ML20005G544

Requests That NRC Independently Conduct Insp/Investigation of Dispute Between Case & Util Re Thermo-Lag & Thermo Science,Inc Qc/Qa Breakdown.Util 891116 Ltr to Case Re Results of Investigation of Inspector a Concerns Encl

ML20005G544
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/29/1989
From:	Garde B Citizens Association for Sound Energy, ROBINSON, ROBINSON, PETERSON, BERK, RUDOLPH, CROSS
To:	Counsil W, Charemagne Grimes Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
Shared Package
ML20005G539	List: ML20005G538 ML20005G544 ML20005G548
References
NUDOCS 9001190311
Download: ML20005G544 (12)

Text

-~

g' ]

y,,4 Attochm:nt #3 p @ (. i L

Robinson, l' Robinson. Peterson, Berk,  !

Rudolph, Cross & Garde  ;

i- .hfary Lnn Robinson j Nilajenn Robinaon Attorneys at Law l

(

, John C. Petetaon Avram D. Berk los East College Avenue Appleton, Wisconsin 649n i

1. 4:41731 1837 I (blichns1 Rudoiph '

Green Ilay 494 Moo Dan Croma' ,

Fax 730-884 I f Illllie Pirner Garde i  ;

l 7 November 29, 1989

+

J 3

. William G. Counsil i F

Vice-Chairman' i

. _ . TU Electric '

2001 Dryan. Tower Dallas, TX 75201 Christopher Grimes, Director

. Office of Special Projects ,

Comanche Peak Project Division -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: ~ Documented Request for Action >

(re: Thermo-Lag /50.57 dispute between CASE and TU Electric)

Docket Nos.: 50-445, 50-446  !

Dear Messrs. Counsil and Grimes:

Confirming.our verbal notification on November 13, 1989, to TU Electric and the NRC, this letter is to formally notify you of a dispute - between the Citizens Association for Sound Energy l

t (CASE) and

'a Quality Control TU Electric over a November 2, 1989, incident between i instruction to not Inspector and his management concerning an write a non-conformance report (NCH) on I identified deficiencies in Thermo-Lag received on the Ccmanche Peak site from Thermal Science, Inc., and to request action by i the NRC in regards to this incident.

!? Pursuant to Paragraph D.3 of the Joint Stipulation between the parties, this issue CASE informed TU Electric of their concern regording on Novembei 8, 1909. On November 16, 1989, TU Electric notified CASU of the preliminary results of their investigation. A copy of the November 16, 1989, letter (

t L 1'I -

89/633) are enclosed for your information as Attachment 1.

L 1

9001190311 900110 L :PDR ADOCK 0500044S g PNV - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

m 3; .

4

,l

}. .

CASE recognizes this matter. However, that TU has not finalized their review of

! dispute stage we are elevating this matter to the because TU Clectric has not taken immediate remedial action to' address this matter. It is CASE's position this TV that should have already taken prompt action in response to incident that indisputably involved instructions b management to a QC inspector to not write an NCR, or otherwi_y se follow instructions and procedures.

CASE believes that the failure'of TU Electric to do so has sentReceiving the message t.o . o t he r inspectors and supervisors within the QC Department (and possibly other departments) that management prerogati;u overrides mandated procedures.

Additionally, since the person giving the instruction was a Level III inspector and his instruction was acquiesced to by the QC supervisor, the additional message has been sent that both procedures and the direct chain of authority for QC inspectors may be arbitrarily

" critical overridden to accommodate scheduling concerns, path" items, concerns. and 'other = issues such as regulatory We believe that the actions by TU Electric to date violate the provisions of 10 C.P.R. 50.7 and 10 C.F.R., Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I, which requires that applicants for an operating license type of pressure, environment maintain an for their workforce free from any coercion, harassment, innuendo that suggest not following QC procedures, intimidation or even 1 including taking actionconditions.

nonconforming to insure that inspectors are free to identify Specifically, CASE requests .that the NRC independently conduct an inspection / investigation of the following issues:

a. The incident of November 2, 1989. l LevelThis incident revolved III inspector around the to a QC inspector inwords spoken by a personnel in the department. Those words were,of front other QC "We will not write NCR's on Thermo-Lag," or words to that effect. There was no discussion between that inspector and the Level III at that time, same day, that or before the inspector's lay-off later that the identified deficiencies in Thermo-Lag should be written on an unsat Inspection Report.

