ML20138M650

Affidavit of Mj Wallace Re QA Contention Concerning Util Responsiveness to QA Audit Findings & NRC Noncompliance & Nonconformance Repts.Corrective Actions Implemented on Schedule to Achieve Fuel Load Date.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20138M650
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	12/19/1985
From:	Wallace M COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20138M641	List: ML20138M634 ML20138M650
References
OL, NUDOCS 8512230097
Download: ML20138M650 (13)

Text

.

~

1

^

EXHIBIT A lL ,

December 19, 1985 DeCMETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI OfEC 19 P4:36 In the Matter of: )  : ; ,~n

) rif;7 UCC *c/,if t i, 3 $.p~

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos'.t50-456

) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power )

Station, Units 1 and 2 )

M FIDAVIT OF MICHAEL J. WALLACE I, Michael J. Wallace, being first duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

-1. I am employed by Commonwealth Edison Company as the Assistant Manager of Projects and as the Project Manager of Braidwood Nuclear Power Station. As Project Manager of Braidwood, I have primary responsibility for completion of the Braldwood Project, through fuel load of Units 1 and 2, including the management of construction, testing and operating activities. More-specifically, my management. responsibilities include, among other things, the scheduling and completion of construction activities as well as verification and corrective action programs, giving due consideration to quality, budgeting, schedule and regulatory constraints.

D f,h .

9 s

'2. At the request of Counsel, I have undertaken to describe, in partial response to Question 7 specified by the Commission's Order of December 5, 1985, the reasons why the Project did not anticipate the specific Quality Assurance contention issues, and, therefore, did not expedite the specific corrective action programs associated with certain contention items sooner than actually occurred.

3. As a part of my duties as Project Manager, I am responsible for the development of our overall Project plan and schedule. The establishment of an overall plan and schedule includes frequent

-reviews of the myriad of activities which must be completed to achieve the state of completion required in order to load fuel. Included among those activities are those directly associated with production, as described in my affidavit of September 23, 1985, including:

a. system completion;

b. system testing;

c. pipe hanger installation;

d. electrical conduit installation;

e. electrical cable pulling;

f. heating, ventilating and air conditioning (l!VAC)

-installation;

e

-3

g. instrumentation installation;

h. hydrostatic testing; and

1. others.

4. In addition, there are other activities which must also be successfully completed prior to fuel load but which do not involve the initial construction, installation or testing of plant components and systems:

a. completion of quality confirmation programs

b. resolution of NRC open items, unresolved items, and items of non-compliances identified in NRC inspection reports

c. resolution of Quality Assurance Department audit findings and observations

d. resolution of non-conformance reports

e. accomplishment of many routine activities inherent in the management of the overall Project effort which involves the 5500 person work force on-site.

The issues raised by the amended Quality Assurance Contention-involve only certain of the activities catergorized in items a.

through d. above. Several of the subparts of the contention call into question extensive and wide-ranging corrective j actions responsive to Quality Assurance audit findings, NRC

o; 6

~

w

. items of non-compliance and non-conformance reports. These have been characterized generally as corrective action programs. For those corrective action programs which are

. involved in the contention, (as well as for every corrective action r3sponsive to a contention subpart) I have been informed by counsel that there must be both a definitive Project response and a full NRC Staff assessment of the adequacy of that response prior to the time when a hearing on that issue can begin. ,

5. In reviewing all activities underway at Braidwood, both those directly related to production, and those which are not, my staff and I seek to identify the specific activities whose schedule for sequential accomplishment, based on present and projected performance, is the most limiting in establishing the date by which the Project would be ready to load fuel. This sequence of activities becomes the " critical path" on the Project schedule. It is the nature of the " critical path" that any schedule improvement or delay for activities on that path leads directly to an improvement or delay in the scheduled date for loading fuel. Our reviews then assure that all other activities are scheduled for completion in a sequence and time frame such that, individually or collectively, they will not be more schedule limiting than the " critical path" activities.

s

o

6. Once the " critical path" activities are identified, they receive the highest priority on the Project, and the greatest management attention, since improvement in the schedule of those activities leads directly to improvement in the scheduled date for loading fuel. The process of managing also includes monitoring non-critical path activities to assure that they are progressing in such a fashion that they do not become ,

" critical"; extraordinary management attention and Project resources are not, generally, devoted to non-critical activities since the overall costs associated with expediting completion are not balanced by the Project benefits to be gained. I consider it part of my responsibility to assure that we are not allocating resources to expedite non-critical ,

activities to'the detriment of the scheduled completion of the critical path activities.

