ML20210E632
| ML20210E632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1983 |
| From: | Morrill P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Schierling H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209C222 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 TAC-48045, NUDOCS 8609250059 | |
| Download: ML20210E632 (9) | |
Text
'
,....-.a....
......wa.
..a
...s-....
.5'
'f (k2 KICg 8
UNITED STATES 4
o,,
8 ) )".r,( 3 g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ,-(
/.; j REGION V O -
g 1450 MARIA LANE. SUITE 210
%,.'%/
,d WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 JUL 211983
[
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. E. Schierling, Project Manager, NRR, HQ THRU:
T. Bishop, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 2 D. Kirsch, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 3 FROM:
P. Morrill, Reactor Inspector
SUBJECT:
REGION V INPUT FOR DIABLO CANYON SER SUPPLEMENT The purpose of this memorandum is to forward a copy of the Diablo Canyon SER i
Supplement input requested by Mr. Eisenhut's memo of' June 22, 1983 (TAC 48045-PA 1111). This material, which is enclosed was previously telecopied to you by Region V on July 13, 1983, to comply with the due date.
l 6VM#
. J. Morrill i
Reactor Inspector j
Enclosure:
As stated i
cc:
D. G. Eisenhut, NRR, HQ G. W. Knighton, NRR, HQ i
l i
i e'
e 1!
I s
1 6
s i
I' 86092500S9 860916 PDR hMESG~~131
,7--..y-.,,,-.7....,..,
.7.,...-,....-,...,..
- -....:......~Y ~..l.'..T.LT: T L L a.
~ ~:1.2..
^
^ ^~
-'~ ^
l EVALUATION OF PARTICIPANTS IN IDVP, REGARDING FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS BACKGROUND j
In late September 1981, based on the discovery of errors related to the seismic analysis of the annulus area of the containment, the NRC issued an order (CLI-81-31, dated November 19, 1981) which suspended the licensee's low power license pending completion of an independent design verification program for seismic service related contracts. On the same date NRR requested that an independent design verification program for all non-seismic service related contracts as well as for the licensee's internal design activities be conducted prior to issuance of an operating license above five percent power.
CRITERIA AND EVOLUTION In a letter-dated November 13, 1981, Concressmen Ottinger and Dingle had expressed concerns regarding the maintenance of independence and elimination
{
of conflicts of interest with the personnel conducting the independent design verification. In a subsequent letter dated February 1,1982, the commission responded to these concerns by stating that, "The most important factor in NRC's evaluation of the individuals or companies proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric to complete the required design verification program is their i
competencer This competence must be based on knowledge and experience in the matters under review. These individuals or companies should also be independent. Independence means that the individuals or companies selected i
must be able to provide an objective, dispassionate technical judgement, provided solely on the basis of technical merit.
Independence also means that the design verification program must be conducted by companies or individuals not previously involved with the activities at Diablo Canyon that they will now be reviewing. Their integrity must be such that they are regarded as rcputable companies or individuals." The Commission, in the same letter, also i
provided criteria to be used to assure independence: "The competence of the i
individuals or companies is the most important factor in the selection of an l
auditor. Also, the companies or individuals may not have had any direct previous involvement with the activities at Diablo Canyon that they will be i'
reviewing. In addition, the following factors will be considered in evaluating the question of independence:
1.
Whether the individuals or companies involved had been previously hired by PG&E to do similiar seismic design work.
l 2.
Whether any individual involved had been previously employed by PG&E (and 3
the nature of the employment).
t 3.
Whether the individual owns or controls significant amounts of PG&E l
stock.
i 4.
Whether membeits of the present household of individuals involved are employed by PGEE.
5.
Whether any relatives are employed by PG&E in a management capacity."
l t
i
'..... m....
_ _,.._,,y...s..
....,_..y.-,..
_....___......__~......_._..___.....;.....___...._.. _.. _.
.. e_t. _.
