ML20095F622
Text
- - _ -
~' ~I'
- A* *
. : -a u - s : %
~ ~~. --
e
' ~ - - ' - '
- ~~'-* * '
.s-. u.: -
- g. ; ;
,-?
.+...
'.i Q.h g UNITED STATES
~-t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
h REGION ill
/
799 ROOSEVELT ROAO e
di DT OLEN ELLYN,ILLINOls 80137
- .e* g July 23, 1982
[
MEMORANDt21 FOR:
R. F. Warnick, Director, Enforcement and Investigations Staff FRON:
R. J. Cook, Senior Rasident Inspector, Midland Site 6
SUBJECT:
INDICATORS OF QUESTICNABLE LICENSEE PERFORMANCE - MIDLAND SITE O
As per our conversation of July 21, 1982, the following is a list of these items that various inspectors consider to be indicative of questionable
,]
licensee performance:
1.
One of the leading items is the over-inspection performed on electrical QC inspectors which was done in response to NRC concerns identified in the May 1981 team inspection. The licensee found weaknesses in the inspections performed by some electrical QC inspectors pertaining to not identifying the mis-routing of cables. This item culminated in an item of noncompliance. The licensee did not expand the overview activity to a degree necessary for an acceptable resolution to the identified weak-ness - even after a meeting in RIII. This item has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC although our position has been clearly defined. I As a partial response to the tea = inspection concern, the licensee presented the NRC with an audit report which would demonstrate a response to our con-cern of questionable electrical QC inspections. However, the audit report stated that it (the audit report) did not address the NRC concerns.
2.
During the dialogue for the underpinning and remedial soils work, a large amount of emphasis has been placed on the settling data for the structures involved. During a meeting in HQ on March 10, 1982, the need for QC require-ments on remedial soils instrumentation were explicitly delineated. However, one week later, the NRC inspectors found soils work instru=entation instal-lation was started the day after the March 10, 1982 meeting without a QC/QA unbrellas that the licensee's QA Auditor and QA Engineering personnel were not approached pertaining to the need for QA coverage for this soils settle-
~
ment instrumentation: that there were strong indications that the licensee had mislead the NRC in relating that the work was essentially complete when indeed it was nots and presently, the licensee management informs our inspec-tor that items are ready for his review when in actuality they are not. Our conversations with licensee personnel - other than management - confirm that the items are not ready for review.
8408270323 840718 1
~
_ _ ; _2 _
' " y *.v wp.dI4.Ah.I,.T mas G.* e f P*J1A W R e.1'
" A S,"N.M Ls4
'4, E., '.m e
- w e4.k AA (2.M Ye.,. was b*\\
e
- 4.. *.%... h. i
,j U.
f,
\\
R. 7. Warnick 2
July 23, 1982 l
3.
Historically, one of the NRC questions has been, "Who is running the job - Bechtel or Consumers?" The following example would allow one to believe it is Bechtel: As a part of the resolution to our findings in the soils settlement instrumentation installation, the NRC insisted that the licensee generate a Coordination / Installation Form to cover interface between different evolutions of instrumentation installation. The lican-see would call our inspector for his concurrance on the adequacy of the form - the inspector would approve Consumers Power Company's form, but then would find out that Bechtel did not want to work to Consumer's form -
the form that was generated to resolve regulatory concerns. This event has occurred twice and was considered as a deviation during a more recent inspection. The opinion of the staff is that if Consumers generates a y
form that will aid them in not incurring regulatory difficulty, and which has had NRC input, the licensee should demand that the contractor comply with these policies instead of the contractor dictating the regulatorf environment under which they will work.
4.
Deficiencies in material storage conditions has continually been a concern to the NRC and has resulted in items of noncompliance. To the inspectors, e
the ability to maintain quality storage is indicidve of how rigorous or slipshod the constructor's attitude is towards construction., The licensee has attemted to entice the constructor to do better in maintaining the material storage conditiens, but still the licensee's auditors and the NRC have negative findings in material storage conditions and negative discussions with the contractor abmt tha validity of the finding.
5.
At periodic intervals, the support of cables, particularly in the control
'e room area, which are awaiting further routing or termination, has met with the disapproval of the NRC inspectors. These discrepancies also include cables without covered ends being on the floor in walk areas that are in a partially installed status. This is also another indicator of slipshod workmanship which has been brought to the constructor's attention at various times, but was last noted during a recent inspection.
6 In the area of instrumentation i= pulse line installation and marking, the licensee has had separability violations which has required removal of all installed impulse lines. Also, the NRC, because of this and significant adverse operational conditions, insisted that the installed impulse lines be identified. Although the licensee plans to mark the impulse lines, there was an inordinate amount of resistance to marking the lines - even though there had been instances of mis-matched channels because of iden-tification confusion.
.. ~ -
.-. -.. ~ -.
_c. m.. u ;.;..z
.s # _ s.
.s.
e.~ -,,.
U p,..
O R. F. Warnick 3
July 23, 1982 1
s
't se 7.
An example of reluctance in placing the responsibility for quality work-manship at the foreman and/or worker level has recently been identified.
The NRC inspectors noted that scene drop-in anchors were improperly instal-led and obviously did not adhere to the installation procedures. The licensee's attitude indicated this was not a valid finding because QC had not inspected the item. The NRC inspectors treat this as indicative that slipshod workmanship is tolerated in the hopes that QC will find the mistakes.
39 5
8.
Late in 1981, the licensee decided to move the QA Site Superintendent into v' ;
another position and cover this site function by sharing the site time be-a14 tween the QA Director and the QA Manager. After a January 1982 meeting with the NRC at RIII, the licensee opted to fill the QA Superintendent spot with another person. In the spring of the year, the NRC inspectors were following S
up on welding allegations and approached the QA Superintendent. The QA Superintendent was familiar with the alleged poor welding and had established what the NRC inspectors determined to be a responsive plan to resolve the questionable QC welding inspections. At the Exit Interview, the QA Director did not appear to back the QA site Superintendent's proposed plan which had l
tacit NRC approval. The NRC inspector classified in writing and with just cause that the Exit Interview was the most hostile exit interview he had ever encountered.
9.
During a recent inspection, it was noted by the NRC inspector that fill dirt was piled and being covered with a mud mat at a nominal 1:1 horizontal to vertical slope when the specification called for a l\\ 1 horizontal to verti-cal slope. A constructor Field Engineer' witnessed the wrong slope being installed and justified and defended the slope after being informed of the specification requirement. This is another example of the constructor having an attitude which precludes quality workmanship.
l 10.
Atdifferent times, NRC inspectors have experienced difficulty in getting i
information which is controlled by the contractor, such as supporting cal-culations and qualifying information to justify a given installation. A recent example is: the NRC inspector informed the licensee and the centrac-ter he wanted to see resumes of persons involved in the remedial soils work.
There is an obligation to the NRC to supply a precise number of " qualified" persons on the soils work. The inspector was informed he could not get these records as they were personal. The inspector ultimately did get the informa-l tion after bringing it to the attention of licensee upper management. How-ever, this indicates an implied unwillingness of the constructor to share information with the NRC and sometimes with the licensee.
i
)
~.g;w....... :.. ::. w
- ?.
- -.nLC.NN 3.5. m Nb.&..G.L a Lu ::
n
'~r- - n' uo=b
- A.a
...t 5),".
2
.'2
+, y) d.'.
R. F. Warnick 4
July 23, 1982 9.1
. (.:
el*
.9
- N 11.
The licensee oftentimes does not demonstrate a " heads up" approach to ve their activities. The following are examples of the licensee operating
~'
in an environment using tunnel vision
" blinders".
a) During a recent NRC inspection, the inspector challenged the ability
~
to maintain the proper mix ratio on high pressure grout. This was a
done after the inspector noted that the operator could never maintain
.7 the proper mix ratio without continual manual control - which was not
.j3 available when the grout is applied. The licensee's apathetic atti-tude did not allow them to stop the grout application until the next day when this became an issue at the exit interview, b) At one point in time, the company doing drilling on site for the i.
remedial soils work cut into a safety related duct bank between the diesel generator building and the service water building. The Consu-mars Power Site Manager's Office (the production people) stopped work because - from a quality standpoint conditions were so deplorable.
However, the Site Manager's Office did not have responsibility in this area - the Midland Project QA Department had this responsibility and did not invoke their authority to prevent the drilli'ng work from get-ting out of control - or to bring it back into control.
c) The NRC inspector recently witnessed the licensee setting up to drill a well hole in safety related dirt using a technique which was not authorized. If the inspector had not brought this to the licensee's i'
attention, the licensee would have violated an order addressing reme-dial soils work and also the Construction Permit. When the licensee was queried as to the availability of the QC/QA personnel who would prevent such activity from happening, the NRC inspector was informed that this was (another) misunderstanding.
The NRC inspectors have been informed by our centacts on site that there
! ~
are memoes written to the effect that " peripheral vision" should be cur-tailed and communication with the NRC stiffled. The NRC has nc.: read these memoes yet - but plans to in the near future, provided they really exist and infer what we have been informed.
12.
The licensee seems to pcssess the unique ability to search all factions of the NRC until they have found one that is sympathetic to their point 1
of view - irregardless of the impact on plant integrity. Some examples of this are a) The NRC soils inspector informs the licensee that soils stabilization grout comes under the Q program. The licensee is not particularly happy with this position. Unknown to the inspector, the licensee argues his point with NRR to have the grout non-Q - using only those arguments which support his (the licenree's) position. Tne licensee 1
..___.,m,
_._,.__,~[_____.._._..,,.,,_
^
7
.; QT
. 72:.
. M M :,. w ux.. X T w..
- . u.6 A...,;.
.......a-Q.*e h*
P; a
d' ~.
R. F. warnick 5
July 23, 1982 4
D. ;
'd has the advantage of the NRC inspector's technical and regulatory basis for supporting his (the inspector's) position, and therefore j
avoids mention of this during the discussions with NRR.
- However, the licensee's QA program, which has already been approved by NRR, states that all the remedial soils work is Q unless RIII approves a
..Y relaxation on a case by case basis. It appears the licensee does
~ A' not wish to acknowledge the prior agreements with the NRC.
- g
- p b) since the failure of auxiliary feedwater headers in B&W steam genera-
- A tors, discussions have transpired between the NRC inspectors and the
]'
site personnel. These discussions have indicated that the licensee was maintaining a conservative approach and were entertaining the concerns expressed by the NRC which were stimulated primarily by gross mistakes in attempting the modification at operating B&W plants. The licensee's corporate personnel were annoyed that the NRC inspectors b'
would not give approval to start the modification until all the pre-5 *.
paratory work had been accomplished as this would tend to impact the schedule and the modification to the steam generators could become a g
scheduling nuisance. The licensee corporate personnel contacted the NRC inspectors involved to " reason with them".
However, the corpor-ate per.tonnel, (including a representative from B&W). were unable to answer tae concerns of the NRC inspectors but did mention that the NRR OperationT1 Project Manager indicated that it was alright to proceed l
with the odification. The licensee corporate personnel.could not state what the position of the NRR Construction Project Manager was on this issu - only that they had found some form of approval from'some-one in the NRC.
c) At times, when Immediate Action Letters or other forms of escalated enforcement become imminent, the licensee attempts to " appeal" their j
case with individuals in the regional management who are removed from the particulars of the tentative enforcement action. The licensee at-tempts to get these persons to agree to specific portions of the issue 1
which would indicate that the licensee is "really not all that bad".
However, the "real" issues, as identified by the NRC inspectors are being masked.
d) During inspections of the remedial soils work, the NRC inspector has 3
been informed by the licensee that certain findings and areas of inspec-i tien were not within the purview of his (the inspector's) inspection program because they were irr essence considered non-Q and that by virtue of prior agreement with the Regional Administrator were excluded from enforcement action. However, the NRC inspectors would subsequently find that there was no such agreement between the Regional Adninistrator and the licensee - only a philosophical discussion as to what, in general terms, constituted an item of noncompliance.
i l
l
. - -.-. l l -
~
~
.. O
~
~
^
.J ~ ^
7"'
u.
A.R:;N.d.6.~.O GM'Ahu%.x Sn & A D dE**..
J.'& M
. %wh Q ; 9.
. A.
r, u.
w.
f.
- ig.
@N.
-] ;
R. F. Warnick 6
July 23, 1982 m
.A a.:
]'$
The above indicators support the reputation the licensee has for being argumentative. Their apparent inability to accept an NRC position with-out diligently searching to find a " softened" position results in numer-
'j ous hours of frustrated conversations between all parties involved to
- q'i,.i resubstantiate (usually the original position) a position based on tech-ij nical and regulatory prudency.
4
.h
- 13. The licensee has been classified publicly by the NRC as being argumenta-
,y tive. The licensee continues'to exhibit this trend, as evidenced by the jd following examples
- M 1%
a) Essentially every item of noncompliance receives an argumentative
].$
answer which addresses only the specificity of the item of noncom-d pliance and selectively avoids any concept which would support the
]gi essence for the item of noncompliance. For example - in the instance g
of the improperly installed drop-in anchor mentioned above, it was the fact that QC had not inspected the installation of the bolt which y
was important to the licensee. However, the real enforcement issue F.,'
was that components were being improperly installed.
o a :,
b) The Cycle II SALP made critical evaluations of the licen.see's perfor-mance in several areas. The licensee's response to this SALP report s9 was argumentative over specific details and did not seem to acknowl-4
,P edge that the consensus of opinion of the NRC inspection staff was
,,.ti that there were areas where the licensee's performance was weak. The
' ' 5, licensee's argumentative position is in the form of "we really are not all that bad" when the records, findings and observations of the NRC 1.:
inspectors support just the opposite position.
c) The "Q-ness" of the remedial soils work has continually been an argu-q mentstive topic of discussion which ultimately resulted in a HQ meeting on March 10, 1982. At this meeting, the "Q-ness" of the remedial soils j
work was specified and later documented with the meeting minutes. How-
].
ever, the licensee did not wish to abide by this position and a subse-quent meeting was held in RIII to further clarify the NRC position.
i Still, the topic of "Q-ness" is being argued by the licensee, even though the ASLB has issued an Order further defining the "Q-ness" of the soils work..It might be noted that a hearing is in process over this soils issue and the NRC's position on "Q-ness" has been expressed during these j'
testimonies.
14.
During a recent episode, the licensee wanted to continue excavation of soils in proximity to the Feedwater Isolation Valve Pit (FIVP). However, the lican-see wanted to perform this evolution without determining that the temporary supports of the FIVP were adequate. Making this determination would have an impact on scheduling, as stated by the licensee. The FIVP supports were installed without a Q umbrella and subsequent inspections did reveal several discrepancies in the installation of the support structure.
i,.
k c
L ft-1
~w, r.
-,-.,,.m
,-.m.e.
m,.--.-w.,.mm
_-w-~r_,wr
-,, m em e n.,
s
- u h aO--.M.W.w v
- imassyr& m- --.
g a:G.%s;.w.. n - (
...a
.i..~. -... u.. w s
o.
gf..
- Ii.$
llI h.
- .uh.
R. F. Warnick 7
July 23, 1982
$- 1 :
3:
Q
- 15. During the limited remedial soils work which has transpired, the licensee G
has managed to penetrate Q-electrical duct banks, a condenser header drain y
line, an abandoned sewer line, a non-Q electrical duct bank and a 72-inch 3
circulating water line. All of these occurances have happened because of
- j a lack of control and attention to details. Whenever approached by the NRC as to the adequacy of review prior to attempting to drill, the NRC P],1 receives responses which strongly suggest that the time was not taken to
['j perform these reviews - perhaps taking this time would impact on the J.
schedule.
]
16.
By virtue of an earlier AIAB Order, the licensee is required to perform trend analyses for nonconforming conditions. These trend analyses have,
- IN in the past, masked the data such that obvious trends are not obvious and if has resulted in negative findings by the NRC. This was addressed in one y
of the earlier SALP meetings. Recently, while performing a review of
-N hanger welding data, the NRC inspector found that the statistical data had
]
been diluted to the point that the number of unsatisfactory hangers could not be determined from the trend analyses or the type and degree of non-4 A
conforming conditions which were being identified pertinent to the hanger f abrication.
')
1 17.
The licensee continually would use the NRC staff as consultants and clas-
- e sifies a regulatory and enforcement position as counter productive. This
!1 is reflected by the licensee not wishing to perform Q-work without obtain-
- .j ing NRC prior approval and then addressing only those areas where the NRC has voiced a regulatory concern - provided it is convenient to the licensee.
i This attitude has particularly prevailed in the remedial soils issue and to '
a lesser degree in the electrical installation areas. The preferred NRC inspector mode would be for the licensee to generate his program to esta-blish quality and then the NRC would approve or disapprove. However, the j
licensee requires consultation with the NRC to establish his level of
~
quality requirements.
The above is not intended to be a complete list of all discrepancies which indi-cate questionable licensee performance as this would require a more extensive review of the records and inspection perscnnel involved than time permits. Also, there has been no attempt to systematically document the enforcement and unre-solved items list as these are contained in other information sources. However, the listing is rather comprehensive of the types of situations and attitudes which prevail at the Midland Site as observed by the NRC inspector staff.
When considering the above listing of questionable licensee perfomance attributes, i
the most damning concept is the fact that the NRC inspection effort at Midland has been purely reactive in nature for approximately the last year, and that these l,
indicators are what have been observed in approximately the last six months. If 1
t-4
_._._,.,_L-__TT.1...Z".*_._1__..._.-_,_._.__..-r,.
.--.,-..c
-as-n WD::61 w-> 6:Y n n x&:-.h--~-
.... - e... u a.
~.. a :.%:
=.-r..:.x:4%c :.L2..d.u. ::.
- f
<4
.m..
ff.,
n
~~~~
'll$
- .o.
..a d.
n
~ ?f-R. F. Warnick 8
July 23, 1982
. ;j
-is
' :n V
l(
these are th types of items that have become an NRC nuisance under a reactive ll.5 inspection Irogram, one can only wonder at what would be disclosed under a
=$
rigorous rou.ine inspection and audit program.
n
..x i,ji Sincerely,
. go
%.j
- m.$
~
f$
1M R. J. Cook h
Senior Resident Inspector
'.Y.).
