ML20213F365
| ML20213F365 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1985 |
| From: | Noonan V NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | Shao L NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213F368 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59, FOIA-86-A-110 NUDOCS 8507180541 | |
| Download: ML20213F365 (2) | |
Text
3]
P
. [o bs 9 %
UNITED STATES
(,
8 'S 9 ~ ),
NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION
,f g\\
,. E wiSHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
kT /,, '
MAY 101985 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Larry Shao Jose Calvo l
Conrad McCracken Shannon Phillips FROM:
Vincent S. Noonan,' Director Comanche Peak Project
SUBJECT:
ENFORCEMENT ITEMS l
One of the essential actions associated with the Comanche Peak Project is the development of an enforcement package for those items found by the TRT to be violations of the regulations or deviations from FSAR commitments. We have identified potential enforcement items in early drafts of the SSERs, but this identification does not appear in the published. versions.
I am designating Charley Haughney as the TRT's point of contact for enforcement matters. Jane Axelrad, IE Enforcement Director, has assigned Bill Beach of her staff to assist us.
Since the TRT reviewers and their group leaders are most familiar with these items, I am directing the group leaders to begin developing draft citations for these violations...
Messrs. Haughney and Beach will assist you in determining the degree of specificity needed to properly develop draft Notices of Violati,on or Deviation (NOVs).
In order to properly process these enforcement matters, group leaders must retain their detailed backup information and must remain able to contact individual reviewers, even after the SSERs have been published. An enforceable NOV must contain a clear description of both the regulatory requirement including the applicable regulations and procedures, and the facts demonstrating how the requirement was not met, including the date when the violation occurred. Examples of NOVs are enclosed to assist you in developing your drafts along with a list of questions to be considered in developing your citations,
~
e A
.h.YM tP T43 Q5yuR@MN3 e
v nem
~*
~ '
o 1
Because of your intimate knowledge of findings in your area and because of the importance of developing the Comanche Peak enforcement package at this time, I am directing you to submit draf t NOVs to me by May 24, 1985.
These drafts will then be developed into a final package to be issued as one enforcement
- action, g
~
ona, Director omanche Pe k Pr ect
Enclosure:
1)NOV examples
- 2) List of questions for developing citations l
ec:
R. Martin, RIV D. Eisenhut J. Axelrad R. Denise, RIV C. Trammell I
b o
9 6
)
J 9
t
~
~
NOTICE OT VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES T
Commonwealth Edison Company Dock'et Nos. 50-456; 50-457 Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 Construction Permits No. CPPR-132; CPPR-133 EA 82-136 Inspections conducted during the period April 19 through September 10, 1982 identified certain violations of NRC requirements. The licensee did not adoquately document and implement a quality assurance program to ensure that the installation or installation inspection of mechanical safety-related equipment was carried out in accordance with the require-ments of 10 CTR Part 50, Appendix B.
In addition, after an audit by the licensee identified a breakdcwn in the quality assurance program as related to the installation and inspection of mechanical safety-related equipment, the licensee did not make's required ~ report to the NRC on a 4
timely basis.
In order to sephasize the need for improvements in your management controls, as related to an adequate quality assurance progra=, we p opese to i pose civil penalties in the cumulative a=ount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars.
In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CTR Part 2,' Appendix C) 47 TR 9987 (March 9,1982), and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295, and 10 CTR 2.205, the particular violations and the associated civil penalties are set forth in Section I below:
I.
CIVIL PENALTY VIOLATIONS A.
(O CTR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion II requires holders of,
construction permits for nuclear power plants to document by
/
vritten policies, procedures, or instructions, a quality assurance program which complies with the requirements of Appendix B for all activities affecting the quality of safety-related structures, systems, and components and to implament that progran in accordance with those documents.
p e
w e
e e
0 y' ff, p gi, ws f) l 4
9
-- qy
,-----o
--s-.
)
f
{
Contrary to the above, Commonwealth Edison Co=pany and its contractors did not adequately document and implecent a quality l
assurance program to co= ply with the requirements of Appendix B
~
es evidenced by the following examples:
i 1.
10 CTR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V requires in part,
" Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by docu-i sented instruct, ions, procedures, or drawings, of a type
]
appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished l
in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or i
drawings. "
Commonwealth Ediron Company (CECO) Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) Quality Requirement No. 5.0 (QR 5.0) states in part,
The quality assurance actions carried out for design, i
construction, testing and operation activities will be i
described in documented instructions, procedures, drawings, l
specifications, or checklists...." The CECO QAM Quality j
Procedure No. 5-1 (QP -5.1) implements this requirement.
Braidwood Construction Contract Specification F/L 2797, j
Article 113.5 and Specification F/L 2797, Article 305, state in part, " Procedures governing ensite work shall be submitted to the Station Construction Site Project Superint'endent for review and acceptance by the Purchaser....
The procedures shall detail how all elements affecting the product o,uality will be processed and shall inc1,ude the specification of the necessary documentation."
Contrary to the above, approved procedures for the installation or installation inspection of mechanical safety-related equipment did not axist until July 16, 1980, although numerous pieces of this equipment were finally or partially installed prior to this date. Equipment installed prior to July 16, 1980, included the four Unit 1 Steam Generators, the four Unit 1 and Unit 2 Residual Heat Removal Pumps and the four Safety Injection Pumps. Purther, the procedure developed by the installation contractor, Phillips, Getschow Company, subsequent to July 16, 1980, was not consistently implemented in that the four Unit 2 Steam Generators and seven of the eight Primary Reactor Coolant Pumps were installed without use of the installation procedure.
i i
j i
e 0
l s
r-w i
J
~
=..
3 2.
10 CyR 50. Appendix B, Criterion VIII requires in part,
" Measures shall be established for the identificatien and control of materials, parts, and components,' including partially f abricated assemblies."
The CECO QAM QR N'o. 8.0 states in part, "... Materials (including consumables), parts, and components, including partially fabricated subassemblies, will have their identity marked on the item or on tags and records traceable to the ites. Identification assigned to materials, parts and components, including partially fabricated subassemblies, will be documented and maintained by the respective vendors, contractors or ' organizations having responsibility for the items involved throughout f abrication, installation or erec-
]
tien...."
The Ceco QAM, QP 8.1 implements this requirement.
]
I Contrary to the above, identification or traceability j
. records were not maintained as required for some of the
)
large cap screws used to secure the steam generator to I
l
'its supporting. columns.
At least 19 of 192 screws were cut off and the identifying numbers were neither trans-ferred nor marked on tags and records traceable to the screws. Further, adequate traceability records were not maintained for several hundred of these screws which were transferred back-and forth between thE Byron Station, the Braidwood Station, Rockwell Engineering (for-QC' checks) and Teledyne Brown Engineering (the installation centractor).
i 3.
10 CTR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X requires in part, "A program for inspection of activities affecting quality shall be established and axecuted by or for the organization performing the activity to verify conformance with the
~
documented instructions, procedures, and drawings for acco=plishing the activity."
The Ceco QAM QR No.10.0, Paragraph 10.2 states in part,
" Inspection and test plans shall be prepared by respective contractors, vendors or organizations having responsibility for the item (s) involved, either as a separate document identified with the parts, components or assemblies; or as an integral part of work instruction and procedure documents.
o O
e 0
- - - ~
i ,.'
--g
,l l
4 j
4 Inspection and test plans shall consist of a flow chart, diagram or narrative description of the sequence of procure-i ment, f abrication, processing, assembly, ins'pection and test I
activities tnd shall specify the inspection points. The i
inspection and test plan shall provide testing requirements, I
the characteristics to be measured, the inspection and test i
procedure and the applicable acceptance criteria." The CECO
]
QAM QP*No. 10-1 implements this requirament.
Braidwood Construction Contract Specification T/L 2739 Article 113.4.J and Specification T/L 2797 "For Nuclear Support Steel," Article 304.10 state in part, The program for inspection of activities affecting quality that is established and executed by or for the Contractor and his subcontractors to verify conformance with the documented j
instructions, procedures, and drawings shall be described.
j Such inspections shall be performed by individuals other
' than those who perform the activity being inspected and
~
the results shall be documented."'
