ML20134A397

Util Organizational Charts,Including Nuclear Project Mgt, Nuclear Engineering Corporate Qa,Administrative & Technical Svcs,Board of Directors,Procurement,Const & Matls & Quality Svc

ML20134A397
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Palo Verde
Issue date:	06/06/1985
From:	ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:
Shared Package
ML17198A269	List: IR 05000335/1978013 IR 05000389/1974001 IR 05000389/1975001 IR 05000389/1975002 IR 05000389/1975003 IR 05000389/1975004 IR 05000389/1975005 IR 05000389/1976001 IR 05000389/1976002 IR 05000389/1976003 IR 05000528/1974002 IR 05000528/1975001 IR 05000528/1976001 IR 05000528/1976003 IR 05000528/1976004 IR 05000528/1977003 IR 05000528/1977004 IR 05000528/1978001 IR 05000528/1978002 L-75-187, Requests Encl Portion of Insp Rept 50-389/75-01 Be Withheld from Public Disclosure.Previous Ltr Should Be Disregarded.W/O Encl L-76-328, Informs That Insp Rept 50-389/76-01 Contains No Proprietary Info L-76-397, Informs That Insp Rept 50-389/76-02 Contains No Proprietary Info L-78-288, Advises That FSAR & Environ Rept Submittal Date Revised to Mar 1980 Due to Reduction in Const Schedule ML20132B481 ML20132C157 ML20134A387 ML20134A397 ML20134A403 ML20134A440 ML20134A478 ML20134A491 ML20134A501 ML20134A520 ML20134A530 ML20134A536 ML20134A561 ML20134A568 ML20134A579 ML20134A591 ML20134A594 ML20134A596 ML20134A601 ML20134A603 ML20134A608 ML20134A616 ML20134A619 ML20134A623 ML20134A626 ML20134A629 ML20134A633 ... further results
References
FOIA-84-293 NUDOCS 8508150294
Download: ML20134A397 (65)

Text

r 7h 2

9 f.

l-(i N i

s

g....t g

.M.

- i m.\\0 N.

i.

1

\\'+

et I

e f

i:

i!

EEC;

• f3 E.a "3

3 4 > In%

i e-t i

F C

.c.=

r, Gi

.i,t.

g E 'e p

.s t ;

N-cae egg U [ 2' Cga 8.*

e 41 3 55

( i'

.5 i s

w0 m-SO 2

/, fl 4 il f

I

• ll 8c.

M_ ;8 4

8-L, a

i;- *-:

m$=

3 l-a%,

al 3I 1 ii r :

u, qjg

s3 1

o344

'I U*

e

)

J 8

5 s

O s

le' h

b C

l E

f' '

8, J

m

.6 C

..m*

to

.l e

us tf j '

at 2.*

q1 l-

~ ~

~*

O o-i'" $

b

'[ b '.

h[kShb

.j C

83 m"hofj4850703 D

=4-a3 y

goy L 69 is.

i

p f

f NUCLEAR ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION CllART Nuclear Engineering A.-Carter Rogers i

Manager I

I Civil & Arch. Engineering Electrical Engineering Instr. & Contr. Engineering William L. Hurst John T. Barrow Edward C. Sterling Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor I

I Mech. & Chem. Engineering Safety & Lic. Engineering Sr. Startup Liaison Michael F. liodge William F. Quina Rich Badsgard Supervisor Supervisor Engineer 4

~

.f f

\\

/

\\*

s.-

ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT Corporate QuaHty Assurance John A. Floedel -

Manager I

I Operations O A/OC Ouel. Sys. & Programs PVNGS Constr. OA/OC PVNGS Operations OA PVNGS Start-up OA/OC Non Nuclear Bruce S Maplan f

Wilharn E loe Charles N nusso Gittert E Pankonen Manager

[

Manager Manager Manager PVNGS Qual. Eng.

Start-up OA M!# / Edf *F Cnaries T Lewis John F1 Molsks

=

4Af g

Supervisor Supervisor 2erry M E 4L Qua81ty Inspection Start-Up QC p

f Nelson C. Hallas Williarn C Craig

~

b Supervisor Supervisor Inspection OA-PVN William it (lainn Alan D Hotton Forernen l

b b

kRiZONA USL SER CE COMPANY APPROVED (

[

Page April 1.1983 Thomas G. Woods. A. Esec. V P., AZ Nuclear Power Project J.K. Wellington, Mgr., steppcwepMidnning & Development 42 u

h t

ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECllNICAL SERVICES-PVNCS Ed L. Lewis Manager Emergency Planning Nuclear Operations' Nuclear Fuel Scheduling -

f.,#

Budget and and Preparedness Support Management PVNGS Purchasing - PVNGS Bob Page - Manager John Vorees - Manager Paul Crawley - Manager Ken Kieselbach - Manager

- Manager 1,, e r,. '*

Operations Support Tuel Services Contract and

- i

~

Dan Phillips - Spyr.

~ Mar $'IIolohanU Spvr.

urchasing f._,

,1

- Sovr.

llealth Physics Thermal Hydraulic Safety Analysis 0&M Budget and

& Mann - Lead

- Lead Cost Reports I1

' f*

Randy Robb - Spyr.

Nuclear. Safety Croup Nuclear Analysis pi a u get and

- Sovr.

- Lead ~~

)'

Cost Reports i

Steve Johnson - Spyr.

CPC Task Force 4

- Lead i

Startup Cost Control g

y,, L.) {,.

i

-%u-1 i

1

y v

y' i

Copersee Counme Cheleman, Board of Directors Puhus A80 mire Jaron 8. Norberg Chief Enocutive Officer Charles Thompson t

8'****

KeithI Turley

"'"*eer Preeldent Chief Operating Officer O. Mark De Reichele I

I i

A.esen. umcase, C.r,.,seerin se Power Protect Pennnene a Ceneres Thomas G. Woods, Jr Henry B Sergent.Jr.

Emeeulles Vlas Psealdent Esecuelos Vice Preeldent a Chist Financial OIItcer T

Nucteer Opereeene nosaurces Penaning Cust, a Adsnin. Services Ennpaoyee llelselene Engineering a Construcelen Elecerts Opereelene

. G. Carl Andognard Russell D. Hutse John C. Ogden Joseph A.Gehnes Charles O Jarman Waner F. Ekstrom Vlee Poesident Vice Preeldent Vlee President Vice President Vlee Proeident Vice Presteent I

sauceew pres. asenssosient noenea noeusemen e - Servesse nesse ch a t Can.nunicamene a Edwin E. VanBrunt. Jr.

B. Paul Hart Jerry P. Human D L Broussaris I

j Vlas Prealdent l

O*"

Vlos Prealdent Vice Proeident Vloo President Casp. Quemey Assemence Finance a Tas Services Gas Operosione Jonn A. Roedel Paul A. Winiams. II Davd W. Eins ananager Treenester Vice President m a Tec8t. Services.

e, Carpersee Adadnieerselon Edward L Lewis Faye Widenmann e

asenseer Secreenry ee I

i Assistant Secretary WilhamJ Post Cenere5er Aesdet Serseces Kathryn A.Forbes anons or A Af n

AnlZONA PUBUC SERVICE CORAPANY APPROVE

' -y,/

page Organization Diagresse xesen L T jj Osgesr% Ch, c/

Aissust 1,1983 Cnairman.

a oe.oie,.n.nt i.i M

/

/

~

h

\\s M

ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT Nuclear Project Management Edwin E. Van Brunt, Jr.

Vice Proeident l

seucesor coneereceen Nucteer Rocc de Mget.

dA6sdniserseen feucteer Engineering Donald B. Fasnacht Bryant F. Godwin Steve'Johoson A. Carter Rogers aseneeer asenseer

,superviser aseneger I

l 1

n

/)

/

n ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY o

ree.

Cg.

^^ : - Diagram Q

qg J.K...,. _, me r, Planning a r.

6-1 April 1,1983 EL Van sneet. Jr, Vloo Presteene, seusteer e

J

/I s

N ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT Corporate QueNty Assurance John A.Roedel Manager 0

I I

I Operemens ONOC Osamt Sye. a Preereme PVNOS Constr. ONOC PVNGS Oseramene QA PVNGS Start-up QuGC Non-Nuedeer Bruce S Kaplan Wittaam E. Ide Charles N. Russo Gilbert E. Pankorun W

W Manager Manager Aess194 & Engineering PVNGS Quel Eng.