Midland Site Resident Office
. "24 cc:
W. D. Shafer esq D. C. Boyd
- h*
R. N. Gardner
[
R. B. Landsman
%j
- 3. L. Burgess h,'
?}
r 7.%
wp g
7
' \\dT e l 'g I c,,.. )
- E
.b q o $g a 4 .f Y rr N d 4 ) E 9 9 e t . + - t' '. = > - *
- ----+-w-*
e+4---*w-'e- '*~- - ---- - -e- -=-----w-D-'
< 4-v
- W
~ ' E* u 2'* A ~N 'h "* ' " " ' - A *'*Y
- ty G.,'.r. AS* *v,. i %U4'.M 3-s n
M., - ' c) Inclosure 3 ]* UNITED STATES
- "88%
J.; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REoIO*f III f' y* 3-. y, 3 e 799 moosEVELT ROAD E '.h, '-
- a6 t,
4 oLEN Eu.vu. itumois sois? n %, * * " * / August 18, 1982 y G a [s MEMORANDUM FOR: Region III Files ,) ,3 FROM: Robert F. Warnick, Acting Director, Office of Special Cases. .1
SUBJECT:
MEETING BETWEEN NRR AND RECION III RE CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY j PERFORMANCE AT MIDI.AND (DN 50-329; 50-330) m.9 on July 26, 1982, R. F. Warnick and James G. Keppler met with E. G. Case, 14 D. G. Eisenhut, R. H. Vollmer, R. O. Tedesco, T. H. Novak, W. D. Paton, and ./ J. Rutberg to discuss the 1,trformance of Consu=ars Power Company at the ^ Midland site. During the. meeting reference was made to information contained in two memos from the RIII staff. The first meno dated June 21, 1982 is from C. E. Nore11us and R. L. Spessard and concerns suggested changes for the Midland Project. The second memo dated July 23, 1982 is from R. J. Cook and concerns the licensee's perfor=ance at Midland. Copies of the memos are attached. The meeting resulted in the following recom=endations: / (1) Region III should obtain the results of the recent audit by KMC. (2) Schedule a public meeting between NRC and CPC management in Midland, Michigan, to obtain licensee commitment to acco=plish (3) and (4) below. ~ (3) The licensee should obtain an independent design review. (A vertical slice from design thru completion of construction.) (4) The licensee should obtain an independent third party to continuously monitor the site QA implementation and provide periodic reports to the NRC. Region III is to provide a suggested outline for the contin-uous monitoring function. R4entFtdd Robert F. Warnick, Acting Director Office of Special Cases Attachments: As stated ec w/ attachments: Meeting participants
L. _ . -- ~--- -- i ;;- _..n..,,
- , u...
,;.,.2.,,is ,x m.,b,,,.._ a 3.u ~..y.<.M a.s ap.};,.6.w., y:e
- ., a,.
!? .>g. ]n!, a, )- "MIDIWfD-ACTIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE MIDLAND SECTION. OFFICE OF SPECIAL CASES" 2
- =
1. Establish an augmented inspection effort by the NRC. i j' s. Inspections should be concentrated in the following ten areas: &;j (1) Soils )[? (2) Electrical (3) IEC j (4) High Pressure Piping (5) Hengers and Supports. y (6) Corrective Action System - including identifAcation JL documentation, resolution, and prevention of future events. ".l (7) Receipt, Storage, and Handling y (8) Structural Steel 3) (9) Subcontractor Walder Qualification 4 (10) Management Overview System l l n-b. The effort as initially conceived will last from 6 to 12 months l 3j but it could last longer, c. c. It is proposed that the inspections be performed by the Midland Q Section and 5 contract inspectors assigned fulltime to the Midland i Section and located onsita. The Midland Section would be as follows : l l c (1) W. D. Shafer, Chief, Midland Section J.l (2) R. N. Cardner, Project Manager jf ' (3) R. B. Landsman, Inspector ~ (4) R. J. Cook, Senior Resident Inspector (5) B. L. Burgess, Resident Inspector (6) Welding & NDT-Contracted .( (7) Mechanical-Contracted (8) Electrical-Contracted (9) I & C - Contracted i (10) Startup & Test-Contracted (11) Secretary (Tu11 time) >l 2. Require the licensee to have an independent third party look at a vertical slice of a safety-related system from design through completion of construction. t 3. Require that all QC inspectors be independent of 3echtel, reporting only to CPCo. 4. Conduct NRC exits with Construction Manager. 5. NRC sheuld get commitments in writing and should give release on hold points in writing. 6. It is proposed that Mr. Keppler and Mr. Denton meet with Consumers Power Company and Bechtel top management to ensure that steps are taken to correct the following: e mee ., +
.u ..~.u- -..n.. ..m
- .c.;;.aa
.... : u. = ..cx.a. k,a1..; a &:e,e .o f
- r. 5.
- s yl l
~ o l. -2 .t a. The Site QA Superintendent is not being given the latitude &nd senior management support needed to perform his job effectively. Q b. Senior management is not being made aware of or is not dealing with .p QA problems. ~, ; J'; c. We are convinced that Bechtel has cost and scheduling as their fore-most consideration. Quality is taking a back-seat with management. i ') .s t l.U! l5 a I i s 5 s 0 i 6 i 6 ~ t +._
z... a..... .:.. m a u .= J f* AlHea A med-g I'. Consumers NS) POWER ple and consermanson .ieme w cook Mce President - Projects, Eng,nemng W )p} ,o.a.<w ome : is4s w= rwns no a. J.em on. ui 4s2oi. (si7: 7ss o4sa u September 17, 1982 5 PRINCIPAL STAFF v?. 1/d"e a Harold R Denton, Director 5~.. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation '2.'----!.._] b 3-US Nuclear Regulatory Commission y .,-g - iiT i N<. 3 Division of Licensing -, ;. ',t gp 4 Washington, DC 20555 C James G Keppler t I f.j Regional Administrator f,* -- ! ~ US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road ] Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 C MIDLAND NUCLEAR C0 GENERATION PLANT MIDLAND DOCKET NOS 50-329, 50-330 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION h FILE: 0485.16 SERIAL: 18850
REFERENCE:
CPCo Letter Serial 18845, 9/17/82, " Quality Assurance Program Implementation for Soils Remedial Work" The referenced letter summarized Consumers Power Company's discussions with the NRC management regarding the implementation of the Quality Assurance Program for the Midland soils remedial work. In addition to the discussions specifically related to soils, the total Midland Quality Assurance Program implementation was reviewed and areas were identified where additional efforts should be directed to insure successful overall project implementation and the performance of the primary inspection function (QC) on site. In response to these concerns Consumers Power made two significant new commitments which are conceptually described in the following paragraphs. Additional documentation will be provided as the details of these commitments are worked out. Quality Control Function In order to improve the performance of the Quality Control function and to make it more responsive to direction from the Quality Assurance organization, the responsibility for directing the entire Quality Control function will be assumed by Consumers Power. The Quality Control group will functionally report to MPQAD. The programmatic aspects now in place will continue to be used and the combined inspection resources of both Bechtel and CPCo will be integrated. This reorganization will be fully implemented as soon as the appropriate procedural changes are finalized. The integration of the QC resources for soils into MPQAD has already been accomplished as a separate action. oc0982-40244-66-100 SEF 2 2 822 9~/ m _
- a. -
~[ f f/.] d Q) b f L
1.a ; +. a u.L: e.:-W.:.a.A n ~ ' ue a C~. .a.. -1.~. :: ,q
- p
( 'N Page 3 ,?i
- n
?I purpose of this evaluation was to review the Midland engineering activities to -I determina if design criteria have been implemented and if the design, assumptions, design methods, and the design processes are satisfactory. f Bechtel Corporate Management was asked to initiate this assessment in order to j . certify that the Midland project met all the standards expected of any Bechtel project. To carry out this assignment the assessment team was specifically j chosen to be independent from the Bechtel Ann Arbor Power Division. The team T, consisted of senior experienced personnel with appropriate expertise having 3 previously performed similar work on other projects. A Consumers Power 2; representative was a direct participant on the assessment team. The final 7; report will be sent to the NRC upon. completion and whataver other
- 4 documentation or discussion as may be requested will be provided.
N Conclusion N lli Based on the discussion outlined above and in the reference letter, Consumers i Power believes that steps have been taken to insure both the successful 3 implementation of the remaining work to complete the plant and a verification -? program, including quality records, test program results, and third party i[j assessments, that will certify the adequacy of the plant as constructed, ) M ~ t JWC/ JAM /bjw d oc0982-4024a-66-164
.v...... ....,m... a... u a..uL':2 2; 1:u... - a. y,qa n..; * (ml:in i et. w
- 'g Page 4
.3 CC Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Of; CBechhoefer, ASLB NMCherry, Esq FPCowan, ASLB ^lj RJCook, Midland Resident Inspector RSDecker, ASLB " I-SGadler G JHarbour, ASLB GHarstead, Harstead Engineering .3 DSHood, NRC (2) DFJudd, B&W
- ?
JDKane, NRC FJKelley, Esq j RBlandsman, NRC Region III i4 WHMarshall If; JPMatra, Naval Surface Weapons Center n's?, W0tto, Army Corps of Engineers WDPatton, Esq SJPoulos, Geotechnical Engineers L' FRinaldi, NRC HSingh, Army Corps of Engineers BStamiris
- l s
oc0982-4024a-66-100
5 ;9...-. n a. u. yr.:. :.. ; c.~.+ a v.' k <<'. L >~~.'3k:A'KNJ 6 = -- = * - - w- 'T .F. .[i ~ *
- i.
Ji. CONSUMERS P0bT.R COMPANY Midland Units 1 and 2 Docket No 50-329, 50-330 7. Letter Serial 18850 Dated September 17, 1982 At the request of the Commission and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended and the Commission's Rules and Regulations thereunder, Consumers Power Company subnits / information regarding the implementation of the Consumers Power Company Quality Program for the Midland Plant. 9.h E.2 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY k nr i hii j JW ok, Vice President ? Proj ect Engineering and Construction Sworn and subscribed before se this day of e -l, .hai y. Notary Public Bay County, Michigan My Commission Empires 7 - // l .l.. siO982-0000a100-164 I --e c
...~ - --.--.w-- ~. -. ) g-UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [ o { .E REGION lli f 7se noOsEVELT ROAD e GLEN ELLYN. lLUNOIS 60W f e*-. Yto g egy S DocketNo.50-329$Q.C6 l Docket No. 50-33C Consumers Power Company ATTN: Mr. James V. Cook Vice President Midland Project 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen: Thank you for your letters dated May 28 and June-1,1, 1982, informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the noncompliance which we brought to your attention in Inspection Report No. 50-329/82-05(DETP); 30-330/82-05 (DETP); 50-329/82-06(DETP); 50-330/82-06(DETP) forwarded by our letters dated April 26, 1982. Regarding noncompliance item 82-05-02, parts a. and b., we still perceive these matters as valid items of noncompliance and, as such, do not consider the correc;ive actions delineated in your letter to be fully responsive as described below. 1. With respect.to example "a", we consider this a valid item of noncom-pliance. The technical basis for this is that the soldier piles in que,stion were being installed in "Q" soil, thus making the activity nq,, 2. With respect to example "b", we consider this a valid item of noncom-pliance. We do not consider the statements in EDPI 4.49.1 to be adequate. An established time limit is needed to assure that a more timely update of specifications on site is obtained. The corrective actions delineated in your letter are unacceptable, and an additional response is required. Regarding noncompliance item 82-05-02, parts c. and d., we will review your actions during a subsequent inspection. Regarding deviation 82-05-01, we perceive this matter as a deviation and, as such, do not consider the statements made in your letter to be respon-sive to the inspector's concern. It is our position that your civil QA and Resident Geotechnical staff is not adequately qualified for the complex remedial soils work. The basis for our conclusion is (1) your staff's academic qualifications are not in soils engineering and (2) their work experience in this area is not sufficiently broad. l QQ b N N! m q }r DML FILE Coey -} '%V U"G-
4+ .(;. . v. s . of. 3 1 1 MFP 2 $82 Consumers Powgr Compan[ 2 .D 3 0 'l 3.; y' -Regarding noncompliance 82-06-01, we consider your response to be unaccept-able. In regard to Section IV, paragraph 14, of your Jcne 4, 1982 report, -we have contacted NRR and have determined that an FSAR revision to allow
- less than 100% assurance that all class'1E cables are installed in accord-ance with design will'not,be acseptable., We request that you submit an r.
additional response which identifies 'thel date by which you will complete a 100% overinspection of all class 1E~ cables installed (or partially in-t stalled) before March 15, 1982 sE'as.to' satisfy your commitments as steted in the' Midland TSAR. In addition, we regaest that a sample over inspection program be developed forithose' cables installed after March 15, 1982 to ensure their compliance with;the FSAR. i With respect.to' noncompliance item 82-06-02, we will review your actions during subsequent inspections. Therefore, we request that you submit a second letter to this office within ~ 25 days of the date of this letter to respond to cur concerns regarding noncompliance items 82-05-02, parts a. and b., and. 82-06-01..Your response should be submitted under oath or affirmation'and should include (1) cor-rective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action taken a to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will \\ be achieved. Your cooperation with us is appreciatand. I Sincerely, /6l f $ N h1 DAW g) R. T. Warnick, Director f Office Special Cases k. 1 cc w/1trs dtd 5/28 & 6/11/82: l DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS) ~ Resident Inspector, RIII' l The Honorable Charles Bechhcefer, ASLB i The Honorable Jerry Harbour, ASLB The Honorable Trederick P. Cowan, ASLB 4 The Honorable Ralph E. Decker, ASLB i Michael Miller Ronald Callen, Michigan l Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry Barbara Stamitis Mary Sinclair Vendell Marshall . Colonel Steve J. Gadler (P.E.) j Consumers Power Company l-RL RIII Rill RIII l \\ W %V Lan sman jp Gardner Shafer Warnick 8/27/82 i i s-
e' a.. -.n_, i 9 O'.,s= Consumers - h" ' /* power James W Cook 0 0 Mce President - Projects, Engsneenng and Construction General ot,.ces; 1945 West Pernen Road, Jackson, Me 49201 * (517) 788 0453 October 15, 1982 Mr J G Keppler, Regional Administrator US Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAND NUCLEAR C0 GENERATION PLANT - INSPECTION REPORTS NOS 50-329/82-06, 82-07 AND 50-330/82-06, 82-07 FILE:
0.4.2 SERIAL
19071 Re ferences : 1) JWCook letter to JGKeppler, Serial 19052, dated September 30, 1982, Re Inspection Report Nos 82-05 & 82-06
- 2) JWCook letter to JGKeppler, Serial 19057, dated September 30, 1982, Re Inspection Report No 82-07 Reference 1 committed tc providing you the schedule for accomplishing reinspection of cable reuting.
There are approxic:ately 6,000 Class lE cables installed prior to March 15, 1982, which re=ain to be reinspected. We plan to complete the reinspecticn of cable routing by the end of April, 1983, utilizing six tea =s working three teams per shift. These teams will also conduct a sample everinspecticn for cables installed after March 15, 1982. Reference 2 contains an error in the body of the letter in that in paragraph 2, the date in the first line should be January 1, 1981. } D,G m 0 I g3
^ ^ ~~1.., 2 . Sarici 19071 Consumers Power Company By Sworn and subscribed to before me on this 15th d of October, 1982. $c.uE, Lu LU Notary Public, Bay Coudtf. Mich .9-4-((- / My commission expires JWC/WRB/ljr CC RWarnick, NRC Region III WDShafer, NRC Region III { RNGardner, NRC Region III .RJCook, NRC Resident Inspector, Midland Site RBLandsman, NRC, Region III BLBurgess, NRC Region III a 5 t e h w ,..,__.._,_.7-,,
g.
- g..