Contrary to the above, an inspection program was not developed to verify the proper installation, including bolting, of the main steam generators in either' Eraidwood Unit 1 or 2.
Although the manuf acturer's procedure for setting major nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) components, including bolt installation, was available and suggested that the installation contractor provide a detailed setting procedure for the manuf acturer's review, such a procedure was not developed. No records exist indicating that travelers, or process sheets, were used or reviewed by the quality control department to establish either surveillance or hold points. As of August 1982, installation inspections of the majority of mechanical safety-related equipment were either not conducted, were insdequate, were incomplete or were not documented.
4 10 CTR 50, Appendix 2, Criterion XV requires in part,
" Measures shall be established to control materials, parts, or components which do not conform to requi,rements in order to prevent their inadvertent use or installation."
~
e o
[
I The CECO QAM QR No.15.0, Paragraph 15.3 states in part,
" Items which are found to be nonconforming to design and specification requirements or workmanship sstandards will be positively identified and uniquely segregated c-handled as nonconforming to prevent their' inadvertent use."
The CICo QAM QP No.15-1 implements the above requirements
~
and states in Paragraph 5.2, "Onsite contractor nonconform-ances will be documented in accordance with the contractor's i
approved Quality Assurance Program and Procedures."
i Contrary to the above, 70 to 72 steam generator support bolts (exact number not known by CECO or the contractor) were received on MRR 3725 in January 1979 and identified as nonconforming. No record axists to show the disposition of these bolts and no Nonconformity Report was issued as required by Phillips, Getschow Company's Quality Assurance Manual, Section 15.
{
)
5.
10 CTR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI requires in part,
" Measures shall be established to assure that conditicas adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, I
deficiencies, deviatiens, defective caterial and equip ent, and ncnc,onformances are proeptly identified and corrected.
In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition."
The CICo QAM QR No.16.0, Paragraph 16.1 states 15 part, "A corrective action system will be used to assure that such items as f ailures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment and noncen-formances which are adverse to quality and might affect the safe operation of a nuclear generating station are promptly identified and corrected." Paragraph 16.3 states
~
in part, " Records will be regularly reviewed and analyzed by Quality Assurance and Engineering personnel...to deter-mine whether corrective measures will preclude recurrence."
The CICo QAM QP No.16.1 implements this requirement.
e 6
ge
~~
e e
4 e
M
.g p-.
w W,-
w
~
M
J4' Notice of Violation 6
Contrary to the above, Ceco did not assure that a matter potentially adverse to quality was promptly identified and corrected at the Braidwood Station. Ceco identified a significant problem with bolting of the steam generator l
supports that occurred at the CECO Byron Station. Timely or adequate corrective action was not taken by CECO to prevent the same or a similar problem fzos occurring 'at Braidwood Unit's 1 and 2.
Nonconformity Report No. 332 concerning this bolting problem was issued at Braidwood on December 2,1981, yet effective corrective r.ction was not taken until August 1982.
In addition, effective corrective action was not taken by Ceco relative to Phillips, Getschow Company's failure to implement and utilize installation procedures (identified during CECO audits conducted June 30 - July 9.1980 and June 23-25, 1981), concerning installation' and installation inspection of mechanical safety-related equipment. The same deficiencies were again identifled during a surveillance conducted by Phillips, Getschow Company on yebruary 19, 1982.
6.
10 CyR 50, Appendix 3, Criterion XVII requires in part, "Sufficiant records shall be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality.
The records shall include at least the following:
...results of reviews, inspections,
tests, audits, monitoring of work performance, and' materials analyses....
Records shall be identifiable and retrievable."
The CECO QAM QR No.17.0, Paragraph 17.1 states in part,
" Quality Assurance records will be maintained either by.
Edison er by an agent of Edison, under Edison's control....
Records are retained and maintained in accordance with a Quality Procedure to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality."
The CICo QAM QR No.10.0, Paragraph 10.5 states in part,
" Inspection and test records will previde objective evidence that inspections and tests were performed in compliance with instructions and procedures to verify design and code re-quirements. Inspection and test results will be recorded to show conformance with acceptance criteria and/or record and identify the cause of rejected itens." The CICo QAM QP Ho.17-1 implaments the above requi ements-O p
8 e
e e
~
W 9e
- M
- m ~
?
Notice of Violati.on 7
Contrary to the above, with few exceptions, official records
)
were not generated or maintained relative to the' installation of mechanical safety-related equipment by either CECO or their erection contractor. Records that f ailed to show compliance with quality assurance, design, and code requirements included:
(1) equipment releases to engineering for instal-lation, (2) travelers or process sheets to identify required installation activities and inspections, (3) installation inspections, (4) pretensile loads for bolting, and (5) data on final equipment settings.
7.
10 CTR 50, Appendix 3, Criterion XVIII requires in part, "A comprehensive system of planned and periodic audits shall be carried out to verify compliance with all aspects of the quality assurance program and to determine the effectiveness j
1 of the program....Tollowup action, including reaudit of deficient areas, shall be taken where indicated."
~
~'
~~
The CECO QAM QR No.18.0, Paragraph 18.1 states in part,
" Audits will be performed by Commonwealth Edison Company I
and/or its contractors, sube.ontracters and vendors te verify the implementation and effectiveness of quality i
pregra:s ur. der their cognizance." The CICo QAM QP No. 18-1 ieple:ents this requirement.
Paragraph 5.1 of QP No. 18-1 states in part, " Audits of on-site centractors will be perfor=ed, as a minimum on an annual basis....
The selection of contractor on-site activities to be audited and the frequency of audits will be based on site Quality Assurance and CECO Construction Surveillance Repcrts or findings from previous audit reports.... The frequency will be based on the nature and safety significance of the work being performed."
Contrary to the above, no audits were performed by Ceco prior to June 30 - July 9,1980 relative' to mechanical equipment erection and inspection activities of Phillips, Getschow Company.
This important activity involves the installation of most of the critical nuclear steam supply syste: and other mechanical safety-related,equipeent.
Significant amounts of this equipment, including that identified in I. A.1 above, had either been finally or partially installed prior to this date.
m 9
e w
Turther, no significant followup audit was conducted by CECO until June 23-25, 1981 to determine the ef fectiveness of the Phillips, Getschow Co=pany's quality assurance program for these installations, or to verify that preper quality records were being generated and maintained as required, although a major finding during the June - July 1980 audit was that Phillips, Getschow Company had not implemented an approved procedure for installing equipment and inspecting that installation.
This is a Severity Le' el III violation (Supplement II) v (Civil Penalty - $60,000)
B.
10 CFR 50.55(e)(1) requires in part. "If the permit is for con-struction of a nuclear power plant, the holder "of the permit shall notify the Commission of each deficiency found in design 3
and construction whi-h, were it to have remained uncorrected, could have affected adversely the safety of operations of the nuclear power plant at any. time throughout the axpected lifetime of the plant, and which represents:
i (i) A significant breakdown in any portion of the quality assurance program conducted in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B; or...
(iv) A sign [ficant deviation from performance specifications which will require extensive evaluation, extensive redesign, or extensive repair to establish the adequacy of a structure, systen, or component to meet the criteria and bases stated in the safety analysis report or construction permis.or to other-wise establish the adequacy of the structure, system, or component to perform its intended safety function."
Commenwealth Edison's Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Procedure QP No.15-2, Paragraph 5.1.1 states in part, "The site Construction Superintendent or Project Engineer and appropriate Engineering Project Engineer will mutually agree upon and review with the Director, Nuclear Licensing, as to which deficiencies and defects are reportable, based on preliminary information and shall promptly notify the NRC Regional Office within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of occurrence."
5 9
e 0
s 4
0
"m y
4 g
e*,
Notice of' Violation 9
Braidwood Construction Contract Specification T/L 2739, Article 113.4.P and Specificatien T/L 2797 state in part, " Measures shall be estab-lished to assure that conditions adverse to quality are pro =ptly identified and corrected.
