ML20069P782
| ML20069P782 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1990 |
| From: | Garde B ROBINSON, ROBINSON, PETERSON, BERK, RUDOLPH, CROSS |
| To: | Charemagne Grimes Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20069P777 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-90-54, FOIA-90-A-18 NUDOCS 9101100394 | |
| Download: ML20069P782 (15) | |
Text
_.
.s Orr1 29 '90 19120 GCMC Lf44 OfTICC 484-730-E348 P.2/7
- Robinson, Robinson, Peterson, Berk, Rudolph, Crosa & Garde Muy Lou Robtnson Attomeys at Law Nila Jean Robicaon los East College Avenus John C. Peterson Appleton. Wisconsin f. ult Avrarn D. Berk (4141 f 811817 Michael 7udolph Green Bay 49-960o Fu m6641 Dan Croe,a Bulle Pirner Garde January 29, 1990 Mr. Christopher Grimes, Director Office of Special Projects Comancho Peak Division office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
Response to TU Electric Letter Concerning Harassment and Intimidation of Comanche Peak QC Inspectors
Dear Mr. Grimes:
This letter responds to the December 21, 1989, letter from TU Electric regarding the "Thermo-Lag Dispute."
DACKGROUND In early November 1989 Quality Control (OC) inspectors were inspecting vendor-f abricated Thermo-Lag that was to be installed as a barrier between equipment and fires that might occur at the nuclear plant at Comanche peak.
This material had previously been fabricated on site, installed, and final inspected.
But in July, 1989, significant deficiencies were identified in the site fabricated Thermo-Lag.
TU Electric wrote a nonconformance report (NCR) which stated that the site f abricated Thermo-Lag did not meet minimum specified thickness requirements.
These problems were discovered sometime before July 28, 1989.
Subsequent to the NCR being writter, a Corrective Action Request (CAR) was generated.
However, the corrective action originally proposed by the CAR was subsequently determined to be inadequate because the cause of the deficiency was not corrected.
On October 30, 1989, the CAR was closed based on revising the design and installation specifications, recognizing only vendor-fabricated panels, and clarifying inspection requirements.
9101100394 900029 PDR I-01A 1
BAUMAN90-A-10 PDR
i
, Jm 29 ' 90 188 21 GIMC LN CmCE 414-730-0041 P.3/7 The closure did not address what led to inadequate specifications, inspection requirements, being developed initially.
In September,
- 1989, this construction deficiency was reported to the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The notice stated that the issue involved about 13,000 square feet of site fabricated Thermo-Lag, 2,000 square feet that had been installed and ras traceable, and, in addition, another 12,000 square feet installed, but not traceable to on or off-site f abricators, and therefore suspect.
As a result of that discovery
- report, TXX-89737 concluded that the safe shutdown of the plant could not be assured in the event of a fire.
Subsequently, Thermal Science Inc., a vendor recognized as qualified to fabricate Thermo-Lag panels, received purchase orders f rom TU Electric to f abricate material off-alte and ship different sized panals and cylinders (needed to cover and protect safety related electrical cable trays and conduit if a fire occurred).
There was no vendor audit done at the time of the order because Thermal Science was on the Approved Vendor T ist.
The material was thereaf ter f abricated, shipped, and received at CPSES, much of it in a deficient condition.
TU Electric has attributed this deficiencies to shipping damages.
However, it is CASE's present position that a prLmary cause of the original material being deficient was because the cause of the original site fabricated panel problems had not been determined, thus allowing essentially the same deficiency to reoccur.
POSITION CASE asserts that it is TU Electric management's responsibility to see that the Thermo-Lag was properly f abricated, installed and inspected in accordance with regulatory requirements and commitments.
It is our position that it was not the specifications, on-site fabrication and installation process, or off-site fabrication that caused the deficiencies, but rather that inadequate process and management controls, along with inadequate supervision of the
- design, fabrication, installation, and inspection process that are the major contributing causes to the problem.