Start-Up OA Lawrence A Souza Charles T. Lewie John R Kolski Supervisor Sespervisor Sesporvleer Quemy inspecuen Start-up OC Nelson C. Hallas William E Crang 88sporvleer Supervleet InspecWon OA-PVN Waitiam R Bauer Alan D Bntton Foremen

^

)

f b

ARIZONA PU9LIC SERVICE COMPANY APPROVE O

Pege W Diagreen

(

M June 30,1983 Thomas G. Woosse, r Esec. V.7, A2 Nuclear Power Pro 6ect J.K. WMion, Asgr, ' _, : _;hl. _; & C.

, -_ g 42

s 3

a ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL SERVICES-PVNCS I

Ed L. Lewis Manager m

I j

Emergency Planning Nuclear Operations Nuclear Fuel Scheduling -

Budget and and Preparedness Support Management P,VNCS Purchasing - PVNCS Bob Page - Manager John Vorees - Manager Paul Crawley - Manager Ken Kieselbach - Spyr.

Chuck Tustin-Manager

~ Emergency Plan Operations Support Fuel Services Engineering Contract and rdinator Dan Phillips - Spyr.

~

Mark Holohan - Spyr.

~

1. 8'"E

- Lead Harry Bieling-Imad Ed Sterling - Spyr.

Health Physics Thermal Hydraulic John-Mann - Lead Safety Analysis Construction 06M Budget and Cost Reports

- Lead

- Y#ad

~

Randy Robb - Spyr.

Nuclear Safety Group Nuclear Analysis Procurement

~

- Sovr.

- T*at

- Lead

,apital Budget and

~

Cost Reports Steve Johnson - Sovr.

Technical Projects Uni gu g,

Bruce Miller - Lead Mark Mahan

- Lead Startup Cost Control

- Mpyr _

.i Unit 2 eta;,w G }rtup

.~

m., i~

Mark Mahan

- A a_d 1

i Maintenance

- Lead 1

Operations

- Lead ___

A SN O l l: L R !4!*'

T..G. Woods, Jr.

Executive Vice-President E. E. Van Brunt E. L. Lewis G. C. Andognini J. A. Roedel Vice President Manager Vice President Manager Nuclear Projects Administrative Nuclear Corporate Management

.and Technical Operations Quality Services Assurance J. R. Bynum S. R. Frost J. E. Kirby Manager Supervisor Manager Nuclear Licensing Start-Up Operations O

e

- ~.

.f f

.o NUCLEAR ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION C11 ART Nuclear Engineering A. Carter Rogers Manager I

g Civil & Arch. Engineering Electrical Engineering Instr. & Contr. Engineering William L. Hurst John T. Barrow Edward C. Sterling 4

Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor l

I n

Mech. & Chem. Engineering Safety & Lic. Engineering Sr. Startup Liaison Michael F. Hodge William F. Quinn Rich Badsgard Supervisor Supervisor Engineer e

o 11

f f

h ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT Corporate Quality Assurance John A. Roedel Manager I

I I

Operations O A/OC Quel Sye. & Programe

' PVNGS Constr.CA/OC PVNGS Operemone QA PVNGS Start-Up OA/OC Non-Nuclear prae S Kapian f

Weikam E sde Charles N Russo Gdtert E Pankoren Manager

[

Manager Manager Manager PVNGS Qual Eng.

Start-up O A M / Nd) 'I

~

Charles T Lewis John H Kolski p,/.fJf 4 f.

Supervi=

Superw w leary Jona s r

Quemey hopecmon Stars-up OC i

p f

Nelson C. HaMas Wdham C Craq

'~

b Supervisor Supervloor L

j inspecuon OA-PVN W Haam H linoce Alan D beeston Foresnen A

)

f APPROVED (I ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY Organization Diagram

\\}((2

~

(

. 84 0 Page 7

M April 1,1983 in

. G. Wo os. 5. Esec. V P., AZ Nuclear Power Protect J.K. We4Hngton, Mgr. Me,Mnedag & Deveeopenent 42

f n

.a ADMINISTRATIVE AND TEQiNICAL SERVICES-PVNGS Ed L. Lewis Manager Emergency Planning Nuclear Operations Nuclear Fuel Scheduling -

fs

Budget and and Preparedness Support

. Management

/'.'

PVNGS Purcha. sing - PVNGS Bob Pcge - Manager John Vorees - Manager Paul Crawley - Manager Ken Kieselbach - Manager

- Manager f,.. s q.

• Operations Support Yuel Services Contract and

~

Dan Phillips - Spyr.

~ Mdrk Nolohan - Spyr.

_ Purchasing

- Sovr.

~ Health Physics Thermal Hyd E lic

's Safety Analysis O&M Budget and

& Mann - Lead

- Lead Cost Reports f 8 f f-Randy Robb - Spyr.

Ndelear Safety l~ ~ '

Capital Budget and Group Nuclear Analysis

- Sovr.

- mal

/j Cost Reports f.

Steve Johnson - Sovr.

CPC Task Force ft

- Lead

=

j Startup Cost Control

' P,. 6 [c-. 6-

_q l

O e

W

l 1

\\

~

4

.I W

i 7\\$ Y i

i l

1 f

1 4

"2 T ee

• S-e

,EIl" 4 >. H O"

t t

. ~..

4, ;

C

.2 :

i '!

U5 Fi e

.= 13 a.

[

.e ag Ji

=

E g'

e 's %

Fa i

. paz wey 5

3 !M

, 3

-e 2-a;

- ". i s

'=

l 2~

j #l 4

t.

e *,

a e

S h

I ll t

4

s. i e-g..

ee l^*

3$.

YT3 e * *. ni 1r; "t

kif se=

Ol t

\\

c

)

a i

x I o e

l t

..en I

I C

.1 o

e e

s i

I Nc ra t'

. aie I

M s

\\

l *=

! ; - ?y

.m u

G) 8_g.

l g.. - -

(

4$

f CQ

=5 WD A 3 g

OC

'~

-i

i

'} i

?

t e

'. (.,

.i g )s

.,f,",, l, h si-3 h;

hi.i !! N i

15-t 4 55 i,

!J

<d u

I I

a li 1

2 ei l

,5 1

{

l I

l!

1 I

3-I I

el s

t l

j !'

l i

i 1

I

$j i

I

'a

!!g$

i 32 I

I I

I 1

[ s 3Ia l* !

I I

i

. ! "f t 8

i i

I 1

I I

l 3

15 3

I I

I li 1

l, i

i l

I l j

{

I I

I I

I I

ti l

I i

3 l l

~

j

-l 1

1 I

I

~

l i

i l

I I

I a

l l

I I

l l

I I

I i

l IN*

I I

I I

I I

I I

-pi i

i i

i g

i i

l i

s i

I I

I I

I I

l e

i l

i I

I I

I I

l l

l l

1 1

I 1

1 I

I I

I is l

l 1

1 I

c]

l I

I I

I I

I I

I I

]

I i

1 I

l l

I I

I I

i i

l i

l l

I I

I I

I I

f f

f l

l I

1, I

a.

i,

.ag a

a f,I ],

I 1.

}

kN 1

v s.

48 i 2

2 e5 I

i 5

I' 1

.I 8

1 a

II i

j I:

-~

~

,1.

.i t

i!.!g 1

2 e

[';.

2.!.,*

=

I t.i 111 i i b,

Eb hN g

i I -I la 4;

<J ' s#.r i.s 4'

1

}

= 'l.!

I N^

I

5

.=

I Ii a

a-I s-llr 1

li 1 i

1 i

1 5

l 3

l l

Il 1

I

(! l!

l

[

I I

~ ! !s]{

i I

I l

t l'

1 I

I ( !' i,g -

=

=

y g

1

!: g a-1 1

j];.

l j!

ill' 1

i f i lm; 1;

la I

I ga

(

l I

I !

g I

i I I g

1 l

I I

il; I

j j

i 18 l

l 1

l i

l I

l l

I 35 I

I I

I 1

XI I

i I

I I

I I

is 1

I l

i l

i I

l l

El I

I I

l s

l-I I

i I

i i

i el i

i i

1, I

i l

8 S

l 1

I i

1 g

I l

i 1

l l

l i

i i

i i

1t l

l l

l i

1 8

I l

l l

I i

g l

1 l

l l

l I

I I

I l

a.1 j

_l '

I t

l s

l 1; j

[L f

I i

i Ul

}!

Il

.,1 is

-j' ff!

j !

lI;t

.ij i

-t:

1

. -)),.1. g l3 l1 11 o

s

'i.!

fI LL

-t I

I h

9 j

S m

eO 6

e i

3,'

I e.

iLil J..: l.i ji 'I l$}:

p1 I

jj l!!

., o.