That instruction, cou history of identifying non pled with the conforming already-established Thermo-Lag material on NCRs, the extent of the i identified deficiencies in the

~

material (up to 100% rejection rate on some mated al), and the previous existing problems in similar aspects of the i Thermo-Lag program, convince CASE that the response :rovided by TU Electric in their November 16, 1989, letter, part A, is inadequate.

The explanation, absent any prompt remedial 2

1 i

j

,g .

p si action by' management to insure that the quality control staff could not and did not misinterpret the Level III inspector's words, raises the. concern L management to CASE that TU is not effectively communicating with site management as to the proper method of handling disputes involving the identification of non-conforming conditions.

's .

Additionally, no discussion was included by TU in its letters regarding the Level III inspector's requesting that the acceptance specifications for the material be changed.

o b. The implications of the November 2, 1989, incident y TU Electric has, b on the basis of the investigation conducted by.SAFETEAM and Security, reached the preliminary position that Inspector A was not " wrongfully harassed," or ,

" wrongfully laid off," and that Inspector C was not demoted.

(See TU Electric's November 16, 1989, letter LIT-89/633. ) .

However, TU Electric has not identified or addressed the -

issuecauses root of concern of thethat CASE i.e.,

problem, believes is at least one of the the lack of professional commitment Level to the highest III inspector quality standards by at least one at the site. Purther, based on the best information available to CASE, we have a difference of opinion regarding harassment and intimidation in this instance.

c. The quality control / quality assurance breakdown at Thermal Science, Inc., and TU Electric.

• CASE also has concerns regarding the apparent breakdown '

in it the quality control / quality assurance program at CPSES as 71871 (6 to implementation relates of the requirements of PO #665-and the attached Technical Requiremen/15/81),

ts. and QA r Those concerns are documented in Attachment 2 to this letter. (See, Sequence of Events in more detail e and Preliminary Findings.) Except for the failure of TU Electric's Quality Assurance Program to issue any type of stop-work order against Thermal Science, Inc., TU Electric to date has not taken any position in regards to the causes for and existence of receipt of large amounts of nonconforming Thermo-Lag materials. i Although this matter, CASE has not yet completed its full analysis of 4 it appears to us to be a reversion to some past practices of pressure on quality control inspectors by their own supervision to not conform to the procedures as issued when they identify non-conforming conditions and/or processes. This condition, coupled with the weaknesses in the QA Program and its implementation one of the utmost department evident to CASE, raises this matter to concern to us.

herein, CASE requests NRC intervention On and the issues identified resolution.

3

w:

-4 l

[~ If CASE may'be of any assistance to you in your pursuit of ,.

L this matter, please advise either Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President .

of CASE, at (214) 946-9446, or me. Thank you for your attention

- to this matter.

F Respectfully, t

'W' Billie Pirner Garde i

.' Attorney for CASE i- cc George Edgar, Newman I, Holtzinger Susan Palmer, Stipulation Manager, Comanche Peak

' Robert Warnick, on-site Asst. Director for Inspection Programs, Office of Special Projects h

a b

h i

4 l.

r. ' ,

G l

b UJ ATTACHMENT l-i' LIT-89/633 LOG # ~

FILEf 10086 ]

e

== j 1

- i

+ .. . ,

C C j Il TilELECTRIC }'

1 November 16, 1989 wn c.c d U Farv Chorese ..

i P  :

I a Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President '

H Citizens Association for Sound Energy ~

1426 South Polk ,

Dallas, TX 75224  ;

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

TU Electric has undertaken an investigation of the

" Inspector A" concerns under the auspices of the SAFETEAM program, with assistance,as appropriate from t TU Electric Corporate Security. -This'is to confirm the results of our telephone conversation of November 15, i 1989 concerning the preliminary results of that (

investigation. Based upon my review of.the preliminary j results of the investigation, with particular emphasis ,

on the harassment and retallatory layoff allegations:

A. It does not appear that Inspector A was wrongfully harassed. It appears that Inspector '.

A's perceptions were driven primarily by a difference in interpretation of applicable procedures by QC Supervision. In particular, QC Supervision maintained that an "Unsat" Inspection  !

Report, rather than an NCR, was a correct method for documenting the deficiencies under applicable TU Electric procedures. In addition, QC Supervision did not effectively communicate with the QC inspectors concerning its position as to the proper means for documenting the deficiencies.

B. It does not appear that Inspector A was wrongfully laid off. The November 2 events that form the basis for Inspector A's allegations played no role in the layoff decision. The layoff decision was made pursuant to established procedures by QC management, without input from the individual who was alleged to have harassed Inspector A.

p 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas Texas 75201

l , -l * % ,

?

