ML19332F818
| ML19332F818 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1989 |
| From: | Brink B CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332E827 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 8912190100 | |
| Download: ML19332F818 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _.
gllv'*.
l
~
1,,
4 CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION 7600 Anglin Drive, Fort Wo,rth,. Texas 76140 October-10, 1989 h.
To Samuel J. Chilk,' Secretary g
p-The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[
Washington, D.C.
[
On -October 19, the Commissier will be briefed by the e
4 3
. v.
.s staff on. the status of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric
[
Station owned by' Texas Utilities Electric.
p, Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CPUR) requests that the Commission allow its representative, Mrs.
Betty
}
Brink. ~ ot. Fort Worth,
- Texas, to address the Commission
[.=
brietly -about its concerns regarding the upcoming decision
.the' Commission must make to license the plant.
Those con-
.cerns also include the decision which must soon be made to grant a low-power license for fuel load and testing.
CPUR recognizes that it has a case pending before the Sth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a Commission decision deny the_ group intervention status in the Comanche Peak to.
. proceedings; however CFUR will not address issues-of substance' that' have been presented in the briefs or the
. petitions filed before the court, or with the Commission, that have to do with the case.
Issues which have come to light since CFUR's first fil-
[
11'ng of its original petition and two supplements,
- however, J
are of grave' concern and CFUR would like to address them.
.The issues are of safety and qualitication of the Texas 8912190100 891201 DR ADOCK 0500 5
~
.~%c<
.c '.' ',
4 t
Utilities management to ope.c a te this plant safely and according to the requirements of the, law.t I
They include the issues raised by the NRC investigation i.
of the failure ot the Borg-Warner valves during hot functional testing in April and in May in the NRC's July 10 t
- report, the response of the utility to that the report, and the. subsequent response of the NRC ta the utility response.
Concerns of CFUR also include the possibility,. raised h
by a former NRC inspector, Mr.
Shannon Phillips, that NRC L.
inspe'etor's findings of level.III violations have once again t
l been downgraded by superiors and that the utility gave the staff false information in regard to that inspector's L
f indi ng s.
The issue raised also points to internal TU documents which show a continuing pattern of QA/QC break-down.
,E In looking at " continuing patterns," CFUR wishes to point;out to the Commission how this phrase has-continued to plague this plant.
I L'
The phrase,
" Continuing patterns" of QA/QC breakdowns, 3-both in design and construction, was repeatedly used by the presiding. judge at the licensing hearings, Peter Bloch, in referring to his concerns about the utility's ability to L.
prove that the plant had been designed and built safely.
T CFOR believes this pattern continues and it hopes the Commission will allow it time to speak to those concerns.
i We note that since we filed our petitions and supplements, the issue of the couterfeit bolts used throughout the plant 2
js '?i dno now in the hands of the federal courts, nas joined the issue of the f ailed check valves.in t aising. the issue of L,
- safety, floweve r,
CPUR 's primary concern at this point is y
h.
the issue-raised by the staff's July 10 report, not jus;; on
[
the hardware problems, but on the-candor'and qualitication t
issue raised by the staff's ' concerns regarding TU's
" management philosophy," and whethes or not TU management is ready to operate a safe nuclear plant.
i CPUR represents members whose lives and property will be gravely affected by.the licensing of this plant.
12 an
' accident occurs',
CFUR members' families could lose their lives. The ' licensing decision is a grave one indeed and CFUR recognizes that the Commission takes its-role seriously, otherwise, we-believe, this plant would have already been licensed.
L We feel that a limited appearance by a CFUR representa-tive will help the Comreission = in its role ot decision
.I making.
Certainly in an issue as grave as this, with the potential for such a permanent impact on the lives and property of
- citizens, the Commission will allow such a
L ilimited appearance request.
Under separate cover, CFUR is sending to the Commission a
request for a stay of fuel load and low-power testing until the appellate review is complete.
i-Therefore, CFUR respectfully requests an opportunity
. to address the Commission on October 19, 1989.