(-
j The above quoted criteria and policy have been used by the NRC in evaluating i
the indendence and competence of the individuals,and companies conducting the independent design verification. Based on this perspective the NRC Staff accepted Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) as program manager with R. L. Cloud and Associates (RLCA), Stone and Webster Corporation (SWEC), and l
1 R. F. Reedy Incorporated (RFR) as major participants of the Independent l
Verification Program (IDVP). This selection was based on an examination of technical and professional qualifications as well as an evaluation of I
financial dependence upon PG&E, and was documented in the NRC/ Licensee /IDVP i
meeting of March 25, 1982.
l J
At the above meeting TES committed to submit a procedure relating to pctential or apparent conflicts of interest of individuals. The draft of this procedure, which utilized the previously quoted Commission's criteria, was 4
5 provided to the NRC by TES on April 5,1982. This procedure and the associated documentation requirements were accepted by the NRC. A significant change to this procedure occured in September 1982 when the NRC requested that Bechtel be included with PG&E in the conflict of interest procedure and
- }
statements. This was due to the formation of the Diablo Canyon project team by PG&E which included both PG&E and Bechtel personnel.
The Region V office of the NRC has conducted inspections related to independence from November 1981 through January 1983. This effort is
]
documented in NRC inspection reports as described below.
EXAMINATION OF INDEPENDENCE
~
l R. L. CLOUD AND ASSOCIATES The examination of independence and competence of RLCA personnel was conducted during the conduct of NRC Inspection Reports 50-275/82-01, 32-20, 82-32, and 83-04.
(
An examination of organization, technical depth, qualifications of i
individuals, and relationship to PG&E was conducted during Inspection Report i
50-275/82-02 which occured from November 13, 1981 through January 8, 1982.
During Inspection Report 50-275/82-20 on May 13, 1982, the inspector verified adequate implementation of the IDVP plan at the RLCA offices by examining the RLCA files and procedures, including the draft non-conflict of interest forms and procedure.
' ?
On October 4, 1982, while conducting Inspection Report 50-275/82-32 the NRC staff examined the completed non-conflict of interest forms for 40 individuals, resumes of 25 individuals, and conducted eleven confidential inte rviews. The inspector concluded that RLCA personnel employed in the IDVP i
had previous minor involvement with PG&E (the seismic interaction study), that one current and one former employee had worked for Bechcel prior to 1980, and i
i that one RLCA employee's father owned 63 shares of PG&E stock. The inspector observed that the individuals currently working in the IDVP stated that they
[
feel no pressure to suppress findings, that these people appeared competent and experienced in the matters under review by their office, and that the personnel who had worked for Bechtel had a variety of other work experience.
t l.
- **=9 8=* *p * * *d'****yT*1*
- y * #" ***.***Wu"
- y**"-*9.*****'**"*"**9'***
- ***upa.esme=um
- wes
..._._....._.i 4.~.. ; i _. ~
t 9 r.T.r. i. ~ '...... _.
.._.2..
R
.- J 3
j 6
l
-i l
On January 25, 1983, during Inspection Report 50-275/83-04, the N'RC Region V inspectors examined independence and qualification of RLCA personnel at the RLCA cast coast office. The inspectors observed that one RLCA employee had worked for Bechtel from 1972 through 1977 on the Midland and FFTF projects.
These projects are unrelated to Diablo Canyon, PG&E, and the IDVP.
Confidential interviews with these personnel indicated they were not affected by their prior involvement with Bechtel.
4 Based on these examinations, which included an examination of the independence
?jl and competence of more than 80 percent of the RLCA personnel working on the IDVP, the NRC staff concluded that RLCA as a company and it's employees individually posessed adequate independence and competence to conduct their j
portion of the IDVP.
i TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
,j i
NRC Inspection Reports 50-275/82-20, 82-30, 82-32, and 83-04 document the NRC examination of independence and competence of TES.
During Inspection Report 50-275/82-20 (May 6, 1982) an inspector visited the 1
TES Hayward, California office to examine qualification of personnel and 4
adherence to independence requirements. Based on the information available at i
that time the inspector concluded that the Hayward office would have little involvement in the IDVP, although personnel of that office did possess appropriate mechanical and engineering qualifications to conduct IDVP work.
