ML20203E427
| ML20203E427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1986 |
| From: | Oconnor COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203B368 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#286-298 OL, NUDOCS 8604240222 | |
| Download: ML20203E427 (389) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ ____ - _ _ _ - - -
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 1
4 5
:(
6 In the matter of: : Docket Nos. 50-456 7
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 8
[Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, ;
9 Units 1 and 2] :
10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 1 11 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 12 Three First National Plaza 13 ggg Sist Floor 14 Chicago, Illinois 15 April 2, 1986
! 16 Deposition of: JAMES J. O'CONNOR 17 called for examination by Counsel for the Intervenors BPI, et 18 al., pursuant to notice, taken before Pamela R. Briggle, a 19 Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia, when 20 21 AUN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
22 1625 I Street, N.W. 293-3950 Washington, D.C.
I r-8604240222 860415 6 PDR ADOCK 05000 T
2 1
were present on behalf of the respective parties:
I 2 3 APPEARIsNCES:
4 For the Licensee Commonwealth Edison Company:
5 MIC11AEL MILLER, ESQ.
6 Ishan, Lincoln & Beale 7
Three First National Plaza 8 Chicago, Illinois 60602 9
10 For the Intervenors BPI, et al.:
11 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
12 109 North
Dearborn,
Suite 1300
/ 13 Chicago, Illinois 60602 N 14 15 1G 17 18 19 20 21 22
3 1 CONTENTS 3 Witness: Examination by: Page:
4 JAMES J. O'CONNOR Mr. Guild 6 5 Mr. Miller 122 6
^
7 ***
8 EXHIBITS Page:
9 Exhibit No. 1:
13 10 A document entitled, "Intervenors' 11 Notice of Deposition" dated 3/4/86.
12
,,3 13 Exhibit No. 2:
19 M
14 A transmittal for inspection report 15 8205 and the accompanying civil penalty
~
16 and notices of violation.
17 18 Exhibit No. 3:
20 19 A transmittal letter for 20 inspection report 8309.
21 22
, ~ ,
</
4 1 EXHIBITS Page:
[ Continued]
A
/ 2 Exhibit No. 4: 23 3 A memo from Wallace to Cosaro 4 dated 11/29/82.
5 6 Exhibit No. 5: 31 7 A document that's identified 8 as Bates No. B-16447.
9 10 Exhibit No. 6: 69 11 Document G641.
12
,,-- 13 Exhibit No. 7: 72 2d 14 A document entitled, " Quality 15 Assurance Department 1984 Goals and 16 Executive Assessment, Meeting Minutes",
17 B-16470.
18 19 Exhibit No. 8: 83 20 A document identified as Bates 21 No. A-13091,
Subject:
"Braidwood Technical 22 Support Group Evaluation."
,k,
)
w-]
5 1 EXHIBITS [ Continued) page:
2 Exhibit No. 9: 99 3 Page 563 and the following pages.
4 5 Exhibit No. 10: 99 6 A document which appears to reflect 7 Board minutes from a meeting on 12/10/85.
8 9 Exhibit No. 11: 104 10 F-539.
11 12 13 hasl 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A
6 1
PROCEEDINGS k 2 Whereupon, 3
JAMES J. O'CONNOR 4
a witness called for examination and, having been first duly 5
sworn by the notary public, was examined and testified as 6 follows:
7 EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q Mr. O'Connor, would you state your full name and 10 your business address for the record please, sir? \
11 A James J. O'Connor, Post Office Box 767, Chicago, i
} 12 Illinois, 60690.
l 13 Q
'h And in that the company's corporate headquarters?
14 A Yes, it is.
15 Q
> What position do you hold with Commonwealth Edison
) -
16 Company?
17 A Chairman and President.
1B Q You don't happen to have brought a resume or a 19 statement of your background with you, do you?
20 A I do not, but I can get one for you.
21 MR. GUILD: Off the record a moment.
22
[ Discussion off the record.]
6 s
t >
x/
6
7 1 BY MR. GUILD:
- 2 Q Could you briefly identify your past background 3
experience and if you'd begin with your educational experience 4 please?
5 A I attended secondary school in Chicago and then vont 6
to Holy Cross College in western Massachusetts, where I 7 received my BS degree in economics in 1958. Then I received 8
my MBA degree from Harvard University in 1960, and ny JD 9 degree from Georgetown Law Center in 1963.
10 I joined the company in the fall of that year.
11 Q The fall of 1963?
3* A That's correct.
g_q 13 Q Vav Had you been employed in the electr: c utility 14 inde-*ry prior to joining Commonwealth Edicon Company?
15 A No, that was my first employment really, other than 16 the Al'.- Force. I spent three years in the Air Force, in 17 Washington, from 1960 through 1363. At the same time I was 18 attendir.g Georgetown Law School.
19 Q What work did you do in the Air Force?
20 A 1 was with the Office of Special Investigations.
21 Q What rank vid you hold when you left the Air Force?
22 A Fl.st Lieutenant.
l
8 1 Q What position was your first with Commonwealth y 2 Edison, Mr. O'Connor?
3 A I first joined Commonwealth Edison and went on what 4
they call the industrial relations payroll, which was a 5
training assignment that took me to a host of different 6
locations throughout the company for roughly a year. And it 7
included division operations, the generating stations, tha 8
engineering operations, just about every facet of the 9 company's business.
t 10 Q And what was the purpose of the training program?
11 A Orientation.
12 Q For any particular position or area of work?
13 A No ,
h_, it was really a standard orientation program.
14 Q Standard orientation for employees in what 15 particular position?
16 A For people who had come in as college graduates.
17 Q And how about your next position?
16 A I then, next, worked in the office -- as a staff 19 assistant in the Office of the chairman, J. Harris Ward.
20 Q How long did you hold that position?
21 A My recollection in it was about cix or seven months.
22 Q How about your next position?
r 9
1 A I worked as a staff assistant to the Chairman of the I
2 Executive Committee for roughly a year, I believe.
3 Q Who was that person?
4 A Morgan Murphy.
5 Q Say the first name, please?
6 A Morgan Murphy.
7 Q Next, please?
8 A I was mado Conmercial Manager of our Chicago North 9 Division. That's one of our seven operating retail divisions 10 and the commercial manager has oversight responsibility for 11 the customer service and marketing activities.
12 Q How long did you hold that position?
.,L. 13 A For about a year.
b 14 Q Your next job?
15 A I returned to the Executive Office as an assistant
~
16 vice president, again reporting to Morgan Murphy with 17 cversight responsibility for the communications areas, which 18 were advertising, news information, public relations, civic 19 affairs.
20 Q Uere you the uenior ccrpany official responsible for 21 those areas of work?
22 A No, I was not, at that time. Mr. Murphy was.
10 1 Q How long did you hold that job?
\ 2 A I was made a vice president in 1970, continuing the 3 same responsibilities until 1973, at which point I was made an 4
executive vice president and given responsibility for the 5
add nistrative arcas of the company. And they included the 6
division operations, the purchasing area, fuel, marketing.
7 And then three or fcur years later I became 8
responsible for the technical areas of the company which 9
included the generating stations, the engineering functions of 10 the company.
11 Q Did your position change at that time, your title?
12 A Not at the time thst I changed that responsibility.
[ 13 I don't believe they changed that.
I:A 14 In 1977 I was made president and retained those 15 responsibilities.
In 1980 I was made chairman of the board.
16 Q Who van chairman of the board when you became 17 president, in '77?
18 A Thoman Ayers.
19 Q How do you upell that gentleman'c last name?
20 A A-y-e-r-c.
21 Q And you, in 1980, occupied the position of both 22 president and chairman?
A
11 1 A That's correct.
2 Q In your position as executive vice president, did 3
you have any responsibility for the construction or operation 4
of the company's nuclear generating stations?
5 A Yes, I would have.
6 Q And when did you undertake that responsibility?
7 A Again, in 1976 or 1977.
8 Q At the point where you took on the technical areas 9 of responsibility?
10 A That's correct.
11 Q Can you recall what facilities you had in operation, 12 at that point you took on that responsibility? Nuclear 13 facilities?
em
'S 14 A That were in operation at that tice?
15 Q Yes.
16 A We had Drcaden, Quad Cities and Zion Station in 17 operation.
1B Q Had you been responsible, in any canner, for the 19 construction of those facilities?
20 A No, I had not.
21 Q And what facilities did you have under construction 22 at the time you assumed the position, in '76?
12 1 A LaSalle County, Byron, and Braidwood.
I 2 Q At the time you became responsible for the 3
construction of the company's nuclear generating stations, who 4
had responsibility, in the corporation, for Quality Assurance 5 for construction?
6 A Walter Shewski.
7 Q And Mr. Shewski retains that position, in that 8 correct?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q And what's his title?
11 A Manager of Quality Assurance.
12 O I neglected to introduce myself, for the record. My 13 name is Bob Guild and I represent the Intervenors on the 14 Braidwood Quality Assurance contention and I have come 15 questions for you on that cubject.
~
1G Let to show you a document that's entitled 17 Intervenor's Notice of Depositions. It's dated March 4, 1980 18 and it bearn your name, among othera. I'd ask you if you've 19 seen that before, sir?
20 A You, I have.
21 MR. GUILD: Would the court reporter mark that as 22 O'Connor Exhibit 1, please?
13 1 (O'Connor Deposition Exhibit No. 1 g# 2 was marked for identification.)
3 BY !!R . GUILD:
4 Q The notice, on the second page, principally directs 5 the deponents to bring with them certain documents. Have you 6 brought any such documents with you today? ,
7 A No, I have not.
8 Q There was a discovery request r.ade by Intervonors to 9
the company, that sought the identification of certain oral 10 and written communication by of ficero ar.1 managor, directorn, 11 with respect to the Quality Assurance issuen identified in the 12 contention. Do you recall such a question?
7"5 13 A Yes, I do.
Y 14 Q All right. And did you respond to that quantior.?
15 A Yes, I did.
16 Q The company'n response to that intorrogatory in 17 contained in a pleading that 10, I believo, nerved the 7th of 18 February, 1986. It boarn that date, in part. And it's 19 entitled Applicant'c Objections and Firnt Partial Responne to 20 Rorom's Third Set of Quality Assurance Interrogatorien and 21 Roquer+t to Produce.
22 The intorrogatory I referenced in particular in
,I
'v
14 1
interrogatory 12 and begins at page 9 of the document. The 6
/ 2 first interrogatory is reproduced on that page, and I ask you 3 if you've seen that before?
4
[ Witness reviewing document.]
5 A Yes, I have.
6 Q Scvoral pages further in, Mr. O'Connor, it makes 7 reference to you by name. It's a general answer. Have you 8
seen the company's answer to that interrogatory? Do you want 9
to tako a moment and oxamino it?
10
[ Witness reviewing document.)
11 A I do not recall the company's general answer to 12 thoso. I do recall my own answer, 13 Q r-d tu Well, why don't you describo for no how you answered 14 that request, Mr. O'Connor?
15 A Well, without totally specific recollection, I did 16 indicate that I had frequent contact with the Manager of 17 Projects and occasional contact with the Manager of Quality 18 Assurance.
It is not my habit to maintain notes nor is it ny 19 habit to maintain copien of communicationn after I believe 20 that the matter in appropriately dicponitioned or under the 21 control of comeone else in the organization.
22 Q Did you retain any notes or documenta reflocting the
/ ~'s L'
L
15 1 communications you identified?
4
/ 2 A No, sir.
3 Q The answer, with respect to you, that was submitted 4
to the interrogatory begins at page 11 and it's under the 5 heading James J. O'Connor, Chairman and President. Does that 6 represent your answer?
7 A Yes, that was part of my answer.
B Q Indeed, there's a more general that applico to you, 9
among othern, that describoc frequent communication on the 10 general subject of Braidwood Quality Assuranco no thic is, in 11 fact, only part of your answer. The document says that.
12 Counsol subsequently made available a number of
[y% 13
%d documents, Mr. O'Connor, that woro reprocented to be the 14 product of a scarch by a number of officers and managerc and 15 directors of the company for documents recponnivo to that 16 interrogatory. There arc a couplu of thom I want to ask you 17 about and a number I want to ank whether you've coen beforo.
18 First, in a docunont that'c identified by Daten 19 number B-16,470 ontitled Quality Annuranco Dopartnent 1984 20 Goals and Executivo Acacccnont Meeting Minuton. I think it 21 bears your name, an one of the attendcon. Lot me ask if 22 you've noen that document before, nir?
4
16 1
[ Witness reviewing document.]
i 2 A I have not seen this document before, to my 3 recollection.
4 Q Do you recall participating in cuch a mooting?
5 A In there a date on the document?
6 Q I don't believe there is.
7 You are referred to several times as participating 8 in the discussion.
9 A Let me try to answer the question generally. I do 10 attempt to attend the annual goals ncetings that are put on by 11 each of the . major areas that report to no. And this appears 12 as though that was such a meeting. So there in a likelihood 13 h-- that I was present at the meeting.
14 Q Are thoce generally held in January of the year to 15 which the goals are identified?
16 A Au a rule, they are held in the first quarter.
17 Q A document bearing the Daten number G-641 and 18 following pagen, bearn a date of February 28, '04, entitled 19 Braidwood Station Synopcio of Pegion III Concerna in Arcan of 20 HVAC, Electrical and Small and Large Bore Piping. It hearn 21 your nano, among othern.
22 Do you recall accing that document before?
r 17
( 1 (Witness reviewing document.)
2 A I do not recall seeing this crocific document 3 before. I think it's probably appropriate, to put it in 4 context, I receive an enormous amount of mail on a daily 5 basis, reports, status reports concerning a lot of different 6 items. I do not recall scoing this particular report.
7 Q To put my question in context, I have a very few 8 documents that bear your nate on them at all. So if there are 9 a large number of documents you get and only a few of them 10 have been made available to me and none of them have boon 11 identified no coming from you, ao consintent with your 12 testimony, so I'm going to nhow them to you and ask if you wem
'Q 13 recall seeing them, (s
14 A Fine.
15 Q I may have more detailed questions about them at a 16 later point.
17 There's a document that bears the number A-13,091 18 entitled Subject Draidwood Technical Support Group 19 Evaluation. It's a multi-paged docunent and on the last page 20 there the cignature is Miko Wallace and Jim Maley. Can you 21 examine that document and tell me whether you recall socing 22 that, pleas?
s
.-g
. ,I
l 18 1 [Uitnessreviewingdocu).ent.)
2 A I recall cocing thic very recently, because it was 3 brcught to my attention. But I did net recal? the specifics 4
of the document at the time that it was first extended to me.
5 Q How was the document brought to your .sttention, 6 Mr. O'Connor?
7 A Mr. Miller.
8 Q Your counsel?
9 A Yes, sir.
10 Q The deposition tcctitony of Mr. Wallace reflects 11 that he authored the document, transmitted it through 12 fir. Maley, who was Manager of Projects. Mr. MaleY G'dned it
/ 13
.- and he understood that it van forwarded to you.
14 A It very well tight have been. I have no specific 15 recollection of that happening at that tito. It gces back to 16
-- it appears as though sometine in the fall of 1982.
17 Q Yes.
18 A document that boara the Dates number A-12,650, 19 February 14, '05, a transmittal from Mr. Wallace to you.
20
[Uitness reviewing document.]
21 A This in a copy of an agenda f or tentings with 22 contractorc at the site. Such meetings were hold in February 2
19
- 1. of 1985. And I was at those meetings.
- . 2 Q Do you specifically recall socing the document?
3 A I think councol may have showed me this as one of 4
the items, but again I don't have specific recall of the item 5 -- of having received it at that time.
6
~
Q A document that bears the Bates stamp number of 7
A-8022 and following pages, a February 2nd, '83 letter frcm 8 Mr. Keppler of the NRC to you, sir.
9 (Witness reviewing document.)
10 A Yes, I've seen this docurent.
11 Q That is a trancmittal for incpection report 8205 and 12 the accompanying civil penalty.ind noticca of violation?
/ 13 MR. GUILD: Let me ask the reporter to mark that, h 14 please, as O'Connor Deposition Exhibit 2. If you'd provide it 15 to the reporter, Mr. O'Connor, thank iou.
16 [O'Connot Deposition Exhibit No. 2 17 was marked for identification.)
18 11Y MR. GUILD:
19 Q And a Batec stamp number of A-9056, a !!ay 7, '84 20 letter, again Mr. Ecppler to you. !!avo you noen t. hat before?
21 [ Witness reviewing document.]
22 A Yec, I have.
20 s
1 Q And that is the transmittal letter for inspection l# 2 report S309, correct?
3 MR. MILLER: I'm willing to stipulate that it, in 4 fact, is. There's nothing really on the face of this document 5
that indicates the inspection report number, but it is, in 6 fact --
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 - Q Do you recall inspection report 8309?
9 A I just recall the numbers. The numbers are 10 sometimes very confusing, but I recall the thrust of what is 11 contained here.
12 MR. GUILD: Can wo mark that, ploace, as Exhibit 3.
{} 13
[O'Connor Deposition Exhibit No. 3 14 was marked for identification.)
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 Q Let's talk about Exhibit 2, the 0205 transmittal, 17 Mr. O'Connor. How did this and its accompanying inspection 18 report come to your attention?
19 A It was cent to me by the Nuclear Regulatory 20 Commission. I would have received it in my offico.
21 Q Had you boon inforrod prior to the recolpt of 22 Mr. Keppler'n trannnittal and the 8205 inspection report,
{
\ j
21 1
regarding the inspection findings that are identified in that
['y 2 report and transmittal letter?
U 3 A I do not recall specifically having been informed, 4
although it is entirely possible that some advance notice 5 would have been made of it.
6 Q Do you recall participating in any exit meetings, 7
management meetings, or enforcement conferences with respect 8
to the inspection findings at Braidwood that ultimately were 9
published in the February inspection report 82057 10 A Yes.
11 Q Can you identify those?
12 A I can't specifically, but I do recall having e-- 13 U participated in two conferences with the NRC on or around that 14 period, one dealing with the enforcement conference and one 15 dealing with the presentation made with respect to the DCAP 16 program.
17 Q Let me ace if I can refresh your recall a little 18 bit.
The BCAP program would have been in the opring of 1984 19 and that's with respect to inspection report 8309, the second 20 of the docuronto I nontioned. 8205 principally dealt with the 21 deficiencies in mechanical equipment inatallation, 22 Phillips-Getschow and was the civil penalty -- $100,000 civil 4
~N
[V'
- a v 22 1 penalty.
r- 2 N)y 'Do you recall, with respect to the 820ii report, 3
whether you participated in any enforcement conferences or 4 exit mee' tings with the NRC?
P 5 l';91. MILLER:
It might be helpful if you sare to give 6
him the range of dates when those might have occurred?
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q Yes, the cover letter, in the first paragraph, 9
should indicate the dates and if you'd take a moment an 10 perhaps refronh your recall by reading the cover lottor?
11 A I would have to check my calendar for the specifica 12 on that.
,_ 13 Q 6 - What -- wculd you like to take a moment and review 14 the cover letter?
15 A It probably would bo helpful.
16 O Why don't you do that.
17 (Witness reviewing document.)
18 A Okay.
19 Q On review, can you toll me wheth.or you recall 20 participating in any enforcement conferencon or exit mootings 21 with the NRC on the subject of 8205?
22 A Can we go off the record for a second?
6 e
O
i 23 1
(Discussion off the record.] 49N5 t )~'1 2 l
BY MR. GUILD:
Q) 3 Q Mr. O'Connor, have you had an opportunity to check 4
on your calendar, to refresh your recall on the question of 5
your participation in an enforcement conference?
6 A Yes, my secretary has checked and she finda no entry 7 for that particular day.
8 Q All right.
9 MR. GUILD: Let me ask that a document that's 10 identified as C-1345, a memo from Mr. Wallace to Mr. Conaro, 11 C-o-s-a-r-o, November 29, '82 marked as an exhibit, please?
12 (O'Connor Deposition Exhibit No. 4 v -- 13 O was marked for identification.]
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q Could you take a moment and review the document, 16 please?
17 (Witncas reviewing document.]
18 A okay.
19 Q First, Mr. O'Connor, the document referencen a 20 subject, Meeting with the NRC on November 19, 1982. It 21 appears to comorialize such a meeting. There are a list of '
22 attendoos. Your name is not among them. You don't recall
/
1 i
I l
24 1 being present, do you?
2 No, I do not recall being present.
m s A
1 3 Q The document also references a prior meeting and 4
that was a meeting conducted, according to the document, on 5
August 31st, 1932 and it's described as an enforcement 6 conference.
! 7 A That's the same date.
8 Q That's the date you checked on?
9 A Yes, sir.
! 10 Q And you were not, to your knowledge, prosent at that 11 time?
12 A Right.
/ 13 Q Do you recall ever having seen the document that C 14 I've shown you, and that's Exh1. bit 4?
15 A No, sir. I do not recall seeing this document.
16 l Q Do you recall whether the matters that are set 17 forth in that document -- in short, the prospective NRC 18 findings, with re ,2cct to Braidwood QA deficiencies, worn 19 brought to your attention at about the time that this document 20 was written?
21 A It in likely that cortain, if not all, of these 22 matters would have been brought to my attention at some point i
D
l 25 i
1 in or around that period.
f# 2 Q Okay. Now, the 8205, if you re all, ultimately was 3
published in February of '83 and includet a citation for a 4
Level 3 violation and included $100,000 civil penalty againnt 5 the company?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q At the time of the November 19 me ting, in '82, that 8 preceded the publicatio of that docunenc, sccording to the
} 9 memo by Mr. Wallace, "A. the end of the las enforcement 10 conference - " and again, that would have bien the August 31st l 11 1
1 coeting "-- we expected to be discussing two, possibly three, 12 Level 3 enforcement actions. These would ha'e been first, qg; 13 breakdown in our Quality Assurance program as it relates to 14 mechanical equipment erection; two, failure to report that as 15 a 50.55(e) occurrence; three, material falso statement in the 16 FSAR relating to installation of steam generator supports."
17 It goes on from there.
13 Do you recall, in substance, being infor.9d of those 19 facts?
20 A I don't have specific recollection of having been
'l informed.
As I mentioned a moment ago, in all 1.Lkelihood, 22 there wo 11d have been spec communication to me cc'ncerning j,
i ?
NJ
I i
26 !
1 questions raised.
I 2 Q I'll represent to you that of the three subjects 3
that are identified there, I read from Mr. Wallace's memo, the 4
first two subjects -- and those were the mechanical equipment 5
erection issue and the 50.55(e) report issue -- were both set 6 i forth in the subsequent 8205 inspection report as a basis (or 7 the civil penalty.
8 The third item, however, the material false 9 statement matter, was not.
Do you recall being informed of 10 the potential citation for material falso statement?
11 A No, I do not.
{ 12 Q This is 1986 and this does recall considerable 13
- y. hindsight, a Level 3 violation, can we agree, is a very W 14 serious level violation for a plant under construction? Do 25 you agree with that?
)
! 16 A As nerceived by the NRC.
1 17 Q Within their scheme of things, it's a serious 18 violation?
19 A Within their scheme of things, they would classify 20 it as -- I don't know if I'd use the word serious violation --
21 and not to dance around the answer, but there is not always 22 agreement between the company and the NRC as to the severity
--m
/ /
'\ _- '
27 1 level that might be assigned.
2 Q I'm not asking you to agree, at this juncture, or to 3
take a position on the merits of their citation on any of 4 these items. I'm just asking you whether you recognize that a 5 severity Level 3 is a serious violation?
6 A Yes, it's a matter of concern.
7 Q And it's a serious violation that could, and in the 8
instance of 8205, did prompt the imposition of a civil 9 penalty?
l 10 A That's correct.
l 11 Q Are you generally aware of the NRC's enforce =ent 12 i scheme, in terms of severity levels of violations?
. 13 A
.'-- Generally, yes.
'O 14 Q Has the co=pany ever been cited for a severity level 15 violation of greater than a severity 3, to your knowledge?
16 A To my knowledge, no.
17 Q Are you aware of any utility for a plant under 18 construction ever being cited for a severity level of greater 19 than 3? 2 or 1 would be greater than 3.
20 A Not to my knowledge.
21 Q The matters that are reflected in Mr. Wallace's 22 memo, thc three Level 3s that are identified, you would agree O
28 1
that -- without taking a position on whether they were.true or y 2 not true -- those represent serious findings?
3 A They represent serious concerns.
4 Q By the NRC?'
5 A By the NRC.
6 Q Again, this is sort of in the context of looking 7 back at it from '86, were those mattes of suffic.iont 8
significance to you, in your position at the time, that --
9 first, they would have come to your attention?
t 10 A Yes.
11 Q And secondly, do you recall generally the subjects 12 of the NRC's inspection efforts that led to 8205 coming to 13
- 3. your attention prior to 8205 being published?
V 11 4 A Prior to the February '83?
15 Q Yes.
~
16 A As I mentioned earlier, in all likelihood, during 17 that time frame, that they were brought to my attention.
18 Q Then finally, the third item of the list -- that's 19 the material falso statement issue, has Edison over been 20 cited, to your knowledge, for material false statements by the 21 URC?
22 A To my knowledge, I can't recollect.
D
29 1 Q I don't believe that you have.
2 MR. h'L:.ER: I don't -- I'm trying to remember. I 3 really don't know.
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 Q Would a potential finding, that was identified to 6
managers at the level of Reed Stiede, is that the gentleman's 7 name?
G A Wayne Stiede.
9 Q Stiede, Wallace. Tramm, DelGeorge, Shewski --
10 apparently the attendees at the meeting that was documented --
} 11 would a matter involving material false statement, that was 12 brought to their attention, have been brought to your
/ 13 attention?
h 14 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the question.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 Q In the course of business?
17 A Very possibly.
18 Q You still, though, do not recall specifically being i
19 informed of a material false statement charge?
20 A From three and a half years ago, I don't. And 21 possibly with the confusion that develops from the ongoing 22 questions raised about the whole subject of material false
30 1
statement that have occurred in the last three years, with the h 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission itcelf, as to the legitimacy, as 3 to the basis. And it has been the subject of a number of 4
items recently before the group that's been reviewing the 5 enforcement policy of the NRC.
6 Q Can you explain a little bit more about what you're 7 referring to?
8 A The NRC, quite some time ago -- a year and a hal f 9 ago, I believe -- commenced a five member evaluation group to 10 review the enforcement policy of the Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission. And one of the items that received quite a bit of 12 attention was the subject of material false statement.
13
). $P And there were serious questions raised about the
[
14 method and the underlying premises of material false statement 15 and how it was enforced and the basis for enforcement as 16 presently carried out by the NRC.
17 Q Can you identify the group that was reviewing this 18 question?
19 A It was a five-member group that included Admiral 20 Wilkinson, and the other four names, I don't recall. But they 21 were apparently people who had some experience in nuclear 22 and/or regulatory affairs.
. - . ~ . , _ . _ - - __-____._.,.._..;_-_-,._..,_-.-,,,,,.-__.,,,., - - - , . - - , _ - _ - _ _ , . _ , , . - --
._ .m.
31 1 Q Were these appointed by the NRC Commissioners?
y 2 A I can't say by the NRC Commissioners, but I believe 3
it was -- the genesis of the report and of the group came from 4 the NRC itself.
5 Q Were these industry people that were doing this?
6 A No.
7 Q I will show you a document that's identified as B Bates No. B, as in Doy, 16,447 and following pages. It's 9
entitled "1983 Goals Presentation, Draidwood Station."
10 MR. GUILD:
If I could ask that that be marked as 11 Exhibit 5, please.
12
[O'Connor Deposition Exhibit No. 5 13 was marked for identification.]
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q And if you would take a moment and review that, 16 please.
17
[ Witness reviewing document.)
18 Mr.
O'Connor, we have attempted to identify this 19 document a little more particularly, and I am unable to do 20 so.
It was a subject of the examination of Mr. Maiman 21 yesterday.
22 First, do you recall seeing the document before?
32 1 A No, sir.
- 2 Q All right. Now it appears from its content and 3
according to Mr. Maiman to reflect a goals presentation for 4
1983, and you've already identified the general circumstances 5 under which those presentations are made.
6 Mr. Maiman surmised from the content that it could 7
be Mr. Shewski, the Corporate Manager of Quality Assurance, or 8
it may have been from someone in Quality Assurance at the 9 Braidwood site.
10 Can you recall first who was responsible for quality 11 assurance at the site, say in the first quarter of 1983?
12 A I know that Mr. Quaka, Tom Quaka, was a site QA g* 13 superintendent, and preceding him was Tom Sommerfield, but 14 precisely what the timeframe was, I don't recall.
15 Q Do you recall participating in a goals meeting for 16 1983 involving the Quality Assurance Department?
17 A I don't recall, but there's a good possibility that 18 I did.
19 Q Okay. Would there have been separate goals meetings 20 for the Corporate Quality Assurance Department and separately 21 the Braidwood Quality Assurance Department?
22 A There very well could have been.
33 1 Q Was that the way that the goals presentations were 2 generally made?
3 A Every organization and sub-organization within the 4
company has their own goals program as such, and it could have 5 been a component of the site organization. It could have been 6 the corporate program. I don't know.
7 Q This document was produced in response to the 8
interrogatory that I directed your attention to earlier, and 9
that was directed toward managers and officers and directors 1 10 of the company, and the only identification from the index 11 that I could find was that it came from Corporate Quality 12 Assurance.
13 Mr.
Shewski.is the Corporate Manager of Quality 14 Assurance, correct?
15 A That's correct. '
16 Q Now the document apparently reflects a discussion of 17 the 1982 and goals for 1983. The introductory sentence on the 18 first page of the document roads: "To put it plainly, 1982 19 was a tough year for Quality Assurance as well as for the .
20 Projects Departments at Braidwood," and it goes on to relate a \
21 number of problems.
22 Page 3 of the document begins a description of h
( )k ,
I
34 1 Phillips-Getschow's actions with respect to the installation I
2 of mechanical equipment at Braidwood.
3 Do you recall that deficiencies in Getschow's 4
activities in the installation and installation inspection of 5
mechanical equipment were the subject of the civil penalty and 6 the 82-05 inspection report?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Page 3 of the document in question, the '83 goals 9 presentation, reads in part: "However, Phillips-Getschow's 10 corrective efforts frequently were directed to new work 11 activities, and consequently these problems were not corrected 12 in a timely fashion. The Resident NRC Inspector detected
- , 13 these uncorrected deficiencies in mid 82. As a result, an Q) 14 enforcement meeting was held with Region III in late August, 15 and recently Edison was issued a fine for not taking prompt 16 corrective scacures and not notifying the NRC of the 17 inspection backlog when it was first identified."
18 That appears to time the document after the February 19 '83 Inspection Report 82-05 was published.
20 Continuing on page 4: "A stop-work cn new equipment 21 and hanger --
22 A Could I just interject?
35 1 Q Yes, please do.
- 2 A It was ny understanding that we were the ones who 3 identified -- and this is why the document is somewhat 4
confusing -- rather than havintf had the item with respect to 5
the mechanical equipment, the steam generator, brought and 6
found by the NRC, it's my understanding that it was identified 7 by Edison personnel.
B I beg your pardon. I don't mean to interfere with 9 your examination.
10 Q Let me continue, page 4 of the document. This may 11 correct or complete the picture.
4 12 "A stop-work on new equipment and hanger gp 13 installations was issued in early September to concentrate on '
14 achieving a current inspection status. In retrospect, Quality 15 Assurance should have placed the stop-work on new 16 installations two years sooner; however, QA allowed new work 17
! to continue in the interim, first because of the contractor's 1B commitments to correct past work, and secondly to cooperate 19 with Project Construction in moving the job ahead."
20 All right, now, as to those last points, in 21 a
substance the observation that the stop-work should have been 22 initiated by QA two years sooner and the explanations for why 1
J
. , - - + - - - - , , . . v.,--,,-.me--,,,,-.,----------,------- ------,--------------------.-----,-,--,-r, - ,--
. _ _ . . _ . - _ . _ . - . . - _ . =_ _ __ . . _ . _ _ _ ._ . _ - - _ -
l t
36 i
'/,
1
( .
it was not is where I want to direct your attentiori.'e 2
l# Has the substance of those observations by either 3
Mr. Shewski or Mr. Sommerfield or whoever was giving this 4
4 goals presentation, has the substance of those observations 5 been brought to your attention, Mr. O'Connor?
6 A No , it was not.
i d
7 Q Do you recall in point of time being informed of ..
l j B those observations at or about the first quarter of 1983?
{ 9 A No, I do not.
1 i
i 10 Q And had you been informed of those observations ,
11 before today?
1 ,
12 A No.
qgg 13 Q All right, Mr. O'Connor, then 82-05 came to your ,
14 i
attention at least as a published inspection report when the 15 letter addressed to you came across your desk, correct? t i
16 A Certainly 4
, 17 Q i
Did you read the inspection report when it came to
- 18 you?
19 A I'm certain that at the time I read the cover 20 letter, and while I don't specifically recall reading the 21
]
entire report, the likelihood is that I would have read the 22 report or much of the report.
i 1
t 1
37 1 Q Now Mr. Keppler wrote the letter and wrote it o !
j 2 directly to you. Generally, was it the practice for the 3
l i
Regional Administrator to transmit inspection reports to the i s
4 4 company?
1 5 A :
Yes, or his deputy, Mr. Davis, in his absence. '
6 Q Was it the practice of the NRC to transmit I I,
7
( inspection reports to the president of the company, to you?
i 8 A 1
It varies. It's normally either to me or to Cordell
! 9 Reed.
1 j 10 Q All right.
! Do you understand generally that reports 'r
) 11 usually are transmitted by one of Mr. Keppler's deputies, 1
and 12 i
! they are generally transmitted to an officer of the company !
! 13 who is more particularly responsible for licensing matters or i k 14 nuclear construction?
i 15 It's an extraordinary report that comes from l 16 i Mr. Keppler to the President of Commonwealth Edison Company.
17 A No, I don't think that's true.
I 18 Q Okay. So yor have seen more than simply the 1
19 extraordinary reports addressed to you, as you recall?
20 A Yes, cir. '
21 Q This one is addressed to you. On the first page of 22 the report, the substance of the findings are described by g
i
/
1 1
l l
. .- - .-- - ~ . . -. - - _ .-- _ . _ - _ -
i 38 i 1 Mr. Keppler in the second paragraph. They read: "The results y 2 of the inspection indicate serious weaknesses in your 3
management control systems, as evidenced by a breakdown in 4
} your quality assurance QA program as it relates to the 5 installation and installation inspection of mechanical i 6
.1 safety-related equipment," and it goes on to describe in
! 7 detail.
8 Did that finding catch your attention? ,
9 A Yes, it did.
10 Q All right. What action did you take when that 11 finding came to your attention?
12 A I don't recall specifically, but on that I can 13 speculate that I would have talked to Mr. Rood, who is i lek i 14 4
generally present at most enforcement conferences, for the 15 background and also to Mr. Maley, who was the Project Manager 16 at that time, to try to translate the letter into what it l 17 meant.
18 Q 1
I know you said you didn't recall specifically, but
- 19 reflect on the matter for a moment, and can you tell me i
- 20 4 whether or not you took -- how prompt your response was to the
! 21 letter?
l 22 MR. HILLER:
I object to the form of the question.
1 I
i l
i 4
~ , ..e--,,_w.. -- -
,_,.,..-.,.-,,m%- . . , , . , _ _ . _ , _.-m . - - . - - , - -,-, . ,. -*,_ _.-..m,,,--- ..,--,- ,- m --g.,-,..--wr,,, , , . ~ . - r,
39 1 Do you mean his written response?
v 2 MR. GUILD: No. No.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q Whatever actions you took. If you can't recall them 5 specifically, can you recall whether you waited until the next 6
biweekly managers' meeting, or did you act that day, or did 7 you act the next day?
8 A Depending on where I was at that time, and I don't 9
recall the precise day that the correspondence would have 10 arrived, ny tendency is to act very promptly.
11 Q okay. Do you recall in this instance?
12 A I do not recall in this instance.
13 Q What position did Mr. Reed hold at the time, 14 February of '83?
15 A He was Vice President in charge of Nuclear
~
16 Operations.
17 Q And he still holds that positien?
18 A Yes, he does.
19 Q Exhibit 4, the Wallace memo of the November 19th 20 enforcement conference, indicates that Mr. Reed was among the 21 attendees.
22 Do you recall discussing, after the publication of O
40 1
82-05, the subject of the violation with Mr. Reed?
2 A I do not recall specifically having done that. But 3
again, as I just indicated, it's likely that I did.
4 i
Q Do you recall discussing the subject with j 5 Mr. Shewski, the Corporate Manager of Quality Assurance?
6 A I do not recall specifically discussing it with him.
7 1
Q Mr. Shewski's deposition testimony reflects ,
8 generally -- and I don't have the document in front of me, but j 9 I'll attempt to paraphrase it; perhaps Mr. Miller, who was
! 10 i
there, can jump in if I'm mischaracterizing -- he recalls 11 fairly distinctly meeting with ycu shortly after this
- 12 inspection report. I don't know whether he used the words l
13 "being called in on the carpet," but that's at least the sense 14 I got from Mr. Shewski's description of events. You wanted to f, 15 know what was wrong and why this happened and were fairly ,
16 1
direct with him in trying to get to the bottom of it.
17 Accepting that as a general representation of what 18 Mr. Shewski recalls of a meeting, does that refresh your 1 19 recall at all? I 20 A It doesn't, although it is possible that that could
- 21 have happened. I conduct an open-door policy, and there are a !
i 22 great many quick meetings that are called, that are directed i
~
i 4
)
i
,, - , - - , , , - - , , . .- --, - - - - ,-.-. .-.. , - - n-.-.-. n. - -
,,,,.,- -- ----..- ,. ~----- ,-. --
41 1
at an attempt to resolve issues concerning the company.
I 2 I think perhaps in this instance, it may have come 3
as a surprise somewhat, because generally it's been the 4
practice of the NRC to invite cc and encourage me to attend 5
enforcement conferences where they have a particular concern 6
and normally try to adopt and adapt their schedule in a way 7 that accommodates mine. And this instance, I don't recall 8 that happening.
9 So I think the question of NRC concern in this case, 10 notwithstanding the two enforcement conferences that have been 11 hold, did not reflect the depth of concern that they might 12 have in other instances.
/ 13 p,s Q Okay. That's your conclusion on the basis of not V 14 having been invited to cit down with them on the matter?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q What action, if any, can you recall being undertaken 17 as a result of the 82-05 civil penalty findings?
18 A I believe it was in or around that timeframe, either 19 before or after the issuance of the letter, that Mike Wallace 20 was assigned as Project Manager at Braidwood. In addition, to 21 confirm the QA clement, arrangements were made to have Gene 22 Fitzpatrick assume the position of Assistant Manager of
42 1
Quality Assurance with oversight responsibilities for quality N
2 assurance at Braidwood. And then I think commencing about
]
t 3
that time were efforts to develop a verification program of l 4 the quality of the plant, which ultimately became the
! 5 Braidwood Construction Assessment Program.
l 6
{ Q Can you recall what the scope or subjects of that i
7 verification program were at the time of the 82-05 inspection
)
8 report?
l j 9 A At the time, we had no doubt that there was a j 10 perception by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning the 11 adequacy of documentation concerning some of the hardware 1
12 items. .
j !
13 We believed, and from what I could judge at that 14 j i time, strongly in the quality of the construction at the site, 15 notwithstanding deficiencies, but the overall quality we l 16 believed to be sound. Yet we felt then in a period of 17 , heightened expectations on the part of the NRC and a very 4 18 l rigorous program, that it was essential that we develop a 19 program that would give them the same confidence in the i i 20 quality of the plant that we have. 21 Q Does that completo your answer? . 22 A Yes. And to provide in the proccus whatever i j s
+
) !' 43 1 manpower and resources were necessary to achieve that result.
- i. ,
fff 1 2 Q The point of my last question was whether you recall 3 j the scope or subject matter of the reverification program at the time of the 82-05 inspection, 4 i 5 BCAP is latter. At this point, we're talking about 6 I ] Phillips-Getschow mechanical equipment. Do you recall what, ! 4 7 if any, action was taken that was in the nature of a i E reverification program at that time? i 9 A 2 In terms o.t action taken, I recall that we had an ! 10 1 opportunity at or about that time to secure some people who 11 had worked with Morrison Company at LaSalle in the area of 3 12 piping, and it was suggested, and I don't recall by whom, that q 13 having just come off the LaSalle experience, that they could 14 enhance the management of the piping installation, mechanical l 'i equipment installation. 16 Q okay. Did you participate in any of the decisions 14" to replace any management at the Braidwood site? 18 A No, not that I recall. l 19 l Q Were you informed of any such decisions? l 20 A Yes. 21 Q By whom? 22 A Again, I don't recall the timing specifically, but
44 it was possibly Jim Maley in that time period. i 1 i 2 Q Okay. The two actions that you identified initially l' 3
-- Mr. Wallace's assignment an Project Manager and
~
1 4 Mr. Fitzpatrick as Assistant Manager of Quality Assurance -- 5 taking the first one first, Mr. Wallace as Project Manager, j i 6 can you explain why that action was taken? 7 A i Prior to the time that he had assumed ) 8 responsibilities as Project Manager for Braidwood, he had l 9 1 served as Assistant Manager or Assistant to the Manager of j 10 Projects, Jim Maley, whose responsibilities encompassed for ' 1 11 the most part in that timeframe Byron and Braidwood. 12 5 Reporting to both of them was Vern Schlosser, who j{J 13 was the Project Manager for both Byron and Braidwood. And it
- s.
14 became increasingly obvious that it was very difficult for ono 15 person to cover as extensively as we would have liked, and in 1 16 his interest as well, both projects. And so we had Vern stay 17 with the Byron project as the Project Manager and asked Mike, 18 while retaining his title as Assistant Manager of Projects, to 19 also become the Project Manager for Braidwood. 20 Q Had you identified any deficiencies in 21 Mr. Schlossor's performance as Project Manager for Braidwood? 22 A No. O
45 1 Q The second action you identified was that of placing 2 Mr. Fitzpatrick as Assistant Manager of Quality Assurance at 3 Braidwood. Why was that action taken? 4 A Once again, to underscore in everyone's mind the 5 importance of quality assurance, the heightened concern that 6 the NRC had expressed, and to put a senior corporate level 7 person onsite who had an enviable reputation from his prior 8 assignment as the developer of our training programs. 9 Q Did you understand that Mr. Fitzpatrick had had any 10 prior quality assurance experience? 11 A I don't recall that. He had a reputation in the 12 company as a very strong manager. 13 p Q Had you identified any deficiencies in Mr. Shewski's 14 work performance, Mr. Showski, the Corporate Quality Assurance 15 Manager, with respect to Braidwood? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q There were a number of other management changes that 18 were made over a period of time at Braidwood. The Project 19 Construction Superintendent, Mr. Cosaro, was replaced with 20 Mr. Shamblin, correct? 21 A That 's cor rect. 22 Q All right. Did you participate in the decision to 4 l
_ - - - - ~ _ _ _ _--- . 46 1 take that action? 2 A I don't recall participating in the recommendation 3 at all. Clearly, I was informed that that was being done. i 4 4 Q All right.- Were you informed of any deficiencies in 5 Mr. Cosaro's work performance as Project Construction 6 Superintendent? i I i 7 A 1 I wouldn't characterize them as deficiencies. Wo 8 had a situation where we had a Construction Manager who had an 9 enviable reputation as a constructor -- 10 Q Mr. Cosaro, you're speaking of? 4 11 A Mr. Cosaro, who had boon the Construction Manager i 12 for our Zion Station, and was highly respected. At that 13 particular time, we were in the process of winding down the
- 14 !
activities at LaSalle, and Dan Shamblin, who had worked at 15
; LaSalle and was considered extremely capable, moved over to ,
16 assist in the construction activity at Draidwood. t l 17 i He also had a very clear understanding of NRC i 18 requirements and expectations, having come so recently from a 19 i plant that had gone through the licensing process, and over i 20 time, our company has had a history of not necessarily keeping
- 21 people in positions forever, that certain jobs are very 22 pressure-packed and very gruelling, and we do try to move r
(~Ns i 4
47 1 people, and lots of different circumstances dictate when those i
< 2 moves might be made.
3 In the case of Cosaro and Shamblin, Shamblin had the 4 background of LaSalle, and it would be very hard to maintain 5 two people who are very close in terms of their stature on the 6 site. The job that Cosaro went to was a very important job in 7 our fossil station area. He is responsible for the 8 construction of a number of our stations. And these jobs take 9 a great deal out of people, and it was not at all unusual to 10 bring somebody new into an assignment. 11 Q I take ,our answer then, in short, to reflect that 12 --
- 13 A I'm sorry to have been -- <yr 14 Q No. It's appreciated. And I don't mean at all to 15 cut you off, and I'm not trying to do no by trying to 16 summarize.
17 But do I fairly understand that Mr. Cocaro's 18 replacement by Mr. shamblin was not reflective cf the 19 identification of any deficiencies in Mr. Cosaro's work 20 performance? 21 A No. As I indicated, I felt that Mr. Cocare was a 22 very strong manager. Obviously the perceptions by some at the /s (v/ e
48 1 NRC with respect to the timeliness of actions, with respect to 2 his timeliness, but in my judgment, Cosaro was a first-rate 3 construction person who had not had the opportunity to have 4 had as much exposure as recently under the intensity that the 5 NRC had focused on Braidwood that Shamblin brounht so recently 6 from LaSalle. 7 Q In addition to the changes so far identified, I 8 understand that Mr. Sommerfield, who was the senior quality 9 assurance person at the site, was replaced by Mr. Thomas 10 Quaka; is that correct? l 11 A Yes. I don't recall the precise time, but that is 1 12 correct. 13 Q All right. Were you involved in the decision to 14 take that action? ! 15 A No. I was informed of the decision, and I don't 16 recall by whom, but I assume it was Jim Maley. 17 Q All right. Are you aware of any deficiencies in 18 Mr. Sommerfield's uark performance in the quality assurance 19 position at Braidwood? 20 A No, sir. 21 Q Are you aware of changes made in the management at 22 Braidwood involving site contractorn at about this time; that b
. -~. . . _ _ - - _-. __. . - _. - _ - _- .- .___ - - . - - - -
i 49 l 1 is, after or while 82-05 was pending? gM 2 A As I mentioned earlier, I was aware of -- and I'm 3 not certain that I recall precisely the timeframe -- but I was , 4 aware that we brought some people on who had been with
- 5 Morrison at LaSalle.
6 Q And they replaced -- 7 A For the Phillips-Getschow. ' 8 Q Yes, Phillips-Gotschow. 9 Are you aware of any deficiencies identified in the [ 10 work performance of the Phillips-Getschow management at ' 11 Braidwood? 12 A I was aware that one of the concerns revolved around
,g- 13 the installation of certain mechanical equipndnt that Getschow i
14 was alleged to have participated in. l'3 Q Those were NRC questions. But my question really i 16 goes to whether you were aware of any deficiencies identified ,
- 17 within your company by you or others in the work performance i
18 of the Phillips-Getschow management at Braidwood? i 19 A I don't recall. 20 Q There were changes made in the management of the i 21 electrical contractor, L.K. Comstock, b'oth on the project 22 construction side and in the quality assurance / quality control l i _ _ . . _ __.__.m. _ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
e 50 1 side. 2 Were you involved in any of those decisions? 3 A No, I was not.
- 4 Q All right. Are you aware of any deficiencies that
} 4 5 were identified in the Comstock Braidwood site management? 6 A No. 1 7 Q Are you aware of any deficiencies identified in the 8 Pullman, the heating, ventilating and air conditioning 9 contractor site management? 10 A No, not to my recollection. 11 Q And lastly, were you aware of any deficiencies i 12 identified in the work performance of G.K. Newberg, the - i ggp 13 structural contractor's site uanagement? 14 A Not specifically. 15 Q Back to the summary findings that are reflected in 16 Mr. Keppler's February 2, 1983 cover letter to 82-05, which is 17 Exhibit 2. Again, the second paragraph of page 1: " Serious 18 weaknesses in your management control systems as evidenced by 19 a breakdown in your quality assurance QA program as it relates c l 20 to the installation and installation inspection of mechanical l 1 21 safety-related equipment. " 4 { 22 Do you agree that there were scrious weaknesses in I
!6 i
4,> . . . , . . . , - - - , _ , _ . . - .
-,---.,-,..g.... , n.-..,_- - , - - , . - . - - - , - , , , - - , ~ ~ . , . . , - - - , , . , , - - - - . -, --.~.,nn - w- . - - - . . -
51 1 the Edison management control system at Braidwood? 2 A No, I do not agree. 1 3 Q Do you agree with the conclusion recounted by l 4 Mr. Keppler that there was evidence of a breakdown in your -- 5 I take that to mean Edison's -- quality assurance program as 6 it relates to the installation and installation inspection of l 7 mechanical safety-related equip =ent? I 8 A No , I do not agree. Again, I think we were the ones 9 that identified the situation, and the pdrpose of the quality 10 assurance program is to serve much as an auditor does in a ;
- 11 financial institution or in another activity. I do not 12 l
l believe that the situation at that time warranted that kind of 13 conclusion on the part of the NRC. l 14 Q Do you believe, Mr. O'Connor, that the Edison 15 quality assurance program identified deficiencies in the area
~
! 16 of mechanical equipment installation and installation 17 inspection in a timely fashion? 18 A This would have been in the period somewhere in 1980 ! l 19 to '82, and timeliness is a judgment, I believe. l Apparently 20 the NRC did not think we responded in as timely a fashion as l 21 we should have. In light of the fact that the unit itself was l 22 evolving from a construction stage where there were a whole i l
52 1 series of checks and balances yet to be conducted, arguably
?.
# 2 you could quarrel with the question of timeliness; but the 3 perception that the NRC had that we weren't timely was 4 encugh, in my judgment, to warrant intensified attention at 5 the site.
6 Q Well, do you have a judgment on that question, 7 Mr. O'Connor, the question being was the Commonwealth Edison 8 Company quality assurance program identification of 9 deficiencies in the mechanical equipnent area timely? 10 A I think it enters iato an area where you could say, 11 or I could say that it could have been more timely, but the 12 deficiency wasn't such that it would not have been resolved in m 13 g%f, a timely way to do those thi?.gs necessary to assure the 14 quality of the components that needed to be tested and where 15 approvals needed to be sought. 16 Q It was timely enough, in your judgment? 17 A I would have preferred that things be as timely as 18 possible. Was this as timely as possible? Perhaps not. But 19 was it in such a way untimely to represent a conclusion that 20 there was a breakdown of the program? In my judgment, no. 21 Q You may have e,nswered this point in substance. 1 22 Aside from the timeliness of the identification of { l [~'y i v
, 53 l 1 deficiencies, in your judgment were such deficiencies 1 h 2 corrected in a timely fashion? Again the subject being 1
3 mechanical equipment installation. 4 MR. MILLER: I really think the question has been 5 asked and answered, but go ahead. 6 BY MR. GUILD: 7 Q Your answer may not differ from what you have 8 already said, and I apologize for repeating myself. 9 A That's all right. Again, I thin'k that's a judgment 10 call, but knowing our system in quality assurance with 11 the checks and balances and knowing the state of construction 12 and the evolution taking place at that time, in my judgment, () 13 not perfect and not the ulaimate that I would'have hoped for, 14 l but not untimely in the sense that it was a degradation of
- 15 quality assurance.
l 16 Q okay. i { 17 I Did'you, Mr. O'Connor, undertake any inquiry or 18 investigation to determine the validity of the findings 19 reflected in Mr. Keppler's February 2, 1983 letter with 20 respect to Inspection Report 82-05? 21 A I don't recall specifically other than I am certain 22 that I would have instructed Jim Maley to get to the bottom of O
54 1 what was contained in this letter. At the same time I, in all 2 likelihood, would have asked either Wally Behnke, to whom Walt l# 3 Shewski reported, er Walt shewski himself for an appraisal of 4 what was contained in the letter. 5 Q can you identify Mr. Behnke, please? 6 A Mr. Behnke is vice chairman. 7 Q At the present time? 8 A He was then and is now. 9 Q And what are Mr. Behnke's area of responsibility? 10 A Mr. Behnke has the financial area of the company, 11 1 and through the first part of 1984, the quality assurance 12 manager reported to him. p 13 Q And thereafter who did tno quality assurance manager 14 report to? 15 A To me.
~
16 Q And he does today? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Do you recall whether, assuming such an inquiry was
)
19 i initiated through Mr. Bohnke or Mr. Shewski, there was a { 20 written product that you reviewed? 21 A I do not recall a written product. . 22 Q But you recall an oral result or product?
d 55 1 LA I don't recall specifically. 2 Q I will show ycu a document that bears a Bates stamp 3 of A1808 and following pages. It is an April 4, 1983 Edison 4
'decument, a letter to Mr. Keppler from Mr. Cordell Reed. It's 5
on the subject of 82-05. I believe the substance of it will 6 reflect that it's the Company's response to G2-05, to the 7 Notice of Imposition of Civil Penalty. 8 I want to ask, Mr. O'Connor, whether you recall 9 reviewing that response before it was transmitted to the NRC. 10 [ Witness reviewing document.] . 11 A I don't recall specifically. This was a little over 12 three years ago. 13 Q Yes.
,Y._ In the course of the Cc:apany's business at the l 14 time, would it have been the practico for you to have reviewed 15 such a document prior to its transmittal to the NRC?
16 A If not reviewed, clearly I would have had the 17
\
contents summarized for me. 18 Q At the time -- ngt:i n, the document is April of '83 19 -- did Mr. Reed have the authority to communicate the 20 Company's po'sition to the N11C without your express 21 authorization? 22 A Yes. J
56 I 1 Q And does he have that authority today? , ( 2 A Yes. 3 Q I handed you a document earlier that has been 4 identified as Exhibit 3. It's a May 7, 1984 transmittal E from Mr. Keppler to you, Mr. O'Connor. It forwards Inspection 6 Report 83-09. I believe your testimony was that you recalled 7 seeing that at the time. 8 A Yes, I'm quite certain I would have. I don't 9 recollect specifically, but I'm quite certain that I would 10 have. l 11 Q 1 I The document transmitted a notice of violation and 12 l an inspection report which identified a number of items of 73g 13 noncompliance. sud It is described as a special quality assurance 14 program inspection conducted over a period beginning June 20, 15 1983 and extending through February 9, 1984 at the Braidwood
~
16 station. 17 The purpose as stated in the cover was to asscos the 18 offectiveness of the quality assurance programs, the piping, 19 electrical, HVAC contractors. The second page of the document 20 from Mr. Keppler states in part, "The major factors 21 contributing to the deficiencies were inadequate contractor 22 programs and workmanship, inadequate Licensee reviews of the 4
57 1 contractor programs, and inadequate Licensee quality assurance
'f 2 overview to assure contractor activities met all requirements.
3 "The violations indicate the need for more 4 aggressive CECO management involvement in and support of the 5 CECO QA program to assure that all safety-related activities 6 performed by contractor personnel are in accordance with 7 regulations, codes standards and license requirements." 8 l Were the substance of those findings brought to your 9 attention at the time of the inspection report, do yor ecall? 10 A I don't recall specifically, but as I indicated 11 before, in all likelihood I would have read the cover letter. 12 Q You have indicated that with respect to 82-05, but e-- 13 Tg your belief is that you road the cover letter for 83-09 as 14 well? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Do you recall whether you read the inspection report 17 that accompanied that document? 18 l I A I don't recall specifically. 19 Q Now, do you agree with the conclusion stated by 20 Mr. Keppler that the major factors' contributing to the 21 deficiencies that are identified in 83-09 were inadequate 22 contractor programs and workmanship? Let's take those in l
,7
58 1 turn. There are several elements there. But do you agree that
/ 2 inadequate contractor programs and workmanship was a factor 3 contributing to the deficiencies?
4 A No, I do not, particularly in the area of 5 workmanship as I view the Braidwood station in its 6 entirety. Again, in a project of this size and magnitude, 7 where you have people and programs involved, you are going to 8 generate deficiencies, but at no time did I ever think that 9 the overall quality of the plant was compromised or the 10 ability to prove up the quality of the workmanship in 11 question. # 12 I do agree that a major effort was undertaken by the 13 various contractors to add to their quality control programs 14 to again nake certain that we went the extra mile in assuring 15 the quality of the plant, and again, going the extra mile to 16 do a timely review and full documentation on the work being 17 done. 18 Q The second element that's identified by Mr. Kepplet 19 with respect to the cause of the deficiencies is stated as 20 inadequate Licensee quality assurance overview to assure 21 contractor activities not all requirements. Do you agree with 22 that conclusion? 4
==
59 1 A Undoubtedly, that was a perception that the NRC had,
/ 2 with which I didn't necessarily agree. I happen to believe 3 that you can always seek perfection and that should be the
- 4 goal, and at that point in time, significant efforts were 5
being made by all the contractors to focus on their quality 6 control activities. j 7 Q I'm focusing on the point of Licensee overview, and j 8 that would refer, I take it, to the Commonwealth Edison 9 Company. 10 A At the same~ time, yes, we increased the size of our 11 quality assurance team at Braidwood. 12 Q Do you agree with Mr. Keppler's conclusion that the 13 83-09 deficiencies were caused by inadequate Licensee V 14 overview? 15 A No, I do not.
~
16 Q Finally, Mr. Keppler observes that "The violations 17 indicate the need for more aggressive CECO management 18 involvement in and support of the CECO QA program to assure" 19 et cetera. Do you agree that there was a need for such more 20 aggressive Edison management involvement and support? 21 A Again, the perception of the NRC was that more
- 22 aggressive management involvement was desirable, and we have i
b
,-,--n--,m .,_,,--,,----ma ,----.,ww-+_-.--n -,,--,----,--,--,.-n--- ,-y_,- -,,, - r_,_,,m ,w m., , , , ,,,n-
60 1 tried to be responsive to their concerns whether we agreed. 2 with them or not if we felt that they had a concern. I do 3 believe that we had an aggressive quality assurance overview s 4 on the site. 5 Q Do you believe that there was a need, in your 6 judgment, for more aggressive Edison involvenent and support 7 of quality assurance at Braidwood? 8 A We added additional people to make certain that we 9 gave it as much coverage as we possibly could. I think again 10 that's a judgment matter, and in large part our effort was to 11 be responsive to a perception that the NRC have and leave no 12 stone unturned in trying to persuade them and have them have 13 confidence in the quality of the plant. 14 Q Aside from addressing a perception, do you believe 15 that there was a need for more aggressive Edisen management
~
16 involvement in and support of Braidwood QA? 17 A I'm not certain that there was a need for it, no, 18 but we gave it even more aggressive effort. 19 Q Did you undertake any . reviews or investigations, 20 Mr. O'Connor, or were they undertaken by others, to your 21 knowledge, to determine the validity of Mr. Koppler'n ' 22 observations that we have just been discussing in 83-097 I hw U
r 61 1 A 83-09 is the -- 2 Q This one. 3 A I'm sorry. 4 Q The May 7, 1984 inspection report. 5 A This is outside the company? 6 Q No, any at all. Are you aware of any reviews or 7 investigations undertaken to determine the validity of 8 Mr. Keppler's conclusions that are reficcted in the May 7, 9 1984 transmittal letter we have just been discussing? 10 [ Witness reviewing document.] 11 MR. MILLER: Dob, maybe if we could take a small 12 break? 13 MR. GUILD: Oh, sure, h___ 14 THE WITNESS: You mean after I answer? 15 MR. MILLER: Go ahead and answer the question, and 16 then we will take a break. 17 THE WITNESS: I'm trying to remember the timofrano, 18 and I don't remember precisely at what juncture we had a 19 change of managers of projects, sonowhere in that period. 20 BY MR. GUILD: 21 Q Let me see if I can refresh your recollection. You 22 attended an enforcement conference tiarch 7, 1984. 1
C2 1 A Okay, I do recall that, t
/ 2 Q And I believe Mr. Maiman'c testimony of yesterday 3 reflects that he became canagar of projects in the 4
February-March, 1984 timeframe. On that basis, can you recall 5 whether an investigation or review was undertaken on the 6 subjects that Mr. Koppler identified? 7 A Yes, and that would have been what led to the 8 development of the Braidwood construction assensment program. 9 P.R . GUILD: Okay. Why don't we take a break. 10 (Recess.) 11 BY MR. GUILD: 12 Q Just before the break, Mr. O'Connor, you had 13 h/ responded positively to a question regarding the conduct 14 of a review or investigation respecting Mr. Keppler's 15 conclusions in the 83-09 inspection report reficcted in his 16 May 7, 1984 transmittal letter. 17 A Yes. 18 Q And could you identify such reviews er 19 investigations and describe them for me, please. 20 A We undertook at that time to develop the Braidwood 21 Construction Assessment Program, known as BCAP, which was a 22 verification effort of the work being done at the plant to A
63 1 determine the quality. 2 Q Aside from BCAP, and I'll speak about that in l l 3 a moment, did you conduct any reviews or investigations to ! 4 determine the validity of Mr. Keppler's conclusions that are 5 reflected in the May 7, 1984 transmittal letter, particularly 6 the paragraph that I just had reference to? I believe it's 7 the top of page 2. 8 A I don't recall specifically, but there was an 9 ongoing interactive process with the contractors and on site 10 that I'm quite confident was a review of the matters 11 discussed. 12 Q You expressed your judgment about the validity of 13 the conclusions Mr. Keppler made moments ago. Was there a 14 review or investigation that led you to reach those 15 conclusions?
~
16 A Subsequent to May of 1984? 17 Q Or during the course of the inspection that led to l 18 that report. 19 A I think two things gave me some confidence as an 20 overview. One was the consistent high praise that the f 21 independent firm who conducts the management audit of our ! 22 quality assurance activities gave the performance of our t .
