s.r-w

%

- - 129 -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEhSING BOARD '

.

In the Matter of ))

C0f940NWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456) 50-457 *

(Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 ).

-.

AFFIDAVIT OF RONALD N. GARDNERIN SUPPORT OF NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO

APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION OFROREM QA SUBCONTENTION 12.J

I, Ronald N. Gardner, being duly sworn, aver and state:s

1. I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission,

e Region III, 799 Roosevelt Rd., Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 as Project Manager'

for the Kewaunee, Point Beach, and Prairie Island facilities in Branch 2,'s,

DRP. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached hereto as

Exhibit 12.J-1. \s

; 2. Prior to becoming Project Manager, I was the NRC inspector

a'ssigned to follow the implementation of the Braidwood Construction

.y Assessment Program' (BCAP).. BCAP is a program of inspections and 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,a .

the Construction Sample Reinspection (CSR), consists of a review andi,

1 reinspection of a sample of the complettd construction work. The second,

i \'

element, the Reverification of Procedures to Specification Requirements'

(RPSR), consists of c review of current installation and inspection:' ,

procedures which govern ongoing and future safety-related constructioni

8602210100 86021sPDR ADOCK 05000456G PDR '

,

. - -

- 130 -

work. The third element of BCAP, the Review of Significant Corrective -

Action Programs (RSCAP), consists of a review of the implementation,

methodologies, and resulting documentation associated with the

significant corrective action programs which resulted frcm previously

identified deficiencies.

4. My 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 licensee commitments including recomendations for any appropriate,

enforcement action, action as liaison between NRC staff personnel and

senior licensee management in BCAP and escalated enforcement matters, and

preparation of 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 Sumary Disposition of Rorem QA

Subcontention 12.J. This subcontention states:

12. Contrary to Criterion XVI, " CorrectiveAction," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B,Commonwealth Edison Company has failed toensure that measures were established toassure that conditions adverse to quality,.

such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies,deviations, defective material and equipment,4

and nonconformances are properly identified,

and corrected. And in the case of significantconditions adverse to quality, Applicant

; failed to ensure that the cause of thecondition is determined and corrective actiontaken to preclude repetition.

J. In two areas, supports / restraints and pipingruns, deficiencies were identified by the NRCCAT that were not identified by the BCAPinspectors. On the basis of the limitedsample overinspected, it appears that BCAPinspection effort needs to be improved in,

{ areas of supports / restraints and piping runs.

__ - _ - - . __.._ _ _ __ . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _

>

- 131 -

6. In preparing this Affidavit, I reviewed the following -

documents: -

a. Applicant's submitted " Material Facts As to Which There is

No Genuine Issue to be Heard" with regard to Subcontention

12.J;.

b. " Affidavit of Narinder N. Kaushal (on Rorem QA

Subcontention 12.J);",

c. " Affidavit of Edward Michael Shevlin (on Rorem QA

Subcontention 12.J);"

d. " Affidavit of Neil P. Smith (on Rorem QA Subcontention

12.J);"

e. BCAP QA Surveillance Report No. BQA5-IV-259; and

f. BCAP QA Document (08678);

g. NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85002 and 50-457/85002

(pertinent sections attached hereto as Exhibit 12.J-2)

7. The need for an improved inspection effort in the areas of pipe

supports / restraints and runs was identified during the Construction

Appraisal Team (CAT) inspection of the Braidwood facility conducted

between December 10-20, 1984 and January 7-18, 1985. An effort was made

by the CAT to evaluate the then ongoing BCAP, See CAT Inspection Report

Nos. 50-456/84-44 and 50-457/84-40, pertinent portions attached hereto as

Exhibit 12.J-3 at A-1.

8. In addition to the aforementioned CAT inspection, on

January 16, 1985, I witnessed the overinspections of a concrete placement

and observed the following:

__

.

- 132 -.

