ML20137E751
| ML20137E751 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1984 |
| From: | Noonan V NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136F037 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8601170310 | |
| Download: ML20137E751 (37) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:..vc.. , s - , No \ : UNITED STATES [_ .. 1
. NUCLEAR REG.ULATORY CCMMISSION -
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 OFC 5 1984 A: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing
. Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director Comanche Peak Technical Review Team
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK ACTION ITEMS - SCHEDULE UPDATE Enclosed is the second update to the tabulation of Comanche Peak Action Items. This updates the tabulation of November 9,1984, and provides scheduled actions in the areas of Technical Review Team Licensing, Inspections, and Legal. ' Significant changes are noted below: Civil / Electrical / Test Programs SSER completion is rescheduled to 12/21/84. Mechanical / Miscellaneous SSER completion is rescheduled to 1/11/85. These delays are due to additional work resulting from alleger feedback interviews and to assure coordination of QA aspects of these technical areas with the QA/QC Group. The Coatings SSER will incorporate TRT findings and the NRR technical review of the effects on containment emergency sump perfomance of paint and insulation debris. Completion of the NRR technical review will delay issuance of this-SSER until 1/14/85. - Presentation of the QA/QC findings to the applicant is tentatively planned for 12/19/84. Completion of the QA/QC SSER is rescheduled to 1/11/85. Delays are attributed primarily to the alleger feedback effort and coordination with other TRT Groups.
- Completion of-the efforts by the Contention 5 Panel and Intimidation Panel are scheduled for 1/31/85. We expect the staff to,be ready to resume hearings in mid-February.
Contact:
R. Wessman Ext. 28432 i
,, . n o-C,' ,'. M % .," h i
.'j, JV w '#
j 8601170310 851213 PDR FOIA 1 IE* D
. - GARDE 85-59 PDR e
- f. !
l
* . j
..~.. . ~ , , e 4 Darrell G. Eisenhut -
2-Completion of various inspection activities, mostly dependent on - completion of applicant actions, has slipped to mid-January 1985. . Noteworthy are the large number of fire protection items to be ccmpleted by the applicant. I will be pleased to discuss this with you at your request. r
/
. na , roject J; rector
- omanche P k T chnical Review Team
Enclosure:
As stated cc: R. Martin, Region IV H. Livermore, Region III (TRT) L. Shao, TRT
@hUlyE - / O M R. Keimig, TRT P. Matthews, TRT C. McCracken. TRT B. Hayes,O!
R. Herr,' 01 E. Christenbury, OELD
- J. Scinto, OELD E. Case, NRR R. Vollmer, DE R. Bernero, DSI H. Thompson, DHFS T. Speis, DST B. J. Youngblood, DL T. Novak, DL R. Wessman, DL ,
A. Vietti, DL R. C. Tang, DL W. Oliu, TIDC , R. DeYoung, IE N. Grace, IE E. Jordan, IE J. Axelrad IE T. Ippolito, AEOD J. Gagliardo s l l l . l '
t * . PROJECT DIRECTOR ACTION ITEMS Lead Ccmpletion Item Responsible Date Establish alleger feedback procedure Tang /Hofmayer -draft- Complete
. and tentative contacts schedule -final- 12/7/84 Respond to GAP letters Wessman 12/14/34 SSER Completion:
Integrate 68 group inputs into Tang /Saffell 12/23/34 Mech / Misc. allegations SSER Management Review of SSER Noonan 1/4/85 Publish SSER LB#1 1/11/85 Obtain rest of M Allegations (evaluation will Zudans 12/14/84 be incorporated in Mechanical Group reviews) Complete Review of Several Vendor Allegations: Diesel Generators Bangart 12/14/84 (applicants vendor inspection program) Grinnell Pipe Hangers Shao/Hou 12/14/84 Include vendor reviews in Misc. -Tang /Saffell 12/14/84 section of SSER Develop Program for Handling Vietti/Zudans 12/14/84 future allegations at CPSES . Provide Potential Enforcement Gagliardo 1/18/85 Actions resulting from TRT effort to Region IV for action Publish SSER addressing remaining 1/31/85 TRT issues and results of alleger feedback contacts Assess Applicant actions in response Group Leaders 2/28/85 to NRC " Requests for Information" resulting from TRT effort. Prepare SSER Intimidation Panel Gagliardo 1/31/85 Contention 5 Panel Vollmer 1/31/85 EGG Records Review Effort Poslusny 1/18/85 Actions resulting from McCracken 2/1/85 records review effort 1 1
~
~
. - 1
.u+-.a.4- * *4 *^h*-- . * * * *
-e- 4 .
. _ , .- _s . _ . . . a. _ ~ ~ . - 4 ~ s, v
a TRT ACTION ITEMS Areas: Civil / Electrical / Test Programs . Allegations Note: Issues in these areas provided to applicant 09/18/84 Lead Completion Item Responsible Date Civil Executive Summary for SSER Shao Complete 4 (Electrical / Test Program summaries complete) Finalize 33 SSER sections Group Leaders 12/7 Complete major alleger feedback Jeng/Calvo/Zudans 12/14 interviews Integrate 33 SSER sections into SSER Tang /Hofmayer 12/14 Draft SSER to management Tang 12/14 Issue SSER LBf1 12/21 Complete evaluation of witness "F" Calvo/Keimig/Jeng 12/28 allegations and alleger feedback results Integrate final results of witness Tang 1/11 "F" allegations and alleger feedback contacts into supplemental SSER Response to ASLB memo of 10/01/84 Keimig 12/7 . on " Concerns on Startup' QA" - Area: Coatings Allegations Note: Coatings SSER will integrate results of TRT evaluation'and NRR Technical review of effects on. containment emergency sump performance of paint and insulation debris. Draft 7 SSER Sections on Allegations McCracken 12/7 Complete alleger feedback interviews Matthews 12/14 Integrate TRT Findings with results Matthews (CSB, RSB, 12/21 of NRR coatings safety analysis CPB to assist) Finalize draft of SSER McCracken 12/28
. Coatings Draft SSER to management McCracken 12/28 Issue SSER/ Meet with Applicant LB fl 1/14/85 4
'v g
.g e .
e
~v - "
_ - . .. .t t . , r* - .. . 2-
~
. Lead Completion Item Responsible .Date
. Area: Mechanical Allegations j Note: Issues in this area provided to applicant 11/29/84 - Identify applicant actions Shao/Hou Complete Draft 47 SSER sections Shao/Hou 12/7 Complete alleger feedback interviews Shao/Hou/Zudans 12/14 Mechnical allegations executive Shao/Hou 12/7 4 sumary for SSER Evaluate results of alleger feedback Shao 12/21 Finalize 47 SSER mechanical sections Shao/Hou 12/21 Integrate Mechanical SSER section Tang /Saffell 12/29 with Misc. Section Area: Miscellaneous Allegations Note: Issues in this area provided to applicant 11/29/84 Identify applicant actions Bangart Complete ' Draft 21 SSER sections Bangart Complete Complete alleger feedback interviews Bangart/Zudans r12/14-Evaluate results of alleger feedback Bangart -12/21 Finalize 21 SSER Misc. sections Bangart 12/21 Miscellaneous allegations executive Bangart 12/7
- summary for SSER Integrate Misc. section of SSER with Tang /Sa' fell' . 12/29 Misc. Section
- Area: 0A/QC Allegations Draft 69 SSER sections Livermore 12/7 Identify applicant actions Livermore 12/14 Complete alleger feedback interviews Livermore/Zudans 12/14 Review tentative QA Assessments Noonan/Livermore 12/17 with DL management & Contention 5 Pane)
Letter / Meet with applicant Noonan 12/19 Evaluate results of alleger-feedback Livermore 12/21 QA Allegation Executive Summary Livermore 12/14 for SSER Finalize 69 SSER sections Livermore 12/28 Draft QA SSER to management Tang 12/28 Issue SSER . LB #1 +
- 1/11/85 i
t
, , a .
N
. 1 '
3 *l ,. s LICENSING ACTION ITEMS - A. SER and SSER Unresolved Review Items NRR Staff - Scheduled Open Items Assigned Completion . (1) Preservice'and inservice MEB/C. Hassner ---- inspection and testing program for pumps and valves (not required for licensing as interim relief granted) (2) Safe shutdown system; ASB/P. Hearn 12/31/84 associated circuits (awaitapplicantresponse) (3) Fire protection per CHEB/J. Stang 12/31/84 Appendix R (4) Impact of paint debris on CS8/C. Li 12/21/84 containment sump and long GIB/A. Serkiz
~ tenn core cooling RS8/B. Mann *
(Must consider results of Coatings TRT Group)
~
(5) Cygna. Independent Assess D. Terao 12/14/84 . ment Program (Phase 1 and 2) Confimatory Items (1) TMI II.D.1 Performance MEB/G. Hansner ------ testing of relief and safety valves (awaiting applicant response) (2) TMI II.E.1.1 Test of turbine ASB/P. Hearn 12/21/84 driven AFW pump to operate without ac power (3) TMI II.E.4.2 Capability EQ8/R. Wright 12/31/84 of containment purge valves
.to close in accident conditions (EQB evaluation of 10/24 has .
open items - need Applic.
- action) .
(4) Environmental qualification EQB/H Garg 12/31/84 of N-16. detector and N-16 junction box . s L _. *
~
. - 2' .
, NRR Staff 1 Scheduled )
Confirmatory Items Assigned Comoletion j (5) Response to Generic Letter ICSB/.T. Dunning 12/14/84 1 83-28. Sal w ATWS Events i (6) R'esponse to Generic Letter RSB/J. Guttman 3/85 83-35~, Small Break LOCA Analysis (II.K.3.30) (license condition
' established in SER (6)
License Corditions i (1) Confor' nance with R.G.1.97, LCSB/J. Joyce 12/14/84 l Revision 2, Generic Letter (interim report 82-33 complete) 6/85 (final report) (2) SPDS, Generic Letter 82-33 HFEB/Lipinski 12/14/84 (3) Procedures Generation PSRB/J.Clifford 3/85 Package (license condition establishedpriortoOL) B. Technical' Specifications - (1) Reactor System Branch RSB/S. Diab,B.Mann, 12/31/84 questions regarding C. Moon relationship between stated and measured process var'iables. (awaitin applicant response) g (2) Accuracy of transient CPB/L. Lois 12/31/84 time flow meter (N-16) (awaiting applicant response) C. Board Notifications (1) Cross index of Board LBil/ unassigned 3-man wks. Notifications to SER and SSER sections. (a) Pump Seal. integrity LBil/Burwell 12/31/84 (2) Issue forthcoming LBil/S. Burwell 2-man wks.
- Board Motificattens (8 estimated)
S 4 . g g I g g
- . 9 * '8 g g g
- r. .. ,
' ~ '
t.
'. i _-
-3'
- l
- 0. , :iserir.g Itars - ::E2 Staff Support -
'(1) Motions for Susw.ary Disposit' ion on Piping and Pipe Supports Scheduled Motion Subject Assigned Completion l a.. 0A for pipe support Teledyne/D. Landers 1/7/85 . ~
cesign process 1 , b. ' Pipe support stability ME8/D. Terao 12/7/84 1
- (Applicant's response l incomplete) -
i 1
- c. Cinched U-bolts ETEC/H. Fleck, P. Chen 12/14/84
- d. ASME/AWS Welding PE8/D. Terao 11/2/84-C Codes i
- e. Upper lateral restraint SGE8/F. Rinaldi and 12/14/84 (Applicant's response Brookhaven raised new issue) *
, i
- f. Use of generic stiff- EGC8/J. Fair 11/15/84-C
- ness in piping analysis.
; (Applicant's response
- incomplete) i
- g. Richmond in'serts EGC8/J. Fair 12/1/84-C ,
(Appitcant's response * ' incomplete) i
- h. Wall-to-wall and floor- ETEC/M.- Fleck, P. Chen 12/14/84 to-ceiling piping supports j
- i. U-bolts as 2-way EGC8/J. Fair 12/1/84-C 3 restraints-l j. Force distribution in ETEC/H. Fleck, P. Chen 12/14/84 axial restraints .
l
- k. Damping factors EGC8/J. Fair 11/13/84-C -l
, (Waiting on applicant',s ! response) . I i
- 1. Safety factors EGC8/J. Fair 11/15/84-C
- ' a. Friction due to sma11 EGC8/J. Fair 11/15/84-C thermal movements t
n , q e
; ' ~
l ,
, f. ;. ,
~
l
.P 4
~ .- . - t
'~. , ' ' .,
}
s .
.4 ,
Scheduled Motion Subject Assigned Completion
- n. Local displacements ETEC/J.Bransner, P.Chen 12/14/84 and stresses (applicant's responseincomplete)
- o. Section property EGCB/J. Fair 11/15/84-C values
- p. Effects of gaps on EGCB/J.. Fair 11/15/84-C seismic response of pipe support (2) Hearings on above Motions Staff reviewers Estimated for Sumary Disposition and consultants 8 man-wks.
listed above - (3) Staff affidavits on Cygna MEB/D.'Terao 11/15/84-C IAP (Phase 1 and 2) SGEB/F. Rinaldi RIV/D. Hunnicutt (4) Review of Cynga IAP Terao - (Phase 3) EG&G review - 12/14/84 Staff Review - 12/21/84 (5) Review of Cygna IAP Terao Estimated (Phase 4) Contractor - 6 man-weeks (awaiting CYGNA submittal) Tech Reviewers - 18 man-weeks , , (6) Support OELD in preparation Unassigned- . Estimated of staff testimony, re- Leader 18 man-weeks sponding to ASLB Memorandum - and Orders, and in preparation of Proposed Partial Initial Findings E. Project Management Tasks (1) Correspondence, filing and infonnation retrieval (2 Status tracking and reports (3 Meetings (4 SSER preparation (5 Technical Specifications ' (6 License preparation and concurrence (7) Regional Readiness (8) Briefing Book (9) Review for conformance with regulation and exemption requirements (10) FO!A actions
,3
. r .
___9_ 8
, m _ ,- . - m wm ,, --.s.- -
i.* ',6 . F. Miscellaneous Scheduled Motion Subject Assigned Completion Obtain affidavits from Zech/IE IE Complete Vendor Inspection Branch Bangart/RIV 12/14/84 and Region IV regarding QA applicable to TDI Diesels (Awaiting Region 4 input) , 4 t ,
~
[ '
.--- i. . .*
REGI0lt IV ACTION ltFCES$ARY F0F. ONPl.ETI6l4 PRIOR TO FIKl. LOAD . ,[ , d\c Description Risponsibil ity. Oct. Nov. Dec, Jan 1985 h., ' e i T ~l ~~1 l l 6 It 1 i i it i i i 1 ,,
. .l . Complete Evaluation of Preop. Test Res. Insp. (0ps) .
Licensee Dependent' .
.. Results '
, 2. Witness " Mint" Hot Functional (Thermal Res. Insp. (0ps) .
LicenseeDependent 8
' Expansion) ' '
.- i i i 3; Complete Operating Staff Inspection Res.Insp.(0ps) *
.'4 . Complete Inspection of Maintenance Res.insp.:(0ps)
. , Licensee Dependent , i I
.and Operating Procedures i ;
- 5. Fire Protection / Prevention Assessment .RIV (Murphy) asd . .
Team Inspection BNL, IE, NRR: Staff '
- j. .
- 6. . Complete Open inspection Items on Res. Insp. (0ps) i '
1 5 Preop. Testing QA , , l*
- 7. Close Out of Open Inspection Findings Res.Insp.(0ps/ Con).OngoingFunction-PerformedasRequired Region Based Insps. '
-l
~ '
8 Complete Pre 0L Issuance Requirements Res.Insp.(Ops) . Licensee Dependent , of 2514 Program (Test Procedure Review) ,
- 9. Close Out of Remaining HEDs '(llumen Res.Insp.(Ops) . Licensee Dependent ,
' Factors)
)!
,8
- 10. Emergency Preparedness Exercise and RIV (Baird) and FEMA . ,
. Evaluation * ' '
11.' E$ergency Preparedness Appraisal RlY(Baird) Licensee Dependent ,
~
Significant Deficier.cy Items (9) Close Out
- f .
- 12. Radiation Protection and Radwt.ste RIV (Murray) Licensee Dependent '
OpenItems(6) Closeout '
~
-13. Issue IE Procedure 94300 Letter Res. Insp. (Ops) . . .
'< Emergency Pripatedness Exercise . Scheduled for 11/14/84' ,
- i
- e. g
Dumaen 3,
-HBYEMBER-7,19M C0t1AticilE PEAK llEARiflG ISSUES
-N TECittilCAL STAFF llEARiflG' 1TEll STATUS OR C0ft1ENT RECE1VED DUE DATE COMPl.ETI0li DATE DATE A. PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN /QA
. 1) : letter to Applicants Letter draf ted and s 12/7/84
'.' Requesting information sent in May 1984 to
~ Relating to A500 Steel Region IV. Letter ,
- was not sent to '
.- ,' Applicants
- 2) Applicants' Summary Dispo- D. Terao. 5/17/84 11/2/84 10/31/84
~
sition Motion on AWS/ASt1E ' Staff completed. - Codes for Weld Design i-
- 3) CASE's Answer to Hotion on D. Terao 8/6/84 11/2/84 10/31/84
. AWS/ASHE Codes for Weld Staff completed Design
' 4). Applicants' Susanary Dispo- J. Fair 8/6/84 12/7/84 11/15/84 sition flotion on 08E/SSE Technical draft Danping Factors complete. Attor-neys preparing afft-davit for filing by-12/7/84
' ~
. CASE's Answer to Hotion on 5/17/84 12/7/84 '11/15/84
-08E/SSE Damping Factors
- s. .
',' 5) App 1tcants' Susanary.Dispo- Included in 5/21/84 12/7/84 11/15/84
, sition tiotion on Safety .part(4)
- J -
Factors . e
r ' ? i - I
. TECilHICAL STAFF llEARING ITEtt STATUS OR CONMENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPLETION DATE DATE L .
- .~ .
- . CASE's Partial Answer to 8/28/84 12/7/84 11/15/84 p
. Motion on Safety Factors ,
. - ' 61) - Applicants' Summary Dispo- J. Fair. 5/01/84 12/7/84 11/15/84 sition Motion on Friction includedin(4) q ,. . due to Small Thermal Hove-0 >--
-lments ,
' CASE's Answer to Hotion on 8/6/84 12/7/84 11/15/84
-; Friction l
Applicants' Reply.to CASE 9/19/84 12/7/84 11/15/84 Answer
, CASE Reply to Applicants' 10/1/84 12/7/84 11/15/84
..p.
Reply (: . '
',~) !E) Applicants' Sumary Dispo- J. Fair. 5/21/84 12/7/84 11/15/84 l .
sition Hotion on Section includedin(4) 3 ~' Property Values . [. J. .- . CASE's ' Answer to Motion on- 8/13/84 12/7/84 11/15/84 l{ ,
- Section Property Values -
- 3. '
- . 1r'J) J. Fair. Technical Applicants' Summary Dispo- 5/21/84 1/7/85 11/30/84 sition Motion on Effect of. draft in' progress..
Gaps on Seismic Response Pass copy to TRT to coord. Attorney preparing affidavit. _- ~ CASE's Answer to Hotion on 8/13/84 1/7/85 11/30/84
. . Effect of Gaps .
~J . 9 15) ' Applicants' Susuary Dispo- Brookhaven/SGEB 5/21/84 1/7/85 12/15/84 sition Motion on' Upper need added coord.
.~ -Lateral Restraint with TET findings, .
discussion with G&ll.
_ . _ _ . _ . _ - _ - _ _ .. . _~- _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . - - _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - . . _ . .
~
TECllNICAL STAFF llEARif4G 11 01 STATUS OR COMMEN_T, RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPl.ET10N DATE DATE CASE's Partial Answer to 8/28/84
' ;* Motion on Upper Lateral .
Restraint-'
- r. .-
R) ' . Applicants' Summary Dispo- J. Fair. Technical 5/22/84 12/7/84 11/15/84 ,- .J . sition Motion on Generic position complete. Stiffness Attorney preparing affidavit. .
~ ^
l -
- CASE's Partial Answer to 8/28/84
- Moton ca Generic Stiffness
- - is l'- 'W)' . sition Applicants' Susuary Dispo- J. Fair. Technical 6/2/84 12/7/84 12/1/84
! Motion on Richmond Portion complete. I
~
Inserts Attorney preparing l affidavid. Coord. . with TRT.
~
. CASE's Answer to Motion 9/10/84 ~ '
- - . on Richmond Inserts
.s . .
, .M) Applicants' Summary Dispo- D. Terno. Draft 6/18/84 12/15/84 12/1/84 L , . }. . ,
sition Motion on Stability in progress
' CASE's Motions and Answer Answer to tiotion 10/15/84 '
' to flotion on Stability .
sent on October 19,
- . 1984 f *-. is
- .* - P. Chen 6/26/84. 12/15/84 12/1/84 f
M) ' Applicants' Summary Dispo-
- - sition Motion on Wall to .
.. wa11 Supports ,
~
- l. . CASE's Partial Answer to 8/28/84 '
. Motion on Wall to' Wall
~
l~ . Supports
. *(' i
. . m.
e g 7 , - - ,e , .-4 , - , , - - ,, .,---,a-- . w
l . . -4 l _ , I ^- - - TECilNICAL STAFF llEARING 1T01 . STATUS OR COMMENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPLETION DATE DATE== e r
~
L '..~ Applicants' Reply to CASE's 10/1/84 Answer
- si .
W) Applicants' Summary Dispo- P. Chen 7/11/84 12/15/84 12/1/84
' - sition Motion on Torsional-
~
- - Resistance of Axial Restraints CASE's Answer to Motion on 8/28/84 Axial Restraints is
,, W) Applicants' Summary Dispo- P. Chen 6/19/84 12/15/84 12/1/84
.: . sition Motion on Local l' .
Displacements / Stresses
. CASE's Answer to Motion on '
8/28/84
. Local Stresses
-Applicants' Reply to CASE's 10/8/84'
. . Answer - -
. m . .
- E) Applicants' Susanary'Dispo- J. Fair. Technical 5/24/84 12/15/84 12/1/84 sition Motion on U-8cits Draft comp 1 (2-Way Restraints) Attorney preparing affidavit.
IJ CASE's Answer to Motion on 8/20/84
~ .- U-Bolts (2-Way Restraints) og W) Applicants' Summary Dispo- P. Chen. Still - 6/30/84 12/15/84 12/1/84
~ .sition Motion on U-Bolts need info. from (Cinching) eppitc. Preparing
.- draft, based on' '
existing material
'- - ~ . CASC's Answer to Motion'on 9/28/84 U-Bolt Cinching e ,g e.
-S-
. - TECHNICAL STAFF llEARING DATE
~
',- ITEM STATUS OR ColetENT! RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPLETION DATE t
w-l
- H) Applicants' Sussiary Dispo- D. Landers . 7/10/84 1/15/84 1/7/85 l - sition Motion on Pipe Draf t by 1/1/85. -
. Support Design QA/ Weld Depends on getting .
Audit of Vendor copies.of parts
. (1)-(15) drafts'in
, . week of 12/3.
I -
' CASE's Partial Answer to 10/19/84 1/15/85 1/7/85
,1 Sussary Disposition Motion
- on Pipe Support Design QA
-: CASE Susunary Disposition 10/11/84 1/15/85 1/7/85 Motion on Pipe Support '
Design QA
. B. HELDihG
..- 1) Close-out of welding fabri-cation items from hearing: .
'~. a. preheat -
Letter sent to Affidavit contain-ing Staff assess-
. Applicants, and reply received, ment due 11/20/84 c- . Staff assessment
', necessary.
' . b. tesy. indicating Letter sent to Affidavit contain-crayon use during Applicants, and ing Staff assess-
. interpass ,
reply received, ment due 11/20 Staff assessment neCessary. - -
~
- c. adequacy.of support Letter sent to Affidavit contain-ing Staff assess-
- with alleged downhill Applicants, and weld reply received. ment due 11/20
- Staff assessment ,
I- , necessary.
- w
=
l \ l
- - TECilfl! CAL STAFF llEAdlHG ITEM STATUS OR C0tttENT. RECEIVED DilE DATE COMPLETION DATE DATE 1 .
- d. plug welds in cable letter sent to
- ' spreading room; assur- Applicants, and i ance that this is not reply received.
4 generic Staff assessment
- l .
necessary. ~
- e. t
! regarding weave welding allegation by g M
. f. Reverification of welder systols on Class 5
, hangers (CASE Exhibit 919,p.20)
~ ' -
- 2) Response to p.5 of CASE's 10/11/84 Telephone finding regarding hold- conference call points for weave weld ,
repairs C. FROTECTIVE COATINGS
- 1) Applicants' Summary Dispo- Corpleted: Resolved sition Motion on Near White in Applicants' favor
. Blast
- 2) A'pplicants' Protective Coat- May be affected by 1/15/85 12/28/84 ings Reinspection Program Applicants' App 11-cation to change Safety classifica-tion of Protective Coatings
[ - .
& a
^ -
~
. TECilNICA!. STAFF llEARitid ITEM STATUS OR CfdttENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPLETION DATE DATE ,
- 3) . Applicants' liotion for Awaiting resulting 10/5/84 1/15/85 12/28/84 Surnary Dis esiticn on of this phase of Deferred by Report TRT October 10, 1984 Board Order
- 4) Applicants' Surnary Dispo. - consultant 6/26/84 1/15/85 12/28/84 sition ltation on Itaximum (per -
Reughness Surface Preparatica See 3 above
- 5) Appitcants'SunnaryDispo- 9/16/84 1/15/85 12/28/84 sition Motion-cn Westinshcuse per Cceponents Coatings See 3 above
~
- 6) Board Notificaticn 84-015 See March 15, regarding adhesion testing 13E4 Order, of protective coating pp. 7-8
-' Ercckbaven Interim Report TRT evaluaticn is 12/28/84 scheduled for com-pletion by 12/28/84.
. Brockhaven Interin Report will by con-
. ,, sidered by TRT ,
D. OTHER CCNSTRUCTION ADEQUACY ISSUES Results of Staff Walkdown Inspection reports
- 1) 12/28/84
- Inspections issued re: Fuel-
. Building Cable. .
. Spreading Room Por- -
tions of Containment Room inspection com-
.; ^
r-
_ _ . . _ r _ _..._____ _ .---_ _-_ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . _ - ~ . _ - . -- - - - l - L - \ . l
-8 .
TEOtilCAL STAFF llEARiflG ' ITEM STATUS OR COMENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPT.ETION DATE DATE pleted, asalting *
~
report re: Safeguard -
. Building Auxiliary
- p, - -
Building
' ~ ~
- 2) Results of TRT Aeport '
~ ' ^~
l1 , 3) - CAT Report ' Testinomy concluded;
- proposed findings
~
of fact currently being drafted. Amalting findings of TRT -
~
4)~ polar Crane shim reinspec- Applicants flied . tien . response on 4/g/84 See Inspection ' ~
^
. Report 84-08 .-
5) h .ed renoval of See 3/15/04 Order.
cable trays p.T
' '~. _. 6) Reactor Vessel Mirror Shield Staff Affidsvit' filed -12/28/84 -
on June 4, 1984.
. Ausiting Board -
N ; r :-c. TRY SSER
. .being prepared -
E. INTIMIDATION -
- 1) Board's September 17, OI responded on ' g/17/84
. 1984 Memorandum Direct- . 10/25/84. Board - .
- - ,- - ing Release of O! Reports re w ts the Staff .
to advise it which
,. reports are poten- .
s -
. ~
.l
# 9 .,
, , . .a
_9 TECim! CAL STAFF llEARiti. ITE!1 STATUS OR C0 24ENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPT.ETION DATE DATE tially relevant to licensing proceeding g
- See Memorandum Request for Staff Imalysis) dated 11/2/84
- 2) Recpening cf 'nspection Report Doard request. See 11/30/84
-- 79-15 (7/2/79) Involving Tr. 16,744. tiemo Weldtr.9 of Stainless Steel to Reg. IV sent on Fuel Pcol Liners Octcber 5,1984
, 3) Allegation re: Voiding TRT reviewing 12/28/84
-of hCR by Applicants (QA group) regarding incorrect dates of inspection en a weld data card.
- 4) Intimidation of Protective TRT Ccapleted coatings.CCI 12/28/84 a.M Closed by Board.
Jtpplicants subaltted cffer of proof. Ecard rejected of fer.
- b. COL transcript 15 record.
- c. Testiseny,of M r~etved at Septem- -
ber 12-19.1984 hear- , ing sessicn. Rebut-tal test 16cny flied by , Applicants. TRT SSERs
' ' should address.his -
. concerns.
( ; _- -
_ to - TECIINICAL STAFF llEARit!G ITEM STATUS On C0! MENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPLETION DATE DAIE
~
' d. regnoran- Testimony of M tiov. 19-21 cua M received at ; 1984
. October 1-2, 1984 hearing session.
Further testiro fr and sche ed
. for ctober 29-31,
~
1984 hearing session. 5 5) Should also TRT Completed
. e re erre un er OVERALL 12/28/84 CA/QC PROGRM MATIC ISSUES Category)
- a. M ordered to tacorrectly approve traveller for valve
' . where valve disc nurker
, did not match disc
'! . . nurler on the data report.
- b. 150 reviewers pressured to approve 40150 packages per week.
- c. OC Su ervisor E rdered a .
ewer to leproperly
.- approve a QES sheet.
D . I e . G D 7- -
TECilNICAL STAFF llEARING
. ITEM ,
STATUS OR COMMENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPLETION DATE DATE
. 6) witness F -
TRT raised to 01
.a . ES-100/RG 1.75/IEEE-384 TRT(electrical) i conflict; criteria involv- 12/28/84 ing separation between
, conduit and cable trays b-. Whether failure of TRT(test) -
Westinghouse invertions 12/28/84 was timely reported in accordance with NRC ' regulations, including Part21,andi50.55(e)
- c. Adequacy of XCP-NE8 Procedure for energized functional testing
- d. Adequacy of prerequisite Set forth in and preoperational test October 1, 1984
. procedures Order.
~
- e. 3 incidents of intimi-dation (See' findings of fact)
- f. Whether M approval
. required for STEs to .
s write-up HCRs (Witness F, - Tr. 14,629) 9 Correct. ness of Witness F's 5
' ~
prerequisite tests on Hestir.ghouse inverters. . 4'
.~.
L . ! TECilNICAL STAFF llEARING l ITEM STATUS OR C0tttENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPLETION DATE DATE
- h. Whettier Applicants' pro- .
cedures specify " jump \ points".for testing of
. annunciators (WitnessF, '
Tr. 14.538) ,
- 1. Whether SWA procedure,'
~
or other document, , directs STEs t~o collect l SWAs on the same system
- j. Applicants' procedures (if any) for generating Start-up memoranda
- 7) Termination of % testified ,
g y eposition of 7/3/84 that he was improperly tehninated for reporting ilps. gouge. l laiso claims tiat Staff was not responselve to - his allegation in a meeting following his terminat' ion.
