ML20134L490

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to FOIA Request for Biographical Data on H Livermore & SALP Repts for 10 Plants.Apps a & B Documents Available in Pdr.Portions of Document Re H Livermore Biographical Data Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 6)
ML20134L490
Person / Time
Site: Surry, North Anna, 05000000
Issue date: 08/21/1985
From: Felton J
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To: Simmons R
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20134L493 List:
References
FOIA-85-516 NUDOCS 8509030296
Download: ML20134L490 (4)
v • d • e


Text

. e 9 9 U7v UNITED STATES f

'g 8' o NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION y E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%*...+/

AUG 6 A B Mr. Robert T. Simmons 12 Patricia Court IN RESPONSE REFER Ridgewood, NJ 07450 TO FOIA-85-516

Dear Mr. Simons:

This is in response to your letter of July 17, 1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA), biographical data on Resident Inspector Herbert Livermore, and Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) reports for ten plants.

The NRC has already made the SALP reports identified on the enclosed Appendix A available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555. Appendix B lists two additional SALP reports which are being placed in the PDR in response to your request. These reports will be filed in POR folder F01A-85-516 under your name. We are enclosing a copy of a notice that provides charges and procedures for obtaining copies of records from the PDR.

The NRC regional office in Arlington, Texas, informs us that there is no SALP report for the South Texas Project for the 1979-80 period.

A document that provides biographical data on Mr. Livennore, is enclosed.

Portions of this document are being withheld from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (6) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(6) of the Comission's regulations. The information withheld consists of Mr. Livermore's birth date, home telephone and address, salary in private industry, and other personal information, release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the NRC's regulations, it has been detennined that the information withheld is exempt from production or disclosure and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The persons responsible for the denial of the deleted sections are the undersigned and Mr. James G. Keppler, Administrator of NRC's Region III. ,

8509030296 850821 PDR FDIA SIMMONS85-516 PDR

This denial may be appealed to the NRC's Executive Director for Operations within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. As provided in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision."

Si drely, ,

/ 7 Y JA 2

. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration 1

i.

r j 4

i Re: F01A-85-516 APPENDIX A DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY PLACED IN PDR I

Plant Docket No. Date PDR Accession No. Pages

1. Shoreham 50-322 1979-80 8106020366 9 1980-81 8208060283 40 1 I
2. Nine Mile Point 2 50-410 1979-80 8106090382 8 1980-81 8303140439 40

- 3. Washington Public 50-397 1981-82 8212170091 21 Supply System Unit 2

4. Grand Gulf 50-416 L 1979-80 8102170579 8 50-417J 1980-81 8212090414 19
5. River Bend 50-458 1979-80 8011200098 11
6. Surry 50-280)1 50-281 P

1980-81 8212090285 35 North Anna 50-338 50-339,,

7. Limerick 50-352 1960-81 8112140236 3
8. Waterford 50-382 1979-80 8101070257 10 l

l l

t

s Re: F01A-85-516 APPENDIX B RELEASED DOCUMENTS

1. 08/22/80 Letter, R. H. Engelken, NRC, to R. L. Ferguson, WPPSS, enclosing evaluation of licensee performance at Washington Nuclear Project No. 2 for period April 1979 through July 1980 (14 pages)
2. 12/31/80 Memo, O'Reilly to Chairman, SALP Review Group, re SALP Board results for Virginia Electric and Power Co.

(North Anna and Surry Plants)

I T

i I

l

[ . ,,'o UNITED STATES Ndf/?"/bk -

F" % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, $. . ,$ REGION V g 1990 N. CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD C ,e SulTE 202, WALNUT CREEK PLAZA

  • ,,,e WALNUT CR EE K, CALIFORNIA 94596 Al)G 2 : n"0 Docket No. 50-397 Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Attention: Mr. R. L. Ferguson Managing Director Gentlemen:

Subject:

ilRC Regional Evaluation of Licensee Performance Washington Nuclear. Project No. 2 This refers to the meeting held at the NRC Region V Office in Walnut Creek, California on August 12, 1980, between Mr. R. H. Engelken and members of the Region V staff with fir. R. L. Ferguson and other Washington Public Power Supply System senior management personnel. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the results of NRC's regional evaluation of licensee performance regarding

( activities authorized by HRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-93. A sunmary report of the r.eeting and supporting data are enclosed.

