ML20012D636

Responds to Util 891221 Ltr to NRC Re thermo-lag Dispute

ML20012D636
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	02/05/1990
From:	Pirner B ROBINSON, ROBINSON, PETERSON, BERK, RUDOLPH, CROSS
To:	Charemagne Grimes Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20012D630	List: ML20012D636
References
FOIA-90-54 NUDOCS 9003280162
Download: ML20012D636 (13)

Text

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

o ,

• '., j Roteneos, j Peterscs M i Roldneos.

Rudolph. Croco & Gards At****P"$ 1**

tswy1 ,e a. w ess las b Catege A u mes .

Mde Jens Rebensen W . M tanal I John C. Penseese tatet.w i Aeems D. Bs4 Orw mer an6aan l namheel sudeten Fes rosessa p.,c,o.,

Babe Perser Garde Pebsuasy 6. 1990 I

t Ms . Chs t a t opher T . Or tee s . Din ee t on j

Comanske Peak Pso3 *et Divisten Ofitoo of Wuoleos Remoter Reguletten

• i V. S. Wuolens Regulatory Co.umaessen ;c Weehangt on. D. C. 30604

'l I;

Door M . 9:1mes Subj ec t s Tones Ottistsee Bleetste Company. M .,

(Comanche Peak Stosa Bleetste Station. ',

Units 1 and 8). Decket Wes. 60 446/60-446 il 1:'

Seepense to TU Blestete lettes TII 49961. .

dated December 13. 1989. to MEC's Chr t e t ophet ! . 9 times . Aegen dans t he C&SS Desumanted nequest for Aetten on Therme=3ag and Ear coment and ,

f at tnidatt an of CFaER GC Innenstar a t This letter toepende to the December 31, 1999, letter (711 89881) to the WRC igen TU lies tras sogesding the 'Therme=1sg Dispute.' ,

8ACKQkOUND In eesly Bevember 1969. Conanske Peak Quality Centrol (9C) anspectees were snepeatare vender-tabassated thesse-Leg aneutetten that wee to be installed as a battier betooen eguayment and itsee that ascht eesse et the Comanche Peak nustear povos plant , this matessel had psevsously been f ebrseated emette. anstalled one final inspected. Newever, in July 1999.

engrafloont dettetenstes were stentsined in the esto.f absteated thorne Lag.

Tu slestrie aussated a nonesmermance repest (uCa) whteh stated ehet the i otto.fabassated Thorne-Lag did not meet m&Maum speelised thieknese reguaremente. fnese problems were diesevered sonettee betese July it.1999.

Subeequent ta the NCR's betag wr1tton. e Cer estive hetson Roguest (C&A) was geneseted. Bewever, the oesseetive totion originally proposed by the C&&

was subsequently detesmined to be inadequate beseuse the seuse of the ,

+

dof teteney was not sernested.

1 9003280162 900205 PDR FOIA CARDE90-54 PDR- (

i i

a .  !

On October 30, 1949, the CAR was eleted beoed on revising the doelen i!

and instellation sposaiteettene. seeegnising enir vender f eb 1eated panels.

and ele:1871ng i no poe t s en s equa v emene s . The elesuse 414 ut addrue the  ;;

seet seuse of what led to inadeguete syntissations and inspeetten .

seguatemente henny been developed anstially.

i In Septembe 1909. this senetsustaen dof test.my woe sepeated to the IRC puseuent to 10 Ctk lo.68(e). The nottee stated that the toeve involved about 13.000 square f eet et ents f ahstan.ted thorne-Lag. 3.000 squase f eet  :

that had been installed and was tsteeoble, and, an adattien, anothat 18.000 e quar e f eet ins t alled. but not t ras eable t o one t t e es of f e t t e f eb 1 e st os t .

med the:ef ers suepost. As a soeult of that diesevery. TU 1etter TKI=89787 ederseung the sDat eensluded that the saf e shutdown af the plant seu14 not i be saaned in the event et a f ate.