64 1 quality assurance department, and this in also placed in the f 2 perspective of an overview of the programs of other 3 utilities. In addition to that, there was a review of the 4 construction program conducted by the Institute for Nuclear 5 Power Operations, I believe in the 1984 timeframe. That 6 again, based on the conclusions reached by the team leader, 7 characterized the site as above average among those sites that 8 had undertaken INPO evaluations. 9 Q Can you identify a little more particularly the 10 independent audit of the QA Department that you had reference 11 to? 12 A The gentleman who conducts that, his namo is Robert gp 13 Ferguson, and the firm in -- I would have to got the namo of 14 the firm for you, but it's out of Idaho -- Idaho Falls, Idaho, 15 I believe, and they have traditionally dono a managemont !.sudit 16 of our quality assurance ovorview activition, and tho , 17 individual who conducts that, Mr. Ferguson, has consistently 18 regarded the Edison QA program as among the very best if not 19 the very best in the country, and han so informed me. 20 Q Do you know whether or not that or those aadito of 21 the QA program have been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory 22 Commission?
65 1 I do not know that. A 2 Q Does Mr. Ferguson and his firm conduct an audit of 3 Edison management more generally than a QA department? 4 A It's an audit that extends over a few weeks, and ' 5 it's a team that looks at the corporate QA as well as the 6 implementation of corporate QA standards in the field, whether 7 : in operating stations or stations under construction. 8 Q I guess the point of my last question was do they do 9 a general Edison management audit or is it limited to QA? 10 A I'm sorry. I didn't understand that. It's limited 11 pretty much to QA, with a flywheel effect on the overall 12 nuclear operation, but it doesn't go beycnd that. 13 Q And is its focus the quality assurance from nuclear 14 construction and operation? 15 A
~
Yes, as opposed to fossil plants; that's correct. 16 Q And how frequently has such an audit been performed? 17 A Generally annually. 18 Q And would the report of that audit come to your 19 attention? 20 A Yes, it would. And it's generally complemented with ' 21 .- l a meeting that I have with the project managor. l 22 Q With Mr. Ferguson?
l i i 66 1 A That's correct. t 2 MR. GUILD: Mike, do you know whether or not such 3 : a document has been made available? 4 MR. MILLER: I believe that they all have insofar as ! 5 they relate to Braidwood or the general corporate QA, but we ! r 6 could verify that for you. I 7 MR. GUILD: I would appreciato it if you could help 8 me identify it, and if not, identify -- 9 MR. MILLER: We will. 10 MR. GUILD: Thank you, l 11 BY MR. GUILD: i 12 Q One of the documents that was previously a portion 13 of an exhibit to Mr. Maiman's deposition is identified as 14 Group Exhibit 2, and it is a subpart of the documents that 15 were identified in response to the interrogatory regarding 16 management communication. One of the documents that was
- 17
! identified by Mr. Maiman bears a Bates number of F508 and ! 1 18 l following pages, handwritten notes of what Mr. Maiman 19 identified to be a biweekly manager's mooting. Are you 20 familiar generally with those mootings? ! 21 A Yes, I an. 22 O You are a participant? l l t
67 1 A I normally chair those acetings. 2 Q And according to Mr. Maiman, he described them as 3 meetings which include managers of the company, and he was 4 included at the time as the manager of projects. This was a 5 December 1984 meeting. At that time, the note, which 6 apparently -- there are notes of the meeting that wore 7 prepared, I understand, by Mr. Graves, I believe is the 8 gentleman's name -- do you know Mr. Graves? 9 A Yes. 10 Q lie was a participant in the mooting as well? 11 A Yes, he would have boon. 12 Q Those are excerpts from his notes that relate to tho e 13 subject of Braidwood quality assurance on this document in 14 particular, apparently reflecting a December 10, 1984 15 meeting. There is a note as follows: "INPO conducting ~ 16 construction ovaluation," and then it notes four items. Among 17 those four items is item number 4, which is noted as 18 " harassment of QC personnel." 19 Do you recall any discussion of INPO evaluation of 20 the subject of harassment of QC personnol? 21 A I do not recall that as a specific subject of that 22 mooting.
~
68 l 1 Q Do you know whether or not INPO conducted an 2 evaluation on that subject, harassment of QC personnel? 3 A I do not recall. 4 Q Do you recall whether or not INPO reached any 5 findings on-the subject of harassment of QC personnel? L 6 A No, sir. ' 7 Q While we are on the samo document, there's an , 8 additional note that appears to road, "Draidwood Friday Pres" 9 -- and I take that to mean presentation to NRC - "on BCAP 10 well received but be careful not to" -- and this word was 11 translated by Mr. Maiman as " ratchet into full reinspection." ! 12 The initials TJM appear by the note. Mr. Maiman explained his l 13 understanding that that apparently reflected a presentation he 14 made. 15 Do you recall, either at such a meeting or under
~
16 other circumstances, Mr. Maiman or others making the i 17 observation in substance that BCAP should not be ratcheted 18 into a full reinspection? 19 A No, I do not. 20 Q Do you have any opinion on why BCAP should not be 21 ratchoted into a full reinspection? 22 A I don't, and I can't speculato as to what Stan i
69 1 Graves meant by that note.
. s
[~9 ' 2 Q I will paraphraso again Mr. Maiman's deposition of ij 3 yesterday. I think ho stated ho didn't recall whether he made 4 that comment at this meeting but he did recall having made a 5 comment in those words or in that substance to that effect on 6 a number of other occasions. Do you recall Mr. Maiman making 7 such a comment to you? 8 A Not specifically. 9 Q Mr. O'Connor, what, in your opinion, were the causes 10 of the deficiencies that were identified by the NRC Inspection 11 Report 83-09 that are summarized in Mr. Keppler'c May 7, 1984 12 transmittal letter?
,m 13 A I don't recall specifically.
14 Q Do you have any general or specific recollection of 15 the cause of those deficiencies?
~
16 A I don't recall specifically. 17 MR. GUILD: Let's mark Document G641 and the 18 following pages the next exhibit for identification, please. 19 (O'Connor Deposition Exhibit No. 6 20 was marked for identification.] 21 BY MR. GUILD: 22 Q Mr. O'Connor, I believe you stated you do recall
\ l
70 ! 1 4 4 attending an enforcement conference that took place March 6, I l 2 believe, 1984 on the subject of tho 83-09 inspection report? 3 A That's correct. 4 Q The document you have in front of you appears to 5 be, by its cover, a memo to you among others preparatory to 6 that enforcement conference. 7 A Yes, I assume so. 8 Q Can you -- if it helps, take a moment and refresh i 9 your recall from that document -- can you on that basis, then, ' i 10 tell me what you recall of that enforcement conference? 11 A If it's the enforcement conference that first set 12 forth the general thoughts for the BCAP program, and I believe l 13 that is what it was, I recall that the mooting want several 14 hours at the NRC Region, and there was a lot of discussion 15 about a great many details.
- 16 Q All right.
17 A In an attempt to scope out the verification program 18 and to try to determine whether or not tho stops propound '- 19 would provido the NRC with assurance that the matters were 20 being addressed and, in turn, would give them the confidenco 21 in the quality of construction. 22 Q All right. What was your role in the onforcement i i l
71 1 conferenct? 2 A g I was a participant, but I was not a presenter. 3 Q And in what respects did you participate? 4 A In trying to assess the comprehensiveness of our 5 program and whether it mot -- whether it was responsive to the 6 NRC's concerns. 7 Q You are speaking of the BCAp program? 8 A That's correct. 9 l Q Can you recall in substance what you said at the 10 mooting? 11 A On substanco, I can't, other than my -- I'm cortain 12 ! that I indicated that the Edison Company would exort every
/ 13 effort to verify the quality of construction of the plant and 14 would take whatever steps were casantial to achieve that.
15 Q Do you recall discussing at that meeting the
~
16 question of w. ether or not a 100 percent reinspection effort 17 of safety-related installations at the plant should be 18 undertakon? , 19 A I don't recall that opacifically. 20 Q Do you recall connidoration at any timo, in thin 21 mooting or outsido the mooting, of the quantion of conducting 22 a 100 percent reinspection of cafety installations at the
72 1 Braidwood Station?
/2 A I don't recall that specifically.
3 MR. GUILD: Can we mark, please, as Exhibit 7 for 4 identification a document beginning B-16470. It's entitled 5 " Quality Assurance Department 1984 Goals and Executive 6 Assessment, Hooting Minutes." 7 [O'Connor Deposition Exhibit No. 7 8 was marked for identification.] 9 BY MR. GUILD: 10 Q Mr. O'Connor, I showed this to you before. It shows 11 you as an attendee among others, and your name crops up 12 through the course of the document, reflecting comments and 13 participation. 14 Can you first identify, please, the attendeos by 15 position? Who is Mr. Thomas? 16 A Mr. Thomas in Executive Vice President with the 17 responsibilities for the operating generating stations and the 18 technical activitios of the company? 19 Okay. Q Mr. J.W. Johnson? 20 A J.W. Johnson is Vice President for Engineering, and 21 his span of control includes the company's focuil stations, 22 its electrical engineering, its mechanical engineering, b ..
73 1 nuclear engineering, and the operational analysis area and the 2
/
Transmission and Distribution Departments. 3 Q Okay." And Mr. Maiman has been identified in the 4 record. 5 Mr. Kleinrath? 6 A Mr. Kleinrath is Manager of Construction. 7 Q Does he have responsibilities in the nuclear area? 8 A Yes, in an indirect -- in a functional way, he does. 9 Q Can you identify what responsibility Mr. Kleinrath 10 has for construction at Braidwood? 11 A He really assists the construction component of the 12 Project Management Group, advises them and really just 13 k~),, interfaces with them, but does not have direct responcibility, 14 Okay. Q Mr. Gravos? 15 A Stan Gravos is the Division Vico Procident for 16 fLasil stations or coal and oil fired stations. 17 Q Hr. Gallo? 18 A Donny Gallo is the Division Vico Presidont for our 19 nuclear stations, operating stations. 20 Q L.C. Bird? 21 A Les Bird is in our construction area and reporta to 22 Mr. Kleinrath.
! 74 I 1 Q Okay. Mr. DolGoorge has boon identified. ! f"' 2 Mr. Wandko, W-A-N-D-K-E7 ! (_)y 3 A Norman Wandko is Assistant Vice President in the 4 nuclear area. 5 Q Does he have responsibilities in the nuclear 6 construction ares? 7 A No, he does not, not directly. 8 l Q QA participanto, Mr. Showski and Mr. Marcus have I 9 boon identified. l l 10 Mr. J.S. Bitol, B-I-T-E-L? 11 A Jack Bitel in the QA Hanager for operating nuclear 12 plants. 13 Q Mr. Fitzpatrick has boon identified.
'O 14 Mr. Studtmann?
15 A Henry studtmann in a manager in the quality 16 assuranco area, although I don't believo his activition are 17 directly related to construction activition. 18 Q All right. Mr. Quaka and Mr. Hunnador have boon 19 idontified on the record. 20 K.J. Hanaing, H-A-N-S-I-N-G7 21 A I don't know the dato of the document, but Kon 22 Hanning wan the QA nito individual at Dyron, who procontly in
_ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . ~ _ _ l 75 1 gS in the corporate QA area and has some overnight ;
' 2 responsibilities for construction.
f 3 Q All right. i D.A. Hamilton?
.s.
4 A I don't know him. [ l 5 Q A. Saller, S-A-L-L-E-R? 1 i 6 A I don't know him. l 7 Q All right. I 8 A Mr. Palagi is in the Quality Assurance Corporate t 9 Department. I don't know what his specific responsibilities ( 10 are. 11 Q P.F. Hart? ! 12 A Also he's in the Quality Assurance Department, and I 13 khI believe his responsibilities are corporately for fire i i 14 protection. ; ! i 15 Q QA observers, there are a number of individuals ! 16 ! 1 1 identified. M.A. Stanish? i 17 A Again, Stanish and Basil Harl and John Jokerst and 10 Jim Fancher all have varioun ansignmento in tho QA corporato I 19 Dopartment. , 20 Q All right. t 21 A i l I can got you tho opocific dution they havn. 22 Q Do you recall whethor any of thom have construction II . 1 111 1 .n-__ -____-__.____a___-,-
I 76 1 quality assurance responsibilities? v 2 A Basil Harl, again I don't know what date that is, 3 has -- I believe had construction QA experience. 4 Q Okay. 5 A But the others, I'm not curo. 6 Q All right. I believo your earlier testimony was 7 that you don't recall seeing the document, Exhibit 7. 8 A If those are the minutos of -- is that what they 9 are, minutes? 10 Q That's what they are purported to be. 11 A I do not recall sooing those minutes. It's unlikely 12 that I would ever son minutoc made by the department. 13 Q All right. And do you recall participating in the 14 mooting that's reflected in those minutes? 15 A l I do not recall, you know, the preciso participation
~
16 in that mooting. 17 Q All right. The first pago han you -- Mr. Marcus 18 l made a presentation; Mr. Quaka made a procontation. It staton 19 then, "Mr. O'Connor asked how many of the Conam, C-o-N-A-M, 20 personnel from LaSallo woro going to Draidwood Station." 21 Do you know what the word "Conam" refera to? 22 A I don't recall specifically. l 1 l l u
1 77 Okay. r 1 Q Page 5 of this document, there is the t F 2 reflection of a talk by Mr. Bitel. It says, "Following j 3 Mr. Bitel's talk, Mr. O'Connor asked for details on 4 Braidwood's reluctance to get started on the implementation of ! 5 the QA program. Mr. Bitol explained that Braidwood Station, 6 j which is acting as a job shop for construction, proforred to l j 7 use Speed Letters or memos, rather than implement the work 8 4 request system which is part of.the Edison QA program." 3 i 9 All right, now, first do you recall that discuccion? I i 10 A No, I do not. L J 4 j 11 Q Do you have any knowledge of the substance of the i 12 , ) i point that is referred to in those meeting minutos; that is, 1 13 g Braidwood's reluctance to got started on the implementation of j
] 14 the QA program?
15 A No, I don't, and I really don't know what the writor 16 i meant by those words, because it scoms to be contradictory to i 17 what I have generally folt. I I 18 Q All right. ! I have no more information than you do, , 19 i Mr. O'Connor, so I'm afraid I can't help to clarify. ) 20 MR. GUILD: Off the record. !
; 21 !
j (Diccussion off the record.)
} 22 I
l i u l i i
i l l 78 1 BY MR. GUILD: 2 J
'f Q We had a little off-the-record discussion trying to 3
understand the context of the statomont that I've asked you 4 about, and besides from speculating about its import, you havo l 5 no further knowledge of what the statomont means or reflects? l 6 A No. But based on having just road the item, it does 7 not appear to bear on construction as such. 8 Q All right. 9 MR. GUILD: Again, Mr. Miller, if thoro is any way 10 of tracking thoso documents to their source to help clucidato 11 what the substance of the document coans, such as by going to i j 12 the author, that would be a help. 13 MR. MILLER: I acknow3cdge your observation. 14 BY MR. GUILD: 15 Q All right. Page 10 of the same document, 16 Mr. O'Connor, takes up the subject of BCAP in part. The 17 second' paragraph notes a report by Mr. Fitzpatrick, and again 18 Mr. Fitzpatrick had boon assigned to the Draidwood sito as the 19 Deputy or Assistant Director of Quality Assuranco. 20 A Assistant Manager of Quality Assuranco. 21 Q All right. The minutou reflect as follows: 22 "Following Mr. Titzpatrick's report, Mr. DolGoorgo noted that O
79 1 Mr. Hunsader had tied QA activity to the BCAP program. He 2 asked exactly what relationship QA's activities would have to 3 the Projects Department activities with respect to this 4 program. There was an extended discussion among 5 Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Maiman, and others regarding the proper 6 function of quality assurance with respect to this program. 7 There was general agreomont that additional discussion would 8 be necessary in another forum, and Mr. O'Connor also agreed 9 that that would be appropriate." 10 All right, now, first do you recall the discussion 11 at this meeting of that subject? 12 A I don't have any specific recollectio'n of that 13 discussion at that meeting. 14 Q All right. Do you recall -- do you have any 15 knowledge of the substance of the matters that are reficcted 16 in that portion of the minutos, paragraph 2 on that pago? 17 A At the risk of speculating somewhat, I believe it 18 dealt with the reporting responsibilities for the BCAP program 19 and the QA activity within the DCAP program, and what finally 20 resulted was the establishment of a BCAP program under 21 Mr. Kaushcl with sito QA reporting to tho project management 22 at the same timo that arrangomonts wore made to engage a b
i 80 1 Mr. John Hansel, who was a noted quality assurance engineer. l 2 to report to Tom Maiman. 3 So we wanted to be certain that we had independent } i 4 verification of the ongoing activities at the site.
! 5 Q And that independent verification was from i
6 Mr. Hansel and his people? 7 A 4 Yea, over and above, although we always stressed the 8 independence of the QA function, whether onsite or within tho 1 j 9 envelope of the BCAP program.
; 10 Q Are you aware of a recommendation by the NRC, the 11 Regional Office in particular, that the BCAP program should 12 report directly to you, the Procident and Chairman of the ggp 13 company?
i 14 A
\
I recall como discuccion concerning where the 15 function should report, and wo wanted very much to mako 16 , certain that wo had the independent oversight that Mr. !!ansel j 17 provided, and I believe that, in our judgment certainly, that 18 gave us the chock that we felt it was important to have to j 19 satisfy any concern that the NRC might havo had. i j 20 Q Why didn't the DCAP program report directly to you, j 21 Mr. O'Connor? 22 A Again, I have the Project Manager reporting to me,
81 1 l the Manager of Quality Assurance reporting'to me, plus a wido hf 2 scope of other activities. BCAP was a very intense effort 3 that required daily oversight, and my, job occasionally takes 4 me out of town or is involved in other activities, and for tha 5 day-to-day implementation of BCAP, we wanted individuals who 6 could give immediate answers and be immediately responsive to 7 whatever it was on BCAP's mind. 8 Q And your judgment was that you would not be 9 available for such a level of responso? 10 A Perhaps not on an instant's notice or to give the 11 full time and understanding that the BCAP program, in its 12 detailed way, would require.
- ggp 13 Q Are you aware of any disputes or disagreements or -
14 conflict between BCAP quality assurance and the BCAP task 15 force during the implomontation of the BCAP program? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q Mr. O'Connor, what consideration, if any, was given, 18 to your knowledge, to the une of an indopondant third party to 19 conduct the quality reverification program at Draidwood? 20 A We felt we provided that through engaging Mr. llancol 21 in that effort. 22 Q Mr. Hansol and his people constituted tho l l l l l
82 ' 1 independent expert overview group, correct?
- +
f 2 A That's correct.
\
3 Q Their responsibility was not the performance of the 4 BCAP program but an overview functior., correct? 5 A That is correct. 6 Q Are you aware of there being any consideration of
\
7 use of an independent third party to perform the 8 reverification program itself? 9 A I don't recall that specifically, although within 10 the BCAP organization, there woro people employed from third 11 party entities outside the Edison Company who supported that 12 effort. i 13 Q Okty. qgg You don't recall yourself participating in a l 14 discussion of utilizing a third party to conduct the BCAP 15 program itself? 16 A I don't recall that specifically. 17 Q Do you recall discussing the appropriate role for 18 the third party in DCAP? 19 A John Hannel? 20 Q Yes, Mr. Hancol. ! 21 A ! It was to ascuro ouroolves that the -- to my 22 l recollection, that the procons, the nothodology, and tho I l - i
83 l 1 campling were appropriato in an undertaking of this sort. 2 This was a unique, first-of-its-kind kind of effort, and we 3 wished to have the servicds of sonebody who had great stature 4 and credibility in the quality assurance community, and 5 Mr. Hanrol possessed that, and he reviewed, on a regular 6 basis, the development of the BCAP program paraneters, 7 sampling techniques, and what have you, and then served as a 8 monitor on the ongoing program. 9 Q Okay. In what respects was BCAP unique or a 10 first-of-a-kind effort? l 11 A i To my knowledge, there had not been anything on this 12 l scale, as comprehensive a program, undertaken to verify the l 13 quality of a plant. 9 14 Q Within Edison or with the industry are you speaking? 15 A clearly within Edisun, but also, from my knowledge, 16 within the industry. 17 MR. GUILD: Let's mark as the next exhibit, please, 18 a document that's identified as Bates No. A-13091. It's 19 entitled on the first page, "
Subject:
Braidwood Technical 20 Support Group Evaluation." 21 [O'Connor Deposition Exhibit No. 8 22 was marked for identification.]
84 1 BY MR. GUILD: 2 Q I asked you to identify this document earlior, and 3 as I recall, your testimony was, Mr. O'Connor, that you had 4 seen it, but only recently. f 5 A That's correct, althotgh I may have seen it 6 earlier. I don't recollect seeing it earlier, but I have seen 7 it within the past week. 8 Q All right. Do you rectll in 1982 Mr. Wallace being l l 9 assigned as the Braidwood Project Manager? 10 A Yes, I do. 11 Q All right. Do you recall being informed that 12 Mr. Wallace had undertaken a review of the adequacy of the p 13 r
, program's of the site contractors at Braidwood shortly upon 14 undertaking the task of Project Manager?
15 A I don't recall what his specific charge was, but I 16 do recall that he was asked to make a thorough review of the l 17 project. 18 Q All right. The deposition testimony by Mr. Wallace 19 reflects generally that he undertook such a review, that the 20 product of that review was a report by a group that I believe 21 is given a name in the document that you have here. 22 A Technical Support Group.
85 1 Q Yes. And that a final report was published. That
~
{ s 2 is not the document you have before you. What you have before 1 3 you is Mr. Wallace's summary of a report yet to be I 4 forthcoming. Mr. Wallace's testimony, again, was that he 5 submitted it to Mr. Maley, then Manager of Projects, for whom 6 Mr. Wallace worked. Wallace and Maley, in turn, trancmitted
\
7 the summary to you for your information. 8 A Which I don't recall, but there's a strong 9 possibility that that's true. l
)
10 Q Okay. And Wallace's and Maley's signatures appear 11 on the last page of the document. 12 Now at that point in the document, there is a $ i 13 portion that is entitled " General Summary Comments." h 14 Do you recall in substance being informed in the 15 fall of 1982 of the following observations: "There are areas
~
16 of work" -- and this is the first bullet - "with each of the 17 major contractors -- Newberg, Getschow, Comstock, and Pullman 18
-- which documentation practices and procedures require 19 upgrading?"
20 A l I don't recall specifically that, but that had been, l 21 I believe, a concern expressed by the NRC, and I can't l 22 quantify that. 1
86 1 Q okay. The second bullet reflects: "There are areas /s ( ,/ 2 within each of the major contractors which will require 3 retrofit inspection in order to establish an adequate level of 4 documented quality verification." 5 Do you recall in substance being informed of that 6 finding by Mr. Wallace and his people? 7 A I don't reca!.1 specifically. 8 Q All right. The third item is: "There is an overall 9 attitur*.e and approach to QA/QC onsite (e.g. staffing levels, 10 the importance of QC activity, et cetera) which needs to be 11 raised to a level consistent with current acceptable and 12 expected p; actices." (fgp 13 Do you recall in substance Hr. Wallace and his 14 people informing you of that finding? 15 A I don't recall that specifically. 16 Q Fourth: "With a high level of confidence, we know 17 our problems," emphasis on that last phrase by Mr. Wallace and 18 Maley, "and shortcomings at Braidwood. We are developing 19 specific plans," emphasized, "for responding to each area of 20 concern." 21 Were you informed in substance of that observation? 22 A I don't recall that, but I assume that they would do )
i l 87 l 1 that, if that was the rationale behind -- one of the i
'N ~ 2 rationales behind having Mike Wallace go to the site -- it !
3 would be to do a total revien and determine what needed to bc t 4 done. 1 5 Q All right. The next item is: "A ranking of the 6 contractors on the basis of most serious present problc2 ,treas ] 7 and the effort required to correct them would be as follows: i 8 Phillips-Getschow, Newberg, Comstock, and Pullman." 9 Do you recall in substance being informed of that 10 assessment by Mr. Wallace and his people? 11 A I don't recall specifically, although, as you know, 12 we did have meetings with the contractors throughout 1984, l 13 1985, to continue to underscore the area of quality. 4 hh
; 14 Q The next item: "If the NRC moves in a worst case
{ \
! 15 direction with regards to what action results from the eight"
-- it appears to be mistyped; it reads, in fact, "81/82;" it 16 i i
17 should probably be 8/31/82 - " enforcement conference, then 18 our overall risk exposure is not small." 4 19 Do you recall in substance being informed by 20 Mr. Wallace, Mr. Maley, or his people of that observation? . 21 A I don't recall that. 22 Q All right. Finally, the observation reads:
"We are i
88
'l in control of our situation at Braidwood and moving ) 2 expeditiously to improve it. We know what is needed to reach 3 the ' acceptable' level, and in general we know what it will 4 take to get there."~'
5 Did Mr. Wallace and his people inform you of that l 6 finding? 7 A I don't recall specifically, although as I have 8 indicated, they did report on where they felt the concerns 9 were, the perceptions were, and the progress being made to . 10 address those. But in specific answer to that point at that 11 timeframe, three and a half years ago, I don't recall. i 12 Q Well, let me, then, direct your attention again to a / 13 couple of the points that appear, to my reading in any event, 14 to be the more serious observations. 15 The first one is the ites that's third in the list, 16 "an overall attitude and approach to QA/QC onsite which needs 17 to be raised to a level consistent with current acceptable and 18 expected practices." i 19 Do you recall being informed in this timeframe, the l 20 fall of '82, that there were deficiencies in the attitude and ( 21 approach to QA/QC at Braidwood? 22 A Not specifically, but this was subsequent to the O I
]
89 1 enforcement conference of late August of that year, and v 2 clearly we understood heightened expectations that the NRC 3 had, and in appreciation of that, I could understand why such 4 a comment would be made. 5 Q Well, now, the context again, as I understand -- and 6 tell me if I'm misperceiving -- this is Mr. Maley and 7 Mr. Wallace, not the NRC -- it's your people that you assigned 8 the task of finding out what the problem was that the NRC was 9 perceiving, and we have Maley and Wallace saying apparently to 10 you, at least as they recall or Mr. Wallace recalls, that 11 there's a problem with the attitude and approach to QA/QC. 12 I guess my point is, do you recall understanding at 13 the time, again the fall of '82, / that there was more than M 14 simply a perception problem by the NRC, that there was a 15 problem in the attitude and approach of the QA/QC organization
~
16 at Braidwood? 17 A I do not recall that. 18 Q All right. Now the other item I would like to 19 direct your attention to is the observation about the NRC. 20 Do "ou recall in substance being informed of an 21 assessment by Mr. Wallace, Mr. Maley, or anyone to the effect 22 that if the NRC moved in a worst case direction that "our,"
90 l . 1 meaning apparently Edison's, "overall risk exposure is not 2 small?" 3 A I don't recall that specifically, and I can't l 4 speculate on what the writer would have meant by that comment, t 5 but we do try to be conservative, and we do try to assess the ! 6 absolute downside on regulatory ar;tions. And I can't say l 7 specifically what he would mean by the worst case scenario; I , ! 8 don't know. l
- 9 Q Well, without regard to what Mr. Wallace and 10 Mr. Maley meant or what this memo says, what at the time, the 11 fall of '82, Mr. O'Connor, did you understand Edison's risk 12 exposure to be with respect to NRC action at Draidwood?
i 13 A In the fall of '82, again it follows the August j 14 enforcement conference and the revealing of concerns that the 15 NRC had. I was unaware of any specific action that the NRC 16 was contemplating with respect to Braidwood. But based on the 17 perceptions that they held of us at that time, it was clear 18 that we needed to do everything possible to try to verify the 1 19 quality of that plant. 20 Braidwood is important. Every major project that we 21 are involved in is important. 22 Q During the course of the construction of Draidwood, 5*
b 91 1 Mr. O'Connor, have you identified any deficiencies in your l# 2 access to information with respect to Quality Assurance 3 deficiencies at Braidwood?
.s.
4 A I don't mean to rephrase your question, but if I 5 might, I assume you're asking do people have any difficulty in 6 accessing me with information concerning -- 7 Q Either from their perspective or, more particularly, 8 from yours is what I'm interested in. Have you identified any 9 deficiencies or weaknesses inj'our lines or sources of 10 information regarding Braidwood Quality Assurance? 11 A No. 3
- 12 Q Have you made any changes, with respect to your 1
{p 13 sources of information regarding Quality Assurance at t 14 Braidwood? 15 A No. I mean, there have been people added over time, 16 but in no way does that suggest that the normal and ordinary 17 sources haven't been a conduit for information.
- 18 Q An adequate one, in your opinion?
19 A In my judgment, yes. 20 Q To what degree have you informed the Commonwealth 4 21 Edison Board of Directors of Quality Assurance deficiencies at 22 the Braidwood Station? r i . ' Y i l i i
92 1 A The Board has twice visited the Braidwood Station,
/ 2 which is unusual to take a Board to a station for a meeting.
3 But in order for them to see firsthand and to hear ! 4 presentations firsthand from the key participants onsite, I 5 felt that to be important. 4 2 6 So they've had two opportunities to visit the site i 7 and be exposed to the management on the site. S Q Can you recall when those meetings were? I show -- 9 A One was last fall. 10 Q Yes, September 4, '84 is the date that I see in my 11 notes. 12 A And I don't recall, the other one was -- I don't ; q 13 recall the date. 14 Q Do you recall what year? 15 A I can get that information for you, but I don't know 16 the precise date. 17 Q I interrupted you, I'm sorry. 18 A In addition to that, we have had discussions about 19 the progress at Braidwood and have identified to the Board 20 those areas where concerns have been expressed by the llRC. 21 Q Do you recall ever informing the Board of the 22 substance of the observation that Mr. Wallaca made in
~
i JjLa 4 l
93 1 Mr. Maley's meno, that they understood was sont to you? That f 2 is, at the point when the NRC was identifying the 8205 3 problems, that there was a risk exposure to Edison that was -- 4 in Mr. Wallace's language -- not small? 5 A I don't recall that. 6 I might say, also, that I'm not sure I understand 7 what he would have meant by that. 8 Q Do you recall informing them about the subject of 9 risk exposure to Edison from NRC action at the point prior to 10 the 8205 inspection report? 11 A I don't recall that. 12 Q I have several excerpts from Board of Directors j' 13 meeting minutes, reflecting what appear to be reports by you h 14 to the Board on the subject of Braidwood. Can you explain how - 15 the minutes _of Board meetings are compiled? 16 A They are compiled by the Secretary to the company, 17 Mr. Wisiol. 18 Q And are those minutes approved as an accurate 19 representations of conduct of business at a subsequent 20 meeting? ! 21 A Yes. 22 Q And on occasion, are amendments made to the minutes l D
94 1 to make corrections, to provide the minutes be accurate and s 2 complete? 3 A On occasion, yes. 4 Q Do you review the minutes prior to their approval at 5 the subsequent meeting? 6 A Generally, yes. 7 Q I'm referring to a document that's part of those 8 produced in response to the interrogatory about communication 9 on the subject of Braidwood Quality Assurance. It's a portion 10 of a document that's been identified as Maiman Group Exhibit 2 11 for identification. 12 This particular document has a Bates number of F-563 ( 13 and following pages. The first is entitled Synopsis of M 14 Minutes of Meeting of Board of Directors, March 1, 1983. 15 Help me understand the format first. The first page 16 I have appears to be an excerpt and under the heading Other 17 Matters, it states, "Mr. O'Connor reported that - " and 18 there's a very brief summary of the subject of your report. 19 The second page appears to be a cover page 20 reflecting the directors in attendance and the date of the 21 meeting, the calling to order by the chairman, et cetera. 22 A Right. O[
95 1 Q And then the next page, again, is an excerpt from
~
j 2 what appears to be a presentation that you made on the subject ' 3 that's identified on the first page. In this case, finds by 4 the NRC against Edison. 5 In terms of just the format of the minutes, 6 Mr. O'Connor, what does the first page represent? 7 A I'd have to see the full minutes, but I assume that 8 this is a summary page. E Q Is there generally a summary page presented with the 10 minutes? 11 A It can vary but I don't understand this. 12 MR. MILLER: Let me just state, for the record, that 13 obviously the minutes dealt with many subjects that the Board 14 considered, beyond the specific request that Mr. Guild made on 15 behalf of his clients. And the versions that were turned over 16 to him were limited to those issues or those matters that were 17 responsive to his request. 18 We can tell you what the format is. 19 MR. GUILD: That would be a help. And it doesn't 20 need to be done now. It's just for purposes of context, to 21 understand what I'm looking at. 22 MR. MILLER: We can do that. 1 J"%
96 1 MR. GUILD: I have no quarrel with excerpting them 2 to limit it to this subject, but I just want to understand the f# 3 context. 4 BY MR. GUILD: 5 Q Again, then, on page 2, appears to be the minutes- of
- 6 the substance of the presentation that you made to the Board.
7 Aside from other matters, because it's referenced 8 operating facilities as well, there's the statement "In recent 9 weeks, the company has received a series of fines from the 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The first, a proposed $100,000 11 fine for Quality Assurance violations at Braidwood Station." 12 That appears to be the sum and substance of the gp 13 minutes of your presentat on on that point. Do you know 14 whether or not, in fact, you presented any additional 15 information to the Board on the subject of the $100,000 civil 16 penalty at that time? 17 A I don't recall specifically. However, it's highly 18 probable that I made additional comments concerning it. 19 Q Was there any record made of any other comments that 20 you would have given the Board on that subject? 21 A No. ' l 22 Q Does anybody take stenographic transcription of 6
- - , - , m._---- . y --m ,. .-----.--,-r-, __.--~-...,~,7----- y.y , y , - - - - - . -
97 1 what's said at a Board meeting? f 2 A No, and that's not common, as you know. 3 Q Does anyone make notes of what's said at a Bcard 4 meeting? 5 A Not to my knowledge. 6 Q Do you know whether or not any of the directors 7 present at the meeting in question, the March 1, '83 meeting, 8 made their own notes of what you said on the subject of 9 Braidwood Quality Assurance? 10 A Not to my knowledge. 11 Q Do you know whether any such notes were sought in 12 the efforts to identify documents responsive to our discovery 13 request? 14 MR. MILLER: Mr. O'Connor can answer it, but -- 15 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge. 16 MR. MILLER: I will tell you that, through the 17 Secretary of the corporation, requests were made to the Board 18 members. 19 Excuse me, may I just clarify, while we're on this? 20 MR. GUILD: Sure. 21 MR. MILLER: Does Mr. Wisiol take notes as he is 22 sitting through the meeting? y i
98 1 THE WITNESS: I don't know. k "1 2 MR. MILLER: Okay. 3 THE WITNESS: I'm sure he must take some notas, but i 4 the degree to which he does in following the agenda, I don't 5 know. 6 BY MR. GUILD: i 7 Q Do you know whether Mr. Wisiol, the Secretary who is 8 responsible for the minutes, has any other source of I 9 information on which the minutes are based? Aside from his 10 notes? 11 A No, I don't believe he does. 12 Q Do you recall whether you informed the Edison Board g 13 of the findings by Mr. Koppler that are reflected in the h 14 transmittal letter to the 8205 inspection report, particularly 15 the finding to the effect that there had been a Quality 16 Assurance breakdown in the area of mechanical equipment 17 installation? 18 A I don't recall that. 19 MR. GUILD: Let's mark 563 and the following pages } 3 20 as the next deposition exhibit and, for the record, what I'll j 21 do is I'll maintain them in the form in which I have them and 22 then supply the reporter with the appropriate documents. 6 I
. --. . - .= - - . _ - - = - - - - _ _ _ - ~
99 1 What number is that? J 2 MR. MILLER: 9. 3 (O'Connor Deposition Exhibit No. 9 4 1 was marked for identification.] 5 [Brief recess.] 2 6 BY MR GUILD: 7 Q Mr. O'Connor, let me show you another excerpt from 8 what's been previously identified as Maiman Group Exhibit 2, 9 excerpts from the documents reflecting management 10 communication. 11 This particular document begins with page F-574 and 12 appears to reflect synopsis of Board minutes from a meeting
, 13 December 10, 1985.
M 14 MR. GUILD: If I could ask if that set of minutes be 15 identified as the next hearing exhibit, that's Exhibit 10. 16 (O'Connor Deposition Exhibit No. 10 17 was marked for identification.) 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe that's what it is. 19 BY MR. GUILD: 20 Q- And again, the first page appears to be a summary 21 page reflecting the subject of something which you told them 22 on -- I l J
100 1 A December 10.
/ 2 Q December 10, right. And the page following the 3 cover page, reflecting the attendees at the Board meeting, and 4 the following page, the substance of what you told the Board.
5 And again, was Mr. Wisiol the secretary who prepared the 6 minutes that reflect the December 885 meeting? 7 A Yes, I assume that he was. 8 Q He held the position of Secretary at the time? 9 A Correct. He's so identified on the preceding page. 10 Q Now the two subjects, generally, that are identified 11 there; one is the results of the Braidwood Construction 12 Assessment Program; and the second is your assessment of the m-- W 13 Intervenor's Quality Assurance contention, in that correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And does the description on the first subject -- 16 strike that. 17 Does the description contained in the Board meeting 18 minutes accurately reflect your presentation with respect to 19 that first subject, the BCAP results? 20 (Witness reviewing document.] 21 A Yes, it does. 22 Q And does the Board minutes accurately reflect your 6
101 1 presentation.to the Board on the second subject, and that is i { lll# 2 your evaluation of the Quality Assurance contention? { 3 MR. MILLER: I object to the form of the question. 4 Go ahead and answer. a 5 MR. GUILD: If there's a -- 6 MR. MILLER: It's just that it's really not an j 7 evaluation of the contention, as such. That's my -- 8 MR. GUILD: Let me restate the question then, to try ! 9 to cure that problem, if we can. 10 BY MR. GUILD: 11 Q Does it accurately reflect your presentation to the 12 Board on the subject of the amended Quality Assurance
;g j 13 contention?
14 A Yes, I believe it does. 15- Q Do you participate in any meetings conducted with 16 Sargent & Lundy management, regarding Braidwood construction? 17 A Yes.
-18 Q Beginning with Bates number F-529 there is a series 19 of documents, Mr. O'Connor, the cover of which on that page is 20 identified Sargent & Lundy Byron /Braidwood Project Meeting, 21 May 3, 1985?
i 22 A Yes. ' l i
. . _ . = _ -__ - - .. . _= - ..- _ - __ - . - . . . . - _ . . . _ _ - - - - - .
4 102 i l 1 Q Were you in attendance at such a meeting? i -- 2 A I can check to see if I was. I don't know.
- 3 Q Take a moment and look at the documents and see 4 if those refresh your recollection?
I 5 (Witness reviewing document.) 1
- 6 A I don't recall specifically if I was here, but I 1
j 7 have been present as similar meetings where the discussion i 8 centered around the work being conducted by Sargent & Lundy i i 9 and items still to be addressed. I' 10 Q How frequently are such meetings conducted, if you i 11 know? c 12 A My recollection is that they're probably about f 13 quarterly, perhaps a little less frequently. I can't tell you O 14 for sure, but they're -- T 15 Q Do you know where they're customarily conducted? 16 A They're customarily held in our boardroom. I 17 Q At Edison?
! 18 A That's correct.
i 19 Q Again, I don't know the source of these documents by { 20 specific person. Generally, these documents came from Edison 21 officers, managers or directors. Page F-539 was appended to i 22 that cover. It has a date of 11-16-84 at the top of the 4 .) J 1 i
103 1 page. It's entitled Sargent & Lundy BCAP Concerns, Valid 2 Discrepancies. 3 Under that there are two entries. Originally 4 estimated, and there'is a sign that I take to mean 5 approximately, 600-1,000. Below that is the term projected, 6 and there is the symbol for approximately, and the number 7 10,000 appears by that. 8 Do you recall a Sargent & Lundy-Edison meeting at 9 which the subject of the S&L review of BCAP concerns was 10 discussed? j 11 A I don't recall specifically, no. 12 Q Do you recall, in substance, being informed by 13 Sargent & Lundy or by others that there had been an original 14 estimate of in the order of 600 to 1,000 valid discrepancies 15 but that at about trovember of 1984, Sargent & Lundy projected ~ 16 on the order of 10,000 valid discrepancies? 17 A I do not recall that specifically and I'm not 18 certain, in this context, what they mean by discrepancy. 19 Q Do you understand what a discrepancy is, as the term 20 is used as a term of art in the Braidwood Construction 21 Assessment Program? 22 A flot specifically. l
r 104 1 MR. GUILD: Let's mark F-539 as the next exhibit, lf# 2 please. 3 [O'Connor Deposition Exhibit No. 11 4 was marked for identification.] 5 MR. GUILD: Go off the record. 6 [ Discussion off the record.] 7 BY MR. GUILD: l 8 Q Mr. O'Connor, you recall that there was a Board of l 9 Directors meeting at the Braidwood Station. I cce by a 10 document that it appears to have been conducted September 4, 11 1984? Is that the first meeting you had reference to, at 12 Braidwood? p 13 A I believe it must have been. I don't recall the 14 specific date. 15 Q Do you recall a presentation made by Mr. Wallace on 16 the constructlan status at Braidwood at that time? 17 A I don't recall specifically, although if the Board 18 was there and he was the Project Manager, it is very likely 19 that he would have made a presentation. 20 Q As part of the documents attached under that ! 21 heading, that is construction status by Mr. Wallace, there 22 appears to be an outline, under subject 3. It's Bates number i i
105 l 1 F-557. It's entitled Quality First Program and then there's 1 2 an outline of a presentation. 3 Do you know what the Quality First program in? 4 A Just in general. It deals with an effort to 5 interview people who have -- who are working or who have 6 worked with the site, to determine if they have any concerns 7 about the quality of the construction. 8 Q The note that appears at that page, with respect to 9 that subject, is as follows: " Program is both pro-active and 10 reactive." And it lists four bullets under that. The first 11 is quality awareness; the second is management policy, labor 12 support; the third is baseline interviews to identify 13 concerns; and the fourth is exit interview program. M 14 llow do you understand the ter=s pro-active and 15 reactive, as they are used to describe the Quality First 16 program? 17 A That it's an effort that is committed to not wait 18 for someone to come forward with a suggestion of a problem, 19 but rather to actively seek out -- by posing questions and by 20 conducting an aggressive approach, to try to determine if 21 anyone has concerns about the quality of construction. 22 Q All right. 9'
106 1 A And in the event that that's the pro-active side, on s 7 2 the reactive side if there are concerns that might have been 3 developed through the course of interviews or the developnent 4 of baseline data, that an immediate investigation would be 5 undertaken to get to the root of those concerns. 6 Q Were you involved in the establishment of such a 7 program, the Quality First program, at Braidwood? 8 A I was not specifically involved but I clearly 9 endorsed the concept. 10 Q Do you recall authoring a policy com'orandum that was 11 circulated at the site on the subject? 12 A I recall authoring a memo dealing with the quality
,ym 13 policy on Braidwood.
W That was sometime within the past year, 14 I surmise. And I recall discussions concerning the Quality 15 First program and the importance that I wanted the people on 16 the site, representing both Edison and the contractors, to 17 understand that I personally attached to the program. 18 Q Have you reviewed the implementation of the Quality 19 First program at Braidwood? 20 A Not very recently but, in answer to your question, 21 yes. From time to time. 22 Q Do you have an opinion as to the Quality First ,f-q
107 1 program's effectiveness in identifying deficiencies and 2 providing the deficiencies are corrected in a timely fashion? 3 A My opinion is based largely on the confidence that I 4 have in the individual who is running it, Ray Preston, who has 5 assembled what I believe to be a good team of people who have 6 conducted a very positive program. l l ~7 So my assessment is that it's been a strong program. 8 Q What's your knowledge of Mr. Preston, that's the 9 basis for your confidence in him? ! 10 A He is a seasoned construction person, who is ' 11 aggressive by nature and very committed to quality 12 construction, and a person who has been around the company a ' 13 long while, who has the confidence of our people. And in my 14 judgment, very clearly, the unbridled concern to do the best 15 possible job. 16 Q Are you aware of any deficiencies in the 17 implementation of the Quality First program? 18 A No, I'm not. I 19 Q The second bullet, under the descriptive title 20 Program is Both Pro-active and Reactive, is management policy, 21 labor support. How do you understand that description? 22 A My understanding of that description is that the
,- . __ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ . . _ _ . _ . _. _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _. . . _ _ _ ._ _ a
108 1 quality programs generally have to extend to every individual f 2 who is on that site and not just to senior management of our 3 company or to the contractors but that the notion of quality 4 must be emphasized and re-emphasized as frequently as 5 possible. 6 Q What is the aspect of labor support mean to you? 7 A Craftsmen. 8 Q Is it supporting a labor -- is it management support 9 for craftsmen or is it craftsmen support for the program? 10 A It's really craftsmen ownership in the program, 11 under the concept of doing things right the first time. 12 Q Are you aware of any weaknesses or deficiencies g, 13 in the craft labor support for the Quality First program? U 14 A I am not. 15 Q The results, at least as of the time of this report,
~
16 are set forth at the bottom of the page F-557, number of 17 baseline interviews, number of exit interviews, and the figure 18 of 160 concerns. 19 Are you informed as to the subject of those 20 concerns? 21 A Not specifically. 22 Q Do you have any information as to the cubject of 4
109 1 those concerns? j 2 A Not specifically. 3 Q Are you aware of concerns expressed by L.K. Comstock 4 Quality Control inspectors to the Quality First program at l l 5 Braidwood? [ 6 A Not specifically to the Quality First program. I 7 i Q Do you have ny knowledge of the Quality First 8 program's investigation of concerns by Comstock Quality 9 Control inspectors? 10 A I'm aware of the case of alleged intimidation of a 11 QC inspector who worked for Comstock. I don't know the 12 details of the Quality First program's investigation of any 13 such allegation. M 14 Q Are you referring to a specific instance of 15 harassment or intimidation involving a supervisor at Comstock 16 and a Quality Control inspector at Comstock? 17 A Yes, and I don't recall the specific details, but 18 that's correct. 19 Q Are you aware of any other concerns or complaints by 20 Comstock inspectors of harassment, intimidation or production 21 pressure? 22 A I understand that there was an allegation with a b
110 t 1 suggestion of production pressure, roughly coincident with the 2 same time that there was an effort to unionize the QC 3 inspector force. And there was a coincident question on the 4 wages. 5 Q Are you informed as to the validity of the 6 allegation or concerns regarding production pressure by 7 Comstock inspectors? 8 A I'll ask counsel to help me on this, but as I 9 recall, the first notice of that was on a Sunday -- or on a 10 Friday, excuse me. And our people had a meeting at the site 11 with the Comstock supervisory group and with, subsequently, 12 the QC inspectors as a group, to try to determine what their 13 concerns were and to try to resolve them.
- }{7 14 Q How were you so informed, Mr. O'Connor?
15 A Through a conversation with the Manager of Projects. 16 Q Mr. Maiman? 17 A I assume it was Mr. Maiman. 18 Q Did you reach any judgment about the validity of the ( 19 { concerns that the Comstock inspectors raised? 20 A At that time, my main interest was in having as open 21 an exposition and as rapid an investigation and resolutien of 22 the concerns that they had. And it was my understanding that
./
'w,!
r 111 1 that was done. 4 2 Q Did you communicate that interest or directin? to 3 othern to carry out? 4 A I don't recall specifically. 5 Q Do you recall whether Mr. Maiman or others consulted 6 you at the point prior to their taking action at tho' site? 7 A I don't recall specifically. 8 Q Were you aware that a large number of Comstock 9 inspectors went to the NRC resident's office at the Braidwood l
'10 site on March 29, 1985? '
l 11 A I do recall that a substantial number were 12 concerned. The specifics of who they went to and what they l {g 13 proposed, I don't recall. 14 Q Were you informed that cito management, including 15 Mr. Maiman, comr.unicated that day with NRC regional management 16 at Glen Ellyn by telephone? 17 A I do believe I recall that. If it was a Friday, I 18 believe I do recall being told that. 19 Q Do you recall whether you were told that at the time 20 that the events were taking place or was it a report af ter the 21 fact? 22 A I don't recall that, but it was within a very narrow e D
112 1 time frame of hours, one way or the other. t
/ 2 Q So you believe you were informed on that day, 3 perhaps after the fact, but within hours of the event?
s 4 A Yes. 5 Q I guess the question, again, was did you reach a 6 judgment about the validity of the inspector's concerns? ' 1 7 Either then or since? 8 A I don't recall. 9 Q Have you ever been informed of the filing of a 10 complaint by a former Comstock Quality Control inspector, a 11 Level III Quality Control inspector to be precise, with the 12 United States Department of Labor alleging violation of the 13 Atomic Energy Acts provisions providing for employee 14 protection against discrimination and reprisal for raining 15 safety or quality concerns? 16 A I vaguely recall something about that but I don't 17 recall the specifics of it. 18 Q Do you recall being informed that the 19 U.S. Department of Labor issued an administrative finding in 20 the favor of the complainant and directed L.K. Constock 21 Company to take remedial action to remedy the acts of 22 discrimination?
113 1 A Again, I vaguely recall something on that order. I i j ( j 2 don't recall the specifics of it. 3 Q Do you recall being informed that any action was 4 taken by Edison or site centractor people in response to that 5 complaint and those Department of Labor findings? 6 A I don't recall specifically, but if you can tell me 7 what the action taken was, I may be able to respond to your 8 question. 9 Q This is a question of seeking information, { 10 Mr. O'Connor, because I don't know that any action was taken, \ 11 I'm asking you whether you were informed of any action? 12 A I don't recall. , f 13 Q Do you know whether or not Commonwealth Edison has a r-e l 14 policy with respect to the implementation to the law that I'm 15 making reference to? That law, to paraphrase, is a provision
~
16 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, that prohibits 17 retaliation or discrimination against a site employee, 18 contractor or licensee for taking action to further the 19 purposes of the Atomic Energy Act, such as raising safety or 20 quality concerns? 21 A I don't know that we have a specific policy 22 addressing that specific act or provision, but I do believe
\ :
114 1 it's implicit in our quality statement, as well as in what we y 2 have said to people on the site. 3 Q Why was the Quality First program developed at 4 Braidwood? 5 A To try to make certain that anybody's concerned, 6 real or perceived, could be addressed. Such a program had 7 been developed earlier, and the one I recall was at Fermi. 8 And we felt that a similar program, that had the same types of 9 thrusts, was a very important measure to assure openness, that 10 anyone at any time could step forward and convey a concern. 11 And that it was incumbent upon us to investigate that concern. 12 Q Do you know whether or not, absent such a program -- t 13 Quality First program -- that there are existing Braidwood N 14 site policies and procedures that provide for the 15 identification of quality or safety concerns?
~
16 A Again, I would hope that through our QA program and 17 through the QC inspector programs of the contractors that that 18 infcrmation would, by the very nature of the programs, be 19 brought to the attention of supervisory people. 20 Q Why, in your opinion, then is the development and 21 implementation of a Quality First program at Braidwood 22 necessary, in order to assure that such concerns are t
115 1 addressed? If such a program is necessary, in your opinion? f 2 A I think it's one added, and again to use the word 3 you mentioned, pro-active step to address any concerns that 4 people might have. It's just one more element to underscore 5 the importance of quality. 6 Q Are you familiar, Mr. O'Connor, with the 7 requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, with respect to 8 Quality Assurance in construction? 9 A Generally. 10 Q In particular, are you familiar with the principle 11 that's embodied in Appendix B that -- to paraphrase, those 12 persons and organizations who perform Quality Assurance i 13 functions -- including Quality Control -- must be provided W 14 sufficient freedom and independence from cost and schedule 15 pressures in order to offectively carry out their Quality 16 Assurance duties? 17 Are you familiar with that principle? 18 A I'm familiar with the principle. I'm not familiar 19 with the precise definition or provision contained in the -- 20 Q Do you understand that is a paraphrase that I gave 21 you and is not meant to be a direct quote. Do you understand, 22 generally, that there's a principle to the effect that I l _ _ }
116 1 stated, that is required by NRC regulation?
/ 2 A Yes.
3 Q Does the Commonwealth Edison Company Quality 4 Assurance program at Braidwood, in your opinion, meet that 5 requirement? 6 A Yes. 7 Q How have you assured, if you have, Mr. O'Connor, 8 that such independence from cost and schedule considerations 9 have been assured for the Braidwood Quality Assurance program? 10 A It's been -- I hate to continue to use the word 11 underscored, but at the site meetings, as well as at the 12 meetings with contractors, as well as my meeting with gp 13 Mr. Shewski, that has been a continuing theme that there must 14 be the independence and that nobody should ever be concerned 15 about abridging that responsibility. 16 Q Have any complaints, concerns been brought to your l l 17 attention, with respect to the failures to assure independence 18 of Quality Assurance at Braidwood from cost and schedule l 19 pressure? 20 A No. 21 Q Have you had the opportunity to observe Mr. Walter 22 Shewski in the performance of his work, as the Corporate
r 117 1 Manager of Quality Assurance for Commonwealth Edison Company? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Have you formed an opinion regarding Mr. Shevski's 4 work performance, regarding the quality of Mr. Shewski's work? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And would you state that opinion, please? 7 A I have a very high opinion. 8 Q Can you identify any instances in which Mr. Showski 9 has raised Quality Assurance concerns which impacted on cost 10 and schedule considerations for Edison? I'm not trying to be 11 obtuse about the question. If it's not clear, I'll try to 12 explain.
; 13 A I believe I understand it, and I believe there have ums 3M 14 been instances, over time, at various sites where stop work 15 orders by site QA -- with his blessing -- have been issued.
. 16 Q Can you identify any such instances at the Braidwood 17 site?
18 A I can't recall specifically. But he is told that 19 and he understands and in his role, in my judgment, has never 20 been afraid to do what he thinks in right. 21 Q Can you recall any instances in which Mr. Showski is 22 -- I'm trying to frame this to capture the point of my f _.. k'
118 1 question effectively -- in substance, in which Mr. Shewski has 1 y 2 had to come to you or to someone else -- if he reported to 3 someone else at previous times -- and essentially go to the 4 mat over a question'of quality versus cost and schedule } S considerations? 4 6 A No. I don't recall any such incident.
- 7 Q Can'you recall Mr. Shewski ever bringing to you a 8 dispute between Quality Assurance and Project Construction at
{ 9 Braidwood? 10 A I don't recall specifically. 11 Q Is that because there hasn't been such an incident 12 or because you just don't recall? 13 A I don't recall. 14 Q Might there have been such an incident? 15 A Not to my knowledge.
~
16 Q Another reference to a document previous identified 17 as Group Exhibit 2 to Mr. Maiman's deposition, an excerpt from 1 18 meetings at one of the bi-weekly managers meetings. This one ? 19 bears a date of 12-10-84. Below Mr. Malman's initials there's j 20 the -- excuse me. Let's start again. ' 1 21 The second page, F-510 is the Bates number. Next to 22 -- I take this to be Mr. DelGeorge's initials, LDG7 1 1 1 i i o
1 l 119 1 A Yes. 2 Q There's the note "Braidwood licensing, ACRS hesitant 3 about license. Concerns of last May and - " a word that's cut 4 off, a-d-d-r somethidg or other "-- expect to go to full l 5 committee meeting 2-7. Expect to be in full hearing in 6 November." 7 I take ACRS to stand for Advisory Committee Reactor 8 Safeguards, a body of the NRC? 9 - A I would assume so. 10 Q And you're familiar with their role in licensing? 11 A Generally. i 12 Q Do you -- first, are you aware of the substance of i
/ 13 the note that appears by Mr. DelGeorge's initials and that in M
14 a hesitance on the part of the ACRS to provide whatever input 15 they are responsible for on the Braidwood license?
~
16 A I have no idea what context that was delivered in or 17 what is meant by that. 18 Q Aside from the context in which the note was made, 19 do you have any knowledge of the substance of the observation, 20 any hesitance on the part of the ACRS regarding Braidwood? 21 MR. MILLER: Mr. Guild -- j 22 A No. 1 I
- b 1
120 1 MR. MILLER: I was going to object but the witness p 2 answered. We're getting pretty far afield from anything 3 having to do with the contentions when we're talking about 4 ACRS. Let's move on. 5 MR. GUILD: I submit, Mr. Miller, that the ACRS's l 6 role is, among other things, to review the Quality Assurance I 7 practices at Braidwood. One might surmise that one source of 8 concern that the ACRS may have had, that led to hesitance to 9 license Braidwood, was concerns of last May. Last May was 10 when 8309 was promulgated and may have been a basis for the 11 ACRS pausing over the Braidwood license. 12 If so, as a matter of fact, it would be of interest i 13 to me. I don't have any independent knowledge to that effect, a g 14 other than this note. 1 15 BY MR. GUILD: 16 Q Do you visit the Braidwood site on occasion? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And how frequently do you visit the site? 19 A On average? i 20 Q Yes. 21 A Perhaps once very six weeks, on average. And that's 22 for the last year or two. 5 6 0 p i l i
~ . ~ . , - , .,_.,..~,.--...-~_..,.-.__,.,,_,,_.,__-,,n.,., ,--,.,,....___,.n.-.- .,--n. -_., . -
121 1 Q And what, generally, do you do when you visit the t
/ 2 Braidwood site?
3 A It could vary. The agenda is never necessarily the 4 same. Sometimes it's to get a project status from the 5 principal managers on site. On occasion it's been to get a 6 progress report by the various contractors and, at the same 7 time, serve as an opportunity to address them about what I 8 feel are the important things that they need to be doing. 9 Q Do you essentially meet with contractor management 10 and site management when you go to the site? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Do you ever meet with non-management personnel, 13 Quality Control inspectors, craftsmen? N.__ 14 A I have not. 15 Q Have you ever had a Quality control inspector or a 16 craftsman approach you with quality concerns at Braidwood? 17 A lio , never. 18 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. 19 HR. MILLER: I just have very few questions. 20 21 22 A ~- I
122 1 EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. MILLER: 3 Q I think, in response to the last series of questions 4 by Mr. Guild, you stated that you talked to the contractor 5 about -- I think the words you used were "important things 6 they should be doing." Could you describe for us, briefly, 7 what some of those important things aro? 8 A Again, the main emphasis is on establishing the 9 importance of doing things right the first timo and of making 10 certain that quality matters are attended to at all times. 11 The meetings are generally hold with contractors on 12 a one to one basis, not with the entiro group. There have pa. 13 boon occasions whore I've talked to the entire site W 14 management. But for the most part, they would be with the 15 senior management of each of the major site contractors. 16 It is generally to get a report on the progress from 17 them, at the same time that I attempt to underscore the 18 importance of quality in the work that they're doing. 19 Q Thank you. 20 At an early stago in the deposition, Mr. Guild asked 21 you what actions ucro taken, in responso to what we've boon 22 talking about as the findings in inopoction report 8205. And F i l
'123 1 I think you identified four activities, Mr. Wallace was g# 2 assigned as the Project Manager. Mr. Fitzpatrick came on as 3 the Assistant Manager for QA. An effort was begun to develop 4 a verification program. And finally you said that you had an 5 opportunity to get people from Morrison and LaSalle to go to 6 work at Phillips-Getschow at Braidwood.
7 I want to try and set the chronology. Was there a 8 discussion of a verification program that was undertaken at 9 any time prior to the year 1984? That is, at or shortly 10 before the enforcement conference that you recall attending in 11 March of that year? 12 A I don't recall. g gp 13 Q Do you recall discussing, with anyone from the NRC, 14 a -- strike that. 15 Do you recall that there was a more or less 16 continuous-development of the verification program which 17 ultimately became BCAP? 18 A I don't recall the specifics of that, but clearly 19 from the time that the NRC first suggested its concerns, it 20 was undoubtedly -- the discussion and thoughts on verification 21 of programs. I don't recall specifically. 22 Q Do you recall that the development of the DCAP J
124 1 program from first thought to presentation of the program f 2 document took a period of years or a period of months? 3 A I would say a period of months. 4 Q Mr. Guild showed you, among other documents, an 5 excerpt from the board of directors minutes that dealt with l 6 the imposition of the civil penalty. Mr. O'Connor, when the 7 civil penalty was imposed, had commonwealth Edison, at that 8 time, ever roccived a civil penalty at a power plant that was 9 under construction? 10 A Not to my knowledge. 11 Q Was the imposition of a civil penalty, given what 12 you knew about the situation at Braidwood, expected by you?
/ 13 A I'm not sure I understand the question.
h 14 Q Prior to the time that you became aware that the NRC 15 was contemplating enforcement action, did you have any reason 16 to believe that a civil penalty might be imposed for 17 activities that were taking place at the Braidwood cite? 18 A No, I did not. 19 Q Is it fair to say that the imposition of the civil 20 penalty was a surprise? 21 A Yes, it was a surprise. 22 Q Once it had been levied, did you treat the matter -- v
I 125 1 let me ask a direct question. 5 2 There's just a one sentence excerpt in the board of 3 directors meetings that referred to the $100,000 civil 4 penalty. Does that, in any way, represent the level of 5 seriousness or the degree of concern which you felt, with 6 respect to the levying of the civil penalty? 7 A Absolutely not. As I tried to explain earlier, if 8 the perception of the NRC is not favorable, it's a matter of 9 great concern to us. 10 MR. MILLER: I have no further questions. 11 MR. GUILD: That's all I have. 12 Thank you, Mr. O'Connor.