f ,e /4 A u,, a 4 i (k-O consumers Power ,m Comp 2Dy vu, w - wi<<>a s'<<' and Censmscries o m onw : te4s w p rn.u n..a. ;==
- a. m 4emot. (ain 7sso4ss 4
September 17, 1982 l ri-l f. .-...... b Harold R Denton, Director e i. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ]i Division of Licensing .j US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 J G Keppler ,E ~ ~ )A~ ~ Administrator, Region III ' - - * " ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAND NUCLEAR C0 GENERATION PLANT HIDLAND DOCKET NOS 50-329, 50-330 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION FOR SOILS REMEDIAL WORK FILE: 0485.16 SERIAL: 18845 This letter summarizes recent discussions with NRC management regarding implementation of soils remedial construction and presents the Company's documentation of those discussions. BACKGROUND The 1980/1981 SALP Report, presented to Consumers in late April of this year, indicated that activities in the soils area should receive more inspection effort on the part of both the NDC and CP Co. Follow-up discussions with the NRR staff and Region III Inspectors led to the conclusion that the Quality Assurance Program and its definition was adequate; hcwever, there was concern that certain aspects were not being or might not be satisfactorily implemented. Consumers Power has performed an in-depth review of the implementation plans for the Midland soils work activities. This review included the areas of design and construction requirements and plans, organization and personnel, project controls and management involvement. The results of this review and the proposed steps to assure the successful implementation of all aspects of t.he work were discussed with the NRC management in a meeting held in Chicago on September 2, 1982. / "~ (SR) 5 L,,isA / (1 e-r '- &~. ~ q oc0982-0232a100-164 i
= .= ' :. s s.. m r..:....ra ch. s. a.~.a... ma u ; n - ~ :. a w - - u- - u -. .... +
- )
+ *, k 2 a .Qw* q Q STEPS TO IMPROVE IMPLEMENTATION 9 'f A nuricer of new steps have or are being taken by Consumers Power Co to enhance 4 the implementation of the quality program with regard to the soils remedial 4 work. These measures touch upon all aspects of the work, from design to post-construction verification and include the following: (1) Retaining a third party to independently assess the implementation of the 4 auxiliary building underpinning work; (2) Integrating the soils QA and QC functions under the direction of MPQAD; 4 (3) Creating a " Soils" project organization with dedicated employees and single point accountability to accomplish all work covered by the ASLB order; u (4) Establishing new and upgraded training activities, including a special 1 quality indoctrination program, specific traising in underpinning activities, and the use of a mock-up test pit for underpinning constructir.,n training; (5) Developing a quality improvement program (QIP), specifically for soils remedial work; (6) Increasing senior management involvement in the soils remedial project through weekly, on-site management meetings wherein both work progress and quality activities are reviewed; (7) Improving systems for tracking of and accounting for design commitments. What follows is a description of the soils implementation plan, as it will be carried out using the new approaches outlined above, together with other specific aspects which we beliew will be criticial to the successful performance of the job. The discussion is limited to the implementation features specific to soils, is divided into areas roughly describing the 4 progression of the job from der.ign to completion and ends with a description of organizations, management involvement and NRC overview. DESIGN ADEQUACY AND IMPLEMENTATION The design for the required remedial activities is in an advanced state; L design details and adequacy have been reviewed by numerous organizations. A l-special ACRS Subcommittee reviewed the soils activities and commented favorably on the thoroughness and conservatism of the review and remedial approaches. Numerous submittals to the NRC have been presented to clarify the design intent. It is our understanding that the Staff is completing its l' detailed review of all design aspects and is in the process of issuing an l-SSER. This advanced state of design has permitted the early development of a thorough planning effort and assisted in the organization and development cf a detailed training effort. Following-up on design activities, the Project has assigned to the site a design team comprised of experienced structural and geotechnical engineers under the Resident Enginen. This *.eam will monitor oc0982-0232a100-164
g; r.,'. Q, T.~ ~...., '.,r.G. A. w D.X si,5. -'. a u =,a - ~ ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ iq. 9 3 H7. G'
- fi and review the field implementation as specified in design documents, resolve i*
on a timely basis routine construction questions requiring engineering response and administer the specific contingency plans immediately if any d probles should arise during the underpinning work. Additional engineering } resources for the soils work will continue to be located in Ann Arbor. i.I IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGN TEATURI:l t.ND COMMITMENTS J*, J. All soils activities covered by the ASLB Order of April 30, 1982 are covered fr under soils-specific QA plans. These plans require that appropriate 93 procedures are in place to accomplish the work in a quality manner and that b,) detailed inspection plans be developed and utilized. Additionally, a Work b, Authorization Procedure and Work Permit System insure that the NRC and CP Co ]) NRC reviews proposed work details, asks for additional information when have specifically authorized and released the work. Under this system, the 7 necessary and authorizes construction activities in advance. CPCo then f authorizes the work to proceed. J To further assure that commitments made to the NRC are properly accounted for in design documents, Consumers Power and Bechtel review the written records of commitments and insure that they are being incorporated into design documents. The Project is currently undertaking an additional review of past correspondence to create a computer listing of commitments. This computer list will be periodically reviewed to insure that commitments are incorporated in design or construction documents in a timely fashion. PERFORMANCE OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES To assure that project construction, quality assurance and quality control personnel correctly carry out their appointed tasks, a number of measures have been taken, including a reorganization of quality control, upgraded training programs, direct Company involvement in construction scheduling and control, and utilization of a contract format to minimize any cutting of corners by contractors. These elements of enhanced performance are described more specifically below. First, the project has reorganized the Soils QA-QC effort, creating an integrated organization with single point quality acccuntability under the MPQAD. This new organization is expected to improve QC performance, increase CPCo involvement in the management of the quality control function and improve QA-QC interfaces. Second, extensive training programs for the soils underpinning work have been developed. This overall training program, which includes the major Construction and Quality organizations involved in soils work, covers both general training in quality and specific training relative to the construction procedures. The majority of the personnel associated with Remedial Soils work have attended a special Quality Assurance Indoctrination Session. The QA indoctrination has been provided to Bechtel Remedial Soils Group, CPCo oc0982-0232a100-164
3 ^ ~ ~ ^ '^ .l.. ^ ^ ' ~ ' ~ ' ^ ~ 4 - .0.1 4. ~ ,-s* W h A # m O # ' b " " "*" --"-~'" # ...v;,n;.. w. ., e,a a,. f Y! I L. 4 i 2 ti Construction, QC, QA, Mergentime and Spencer, White and Prentis (SW&P) , b, personnel down to the craft foreman level. This training consists of one 3 three-hour session covering Federal Nuclear Regulations, the NRC, Quality i /Ij' Programs in general and the Remedial Soils Quality Plan in detail. .:q [y$- Nith regard to the work procedures, a requirement on both Mergentime and SW&P I: p is that specific training on the procedures be provided prior to initiating
- 9; any quality related construction activity. The identification of individuals j'#4 to receive this training is spelled out in each procedure pertaining to a
' p specific construction activity. Completion of the specific training requirements is a QA hold point which must be satisfied before work can sJ proceed. a M9
- ,Q In further recognition of the importance of training to the underpinning work, y
the Company is utilizing a mock-up test pit as part of its training program 4 for underpinning construction. The purpose of this test pit is to provide 11 specific training in the construction of a pier, bell and grillage assembly from initial issuance of design drawings through completion of construction. g This allows supervisory and craft personnel to perform work under the conditions, requirements and restraints which will be encountered when the g actual underpinning starts. It also allows the various quality organizations ,A to inspect the work and insure that their concerns and requirements are 3 properly reflected in the procedures. Third, to further enhance the performance of key project organizations, Consumers Power will maintain control over scheduling, both through the ,b construction authorization process and by frequent meetings with the involved 9 contractors and subcontractors. Each week, underpinning subcontractors will present proposed construction work to the Company. In addition, to assure the best quality wouk, the major subcontracts were entered into on a time-i -f, material basis. This should improve subcontractor attention to detail and t acceptance of owner direction in the performance of specific construction activities. Last, the Company is establishing a separate Quality Improvement Program (QIP) for the soils project. Although not part of the formal Quality Assurance program, the QIP is a management system that should be helpful in communicating and reinforcing project policies and expectations to all project participants. To launch this effort, an indoctrination program will be presented to all individuals, stressing the absolutes of Quality and the concept of "Doing it right the first time." Measurements specific to soils will be developed for those critical areas which aie indicativ: of a " quality L product". Tracking these activities will provide an indication of the effectiveness of the program. The QIP will provide mechanisms for individual " feedback" from all individuals involved, including the craft personnel. INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT A third party will be retained to independently appraise the initial phases of the construction of the auxiliary building underpinning. This consultant will be mobilized as soon as possible and, after familiarizing itself with the design, will evaluate the anilia y building underpinning construction work at oc0982-0232a100-164 i,
,-,,,-,N
,.,,,,,,--.--.n
,,,-,an --n-
p;.: w 5:d:u w ..a ~.. s
- L:n n k:Mi.e k:u' m
- 5=~u* =- ^-" w =
a-Mk* 5 g 3* sh 'the site. If significant problems or adverse trends are observed, the third d party assessment program will be extended in both scope and duration until a J satisfactory conclusion can be drawn. The initial evaluation will be carried V out over a three-month period. Qg The independent assessment will be conducted by a team of nuclear plant p) construction and quality assurance experts. This team will be supplemented by b the additon of an underpinning consultant who will review the soils design 3 documents, construction plans and construction itself to assure not only that fj the design intent is being implemented but also that the construction is i; consistent with industry standards..The assessment will further assure that @t the QA Program is being implemented satisfactorily and that the construction is being implemented in accordance with the constructica documents. u [fN Arrangements are being made with Stone and Webster Engineering Corp to assume the lead role in this appraisal. They will be assisted by Parsons, p% Brinkerhoff, Quade and Dou,las, Inc who will provide underpinning expertise. The NRC will be apprised of all findings of this independent assessment in a timely manner. a ? ORGANIZATION, MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT AND NRC OVERVIEW . R. J-The project organization formed for the performance of the soils remedial work 4 incorporates single-point accot.ntability, dedicated personnel to the extent practical, minimum interfaces-particularly at the working level, and a quality organization integrating QA and QC. The soils project organization is '.'A tailored to the task at hand. The entire organization, including quality
- j assurance and quality control are staffed with well qualified, experienced
'3 personnel, augmented by design consultants and construction subcontractors U nationally recognized in the underpinning field. C The soils remedial effort will also include a high level of senior management involvement. Project senior management will conduct weekly in-depth reviews on site of all aspects of the work including quality and implementation of commitments. In addition, the reporting chaias to the senior project ~ personnel have been shortened. The Company's CEO is briefed on a regular basir, and schedules bi-monthly briefings on all aspects of the project including soils. During the bi-monthly briefings, the CEO normally tours the Midland site. Complementing the CPCo management role, NRC Region Management overview of the construction process will be enhanced by monthly meetings, agreed upon by the Region, to overview the results of the quality program and the progress of the soils project. These meetings will ecver any or all aspects of the project of general or special interest to the EC management. CONCLUSION Based on the discussion outlined above, CP Co believes that the soils program 4 has been thoroughly and critically evaluated and that all prerequisites for successful implementation have been or are being accomplished. The Company's program, with the initial overview from the indepeudent implementation assessment, and the continuing overview by the NRC staff and management should oc0962-0232a100-164
.. l, v. N.u.
- ... a:. > u..
- ' ~ - - - ' - ~ " - ' " ' ' ' - ~
- * ' * ' ' ' ' ~ ' * " ' ' '
3. fii
- 6 Aa
- f.
4. .5 provide adequate assurance that the remedial soils activities will be {j successfully completed. y , ~Yl f ) 's Jj JWC/ JAM /bjw M l 1-
- ?j CC Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 3
4 CBechhoefer, ASLB ,1 MMCherry, Esq 61 FPCowan, ASLB RJCook, Midland Resident Inspector j RSDecker, ASLB SGadler ] JHarbour, ASLB s GHarstead, Marstead Engineering ~. DSHood, NRC (2) DFJudd, B&W ii JDKane, NRC 4 FJKelley, Esq ,y RBlaclcman, NRC Region III 3 WHMarshall 'l. JPMatra, Naval Surface Weapons Center f WOtto, Army Corps of Engineers u WDPatton, Esq SJPoulos, Geotechnical Engineers FRinaldi, NRC 3 HSingh, Army Corps of Engineers BStamiris 1 t l ~ l oc0982-0232a100-164 l l
,.... w.;. u,. '.k
- .. :. n. w, s.
v -. - +.... sa s - ~'~ " "= SAL < * '. ' e= ~ ~% - 4 Pj-L. 14 j' .; e "4 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY s Midland Units 1 and 2 s Docket No 50-329, 50-330 d Letter Serfal 18845 Dated September 17, 1982 ? At the request of the Commission and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of lj 1954, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended and the ? Commission's Rules and Regulations thereunder, Consumers Power Company submits y information regarding the implementation of the Consumers Power Company [.: Quality Program for the Midland Plant soils remedial work. r.: CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY a By J Cook,71ce President ~ Projee s, Engineering and Construction d / Sworn and subscribed before me this /'/ - day of,ff g /G I4 I ) ~/ i \\rit ~. c r i.'i f,$lln.' Notary Public( Bay County, Michigan My Commission Expires 5' 9'- [ ' t miO982-0000b100-164
+.* = a .i u.=-.--.a--. / =m-he su e ee. em w @b2. =.- IL1 % _t;b$ cJL_,0ykA A.n kr-O I e6m g eo Aw e--p w a e IW has~ ! % -htb c]As. wpsEC K L EAd Rfisb,_m M q u ahi K L. y m _ gum & s.A.3/p,esen sd Adsz.././Ms?.b...s:, cad g .@ L L h Aus.t_dJH6-qauO n % gau cLw_m# . fy) _ m A u M Sub" wm mem -a rem-- em-.. enunumme e.
- h uuuur -
w% -w-e aenge 1 u\\
Y}$))
- y....
UNITED STATES
- g. /g g.j~
o,f, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /) ggg2gf 2, ,i nEoionsii e 798 ROOSEVELT ROAD g...+ h (lD GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 ,e NOV. 0 8 set-Docket No. 50-329
- Docket No. 50-330 Consumers Power Company ATTN:
Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Midland Project 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen: This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Messrs. W. Shafer,, R. Cook, R. Gardner, R. Landsman, and B. Burgess of this off! ce on September, 20 to October 12, 1982, of activities at Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. J. A. Mooney at the conclusion of the inspection. The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during ' the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel. During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in non-compliance with NRC requirements, is specified in the enclosed Appendix. A written response is required. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you (or your contractors) believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a) (4), it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by tele-phone within ten (10) days from the date of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b) submit within twenty-five (25) days from the date of this letter a written application to this office to withhold such information. If your receipt of this letter has been delayed such that less than seven ;7) days are available for your review, please notify this office promptly so that a new due date may be established. Con-sistent with Section 2. 790(b) (1), any such application must be accompanied by 52..ljOZ+b
J -.. ~ F ~ Consumers Power Company 2 an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of the reasons which are the bases for the claim that the information should be withneld from public disclosure. This section further requires the state-ment to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b) (4). 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 periods noted above, a copy of this letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed in the Public Document Room. We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
- 1 sincerely,
[$ f O [ b' 2 M(.d R. F. Warnick, Acting Director, Office of Special Cases
Enclosures:
1. Appendix, Notice of violation 2. Inspection Reports No. 50-329/82-21 No. 50-330/82-21 cc w/encls: DM3/ Doc ument Control Desk (RIDS) Resident Inspector, RIII The Honorable Charles Bechhoefer, ASLB The Monorable Jerry Harbour, ASLB The Honorable Frederick P. Cowan, ASLB The Honorable Ralph S. Decker, ASLB Kichael Miller Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Co= mission Myron M. Cherry i i Barbara Stamiris l Mary sinclair i, wendell Marshall l~ Colonel Steve J. Gadler (P. E.) i l t ......ug...... 7p.p..... r 6 - e. '...M ne1..."" r - @""
- cmm,
..R.:..w.....i!.1..cx. ... <.ax.d. ....e. 37 ..sy.n. s. .w..1. az.e.r.......R......:....... tum r > I '.y ( . 2... 1: ...~..RA. ra.it > .u. ece emu si, n.w. wo OFF1CIAL RECORD COPY usam. mi-n:-n
- . a -..
.= a. ., ~ - t. E l - g . Appendix i NOTICE OF VIOLATION J 4 Consumers Power Company-Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 } As a result of the inspections conducted on September 20 to October 12, 1982, and in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, 47FR9987 (March 9,1982), the following violations were identified: 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI, states in part that, " Measures shall be established to control the icsuance of documents. Consumers Power Company Quality Assurance Program Policy No. 6, Revision 12, dated April 2, 1982, states in part, that, " Documents which prescribe activities affecting quality.. are... controlled. . and distributed according to a controlled distribution. . The assigned holders of the document are respon-sible for maintaining the latest revisions of the documents." Contrary to the above, the inspectors determined the following two examples of noncompliance: 1. The QA department was using a controlled copy of PQCI UP-C-1.013 to make up QC recertification exam questions. This copy of the PQCI was different from a controlled copy obtained frem the QC records vault. Both documents were marked revision 0 and dated 8/20/82. There were two pages that were differ-ent dealing with the same interface document UP-C-1.008. Furthermore, during the inspection, the licensee could not produce the controlled distribution list for the referenced PQCI. 2. Two controlled copies, Manual numbers 1456 and 1369A, of the Bechtel " Quality Control Notices Manual", Procedure G-6.1, which controls PQCIs, were not of the latest revision. This is a Severity LevelIV violation (Supplement II). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explan-ation in reply, including for each item of noncompliance: (1) corrective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Considera-tion may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown. NOV o e i..- /?FN & k Dated {p R. F. Warnick, Acting Director Ch Office of Special Cases Gm t i i g y pp
..~ -- ..--. w._ .. =.. c. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Reports No. 50-329/82-21(OSC); 50-330/82-21(OSC) Docket Ncs. 50-329; 50-330 Licenses No. CPPR-81; CPPR-82 Licensee Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name: Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection Att Midland Site, Midland, MI Inspection Conducted: September 20 through October 12, 1982 Inspectors: L. Burgess / [/ h 2 ..qt1DW \\ / ( // / d !8 L R. J. Cook c i k0 l //! / V R. N. Gardner 841% R. B. Landsmar/ / !/ b2-S/9d$7A;UNk k y ,,((Q Approved By: W. D. Shafer, Chief Midland Section Inspection Summary Insoection on September 20 through October 12, 1982 (Reports No. 50-329/82-21 (OSC) : 50-330/82-21 (OSC) ) Areas Inspected: Review of Remedial Soils QC recertification program; examination of site conditions; conditions for limited site fire main capability and repairs; management meetings and examination of the Zimmer site. The inspection involved 180 inspector-hours on site by four NRC inspectors. Results: Of the areas inspected, one item of noncompliance was identified with two examples: Severity Level 14 failure to maintain the latest revision of documents. w. A b -_L L [ I h [d' J3 m -- - y
- :. ua t DETAILS Persons Contacted Consumers Power Company 2.. A..Jiooney Exec 6tiv'e Eanager ~ 1 - D. B. Miller, Site Manager M. L. Curland, Site Project QA Superintendent D. E. Horn, MPQAD, Civil J. K. Meisenheimer, MPQAD, Soils l' ' ' B. H. Peck, Construction Superintendent J. Schaub, Midland Project Office R. M. Wheeler, Technical Section Supervisor \\*
- f. {, e -
Bechtel Power Corporation-M. A.'Dietrich, Project QA Engineer J. Fishe'r, Manager, Remedial Soils j", t - , e, M. M. Blendy, QC, Civil J. W. Darbey,' Resident Engineer S. D. Kirker, QC, Civil Other licensee and contractor personnel were routinely contacted during the course of these inspections. Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1. Review of Ramedial Soils QC Recertification Program Consumer Power Company letter to the NRC, dated September 17, 1982, " Quality Assurance Program Implementation for Soils Remedial Work", identified the licensee's actions in regards to integrating the Soils QA and QC functions under the direction of MPQAD. In response to this letter, the licensee was required to initiate a recertification program for all Bechtel QC inspectors integrated into the Soils QA/QC organization. The licensee subsequently informed the NRC that the recertification of Bechtel QC inspectors would be accomplished through oral examinations. A schedule of these examinations was submitted by the licensee at the request of the NRC. On September 23-24, 1982, the Region III inspectors conducted an inspection of the Bechtel QC recertification activities being accomplished by MPQAD. During this inspection, the inspectors determined the following: a. The inspectors observed that in administering the oral examina-tions, MPQAD would excessively repeat the questions, allowing the c examinee several attempts to correct previously incorrect examina-l., tion responses. l l' i l Ir p 2
- a.a u., a 1-. x - -
~.1 as. 4 j' b. The inspectors observed that in administering the oral examina-- I tion, MPQAD would mark questions, which the examinee failed to correctly answer, as NA, when the question was relevant to the pertinent PQCI. t c. The inspectors observed that the technical portion of the oral examination lacked the technical content necessary to establish - the examinee's level of comprehension of the activity addressed ' by the sdbject PQCI. d. The inspectors observed that the QA examiner used a controlled copy of PQCI UP-C-1.013 to make up the exam questions. This copy was' different from another controlled copy obtained from the QC records vault. Both documents were marked revision 0 ~ and dated 8/20/82. - There were two pages that were different deal-ing with the same interface document, UP-C-1.008. This failure to control documents is in noncompliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion.VI, as described in the Appendix of the report transmittal letter (50-329/82-21-1A; 50-330/82-21-1A). Furthermore, during the inspection, the licensee could not pro' duce the controlled distribution -list for the referenced PQCI. f. The inspectors, while attempting to ascertain why the PQCIs were different, reviewed ten copies of the Bechtel " Quality Control Notices Manual", Procedure G-6.1, which controls PQCIs. During the review, one controlled copy of G-6.1 had pages missing from the procedure. Two other copies, Manual numbers 1456 and 1369A, of G-6.1 were not of the latest revision. This is another example of noncompliance to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI, as described in the Appendix of the report transmittal letter (50-329/82-21-01B; 50-330/82-21-OlB). During the exit meeting, the licensee committed to review the ecmplete PQCI control process. Subsequently, Region III issued a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) on. September 24, 1982, regarding the licensee's commitments in regard to the problems identified in the remedial soils QC requalification program. The-licensee commitments identified by. the CAL included: (1) the issuance of a. Stop Work for all work on remedial soils with the exception of those contin-uous activities such as maintaining the freeze walls (2) the suspension of. all examinations relating to remedial soils QC requalifications; (3) the decerti-fication of all remedial soils QC personnel previously certified; (4) the establishment of a retraining program for all QC personnel who fail the recer-tification examinations; and (5) the development of a written examination for all remedial soils' QC recertifications. 3 b 1-
7' -~ w m. .s.. '%~ I L 2. ' Site Tours At periodic intervals during the report period, tours of selected site areas were performed. These tours were intended to assess the cleanli-ness of the site; storage conditions of equipment and piping being used in site construction; the potential for fire or other hazards which might have a deleterious effect on personnel and equipment; and to witness con-struction activities in progress. A system walk down was performed of portions of the decay heat removal and component cooling water systems prior to the witnessing of initial performance testing.