TO Electric's position, as stated in TXX-89737, did not address the primary or probable cause of the problems but only addressed subordinate causes.
This is of concern to CASE, because the design, procurement, fabrication, installation, and verification that these activities 2
N N 29 '90 18122 C#IC UW OrrICC 414-730-CG41 P,44 were correctly installed is not a complex work activity; and, the inability to perform such work raises serious questions about the competence of TO Electric's management to control work done on site by TU Electric and its contractors.
Even more troublesome is TU Elcetric's inability to determine the cause of such deficiencies that appear to be a
breakdown in
- design, procurement, processes as well as construction and inspection / audit activities.
INCIDENT OF INTIMIDATION On Hovember 2,
1989 three QC inspectors were performing receipt inspections of Thermo-Lag that Thermal Science, Inc. had shipped to the site.
After finding that approximately 30% of one configuration did not meet the specified thickness requirement and 90% of another configuration was similarly deficient, the inspectors recognized that a major material and quality control problem existed with the materials being rec 2ived.
In accordance with guidance from their lead inspector and site receipt inspection procedure NQA-3.09-11.03 the inspectors started to write an NCR.
However, the cognizant QC supervisor and Level III inspector jointly directed that it not be written.
The Level III became very vocal and vehement and stated that "we will not write an NCR on Thermo-Laq."
These statemenEs i n t imfdWed the inspectors and, as a result, no NCR was written
~
on that day.
Af ter this direction the inspectors discussed with their Lead Inspector the t'act that TV Electric training instructed inspectors to write an NCR in cases like this, where material was in a nonconforming condition.
Unfortunately, the more vocal inspector was laid of f within a matter of hours of this incident.
The next day the second inspector went to the QC Supervisor and again pointed out in the procedure that an NCR was required.
Thereafter, the second inspector wrote an NCR.
Shortly after writing the NCR the Level III inspector learned of it and became very angry and vocal, apparently swearing and cursing about the issuance of the NCR and intimating that the whole department was going to be "in trouble" because of its issuance.
On the following work day af ter the second inspector wrote an NCR, the second inspector was in essence " demoted" f rom a QC inspector to a " helper. "
CASE observed that the QC inspector, who was terminated, went through the chain of command regarding his concerns, that is, to his lead inspector, the Oc supervisor and ultimately the SAPETEAM and Security.
In a statement to SAFETEAM, given the day following the incident, the lead inspector was quoted as saying that he (the Lead) agreed that an NCR should have been written 3
~
, JfN 29 '!O 10122 CARIC LfM cTr!CC 414-730-064
- v. 5/,
O but that his
" word" (recommendation to write the NCR) meant nothing compared to the Level III's instruction This view confirms that there was a feeling of discourageme.
identification of deficiencies among this group of OC pers nt toward the onnel.
CASE became aware of the matter through a request for assistance from the laid off inspector and conducted its own investigation into the facts, circumstances, of this incident.
causes and results On November 8,
1989 in a regularly scheduled meeting CASE brought this matter to the attention of TU Electric's top management, and asked that TU Electric investigate this matter and take prompt, perceived chilling ef fectcomprehensive, corrective action by removing the on the identification of deficiencies through addressing the conduct of the supervisor and the Level III inspector.
CASE also advised 70 Electric management believed that TU that it must address the status of the inspector, and fired by the Levelwho other inspectors perceived as having been singled out III because he was too writing an NCR.
(Thit view was supported by an earlier threatvocal about the Level III to the laid off inspector that if he (Level III) by was ever in a position to terminate the OC inspector, he would do so.)
It was, and is, CASE's view that the lay off of the inspector, whether legitimate or
- not, nas contributed to an department as a whole. atmosphere of intimidation and has had a chilling effect on the Through this notice by CASE, TU Electric management had the perfect opportunity to correct a serious situation before it became worse.
Unfortunately, they did not and compounded the problem by delay take the opportunity mixed signals short of openly addressing the unacceptability of the c to cuality statements by the Level III in this situation act had the effect of sending the clear messag.
