ML20043E713

Responds to NRC 900517 Notice of Violation & Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $25,000.Corrective Action:Qc Mgt Counseled Level III Inspector & QC Supervisor on Importance of Good Communications W/Receipt Inspectors

ML20043E713
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/01/1990
From:	William Cahill TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
References
TXX-90204, NUDOCS 9006130313
Download: ML20043E713 (9)

Text

- __ .

3 l^ ,,

=

T ,

-- Log i_TXX-90204 P 7' File # 10130 '

~'

C 10118 I IR 50-445/90-05

.c ' 7UELECTRiC. IR 50-446/90-05 Ref. # 10CFR2.201 7

10CFR2.205 EdOI".m emam, June 1, 1990 i

e Mr~. James;Lieberman, Director  ;

Office of Enforcement '

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document' Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 L L

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM. ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)  :

DOCKET NO.'50-445 RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION, EA 90-020 REGARDING THERM 0-LAG RECEIPT INSPECTIONS Ref: 1) NRC Letter from Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield to .

L Mr., William J. Cahill, Jr., dated May 17, 1990 i

Dear Mr. Lieberman:

, In Reference 1,._the NRC issued.a Notice of V.iolation and Proposed Imposition of. Civil Penalty (Notice) for certain circumstances related to events' on November 2: and 3',1989, involving receipt inspection of THERM 0-LAG. The-Notice of Violation transmitted two Violations. TU Electric accepts the ,

Violations. Attachment 2 provides-TV Electric's reply to the Notice of

Violation. pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201- and the terms of the Notice. Enclosed is a checklin the amount of $25,000.

! The Violations involve circumstances wherein a Quality control (QC) Level III inspector and a QC supervisor directed receipt inspectors not to write a

'Nonconformance. Report (NCR) for nonconforming THERM 0-LAG. The supervisor and L the Level III inspector believed that. applicable procedures permitted

" documenting the nonconformances on an Inspection Report and that an NCR was unnecessary. However, the QC supervisor and Level III inspector did not p effectively communicate the basis for their interpretation of the procedures, and did not effectively explain why they believed an NCR was unnecessary.

One of the receipt inspectors involved in this event had previously been

. selected for a planned reduction of force and was terminated subs'e quent to the event. During his exit interview with SAFETEAM, the inspector alleged that hisLtermination was due to his disagreement with the QC supervisor and the Level III inspector over the need to prepare an NCR for the nonconforming THERM 0-LAG.

?

f\

0 900 -

l b$h'h

- - , ,- -, .r- -,

glue"

' q 5 919t$ $

y -

.. g y l 5-[ ]

y <

' I TXX-90204-June 1, 1990 Page 2 of 2 7

The initial corrective actions taken for this event included an investigation ej by SAFETEAM and Corporate Security. Additionally, QC management counseled the <

Level III inspector and-the QC supervisor on the importance of good .

.' communications.with the receipt inspectors, and: met with the receipt- '

inspectors to clarify TU Electric's position 'on documentation of deficiencies.

.TU Electric's Corporate Security investigation of this event found that the >

inspector's< termination was not related to the disagreement over .the~ need- to- ,

. prepare an NCR. Further, it did not find evidence of intimidation or -

-_ harassment, even though the. investigation included interviews of QC receiving  ;

-inspectors to determine whether they felt intimidated or restrained from i writing NCRs. Consequently, no actions were deemed necessary in this regard . .

The NRC informed TU Electric that inquiries into this matter revealed th' at the terminations of the inspector created the perception among some of the receipt inspectors that:the termination was event related.: Apparently, some of:the QC i receiving inspectors' interviewed provided information to the NRC which was not consistent with-that provided to-TU Electric Corporate Security during the-

. investigation described above.- The inspectors believed that they were not permitted to document nonconforming THERMO-LAG on.NCRs and could not disagree with their supervisors without fear of termination. ,

Steps were immediately taken by TV Electric to dispel these perceptions and to increase the sensitivity of supervisory personnel to the' perceptions of their  ;

staff. These steps'are described more fully.in Attachment 2.

At the Enforcement Conference on this subject conducted on February 7, 1990,

'TU Electric . acknowledged that.it had not been sufficiently aggressive in identifying and correcting the perceptions of some QC receiving inspectors.

3 y

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely, W

William J. Cahill, Jr. )

DEN /daj Attachments Enclosure c - Mr. D. M. Crutchfield Mr. C. I. Grimes Mr. R. F. Warnick Mr'. R. D. Martin, Region IV Resident Inspectors, CPSES (3)

I

y .' .

. Attachment lito TXX-90204 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES ~0F AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, In the Matter of )

)

Texas Utilities Electric Company. ) Docket No. 50-445

)

- (Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Unit 1)

. )

AFFIDAVIT Wi111am J. Cahill,;Jr. being ' duly sworn; hereby deposes and says;that he is Executive-Vice President, Nuclear of TV Electric, that he is duly authorized to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this response to:

Notice = of Violation EA 90-020 regarding the THERMO-LAG receipt inspections; that he is familiar with the-content thereof; and that the matters set'forth

.therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and

- belief.