4 I

i i

l-i 1,

11 li,

[

i i

T l

i i

'l

..*g

~

l l

l i

1l, I

i l

1 ll i

-!I st il ~lill 11 I

II l

ii i

u 3

t s

6......e g

% * I i

l n

=-

l l

i I

!. 'l I

i g

I h

s I

i i

i.

1,,

l f.I H

i l

l i

i 1

i i

.)

+

g

,)

t i

u L

l

• h i

j n

!!,- 1ll 1[ !!!

if Ip Lt 8

q{J! 5-e

1... nl:l l".

A iij!., i!5

• =-

li!

d i.:

4 2

5 l.-l'

--i.'

s!

i!!

is?

l

-s:

{tl 2,2 0

{!

l 1

L.

l l

i l

l en 1

l l

i 3

. is s

1 31,5.i

!e!.i l

t

.1 11.33 3

1 m.

3..

3. t

1. l s

.Is~

}

t.3 i

I.ia rI:;'

l l

l l

l 8 j;

l?,

l l

l l

l ll:

l i

l l

l

s. 2 l, l

a..f i

l

~.

"I 3

l l

l

.3 4

l

] lle I

I:

I; Ii l

l l

t l2:

t l'

1 l !.I.l

<l?

l.?

... - u, In. 1 i

5

.i

,r r:

la. jya

l:l 1:.<.

o t.isi

'l i

..t [,

'ji[

I:

si

l

• 2!

j "l

i I

t 2

c' e

m

-,t 5,.

6 a

$lsi k a f'l..i.,fi e

3. <* 1

.; I {-

IdCla Iil i

.s.5 4:

e

(

2 I

l Nl

,I

.!M:)-

I:

l ji

=!

11!

I

=1 m

. ?

-..l_

e j

• ?

I

l;l l,-

I:

v.

ri.

1.L.

j)

TI

'f ;

I f.

ff

- 1 =:I=f a

s fli S

i 1-l

=

=

e.{

1

• WS li;l

9 t

j

\\

?

W i,)

l l

l!

j' 12 11 1 s

si i

I, !

M j

l',

1-Il l'

.I il i t

il 1

i 3

e i

gil 11 1

~

ii

- g' I j-

{'

s'

{li. 1 iij l't l

i j

l 1 3.

Il I

u i

,g 4

1 i

i l

--w

-emh 3

n.

.li P

g-

{ { =f c

e i

2., i )

3 II 1 '.

l a I e

3 E

-l iali il all 5.j 1

4

!!, i t

al*C 4

3 le i

g la

.i 5~

1 I

8 i a iti

g

..1I ijl

• ie.

I S

a I

1]

=; !

i ai

=-

il

' i ii t

i t

4 t 5 i i i

~~<.

s-e s

I-.il I Ill.

p-Ii.i e

i 1.

e i}~

1 1.i 1

e

-.t

.4 u

!!!.I hf.

5

3

• 1 I

l i

,3 !

j al

' a.N.el : t 2 i

I g..lii t~

sil 111 li -

n; l.s i

ti 1 e

c I= = a158 l1 I

4 e

si i i:

al

~

's,1 -

2

{2is i:

1l 1:

e i

31

((1 i

i iga e

3-1 i

a 1

gg g

as I

3*

i II I

l ui l

I.;!

I

{"ij:

I"j.f i

l I

I l

i t

2

9,

-i i2 n

q, y.

I,!=lI J

1 e

ge 2 2 i * ! !

l 31 ?

I =;

I I J u I :: :-

l

=si l1 I

s

=E

.li;

!: 33 111 13 5i y ::

n 4

l-t "I

l. l :1 a

a 2

a l

!J

<4 1

1

=

,1 l8 1

I

]!

.l ' :

? y=

I s

s.

lg i

I

.i=il i!s.l

-g3 1

l 8

j Il 11 i

lE a

4 I

• I i

! k3 ll

! !] I a

l i I"

}

}

i.

y ii E

la E!s

-.~~-

a a.a 2

2 1i la jj s5

.i!.!]

l:

i r;

E s.i =.i 15

I".

3

s f:.

5

!!i.

l- !! ! jj, ! : ii ja sg

! i.j t

t 3

i

.i

.2

7 4

.${7 AN

?

j c.

56 4

,,. i.

d.,* j ! I

• i:!~$ I 1]i fa i.5-l 3

j

" 'i j 51 -

i

,s#t l

eli i = t ! j

~-

1 p

I dj 0

Eli

li.

3.!!!"iitj'

[ja ia 28

=

s 4

I

,5 l

!I!

II I

i ' *l ll1 3

3 l'

I

-:35 1

5

!I

-a i

e -

• {

]g j

sz3

.j

=

i i]5

g

~ ~. - - -

23 g,

a

.i!I I

i I

i

.il:ium

.t 2

I 23:3 2 Iti:!'!

1l j' 3

>2

-2

!!g. =jl r---

liji

. i !i i

l 15

-Et

.li" I

t 2

2 a

,I.l*-

1 1

f.

p4

.II lj,* l 8

I 2, 2, "3lg.2 II

=,

==.

.N, I

4 >

db 1

i

=

l 3

=

Ey I'

!.i{

!!in 1

i.

Ii.

i "a

1 3

s si !

!>!]:33 3=

=

3..

s.

25 -3 Es t.

g El q== ;2

- 3 k

I E 3 5

1 liI 33 i i

e 1.i 1,1 2

.1-

• g r

i e]t E. {i e

I I lI I3 e

s I

s.

1 a

s Is Iil3 2

I

~-

a t

3 1

1 T

I i

'i

-!N{ ' li

,ll

F 111lit i,

j]

.i I

II

.l i

ji l

1 L

-I!!{i i

t

'e e

ee

-lilli

..i si

gli 3

1{.

ll ll

~

I l

1 l il,-1 5

i i

i i

1.

i i

.in i

'l

• I l,

g i

is:i'

~

j r

1,liI ilr 1

',i._e1-.

l I 'l :l1 i

l.i I

_ i,li L

. !i g

I en 1.ilI i j.

i li l

-l g

i l' i:

-l

.11! !

1; ij I

-1 11l[1 l

1, l1

' i rj l

I I

I 4

8 i: l i:

G

.t, jj

'F.

i j

l 3:

a4,of 3

e e

Uh 7

-1,.

1:

E= ;

=jj s4 :

1 i

3.

=

3 g4 i

v ; :5 r.,

g 5-l j

j j

.i e n 2

g 6

,i

..f.

j tl 1,

.a ji

!t,

a 8

1..

i 1-5

. s.

is,3 1.l.j I.I:'

I

.sa.

Hi i

s

. i..

. 2, i" Ili i1 I

8 30 7i jj Irg

!!.r

-a1 I

g3 II lf f

I j

I I

r, :

11 l:'..

r--

cir i

19 l

_- ;l i

alij ivi i

i!{i 1

1l1 I

i j

iu-s 25

]I

'h:

p i

9 A

.i t

i l

t 2.

.s y

8, i

\\'

s t

f

~

t i

i l P i +3 i

l I

t ts f *

• 3 I

?

ti st.e.

5-lj88

' d l,*,

I.'

il-1 li -

t 4

'I 2

I.} 1; e i38 I e--

31 !)

4 L

ti

. Il-53 I4

'J l'

2 4

3

!l l

i d

a l.

i a

lI jll E!!;

i.l s

n a i3:

i!

• - 2:!+-

i!:

Se 2-I fg f8

^

,I e

f{

cia a

i i

l c

9

\\

. I.

I 5

5=

g I

l'i i

4" s.3 m.

1 i

Ij!

Ac[e 2

I! 4 -. 5 4.-

4.-

I

+ -. -

4-~e, ji ij ski d

v5 li!

Ii s'ti

.gl I!

13 ls

' +1 i

+'

i Ia 1

e A

i y

k

=.

I sr i

El ll

,G 5

S I*

. l ls d

g; it

/

b*

4,

r v

m L

t

,e I

1 :..!I l

i

$$}'

j!

1. }

i l

1 3,,

h ill ili ill ill il I

_ _i i i

i

+

i i

IIL ll'1 I

I

,I lli!,

,1'

[I l-i l j

11 iji

,1 j

j lj I

lif l

il I.'

]iI:

-l l'll 11 i

2 I

I I

I I

.g i

!j i

! ~i I

lil p!

il l

l i

j lli

'il il 1.l '{l lli i

li i

8 i

i l

8 l

[- Sl!

il i

il l

j I

1 i

af$

f l

- iI!

l'l

,L t.

i

!;g l

l i.

