ML20214C552
| ML20214C552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1986 |
| From: | Gardner R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214C321 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8602210175 | |
| Download: ML20214C552 (15) | |
Text
- .-
- 111 -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOM[CSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARD In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 )
AFFIDAVIT OF RONALD N. GARDNER IN SUPPORT OF NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF ROREM QA SUBCONTENTION 12.E
, I, Ronald N. Gardner, being duly sworn, aver and state as follows:
- 1. I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission, Region III, 799 Roosevelt Rd., Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 as Project Manager for the Kewaunee, Point Beach, and Prairie Island facilities in Branch 2 i of the Division of Reactor Projects. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached hereto as Exhibit 12.E-1.
- 2. Prior to becoming Project Manager, I was the NRC inspector assigned to follow the implementation of the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP). The BCAP is a program of inspections and -
l reviews undertaken by the licensee in response to various concerns regarding the overall quality of construction of the Braidwood Station.
- 3. The BCAP was comprised of three elements. The first element, the Construction Sample Reinspection (CSR), consists of a review and reinspection of a sample of the completed construction work. The second element, the Reverification of Procedures to Specification Requirements (RPSR), consists of a review of current installation and inspection procedures which govern ongoing and future safety-related construction 0602210175 860218 DR ADOCK O 4y6 L
- 112 -
- work. The third element of BCAP, the Review of Significant Corrective '
Action Programs (RSCAP), consists of a review of the implementation, methodologies, and resultin.g documentation associated with the significant corrective action programs which resulted from previously
, identified deficiencies.
- 4. My assigned duties in following the BCAP included: the performance of inspections and investigations of BCAP activities to assure that the program was being conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements and Applicant comitments including recomendations for any appropriate enforcement action; action as liaison between NRC staff personnel and senior Applicant management in BCAP and escalated enforcement matters; and preparation of an evaluation of the BCAP for the NRC SALP report.
. 5. The purpose of this Affidavit is to support the NRC Staff's Response to Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition with regard to Rorem QA Subcontention 12.E. This subcontention states:
- 12. Contrary to Criterion XVI, " Corrective Action," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, j Comonwealth Edison Company has failed to ensure that measures were established to .
assure that ccnditions adverse to quality,
' such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected. And in the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, Applicant failed to ensure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action .
taken to preclude repetition.
E. Although BCAP had identified that Level I QA inspectors had inspected and accepted construction activities, this nonconforming condition was not documented as a BCAP observation. (Inspection Report 85-06, Exhibit 11.)
- - . - - - - .~. .-.
- 113 -
- 6. In prepartng this Affidavit, I have reviewed the following '
> documents:
, a. " Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard" (with regard to 12.E);
- c. NRC Inspection Reports Nos. 50-456/85006 and 50-457/85006;
- d. Applicant's Response of May 6, 1985 to NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85006 and 50-457/86006.
- 7. The item referred to in Rorem QA Subcontention 12.E was identified by me during a special inspection and is documented in NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85006 and 50-457/85006, attached as Exhibit 12.E-2 to this Affidavit. As this inspection Report indicates, I
~
had been informed by BCAP personnel that they would not identify, as a nonconforming condition, instances in which a Level I quality control inspector had inspected and approved construction activity. See Exhibit 12.E-2. Subsequent to the issuance of this Inspection Report I -
was informed by the licensee that a BCAP observation documenting this nonconformance in fact had been issued prior to the issuance of the Inspection Report. I had not been advised of this fact at the time Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85006 and 50-457/85006 was issued.
- 8. After verifying the issuance of the subject BCAP observation I informed the licensee that the item of noncompliance would be withdrawn (see NRC Letter, dated June 27, 1985, attached as Exhibit 12.E-3 hereto).
4 114 -
- 9. The. item of noncompliance that forms the basis of '
Subcontention 12.E will be closed in the final BCAP inspection report expected to be issued in early February 1986.
- 10. Based on the above, I agree with Applicant that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding Rorem Subcontention 12.E to be litigated.
t ris.C.NT\ .'h .b...
Ronald N. Gardner Sworn #.and subscribed before me this/ L" day of February,1986
,l ' :
( j s. i _ : , s : b.(;
Notary Public My Commission expires:kyCecm:inEginsI!at.27,1233 - -
=e f
_ y e.--- -- , -_ ._m_._- - , -,,_ - _ -,.._y--.e__ -_,_- - , ,- , --m,-.7,,- ,,
'hth /2.f-/
- 115 -
Professional Qualifications
- i RONALD N. GARDNER ORGANIZATION: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III TITLE: Project Inspector, Division of Reactor Projects BIRTH DATE: June 19, 1945 EDUCATION: 1968 - 1970, Thomas Nelson Community College 1970 - 1972, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, B.S.
in Electrical Engineering 1975, Department of the Navy, Ship Superintendent School (Nuclear) i EXPERIENCE:
July 1, 1985 to Project Inspector - NRC - Maintaining status of Present operational and regulatory performance of operating reactors.