An embedded plate was observed which had a visible partiala.-

. identification number which did not match the vendor

drawing for that plate. This embedded plate was not

identified as an observation by BCAP inspectors.

b. Two construction joints were observed which did not appear

on design drawings. These construction joints were not

identified as observations by BCAP inspectors.,

c. An embedded plate was observed which had no visible

identification numbers. The plate was accepted by BCAP

inspectors.

d. Two embedded plates were observed which had visible

identification numbers which were identified as not

verifiable by BCAP inspectors.

9. On January 23, 1985, during the overinspection of electrical

conduit hangers, I observed:

a. A conduit supported by the conduit hanger was not the

conduit identified on the pertinent S&L drawing. This was

not identified by the BCAP inspector;

b. Two attributes on the reinspection checklist were.

documented as "N/A" by the BCAP inspector. These

attributes were applicable and should have been

reinspected;

c. One attribute was documented as accepted by the BCAP

inspector which was not applicable to the hanger. This

attribute should have been documented as "N/A";

__ _

_ _ _ -

- 133 -.

d. One attribute on the reinspection checklist was documented .

as "N/A" by the BCAP inspector. This attribute was

applicable and should have been reinspected;

e. Two attributes on the reinspection checklist were

documented as acceptable by the BCAP inspector which were

not applicable to the subject hanger. These attributes

should have been documented as "N/A"; and.

f. Required back-plates for one of the subject hangers were

not installed.. This was not identified by the BCAP

inspector.

10. The aforementioned overinspections of the electrical conduit

hangers and concrete placement created a concern on my part that BCAP

reinspections were not adequately identifying construction deficiencies.

This concern was reinforced by the CAT finding regarding BCAP

reinspection deficiencies ir. 'ie area of mechanical pipe supports.

11. As a result of the CAT inspections and a meeting I had with the

applicant's BCAP Director to discuss the need for 3sgnificant actions to

strengthen the BCAP reinspection effort, Applicant initiated the

following corrective actions:

a. The Applicant performed a partial repeat reinspection of

160 previously ~einspected mechanical pipe support;r

b. BCAP instructions were revised; and

c. Additional training was provided to BCAP inspectors.

12. These corrective actions adequately address the CAT findings in

my view. Subsequent inspections of BCAP inspector performance in these

areas provide further assurance that the BCAP inspection effort has been

_

- 134 -i

.

satisfactory. This item will be closed in the final BCAP inspection ,

report expected to be issued in February 1986. Hence,

with regard to Subcontention 12.J, BCAP inspections efforts were in fact1

improved in the areas of pipe supports / restraints and pipe runs.

hwih. .h L.\. 'u .Ronald N. Gardner

Sworn and subscribed before methis I W day of February, 1986

w - k.*- [ . k.,~

,,.

Notary Public?ACasida2Egirss!!ar.27,lS33My Comission expires:

.

k

. _ _ _ __ _ , _ , - . . , , _ _ . _ . _ __y_,,. - _ . - _ _ _ - , . - . - - - . _ . . - -. _ -

hkkih 12 b |- 135 -

.

Professional Qualifications ,

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 College1970 - 1972, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, B.S.

in Electrical Engineering1975, Department of the Navy, Ship Superintendent

School (Nuclear)

EXPERIENCE:

July 1, 1985 to Project Inspector - NRC - Maintaining status ofPresent operational and regulatory performance of operating

reactors.

August 1984 to Project Manager - NRC - Manages and coordinatesJuly 1, 1985 inspections / investigations of BCAP activities to

assure that the program is being conducted in,

accordance with regulatory requirements and licenseecommitmer.ts.

October 1982 to Project Manager - NRC - Coordinate licensingAugust 1984 activities and perform inspections on reactors under

construction (Office of Special Cases). -

October 1980 to Electrical Inspector - NRC - Perform electricalOctober 1982 inspe,tions on reactors under construction.

1977 to 1980 Electrical Engineer - Daniel Construction Company - .

Responsible for systems completion and cableterminations on nuclear plants under construction.

1975 to 1977 Electrical Engineer - Norfolk Naval Shipyard -Responsible for timely overhaul of NuclearSubmarines.

1972 to 1975 Electrical Test Engineer - Newport News Shipyard -Responsible for testing of electrical systems onNuclear Surface Ships.

