ML20042E331

Advises That Open Issues Re Thermo-Lag Insulation Matl & Harassment & Intimidation of QC Inspector Not Addressed in Insp Repts 50-445/90-05 & 50-446/90-05.CASE Questions Whether Formulas to Mfg Thermo-Lag Changed

ML20042E331
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/31/1990
From:	Garde B, Garge B Citizens Association for Sound Energy, ROBINSON, ROBINSON, PETERSON, BERK, RUDOLPH, CROSS
To:	Charemagne Grimes Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20042E330	List: ML20042E329 ML20042E331 ML20042E335 ML20042E430
References
NUDOCS 9004200631
Download: ML20042E331 (3)

Text

c

' f ,' l 3

e Robinsori, Robinson, Peterson, Berk, Rudolph, Cross & Garde Attonicye et how tos F.ne t College Avenue Mary Lou Robinson

' Nila Jean Robismon Mar ch 31.- 1990 Appleton Wh.mne.tn t tus:

(sinpai.iuif

. John.C. Peterson Avram D. Ucrk O' ce " ll"Y '"' *'""

Michael Rudolph Fun 7aontai -l 1

- Dan Crons ; i Intille Pirner Garde Mr. Christ.sphor 1. Grimes . Director Comanche Peak Pr oj ect Division Office of;tluclsar. Reactor Regulation j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

-11555 Rockville Pike

-1 White Flint North -- Mail Stop 7D24 ]f  !

Rockville. Haryland 20BS2 Subj ec t : CASE's Hovember 29, 1989i Documented-Request Ior Action on Ther mo-Lag Di s put e ; Open Issues .

Stat r un Comanche Peak St eam Elec t ric (CPSES). Docket Hop . 445 and bu ~ 4*lt.

Dear Mr Grimesi j Sound Energy (CASE) filed autquet As you know. Citizens Association -f or and to. the downgrading of Therrno-Lag insulat2 pn material dispute in regards -Thu NRC-the. harassment and intimidation of a Quality Control inspector .

. I rr t he inspec t ion. r upor t inves tigat ed and 1ssued an inspec ti on r epor t .

.t u suud - on t he incident that is the subj ect of tha Thermo-Lag disput u (50- j 445/90-05, 50-446/90-05). there was a n l'ndi c a ti on t ha t the NRC t. he ahad t um;closed

- t hu an .!

open' 1 tem. Although the report does not identif y . the scope of .[

'l 1mplication of the closuta is that the NRC has finalized all of the inspection activities on t his matter.

If t his is true. CASE wishes to point out that there are fout luauuu -f connected with the Thermo-Lag a ncident that r ornain unr esolved identand 1 L iud bel ow ,

unaddressed. CASE is continuing t o pur sue .the issuus, as and'Is expecting the NRC to formally address each of the tusues in r e s po ndi rig to our dispute. l t-The issues not addressed by the NRC A ns pec t ion r epor t ~ . pundi ng l

~ <

r es olution ar e as follows:- '

[

(1) During CASE's review of: the Thermo-Lag intimidat Design i onAut Change Inehor ide izantt i. on f several t echnical ques tions aro.e. t uin j (DCA) 77269 Revision 14, relaxed the c ur e . t a rne requitement We believe that thau 72'to 24 houru t o " f ac ilit at e c ons t r uc t ion. " Atter tbe

-may have c ont r ibut odi t o causi ng Ther mo-Lagthe damage .

ma n1 mum t hic knes u -

November 2. 1989. . intimidat ion incident ,

wer e telaxed frum 1/2-l requ1rements in Specification 2323-MS-3BH It is not clear what of t eet i nc h t o 3/8-inch minimurn thic knes s .

t hi s had on the fire tests that were conduc t ed pr ior to pur c hau u .

1

-9004200631 900410 a PDR ADOCK 05000445 >

G PNU d

--- - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ - J

e s-

,.' 'f.

'. I.-

l. '

i -. .

1 If the original testing was c o nduc t ed us i ng1 1/ 2-i nc h ma t e r 2 a l . 41 1s not clear how the test results c an be applied- t o 3/8-inc h t ha c k

. material. 1 (2) CASE also questions whether process formulas t o manuf ac t ur e Thermo-Lag ' wer e changed t o expedi t e c ons t r uc ti on, = whic h ma y ha ve -

affected'euring and fire r esis t anc e c har ac t er i s tic s . The o t a g i na l

~

material specified was qualified on the basis of testinu matustal with s pecific .charac t eri s tic s , dime nsi ons , and c onf igur a L J ons . It these par amet er s wer o c hanged , new testing s hould probably. ha ve been conducted.

(3) CASE as concerned about the inability of TU' Electric's Sucuraty Department to recognize and- identif y the November 2 -1989, ancident as a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 in regardu to the harassment of a QC inspector.

(4) CASE remains concer ned wit h t he ' cor r ective action taken t o snuuto that this type of ancident is not repeated.

To the extent that theso issues are not being considered by t he NRC to connec tion with the Thermo-Lag di sput e , pleas e consider t hem ' as open A t ein .