7. With finite Project resources available, only a limited number of cctivities can be " expedited" at any given time; and yet, to be effectively managed, all resources and attention cannot be devoted solely to " critical path" activities. The overall process of establishing priorities, allocating resources, and directing management attention is dynamic, with attention paid to both " critical path" and "non-critical path" activities.

Changes in the Project plan are then made as given activities experience schedule delay or improvement and, thereby, move "on" or "off" the " critical path".

i k -. . - . - - - , -. - .

9 D,

8. The activities listed in paragraph 4. above do not, generally, fall on the " critical path". This includes the specific corrective actions responsive to subparts of the amended Quality Assurance Content.*on. _They are scheduled, monitored, and controlled for the earliebt normal completion consistent with their overall significance to Project objectives, including the meeting of regulatory requirements, availability of. resources, and our ability to manage their completion with optimum efficiency. My affidavit of June 7, 1985 indicates, specifically, the completion schedules that we were working toward with respect to several corrective action programs, prior to admission of the Quality Assurance Contention; none of those efforts were considered to be on the." critical path" at that time, and there was no reason, in terms of the requirements of the Project or NRC staff, why they should have been expedited for earlier completion. From the time those corrective action programs began, Project personnel have been involved in frequent routine communication regarding the

- program and its implementation with NRC staff personnel. As such, there is no need, apart from the litigation process, to present all the information, data, and conclusions associated with a given program all at once, at the completion of the program, for NRC staff review. With frequent review throughout the course of program implementation there is little additional review required at program completion; it is, therefore, not

N' unrealistic to anticipate fairly quick NRC closure on some efforts which are completed just before fuel load. Our routine

. communications with the NRC include discussions to assure that they concur with the adequacy of the program actions which we

.are-taking and with projected schedules for completion. This process routinely takes place for ',*RC items of non-compliance although the process is monitored more closely for issues which are regarded by both the Project and the NRC staff as more important.

9. In planning and scheduling Project activities my staff and I consider contingency planning steps that might be taken when we have reasonable indication that certain specific activities could become " critical path" to our overall schedule. The feasibility of actually implementing a limited number of

' contingency steps is, however, determined by our ability to identify specific activities affected.

10. I was aware as early as March, 1984 that the Intervenors had expressed an interest in seeking admission of additional contentions. In late April 1984, I was informed that counsel for Rorem had proposed admission of two contentions relating to design and construction quality assurance issues to the other parties to the proceeding. The proposed construction quality assurance contention was similar to the one eventually A

b

i s Q submitted to the Licensing Board in March, 1985, but Intervenors took no steps in 1984 to file the contention with the Licensing Board. Intervenors stated that they wished to introduce revisions to those contentions in the Letter to the Board from Counsel for Rorem, dated August 6, 1984. However, I was not able to identify any particular quality assurance related issues from this letter. Even w;.;? Tntervenors filed their first motion for " leave to file additional contentions",

(submitted to the Board by Counsel for Rotem, March 7, 1985) I found the statement of their contention to be very general.

For example the reference to "the non-compliance history of Edison and its contractors at Braidwood" was uninformative.

From this description, I could not determine the specific issues that intervenors would raise, nor could Counsel for Commonwealth Edison advise me of the specific issues that might be raised. Accordingly I was unable to identify Project activities which could be reviewed and evaluated for expedited resolution in support of litigation of issues raised by the contention.

11. Since issues associated with NRC Inspection Report 82-05 had been public since February, 1983, (over 2 years prior to the submittal of the amended Quality Assurance Contention in May,

a

_9_

1985) and issues associated with NRr Inspection Report 83-09 had been public since May, 1984, (1-year prior to May, 1985) I anticipated that Intervenors' opportunity to submit these as

" late-filed contentions" had long since past, and that they were not likely to be the source of the specific basis for a Quality Assurance Contention. Even the initial Quality Assurance Contention submitted in March, 1985 made only a vague reference to 82-05 through mention of "the $100,000 fine imposed against Edison for the faulty QA program of the Phillips-Getschow corporation", and it made'no specific reference to Inspection Report 83-09. Thus, my staff and I had little basis for predicting how the specific contention issues might ultimately be characterized. These two inspection reports ultimately proved to be the sole basis for 32 of the over 70 specific amended Quality Assurance subcontentions which were admitted.