- 3.. Limited Site Fire Main Capability As a result of inspection effort into the qualification of QC Inspectors for the remedial soils work, a stop Work was envoked on September 24, 1982.
r However, at the time of the Stop Work, the licensee was in the process of making a tie-in between the temporary construction fire main and the perma-nent site fire main. This tie-in was being made to facilitate remedial soils work at the Service Water Building. Although no excavation was involved, 'tdue work was being controlled by use of an excavation permit (WP-106). The Stop Work negated the excavation permit and subsequently any work being performed under the excavation permit. The licensee became fully aware of the limited fire main capacity on Septem-ber 25, 1982, and completed working on the fire main tie-in'to restore fire main capacity. The licensee notified the NRC that technically the work may have violated. the stop work, but when considering the limited fire main capacity, it was more prudent to take emergency measures to restore the sys-tem to normal capacity. The Residrnt Inspector was informed of these actions and examined the system tie-in. No excavation work was in process as the excavation for access to Obe fire main had been performed at an earlier time. The NRC concurred with the licensee emergency action to restore the fire main ,.pa city. (Reference ltr. Warnick to Cook dtd. October 5, 1982). 4. Management Meetings On September 29, 1982, a meeting was conducted at the Ramada Inn Central in Midland, Michigan. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the integra-tion of Quality Control (QC) activities into the Midland Project Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD). s On September 28, 1982, the Midland Inspection Site Team met with members of Stone & Webster and Consumers Power Company. The meeting was conducted to introduce the Third Party Independent Assessment Team members for remedial soils work and to explain their function onsite. On September 22, 1982, the Midland Inspection Site Team met in the regional office to discuss with Consumers Power Company the management of Quality Control personnel onsite. One of the issues discussed was how Consumers Power Company could manage and supervise Bechtel QC inspectors without jeopar~ j dizing the Bechtel owned "N" stamp. 4 4 1 4
5. Resident Inspector Visit to Zimer Nuclear Power Statio On October 7 and 8,1982, the Senior Resident Inspector (SRI) toured the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. This tour was performed to compare the uniqueness of regulatory difficulties between the Zimmer and Midland S4.tes - both plants have been assigned special attention through Inspection Tears assigned to the Of fice of Special Cases, RIII. It appeared to the SRI that inadequate structural steel, welding material traceability and the extensiveness of rework (excluding soils work) were more profound at the Zimmer Station than at Midland. It was apparent that there was little similarity between the exact nature of nonconforming con-ditions at the Zimmer and Midland Plants. 6. Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on September 24, 1982. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the information. 4 9 F 5
.... -. ~. - ~ - ~.. _ ~ pamCiPAL msf tC70a(Nam err *si amaiweesy U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INSPECTOR'S REPORT ,g,,[# K ; j # #!A ' . esac Fo*w 788 g T i mee Office of Inspection and Enforcement g3gg I ~peSPtCTQa$ b. 4fl M SS $. L A d b.L H A AI ' k. bre;$ MS 'I ' ^ TaANSA Tion DOCKET NO <s etts Ca uCENSE UCENsttivtN00m NO LSY PaCQuCTitt3 a.g-tsa NO 51G UC va X C 5 O { x<t 3 0 2. I a '-*5 3 J A i "0 0'" c 6' O C 0 3 3 J H, i t_ /e FJ i U n,T l A A/,\\ 2- [ ( o - otLEtt D I ~ A - AIPLACE 14 15 18 3 3 CaGAN'zarCN coct OF at,cs. e: CON:s;*. tNSPECTCN Pf 8FOmvf o se iNG Activity ($se riMC C3% ~ us*00*e 4emorf-PEAS 00 0s povtsfiGAf eQNaN5PECT ON FAOM 70 1 - mEGCN ALOFFiCE STAFF 4lOYMER ,,,gs,,,,y u,,,pwe p., w eee, e s.Eso% 7 56% es Aw-M0 Div vn M0 DAY vm 2 - misCENTINSPECTom J C _ l C .M C 13 !.1 ll0 )$ $\\1 3 PtaromuaNCE APPaansAL TEau (= l # 3d 35 8 33 r 3r D 3 3 31 Tvet os ACT.vity CONowCTEDiCawn one ties omvi AEGCNAL ACTCN 14 - iNCytav 06 - MGMT. Vissi 10 - PLANT $EC ICm em oavi ( 02 - SAFETY 11 - INVENT vtR 15 - 'NytST!G ATtCN 07 - $ PEDAL 03 - WC DENT 12 - SMaputNTIExPomT 1 - NTC FOAM 581 04 - ENFonclutNT 08 - VENDOA j 2 KEGioNALOFFICELETTim 09
- 4AT. ACCT.
- 13. tuece ?
06 - MGUT. Auc47 UN 3 L . Nut;T 4% AvtsT.GA;4N ENEN45 TOT AL Nyweta ENFCactvtNT CONFEeENCE atPost CONT AiN 2 79C ggTTts os af ro nt Ym AN$v '*A6 0 ATE INFOavaT60% 'C**"******' OF VCufCNS AND HELD NaC F0aes s' s t oc a' $ E',T A e C D DEvtATCNS C# RE4 TC =0 808 LETTEm is s.to Ac*t, 1 - CLE AR Al9lC D 4' s C D wo DAv vs v; l : A, l va X y 2 - vt0LATCN 3 - DtvtATION A B C D l g 3 vt$ 3 - ygg lll /,1 l [, 4 l *} l [ h l l 4 - VCuTION & DaviATCN g,g g,g j 59 50 55 4041 d2 43 44 3 UCCULE :N80eva' ON MODutt 'NsC#U ATICN "'E at; s .7 a.. e MOOult ago s0LLOWup [5 M0CVLENUU8fN5' d y S woCULE NuVgEn 'NSD yg g y~ !:E5 2= 5th5 a 4 3o r r ss 5: s s= 15 s as t v,3-2E-a. i
- _ j * ;I g=
co $ eiyr i i a a W 5% yi s -5 5 a E g:5 5 5 3 I I5 E! 5* f bed
- 8E E
- O I5 cM W
!r1$$3 ! ! f !s$ !s E s i 5 I l 1 l I I I I l I 8 I i 1 1 ( l I f I f f I I I I i i i t i t t I 1 i il l 1 l I 1 1 i f t i f f I t 1 l I i f f f 1 f f I il if l,ii th 0 !,,l 1 3,0 9,0,3 P ,i i e ^ t l l 1 il A i,t I ,*ro I,I l ,i i i1 1 1 I I I l t I i 1 t t l l l D O i t t t l t IiiI liil iII I ^ 2-94l7o316 e i i i i , i i lo i I, i i i i i liil i i i i i l i.i l ilio I i I I I t i i I t t t t t I ( f f I 1 1 1 t t I t t t I f t ) } [ t t t 1 t 1 i e l l t [ l l 1 l i 1 1 f f I f 1 ! t 1!i t t t t I i 1 I I I I I 1 I t t t i I j [ f l l l l l l l m vCLATCN oa oev1ATICN g g g j g l l l l { [ { ( O CECLE SEcutNCE is o to t' '3 is is is its Pi,2 25 .il2 3l 4_ls f as . l.d. I
- To 12 is 18 te w it 20:21_ _
5: we,lou"s"." ^ oocurr=o tes, mea ucr~st Eaoar ucoutsavueex ao o eaoouc7aisa.o'm
- ,,, y g p.,,,,.
INSPECTOR'S REPORT S W c 'c 0 3 2 9 8 I i I i 9,,2 Q ' t>
- e.. <~ 4 ~ e..u~. i (Continuation)
C S e 0 i 3 's : 3 s ' ; !~e,. !, sag , j,g , s, { Office ollnspection and Enforcement c .b' > 7.c-I o ~ ~ viola 1CN on Dt VlA TCN U:nter og 80 2600 charac0ers Mr enca dens M N.e test esceecs anos numoer. n om Oe necessar IT 2E 1 r esca } 5 e e Artenk 1 2 3 4 S 8. 7 8 9 4 10 11 12 13 14 1) to 17 14 19 2C 21 22 23 2a
- s 24 n
29 29 3C 35 32 13 34 N 2 5' U.S. NUCLEAR REG ULATOR Y COMMISSION ..... =.
i. 5%w.3 t( 3 \\ ro.c.% no
- skem hph:
Tye Ue. l ~ A 3 so.ssM +E l n.a.c mw. unresolv.a me e - u. re ~ Person so s Dem Mo. x" I d e e.C e A W e<n dueddeCotamh /\\EO's
- k' y
~ bg7 yy xx xx d ris7it - t 1 -o - 4. Id @ N I I I I I I II I II c' II ordero e uc.nsee ~ g AjjQ t i!i'i d I T4-W 24 lI IRu c S:p wk.Sfa E<Ap + S - ?. f R LV m" 6 * ~ uk 7fp,g u.g 3 y, ug i n thems
- o Event Me Pg.A.dake T.g e
%p.o L;c w u b%. ** @^"es4'aa*- 14 i p',g, [] IIIIIIIIIII yHbb_Ll_I IIIIIII '/$e Va4 10 CF R 20 ~F Nify66bb Ea fbt 2- ~P WLle. A I.'21'{i bon ks5?icine<L Y LE R's iL 1IIIIII IIIIIIi IclololM i I I i l I I I I I I N bioMons >D 41Ynnsa 'A.s a %\\a%m-%ik \\eaks,2,s g y, L. 4,5/. i i' 3r*eh Det.cnpMon
- l b1.l@ll LlulAli,1 Irial ickkirlekLI Irldidt 'ISI MElvlt isltloM51 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ruen.
resnea.-. 1 -T 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIl aff w. j f! H I L U P E To C ?Ri &* k_9Mk LI Y _C ?t ! !* b h* T I GES h hMV b l- ~a %3 "nu res.a.c 'd llllllllllllllll _ _ _.t w. "'%'.'.t u. 7as..d.c i 5% ll llllllllI1111 k u 7. O O
xh 7t$tibL w ' !,J - OCT 2 8 G82 Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 CorisuuUtra Power Company ATIN: 'Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Midland Project l 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen: Based on our review of your QC traininF Program and the written er== inn-tions developed for all QC requalification examinations in the area of r==aAim1 aoils, you are hereby authorized to commence remedial soils QC requalification activities. All work on remedial soils will remain stopped until such time as previously decertified QC personnel are requalified in accordance with your prescribed QC regn=14fication program. At that time, authorized remedial soils work activities any proceed er===en= urate with the availability of requalified QC inspectors to inspect those activities. Sincerely. Original signed by A. Bart Davis James C. Kappler Regional AA=inistrator cc: DIG / Document Control Desk (RIDS) leaident inspector, XIII The Honorable Charles Bechhoefer. ASLE The Honorabis Jerry Barbour. ASLB The Honorable Frederick P. Cowan, ASL3 The Bonorable Ralph S. Decker, ASLB William Paton, ELD Michael Miller Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Co==1=mion Myron M. Cherry Barbara Staatris Mary Sinclair Wendell Marshall Colonel Steve J. Cadler (P.E.) - W^ i inqm Q Q ,4 J, 9. y [p'M W i ),,,,,!,,,, ,,,,,,d.,,,,,, ,,,[,,,g, ~"">..R,1,II, ,,,,,,,Y s,,,,,,, ,eppl,ay,,,,,,, i
- * " * " >..Gardner.llA.
..Sha g,qv,,,,,,, ,K a p,.c h...,,,
- * " >'. 101n.1at...
.l.9)27........../.!.).W7..... eTnc onu sis no so, e.cu ono OFFICI A:_ RECORD COPY
p O _....w e.e. ..-r+- . - = * - _ _ - - * * - + =. = * * = e~ m I I .,,y ag..e .*g eh4'e--m.-6*e*=**- - = = -* ' -e h** e m -egge k JY . CLIf f~t f wwwe c,&& w saw .g gy.. o eV e O.^-+ -%y Uts P.4 7 I l " W C b N &... 0 A ] N . JJn OLO hCC., W Yi r A p A n y o a s. A a c l u a.". ... Ax,. 6 a.ku %u h.wdk.. mtsk y d i>.u' cmYkoMe.02 /4 6 wWAd JtA..du_ _ ', g.o _4 ++ ment " _ 'k 8 _ lTYv ~ a a U bn. A id is mSvhk du_n.v, & o.<!.dc ,ak'~h-A?u.k)A.ikugALJA%.L(u. bro w.wsk $r o ei L<..u r cnr wc Xpr.uA thz y du M . y-JA i, ~ g -plrOAfl0uk
,ee e se. G 5 . S 6 b ___.- -~ - rN6 e- -e e-d< 4e*e e. =em e-w w e=wm+ - - - t e-e l Yk bA A Mk M &c-1 C_0_ r w 1 5 L.. k w i E 1rA % &," O 5 I d V. O % d ;EE X i K u 1 L L o A ca f L " v h -- e a e g h thu q Arary ar.k uALJ!w " a 4 m ma m. .g em. heg-memy-w wwame e wwemee we+ s-,, me. e.M m, ..e p - _., a e e a e 8-- e e e e-p.h -.e +e-- w-w
==== ' de +wed>e e e-== ae.- -e mp _g.w e. wy- -a=4 Sum W h =e D O S+ .et*N64-6 m -meWe*M M ew maio.e m em-g - a e.- a we m+
- h. sumo e e
re m
19 INS?ECTION HISTORY X ".3* 4 % I, *% /)-/4 J'in (7f'-of) Yin g X X X X 2 X X X cyu,y.ic,7L Yb E
- o g
(14 -oD i ~ XX X A 2e-yo P0!9 { 4Nmf,7'Qi,$?' X p.lyp og x J b c-an
- 7 Y
&l9 "I9M N M v) c.( f 8 x x X X X y,r g e X X X X X b o,.u-m -r X '>< m _o p~o L_ s/ib-19/74 M X Y ) 'l 4 3/0f-p4/76 g X X MX g g X X.X g.7g-oz)yfp' e X XX = ~ m* i Mw ,rl7(0-o% l t'/'/9.2/)/ Y/" cd u 61' "?\\- i d /fs9YEJ h Vl '\\ '.,' g.s .::rasema g ce u 's V-a: o l y r 6 5~:f '"' ' ~ M q I't,7(, 8.l..'7o v14 ws< w 76 -o'3, y r4/n yw iz~, a-< 9, u ^ f ,3 yu g ,Y~ r e+ X X X5,. e < j _;,, E x x x X l(B, .XX /%'/j j a u. s.,u n ae n = nyv l5 )< J'tu, Irv.la,E X<j.o u., ~ ~b'VM f'.^5.,,_,, y *r/poh gfgplf4 /^3", 7 ~y /f',/ Jawe 7-g/rs i<4ppl<<< 44 yu x 9-x-e 4 5 X. '- hW a ( Iv - ' 4-2.5j 7G >( %, r,.co c.s.' _cr-
ENFORCE' 'lCTION [f[' -d[ FACILITY: [h /7. e // ', .b PROJECT INSPECTOR: T E, A t .Y C. t :10 Noncompliance Resolution 'e i f R:p:rt No. Item u Report No. Item e=ar,s cr.d Date No. did M 'h-Severity and Description and Date No. / h [t! Y.i A .Qh t-C% C '{r. lLh<ju Q).y j'> } I t \\s ) DL' Leo /d,(LN@.i)v.-ib.[.c,.,.[Ais,0Wil'f n-u 6l Le e ' dbre pd Lw % U.,. u..] 4. n le $.li,,,.x L i 8 ) ? C f'.:fBTf;5 S Le.e c)neJ f
- i[/ 7]k'fft C-fly T f u,rw L c, '
C l'OC-
- w. c s GK, U. t.