' 13 (Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the taking of the
- p 14 deposition was concluded.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l1-N/-
126 1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT 3 I, JAMES J. O'CONNOR, do hereby certify that I have read 4 the foregoing transcript of my deposition testimony and, with 5 .the exception of additions and corrections, if any, hereto, 6 find it to be a true and accurate transcription thereof. 7 8 9 JAMES J. O'CONNOR 10 1 11 12 DATE q 13 *** 14 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 15 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this the 16 day of , 19 . 17 18 19 20 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR 21 My commission expires: 22
127 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC '?' 2 3 I, PAMELA BRIGGLE, the officer before whom the foregoing 4 deposition was taken, do horeby cortify that the witness whoso 5 testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn 6 by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken by me and 7 thercafter reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction; 8 that said deposition is a true record of the testimony given 9 by the witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor 10 employed by any of the parties to the action in which this 11 deposition was taken; and further, that I am not a relative or 12 employoo of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties , 13 hereto, nor financially or otherwise intercated in the outcome ,b 3 V 14 of the action. 15 16 Lp 1 f, 6 .,) 17 PAMELA BRIGGLE 18 Notary Public in and for tho l 19 District of Columbia 20 l 21 My Commission expires: May 14, 1990. l l 22 ' l l l l
4A March 4, 1986 S' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COM'!ISSIO:1 BEFORE Tile ATO:!IC SAFETY AID LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONhTALTil EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) ) INTERVE!! ORS ' NOTICE OF DEFOSITIONS Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.740(a), Intervenors Bridget Roren, et al. hereb, gives notice that they shall take the (7 depositions ofJ. O'Connor; T. Mainan; L. DelCoorge; J. Gieseker, G. Groth: D. Shanblin; M. Corski; I. Dewald; R. Seltnan; L. Seese and R Sahlak, w'..o are agents or employees of Apolicant Comnanwealth Edison Connany The dcNsitions shall commence on Monday, March 24, 1986, at 10:00 A.M., and shall continue thercafter until cenpleted, at the offices of Isham. Lincoln & Beale, Three First National Pla:a, Chicago, Illinois; or at such time and nlace as the parties may agree. The deposition: shall be taken before a certified court renorter, and shall relare to the witnesnes' knowled ;e i of the subject of quality a curance for the Braidwood Uuclear Station, the matters identified in Intervenors' Amended
- m. Quality Assurance Contention, including,the Quality Control
/
7; o%nw s$gT) a q ; gy,4 l #\ Q q-24
t
- 2_
y Inspector liarassment and Intimidard.on Contention, and the witnesses' testimony iti this proceeding. The deponents shall bring with then all documents in their possession or subject to their control wtich pertain to the subj ects o f the deposition. Submitted by, i r b( M . Rbbert bild One of the Attorneys for Intervenors Rorem, et al.
- j. ,
A, / Douglass W. Cannel, J r . Robert Guild Timothy W. Urir,ht, III 109 Ilorth
Dearborn,
i/1300 Chicar,o, IL 60602 (312) 641-5570 k,r I l
--..---n--. -
., / D re % ,#'o
,y y j' j , ,, [*,,
f-UNITED STATES N'1CLE AR REGULATORY CCMMISSION Q (
, WQs//f i REGION fil m aonsi vr o noxn "
n)
. " .....m f f cu ~ iu v ~ a u~ois om FEB 2 1933 Docket No. 50-456 ' ' '
Docket No. 50-457 EA 32-136 Commonwealth Edison Ccmpany . ATIN: Mr. James J. O'Connor President Pos: Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen: This of thisrefers office on to April the routino 19 through safety July 20,inspection conduc cd by Str. L. G. Mc condue:cd by Mr. W. J. Key on September 6-10,1932, and the special inspectson S t a t ion . Un i t s 1982, of .ictiv: ties at Braidwood and No. CPPR-133. 1 and 2, authorized by SRC Constructica Permits No. CPPR-132 August 31, 1982, during an enforcementThe results of the routine inspec: ion were between Mr. k'. L. Stiede and others of your staf f and Mrecnference in the Region 111 others of the NRC staff. The . A. B. Davis and results of the spetzal inspection were dis-C) cussed by Mr. Key with inspection on September 10, 1952. plant representatives at the conclusion of his . 'y' cn Mucted c y:ur rec-est on Nuvember A second enforcement l 's , 19eJ. at conference was Ccmpany (CECO) corporate offices the Commenwealth Ed: son in Chicago, Illinois, between Mr. C. Reed and n:hers of your staff and me and cthers of the NRC staff.
~
The results of the inspection indicate serious weaknesses in your trananceent control systems program as it relates to the as evidenced by a breakdcwn of your quality assurance (QA mechanical safety-rela ad equipment. installation and in:.tallation inspection of Alttough a CECO site QA audit conducted in implement to July 1980 identified the failure of your mechanical equipment contractor the requirer.cnts of Appendix D of 10 CFR Part Assurance Manual, and the design specifica:icns, adequate and effective 50, your Q rective action was not taken. This lack of adeq a:e corrective acticn cor-CERTIT!ED MAIL RETL RN RECEIPT RECESTED
*[
i' y . Obv 24 A . . , , -, ,8 L,,~, ,
, gg d us0
- ~ _ - . . - __.- w,n._-w,-w w1u Commonwealth Ed: son Company 2
m, FEB
', 2 U33 becomes 1980, June more sign:ficant when one cons d i ers that In spite of this knowledge,19S1 and March CECO 19S2had of a CA breakd knowledge in July cwn in this important area.
comp:nents without benefit as well as other mechanicalinstallatten of Nuclear ystem Stean Su the holder of a construction pof procedure's' ermit is on. or quality verificatisafety continued to the NRC within 24 hours and required to reportIn addition, althcugh to the NRC until more than two in writing within 30 days, it such deficiencies was not reported of an ef fect:ve quality assurance o management to ensure implemvntation proIn audit). orde struction set deficiencies, we propose gram that to impose civil penaltiesidentifies and corrects co The violations in the Notice have beeforth in described in the General State at is enclosed n categorized ent at with thisfor the items letter. Actions, Appendix C of 10 CFR Part of Policy the severity levels 2. The base valueand Precedure for Enforce CECA had previously identified , 00. However, a for s: each Severity of the twoLevel Ill vi the Ceco existed at Byron Station and faile d tomilar breakdown in the QA programafter con violations the Braidwocd Statica, andrecognize th that the same problems at identified at Violation I.A is being increased tthe Braidwood , Statione cultipleixoccurrences the civ11 penalty for B o Director of the Of fice of o so],000. Inspectic to issue Penalties in the cumulative amcuntthe I have enciesed Notice gjyj During the Neverber 19, of One Hundred Thousand Co!!arsion , corrective actions that 1952 enforcement prevent you have conterence, recurrence. you described the These acticnstaken to correct th s problem and to include the This backfitmanager and the re-inspection of assignment all i provide a complete installation record fprograe will identify a these ections are responsive to installation problems and or this equipment. It acticns during future inspectionsour concerns. We will evaluate theseappears that You are required to respond to this in the Notice when preparing yourrespcase. letter results of future inspections will be and should follow the t enforcement Your reply to this instructions J acticn :s appropriate. car.sidered in determining whether fletter and the urther , r l l l
.a i
b 1 ic
- / - ). n
\ :' { O u A '? u8023 rA v L ,,
Commonwealth Edison Ccmpany 3 FE3 ' 1?B3
- ;q In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Pract tce," Part2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, f
will be placed in the NRC Public Document a copy of this letter and the enclosure Room. The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Not:ce are not subjtet to the clearance precedures 90 the Of fice of Manage. ment by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. and Budget as required Sincerely,
/ James G. Keppler Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of violatten and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties r
\
s' 4 m g s- ,
/ '? " "6021
?
NOff uni 1ED ST ATES
/ p ree #o, NUCLcAR REGULATORY COMMisstON y , s , 4/
[* g t REGION til 7,9 AOosts tL t moao . [ o, CLEN C LLV N. ILLtNOt1 64837
\.** **
J[ IMY 7 1984
.s.
Docket Nos. 50-456 50-457 Construction Pemit Nos. CPPR-132 CPPR 133 EA 84-35 Comonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. James J. O'Connor President and Chief Executive Officer Fost Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen: Ihis refers to the special quality assurance program inspection conducted t'y Messrs. T. E. Vandel, R. D. Schulz, I. T. Yin, D. E. Keating, C. C. Williams, and D. R. Hunter of this office on June 20-24, June 27-July 1. August 1-5, August 9, October 4-7, and October 24, 1983, and January 11-13, January 26, and February 9,1984, at Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and to the discussions of our findings during the conduct of the inspection. This also refers to enforcement conferences which were conducted concerning the findings of this inspection in the Region 111 office on December 20, 1983, between Mr. C. Reed and othe members of your staff and Mr. A. B. Davis and other members of the Region 111 staff, and on March 7, 1984, between you and me and members of our staffs. The purpose of this inspection was to assess the effectiveness of the quality assurance programs of the piping contractor, the electrical contractor, and
~
the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) contractor. The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel. The inspection revealed a number of deficiencies concerning the verification of correct material for ASME piping components, control of HVAC welding activities, and design control of field run small bore piping and associated hanger installation activities. These deficiencies existed even though CECO had recently conducted comprehensive reviews of the perfomance of all site contractors in response to a proposed civil penalty issued on February 2, 1983, involving one of these contractors. We are concerned that experience gained at other CECO facilities and the lessons learned f rom the mechanical equipment place-ment v.iolations at Braidwood were not adequately applied to the Braidwood facility. (*) CERTIFIED Mall !bW iiETukri RECEIPT RE0UESTED lg,#3 4 4 -86 '49 58
. 59 A'
Commonwealth Edison Company 2 L'AY 7 13?4 The major factors contributing to the deficiencies were inadequate contractor programs and workmanship, inadequate licensee reviews of the contractor pro-grams, and activities inadequate met licens'e e quality assurance overview to ensure contractor all requirements. The violations indicate the need for more aggressive Ceco management involvement in and support of the Ceco QA Program to ensure that all safety-related activities performed by contractor personnel are in ~accordance with the regulations, codes, standards, and license require-ments. The stop work orders and construction deficiency reports which were issued as a result of our inspection findings in the areas of small bore piping hangers, HVAC welding activities, and piping material control should have been initiated by CECO without the involvement of the NRC. We are encouraged by the personnel and organizational changes you described during the March 7, 1984, enforcement conference which indicate that you recognize the need for increased management involvement in the quality assurance program and have taken some positive actions in that regard. ~ The deficiencies concerning piping material control resulted in the quality of some installed piping being indeterminate and resulted in some material being installed that did not meet design requirements. A documented inspection program had not been implemented to assure correct material installation for 2"-and-under safety-related piping prior to July 1983; therefore, inspection records verifying correct material installation prior to that date do not exist. A documented inspection program had not been g implemented to assure correct material installation for safety-related piping over 2" prior to November 1982; therefore, inspection records verifying correct material installation prior to that date do not exist. During tte March 7,1984 enforcement conference you described a verification program you are developing which will include a 100% inspection of all installed piping and associated records. We understand that the results of that program and
-~
the completion of any necessary corrective actions that might result will ensure that all installed piping material meets design requirements. Since we will need to evaluate the results of your verification efforts in order to fully assess the significance of the programatic deficiencies, enforcement action is not being taken on this violation at this time. Following our review of your efforts we will determine the appropriate enforcement action. Until that time, this matter is being classified as Unresolved items 456/83-09-04(A);457/83-09-04(A)and456/83-09-04(0);457/83-09-04(B). The items of noncompliance identified during the inspection are specified in the enclosed Appendix, and have been categorized as a Severity Level IV in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, published in the Federal Register 47 FR 9987 (March 9,1982). A written response is required. A response is also requested for Unresolved Items 456/83-09-04(A); 457/83-09-04(A) and 456/83-09-04(B);'457/83-09-04(B). Your response should include a description of your prbgram to verify the quality of installed piping components, your efforts to improve the aggressiveness and ef fectiveness of CECO management involvement in and support of allthe* siteCECO QA Program, and the basis for your confidence in the performance of contractors. [r in the piping and HVAC areas were inadequate, why CECO revie programs failed to identify the deficiencies, and why the CECO QA overview was
/.0L'2nGrn
t Com.onwealth Edison Company 3 MY 7 1934 inadequate to ensure the contractor activities met all requirements. Also, your response should describe your efforts to assure that all construction workers and their supervisors understand their role in building quality into the facility. i in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure (s) will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the re-quirements of 2.790(b)(1). If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, a copy of this letter, the enclosure (s), and your response to this letter will be placed in the Public Document Room. The response directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. We will gladly discass any questions you haw concerning this inspection. Sincerely. , M M h=^b JamesG.KeppleIY 1 Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix, Notice of Violation
- 2. Inspection Reports No. 50-456/83-09(DE);
No. 50-457/83-09(DE) cc w/encis: D. L. Farrar, Director ' I of Nuclear Licensing M. Wallace, Project Manager i R. Cosaro, Project l Superintendent i J. F. Gudac, Station ! Superintendent " l DMS/ Document Control Desk (RIDS) Resident Inspector, Rl!! Phyllis Dunton, Attorney General's Office, Environmental r Cont'ol Division *
. c3 m Jane whicher, Esq.
- f. 'T !:f158
_ _ _ _ . _- _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _- G, (s.us h TO: Dick Cesaro FROM: Mike Wallace DATE: November 29, 1992 t
SUBJECT:
Meeting with the NRC on November 19, 1992 i 1 On Friday, November 19, 1982 Edison and NRC personnel met in our Board Room as a rollow-up to the August 31, 1982. Enforcement Conference. } The folicwing were in attendance l NRC Edison I Hessrs: Keppler Reed ; Davis Stiede l Knopp Wallace ! Hayes Tramm ;
. McGreger DelCecrge i Lewis Shewski Mr. Keppler opened the meeting expressing his very serious concern . over.the Braidwood situation. He then turned the meeting over to Dick Knopp for presentation of their side of the case. ))
At the end of the last Enforcement Conference we expected to be discussing two (2) possibly t.hree (3) Level III Enforcement Actions. , Those would have been: 1) Breakdown in our Quality Assurance program as it relates to Mechanical Equipment Erection; 2) F#tlure to report - that as a 50.55(e) occurrence; 31 Material false statement in the l FSAR relating to Installation of Steam Generator Supports. However, i in his presentation Dick Knopp indicated eight (8) Level III violations and also a position concerning the material false statement. Following' is a synopsis of the Level III violations. : l
- 1. No approved controls for setting safety related l equipment prior to July 1980 and no consistent implementation of controls af ter July 1980, i i
- 2. (Appendix D, Criterion 9) Lack cf material traceability for Steam Generator Bolts. Bolts were cut cTT the traceability rarks lost. Ac- I cording to D. linyes at least nineteen (19) bolts are involved which were not previously documented in NCR's.
- 3. (Appendix B, Critorion 10) Cur inspection program (G.C. Inspection and Surveillance) was ,
(G inadequate for the Steam Generators.' Further, virtually all the USSS equipment of both units was set prior to tugust i9e2. i 0 b aaor
- h. k d94-% a saconcung l .
5
~2-4 (Appendix B, Criterion 15) Inadequate records on disposition of cap screws. Seventy-two (72) cap ,
screws were received and found to be non-conforming l but no NCR's written.
- 5. (Appendix B, Criterion 16) We knew about problems l with the bolts in Povember 1978, but did not take effective corrective action. Throughout the next four (4) years our tirrective action was ineffective (which they consider much more serious than " untimely").
- 6. (Appendix B, Criterion 17) Records on setting of equip-ment were not maintained adequately and are deficient.
i
- 7. ( Appendix B, Criterion 18) No audits were performed before June 1980 on Mechanical Equipment Erection activities of.Phillips-Getschow. The audit performed in June 1980 was closed with the problems still on going. No follow-up audit was performed before June 1981.
- 8. Failure to make reports as required by 10CFR50.55(e).
In addition, Dick V.nopp indicated that there were several Level JV violations alsc, but only the escalated enforcement action items would be discussed at this T.ceting ione of the Level IV's he referred to was in regard to failure to protect equipment as discussed at the August 31, 1982 Enforcement Conference). Regarding the material false statement issue Mr. Davis indicated that the region would not pursue this further for two (2) reasons. i First, in their view the commitment to install Steam Generator supports' in accordance with flF was adequately reflected in S & L specifications, and the error was one of construction not carrying out an established requirement. Secondly, since we are required by law to update the j FSAR at the time of operating license issuance, they cannot say we would not have made a correttion in this area at that time. Steve f.euls, the new attorney for Regicn III, indicated that NRR, in Washington, is still l pursuing this issue, on the basis that the FSAR must be continually be a living document and therefere constantly updated. The Project needs to be prepared to respond to these eight (8) Level III violations in as much detail no possible. And even though there may be some redundancy in the way they ate presently listed we l should never the less be prepared to respond to caen individually. I unuld like Larry Tapella to coordinate gatherin6 the information and preparing the responses to each of these items, with assistance from your lead entgineers and 0. A. , as required. We should have the f(';a basic information anJ oetn11s for our re:. nse puileo t0getr,cr no ;ater l l C000134g;
a a
-3
( 2, - than Thursday, December 2, 1982, with emphasis en completeness for items 1., 2., 4., and 7. listed above. s N f Mike Wallace MW/dak cc: J. J. Maley I i L. De1 George l T. Tra.m W. Shewski T. So.c.erfield J. Merwinj G. Groth C. Gray C. Menne:ke L. Tapella f , C0001347 I
.e*
I h REM .Z =_- 1 l b.C.O 3 X 7X. /S s is E.c> -r2; snocrew _ ] 7 . S _G . _8o 4 r s oN Cl - 3 o - B 1 ._. Q P S _$o. . .fdR A/.X - . weirrem o u _ /o - /3 - 8 /..
-r"*REN rtDEb .__ _ rNn Y E 7~ ?S WE22 g o r o ff
.. Roxt.. E N69 wt rMo v r fenWLc"E>~ uds _ /Vury86 g __
<d p_Enb o s ._ s o' 7~ .. .- ..
& A E_do.._/VA R 332 weirrew ow /z --/+ - Bt. _.
pi.s to si <> o e _ . /s ro A'E.s enMi n r "' . os sos.r . ___ MEkb 6 'NF E_ _ _nt s. . Box TS _A'Eceive6 ..o n . yNE .___ . _.s pr> E ME17- .6*75 4 nuo //nve .snac Hr#
?"a2 S c o ... 4, 7 6 2. i.s.s u e s o a /c - 2 o . 8 2 % _ _ _
e.e s rn HP .._ Bo ar.S . f& O wns doHraEreb . . _ os /0- 24 .BX _ paa Boar.S po r /x s ro e A: . _ j.) '
-1~o' -ruiS .DA' rE _ . _ // 3 _ fox rS Mnye _ _ gred Ed'Ho VE4 PER /"6(?P.3?.3 Y . Y o# r"o.s F Boi rS Hn v'W. .._ seed rouo6 -r~o Nn ve- d'o g.Z # _1'EAC EAB/s/7'Y. n L&- W6EE 80' TS _
rn* r . wsee- saozreg e f~//ElVo e. / /Vc.2 sus _ 8 1~6 M W4 W W..As oflE7 MTB _/:-/ -8 E c0001343 .. _ l
p ._._ WrrH 0- . lf7I $np Scess.s (.G.S. Boxrs) sHiPPEA. _
%._. 8 mid vxs s iton Bj'/zod' DYER . 3725). ...
l l2u_zwa . rwe...L G do . Receinda _wsreerio& TMcy__ WEAtd' ..fo~ u"6 ._udA ddfi ?~484E'. Wo._. _ 1 Mes.. was wa rrer. xr onesa s rn < _ . _
. MM . -- BOLCS ANb l9L FKOM N 2 L ___../ 7 f 6 __...__.
_. WEE E . . SEh' r~. % Eoa wer-e- EWsisieezi_4G 6._.
..(.Ces px yPo. y 732 /84 . fo a guer.xias _gs r.ida . .
..- AAlb bWANl b N 5.. $._L - 3 W .. (WoM .* . . .
xsie .331 o"w ssozeses rue /72. . s a rs _ Y//Af___. 8 A Hf . fr/ _ OAJ _M/?A- /7.S~o _.
)
. *66 N e 4 4 . _ . ..
24 gC0001349 ..
. 1 1983 GOALS PRESENTATION BRAIDWOOD STATION TOPUTITPLAINLY,$982WASATOUGHYEARFORQUALITYASSURANCE AS WELL AS FOR THE PROJECTS DEPARTdENT AT BRAIDWOOD. PROBLDiS RELATED TO THE INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPt!ENT, PIPE SUPPORTS, STRUCTURAL STEEL, AND HVAC HANGERS HAVE KEPT QUALITY ASSURANCE BUSY ENSURING THAT PROPER PROCEDURES AND INSPECTIONS WERE IN PLACE AND PERFORMED.
TODAY I AM GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF BRAIDWOOD' S CONTRACTORS AS WELL AS THAT OF SITE QUALITY ASSURANCE. I I i
. CHART 1 l ALTHOUGH DEFICIENCIES IN VARICUS CONTRACTORS' QUALITY PROGRAMS REQUIRED AN EXPANDED QA EFFORT IN 1982, THERE WERE SEVERAL ITDiS AT BRAIDWOOD WHICH DESERVE MENTIONING AS POSITIVE ACCW PLISIMENTS BY SITE QUALITY ASSURA'NCE.
i .. FIRST, IN 1982 SITE Q. A. PERFORMED SURVEILLANCES IN 506 AREAS THE CmMIIMENT WAS TO SURVEY 342 AREAS. THIS INCREASED NRIBER OF SURVEILLANCES WAS INDICATIVE OF THE RAPID ASSIMILATION A?O UTILIZATION OF THE NEW ENGINEERS WE ACQUIRED. THESE NEW PERSONNEL WERE ABLE TO SUPPLDiENT A STAFF WHICH WAS MISSING MANY OF ITS KEY PERSONNEL DUE TO OFF-SITE AUDITING AND OTHER ASSIG?NENTS, SUCH AS AUWENTING THE MANPOWER FOR LASALLE DURING ITS LICENSING EFFORT IN 1982. THE CONTINUITY OF Q. A.' S PRESENCE WAS DEPENDENT UPON THE EFFORTS OF THESE NEW PEOPLE. c 31 B.5
@a. n
_l 4/t/re 'f>N. B001644/ (0451A)
O PAGE 2 SECONDLY, THE UNIT CONCEPT INSPECTION PROGRAM WAS DiPLMENTED ON SCHEDULE IN SEPTDIBER AND HAS PROCEEDED WITH RELATIVELY FEW PROBLM S AND GENERALLY GOOD RECEPTION Frat PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND THE CONTRACTORS. THIRDLY, THE ORIGINAL SITE AUDIT PLAN HAD 28 AUDITS SCHEDULED FOR 1982, QUALITY ASSURANCE PERF0FJfED 57. THE 29 ADDITIONAL AUDITS WERE PERFORMED TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIVITIES, PROBLDIS, AND NEEDS. [gt,(T # 1 JPE f.! Q AND FINALLY, BRAIDWOOD SITE WAS SUBJECTED TO A CONCENTRATED AUDIT OF ALL SITE CALIBRATION RECORDS, AS A RESULT OF PROBLEiS UNEARTHED AT LASALLE; AN NRC CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TEAM INSPECTION;
~
AND AN INPO MANAGMENT EVALUATION. ALTHOUGH SO!E CONCERNS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THESE ASSESSMENTS, OVERALL, THE SITE FARED REASONABLY WELL. THROUGHOUT 1982, QA IDENTIFIED PROBLMS RELATING TO THE MECHANICAL AND PIPING WORK PERFORMED BY PHILLIPS, GETSCHOW. INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL EQUIRIENT AND HANGERS WAS NOT BEING PROPERLY DOCRf ENTED AND REQUIRED QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTIONS WERE NOT BEING ADEQUATELY PERFORMED. AS A RESULT, BOTH INSTALLATION STATUS 'AND ACCEPTABILITY OF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT WERE ItOETERMINATE. (0451A) 00
PAGE 3 f(Zg s. HOWEVER THESE PROBLDIS WITH PHILLIPS, GETSCHOW WERE NOT NEW. ON A NutBER OF OCCASIONS SINCE MID-1979, QUALITY ASSURANCE IDENTIFIED VARIOUS DEFICIENCIES CONCERNING THE INSTALLATION AND INSPECTION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPt!EliT. THESE CONCERNS WERE DOC 114ENTED AND BROUGHT TO PHILLIPS, GETSCHOW' S AND PROJECT CONSTRUCTION' S ATTENTION VIA SURVEILLANCES AND AUDITS. THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSES TO THESE DEFICIEliCIES INDICATED IN EACH CASE, THAT CERTAIN ACTIONS WOULD BE TAKEN TO BRING THEIR RECORDS INTO A CURRENT STATUS. SITE Q. A. ' S FOLLOWED THESE CQiMIRiENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED PRACTICES, CLOSING OUT THE DEFICIENCIES ON THE BASIS OF CQiMITiENTS, p TO CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTIVE MEASURES, AND EVIDENCE THAT CORRECTIVE ACTION HAD BEEN STARTED.
~
HOWEVER, PHILLIPS, GETSCHOW' S CORRECTIVE EFFORTS FREQUENTLY WERE DIVERTED TO NEW WORK ACTIVITIES AND CONSEQUENTLY, THESE PROBLE4S WERE NOT CORRECTED IN A TLMELY FASHION. THE RESIDENT NRC INSPECTOR DETECTED THESE UNCORRECTED DEFICIENCIES IN MID-1982. AS A RESULT AN ENFORCEiENT MEETING WAS HELD WITH REGION III IN LATE AUGUST, AND RECENTLY EDISON WAS ISSUED A FINE FOR NOT TAKING PRQiPT CORRECTIVE MEASURES AND NOT NOTIFYING THE NRC OF THE INSPECTION BACKLOG, WHEN IT WAS FIRST IDENTIFIED. ( (0451A) B001&149 1
SE PAGE 4 A STOP WORK ON NEW EQUIRiENT AND HANGER INSTALLATIONS WAS ISSUED IN EARLY SEPTm BER TO CONCENTRATE ON ACHIEVING A CURRENT INSPECTION STATUS. IN RETROSPECT, QUALITY ASSURANCE SHOULD HAVE PLACED THE STOP WORK ON NEW INSTALLATIONS 2 YEARS SOONER. HOWEVER, QA ALLOWED NEW WORK TO CONTINUE IN THE INTERIM. FIRST, BECAUSE OF THE CONTRACTOR' S COM:4I1MENTS TO CORRECT PAST WORK, AND SECONDLY TO COOPERATE WITH PROJECT CONSTRUCTION IN MOVING THE JOB AHEAD. TO PRECLUDE SUCH SITUATIONS IN THE FUTURE, IT IS NOW Q. A. ' S PRACTICE TO CLOSE AUDIT DEFICIENCIES ONLY WHEN CORRECTIVE ACTION COMPLETION HAS DEEN VERIFIED. THIS WILL ASSURE VISIBILITY TO EDISON MANAGDiENT FOR THOSE CONTRACTORS WHO FAIL TO TAKE TIMELY ACTION IN RESOLVING IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS. WHERE POSITIVE ACTION IS NOT TAKEN, A STOP WORK ORDER WILL ENSUE. SOME OF THE OTHER STEPS QA HAS TAKEN TO ASSURE THAT PROPER CORRECTIVE ACTION WILL BE IMPLDiENTED ARE:
- 1) TO ASSIGN MANDATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE HOLD POINTS ON ALL SAFETY RELATED EQUIRiENT. ;
- 2) TO ASSIGN TWO QUALITY ASSURANCE ENGINEERS TO MORE CLOSELY j MONITOR THE EQUIRiENT AND HANGER WORK ACTIVITIES.
p j:p (0451A) B0016450
PAGE 5
- 3) TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF AUDITS AND SURVEILLANCES IN THESE AREAS; AND
- 4) TO REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF EQUIPMENT AND llANGER STATUS REPORTS TO KEEP EDISON MANAGDfENT INFORMED OF THE PROGRESS ACHIEVED.
THE STOP WORK INVOLVING EQUIRIENT WAS LIFTED IN EARLY JANUARY, 1983, AFTER Tile NECESSARY ACTIONS WERE COMPLETED. ALTHOUGH A STOP , WORK IS STILL IN EFFECT FOR NEW HANGERS, THE RETROFITTING OF PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED HANGERS IS PROGRESSING WELL AND IS SCHEDULED FOR COMPLETION BY SEPTEMBER. _ TO DETERMINE IF THE ABOVE SITUATION liAD OCCURRED IN OTHER AREAS OF GETSCHOW' S PROGRAM OR IN OTHER SITE CONTRACTORS' PROGRAMS, SITE Q. A. REVIEWED PREVIOUSLY CLOSED AUDIT DEFICIENCIES. TO VEhTTY TIIAT CORRECTIONS WERE COMPLETED FOR THOSE IDENTIFIED SINCE APRIL,1980. AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW, FOUR PREVIOUSLY CLOSED AUDIT DEFICIENCIES WERE RE-OPENED BECAUSE THE CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS NOT COMPLETED. THREE OF THESE DEFICIENCIES HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN RECLOSED AFTER ALL ACTION WAS VERIFIED TO BE COMPLETE. THE FOURTIl DEFICIENCY IS BEING TRACKED BY SITE Q.A. UNTIL ALL CORRECTIVE ACTION IS TAKEN.
)
gi) v l (0451A) B0016451 l
(:h PAGE 6 IN EARLY 1982, PROBL&fS WERE IDENTIFIED WITH THE SITE' S ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, L. K. COMSTOCK. THE LD11TED EXTENT AND LACK OF TIMELINESS OF Q.C. INSPECTION ACTIVITIES, PARTICULARLY IN THE ELECTRICAL HANGER AREA, TRIGGERED A SERIES OF EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT CHANGES AND QUALITY ACTIONS. THE CHANGE OF PERSONNEL AT C01 STOCK, N/stELY THE REPLACDfENT OF THE Q.C. MANAGER AND THE ADDITION OF A Q.A. ENGINEER, HAS RESULTED IN NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCES. #10NG THa! ARE:
- 1. MORE MANAGDiENT FEEDBACK.
r ., 2. GREATER ATTENTION TO EDISON Q.A. CONCERNS.
- 3. BETTER MANAGDiENT OF Q.C. FIELD PERSONNEL AND INSPECTIONS.
- 4. AN INCREASE IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLDiS BY CQiSTOCK RATHER THAN EDISON.
- 5. MORE ACCURATE STANDARD METHODS FOR WRITING COMSTOCK DOCO!ENTS; AND
- 6. BETTER RESPONSES TO EDISON AUDITS AND SURVEILLANCES.
COfSTOCK MANAGDfENT, THROUGH THE LEARNING PROCESS, HAS MADE BIG IMPROVDfENTS OVER THE PAST FEW HONTHS, AND IT APPEARS THAT COfSTOCK IS ABLE TO RESPOND TO EDISON' S CONCERNS AND TO PERFORM ADEQUATELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLIHSED REQUIRDiENTS.
~
t : Q,l B0016452 (0451A)
PAGE 7
.w CHART 2 ALSO ON THE POSITIVE SIDE, THE SITE INDEPENDENT TESTING AGENCY, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY (PTL) IS PERFORMING WELL. IT HAS EXPANDED ITS STAFF TO FORTY-TWO (42) INSPECTORS TO COVER THE INCREASE IN CONTRACTOR WORK ACTIVITIES AND TO FILL Q.A. REQUIRDIENTS FOR TECHNICIANS AND INSPECTOPS FOR THE " UNIT CONCEPT" PROGRAM. AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE UNIT CONCEPT INSPECTIONS WERE BEGUN ON SCHEDULE. THE RESULTS OF THESE INSPECTIONS -- TYPICALLY, SUCH PROBLU4S AS LOOSE BOLTS, MISSING IDENTIFICATION, AND UNSATISFACTORY WELDS -- INDICATE THAT THE CONTRACTORS' NEED TO BE MORE ATTENTIVE TO g PREVENTION OF MINOR CONSTRUCTION DISCREPANCIES. HOWEVER, OVERALL THE SITE CONTRACTORS' PERFORMANCE IS GOOD, WITH MOST PROBLHiS BEING SOLVED ON SITE.
Q^_':.. . S fS ANl
~
THROUGH 1982, SITE Q.A. HAS INCREASED ITS STAFF FRGi TWELVE ENGINEERS AND INSPECTORS TO TWENTY 'IVO, INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF THREE ENGINEERS WITH SEVERAL YEARS EXPERIENCE. ALSO, ALL OF 1982' S GOALS WERE ACCOMPLISHED AND NEW GOALS FOR 1983 HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. l (0451A) B001G453
PAGE 8 INCONCLUSION,1982hASAYEARREQUIRINGSELF-EXAMINATIONAND RE-EVALUATION OF PAST PRACTICES PARTICULARLY AS TO FIRM AND TIMELY ACTION WHEN DEFICIENCIES ARE NOT GIVEN PROMPT ATTENTION BY SITE ORGANIZATIONS. AS A RESULT, WE HAVE ENTERED 1983 WITH AN EXPANDED STAFF OF COMPETENT AND EXPERIENCED PERSONNEL; WITH A FIRM RESOLVE TO BETTER ASSURE THAT ALL SITE ORGANIZATIONS COMPLY WITH REQUIRD4ENTS; AND WITH THE INTENT OF EXERRCISING AGGRESSIVE AND TIMELY ACTION TO ACHIEVE SUCH C04PLIANCE. (0451A) GARY ABRELL WILL NOW TALK ABOUT QA' S OPERATING ACTIVITIES. i
)
\
s :x l B0016454 !
)
-p - -= *-.a - as 4
O en l ts Q - b R u 53
-B W
y x 9 s s I s .
) b a t9. ..
\) -.
g
.V)- -_
Q . 1 e i
~
1 m Y R R . N
~
x
~ k N --
s 1 O L 2 g y
, mss
,,__ _. , _ _ , n._ . - - - - - - , , - - , - - - - - - -
.. . )
S 1
/'*h b l g N x
N
,s
% N ~-
.t .
N, . i l l
.N .. . . . . .
.p. ... . . .. .
\\
ws % - . -
. . _ (. , . . . _ .
.y . . . . . . _ _ . . .....
,.Q . . . ..
W .x. Ae. .
. O '. . . R 3 .
M N .. aq - 4 s \y y ....._ . 4
.s ..
g y g z 2 q .. .
.y ..
q . q .. (,), p - .. .. . s
~ % 3 5.~
A m B0016456
~
I l B3 --. _ _. . .
l . {,.- g - BRAIDWOOD STATION SYNOPSIS OF REGION III CONCERNS IN AREAS OF HVAC,. ELECTRICAL, AND SMALL AND LARGE BORE ~ PIPING Messrs. J. J. O 'Connor
- 8. L. Thomas Cordell Reed -
L. O. DelGeorge D . L. Farrar J. Bloom - IL&B Attached f or your information in preparation f.or the March 7th Enf orcement Conf erence- is my synopsis of ~ the current issues concerning HVAC, electrical, anc small and large bore piping that were the topic of the December 20, 1983 Braicwood Enforcement Conference.
/
r'#~) 7.vouglasSwart: NLA February 28, 1984 I l l l' 9 6% s
. O' Connue g 6 X. N G 58 .
y-L'Eb l h 3 L] C00006';i
, HVAC In the area of HVAC, the majority of the Region's concerns regarcing the lack of Cuality Control inspections, welding control, and documentation stem from their interpretation of Ah5 Code requirements which differ from curs. The Region contends that the Ah5 Coce requires documentation which traces the welder, welc rod, and welding procedure used to a component welt to prove its quality. It is our contention that the intent of the AWS Code requirements can equally be met thru other means of insuring that the correct welu rec, ccrrect welding procedure, and trained anc certified welders were used. It is our Delief that AWS Code and S&L specification recuirements for HVAC welding are satisfied by the contractor (Pullman) utilizing (1) only approved welcing prrcedures, (2) only trained and qualifiec w'elcers anc (3) only certified weld materials purchased and received onsite. There are only a limitec numcer of welding procecures and weld rod types to choose from, and a trained and certifiec welder is capatte of making the proper choice. After making the weld, the welcer stamps his own unique ID number acjacent to tne welc. The Pullman Cuality Control visual inspection verifies welc acceptatility, prcser procecure implementation, ar.c proper filler metal usage. Past inspections performec by c ullman incicate proper filler metal usage anc procer procecure imolementation. Past surveillances by Pullman demonstrate that welcer training is ef fective anc tha t p ccecure requirements P-~ are uncerstccc.
To satisfy the Region's concerns fcr future work anc to meet the Region's interpretation of AnS Ccce recuirements, the following enanges nave teen ins titutec a t Braidwcod Staticn- (1) Pullman procecures have been revisec to require a " process sneet" wnicn (a) pre-ass gns the .elcing procecure, (0) cocuments the filler metal type anc heat number utilirec, anc (c) recorcs the ID nuncer of ne welcer performing tne wcrk. This "procers sneet"~ is traceacle ta the comcenent. ( 2) Pullman expanced their in-process welc inspection to 100% to octain a conficence level for imolementing the acove revisec program, thus verifying comcliance witn welcing procecures (inclucing use of a enecklist f or essential variacles) , proper filler metal usage anc welcer ID. (J) Pullman now- contrcis the issuance of filler metal by utiliring a weld roc issuance lag. It is our uncerstancing that the p pgram enanges as implemented satisfy the Regicn's concerns "or f uture- HV AC w elcing work , However, past work is still at issue. Approximately 86 welcs out of ; 55,00G welcc have been f ounc nor'tc be s tamped with the w elder's I3 I number anc are unresolvec to the Region's. satisf action. Cur l immeciate exacsure- en thic ic that we may have to cut out all 86
- eic s - it is our uncerstancing tnat the Region is considering l refering,the Ah5 Coce interpretation question to NRR. The long tern l
exoosure if we loose the coce- interpretation question with NRR wiiL i { involve the 55,000 welcs because the Region' contencs we do not know-(,,,7 tne specific welc roc or weld procecure usec for each wela as. i l required by tneir interpretarica of the AWT Code requirements. j 1 1 1 1 C0000611
.'s-I Other Region concerns in the HVAC area and our resolution include:
k (1) Welding on components for which " fit-up" tolerances cannot be determined during inspection af ter welding - For welds where fit-up cannot be checked after welding, inspection for fit-up is now performed prior to welding., The visual inspection procedure for fit-up has also been embellished. (2): A Pullman corrective action program was not established to trent the correction notices for deficiencies and ceviations for significance - Trending of all correction notices has since been accomplished and no significant problems were identified. ELECTRICAL Of the 15 electrical concerns discussed during the December 20, 1983 Enforcement Conference, 13 were the subject of the recently receivec inspection report that were categorired as 4 items of noncompliance (J level IV and 1 level V). The f ollowing discusses the remaining 2 items: (1) The Region contends (and CECO agrees) that the- contractor (Comstock) cid not perform audit activities as required by their QA manual requiring plannec and periccic audits to verif y compliance with all aspects of their QA Program. CECO realized this and other QA snortf alls in April 1983 (prior to the NRC inspections) and communicated these concerns to Comstock. As a result, Com tock zg p placed a Regional C A manager on-site to assume tne duties of :ne e site Comstock auditor who resigned in May 1983. A review of Comstock's 1982 ano 198J aucit coverage, both corporate and site, showec that 6 CA manual subsections and 6 field work procecures had ; not been aucitec. As a result of CECO QA concerns predating the NRC ' inspection, Comstock placed 2 full time qualified auditors onsite-in October and Novencer 1983 respectively_ Procedure revisions further defining cnsite aucit activities and the qualification process for site aucitors have since been implemented. The newly submittec 1981 , Comstock aucit plan snows that all saf ety-related actLvities will be , adequately coverec. (2) Inacecuate crc *ing centrol. The Comstock C A manual requires voided crawings to be returned to their Document Control Department within J' cays, yet crawings located at " Document Station Number 5" were up to A revisions old and were neither returned to Document Control nor marked as being voided drawings for information only. In response to this concern, surveillance activities of the Comstock Document Control Decartment have, bFen increased, and future surveillances by both the Comstock Quality Control and Document Control Departments will continue. Since July 1983, 16 surveillances covering 8,335 drawings (involving 15 ' document - stations), and a 100% check of of fice engineering prints were l performed. Of the 8,335 field drawings reviewed, 351 superceded l crawings were found (235 of tnose being in a . single document s tation 4, wh'ich is devoted to checking the status of past revision work) . As. L result, a 100% drawing check was perf ormed a t this document station. Additionally, since July 198 7, the Comstock Quality Control Department has been performing monthly randoe drawing control surveillances with good results. 8183N __ v
\ . SMALL AND LARGE SORE PIPING In the piping area, a variety of concerns exist as follows: (1) Material traceability s The Region contended contrary to ASME and CECO QR requirements, that the contractor (Phillips, Getschow ! (PGCC)) had not established and executed an inspection program for Quality Control (QC) to verif y correct material installation for small core safety related piping, nor established and executed the same for large bore piping prior to November 1982. Small Bore - 2"and Under An audit by PGC0 in April 1983 icentifiec & finding where proper documentation of heat ds was not implemented in accordance with establishec PGC0 procedural. controls for inspection and verification ' cf correct small core piping material. CECO filed a potential 10 CFR 50.55(e) report in July 1983. At the time, it was the PGCO practice for "cra f t" personnel to enter pipe-traceability heat fs on to installation crawings upon installation. During in-process inspections, the PGC0 QC practice was to visually verify these heat is for the pipe installed. This QC verification was based upon vercal instructions anc there was ne procecural requirements to cocument this verification Oy sign-off. Later, an as-built drawing CC review ensures that the correct heat #s (un the " Stores Recuest" wnich accompanies the material curing installation) are on the as-Duilt crawing. It is CECO's Delief that any existing prctlem: l
;__, with cocumentation would be f ounc uncer the final N-5 review, which 44,/ is its intencec purpose. The Region contends that QC verification with sign-off at the time of installation is required (up front verification) prior tc getting to the point of the final N-5 review. The Region is not willing to accept " craft" cocumentation l without CC verification.
~
l In response to the Region's concerns, the PGC0 procedure was revisec l in June 1983 to require 100% material icentification by " craft" l personnel and CC inspector verification of heat vs on :ne installation crawings by initial anc date. To establisn a level of confidence f or material traceability prior to this change, a traceacility orogram was started in August 1983. This was basec on a rancom sample of 1,a15 previously installed items thrcugn direct physical fiela verifications anc/or indirect correlation of " Stores Recuest" documentation witn specific traveler packages. Use of this l comoined cirect anc indirect verification estaolishec a hign level ' of confidence that material traccagility exists for previous installations. Although various .cocumentation proolens were found as a result o f the samole progran, these types of proclems would have been found in the final N-5 review. To address the Region's. concerns that ccrrect material war installec, a 100% material verification program was proposec for past installations of small core piping as f ollows: (1) 100% fielc. 1
, walkcown to verify material. The- material heat Js. will De recorded anc/or verifiec on the installation drawings by the OC inscector-
{m~sS with check tnat these field verified heat 0s are approved for use at Braicwoot Station, (C) QC verification of field- icentifiec heat J r against hea t ds on " Stores Requests" for each installation package i G000067j
a e- [ to establish that material withdrawn f rom Stores was installed in (^/ y the correct location, (3) OC verification of the field verified heat x_ #s to ensure correct material is installed for the specific application, and (4) where heat es are not available in the field, a QC review will be made of the " Stores Requests" verif ying material approval for use and correct applicability. The goal of this verification program is to demonstrate the crecioility of the I " Stores Request" documentation for material traceability. Our excesure here is that an approximate 13% (based upon traceability plogram rancom sample results) of the installed material no longer has physical identification markings on it and " Stores Request" documentation must be relied upon for material traceability, Documentation will be upgraced as necessary as a result of this , program and NCRs will De generated to disposition any material not verifiable by the program. Large Bore - Over 2" l In NovemDer 19 3 2, the PGCQ QA manual was revised to require QC verification of material traceability on the- large bore piping weld data traveler. This was implemented in November 1982 and formally proceduralired in June 1963. A 100% material verification program l (similar to small bore piping program) will be ccncuctec f or large bore piping installec prior to November 1952 which has had PGC0 I purcnasec materials accec, anc large bcre piping which has been modified by PGCC wi'n o ther Southwes t Fabricators material. Tnere is still a question with the Region as to wnat additional unalterec Southwest Fabricators large bcre piping spacls snould be incluced in Q this program. Region III Heeting A meeting aas helc with tne Region on Feoruary 7, 1934 to ciscuss this matter anc anether er not the PGC0 program (prior to procecure change) met ASME Code and Appenoix B requirements. In accition to ciscussing the above a t tne meeting, it was pointed out that both CECO and PGC0 CA anc tne ANI hao been involvec witn heat J verification with positive results. Auditing has not found any preolems witn heat 1s or material placement. It is CECO's belief that the "acced level of assurance" to be gainec througn the 10C% material verification program is an acequate resciution, anc in reality is an up-front N-5 review. It is our uncerstancing that the Regicn is now in agreement with our j position tnat the PGC0 program both Defore and after the procecure ' change met ASME Coce recuirements, and tnat their findings will not compromise the PGCC ASME N Stamp. The current Region position as we uncerstand it is. tnat "misapplicatlon of tne PGC0 program in certain instances.resulted in cases not meeting Coce"~, that "the PGCC program was not executec to ADpedcix B Criteria lO and ASME Code recuirements as recorcs cc not exist", and.that "the PGCG program wculO have minimally met ASME Code requirements had it Deen properly implementec". Therefore, the Region's citation will be based upon inacecuate implementation of the PCCC program and the Regicn's belief that our N-5 review woulc not have caugnt the resultant proclems. CECO acknowledges that implementation problems existec (6's,/ resulting in cocumentation problems _ d JJ (2) (later) 2f; 8133N . 41MGoe00G75'
! QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT 1984 GOALS AND EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT MEETING HINUTES ATTENDANCE: Corporate Management J. J. O'Connor B. L. Thomas J. W. Johnson T. J. Matman A. W. Kleinrath J. S. Graves D. P. Galle L. C. Bird L. O. Del George N. E. Handke QA
Participants:
W. J. Shewski G. F. Marcus J. S. Bitel E. E. Fitzpatrick H. P. Studtmann T. E. Quaka S. C. Hunsader G K. J. Hansing D. A. Hamilton A. Saller D. L. Palagi P. F. Hart QA Observers: M. A. Stanish B. E. Har1 J. B. Jokerst J. R. Fancher J. F. Dellamorte C. D. Gustafson The meeting proceeded as indicated on the agenda. There were no questions for Mr. Marcus. After Mr. Quaka's presentation, Mr. O'Connor asked how many of the Conam personnel from LaSalle were going to Braidwood Station. Mr. Quaka replied that approximately 15 persons were expected to go to Braldwood. Mr. O'Connor then asked whether any of those going were of a supervisory level. Mr. Quaka's response was that most of the people transferring were inspector l ^ ' 35 l n . o ' co-dbd i/>ln '013 E0016470 l 0 l
q level, including most of the personnel who had been involved on records review at LaSalle; however, he said, one of the persons transferring was a Level III NDE person from Conam's staff who would be involved at some level in the Braidwood organization, possibly with supervisory responsibilities since he had considerabe service. Mr. O'Connor asked Mr. Hansing to comment further upon the number of deficiencies which would have to be cleared up in the next six to eight weeks. Mr. Hansing remarked that the present number is 500 for Unit 1, but that the rate of generation of new deficiencies makes it difficult to make inroads on this figure. He indicated that the Site is working to reduce the turn-around time on deficiencies so that the number itself can be reduced and the lag minimized. Mr. Hansing added that the Project group is confident that the faster review will enable it to clean up the deficiencies in plenty of time. The number of 500, he said, is definitely seen as being a manageable figure. Mr. Del George noted that the Site has identified over 3,000 deficiencies, of which 500 must be closed before fuel load, and inquired as to whether the method of classifying these deficiencies was the same as that utilized at LaSalle County, and, further, whether NRC agrees with the classification. Thus far, Mr. Hansing noted, the NRC has not taken any issue with the classification of deficiencies. He gointed out that QA would review all of the deficiencies at the release-to-operations stage, but that the test review board from the Station had utilized very conservative criteria in its G classification, so that he did not expect trouble. Mr. Shewski added that indeed the categories were the same as those used at LaSalle County. Mr. Del George also asked how the Unit Consept Inspection deficiencies are tracked and what their current status is. Mr.
. Hansing described the site's follow p group and its activities in insuring that contractors correct the deficiencies which have been found. He indicated that we do not expect a problem with resolving the approximately 300 deficiencies presently outstanding. Mr.
Del George also remarked that he believed the approximately 7,000 deficiencies noted by Mr. Hansing in his presentation as an outcome of the reinspection program were actually the initially observed deficiencies; he recalled that the number of validated deficiencies was actually much smaller, in the 5,000 range. Mr. Hansing said that the numbers that he used were obtained from the report of the reinspection program, and that while he believed they were correct he would recheck his sources. Mr. O'Connor asked Mr. Hansing about what he called the impressive organizational chart showing the reorganization of Pittsburgh Testing. "Are you confident," he asked, "that the right people are now in the right positions?" Mr. Hansing replied that 4 B0016471
y the current PTL site leadership is a valuable asset, and that he was
/ very confident that we would be able to straighten out any
( ~'/ problems. However, he indicated, we would continue to monitor the situation and would attempt to correct anything that was found wanting. Mr O'Connor asked Mr. Hunsader, following the latter's presentation, at what point in the process QA has established its hold points on the various contractor operations. Mr. Hunsader responded that we have looked for the most strategic point, for example, the re-routing of piping in the field by Phillips Getschow. Mr. O'Connor then asked whether such hold points are getting the attention, that is of the contractors and Project Construction. Mr. Hunsader replied that they were. Mr. Quaka added that Project Construction had pointed out that the number of hold points issued in the last few weeks was greater than that which had been used at the site over a period of several years previous. However, he said, QA has attempted to assign such hold points in order to control critical stages. He 111ustrated with the case of receiving inspection, which construction wishes to delegate to the contractors: QA's hold point on such delegation means that QA will carefully inspect the contractors for appropriate training and qualifications of receipt inspectors before allowing such activities to proceed. QA can then check the procedures and watch the first few inspections to be sure that everything is functioning properly. A second example, he said, was the initiation of changes to < gggp installed electrical equipment by the electrical contractor. Generally, Mr. Quaka said, Project Construction has been receptive to the use of such hold points; he said their principal concern is that they not be surprised by any of the requirements. Mr. Fitzpatrick added that the use of the hold points also should save on the number of stop work orders. Continuing'his questioning of Mr. Hunsader, Mr. O'Connor noted that Mr. Hunsader had used the word " appears" in conection with imp [ovements made by Phillips Getschow. He took note of the lack of confidence which this word conveys. Mr. Hunsader agreed that this was the impression that he had intended to convey. In their defense, he noted they have made strides and are expending considerable effort to improve their activity. As yet, he said, QA does not feel that any of Phillips Getschow's activltles can be left without substantial surveillance. For one thing, he noted, they remain inconsistent in the preparation of documents in a number of areas. That seems to indicate to QA that their training and Indoctrination of personnel is not yet at the levels where we can be sure that the personnel understand exactly what they are supposed to 9 O B0016472
t do. Mr. O'Connor asked further if Mr. Hunsader felt that Phillips Getschew has the right leadership in the area of documentation. Mr.
/k [. Quaka interjected that Phillips Getschow had added several new people at the time of the exit meeting for the last QA audit, which took place in late February or early March and had a substantial number of deficiencies. He sa'id there is evidence that Phillips Getschow has had a great deal of difficulty getting around all of 4 the activities which are going on at the same time, and he noted that we have laid the law down very hard to Phillips Getschow's i field leadership. However, he finished, we cannot yet be sure that what Phillips Getschow is doing prospectively is satisfactory, let alone look at correction of errors which may have occurred in the past.
Mr. O'Connor then asked about Pullman Sheet Metal. Mr. Hunsader noted that the Pullman situation was not as bad as that for Phillips Getschow; he said that Pullman had properly implemented the program which it had in existence from the very beginning. However, there were interpretive questions raised by NRC, and the question remains at this point whether the implementation of the present program will be enough to satisfy NRC's requirements. He said the establishment of the revised program has been going very well, with one QA person watching its implementation on a full time basis. The real question, Mr. Hunsader noted, is the acceptability of past work, and that is presently under review by NRC in Washington. Mr. , O'Connor then asked, with respect to both Getschow and Pullman, Q wriether NRC, looking forward, is satisfied. Mr. Hunsader said yes, that he was very confident that they were satisfied that the programs presently in place would be adequate in the future. Mr. Quaka, however, expressed a somewhat different opinion, on the basis of recent meetings with the site inspectors; while he agrees that there is no indication of trouble from Regional NRC personnel, he believes the site inspectors have left the book open, and have not come to a decision as to whether the efforts now underway will be sufficient to make the quality in these areas as satisfactory as they think it should be. Mr. O'Connor remarked that he would think that the new licensing function on-site could be the principal liaison with the site inspectors and would result in " smoking out" their concerns. Mr. Quaka agreed that the licensing personnel would be helpful, particularly with respect to faster turnaround of corrective action and a core convincing demonstration of good faith. However, he cautioned against anything which might tend to leave the impression with the inspectors that their flexibility was being limited in any respect. Mr. Fitzpatrick added by way of explanation that it was not intended that the presence of the licensing personnel should limit the contact of QA with the inspectors; rather, the licensing person would help keep the b B0016473
inspectors up-to-date and action on their concerns on track. Mr. Fitzpatrick also noted that the sites now have bi-weekly contractor's QC supervisors' meetings, which should help communications. Mr. Shewski remarked that Byron does the same thing. Following Mr. Bitel's' talk, Mr. O'Connor asked for details on Braidwood's reluctance to get started on the implementation of the QA Program. Mr. Bitel explained that Braidwood Station, which is acting as a job shop for construction, preferred to use speed letters or memos rather than to implement the work request system which is part of the Edison QA Program. Mr. O'Connor then asked whether similar circumstances applied to Byron. Mr. Bitel replied that there had been no problem with Byron's implementation of the QA Program. -The only problem we have had with Byron, Mr. Bitel added, was that the Station has been reluctant to take advantage of experience at other locations. In one particular instance, that of the pre-operational testing of the non-Safety related rad waste barreling system, the station has gone through approximately five months of testing with numerous changes and a great deal of difficulty. LaSalle County Station had an identical system and the pre-operational test could have been abstracted from the one used at LaSalle without difficulty. Mr. Galle agreed with Mr. Bitel's sensitivity in this regard, commenting that he was aware that the stations had a certain pride of authorship in writing their own procedures for this purpose. Mr. Malman remarked that he believed Projects could address this question. rQ Mr. Thomas asked about Mr. Bitel's references to PCB's, and their transportation to Arkansas for disposal. He remarked that he thought we had a deal with Union Electric for them to burn some of the material. This question was answered by Mr. Johnson, who noted
. that the Union Electric agreement applies only to slightly contaminated oil. Mr. Thomas also asked, regarding the long-standing problems with drawing control, whether Mr. Bitel is satisfied that enough is being done to provide resolution to the existing problems. Mr. Bitel answered by complimenting the program to improve the quality of the drawings themselves; he said substantial progress has been made with regard to improving the definition on the drawings. He noted that there remains a continuing problem in the area of control of drawing issues by the individual stations, and he indicated that there will be a need for constant vigilance to keep that in line. Mr. Thomas inquired as to whether the similar problem with procedures and similar documents is under control. Mr. Bitel replied that both Byron and LaSalle are doing an excellent job in view of the numbers of procedures, and he added that QA has helped out in bringing that under control. Mr. Thomas also inquired whether the responsibility for control of these areas is clearly defined at the various stations and Mr. Bitel replied that it was.
B0016474 l 1
Mr. Galle then inquired whether Mr. Bitel was satified with the resolution of the problems that have occurred with the control of drawing copies in the control room. Mr.Bitel replied that he was satisfied, but that like other drawing controls it was very easy to lose control and requires continued vigilance. Mr. Galle also inquired about problems with safety-related spare parts. Mr. Bitel. in his reply, alluded to the work being done by Station Nuclear Engineering Department, but indicated that the interim situation often results in discord between QA and the stations as to the classification of particular parts. Mr. Shewski explained that QA has imposed as an interim measure a requirement on itself to verify
; that each piece of material or component removed from stock for use is acceptable. No matter how long it takes to implement the permanent program, he said, QA will be looking to see that the station does not get in trouble with unqualified parts. Mr. Bitel added that he thought the program at Byron and Braidwood looked very good. Mr. Shewski added that we had examined that program when it was implemented a year or two ago and had been pleased with the results. Mr. Galle objected that the Byron /Braidwood program was good at its initiation, but may not meet current requirements due to NRC's current direction of a complete technical analysis of the effects of failure of each and every part. Mr. Shewski pointed out that this program was designed before the current interpretations became prevalent, and Mr. Bitel remarked that even in the absence of current technology, the Byron-Braidwood program has the capability to smoke out problems by forcing the manufacturer to describe the fQ potential for problems with particular parts.
Following Mr. Studtmann's presentation on Nuclear Maintenance, Mr. O'Connor commented upon Mr. Studtmann's concern for reliability-related issues. He indicated that management recognized that defining the reliability-related scope is a difficult problem, and that a meeting had been scheduled to discuss the subject. For that reason he deferred conversation on that particular topic. Mr. Studtmann agreed, emphasizing that the subjectivity of the definition of reliability-related leads to continuing conflicts between QA and various station and production organizations. Mr. Galle asked Mr. Studtmann to expand on his remark that safety-related parts classification deserved additional priority. Mr. Studtmann indicated that his concern was that the present ad hoc classification system requires involvement of a number of organizations and is slow in reaching decisions. Asked by Mr. Galle if the present system should be improved or the effort should be put on the Torrey Pines classification system, Mr. Studtmann repiled that either could be done but it would appear that the Torrey Pines system is worth additional effort. Mr. Galle characterized the present system as a fire drill, and Mr. Studtmann agreed. B0016475
Mr. Marcus interjected the note that a team of auditors from General Office QA is beginning an audit as of this date at Sargent & Lundy to look at the design commitments in the fire protection area. This type of audit had not been done previously, and this was scheduled in response to the design issues raised by NRC's audit at Byron. Also, Mr. Marcus mentioned a request from Station Nuclear Engineering to aid the tracking of fire protection comitments made for LaSalle County Station. Mr. Del George remarked that similar auditing would be helpful for the operating stations, where Sargent & Lundy also has some design responsibilities. Mr. Marcus said that the current audit is focused only on Byron. Mr. Hart added that the work for Byron will be appilcable with minor changes, to Braidwood. Following Mr. Fitzpatrick's report, Mr. Del George noted that Mr. Hunsader had tied 0A activity to the BCAP Program; he asked exactly what relationship QA's activities would have to the Project Department activities with respect to this program. There was an extended discussion among Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Maiman, and others regarding the proper function of Quality Assurance with respect to this program. There was general agreement that additional discussion would be necessary in another forum and Mr. O'Connor also agreed that that would be appropriate. Mr. Shewski thanked the participants, both for their attendance and for their past support, in lieu of a complete presentation of his conclusory speech. Mr. Galle offered .M compilments on QA's recently revised monthly report; he feels the new format is preferable to the previous one. Mr. Thomas noted that he had a similar coment, and he went on to say that he felt that the difficult task of communicating the Quality Assurance message is nonetheless a very important one for QA to continue to pursue. He also commented that he hoped that Quality Assurance would continue to seek out executive support when needed, because he felt that if the Company is not doing a good job in the QA area, we have a very serious problem. Mr. O'Connor concluded the meeting by summarizing his impressions of the presentations and discussion. He commented that this was one of the best goals meetings that he had attended in some tirre, and comended the participants for " putting down specifically where you are and where you think you have to go." He noted that QA has become a critical factor in much of what happens today around Commonwealth Edison, and remarked that QA's help in solving the eleventh hour LaSalle problems had been invaluable: "That you were at the right time, in the right place, with the right approach, has made an enormous difference in our ability to get over what /m V B001647s
F otherwise would have been an almost insurmountable burden." He also emphasized that the top priority, in his view, is to get us back to j the respect of NRC, both at the site and in the region. He noted ! that understanding NRC's people is very, very difficult, because of individual differences, but he emphasized that we must understand them and their concerns and priorities and not take that fact for j granted. l Mr. O'Connor also emphasized his displeasure with the accumulation of deficiencies without effective correction. He noted that the quantity, as well as the quality, of'the deficiencies Impresses the public, and must not be allowed.' He also emphasized i the necessity for interdepartmental cooperation. "QA's got a job to do, Projects has a job to do, the operating stations, both fossil and nuclear, have a job to do. . the key thing is that we've got common goals... to get there it is extremely important that nobody should be closed out of a meeting because they have a different function to attend to." Mr. O'Connor went on to say that management needed to assist the communication and cooperation process, and indicated that management wants to know about areas where the responsiveness is inadequate, so that they can address those situations. Mr. O'Connor also expressed his concern over the seeming l failure to learn from others, both internally and externally, in some areas. Further, he retterated the importance of procedures in doing things right the first time, and spoke about the need for what Q he called "QA consciousness",'in all areas of company operations. He also emphasized the need for excellence, for doing better than minimum requirements. He underlined the importance of training, particularly insofar as it helps Company employees to anticipate what requirements will be in the future. He indicated his
. satisfaction with the report on word processing, saying, "It is a question of working smarter and not just necessarily working harder."
Mr. O'Connor commented on fire protection, recognizing that there are many reasons to put emphasis on this area: "It's a high l visibility item, it's a matter of great concern to the public, but more important it's a matter of great concern to our people, and it's something I think we have to take very, very positively and very seriously." Finally, he warned participants not to take anything for granted; he said that we could not assume that contractors will do the right thing or follow procedures; that because an item is closed out that it will stay closed out; and he asked for a second look or perhaps a third loot to make sure that things are continuing to be done right. He concluded by complimenting Quality Assurance on the job it has done, and by assuring QA that it has the full and total support of the senior rJanagement of the Company and will continue to ) have it. ' 46290 m ewwm BS.
- n-
's e v '
Subj ect : Braiduced Technical Eur;crt Grcuo Evsluatien Folleving is a sc==ary of the results of the evaluatien perforced by the recently for=ed Braidwood Technical Support Group, under the directicn of the Project Manager. A detailed evaluatien report vill be prepared by October 8, 1982. Generr.1 Su== arf- Cc._ ents are included at the end of this =e=o. Scope
. The Evaluaticn Group looked at the effectiveness of Quality Assurance and Quality Control activities nt each of the centractors presently on site.
