ML20133B771

Response to 850705 Petitioner Response in Opposition to Util Request That Show Cause Order Not Be Issued.Util Actions Demonstrate Dedication to QA & Safe Plant Operation. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20133B771
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	08/02/1985
From:	Baxter T SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, UNION ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
CON-#385-094, CON-#385-94 2.206, NUDOCS 8508060257
Download: ML20133B771 (6)

Text

___ ______ _____________

August 2, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET,ED USHRu BEFORE THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INSPECTION AMD ENFORCEMENT

'65 AMi-5 All:37 GFFIn of 55gq(7,, ,

v In the Matter of ) "EIjkh C '

)

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-483

) (10 C.F.R. 5 2.206)

(Callaway Plant, Unit 1) )

LICENSEE'S REPLY TO " RESPONSE OF PETITIONERS IN OPPOSITION TO UNION ELECTRIC'S REQUEST THAT A SHOW CAUSE ORDER NOT BE ISSUED" The Missouri Coalition for the Environment and Kay Drey (Petitioners) filed a "Show Cause Petition Requesting Suspen-sion or Revocation of Operating License for Union Electric Com-pany's Callaway Nuclear Power Plant, Unit One," dated March 25, 1985. On May 10, 1985, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, requested that Licensee Union Electric Company (UE) respond. UE did so, submitting " Licensee's Response to Show Cause Petition of Missouri Coalition for the Environment and Kay Drey" on June 6, 1985.

On July 5, 1985, Petitioners submitted what they charac-terized as " Response of Petitioners in Opposition to Union Electric's Request that a Show Cause Order Not Be Issued" h 83 ' '

PDR I)SG .

o i

(hereinafter " Response of Petitioners").1! This unsolicited response to UE's response to the Petition is for the most part reargument, and UE would ignore it were it not for a number of mischaracterizations and inaccuracies.

Petitioners state, "UE has acknowledged that it failed to review an undisclosed number of the 1,445 work orders identi-fled as potential safety problems on the basis of UE's internal decision that such work orders possessed insignificant safety potential, etc." Response of Petitioners at 3. This statement is inaccurate. UE reviewed every Work Request and Startup Maintenance Authorization identified as involving an inspector with a questionable certification, and reviewed a sample of 53 Preventive Maintenance Task Sheets. Affidavit of Donald F.

Schnell (attached to " Licensee's Response to Show Cause Peti-tion of Missouri coalition for the Environment and Kay Drey,"

dated June 6, 1985), 11 20-21. In some cases, the review indi-csted that the activities required no further evaluation be-cause of safety insignificance, subsequent testing, or other program controls on the work, and the document was so disposi-tioned by unanimous agreement of the reviewing team members.

Id., 1 22.

1/ UE did not make a request for relief of any sort. UE sim-ply opposed Petitioners' request that a show cause order be issued.

o I

Petitioners claim that "UE has failed in its review pro-cess to analyze the impact that illegally certified QC supervi-sors have had in reviewing and supervising work of subordinate inspectors." Response of Petitioners at 3. In point of fact, only two of the 22 inspectors with questionable certification were supervisors (both were assistant supervisors). Their du-ties as assistant supervisors were mainly administrative.

Evaluating the validity and acceptability of inspection, exami-nation, and testing results, which Petitioners mention as a duty of supervisors, is a duty of level II and level III QC in-spectors. UE identified and reviewed work authorizing docu-ments that involved in any capacity any QC inspector with a questionable certification. See Schnell Affidavit, 11 20-22.

Petitioners also mention certification as a duty of supervi-sors. One of the assistant supervisors had certified several other inspectors pursuant to a questionable level III certifi-cation. All certifications, however, including the several issued by that assistant supervisor, were reviewed by UE QA and QC. See Schnell Affidavit, 11 14-16, 18.

Petitioners, in an attempt to discredit UE's explanation of why certifications were found questionable, assert that the "related experience" criteria for certification are recommenda-tions which are supplemental to specific capability require-ments of ANSI /ASME N.45.2.6-1978. Response of Petitioners n

e I

at 5. Petitioners misconstrue the ANSI standard, as a simple reading of the standard shows. See ANSI /ASME N.45.2.6-1978,

, S 3. Petitioners also fault UE for not having applied what Pe-titioners claim are "more stringent requirements" for certifi-cation in NQA-1-1983 and NQA-1-1979. NQA-1, however, is in es-sence a compilation of the ANSI /ASME N.45.2 standards, and it does not enumerate more stringent certification requirements.

In fact, the provisions governing certification in NQA-1 are nearly identical to those in ANSI /ASME N.45.2.6-1978. Compare NQA-1-1983, Appendix 2A-1, with ANSI /ASME N.45.2.6-1978, 5 3.

Moreover, the NRC Staff has not yet endorsed NQA-1. See Reg-ulatory Guide 1.58, which explicitly endorses ANSI /ASME N.45.2.6-1978.

UE has not attempted to respond to all the perjorations in the Response of Petitioners. Needless to say, UE does not agree with Petitioners' characterizations -- particularly Peti-tioners' charges of " illegal conduct" and of subsequent inac-tion. UE QA responded to a complaint that one QC inspector was unqualified by conducting surveillances of the certifications of all then-employed inspectors. QA found a lack of program criteria defining acceptable "related experience" for receipt, mechanical, electrical and civil QC inspectors (no NRC or in-dustry guidance exists), and therefore formulated its own criteria. When the application of these criteria resulted in N

5 I

certifications'being found questionable, UE QC promptly applied them to all former QC inspectors. UE then identified and re-viewed the activities that had been performed by any QC inspec-tor with a questionable certification to ensure there had been no adverse effect on plant hardware. UE's actions demonstrate that UE is dedicated to quality assurance and t he safe opera-tion of the Callaway Plant.

Respectfully subminted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POT 13 & TROWBRIDGE h-w .

Thomas A. Baxter, e.C.

David R. Lewis Counsel for Union Electric Company Dated: - August 2, 1985

L.

! August 2, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ((([C In the Matter of ) '85 AUG -S All :37 -

)

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-483

) (10 C.F.R. S 2.206) N U# WA a' (callaway Plant, Unit 1) ) 00 W h CEi CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Reply to "Re-sponse of Petitioners in Opposition to Union Electric's Request That a Show Cause Order Not Be Issued" were served this 2nd day of July, 1985, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, post-age prepaid, upon the following:

Mr. James M. Taylor, Director Docketing and Service Section Office of Inspection and Enforcement Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. James G. Keppler Mr. Bruce Little Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors' Office 799 Roosevelt Road RR #1 Glen'Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Steedman, Missouri 65077 Lillian N. Cuoco, Esquire Alan S. Nemes, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director 7541 Parkdale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission St. Louis, Missouri 63105 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing Office Of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Thomas A. Baxter

, ,