requires in pert. "A progran for ,
inspection of activities af fe~ccin:; qus1 Ley shall ts established and executed *oy oc for the organisation peric:=ing cha activity te verify coefer .sr.ce with the occu=c=ced insecueticas...shs11 bc perfocued for each verk operscion where necessary to assure quaticy."
Concracy to che above, che inspecticn of activitics during Ocecher j l
1976 did not verify confocuance with Specifiestion A-26 Revision 2 l requirements for pecccccion of cachined surfaces during ssedhiascing l and painting operacions on the contain= enc done, and such protec:Lon was not saincat=ed and the aschined surfaces were inadvercancty .
painted and possibly sandbla ced.
i*
i
I 1
.; c" .
.I : i. ,
o- f. - '
e l <
j
- ! N[ i
. D ! l
%\ i lb l i[
T4[,
- 1
\ C,)<
i !
(
l ,
,g- '
1 ,
h,
. { I v f
lU i d:
w ,
I
.O ,
l' . .
ATTACHMENT 2 :) l'i l ll '
i Lotter from V. S. Boyer to J. P. O' Reilly, dated 12/15/76 , b o
(!"
lt
!I i'I
.) }
.$ f i
- y
. i
{
se
'l
. I i ,
d
't l
i.. .
G 1
l .
1 6
I i i
. l 11 -
- e. , l r
l
zyg "' .,
- t ,' . ,
7
- Q s lyh i -
?
p' 4l
. .- p -
/ 15
\
4 s/ *
- i
\
i/ p I Mwtf y, . / 4Qff %
en f
}f
^
1
. +V.
'Q .
-s-l
,/,/ fl' k'} p0 el' f 30 Te e.s or Noncoesttance n / .
The (c11ovin; tlicec itcos appeared to involve nerc 11snee with condi !ons cf
~
k (( [U@ d'[) '
- W[k t' i i
rez/ulacions of the ::cclear/P.crulatory Cc:sissics oThese iccus are int /setfoss.
the , applicable *:?.C licen/c.
n c.< ol: . . ,
/ .
/ .
M 9/7 g Ta!!ure To *** eld Scrnetural Secel Fer AUS.Cade
,/ j
- f' Durin p hse cion of velding of secuctural sceci a,c Area 12 clevstics }
ec observed that one s,t'ect floor bes= passed close to
- 233, he in colu==
~
ac val 1 1ine 23. The cicarsace was such *as to 11=ic access
[
ce the required fillec ids of sn.gl$gc11 s_so, the Sp end_and c j
- 23. Mvtch crafc and supervision persen: ~
4 em$cd on vall ::c. itht.ra12ccrNfe-tte M revested the p,lan to perforn e fastened to che' end. of a broe=scick; the personnel scac,cd. and lice see and con:rac:or c/. and QC person =e1 later confir=ed :hsc chts appresch, had 'ucen used cc che statist Licited secess veld f otacs se elevatic
[253, colunes F and 11 at valt 23.
The inspector decersined chat the veld procedure FI-A-Lh (Scructural) f; Rev. C had ne: been qualified usics;.clectrcde helder ex:casicas, nor -
hd the velder b:e= qualified usin; such ex:ec* fees. Alti ciath the arpLicabic Ced: A'S U1-1-72 does noc'soecifics11y address the use' of.
- elec:r.sde holder extensions with resoecc to procedure /ecidce cualifi-cacions. It does in Parc 3.1.2 require that equip =ent be designed sad ca=utactured so as to enable qcsLified velders to at:ain the results prescribed. In the AWS Code.
The inspector considered chat an eIccerede~
tolder atriched to a argie <8'E nne eret this rceutre ent unless proven
- sicistactory by qualification cesc for tha six diffecesc v W ec=fTcer-acions to be velded at the Linited access joints. The licensee dA , .
agreed, and the inspeccoe ecquested that provisicas be cade to pe==1:
his viiual inspectica of the limited access velds perfoc:.e4 se elevs: ten ,
251 on sce<:1 becs piece numbers 23237. An elevacer hoise end an ins;ec - ;
cien cirror and light were nade available to the inspector. T A1 -
i
- vere found to noclosply withJhe reeutremeng,s ef L'S-O-1-1 Se:cion 3
~
" .'orh=anship." in thsc the velds vere of unaccecF.sble profiIc. cen- ,
cained excessive undercuc. and were inecoplete ac the~ upper and lover For the veld joints v g edge of the an;te clip (root pass coeniece only).
f ,'p .
desigested 63 in :he record drawing of the i=-p*.ocess checklisc. 211
- e inspeccion_Jecas hsd beegehecked-ofLhy the 5cchtel cuality control in ys or. includin: " Final Ousticy Verilication." The (p Laspecclen
,j apparently did not comply with the requircaencs of AL'5-D-t-L Seccion 6 "Inspeccion." The inspector reviewed che following doc csencacion I g- relative to che above itca:
O
ts.- - p.
- : ,U '
t e
t
. G,
/
' T./if h,:i e .
L- o j d : y
. 1 .o u ,
PHILADEi.PHIA El.ECTRIC COMPANY
[e. ,)
- zsc: MARKET STREET .
i, ;
1 bI '
e m .f : st.piiiA. 7A. 2:C: f j: '
L ,
=*1: aat.423: h I I f .:
v.s.covcm .... DEC 151976 b ,.
. , di [
- ec:c q [
Mr. Ja=es F. C*Re1117.
Unteed 5: aces suelear Ies=1a:ory C===issiona=d I=fsrce====.,7egio:
office of Inspectio:
I
]' i, il 631 Park Avenu,e Fa. 1? *. 0 5 k(q. ,
King of ?:ussia. deced Nove=her 10, 19-22, 137.6 -
1776
Subject:
C531C II:I Le::s of Cccober if,
- Ee: Site I= spec:*o:Co . 333/7 6-05 2, Re;cr: C=* : %
,J
- =specti ='4 *-er*
- Ce= ara:i=g Station - t
.t File: QCAL i-0-2-2 (76-06) ~
4 .
d p ,
Dear Mr. O'_ Ic. mly:
subjecc letter .
We offer :he f=11=vi=g respe=ses == cheto'Li=erick ..
19-21, 1976 fo- [ j.y, regardi=g ice =s ide=:ified durf=3 :he NIC 5 visit Generating S cac' ion - :=* = 2 aas cc:aber aucho 1, 'rized by XAC License ,
l.
Laspeccion of const=cc:* ==. acc vities . .
- i No. CPF1-107. f[
I - Ee spo=s e == Ice = A of APPe= dix A -
Actachnen: of subject letter.I:e= 3 of Appendix A
- I II - Iesponse to ' l, -
Accacheen: cf subject lec:ee.
III - Response :o Ice = C of' Appendix A l s,
Attachment
- of subject letter. 15,
,1 d ce Dece=he Should you The due de. e for this response was exceede 2, 1976.
would be pleased ca 1l 1976 in a celecon v'th your scaff os items, 3ece=ber we have any quescions c==cerni=g # chase '
with yeu.
discuss ches Si=cerely.
A[
1
,!< d. ,.2:v-Accachueacs O
( .
I .
r * .
..-..%_. . = - - . ,, . ..__..;.; ,-.;I..-.i. ~, * * ., %,
' .g_._ ,* .. ..,,., -.
..--._cg.__p. ..
-. . . . . . .#.* '~7~--v " e-=
y__
e- .
J .
9 feA s .
l *ATTAC*d?.!NT I .. .
Ressonse to I e= A ef Aege=di c A .
'e#tein=e.-
"10 CTI 50 Appendix 3. Cricerion II requires is p are .,
"Msastres shall b'e es:ablished to assure that special
- j, prpce$ses, i=clud1=g velding. ..; are . con olled and accosplished by qualified persocnel using qualified , ,
ilicable . cede s.,
sta=dards,. , l-peacedure.in accordauc4 dich apt
- specificacions, criteria and o ther special require =e=:s ." . . -
l '
Cccurary to che above, che established meas ~cres vere -
incufficient to assure chat'velding of s::ce: ural steel '
en Se-)cember 22,' 1976 vas accomptished in accordance -
vich the applicable ATS-D.1.L. The fillec = elds on ,
a eleve: ion 253.', , . ,
e::=c:iural steel bea=did concectio=s calu=ns 23-C and E. noc mee: the, quality ressire=ents J
of Jhe ATS ,Structur.al- Celding C. id e . .
e'lectrode holders were used a: cached to exte= sic.; ', *
- arding st!.eks which . vere nec " designed == =a=uf ac:= red so as :) -
l a:ceis che resul:s pre-anable q'ualified welders ... co '
l-ceribed" in the ATS code, nor were procedures
- alterna:ively, *
.. l qualified to escablish that accep' tablecoc:rol Quali:y veld quality surse'111a=ce. could . ,3 be a::ained with such s:Lcks.
inspections conduc-ced and docune=:ed ,Eid =sc ideccif y and ,
affect correction of the condicio- ,,
applicable Code AYS D1-1-72 doe s, no:
specifichily .
