ML20011F392
| ML20011F392 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1990 |
| From: | Smith H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lanham D NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011D121 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003050274 | |
| Download: ML20011F392 (8) | |
Text
-
/gona: -'
~,, '
ekt Tf D STATES o
l' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
y WASHINGTON. D. C. 205f>6 February 28, 1990 l
y NhD S f
FROM:
Hazel Smith I
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION (DPO) - COMANCHE PEAK SALP I
PROCESS
[
Enclosed is a Listing of Documents (Enclosure 1) related to the anonymous memorandum dated October 4, 1989 to the Chairman concerning the Systematic h,
Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) process with respect to Comanche Peak, which NRR has handled as a DPO. are rrcords related to the DPO.
Please make Enclosures 1 and 2 available in Central Files and the Public Document i
Room. You may contact me on ex+.ension 21287 if additional informatien is needed.
1 Haz ith, NRR
Enclosures:
1.
Listing of Documents - DP0 2.
Records related to DPO, as listed on Enclosure 1 cc w/ Encl. 1:
T. Murley J. Sniezek F. Miraglia j
J. Partlow D. Crutchfield f
C. Grimes J. Wilson F. Gillespie O [q J. larkins V. Wilson V
b N0'6S 6@
T J F o3 9003050274 900228
,la C'DR ADOCK 0500 g 5 l}
\\
g L-
DP0 COMANCHE. PEAK SALP PROCESS LISTING OF DOCUMENTS Date Description 10/10/89 Memo from T. Murley to J. Taylor stating that he has received a copy of an unsigned anonymous memorandum to the Chairman dated 10/4/89.
The anonymous memorandum asserts that Comanche Peak is not ready for fuel loading, that the SALP report is neither factual nor complete, and implies that NRC inspection reports and other documents have been edited so as to create an untrue impression of the plant.
Enclosures 10/4/89 1.
Anonymous Memo to Chairman Carr, with attachments undated 2.
Inspection Plan 10/3/89 3.
Memo from C. Grimes to NRC Personnel associated with Comanche Peak.
10/10/89 4.
Memo from D. Crutchfield to NRC staff involved in Comanche Peak Inspection activities.
10/10/89 5.
Memo from C. Grimes to M.11alsch. O1G 10/10/89 Memorandum from T. Murley stating that the 10/4/89 anonymous memo will be handled as a DPO, and assigning J. Sniezek, F. Miraglia, and J. Partlow as the DP0 Review Panel.
11/3/89 Memo to F. Miraglia, Chairperson, NRR Standing Review Panel, from D. Crutchfield enclosing marked up SALP Pages and responses received to memorandum dated 10/10/89 to all NRC staff involved with inspection activities.
11/16/89 Memo from F. Miraglia to D. Crutchfield advising that the DP0 Review Panel met on 11/15/89 to review his 11/3/89 memo.
This memo states actions that are to be completed by NRR.
)
12/6/89 Memo from D. Crutchfield to F. Miraglia enclosing a chart which respnds to Item 1 of his memo dated 11/16/89.
i
~2-12/8/89 Letter to B. Garde from J. Taylor, responding to letter dated 11/20/89, in which, Ms. Garde outlined concerns about the Comanche Peak SALP process (Note that the 11/20/89 letter is listed as Enclosure 2 to memo dated 1/30/90 from F. Miraglia to T. Murley.)
12/18/89 Memo from T. Murley to J. Taylor providing update on the progress of NRR'S review on issues raised in the 10/4/89 unsigned memo to the Chairman and the 11/20/89 letter from B. Garde.
12/20/89 Memo from D. Crutchfield to F. Miraglia supplementing his memo dated 12/6/89 by providing status of five outstanding contacts regarding the DP0 on Comanche Peak.
12/20/89 Memo from R. Architzel and W. Travers to J. Sniezek entitled
" Report on Special Review Assignment," as requested by memo dated 11/2/89 from J. Swiezek to W. Travers and R. Architzel (Note that the 11/2/89 memo is listed as Enclosure 4 to memo dated 1/30/90 from F. Miraglia to T. Murley.)
12/27/89 Memo from F. Miraglia to D. Crutchfield stating that the DP0 Panel is prepared to meet with members of the Comanche Peak SALP Board members, Messrs. Grimes, Warnick, Livermore and Wiebe on 1/4/90, 1/30/90 Memo from F. Miraglia, Chairman, DP0 Review Panel on Comanche Peak, to T. Hurley sumarizing the activities completed by the DP0 Review Panel, and providing recommen-dations regarding the DP0 on Comanche Peak SALP. The following correspondence is enclosed:
Unsigned memo from Staff Inspector to the Chairman, dated 10/4/89.