Sdeequently, thermal Setense Inc.. a vender recognased as qualitted to f abassets Thorse-Lag panele /,1/. resolved putehese endete tres TU tiestrie to deb 1eate motorial eff etto end ship dattecent-ensed panele and sylindus (needed to sever and protest saf ety related slut:1ost oable tseye and eenduit si a itse esaursed). We vendes audit vos perinmed et the time of the order because thennel Sotome woe on the appseved Vondu 11st (&TL). ,

The antensel ese thereaf ten f abetonted. shipped. and sessited at Comansho Peek, such of it in a defissent sendation. TU 81est? ' has ett:1buted these def tetenstes to shipping damages. Beesves . At to Cabd's passent positten that 10 Ilestras's ta11use to senduet en adequete seet seuse taalysis to determine the pranary seuse of the ette-febsteated panel defleienstes allowed the repetition of samalas eussent deitetencies.

CA85's ppa!JION .

I CABI asserte that 14 Se the ultanete reopenesb111ty et TU Ilectrie management to enuse that the thorne-Lag was properly desigud, dabeteated.

instelled. and snepooted in scendense with segulategy seguiremente end eenmitmente.

It se CASB's position that a meet saves determinatten to nessesary, and that anstuded an such an analyese eheu14 be the possibility that at was not only the speelfleetten, eneste f abaseetten and thetalletten presees, es the ef f ette f abrasation pseeose that caused the doitetenstee, but rather that the psebleme este the soeult of inadequate presete end menagement senteele.

along with anadequate supo:viesen of the design. labsteation. Aneta11atten, and Inspeetten precose.

/y CASE has a eenoorn about the vender's submission si subetontasi def t:1ont material in light of its status as e qualatted vender reguared to have a funetter.ing 10 CFA Fast 60. Appendas 8. program, and the requirement te submit certifisetes of temp 11anse with each s ha poent . This eeneern will be pursued dites 1r with fu liestrie.

3

s l l

l

i YU 81ost:1e's peettson, as stated in TU.8978?. And not oddress the f i

ps amesy es ps eboble eeuse ei the psebleme but only addressed embendtanto p e aus es .

i l

TU liestate's fatiuse to identair the pstasty es psobeblo cause essees I seassus guestions about the eenpetonse of TV Stestste's annagemeM to enntrol verk posf ormed at Conansho Peak by TV Bleet:8e and ate contaastese.

l Iven meno troublesome se TU tiestate's snab111ty to detesmano the souse et such doftesenenos. TMs f a11ure appease to be a annagoesnt and tuplementatten breakeewn in the sentiel of design. pateusteekt. and powesses se ve11 as construction and inspeetten/audat setsestnes.

minigsMENT irB 1MffMf Mf!05 Of DC IMRPECfaRS Aoserding to the inf ormation CASI has gathered ines att own Andependent 1

anvestigetten (seet of ohleh to also senitamed by the WBC's andependent inveesagessen and snepestion sepost. !aspeetsen Repost 60 446/98 06. 60-446/90 06 soeued Januesy 31.1970), the io11evang eesussed nega ding the horassment end intamadation of QC Receiving Inspeetene. On tevembo ?.

1,.. . t he es ,C ...t os e .es e ,es s eum n. t es ei,4 m,oet.o. of fhes. 6

! that thernel Selense. Inc. , had shipped to the site. Afte ident1(Ting that l

appseaimetely 30% 68 ene tenfiguretten 434 not meet the spessf&ed tMeknees

• requirement and 90% of onether configusetten was stattarly deltetent, the inopostose properly resegnised that a asjes male: Sal and qua18ty sentiel s I peeblem esisted with the matestais begeg resolved.

