ML20128P266

Responds to Gap/Nuclear Awareness Network 850515 Petition Filed Per 10CFR2.206 Re Actions to Be Taken by NRC Concerning Util Quality First Program

ML20128P266
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	05/29/1985
From:	Silberg J KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT CO., KANSAS ELECTRIC POWER CORP, INC., KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Asselstine J, Palladino N, Zech L Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20128P270	List: ML20128P266 ML20128P297 ML20128P311
References
CON-#285-223 2.206, OL, NUDOCS 8506030496
Download: ML20128P266 (5)

Text

.

i C

. . SHAw, PITTMAN, POTTS~ E A PARTNERSMeP OF PROFESSIO RPORATIONS 1800 M STREE W.

WASHINGTON.

0036 g 30 $P m

,9 TELtcOPitR iaoai .u-io .aa.

TELEX

, 8.-2693 iSMAwLAW WSHI

~# E May 29, 198 ***'* E **~

TELEPHONE J AY E. SI L B E RG, P.C. N 1203: saa-soes Nunzio J. Palladino,. Chairman Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555

~

Commissione* James K. Asselstine Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal .

U. S. Nucle Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi n Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr.

U. S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

.e Re: Kansas Gas & Electric Company, et al.

Unit 1) l L (Wolf Creek Docket No. STN Generating 50-482 Station,6 4, Jbo Gentlemen By letter dated May 15, 1985, the Government Accountability Project (" GAP") on behalf of the Nuclear Awareness Network (" NAN") petitioned pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206 that the Commission take the following actions relating to the Quality First Program established by Kansas Gas and Electric Company ("KG&E"):

l. Require the NRC Staff to "take possession" of Quality First files and provide an analysis of why " safety significant deficiencies identified for the past year by members of the workforce do not pose a danger to the public health and safety."

2. Investigate the " ramification of the collective safety significance and/or adequacy on the quality assurance program in the light of the inf.ormation contained in the Quality First files."

, 3. Require the Office of Nuclear Reactor

( Regulation'and Region IV to explain "why they allowed the allegations to be exempt from the regulatory analysis for 4 determination of safety significance." , ())

8506030496 850529 PDR ADOCK 05000402 O PDR

- *- SHAw, PITTMAN. PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTPeCRSHip OF PROFESSIONAL CQRPORATIONS May 29,'1985

, - Page 2 -

4. Require that the Office of Investigation conduct an investigation into the alleged

" compromising of the Quality First Program by William Rudolph, site QA Manager."

i

- Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Kansas City Power & Light Company, and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative,'Inc., the licensees of the Wolf Creek Generating Station, submit the j following response to the GAP / NAN Petition. The response includes the attached Affidavits by Kent R. Brown, KG&E's Group-Vice President-Technical Services, and Charles A. Snyder,

. KGEE's Manager - Quality First. Licensees' response demonstrates that the Petition lacks any merit. Based on the -

1 information supplied herein, we respectfully request that the Petition be denied.

I. QUALITY FIRST PROGRAM L The Quality First-Program is a voluntary effort established by KG&E more than a year ago. The Program provides a mechanism-for people working at the Wolf Creek site (and at KG&E's home offices in Wichita) to confidentially report to an independent organization any concerns they might have with the Wolf Creek project. The Program, which has been widely

, N- / publicized on the site and at KG&E's offices, includes a 24

hour a day telephone " hot-line" and interviews'with all workers

i. - as they leave the site. Each concern reported to Quality First

is investigated to determine whether the concern can be l.

~

substantiated and whether it is of safety-significance. All substantiated concerns are tracked to assure that they are '

appropriately resolved. All those expressing concerns are 7

asked whether they want feedback on the results of Quality

First's investigation. These individuals are then contacted by Quality First and informed as to how their concerns have been resolved. A more detailed description of how the Quality First Program operates is set forth in the Affidavit of Charles A.

l Snyder,- 113, 8-21.

l i

Since its inception, the Quality First Program has interviewed more than 5600 site workers and invited them to identify any concerns that they might have with the quality of the Wolf Creek project. About five percent of those interviewed have expressed concerns. These concerns have been investigated, resolved, and evaluated for reportability under 10 C.F.R. 550.55(e). About 750 separate concerns have been brought to Quality First, of which about 200 were found to be

, substantiated. All of those which were substantiated, including 18 which Quality First determined to be significant f

to safety, have been resolved and the resolution concurred in by Quality First. Snyder Affidavit, 1122-23.

t

-r , ,m, -...e, -

l SHAW. PITTMAN. PcTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNEGSHIP Or PROFESSiCNAL CoppomAtlONS f}

( ,/

May 29,.1985 Page 3 l

II SHOW CAUSE STANDARDS As set forth in 10 C.F.R. 52.206, a request for an order to show cause must, in addition to specifying the action requested, " set forth the facts that constitute the basis for the request." To justify issuing an order to show cause in response to a 52.206 petition, the petition must raise

, " substantial health or safety issues." See Florida Power &

Light Co. v. Lorion, 105 S.Ct. 1598, 1601 (1985). The GAP / NAN Petition fails to meet these standards.

III. GAP / NAN PETITION As has been their modus operandi in previous cases, GAP has waited until the eleventh hour before filing the Petition with the Commission. This delay cannot be attributed to GAP's or NAN's unfamiliarity with Wolf Creek or' Quality First. GAP stated at their May 15, 1985 press release announcing the Petition that they had been " monitoring the Wolf Creek project for a year." And the Petition itself states that " GAP and NAN have recontacted the workers in order to take affidavits relative to their concerns." Yet GAP delayed submitting its 7 Petition until th: Commission was about to consider a full

' t power license for Wolf Creek. The only conceivable rationale for these kind of last minute filings is to disrupt the licensins process.