August 1984 to Project Manager - NRC - Manages and coordinates July 1, 1985 inspections / investigations of BCAP activities to assure:that the program is being conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments.
October 1982 to Project Manager - NRC - Coordinate licensing
- August 1984~ activities and perform inspections on reactors under
. construction (Office of Special Cases).
. October 1980 to Electrical Inspector - NRC - Perform electrical October 1982 inspections on reactors under construction.
l 1977 to 1980 Electrical Engineer - Daniel Construction Company -
- Responsiole for systems completion and cable tenninations on nuclear plants under construction. '
1975 to 1977 Electrical Engineer - Norfolk Naval Shipyard - Responsible for timely overhaul of Nuclear Submarines.
1972 to 1975 Electrical Test Engineer - Newport News Shipyard -
Responsible for testing of electrical systems on Nuclear Surface Ships.
,. - _____ ,._ __- . _ -._.,_.,.~._.... ,. _ . . . , _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ , . _ . . _ _ _ , _._ . - _.. ,. _, ,. _ __, ,- - ~-
Iko /1.h L U.S. NUCLEAR REGULAT0kY COMMISSION -
REGION III Report No. 50-456/85-006(DRP); 50-457/85-006(DRP)
Docket Nos. 50-456; 50-457 Licenses No. CPPR-132; CPPR-133 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 I Facility.Name: Br'aidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braidwood, Illinois Inspection Conducted: February 4 through March 1, 1985 Inspector: R. N. Gardner r
LM _
Approved By: , e / [
Date Inspection Summary Inspection on February 4 throuah March 1,1985 (Report Nos. 50-456/85-006(DRP);
50-457/85-006(DRP))
Areas Inspected: Special, announced safety inspection of the Braidwood Con-struction Assessment Program (BCAP) in regards to licensee action on previously j identified items, Construction Sample Reinspection (CSR) Documentation Review l Checklists, invalidated BCAP discrepancies, CSR reinspection activities, and RSCAP activities. The inspection consisted of 144 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector. !
Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in three areas; two items of noncompliance were identified in the remaining areas (failure to ensure that inspection personnel have acceptable level of capability - Paragraph 3; and failure to take proper corrective action - Paragraphs 3 and 4). -
i t
i B
,mv..
, $/. $ ~ b 2.-
Appendix NOTICE OF VIOLATION Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-456 Docket No. 50-457 As a result of the inspection conducted on February 4 through March 1, 1985, and in accordance with the General Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions, (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C), the following violations were identified:
- 1. 10 CFR, Appendix B, Criterion II, states, in part, that "The quality assurance program shall provide control over activities affecting the quality of the identified structures, systems, and components.... The program shall provide for indoctrination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality as necessary to assure that '
suitable proficiency is achieved and maintained."
Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Requirement No. 2.0, Section 2.3, states, in part, that " Qualifications and certi-fications will be... established to meet the applicable requirements of
... ANSI Standard N45.2.6... Contractor personnel engaged in inspection...
will be required to be trained, qualified, and certified to perform their specific activity in accordance with the above requirements.
ANSI N45.2.6-1978, Paragraph 4, states, in part, that " Personnel who are assigned the responsibility and the authority to perform functions covered by this standard shall have, as a minimum, the level of capa-l bility shown in Table 1. Table 1 requires a Level II capability for personnel evaluating the acceptability of inspection and examination results. According to Table 1, Level I inspectors are authorized to act as data takers but they are not. authorized to determine the acceptability gt of construction activities.
Ni hj-i p Contrary to the above, the licensee's electrical contractor utilized Level I Quality Control (QC) inspectors for inspection and acceptance of electrical welds. This practice involved 14 different Level I inspectors over a four year time period.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).
- 2. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, states, in part, that " Measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as...nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected."
Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Requirement No. 16, Section 16.1, states, in part, that "A corrective action system will be used to assure that such items as...nonconformancies...which are adverse to quality...are promptly identified and corrected."
JCK./2 5 2- ,
Appendix 2 Contrary to the above, the following instances of failure to take proper corrective actions were identified: .
- a. Although the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP) had identified that Level I QC inspectors had inspected and accepted construction activities, in violetion of the require-ments delineated in ANSI N45.2.6, this nonconforming condition was not documented as a BCAP observation. g(,pl+fla )
- b. Thirty-seven BCAP observations, which dealt with the lack of QC verified " red-lined" record copy drawings, were invalidated by the BCAP taskforce even though the documented basis for the invalidation of the observations did not support the invalidations. gf;ob Ol[b)
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each item of noncompliance: (1) corrective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
March 8, 1985 Mf/L)a,yywd2 Dated R. Y. Warnick, Chief Projects Branch I l
O
\ .#
l ff, /Z. IZ Other M. Francis, MRF&A, Statistical Consultant The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the courre of this inspection.