- i During the period May 25-26, 1982, NRC inspectors examined the independence j
and qualifications of TES personnel in Waltham, Massachusetts. At that time i
the examination' included nine confidential interviews, an examination of twenty-four conflict of interest statements, and a review of contracts between
.+
TES and PG&E. The inspectors concluded that TES adequately demonstrated both i
corporate and individual independence.
l Subsequently as a result of additional IDVP activities assigned to the TES l
Hayward office, (during Inspection Report 50-275/82-32, on October 5, 1982) an NRC inspector conducted further examinations of the TES Hayward office to
'j address new personnel. This ex' amination included an examination of seven conflict of interest statements, six resumes, and five confidential interviews. This effort verified that the TES personnel in Hayward had adequate independence and were competent to perform the IDVP activities i
assigned to them.
')
During Inspection Report 50-275/82-30, September 15-16, 1982, the NRC staff reexamined the independence documentation, resumes, and conducted confidential interviews at the TES Waltham office to address new personnel. Documentation 1
relating to TES personnel (including six consultants) who were assigned to the l
IDVP since June 1, 1982 were examined. The examination included an examination of 20 conflict of interest statements, 14 resumes, and l
16 confidential interviews. The staff did observe that four TES employees had or were working on one or more of five projects with Bechtel. These projects were examined and found to be unrelated to Diablo Canyon, PG&E, and the IDVP.
I Based on these examinations the NRC staff verified that there was no confifet of interest between TES and PG&E/Bechtel, that the IDVP personnel feel no pressure to suppress findings, and that the TES IDVP personnel are competent and experienced.
'...,m....-.-...-e.m_.-.
...-.__,.m-.---.
-.r 2
__... ~ J.. _.. 1 :.1 ~1_..
.. _... _ r. C.-
~
~
4
~5 As a part of the inspection effort described above the staff also examined the corporate financial independence of TES from Bechtel with the conclusion that TES business with Bechtel (5 out of 244 active projects, and less than 0.1 percent of total sales) represents a small portion of the overall TES r
business.
Again on January 27, 1983, during Inspection Report 50-275/83-04, the NRC staff examined 58 TES conflict of interest statements in Waltham, Massachusetts. In September 1982 the statements had been modified to include d
Bechtel in addition to PGE. The staff concluded that there were minor j
exceptions (one TES employee had a brother who works for Bechtel in Connecticut, some TES personnel had worked on IE Bulletin 79-02 for PGE, and e
j one person owned stock in a mutual fund which might include PGE holdings),
l but these.did not constitute any conflict of interest.
3 Based on the above examinations and inspections which involved at least 90 percent of the TES personnel who worked on the IDVP the staff concluded that TES had maintained adequate independence and competence to properly perform the activities associated with the IDVP.
R. F. REEDY, INC.
On October 6, 1982, during Inspection Report 50-275/82-32, an NRC inspector examined RFR IDVP activities to verify independence and competence of assigned personnel. This examination included an examination of 17 conflict of i
interest statements, 16 resumes, and confidential interviews with four RFR personnel. The inspector observed that three individuals had extensive prior experience with Bechtel and that nine conflict of interest statements did not include reference to Bechtel. The inspector determined that the nine j
personnel who had signed those statements had left RFR prior to the requirement that Bechtel be included in the statements. The inspector j
conducted lengthy discussions with the personnel who had worked for Bechtel with the conclusion that none of them had any continueing financial interest in Bechtel and that the situation warranted further review. Based on the NRC i
examinations of these three individuals, a subsequent letter from TES dated October 14, 1982, and additional inforation furnished by the individuals l
j themselves on October 28, 1982, the staff concluded that:
1 i
li 1.
They are well qualified to perform the QA audit functions within the l
IDVP.
I l
l 2.
They left Bechtel and began their employment with RFR prior to the l. j initiation of the design verification effort in November 1981.
l 3.
They left the Bechtel organization for better opportunities.
I 4.
They were not aware, at the time of leaving Bechtel, of any forthcoming PGE/Bechtel integrated Diablo Canyon project organization.
5.
Their first assignment at RFR was not related to Diablo Canyon or to PCE.
t 6.
They had no previous involvement with PGE or Diablo Canyon (not at Bechtel or during any other employment).
' w -- m, nyp.n~ --rw-m- -,----- ; m --na,--
3 3_ _ ;
. e u.
5 i*
7.
They were not previously employed PGE.
8.