Items discussed during the meeting included a summary of the findings and evaluation of the URC regional review board regarding compliance with NRC requirements at the Washington fluclear Project No. 2 during the period April 1979 through April 1980, specific areas of concern and matter, requiring corrective actions by WPPSS and a summary of the findings and evaluation of an investigation into the activities of your 215 contractor (W3G). The areas of concern and required corrective actions are delineated in the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement Director's letter to you of June 17, 1980.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2 Title 10, Code of Faderal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its efdicsures will be placed in the fluclear Regulatory Commission's Document Room.

_ Q,v y I b .! f O/V L

/

Al)G 2 21980

- Mr. R. L. Ferguson C Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed evaluation and supporting data, we will be glad to discuss them with you. -

Sincerely, ikT$ , W '

R. H. Engelken Director-

Enclosure:

IE Inspection Report ?!o. 60-397/80-11 cc w/ enclosures:

Senator T. Bottiger, Washington State Senate Senator S. Gould, Washington State Senate N. D. Lewis, EFSEC, Washington State cc w/o enclosures:

D. L. Renberger, WPPSS F. D. McElwee, WPPSS

(' W. C. Bibb, WPPSS M. E. Witherspoon, WPPSS I

f L

4e

._. - ~. . ._ .

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0f411SSION

( OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND EllFORCEf1EllT REGION V -

~

Report flo. 50-397/80-11 Docket flo. 50-397 License No. CPPR-93 Licensee: Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Facility flame: Washington Nuclear Project Unit 2 (WNP-2)

Meeting at: NRC Region V, San Francisco Meeting conducted: August 12, 1980 Report By,: N T/d/80 Date Signeo

,p A. D. Toth3 Resident Inspector Wi4P-2 Approved By: '1N~ f/2dd'<'

( R. H. Engelken, Director Date Signed Summary:

Manaaement iteeting Auaust 12, 1980 (Report No. 50-397/80-11)

This was a special corporate management meeting to present to R. L. Ferguson, newly appointed Managing Director of the Supply System effective August 1, 1980, the results of flRC Region V evaluation of licensee performance for the period of April 1979 through July 1980. This review encompassed data presented in a similar meeting of fa ay 20, 1980 and included review of subsequent inspection and investigation findings. Specific areas of NRC concern were discussed, l as well as planned flRC actions regarding WPPSS restart of work which had been

! subject of flRC immediate action letters.

(

l

! t .

L

-w- -e, e . . . , w

.e - , - - , _ . - -

1

. DETAILS i

1. Meetina Attendees Hashinoton Public Power Suocly System R. L. Ferguson,!!anaging Director D. L. Renberger, Assistant Director, Technology F. D. McElwee, Assistant Director, Projects M. W. Hultgren, Manager of Projects W. C. Bibb, Project Manager - WNP-2 M. E. Witherspoon, Division Manager, Quality Assurance Nuclear Regulatory Conmission - Region V R. H. Encelken, Director G. S. Spencer, Chief, Reactor Construction & Engineering Support Branch R. C. Haynes, Chief, Reactor Projects Section, Construction R. T. Dodds, Chief, Engineering Support Section, Construction J. L. Crews, Chief, Reactor Operations Branch D. :1. Sternberg, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1, Operations A. D. Toth, Resident Reactor Inspector, WNP-2 T. W.' Bishop, Resident Reactor Inspector, WNP-3/5 J. H. Hanchett, Public Affairs

