ML20043A501
| ML20043A501 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1990 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | William Cahill TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043A502 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-90-020, EA-90-20, NUDOCS 9005220158 | |
| Download: ML20043A501 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000445/1990005
Text
.
DOCNek blC
h
'o,
UNITED STATES-
'-
[~
j' i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
g
j
WASHINGTON, D. C 20555
/
May 17, 1990
....+
Docket Nos. 50-445
and 50-446
Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.
Executive Vice President
TV Electric
400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Cahill:
SUBJECT:. NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $25,000
(NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-445/90-05; 50-446/90-05)
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. R. M. Latta during the period
January 3 through January 30, 1990, concerning allegations and issues associated
with the receipt inspection of Therm-A-Lag conduit sections, the controversy over
the documentation of deficient conditions on this material on a nonconformance
report, the intimidation of QC receipt inspectors, TU Electric's corrective
actions, and followup on previously identified Therm-A-Lag discrepancies.
The
NRC inspector's findings were documented in Inspection Report 50-44S/90-05;
50-446/90-05 and were discussed with you and members of your staff on January 30,
1990 at the inspection exit meeting and again during an Enforcement Conference
at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, on February 7, 1990.
'Specifically, the matters of concern to the NRC staff involve the events which
transpired on November 2 and 3, 1989, relative to the direction which was provided-
by a QC supervisor and QC Level III inspector to QC receipt inspection personnel
not to document deficient Therm-A-Lag dimensional discrepancies on a nonconform-
ance report.
Subsequent to a brief but heated discussion on November 2, 1989
between the QC supervisor, the QC Level III, and QC receipt inspection personnel
who wanted to document the subject deficiencies on a nonconformance report, as
they believed was required by Receiving Inspection Procedure NQA-3.US-11.03, one
of the QC receipt inspectors, who was involved in the confrontation with QC
supervision was coincidentally included in a reduction-in-force.
As a result of these events, the message which was perceived by the QC receipt
inspectors was that, in spite of procedural requirements, QC supervisory personnel
would not allow Therm-A-Lag discrepancies to be documented on a nonconformance
report and to do so could result in termination.
However, it should be noted
-
that despite that perception, the inspector of record and the lead QC inspector
subsequently documented the Therm-A-Lag deficiencies on a nonconformance report
on November 3, 1989.
Of$00$ $0b45
I
Q
%
-_
%
!
i
-
.
-
'
..
"Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.
-2-
May 17, 1990
i
_TU Electric's response to the allegations submitted to SAFETEAM by the QC receipt
,
inspector who was laid off and the corresponding corrective actions which were
implemented by TV Electric were determined to be generally superficial and
.
ineffective.
This determination was based on the results of NRC interviews
1
which concluded that, despite the issuance of the nonconformance report and
subsequent to TV Electric's corrective actions, there was still a strong
perception within the QC Receipt Inspection organization that the disagreement
between QC receipt-inspectors and QC supervision on November 2 and the coinc1-
dental termination of a QC receipt inspector were related.
As a result, QC
3
receipt inspectors felt restricted in their job performance and that they could
,
be terminated if they openly disagreed with QC management.
The NRC staff is concerned that TV Electric's response to this issue initially
failed to recognize the significance of this event and that the corresponding
l
corrective actions were not effective.
The NRC staff recognizes that appropriate corrective actions were subsequently
taken when the full scope of the problem was recognized.
These actions included
a management change in the QC Receiving organization, management meetings with
t
the affected inspectors, and dissemination of TV Electric's policy on the impor-
tance of properly identifying deficient conditions.
These actions, along with
the relatively isolated nature of this incident, constituted the basis upon
which the NRC staff concluded that this issue had been adequately resolved for
the purpose of issuing the low power license.
Nevertheless, to emphasize the importance of management sensitivity to potential
intimidation, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director,
Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials
!
Safety, Safeguards, and Operations Support, to issue the enclosed Notice of
-
Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the amount of
$25,000fortheSeverityLevelIIIviolationdescribedintheenclosedNotice
i
in accordance with the General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
l
Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1989).
The base value of a
civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation is $50,000.