No members of their families are associated with PGE or with Bechtel in any form of employment.
9.
Two individuals have no financial interests in either PGE or Bechtel.
The third individual owns jointly with his wife fewer than 100 shares of PGE common stock (approximate total value of 2,600 dollars).
10.
One individual participated from 1972 to 1974 in the development of the Bechtel QA Topical Report, Revision 0, which since has been revised and forms the basis for the Diablo Canyon Project QA program.
The other two individuals had no such involvement.
t 11.
None of the individuals will be reviewing any work on the Diablo Canyon Project of which he was the originator.
On the basis of the review of the information as described above the NRC staff I
concluded that'following:
1.
The three individuals meet the IDVP procedure and guidelines for independence (which was approved by NRR letter of September 8,1982).
?
2.
The individuals meet the intent of the NRC criteria as set forth in the i j letter from Chairman Paladino to Concressmen Dingell and Ottinger. The
_j ownership of 100 shares of PGE common stock by one of the individuals does not constitute, a conflict of interest and does not influence his integrity. Similarly, the involvement of one individual in the l
development of the Bechtel QA topical report between 1972 and 1974, does j
not constitute a conflict of interest because of the long time lapse and because of the peripheral relationship between the past and current activities.
l 3.
The NRC staff also considered how the previous Bechtel employment of the l
j three individuals would be evauated in similar circumstances for former federal employees under the regulations of 10 CFR 0735-26. A two year time lapse is required before a former federal employee can represent a l ;
new employer before the NRC in matters dealing with his previous j
employment. The NRC staff did not find that the three former Bechtel employees were engaged during their last two years of Bechtel employment i
in any matters associated or related to their current QA audit work with RFR.
I The NRC staff therefore concluded that there exists no direct or potential i
i conflict of interest for these individuals with respect to their previous employment by Bechtel.
i STONE AND WEBSTER CORPORATION
{
The independence and competence of SWEC were examined during two Inspection t
Reports 50-275/82-30 (September 14-15, 1982) and 50-275/83-04 (Janauary 25, 1983) at the SWEC offices in Boston, Massachusetts.
a e
p { a";f{--. '.
7.o
~* ~ ~'** ~~ ~ - * ~
-. :=...
..-...=.=r.--........
~ ' ' r? - '- '
6 During the first inspection 66 conflict of interest statements and 36 resumes were examined and nine confidential interviews were conducted. The NRC staff also examined the potential for business dealings between SWEC and PG&E/Bechtel. The inspectors observed that although the conflict of interest statements did not reference Bechtel, the resumes, confidential interviews, and financial examinations indicated no prior involvement with PG&E or Bechtel. The NRC staff concluded the SWEC personnel assigned to the IDVP appeared to possess the requisite independence and appropriate competence.
i The second inspection at SWEC offices included an examination of 108 conflict of interest statements. The NRC staff verified that these documents included f
both Bechtel and PG&E with the conclusion that adequate independence had been maintained.
Based on these examinations and evaluations of nearly 100 percent of the SWEC i
personnel assign to the IDVP, the NRC staff has concluded that for the IDVP' the SWEC organization posesses the required individual and corporate independence and competence.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION Based on the Commission's criteia for individual and corporate independence as j
well as guidance regarding technical competence, the NRC staff has conducted I
extensive evaluations of the organizations and individuals conducting the IDVP. These evaluations have included examination of conflict of interest statements, examinations of resumes, examinations of corporate financial
. activities, and confidential interviews. For.the most part only minor exceptions have been observed. Where exceptions existed additional information and evaluations indicated that appropriate independence was maintained. No lack of technical competence or experience has been observed.
The individuals and organizations appear to be reputable and professional.
The NRC staff concludes that the members of the IDVP have demonstrated independence and competence in the completion of their activities associated with the IDVP.
INSPECTIONS OF MODIFICATIONS From the inception of the IDVP and the corrective actions implemented by PG&E through May 1983, 14 inspections of the construction activities at the Diablo Canyon site have been conducted. The NRC staff inspected a majority of the modifications of the facility performed in 1982. In early 1983, due to completion of large packages of work by the design engineering (Project) l group, the number of modifications being made increased dramatically. This 1
resulted in the Region V office directing additional inspection resources to j
examine the Diablo Canyon construction activities. Also during this time frame the NRC staff conducted a Systematic Evaluation of Licensee Performance (SALP) for the period July 1, 1981 through December 31, 1983, which included j
an evaluation of the construction activities of the licensee (report dated March 25, 1983, forwarded to the licensee and PDR by letter dated May 23,
~!