Letter dated 11/20/89 from B. Garde to J. Taylor regarding SALP for Texas Utilities Electric (Sept.1,1988 - July 31,1989) as it affects Comanche Peak.
Enclosure.3 Listing of DP0 Panel Meetings Memo dated 11/2/89 from J. Sniezek to I
W. Travers and R. Architzel assigning the
~
responsibility to conduct an independent review of the difference between certain draft and final inspection and SALP reports.
Memo dated 12/20/89 from W. Travers and R. Architzel to J. Sniezek entitled, " Report on Special Review Assignment".
Memo 10/10/89 from D. Crutchfield to all NRC Staff Involved in Inspection Activities.
(..
, Memo 11/3/89 from D. Crutchfield to F. Miraglia providing status information on the responses to
~
memo dated 10/10/89 to all NRC staff Involved in Inspection Activities.
Memo 12/6/89 from D. Crutchfield to F. Miraglia in response to Item 1 of the 11/16/89 memo.
Memo dated 12/20/89 from D. Crutchfield to F. Miraglia supplementing his memo dated 12/6/89.
Listing of Documents Reviewed by the DP0 Review 0 The following documents on that listing have Panel.
been provided:
- Letter 2/20/85 from R. Martin to M. Spence, Texas Utilities, SALP Program (NRC/PDR Accession No.
8503040514 - 850220)
- Letter 12/4/87 from S. Ebneter to W. Counsil regarding NR0 plan to perform a SALP evaluation (NRC/PDRAccessionNo. 8712090197 - 871204) 10/21/88 from J. Partlow to W. G.
- Letter dated Counsil transmitting the SALP report (SALP Board met on 10/5/88 to evaluate performance for 9/1/87 -88110303 8/31/88 (NRC/PDR Accession No.
Memo from T. Murley to J. Taylor, " Differing Professional Opinion..." stating that the issues submitted by the anonymous 2/1/90 10/4/89 letter has been adequately addressed.
Letter from J. Taylor to 8. Garde consisting of a follow-up This letter transmits the 2/5/90 response to letter dated 12/8/89.
DP0 Panel's recommendation to T. Murley (see memorandum i
dated 1/30/90 from F. Miraglia); and T. Hurley's 2/1/90 memo to J. Taylor entitled " Differing Professional Opinion Concerning Comanche Peak's Fuel Load Readiness and SALP Report."
Memo from J. Taylor to the Commission transmitting a copy of memo dated 2/1/90 from T. Murley and advising that, if no 2/5/90
)
major problems develop, the staff expects to issue a low-power license for Comanche Peak I within a week.
February 28, 1990 NOTE TO:
D. Lanham NUDOCS l
FROM:
Hazel Smith
SUBJECT:
DIFFERINGPROFESSIONALOPINION(DPO)-COMANCHEPEAKSALP PROCESS Enclosed is a Listing of Documents (Enclosure 1) related to the anonymous memorandum dated October 4,1989 to the Chairman concerning the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) process with respect to Comanche Peak, which NRR has handled as a DPO. are records related to the DPO.
Please make Enclosures
- end 2 available in Central Files and the Public Document Room. You may contact me on extension 21287 if additional information is needed.
Hazel Smith, NRR
Enclosures:
1.
Listing of Documents - DP0 2.
Records related to DPO, as listed on Enclosure 1 cc w/ Encl. 1:
T. Murley J. Sniezek F. Miraglia J. Partlow D. Crutchfield C. Grimes J. Wilson F. Gillespie J. Larkins V. Wilson h
DISTRIBUTION w/Encis. 1 & 2 Central Filesf /
NRC PDR HSmith DISTRIBUTION w/ Enc 1 1:
Admin R/F Office:
P BT Name:
415m4th Date
/
0 4
V DP0 COMANCHE PEAK SALP PROCESS LISTING OF DOCUMENTS Date Description 10/10/89 Memo from T. Murley to J. Taylor stating that he has received a copy of an unsigned anonymous memorandum to the Chairman dated 10/4/89.
The anonymous memorandum asserts that Comanche Peak is not ready for fuel loading, that the SALP report is neither factual nor complete, and implies that NRC inspection reports and other documents have been edited so as to create an untrue impression of the plant.