In sesordonne with gu3 dance free W8: lead inspeetos and governing este seeespt ins peetten pr ecedure NQ&-l.09 11.09. the inspeeters attempted t o s aa t t at e an PCR . Seveves. the seenseant 9C supervleet and level !!!

ansposta Jeantly datosted that 14 not be wettten. The level !!! became very vessi and sehement med stated that 'we vall nae weste am WCA en thesse-Lag.' These statemente antamiested the Oc snspessere end as a soeult, ne pen wee eastten en that day (thuseday, sevenber 3.19es). Asses thse dauntaen, the taspeetese essevesed wath thes Lead Inspostos the f ast that the tv Blestate tsaamane smetrusted anspeetus to weste an WOR &n esen &&he thas , where matostal was in a noneentermans son 4644en. 9misetunately. the mese veest 9C &nspoetes was is&& edd that same day, within a mattee at house at t M e ansteens. (The most day he made a sopost to S&f 875&al.) Whether es not tMe layett was 'eesneteental' (a peeltson wMoh CASB eennet odept booed

• en the inste ei the metter). Me samedatte and uneapested layoit oseated an inteles ua 'shansne esseet' vtth the other Oc sneputese. these other Oc inspostese may understandably be eensonned that they macht 410e be ,

'eeaneadentelly' lesd off should they be too pesetatent about seapitanse wsth preeedures and regulations.

The newt day (Friday. November 3.1909) the second 9C inspeeton went to the QC Supersteer and again pointed out in the pseeedure that en NCR wee seguated. Thereaf ter, the e,eend OC inspeeter wuote an WCR. Sheatly after 3

., ... .. . . . j 1

I

. i' the second 9C toepoetes wrote the SCE, the Level 111 insposter toerned ei at ,

and egean boeame very angay and vocal, appetently swearing and outeing shout t he s e e ne e of t he pe& e d a nt i-t n, t ha t t he wh.to d o,ar t oont we e gei,,e h.

to be ' An e s euble' bee sus e of s t e teouanse. On the dellevang vesk day sites ,

the second 9C &nspoetes voete the um, the second anspeetes woe in essonso ,

' denoted' isen a QC inspector to a 'helpes' (although he woe Setes sonnetetod sie a 9C Amepeates).

CA88 ebeested that the first 90 anspeetos, who wee tesmanated went ..

thieugh the chasa of seamased sogardans Me eeneoane s that 1s. he went to his .l leed anoposter, the 9e supervises, and uittantely the nar878&M and Cerpesate -

Seouaity. In e statement to S&tttB&tt, gaven the day to11, wang the ans& dent ,

(November 4.1949). the lead 9C inspeeter ese quoted as saysag that he (the a ,.

leed) esteed that en NCA should have been weitten but that his 'perd' (ressamendetten to write the NCA) earried no weight sempered to the Levet e:

!!!'s inst ruetten. This view eenfirms that these wee a f eeltag of i j

discouragement toward the ident181eatten et def astoneses among this group at l Oc pe eenn.1. ineluding ihe leed 9C snepeeter.

Cast heemme evere ei the netto thaeugh a seguset des assaetanee from 2./ E the terminated inspoetes and senducted its ewa invest &gelsen into the itete.

esseumstaneos, appesent eeuses , and soeults of this snesdent.

i on Nevenber 8.1949 (af ter prior verbel met 181ention). in a segularly I otheduled Cast /70 manageveent meeting. CA88 brought this settes to the ettention of TU 81ectise's upper annagement, and asked that TO 31eet:1e investagets thae metter end take prompt and semprehensate serrest0ve setten .:

to resere the perse1ved *eh1111mg efiest' on the identatteetten of i:

delicaoneses. CASI advised 79 81eetrie that Catt believed at would be nosessary to attrees the seaduet of the GC supervises and the Level !!!