"Alchough ch'e address che use of electrode holder extensions with respe : ,
. g to procedure /velde: qualificacions, be desig=ed 1: .does and na==f i=actured P arc. so 3.1.2 as :o g
require chat equip =ent 5 enable qstalifiet velders to accain che res=les prescribed .in che AWS Code." -
?mtaen s e - l
- 1. The following corrective measures have been taken: -
i; s
- a. The fillec welds oc structural steel been -
I connections ac elevation 253, colusas 23-C
- and E, have been repaired. .
l ,
g
- b. The inspeccce, who originally accepted chese g two velds, is no longer e= ployed by the con-cractor and a reinspeccion of all other work
$3/75-06 1r:'I/1 l .
.f s. .
i
... *] .
- 3. . ,
. - l perfor:ed by hi= has been a:::=plished, vie a
~
accessitie. Cf appr xi=attiv ere 350 velds ;e- I T spec:ed. :, deft:ies:ies :::ed auf .
I 1
,.;:o rre e:ive action has bee =,:ske:. . :
r
- 1. Ac:io'n caken to preves: recurre=ce: .
e a.
A craining class was condue:ed Oc:cher .25,1976 the
.for re-indoctrinacion and re-orie::aci = 1:of ec=ple:ed work, "various aspects of accep:a ce reviewing of inspec: ion cri:eria, and All the respen-CC a:d sibili:Les of velding inspec: rs. ,
f field velding persocnei were required :o attend * -
i chis crain1=g class.
t I
- b. A Project Cen:rol Me= ora =d==. '?CM-239. hori:edvas . 1
. issued prohibiting the use of usac:
excensions.
- c. Iffec:ive nece= der 16 1975 all velds the: -
require :he use cf veld ex:ensi==s shall be identified and approved by :he lead veld ,
engineer. .
- e .
e I
(
l .
l 39 / 75-C6 i r /2
-- _ _ . - -- - , , , - - - - ,, . _ , - - , ,p--_ _ y , ,- - - - --
. . w-
. s c .
,e .
.o .
j ..
f .
c 1 c, 50 Appe=dir..t. Criterion 1* requires .in part. TActi'.*iti.*8 ,
. fectins; quali:y shall be prescr'*.ad by docu ented instructie:5... . ,
a J v411 Le ace:r:plie.!.d in accord. tace with t!.vse instru... . s...
1 , ,. .
Co tricy cd the m* sow en Octouer .20.1976 tha do p t.C05: 01 rey,are cats of 8,cb rule JR-C-)* .wre noc i=ptc=ented for des s,, . ,
de fa. ions to pla:e hoics in the nepper f!snge of sccc-cursi sta.et bes.s*st. elevatic: 253 of Area 2:: of the reaccoe but* dict.
3 ,
- 4 . * .
I-
. . . p . .
I e
g .. .
O
- 8
.c l
. \
Ns .:;; ;t.
,v. ,.- : .
s -
- f. 4 . . .y Y G.
- y<.Q,\ ;.-
z.-
.. \ ' \ '
t ,' <
x *
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY dOMMISSION tI5 O y
( "8%
l s i' i Board Before the Atomic Safety and Licens ng
/ . I
'\
In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-352
) 50-353 ;
Philadelphia Electric Company )
. ) r (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and L) 1 INN I CULARIZATION APPLICANT'S ANSWER .TO CONTENTIONS THE FURTHER _
PART OF INTERVENORS' . CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED Introduction ;
Order Continuing, Informal and In its " Memorandum ification of Condition- -
Discovery, Providing for Further Spec and Noting Dismissal of ECNP" .
ally Admitted Contentions and Order") , the Atomic
/
10, 1983) .(" Memorandum (February (" Licensing Board" or , " Board") .
Safety and Licensing Board .
required, inter alia, that:
The intervenors shall particular .ze ih- all conditionally admitted contentions, w tplanning emergency the exception of the fullest extent contentions, to practicable sincein light the of the informationprehearing special the supplied In jt.dging and conference. such contentions, the particularity supplied of in support of Board contentions, the bases particularired account the level of will take into presently available" on l
r l information as they apply to a
- j. Applicant's plans Accordingly, intervenors contention. why they believe missing should explain contentionisfrom j
- information prevents a set being particularized beyond whatrefiling of the forth in the upcoming g4 '
}'- -.
'% v.? 6. 1 1 3- l
. p 1ccking in the public." This contention is completely basis. Initia'lly, the examples given fail to establish any pattern as alleged by intervenor Romano. There is no link .
among the deficiencies which were found by the Nuclear ,
Regulatory Commission. ' A number of non-conformances are not. [
- l
- unexpected for a project of this size. There is absolutely :
. .t
?,
no showing that there is a pattern or link among these .t .'L nonconformances nor that their number has been extraordi- \? g P'-
- Gl f . .
nary. Nor has Mr. Romano demonstrated how these occurrencer// / .t *;
could " increase the risk of an accident .during operation."f[ g , -
Y. . ;. ~
pplicant submits that the Commission has not set up ths,.s Board to duplicate the Stiaff's role of providing oversight of construction of the facility. Applicant sees nothing which would in any way present a specific litigable issue regarding the overall quality assurance program at the '
Limerick Generating Station. In particular, with regard to subpart a, Applicant submits that this is based u- a .
misunderstanding of the actions taken subsequent to the .
indicated Notice of Violation. As set forth in documents made available to Mr. Romano, a l l_ w e l d s inspected by the '
weds, wer particular inspector,' not only accessible u- s r
reexamined. Therefore, this subpart is lacking in founda-tion and is without basis. .
Intervenor Romano states that he is unable at this time l
l to provide further specificity regarding his co'ntention.
for not doing Applicant submits that the enumerated reasons l
O
~ x
'^ ,h
- 44 -
I
- s. ', ..,-
1 l
. ;\-
.s o do not constitute good'cause which would allow - him to
,g < amend his. contention in the future. , ,
1 Intervenor alleges that the Applicant has, failed to 1
\
supply certain documents requested during informal,discov-
- ery. He asserts that "certain inspection reports and.
rslated correspondence known to exist have not beca prov ided {
(or not properly identified in the large volume of documents f produced in Appiicant' e discovery room, so that intervenor could locate them) . " Appficant asserts thitt it has made every effort .to respond fairly arid completely to the discov-ery requests of Mr. Romano. The documents responsive to his requests were of a technical nature and it is possible that he, as a layman, does not understand their import. Mr. .
Romano has never specifically brought to Applicant's atten- .
tion any particular documents he believes were not provided and should have been as responsive to his requests. To the extent possible, documents have been segregated in separate folders' responsive to,each specific request.
With regard to' the second reason, Bechtel Power Corpo- .
ration ~ has stated that they would not make - available the name and tkte employment records of an individual inspector "except in response to a subpoena or other lawful process."
1 Applicant does not understand how the refusal to provide a ,
single ,name and resume would prevent specification of these quality' assurance contentions.
t' The third reason given is the loss in mail of one of intervenors two September 3,1982 written discovery requests 9
4 4 i
h L"
I
> .-. . c l to Applicant. While Mr. Romano states that other parties on
.,s tlie service list did receive the letter, Applicant has
- inquired of Staff counsel who stated 8 that. this letter was not received by th.e NRC . Staff. In any event, a complete
[ .
l response to that letter was sent to Mr. Romano on April 6,
?
1983 and, on that dite, documents responsive to that request were placed in the Applicanti's document room.
Finally, Applicant sees no' connection between any allegations of conditions at Three Mile Island or at the i Midland site in relation to the' construction of the Limerick .
{
Generating Station. Certainly, Mr. Romano does not demon-strate any such relationship.
In response to the note contained in the section stating that Mr. Lewis " intends to discontinue his par-ticipation in the QA/QC contention. . .", Applicant intends to respond to any. Argument Mr. Lewis might present at the prehearing conference.
- G i .
t l
t_ . l
. conclusion ,
- For the reasons discussed ab,ove, the conditionally
- admitted contentions should be denied and no further consid-eration need be given to them at this time by the Licensing .
