ML20126D701
Text
_
M0 Pera2ich prepared by Belke 4
4/6/84 r*
M. Peranich Team Leader Task A-104 4-83-A-89 Draft write-up of y efforts on Task A-104 "LP&L/CE QA Contract Dispute."
The only documents not reviewed and presently being run down by are those in item #18 of the 4/4/83 Gambit Request (ie,0,P,Q,S,andTofEnclosure2o'thisreport).
Ron will give them to you when located.
If and when found, they should be made enclosures to this report starting with Enclosure # 34.
They should also be entered between pages 11 and 12 of this handwritten draft. They fall under the heading of " Documentation Reviewed", item C, page 2.
Any questions please call.
Its been a pleasure working with you.
(signed)EillBelke 4/6/84 llg61!)gg20D0301 CANDE04-A-35 pgg f0/A*$4*YA6fYV1 Y2
Section V.A Review W. Belke 2
Chronological suury listings of approximately 75 documents reviewed by ISEG, including a description of the subject and purpose of the document.
To the extent applicable, identify which of the correspondence or other documentation reviewed by LP&L relates to the documents referred to by question 18 d, e,1. k, q, s, and t of the Gambit Publications letter to LP&L dated April 4, 1984.
A.
APPROACH AND OBJECTIONS 1.
Review of applicable documents listed in Attachment E-1 of LP&L's letter to the O!E Director 9/20/83.
2.
Deterinine availability for review of other documents noted in the Gambit letter of April 4,1983, which do not appear to be listed by LP&L with Attachment E-1.
3.
Objective is to detennine compliance with NRC requirements with the above documents and other applicable information.
B.
PERSONS CONTACTED LP&L Site QA Manager Special Assistant to QA Manager
{
Consultant to LP&L (forner LP&L erployec)
Les Constable, Resident inspector C.
DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED, 1.
Item (d) of 4/4/83 Gambit letter - PSAR Item (c) of 4/4/83 Gambit letter - Amend Coments on (d) and (c.)
Latest amend is 45 dated 1/74 Amend 44 dated 1//4 Paragraph 8.2, (Pg 1-0-1) contains a description "that actions will be taken by LP&L, its agents and suppliers to provide "
Paragraph 1.8.3.3(Pg1-0-11)describesCEorganization
I~
3 Paragraph 1.8.5.4 (Pg 1-8-18) "CE written instruction establish minimum system requirements etc for quality requirements"
- 6 Pg 1-0-7, (last paragraph) comits to Gray Book thru AEC Oct. 11, 12, 1973 Amendment.
Comits do meet intent and guidance of POOR C0 m !TMENT Pg 1-0-9 Item g N45.2.9 Draft 11, Rev 0 1-17-73 in Gray Book 6/7/73. Comitnent by LP&L 1/74 Amend 44 Poor Comitment i.e.
meet intent and guidance of.
2.
HISTORY OF LP&L/CE COMMITMENTS TO ANSI N45.2.9 & GRAY BOOK LP&L 11/73 letters to Ebasco & CE that LP&L has comited to N45.2.9 (4/4/83Gambitletter,#18,Itemsa,b.Ac.)
1/74 LP&L Amend 44, Pg 1.0-9 comits to N45.2.9 (4/4/83 Gambitletter#18,itemsdande).
EE, 11/73RequestbyLP&LtoCEtocomplywithN45.2.9(Gambit 18,a,b.c) 7/2/74 Requested by Ebasco to CE to comply with N45.2.9 (Gambit #18,f) 9/20/74 CE Response - Preparing to meet N45.2.9 to develop costs (Gambit #18,G).
11/10/76 CE to ip71 Pg 7. CE revised and added procedures to meet N45.2.9 intent by late 1973.
However, want to be ccmpensated forcost-$2,000,000(Gambit #18.H).
12/7/76 CE transmittal of CE draft PSAR to meet Gray Book.