+

L .

November 16, 1989 ,

Juanita Ellis l

[ Page-2 ,

C. Inspector C was not demoted. He was assigned  !

L- to a two-man inspection team with the responsibilities of a QC receiving inspector. The other member of the team was designated as lead,

. but Inspector C was not designated as a " helper".

j 9

D. There is no evidence that non-conforming b thermolag material has been released to the field -

or installed in the plant in connection with the

. . . specific events associated with Inspector A's

[ allegations.

L'

, .All of the foregoing are preliminary results, of course, subject to completion of the ongoing SAFETEAM investigation. Upon completion of the SAFETEAM L response to Inspector A's concerns, which includes the input from Corporate Security, we will make it available to you, subject to receipt by SAFETEAM of an appropri' ate waiver / consent from Inspector A. I will conduct a review of the completed response and any corrective actions associated with Inspector A's ,

allegations. I will advise you if my review indicates any need for modification of the response.

Please advise me immediately if you have any questions concerning the foregoing.

Very truly yours,

/ /

. G. Couns I'

WGC:lmi 1

1 L

p y

}

E j ATTACHMENT 2 F  :

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND PRELIMINARY FINDINGS I The following is a selection and summary of the relevant i events and documents that CASE is considering in its review of this incident. Since all background material and facts have not

yet been received by CASE, this is a preliminary report. ,

t 1

I. SITE FABRICATED T11ERMO-LAG 09-01-88 TXX-88652 responded to an NRC Notice of Violation concerning TU Electric's (TUE) concerning their failure to include design requirements into specifications ArW pumps / motors. The response stated that as a part of their corrective action all site specifications were reviewed to assure their adequacy.

(Date unknown) Specification 2323-MS-3811 for Thermo-Lag had likely been used as the basis for design, procurement, fabrication, installation procedures prior to September 1988.

(Date unknown) Purchase- order (PO) for material for Thermo-Lag fabricated on-site.

(Date unknown) Receipt or acceptability inspection of Thermo-Lag fabricated on-site.

(Date unknown) 14,000 square feet of Thermo-Lag panels installed on-site.

(Date unknown) First type 330-1 panel found to be less than 1/2 inch minimum thickness specified.

07-28-89 NCR 89 8519 R.O was written on Thermo-Lag panels in the warehouse was observed as less than 1/2 in minimum.

07-29-89 Block 21, NCR 89 8519 for 50.55(e) was marked N/A.

(Note: This appears to be inappropriate.)

07-31-89 NCR 89 8519 was dispositioned was to investigate 60 type 330-1 panels that were installed and QC accepted. (Note: This is unusual because there was 11,000 sq. ft, sitting in the warehouse that

y -

+

i

(  :

could be inspected to show the 7.ot or lots acceptable or received were statistically L

unacceptable. The installed Thermo-Lag could be .

shown unacceptable based on such inspection. In ,

r TXX-89737 these deficiencies are discussed and it appears TU personel knew that the panels in the '

warehouse did not meet specification.)

j- 08-16-89 Corrective Action Request (CAR)-89-009 was issued, and referenced specification 2323-MS-38H and NCR 89 8519. John Streeter signed the CAR for D.E.

i e

L DeViney, the Director of OA. Engineering i estimated that 2000 sq. ft. of nonconforming panel i' had been installed. On October 30, 1989, the potentially reportable block under NEO 9.01 was i

! blank. ,

08-22-89 Memo OIM-89337 from K. Smith to D. Reynerson asked that the CAR be investigated.

09-06-89 Memo NC-4405 answered OIM-89337. It pointed out 3 the following: 1) panels fabricated on-site or elsewhere could not be determined, 2) installation was inadequate to assure 1/2 in, min. specified maintained at seams, joints, edges, and bolts, and

3) process control was inadequate for applying adhesive to build up at protrusions. In addition ,

the cause of the deficiencies were determined to be the Specification 2323-MS-38H, Appendix A, Section 7.4, which did not require adequate inspections of the cross-section of panels.

i Discontinuities were caused when fabricated on-site. Because the material would have to be retested, it would take time and may fall.

Therefore, it was decided to remove and scrap all- ,

site-fabricated Thermo-Lag in the plant and  ;

warehouse. l I

20-89 Memo NC-4 4 83 indicated that the CAR had been misdirected to construction in terms of evaluating the generic implications and reportability per NEO*9.01. It was then referred to engineering (CECO).