The escalation
!
and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered and as
l
discussed below 50% mitigation of the base civil penalty was deemed appropriate.
l
In this case, neither escalation nor mitigation of the base civil penalty is-
l
warranted for identification and reporting as this violation was identified to
l-
TV Electric through an allegation.
With regard to corrective action, again t
l
neither escalation nor mitigation wss found appropriate.
As discussed earlier,
I
while TU Electric ultimately took appropriate corrective actions, they were not
l
timely given the information initially available regarding this matter.
Not-
withstanding this incident, TV Electric's performance in the specific area of
minimizing harassment and intimidation of quality assurance personnel has, over
the last few years, significantly improved considering your historical performance
in this area and therefore on the basis of that performance, mitigation for past
l
performance is appropriate.
However, after considering that specific performance
.
-.
l
s
a
,
'
..
-
.
,
,
-Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.
-3-
May 17, 1990
.
along with TU Electric's overall performance in the area of quality assurance
activities, which has only been generally acceptable,-50% rather than 100%
mitigation for past performance is being applied.
Finally, the base civil
penalty in'this case was not adjusted for prior notice or multiple examples.
The enclosed Notice also identifies a Severity Level IV violation associated
with the related receipt inspection procedure.
1he lack of clarity in that
procedure was a major contributing factor to the communication breakdown between
the QC supervisors and the QC receipt inspectors.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your response,
you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you
plan to prevent recurrence.
After reviewing your response to the Notice,
including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections,
the NRC will determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure
compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed
.
in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not
subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely,
Denn s
. Crutchfield, Ass iate Director
for Special Projects.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Notice of Violation and Proposed
Imposition of Civil Penalty
2.
Enforcement Conference Slides
cc w/ enclosures:
See next page
1
1'
l
l
l
L
l
r
...
r
.
.
,
-
l...
'Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.
4
May 17, 1990
i
1
,
.
cc w/ enclosures:-
Assistant Director
Newman & Holtzinger
for Inspection Programs
1615 L Street, N.W.
.
- Comanche Peak Project Division
Suite 1000
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C.
20036
P. O. Box 1029
Granbury, Texas 76048
Chief, Texas Bureau of Radiation
Control
!
Re4fonal Administrator, Region IV
Texas Department of Health
c S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
1100 West 49th Street
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000
-
Arlington, Texas. 76011
Honorable George Crump
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.
County Judge
Robinson, Robinson, et al
Glen Rose, Texas 76043
103 East College Avenue
.
-
Appieton, Wisconsin 54911
.
E. F. Ottney
P. O. Box 1777
Glen Roso, Texas 76043
Mr. Roger D. Walker
'
Manager, Nuclear Licensing
.
Texas Utilities Electric company
400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81
Dallas, Texas 75201
Texas Utilities Electric Company
c/o Bethesda Licensing
3 Metro Center, Suite 610
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
'
William A. Burchette, Esq.
Counsel for Tex-La Electric
Cooperative of Texas
Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, 14.W.
Washington, D.C.
20007
GDS Associates, Inc.
Suite 720
1850 Parkway Place
Marietta, Georgia 30067-8237
,
.
.
-
.
--
r . .;
'
. .-
'
Mr.' William J. Cahill, Jr.
-5-
May 17, 1990
DISTRIBUTION:
PDR-
~
F
LPDR.
L
SECY
CA
,,
HThompson, DEDS
JSnie' ek. DEDR-
'
z
'm
JLieberman, OE
RDMartin, RIY
JGoldberg, OGC
' TMurley, NRR
.
2
JPartiow,-NRR
Enforcement Coordinators
r
'
.RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV
Docket (50-445/446).
CPPD Reading
ADSP Reading
DCrutchfield, NRR
CGrimes, NRR-
JHWilson, NRR
MMalloy, NRR
.
MFields, NRR
DChamberlain, RIV
WJohnson, RIV
JWeibe, RIV
PGwynn, RIV
DRomano.
JGilliland,PA/RIV-
Resident Inspector
FIngram, GPA/PA
BHayes, 01
DW1111ams, OIG
-EJordan, AEOD
JLuehman, OE
OE:Chron
OE:EA
4.-
A
DEI)shpson
JLu man-
i ield
JLieberman
HTh
5/tf/90
5//o/90
5/// /90
5/g/90
i
a-