- 8) M Hole on Polar crane rail
, a.
I
. - 6. Rejectable Welding on doors
' e b
e .
- O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ . _ - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
g
~
TECHNICAL STAFF llEARifid ITDi STATUS OR CORiENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPLETION DATE DATE
- c. Inadequate welding on
. diesel generator skids - \ .
Programatic QA/QC - 5 aspects
. 9) EGAG Report on ClimJte of Offered as Staff s Intimidation at CPSES Testimony at September 21, 1984- ~
hearing session
; . , ',10) " T-Shirt Incident .
TRT(electrical) 12/14/84
- i a .- nihether " destructive testing" (deliberately
,. impropertesting)of electrical components / '
systems occurred in Safeguards building.
. , both before and after T-shirt incident . .
~
- b. Follow-up on state .-
ments made to NRC by. ~ utility officials. regarding "destruc-t- . tive testing."
. c .- Adequacy of Procedures -
. . , . for conducting QC elec- -
. trical inspections, and
. . adequacy of implementa- . .
tion g -m
~
. e
- b g,' .
'.'- TECilNICAL STAFF llEARiflG ITEM STATUS OR COMl1ENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPLETION DATE DATE 11)
' a. en w eposition '
his crew, to determine
- if a QC inspector was.-
intimidated
'. b. Adequacy of procedure.s
-for placing hold tags i .on cable tray supports, ,
and adequacy of implemen- - tation
.' 12) M -
[.
. a. Whether stainless' steel De ition, welding was improperly L
. done while " arc gouging"
! was occurring in Horth- . Valve Room *
.. t ..
i -
- b. Whether QC inspector who ,
saw the improper welding ' l was improperly prevent'ed from stopping the' arc. , gouging from continuing at the same time as the welding
- l F. OVERAll. QA/QC PROGRAltiATIC ISSUES
- 1) . Results of TRT Report l
- b. .
TECHNICAL STAFF llEARINd ITEll STATUS OR C0FNENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPT.ETION DATE DATE
~
. Hanagement commitment to an See Jul 29, 1983
..C 2) ' - effective'QA/QC program Drder, ypp. 21-22; i ..~. '
September 23, 1983 Order, p.42, n.100 -
- 3) Applicants new QA/QC program identified as an .
i; . . issue in llarch 15, l.; ' 1984 Order, p.19.
- l ,
Evidence presented during July 1984 _ evidentiary deposi-
- - . tions and September . ^
. i. .
10-21 hearing ses- -
.- , sion. -
l' 4). . Trending of Non-Conform- Open. See March 15, - ing Conditions D- - 1984 Order, p.20 - 5)~ ' Implications of Applicants' Open, See Har'ch 15, failure to develop QA pro.- 1984 Order, p'.6
'cedures for excavation actt- -
- - .vities. - ,
Reverse classification of
'6) ~ Open, See March 15 -
non-safety related struc-
. . . -1984 Order, p.11 .
. tures .
- 7) Unqualified QA/QC Personnel Open. See March 15, ,
. . 1984 Order, p.12
- 8) -
Adequate Number of QA/QC. Open, See'Harch 15, . .
*/-. Personnel- .1984 Order, p.16 -
f o *
- h.
- e
. *\
L- . _ . _ _ _
^
. 4 TECllNICAL STAFF llEARI!!G '
ITEli STATUS OR COINENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPLETION DATE DATE 9). QC oversight of CB&l, as Open, See March 15, raised in Inspection Report 1984 Order, p.12 82-25/82-13
. 10) ' QC oversight of NPSI, as , Open, See March 15, '.
" raised in Inspection Reports 1984 Order, p.13 82-22 and 82-14
, 11) Incorporaton of CllC's Open, See March 15, at DCC 1984 Order, p.15
- 12) Computerization of Non- Open, See January 30, confonnances 1984 Order; Harch 15, I- '
1984 Order, pp.17-
- 18. Applicants' filed several filings. -
- Latest is "Appli-cants' Response Concerning Recort Retrieval" (June 29, 1984)
- . 13) Stainless steel fuel pool / M testimony -
refueling canal liner received at September travellers, and procedures 10-21, 1984 hearing .. for conducting the QA/QC session.' CASE filed activities associated with brief (" CASE"s Evi-
'- welds for those structures dence of a Quality (Originated with M Control Breakdown")
allegations of IllTs). listing all problems , with travellers on Septenber 27, 1984. Further testimony G S
l . TECilNICAl. STAFF llEARIH5; ITEH STATUS OR C0tt1ENT RECEIVED DUE DATE C0HFl.ET10N DATE DATE I a from M expected for . - November 1-2, 1984 hearing session. e Staff will need to respond to CASE's and Applicants' evidence on these issues.
- 14) Document Control roblems as brought out by
^
- 15) Ho response to Open, See allegation that ac fit September 23, 1984 program for CB&I pipe whio Board Order, p.32, restraints was not taken n.81 seriously .
- 16) ' Unstated management directive Open, see 25,
.not to report problems.(concern OctobeF Y5, 1983 .
raised by M Doard Order, p.11; .
. September 23, 1983-Board Order, pp. 34-35; July 24, 1983 Doard Order,
- p. 42
- 17) M pressured to Open, See approve Tennessee wall Tube September 23, 1983 and Hetal Audit Board Order, p. 42
. 1 f .
$ .. ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ .
- _ W -
c___________ __
; TECittilCAL STAFF llEARiflG. .
ITEM STATUS OR COMMENT RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPl.ETION DATE DATE
- 18) Adequacy of Applicants' Vendor Applicants filed 11/30/84 11/20/84 QA Program with regard to Response to Board's t
,T01 diesel generators June 15, 1984 clarification on <
this subject. ,
- 19) Board's October 1,1984 ,
10/1/84 11/15/84 11/1/84 llenorandum (Concerns About StartupQA)
. -G. CYGNA es
~1) Cygna IAP Report Applicants' and Nov. 1983
-(Phases I and !!!) Intervenors' testi-many concluded in April /May. Staff SSER and testimony required 2), Cygna phase !!! Report. tio Staff review July 1984 initiated 3)~ Cygna Phase IV Report To be litigated only if Applicants fall to r vail on Summary Disposition issues
- 4) Applicants' Hotion to Set 10/5/84 10/25/84 Schedule on Cygna Pliase III Report O
_ _ _ _ _ _ .__ _ __ __ _ _ _u _2 _ _ __
TECHNICAL STAFF HEARIH5 ITEM STATUS OR COMMENT . RECEIVED DUE DATE COMPLETION DATE DATE . 4
'H. MISCELLANEOUS .
Board questions. \ 8/22/84 '
- 1) 'Whether IDI for CPSES Will be conducted; in telephone call
. whether SSER on pump to Staff counsel.
seal. integrity will tiemo sent to NRR.
. i. be issued. .
1
-i:;
l- ,
- 5 9 :
9
.,['
i k.,
- e
~s is l 4 e .
4 l'- . < 1 -' 1 i l- %: I. p r ~' . a ( - 4 o ,, . t - - . . . l } . t .
. .-, . s. . , .. .
dc.d _Q - -
~
6 . 4
+ , ..,: : .
*1 -
. i i ,? . _
.a,. .-*e,..g.
... . 3.. ..-..
4
- S g n..,Je i . <Erw,. . r,d ,,:0T.
. u.. .,S .
r-4 Requestor's ID: EDtMD Author's tiar.e: Mizuno/Lucas Document Comments: .
- (when received and due date also)
.' h 1
-F 0
e
~
M Y 6 a 9 e 1 r g 1 3 V c
'I s
ex_ Er' z F b E ? 5 g v
, .u.-
~
a Y 4,
# 4 # #
., .g
- 3 g m t# Y .e 4,
, a % d.
*l.. *e
*
- g g
.g -
-,,f... .1 . v *,- -===e'g,-_,,$,
e
., - , . . , y 4_,[.
. . . y- ,
'A - -
* . *e *
,r'-* f t.;
,. f ,,i , 4 i- *-.,. . , * ' . -.'
, ,, , , . _. .s t 4 6
- 7. e *
.']* . , *- - *
<,4
.; . . . , . _ ,' $ ,_;-_' , , , r.
1
- t e , kAy ,
3 c g' w*.' - - , , - e ,6 +
,. N - - 4,
- s s, -s _
; _.- > _t
. 3 ,*
, *, e , - * . , .~,* ..e,c ..,,,,
- e
- r. ** ,* ,
; i
* 'f'
+ #
$ R '- [ , , _ g e. 5,j
, e-a'- u.- - - - ' - - '
r . . :- , , _s-: . a-. -- - -- = = = = + - . , - - - -a---,- --n
. - , - = = = = - - - - - -
P.O. 80X test otse AOSE. MXA5 Feeds i a - J
,, . .. : , ; > Q,.l. g - ~.
r ': 4 ~h . K -
%. ; . " :. Il ll . Q' fc e " '. *: h 7 , 'q.?.ft.;.): ,3:"N
., p. ?:, g: . ' ;.s , -
i
, - + m REP ~.-+6 Il;.^,C.$.3' $.;
,}' ,
- ', ' 'I . _
, -t
. :.w , .~ . .
- ..n.,
- e. a . m u 1
~ m. m x m DAfs
.. .y..
,. .s.. ..
., . . g. .. . .
. .b.i _ . . '_
- . , l'
' ~ . .', .* ,7* 4 .'d . .f ' h ,' . l %,' c . rg .. ' .- .
-n. ~.;r?;i:" ' _ f ., . ,'-: S?- '1 ;'j.'yslq . '. '.?: L'u
; _u'.;l--}',j]
L.) <'Y'Q 3 '/- M
- #w #59 k foc./ M Map- 'b sK w /.s & ' h
.m Jn A L , & . A A s-f ... . b u . r avi a s - . ..
! 5 1
/3 -fY MM '
t kie . b$14 divuu $4 .sto E
% i Ale =$avisa -
sama g g_
. M S .-
E Y
+
s !
~ -
F0lA-85-59 3 . iD T2.o n a e '. N
=E 4
. ,L-
s .r ll n . ' ' j ' ' *. ' f
~e
. P.O. 00X 1991 'OLEN ROSE. TEXAS Hees -
@lj%.,a.,
p.m . c.d$gm.;.,.,'.j[+jQ r;se;y . .n : :.>e " %n-slMk[:.m}u.sy;:pw.v]. n se. Q Qy $., 0 k.! . ',.} 9%% .J. ik ..
. . DAT*.
, ry 4 .~ ':.; . _ . . ;- 4 k; . .;g t.:._ '_.9 ,j L_ _I
,. 03-OA-94 THE foucarMG i z.s r r s t FsK B w . L s E P -- o w ' " Tws -
t?@ EI , S Cr W/ E2.773 '
;.h
.y.
e I. P.C Al - /f 1TErriS OPEN . [Q
-w
^
- S EP. ~ Q TTEth,S O PiEN i
11
'_ I [W
,2 SIGNED T cT w ..T ee . T. C.
Esse TG PULS 3. Same weerfg asse mens CeretS 1stfu CA Get emTACT. 9. WetTE ag84T. 4. 94TACat .fte.. seg8 8*me Ceev WSTgene enesTE COPT TO temete r F01A-85-59 b621 8 e . O
p----- --
~ ,
OF NOUW RfVER MALL:
~
1 8 1663 WEST HENDERSON
- CLEBURNE. TEXAS 76031 ?'
817-645-5891 SHIRTSQUOTE SHEET 1 INVOICE N COME ON IN -WEAR US OUT y_ ~ Qy }g N AME.- PURCHASE ORDER sotD t TAX EXEMPT # s r .-- - g, (i S M L XL TOTAL RETA8L GriouP EXTEMS40N STYLEe CO.OR DESCRIPflON uJt Yfsb . 1
'I a
V\. M i ;l
\\ > \ .Y H
^W Q
- . 7\ o /-
\ I" ,
\.\P ,, s sue ror= /Fa 7 5 sats 1Ax 9, o -3 necemosy torn sate #97 R DEPOSIT h f/ [h vera ove ou W 4
F01A-85-59 Wsza. I
. p
\
/pm jo, UNITED STATE 5 ' _
i. y, { ,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
; y WASHINGTON. D. C. 20S55 o, a
'$ . ....
- 0CT 111984 l
]O ;
Dear Enclosed please find t papers which we have borrowed from you during our ]g interview with you on On September 19, 1984, a blank copy of confiden S ality agreement was mailed c to you. Please call either Ms. R. C. Tang on (301) 492-8986 or Mr. R. H. Wessman on (301) 492-8432 (both collect) to discuss the terms contained in this agreement. Please note that your request for confidentiality cannot be honored and guaranteed unless this agreement is signed and properly executed. Sincerely,
/)-
~
Thoma . Ippolito, Project Director Comanche Peak Technical Review Team
Enclosure:
As stated , i' F01A-85-59 Q23 DO NOT DISCLOSE (
W p,c W RJ. ~ e.o. sox imi onvuom. nxas reas 3 . gg :
.. , .p.< e m' ~-. .
.. . ' " .. . t r.
;{;yp;;}':;;_ ,.
,; - ~ .: . ~.* .e. , . , a .c.y. . p.s_...
- a... . . . : a, . y y ;. . .
n l.. ~ . 6 * " - +T.:.n w '?v y; i 2 Jig.\w .y.,,;n p.y: 8. ~ - N 2:vss " w: r M': . +
"y
*" cy toc -a ..y . u ?.
9..c :;;. .'.. :y y..
,y..:.e.:: . .y .v;.; m a .;; c? } c *
.,...m-- .:; } ;. 7. y, c . 4. ,. : .5 .. .
;-..~V ; g,?
l}R * '*. > . , .,;..!q. *i-l ^. ._ :!: sy. i . . .i. c,4 e a';'i e4 .9, i e .: 3,. , ,
'l._ j
.d un #
Zhm.5 / + 3 o <t .[D c?!- v'AAuSE-O! wer< fnan [ereJ lo itu-l-003309l Puc4 h1 Tis 's fut <> nof h cl'dcd in pubf e 1 l 5IGNED SY .r c, . v. e c ==.
. ews,e . v. .. SST&Cin efwe step pone tape AETwee timmett 6097 TO .E4044 9 trest. eSPkT 3
& same gee.it ame posse gesets sueTu CAe90ss estfag?
& SEsse TO Joe peka F01A-85-59 I
e a, - 4- - , , . - k.a-,,--- ---- a .~u Ak 4 e,uas i e- A ea~.G.r -na eJ--s---a _ws_.n m.-.as- , e . x_ I 4 I l h j o r f 7 4 s i 73 J:x b Ien;,u[f, l 1 \
%orks Telw ul w E _
w m < ! t Or;g;u b - Te &c3 - - m [ . - . . _ _ _ _ _= = _ _ _ _ I I i
^
i e i i
~
t I h 1 1
. -- - --._. . _ . . _ . - - - .__ . , . _ .,_.._._.-_..,-.-~-..__m_.-. - .__.-__. . . _-_... . _ . . _.--. _ _ _ _ - ._.- . - _ _ , . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . - -
p $9h* , 2,a mas
.J 'e UNITED STATES e l ' c c ,',O. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
j , WASHINGTON, D C. 20S55 A <{y)
\L,/ Fra 2 s 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Those on Attached List FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations .
SUSJECT: PANEL TO PREPARE NRC STAFF POSITION ON CONANCHE PEAK > j HEARING CONTENTION NO. 5 - On December 24, 1984 I established the subject panel and provided initial its charter. Since that time, the charter and the panel guidance composition regarding'een have b clarified td reflect a broader range of expertise and to accomodate agency priorities. This memorandum reflects the panel's charter and changes. To properly assist the Director, Comanche Peak Project in evaluating , Contention 5 and to assist him in the preparation of a comprehensive staff position on Contention 5, a panel composed of senior managers has been-4 formed. The panel is composed of the following individua's: 1 EdwardJordan,IE(Chairperson) ., i Richard Vollmer. IE Alan Herdt, R-II i Robert Warnick, R-III James Snitzek, DEDR0GR Ashok Thadani, NRR - This contention concerns the applicant's adherence to QA/QC requirements and is provided as Enclosure I. The issue of construction QA/QC at Comanche Peak l 1s multifaceted ad is addressed, in part, by many records, documents and in testimony from various sources including the staff, applicant, intervenor,
- and allegers. The background of this contention and associated records span i several years. Various NRC offices have been involved, including Region IV.
l OI, NRR, OELD and IE. Because of their involvement with Comanche Peak regu-latory activities, I am appointing the following personnel u resource support to the panel in their areas of expertise: Joe Sc'nto, DELD '~ Vince Noonan, NRR Thomas Ippolito, AE00
' James Gagliardo. IE
((-[ < - I l ! l Brooks Griffin, OI Dorwin Hunter, R-IV - ]) O L CAet Poslusny, NRR* l j .- _ Ted Sullivan, NRR* L
*Aoministrative and technical support as requested by Panel Chainaain
&o r- -
d'2 I g r,, af, t] , S =i\ // - 1PP
7 i
,P' 'e l
l
. l l
These individuals may be asked to assist in this effort when issues involving their specific area of expertise are being considered, and I request your support in making them available on an "as needed" basis. The product of this effort will be the 1ssistance to the Director, Comanche Peak Project, in preparing a position that integrates the staff findings and - conclusions regarding this Contention. In addition this effort may require panel members, or the panel as a whole, to be prepared to testify concerning panel recommendations in support of the staff position on Contention 5 as ~ ~~ identified by the Director, Comanche Peak Project. Enclosure 2 provides the charter for the panel. The work schedule of the panel as. developed by the Director, Comanche Peak Project, is to be consistent with the hearing schedule and shall be closely coordinated with ELD. The panel will work ~ under the direction of Vincent S. Noonan. Director, Comanche Peak Project, and should provide periodic status briefings to the Deputy Director, NRR. , M\., Willia. . ircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated ec: Panel Members Panel Resource Personnel T. Murley J. Martin 4 e o e 8
ADDRESSEES FOR MEMORANDUM DATED ns 2 s 125 . Victor Stello, Jr, DEDROGR Harold R.- Denton, NRR
.. James Taylor IE Cuy H. Cunningham, III, ELD Clemens J. Heltemes, AEOD -
Nelson Grace, RII James Keppler, RIII , _, Robert' Martin, RIV Ben Hayes, OI
- es v
t
, 4 4
w- . - - . ,,
a ENCLOSURE 1 COMANCHE PEAK CONTENTION 5* Contention 5. The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / - quality control provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, and . the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness testing, expansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC) and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial ' questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Comission cannot make the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operatir.g license for Comanche Peak. (CFUR 4A-ACORN 14-CASE 19 JOINT Contention) l 1 i
*Reproducec from Board Order Subsequent to the Prehearing Conference of .
l April 30, 1980 (dated June 16,1980) , , e
,--,y+- ---c. .
- --e---w-1,-----
_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,-n -- e- - - ee-. -- -- e--- - ---
.. 1 e: e. - .
l l l 1 l ENCLOSURE 2 9 CDMANCHE PEAK C0KTENTION 5 PANEL CHARTER * - I. PURPOSE I The purpose of this panel is to assist the Director Comanche Peak - - ' Project, to evaluate in an integrated manner the information developed by the staff which bears upon QA/QC and overall plant quality. The objectives are: A. To assis't the Director,' Comanche Peak Project to make the staff determination regarding the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a) as related to Contention 5. B. To provide an integrated review and feedback to the Director. Comanche Peak Project, on information bearing on Contention 5 along with the identification of problem areas and appropriate reconnendations for NRC actions or, propcsed solutions. C. To be prepared to testify as needed individually or as-a panel, concerning panel recomendations in support of the staff position on Contention 5 as identified by the Director. II. MEMBERSHIP . Edward Jordan, IE (Chairperson) Richard Vollmer, IE Alan Herdt, P-II Robert Warn?tk R-III
, James Snfezek, DEDROGR Ashok Thadani, NRR III. PANEL SCOPE A. Under the guidance of the Director, Comanche. Peak Project the panel shall become familiar with and consider findings of past 4
' and current NRC staff activities and applicant actions in response t to NRC findings as they relate to the matters addressed in Contention 5. Specifically, the panel shall consider the results of: ,
1
- 1) Region IV inspections
- 2) CAT inspections -
l - 8 T t o
. . - - , - , . . - - - - ,,-.y_.-.,.- e- - -- ----._ . . - . ,v-- - - _ . ,, . - .-
~
.- r <. ' .
f
'l
- 3) OI investigations Technical Review Team inspections l 4)
- 5) Enforcement actions '
6 Special Review Team inspection ! 7 SALP reports 8 Staff analysis of CYGNA Report . ;
- 9) Staff summary of the Hearing Record Additionally, the panel may examine the result of other staff '-
activities which may bear on their findings related to Contention 5 l if directed to do so. B. The Direc1!or, Comanche Peak Project will arrange for staff members i to brief the panel on findings related to Contention 5 The Director will also set up meetings with the intervenor and the applicant to discuss matters which they respectively believe are most significant as related to Contention 5. Any such meetings will be.open to the public. The panel should properly characterize the collective concerns raised by the staff, intervenor and ! applicant and review /coment on the applicants plan to address i these concerns. The panel should then advise the Director, comanche Peak Project on its recomendations. C. During conduct of panel activities, the panel should advise the Director, Comanche Peak Project of areas where it appears additional NRC activity may be warranted in order to address the issues raised in Contention 5. , IV. PANEL OPERATING PROCEDURES i' A. Panel meetings will be held as established by the Chairperson. The r Directer, Comanche Peak Project will arrange all meetings with the i applicant, intervenor or allegers. Meetings with NRC staff and l staff consultants shall be considered pr,edecisional, l B. A quorum for conduct of panel business will consist of four members. i In the temporary absence of the Chairperson, the Chairperson may I designate an acting Chairperson. l C. Briefings by the principal NRC reviewers in each of the areas identi- ; I ' fied in Section III.A will be obtained. Reviewers will suunarize the ; scope of their reviews, deficiencies noted, root causes of such deficiencies and applicant corrective actions. Likewise, the reviewers ! , are to discuss those areas where no deficiencies were found. I D. The panel should analyze the information presented by NRC reviewers ! contained in source documents which the panel reviews, obtained by discussio s with the appjicant, intervenor and staff and observed during site reviews in arriving at its recommendations regarding Contention 5 and should continually provide feedback to the Director, Comanche Peak Project. l
r
.. r I , .
E. The panel should keep apprised of the ongoing agency activities related to Contention 5 and promptly identify conflicts or problems to the Director. Comanche Peak Project. V. RECORD AND REPORTING
~
A. The panel will work under the direction of Vincent S. Noonan. Director of the Comanche Peak Project, and should provide periodic status briefings to the Deputy Director. NRR. - -- B. The panel shall keep such records of activities to assist it in arriving at recommendations regarding Contention 5, as requested by the Qirector. Such records shall be considered predecisional until staff testimony regarding Cbntention 5 is provided to the Hearing Board. O e , = s l l
_ __ . _ . ~ . . . .._._ __ _.-_.._ _ __ _ _ _ . ._. .__ .. _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . _
". . Attachment 1
*m A usuvuns m us
- 's/ e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS540N -
; i ) unemessvoss.n.c.assus t .
f
\ .. .#
. MAR 12154
!-}
't IEMORANDUM FOR: John T. Collins, Regional Administrator 3 Region IV - Harold R. Denton, Director ..' 3 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation . I Richard C. DeYoung Director *
' Office of Inspection A, Enforcement -
l
- i
- FROM: William J. Dircks :- l Executive Director for Operations !
) i
SUBJECT:
CtkPLETION OF OUTSTAMDING REGULATORY ACTIONS ON ! CDMANCHE PEAK AND WATERFORD I i 4 i Construction of the Comanche Peak and Waterford facilities is nearing I
) completion. There remain a number of issues that need to be mselved before ! the staff'can make its licensing decisions. The issues reamining for these j plants are quite complex and span more than one Office. .In order to assure the overall coordination / integration of these issues and to assem issues are resolved on a schedule to satisfy hearing and licensing decision needs,
! I au directing NRR to manage all necessary NRC actions leading to pwt l' , licensing decisions. Darrell Eisenhut Director, Division of Licensing, NRR
- is being assigned the lead responsibility for this activity. He will b, coordinate the efforts of NRR, IE, and Region IV, and will coordinate this
! activity with OI and OELD. Prior to any of the affected Offices undertaking
- major activities (e.g., inspections) or making decisions on these plants, I that activity should be concurred in by NRR.
I j We are present1y'in the process of assigning a dedicated senior manager to ! assist Mr. Eisenhut in the management of these activities. t j The first phase of this program will be the identification of issues needed ,~; to be resolved for each plant prior to hearing and licensing decisions. i 1 Once the issues have been identified a Program Plan for resolution of each 1 i item should be developed and implemented. The Program Plan should address the scope of the uork needed, the identification of the responsible line
- organization, and the schedule for completion. In principle, this effort j will therefore be similar to the effort undertaken regarding the all'egacion
, 3 review on Diablo Canyon except that this effort should encompass all
'! licensing, inspection, hearing, and allegation issues.
k f** g ( wv f / d #7 O b<Lr - m, k/ N Yh f~i ,v.s h 9 -, 4p,p
.]I .
_ . . . _ . . _ _ _ .__,____m _ _ . _ _
=_=.-.
- l.
- L .
; . 2 i 1
.~
! Each affected Office will assign a full time senior manager to work with NRR
! to define,, schedule and complete the issues. I expect these managers to be identified by each of you within a few days. All affected offices should
- provide dedicated resources and give their full support to this effort, to assure that all existing issues are expeditiously handled and all new issues 1
., are promptly provided to NRA so as not to delay the licensing decisions. In addition, copies of all infomstion, documents, depositions, etc. should be promptly provided to NRR to ensure a coordinated approach.
I anticipate that the approach utilized here will be necessary for a number , i of upcoming OL projects, and an directing NRR to take the lead for carrying
.' out this activity.
~
i; - . ty . , Wil J. Diecks Executive' Director for Operations
! cc: 8. Cunningham. ELD
- 3.14 eyes. O!
I - ) i e i l 1 l h 9 lI Ii i e i s
% 4 h
I. . .
'me+
* . ,. = . . > . ,.,a ~.J. .s.
. . . . . ...__w . .,.s. . . . < -
- . . , . . _ . , _ . - - - , . , . .__,, --.,__,.,..__...,...,,.,__._,,-.._.m. _ . . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , . _ . _
i
-(
, e r
. lcVERAt.L PANAGDiENT - .
i -i -
. COORDINATION (NRR) a -
c 01 Contact , E.D contact 1 -
, t 4
i l = ,
}
F "Overall Review of Review of Construction QA Adecuacy*(CAT) Rev.ew d of Design and Coeration Issues (IE) Issues (Reg IV) o . (RRR) l 4 J j - d 4 . k i .I
- .t .
9
.O i
O e 1
- f
. S 1
e 6 l 4 y 6 9 a i 1 g
----r+ = -ww- g-w---vg +-+--e-7 - +- - 4 ,- -ew-- -
wv- -ww--r-----,y.--, -. .- - - - - - -- - g- ', -w awe *-t>e-.-ew--
k _ . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ .. . . . . ,.$..a... . . , . . . _ . . . , . . ...., . ..u__ l1
. ., .i f t..
4 , FIGURE 1
; COMANCHE PEAK Major Regulatory Actions Schedule . ,
I e REGULATORY j ACTIONS May June July August September October j . Licensine(SERs) X--------------------------------------------------------------X 1 t. I Hearine Testimony lJ submittals to A5LB X------------------------------------------------------X I:
, i t .
I i-i Inspections X--------------------------------------------------------------X .} 1 4 i < r
- r . .a
!r
- j1
;X-------------'--------------'---------------------------------X 1"
- Alleentions
. i 1- } ,
1 s
. 1 A i . r 4
.f]
p 8
\
e'. ) N p
- m : %
=# -
,F -
. ., ~
. \. ,
, s k' w k 4
I ;
- i
, .". -=
y T
-s.
f ..
- t .,
4 h p W ,.
. . - - - . . . . .. . - . _ . . - . . , : . . . . .t . . ;, . . . .. . :._...-. ,
1
.9 l..
t FIGURE 1 e, COMANCHE PEAK Major Regulatory Actions Schedule l-REGUI.ATORY . ! ACTIONS May June July August September October i l.icensing(SERs) X--------------------------------------------------------------X f 4
. '5 , f.- Hearing Testimony submittals to A51.B- X------------------------------------------------------X [
i
} r i- . I.- Inspections X--------------------------------------------------------------X i -t i
[ . i, Allegations X-------------------------------------------X f
- I '
iI e e e O i, 9
7
~-._&_... . . n . ..- . .. . . . ;;.u . . . . . . . _ . , , . ._ .;- ... _ ,
6 .
' j ,
FIGI)RC ? .. COMANCHE PEAK .' I LICENSING REVIEW SCllEIMil.E
- j -_ ,
i Regulatory Responsible
.; ' Action Organization May June July Autust September Octnher- <
c i i i i I i i i i i l I I i e i i i
- 1. FSAR Open Issues NRR/DE DSI t------------< ------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------)
-DHFS, IE '
4 Issues Remain j (TMIissue;3 sub-items)-
- 1
- 2. . Confirmatory HRR/DE,DSI t------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------- -------------------) ,-
Issues Required
. For Unit 1 .
. .i License; 10 i'! Issues-Remain .
.(TMI issue; '
i 12 suh-items) . l. l *. 3. License,Conds.- NRR/DE t------------- ------------ ----------------
------X 2 Issues Remain-
-4 . Technical Specif.. NRR/DE,DSI t------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------
------ :------ -------------------)
o 5 Issues. Remain
-{'5. New' Issues. Raised by NRC; 7 Issues NRR/DSI,NMSS, t------------.
------------ ---------------- -------------- -------------------) ;
Remain.'(includinn Financial Qualifications) .
- 6 New Issues Raised NPR/DHFS,DE t------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
------X i by Applicant DL, DSI .
.6 Issues Remain 4
4
- 7. Gustanding Gen. HRR/DSI, IE t------------- ------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------
-------------------)
4
- l- ~Ltrs; 3 Remain r 1 I
+,
d {
+
u , , - -w , . - - , - . , , , - _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
; --. .- - . ~ ... .-- . . . - ;c...u. . . ,.;... . .; x._ . -
~
Firilp 3 - CORXETW7EAK . '*01 L1;lting
'. ' l;
** Technical Review Team (TRT) -"
HEARING TESTIMONY PREPARATION AND SilBMITTAL SCHEDULE Regulatory Responsible Action Organization May June July August September Oc tohc. : + 1 I i ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- 1. Independent Assessment
- a. IAP-Cygna NRR/DE DL IE X----- -------------- ---X '
- b. A Ilcant's Plan NRR/DE, DSI, IE (---------------------------M .