( Washinaton State Senate Senator T. Sottiger, Chairman, Senate Energy and Utilities Committee Senator S. Gould, Ranking Republican, Senate Energy and Utilities Committee C.- Eschels, Senior Research Analyst, Senate Energy and Utilities Committee Eneray Facility Site Evaluation Council F. Hahn, Chairman,fionitoring Committee G. Hansen, Staff Engineer Bonneville Power Administration J. R. Lewis, Project Engineer - WNP-2

2.  !!RC Position Statement The 'IRC Regional Director described the Inspection and Enforcement mission and the potential impact on the issuance of a WNP-2 operating licensee.

He noted that over the past two years flRC has repeatedly expressed concerns L

y 49y .e ._, , a- - --

( .

over the ineffectiveness in the implementation of the WPPSS quality assurance -

program and inadequate control of contractor activities. He stated that the flovember 21, 1979 NRC Stop Work letter and the June 17, 1980 Notice of Violation, Civil Penalty, and 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters set forth the flRC position on these matters and the required corrective actions. The Director emohasized the need for strono management attention by WPPSS to these problems.

3. General Areas of MRC Concern The following items were identified as specific and general problem areas which appear to exist for the WNP-2 project:

a) Contractors with significant quality deficiencies had been allowed to perform quality class 1 work.

b) Excessive time required to correct identified deficiencies.

c) Large inspection backlogs for completed work.

d) Poor site records control .

flultitude of site contractors having independent quality assurance

( e) programs.

f) Assignment of quality assurance staff with lead responsibility for contractor work compliance.

g) Overly complex and over-committed procedural requirements.

h) Inadequate indoctrination of personnel.

1) Inadequate pre-planning and preparation.

j) Inadequate feedback of problems to first-line personnel.

4. Enforcement History The Region V staff discussed the enforcement history and apparent trends for U:lP-2. Inspection finding versus manhour statistics indicated that it has recently taken less effort for NRC inspectors to identify problem areas on this project as compared to other projects in Region V. (See Attachments 1 and 2). A review of NRC inspection findings show uncorrected or repeat items and cases where procedures which were to control work were not in place prior to start of the work. (See Attachment 3). A review of events associated with the sacrificial shield wall and pipe-whio restraint problems since 1975 show that several opportunities were l presented wherein WPPSS could have identified and corrected the significant

( quality assurance program deficiencies which were recently found to exist.

(See Attachment 4).

5. Recent Investication/Insoection Results _

In early 1980, a Washington State Senate Investigating Committee interviewed various WilP-7. project personnel regarding project cost matters. Various statements obtained appeared to relate to construction quality matters and these were verbally conveyed to NRC headouarters personnel. No written allegations were submitted by WNP-2 personnel in this regard. The flRC considered first 38, then an additional 7 itens as areas of concern.

A Region V inspector-investigator-supervisor team then spent 780 man-hours on-site, and in the vicinity of the site, conducting further interviews and inspecting hardware and records. The NRC Director of the Office of Inspector Tnd Auditor attended interviews on several days to assess the potential 'or any criminal activity. The period of interest for the investigation into work / records was 1978 to present, relating to on-site mechanical contractor activities. A total of 12 apparent items of noncompliance, 7 unresolved items and 21 open items requiring followuo action were identified by the investigation team (see attachment). The results of the investigation reinforced the earlier conclusions described in the l'IRC June 17, 1980 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter, regaroMg need for management action.