. The evaluation began 9/lk/82 and concluded on 9/2L/82.
Technical Sur;crt Grouc
. The Group vas ec= prised of experienced engineers frc= each of our cen-struction sites, who vere considered to have good understanding of QA/QC principles and practices, streng construction field activity experience, and covering the three engineering disciplines.
. Dick Tuetken, Assistant Construction Superintendent, Byron (Group leader)
Bob Byers, Ccnstruction Structural Engineer, Byren Ji: Gieseker, Assistant Tech. Staff Superviscr, LaSalle Dick Braun, Quality Assurance Super.-isor, LaSalle Le rf Tapella, Ccnstruction Electrical Engineer, Braiduced Jerry Groth, Construction Mechanical Engineer, Braidvced &n ,-- Pethod of Evaluation
. The basic approach used in perfer=ing the evaluation was as follevs:
- Discuss each contractors verk cecpe, perfen ance, and job status with responsible Project Construction Engineers to gain an understanding of site ter=inology, areas of concern, etc.
- Discuss the QA/QC progra= vith the site superintendent for each centracter; discuss verk flovs and practices; possibly review sc=e procedures.
- Discuss the cperation of the contracter's QC progra=, in detail with the centractor QC superviscr; gain an understanding of past and present vork flows and work practices; briefly review the secpe and detail of present procedures; review docu=entation, deternining ec=pleteness and acccuntability.
24 1 A00130.91 l 1
. J h O Mgu y- ! 6. thr ! y z~/ec
- Review sample docu=entation packages and site field activities.
. The evaluation was focused as a broadly based review of practices, procedures, attitudes, and documentatien. As such , it was necessarily more subjective and less detailed than a normal QA type audit.
Su==ary Fesults Folleving is a very brief su==ary of the evalustion results relating to each site centracter. , Newbure - Structural Work
. Cencrete placement and grouting verk vas accettable; procedures vere used, QC vas involved in the field, good documentation exists.
. Work ncv in pregress (i.e. vith cer. ~ete cceplete)
___ is not very well supported by procedures or documentatien. Structural steel erection, concrete expansi . anchor 1 placement, and drawing changes (with cenere'e revision) I lack procedures, and experience little QC invcivement. ( All Category 1 structural steel work is under a "stop verk" l h]) order for this reascn. I
. Sc=e " retrofit inspection " of the ateve work vill need to l
be perforced since documentaticn does not support the quality of the vork ec=pleted. Newburg ccrporate persennel are personally involved in re-viewing the above cencerns as well as the results of an audit recently concluded by Energy Inecrporated, which raised additional specific concerns. Phillips Getschov - !!echanical Work
. The Phillips Getschov crgani:ation is short en engineering and =anagement talent; crganizational direction is not clearly given; their " paper ficv" is cumbersene.
QC is too involved in "line work" - i.e. initiating producticn data packages which govern installation vork (this should be done by P-G Engineering). As such, too little time and pricrity are given to QC activities.
.. Docunent accountability is very poor; it is likely that at least some documents are lost.
A"){}130.%
w
' 40ce =any MCP.'s (noncr=ferance reports } are written; they f are. predispositioned to write MCB's and pass = cst problems en to Project Construction fer resolution; they do not have a system or attitude to resolve lesser significant prcble=c in-house. Proble= resolutien is therefore clev.
. P-G field supervision does not understand, in a broad sense, what they are trying to acec=plish in specific work activities; they need training.
. QC supervisor is too involved in details; effectively he directly supervises abcut 25 people; he solves all QC proble=s and ansvers all questions.
. The office crganization is not effectively set up to efficiently support Producticn in the field.
. A "stop vork" is in effect on new verk associated with mechanical equip =ent; while ve are doing " retrofit inspections" en =ost safety-related equip =ent.
. A "stop vork" is in effect en all new safety-related hanger installation while we crganize jy[ to " retrofit inspectiens" on about 2,000 hangers, p 5mm Cc= stock - Electrical Work M&
. In order to recently bring past docu=entation in line with require =ents , effcrts were directed away frc= QC inspectiona resulting in a significant current backicg of hangers re-quiring inspectien.
. Presently 35% of hangers are inspected en a sampling basis.
This program is not statistically based. We vill probably cto to 100% cn future work; and we vill need to perfor= so=e 4' retrofit inspecticns" en hangers installed. More QC inspectors are needed.
. Docu=entatien and tracking devices are ec= plicated with some duplication and inefficiency. Strea= lining vill help Production, l
i Pul'_=an - EVAC Work
. Presently 10% of hangers are inspected on a sampling basis.
This progra= is not statistically based. We vill probably go to 100% cn future work; ve vill need to perfor= sc=e
" retrofit inspectien" on vork ec=pleted. More QC in,-
spectors are needed. A0013093 y
- 1 v
g Valeren - Cencrete Block Work
. Docu=entation needs seme upgrading; generally, their work is acceptable. They vill leave the site in a =cnth.
Natoleon - Structural Steel Work
. Good acceptable program. They vill leave the site soon.
Their remaining scope and all their docu entation vill be turned over to Newburg. UISCO - USSS Equipnent Erecticn
. Acceptable.
Midway - Painting
. Acceptable.
1 General Su==arv Cem ents
. There are areas of verk within each of the major centrsetors (Newburg, Getschev, Cc= stock, and Pullman) for which documentation practices, and procedures require upgrading.
. There are areas within each of the major centractors which sdll
,. _ require " retrofit inspectien" in order to establish an adequate M level of documented quality verificatien.
. "here is an overall attitude and approach to QA/;0 en site (e.g. staffing levels, i=pertance of QC activity, etc.) which needs to be raised to a level consistent vith current acceptable and expected practices.
. With a high confidence level, we kncv cur treble =s and shcrtec=ings at Braidwood.. We,are develorine crecific plans for respending to each area of concern.
. A ranking of the contractors en the basis of = cst serious present problem areas and the effort required to correct them would be as follows: Phillips Getschov - Newburg - Cc= stock - Pu1L=an.
. If the !~dC =cves in a vorst case direction with regc.'s to what action results frc= the 8/81/82 Enforcement Conference, then cur everall risk exposure is not s=all.
. We are in centrol of our situation at Braidwood, and moving expeditiously to i= prove it. We kncv vhat is needed to reach the
" acceptable" level, and in geners' , ,e e nov vhat it vill take to get there.
/ 9 Mi Wallace 2,$
- 58A0013094 W 59 (p Maley
h~-
.. / Commonwealth Edison Synopsis of Minutes of Meeting of Board of Directors - on March 1, 1983 Other Matters
- 1. Mr. O'Connor reported that ,
(c) in recent weeks the Company has received a series of fines totaling $220,000 from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for alleged quality-assuranc(- and operating violations at Braidwood, Dresden and Quad Cities Stations. (Q Cl2 F00005G3 O O Danor-(; bY. f y/.2/ip ;
k: - I
- Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of Commonwealth Edison Company, held in the Board Room 37th Floor, One First National Plaza, Chicago,
-- -19 8 3, a t'; 10 : 00 a . m . -Illinois, ~ on Tuesday , March 1, - '"
PRESENT:
- Norris A. Aldeen
,, Jean Allard
. _ . . *. . . . Thomas G. Ayers Wallace B. Behnke, Jr.
Gordon R.'Corey Albert B. Dick III Donald P. Jacobs George E. Johnson Harvey Kapnick Thomas L. Martin, Jr. t Edward A. Mason James J. O'Connor i William Wood Prince A. Dean Swift being all of the members of the Board of Directors. Executive Vice President Bide L. Thomas, Vice Presidents James W. Johnson, Donald A. Petkus, Cordell Reed, George P. Rifakes and John J. Viera, Secretary and Treasurer Raymond P. Bachert and
~ Harlan M. Dellsy, Staff Counsel, were also present.
Mr. James J. O' Con'nor, Chairman of the Company, acted as Chairman of the meeting. Mr. Raymond P. Bachert, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, acted as Secretary of the meeting. Mr. O'Connor reported that
] F0000564
~4 .
w t 2-s (c) in recent weeks the Company has received a series of fines from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the first a proposed $100,000 fine for quality-assurance violations at Braidwood Station, and the second consisting of two fines totaling $120,000 for violations at Dresden and Quad-Cities Stations for inadvertently installing sleeves for relief valves that did not meet quality standards for safety-related parts and for violating technical specifications when an operator ( apparently left a small valve open between the containment and the rest of the building at Dresden Unit 2. m "12 F00005SS
Board of Directore Meeting - December 10 1985
. Synopsis of Minutes Other Matters 1.
Mr. O'Connor reported that b) the Braidwood Program was completed Construction and in mid-November Assessment has not turned up any design significant safety deficiencies. 4 h
; Q (o I RADY
!i (X. Alo
}t q. 2. -Eh O
C12 F000057
p Mr. O'Connor reported that the Company's Braidwood Construction Assessment Program, BCAP, was formally completed in mid-November when a summary report was filed with the NRC. Mr. O'Connor stated that this macsive assessment of construction practices at the Braidwood project has not turned up any design sig'nificant safety deficiencies and was monitored continuously by a team of independent technical-experto and the NRC staff. Mr. O'Connor ctated that BCAP lasted 17 months and considered more than 650,000 plant attributes to make certain that cafety-related hardware conformed to design requirements. a Mr. O'Connor stated that the Company's management believen the results of BCAP provide an objective basis for high confidence in the acceptability of the past, ongoing, and future ccastruction work at Braidwood and give testimony to the effective implementation of the Company's quality assurance and quality control programs. Mr. O'Connor stated that intervenorc in the Braidwood licensing proceedings had filed quality assurance contentions consisting of over 70 separate iscuec. Mr. O'Connor stated that the Company believes that in accepting these contentions, which were filed late and did not raise new incues, into the licensing proceedings the licensing Board violated the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rules and the Company appealed the Board'c action. The matter is now before the Commiccionerc of the Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion. t lie stated that the Commiccionerc asked the Company and the other parties to the proceedingc to recpond to a number of 1
/
questions designed to clarify the icsue by December 19, 1985 and can be expected to rule on the admissability of the contentions in the I { near future. C12 F0000576 l
C ( Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of Commonwealth Edison' Company, held in the Board Room 37th Floor. One First National Plaza. Chicago, Illinois, on Tuesday, December 10, 1985, at 10:00 a.m. PRESENT: us: ( .s. . Norric A. Aldeen Jean Allard Wallace B. Behnke, Jr. Donald P. Jacobc George E. Johncon Byron Lee, Jr. Thomas L. Martin, Jr. 8 Edward A. Macon Jamec J. O'Connor Patrick G. Ryan A. Dean Swift Bide L. Thomas Eugene P. Wilkincon gwa being a majority of the memberc of the Board of Directors. M Vice President and Comptroller Raynond P. Bachert, Vice Presidents James W. Johnson, Precton B. Kavanagh, Donald A. Petkus. Cordell Reed, George P. Rifakec, Robert J. Schultz, and John J. Viera, Treasurer Ernest M. Roth, Secretary Klaus H. Winiol, Strategic Analycic Manager Robert Beckwith, Manager of Projectc Thomas J. Maiman, and Director of Taxec Alvin J. Noft: were also present. Mr. James J. O'Connor, Chairman of the Company, acted as Chairman of the meeting. Mr. Klauc II. Wiciol. Secretary of the Company, acted ac Secretary of the meeting. F0000575
~.
1 s 11-16-84 l l SARGENT & LUNDY BCAP CONCERNS l
. VALID DISCREPANCIES l
l ORIGIrlALLY ESTIMATED =600-1000 l ! PaoJECTED =10000 T5 DOCUf'ENTATION OF VALID DISCREPA!!CIES O I S 0' Con e
! 6X. #ll j 4-J-%
F0000539
. - . ~ - , - _ _ - - - . . - -_ . - . . . - . . . . . - . . - - . - - _ - , . , . . . - - - --._ --_
February 18, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEA LTH EDISON COMPANY ) No. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) ) INTERVENORS' ANSWER OPPOSING APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION INTRODUCTION Intervenors Forem, et al., oppose Applicant's December 20, 1985, motion for summary disposition regarding 19 subparts of our cuality assurance contention on the grounda that a broad range of significant and genuine iccues of fact rained by the subject contention cubparts remain in dispute and require resolution through completion of discovery and hear ing. Intervenors iden-tify portions of the testimonial affidavits and exhibits filed in support of Applicant's motion which must be disregarded on the grounds that the competence of the witnesses to testify to the matters stated has not been chown or that the f acts cet forth would not be adm innibl e in evidence. On the basis of Applicant's moving papers themselves, the incomplete discovery to date and the limited ability of Intervenors' to depose only five of Applicant's 20 supporting j,g ! witnessen in the time available during the pendency of thic 1 h f M%O' $ w
motion it is apparent that Applicant 's factual claims are simply unsupportable in many important respects. Factual contradic-tions, gaping holes in the material evidence and unsubstantiated assertions abound. Further, in many instances Applicant's wit-nesses lack any personal knowledge whatever of the material facts which they alone support. In some cases the witness arrived at the Braidwood site only years after the events in question; in others the only involvement of the witness in the subject of the specific quality assura.1ce failure was the preparation of his testimonial affidavit in support of summary disposition. Final-ly, in many of instances critical documents and reports which are claimed to support Applicant's position are not filed with the summary disposition motion. In some cases the document has never even been identified in discovery or was made availaole only at the witness' deposition if at all. Pule 56(e) of the Federal Pules of Civil Procedure requires that any such documents be served with the summar y disposition motion as part of the movant's burden of proof. 6 tiocr e 's S 5 6.2 2 [1 ] Although the Commission rule is silent on the matter, such an obligation should be imposed upon Applicant here, particularly in light of the complexity and scope of its motion. Fundamentally, Applicant's motion for summary disposition is ill-founded. In seeking to summarily dispose of contention sub-items each founded upon a specific historic NPC Staff finding of quality assurance failure at Praidwood Applicant seems to ask i this Board to erase each such historic flaw from the Praidwood ouality assurance record "with no subsecuent opportunity for 2
f Intervenors to use them to demonstrate pat terns of inadecuacies." Motion and Supporting Memorandum of Commonwealth Edison Company for Summary Disposition on , Pleadings as to Certain Subconten-tiens, December 20, 1985, (hereinafter Motion for Summary Disposition), p. 11. Such an approach defies not only historic experience but also the guidance of the Appeal Board in United Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-740, 18 NRC 343, 346 (1985), which recuires that t!.is very record of quality assurance deficiencies be evaluated for "implicationn" that unidentified and uncorrected safety flaws remain in the facility. The existence of such a record of quality assurance deficiencies, as Intervenors believe has occurred at Draidwood, precludes the
" reasonable assurance" determination which must be established to entitle Applicant to the operating license it seeks.
As a general matter summary disposi tion is inherently inappropriate for the resolution of such critical and complex aspects of these contention subparts a rt the significance of the OA failure, its root cause, generic implications and the effectiveness of any corrective action. F.g., 10 CFP S50.55(e); Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion xvI; callaway, supra. Such aspects are akin to the ultimate innuen in the proceeding. They are of high public interest and impor tance and can only be resolved through a thorough evaluation of all the evidence in the proceeding including a complete record after full discovery and a review of the demeanor and credibility of " live" witnesses subject to cross examination in a public hearing. The Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Pole providing for summary 3
disposition is set out in 10 CFP S2.749. The Commission's summary disposition procedures have been analogized to Pule 56 of the Federal Pules of Civil Procedure. Cleveland Electric Illiminating Co. et al. (Per ry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and
- 2) ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 753-54 (1977). In addition to the requirements of 10 CFP S2.749, various Licensing Board and the Appeal Board decisions set the standards for summary disposition.
The Appeal Board has stated that " summary disposition is a harsh remedy. It deprives the opposing litigant of the right to cross examine the witness, which is perhaps a t the very essence of an adjudicatory hearing" Perry, supra. Summary disposition is only authorized where it is auite clear what the facts are, and where no genuine issue remains for trial. In determining such a motion, the record will be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Gulf States Utilities (Fiver Bend Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP 10, 1 NFC 246 (1975). Even if no party opposes a motion for summary disposition, the movant's fil ings must still establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Adicken v. Kress & Co., 390 U.S. 1"4 (1970); Cleveland I:lectric Illuminating Co. et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-443, 6 NFC 741 (1977). DEFICIENCIES IN I:DIGON'S FVIDFl!TI ARY AFFIDAVITS Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFP S 2.7 4 9 ( b) , " Affidavits shall ret forth such facts as would he admissible in evidence and 4
shall show affirmatively that the a f fiant is competent to testi-many to the matters stated therein." Pursuant to Pule 56(e) of the Federal Pules of Civil Procedure, supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated herein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith. Because numerous portions of Edison's affidavits in support of its motion for summary disposition conform neither to the requirements of 10 CFP S 2.74 9 ( b) nor to the standards of Pule 56(c) of the Federal Pules of Civil Procedure, any alleged
" material facts" based on such unreliable affidavits should be disregarded.
A. Certain Of Edison's " Material Facts" Should Be Disregarded As Untoliable Becauso They Are Based On Portions Of Affidavits As To Ubich Affiant Lacks Personal Knowledge And Cempetency To Testify, And Which Contain Conclusions Uncupported By Specific Facts In the absence of an af firmative showing of personal knowledge or competence to testify to the matters stated, affida-vits should be disregarded along with any " material f ac t" which is supported by the affidavit. 10 CFP C 2.74 9 ( b) ; American Padio M fg. Co. , Inc. v. Ila rel t i ne Pesearch, Inc., 339 U.S. 827, 831 (1950); Stevens v. Barnard, (CA 10th 1975) 512 F.2d 076 (affida-vits must indicate on their face that the information contained therein is upon personal knowledge; this reuufrement cannot be 5
in f er red ); 6 Moore's S56.22 [1] . The absence of an affirmative showing d... that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated t here in" v i t ia tes the sufficiency of the affida-vit. 10 CFR S 2.7 4 9 ( b) . See' also Durovic v. Palmer, 342 F.2d 634 (7th Cir. 1965). Moreover, a f fian t's " belie f" and mere conclusions do not meet the requirements of 10 CFP S 2.74 9 ( b) or the standards cet by Rule 56(e). United States v. Manuf acturers Bank of Southfield, 518 F.Supp. 4 9 5, 4 97 (E.D. M i c h. 19 81 ) . As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held, "[S]uch expressionc [of opinion] are totally ineffectual, and are not to be given any consideration or weight wh a t soeve r." G.D. Sea r l e & Co. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., 231 F.2d 316, 318 (7th Cir. 1956). Accordingly, because the affidavita offered by Edicon are not based on affiantc' perconal k no wl edge of specific facts, but are conclusory in nature, and because competency to tentify is not af firmatively demonstrated on the face of the affidavits, thoce affidavits should be found unreliable and dicrogarded ac supporting a " material fact". B. Certain of Edison's " Material Facta" Should Pe Dicregarded As Unreliable Because They Are Based on Portions of Affidavits That Are Peplete With Inadmiccible If e a r sa y, They Express Opinions on Ultimate Facts and Conclusions of Law, and They Do Not Contain Sworn Or Certified (Or Any) Copien of the Documents Peferred To Therein. Because Edison's a f fiants apparently have no perconal knowledge or competency to tentify to much of the material j / 1 contained in their affidavits, thore affidavits are baned in s; 6 !
large measure on inadmissible hearsay and opinions respecting the ultimate facts and conclusions of law. 10 CFR S 2.74 9( b) and Rule 56(e) provide that affidavits offered in connection with summary disposition "shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence." Therefore, those portions of Edison's affidavits which rely on hearsay or express opinions on ultimate facts and conclusions of law should be disregarded, and any of Edison's "ma terial facts" which rely on that unreliable testimony should be disregarded. Possi v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., (CA 9th, 1974) 507 F.2d 404; Elliot v. Massachusetts Mutual Life I n c. Co. (CA Sth, 1968) 388 F.2d 362 (holding that statements of opinion, even if admissible in evidence, may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment because (1) statements based on opinion cannot at the same time be based on personal knowledge; and (2) consideration of opinion testimony is purely a function for the trier of f act); Waldie v. Schlesinger (CA DC 1974) 509 F.2d 508; 6 Moote's 556.22[1]. Moreover, under the standard of Pule 56(e), the failure of Edison's a f fiants to attach to their affidavits sworn or certified copies of all documents referred to in the affidavits prevents the Board's and Intervenors' consideration of the testimony as it relates to those documents. United States v. Dibble, (CA 9th, 1970) 429 F.2 d 598; 6 Moore's S 5 6.2 2 I1 ] , (Professor Moore sta ted , "It is most important that copies of material documents accompany the a f fidavi t, and Pule 56(e) requires that sworn or certified copies be attached thereto or s served t he r e w i t h .") It is especially important bere, where [Gj 7
certain of Edison's af fiants claim to rely on " comprehensive reviews" to support a " material f a c t ," yet the reviews referred to have not been completely disclosed to Intervenors in discovery; nor are they attached to the affiants' affidavits. (Quaka Deposition Tr. 49; Schulz Deposition Tr. 332, 351-52.) Accordingly, because numerous portions of Edison's affidavits contain inadmissible hearsay, opinions on ultimate facts and conclusions of law, and do not contain copies (let alone sworn or certified copies) of the documents referred to therein, those portions of the affidavits should be found unreliable and incapable of supporting the related " material facts". CONCLUSION What follows is Intervenors' answer on the merits as to each subpart of the OA contention subject to Applicant's Motion For Summary Disposition. For each subpart a statenent of Facts In Dispute is set forth with record references and exhibits attached, as appropriate, together with argument supporting our position that, for good cause shown, Applicant 's Motion For Summary Disposition should be denied. DATED: February 18, 1985 Respcctfully cuhmitted, Robert Guild 7 Douglass W. Cassel, Jr. Timothy W. Wright, III 3ky 109 North Dearborn g Suite 1300 Pobedt j
!' --1 Chicago, IL 60602 Guil(Attorneys for One of the
( ' (312) 641-5570 Intervenors Foren, et al. 8
Subcontention 3(C)
- 3. Contrary to criterion II, "Ouality Accurance Program,"
of 1,0 C . F . P . Part 50, Appendix P, commonwealth Edison Company has failed to . establish a cuality assurance program which complies with the requirements of Appendix B and which is documented by wr i t ten policies, proce-dures, and instru:tions and is carried out in accordance with those instructions. Edison has failed to assure that its OA program provides controls over activities affecting quality and that such activities are accom-plished under suitably controlled conditions and are appropriately verified for anality by inspection. C. The Applicant's electrical contracect ( Co m s t o c k ) utilized Level I Quality control Inspectors for inspec-tion and acceptance of electrical welds. This involved 14 different Level I inspectors over four years. (Inspection Report 85-06, Fxh. 1 1. ) Facts In Discute Edison and its contractors' use of unoualified Level I Quality Control inspectors for the visual inspection and acceptance of safety related wolds evidences a significant failure to establish and implement an effective quality accurance program, teither the " Level I Peverification Program" now being developed nor the "Ouality Control Inspector Peverification l Program" which is incompleto will assure that the Level I OC l I inspoctors were effectively qualified and that the welds in question meet regulatory requirements. , For many years at Braidwood site cuality assurance 1 procedures of the electrical contractors, and perhaps others, authorized the use of unqualified Lovel I Ouality Control Inspectorn in the i m pr o po r pe r fo r mance of visual wr 1d inspectinns g and acceptance. Such use of subiective judomont in the evalua-1
tion of the acceptability of safety-related welds clearly
'xceeded their level of qualification as established by the applicable ANSI standa rd N4 5.2.6-197 8. Failure of Edison and its contractors to identify this obvious deficiency reflects a serious flaw in the Praidwood auality assurance program. Only a 100% reinspection of the improper Level I inspections will ensure the cuality of the work which they alone have inspected. In the absence of such a 100% reinspection, Edison has asserted that, first, the Ouality Control Inspector Peverification Program (OCIPP) will verify the qualifications of the Level I CC inspectors; and, more recently, that a special Level I Peverifi-cation Program (LPP) will, in place of the CCIPP, establish the acceptability of the welds in question. The adecuacy of the LPP in its design, organization, methodology, impicmentation, and results is a matter in dispute in this proceeding. Pesolution of this dispute cannot be delegated to the NPC Staff, but must be subject to Intervenors' scrutiny and opportunity to be heard.
Louisiana Power and Light Co., (Waterford Storm Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 NPC 1076, 1103 (1981). Although the LPP procedures remain in draft form and the inspections have yot to begin, semious deficiencies are already apparent in Faison's description of the progran in its summary dirposition papers. Fl a ws in the sampling plan, the unreliability of Constock auality documents and the unresolved harassment and intimidation issues which infect both the original and retro inspections by Constock inspectors, all raire grave doubts about the offectivenern of the
; LPP to accomplish Fdicon'n stated purposo for it. Intervenors 7 ,
t 2
believe that nothing short of a 100% reinspection of this omstock weld work will suf fice. To summar ily dispose of these serious questions as Edison suggests would recuire the Poard to simply close its eyes to t h e s e, ca fety problems. Applicant presentn the affidavit testimony of three witnesses in support of its motion for rummary disposi tion wi th respect to subpart 3(C) - the Level I OC innue: Martin P. Frankel, a statistician; Kenneth Kostal, a Sargent & Lundy engineer, and James W. Gieseker, an Fdison construction engineer. Mr. Kostal's involvement in the LPP was limited solely to the preparation of his affidavit supporting summary disposition. Ile had no prior involvement. Ile has had no involvement since. (Kostal Deposition Tr. 21. ) M r. Kostal will have adminictrative responsibility for the S&L review of LPP renultn. (Fontal Tr. 23.) fie has never reviewed the LPP procran procedures (Fontal Tr. 27). For are there any unique S&L LPP policion or procedures. (Fostal Tr. 2 7. ) Kontal ic unfamiliar with Comstock and Ernst weld inspection document practict r (Kontal Tr. 37); and he is unfamiliar with the number of welds documented on a weld inspection report. Qd . ) In rhort, fi r . Fontal har "irtually no knowledqe of the proposed Level I Peverification Program, except that obtained solely for the purpose of preparinq hir affidavit supporting nummary disponition. Mr. Fontal'c tontimony provides I little cupport for Edison'n ponition. Tho cecond witness nupportinq nummary dinponi t ion in Dr. Martin Frankel - a nta t int ician. In the time available to on, I
. Intervenors were unable to take Dr. Frankol'n doponition. Ho y l L> l 3
matter, however, since his degree of involvement in the LRP is also slight, and is only marginally greater than that of Mr. Fostal. Dr. Frankel's involvement consisted of primarily tele-phone conversations with Edisan's Mr. Gieseker. (Gieseker Deposition, Tr. 150.) M r. Gieseker provided Dr. Frankel with what he described as the population size, e.g., number of weld inspection reports, although not welds. (Gieseker Tr. 155.) In response to this number - 9000 - (Giereker Dep. Tr. 150), Mr. Frankel provided the sample size - 4 75. Dr. Frankel had no other role in designing the LF P. lie neither sought nor was given the Comstock visual weld inspection procedures. (Gieseker Dep. Tr. 156). In fact, Mr. Gieseker erroneously informed Dr. Frankel that the range of welds per inspection report was between 2-10 (Gieseker Dep. Tr. 159), although Mr. Gieseker has since learned that as many as 1,215 welds are repor ted a s inspected on a single inspection report document. (Gieseker Dep. Tr. 160.) Thus, aside f rom preparing his af fidavit in support of the motion for summary disposition, !' r . Frankel's contact with the LPP consisted of several telephone conservations with Mr. Cieseker in which he provided a sample size number for the inspection report sampl e selection. Dr. Frankel's involvement in the LPP is obviously limited and any interpretation of his testimonial affidavit as endorsing the reliability and confidence levels associated with inferences f rom the LPP muct he weighed in light of the thin foundation of personal knowledge upon which it is based. Edison's third witness is ffr. Gioseker, the Edison Project
< Construction Department onqinner principally renponsible for the g
') 4
LPP's implementation. Mr. Gieseker acknowledges at the outset I that even after the preparation of his December 20, 1985 a f f idavi t , he was uninformed as to the actual character of the Level I OC inspectors' work. fr. Gioseker corrects his testimony to acknowledge for the first time "that the overall practice employed by LKC for use of Level I and II inspectors was not in conformance with the ANSI s t a nd a rd." (Gieseker Deposition Exhibit 3.) Apparently, for the first time in early January 1986, Mr. Gieseker actually interviewed Comstock OC inspectors in the company of an NBC inspector and Jearned of the actual practices in failing to verify the inspections performed by the Level I inspectors. (Gieseker Dep. Tr. 1 R-2 5. ) Mr. Gieseker concluded: Oh, well, originally when I wrote the answer to the question in the motion for summary disposi-tion, I was at the poin t where I didn' t feel as strongly that the Level I reinspection program was required. After the interviews, when I realized an inconsistency in the implementation of the program, T felt stronger that the program was needed to determ ine the adequacy of the Lovel I'n we]ds. (Gieseker Dep. Tr. 2 4. ) It remains unexplained why rdison failed to establish on its own, absent an NFC inspector's initiative, what the actual Lovel I OC inspector practice was, or why such information was not sought as far back as 1978 when the practice apparently began. (Gieseker Affidavit Exhibit 1.) It is unexplained why a simple reading of the L.K. Comstock Weld Inspection Procedure 4.8.3, Pevision F, in effoct prior the NPC identi fica t ion of this issue, would not have led to the samt. i l .T' /co nc l us i o n a s that reachod by Mr. Gieseker only wenks ago. That ( 5
. procedure provides explicitly that the weld inspection is to be s
pe r fo r m ed by "the Level I or II welding i n s pe c t o r." Section 3.24. "A Level II inspector shall review the checklist for completeness and signify concur'rence by signing and dating on the
' Level II Inspector' section of the ch ec k l i s t." Section 3.24.1.
(Gieseker Deposition Fxhibit No. 2, attached hereto as Exhibit D.) By design the LPP inexplicably defines the population for sampling not as welds themselves - which ar e the focus of the program's object which is verification of weld auality - but of inspection reports, the Comstock Form 19's, or predecessor docu-ments, on which the OC weld inspector inspection results are documented. Without any logical support, Dr. Frankel, the stat-istician, appears to endorse the validity of inferences regarding the population of welds drawn from a sample of weld inspection reports. (Frankel Affidavit, p. 10. ) Perhapn this conclusion rests upon Mr. Gieseker's erroneous advice that the range of welds reflected on an inspection report is 2-10 (Gieseker Dep. Tr. 159), instead of the actual range of 2-1,215 (Gioceker Dep. Tr. 160). The effect of such disparate weld inspection documen-tation practices on the LPP camplinq plan is problematic. An example of a Form 19 reflecting an inordinately large cuantity of weld inspections was produced by Fdison in renponse to a discovery reauest by Intervenors. In tho depostion of a Comstock Level II inspector, Dan Holley, taken by Ed ison Janua r y 28, 1986, Mr. Folley described statements by the Comstock Ouality Control Manager, Irv DeWald, in effect br agg ing that he had inspected ver 1000 welds in one day in the context of urging his inspec-6 J
tors to increase their production rates toward such example. Mr. Holley testified that he confirmed DeWald's claims during the course of his weld inspection document review in the Comstock auality assurance vault. M r. Folley identified the drawing num-ber involved and Edison produced several DeWald weld inspection checklists associated with that drawing. (Holley Deposition Tr. 114-25, Exhibit B hereto.) Mr. DeWald's 1/30/81 Form 19 reflectr the performance of inspections on 233 welds. Whether these weld inspections were performed in one day or in ten is simply unknown. DeWald inspection checklist for d r a wing 2 0F-1-3 061HL-P, 6-10, attached hereto as Exhibit C.) According to Comstock'c former Level III weld inspector, Worley O. Puckett, cince te r m in a ted for raising safety and quality concerns, (See, claim reflected in OC Inspector Harasnment and Intimidation Contention), the performance of cuch a cuantity of welds in a single day is clearly unreasonable. (Puckett Deposition Tr. 299-303, Fxhibit D hereto.) The DeWald Form 19 weld innpection checklist appears to re fl ect two other significant flaws in the LPP: the use of a so-called " grid" identification nystem, making it impossible to identify the actual welds inspected; and the aprarent use of Level I weld inspectorn by yet another cite contactor, Edison's independent tentor, Pittsburg Testing Laboratorien ( PT L) , who chow a Level I innpector "D.L. Meredith" performing the 2/4/81 sample overincpect ion of Mr. DeWald's work. Ac Mr. Gieseker states, the uno of such grid referoncen make reinspection under the LPP program imposnible. (Gioneker Dep. In nuch canec, a grid decer ipt ion inrpection report ic lTr. 7 9. ) 7
, _ simply excluded from the sample. (Gieseker Dep. Tr. 7 9. ) For at least one of the Comstock Level I inspectors, all five of his inspection reports provide grid references only, thus eliminating his weld inspection work completely from the LF P. (Gieceker Dep.
Tr. 241.) The elimination of such welds and weld inspections from the LRP sample certainly skew the reinspection recults. !!o w likely is it that an inspector who describes his work imprecicely through the grid description system also performs inadeguate inspections and misses rejectable welds? How much more likely if the same inspector " inspects" 1000 welds in a single day? The LRP will be further undermined by pervasive and serious problems in L.K. Comstock ouality documentation reliability. Edison identified this cubject ac a 10 CFF 50.55(e) significant deficiency in a report January 31, 1984, and han in progress a major corrective action program on this nubject. 7c of January 31, 1986, the review of 101,758 recordn have reflected the identification of 19,953 "uncatinfactory" for a 20? defect rato. A program description and statun report provided by Pdison in responne to diccovery requents in attached hereto an Exhibit E. The LPP was developed for the specific purpore of renponding to Contention Item 3(C) in place of the existing euality Control Inspector Peinnpection Program (OCIpP), which wac oriqinally identifled as the corrective action for the Iovel i UC innpector problem. The LDP was developed becauce OCIPP ronultn are not expected until early nummer. (Giosokor Affidavit, p. 4: Giocoker Dep. Tr. 126.) , f The Level I Poverification Program ( I.P P) r op r e co n t :, a (-_ 1 I 8 l i l
, , gravely flawed despera te e f for t to sweep programmatic problems implications under the rug. The existence l l'with serious hardware of harassment and schedule pressure allegations by Comstock inspectors, the exictence of serious questions about Com s t oc k document reliability, the numerous methodological flaws in the LPP identified to date, the haste with which this significant program has been approached and the general absence of sufficient information about implementation and results, all considered, eliminate summary disposition of this issue as a rational remedy.
f' q ! ) 1
* :_. ;(. COMSTOCK & COMP ANY. INC.
CA tt 27 t' ITl21 30 EXilllilT A
'.0 3 PROCE DtJRE - coo t inued 3.21 Plate cut iJges j
Visually observed discontinuities over one (1) inch in length on sheared or oxygen cut edges caused by entrapped slag, inclusions, or ' gas pockets are unacceptable. ' i! 3.22 Verify that welder identif ication a stamped near the weld joint. k.! 3.22.1 The QC Inspector shall signify acceptance of a weld connection ! by stan. ping his assigned symbol near that weld connection. l-l Ref. Page 12 of 1 :1. I 3.23 "RENARKS" any remarks t hat niy be needed in clarif y inspect ica coverage I or results may be added on the inspection checklist. 3.24 The Level I or II Weldinq Inspector who pertorfred the inspection shall complete the Weld Inspection Cimcklist, Form 19, and sign and date over the "QC lil5PECitW '.ection. Verify that the Weld Inspection Checklist and Welding Installation Record is completely filled out, ard that the ! welder number is in'.erted on upper right blank of form 19. i I 3.24.1 A Level !! In'.pec tor shall t eview the checklist f or l iompleteness and signity conturrence hy signing and dating on , the "Lovel 11 . Inspector" section of the checklist. ! 3.24.2 The completed Weld Inspec tion Checklist Forn 19 shall be ,
) attached to the Welding Installation Records, and iiled in the j trf Q.C. I!erords area in accordance with LKC OC Hanual, Section j 4 . I '.l .1 .
t, 3.24.3 the level 1 or !! Inspector shall initiate an ICl! or HCR per Sections 4.11.1 and 4.11.2 of the UC !!anual, f or any discrepancies f ound during inspection which do not conf orm to - the ueldisq code and engineering criteria. 3.24.3.1 The ievel I or 11 Inspector shall mark defects ; encountered during inspections at their locations { using a black marker. The inspettor will then attach I a red ribbon on the hanger. ; 3.24.3.2 the following terms and definitions shall be documented on the f orm 19, Forni 19A, Form 220 and marked up a*. t. lose as possible to the connections using, the following terminolcgy: _ f I. ] 7 :] - p t fs 7 ,,,, g
* .Ib 'l]k))
Z ,*f**8g sI / t'!' k
. I s
' odf.,3}Y p,,
k,/
~
o n ia O A U. P'd A
~ ,, , , , v a n , o a t u,, o eist t neusovt o pan 11 h '11 N PIIOCf.Dullf: U S /.'6/ n D 05/10/04 7 of 13
..u.__.- _ _ _.-- - -- - .
ITIGi 3C. EXilIlllT i!
*ogposlTION OI? DA M M UOIM 114 1
1/28/86 3 3:g , 2 Q Did he indicate any undcratanding or belief as to 3 the cauco of your being Glow, a r, you caid? 4 A IIo. Uoll, I'tried to explain to him that I try to 5 bo thorough. 6 Q All right. 7 A And, you know, ho took that au being good reason. ' O Q okay. Havo you ever heard of !!r. DeGald having 9 performed quality control incpoetiono himself at Draidwood? 10 liS . KEZELIS: I think t. hat'n beyond the acopo of any 11 questiono I asked !!r. Holley. And I'm going to object. 12 101. GUILD: !!aybo and nnybo not. But I would 1iko 13 tho question ancuered. .k. 14 UIT!!ESS : From my knowledge, !!r. DeWald was an 15 inspector a year or two before I got here and then ho had left 16 the site and then about a year after I got back ho was brought 17 back an a QC manager. 18 DY !!R. GUILD: 10 Q Okay. Ihd you ever heard of fir. DeWald performing a 20 largo number of weld innpectionn in a ningle. day, or over a 21 very short period of tino? 22 11 3 . l' U.', E LI S : Objection. That'n 1;oyond the ucope N -
115 1 of what I asked fir. Holley. r
- , "g, 2 MR. GUILD
- I would like you to ancwor the aucution 3 regardless.
4 WITl!ESS : Yeah. I guess it'c cort of general 5 knowledgo. A lot of people take it as a joke. A lot of the 6 wold inspectora now, anyway, tako it an a joko that a thousand 7 wolds woro inspected in a day or comothing. 8 BY MR. GUILD: 9 Q l And it van common knowledge among the inopoctors, 10 you would nay? 11 A Yeah. 12 Q Or a belief, in any event?
- r? 13 A A belief.
GL 14 11 3 . ITZl:LIS : I'm going to object to this continuing 15 lino of questioning, 11 r . Culld. 16 BY MR. GUILD: 17 Q And had you ever heard Mr. DeWald cpeak about the 10 cubject? 11ad ho ever been asked whether that was true or not? 19 A !!o . 20 Q When you cay it was treated an a joke, how do you 21 know that, 11r. llolley? 22 A Mc11, it'u nort of, I could almont any, imponulble .x 4
116 e
- 1 to correctly inspect a thousand we2dn in a day and not find i4 2 nothing wrong with any of them. And that was a belief that 3
everybody had, that he had incpected a thounand welds in a day 4 and didn't reject anp. 5 Q You naid it was common knowledge. Io it your belief 6 that all of the quality control inspectoro at comatock had the 7 sano understanding or belief about Mr. DcUald and the thoucand B welda? 9 A I wouldn't say all of then, but I would say the 10 major portion of then. 11 Q And -- 12 A The uclding incpectoro, anyway. sh 13 Q And -- Q 14 MS. KEZELIS: I'n going to object. You are also 15 auking the witnena to engage in npoculation about what et her 16 innpectors' beliefn are. 17 BY M11. GUILD: 18 Q 'Can you recall how you learned of thin information? 19 A Researching in the vault, the QC vault. Uc have to 20 do research to make cure certain hangers have been innpected 21 and Go we have accenn to the inspection recordo. 22 And he han coveral incpection recordo in tho vault l
117 1
- n and one or more of then have more than a thoucand welda
.I 2 inopocted in a ningio day.
3 Q How did you understand that to bo tho car,o? s 4 A It'u documented. 5 Q Did you neo the document? 6 A Yec, I did. 7 Q .Okay. Do you recall -- I'm going to thumb through G Inspection Report 05-21, 22, Novenber 4, '85. 9 Do you recall reviewing thic report on the subject 10 of Mr. DeWald'n perforr.anco of a thousand welds in a day -- 11 A I'm corry -- 12 Q -- or ocmething to that offect? 13 A -- I don't rc:nenber if i t'n, you know, in thero or 14 not. 15 Q It'n in here. I van just a:: king whether or not you 16 recall reading it in here? 17 A Well, if it was in thoro I did read it. 18 MR. GUILD: I want to take a nonent, councol, I want 19 to find this if I can. 20 MS. KC2ELIS: I want to mal:e clear my objection to 21 thic continuing line of questioning continuen 22 MR. GUILD: Yeo. l
~
118 1 BY MR. GUILD: .A .g 2 Q okay. I'm looking at Page 14 of that incpection 3 report, Mr. Holley, and it'n Concern Number 4 on that page. 4 Looking at Nigo 14 of the report, Mr. Holley, and 5 the concern ctated there -- and I will read it for the record 6 -- in as followa: QC innpectorn allege that 93 hanger 7 inspectiona on one check lint containing cleven hundred to 8 tuolvo hundred ucido worn cigned off in ono day by an 9 identified incpector. The allegera considered this to be too 10 many incpectiena for a cinglo inopoctor to make in one day 11 without the quality of tho inopoction nuffering. 12 Below appears what'c entitled the "NRC Review." The 13
}> document itself, you know, identifica thin un tho quality 14 control nanager of Comstock prenently, or in deponition the 15 author of thic report, Mr. Mendoa or Mr. Neinlcr, identified 16 thic individual an Mr. DeWald.
17 The URC Review part reada: The identified pornon la van questione<l regarding thin icouo, and ho recponded that to 19 hic knowledge this did not occur. The LKC inspectora could 20 not provido an incpection report or dato of tho alleged 21 occurrence. Conaequently, tho inspection check listo where 22 93 hangern were accepted by the QC inopoctor who wan tho
)
il<l l __ _ _ _ - I
119 1 cubject of the allegation was not located during the QC j 2 recordo revievn by the !!RC inapector. 3 Firnt, did the !!RC interview you, !!r. !!olley, 4 concerning this subjo'et? 5 !!S . KEZELIS : 1:011, lot no interrupt horo a minuto. 6 !!r. Guild, I think it maken moro conce for you to givo that 7 page to Mr. IIolloy -- 8 liR . GUILD: I would bo happy to. 9 !!S . KEZELIS: -- and have him review both paragraphs 10 under liRC Review. 11 MR. GUILD: I would be happy to. 12 MS. KEZELIS: Thank you. 37, 13 BY 11R . GUILD: i-14 0 I believo your answer wan no, they didn't interview 15 you on the cubjoct? 16 A !!o , I don't remember talking to them about it. 17 [Witnean ravicuing docunent.)
~
10 BY !!R. GUILD: 19 Q !!r. Holloy, have you had a chanco to review tho 20 document on that concern? 21 A Yec. 22 Q My queution in, you could identify the innpection /q l
- O 120 1 reports that you have described that reflect !!r. DeWald'n
) 2 inspections of over a thoucand welda in a day, can't you?
3 A The one or morn that I naw, yec. 4 Q All right. 'Can you tell no how you came to identify 5 thoso documento, thouc inopoction reporto? 6 A Well, like I caid, we had to do research when we 7 wero inspecting the hanger to nake curo all the welds are 8 inspected. 9 [Pauso.] 10 Q I had asked you how you came to identify the weld 11 records that reflected !!r. DeWald'a performance of over a 12 thousand welda in a day, and you woro beginning to tell me. gg 13 A We had to -- when wo woro going to buy off a hanger rg 14 which includes a configuration, wo also had to verify that all 15 tho wolds had bocn accepted, no wo go to the QC vault and wo 16 do our recoarch, and if it haan't boon accepted wo will go out 17 an-1 incpect the welds. The welda are incrected and with that 18 paper document we can uso it an nuch during roccarch of one of 19 our hangers or comething. 20 Q Okay. Ilow, I would like to try to identify those 21 documenta, or that document, in enough detail co that I can 22 cock to have it produced by Comstock and Edicon.
121 1 Can you describo it in nore detail, when it was 1]>
) 2 written, what kind of component it covered, what part of the 3 plant the componont van in, that cort of information?
4 A Probably in01, it would bo, I guean, considered a 5 Form 19, that's a weld incpection report. I believe the 6 drawing number for a cortain ono that I've looked at in 7 1-3061. 8 And coveral hangora could bo -- I don't remember any 3 of tho hanger numbarc. But I'm atill familiar -- if they have 10 not changed tho QC vault nyatom cinco I loft, you could 11 probably look in that particular folder and find it in there. 12 Q In that folder in n.oro than ono hangor? Oh, there'n --if I recall, yes. 13 A All tho hangera 14 portaining to that drawing would be n certain group of 15 foldora. 16 Okay. Q What'a that -- that drawing would cover what, 17 1-3061 -- 18 A ~ Yeah. 19 Q What doen it cover? 20 A Cable pan cupporto. 21 Q Okay. What'o the acope of work that'n contained on 22 that pdrticular drawing?
122 1 A It'u just all the cupporta in that area. 9A
) 2 Q It'n an area in the plant?
3 A Yeah. Each area of the plant la -- thoro'n drawings 4 for individual arcan in the plant. 5 Q And how many -- can you ectimato how many hanger 6 cable pan supporto are included in oither that packot or a 7 typical packet? 8 A Right now it's ono por innpection report. It used 9 to be as many as wo did por incpection report. 10 Q Okay. Ilow about at the time the '01 -- 11 MS. KEZELIS : Objection. I don't think thin witness 12 is going to be cor.:petent to even tectify as to what happened h 13 in 1981. 14 BY MR. GUILD: 15 Q Uoll, you'vo reviewod thin packot? 16 A I've lool:ed at it. And, liko che caid, I wann't 17 quito aware of all the procedurea and how they handled that la back in '81. 19 Q Okay. Do you know of anyone else who has a copy of 20 the wcld records that are referred to? 21 A We are not cupponed to keep copien of inspection 22 reporta.
123 1 Q Okay. Do you know if anybody mado a copy of 97 2 Mr. DcWald'n reporto? 3 A They are in the vault. 4 Q So, it'n in the vault? 5 A It chculd be. 6 Q And thoro was more than one hanger that reflected 7 over a thoucand welda inspected in a day? 8 A Each hanger hau a variance of welds from two to 9 40 on cach hanger. But the incpection report covered over 10 a thorcand welds. So that would entail coveral hangers. 11 Q Now how do you know, if you do, that tho inspectionn 12 weren't performed over a longer period of time and nimply 13 dated on one day? 14 A 1horo'o only ono dato on the reporto. 15 Q Okay. Did you tell anybody about the documento that 16 you had -- 17 A Goveral people. 1,ike I caid, there's coveral. 18 hangern no it's neveral peoplo that reviewed them. 19 Q Go other people have reviewed the came documento? 20 A Oh, yes. 21 Q And doing the came work that you were doing? 22 A Yeo. (
124 1 Q Doing configuration inspectionn.
'h j 2 A Yeah. Thoso reports, that'G one thing 1 do havo to 3 givo Comstock credit for. They review the reporta quite 4 thoroughly.
5 Q Okay. Under the circumstances you are talking 6 about, when you are doing a configuration inspection you go 7 back and look at the weld recorda? 8 A Yeah, correct. 9 Q Did you identify any rejectable welda on the hangers 10 that Mr. DeWald had previcucly inspected? 11 A !!o . 12 Q Are you aware of anyone olae identifying tho ( 13 defective welda? 14 A liot to my knowledge. !!o . 15 Q Did you raloo any question about tho validity of 16 Mr. DeWald'n incpection resulto when you wero perforning your 17 configuration incpection? 18 A No, I never did. 13 Q Aro you aware of anyone elne raicing any queutions 20 about tho validity of !!r. DeWald'n inapection resulto? 21 A Other than comoono anying: Well, I told no and no. 22 And I told so and co. It wan junt all hearsay.
. . 125 1 Q okay. When you cay I told no and no, did you
< ?~ j 2 understand that they told comebody in management about it or 3 somebody in a responsible position? 4 A Yeah, just talk. I don't think anybody ever took 5 any action on it that I'm aware of. 6 Q Okay. Ms. Kezelic anked you come questiono about 7 whether you had considered going to Quality first with any of 8 your concerns. 9 In that regard, were you aware of any others going 10 to Quality firat, any other inspectoro who caid they had gone 11 to Quality first? 12 MS. KEZELIS: I think I may havo asked that, lie may 3 13 have ancworcd it already, sO 14 MR. GUILD: I don't recall. Uo can try again. I 15 apologico if it han boon caked. 16 UITril:SS : I don't bolinvo co. 17 DY MR. GUILD: 18 Q All right. Wau there any talk about the 19 effectiveneco of -- the effectivenecc of going to Quality 20 firnt? 21 MS. KEZELIS: Objection. Acked and answered. 22 BY MR. GUILD: A
r
, ,'p,, L L .. .., e u t. t. c. t. u l.. e , s ti i t., .. ,. . ,_ , . . . .
ITEM 303 EXilIBIT C
/[ V39 r,'/ 6 bj .t J. .D 1 r:::1 ja : r. n. ". CliFG!,1ST
.. - _ . . _ . /?d)u/7 o, 30,, p
(. 32 Fl! E i U '.i.1, 1M C D:Y.10 C Ec18 @ ax13 O imanerAnn a#3. ;%t m.1 L co'c .:Ders _ 1_._ _ O.gt e_.___.U._ h..._..'P_ Q. . L-Qi IO
-(, Q. c. . .(d e. y.k 3 5' S J, lff &.e . --S. L, J. i.,j VV VI, 7 V
- $. f. -. . . A L - . .b ACC PC 1:
32 FIT-UP CU:10.'!!DlrS is CO? JECT. r, -i r i[ 3.3 UI DER ctJr ]s wrnm; r:n:m *..: limJnatra. [3 l[ 3.!i l[ CRAcr,S/DIncotirn'UITIF." EO !G' APPFAR DJ JOT?lr OR PliTd-2tf IETAI,.[Al 3.5 S'JF.FACF PD!r.)"ITi 13 UI'n!E' T'.H F /1':CFJ T/JitT. 1.U'1'IS . Ml }[
- 3. f. SI AG OR ( m!!'.H T!:! U 110 'S D ) f;:IT /dTi .AH 11; FU.'IEllED 1GLD.
[/ll l[ 3.7 'niDhUJ,ih "li:'i ,- t N IU l".Tb l "'. * ~ 2: kli .i .') T' .TAl, A!Ji) HASE lETAL. [2 RI.
.E F I!j .' T " l .' T. /'n ! M , in . .hY (:
I M ;'J 1!. . . I ':D . G.' ' : : 1(' : ?;
- i . !!. r F ljt n ": .11) Pio.'! J )JiiF. [ j- [ ] [~_
3.0 ARC !'l 'r. ! i'.~ . (U o , t . .U D . .. i.D AHrA li/ V! !4iO2: G8iO':';D c, x &. , , o....O. L,:.<,. , :. .i. .e. u: .u e i . , i :.u .
. . . . . .. . . . - '.r.'.
,ua lMR[ -
3.3o tad v:n : unim:uu:u a /;:n u '.1. um: nwaim.Y cwam OF s!.nc, ci Arra, Fim, Arm ex;m:..:o PAntr, erc. (7n[L 3.11 kaDIOi mes.,
. .w, I o,,
Ar.1> B:3FF;'Mi IE J.'i'FIC/J: H ; /JE ThTSCtJ!TD PY AS51GllED [rj l l[~ cw.:
. . . .- , . . _ .D l r. ,. i.
..a, , , y: 1.r .w. J J. ,..,n...
d'I/f' s 3 . 1. Wi2D D' ' + !. IT Oi A 1:::i'A?'i ITJi R:H, i: '!i F
/
[_ (( lC TdMHKFi
#6
.m a:.mf./pN:a u- 7i .n.h: a/. _i>:n p :w fj
< . n aur:0 t .sd;:.7' cr.1 /_ 2-f/
v: .. .i LEVI.L 1 ] UCPEC&il C ' ' 'l 1.'l .') ,', l'888 6',4644 LJ ,4 9 l
- 6 s t ) V t ( ) #di %.*i 17 I.IL 1 t e l p i t . , [ j ,419 88 t. v (J 618 6'es t; (
l "' I' Fid3 I n uct n un t. 01;[0/80 Form 1
fie v. 3 2-It.-79
./Nep ])l'l[Mj.'l.'ll(',1{ , l 'N (' [ .N' ( ; { 1,\ l ; ( ) l l,\'('( ) l l Y
., .e-(fp:\
3
- I N .N I ' t .t "I'I S. ( , l'N(;I .\ l:1 1:S .\ N 11 ('lllDl!NTN ' 0"'S'
...." ' w' ' .". c','0 . . t v .
" . "3
. j ('ll!t'.\t;(i. 11.1.1.\ ( ll S "'" ut o*
\".'
yQ.!} ;2 - / 4... . o:. t i i : u... a r.o i. : o s u n 4... .,,m ..............n...
0-der flo: CH-3175 ."._',",."."....'."..'.."..'. .
' ' " ' " ' ^
Client: Cc.mcnwealth Edison Report flo: 90 ff //[. Project: Graidwood Station P E P Q R 'i - Report Date: J' / ,P of Visual Insnection of Structural Weldino Contractor- Z#'On;,'giv /r Page ! of ;
. Drawing Weld Weld Weid Size Weld tio. fio . Type ! Actual 15ccc1 tied i Length Acc Rei Rei. Defects I!
h 3%lA h'//7 /l lAlh! l l b' i, l 't l ' x-t </ n ,.R f i 'x, ol o, a ~ . , ,7 cr / '; .y J I ; l K
,f [] t' l/ .b .'
C /.,,, 4 ! ; ! l - l ,/)' ! .r 'y , (. . I{ s/ (' s 1 C r
.,j ./. ~,
/\
\-
I,r l D _
-5 1
l /.: K l ., j//(.f, j < ! :). .
.s
^:i
- f
$ $ , l
/, '/
U (/
} .-
/ (_,.
7' /G t 0- . ,
,K, M1 Confoming f j :icn-Con:o m ing i } flot Applicable Acceptance Criteria:a.e d .-
ae/ .- f Remarks:, og/i/7,{,3g g/
/
j 4,',74'g'2'.,f ' g; j'//1/ <hg, /[gi r/ // Inspecteo in accordan
, , f.
- o ..eu.,i ,.,_./.. ,/ .
. n/x. , g 13_eno_g.Aus, pg
...f -
/
. /
I n'.p e c to r -d)/h',. g /a.,i In'.pection Date: 4 e'
, Leve1:_,_Ti,_ .5 </-P/
Revievied by: _s-__ d F ~ s- _ . ', .$.. / . level: p- $[g O y g. fo']) g ... .. .
<,.,)
.. a 3.,),,.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- <-. . . - - - .. v~ . - .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . , . . ~ . - . . - . . . .. . .. -. . . - - .- < . - -
~ ~
..... ....~.. ........... ... ... . ._. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . , ,, , , , , , . . . , , . , . , , , . , , , . , . .
., b Rev. 3 2-14-79 ff '", .s g,. ')3 Il '.I'IlW.B.I .' N O . . . .I. .I T.HN'..I'
.<.... I .N' ( 'i f A I
- O N A'l' D h' Y
' l ',
* ,' 'T Instal:rTIN(: 1:N(;I N ): I:lt s .\ N i > t '!! !:.'l I STS 44tp W DOOSCvt LT m.
% /f ( 't il e u :o. I I.t.1 N o I S a ' ' " ' o t '" '
- o ' * "
f
' s-e._O& ae.i. a ot si: . r i . . ( . r. <> e s p ss.n Order No: CH-3175 -
Client: Comonwealth Edison Report f:o: 2d [( Vld Project: Draidwood Station ' REP 0RT Report Date: . . /-. [.. ' of Visual Inspetticn of Structural Unidino Contractor: x'4'[c on@ c / page @ of s Drawing Weld Weld Weld Site Weld
" No.
No. Type IActual ISpecifwa i tength Acc Rej Rej. Defects ik I
,, ? I s'3Q/// ///lol, I') I
?:. /_/ f_
.'s l n 4
> lX l t 1 }/(Q? // \ '/ \ 'i &' l ,N L /
y
} ,/3 '/ h J" A' I i ./. { ~ s.
(l r l 'f l / S' ,A ( l I / ,/) y l
/
v .-
. I l
s i , -
//M/2 g //
t S' A l f l 'h h' - 5 __ /
.f . /
(/ J /,. 'y ., t'- ,,
~ 3 .
f /,) L O.
~, I
? / b l J. L
///f] T ) '!
! O h*
( jy ,' h fi
~ ' '
\,(
>/ i Conforming { j Ncn-Centeruing l } Not Applicable Acceptance Criteria: [//,,G, ) / / . ', i -
Remark : hiruf 8.'-!,r kV /d)'? / , 0 < * /. /n /,w.,f,,,. ,,af r., =73 ;; j;,.
//
/ lhspect.ed in aCC0rdan
._fia.:52M')$$c[_~'o-7
/
IS-BRO-9-AWS. Ra , ,' inspector:vh//7 j,3 i $'/ Level: '" Inspect 1 n Date: 2- Y- 27/
/
9eviewed by: s.IF~4L/ . Level: 2"' C D .' ' l. 1.T) L (f N> f[.[y RELATED
,....-. .........o, ... ... . . c......~e - . - . .. . , . . . .,...s.... ,,,. ...,,, . .... ,....... ,... ... ...s
... ...... ....... ......~. . - - ~ ~ . . . -
..... . ..... ., .. .. ..... ....,- .. .-... - . . .. - ~-~'........~.....~..,+,..c~. . . . . , . . . . . . . " . . . . . ' .
.- .- ~- "-
. Rev. 3 2-14-79 gI .-
% M.l'.P'.I'.M B.[ ' l l [j l I '.{ '.!Ci'..l' , . . . . u......
l N I{l.\l'O.NN.l'OI?.Y
's I,. .
s .
':. 3.;.\
.I' ! ins t al:rTI .s s ; i: v . I .N 1:1.1: 5 .is 16 t 'll i:.si i sTs a a 'i " c. . u a < v
- aain w noestvro at
\'. ~ .O'.i ('iii< u :( i. ! ! .1.t .m i s ..u s.nc .u. o...-
4 ' W ... ...., ,,, <. . . > . . . . , Ji_n_ # ...c..o. ,,,w..<........,n,,o Order No: CH-3175 - * * - . - - Client: Cor.monwealth Edison Report flo: MO8 b'/a/ Project: Braidwood Station - n[ppq7 Report Date: ,-2 4 P /, et Visual In"rection of Structural Weldino Contractor: 4A-Co--.a@c/ Fage - 2' o f . ._. - prawing Weld Weld Weld si:e Weld tio . No. Type I Actual ISpeciflu i Lcnoth Acc Rei Rei. Defects ik i ,
/300/hl lI/05 C 6/h b ],
l 5' ,Y f- hb ' N
.--. .. l l ,f
)(
l I i i l l C i ; [ ~
\
i
. +
I i e i I 1 l
,_ I I l I
! l Pl Confoming Ej t;en-Con f amir. ; L_! tiot Applicable Acceptance Criteria: hf >l. @Lf -y,'[
Remarks: .L. b,'e/. kWy .s.Ul'.'. m'L.M . . 'It ./. ' -.. $_.LA. /..x L.'n*S' slid / (I/3 0 Yu /s
. - s - -
/ y , ,e n;pected in accord 3..n.
'4 ./ a'i '
- a. !S-DiiD-9-AWS. Re-
. ..i.~ .-. - aq . . /. i .a. - /* ,.y/c . /u,, >__ .>
,/
Inspec tor:e /)/j .t'aa2u.u" y
- l e v e l : . .C.._ .
In,pecti.o Date- s.'. ./. J' / Reviewed by:\ >( F . //~~ n L c .> e l : I.I~ 0* on,cEn, RLl ATED D1I' ' Eh ' (
. . . . . . . . . ... ..... ........ . ...... . ...... . - . . . - .. .. - ~ . - ~.
. ~ . .- . ~. . -.
p- ,, - 9 fjl,, S/ d6' S 'u'fSr
.O ouvri17 IWIT. / se -1/
70: L F- et cn 1704 R.A.Envi l'ii t rhm gh Tent iny, l.hr.it oty L. F. Carr;t ock 6 Compan' lh a i d uod fla t i m P.rai6x>od Station Tne attadel Rr&' and Stud 1.'elding Innpection Chocklict for t.he lcacatican li .ted below i: being fon .u ded t o you for your inspection of
, the installatioan.
',}tg ////s nf.<'C
, b,g 2 u .!' ,/ - 2 0 ? / /, I ' ' ' a
'7h 7??L. /,/ r* i dS ("< . u' h)
Initial Ownertion tr' (,5 3 (X) Eoin:; ection () fi 3 'l ' i, / , i w. ,
'i - )~/
, // / *i'l S' .
. ,1 ,/c '!.
. // /6 / El
, ;f / / 6 P^ '
, p . yy 'i N
,
- s // l'b l
. et/6/6 ' *?
. .///,Y C J ,
////3 f/ L //t '< W,
, g,qg //I '/]
9./ a; e, . i . ,., ({ se e m A f s //s ? e // /& 5 ' t'V C)
///b b ' ./!lb. . l IV t 2 I /// / *) , Il Q f 4 // . 2 3
!?- }/
, , t (, (, ;
.1.' , ,
y '.' 13 _ G jf I '> '?