. Board.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
9
. Mark J. etterhahn Counsel for Applicant April 27,158]
I
<m l
4 f
O
- I 1
- _ , _ . - . _ - . _.-.___...1
- t.Aw o rrgCES
~~
.- ~ GONNER & WE~ITERH.AHN, P.C.
v o o r .. . . . . .. . .. ** '58x5"^x8^ ^"Exc e x *-
reams WASHINCTON. O C. 20000 esofyl J.M.vs.,s..naux
.. su IF4 Q M.ot. sex e ans a 4. M e. .c. < =.-
20037.7 ag pc.L
- vee n.** esexm.m. .. .....
May 20, 1983
. s ... . . .: ...
- .g ,
...o:.......:... m .
hP
\
Judge Lawrence Brenner Judge Richard E. Cole Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and . .
Licen' sing Board Licensing Board .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory .
Commission- Commission Washington, D..C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 .
Judge Peter A. Morris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission- ,
Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
In the Matter of ,
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating. Station, Units 1 and 2) .
. Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 Gentlemen:
This letter is being submitted in response to the .
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's " Order Regarding Quality =
. Assurance Documents" (May 13,.1983).. Attachment 1 is a copy of HRC' IEE Inspection Report No.- 50-353/76-06, including the, ,
related Notice of Violation. Attachment 2 is Applicant's ,
response thereto which is a letiter from V. S. Boyer to J. P.
O'Reilly dated December 15, 1976 with three. attachments of ,
which only the first is rel'evant to the matter raised by Mr..
Romano. Attachment 3 is a December 29, 1976 letter from R. T. Carlson to V. S. Boyer acknowledging receipt of Mr.
Boyer.'s December 15, 1976 letter.' Counsel for the Staff has reviewed these, three documents and agrees that they are
, accurate ccpies of the ~ inspection report and letter sent by it an.d Td. Boyer's letter received by it.
4
- - , , , -y,e ,,--w,g,,,,,-p,-m-r--py--,ww.,-w,w--e
1 Judge Lawrence Brenner '
h Jcdge' Richard F. Cole I / Judge Peter A. Morris I
May 20, 1993 l M ge 2 ,
l l
8 The remainder of the attachments hereto (Nos. 4 4 9) ,
p.,are those documents which were made available to Mr.' Romano 3 in response to his informal discovery repest. ', ,In .accor
- f dance with my conversation with Mr. Romano yesterday., I am ,
f sending to him by Federal ~ Express a c.opy of this letter and , ,,
. (, attachments such that he may make any presentatioit, to. the-
- 7 Board that he desires regarding these documents. The*
g remainder . of this letter discusses how the documents made y available to Mr. Romano demonstrate that all suspect welds, y rather than those which were merely accessible, were rein .
g spected.
Attachment' 4 is a Philadelphia Electric Company Quality -
Assurance Finding Report No. N-093. which was is, sued to the i . Bechtel Pcwer Corporation (October 27, 1976). This. Finding.
- Report is the method by which, inter alia, NRC , items of ,' ,
noncompliance are entered into the quality assurance system . ,
of the Philadelphia Electric Company for followup and
! disposition. Page 2 of the finding report notes the.issu .
j ance of Nonconformance Reoort No. ("NCR" ) 1980 which. wa.s
" utilized 'by Bechtel to disposition the specific welds which were found to be deficient by the NRC inspector. Bechtel NCR No. 1980 is provided as Attachment Su PECO Quality Assurance Finding Report N-093 also . .
requires a reinspection. of all other accessible welds inspected by the particular Bechtel Quality Control Inspec-tor who accepted the deficient welds described in th'e ,
J subject NRC Inspection Report and NCR No. 1980.. Bechtel.
Field Inspection Reports (sometimes referred to -as "QCGl--l '
l Reports" after the . form utilized) which have control Nos. '.,
C-63-7 through C-63-19, issued from October 26,.1976 through .
November 8, 1976, (Attachment 6) document the reinspection. .
and disposition of welds examined in 1976 in response to PECO finding report N-093 and which form the basis for Mr.
Boyer's letter. ,
Bechtel Field Inspection Reports Control Nos. C-63-20 and C-63-21, both dated January 17, 1977, (Attachment 7) m.
document additional reinspection of welds which were subse ,
quently determined to have been possibly inspected by the ,
particular Bechtel Quality Control Inspector involved. No unsatisfactory welds were found. -
j
- Bechtel Field Inspection Report Control No. C-63-22 dated April 4, 1977 (Attachment 8), documents the comprehen-sive review conducted to determine which of the welds
- inspected by the particular Bechtel Quality Control Inspec-tor were not accessible as a result of being embedded in h.
Judga Lawrenca 3renner
.- Judga Ricliard F. Cole Judge Peter A. Morris
.May 20, 1983
-?,sge 3 concrete and which of the welds n6e previously accessible, e.g.,'due to construction scaffolding, were then sufficient. -
ly-accessible for inspection. , , ,, ,
The results of this review are documented in Bechtela' Field Inspection Report No. C-63-22. Page 8 of 8 i's ' '
summary correlation between the original Welding Inspection Plans- in which the particular Quality Control Inspector Participated and the Field Inspection Reports which document - -
the reinspection of the affected welds. Bechtiel Field In--
spection Reports Control Nos. C-63-24 through C-63-32 and C-41A-493 datad July 1, 1977 through July 6, 1977/ (Attach-ment 9) document reinspections not previously performed -
because of accessibility problems in 1976. -
1 Field Inspection Reports Control Nos. C-63-30, C-63-31, C-63-32 and C-41A-493 describe reinspections of certain- ,
welds which wer'e partially embedded in concrete. NCR-2710 '
which was generated as a result (not provided) demonstrat'es the acceptability of these welds. That nonconformance report documents that, for purposes of analysis,, it was, ,
assumed that only the reinspected portions were . sound an_d '
that the remaining embedded portion of the weld was no.nexis,-
tent or failure of'the entire veld was assumed-. In all i cases, the function of the structural member was not impaired.
, I would note that Field Inspection Report Control No.
C-41A-493 which is similar to the other nine in this catego- '
ry was inadvertently not provided to Mr. Romano during discovery. If the Board has any questions ,concerning this ,
matter, please let me know.
l Sincerely, l i
Y I h '
Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicant MJW:sdd
- Enclosures i cc
- Service List !
l i
t .: .,
{ .
.l
. t.. .
- E
. d P,
. -9 . .
q .
I
-]'gf .
[ n[r
}L ;;. i{
. . i b.
n .i.
I.?.
tt g
ATTACHMENT 4
!t Philadelphia Electric Company Quall'ty Assurance ... i Find 2.ng Report NO. N-093* dated 10/27/76 ; ,
.~ ,i j.
. l,4 .
e i.
I ~ . ,-
I Lj i II.
i ft
- Ig...
I.
I'I
- e. . -
1 *
. .e
- .u ;.
l .-
e e l
I G
I e
i l
- g
.; n .
k'MEfterick untes' t s 2 ij (I'7 --
.. - FINDING REPORT
- r1 DEC 10 E'N o : "*"" . i.
,. . n u u...u ; - ............. cl
{l"ul'."', " l5,i .n.,u ,
I2
- n. 50RRECTIVE ACTION TAKEH TO E 101.Y5 FINDING
.;;l J l
g
- 1. . Issuance of NCR 1980 to ad:nowledge the nonconforaing con ~dition * '
and to acquire dispositioning to correct same.
i l 'f;
. -l!
- 2. . A Reinspection of.all other work performed by the part cu ar *
- j l inspector who accep'ted the welds in question was accomplished
- r.
wherever accessible. -
Dl.
- 1. ..
.- . ::I '
e ---- - ,
- i. i
=
i'- II f
- . . ^
'.*.-p' I !
h **d441950 - //7/7G ~ y.N.'
ik
- /.
].' //ffs/sn m/4MO - g ,:pe.~.cr.(C-S/ W&0*?l*
t . '.
j lf:
f, & W ' . ,
I I2dhteticavtaire t[4.Of/
- d Ii action tutx or
,uc , . . . c .. . . .in f2,'gi ;
...c 1 .:
('" ' " " " " ' " -
t,?..
- n. CORRECTlYE ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE assitte..t s.tcrs at acces.st) .
Athainingclasswasheld 10-25-76 fok re-indoctrination and .- ,
re orientation in the varicus aspects of accep an:e of completed work, '
reviewing or inspection criteria and ultt= ate responsibilities ,,
for wald inspections with all personnel in attendance from both the i QC And field welding groups., ~
1, .
. .
- s.