anspeeter. C&S8 aise advised 70 flectrie management that at believed that 70 aust address the status .of the ' laid-eit' OC inspeeter, who other inspostare pereetved as having been singled out and in effoot 81 od by the Level III becoues he (the QC inspeeter) was too veest about the need to write em NCE. (This view woe setnierced by en earlier threat, eenfirmed by the S&tITI&M/Carposate Seouaity inveetagetten) by that sease Level !!! to the land-eit snepeeter that at he (the Lovet !!!) was eyes an a position to terminate that OC inspeetes, he would de ee.) It was , and t o . CAS3 's vi ew thee the 1ereit ei the 9C anspeeter, whether legatamato er not has sont:1buted to an atmosphere ei antamidelsen and has had a ehtiling edieet en the 9C sessiving department as a whole. This has been confissed by the EC's own independent anvestigation and inspeetten repeitt see Inspeetten hopeat 60-446/90-06. 60-44d/99-04, at 1. and 10 and 11, which states.1a part:

'Tuathermore. based on the RC inteattews. 34 wee determined that there le a strong percepties #1 thin the OC Rosetpt Inspoetsen enganisetten that the temataatsen si the alleger connendent with ,'

the events of Nevenber 3 and 3 regarding therm +1 Las and the ,

diseetion te not document the subj oet detteseney on en uca vers l 4

l i

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

• i!

li I 1

d h

t:

'+

related, laced on antestsees wsth 9C secespt tnspeetese, these ,i pente together wath the statement ison the 9C Lent !!! to the  !

offeet that should he ovu be in a supostasery peettson, the '{

elleger would he

• the itset to ge* have had a sha111ag offset en .t the gC neee:pt inspeetsen ergessetzen.' ,

Thsouth this early twttee by Catt. TU 81ostete nonspoesnt had the a posfeet oppestunsty to sosteet a sosteus estuation befese at bname weree.

Undertuaatoly, they 414 not tthe the oppestuntty and eespeunded the psoblee by delay, mased eagnals to quality unteel snepeaters, and ultteste taktag serseettve setten that stepped ehest of openly addsessing the unesseptebsisty of the senduet and statoaente by the level III sa thae o estuatsen. This f ailuso to psopenly and promptly set had the offset ed eendans the eins message to the weak fosse that the level !!!'s eenduet woe asseptehle not enir to TU tieetste's use-level managensas, but ales to its uppes management.

I 4esordingly, by mid-Novembes 1989. stage C&88 seu14 set set 79 81 estate l

to prompt 1T eddtese these matters. C&St euhoitted a dispute (fiset stally, t he n f ernally) t o t he Nnc f or r e s olution. (See also Novembes ag. 1969.

j iettes fees CASE attorney Billie pianer Garde te WRC's Chstatophes esames, j

so. Thorne leg dispute.) CASI had hoped that the dispute soview psesses H i might lue TV tiestrie to gseep the signtiteense of the pseblen and salvage these sentrol of the estustaen. Unf eatuantely this did not happen. The  :

mettu wee only ende verse by IU 81eet:1e management's seepense (TET-89861, pesember 31,1949). disested to you. ,

the Cast seepense psevided insludoe anderastsen furnashed to the IIRC shot, beoed en CA88's investigation. to sneemplete and 6nseeueste.

Addationally, the teopense se enethes emmaple sa whash TO 81eetste management. even with eesly nettee and indisputeblo deste, has isaled to

• take prompt and efiestave sessestan toteen. Whe t hes t hey intend t o u met .

TU Elsettse management. one by one level by level, have 1&ned up behind one mid-level supervleer who lost his tempos and cleasty v1 elated TV pseseduses one pelseles and NkC regulettene. Anstead of suppetting and applauding the utsene of guelsty centeel inspeetess who wese tsyang to follow p Doodusos and segulatione end de a good 3 ob ier TU 81estsie and the publ&c. These settene send the message that TV Elsetzte upper management obtieuely sendones the behavior of the OC supervases and the level !!! anspectos.

It de CAS8's positten that the setteet and $msetten of TO Bleetste '

sensgement am Sk4e instance satte aesteue questiene about their sospesete attitude in menestroy the duel lead one oposotsoa ed Comanehe peaks theas enetten whale under a selettvely small amount ei pressure (seapesed to the pressure should these he a nucleas ses& dent, des esemple) te very l'

l dastusbangi end nund be senesdered a test of TV management undes itse -- a 1 test which TV management hoe i.81e4. An Cast's opinion. The management et an opetettne sweleet power plaat requires prudent management, senestavity to soredstsene and events which may lood to innadente er ue14 ente, and ple.