h~N f) l l.-ee-. failure b Se'>b f i*r i Etc.Alw ItIuLeo_ttac.-a } e t & eo, I Fn u tb an er 2/n e Ac., sa.,k a 7;: n.. r svrrnia retcrzu 'rarius -kt Lv Cnem 'rn b.r ecu. 8' b - 2 'R Cl K hro v' t C t rer. wn va n s. ls U vu ( (/\\ tuis ) /\\ U'T H C il o t t' P /*
- C s L st ol I N.Tr 't < 1 t I: I'lC L e* / 'C o
- T
'f/ A S/SO n e it L ho : ~ 1 0$ L C-G 1% t c flC N c ot VJs. B l'Asicro LU c L e)(t is t*LL T7 h _ h tc[^ ace r, srec C - 1 ') c' I L C -c. Q t. c sc>v. j~ntem:c-Tc L= h tW r' n TT /l M t vo 4 L Vo tt e th w f 0 cr t34.wt) ib
- Cu l C o CK sf' l'os ee i A t Fs ol CCI'er:rntitii ry,111l'4 v All1 SA A'OP /) Si y G l% LL *%itC Y L.' il l(s' t k rYrtil C e-
[>( S ico n Dt c C *1 c n'l 1- !+
- L c on I'C L C' '- 3 3 0I l.n ues u n p,:c r. s o c. '\\ ur a r,;c Dr s u.~ i nic crm, oc urnet ca w,a;u,1 -
c a v o.t. I w s cn L n c.. >. o x.uc c, nevr rin u,, i c $.0
- b 0K L nuocra e u tint u v11iv.DC-3It.n I x ic tar ><a c t) n re L'ec n ois n rere Ccnn't L
^ ' * ' ' ' * " "' * * " " "'" ' ' '= 9 r G c w o ' n "c~
- v' *
- c ~ '
G n uac,a - b, '. 3.,
- 3
) L n n v res a. R/ G C c Tcnskan L G'it cv r. lve lh 5Han [+. it ris ne n Cenrust ci n i a n e reen - l~ nown c re. t n e va evt o c e.>,1c e c n n.ncnau rs re n o <>. r 5;u -n oG inuesnn ge snt s M. De ss en Rtinv i)ce v>$ents Lv nus tulk,d c; a a.wl.c a o u c.:., c t, m n.s ie n, i, x.., a a..,, c s ; n:v.,.. u a. g OI L n sar> s r, + r > i t "sr s ci-n ceu C s i rn e s s.. osc r, p i at t'e n r un t er gesi yc, r o a s, ~ Gintnchen !n n s "'L s s I/ nut ne s ts c c u i 't ih as n.is c o U n ~ r n. s f f.. c g OA L o ur s n a, n U.S T C S Tis c I cnn s L;,cro j a z Sant s q m,'r., A c t e,.,1 y 7 C ' 8' 'C' Kc CI ' $ W c'Z c A r ' ~ ' r' n L ' n # t 't # C# t '* " *' N l Ar e 'y C' l O3 L n ~ so s sve n L sinnu;ncv l'ac. t v. oe c n Cc~ wen. '>'io. A rson c b' nr. O e l l 1 l l l l
s' \\ 9 4 1 \\ \\ W
- k
. a. 3 b L!S 0 r 5 % 4 c ~ 4 t i u u q~kd E M ? j % [% 7 f a f 3 x Vn b.c a ~ am c c s 'Q.) @k;r-c 2- .1% C y a 4 s:7
- . w a
s .2 4 4 u u 4 4 :: 5 (k, j k Q${ 5 N $ Y 'd 2 x d d b 8g s. g "x Q ( c c t g c c o o rN e.M 6 %!% $5 M h i ', d $ b ao a un I,17-p *Ll:, ~i g~;, M a, i i am 4-4111 li -8 6' 5 i e l b' i7 *o g; 05 c'q w rs. 5 T S-l % _fe' < )4 io i A3 r-%jM72 E + t; t ..d s Qu pi 2 ,s i 2 I: W !Q i lM N NM J ;! < ! m 'a o s u a 4 r ) k: 4 f i. ii! E t 9 g/3 w m: p. a. ~, a* : a. e t w q
- l. 'e.-
g{ t. 6 e* J.s a, cr. s L 1 1 3 3 4 ;fd 6 w. es t i n 3 4 .2 it o a 1 n a s~ a, e, s fy 2-s: ss r i m m g
- a. 4
_-3 43 . y% v% 0: k3 a!8 7' $id DI E 4o j ]N s d 4 ijij d li g9h a CE mi i s a MH W$gx &q N i! O'; 4 4 Mi h 4G Jt 4&M.44F M % il y 5
- i d & d @ f %
S & f a 4-a s 3y'* 4 2 ~$ 't % w 0 a e o $ 5 b h h h 5 b 5 8 e m d ~o " x, ~ o o s o c t o o o e <_3-1 t a l y am g i e i c. c - + ' u m& & I
- g 0g i C i t - i c--
(c i r I l / l J =
4 e e L. g[- s 4 kr a M = e /. R A d 4 h n yp L o ra i ar t =g b u =a a l ur o S a s P e 7 R m. e o t N I w oe R Nt O a T tD r CE od pn m.* ' P S ea s R N I i d Y
- TC
/. h E Y *L' )r JO e R L N P L"Y r O Yi;$n A I T 1_&L C / R n = i "Ja o J" a*n&M i t a p i E' r s t &2 C c R s DL t O e n F D/ e N s E d 4 n rmN a r D- *'aY. e y t d l r, A4 ir e uw?"/, e v/ &L f c e n S a a; Lc i s d 'f l sbnW& s p i m / ba o st c .h. n / o N I w L.5 I. A. 1 A$ E' S e. / M_ [y S 9
- o.
A n
- N 0
nI'o 7s .d.
- e c
t Y a T D I L r. Va d I C 2n 'f i.
- a A
F ~ 4 O
m-.wl g. e,.m. 5 b%i y i-6.s 11r n4 8 9 y;;19 u w w g M 2 6 D m 4 m n k 5 ) R 'h i d R E 6 e 9 m 't 1 .e g 4 a m i t s s d I ~ g 5 y N ,g }s e 4 (j <4 s b z$ kb le i d h 4 mg w v M r i ^ t n q t 1 A Q w m i g i OE On,. s S = e =~ t-.E % W J 8' y-s a g- ~ ~ e d d N S c m _ c. m z y mdN 'h Ud k' &n t x-e e k h. G s p M M O )p t je p (J 1 ! J ?R eh \\3 "Q Ne 2
- f<A M-
= t o 6 3 me t v i 22 41. ri C4 e 1 j s., h* g g r J N@ gy3 ,is o e o ou 1 '.,. Q' $ v< hs = N p - teT-3 61 p a x 3 ,e v v 4 O 4 i 4 \\ [ Nk \\ I ( D 8 '$v N s Pk N d k 0 h k@.gt .x gg g .q_,-o 4.h a r E b hk h f1 f [ N c 1 L N Dd -s u w N d, 5 d - 1 s o = g g w ,~ y N aw .~ 3 -L2 'd N e E ~ N o q' rJ G \\ i B o h x l:: b; ~ y 9. w y 2E 4 d 5 N y b s) g =N \\ 4 a m s C f N l .s j g= g O 00 l p 2 I t C 9 O h c.- h yh I j b P
- 'I 7/ 3 d OPEh
'S LIST, ![ } DOCKET NO. 3 3 8 C PROJECT INSPECTOR dMAh b /1 FACIUTY i OPEN ITEM RESOLUTION ITEM NO./ INSPECTOR / BRIEF I!(TERIM RESPONSE DUE MODULE NO. DESCRIPTION INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR REPORT NO. ~)9-o 3 Ab;c/w U2/c/,r+> a,n. i t' c6 Ar tm'~ d~/ GL~/ dek 7f-25~ 3/ " ( ' h 6 /o / l 6 p r k l ~ f7f ~ f'Y** Q ( mcon t?co rd's on N ai X :'~ ~' Q - o34 ; A/o,Ll S 4 /..f /p /crct;r../ec/ S/d/ w ]9fosd8% 5-('eba c., W,L osvm an) ( 78-or-or &h L ch 't " d' "' " d TT -* - cho.sn/ d <]ek +' o c-n M-IV w ~ ll esuf 3% oJ-o3 Ale w d ]%.> i.. - d
- h')oI'"*^<
'l b >-T' ' qcc L u i-e r n/d - 1 Aa vut) 'l 8 - 0 3 - 03h A/sv.Af Bo,, 4n-e 6,, +ri / //r?4 (la v ///6<!f'w.-nfe j y.1 '> if 0)? OQ-OZ l ce S llw l0 b/'/o /) ^ ,, ~... i~,, <x. aL&/{lp5 78=$ /9-Ar-A i K r% o n...e /v o i i 9 - 0l 1 l+ r 1 ^ ~ l',) / m. ?%~I W Onek mnWYh"' <'.,L,b, is.. L,. jl,) { _ /Lb i y - [3 Q 8Mwp u4 l ~ x A ei o{_ h 2
- )
[)/ s k k-r u
- a:e R
n r E o o i t t c u e l p / o s s n e I R R oe O Nt T a C tD g e E r P od 4 u S pn I R 7 b N ea i 4 S ~ ~ e T / C t f D e EJ fe A O R y N P st k L A e t N O c, e . di % O e ) I I T r J s. fi C n A t t T u d P )( f N n E o y, u ( J D e F i d C p > d E t P n R i r i ) A O r Lfl F c N s a E e % o-
- g. /
u h n D Y /e f f). / (! c a f N y, r e .b i ) e r 1 h. / u_k < b c B ( n A f a { L i i n l s, p a 's h ~ k k /,'u m e if' c ^ / c r f/ s_h {e A n b ( o i i N I 1 'Y o )' F f; o, T ~ 1 \\ b / r h Y n. e o tc e e Y%I Y L p 3 sn I oe Y Nt ~ f ""' I 9 T a I tD _ 0 L r E' I od C pn h 1 A ea 3 F R e s 5 ,1 I
il-7 W /[ J, i gy 'f v ' li 's J 'd s ~ h k e r r e S r Y &"'l'I e n g i r a 4 l. b /o O [ ~ e D d '( ~ e R !A lT. n r E g g, w' V. /e 'u V l o o i 1 I n u i t 0'
- s e
E ~4 r 7 t c t N u e 27 k k l p t ~] r r o s s n e I R r E' O W 0 b 1 n 1 o'p - R oe C O Nt r7 QW.E~ c r, Ws1 n M5 n * ~ Qr i T a o7 rfp C tD D Ni ~ E r /n g P od 'ji s S pn a s-n. ~ q N ea 1. sL 3 u.
- I R
p ?ci 1"'~ I>. ~ 1 'T A g;yf,~W C y-~a 2 E J /~ 1 '* J ~ O e. 'dl g F bil x, f Cl f ' R M a C - A ' P k r f c id f y f g q% ~.D. Nl d. fwA' M. c i N l s O l, i E W ~,M, f*/ h 9 - I T ^ 's ' u d gi. q 5; y y L f /s &W~N CA l r g c. T* hr 1-T r y g 6 rL N n o% l "' 'Mla $". tl* E o 5: s. M i &)k t
- u. W
- 0. c E
t C p j l' g 6 s R i t 1 n E Lk.)5 w r. O r c. .h hk-h F c r N s c I E e Ll
- s. m n.i R n gJ k e
r D o } e .*'m el f w.I t " H r d,. i d n1 'f e e i 'v a ~ I. t'hLd " 0' n i c K. r
- c. g a-e r
I ia eih c B 7 c 'e -d a-r n t c s 7,- i g i a s t i s. rd c " u a s d o I s l d i* 'P y.I'd & o u o, 1 be p n r b Am ar t a. c u u o o a x f-w 3o i-c i
- l i
s /g. n I',$ c. a% u.D m
- I o
fa &}C. Ld"S 0C N a 1 n. e l-u w i a >l. ,m t r ocD r 0 I h"f w f' l n o Ch Cp c kw u 5 t L d r w w a klu A k lll "b l a r v~ i a r a l o h a g S i l k' a a m f"L NA u l t 'l N b E c R W . u u g i c l d e i f e r e r n a li .i m e, u p M I . s s l e / c C O l R W YSv. lI c L 7 _ b m i p i 45 1 d 1 l / I } 3 }. 5 oe Wn-l _ A A 'I 'n Nt I c p a . l
- %n l {3
,1 W9 I tE y _ ~ L r y ;,,, t I od 1 C pn 1 0' t n. A ea l F R i - 1 1 t Mh 1 L g fp
- \\
N} i
lI,' ./ ) s k/ / r d O ame / '/ GAP ~ / / h n yp A o ra i ar t / t mg u ma l ur .B o S a s P e R / m.o 3 / e t N / I / E od 7 7' /-,/, / oe / R Nt / a O o T tD r C pn P / 'y ea 7 1 S N R I T o
- /
3J C ~ A t E n J 4 S O N :f m n.y l R f N P )2W hb O e i 6, &l/ I 'h l e e :y T r / C r n A n s k / o S p d,. W i. i. i t L p f p d. A ' 9 i,. M i E r M-n ~ C c O R s n F n +4 m y O e i F D i. fn[* L N E O dn 'n n 4~ s a d L u & u [\\ W y r t t / i c r f. j~ n e I e v d O u c e p n [ n S ' r- / 4 a i 1 m Yh l 1 p y /, a m N o u c a '2 9 4 g n N A, s, o t N
- i. 4
[ !'4 [ h / p E f f, - y yp T / ra a ar ~ mg A ma M a ur / , / s< S aP W _/ m.o k e t N l I V +- a .oe 4 Nt 9 7 Y I
- f w.m a
/ T tD o 4 1 I 1 r L od I 4 C pn / ? p ea A p F R , h /;; I 1
5.e ae m2..se.,.+,e.a -es a s'y ,Mwe w - e 9 1 s b d N Y t a a n 'd Mqi ) a bi-D -4 0 T 4 4 x 4 M 6 s d s IB 4 T 3 53 D45 Q 25 4 % a N !d 6 s e4 K~ s s. s 1 ~' j= h h 5 9 ?- ?- A t k Y Om k y [E N f\\ f\\ r y t; W d 1 e f i s 5 3 's N 'Y 4 i
- S i
D i s [2 Ts ~, s A e t s n 4 = x i e \\x ( l a a u M t. ~ j t. N 4 b <'6 s s w c t d 4" % h, q '2 b<'t b D" E g T h W e g s p a 5 1 1 3 C 5 s c 4 3s s r e e m
- m s
a' 8 Sq N
- %(
t E i ':td S y 3 b '4 'i ( '1 3 x x iu 4 o q < N i s %g ) f \\ i s rd (' N d j s w ~ i t ~ C i x' g
- \\
N@d 8 s ) s >8 D D4 ~ %r, s h e w w H = N D 1 9 N N g 4 4 4 4 q e = l-5 Q e D N N s s s x = l de Wi %1 ~ 5
- g Q}
Q y um s \\ N g A M \\ %~ .s om N 1!ss' j 1: s g
4 t \\ a u y% / w= a s i 5 j d d ) k 7 9 i T 4 3 e 1 d i u 4 a 5-u 3 ~a x 2 4 -t i R,.& NJ e h e d b' ? ~ N M 5 'b' 4 6 t 4 S D g : e R a Ei 4 6 n ~t M i, %. \\c 2 is a o M w 0 9 8
- a l
$1 N<k N h{ W 5 I 7 d i 3 s a a y 4 3 x N) 4 Td k 8 C % qsb { E $ 4 i 4 h y h 'S C y j ~ e 1 4 D
- s.R L-0 t rs-4'(
Q }.d { ,2 ( { s 1 x x g a-e w g s r s v s s e a s {d, g o D 'j t k j i ( s k y w u N. 4'{ R ~ 2 i p'F W 't ) 5 {2 3 s V i s 5 1,3 1 Q s 1 + i ,M g 4 g e pc 8 4 s 8 a w 4 a ,3 : x v w a s s %s 9 o ) a M N ( g w)e H s E e q s s 4 s o s t .= Q DE N ed m x N w N l= s 'N as e 4 m 4 6 ~ B w m +. 2 s l 34 ~ I I oe s3 ,Mi 4 O Q D M ~ 4J A s b( %. 2 M U'R ij !.i dI g W W K g a*
g e-. i f e. 3 4 7 h j g M N g 'f <a N 2a V. n% G.5 c, ei " a e m s D D5 N N &N \\1 s J' .h, 4.u s.. k -Q k r 9 9 m k ~7 1 ( h 0 x. ~ h a ve e s t 9 k b 4 o 4 i 1 P 5 8 N 9 o t s ~ ~ ~ 1 N M .j k 7 i w 1 w 3 .s g 4 c 1 { s s ~ [9 R I.4 M 4 1 ') '5 %d y x st 4 ( s A g I A* 'a$$ 0, i T 4,.%,. 4 w 4, e. b; N i 4T = a a ~- N N k k *A \\ ~L Q I w A e 4 e o u A" E ~o ci e ~ o i o o o 1 \\ \\ \\ ? o' o ~ ~ .s n es e-u n '4 0 4Q t a e4 44 ti M M i g M t.i ?T pT R i. h r I
.l 1 i, s krame C'. R t. P no h,, i yp t ra u ar mg l
- a o
s ur e S a R P m 1 Iel
- e. o.
+ N I R O oe T Nt C a E tD P r S od N pn I ea 0 R T CE l' JO e R S P 1 D E VL O n S o E i R t N p U irc se D dev lose R e b o t s h m yp e ra l ar b =g o ca r ur P S aP .ll i! I i! m. O e o t N I .oe
- Y Nt T
a T. tD L r I od C pn A
- ea l
l{\\li!
- _ -.. _~ - -. 3, +
- e.
~ UN!ESOLVl'D !RS PAC {. V - 1 .:ILITY: b/1 DLANO dIl [.fo - 3 3C ) ~ ~ PROJECT INSPECTOR: 'k. M .$ U'rP fu .>1 -r Problems to be Resolved Resolution > 2lSuc=ary part No. Ire: Report No. Item Succary i i Rensrks
- d Data No. IParagraph Description and Date No.
Paragraph! i Cd 8 l O A LIA>cnr2 i N o*ca n'es s o ss G t:Avt ut E sr c re c t vos s (ygg,p ,7 3 3,,,,,, n,,,,,g g3 e, Arra bart s, ris a. A bvr t. 2-j i ' c - I 8' K** 9' j' b> wnno 9 rnia.c-ss. tic < t is r&o'rn fx.so oc b,c.,e in o. 'Stt)n-tr
- 3 rme 2
- c. L e st-q l c ee oc arw c e ~ >., s, c e n.,f s n,.s, c,a., e,u, c.u.,
j( Ao oI [. s,4
- f. n c or v s-V..c. s su ^>e.tu n 29. t < s>, Tsu.o re z. s.<u r c ic
'O 'N O LtF g re tuu s 7ast., D.oss <, a si y Gwa <>. E's. c ac e e rs. f e p tus:(: re 15 s u c f /c / e re+#,,# th e. N. Vn *..et T e.. r,c .' 'c - 3 6 bl Q no gg oc,;e a, en et e,su-c,,: p, c,c, g (g7,:4,n p c,,,v; q qp,g ',b il4 rit ety R 44 e llei epuiet( (tset 5, A. 6 r s', t...." s a s, ~3I Ol NAesu cre.)3rc's.o.s.orsea. T e is c e o; asc > t r.e iv.s ot < s. coiss. l 6 -11 6'L N aiv o { {n's n C ourn.t S m un 1%>tt91ou.~,s.,htws j.i [J o+ tn JZ C-9e t c e n e s.) N V L u n r> s V 'Ar r> 1:stLLear> $() -3 { 63 N n s'o u l.os a c s. Fe.c sie tre n i e tea re c.c u v ccda rtysrce. L II l G n t t o,c enc ut - I rc o o s 'Ks') 2, 3. 4. f 1M Ote re s t u ~; !s e voo '*i so n s t 's; o, i;C ~3 3, O+ L n urs ens xs k nc., W. tot. ?A v l 01 fe y 103 9o A es'C
- roesca V ofIrc nho ?