.

m --- - --, . - , - . - - - _ - - , - _ . . . _ , _ _ _ ,.,,-,_ - - -. . , - - + , . , , , _ , . - , - _ _ - _ , . - . , - - - - -_

__

--

% car I2..J-2.; -

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION.

.

REGION III

.

Reports No. 50-456/85-02(DRP);50-457/85-02(DRP)

Docket Nos. 50-456; 50-457 Licenses No. CPPR-132; CPPR-133

Licensee: Connonwealth Edison CompanyPost Office Box 767Chicago, IL 60690

Facility Name: Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2

Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braidwood, Illinois

Inspection Conducted: January 2 through February 1, 1985

Inspectors: R. N. Gardner

R. B. Landsman

k)db, L" 4/A2/#[Approved By: W. Forney, afProjects Section IA Dat(

Inspection Summary

Inspection on January 2 through February 1. 1985 (Reports No. 50-456/85-02(DRP);50-457/85-02(DRP))

Special, announced safety inspection of the Braidwood Con-Areas Inspected:structionAssessmentProgram(BCAP)inregardstolicenseeactiononpreviouslyidentified items, Construction Sample Reinspection (CSR) Reinspection Checklists,CSR Documentation Review Checklists, S&L evaluation of BCAP discrepancies CSRreinspecticn activities, and Review of Procedures to Specification Requirements

.

'

(RPSR) activities. The inspection consisted of 165 inspector-hours onsite bytwo NRC inspectors.Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

.

I

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

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

6 s2.7-2,p 2ep3

inspector reviewed the QC inspection procedure for cableterminations and was unable to ascertain where the purported ,

flex fitting inspection was delineated in the procedure.

The inspector discussed the adequacy of the S&L discrepancy review andevaluation with the licensee. This is an unresolved item(50-456/85-02-02;50-457/85-02-02).-

'

6. CSR Reinspection Activities

a. On January 16, 1985, the inspector witnessed the overinspection of aconcrete placement. The overinspection was being performed by anThe concreteEvaluation Research Corporation (ERC) inspector.placement had previously been reinspected by the BCAP taskforce.The reinspection package was numbered CSR-I-S-01-120. During theoverinspection, the following was observed:

|

An embedded plate was observed which had a visible partial(1) identification number which did not match the vendor drawingfor that plate. This embedded plate was not identified as an |

observation by BCAP inspectors.i

Two construction joints were observed which did not appear on(2) These construction joints were not identifieddesign drawings.as observations by BCAP inspectors.

(3) An embedded plate was observed which had no visibleidentification nuders. The plate was accepted by BCAPinspectors.

Two embedded plates were observed which had visible(4)identification numers which were identified as not verifiable |by BCAP inspectors.

The above reinspection deficiencies were subsequently documented inERC observation 010.

On January 23, 1985, the inspector, accompanied by an ERC inspector,b.performed an overinspection of electrical con:luit hanger CC-125.TheThe hanger was previously reinspected by the BCAP taskforce.reinspection package was numbered CSR-I-E-COH-20.. During theoverinspection, the following was observed:

(1) A conduit supported by the conduit hanger was not the conduitidentified on the pertinent S&L drawing. This was notidentified by the SCAP inspector.

Two attributes on the reinspection checklist were documented as(2) These attributes were applicableN/A by the BCAP inspector.and should have been reinspected.

1

.

6. _ _ _ . . _ _ _ ._. _ _ _ _ - _ . - _ _ _ _ - _ _ . - _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ .

_ _ _ . ._ . -. . _ . _ _ - - _ - -

G . l 2. 7 - 2 , p S cj 3

(3) One attribute was documented as accepted by the BCAP inspectorwhich was not applicable to the hanger. This attribute shouldhave been documented as N/A.

The above reinspection deficiencies were subsequently documented in'

ERC observation 011.

c. On January 23, 1985, the inspector, accompanied by an ERC inspector,performed an overinspection of electrical conduit hanger CC-512.