W/D concerns)
- 2.
- Intimidation / NRR/DL,OELD (-------------" -------------- -------------- " '
Harassment Issues 3.**QA/QC Program TRT < (--------- -------------~-------------- -------------- " Issues 4.** Pipe Support TRT (--------- -------------. ------------- --X j.:
, Issues i
- 5. Welding issues NRR/DE,RIV,IE X------- ------------- (
4 (Followup) 6.** Coating Issues- RIV (LANL), NRR/DE t--------- ------------- ------X
. 7. Vendor. Generic l a '. Transamerica TDI Task Force (--------------------X . ! Delaval Diesel .
, j . Generators
~ l > 8. Miscellaneous '
. y a.** Staff Walkdown TRT (------------ , i (includes Cable Tray)
- b. Polar Crane RIV (---------- ------X
, Reinspection c; Mirror Shield RIV (--------- ( ,
s- _ _ ____ m_- _ - e , ~ .. .
, -_..... .... . .x..... . . . . . . . s.: _. _ m .. . . . . . .,
, H
. i FIGURE 4 COMANCHE PEAK SCHEDULE INSPECTION AND REGIONAL RESPONSIBil.ITIES
, April May June July. _ Augu.st September October I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i l l 3-Construction Inspec. X---------- ------------- ------------------ "------ --X MC 2512' Construction Inspec. X---------- --------------------------------------- -----------X Items Followup
. l:50.55(e). Items, X------------------- .---- -------------
-----------X .
Part 21 Items ! Followup Primarily Preoperation X Primarily Test Witnessing 2-Proc edures Review -------------------X Test Inspections MC 2513 Results Review - j' Preoperational X----------- ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------X Inspec. Items Followup t Startup Test Procedures Review i X----------- ----- ,------ -------------------X X-Post-OL--- -----X. f Program Inspec. Witnessing : MC 2514 ! Operational K ( K (Final Rpt) I R:adiness Report i per Module 94300 SER Verification X-Items from SSER's 1-4 X X Itsas from SSER 5
------------------- (
i IE Bulletins Inspec. X------------ ------------- ------------- ------------X I i' Miscellaneous X------------ ------------- ------------- -------------
---------X Allegations R: solution Operator Licensing 'X--------- --------X ,
_ w - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ - _ - - - _ . . m__. _
, . . - - . . . . .........u.. .: ..,i
. . . x ,
'/
FICilRE 5 ~
. . r-COMANCllE PEAK . .
Allegations Resolution Schedule April May June July August September October 1 I I I I i 1 i i 1 i i i 1 1 I I I I I I ,
- 1. Plan Approval X
- 2. Personnel .X-----X
- i. - Arrangenent ;
- 3. Obtain Logistic X------ --- X Support ,
- 4. Develop Review X-------------X Packages ,
'5. Task Force X Briefing &
Assignments ,
- 6. First Site X--X Review Period ,
l 7.- Second Site X-- ---X.
; Review Period-
- Lt I,*
l 8 Third Site' . X-----) - Review Period i- 9. Prepare Final 1----X I- Draft SSER
< 10. Management
. -X---X l Review ;
i
-11. -Final Report X----X ,
i
- 17. . Suhmit Report '
X' to ASLR
l e ]fip. ...,jo, UNITED STATES
- y h eg i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION {
j wAse*maron, o. c.aossa g p g j/ DEC 2 41984 j i V.W..4. ! i MEMORANDUM FOR: Those on Attached List FROM: William J. Dircks . Executive Director for Operations l
SUBJECT:
FORMATION OF PANEL TO PREPARE NRC STAFF POSITION OM COMANCHE PEAK HEARING CONTENTION NO. 5 The staff's formal positions on the Comanche Peak facility are nearing completion. The ASLB Hearings, which have been in progress for three years and are expected to resume in February 1985, have resolved all contentions except Contention No. 5. This contention concerns the Applicants' adherence to QA/QC requirements and is provided as Enclosure 1. The issue 4 of construction QA/QC at Comanche Peak is multi-faceted and is addressed, ' in part, by many records, oocuments and in testimony frtna various sources including the Staff, Applicants, Intervenors.. and Allegers. The background of this contention and associated records span several years. Various NRC offices have been involved, including Region IV, 01, NRR. OELD and IE. . To properly evaluate this contention and to prepare a comprehensive staff position, I am directing the formation of a panel composed of senior managers drawn from your offices. This panel is to be composed of the following individuals: Edward Jordan, IE (Chairperson) Richard Vollmer, NRR Alan Herdt, R-JI Robert Warnick, R-III Roger Fortuna, OI Because of their previous association with Comanche Peak regulatory activities, I am appointing the following advisors to the panel: Joe Scinto, 06.0 Vince Noonan, NRR Thomas Ippolito, AE00 James Gagliardo, IE Brooks Griffin, O! Dorwin Hunter, R-IV Bruce Kaplan EG&G The advisors may occasionally be asked to assist the panel when issues involving their specific area of expertise are being considered, and I reouest your support in making them available on an "as-needed basis. } 1,n . w. FDA-85-59. U /L(WI V /J% pr\ - g
] g. I
s.
~
Those on Attached List The product of the Panel's effort will be a report similar to a SSER. that states clear staff conclusions regarding this Contention. Enclosure 2 provides the outline of a Charter for this Panel. As the first order of business, the Panel will develop a working Charter which shall be submitted for my approval. The scheduled completion of the Panel's action is January' 31,1985. I expect the Panel to establish its own schedule, consistent with the resumption of the hearing process. Enclosure 3 provides a proposed milestone summary. The Panel will work under the direction of Vincent S. Noonan, Director of Cananche Peak Project and should provide periodic status briefings to the Director of Licensing. b William J. Dircks Executive Director i for Operations j
Enclosures:
As stated cc: B. Hayes,lDI Panel Members i Panel Advisors , i. i r s s
, .9, - -, e - - ' ' '
, po Addressees List:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director - Jack Heltenes, Director Office of the Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator Region II James Keppler, Regional Administrator Region III
. Robert Martin, Regional Administrator Region IV i
f 4 e9 6 F
,.ee i _ __ _ - - _ . - - - - . -_- . _ - - -
ENCLOSURE 1 COMANCHE FEAK CONTENTION 5* Contention 5. The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix 8 of 10 CFR Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, stael, fracture toughness testing, expansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials ' used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC, and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak. (CFUR 4A-ACORN 14-CASE 19 JOINT Contention) 1 i f 1
- Reproduced from Board Order Subsequent to the Pre-hearing Conference of April 30, 1980 (dated June 16, 1980)
O O i
e ENCLOSURE 2 . COMANCHE PEAK CONTENTION 5 PANEL CHARTER 08JECTIVES ' 1) To make the staff detemination regarding the Applicants' adherence to the QA/QC requirements described in Contention 5.
- 2) Provide a report to management reflecting the panel's determination.
- 3) Provide panel testimony before the Comanche Peak ASL8.
PURPOSE The purpcse of this Panel is to integrate the views and experience of senior NRC managers to yield a staff determination regarding Contention 5. MEMBERSHIP Nelson Grace IE (Chairperson) Richard Vollmer, NRR Edward Jordan, IE Robert Warnick, R-III
- Alan Herdt, R-II Roger Fortuna, 0I Advisors Joe Scinto, OELD Vince Nconan, NRR Thomas Ippolito AE00 James Gagliardo. IE
! Brooks Griffin, O!
Darwin Hunter, R-IV Bruce Kaplan, EG&G 4
+
i f I i
- . - - = - . . . - . _ _. ..
4 ACTION ITEwS 1-
- 1) Define criteria for judging the adequacy of the Applicants' adherence to the QA/QC requirements described in Contention 5.
- 2) C:nduct-a records review. The Panel members should examine and analyze the following records.
- a. CAT Report '
- b. CYGNA Reports
- c. Hearing Records / Summary Depositions 4
- d. OI Reports
- e. Enforcement Actions -'
- f. SALP Reports
- g. Reg. IV Inspection Reports '
. h. TRT Repcrts
- i. Special Review Team Report To make the workload manageable, sussiaries of records or briefings to the panel requested.
by key individuals associated and familiar with the. records may be
- 3) Routinely interface with the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and consider input provided by that Panel.
)'
- 4) For each type of records (a.-i.) the team members will prepare a
' summary of findings highlighting problem areas and root causes, as related to Contention #5.
- 5) The panel, as a body, will consider the finding saunaries, briefings provided by key NRC personnel, and other relevant information to develop the staff position on Contention #5 in the format of an SSER.
- 6) The panel will be required as necessary to provide both written and l oral testimony before the ASLB.
i e I 4
~ + - , v--e ,w - - , - ---, ,- n - - - --- -- , e-. - - - - , - - e - - ,- -. --w. - --
*};. ..
f ENCLOSURE 3 CONTENTION 5 PANEL SCHEDULE , December ~ January , Initial Panel Meeting Obtain relevant documents Document Reviews i Consolidate Individual (Caveloped by Panel, consistent views, Develop Panel 1 consensus with resumption of hearings at the end of January 1985) Prepare Panel Report Report Staff Position to Management . Prepare Testimony _ for ASLB i 1 d l l I I i j
-. - - . .. .. . ~ - _ - . - - . . . _ . _ - - . -.
o
- - . .p l-
_r ,,{s- f,, . UNITED STATES , 3 w a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COh.. AION g p.gj j waswincrow. o.c.neses
%g*.c, f m a 285 i'
_ e-Docket Nos.: 50-445/446 Mr. M. D. Spence, President . . Texas Utilities Generating Company 400 N. Olive Street i Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Spence:
Subject:
Formation of Two Panels Consisting of NRC Senior . 4 Staff Management to Address Comanche Peak Hearing Issues j On December 24, 1984, the Executive Director for Operations directed the formation of two panels consisting of NRC senior staff management. One panel
- will prepare the NRC staff position on the Comanche Peak Hearing Contention No. 5. The second panel will prepare the NRC staff position on whether
, intimidation occurred and make a determination on the effects of any such intimidation on the overall QA/QC Program at Comanche Peak.
. A copy of the two memoranda directing the formation of each panel.is provided i for your information. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and operating
! license proceeding are being notified by a Board Notification. If the Panels . wish information from TUEC, arrangements will be made through Mr. Moonan's 2
3 office.
. tor Division oF Licensing
. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Service List 6 I
~
~
11 1,11r'l/l FCIA-85-59 g e _l' > __ Q2U' bl} OM w
. l '. .
COMANCHE PEAK Mr. M. D. Spence i '~ President
- l Texas Utilities Generating Company ,
! 400 N. Olive St , L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 , c:: Micholas S. Reynolds. Esq. ' Mr. James E. Cumins 31 shop. Libeman, Cook. Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak
- Purcell & Reynolds Nuclear Power Station 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W. c/o U. 3. Nuclear Regulatory
- Washington. D. C. 20036 Comission P. O. Box 38
- Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq. Glen Rose. Texas 76043 Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & ,
Wooldridge Mr. Robert D. Martin
- 2001 Bryan Tow,er Suite 2500 U. 3. NRC. Negion IV
, Dallas Texas 75201 611 Ryan Plaza Drive
. Suite 1000 Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Arlington. Texas 76011 Manager - Nuclear Services Texas Utilities Generating Company Mr. Lanny Alan Sinkin
- Skyway Tower 114 W. 7th, Suite 220~
! . 400 North Olive Street Austin, Texas 78701
- L. B. 81
- Dallas, Texas 75201 B.;R. Clanents Vice President Nuclear Mr. H. R. Rock Texas Utilities Generating Company
, Gibbs and Hill, Inc. Skyway Tower , 293 Seventh Avenue 400 North Olive Street : New York, New York 10001 L.'E. El ' Dallas. Texas 75201 . Mr. A. T. Parker Westinghouse Electric Corporation William A. Burchette. Esq. P. O. Box 355 1200 New Hampshire Avenue. N. W. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Suite 420 l Washington,3. C. 20036 l Renea Hicks, Esq. . Assistant Attorney General Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Environmental Protection Division Citizens Clinic Director P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Government Accountability Project Austin, Texas 78711 1901 Que Street, N. W.
- Wasisington, D. C. 20009 Mrs. Juaefta Ellis, President Citizens. Association for Sound David R. Pigott. Esq.
Energy. _ Orrick. Herrington & Sutcliffe - i 1425 South Polk. 600 Montgomery Street l Dallas, Texas 75224 , San Francisco California 94111 j Ms. Nancy H. Williams Anthony Z. Roisman Esq. I CYGNA Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1 101 California Street 2000 P. Street, N. W. l San Francisco, California 94111 Suite 611 , ! Washington, D. C. 20036 l
. ,. . g. .
COMANCHE PEAK -2 cc: Mr. Dennis Kelley ResidenY Tnspector - Comanche Peak - c/o U. S. NRC ; P. O. Box 7029 Granbury. Texas 76048 ' Mr. John W. Beck Manager - Licensing Texas Utilities Electric Iospany i Skyway Tower 400 N. Olive Street ~ L. B. 81 Dallas, Texas .75201 Mr. Jack Redding Licensing Texas Utilities Generating Compary 4901 Fairmont Avenue Bethesda Maryland 20014 b 4 I g 0 e O t
.mo O
-. I
- -- .- - ., a - -- - - -- - - - ,
n , - --
I [ y ).) e \a umTa3 STATES
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- y. -m-
- %, .'. ./] DEC24 8 j
- . c-
! MEMORAldhTFOR: Those on Attached List - 1 ; sFRON:
~
William J. Dircks Executiire Director for Operations [ * ' l
- i
SUBJECT:
FORMATION 0F PANEL TO PREPARE NRC STAFF POSITION < j . .0N COMANCHE PEAK HEARING CONTENTION N0. 5 i l i The staff's formal positions on the Comanche Peak facility are nearing ! i completion. The ASLB Hearings, which have been in propress for three years ! ! , and are expected p msume in February 1985, have reso ved all contentions i except Contention'No. 5. This contention concerns the Applicants' ; ! adherence to QA/QC requirements and is provided as Enclosure 1. The issue i of construction OA/QC at Comanche Peak is multi-faceted and is add.issed.
- in part, by many records, documents and in testimony from various sources !
including the Staff. Applicants. Intervenors, and A11egers. The background of'this contention and associated records span several years. Various NRC
- offices have been involved, including Region IV. 01. NRR DELD and IE. - ,
i j To properly evaluate this contention and to prepare a comprehensiv's staff position. I an directing the formation of a panel composed of senior managers ! i drawn from your offices. This panel is to.be composed of the follouing
- individuals
- -
EdwardJordan,IE(Chairperson) - - - - l Richard Vollmer. NRR l - Alan Herdt. R-II
- Robert Warnick R-III j Roger Fortuna. 01 ,,
4 l' Secause of their previous association with Comanche Peak regulatory
- activities, I am appointing the following advisors to the panel
i 4 Joe.Scinto. ELD Vince Noonan. NRR
. Thomas Ippolito. AEG) -
James Gagliardo. IE
*~
Brooks Griffin O! Domin Hunter. R-IV - - l Bruce Kaplan..EG&G l ~
- The advisprs may occasionally be asked to assist the panel when issues involving, their specific area of expertise are being considered, and I .
request your support in making them available on an "as-needed basis. I l o z.uw' *qw - O f p_ .s l 9 l l 1 ()t - i
Those on Attached List r-b I The product of the Panel's effort will be a report similar to a SSER. .
.. 4 hat staterclear staff conclusions regarding this Contention. Enclosure 2 provides the outline of a Charter for this Panel. As the first order of business. the Panel will develop a working Charter which shall be submitted for w approval.
The scheduled completion of the Panel's action is January 31. 1985. I expect the Panel to establish its own schedule, consistent with the resumption of
- the hearing process. Enclosure 3 provides a proposed milestone summary.
l
' The Panel will work under the direction of Vincent 5. Noonan. Director of i
Comanche Peak Project, and should provide periodic status briefings to the Director of Licensing. M I Willi . Dircks
! Executive Director -
4 t for Operations -
Enclosures:
As stated , cc: 8. Hayes, 01 . . . Panel Maubers ! Panel Advisors - - I !I b J J I )
- e
. .e 1
j . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ... l l _ . -,._ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ ___ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
g Addresseas. List: , , ? Harold R. Qanton Director I a 4ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ! Richard C.'DeYoung. Directon
- Office of Inspection and Enforcement 1 Guy H. Cunningham. III l Executive Legal Director -
Jack Heltames, Director. Office of the Analysis and ' i Evaluation of Operational Cata James P. O'Reilly, Regional A ministrator Region II i Ja5s Keppler, Regional Administrator ~
, Region III Robert Martin Regional Adstnistrator
. Regio 6,IV 4 . .
l , q * * . l 4 . i . ' I 1
& , O 9
9 e e O t . l l l l I e W ## 9 .t 4- .te e e eg,gg 43 a g4 g g , ge ,e, g , l l
. ,s-i 1
c ! ENCLG5URE l' 4 *5. i i COMANCHE PEAK CONTENTION'5* ! Contention 5. The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construction pemits for Comanche ! Peak, Units 1 and 2. and the requirements of Appendix 8 of 10 CFR Part 50, and { _ the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work.
- ' mortar blocks steel.? fracture toughness testing. expansion joints, placement j of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding. inspection and testing, materials used,craftlaborqualificationsandworkingconditions(astheymayaffect
- QA/QC, and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised a
substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. < As a result. the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak. . l (CFUR 4A-ACORN 14-CASE 19 JOINT Contention) , j
~
] , 1, i . I 4 l ' ) 4 1 ,
' Reproduced fsom Board Crder Subsequent to the Pre-hearing Conference of April 30,198p(datedJune 16, 1980)
. aue i
I +. . . . l a - - - - - . - -- . - - - - . -.- - .- - - - - - . _ . - - - -
^ l f .
i
~
ACTION ITUtS~!- s i 1) Deffire criteria for judging the adequacy of the Applicants' . j adherence to the QA/QC requirements described in Contention 5. ;
"' 2) Conduct a records review. The Panel members should examine and i analyze the following' rec:rds.
I '
- a. CAT Report
- b. CYGNA Repotts
! c. Hearing Records /Sunnary Depositions
- d. 0I Reports 1
- e. Enforcement Actions .
- f. SALP Reports
- g. Reg. IVaInspection Reports
- h. TRT Repo'rts
- 1. Special Review Team Report i To make the workload manageable, summaries of records or briefin'gs to the i panel by key individuals associated and familiar with the records may be i
; requested. .
- 3) Rostinely interface with the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel'and
. consider input provided by that Panel.
- 4) For each type of records (a.-i.) the team members will prepare.a sunnery of findings highlighting problem
- areas and root causes, as related to Contention #5. . - ..
- 5) The panel, as a bo#, will consider the finding sausaries, briefings i provided by key MRC personnel, and other relevant information to
! develop the staff position on Contention H in the format of an 55ER. I j- 6) The panel will be required as necessary to provide both written and oral testianny before the ASL8. I . 1 4 j . t i . . . i I i i i 1 ) 1
I
~
ENCLOSURE 2 w COMANCHE PEAK CONTENTION 5. PANEL CHARTER 7, OBJECTIVES _ g.
~ ~ 1 ) To make the staff determination regarding the Applicants' adherence to the QA/QC requirements described in Contention 5.
. 2) Provide a repo_rt to management reflecting the panel's determination.
l 3) Provide panel testimony before the Comanche Peak ASLB. ; i PURPOSE
~
! The purpose of tNis Panel is to integrate the views and experience of senior 3 NRC managers to yield a staff determination regarding Content,1on 5. MEMBERSHIP Richar'd Vollmer, NRR i Edward Jordan IE (Chairperson) - i Robert Warnick, R-!!! Alan Hardt, R-II
. Roger Fortuna, O!
i Advisors - Joe Scinto, DELD Vince Noonan, NRR i Thomas Ippolito, AE00 i James Gagliardo. IE Brooks Griffin. 0! j Dorwin Hunter, R-IV . Bruce Kaplan, EGMi r e l O t i . . i
.e0 i
l l 1 1
. c.
ENCLOSURE 3 i
.s. CONTENTION 5 PANEL SCHEDULE .
; December January
(
. Initi.al Panel Meeting , . r .
1 Obtain relevant documents l Document Reviews i l Consolidate Individual (DevelopedbyPanel, consistent - views, Develop Panel , with resamption of hearings at consensus- the end of January 1985)
- Prepare Panel Report Report Staff Position to Management - - * - - - -
I J Prepare Testimony 2 for ASLB e
- g 8 U S 1
*aus 9
I J
- , , - -- e r, ,- r- - - v- , w-
l .- .: h % UNITE 3 STATES > li [h g.f j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I 2, .g ,j m sn m aron,n.c.:oses i
"g[ % ,/ -
i % .* DEC 2 41964 i : . i~ - i __ 7' l i MEMORANDUM FOR: Those on Attached List _ e FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations l
SUBJECT:
FORMATION OF PANEL TO PREPARE NRC STAFF , j POSITION ON INTIMIDATION AT COMANCHE PEAK. i j As the work of the Comenche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) is nearing completion, the staff must evaluate all issues involving intimidation and j -harassment at Comanche, Peak. The ASLB hearings, which have been in progress
- for three years and are expected to resume in February 1985, have resolved all contentions except Contention No. 5. This contention concerns the Applicant's adherence to QA/QC requirements. As part of developing the staff position on this Contention, the staff must evaluate whether intim< dation or
; harassment against employees or contractors occurred in the past or is now
- occurring, and make a detemination concerning the effects of any such
- j intimidation on the overall QA/QC Program at Comanche Peak.
1 . l To properly evaluate the intimidation issue and to prepare a comprehensive staff position. I an directing the formation of a panel, camposed of senior
- managers drawn from your offices. This panel is to be composed of the following j individuals
- ,
j James Gagliardo. IE (Chairperson) , Jane Amalred. II I James Liebeman. OELD { Dorwin Monter, Region IV
~
l 8ecause of their previous association with Comanche Peak regulatory
! activities. I as appointing the following individuals as advisors to the
- panel:
( ,
- Brooks Griffin. Of .
, Thomas Ippolita. AE00 . , i Joseph Scinto. OELD . l Vincent Noossa. NRR , j , Bruca Eaglas. 1888 ,, , l The advisors may be asked to assist the panel .when issues involving their. l specific area of expertise are being considered, and I request your support in j making them available on an "as-needed" basis.' , 1 *
- The product of the Panel's effort will be a report similar to a $5ER, that -
l states clear shff conclusions regarding the occurrence of intimida- ! tion and harassment at Comanche Peak. The Charter for this Panel is provided ) as Enclosure 1. The Charter provides the scope and objectives of the Panel i but allows sufficient flexibility to enable the Panel to expand its scope, if necessary. I Gr C/ U L. s a"
\W o
u tf. 4 ) D s . . . . . . ..
- +
j.,* , 7 Those on Attacfied List . The scheduled. completion of the Panel's action is January 31,1985. ! expect e ! the, Panel to meet at least once per week and more frequently if necessary. ' j Enclosure 2 provides a proposed milesto'ne schedule. I The Panel will work under the d'irection of Vincent S. Noonan. Director of . Comanche Peak Project, and should provide periodic status briefings to ! the Director of Licensing. i i N
, ,, 'dilliam . Dircks 1 -
Executive Director for Operations 1
Enclosures:
As stated i t cc: B. Hayes. O! Panel Members Panel Advisors . j . . 1 e l 1 1 T l .. 4 i i l 1 , 1 . . l 4 t
- . _ -.. ~ - _ _. ---- _ .-.. __ _ _ - __ . - _._ _ . - . . - _ _ _ _.
.. , , v.
- a. ...
- . i Addressees C1st: I Harald R. Denfon. Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Richard C. DeYoung. D'1 rector
,0ffice of Inspection and. Enforcement Guy H. Cunningham. III.
Executive Legal Director
--Jack Heltenes. Director Office of the Analysis and .
~
Evaluation of Operational: Data James Keppler Regional AMaistrator Region III Robert Martin, Regional Administrator - Region IV eye . . a W t e 6 1 9 0 9 f *
+
0 W e
+
m en
i
- - .: , . 5, :
I
^
ENCLOSURE 1 .
- . t
~
- -; . c- ,
[
- ~ ~ "
Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel Charter . . i ! j OBJECTIVES: ,' I J The objectives of the panel are: ! 1 I) To detemine whether intimidation or harassment against employees or i !
- contractors occurred in the past or is now occurring at Comanche Peak; j 1
- 2) To determine the extent'of the above conditions if they exist (ed) and to i i identify the circumstances surrounding the events including the personnel !
, __ involved, the duration, the reasons for its occurrence and the } applicant's management corrective actions or recommendations for correc- ! tive actions. l 1 1 ] 3) To evaluate any other indicators of poor management practices or i j 4 attitude toward the identification and correction of quality problems. l
,. 4 punrest: ;
] j The panel will provide as products: - 4 l
~
! 1) A potition en the intimidation question to lutC upper managements 1 f j Input to the Comanche Peak Contention 5 Panel. The Contention 5 Pesel
- 2) [
l will determine the effects of any intimidation on the overall QA/QC f Program at Comanche Peak. i i l ! ' MEMBERSHIP: 1 f I JamesGa11ardo.IE(Chairperson)- j i- Jane Axe rad. IE ' l James Lieberman. OELD i Dorwin Hunter. Region IV ,
- Bruce Kaplan. Es&G (Mvisor) [
j ' Brooks Griffin. 01 (Mvisor) r Thomas Ippolito. AE00 (Mvisor) , i JosephScinto.OELD(Mvisor)
- l
! Vincent Noonan. NRR (Mvisor) !
.. j l .
f
- , i j . , j j .
! f 1 L L [ i t h
. -_ ._....._ - - - ..-- i_ __,. - __._. _ __ _ _-.,,,,,..-_____.-__.._.._.. ..-.. - _ . - ,._.-._ .~-~ .-- .-- _ .-._ . - ,..____ .. - _J
. . ?-
s
'~.
- a. !
I i i i ACTION ITEMS :- 5
~
- 5
! 1. Define cr_iteria for determining whether intimidation or harassment e ! l .s occurred. i 2. Conduct as appropriate a review of relevant data bases: i l j ,
- a. EGAG report on_ intimidation (g/84) ;
4
- b. Transcript of EG84 Intimidation Study Team briefir.g of
) NRC, applicant's, and intervenor's lawyers [
- c. Enforcement , packages related to intisridation. l 1.
- d. Depositions related to intimidation and harassment. (A l
- summary will be sought or prepared as required) .
i 1 1 , e. - Proposed Findings on intimidation (staff, applicants and l l intervenors). ) .. 2
- f. Transcripts of current ASL5 hearings related:to intimidation.
j -
- g. Office of Investigations reports on intimidation and status of 4
outstandin j theabove)gallegations. (B. Griffin should provide briefing on l h. Information on Department of Labor hearings related to the subjects { j of concern.
- 3. Interface with CP Contention 5 Panel restinely.
I 4. Based on the above data and any other~ relevant data reviewed by the , ! panel, develop a position which meets the stated objectives. . ) 5. Prepare an $$ER on intimidation, and provide testimony as required at i ASLB hearings. , l . f j . . i . i
** a t
l t
- 6
. i. .r'. s'] .
4 , , ENCLOSURE 2. 5 w -
., s Intim,fdation Panel Schedule, .
,' , December January
- Initial Panel Meeting:, .
obtain' relevant documents
- Document Rqviews '
) Consolidate Individual (DevelopedbyPanel, consistent - views. Develop Farel with resumption of hearings' At , i consensus - theendof_ January 1985) * ' i Prepare P'nel a Input to , QA/QC Panel , . Prepara Panel Report -
- on Staff's Position j .
1 l 1 2 i , , t . l . l t . 1 l
r b
'o, . UNITED STATES -
f,%s e g:
; .g' ,.E j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'+ ** kg 2 81985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Those on Attached List FRCM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations ,
SUBJECT:
PANEL TO PREPARE NRC STAFF POSITION ON COMANCHE PEAK HEARING CONTENTION NO. 5 - On December 24, 1984 I established the subject panel and provide,d initial guidance regarding,its charter. Since that time, the charter and the panel composition have been clarified to reflect a broader range of expertise anc to accommodate agency priorities. This memorandum reflects the panel's charter and changes. To properly assist the Director, Comanche Peak Project in evaluating Contention 5 and to assist him in the preparation of a comprehensive staff position on Contention 5, a panel composed of senior managers has been formed. The panel is composed of the following individuals: Edward Jordan, IE (Chairperson) ,, Richard Vollmer IE Alan Herdt, R-II Robert Warnick, R-III James Snie:ek, DEDROGR Ashok Thadani, NRR This centention ccreerns the applicant's adherence to QA/QC requiretrents anc is provided as Enclosure 1. The issue of construction QA/QC at Comanche Peak is multifaceted Ad is addressed, in part, by many records, documents and in testimeny from various sources including the staff, applicant, intervenor, and allegers. The background of this contention and associated records span several years. Various NRC offices have been involved, including Region IV. OI, NRR, OELD and IE. Because of their involvement with Comanche Peak regu-latory activities I am appointing the following personnel as resource support to the panel in their areas of expertise: Joe Scinto, OELD Vince Noonan, NRR Thomas Ippolito, AE00 James Gagliardo, IE Brooks Griffin, OI Darwin Hunter, R-IV L.Chet Poslusny, NRR* Ted Sullivan, NRR* , aha M DQ/ Sih bf i "i
~N 1PP
*Acministrative and tecfinical support as requested by Panel Chairman
?0M5-59 N +10
ll .. 2-These individuals may be asked to assist in this effort when issues involving their specific area of expertise are being considered, and I raquast y:ur support in making them available on an "as-needed" basis. The product of this effort will be the assistance to the Dire::cr Oc:anche Peak Project, in preparing a position that integrates the staff ff.cin;s and - conclusions regarding this Contention. In addition this effort ray recuire panel members, or the panel as a whole, to be prepared to testify c:n: ming panel recommendations in support of the staff position on Contention 5 as' identified by the Director, Comanche Peak Project. Enclosure 2 provides the charter for the panel. The work schedule of the panel as. developed.by the Director, Cemanche Peak Project, is to be consistent with the hearing schedule and shall be closely coordinated with ELD. The panel will work under the direction of Vincent S. Noonan, Director, Comanche Peak Project, and should provide periodic status briefings to the Deputy Director, NRR. i Willia iM(
.. ircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Panel Members Panel Resource Personnel T. Murley J. Martin 9 4 4 . . ,,. . .....- - - . , ~ . , - - .- ,
,3 .. ,
l ADDRESSEES FOR MEMORANDUM DATED FEB 2 8 E Victor Stello, Jr, DECROGR Harold R. Denton, NRR James Taylor, IE Guy H. Cunningham, III, ELD Clemens J. Heltemes, AE00
- Nelson Grace, RII James Keppler, RIII .