._ _____y l

i f

4 . i I

s et s onal thinking thae smetaneo calle 79 Bloetrie management's abilitsee an 1  ;

those regards inte etsent questsen. j ,

Whethos es mt at was 75 timetene annagement's antens to pseduse am 4 4

atmosphone of harassment and snaamidenten amene 9C saspoetese (although this d se snpoetant to essentain). &e sa one sesse asselevant -- the efinet and perseption ace the same. In C&OS's opanaen. these are the kins of peebleas that sa applicant should be espeeted to serk out when constreetten itset etaste et se underway. not on the eve of fuel leading. It se esteeeely  !. ,

easturbing and dieeppointing to C&a8 that this kind of peeblea el411 onsets t; at comenske Peak et thse point ta taas and that TU Ileetsse management -

eppeese tetelty aneepob1'e et dassernane even that a peobles estete and what l' the pseblem so. mash less ei corresting st.

These has been a long h1 steer of etmates psoblems et the comanshe Peak cenetruction este with both the f atiuto to dellow preceduses in wr& ting NCh's and heressment and intamadatten of 9C anoposters W. Sene of these sneadente involve the same sadavaduale in vastually the eemo estuattene (se ,

does thse snandent, wh6eh involves two et the same andavaduals who eers eseused of hasasement and antamidetten during the operettag 11eense pe es oedinge an 1944). Although 1'O Bleetsas may debate the afteet end smplanetsene. the f acts of the ess11er aneadente see not an esepute. In the passent esse. TU tiestrie defended the estions of repast effenders of uneeseptable senduet (the ge supervasor and the tevel !!!), whale the Oc l anspector who isset aneasted that an NCR nuet be wastten sotains lead off by TV E1ostase. This docteten sende the sleer message to the work dosse that both mad-level and vpper TU annagement condone end eupport the behavses si the supervseos and the Level !!!.

'y see seresependense regardans Indeseement Aetsens (8&) 45-64.83-133, and 86 63, espeesally August al.19971etter f aen James 4. Espplet.

D rester ei Odisse et Spessal Psejecte NRC to Hs. trailsom 6. Counes1.

Eseeutive Vsee paes14ent. FU 81eensas, ehtoh states in part

'The 11eensee's argument that a vaelation 414 not eesur beesues none of the 94 auditese eese psevented from earrying out his er het j ob. insesseetly esastrues the requasement f or e finding et a vselatsen ei 10 Cft Part 60. Appendas 8.

Criterson 2. The 14e ene se _ weu14 s eem t o s eguire s demonstratten et sa estual faalues by a 94 audates to eatsy ,

out his os hos duties se a soeult of the threatening seanske of the 9C supervaser. Bewever. actual impoet to not a psesequisate te a v1 elation. A violet &en vilh estual sapast on 9C snepeatene es auditors would be viewed as a more eerseus violetten but a lisensee ser be ested fez a vaeletten si euttastent feste are estab11ehed to show that the setsene  :

(eentanued on page 7) .

6

.~w- .e - , - , -. n,--,..-,.,-----,...---,.,-.,,a,, - , , - , , . , , - - - , - - - --,,----..nn- m - - w----w -

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

~

I 4

The feste establish that the QC supostseese oeveested the use of the dessen change system to avond vesting the NCt. rue wee suproper beesuso QC peepeeed a solutten poses to fully seemestysne the doiseseneses and ett ed t he s ur r ounding e s seums t ens ee . It to C&88's ante psetessen ei the pr os edue e s t hat OC* n seepensability La this esse use to isset desument headware dettetenstee en en pck and euhatt at to 9C management des sovsee .