. 1
.I ll kdk'J~ (110 W fC/M h/0C*CT1VS **fM Z $7.ff.til ,,
/) A 4;7 m .fr7 k
- O & $/ A S ..! -
l H '
f l .
b // M V actinu vrairito ja
' '/ ## ..n. M//
actie: ract= or .. n ...<
- . P.E. ACCEPT'HCE OF CORRECTIVE ACTION O acsotvcs rineinc
@ VMACc!P1& TLC (s(t su(Cf 3 Or 3)
O^est-nsis~
ibW$.a y (. )il1klw*$ It-MI-itspstaat ust ' Jut tL stsolutten s a s .4 .tv.S
.. se :
. , _ .. .-. . _ - ._. ~ - . -. . -
SMEET 1 g, 3
- Y,' '
FINDING REPORT '- * * "'
.* [' -
Limerick Units 1 6 2
- . tirt: 0 *=elt
', O suivtittauer e7 ItE NRC rv estwa**ct O ac O conatetivt actic= aca o.
s=chtel Power Corp.
- 9. Ite:a of Noncompliance ,
e n =< scarnacres -
-'.. ISSUED TO C.K. Soppet - Project Manager 8 attruxcts -
r.0RdANIZATIONBechtel Power Corporation . *) A I.lh7.Z aftd 72 ti 74 i.THOSE CONTACTED T. Alton - K. Bishop .UEC1.DDE '
i.io era a. AieExasx : casrIasa If~ p, A, ;,; ,: 8:020
- n. FIN 0lHG tort ano strtatxet assariaNAt, INccTS At Etcu RED) *- - --
- Two welds from the bean to the clip on beams 23b87 znd 23239 in uni ~t 2,on *
- Elev. 257 vere both inco olete and unace=otab'le and were made with the ah!' ,~
of a brcos stick handle zitzched to the siInZer'to r:2,ch the joint to be 3 ,, ,
. welded; which is contrzry to AlfS section 3.1.2. ~-
)
Further, inspection sun'elliance records
- indicated th:t :hese 5: In .
6canections were inspecte.d. , ,-
l
~ -
j u.0lSCUSSION (vst two atrtatxet son:Teonat sactts tr at:usetn)
Bechtel issued NCR No.1930 identifying the non-confor. sing condition. '
t r. RECOMMENDATION cost aus striatuct A00lTICMAt. $NttTI As ataultta)
Pt GA stetstect cats notxterits _A. Both Inspector 10/27/76 ,;N ,,033 ;,, ,,, ,, ,,206 NAWC title cA!C , , , , , ,;gg lor:: terato sestseevtsee unut .titLt eart A. Teller - TLC issuco sr M /
9 # 8 w _ . ,_,, Site QAE 10/29/76 P. L. Sauk --
l"3-6234
~
=4=r is tt r oest
/ ~
, : ,.e e t e. :
t _ -
n) .. . ,
- ^
\b
)
!?. u!! . -
[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[,. } 4
. {.-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION y a g6 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD . r b [
. BEFOREADMINISfRATINJUDGES: b 3
. . Lawrence Brenner, Chaiman
. Dr. Richani F. Cole -
. Dr. Peter A. Morris
) .
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-352-OL '
50-353-OL 4 . PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 1 *
. ) LBP-83-39 ,
(Limeiick Generating Station. )
Units 1 and 2) ) July 26, 1983 .
. . ) .
SECOND SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFER $NCE ORDER 1
The Board held a special prehearing conference in Philadelphia on May 9-11, 1983, to discuss proposed contentions and further, sch,eduling j of these proceedings. On May 16, 1983, we issued a " Memorandum and ,
4 Order Confirming Schedules Established During Prehearing Conference".
f Our order today provides further rulings on thf basis of ,that special prehearing conference, including rulings on the admissibility of conten-f 1
tions and the provision of specific dates for schedules which were .
previously described only in terms of triggering events.
r i-In its filings prior to the special prehearing conference and at the conference itself. LEA indicated that a number of contentions were
- being dropped. These are Contentions I-1; I-2; I-5; I-6; I-13; I-16(c) 1
- (j); I-17; I-18; I-19; I-20; I-21; I-22; I-24; I-25; I-27; I-28; I-29; 4 1-32; I-33A. C. F G. H, ! & L; I-34; I-35; I-36; I-37; I-39; I-43;
~
l i
S. -
o welds were reinspected. Gi,ven, Applicant's asserted folicw-up, however,. g ,
c it may be that Applicant's' letter of December 15, 1976, only. intended t'o .
O .
r,eport on reinspections- performed by tha~t time. *f so. it would .
certainly have been useful for Applicant to have indicated in that .
response that further in:pections and analyses wou'no ue performed.
v .
.s..,
)
- f k-f~
The Bechtel inspection reports do not by themselves make' clear that
, c. ' s $
.; ; the welds listed are those which had been inspected by the same
, , ,9,n . f. e p .
-- - -- ~
d* f.
i* .
inspector cited in NRC Staff inspection. report 76-06. or that the othei- ,7* 3 statements in counsel's letter are accurate descriptions of the r ports
'(attachments 4-9). In addition, we have no sworn affidavit' testing to the fact that the structural analyses, showing the assumed absence of
= . the ec5edded welds as acceptable, were* performed. (The details of these structural analyses are beyond the scope of the contention that QA/QC follow-up actior, to this Staff inspection report was improperly limited
. to reinspection of accessible welds.) However,1t presently appears .
. from counsel's representations of facts that there is no basis to admi
. -fven this part of AWPP's contention. We will not do so, subject to .
Applicant providing, as soon as practicable, appropriate affidavits of '
knowledgeable persons verifying the accuracy of the statements in its ,
counsel's letter of May 20, 1983. -
- 1 i
f.othing in AVPP's letter to the Board of May 25, 1983, responding , r-to Applicant's counsel's letter of M4y 20, 1983, remedies the fatal e absen:e of bases fcr believing that Applicant limited its follow-up ..
actice to accessitie welds.
,. r i.e
- g . **
,,s
e AWPP seeks to conduct further discovery to better specify the contention. We have already permitted 'AWPP about a year to examine QA/QC documents and.it has been unable to frame an admissible contention. Further discovery is unwarranted given AWPP's failure to specify with any reasona'ble particularity what it would seek to litigate within the broad area of QA/QC. Thef2tthatAWPPhasnotreceived details of everything it might need to actually litigate a case at an
~
evidentiary hearing does not excuse its failure now to state an ,
a,dmissible contention with reasonable specificity and basis.
},1e*
t.r d , ven.s
- For the reasons stated, this contention which had been condi- ,7[
tionally admitted in an. earlier form, subject to AWPP providing better specificity and basis, is rejected, subject to our' accept,ance of the ,
affidavits to be filed by Applicant.
DISCOVERY ,
i Discovery may begin imediately on contentions admitted by the ;
I Board in this order. All discovery requests must be served by l ,
i October' 14, 1983. Discovery is subject to the directions and time limits set forth in our Order of May 16, 1983.
1
- 41 -
e 2
ORDER
- 1) Contentions I-8, 1-15 and I-33M are admitted for litigation.-
The litigation is to be within the scope' described in this a memorandum and order.
- 2) Contentions I-4, I-7, I-10, I-11 I-12 I-14 I-16a, I-16b, I-23. I-26. I-30. I-31,1-38, I-6'0, VI-1 (provided appropriate t confimatory affidavits are filed.by Applicant), and the five ,
new probabilistic risk assessment contentions are denied.
f
- 3) Discovery on the admitted contentions may start tunediately I
ar.d will follow our instructions set forth in,this memorandum -
and order and our " Memorandum and Order Confirming Schedules Establish'ed During Prehearing Conference" (May 16,1983). .
- 4) Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.751a(d), parties normally may file objections (requests for reconsideration) to this Order with the Licensing Board within five days after service (ten days, in the case of the Staff) of the Order. Parties may not file replies to the objections unless the Board so directs.
l l .
,,.n -,,, - .--.,,a.--,----n--, --n.--.m- , , - - - - , - - , - - - , - ,. < - . ,,-.,,nw.n-...n,w,nne,,, , , , , , , , , - - - w-,e -n.,-,-nva -r
l 42 - l IT IS 50 GRDERED.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
gQw Lawrence Brenner, Chairman
. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE j l}
Dr. Richard F. Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PkdM Dr. Peter A. Morris ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland -
July 26, 1983 -
G e
e w ,
7-,, v- , - - - - ,,-,w,,- - - - - - ~ , , - - , - , - - - ,,,,,-,e---,-,,w ,g-,e,- -,,-s
fW .
f .lQt 4 . n. I .
~
- p. $.^ -
wwwcc= . * > w.3: .n'. *%
t . .;. . ..
, . .mz n. .
CONNER Eci.WETTERHAHN. P.G. - a l 1747 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N. W. .