09-15-89 The deficiencies were- verbally reported to the NRC.

10-15-89 TXX-89737 made a final report to the NRC and stated that, if undetected, a fire could have breached the barrier and adversely affected the shutdown of the plant had it been operating. It basically repeated the findings in Memo NC-4405 and said they were the causes. The stated generic implications made little sense and showed an inadequate evaluation. (Note: The report did not

. m i

E even mention an important generic implication, '

that is, a OA program breakdown. QA controls the L CAR.and avoids self-inspection.)

't 10-30-89 CAR-89-009 closed out. It is CASE's understanding i that recurrence of similar problems was to be prevented by changing f rom . site to off-site fabricator.  !

CASE's Preliminary Pindings o ,

!~

1. The correcthve action taken on all specifications did not preclude recurrence in the Thermo-Lag program. This appears to be a failure to take effective corrective action. ,

2. It appears that the quality organization recognized a r serious problem with nonconforming Thermo-Lag before NCR 89 8915 was issued, did not document the extent of the known ,

nonconformances, but instead used the disposition '

" Exploratory Investigation" to buy time.

3. _ When the CAR was signed on 08-16-89 and the highest levels ,

of OA were aware of_ the problems, they should have ;

recognized that a OA program breakdown had - occur red, yet they did not issue any stop work order. However, on 09 89 the Director of Construction voluntarily imposed a hold. ,

t (Note:- _It is not credible for QA management not to know about subsequent problems with the off-site Thermo-Lag vendor and handling of the NCR incident.

4. The 10 CFR 50.55(e) actions appear  ;

a. to be untimely,

b. to be inadequately evaluated for generic implications '

which included 1) an apparent QA program breakdown as about 14,000 sq. ft. of deficient fire barrier material was installed and had to be removed and scrapped, along with 11,000 sq. ft. in the warehouse that had not been installed, and 2) an inadequate generic review of specifications in response to a previous NRC violation.

11. VENDOR FABRICATED THERMO-LAG s 06-15-89 A Purchase-Order was issued for Thermo-Lag for conduit L was fabricated off-site by Thermal Science, Inc. The PO was marked " Priority one" and was needed to meet the construction schedule for Unit 1. Page 13 and 14 of the PO required Thermal Science Inc. to submit any nonconformances on the materials to TU Electric as well as a Certificate of Conformance. Fire, radiation, chemical, and seismic testing reports were also

f Y,

,j,p --

4 ..

required. .The specifications e 1.ed for a thickness of 0.625 plus'or.a minus 0.125 was' required for all of-the

~ items (some having different configurations).

' J1-02-89 Three OC inspectors performed. receipt inspection on Thermo-Lag ~ received from Thermal Science, Inc. They found 30-401 of the 5 in, diameter X 36 in. long Items for conduit.and 94% of the 3/4.in dia. .X 36 in. long was itss than the specified thickness of 0.625 plus or--

minus 0.125.

1114 03-89 Two Inspectors continued . inspecting while a third was reassigned to another- area. Finally, the inspectors-6' = discussed with'their lead OC inspedtor whether an NCR should be written. All three agreed that an NCR should

• be ' written. The OC supervisor and his Level III inspector were present and, according to statements of witnesses; the Level III inspector stated that "no NCR would be written. " The QC supervisor supported the statement made by the Level III.

11-03-89 According,to the SAPETEAM statement, the Oc supervisor f and Level Ili asked the lead procurement enginee- to change the= = acceptance criteria from 1/2 thickness, thereby to - 3/8 in-permitting acceptance of the a received materials.

11-03-89 One of the inspectors insisted that an NCR should-be written as required by paragraph 6.1.3 of NOA-3.09-11.03. In a matter of hours he was laid off.

11-03-89 The Level III met with the NRC on previously identified potential Lag. that violation regarding site f abricated Thermo-the NRC vas reviewing. It is CASE's understanding that he argued against issuing the violations. However, he did not provide. complete and accurate bring theinformation newly found to the NRC because he did not deficiencies with off-site fabricated Thermo-Lag to the NRC's attention.

11-04-89 Contrary to the directive, the second inspector wrote the NCR against the Thermo-Lag and forced the issue.

When NCR.

confronted with the NCR, the-supervisor signed the Subsequently, this inspector was temporarily made a " helper." Although this shift in duties did not affect his pay status.