f or sempletenese, then the 301 ese to have been f e warded to enginee:Ang des j onelyess and dispoettaen. This erstem wee not f ollowed. Ssatlas ateuses at !ll the DCA system in the poet have histosseelar seused tenssons betoeen OC management /oupesvienen and DC ansp-;terei unfeatunately. than tonesen t ent a nwee t o esis t . It appears that GC supervsesen was anoppsopasstely j:l

&ntelved with eest end schedule.1.e.. trysng to espedite turnishing ,

m onel t. the ti.14. in doing e.. to sleetsie w.e in ,ieleuen ei the j sarus sement in Caste 1on ! si 10 CFA Past 50. Appendia 8. whteh separes ,

that QA/0C naistain independoneo f ree oest and scheduto. j CASS belteves that the Therme. Lag event hoe is -somehang say11eettens about TV Electate's snabality and unws11&neness to adepately manage I Comenshe Peak ense at se an operatten. cass senesents ste seguest that thse '

dispute be seeelved 3g133, to a doeteten on fuel lead and lisensing by the WRC St af f .

1 I;

(enntinued f ree poco 4): f 41/

were seasonably likely to satoriese with the inspeeters' freeden to topost safety senserne. In thse ease, the statement by the 90 supostsees wee teosonably likely to f:

Anproperly influense avest isodings. That the statement any not have actually &mdluensed the $& audatese se to the&s eso4&t se profetenenale but does not altos the feet that an making the s t at ement , the 9C supesvises dealed to adhere to the standard et eenduet separed by the segulottene. Seesuse of thse. the NRC finds that the v&oletion eseussed as }-

stated.' F see slee the multiple sempletate nosended in the NRC Staff's 8881* a s 105-1. A014. 400-14. 400-18. 490 47. A00-63. AG-34. AG 86.10-s7. Ag-88.10-44 (0C superrt.ses and Level It! ansposter presently assueed of o naerenduet provieuely sharged with hatesoment and intimidation). AQ-49 10 00.10-85. 49-47.10-95.60-109 (ge inspeeter esemassed der wasting NCA). AQ-114.40-124. AQ.128.60-133 (interview process inadopete)).

i'

?

w - - . + +

c. --g-3 - . - , . - . - , - . , -

. . - - ~ - - - . - . - - - - . - - -. - . _ - . . . - . . .

9 l

6 4

CASE tekee ao ploseure an eeneluding that 70 Electrie stall cannet es  !

will not sesognase the etteet et evente such as theos en pessonnel and t headvare. but totees the matter for your sonendosetten beeeuse ed the po t e nti al s af e t y s apes t , whtok se our pasmary senseen. ,

Saneesely.  ;

j g . P 84118e Patnes Sende. Bot.

Attorney for-CASE l

At tes hanent s Redested espaes ei two (1) S&f 87 TAN reporte regarding eeneerne of lend-act 9C reestvang snepeater t

1:

i l

i l

es: Mr. Dennie Crutehtseld. &seastant Direetes ei Spoetel Pressets. NkC i l Mr. R. O. Wernask. &seistent Deseeter des Inspostaen Progsaa. Comanche

! Peak Pres eet Daviesen. MRC l thr. Wallaan Counst1. Ysee Chassman. TU tiest:1e ler. W. J. Cohall, Jr.. Iseeutste fase Proeldtht. TU 816strie Dr. Avest Nuesin. Chassmen. Operettene nevsev Cosmaittee (Otc). TU tiestras

• Mr . George 1. 84-;,.s. Esq. , Newman 6 Neitsinger . P . C.

, Ms. Susan Palmer. Stapulatsen Manager. FU tiestras 1

')

I 1

6 l'

l 4

w . , . . _ , , - - . - - . . , - - - - - - - - . . -- . - - , - - - _n. - - -. - e.n,-- -,, ,n v .- - * - -

v - . - .. . .