H e identification of the adverse condition, the cause of the condition, and the-corrective action taken to prevent future recurrence of like deficiencies shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management."
Contrary to the above, the licenses had identified as early as July 1980 a quality assurance breakdown relative to the installation and inspection of mechanical safety-related equipment, but did not report this matter to the NRC until September 2, 1982.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement II).
.(Civil Penalty - $40,000)
II.
Violation Not Assessed A Civil Penalty 10 CTR 0, Appendix B, Criterio XIII, requires in part, " Measures shall be established to control the handling, storage, shipping, cleaning and preservation of material and equipment...to prevent damage or deterioration."
The CICo QAM cc:=its to comply with Regulatory Guide 1.39, Revision 2 which in turn endorses ANSI Standard N45.2.3-1973.
ANSI N45.2.3 states in part, "The control of all tools, equipment, materials and supplies that are used shall be maintained to prevent the inadvertent inclusion of deleterious material or objects in critical systems."
Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to protect the 480-volt Motor Contr'o1 Center No.133V1 (1AP40-E) (located on elevation 364 near colu=n P15, auxiliary building Unit No.1), from a mixttire of water and fine grained concrete powder which resulted from the core boring through a concrete block wall adjacent to the meter control center.
In Unit 2, containment building, the licensee failed to protect steam generator No. 2 column support, lower universal hinged joint, from steel cables used to position and support heavy steel jet deflector beams.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).
b
s Notice of Violation 10 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CTR 2.201, Commonwealth Edison Company is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 and a copy to the Regional Admil.istrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III,'799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137, within 30 days
)
)
of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation, including for each alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; l
- (2) the reasons for the violation, if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid rurther violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Consideration may be given to extendi.ng the respense time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or a f firmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CTR 2.201, Commonwealth Edison Company may pay the civil penalties in the cumulative amount of $100,000 is whole or in part, by a written answer.or may protest inrposition of the civil penalties, Should Commonwealth Edison Company f ail to answer within the time specified, the Director Office of Inspection and Enforce =ent will issue an order imposing the civil penalties proposed above.
]
1 Should Conee wealth Edison Corpany elect to file an~ answer,in accordance with 10 CyR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties, such answer may:
(1) deny the violations listed in this Notice,'in whole or in part; (2) demonstrate-extenuating circumstances; (3) show error in this Notice; or (4) show other reasons why the penalties should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil pensities, in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties. In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, the five factors contained in Section IV(B) of 10 CTR7 art 2, Appendix C should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CTR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CTR 2.201, but may incorporate statements or explana-tion by specific reference (e.g., giving page and paragraph numbers) to avoid
)
repetition. Commenwealth Edison Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CTR 2.205, regarding the procedures for imposing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalties due, which have been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CTR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalties, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATOR'f C0!dISSION Jbh4 James G. Kepp[ A er l
Regional Administrator Dated at gn Illyn,1111noi's this s
day February 1983 G
,q,=m - -
~<
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMP 051TI F 0F CIVIL PENALTY Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Docket No. 50-410 hine Mile Point Station Construction Permit No. CPPR-112 Unit 2 EA 83-137 A special Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) inspection was conducted by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) on November 7-19 and November 28 -
December 9,1983 at the Nine Mile Point Station, Unit 2.
The CAT inspection identified major deficiencies in your and Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation's program for review and acceptance of radiographs and deficiencies in the document control program. The number of deficiencies found in the J
document control program indicates that systems and components may not be installed and/or inspected in accordance with the latest design documents.
The NRC Construction Appraisal Team.also concluded that increased Niagara Mohawk management involvement in construction activities is needed at Nine Mile Point Unit 2.
This is substantiated by the deficiencies identified in a relatively broad scope of activities which had been quality control inspected and accepted.
It is further reflected by the imbalance in the ratio of installations completed to the number which had been inspected.
To emphasize the need for direct management involvement in the quality assurance program, and in particular these areas where deficiencies were identified, we propose to impose a civil penalty in the cumulative amount of.One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). +
in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy.10 CFR Part 2, kppendix C, and
~
pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"),
42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205, the particular violations and the associate'd civil penalty are set lforth below:
Civil Penalty Violations f.
A.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III requires, in part, "The design control measures shall provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design...
by the performance of a suitable testing program.... Design changes, including field changes, shall be' subject to design control measures comensurste with those applied to the original design...."
Niagara Mchawk Ptwer Corporation Quality Assurance Manual Section 3, implements.10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B Criterion III.
~
9 9
c~J! n !!# $ 171 I /In o
+ir -.r; -
i~
1
i Notice of Violation Unit 2 Contrary to the above, the licensee has failed to meet the requirements of Criterion III as exemplified by the following examples:
1.
Failure to review design changes in a manner comensurate with the original design review. This is reflected by the high percentage (30t-40%) of design change dccuments issued to correct errors or to provide additional information that should have been provided on previously issued design changes.
/
2.
Failure to perfom prequalification tests for the installation of concrete anchor bolts under the most adverse design conditions. The concrete anchor bolts were tested in a 1000 psi concrete mix, rather than a minimum 3000 psi concrete mix which is the concrete mix r,ost representative of field conditions.
B.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V requires, in part, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with' these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Instructions...shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished."
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Quality Assurance Manual, Section 5, implements 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
Contrary to the above, the licensee has failed to meet the requirements of Criterion V as exemplified by the following examples:
1.
The review of radiographs indicates that ITT Grinnelf radiographic interpreters are not adequately evaluating radiographs of piping welds. Twelve piping welds requiring radiographic inspection failed
' to satisfy the requirements for film and weld quality of the applicable ITT Grinnell procedures and ASME Sections III and V.
2.
Procedures used to accomplish electrical raceway installations, installations of seismically mounted equipment, and Power Generation and Control Complex (PGCC) installations and modifications, were deficient with respect to quantitative and/or qualitative acceptance criteria.
3.
Supports and restraints installed by Reactor Controls Incorporated and ITT Grinnell have not baen constructed in accordance with design requirements.
- 4. - Adequate procedural controls were not established to assure that Power Gen'eration Control Complex (PGCC) cabie and wiring installations would confom to design. requirements.
5.
ITT Grinnell pipin'g weld liquid penetrant inspections for the Reactor Venting. System were not being performed in accordance with the requirements of ASME Sectio-V.
- e'
.g ee h-
'~
.t.
Unit 2 C.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI requires, in part, " Measures shall be established to control the issuance of documents... including changes thereto, which prescribe all activities affecting quality. The measures shall assure that documents, including changes...are distributed to-and used at a location where the prescribed activity is performed."
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Quality Assurance Manual. Section 6 implements 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B Criterion VI.
Contrary to the above, the licensee has failed to meet the requirements of' Criterion VI as exemplified by the following examples:
1.
Raceway tickets used to perfortn inspection of Class IE cable tray and conduit installations, and ITT Grinnell and Reactor Controls Incorporated Hanger Inspection Checklists did not indicate the latest revision or design change. document that was used to accomplish construction and inspection activities.
2.
Design changes were not bCing incorporated into the construction drawings.
It was found that a large number of design changes were posted against the BE-series drawings without revisions to the drawing being performed.
3.
Design changes on construction drawings were not being identified at the location of the work activity.
It was found that Engineering and Design Coordination Reports (E&DCRs) and Advance Change Notices (ACNs) were not being posted on drawings being used by the subcontractors and inspectors as required by site orocedures.
D.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 8, Criterion VII requires, in 'part " Measures shall be established to assure that purchased material, equipment, and services... conform to the procurement documents..... Documentary evidence that material and equipment conform to the procurement requirements shall be available..."
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Quality Assurance Manual. Section 7, implements 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion VII.
Contrary to the above, the licensee has failed to meet the requirements of Criterion VII as exemplified by the following examples:
1.
General Electric Compary Product Quality Control released a pump and motor from Union Pump Company (PQC No. AQ586), incorrectly verifying that the equipment conformed to the purchase specification when in fact the motor was the wrong size.
~
2.
Stone & Webster Engineering Cohoration (SWEC) PQA released material from Cives Steel Corporation, Power Conversion Products,. and ITE' Gould Corporation that did not meet specification requirements as l follows;
,, ~
y
o-Notice o'i Violation l Unit 2 a.
$WEC Shop Inspection Report 0056 stated that Beams B-3203-2 and B-3203-4 were satisfactory based on-a random inspection of the shipment.
1$5 of the welds on the beams inspected, supplied by Cives Steel, were undersized.
1 b.
SWEC Shop Inspection Report N25204A057.of Cives Steel concerned
)
steel beams for the Diesel Generator Suilding and stated that :
1
" welding inspection perforsned and found to be sctisfactory in accordance with inspection plan and AWS D.1.1."
The inspection plan instructions required "100 percent visual insoection in accordance with AWS D.1.1."
However, beam E 4236-1 and others-were found to have insufficient weld material, c.
"SWEC Shop Inspection Report of the Static Battery Charges supplied by Power Conversion Products stated that routine tests including dielectric, regulation,. ripple, and surge tests were performed. However, when tests were performed on-site, it was found that the battery chargers. would not generate--a DC output voltage when energized and internal circuit boards and breakers were found to be defective.
These problems resulted in the identification of these problems as a potential 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) item to NRC Region 1; however, no actions were-taken regarding ineffective source inspection, d.
SWEC PQA released equipment and material. for battery racks from i
ITE Gould Corporation that included bolting material that was 1
connercial grade instead of the SAE J429 grade 2 bolting 1
material required by the equipment drawings.
)
E.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion VIII requires, in part. " Measures-shall be established for the identification and control of materials, parts, and ' components.... These measures shall assume that identification of the item is maintained by heat number, part number, serial number, or other appropriate means...."
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Quality Assurance Manual, Section 8, implements 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion VIII.
Contrary to the above, the. licensee has failed to meet the requirements of '.
Criterion VIII as exemplified by the following examples:
~
1.
Welding 1ugs and other parts of ASME III Class 11.iner NF Hangers-
)
for the Reactor Coolant Recirculation System were act mars.ed for specific traceability to applicable specification and grade of material-or heat' number. This does not satisf requirements as presented by Code Case N-255, y ASME NCA-3866.6 which is referenced -
in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Table 5.2.1. -
l j
1
a.
Notice of Violation Unit 2 2.
The material control, application and installation of fasteners for safety-related mechanical, electrical and structural equipment, and the disposition of unused weld rod in the plant have not been adequately controlled to prevent the use of incorrect parts or material.
F.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion X requires, in part, "A program for inspection of activities affecting quality shall be established and executed...to verify conformance with the documented instructions, procedures, and drawings for accomplishing the activity.... Examinations, measurements, or tests of material or products processed shall be performed for each work operation where necessary to assure quality."
Niagara Mohawk Power Company Quality Assurance Manual, Section 10, 1
implements 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion X.
Contrary to the above, the licensee has failed to meet the requirements of Criterien X as exemplified by the following examples:
1.
Supports and restraints installed by. Reactor Controls Incorporated and ITT Grinnell have not been inspected in accordance with the design documents.
i 2.
ITT Grinnell piping weld liquid penetrant inspections for the
~
Reactor Venting System were not being performed in accordance with the requirements of ASME Section V.
3.
Separation requirements relative to some PGCC cable installations had not been properly inspected.
In addition, inspe'c' tion of some raceway installations relative to the requirements for physical separation had not been accomplished in accordance with the criteria
. established in the applicable procedures.
4.
In the civil area, some inspections have been performed without adeounte acceptance criteria and an inspection failed to identify deficient conditions.
Examples are:
concrete unit weight tests since 1976 were performed without acceptance / rejection criteria; base plates and equipment mounted on concrete surfaces have been installed before the concrete surface defect i.hspections were perfonned; the inspection plan for concrete surface defect inspections does not specifically address structural defects such as voiding, honeycomb, or exposed reinforcing steel; and QC inspection did not identify reinforcing steel spacing violations.
G.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI requires, in part " Measures sha51 be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality...are promptly identified and corrected.... The cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management."
e.
_ _ 1.
1-_
,I' Notice 'of Violation '
Unit 2 i
' Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Quality Assurance Manual, Section 16, implements 10 CFR Part 50, Criterion XVI.
Contrary to the above, the licensee has failed to meet the requirements of Criterion XVI as exemplified by the following examples:.
1.
The Stone and Webster Engineering Corporttion program for overview of the ITT Grinnell radiography program did not take adequate corrective actions or provide effective resolution to problems.
associated with the radiographic inspection of piping welds..
2.
Specification PP 77 required Advance Change Notices (ACNs) to be i
incorporated into drawings within 60 days of. initiation, but because of the large backlog of ACNs, Stone and Webster Engineering i
Corporation (SWEC) simply circumvented the procedure by temporarily revising it rather than finding a solution to the root cause of the high ACN generation rate.
Thus, measures were not established to j
assure that conditions adverse to quality were being corrected.
j 4
3.-
Engineering and Design Coordination' Reports (EDCRs) and " documents" I
(surveillance reports, data sheets) other than the formal i
nonconfomance reporting system have been used to identify and correct problems.
In addition, conditions adverse to quality ~
j that were identified in the electrical and piping / pipe support areas have not been promptly corrected.
As the applicant's program of 1
quality control inspections was not conducted as construction i
progressed, it has also prevented the prompt identification and correction of deficiencies.
4.
The Reactor Controls Incorporated nonconformance and.torrective l
1 action programs have failed to identify, evaluate, and correct
)
recurring deficiencies in support / restraint installations.
5.
Control panels in the Power Generation Control Complex (PGCC) contain many cable and wiring installations which do not conform to require-With regard to these installations, the applicant's program ments.
failed to promptly and properly identify and correct deficiencies.
6.
After some deficient conditions were identified in the civil area, inadequate corrective actions were taken.
Two examples are: a QC inspector retraining session on reinforcing steel placement inspection was instructed by the QC inspector who had failed initially to identify the deficient condition; and there is no evidence to show that a concrete truck mixer, which had failed mixer uniformity. testing, had been repaired and retested for mixer uniformity.
~
j" 7-Notice of Violation Unit 2 7.
The applicant's audit programs have not.been effective in i
identifying or resolving major deficiencies in construction as i
evidenced by the following examples:
j a.
There were more than 150 open auditor cocinents and observations regarding audits perfonned in areas of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation activities, some dating back to 1979.
j 1
b.
Seven audits were performed in 1982 and 1983, of which just two 1
involved areas involving hardware. These were field audits 29 and 32.
c.
Although the audit program appeared to concentrate on program and documentation reviews, audits were not, perfonned on inspection procedures and criteria in the electrical, mechanical and civil areas.
H.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII requires, in part, " Sufficient records shall be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality.... Records shall be identifiable and retrievable...."
Niagara Monawk Power Corporation Quality Assurance Manual, Section-17,'
implements 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B, Criterion XVII.
Contrary to the above, the licensee has failed to meet the requirements of j
Criterion XVII as exemplified by the following examples:
1.
Electrical ihspection records indicated separation criteria to be acceptable, when in fact, a number of installations examined did.
not confom to requirements.
Documentation deficiencies with regard to.five Reactor Controls 2.
Incorporated welder qualifications, i.e., coupon thickness and 1
bend test result documentation, were identified.
3.
ITT Grinnell quality control inspection records for radiographs of.
twelve piping welds did not properly document the radiographic inspection resul ts.
These violations in their aggregate are a Severity Level 11 problem
~
(Civil Penalty - $100,000)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation is hereby required to submit.to the Director. Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555 and a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, PA 19406, within 30 days of. the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation, including for each alleged violation: 1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; 2) the reasons for the violation, if admitted; 3) the corrective
- steps which, have been taken and the results achieved; 4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and 5) the date when full compliance l
m fo
)
7 Notice of' Violation g Unit 2 H
will be achieved.
Consideration may be given to extending the' response
- l time for good cause shown.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act.
42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under c:,th or effimation, Within the same time as provided for the responie required above under 10 CFR 2.201, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation may pay the civil penalty in the cumulative amount of $100,000 or may protest imposition of the civil penalty, in whole or in part, by a written answer.
Should Niagara 3
Mohawk Power Corporation fail to answer within the time specified, the Director. Office of Inspection and Enforcement will issue an order imposing the civil penalty proposed above.
Should Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesthg the' civil 1
penalty, such answer may: 1) deny the violations listed in this Notice, i
in whole or in part;)2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances; 3) show error in this Notice, or 4 show other reasons why the penalty should not be 1
imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, j
such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requestin mitigation of the proposed penalty,.the five factors contained in Section IV(g)
B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C should'be addressed.
Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement' or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate state-ments or explanations by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph' numbers) to avoid repetition.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedures for imposing a civil penalty.
i s
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due, which has been subsequently (c il detemined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the' unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected' pf.nalty, by' civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~'
~
Richard C.
e oung, D _ ctor Office of n pectientand Enforcement Dated agBethesda, Maryland thispo day of March 1984 i
s 4
g e
e e
e g.
-,. i W-AIF
- N W SE*-
94NID
Y UNITED STATES t.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0KMISS10N y
In the Matter
)
Docket No. 50 410
)
Construction Pemit No. CPPR-112
)
EA 83-137 NIAGARA MOHAWX POWER CORP.
)
. (Nine Mile Point Station, Unit 2)
)
ORDER I
i I
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (the " licensee") is the holder of construction pennit CPPR'112 issued by the Nuclea'r Regulatory Comission (the "Comission")
which authorizes the construction of the Nine Mile Point Station, Unit 2 1
(the "f acility").
The facility is under construction in Scriba, New York.
II A Construction Appraisal Team (" CAT") inspection was conducted at the facility f
during the period of November 7 through 19, and November 28 through December 9, 1983.
The objective of this CAT inspection was to evaluate the adequacy of construction at the facility which the licensee estimates as currently about 80 percent complete.
An additional aspect of the CAT inspection was the review of the licensee's project management involvement with site construction activities to detemine whether adequate control existed to meet 'Comission ' requirements.
~
Significant deficiencies in your Quality Assurance program were identified
' during the CAT inspection as described in Appendix A to the January 31, 1984
' Inspection Report (Report No. 50-410/83-18). These findings include, but are not limited to, the following:
-. 4~ ;; -;; m w i 2,
Y- - -- - - - - -
1
--~ ----
O 1 & a p' 'J tw v v
2-(1) The program for review and acceptance of radiographs was found to be deficient. The deficiencies identified included weld quality, radiographic film quality, missing film, and quality of documentation.
~
Some similar deficiencies had previously been identified by the licensee site quality assurance / quality control programs, but timely actions to correct the deficiencies had not been initiated.
(2) The document control system is inadequate as evidenced by the nurrber a d type of problems idenEified. These deficiencies indicate that crafts and inspectors may not be,using the latest design documents.
Inspection reports often do not reflect the applicable drawing revision.
Project Procedure 77, Advance Change Notices (ACN), requires that ACN's i
i be incorporated into the appropriate drawings within a 60-day time period. Because of a large backlog of ACN's, an Intpoffice Memorandum
)
dated November 11, 1983 was issued which removed the 60-day time
' period for incorporating changes into drawings.. Therefore, ACN's do not receive full engineering review until the appropriate drawing is i
revised. This change was made as an expedient action, rather than taking appropriate measures to identify and co.rrect the reasons for
~
~
a high ACN generation rate.
l (3) Ocficiencies were identified in the site auditing program, the
.j corrective action system, and the procurement quality' assurance program. Audits were not effective in the identification of hardware and program deficiencies, nor in resolving problems in a timely manner.
9
^
I 3-Corrective action systems were deficient with regard to the L
c'orrection of nonconfonnances identified and the associated documentation.
In addition, several discrepancies were identified during the review of hardware which raise questions as to the adequacy of the Stone and Webster Procurement Quality Assura.nce Program. Review of a small sample of hardware revealed a number of installed materials and equipn.ent that did not comply with purchase documents.
(4) A nurber of deficiencies were found in the QA/QC program as evidenced by problems identified in the electrical and mechanical areas.
These deficiencies included inadequate acceptance criteria to perform appropriate quality control inspections; failure to perform adequate quality control inspections; and failure to take appropriate actions when deficiencies were identified.
The low number of quality control inspected items as compared to the much larger number of installed items reflects a quality control. program that is not timely in I accomplishing required work. Although further opportunities may exist to detect existing deficiencies prior to plant operation, the deficiencies identified by the CAT. inspection had already evaded the j
existing quality control program.
Failure of tne licensee to
~
detect these deficiencies raises serious questions as to the effectiveness of that program.
s
.N**P_-
858 * **N E9*'.
? 99*emen
)
r
. (5) The prequalification testing program for cener,ete expansion anchor bolts was found to be inadequate since it did not establish that torque values required in the site specifications were adequate to ensure that the anchor bolts were prope,rly set. The concrete anchor bolts were tested in a 1000 psi concrete mix, rather than a. minimum 3000 psi concrete mix which is the concrete mix most representative of field conditions.
(6) Power Generation Control Gomplex (PGCC) cable and wiring installations exhibited significant deficiencies relative to
)
separation criteria.
The applicant's program of quality control-inspection does not provide adequate consideration or establish the appropriate procedural controls to assure that specification separation criteria have been satisfied.
These and other deficiencies are described in the CAT Inspection Report f
(Report No. 50-410/83-18) issued January 31, 1984 A number of the_ findings identified during the CAT inspection are similar te deficiencies previously
.dentified by Region I.
These Region I findings are documented in the NRC Region I Report 50-410/SALP, which covers the period of October 1,1982 to September 30, 1983. The results of the SALP were discussed during a meeting with the licensee' on January 11, 1984, and the rep. ort was issued February 23, 1984.
4 4
ww- _ -
)
M"
5-I III l
The nature and number of the NRC-identified deficiencies, most of which were
- in areas which had already received licensee's quality control inspection and acceptance, raise serious questions concerning the adequacy of the licensee's management control over the construction process and whether construction that has been completed and the demonstration of its quality has been achieved in accordance with the Commission's requirements.
I have determined that further information is necessary concerning the licensee's
~
ability to manage construction and to determine the adequacy of the construction i
werk ccmpleted to date.
l i
!Y I
J In view of the foregoing, pursuant to Sections 103,161(i),161(o),and182of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 2 and 10 CFR Part 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
A.
Within 60 days of the effective date of this drder, the licensee shall submit to' the Regional Administrator, Region I, for review and approval, a plan for a review of the CATrinspection findings, O
4 J
=
a
. the most recent SALP report and licensee-identified deficiencies (bothpastandcurrent). The plan shall include a description of the scope of the proposed review, the qualifications of the review j
team and a schedule for completion of appropriate milestones. The review shall determine whether the licensee has correctly identified the underlying / fundamental causes for these deficiencies and whether the licensee's corrective actions have adequately-addressed the under-lying / fundamental causes as well as adequately addressing the specific ficiencies. This review shall include a thorough reinspection of identified deficiencies. Neither the manager of the review (the reviewer) nor any member of the review team shall have.been involved in perfoming any of the work under review.
Upon approval of the plan by the Regional Administr3 tor, Region I, the plan shall be implemented. Scheduled milestone completion dates lmay not be extended without good cause and the concurrence of the I* Regional Administrator, Region I.
The licensee shall direct the reviewer to submit to the Regional Administrator, Region I, a copy of any report, and any drafts thereof, at the same time they are sent to the licensee or any of its employees br contractors. The reports'and recomendations shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator, Region I, by a date agreed r
upon by the licensee and the Regional Administrator.
The licensee shall consider the recomendations resulting from the review and provide to the Regional Administrator,. Region an
7-analysis of each such recoernendation and the action to be taken in response to the recommendation.
The licensee shall also provide a schedule for accomplishing these actions.
B.
Within 60 days of the effective date of this Order, the licensee i
shall establish, define and submit to the Regional Administrator.
Region I, a listing of performance indicators to be used to measure and monitor quality construction performance in'the future. These indicators should address..but not be limited to, those areas required to be reviewed by Section A of this Order. These indicators should also address the implementation of corrective actions, and changes j
made or planned based on deficiencies identified.
The licensee shall periodically discuss with the Regional Administrator, Region I, the status of construction as measured by these performance indicators as well as modifications or additions to these performance indicators.
C.
Within six months of the effective date of this Order, the licensee-shall submit to the Regional Administrator, Region I, for review and approval, a plan for an independent third party to conduct an appraisal of organizational responsibilities, management controls, staffing
. levels, corrnunications, and operating practices both at the facility and the corporate office.
This appraisal shall be initiated after the most recent changes are in effect but no later than one year from the effective date.cf this Order.
4 g
F g
~.
~
8-1 Additionally, this appraisal shall also address the adequacy of actions implemented in response to items A, B'and C of this Order.
j his independent third party shall be ' directed to make recommendations for changes in the areas reviewed.
The plan shall include a description of the appraisal program, the qualifications of the appraisal team, a discussion of how the appraisal
]
is to be documented, and the schedule o.f completion of appropriate m,1,1 estones. Upon approval of the plan by the Regional Administrator, Region I, the plan shall be implemented.
Scheduled milestone completion 1
dates may not be extended without good cause and the concurrence of the Regional Administrator, Region I.
The licensee shall direct the approved independent management consultant organization to submit to the Regional Administrator,' Region I, a copy of any repert of the appraisal and reconnendations resulting from the appraisal, and any drafts thereof at the same time they are sent to the licensee or any of its employees or contractors.
Prior notice shall be given to the Regional Administrator, Region I, of any meeting or discussion between the licensee and the organization to discuss the results, recommendations, or progress made on the appraisal in sufficient time for the Regional Administrator to determine
- whether NRC participation is required.
In addition, the licensee e
a e
4 4
e 6
-..-.c.._.
1
~
g.
shall consider the recomendations resulting from the appraisal and
~
provide to the Regional Administrator, Region I, an analysis of each i
such recomendation and the action to be taken in response to the recomendation.
The licensee shall also provide a schedule for accomplishing these actions.
D.
The Regional Administrator, Region I, may relax, or tenninate in writing any of the preceding conditions for good cause.
V The licensee may request a hearing on this Order.
Any request for hearing l
shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555 within 30 days of the date of this Order. A copy of the request shall also be 'sent to the Executive Legal Director at the same address and to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King ot' Prussia, PA 19406.
If a hearing is to be held concerning this Order, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of hearing.
If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
e Q
h em 4wWC W
.~
.n
,m 3
-,---2,-
10 -
This Order shall becorne effective upon the licensee's consent or upon expiration of the time within which the licensee may request a hearing or, if a hearing is requested by the licensee on the date specified in an Order
- issued following further proceedings on this Order.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
Richard C.
- ung, rector Office of I' ection and Enforcement Bethesda, Maryland DatedagdateofMarch1984 this),o O
e O
g e
^
~
~
q
.e DOCUENTATION OF VIOLATIONS i
i i4 WHAT REQUIREtENT WAS VIOLATED?
lj HOW WAS THE REQUIREMENT VIOLATED?
E EN WAS IT VIOLATED AND FOR HOW LONG?
BY WHOM WAS IT VIOLATED?
WO DISCOVERED THE VIOLATION?
40W WAS IT REPORTED AND BY WHOM7
~
ARE THERE PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS OF A SIMILAR NATURE?
ARE THERE MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF A PARTICULAR VIOLATION?
BAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE VIOLATION?
i j
4AS THERE CARELESS ' DISREGARD OF NRC REQUIREMENTS OR INDIC T10NS
)
THAT A REQUIREMENT WAS WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY VIOLATED?
l 4AS PANAGEMENT AWARE OR SBOULD IT RAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE VIOLATION?
IS THERE EVIDENCE TRAT PANAGEMENT WAS INVOLVED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY' IN THE VIOLATION AND TO WRAT EXTENT?
ARE THERE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING TRE VIOLATION WHICH INCRE-ASE 1
10W MANY OPPORTUNITIES DID~TBE LICENSEE HAVE TO DISCOVER THAT IT j
WAS IN VIOLATION?
~
i h
~
'J
?
T
.TM E.
p 6 =
s#
,.~.
o * *8 coq'o,,
s UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
h E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...* /
JUN 11 1986 Docket Nos. 50-445/50-446 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde, Director Environmental Whistleblower Clinic Government Accountability Project i
1555 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 202 IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20036 TO F01A-85-59 Dear Ms. Garde.
j This is in further response to your letter dated January 21, 1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), records related to the NRC Comanche Peak Task Force established in March 1984.
j 1
We are now placing one additional box of' records (box 12) in the QA/QC category, covering Appendix V records numbered 1 through 192 into the Public Document Room (PDR) in file FOIA-85-59 under your name.
1 The records identified at numbers 93, 123, 130, 131, and 171 through 191 on i
the enclosed Appendix V are being withheld in their entirety from public
.)
disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5) of the Commission's regulations.
Portions of the records identified at numbers 3 through 30, 7, 55 through 57, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 132 through 134, 142 through 150, 153 through 162, and 164 through 170 are also being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA (5 U.S.C.
552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5) of the Commission's regulations. The records identified at numbers 171 through 191 are legal work products. The remaining.
records being withheld in whole or in part pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA contain the advice, opinions, and recommendations of the staff concerning potential violations. The nonexempt portions of the Appendix V records are being placed in PDR file F01A-85-59 under your name.
The records identified at numbers 171 through 191 contain in camera testimony.
These records and portions of the records identified at numbers 7, 36, 37, 40 through 54, 76, 77, 95, 124 through 126, 133, 142, 155, 161 and 166 contain information subject to the agreement reached between you and the NRC staff at a meeting on May 8,1985. Therefore, we are not invoking an FOIA exemption regarding the deletion of this information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the Commission's regulations, it has been determined that the information withheld pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA is exempt from production or disclosure and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The persons responsible for this denial are the undersigned and Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
r,,1 fu, w.w <,w.u :~
l
Ms. Garde This denial may be appealed to the Executive Director for Operations within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. Any such appeal must.be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision."
A separate set of the released records is being made available for public inspection and copying at the Local Public Document Room (LPDR) located at the University of Texas Library, 170 South Cooper Street, Arlington, Texas.
Additional boxes of records subject to your request are currently under review and will be placed in the PDR and LPDR in the coming weeks.
Sincerely,
/7N Donnie H. Grimsley, Directo Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
)
Enclosure:
As stated i
Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX V 1
' Box'13-QA/QC Date Page l.
5/2/85 SSER-AQ-38 4
2.
1/8/85 NRC 1tr to TUGCO,. Subject 29
" Comanche. Peak Review"-In PDR-AND 8501140283 3.
4/28/85 SSER AQ-20 6
4.
4/28/85 SSER AQ-23 8
5.
4/29/85 SSER QA-112 3
i 6.
4/29/85 SSER AQ-7, AQ-83 2
7.
4/29/85 SSER AQ-127 4
i 8.
5/1/85 SSER AQ-121 6
.9.
5/1/85 SSER AQ-126, AQ-6 6
~
10.
5/2/85 SSER AQ-15/AQ-89 17 11.
5/2/85 SSER AQ-135.
11 12.
5/4/85 SSER AQ-91 4
- 13. 5/4/85 SSER AQ-54/AQ-65 14. 5/4/85 SSER AQ-69, AQ-122 3
- 15..5/4/85 SSER AQE-41 3
i 16.
5/6/85 SSER AQ-73 3
17.
5/6/85 SSER AQ-70 3
18.
5/6/85 SSER AQ-41 21 i
Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX V (continued)
'i 19.
5/6/85 SSER AQ-9 3
20.
5/6/85 SSER AQ-132 6
- 21.. 5/6/85 SSER AQ-133 5
- 22. 5/6/85 SSER AQ-44, AQ-128 5
23.
5/7/85 SSER AQ-113 3
24.
5/9/85
.SSERs in pkg including 59 AQ-33, AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-16 q
57, 59, 60, 71, AQ-17,
]
AQ-107, AQE-9, AQ-100, AQ-123 AQ-102,AQ-105,AQ-110,AQ-111, i
AQ-134,AQH-1,AQW-13,AQ-19, AQ-99,-136-i 25.
5/15/85 SSER AQ-46 5
26.
5/20/85 SSER AQ-50, REV. 3 34
- 27. 5/29/85 SSERs including AW-37 & AQ-52 32 AQ-117, AQ-130, AQ-131, AQ-88, 4
AQ-61, AQ-43, AQ-47, AQ-51, AQ-68, 1
AQ-82,AQ-98
- 28. 5/29/85 SSER AQ-77, 79, & 138 14
- 29. 5/29/85 SSER 11 Cat. 50
-16
- 30. 5/29/85 SSER AQ-55 & AQ-78 11
- 33. 6/1/85 CP SSER 11 APP 0 Duplicate 15
- 34. No date TRT List of QA/QC Categories 3
35.. No date TRT Handwritten list of AQ#s 4
- 36. 4/11/25 Memo from H. Livermore to V.
1 Noonan,
Subject:
"Telecon" 2
Re: FOIA-85-59 APPENDIX V Tcontinued) 37.
4/23/85 Memo of 4 pages from Livermore 4
to Noonan,
Subject:
" Alleger Feedback Action Items" 38.
4/22/85 Memo from Livermore to Shao.
1
Subject:
Comments on P/M SSERs i
39.
5/20/85 Memo from Livermore to Noonan, 1,
J
Subject:
" Request'for Publication of SSER # 11 "
40, 2/8/85 Handwritten ltr, Livermore to 17 Noonan, Re:
TRT's Up-to-date w/ transmittal of action items 41, 2/21/85 Copies of Routing and Transmittal 3
Slips Re: ANI Reports 42.
3/8/85 Rough Draft of Note to H.
4 Livermore from Joe Scinto, Re:
Comanche TRT SSERs 43.
4/3/85 Noonan ltr to Livermore, Re:
9
" Alleger Feedback Action Items" 44.
4/11/85 Handwritten Memo from Livermore
'9 to Noonan, " Alleger Feedback Action Items" 45.
4/11/85 Memo from Livermore to Noonan 8
]
"Telecon with Alleger" with j
Traveler 591
]
46.
4/16/85 NRC Memo Eisenhut to TRT 5
)
Subject," Comanche Peak Schedule and Organizational j
Chart" 47.
4/23/85 Memo from Livermore to Noonan, 5
Subject " Alleger Feedback Action Items" 48.
4/25/85 Routing & Transmittal Slip to 4
Livermore on." revised Mechanical /
Piping Executive Summary with comments from Livermore 3
a
Re: F0!A-85-59 APPENDIX V (continued).
49.
8/20/85 Sunnary of Allegations Lacking 6
Number Identification 50.
No date Memo from Livermore to Noonan, 2
Review' Comments of Deposition Transcripts 51.
No date Memo from Livermore to Noonan 4
"A11eger Feedback Action Items 52.
No date Memo from Livermore to Noonan, 9
"A11eger Feedback Action Items 53.
No date Handwritten Notes. form Livermore 4
to Bonnenburg on Items from Luke's Group needing review 54.
No date Copies of Transcript pages 1901, 5
4207, 4209, 4210 and 4211 55.
1/28/85 Note to Livermore from Tang, 7
" Comments by TRT Consultant on Draft QA/QC SSER, Category 1
- Training and Qualifications i
56.
1/29/85 Note to Livermore from Tang 11
" Comments by TRT Consultant on Draft QA/QC SSERs, Category 5"
- 57. 2/4/.t'5 Note to Livermore from Tang 17
" Comments by TRT Consultant on Draft QA/QC SSERs, Category 8, As-Builts" 58.
2/ 6/85 Note to TRT members from 37 4
Charley Haughney, re: pleading requiring formal staff response 59.
2/25/85 CASE Opposition to Staff Motion 12 for Indefinite Extension of -
Time 60.
2/28/85 Memo from Wm Dircks to Panel 9
Members, " Panel to Prepare NRC Staff Position on Comanche Peak Hearing Contention No. 5" 4
Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX V (continue 3) 61.
3/8/85 TRT Memo to Livermore 7
Supplement _Nos. 7 and 8 Reference to QA/QC SSER 62._ 3/15/85 Note to Livermore from 5
Workinger, " Reference to QA/QC SSER in Mechanical Piping and Coatings, draft SSERs 63.
3/20/85 Memo from Livermore to Noonan 2
" Designated QA/QC Reviewers" 64.
3/21/85 Handwritten pages pf TRT 8
QA/QC Concerns
- 65. 4/15/85 Record of Telephone Conversation 4
- 66. 4/16/85 NRC Memo " Record Review Group 1
Findings"
- 67. 4/16/85 NRC Memo from Poslusny to 1
Calvo and Shao, re:
Remaining Feedback Interview Conclusions 68.
4/25/85 NRC Memo to TRT, " Feedback 7
Interviews with A11egers" j
- 69. 5/13/85 Memo from Livermore to Noonan 2
" Retention of Present TRT QA/QC Group Personnel" 70.
5/18/85 Handwritten Note " Items Needing 2
Review 71.
5/20/85 Memo from Livermore to Noonan 1
" Request for Publication of SSER #11 72.
5/23/85 Livermore_to Tang handwritten 1
notes 73.
5/26/85 Memo from Livermore to Noonan 2
" Retention of Present TRT QA/QC Group Personnel" b
Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX V (continued)
{
J 74.
5/28/85 Memo from Livermore to Noonan 2
']
" Record Review Group Findings" 75.
5/30/85 Routing & Transmittal Slip 1
from Jeng to Livermore,
]
" Generic Impact Index for Allegation AC-32" 76.
No date Sumary Allegations Lacking 6
Number ID l
77.
No date Summary Allegations Lacking 6
Number ID 78.
No date Handwritten Memo, Livermore 3
to Noonan, " Retention of Present TRT QA/QC Group Personnel 79.
No date Memo Livermore to Noonan 2
" Record Review Group Findings" 80.
No date Memo Livermore to Noonan 2
" Meeting with TUEC Recovery Team Leader"
{
81.
No date Memo, Livermore to Noonan 5
1 "Possible Falsification of Fuel Pool Travelers"-
82.
No date Memo Livermore te Noonan 4
" Fuel Pool Travelers" 83.
No date Memo,-Livermore to Noonan 26
" Oversights & Omissions in Supplement Nos. 7 & 8 Re:
l QA/QC" 84.
No date Memo, Trammell to Noonan, 4
"SSER No. 11 for Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) i 6
1 Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX V (continued) 85.
5/29/85 Ltr from Worsham, Forsythe, 36 Sampels & Wooldridge to
" Administrative Judges, Re:
Supplementation of Applicants'
" Response to CASE's Request for Production " including MAC Report" 86.
5/29/85 Copy - same as above 36 l
87.
6/6/85 Memo, Livermore to Noonan, 4
" Management Analysis Company Quality Assurance Audit of j
Comanche Peak"
]
88.
No date Memo Livermore to Noonan, 5
" Evaluation of MAC's Management Quality Assurance Audit of Comanche Peak" 89.
No date Handwritten Notes 2
]
f 90.
2/85 Safety Evaluation Report 104 1
NUREG-0797, Supplement 8 91.
6/7/85 Handwritten notes on ERRATA Sheet 1
92.
No date SSER Reference Problems 2
]
93.