I.

i ig It 11 I

i

.I IfI i

3 je Ir

'lill iii gg.

1 -

l-9 P

Iei t

1

Alh M

~

.s.

l

}

bM I

J

• • 17 Sun cet PEORIA p,

OD WAY INN 8 44g sc Luke Air For.e Base g

OO b

IL O indian school Road g

i 1

y a

ui. tiei;T.T

'a a

l PHOENIX a

c SKY HARBOR 5 (..

O

-kD% e I

h

+

IN ERN ATION AL 8,, ' V AN BU R EN v o w

as

\\

GOODVEAR T

u.4 us.

(

AIRPORT wintersbury

,+f

}

AVONDALE See laset) w x

2 PALO VERDE NUCLEAR

-4 BUCKEYE RAMADAINN o

CENERATING STATION j

Heessysmpe 1100 Litchfield Road y

I ggg gp o,

APS CONSTRUCTION A'Ha88**

(OS2) s32-45so.Est. 303s APS - PVNGS g

SKY HARBOR TO PALO VERDE (P.V.N.G.S.)

i OPERATIONS 932-5300 Se 4

.....,............j m

DicL Ibt E

3 1 ')[ - [Q l L i

@ama _/

I =, = = * * ** s ' * -

o L

O

(

sy.......

s u

o O

[

sav unasoa

)

MAP PREPARED BY a

DR AFTING SECTION OO '"M ik

'"'IUa"'oE"

^

O Y

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,

/

RWS E b e,/

..............e,e, 00, 3

OPnow you uve i

Ol S um,* a 7,

P ENTRANCE MAP INSET MAP

[ SC,1*jf.M

& +,,,,,..,'*,,,."**j T

D*

APS/P.V.N.G.S.

SKY HARBOR TO I-10 we caos

• ,= ear.anca OPERATIONS DS-2OIO3 sw.h side.,

w.eehouse Deirverses t

9

D T. G. Woods, Jr.

Executive Vice President E. E. Van Brunt E. L. Lewis G. C. Andognini J. A. Roedel Vice President Manager Vice President Manager Suclear Projects Administrative Nuclear Corporate

{.

Management and Technical Operations Quality Services Assurance shr p

J. R. Bynum S. R. Frost J. E. Kirby

' Manager Supervisor Manager Nuclear Licensing Start-Up Operations

,l I

4 wd =

M

.3 s

e 0

b NEW PLANTS BY UTILITIES Oripnel Presen Size Boeier/

To.h/

On.line OnJin Utility & Pfent L oestiose MW Fuel

ngeneer Constructor Reactor Gen Date Date Alahoma Power Co.

Miller 2 Birmingham, Ala.

660 C SCS Self B&W GE 1979 1985 Miller 3 Sirmmgham, Ala.

660 C SCS Self B&W GE 1980 1989 Miller 4

. Birmingnam, Ala.

660 C SCS Self B&W GE 1981 1991 Harns Unevdee, Ala.

135 Hy SCS Self GE 1976 1983 Mitchell Dem 5-7 Canton, Ala.

150 Hy SCS Self S.A 1981 1985 Farley 2 Cnathen. Ala.

860 N SCS-Bechtel Dan W

W 1977 1981 Allegheny Power Service Corp.

Lower Armstrong 1 Armstrong Co. Pa.

630 C 1983 1988 Lower Armstrong 2 Armstrong Co. Pa.

630 C 1984 1990 Lower Armstroog 3

1. cnstrong Co. Pa.

630 C 1985 1991 Ailed Power Cooperative of lows Allied 1 Harrison Co. lowe 400 C B&McD 1986 1989 Amos (lows) Municipal Electne System Ames8 Amos. lowe 65 C LD&B B&W GE 1978 1981 Appetechen Power Co.

N/D Western Virginia 3000 PS Indef Indef Arizona Nuclear Power Progest Palo Verde 1 Wintersburg, Ariz.

1270 N Bechtel Bechtel CE GE 1981 1983 Pelo Verde 2 Wintersburg, Ariz.

1270 N Bechtel Bechtel CE GE 1982 1984 Palo Verde 3 Wintersburg. Ariz.

1270 N Bechtel Bechtet CE GE 1984 1986 Arizone Power Authonty Montezuma 14 Phoenin, Ariz.

1000 PS 1981 Indef Arizone Public Service Co.

Cholla 4 Joseph City, Ariz.

350 C Ebesco Bechtel CE GE 1978 1981 Cholla 5 Joseph City. Ariz.

350 C 84V CE GE 1983 1990 Arkanssa Power & Ught Co.

Arkansas Ugnete En. Ctr.1 Calhoun Co. Ark.

750 Ug B&W W

1988 1990 Arkanses Lignite En Ctr.2 Calhoun Co. Ark.

750 Lig B&W W

1988 1992 Independence 1 Newark, Ark.

750 C CTM 84R CE GE 1980 1983 indooendence 2 Newark, Ark.

750 C CTM 8&R CE GE 1981 1985 White Bluft 2 Redfield. Ark.

750 C CTM B&R CE GE 1979 1981 Associated Electrie Cooperatrve,ine.

Thomas Hill 3 Thomas Hill. Mo.

670 C B&McD B&W W

1981 1981 Atlantic City Electric Co.

Cumberland 1 290 C SA SR 1988 1988

_N/D 290 C 1992 1992 Baltimore Gas & Electnc Brandon Shores 1 Anne Arundet Co. Md.

628 C/O GC Self B&W GE 1977 1984 Brandon Shores 2 Anne Arundel Co. Md.

628 C/O GC Self B&W GE 1978 1988 N/D 800 C 1989 1990 i N/D 400 PS 1991 1992 N/D 1200 N 1994 1997 Basin Elsesrec Power Cooperstwo Antelope VaHoy 1 440 Ug SR CE W

1980 1985 1983 Antelope Veitey 2 440 Ug S-R CE W

1981 Laramie River 1 Wheatland, Colo.

570 C S&McD B&W GE 1979 1981,i Lareme River 2 Whee cland, Colo.

570 C B&Mc0 S&W GE 1980 1981 Larame River 3 Wheettand. Colo.

570 C B&McD B&W GE 1983 1982 Seg Rivers Electree Corp.

D. 8. Wilson 1 Livermore, K y.

440 C B& Roe B& Roe F-W W

1983 1984 D. B. Wilson 2 Uvermore, Ky.

440 C B& Roe B& Roe F.W W

1984 1986 Boston Edesen Co.

Pilgrim 2 Plymouth. Mass.

1180 N Bechtel Bechtel CE GE 1982 Intfef Breros Electne Power Ceoperatrve,Inc.

N/D 400 Lsq 1988 indef Village Benr114 Palo Pinto Co. Tos.

800 PS.

1987 latset )

8ntum Columbee Hydro & Power Authority H4t Creek 14 4 @500 C Ebesco

,h Indef ladef Mica Protect 54 Revelstoke, B C 868 Hy 1977 Indef Peace 5.te C 900 Hy 1987 1987 Reveestoke 12 Revelstoke. 8.C.

920 Hy h lhg 1983 1983 Revelstoke 34 Revelstoke, S.C.

920 Hy i

1983 1984 l Revelstoke Revetstoke. B.C.

920 Hy j

indet indet 1 3even M.le Prowet 4 Trail. 8 C.

202 Hy innet larlet l N-Powcsear pient PS.Purnoeo storsee Hv *Conventionee nyuro G eo *Geotnerneal CSCoa6 O'O 4/PCWER ENGINEERING

s-33 NRC'S QUALITY ASSURANCE INITIATIVES SPECIAL STUDY OF NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE (CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT STUDY)

BRIEFING SLIDES FOR PRESENTATION 4

~

AUGUST 22, 1983 AT ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE PALO VERDE PROJECT DR. W. D. ALTMAN, PROJECT MANAGER v3 e.

S ?.

41 bw.

TEAM HEMBERS PALO VERDE NRC' BILL ALTMAN NRC PROJECT MANAGER SPECIAL STUDY OF NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE

. JIM KENNEDY SENIOR QUALITY ASSURANCE ENGINEER, NRC HEADQUARTERS BATTELLE PNL BGB SORENSON MANAGER, REGULATORY ANALYSIS SECTION HAROLD HARTY SENIOR STAFF ENGINEER, ENERGY SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT MILES PATRICK.