1

,d.. , ,

. NELECTRIC l

, January 17, 1990 l

Dear Concern No. 12694:

Ther* you for taking the opportunity for a Comanche peak 5AFITRAM interview and sharing your concern with the feeanche peak SAFETEAN.

y l In b eping with our presise to de our boot to preserve confidentiality we are {

l using the code number of your interview to address this letter. The senputer i produced your name and address label, se only SAF3 TRAM Interview Departeset personnel can match your concern win your name.

You expressed the concern that the QC Receiving Supervisor and a Laval 111 GC /

Inspector will not let the QC Inspostors in Receiving write an NCR onrejected .

':termo 143 t

Due to the nature of this concern, it was sont to the Manager of TV Corporate Security - Nuclear for investigation. Ne provided this responses included interviews with a j Corporate Security's investigation into this soneerngoceiving Insposters, including all who fermer QC inspector, ten additional QC November 2, 1999, a Pro were working in the Construction War and the QC Level I!!, 1 .

~

employee.;the oc supervisor, Corporate Security's inquiry also nvo ved a review of documentattee and. ,

procedures relative to this issue. L into this concern substantiates that o h Corporate security investigattenmade a statement that "we will not write an and 6 stated that they believed was N0A 3.05,seatten the procedure applicable to 6.1.1.(b).Whichthey ,

the situation on November 2, 198.,be markad "unut" es the inspection report and felt alleved the material to placed on " hold" pending the lesuance of a DCA free engbooring which supervisten knew wee fortheosing. Mr. Egg and Mr. M further stated that thep were of no opinion that as NCR was act the appropriate procedural vehicle to desusset the fact that the Thorso 143 conduit eestions were undarsised. Corper cia '>

3ecurity's investigation established that Mr.W and Mr. Mwore set intimidate the inspectors te prevent them from des menting the feet trying to Interviews with other DC neentwing that the Thereo Las sonduits were understaed. feel intimidated er harassed by Mr.

Ins rs substantiated that they did not remark. Both Mr. and Mr. M denied that any statements '

the dioeussion were meant to Laply that the they ande to the inspectore ur og l

P.O.ses une CNesmees,Taasice6Hisi

. . . . . . ,msm., .

.a..a

, ,j

.p il Concern No.12694 g

Fast 2

, U

' inspectors should net document the feet the therec Las condu tons did set a and Mr. .

specifications. In fact, the insposters were told by Mr. sport and i that the material should be marked " unset" en the inste .

pived en

• held." 0 The investigative evidence further suggests that the lack of offsettve F esasuniestion by OC supervision. La failing to esplain h ir preeedural ,

i triterpretatten, led to a significant amount of frustraties and steunderstanding en the part of the Receiving Inspectors. the Receiving Insposters Destion 6.1.3, were of the wkteh epinion that the appitcable procedure vos WQ 3.09 11.03 they felt necessitated the issuing of as NCR.

who had only been the Receiving esparviser for a few weeks stated t a was shown HQA 3.09, Section 4.1.3, by the QC lead t day and agreed said that, after that the issue could be open to interpretatten. Mr.

reviewins the precedure, he believed that either interpretation sould be applid. ,

Mr. g stated that, thus when the NCR was brought to him, he had no probina signifig it, because it only related to one line-ites of conduit sections (NCR 89+

l-11432. Rev. 0).

i corporate Security's inquiry further fetted to suhetaattate e change the therequirements allegaties that as QC supervistun attempts.d to persuade the verification plan to 3/4 of as ineh. stated that he was aware of the problems with the Thorno Las and was in eestaat with both QC Receiving and Precurement Engineering in an attempt to some to a solutten that would "get the l seat out of the material." Metated that se DC Receiving pers ,.

?l ~

asked his to change the requirements en the verificatien plan.

further stated that be did not have the authority te thange_ the asseptamos '

criteria. ,

In addition, the Manager, Quality Control stated that a meeting with all GC ,,

Receiving Inspectors was held Headay, Novasber 27. 1980. During this meeting, the philosophy of MCRs was dicoussed alon 6.1.1.(b) and other programmatiee.g., options (g with ths intent of N04 DCAs. Vender performing tsnserk es site. returning material te vender, etc.) ave 11able to resolve receivtag inspectiota problems.