007 o. GOcrysm, se.
ocrt d. w Trsmmasp WASHINOTON.D.C. BOOB 6 e3nneW.caess ,
acnt* u. Ct. es s 0012 a. Nace s.' J m.' .
00 307 C. G e n t. -
i.e. i ... ...
.s
.n .m. . . .. ..
- ^""""*"t^*
_Augist 10, 1983
---~~ s --c . -- .. . . , :. - .. .
. .. m.I .. [P " ll.
i
~~~.
. J .
Judge Lawrence Brenner Judge Richard F. Cole
Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Board - ,
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory .
Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
Judge Peter A. Morris .
Atomic Safety and k Licensing Board ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ,
Commission'
- Washington, D.C. 20555 1In,the Matter of .
y Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and .2) N-Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 ,
. Gentlemen:
In the course of preparing to respond to the Atomi'c ,
safety and Licensing Board's. request contained'in:lts.Second Special Prehearing Conference Order (LBP-83-39) datedJuly 26, 1983 at 39 for.an;; affidavit to verify the statements contained in counsel.'.s..May; 20;;'1983 letter to the Licedsing'~ . '
.. .... Board, .it. was . learned..th,at_,ali . inspections performedNby the subject' quality control . inspector had not been identified'~ ~^~ '
and therefore not reinspected as previously believed.. -
The . Applicant 'is > reviewing the entire . matter ,
thoroughly, and will reixirt to the Licensing Board; as' <soon.
.as posstible. The affidavit of John S. Kemper, i.V' ice s .,
Pgesident,,: Engineering 'and[AR esear.ch, . setting , '.L forth.-[g..tpe-1
, . ;;>r+/ :apreserit ,'s.t'atus : of.Qth'e prese i'e!Q;is4atta.ched. ny' ggden t ppugp$ ,.m g%y,;c pg. . L . ;. . . . , . v.g. t
- z. ,.'s. ..
l g.* g ' * ,?;_ .; .: c
- 2 1a%:f;y" ,1h s -3 : ~ 4 y,,' . ;.p_ ?; , _ , .;* q
}lv , ;{
h ' / .
. t l
Jyd,g'e . Lawrence. Brenner .t ' l
,.w! . 5 ~~?ii,:,?9 Jhdge Peter A. Morris .
ll judLge Richard F. Cole ~
l.
August 10, 1983 Page 2' .
o expect to complete the review and report to the' Board within. .
one month. . .
- Sincerely, n -
f Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicant HJri:sdd cci Service' List .
Enclosure .
F e
.. A..
c . ., T . <
t
.., s;'- y+
v.
L ' ;. lll,. { -
.y%... ~ w +:.I..;- .; . . y .
Y. F'. t .,U. ,i .:'r:..-". >. < . .e? .:.. i 4:/ . - ri. 4. '-
. . ..f 4,iw s .,';k.. ', . . ,.
- . r s,,...
.* 4 , . , , . , 4.
- a...r.+ s(4. k \
..,. j,~
,a ,- . t . - . ,' 1 - . . . . .
....v h
.; g , k.L . b h -
, . .\ Y. .,,
$^ m.$. u .,:.i. . .
..'s.'. ',. gb.y
1
. i.
- v. -
- n -? .
. :p --
.v,
'. .y .
A g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~
y[*,g .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CORilSSION
{
j
'{3 'h ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEfSING BOARD 7 '
(V
. BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES:
Lawrence Brenner, Chairman b
' [
Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Peter A. Morris
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-352-OL
) 50-353-OL PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) ,
)
(Limerick Generating Station, ) October 28, 1983 Units 1 and 2) ) -
- ~ , , . .
)
HEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONFIRMING RULINGS MADE AT PREHEARING CONFERENCE The Board hereby confinns the rulings made on the record of the +
prehearing conference held on October 17 and 18,1983, at Phoenixville, Pennsylvania.
Admissibility of Contentions '
LEA I-'41 (U.S. I. A systems interactions) -
LEA Contention I-41(a) was admitted as respecified in LEA's filing of September 28, 1983. The contention is set forth with reasonable bases and. specificity and is not otherwise -legally barred. ~Tr. 4809-13'.
Subsection (b) was withdrawn. Tr. 4807-08.
a ke a . , .
". , - ..caf -c. , w
[. . . , ?' a, ,,'*g*).9
- a 4 4 ' ' e,* * -
7 .-
. ., . ; oh$ -
- c. ; . L p.;.kJ{;k1.st51,,
. + y. qh;.lyy)3Q'.YL
~ m? * ..W. . ' N. , $. hY Y LN .ii. .I'.* i .g..
- .'
- ,%,;,df'Y ^ $..l'-
/ . i .-
g . s . .
I'
.: r .i a . . . e ?* *.
' ~' 1
,,, q . .
c $. , '
- 5 ~.
- e .' ;.-y . . t
, . ;{ ~ - '
l i
/- 1 e .- l AWPP VI-1 (quality assurance) ' '-
AWPP Contention VI-1 was partially admitted on reconsideration by the Board. It was reworded by the 8 ard as follows:
... . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - - - .J-..
. . . . . . . . . _ . . - - .. . - - .... - ~ - . +
Applicant has failed to control performance of welding and inspection thereof in accordance with quality control and quality assurance procedures and requirements, and has failed to take proper and effective corrective and. preventive actions when improper welding has been discovered.
Tr. 4912-14.
The Applicant and HRC Staff shall promptly make available, in the greater Philadelphia / King of Prussia area for inspection and copying by
'AWPP, all documents regarding welding pertinent to the Limerick facility.
This includes documents in the possession of c' onsultants, contractors or other agents utilized by the Applicant and Staff. The tenn " documents" incicdes, but is not limited to, reports of inspections ,
and audits, whether internal or external, and related correspondence.
Within thirty days of completion of discovery (including responses relevant to Contention VI-1-), AWPP shall file a list of all instances of improprieties with regard to welding and/or inspection and correction therect, which will form part of its case on the merits of th'e contention. For each' instance listed AWPP shall identify e particular portions of inspection reports or nther documents which relate to such instance. AWPP shall also briefly state what it is about
. ;,r ; . . .d. .-
- ', t.* .t' '-
- t
, . f. i.M'y,7.. *
. e. ,q .. . - .,..;
Y. .e "3 . - 4 ** .y l<f *$fs. , .
, , l y' * =-
Qs ,..A-
. . . . q . . . . . ; < ., % .N } ,&"g*g'.
+- M.
I
~, L .e :,,'l:* -
. h.';.
5%>
XU $?g g. :].yl,s;*;;f i %?. ' S M: : --N" ' ,
.h
, ,p f .,p Il Y }
7 q
Contrary to t e above, on September 15, 1976, concrete repair ;
work above the personnel hatch of the containment drywell vall ,
uncovered #9 and #14 parallel reinforcing steel tied together in direct contact at two places.
Following]ide@, fha,,t[n' of this noncompliance by the . inspector, the licensee site quality assurance organization immediately issued,-finding. reports.No. C-88 and C-89, which require. evalu,-- ,_
ation .and.. corrective. action.by_ the.. contractor. .The;11censee's
- j ,,
response to a previous noncompliance regarding reinforcing steel clearances is documented in his August 27,,1975. letter to NRC.
~
- c. 76-09-03: Infraction:.._ ____~ Failure To
, Implement Nonconformance Control System For Loss of Concrete Mix Proportion Control Criterion XV of Appendix B. of 10 CFR 50 requires that "Non-conforming items shall be reviewed and accepted, rejected, repaired, or reworked in accordance with documented procedures."
Criterion XVII requires that inspection and test records shall as a minimum identify the inspector or data recorder, the type of observation, the results, the acceptability and the action taken in connection with any deficiencies noted. ,
Bechtel Field Inspection Manual Procedure G-3 Rev. 6 requires.
that nonconformances shall be identified and reported in a controlled manner. It provides that use-as-is determinations
, require Project Engineer approval prior to implementation,'and i
concurrence by the Project Field Quality Control Engineer. It requires documentation of engineering rationale where a use-as-is determination is made. It provides a standard Non-conformance Report for the mechanics of obtaining and documenting i the above actions.
- Contrary to the above, on September 16. 1976, the quality l control inspection reports for June 23-24, 1976 concrete !
placement of the containment drywell walls did,not reflect:(a) j that concrete ingredient proportions were suspect for six
- i truck loads of concrete, and may not have been within specifi-cationst priatepe'ibTchatthissituationhadbeenreviewedbyappro-rsonnel; fc)._ 'that the concre~i:e luse-as-i's decision was ~'
supported by engineering rationale;((d), that this matter was identified and reported in the controlled manner provided by the nonconformance report system.
sL i. ..i .IG .<;]y . ,
i e C
. A 9
s .