6. Work Restart Program The Region V staff discussed the events and requirements for restart

( of site construction activities, the need for adequate procedures, preparation of personnel, and completion of other prerequisites was noted. Relative to flRC inposed constraints, the following actions are anticipated:

1) Region V ilovember 21, 1979 Irmediate Action Letter regarding sacrificial shield wall: WPPSS plans to submit data to NRR to supplement the KPPSS/NRC August 6,1980 meeting presentation. Following the NRR

' review, Region V will issue a letter acknowledging the satisfactory completion of this condition (i.e. comprehensive corrective action plan) stipulated in the IAL.

l

2) flRC July 13, 1980 letter regarding contract #215: The flRC Senior Resident Inspector at MflP-2 will examine the results of the WPPSS re-evaluation of detailed work methods and associated corrective action plans for contract #215. Following this review, Region V uill issue a letter lifting the work restart constraint.
3) NRC June 17, 1980 letter regarding 10 CFR 50.54(f): The flRC resident inspector and Regional Office based inspectors will routinely review the impler'entation of the commitments described in the above letter.

The results of these reviews will be documented in monthly inspection reports. The resident inspector at WNP-1/4 was transferred to the WHP-2 specifically to provide close followup of these activities.

The inspector is not, however, part of the WPPSS review / approval chain.

L

~.' ,

With regard to WPPSS plans submitted in response to the NRC letter, -

the !!RC staff cautioned that the described reviews be more than paper reviews, and include meaningful hardware inspections.

7. Conclusion The ilRC Regional Director expressed the view that UPPSS can recover from the problems discussed at the meeting, although close management attention will be required. The WPPSS Managing Director noted that he will be personally involved in this matter and will keep the Region V office informed. He indicated that WPPSS will particularly re-evaluate how WPPSS does business with its contractors.

L l

I J

l

ATTACllMENT 1 7 .

'{ WNP-2 BFORCEBIT HISTORY DESIGN, PROCUREMErlT, & CONSTRUCTION 60-2500-0-

ITEMS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

  • 1

/ 2000 -i-90 i

I w 40- -80 l

E s b I I

-$ REASSESSMENT / / I '70

/

BY WPPSS 1500 ,

E / 5 b 30- CONSTRUCTION / [ ' 60 g

U PROGRESS t

j d

f[d

[ 1000 J-50h

/

/ INSPECTION HOURS M

$E 20 - ,/ -40 i a.

/

/ /

~

/ 500 _.30

/

/

/

10 - / -20

/

/

/

- / ,/ IMSPECTIO!1 MANIIRS pen no::cc:

0 -10 b0 . .

/ . . . . '. . . . . . ,0

'71 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 YEAR

ATTACHMENT 2 NRC RV ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY DESIGN, PROCUREMENT, & CONSTRUCTION (AVG. OF 18 MOS. PRECEDING 7/80) 150~

um I

E

,._ 100-5 5 -

M

( !~

=

a -

5 ,

5E 5 50-p i l 8 .i l S;  !

5 d

0- -

PROJECT A PROJECT B WNP 1/4 WNP 3/5 WNP 2 L

t ATTACIIMENT 3 1 .

WNP-2 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY ITEM TYPE

  • DESCRIPTION REPEAT 1 1 Failure to maintain cleanliness.JCI X 2 I Failure to monitor weld preheat 3_ D . Failure to maintain inspection status
4. D Failure to properly code electrical cables

-5 I Failure to properly install battery racks 6 D Failure to properly identify circuit breakers 7 I Failure to qualify PWHT procedure 8 I Failure to provide procedure for PWHT 9 D Failure to maintain records of PWHT 10 I Failure to PWHT per ASME Code l- k. 11 I Failure to maintain system cleanliness X F/L 12 I Failure to maintain system cleanliness X JCI 13 I Failure to provide class I-E equipment for RPS 14 V Failure to properly weld SSW

.15 I Failure to maintain system cleanliness X

!. 'F/L & JCI 16 I Failure to provide SSW UT procedure 17 I Failure to provide PWR UT procedure i

18 I Failure to provide SSW Heat stra.ightening procedure 19 I Failure to provide PWR heat straightening procedure f 20 I Failure to provide SSW weld sequence A procedure

ATTACHMENT 3 (Continued)