CE notes LP&L has not amended contract to take credit (Gambit #18,1) 5/31/77 CE to LP&L detailed letter discussing history of project, QA andcosts(Gambit #18,L).
9/16/77 CE to EBASCO to expedite SAR input. LP&L has not amended contract.
3.
APRIL 4,1983 LETTER FROM R. R (GAMBIT)TOJIMFORTE(LP&L)
REQUESTING RESPONSES TO 35 SETSOFQUESTIONS(Enclosure 2)
4 Question #18 requests documentation for Item a-V below:
I
- 18. Please provide us with copies of the following documents:
a.
Letter:
LW3-727-73, dated 11-30-73 b.
Letter:
LPL 2615 c.
Letter:
LPL 2616 d.
PSAR, dated March, 1972 e.
Amendment 44 to PSAR f.
Letter:
LW3-401-74, dated 7-2-74 g.
Letter: C-CE-1900, dated 9-20-74 h.
Letter: C-CE-3725, dated 11-10-76
- i. Letter: C-CE-3803, dated 12-7-76
- j. Letter: LW3-2101-76, dated 11-2-76 k.
Memorandum: dated 12-28-76, to LP&L's A. E. Henderson, Jr.,
from LP&L's R. E. Hastings.
Subject:
Problems encountered during the December 15-17, 1976 EBASC0/LPAL records audit at CE-chattanooga.
.4
(
l.
Letter: C-CE-4319, dated May 31, 1977.
m.
Meeting minutes:
LW3-775-77, dated 4-22-77, of meeting held on 4-19-77 n.
Letter: LW3-2354-76, dated 12-13-76 o.
Quotation: RWK-5276, dated 11-29-76 p.
Letter: number unspecified, dated 10-8-76.
Subject:
delays on Waterford project and project payment.
q, Memorandum: dated 6-8-77, to LP&L's A. D. Henderson, Jr.,
from LP&L's R. E. Hastings.
Subject:
comments on CE quality assurance claims, reference C-CE-4319.
r.
Letter: RKS-W77-079, dated June 29, 1977
^
5 s.
Minites of meeting scheduled for 8-4-77 in CE's Windsor office:
in attendance; W. D. Mawhinney, R. K. Stampley, A. E. Henderson, B. R. Mazo, D. N. Galligan and top CE QA personnel, t.
Minutes of meeting scheduled for 8-3-77 in EBASCO's New York offices, attended by LP&L and EBASCO QA personnel, u.
Letter: C-CE-4609, dated 9-16-77 v.
Letter: LW3-1907-77 Note:
Reference to #18 above, documents in items 18 0, p, q, s, and t, were not reviewed since they were not innediately available.
I did not insist LP&L search for those documents since the remainder of the documents (listed as enclosures below) provided sufficient information and overview of the general history of the problem. LP&L was willing to get those documents, but I believed these documents would not provide any sufficient contribution to the inquiry.
LP&L's response to this issue is reflected in Enclosure 3.
The following documents (enclosed) were reviewed from item 18 above, accomoanied by the document content summary, observations or comments:
18(a) Enclosure 4h I 11-73 notifies Ebasco and CE that LP&L has (b) Enclosure 5 committed to N45.2.9 (Gray Book and that Ebasco & CE are to comply.
(d) Enclosure 1 (e) Enclosure 1 (f) Enclosure 7 Ebasco request for CE to comply with above items (b) and (c).
6
- (g) Enclosure 8 CE's response to LP&L that they are proceeding v
to meet N45.2.9, need to develop costs.
- (h) Enclosure 9 CE response to LP&L claims. NOTE: pages 6, 7, and 9.
Alludes to heart of problem is financial, not quality.
- (i) 0 CE transmittal of draft for addressing Gray Book. Also want contract amended.
(j) 1 Ebasco to CE FSAR information.
12/17/76 notes.
(m) 4 Ebasco to CE meeting minutes and $2,000,000 costs.
(n) Enclosure 15 Ebasco to CE on claims and costs (r) 6 Ebasco note to file / meeting CE and LP&L.