MANAGER, PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES AND TRAINING IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LAB KEN CARR0LL' MANAGER, CONSTRUCTION AND PROCUREMENT QUALITY BRANCH

. DAVE ROSS QUALITY ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR, QUALITY DEPARTMENT KIST AND' ASSOCIATES JOHN HEIDENREICH VICE PRESIDENT, N.C. KIST & ASSOCIATES 4

, f% s, -

NRC ORGANIZATION COMMISSIONERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DIRCKS d

NUCLEAR NUCLEAR MATERIAL NUCLEAR INSPECTION

- REACTOR REGULATION SAFETY AND

^

^

SAFEGUARDS RESEARCH ENFORCEMENT DENTON DAVIS MINOGUE DeYOUNG t

l

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT R.C. DeYOUNG, DIR ECTOR VACANT, DEPilTY DIRECTOR TECilNICAL TRAINING CENTER C.W. THAYER, DIRECTOR PROGRAM SUPPORT BRANCil J.L. BLAH A, CHIEF ENFORCEMENT STAFF J.A. AXELR AD, ACTING DIRECTOR DIVISION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY SAFEGUARDS, AND INSPECTION PREPAREDNESS AND PROGRAMS ENGINEERING RESPONSE J.M. TAYLOR DIRECTOR E.L. JORD AN, DIRECTOR J.G. PARTLOW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR S.A. SCHWARTZ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR QUALITY ASSURANCE BRANCH ENGINEERING AND GENERIC G.T. ANKRllM, CilIEF COMMUNICATIONS BRANCH R.L. BAER, CHIEF REACTOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS EVENTS ANALYSIS BRANCH BRANCH VACANT, CHIEF R.F. HEISilM AN, CHIEF OPERATING REACTOR PROGRAMS INCIDENT RESPONSE BRANCH BH ANCll K.E. PERKINS. CillEF VACANT, CHIEF SAFEGUARDS AND MATERIALS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS BRANCH BRANCH L.I. COBB, CHIEF I

F.G. PAG ANO, CHIEF

c.-

BACKGROUND OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS THERE HAS BEEN A SERIES OF WELL e

PUBLIClZED PROBLEMS REGARDING THE QUALITY OF CONSTRUC AND ENGINEERING) AT SEVERAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PROJECTS PLANTS RECEIVING WIDESPREAD ATTENTION INCLUDE:

e.

l

-MARBLE HILL t

-MIDLAND'

-ZIM M ER c

-SOUTH TEXAS l

-DIABLO CANYON THE PERCEIVED SEVERITY OF THE QUALITY PROBLEMS AND THE PUBLICITY AND PUBLIC INTEREST HAVE CAUSED THE CONGRESS AN

[

NRC COMMISSIONERS TO QUESTION

-THE ABILITY OF INDUSTRY TO CONSTRUCT NUCLEAR PLANTS IN A j

CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC SAFETY

-THE ABipT.Y OF THE NRC STAFF TO PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT INDUSTRY HAS CONSTRUCTED PLANTS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC SAFETY i

4 j

.l AS A RESULT, THE INDUSTRY AND THE NRC ARE JOINTLY FACING AN EROSION e

i i

'IN THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE IN OUR ABILITY TO BUILD, LICENSE, AND OPERATE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT W

(

SAFETY F

i i

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR s.

AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON QUALITY ASSURANCE AT THE ZIMMER NUCLEAR STATION STATEMENT OF THE HON. MORRIS K. UDALL I

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14,9:45 a.m.

4 On June 10 of this year the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing to consider the quality assurance (QA) breakdown at.the Zimmer nuclear powerplant. In this case and possibly others there has been a widespread failure to adhere to the NRC's quality assurance requirements. At Zimmer, the severity of~the problem was recognized only l

after construction was virtually complete. MY PRIMARY CONCERN NOW CENTERS i

ON THE NRC'S ABILITY TO DETERMINE THAT A REACTOR CAN BE SA OPERATED F,OLLOWING A QA BREAKDOWN LIKE THAT AT ZIMMER.

To give some idea of the extent of the Zimmer problem, I will indicate briefly the nature o l

some of the issues that must be addressed prior to issuance of an operating license.

-Deficient weld procedures

-Apparent falsification of weld procedure test data i

-insufficient documentation to demonstrate that many of the 2000 welders who have l

worked at the Zimmer site were qualified for the work they performed. The NRC has informed me that, The potential impact of the (inadequate) welder qualification l

records is that a i

-The chemical and physical properties of certain safety related

~

piping cannot be documented. The NRC staff has stated that, "The potential impact of the loss of traceable piping is that a substantial amount of such piping may have to be replaced."

-Significant quantities of safety related materials were purchased from vendors not qualified to supply such mat'erials. The NRC has stated that, "The potential impact of the material purchases is that instal!ed materials may have to be replaced."

While the June 10 hearing yielded useful qualitative information, NRC staff were vague with regard to specifics. Testimony at the hearing and subsequent correspondence CAUSES ME TO QUESTION WHETHER THE NRC STAFF IS ON TOP OF THE PROBLEM. Today's 4

hearing is a direct' result of my not being satisfied with information that we have been provided to date.

In addition to'our havi,ng been provided incomplete information, there are other disturbing aspects of this matter. I am concerned, as I said on June 10, that the NRC staff has not required an independent audit of the Zimmer plant. IT SEEMS UNREALISTIC TO HAVE CONDIFENCE THAT THE COMPANY THAT NEGLECTED QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR SO MANY YEARS WILL ON ITS OWN FULLY UNCOVER THE DEFICIENCIFS RESULTING FROM ITS NEGLECT.

An independent audit is even more important in view of the NRC l

suggesting that they have

~ ' '.

No. S-14-82 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tel. 301/492-7715 REMARKS BY NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, CHAIRMAN U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATTHE INPO CONFERENCE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS i

OF i

NUCLEAR FACILITIES ATLANTA, GEORGI A October 5,1982

" MEETING THE CHALLENGE FOR A NUCLEAR FUTURE" i

1 Your UTILITIES NEED PUBLIC CONFIDENCE TO SURVIVE AND PROSPER. It seems to me that confidence in civilian nuclear activities requires two things to happen:- first, nuclear power plants must provide reliable, affordable electricity without accidents for a long period of time; and, second, there must be'a broad public perception that the nuclear industry maintains the highest standards, virtually unsurpassed anywhere else in business and the professions. Said in another way, I think confidence in civilian nuclear power requires solid indications of a genuine determination by you to run a very tight ship and to take firm responsibility for public safety.

i For today let me concentrate on construction quality assurance.

l l' continue to be concerned that some of YOU NEED TO DO MORE TO SHORE UP YOUR OWN l

AND THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE IN THE QUALITY ASSURANCE OF YOUR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS.

QUALITY ASSURANCE, OR QA, SHOULD BE THE CENTRAL FOCUS NOW FOR ALL THE UTILITIES BUILDING NUCLEAR PLANTS. The Commission has considered quality assurance to be a key factor in the design and construction of nuclear power plants for many years. The problems that l

have been identified recently indicate that the fundamental cause of most design and construction deficiencies is the lack of total management commitment to quality.

i

CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMISSION INTEREST

- A NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS AND COMMISSION MEETINGS HAVE BEEN HELD RECENTLY ON THE SUBJECT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.

RESULTS OF THIS HIGH LEVEL ATTENTION INCLUDE:

CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION (CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT) REQUIRING NRC TO CONDUCT AN INDEPTH STUDY OF QUALITY IN CONSTRUCTION (DESIGN AND ENGINEERING) INCLUDING-A PILOT PROGRAM _TO TEST SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES-

. IMPLEMENTATION OF A SERIES OF NRC INITIATIVES DESIGNED TO ASSURE QUALITY IN CONSTRUCTION AND NRC'S ABILITY TO MONITOR AND EVALUATE IT i

4 i

CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT SECTION 13'0F NRC'S FY 82-83 AUTHORIZATION ACT REQUIRES:

A.

ASSIGNMENT 0F AT LEAST ONE RESIDENT INSPECTOR AT EVERY CONSTRUCTION SITE GREATER THAN 15% COMPLETE (BY END OF FY 82)

B.

STUDY OF EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS FOR IMPROVING QUALITY IN CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN OF NUCLEAR REACTORS REQUIREMENT B. ENTAILS:

(1) ANALYSIS OF QA/QC PROGRAMS AT REPRESENTATIVE SITES-(2) ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS, INCLUDES FIVE PROGRAMS

. DESCRIBED IN THE,ACT (3) CONDUCT OF A PILOT PROGRAM TO TEST ONE OR MORE-0F Tile SPECIFIED ALTERNATIVES (4) OBTAINING INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC,. LICENSEES, ACRS, AND PROFESSIONAL GROUPS (5) PREPARING REPORT ON STUDY.

DUE TO CONGRESS APRIL.4, 1984

?