- . g / f 3 ' ', '.'- Q q
' ,ti n_ -- '
g cc: l'roji tt * ,,< - r ilit t u ul n t. O C W. ly ; I. Ficchiy.1 Lq Fi h 4g S b ilinta n; tec<ive<l by:
. .a ,,,-
l . , C'>I.. II}l).}
. WORLEY 0. PUCKETT DEPOSITICM, 2/6/86 299 ITEM 3C, EXHIBIT D 1 rejectable?
TA 2 A I have no idea.
,\ -
3 Q Uow back to page 15, Allegation 3, where had you 4 overheard that Mr. DeWald had innpected 1000 welds in a day? 5 A Fron some of the other QC inspectora. 6 Q All right. 7 A They naid that Mr. DoWald had told them -- thin in 8 when they again mentioned tho word " pushing for numberc." "I 9 know we can get this done, because I hsve innpocted 1000 welds lo in one day." l 11 Q All right. You underctood Mr. DeWald had caid that? 12 A It's ny understanding that nonewhero on filo at the 13 Braidwood project, there in recorda verifying that he, in h 14 fact, did. 15 MR. GUILD: The record chould reflect that in the 16 deposition of an inspector, Mr. Danny Holloy, that Mr. Holicy l 17 no stated that he had reviewed auch records, and we have 18 cought those records and nuked that they be produced. 19 BY MR. GUILD: 20 Q Your understanding, to be clear, wnn that fron other 21 innpectorn, that Mr. DeWald, in the context of puching for 22 numbers, to uso your phrane, had said to inspectoro, "I know
_ c 300 1 it can be done. I'vo done 1000 in one day mycolf?" 2 A Yes. That wan my understanding. I never actually 3 hoard him any thin.
.N 4 Q All right.
5 A As I mentioned to liRC, it was hoarnay when I hoard 6 it. When I was passing it on to him, it was hearsay. 7 Q All right. And did you understand thin from more a than one innpoctor? 9 A Yes. It was a big joke in tho QC Department, 10 becauco they -- an an inopoctor, and a lot of the innpoctorc 11 wero very good inopoctoro. I have no complainto with tho 12 inspectora at all. They wero incpoeting to the procedurea 13 that woro provided to them. g !!oct of them woro profensionals. 14 But they wore navvy enough that they know that thic could not 15 be dono, inspect 1000 welda in one day. It junt could not be 16 dono. 17 Q All right. Could not be done -- l 18 A 'That in, correctly, you know. There ain't no way 19 you can make out the paper. It would take you two weeks to 20 make out the paperwork on the wolds that you woro incpecting. 21 Q What in your -- I'd like to get your opinion, if I I 22 can, Mr. Puckett, on what a typical number of wold inspections v
1 ^
- . 301 1 per day night comprice.
i %
" 1. 2 Let'n cay one wan innpecting cabic tray hangern.
1 1 3 llow many wolds would a typical cable tray hanger contain? 4 A Well, it would depend. A cablo tray, they run from 1 5 Point A to Point B. There could bc -- ' i 6 Q llow about a ningle hangor? i 7 A A single hangor, moro than like3y thoro would bo
- 8 anywhere from two to four woldo.
9 Q All right. And how many hangers would a weld 10 inopoctor typically inopoct during a day? ] 11 A !!c would probably go -- a mediocro incpector would 1 , _ 12 get six welds a day. A real hot-running inspector that really 4 13 like to work and kept on the ball, he night get no many ao a 14 dozen. I 15 O Twelve weldc or twelve hangern? 4 16 A Twelve welds a day. ' j 17 Q All right. 18 A -Well, pardon me. Twelve hangerc. Twelve ,1 19 inspectionc Ucually when they inspect, they inspect a 20 component, and they may got twelve components in a day, 21 Q All right. So a good incpector, ono that was able 22 to make production, optimal production, twelve hangerc with 4 1 4N+ d [
. . 302 1 four welds apiece, 40 or 50 weldn per day?
f+. .( ' 2 A Oh, yes. 3 Q And inspector could do that and do, in your opinion, 4 a professional job? 5 A An adequate job. 6 Q All right. Could an inspector do an adequate job, 7 in your opinion, and do 500 uelda a day? 8 A No. No way. 9 Q Could an inopoctor do an adequate job and do 100 10 wolds in a day? 11 A There's a poGnibility, if they were in the ahop, and - 12 he didn't have to go find thoco welda and climb up to them and .;g 13 locate them, identify them and do the inspection that was YEJ 14 roquired to make out the paperwork. But an innpoctor could 15 not do those welds on the different componento. 16 Q Okay. In the field. 17 A Right, right. 10 Q -And do an adequate job, in your opinion. 19 A In my opinion, he could not. 20 Q Did you explain to the NRC your cource of thin 21 information, that !!r. DeWald had done more than 1000 welda in 22 a day?- J
. . 303 1 A No, I did not.
T' \ 2 Q Did they ack you? 3 A No, they did not. 4 Q Do you know whether or not Mr. Schapker or anyone 5 olac with URC auked any other QC innpoctora, including perhapc 6 those who had told you of Mr. DeGald's prowess, whether they 7 knew -- 8 A I have no idea. 9 Q -- about Mr. DeWald'c weld inspections? 10 A [Ucdding negatively.) 11 Q Page 16, Allegation L, does that accurately state 12 your concern? 7 13 A Let's sec. .' 4 14 [Witncan reviewing document.) 15 You. 16 Q All right. Mr. Schapker staten in the conclusion, 17 " Partially correct, but doen not advercely affect velderc' la identification records." 19 Do you agree with Mr. Schapker's conclusion? 20 A Uhat he's caying could be no. The thing about it l l 21 is, I only checked a half a dozen different records, and I 22 found discrepancies in all of them. That in, I found welder
;:1_
1 1
ITEM 3C, EXilIBI.T E
, , BRAIDWOOD " TOP TWEf1TY" A:10 "0!!-Coll!G" ConitECTIVE ACTIO!! PROC!!AM L.K. COMOTOCK DOCUP!E!JT ItEVIEW f The L.K. Comstock Document I:eview Program ontablluhou proscribed guidelines for the review of L. K. Conatock quality control inopoetion recordc. The program encompacces a review of all L.K. Comatock quality control inspoetion records to ensuro that each inspoction record 19 identifiable, completo and comprehencive end that all identified documentation deficiencies aro reconciled. Tho history of the progenn developed as folicwc:
As early au March, 1982, Com.onwealth Edison Ccmpany (CECO) Quality Assuranco audits and the Technical Support Group Evaluation of September 1982, identified deficiencies indicating the need to ir.provo tho L.K. Cox;tock documentation / filing nyutem. An a rocult of identified deficiencies, Cominonwealth Edison Company f elt that improveronto could ho mado in tho areas of:
- 1. Timoline 3 of records retrievability.
- 2. Dotter accountability of the prodoellon recorda which cupport tho I,tatus of Inutallation.
- 3. Reconciliation of outda'.ed fornu In October, 1982, it was determined that progrecc was poor in the document roview. In tJovember of 1982, a new L. K. Comutock Quality Control Manager was hired and cineged with improving the organization and rotrievability of quality documentation. Ilowt.ver, poor progreso in tho document review continued. In March and April 1983, CCCo Project Construc tion Depart ment ( l'C D ) held moellnn:, with L.M. Comstock Corporato 4 . pornonnel, including, tho 7y l V l 039611/flovember 15, 1985
. . .. Corporato Quality Aururance flannger, to dlncuuc the poor progrono boing t&
(j't mndo on the document roview. Au a renult, l..K. Comstock committed to providu four Inupoctorn to complcto the document rovlow and provido a plan for complotion. A plan to comploto tho rovlow was nubmit.tod to CECO f or concurrenco on fiarch 9, 1983. Thn plan's ccopo and depth was to
- roconello nudit deficienclos of document retrievnbility, as well as nscuring, record completeness and correctnocc.
In Juno, 1983, CECO pCD and Quality Accurancu mot with I..K. Comctock
'to dlncuns tho status of tho document review. It una det ermined that f..K. Comstock was not procooding an ncheduled to ment thole stated Septembot, 1983, complotion dato. An a renult of thu Juno mooting, CECO again obtained replacemont of tho !..K. Comutock Q.C. finnnr.er to morn adequately organize and comploto tho document review under a now complotion dato of Fobruncy 1, 1984 Correctivo meaqurou taken a'. this timo to provont incomploto or unacceptablo documents frcm boing filed included the uso of n computerizod document tracking :.yntem to document tho utatus of Inutallntion and innpectionu and nucurn record retrolvnhllity. In codi t ion . [.. K. Comutock procedoro 4.13.1 " Quality Control Documentation Ito<pilremonto of Quali t y llointed I?ocords ," wau , implomonted during thlu timo tramo to outablich the critoria for records rotriovnbility and rovlow.
L on Janunry 31, l 'H14 , Ceco not.1( l ed t ho Une loar fler.ulot ory Commicolon v fier. ion III Of fico of the blutory and statun of Iho !..K. Comutock Document 039611/tlovember 15, 1 9115
. , Roview program inider 10 rER 50.SS(o) und doulgnated thlu item on 50.SS(c) 6 Doport 84-01.
- t. . K. Coractock was con:ildered 1007. complote with its roview of all documento on filo by March 1984 and by Jainary 1035 reconelliation of identiflod doficienelec was nearing cortpletion. No doticiencien had been identified which required exten91vo rework and only limited field work had been required. At that tiro, PCD and UCAP cencerna nroco regnrding tho thoroughnouc of the coconcilation effort und tho complotonoun of tho
. initial document roview. Ac n result, CECO l'CD placed the Document Review program on adminintrativo hold. In order to lift tho administrativo hold, !. . K . Constock was dirocted to rovico its oxisting docu. ment review program in lto entiroty.
On March 29, 1 H15 , L . E Comutock, with approval of PCD, Sargent nr.d Lundy and Sito Quality Accurance, incued Proceduro 4.13.1.1 " Turnover Document Review" to govern its revised Document Hovlow Program. Under thic Proceduro, L.K Comstock la performing a 1007. review of all Quality Control incpection records. Thic roviow includen all pact and futuro recorda generated. Irnplementation of proceduru 4.13.1.1 in connection with the continuing implementation of procedure 4.13.1 resulted in Ceco lif ting its ad:alnistrativo hold on April 17, .98S. Procedure 4.13.1.1 contains (1) the training and tocting requirementa for I..K. Conulock document review personnot to conduct i . Initial document reviou; (2) tho molhodology used to resolved innpection records dotermined to be unaati::t actory; and (3) specifle chockilutc to 039611/ November 15, 19115
- m- ,- -
.c <,m.- , , - g 4
review each type of Quality Control record generated. Tho chocklicts contain the criteria used to dotermino tho *:nticfactory or uncatisf actory condition of the particular. type of inupoetion record boing reviewed. Particular document review perconnol aro trained under one or more of tho apocific chocklists in ordor to provido greator exportico in the review of documento covered by that chocklist. As document review porconnel aro appropriately trained and touted under Proceduro 4.13.1.1, they are accigned to the L.K. Comstock RecordG Vault to begin their roview of the recorda for which they havo boon qualified. Records are filed in the Vault alphanumerically by dontgn drawing and they are reviewed in tho came order as they aro filed. Aftor each record hac been reviewod it is stamped per L.K. Comr.tock Procedure 4.13.1.1 no evidence of having hoon reviewed. Catinfactory recoran oro roplaced in tho file, uncutisfactory recordu are logged on tho document review log required by the procedure and Oegregated in a f110 awaiting correctivo action as appropriate. All correctivo action under the program is performed by a Lovel II Quality Control Inspector cortified por L.K. Cor.:ctock I'recoduro 4.1.3, " Qualification Clacaification and Training of QC l'ernonnol", in the dinciplino approprinto to the record boing covlowed. Onco incatlufactory recordu are resolved by a Lovol II inupoetor a roviow of tho re:olution is porformod by an independent Lovol f i II inspector prior to the record boing copinced in the f110. I I L.K. Comstock hired a Document Control Supervicor in March 1985 to overceo the program. Tho supervicor currently hac 9 document reviewoes
)
i ) 03961!/ November 15, 1905 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )
. s . . .. . 5_
working in tho 1.K. Comstock Vault reviewing record:: in accordanco with f-(v ) proceduro 4.13.1.1 (coo attached organizution chnet), CECO Sito Quality Accuranco conducted Audit 20 05-522 and follow-up
- urveillance tio. 4 ?35 of the L.K. Comutock Documont Hovlow I'rogram in April 1905 and August 1985, respectivoly. Au a result of minor concorna raised by Quality A:curanco concerning conalatent implementation of tho Document Hoview Program, L.K. Comatock has rovined cortnin reforonco lists uned in its program to rofloct current practiceu and procoduros nnd, whero nococ'ary, rovir,wod again certain recordc. In addition, on August 5, 1905 L.K. Comutock Procoduro 4.13.1.1 won also rovined to addrecc concerns expronced in Audit 20-85 522 and follow-up curvolllanco f:o . 4735.
Tho review of recorda acuociated with Unit I and cornnon accou to ucheduled for completion in December 1985 and t ho rovir.u of recorda anuociated with Unit 2 la oxpected to bo cornploto in tinrch 1906. An of October 30, 1905, tho 9tatus of tho progenm to nu follows: TOTAL HECORDC WITilltJ Tile SCOPE OF Til10 l'PO':HA!! 114,106 TOTAL HEcollDS HEVIEWED TO DATE (13,960 (737.) TOTAL llECORDS HEt1AltJ!!JG To itEVIEW 30,146 ( 2 77.) TOTAL. ItECOHD3 FOUllD CAT!GFACTDHY TO DATE 6 7,09 7 (fl07.) TOTAL HECOltDS 10tillD Utl0AT10FAC10HY TO DATE 16.063 (207.) Of the 16863 recordo deemod ununtlutoctory, 1821 havo toon reconciled by Lovel II Inupoctoru. Of tho 11121 reconciled, 145 rottulrod field s loupection, 7616 of f l( o corrott lon . Tho najority of dlncrepancle9 noted 019611/flovember 15, 1 9155
- - . ~ . - . - - -__ - _ . .
. =. . . . . - c, -
to d.ite h:ive bi . o prit;arily of .ui ad. min t !:f ra t ive and clerical nature requiring rain iua l re inupoc.t len of the hindwTre in the plant.
.s.
Onen tho 1..K. Cocutock Documont lluview Proy,ra:n 10 concluded, assurancu will exiUL that all I..K. Co: : Lock inspect.lon recorda aro identifiable, cuaplete, cceprehenciVo und rettlevablo. I i i i l i l f
% 1 k
l 019(.it /!1ove rnheis- l'., l 'o t ',
fL ,
' ;1* *
==*- **
<.-w e ev ; meregu.. g ev-er ...:s~ s usee . . .
os*y.t t ' a
- 3 mes i M suger's Ce maes4r*,8t< N.fe;
.xv"/s.W.u=a.,L
-~ - a./.* 2..'..# ..,...a
- - - - - (<rofteava. ,
_ . . .. o, .. .. . ..
, i .
P1 semi?ntr I Os'treer*asv Qa t.;res # t Srve
- g. .....,. l l t. -~"e I
3 ,...,n. a . u -- P. eal**
- e ap.ortee, A r.. : = : s t e a ? . . F E-*- ;
J. Elems S" " I "'" E algtetsw? QC s(nua;re 4 *****?* L. w. evar 7c t v,se r , ears p. (areter L. Seese mra File D. Cut *** l D. Ferrare yg3, j D. Cordy
'e., a3 .. t .'e _ ' - F as * ; ;.bi 7 ; %
' m,. ie a [ m a w. :,np e
$t'proV[Kep 'E
- l ST.g wP e.
rR,4 t e",9 p
,, p,y
. r-r .: r 4W g,,I,,n, ja y- - :. /., . . o
. . . ./ . . , : g- -
i _ l .
- a. ma . er e.
. Y a a,: p.rrice l
l, T. *:M j, a- e
] fe*- s . * . . *]
..r
/ Jar,f ff . [s p (
- s ? ;wn .p ,7 l l l M. srsIre j.-
- f.,, * - /d' ' /**~
q ...< . 5s.L*-t* ,
*e. . S n a. w. avec=i'4e J. Cat:mai 4. Bertre 1. F1**e C. arellano y . . . P. Frit'e " Sl***tt L. Coedereon
$. Jengem D.
"e## E. ECeh$$f9 b g-M,
- s. Stratteg a. m4rt.s L. Larr<
C ta rwa L 5;'Pf 3 VISC# S. wienert p. J. Pent.ce , ce =t e;11 ?. E c P e!'s *
- p. kome s.2a3 p. Swerts
<% ft L. Ae53* a. 9telle f t te* *a ??1aa't1* - 71** v l
I l 5 '8 :M3 . l l etFPr. 5:a EJ7ts#fSOW S W F F? v ; 5N
- e. m., ,n s r-2 m "
c I ,. w.e*,e ,. ..:..,e
. .c ~.,, c u u n . -.- ,r-. m . ,,e. ; ,,n ,u _ , e . e ,. . . ,c . . m u l l ic. t ...r . - , - . , - - l [ .e.. l l 1; .. - ,, .. s e.
mor, i. .ge ,ae.e- . t.
. ... p. 3.c., .,.
s ,s, ,,,,..., ,,,,, .o,,,,, es .u r, i. -me,
, ., i n , , e o, . _ , .s. ,,.e,e
,. ,,,, o. ,,,,,, ,.
, . .r J.
n..",,, , . on -e j m- u m -, cc, j c. ,eige,ee
.. i,,, i l l m ,r
, , o ,er . . - .
e m, . .:si a r.
- r. 3....
iic. o. . mre-re ,
, ,,_,m., i me,e. ,s.s. c.ame .,a 231 - J. wre-a
- t. ... ,e,r..- e. s ..i4, I m.... .- i
- s. res,d, J. einer ,
gg, # * ' ' Y"' " *' r**t* l l r- 'I t'a m l C- ' " ' " 3 T. :yca *. u,*raa*= u zns n e r e> =r y cP.. =sclg e*a.tv a. cet, p. sie-a mers ceareteer r. Ptewee, s. m o resteisc Toter B. ASo p,,,,,t,yn,wrarw. a pres rw l
- 3. ,,,,, . Pisa. u. sr.sa. 1 D. Peteroca 8t .
C,e r t l e,%
.b!?, _cxtr'ernovr*vtrw]
,, y , , g, ,, 3,,,,,,, ,, ,,,,,
- s. Iw r e e g ,,) m trw } F b Y#b $ t**C ' ' {' l ',
e s . es. marra r L. se* song
- '* I '
- 3. nneesec~ i. cermee ~f J,0. / r d' T t' * ? N C U
e T. Desateween T. wh a t etz=tn ( C. Centatteg . *
,' -f* U t.*rl (/.*. J t3 st Jr. o t
- r*
- u. < . , . . . .. y a
e j o . [- b
'V' , REFERFNCES N;
!1. Licensing (110 on 50.55(o) report 04-01.
\
2 CECO Audit'QA-20-02-35.
- 3. ' Ceco Audit QA-20-82-21.
l 4 CECO Audit QA-20-02-31. l I S. 'L.K. Comotock Proceduro 4.13.1.1, Rev. A. Rov. D.
- 6. L.K. Comstock Proceduro 4.13.1, Rov. D.
- 7. L.K. Comstock procedaro 4.1.3, Rov. D.
- 8. Lottor dated 2/6/05 from D.L. Shamblin to F. Rolan.
- 9. Ceco Audit QA-20-05-522.
- 10. Ceco Survoillanco Hoport 4688.
- 11. Ceco Survoillanco Roport 4735 Rov. 1.
- 12. L.K. Comatock responce to Ceco Audit QA. 20-05-522.
i
- 13. L.K. Comotock responso to Ceco Surveillanco 4735, Rov. 1.
(- 7 w.,
\ /
v 039611/tlovember 15, 1985
e 4, p UPDATED RCSp0!!Ci: - 111IRD SCT To SPECIFIC IrJTEC!(OCATORY 7 0F ItJTERVE!io!!S' SEC0!!D SET
.t URAIDWOOD " TOP DJEfJTY" A!JD "Off-GOIfiG" CORitCCTIVS ACTIO3 PROGRAM L.K. COMSTOCK DOCUMEfJT REVII'.J The following updated information providos tho otatun of the programi as of January 31, 1986:
TOTAL RECORDS WITitIll Tith SCOP!; 0F T!!IS PROCRtJ1 107,057 * ' TOTAL RECORDS REVII5JED TO DATE 101,758 (95%) TOTAL RRCORDS REMAllil!JC TO R!sVII5J 5,299 ( '.,%) TOTAL llECORDS FOUllD SATISFACT0ftY TO DATli 81,005 (80%) TOTAL R!iCOUDS FOU!JD UlJSATI!: FACTORY To DATE 19,953 (20%) of the 19,953 rocords doomed unnatlofactory, 10,255 havo boon'roconciled by Luvol II Inspoctors. Of tho 10,255 reconelled, 173 coquired flold inupoetion, 10.0t!2 of fico corruction. Again, the majority of discropanclos notod to dato havo boon primarily of an ad.T.inintrative or clerical naturo roqulciny, minimal hardwaro ruinspoction. I
*Tho original lurnor count of 115,106 records within the progran ucopo Ldontified in tho original rosponco hau boon rovisod downward becauco Lt included cottuin CF.A travolur packagos and rework packago2 which requirod no review and old Forn 7. packagos which havo boon replacod with now For:a 7's under Commonwon1th Edluon tJCR's 708 and 709.
l I
-123-0102il/Fobruary 7 1986
-i Subcontention 5
- 5. Contrary to Criterion III, " Design Control," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Commonwealth Edison Company has failed to establish measures to assure that appli-cable regulatory requirements and design bases are cor-rectly translated into specifications, drawings, proce-dures, and instructions including provisions to assure that appropriate quality standards are specified in design documents and that deviations from such standards are controlled. Applicant has also failed to require that measures are established for the identification and control of design interfaces and for the coordination among participating design organizations, that the mea-sures include the establishment of procedures among participating design organizations for the review, approval, release, distribution, and revision of docu-ments involving design interfaces; and that the design control measures provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design, such as by the performance of design reviews, by the use of alternate or simplified calcula-tional methods, or by the performance of a suitable testing program.
Facts In Dispute Edison, its architect / engineer and its contractors evidence L significant failure to establish design control measures to assure that applicable regulatory requirements and design bases i l are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, i l procedures and instructions where they have failed to annotate unincorporated design changes on controlled design documents; have written design change documents against superseded drawings; I have failed to require a nuclear coatings repair procedure which is qualified for Design Basic Accident Conditions; have omitted l code-required slenderness ratio limits from duct support j specifications; have employed a phi factor design methodology based upon incomplete, inadeguate and non-retrievable engineering 1
j calculations; and have improperly invalidated BCAP observations j regarding lack of quality control field verification of " redline" piping d ra w i ng s. Edison has understandably sought to eliminate completely from consideration in this proceeding all claims in subparts 5, including 5(A), (B) and (C), which implicate Edison, its architect / engineer Sargent & Lundy, and other contractors, in violations of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, " Design Control." i Violations which Edison characterizes as " trivial" " isolated" or
" unrelated to design" in reality evidence a troubling pattern of sloppiness, lack of attention to detail, and irresponsibility on I
the part of those charged with establishing and implementing design control measures necessary to assure that applicable [ regulatory requirements and design bases are translated correctly into specifications. In addition, two othcr instances of noncompliance evidence design control failures: contention subparts 12(P) involving Sargent & Lundy improper invalidation of BCAP observations; and 13(B) involving improper use of a phi factor design methodology based upon incomplete, inadequate and non-retrievable engineering calculations. These deficiencies not only evidence additional violations of Criterion III but ceflect, further, the significant implications of the design control 'iolations cited in contention subpa r ts 5( A), (B) and (C). The mer its of subpa r ts 12(F) and 13(B) are addressed below under their respective portions of this Answer.
'N) We dispute Edison's claims that subpart 5 should be (V
2
eliminated for so-called " generic" reasons. We turn to the s f i merits of 5( A), 5 ( B) and 5(C).
.S=
1 i
)
I l l l I I b 3
A Subcontention 5(A) f 4
- 5. Contrary to Criterion III, " Design Control," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Commonwealth Edison Company has failed to esta8lish measures to assure that appli-cable regulatory requirements and design bases are cor-rectly translated into specifications, drawings, procc-dures, and instructions including provisions to assure that appropriate quality standards are specified in design documents and that deviations from such standards
! are controlled. Applicant has also failed to require that measures are established for the identification and control of design interfaces and for the coordination among participating design organizations, that the mea-l sures include the establishment of procedures among participating design organizations for the review, approval, release, distribution, and revision of docu- .' ments involving design interfaces; and that the design control measures provide for verifying or checking the , adequacy of design, such as by the performance of design reviews, by the use of alternate or simplified calcula-tional methods, or by the performance of a suitable testing program. j A. The NBC CAT inspection concluded that in the area of the most significant finding was the failure to annotate l unincorporated design changes on controlled design docu-j ments. The most significant finding in the area of design change control was design change documents writ-ten against superseded revisions of the approved design i drawings. In at least one instance, this deficiency resulted in a pipe support being installed and inspected to other than the latest approved design. (CAT Inspec-tion Report 84-44/40, Exh. 10.) i Facts In Dispute
- 1. Sargent & Lundy's procedures for re-analycir of piping subsystems and field engineering changes failed to ensure that field engineering change notices (ECN's) were not issued against 3 superseded revisions of support drawings which were under re-i i analysis.
- 2. L.K. Comstock and Edison Project Construction Depar tment failed to ensure that Engineering Change Notices (ECN's) and 1
1
'4 Field Change Pequests were annotated on the appropriate design l
5 drawings. The NRC Construction Assessment Team (CAT) identified the
- two contention subpart 5(A) deficiencies as "significant 1
find ing s" reflecting design control deficiencies. Inspection l . Peport 84-44/40. The first event reflects Sargent & Lundy's failure to provide for and ef fectively implement procedures to j assure that engineering field changes were not made to super-seded support drawings under re-analysis. Edison offers the affidavit of Sargent & Lundy engineer Ken Kostal in support of Its motion for summary disposition in this matter. In deposition l
- testimony, M r. Kostal acknowledges that he had no involvement in this matter until his preparation of the summary disposition i
affidavit. (Kostal Deposition Tr. 44.) Mr. Kostal relies on the knowledge of others who were involved in the review of this matter. (Kostal Tr. 5 0. ) Mr. Kostal himself was unable to identify the person responsible for the discrepancies, the review conducted, if any, to determine root cause of the discrepancies, (Kostal Tr. 50), or the specific language of the formal procedure under which the deficiencies occurred (Kostal Tr. 54). Mr. j Kostal is simply incompetent to speak to the subject due to lack i of personal knowledge. Applicant has further failed to submit material documents, particularly the previous revision of che subject procedure which was revised assertedly to correct the deficiency. Applicant has failed to make out a case for summary j disposition on this item. 10 CPR S2.749. ! s !\ The second portion of subcontention 5(A) relates to i 2 4 1 i++-w. +&#y----v <-iw-m.-mr----,-%v- -----m- - , --,-m, ,e,~,my-.,y-,.mwe - - yw,w,.,-w+- me ey ,--,,.-,.,-Tr.ye-,,,,w ,*-p,-=-,-- ,-1,-mw-e y ee r ~ y
,/~s_}
additional CAT findings of significant deficiencies in design \
) change control which involved instances of failure to annotate appropriate design drawings. for Engineering Change Notices (ECN's) and Field Change Requests (FCF's). In support of its summary disposition motion with respect to this item, Edison offers the affidavit testimony of Michael A. Gorski, a construction field engineer for Edison. Notable among Mr.
Gorski's duties is that of " assisting the licensing organization on issues relating to that process." (Gorski Affidavit, p. 3.) Notably absent from his affidavit, however, is any affirmative reflection of his competence to testify based upon personal knowledge to the matters which are stated therein. Due to the constraints of time and resources, Intervenors did not depose Mr. Gorski. Nonetheless, the absence from his af fidavit of the af firmative showing of competence eliminates Mr. Gorski's suppor t for Applicant's motion for sunmary disposition. *here is simply no basis for determining why these deficiencies occur ed, what their root cause was, what generic implications are presented by such cause, and whether corrective action can be deemed adequate. Summary disposition should be denied. l f~%) x..) 3 l l
w I i N Subcontention 5(B) 2
, 5. Contrary to Criterion III, " Design Control," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Commonwealth Edison Company has failed to establish measures to assure that appli-cable regulatory requirements and design bases are cor-j rectly translated into specifications, drawings, proco-F dures, and-instructions including provisions to assure that appropriate quality standards are specified in design documents and that deviations from such standards are controlled. Applicant has alco' failed to require i that measures are established for the identification and ! control of design interfaces and for the coordination j among participating design organizations, that the mea-
! sures include the establishment of proceduren among i participating design organizations for the review, ) approval, release, distribution, and revision of docu-j ments ' involving design interfaces; and that the design
, control measures provide for verifying or checking the ! adequacy of design, such as by the performance of design reviews, 'by the use of alternate or simplified calcula-tional methods, or by the performance of a suitable i testing program.
B. Pepairs to coatings by Midway Industrials in the Unit 1
, and 2 containments were performed utilizing a coating ;
system not qualified for the Design Basis Accident in
- accordance with Section 5 of ANSI N101.2 (1972).
Exh. 17.) (Inspection Peport 85-15, i Facts In Dispute p Edison, Sargent & Lundy and the nuclear coatings contractor, l Midway Industrial Contractors, failed to establish and implement a coatings repair procedure which is qualified for Design Basis j Accident Conditions as required by ANSI N101.2. Corrective f ' action has not effectively assured that design requirements have i been met. , i f This item of noncompliance reflects a failure by Edicon and Sargent & Lundy to reouire a qualified procedure for a repair to '(y containment liner coatings qualified for Design Basis Accident ! I l
conditions in accordance with the applicable ANSI standard, t (f Edison characterizes this issue as not implicating a Criterion III design control issue. We disagree. The cicar fact avoided by Edison's position on subparl 5(B) is that the Applicant and its architect / engineer failed to assure that proper procedure was in place for such repairs; and, further, failed to assure that the repairs which were actually made were appropriately qualified through the standard. Further, the extent of the ungualified coatings repair was not contemporaneous 1y documented and no effective design analysis has been performed of the discrepant coating conditions. Applicant of fers only the af fidavits of two demonstrably incompetent witnesses in support of its position on this issue: Sargent & Lundy engineer Ken Kostal, again, who acknowledges that he relies solely upon the personal knowledge of a subordinate engineer, one Ted Pudaitis, who performed the actual field documentation review and analysis. (Kostal Deposition Tr. 5 6.) Mr. Richard Leigh arrived at Braidwood in January, 1984, some five years after the unqualified coatings repairs were made. (See excerpt f rom Midway NCF 23, Kostal Deposition Exhibit No. 8, Exhibit A hereto.) Edison's response, in 1985, was to attempt to estimate the extent of the ungualified coating repair in the absence of any I contemporaneous documentation of the repair areas. Apparently on the principal basis of a terse April 25, 1985, note from former Midway OC inspector, Anthony Salem, Sargent & Lundy assumed that / all unqualified repairs were in a two-inch strip along the liner 2
plate weld seams. See Exhibit A, Attachment A; Kostal Affidavit, g/ p. 5; Kostal Deposition Tr. 74.) 0: Now, your assumption is that the weld repair area, the area subject to the' improper coating repair, was no greater than two inches wide on a vertical seam; isn't that correct? One inch on either side of the weld seam? A: That's correct. Id-In fact, however, reference to the only contemporaneous documentation of the repair work performed, the Midway NCP's, reflects at page 2 of 5 that after grinding the liner plate
" painters #1, #3, #5 were instruc ted on m ix ir.g, spray techniques
... each then sprayed areas approx. S ' square on liner plate."
This hardly seems to describe a coating repair to a Lwo inch wide weld scam area. Mr. Kostal acknowledges that no Design Basis Accident analysis has been per formed for Braidwood reflecting an analysis of potential detrimental effects from coating particles in the sump fluid systems. (Kostal Dep. Tr. 94-95.) Nor has any coupon qualification test been performed for the new qualified coating repair techniaue. (Kostal Dep. Tr. 9 6.) Finally, Midway only adopted a coating repair procedure in 1982. The repairs in question were per formed prior to the adoption of any repair procedure. Sargent & Lundy reviewed all Midway coatings proce-dures; however, M r. Kostal's position is that "it's not Sargent & Lundy's role to define all the procedures that a contractor needs to develop." (Kostal Tr. 97-100, at 100.) Sargent & Lundy
- ~ simply evades responsibility for the prog rammatic OA failure that 3
is reflected in contention subpart 5(B). Edison's motion for summary disposition is unfounded and should be denied. ~ 4
w 1 SUBPngT 5(B); EXIIIBIT A y ,
/r e ac se,ar ,e w
1 r- 7 .78 ~5l; p,, o e a o /.s-
/ .70.seec r,ou or .<w ee s ure s<o/~o sna .sar ,semeo 1 s.hs seo.seo 7c e w , m,~ p.u ., n r sn c {
h.
- ,7 '
$4iNDiiv s Ccuna .'fc c,a I?E/s?.n,viai~ x,c;x- e,e
</w s,e / m~ie h
tseesis s,en &. x _ n ~ o, a re<< z-- ~ a,, s e rs x s < ~ n .c .rn~n r. se ,,,- .wwr r<<c . e pad Einoi Rc f'Liin r CC-,ri~C. - J -
't 3)naiuc h or .[s e c. " cr a,c xo 5= isc n s 7- /t' %s App,2c / c.s ,o ;y32 Yninne c . Sp.ex ,i ser.-: a s rds srscre.:-
sr /O '" no c o ~,ri.au e e, usrn // ' c e es~. v i-rom c,se a o, , 9 se<iew ~ r e r,c~ ec~ r= s&c~ ev s o - , , ,- , no ea ,- ~~ c v ,~ can . n ,- c a-~ 7., c.,< c . fin,sa Io .5,p c c.n c .. Cr^
** <'- 6d f.44ff a Err *C+J &~13 AaCftlc ro ,o c- .n, = c~rn n a m e- m .m . s o ,,
k l ri ,, Accu
~
Enc sna Asy c,mer GwrsN<//srea. s)s c,u. n e~ c ~- so.= e- ,.s ~ nis s nisco n 12 a s,s. e.T?ti;v r.<scrca / " rm, f%l.9 rccs M //
- 3, " C sv ~xc- i'n .s- r flic re a ca AfnidG , JA'u ( reenwiQae= s"o &Csic e o wer fic
,f~C,c N/3T CcA ridC . Wack I# fAI ~
S$sC/?!'ED AdfAS /Ifffay . S ' Sc.>.i s,c r otJ J.tw E.e fr nig /17 st*L cY r
'ff] >
- io Y.29 '
ANi> ckY 70 c)ll? A $2nce CosDrs G ur.i s W C.C C 45 ~ sac , usen ~ , r ,, s:o nes ~ s a u n c== .#a n e. O' or ec ssi. UNCONEGLLED COPYbjfEf;/ NbM, [0 .
.S0000675 FOR FOREION OL.LY .
/*/' c . /C&~ A'ErT.c r 'r'J
' f , 76 _
fir s e 3 o ,- S
$. CCH T i
/S7 CGxc . 3c.s cic was s ixeo s ba,ac 2% or fiyeivui~e- r u car Oyo E sie e VMs Mit e a sr l' % xxp J'q 7- pasno .
.csa e 7H/.v,ven w ro.s atac b. '
5/k'n w r}w c o un ric E .a c.PM CL Esa J f Fracn'fa.
/? ppgo x, / rs e2 Mie or Jcs w c.c <= 6f.'" G nf,'uwo NE7 /74 < cwin G fo/ ["'mitA G <= 7m: N a c.
$/;/5 s fAJ a
/3 v'C 0F D l N /d. hkY h/ ll b5/O![ b Dj ,e o av G S,M,y /A Pt 7 4 tre WM As e c ~ e O To 2 x cen r;xu./ene raen sec a~en a,vnau 3 800MTR01ED 00PY 70R f0RMT0H DEY
, SAFE 1YRRATED ! o I e. h ,x < b ?/ Y G' c.uf f S0000676 ,
. _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ '
... A1MO N011MdDEI i!C3
/ 30000s :n -
7 q 3dM4110 BIEN. 1
. i m L,
, n , 4,
\ g o ~ ~
l i A I,, 'a I lf
'< .h IU X I
[ h $b
~* '
'\
b -
\s g Q. ,,
" ~
1, i ,
.h '
3.-pe, .,< ~ ~ ,
,;-ll .
. cq lf M__ ![,
v 6 ~$$ 7 '
~
; 1" ; 1-
.H .
g :q e... 9 ..: ,
,' J "
ia C;L 4 e pixN
, T -
. _c c*-_ f'-
Il N " I u x N .e! Qi- ),, T T If ; jK K ~f ,t ', / i [ i i N \ N \\
.... An Nm\ N \ A\ \\tl y s lM \
\ t s o N\N\ \
nx s' s J
.. _, \ \N\ \ k ic WN NNN NN, 4N h kB NNN J M'hN s #NNNNXN%NN
~
H
%\NNNNN%N e :- -
%NNN%WX'N .
U (. . % ' s s\s\N N w, s s\ s s 1.', ,5 . Y % 7 fV j .f - ~~ '?; y 3 s y y
;'yR'h.: .
l 5,&iE ' ' 5 ,,2-E E 1 ? E i C i 7 ..i .?0 i
,wo, . ;; o e, rme u ly,.
. u J_
A N0 W011VWH0JNI 803
'I$a03 GE0li1WD3M il-n 4 . .,,-
- hy.; 9D') ' ~d I s ij L. i~
+- 2...__f,so1 " : \
<W
____ Ilp2" . U , ,. 1rLp"~ t
-L,:. .
j I j . ( i ( ,
.C~l
- hm ..u. 1 .
- 03 o
b e .i'4F W L
.t '1 l j
; ;} .; W. - t' ,
I g g,;
< e .:n .
e g ,
,, n.q,,$w r A..L - s ig g I ,
l a- i ___ t a; - at! -,n. T-1 , z J, - 1 /(
' f. 2 . g
[-
~
\ \l
,t
. a...
- m. , m :.e.=.r
%m., . t
\ khI.h. ..
.s,. e b-5:r.
0 1..
*i l
i h f.7.7 p'" ' : '
.~
w..s,i , 4, 1
- .. ,. g
- 1 ty l"-N },j ~! f2
'g
# T
. , t .<.-
l j g Q)g ?r l t I : & - . fa yj ' j> d el: (. ' t _j :,-
) 0 e:. ..'.m ff s .,
I i
.... t . s I
f"" , t fr,
- w1st
; +' . J:$ ^61 l S. .$$ (b,k(.
,.'i'4 ? - , - .
'_ sf E. #'
i
~ *,
r
, '{ [
c L. +1 AM , j j , 3 y
'rd.m ,
la , i
)
y['.- NMF6B s k rr p.v
- __ .s ,I, 4, N
y
\\ f:= I QT ,,., fi Trau.
L ,
, 41 1 "q
6-r"" - _ g .
- 1 .? s ? ..
. ,e m .
.:r --:, Jw .___ w 5 f, k, ! fj S .,. ~b I . f, b.,. m d Y $ ,,
w' e .e 5;
.h *t & Jc G' .
~-
'M r.
I '1 ' - ,', b
. - . ~ . . - . . _ .
jW __
A rrnci/ Mew r A 3 M a- Az5 vzurau ld A!J af26~'
~.
/fL/ -
FOR INF RET 10N Y n ~ - naf44,4 j- -- - m ' a6a a 4b no J " x4 A p ~ f w a~ x(#ap&r s, s4a ad--at-af
-w a Adn-
,ad WA sd a bek L A yk A p A~y ptusd.j&h . a # m~ s/syc a s-A sa
#/.uw Ae j
O 5& -t*'w A A ny- x,73ss ' wa . .
.24 & y a --
f a
/ "
af,s*<ddfx ~-a
/M O
A M f -s<d.l~ ,.6 %.ez-i f ( " Y 7 f
- Af " W cr~ s y g,omow
% 7 s' pasw; .
Subcontention SC y
- 5. Contrary to Cri'2rion III, " Design Con trol," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, ppendix B, commonwealth Fdison Company has failed to et tablish measures to assure that applica-ble regulatory requirements and design bases are cor-rectly translated into specifications, drawings, proce-dures, and instructions including provisions to assure that appropriate cuality standards are specified in design documents and that deviations from such standards are controlled. Applicant has also failed to require that measures are established for the identification and control of design interfaces and for the coordination among participating design organizations, that the mea-sures include the establishment of procedures among participating design organizations for the review, approval, release, distribution, and revision of docu-ments involving design interfaces; and that the design control measures provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design, such as by the performance of design r ev ie ws , by the use of alternate or simplified calcula-tional methods, or by the per formance of a suitable testing program.
C. Edison employed designs for safety related IrVAC duct supports based on chapter E 3 6.0 o f S& L's Structural Standard Document which did not limit the slenderness ratio for ceiling mounted duct supports. (Inspection Peport 84-43/39, Exh. 19.) Facts In Dispute Sargent & Lundy failed to specify the American Institute of Steel Contractors (AISC) Code required slenderness ratio (Kl/r) limits in its Structural Standard Document (SSD) Chapter E36.0 for sa fety-rel a ted IIVAC duct supports. Th i r ty-e ig h t hangers at Byron and 41 at Braidwood were identified which did not meet the AISC speci fied lim its. The hangers at Byron were reworked. At Braidwood S&L simply indicated an exception to the AISC limit. On the basis of allegations raised by engineer Charles / Stokes in the Byron licencing proceeding, the NPC Staff 1
identified the design deficiency by Sargent & Lundy that is l/ applicable to both Byron and Braidwood. S&L had failed to reflect the slenderness ratio (K1/r) limit of the AISC manual in its design standards. The NBC identified 38 hangers at Byron and 41 at Braidwood which will experience experience compressive loads and have K1/r values in excess of the AISC reouirement of 200. The Byron hangers were reworked prior to fuel load, flo weve r , a design change reflecting an " exception" to the AISC Kl/r limitation was adopted for Br a id wood. Inspection Peport 84-43/39, March 14, 1985. Mr. Kostal's af fidavit evidences no personal knowledge of the factual matters which are contained therein. Specifically, the only reference to the cause of the omission of slenderness ratio limits from the design specification states that such omission was "through i nadver t e nce." (Kostal Affidavit, p. 3.) There is no showing of any basic for Mr. Kostal's test imony on this fact. The corrective action which was not simply to incor-porate the omitted slenderness ratio limitation, but to take exception to it and specify a limit which would avoid the neces-city for rework at U r a id wood as had been necessitated at Dyron simply evades the issue. What was the root caune of the omission of the design standard? What corrective action is necessary to address this deficiency? What are the implications of this deficiency for design control by Sargent & Lundy and Edison? These issues are the most important involved in this matter and they remain wholly unaddressed in Fdison's filing. Applicant's motion for summary disposition should he denied. 2
Subcontention 6(P)
/
- 6. Contrary to Criterion V, " Instruction, Procedures and Dra wing s ," of 10 C.F.P. Part 50, Appendix D, Common-wealth Edison Company has failed to ensure that activi-ties af fecting quality are prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, and are accon-plished in accordance with these instructions, proce-dures, or drawings.
F. In June, 1984, Phillips-Getschow, piping contractor, found piping that violated minimum wall recuirements. This defect was not roported to owner in accordance with 10 C.F.P. 21.21. (Inspection Peport 84-21/20, Exhibit 20.) Facts In Dispute Edison and the mechanical contractor Phillips-Getschow Co. f a il ed to establish and implement an effective procedure to assure the reporting of defects in basic components which, if uncorrected, could create a safety hazard. Phillips-Getschow Co. failed to report to Edison its identification 01 piping which violated minimum wall thickness specifications; and Edison, once it learned of the defects, failed to promptly inform the material supplier of the defect. In June of 1984 Fdison's mechanical contractor Phillips-Gotschow Co. identified a portion of 8-inch schedule 120 pipe which failed to meet the minimum wall thickness requirement s of the material specification. (Schulz De p. Tr. 378.) The matter was brought to the attention of the NFC inspector by "an anony-mous tip" that a safety concern existed and that the defects should have been reported pursuant to 10 CFP Part 21 to Edison /~ management. (Schulz Dep. Tr. 369.) In doing so, Phillips-1
Getschow failed to understand that such a defect posed " potential g# generic implications to other sites. And that's what a 21 basically is. The purpose is not just for that site, to see if it could a f fec t other sited." (Sch ul z Dep. Tr. 3 6 8.) At the time of the observation the Phillips-Getschow nonconforming item procedure did not recuire a Part 21 evaluation to be made. (Boone Affidavit, p. S.) Even after the defect was finally reported to Edison via the Phillips-Getschow Co. NCP of 9/9/84, Edison still failed to report the defect to the supplier for evaluation of generic implications for material at other sites. According to Edison's Mr. Boone, Edison Project Field Engineer-ing " indicated that the item was too small a sample to determine if the component deficiency should be reported to other use r s." (Boone Affidavit, p. 10. ) Of course, any minimum wall problem in a pipe would have a potential impact on the piping system, regardless of the defect's size. (Schulz Dep. Tr. 376.) Ulti-mately, Edison informed the supplier of the defect, but only after the NPC expressed concern about the matter to Phillips-Getschow. (Poone Affidavit, p. 9.) Nowhere in Edison's suppor ting a f fidavit is the root cause of this problem id en t i fied. Why didn' t Phillips-Ge tschow's NCP procedure recuire a Part 21 evaluation? Why didn't Edison itself report the defect to the supplier when it learned of the problem instead of waiting for the NFC action? Mr. Boone'n competence to sponscr the testimony presented appears nar rowly limited to his statement at page 8, "I personally recall reviewing NCR 1615 for /y reportability under 10 CFR Part 21." Of course, no such report () 2
was made. In general, Mr. Boone appears to be a licensing and ( compliance man (Boone Affidavit, p. 2), with no stated personal knowledge of the matters in issue with the exception of the specific action referred to. On February 14, 1986, Intervenors reauested production of Phillips-Getschow Company's review of closed NCB's which review had only recently been identified in discovery. Neither this document nor any other documents were appended to Applicant's motion for summary disposition with respect to subpart 6(F). This PG Co. review has not yet been made available to Intervenors. Material issues of fact remain for hearing. Summary disposition should be denied. N 3
l
<~ Subcontention 6(G)
, 6. Contrary to Criterion V, " Instruction, Procedures and ! Drawings," of 10 C.F.P. Part 50, Appendix B, Common-l wealth Fdison Company has failed to ensure that activi-i ties affecting quality are prescribed by documented I instructions, procedures, or drawings, and are accom-plished in accordance with these instructions, proce-dures, or drawings. l G. Applicant placed purchase orders with an unapproved bidder, H.H. Howard Corp. of Chicago, that did not have an approved OA program. Purchase orders were for clean-ing of 206,744 feet of safety-related piping. (Inspec-tion Report 84-17, Exhibit 21.) Facts In Dispute Edison failed to establish and implement effective procedures to assure that activities affecting quality are appropriately controlled where the cleaning of over 200,000 feet of corroded safety-related pipe was performed by a vendor without an approved quality assurance program in an uncontrolled manner with indeterminate effects on the integrity of the pipe. Due to apparently improper outdoor storage practices, over 200,000 feet of safety-related pipe experienced severe rust and corrosion. Edison improperl'y contracted an unapproved commercial vendor, the H. H. Howard Corporation, for the performance of a chemical cleaning process. This vendor did not have an approved OA program and the pipe was subseouently chemically cleaned through an uncontrolled process. The effects of the corrosion and uncontrolled cleaning process on the integrity of the pipe itself remains open with the NDC. It is the subject of contention of subpart 11(C) - a matter not the subject of summary 1
disposition. Amo ng the unanswered questions concerning thic l f/ matter is why Edison stored this safety-related pipe outdoors in an uncovered condition. Why did Edison decide to employ a chemi-cal cleaning process in ordSr to install this corroded pipe in the plant? And why did Fdison employ an unapproved vendor with-out a quality accurance program to perform this critical task on a safety-related component? None of these mat ters are addressed in the only af fidavit supporting Applicant's motion for summary disposition on this matter. Project Construction Field Engineer Michael A. Gorski's primary responsibilities are in support of licensing matters ( A f fidavit, p. 3). There is no indication of personal knowledge of any of the matters stated in his affidavit testimony. Such statements as "it was decided to clean the pipe" (p. 1), and " Edison believed they vould not adversely affect the pipe" are obviously not founded upon established competence. If Edison did not look into the cuestion of root cause, neither did the NBC. Pr. Schulz, in closing the item of noncompliance, apparently believed that the cause of the deficiency was unimpor-tant (Schulz Tr. 383-84). The cause, cigni ficnnce and im pl i ca-tions of Edison's slipshod handling of a vast ouantity of safety-related material must be addressed on the merits. Summary disposition is inappropriate and should be denied. A v 2
Subcontention 6(I)
/
- 6. Contrary to criterion V, " Instruction, Procedures and Dr a wing s ," of 10 C.F.P. Part 50, Appendix B, Com m o n-wealth Edison Comp'a ny has failed to ensure that activi-ties affecting quality are prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, and are accom-plished in accordance with these instructions, proce-dures, or drawings.
I. Material installed for the pipe whip restraint plate was not of proper specifications. (Inspection Peport 84-09, Exh. 22.) Facts In Dispute Edison and Phillips-Getschow failed to provide for and implement an ef fective procedure to assure that material of proper specifications was installed where improper pipe whip restraint plate material was installed in Chicago Bridge & Iron (CB&I) fabricated restraints. The root cause of the improper material substitution has not been identified. The NFC identified an example of improper material substitution involving a plate added to a vendor-supplied pipe whip restraint. A subsequent follow-up identified eleven additional restraints with the wrong material installed. (Poone Affidavit, p. 5.) Neither of Edison's summary diuposition af fiants appear competent to support the testimony presented. Mr. Boone is primarily a licensing man, his affidavit reflects no personal knowledge or involvement in the matters of concern. Mr. Stewart, who has been a Phillipu-Getschow project engineer since August of 1983, describes the Phillips-Getschow Company rouponse j to the ma t ter but does no t se t for th the basi s f or hi s 1 l L
competence. Nor does he address the cause of the improper i material substitution. Mr. Boone, on the other hand, boldly f# asserts that the "cause of the improper uses of material uncovered during the pipe whip restraint data pack review was either the Superintendent requesting incorrect material, or the warehouse man failing to fill the store's request as wr itten." (Boone Affidavit, p. 7.) Neither the basis for such a conclusion nor Mr. Boone's competence to testify on such subject is set forth. Mr. Schulz, the NFC inspector who opened and closed the item, hypothesizes as follows: And maybe the -- my hypothesis would be, he felt that this was as good enough -- as good a ma terial as the other material appeared I mean, steel plate is steel pla te period, and f rom his point of view
-- maybe f rom a fi ttor 's poin t of view, which is not a strong engineering point of view, this plate would serve the same purpose. And I wauldn't consider that deliberate and I haven't found that in all my inspections of the caso and working with fitters out there, that anything was done deliberately and I talk to them continually.
Schultz Deposition Tr. 395. In any event, Mr. - Schul z disclaims any substantial concern about the cause of the improper mater ial substitution: The bottom line again, if every violation, every unresolved item, every open item we had we found it was -- we inspected it like an allegation to find out if it was deliberate or not, w e ' d be -- we wouldn' t get our normal inspection activitiec done. Schulz Deposition Tr. 394. Knowing and deliberate use of improcer material in L nuclear 7y ( f safoty application is a serious mattor, rogardlesn of the belief 2
.. . _ - = . - . -- ._. _ ~_- ..
1 f 1 O of the ind iv idual that the substitute was " good enough". Both Edison and the NRC Staff would have this issue closed without l l addressing, let alone resolving, this violation. i 1 I I 4 l 4 .i 1 1 l l i 1 i 1 l 1 1 3
js Subcontention 9(A) V'
- 9. Contrary to Criterion IX, " Control of Special Processes," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Common-wealth Edison Company has failed to ensure that measures be established to assure that special processes, includ-ing welding are controlled and accomplished in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications, criteria and other special requirements.
A. 127 safety-related structural steel fillet welds were painted prior to acceptance of the work and the welds were subsequently visually inspected for acceptance, with 79 accepted in the painted condition. In addition, visual weld inspections were not per formed on safety-related full penetration welds completed under the j urisdiction of Structural Specifications F/L-2735 and F/L-2722 prior to M ay 1, 19 8 4. The welds were accpeted based on other methods of nondestructive examination, but were not accepted in accordance with the require-ments of Section 8.15, Quality of Welds, Visual Inspec-tion. (Inspection Report 04-21/20, Exh. 2 0.) Facts In Dispute Edison and its independent testing contractor, Pittsburg Testing Laboratories (PTL) failed to assure that special processes such as welding were ef fectively controlled where j Edison improperly instructed PTL and PTL improperly per form'od final visual inspections and accepted 127 cafety-related , structural steel fillet welds in a painted condition. The root cause of this improper instruction and inspection have not been i identified. I At 1 cast in 1980 Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories (PTL) weld inspectors inspected and accepted safety-related structural steel fillet welds in a painted condition. in the known, documented instances such inspection was performed at the direction of s[ Edison. The subject weld inspection report identified by an NRC 1
Ax inspector in the PTL vault in May, 1984, included " inspected
\2 through paint per CECO OA." (Forrest Affidavit, p. 3.) Mr.
Forrest, Edison's sole a f fit;nt in support of summary disposition on this subcontention was present at the time of the NPC inspection and speaks from apparent personal knowledge as to the ' investigation that was conducted in 1984. However, Mr. Forrest only arrived on site in 1982 (Forrest Affidavit, p. 6), and, thus, has no personal knowledge or competence to speak to events occurring at the time of the improper inspections in 1980. The PTL investigation of this issue consisted primarily of reviewing other inspection documents for simij ar quotations regarding i inspections through paint. Six additional irrpection reports were identified. ( F.o r r e st Affidavit, p. 3.) Altogether they reflected the inspection of 127 welds in painted condition. The deficiencies in this response are glaring indeed. No explcnation whatever is provided for the apparent assumption that in all instances where the weld was inspected through paint the i performance of such an improper inspection would be duly documented on the inspection report itself. Ilow can we exclude the possibility that the two inspectors who documented this practice did so to evidence their protest at such instructions, or perhaps because they were especially diligent. The practice itself is obviously improper; and given so, its documentation should not be naturally assumed. How many other welds were inspected through paint at the direction of Ceco CA or otherwise hut not documented as such on the subject inspection reports? Two equally fundamental questions also arise. First, why 2
I f fi would CECO 0A so instruct a PTL weld inspector in clear v.iolation of inspection procedures and acceptance criteria? Second, the logical corrollary, why would an ef fectively qualified and trained PTL weld inspector follow such improper direction, whether i documented or not? No answers appear to any of these questions in Edison's summary disposition papers. Nor is there even an acknowledgement that these issues need to be resolved. Summary disposition is clearly an inappropriate remedy in the face of such questions. (, 3
Subcontention 9(C)
- 9. Contrary to Criterion IX, " Control of Special processes," of 10 C.F.p. Part 50, Appendix F, Com m o n-wealth Edison Comphny has f ailed to ensure that measures be established to assure that special processes, includ-ing welding are controlled and accomplished in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifica-tions, criteria and other special recuirements.
C. Nine L.K. Comstock filler metal withdrawal authorization forms documented the release of E7018 weld rod for cable pan welds between May 25, 1982 and July 28, 1982. (Inspection Peport 84-13, Exhibit 2 4.) Facts In Dispute Edison and its electrical contractor L.K. Comstock (LKC) failed to assure that special processes such as welding were effectively controlled where they failed to provide for and effectively implement procedures to assure for the proper control of weld rod for cable pan welds. The quality of such safety-related welde is indeterminate where LKC failed to complete the 100% weld rod documentation review to which it had committed and the quality of welds performed with the wrong weli rod cannot be assumed. One facet of the widespread Comstock quality document { reliability problem is the indeterminate character of weld rod withdrawal authorization forms which are required to document the l l use of specified weld rods for particular sa fety-rela ted welding 1 applications. Comstock employed Worley O. Puckett in the spring ! I of 1984 as the Level III weld inspector with the assignment of ( identifying and reco1ving ouality problems including document l traceability problems for weld filler material. The results of 1
Mr. Puckett's investigation of Comstock weld rod withdrawal forms is documented in memoranda dated April 15 and 17,1984. In the latter document Mr. Pucket,t s identifies a " generic" traceability problem for weld filler material records stretching back to 1982. He recommended "a more thorough review be performed on all the rod slips so as to have an in-house identification of any major problems we may have." Mr. Puckett was subsequently terminated by Comstock in retaliation for his expression of safety and quality concerns. See, e .g . , QC Inspector lia r a ssm en t and Intimidation Contention and incorporated reference documents. Mr. Puckett's generic weld rod document concern is the subject of Comstock nonconformance report No. J275 and as revised, No. 3275 Rev. 1, dated 11/7/85 to which his April memos are attached. (Exhibit A hereto.) The original disposition of the Comstock NCR committed to a review of "all filler metal withdrawal forms for discrepancies in heat number and rod type." A recurring problem reflected in the weld rod withdrawal forms was the listing of heat numbers for E7018 electrodes and the issuance of E6013 electrodes. Ultimately, the disposition of the NCR was changed, Rev. 1, to eliminate the 100% review of withdrawal forms for discre-pancies. In place of such a review, the problem was simply
" engineered away" by the Comstock OA welding engineer, who stated that "the components welded utilizing either of these electrodes meets or exceeds the strength requirements specified by AWS D1.1-7 5." (Exhibit A hereto, April 15, 1984 memo attached.) This disposition is wholly inadequate to address and resolve the 2
e ,
, discrepancies in Comstock ouality documents or to establish the cuality of what remains indeterminate welding.
It should be obvious that this NCF disposition does nothing to resolve what was indisputably characterized by Mr. Puckett and those Comstock managers who originated the NCF as a " generic" problem. No effort whatever is expended in attempting to determine the root cause of the document discrepancy problems. One is simply lef t to wonder why the wrong heat numbers or rod type specifications were listed on the quality documents. Further, a genuine issue as to the workmanship quality and weld acceptability exists where the specified weld filler material was not, in fact, employed. Even Applicant's affiant, Mr. Kurtz, acknowledges that "when using an E70 electrode on galvanized material, additional surface preparation is required." Given such preparation, he accerts, "[I] f a properly cualified welder follows a suitable welding procedure, a sound weld should result with either electrode se r ie s." (Kurtz Affidavit, p. 3. ) That's a lot of "if's", "and's", and "but's." Comstock's former Level III inspector, Worley O. Puckett explains the workmanship and quality concern: 0: And do you agree that when you use the E7018 filler material in such an application, on galvanized cable pan base metal, a welder would likely get rejectable parecity and cracking? A: I would say that he could get porosity and cracking. IIe wouldn't necessaril y get that. Your E7018 i s a low-hyd rogen rod, and if i t becomes impregnated with the galvanize that burns off your sheet metal it very well could show visible [g porosity or there could very well be cracks that b 3
- ~ -. _ = _ . . - - . - - - -
were surface or sub-surface. This is, I think, the specification come from Sargent & Lundy telling Comstock to use 6013 rods. (Puckett Deposition Tr. 335.) i THE WITNESS: Yes. Well, I was a nuclear component welder in the Navy for 14 years. I worked on numerous power plants. I welded all components. I was well qualified, and I think my qualifications reflect as much. I would say that
; it would be more appropriate to use the E6013 rod if for no other reason because it was stipulated by Comstock procedures and by Sargent & Lundy procedures. I do know that there are engineering reasons behind using the E6013 over E7018. I don't know all their reasonings. I do know in my past experience in welding galvanized with E7018 rod that you sometimes do receive porosity, that you can receive surface and sub-surface cracking.
There is a possibility that you will receive some good welds out of this. (Puckett Tr. 337.) You are more likely to receive a defective wold. However, if you do get a weld that does not reflect porosity or surface cracking visual to the eye where you can see it, you have a prettier weld. It's easier to inspect and easier to accept. With the E6013 rod you have a very rough surface. The surface is hard to clean because of the slag. With the E7019, the surface is much 4 more easy to clean and you get a better looking weld. 0: Alright. But that better looking weld with the E7 material may nonetheless be rejectable due to sub-surface porosity or cracking? A: There is a good possibility of that, yes. l 0: Might some of that rejectable condition, the porosity and sub-surf ace cracking remain undetectable even upon visual inspection? A: Oh, yes. 4 (Puckett Tr. 338.) O 4
The significant issues involving the adequacy of the Comstock corrective action regarding the document deficiencies and the acceptability of the previously unspeci fied weld metal cannot be resolved on summa'ry disposition. The acceptability of the workmanship is in further doubt where production and schedule pressure and harassment claims undermine confidence in Comstock visual inspections. Summary disposition should be denied. [-, O 5
'~
.y y I
SUBPART 9(C); EXilIBIT A L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY. lWC. araidwood 4,it,t GA S E C T y I > [ NONCONFORMANCE REPORT i L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC. Sht. 1 of 2 i NONCONFORMANCE REPORT NO. 32 7 5~ REV. 1 OATE 11/7/85 i r INSPECTION CRITERIA: DWG. N/A REV. i N/A SPEC. L-2790 l PROCEDURE: 4.3.10 REV. D Int. OTHER N/A ITEM (S) DESCRIPTION i Weld Rod Wi thdrawt1 Forn 97's LOCATION N/A ! 1 I DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE: NCR 3275 is teing reviced as fo11cus: Form 57's, I Weld Rod Withdrawal for=r, had errors in documentation. Forts showed heat ' numbers for E7018 electrodes and issuance of E6013, as shown en cheet 2 of original NCR 3275. In addition, there are clerical errors en the transfer of the heat numbers as noted below:
- 1) On sheet 2 cf NCR 3275, original, a heat number is shown as h21 0 Phh61. Thic heat nu=ber is actually h11 Ph161.