12. By May 1985, the Braidwood Project had been the subject of over 150 NRC staff inspection reports covering all aspects of Project activities. Many items of non-compliance and open it e , had been identified in these inspection reports. At that -

time we were in the process of developing responses to the more recent NRC findings, and implementing various actions associated with previous NRC findings. These activities were L

\

proceeding according to schedules established for completion with the concurrence of the NRC staff, consistent with practical considerations of the significance of the issue, and the level of activity required. As described above, it was not possible to know which potential contention issues might be admitted so that related Project activities could be expedited. Moreover, it was not feasible to expedite all Project activities related to NRC concerns, none of which were on the " critical path", in order to attain some confidence that the Project schedule impact of potential future Quality Assurance contention issues could be minimized. To expedite all such activities would itself have resulted in a very significant shift of Project resources and management attention, and thereby adversely impact the completion of known critical path activities in the interest of completing potential critical path activities.

13. It is my firmly held belief that we have been diligent in our careful scheduling of activities necessary to achieve our projected fuel load date. We have worked closely with the NRC staff to assure those remedial actions resulting from their review of our activities are effectively implemented on a schedule with which they concur. Where such remedial actions do not otherwise control the " critical path" of production activities, resources were allocated in such a way that the 4

f 4

L. __.

y .

i;

- greatest overall benefit to the Project completion would be be realized. Absent a clear understanding of the Project activities perceived by Intervenors as having special significance to litigation of the quality assurance issue, an understanding which could not reasonably have been developed until af ter Jur.e, 1985 when Intervenors' Amended Contention was admitted in this proceeding, an informed reordering of Project priorities was not feasible. Therefore, I can see no way in which we could have exercised greater diligence in the completion of corrective actions or other activities now identified as related to the admitted contention which would have led to an earlier litigation of quality assurance / quality control issues than is now contemplated by the parties.

Further Affiant Sayeth Not h -

,j*'

/f sf

. ;$g' Q , ,

! ,b.: (v

/

Michael JsVa11 ace SUBSCRIDED AND SWORN to before me thJs ! W day of 'ft'( 83M% 4 , 1985.

4 l f 85[l ( ,\ ' )b i Notary Public ,/)

, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

'85 DEC 19 P4 :36 In the Matter of ) '

t . :. r . :,,

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Dbbkbh(NSdP50-456

) 50-457 (Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY'S ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE COMMISSION was served on the Chief, Docketing and Services by messenger and on the remaining persons listed below by deposit in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 19th day of December 1985.

Nunzio J. Palladino Gary J. Edles, Esquire Chairman Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Law Judge Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Thomas M. Roberts Commission Commissioner Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Thomas S. Moore, Esquire Commission Administrative Law Judge Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing James K. Asselstine Appeal Board Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Administrative Law Judge Frederick M. Bernthal Atomic Safety and Licensing Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

I.

3

&l Herbert Grossman, Esquire Mr. William L. Clements Administrative Law Judge Chief, Docketing and Services Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Secretary.

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Bridget Little Rorem Dr. Richard.F. Cole 117 North Linden Street Administrative Law Judge P.O. Box 208 Atomic Safety and Licensing Essex, IL 60935 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Robert Guild Commission Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Timothy W. Wright, III BPI Dr. A. Dixon Callihan 109 North Dearborn Street Administrative Law Judge Suite 1300 102 Oak Lane Chicago, IL 60602 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Charles Jones, Director Stuart Treby, Esquire Illinois Emergency Services Elaine I. Chan, Esquire and Disaster Agency Office of the Executive 110 East Adams Legal Director Springfield, IL 62705 U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission William Little, Director Washington, D.C. 20555 Braidwood Project Region III Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 799 Roosevelt Road Commission Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 m ac Y gpv /

2 -

6