, WNP-2 Enforcement History ITEM TYPE

  • DESCRIPTION REPEAT I

~

21 Insufficient SSW records identification of Inspection personnel

. 22 I -Insufficient SSW records-inconsistent information 23 I Insufficient PWR records - identification of inspection personnel 24 I Insufficient PWR records - inconsistent NDE reports 25 I Insufficient PWR records - incorrect inspection identification 26 I Insufficient PWR records - incorrect inspection identification -

27 -I Failure to qualify PWR inspection personnel 28 I Failure to qualify SSW inspection personnel C ~ 29 I Failure to control weld filler material 30 I Failure to repair per AWS 31 I Failure to properly UT PWRs 32 I Failure to properly inspect pipe supports X 33 D Failure to document weld inspection

~*V = VIOLATION I = INFRACTION D = DEFICIENCY 4

9 I

(-

G

,, -,--u.,w... < --<w,,-r -,~~w--+ +'"~^M~&*'

" MTFliMENT 4 WNP 2 SACRIFICIAL SHIELD WALL / PIPE WHIP RESTRAINT CHRONOLOGY

(

1975 C0tlTRACTOR GIVEll APPROVAL TO START FABRICATI0tl 0F SHIELD WALL 7/76 ilRC IrlSPECTI0il 0F SHIELD WALL SITE ERECTION ACTIVITIES MONCOMPLIANCE- LACK OF QUALITY PROCEDURES 7/76 STOP WORK ISSUED, SITE ACTIVITIES AUDITED BY CONTRACTOR / BURNS & R0E 8/76 CONTRACTORS SHOP ACTIVITIES AUDITED BY BURNS & ROE /WPPSS 6/78 CONTRACTOR CERTIFIES SACRIFICIAL SHIELD WALL COMPLETE 10/78 VOIDS DETECTED IN SHIELD WALL BY 215 CONTRACTOR 11/78 21S CONTRACTOR IDENTIFIES NUMEROUS DEFECTS, ASKS WPPSS TO RE-EVALUATE THE SHIELD WALL 2/79 WPPSS NOTIFIES NRC 0F MAJOR WELD DEFECTS FOUND IN BRACKETS FABRICATED BY THE SHIELD WALL CONTRACTOR 3/79 BURNS & ROE ESTABLISHES PLAN TO ASSESS SHIELD WALL ADEQUACY 6/79 ilRC RECEIVES ALLEGATI0ilS REGARDING SHIELD WALL AND REPAIRS, IMSPECTORS IDENTIFY GAP BETWEEil RINGS, QUESTI0tl RECORDS 7/79 WPPSS COMMITMEitT TO ilRC TO REVIEW ALL SHIELD WALL QUALITY RECORDS 7/79 215 CONTRACTOR IllITIATES QUALITY REVIEW 0F SHIELD UALL CONTRACTOR 10/79 WPPSS PEPORTS TO ilRC THAT SHIELD WALL IS NOT PROPERLY WELDED TOGETHER 10/79 MRC REVIEW 0F BURilS & ROE EVALUATI0il ACTIVITY REVEALS THE EVALUATION IS BASED Oil litCOMPLETE DATA (TYPICAL VS ACTUAL DEFECTS) 9 WPPSS i10TIFIES NRC 0F RECORDS IRREGULARITIES IN PIPE WHIP RESTRAINT RECORD PACKAGES (SAME CONTRACTOR AS SHIELD WALL) 9 MRC ISSUES IMMEDIATE ACTION LETTERS, WORK STOP Oil SACRIFICIAL SHIELD WALL AND PIPE WHIP RESTRAltlTS 9- NRC INVESTIGATI0tl 0F SHIELD WALL / PIPE WHIP RESTRAlflT C0ilTRACTOR'S 2/E0 PROGRAM AND RECORDS, 18 ITEMS OF N0flCOMPLIAtlCE L