O j

e 8

9

CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT STUDY FIVE SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS DESCRIBED IN.THE ACT ARE:

- (1) A MORE PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACil F0R DEFINING PRINCIPAL ARCHITECTUAL AND ENGINEERING CRITERIA

~

(2) CONDITIONING CP ON LICENSEE DEMONSTRATION OF ABILITY T0 EFFECTIVELY MANAGE ITS QUALITY-RESPONSIBILITY (3) USE OF AUDITORS / INSPECTORS FROM ASSOCIATIONS OF PROFESSIONALS-i (4).-IMPROVEMENT OF NRC S ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAMS FOR QA (5) CONDITIONING CP ON LICENSEE USE 0FLINDEPENDENT INSPECTORS TO AUDIT ITS QA PROGRAM PILOT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

.(1) ALTERNATIVE (5) MUST BE TESTED (2) OTHER ALTERNATIVES MAY BE TESTED (3). PILOTS AT THREE OR MORE SITES UNDER CONSTRUCTION (4) AT LEAST 2 SITES WITH REMEDIAL PROGRAMS UNDERWAY (5) AT LEAST 1 APPARENTLY. SUCCESSFUL SITE 9

e

e INITIATIVES CONTdINED IN SECY-82-352,: PAPER ENTI.TLED

" ASSURANCE 0F QUALITY "

-r (AUGUST 29,1982)

INITIATIVES ARE DESIGNED T0:

1 ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL CONFIDENCE IN THE QUALITY OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVIT.IES l IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT CONTROL 0F QUALITY IMPROVE 'THE NRC CAPABILITY T0 EVALUATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LICENSEE PROGRAMS

~

SATISFY THE DIRECTION PROVIDED THE NRC IN AN AMENDMENT ACCEPTED BY THE HOUSE AND SENATE CONFEREES IN THEIR JOINT CON. SIDERATION OF' THE NRC'S FY 82-83 ' AUTHORIZATION BILL s

p P

5 e

e e

e d

INITIATIVES FALL INTO Tile FOLLOWING CATEGORIES:

1.

CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT a.

STUDY 0F EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE-QA PROGRAMS (1) CASE STUDIES-(2) REVIEW 0F NRC, INDUSTRY,'AND GOVERNMENT QA PROGRAMS b..

SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS c.

PILOT PROGRAMS 2.

MEASURES.AT NEAR-TERM 0PERATING LICENSE FACILITIES a.

SELF EVALUATION b.

REGIONAL EVALUATION c.

INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW 3.

INDUSTRY. INITIATIVE

.4.

CONSTRUCTION ~ INSPECTION'PR0 DRAM a.

' PROCEDURE CHANGES b.

CONSTRUCTION APPRAISAL TEAM (CAT) INSPECTIONS c.

INTEGRATED DESIGN INSPECTIONS (IDI) d.

EVALUATION OF REPORTED INFORMATION 5.

QUALIFICATION AND DESIGNATION OF QA/QC PERSONNEL a.

QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QA/QC PERSONNEL b.

STUDY OF DESIGNATED-REPRESENTATIVES 6.

MANAGEMENT a.

MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

-b.

CRAFTSMANSHIP 7.

LONG-TERM REVIEW a.

CONTRACT AND PROCUREMENT PROCESS b.

REVIEW GROUP 8.

QUALITY. ASSURANCE-STAFF CONSOLIDATION

.i

l PURPOSE OF VISIT:

THIS TEAM 0F NRC AND CONTRACTOR SCIENTISTS, ENGINEERS, AND OUALITY PROFESSIONALS IS HERE AS A RESULT OF BOTH THE CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE'TO STUDY QUALITY IN CONSTRUCTION AND THE NRC INITIATIVES IN QUALITY ASSURANCE THE PURPOSE OF OUR VISIT IS TO STUDY YOUR PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CONSTRUCTI0fl MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING, AND OUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS AS ONE OF A SERIES OF CASE STUDIES AT NUCLEAR PLANTS ACROSS THE NATION

~

i 1

L i.

I

p-

. 1 p

CONGRESSIONAL. AMENDMENT STUDY-LSTUDY OF EXISTING-AND ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS.

i

.A.

. EXISTING PROGRAMS

-CASE STUDIES OF LICENSEE PROGRAMS DETERMINE ROOT CAUSES OF SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF-PROJECTS ANALYSIS.0F CURRENT PROGRAM-DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH

~

'INCLUD.ES. SITE VISITS, REGIONAL INPUT

~

CONDUCTED AT MARBLE HILL,.V0GTLE, DIABLO CANYON, SOUTH TEXAS, ST. LUCIE II JTARGET OF 7-8, SPLIT BETWEEN PROBLEM. PLANTS AND NON-PROBLEM PLANTS-CONTRACTOR-SUPPORT ~

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION GENERIC IMPLICATIONS M

O 4

m

0-

-^

QUALITY ASSURANCE CASE STUDIES e

PRE FIELD ACTIVITY

-DEVELOPMENT OF ASSESSMENT PLAN AND METHODOLOGY

('

-PLANT VISITS MUST CONSIDER LTR ISSUES AND FORD ISSUES

-SCHEDULING

-FAMILIARIZATION WITH PLANT AND PLANT QA PROGR AM AND HISTORY e

FIELD ACTIVITY

-VISIT TO REGIONAL OFFICE

-VISIT TO CORPORATE OFFICE

-VISIT TO PLANT SITE

-DISCUSSIONS WITH REGIONAL AND RESIDENT INSPECTORS

-DISCUSSIONS WITH LICENSEE PERSONNEL, CONTRACTORS

-REVIEW OF QA PROGRAM, SELECTED RECORDS

-PLANT WALK THROUGH

~

e POST FIELD ACTIVITY

-ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

-POSTULATION AND EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES

-lNPUTTO GENERIC REPORT h

i i

3

NEED FOR UTILITY INPUT AND ASSISTANCE THE GENERIC RESULTS OF THIS SERIES OF SITE SPECIFIC CASE STUDIES AND PARALLEL STUDIES'

.0F GERMANE TOPICS WILL FORM THE BASIS OF REPORTS TO THE NRC COMISSIONERS.

- REPORT TO CONGRESS

- NRC'S FUTURE POI. ICY.AND PROGRAM IN QUALITY ASSURANCE THE EMPHASIS OF' OUR EFFORT WILL' BE TO DETERMINE UNDERLYING PROGRAMATIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY. ASSURANCE THAT EITHER

. CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT-

- CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESULTS THAT FAIL TO MEET.THE STANDARDS OF THE I

INDUSTRY THE NRC, AND THE PUBLIC FOR QUALITY IN A NUCLEAR. POWER PLANT THIS IS NOT AN INSPECTION. WE ARE NOT HERE TO INSPECT OR AUDIT OR SECOND GUESS. WE ARE HERE TO LEARN AND T0 DEVELOP REAL WORLD INFORMATION TO HELP STRUCTURE CONGRESSIONAL, NRC, AND INDUSTRY POLICIES FOR QUALITY.IN THE NUCLEAR-INDUSTRY FOR THIS DECADE AND BEYOND

• TO BE SUCCESSFUL, WE NEED YOUR HELP, COOPERATION, AND CANDOR. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR t

PARTICIPATION IN THIS MAJOR NRC POLICY STUDY i

e i

[...

CHRONOLOGY l

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT HEARINGS ON QA HELD IN THE HOUSE OF l

R EPRESENTATIVES:

e SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT; COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIR.S - NOVEMBER 19,1981 e SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND NATURAL RES'OURCES:

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS - DECEMBER 14,1981 NOVEMBER 27,1981 - CHAIRMAN DIRECTED STAFF TO ASSEMBLE APPROACHES TO STRENGTHEN QA DECEMBER 1,1981 - CHAIRMAN PALLADINO, IN A SPEECH TO AIF, CHALLENGED THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TO REEXAMINE AND UPGRADE ITS QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS JANUARY 29,1982 - NRC STAFF BRIEFED COMMISSION ON PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS OF VARIOUS QA INITIATIVES FEBRUARY 4,1982-INPO BRIEFED COMMISSION ON INDUSTRY ACTIONS FEBRUARY 10,1902 - STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE MORE DEFINITIVE PLAN, INCLUDING SCHEDULE AND RESOURCES MARCH 4,1982 - QA PRESENTATION TO ACRS APRIL 12,1982 - MEETING WITH INPO TO EXCHANGE QUALITY ASSURANCE INFORMATION MAY 19,1982 - SENIOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT MEETING TO DISCUSS QA STRATEGY e

a

=

.w

4

~;..