Enclosures 10/4/89 1.
Anonymous Memo to Chairman Carr, with attachments undated 2.
Inspection Plan 10/3/89 3.
Memo from C. Grimes to NRC Personnel associated with Comanche Peak.
10/10/89 4.
Memo from D. Crutchfield to NRC staff involved in Comanche Peak Inspection activities.
10/10/89 5.
Memo from C. Grimes to M. Malsch, O1G 10/10/89 Memorandum from T. Murley stating that the 10/4/89 anonymous memo will be handled as a DPO, and assigning J. Sniezek, F. Miraglia, and J. Partlow as the DP0 Review Panel.
11/3/89 Memo to F. Miraglia, Chairperson, NRR Standing Review Panel, from D. Crutchfield enclosing marked up SALP Pages and responses received to memorandum dated 10/10/89 to all NRC staff involved with inspection activities.
11/16/89 Memo from F. Miraglia to D. Crutchfield advising that the DP0 Review Panel met on 11/15/89 to review his 11/3/89 memo.
This memo states actions that are to be completed by NRR.
12/6/89 Memo from D. Crutchfield to F. Miraglia enclosing a chart which respnds to item 1 of his memo dated 11/16/89.
l.
.. ~
12/8/89 Letter to B. Garde from J. Taylor, responding to letter dated 11/20/89, in which, Ms. Garde outlined concerns about the Comanche Peak SALP process (Note that the 11/20/89 letter is listed as Enclosure 2 to memo dated 1/30/90 from F. Miraglia to T. Murley.)
12/18/89 Memo from T. Murley to J. Taylor providing update on the progress of NRR'S review on issues raised in the 10/4/89 unsigned memo to the Chairman and the 11/20/89 letter from B. Garde.
12/20/89 Memo from D. Crutchfield to F. Miraglia supplementing his memo dated 12/6/89 by providing status of five outstanding contacts regarding the DP0 on Comanche Peak.
12/20/89 Memo from R. Architzel and W. Travers to J. Sniezek entitled
" Report on Special Review Assignment," as requested by memo dated 11/2/89 from J. Swiezek to W. Travers and R. Architzel (Note that the 11/2/89 memo is listed as Enclosure 4 to memo dated 1/30/90 from F. Miraglia to T. Murley.)
12/27/89 Memo from F. Miraglia to D. Crutchfield stating that the DP0 Panel is prepared to meet with members of the Comanche Peak SALP Board members, Messrs. Grimes, Warnick, Livermore and Wiebe on 1/4/90, 1/30/90 Memo from F. Miraglia, Chairman, DP0 Review Panel on Comanche Peak, to T. Murley sumarizing the activities completed by the DP0 Review Panel, and providing recommen-dations regarding the DP0 on Comanche Peak SALP.
The following correspondence is enclosed:
Unsigned memo from Staff Inspector to the Chairman, dated 10/4/89.
Letter dated 11/20/89 from B. Garde to J. Taylor regarding SALP for Texas Utilities Electric (Sept.1,1988 - July 31,1989) as it affects Comanche Peak.
Enclosure.3 Listing of DP0 Panel Meetings Memo dated 11/2/89 from J. Sniezek to b
W. Travers and R. Architzel assigning the responsibility to* conduct an independent review of the difference between certain draft and final inspection and SALP reports.
Memo dated 12/20/89 from W. Travers and R. Architzel to J. Sniezek entitled, " Report on Special Review Assignment".
Memo 10/10/89 from D. Crutchfield to all NRC Staff Involved in Inspection Activities.
=
Memo 11/3/89 from D. Crutchfield to F. Miraglia providing status information on the responses to memo dated 10/10/89 to all NRC staff Involved in Inspection Activities.
Memo 12/6/89 from D. Crutchfield to F. Miraglia in response to Item 1 of the 11/16/89 memo.
Memo dated 12/20/89 from D. Crutchfield to F. Miraglia supplementing his memo dated 12/6/89. 0 Listing of Documents Reviewed by the DP0 Review Panel. The following documents or that listing have been provided:
- Letter 2/20/85 from R. Martin to M. Spence, Texas Utilities, SALP Pro ram (NRC/PDR Accession No.
8503040514 - 850220
- Letter 12/4/87 from S. Ebneter to W. Counsil regarding NRC plan to perform a SALP evaluation (NRC/PDR Accession No. 8712090197 - 871204)
- Letter dated 10/21/88 from J. Partlow to W. G.