This failure to that the Level III's conduct was acceptable to TU Electric's top e to the workforce management.
Accordingly by mid-November 1989, since CASE could not TU Electric to promptly address these matters, submitted a get dispute to the NRC for resolution.
(See, November 29,
- 1989, letter from Billie Pirner Garde to Christopher Grimes, Re Thermo-Lag dispute.)
CASE had hoped that the dispute review process might lead TU Electric to grasp the significance of the problem and salvage their control of the situation..
Unfortunately this did not happen either.
made worse by TU Electric managenent's responso (TXX-898S1, The matter was only December 21, 1989), directed to you.
The response provided includes information furnished to NRC 4
1 Jrd 29 '9018Q3 Gr6IC Lru OFTICE 414-730-C641 P,6/7 4
- that, based on CASE's investigation, is incomplete and inaccurate.
Additionally the responce is another example in which TU Electric management, even with fair notice and facts not in dispute, has refused to engage in proactive quality management when confronted with a scenario that minded Icadership to compensate for requires aggressive quality-inaccurate messages sent by the conduct of mid-level e.mployees.
These are the kind of problems that an applicant is expected to work out when construction first starts, not on the eve of fuel loading.
J There has been a long history of similar problems (See ) at the Comanche Peak construction site with both NCR's and harassment and intimidation of QC inspectors.
Some of thece incidents involve the name individuals in virtually the i
same situations.
Although TU Electric may debate the effect, the f acts of the earlier incidents are not in dispute.
Obviously, the root cause of these problems have not been identified and corrected.
In the present case TU Electric defended the 4
employment status of repeat offenders of unacceptable conduct (the QC supervisor and Level III), while the OC inspector remains unemployed.
This decision cannot send any message to the workforce other than that upper management must condone the behavior of the supervisor and Level III and disregard the actions of the inspector.
CASE accepts the possibility that the Vice Chairman of TU i
Electric may unwittingly be
" signing off" un inaccurate and incomplete information to the NRC because his staff provides him such information; however, it is the applicant's responsibility to insure that information provided is accurate anc complete.
CASE has repeatedly attempted to provide TU Electric with the best available i nf orma t ),on,
- however, that information was rejected for an inaccurate and narrowly focused site investigation which did not address the aggregate effect of this matter.
(CASE can point to at least two other recent examples, documented in NRC
- reports, of inaccurate and incomplete information being provided on the cause and background of deficiencies in the Service Water and Auxiliary Systems, and the response to the Scaling Calculation Dispute.
CASE is presently analyzing all of these incidents far similarity; however, the analyses are not complete.
We vill provide some preliminary corr.ments on the Thermo-Lag issue in any event instead of waiting until the-analyses are complete.
The comments are in Attachment 1-4 of this letter.)
CASE believes that the Therrio-Lag incident has implications about TU Electric's ability to adequately manage Comanche Peak once it is in operation and requests this dispute be resolved prior to a fuel load decision.
4 5
i
.. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _. _ _ _,. _ _ _. _ _. _. _ ~. _. -. -. _ - -. _.
-~-.-_m._,._.
_ - _ _, _. ~., _ _ _ - _. -.
~
i Jffi 29 '9010:2A G@DC LfN Orf!CE 414-730-E:341 p,7f7 4
We take no pleasure in concluding that TU Electric still cannot recognize the effect of incidents such as thcae on personnel and
- hardware, but raine the matter for your consideration because of the potentit41 safety impact, which is our first and only concern.
Sincerely, Billie Pirner Garde Encl. a/s cc:
William G. Counsel George Edgar Vice-Chairman Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
TU Electric 1615 L Street, N.W.
2001 Bryan Tower Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75201 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Ausaf Husain Chairman Operations Review Committee (ORC)
TU Electric 400 North Olive Street, LB 81 Dallas, TX 75201 Susan Palmer Stipulation Manager TO Electric Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station P.O. Box 1002 Hwy 56 Glen Rose, TX 76043 Dennis M. Crutchfield Associate Director for Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike 1 White Flint North--Mail Stop 7D24 Rockville, MD 20852 Bob Warnick Asaistant Director for Inspection Program Comanche Peak Project Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Glen Rose, TX 76043 6
e 4
Plant inspectors intimidated,3RC says Comanche Peak failed to calm fears raised by firing, report says Ass ciatt n forSound Energy.a watchdog group and that the inspector who lost his yab was in By David Real based in Dallas said the issue of inspector intim-error.Re rtility investigation also said that the g%gg%%
idation and a lack of proper management re-incident did not intimidate eny inspectors.
Several Comanche Peak inspectors were in-sponse must be resolved before a license is is.
However, the NRC report disagreed with the timidated late last year when an inspector who sued.
utility investigation. He NRC said that the in-tried to report safety problems at the plant " coin-his is very serious." Mrs Blis said. "ne spector's supervisor was wrong to use the minor' cidentally lost his pb the next day.according to fact that this is still happening at this point in form, and that the more serious report was ap-I a report issued Thursday by federal regulators.
time is absolutely appiling to me."
propriate.
Although U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commis-NRC officials were not available for comment inspecurs alm mid MC invMgamn sion officials said they could not substantiate Thursday night at they wen inumMaW buse management allegations that the inspector lost his job on Nov.
The NRC report said the somewhat heated.
8C ns PMy wuld conhe m inWen 3 as part of a vindictive layoff, the incident had a incident began Nov. 2 when a Comanche Peak with th& inspecdu Mes and Wct w Hmit
" chilling effect* on the other inspectors, who be-supervisor told one of his inspectors not to write I
""#8 lieved that they could not report problems with-a non<onformance report on faulty fire protec- ' ""* **
atjeopardizingtheirjobs.
tion insulauon scheduled to be installed at the "To do so would have jeopardized their em-(Jtihty action taken more than a month later g,g P oyment "the NRC report said.
t to reassure the remaining inspectors was " gen-The supervtsor argued that the fanity mate-I"
- erally superficial and ineffecuve~ the report rial should be Itsted on a itss serious report an N ng h ee WW. Be said.
form, but the inspector insisted that the viola-MPoM.h dry empW that the The NRC cited TU Dectric for the violations tion should be reported on the more serious non.
ESPec nC#
8'e i e PM Pow commu-and ordered utility officials to explain their ac-conformance report.
tions at NRC headquarters, near Washington.
Finally, the supervisor ordered: "We will not g,"**,3
,t D.C on Feb. 7. the day before the utility first wnte a non<onformance repirt on the faulty However. utility meeting arranged with the would be eligible to receive an operating license matenal, the NRC report said. The supervisor remaining inspectors emphastzed the use of also told other workers that the inspector would r fm fom@g vdah for Comanche Peak.
TU Bectric spokesman David Fiorelli said the be "the first to ro" at the plant. The next day, utility still was examining the NRC report, but that inspector 'ost his job in a scheduled redoc.
He NRC report said that, after the meeting, believed it probably would not affect the is-tion in force at Comanche Peak.
inspectors said they still did not have a clear <ut suance of an operating license next week.
A second inspector. however, successfully understandmg of the proper iorm to use and still
'We feelItke we can give them sufficient in.
submitted a non<onformance report on Nov. 3.
believed that the inspector lost his job for re-formation to prevent this from becoming a road-and the faulty matenal was not installed _
porting violations.
block to licensing " Mr. Fiorelli said.
A W Bectnc investigation concluded in De-The NRC report said the utility " failed to rec-However. Juanita Blis, president of Citizens cember that the minor report format was correct ognizethe dgntitcanceof thisevent."'
JEB 0 7100)
Based on the inf ormation discussed during the enforcement conference with TU Electric, the staff has concluded that the incident of potential intimidation of QC receipt inspecters identified in Inspection Report 90-05/05 appears to be an isolated incident.