Cattnc tcri-ITen s 3M ii,4, ht A : sens tirs c urnu i cos ta rc :s.y 1 l e i I O ~~ 0 b 6$ L o\\ u ri s o n ~ l'irc se{ Puer II*s.ncs : L o r= r TI<ic c s. css *NovoiccTrue, A'ea,I:l r L~ttt> Ct.O l'tofliL1$,2*& f t,ft M C'l}M Rromtto Af tsin l 1 *. ~
- l UR6 (V rn 13 e' LCL'. A A e A IAC v^C T1t C $ t' t fera o lfAno-rsibssci ric s*c rein nu e s r l'c *c /e ! * 'C 's *? V!. * *W ) * * * ~ ! !
- t.
b i0 ~ 5 0l C Oc o< f too eo w c > > ('n' o c s*- c ~ tEli s VI^: I 'in dfr n!' ks GA L Lncese vt G C e r C s ** A's s4 L l, A C * ** c ( ll Q '
- i " s'! 1 E L'*W*** I so n tv l =j ~ S
&1 L A ND 3 *t A ks $4 s L T C s i tlc %t r s k e.s (
- Dr +-iatas > [~o cs < ab ess s.%us.,,
) I 6
UNR!' SOLVED jj{S PAC' -03 CILITY: / y 's fg h 1 PROJECT INSPECTOR: 6, /t Problems to be Resolved Resolution
- aport No.
Item l Suc=ary Report No. Item Su= mary Re=2rks Description l Paragraph j
- a=d Date
..o. and Date No. Paragraph; 'I"* h of La-Ik A.. J w,a m h a, A ',1 si,;L k 20-01 et .k 8 dis O' 5I:hk M i *"L,e Ch A b,,1 Law -L-la. w-of o4l th;L n'verlais d nn u #.u-95' ^lnl.e CNe Onih% Na.h du, urf LLh $4in.ItN -I6 05 ^doou e e e u.> - Iuh ef c w ek. (:,J.: h.:..,, jil L,m ' 90-PL db hla;L duU i..,i, ~1 ju.c., <i.,,.... .t C'h-Nn,he C 'l &<'d" Albi,u, ' L l,,~.!,1 $ br G,$. /3slw I k.l,e.. ok naL,L 7...... 0,:. d b., ~ i k u.. b l &.L ;,. s y - u o s' nsunc~ ctosco n ~ _ j -b,0.3.w -lr wilt NL s s. & (j.a. [ re ~3 4 et G s uncoru: ct.cse-o L-50 ' C'l $albke, p,v M./a c/ 7;L CL J,m '1..f,9 (f,u LL TAS m:y. ~ l 01 h L)k E r,u Ek Od kM O k.6 . )/ 0% Ytw IOl A.,. n,w.,awMk.%lBllIllhN) 81~ l o3 tu "ui~ co ~ ~ -* ~. / ..H [ cunn wrnywt TD?. 0l Claaler %%bn ll-3 I - D4 n IblNL':aN 5d80~40 l GAuscun Q L O S en / SD'lb ()I hinYw Eu), $ Als. M~cI-si-nLbeStiN0c D& Wr$ Yeau. b.1514 f(,r[a ls-Atu) 03 ErL 05db d arc 8,16' All HL6 !? d
- E - W D p. W ; (,9, k f t L,,& e t's ka'Lisvinc uw ence.
ce t, w Lg p e rn,u /<. v, * = a u -Is
- I wan n
(:1.a c w r m iu ~ u c ac ,c~<. ~ us sc -u cu ra u,
- c. e c : e o
l <ll1llj I !i a i ,I ? A lt s rame 'CA P n l o h i yp t ra u ar l mg
- a o
r s ur e S a R P m \\i e o t N I RO oe Nt TC a e E tD r S P od S pn N ea e I R s TC I, E J OR S P R I r E VLO n S o E i R ) N tp U C' i 3 rc 3 s ~ e D 0 [6s dev lo 1 se R ~ e M b o t O . h 9 s lf y m yp 6 e z em c r k l er <L e m me b D o ~, Vs r r st I P 6> a uP fb l il fI if 6 ) s. e t :o l I; o l s oe Nt Y a T tD I r L od w IC p-a= 'A t
.e \\ I i' i j j e i s ~ a v
- u I
s $ N N N O d 45 r M,k ?% Eb k A, V, U 7 v 4 D i 1 g -:L' ~' i et f b h ( lz b b b 14 o e r z u m
- l
) I a s1
- A, ud 5S,e tw) s
- b..,
M J sig
- )
z c- >w s v jhD,..lD k_ -_ t ~ T 7 i ji!)i'%b. i j Mid .i 1 4.2 m d y vy.9 %p J h3 e s p s o i MT! MiY.!.tfYIYd$ i) ! 4J g s a ,p .m = .e }g _nV 2 u ,3 = a 8 ~ o .e t +3 dT+Nih,bd, V 4 ;m c w 5 A e g; q t i F
- ..j i-3 I'
g .ma w = e 2 w t) $idT.i dr i h*) ] li Vi} d 6 x s(A, g' y 3 ma e si t rs H S J .sl h M II 2 g. M2 ] d # M Wy 4 .+ g h [ fb t) 4.kM k0kb k bh Oh-M dS* d d 8 : Th c.s a 4
- N q e ~ 4p 1 i nyd 4
a a 4 4 v4 4 a e 4 g oqy s m m o _c
- a g
e o o o o o c.n n o o
- m. o i
g 9, 5. %.i e'i F q'ith ',9 4 d~ a a
- a. s t-w. r-c r
e-i=
ewh omMapa.* e e meMMhem+wn M***N-- b O* h S ^ S d xQ C 0g \\S s N = 9 4 i 4 u~ e g 'W e @t A L -a w %g o. G W g \\ h A \\ \\ ~ l 4 s si 3 .4 l .A U fl m 'S 'N i j h N. s m. e 2 a \\ m 5 E $k d X h x e m me S g. D' W Q-Q5 c "E kh %u u6 ? ~ i y '? as ~) e q% 'l +2 sa 's t . ) 1~ [t *d 4 s e,s 1 + u a t 1 3[Q3 (tg s w = m 3 j f-4e t ( en ' p. 33 E Q ;J s <e 'O m s -e 4 e I N 3-( t +...!= p ( u e q e isl d Y. I Nk-O ~" I s 'v ( '(x l Wis y4 d 2vd 5 ,T e 4 82 n *2 N 1 s a &< s. hyqu 8 r Yr i qs <g es p se a k< % y 3 t3 N JI 4 ^ s. ~,' Dd M a y' 5 hb Q k k T N h e as x s s d S~h '>s A l _ _i g 52 h @ j J '~ s 3 't p g a r g I m g o q Q i i o e 78 4. lf pe 4 N i b L N s (7 ew o g c o o c e 4 ) [ h h d-l 1 i 3 - m m E N N k ( )N D~ e.e. cr.
,%,,m,, eeed=m e ee eus-m, u W-+4#* 4E O* 8 e = s e u N o o 4 U v e d w> E %$ z s t a s" \\-s g s, a o =c s e b E~ N N O C g$ G T = i E ~$ d h' O' @ e s b 4 q w k. 4 t 1 w.,. s \\(b h
- Q 4
'k k 4 s s A s i s s
- h D
6 \\ 9 /* g E 9 's N k% q's N g* $C J'q s x [ t' ~]x.Q gg.f; E 'I 3
- 7. j N
- s.
\\ <q ec ~w1 q ( .c s k = g . o. r s h,, l '<A l' M, s s s' %VG A] [. 8 't \\ s 81 s =5 Xy 6 = ? c. 3 s c.), = a w .js,- .e 4,.C) s cv 3 ,,C
- s. f%.
b .i \\J.('N o e x h.' h.b h $]t' S b' i x m' s 1 -J Mb h 4 gg g 'A -C f b {N C D d s N e x gg
- a e
s N %y '% ~ c } N t~ c w s o d N N N Q .C a 3 5E' h N( 'N N Q 7. 8 h b a y a e e o 6 e
- c o
e ,s i i W Rw \\'E D k, I g o > m, w m s .s \\ b e b$ ({, S T s d% 1 \\ g A Qc t\\. El 6 e s. o n 1, ~ t ~
O P' ' EMS LIST i / ) f85 ?fff'!. FACILITY ') / rly,,,[ d.DOCKETNO. .> t) 'y 'T INSFECTOR ,f/,7/A C re, OPEN ITEM RESOLUTION ITEM NO./ INSPECTOR / BRIEF INTERIM RESPONSE DUE MODULE NO. DESCRIPTION INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR REPORT NO. i s A/ / ?> ~)P l^ __t ? g G & gr'y Wlm W 'i S-14 h $ '] ~/0- 0 $ If ' m l' MYJdd JW C#N/?k ) v +7f-bt? 11o1;rn-n:qq.gr
- o E,c k Iml
~ W W j. Rf if4 -tT-o ? AL:d.- L/ cnisac,. .. o,- a +, a /l gg sx
- c., 1,:n.rcJ l
7'~ O 2 b'U^I'~ M-/T b- / T - C 'l B> < o / L-fyr ') < s d 4 h k c b Ca4 C,.,cm 14a4 7 ff g ( ;! 7F()ic or~ h,i. in i" ^N./'t;~<'e: f c- (?h&,. V ll r " . Y:*!W/ ~' n w -n y' ,d u,: < len 8orof4) / , y 7m 7R-l6-o2. Ly S P *C, P m o r o '; c : M' ~ .i., + + ._ l l') l.,, ^^,. 5 ) }fr/{6 f :* 'i f p f fj.. rf
- ) q:' C t'ff'.1-9 of
/ f }'- [f ll") Q~ / -a -l c m - z <.s (%u/( '/?- l'f-O i. t/: () // / - 5 ' G.i :' s M / v.-: _ M TL ,% 'n /, wi ~ ! I ) ? ,l,
-^~ N g 7 g v e e a ba \\ s, t ~ z s 7) 2 ~ \\.- om M 0 05
- E N
%0 h4 E "$s O 9 s a s u / N e / n. f; Q G' Yj f s'. " pi 4 U w \\. hb k h N W c e bt ) p e a na f ds S 5 kl }\\ e = A s 1 d x s %q 8 0 W c qQ q g s 1 \\ I l ~ ~ - m.m s Eg .s D t ea 'NT m% 15 E e z xQ 7E O u n u t sa i $ Tx n. r a e-w -.9-
e ew-e ~ . e.t & -me een- -mm m N ) T '. d k el % 4 JI ~ NU, N-g} "a-(D 7-d a Mn 4 E c N h 5 e c e w k l i. A s u C5, y q w a r=- s O k J D g b 3 i l Q d,--EY .1 ~~t 7'E T I J f N 0; e v y ~ We s = 2 2 Qs e s z = eq e% ':e 'T x e -c -s;;; T F C ~ A g N j b g 54 N c 9 s b z5 .e. s e,j. @ h \\ k k k @ s, I d 4 s1 v' t q 4 c t - 7 }l s Q(s = s ri g we-e + w e-s b, m J-'D Q E D .[s $ c'7 g,. e a m )b B D I ~ ) 1-w O s Y' pg i i s-t ~ V jN ^
- ' O q -k.J.
--r k '+9 * >... A 6 'i w n P t; g 3k-u., i g s k,' ,Dh ':. 6, '-j s' 'M h '4 ~ i a 4,r - E g '.3 1 i} t @o Da b',) T - f-o a sk 3 s O. s o g,_ n s 1 y hO C N \\ i' . ~ ~ 4 d-3 2& k{ q n p ol d Ey M, V.4 q N. g k - s s l, 3 (i. N O j -) w U
- 9) (
] g g ,f([ 3W h I( A N 6, I q 3 ,e m s 3 t. s. s s e e' <f. s.>. ) \\ t. L "N - g (, y N s I\\ G d0 .y I, /hk y - m s s E k -/, ~ 'd ) c* ( T
- )
o * '::: A .a 7 a K c .d S' d7M Nh O \\ 9' b gl e ~, m 3 y e Q h o N 5E $ 'l a z .Ad o t %~ x 7 -7 N i s n e o g o a e , n i e u e .c l l y-@ i ~ 10 S, i o Gl 1' CC v p ce r' I = P E'-
4. 7Q. C /6 78 d),1 g/tWH'/ OllTSTANHING ITEMS FII.E IWICKET # jj g NRC I Form #6 Dec 76 l0 50 3 3 Ol Mt 6sb *z-T G. UAubEL-W/ j j i Facility Name Project Inapector pg, y jgg, 3 Date Acknowledged i ITEN NilHRER TYPE HOIRil.E # AREA RESP. ACTION IRIE DATE ' CLOS OhT ACTION i % f-low -1 6lil lrlW] lsltlolsl510 l lsMej [sl/lrl l l l-l l l-l,l,Ol-lf[g-log] j DESCRIPTIVE TITLE i l D E T E C s* r nI E L F B e c ti T E L G 3 Z l O E o 2 M 44 A S G E C N G V A L 8 5 5 l f E 5 f 5 1 55 _~5 5 @ 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 Z 5 Y li U 5 5 U s i l 5 d E s 5 ! U A r s D D U 62 : 4 6 2 5 @ h D [ Z 5.-h ~ i .s._ N 4 S _- 1 3 2 1 o a n b . R.P._P, L R S T U l l R E Q M T S e' i l ITEM HilMRER TYPE HDDUI.E # AREA R F.S P. ACTION IRIE DATE CLOSEOUT ACTION f I FilBF16141-lolzl Irir#I Islaloisis1al' IsFisi le1 Art,i I I-I I I-I I I I-ul-liisi-lol I g 4 t U 1%s[ew 4 /t w %.n. \\ F OL L ow - P O M S E C. N_.T.E L. - W-C R ,q o i -1 - z e V 1 ~ \\ / MEH NUHAER TfrE Hoput.E i ARFA R F.S P. ACTION DUE DATE CI.OSEOUT ACTION l 171sH31 Fibf4 .l M zl blMol4fl IM4 IMr1 1 I l-1 I l-l L1 Mrt-l/Isi-Icl I d"S ' i j j' DESCRIPTIVE TITLE i l h e V-d 21 e r u Y- _:q L n bid d 6 n* 4 X L 1;c n .sk- <'e r % W / i ITFM NUHRER TYPE Mdutil.E # AREA RESP. ACTION DUE HATE CLOSE0llT 1Il-lII-ITl I _l l 1 f3 TIIIn_l FFFl FF/Fl FFI-I I H Fl i I l-1 FlhCTIO_f / ~1 ) DESCRIPTIVE TITLE t e. e. .=
=
- '=
e w e ee e M N j m 1-Infoamuillon entered by WPC ou __/ _/_ by, _ l para inacl.l. 4 #f / i
.7).s/Ws % P// I JMITSTANDING ITEMS FII.E NRC I Form 76 Dec 76 tiOCKET I E b 5l" l - N/ a,i 7 T E. \\/nubeL / f Facility Name Project inspector pg s Initials Date Acknowledged ITEH NUHRER TYPE H0DUI.E I ANEA RESP. ACTION DUE.DATE CLOSE0trf ACTION FilB1:FF/l 1slil IDFird] Is11lcisliliil Isblel 12I/Tdl l I H I l-l I i 17I*l-IfisH4 le "" # S o -ife DESCRIPTIVE TITLE ,/ k $ C G w A Y S 'O P P O R r 'S P h c g $f $ A 2 Q _G e 'Q u N_ 'O f_ q Q _ g g r c M Q L L S E - 1 0 . $ A - 9 G - A E L L Y L L L E li \\ h / )g]LDSEOUT ACTION ,/ ITEM NUHngg TYPE HDDUI.E # AREA RESP. ACTION DUErh YE filil lblil lElil lulNIRI Isillolslilal Isklel fel/1c1 l l l-1,lff l l il f7 I AU (N lrrl-l,31-141 ""8'"'"*"" Ii E S L L B E T ? 8 9 E i d f E E 9 S f 9 V s f c ! A c c o #4 4
- c E' u
t r e/ r e s 'e '_- 2 2 . 7 ) 2 P A R A 4 i-A -i a _L___....,_..._ / 6
- /
i ITEM NUHnER TYPE H00ULE I AREA RESP./ ACTION DUE DATE CLOSEOUT ACTI0t! DIti-leFIEfil .lzlelti 131 loiqiisi ISimiel ie:Aci i i_! i 1-i i 17i,i-ioi7-ioiyi ufta #
- l infab n DESCRIPTIVE TITLE
[UE59h_vf M f9IE E I L e. b _19 s f t' 56 I C Gi' I d 9 6 E 8 9 B i f S.5 !N. E E d 9 8 5[5 5 E l - @ Y '.A. 5 4 E - G E -. k % 6 % ! d 6 2 7 1 B C L k' b L & G U 4 C 9 N t t c ( ? @ 9 D L & L B L E V ! ! 9 4 m / ITFH HUHnrR TYPE HDDtlLE I AREA RESP. ACTION DUE DATE CLOSE0tlT ACTION [ lil-bl41-loli loMel IsI7folcIt I!!] IsFIsl IElFl ITH I I-FFI l7lt H l W 2 C l dosd DESCRIPTIVE TITI.E 9 b b _N U [ $ $ 6. b ( $ $ b b N - b l M l. 5 $ 0 $ - 5.$ 1 h O b 1 $ d I h l Infoam:stton entercel tsy WPC on _/ _/ _ lsy, Date Initials Ce4 u
} h 3*/3/,7$ % V/t1/72' h/I[t/ NItCat Forsa #6 Dec 76 _sIHTSTANHINC ITEMS FII.E DOCKET I / h / O 3l3 Cl ./l/lsblAub d2 T E. \\/AMDEL / / / Fact!!ty Hasme Project Inspector pges Initiale Date Achesowledged ITEM NtIHRER TYPE HODUI.E # AltF.A ' ItESP. ACTION IMIE DATE CLOSEOUT ACTION y-Flil:lBRIlW1 Iflelt! 1s11o1617151 IsMel. lelAcl lI H Il-1II 17lPI-Iol71-Ici I c/"/ l. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE O C b L I T 1 C O N Y P O L r M S T E i o r F E R E N C E 2 O C n e L E I-R A a s _77_i 5_ E_.. _i ci _-r_u _g _c_- i s_7 _Ei_ r _r_E_LE_3 E _E_P_-c__5_7F_ -y b-o-N - F E-b sA G _ ). 1 u r.J ^ ITEM NHHRER TYPE HDDUI.E # AREA RESP. A ION IMIE DATE CIASEOUT ACTIllet I7IVl lolFMI ItIclil 1912lcistiinl' kMel leIAcl I I l-I.I l-I I I 17Irl-lol71-Ici I ele d _ r d[ DESCRIPTIVE Till. r G!DG_TBAL5 LEG _Bs5f_BEtb HEE _LidI_EsCeBLL2HE? l b Lo E L 8 !? _6 6 L ___,..._..._.J bl q AREA RESP. ACTION DUE DATE CLOSEOUT ACTION l IIIl}{*IIAI ITEM HUHRER TYPE H0DULE # I I I-I I l-l I I .I I I I l l I I l 101 I I l-1 I I-I I _ I I I I-I I l-I I I DESCRIETIVE TITLE ITEM NUHRER TYPE HODULE I AREA RESP. ACTION DUE DATE CIASEOUT ACTIDF ITl-IIl-lI1 IIII IIIIIIgi IIII ITil 1 ITI-I I FITI l l I-I l I-1T DESCRIPTIVE TITI.E _-_ h c s \\ _s i Infor enat 1 sin entered lay WI'C oit __/_/_, t y, // I p{f Datu fultiale
.__ _ ~J; _ _;.'Z Z 'i _ _ _ _ _,_- - - ~.~.ZI?. 2 2....... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ^ j ~. q M q 4k ) g* ,\\ %,'. s f s 3 t b k h l\\ f-E -,a 8 Y 'E h .l}khm u m E v. N l 5 t t C\\ C1 .tl o! 3 $ "[ d D u nh (a. $ ? i ? l tw l E
- , s6p%N d{
g /0 + F m a: N tt iih n\\ 1 c, 'N E" t rx < J 1 2 8p us f'9D : L d' e. k y n 't4, a i c 4 atC; lpdI --+ o y, t ai w; e
- tq t
a2 di o~ 'h Lp '$ s e c E f . q A a te n, q > ps a u h N dD <Q ( Q ~ ,m a u
- < 1%
M 2>. Wr 2 ' e.[_)$ -.. 4 4 4 g g g 4 t g 3 s ,- b cm C <s g o. ,N . w, 3 o = 4 .d r g f #, t w-s 7 i Nif3[.[ p t w 'G a e t o s s .E D O e Q v e e,, 05$ e e e C1 T% % $ $,o Y'C D T u 2 4 Q,'<$ % 4 4 s R x s s s @ L ., n c 't.> wnyu u E Ei M N l~
?.. u I., I .t S N W k A k g w* d g ( r e w a s qs y s ~sN ! N Q Mu\\ s 3 W \\ k bi i. q .= l5]dd 'd'4 4 1] l l h,gcmd d i b h k y \\ 't AV . 'T n 4- -4 Nh W-% D 4 E C,.- b B C 7dt.W ! = F. ung5 pn ' t- 'g s ~ $N ,S f *l ? g'
- 1 lQ V
i l ( I I ) I b 4 i l d'ab $ D rsg 23 !? Qj 4. g = r yo 1 3waS a e
- f h k M
%.+- m C ~ Q N \\ 7 > j Q'. 3 W T 5 ye J =Q .l.3 @ A%g e, we 5 gg3 i-8 s e,y 3 ( t 4-r e. 'i.- (N d k.N: h hb k i s e t J 4 u + es t.: e w s = A N.1 g, d dQ ka Mtu ?' 3 S j\\ o o 0 Q U~4t.h D C? Tt MG d a $s __g!?$ % A yh 'N % JV5 'k ?f j h ,N gl N M"'Q p-3 w % m'e; M o o a g e p e s: o o -3 d '- 4 24 ia 'a '(rj,.gf 7 m a d d) { E' %Dv, o 0 k 0<g e% m
- s..J r
Qy 4 N ,o QC .c 4 cC <V 8 i N 4 h k k I( a O O Z T T D d N(q c b Q %y; y 3 y% m 4 )f, p,W M w e 3 .a -a, 3 g g r.u o u s 4 m es c --e s&y r c g o O o o C G Q a oeu N N N N d Q rg C G EAy D'-W.Q..D O,-,. g. Y'4-Y" O'-~ g .'j-i _4 o q o d D e ijg m e g a s a e t x 2 x; e 3 d< =,s, v --b. 2 a g %q g w u s e e e 4 a u - s' s g we -a p x. = = ( Vrex-w
- W,
. # $ :y@. t. 4" R 't A :', v V v y wx-w da h,E n3 i 's f C b ?f I d a)7 @' / i,. h'~Y t b26h@d.- " A(n d ti'* Q4 q c o n c eu
- a. -v hx s
n
..e-~-=ce- =. - <*~M** " * ' ~ * ~ ~ ~ " ^ ~ ' ' .g E k A = 4*1 A. I i h l a p N
- ai m e g
N A ' s ) g.