N William J. Cahil'1, Jr. .

Executive Vice President, Nuclear STATE OF TEXAS )-

)

' COUNTY OF SOMERVELL )

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, on this JSt day of

~ June , 1990.

W Notary Public

% . PATRICIA WILSON j,

.* we cowassa rxms ..-

March .16,1993 .'h ,

t i c4

....._..__._________._______m

i Attachment 2 to TXX-90204 Page 1 of 6 Notice of Violation. Item I (445/9005 V-02) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I, as implemented by Section 1.0, Revision 1, of the TU Electric Quality Assurance Manual requires that the applicant or licensee shall be responsible for the establishment and execution of the quality assurance program. Furthermore, the personnel performing the quality assurance functions shall be provided with adequate authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation of solutions.

Contrary to the above, on November 2,1989 Quality Control (QC) receipt inspectors were not provided with adequate authority and organizational freedom to identify quslity problems and initiate, recommend and provide solutions in that, they were told by their supervisors that defective Therm A-Lag conduit sections were not to be documented on nonconformance reports as required by station procedures.

Resoonse to Notice of Violation. Item I (445/9005 V-02)

TU Electric accepts the Violation and the requested information follows:

1. Reason for the Violation

-The governing receipt inspection procedures required that the nonconforming THERMO-LAG (Therm A-lag) identified during receipt inspection be documented as "Unsat" on inspection reports. As discussed below with respect to the Reason for Violation, item II, the QC supervisor and QC Level Ill inspector believed that the governing procedures did not require an NCR in addition to an "Un:at" inspection report under applicable procedures. Some of the receipt inspectors interpreted these procedures differently, and believed that the procedures required the issuance of both an "Unsat" inspection report and an NCR. In directing the receipt inspectors not to write an NCR, the QC su>ervisor and QC Level !!! inspector did not effectively communicate the ) asis for their interpretation of the procedures, and did not effectively explain why an NCR was unnecessary. Therefore, some receipt inspectors believed that they were being directed not to write an NCR for a condition that they believed procedurally required an NCR.

p r .

.I Attachment 2 to TXX 90204 Page 2 of 6 One of the receipt inspectors involved in this event had previously been selected for a planned reduction of force and was terminated subsequent to the event. The release was coincidental and unrelated to the event.

However, this fact was not communicated to or-understood by the remaining QC receipt inspectors. Consequently, some of them believed, incorrectly,

.that the release occurred in retaliation for the position taken by the inspector on the need for an NCR for the nonconforming THERMO-LAG. This, in turn, apparently created the perception among those inspectors that '

they were not permitted to document nonconforming THERMO LAG on NCRs and could not disagree with their supervisors without fear of termination.

2. Corrective Steos' and Actions to Avoid Further Violations TU Electric took a number of corrective and preventive actions that address both the event and the perceptions of the QC receipt inspectors, including: ,

o Receipt' inspection procedures now require that an "Unsat" inspection report be initiated for all nonconformances identified at receipt inspection and that NCRs be initiated for those nonconformances j which may require engineering disposition (e.g., use-as-is, repair). i o The QC supervisor and QC Level III inspector were reassigned to other positions not involving supervisor responsibility, o The Operations QC Manager, the Manager of QC, and the Director of ]

Quality Assurance (QA) met with inspectors in the QC receiving i organization to reinforce with them that they have the authority and responsibility for identifying and documenting nonconformances, and 1 that it is not TV Electric's intent or policy to discourage inspectors from documenting nonconformances on NCRs. [

o- The Manager of QC and the Director of QA met on several occasions with the receiving inspection staff to assure that there is no residual perception of intimidation and to address matters of importance to the inspectors, j o To improve communications in the QC receiving organization, the QC receiving supervisor now reports directly to the Manager of QC; the time spent in the field by the Manager of QC and Director of QA has increased; the roles of Level III inspectors, lead inspectors, and 4 the QC supervisors have been clarified; and staff meetings are ,

i routinely held to enhance the vertical and horizontal lines of

_, commhaications within the QC receiving organization.  !

C' Attachment 2 to TXX-90204 1

Page 3 of 6-o The Director of QA met with QA department managers (including QC managers) to ensure their understanding of the problems related to .

this event, the need to be sensitive to the perceptions which can be created by their actions, and the application of the lessons learned to their activities. .

, o The Vice President, Nuclear Engineering, met with the Manager of QC, Director of QA, and QC receiving inspectors to reinforce TU Electric's puition on identification and documentation of nonconforming conditions and the need for full and open communications with inspectors.

o A contractor was retained to review communication and morale problems involving the QC receipt inspection organization and to determine if additional actions were warranted. As a result of this review, the centractor concluded that TV Electric's actions have been effective in addressing these problems.

o TU Electric issued a policy statement which stressed the importance of identifying and documenting conditions adverse to quality. The .

Executive Vice President, Nuclear met with onsite managers and  !

supervisors to reinforce the positions in the policy statement and to answer any questions regarding its implementation. l 0 In response to an unrelated event, TV Electric established a multi- ',

disciplined panel to review all allegations received by SAFETEAM.