TheThe hanger was previously reinspected by the BCAP taskforce. :

reinspection package was numbered CSR-1-E-COH-12. During theoverinspection, the following was observed:

,

(1) One attribute on the reinspection checklist was documented asN/A by the BCAP inspector. This attribute was applicable andshould have been reinspected.

! (2) Two attributas on the reinspection checklist were documented as! acceptable by the BCAP inspector which were not applicable to

the subject hanger. These attributes should have beendocumented as N/A.

(3) Required back-plates for the subject hanger were not installed.This was not identified by the BCAP inspector.

The above reinspection deficiencies were subsequently documented inERC observation 011.

The aforementioned overinspections of electrical conduit hangers and theoverinspection of the concrete placement created a concern that BCAP'

reinspections were not adequately identifying construction deficiencies.This concern was reinforced.by the Construction Appraisal Team (CI.T) .findings regarding BCAP reinspection deficiencies in the area ofmechanical pipe supports.

'.

On January 23, 1985, the inspector met with the BCAP Director to discussthe need.for significant actions to address the issue of BCAPreinspection deficiencies. Subsequent to that discussion the licenseeissued BCAP memorandum #546 implementing a midpoint look into the CSRreinspection program. Reinspections were suspended until writtenauthorization was provided to allow resumption. As a result of theidentified reinspection deficiencies, the licensee has initiated aprogram which involves the partial repeat reinspection of 160 previously|

reinspected mechanical pipe supports, the assessment of the need torepeat reinspections in other BCAP populations, the assessment ofadditional training requirements, and the assessment of the need to_

I revise reinspection checklists and instructions. Pending a review of thelicensee's actions to resolve BCAP reinspection deficiencies, this is anunresolveditem(50-456/85-02-03;50-457/85-02-03).

i

&

---w--- ,.-., , ._ --,.__~s., e. - - - - - . . - ,-

'

ExH6 T 12..J- 3

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0f04ISSION0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

-'

.

DIVISION 0F INSPECTION PROGRAMSREACTOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS BRANCH

Report No.: 50-456/50-457/84-44, 84-40

Docket No.: 50-456, 50-457

Applicant: Commonwealth Edison Company

Facility Mame: Braidwood

Inspection At: Braidwood,' Illinois

Inspection Conducted: December 10-20, 1984 and January 7-18, 1985

Inspectors: % /P. Keshishian, Sr. Reactor Construction Engineer Utte SignedTo Leader

w 1_.e. M'W 4//f|W,,

sG. 8. Geefgiev, Sr. Reinctor ConWtruction Engineer Dite Tignedfo*ve=Y . Ab - W/f

KIR. Hooks, Reactor Construction Engineer Date FIgned"

cQf/f//f:-f ~W. ropp, Reactor Inspection (Region III) Dite Signedff^ /A - *

anfV)fff.1~T. K. McLellan, Reactor Construction Engineer Date' Signed

2//S N- '

y Nemoto, Reactor onstruction Engineer Date Signed

xf4- McWa

' 5. R.'5tein,~ Reactor Construction Engineer Date Signed

Consultants: R. M. Compton, D. C. Ford, J. 8. McCormack.O. P. Mallon, W. S. Marini, E. Y. Martindale,A. iller, R. E. Serb and W. J. Sparko, Jr.

Approved By: /Rotfert F. Heishman, Chief Dhte' SignedReactor Construction Programs Branch

|

||

~

.

_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

_. -- ._ _ _- . _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

-Lh. |$. S |

:*

|!

|

APPENDIX A

EXECUTIVE SUMARY,.

An announced NRC Construction Appraisal Teas (CAT) inspection was conducted atCommonwealth Edison company's (Ceco) Braidwood Station during the periocDecember 10-20, 1984 and January 7-18, 1985.

Overall Conclusions

Hardware, Project Management and doctmentation for construction activities were!generally in accordance with requirements and licensee commiitments.the NRC CAT did identify a n' umber of construction program weaknesses thatHowever,require increased management attention. These are:

. 1. The effectiveness of first level quality control (QC) inspection activi-J

ties needs to be improved, particularly in the pipe support / restraint ancwelding areas.