The thrust of the Petition is GAP / NAN's call for the NRC to "take possession" of all Quality First files. The basis for this claim is the Petition's unsupported generalization that "the Licensee ignored or buried the serious concerns of the workforce." GAP / NAN presumably want access to all the information that the Quality First Program has developed, notwithstanding the underlying promise of confidentiality on which the Quality First Program is based. (GAP / NAN do not seem to recognize the inconsistency between insisting that their affidavits be immune from disclosure while KG&E's promises of confidentiality should be ignored).

GAP / NAN have simply failed to make a case for the relief that they seek. As shown in the Affidavits of Messrs. Brown and Snyder, the Quality First Program at Wolf Creek is an effective, independent mechanism to give the Wolf Creek

workforce an added communications channel for any safety-related concerns. Although GAP / NAN may claim that Quality First is a " trap door for worker allegations at Wolf Creek" (letter from GAP to Ben Hayes, Director OI, dated May c 15, 1985), they have provided no support for this claim.

/ Indeed, the Quality First Program, by providing feedback to

( those bringing concerns to the Program (Snyder Affidavit, 1114,16), allows each individual to determine for himself whether his concern has been adequately addressed. If the

4

[* .SHAw, PITTMAN PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNER $8488 CF PeorgssioNAL ComPORAflCNS May 29, 1985

-Page 4 Jindividual is not satisfied, he may still bring his concern to

the NRC or to project management..

1 Nor can GAP / NAN support its claim that the NRC Staff has failed to review the Quality First Program. As outlined in Mr.

I Snyder's Affidavit, no less than five NRC Inspection Reports ,

p g have been issued which involve reviews of.the Quality First 1 1 Program. .(For the convenience of-the Commissioners, copies of l

_ these. Inspection Reports are attached hereto). Inspectors from

. three different Regional offices have reviewed more than half f -of the completed Quality First case files. The broad scope of 1 this review should be obvious. NRC inspections typically audit

, a small fraction of the quality assurance documentation. Here, '

more than half of-all the files have already been reviewed.

The inspections disclosed no violations or deviations.

sAlthough the initial NRC inspection resulted in some

, Jauggestions (subsequently incorporated in the Program) for I . procedural improvements, Snyder' Affidavit, 128, the NRC inspection oversight reveals an effective program, not one afflicted with the deficiences alleged by GAP / NAN.

l The Petition also includes an unsupported allegation that Mr. William Rudolph, Manager of Quality Assurance for Wolf

! Creek, has somehow " compromised" the Quality First Program. As

, g ,/ set forth in the Snyder and Brown Affidavits, the Quality First Program from its inception has been structured so that no one could~ compromise its independence. While'the initial

. management structure had the Quality First Team reporting to j the site QA. Manager, the Team had the ability to report

^ directly to higher management levelsLwhen it deemed such action 4

to'be appropriate. Furthermore, in August 1984, after the i first five months of the Program, the reporting responsibilities for Quality First were changed so that the 4

site QA Manager was no longer in the reporting chain.

Furthermore, the Manager-Quality First, on assuming leadership

-of the Program in August 1984, reviewed all concerns which had

been closed out to assure that they had been' properly 1

addressed. -The Petition thus sets forth no basis to justify

the relief sought by GAP / NAN.

CONCLUSION It is unfortunate that GAP has again sought to inject

unfounded allegations into a licensing proceeding at the last moment; Unlike other proceedings where the late allegations

, c1. aimed that there were deficiencies with the plant itself, the 4 present Petition can only seek to raise procedural questions

" -about a volyptary reporting program undertaken at KG&E's'own initiative.- The. absence of any identified allegations i

1/ The_ Petition attached an undated document prepared by NAN

entitled " Analysis and Comments on the Nuclear Regulatory (Continued next page)

SHAW. PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNCR$Mer OF PRorESSsONAL CORACRATmNS

< 's May 29, 1985 (b h Page 5 concerning the plant would seem to confirm GAP / NAN's inability to bring forward any justification for delaying the issuance of a full power license for the Wolf Creek facility.

One final point needs to be made. KG&E created the Quality First Program not because of any regulatory requirement to do so, but because it felt that it was a worthwhile thing to do. The Commission has often urged licensees to take initiatives and not to limit their programs to minimum NRC requirements. KG&P has done just that. KG&E has taken an extra step. It would be ironic if the result of KG&E's extra <

efforts would be to penalize Wolf Creek by subjecting it to additional licensing complications and possible licensing delay. Should that happen, the message to licensees would be clears take no initiatives, do only what is required. We suggest that this ought not to be the message that the Commission should be giving. We hope that the Commission's action on the GAP / NAN Petition will send the right signals to licensees and encourage licensee initiatives, not penalize them.

R ectfully submitted, l

! ' # Ja' E.

'Lq L SiIberg DR[#

f/

Co nse f r Licensees i) i JES:L l Attachments t

cc: Harold R. Denton James Lieberman, Esquire (Continued)

Commission's March 11, 1985 Response on the Isolation and Resol'1 tion of the Structural Steel Weld Deficiencies at

! Wolf Creek." The relevance of this document to the

! GAP / NAN Petition is remote at best, since-little in it re-j lates to Quality First. The structural steel welding I issue which provides the document with its title was ex-haustively reviewed by the NRC Staff earlier this year.

Other enforcement issues mentioned in the document were reyiewed and closed out by the NRC Staff in prior years.

l

( The document does little more than string together tmrelated enforcement issues which have previously been resolved.

. - _ _ _ _ _ __ __ - _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ . _