ML20205H238

Applicant Response to Joint Intervenors Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 851003 Memorandum & Order on Summary Disposition of Contention 8 Re Adequacy of QA Program

ML20205H238
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	11/12/1985
From:	Joiner J GEORGIA POWER CO., TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20205H244	List: ML20205H238 ML20205H263 ML20205H288
References
CON-#485-163 OL, NUDOCS 8511150078
Download: ML20205H238 (125)

Text

M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ."' K E i r"'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '173n3c Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board '85 NOV 13 A11iS6 LFF u 0; L y c t

In the Matter of ) $$dch '"

)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. ) DOCKET NOS. 50-4240L 50-425

)

(Vogtle Electric Generating )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

A"PLICANTS' RESPONSE TO JOINT INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 8 (QUALITY ASSURANCE)

James E. Joiner, P.C.

Charlas W. Whitney Kevin C. Greene Hugh M. Davenport TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMAN & ASHMORE George F. Trowbridge, P.C.

Bruce W. Churchill, P.C.

David R. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS November 12, 1985 0511150070 051112 PDH ADOCK 05000424 PDR O gj g

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s

'Before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board

~~ C 8

In the Matter of- )

)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.) Docket Nos. 50-424 and

) 50-525 (Vogtle Electric Generating )

Plant, Units 1 and 2). )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO JOINT INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 8 (QUALITY ASSURANCE)

I. INTRODUCTION Georgia Power Company, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Oglethorpe Power Company and The . City of Daltort

. (" Applicants") file this response to the per. ding motion for reconsideration and continuance which has been filed by Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (" Joint Intervenors").

On October 3, 1985, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") summarily disposed of and dismissed Joint Intervenors' Contention 8 which challenged the adequacy of Applicants' Quality Assurance ("QA") Program for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ("VEGP"). That Order of October 3, 1985 was based upon a complete 1 ' record which l' Contrary to Joint Intervenors' assertion on page 2 of their Motion for Reconsideration, Applicants' Motion

' for Summary Disposition was filed after the close of discovery.

~ .

established that there was no genuine issue of material fact sufficient s avoid summary disposition of the issues.

Specifically, this Board found that the facts, as advanced by Applicants. and NRC Staff, were suppor_ted by appropri ,

ately qualified affiants whose discussions made it clear that the VEGP QA Program not only meets the formal requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B but also functions in accordance with the intent of Appendix B.

Thib Board concluded tuat Joint Intervenors' Contention 8 was without foundation.

Joint Intervenors now bring this Motion for l Reconsideration which is no more than a partial restate-ment of some of the unsubstantiated and vague allegations which they made earlier. Joint Intervenors' attempt to support the pending Motion for Reconsideration and Continuance with the affidavit of a third party who is unrelated to this proceeding. The affidavit summarizes why that third party is unable to defeat the already decided Motion for Summary Disposition.

As with many of the pleadings filed by Joint i

Intervenors to date, this Motion contains inaccuracies and misstateraents of f act. However, none of the statements or l assertions made by Joint Intervenors, even if true, provide even the most tenuous basis for a reconsideration i

of the Board's October 3, 1985 Order, f

-2 .

r

l Joint Intervenors*1' base their Motion on two argu-ments. First, they argue the VEGP pilot-Readiness Review Program provides evidence, which Joint Intervenors are otherwise una.ble to present, that there were some _,

construction defects not discovered by the QA Program at VEGP. Second, they argue that they need a continuance because if the Board grants this Motion then they will attempt to determine if there are any affiants available to support their otherwise bold but unsupported allega-tions and then, if such affiants exist, the record will be supplemented at that time.

The first argument evidences a lack of understanding about the various quality programs at VEGP, including the QA Program and the Readiness Review Program. The second argument evidences a lack of understanding regarding the duties of an intervenor once it has brought a contention and made serious allegations such as those which have been made in this proceeding.

9 1' The pending Motion for Reconsideration and Continuance has been filed on behalf of Joint Intervenors.

It is not evident from the pleading itself whether any authorized or legitimate representative of Joint Intervenors ever saw this document before it was filed with the ASLB. The Motion was signed by Ms. Billie Garde on behalf of Tim Johnson. Tim Johnson is an authorized representative of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia.

However, Ms. Garde's involvement in this case is unclear and undefined. In the past, she has purported to be "a representative of Joint Intervonors". However, she is neither an attorney not a member of either Intervenor group, nor has she filed a tiotice of Appearance in this l- case. All that is presently known of her is that she is an active member in the anti-nuclear group known as Government Accountability Project (" GAP").

II. ARGUMENT A. Joint Intervenors' Lack of Understanding Regarding the VEGP Readiness Review Program Does Not Provide a Sufficient Basis to Reopen the ,

Record and Reconsider the Motion for Summary Disposition. ,

1. The VEGP Readiness Review Program Is Not A

• Substitute For The VEGP QA Program It is established that this Board has the inherent power to entertain and grant a motion for reconsideration j of an earlier decision. See, e.g. Consumers Power Co.,

(Midland Plant, Units 1 ind 2), ALAB-35, 8 A.E.C. 645, 646 (1974). However, a motion for reconsideration should not be a restatement of arguments previously advanced; it should raise new issues and cite information not previ-ously available. Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-23, 19 N.R.C. 1412, 1414 (1984).

The arguments advanced by Joint Intervenors in their Motion for Reconsideration are nothing more than a partial restatement of the same arguments made in response to the Motion for Suramary Disposition. Either intentionally or through ignorance, Joint Intervenors have mischaracterized the purpose of Readiness Review.1' Joint Intervenors l' It is difficult to believe that Joint Intervenors do not fully understand the purpose and func-tion of Readiness Review since they have been on the service list and have been receiving copies of all corre-spondence between Georgia Power Company and the NRC, including the final Readiness Review modules.

l l

l continue to assert that Readiness Review is a substitute for the VEGP QA Program. (Joint Intervenors' Motion at pp. 4-8.) This allegation is untrue.

The true. purpose and function of the VEGP pilot c

Readiness Review Program is described at pages 24 through 29 of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition. As Mr. Ramsey testified in support of the Mction for Summary Disposition:

The purpose of the VEGP pilot Readiness Review Program is to provide a systematic and disci-plined review of Georgia Power Company's imple-mentation of design, construction and operational preparation processes to increase the assurance that quality program activities at Plant Vogtle have been accomplisned in accordance with regula-tory requirements.

(Ramsey Affidavit at T 4, submitted as Attachment 7 to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition, filed June 24, 1985.)

The factual description of the Readiness Review Program was supported by the Affidavit of Mr. Ramsey at paragraphs 3 to 59. Joint Intervenors may disbelieve Mr. Ramsey's testimony, but the/ offer no evidence to the contrary.1' Based upon the evidence in the Record, this l' Joint Intervenors cite a statement of Mr. R. W.

Scherer, Chief Executive Officer of Georgia Power Company, made when questioned by Chairman Palladino during an NRC meeting held on July 26, 1985. (A copy of the Transcript ot that meeting is Attachment I hereto.) In that meeting, Mr. Scherer summarized his view as to the importance of the Readiness Review Program. Nothing which Mr. Scherer said during that meeting, or at any other time, contradicts directly or indirectly the purpose of the Readiness Review Program. Indeed, Mr. Scherer's statement made on July 26, 1985 is entirely consistent with the goals and purposes of the Readiness Review Program.

((

l f

l Board correctly found that the Readiness Review Program "is not a substitute for Applicant's QAP but is an overlay to that effort serving to increase the confidence of V

management of the operational readiness of VEGP."

L Memorandum and Order. (Ruling on Motion for Summary

( Disposition of Contention 8 re: Vogtle Quality Assurance) served October 3, 1985, at page 7. Joint,Intervenors

- offer nothing, other than their continued disbelief and confusion, in support of their plea-that this Board reconsider its October 3, 1985 Order.

Even without the Readiness Review Program; the VEGP QA Program clearly verifies the quality of construction and leads to reasonable assurance that the VEGP will operate safely in a manner which will not endanger the public

, health. The effectiveness of the QA Program was discussed in Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition at pages 13 through 24. The relevant portions of the QA program were l described by Messrs. Foster, Hayes, Harbin, Caruso, Brooks and Turner.1' Joint Intervenors did not offer a scintilla of' evidence to refute Applicants' description of the VEGP QA Program which was set out in these affidavits. In filing this Motion for Reconsideration, l

I l

l' These affidavits were filed in support of the Motion for Summary Disposition as Attachments 1 through 6, respectively.

F l

!~

. J6in' Intervenors have offered no new evidence or differ-ent arguments. They have merely attempted to restate their earlier arguments. It remains clear that the Readiness Review Program adds to the assurance of quality.,.

c it does not take away from, or substitute for, the Appendix B QA Program.

I J

u 2. The Construction Defects Identified By Readiness Review Have Had No Safety Significance The real focus of Joint Intervenors' attack in their Motion for Reconsideration is set forth at pages 6 to 7 of their Motion. They argue that the Readiness Review l l

Program has uncovered hardware deficiencies at the VEGP which had escaped the original QA program. Essentially, Joint Intervenors criticize the VEGP QA Program because it did not gua.rantee error free and perfect construction.

Even without the Readiness Review Program, any reason-able person would realize that no nuclear construction project is error free or perfect. Such is not the stan-dard applied by reason and that has been recognized by the Appeal Board. In this regard, the Appeal Board has recently defined the context within which Quality Assurance issues are to be viewed:

In any project even remotely approaching in

~

magnitude and complexity the erection of a nuclear power plant, there inevitably will be some construction defects tied to quality

assurance lapses. It would therefore be totally unreasonably to hinge the grant of a NRC operating license upon a demonstration of error free construction. Nor is such a result mandated by either the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's implementing regulations. What they require #'~ ~

is simply a finding of reason 5ble8 assurance that, as built, the facility can and will be operated without endangering the public health and safety. 42 U.S.C. SS2133(d),

2232(a); 10 CFR $50.57(a)(3)(i). Thus, in examining claims of quality assurance deficiencies, one must look to the implica-tion of those deficiencies in terms of a safe plant operation.

Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-40, 18 N.R.C. 343, 346 (1983) (footnote omitted).

The Diablo Canyon Appeal Board agreed:

Although a program of construction quality assur-ances specifically designed to catch construction

' errors, it is unreasonable-to expect a program to

. uncover all errors. In short, perfection and plant construction in the facility construction Quality Assurance Program i's not a precondition for a license under either the Atomic Energy Act or the Commission's Regulations. What is required instead is reasonable assurance that the plant, as built, can and will be operated without endangering the public health and safety.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co., (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-56, 18 N.R.C. 1340, 1345 (1983).

Joint Intervenors have cited 6 " findings" of the Readiness Review Program which they suggest provide a basis to challenge the effectiveness of the VEGP QA l

l

Program.i In fact, Readiness Review has discovered, as of the present, more than 500 " findings" of construction m errors, defects, or deviations from PSAR/FSAR commit-ments. (Trudeau Affidavit at Y 3, Attac_hment 2 hereto.) .. c Although the VEGP QA Department reviews all readiness Review findings for safety significance (Second Hayes Affidavit at T 3; Attachment 3 hereto), not one of these t

findings has been of a condition reportable pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e).1' Nor, has any Readiness Review finding resulted in any level of violation as assessed by the NRC. (Trudeau Affidavit at T 6.) Accordingly, not a single finding has been of the nature that, had it gone undetected, it would have adversely affected the safety of .

operations of- VEGP. See, 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e); 10 C.F.R.

- Part 2, Appendix C. .

l' It must be noted that none of these six findings come within the scope of Contention 8, as outlined by this Board in its Order dated November 5, 1984 which admitted the Contention. In this Motion for Reconsideration, Joint Intervenors do not address any of their original basis for Contention 8.

l' Even if a Readiness Review finding had been reportable, it does not directly follow that the finding supports Contention 8. In order for Contention 8 to be viable, it must be shown that there has been such a programmatic breakdown in QA that there is no reasonable assurance that VEGP can operate safely. Union Electric Co., supra. If Readiness Review were to discover a reportable condition it would not be substantially different than a finding by an NRC I&E inspection team.

Both are findings of defects which escaped Q/ discovery.

Certainly an NRC finding is not, in and of itself, evidence of a breakdown sufficient t> cast doubt on the safe operation of the Plant.

9

n Of the six findings cited by Joint Intervenors at p. 9 of their Brief, three are recognizable and are typical of other Readiness Review findings.1' (Trudeau Affidavit

! at T 7.) ,_ .. c The first recognizable finding cited by Joint i

Intervenors is that there have been " problems with retrievability of documentation." This is undoubtedly the conclusion Joint Intervenors wculd like to draw after reviewing the eight findings set forth in Readiness Review Module Appendix D " Document Control." In fact, after considering those eight findings, the Readiness Review Team concluded as follows: ,

Examination of project documents, and records, and discussions with project personnel provided evidence of compliance with the implementing procedures. Although discrepancies were identi-

- fied and documented in the findings previously discussed, none of the fi'ndings, either individ-ually or collectively, have had any adverse effect on hardware or plant design features or are such that the overall adequacy of the VEGP is called into question. Each finding was addressed by the project. Readiness Review has evaluated l' The other three references to: " deficient controls associated with field changes," weaknesses in certain design calculations," and " problems with electri-cal cable separation controls" are cryptic. Therefore, a specific response to each of these findings is impos-sible. Nevertheless, it remains true that no finding, or group of findings, of whatever nature, has been found to have any safety significance.

r

r the responses and concluded that they resolve the identified discrepancies. The l appendix-and'its summaries have primarily highlighted only the problem areas found by an experienced review team's audit of approximately 2800 project documents. Many positive aspects of the project,were identi- . . ,

c fied during their reviews and somd of these are discussed to a limited degree earlier in the appendix. In summary, based on the reviews, assessments, evaluations, and the responses and corrective actions to which

-the project committed, it is the conclusion of the Readiness Review Team that the project document control and quality assur-ance records control program is effective in ensuring that documents are properly controlled and quality assurance records are properly received, stored, and maintained.

Tnerefore, the overall program meets FSAR commitments. (emphasis added)

(Trudeau Affidavit at V 8.)

The second identifiable finding which is cited by Joint Intervenors is that there is a " weakness in initial

~

test program procedures." This is the conclusion they would like to draw after examining the twenty findings reported-in Readiness Review Module 3A " Initial Test Program". In fact, after considering these findings, the Readiness Review Team concluded as follows:

Module 3A Readiness Review Team verification proce ss resulted in 20. findings. Corrective actions were reviewed and found to be acceptable by the Readiness Review Team.

The findings were grouped into categories which resulted in three additional findings and the collective significance was assessed. When related to the performance of the ITP, no individual or collective finding was considered to be serious enough to affect the overall quality of the ITP.

Timely.corre'ctive action and continued management attention will result in a successful Preoperational Test Program.

,(Trudeau Affidavit at 1 9.)

The third identifiable finding which is cited by JoinE' '

Intervenors is~that there are " problems with inspector certification records." This is the conclusion they would like to draw from Finding 6.1-5 set forth in Readiness Review Module 1 " Reinforced Concrete Structures." That finding is as follows:

Training records for the year 1978 for R. Chao could not be located. In addition,

-1978 training records for H. Reuter did not include any record of PRM training.

The Readiness Review Team considered the finding and

. concluded as follows: .

It is recognized that training for the years prior to 1980 was not-documented to the extent currently done. Since most of the project calculations and drawings have been revised or reissued subsequent to 1978, documentation of training during that time period is not a significant concern.

Training records for 1980 and 1982 were reviewed and found to be satisfactory, with clear indication of requirements and evidence of appropriate training. Addition-ally, the overall quality of engineering

' documentation and its close adherence to project procedures is evidence of the effec-tiveness of training. Therefore, it was concluded that no corrective action regard-ing training records prior to 1980 was required. This finding is, therefore, closed.

(Trudeau Affidavit at 4 10.)

A complete review of each of the mo:e than 500 Readiness Review findings would be impractical and unnecessary i.n this Brief. However, w i,t_h regard to each ,

and every finding, a determination has been made that the matter did not adversely affect the safe operation of VEGP. (Trudeau Affidavit at 4 12); Accordingly, Joint Intervenors' reliance on the Readiness Review findings will not support their Contention 8.

The resolutions of findings by Readiness Review are not a self-serving assessment. In addition to Applicants' general duty to report conditions that may affect safety, the success of Readiness Review is dependent upon review by NRC.1' For instance, with regard to Module 1 l' Applicants' overall commitment to quality has always been subject to NRC review. Some NRC statements regarding the effectiveness of the QA Program at VEGP were set forth at pages 15-19 of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition. Recently, at about the time this Motion for Reconsideration was being prepared, NRC issued its latest Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (I & E Report 85-27) ("SALP"). In that report, NRC concluded:

"The Licensee continues to implement a vigorous construction project management effort with well-qualified and experienced personnel . . .

Major strengths have been identified in areas of

. . . Quality programs and Administrative Controls Affecting Quality".

The NRC has given the QA functional area a " Category 1" rating, which is the highest rating. Category 1 means that reduced NRC attention may be appropriate, that Licensee Management is aggressive and oriented toward nuclear safety, and that there is a high level of performance being achieved in that QA functional area.

" Reinforced Concrete Structures," this evaluation was performed by NRC reviewers and inspectors from the Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, and Region II. The evalua_ tion, was accom-

_ s . . c plished through a detailed review of all sections of the module by: 1) verifying that design and construction commitments listed in the Module are correct and comply with FSAR requirements; 2) reviewing the module findings and evaluating the correctness of their resolution;

3) reviewing a comprehensive and representative sample of

~

the records reviewed by the Readiness Review Staff, and;

4) selecting and reviewing a comprehensive and representa-tive random sample of records on concrete operations. The details of this review are set forth in Mr. Grace's letter to Georgia Power Company dated August 12, 1985 (Attachment .

4).

A similar review of Module 3A " Initial Test Procedure has been performed by NRR and inspectors from Region II.

This review specifically included a review of the Readiness Review findings and Applicants' proposed correc-tive action. The details of this review process are set forth in a letter from Mr. Grace to Georgia Power Company dated October 21., 1985 (Attachment 5). Following its Review of Module 3A, NRC concluded that the pre-opera-tional Test Program for Vogtle 1 is acceptable.

i A similar review of Module Appendix I " Quality Assurance Organi7ation" has been performed by NRC inspec-tors from Region II. Approximately 128 inspection hours were used during this review, which spec _ifically included.,

a review of findings and their resolution. The details of this review process are set forth in a letter from Mr. Grace to Georgia Power Company dated October 25, 1985 (Attachment 6). Following its review of Appendix I, NRC concluded that the QA Program " complies with the NRC requirements and FSAR commitments."

In conclusion, it is clear that the Readiness Review Program is not a substitute for the VEGP QA Program; nor, does the Readiness Review Program offer evidence of a breakdown in QA. While Readiness Review has confirmed that construction at VEGP is not perfect and not error free, it has also confirmed that the Quality Assurance program is effective. Of all construction defects found, not one had safety significance. As a result of Readiness Review, there is now a higher degree of confidence that VEGP can and will operate in a manner which will not endanger-public health and safety. The Quality Assurance Program at VEGP is sound and the ruling of the ASLB on October 3, 1985 is legally and factually correct. It should not be reconsidered.

i l

l

[ i-h

y B. . Joint Intervenors' Request for Continuance Should be Denied.

1. Joint Intervenors Have Had Numerous Oppor-tunities To present A Case, If They Had A Case To present.

Joint Intervenors virtually conceds th#t there is nothing in the record to support a denial of the Motion

.for Summary Disposition on Contention 8.11' The real purpose of this motion for reconsideration and continuance is to avoid the requiremen.ts of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(b) which state that one responding to a Motion for Summary Disposi-tion must file counter-affidavits or evidence. By this Motion for Continuance, Joint Intervenors seek the protec-tion of 10 C.F.R. S 2.749(c) which states:

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing a Motion that he cannot, for reasons stated, present by affidavit facts sufficient to justify his opposition, the presiding officer may refuse the application for summary decision or may order a contin-uance to permit affidavits to be obtained 11' Joint Intervenors argue that they "do not concede" all construction defects have been corrected.

(Motion for Reconsideration at page 9.) Such a con. cession has been made, as a matter of law, when they did not respond to the Statement of F-acts submitted in support of the-Motion for. Summary Disposition. However, Applicants do not rely upon what might appect to be a mere _ procedural error in Joint Intervenors' failing to respond to the Statement of Facts. In fact, as the evidence established, all known defects have been, or will be, corrected.

10 C.F.R. $ 2.749(c).

Clearly, Joint Intervenors do not come within the i

scope of 10 CFR 2.749(c). A Motion for Reconsideration is not th'e appropriate time to argue why a_ response to a . , _ c Motion for Summary Disposition was legally and factually deficient. However, the critical real defect in Joint l Intervenors' attempt to use 10 CFR 2.749(c) is not the lack of timeliness; it it that Joint Intervenors have no substance to their claim that, in time, they can present a case.

Joint Intervenors argue at page 10 of their Motion that there has been "a disposition of a matter without Joint Intervenors having any opportunity to present their case. . .". This -statement is untrue, Joint Intervenors have had numerous opportunities to present their case.

Whatever was their motivation, Joint Intervenors have failed at every opportunity to present any case whatsoever.

During the prehearing conference held on May 30, 1984, Joint Intervenors suggested that they had letters from individuals in the nuclear industry alleging problems at VEGP. (Prehearing Transcript at page 49). Neither the names nor the specifics of the allegations have ever been revealed.

Next, in their response to written discovery served on February 4, 1985 and April 17, 1985, Joint Intervenors responded to numerous questions by asserting that.they had l

l

anonymous informants who were willing to assert deficien-cies~at VEGP. However, Joint Intervenors have refused to identify either the individuals or the specifics of their allegations. . ._ . . . . c Third, during the deposition of Mr. Douglas Teper, taken on April 22 and 26, 1985, Joint Intervenors stated their position and represented to Applicants that they did not rely upon anonymous informants or their " tips" in support of Contention 8; nor did Mr. Teper believe that any such " anonymous tip" had called into question the safety of VEGP. (Teper Deposition at pages 251-257.)

Significantly, Mr. Teper, testifying on behalf of Joint Intervenors, and the attorney for Joint Intervenors, both stipulated during the depositien of Mr. Teper that

- if, at any time, they came to rely upon " evidence" given to them by a worker or former worker at VEGP then they would either turn that name over to Applicants or they would file a Motion for Protective Order seeking to resolve the question of whether they were required to' identify such an individual. (Teper Deposition at page 257). As of this date, Joint Intervenors have neither filed a Motion for Protective Order with regard to any individual nor have they given the name of any such individual to Applicants.

l The next suggestion that workers and former workers were giving information to Joint Intervenors came when l

l j 'I

Mr. Tim Johnson, a representative of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia,. testified on July 18, 1985 before the ACRS subcommittee. His testimony is set forth in the Transcript of.that hearing at pages 70 ,to 79. (Attachment, _

c 7 hereto.) Mr. Johnson did not name any individual who had given him information, but he represented -to the ACRS subcommittee.that such individuals were known to him. In response to that statement, Mr. Lee Glenn, who coordinates the Quality Concerns-Program at VEGP, sent a letter to Mr. Johnson asking.for the specifics of the allegations of safety problems so that such allegations could be investi-gated' thoroughly. (A copy of the letter sent to Mr. Johnson is attached as Attachment 8.) Applicants have

~

received no response to this letter.

On July 31, 1985, following Mr. Johnson's statements to the ACRS subcommittee, Joint Intervenors filed a response to Applicant's then pending Motion for Summary Disposition. In that response, Joint Intervenors asserted that there were workers and former workers of VEGP who were willing to testify about safety related defects at VEGP. Of course, no affidavits were attached to the Response, nor were any of the individuals or their allegations specified to the Board. On August 8, 1985 in response to this statement made by Joint Intervenors, a letter was sent by counsel for Applicants to counsel for Joint Intervenors seeking to obtain the specifics of the allegations._ (A copy of this letter is Attachment 9 hereto.)

On August.19, 1985, Mr. Teper respo_n_ded to Applicants .,, ,

j letter of August 8, 1985, by again stating that Joint Intervenors were " carefully reviewing the allegations of Plant Vogtle workers in order to place into the record that information which proves the systematic breakdown of the QA program at plant Vogtle." (Attachment 10 hereto.) l Nearly three months have passed since that letter from Mr. Teper and yet no specific construction defect has been identified in support of Contention 8.

Despite all of the opportunities given to Joint

- Intervenors to allow them to present the specifics of any allegation which they might truly have (as opposed to allegations of defects which are unsupported and substan-tiated), Applicants have received no response.

2. Joint Intervenors Offer No Ligitimate Reason For Their Need For Additional Time.

Once again, in this Motion for Reconsideration and Continuance, Joint Intervenors allege that at some point in the future they may find workers who are willing to testify about construction defects at VEGP. Signifi-cantly, they do not even allege that these construction defects will support a conclusion that there has been a generic breakdown in the Quality. Assurance Program. All

F that is offered is the possibility that there may be future allegations of construction errors and unrelated and isolated defects in hardware.

This posi. tion does not warrant appl,ication of 10 _ . . , ,

C.F.R. $ 2.749(c), even if such a position had been asserted in a timely manner in opposition to the original Motion for Summary Disposition. 10 C.F.R. S 2.749(c) is fashioned after Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) and it is appropriate-to examine federal court cases which have interpreted Rule 56(f). The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held, in a similar situation:

Because the burden on a party resisting summary judgment is not a heavy one, one must conclusively justify his entitlement to the shelter of rule 56(f) by' presenting -

specific facts explaining the inability to make a substantive response as required by rule 56(e) and by specifically demonstrating how postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable him, by discovery or other means, to rebut the movant's showing of the absence of a genuine issue of fact . . . The .

nonmovant may not simply rely on vague assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified, facts . . .

particularly where, as here, ample time and

~

opportunities for discovery have already lapsed.

SEC v. Spence & Greene Chemical Co.. 612 F.2d 896, 901 (5th Cir. 1980).

Joint Intervenors suggest that they have been unable to gather evidence because Ms. Billie Garde, a representa-tive of Government Accountability Project,'did not begin contacting former empl'oyees from VEGP until August and September.11' Ms. Garde's relatively recent involvement at VEGP is irrelevant to the issue. Joint Intervenors have alleged,for nearly two years, since,at least January ,,, , .,

'of 1984, that they had evidence i.n support of their t Contention 8. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.749(c) they were 1

required to present evidence sufficient to refute Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition. If evidence had been available, Joint Intervenors should have, and could have, marshaled sufficient affidavits in response to the Motion for Summary Disposition. Simply stated, there j l

were no affidavits to be marshaled because the VEGP .

Quality Assurance Program is effective.

Interestingly, Ms. Garde now states in her affidavit that several Department of Labor cases have been filed by

.former' workers at VEGP. A number of these individuals were discharged from VEGP for use of drugs or alcohol.

After those individuals failed or refused to take the uni-form drug test, some of these individuals now claim that they were discharged for raising safety concerns to their 11' Ms. Garde has been active with the VEGP since at least when she spoke at the Commission hearing on July 26, 1985. (Attachment 1 at pp. 73 to 77.) She has been soliciting affidavits, apparently unsuccessfully, since the week of August 19, 1985 when GAP began distrib-uting handouts at a restaurant just outside the Plant entrance. See Attachment 11.

1 l

management. Ms. Garde concedes 'that none of these individuals have been willing to file affidavits in this licensing effort which would support Joint Intervenors' Contention 8. ._

, _. . . . . . . c Joint Intervenors' (or Ms. Garde's) inability to gather affidavits in support of Contention 8 should act have been difficult if these workers who have filed D.O.L.

L complaints had testimony to offer in this licenting proceeding. In a'.1 of these D.O.L. cases, either Ms. Garde, Laurie Fowler (attorney for Joint Intervenors) or' Ralph Goldberg (member of the Board of Directors of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia) are acting as counsel for the complaining party in the D.O.L. lawsuit.11' If an affidavit was to be available, Joint Intervenors clearly had access to the affiant.

As further excuse for not obtaining affidavits, Joint Intervenors offer that Ms. Garde has not asked employees j

to put their statements into affidavits. (Garde affidavit k

at page 1) . A legitimate cuestion to ask is: "Why have l

Joint Intervenors not asked for such affidavits?"

Of course one answer is offered by Joint Intervenors in the Garde affidavit itself. The information which has 11' Of course, Ms. Garde is not an attorney or l authorized to practice law in any state. Her role in the D.O.L. cases, like her role here, is unclear.

L_

so far been received is general in nature and pertains only to isolated construction defects. None of this, even if it were put in affidavit form, would be sufficient to reconsider the Motion for Summary Disposition.

There is ,, , ,, ,

no suggestion that the construction defects still exist or that they have any safety significance.

The next reason why such affidavits have not been obtained is a bit more subtle. Ms. Garde suggests that "such affidavits are normally prepared after GAP has concluded a verification study of the worker's allega-tio'ns." (Garde Affidavit at p. 2). One can only hope that GAP is sincere in their realization that allegations should be verified before they are asserted in a licensing proceeding.11' In point of fact, neither GAP nor Joint Intervenors can verify any allegation made by any present or former worker at VEGP. They simply have no access to the Plant. Only NRC and Applicants can review and resolve an allegation of construction defect or quality problem at VEGP. For this reason, Joint Intervenors have a public duty to report any such allegations to NRC and Applicants. Moreover, as was discussed above, Joint 11' Hopefully, this change in GAP philosophy will allow them to avoid the type of utterally unsubstantiated allegations they have made in other proceedings. GAP's method of operatior in the past is well known. Two of their unsubstantiated attacks are outlined in Attachment 12.

Intervenors have been asked to report any such allegations -

to Applicants for a thorough investigation.

Stripped of its lofty rhetoric, it is simple arrogance for GAP to suggest that it has chosen no_t to gather _ . _ . . . . .. c evidence at the present time. Contrary to GAP's prefer-ence, neither this Board nor the Applicants are required to litigate the issue by rules set by GAP. The procedural rules by which this licensing proceeding is governed are set, in part, at 10 CFR 2.749(b). Those rules require Joint Intervenors to present evidence in response to a 1 Motion for Summary Disposition. Joint Intervenors are not allowed the privilege of waiting until they are ready to come forward. Neither Applicants nor this Board are required to wait for the convenience of Joint Intervenors.

The conclusion which is mandated under the law and which is most reasonable under these circumstances is that there are no witnesses will: g to testify on behalf of Joint Intervenors that VEGP has an ineffective Quality Assursnce program. This is entirely consistent with the truth of the matter which is that the Quality Assurance Program at VEGP is effective and reasonably assures public safety.

III. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, this Board should not reconsider its earlier Order. The Readiness Review Program does not support Joint Intervenors' position in b

l

this regard. It is neither a substitute for the VEGP QA Program; nor, does it provide evidence of safety signifi-cant construction defects.

This Board should ignore Joint Intervenors' plea to .., _

postpone a decision on the already decided Motion for i Summary Disposition. This Board should reject Joint Intervenors' suggestion that if this Motion for Reconside-ration is granted, Joint Intervenors will then apprise workers of the right to participate in this proceeding and then attempt to gather whatever evidence may be available at that time. When properly understood, this Motion for Reconsideration and Continuance must be denied as unfounded and unsupportable.

Respectfully s bmitted,

% $ WM J m s E. Joiner, Eles W. Whitne Kevin C. Greene Hugh M. Davenport TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMAN

& ASHMORE 1400 Candler Building Atlanta, Georgia 30043 (404) 658-8000 George F. Trowbridge, P.C.

Bruce W. Churchill, P.C.

David R. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &

TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20056 Counsel for Applicants DATED: November 12, 1985___

o* * 'b D r - E !Di. ft ti. ?,

l./ r o , e +.e

b. M l.E $ [r ~FLu UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:

COMMISSION MEETING Briefing on Operational Readiness Review Pilot Program Georgia Power- (Vogtle)

(Public Meeting)

Docket No.

Location: Washington, D. C. .

Date: Friday, July 26, 1985 Pages: 1 - 80 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES

~~

Court Reporters

• 1625 I St., N.W.

Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 Exhibit "1" I

)

i 1 D i SC LA i M ER 2

S ,

4 5

6 This is an unofficial transceipt of a meeting of the 7 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Friday, 8 July 26, 1985 in the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9 N . tJ . . Washington, O.C. The meeting was open to pubtic

~

10 .

attendance and observation. This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.

13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103 It is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript

~

17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beiiefs. No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 a u t hor 1:::e .

I l

22 23 24 25

~

D*s s o f /. . , '

l 1

UNTTED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ***

4 BRIEFING ON OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW PILOT PROGRAM 5 GEORGIA POWER (VOGTLE)

~

6 .***

7 PUBLIC MEETING 8 Room 1130 9

• 1717 H Street, Northwest 10 Washington, D.C.

11 Friday, July 26, 1985 12 The commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 13 o' clock, a.m.

14 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

15 NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 16 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Ccamissioner 17 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Commissioner 18 JAMES K. ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 19 LANDO W. ZECH, JR., Commissioner 20 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:

21 S. CHILK H. PLAINE 22 P. CRANE N. GRACE 23 J. TAYLOR R. W. SCHERER 24 J. H. MILLER R. J. KELLY 35 P. D. RICE W. RAMSEY

r... .

~

l . . ;,. ,

2 l 1 OTHER OEORG.!A POWER COMPANY PERSONNEL IN ATTENDANCE:

.2 D. O. FOSTER

• 3 J. T. BECKHAM 4 R. A. THOMAS

'S D. E. DUTTON 6

7 8

9 10

, 11 12 13 -

14 15 16 17 18 19

-20 21 22 23 24-25 .

i

.* p- e ,. *

• l 3

1 P ROC E ED I NG S 2 (10:05 a.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Good morning, ladies and 4 gentleman.

5 Today we have with us representatives from the 6 Georgia Power Company to brief the Commission on the Vogtle 7 operational readiness review p'i l o t program. Thi s pilot 8 program tests a readiness review concept that has been 9 developed by Georgia Power Company and is being applied to the 10 Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant. It is expected to lead to 11 improvements in managing, licensing, and confirming the 12 quality of nuclear construction projects, including the 13 incremental acceptance by NRC, a properly completed work.

14 The George Power Company is to'be commended for 15 volunteering to undertake this quality assurance p i,l o t 16 program, which recognizes Licensee respo'nsibility for 9

17 achieving and assuring plant quality. It recognizes that 18 substantive improvements and gyality in the nuclear industry i

19 must come from the industry itself. It cannot be expected 20 into or regulated into by the NRC.

21 This pilot program, as well as other quality 22 assurance initiatives, are intended to create an environment 23 which emphasizes incentives for an ability of utilities to 24 achieve excellence beyond assuring compliance with Commission 25 regulations.

o .

.f ,, .

4 1 I understand also that the briefing will include 2 comments on fitness for duty.

3 The Commission looks forward to today's briefing by 4 Georgia Power Company. Also, I understand we have, by 5 telephone hookup, people from Region II listening in to the

~

6 meeting. .

7 Before turning the meeting over to the 8 representatives of Georgia Power Company, let me ask if the 9 Commissioners have opening remarks?

10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No.

11 COMMISSIONER ZECH: No.

12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No.

13 COMMISSIONER' ROBERTS: No.

14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you. Then I will turn 15 the meeting over to Mr. Robert Scherer, Chairman and CEO of

~

16 Georgia Power. ,

17 Will you introduce your colleagues, sir?

18 MR. SCHERER: I will, sir.

19 Good morning, Chairman P.alladino, Commissioners, and 20 NRC Staff members. My name is Robert Scherer. I appreciate 21 the opportunity to address you today. I am Chairman of the 22 Board and Chief Executive Officer of Georgia Power Company, 23 and as you asked, I will introduce several of my staff l 24 members.

i l

25 .

Jim Miller, who is President of Georgia Power L

G 1 Company. Many of you already know Jim, so we will not go 2 through the vital description.

3 Also, R. J. Kelly, Executive Vice President, Power 4 Supply.

5 D. O. Foster, Vice President and Project General 6 Manager, the Vogtle Project Foster is a Georgia Tech 7 graduate with'27 years experience with Georgia Power Ccmpany. l 8 He has been associated with the Vogtle project for four years, 9 and is also a graduate of the Harvard Advanced Management 10 Program, and is a PE in Georgia.

11 Paul D. Rice, Vice President and General Manager, 12 Quality Assurance, has an MA degree in Mechanical Engineering 13 from Vanderb'ilt University, 23 years experience in the Navy 14 nuclear. program, 13 years reporting directly to Admiral 15 Rickover, 10 years at two major shipyards, three years as 16 Director of Radiologica'l Chemistry and Environmental and 17 Emergency Planning Programs. I. am thankful that he joined 18 Georgia Power in 1982.

19 R. A. Thomas, Vice President-Licensing, Vogtle 23 Project. He is a Georgia Tech graduate, 32 years continuous 21 nuclear experience, organized the Southern Company Service 22 nuclear activities in 1959, a five-year assignment in design 23 of the Fermi fast breeder, and a member of the AIF Policy 24 Committee on Nuclear Regutations, the Steering Orcup for 25 Reactor Licensing and Safety, and Chairman of the Near-Term

.. 1 6

1 Operating License Subcommittee.

2 D. E. Dutton, Vice President-Project Management and I

i 3 Nuclear Plant Support. He's an Auburn graduate. He has 25 4 . years with the Southern Company Services, 25 years of nuclear 5 experience, also a graduate of the Harvard Advanced Management 6 Program. He is the Readiness Review Chairman and was Chairman 7 of the Nuclear Construction Issues Group.

8 J. T. Beckham, Jr., Vice President-General Manager, 9 Nuclear Operations, a Georgia Tech, 22 years with Georgia 10 Power Company, 13 years nuclear experience. He has been 11 Assistant Plant Superintendent at Hatch for five years, Plant 12 Manager at Hatch and Vogtle. He has held an SRO operator's

,13 license at Hatch. He's now cer*ified as a Senior Reactor 14 Operato*r. He is a PE in Georgia, and he is a graduate of the 15 Harvard Advanced Management Program.

16 W. C. Ramsey, Jr., Reaciness Review Program Manager 17 at the Vogtle Project, a University of Alabama graduate, 15 18 years with Southern Services, 13 years nuclear experience 19 including design engineering management, testing, startup, 20 audits and licensing, Director for Vogtle Design and Control 21 Review, the IN?O Pilot Response Team and Self-initiated 22 Evaluation Task Force, most recently Manager of Nuclear 23 Projects, Nuclear Safety and Fuel, Southern Company Services l 24 That, gentlemen, represents those who are with us.

l 25 We are here today to update you on our pilot

=

l

.t .

7 i i readiness review program. Simply stated, our pilot readiness 2- review program is designed to accomplish two major objectives.

3 First, it will provide to Jim Miller and myself 4 positive assurance that Plant Vogtle facilities and staff are 5 ready for operation.

6 ~Second, it will, provide a systematic and interactive 7 mechanisms that will assist in the NRC's independent review, 8 inspection, and acceptance of Vogtle work on a phased and 9 scheduled basis.

10 We will discuss our progress, our continuing 11 commitment to the program, and some of the lessons learned.

12 George Power is the largest of the operating 13 companies that make up the Southern Company System, which is

. 14 the largest investor-owned public utility in the United

. 15 States. It i n c l u d,e s Alabama Power Company, Mississippi Power 16 Company', Gulf Power Company, and Southern Company Service,s, 17 Incorporated.

18 George Power has the largest nuclear staff in the 19 Southern Company System. In addition, we also have available 20 the experienced nuclear management engineering and nuclear 21 operating experiences of the entire system. As you know, 22 Georgia Power Company currently operates that Hatch nuclear 23 plants, two 800 megawatt electric BWR units. These units have 24 been in commercial operation since December of 1975 and 25 September of 1979.

... l l

.8 l 1 In addition, Westinghouse PWR experience is ,

2 available to us from our sister company, Alabama Power, which 3 owns and operates the Farley Nuclear Plant 4 The Vogtle Project is a two-unit Westinghouse PWR 5 plant, rated at a total capacity of 2320 megawatts electric 6 and is located on the Savannah River approximately 27 miles 7 southeast of Augusta, Georgia. Plant Vogtle is owned jointly 8 by the Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 9 Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of 10 Dalton, Georgia. Georgia Power acts as agent for the 11 co-owners and is responsible for the design, construction, and 12 operation of the plant.

13 Unit-1,is over 80 percent complete, and Unit-2 is 14 about 50 percent. complete. Fuel is scheduled to load in late 15 1986 for Unit-1 and early 1988 for Unit-2. A favorable Vogtle 16 Final Environmental Statement was issued in March of 1 9 8 5, , and

- 17 a favorable Safety Evaluation' Report was issued in June of 18 1985. .

19 The ACRS subcommittee met in Augusta on July 18th 20 and 19th of this year last week. I understand that meeting 21 also went well I

22 The. Plant Vogtle license is cent >sted by two 23 groups: Georgians Against Nuclear Energy and the Campaign for 24 a Prosperous Georgia.

25 The twin reactors at Plant Vogtle will play a i

. .- . - - .. 1 - . - , , - , - - - - - - - - - - -

9 1 crucial part in the meeting of the constantly growing 2 electrical needs of Georgia's Sunbelt economy. Last year, we 3 delivered 59 billion kilowatt hours to our customers and to 4 other utilities, a 10.5 percent increase over the previous 5 year. .Last month, we experienced a peak hourly demand of 6 13,290 megawatts for the Georgia Power territory alone, more l

7 than 6 percent higher than the previous record. This exceeded 8 our prior forecast for 1985.

9 Georgia is now the nation's fourth fastest growing 10 state. Georgia Power is adding new customers at more than 11 40,000 per year. We are now serving about 1.4 million tail 12 customers in our territory, who depend upon us to continue the i

13 same reliable, high-quality, low-cost electric service they 14 have come to expect.

15 .

We are relying on P l a.n t Vogtle to help fuel the 16 growing economy of our state. We have invested billions of 17 dollars in it for this purpose.

18 We believe that most of our customers appreciate the 19 need for Plant Vogtle. I think they welcome the additional 20 power, the fuel-cost savings, the environmental advantages 21 that Plant Vogtle will bring to our heavily coal-dependent 22 state. We believe a growing number recognize that Plant 23 Vogtle will be instrumental in Georgia's efforts to grow and 24 prosper.

25 But some of our customers also have questions --

10 '

1 questions about Vogtle specifically and about the nuclear 2 industry in general -- questions such as: Why do nuclear 3 power plantsstake so long to build, and why do they cost so 4 much?- Many o f,h e r hard questions face us, questions involving 5 future demand, fuel supplies, environmental factors, 6 regulatory stability, financial trends, and now the changing 7 concept of prudency reviews.

8 I am glad to report that Georgia Power has taken an 9 active role in helping find better answers, better ways to 10 organize and manage nuclear construction. We don't want to be 11 an eleventh hour headache to the NRC. We want to be part of 12 the solution.

13 We have what you.might call an " invested interest" 14 in this matter. We have invested billions of dollars, and the 15 interest is literally increasing every day.

16 'I know that we can work together to find a more 17 stable, more predictable process for reviewing the progress 18 and quality of nuclear design and construction and 19 preparations f 'o r operation.

20 The issues and the questions that I mentioned lead 21 me to conclude that both innovative and proven management 22 a c,t i o n s are absolutely necessary to address industry problems t

23 successfully. .,, T h e pilot readiness review program, which the 24 NRC identified for consideration in the NUREG-1055 report to 25 -

Congress, is a very important example of such an action, to l

l I--

l

• i

11 1' which we are fully committed. -

2 Other examples of actions that our company has taken 3 include our compan 's strong support of INFO form its very, 4 inception; our participation in the development of NUMARC, 5 including Jim Miller's position as Chairman of the NUMARC 6 Steering Committee; our development of a strong Quality 7 Concern Program in which the concerns of the workers are.

8 actively solicited and resolved; and the development and 9 implementation of a strong fitness-for-duty program, which 10 includes a rigorous anti-drug program during the construction 11 and operation.

12. Before I discuss readiness review, I will briefly

,13 - expand on two of these programs.

14 Our Quality Concern Progr'am provides all the 15 employees a very visible, positive means to voice concerns and ,

16 to receive answers on any area that they feel may affect the 17 quality of construction or the operation or safety of the 18 plant.

19 Key features of the program include orientation for 20 all existing and new employees, exit interviews for those 21 leaving, numerous program posters with drop boxes for 22 submittals, as well as published toll-free phone numbers and -

23 options of anonymity and confidentiality for anyone desiring 24- such protection. Whenever possible, answers to each problem 25 are provided to the submitter. The program does not interfere e

p 12 1 if individuals want to report c o n c e'r n s directly to the Nuclear 2' Regulatory Commission.

-3 Our Quality Concern Program has a full-time staff of 4 nine and receives the attentien of a number of key 5 executives. It has received more than 400 concerns 6 potentially related to quality or safety. All of these

.7 concerns have been pursued aggressively. Several potentially l

8 significant issues.have been identified and corrected through 9 the program. Even when the concerns are not substantiated, or 10 as as often the case, the problem is already known and 11 corrective action initiated, the program gains -- the project 12 gains from being able to answer and to alleviate an 13 individual's concern.

14 We have also sent a clear message at Vogtle that i: 15 drugs, alcohol and construction don't mix; that_the 16 distribution or the use of these substances in any manner 4

17 which could affect job performance will result in permanent l

18 separation from the Vogtle Project. A strongly worded l

19 statement has been issued emphasizing these policies, and we 20 followed up.to assure compliance through the use of both j

L 21 searches and testing.

I

'12 Uniform, across-the-board testing has been done on s 23 all managerial, supervisory, professional, technical, quality 34 centrol and q u a l l't y assurance personnel on' site. These tests

25 . are supplemented by discretionary screening of all personnel, i

I

^

.( , ,, .

13 1 based on such things as behavior observations. We also have 2 established mandatory fitness-for-duty drug testing for all 3 nuclear operations employees, who now have, or in the future-4 will have . unescorted access to the generator facility.

i' 5 The results to date have been encouraging. Of more 6 than 3000 people <recently tested, fewer than one percent 7 either refused to be tested or showed a positive indication 8 for use of any of the eight abused substances. Either a 9 positive test result or refusal to be tested resulted in 10 permanent separation from the project.

11 Mr. Rice is going to discuss with you several 12 specific areas of the Pilot Readiness Review Program, 13 including its organization, work process, and the summary of 14 results today. But-first, I would like to p o i n.t out several 15 of the key objectives and commitments which have been built 16 into the program.

17 First the objectives: The program should provide 18 for an in-depth self-assessment to_ demonstrate.whether or not

-19 we have complied with the regulatory commitments for work at 20 Plant Vogtle. Certain areas of the assessment should be 21 carried out by people who are independent of those who perform 22 the work.

[ 23 It should have an independent management overview of 24 the self-assessment process, including outside technical 25 expert evaluations of t'h e results.

, , - - - , . , -., __ ...n.,u. ,---n.- , , , , .

14 f

1 It should provide a mechanism for early resolution 2 of'any differences between the NRC Staff and Georgia Power 3 Company in the interpretation of compliance with previously 4 reviewed and accepted regulatory requirements that are 5 specified in the Vogtle FSAR.

6 It should facilitate thegvarious NRC Staff internal 7 reviews and inspection actions, such that the NRC will speak 8 to Georgia Power Company with one voice.

9' The program should facilitate the NRC's. review, 10 inspection, appropriate action, and the approval of the 11 acceptability of the Vogtle work on an advanced and scheduled 12 basis. It should also, in conjunction with the quality 13

~

concern program, facilitate dealing with late contentions or 14 allegations.

15 We are accomplishing these objectives by mak'ing 16 significant commitments. The more important of these a r e.:

17 The commitment of significant resources to the task 18 of gathering and analyzing the readiness review information.

19 Based on our experiences to date, we estimate the readiness 20 review effort will require about 150 person-years.

21 We have committed key individuals to the program, 22 including a number of executives from Georgia Power Company, 23 the Southern Company Services, BEchtel, and outside 24 consultants. People such as Mr. Thomas, Mr. Dutton, Mr. Rice, 25 Mr. Beckham, and others are spending almost 25 to 50 percent

1

)

19 l 1 of their time in this effort.

2 We have committed to carry out this program in an 3 open and public manner.

4 The key to the success of the program is the NRC's 5 agreement to participate. The NRC actions are described in 6 the policy issue paper, which was prepared by the NEC S t a f f .

7 and submitted to you on April 8, 1985.

8 Particularly important among these are the NRC's 9 agreement to review and respond formally to Georgia Power 10 Company on the adequacy of the individual Vogtle work 11 activities; to do this in -a timely and scheduled manner; and 12 to carry out the NRC's review and responses in an internally 13 coordinated manner, such that the NRC speaks with one voice 14 on program conclusions.

15 I am pleased to report that our actions, combined 16 with the extensive and positive efforts of the NRC Staff, both 17 in Region II and Washington, are demonstrating'the usefulness 18 and viability of the disciplined readiness review approach.

19 For example, the program has predictably identified 20 a number of problems. While these problems do not indicate a 21 significant breakdown in our quality program, it is clear they 22 needed to be addressed and properly resolved to avoid any 23 doubt in the satisfactory accomplishwent of the Vogtle work.

l 24 Mr. Rice w i'1 1 discuss several specific examples of 25 problems we found through readiness review, such things as l

~.

16 1 problems in retrieving documentation, weaknesses in some of 2 our initial testing procedures, and concerns with certain 3 design calculations.

4 Of particular importance here is the fact that the 5 I' readiness review process is resulting in these items being 6 identified and addressed early in a timeframe which allows for 7 meaningful assessments by engineering, construction, and

. 8 operations, and the development of solutions, rather than last 9 minute crash programs, which can and have resulted in costly 10 delays at other projects. .  !

11 I am encouraged that the successful demonstration of 12 this pilot program could have a very positive benefit for

,13 future nuclear projects. Conducting.early readiness reviews 14 for individual work activities as they are developed and 15 implemented over the entire life of a project would be a 16 manageable and efficient means for carrying out the many 17 assurance type reviews that have historically occurred late in 18 the process.

t 19 I conclude by saying that I am optimistic, based on

.20 the results to date, t h 'a t the pilot readiness review program 21 will yield significant benefits, including improved planning .

22 which will enhance the effective use of critical NRC and 23 Georgia Power Company resources; improved predictability 24 resulting from early NRC determination of program adequacy; 25 timely communication between Georgia Power Company and NRC in

17 1 resolving differences of interpretation of compliance with 2 requirements or acceptance criteria; and the improved 3 stability by minimizing the potential for last-minute 4 identification of major progr'ammatic concerns.

5 Paul. Rice will now discuss key areas of the program 6 in more detail Mr. Rice, as I said, is the Vice President 7 and General Manager of our Quality Assurance Department. He 8 is a member of the Readiness Review Board, which o v e,r s e'e s the 9 readiness review activities, and he has been involved in the 10 development of the readiness review program from its 11 inception.

12 . Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you.

14 MR. RICE: Thank you, 'M r . Scherer.

15 CSlide.]

16 Gentlemen, I am going to cover a number of areas and 17 summarize the activities that go into the readiness review 18 program. I invite your remarks and your questions as we go, 19 and I would be glad to discuss any items further.

20 The readiness review program thct I am going to ,

l 21 discuss, I will break it down into these areas of activity: )

22 the organization, the process that we go through in the 23 program, the results of these activities, the lessons we've 24 learned, and our conclusions.

25 CSlide.]

j

.=* * ,,

• 18 1 The organization for the readiness review effort 2 under Mr. Scherer as the Project Board Chairman and Mr. Don 3 Foster, who is with us here today, is Mr. Ramsey. Mr. Ramsey 4 is the Program Manager directing the efforts of the readiness 5 review program activities and has under him several key areas, 6 and let me point them out.

7 First, the discipline managers who carry out the 8 bulk of the activities in the program. These discipline 9 managers and their staffs are experienced people who were 10 selected for the project from our architect engineer, Bechtel 11 for example, because of their experience and knowledge of the 12 project. These discipline managers here, who are Georgia 13 Power Company people, have approximately ten to fifteen years 14 experience, and much of that experience has been with the 15 project. One of the discipline managers for the appendices, 16 which I will discuss, is a Bechtel senior project type ,

17 manager.

18 We also have in the organization two other points.

19 First, the Independent Design Review Group. This review 20 group, reporting under Bill Ramsey, is made up of Stone &

21 Webster engineers, selected for their experience and expertise 22 in the design process. That Independent Design Group is .

23 managed by a Senior Project Engineer from Stone & Webster and 24 provides us with an independent look at the design work 25 processes, and.I will discuss their efforts a little bit

=

l -

19 1 later.

2 The other element that I would like to talk abcut in 3 organization is the Readiness Review Board. Mr. Scherer 4 mentioned the Board. The Chairman of the Board is Mr. Dutton, 5 who is with us today. The Board has seven members. Five of 6 those members are Georgia Power Company, four of which are -

7 here today. One is a Senior Vice President from Stone &

8 Webster, and the other is a Senior Engineering Manager from 9 Bechtel.

10 As Mr. Scherer pointed out, the Board members put a 11 lot of time.in on the readiness review project, and I will 12 discuss their specific activities ,and what they do in a few 13 minutes.

14 The technical experts shown under the Readiness 15 Review Board.have been put into place and our brought into the l 16 .

process form people who, in the industry, are recognized for 1

17 their experience and their knowledge in these particular 18 processes. For example, technical experts have been brought d

19 in from GE, from Teledyne, from Stone & Webster, in terms of 20 the specific areas for the work activities being examined.

21 Through the use of those types of technical experts, the Board 22 is able to, on a broad basis, get assistance and help in 23 viewing these activities from someone who has been separate 24 from the process itself.

l 25 Currently, there is a total of 75 people working on

[ j t 1 l

20 1 the readiness review process under the direction of 2 Mr. Ramsey, 3 CSlide.)

4 I'm going to cover the readiness review process.

5 CS11de.]

6 Within this process, there are a number of 7 activities. I'm g o i n g- t o summarize these, and again, if you 8 -have any questions, please ask.

9 I'm going to cover how we define the scope of these 10 readiness review modules, the celf-assessment process, and how 11 we handle problem identification, corrective action, and the 12 modules themselves.

13 The first area is, how do we define and get the.

14 project broken down into manageable pieces for the 15 self-assessment process?

16 The first step is just, we break the whole project 17 down into these four logical disciplines: civil, mechanical, 18 electrical, and operations. We take these areas, then, and 19 break them down from there --

you see the four again -- into 20 further detail, which, as shown on this chart, represents 21 about 20 areas of logic with which the project is broken down 22 for evaluation.

23 These are called modules. We have a module here on 24 the table, and that's what these two volumes here are -- are a ,

25 -

module which represent and have been submitted to the NRC for

. . r. .

21 1 concrete and cadwelds.

2 The concrete, rebar, and cadwelds are the three 3 logical activities that were put together in terms of the work 4- that goes into a reinforced concrete structure. You can see 5 the logic there, and they were put together in order to assess  :

I j

6 and evaluate in this module. The others follow the same type 7 of logic in many cases, and then there are some cases s u c'h as 8 the backfitting, the backfill, the coatings, and the 9 post-tensioning, where, while they're not coherent in terms of 1

10 their association, they were combined i n.t o one module for 11 review, so that we could manage the numbers and take care of 12 the overhead that goes into the process. There will actually

,13 ,

be three sub-modules when that comes out.

14 One lesson that we learned early in the game is that 15 there are a number of activities that crossed the bounds of 16 these various modules.

17 CS11de.3 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: 'You have a module for each one t

19 of those blocks?

30 MR. RICE- Yes, sir. There will be.

21 Those activities which cross the bounds of these 22 different areas are such things as document control, material 23 control, nonconformances. What I'm saying here is that the 84 subject matter in a number of those modules would contain the 25 same subject over and over again.

E .

. *t * . . . . -

22 1 In order to reduce the duplication of effort and the 2 amount of paperwork, we learned the lesson that we needed to 3 break these out, and we call them general appendices, and this 4 is what they are.

5 General appendices are handled in much the same way 6

as the. individual modules are in most c'a s e s in terms of 7 going out and verifying the adequacy of our implementations of 8 the commitments we have made.

9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you have someone overseeing 10 each one of these general appendices?

11 MR. RICE: Yes, sir, and I will explain further.

12 There are several levels of oversight on those. Let 13 me say first, that within --

under the direction of 14 Mr. Ramsey, the direction for each of the appendices, for all 15 of the appendices, comes under one discipline manager. That's 16 further broken down into assignments under him of people who 17 will prepare them.

18 There is another level of overview, though, in terms 19 of people assigned, and that is from the Readiness Review 20 Board point of view. Within the Readiness Review Board, each 21 member of the Board has assigned to him one or more modules or ,

l 22- appendices as a,n executive sponsor, and through that l

23 technique, one of the Board members will follow the progress 24 of the development of the verification self-assessment process 25 through the whole process.

I

23 1 Thereby, when the module is done and it comes to the 2 Readiness Review Board for approval and acceptance, someone on 3 the Board has an intimate, detailed knowledge of what has gone 4 on during the process.

5 So those are two levels o, f oversight and assignment 6 in terms of these modules and appendices.

7 Did that answer your question, Mr. Palladino.

8 -

CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, thank you.

9 MR. RICE:

The next area that I will discuss .i s 10 self-assessment. The self-assessment process is really the 11 meat of what we do. This is where we spend most of our 12 resources and time.

13 The self-assessment process is broken down into 14 these four categories, and let me' summarize them.

15 CS11de.3 -

16 First, we identify the commitments. The 17 identification of the commitments is an important step, since 18 that is what the whole, process is about, to go and demonstrate 19 whether or not we have fulfilled and met those commitments.

20 The basic document for defining those commitments is the 21 FSAR. We do go to other documents, such as letters a n'd i

22 reports, other commitments that we have made to the NRC or may 23 have made, but the FSAR is the principal basis. We take that 24 as the basis, and we pull out the commitments into matrices 25 and get them identified in terms of the scope of work that is

_ . _ .__ . , _ . . .m. - . . . - . . .-.m _ , , - , , . , .._

24 1 covered in a particular module.

2 For example, a line-by-line review is made of the 3 FSAR to . find and list all of the commitments that are related 4 to the concrete structures -- concrete, rebar, and cadweld --

5 and they are listed, by the way, in that volume under Chapter 6 III, as a matter of fact, of what you're looking at.

• 7 The next step after the commitments are identified 6 and listed and we matrix those -- in fact, we matrix those to 9 show where those commitments found their way into 10 project-implementing documents, such as specifications and 11 procedures. We do that over the life of the plant or from the 12 time that the commitment was invoked, that we accepted that 13 commitment.

14 We do that to make sure that there's not a hole in 15 the process somewhere, that the commitment was not properly 16 invoked in the procedures or specifications.

17 Once the commitments are- identified, verification 18 plans are preferred by Mr. Ramsey's task force. These plans 19 are detailed,.and they are formal, and they include checklist 20 designs to go out and test the implementation of the 21 commitments over the period --

over the life of the plant 22 It's not just a one-time check.

23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE. To what extent is that 24 sort of a moving target or involving the process?  ! could 25 '

understand, for example, concrete structures, that those

P

. ? '. . . . . .

25 1 commitments might be fairly well-defined at the outset and 2 stay fairly constant throughout the process.

3 But in some of the other areas, I would expect a 4 more evolving process as those commitments are developed. Am 5 I wrong'about that?

6 MR. RICE: No, you are not wrong. Then let me 7 explain that you're right.

8 In the case of concrete and some of those types of 9 construction activities, the process has been very stable.

10 There have been some changes, in the quality control area for 11 example, but pretty much stable.

12 But what we've done to compensate for the instances

. 13 where things do. change is, we have built the matrices to show 14 when that commitm'ont came into being and when we made the 15 commitment. And from that time on, we measure its 16 implementation. So even in instances where you have a moving 17 target, we have built that into the program to make sure we i

18 picked it up wher. it started moving.

19 Does that answer your que s t i on. ?

20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE. Yes.

t b -

21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: How much time lag is there 22 between something being changed in the plant and your 23 awareness of it in this process?

24 MR. RICE: Well, in this process, we're going out i

25 and taking the cdamitments as they exist at the time that the i

I

. *t .

~

26 1 module and the readiness review activity is started. It's 2 current.

3 Obviously, at soma point over the two or three-month 4 period that we're working on it, there's a cutoff date that 5 you go with the matrices that are built. But things are not 6 usually changing so fast that that makes any substantial 7 difference in terms of the final product.

8 But the work that the Readiness Review Team is doing 9 is based on what the requirements are now and how they have 10 changed over ths life of the project. ,

11 The verification plans are developed by Mr Ramsey's 12 task force. As I said, these plans are formal, detailed l

,13 checklists designed to go test and. check the implementation of 14 the commitments that were listed here and built into the 15 matrices. The task force goes out and conducts a verification 16 process, both in terms of_ commitments, and that check has to 17 do with finding the documentation over the life.of the 18 project; that they were, in fact, invoked.

19 They also check the same type of commitment 20 verification in the design program process, construction, and 21 operations. I say " operations;" of course, that's applicable 22 to the modules which have to do with operations.

23 In parallel with that verification offort, there is 24 an effort that goes on called " independent design review." 1 25 . list it separately just to make a couple of points.

' * = .. .,

27 1 One, it has the same formal verification plans and 2 commitment definition and the checklist and so forth. But I 3 list it separately, because that is carried out by the 4 Independent Design Review Team under Mr. Ramsey, which 5 aqtually goes out and looks in terms of those commitments 6 which affect the design process and the adequacy of design.

7 It is very similar in the first and the second and the third 8 bullet, but it is a conducted by a separate and independent

~

9 team.

10 CSlide.3 11 The next area that I would like to cover, having 12 done the self-assessment, obviously ?. h e program was put 13 ,together to find problems, and, in fact, it has achieved that 14 goal. We are finding problems.

• 15 CS11de.]

• 16 In this area of problem identification and handling, 17 I wanted to just point out that, one, we have a formal system 18 for the identification of commitments back to the line 19 organisation and line management. That system accounts for 20 the project performance evaluations, looking at potential 21 reportability, testing for the broadness of any issues that 22 are found, defining corrective action, a n'd the key point here 23 is that in this process, that not result from the project l' i n e 24 management comes back to the Readiness Review Task Force, and 25 those results, including the corrective action plans, the

20 1 corrective actions taken, and the engineering evaluations are 2 reviewed and either accepted by the Readiness Review Team or 3 comments are made and additional work goes on.

4 That is not uncommon. It is an interactive 5 process. Before this is done, before that module is issued, 6 the people who looked at it on the Readiness Review Task Force 7 accept the actions and plans that were put together.

8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are you going to give us any 9 examples of some of the problems?

10 MR. RICE: Yes, sir, I certainly am. I'm going to 11 talk about several specific examples in a moment.

12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I am curious, always am, 13 about exactly how you carry out this kind of organization. I 14 recall asking a question of that type in Germany where the TUV 15 takes primary responsibility for quality, assurance, and they 16 told me, although I hadn't seen it, about a large room that 17 had all the files in one place.

18 [ Commissioner Roberts returns to the Commission 19 table,3 20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: How are you handling the 21 mechanics of all this? There must be a highly organized, 22 highly documented system of some kind. I'm just curious with i

I 23 how you are dealing with all of that.

i

! 24 MR. R!CE: You bring up a good point. It's exactly 25 -. the result is exactly what you're leading to. That is, in l

I

. 1 29 l 1 this process --

you know, Mr. Ramsey has developed, along with 2 the organization, detailed procedures as to how the readiness 3 review actions function.

4 In fact, one of the elements that I didn't discuss 5 specifically that was on the organization chart was a quality 6 assurance box. That quality assurance organization or staff 7 that works for Mr. Ramsey is separate from my quality 8 assurance project organisation and is put into place to test, 9 measure, and to correct the course on exactly the point that 10 you're making, and that is that we must carry this out in a 11 disciplined and predictable way, such that when we are done, 12 all of the things that we said we would do in the process are 13 done, and,.in fact, it is one of the things that we expect the ,

14 NRC to check and test us on --

are those readiness review 15 programs us,ed --

so we formalized it in the sense of the 16 ' readiness review program procedures to guide and direct that 4

17 program, and, of course, then we have the oversight functions 18 in terms of the Readiness Review Board, which I will mention 19 again in a minute.

20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAI: The whole thing, in a sense, 21 is quality assurance, in a very broad use of the term, !

22 suppose. But I am trying to get a sense for mechanically how 23 are you --

suppose I wanted to know something about some 1

24 corner of this effort somewhere? l 25 How are you organizing it physically? Is there a i

i l .-

30 l 1 huge volume of papers here and filing cabinets?

I 2 MR. RICE: No.

3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: How will our people find the 4 documents, should they need to do so, because that often turns 5 out to be a problem?

l 6 MR. RICE: That's right. Let me give you an -

l 7 example. You raise a good question here in terms of how is 8 this going to be re' producible, for example, in terms of the 9 people who want to look at it. Let me give an example on the 10 concrete module.

11 The concrete module verification plan took a 12 technique, used the technique whereby slices of the concrete 13 rebar and cadwelding throughout the life of the project were 14 picked. Safety-related walls were picked. Those processes 15 were looked at by the verification team in vertical slices, 16 starting with the core top and ccming out like a Christmas 17 tree and looking at all the resulting quality assurance 18 actions from that core of safety-related concrete.

19 The, fingers of this Christmas tree went way out, for 20 example, all the way to the calibration of the scales in the 21 concrete batch plant. What we did with these slices -- and 22 there were 26 of those slices -- is that, one, we documented 23 and recorded, as part of the verification plan, exactly where 24 we went and what we found. So those results, including the 25 documents looked at, are recorded and are in the files of the

[ -

31 1 Readiness Review Team. We took one or two -- Bill, you'll 2 have to help me there -- we took one or two of those samples 3 and pulled and copied all of the documents that we looked at 4 on one of those slices, so that it was readily available for 5 anyone who wante,d to understand what the documents looked 6 like. So that's on file.

7 In addition, all the results of the readiness review 8 verification folks --

their notes, the problems, the concerns, 9 oven before they became findings --

are recorded and filed in 1" terms of that module and its activities.

11 So that when NRC comes to l o*o k at our activity on 12 this module -- and they have -- they can go -- we can show 1.3 exactly what we did. But we have not attempted to review all 14 of the documents that we went to look at. But they are 15 recorded and retrievable.

16 Does that answer your question?

/

17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHA1.: Yes. That's the thing.

18 MR. RICE: It's in between. There is a good deal of 19 documentation, and Mr. Ramsey nas a formal library, if you 20 will, where this is being kept and maintained and put into

. 21 good order. But then there is also a sensible side where we 22 are trying to cut down on the paperwork.

23 COMMISSICNER A S S E1. S T I NE . Faul, is it Iair to 24 characterize the content of the modules as basically being, l 25 -

"Here's what we have committed to do in each of these areas, I

32 1 here's how we're going to go about fulfilling those 2 commitments, and here's how we're going to verify that the 3 work is done properly and that, in fact, when the job is done 4 or the work is done, our progress, that we have carried out 5 the plan as outlined?" Is that a fair capsule of what's in 6 the modules? .

7 MR. RICE: Yes, I think so. That, plus any problems 8 we found and what their resolution was.

9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: How much of that work, 10- particularly in some of the areas th'at occurred later on in 11 the construction process --

electrical pipe hanger support, 12 those kinds of things --

how much of those are designed 13 dependent upon the completeness of the design? To what extent 14 are you having to generate more design information for the 15 plant, earlier than has occurred, say, historically in the 1

16 industry? Say, for example, did that occur when you built the 17 Plant Hatch?

18 MR. RICE: The answer to your question, at this 19 point in the design and construction of the Plant Vogtle, very 20 little. The design is essentially complete. Therefore, 21 conducting this review at this time results in very little 22 need to wait on any other actions.

23 MR. MILLER:  ! think he's trying to say that it 24 would apply to every project, t

25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The idea would be, the 1

g

. . ..o. .,

33 1 more information earlier on in the process --

2 MR. MILLER: Part of this --

actually it's helping p

t i 3 us in that regard. Part of it will come out as he described, l

l 4 one or two of the things that we've found now, rather than 5 fifteen, eighteen months from now.

6 Go ahead.

7 MR. RICE: Let me just briefly -- under " Module 8 Preparation," let me just briefly show you how we pass the 9 buck around the room.

10 CS11de.3 11 This slide essentially just shows the index of 12 information that's in the book. We talked about a couple of 13 them. The detailed matrix of commitments that are in the i 14 modules, detailed discussion.of the program verification, the 15 independent design review, and the overall assessment. Those 16 are what go into the module.

17 CSI.de.3 18 Once the module is prepared and we start to conclude 19 the process, there are several reviews and management 20 approvals that take place, and let me mention two activities.

21 CS11de.)

22 These are the Readiness Review Board actions and the 23 project management actions. Under " Readiness Review," these 24 are the logical steps that we go through in reviewing frcm a 25 Readiness Review Board point of view.

. . ' ' , ...o. ., >

l 34

1. Let me point out that the scope of the module and 2 the verification plans are actually reviewed twice -- early 3 on, when they're being developed, which is the time to get any 4 comments in for the verification process, and then once when 5 it's complete. The findings and corrective actions are 6 reviewed by the Readiness Review Board, and they are either 7 accepted or, if not accepted, further work is done by the 8 Readiness Review Team for the project. Overa.11 assessment is 9 included.

10 I mentioned earlier the use of, technical experts by 11 the Readiness Review Board involving the individual modules.

12 I also mentioned, in answer to your question, Chairman

,13 Palladino, the fact that we use experts -- not experts; we use 14 executives > form the Board, as a Module Executive, to follow a 15 the whole process through and provide some continuity.

16 Once completed and the Readiness Review Board h,as 17 accepted, the project management -- that is, Mr. Foster and 18 his senior managers -- make the module review for accuracy, 19" including its being put together by the Readiness Review Task 20 Force --

the conclusions, the corrective actions,-- and when 21 he's sattsfled, it is transmitted to the NRC for their review 22 and acceptance.

23 CS11de.3 24 I'm going to cover briefly the NRC review and 25 acceptance.

33 f

1 CSlide.3 2 .The NRC review, inspection, and verification are 4

, 3 really covered in Mr. Dircks' letter to the Commissioners, 4 dated April 8, 1985. A number of things are described in 5 there, including the arrangements that they have made in terms 6 of scheduling their reviews, both internally coordinated and ' '

7 so *forth. It covers the actions that go on.

6 The.second area here points out that we are able to 9 <' perform these activities within the existing regulatory rules s -

10 in terms of problem identification and dealing back and forth 11 with the NRC on any violation.

12 -

Once we have resolved any concerns that have been 13' raised by the Commission, by the NRC Staff in review of the i

14 module, then the NRC will accept the scope of work covered by 15 the readiness review module. That is also described in the 16 April 8th policy letter.

17 CS11de.1 s

16 You asked about some specific problems, and let me 19 cover some now.

1 20 ,

-What I would like to do i s, I would like to cover 21 several general areas briefly and then show you three specific 22 problems, so you can get a feel for the aind of thing that i

23 we're going into in terms of depth and how we're addressing 24 it. .

25 In the general area, there are,  !. guess, a couple of r

,-- ,-- -, 7-- -,,n. ---n- .

- - . , - ..,---y.,--- s--- - - - - .----n ,,,

, . ...a. ,

36 1 points to be'made. One, it's no surprise that we are finding 2 problems. That's what the program was designed to do. And, 3 i'n fact, as I said, we are achieving that goal.

4 The problems that we',re finding in many cases are 5 the kinds of things that have been seen on other projects.

6 The difference is that we are identifying them within a period

~

7 of time when we are able , to address them, correct them, 8 resolve them, define correcti,ve actions and get them behind 9 us, and that's exactly what,we're doing.

10 CS11de.3 11 The three problems that I am going to discuss in 12 more ditail are the retrievability of documentation, g

i 13 weaknesses in calculations, and problems in the cable 14 separation controls. But 2'q t me make one other point here.

1" To keep this in perspective, a number of the 16 problems we have found may well --

in fact, we could probably 1

17 demonstrate would be found later in the process of the l 18 project. ,.

19 ,' For, example, in electrical cable separation, one 1 20 will discuss in a detail, the walkdowns and area litt1fmore 21 turnovers and their associated inspections, which are not 22 defined, _ would have found,the problem that 1*m going to 23 discuss. However, the whole goal of the program is to find 24 problems early and to get them corrected and keep them from 25 -

happening. , So this has become a finding in this program.

It

/

37 1 may not have existed, had we waited. We would have picked it 2 up and corrected it.

3 Let me go to the three specific cases.

4 CSlide.3 5 The first case I would like to point out has to do 6 with retrievability of documentation. It's associated with, 7- this concrete module that is on the table in front of you.

8 In that verification effort, we went out to look at 9 over 4000 quality assurance records. That's what that 10 Christmas tree boiled down into.

11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's why I asked the 12 question.

13 MR. RICE: Yes, sir.

1 14 In looking at those over 4000 records, we found 36 1

)

15 records --

or we did not find 36 records. We were not able to 16 retrieve them frem those paths, the fingers that went out.

17 Now each individual item or finding that came up was

! 18 addressed specifically as it had to be in terms of its i

19 specific nature. But we also addressed it in terms of the i

20 potential collective significance, and that's what this look 21 here did, as this part of the concern in this concrete 22 module. It's described in detail in the module. I'm just 23 summarizing now.

24 We went through several different types of 25 iterations. One, for example, there are certain kinds of l

l .

a. ._ . _ . , . . . _ _

.. ...o. .,

38 ,

a 1 records which we found, We found file copies, .rather than the  ;

i 2 original, but we found the. records. 'Other kinds of records

~

3 were duplication of other records that existed because of the 4 redundancy and the duplication, and in some cases, 5 conservatism'in our controls. And thwre were some records 6 .which did not have that easily available backup in order to 7 reconstruct the situation that existed.

8 I n- t ho s e cases, we had to perform engineering 9 evaluations, or in some cases, reinspection to determine what '

10 the significance of that missing document was, i

11 ,The not result of those reviews of this sample, v

12 which is about approximately one percent of what we went out '

13 to look for, told us, one, there was no rework, there was no 14 destructive testing, and no need to go change the design of

, 15 any concrete structures when these evaluations were over.

16

• We found in many of the cases, there was evidence ..

/

17 that we were able to take, sufficient evidence to verify the t

18 acceptability and the' quality of the work in that area.

19 The overall conclusion was that, even though putting 20 these tcgether,.rather than just-treating them individually, i 21 did not result in any collective or broadness type problem in 22 the concrete structures.

1 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The quality control documents 24 that.you fou.7 d , were they found where you expected them to be, 25 -

or did it take a search to find them? l Our Staff has had s l

i

h* *

...o.'*.

39 i 1

'e x p e r'i e n c e in going to some utilities where they were trying 2 to verify documents, and a considerable amount of effort is 3 needed before they say, "Yes, it's verified."

4_  ! was trying to find out, for most of these, did you 5

go to wherever you expected to find them and find them there, 6 or did you have to do some more searching?

7 MR. RICE: I think the problem you allude to, some

-8 of the items that came out of here fall into exactly that 9 category. We did go to where we expected to find them, for 10 .those examples, and, of course, we found 99 percent of what we 11 looked for.

12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You found those where you

- 13 expected to find them?

l^

14 ~ MR. RICE: I'll say in the vast majority of cases, i

15 sir. I think probably some of the 4000 took a person going 16 two places to find them.

i

! But for some of the ones that were l

17 missing,.we found exactly that problem; that a file of 18 information that was being collected for the procedure had not 19 been put into the vault, and, therefore, it was not where they 20 expected to find it, and that was true for these items, for 21 the most part, where we finally found it but at wasn't in the .

22- vault. That's how it became a finding.

23 go,.yes, that's a problem. It's a problem that 24 t

we're addressing and going back,and looking at our whole

[ 25 .

' documentation vault situation.

l

40 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You did find the 36?

2 MR. RICE: No, we did not find all 36. No, sir.

3 There were a number of cases among this 36 where we had to go 4 through other techniques and assessments and evaluations in 5 order to demonstrate the quality of the work.

6 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Isn't there considerable 7 redundancy to the extent that if you had to verify the mil 8 test reports on a cadweld, wouldn't you also have that and 9 also the cadweld manufacturer?

'10 MR. RICE: You bring up a very good point. One of 11 the ways some of these items were demonstrated, I'll give you 12 an example.

13 We, on the project, had a requirement to sand 14 gradation tests on the sand to be used for the concrete. Some 15 of those 36 were missing test reports for those sand .

16 gradations. When you looked at the process, we had I 17 certifications of compliance from the supplier who supplied 1

18 the sand. So there, you had a redundant system, and you were i 19 able to go from one to the other, and not excusing the fact 20 that we didn't have all of the records we caid we were going 21 to have, we were able to create this situation. 1 l

l l

22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: That's the reason why 23 redundancy is built in.

1 24 MR. RICE: Yes, sir, that's absolutely true in many I 25 cases.

w ir-r --

~

, d. . . . . . .,

41 1 Any other questions on this?

2 CNo response.3 3 Let me mo've to the next one. The next question has 4 to do with a design p: 7blem. I'm not going to discuss the 5 dynamic load factors in detail, but it was an interesting 6 problem in a couple of senses.

7 One, this problem was found in Los Angeles by the 8 Independent Design Review Team, the Stone & Webster folks that 9 work under Mr. Ramsey's direction.

10 This team, in reviewing the calculations that went 11 into the design of the concrete structures, came to a 12 conclusion based on their experience in their independent 13 view, and the fact that they were looking at things in terms .

14 of industry-accepted practices in addition to the commitments, 15 came up with the facts and questions and raised concerns about 16 the use of dynamic load factors in the design of the concrete 17 walls, one in terms of the value of the load factor used, and 18 the other was the potential lack of using the load factor for 19 jet impingement.

20 What happened with this issue was it went through 21 100 percent review of other safety-related structures for this 22 same type of problem. A complete review was made. One other 23 problem was, in fact, found, where there was a concern for the 24 dynamic load factor that was used in the feedwater pump house.

25 As a result of this item, and going through 100 l

,....o. .,

42 1

percent review of the safety-related structur.es, all those 2 calculations we 'e rereviewed. The calculations when done 3 confirmed that although we questioned the judgment of the use 4 of the dynamic load factor, the end result of it was that the 5 wall was designed adequately when that was applied.

6 That was the process we went through and that is how {

7 that problem was identified by the design review team.

l

.8 [ Slide.3 l 9 This item also represents an interesting twist, a 10 test to demonstrate the readiness review process.

11

[ Commissioner Asselstine left the room.]

12 It has to do with the failure to meet the minimum 13 separation distance between hot pipe and raceway. One example 14 was found in the verification process by the team where.they

.15 actually found a physical separation that was not adequate.

16 In reviewing this further, the Readiness Review Team

.17 on the project came to some interesting findings, and that was 18 that, one, the design criteria for the separation had been 19 incorporated into the electrical specifications, which was'the 20 logic of getting it through the electrical process.

21 It had not been put in by the engineering people, 22 into the mechanical specifications and the piping installation 23- procedures.

i Therefore, the logic of installing the piping and 24 then putting in electrical, which, of course, they always get 25 in parallel with each other after this process, did not m___ _. _ . - _ _

.. . . .~o . ., -

43 1 control the situation, and we needed to have them in the 2 mechanical specifications and procedures, so we found that 3 problem by trackin,g through the process.

4 The procedures were upgraded. All of the previously 5 installed piping will be inspected, and now we have that 6 situation,in a condition such that it should not occur here, 7 and we won't build up a big backlog of rework.

8 I told you before that in this case, the turnover 9 inspections and so forth would have found this problem by our 10 program. What happens is it just builds up a backlog that 11 comes later. The results are a great deal more difficult to 12 resolve.

13 CSlide.]

14 I would like to point out a few lessons learned that 15 we have come across in the project.

16 [ Slide.)

17 A couple of them will already be familiar to you.

18 One, I mentioned the need to create and go with the general 19 appendices to cut down on the duplication of information.

20 That was a lesson learneo and it caused additional effort.

21 The biggest lesson that we learned was that we underestimated 22 -what-it was going to take to start up the program. It took a 23 great deal more effort to get it developed, to put it into 24 place, to define the commitment matrices, and those kinds of 25 actions.

_ _ o .

. o. ...o. .,

44 1 ,As a result, this lesson learned has resulted in our 2 having to change and adjust the schedule several times on when 3 the various modules would come out. It was a lesson learned.

4 We did expect lessons learned. We underestimated the level of I 5 effort to start this up.

6. The second area here is we have gone back and 7 adjusted'in several cases the scope of work covered in these 8 modules so we don't get out of balance. Once you get into the 9- details, you find out that some adjustments are necessary i

10 because you had to get different things in different places or

-11 you would end up like this.

12 We have adjusted the independent design review

,13 process in order to'better cover the interfaces among the

• 14 engineering discipline act'ivities. We still conduct the 15 independent design review activities in the modules where they 16 are applicable, such as in the concrete module for the 17 calculations of the walls.

16 [ Commissioner Asselstine returned to the room.3

'19 We also will in the adjustments put into place 20 an in-depth and detailed review, another module, if you will,

.21 of the interfaces in terms of an auxiliary feedwater system 22 review which c r o's s e s all the bounds. So that is an adjustment i 23- we have made.

l 24 i We have also changed a number of the administrative l.

25 and documentation practices in order to make the process more

, y.. ,

= -,y --

43 1 workable both within Georgia Power Company and for the NRC 2 Staff.

3 CSlide.3 4 In conclusion, I would like to make just a couple of 5 points.

6 I think we have demonstrated that we clearly see 7 some of the benefits being realized which we set out as 8 objectives in the beginning, one coming from the in-depth self 3

9 assessment using people who are very familiar with the project 10 in a disciplined and scheduled and systematic approach, so 11 that we come back with the product that"we set out to get.

12 We also are looking at these processes more broadly 13 than you might have looked at them before in terms of your 14- audit program or a quality control inspection program. They 15 are being Ic7ked at more broadly with all of the activities 16 being covered under the concrete structures.over the life,of 17 the plant. It gives a different view and it is a benefit 18 which we are realizing.

19 We are also able to interact and interface with the 20 NRC on this' program, both in terms of our programmatic l

21 - development and in terms of handling these work areas and 22 having them reviewed, approved, inspected on a scheduled t 23 basis. We see that as a benefit being reali:ed now.

24 Finally, we are finding problems which, while they 25 don't represent, as of yet, major breakdowns in the program, I

l

,- ,- r-

46 1 need to be found, need to be addressed and need to be resolved 2 so they don't raise questions later on. That is a significant l l

3 goal and it is a significant benefit, and we are realizincI 4 that benefit.

5 Mr. Scherer pointed out the potential for the 6 long-term benefits. There are obvious differences that you 7 would put into place if you installed this program over the 8 entire life of the project. You know, you would have more 4

9 modules, ,if you will. They would be smaller modules. They 10 . would be spread out over the life to investigate and look at, 11 for example, your program, your procedures, your 12 specifications, your documentation,.your training, at the 10 13 percent point of the concrete, and at that point settle all of 14 those programmatic issues and rely on a well-founded and -

15 rigorous follow-up system which we have in place.

16 So there would be differences for a project from its 17 inception, but we feel like the kinds of lessons we are 18 learning and the principles we have put into place have 19 potential long-term benefits.

20 I think in conclusion I would say we are striving 21 for the same thing that NRC is striving for, and that is to 22 assure that we have isrried out and met our commitments over 23 the life of the project. We have in place our programs that 24 were in place over the life of the project to make sure that 25 got done.

t 0

47 1

What we are finding in the readiness revi,ew process, 2 I think, to a great extent is a confirmation that those i

1 3 programs have worked and that they have caused the activities

~

4 to be carried out as we expected them to be, and that we have 5 . met our commitments.

6 Any questions? ,

7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It sounds like a very ambitious 8 program. I have a couple of programs.

9 MR. RICE: Yes, sir?

10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Ycu mentioned long-range 11 benefit, and I was thinking as you were speaking about whether 12 or not the readiness review program is being extended to 13 include the read,iness of plant personnel to operate a plant, 14 MR. RICE: We have included that in the program. In 15 fact, one of the four areas that we have divided the whole 16 project up into is readiness for operation. Take my case.

17 Personally I am the module executive for the radiological 18 and chemistry part of that readiness for operations area.

19 In that case, we are taking the radiological -- for 20 example, pieces, breaking up all of the commitments that will 21 have to be'in place by the time we operate the plant. We are 22 going out to, one, check their implementation if they are 23 implemented -- and there are a number which are not

24. implemented yet because we do not have fuel on the site, for j l

25 example --

to check their implementation or to go check the I

48 1

procedures for whic- they are scheduled to be implemented in, 2 and if there is not a footprint like that, then that beccmes 3 the issue.

4 That is a finding. There are many areas of the 5 operations area now where we can go check.

6 MR. MILLER: I think it might be helpful if you look 7 at the slide we have on module readiness for operation. It 8 actually contains eight modules involved with readiness for 9 operation.

10 CSlide.]

11 MR. RICE: This area right here is what I was 12 talking about.

I .

13 . CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I see at the bot'om another one 14 I was, going to ask about. To what extent are fou giving 15 attention to plant maintenance readiness? That seems to be an 16 area in which a number of problems arise early in operation.

17 I guess throughout the life, 18 MR. MILLER: Would you like a response to that?

19 Would you like Tom Beckham to respond to that?

20 MR. BECKHAM: Tom Beckham, Georgia Power.

21 We too, feel as you do, that maintenance is an 22 important activity. We are putting our effort in readiness 23 review to be sure we have the procedures in place, the proper 24 qualified people, proper training facilities at the s i t e., and 25 readiness review is looking at this in great detail as part of

., *.6 .

49 1 this module.

1 2 It is one of the many parts of operation that must i 3 receive attention in order for a plant to operate properly, 4 sir.

5 MR. MILLER: I think, Tom, you are developing 6 preventive and predictive maintenance for t h e' plant.

7 MR. BECXHAM: Yes, sir. We use both types, 8 preventive and predictive maintenance. Just to give you an 9 example, some of the predictive maintenance, we are using 10 infra red type detectors for looking at electrical type 11 equipment to detect temperature differences.

12 We are using oil analysis to give you an example, to 13 predict where in degradation of equipment. In that area, we 14 are using a very extensive vibration analysis to give 15 detection of signature changes of equipment's operation so 16 that we can predict, maintain the equipment before it fails.

17 COMMISSICNER BERNTHAL: Is that acoustic analysis?

18 MR. BECKHAM: The vibration analysis is going and 19 taking what is called signature analysis in which you take the 20 particular piece of equipment when it is known to be in good 21 condition and you get a so-called signature of what the 22 various frequencies look like of the vibrations, and then you, 23 on a maintenance schedule, look at those and predict if it is 24 degrading, sir.

I I 25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It is actually in the f

l

I 90 1 vibration and not the analysis of the. acoustics?

2 MR. SECXHAM: That's right, sir.

, 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Two other questions. Then I 4 will turn it over to my colleagues.

5 The first question may seem to have an obvious 6 answer, but I am going to ask it anyhow.

i 7 I guess Mr. Scherer spoke about 150 person years t

8- involved in'this program. That might mean upwards of $50 9 million.

10 Do you feel this program has benefitted, or will 11 benefit you to that extent?

12 MR. SCHERER: Okay, let me respond to that. I am 13 not quite sure it is that much money.

14 (Laughter) 15 I would like to reserve that.

- 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I just took $100,000 --

17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: 15 days.

18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That's where I concluded. But 19 I said the answer may be obvious.

20 MR. SCHERER: I think the answer is obvious. If in 21 fact we can, by doing this, demonstrate clearly that we have l

22 lived up to our commitment, therefore we can license this 1

I 23 plant and put it into operation in a timely fashion, we will 24 save our customers millions of dollars.

25 - CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I presumed that.

,u . - - - - - - , _ _ . -n. , .- .

G1 1 MR. SCHERER: I'm glad you asked that.

2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think it is important to get 3 it on the record.

4 Now, a corollary question -- and this is more for

~

5 the Staff than it is for Georgia Power -- what sort of 6 resources has it taken from the NRC's point of view --

let me

-7 stop right there.

8 MR. TAYLOR: Nelson Grace, who has project 9 responsibility working out of Region, is preparing, I think, 10 to answer that, Mr. Chairman. He will speak for both the NER 11 and ISE resources. We are all dedicating resources to this 12 effort.

13 MR. GRACE: We have been concerned about resources 14 since the beginning of the project. And we have had 15 difficulty estimating what the total load would be.

16 So, we agreed, and the EDO directed us to play it 17 by ear for a period of time. We are just into the program, 18 really, for a few months. But we have a rough idea of the 19 extra load that it is going to take. It is very crude at this 20 stage. It is probably premature to report a figure. But, the 21 present projection is somewhere between 16 and 17 man years 22 over and above the base program.

23 Now, we, in Region II for example -- most of that is 24 in Region II -- we will have expended this fiscal year about 25 two FTE on the program out of our total need of about nine

\

. '. * . =. * ,

$2

! 1 that we project.

l i

2 Now, please keep in mind this is very rough and I 3 probably shouldn't even be talking about numbers at this 4 time. We will gain more experience in the near future and ,

5 will be reporting to the EDO on how it is going.

6 So, we will extend it about two this fiscal year..

7 We have been able to adjust. We have been able to manage 8 within our resources without hurting the balance of the 9 program. Next year we are projecting, if our projection today 10 is correct, about seven in Region II. I am just mentioning 11 this --

12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Seven for what?

13 MR. GRACE Seven FTE for the balance of the program 14 in 1986.

15 Now the numbers in I&E and in NRR are smaller. But I 16 am just mentioning our numbers for example.

17 We have budgeted presently in the 1986 budget, close 18 to four FTE. So, the present projection would indicate in 19 Region II, we are three short. But again we are not crying 20 wolf. We are not going to stop the program and say " Send more 21 resources." That would be a copout.

22 We are going to manage within our resources. And if 23 we do reach some irreconcilable problems, we may have to 24 reprioritise. But in all cases, we will be in close 25 -

communication with headquarters to make sure we are all on i l

• '~

S3 1 board.

2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I was just trying to get a feel 3 insofar as we get general implications in the event we want to 4 carry this program to other applications.

5 MR. GRACE: Other facilities, other projects?

6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes.

7 MR. GRACE: I think Jim Taylor is the right man.

8 MR. TAYLOR: We are not currently budgeted or 9 projected to carry this type of program.for it, except for the 10 potential at WNP-3. We have had discussions with the folks 11 out there and are budgeting. And I think you will see in our 12 fiscal year 1987 budget some numbers associated down in the 13 depths of the budget.

14 But that is a project. And their program will be 15 somewhat different. They are in a different situation, for 16 the potential for that to happen. If that doesn't happen, 17 that may be a bit of a kitty, which we can take those 18 resources and apply here. But, that is the extent of the 19 current Staff, budgeting for this type of program.

20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are we keeping our records in 21 sufficient shape so that when we have completed the pilot 22 project we can go back and get a pretty good feel for NRC --

23 need for NRC resources?

24 MR. TAYLOR: I think we will have a track record of 25 the FTEs and what we have done. We are documenting that.

'. .=. '. ,

04 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: .Okay. Thank you.

2 MR. GRACE: May I ad one point.

3 Yes, we will have accurate records of the resources 4 expended. But this is not all negative, because we are 5 anticipating saving resources, censiderable resources that we 6 can't really document by virtue of having avoided the eleventh 7 hour problems that we often have.

8 CHAIR..AN PALLADINO: I was thinking of comparing 9 those resources to some of the resources we have had to expend 10 in handling a lot of last-minute a l l e g a t .i o n s .

11 COMMISSION 5R ROBERTS: Ouick question. If I 12 understood Mr. Scherer, an employee who refuses to be tested 13 for drug use is terminated. Is that correct?

14 MR. SCHERER: That is correct, sir.

15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. Mas any employee terminated j

.l 16 under that -- challenged that termination either under a 17 collective bargaining agreement, or through the Department of 18 Labor?

19 MR. SCHERER: There has been a challenge by the ACLU 20 of a number --

21 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: On behalf of the terminated 22 employees?

23 MR. SCHERER: --

on behalf of a number of the 24 terminated employees. And as I understand it -- and probably 25 these people closer to it can tell you -- I understand the

55 1 Labor Department has determined that the complaint was not 2 filed t i m e 1*y .

3 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: but never addressed the 4 merits of the issue?

5 MR. SCHERER: They have not addressed the merits of 6 the issue at this point.

7 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Do you know --

well, maybe 8 this is getting into too much detail.

9 I wonder if this circumstance has occurred in other 10 places, and if the Labor Department has taken any ' position on 11 the validity of such determination.

12 That is probably not a fair question.

13 MR. SCHERER: I don't know. Don, do you know? Do 14 you know if.there has been a challenge in other places?

15 MR. FOSTER: Yes, sir. We have had -- Don Foster, 16 general manager of Plant Vogtle.

17 We have had a number of arbitration cases filed or 18 grievances filed --

19 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Under your collective 20 bargaining agreement?

21 MR. FOSTER: Yes, sir, under the collective 22 bargaining agreement. And at least one at Plant Vogtle, one 23 at one of our other facilities, have been dispositioned and 24 they ruled in our favor and the program stood up --

25 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: That dismissal was --

l l

1

- . . _ .__. _ _ .____ j

96 1 MR. FOSTER: Yes, sir, they were dismissed.

2 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Thank you.

3 MR. SCHERER: It has not been ruled on as far as 4 Department of Labor.

5 MR. MILLER: I think the thing is still subject to 5 final court review, as I recall. However, we feel pretty 7 confident about the ultimate test. But, it is going to be 8 tested in due course through the ultimate -- You may have seen 9 the national TV report which had one person, I think it was, 10 possibly two, whom we did dischaige at Vogtle, com' plaining 11 about it. We also had Harry Gregory who at the time, still is 12 manager of construction, interviewed on that.

13 We think the program has had excellent results. It 14 doesn't mean we are 100 percent. But we certainly know we have 15 gotten rid of those folks, and I think that is beneficial.

16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I assume they are required 17 to sign some sort of consent agreement as a condition of 18 employment. O r ,. is that not the case?

19 MR. MILLER: I am not sure.

20 MR. FOSTER: For new employees in Georgia Power 21 Company, that is correct.

22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: For you to be able to 23 enforce that?

24 MR. FOSTER: A number of the employees at Plant 25 Vogtle were long-term employees,

57 ,

1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I understand.

1 l

2 MR. FOSTER: We did not fall under t'h a t program. So l

3 we have retrofitted our existing antidrug program to include 4 all of the Staff, including contractor, architect-engineer, 5 Georgia Power Company, support craft or support staff at Plant 6 Vcgtle under that program. And we have done that now, we have' i

7 completed that program, and all individuals at Plant Vogtle 8 short of craft labor, have been tested and craft labor are 9 tested under a discretionary program for cause.

10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So in other word's, except 11 apparently for this craft labor exclusion, you are telling me 12' that if I walk into the plant everybody that I see sitting 13 there from maintenance people and custodians up through the 14 plant manager, fall into this program.

15 Is that correct?

16 MR. FOSTER: Yes, sir.

+

17 MR. MILLER: Actually plant Vogtle goes beyond that ,

18 because it has a tremendous construction engineering and 19 support force.

20 That is correct. The operating people have been 21 doing this for many years.

22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: But it doesn't end, let's 23 say, with control room operators and people --

24 MR. FOSTER: No, sir.

25 MR. MILLER: Every employee, everyone who has

l

. '. .. ~. ,

58 l

1 exposure in that 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Did you lose any control room 3 or key operating people as a result --

4 MR. MILLER: Not at Vogtle.

5 We haven't had a problem at Hatch, have we?

6 MR. BECXHAM: Tom Beckham, Georgia Power. .

7 I don't recall any instance where we have had a 8 control room operator fail the test.

9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Or be dismissed because he 10 didn't-take it --

he or she didn't take it.

11 MR. BECXHAM: I cannot remember. I am going through 12 my recollection.

13 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: It can't be much of a problem 14 tf you can't recall 15 (Laughter) .

16 MR. MILLER: We have one other policy that I think 17 may be preventive in nature, and that is that everybody wo 18 hire --

before we post the bid list for Match, for example, 19 before we let that guy go there, he has to pass that drug 20 test. Even if he might be employed somewhere else.

21 Also, if we hire somebody in Georgia Power Company 22 that is going to come in in any job in Georgia Power Company, 23 as a laborer or anything, we test him when he comes in. We 24 test at that time. It is a very rigid test and it is a 25 standardized test

59 1 COMMISSIONER ZECH: What kind of a test is it?

2 MR. MILLER: It is a urinanalysis. Peter Benstger.

3 Maybe more than that. Tom, is it more than urinanalysis?

4 Do you want to tell them what we do? For nuclear 5 plants we go beyond that.

6 MR. BECKHAM: The fitness for duty program is more 7 than just 'r i nana ly s i s , sir. The fitness for duty includes 8 background surveys, which goes into the various aspects of 9 background, credit checks, criminal records, anything of that 10 nature. It includes a psychological test which i s' the 11 Minnesota Test, and then also in some cases an interview with 12 a psychologist. And it includes the drug screening test which 13 is a urinanalysis test. And an individual must pass all of 14 these prior to going into the program, sir.

15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: That preemployment test, has 16 that ever been challenged by someone 'like the ACLU?

17 MR. SCHERER: Not that I know of.

18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Your drug test, is that 19 followed up by random tests, or is it a preannounced kind of 20 scheduled thing?

21 MR. FOSTER: Yes, sir. We have a prerogative in the 22 program in place for cause or for any reason that it is deemed 23 necessary by the supervisor or management staff at the job, 24 that we would require any individual, craft labor, plant 25 staff, management staff, to submit themselves to a drug 1

60 l 1 screening.

2 And that does take place and it takes place .

3 regularly. We have a record on that also. Again that is a 4 successful program, but an equivalent program with our 5 announced planned total screening of the plant staff 6 MR. MILLER: We also have a search program that is 7 really unannounced, of vehicles of people. I guess from time 8 to time we use dogs on that.

9 MR. FOSTER: Yes, sir. We have used drug dogs. We 10 have other means of identifying the problem.

11 MR. MILLER: Actually we haven't found that much.

12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Can you have an educational 13 --

you know, in some utilities that creates a lot of conflict 14 between the employer and the employee. That's a tough one.

15 MR. FOSTER: In the full implementation of this 16 program, we have worked all the way from the corporate staff 17 of our contractor, architect engineers, down through the 18 individuals and fully informed them of this program, the 19 intent of it and obligations they have to the program. And, 20 that is an ongoing process and is an integral part of this 21 program.

22 MR. MILLER: Generally our experience is people just 23 don't want to work with people who are taking dopo in any 24 circumstances.

25 Really, a great majority of them might be silent,

, - . _ - _ _ - . - - - -. . m.,.-___.y - - - - ,

61 1 but they support --

2 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: But they are not resentful of 3 the fact --

4 MR. MILLER: Not most of our people, not that I am 5 aware of.

6 MR. SCHERER: I think you create an environment 7 where people want to be in a healthy circumstance. Maybe they 8 haven't been given that opportunity in the past and we are' 9 trying to make that available to them, and I think ths 10 response has been good.

11 MR. MILLER: But it is going to be challenged, 12 ultimately.

13 MR. SCHERER: We accept that as a fact.

• 14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The sense I have gotten 15 from a couple of other plants I have visited recently have 16 very similar programs. By and large they think their programs 17 are supportive of the concept as well, particularly where it 18 applies to everyone, where you don't single out selective 19 groups of people and say this applies to you but it doesn't 20 apply to the other people. If you apply it across the board.

21 MR. MILLER: Under the OSHA program they have 22 something called a Star Program where if you, in the union 23 crafts, and project management and contractors work together 24 as a team and come up with good results, they give you a Star 25 Program. And they don't inspect you at all 2 ----

o, . , . .,

62 1 Vogtle is the only nuclear plant that we know of 2 that has been accepted. We have one fossil plant, Scherer, 3 which is a 3200 megawatt plant under construction. It is in 4 the Star Program. And Vogtle. Those are the only two we know 5 of. There may be another fossil.

6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The results that you 7 found a re kind of interesting, because I think if you look at 8 society as a whole, you generally tend to find about five 9 percent of the population that suffers from one or another of

, 10 these kinds of p r o b l e m s'.

11 The fact that you only found about a one percent I

12 level that either failed the test or wouldn't take the test, 13 it is --

14 MR. SCHERER: Of course, that may be as a result of 15 the fact that you have already screened out a significant 16 number before they even get into'the pool.

17 MR. MILLER: And people know that they are subject 18 to test, they wi.11 just go get a job somewhere else.

19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, they don't apply.

20 Can you give me a feel for the percentage of 21 completion of construction in some of the v a ri ous areas?

22 I guess maybe just the broad categories, civil, 23 mechanical, and electrical, so I can get a feel for how far 24 along Vogtle is in these areas?

25 MR. FOSTER: Yes, sir.

i 63 l

i In Unit 1 we are approximately 80 percent complete 2 over all; Unit 2, approximately 50 percent complete. .

I 3 Obviously on Unit 1, we have essentially completed 4

all of our civil and structural work. We are well into the 80 5 and 90 percent range on our mechanical work. And in the mid 6 50s, that r a'n g e , on our electrical work for Unit No. 1. .

l 7 The Unit 2 numbers are something less than that. I 8 would say probably 70 to 80 percent with our concrete on Unit 9 2, in our structural work there. Just starting in the low 20s 10 on our mechanical, electrical work. '

11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The sense I got from the 12 presentation was that in essence, an FSAR level of detail, 13 level of 1,nformation was fairly crucial to the program, to

14. being able to develop the modules, identify with some degree 15 of assurance what the commitments are and how you are going to 16 go about verifying the commitments are met.

J 17 Am I right about that?

18 MR. RICE: Yes, t h a t s correct.

19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: At what point in the 20 typical construction of a project, the way we have been doing 21 them, essentially the custom design approach, do you think 22 this approach is feasible'to get started?

23 MR. RICE: We would start with the PSAR in that 24 case.

25 But, I think the answer to your question is it would l

l 1

, e, ..,*, .

64 1 be phased- It would be phased.over the life of the project.

2 There is obviously some things which don't get well enough 3 defined until much later on, even to where we are now in the 4 operations area, to conduct.

S But, for those activities such as backfill, 6 concrete,. earthwork and~then as you go on with structural s /

7- steel, the programs have to be defined to do the first ten 8 ' percent.

9 So, there is really no logic that says that you 10 , can't look at all these' factors very early on for 'hatever w

11 work stlis that you are carrying out on your quality program.

12 The requirements are defined.

13 So, we see it occurring very early, even back at the 14 point where the first earthwork '

s tarts to be done in the 15 safety-related sec, tion.

/

16 COMM$SSIONER $5SELSTINE: It does seem the s

p.,'

17, - regtvivement on our part for being able to do the review and 1,8 giving you some . assurance that in fact we can give you a

• I9 signoff on various modules, is'having the information wI 20 available for each of the individual modules to be able to 21 say with a fair degred of assurance that, yes, we know enough 22 now to be able to say that the commitments are right, the 23 program is right, the verification offorts are right So that 34 we can have confidence that this goes ahead.

t 25 MR. RICE: 'That is absolutely right That is why it

-~

, &g a A

65 1 would have to be phased according to when those things got 2 defined well enough to do the process. ,

3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: My last point is more of a 4 comment. I think you can commend it for the objective.

5 You're right on the mark, identifying problems early on, 6 getting them corrected, providing a framework for making sure 7 that you understand what we're looking for and that we find 8 what you're. proposing as acceptable. I think that's the right 9 way to go. I think that's the way to avoid some of the 10 problems that have occurred in the past .f e w years,' and I 11 think it really is an essential element for some greater 12 degree of stability for the future as well.

13 I think you ought to be commended for that 14 objective. I find the approach very interesting, and I'm 15 looking forward to seeing how it works over the next several 16 months and years.

17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you plan to apply a similar 18 program to Vogtle-2?

i 19 MR. MILLER: We're in a testing phase on that right 20 now, Mr. Chairman. Of course we'd like to. A lot of work is 21 generic in nature which will apply to both Vogtle-1 and 2, 22 particularly appendices. We would like to do it. We need to 23 move into it and learn a few more lessons before we make the 24 final decision on that. No final decision has been made at 25 this time.

. v. . . , . . . ., ,,

'e 66 1 COMMISSIONER BEENTHAL: That's a good question, 2 thcugh, because I recall your having mentioned that you,would 3 do more, and there would be more stop points for evaluation, 4 more modules earlier in the game, should you do it from the 5 very beginning of plant construction. You're not quite at the 6 beginning of construction on Unit-2, I guess. But in some 7 sense, it would be a measure of your own enthusiasm over the 8 project, whether you decide to buy that for the second unit, I 9 guess.

10 g MR. MILLER: I think I certainly would a'g r e e .

11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You would have implications on 12 the cost / benefit of this.

13 MR. SCHERER: We would know --

the fact that the 14 numbers would be in hand.

15 MR. RICE: One of the things we have been doing is 16 that the readiness review, as we're conducting it now, Unit-2 17 ' operates to'the same specifications, the same requirements and 18 commitments, the same procedures. So as Mr. Miller pointed 19 out, there's a great deal of commonality.

20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, we appreciate that part.

21 But then the. plant-specific items, you'd have to do 22 separately.

23 ,

COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I assume the design is i

24 basically identical, of the two units, isn't it?

25 -

MR. RICE: Yes.

67 l

1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: More, Jim?

2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No.

3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Fred?

4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I would just second what Jim 5 said. There's an old sign that IBM made famous many years ago 6 that appeared on a lot of desks that said, "Think." And it's 7 clear that you've given a good deal of thought to this idea, 8 and your presentation reflects that, and you're thinking about 9 what you're doing, and that's the way you find your pathway 10 through the licensing maze, one hopes relatively Unscathed.

11 I have a couple of questions on whether there are 12 early results that have come out of this that might be of 13 general, interest. Hava you compared notes much wi.th other 14 utilities?