- E I h h
4 d c .o w b ( ta i 0; 2.1 N t i n a-m ss- \\ h \\ D f M \\ I Me g d 9.Y 4 o L a g 9 .s N r 5 k \\ R.%". I Q g M (, T 1 m A 'S g n %N A 4 k.% \\V s .N\\ v 4 V R Y 4 k N h. K*N N ~\\p .? ~~ i Q P g 4 r s ss f $s. h 4 5 o ~ 8 ':s' s D s J .Nr 3 2,1 2 N 4 s J
- N a
a., Q c q4s y s e 4 s, s, 2 x e a m t ws N a i n, [ h % k A l: q i n e J,
- N s
gu e e %w,4-B B* % i* 4 M cc %L \\ i s i m o a s' w
- =s %
4 ,$; \\s m t I d. li 6 55 D ~k h% 8, s, "s E D r$\\. l 5 A ~
.., -, -=. =. -...
- . c:-= = :....
- _ = = - - - - i p - r Y j N J J N y t a w a s I d o e a s s 4 3 5-w et m A '$ - % \\ gs Q q g s g g rg cg g ) ~ s e s e = S* N4 k D- ~ a r e t (/ .D 3 I e st i a o 5 g 9 s d S 6 I @m e s g g 9 e u u s a o a ] $ N Q % Q h ~ 2 9 o 3 NN -4 k N 4{ -L. d e 1 s i @s 73[ R + 'd 8 A 1
- Q n
i g d e c' 4 A 2;,w I 'id 1 i d -5.; 'a ! s d o l 4 e f e w i t E 8 e i m 3 a Pd s i., s v 4 4 % R U m 2 ( ~ u =: ~ t-g s g d m ME 6 M C6 ('; jg w >M U ud ? ?f T E E.1 n} Stt x y aa
_m-6 %8*' 8*"hi 'Mn**O'*=**+d = m ..m a ) D. d d 9 w 3 ts v L,., .i A 4 p M k k d 1 61 4 6 y T u 3 m i IE d N I ^L N d j r 5 ai 5 4 s ~ 5 S. / M
- E D
M k N \\ Q pf N s is ed w + n% d a ma a+ 0 9 i b s@ th ww fi) D N/ n Y q" -$, ,) h 3-a .s ) E h ( ' '{ u! ( a 3 5 e . s + 4 e b d A ! ( 1 } 1 ( i w s i 4 4 Ji s i ( t 1 4 e y 2 9
- s 4)J
~ 3 s a 4; n N J t 'y ?Fs ( g -4 4 y 1 u X j g Q k Q % h k % N 2 1 l! < Q s 4 6 m me l~ =g M. x% b b g x s. s s g3 g b "5 ? i G H 'M e m =
I ! 1 h f. ,i L)l!'l iI [ .i : A d ~ fW"" a'a. d ? w-o ~ o l s t Mlk k 2< a 8 wd
- k L r
~ s am e pk p 'o 9, A / e +
- k R
n,L/ 8 n G e c n A k" a P L n o g i yp d n t ra i a u ar l mg l. i. z ?. r, A F e. / o ma s ur Cr c e S a R P
- m. 8 9
D i. z s. e o t i I i N / I LM s&2 s- / R 1-oe 1 O Nt g 7 0-T a o C tD o 0 o&$j w A E f,r 6 \\ r P oM 6 N 7 e SN ea 7- ? Al 4 p 7 / I R s i i TC c E al L 6 J A n,.' O R P = S s n-x. f. J B r u u s f m A sH n M o
- e.. o
/ ~ D i~ u /c E / \\ V r / 7 L O n uk c u S o J t E i L A R t s r t .kd N p b i r s A U L-r a+ u c /
- u. K L(
n s s r e / / D
- r n n e
M u n a n a. ,/ d e d s M m's. e r u 's (s,. J v v (/ l c 9 o M S c s o e R i A A r s F L A A d V Q c u u e >r e / n J / S b o t s h h 3 [ m yp e ra 1 2 3 i l ar b n g i 6 E 8, A A A u o n a r ur P Sa P R T-lD Z 5 m. I e o t 1 I / N I .oe g Nt L fI g Y a 2d 0 T tD 7 c' I r / o / L od f I pn C ea j A R d F l1 l lljI \\
.~ .{ ^ n UNRESOLVED MATTERS PAGE I;' ' t.
- s...
i !d 41 kM PROJECT INSPECTOR: FACILITY: 1 i Resolution Problems to be Resolved Report No. Item S'ummary ~ Remarks l Rspnet No. Item Summary Description g y y j cod Date No. Paragraph w n~kr>, J ?l-o 2 ) E/ Tf,fily s l A.I fouw !! 7i-ol / v l 3}AY*d i it tr i M.C:<
- n, V l/b-is/st c2
/?2 - 4 /s u } l l 2 A. 2 & P AleR GF-Y8 d l i h. AO 44,# I 3
- E.
Cpe<t,% ) /E11 c.<s,,r 75-or 43 Mrs.A.J L A i e!,,,m. h d htw ll. is % )sh! \\ Y V 6 n<a A a.Ja->< us,.s la v-W, 7l-oz 4 A.I O<kiovaf-d ulmr k!d4$ 71 -6 6 'l F/ t>1.at fle he<<t )>uvel n st r}<c. Y.*1Y. '//1'It/74 yte. i.itant y I ~ Nltt-12 ~ ~ l 3 Yf' 5 A.& &M at 114,; rm'l 16-8 5. Cr. / a L 9% 9lf*l1l14 osuits,w 7 -o4 b, fi3 g/m) l 6 A.'f d F-56' flsd;4'u'<4 &ne&w / \\ adu. l 7 A,f ReasntA As J & 76-oK
- 7. Gr. /. b. &:#ff!
c-m ~ t fi y s (no) '\\ ~ " '
a _..u.- w 4 we.e.Ae W e., er + p m hwe., W e me ,i __.-,e_. O.
- i
.9 ( n .~ u E e .4 ga$ 0 - e. ) So O -.C M A U N I 3 he i e.4 ao O 4 W DH 9 tn N DP. N ) 1 8 e O M E H OO g O O* 3r. ue .i UA \\ y O 'O
- o. a j#
) H t M OM ca'
- 8 i
l O ts> .J C c! to O a 2: vs DC U 2 p. D v4h UeG A I e 9 W> c4 i O eW i, 04 e .D 0M R h6 e pe e4 $4 .D 50 O 4 i k k De tn 4 9e O d* e O* ,,;) rn P' H O p O 8 Mp C. u,. n d al e o
i" {c 1 f:li+ eII tl hs i l i! i i s k r a m m. e. r R h n yp o ra i ar=g tu a l ur o S a s P e R m. e o t N I .oe R Nt O a T tD r CE od pn P ea f S R N I I TC . m E c J oo c's O v R e N P n s a O f n n I T n o C u A n c q-o c i yO tp cr i o sr 'E / r eA C A c i e R ) s r b n O 0 e ei F l D 3 T cl N l E 3 1 d i t n I e a D c-s 0 V r Mi s 'L ty t ( i cc D r uN s e G e v H R c e ct n S a in 1 Te 1 t T pu r Tn i Ac ur s A r. r q f o ( c c u G A D N w'y p cu h n 1 r 3
- a Hs r
<.s 'n e s s C-L P;-_s s . e ur D S v u y a A T. _ P GL l n l k m. e 5 o t N O I .oe I Nt Y a D T tD L I r ~ od I pn l C ea b A R F i iI l i jil<i..l il 3i -l 4 i1J!4i! I i< 4!1<
- 4 1!Iii
- tlj 34
- ikj :!i : +
9 e - h-8/ OTilER ITEMS TO BE INSPECTED PAGE FACILITY: II/ k, [,,' PROJECT INSPECTOR: TE[ ~ Ite: Date Item Inspection Action Date 1 No. Enter Item Description Inspector Reference and Reference Inspe9 tor Closed j) J 7" gy,,,gl p 3' kyf)'t, b//kj. b, / 't e I'~ }lf'l- (*f f W/ dll h,'.e + > _ p," 'w A)$5gl' aq:.c...l # N f, /~ X/ 'yk[v af.ies b-: '7 1 N 5'S $ f 'id wuca 'f's:f/ / } ..<J '/ *: _ < ^ k 55 ,f) c.r_~..e /}i .,
- r., G - e r s
t f nil.\\ffa !! <*! bf/] t r. +. 6 4 1 e NOTE: This forn is a supplement for documenting origination and resolution of: (1) open itens stated in inspection Report Details, (2) followup on IE Bulletins, (3) significant events reported by the licensee, (4) IE canagerial an:i Engineering Support Section requests, (5) inspector-identified problems for followup during future inspections, (6) repeated problems areas and (7) IlQ requests.
.y.-. PAGE OTHER ITEMS TO BE INSPECTED /#w Ab//aJ /M, // 1 i rRO.1Ecr 1xSeEcTOR r vicrun ~ A ON E REFERENCE CLO ITEM DESCRIPTION REFERENCE 0 ER s...t /&~<e wor n sc 9 iww /<4 -, n,:s Fix1 p,i, it19 ll io'/76 s n,1,1n i 4h /2- '" ' A n...L.ya4 u,,w.e.'.,u. -~o."& < b b L.A,/ ,t!$t 1' 4 m 6 :- + roan n <i c,,,,~ c. c n, c,,. _, ~,., ,,.m s ec rn~ E, P'W A '}. C7 x/t'/" ) N, 'h G,~ pip +
- 9 min, n-
/,cn r1,nemn s 0 '/77/m In //a l.m.s~jh 9 "" ' 9 gev,~ <c to, cay M n,- e c., ,vn, c eisau cc,iv uMr /1 l'/!, (7.t/c V-C.? ) ? c/ D~r'ric.n 77, / NLLWoCM.5 %). (S ea K (cmpast,< b e fE. ^Wic~ / m V c g.o<<.o g s,uRR 4/oso 79-c7 ,N//s' Fc.new up cc<tccoercer 73 s y arm /ei n /s shh3 cm tect i a ce.a.c. c, w u.. n ~ c, n +, ll,{.I) ,?,'ll,;,fg ll956f k-CQ }g N' l N R,c r (2(~ F. ble 6 ??c't j, ,lff- ,f pf e c r, :it.MsE 7 cab e,m 6 3 y v !l Sf.) R c Got e s' in s ciu s S (, " ~ ~' "' # [ ' " V # SML Wtl-52/-b IN'* b FD/lotti-t'f **'SKrf/A" //&st-W#ift;) , I c. t. n 7') 7s G h) M*M W In /$ l-/(-77 7f <*x'-e/ AiFe f FWloit!~ U)* *d SM A/YC /,fo')f 75-0C i1' ys-a, a ene a.o nat u,v o x <.,, ~ _g (1) open items stated This form is a supplement to Form CB-9 for documenting originatlon and resolution of: (2) followup on IE Bulletins, (3) significant events reported by the licensee, NOTE: in inspection Report Details, (5) inspector-identified problems for followup (4) IE managerial and Engineering Support Section requests, Airine future inspections, and (6) repeated problem areas. i
PAGE, ' OTHER ITEMS TO BE INSPECTED PROJECT INSPECTOR FACILITY / tl /t /// / r I E m ON ACTION M M ERENCE C0 NER I " ITEM DESCRIPTION REFE NCE No co s/n /- /'y e 1/Jo > 76 -of ,) ; // C A s < f> >i 7n f r # y 't. Dah./ 7 I to cNI 50.T6' n c2 c i-p,, i ii.,u suen,,,r en /1 ;,,, " C 9 Cs tu s -e scie re e,'~, y t;, 4,g /h*/A 74 G o >n; ss.,ns ; was b af. >r,~A d" " 74-o/ i'iddi//~./ "cA Te o/ tire ^ n /A s h a - A1. 75~ M,ll.2 3 > ;/ e 7s. oj &j. ty <- j,.,, e,, t o n rice ;<<, I c fo < c. <, -e ehnte os:t 3 7-Sesrit o f Cba*c'l>Io n '? d - o / ~}/ - 0 L .t,),t y g [s,,.,,,en f, fg Detail 1 /f< vja w w w, . re salus l dA n1c, ~. c.. t /91,w.< n A.'s 4 ' ' ;~ 74 -of 3,/g' ife.4 e a of th. >. 7~e 1.~y yg,,, 76-oL / tr g,,,' jy.g & b. AA M(w1 75-os~ Itn 5 s,% ~14 -01 7
- w a a -,,,..
i e. m e.. o. s- '7/> - OC / 9 l. oc1%;0, % / h r. I$ c.; /..* cIe r >y n, h ae cet-7% r 7 a<,sec 2 o.,.s1,e. A// V ~t'~ 7'ew '/' Ib &l i, t".1 p,.... y a.//Y nr<:os n-9 ,h,, d t 4t. s.. s n.,alo t wa B.".l'^.'?,J c.Y JL' 'i... $?$e ?' ~ 7 A. /, E / D8 x ' " ^ ' ? a io i (1) open items stated This form is a supplement to Form CB-9 for dccumenting origination and resolution of:(3) significant events l' NOTE: in inspection Report Details, (2) followup on IE Bulletins, (5) inspector-identified problems for followup (4) IE mmagerial and Engineering Support Section requests, 4 anections, and (6) repeated problem areas. c.....