TU Electric has indicated that they did not handle this incident well and they have taken corrective actions to prevent recurrence of this type of incident.
Although there have been similar problems in the past, the staff has found no other indications that TU Electric currently has a more widespread problem in this regard.
In addition, the recent Operational Readiness Assessment Team inspection generally found that the operations OA staff is adequately prepared and has the proper attitude.
In Inspection Repe-t 90-05/05, the staff previ ously concluded that the Therm-A-Lag material was properly controlled, despite the problems that led to the perception of intimidation, and that the staff could not substantiate the allegation that a OC inspector was terminated as a retali atory action.
Although this was a potentially significant event, the staff concludes that this matter has been adequately resolved for the purpose of the issuance of a low-power operating license.
The staff will consider whether this incident warrants escalated enforcement action and issue its findings on the potential violations identified in 90-05/05 in the near future.
l
w.A,)pdj gO #Q] ]A@4 I Cf 3
.r.;.: -5 h h c%* i,piH.. ;
S 4., m, 1.w u., n,.
'n i A v
as'
! m.-
s c
a, t
EVAi,UATION F02M
'6'
]s f
D) E Of AS$lCKMENT 10 QA DEPARTMENT _ 1-3-89 COWTRACTOR:
niels "
h ATTENDANCE:
3-26-89 to 6-17-89 ACTIVITY AREA 0.C. Feceivine TOTAL HOURS ABSENT:
62.5 11.LMES S 8
PERSONAL:
54.5_
Wo. THIES LATEs J _
Certification (s) or.'aecial 3kt!!as Receiving Inspector /Weldirg_ _ InstG:3calaLicam Mechanical, NDE, EPRI VT 1-2-3-4 EVALUATION CIRCLE ONE 1.
Adaptability or flexibility in handling assignments:
a.
better than other individuals in same activity ares....................
1 b.
about the same as that of other individuals in same activity ares......
{
c.
below that of other individuals in same activity ares..................
5 AMMENTSi 2.
Dependability or reliability in carrying out assignments:
better than other individuals in same activity ares....................
1 a.
b.
about the same as that of other individuals in same activity area......
4 below that of other individuals in same activity ares..................
5 c.
CO W.ENTS:
3.
Productivityi better than other individuals in same activity ares....................
1 a.
b.
about the same as that of other individuals in same activity ares...... 3 c.
below that of other individuals in same activity ares..................
5
- MENTS i 0
I flk m Ap.ea_ -
~
, f[ O
'?'
dr. \\ \\
( '
M*Vo
/f,,; spy 9e o
November 02, 1989 To:
You are hereby notified that your release date with riuor Daniel at the Comanche Peak Project has been established as.
November 03, 1989.
Per project policy concerning employee release, you-are to receive two week's in lieu of notico pay with this reduction.
If there are any changes in your status and/or project policy, you will be notified as soon as possible.
To assist you in the continuation of your company benefits, please review the attached information package before your last day at CPSES so that any questions or assistance required can be taken care of during your exit intetview.
Fluor Daniel appreciates and wishes to thank you for your individual contribution to both the company and to the Project.
,, </ /
/.-v ob N bi -
Darrold F.
u r'li son Sharon Filtingbo Project Quality Manager Sr. HR Specialist i
Please acknowledge this notification by signing the space below and returning the original to Sharon.
in ?".x11ag,: Wh Me fre: ^.n of Information m. _.. h &. L
. d, l'Ct cxn.pkn2 04 g
.WNT**4*PN'**
,.,,_,mm
.,y,
-_m
@ality Control Roy 11/02/89 Movembe r 2, 1989
/
Mdge _ fio._
Soc 181 se c u r i ty flo.
$A us (P' "
The above listed personnel are eligible for two weeks pay in Iteu of notice.
Infrm3Rn in F: reced y,3s dt.!c' j in a::ordar:e 5,ch t A.:t. Oc@cas..]r > rre:.j:n cf in!ctm] hen 0.t l C-Fon-
- l0 - A 1 k
[?