15 I'm sure you've talked to the INPO people a good 16 deal, but are there things that have come out of this already 17 that other utilities have found particularly interesting or 18 that are different?

19 MR. RICE: I can address that question. We are 20 sharing all of the things in the process, procedures, and 21 results with any other utilities.

22 [ Commissioner Roberts leaves the Commission 23 meeting.]

24 MR. RICE: We've had two utilities -- WNP-3, which 25 was mentioned awhile ago, and one other utility, TVA -- well,

e, . . , , .,

C8 1 there's really three then.-- there's TVA, and also Comanche 2 P'eak has visited us, looked at the process, and carried,away 3 both our procedures, arJ at least in my exiting with those 4 folks, some idea of s c me things they may want to apply from 5 this. They're in a different condition than we are, but we 6 are sharing all of the lessons learned and the process in a.

7 very open manner with them.

8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: What's the general 9 attitude? I'm not sure how candid you care to be. Did they 10 consider it overkill? Do they consider it overwho'1 ming to 11 even think about initiating such a project, or are a lot of 12 them nodding their heads saying, " Sounds like it's a great 13 idea, which we have done or we intend to do?"

14 MR. MILLER: I don't think I've had any 15 broadly-based feedback, enough to really give you a feel for 16 that. I may get some at my NUMARC meeting in late August.

17 The.only people I have talked to have been 18 supportive, but I haven't ~really spoken to very many of them.

19 I really can't tell you what the thrust of the industry might 20 be.

21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Has this made visible 22 difforences in construction itself, so if I were to go down 23 there tomorrow, I would be able to tell somehow that you are 24 doing things differently in the plant than other utilities 25 might be? Or is it mostly behind the scenes?

1 l

l

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

e- .

69 1 MR. SCHERER: Let me address that. I'll let them 2 address the specifics. ,

3 I think the plant is e x c 'i t e d . I think there's 4 really a spirit there existing today that was not prior to 5 this. This may have enhanced it, and I'm going to let Paul or 6 Don, whoever wants to --

it's an exciting project.

7 MR. MILLER: I'm going to tell you in three little 8 words: I don't know. You can all probably tell better than I 9 can.

l 10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: One last short q'uestion.

11 Have there come out of this yet any broad, new insights on 12 QC/QA procedures particularly? Have you learned anything

. 13 there that might suggest, in carrying out that sort of thing 14 -- again, I'm getting back in part to the mechanics of OC and 15 QA --

sometimes one thinks you do best to hire a good 16 librarian,for part of these activities.

e 17 Is there anything that has come out of that yet that 18 might be generally useful and applicable, or is to early?

19 MR. RICE: Let me answer the question in two ways.

20 One, we are applying the lessons learned that can be applied 21 for future activities where that's the case. So you would 23 find certain changes made to adjust the process, including 23 streamlining. But in some cases, the lessons that we see in 24 looking, for example, at the concrete business, those are 25 pretty much past us. I believe we have l e a r r.e d lessons, which m-

,', ..,s, . .-

70 1 are reported in that module, which in the future, if we were 2 going to do it, we would clearly go back to this p r o c e s s,,

3 look at it, and there would be things that we would adjust to 4 prevent the kinds of issues we now deal with. The lessons are 5 clearly there.

6 I CCommissioner Roberts returns to the Commission l 7 table 3 8 MR. RICE: It's not too early, but in some cases 9 it's too late.

10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Right. I guess 'that's all I 11 have right now.

12 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Just two comments. First of 13 all, I commend you for your fitness-for-duty program. It 14 sounds like, to me, it's a tough program, and I think that's 15 what we should have.

16 The second point is, it seems to me, this readiness 17 review program could, indeed, he a very significant 18 contribution, if the legislation we have pending in Congress 19 right now for single-stage licensing is' passed. It seems to 20 me that what you are ta'1 king about is a, formal review 21 verification process, close working with the NEC Staff I 22 think you described it as a " disciplined and scheduled and 23 systematic approach," which I believe is important.

24 But if that kind of a program was in place, I think 25 it would be of assistance to the Staff and to the Commission

78 1 to ensure, as we go through the construction process, that 2 inspections, the analysis and the requirements were being met 3 )

So I would suggest very possible a program or  ;

l 4 something like this could be applicable, if that single-stage  :

5 licensing was authorised.

6 So I think that's something that we and the Staff 7 should keep in mind and look at this program with a great deal 8 of care, because it could have broader application, in my 9 judgment.

10 Thank you, Mr~ Chairman.

11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you.

12 I wonder if the Staff has any comments that they 13 would deem appropriate with regard to this program? I think 14 particularly of the readiness review program, but you can 15 comment on the other aspects also.

16 MR. TAYLOR: We are looking, as you are aware, at 17 this program with the potential to its application, as 18 Commissioner Zech has mentioned, to future endeavors in 19 construction. Of course, it provides the greatest -- although 20 it takes some resources, it provides assistance to the Staff 21 It's a much more disciplined approach, and it gets rid of some 22 of this hit-or-miss type situation which we have encountered 23 in past construction.

! 24 So we _are looking, of course, if there is a future 25 application.

,e,- . . , . , . ,

72 1 Nelson, would you like to add to that? )

2 MR. GRACE: Yes. Of course, I'm sold on the program 3 per se, because of the experience I've had with Westinghouse 4 and FFTF where it was used, and experience at Princeton in the 5 fusion program where, again, we used it. There, h o.w e v e r , we 6 did not do it to meet NRC's regulations. We didn't have any 7 NRC regulations. These were all DOE projects. They did it 8 mainly as a self-assessment, a highly disciplined 9 self-assessment technique, and these~ people have stressed 10 self-assessment in their presentation.

11 So we are sold on the concept, and we reserve

,1 2 judgment as to whether it's going to be applied adequately and 13 cortectly and thoroughly and in a timely manner at Georgia 14 Power. We don't prejudge the conotusion.

15 If it's done correctly and done well, we feel 16 confident that we're going to save resources in the long run.

17 It's going.to make everybody's job easier.

18 But it is a pilot program.

The work is cut out for 19 them at Georgia Power. I think they ought to be commended for 20 taking the initiative, and they are off to a good start, 21 although they have already doubled their estimate from 75 22 man-years to 150 man-years. It's still in the evolutionary 23 stage, and the hope is that it will be implemented correctly, 24 and we will all benefit from it. But we are not prejudging 25 the outcome. We don't accept programs in lieu of results, p . . - . _

73 1 We're looking for results ultimately.

2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I have agree, by the way,

3. with Lando's comment about future applications and future 4 designs. It does seem to me the optimal way for the process 5 to work, particularly since one approach to the one-sta'ge 6 licensing approach would be to have much more complete design 7 information up front,'in order to enable much earlier 8 treatment on the nature of the commitments and also the 9 programs for assuring that they are verified.

10 So it looks like the information level l'n having 11 more complete designs at the outset of the process would 12 really move the process forward. F.or f'u t u r e applications, it l '3 would be the key element.

14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you.

15 I am informed that Ms. Billie Garde from GAP wishes 16 to make a two or three-minute statement on behalf of 17 Intervenors. General Counsel advises me that there is no 18 legal problem with letting her speak, although this is a 19 contested issue, and QA is one of.the contentions.

20 So unless the Commission objects, I would propose 21 that we hear her at this time.

22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Fine.

23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes.

24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Yes. l

)

25 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Fine.

l 74 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I would have her use the 3

.2 podium.

3 The assumption is it will be about a three-minute 4 presentation.

~

l 5 MS. GARDE: Thank you very much for the opportunity 6 to address you on behalf of the Campaign for a Prosperous 7 Georgia. I apologize I didn't get a written request in. I 8 didn't know about the meeting until very recently.

9 I think t'h a t it is fair to give some basic positions 10 of the Intervenor, which ! feel confident in r e p r e's e n t i n g . And 4

11 one of those, as Commissioner Palladino said, is that the 12 QA/QC issue is a contested issue. The readiness review

. 13 programs will be, I believe, a part of that contested 14 issue. And whether the results of it will be s'ubmitted by the l 15 Applicant to substitute in some way for the QA/QC program is I

16 not yet decided. The litigation is not that far along.

17 However, I think it is safe to say that by and large 18 the program itself as a self-assessment, I agree, is a good 19 idea. It certainly --

any type of self-assessment along the 20 way of these' projects can avoid the situation we ended up with 21 at Zimmer and at Midland. And in that sense I support both 22 from GAP's perspective and also on behalf of Campaign for 23 Prosperous Georgia, the concept of t h a,t program.

24- Our concern is that it will end up substituting or 25 being submitted as a substitute for a successful

7G 1 implementation of Appendix B, 'and that, of course, would not 2 be acceptable particularly at this time since it is a pilot 3 program, they are working the bugs out.

4 And, it is too early to say in some areas where, 5 there was a breakdown for some reason, even if it is a 6 particular system, that the program as submitted is an 7 acceptable substitute. So, we are concerned about that.

8 As a pilot program, GAP doesn't have any problems 9 with it. We are also watching it, have been watching the 10 development of it through the DOE for t h.e last y e a'r , and 11 frankly, anticipate that it will surface in the future 12 probably in some way as a substitute for Appendix B. However,

,13 at this stage, in the middle of a licensing process, we want 14 to make very clear that that is -- our position is it doesn't 15 substitute.

16 If, at some point it is necessary to say a 17 reinspection of a particular system is necessary and then you 18 want to piggyback what you have done, that is a whole separate 19 question which needs to be addressed.

20 The second point I wanted to make was, there was a 21 lot of questions and discussion on the drug abuse program.

22 And I have two comments on that:

23 One is that contrary to the representations of 24 Applicant, certainly the information that we have received 25 from workers is that the attitude on the site is not fully

+

76 1 supportive of the program. I would say, in fact, that it has 2 caused, I won't say a large number, but certainly an ",

3 increasing number of workers to become disgruntled, 4 dissatisfied and upset and contact both us and the 5 Intervenors, which is why Intervonors contacted GAPS for 6 assistance. They are not necessarily qualified to deal with 7 whistle-blowers, workers who call up with problems. We are.

8 There is always a question on motivation. Why does 9 a worker come forward? And, when workers call and say, !

10 have been dismissed through the drug abuse program either 11 because I have failed a urinanalysis test. or because I refused 12 to take the urinanalysis test, there is always a question of 13 motivation that has to be asked by our side, by your side.

14 However, if situations are presented which, in our 15 case we believe there ar at least a good half dozen, where the 16 circumstances indicate that a person's test was not on a 17 random basis, or not across-the-board, everybody is being 18 tested, that in fact they were tested and then dismissed on 19 either unreliable data, or on a refusal to take the test when 20 that directly follows engaging in protected activity, we have 21 got sme real serious problems with that and we.do think there l

)

22 are some examples of that. Some of those are in the cases in 1

1 23 litigation now, which was correctly described as kind of i l

24 pending the timeliness question. '

25 And the other ones will be at some point either I r - - - .

77 1 submitted to DOL or the NRC.

2 The only other comment that I wanted to make .i s that 3 the readiness review program, particularly coupled with the 4 separate effort on the drug abuse program, I think there needs 5 to be a larger sensitivity for contacting the workers.

6 I mean none of the slides indicated that there was 7

an independent step where you went back to workers; or you go 8 to workers currently to determine their problems. I think 9 that that has to be feeding into the readiness review program.

10 I know you have an exit program, I know'you have 11 got an allegation program. Obviously that is not entirely 12 working, or I wouldn't have the calls that I'm getting. So, !

13 think that your workforce is still your best source of 14 information besides your reinspection efforts, and that that 15 needs to be incorporated in some way with a successful 16 readiness review program so that they call you before they 17 call me.

18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you very much.

19 MS. GARDE: Thank you.

20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Let.me ask just one 21 question, if I could.

22 On the fitness for duty program, putting aside the 23 question of whether --

of possible misuse of the programs, do 24 you have any problem with --

at least with the concept of 1

25 rigorous fitness for duty programs that include both l

. i. ,

78 1 pre-announced and random drug screening tests in order to 2 ensure that the people who were on the site both at ,

e 3 construction sites and at operation sites, are fit to do their 4 job and aren't going to cause problems.

5 MS. GARDE: Right. I think you know that GAP's

/

6 position has always been that we are concerned about drug .

7 abuse among quality control inspectors, engineers on the site, 8 that we think that that program needs to be addressed by the 9 NRC. I know that is on the table. And that it needs to be 10 dealt with at every plant. '

11 Our problem is in the implementatien of that 12 concept.

13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So, assuming it is a fair 14 and evenhanded program, you don't have --

15 MS. GARDE: And its reliability and verifiability.

16 If those things can be built into it, we think 'it is a 17 necessary aspect.

18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay. Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you.

20 Any other comments?-

21 COMMISSIONER AS S EL ST I.NE : No.

22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No.

23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No.

24 COMMISSIONER ZECH: No.

25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any closing comments?

79 i MR. SCHERER: Yes.

2 May I say first of all, we appreciate your taking 3 this time to examine and hop'efully better understand what our 4 program is. We hope that we have provided you with additional 5 information on our pilot readiness review program including 6 our objectives. And, I hope we have conveyed our deep 7

commitment and the overview of the lessons that we are 8 learning.

9 I think we are achieving that goal.

10 We also hope that we have showed you tha\ a 11 disciplined management approach like the one that we are 12 testing, might be -- might be -- applied to other utilities or 13 to future plants in an tificient manner,which would help to 14 bring together many diverse assurance type actions that have 15 been piled one on top of the other, 16 Bottom line, we seek the continued positive support 17 for the program that is being demonstrated by Mr. Dircks and 18 his staff, and in particular Dr. Grace and his Region !!

19 staff, Mr. Taylor and his !&E Headquarters staff, and 20 Mr. Denton and his NRR staff.

21 And we seek the strong support of these efforts not 22 just for the immediate benefits which would acorue to us and 23 Plant Vogtle, but for the potential long-term benefits of 24 streamlining and stabilizing the separate actions of the 25 utilities, the regulators and I am convinced, to preserve the N .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

. ',..,t. .

80 1 nuclear option ultimately.

2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you, Mr. Scherer. .And 3 thank you to all of you for your participation in this 4 meeting.

5 As I said in my opening remarks, I think you are to 6 be commended for undertaking this program. I think it can 7 have far-reaching benefits for not only Georgia Power, but for 8 NRC and for the whole industry.

9 So, we appreciate your coming and we ap,preciate your 10 presentation. I think we have all learned --

at l'e a s t I have 11 learned quite a bit. And I know some of my colleagues have 12 been to Vogtle. I still have hopes that I will get there.

13 MR. SCHERER: We invite you all.

14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you.

15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Thank you for an excellent 16 presentation.

17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We will stand adjourned.

18 (Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the meeting was 19 adjourned.)

20 21 22 23 24 25

1

• CERTIFICA'TE OF OFFICIAL REAdRTER 2 ~

3 .

4 5

This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6

before the. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7 matter of: Comnission Meeting 8

9 Name of Proceeding: Briefing on Operational Readiness Review Pilot Program Georgia Power (Vogtle) 10 (Public Meeting) 11 Occket No.

12 place: Washington, D. C. .

13 cate: Priday, July 26, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 tesnscript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.

'3

/]l _

(Signature) 4 (Typed Name of Repo"rter) Mimie Mefdzer 20 21 22 23 Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd.

24 23

_ _ _ _