1983). This report concluded that overall performance of construction activities during the subject period was acceptable.
g.
y m :.. p... _
2... *7. ". L". " ^.T *.~ ~... L.
- ~... L ;.
~~ ^
^ ^ ^
^
7
~
i ;
NRC STAFF INSPECTION
SUMMARY
l Inspection Areas NRC and Dates Examined Findinas 50-275/82-07
-(1) Pipe supports Two Level V items of j
2/8-12/82 (2) Snubbers and noncompliance pipe hangers a
(3) Raceway supports j
(4) Equipment supports 4
-}
50-275/82-10 (1) Pipe supports No items of noncompliance 3/22-4/2/82 (2) Raceway supports (3) Allegation, follow-up j
of adequacy of materials 1
i 50-275/82-13 (1) Pipe supports One Level V item of 4/19-23/82 (2) Raceway supports noncompliance j
(3) Allegation, follow-up of system hydrotests (4) Follow-up of previous items of noncompliance
{
50-275/82-16 (1) Follow-up of previously One Level V item of 1
5/10-14/82-observed items noncompliance (2) Allegation, follow-up of electrical contractor (3) Pipe supports (4) TMI action items 4
i j
50-275/82-22 (1) Modifications of' No items of noncompliance 5/26-7/2/82 battery racks (2) Pipe supports (3) Raceway supports (4) Preservice inspection (5) Follow-up of previously observed items (6) IE Bulletin follow-up (7) TMI action items j
50-275/82-26 (1) Pipe supports No items of noncompliance
.i 7/26-8/20/82 (2) Raceway supports
]
(3) Follow-up of previously I
identified items j
(4) Allegation follow-up i
regarding the RHR system (5) On site design activities
'l 50-275/82-35 (1) Pipe supports No items of noncompliance 10/25-29/82 (2) Structural cteel (3) TMI action items (4) Preservice inspection (5) NDE of steam generators i
l l
[
-c.
,7.,p..-.
3,, __ w.,,,,y
_,.y.,...
7.,.
.g, g,,.
g l-50-275/82-39 (1) Pipe supports No items of noncompliance 11/29-12/3/82 (2) Structural steel (3) Raceway supports (4) QC surveillance of contractors 50-275/83-02 (1) On-site design No items of noncompliance 1/3-21/83 (2) Pipe supports (3) Piping modifications (4) Structural steel i
(5) HVAC supports (6) Raceway supports (7) Welding (8) QC of contractors 50-275/83-05 (1) Follow-up of One Level V noncompliance 2/7-11/83 previously identified item items (2) Document controls (3) Preservice examination
[
50-275/83-06 (1) Structural steel No items of noncompliance 2/15-18/83 (2) Pipe supports l
(3) Raceway supports (4) Follow-up of previously identified items 50-275/83-08 (1) Structural steel One Level IV ites of 2/28-3/4/83 (2) Quality records noncompliance (3) Welding procedures and qualifications (4) Pipe supports 50-275/83-13 (1) Allegation follow-up One Level V and two Level IV 3/30-4/6/83 of contractor items of noncompliance structural steel work 50-275/83-15 (1) Structural steel No items of noncompliance 4/18-22/83 (2) Pipe supports (3) HVAC supports (4) Circuit breakers (5) TNI action items l
l NRC STAFF CONCLUSIONS As demonstrated by the documented inspection effort, the NRC staff has invested appropriate resources to monitor the construction activity at Diablo l
l Canyon over the last year and a half. This inspection activity has detected l
various items of noncompliance for which the licensee has taken appropriate I
corrective actions. The NRC staff has concluded that the number and type of items of noncompliance identified at the Diablo Canyon facility during this
~
time do not indicate any unresolvable problems. The staff will continue to l
closely monitor the construction activities and any corrective actions required of the licensee.
..