Denotes those present at the February 14, 1985 public meeting on BCAP.
Denotes those present at exit interview.
- 2. Licensee Action On Previously Identified Item (Closed) Open Item (50-456/85-02-01;50-457/85-02-01): The BCAP task-force informed the inspector that as observation would be initiated to document the unacceptable utilization of Level I QC inspectors.
This item is closed as a result of the issuance of an item of noncompliance (see section.3 of this report).
- 3. Review of CSR Documentation Review Checklist As previously reported in NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85-002 and 50-457/85-002 the inspector observed that the BCAP documentation review checklist instructions for population AWS D1.1, Electrical Welds, stated that the acceptable certification Irvel for L. K. Comstock, electrical weld inspectors who inspected and accepted welds was a minimum of Level I. This did not meet the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6 which requires, as a minimum, a Level II certification for Quality Control (QC) inspection personnel who inspect and accept construction activities.
Also, as previously reported in the aforementioned NRC Inspection Report, BCAP personnel were aware of the nonconforming utilization of Level I QC inspectors and had informed the inspector that a BCAP observation would be issued to document this matter.
Subsequently, the inspector was informed that a DCAP observation would not be issued. Thus, BCAP would not identify, as a nonconforming condition, the use of Level I inspectors who inspected and accepted construction activities. This failure of the licensee to assure that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected is an item of noncompliance to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI (50-456/85-006-01(A); 50-457/85-006-01(A)).
While the above comments deal with the failure of the BCAP program to document the identified nonconforming condition, the thrust of this issue concerns the acceptability of inspections performed and accepted solely by Level I QC inspectors. Prior to December 7, 1984, L. F. Comstock, Weld Inspection Procedure 4.8.3 allowed a Level I or Level II inspector
! to perform weld inspections and determine acceptability of the inspected welds. The licensee has identified that 14 Level I weld inspectors performed inspections of and accepted welds on electrical components.
The time period in which these inspections took place was from 1979 to the end of 1983. The acceptability of the welds inspected by these 3
l./
Jaa llee o UmstTED STATES fod c.Ee
/ k, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
- , HEGIOed ill
=
- 709 ROOSEVELT ROAD OLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 40437 51114 2 7 1985 -
Docket No. 50-456 Docket No. 50-457 Connonwealth Edison Company -
i ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed
{ Vice President Post Office Box 767 -
Chicago, IL. 60690 Gentlemen:
l Thank you for your letter dated May 6,1985, informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the items of noncompliance which we brought to your attention in Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85006 and 50-457/85006 forwarded by cur letter dated March 8,1985.
l Your response to Item 1 of the Notice of Violation stated that you do not agree that this is a vialation of your connitment to the requirements of ANSI y N45.2.6-1978. We are referring this to NRC Headquarters for guidance on this matter and will contact you later as to our decision.
Regarding your response to Item 2.a of the Notice of Violation, we agree that this is not an example of noncompliance (and we will remove it from our records).
The information presented in your response was not known to the NRC inspector at the time of the inspection.
Regarding your response to Item 2.b of the Notice of Violation. we have reviewed the infonnation in your response and still believe this is an example of nonce:npliance. This matter was discussed with members of your staff during a meeting on May 17, 1985. During this meeting your staff stated that the following actions had been initiated in regards to invalidated observations /
discrepancies:
- 1. BCAP QA has established mandatory Hold Points during the processing of invalidated observations / discrepancies to a110w QA to review the justification for invalidation.
l 2. BCAP QA would review previously invalidated observations /
discrepancies to ensure that sufficient justification for l
the invalidations exists.
l F)u
, . . w u - . - - _ ._
' r --~. m N
- 6. a. r- 3 \
m
[ Connonwealth Edison Company ,
2 g, ,
l All of the above were discussed in a meeting with your Braidwood staff on '
May 17, 1985. Based on the actions described above and in your response no further response to this iter. of noncompliance is required. We will review these actions in a future inspection.
,Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, spgEissed by F.C. Greenman" C. E. Norelius, Director Division of' Reactor Projects cc: D. L. Farrer, Director of Nuclear Licensing M. Wallace, Project Manager D. Shamblin, Construction Superintendent J. F. Gudac, Station
.g., Superintendent
.y' C. W. Schroeder, Licensing and Compliance Superintendent DNB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
' Resident Inspector, RIII Braidwood .
Resident Inspector, RIII Byron )
Phyllis Dunton, Attorney General's Office Environmental Control Division D. W. Cassel, Jr. , Esq.
