ML20033H181
| ML20033H181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1990 |
| From: | Garde B Citizens Association for Sound Energy, ROBINSON, ROBINSON, PETERSON, BERK, RUDOLPH, CROSS |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004180334 | |
| Download: ML20033H181 (2) | |
Text
W
,a 3
gw y
p -
+
Robinson, -.
+
.a Robinson,.Peterson, Berki.
- Rudolph, Cross & Garde.
Mary Lou Robinson Attorneya at Law ?
Nila Jean Robinson-los East College Avenue 3 Jotut C. Peterson Appleton, Wisconsin 64911'
' Avram D. Berk -
(414) 781 1817 Michael Rudolph Green Bay 494-9600)
Dan Cross '
Fax 78us41.
Billie Pirner Garde Dennis M. Crutchfield,. Associate Director for Special= Projects..
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation'~
1
Subject:
L NRC Operational $ Readiness Assessment = Team (ORAT),
Report 50-445/446-89/200-200 3
I
Dear Mr. Crutchfield:
As you know, the Citizens Association f or-Sound Energy '(CASE) 'has '
Jf been actively involved-in. monitoring the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power P1 ant.
In that regard, we participated in-the-exit of theLOperational j
Readiness' Assessment Team (ORAT).
H.
Shannon phil1ips, Sr., CASE l
Consultant, evaluated =the inspection documented-~in the' referenced
.i report to determine'if:NRC Inspection Procedure 93806 was followed.
Our consultant concluded that the NRC performed a thorougl. inspection j
and that the results'were well documented.
The NRC inspection team l
identified significant deficiencies in.'several different areas..
Although the NRC performed-a through inspection CASE is concerned about several areas where deficiencies were identified in the NRC i
report.
We believe the following areas deserve further scrutiny;.
Organizations appear to operate too independently of each other and,-as a result,- the information flow'between organi-zations is'often adequate.
!j Maintenance work was performed that was outside the scope of the original work order but the shift supervisor'was not notified.
'Organizationsioften make such decisions without j
sufficient authority.
Also no nonconformance report-i
'(ONE form) was initiated when maintenance identified poten-tially adverse conditions'.
]
Problems with housekeeping and material control have oc-curred and were-identified by the NRC dating back to 1985.
CASE is concerned that TU Electric has been unable to effec-tively solye the problem.
The NRC GRAT inspection-found the applicant's program ineffective.
9004180334 900330 PDR ADOCK 05000445 PDC g
flo
z u
p 14
~
i
.19 g
Problems withLoverdue preventive maintenan'ceLitems continue.:_
b
-Problems lwith developing' procedures'that effectively 4
accomplish-' goals, objectives,:and1 tasks continue.
- Prob 1' ems with determining root causes.ofideficiencies.
i
-continue.-_The-ORAT. inspection stated =that TU Electricihasta tendency to address;the specific deficiency.and_ rarely mentioni-the, program; f allures.-
If you have in; any: questions: please= contact me at'.(414') 731-1917 :
or Mrs.-Juanita Ellis, The President of._ CASE, at - ( 214 ) '.94 6-94 4 6'.
Sincerelyj7 1 - 2c & g l
- Billie Pirner Garde-L i
Attorney-for CASE km-Ef 4
t L
j 4
s i
'i e
f f
W
+-