2. A large nimber of final inspection activities are being includ&d in afinal walkdown, when greater difficulty wfl1 be encountered in identifying

_deficiencies because of interferences, accessibility and the pressure ofschedule.

3. The identification and resolution of cabis tray anc conduit electri-cal separation deficiencies is inadequate.

) ,

4. An excessive number of incidents of damage to installed equipment has'

been caused by current construction activities.

The foregoing identified weaknesses require additional management attention toassure that completed installations meet design requirements.

An effort was made by the NRC CAT to evaluate the ongoing Braidwood Construc- wation Assessment Program (BCAP). The schedule for the BCAP inspection program

|

Lwas such that only limited hardware samples were available for NRC CAT over-inspection. It was possible to overinspect a very small sample of hardware inthe areas of supports / restraints, piping runs, WAC supports and ducts forwelding, HVAC ducts for configuration and conduit runs. In four of the sixareas that were overinspected, there was general agreement between BCAP andNRC CAT findings; in W .N.., supports / restraints and piping runs, deficien-

;

cies were identified by the NRC CAT that were not identified by the BCAPinspectors. On the basis of the limited sample overinspected, it appears thatBCAP inspection effort needs to be improved in the areas of supports / restraintsand piping runs.

*'

AREAS INSPECTED AND RESULTS

Electrical and Instrimentation Construction

The electrical and instrumentation samples inspected generally met theapplicable design and construction requirements.) However, construction andinspection deficiencies were identified in several areas including severalitems which will require additional MRC review and analysis.

|'

.

__ __ _ a-5L. ___ - --- - ---

$h R.S 3!'- -.

.

.

(3) For restraint ICS0450025, angle iron beam stiffeners have been,

|removed by Field Change Orders (FCO's), but the latest support'

drering revision ("D", issued 10/44) did not reflect renoval ofstiffeners and showed a one inch thick cover plate on the wrongside of beam. This installed and QC accepted support does noto

conform to the latest design documents.

(4) For IAB16018R, Advar.ced Engineering Change Notice (AECN) 15114was issued in March 1984 to change the attachment location on abeam weld that had been incorrectly installed and accepted5-3/8 inches beyond allowed tolerances in February 1984. NoNCR was written to doc uent the out of tolerance condition asrequired by site procedures.

See Section VII for a further discussion' of design change controlactivities.

Three QC accepted supports / restraints had been disassembled withoutthe required authority or documentation to assure that necessaryreinspection were performed. Numerous instances of loose or missingfasteners were also observed. These examples indicata a need forgreater attention to the problem of altering counleted and acceptedhardware.

Of the six supports / restraints that had undergone a previous,

'

. inspection by the BCAP program, two were found to be installed asdesigned by both the NRC CAT and 8 CAP and one had deficiencies thatwere identified by both the NRC CAT and BCAP. Three of thesupports / restraints were found to be installed with discrepantconditions not identified by the BCAP inspection. On ISX06028R,BCAP did not note that the attachment to existing steel wasapproximately three inches out of tolarance. In addition, the BCAP'

inspection did not note that an undersize pipe clamp and load bolthad been installed on this support. The BCAP inspector did note ona material listing that the clamp was marked N3H rather than the 3HN

'

marking indicated in the drawing Bill of Materials. It is doubtfulif a review of this discrepancy in marking of the catalogue numberwould have revealud that a wrong size clamp had been installed. On1C5040025, beam stiffeners shown on the latest design drawing werenot installed and a cover plate not shown on the drawing was

,

installed. The BCAP inspector did note, in the remarks column ofthe inspection report, that he was unable to identify if thestiffener was installed. This may have been identified as aproblem during the BCAP engineering review of the inspectionreport. On ICS030295, the BCAP inspection did not note that the

\ attachment location along the supplementary steel was out oftolerance by 2 1/2 inches and that four clip angles were smaller insize than specified on the drawing.

