ML20033G713
| ML20033G713 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1990 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033G712 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-89-23, 50-446-89-23, EA-88-310, NUDOCS 9004120009 | |
| Download: ML20033G713 (12) | |
Text
___.
I
's i
Texas Utilities Electric Company Docket Nos. 50 445 and 50-446 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station License No. NPF 28 Unit 1, construction Permit No. CFPR-127
{
y During an NRC inspection conducted on April 5 through May 2,1969, a violation f
l.
of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the
- General Statement i
of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, hrendix C l
(1989), the violation is listed below:
)
10 CFR 50.9(a) requires that information provided to the Comission by rn applicant for a license shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.
L y
Contrary to the above,)information provided by the applicant to the NRC (TXX-8907 i
dated February 8,1969 in response to Enforcement Action (EA)88-310 was in-complete in a material respect. This response failed to present a complete J
sumary of information known to the applicant regarding deficiencies in other i
Code Y service procurements which were related to procurement problems involving i
I the service water system coating removal docun+nted in EA 88-310.
j i
This is a Severity Level IV violation.
(SupplementVII)
(445/8923 V 01) i Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, TV Electric is hereby required to i
submit a written stattn*nt or explanation to the V. S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington. 00, 2C555, with a copy to the Assistant Director for Jnspection Programs, Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice.
This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a l
Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:
(1) the reason for the violation if admitted, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
L If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order tray be issued to show cause why the license siould not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be ta ken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Denks C
ch ciate Director for Special Projects i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland i
this 2nd day of April 1990.
9004120009 900402 i
~
[DR ADOCK 05000443 i
FDC
\\
u<cuasunt 2 STATEMENT OF PROP 0$tu VIOLATION IR 89-23 IDENTIFIED THREE STATEMENTS TRAT APPEAR TO o
NOT SATISFY 10CFR50.9:
1)
TU ELECTRIC STATED THAT IT RAD " REVIEWED OTHER CODE V SERVICES ACTIVITIES WITN SATISFACTORY RESULTS."
NRC INSPECTOR CONCLUDED THAT THE STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH NE-22156, 2)
TU ELECTRIC STATED THAT IT PERFORMED A REVIEW THAT SHOWED THAT THE OTHER CODE V SERVICES WERE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED AND DOCUMENTED.
NRC INSPECTOR DETERMINED THAT THIS STATEMENT IS INCORRECT.
REVIEW WAS NOT ADEQUATE NRC INSPECTOR IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN CODE V ACTIVITIES.
3)
TU ELECTRIC STATED TRAT " DAMAGE" DID NOT OCCUR F0LLOWING M00TFICATION OF THE SPINBLASTER.
NRC INSPECTOR CONCLUDED THAT OBSERVED MARKS WERE DAMAGE.
FIGURE 1
\\
i l
i o
10 CFR 50.9 STATES:
A)
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO NRC SHALL BE " COMPLETE l
i AND ACCURATE IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS."
i s)
NRC SHALL BE NOTIFIED 0F INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED AS "HAVING A SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OR CORN DEFENSE AND SECURITY,"
l
{
i i
l 1
l i
l I
l l
l P
l i
i FIGURE 2 i
i l
i l
~...
EXAMPLE 1 DOES NOT VIOLATE 10CFR50.9(a)
TU ELECTRIC BELIEVES THAT THE STATEMENT WAS COMPLE o
AND ACCURATE IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS, IT APPROPRIATELY SUMMARIZED THE RESULTS OF THE REVIEW DOCUMENTED IN NE-22156 AT THE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE, TU ELECTRIC'S STATEMENTS WERE INTENDED T0 CONVEY o
THE FACT THAT OTHER TASKS HAD BEEN CONTROLLED ADEQUATELY TO ASSURE SATISFACTORY COMPLETION, THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT ALL 0F THE PROCUREMENTS o
AND CONTROLS WERE PERFECT AND COULD NOT BE
- IMPR0VEO, NE-22156 AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE o
PRIOR TO THE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AND ISSUANCE EA-88-310.
NE-22156 WAS PROVIDED T0 CASE UPON REQUEST PRIOR o
THE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AND WAS PROVIDED TO INSPECTOR WITHOUT REQUEST AFTER TU ELECTRIC RESPONDED TO EA-88-310 TO FACILITATE CLOSURE, TU ELECTRIC BELIEVES THAT THE SNORTCOMINGS o
IDENTIFIED IN NE-22156 WERE NOT MATERIAL TO THE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE.