,1 s,,
't 5
ie * -
f'
- o . ,, * - a --
- W
..,}%-
,'. . . -yx., :s W: ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~
- [,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W TlY e
. L.
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bdard In the Matter of )
~ .
) ..........:...
Philadelphia Electric Company ) . Docket Nos . . 50-352 . .-
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
AFFIDAVIT OF VINCENT S. BOYER SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR POWER PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Vincent S. Boyer being first duly sworn according to law deposes and states:
4
- 1. My name is Vincent S'. Boyer. I am Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power, of the Philadelphia Electric Company (Company) .
In this position, I have overall responsibility for the nuclear power activities of the company, including the Limerick Generating Station.
- 2. On August 10, 1983, John S. Kemper, Vice President, Engineering and Research, executed an affidavit dealing with the Company's continuing investigation to assure that welds which in 1976 were the responsibility of a certain Guality e.a.
Control inspector had been reinspected or otherwise .dispo. sit'ioned.
. L.,c. %
The affidavit reflected the fact that the Company had disci 6ye, red,
., ;. g.
contrary to its previous belief, that not all such welds ha2-[been' ;
., s. . . .
f identified. This affidavit provides a progress r,eport o e .- .
. . . . . . l4:.: "+ 8/V'b.' 6 .
)
ongoing investigation,and.digcusses the findings to ff ,
. a 2.a ;
1 . :, q p . ,
- ' i
,..,g ,
4
1
~ ~
a fI. r. g"'j5{->
.- 'jyg'fi ':' s ,
- 3. The Board's Special Prehearing Conference- OrdjE,~ I' I
, LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1520-21 (8une 1,1982) , .provided l for informal discovery. Pursuant to that Order, on September 3, ,
1982 the Air and Water Pollution Patrol (AWPP) requested'certain documents relating to NRC Inspection Report 76-06. Th'is request was designated " Discovery'2 (Enclosure 2)." As 'Tt'.".felate's ' to". ~ '.~...~
this matter, the following documents were requested:
"(7) Provide record of all welds accepted by inspector who accepted welds at ele-vation 253, columns 23G and H, and~ provide record showing percentage of welds inspected by inspector in (6) above that were rein-spected."
- 4. By letter dated January 11, 1983, the documents which had been identified as responsive to this request were made availabic to AWPP. These documents were later provided to the Board by counsel for the Company on May 20, 1983 pursuant to its Order Regarding Quality Assurance Documents (May 13, 1983).
In order to understand the status of the Company's continuing investigation, it is necessary to discuss certain of the docu-monts provided to AWPP and the Board. The same designation of attachments is used as was utillzed in the May 20, 1983 letter.
- 5. A letter from V. S. Boyer to J. P. O'Reilly dated December 15, 1976, designated Attachment 2 stated that, with respect to the structural welds which were cited in NRC Inspec-tion Report 76-0 6 the corrective action therein was as folloks :
"1. The following corrective measures have been taken:
- a. The fillet welds on structural steel .
beam connections at elevation 253, ,, , ,
k
- ..:. columns 23 G .and H, have been ~ repairedc.p${?-llj
,%
- My.l
,1 .
.zg ,
W '
- i. .
.. . . .;3lkt >h
.. ... . . %, < . . .g. . c. *3,.. , g.gsgy r. -
gy r
- 3 -
vf
. au. .
y r.
.f ,
.x..y~~
Vy b.. The inspector, who originally ',3:, " accepted these two welds, is
- l. no longer employed by the con- -
tractor and a reinspection of f all other work performed by him has been accomplished, where accessible. Of approximately 350 welds reinspected, two de-ficiencies'were noted and cor-rective action 'has been taken." - ..
. . flun,
^ -- -
- 6. The above-quo'ted ' statement 'was ' based 'upon 'a Bechtel -
response included as part of Attachment 4, Philadelphia Elec-tric Company Quality Assurance Finding Report No. N-093 dated October 27, 1976. That response at Sheet 2 of 3 states that the following corrective action was taken to resolve the finding:
"A reinspection of all other work performed by the particular inspector who accepted the welds in question vas accomplished wherever accessible."
That same page carries the handwritten notation that Bechtel Field Inspection Reports C-63-7 through C-63-19 (identified collectively as Attachment 6) provide the basis for the above quoted statement. .
- 7. Additional welds which were the responsibility of the v
, if' subject inspector were identified in early 1977. See Bechtel
- C s'
,({,.; Field Inspection Reports Nos. C-63-20 and C-63-21, collectively
. identified as Attachment 7.
q ' _.,
- 8. On. April 5, 1977, Bechtel Field Inspection Report J'c. . ' *C-63-22 was initiated in order to redetermine the accessibility P
for inspection of the installed structural steel beams and columns previously identified in Attachments 6 and 7 to allow further reinspection and assure that all accessible welds were inspected.
..Thiis Fisld I'n spec' tion Report Ts' identified as Attachmen6.8.
- ~ .
j'
,? g. ' , , . , jJ s
- d' h Y . .s . , , . g
/' , ,
,. < i )j;.s.g; e .
. 'o ' !
L~* .
r
' ~
4 - d ?- e .t ::f.c,
^
. ..m
- 9. Attachment 9 contains additional Bechtel Field In-e spection Reports which were initiated to document further inspections which resulted from the preparation of Bechtel Field Inspection Report C-63-22 (Attachment 8).
- 10. Page 8 of 8 of Bechtel Field Inspection Report C-63-22 is a reconciliation of ab Weld Inspection Plans that had een identified as the responsibility of the subject inspector against the Bechtel Field Inspection reports which indicated that such welds had been reinspected. It was thus concluded by Company personnel on the' basis of the Bechtel reports that all welds
- which had been the responsibility of the subject inspector had en reinspected or ahalyze'd, and a non-conformance report (NCR-2710 referenced in Attachment 9 dispositioned t inaccessible or deficient welds. -
ev
- 11. In preparing its response to the Licensing Board's Second Special Prehearing Ccnference Order, LBP-83-39, July 26, 1983, and to review independently the validity of the information contained in reports previously submitted to the Board and AWPP,
< the Company conducted a review of the originaI quality assurance welding records prepared during the term of employment of subject inspector at the facility. This review took approximately four weeks and 2500 manhours.
l 12. As a result of this extensive review, it was determined that the subject inspector had responsibility for a total of 709 safety related__ - ~~ welds at the facility, of which 662 were structural welds and 47 were on components other than structural f( J. ! i,jj } .f .' .p
- t. . -
.i. ~
. . * : .h,., cy. ;. ;, .
,.y.y ...
9"
+ - 5 -
;'s<
steel, such as hangers (43), pipese (2), and electrical
- It was also determined that the conduit supports (2).
review program which was initiated as a result of NRC Inspection Report 76-06 and completed by the end of July, s. 1977, resulted in 403-accessible welds.,having been-rein-spected with four minor deficiencies noted. Thirty-one welds remained inaccessible but were dispositioned.
- 13. The remaining 228 structural welds include 16 which
' are totally accessible and 212 which are partially or totally' -
inaccessible. The 16 totally accessible welds have now been reinspected with one minor deficiency found. An engineering i j analysis is continuing to disposition the 212 partiafly or . totally in:iccessible welds and the one deficient accessible weld. This analysis is expected to be completed in approxi-mately one month. The 47 non-structural welds are all totally accessible and have now been reinspected with 19 minor de-ficiencies found, all of which are hanger welds. Although these hanger weld deficiencies would be dispositioned normally as part of the final hanger completion and inspection program, they will instead be specially dispositioned within one month.
- 14. The Company's review of this matter is continuing.
The program includes a further physical reinspection of a representative number.of the welds for which the subject h'h /N 4 Yr b s
- a:r.u. sD. . .
/ 4..i, e v:.m..'t..'.6 A L "a;7,-
Y ..
- N W;. r%!h Q'. - ?
- , u. ;; .
'. y ft titJswut?
fl12[$.4,' . of . l .,
#) ,
(('
- h;j,]* ' Y-
..-".S i
- W ,' . . , , .g - {"g._ . l
. .R
, .i; k
-6 -
SS *:;.
.~' -q:3 ; ?-
9' inspector was responsible. There are initial,-iwatea 's , e not yet confirmed, that s.ome additionaf deficiencies may' be present. -
- e Vincent S. Boyer (/
Sworn to me this date ofw k ' r c. . /. /, 19 8 3
,.' % I y I
/ -
wu.[
/1lme, . /
,# Notary Pub) 2:tf g-(
Notary Public. Phandelphia, Phaeddphia ce, My comadsske Egire.: s.c. e yf Qf, /f l l l i I T ' T.