11-07-89 NRC holds the fabricated exit and issues 2 violations on-site Thermo-Lag panels 330-1, without the knowledge of the deficient 3/4 and 5 inch diameter Thermo-Lag for conduit fabricated by the off-site vendor.

11-08-89 CASE raised the issue to W. Counsil, TU Electric, and

.c .mf r .,

,z ,T,y

• eg_ e t

')

,,,c w -

y ,  !

..: i o

b asked -'f or ~remedial action to . counter the perceived  :

harassment andJinstructions'by management to disregard -

f I

, procedures :without any explanation and the perceived retallation.

P

$, 11-08-89' TU' Electric Corporate Security,.at the request of W. G.

Counsil, interviewed'the inspector who was terminated. i The SAFETEAM statement;was provided to the investigator and the' events were repeated., CASE also noted'that the

~

~

,Le' vel III was at Thermal Science, Inc. and raisedthat the

= 1 s su e. of Certificates of Conformance stating j q ~ material' met specification, which did not. .

TU Electric was unable to or chose not to take any [1 10-89 action in regards to these matters. l n

s CASE's Preliminary Findings w'

CASE contends that this is a QA breakdown concerning l

~1.

activities which should not be that difficult to control,.

and- rears that this is a forewarning Instead of of things to some identifying when generic

_l

.the plant is- operating.

issues, the focus was narrow and near-sighted as usual.

2. CASE sees a great deal of similarity between the way project management handled the removal of coating from service water That is, system piping andithe fabrication of Thermo-Lag. technical

'the failure to establish adequate QA/QQ and failure requirements,-failure to control specialand- processes, failure to take to- have ~ ' adequate QA/QC procedures, there were program l corrective action. In both cases,  !

breakdowns that TU. Electric refused to adequately address. .

3. .For the 330-1 panels, QA management failed to recognize that thefinspection: requirements for about 26,000 sq. ft. of site fabricated Thermo-Lag _ . (14,000 installed and 11,000 in the

' warehouse waiting to be installed) was inadequate. That is, the most critical characteristic (minimum thickness)-was not adequate to insure quality. This is very similar to the inadequate inspections of the service water system work of 0.B. Cannon.

4. In this case even though 26,000 sq. ft, was scrapped because of inadequate QA management project oversightonandthe no source items inspection b e.i n g subsequently imposed fabricated off-site.

In addition, the vendor was asked to expedite the manufacturer to meet the construction schedule which was critical path for fuel loading. The decision to f r oin both require no source inspection was poor the production and quality standpoint.

5. Inspector A stated that the Thermo-Lag received was still 2a

J. - ,, k._ > >

7. 3. r

' t 9 m 1

wet' and in1 this state damage which , reduced cannot the be handled without~ causing thickness.

i There was some 4

accommodation made with the . vendor to change the curing-L 6.

formula to make it cure faster so it could be sent to site.

imeasuring the QC device supervisor~ to use and the - Level III handed the- ins  !'

brought:on-site. that Thermal- Science,- Inc. had

-- been calibrated. The inspectors pointed out that it had not

_This appeared :It was then 'sent to the calibration lab.

inappropriate for- QC ' personnel who are .

devices that had not been throughsuggest supposed" to know better than to using measuring site calibration.

7. Inspector A stated that measuring device- becauseone problems arm of were -later found with the

' threw'the, dial. indicator off by 0.005 of an inch.the device sagged and t

8.

- The - precedent for writing nonconformance reports against nonconforming Thermo-Lag is clear, suggestions

-management. and supervisory directions or suggestions that OA ,

otherwise raises questions about to do their instruction. The PO

'irequired.the f Thermo-Lag off-site did not vendor to make nonconformance reports conform.-

written .for the site fabricated panels, In July, 1989, NCRs were

-November, therefore, in 1989, NCRs were appropriate for the Thermo-Lag (

. fabricated off-site for conduit.

• 9.

It. appears that QA management was a part of the problem for

-Thermo-Lag appears fabricated both on and off-site. Accordingly, it

'the issue it appears they were trying to expedite productio by ignoring 10 C.F.R.'50, Appendix B requirements by:

a. j Preventing or delaying NCRs from being written; Lb. Getting _the 3

changed acceptance criteria and specifications to avoid the writing of an identification of program breakdowns; NCR and c.- Not informing the NRC about the new problems with ,

violations that wereor minimize Thermo-Lag to avoid the seriousness of NRC forthcoming at the exit in a matter of one working day; and, d.

Terminating the inspector who was the most vocal about the deficiencies.

I

.