~
-~
4
~ -~
{ (Cent. en Sht. 2) l
~
ORIGINATOR
/ DATE'M d 1 M F [ ] Engineering !
/
HOLO TAG N0'S N/A 1 N QC DEEMED REPORTABLE PER 10CFR21 (l.KC 3.1.3) POTENTIAL 10CFR50.55(e) YES [ ] NO (( YES [ ] NO [F , QC MANAGER / DESIGNEE REVIEW m D-=- t DATE/ ///vhf' SYSTEM (S) rJ/A ' (if applicable) s DISPOSITION: [ ] USE-AS-IS [ ] REWORK [ ] REPAIR [ ] SCRAP .b<] OTHEk CORRECTIVE ACTION / JUSTIFICATION: 4= )
.dOSTtF tc.ATice4 Atc DWTtCH ATTAR RED TO s d>A1 COMA.L (R2.v. o) of t44:R. C:
D Ar w a n o n o n o , w w . so. ATE.D W 2t. 84. AL.Sc SAiLE OF es-oz-m o< ma m en m T TMCTG Nu. op EsVie.o coWac6ATion. Fu i crr Hora TWAT f%st m am o SSoz e o( m a m m or % mg ge g gmup, 4( l ACTION TO PRECLUDE REPETITION: It 6e.E Ac.-Ttor4 To FCccLooG. Rare. Tires 'A cwt".o c r.t , M ' ATrk au.O To e.e.v. O cs n c.E". . i i.
. l DISPOSITIONED BY/TITL e- Mb /ds 6T. fhusr,tbgATE Il 15 85 i - M (continued on back) J MRW RVS RVS PROCEDURE y_ - g c5/31/79 10/03/a5 14
- cau
f
~ ~ ~
L K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY,1NC. Braidwood 4.11.1 GA ,ECT 50.55E [ ] YES N NO ( g'4 CLIENT CONCURRENCE WITH DISPOSITION: (CONMENTS) 9Cb A&us iuim fkE touscrev E wioO A'n e nae rn ;;u m n cecu e n e ce_.. Wl/f W . N es h.1l[5
/tECD/ PROJECT SUPT. DATE CECO QA SUPV.
Ah J/ k DATE ~ CECO FIEt,FEfiG. '0 ATE
~
CORRECTIVE ACTION COMPLETE 0/ ACTION TAKEN TO PRECLUDE REPETITIO DISPOSITION COMPLETED TITLE DATE O.C. VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION [ ] REJECT QC INITIAL /DATE REASON FOR REJECTION: [ ] ACCEPT l REMARKS / ACTION TAKEN: , DATE NONCONFORMANCE CLOSrJ QC INSPECTOR l! REVIEWED QC M6A/ DESIGNEE _
,{
DATE k COPIES: LKC ENGINEERING OEPT. t
= ni a n L CE "^s"'"=""'^""""* f i
li
. ---_-_..- ,l j
L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY. INC. BRAIDwo0D 4.I1 I
- f. cA sec7 Y
NONCONFORMANCE REPORT CONTINUATION SHEET ' NCR No. $$ lb~~ _ REV. 1 Sht. 2 _o f 2 NOTE: Nscrintion or Nonconformanco: (cont.) STATE SECTION CONT 2) On Sheet 3 of origir.nl NCR 1275: a) A heat nur.ber is shown as h0259001. This heat number is aetually L023_9011. b) Tne dates listed show S/25/82 and 7/22/83. The 7/22/83
- 3) date should be 7/22/82 as referonced on sheet 2 of NCR .
On Gheet h or original NCR 3275: a) A heat number is listed as L01S9011.This heat number - is actually LO2S9011. b) ; A heat number is listed as 3S202061.This heat number is actually 3S202061. , I Y fL7 [ ~ D N /5 V t O E I
) h,$ -
I 44 b t i % h r je? i - t- - U, PR E PA R E O AppmovtQ REv6EO , TsTLE O Rec. OATE HEVISION JOS FORM g IFD PROCEDURE r 4A b4 06/18/84 14A u M $'
y s Attached - Ncncon formance - 3275 Septembe r 12, 1984 l In violatian of Procedure 4.3.10 Filter Metal Withdraw Forms. The forms did not specify thq specific component the rod was used on and only
, listed general building locations, such as Auxiliary Building, elevation 463 fee t . Nine ! filler natal withdrawal authorization forms documented the assign-i ment of E7018 drawing 20E-0-3251,weld rod for cable Revision AC andpan L.welding, even though Sargent and Lundy ! January 29, 1982, K. Comstock Procedure 4. 3. 3, dated Detailed below are required the use of E60 Series weld rod for cable pan welds.
I by heat number, for the nine forms documenting the release of E7018 weld rod, cable pan welding:
- Date of Requisition Area Designated Heat No. Class 5/25/82 Auxiliary Bldg., 383' 5/25/82 411P4161 *E6013 Auxiliary Bldg. 411P4161 5/26/82 Auxiliary Bldg. *E6013 6/9/82 411P4161 *E6013 Auxiliary Bldg., 383' 411P4161 6/10/82 Containment #1, 426' *E6013 6/11/82 411P4161 E7018 Auxiliary D1dg.,426' 421P4461 6/22/82 Auxiliary uldg.,426' E7018 7/13/82 402S90ll E7018 Auxiliary Bldg. ,463' 402S9011 7/28/82 Auxiliary Bldg. ,4 30' *E6013 402S9011 E7018
- Heat numbers 411P4161 and 40259011 were actually E7018 weld. rod as the inspector reviewed the material certifications.
apparently thought these heats of rod were E6013. The rod issue attendants Note that the same heats, 411P4161 and 40259011, were handed out as both E6013 and E7018 weld rod . In addition, further ingestigation/research has revealed that this was a generic violation during the same tire period as per attached memorandum - j Control No. 84-08-15-14, 84-08-15-14A, 84-09-12-07 , t, W 4 bj R4
't!
k v l, 1 l , I o I i
g L. K. COE TOCh "< CP IP AN Y, INC. 8,a.d.voce: 4 11.1 NONCONFORMANCE REPORT
' SYSTEM M/A Sht i of 5 NONCONFORMANCF REPORT NO. 3275 DATE Senterber 12, 1984 INSPECTION CRITERIA: D W G. M/I$
REV.N/A SPEC. L-2790 PROCEDURE: 4.3.10 Rev D Int. __ OTHER N/A ITEM (S) DESCRIPTION Weld Rod withdrawal LOCATION OA Records Vault Form #57 DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE: See Attached sheets 2 Thru 5 I NUMBER OF HOLD TAGS APPLIED _ 0 GC INSPECTOR /# c-_ DATE 9%:.? -ef_ 10 CFR 21 PROCEDURE 3.1.3 YES NO )( - REPORTA8LE ITEM CONCURRENCE BY O.C. MANAGER A #4 c h RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: h USE.AS-ISREWORK EXPLAIN JUSTIFICATION: REJECT OTHER l 59t1 ATTM.ME.C) I">itWt:m4Mt.4 M E E T. 1 COMSTOCK PROJ. MGR/ DESIGNEE d db _ DATE W.t'4 8 4
- o. u.s . to .u.. e <
ACTION TO PRECLUDE REPETITION: 6P E ATTME.D Ott!4bMTtce4 qu(4 ALT,
#.s e.a. ATTAc M8L o (.4)PtEdm of *TTAtuim tc%t ct 4 AYna.N c -q COMSTOCK PROJECT MANAGER (OR A \.A DESIGNEE)b. 4H(S. SM -
D.o.a. DATE to.15..e4 _ g tes tba4 e CLIENT CONCURRENCE WITH DISPOSITION: (COMMENTS) L b [.0QCLjb LAllTU M A15o1E :Tl1DoSITs0AJ AWO acT1oni -fb 94f(l.UDE. QEPEl11#M.
._hc_1 L. SL.AL '**" <pMt"hkd i 6k 1 g C,ECO PROJECT SUPT. DATE OiIdear^.h1st- i Q Q ndic!MA. CECO (TA j $UPV. 'DXTE dCECO FIELO ENG. '4 ATE 0 tol t.4(t4 ~PREPAHED APPROVED REVISED TITLE ORIG. DATE REV.DATE FORM NOR.
ROM AJT IFD PROCEDURE 5/18/79 14 03/01/84
.DATE CORRECTIVE ACTION COMPLETED Wb-) C . 3 - - k RESPONSIBLE COMSTOCK FIELD REPRESENTATIVE 10 3\. M
%e ud. hate _ DATE Q. C. VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION REJECT OC INITIAL /DATE REASON FOR REJECTION:
ACCEPT REMARKS / ACTION TAKEN: DATE NONCONFORMANCE CLOSED OC INSPECTOR REVIEWED OC MGR/ DESIGNEE DATE COPIES: COMSTOCK PROJECT MANAGER ~~ COMSTOCK ENGINEERING DEPT. O. C. RECORDS FILE E.t
.e d
t t= RECElVED @ Jp =. ,) " N0'/ 01 1984 m ,g sga comm au c9,a L3 . ARED APPROVED REVISED TITLE ORIG. DATE REV.DATE FORM NDR JM AJT IFD PROCEDURE 5/18/79 03/01/84
T [------------- c, . t.y i u TT Comstock Engineering, Inc. h Memorandum
- o. Irv DeWald Ottice: Braidwood rern T. D. Vogt 2;ect. Weld Filler Metal Withdrawal Date: Septerber 12, 1984 cntrol No: 84-09-12-07 i
In response drawal program,to the NRC statements regarding the Comstock filler metal with - ing actions have reference NRC Docket tio. 50-456 and rio. 50-457, the folicw-been taken. A reviewd. identifie of the identified items was conducted and the following has been 1. The heat numbers identified are acceptable heat numbers trace-able to valid certification papers. l 2. l The components welded utilizing either of these electrodes meets or exceeds the strength requirements specified by AWS Dl.1-75. 3.
':he re tal welders
. making the welds were qualified to use either filler 4.
An obvious procedure violation did occur. 5. A nonconfor:unce report should be initiated.
+
Based on the above comments nonconformance report IICR 3275 has been issued to identify the procedure violations which did occur and allow time fo r a I proper review and evaluation of the identified nonconformance condition. i h correction Action Completed: t i Procedure 4.3.10 Fev D dated 0-12-84 titled
" Storage," Issue and Control of Welding Material has been revised and g approved, which requires a filler metal issue tab to be issued for each 3 type and size of electrode and for each day's welding activity .
-4g ts Corrective Action to be Taken: Training on the Procedure Ecquirements will t4 be given to all affected Personnel detailing the control of heat numbers and l.h l g dccumentaticn practices for the filler retal issue tabs. q g
!.V ,
/ #9/
T. D. Vogt' QA Welding Engineer b 'TDV/pb T cc: QC File 4M QC Mgr. file l I' -
4 c - cy-5-M y Comstock Engineering, Inc. O memorandum R. Saklak ' ggg,ce Braidwood
, W. Pucke tt
- t. Rod Slips D.te: April 15, 1984
- ntrol No: 84-08-15-14 In regards to Weld Rod withdrawal Forms dated between 5/25/8/ ff and 7/22/83, the rain concern involves three heat numbers d 411P4161 and 40259001 for E-7018 and 2D209808 for E-6013.
N.R.C's a type ofconcern was that the Weld Rod withdrawal Fort:s re ferenced Rod i.e., E-6013 but the heat nurber listed for the material is documented as being E-7018. I proformed extensive research on these Rod Slips with the following results.
- 1. We three heat numbers afore rentioned are good heat nurbers traceable to valid certification papers.
- 2. The components on which they were used, the filler strength meets or exceeds the strength requirements.
- 3. ne welders making the welds were qualified to use either filler.
4 ." We have an obvious procedure violation which could be aleviated in t)e future by a thorough Indoctornation of the craft tool room weld rod issue clerk. i 5. A non confor nnce report should be initiated listing g$ the heat nurbers and types involved and a outline of the procedural violation. { ( DM Faspectfully, 4Q p Dk swk i w . e k . In m -
$f W. O. Puckett WOP /pb b cc: QC File 9 ~
Q OC mr./ $ fo O - gggEN Aug ED ?= 4 17 p , s ,
' ~
6.$w. . [' C Comstock Engineering, Inc. Memorandum To-Office: _ Draidwood W. Puckett From:
Subject:
Pod Slios Control No: W 84-08-15-144g/n/F/ Date. Auoust 17, 1984 During the period of tire that I was doing Pescarch on Weld Pod Slips for the months of May, June and July of 1982 it occured to re that the problems we were having during the afore centioned period could possibly be generic through other periods, so I performed a spot check on the Rod Slips Issued in Decerber 1982, Septerber 1983, Januar'f 1984, June and July 1984 and during this period the problem did persist, however not as prevelant in the year 1984 In addition during the period prior to May 1982 Heat utrbers withdrawal material for E-6013form. electrode were not entered on the weld filler I also took a sampling of heat nurbers off of these previously issued Rod Slips to see if they could be traced to docurentation the Heat lot nurbers in the Posearch of
'Nelve separate heat nurbers I was successful in all but three heats 401S7441 and 401S9011 for E-7010 and 35202061 for C-6013.
It would be my suggestion at the very earliest convenient tire that a core thourough review be performed on all the Pod Slips so may we as to have an in-house identification of any major problems have. o I Respectfully , ' 3
. k(E
_w . ca >C - W. O. Pucke tt b WGP/pb cc: QC File jbtk QC Mgr. / lfth.
%h f *O RECEIVED e-
& ~
*g II 19%
WCOMSTOCr' OC DEPT. l i
! ? 'h* - - - - " '
#~
...--,..m
- 3. COMSTOCK & COMPANV 'N7 QA SECT NCR #3275 OISPOSITION E AS IS N JUSTIFICATION:
The problems identified stem from documentation errors. As stated in referenced memorandum the heat numbers identified are traceable to valid certification papers, the filler metal tensile strength of either type of electrode meets or exceeds the requirements of AWS 01.1-75 and the welders making the welds were qualified to use either electrode. In addition, any I unaccpetable welds would have been identified because 100% visual inspection of welding has always been required. Per ECN #23028 the use of E7018 electrode for welding of cable pan is acceptable. ACTION TO PRECLUDE REPETIfl0N: The applicable procedure (4.3.10) has been revised subsequent to the nonconformance to improve control of filler metal and personnel involved in L issuance and control of filler metal have received training. I L Y e~) d. b to.m.64
- 0. Bradfute Asst. Project Engineer moe-O m c pr#mt., em C.c c.cs GA, ra c_ r-ca t.c gg 3% Acomo To T wn. hTip:scAmos on yms g q
kMC- O 4.- !E bad > AACE:ED To tese Aa t W S WPh^ W^ 'S 5:oc pit t.nc m r3ut k i sc c e p A s c_ta s g,4 v.ar t. DD WN Mh" 4 pgg 8q 4 W e_ fo m % ro Op wigg,
"" #"
- rug ewe -v Paae aso to u riry me wmaic su,,
- %e m yio,_, E9 i!
~
e;
%- U*b
]
.85 t> T4..ex3 REmssos i or=
Mc R. . E
- - _-- Li . l e
Subcontention 9(D) 2
- 9. Contrary to Criterion IX, " Control of Special P r oce s se s ," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Com m o n-wealth Edison Comphny has failed to ensure that measures be established to assure that special processes, includ-ing welding are controlled and accomplished in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifica-tions, criteria and other special requirements.
D. Quality structural steel was not approved for use by the Architect-Engineer, Sargent & Lundy, but was released for use in installation by the structural steel contrac-tor and documented as being used for cover plate welds. Furthermore, the welder documented as performing the welding was not qualified. In addition, RPS Division loop B, reactor coolant flow, completed socket weld joints, have no piping records identifying the welder or weld filler metal utilized. (Inspection Peport 84-17, Exh. 21. ) Facts In Dispute Edison and its contractors Gust K. Newberg Construction Company ("Newberg") and Phillips-Getschow failed to assure that special processes such as welding are controlled where Newberg specified an incorrect welding procedure which was falsely documented as actually used for cover plate welds; and where Phillips-Getschow procedure failed to assure that welder and weld filler material identification were documented in an instrumentation piping weld package. The root cause of these deficiencies has not been effectively identified. This subcontention raises further concerns regarding the effectiveness of quality assurance to control special processes 1 as well as ouestions regarding the reliability and integrity of , l quality documentation practices by cite contractors. The ; J subcontention raises two distinct discrepancies identified by an ' ts 1 1 l l
NRC inspector: one involving the structural contractor Gust K. Newberg specifying an incorrect weld procedure which was falsely documented by a Newberg welder in the cuality records in place of the procedure actually employed; and second, quality documentation omission by the mechanical contractor Phillips-Getschow Company. The root cause of these deficiencies have not been identified, and, therefore, the ef fectiveness of corrective action is indeterminate. With respect to the Newberg welding procedure issue, the glaring guestion remaining is: Why did the welder list the incorrect procedure - falsely - when he actually employed the correct procedure? Clearly there was an error by Newberg in specifying the incorrect procedure. Ilo weve r , more troubling is the welder's false documentation of that incorrect procedure on the quality records for that work. Edison's affiant Mr. Feynolds recites what is, of course, hearsay in his version of the inter-view with the offending welder. (Reynolds Affidavit, p. 8.) We are not even assured that this is first-hand hearsay, since Reynolds never establishes his competence to present such testi-mony. In any event, no evidence is presented explaining why "the welder copied this incorrect WPS onto the section of the report where the WPS actually used was to be id en t i f ied." Id. Making I an intentional false entry on a quality document is a very serious matter; and, yet, no consideration is given this subject in Edison's papers, i The second weld documentation deficiency incident identified in subcontention 9(D) involves a failure to specify weld filler O 2 n ~: = ~
# s
j s Subcontention 10(F) i 10. Contrary to Criterion X, "In spec t ion ," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Commonwealth Edison Company has failed to ensure'that a program for inspection of activities affecting quality was established'and exe-cuted by or for the organization performing the activ- i ity to verify conformance with the documented instruc-tions, procedures, and drawings for accomplishing the activity. F. Electrical contractor, Comstock, inspected and accepted a junction box which was later determined to have deficiencies in the location of the anchors used for mounting of the junction box. Anchors were accepted even though they were 3" from the required location j specified by S&L drawing 20E-1-3571. 1 Facts In Dispute Edison and its electrical contractor L.F. Comstock failed to assure that inspections for activities affecting quality were i j adequately executed where electrical junction box anchors were documented as acceptable even though they were three inches from the specified location. Corrective action is not demonstrably
- effective where the cause of this gross inspection error is not identified.
] An L.K. Comstock quality control inspector inspected and accepted the anchors for electrical junction box even though they were three inches off the specified location. In addition, in the same inspection the CC inspector fa iled to verify and document the installation torques for the function box cap screws. (Gieseker Affidavit, pp. 2-4.) The corrective action for this wholly unexplained gross inspection error is simply to I inspect the six remaining junction boxes previously inspected by l . . 1 4 l
this inspector. Itav i ng found no other similar deficiencies, Edison embraces the desired conclusion that this is merely an isolated case. (Gieseker Affidavit, p'. 4.) In absence of any evidence explaining the cause of such a gross inspection error, there is simply no basis for assuming its isolated character or limiting corrective action to that same inspector's work. Thousands of electrical junction boxes are installed and inspected by Comstock. (Gieseker Dep. Tr. 206.) What confidence exists that others, yet unidentified, reflect similar gross inspection discrepancies? Such an issue cannot be simply resolved on summary disposition. 4 2
~c Subcontention 12(E) ; 12. Contrary to Criterion XVI, " Corrective Action," of 10
- C.F.B. Part 50, Appendix B, . Commonwealth Edison Company has failed to ens'ure that measures were established to assure that conditions adverse to cual ity, such as i failures, malf unctions, deficiencies, deviations, I defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected. And in the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, Applicant i
failed to ensure that'the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude
- repetition.
4
} E. Although BCAP had identified that Level I OC inspectors had inspected and accepted construction activities, this nonconforming condition was not documented as a BCAP observation. (Inspection Report 85-06, Exh. 11.)
Facts In Dispute 4 4 $ Edison and its Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP) have failed to assure that conditions adverse to cuality J are promptly identified and corrected where the improper practice ! of employing unqualified Level I Quality Control (OC) inspectors s i for the performance and acceptance of visual weld inspections was not documented as a BCAP observation until af ter the NPC identified the problem.
; Edison's Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP) has been presented to the NPC and the public as a comprehensive assessment of the quality of construction of the Braidwood facility. BCAP's sorry performance in steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the serious programmatic OA deficiencies represented i
by the practice of utilizing Level I OC inspectors to perform the visual inspection of welds casts serious doubt on the integrity
- and reliability of the BCAP effort. Only after the NRC BCAP i
1 i l i m,--- ~ ~ n ,n,ve, .-,w,-m---.---,e -,nn- . , , - ~ ~ --- -. ,- - ,- w,,--p ,----w- - - - - , - - - - - . . . , . , ,-----,--m--v - - - - - - -.-n--
i ( s ' r
~q inspector Pon Gardner had identified his dissatisfaction with j BCAP's failure to document the Level I concern as an observation
- af ter having previously committed to do so - did the BCAP , (
director, Dr. Kaushal, finally adopt the prudent course of } l initiating an observation to placate the NPC. (Orlov Deposition,
- Tr. 156-60.) Far from demonstrating a conservative, cautious [
i approach to a significant ouestion implicating cuality and safety i of construction, BCAP's treatment of the Level I OC inspector issue evidences a false and overly technical defense of a flawed inspection practice. Even the observation itself, once issued after the NBC inspector pressed the issue, fails to take any position on the question at all and simply frames the observation as a series of questions concerning the Level I practice. The timing and content of this observation clearly reflect BCAP management i positions since initiated at the direction of Dr. Kaushal and written by Deputy BCAP Director George Orlov. (Orlov Deposition Exhibit No. 3, Exhibit A attached; Orlov Deposition Tr. 160.). ) Of course, Edison continued to assert the propriety of use of Level I OC inspectors. In its May 6, 1985 response to the
- items of noncompliance identified by Mr. Gardner (Orlov Affidavit, Orlov Exhibit B), Edison disputes the item of noncom-i
- pliance about the use of Level I OC inspectors while noting that revised procedures limiting weld inspections to Level II or III t
inspectors " lead to an enhanced inspection pr og r a m." Edison I claims "further confirmation of the ouality of the installed 1 (! hardware, including welds by the electrical contractor, is 1 2 e i
- _ . _ _ . . , _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . - _ , _ _ . - - . . .__ _ ,_ _ _ __.__ _ _ ____.__..___ . _.- - _ - ~ _ _ . _ - - _
5 provided by BCAP and other reinspection /overinspection programs already in progress at Braidwood." M. Edison, of course, dis-puted the item of noncompliance regarding the lack of a BCAP observation on the Level I issue, relying on its action taken after Mr. Gardner pressed the matter. As for the " formal" processing of this BCAP observation, it might as well have not been written. Although he has no knowledge of a unique evalua tion by Sargent & Lundy of the BCAP Level I observation (Orlov Tr. 164), M r. Orlov believes that S&L determined that this issue was to be treated like other document review observations and " determined that it is impossible to review for design significance." (Orlov Tr. 163.) The BCAP processing of this serious matter, thus, even af ter the issue was forced by the NRC, simply led to a dead end. Contention subpart 12(E) must be considered together with subpart 3(C) which raises the suSstance of the improper use of Level I QC inspectors. The failure by the BCAP program to identify and correct the Level I problem in a timely and ef fective manner evidences serious weaknesses in that program and undermines its results. 3
w
- lO ' % M I ITE: 'EX) 1 A' ,er[
fp1c)e(x - 7.3/2 h > C lj)E, / , ySe?, / ~'n '
- r -
MM' OME2VATICH Ucrvw Page 1 cf :: y R
- 1. 039CVATION hT). (52 4 - cu rr-r = r 17
.1
- rHIrTIC:4 0F GFMAT17X IQ.Q{Il['IGII2f 6 [gggyp7Ig{,,,_,,,
; ,g e; , L ( I,TP.M
. ), d (vjpiu e tt ipoent
. . , , N t e r i a l . tmen: . Proc ed u r o ) ; l 3. PACKM: n).
n trt (if krx= m):
, , y,
.'*. .i* 5. C1tCCXLIST/ITD1 tX).
r/n IT 1 { l q , /g WIT 2 l$ l Cot?nd 0 l~-~~l 7. nuppoa7 SERVICE Reg. hMr 17), _ *A 9.03st:WED CU:Utc: ~ I_ l M i Droceduto Review l coinnpuetion; ~ g Implecentaeion Q'"
~
.! an i J trrun l_ l nscAP -
roer.sa n t a- R W14w b ,,, l- 1 0: hor I'IbiPIION O? 0:3St3:VATIOW; tien reviw I- 1 n-, c
, i. 6
.U..> & . k u ll) su..) ..
I .~.
}', '. .
_.~
- k,." ,
r ,*
. . . .s r.
- 11. PREPARCD ar: J,;
0 ' O } ><* - ;{&a,' >
, fil GT14 t u r 9 --2 /21/g ;
^
, a. o
_ Datq __ i,,,,,(.i s.- [ .v;. r2 .,.g Oil2/ATIC"J CJJtITY, CCWLTtTCllEUS. /JiD ACQlPACY REVIE.
,' '[.!
rn"*cialf;giloM: ,' r + k'(*,.:e .
'.s.* -. 4 , - n <1 g,pk s,.v.
. . - 't 4L f?Y'.
~ II' .
*lh ps 57 J' .,k.
jy -- I' 5{, K. H' ;,/*f y
!1L J NP Mi:tT}iM Mgrxyss g y; . --
;;ay Y23 l- l 14.ItKVIIDIED BY: N,w' f 6Y) l
{ (ef( 4--- i<A /.' 7 / x /g ; - I)q ' -- h 317I1W ' E'1 _24 L O_ f= 4,
%dj',.[
?,CM For u 06- 1 (Dov. B) ,
M(([
. '<' <; s
3 : ~ u s il,
] g q, l- C,p.,-
- Q M.;H,ht~ ,w4 h /t 5. heJ RIOI
;ubject: Qu:ilification of Inspection Per:vnuial gtw.u M7/N #
During ths developu nt of c3R checkliste and instructions for the review of 5 electtica: <1o<:ume nt at ion , it was observed that it was general practice (prior to 6/30/84) within L.K. Constock to use Lovel I inspectors to perfor::1 and dxta ant the rerformance of inspectiono. These inspections by Lovel I in3pectorn wure perforrt.ed in conjunctico with a review and concurrenco ei7,aturo by a 1.evel II inspector on tho inspection record. tiv ep t.2 : L.M. Corna t oc k P r oced.u r e 4.0.1 Hev. P opecifies Level I or Level II "O car tif iced inaptictors to perform the visual inrpoetion of wolds (ref. Paragraph $. 5
/
-.. g
[;/Mi ;.+ J 21) an: i mpair es a Lovel II !n:spector to review the innpoctig record. '.'i s c
' $k
- , ei cr,r.ce t n : Do ';tm tock P &cdor ci 4.1.3 4.13.1, an.3 4.0.3 in allcuintj Level I 6 tr. rector s e n ' ,p l o o..n t tr.-@ect ion pr ocettures and per form (iold inspect ion, lg';
.t. ,j -e t t o a e v w of t r.o inep.ct' ors :e.mttn by a Lovol 11 incpoctor. M.i
, .1,.qtvi r e ly sod r a.2, the regula:ory requirements notablinbr.d by the Droidwood Li '
/ ,: . -l
! : Ict , Rog. Gilld's 1.58 Rev. 1. AN31 r:45.2.6 --- 1918,7 *>o thoce procedures N,..
,f q.
c.be gua t e ! y desc r ibr- the Level II trit!pector 's validation of Level I in: pection y p: xedut o icplecenta t ion? a
+.
(
!g{d.
nefcrences: 4B e cayy 5; I A?J3 ! N 4 ".e . 2. 6 - 19 7 tl
- L.M. O ei t Gek 7: r"lede! 9 3 1.l.3 Hev. B. 4.13.I nov. C, 4.0.3 Rov. F pM j
e
's.
v m
,k$
4 hy naam r. S v\ 4, 1
- y._
;# ? -
~ j ( .< ,
.-, M
(* t; .. s D. CAP Ot)$3rVATIC11 IIR'O*Q . P32e 2 of 3 IS. 03SF.RVATION No. C#,R - R s ta 's xx-l3l
~
~1 r/AWAUGi_ I. DETt0*3tIMTION OP YALIDITY NALVATim 17.D UT.RftINATION OF VA1.1 PITY:
. _ l ! INVALID
_.ye < < . t . r., .as
< aca.C s e.,o. ae l7l- VALID e-- -
. r, e c-v.'s f3 ^ q s.15 h% C. c u ( s< a b ., -f '*-4 p r 4. ( k?s_ ch t.$/a.c *, ,'
l s ,,j .- 6. r . .. \ T' :.. m ,_ e,s -ly _ a , i i . ., . va m ,8, <. u s .e. 4a , any). u d:
, -- i
.r.
.Q -
.( . . . f e. . A i .r. F', .t .w . . t c6 fw l., M E %;,,,
n , J
- c. . Cr. < % . , .' , J w. .<<l r J.,. m k c. ;su ,, ,u .,+ b e_
7 ci l,
/c/$. ( # t . ei f s,ek ,- d
- J %w ) " r . Is ,7* / Q '. K. be / f '. .
c ,,, ..i p tv f . fe:
,.c W
U-f. b:e yC- e,
- p. *
' -)
}.'
p
..c v.N t ,,
~
t
~
10.cVALUATIcel & DnFJutIstATICH (iw - tg 8 BY: SUM,& 1rMr [0 4
- - FlSDoture 24te I,r y
( --,r...-.u b: /c L X,t.U t3 Y ; 20. fir /IDe~dD DE : 21. AI'I'HOVED DY : ~~'
-~-.
. l;. , u/p V' '. .. < .
m_ (\l i<yu.:.Ca) 3 l>'?/W D
- v. ,
^
3 .a . .. eu e DCAP Port 06-1 (::ev . 5) 2 Y
I 1
/-
(,\), Subcontention 12(F)
- 12. Contrary to Criterion XVI, "Cor rective Action," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Commonwealth Edison Company has failed to ensure that measures were established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected. And in the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, Applicant failed to ensure that the cause of the condition is ;
determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. l l P. In addition, 37 BCAP observations were invalidated by S&L even though the documented basis for the invalida-tions of the observations did not support the invalida-tions. (Inspection Report 85-06, Exh. 11.) Facts In Dispute Edison, its Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP) and Sargent & Lundy failed to assure that conditions adverse to quality were identified and corrected in a timely manner where I the practice of failing to require Quality Control field verification of the accuracy of " redline" as-constructed piping drawings was initially approved by Edison, BCAP and S&L. BCAP observations on this matter were improperly invalidated by S&L. ECAP failed to document any disagreement with the S&L invalidation until after the NRC inspection and the admission of the amended quality assurance contention in this proceeding. l A series of decisions reflected in this item of noncompliance further e ridence the overly narrow apologist i approach taken by DCAP maqagement toward serious and blatant ( ~Kj quality assurance flaws. Even Edison's ultimate defense to this V 1
item of noncompliance represents an overly technical claim e (,s)I substantially in keeping with the BCAP approach but missing the real point of the deficiency: BCAP failed to identify and correct the OA problem in an effective and timely manner. First, BCAP continued to defend the improper practice of failing to require quality control field verification of the accuracy of as-constructed piping drawings in the face of an obviously vague and imprecise procedure and in the absence of any initiative to determine and evaluate actual practice. Second, in substance Sargent & Lundy did in fact " invalidate" the 37 BCAP observations without the least objection from BCAP, at least not until Edison's May 6, 1985, response to the NBC items of noncompliance. See, Orlove Affidavit Exhibit B for item 12(E). Edison's argument rests on its interpretation of the ECAP procedure requiring BCAP to make "the final determination of v al id i ty." Fesponse to Item of Noncompliance at p. 3. The independence expert overview group, the Evaluation Pesearch Corporation (ERC), seem to have got it clear in their January 14, I 1985, observation report where they stated: "S&L has responded to several BCAP observations ... declaring them to be i nv a l i d ." (Orlov Affidavit, Exhibit B.) Mr. Orlov described the procedure for BCAP to accept or reject Sargent & Lundy's invalidation
" r ecomm end a tion." (Orlov Tr. 231-41.) No documentation what-i ever was filed with Applicant's motion for summary disposition evidencing such PCAP disagreement. Nor was any produced upon request at or during Mr. Orlov's deposition. Mr. Orlov explained l A~y that the relevant portions of the observation form were in the OA j _]
l 2 l
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
l vault. When asked to specify when PCAP documented its disagree-( )r ment with Sargent & Tanndy's invalidation " recommendation" of December 27, 1384, Mr. Orlov identificd the date as July, 1985, more than six months later hfter the NRC identified the noncompliance, after Edison responded to the noncompliance, and even after the admission of Intcrvenors' Amended Quality Assurance Contention raising this subcontention. Important issues remain for resolution regarding the reasons for such actions by BCAP and in particular the implications of such actions for the integrity of the BCAP program. Summary disposition is inappropriate and should be denied. l U 3
I f
..j Subcontention 12(J) l
- 12. Contrary to Criterion XVI, " Corrective Ac t ion," o f 10 C.F.F. Part 50, Ap'pe nd i x B, Commonweal th Fdison Company has failed to ensure that measures were established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, d ev i a t i er.s ,
defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected. And in the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, Applicant failed to ensure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. J. In two areas, supports / restraints and piping runs, deficiencies were identified by the NBC CAT that were not identified by the BCAP inspectors. On the basis of the limited sample overinspected, it appears that BCAP inspection effort needs to be improved in areas of i supports / restraints and piping runs. ' l l Facts In Dispute l l Edison and its Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP) have f a il ed to accure that cond i t ionr, adver se to quality are identified and corrected in a timely manner where the ef fectiveness of Construction Sampling Peinspections are indeterminate because of such factors as sloppiness and going too ! fast due to cost and schedule precoure, the relaxation of inspection acceptance criteria, and the improper invalidation of adverse inspection results. l The Construction Sampling Peinspections (CSR) are at the l core of the Braidwood Construction Accessment Program (BCAP) effort to assess and establish the quality of construction at Br a id wood. Serious guestions exist as to the effectiveness of the CSR inspection effort. Such cuestions include questions as 1 a
to the adequacy and effectiveness of the reinspections themselves hO as raised by NPC CAT inspectors and others; ouestions also exist l l as to the relaxation of inspection acceptance criteria and the 1 l improper invalidation of adFerse inspection results. Intervenors' review and evaluation of the BCAP CSR inspection l evidence is only now underway. BCAP CSR documents have only been l available for a short period of time. In sum, the evaluation of the ef fectiveness of the construction sampling reinspection element of BCAP must take into account a range of criticisms and a fully developed record. Additional questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the CSR reinspections themselves. In inspection report 85-02 of February 13, 1985, NBC inspectors identified "a concern that BCAP reinspections were not adeauately identifying construction deficiencies," a concern which was " reinforced" by the CAT findings which were cited in this contention subpart. The NRC inspector continues by noting that the BCAP Director met with him "to discuss the need for significant actions to address the issue of BCAP reinspection deficiencies." At page 7 of his l summary disposition af fidavit, Dr. Kaushal, the BCAP Director, acknowledges inspection errors identified by the IEOG in the areas of concrete placements and electrical hangers. As a result of the "mid-point look" initiated in January, 1985, BCAP identified changes "to enhance the quality of reinspection checklists and instructions and also the inspectors' understanding of these checklists and instructions. Action
>H y plans were also identified for reverification of previously (J
2
t I completed inspections in the area of piping and electrical ,' ( )h hangers / supports. Inspections in the areas of concrete placement in the electrical and piping hangers / supports were j placed on hold pending compiletion of the identified actions."
- BCAP Progress Peport, February 26, 1985, Exhibit A hereto. The 1
NFC BCAP inspector, Fon Gardner, attributed these deficiencies "to going too f ast" (Gardner Deposition Tr. 158). "It was slop-piness as much as anything." (Gardner Tr. 159.) Dr. Kaushal acknowledges that the type of inspector errors identified in the CAT report "are not uncommon especially in the early parts of a program." (Kaushal Affidavit, p. 10.) As Fdison's affiant Mr. Smith acknowledges, "[I]n the beginning this project was esti-
- mated for completion by December 1984 which is when the BCAP Task i
Force inspections were getting started in a meaningful way. The ; l i BCAP Task Force inspectors were aware of this schedule." (Smith l A f'f id av i t , p. 2 2. ) Concerns about cost and schedule pressure i from management and the sacrifice of quality for quantity in inspection work have been voiced by many Braidwood site quality control inspectors. (See, OC Inspector parassment and Intimida-tion Contention and incorporated referenced documents.) The independence of the BCAP inspectors from cost and schedule considerations, as required by 10 CFB Part 50, Appendix B, is in P auestion. Dr. Kaushal places the issue of the effectiveness of i BCAP inspections in an appropriate perspective when he states:
"My basis for the confidence in the adecuacy of the BCAP Task 4
Force inspections stems from the manner in which the totality of i tne BCAP was implemented." (Kaushal Affidavit, p. 10.) This 3 L. _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ __ . .. __ _
issue, indeed, must be judged in the context of an evaluation of {sM the full BCAP. Even from the limited opportunity for review of BCAP files several troubling questions'arise. First, BCAP auality assurance raises the question about the appropriateness of relaxing inspection acceptance criteria through utilizing non-current revisions of procedures. The final resolution of March 25, 1985, by Mr. Orlov appears to endorse just such a result. There he approves " relaxation of design-requirements when an attribute is already deemed design significant." AIR No. 009, attached as Exhibit B. Other issues are raised by the internal invalidation of BCAP CSR inspection observations. How widespread this practice was is unknown, as are also the effects of such a practice on inspector morale and inspector willingness to test disputed inspection decisions. For example, an instance came to light in discovery, more or less at random, where a BCAP inspector " declined acknowledgement of the observation's i nva l i d i t y." He was summarily reversed by a committee of BCAP management "for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the observation form." No further explanation. BCAP Memo 43368 with attachments, Exhibit C hereto. How many such instances have occurred and what their effects are on the CSP program remain to be established. Finally, as should come as no surprise to the parties or the Board, the BCAP program has been developed and implemented in anticipation of this licensing proceeding. It should not be A- understood as simply a neutral, objective engineering evaluation gs %.) 4
of the safety of the Braidwood facility. Its final product, the (A._,9 BCAP Report, as well as presumably other significant aspects of the program's implementation are the product not simply of engineering decisions but al'so of Edison management decisions and of decisions by Applicant's counsel. A September 18, 1985 BCAP memo to management and counsel from Dr. Kaushal noticing a meeting for counsel's offices to " discuss and resolve questions regarding overall approach to the BCAP report," exemplifies this reality. BCAP Memo #3409, Exhibit D. Edison itself makes clear that the overall results of BCAP will be relied upon in this proceeding address the questions by the NdC and Intervenors regarding past cuality assurance failures: CECO presently intends to rely upon the fact that the BCAP was per formed, and that the BCAP was performed subject to quality assurance oversight in responding to Contention Item 1.B. These facts will be used as evidence of Ceco management's involvement in and support of the CECO OA program and as evidence of management's commitment to ensure that all safety-related activities performed by contractors' personnel are in accordance with regulations, codes, standards, and license requirements. Applicant's Second Partial Response to Intervenors' Second Set of Interrogatories and Pequests To Produce, November 22, 1985, Specific Interrogatory #7. Besolution of Contention subpart 12(J) will depend upon a full evaluation of the BCAP program. Summary disposition is inappropriate to resolve such an issue and it should be denied. 5
I SUBPART 12(J) ! EXHIBIT A ' February 26, 1985 /'Ng BCAP Memo #622 V To: T. J. Maiman W. J. Shewski M. J. Wallace E. E. Fit 2 patrick From: N. N. Kaushal
Subject:
Braidwood Construction Assessment Program Progress Report Attached is the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program Progress Report for January 1 through January 31, 1985. N. N. Kaushal BCAP Director NNK:Irw xc: R. N. Gardner, NRC R. L. Byers G. M. Orlov H. L. Vener N. P. Smith, QA - J. Hansel, ERC BCAP File QG 69.60.3 QG 69.~10.2 / E0004393 0892J
BRAIDWOOD STATION BRAIDWOOD CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT PROGRMi g
\/ REPORT PERIOD JANUARY l - JANUARY 31, 1985 I.
SUMMARY
/ STATUS s This is the seventh monthly progress report for the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP), covering the period from January ,
I through January 31, 1985. In the CSR area, the pace of inspections and related evaluations has increased. Advances were made in visual inspections and document review package preparation and inspection. Visual reinspections for one population, Conduit, were completed and related observations submitted to S&b for evaluation. The RPSR effort was involved with unincorporated Field Change Requests (FCR's) and checklist development for persor.nel qualification / certification, construction and field coating wo:k requirements. Progress continues on all a'ctive programs in the RSCAP clement. As of January 31, the number of personnel assigned to the BCAP cffort has risen to 123. Satisfactory office and clerical support continues to be available to the BCAP work force. ! II. SCHEDULE ANALYSIS CSR Activities are generally on schedule. RPSR and RSCAP activities are, ! respectively, six and one week behind schedule for achieving project interim milestones; however, the scheduled completion of the draf t final BCAP report is not expected to be impacted. III. PERSONNEL AND EOUIPMENT STATUS DCAP manpower totaled 123 as of January 31. Five additional inspectors were certified during January. Inspection personnel activities loeluded training, accessibility walkdowns, reinspections, document reviews and supolemental observation detailing (e.g., weld mapping, configuration). Conversion of observation and verification package tracking from Mapper to the IBM system was initiated. The program and data entry for verification packages has been completed. Initial verification package tracking reports are expected to be generated by the IBM system during the first week in February. The program and data entry for observation tracking is also expected to be completed during the first week in February. 4 IJJ00h1391 0892J
IV. BCAP Et,EMENT STATUS
~
/' ~ q A. CSR STATUS Preparation of inspection packages and performance of inspections continued. prepared. Forty-nine of 70 checklists and instructions have been of these, 14 are being used for current inspect *.ons of plant hardware and documentation. generated at a rate of about 250 per week. Inspection packages are being Documentation geviews have begun in Configuration. Concrete Placements, Conduit, and Small Bcre Pipe Additionally, during this period, activities concentrated on 1) defining the three categories of engineering judgment portion of the samples (related to safe shutdown, previously identified deficiencies, and high stress), 2) completing assembly of inspection packages for populations, 3) developing documentation review have checklists for the group of populations for which inspections begun,
- 4) developing the remaining checklists and instructions and 5) processing observations.
On January 23, based partly on concerns expressed by the NRC resident inspector and partly on BCAP internal assessment, inspections under the CSR clement were temporarily suspendedthe and a
" midpoint look" was initiated to factor-in the knowledge and ideas resulting from experience-to-date. As a result of this " midpoint look", specific actions were identified to enhance the quality of reinspection checklists and instructions and also the inspectors
- understanding of these checklists and instructions. Action plans were also identified for reverification of previous;y completed inspections in the area of piping and electrical hangers / supports.
Inspections in the areas of concrete placement and electrical and piping hangers / supports were placed or hold pending completion of the identified actions. Inspections in other areas were resumed on January 25, 1985. B. RPSR STATUS During January, the RPSR group was primarily involved in identifying unincorporated Field Change Requests (FCRs) that affect specification applicable to the RPSR effort and finalizing checklists that contain construction and personnel qualification / certification requirements. Three unincorporated PCHs were identified. Requirements fraa these FCRs have been added to checklists. A preliminary review of a sampling of cheets from the 29 checklists involved was conducted. Results of that review have been incorporated in 18 of the checklists. The remaining checklists will be updated in February. E0001395 OB92J
', Final review of the checklist for field coating work began on January 24. Comparison of contractor procedural requirements to (s~'\j/ that checklist is scheduled to start on February 4. The next checklist to be reviewed will be for inspection and testing services. Comparison of contractor procedures to this checklist is scheduled to be completed in late February.
C. RSCAP STATUS In January, the RSCAP Group completed preparation of Commitment Lists, Procedure Review Check Lists. Implementation Review Checklists and Documentation Review Checklists for each of the i Corrective Action Programs under RSC!1P Review. Field Review of Contractor Implementation and Documestation Reviews were also conducted this month. Several observations have be initiated as a result. DCAP-QA conducted several surveillances of the RSCAP element with no findings. V. PROBLEMS /DISCREPENCY FINDINGS A. _ Implementation Probiems No specific implementation problems were experienced during this period. B. Discrepancy Findings A total of 1486 observation reports have been written as of January 31, 1985. Of these, the review for validity has been completed for 1017. Of these, 865 have been determined to be valid discrepancie's. Those forwarded to S&L for design significance determination currently number 617. As of the end of this report period, S&L has not identified any discrepancy as design significant. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS Ho specific recommendations are offered at this time. fi.D(. ' l
\
N. N. Kaushal DCAP Director ' s9
)
E00G.'ea!)6 0892J
, - - - - _ _ - l
Gee .s LW
- Q(7 ff7, O+E r
SUBPART 12(J) EXillBIT B April 2 1905 DRD 1815. 4 5 9 TO: N. N. Kaushal BCAP Director
SUBJECT:
(AIR 0009 BCAP issues Q.A. accepts your explanations and clarifications of the brought forth in AIR 11009 and it is clonod, f 5 fl . P. Smith General Supervisor Q.A. Utaidwood Station NPS/WJM/nlw (03500) cc: E. E. Fitzpatrick Q. A. File - 71.7 71.12 (16009) h,Y(h@I]YOINT F :/ Ih, APR - 319S5 1 h'.9 fj l B. C. A. P. , k 110015121
March 25. 1985 DCAP Memo 8960 '*' TD: N. P. Smith FROM: G. M. Orlov Y
SUBJECT:
AIR-009. Clarification of Additional Information REPRRENCES: a) QA Memo DRD 815.262 dated March 19. 1985 b) DCAP Memo 8800 Dated March 5. 1985 The following additional information is provided in response to the Reference (a) memo,
- 1. Definitions of terms used in Reference (b):
A. Generic Design Requirements - Requirements regarding construction that apply to more than one item. Examples of such requirements may be those in NRC codes. Architect / Engineer specifications, general drawings not specific to any one item and specific parts of codes or standards that apply to a class of items. D. Item-Specific Design Requirements - Those requirements invoked regarding the construction of one particular item. These jnclude a specific design drawing for a component and all referenced codes, standards, specifications, general drawings, etc. invoked by that drawing. C. Item-Specific Acceptance Criteria - These are the reinspection or doctmeentation review checklist acceptance criteria in a package for a specific sample item. They are developed from design requirements, but may be less stringent when it has been determined that the design will allow a relaxation in the construction tolerances. D. Specification Requirements - Those requirements defined in an Architect / Engineer doctanent labeled a " Specification". E. Specification - An Architect / Engineer doctament labeled as a
" Specification *
- 2. Meaning of the following quote in terms of writing observations:
"If the design requirements have become more stringent subsequent to an item's installation, provisions within DCAP allow for the invalidation of observations that result from application of the more stringent requirements (DCAP Prog. Doc. at II-2 and BCAP-06, para. 4.3.3c).
110011122
'Well Smith March 25. 198'a BCAP does not plan to write observations in the instance where design-requirements have become more stringent subsequent to an item's installation since this is not within BCAP scope. CBCo at Braldwood is expected have other QA prograrns that are designed to ensure that any more stringent requirements are recognized and that previously completed work is reviewed to determine the possible need for rework. DCAP does not include such provision within its scope, rather ensuring that at least a snapshot in time" view of the construction design-significant quality is taken.
This approach recognizes that less stringent requirements indicate the lack of design-significance of those previous requirements. Therefore, where less stringent requirements are known to BCAP such changes are acknowledged by invalidating observations written regarding a failure to meet the old requirements.
- 3. Second sentence of Section 3-A. regarding the development of acceptance criteria in most cases, from latest design requirements:
Acceptance criteria are, for checklist preparation, developed based first on consideration of the latest design requirements, however (as explained in the third and fourth sentences of Section 3.A.) ' I alternate criteria may be used if less stringent, but still design-significant criteria, can be developed. The words "in most
~
cases" were intended to convey that the final acceptance criteria as used in the checklist may not end up identical to those in the latest drawings and specification requirements.
- 4. Third sentence of Section 3.A stegarding relaxation of design-requircraents when an attribute is already deevred design-significant:
In the case where an attribute is design-sign 1(~1 cant, its design-requirements are then exa:ntned to determine acceptance criteria for BCAP use an explained in item 3 above. The subject sentence in Reference (b) is correct as written in that BCAP inspection criteria may be less stringent than original 1 spection criteria, as discussed in (1 c. above) yet BCAP results will properly indicate design-significant deviations should they exist. i (b tlsf Q.M.Orlov i Assistant DCAP Director cc: DCAP File QG.69.60.3 QG.69.60.2.6 QG 69.00.2 / fl. Knushal L. Weisn 1097J 110011123 4
ogn 31. uv. s . w y Q (,9.9 0. A March 19, 1985 BRD #15.262 TO: N. N. Kauchal G. M. Orlov FROM: N. P. Smith
SUBJECT:
Clarification of Additional Information Regarding AIR-09
REFERENCE:
- 1. AIR-09 dated February 1. 1905
- 2. BCAP Renponse dated February 21, 1905
- 3. BRD #14,902 dated February 21, 1905
- 4. BCAP Memo H000 dated March 5. 1985 In our review of the additional information that BCAP has provided (dated 3-5-05), we feel that additional information is needed.
We would like you to define several termo used in BCAP Memo #000 (dated 3-5-05). The terms used which we feel need to be defined are as follows: A. Generic Denign Requirementa B. Item - Spccific Design Requiremento C. Item - Specific Acceptance Critoria D. Specification Requirements E. Specification What is meant by, "If the design requirements have become more stringent ..., but meet the original requirements (BCAP Prag. Doc. at II-2 and BCAP-06, para. 4.3.3c).", in terms of writing observations (i.e. generic or specific observations). u (0320D) " g. 4 I mu mco iI001112.1 a
)
8.C.A.P.
--. w
p, a 69.R o . A March 19, 1989 DRD #15,262 TO: N. N. Kauchal G. M. Orlov FROM: N. P. Smith
SUBJECT:
Clarification of Additional Information Regarding AI
REFERENCE:
- 1. AIR-09 dated February 1, 1905
- 2. BCAP Response dated February 21. 1985
- 3. BRD #14,982 dated February 21, 1905
- 4. BCAP Memo H000 dated March 5. 1985 In our review of the additional information that BCAP han provided (dated 3-5-05). we feel that additional information in needed.
We would like you to define oeveral termo used in DCAP Memo #000 (dated 3-5-05). The terms used which wo feel need to be defined are as follows: A. Generic Design Requirements B. Item - Specific Donign Requirements C. Item - Specific Acceptance Critoria D. Specification Requirements E. Specification What is meant b, , "If the design requirements have become more stringent .... but meet the original requirements (BCAP Prag. Doc. at II-2 and BCAP-06, para. 4.3.3c).", in terms of writing observations (i.e. generic or specific observationn). (03208) ) ' Y MAR 21 RECD d V 1100111:21 3 ~ j
- 8. C. A. P.
~J
DRD #15.262 Page 2 mostAlso in BCAP cases". why notMemo H80.0 in all section 3.A second sentence it states "in gases? section 3.A. how can the cr5teria beAnd in the third sentence of relaxed from design requirements from a design - significance standpoint when the attribute has already been deemed design - significant. Please provide the above information by March 22 1905. hn N. P. Smith General Supervisor Quality Assurance NPS/ PAL /nlw (0320B) cc: E. E. Fitzpatrick P. A. Lau O. A. File - 71.7 71.12
. i 7 ,i It0011125 (4 '
-~~~~ q
J5s d - s /(_/*) March 11. 1985 BRD #15,155
.s TO: N. N. Kaushal' G. M. Orlov FROM: N. P. Smith
SUBJECT:
Clarification of Additional Information Regarding AIR-09
REFERENCE:
- 1. AIR-009 dated February 1, 1985
- 2. DCAP Rosponse dated February 21, 1905
- 3. DRD #14.902 dated February 21, 1985
- 4. DCAP Memo #000 dated March 5, 1905 In our review of the additional information that DCAP has provided (dated 3-5-05), we feel that additional clarification is needed. Therefore, we are presenting a few examples, as we interpret the additional information, for your review and approval.
Example #1: A particular population has had several revisions to the field it:sta11ation (contractor specifications and/or drawings) tolerances which were more restrictive for each revision. Issuo Date Length Tolerance A. Original issue (3-2-70) t 4" B. Rev. A (3'-14-79) z 3" C. Rev. D (6-9-02) 1 2" D. Rev. C (10-6-03) t 1" E. Rev. D (11-7-84) z 1/2" In this example a generic observation would be written for all population items not meeting the Rev. D (11-7-04) tolerances, that is those population items constructed to the original issue up to and including Rev. C (10-6-03) would be covered by the generic observation. {3Lii@[HOMEP h (0290B) noo111'26 MAR 11 fiECD O B.C. A. P.
BRD #15,155 Page 2 O Example #2: A particular population has had several revisions to the field installation (contractor specifications and/or drawings) tolerances which were less restrictive for each revision. Issue Date Length Tolerance A. Original issue (3-2-70) t 1/2" B. Rev. A (3-14-79) 1 1" C. Rev. B (6-9-02) 1 2" D. Rev. C (10-6-03) 1 3" E. Rev. D (11-7-04) t 4" In this example no generic observations would be written. Example 03: A particular population has had a requirement deleted from the contractor specification or a design drawing: Issue Date Requirement A. Original issue (3-2-70) floor to be painted purple B. Rev. A (3-14-79) floor to be painted any color C. Rev. D (12-13-04) floor does not have to be painted In this example no observations of any kind would bo written on painting associated with floors. Example #4: A particular population included a population item where the design was changed since the installation of the item but the item had not been reworked. A. Original construction (dated 5-3-02) dimension, 3" x 3" x 14" tube steel. B. Redesign as per revised drawing (dated 12-4-04) dimension. 3" x 3" x 10" tube stoel. 11001112' 7 (02908)
., - - . . - - . . = - - - .- -
l BRD #15,155 Page 3 ' 4 In this example an observation would be written, then during evaluation it was found to be constructed as per original design, the observation would be evaluated as an invalid observation. l Example 05:
! A particular population included a population item where the design was changed after installation of the item and then was '
reworked after 6-30-04. I A. Original construction (dated 5-3-02) dimension, 3" x 3" x 14" tube steel. B. Redesign as per revised drawing (dated 7-4-04) dimension, 4 3 x 3" x 10" tube steel. i C. Item reworked on 0-3-04 to meet new redesign. In this example the population item would be deleted and replaced as an invalid sample item. I Also, we would like to clarify the following terms: l L A. Generic Design Requirements are those documents which provide a contractor with general guidance in terms of general construction activities which may include the
! following documents:
- l. Contractor Specifications
- 2. Design Drawings
; 3. Codes
- 4. Standards
- 5. Contractot Procedures
- 6. Other generic (type) documents B. Item - Specific Design Requirements are those documents l which provide a contractor with specific guidance in terms of construction of a specific population item which may 1
4 include the following documents: 1 q 1. Detailed Design Drawings i l 2. A specific paragraph or sub-paragraph of a specific code + i W IIOU 111b
! (02900)
I
BRD #15,155 Page 4
- 3. A specific paragraph or sub-paragraph of a specific standard
- 4. A specific requirement from a contractor procedure Please provide your concurrence to the above exampics by approving this document below by March 15, 19d5.
I
. P. Smith General Supervisor Quality Accurance Reviewed by:
G. M. Orlov Assistant Director BCAP Approved by: ti . fl. Kauchal DCAP Director NPS/ PAL /niw (0290D) cc: E. E. Fitzpatrick P. A. Lau
- 0. A. File - 71.12 71.7 100011129
4 March 5, 1985 1 () DCAP Memo 8000 4 TO: N. P. Smi h Y l, l FROM: G. M. Orlov I
SUBJECT:
Additional Information Regarding AIR-009 l
REFERENCE:
BRD #14,982 dated February 25, 1985 l' l The attached provides information you requested in the i reference regarding the basis for the CSR element using j design requirements applicable after June 30, 1984, to review construction work completed as of that date. Your consideration of the closure of AIR-009 based on this additional information will be appreciated. I tt N 1 G. M. Orlov f Assistant DCAP Director j GMO/LSW/sjs l Attachment
; cc: N. N. Kaushal BCAP File QG 69.60.3 l QG 69.60.2.6
,QG 69.80.2 1
! 110011130 i
- - - , - . . , , _ , , , ~ , - . . _ . - - _ . . , , - _ . .--- ,. . . _ ,,,_. _ . _ -_- - . - _ . . - . , _ .
Attcchment DCAP-CSR Element Application of Latest Design Requirements to Previously-Completed Work The DCAP Program Document provides, in the CSR element, a framework for the verification of construction work completed and Q.C. accepted prior to 6/30/84. The CSR verification consists of inspections and documentation reviews performed using the _ latest approved design requirements. The appropriateness of using " latest" approved design requirements to perform inspections or documentation reviews for itens cocpleted prior to 6/30/84 is discussed in this document. The presentation that follows describes: (1) the construction work subject to review; (2) how design requirements are applied in developing inspection criteria; (3) which design documents, applicable at what time, are used in each stage of this criteria developcent; and (4) how the application of the
" latest" design requirements to "previously completed" work is appropriate in the context of the DCAP. The consistency of the logic presented with both the DCAP Program Document and CSR implementing procedures is demonstrated by detailed references where appropriate.
- 1. Construction Subject to Review Those safety-related
- items" which were ccepleted, Q.C. inspected and accepted prior to 6/30/84 ore subject to the inspections and documentation reviews in the CSR clement (DCAP Prog. Doc. at 11-1 and DCAP-20 para. 4.3).
- 2. Design Requirement Applicability The verification of design-significant attributes is performed against the latest approved design drawings and specification requircoents. (BCAP Prog. Doc. at 11-2). The following discusses the acceptability of using the latest design requirements which, in scce cases, may not have been applicable to the item at the time of its construction. The various uses of design requirements in the several stages of verification criteria l 110011131 l 1
(1012J) i
O selection are also discussed. The following discussion also explains why 9eneric design requirements may be used for determining checklist attributes for reinspection or documentation review, while other item-specific design requirements may be used in preparing item-specific acceptance criteria. A. Checklist Attributes (Use of Generic Design Requirements) Attributes for reinspection or for documentation review are identified by reviewing the latest design drawings, specifications, and other documents which are applicable at the time of the population checklist / instruction preparation (BCAP-22, para. 4.1.1 and 2). Considering the DCAP work schedule, the applicability date for these design documents will be 6/30/84 or later. Those attributes considered design significant are identified from thesa documents (BCAP-22, para 4.1.3). For the purposes of BCAP CSR verifications, the use of design requirements in existence on or af ter 6/30/84 is acceptable. Generic design requirements for any given item within the scope of CSR may have been eliminated, relaxed, or made more stringent subsequent to that item's installation date. If a requirement has been eliminated, the original requirement by itself could not have been design significant. Any relaxation in the design requirements is acceptable in that the new requirement will automatically allow acceptance of the existing installation. Itence, compliance in these cases need not be verified by BCAP. If the design requirements have become more stringent subsequent to an item's installation, provisions within BCAP allow for the invalidation of observations that result from application of the more stringent requirement, but meet the original requirements (DCAP Prog. Doc. at II-2 and DCAP-06, para. 4.3.3c). Itence, the BCAP results are not affected by the use of any design requirements effective on or after 6/30/84. 1 L,; (G 150011132 (1012J)
B. Package Preparation (Use of Item-Specific Design Hequirements) The latest design drawings applicable to the item, as available at the time of package preparation, are required to be included in the package by BCAP procedure (BCAP-23, para 4.2.29 ). Ilowever, any drawings applicable on or after 6/30/84 would be satisfactory for BCAP purposes. Since the item was final O.C. accepted prior to 6/30/84, the current revision of the drawing should reflect the existing installation of the item. If the item design has changed since the item's installation and the item has not been reworked, an observation is generated and subsequently invalidated based on the item's acceptability at the time of installation (DCAP Prog. Doc at II-2 and DCAP-06 para. 4.3.3c). If the item design had changed and the item had been reworked after 6/30/84, then the item would be considered to have been erroneously included in the population and no longer subject to CSR review.
- 3. tiethods of Verification and Acceptance criteria A. Reinspection For each design-significant attribute that is accessible and recreatable, a method of verification is developed and incorporated into the checklist instruction. Acceptance criteria are, in most cases, developed from the latest design drawings and specification requirements.
Ilowever, inspection criteria may be relaxed from design requirements where the original inspection criteria are overly restrictive from a design-significance ctandpoint [BCAP-22 para 4.4.1, 4.4.2 (a,b)]. These alternate inspection criteria are reviewed by the Architect /L*ngineer (DCAP-22, para. 4.6.5 and letter N.N. Kaushal to D. h Fischer 9/10/04). 110011133 (1012J)
B. Documentation Review Eachdesign-significbntattributewhichisrequiredtobedocumented to support the hardware installation is identified by latest specification, code, standard, or regulatory requirements at the time of instruction preparation. The detailed methods of verification are based on contractors
- procedures in effect at the time of ins *allation, if these procedures meet or exceed the specification, code, standard, or regulatory requirements. If these procedures do not meet or exceed this requirement, a generic observation is generated by the CSR Engineering Section for the particular attributes which are potentially inadequately addressed by the contractors' procedures.