L-Another condition noted during the hardware inspection was a largenumber of supports / restraints in contact or close proximity to pipeor other structures. Of special concern were several instances ofsnubbers binding against other structures (see Table III-3). SeeSection 1I1.8.1 of the report for a further discussion ofclearance violations.

III-7 - -

._.

- 136 -

SUBCONTENTION 13.B ,

Subcontention 13.B, as admitted in this proceeding, states:

13. Contrary to criterion XVII, " Quality AssurancoRecords," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B,Commonwealth Edison Company has failed toensure that sufficient records were maintainedto furnish evidence of activities affectingquality. The records are to include at leastthe following: results of reviews,inspections, tests, audits, monitoring of workperformance, and materials analyses.Applicant has failed to make such recordsidentifiable and retrievable.

-

.B. Sargent & Lundy Engineers calculations whichprovided the original justification for thefactor design methodology and magnitude werenot retrievable. (Inspection Report 84-43/39,Exh. 19.)

The Staff agrees that this contention should be summarily dismissed.

As explained below, the incident described in Subcontention 13.B

represents an isolated occurrence and is not indicative of a programmatic

breakdown in Applicant's quality assurance program.

The incident giving rise to Subcontention 13.B was identified by

Region III NRC Inspector J.W. Muffett during an inspection conducted to.

investigate the concerns rai' sed by an expert witness in the remanded~

licensing hearings for the Byron Station facility. See Affidavit of

James W. Muffett In Support of NRC Staff's Response To Applicant's Motion

For Summary Disposition of Rorem QA Subcontention 13.B at 15 (hereinafter

"MuffettAffidavit"). During that inspection, NRC Inspector Muffett was

informed by Sargent & Lundy (S&L), Applicant's architect-engineer, that

calculations demonstrating the acceptability of the " phi factor method"-

used by S&L in connection with the design of structural steel pipe

supports and restraints had been completed prior to October 5, 1981. See

.

- , - - _ , - , - . - . . - . - _ _ _-

_- _

- 137 -

Muffett Affidavit at 15; Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/84043 and,

50-457/84039 (attached as Ex. 13.B-2 to Muffett Affidavit). However, NRC'

Inspector Muffett was not able to ve.rify S&L's claim because S&L was

unable to retrieve the original record of these calculations. Muffett

Affidavit at 17; Ex. 13.B-2. S&L's inability to retrieve the original

phi factor calculations was deemed a violation of 10 C.F.R. Part 50,

Appendix B, Criterion XVII. Muffett Affidavit at 16.

In its response to Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/84043 and*

50-457/84039, Applicant undertook a number of. corrective actions to

address this violation. First, Applicant recreated the calculations

supporting the phi factor methodology. Muffett Affidavit at 17. Next,

Applicant evaluated the pipe supports installed at the Braidwood facility

to make certain that they complied with the phi factor method. M.

Finally, S&L enhanced its ability to retain and retrieve technical

support documents. M.

NRC Inspector Muffett reviewed and evaluated Applicant's proposed

corrective action program and was satisfied that. those remedial measures

| were " sufficient to remedy the effects of the violation and render the

possibility of recurrerice minimal." Muffett Affidavit at 18. It was on

the basis of Applicant's satisfactory implementation of the correctiveI actions described above that NRC Inspector Muffett closed this violation

in Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85040 and 50-457/85040 (attached as

Ex. 13.B-4 to Muffett Affidavit).

NRC Inspector Muffett notes that the " violation that forms the basis

of Rorem Subcontention 13.8 represents the only instance in which records

for the design basis of safety-related items were not retrievable.".

O

,- - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ _ _ - - - - -._

- 138 -.

Muffett Affidavit at 110. This single occurrence does not establish a

significant failure on the Applicant's part "to ensure that sufficient'

records [are] maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting

quality" as required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVIII.

The violation identified in Subcontention 13.B has been remedied and

there is no evidence of a recurrence. Consequently, there is no genuine

issue es to any material fact to be litigated regarding this

subcontention and Applicant is entitled to a favorable decision on this

subcontention as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary

Disposition should be granted.

.. _ . _ _ _ ..