Robert Martin, RIV Ben Hayes, O! i I 9 e 4 0 p I i l i 3 s e 7 e
ENCLOSURE 1 COMANCHE PEAK CONTENTION 5* Contention 5. The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / - quality control provisions required by the constructien permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, and . the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work,
. ~ mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness . testing, expansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding,- inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC) and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak.
(CFUR 4A-ACORN 14-CASE 19 JOINT Contention) l l
- Reproduced from Board Order Subsequent to the Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980 (dated June 16,1980)
l Y' . . 4 . ENCLOSURE 2 CCMANCHE PEAK CONTENTION 5 PANEL CHARTER I. FURFOSE D e purpose of this panel is to assist the Director, Comanche Peak -- Froject, to evaluate in an integrated manner the information developed by the staff which bears upoa OA/QC and overall plant quality. The objectives are: A. To assis't the Director.'Ccmanche Peak Project to make the staff determination regarding the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a) as related to Contention 5. B. To provide an integrated review and feedback to the Director, Comanche Peak Project, on information bearing on Contention 5 along with the identification of problem areas and appropriate recomendations for NRC actions or proposed solutions. C. To be prepared to testify as needed individually or as..a panel, concerning panel recomendation: in support of the staff position on Contention 5 as identified by the Director. II. *
.EMBERSHIP Edward Jordan, IE (Chairperson)
Richard Vollmer IE Alan Herdt, P-II Robert Warn %k, R-III James Sniezek, DEDROGR Ashok Thadant, NRR III. PANEL SCOPE A. Under the guidance of the Director, Comanche Peak Project the panel shall become familiar with and consider findings of past and current NRC staff activities and applicant actions in response to NRC findings as they relate to the matters ' addressed in Contention 5. Specifically, the panel shall consider the results of: 1)- Region-IV inspections
- 2) CAT inspections
- p:. .i - .
2-
- 3) OI investigations
- 4) Technical Review Team inspections
- 5) Enforcement actions
- 6) Special Review Team inspection
- 7) SALP reports -
- 8) Staff analysis of CYGNA Report -
- 9) Staff sumary of le Hearing Record Additionally, the panel may examine the result of other staff '-
activities which may bear on their findings related to Cententien 5 if directed to dc so. B. The Director, Comanche Peak Project will arrange for staff members to brief the panel on findings related to Contention 5. The Director will also set up meetings with the intervenor and the applicant to discuss matters which they respectively believe are most significant as related to Contention 5. Any such meetings will be open to the public. The panel should properly characteri:e the collective concerns raised by the staff. intervenor and applicant and review /coment on the applicants plan to address these concerns. The panel should then advise the Director, Comanche Peak Project on its recomendations. C. During conduct of panel activities, the panel should advise the Director, Comanche Peak Project of areas where it appears additional NRC activity may be warranted in order to address the issues raised in Contention 5. . IV. PANEL OPERATING PROCEDURES A. Panel meetings will be held as established by the Chairperson. The Director, Comanche Peak Project will arrange all meetings with the 1 applicant, intervenor or allegers. Meetings with NRC staff and staff consultants shall be considered predecisional. B. A quorum for conduct of panel business will consist of four members. , In the temporary absence of the Chairperson, the Chairperson may ' designate an acting Chairperson.
)
C. Briefings by the principal NRC reviewers in each of the areas identi- ; fled in Se' .fon III.A will be obtained. Reviewers will sumarize the scope of t air reviews, deficiencies noted, root.causes of such deficienc,es and applicant corrective actions. Likewise, the reviewers
,are to discuss those areas where no deficiencies were found.
D. _The panel should analyze the infomation presented by NRC reviewers contained in sou-ce documents which the panel reviews, obtained by discussio s with the applicant, intervenor and staff and observed during site reviews in arriving at its recommendations regarding Contention 5 and should continually provide feedback to the , Director, Cemanche Peak Project. ' 1
sg.: .. . E. The panel should keep apprised of the ongoing agency activities related to Contention 5 and promptly identify confilets or problems to the Director, Comanche Peak Project. ! V. RECORD AND REPORTING A. The panel will work under the direction of Vincent 5. Noonan, Director of the Comanche Peak Project, and should provide periodic status briefings to the Deputy Director, NRR. - -- B. The panel shall keep such records of. activities to assist it in arriving at recommendations regarding Contention 5, as requested by the D.trector. Such records shall be considered predecisional until staff testimony regarding Cbntention 5 is provided to the Hearing Board. 49 4 e-w - +- , - * -
~
. , M.
g 1 2
.... A 2 - t3 .&
Z R V 2 - z } :..( ;g_3 .~;
. - }. -
;. ~j .,; . -) ._ i t
~
~
gD (~7 {. an c. e o. ~y
, (.
~.,.~,-
. .s ;
.,,,. , j/
- / 7 1 3 o i-y Us NUCI f ' r *. 20i Ai';TJ Ut.:..*1.5.J 0.':
. /0?HCi 0F 14'.if illi.Y. T .':5 l
DOC 0 MEN 1 C D 7 !. R SHEET y 1
/lk f
I t
/ h" i -[e \
t'
- 04 : h~d.
Q .s
- s. - \\ Y j, y%.
lpl .-
-9 o f, }:.1
.s ()
b y.
. %. U.. c\% < gi;r a a;76 ~
u .. a. u la r Lt The at'tached docupant/ report has not been reviewed
] pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.790(e.) exemptions nor hcs any exe.cr.t material been deleteo.. Do not disseminate
', ' nor discuss its contents outside i;RC. Treat cs "CFFICIAL USE OriLY". - Fursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.750(a), the attached docu-
@ cent / report has been reviewed and all exempt material ..
except pr..prietary has r.een dele'.cd.to licenste, This document /r: = # ver. der, Fort is s::itable for di:strinatior, etc., for a p.oprietry revic . / n The zttac'.co r cc:uicent/r:por. is in PDR tom. L1 DATE:. NOV 2 31Fz -
. t l
Ec1pr-g - h'.:h iC g-s , .
,4 ,
RIT DfficiaT Tnc c:-- DEC 2 1 1982 Dockets: 50-445/82-29 50-446/82-15 . Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTH: Mr. R. J. Gary, Executive Vice . President & General Manager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen: This refers to the investigation conducted by Mr. R. K. Herr of the Office of Investigation, and Messrs. L. E. Martin and D. L. Kelley of our. staff during the period August 4 to Septen6er 17,1982, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peak facility, Units 1 and 2. Areas examined during the investigation and our findings are discussed in the enclosed investigation report. Within the scope of this investigation, we found no instance where you ' failed to meet NRC requirements. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Doctanent Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within 10 days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within 30 days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the require-ments of 2.790(b)(1). Should you have any questions concerning this investigation, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely,
*odstnai sisned
- f
.G.
. Madsen lief .
Reactor Project Eranch 1
\
1
Enclosure:
I Appendix - NRC Investigation Report-50-445/82-29; 50-446/82-15 . . l
- ~
cc: OffTcist T W c:.. Texas Utilities Generating Company l' ATTie H. C. Schmidt. Proiect Manacee , ,[""L.'...... .h 201, . . DI ES . N[. . . RPS. . A.g . . . !RP Bigf. .. ... . - DRRP&EP.M.'. 86.'.RI.\* ..
- - ; - F 1nhndn:.ic ....INesterman....'GLMads'eh....'. .'JJGagliardo. ..i JCb11ir.s'
- - - - - y v w ti-- hw +e w + = e 'r fme -- + +- -
- a. -r-mmw-,4mA-g ii- ve=r-- er e e -
# .#*= d -***b'w-. *- # -e
l
.. , ~. .
F DEC 2 1 1992_ bec to DMS (IE01) p r bec distrib, by RIV: . - D. L. Kelley, RRI R. G. Taylor, RRI L. E. Martin, RIV R. K. Herr, 01 , J. T. Collins, RA , e Info. Systems l' RPB1 RPB2 TPB
- RIV File C. Wisr.er, PA0 Texas State Dept. Health
- Juanita Ellis David Preister Richard Fouke
' l-1 I
I W 9
. . . e
. I e
- 8 l *
- u ,.crp. ..
................:... ....................g.'...,~............... ....................'.l..........:. ~
a ~
~
eks eL. >
..s.......
.,.... 4. ........... g............,.
* * ' " ' .' k . 9.'f*' W .
- At
=. 2 ~. ,
** ., 'UNITto 51 Aliff
.-'. y NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.*.*.*.*lSSION
** 8 RE GION IV .
. ,$ Ett RYAN PLAZA DRIVE SulTE 1000
%,
- ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011 DATE: November 23, 1982 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIbNS RFPORT OF INVESTIGATION TITLE: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
' Alleged Electrical Deficiencies .. DN 50-445/50-446 SUPPLEMENTAL: CASE NUMBER: . 4-82-012 CONTROL OFFICE: REGION IV STATUS: CLOSED
~
PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION: August 4 -. September 17, 1982 - REPORTING INVESTIGATOR: / ,/ h Richard K. HeYr,' Acting Director 01 Field Office, Region IV PARTI'CIPATING PERSONNEL: Lawrence E. Martin, Reactor Inspector Reactor Proje,ct, Section B. Region IV D. L. Kelley Senior Resident Reactor Inspector Reactor. Project, Section A Region IV REVIEWED BY: b ' tsth ' Roder/A. Fortuna, Acting Deputy . Director ' Office of Investigations -
- r APPROVED BY: /; b o, f, -
.. M s.A. Fitzce a1.d" Act.ing Di. rector
.0,ffice of Investig'ations u, kn.wwsvnman
~
.g, # -
o
l [ l Sin *%RY Investigation of all'e'gef e1EctrTc'alie[i5ncies that occured from August, 1979 to January, 1980 in the construction phase of the' Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant at Glen Rose, Texas, included an interview of C.rJ+Ms NN the review of numerous electrical records, and the inspection by NRC personnel of identified alleged electrical " deficiencies." Investigation disclosed that three of the four basic alleged " deficiencies" were in the areas of non-safety wiring. During August and September,1982 all alleged deficiencies were examined and no irregularities were found. Review of noncon-formance report records did identify simihr deficiencies discovered in the . December 1979 through January / February 1980 time frame; however, these deficien-cies were preparly addressed in 1980. - e e e e b e e e 4 e - e e
9 4 g 9' o 'i e e e a
" #9 "M99 6 gamp ,,, 94e emamm Ge G
=
0 6 e m 6 4 e * , 9 e e
- e 4 e e a DETAILS 0
e G e 4 4 9 t . e o e g .4 e 9 8 9 9
- 1 4
Purpose of Investication The purpose of this investigation was to investigate allegations of electrical "dsficiencies" during the 1979/1980 construction phase of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas. 9 een 9 # e 9 4 e 4 O er i . i . 6 e e
$ e s * * .
^
e a
- e ,
4 l w O
- g b
, e d
's .
m 9
- 2 Background .
On Auoust 4, 1982, desr-~ ~w -++== ^= wd n mwnwiN -' -- ece 5 -a ment met with NRC investigator R. K. Herr at the liRC offices in Arlington, Texas Norovided reporting investigator a copy of a statement executed on . %:rg u m - ws g-c_.= ng&%L,a c Mr-ae_s ggs a m g. g u
= - ~ ..>es hM
- _ . ~
h % in'ed that workedattheComanche3eak construction site in the WLhaz.cf _ -b-i-w@sm_e- g y=- A Lae+ -mremarked that Em alleged " electrical f aults of coniUuction" at the Comanche Peak site located in Glen Rose, Texas. a* I e e e l
. s 4, .
l l .- - - - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . _ , _ _ ,,_ _
3 interview of L ' 3 ' a . I, s. z ~ - . _=m_ s _ _= m m- - - -
-- -~ . . _ - - - -
Brown and Root, contractors for Comanche Peak construction, was interviewed by NRC Investigator R. K. Herr at the construction site located in Glen Rose. Texas. E"llll5 explained that he was present during the 1979 time frame, and in December 1979, the electrical department created a " termination crew." g!::=&, stated that this crew would check out all electrical (safety and non-safety) wiring to ensure that work had been accomplished and that the work was done satisfactorily. SEEh remarked that the men assigned to the work crews would submit handwritten reports to show what work was done, where the work was done, and the status 'of the work. 6 emphasized that this crew checked the electrical wiring before the Quality Control Inspectors were advised that the - electrical wiring was ready for inspection. E li1 explained that the termin-ation crew conducted a preinspection review of all electrical work. EZ:3 also pointed out that,'if a deficiency was noticed and reported, the deficiency would be addressed before the Quality Control Inspector would conduct his inspection. EZED. explained that this extra " check out" by the electrical , personnel was used as a management tool to show the electrician where problems arose and to point out various potential deficiencies. -@ stated that the Quality Control Inspector c~ould still find various deficiencies, and that the practice of utilizing " termination crews" to check the electrical wiring is no longer being used. m remarked that " termination crews" were not a - requirement in the Brown and Root procedure or instructions, but were merely an extra check for the electrical department itself, and therefore, none of the handwritten reports or status sheets were kept. O er e e e
. i
. l k
1 i
. , 't .
The Review of C,WND urcz Daily Time Sheet m cr dnAugust 31, 1982, a review of w e == e } Daily Time Sheet,rir.~ Aes tsw by NRC Investigator R. K. Herr at - - - r-+~4-6-M m the Comancne Peak construction-site; Glen Rose. Texas was accomplished. This -
~ orked for Brown and Root (contractors) from review disclosed tha The records further disclosed that from worked on non-safety related wiring.
According to the records.. svnw ' worked for the " termination crew" from . e 9 e O e e e E e e 9 e 9
- 9 4 ,*
6 e O 9 s b 9 9 e e G 6 e
, 5
~
. i e
Interview of N . On September 2,1982, *2 hs
- -sa-w a ~=+.m e,--e employed a t the .
Comanche Peak construction project._GlerLBo.s.g,_T_exas, was_ interviewed by NRC - T-~ ~ ' Investigator R. K. lierr-and-NRC-Inspector- !... E. Martin _,af6m--- m q=
. M executed a signed sworn statement',
Attachment (2), wherein' he identified four areas of alleged " deficiencies" and drew a map depicting the exact locatiw Athese deficiencies. ,Q further described these deficiencies as follows: (1) Motor control center located in the circulation water system: ' use of 1000 MCM cable, using 750 MCM lug that was drilled to accept larger cable. .. (2) Auxiliary Building, Reactor No.1: lug designed for an approximate screw size of 3/8 inch was used on a terminal block designed for #10 screws. (3) Switch Gear Room, Reactor No. I', black cable: lug designed for k inch screws were used on terminal blocks designed for #10 screws. . (4) Annunciator logic panels, Control Room, Reactor No.1, black cable: improper cable splicing and wiring to the wrong - - side of lugs. 6 other general allegations bf deficiencies identified in his orevious statement of June 14, 1982, were addressed in the following manner. M expressed concern with the improper installation and check-oukof Cannon type
- plugs. SE2557 was provided.NRC Iiispection: Report 50-445/80-13, . dated -
m-wats i, atedthat after. reading the NRC Insoection Report,
~
May the report ans' ,niired all' Us concerns in this area. E'M9BIP!T87 had also 21,1980. expressed concern regarding the patching / repairing of damaced cable, faulty grounding, and wiring not protected from abrasions. M was provided eight_nonconformance. reports covering the above general allegations that were issued2from Deceaber 20, 1979 to March 18, 1980 and. subsequently corrected. Fow_3, after reviewing the nonconformance reports, stated that the deficiencies identified in the nonconformance reports and subsequent corrections appeared to address the concerns that he identified in his previous statement of Ju ne .14, .1982. i ' I P~
> explained that ee%= K N w +i.--- n-~ m , he was not in - - a position to determine if nis concerns were addressed properly, p.ointin'g out, .
that he did not have access to the nonconformance reports or NRC ' inspection' reports. Further, E5TF3 remarked that most of his work.was with non-safety cable. However, he stated that between January 2 and January 11,1980 he was assigned to the Electrical Department " termination check-out crew" that went arcund to ensure that all work was done properly, and that some of the items he checked could have been safety related. , 5
- a
,.,.--.,-m.. .,,< , , - - , - - . - . , ,,.- , , , . . , , , , ,.v- ,. ,,c. e . - . , , -
5 l stated that he was unaware of QA/QC activities or procedtres that , teok lace p subsequent to the check-out crew activities on all safey-related activities. M also expressed concern that when cad. welding yas done, welders only protected'an area of about 3 feet; however. MTid'not _... '..,. " inspected any of these to determine if any cables had been damaced_and.could ~ ~~ ' not identify any specific areas for follow-up by NRC. , 9 9 9 O o
- e 4
e S 9 9
+
l e e i . i I O e 4
. n , y - -..,4- -- - ,. - . , - - -,
7 . .
.~...
insoection of Alleced Deficiencies ,
~
On August 31, 1982, Dennis"L. Kelle'y, NRC Senior Resident Reactor inspector # * * (SRl), assigned to Comanche Peak, Glen Rose, Tex'as3et with NRC'Inv'estigator R. K. Herr to review the, allegations set forth byremug Allegation Humber 1: Kelley was able to physically locate the motor control ' center (MCC) located in the circulating water system, as described in Kelley the l, ollegation concerning the use of 1000 MCM cable with a 750 MCM lug. i stated that he inspected the area in question and found no 1000 MCM cable in the motor control center. Kelley reported that he did He find one 750 MCM cable ,- also found that the in MCC XB3-2 that is matched up to the proper lugs. MCC 1B3-2 contained paired 350 MCM cables properly terminated. Kelley remarked that as of August 31, 1982, no improper wiring was evident in the MCC's of the circulating water system. On September 17, 1982, Kelley_ advised that the areas of the alleged deficiencies that were identified by RdP#aP3EDp-J in his statement of September =2.1982 (see below), were locateo witn 6.ne assutance of the maps drawn byF3E!!l5BA
~
Allegation Number 2, Auxiliary Building, Reactor No.1, ' improper screw: size - for. lugs: Kelley stated that he physically located this area ut,ilizing Map " However, No.1, and found that there were no washer / screws in panel 5 or 6. Kelley explained he did discover a number of screws with attached washers. S' that upon close examination he found that the washer attached to the screws is an intricate part of the screw (manufactured together) and it not an add-on as it may appear at first glance. Kelley stated that some screws contained brass plate and some contained chrome plate. Kelley remarked that the chrome plate gives the appearance of a steel washer and could easily be. mistaken for steel . Kelley concluded that as of September 1982, there was no improper . wiring in this area. , . 7 Allegation Number 3, Swith Gear Room, Reactor No.1, improper screw size for lugs: Kelley stated he physically located this area utilizing Map No. 2 Kelley and found that the same conditions existed as per Allegation No. 2, above. - added that as of September 1982, when he inspected Switch Gear Room, Reactor N3.1, no improper wiring was observed. . i
'llegation A Number 4, Control Room, Reactor No.1, splicing and cable termina-tion to wrong side of fuse block with some shaving of.the lugs: Kelley stated '
he physically located this area, using Map.No. 3, and found.no evidence of shaving or erroneous termination of ' cable. Kelley 'further stated that he checked-the section in question as well two other sections in the control panel and found that there was no evidence' of lugs being shaved and added that blocks were of such a nature that it makes no difference which side accepts power leads. Kelley remarked that there were three blocks located in this area at the time of his_ examination. He did not find any improper wiring. Kelley confirmed {.gss __ J1 statement that the wiring in this area is black cable wiring, and is non-safety. ,
B Kelley stated that during his inspection effort, he also examined safety and non-safety cable in the location of N concern, utilizing P.ap No. 4, to determine if any cables were pulled too tight. Kelley explained that the . cables are tied off with" tie wraps aiid"an' chored ~witCadhesive clips 'to hold J. wires down and statid'he'fo'usd'idequate slack in these cables. Kelley pointed , out that these conditions are in existence at the present time. However, he could not comment on the conditions as they existed in January 1980.
.wsww -
I - 1 i l , 4 - ,y :i y
- g9Nm a'-ye- f y9a-.- g--- - - * ' q <w--- -, e -6>--+% y= - ,---,i--- i *e " -q e e-mem
e e
- ' 9 e
e 1
~ - *
,__e__. : .-
atus of Investication .
~~~~~
- u- 'tq
(,., .,
.e states of thise investigation-is-CLOSED.--- - -- .
. . . - - - f **
e
- e 4 .g l
O I .' SW 6
- b'e Oe M 9
- e O
O e e
- O S
e e e 9 e O 4 e
- e e
e 9 9 e 9 e e ' o e e e % o % e 4 e D e a h n
'. s # ee
,o V D 9 "*
* $ pw t *
- D1 P
. . . \
...- , j 10 ,
t: 1 Attachments _ - n :rs6-14.82 . COPY ALL Attachment 1 -6 Si9ned. statement . -. -.:.: 9-06-82 ORIG 01:RIV/CY ALL Attachment 2 - M signed sworn statement I
.. e
.k i -
s. l l -* . ,i r- . t, fl [. s
~
I L 1 . . kt t . ,
. p i ,e . _
~ ;.
4 3 m emeer m, em M ~ jf-r - /5 I DEC 211982 f $ i 4 ' Dockets: 50-445/82-29 50-446/82-15 ] .
/
Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTH: Mr. R. J. Gary, Executive Vice -
- President & General Manager 2001 Bryan Tower
! Dallas, Texas 75201 , Gentlemen: This refers to the investigation conducted by Mr. R. K. Herr of the Office i of Investigation, and Messn. L. E. Martin and D. L. Kelley of our staff ' i during the period August 4 to 5,:ntamber 17, 1982, of activities authorized by MRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peak
- facility, Units 1 and 2.
! Areas examined during the investigation and our findings are discussed in the enclosed investigation report. . ( ! - Within the scope of this investigation, we found no instance where you ! failed to meet NRC requirements. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a' copy of this letter and' the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within 10 days of the date of this letter and submit wrf tten application to withhold information contained therein within 30 ' days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the require- t ments of 2.790(b)(1). Should you have any questions concerning this investigation, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. , Sincerely, t
'Odginal sisned W (h )1,Ig ' g/hC - sv C -
/h h t UN 'ut a 3AAD$EN'*
_ l i G. L. Madsen, Chief Reactor Project Branch 1 hO
Enclosure:
Appendix - NRC Investigation Report b F
-h 50-445/82-29; 50-446/82 15 cc: Dorar Pile cc'.L.,,,, .
I m Texas Utilities Generating Company .
. ATTN- H. C. Schmidt.JPreieet Manacer i
% .....RPS1 .DR3R& EPjd.l. 8A.-RI.V.r, . ,
- nft --
-fa T 201.l..D1ES.I. .RPS.-A.3 . . .. . . .
'"""5> '
.EJohnson:.j c. . . . .TWesterma n . . . GLMadsen . . . . . .
JGag1'f a rdo. 12/ ./82 . )l. rol 6uid,.................................. 12/5/82
~
.12l/7 /82. -1.2/t\ /82. j12/wf82 -
-v -mn ,-,--,-n -. n we-.-.--- - ---m , ,- -w, .- - -r.. -,-aw- ---,.-e
. 6~
'/ 0/;2.
lh26 S. Polt J# b Dallas, Texas 75224 m m (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY) A-n Es August 4,1982 Mr. Richard Herr . Acting Director, Field Office Invesitgations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Room 1114 Arlington, Texas Dear Mr. Herrf \
]%
anche Peak nuclear power plant until he was arrested there on He alleges certain specific electrical faults of construction at Comanche Peak which we believe should be investigated more thoroughly than the only other avenue open to us, that of presenting his statement as a, limited appearance statement in the operating license hearings for Comanche Peak. The members of the Board in those proceedings, the NRC Staff attorney Parjorie Rothschild, l and the attorney for the Applicants. Nicholas Reynolds, are aware of the alleger's name, his assumed name at the time he worked at the plant, the date he was picked up onsite, and the fact that his allegations concern electrical matters including problems with the- control panels. ' They do not know the specific details of his allegations. We ask that you expedite this invesitgation as much as possible and that the following be done:
- 1. That the investigation be mao 2 by ,0u personnally.
- 2. That information regarding yo;r investigation not be given to 6 m or M M pri)r to your making the actual physical investigation yoursel f.
- 3. That I be kept apprised of the progress of your investigation.
- 4. That I be provided w'ith a c'opy of the investigation report as soon as possible (I assume this would be in the form of an Inspection and Enforcement Report) .
- 5. That. the . Applicants be asked to waive the usual period for review for proprietary information due to the fact that the Comanche Peak licensing hearings are due to restne September 13.
Since rely, CASE (CITIZENS. ASSOCIATION F0,R SOUND ENERGY) y , A .w. . , a ._ 4, _.
-(Mn.) Juanita Ellis, Pres ident
.' I UNITED STATES ,
1
. [ 5 , . ', NUCLEAR REGULATORY._ COMMISSION ) -
%, .g. y f REGION IV f
$11 RYAN Pt.AZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000
(
,,,,, ARUNGTON. TEXAS 78011 0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS DATE: November.23, 1982 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION TITLE: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Alleged Electrical Deficiencies SUPPLEMENTAL: DN 50-445/50-446 CASE NUMBER: 4-82-012 CONTROL OFFICE: REGION IV STATUS: CLOSED PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION: August 4 - September 17, 1982 REPORTING INVESTIGATOR:
// [ &
1 chard K. HeYr,' Acting Director 01 Field Office, Region IV PARTICIPATING PERSONNEL: Lawrence E. Martin, Reactor Inspector Reactor Project, Section B, Region IV William D. Kelley, Senior Resident Reactor Inspector Reactor Project, Section A. Region IV REVIEWED BY: Nf- ' tub Robr/A. Fortuna, Adting Deputy Director Office of Investigations - APPROVED BYf A w. ,. - . _dagfs A. F1tzge.ral.dY Act.ing- Directoi-OfficeofInvestigations L % . i A I / ,f n f A , n w v ' . b ' Wy J.4.-Lf.5 ( ) \W* ' 6 *
- 4
SUlttARY
~
Investigation of alle'ged'51 ectr'ic'ald eficiencies that occured from August,1979 to January,1980 in the construction phase of the Comanche Peak - Nuclear Power Plant at Glen Rose, Texas, included an interview of BLmrs:m7 the review of numerous electrical reccrds, and the inspection by NRC personnel of identified alleged electrical " deficiencies." Investigation disclosed that three of the four basic alleged " deficiencies" were in the areas of non-safety wiring. During August and September,1982 all alleged .. deficiencies were examined and no irregularities were found. Review of noncon-formance report records did identify similar deficiencies discovered in the . . December 1979 through January / February 1980 time frame; however, these deficien-cies were properly addressed in 1980. l 4 9
~__
/ e m 59 4 e w DETAILS (
\
\
k e r-4 6 h 7
} e# n a
w ,
= *
- t . ,
.4.