CHRONOLOGY (CONT)

JUNE 10,1982 REGION 111 ADMINISTRATOR TESTIFIES BEFORE CONGRESS JULY 15,1982 NRC STAFF BRIEFED COMMISSION ON STAFF PLANS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE AUGUST 20,1982 EDO SENT STAFF PAPER ON ASSURANCE OF QUALITY TO THE COMMISSION (SECY 82-352)

SEPT.14,1982 REGION 111 ADMINISTRATOR ' TESTIFIES BEFORE CONGRESS S EPT. 20,1982 IE BRIEFED COMMISSION'S ASSISTANTS, CHAIRMAN ON QA

^

INITIATIVES IN SECY 82-352 SEPT.29,1982 COMMISSION BRIEFING ON SECY 82-352 OCT. 5,1982 CHAIRMAN PALLIDINO SPEAKS BEFORE INPO CONFERENCE t

OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, SAYS QA SHOULD BE CENTRAL FOCUS FOR UTILITIES BUILDING NUCLEAR PLANTS s

l OCT.13,1982 CHAIRMAN PALLlDINO SPEAKS BEFORE AMERICAN SOCIETY I

OF QC. INDICATES EFFECTIVE QA NECESSARY TO RESTORE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN NUCLEAR POWER OCT.18,1982 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE SPEAKS BEFORE ANS EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ON QUALITY ASSURANCE w

e.

November 27,1981 i

MEMORANDUM FOR:

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:

Nunzio J. Palladino QUALITY ASSURANCE NRC needs to take actions that will result in improved quality assurance at Nuclear Power-Plants Steps we are taking or planning, as well as other steps that could be taken, were brought up during our testimony to Congressman Udall's Subcommittee last week. A list of corrective measures would include improvements to our inspection and enforcement program as well as considerations such as third party audits, strict sanctions against non performers, approved bidders lists, and certified independent performance audits of each utility's QA ac,tivities.

t would like you to pull together the various approaches that could be taken to stiengthen Quality Assurance, and provide the Commission a preliminary evaluation of the ones that appear most promising from an effectiveness and cost standpoint I believe it is desirable to have an initial paper on your recommendations by December 11,.

1981. The Commission can then focus on the areas deemed worthy of implementation for further study by the staff a

. WA 2

m q

a.

e..

. o cu

CONGRESSIONAL. AMENDMENT STUDY-SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS-(1) MORE. PRESCRIPTIVE CRITERIA EXTENSIVE PREVIOUS WORK, DRAFT RULES (2) CONDITIONING CP ON DE'MONSTRATION OF ABILITY-T0 MANAGE QUALITY RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDED AS PART'0F STUDY OF PROGRAM CERTIFICATION / REAFFIRMATION (3). AUDITS / EVALUATIONS BY ASSOCIATIONSLOF PROFESSIONALS INP0 CONSTRUCTION EVALUATIONS. INCLUDED IN PILOT PROGRAM PLAN TO REVIEW ASME PROGRAM (4) ; IMPROVEMENT OF NRC'S' ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAMS QA RE0RGANIZATION CAT IDI ANALYSIS OF NRC AND.0UTSIDE PROGRAMS (5) THIRD PARTY AUDITS PILOTS AT MARBLE HILL, PALO VERDE, MIDLAND AND SOUTH TEXAS REVIEW 0F OTHER AUDITS ALL FIVE ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED AS PART OF.EACH CASE STUDY O

e 9

CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT STUDY-PILOT PROGRAMS ALTERNATIVE (3) INP0 PILOT.

ALTERNATIVE (5). PILOTS AT

MARBLE HILL.(TORREY PINES)

.PALO VERDE (TORREY PINES)

- i

~.

MID. LAND (TERA)' -

SOUTH TEXAS'(INP0 METHODOLOGY)

ALL PILOTS INCLUDE.0N-SITE REVIEW BY. SENIOR NRC: CONSTRUCTION INSPECTORS

- PILOT PROGRAMS WILL BE EVALUATED IN TERMS OF C0VERAGE OF MANAGEMENT j

, QA DESIGN PROCESS; i

.HA[DWARE'(AS-BUIL)

=

\\

s 7

4 4 4

/'

7, k+

3t y

6/u/n ROOT CAUSES - CONSTRUCTION 1.

RECOGNIZED NUCLEAR POWER WAS DIFFERENT

-- Cli[RGED ORGANIZATION TO FIT PROJEr.

-- CREATED STRONG PROJECT ORGANIZATION

-- SELECTIVE RECRUITING FOR KEY POSITIONS

-- COUNTERED FOSSIL MENTALITY

-- SELECTED STRONG, EXPERIENCED A/E, C/M, C 2.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF OWNER

-- WORKING INVOLVEMENT AT HIGH LEVELS

... DETAILS

... VISIBILITY

-- PUT TOGETHER EXPERIENCED PROJECT TEAM

-- GAVE PROJECT TEAM NECESSARY FINANCIAL BACKING

-- RECOGNIZED NEED TO MAKE CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS

~

PROGRESSED

-- ORIENTATION TOWARD QUALITY

~

... BACKING 0F 9/A

... G0ING BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS (S/G, SIMULATOR, ETC.)

-- GOOD PUBLIC rc'_3.TIONS

-- GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH NRC

~"

-- CONTRACTING PRACTICES

... MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT H

... INCENTIVE / PENALTY PROVISIONS 1

... CAREFL". SELECTION OF CONTRACTORS Fo&?4-9%.

Gss.

(

ROOT CAUSES - CONSTRUCTION (c0NT'D)

... MINIMAL NUMBER OF CONTRACTORS

....ADVA;TAGE0VS LABOR ARRANGEMENTS

]

... APPROVAL OF KEY CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL (f..INTERES,TINSTAFFASPEOPLE l' j... MAKES CONTRACTOR DO THE WORX

... CLEARLY DEFINED ACCOUNTABILITY 1

... ADDRESSES PROBLEMS AS THEY OCCUR

\\...

UTILITY WILLING TO BITE THE BULLET WHEN NECESSARY 3.

OTHER ROOT CAUSES

-- PARTICIPANT 0WNERSHIP

-- ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR PROJECT

-- ADJUSTED TO CHANGING ENVIRONMENT

-- REPLICATION OF UNITS

-- LOW LEVEL 0F INTERVENTION

-- RECOGNITION THAT NRC HAD SOMETHING TO BRING TO PROJECT

-- USE OF MODELING, CONSTRUCTION OF MODELS

-- LEARNED-FROM PROBLEMS OF OTHERS-a

[

(

ROOT CAUSES -~STARTUP UTILITY DID NOT RECOGNIZE SCOPE AND COMPLEXITY OF STARTUP,

. ROOT CAUSES WERE:

1.

INEXPERIENCE

-2.

UTILITY INERTIA

... ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRAINTS

... FOSSIL MENTALITY 3.

DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY RESULTED IN:

1.

LACK 0F CLEAR ASSIGNMEiiT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, 2.

FAILURE TO INTEGRATE AT CONSTRUCTION /0PERATION INTERFACE.

3.

SCHEDULING PROBLEMS.

4.

SLOWNESS TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION, MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES.

5.

FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE SYMPT 0MS.

lic ALLC';!ED INADE00.6TE TIME FOR ST^oTUP-7 HAVE MUCH NEW UNTESTED TECHNOLOGY.

k

(

GE'NERIC IMPLICATIONS 1.

PRIOR NUCLEAR EXPERIENCE NECESSARY IN PROJECT T 2.

PRIOR NUCLEAR EXPERIENCE NOT NECESSARY FOR UTILITY, 30 7 -

-- LACK OF. PRIOR CORPORATE NUCLEAR EXPERIENCE CA OVERCOME GIVEN THE RIGHT COMBINATION.0F FACTORS

... NEED CAPABLE, EXPERIENCED PEOPLE IN KEY POSITIONS 4

... NEED CAPABLE, EXPERIENCED CONTRACTORS

... NEED A PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE THAT FO APPLICATION OF THAT EXPERIENCE AND KNOW HOW

... COMMITMENT OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES

... WORKING INVOLVEMENT OF TOP MANAGEMENT 3.

SEPARATE NUCLEAR PROJECT MANAGEMENT ORGANIZAT FOSSIL CONSTRAINTS

--NEEDTOCREATEAPROJECTORGANIZATIONALSTRUCTURIT CLEARLY DEFINES RESPONSIBILITY AND AFFORDS SUFi AUTHORITY AND RESOURCES TO RESPONSIBLE GROUP 4.