- 4. Conclusion The application of the latest design requirements to the verification of previously completed work, as currently performed in the BCAP CSR verification, is appropriate and correct. This conclusion is supported by the equivalence in the results of CSR when the latest design, the design applicable at the time of construction, or the design as of 6/30/84, is applied to an item. The 6/30/84 date merely determines the scope of previously completed work included within the CSR review.
Referenced procedures: BCAP-06 Revision ~1 BCAP-20 Revision 2 BCAP-22 Revision i DCAP-23 Revision 1 D G 110011134 (1012J)
. - .- - _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ - - .. . . = . . .. _ _ - - _ _ . - - . -. __.
, . / : , ?: .
b ,
...,9 v. -
.f February 25, 1905 I DRD #14.902 I J TO: N. N. Kaushal I 3 FROM: N. P. Smith j RE: AIR-009 In reference to your response to the above AIR, we un 2rstand t your response to Item 1, however, provide to Quality Assurance the source document used to determine the accept / reject criteria for qualifications of Electrical Inspectors if Comstock Procedure 4.0.3 was not used. - Since Item 2 in the " Description of Action Requested" of 1 AIR-009 was not responded to, we will rephrase the question so that you can more fully understand the issue and provide the basis for the question. The DCAP program document discusses construction Sample Reinspection in terms of items which were constructed and inspected prior to June 30. 1904. Therefore, the use of design documents commitments.dated after June 30, 1904 seems to be outside the program i The rephrasing of the question (Item 2) is as follows: We would like you to justify the basis for your CSR engineers 4 > not using the specifications, drawings, and other design documents which were in effect as of June 30, 1904. Please respond to.this request by 4:00 P.M. February 20. 1905. on J j 1 j Au
^
1 N. P. Smith 1 l General Supervisor O.A. , Draidwood Station J , NPS/ PAL /mjv (0270B) i cc: E. E. Fitzpatrick i P. A. Lau i %@@.hhh r D1 O. A. File 71.12
) >I' P
! I, .
k} i.2 3 EECD J t h));!J 0
- !!0011135 , B.C. A. P. _
. - , . , , . _ - - , . . . . , - - - - - - - - > ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ' ' ' ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~~ ~ ~'^^~ * ~'
s SHEET / OF CO.T.ONVEALTH EDISON CO. 32),ISSUEDTO/ TITLE ACTIC.N ITt:". HECUEST
' (3) 1 (1) AIRNo,dQQ
;M U* buy "5 CRGM;12ATION (11) (WI E :^.GUED
.O'fEcior ggf y, - (4) SunvEILEANCE ib) ACTIVITY /SUDJECT AREA AUDIT _ !:EVIEW [
~
{ OTIIER _ (6) C.S & E A s eer:~8 > C'ecPecm L I*e-+ l '~c Y'"# n h A c'~ 3REFEREUcE
;L & DOCUMENT (s)
ID (71 I TIATED yY/ TITLE Aar. 2 3 f (10) W ,2
//l' t_ '3 C A ?
C. Aclu. APPROVED DY/ TITLE (12) v.t..).Cr Ar fr\c rh de r [hh liESPONSE DUE DATE
'd) g ligt bd I> I .b O DESCRIPTION M tda. OF ACTI N
_'4 /n Tw, A4W>M REQUESTED (fgg, vA/s . o "4
@Lp Q__
e
*9 a t 1.
c
%f' A:.u. m&~ #.a_ .i> e % .4, em un_ . o J,,mmin'Wa h &&cicz,~.W (rM.cuu &. d x4
- 3) Ri
~
g g ;BSON FOR R % mp'hE W UEST & ' e r ' ~ ~ t h isz,k
.da .jkXad a m Y ~ **ydW (C k"".i ~
lc ft& .
< a kA) L txt L x k ~y (cq. b 5 DI.I Od3 e
%D-m WL. k . W p 2... ,
ie
- 9. 6. t mu w o R. T'
+ 4 unter cm a w/,r/av(q/p :i>/p~.) #) L.F W #/a/sy,x Q ,,L 4b W 5) wa"At* % gm. tP* oat 09 RESPONSE (DESCRIPTION OF ACTION TAKEN OR ACTION PLtW See attached responso. )
ACTION TAKEN OR PLANNED DATE TO DE COMPLETED BY (15) _ (4'}![6/7 p.4,hr _4\4 SUPV.
)' R SPONSE 17 A TED DY/DATE (RESPONSIDLE' ORGANIZATION)/DATE ,
SAT , i (. k h[gf UNStiT (18) AIR CLCSED AI VERIFIED DY/DATE f ~ SAT ~ UNSAT [_ [_ APPROVED BY/DATE r _ Hev, o lH@__ FRO \V[M
- 110011136
)g J@J '
C, *$P - g n.-
O . tmSPONSE TO BCAP 0.A. AIR ti-009
,s.
Comstock procedure 4.0.3 was n,o_t,used as a source of attrib t u es requirinq verification
- 22. Rev.1 in theindevelopment accordance of CSH-R-G-ELE with Para. 4.1.2 checklist and and4.1.3 in t of Proce Refer and to the memo written as required by Para 4.3 2 forsthis instruction.
ruction. checklist verification of certain attributes identified.in Procedure 4.8.3 was utilized. o s of CSR-R-G-EL
. Comstock utilized in developing the methods of verification. Revision F and earlier revisions utilized because it was not Revision G was not in effect at the time of checklist preparation, the preparer onwhich Januarybegan 2, 1985.in November 1984 and was completed e y and sign d b NOTE:
Paragraph 4.1.2 of BCAP-22. Rev. 1 is the applicable paragraph. BCAP 23 Rev. 1, which both identify the requirementNeither for the selection of design drawings (or attribute selection and package contents, respectively, are applicable to the use of contractor procedures in the development of checklists and instructions. 4~/ f%lci t 098~1J 110011137
(. . 71 i SHEET [ OF j ' DtNEALTli EDISON CO. ACTION ITEM REQUEST [} ISSUSD TO/ TITLE (1) AIRNo.OQg (3) ORGAtIZATION (11) DATE ISSUED
'J. Al EA UT I (4) SURVEILLANCE
.D;r ector gg{ j
// AUDIT _ REVIE*J[
OTilER _ T) ACTIVITY / SUBJECT AREA - C5KEx. . seer w3 > ch ee L l.':-t ,l l- nSilv'Y '.ou (6) REFER up. n E, DOCUMENT (s) IC p,,p,,+;o ge g. , 3
- n. t. t s , , 4 . , . y (,
jl, I}TIATE Y/ TITLE (10) APPROVED BY/ TITLE (12) RESPO!JSE DUE DATE kCAP - frgh ee r- [M hm Ig / hd a) 4g OI Ad 0n0ESCRIPTION 4,OF ACT ekI N REQUESTEDt] q ,,>NoJ%~Mg4
.k -
#1 MJ
@em- Q%o% n 7n n+ d- -4, m k s d4 8
w -f . W .O a m za LM . eLw) tod/> r yfyMeM - s D J q y - gu4 A Ced. yp % M cG A m W W s e~a .).ja.Ll cluAWN,P
- e. nws os.u anh
%. &Rm'^r, .R. M .
- w. g . wisr,w t
a y .( a.. . . n.s p w n/ # ) b. .P*e w.r w a e- n M _ 9 M ~
>Sr t
.{ IltltLS* M k k 5
) RESPONSE (DESCRIPTION C:
ACTION TAKEN OR ACTIO!J PLANNED) See attached response. t i.
;) ACTION TAXEN OR PLANNED DATE (15) (M M F 2/u/K TO DE COMPLETED BY M SUPV. (HESPONSIDLE'ORCANIZATION)/DATE
- 6) RESPONSE EVALUATED DY/DATE SAT (18) AIR CLOSED UNSAT
.' ) AI VERIFIED DY/DATE SAT UNSAT APPROVED BY/DATE g l, WR@ R MK+ Rev. ' 11001113S FED 0
;{
RE Gi SJ B. C. A. P.
1 RESPONSE TO UCAP Q.A. AIR s-009 l Comstock procedure 4.8.3 was not used as a source of attributes requiring ) verification in accordance with Para. 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 of Procedure DCAP- { ' 22, Rev.1 in the development of CSH-R-G-ELE checklist and instruction. Refer to the memo written as required by Para 4.3.2 for this checklist and instruction. I However, in the development of instructions on the detailed methods of verification of certain attributes identified in CSR-R-G-ELE, Comstock Procedure 4.8.3 was utilized. Revision F and earlier revisions were utilized in developing the methods of verification. Revision G was not i utilized because it was not in effect at the time of checklist ' preparation, which began in November 1984 and was completed and signed by the preparer on January 2, 1985. NOTE: Paragraph 4.1.2 of BCAP-22, Rev.1 is the applicable paragraph. Neither para. 4.1.1 of DCAP-22 nor para. 4.1.2.G of BCAP 23 Rev. 1, which both identify the requirement for the celection of design drawings for attribute selection and packaje contents, respectively, are applicable to the use of contractor procedures in the development of checklists and instructions. 1 ( (l qttspr 098~lJ 110011139
[ f February 15, 1905 BCAP Memt, #686
.s k
TO: N. P. Smith, Q.A. FROM: G. M. Orlov An extension is requested for the response due dates for AIR 8 and 9.
~
A response will be provided by 2-22-05.
%W
;. M. Orlov GMO/sjs cc: BCAP File QG 69.60.3 QG 69.60.2.6 QG-69780r10, 0, '
i 110011110
. . *6 $
() & 6 9 M./. C. Qs.Q \ February 8 1985 BRD #14.019 TO: f N. Kaushal BCAP Director
SUBJECT:
AIRS - 000/009 ! The subject AIRS were issued and hand delivered on Friday. February 1. 1905. Responses were requested by February 5 and 6. 1985 respectively and are currently overdue. Please advise when they will be returned. l N. P. Smith General Supervisor 0.A. NPS/WMS/nlw (0254B) cc: M. J. Wallace E. E. Fitzpatrick O. A. File - 71.12 (008/009) 71.7 (Chrono file) Wh@fNb I l l F E0 0 3 RECD
-lO .
B.C.A.P. a L 110011141
j'.r ' G 7 .} f 6 If9I SHEET / OF _ OtNEALTH EDISCN CO. ACTIOtJ ITEM REQUEST (2) ISSUED TO/ TITLE (1) AIR NO. 09 (3) ORGTd312ATION (11)
/J, A). 4%v7 k A i DisTE ISSUED
.D i r ector ggp (4) SURVEILLANCE _
AUDIT REVIEW g
/ OTHER
[5) ACTIVITY /SUDJECT AREA - SOS L os 'ir v e f '.ou (6) REFER E MENT (s) ID h'*00 .) ch eel Prep I.'s4 r) k:oq ac_i; p. >.:t ' , i.t dC st t*- 2 3 5f a ATE Y/ TITLE 4 . I . ) . (x (10) APPROVED DY/ TITLE 6 A e'% - '9) ESCRIPTION OF ACT v % d L.L,, u (12) RESPONSE DUE DATE 2/c/w O N REQUESTED Qy p ) >A/s - _
% M d a. , m IC Wc A~k " ,&
*L oom W- -A% <- A n - ne .
7 n NGL 4, ~f q d & ^ bs-&).g W e % cS M A t 11tuu i j j f .f""= M A Lhd m- s ~Ma h e- ~ ~ d h W d h ufD i }S L L Z n y g L.k. M 'd q & e 46. W 80/s([8 V h IY7 h* L F h*;'"A F
'Il * - d'
- J(dr .( l/1/Sf #M O ids" 70 1 6*"
i3) RESPO!1SE (DESCRIPTION OF Ar' TION TAKEN OR ACTION PLANNED) e. .1) ACTION TAKEN OR PLANNED DATE (15) ! TO DE cot'.PLETED BY l SUPV. (RESPONSIDLE ORGANIZATION)/DATE S) RESPONSE EVALUATED llY/DATE SAT (lD) AIR CLOSED l UNSAT ' i) Al VERIFIED DY/DATE SAT UN3AT APPROVED DY/DATE Rev.i
$_h b kb___
a s 110011112 l} f E U 0g'Rp . 1L l LO
- B.C.A.P. N
l ACTION ITD1 REQUEST g FORI1 COMPLETION GUIDELINES 5 RESP. BLOCK ORG. PERSON f WilAT/WilEN/VllERE/llOW ( AS APPLICADLE) (1)-(12) BCAP Q.A. Originator (see QASI-17.)
; (13) Responsible Engineer Organization Describe the action taken or planned to resolve action requested by Q.A. , (14) l Insert date the action completed or planneo to be completed.
(15) Supvr. After review of (0) through (14), indicate approval of response by signing and inserting date. f(16)-(18) DCAP Q.A. Q.A. Person (see QASI-17.) j cen. Supvr.
- t. l I
1 I l O
%e, .- . Sal?
j
..., - -- . .. . .. . . -._ ., ,. ....- . ... . .. . . , . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . ,1 l ' -
.j '!
+a v-r-
.r_ t ..
. 1 i'
.f.
+ 5 b y , $ "'s ,
g g) t L >$ .
% ,, 1 *^ l9 y ..~
- f. 4,,7 ,
s 9 s. fw y;
? '. 'Eg
,p
+ c W ,
waan n 1 4 N l,
- e. 5 5
![f e
@N k
hL _fd$ b y, ligjf,g 3 . s
.i
?.
u **9 .%. t
. fi,k # h F q
^9 q ,4 a
3h! w 9
$4 O
!. ie.
j;
- gM k
%e%Lt;a~4p: L .p"y"',** ,.5>
T& s $4 u I? .ylhE t-F.:,,;,D( [j N" ?
%,- > 4. ,. \
r,kh
.f .
! p }. '#!' 3 /fj 3 . .;#gf , ip { " g .J { t .
.. i jf';f ge 1 ,, . s s in< x ; .
ae y .. . gdy: 1,
;..j ggs
% w : s g ?-1 ...
9 >
- - t c gy
.: ; g l. ? N ';jgia7 3:7 %yfj f $ ;.
.l* . f. '
s7 .2 s
; y??r y#gpijp
. ~'
. SUBPART 12(J)
EXHIBIT C September 12. 1985 BCAP Memo 83368 V To: N.N. Kaushal Press: G.M.Orlov/T.J.Ryan/D.J.!Patel/J.P.Stevens
Subject:
Invalidation of Observation The observation, CSR-I-E-EIN-078-902, was evaluated as invalid by the electrical CSR engineers for the reasons as stated in Part 3 of the observation form. A copy of the observatior,and the applicable drawing references are attached. The Level 11 inspector who wrote the observation has declined acknowledgment of the observation's invalidity. Therefore, as required by BCAP-06, Section 4.4.5, a coccittee consisting of Mr. G.M. Orlov, Mr. T.J. Ryan, Mr. D.J. Patel, and Mr. J.P. Stevens discussed the disposition of the observation and recornmended that you or your designee sign the observation acknowledging the invalidity. G.M. Orlov Assistant Director y , bl 3 Y . W 6k~wdw; #hw & . Technical Assistant ckJf.d. f Gn Y Y N '$ M M A (((([D' D.J. Patel CSR - Lead Electrical Engineer J,; . tev n CBR Electrif4 cc: BCAP File QG 69.20.19 QG 69.30.1 QG 9.60.3 69.81.5 (2012J) 110011G03
- v. ,
. *c .
BCAP OBSERVATION RECORD IO.A.] Observation No. CSR _I -E -EIN - 078 - 90Z. PART 1 OBSERVATION IDENTIFi. CATION & DESCRIPTION
- 2. DESCRIPTION OF ITEM (Egylpment, Material Cceponent, Procedure) 3. Package No.
I 36I857 A , JuscTtoM Boy: cm 1-E-e r u- o 7e,
- 4. SYSTEM (If known): N/A , 5. Checklist / Item No.
- 6. UNIT 1 h l W UNIT 2 h t,-o-a s h COMMON O
- 7. ELEMENT 8. OBSERVED DURING:
CSR RPSR RSCAP h Documentation Reinspection Review
- 9. DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATION:
Tl4E CONMEC_TtOM DETAIL DNC,.D 2DE'-O-3%3DO3. rev.D , OETAtt D spacistEs AN *EC3" coNMECTIOM TO AM EMBEODEC PLAT E. AT THE FLCOR [EL.4W) . OC,, *2OE-O-3393R rev.T; _ D_ETAtt FOR T'TPE.
- E C3% sHOvc mE ATTACRhAENT ELEVATtON As *C EiLt NG" ONLY , I Hi5 NTAtL 15 NOT INTER CHANC,E ASLE AMD is ~n4EREFORE LAM ACC EPTABLE .
6-O f Signature Date PART 2 OBSERVATION CLARITY, COMPLETENESS. AND ACCURACY REVIEW
- 11. COMMENTS /CLARIPICATION:
f//A W 6 /V 95 SUITABLE FOR PURTHER PROCESSING: R IEWED BY: YES ./ M /-//-J
, . $1gnature Date NO I I II0011606
. ..= . . . . .
s ..
=
_BCAP OBSERVATION RECORD / Page 2 of 3 V
- 15. onseavATION wO.CSR - I E _ crtt o76_ So?
PART 3 EVALUATION & DETEFJ41 NATION OF VALIDITY
- 16. EVALUATION
- 17. DETERMINATION OF VALIDITY:
b INVALID l l score
%e j w ml,bn hw 1Tille,5 M i l VALID is Tc-Syh_ol k be inSEmuel. as (per h) l b ,
0sq a h e-o- 3 3 63D o l G ea D. The Def ul Y w L s $a a 3>eMt s G C o w,s V
. zo s-. o - 3 n uti "
eowrL A_c cow n u.N
~
4 obscum ef 3 bbe- sbu\ Po e-mb &A ect h . 7h c . s hde w d m ,- bd def 6G iS [tri CRiih4 Vn w MM4
' onb is nd O O u a nn, hb Me.
foc m lh k. inck-ml,bn. 7hercAre , Mho-y - obs er uzJo'm
~
i s. m t%Wcf . b 2 MCTT AC,REE. W \TIA uaVAuoATsoki g_gi gg
- 20. ARCHITECT / ENGINEER EVALUATION
- 10. EVALUATION & DETERMINATION neoulReD: I I res i I nO 8Y:
Wedef 6-2o45" Signature Date _ 19. A BY: 21. REVIEVED DY: 22. APPROVED BY:
, g_,y . - . ~ c n , ,. . . . . . ,
Signature Date l Signature Datel Signature Date 110011t3(T/ BCAP Pore 06-1 (Rev. 9) ;., - 1663J 5
~ ^ ~ '
. . , ,. , n : ... .
.. ?
T5-1 MAY DE U$hk7 As ALTbK.NATE , p~. E M B EOD E D lb.. PioO4A CAW DE ROTATeo AdY bui T W 's AXl6 Fog couPUIT ROMWlMG. OTI 17.* (M AX.) ATTACHMENT S " " E L EVATION e pts 4 2 c e i u ,J 4 s , _ _ __ f __ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . , f, o_
\ vt=Ti:
l1'
, ["' l ME:
< corat4e4TIOM .TWE- / d i HORit
- s. ewius\s A < asia. i j1 o. 8, mis.. '
ae+>er s g g,'gis, gau, SS 5C s s 3 C.) a w[-
# WDe i JE-3P? ;I
~~ - '*
I
, PA q i ll i j 4
- i l 'I E.EtLei> s l _ rA06. 2cs -o-wGrR " ' "#" ^ llj i ; 4 1 5 l p[I in l
! T, ECN 23245 m $P-~~
,.-u am'a#
cryn _ "YPE ECS
~
m l blOTES (couT.) l G. WHE W AW IWTERFGREMCf WLTH THE GIDE GOVER PLATE (6) OM A BEAM PRCHtB tT6 THE 06E OF TYPE T9 3, THEW - TYPE RP3 OR RD4 OtJ DW4 O-3393Y MAY EM t>6 E O, 7 'fYC A
,,[
4,9 4 . '... .
.., u - 9.9'Y' . .
V A - -- -- r . og y, . .t..
- sac.f
~
ePac2A' wines
' . .'s'r .. , ... ,.
- i. e,
' '. W ..,
. (gg
+
Q.. 7 .f. y f, g s
- . , .. .3 . J. p. ' . 1.: ,
v :' DETAR 4. C-*, .... *
.? k s scr. e. .
[ f 6 . -' ' , - ,[ '
*y -[a (E , ' ,I I. , ,
t
,.*- [(,%l..,..;
. ~ '
, .:. . . " 's.
. J. , , , . , _s *,46, , -
,i, .
- 4. -
f ' *?. , .1,' , , , ,. i f.m 4 . ,. : .. .
,.{ .j*-
,ksOM E,M " * , : 1 P ' .'.
' ' ~
't , 9' .
). .. . " ' - u' ; - ' . i tre .m ? sy l 1 1.
- s
' - p-g r .L f . .G' 5
.. . t
, p p.
i I,.
.. 7~
%.) e y j.
a. s ,- # a ' J .
~.
f ~ (*) M -- ., s_. 0, . jo. .
;-l . -t ,
2 ,
.- .,. y..u .
;(,
,[
, I.'7 l.[ fQ ., -
3 ; J n .. c .,.
,-J,
= y~. . . .
y .,. - t
. . s . .- -
.s.
. Ai-
. sucT.\ow er-s . ., . ..
~,
- deeetag wIWitwAy n6csryer n eGd&;? . .
. ., , . ,r. a _ n f:.Tr;t. h.
g W ,.. ::-..'., . l ) f. -
.-[ ,
g
~% -
~, :. .
. ^ . . ,,
,...,3 n.
_ p...
, . i ..
.$ . s '. . ..
4 gI l
\
/
.a> t'
" :, m f- g
<.. '. . . 5. -/ . . s ,
, <2. W i
<: . i 4 ,X :. ... "
i t4n.40mp').)..V , PhlA-* F
,. - . .s , . . . . ..
l ., s - .
. : . -:;;<. - . > ,, , .. i. . . .: ~-
,(.y2-f1 Q4
, 3 . .', f . . .
i
. .. 4 . . 7.e . x t y r. .,
...- L, . .
g ..... u&h. .,4 n
~
/& )^.'. ,
& ~hh. ... .h_t
. . T{~ '.) : 9' gvQ."?
l _ { ', ; :'.1 - -
-i,
*.],y.';;':l%', -Q-lf
_y.h.*:&h
"" ' "_l& e sc.
Wf#X 7aFcm-ts
.- *1R eD..nd.'o
( 6,DERl@9) ,
. -' 3;. .:c .b .
- .,f...?;-Q,,.+:.,h(qtt).
'...'.. c .,.,
.(
. s
[' ~
.[.,- -
. I. ,
khhhg b
~
'.$ . . Y.~ .
.a.
r . . . - ~, . -
,..<.,.'.r..
.i
. .ggOo11go9 E
f.
. ,*, .. 4
.,o..-*. * '
- ,. : , , .\.. y. :- s.
, , , ..,--v, *:.
e
- 4. . ,, .
a. y ,, ...
.:f..: ... j, ;n?..so,;%. . ?... . Q ;<-. .4. . s:, .nc .'g O ' ;..e. ;;%. i .,. ,,,.."
.. d..
*^
--... .-4 J.
<-.3. ,.. &*. " v *r v.- Y.
^ . M } 4 &:.r*A... e. r m y.. / y .h
.*,.s . c .,q. .6,; '.~' E.,', T l '
f.. e'...; W N r'n~ ,.3 :: ... 2.s.. ".TG
. h,*1 .
l.
-' . 1
- e. . ,. t, o h,.y; g'? p? . .xn ,
>' _: -n~ .. l, i s:. ,
' 'O .. _ _ _ d' __ - - . ---e.AimmetWee s.L - .J- p' u . '
, wE v x{" w
. -s. m m
! _j
- f. --
" ' 'W u
SUBPART 12(J) EXilIBIT D /q 7
/
\j September 18, 1985
..s- BCAP Memo #3409 TO: Tom Maiman Mike Wallace Lou Del George Gene Fitzpatrick Mike Miller Phil Steptoe Ken Kostal George Orlov Bob Byers FROM: Ninu Kaushal
SUBJECT:
.verall Approach to the BCAP Report You are requested to participate in a meeting, on Thursday, September 26, 1985, starting at 11:00 A.ft., at IL&B offices.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and resolve questions regarding overall approach to the BCAP Report. A copy of the latest draft of the report will be provided to you by Friday, September 20, 1985.
/
MD, N. N. Kaushal BCAP Director NNK/jan cc: BCAP File QG 69.60.3 v0G 69.81.5 QG 69.60.2.4, 2.5, 2.6 ! l G 1 110011601
._ .= _- . _ - . . ._. -
Subcontention 13(B)
- 13. Contrary to Criterion XVII, " Quality Assurance
. Reco rd s," of 10 C.F.F. Part 50, Appendix D, Com m on-wealth Edison Comp'any has failed to ensure that suffi-cient records were maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality. The records are to j include at least the following: results of reviews, j inspections, tests, audits, monitoring of work perfor-mance, and materials analyses. Applicant has failed to make such records identifiable and retrievable. B. Sargent & Lundy Engineers calculations whic) provided the original justification for the factor disign methodology and magnitude were not retrievable. i (Inspection Peport 84-43/39, Exh. 19.) Facts In Dispute
- Sargent & Lundy employed a simplified calculational derating
< factor - a phi (4) factor - in sizing pipe hangers. S&L was unabletojustifytheuseofthehfactor in certain bounding cases due to irretrievable, incomplete and inadeouate calculations. While these bounding cases were ultimately specified through criteria revision and detailed individual calculations were performed to justify hangers outside the bounding cases, S&L failed to adequately address the root cause of these deficiencies.
l This matter was identified not in the course of a " routine review" of S&L's design documentation by NBC as Mr. Kostal of S&L would have us believe (Kostal Affidavit, p. 3), but in response to allegations raised in the Byron licensing proceeding by , engineer Charles Stokes. (Kostal Deposition Tr. 119.) The item of noncompliance is identified and the circumstances of identification are described in Inspection Report 84-43/39 for
, 1 l
4 Braidwood, and the companion report for the Byron facility of fW March 14, 1985. According to the NBC, "S&L maintained that i calculations demonstrating the acceptability of the phi factor methodology had been completed prior to October 5,1981; however, i S&L was unable to retrieve these calculations. Other l calculations justifying the use of the phi factor methodology } completed as part of a March,1982, internal S&L study were i 4 retrieved. These calculations were not approved for use until April, 1984. The NBC review determined that those calculations f were incomplete and inadequate "to demonstrate the acceptability of the phi factor methodology as it was being used." (16.) Further efforts to provide calculational justification for the phi factor methodology were judged by the NFC " incomplete to demonstrate the conservatism of the phi factor methodology in all potential configurations." Detailed, exact, individual calculations were required to justify configurations falling outside the bounding cases. Id. The NFC was critical of Sargent
& Lundy's efforts to justify the phi factor methodology:
! Several statements in the licensee's responses appear to be incorrect and required considerable discussion for the licensee to explain the intent of the statements. Satisfactory explanations were i given for all but one of the statements. The one ! incorrect statement had no technical significance, and related to component support hardware weight. i
--Id. ,
l l In response to the NRC findings, Sargent & Lundy's i corrective action included revisions to its Structural Standard Document (SSD) which acknowledged explicitly the bounding cases applicable to its phi factor methodology, which cases had not 2
, . - - - . - . - - . - . - . . - - , _ - -. - - - . - - - - . - .= - - -
v been previously explicit. (Kostal Tr. 135-38.) For example, in the revised SSD the following bounding case is identified: "the ffactor is only applicable for spans greater than or equal to 5'-0". Shorter spans require a detailed a n a l ys i s ." (Kostal Deposition Exhibit No. 6, Exhibit A hereto.) Evidence on the root cause of these deficiencies and therefore the effectiveness of S&L's corrective action is, indeed, sketchy. M r. Kostal relies on the knowledge of a Mr. Tom Longlais, who directed a search for the missing calculation book. (Kostal Tr. 145.) The original book was never found; nor was it determined when the document was last retrievable. It may have been missing for as long as five years, to the best of Mr. Kostal's knowledge. (Kostal Tr. 145.) In addition to the issue of lack of retrievability, this incident also raises questions concerning the completeness and adequacy of S&L's calculational methodology. Edison presents no explanation for the failure to identify bounding cases in the S&L standards which provided for use of the phi factor methodology. The materiality of such an omission is established by its inclusion in the revised SSD. (Exhibit A hereto.) S&L's design control as well as design document control practices are called into question by the circumstances reflected in contention item 13(B). The signifi-cance of such discrepancies and their implications for 0A at Braidwood should be evaluated in the context of a f ull record in this proceeding. Summary disposition is inappropriate and should be denied.
.'y I i w/
3
t f 4 SilBI' ART 13(B); F.XilllilT A gl. f $TRUCTURAL _
= = nor1ricArion or ,
I 1 SARGERT &LUNDY N ISION T" SSD '- P. STANDARD ,- ~ ~ -~
'4 c~^'"' snnns_ n )I DOCUMENT ,3 1
The f ollowing paraqr aph will be aclded t. < , "ections 37.6.3.G.5 .I
.. and 37.6.3.G.6: ,.l i '[
" Simplified analysis and the use of the O factor is 't'
/
applicable for structural tube sections and for wide ,; y flance sections with a nominal depth less than or equal YL to 15 inches, a weight less than or equal to 60 pounds IQ i d per foot and a ratto of major axis to minor axis section l 'l modulii less than c: equal to 10. A detailed analysis is hp] d ( f required for al1 other sections not included above." ; f ik, The f ol lowi ng pa r ai;: .y'h wi 11 bi added to Sectton 37.6.3.G.7:
, , l'. !
- v. ,s
} " Simplified analysis and the une of the O factor is applicable ~ ;,1 3 for all on ;1e nections and for sa l ' flan.;e sections with a I nomina 1 depth b. than or equa1 to 1 I! inchen, a weight lesn
- f than .>r equal to *a poure!- per tuot and a ratio o' n;aicr j axis to nu no r a x t : nec t i on :r.nd u l i l le m than or eaual to 10.
{ A de ta t led a:.a1 5 :. t :, in reipi: Ied 1>r a11 o t.he : secticns not i n c l u:he d above." i p, The deut ription at tN beginni: q of Section 37.6.3.G.5 will be
; revised to read:
i. n 3 "C.2 n t1 1e ve re 1 w i .b f 1. ire ;e a rp i ;t ruct ural tube sect ion i b r a ci.. t :. ( k nei. tera ce :) " t
;, The description at the beqinni:n; of O'etion 37.6.3.G.6 will be revised to lead; b
l " Wide flanne and structura! tube section trapene type fraTe 4 aS S en.b 1 i e s : " y, Tne description at the beqinning of Section 37.6.3.G.7 will be revised to read:
! " Wide tlance or ningle angle sect ions wi thout mechanical ! component hardware, e.q., soinnie rentraint or clamped j pipes (see ri gure , 37.6.3-1A and 37.6.3-1B):"
I 4 4 Q ,/ . P nie 2 of 2 - 8 r
*I E
,-,,<4 ,* . 7 m
[ .9
,,&l flo . G ,
j
.9
" STRUCTURAL NOTiflCATION OF ,
I SARGENT &LUNDY REvls10N 10 sso , ! STANDARD _ -.
..~.,~..... >
DOCUMENT c-c~ "
;J N
; jflCATION N'JMBE R r
Nonus-32 DATE December 26, 1984 h L l if y TURAL DEPAI:TME! T STANDARDS MCTION NUMBER S DS-I: 3 7 , " Mechanical Component Ig. i,', > Ip;x(iliary Support Steel Framino" h, f.i
- I'! E A',E TAKL THE F0ll0 WING ACTION: I 1 . FEVISE D AS f 0L t.0W5. , ,, [
IN5fRT THIS NOTlflCAll0N INTO YOUR COPY Of THE STANDARDS BOOK IMMEDIATELY N I PRECEDING THE DnCUMEN! Uf I!C REVISED. '. i
!l
, Y i
h [0 N')T REMDVE THi PPB !NS IS5UE CT THE DOCUMENT FR0f' lHE STANDARDS BOOK I etES5 SPECIF!CAllY IN5:RUCTED TO DO SO in Tuf DESCRIPTION OF THE f rivisinN BItOW. k
.V i
-y(F.lP110N OF RLV!510N: .
, r
] }, The following neno :a - wi ll b- added to the first paragraph of l' Section 17.6.3:
"Th i t. .impl1itui analyri. ; > r oce d u r , i :, only ap p l i c ab le if , ',
. the applied : iping load frcm each load case is less th an .
L 20 kips." 4 The followinq parauranh will be adcled tn Sections 37.6.3.G.1, 0,2 37.0.3...? and .1.G.1:
" Th. - O factor i :. only api t l i cab le for npans greater t.han or equal to 5'-0". Shorter spans require a de tailed analysis . "
3 The following paraorsph will be added to Sections 37.6.3.G.1, j 37.6.3.G.2, 37.6.3.G.3 and 37.6.3.G.4: 5 q "S i mp li fied ana lys i:. and the une of the % factor is applicable h for all double channeln, all single and double angles and y all structural tube sections. Si m;>li fied analysis is also l applicable for wide flange sections with a nominal depth less
/ than or ec,ua1 t o 18 inches, weight lens than or equal to l' 60 poundr per toot and a ra t. i o o f ma-j or axi s to minor axis
, section modulii 1m . th an or eq u a l to 10 A detailed analysis
{ in tequired for a11 other sectionn not ineluded above." e 4 1 ( 4
/
} ,
/ / //.
g fff/ ( L, h . DAll l? '2dBl -
,- DM DR TJ
- Page 1 of 2 ,
VJ
Subcontention 14(s)
)
- 14. Contrary to Criterion XVIII, " Aud i t s ," o f 10 CFP Part 50, Appendix B, Commonwealth Edison Company has failed to ensure that a 'c3mprehensive system of planned and periodic audits is carried out to verify compliance with all aspects of the quality assurance program and to determine the effectiveness of the program. The Applicant also failed to ensure follow-up action, including re-audit of deficient areas.
B. A special NFC QA inspection reported May 7, 1984 that:
- Mechanical contractor Phillips, Getschow, Co. has not established and executed a plan for auditing the implementing procedures of the quality assurance program on a periodic basis to determine the ef fec-tiveness of the program in accordance with the Phillips, Getschow OA Manual.
Electrical contractor L.K. Com s t oc k/L.K. Comstock Engineering Company auditing activities neither conformed with the comprehensive annual schedule of planned and periodic audits established as required by OA Program Manual Sec tion 4.14.1, nor did they verify compliance with all aspects of the Quality Assurance Program.
- HVAC contractor Pullman Construction Industries, Inc. did not meet their yearly schedule for audit activities required by their OA Manual, Section 18, in that the following implementing procedure were not audited:
B 3.1.F, Design Control B 5.1.F, HVAC Depair Adjustment B 9.3.F, Fxpansion Anchor Installation B 10.2.F, Visual Weld Inspection
- Edison's audits of the installation of small bore instrumentation and process piping were inadecuate in that contractor hanger design calculation prob-lems were not identified for more than two years.
Facts In Dispute Edison and its site mechanical, electrical and HVAC contractors have failed to assure the adecuacy of their quality 1
assurance programs through a comprehensive and effective system of audits which have identified significant quality assurance deficiencies in a timely manner. Overview Under this subcontention, the critical questions to be determined are: 1) whether past audits conducted by Edison and its site contractors were comprehensive, planned, periodic and effective; 2) whether the root causes of the original failures have been determined so that preventive measures may be taken to avoid similar failures in the future; 3) whether present audits are effective and are being adequately conducted; and most impor-tantly; 4) whether the failure by Edison and its contractors to meet the requirements of Criterion XVIII may have led to insuf-ficient confidence that all deficiencies at Braidwood will be identified and corrected. Edison seeks to summarily dispose of Contention 14(B) by showing that there are no genuine issues as to any of the
" material facts" relevant to Contention 14(B).
Edison's " Material" Facts In an attempt to show there are no genuine issues of f act Edison essentially makes the following arguments:
- 1. The four examples in Contention 14(B) represent one violation of Criterion XVIII of CPR Part 50, App. B (Edison, Statement of Material Facts, p. 2, 11).
- 2. NBC based the item of noncompliance on Pegulatory Guide 1.444-1980 (Edison, Statement of Material Facts, p. 2, 13).
2
- 3. Edison did not share the NRC interpretation and passed e its ( Ed i so n ' s) interpretation on to its contractors, which resulted in the root cause for the first example of noncompliance (Edison, Statement of Material Facts,
- p. 3, 14). ,
- 4. Edison " deemed it'ippropriate" to subsequently adopt the NFC staff's interpretation, directed its contractors to take corrective actions which were then determined to be ef fective, which led to the close-out of the item of noncompliance (Edison, Statement of Materiel Facts, p.
3, 15).
- 5. No similar items of noncompliance have been issued against Edison since the noncompliance in the summer of 1983 (Edison, Statement of Material Facts, p. 3, 16 ) .
- 6. The noncompliance with a single, common root cause which has been resolved does not represent a trend of recurring violations (Edison, Statement of Material Fact, p. 4, 17.)
- 7. The noncompliance listed in subcontention 14 ( B) ( <4 ) is not a violation because the NPC staff inspector was simply mistaken regarding the dates on which audits were
, begun. (Edison, Statement of Material Facts, p. 4, 18). Summary Edison's attempt to achieve summary disposition must fail for three reasons. First, Edison's eleventh-hour attempt to re-1 write history and make it now appear that the violations of Criterion XVIII were merely the result of differing interpreta-tions by the NRC and Edison is inconsistent with the evidence. Edison's argument that its allegedly differing interpretation was communicated to its contractors is not supported by any competent evidence. The evidence shows numerous other genuine issues of material fact that require rejection of Edison's motion for 4 summary disposition. Second, Edison does not provide competent evidence to sustain its own allegations of " material f a c t s." Portions of Edison's supporting affidavits are flawed in that 3 _. . ~ . . _ . - - _ _ - _ _ . - . . _ . _ - - _ _ _ . . , . _- -_ - _ - _ _. _ --._ .-
they do not conform to the standards of 10 CPR 2.74 9 ( b) , Rule 4 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Federal Rules of Evidence. A number of Edison's affiants lack personal knowledge and do not exhibit' competence to testify. Additional-ly, certain of the affidavits are replete with inadmissible i~ hearsay and impermissibly express opinions on the ultimate facts. i^ Third, important discovery is still ongoing with respect to j this contention. For example, despite Edison's claim of contrary interpretations, many guestions remain regarding the root causes of the audit deficiencies identified. This issue is not yet ripe for summary disposition. . In sum, Edison's motion is inconsistent with the evidence j revealed to date, its " material f acts" and supporting af fidavits are not competent or reliable, and there is still much discovery i 4 to be had and guestions to be answered before any of this subcon-tention is ripe for decision. i l Inconsistencies Between Edison's Assertions of Material Fact And The Evidence To Date. The NRC Staff did not base the item of noncompliance on an i interpretation of Regulatory Guide 1.444-1980 (Schulz Deposition Tr. 333-34.) l Moreover, at the time the NRC Staff identified the item of i ! noncompliance Edison made no mention of differing interpreta-tions of Regulatory Guide 1.444-1980 to the NBC (Schulz Tr. 333-34; see also Edison's response to the Notice of Violation, i dated July 6, 1984, pp. 27-31, Exhibit A hereto.) Nor is there
/ sQ any competent evidence to indicate that Edison's interpretation U
4 1
was passed on to the three Braidwood site contractors (Quaka E Deposition Tr. 29). In addition, Edison has done no studies to determine the root causes of noncompliancEs listed in Inspection Report 83-09. (Edison Response to Intervenors' Ouality Assurance Interroga-tor ies.) The record does indicate that the major factors contri-buting to the noncompliances were inadequate contractor programs and inadequate licensee quality assurance overview to ensure contractor activities met all requirements. (Letter to O'Connor (Edison) from Keppler (NFC Region III) transmitting inspection report 83-09, dated May 7, 1984, Exhibit B.) Edison's subsequent audits were not by themselves sufficient to cure the earlier auditing deficiencies. The NRC inspector responsible for closing out the item of noncompliance based his close-out not only on licensee audits and contractor audits, but also on all the ongoing retrofit programs. (Schulz Dep. Tr. 3 41.) The specific audit deficiencies cited in the contention were identified in the summer of 1983. Since then, there have been numerous deficiencies and noncompliances issued that are examples of recurring audit failures. One example is Edison's failure to take appropriate corrective action with regard to Audit 0A-20 22. An assessment of OC inspector qualifications was not performed to address the potential impact on work performed prior to the audit finding (Inspection Report 84-07). Prior to the identification of the NPC Staff's item of noncompliance, the audits performed by Edison and Phillips- ^3 Getschow Co. were not effective in that they did not identify 5
- . _ = _ .__ .- - _. .. -
Level IV violations (Schulz Dep. Tr. 338-40; Yin Deposition Tr. 126). The NRC inspector responsible for the item of noncompliance
. 14(B)(4) reviewed the prior Audit No. 20-83-33 in order to iden-tify similar findings by thb' site OA organization and based on that evaluation still concluded that the audits were inadequate (Yin Dep. Tr. 131).
I The noncompliance example listed in Forem Subcontention 14(B)(4) is a violation of Criterion XVIII in that it evidenced inadequate auditing (Yin Dep. Tr. 126-27; Muffet Deposition, Tr. 331). Whether or not the inspector's understanding of the time sequence of the audits performed was incorrect as Edison claims, the audits were nonetheless inadequate because they failed to identify deficiencies (Yin Dep. Tr. 128). We now turn to those specific portions of Edison's affida-vits and resulting " material facts" with respect to Intervenors' t contention subpart 14(B) which are unreliable due to failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR S2.74 9 (b) and Rule 56(e). i Ouaka Affidavit (On Intervenors' Subpart 14(B)) Numerous portions of Mr. Quaka's affidavit are unreliable based on: (1) lack of competency; (2) lack of personal knowledge; (3) inadmissible hearsay; (4) inadmissible opinion; (5) testifying to conclusions and ultimate facts; and/or (6) failure to append documents to the affidavit. For example:
- 1. Answer 5 (entirety)
In his af fidavit Mr. Ouaka makes no showing that he is competent to testify to events which occurred in 1983, prior to
.c his employment at the Braidwood site. Answer 5 is also clearly 6
i
.-_-_.--__,,__._______...m, - , , . _ _ _ , _
not based on Mr. Quaka's personal knowledge and is therefore hearsay.
- 2. Answers 6 and 7 (entirety)
Mr. Quaka's beliefs are inadmissible opinion and are hearsay because he has no personal knowledge as to the underlying facts surrounding events which transpired prior to his employment at the Braidwood site.
- 3. Answer 9 (entirety)
Mr. Quaka's opinion as to an ultimate fact is inadmis-sible in its entirety.
- 4. Answers 10 and 11 (entirety)
As Mr. Quaka clearly lacks personal knowledge as to events prior to his employment at Braidwood, his answer is hearsay. This is especially so when, as here, Mr. Quaka appears to speak for the NBC. Moreover, Mr. Quaka testifies to ultimate facts, and in Answer 10, his response refers to a " comprehensive ; I review" to support his conclusion. Such review was neither appended to Mr. Quaka's testimony nor produced in its entirety for Intervenors. Forbes Affidavit (On Intervenors' Subpart 14(B)) Numerous portions of Mr. Forbes' affidavit are unreliable based on: (1) lack of competency; (2) lack of personal knowledge; (3) inadmissible hearsay; (4) inadmissible opinion; and/or (5) nonresponsiveness. For example:
- 1. Answer 2 (entirety)
/ Mr. Forbes does not af firmatively state his competence 7
to testify about the subject matter of his affidavit.
) 2. Answer 5 (entirety)
Mr. Forbes of fers an inadmissible opinion as to his "urderstanding" and bases hfs answer on conversations with unknown NBC inspector (s), which constitute hearsay.
- 3. Answer 8 (entirety)
Mr. Forbes answer has little, if anything, to do with the question posed and is therefore nonresponsive.
- 4. Answer 10 (last sentence)
The last sentence in Mr. Forbes' answer reports on information to be provided in a presently non-existent document once it has been developed. This answer is speculative, conclusory and not based on personal knowledge. 1
- 5. Answer 12 (entirety)
Mr. Forbes' response is based on documents which were not appended to his affidavit. Additionally, some portions of his answer rely on NRC Staff documents or reviews and are , therefore hearsay. Quaka Affidavit (On Intervenors' Subpart 14.B.2)) Numerous portions of Mr. Quaka's af fidavits are unreliable because: (1) there is no demonstration of competency; (2) it is replete with inadmissible hearsay; (3) it fails to demonstrate personal knowledge; and/or (4) the response is speculative. For example:
- 1. Answer 5 (entirety)
Mr. Quaka has not affirmatively demonstrated his f competence to effectively answer and lacks personal knowledge in 8
that he was not yet on the site when the activity in question occurred. Mr. Quaka's testimony is hearsay,
- 2. Answer 6 (entirety [
Mr. Quaka lacks the personal knowledge to respond i because he was not yet on site.
- 3. Answer 7 (portions)
Mr. Quaka lacks the personal knowledge with respect to the first sentence in the second paragraph. Mr. Quaka does not have personal knowledge respecting the first three sentences of the answer because he was not on site before March 1984. The last portion of the next sentence is unreliable and speculative because it refers to a document not yet developed.
- 4. ' Answer 11 (portions)
Mr. Quaka bases his opinion on documents which have not been appended to his affidavit. Additionally, the last two
)
sentences of the first paragraph are hearsay, in that Mr. Quaka j cites a conclusion contained in a report. The report itself is the best evidence of what it concludes.
- 5. Answer 12 (portions)
Mr. Quaka's response is clearly inadmissible hearsay beginning after the second line and ending before the second to the last sentence. Additionally, the inspection report referred to is the best evidence of its conclusion. Holt Affidavit (On Intervenors' Subpart 14(B)(3)) /-$ Numerous portions of Mr. Holt's af fidavit are unreliable b) 9 l l l
based on: (1) lack of competency; (2) lack of personal knowledge; e
/
(3) inadmissible hearsay; (4) absence of supporting documentation, and (5) speculation. For example:
- 1. Answer 2 (entirety)
Mr. Holt does not affirmatively demonstrate his competence to testify on the matters contained in his a f fidavit.
- 2. Answers 5 and 6 (entirety)
Mr. Hol t lacks the personal knowledge to speak to events which occurred prior to his arrival at the Braidwood site on October 16, 1984. His answer is therefore hearsay.
- 3. Answer 10 (portion)
See analysis for Answers 5 and 6 as to the first sentence in Answer 10.
- 4. Answer 13 (portions)
M r. Hol t refers to documents in support of his state-1 ments which are not appended to his deposition. Additionally, j I the last sentence in his answer is inadmissible hearsay because 1 it characterizes a document.
- 5. Answer 14 (entirety)
Because Mr. Holt's answer is prefaced witn the words "I believe", his response is both speculative and conclusory. Hunsader Affidavit (On Intervenors' Subpart 14.B.4)) Numerous portions of Mr. Quaga's af fidavit are unreliable based on: (1) lack of co.mpe tency; (2) lack of personal knowledge; (3) inadmissible hearsay; (4) inadmissible opinion; (5) testifying to conclusions and ultimate facts; and/or (6) failure lf to append documents to the a f f
- davit. For example:
10
<s.
- 1. Answer 2 (entirety)
Mr. Ilunsader has made no af firmative demonstration that he is competent to testify to the f acts contained in his affidavit.
- 2. Answer 5 (portions)
Everything beyond the first sentence is unreliable and inadmissible hearsay.
- 3. Answer 6 (portions)
The entire answer beyond the first sentence is unreliable because it is speculative and conclusory.
- 4. Answer 7 (portion)
The second to the last sentence is unreliabic because it is hearsay and lacks personal knowledge.
- 5. Answer 8 (portion)
The second sentence is unresponsive to the question and is conclusory respecting an ultimate fact.
- 6. Answer 10 (portion)
The fourth sentence is inadmissible hearsay and conclusory as to an ultimate fact.
- 7. Answer 11 (portion)
The second sentence is hearsay and speculation as the NRC inspector's belief. It also purports to reach an ultimate fact.
- 8. Answer 14 (portions)
The second and third sentences of the fourth paragraph are speculative and conclusory. This answer also purports to ( )f reach an ultimate fact. l 11 l l
4 9. Answer 15 (entirety) Answer 15 in its entirety should be disregarded because the question to which it responds is flawed in form. The question assumes a fact not established ("notwithstanding the fact that the NPC Inspector mistook the dates when ....")
- 10. Answer 16 (portions)
The last sentence in the first paragraph and the last two sentences in the second paragraph are nonresponsive to the question, conclusory and speculative. In addition, the last two sentences are replete with inadmissible hearsay. 1 l 12
SUBPART 14(B) EXilIBIT A COMMONEALTH EDISON COPANY RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORT 50-456/83-09 and 50-457/83-09 ITEM OF NONCO WLIANCE:
- 4. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVIII, as implemented by the Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance Manual, QR No. 18.0, requires, in part, that a comprehensive system of planned and periodic audits be carried out to verify compliance with all aspects of the quality assurance program and to determine the effectiveness of the program.
Contrary to the above:
- a. Phillips, Getschow Company has not established and executed a plan for auditing the implementing procedures of the quality assurance program on a periodic basis to determine the effectiveness of the program in accordance with the PG Quality Assurance Manual, Section 16.
- b. L. K. Comstock Company /L. K. Comstock Engineering Company auditing activities neither conformed with the comprehensive annual schedule of planned and periodic audits established as required by Quality Assurance Program Manual Section 4.14.1, nor did they verify compliance with all aspects of the Quality Assurance Program,
- c. Pullman Construction Industries, Inc., did not meet their l yearly schedule for audit activities required by their Quality l Assurance Manual, Section 18, in that the following implementing procedures were not audited:
B 3.1.F, Design Control B 5.1.F, HVAC Repair Adjustment B 9.3.F, Expansion Anchor Installation B 10.2.F, Visual Weld Inspection
- d. The licensee's audits of the installation of small bore instrumentation and prc. ess piping were inadequate in that contractor hanger design calculation problems were not i
identified for more than two years.
4 , Response to Item Aa
RESPONSE
Commonwealth Edison Company acknowledges that Phillips, Getschow Company did not audit each of its implementing procedures. Rather, the Phillips, Getschow Company Quality Assurance Program required all Quality Assurance Manual sections to be audited over the year period. This requirement met and fulfilled ASbE Code requirements. The audit schedule for the 1983/1984 period, dated March 17, 1993 provided for all Quality Assurance Manual sections to be audited. A special schedule was established to audit process control procedures. CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED Phillips, Getschow Company revised their audit schedule on August 21, 1983 to include auditing of all procedures annually. Procedures not used in the annual period will be designated not applicable at the time of the audit. CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE Commonwealth Edison Company verifies implementation of the Phillips, Getschow Company Audit Plans through our audits and surveillances. DATE OF FlLL C0bPLI ANCE The revised Audit Plan has been implemented. Commonwealth Edison Company verification of the schedule has been completed. (Reference Commonwealth Edison Company comprehensive onsite/offsite audit of October 1983). fa - i
Response to Item Ab
RESPONSE
Commonwealth Edison Company acknowledges that L. K. Comstock did not fully implement their 1983 audit schedule. However, adequate Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance audits were performed to cover all applicable L. K. Comstock activities. During the inspection visit, the NRC acknowledged that Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance provided adequate quality audit coverage and that Site Quality Assurance was previously aware of the L. K. Comstock short fall. CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED A review of L. K. Comstock's audit coverage (corporate and site) for 1982 and 1983, indicates that a total of six (6) Quality Assurance manual subsections and six (6) field work procedures had not been audited as follows. A review of the six (6) Quality Assurance manual subsections not audited by L. K. Comstock showed: One (1) section covered the L. K. Comstock Policy Statement One (1) section covered the overall program descripticn One (1) section defined the program applicability One (1) section covered L. K. Canistock's reporting of 10 CFR Part 21 items One (1) section covered the corporate review of the site Quality Assurance program One (1) section covered the corporate Organization Chart L. K. Comstock corporate Quality Assurance has since completed audits of the above sections. For the six (6) work procedures: ha (, Two (2) were new procedures as of late 1983 and therefore were not yet scheduled for audit One (1) covered silver plating of bus bars (an infrequently performed operation which is subjected to a 100% Quality Control witness)
Response to Ab (cont'd) One (1) covered site organization position delineation. This section is normally audited by corporate auditors during their audits One (1) covered Production's use of a Revision Work Request (RWR). (However, the related Quality Control inspection of RWRs had been audited. Subsequently, the work instruction was audited during the week of January 9,1984 by L. K. Comstock.) One (1) covered Equipment / Junction Box Installation. (However, the related Quality Control inspection of equipment erection had been audited. Subsequently, the work instruction was audited during the week of January 9, 1984 by L. K. Comstock.) Therefore, the active applicable work procedures and quality control inspection procedures have been audited by L. K. Comstock as of the week of January 9,1984. A concern raised by the inspector in the area of supporting evidence for L. K. Comstock audits prompted Site Quality Assurance to review copies of the objective evidence for the L. K. Comstock corporate offsite audits. Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance with L. K. Comstock site Quality Assurance performed this review. (This information was not available onsite during the NRC inspection. ) This review disclosed that there was sufficient objective evidence recorded to support the conclusions stated in the audit reports. Copies of this objective evidence are available at the site for review. CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE As a result of the Cormionwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance concerns, L. K. Comstock has placed two (?) f'ulltime, qualified auditors on site (one activated in October, 1983 and one in November, 1983). Counseling has been given to these auditors by Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance to include more descriptive evaluations of audit results in their audit reports. Additionally, Procedures (4.14.3 and 4.14.1) have been revised to more clearly define the L. K. Comstock onsite auditing activities and qualification processes for site auditors. ['; L. K. Comstock site Quality Assurance has submitted an audit plan
~ for 1984 which indicates that the Quality Assurance Program and their active safety related activities will be adequately covered.
I
O Response to Item Ab (cont'd) DATE OF FULL CO WLIAtCE All applicable site procedures were audited by the week of January 9, 1984. Procedures 4.14.3 and 4.14.1 were revised to reflect onsite auditing activities and qualification processes. Interim approval was granted on 2/29/84 and 11/2/83 respectively.
b UMito STATts [passoo,k NUCLEAR nEMATORY COMMissiO ~~
$ . ,i r 4 k #
REGION lit
~
o "' - af 799 ROOSEVE tt nu Ao aten ettvn. itu~Ois sein SUBPMiT 14(B)
+,,'
/ EXIIIBIT B f,' AY 7 1984
.s.
Docket Nos. 50-456 50-457 Construction Pennit Nos. CPPR-132 CPPR 133 EA 84-35 Cormionwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. James J. O'Connor President and Chief Executive Officer Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen: This refers to the special quality assurance program inspection conducted by Messrs. T. E. Vandel, R. D. Schulz, 1. T. Yin, D. E. Keating, C. C. Williams, and D. R. Hunter of this office on June 20-24, June 27-July 1. August 1-5, August 9, October 4-7, and October 24, 1983, and January 11-13, January 26, q and February 9, 1984, at Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and to the discussions of our findings during the conduct of the inspection. This also refers to enforcer.ent conferences which were conducted concerning the findings of this inspection in the Region 111 office en December 20, 1983, between Mr. C. Reed and other members of your staff and Mr. A. B. Davis and other members of the Region 111 staff, and on March 7, 1984, between you and me and members of our staffs. The purpuse of this inspection was to assess the effectiveness of the quality assurance programs of the pi' ping contractor, the electrical contractor, and the heating, vent.ilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) contractor. The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of p(rocedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel. The inspection revealed a number of deficiencies concerning the verification of correct material for ASME piping components, control of HVAC welding activities, and design control of field run small bore piping and associated hanger installation activities. These deficiencies existed even though CECO had recently conducted comprehensive reviews of the performance of all site contractors in response to a proposed civil penalty issued on February 2, 1983, involving one of these contractors. We are concerned that experience gained at other CECO facilities and the lessons learned from the mechanical equipment place-mer.t violations at Braidwood were not adequately applied to the Braidwood facility. CERTIFIED Mall liU URN RTCElPT REQUESTED
Comonwealth Edison Company 2 MAY 719E4 5 The major factors contributing to the deficiencies were inadequate contractor programs and workmanship, inadequate licensee reviews of the contractor pro-grams, and inadequate licensee" quality assurance overview to ensure contractor activities met all requirements. The violations indicate the need for more aggressive CECO management involvement in and support of the CECO QA Program to ensure that all safety-related activities performed by contractor personnel are in accordance with the regulations, codes, Standards, and license require-ments. The stop work orders and construction deficiency reports which were issued as a result of our inspection findings in the areas of small bore piping hangers, HVAC welding activities, and piping material control should have been initiated by CECO without the involvement of the NRC. We are encouraged by the personnel and organizational changes you dcscribed during the March 7, 1984, enforcement a aterence which indicate that you recognize the need for increased m3nagement involvement in the quality assurance program ano have taken some positive actions in that regard. The deficiencies concerning piping material control resulted in the quality of some installed piping being indeterminate and resulted in some material being installed that did not meet design requirements. A documented inspection program had not been implemented to assure correct material installation for 2"-and-under safety-related piping prior to July 1983; theref ore, inspection re:.ords verifying correct material installation prior to that date do nat exict. A documented inspection program had not been implemented to assure correct material installation for safety-related piping over 2a prior to November 1982; therefore, inspection records verifying correct material installation prior to that date do not exist. During the March 7,1984 enforcement conference you described a verification program you are developing which will include a 100% inspection of all installed piping and associated records. We understand that the results of that program and the completion of any necessary corrective actions that might result will ensure that all installed piping material meets des:in requirements. Since we will need to evaluate the results of your verification efforts in order to fully assess the significance of the programmatic deficiencies, enforcement action is not being taken on this violation at this time. Following our review of your efforts we will determine the appropriate enforcement action. L'ntil that time, this matter is being classified as Unresolved items 4E'/83-09-04(A); 457/83-09-04(A) and 456/83-09-04(B); 457/83-09-04(B). The iteT.s of noncompliance identified during the inspection are specified in the enclnsed Appendix, and have been categorized as a Severity Level IV in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, published in the Federal Register 47 FR 9987 (March 9,1982). A written response is requii E A Tesponse is also requested for Unresolved Items 456/83-09-04( A); 451/e3-09-04( A) and 456/83-09-04(0); 457/03-09-04(0). Your response should include a description of your program to verify the quality of installed piping components, your efforts to improve the j aggressiveness and eflectiveness nf I,ECo management involvement in and support ' ' of the Ceco QA Progran, and the basis for your confidence in the performance of
, all site contractors. Your respunse should address why the contractor programs in the piping and HVAC areas were inadequate, why CECO reviews of the deficient programs failed to 1dentifj the deficienties, and why the CECO QA overview was l
Cormicnwealth Edison Company 3 IMY 7 1984 inadequate to ensure the contractor activitie', met all requirements. Also, your response should describe.your efforts to assure that all construction workers and their supervisors understand their role in building quality into the facility. In accordance with 10 CfR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure (s) will be placed in the fiRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the re-quirements of 2.790(b)(1). If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, a copy of this letter, the enclosure (s), and your response to this letter will be placed in the Public Document Room. The response directed by this letter and the enclosed flotice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Offict of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwark Reduction Act oi 1980, PL 96-511. We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection. Sincerely, b James G. Kepple Regional Administrator E..cl osu re s :
- 1. Appendix, Notice of Violation
- 2. Inspection Reports No. 50-456/83-0?(DE);
'io. 50-457/83-D';(DE )
cc w/encls: D. L. Farrar, Director of Nuclear Licensing M. Wallace, Project Manager R. Cesaro, Project Superintendent J. F. Gudac, Station Superintendent DN3/ Document Control Desk (RIDS) Resident. Inspector, kill Phyllis Dunton, Attorney j
.. General's Office, Environmental ;
'i Control Division : Jane Whicher, Esq. i l l 1
Cont.onwealth Edison Company 4 g,,, p 7 ggf, Distribution I' git LPDR RC0eYoung, IE JTaylor, IE JfAxelrad, IE GKlingler, IE JLieberman, ELD JKeppler, Rll! JNGrace, IE NRC Resident inspector IE:EA File IE:ES File DCS
( n h g%fy ?t t 4M Business and Professional People for the Public Interest 109 North Dearborn Street. Suite 1300
- Chicago. lihnors 60G02
- Telephone (312) 641-5570 j 7IA FEDEPAL EXPRESS March 6, 1986 Herbert Grossman, Esq.
Chairman and Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Dr. Fichard F. Cole Administrative Judne Atomic Safcty and Licensino Board U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Collihan Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensinq Doard U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 In the Matter of COMMONW FA LTil FDTSON COMPANY (Braidwood Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) Do c k o t- Pos. 50-456 and 50-547
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed pleare find for your conrideration Intervenors' Pesponse to NFC Staff Filing Supporting Applicant's Motion For Summary Disposition. By copies of this letter I am transmitting this Pesponse for filing with the Of fic of the Secretary and am serving the other parties. / i.S i nc fr r l' , \ l t/ ( 3 hohert Guild One of the Attorneys for PG: beg Intervenors Porem, et al. ( o ..e... 2.m., m... ,m., ....A , . . . ,,..,- .. .. e o ,,.., Je* em y W J',n,*g n st$s)
~,c.....