QC management has discussed the situation with and 6 and has taken appropriate corrective; estion to pres a resurrence of the ineffective censuaication.

Again, thank you for sharing your concern. Should you have any questions about your concern, or any ether concerns you wish to share, pisase write me at the ,

above address, call or come by the Comanche peak 5AFINAM Appreciation Center.

4

, - - - , , + , a s.-, - , - - -e-

_ ._ . . . ._. _ _ _ _._ . . _ _ . . .. _ , . . _ . . . _ . . c... 1,

'~ ~

[

. t Concern Ms.12694  ;

Fate 3 i  :

. r The 5AftTEAM telephone numbers are entension 4149 (en site), 1 800 633 6501 (La l Tomas) or 1+800445 0021 (out of state). f -

,I It SLnettely,

['ehardWernor e

SArrmAM Manager t

e

'h t

I 1

J 4

I h

1 1

1 I

l

l I

,-w- - - - . . . . -- - .r-.. . . _ _ _ _ _ _

. . [  ;

3 1,... g= l wuECMC January 17, 1990 i

Dear concern No. 12696:

Thank you for taking the opportunity for o Comanche peak SAFETIAM interdev and sharing your concern with the Comanche peak SAFFT8AN.

I In keeping with our premise to de est best to preserve confidentiality we oss using the code number of your interview to address this letter. The eseyuter f produced your nwee and addroeg label. se only SAFITRAN This standard Interviewprocen=

Deper asst d is our name.

personnel can match your concern with y'Autherisation i

fellowed even though you signed an to Diselese Identity" l i .J j

permitting SAftTEAM to use your name during the investigation of yest cenearn. l1 l

You upressed the concern that your RDF was part of a "d ndictive layeff." You stated that Mtold you two months earlier. "If I You ever got in the also stated that position to terminate anyone, you will be the first to go."

he has aise threataned another individual. ll p

Due to the nature of your conoorn. it was sont to the W Manager of Corporate l

Security + Nuclear for investigation. We provided this responset  :

?

i

' The evidence obtained in Corporate Security's investigatten fails to substantiate j the allegation that you were the victis of a " vindictive layaeff." The decisies ,

to feelude you in the 10F was made by the QC Manager based en applicable policy which evaluated such factors as senterity, billing rate and perforsang. -

The GC and Manager was. net aware of the alleged conflict between you an the alleged e as not a factor in the deelsten to inclu e you in GF.

Furthermore.

did not evaluate you, and had no input into the l ranking on the ROF list, and had ne input isto the l factors which eters R07 decisten.

l Corporate Security's inquiry substantiated that had previously f made a statement that should he ever be in the poantes, you we be he "first i

to go." However, neither this statement nor the feet that you and had disesteed over the issuanes of as WCR was known by the QC Nanager er were j-l factors in your inclusion en the 20F list.

In addition. Corpo ate See it could not substantiate that 1med M bed {

been threatened by  ; as you alleged. ,

t L ,

7.0.Denuse ohnnees,temtentiet

-, , . . . , , . , - ,, ,-.an.. ,

, , , .s . ....s., ....

l )

Concern No.12696 l Pese 2 '

i,,,o eist.

..t to. h. 6 t.is. wy oc ...e.e. .ith eo ... to h. . e.t nr. l! l sade to you.

Ageln, thank you for sharing your concern. Should you have any questions about j your concern. or any other concerns you wish to shese, please write me at the '

above address, call or come h the Comanche Paak SAFITRAM Appreciation Center.

The SAFETRAM telephone numbers are extension 8149 (en site), 1-800 633 4501 (&a '

Tes.e) er 1 400 645 0021 (out of state).  !

sincerely, ,

M .

n .h.r4 wornee .

sArrr:Ax nanaser s

1 q

y a

,I.

i' N001E RECEIVED - ,

1 FEB 0 6 990 NIWMAN & H0(T2tNGlM

- -