FIGURE 3 1
EXAMPLE 1 DOES 900T VIOLATE 10CFR50.9(a)
(CONTINUED)
CONTROLS WERE SUFFICIENT T0 ENSURE PROPER COMPLETION OF OTHER CODE V SERVICES, OTHER CODE V ACTIVITIES HAD SATISFACTORY RESULTS - NO HARDWARE PROBLENS, TU ELECTRIC HAD ALREADY COMMITTED TO ENHANCE ITS PROGRAM FOR CODE V PROCUREMENTS, IN RETROSPECT, TU ELECTRIC ACKNOWLEDGES TRAT ITS o
PRESENTATION AT THE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE COULO HAVE BEEN ENRANCED BY EXPLAINING THE LACK 0F SIGNIFICANCE IN THE OTHER CODE V PROCUREMENT SHORTCOMINGS RATHER THAN JUST PRESENTING ITS CONCLUSIONS, FIGURE 4 1
EXAMPLE 2 DOES NOT VIOLATE 10CFR50.9(a)
TU ELECTRIC BELIEVES THAT THE STATENENT WAS i
o COMPLETE AND ACCURATE IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS.
TU ELECTRIC DID PERFORN A REVIEW 0F OTHER CODE V o
PROCUREMENTS AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED THE CONCLUSIONS OF THAT REVIEW,
\\
REVIEW INCLUDED INSPECTION AND SURVEILLANCE l
REPORTS, PROCUREMENT DOCUMENTS, PROCEDURES, AND WORK ORDERS.
i RESULTS OF REVIEW SHOWED SATISFACTORY RESULTS
- N0 HARDWARE PROBLENS.
o l
TU ELECTRIC BELIEVES THAT THE REVIEW WAS ADEQUATE,
)
o
)
TWO OTHER REVIEWS PERFORNED BY QA CONFIRMED THE o
ADEQUACY OF THE NE-22156 REVIEW.
l o
EVEN IF NRC INSPECTOR DISAGREES, THIS DISAGREEMENT 1
REPRESENTS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND NOT A i
VIOLATION 0F 10CFR50.9.
NRC INSPECTOR FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN IR 89-23 i
o REGARDING OTHER CODE Y PROCUREMENTS DO NOT INDIl ANY VIOLATION OF 10CFR50.K9(A).
FIGURE 5 1
i
\\...
I EXAMPLE 2 DOES NOT VIOLATE 10CFt50.9(a) i-(CONTINUED)
I THE TU ELECTRIC REVIEW 0F THE OTHER CODE V PROCUREMENTS WAS ADEQUATE, THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY SUBSEQUENT QA REVIEWS, HOST 0F THESE FINDINGS WERE DISCUSSED IN j
TXX-89847 AND SNOWN NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT i
DEFICIENCIES, J
b SIMILARLY, THE REMAINING FINDINGS 00 NOT IDENTIFY ANY SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES IN OTHER CODE V PROCUREMENTS AND NONE HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON TNE HARDWARE, i
i i
i i
i i
i FIGURE 6
EXAMPLE 3 DOES NOT VIOLATE 10CFR50.9(
TU ELECTRIC'S STATENENT WAS COMPLETE A o
IN ALL NATERIAL RESPECTS.
IN ER-NE-19, TU ELECTRIC INFORNED NRC OF THE o
INDICATIONS IN PIPING NENTIONED IN IR 89-23.
ER-NE-19 STATES THAT THESE INDICATIONS A o
" DAMAGE THAT COULD VIOLATE ASME CODE WALL."
NRC WAS CLEARLY INFORNED OF FACTS AN o
CONCLUSIONS.
NRC INSPECTOR APPARENTLY HAS DIFFERE o
OF DAMAGE.
VIOLATION OF 10CFR50.9.TNIS IS A NATTER OF SE ADDENDUM TO IR 89-23 INDICATES THAT ON o
NRC INSPECTORS UNDERSTOOD TU ELECT OF DAMAGE AND AGREED WITN ITS CONCLUSI FIGURE 7
EXAMPLE 3 DOES NOT VIOLATE 10CFR50.9(A) l l
TU ELECTRIC'S STATEMENT WAS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE o
IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS.
i IN ER-ME-19, TU ELECTRIC INFORNED NRC 0F TNE o
INDICATIONS IN PIPING NENTIONED IN IR 89-23.
I I
ER-NE-19 STATES THAT THESE INDICATIONS ARE NOT o
" DAMAGE THAT COULD VIOLATE ASME CODE STRESS MINi WALL."
o NRC WAS CLEARLY INFORMED 0F FACTS AND TU ELECTR CONCLUSIONS.
l NRC INSPECTOR APPARENTLY HAS DIFFERENT DEFINITIO o
l 0F DAMAGE.
THIS IS A MATTER 0F SEMANTICS, NOT A VIOLATION 0F 10CFR50.9.