/

\'~

WNP-2 REPORT N0. 50-397/80-08 NONCOMPLIANCE / UNRESOLVED /0 PEN ITEMS LIST TRACK NO. PARAGRAPH ITEM 01 3.a Infraction - Organizational freedom of QA/QC 02 3.b(1) Deficiency - Survey document of vendor not maintained 03 3.c Unresolved - Acceptance criteria for receiving inspection of hangers 04 3.d Open - Licensee to examine program for documenting inspection findings 05 3.e Open - Work continued on a support FDR-385 after issuance of a NCR 06 3.g Unresolved - Welds being cut out rather than repaired to preclude B/R review 07 4.b Deficiency - Failure to document inspection findings relative to incorrect amperage settings for MT probes 08 4.c(1) Open - WP-57 does not address the removal of temporary weld attachments 09 4.c(1) Infraction - Failure to maintain records for temporary weld attachments 10 4.c(4) Open - Form NF-286 contains note that temporary C welding records will not necessarily form a part of permanent documentation 11 5.a(1)(a) Infraction - Piping support clearances in excess of requirements 12 -5.2(2) Open - Inspectors to be instructed to request engineers review of fillet welds on curviture of pipe 13 5.b Open - Licensee to consider reportability of l welding problems related to Pybus steel 14 5.c Unresolved - Control and dccumeatation of arc strikes on structural steel 15 5d Open - Licensee to consider generic problem related to lack of penetration in pipe from Associated Pipe 16 5.e Infraction - Failure to use filler metal specified in procedure 17 315(1)(b) Unresolved - Dispositioning of questionable filler metal and corrective action 18 3.d(l)(b) Open - Disposition of pipe in quaranteen, heat numbers N12476 and N12477 19 5.e Open - Inconsisten~cy in purging procedure for socket welds 70 5.f Open - Question of reportability of problems related to the anchoring of support base plates 21 6.a & b Open - Handling of pipe minimum wall thickness

(, problems

Ff a

  • Noncompliance / Unresolved /0 pen Items List TRACK _

N0. PARAGRAPH ITEM

22. 6.b(3) Deficiency - Incorrect acceptance standards used to

^

evaluate results of LP examinations 23 7.a Open - WBG QAP-7 does r.ot require owner approval of contractor procedures and revisions 24 7.b(6) Open - Establishment of c'ontrols to coordinate hanger material identification 25 7.c Open - Control of certain heats of pipe in quarantine as identified in surveillance report No. M-246 26 7.c Open - Heat number is missing from pipe spool RHR-2018-1 27 7.g Open - Pipe with an apparent legitimate heat number has been installed, but has the word

" scrap" painted on it 28 7.h Unresolved - Difference between stores requisition records and laydown inventory records 29 8.a, b & c Infraction - Calculations were not provided to support deletion or redesign of support welds 30 8.a Open - Page 1 of Engineering Quality Audit is missing from documentation package for

.( 31 8.b Open support RCC-3

- Inspection / control of oversized support steel fillet welds 32 9.a Open - Followup on cleanliness of pipe being installed 33 9.b Open - Review of system flashing procedures during preoperational inspections since flushing not planned prior to hydrostatic tests 34 10.c Unresolved - Calibration of torque wrenches and for tightening of Velan valves in pump house (flCR-5163) 35 10.g Unresolved - Question relative to the satisfactory removal of a ladder that had been tack welded inside MS-528-7.10 pipe spool 36 ll.a & 11.k(b) Deficiency - Failure to provide a procedure and/or checklist for document review of work packages 37 ll.a Deficiency - Failure of QA Manager to review records of rework that was performed subsequent to the document package acceptance review 38 ll.a Infraction - Failure to perform weld inspection as required by procedure 39 ll.a, h & k(6) Open - General review of licensee's action to assure final document reviews are properly I accomplished, including commitment to the b NRC on document review 40 7.a Infraction - Failure to comply with procedure revision requirements

. -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20134L490&oldid=3377788"