This panel meets approximately once a week. The purpose of the ,

panel is to assure that all issues identified by allegers, including implications of harassment and/or intimidation, are included in the allegation follow-up.

3. Date of Full Compliance i

TU Electric is currently in full compliance. Additionally, TU Electric will continue to encourage personnel to appropriately identify quality problems.

e

,. .j l

Attachment 2 to TXX 90204 )

Page 4 of 6  :

Notice of Violation. Item II (445/9005-V-01) l 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by Section 5.0, Revision 1, of the TU Electric Quality- Assurance Manual, requires that activities affecting quality be prescribed by and accomplished in accordance with documented procedures. CPSES Receiving Inspection Procedure NQA 3.09-11.03, paragraph 6.1.3, requires that items which do not conform to the specified requirements shall be documented in accordance with Procedure NE0 3.05, " Reporting and Control of Nonconformances" and references NQA 3.05,  ;

paragraph 6.1.1.b.  ;

Contrary to the above, on November 2, 1989, subsequent to the completion of receipt inspection activities on Therm-A-Lag conduit sections, TV Electric failed to document defective material conditions on a nonconfomance report as s>ecified in Procedure NQA-3.09-ll.03, paragraph 6.1.3 and failed to document i t1e condition using NQA paragraph 6.1.1.b because of that procedure's 1 interpretive nature.

Response to Notice of Violation. Item II (445/9005 V-01)

TU Electric accepts the Violation and the requested information follows:

1. Reason for the Violation The reason for the Violation was differing interpretations of the procedures governing receipt inspections. These procedures were NQA 3.09-9.02, " Inspection Reports / Inspection Plans"; NQA 3.09-11.03, " Receiving Inspection;" and NQA 3.05, " Reporting and Control of Nonconformances." <

NQA 3.09-9.02, paragraph 6.1.7.12, stated that during the initial

. inspection, the inspector shall, " determine the acceptability of the ,

quality characteristic and check it as ' Sat' or 'Unsat'." Paragraph ,

6.1.11 stated that an Inspection Report may be closed by issuing an NCR for an unsatisfactory item or taking other controlled action to correct the item.-

NQA 3.09-11.03, paragraphs 6.1.3.2 and 6.1.3.3, stated that unsatisfactory items should be tagged with an NCR tag and, when )ractical, placed in a designated hold area until final disposition of tie document. NQA 3.09-11.03, paragraph 6.1.3.1, also stated that nonconforming conditions shall be documented in accordance with NQA 3.05 when applicable.

+

l

.. {

t. ,

Attachment 2 to TXX 90204- ,

c Page 5 of 6

- 1 NQA 3.05, paragraph 6.1.1 stated that an NCR shall be prepared when: ,

"a. A potentially nonconforming condition is identified and an approved method is not provided in the work, inspection, or test procedures ,

or program to document the condition; or '

l i

b. A potentially nonconforming condition has been identified and  ;

i, documented in accordance with approved procedures or programs such i as Inspection Reports or Test Deficiency Reports and the identified l= condition cannot be corrected (reworked, scrapped or have i subsequently become acceptable in accordance with generic l engineering documents, e.g., specifications, general drawing notes '

1 and typical details) to comply with existing engineering requirements in accordance with approved procedures."

( As the above procedures indicate, nonconforming items identified during QC 1 t inspection were required initially to be documented as "Unsat" on an i inspection report, to be tagged with an NCR tag, and to be placed in a hold area until final disposition. These requirements ensure that nonconforming items are properly controlled, whether or not an NCR is issued for the nonconformance.

The QC supervisor and QC Level Ill inspector in question interpreted these l procedures as not requiring NCRs for all-items marked "Unsat" on -

inspection reports. Instead, they believed that NCRs were only required for items that needed an engineering disposition; i.e., for items that ,

t were not reworked or scrapped or determined to comply with existing engineering requirements. They also believed that an inspector need not write an NCR and instead could hold an inspection report in an open status until generic engineering requirements were issued that would render the i nonconformances acceptable. These beliefs were in accordance with site practices. Based upon these beliefs, the QC supervisor and QC Level III inspector directed that an NCR not be issued for the nonconforming THERM 0-LAG (Therm A-Lag) because they believed that new generic engineering requirements were about to be issued that would render the nonconforming i conditions acceptable.

l

2. . Corrective Steos Taken and Results Achieved  ;

1 On November 3, 1989, one of the QC receipt inspectors prepared an NCR for I the nonconforming THERMO-LAG, which was approved by the QC supervisor.

j l

. 'l l 1

Attachment 2 to TXX-90204 ,

Page 6 of 6

3. Corrective Stent _Which Will be Taken to Avoid Further Violations i

TV Electric has clarified appropriate procedures. The revised procedures require that "Unsat" inspection reports will be initiated for all nonconformances identified at receipt and that NCRs will be initiated for those nonconformances which may require engineering disposition. Receipt inspection personnel, including supervisors, have been trained in the revised requirements. ,

1

4. Date of Full Compliance  :

TU Electric is in full compliance. )

i l

l Y

I

, - . . , - , , , , -- , ,- --e-.---,- . - - - - - - , - . - - ,