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY LEADS TO PROBLEMS

-- INTERFACE PROBLEMS

-- FINGER' POINTING i

-- SCHEDULE SLIPS

-5.

PARTICIPANT OWNERSHIP ARRANGEMENT 0FFERS A NUMBER O 1

ADVANTAGES '

-- BROADER BASED FUNDING

-- TIGHTER MANAGEMENT REVIEW 0F. PROJECT

~

-- SPREADS RISK

GENERIC ~IMPLI. CATIONS (CONT'D) 6.

STRONG MANAGEMENT OF PR'0 JECT NECESSARY 7.

NEEDQQALITYPEOPLE

-- MANAGEMENT

-- PROJECT' STAFF

-- CONTRACTORS 8.

ADVANCE PLANNING AND SCHEDULING IMPORTANT

-- PROJECT ENHANCED BY HIGH PERCENT COMPLETION OF DESIGN

-- OWNER NEEDS OWN SCHEDULING CAPABILITY 9..

NUCLEAR PLANTS CAN STILL BE BUILT.IN U.S.

-- REQUIRES RIGHT COMBINATION OF KNOW HOW, RESOURCES, PEOPLE, COMMITMENT, MANAGEMENT 10.

INDUSTRY NEEDS BETTER MECHANISMS FOR TRANSFERRING TECHNOLO AND LESSONS LEARNED s

s.

J r

9

~

.~,

' CASE STUDY "F" IMPLICATIONS FOR NRC INITIATIVES WHICH INITIATIVES MIGHT HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE HAD IT BEEN IN PLACE-AT THE TIME MEASURhSATNEAR-TERMOPERATINGLICENSEFACILi~ T A.

-1.

SELF EVALUATIONS 2.

REGIONAL EVALUATIONS 3.

INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEWS B.

I NDUSTRY-.

1.

INPO EVALUATIONS 2.

UTILITY AND THIRD PARTY EVALUATIONS C.

CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM CHANGES 1.

REVISE: PROCEDURES AND INCREASE RESOURCES 2.

CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT TEAM INSPECTIONS (CAT) 3.

INTEGRATED DESIGN INSPECTIONS (NRC)

'4.

EVALUATION 0F REPORTED INFORMATION D.

DETERhlNE FEASIBILITY OF DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES (LI;(E FAA)-

~

E.

MANAGEMENT OF QUALITY 1.

MANAGEMENT SEMINARSL 2.

QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OFLQA/QC PERSONNEL

~3.

CRAFTSMANSHIP

CASE. STUDY "F'"

(CONT'D) lMPLICATIONS FOR FORD AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES

- WHICH FORD ALTERNATIVE MIGHT HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE HAD IT BEEN IN PLACE AT THE TIME A.

MORE PRESCRIPTIVE A/E CRITERIA B.

DEMONSTRATION OF MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY C.

AUDITS BY ASSN OF PROFESSIONALS D.

IMPROVEMENTS IN NRC'S PROGRAMS E.

THIRD PARTY AUDITS a

b 4

4

-a we

60

,[

POSTULATED ROOT CAUSES OF SUCCESS (Based on review of background information for the Palo Verde Case Study. See attached listing).

1.

The Licensee upper management and A-E construction management project a strong positive attitude towards quality (Item 15, pg. 6). There is management backing of quality-related actions / corrections (Item 15, pg. 26) and responsiveness to identified adverse trends in quality (Item 15, pg. 26).

2.

There is a consistent attitude throughout the site organization that quality was second in importance only to personnel safety, and was being achieved (Item 15, pg.17).

3.

The Licensee has been responsive to NRC questions and findings related to quality matters and has avoided an adversarial relationship.

4.

NRC inspections have been frequent, thorough, and competently performed.

5.

The A-E has had extensive experience in nuclear plant design and construction management.

6.

Competent and experienced personnel have been employed by the Licensee and A-E.

7.

The project is adequately staffed (Item 15, pg. 26).

8.

The project has adequate procedures for all the construction activities, and they are appropriately implemented, with good followup.

9.

The project staff has good access to the quality assurance staff and to management (Item 15, pg. 28). QA is a meaningful part of the construction function (Item 15, pg. 6).

10. The Licensee /A-E maintain a proactive training /connunication program down to the craft general forman.l.evel (Item 15, pg. 29).

11. Prompt correc'tive action with appropriate discipline is taken where quality deficiencies have surfaced.

f@ gKj)

Attachment 8/18/83 L,l6$

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION QUALITY ASSURANCE CASE STUDY ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND APPROACH Attempt to set inthrviewee at ease with scme preliminary conversation (about comon acquaintances, interests, backgrounds, etc. perhaps gleaned from previousinterviews).

Give brief background to interview (f.e., Comissioners' concerns about quality and the Staff's responses to those concerns, which includes these site specific assessments)..

Obtain some infomation about interviewee; e.g., present position, time with licensee or other aff,iliation related to project, size cf organizat' ion, etc.

All of the following questions are not appropriate to ask of all interviewees:

Lead-In Ques'tions (develop follow-on questions based on responses) 1.

What is the scope of your activities? That is, who do you interface with, what infomation do you receive and pass on, and what is it you do (.in your group) to the information you receive?

2.

What are your most important sources of information about the quality of work that is done in your group, or that you are responsible for?

3.

What is the most'important " message" concerning quality that you receive from your management? How is it conveyed or made manifest to you?

4.

Wha.t is the most important " message" concerning quality that you convey to your staff? How do you convey it to your staff?

5.

What problems do you have in maintaining a balance among cost, schedule, and quality?

i

~

6.

What is your perception of the source of the emphasis on quality that this project has? How is it maintained?

['

2 S

7.

Do you have any control of input into the quality of work you receive into you Par *e'a of responsibility?

8.

Do you interface with NRC in any way? With their QA program?

(Ifyes, follow up with how, when, where questions.)

9.

What do you attribute your lack of major QA deficiencies to in your own group?

10.

In what ways has the emphasis on quality changed over time on this project?

11.

By what means does the quality assurance organization or the utility management _f.or that matter, ascertain that the QA Program is effective and not suffering from major hidden programatic deficiencies?

12.

For utilities that have used QA consultants:

a.

For what reasons were the consultants hired?

b.

What information were they able to provide that you were having difficulty obtaining internally?

13.

How would you characterize the involvement the utility has with the NRC at the al headquarters level, b) regional level and c) resident inspector level? What has been of great benefit and what does not appear to work as well as it. should?

14. Who would go to, or what would you do if you found yourself having to compromise quality?

15. What routine interface or interaction do you have with other organizations on the project, and with whom?

=

3 17.

How are workers instructed as to requirements? Does this include process travelers or data sheets?

18.

What happens if a workman proceeds past an inspection hold point without the inspection being perfonned?

4

19. Why do you feel quality is emphasized on this project or why do you feel quality is important on this project?

20.

How do you like working on a nuclear job?

21.

Describe your design change control process for field changes to a design. When can you proceed with work when need for a design change is identified?

22.

How do you know when working in the field that a drawing on a stick file is the latest revision and reflects all field changes?

23.

Describe your stop work authority and how it is imposed.

24.

What is your perception of your QA/QC personnel or organization as a professional discipline?

25. How would you describe the interface between QC and construction crafts or construction engineers and are their problems over inter-pretation of nonconformances?

Questions on the Ford Amendment Describe briefly the Ford Amendment. All questions may not be appropriate for all interviewees.

Develop follow-on questions as appropriate.

4 l

1.

Would it be helpful to you in assuring quality in your area of activities, or the project in general, if NRC were more prescriptive in defining principal architectural and engineering criteria for construction of nuclear plants?

l 6

g e

e w

i 1

g 4

2.

Do you think it would be helpful to the nuclear industry if construction permits were conditioned on a demonstration by the lic :nsee that it is capable of, mounting an effective QA program?

3.

Do you think it would be helpful to you or to the project to have evaluations, inspections, or audits of construction conducted by organizations which are completely independent of the project?

l 4.

Do you think NRC's organization, methods, and programs for QA, as they impact on you or the project, could be improved? What ways?

5.

If the NRC requirements for a CP required the licensee to have independent inspectors to audit its QA Program, would you perceive that to be of help?

Other Questions Important to NRC

)

Not for all interviewees.

1.

What would you think aBout al an inspection program similar to the FAA inspection method, one with designated individuals representing. NRC interests, and bl the use of QA holdpoints similar to those used in the aircraft industry?

1 2.

What has your experience been with nuclear QA standards (e.g., ANSI, ASME, NRC, etc.1 or the national standards process?

i V

- l