1i,. ,I ,;i
- ?
h ll .. 1 .d aa t r ao l Dl a .C i nr oe ig .r t a o cn t ea s c pc e s e p nEr s iI u m n t I n) u E i4f G ( A d g P e, n t ei aer t su snd e n scp o miu i e el w t c t o cn 9 i el Ae hl r nt o ne e f of py ie obr R tR o O c )df T ed 1 e C pn ( t s E sa rm P n oe S I
- pl N
f eb I oro r T nsp D C ot E E i nd T J t ee C O uvi E R l ef P P o i S st t. N e enns I c raet mn cd s E ee dii e B t r nf - u I e airq O f noe T e ngt r R oic S i seq M t pH E a) s T n3 n) I i(i 7 r g ( R o i ,) E t rs5d H c on( n T e i ,a O p gt s ness n il t a I tl se nuer eB ua m q uEes cI rm 5 o e d nnl n oob r i o o opt r i f ucp t ve p t oSd i nl e r el t t c cora s ef oe e l pp D p) pe p2 ur m u( S e s ) t , g6 I asn( li sir, i aes t en neno rDii r o gt f t nc ee rE e t t so p an i pd s DE Y henn TRai T i I i IL I m. E C eo T A tN O F I N 3 1l l lI1lI l' I l lll
~ h. r. ~ m^cuMun ^ c_, ASSISTANCE REQUEST FORM PART 1 ~ ~7~ A //or; W4/7r M W P / DATE ,o / / D.14A bues Pnm 8C - 32 h C/MC 8/ FACILITY DOCKET INVOLVED k/ [dM -[Ib No. S'O - 3.3 0 ~ 'e H eP NO. 8 2 CAT. ~ / PART 2 + ITE S TO BE INSPECT D OR RE IEUED , REFERENCE ~ Yea vlt/ [u s b e chfon (\\ _ En vironra en k / Pro fedbn., )y j (E-3Yoo Secrion 12~ - / i i co n s tra d,*on /'Ir a se W/ (cp issu ed /2hhz ) $/ ,a$l-DATE REQUESTED M4 re 4 y/ [_, / 77f' p PROJECT INSPECTOR T f, p e/e* [ SENIOR INSPECTOR O. M. Ma ue s / V l ~~ / PART 3 ASSIGNED TO DATE ~ SCllEDULED FOR \\ j' PART 4 ITEM INSPECTED OR IVIEWED CLOSF OUT DATE REFERENCE / / CIl ITE!!S/REFEPINCES (sce back side) SUPPORT INSPECTOR DATE PROJECT INSPECTOR DATE (Over)
e. ..^ p---, DWH s. [L h UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g E. REGION lil / 799 ROOSEVELT RO AD CLEN ELLYN, ILLINo15 40137 I, DAfg 's. November 26, 1975 f. J. M. Allan, Chief, Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch DEFERMENT OF INSPECTIONS The attached =emorandum provides the basis for deferring the f. environmental inspection at Midland and the confirmatory measurements inspection at Davis-Besse. In addition to the reasons presented for the Midland inspections postponement, the construction permit environ-These mental monitoring requirements are minimal and nespecific. inspections will be rescheduled appropriately in 1976. s The Assistance Request Form for Midland is being returned to construction; we did not receive one for Davis-Besse. /1f .W. . A. Pagl aro, Section Leader Environmental and Special Projects Section
Attachment:
As stated cc: G. Fiorelli D. W. Hayes R. C. Knop D. M. Hunnicutt S i t a l ~~
F-~ nu.. ,_L _..,' .2.. ~ - ~ _,: UNITEo STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ftEGloN lli 799 ROOSEVELT mo AO GLEN ELLYN. ILLINo45 60137 November 14, 1975 J. A. Pagliaro, Section Leader, Environmental Protection and Special Projects Section DEFERMENT OF INSPECTIONS The environmental inspection for Midland and the confirmatory measurements inspection for Davis-Besse will have to be deferred until after the beginning of calendar year 1976. The deferments are based on the following information: Midland A meeting between CP and the NRC to discuss changes in the environmental program due to plant design changes is to be held this month. A revised program resulting from this meeting would probably not be - implemented until well into 1976. Also, construction which is currently at a minimum due to monetary considerations,'will probably escalate in 1976. M 73 Davis-Besse The initial, confirmatory measurements inspection which involves capability determinations using standards supplied by HSL cannot be scheduled until the licensee receives his instrumentation. The licensee was contacted in October to schedule this inspection. 'Ihe licensee representative in charge of this operation indicated that their until equipment had been ordered, but is not scheduled for receipt Fcl.raary 1976. A. G. Januska Radiation Specialist
m ~ u-a 3.- [ UNITED STATES ! ),.3-g [,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASmNGTONJb. Cl 20555 /
- 'M/
.E I FRfN0ip 4 -- [ k.# April 3, 198,4 c. A g/gp s-Docket Hos: 50-329 OM, OL C ^ and 50-330 GM, OL QAo df .it \\ MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino N% 1 \\ Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Roberts 4-GNCIPAL STAFF l Comissioner Asselstine aA hD-w j Comissioner Bernthal a/& la un+ (F W h FPCM: Chrrell G. Eiserhut, Director
- C si
- s i
Mvisinn of Licensing, FPP 3Ao
- csv 4 g7 53A
.s t
SUBJECT:
BOARD NOTIFICATION ON ALLEGATION REGARDING 9 j:ig.. g u CONVERSATIOP OVERHEARD DURING MIDLAMD PEAQ?NG (BN 84-05E' In accordance with the NRC procedures for Board Potifications, the folicwing information is being provided directly to the Comission for information. The This information is applicable only to the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2. appropriate Boards and parties are being informed by copy of this memorandum. An affidavit regarding a cenversation overheard durino the Midland OM-OL Fearing has been received and reviewed by the NRC. This matter relates'to the conduct of the proceeding and cculd be material and relevant to cuality assurance /cuality control issues before the Board. Cnnsistent with the pro-cedures of the Comission's Policy Statement of August 5,1983, regarding), Investigations and Adjudicatory Prcceedings (48 FR 36358, August 10, 1983 the staff has detemined that Enclosures 1 thrcugh 4 should be provided erly to the Comission for their in camera consideration. We are providing for the use of the Commissioners nne complete copy, showing no deletions, of Enclosures 1 through 4. We are also providing an additional copy of these enclosures for the Comissioners, and copies for the presidir.g Atomic Safety i & Licensing Board and the parties, from which the name of the alleger and assnciated identifying information have been removed in accordance with the alleger's request for confidentiality. is one of six affidavits on the Midland Plant provided PPC June 29, 1982, under coverletter (Enclosure 2) by Vs. Billie P. Garde of the Government Accountability Project. It presents fragments of a conver-sation overheard between two attorneys for Consumers Power Company, an NPC attorney and a staff witness outside the hearing room prior to the witness's testimony on October 15, 1981. The witness's testimony addressed an item of nercompliance in Region III's Inspection Report 50-329/80-32; 50-330/80-33 regarding a log (kncwn as " Patty's log") of interfacirt design documents reflecting FSAP reouirements and a section (Block 8) of the quality control form used in the applicant's re-review of the FSAR. -. u o M ') ep 4g
3& i 2-Enclosure I was reviewed by the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor (Enclosures 3 and 4). The review found no evidence of miscceduct nor of an ethical transgression on the part of the NRC attorney. The review also found no evidence of an overt act necessary to establish a conspiracy to hide information from the Licensing Board or other hearing parties. Therefore, the matter is closed. This Board Notification supplements the discussion of this allegation as provided to the Board and parties by RIII Inspection Report 50-329/84-03(0SC); 50-330/84-03(OSC) under R. F. Warnick's coverletter dated February 15, 1984. M rrell G. Eisenhut, Director v' Division of Licensina Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatior
Enclosures:
(1) Affidavit c (2) B. Garde coverletter, 6/29/82 (3) R. Smith memorandum, 4/19/83 (4) G. Messenger memoranJum, 1/30/P4 cc: OPE OGC EDO SECY (2) Parties to the Proceeding C. Bechhoefer, ASLB F. P. Cowan, ASLB J. Harbour, ASLB C. Kohl, ASLAB J. Beck, ASLAB T. Moore, ASLAB b ,m,
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION Midland Units 182, Docket Nos. 50-329/330 ACRS Members Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Dr. Robert C. Axtmann Ms..Lynne Bernabei Mr. Myer Bender James E. Brunner, Esq. Dr. Max W. Carbon Dr. John H. Buck Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole Mr. Ronald C. Callen Mr. Harold Etherington Gerald Charnoff, Esq. Dr. William Kerr Myron M: Cherry, P.C. Dr. Harold W. Lewis Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Dr. J. Carson Mark Barton Z. Ccwan, Esq. Mr. William M. Mathis T. J. Creswell Dr. Dade W. Moeller Gary J. Edles, Esq. Dr. Milton S. Plesset Steve J. Galder, P.E. Mr. Jeremiah J. Ray Cr. Jerry Harbour Dr. David Okrent Samuel A. Haubold, Esq. Dr. Paul C. Shewmon Mr. Wayne Hearn Dr. Chester P. Siess Dr. W. Reed Johnson Mr. David A. Ward Mr. James R. Kates Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Christine N. Kohl, Esq. Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr. Mr. Howard A. Levin Steven Lewis, Esq. Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Michael I. Miller, Esq. Thomas S. Moore, Esq. William C. Potter, Jr. Mr. Paul Rau Harold F. Reis, Esq. Ms. Mary Sinclair Ms. Barbara Stamiris Frederick C. Williams, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Docketing and Service Section Document Management Branch e 1
f -MIDLAND (For BNs) Mr. J. H. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc: Stewart H. Freeman Jares G. Keppler, Pegional Assistant Attorney General Administrator State of Michigan Environmental U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Protection Division Region III 720 Law Building 799 Roosevelt Road Lansinc, flichioan AP913 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Ps. Julie Morrison Mr. Ron Callen Midland Daily News Michioan Public Service Commissicn 124 McDorald Street 6545 Percantile Way Midland, Michigan 4E6eC Lansinc. Fichican AG"09 Mr. R. B. Borsun Geotechnical Engineers, Inc. Nuclear Pcwer Generation Division ATTN: Dr. Steven J. Poulos Babcock A Wilcox 1017 Mair Street 7910 Hoodmont Avenue, Suite 270 Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Director, Citizens Clinic Divis#on of Radiological Health for Accountable Governnent Department of Public Health Government Accountability Pro.4ect P. O. Boy 33035 institute for Fnlicy Studies Larsing, Michigan 48909 1c01 nue Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Resident Inspector's Office Comnander, Naval Surface Weapons Ctr. Route 7 ATTH: P. C. Huarg flidland, Michigan 48640 Yhite Oak Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager 212 H. Michigan Avenue Facility Design Engineering Jackson, Michigan 49201 Energy Technology Engineering Center P. O. Boy 1449 Mr. Walt Apley Canoga Park, California 91304 c/o Mr. Max Clausen Battelle Pacific North West Labs Mr. Neil Gehring SIGMA IV Building U.S. Corps of Engineers Battelle Blvd. NCEED - T Richland, Washington 99352 7th Floor 477 Michican Avenue Detroit, Michigan A8226
J 2 Mr. J. W. Cook cc: Mr. I. Charak, Manager NRC Assistance Project Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439 ATTN: Clyde Herrick Franklin Research Center 20th & Race Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Mr. Patrick Bassett Energy Division Norwest Bank Minneapolis, N. A. 8th and Marguette Minneacolis, Minnesota 55479 4 l I i \\.. 1 I L t ,. ~. ~ ~ - ---e w. --.~- ..,---y r,,,
7 l s 1 1 ~ Mm.[ A. L J AFFIDAVIT p. f On October 15, 1981, outside the Atomic Saf ety and Licensing l Bscrd Soi l s Hearing ( OM 50-329 and om 50-530) in the lobby of the Mi dl and County Courthouse, I overheard,a di scus si on between Mt.i_ Mi l l er and Ms. Bl oem (Consumers Power Attorneys), Mr. William Faton ( NRC Attorney) and Mr. Lansmann (NRC witness). This was i mmedi atel y pri or to Mr. Lansmann's testimony. Other people were al so, ppe sent. however, I did not recognize them. I, was seated with my back to the group about ten feet away. Al though I was unable to hear the entire conversation, I was abl,e to tale notes unnoticed. The statement "we're not going to menti on that" caught my attention and I began to take notes as f ollows: .... log lacking .... not happ y wi th the log as recently as October 5, 6, and 7th... don't mention that some were not happy.... don't mention.... bach-logging the log.... 8032 document.... December, 1950 they were happy with the log... -non-c ompl i ance... " ~ Lansmann, Bloom and Miller beg An li sting "four items of non-compliance" "there were the two vi ol ations, one was answered between January and February, one was closed in the g May i nspecti on..... Bl oom and Miller said "Say very li ttl e when you get up there"...Other five...Lansmann said "I don't know--coul d be bi g".... "desi gn defects".... Lansman then said, " con'f i dence ti evel-as ses sment tool... Blockade 2" ( B' lock 8 I later discovered that they hed actually said
ten")..."Audi't discovered..." Mr. Lansmann said "Ambigicus l 1 procedures"... Ms. Bloom, (CPeo attorney) interrupted and
- ocid,
" Don't. use'. ' ambi gi ous' --use unclear or already { .ccmplicated".... May i tem of non-compli ance". was that the group was very concerned or worried {i mpr essi on hat the inf ormation about the other design defects not be rought out or offered by Mr. Lansmann during hi s testimeny. r. Miller and Ms,. Bloom cautioned Mr. Lansmann to say ver y-su.' ~ittle while testif.ying. Mr. Paton was present throughout the ntire conversation. I have read the above 2 page affidavit and it is
- true, i
ccurate and complete to the best of *my knowledge and belief. juu i t. 4 3
- ". i.:
~' l s s 5 S e
't 8 p i I am sharing my aH i d avi t on problems at the Mi dl and Nucl ear Pl ant wi ti, the LONE TREE COUN 2L on the e>: press condi ti on that they will not use any parts consent. any purpose wi thout my pri or thereof for 1u e- /S,/f(( Dateds L bll' M >
- N#tE AND IDENTIFYING INFORMATION DELETED
,e, e O
~ 7_ ~ f . S@e b> W .\\ ~ fro.bppg ibh (h.u.dce.J bDIC@ k Sir $A Ch 3 Ph A4. 012 4L offdceb A*k N*"M I oa ;.aA anA accohle b s L.L a.iegntdiam. g .nt,p l h k Ak uMC cAudewoJcha_96 y a 6 mca aJ sJb &af %aa. Ab s L. Q cuJJp4 "p:J b.p64 60 m O .T b M O L gbeah> ~ ~ paf 2 **h' k'
- kk waStm,% a.W6 3
' Y' W 4, QQ. pg shal s%kwh ' w w w A L L & g-I 644ecJ Lidk.@ pag _ M s%y O se.b $%.ht-6 C CC - %\\f 9& Gbe
- flA!4E Atl010Ef4TIFYIfiG lt1FORMATI0ft DELETED
. * /. L Am 1 d.
- /"p
'o, UNITED STATES 8 7. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s. .. I wasmMC TON. D. C. 20684 k,,,,..*' April 19, 1983 MENORANDUM FOR: James J. Cumings, Of rector Office of Inspector and Auditor e THRU: Hollis Sowers, A/D for Investig ns FROM: Ronald M. Smith, Investigator b Office of Inspector and Audito
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F ALLEGATION After reading the affidavit provided to this office by Mr. Fitzgerald, I concluded that if there were wrongdoing associated with the bits of conversation recorded by and included in
- affidavit, it would have to be in the fom of a " conspiracy" to hide infomation from the ASLB and/or from other laterested parties, i.e., intervenors.
(I think it appropriate to note here that affidavit was executed June 16, 1982, but concerned events which allegedly occurred some eight months l previous. There is no indication as to why delayed
- reporting l-ofthisallegation.)
I also reviewed the pertinent portions of the transcript for the referenced l October 15, 1981, hearing in an effort to try and identify any discourse (s) which appeared to coincide with the " bits" of information provided by I could find no such discourse (s) - particularly involving Mr. Paton (ELO attorney on the case). Thus I could find no evidence of an l " overt act" as would be required to establish the " conspiracy" referenced above. With the failure to find evidence of misconduct on the part of Mr. Paton, I was left with the possibility of an ethical transgression on the part of Mr. Paton, at least to the extent of an " appearance of evil" if he was in fact privy to a conversation which could be construed as an effort to " coach" the testimony of a Government witness (Dr. Landsman). In pursuit of this issue, I spoke to Mr. Paton on April 6, 1983. In sum he acknowledged that he was the NRC attorney assigned to the case. He noted that it is his nomal practice to permit licensees and intervenors to talk to his witnesses in the interest of getting all of the relevant information ott into the open. However, it is also his practice, as a general proposition, to be present - as the NRC's attorney - during such conversations. Mr. Paton further stated that he has read the affidavit but does not recall the alleged conversation as having taken place. He did know that had such a conversation (involving the coaching of a witness) been attempted, he would not have permitted the conversation to continue. Mr. Paton stated as his primary reason for this position the fact that no case whs worth taking the risk of losing his license to practice law (he is admitted before the i [ //m rile 83-41
3 l l i \\ Maryland and D.C. bars and before the United States Supreme Court). Without his license he could no longer work and support his family. Finally, I would note that the allegation was rather nonspecific in nature. To be sure bits of language, out of context, and a setting were provided where suspicions could be raised. However, because no further details were provided, e.g., how this alleged conversation resulted in bad conduct, it really is of no practical use. That fact coupled with the fact that I can find no objective proof of conduct and my Lelief that Mr. Paton was truthful in his responses to me leads me to the conclusion that there is no substantive matter to pursue. It is unfortunate that Ms. Garde (GAP) in forwarding affidavit to Mr. Keppler did not provide anything clarifying and/or expanding on the inferred allegation contained in affidavit, particularly in light of her assertion that each affidavit had been reviewed " point-by-point." I therefore conclude there is nothing else to provide. Based on the above, at this time there appear to be no viable leads to pursue and accordingly I recommend that this matter be closed without further action. i
- NAME AND IDENTIFYING INFORMATION DELETED, 9
1 9
L 2.-.,bw @ e ' b, UNITED STATES g,, 4;f. ; NUCt.E AR REGULATORY COMMISSION j wAsmuc tow. o. c. 2osn "b~ Y' /l January 30, 1984, l i MEMORANDUM FOR: John Harrison, Chief, Midland Project Office f Special C es, Region III r,o v l g FROM: Geo g ti. ssenger Acti drector Office of Inspector and A or j [
SUBJECT:
AFF10Av1T OF In response to your phone call inquiry of January 19, 1984, concerning the status of the subject matter, the following information is provided: The Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) received one (by ) of six affidavits which had been submitted to-the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j Commicsion (NRC) by BilJie Pirnce Garde, presently Director, Citizens Clinic, affidavit was believed Government Accountability Project (GAP). The l to fall within the purview of investigations conducted by 01A. I which was executed June 16, 1982, O!A reviewed the affidavit of but concerned events which allegedly occurred some eight months previous, and also reviewed portions of the transcript of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bearo Soils Hearing and was unable to find any evidence of miscenduct. l Based o.n the Ol A review, there appeared to be no viable leads to pursue and, i therefore, the subject matter was closed by memorandum to the file, dated l April 19, 1983. l i
- NAME DELETED,
I t-l-m / / _mj j ,i l 6 "/ V '/ /UU '/ / T l CONT AC':': !!ollis Bowers O It, - 27170 L -}}