5/10/85 Memo Noonan to TRT, " Enforcement 31 Items"
- 94. 2/6/85 Note, Noonan to TRT, "Teledyne 42 Eng. Serv. response to Applicants.'
Motion for Summary disposition on Design QA i
7
Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX V (continued) 95.
1/18/85 R. H. Wessman note to TRT Group 30 Leaders. "Useful Depositions" 96.
11/9/84 TUGC0 Ltr to NRC, Comanche 8
Peak Steam Electric Station Response to NRC Notice of Violation Inspection Report #84-22 97.
1/18/85 NRC Ltr to TUGCO, "Special 3
Inspection of Safeguards &
Auxiliary 81dg. July ~16, 1984 thru Sept. 28, 1984 " with Appendix A, Notice of Violation
- 98. 2/12/85 NRC ltr to TUGCO,." Inspection 60 by Kelley & Smith during Aug.
1-31, 1984" with Appendix A, Notice of Violation
- 99. 2/15/85 NRC Ltr to TUGCO, " Inspection 29 by Phillips 8/20/84 thru 9/20/84 with Notice of Violation" i
160. 2/15/85 NRC ltr to TUEC, " Response to 9
Notice of Violation dated i
10/4/85 101. 2/25/85 GAP ltr to NRC office of 31 Enforcement, " Requested Response to ability or authority to review issued Notice of Violation, " copy of NOV Included.
102. 2/28/85 TUGC0 ltr NRC, " Response to NRC 7~
Notices of Violation Inspection 1
Report 84-26, File No:
10130 103. No date Draft NRC ltr to TUEC, 17
" Inspection by Cummins 12/19/84 thru 3/31/85," with draft IR i
104. 10/10/84 As-Built Material Traceability 13 105. 11/20/84 Sumary for Mtg w/Eisenhut 3
SSER, QA/QC Category 8. AQ-44, AQ-128 8
Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX V (continued) 106. No date Livermore to QA/QC Category 2
Group Leaders, " Content of Category Sumaries" 107. No date QA/QC Category SE, Materials 4
108. No date SSER Summary 5A 5.
109. No date Sumary QA/QC Category 1, Design 9
Process 110. No date QA Sumation by Hale 6
111. No date Sumary Category 4 5
112. No date Category Sumary 1
113. No date Sumary Category 5H 2
114. No date Sumary Category 6 1
115. No date Handwritten - CASES Problem 3
Identification Systems 116. 4/27/84 TUGC0 Procedure CP-QP-17.0, 2
Rev. 4 Corrective Action 117. No date Draft of SSER, B&R Trending 19 System 118, 11/1/84 Noonan letter to Scinto, "TRT and 9
Region IV Input to Staff's Response To TU 50.57 (c) Motion to Load Fuel & Conduct Certain Precritical Testing 119. 10/4/84 QA/QC Input, Draft 2CP7 5
120. 11/21/84 TUGC0 ltr to Licensing, NRC, 31
" Program Plan & Issue-Specific-Action Plans, Rev. I 121. 1/14/85
'TUGC0 ltr to NRC, Response to 2
NOV Inspection Report N. 84-16 File No. 10130 9
j
~
Re: F0IA-85-59 APPENDIX V (continued) 156. 10/24/84 SSER,AQ-68,AQ-82,Rev.4 9
157. 11/20/84 SSER, AQ-61', Rev. 2 19 158. No date SSER,-AQ-77, 79, & 138, Rev. 1 21 159. 1/15/85 SSER, AQ-54, AQ-65, Rev. 4 12 160. 3/15/85 SSER, AQ-54, AQ-65, Rev. 4-11 161. 1/15/85 SSER QA.QC Category 50, Rev. 1 24.-
'l 162. 1/2/85 SSER Drafts 31 AQ-5,AQ-12,AQ,.AQ-13, p
AQ-14, AQ-115, AQ-40 AQ-41 and AQ-53 163. No date Comanche Peak Open 3
Issue Action Plan 164. 2/1/85 SSER AQ-135, Draft 15 165. 2/7/85 SSER QA-50 III, Draft 51 166. 2/28/85 SSER AQ-44 and AQ-128, Draft 10 167. 3/7/85 SSER AQ-50, Rev. 1 44 168. 3/14/85 SSER AQ-135, Draft 14 169. 5/6/85 SSER AQ-44 and AQ-128 5
170. 5/6/85 SSER AQ-44 and AQ-128 5
171. 7/17/84 Sumary of "In Camera"
-4 Deposition of A11eger 172. 7/9/84 Sumary of Deposition for 4
Applicant 173, 7/9/84 Sumary of Deposition for.
2 Applicant 174. 7/9/84 Sumary of Deposition for 6
Applicant 175. 7/10/84' Sumary of Deposition for
~6 Applicant
.12-
l
~
Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX V (continued) 176. 7/10/84 Sumary of Deposition for 6
Applicant 177. 7/10/84 Sumary of Deposition for 7
Applicant 178. 7/11/84 Sumary of Deposition for 3
Applicant 179. 7/11/84 Sumary of Deposition for 6
Applicant 180. 7/11/84 Sumary of Deposition for 2
Applicant
{
181. 7/11/84 Sumary of Deposition for
-2 j
Applicant' 182. 7/11/84 Sumary of Deposition for 2
Applicant I
183. 7/13/84 Sumary of Deposition for 5
Applicant 184. 7/16/84 Sumary of Deposition for 7
Applicant 185. 7/17/84 Sumary of Deposition 7
(Public Hearing) 186. 7/30/84 Sumary of Deposition 5
i for Applicant 187. 7/30/84 Sumary of Deposition 7
for Applicant 188. 7/31/84 Sumary of Deposition 6
of Applicant 189. 7/31/84 Sumary of Deposition 2
for Applicant 190. No date Index of Deposition 19 of TUGC0 Manager 191. No date Sumary of Deposition 3
of Brown & Root Manager 192. No date Index of Comanche Peak Testimony 54 13
c I
1
-GOVEPNMENT ACCOUNTABluTY PROJECT I
1555 Connecticut Awnue, N.W., Suite 202 Woshington, D.C. 20036 (202)232 8550 G:85:104 January 21, 1985 l
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACI REQUESI, 5kYf Director Office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. $ 552, the Government Accountability Project (" GAP") requests copies of any and all agency records and.
information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, 4
cinutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, sunrnaries, interview re-j ports, procedures, instructions, engineering analyses, drawings, files, graphs, t
charts, maps, photographs, agreements, handwritten notes, studies, data sheets, notebooks, books, telephone messages, computations, voice recordings, computer runoffs, any other data compilations, interim and/or final reports, status re-ports, and any and all other records relevant to and/or generated in connection with the overview, ragulation and investigation of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant by any person, branch, or department of the NRC since January 18, 1985.
)
This request includes all agency records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 6 9.3a(b) and the NRC Manual, Appendix 0211. Parts 1.A.2 and A.3 (approved October 8,1980) whether they currently exist in the NRC official, " working," investigative or-other files, or at any other location, including private residences.
If any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 5 9.3a(b) and the NRC Manual, supra, and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to implementtheaction(s).
GAP requests that fees be waived, because " finding the information can be con-sidered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 U.S.C. $ 552(a)(4)(a).
GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government. Through public outreach, the Project promotes.
whistleblowers as agents of government accountability. Through its Citizens Clinic, GAP offers assistance to local public interest and citizens groups seeking to ensure the health and safety of their communities. The Citizens Clinic is currently assisting several citizens groups, local governments and intervenors in the central Texas area concerning the construction of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant.
Or i M i /*%,r m i
O nk-M.J & w V 1 1
?
Director Office of Administration Page Two We are requesting the above information as part of an ongoing monitoring project en the adequacy of the NRC's efforts to protect public safety and health at nuclear power plants.
for any documents or. portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption.
l' please provide at; index itemizing and describing the documents or portions of The index.should provide a detailed jusitfication of your documents' withheld.
grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document. withheld. This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (1), 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S.
977 (1974).
We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.
1 Sincerely.
N
'lW Billie Pirner Garde Citizens Clinic Director
)
i O
9 4