Counsil transmitting the SALP report (SALP Board met on 10/5/88 to evaluate performance for 9/1/87 -
8/31/88 (NRC/PDR Accession No. 8811030371 - 881021) 2/1/90 Memo from T. Murley to J. Taylor, " Differing Professional Opinion..." stating that the issues submitted by the anonymous 10/4/89 letter has been adequately addressed.
l 2/5/90 Letter from J. Taylor to B. Garde consisting of a follow-up response to letter dated 12/8/89.
This letter transmits the DP0 Panel's recommendation to T. Murley (see memorandum dated 1/30/90 from F. Miraglia); and T. Murley's 2/1/90 memo to J. Taylor entitled " Differing Professional Opinion Concerning Comanche Peak's fuel Load Readiness and SALP Report."
2/5/90 Memo from J. Taylor to the Commission transmitting a copy of memo dated 2/1/90 from T. Murley and advising that, if no major problems develop, the staff expects to issue a low-power license for Comanche Peak I within a week.
r b
- /p nog'v, UNITED STATES 8
v.f( 'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
{
wash NoTON, D. C 2055b
\\s',',, Y #
,, /
October 10, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor L
Acting Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION CONCERNING COMANCHE PEAK'S FUEL LOAD READINESS AND SALP REPORT
References:
(1) Unsigned Anonymous Memorandum to the Chairman, dtd October 4 1989
~
(2) NRC-ManualChapter-4125,DifferingProfessionalViews l -
or Opinions On October 6,1989, I received a copy of Reference (1) whM asserts that Comanche Peak is not ready for fuel loading, that the
~ report is neither factual nor complete, and implies that NRC inspection reports and other docu-ments have been edited so as to create an untrue impression of the plant. A copy of the memorandum is enclosed (Enclosure 1). Upon a quick review of the memorandum and after consultation with the NRR cognizant senior managers, it was decided to treat the content of the memorandum as a Differing Professional Opinion (OPO), even though the memorandum does not contain all the necessary ingredients as specified in NRC Appendix 4125, paragraphs B.4 and 8.5.
In light of the defects in the DP0 submittal, I dispensed with the NRR StandingReviewPanelprocess(4125-034) and convened a meeting of the NRR senior managers as an Ad Hoc DP0 Panel, of which the Chairman of the NRR L
Standing Review Panel is a member, to decide on the appropriate course of action.
As a result of the DP0 Panel's review of the memorandum, we have taken or are i
taking the following actions, i
1.
Comanche Peak Is Not Ready for Fuel Loading I agree that Comanche Peak is not ready for fuel loading and no decisions have been made as to the readiness of the plant. Regarding the readiness forfuel-loading,priortoreceiptofReference(1),thestaffinitiated k.
certain actions, in addition to the required inspection and licensing W
activities, to help determine if and when the plant will be ready for i
fuel loading.
Independent from the normal NRC Comanche Peak Regulatory Oversight organization (ADSP), a special Operational Readiness Assessment i
Team (0 RAT) had been scheduled to conduct an operational readiness assess-3 ment at Comanche Peak. The team is being lead by Mr. Chris Vandenberg, Senior Operations Engineer, from the Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards, and will receive its management direction from Mr. Brian Grimes, Director, Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards. 'A copy of the Inspection Plan is enclosed for your information ; Enclosure 2).
In addition, on October 3, 1989, Mr. Chris Grimes, Director, Division of
.i j
t s
James M. Taylor 2
October 10, 1989 I
Comanche Peak Projects, sent a memorandum to NRC personnel associated with Comanche Peak regulatory activities to detemine if any cognizant i
staff had safety concerns which had not yet been or are being resolved (Enclosure 3). The results of these two activities, combined with the i
normal inspection and review activities, will be used in arriving at a staff determination regarding Comanche Peak readiness, 2.
SALP Report is Neither factual Nor Complete The SALP Report is in draf t and is currently under review. To ensure that all the cognizant inspectors and consultants agree with the report's factual content, Mr. Dennis Crutchfield, Associate Director for Special Projects, will survey all NRC staff involved in inspection activities at Comanche Peak to determine if they have any comments on the draft SALP Report. Enclosed is a copy of the memorandum from Mr. Crutchfield to the cognizantstaff(Enclosure 4). The results will be reviewed by the DP0 panel and the Director, NRR, to detemine whether further action is warranted prior to issuance of the SALP Report.
3.