+
.~-m~,. .__n-u _n _ __ _ , _ _ ___ _ _
i I l l i Purpose of Inve.stigation - i- The' purpose of this investigation was to investigate allegations of electrical
" deficiencies" during the 1979/1980 construction phase of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose. Texas. ,
N 4 9 9 See - E e O 6 l . , ) 4 4 I s e
- 3 f
- e i
e
*
- s *
- l'* s
- e
- r s a
,, , , ,--r* 7e&- *-4 w - - - ww$ t e-- v --- +-w-- +er- , r=~- y --e e
2 . 1
Background
es in Arlington, Texas.' _ orovided reporting investigator a copy of a statement _executed in _. a on %::23Z2+
- - ~vem=
w'r:y?2 =~mmMi&Gi&25ik@a E M N h E M ined thatq h lworked at the Comanche 3 eak >= construction site in the _^
- w - n M W Ir a h --- - - --
remarked that E -=-
- alleged "eiectrical'aults of ~
~
~
construction" at the Comanche Peak site located in Glen Rose, Texas. I s l l e e
- 3~
Interview of - 4 6 i Brown and Root, contractors for Comanche Peak construction, was interviewed by NRC Investigator R. .K. Herr at .the construction site located _in Glen. Rose.--- - - - Texas. hxplained-that.Jie was present during the 1979 time frame, and in December 1979, the electrical department created a " termination crew." emnush stated that this crew would check out all electrical (safety and non-safety) wiring to ensure that work had been accomplished and that the work was done satisfactorily. llll])gremarked that the men assigned to the work crews would submit handwritten reports to show what work was done, where the work was done, and the status of the work. 4EEEE1 emphasized that this crew checked the -- electrical wiring before the Quality Control Inspectors were advised that the
' electrical wiring was ready for inspection. IEEEEglexplained that the termin- .-
ation crew condected a preinspection review of all electrical work. dEEDEL also pointed out that,' if a deficiency was noticed and reported, the deficiency would be addressed before the Quality Control Inspector would conduct his inspection. Mexplained that this extra " check out" by the electrical personnel was used as a management tool to show the electrician where problems arose and to point out various potential deficiencies. gEEEEEkstated that the Quality Control Inspector could still find various deficiencies, and that the practice of utilizing " termination crews" to check the electrical wiring is no longer being used. 4EEEEgLremarked that " termination crews" were not a requirement in the Brown and Root procedure or instructions, but were merely an extra check for the electrical department itself, and therefore, none of the handwritten reports or status sheets were kept. W
.-e e e e -
v
l The Review of- ~ g- r,9 Daily Time Sheet
; On August 31, 1982, a review of NDaily Time Sheet, GlE53 by NRC Investigator R. K. Herr at
.l the Comancne reak construction site, Glen Rose, Texas was accomplished. This di tha for Brown and Root (contractors) from ords further disclosed that from worked on non-safety related wiring. Accor in to the record or or the " termination crew" from l i l
.=
9 l l s l I a 5 e
% 9
,-- ~ - - " ' ' ' * '
. 5 Interview of N On September 2,1982, 'mwre-* -m ^. ~ ~ employed at the Comanche Peak _ construction project, Glen Rose Texas, was interviewed by NRC Investigator R. K. Herr and NRC Inspector L. E. Martin at
. .s _
........w._~o. r . M executed a signed sworn statement, Attachment (2), wnerein he identified four areas of alleged " deficiencies" and drew a map depicting the exact location of these deficiencies. M further described these deficiencies as fol lws: ,
(1) Motor control center located in the circulation water system: ~~ use of 1000 MCM cable, using 750 MCM lug that was drilled to accept larger cable. , (2) Auxiliary Building, Reactor No.1: lug designed for an approximate screw size of 3/8 inch was used on a terminal block designed for #10 screws. 1 (3) Switch Gear Room, Reactor No.1, black cable: lug designed for inch screws were used on terminal blocks designed for #10 screws. (4) Annunciator logic panels, Control Room, Reactor No.1, black cable: improper cable splicing and wiring to the wrong side of lugs. E!2 TEE 5 other general allegations of d'eficiencies identified in his previous statement of June 14, 1982, were addressed in the following manner. SEEEl3 expressed concern with the improper installation and check-out of Cannon type plugs. N was provided NRC Inspection Report 50-445/80-13, dated May 21, 1980., the report 6 l his ans'yered al concerns in this area. N had alsostated that after reading the NRC Insoe expressed concern regarding the patching / repairing of_ damag_ed cable, faulty grounding, and wiring not protected from abrasions. -- - was provided eight nonconformance r^ ports covering the above general allegations that were
~
i' sis 6sd from December 20, 1979 to March 18, 1980 and subsequently corrected. u- w -, after reviewing the nonconformance reports, stated that the deficiencies identified in the nonconformance reports and subsequent corrections appeared 1 to address the concerns that he identified in his previous statement of I June 14, 1982. l cw explained that Enhe r-w p i-z. u ja a.d , he was not in ' a position to determine if nis concerns were addressed properly, pointing out that he did not. have access to the nonconformance reports or NRC inspection reports. Further, Ce r'3 c remarked that, most of his work was with non-safety cable. However, he stated that between: January 2 and January.11, 1980 he was assigned to th'e Electrical Department " termination check-out crew" that went around to ensure that all work was done properly, and that some of the items l he checked could have been safety related. l 1 i l w
.6 l
@ stated that he was unaware of QA/QC activities or procedures that took place subsequent to the check-out crew activities on all safey-related activities. @ also expressed concern that when cad-walding_was_done, welders only protected an' area of about 3 feeti however7M had not. ;
inspected any of these to determine if any cables had_been damaged-and-could ! not identify any specific areas, for_ follow-up by .NRC.. e9 S 9 e 9
%F e
S e e 9 , r
- 4
Inspection of Alleged Deficiencies On August 31, 1982, Dennis L. Kelley, NRC Senior Resident Reactor Inspector (SRI), assigned to Comanche Peak, Glen Rose, Texas met with NRC Investigator R. K. Herr to review the allegations set forth byMEEEEHR! rare" . Allegation Number 1: Kelley was able to physically locate the motor control center (MCC) located in the circulating water system, as described in the allegation concerning the use of 1000 MCM cable with a 750 MCM lug. Kelley , stated that he inspected the area in question and found no 1000 MCM cable in -
~
the motor control center. Kelley reported that he did find one 750 MCM cable in MCC XB3-2 that is matched up to the proper lugs. He also found that the "" MCC 183-2 contained paired 350 MCM cables properly terminated. Kelley remarked that as of August 31, 1982, no improper wirin'g was evident in the MCC's of the circulating water system. On ' September 17, 1982, Kelle advised that the areas of the alleged deficiencies that were identified by . _ a in his statement of September 2,1982-(see below), were locatea witn we assistance of the maps drawn by Chandler. Allegation Number 2, Auxiliary Building, Reactor No.1, improper screw size for lugs: Kelley stated that he physically located this area utilizing Map a No.1, and found that there were no washer / screws in panel 5 or 6. However, he did discover a number of screws with attached washers. Kelley explained that upon close examination he found that the washer attached to the screws is an intricate part of the screw (manufactured together) and it not an add-on as it may appear at first glance. Kelley stated that some screws contained brass plate and some contained chrome plate. Kelley remarked that the chrome , plate gives the appearance of a steel washer and could easily be mistaken for steel. Kelley concluded that as of September 1982, there was no improper wiring in this area. C Allegation Number 3, Swith Gear Room, Reactor No.1, improper screw size for lugs: Kelley stated he physically located this area utilizing Map No. 2 and found that the same conditions existed as per Allegation No. 2, above. Kelley
- added that as of September 1982, when he inspected Switch Gear Room, Reactor No. 1, no improper wiring was observed.
l Allegation Number 4, Control Room, Reactor No.1, splicing and cable termina-tion to wrong side of fuse block with some shaving of the lugs: Kelley stated he physically located this area, using Map No. 3, and found no evidence of' ' shaving or erroneous termination of cable. Kelley further stated that he checked + /,; . the section in question as well two other sections in the control panel and - found that there was no evidence of lugs being shaved and added that bl.ocks .were of 'such a nature that i,t makes no differ,ence which side accepts power leads. l Kelley remarked that there were three blocks located in this area at the time of l his_ examination. He did not find any improper wiring. Kelley confirmed fa9e> statement that the wiring in this area is black cable wiring, and is non-safety. -
- C Kelley stated that during his inspection effort, he also examined safety and non-safety cable in the location of M concern, utilizing Map No. 4, to detennine if any cables were pulled too tight. Kelley explained that the cables are tied off with tie wraps and anchored with adhesive clips to hold. _. _
wires down and stated he found adequate slack in these cables. Kelley pointed out that these conditions are in existence at the present time. However, he could not connent on the conditions as they existed in January 1980.
~
ee O ar 9 e
, a 6
0 e 9 9 k e e l
9 Status of Investigation The status of this investigation is CU5ED. - - . . . . . - ... - . : ::. -.:... : -- . ; ; . .- .. e Sep 4S. e O
'O I
i L (
- l I
l s I e
-% - M
l 10 ' l Attachments AttLichment 1 -M signed statement 6-14-82 COPY ALL Attachment 2 -M signed sworn statement 9- D 82 ORIG OI:RIV/CY ALL
*W
..DG l
e
~
l t ( 4 9
.i.o u u I. e t-
_ q,..; . .,. w e g . p-=x ,
~. # w -
- ~:- m . e - --- ~%..
- - ' -~ *--- -
.m %,, e
.g.m.'
Q_ 5 :.' - o ;
. /.
. a .. .. - . .
,.. -~. .
+ ?, mines,am -
.u V.c.s,.y-).h[,'. k; '. YNbCi.EI BEGbLATO C'O'.**.NEIOP. ..
.; omet e, .svesi catious eine om:t rio.ow
$1* R)aN PLAZA DRN1 S Usf( W.
.'e......' ..
I ; .
. ;.r . . , . 4Ru=cios nus n:- .
3
.Wm, .6, .- REPDF.T OF IN0GIR) n' C .
September 20, 1983 gRF@ ; QG . .
- ~ '
V.*
SUBJECT:
A - . -COMANCliE PEAL STEAM ELECTRIC STATI0A: L' JiA. t .
&., W ALLEGED POOR MANAGEMEIG' PRACTICES '
y e
.! y
' REPORT NUMBER:
- - - 04-83-023 ' '
- f: . * ,.
5 & ,,.
- 4MQ n - - -
a k.;d11.Af0nSeptember 16, 1923 M .a . . 1
- at l apha - Coc.anche Peak Steam Electric Station ~ , enterec the Office of Investica'tions ~ '
~
1.4Q{A* M A: Fieldinsestigator. Office (01F0i. @was ir.teniewed Recion IV,'atand the reouested OIF0, Regior. the IV,'t.opoortunity NP.C. Inv'esticatorto t ali t to an
- Mgh Mstated he was emploved at CpSES froc it be:ause he was " unhappy";with..isi khE@w@gP..BrooksGRIFFIN. .
ot. M said his- Toreman was
.at which time he -
and his ceneral forec.an was i w. htd:: M . p/M' @w tiointified p,SMtated tnat 6 anc'.@. : .,. ired pioefitter-
. ~
l( m . ,, ,, A; ; as ar. electriciar.,-and or.ce realizine ne )' wasot'n.trainec not"furir.her t -
@ M - es: ar eie:trician, continuee -t:?er.: ploy hit ratner r.ar. admit their . -
'and *-
.- c ' ris.ake.
saic cther electri:ians (not- furthersiden .ifie J were M . @ r.t .:.:perf 4 - wore.n @ sa.ic histi.a e:-@..:cve;er. withsBroM O Root,^ Inc.,@ 4
'was . hired in -
.- . an-'tnat. vc.urtari sy terminated
'.g air ;iiE- + tason for. ' '
avint :u .' . swr.T. M said -that' af ter o .it ,n '+ ei a!. sics c by e res:,r, .any ofiine iobs formerly
, ,,,,. L i o r M r.e . sait. , pla:et; e itc c'.oreisureicr hik tc.
I'- ^ : - ct. ; s ets.' :r. 5. . re.<or.G
~ ' 3.
~
s W Mco tit. to :ia n'eo tna recoisitior c.aterialpressurNa' (not furtner ~ applied identinec bh g) fro.- whlEreiri tot Fat She he, would anc thi: not allo,. r.k M r.!y t #1r.c various re:uired r.steriai! '.ayinc arourc the site neect: 1 :f.s:s t'.s $ ta s e.s . Fi".;.:. said tr.s *.:' - tr.rsa .sr.ed t: fire !;ir. or . for "lookir; accu d*- (scre rcing' for rtteriais, ever.'tnough
. . . i 'F
- :,.was ru J -
..only source fee c.att rial . --
- q. . . W al.5: stic ina % wohic givs hir ser:a'. i :stro:tices an: would no give rf e.w A1: o Yr:1
, ' b'.:e .:- Inc decis.entatict ascertair ic- ' wc ri ns waslassige.e: Ic;perfor.. g saic he otns preiiems (nct*fdrtrer icirtiffeci ns wer c repair
. E f ro r cint : ers ass 1cne: It ths- area.Qs tic that @ouicict assis-
. Wir (ercvics, hit with sugnisior.), ar.c recuiarh a:cused hin. of 'screwino off' g} , y , ,, . ' f . ;
7 +.;; '.W-s 1(y!'stin{tir.s ). .g.
"gaid . . hs .dic his yw;;ri!pecdriy., iglm, ..yu n. 6d$$g;pg; 4,
.E.h M~ tf e . 'on W s did' haute.frc:iEr' witb60'orJCJ. cat,is trav hancers notlfurtnt - ,
X. R -
'71cer.ufi'ec'f elevation?EW ir. the SafeMrds;f,.:iidinc whichiere:(;not 'constrdte: .
,U.5 M.4 e.: aicordiri;? te -.ths instruct)ent' c;r.tair.ed drnhe D:As 7
. (Desian Chance.jAuthorizations).
<tated he could notcrect? tne 'speciftbir-stru:tions tna'tgereWielated 'ir? ? ' '
e Wu.G
;y : * .
> @the. DCAs.*? @ecalled r i t.sec tiueprir. ris:.:.ers 3901 903, anc 930((not:- .
' further icer.ut ied)' to scri or. tns 60 c- % r.hneers.
W. ~. '
.a - ,%.,. .
p g. fk? ? . .-
- & I I r ik,[' ,, 9 . 2&, p - -
' . X.,: ++ .M it k . "' . .
f .1..-ts.w + y Q .c.g ;. :.3 .. -
.. ,' g ,..;
w
y ..<.,.n -
; n.,y.e.&mw.p- a ,n' .: g,. a m :,.hrv..c p a, 2.,;,.a- 3. ~. ~.*.,.:r c.7zw..w.. 4.>,p. , y.
.h M *
. Y
- 1h.b.h::
. .. < .i: hr ,: .r
.m.
a . . - : - .. ,. m .;.T w ;n.+: . a:.-wb . ,
. ,. .c e,. :...., w ... ~ ..
- n . .w... c.c, ,\. .-
.u ...*4sv... ,, . . w . .
S.,,
. *.. . :3 * .,. -v s e t. v- . ... g. . . .s ,.
y e ( .'c , .. Q
.f a
/ *'.:,,.= . -
e, ; . .
~;,, s
.i.S y.N
.,y.-
. 3 - . ?.,
- a -
as - r y<. .,.. 4
- p.a *. t 4, . .
. 7 y- g.
e s r
-< >. . s = .
4"
.,y.~.......,.s[,~ :,, ,
* 'A*
. ft c f - ?~ ' Y'.g. , ,.h ' *
, y -
~ - .
.- *. s '.,9 b '
[' *,f. pt. ,'7;4 *
. , 'fA s .,,il. >
*g
'. ,..y -.
.(
,f , ,A." ,
,s. 9*. -
sp / $is" T report is' provided f or your information;'only.'"- The~ 0fficeof Inv. .estigations."y .; U@@bMField OfficeiRegion :lV,: does not planion; conducting. any ,further. investigatio n, t . 4 -
. ~ .x.. , . , .......3<
w.. ... w-
....n.- .
~. y, e, . ' : . . . .
was.~ vague;regarding specifics. - A. 6. . .t '. INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: . , concernsJand;wasfur.able to provide ~ . . yc m.g,%a.a v .@g - details; relating to h -
~
- t:L J G , .
.any further nidentifying- data. ,WsM. w. a. @. 4.. ; - C'7,
.< . ' 9. y4 '. .f ; .,.? ! '
- 3. , . .. . . . , -
- s. .,. -
' . ~ +
S , , , . . , *
. - . - s .* .,,w.".>4.
~>
.jp.
, c .. ,
- 3. .. ..~.. , : : ,
q . . ;, . . s- . , w ~
- . . v. :,. ' :., 7 r :.
$,s.M 2 .%:,
, &( ~'
3< - .. .'t &, p ::e -
+ A
^'
- NW .
, , $H.Nbrooks Grif fin,gnvestigator ..t ;- .
- d. . . i . ,30ffice.>ofcInvestig Rions' Field O,f,fice_ a,3.-
,,m.w ws .s. - - ,3 . ,
D Region I\..
.(-
~
s s-
.,~,
- - w, . . , .y ,
c . 1 e, , s
. c.g . - ..v . -
.n . :. .. ., ; .; , , .x..i.n.p
~.
~m. _. f g
g, . ,.m,,a,. m .m , g, , , ~. , ,_ .
. . s
.s A
~
'. a r e, . v.,s
.. ._. , o..n..W..:.., . b
~.
. APPROVED:
%J K.Jerr, Director n w e. a ..
c 4,.p ,c,!t4 j '&, ,'i'r
/ . ,
110ffice;cf. Investigations Field.0ffic w. J g, -g . .s
@W%uW?CM e..n. m. w m '- . . 4 ' R,egi o'n,yi1Y:
~
w 't 0 h 4 1
, ,4 w et.t.
w 4 e#,;. .. w. . .su.c ..
- r. .w< ,.. s t , .
-,, , , -o ,
r s m, a. .u ,
- s. ,
QWh:, . ~ Ncci W Q 2 ia.rcp CI:HQ -
- " N, J W.&.S~ 2
. M. eO W% *" ^
. s
.+
#. c
, .+ . .... . p, . F . m. . . S u- $ . .. o ..s . n.,
. , - , ,t i
)
. - t e
' .N Th. A.FCol. lins', RIY '3! .gv J** , l
- f . Q%] .,
W .?ES,, .VS. enermant RIY
?N ,yA'.' ,-k.' ,+.p 4 b
. <@, '. , , o,.,
4 }, ,p
,JJn, ,.. . +.q,,.
g
, 6 b> " ' < *
-w.p', .+J ? 4 . ';
e/- ..g," s "-
,:+. .a ;_ ;;f e,'
_a , At . .,
./.* , . .g'*,,
S
*e = . - . ..-,i ',*+ ! ,'. + * "
s J, } %- 'r i , s ; . , s La a ,. l4. ..; ~ . - - .
.,s s .s',*
54.,d',,..,
. Jef:
.y .p 7 ( ;a, + .a4 ,.
e , . r,, 3
,., .- g*(, % + f q g's +. ,p :4f,l ;
. 4 ;-j4
,, . x. ' g-- .. a s ' , s . . .o. w, m I s, .
'e,, .
g g H' , * . .y s+ . - ' ', * < s. gf ,= e Q :
- 4* 19:
s
.'.~I.'; ., .s
- Nga *.
tr 4. . b 1 p un ,-
-y el e , , 4;. ...g
$ r - r ,.
1 4, g. g h' , j , , 4 -
-r '
, .W g . ZE-
't" .e e ? .r s a W' gg ,, .,,,,p
- r .<d w
,.t. r... 7- :: 7 c -
q -
-p -
.. . J.
.e ; a
'~
-r:. .
g g *
' . .h j # (
*'w
.t. , s ,
- e. <
. r
.p.
ne 8 54,, 8 8 ^ ,kd . va' 2
.j f
_ W' ,' 3l j..
-V a . Pm < j 3* . . yg ,. 'C-s - ,t' ., ,
t , ;, , '.p,
., R
., 4 - *,
... r =
1p, ,
. e ,
. . i,n , l, f e s' .g _.,
,a. , 3e *
- s a
, Q.
<4
[ = , '* I+ m '*(,s ,.y
, r
,,. 3,-,.,.
~4 j *t
/ . ,
. ', f '[. p,' . . h S i
,.g < ,7 --
e
. ,.z l . . . Q; s,F- fy.f[, A .
., ,e- ,; .', 1 e.' .,.
i .
..._L L4 .- ,
- 3 ., . .. ;6 , ten t) 8 i
, g-
,'$^.- Y.'., _ l g'4 f
- s. 1 ,a - . 1,*
1
,q.
I$.h
~. f. s .- $ >y - c. .
,* }
g r.3.y
., w ere
..gw j
. ,3 4 ~ 4 "N . v .
..' . . . ., . . . - i ,,', . , , *19 . ,'.s . s , -' +* .
.~? ,.
e e b ,*
- 9f- . . s<[ . [e,gr
* 'f ..
+ f,g . y-Uys ' , - ., *
, t .' W Q .
p.
.'J' ;. .q' ^
4 s N b [:
,. S * +. [, , ( *g Eh (hj.y . n. , 'i 3 O -
k' s . s: , .n , [ ny . m..:n .v- . , , . , . E'h'6[M.m ?jM-,r . .,; ON' f ,,..fO' I
~_
~Qa,V.g@Njid. . u g f M .p.xn. gm QGhf, a :
.. ;f,<i',. c,e .cn 8 x)F . f' ,. .
f Ny.wm pgg. mew.ppo my/u. eig < .14.H,y
. p.M -
- r. <a V. -S.yg < q,p. pq$pm ff fy,y;w : u '.,.
- pg.
.. g.g&
- .,d j i c.m y,. v ., . m y <s.a
- w. . - , .
* ,s 1 sr <My e p e.g L nm. A,6Wp> ..
n , ,jg ..
- c
+n
,, s '
, p:,. c . ,> , .. n e 9 , ..s., . s.. ,.. .<
- s. . .: , r so;y., y% ' y" AJ , - 's ,
.i .
_,'(. 4 -
.2
' *F 'r iN J - k , .z..'l 'l,V.v.. . , .' i (r'; *
-s.
*:4 . ) -
. r u -l C, ' #' '
- t7 A y;p. ;' , y *..',.';
- e. . r, .'
- s. ea ~.
- s . ; d.7. 4, s , . '
. , . , ** , ^
r, 0,, A at .\ $g z "', ,
.",.#..-i.h'gd j s.* - h
~'
4y-.. , . . . , ., . . .j7 m ,{> , <[s. p M, .,S'- s~ i h. .'- , * . - - ,s "s f y tomi
- .ti.
>#1
' , e *
- s f .a+
- .if.s.- . , r .
*s -
- v. r s
- f. , , . . -
y . = =y..= =:==:=.=.= = =r - n ~
' 6 -
.mmm DO h OT D;. vr e
,.R,%
?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
..) . o, - <,-o,,,m.90WOT D+w <
l
- g. i.g,=...*j .
.,, n3g,=.g !
B ^ REPORT OF INQUIRY (3 ,
- September 20, 1983 e .,:
'SdBJECT:
- COMANCHE PE'AK STEAM El.ECTRIC STATION:
ALLEGED P0OR MANAGEMENT PRACTICES gg_ : pg j [ REPORT NUMBER: Q4-83-023 -\O D ; 7o j M , { f
- 1. On September 16.-1983, h a , entered the Office o nyest gation t 7.t3 l e Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Field Office,(01FO), Region IV, and requested the opportunity to talknv to an tor investigator.- Mas interviewed at the OlF0, Region IV', b tated he was employed _aLCP_SES from j
H. Brooks GRIFFIN. at h time he uit because he was " unhappy w' t his D job.- aid hi oreman was and hi,s general foreman was @,
- 2. Mstated that'6nd 61 red pipefitter (notfurther
; Tdentified) as an electrician, and once realizing he was not tr i d ,
nd
'f
@as an' electrician, continued to employ t him furtherrather than identified admit their (
6 I '
) mistake. said ot electriciahs -
. grade to perfonn g work. said that as hired in 10 an t untarily tensinated his employment with Brown & oot, Inc.,
1 (reasonfor eaving unknown). said that after . quit, he was assigned to rework many of e jobs fonnerly , e pe ormed by g g said placed a lot of pressure on him to 79 2 complete this rework.
~
- 3. herein he would not allow gcomplained inn to requisition that pressure material (notwas applied further ident1by @) from the Fab Shop, and that Tied he @ had to find various required materials laying around the site needed tasks. Msaid that M threatened to fire him on 1O for ~"looking around" (scrounging) for materials, even though-p 1 was his only source for material.
- 4. so said thatMould give him verbal instructions and would not giv
- im the documentation for work he was assigned to perfonn. @ said h I ofte ao o ascertain the problems (not further identifie he was to repair [
from other workers assigned to the area. S said that would not assis L him(providehimwit supervision), and reguTarly accused im o " screwing off" l (wasting time), said he did his work properly. ,
- 5. said he did hava = neebl= dth 60 ocl0_ cable tray hangecs (not further entified) on elevation 810 in the Safe 9uards_Bui.1 ding.ph.ich_were-not-constcuct h h
according to the instructions contained in the DCAs (DesjigrLChange Authorizatior - stated he could not recall the specific instructions that were vlolafE'd ir , e s. 6 recalled he used blueprint nuaters 49_01, 902. and 930,(not' L l
- further identified) to work on the 60 or 70 hangers.
- 1 f 1
~
DO hQ. .DISCLOE
,. n 7 , -.n . -. . - , _. . . ~. e w
Y--r5,P. , . _
~....& . ;. - . . ,, ,
' ~
y . .[, . :- .- , ,
% .3 .
g* u.s e"* f - NUCt. EAR REGUt.ATORY COMMISSION DO NOT dis ,,,
,,,,4 "i, ,[ omct or mvtsn nONS HRD OmCE. REClON IV - F34 M TcTO$.[e'$sEI! " .
R RT OF INQUIRY
/
August 29, 1983 .
)
ELECTRIC STATION
- COMANCHE PEA ~
- L' . SUBJE ALLEGED INTf ION OF ELECTRICAL CRAFT' PERSONNEL.
REPORT NUMBER: Q4-83-021'
- 1. On August 23, 1983, 1D Electrical Department, Brown and Root Incorporated , omanche Pe m Electric Station (CPSES), telephonically contacted NRC Region IV.
- - related his concerns regarding activities in the Electrical Departmen to
- William Seidle..NRC Branch Chief', Reactor Project Branch, and William Johnson, NRC Section Chief, Reactor Pro tS tion C, Division of Resident Reactor Project & Engineering Program. equested he be provided confi-
- dentiality. On August 23, 1983, in ormation concerning allegations
; was verbally provided to NRC Investigator D. D. ORISKILL. ,
e . & V*w'
- 2. On August 25, 1983, interviewed NRC Investigators D. .D. DRISKILL
/ and W. E. FROST at his-res'dsnce i He provided a signed h st.atement, Atta Attachment (2 rff(1 and tated execute that his primary en ia concern it:y Agreement, relates to the lack a
\
h of trainino B&R provi s to Electrical Department personnel at CPSES. He' stated these personnel are requTrerto read. CPSES Manua115~ 0910,"which is the criteria j for fabrication and installation of elecmean concunTangers, during their l first day on the job. He stated personnel are then required to sign a for1n stating that respective individual has read and understands the S-0910 Manual. He explained this manual contains approximately 400 to 500 of technical data and is impossible for a person to learn in one day. xplained that B&R offers a voluntary 40-hour training course regarding 0910 however, j this course is offered only during off-duty. hours, without pay. esti-l mated that less than 37, of the Electrical Department personnel attend this - course. htated he believes the on-duty training in S-0910 is inadequate Mtated he believes most electrical personnel do not have an adequate working knowledge of S-0910.
- 3. Q1so explained that S-0910 is issued to every foreinan for use by his crew. He stated that all of the Electrical Department foreman and general fore-man understand their personnel must refer to the S-0910 during the performance of their jobs. Mexplained that TUGC0 has a Work Sampling Group whose personnel walk around the site recording what activity craft personnel are stated one of the catagories of activity noted is " idle."
@ performing. stated e@lectrical personnel are considered to be " idle " if observed reading 5-0910. He stated that as a result of this, electrical personnel are frequently told b all their supervisors that they should not get caught read-ing S-0910. stated these circumstances offically discourage the use of the required manual by elec'trical craft personnel during the performance of their duties.
- 4. hstated another of his concerns is the poor morale of electrical craft workers. He. stated the poor morale is the result of threats and harassment
~
e
- e
* * * :=
- a,.. ..
** * *'r L' '[ ~/ *S.M. . / t D ',:53.#,.7' fDD$* Q;T** 9f;***" ~;, -
ggey . . . _
s e _.-m ~ m m.. . . m .. l2 ge....w. .. a.w g g p c.n ; - ., .g.; . .g.,pp3.q .we L. 3.,..g.n. as-m n.g x
,p m g . .
..: .u
- e. - 'qn . . . , . .m
,.,.s . s
-g
.t. s.
~ r *q c.. . c.w.un.-
- g. .y. . , .. < .
- h., .j ~. .
ww .. ty 3 MM N O $
- . Ntc. C.O %
k$ pi%c N r A c. % R s:'- osio w, w. y ddk '
-rev A- os t o a.k-ces.E 6. A's's%
f -sala.Q . . . w u vos m g{f u u~ e od a. C od e, -h J av Cb_5s, b r - - 3 /o F[ RJ,o'.ty . r ll g- b .ea u b q d% %o3 es%.J2 a.ifed 4t e . I oce,Jg ch s . r boie +Sc3 %. 44 au 4 of. ' d' . s ac. 6 4 . 4 o. d m -{ pu,.Q cL. ud 6 et ib{.; r 6G' : L.3 6._,o4 or% -4. S.'? .
-b ca.cL. c4 %..q . dc.ub Lko s . t ..
- o. Od. c-C : .l g pov mb-~ , k p od pwc,w e ,.m4Q w
- o. . .
ii.. or cm p o c e.as. d%' + Co Q . ves, u.3ecQ vasd. ' [.I . tu. h.h occ.opoimQ <egan_ J s. I es. . I.. kw %d eaubc d oc m no du cu_e. 9 J,
~ ~
eA i i R 'c1.__ ,.. cu.dut9 , A s-o9 o.
~
- h. A p . Ao m cuo. ,. eC q -h. s-o9to .;
W CJ h4 W ccdCs. a.G ,~.cd. & M d~ Jce c.-A. Ws to ow k cL% h.s jcda. Cu_cTeu.,
., an.d Ge,, 4 % km use wh u.a %L M h --M.o paE. w-c.c. 6m s. .A f./
r w so.m it cu e k v. % +tu. t ,.3 ceco 6.Sc.sk hMS Grq . P. usa J fco ' b , e u.o n.( o - # 1 -k u. 44 e<w
.o. c.eem d . <#. u* M ,, p p d cwe dc-Q ., h
%:.b.9 : '. l.' 4 M e 4 5.fgiud,'.s . %.m Q.m. .viee,;4.&.,._,l.y^,;! -
^ . , jg... ...g .
;f .,f . ..
. ,.; ., . ., ~-
- ..
- Q .,,;,. ,f
, ' ' , f. . . ...'
* - * - 1 p... .
. . L. .
.p ., .
f
- V'T$Nis,,4h.f,p;,Qd,,.,.,;<.~._,
m
,y
'f.r gg
f,9.s
*~~ ..
',~
l g., -
, t, .
, b -
J'-
,u , . -..
'.N O, -. - . .-
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY .... . g , .I
. e . .. . .. . -.. . .. . . . .
su % s - S .
)' { g eu.y a. em. ~. May 22, 1984
-. - - - s~ v 3 gf/> Ct tW b Mr. John T. Collins C4t24 W .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission } Office of Inspection and Enforcement , 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76012 bl
Dear Mr. Collins:
Enclosed is a copy of our final report dated May 15, 1984, regarding issues surrounding the "T-shirt incident" of March 8, 1984. I believe this report, together with its attachments, accurately reflects the seriousness with which senior management views such matters and the level of effort we put into their investigation and resolution. 'Y {, Should you have any questions, please advise. ., Very truly yours, 04rz6
~
i BRC:In Enclosure cc: Darrell G. Eisenhut w/ attachment 4 k - L l A ,- (
.. .v 1
7 ., - b:' A, t . nso ' . 1 . gvys Q,M,L b.u U O h], T W . .
- s. .. ..
a anvreson or rau. e arrss.ssses ps.scrase couranr s
, , , . z
. .; . - ; . u ,. - ..
.:..,.... . . . : ... . . . . . ,9 ,....'...;
,.;i >i.>...'.~,.-
, . , r.. ,
f- .
. .J TUQ-2f34 -:TE
.e . ..XAS .UT. ILITIES.G N.R ERA. TING.:,COM. PA.NY. ~ '
- v .." : -
- 3. .
.,J,,.
O FF, ICE M E M O R A .D N' U M'
?\
- r. D. N. Chapman Glen no Texas May 22. 198'd' subject Transmittal of Final Report on Issues Resulting From Interviews with Electrical Inspectors This will formally transmit the subject report dated May 15, 1984.
The report concludes that there was no intent on the part of the inspectors to convey any concerns or any message that would reflect adversely on an inspector's objectivity. Accordingly no repercussions and/or disciplinary actions have been or will be taken. Of the six inspectors that I interviewed on March 9, 1984, two are still working in Unit No. 1 Safeguards Building; one is working in the Unit 1 Control Building; two have left of their own accord; and one is working in, Unit 2. All reassignments have been made due to decreased activity in the Unit 1 Safeguards Building and a need for additional resources in the other areas. We will continue our efforts to promote free expression of concerns without fear of retribution and to maintain a strong and effective m
, .. QA/QC program at CPSES.
Nega 7 TUGC0 Site QA Man ~ager AV/bil cc: M. D. Spence B. R. Clements
<J .
1
. s .- . ~ . . . ..
.2 .. ... . . . v. . ,
::: '.a .... ,.
,:.: 1 .' ' ,. . ; . * ?' , .. -!;**"
.s.-.
5 ~ ) ,* '..p :',' - . .]: .. ? ' l ' .l 'l ~ z '. lV Y..c.
. s
*,-<<,-<.4 -,,, ~ .. ', ,
v.cw mse%.,m ,, .wwwww: ,u.- 4 s,wwu . wm -w- ..exe-m<, -
. : . - ., % w
_. : , .L-. -
=.: : 7 - .' -
'~ ~
m is.y. +
. -.n .