(u) 7 CE Chapter 17, versus contract amendaent.
(v) 8 Ebasco request for CE to expedite Chapter 17 input.
e e
O
- = -
M. Peranich 7
DOCUMENTS AND CONTENTS h
~ Document # of 9/20/83 LP&L response to NRC i
15 LP&L 7/12/74 audit reports of CE 74-2/1 and 74-2/2 2 non conformances:
(1) Lack of evidence for compliance with AEC R/61.30,1.31,1.37,1.38 and LW 3-754-73 (Gray Book Committments question or AEC questions; (2) Procedure and methods to implement.
procedure in regular -
18 LP&L (J. Wyatt) &/29/74 letter to Ebasco (M. Weber)
Forwards audit to Ebasco to forward to CE 30 LP&L (R. Meyer) 12/10/75 letter to K. Stampley (Ebasco)
Reaudit and close out of 74-2/1 and 2/2 above.
24 CE (A. Gaines) 9/13/74 letter to Ebasco (M. Pederson)
CE reply to Ebasco on audit findings.
42/43 Ebasco (R. Stamply) to CE (W. Mawhinney) 11/19/76 Forwards LP&L schedule audit to CE Ebasco (R. Stampley) to CE (W. Mawhinney) 3/3/77 i
Fowards 12/15-19/76 Ebasco/LP&L audit to CE 53 CE (W. Mawhinney) to LP&L (R. Stamply) 4/12/77 (Enclosure 19) l CE response to 12/15-17/76 audit by Ebasco and LP&L.
Ebasco (R. Hilhiser) to CE (J. Veirs)'11/18/83 information letter (Enclosure 20)
Close out of 12/15-17/ haudit.
LP&L (D. Aswell) to Ebasco (R. Stamply) 3/17/77 Forward 3/7-9/77 audit report to Ebasco to forward to CE. Scope or audit covered CE 10 CFR Appendix B, QA program, criterion II, III, V, VI, XII, XVI, XVII and XVIII. Audit report CE-77-1 for XVII found the CE QA program acceptable. for QA activities, types, identification and retrievability to be acceptable. One area was noted as not acceptable in that the description did not cover the kind of protective conditions provided during storage of CE's QA records.
e l
8 CE (W. Mawhinney) to LP&L (R. Stamply) 6/7/77 e
Fomards corrective action to above - I.E. CE topical reports CENPD-210 i
Appendix by NRC.
71 LP&L (D. Aswell) to CE (R. Newman) 6/10/81 Forwards LP&L CE 81-1 audit report to CE scope or audit covered selected Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 Criterion, record storage facilities, and reaudit of open items. Audit finding 81-1/1 identified a non-conformance that an audit system has not been established for QA record storage system as outlined in ANSI N45.2.9-1974 I.E. "AT CE/Windso", periodic audits were conducted but most of the recent audits of LP&L's records and record storage facilities were e,
apparently incomplete and the audit reports were lost. The audit was scheduled to be re-done and a report issued."
LP&L Unresolved Item Report CE 81-1 5/6/82 Closes out 81-1 with response from CE "An audit to verify compliance to P.O. -
is being scheduled to be preformed during July 20,1981.
Upon completion of this activity, a schedule will be developed for future audits."
LP&L (T. Gerrets) to CE (J. Veirs) 6/1/82 Fomards LP&L audit of 5/3-6/82 to CE.
Audit scope covered CE QA manual, CE Engineering manual and previous open item from previous audits. CE 81-1 (above) was reaudited and closed out with a New non conformance CE 82-1/2 "The auditers determined that a quality Class 2B was assigned to New England archives during close-out of 81-1/1. A quality Class 1 should be assigned to comply with N45.2.9-1974". The recommendation by LP&L is " request CE to notify LP&L when the next audit of New England archives is scheduled. Arrange to have a LP&L nuclear records representative to participate in this audit." This remains an open item since 5/5/82 in the LP&L " Status of open items log".