Si nc e r ely ,

\W -

Billie P.trner Garde Attorney for CASE ,

cci Mr. Dennis Crutc hfield Assistant Direc t or of Special' Proj ects U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike 1 Whi t e Flint North j Roc kvill e , Maryland 20852 ]

l Mr. R. F . Wa r nic k f Assistant Director for Inspection Program

. Comanche Peak Proj ec t Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  ;

)

U. S. Nuclear Regulator y Commis sion P.O, Box 1029 > j Granbury.-Texas 76048 -

l Mr. W. G. Couns11  !

Vice Chairman' ~j TU Electric 2001 Bryan Tower. Suite 1900 j  ;

Dallas, Texas 75201 2

' ,ve _ g w_ m, -

.j-4 .' ,

-p 4; ( , .,

j' yp ogotf if , ;7p%t o

-s::

% gf it';;/Q?E** 4 S^M 1, f ,

gg1:p. jw f3.4- -

3 - e= i t p I

s .

.4 -

.p.

' ~

g k

g -

~

, 5-

. 0.:a;\

p

.m T-

't  ; f t:Mr , lW. :J b.Cahill . l Jr . . ,

~'

=

i ExecutiveiVice Pr esident - -4

~

TUtElectric- ,

C- -

s M 14001Horth 011ve' Str eet .1B 811 Dallas.ITexAs:l l75201;-

x

, , ,t_

3~ r (GeorgeLL.DE6ger.3E sq.

~

' Newrnan rm Holtsinger ,: P . . C ,y-

~

I k -

' l/,

.1610 LfSt r eet '.T N . ' W l , '

l Washingt onE D.R C. y l20036<

21 :  ; , -n- ,

g

->

.:y w '

' Sus an Pal laner' . : Stipulation Manager

-1TU Eleetric- -

1 3

?

m

.s.

CPSESt

. P ', ;o.: Box L1002L I.. Glen Ros e , J Texes : .75043-O.: ,

Dr.(Ausef.Husain

' JChairman',) Operations Review Cownittee -(ORC),;

1. . _,

• l:TU Electric .

E s

400-North Olive, LB'Bl. .

g ,

Dallas.1 Texas, 75201 ,.l-..:

f p

'( '. '+ 2 w

k 2

_'q\' ,,_ , '. 5 '"

m;;-c x t

k 4

%/

t g

1

..gr.

s ir - i-

/ ,-f-; 7

+

g t

.:1

-lp;- v- , 5

_% <k' T

' - ;: y, :

h ,.' i m . ,

/O f

i I I'

r c

l 4,.

c k

n '

+

y .,

, 3:

e <a.,

r

, '4

' ..!' '6' > r .N. t g 4

\ f .= t

. , . / .x- '

$ 1 l }

sY ., -f ,

,4

.e

. p;S 9.. -

• C Robinson, _  ;

Robinson, Peterson, Berk, Rudolph, Cross & Garde Mary Lou Robinoon

' Anornep ui I.uw .

Nila Jean Robinson sto Eunt College Avenue

' John C. Peterpon Appleton, Wincunnen t+u s Avrum D. Ilerk o us 7ai ini?  ;

Michael Rudolph __Gseen liay 494 tam -

Dan Cron8. 1 '

Fax 7ao uss i Dillie Pirner Garde i March 30, 1990. '

>c ,

. Dennis M. Crutchfield,-Associate Director-for Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation '

Subject:

NRC Operational-. Readiness i Assessment Team - (ORAT ) ,

Report 50-445/446-89/200-200 f

+

Dear Mr. Crutchfield:

As you know,zthe Citizens Association for Sound Energy-(CASS) has

been Plant.

actively involved in monitoring _the' Comanche Peak-Nuclear Power In that regard, we participated ~in the. exit of'the Operational i Readi' ness _ Assessment Team (ORAT). H. Shannon Phillips, Sr.,ECASE Consultant, evaluated the " inspection documented in - the ref erenced -

L report to determine if NRC Inspection Procedure 93806 was'fol1 owed.

l Our consultant concluded that the- NRC perf ormed a thorough- e aspection 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 conceined +

about several report. areas where deficiencies were identified in'the NRC We believe the following areas deserve further scrutiny.

Organizations appear't'o operate too independent 1y'ol' each other and, as a result, the information flow between orl;ani-zations is often adequate. .

Maintenance work was performed that was outside the scope of the original work order but the shift supervisor,was not

-notified. ' Organizations often make such decision ~s without sufficient authority. .Also no nonconformance report (ONE form) was initiated;when maintenanc'e identified poten- 3 tially adverse conditions.

Problems with housekeeping and material control have oc--

cu'rred and were identified by the-NRC dating back to 1985.

, - CASE tively is concerned solve that TU Electric has been unable to effec-the problem. The.NRC ORAT inspection found L the applicant's program ineffective, j Y t EM H&g

s

• Problems with overdue' preventive maintenance items continue.

' Problems with developing procedures that effectively accomplish goals, objectives, and tasks continue.

Problems with determining root causes of deficiencies continue. The ORAT inspection stated that TU Electric has a tendency to address the specific deficiency and rarely mention.the program failures.

'If ynu have in any questions pl' ease contact ~me at (414) 731-1917 or Mrs.- Juanita Ellis, The President of CASE, at (214) 946-9446.

Sincerely,;

• i,

.u }- {$l>c>l'?s t uN;,,4 u p Billie Pirner Carde Attorney for CASE km I

l i

}

j c' \

l 1

+m