- t. ..- <;
3 \ 1 t '. .
~. .. .. . ,
i
,'d)"f,...
' ' - . . i.1 . . . , .
* ~'
.,=,;, < ~ .
L. ' , s ' p au. e V- A 4_' -Q
i i/
}.$
. . .I*-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ' I I In the Matter of ) C* , i w
) g . _ . . . . . . .
Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352-- -
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) ) APPLICANT'S SECOND INTERIM REPORT TO LICENSING BOARD RELATING TO CONTENTION VI-l Applicant is hereby forwarding to the Licensing Board . and parties the attached Affidavit of Vincent S. Boyer, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power, Philadelphia Electric Compa7y dated September 29, 1983. This report updates Mr. Boyer's affidavit dated September 16, 1983 which was transmitted to the Board and parties by Applicant's Interim Report to the Licensing Board Relating to Contention VI-l of the same date. Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C. Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company October 4, 1983 < {- -.
, ):$$?..'
. , . .t ;'
. ' ;.1 N .q',j >*: ? % i
.*-( .i~ l
i
-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of ) Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352-50-353
)
(Limerick Generating Station, ) , Units 1 and 2) ) AFFIDAVIT OF VINCENT S. BOYER SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, . NUCLEAR POWER PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY vincent S. Boyer being first duly sworn according to law deposes and states:
- 1. On September 16, 1983, I executed an affidavit which was submitted to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dealing with the Company's review of welds which in 1976 were the responsibility of a certain Quality control inspector. That affidavit indicated that the review was continuing. The purpose of this affidavit is to up-date and correct information previously reported.
2. To reflect the current status of the review, paragraphs 12 and 13 of the September 16, 1983 affidavit would be modified as set forth below with the reasons for these changes being discussed here-with and in subsequent paragraphs. 12' As a result of this extensive review, it was determined that the subject inspector had responsibility for a total of 1235 safety-related weld inspections at the facility, of which 654 were structural welds and 581 were on components.o.ther.-thdn
- j).! 4'.3# -
.v 'y, n yt;;. , -p ywqca . . M:s , $$ ; .if
s
- 2 -
structural steel, such as hangers (577) , pipes (2) , and electrical conduit supports (2). , 13' It was also determined that the' review program which was initiated as a result of NRC Inspection Report 76-06 and completed by the end of July, 1977 had identified 426 structural welds, 423 being accessible and 3 inaccessible. The 423 accessible welds were reinspected with 6 minor defi~ ! ciencies noted. Four of these were reworked, and 2 were found acceptable by engineering analysis. The 3 inaccessible welds were found by engineering analysis to be acceptable. \ The extensive August, 1983 review identified 228 additional 4 structural welds, 16 being totally accessible and 212 partially 'l s or totally inaccessible. The 16 totally accessible welds have
#f now been reinspected with one minor deficiency found. This 0
4 weld, together with the 212 partially or totally inaccessible _ 7 welds, have been found by_ engineering analysis _ to be acceptable. The non-structural welds, totalling 581, are all totally i accessible. Of these, 577 represent hanger welds with 534 of the 577 being welds of hangers which were completely reinspected, prior to August,1983 as part of a separate hanger inspection program. The remaining 43 hanger welds for which final in-spections had not yet been made, together with the 4 non-hanger welds, have now been rein'spected. These hangers contained 19 minor deficiencies which would have normally been dispositioned as part of the final hanger completion and inspection program. They, instead, will be specially dispositioned within one week. g.c. l > v . e' , , ['g.
* . % e
" ' '
- w --~.---r . . . - _ . . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ , _ _
,n
{i. - 3 -
- 3. The number of structural welds previously reported was ,
reduced from C62 to 654 due to the elimination of 8 welds which, in 1976, were classified as safety-related welds but due to their location and functicn,/ were subsequently reclassified as non-safety related welds. / s
'4 . In the interest of reporting all possible safety-related welds which could be considered to be the responsibility of the subject inspector, a number of welds which were initially examined by him, but which were subsequently reinspected for programmatic reasons beginning in late 1980, are being included. This explains the increase, noted above, in the number of safety-related non-structural welds from 47 to 581. In December, 1980 a general hanger reinspection program was initiated due to job conditions which re-sulted in additional hanger work being required after partial in-spections had been performed. This reinspection program required a final QC inspection of all welds of all safety-related hangers regardless of their previous inspection status. The subject in-spector had made inspections of $34 . welds on partially completed hange,rs which had subsequently been subject to modification and completely reinspected prior to August, 1983. A current reinspection by Philadelphia Electric Company of 60 of these 534' completed hanger welds was performed with one minor deficiency being detected which has been found by engineerit.g analysis to be acceptable.
- 5. The reported numbers relating to the review program of safety-related structural welds completed by the end of July, 1977 are changed-due to the initial inclusion of non-safety grade welds
/ >
in the' inaccessible count and a corresponding error in the breakdown t - r - -
-G
m l e , ' - . 4 - # r , of the number of accessible and inaccessible welds. The corrected count is that by the end of July, 1977,'423 accessible welds were reinspected (corrected from 403) and 3 inaccessible welds (corrected l from 31) were identified and dispositioned satisfactorily where.re-quired.
- 6. The Company's physical reinspection program, as reported in paragraph 14 of the September 16, 1983 affidavit, involved further physical reinspection of 67 safety-related structural welds. Fifteen of these were from the 1983 reinspection group of 16 accessibidf. welds discussed in paragraph 13 of the September 16, 1983 affidavit and 52 were from the 1976/77 reinspection group of 423 accessible welds.
Six deficiencies were identified from the latter group,7and these have been found by engineering analysis to be acceptable. s < j l Vincent S. Boyer (/ Sworn to me this N date of GEPTP_ MAT:/t , 1983
- E _
Notary Public PATRICIA D. SCHOLE Notary Public Philadelphia, Philadelphie Co. My Commission Empires February 10, 1986 (I 2' , h 4
*i. - .
Q *
~._s' , ,
.. '. a. '
~
To i i i - OCT 151976 Philadelphia Electric Company License No. CPPR-106 Attention: 4te. V. S. Boyer Inspection No. 76-09 Vice President Docket No. 50-352 Engineering and Research
. 2301 Market Street I ! Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Gentlemen:
I This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. A. Toth of this office on l l September 11, 14-17, 27, 1976 at the Limerich Generating Station of activities authorized by NRC License No. CPPR-106 and to the discussions of our findings held by Mr. Toth with Mr. Corcoran of your staff at the conclusion of tht inspection. l Areas examined during this inspection are described in the Office of
; Inspection and Enforcement Inspectiot Report which is enclosed with this i letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with
, personnel, and observations by the inspector.
i Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements, as set forth in the Notice of Violation, enclosed herewith as Appendix A. These items of noncompliance have been categorized into the levels as described in our correspondence to you dated December 31, 1974. This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice". Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this notice, a written statement or explanation in reply including: (1) corrective steps which have been taken by you and the results achieved; (2) correct?ve steps which will be taken to
! avoid further items of noncompliance; and (3) the date when full com-pliance will be achieved.
With respect to Appendix A, we note that you have corrected Item No 3, and therefore you need not address yourself to this matter in your response. 1
. . .., . - ~ . .
5 t Item No. 2, shown in the Notice of Violation enclosed with this letter is a recurrent or uncorrected item. In your response to this letter please give this matter your particular attention. In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rales of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Ragulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor) believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such information from public disclosure. Any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information, which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a stacament of reasons which addresses with specificity the. items which will.be considered by the Commission as listed in subparagraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790. The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be
- placed in the Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. t Sincerely, Robert T. Carlson, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch -
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation
- 2. IE Inspection Report No. 50-352/76-09
- - - - , ---m - . - . , . , - , . - - _ . . . - - . e. -
.,-,-----_-.-.----.--m.. . . - - - - . . , , . _ . - . . - - . - - - . , , - ~ ~ .
e - l
;. .. .w.. .
L
*~
Licens,e No. CPPR-106 , s APPENDIX A NOTICE-0F VIOLATION Based on the results of the NRC inspection conducted on September 11, 14-17, and 27,.1976, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with the conditions .of NRC Facility License CPPR-106 as
-in,ticated below.~ These items are infractions.
, 1. Criterion V of Appendix B of 10 CFR 50 requires that " activities affec'.ing quality . . . shall be accomplished in accordance with
- -these instructions, procedures, or drawings." ' Job specification
. P-393 requires " protective closures and. seals shall be applied to component openings to maintain cleanliness prior to,'during, and subsequent to erection, and . . . openings and pipe ends shall be sealed at all times except when they must be unsealed to carry out necessary fabrication op'erations." Contrary to the above, the CRD penetrations were on September 27, 1976 observed to be uncovered and dust, particulates, and paint
- overspray were observed in the open
- socket veld ends.