. _a
- a. . .
. . .m. . . . . . . v. m .. . . . .. . . , , . , ~
- . W UQ-20)4;r.. ._.sTEXAS ' UTILITIES GENERATING;COMPA.NY:: ' J. x VN -
L,. O F[IC E M EM O R A N D U'M '*
.A I
. 7. D. N. Chapman ci,n nome. Team. May15,1954 Subject Final Report on Issues Resulting From Interviews with Electrical Inspectors <
This will document actions taken as a result of interviews with six (6) electrical inspectors who, on March 8,1984, wore T-shirts with the phrase "I'm in the business of picking nits". Upon receiving a report of this, TUGC0 site management decided to locate them in_ separate quarters to protect them from potential adverse reaction
; by other site personnel and to have them conveniently available for interviews. The inspectors were advised that these shirts reflected adversely on their professionalism and objectivity as inspectors.
Concurrent with this action, the inspector's work stations were examined 3 to obtain and secure company property that might be compromised if
; disciplinary actions were.taken. The items secured included copies j of Non-Conformance Reports (NCR's) and Inspection Reports-(IR's),
and original IR's, Master Data 2ase Work Packages, controlled and "information" drawings, and miscellaneous notes and notebooks. The. miscellaneous notes and notebooks were returned to the inspectors - the next-day. Imediately after, on the same day, an NRC representative
; confiscated the remaining documents. The following wek, we requested T the NRC representative to Xerox the original documents in their possess 4n L and return the originals to us so that we could proceed *with our ~,
work. The NRC representative complied with our request. i ~ The inspectors subsequent 1'y were interviewed separately by Mr. Boyce j Grier oi March 8 and 9,1984, and by Mark Welch and myself on March 9, 1984. Mr. Boyce Grier's report is included as Attachment A. - l During these meetings several coments and concerns were voiced.
; Additional interviews with sixteen Electrical QC Inspectors were l.
conducted to obtain as much information as possible in areas of concern. l The following salient points were made during the meetings with different 3 degrees of concurrence among the inspectors interviewed: " 1 1. The inspectors stated a strong displeasure at'the publicity that i had t,een given to their wearing of the T-shirts. They attributed a phone call to a newspaper to .one person whom they described ' . < as "being intelligent but with very little comon sense". The person who allegedly called the newspaper was also described
, as having coined the phrase, and they stated there was no connection i '
between this phrase and any other previous incident at Comanche % Peak. The inspectors stated there was no intent to convey a message or concern by wearing these T-shirts. They further pointed out that approximately twenty (20) inspectors had worn these . shirts the previous Monday and that "nobody made'a big deal about , j.. ., it". Y .
- i. .. .
4 . .
, . s.
'1 . .
.i . . .. . : a. . .. .:. . : .b v .-
- 3. y.y.\.:. :::
,; . 3_. i.: . .. ._
. ' . . .:,;.. .. ">.s.m 9 7.J.y : .: . y; .. . ,9;.a .:. .; .g:
..n,~.- - . - .-
. . ~ . _
e
.c. :.. c.
3
- g. ,
a . .
- r ,.
g-4 . e
. . . . ... , , w '~, : , :
W c .c yJ. ~ . , . . '
. .: . *1 -.- ..P , [, ' ,',g- .[.1n.' . ' . y. x :k. ,.;., _;. .e.,',.; y ~: . %; Q .
p 1. - . p ~ e j 2. They stated that up to about a week before then, there was " finger pointing" going on between building management personnel and i i QC. They believed QC was being described as uncooperative and + causing unnecessary delays. They stated that the main reasons [ ! for the delays were inadequate inspection packages provided by l ? the Paper Flow Group and the craft turning in work for inspection , prematurely to obtain progress credit. 'They did note, however,. f m er.T .. i an improvement in the inspection packages since the program was1 . initially implemented as part of.the Building Organization Concept. $ 3. Some inspectors voiced a. concern with respect to inspection procedures. They believed that procedures. have been changed too frequently ! ie-j and that changes have been in the d.i.r.ection.of, relaxing requirements. { { 4. A concern was voiced over cable . term.i. nations. They stated their j- inspections were identifying problems wfth' lighting terminations l j and had heard rumors that inspection procedures were being changed .; j to delete such inspections. t i 3 4 5. Some inspectors ' voiced a disagreement with "us. .a_s-is" dispositions t on Non-Conformance Reports (NCR's), principilly 5edeuse of the. .g number of such dispositions. Management's conniment to quality , j was questioned because a "use-as-is" disposition o.d act require . ir craft to build it per the original requirement. Two exceples-N were cited. The two NCR's are included as Attachmen..ts. B. and - i a
- 6. Concerns were voiced on documentation. Some inspectors were. -
experiencing problems with incomplete document packages and with I$
- duplicateyackages_with-diffarent numbers .for.the o same component. <
Several inspifctors indicated that rettfevi_ng Inspection Reports - QR's),hasbeenaproblem.
- During our meeting, the following points were established
- I
- 1. TUGC0 Management has been and remains totally commited to a safe ,
and reliable plant in full complianc.e with a11' applicable requirements. _ ! 2. TUGC0 Management has been and remains totally dedicated to a i strong and effective Quality Assurance / Quality Control program at Comanche Peak. , ['
- 3. There was a need to place more emphasis on communicating;information to inspectors, especially when inspection procedures are revised ;
- such that inspections are reduced in scope or deleted. ~ The reasons, -
'~
for these actions, such as equipment. declassification; alternate i-fnspection programs; or inspection'or' test provisions (such as prerequisite or preoperational tests) during other proj.ect phases, j lo . should be communicated. Such communication was also necessary' - G p on certain NCR's dispositionePiis~eTas-is"
" . ~ ~ -
l.
- l. .
.. : x_..
j . + y
.. . ;..;. ; . . i.. . . . : .- ". '. :
.;... . . . . ?.w ...
- 9. ; :':
y;:.yp;.y..7.,..j.~,:: 9 . ; . ;. J. 7y . 9.[.s. ,9,. .p..y.
- : ;.. O .; ;
t p 6. e [
~
.. -w -,,,,.
_ ,.r ,- ,-._. ,
.*-Id.W .
_-~ --
;3 . l, ., .
.; ]
's
.Q *
'..):1 V [. . .
.f .
1 c; , ., ,. . .. s '. 1.
. - J. 9 2,. * *
- . - 1
>.. ."- f-)
. .Gy_,- ', a .t
..;t
. ,.,. ., s
..1
- 4. There was a need to promote more feedback and discussion, not I t only within QA and QC, but with the Engineering and Quality Engineering function. i
! On March 16, 1984 I was assigned to Comanche Peak as TUGC0 Site i QA Manager. Concurrently, Quality Engineering was organized also reporting to the Manager, Quality Assurance in Dallas. During meetings at the site on March 16, 1984, with QA and QC supervision. TUGCO's comitments to a safe and reliable plant; to a strong and effective QA/QC organization; to free and open comunication at all levels i in QA/QC; to an emphasis on QA/QC procedures that assure design =conunitments are being met; were communicated. Subsequent to that meeting, ! , issued a letter logged TUQ-1982 dated March 22, 1984, entitled "QA
- Policy" that reaffirms these commitments. A copy of that letter is included as Attachment D.
{ i Since that letter, I have held meetings with every element.of QA *
- and QC organization here on site. TUGC0 top management, including Mr. M. D. Spence and M . B. R. Clements, have attended some of these
! -meetings with me. A memo to file dated April 30, 1984, reflecting
- top management. involvement, is included as. Attachment E.
5 In regard to the " finger-pointing", the QC inspectors cited inadequate
- {
js inspection packages and premature submittal of work for inspection, as reasons for delays. - f The Inspectors stated that they had seen significant improvement' ' i in the quality of the packages, attributing the initial problems. to " growing pains" with the Paper Flow Groups under the Building Management Concept. However, I have directed that a surveillance be conducted in these areas of concern. A copy of this directive is included as Attachment F. In addition to the above surveillance a task force (the CPSES Monitors Team) has been commiissioned by the l Assistant Project General Manager and myself to perform an oversight function on the entire records processing activity at Comanche Peak. ' l The Paper Flow Group in each Butiding Task Force would be included i within the inspection scope of the CPSES Monitors Team. The document !. consissioning this effort is included as Attachment G. This on-going. j effort will continue to assure QA records are being' processed in an efficient and correct manner. ! In regard to premature submittal of work for inspection, this matter
- had already been identified by our trending program. A Corrective l Action Request (CAR), logged TUQ-1955, designated CAR-036, dated
' March 1,1984, was issued requiring corrective action in four areas where a problem with " failure to assure work is completed correctly _ ! prior to a request for inspection" was identified. The Corrective l Ac. tion Request is included as Attachment H. - l C' . A* . .
+.
-l .
.. .,. ... . . . . . . {. . -
l l. { .. :u::. l s c. '...L; L . l . . i . . .. -
'.:I '. .
e.. . :. . ; ;., ' ;; ,,.. l 7 . : .o; . ... m . .g. :. :. .! ( } y.,.. ..-;. ; ; .y . 3. ..: f;.. .;, : . . p k- __
. = = . -. *i1 . _
~ _ _ . - -- --
, s. .
r ,' .
.,. 7._. ,
_ , . , . , , ;. z .J . . c .. z. ,
- .. .n . .
. ,-: ~ ., :-: .
i ,. . , ,
, - ( 94 ' . ; .
' ' ,- m'
~
x - t s. w i The concern on cable terminations has been addressed. On January 24, 1984, we verbally T6f6~rmed the NRC of a deficiency regarding cable terminations. On March 29, 1984, a final report was submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e), describing actions taken. Supporting documentation is on record at CPSES. Ienninations..used in. junction boxes for power and control cable for 1E applications are qualified in accordance with IEEE 323-1974. * ? i t. The report has been reviewed and approved as meeting all requirements.
; Contrary to the rumors, Revision 16 to the procedure, which was issued on March 12, 1984 and remains in effect as of this date, continues to provide for removal of the covers of Class IE power and control junction boxes, and for inspections. .
1 In regard to the lighting termJna.liorts, the inspectors were advised that lighting fixtureti are not Class 1E. Concerns related to failure of the lighting fixture terminations in the open-circuit and short-circuit l mode were discussed with the inspectors involved. Engineering documentation addressing both failure modes was I wiewed with them and discussed at length. The inspectors were satis 'ed that the integrity of the Class 1E power and distribution systems is not compromised.
,~
L' . The investigation clearly indicates that tne T-shirts were worn in a spirit of levity, with no intent to convey messages or concerns.,
- A greater number of inspectors had worn the shirts previously without incident. The investigation clearly indicates :there was an unwarranted over-reaction on the part of management towards the wearing ~ of the T! shirts on Thursday, March 8, 1984. This over-reaction in itself
- i gave this incident inordinate and inappropriate attention.
Our efforts to encourage QA/QC personnel to voice their concerns is continuing. We continue to emphasize an open-door policy without
- fear of retribution. Mr. 8cyce Grier is making every effort to provide l greater visibility to his presence on site. We are continuing to place emphasis, during our training meetings, on reasons for procedural -
I changes and con' t inue to encourage inquiries on dispositions of NCR's, or on any other area.of concern. We believe.our efforts are being j- successful. We continue to maintain a highly effective Quality Assurance, Quality Control and Quality Engineering organization at Comanche Peak. We believe that our combined efforts continue to assure that ,
- ' we are building a safe and reliable plant that is in full compliance with all applicable requirements.
> A. Vega TUGC0 Site QA Manager l
c. j: AV/bil. cc: M. D. Spence l- .. B. R. Clements , l , ,. . . . , . . .
, . $, .. l. ., . l' *.
. .l (I ' ' ,' . . * *:
i'l',.'. ,. . ,
'.: .; l.".... ',,. 'l . ' ' . : . .I ., ' .' ' .i .:. . s ,..,,
,g .-
7 . ., ... . i, ;v www, , .n .m _c Jew. w ,w.u,w ,n w w ,< y *
's a,..s m,
i. J LTkX S.UTil.lTIES GENERMI G;C;OMi%NY: ..ATjACHMINT '.w.
'[ s -
.' .. ~.
c .
. - O F P I C E M E M'O R A N D U M . ,
c~- ..
- O'- v T. R. G. Tolson cien no . Tm. March 15, 19'84 subj.ct Interviews of Electrical OC Inspectors
. Safeguards Building Task Force j On March 8 and 9,1984, I conducted interviews of sixteen Electrical QC inspectors assigned to the Safeguards Building Task Force. A sunsnary of the~ results of the individual interviews is attached. The following is a sumary of my analysis of the results in the principal areas
- discussed during the interviews.
Procedures Three-fourths of the inspectors interviewed have concerns with respect I* to_ inspection _grocedures. They believe that p,ro._cedures have beeri changed too frequently and that changes.have been_.ip..the. dire.qti.on of
~
r.e1.a.xing requirements.. It is their perception that requirements are being relaxed because inspectors have found too many problems that impact on schedule. They believe this is the reason that post construction inspections are being held up while the procedure is being revised. " One inspector felt that inspectors should have more input into procedure
, {,_., changes and opportunity to cossnent on new procedures and proposed changes.
-'l Two inspectors had no problems with procedures and two were silent'on the subject.
Documentation - Three-fourths of the inspectors problemsinterviewed have concerns about documentation. 7T They were experiencing with incomplete document packages and . with dualkate packages with different numbers' for the_ sam.e_. component. Several inspectors inificated that r.etrieving15. .has been a problem. I la 4 - Five of these inspectors believed that the situation with documentation is improving while two other inspectors said they saw no improvement. Three inspectors had no problems with documentation and one was silent i on the subject. Training , Three-fourths f the inspectors either have 'no problem with trAiniDJLo.r iO were silent on!the subject. The remaining one-fourth felt that training could be improved. For the training currently being conducted they complained about the instructors who only read a procedure and answered
. questions during a training session. One felt the training would be !
4 more helpful if the instructors would discuss examples of inspection
- -. problems and describe how they were resolved, i
- I
, g ,
- . . . p.l *
- ~ .:. u. :.-. . ,. .;&
b : 9.V l .
.. &;: :. ., ..' . y.).. 2 s .. . ::. ?s..:..
.u
.s ,.
u.; . . - . . . . .. .
~
$ f. ,
~
1-
~ ~ ' -
, dil;)
<~ ._..
a.: . ' '
~J-
, ' ,_ . - .f , -
, f,*...ATTAC,HMENT , A - c' ort' t'
- ' v. - - - - ,
.g ;- ,
O R. G. Tolson s '-- Page 2 March 15, 1984 NCR's None of the inspectors interviewed stated that they have any problem with , issuing NCR's. One inspector did say that he had had some problems in the past but none now. One-half of the inspectors stated that they often disagree wi_tl 1 .,the disposition of,,NCR's, principally because they feel that an excessive number" ire' disp 6sftioned "use-as-is".. - - ... Management - Two inspectors expressed concern because management did not seem to care about quality. Two other inspectors expressed the view that Area Management felt QC was overdoing inspections and causing delays in meeting schedules. Two other inspectors were concerned about pressure they perceived from management to meet turnover schedule, and one inspector felt the shutdown of inspections in the areas of post construction verification, separation and lighting was harassment by management. f . (, If you have questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please let me know. . M . B. 1//,rier BHG/bil Attachment cc: B. R. Clements D.' N. Chapman G I I i s. y t
- l. .
3 . 1
- f 4 . .- , . . .
I **
r."f ' . 's Il *
- t. *. " % ' l ,{f* t
* ? *
....e *
.o,*.p.., *
.,, ' l. * ' 5 .
.l '.
- e , , *
.. . .s **. . - ,'
. , , .s
- OI r - g , ; g g , , . -
I; [3 P f
't - .'
-(.; .
'^
S . . { ' ," [ .
, I. .', ; *; ',1,A'TTACHME.NT. A y con't? L ' ['
- l , ,, ,
..-. 3.
- s. 7
. o s
k . l Summary of Interviews With Electrical QC Inspectors - Safeguards Task Force i 1 Inspector A s
- Did pre-post construction inspections. Found many problems in first room . ~l i 7 l
inspected. Room not ready for inspection. Followed procedure as written. Found 50-60% bad terminations. Noted evidence of rat damage to cables. j
~~
Couid noi get SWA's to loik ati equTp'sinT.Dn1F'o'ni SWA issued Vor pump ' U i 16 l motor. Training has been'. good. Documentation is a problem because of missing documents in folders. Three packages obtained today'had nothing
; (0CA's., CMC's, IRN's) in folders. Feels situation with documentation is
- not improving. Has no problems with issuing NCR's when required. No problems with NCR dispositions.
Inspector B . i Short time in Safeguards Task Force. Feels cooperation in Safeguards is . _;o l not as good as in former group where everything went smooth. Regularly ~ opened junction boxes during post construction insnections in former group. . f {' 1 Instructors ' mostly. read procedures , i T.EAining going good and has been helpful.and respond to questions.~Should bring up
~
l encountered and discuss resolution. Has no problems with issuing NCR's. No'
~~ '
! problems with dispositions. , i . l Inspector C ! Concerned about newspaper article and statement about damage being done during . j . inspection. Concerned about Area Management statements that QC inspectors I. ! are " overdoing their job". Feels that inspection procedures are changed j too frequently ~. . Believes terminaLhlocki which.do.not-have lugs should not I be used on. safety. equipment 7 Feels reaction when anyone goes~to the NRC is .- - i intisfdation. Believes Safeguard Electrical QC group is. feeling heat because , they spoke up about problems. Has no problems issuing NCR's.. Feels'too i many NCR Believes' inspectors need more Tree _: kin.'s to'do their art..dispositioned job. "use-ps .js". Suggested that interviews of inspectors be c routinely with random selection of inspectcrs to be interviewed. Feels craft-personnel were back of lock-up of inspectors wearing t-shirts and search of ' ~ their personal effects. Has been unable.to find some IR's in yault. ' )
. i
~
IO l s . . . ; .
. ~; . ,.
,. . . . , . : .' . .. ,: ,-: _t . l .
~ Y. ,
, . ,, ,s, .: ~ ,,
l [...-)* ~ . . . .^. V ".',1z,,f. , , . .. : . . . . . . . ., . . , ,*. . . , . ;., y ::J.;g,?.. .,, . .L
* ^
\._ .. ,:,
,.;.,,u. ,,_,., p... .
j ,
.,, 3 l m m a_ .
o .
~
- i. .
e , .
~
3 ' ., .
d .?i- . -
. .e . .;: 1 ATT. ACHMESTi . - A.. , c'on.' t .*[.
s .- . Inspector D Feels Safeguard QC group has too many agreements with construction and doesn't follow inspection procedures because of infomal arrangements. Concerned about newspaper article and statement about damage being done by inspectors. Finds this statement directed toward entire group to be intimidating. During ' . , , trainino some of the QE's just read procedures and sometimes cannot respond to questions. Has problems with documentation packages with missing DCA's o 3 and IR's. Experience in the other Area groups is much better and sees no ., improvement in Safeguards PFG. Turned three packages back this morning - because they were incomplete. No problem with issuing NCR's. Feels too many. NCR's are dispositioned "use-as-is". Feels shutdown of PCV, separation and lighting. inspections .by Safeguards group when other area groups are not
- sfiut'do~~ri w is harassment by QA/QC and craft management.
i Insoector E Has no problem with inspections but feels jpro edures _are_ changed .too frequently. ,,.- Feels training is alright. Has problems wTth documentation and receiving incomplete packages from PFG. Has spent more than half day looking for ' documents. Feels situation with documentation is improving. Has no problems
- r. with issuing liCR's but feels too many are dispositioned ".use-as-is". Believes 3 procedure changes are in direction of relaxing inspection requirements.
Concerned that management doesn't care about quality. Would like to feel that he did a good job in his inspections. Inspector F Has cencerns about 1.ichting_.taminations where cable slack is not as prescribed. I Inspected three rooms and found problems with 90% of teminations in two rooms but no problems in third room. Variation in results apparently due i f c, 4 to difference in workmanship. Feels trainin Has had problems ! sith incomplete document packages and7R7 ts.not fs'g is going..well. complete. Has no problems l14 with issuing'NCR's. Feels QC works weTfwith engineers to resolve NCR's and I has no problems with disposition. .
~
- s. v 'n ' , a . .a ~
.
- c. v] s I_e_sy tor G . .
/ 7
' Insysctions have found problems.withdichting tem _inations, also with powe.r.Jod. I go_ntrol n teminations_and_ conduit identiff cation. FeeTs- ~procedtire~is being
. changed because inspectors +have~been-looking too far. Understands Class IE '
L lighting is not to be inspected. Concerned because evidence of rat damage has been observed. Feels push from Area Management to meet turnover schedule. Has no problems with issuing NCR's. Has no problems with document packages. , r~ ,
\ e e 5 /
.,,: ,. . :' G. ; J.:-r.
.l.c. ..z . . . ..
.. l- .. y . m.r.; .: y :.
.+ .. .
9.,, . . . .. .
.. . i. . . .
. r- '
l
- s 1 2: *
',' s
.. . s . : '
{
,. ;'[ - .
, . j,;[ , .
.; y ,, . ATTACHMENT.A' , con't .
.}. , ,
_ ~., . Inspector H , Has had problems with interpretation of post construction inspection procedure. Procedure is being changed and feels problems are being resolved. Training-will be conducted in revised procedure. Documentation has been a problem because of documents missing from packages. Feels situation is improving. Has no problem with issuing NCR's. Sometimes does not agree with NCR disposition. i Inspector I
~'
Concerned that inspection procedures are being changed to eliminate' removing . - of covers on junction boxes. Feels this may be compromising quality because
~ ~
iispections 'will be only"a cosmetic look. Has problems with response from
~
QE on questions. No problems with documentation. No problems with issuing NCR's. Sometimes does not agree when disposition is "use ,as ,is". , Inspector J Has no problems with inspection procedures. Feels training being conducted , is good. Has had problem with incomplete document packages but feels situation >) e- is improving. Has no problems now with issuing NCR's but has had problems , s,. in the past. Feels, disposition "use-as-j,s".is excessive. Has gone to supervisor, o QE and engineer to resolve disagreements on disposition. Feels post. construction inspections are being limited. Concerned because QA management and Area Management don't seem to care about quality. Does rot believe there is any
'way equipment is being damaged by inspection.
Inspector K Concerned because of problems with procedures and shut down of inspections. Has no problems with training. Has problems with incomplete document packages. Inspector L Ha's found nurrber of problems with lighting tertninatjons during inspections, f
- Feels inspections now being limited. Understands inspection procedure is being changed. Believed now procedure will not find problems. Training now ,
going on is reading procedures and responding to questioni. No problems with l documentation. No problems with issuing NCR's but some problems with dispositions. - - f i O 1
~. . .. .. . .
i . .-
- l- .",, - '
s ..
.. , , ,- c. , .,v .7,..t.
v, p, ..., . ., y 43 . . ., . .s . , r.. - . s,
. . - l ,a . ,
., . . , . . .i %
..- ,s. ,
s - L_.
7 , 3,. . J n -( . . , s . . . i *
~
y ;, ATTACHMENT g:-Jcontl "
. ,. - s., .
.V 4
E Inspector M ,, Concerned because inspection prg_c;edures are being changed frequently. Some procedures have been changed 3-4 tiinis~since Task Force was formed. One i procedure was changed twice last week. Has found problems with documentation "
- packages. Found four packages concerning s.ame gable tray with different
. numbers assigned to the. package.s. Also problem gettf~ng'DCA's.~'Previously had own print but now can't get print when someone else has it checked out. No problems issuing NCR's. Inspector N Understands post construction inspection procedure is being revised to relax .- j teguirements. Concerned because of probleliis Th'aI have been ideiitlfi^eGith ',' lighting terminations. Feels procedure requirement for STE or EE present
- when equipment is opened inhibits inspectors. Has no problems. issuing NCR's.
4 Feels electrical prcblems are not limited to the Safeguards Building. Trainirg i10
. being conducted consists of instructor reading inspection procedures and ! answering questions. Feels documentation support is improving. Has had ! problem retrieving IR's. . Concerned about promotion policy. Feels his pay j increase is overdue. ,,,
4
- r""* .
/ Inspector 0 .
i Feels inspection R mcedures are a' prob'lem. There is no system for-in.spegtors. to request changes in procedures or for' connenting on new procedures. Believes
- tlie~re should be system for feedback from inspectors. Feels there is pressure f ~-
i on craft to meet turnover schedule resulting in conflicts between craft, Area 4 Management and QC. Feels PFG was not ready for Task Force operation. Has /o j had problems with duplicate documentation packages and with retrieving IR's. , j Two people are assigned to the records vault to correct problems. Has no - problems issuing NCR's or with dispositions. Believes inspector training should be improved. Feels testing for certifications is not str_ict enolish'. I Inspector P '. i . . i Has no problems with inspection procedures. Believes Area Management feels that problems with delays are because of QC. Has no problems with training. 3 i Feels that: documentation problems are being resolved.- Has had problems - i retrieving h Has no problems issuing NCR's. Believes s @ was ' ;/O
- not built-in in the Safeguards Building. Feels that construction tra'ining !
l in s_eparation criteria was lacking. M'
<-. . I w .
s. l a , *, Q: . ! ' ; .,'.2 h... . :
.. u .
. . C . : .'.c . ,v .:.,D.
.u....
! . . : ': . ? ..: ~. . . : .*. . :ls. .
. ...n . . . . . . ...
- ~. ... :.. .
. . . . . _ c. c.. .
1 .m , ?,, s - - 1 + ! _. .
,-r , 8 CDMiNC'HE. PEAK STEA@ es P-*?" . yve=** . . , ATTACHMENTB' ' ,
,' rExis.uTiptiEs . ,
.GENERATIN.G CO .' NO$ONFCJ f' { . ' ' , ,
-[.
-l w .)%ef . @, qg. '
u.<
- .s... ,
g- UNaf STRUCTURE / SYSTEM ITEM / COMPONENT TAG /lO NUMBER LOCATION OR ELEb ATION RiR NO h
- 35 Ci d , iE -
Sa f eg ua c4. Co.n h M 7 10' I NONCONFORMING C"ONDITION Cimac.,7 3 N/A lh( a l w rn . n - m L 6 (vuJo.- s p9 :<.1) M *r- S l ev con cl '.4 c. g % :s t, sy 1 1 d c at L A.> Io C PI- M E Argw. cam ;3 loose . This W be c, id en4:f:<4 on ft.)$T b n d fwC \/ # #;
*^ "" *d #
C '" 9 'f##+ T'D' 3i *4* ' C t' ' w .c 4 : ,, - ; ., e A.a .4 % . s.,,,.4.,.n sk:4 . 2 - OgpECORD ,
! Als L* 9pi:a. pSS a# '
i r
\@g@ 4' ' - ess I
oM6 .
~
. s f.EFERENCE DOCUMENT. -O P O.3 -% REV S PARA REPORTED BY:
DATE:
&b & $ !.S~ IW DATE:
CE REVIEW /s APPROVAL: xsm-_ / l T 17t/
'y' ACTION ADORESSEE 7C
'/
rm fn y ) -e .$,/ $C' } > 2.d-W/ DEPARTMENT ' S N W jh,s oy ' DISPOSITION: REwoRX REPAIR USE AS IS IIY SCRAP r/tf sa2crwsss or tnt vr.NooQ sunk.stD gp M.sfAuh LB. /$ Dv6 '7D '
. *fMG t.D ilt/A!& BacxtD-off LWov&M 7b Att.ou postr7ay/ve P0' 2.s4LMNhasMT" TO M&'Wf/2LO CW/deffAT/sW. WOff.AAAArjH/P AMO .SYSTEAA /NTGC.rW MAVE NW _
l BGCM ComPRomrJ6D; 7"HEXGFORC , /NitA* LLAT/ohl // ACcsFTp* Oc.E. J.1 /$.
~.
l ! ENG. REVIEW /APPROVA . \ u-f, ~, 0 ATE; l ,1 b 18>* i OE REVIEW APPROVAL: DATE: C SY //$o//"y' h W, pf.yf/ msaw '
' ) ///'l Sr '/
p.,fPOSITION VERIFICA
' 4' LOSURE: "[ w. DATE:
b- e .
/ / /Y/ V COMMENTS: /7NAl, fg faf g;t)/gg% ,
* . ', . ~
- O
'r,,.-
.,. s.'..
.. :. ) . ':
.s , . . . , . .
; *;l a *
. s l. ' , , ,?
.,u , .
s - a a
s O, t.9:.o t ,* A J: Sit.AM ELEC f HsC STA ri$h .
. sExs i urstasit.s. :. , . . . . . . . .
~: ATTACHMENT u . Cn N.,
B "- Con't -
* ' ' *l
?GE' E4 T8NG. .CO . . ; j. ONCONFO,RMANCE. REPORT, LNCRi.[, .
l
, .t.. . ..~, . .
n ~:. ...w.. --
~..a. , e : = .- .. . . r e u ~ w. .
-OpuNir
- s"4vcroaE SYSTEu e f f usCCvs t. Nt ra f
- TAGe s0 NuuBER LOCAfsON OnEtba* -r:
se.4 *
. e t .... .. l
.b<iNe.ru.<,-6. L o. . a ., . A l
NChCONFORMING C'ONDITION l[s*>JJ)%7h ' 9 \Q .. . l . th .
...I
]h< uL m.n m L B (,v eJo.- d ppli J.) e h + r = $ l ey ~< c... .t -.
. . t i s c , , 3 ,,. , 3 l
j at). ,K.3 to C?1 - M C ATIN ca m 13 l ood c . T hi a., hr.s b<r, i d e .d . Y : a u .i '" # fo$t Cyd,w S.a V u; k : t I Io
- D mci + 5-y R egic 4 M%lMi 2, f i e.n ' ]
c-
$ L t
- C . 4 ... .s .I ., d e. .s 1 . f D ' c 3, I () ,ne. . le r on 5k.N.
0" I. g $ old I. . yl.a c. e o - c. C . REFERENCE DOCUMENT- bT O IS 3 ' N REV ID PARA . CEPORTED BY: DATE. i Sm L i es ,xv i E REVIEW /APPROVAt.: '. p> DATE: I
- g. i .
C'O " ACTION ADORESSEE ~' ' ' / l.S' I f */ .
/ s is, -* _.
l DEPARTMENT
*she>3.eS, 'C. *' J e 7. 3/Y/
b '
- t s** ' /** ,.s y , l DISPOSITION:
}
REWORK REPAIR USE AS IS MW SCRAP I I us .,4 M 77h An M / 4. B. l i I
.kak, AA L.a As aupasaay aPJ af
}AA -
6d./xs?u
>.?w AA e!"
jak N '
; , Md *
.6 ac .aa. .ia . .