/
~
~
t I'
c
/
Operations QC 11/2/t ACTIVITY AREA NUMBER M BE REDUCED Varehouse QC 2
No Volunteers tretusions lead)
(lead)
Social Security No.
Date of Hire Evaluation Billing Rate 02/22/82 15 18.47 06/08/82 18 33.00 11/29/82 19 18.47 01/30/83 20 31.60 02/01/83 19 31.60 05/19/83 19 31.60 08/14/83 19 31.60 1
06/07/85 24 29.45 09/06/85 23 29.45 02/08/87 25 16.63 02/16/87 17 17.63 08/17/87 24 29.45 01/03/89 18 29.45 01/03/89 21 29,41 - b 04/03/89 22 33.00 - 1 04/17/89 19 33.00 Informa! ion in this toccid W3C deleted in DCCordan:e wiih the Freedom of Information Act, ex2mptions 6 Y 7 C FOIA __.$ M 1 ( _
J
.m Operations QC 11/2/<
I8 ACTIVITY AREA NUMBER TO 8E REDUCED Warehouse QC
_2 No volunteers i
Exclusions Lead)
Lead) y eie3o Social Security No.
Date of Hire Evaluation Billing __ Rate 02/22/82 15 18,47 06/08/82 18 33.00 11/29/82 19 18,47 01/30/83 20 31.60 02/01/83 19 31,60 05/19/83 19 31,60 08/14/83 19 31.60 06/07/85 24 29,45 09/06/85 23 29.45 02/08/87 25 16.63 02/16/87 17 17,63 08/17/87 24 29.45 01/03/89 18
- -9 29.45 01/03/89 21 CO 29.45 4
04/03/89 22 33,00 04/17/89 19
'A 33.00
(
)
- 9. h s
l i
,_..~,.. ~.- _ --,-- _..-_-_.--..~___-.. __. _.-... ____ _ _ - -.... -...._.-. - _---._ ____ __-_.~ --_., -
..-. m.
' +%.7wht Q:.e: n.;
. t
- Ii.* - 9
}i.g @j^.y
" f, n
cl. /
3 0 D::
e p%,,pp
- n.g S
f
~
4
&gygg y".< g..
n November 3, 1989 e
Mr. Darrold Burlison Daniel P.
O.
Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION REDUCTION OF FORCE Below please find a listini of personnel to be returned to your firm effective November 3, 1989.
Assignments in conjunction with subject activities at Comanche Peak are complete.
"y'in';fy,;n,3
~..;:.z :.
..; { +
/,-
e, 3
p..
TO BE GIVEN 2 WEEKS PAY IN LIEU OF NOTICE IF APPLICABLE TU Electric appreciates Daniel',s; technical support of our ef fort at Comanche Peak.
TU ELECTRIC
- I '.
's e
Personnel Processing Center lnformation in this rtCCd was defe'ed in accorknce.,:::p h I'* Chm of information Act, exemptions 191C cc:
Sharon Filtingberger L_
Er
\\
hD' P.o. Box 2300 Glen Rose. Texu 7604).1147 l
Qwality Cont rol ROF 11/03/89 November 3,J989
(
Name B_adge No.
Social Securi g,t4o
~
4 b
D i..
d k
4 k
s lj L
1, v
l
{
i i./
.f 4-I
'i, l ~
9
.; ?b
'4 4
. s>)
'N i
s, ff h
I W
3
/
p l
i
(
,4 I
]
i I
i
.5-Ir. fem] tion ir, tti re:ctd w3S dekt0d Resignation a
in r:0:dJr,:c wd '.).] ftcedam of Inf artr;li: 1 A ;t, c, rgcn3. p j$.,$,
7
, Contractor Trans fe r f0lA 9 h -$ '
\\..
i I
The above listed personnel are eligible for two weeks pay in lieu of notice (with the exception of contractor transfers and resignations).
q_
l l
.