- 2. Criterion V of Appendix B of 10 CFR 50 requires that "' activities affecting quality . . . shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings." Job specification C-36 part 6.1.4 requires spacing of reinforcement in accordance wich
- ACI-318 which specifies clear distance between bars not less than the nominal bar diameter nor 1 inch.
Contrary to the above, on September 15, 1976, parallel bars were in contact in the containment drywell wall above the airlock. The licensee initiated corrective action steps innediately.
- 3. Criterion XV of Appendix B of 10 CFR 50 requires that "Non-
- conforming. items shall be reviewed and accepted, rejected, repaired, or reworked in accordance with documented procedures."
E Bechtel Field Inspection Manual Procedure G-3 provides the mechanics of obtaining and documenting the above actions. , Contrary to the above, the quality control inspection reports for June 23-24, 1976 concrete placement of the containment drywell I walls did not reflect that concrete ingredient proportions were suspect for six truckloads of concrete, nor was this matter identified and reported in the controlled manner provided by the nonconformance report system. The licensee promptly corrected this item by issuance of the required nonconformance report for action per the G-3 procedure.
AIR and WATER , 1 Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA. 76-06-01 CHRONOLOGY PACKET Here are facts backed by official documentation to prove there has been an apparant fraud by Philadelphia Electric (P.E.) involv-ing crucial, safety related welding infractions at the Limerick nuclear reactor. On November 10, 1976, reacting to an unannounced Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission (NRC) inspection report, Mr. Robert Carlson, of the NRC, wrote a letter (item 1) to P.E. Vice-President for Eng-incering and Research, Mr. Vincent Boyer. In that letter, Mr. Carl-son notified Mr. B. oyer of serious violations in mandatory construc-tion procedures involving welding infractions in the on-going con-struction at the Limerick reactor. (See Inspection Report No. 50- , 353/76-06 (item 2), and in partucular " Notice of Violation", Appen-dix A, Part A (item 3) of Mr. Carlson's letter. As discussed under Part A, the most glaring example of repeat-ed welding violations had to do with the welding of safety-related items by non-qualified welders, using unapproved methods in contempt of specified procedures. In this most glaring exampic, detailed on Page 5 of " Summary of Findings" under 76-06-01 (item 4), inspectors were recording a.s OoK. improperly performed welds. On learning of these repeated vio-lations from workmen, the NK: inspector, over the objection of Phila-delphia Electric, demanded an immediate inspection of questioned welds, and found them to be grossly deficient...but recorded as O.K. (described in item % ebove) . On Decemb'er 15, 1976, Vincent Boyer responded to Mr..Carlson's November 19 notice of violations, by writing to Mr. James P.O. O'R-cilley, Director, NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement, at Reg . ion 1, King of Prussia, Pa. (item 5). Mr. Boyer wrote, "the inspec-tor involved is no longer employed by the contractor and a reinspec-tion of all other work performed by him has been accomplished where accessible". (see p 1 & 2 of attachment 1 of Mr. Boyer's Dec. 15, 1976 letter (item 6) (underlining mine). The Air & Water Pollution Patrol, a Pennsylvania incorporated environmental group is intervening before the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board contending a high potential for accident exists at Limerick. This situation exists because P.E.'s Vice-President Boyer should have requirred inspection of all welds, both accessible and inaccessible, which now, at great risk, are embedded in concrete, and are no longer accessible for inspection. l l
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA. (2) 50-353--Welding--76-06-01 (cont.) And now,seven years later, in order to counter our contention, P.E. has suddenly changed its story. Mark Wetterhahn, P.E.'s coun-sel, in correspondence of April 27, 1983 (item 7), responding to questioning by the Licensing Board relating to the possible impact of safety at Limerick, emphatically stated, "all welds inspected by the particular inspector, not only accessible welds were re-examined" (underlining by P.E.). (See p r-4 3 & ~4 6 ) Apparantly to further remove any doubts caused by our insistent contention, a follow-up letter of May 20 (item 8) from P.E.'s Counsel to the licensing Board, contained various work records, in particular Finding Report No. N 093 (ltem 9), that was stated to be sent as ab-solute proof that all welds... accessible as well as inaccessible , welds were inspected (see p.2 of May 20 letter, lines 7,8,9,10, 11). (Report No. N093 does not even discuss inaccessible welds.) In an order dated July 26, 1983, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in spite of ordering that Air & Water Pollution Patrol's wel-ding contention be thrown out, requested affadavits from Philadelphia Electric to affirm their emphatic statements contined in their April 27 letter that "all welds...not only where accessible were re-exam-ined" (* item 10) Unable to substantiate, via affidavit, information which had pre-v'iously and repeatedly been submitted as fact, Philadelphia Electric, through its Counsel Mark Wetterhahn's letter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, dated August 19, 1983 (item 11) wrote: . In the course of preparing to respond to - the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's request contained in its Second Special Prehearing ord-er (LPB-83-39) dated July 26, 1983, at 38-39 for an affidavit to verify the statements contained in Counsel's May 20, 1983 letter to the Licen-sing Board, it was learned that all inspections performed by the subject quality control inspector had not been identified and, therefore, not re-in-spected as previously believed. (underlining AWPP's) As a result of Philadelphia Electric Counsel's August 10, 1983 letter above, and the Air & Water Pollution Patrol's request for re-consideration of its Quality Assurance Contention, identified as AWPP VI-1, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board reversed its posi-tionthrough its October 28, 1983 "Memorandun and order Confirming Rulings Made At Prehearing Conference". (item 12) i
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA. - (3) 50-353--Welding--76-06-01 (cont.) As can be seen on p5 of.that Order, our Quality Assurance Con-tention was only " partially admitted" thus eliminating an extremely serious known concrete defect (item 13) in the drywell wall surround- . ing the primary containment enclosing the reactor core. The partial contention, after eliminating concrete and other re-lated infractions, however, was atore than just a contention. It was a proven fact, as we made known to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that (as the contention reads) " Applicant has failed to con-trol performance of welding and performance there-of in accordance with Quality control and Quality Assurance. procedures and. require - ments, and has failed to take proper and corrective and pre.ventive actions when improper welding has.bcen discovered". Items 14 & 15 is a confused attempt, via " engineering analysis " to cover one such failure. Just as at Zimmer, Air & Water Pollution Patrol has hundreds of documented infractions of specified procedures in concrete work
- and sa'fety related welding.
37 ;; , i. J.,,,,, - e. Just as at Zimmer,it is already known there h. ave been slip-shod inspections of safety related work. o,, t , \ .: e, -c: Just as at Zimmer, it is already known there tuve been falsifi-cation of records. raco ' c, , Just as at Zimmer, workmen have anonymously reported. completed and done. inspected as O.K work which was later shown to be improperly v 1. , ick .-n.m Just as at Zimmer, there was deliberate sabotage. - c <" " '
?
(f y, 3. , c m < :. Just as at Zimmer, so-called qualified workers were found.to be performing improper welds and performing welding procedures for which they were not qualified.
- w u ,
~. -:{.
And just as at Zimmer, the Contractor, the Applicant, and in-spectros by-passed safety codes and standards, ignored their own quality assurance program, and then covered up flagrant violations, through false statements.
.c. . ;,:';. . & n - < ' :e . , 6
^
And just as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was part of the whole sorid Zimmer indictment of the nuclear establishment, that same Nuclear Regulatory Commission, during much the same time was meting out gentle responses to infractions at Limerick. And this same federal agency, while watching Zimmer and Phila-
AIR and WATER
' Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(4) 50-353--Welding--76-06-01 (cont.) delphia Electric (as stated in the Inquirer, Jan. 24, 1984) . repeat-edly refused to insist, on safe nuclear standards even when workers and others submitted evidence of contempt for specified procedures in safety related construction work. (We may have a Limerick work-we who might testify to this). Philadelphia Electric, as ordered by the Atomic Saftey and Li-censing Board placed all discovery documents at 2300 Market St., in Philadelphia, but the time alloted to Air and Water Pollution Patrol to ferret out all the details was totally insufficient, so that we could not fully search out the welding affair. We also requested meeting with the Applicant's attorney (Mark J. Wetterhahn) who said he would show AWPP how to do through the thousands and thousands of records to show the method of finding various peices of information. However, when we brought up certain needs, he told us to write him about it and he would get the infor-mation. He, thereby, did not show us how to go through the thous-ands and thousands of records and lost us precious time. l l .}}