J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public Utilities Division .
s H. S. Taylor, Quality Assurance ,
Division E. Chan, ELD J. Stevens, LPM
I
- 116 -
SUBCONTENTION 12.F ,
Subcontention 12.F as admitted in this proceeding, states:
- 12. Contrary to Criterion XVI, " Corrective Action," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Commonwealth Edison Company has failed to ensure that measures were established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, and nonconformances are properly identified and corrected. And in the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, Applicant failed to ensure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.
F. In addition, 37 BCAP observations were invalidated by S&L even though the documented basis for the invalidations of the observa-tions did not support the invalidations.
(Inspection Report 85-06, Exh. 11.)
In its Motion for Summary Disposition, Applicant contends that there is no genuine issue concerning the acceptability of BCAP's inspection activities. In particular, Applicant argues that there is a high level of confidence "that all conditions adverse to quality identified by BCAP have been appropriately addressed." Applicant's Motion at 7. The Staff agrees and, as explained below, believes that the Motion for Summary Disposition of Rorem Subcontention 12.F should be granted.
The violation giving rise to Rorem Subcontention 12.F was identified by Region III NRC Inspector R.N. Gardner during a special inspection of Applicant's Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP). Affidavit of Ronald N. Gardner In Support of NRC Staff's Response To Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of Rorem QA Subcontention 12.F at 17 (hereinafter "Gardner Affidavit"). During this inspection, which is documented in Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85006 and 50-457/85006 (attached as Ex.12.F-2 to Gardner Affidavit), NRC Inspector Gardner
, - - - - .. .___ -_ __ . - _ _ - , . , . . - _ . . ~ ~ _ . . _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ . - -_ . . _ . .
- 117 -
learned that 37 BCAP observations documenting a particular deficiency in ,
inspection records had been invalidated by Applicant's architect-engineer, Sargent & Lundy. See Ex.12.F-2 at 14. The deficiency involved the lack of a signature by a QC inspector indicating that the " red-lined" record copy drawings of small bore piping had been verified. M . The lack of a signature rendered indeterminate the reliability of the inspection beca: se neither the identity nor the certification level of the QC inspector could be determined. M.
Sargent & Lundy (S&L) invalidated BCAP's identification of this indethrminate condition. According to S&L, a QC signature on the verification drawing itself was not necessary because "the 'QC inspector who performed the field verification marked up the verification drawing copy as necessary and signed the 'Stop Work Order' to signify completion ,
of the QC verification." Ex. 12.F-2. In evaluating S&L's justification, NRC Inspector Gerdner learned that the QC inspector who signed the stop work order was not always the same QC inspector who actually performed the frispection in the field. M. Consequer,tly, the existence of a signed stop work order form was not an acceptable substitute for the lack of a QC signature on the verification drawing. It was on this basis that the . Staff determined that the invalidation of'the 37 BCAP observations was an example of noncompliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, which requires Applicant "to assure that conditions adverse .to quality . . are properly identified and corrected."
In its May 6, 1985 response to Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85006 and 50-457/85006, Applicant dis g reed that the item at issue constituted an example of noncompliance. See D. 12.F-3. According to Applicant, k
- 118 -
"the BCAP task force did not invalidate any of the 37 observations in -
question." Id. Nevertheless, to address the Staff's concern, Applicant .
took two corrective actions. First, BCAP quality assurance personnel established mandatory hold points during the processing of invalidated observations or discrepancies to allow quality assurance personnel to review the justification for invalidation. See Gardner Affidavit at 18(a); Ex. 12.F-4 at 1. This action ensures that the type of noncompliance described in Rorem Subcontention 12.F does not recur.
Second, BCAP quality assurance personnel reviewed observations and discrepancies previously invalidated to ensure that sufficient justification for the invalidation existed. GardnerAffidavitat18(b);
Ex. 12.F-4 at 2. This action ensures that observations previously invalidated either were invalidated correctly or, if not, that either the invalidation is justified or the observation reinstated.
NRC Inspector Gardner has reviewed Applicant's corrective actions and concluded they " adequately addressed [his] concerns [.]" Gardner Affidavit at 110. In addition, NRC Inspector Gardner states that these corrective actions " provide additional confidence in the adequacy of the Applicant's review and evaluation of identified observations and discrepancies." Id.
! There is no evidence indicating that the violation giving rise to i'
Rorem Subcontention 12.F is not an isolated occurrence. Adequate measures have been taken by Applicant to remedy that violation and the Staff's concerns in this regard have been resolved. Consequently, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that need be heard and Applicant is entitled to a favorable decision on Rorem Subcontention 12.F l
l
- 119 ~
as a matter of law. Therefore, the Motion for Sumary Disposition should -
j be granted. .
e l
l l
l I
l