Urf e( f 0f e)f Opy.h pm.rti D Luev 0 A%vW1 r.v id et. Dap h1 stN DP 8' PI 8h4M I F(*de;P.r a W An w., n DJ Degg e, s Je Ato 354m, , , , ygg nm..s , c r.. , .t..e.a o. . , e... , M n .',,m.,u.... mis mn 1.T & a*t<Jri o ...- .a ...,,. (,PMelt $ $d $li l E,5 IF.fM 9% (1MHjlpt600 ( e4f i el V E st' erll N b8FI O I d$t )fi l te' t sna )** f UiseHjlst'u% W f4,'as l j' V4 ev Prep %4*tti GrHf Uf aint fa (W "'89 ble @E *I't f M's IM8"I Il M,t ' 'i [ h e. fi l f e Weep %se
- P'th ( off ries'.JJ ( 4 *eJPt 4 s ,' M.en, mas A Marweg i t.d i t,p f .t $48ld.fi ( OHim D*1 e I 8"i )O ! I I "f4H e', #
#994 Bf '.JW O' O ( l'f I. setd . Iy I l'bu e M ss*m gref
., ;;;;;;;,S";';;,',,,, l::';' l',", ',,';,', l; ;r' ),'; 0;,',';,,,,,,,,, na.., u 1..~, . . . . . . , e..e........ no,<,
. ., d o ~.., ..
vame. ll;;",,' lM,;",',",' - . , i m, , 2. oy ,,, W m,., ,, .,,,,_W.,,,,,,,
. g,. ,,, n y _,, , ,, W,..,..,
I S' 88 4'd ! P 4N'8' h"UVNJN b.I'!I'N 40 g gy g ; g g jg, gy ,,y , g ,,. gy g p g, g
' P* 5 *"'8 v.,,em (,. Haarr.,n I""'"'*W"'d'" na,e<I H t itkw 6.mg %r. e tu.,ene PP , . "y p l yA N MeirrIPld O'Inu'd N 04"M P 'tM FH #ftf A'P t2008 f Ih d'Id!
L.v.'4rp
March 5, 1996
\ 1
< 11NITFD STATFS OF AMFPICA V NUCLFA P PFCUI. ATOPY COMM TSSION BEFORF TilF ATOMIC SAFETY AFD LICFNSING POAPD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWFALTH FDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power )
Station, Units 1 and 2) 1 It'TFFVENORS ' RFSPONSE TO NPC STAFF FTLING SUPPOPTING APPLICANT'S VOTION FOP Stim P ARY DISPDSTION Pursuant to 10 CPR E 2.74 9 ( a ) , Tntervenors Pridqct Little Forem, et al., respond to whatover "new facts and a rg um e n t s ," id., are deemed to be presented by tbc NPC's Staff's February 18, 1986 response in support of Applicant's surmary disposition motion. Notwithstanding the contrary accurances by FPC Staff counsel during the Janur.ry 27, 1986, Prehearing Conference, Tr. , the Staf f's filing provides blanket endorsement for the summary rejection of the 19 contention subparts which are targetted by Applicant's summary disposition motion. Irdecd, as Staf f Counsel informed Intervenors prior to our receipt of their February 18 filing, virtually no new facts are presented in t he Sta f f's endorsement of Pdison's position. 1/
~1/ The solo "new fact" identified by Staff Counsel as included in the Fra f f's February 18 filinq was the withdrawal of the i t e rn of noncompliance ret out in subpart 14(b)(4). See, Fxhibit 14(P)(4)-4. As artined in our February 18 Answer, audit inadequacies are evidenced by the circumstances identi-fied by UFC Inspector Yin, reqardless of dates and timing of certain audits, since whatever audits were conducted failed to identify the deficiencies fo ind by the NPC. Yin Deposi-Q(j tion Transcript, p. 126-28.
qq " ( AM'dr 1 x
In essence, the NPC Fraff's filing represents no more than e an enthusiastic echo of Edison's 1itigation position embellished with the same inspection repor to cited by Fdison and crnamented with a se-les of 20 pro forma affidavits from the various inspec-tors involved attesting to the appropr iateness of summary treat-ment. In short, the NPC Sta f f'c support for Fdison adda nothing of substance by way of f act or argument which al ters to any significant degree, Intervenors' pocirion as presented in our February 18, 1986, Answer. To the extent, however, that the Licenning Board deems the inspectors' endorsement of summary disposition by way of support-ing affidavits ao constituting "new facts and arguments" of r,igni f icance on t he ouest ion o f num mary di nposi t ion, rollance on such endorsoments in considering Applicant's motion would bo inappropriate. First, nuch statoments of opinion or belief repronont mero conclunionn, are not the norr of facts stated upon personal knowledae appropriate for determination through summary process. F11iot v. Mannachusottn Mutual Life I nc. ro., 3P8 F.2d 362, 365-66 (5th Cir. 1968); Mapco Inc. v. Ca r ter , 578 F.2d 1268, 1282 (Emor Ct A p p l ') 7 8 ) , c e r t . den i ed , 4 3 7 U.S. 00 4 ; C.D. Searle
& Co. v. Chan. Pfizer & Co., 231 F.2d 'l6, 318 (7th Cir. 1956).
The evaluation of such statementn of opinion must be made by the trier of fact - thin Poard - upon considoration of all of the evidenco at hearinq. Elliot, nuora, lHH F.2d at 365-66 Second, Intervenorn are unable to confront, probo, and challengo the bacen for any noch statomentn of conclusion or bel ie f a t thir ;
\
( ^f \ ; time, in ordor to support our opponition to Appl ican t ' n motion. l i 2
Assuming, arcuendo, the conclusory statements of endorsement reflected in the NPC Staff affidavits would be otherwise appro-priate for consideration, reliance upon them for summary disposi-tion is inappropriate absent a fair opportunity for Intervenors to examine the Staff Affiants at deposition or hearing on theco matters. 2/ 10 CPP 2.7 4 9 ( c ) . Valdie v. Schlesincer , 509 F.2d 500, 510 and n. 1 (D.C. Cir. 1975). Intervenors submit that such conclusory endorsement of summary deposition may be of 1imited significance even to the endorser. For example, although NPC Pesident Inspector Echulz's affidavits were not available at the t irc e o f h i s most recont depos i t ion examina t ion, Schulz succinctly stated the limited scope of his endorsement: Summary dispositions - those items I closed out based on my closure reports. In other words, any thing I feel that I closed in the report could be summary disponed. And all the i n fo rma t ion for the summary disposition came f rom my closure repot t, my NPC closure report. And there is no additional information other than what's in the PPC closure report. Schulz Deposition Transcript, p. 463 'th e closure of an item of Z/ Intervenors examined NPC rosident inrpector Pobert F. Fehulz in deposition, February 10, 1986. Only at that time did intervenore loarn that Schu17 was to be the author of a f fida-vits suppor ti nq Appl icant's summary d ispost i ion motion, (five in number supporting subpartc 6F, 6G, 6I, 14(b)(1), and 14(b)(3)). Sc h u l:- Deposition Transcript, p. 197. Counsel for the Staff decl ined to make thoso affidavitn available durinq the examination or until they were to be filed some eight days lator. (Tr. 103.) Mr. Schulz has nince lef t the employ of the Nuclear Pegulatory Commission (Tr. 232), and han declined to make himsolf availablo voluntarily fer testimony. (Tr. n 235.) Mr. Schulz was not identified as a proposed Staff wit- [k-'7 noss for hearing in the February 2R, 1986, Etaff witnesq list,
noncompliance hardly establishes the appropriateness of summary /'xy disposition of these contention subparts. Such treatment would eliminate effective consideration of the root cause of the deficiency, its significance, the effectiveness of any corrective action, and the implications of such OA deficiency for the safety of Braidwood nuclear station. At least with respect to subparts 6F, 6G, 6I and 14(B)(1) and 14(P)(3) - those items closed by Mr. Schulz - closure of the item of noncompliance is the sole basis for summary disposition. We can only speculate as to the bases for the other inspectors' endorsement of Applicant's position. SUFCONTFNTION 3(C) THE PLECTPICAL CONTACTOP UTILIZFD UNOUALIFIED LEVEL I OUALITY CONTPOL TNS'JCTOPS FOR INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE CF ELECTPICAI WELDS This item of noncompliance was identified by Region TTI NFC inspector P.N. Gardner during the performance of his inspection activities of Applicant's Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (ECAP) documented in Inspection Poport P5-006, March 8, 1985. According to the affidavit of NPC inspector John M. Jacobson supporting summary disposition (p. 15) "this item will remain open pending the completion of the LPP (the ' Level T Peverification P rog r a m ' ) ." Forwithstanding tbc inappropriateness for closure of the i tem of noncompl iance, the Staf f claims t hat this subpart is appropriate for summary disposition, apparently, since the Staf f views its responsibilities on tbo subject as i merely " procedural or ministerial in nature". FPC Staff O 4
Pesponse, p. 11. This Staff position neither supports summary by disposition of this sub-ject, nor does it enhance confidence V in the adecuacy of the Staff's future inspection commitment. What the Staff argues for is not simply a delegation, improperly, to itself to insure proper implementation by Applicant; but, in reality, delegation by all parties concerned to the Applicant Commonweal th Fdison Company to inspect its own activities which have been found deficient. Summary disposi t ion is clearly inappropriate and should be denied. Two days after the Staff submitted its February 18 Posponse supporting Applicant's summary disposition motion, NPC Pegion III issued a clarification of its position regarding tFe Level I CC inspector item of noncom pl i a nce. Letter, tio rel iu s (P. III~ to , Peed (CFCo) February 20, 1986, Attachment I hereto. Apparently on the basis of "recent inspections in which we interviewed those who were the (rnviewing) Level II inspectors" and " guidance from tJPC headoua r te r s ," the Peqion clarified the basis for the Level I violation: We have concl uded that the POV did not clearly express our inspector's primary concern as sta ted on page 3 of the Pepo r t De ta il s, "... the thrust of this issue concerns the accept-ability of inspections performed and accepted solely by Level I OC i n s pec t o r s ." Our Nov should have been written citing the fa11ure of the Level II inspectors to review t he Level I inspection results for validity and acceptabil-ity. This clarification is not addressed in either Mr. Jacobson's N af fidavit or the other Sta f f summary disposit ion materials. J s
While it is clear tha t the NRC rea f fi r ma it s finding tha t the practice involving T,evel I OC innpectors for acceptance of welds at eraiawooa conctitutes , noncompliance, the signiriennce or the February 20 clarificarion can not be determined on the basis of the commary dispirition papers before the Doard. This in simply a further matter which must be resolved at hearing. Mr. Jacobson's a f fidavi t raices a farther cuestion of timing and the reliability of Applicant's position on the Level I innue. According to the Jacobron nummary Finpori tion affidavit (p. 14 ) : During an interview of L.K. Comstock (LKC) Level II inspectors which T conducted on Dovember 27, 1985, I learned that the Level II involvement consisted only of reviewino inspection reportn for completenens and not the adecuacy or correctness of the underlying i n c r>e c t i o n activity. If this in the came interview witnessed by Fdiron's Mr. Gieceker, one must wonder why itr renultn were not incorporated in Mr. Gieseker's cubsequent recember 20, 19P 5 cum ma rif dirpocition affi-davit; but, instead, prompted a " correction" to his affidavit not made until hir February 12 deposition. ricreker Perosition Transeript, pp. 18-25. By that corroction, Fdinon appears to acknowledge for the first time that "the overall practico employed by I,KC for une o f Level I and II innpect orn was not in conformance with the ANSI s t a nd e r d." Geiseker Deposition Fxhibit
- 3. Thone factual inconsintencien are incapable of renolution or evaluation on the naked nonnary dieroni t ion paperr.
M r. Jacobron ' n affidavit providen only the mont conclunory and uncritical endorsement of Edinon'n Lovel i Hoverification ,s
/ program ( I,H P ) . This endornement appearc to be founded upon 6
, Edison's summary disposition materials, which he reviewed in preparing the affidavit" (Jacobson, p. 13) toqether with c docu-ment which he descr ibes as " Commonweal th Edison Company' c Level I Peverification P r og r a m ." Id. No further description of :his
" Program" document is provided. One can only speculate as to whether it is the LPP draft procedures identified in Mr.
Gieseker's deposition of February 12, 1986, Group Fxhibit 2, or some other document. No such program document is attachod to the NPC Sta f f's cummary disposi tion filing. If there are some further bases for M r. Jacobson's endorsement of LPP methodology and expected conclusions (Jacobson Affidavit, p. 15), they are not identified in the papers before the Board. More fundamentally, the Staff's casual and cursory t reatmont of this issue is t roubling for what it has not done and makes no prom ices to do in the future. There in simpl y no inoui ry wha t-ever with any degree of ricor, as to the " statistical assurance provided by the LP P" which the Staff'c Mr. Jacobcon categorically endorses. Jacobson Affidavit, pp. 15-16. One simply cannot accept uncritically general inferencon as to const ruct ion quali ty, on the basis of such a 1 imi ted view of the underlying campling design and methodol ogy, let alone without analysis of the implementation and resul ts of a program which has yet to even begin. Ilard ouentionn simply must be poced and answered be fore one can embrace tho cort of aeneral statictical inforences which the LPP claims to provide. Intorvenore cupport the appropriatenosc of the concerns in thin regard rained by the ( ,/ Comanche Peak Licensing Poard in it t trovember 11, 1985, 7
, Memorandum on Stat istical Inferencer From CPPT Fampl ing, a copy of which is provided as Attachment 2. There is simply no justi-fication for the Staff approaching this sampling issue as casual-ly as they apparently have.
Jacobson Af fidavit On 3C Mumerous portions of Mr. Jacobson's a f fidavits are unreliable based on: (1 ) lack of personal knowledge; (2) inadmissible hearsay; (3) inadmissible opinion; (4) inadmissible testimony of conclusions and speculation; and (5) impermissible testimony as to the ultimate facts in this litigation.
- 1. In bis affidavit Mr. Jacobson makes no affirmative showing that he has personal knowledqe of the events which are the subject matter of his testimony. For example:
- 2. Paragraph 5 (entirety)
Affiant Iacks personal knowledge as to tho events surrounding the item to which he testfies; his recitation of what happened is purr- hearsay.
- 3. Paragraph 9 (entirety)
Mr. Jacobson's conclusion as tr what the remedial measures "shoula" do is irrelevant, conclusory and pure opinion on tir . Jacobson's part.
- 4. Paragraph 10 (entirety)
The first sentenco in p7taqraph 10 is hearsay. Applicant may best exrlain why it developod the "(LPP)". Mr. Jacobson's agreement "that upon complet ion, there vi11 be no design significant oue s t ion s ," is both speculative and opinion as s ( 7 to an ultimate fact. n
_ = _ _ _ SUBCONTENTION 5(A) \ SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION ASSFSSMENT (CAT) TEAM DEFIGt! CONTPOL FINDINGS INVOLVING SAPGENT & LUNDY PROCEDUPES FOP PIPING PFANALY-SIS AND L.K. COMSTOCK ANNOTATIONS ON DFSTGN DPAWINGS These design control findings were identified by the NPC CAT Team in the February 15, 1985, Inspection Peport 84-44/40. In support of Applicant's motion for summary disposition the FPC submits the af fidavit of James W. Muf fett, characterizing inspec-tion findings by others of which he har no apparent personal knowledge, expressing his belief to the significance of these items. Upon such a thin foundation rests the NFC Staff's support for summary disposition of this subpart. ti_u f f e t t Affidavit on Subcontention 5(A) Fumerous portions of Mr. Muf fet t's af fidavits are unreliable based on: (1) lack of personal knowledge; (2) inadmissible hear-say; (3) inadmissible opinion; (4) inadmissible testimony of conclusions and speculation; and (5) impermissible opinion testi-mony as to ultimate facts in this litigation.
- 1. On the face of the af fidavi t, Mr. Muffett does not a f firmatively demonstrate any personal knowledge of the subject matter of his testimony. For example:
- 2. Paragraph 5 (entirety) fir. Mu f f e t t 's recitatior of evente surrounding this issue is pure hearsay. Additionally, the use of terms such as "small num be r ," and cratements such as "The discrepancies were isolated ... and woro not determined to be significant" constitute impermissible opinions and conclusions as to ultimate f,ct s.
9
4
- 3. Paragraph 6 (entirety)
((m')1 This paragraph is replete with conclusions and opinions. For example, the first sentence uses nuch nbrases as "In an effort to enhance its controls of these activities ... " Edison "made im provem en t s." This is clearly opinionated and conclusory as to the ultimate facts.
- 4. Paragraph 7 (second sentence)
The second sentence beginning, "T am satisfied ..." is irrelevant. It constitutes cheer opinion and speculation as to what might happen at come future point on time.
- 5. Paragraph 8 (entirety beyond the firrt centence)
Mr. Muf fett's bel iefs are inadmiscible opinion, especially when, as here, those opinions neek to reach the ulti-mate facts in this litigation. SUDCONTENTION 5(B) ABSPNCE OF A cot.TDPPAIP PPOCEDUFF OUALIFIFD FOP TiiC Di'STGN BASIS ACCIDENT CONDTTONS Instead of eliminating qenuine incuec in dispute on thin subject, the NPC Sta f f'n commary disposi t ion filing reinforces the fundamental dicagreement with Applicant as to whether the ' noncompliance reficeted in this item reprecente a violation of the 10 CPR Part 50, Appendix B, " Design Cont rol," Cr iter ion ITI. Mr. Propp rea f firms the Staf f'n por f tion as followc: During my incpection I det er m ined that the Applicant did not have documents to substantfare the DBA qualification by laboratory tecting of a /~)s (_ coating cystem uned for repairs involving the une 10 1
_a of a power grinder, a primer coat, and a finish coat of phenoline-305. Therefore, I determined
'9 that a portion of 10 CFP Part 50, Appendix B (s '/ Criterion III, Design Control, was not met. The portion of this Criterion which was not met pertained to the measures which were to be established for'the selection and review for sui tability of application of materials and processes that are essential to the safety-related function of structures.
Kropp Affidavit, p. 31. This reaffirmed position conflicts directly with the position taken by Applicant with regard to contention subpart 5(P) Statement of Material Fact, p. 2; Kostal Affidavit, p. 9. Further, the Fraff filings reflect uncertainty as to the area of containment liner af fected by the unouali fied coatings repairs. Where Mr. Kostal of Sargent & Lundy speaks to a maximum area of "127 cguare feet per unit" (Kontal Affidavit, p. 5), the NPC's Mr. Kropp identifies an area of "approximately 200 souare feet of the containments" in hin affidavit at pace 28; while his original Inspection Poport, 85-16, of May 26, 1985, describes the area "approximately 250 couare f e e t ." Id., p. 16. At page 32 of his affidavit Mr. Propp states that Sargent & Lundy evaluation of this nonconforming condition is reflected on two " Design In formation Transm ittalc (DIT'n)". These documents are not identified in M r. Kostal's affidavit in Appl icant 's filing, nor are they appended to the NPC Fraf f's nummary dicpoei-tion documents. Similarly, the " coa tings except ion lict" said to be under preparation and reviewed by Mr. Kropp ic neither attached to the UFC nor Applicant filingn. Lantly, the " numerous coating records" which Dr. Kropp statec he reviewed to determine g s/ v 11
the magnitude of this problem are neither further identified nor
/ 'y provided in support for his conclusion. These issues, in addi-V tior to those identified in Intervenors' February 18 Answer, are not susceptible of r esolution by summary disposition, and should e-be the subject of hearing.
i t Kropp Affidavit on Subcontention 5(B) Certain portions of M r. Kropp's a f fidavits are unreliable based on (1) inadmissible opinions; (2) inadminsible speculation; (3) testimony of conclusions; (4) impermissible opinion testimony as to the ultimate facts in this litigation; and (5) the absence of supporting documentation. For example:
- 1. Paragraph 9 (second and third centence) id r . Vropp relien on cortain renorts propared by the Applicant which are not appended to his affidavit. Moreover, this testimony is hearsay; the report is the best evidence of what it says.
- 2. Paragraph 11 (last three centencon)
These sentences are replete with opinions and conclu-sions on the ultimate facts in this litigation. For example, the f ol l o w i ng phrases "... were adeouate to recolve thic violation and to preclude its recurrence" and "I have concluded that this item ..." are clearly impermincible opinions 'o r conclucionn respecting the ultimate facts. V 12
</dp
, e.( qN*
n ev%e, ys' v O . 'sh4
C'(~.,f#,,,' IMAGE EVALUATION ,j/ '/ .,
8,'6"%
' g/// 1 %## TEST TARGET (MT-3) h '
,fY
%>//
4 W . L=a 22 lik
!lIl4 1.25 \.s y
- 150mm - - - - - - -
4 ------6" - - - - - - - - - -- l i a, l// I #) 4 e M
- 4y>h,,,,// / q ///; b.
o p, y:
SUDCONTFNTION 5(C) (L SAPGENT & LUNDY (S&L) FAILUFF TO SPFCIFY TITE ATSC CODF FFOUIPFD El/r LIMITS FOP IWAC SUPPORT DFSICM j This item was opened as a result of an allegation documented in Inspection Poport 84-43/39 of March 15, 1985 and closed in Inspection Peport 05-40/39 on November 22, 1985. The Staff supplied the affidavit of Inspector J.W. Muffett in support of I Applicant's cummary disposition motion. Mr. Muf fe t t 's af fidtvi t (p. 30) reflects the review of nothing beyond Applicant's c omary disposition filing, the written response to the violation, and his inspection reports as the basis for his conclusory support for sumrary disposition. His accertions that ST,L's omission of the code reacired slenderness ratio limits constitute merely an
" isolated incident" which does not " represent a significant breakdown in Applicant's cuality assuranco program" should be accorded little value in resolving the issues pre-ented by this contention. The ultimate conclusions as to the implications of 1
this item and irn nignificance for the adecuacy of the Praidwood 1 quality assurance program must be reachod on the basis of the consideration of the whole record at hearing. Summary disposi-tion of this matter should be rejectrd. Puffett Affidavit on Subcontention 5(C) Cortain portions of M r. Muffett's affidavit are unrollable based on (1) inadmissible opinions; (2) impermissible spocula-tion; (3) testimony of conclusions, and (4) impormissible opinion testimony as to the ultimate facts in this litigation. For axemple: I?
- 1. Paragraph 6 (entirety)
'/
Whether Mr. Muffett is satisfied or not in neither relevant nor probative. Such satinfaction is clearly opinion testimony r?specting the ultimate facts. Moreover, Mr. Puffett I is being explicitly speculative when he opines that the correc-tive actions may " render the possibility of recur rence m in imal." l
- 2. Paragraph 10 ( e n t i r e *.y )
This paragraph in its entirety attempts to opine regard-l ing what is the ul tinate f act issue in t his precneding and in therefore inadmissible. SUFCO!!TENTICt' 6(F) FAILUPE TO PPOVIDE FOP A PAPT 21 PEPOPT OF PIPTNG MINIMUM UAI1 DEFFCTS l'PC Inspector Schulz opened and clocod this item. He han testified that the closure of this item itself justiffon nommary disposition and that his innpection report reflects "all the informat ion" nuppor t ing summary disposi t ion. Echulz Deposition Tr ansc r ipt , p. 4 64. Mr. Schulz'c affidavit characterizen the deficiency an ( " identified during a routine unannounced docunentation review" (Affidavit, p. 46), in deposition ho identified the cource an an anonymous tip f rom a wor ker wi th a ca foty concern. Schulz Deponition Tranneript, p. 169. Mr. Pchul7 noither asked nor determined the cause of the minimum wall dnficiency (Schul z Deposition Transcript, p. 371), or whether the defect poned J 14
l l 1 generic implications for the existence of deficiencies in other ['7 pipe produced by the same manufacturer. Schutz Deposition Transcript, p. 372. Mr. Fehulz's closure of this item of noncom-j pliance adds no substantial basis for summary disposition of this l issue. Schulz Affidavit on Subcontention 6(P) Certain portions of Mr. Schulz's affidavit are unreliable l based on (1) inadmissible opinions; (2) hearsay; (3) conclusions; and (4) impermissible opinion testimony as to the ultimate facts ' in this litigation.
- 1. On the face of the affidavit, Mr. Schulz does not at fi r-matively represent that be has personal knowledge of the subject matter to which be testifies.
- 2. Paraoraphs 5 and 7 (entirety)
Because Mr. Schulz is without personal knowledge, bis testimony as to what happened is simply herrsay.
- 3. Paragraph 6 (entirety)
Paragraph 6 in its entirety is hearsay and opinion testimony as to the ultimate fact issues.
- 4. Paragraph 8 (first sentence)
Mr. Schu12's opinion as to whether this particular violation represents a "significant breakdown" is based on hearsay, impermissible because it seeks to address an ultimate fact issue, and is nothing more than his opinion. 15
SUFCONTENTION 6(G) s/ PAILUPE TO PFOVIDF OUAL ITY ASSUPANCE FOP Tile CilEM TCAL CLEANTNG OF OVER 200,000 FEFT OF COFRODED PIPE This item was opened by NPC inspector Schul? in Inspection Peport 84-17 on October 1, 1094 and closed by Mr. Schulz in Inspection Report 84-42/38. The hardware implications of the l
"ef fect of the chemical cleaning process on mimimum wall '
- deficiencies" remains open and is being evaluated by Inspector Muffert as part of contention subpart ll(C). The issues involved in the use of the unapproved vendor for chemical cleaning I
identified in subcontention 6(G), should clearly be decided along I 1 with the effects of such cleanino in subcontention ll(C). Mr. Schulz neither sought nor obtained information explain- l 1 ing how and why Pdison f a il ed to provide quality assurance in the chemical cleaning process. Schulz Deposition Transcript, pp. 382-384. Again, Mr. Fchul z's bel ie f that the item was appro-priate for closure as a noncom pl i a nce fails to provide a suffi-cient basis for summary disposition. Echulz Deposition Transcr ipt, p. 4 6 4 Schulz Affidavit on Subcontention 6(G) A portion of M r. Schul z's a f fidavit is unreliable based on inadmissible speculation and impermissiblo opinion testimony as to the ultimate facts. For example:
- 1. Paragraph 9 (fi f t h sentonco)
This clearly reprosents only Mr. Febu17's opinion as to what the basis will be for design siqnificance. O 16
SUBCONTFNTION 6(I) O FAILUPE TO ASSUFF INSTALLATIO:7 OF PPOPFP PIPF WHIP PFSTPAINT PLATF PATEPIAL NRC inspector Schulz opened this item in Inspection Peport , 84-09, June 29, 1984, and closed this item Inspeerion Peport 85-15/16, May 16, 1985. The limits of Mr. Schulz's inspection scope > l i on this subject is discussed in Intervenors' February 18, 1986, j Answer on this subpart. Such ouestions as whether this item reflects the deliberate use of improper material and the sionifi- , i cance and implications of these deficiencies recuire resolution t at hearing. M r. Schulz's closure of this item does not support summary disposition. , Schule Affidavit on Subcontention 6(I) j A portion of Mr. Schulz's a f fidavit is unreliable based on
- speculation and impermissible opinion testimony as to the ulti-l i mate facts. For exampic
! 1. Paragraph 9 (entirety beyond firnt rentence) l l Mr. Schult 's determ ina tions respect ing "sa fety" probl oms or whether an item of nonconformance represents a "significant b r e a kd o w n" are speculativo, and are opinions as to an ultimate i f fact. t SUBCONTFNTTON 9(A_)_ FDISON AND PTTTSitHPG TFSTING LAltOPATOPY (PTL) PFPPITTFD IMPDOPFP j IllSPFCTION OF AT LFAST 127 FILLET WFLDS IN A PAINTFD CONDITION ' i T.Se visual inspection of painted wolds by PTL, aut har ined by j l ! 17 l 1 I l
l Edison, was identified by NRC Inspector P. Schul in Inspection y Peport 83-21/20, Fovember 16, 1984, and closed by Inspector Jacobson in Inspection Peport 85-40/39, November 22, 1985. The Staf f of fers only the affidavit of Mr. Jacobson in support of summary disposition. Of course, Mr. Jacobson is unable to competently support facts beyond his personal knowledge such as the circumstances in which Mr. Schulz identified theso deficiencies. According to his affidavit, his review in support for summary disposit ion is founded upon two nonconformance reports not provided in the Staff papers, Edison's summary disposit ion filings and Mr. Schul:'s Inspection Report. The cuestions raised in Intervenors' February 18, 1985 Answer regarding the root cause and significance of this improper weld inspection rcmain unacknowledged and unanswered in the Staff f il ing. Summary disposition is inappropriate and should be denied. Jacchson Affidavit on Subcontention 9(A) Certain portions of M r. Jacobson's affidavit are unreliable based on: (1 ) his apparent lack of personal knowledge; (2) inadmissible hearsay: (3) speculations; (4) conclusions; and (5) impermissible opinion testimony as to the ultimate facts in this litigation. For example:
- 1. Mr. Jacobson fails to af firmatively demonstrate on the f ace of his af fidavit that ho has personal knowledoe respecting the issue to which he testified.
- 2. Paragraph 10 (entirety)
A G Whether or not Mr. Jacobson is satisfied is neither le
relevant nor probative. Such satisfaction is clearly opinion N/ testimony and seeks to reach the ultimate facts.
- 3. Paragraph 11 (last sentence)
Whether or not Mr. Jacobson is ratified is neither relevant nor probative. Fuch satisfaction is clearly opinion testimony and seeks to reach the ultimate facts.
- 4. Paragraph 12 (entirety)
Whether or not Mr. Jacobson agrees with Applicant is a matter of opinion, and is clearly inadmissible. SUBCONTENTION 9(C) FDISCN AND CO"STCCF FAILED TO PFMFDY USF AND DOCUMFMTATION OF PROPFR FFLD FILLFF MATEPIAL The gross failure by L.K. Comstock Company to control the use of weld rod for cable pan welding was identi fied by Inspectors McGregor and Schul z in Inspection Peport 84-13 of August 6, 1984, and closed by Inspector Favin Ward, Inspection Report 85-005, March 12, 1985. Pr. Ward's affidavit is offered in support of Applicant's notion for summary disposition. According to his affidavit, Mr. Ward's review was limited to Applicant's summary disposition papers, the inspection Poport which opened the iten and Applicant's response to the violation. Ward Affidavit, p. 83. The "rolated FCPs, procedures, material test report and documenta tion" (Affidavit, p. 84), are not further described or provided with the Staff'n paperc. Mr. Ward simply endorses Fdison's concl usion that no further document A review was required sinco even whern F70 rod was used when E60 (,,/ 19
x l l was specified "either rod that wan used on these field installa-
/% \V l t ions was acceptable." Ward Affidavit, p. P4 Mr. Ward simply fails to address the " generic" Comstock document discrepancy problems, their cause, or their significance.
Further, as demonstrated in Intervenorn' February 18, 1986, Answer, a genuine issue as to workmanship cuality is presentrd by the rod substitution. As former Comctock Level III we ld ing inspector Worley O. Puckett testified at deposition, "You are more likely to receive a defective weld, when F70 in used in place of E60 r od ." Puckett Deposition Tranceript, p. 330. The affidavit of the ??FC 's Fr. Ward fails to even acknowledge any workmanship basis for .he specification of the F-60 rod for the galvanized thin gauge cable pan applications. The fmC 's concl u-sory endorsement provides no additional basis for summary resolu-tion of these issuos. e Ward Affidavit on fiubcontention 9(C) I Certain portions of Mr. Ward's a f fidavi t are unrelfable based on: (1) his apparont lack of personal knowledge; (2) inadmissible hearsay; (3) npeculation; (4) conclunions;- and (5) impermissible opinion test imony ac to the ultimate factn in thic litigation. Furthermore, Mr. Ward refers to certain crudiec or other documents that are not appended to his affidavit.
- 1. Mr. Ward failn to affirmatively demonntrate on the face of hin affidavit that he han tornonal k no w l ed<p- ronpoeting the iscue to which be tontifles.
- 2. Paragraph 7 (cecond and ceventh centenco)
O 20
Mr. Ward is clearly speculating when he states that "in y addition, any unacceptable welds would likely have been identified ...." The second centence of his affidavit statos:
"The problems identified were the result of documentation e r ro r s." This is clearly speculation and opinion as to the ultimate facts. In addition, Fr. Ward speaks of certain docu-ments which are not appended to his affidavit.
j 1 Paragraph 8 (entirety) Mr. Ward's determination is clearly opinion and is opinion testimony as to the ultimate facts. Ife also refers to certain documents wh.ich are not appended to the affidavit. i SUBCONTFNTION 9(D) NEWEEPC AND PIIILLIPS-GETSCilOW WFLDING DOCUMENTI TTOt; DEFICIEt:CIFS i NFC inspectors Fehulz and McCreoor identif led examples of false and deficient weld documentation practices in Inspection Poport 85-17, October 1, 1994, clored by Inspector M. Ward in Inspection Peport 84-40/37, January 16, 1985. Very little of Mr. l Ward's a f fidavit supporting summary disposi t ion is founded upon his personal knowledge or work, lie simply endorses on an unspec-ified basis the work of others and Edison's conclusion that summary dispost t ion is approprlate. Nowhere does tbe NRC fi1ing addrens the ouestions rair.ed by Intervenors in our February 18, 1986, Answer with respect to the cause of, the false documenta-I tion, or the existence of documentat ion deficiencies stemminq from previous documentation practices. Summary dinposition is inapproprlate and should be denied. 21
% Ward Affidavit on Subcontention 9(D)
Certain por tions of Mr. Ward's a f fidavit are unreliable based on: (1) his apparent lack of personal knowledge; (2) inadmissible hearsay; (1) speculation; (4) conclusions; and (5) impermissible opinion testimony as to the ul timate facts in this litigation. For example:
- 1. Fr. Ward fails to affirmatively demonstrate on the face of his affidavit that he has personal knowledge respecting the issue to which he testifies.
- 2. Paragraph 6 Because Mr. Ward lacks personal knowledge, the entirety of paragraph 6 is hearsay. In addition, paracraphs 7, 8, 9, and 10 are hearsay. ,
- 3. Paragraph 11 (entirety beyond first sentence)
Whether Mr. Ward agrees is neither relevant nor proba-tive. It is opinion testimony. 4 Paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 (entirety) Decause Mr. Ward lacks personal knowledge, the informa-tion contained in these paragraphs is hearnay.
- 4. Paragraphs 15, _16, 17 and 18 (entirety)
Because Mr. Ward locks personal knowledae with respect to these occurrences, thene paragraphs constitute hearsay. Additionally, Mr. Ward's opinions are conclunory and seek to reach the ultimate facts. ' O 22
SUBCONTFUTION 10(F) (y GROSS INSPFCTION ERF0FS BY BOX LOCATION L.F. COMSTOCF IN EI.FCTPTCAL JUNCTTON 4 FPC inspector Kropp , identified this item in Inspection i Peport 85-15/16 on May 16, 1985, and closed the item in ! Inspection Report 85-32/21 on October 4, 1985. In supporting Applicant's summary disposition rotion, Mr. Kropp does no more than recite his closure of the item based on acceptance of the Applicant's corrective action. As asserted in our February 19, 1986, Answer, no ef for t was made to explain the reason for this 1
, gross inspection discrepancy. Thus there is no basis for j assuming, as do Edison and NFC, the deficiency is " isolated" to this offending inspector alone. Summary disposi t ion should be !
denied. Kropp Affidavit on Subcontention 10(P) Certain portions of Mr. Kropp's a f fidavit are unreliable 2 based on: (1) inadmissiblo conclusions; (2) crecufs t ion; (1) I impermissibic opinions as to the ultimate facts in t his litigation. For example:
- 1. paragraph 7 (last sentence)
Mr. Kropp's determinations are opinion and therefore unreliable. I
- 2. Paragraph 8 (entirety beyond first centence) 1 1 The reasons for closing this it em of noncompliance and whether the isson was an isolated case or representn a i
i significant breakdown is opinion testfrony, and is therefore unrellable. I i 23
,1
- 3. Paragraph 10 (entirety)
Whether or not Mr. Kropp agrees with Applicant is neither relevant nor probativo. SUBCONTENTIONF 12(F), (F), (J) E. FAILUBE BY PPAIDWOOD CONSTPUCTTON ASFFSSMENT PROGPAM (UCAP) TO IDENTIFY AND COPPFCT IMPROPER USE OF LEVFL I OC INSPFCTORS IN A TIMELY AND FFFECTIVE MANNFP F. IMPROPER SARGENT & LUNDY (S&L) INVALIDATION OF 37 DCAP OBSEPVATIONS J. INDETERMINATE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSTRUCTION SAMPLING PEINSPECTIONS (CSR) UNDER BCAP These three amended ouality assurance contention subparts, 12E, F and J, cite specific significant deficiencies in the Braidwood Construct ion Ancensment Program (DCAP). In our May 24, F 1985, Motion To Admit Amended Quality Accurance Contention, pp. e-11, we identified serious flawn in the major corrective action programs at Braidwood, including PCAP and questioned PCAP's effectivononn to remedy the historic OA bronkdown at the plant. In its November 22, 19PS, Partial Posponse to Intervenorc' Second Set of Interrogatories and Pequests to Produce, npecific interrogatory 7, Commonweal th Edison identi fied BCAP as relevant to contention cubparts 18, 12E, 12F, and 12J: CPCo presently intends to rely upon the fact t hat rho PCAP wan per formed, and t ha t the PCAP was performed nubject to qualiey annurance overcight, in responding to contention item 10. These f acts will be uned ac ovidence of CPCo's tranagement'n involvement in and rupport of the CPCo OA program, and as evidence of manaqement'n com m i t men t to innure that all n1fety-related activi tien per formed by contractors' pernonnel are in accordance with reculations, coden, O ctandardn, and licenne rooutrements. ... CECO 2A
dees not presently intend to rely upon the DCAP results and conclusions as evidencing the ability of safety-related parts, components, or [~Y systems to meet regulatory recuirements or perform their intended sa fety function ... This position could, of course, change in whole or in part over t i m e ' ... Td., pp. 3-4. Although the NPC's Mr. Gardner promises a final NBC BCAP Inspection Deport "to be issued. in early February 1986," (Gardnor Affidavit, 12J, p. 128), no such report has yet been published. BCAP-related items, thus, remain open. The Staff's final written position on DCAP is as yet unavailable. A premise underlying the schedule in this proceeding is that corrective action programs relevant to Intervenors' quality assurance contention would be completed, including a final written NPC Sta f f position, "in sufficient time to pc rmit an adequate oppor tunity for discovery." Joint Motion To Fevice Hearing Schedule, October le, 1985, p. 1. "Should this accump-tion prove incorrect in the future, councel for the respective parties are prepared on an informal banin to adjust the discovery deadlines to provide for such discovery." Id., p. 3. On thin ground, aside from all others, nummary disposition of BCAP issues prior to an adequate opportunity for discovery after the NPC's yet unpublished BCAP inspection report must be rejected an premature. Mr. Cardner's a f fidavit c endorsing rdinon's nummary disposi-tion motion on these contention cubparts fall to addrena the sig n i f i c a n t. unresolvod icnues detailed in Intervenors' Pebruary 18, 1986, Answer. Summary disponi t ion of r hone nerfoun unresolved O 25
- auestions regarding the effectiveness of the PCAP program is l
Ny wholly inappropriate. { (V ! Cardner's Affidavit on Subconteerion 12(F) Certain portions of M r. Gardner's affidavit are unreliable I based on: (1) inadmissible speculation; (2) conclusions; and (1) impermissible opinion testimony as to the ultimate facts in this litigation. For example:
- 1. Paragraph 9 (entirety)
Since the item of noncompliance is not yet closed out, whether or not it will be is clea rly specula t ion on Mr. Ga rdner's part.
- 2. Paragraph 10 (entirety)
Whether or not Mr. Cardner agrees with Applicant is mere opinion. Gardner's Affidavit on Subcontention 12(F) Certain portions of Mr. Cardner's affidavit based on: (1) hearsay; (?) inadmissible conclurions; (3) imperminsible opinions as to the ultimate facts; and (4) speculation. For example:
- 1. Paregraph 8 (entirety)
Mr. Cardner's ctatementn as to what Applicant said is inadmissible boarsay.
- 2. _Paraaraph 9 (firnt sentence)
Mr. Cardner's statements of conclusory opinion are unrollable.
- 3. Paragraph 10 (entirety) p As to the adecuacy of Applicant's corrective actionn, Y
2c l
i l l review and evaluation of PCAP observations, Mr. Cardner 's 1 statements are mere opinion and are conclusions as to the ulti-(7 mate issue. ] I 4. Paracraph 11 (entirety) The final DCAP Inspection Report has not been issued. i Statements as to the closure of item in mere speculation. The item remains open. j Cardner'r Affidavit on Subcontention 12(J) l Certain portions of Mr. Gardner's affidavit are unreliable < i based on: (1) failure to effirmatively demonctrate competence to j testify on the matters based on personal knowledge; and (2) impermissible expressions of opinion as to the ultimate facts.
- 1. Paragraph 7 (entirety)
Mr. Gardner's testimony regarding the CAT inspection ic bearsay, not founded upon personal knowledqe.
- 2. Paracraph 12 (entirety) i !
j Mr. Cardncr'n cratements arc opin 0n as to the ul t imate 8 i facts and are therefore unreliable. Ilic opinion that this item { will be closed in the final BCAP innpoetion rerort ir rere specu- i lation. The item remains open. t
- SURCOPTFMTToti 13(P) i i SAPGFNT 4 LUNDY (S&L) WAS UNADLF TO JUSTIFY TIIP UFE OF Tile "PIII" DESICH FACTOP TN CFPTAIN POUNDING CAFFS D(It' TO IPPFTPTFVAPLF, l IPCCMPLETE AND IFADEODATF CALCULATIO!!P 1
In response to concerns raised by intervenorn' witnern in the Dyron proceedinq, UFC Inspector Muffett ident i find thin 27 i
design documentation deficiency in Insreetion Peport 84-43/39 on March 15, 1985, and closed the item in Innpection Peport 85-40, Povember 22, 1985. Pr. Puffett's affidavit endorsing currary disposition adds no new facts beyond those advanced by Edison, and totally fails to addrenn issuon identified by interveners' February 18, 1986, Answer which remain unresolved. The NPC still has failed to identify the root caure of the document retriev-ability de ficiency as well as the root cause of the design control deficiency reflected in the failure of S&I's standardc to identify bounding cases which would recuire uniace detailed analynic. Thc significance and impl icat ions of t hese S&I. d iscr e-pancies cannnot be resolved on sum m ary d i nposi t ion. Muffett's Affidavit on Subcon*ention 13(P) Certain portiens of Mr. Muffett's affidavit are unreliable because they are conclusory and expresc opinionc as to the ulti-mate facts. For example:
- 1. Paraaraph 10 (entiretv)
Mr. Puf f et t 's opinion av to the extent of the deficiency and its significance reprenent mere opinion on the ultimate innue which must be decided by t he- Poard. SUBCOt!TENTION 14(P)(1), (2), f3), At:D (4) IN INSPECTION PFPOPT 8?-09, TI!r NPC ICEtJTIFTED PAILUFFF PY Tl8F DPAICWCOD OUALITY ASSUPANCF PPOGPAMF TO IPPPTIFY DFFICIrtfCIFS IF A TIPEI.Y MANNEP TifDOUCH t CCMPPFHFt'SIVF AND FFFFCTTVP SYSTFM OF AUDITS BY
- 1. Tl!E MECHANICAL CO!!TPACTOP, Pif f t LIPS-GFTSCif 0W CCMPAt1Y w
- 2. TPE FLFCTPTCAL COf'TPACTCP, L.F. COMPTOCK COMPANY 28
--v - - - - - , - , - - - r-,,.,-.,,-... ,-_% ,,,,,,,.,..,,r -
-------=---------'-~---'-'-e--w--'--~-------*----------~'--T +--e-+-'*
- 3. TFE HVAC CONTPACTOP, PULLMAP COPSTPUCTION TNDUSTDIES, AND
- 4. COMMONWEALTH FDISON, ITSELF The NBC Staff's endorsement of Pd i son's summary disposi t ion argument fails to address the unresolved issues identified in Intervenors' February 10, 1986, Answer with respect to contention
- 14. In essence, the 14(B) noncompl iances for violation of the Appendix P " Audit" Criterion, XVIII, reflect Edison and its contractors' failure to identify and correct a number of other serious violations identified by the NPC in Inspection Peport 03-09, May 7, 1984. As NPC Inspector Schulz put it:
Any Level IV violationc and above should be identified by the contractor or the licennee. And that's my personal philosophy. I would say the audits did not meet those goals. Schulz Deporition Transcript, p. 340. In his May 7, 19P4 letter of trannmittal for Increction Peport 83-09, NFC Pegional Administrator James Feppler character-ized rho substantivo findings as follows: The major factorn contr ibut ing to the deficiencies were inadeauate contractor programs and workmanship, inadeoute licennee reviewn of the contractor procrams, and inadeoute licennee cuality ancorance everview to encure contractor activities met all recuirements. The violations indicate.the need for more aggrecsive CFCo management involvement and nupport of the CFCo OA program to ensuro that all rafoty related activities performed by contractor personnel are in accordance with the reoulations, coden, standards and license requirementn. Id.,at p. 2. The NPC Ft a f f ' S clonoro of t he itemn of noncompliance re fl ec t ed in nubparts 14(P)(1), (?) and (3) fail to reco1ve the corious cuect ions of nigni ficance and impiicarionn 29
1 l j raised by the occurrence of these audit deficiencien an arqued in Intervenors' February IR, 1996, Annwer. l l l The sole new "f ac t" presented by tbe NPC in support of i i summary disposition with recrect to nubcontention 14 in their ! withdrawal of the violation identified in nubcontention 14(P)(4). l l February 13, 1986, Letter, Papperille (NPr) to need (CECO) Fxhibit 14(B)(4)-4 to NFC f;t a f f Perponne, i By affidavit, Mr. Puffett of the NPC arcer ts "Py incportion l I of Appl icant 's audi t records confirmed ther contrary to what Vr. t Yin had been told the audits of there certcin activitien had been ! timely and a d e a ua t e ." Puffett Affidavit, p. 172. Thin ; i . conclusion is in apparent conflict with the opinion of Mr. Yin, j and indeed, the opinion stated by Mr. Puffett himsolf at deposi-l tior. Pr. Yin terr i fied that regardlern of timinq the audits l l performed were nonetheless inadeouate becaune they failed to ; identify the deficiencien he bad found. Yin Deponition Transcript, p. 126-78. Mr. Puffett, who wan precent during Mr. Yin's depocition, was cuentioned on thin very nubject: l h~ i 0: And you board Mr. Yin tertify that having been l aware of thono audirn, he nonetbolonn held to hic : conclusion that the auditing bad been inadeouote' A: That's true. l 0: Do you dicpute hir conclunion? A: I don't dispute bic conclusion, no. At botton, then, proof of the edequacy of the auditn wo t' I d have been the timely and effective iden t i f ica t ion by I'd i tion o r 1 its contractor of the deficiencion found by t he NPC. If any-i O' 30 I i +
i l J J l li thing, the withdrawal of this item of noncompliance by the 1:PC > simply clouds the issue, yet hardly entablishes the appropriate-ness of summary disposition. For reasonc ntated in Intervenor's j February 18, 1986, Answer, summary disposit ion should be denied, l 1 ) Schulz's tffidavit on Subcontention 14(D)(1) i Certain portions of Mr. Schulz's affidavit cru unreliable ! i based on: (1) hearsay with respect to acttons by others not i l within his personal knowledge; (2) rtatements of opinion as to the ultimate facts. For example: t j 1. Paragraph 6 (entirety) i M r. f;chulz's descriorion of what Applicant "de t e r m i nod ," 1 l j what Applicant took into account, and "t he purpore of Applicant's 1 I ! verification" in otviously founded not on personal knowledge but ! 1 upon hearsay. ;
- 2. Paraoraph 8 (entirety)
Mr. Fc t'e17's expressionc of opinion as to efficiency of l f Applicant'n corrective action" in mero opinion as to the ultimate ' 1 facts. I Pelke'n Affidavit on rubcontention 14(P)(?) Certain portions of Mr. Polke's affidavit are unrollable based on: (1) lack of competenco founded on fornonal knowledge; (2) speculation; (') inadmicribio oxproccionc of opinion on the i i ultimate issues.
- 1. Paraqraph 5 Mr. Pelk<'c nt a temef n t of aqreement. tepresentr opinion, i
l 1 11
- 7. Paragraph 7 (7 Mr. Pelke's description of Applicant's statements and actions constitute hearsay and do not appear to be founded upon personal knowledge.
- 3. Paragraph 9 Mr. Pel ke's sta tement s on to the purponn of Applicant's surveillance is mere speculation. Fin statement that "these audits compensate for any auditing inadcouacy ..." presents conclusory opinion on the ultimate facts.
4 Paragraph 11 M r. Pol ke 's opi n ion is conclusory, w i thout identifica-tion of adeouate supporting-facts. The audits in cuestion are neither identified in any detail, nor appended to the Ftaff'n filing.
- 5. Paragraph 12 (last sentence)
M r. Pelke's doncription of what will happen in the future is rere creculation. This item remains oren.
- 6. Paragraph 11 Mr. Pol ke'c cratomentn with recard to his acr oement with Applicant on cuertions of rionificance are mere conclusory opinionc on the ultimate inroe.
Schulz'n Affidavit on subcontent ion 14(D)(3) Certain portions of Mr. Schul?'c affidavit are unrollable boced on exproccion of opinion and cerclusions r en a r d i nti the ultimate incue.
- 1. Paragraph r, (lant nentence)
Mr. rehul z'n exprencion of natinifaction in mero ripinion 32
as to adequacy. It is conclusory and reflects the ultimate insuo r"', (_/ which must be determ ined.
- 2. Paragraph 7 Mr. Schulz's expression of opinion in unreliable, conclusory and expresses opinions on the ultimate issue. It i s description of the " evaluation by Applicant" is hearnay. The document is not appended to the Sta f f's filing.
- 3. Paragraph 8 Mr. Schulz further exprenres an opinion ac te the thoroughness of the hearsay evaluation, conclunions as to the significance of Pullman's pant audit failurec. This conctituten mere opinion on the ultimate issue for decision.
- 4. Paraaraph 9 Mr. Schulz'r opinion as to the niquificance of thene deficienciec, again, in opinion on tbc ultimate icnue for decision.
Muffett'n Affidavit on Subcontention 14(D)(A) Mr. Muffett'n affidavit, in part, in unreliable baned on: (1) hearsay and (2) exprencionc of opinion on the ultimate inrue.
- 1. Paragraph 5 (entirety)
Mr. Muf fet t 'n dencr ipt ion of wha t Mr. Yin found and what Mr. Yin beiinved in obvioucly henrnay and not foun<ted unon personal knowledoe.
- 2. Paragraph r3 Mr. Muf fet t 'n nt atenent e an to what "Mr. Yin bad been told" in pure hearray, not founded upon Fernonal knowledqe.
33
1 -
- i i t
- 3. Paragraph 7 l i
M r. Muffett's statements with regard to the validity of a violation and its significance represents conclusory opinion on ! the ultimate issue for decision. 1 i CONCI.USIOP ! I l l ' i For.the forecoing reasons, Applicant's motion for rummary l disposition should t'e denied. DATFD: March 5, 1986 Despectful1y ruhmitted, I
. ((
4 Pot'e r t Gthd r f One of the Attonneyn for 4 Intervenora Dorem, et al. 1 t l l l l l l Douglass W. Cannel, Jr. ! Pohert Guild Timothy W. Wright, III 109 tiorth Dearborn 501te 1300 Chicago, filinoic 60602
- (312) 641-Sc70 34
l -
,.<=%, ur.litD STAILS l -8 % NUCLEAR REGULATOnv COMMISSION ATTACilMENT _1_
i %N,..'dj ^; nacios m i 5 f3-
< ,, unost ve t , n onn co rn t L L v e., itut4or e.oi n
- s . % -
Y ***** s r ebruary 20, 1986 l l l Dccb et No. 50-456 l Docket No. 50-457 Comonwealth Edison Ccmpany ATTN: Mr. Cordell Peed Vice President Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 i Reference (a) R. F. Warnick letter to C. Reed dated March 8, 1985 l (b) D. L. Farrar letter to J. G. Keppler dated May 6, 1935 (c) C. E. Norelius letter to C. Reed dated June 27, 1985 Gentlemen: In our letter to you dated June 27, 1985, wa advised you that we were reviewing your position stated in your letter dated May 6,1985 responding to Violation 1 of the Notice of Violation (NOV) transmitted tc you by our letter dated March 8, 1935. Our review of your position versu; the requirements of ANSI /.5.2.6 for Level I and II inspectors included sceking guidance from NRC Headquarters, and evaluating industry practice and discussing the aatter with past and present neders of the A*iS145.2.6 Connittee. . We have concluded that the correct interpretation of A'iS145.2.6 inspection ! requirements is as follows: l l A Ievel i inspnctor nay perfora in;pections to an approved procerore, rNord i the insp<:ction results and accept the results as pr ovided t4y the procedure. A Level 11 or !!! inspector is tequired to evaluate the level I inspector's inspection results for validity and acceptability. The evaluation for validity and acceptability shall it.clude reviewing the inspection data sheets and reports, and a periodic observation of tht level I wori performance in the field. We have reviewed our fiOV and the related inspection report details (Inspection Feport 50-456/85-506; 50-457/85-006, Details Section 3). We have ccncluded i that the NOV did not clearly eipress our inspector's primary concern as stated l on page 3 of the Report Details, "...the thicst of this issue concerns the l acceptability of inspections perforr.ed and accepted solely by Level ! QC inspectors," Our NOV should have been written citing the failure of the Level 11 inspectors to review the Level I inspection results for validity ard accept a t,i l i ty. Recent inspections in which we intervinted those who were the t Level !! inspectors during the period of concern have indicated that the level !! review was directed toward confirming that the inspection records were properly filled out, not directed toward assurin0 the validity and acceptability of the ins;>ection data. This additional information will be documented in the next inspection report written by John Jacobson. l l t
/
c4 s 2 february 20, 1986 Corran-ealth Edison Ccepany Based on the ahve we have concluded that the subject violation is valid. The corrective aca ]n cescribed in your May 6, 1985 letter appears to be adequate. We will review your corrective actions during future inspections. Your cc0pera' .)n with us is appreciated. Sincerely, f?b' tu w !: ky-Charl.s E. fiorelius, Director Division of Reactor Projects cc: D. L. farrar, Director j ' of huclear Licensing M. Wallace, Project Manager D. Sharblin, Construction Superintendent E. L. Fitzpatrick, Station Superintendent P. L. Barnes. Regulatory Assurar.ce Supervisor DCS/95L (RIUS) Licene.ing Fee Manager:ent Brar;<.h Resident Inspector, Rill Braidnood Fesident inspestor, Rll' Byron Phyllis Dunton, Attorney General's Office, Environ: ental < Control Division D. W. Cassel, Jr., Esq. J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public Utilities Division H. L. Taylcr, Cuality Assurance Division E. Chen, ELD J. Moore, ELD G. Perry, FLD J. Steven:,, hkR The Honor able l'erbert Grow.an, A'it.B The lionorable A. Dina. Cc Ilihan, A5Lb The lionorab!c Richard F. Cole, ASLB
-------3
.p ._ . . _
ATTACIL'fENT 2 LDP-CS-
.W" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA fl' 1 htCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION 9efere Administrative Judges:
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Kenneth A. McCollem Dr. Walter H. Jordan Herbert Grossman, Esq.
. )
In the Matter of ) Occket Nos. 50-445-OL & OL-2
) 50-446-OL & OL-2
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.) (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
--) ASLOP No. 79-430-06 OL -
)
Units 1 and 2) )
) November 11, 1985 MEMORANDUM (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling) l The purpose of this memorandum is to raise Board concerns about the l
l apprcach to statistical inference apparently being used by the Comanche Peak Response Tean (CPRT).I Although the Staff of the Nuclear Regula-tory Comission (Staff) is folicwing this issue closely, we are raising our concerns at this time so that they will not beccme a source of delay should evidence gathered by the CPRT be introduced at a later stage of this case. l Our concern is that we have not seen a clear statement of how Applicants have designed their sarpling studies. We expect I See Transcript of Meeting Between NRC Staff [(Staff)] and Texas l l Utilities Generating Company [(Applicants)] to Discuss the Official l Inspection of Painted Support Welds, September 17, 1985; Transcript of Public IIearing, Plantation Inn, Granbury, Texas, October 2 and 3,1985[betweenApplicantsandStaff]. i fm l l Y \ T\ W. Ygk\
r u q Statistical Inference: 2 that evidence from which the Board is asked to draw a statistical inference should include, in effect, the following elements :
- 1. Statement of the hypothesis and assumptions,
- 2. Statement of the level of significance chosen,
- 3. The test statistic and critical region,
- 4. Presentation of any computation [or reference to a verified
- 5. A full statement of the conclusions.
The most important reason for adhering to this general fomulation is that it clearly displays the relationship between the problem being addressed ard the resolution of the problem. For example, if the problem is verifying that wiring has been properly installed in the Comanche Peak Station, then one must decide how to construct the sample of wiring to assure that all the wiring has been properly installed. If everything about wire installation is the same, then it might be proper to treat all the wiring as the same population and take a single sample. If, however, certain wiring requires far more complex procedures for installation, then it might be necessary to utilize a stratified sample that will permit generalization about the complex procedures looked at by themselves. If the procedures are indeed more complex, then one ' l I l 2 This particular formula tion of requirements is from Wilfrid J. Dixon and Frank J. Ksssey, Jr., Introduction to Statistical Analysis; _ Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, hew York (1983) at 8C However, the general principles expressed are believed by the Board to be comon knowledge among statisticians. O - l l 1
q Statistical Inference: 3 would not make inferences that because simpler tasks havn been done properly that the complex must have been done properly as well. Similarly, if it is alleged that certain quality assurance inspec-tors or certain c ra f t personnel were not qualified, one would seek a stratified sample of their work in order to determine whether each of the questioned employees perforred adequately. Although the sample might not include the work of every ' .ch questioned person (we do not reach a conclusion concerning whether each person's work wculd need to be included), it would have to be 3dequate to draw inferences about the work of each questioned inspector. One likely would not draw inferences about a few questioned inspectors by sampling work that was generally dane by cualified personnel . There is no basis for generalizing frcm the work of prinarily qualified personnel to the work of unqualified personnel. Special problers cay be caused by changes in personnel over time. For example, it is not clear that cne could generalize fron work per-forned under Mr. Tolson to work perferred under his predecessors, or l vice versa. Along the same lines, if there was a time period in which l l the audit function was neglected, it might not be possible to generalize i about that time geriod from work perfor ed in other time periods. 3 See Tr. (Plantation Inn) at 79. We 'each no conclusion about the correctness of Mr. Calvo's point. L, I v
- s. . , . . - . ";
Statistical Inference: 4 G With respect to the statement of the hypothesis and assumptions (step 1), it is apparent to the Board that a sample must be carefully structured if an inference is to be drawn to rebut the existence of a problem already detected by the Staff or by the Applicants. Genera l ly, unstratified sanples are unlikely to prove to be persuasive with respect to specific, identified problems. A hard question also must be posed about the level of saf t ty that must be assured. With an adequate Appendix B program, there undoubtedly would be some oversights and deficiencies. The project is too large to be perfect. However, if the Board is to be persuaded that there was Sanged by adequate quality assurance program, then a sample must be adequate !aani at utset of (given the level of confidence permitted by statistical inference from est-lun:h closely approximate earing on the sample) to / the level of safety contemplated by Appendix 8. 10/12/35 If that level of safety cannot be assured, the plant fail to meet Appendix 8 requirements and to would appear to3require the granting of an exemption from Appendix B pursuant '.o 10 CFR 2.758. Addi .ionally, to the extent that the FSAR makes promises about the applicability of particular codes, the purpose of the review program is to determine whether those comitments were met. If comitments were not met, then the Station mst be corrected or the Staff must determine whether it is appropriate to permit an amendment of the FSAR. We seek the corrnents of the parties concerning the points made in this memorandum, including the points about stratified sampling, cali-bration of the sample concerning allowable levels of safety, the need to p relate specific problems (hypotheses) to the sample, and the possible ( l V i
( Statistical Inference: 5 need for an exemption from Appendix 8. Parties may file their responses l so that they are received by the Board during calendar year 1985. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Feter B. Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE I Bethesda,' Maryland f 1 l
3/6/06 UNTTED STATFS OF AMPPTCA NUCLEAP PFGULATORY COMt1ISS Tot' PEFOPE Tl!E ATOMIC SAFFTY AND I.T C FtJ S I N G BOAPD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMCNF P A LTil FDISON COMPANY ) Docket t'o . 50-456
) 90-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power )
Station, Units 1 and ?) ) CFFTIFIC"F PF S F HV T CI' I hereby certify that I have norved copier of Intervenorn' Ferronce to t'FC 9taff Filino Fupportinq Applicant'n Motion For Summary Dinposit ion on each party to this proceeding as listed on the attached Service List, by having raid copien placed in envelopen, properly cadrenced and pontaged (first clenn), and deposited in the U.S. mail on thir 6th day of March, 1486; except that the Licencinq Poard and NPC Staff Counnel Mr. Treby j i l were cerved via Federal Express overniqht delivory and Edison l l counsel M r. Miller was nerved by rnennonaer. '
\ g4Les/es u V
1 l
-\ l
' r ,/
PPBIDWOOD SFFVICF LIST Herbert Grossman, Psa. Michael I. Miller, Psq. Chairman and Administrative Judge Peter Thornton, Esc. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Inhar, Lincoln & Peale U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commincion Three First National Plaza Washington D.C. 20555 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Pichard F. Cole Docketing & Service Snction Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20555 n Dixon Calj1%dn C. Allen Dock, Esq. Adm1 strpMve Judge P.O. Box 342 102 O k baae Urbana, Illinois 6]P01 03k Ridge, Tenqessee 37830 , Bridget Little Forem Stuart Treby, Esc. 117 North Linden Street NFC Staff Counsel Essex, Illinois 60935 U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Foad Thomas J. Gordon, Eco. Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Waller, Evans & Gordon 2503 South Neil Joseph Gallo, Esc. Champaign, Illinois 61020 Isham, Lincoln F. Peale 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.J. forraine Creek Suite 1100 Ponte 1, Fox 182 Washington D.C. 20036 Mantono, Illinois 60950 Pegion III office of Inspection & A. Dixon Callihan Fnforcement Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory c/o Louis Joliet Renaissance Commission Center 799 Poosevelt Pond 214 N. Ottawa Glen Fllyn, Illinois 60317 Joliet, IL 60431 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear kegulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555}}