ENG. REVIEW / APPROVAL
~'.~
g DATE: C. n 1 l 1 hl 8A.f OE R IEW APPROVAL: '
' DATE:
us V434 ".rw=& l ti! SY 9 DISPOSITION VERIFK:ATION & CLOSURE: DATE-4 - -
.. ; s
. t */
m.w=,.. .. s.g-i
.:-M. . y t 2 . . . .. . . .
D. . FOR INFORMATlbl'ORY .1 .. i .
,s.. 1, . . . [ . . : .' :. ..,,.;,.. .. ,*, *. ..
, . . [.. .., -
. . . e.
. ~ ,;.'. n..'.,,
. . . . ../... , *C ,. **S . *
+**
'l -
. i ks.*4 k @
- u gcp., .y, ,. ; . s. .'...
*I f '
- k '8 2 ,
- 5. . lRwtCTfok
. . ' _ .~ - >~-a jsy .
& me MV' W 'M y,g,y3 w rmr.c= *
')
'~- . ,res .cucairt.cacouc closfu,.f+ 5 -
7.C..A r ' c 1361M?V %
,isma/smcmc m,r.aPlo '% */ /6,1.15 -
g AEV. AU AC Coc. 4 4Ev. & CasassE 30. 3 h aaE M G'$-/00 el .2.- < ( D I - O P //. P .7 3 de s 9 d iuTJGuad.*0W.34 MA , 7 TSP'Ok'. M CM C Car 710M r iM8P. Rr34A.73 , I hofd a/Mf/f,t/py dan:T= c:=uren . u.a. 4,=uc=1 iro.s ur:sPacroar C i- - .- c=-urro, u.un=crent iro u3rin se.e. '"*"*75" // : 1TDS MQ.
/~** tC INSPECTION ATTRISUTE3 ; 3 garg !
m- a e,
/IMSf /M /s D1h) elism;//sa oP ltA l l I Akt 4 Fe/-coo yY. Disu<;L, c) Li nec/e!<A l l l l ,n : e er-Lis n -1 (Den f.'L k l a s ,;e, %onrue) I
!i l l / e < -
lj l l l ' lI l l 1 lI 1 1 I i li l I l li i i ll I I I I III I IIi C i -
' i i a l
. I L"*I. PLT. REcnon ii i I '"'," m a.oc. . .
4 ll @ m. f I sua - LJ!**3? 21 ll l WM , I
-- c nea n,,,,.
l I!I W/ o v.
,,l g y7 1 -
I 1ii If l III M I i l "I I , I Il 1 -
% l hhld Tac hwe.1 ' i i t :
I
== ac % nes,c a I Il ~l rLm u de. c wt 1x-6ftf-000 VY i t
-ft/-oh[yP ..lI8 N M O lh j **^ "" .,,.n - a .,
. % a s$~/hAl
/ eda rz w. A, z,99 .
\
.. e . . . , n.
..~ .n. . . .r 1 - .
s . . . ~ , -. .
7Ex4s OrtuirES COMhNCHE, PEAK STEAM s s cense.hvakim, c, , .ATTACNMENT.C. {
, C"':R^'3NG Co: , . , NONcoNU Q .
a: , . QJ si.bd1l. _ , -D00 N9
'/
1
)
UNIT STRUCTURE / SYST E M ITEurCOMPONENT TAG /lO NUMBER LOCATION OR ELEvatlON RtR NO ) 3 m. 35 c s.3, I ti 1- %Cu rh Co C.+ C.19&an94 8 I o' N/A NONCONFORMING CDNDITION ' T k < E i <.3 con 4 JA Sor C. iase>osti is\oose on boh - a C (\ d $ . b.$ k 6 > h -c e o i=\eA4 E'd on d Qovg d ru C4 k D A M l/ c < : 4 , c ., + ~.o.s heL.c:e.ug 3 <po d I D- 01o'3 ' Y le 5 i3
; \ cC s. .t ,, b ,,,,\ a.-<<~ w w W a % c V o. %'O ^- -
3 h I- Dg")k ? D sg,', .Q3 tb 4 t Mt Ce4$h est d o
- O C. h .~ c 3 < % Q, pg , o c h c b M [.d.
L U O f(k hs, c. kIe1 CEFERENCE DOCUMENT. O f - O P 11.3- 4 O REv I3 PARA REPORTED SY: DATE: Mb -
% ubs I / $/89 1E EEVIEW/ APPROVAL:
CATE: . Ub 6tk *' I ACTION ADDRESSEE a . I "'
/ /S" i P C/
e O)%' * / 0c. F 1 L
/ !
DEPARTMENT
'l ,$lt*t$ D 97~-
DISPOSITION: REWOF<K XYP REPAIR USE AS IS /FV SCRAP
.I 7t45 LOOSENESS OF Te4C Ft.E>C A'T Tuc e.C?O@eAEC Ertb it BOG outy TD . , WMO ~PW /N M 2C r/stsucr ~7Wp?" dohuscrs -rHE /76410 Ther dQwM&Mc~
TMfA6 /J P20912. 7Hfl40 f.N6)&GAACH(ANO THG MM&P MS MY
?,E3 eJ CorgP20mtM.b; TNG2Groes FMSTMUVTtou iY I4Ct4CTMbM A S 45 0- v"es mx e+~ws ro r~e pro &ooso conOs;eewou w r>*~ rex 72QA RECORD
- Q' T C t/d d iK QA REVIE)W 4
y '- - "
\WDenx. -
U0~4.# ; ENG. REVIEW / APPROVAL g I ~~~
~. DATE:
,, 1- / //8 /N OE REVIEW APPROVAL:
l C 97" ///drv h.h, e uv, w DATE:
/ IN' /W l - MSPOSITION VERIFIC1Tl'ON & CLOSURE: / . DATE:
i . .. \... c$l U &o l tl'/llV COMMENTS:pygg f R E-NqnQb
- t ..
l
. .[ , . ; * '
- {, , -. ,
I , .' . . . ~,. '.,L.,. . ...i-
' ~
. . . . '. i.
-w i a_A ...
L - 1r ~
. ... .. ATTACHMENT C:- Con'.t m.;6,Tas,. - "
- g. GENEyATIN CO, cedW9.dlN0111VNH03NI.HOW AI, [ ge y-
,' ( . ' J ' ; ' . -
i " ' * = qs * < _
._ __ j
% s -t__
- - - ~
s . . . .u - . . . -:: -. - -- - - . - --. - ., UNa f STRUCTURE /SYSTEu iTEus couPGNEN T TAG ID NUMBE A s... .m n . 4 LOCATION OR ELEva' TON A' A NO I
- h. S5 c s. .,. 1 ( !
l % [m. , 3 Co.ss...\ C elquatn 8 i O' Nl'A . NONCONFORMING CdNDITION l
<- ty ( O r\ k ss Or S IYY \D\UOSC Un t * * * \ 'b' I'
d enas. TM 3 % b -< o 'l > BA aa h d % drd #$ so-Lu hcr.' , c 4k .on C . c . cas j cpor - . t)lO I l c 'it i3 CLchtA NA .c>t **- '
'5 ' '
b i "DO A ? I)sJ -c,3 & .s.1 t- h e C . 'd e i 0 -1 4>' h . e , e % 6,, .. . o
- N
- b '*
- c.
tu . C". O f E Y6,3 .* t.) l I e k REFERENCE DOCUMENT. Or-Os' i1.a- 4o ' acy I3 ,,,, REPONTED BY: DATE: p.
*^
/
O_n b w & u I I 5 I .h'M OE REVtEW/ APPROVAL: N DATE: - s$* . /M / 16? / F Y W ACTION ADDRESSEE E e / c'* J N W Y/s / 0d' > > i ),Y ' ' DEPARTMENT
,Elet ? O'* 07~-
l REWORK XXX REPAsR USE AS 8S l N SCRAP U 0] t& CCd672/46' l i ;&. 6-Asw - i eJ wk
,4ua M6:A@.eaRMo,Joi4%%E4%p&MAWa l
. a ENG. REVIEwT/APPROVAI. ,/ f DATE:
c'. (m , / 16 184'i CE R lEW PPROVAL: DATE: - -
' Wryss #,. 0 / / T 1*f Y MPOSITION VERIFICATION & CLOSURE:
DATE-
./ 'j . ~ COMMENTS: .
t i 4
~'
;.a.;$.w g
~. n..m .wm.uw ,.. ,.. .:. .. ..: 2 p r y-m .... y s:..
e.. .- r .>.c.- 9 . l..: ... . .
~.- -
w v. c. emm+ - m. += =
i
. \
ATTACHMEN.T C - cori'.2 ! gg
="t.exjfggfl 0X11VM03NI303 N . . .
9Lla onc ,,r.c,. A%+.u,s ".. . a,+: &5%5,ygy,ggp, .,
-ur.c. ,.o.
s s 1G (%1As ;4- i m o m m w - r.c, n ,a. .o. ~ u. coa. r C/3
. a. .& - O .,a. 'i ? W
~AA
~ w .w8iOd'S ;ew ,i .Em . S5* ;
E.5-/oD e p . Or-o9 n.s-as ecr , uo 0%% CTc;Fc}gnaa Ower?g Ma,,a,',,,, a%Tuo, , c=wure . at 4,-vcuor nzas ur:sucrear EAL 5,u Am 1 -i3-sv a - c:=.,uro. -c r no u,r= - a = "' = = = "" irtw ,e. 'C INSPECTION ATTRIBUTE 3 ; 3 Dart e - a saan m e 1 I C 12G 04294 Ples % h e en +;ck k ed I I l lec h e< e i&ec,sedsb, & a b elled cort- iil l I du;f a s ca< d,,om;hw n.B Ater 274- I r. i l l noo qq ';1c , +d , IV i i i lI i i l , 1 I ili l I l Iii i \ Ii l \ l iliI I \ {- l i ll I m 'u'.'3 1 1 I III i M ?5 I i 11 I Me
- l ll l '% a i
I III i 7 PERM. PLT. RFr'non l !l I l ?.m , nos toc. , Il l l 1 - L 1 17.1.99.21 l l j l
- ~.m c
--.s__.
r., , , ,,
. . ~.
. m i II l
I I I III I I I i i l l l l l asaama (cwizs,3.-g g;;j f 71 l.s s.> noh Ne- &l0Snf 55 Scf NCR ET'l-000 W.
"Eh 'Nefy lt8c::3EDs4. O i ^*g 4 i"'"#" oc T,.i- , . ;,l
% -.a.s ge A kA.J wA y daw e
4
%. t ,.,?- ' *
,. , * *=* ' .
'~ ,,
2-j , ', '
. ~ ' .:l . : ,
. i* *.
3 f ) $ u V t t 5 e . . . + , . - , . + . m. w
* )
'J .' .
- -: wPUN,.' $3.pgg,.. : ATTACHMENT C - c.on' t !
. ;3M.}N CM -
.; , 11VM. .H.03NI H03. ..
is:%...f. -
- ;.YWI _ CT1oN " W ?%.
,, t y .,,peo e_ z -: "lungggyp, . ' .
J
% ATDs GE3G3tFUCM . AGLN IiFlGAT.GM fuG.
t iE C n w u o ? WG 44 f ~ C /2G n 4 '? 9'-/ n l5YSTDe / 3TRuCT1,AE CELGnar.cco
)n a g A4 d.
1,PS /o o .l 'L .lO/ d P //,3 25 /? 9 lRU. AC. OCC. 4 AEV. & CW .40. 8* N E GR 3G#/M'_i fiOC$T . g G. P'.T~ l l
*tNai///- , l Qi"ⅈ?a, us3P. RE3'.A.T3 OF% 'L'itet.*" Q!"EttEC W F{"fgg.,,, Q%% ,
9 nec :ca c:wuns , au ar ucut. inus sar:sracten
,y /- /3 - P</
O ==nc=ca c==uns, unsut= crew aro= uinn snow *'"*"*" ** l
.e i INSPECTION ATTRIstJTES
; $ cart at d[m,,
!. I / f ,, /,,! 7'A o /? os v e cl Joey l ll
' l
\ ;1,, w ri7/i e, e ?!cn S W- n o c V9 lA I I I
i 1i l i rl i I I l lI I I e lI I I I II I I ' I I I l IIi l
~
l l l l 1 b- I III l I l !I i / I li le, & . / I I l A .& / I l IJcWI / I l ! IM l/ I - III / l Ili /F I lll/d l- l l 1 I i III I NhM. PLT. RECORD I I l ! l ) R* l au toc. ,yl l nuana ccwas,sm:2, cea - l l 1 SUBFiL.E 5.oc, a / . a .su.z l
- CONDUlT NO. --
a "Yf$ s'o3 yp I i.a. custo g i "". gg i t'a"^" #
]
,c ,, m e- ,
O %-a qddahp]A&w r w scek h
) . 't. ,
- j. * -'"
* ~
,. s . s .
-~_.- ,_ ,
.[.; ,..,
j,' [. . .,
. . r- _
e _.- -- i_ _a 2 ___s.-_ m
- - - , , , _ . . . . . . - . . . . , , - .. - .. - - - . . ~ - .
. . ~ . , . ,
ATTACHf4ENT E . con't' TRAINING REC 0ilD COMANO4E PEAK STEN 1 ELECTRIC STATION l
;1 m1E. V-/'r- 9
- ' \
l -' THE UNDERSIGNED ACKtchtEDGE RECEIPT OF SPECIALIZED TRAINING IN: h5(0/2//Y D' Nc'~V-GIVEllBY / /2/~I'TDX (INSTRUCTOR) THIS DA , AT CDMANCHE PEAK PfKUECT. r NfM (PRINTED) SIG' NATURE BADGE # SSN
^
JOHmW LMSWYS21Al nn. 0m _ NG-9A
' o e s' :
4-u r~ // 0. ',/er u$ hOk O #0-47
- t.. .
eco,e mzorcern rass nuhAn L w >~ _ _(W dt}.la E //4 Y
~ JAMES dEhleGO Ti.u, A. sw 01/4.edr - e-iic
. Ma :n K. wnan ,15 f kuunaI W9bI ia
(
.2 rA a i J Tse
- He/49 \ ,
f ..
}'# f l l ( -
( ( C 7 h__ h \ -
)
/ ) / ) ~
( --
/ / /
\' ~ ~~
)
. (. - . . - ) )
\ .
r a L/{pj// W/DA \ InSmVCT&S'51GNATU1E l
~
^ - Ebuts or inAininG, 4TH7/n.- \
' ' T1nE, Q:20dH'-/0.:OS%%V 4
i. . ., -
.V .. ..
-1 d',* :. , 7 , l' .
* ~ *:i] . , .,
s .- . 4 ," ,' ' , . t . .. , ,. ff ' ri, ,, . . . , , , , , , . . , , . . . . . . . , d
,.;c.. - -- . - - -
ATTACliMENT E '- coh't 5 3, TRAINING RECORD - l COMANOiE PEAK STEN 4 ELECTRIC STATION . DA'TE: /F
'y THE tt0ERSIGNED ACKtOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF SPECIALIZED TRAINING IN:
050/ // Y~~ [W 7d/A GIVEN BY: / // / - E"/ / / tv IINSTRUCTOR) THIS DATE, AT 00MANCHE PEAK PROJECT. [ NAME (PRIPTTED) SIGNAT1RE RAME # SSti - sh.al h):l Ire- 0'Y'%5/l Ee94
,; $6NG t l6 HA?.50g %; --
= S/ 00 %
.. l~w M. S-E E,MAf Noani
$4lh"kl4 h KY:Jno L. $)gs a y d/W DJao t':srxxxoG1 hdL hp
- l/VM
- C-r / /; /
f f ~~
\ \ \ \
) \ ) N
/ \ )
/ J / /
- ) ! (
\\ / \ \
)
i
.Y//N J INSTRLCf0RS'5}GAATLRE gg,y/
( N0lRS 'OF TRA!'N!hGr b////A
. IltEt' OM' '
6k
. . .. ~ '
t '
. .e . . *',.:'
.:.::. .=-[,, _::...
~
+
,.., ,, 3
.-2.- s ,.
~' .-- ..,.,
- n. ,
. .. g.- -. . . - . . ,
w e me m +.-; m eprr=1
' ATTACHf1ENT E 'cori't i
~\ TRAINING RECORD
,'} COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTR'IC STATION
(/ - ' ' .
...- "g DATE: -
THE tt0ERS!GNED ACKtchtEDGE RECEIPT OF SPECIALIZED TRAINING IN- l
/
. . . j- .*k
' c' . * - ./. * /
. / - . _
),
Gl'.'Ei! SY: .C' ' # - /.T/ 7"7'.VdidSTRUCTOR) THis DATE, AT 00MANCHE PEAX PROJECT. P>ME # S2L-. # I;&_: (PRINTED) SIGNATlRE
~ ,- mh1,dEhesc.ok- M9fl, A bbN ,.
W' /'./ cid? ---l.Elhr':+
/ l *l 7 ~~
l,Mr* Y .l, nrn 1.nl ir u NO- ?IO 3neL, #
;, , ,. .. .]
3 b B fi..Jm M/6 N. ,
- - l I
I l 1-1 l- i i
.[(f
\
' ' \ ./ ,$h _
. INSTRUCTOR'S SIGNATURE u ./,hr. toinw.
er i un d J' I!OURS OF TTMINING: IME: n -><vws.no1 - QMed- - - - - W i T',(C O d. - @:/ (9 4 ,u.f7.g -
,y i .. . . 1.1.;- . , , ,; . - ,
j...(,_..
,7
;.r. -
n: _ ,
.n:
- - 1. . ; '
# I *
'. * *- * *1
- .. g, ,..,g ,
*W --._--% h t t0 g y , . _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ ,. y _ 9
, , - ~ - . -
m .- - s . . m.- . h.(; H: .:? _ , ' q95 < , . '
.ATTACHME'RT'E.con't
- TRAINING. RECORD - l COr%NCHE PEAK STENi ELECTRIC STATION L(
].', DATE: cl- / ~f- 1 .
; I
~.. THE ttOERS!GNED ACKtOktEDGE RECEIPT OF SoECIALIZED TRAINING IN:
- f DSf //. If ,'~~9.' y_.Gl) h ;
e ,e. '. s . GivEttBV: /. ',- f-/ / DC/ 77 dif)SThUCTOR) THIS DATE, AT CDMANCHE PEAK PROJECT. FUM (PRINTED) SIGNATIRE PADGE # SStf m ; a YI'.-kh (I ;/,,N;h.Ox.J-
@M1 .
NNc 00aui ( .b)4 th37 a i.h. w .l . i t;i.. g .. N,, f,fLf >.9yy l
?, D. B. Dionne _ )b.6.b &- *E$V f,JXba Wn E, h d th Mih> '
O }ll9L.].n h i< c r w sea- n ,, ,, e
*ih L .~ J r.,, r,G - . i:n..
acd
.u ,,e s . ,., ,.x ,o g i,,./ ( & % . -
G
%g, %
I.' ],
' fl// W .?? b
~
2; - .INmvC='S sIsumeAc su,,.i o a t_n iv. , % IIXRS OF TRAINING:
'T ' e ' ' " '-t- -jf8 Vf78 n.,/.-A
,lME: n> a< ni.14 a-'
k g u u z, s. 6:OOA - 9OA
;'. 3 -
. . . - :~.
,,%',- 'I .,
I.
*~
- r :
s'
, =.~....-e . __,
._ . _ .. . . . . . . _ _ . ~. . _ , _ _
'. . ,> .- q. ,. .
~
ATTAC'HMENT . D . - .
- . nTUQ:1982/ . ,:. TEXAS . UTILITIES GFhN$ RATING,. COMPANY; . , n. . ~ ' .; . '; O. '
y-a > _ .y _, 3 .'.-[. .,
' '.~ " !,. O FFICE. M EM O R A N D U M .'
T. Site OA/Oc Personnel ch. Hm Yema. March 7p. $ 84 , subj.a OA Policy i Effective March 16, 1984, I assumed the position of TUGC0 Site QA Manager
~
at Comanche Peak. I ask for your support in carrying out the following policies and objectives:
- 1. TUGC0 Management has been'and remains totally committed to a safe and reliable plant in full compliance with all applicable requirements.
i 1 2. TUGC0 Management is totally dedicated to' a strong and effective-Quality Assurance / Quality Control program at Comanche Peak, i
- 3. TUGC0 Management strongly supports.and encourages all QA/QC personnel to express quality related concerns. .I wish to promote free discussion between inspectors, their " leads", QC supervisors and QA management.
, I wish to encourage the use of the Request for Information' and C1.arification -(RFIC) as .a mear.s to' connunicate questions on procedures and instructions. I also wish to point out the availability of Mr. Boyce Grier to listen to any of your concerns. While your first -
. recourse on concerns should be to your supervision, if you are not .
, satisfied with the response from supervision, or for any reason you prefer not to go to supervision, Mr. Grier is available. I matntain an "open-door" policy. Please feel free to visit'with me at any time.
< I encourage you to voice your concerns without fear ~of retribution.
- We will make e'very effort to address your concerns in a complete manner. -
~
, . 4. Quality Engineering is being reor;anized reporting 'directiy to the TUGC0 Manager. Quality Assurance in Dallas. This provides.an added measure of independence for that organization in order to' assure that inspection procedures and instructions accurately reflect design l requirements. Quality Engineering will.also be working toward improvi'ng our program for training on inspection procedures and instructions. ! We intend to place more emphasis on systematically informing the affected ( inspection forces of changes to inspection procedures and insj: ructions, i especially when changes appear to relax or delete procedural requirements. + l Our objective is to communicate reasons for the above changes, such as declassifications, alternate inspection programs or inspections or test provisions during other project phases such as preoperational testing. l Our objective is to continue to promote a high degree of confidence that inspection procedures and instructions, which prescribe inspection work activities, accurately address design requirements. - m g -
. . .. . t. .
1. q; .- . P . , . . - ; .- - #r..... . - .s
.%. ; ;C ;
l::c-9. .;;.'l*: .';7.7,.' " ?y ,. W:,. . . .
- C. 4 i; i:'y::,. ,": ' 'z*: *. . f. .;... . ;.;.'.m,
. , ~ L ,1.. ~;.Q, .
le. - ; . < , <.. . ,. , . ;w . , .
., . ... ,,.~..
. q. ... t m m uw w.'
v.s.gw mmmm m ~ mm.m a m
~~~a n w- m,
- n. a. ,
.....s_: .
. - -.._.__=-- .. ._ c ._. .< :- .
- j\
1 J., y .g.
' AT.TACHMENT:D(-c. con'.t .
.' . o,.
. f., .
~
a .-
. , . ..;., v, :%
e. n
..v .
,s + .o ,
.~ . .
o
~
- L.again_ request your support so that together we can continue' to work toward a safe and reliable Comanche Peak Steam Electric-Station. .
Thank you.
-A.-Vega TUGC0 Site QA Manager AV/bil . .4
.;i i i * . I r . i t 4 1 . t.
,s
, , . . .. .. .>.o-
, ... ;. . , .., ,.: ~.., .....;-.:. .,;>. ...t .
.L ~ . . : ,
., a. : ,c .. .
. r., . .
. :.-..~..;,....'..,... .
. ... .. .; s...
a- 1: - ,l * ., .c. .
*. S . . . 9 e p
" , }y g
- eg'
-%4 "g (km.aj y.gp ,,
)
- N "_) NM% M )%%'a* (. . % ,
~
. . i
~
s TFX AS UTil.ITil5 GENERATING COMi[%NY: ATTACHMENT:E 'l
'5 s
.-Shr12r :s. ENo.M ^ . . A. s o.0 6.
~
< a .. ..
'..? E w- ' Fi l'e -
" April -30, ~1984 3 _
cien no . rew subject Top Management Participation in ~ Site Meetings with QC Inspectors This will document Mr. Mike D. Spence's involvement in meetings with QC Inspectors at Comanche Peak S.E.S. These meetings included both informal meetings and formal training classes. The attendance rosters for the formal meetings are attached. Mr. S'ence, as President of TUGCO, presented top management's priorities and comitments as they apply to Comanche Peak. The meetings between Site QA Management and the inspectors were undertaken to personally re-emphasize the QA policy elements documented in memorandum TUQ-1982, dated March 22, 1984, a copy of which is attached. Mr. Spence stated that Texas Utilities because of its size has many important priorities. However, Texas Utilities has no higher priority than constructing Comanche Peak correctly. Mr.TpenIe stated that Site QA Management's comitment to an open door C policy and more informative comunication is a reflection of his policies. A As examples, he. stated that inspectors have the right to ask for information a.1d receive information on use-as-is dispositions on NCR's. He supported - the intent to inform inspectors of underlying .easons for changes 'to c
. inspection procedures.
Mr. Spence also en:phasized TUGCO's responsibility for the safety of Comanche . Peak. He stated his belief that this is a responsibility that TUGC0 has accepted and which it cannot delegate to any organization. He stated his belief that quality cannot be legislated; that its must originate.with top management support for quality. He further stated that quality cannot be
- inspected. into the plant; that it must be built by the craftsman into the l plant. He discussed the economics and the management support for " building l it right the first time" as opposed to building it rigtit on the second or I third effort. Mr. Spence stated he saw Quality Assurance as an essential tool in assuring an effort is.done.co'rrectly the .first time.
Mr. Spence then opened the meeting for questions, declaring an "open spason on the President of TUGC0".
~ -
A, . .t-1 w.,,- .
. , ; c. .
*'1.-
. . .; . p y .
3 ". -
- ,. J'; *3.;
. : ,. , .,1 ..a. . . ,
. . .. i. . .. , , , .
, _ .. ..i,c ,
_ _ . - pf ... ,
- 1 b.s s,w .m.- c s < a.c. m . 'L _
. ~ . . . . . - . . -n. .
, .ATTACHMEN[.E. con't' '
., - :- , ' r. 3 , . -
e v % ,. File Page 2 TUQ-2046A During this part of each meeting, the inspector's questions, concerns and comments were addressed. These included:
- The effect of security measures, in the permanent plant records vault, on inspector's accessibility to records. -
- The review of QA records by non-QA organization personnel.
- Possibility of across-the-board salary increases.
^
- History / purpose of Component Hodification Cards (CMC's).
- Plans rela'ted to the completion of Unit 2.
- Sources of financing for the project.
, _ - S-tatus of the licensing process.
- State of the nuclear industry, especially plans for new plants',-in' .
- the present regulatory environment. '
i
- Inquiri~es as to what TUGC0 is doing to present the positive aspects '
of Comanche Peak. I believe these meetings have ~made a significant contr.ibution in improving comunications with the inspection forces. I A.A Vega -
~ 2/db TUGC0 Site Manager.
AV/bli cc: M. D. Spence -
- 8. R. Clements D. N. Chapman I
I-W~- ,
~.' s, l-
,?- .* > -
.,. s,...,.. ,,..t ... y
. . e- .. . . . ,n
- ." .._ . e. .. e - , .
. . v.
..s<.
. - , , . ., : .. ~ . , y , .._ . '; , _ . '.
~ -
.. .. : ~ . - ,;? 7..4.-
~: :c.
. ~;* .
.. w, , s e..n e , +& w~e vkwaww.w~~ > a m~~~ ~c m, ~m w >n . , -cum - -
....e .
fo * -
,~ .
- . . .s.
- ~
.. 410-1982 .-
' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERdTING COAtl%Ny ~ ATTACHMENT.E.- con't. ,' ,
- c. ~.i ;
~: e' y' ,
O r rIC E M CM'O R A'N D U M , '
.\
To Site OA/DC Personnel Giesi ne . Ten March 77119R4 J subj.ct -- OA Policy Effective March 16, 1984 I assumed the position of TUCCO Site QA Manager at Comanche Peak. < I ask for your support in carrying out the following policies and objectives:
- l. TUGC0 Management has been and remains totally committed to a safe and reliable plant in full compliance with all applicable requirements.
l 2. TUGC0 Management is totally dedicated to a strong and effective j Quality Assurance / Quality Control program at Comanche Peak.. i 3. TUGC0 Management strongly supports and encourages all QA/QC personnel to express quality related concerns. I wish to promote free discussion ! i between inspectors, their " leads". QC supervisors and QA management. I wish to encourage the use of the Request for. Information and. Clarification _ (RFIC) as a means to connunicate questions on procedures l
. . and. instructions. I also wish to point out the availability of -
Mr. Boyce Grier to listen'to any of your concerns. While your first , i : recourse on concerns should be to your supervision, if you are not lr" satisfied with the response from supervision, or for any reason you L ~ prefer not to go to supervision. Mr. Grier is available.. I maintain
- an "open-door" policy. Please feel free to visit with me at an'y time.
l I encourage you to. voice your concerns without fear of retribution. . 1 We will make every effort to address your concerns in a complete manner. .
~
! 4. Quality Engineering is being reorganized reporting directly to the . TUGC0 Manager. Quality Assurance in Dallas. This provides an added measure of independence for that organization in ordeC to assure that inspec. tion procedures and instructions accurately reflect. design requirements. Quality-Engineering will also be working toward improving . j our program for training on inspection procedures and instructions. We intend..to place more emphasis on systematically informing the affected inspection forces of changes to inspectiori procedures and instructions,- es.pecially when changes appear to relax or delete procedural requirements. - ' Our objective is to cn-micate reasons for the above changes, such as declassifications, alternate inspection programs or inspections or test . - provisions during other. project phases such as preoperational testing.-
~
Our objective is to continue to promote a high degree of confidence that inspection procedures and instructions, which prescribe inspection work activities, accurately address design requireinents. O '
%./ .
- s '. '.,'
T.-
- v. -
.. ? .
. ~. : .
. ' ^'1. . : 6... ' ' %- 'i.*
..'D. %,
-Y.
~ .5. . . .. .
..i
, ~ - ,,;;.;. ., g. i .
. t.
[ .,,:, : y '. ' . ; . '; ' ' M ;. .* ', . ,:<:7' j{ .
- * : ,. ~ e:, . f. *. ., '- i>([ ; ,*n :.V . L N: - : -,$:.N.: M ~ M e " &"ummmsm -a - - ~ '
E a=: w N,~
, r
^
' ~
^' '
s- E.- cont '+,
. ATTACHMENT - - -
. . u. .. . .. . v. .
. 42 '
- -4
. ... . .x.
. . 4 s
a - - a- s. I again request your' support so that together we can continue to work toward a safe and reliable Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. s
'Thank you.
A..Vega 1 TUGC0 Site QA Manager. AV/bli 4
+
v -- * .I . . . _ _ t 7 s . 1 .
- _s .
- t. .
- . ..s - .... ,..
.. .: .;... a.<..
-..,. .. .; . . . r.;. . ..
. .: . . . ... . . , ,.. .-~;: +
e
-. , y g = , - s . . *.. s-u u -a % . ..m 4 .e=e..s g e wh . .
w,N'**Di , ,a'NNm=- , -
'#_U,' my[vt.g. .;b'4e, L' lMMil ?