NRC Inspection Reports and Other Documents Have Been Edited So as to Create an Untrue Impression of the Plant This assertion could imply inappropriate action on the part of NRC super.
visors, managers and others. Therefore I have decided that this matter should be referred to the Office of the Inspector General.
Enclosed is a copy of the memorandum sent to the OlG on October 10,1989(Enclosure 5).
IbelievetheactionsweinitiatedpriortoreceiptofReference(1)will assist me in arriving at an appropriate fuel loading decision and those we have l
taken subsequent to the receipt of Reference (1) are responsive to the serious l
nature of the assertions and will ensure the continued integrity of the regu.
latory process.
I will keep you informed of any significant developments and provide you with a sumary report of our findings.
Original signed by James }l. Sniezek Y Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1.
Anonymous Memorandum to Distribution:
Chairman Carr, dtd 10/4/89 TEMurley 2.
Inspection Plan JHSniezek 3.
Memo Grimes to NRC Personnel DCrutchfield associated w/ Comanche Peak, FMiraglia dtd 10/3/89 JPartlow l
4 Memo Crutchfield to Staff FGillespie associated w/ Comanche Peak, RMartin dtd 10/10/89 5.
Memo Grimes to Malsch, dtd 10/10/89 cc:
M. Malsch JFC :NRR:DD
- N R
- )
e....:....
7 7...:............:............:............:............:.........
JAME :JHSni rTey
'o....:......q.....:
8 ATE-:10/10/89
- 10/t0/89
OCT 4 1989 h
Memorandum Fort Chairman, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 From:
NRC Staff Inspectors
Subject:
Comanche Peak's Fuel Load Readiness and the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Perf ormance (SALP)
This memorandum is to inform the commission about the readiness to load f uel at Comanche Peak, and the recent SALP evaluation process and the prcposed report.
As NRC inspectors, it is our concern that the pending SALP report ik neither accurate nor complete reflection of TU Electric's performance during this SALP period.
We believe that the Commission should be aware of what we view as manipulation and the exclusion of factual information.
If such inf ormation were properly considered and evaluated, it would indicate a less than satisfactory performance rating in some areas, a need for increased attention and applicant action prior to NRC approval to load fuel.
The SALP conclusion,.which gives the applicant a rating of "2"
in every area and identifies no adverse performance trends is incorrect and invalid.
Ten NRC managers made up the SALP Board.
Three were Region IV managers who had no direct and siginificant' involvement with the site..Two other board members were involved with site matters but they administered their pro $ect management and licensing duties from their White Flint offices.
NRC Senior Resident / Resident and Consultants who were entirely knowledgeable i
of licensee performance had no vote on the board.
All of the recommendations for below average, coming from those who were knew the real performance, were outvoted by managers on the SALP Board.
Additionally, information and findings brought to the attention of the SALP Board were deliberately excluded, giving a false impression about the plant.
For example, 1.
The SALP Board did not adequately consider the full implications of certain ASME issues identified during*
reporting period by staff inspectors.
(
2.
The SALP Soard did not adequately consider the inability of the applicant to recognize conditions potentially or l
actually adverse to quality as demonstrated by events surrounding service water system and the auxilary feedwater system (check valves and motors).
3.
The SALP Soard did not adequately consider the inability L
of the applicant to identify and evaluate root causes of of deficiencies and program failures necessary for effective corrective action.
l
.g0MNh
f 1
2 i
In order to provide the Commission evidence of some of the issues i
that are not being properly considered, we are attachin pages f rom draf t inspection reports and internal memos.g example i
Although other areas were also improperly considered, we believe these examples will support our concerns and provide the commission a chance to-correct this situation.
Our greater concern, which is shared by many TU Electric's site personnel is that Comanche peak is simply not yet ready to load r
fuel.
In addition to the TU Electric's poor performance in some areas, TU Electric has a large number of open and unresolved items and a-large construction / engineering staff on site who are and will continue working on Unit 1.
This indictes they are not ready to load-fuel.
Disregarding financial considerations, both the NRC and TU Electric know that a realistic fuel loading date is about six months from now, if no additional ma$or problems are found.
An additional consideration is TU Electric's excessive over reliance on contract personnel.
We are concerned that the applicant's unrealistic schedule to load fuel in October 1989 will compromise the agency's inspection efforts and the applicant's progress since 1984.
Attachments:
(1) Pages of Draft Reports (2) Hemoranda ec: CGrimes, Director OSP JTaylor, Deputy EDO BGarde, Esq. Garde Law Of fice l
l l
l l
l l
.