I I
ADDENDUN TO IR 89-23 INDICATES THAT ONE 0F TNREE o
NRC INSPECTORS UNDERSTOOD TU ELECTRIC's DEFIN OF DAMAGE AND AGREED WITN ITS CONCLUSIONS.
i i
i FIGURE 7
l No VIOLATION OF 10CFR50.9(a)
TU ELECTRIC DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY 0F THE INFORMATION o
CITED BY IR 89-23 AS NAVING SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OR COMON DEFENSE AND SECURITY, l
l I
i l
I l
l 1
I I
1 t
FIGURE 8 i
)
4
ENFORCEMENT POLICY APPLICABILITY PER SUPPLEMENT VII "NISCELLANE005 NATTER $"
TU ELECTRIC BELIEVES THAT PERTINENT SUM 4ARY INFOR WAS PROVIDED AT THE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE, C,
SEVERITY III 1,a VIOLATIONS INVOLVING, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE INFORMATION HAD IT BEEN COMPLETE AND ACCURATE AT THE TIME PROVIDED, LIKELY WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A RECONSIDERATION OF A REGULATO POSITION OR SUBSTANTIAL FURTHER INQUIRY SUCH AS AN ADDITIONAL INSPECTION _OR A FORNAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, TU ELECTRIC POSITION:
NOT APPLICABLE TU ELECTRIC PRESENTED AN ACCURATE
SUMMARY
0F
- FINDINGS, ACTIONS TAKEN BY NRC WERE ISSUANCE OF FOUR LEVEL FOUR VIOLATIONS BASED ON SIGNIFICANCE THESE VIOLATIONS, OTHER CODE V PROCUREMENTS WERE SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED.
SPECIFIC SNORTCOMINGS WERE NOT SIGNIFICANT AND 010 N INDICATE A SEVERITY LEVEL III VIOLATION, FIGURE 9 l'
j
\\'
i ENFORCEMENT POLICY APPLICABILITY j
PER i
SUPPLEMENT VII "MISCELLANE0US NATTER $"
i (CONTINUED)
D.
SEVERITY IV I
1.
VIOLATIONS INVOLVING FOR EXAMPLE INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE INFORMATION 0F MORE THAN MIN 0R
$1GNIFICANCE PROVIDED TO THE NRC, TU ELECTRIC POSITION:
j L
NOT APPLICABLE IN THAT OTHER CODE V PROCUREMENTS WERE SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED.
THEREFORE, ANY SHORTCOMINGS IN CONTROLS WERE i
NOT SIGNIFICANT.
E.
SEVERITY V 1.
VIOLATIONS INVOLVING FOR EXAMPLE INCOMPLETE OR!
INACCURATE INFORMATION WHICH IS PROVIDED T0 i
THE COM ISSION AND THE INCOMPLETENESS OR INACCURACY IS 0F MIN 0R SIGNIFICANCE.
l TU ELECTRIC POSITION:
0THER CODE V PROCUREMENTS WERE SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED.
THEREFORE, ANY SHORTCOMINGS IN CONTROLS WERE NOT SIGNIFICANT.
I l
I I
FIGURE 10 i
tJM.9WRE 4 o
[
$YN0PS!$
l The Nuclear Regulatory Ccepission (NRC) Czecutive Director for Operations requested Office of Investigations, Region IV (01:RIV) investigations l
concerning contentions by a Comanche Peak Project Division (CPPD) inspector i
1 that Comanche Peak Steam Electric Stations (CP$ts) manatoment personnel had provided him and the NRC with incomplet( and inaccurate information. These i
i contentions relate to the 1986 89 inspection of and enforcement action related
(
to discrepancies identified in the CP$t$ procurement of and accomplishment of service water system ($WS) coatings removal.
j 01:RIV interview of the former NRC inspector disclosed his belief and assertions that the ' incomplete and inaccurate information' provided to him I
and the NRC were not intentional, but resulted from CP$t$ management poor i
judgement and inadequate research of the subject.
involved with the $WS coating removal conceded some original assusptionsThe regarding the project were later proven incorrect and that some problems occurred during the project which were not originally enticipated. He stated i
that the project was satisfactorily completed and accepted by the NRC.
The CP$t$ manager denied that anyone at CPSES ever intended to misadvise, be incomplete, be inaccurate or otherwise uncooperative with the inspector or the i
NRC on this matter.
these issues which he contended rebutts the inspector's contention.Th}
A review of the CP$t$ manager's testinen director, CPPD, was conducted. y and associated documentation by the NRC j
The director, CPPO, advised the testimony and documentation support the former NRC inspector's contention that CP$t$ did not intentionally provide any incomplete or inaccurate information to the NRC.
I
(
i i
Case No. 4-89-013 i
_.