9 LP&L Unresolved Item Report 8/15/83 LP&L/CE audit acceptable item CE 82-1/2 closed.
The LP&L Status on Open Items Log was Reviewed for any Items Pertaining to Records Starting on 1/3/72, the log was found to be in accurate status as to open items and closed out items.
LP&L (J. Fort) response to Gambit (R. Ridenhouse) 4/6/83 (Enclosure 21)
NRC (J. Collins) to R. C. DeYoung 1/11/84 on Waterford allegations (Enclosure 22)
NRC (R. C. DeYoung) to J. Collins 11/4/83 on Waterfor",. allegations (Enclosure 23)
NRC (R. C. DeYoung) to LP&L (J. Cain) 9/20/83 (Enclosure 24)
NRC (J. Liebennan) 9/20/83 Note to Files (Enclosure 25)
LP&L (J. Cain) to NRC (R. C. DeYoung) 9/29/83 (Enclosure 26)
Ebasco QA Manual Cover Sheet /Comitment to ASME Code (Enclosure 27)
Since CE is the NSSS supplier, they were required to follow the ASME B&PV Code in addition to their QA program requirements.
60 Ebasco (R. Stamply) to LP&L (O. Aswell) 7/25/77 Status 1 costs of CE claims.
(Enclosure 28) 63 CE (W. Mawhinney) to LP&L (R. Stamply) 9/28/77 (Enclosure 29)
Comparison of contract and LP&L PSAR Requirements.
64 Ebasco (R. Stamply) to CE (4,. Aswell
<) 10/31/77 (Enclosure 3 )
Evaluation of CE claims 66 Ebasco (R. Stamply) to CE (W. Mawhinney) 11/17/77 (Enclosure 31)
Status of claims
- 70 Ebasco/LP&L (H. Johnson) to CE (L. Shackford) 12/1/78 (Enclosure 32)
Contract - Proposed Settlements QA and Code Requirements LP&L response to NRC (R. DeYoung) E,Section V A Review 9/20/h Enclosure 33 Conclusions on the Gambit Issue on the QA Program Dispute Between LP&L and CE
10 Based on the above review of the LP&L, Ebasco, and CE documentation, this dispute appears to be one of a contract dispute rather than a quality issue affecting safety. Several factors contribute to this conclusion, namely:
-(1) LP&L has performed audits on CE since June 1971'at the rate of at least twice per year (with the exception of 1978 where only one audit was performed). The review of these audit reports reveal no significant quality deficiences were found which could significantly impact on safety.
(2) The Waterford project documentation requirements in addition to the LP&L, Ebasco, and CE QA programmatic record controls, have been conducted in accordance with the ASME Section III, B& PV Code requirements (Enclosure 27 and Enclosure 32).
(3) LP&L indicated their compliance to N45.2.9 (Gray Book) in Amendment 44 to their QA program description in January 1974, (Enclosure 1). CE indicated in a November 10, 1976, letter to LP&L (Enclosure (, page 7) that CE revised and added procedures do meet the intent of the 1973 Gray Book. These commitments coupled with the commitments to the ASME B & PV Code and numerous QA audits of CE by LP&L and Ebasco, provide sufficient confidence that QA requirements for records have not been compromised.
(4) Given the CE explanation in Enclosure 9 in that quality has not been compromised and that CE wants financial reimbursement for costs incurred while updating their QA program to new/rivised laws, codes, and regulations, it appears that the proposed financial compromise between all parties (Enclosure 32) was the root cause of this contract dispute.
Therefore, other than a detailed in-depth physical inspection or audit of the LP&L and CE records committments and systems (which at this time, I do not believe will do anything to enhance safety), it is
11 S
my recomendation this issue need not be pursued any further.
It appears the entire issue was one involving a lenghy period to arrive at a mutually agreeable financial settlement.
(signedWilliamBelke) 4/6/84
\\
)
- - - - - - - -