Sincerel,,
o Mrs. Betty rink CFUR Board Member, 817-478-6372
'CC:< Senator Lloyd:Bentsen, Texas
V L
,N, Sjeti:n le Page 20 / Fort Worth Star.Telegrma / Thursd:y A.M., October 12,11 From previous page site inspectors or some inspectors who "Our greater concern, which is have gone through Comanche Peak," shared by many.TU Electric site pet.,
s Grimes said. "This either suggests it's sonnel, is that Comanche Peak is sim.
someone who wants tothrow a monkey ply not yet ready to load fuel " the letter y,
wr nch-into the works or we haven't says. " Disregarding Gnancial consider,
, communicated well enough with our ations, both the NRC and TU Electric 1
' inspectors."
know that a realistic fuel loading date is Plant owner TU Electricis expected about six months from now,if no addi-to ask for permission to load nuclear tional major problems are found."
aus fuelin Unit i of the $9.1 billion Co-TU Electricspokesman Dave Fioreli manche Peak nuclear plant as early as asserted that "a lot of this is internal the end of this month.
NRC things that wt really don't have a l
Grimes said the allegations have comment on."
triggered a closer look et the plant's Fioreli said the utility agrees that
~
i readinesslevelthatcoulddelaytheutile Comanche Peak is not ready to load it9s elTorts to load fuel. In the nr.an-fuel, but he said it will be soon.,lity is ;
{ggggp ggggggg gggyg time, the letter is being treated as a "At some pomt in time the uti "ditTering professional opinion" to be going to declare the plant ready and ask OfComanche Peak made part of the Gnal draft of the for a license," he said. "We haven't l
BY STAN JONES l
plant's readiness review.
done that yet, but we're very close,"
c W
De review has not yet been made Grimes said that the inspection is n public, but a rough draft has been circu-only one facet in determining whether a port recommendm, nuclear regulatory re-An unreleased g approval for fuel t
lated widely within the agency, appar-ently prompting the annymous lener, loading at Comanche Peak next month Grimes said.
"ONT gredter COncer#'
is a whitewash of the nuclear power
. The review,known as theSystematic plant's actuai readmess level, according l'
Assessment of Licensee Performance H'hlCh IS Shared b)'
to allegations attributed to federal regu-l (SALP), was conducted in September many TU Electric Sitt latoa
. by a board of ranking regulatory com-An unsigned Oct. 4 letter to Nuclear
- mission managers, perSonnti, IS that Regulatory Commission Chairman The unsigned letter asserts that of the Comanche Peak iS Kenneth Carr, attributed to anony-mous "NRC stali mspectors," asserts ~
10 board members, only three were assigned to Comanche Peak. None was Simply 301yet ready to that Comanche Peak is not yet safe for 7
an inspector, the letter says. The letter /0gdfugl" operation and won't be for at least six oserts that when some managers rec.
months. The writers say their views emmended below-average test scores
- Unsigned letter were manipulated or excluded from a J
for the plant, they w cre os erruled by the entical review of the plant last month.
majority.
that gave the facility high readiness "The SALP conclusion, which.,, nuclear power plant is ready for opera, marks.
u l
identiGes no adverse performance tion.
"We believe that the Commission l
trends, is incorrect and invalid," the "The letter left the illusion that the should be aware of what we view as
- letter states.
SALP was going to put itin the bag,"he manipulation and the exclusion of fac-The letter further asserts that "infor-said Instead, Grimes said, an upcom-iual information," says the letter, l
mation and findings brought to the at-ing readiness inspection scheduled for which was released by the regulatory l
tention of the SALP were deliberately the end ofOctober is far more critical.
comnussion yesterday. "If such infor
- i-
- e.scluded, giving a false impression Thomas Murley, who as director of mation were properly considered and l'
about the plant."
the office of nuclear reactor regulation es aluated, it would indicate a less than Among the allegations:
is responsible for signing oiTon a low-satisfactory performance rating in a The board didn't consider the im-power license for Comanche Peak, or-some areas, a need for increased atten-plications of whether some equipment dered the agency's inspector general to tion and applicant action prior to NRC at Comanche Peak was in compliance investigate the letter's allegations, approval to load fuel."
g with accepted specifications.
Murley also called for a survey of all Chris Grimes, director of the regula-a The board did not consider "the agency inspectors involved with the tory commission's special projects olT.
irNty of the applicant to recognize plant to determine whether they share ice, said the wording of the letter sug-ce..moris potentially or actually ad the concerns voiced in the letter.
gests that it came from within the wne to quality." The letter cites inci-Grimes said release of the readiness
- agency, dents this spring when several valves report has been delayed at least two "We're assuming it's coming from failed to stop the flow of boiling water weeks while awaiting responses from Gore on REPORT on next page) into pipes not designed to handle such the field.
The anonymous letter w11s released heat and pressure.
along with Murley's response.
a The board did not take into ac-count the utility's inability to identify Copies of the letter were also sent to and evaluate " root causes of deficien-opposition groups monitoring the cies." _
plant.