' ,7 C? P 3* D' N 9N '1 -
"A %*. " TSN.,n 'U ON' D I F M*A#' ' fI # #O
~ _ _
.; J . .
3 - .,- , ,
< TEX AS UTII,ITIES GENERATING CO'MPANY ' ATTACHMENT F
~
. . o r.ric E .M ? Ei40 R A;N D U K; - .
i; . . f :. .- . .
.v. .
- .- ~- . a- -
.' rp C. H. Welch
__ men no .Teu. March 21. 1984. ,. subj ct Inspector Interviews CONFIDENTIAL
![~
Concerns have been expressed related to document packages and_duplicat,e packages with differentILumbers _for the same components, presented to inspectors for their use in condGdt'ihginspections. A concern has also been expressed on the retrieveability of IR's. The [/G problem appears to have been observed during the establishemnt of work ! packages related to the integrated building management system. An
'Trovement has been noted in some instances.
Please arrange ~for a surveillance of this activity and advise me by March 23, 1984, of your schedule for conducting this surveillance. [1 . ,. A dyt? "
~
-. _r.
ARbga s. / TUGC0 Site QA Manager
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
AV/bil cc: B. R. Clements - D. N. Ch'apman' B. H. Grier t i 7.. 3 .,
. i l ,
.i . .
. i . . .,
. . ;g . . . -
_-.=
- [a ,:.. ..
, .a_ .;. .;.a. z ._ : 3. ., :. . . _ . , . . . w. . ., ;; _
, n _ u:,.
.g r- .
_ _.mem -,. . . . - _._ . .m - w.y,.-, y,_.w
- m. _
S- .- 1 i TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY .
~ _
. ATTACHMENT G' l
~. ,
O rrI.CE M E M O R A ND,U M
. '. ic)
~ . . . . . . ;
I Distr %ution' * '
,w n.
- mi M,' 6 PUrd 302.054 -
] " \
subj.cc COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION The CPSES Monitors Team is established as a management oversight group under my direction. Its purpose is to monitor records processing acti-vities as they relate to construction.and startup activities. Initially, efforts will concentrate on records necessary to complete construction within security boundary of Unit 1 and comon. .The scope will include all of the departments cited on the attached flow diagram between the points labeled DCC and PPRV/ BOP Vaults. . . Activity reports and recomenda-tions will be made on a regular basis to me and the management of the
. groups affected.
This team is being chartered as a result of an already successful moni-toring effort in DCC and requests made by several building managers. It supplements the existing QA internal audit program. ( .. QT. Merri t, Jr. '
.c
- t. Proj ct Genera nager ,
1
- M
- K. Vega /
TUGC0 Site QA Manager JTM:AY: pew cc: B. J. Murray G. B. Crane F. L. Powers J. A. Dittmar R. D. Gentry H. A. Hutchinson C. Boyd C. Welch C. Osborne , L. M. Richman , L. D. P1att I
.i i ;
^ ;
.- f i '
. 4
., .. ., a
.* .. "Y ",* ,. I. * ,
.e . ..
.s ,
. 2 , .
' edikk$**
.. m-x via4 . , ud.h 6 'uds miacaoddess M ES+ '
r A'hk > L
"^" W '* Ad " ^
- W . . ?'!W > *
...w - -
V I
' ~
J.T. MERRITT
~
' ~
. STAFFADVISOR 2
1
' ~ .. *
~
M.. '. L RICHMAX.. .
~ .r. - .
- i. . .
- .. .. n.. . u. n -
.., . . . .n ,
. . . n.
.. x- :;e .
. .. :. w ,
m.: . . . . . , . . .. . ,. .
.. ....+.-w.
. .~: .u. : .. us. .
. .w,. .
....-~.. .'-
; : a. ;.
. . .- e ' . 1 ,. E .g... .MONUUR. nS'. GROUP.
. ' . , . ^ ' 0'
.= . .
- c. .t. ._ . .-
~ -.. .
.. . .y ,
' *' =. +. . . .- .. *
.t..
- 4. . .
., .+.
m= : : :. .=. e., . = . .a . .::. :. t: .
. x ....-.-x .
. ..: - s. .
9y . gy9
- . n.IE n ;.. .<
2.jf.M... cy.. p.q,sf. .q:q* .$@rWN; .v=.
= r .
i ... m .-..._...s..
...y.. ...
. :v:
1' v. .r~ s - 5 r.
- .. ... . .ti *
.= ' . P ,ATT.. .- A f..s ? .-
.....s
~-.,,w. . . n ,p. ... .
. t n. .ry.::.... n. . .-
. . . s... . . ---.a... . .n.. ,.- w -~z.
.e. .
.. , r. .. . .
.... .. W..v.
. nA. . -:,
G wp.a..
~.y e i..s%v.. u..5n.4 .
- 6. w:,. . .62 p~ .&..wg a> .. 3. v
.' ' .id.1 R!..-M EN. - - A.R. D....
c, . U, . . .
*. . ; g qq. c ~ . . , . y . - ..-p?v
. s ;~:.: .. a. . ,
2-y.2.W.m,:u.m.e
.=. .-
=. ;. .
.,.. ,m.. . . m. .'.- . . ,. ~. . ..a...p)
.- ~
. ,. . , ,s . : ,., ., c.;;.-
.w wn~ a- . . .
~. a ..
. ~; 5 , ;;.
. . :.n.T s. . .-
4-n. N :4 . s . +. er . . g. . . ..~ ; w
. ., : a .. . . . . - .a: - c;a
.c.: :.:Y't i . .n l , .g ,-r. w A.,<.;em
;. r..,
. . -1:u. :
t m g... ._.__;se.. p, , . .:g: e. &.t t f.s.. :.g , , p;, ,
- ... .n .
..p , . ~ . .
n.e . .
.. . . s.
7 SWAIN? :: " ' . . "! b -
.. . y r $ 7.. .../3+*ry . .. .. ~;... 9 . .m arq3g.
-. .t. ., . m x. u.
. 1..,,,,
M,.. . m. D . C A LI C U T T. . ..
.ugr . .
t.. t . . . . . 2 ' *
. ns.! ?
r.. s .
- t.
.. I 1.:p. s
. 3, , .
t.. , l i.. i t
. .m. c.
g * -
- l
- s. * . st t.-
.. .. .s, n ..
4 .<. s
" . .i* .
g ;. *
. s ,
-1 -..
. .. t , . .e .y , ,. ,
.. . .s ...
.- r- Qi.h ..* L .t.".
- E.'. c;E , '.' . .r 5 '..## :<. :.?.,c..g,_tt.&.%y;:. p: z.;..W F t ,-J..,p.
, s,M.5%. .#
.1
. ..;G...,-
.' ^
.e r: %... 2.e. :. .'.+.s. , $.q ..
w.:.~e ;s s .:~v. :: ..:....L..*
~ , -- : , *L.. . w. sL, . 2h1. .w,;y,,p.? A. z4. - .f
,r t,,
.. s.. \:,r n . ..1.I .4.t.y * . :: . . . .r t *G+ r'.% .
l-
..c., .:.. . - . . - ~ ~ . - . .
W' - ~ - d:maiki:mm m. Ski t.... Mi w -m *1
Lk '
' ' ~ " ' " " " '- n-e'*"' -- " *. ^"
-- ._, .. . _ . . . . _ . . . _ . . _ . -m. . . . _ _
-7 ._ ,
A ~ a . . .: ... . .
. . .. . , ,.., . vg .
e.... ,
.- r -
- i. '
8
- j. < . . . ~ . - ATTACHMENT.G - con't
.i :
4 . j
.j -
, ' DES'IGN RECORDS . F . GENERATION ' p RECORDS RECORDS REPOSITORY REPOSITORY. RECORDS (C((- j CONSTRgCTION) (OPERATIONS) REPOSITORY * ,
' ' ~
( OPERATIONS) .
.+- i-1,, . ,
4- ,
. i.
. .1. . 5 .
s. N -
- h j i . : 4. .
i A & E. ' A.> irl I
.R -
2 . 5' ( , . 1 . s Y .M.
~
3(l ENGINEERING , ' -
. A , .' p! . S
..' PERMANENT PLANT '.
~
-' 4 4 -
VENDORS RECORD (PPRV)VAULT,f^ j . l /. J. -
.r ,- (> BOP VAULT.:i,: -
- . - n
.. . . . t,
. l !.
1 .* . i ii: 1 y i -i ! d;- . p:.- f: iity. mOF'ERATIONS PERMANENT PLANT. .i VAULT DRAWINGS t , j . n '.
; o .- s
. . . .:.. i-l . t
- .~-
b: ,. r 4 , L, l
- c. ,. ui .,.. .
.. g , ,,
.,.: ...:.,~ .: .-~,,..r.'.,..,
, ,-~;....... ' . ~-..~.~.:.-. .~...n.--
. ~ . .
- r- < . . , , m em. m w, a._ - _ _ r_- _- _ _ ,.4 .,_ _;:rmx,eem +e - aer ~ ~m. . ,. aa+
.....a.a...- . ~ = .
. . -..-n..
. ~- -
. . . .. = . . . =
.- -0.s TUQ-1955 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ATTACHMENT'H OFFICE MEMORA NDUM .
- f. r,- J. T. Merritt ca.ii n T March 1.1984' s% - Corrective Action Request (CAR-O'36)
- Control of Deficiencies RE: Corrective Action Report Fourth Quarter 1983 (Attactunent) l A review of the fourth quarter trend report indicates that the percentage of inspection reports documenting deficiencies is unsatisfactory in several areas and appears to warrant corrective action.
E
- The following shows the type of work inspe'cted, the percentage of inspection-reports documenting deficiencies, the major deficiency trend categories, .
and, based on discussions with inspection supervisors, the apparent causes i for the deficiencies: I 1. Electr.ical Cables showed an unsat rate of 14%. The major trend category was work i'ncomplete/not per requirements. This trend . ; appears to be caused by a failure to assure the work is completed correctly prior to a request for inspection.
- 2. Electrical work other than cables and terininations (E) showed an unsat rate of 12.85. The major trend category was work incomplete /
l _ _ not per requirements. This trend appears to be caused by a failure +n, ] tv assure work is completed correctly prior to a request for
- h. inspection.
- 3. Miscellaneous Structural Steel (MS) showed an unsat rate 'of 14.2%.
i The major trend category is fabrication errors due to misdrilled holes, improper dimensions, and/or improper material. The apparent causes appear to be a lack of clear fabrication requirements and h failure to assure work is completed correctly prior to a request -for inspection. -
- 4. Protective Coatings (PC) showed an unsat rate of 34.4%. - The major ,
trend category is inadequate surface preparation.- The' apparent - cause is a fatlure to assure work is completed correctly prior to , a request for inspection. - Please provide a written response to this office on or.before March 16, 1984, describing the action you have taken or intend to take to correct these matters - and prevent recurrence and your estimated date for completion of corrective action. R. Ti. Tolson TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor . y ., RGT/8CS/GWP/ GAS /pr k/ Attachment cc: J. D. Hicks '
.9I.'N. . Ch
~
l .
. ,; : ' . ~ ' .
mn....:. g:;: n.,:4,.,e , ,,,,. nn -- mmm.m. .gm . .n,.w
. .s.
o Ti d-Aucus+ ss ' iseA-
)
fi O 1
-A e+ -
iv.i e & l'
~ c. 3. r dt , hem, ww QA/oc ,Sectto3=, -s* , %>fMTw -
OA/OC-
.' C .e 3
s u e i s.. mcA c, . %., Pgan,- pyoc_ -
- A -, i, , a, s
3 b -A a 9 w ta; epa /qc.- ' N- ' M I QYQC. >
)i
\% . l%W \ *
*u wf c a ' . .
~2gj.._gg--6g' h e. c am .
fj L E r-i .sE '[w. h p c i,:w2+ ,- 2 c..c,.t.: N k~ G 3 , J [j , 3 .su A h . Qw/oo
- d d %
3 9 uJ. tea;% c./a &
- G+A62-i &,%
I + O/^
- 9cd q
c- - ~w p ye a gw. . .. / s a
~- . . . . . . . . . . . . . b _ ._'_ _
6.-
~
m_:- - ,- . - - .._ .
. ; g
NO9
'*T' t ,
1 0r0 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ( ==rw4r vows . ..o xonrn ourz marr. i.... u . o.u.AS.trXAM WOR
, I
}
'i, '
.u.y . a rururs May 22, 1984 uL M L
Ct t b. Mr. John T. Collins . O W.
-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76012 b bl
Dear Mr. Collins:
Enclosed is a copy of our final report dated May 15, 1984, regarding issues surrounding the "T-shirt incident" of March 8, 1984. I believe this report, together with its attachments, accurately reflects the seriousness with which senior management views such matters and the level of effort we put into their investigation and resolution. Sh.ould you have any questions, please advise.- Very truly yours, BRC:ln Enclosure m cc: Darrell G. Eisenhut w/ attachment
~
)
2__/02 - L J -(A
~~~ ~<< ~ .
t ~b
. %_ n y(mynpf J su~ -
3,4 . .. ... ., -. +, . . .---,
. 6
.. A -e,.U .
TdQ-2134 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMI%NY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM g-To D. N. Chapman Glen no.e. Tex May 22. 1984 g subject Transmittal of Final Report on Issues Resulting From Interviews with Electrical Inspectors This will formally transmit the subject report dated May 15, 1984. The report conclude: that there was no intent on the part of the inspectors to convey any concerns or any message that would reflect adversely on an inspector's objectivity. Accordingly no repercussions and/or disciplinary actions have been or will be taken. Of the six inspectors that I interviewed on March 9,1984, two are still working in Unit No.1 Safeguards Building; one is working in the Unit 1 Control Building; two have left of their own accord; and one is working in Unit 2. All reassignments have been made due to decreased activity in the Unit 1 Safeguards Building and a need for additional resources in the other areas. We will continue our efforts to promote free expression of-concerns without fear of retribution and to maintain a strong and effective
. QA/QC program at CPSES.
Vega T TUGC0 Site QA Manager AV/bil cc: M. D. Spence B. R. Clements f 4 .
* .
- M, . * *
, 4 p<
,3, . , .
~
sqp-- s g-r g- <
O
~-
(0 l l LTUQ-2074.I' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM r' ro D. N. Chapman May 15, 1984 Glen now. Temu s,wus Final Report on Issues Resulting From Interviews with Electrical Inspectors This will cocument actions taken as a result of interviews with six (6) electrical inspectors who, on March 8,1984, wore T-shirts with the phrase "I'm in the business of picking nits". Upon receiving a report of this, TUGC0 site management decided to locate them in separate quarters to protect them from potential adverse reaction by other site personnel and to have them conveniently available for interviews. The inspectors were advised that these shirts reflected adversely on their professionalism and objectivity as inspectors. Cor. current with this action, the inspector's work stations were examined to obtain and secure company property that might be compromised if disciplinary actions were taken. The items secured included copies of Non-Conformance Reports (NCR's) and Inspection Reports (IR's), and original IR's, Master Data Base Work Packages, controlled and "information" drawings, and miscellaneous notes and notebooks. The miscellaneous notes and notebooks were returned to the inspectors the next day. Immediately after, on the same day, an NRC representative e confiscated the remaining documents. The following week, we requested the NRC representative to Xerox the original documents in their possession
. and return the originals to us so that we could proceed with our work. The NRC representative complied with our request. -
The inspectors subsequently were interviewed separately by Mr. Boyce - Grier on March 8 and 9,1984, and by Mark Welch and myself on March 9, 1984. Mr. Boyce Grier's report is included as Attachment A. During these meetings several comments and concerns were voiced. Additional interviews with sixteen Electrical QC Inspectors were conducted to obtain as much information as possible in areas of concern.
.The following salient points were made during the meetingsfwith differe'nt degrees of concurrence among the inspectors interviewed:
- 1. The inspectors stated a strong displeasure at the publicity that had been given to their wearing of the T-shirts. They attributed j a phone call to a newspaper to one person whom they described -
l
'as "being intelligent but with very little common sense".- The person who allegedly called the newspaper was also described as having coined the phrase, and they strted there was no connection between this phrase and any other previous incident at Comanche.
Peak. The inspectors stated there was no intent to' convey a
- message or concern by wearing these T-shirts. They further pointed vut that approxirately' twenty (20) inspectors had worn these shirts the previous Monday and that "nobouy made a big deal about P, it".
6 e A r .
+ .
y .
, . - . , s -
y s , n
- 2. They stated that up to about a week before then, there was " finger pointing" going on between building management personnel and QC. They believed QC was being described as uncooperative and causing unnecessary delays. They stated thi.t the main reasons for the delays were inadequate inspection packages provided by the Paper Flow Group and the craft turning in work for inspection prematurely to obtain progress credit. They did note, however, Ce.7d 0tutt"3l' an improvement in the inspection packages since the program was initially implemented as part of the Building Organization Concept.
- 3. Some inspectors voiced a conpern with respect to inspection procedures.
They believed that pror_,cedurms, have been changed too frequently gg and that changes have been in the direction of rela,xing_ require _ments. ;
- 4. A concern was voiced over table terminations. They stated their '
inspections were identifying problems with 1.1ghting termjnatigns l
, and had heard rumors that inspection procedures were being changed
~
to delete such inspections.
- 5. Some inspectors voiced a disagreement with " - s-is" dispositions j on Non-Confonnance Reports (NCR's), principally bec Ust!'of the ; y number of such dispositions. Management's consnitment to quality g was questioned because a "use-as-is" disposition did not require i craft to build it per the original requirement. Two examples i were cited. The two NCR's are included as Attac.hments lLand C.
- 6. Concerns were voiced on documentation. Some inspectors were k experiencing problems with incomplete document packages and with i {$
duplf_c_agpackagesJith-different_ numbers for the, s,ame component._ [ Several inspectors indicated that retrieving InspectT6nrReports - (IR's) has been a problem. During our meeting, the following points were established:
- 1. TUGC0 Management has been and remains totaily consnited to a safe and reliable plant in full complianc.e with all applicable requirements.
- 2. TUGC0 Management has been and remains totally dedicated to a strong and effective Quality Assurance / Quality Control program at Comanche Peak.
- 3. There was a .need to place more emphasis on consnunicating 'infonnation to inspectors, especially when inspection procedures are revised' .
such that. inspections are reduced in scope or deleted. The reasons q ' for these actions, such as equipment declas'sification; alternate inspection . programs; oi inspection or test provisions (such as lo. prerequisite or preeperational tests) during other project phases. l should be consnunicated. Such consnunication was also necessary , on certain NCR's dispositioned "use-as-is" [ eP
- . ~ *
- l. . . . ~..
. D p g
- . . . . - ~ - . = .-- . - -- - . ,, . . . - - .
- g. . 4 . ,. .
There was a need to promote more -feedback and discussion, not
~
4. only within QA and QC, but with the ingineering and Quality Engineering function. j On March 16, 1984 I was assigned to Comanche Peak as TUGC0 Site 0A Manager. Concurrently. Quality Engineering was organized also reporting to the Manager, Quality Assurance -in Dallas. During meetings t at the site on March ~16,1984, with QA and: QC supervision. TUGCO's-commitments to a safe and reliable plant; to a strong and effective
- QA/QC organization; to free and open communication at all levels j
in QA/QC; to an emphasis on QA/QC procedures that assure design commitments are being met; were communicated. Subsequent to that meeting, I - issued a letter ' logged TUQ-1982 dated March 22,' 1984, entitled "QA i Policy" that reaffirms these commitments. A copy of that letter is included as Attachment D. ' Since that letter, I,have held meetings with every element of QAL { and QC organization _here on' site. TUGC0 top management, including Mr. M. D. Spence and Mr. B. R. Clements, have attended some of these meetings with me. A memo to file dated April 30, 1984, reflecting top management involvement, is included a.= Attachment E. ' f
~
In regard to the " finger-pointing", the QC inspectors cited inadequate ; inspection packages and premature submittal of work for inspection as reasons for delays. The Inspectors stated that they had seen significant improvement 4 in the quality of the packages, attributing the initial problems j to " growing pains" with the Paper Flow Groups under the Building Management Concept. However, I have directed that a surveillance be conducted in these areas of concern. A copy of this directive is included as Attachment F. In addition to the above' surveillance
- a task force (the CPSES Monitors Team)-has been commissioned by the
! Assistant Project General Manager. and myself to perform an oversight ~ l function on the entire records proc'essing activity at Comanche _ Peak. - The Paper Flow Group in each Building Task force would be included - within the inspection scope of the CPSES Monitors. Team. The-document-comnissioning this effort is included as Attachment G. 'This on-going
- i effort will continue to assure QA' records are being processed in an efficient and correct manner.
~
In regard 'to premature submittal of work for inspection, this matter-hadialready been-identified by our trending program. A Corrective l- Action Reques.t (CAR).. logged TUQ-1955, designated CAR-036, dated . , March 1,1984, was iss'ued requiring corrective action in four areas l . l' where a problem with -" failure to assure work is completed correctly prior to a request for inspection" was identified. The_ Corrective - Action Request is included as Attachment H. g 4 e 1 : l .
. s l '
. ~ ".
~ '
2., ^/, , I --, ' -
..m. - . , -. . , , -,,.-m. .D e.
-w
)* . , _ ' - * '
.a . .
. A
~4-4 The concern on c tble termina_tions has been addressed. On January 3 24, 1984, we verbaTly infonned the NRC of .a deficienc,y regarding cable terminations. On March 29, 1984, a final report was submitted. Ql g in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e), describing actions taken. Supporting . ' -
documentation is on record at CPSES. <j i Igrminttinne ntad in iunction boxes for power and control cable for. b f IE applications are qualified in accordance with IEEE 323-1974. I ( 15 The report has been reviewed and approved as meeting all requirements. a Contrary to the rumors, Revision 16 to the procedm, which was issued -
! on March 12, 1984 and remains in effect l s'o? this date, continues i.
i to provide for removal of the covers of Class lE power and control , J junction boxes, and for inspections. , In regard to the lighting terminations., the inspectors were advised that lighting fixtu'res are not Class IE. Concerns related Jo failure : of the lighting fixture terminations in the open-circuit an:t short-circuit , l mode were discussed with the inspectors involved. Engineering documentation addressing both failure modes was reviewed with them'.and discussed ' l at length. The inspectors were satisfied that the integrity of the i Class lE power and distribution systems is not compromised. j The investigation clearly indicates that the T-shirts were worn in [' a spirit of levity, with no intent to convey messages or concerns. , A greater number of inspectors had worn the shirts previously without , incident. The investigation clearly indicates there was an unwarranted
~
s over-reaction on the part of management towards .the wearing of the ~ - s T-shirts on Thursday, March 8,1984. This over-reaction in itself ' gave this incident inordinate and inappropriate attention. .; Our efforts to encourage QA/QC personnel to voice their; concerns i is continuing. We continue to emphasize an open-door policy without i fear of retribution. Mr. 8oyce Grier is making every effort to provide greater visibility to his presence on site. We are continuing to place emphasis, during our training meetings, on reasons for procedural changes and continue to encourage inquiries on dispositions of NCR's, i or on any other area of concern. We believe our efforts aresbeing i successful. We continue to maintain a' highly effective-Quality Assurance, Quality Control and Quality Engineering organization at Comanche Peak. We believe that our combined efforts continue to assure that we are building a safe and reliable plant that is in full compliance with all applicable requirements. l A..Vega .. I
.TUGC0 Site QA Manager c AV/bil
- cc: -M. D. Spence .
B. R. Clements 3 ,
;,[ e ,
. =
, 's . -
_f . y v- .- p yw .,,,hw
+ e * ., .---w-/#v.-- v,-r ., v y-
..e , s .
1 TEXAS UTil.ITIES GENERATING COMi%NY ATTACHMENT A OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
., .w R. G. Tolson cien he. Tn, March 15, 1984 Sub M Interviews of Electrical OC Inspectors Safeguards Building Task Force On March 8 and 9.1984, I conducted interviews of sixteen Electrical QC inspectors assigned to the Safeguards Building Task Force. A sumary of the results of the individual interviews is attached. The following is a sumary of my analysis of the results in the principal areas .
" ,. g , y discussed during the interviews. '
i Procedures Three-fourths of the inspectors interviewed have concerns with respect ! 15' to_ inspection procedure _s. They believe. that pro _c.edures c have been changed too frequently and that changes have bee.n .iD_the_ dire _qtion. of 1 relaxing Jequiramants.. It is their perception that requirements are , being relaxed because inspectors have found too many problems that
- impact on schedule. They believe this is _the reason that post construction . .
inspections are being held up while the procedure is being revised. . i u One inspector felt that inspectors should have more input into procedure changes and opportunity to conenent on new procedures and proposed changes. N Two inspectors had no problems with procedures and two were silent on - l the subje.ct. i Documentation
- Three-fourths of the inspectors problems interviewed have concerns about documentation. $ ii l They were experiencing with incomplete document packages and with (uplicate onkages with different numbers for the same ep!nponen.tr i
Several inspectors indicated that r.etrievinggshas been a problem. Ib Five of these inspectors believed that the situation with documentation . is improving while two other inspectors said they saw no improvement. - Three inspectors had no problems with documentation and one was silent on the subject. Trairiing . Three-fourths f the inspectors either have no problem Nith_ tmini' or 10
~
were silent on!the subject. The_ remaining one-fourth fe.lt that t ng , could be. improved. For the training c6rrently being conducted they . . complained abost the instructors who only read a procedure and answered questions during a training' session. One felt the training would be- . more helpful if the instructort would discuss examples of. inspection problems and describe how they were resolved. % . i . . e e e. . g
~*
i
- i *-
1.. . -
* ^
, ;.24* , . _ ;, , L. ~
s..,' .m..
ATTACHMENT A - con't t R. G. Tolson
- Page 2 March 15,1984 NCR's ,
None of the inspectors interviewed stated that they have any problem with issuing NCR's. One inspector did say that he had had some problems in j; g the past but none now. One-half of the inspectors stated that they often j disagree with the_ disposition of NCR's, principally because they feel that l an excessive number are dispositioned "use-as-is". i Management Two inspectors expressed concern because management did not seem to care about quality. Two other inspectors expressed the view that Area Management felt QC was overdoing inspections and causing delays in meeting schedules. Two other inspectors were concerned about pressure.they perceived from management to meet turnover schedule, and one inspector felt the shutdown of inspections in the areas of post construction verification, separation and lighting was harassment by management. ' If you have questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please let me know. B. Hforier BHG/bil Attachment cc: B. R..Clements D. N. Chapman i
. k l -
- l. - -
. i s ,
~! .
- j. ,
l1 * ' f l . J. .,, ,
, ATTACHMENT A - con't T ,
Sununary of Interviews With Electrical QC Inspectors - Safeguards Task Force N re.;. :- Inspector A Did pre-post construction inspections. Found many problems in first room l$0 inspected. Room not ready for inspection. Followed procedure as written. , Eound 50-60Lba.d terIni. nations. Noted evidence of rat damage .to_. cables. , Could not get SWA's to look at equipment. Only one SWA issued for pump , O f /c, motor. Training hasj een__ good. Documentation is a problem because of missing documents in folders. Three packages obtained today had nothing (DCA's.,_ CMC's, IRN's) in folders. Feels situation with documentation is
~
nbt improWnh. Harno problems with issuing NCR's when required. No problems with NCR dispositions. Inspector B Short time in Safeguards Task Force. Feels cooperation in Safeguards is iO
, , , not as good as in former group where everything went smooth. Regularly ,
opened junction boxes during post construction insnections in former group. t Traini_n_gjoing_ good and_has beerthelpful. Instructors mostly. read procedures . (, and respond to questions. SFould bring up more examples of inspection oroblems encountered and discuss resolution. Has no .p_robl, ems with issuin3JCR's. No problems with dispositions. Inspector C Concerned about newspaper article and statement about damage being done during inspection. Concerned about Area Management statements that QC inspectors I are " overdoing their job". Feels ~ that inspection procedures aFe changed - too frequently. . Believes terminal blocks which do notJ) ave lugs should not f be used. on safety eauiomentMeels reaction when anyone goeT167he NRC is g intimidation. Believes Safeguard Electrical QC group is feeling heat because they, spoke up about problems. Has no problems issuing NCR's. Feels,too many NCR's are disoositioned "use-as-is". Believes inspectors need more freedom to do their job. Suggested that interviews of inspectors be conducted routinely with random selection of inspectors to be interviewed. Feels craft i p'ersonnel .were back of' lock-up of inspectors wearing ~ t-shirts and search of their personal effects. . Has Ibeen unable to find some IR's in vault. l
- . . i-l a . . . ~,:
}
, y se - ,- ,- -. ,9
.., o
- b. '
.i e .
i
-ATTACHMENT A - con't :
C ' F, .
; Inspector D f Feels Safeguard QC group has too many agreements with construction and doesn't' follow inspection procedures because of informal . arrangements. Concerned about newspaper article and statement about damage being done by inspectors.
Finds this statement directed toward entire group to be intimidating. During f c, , , trainino some of the QE's just read procedures and sometimes cannot respond to questions. Has' problems with documentation packages with missing DCA's 6. and IR's. Experience in the other Area groups is much better and sees no .- improvement in Safeguards PFG.- Turned three packages back this morning , 5* because. they were incomplete. -No problem with issuing NCR's. Feels too- , many_NCR.'-s are dispositioned "use-as-is". Feels shutdown of PCV, separation ; i ' and light _ing i inspe.c.tions by._ Safeguards group when other area groups are not ' sfEit'~36wn is harassment by QA/QC and craft management. . 4 i , Inspector E Has no problem with inspections but feels apro educes ara channed tno fre.guently,. l .l Feels training is alright. Has problems wTth documentation and receiving ' 7's ' l incomplete packages from PFG. Has spent more than half day looking for documents. Feels situation with documentation is improving. Has no problems with issuing 11CR'.s but feels too many are dispositioned "use.asa.is". Believes
]s
'd procedure changes are in direction of relaxing inspection requirements. .;
i Concerned that management doesn't care about quality. Would like to feel that i
- he did a good job in his inspections. j t
l Inspector F l Has concerns about 1.igh.1.iaa te=%tf=s where cable slack is not as prescribed. I-Inspected three rooms and found problems with 93% of terminations. in two i rooms but no problems in third room. . Var'iation in results apparently due . fC
- to difference in workmanship. Feels , training is aning well. Has had problems
! . with incomplete document packages and IR its.ts, not complet'e. Has no problems /6 t l with issuing NCR's. Feels QC works we'Triiith engineers to resolve NCR's and
- has no problems with. disposition. (
u hgr &
. Inspector G .
t - Inspections have found probl. ems-wit 1- l
! fah+faa +=Jg.inations, also_,wgith . .r and_.
control .terminationsJnd conduit ide'ntification. Feels procedure is-being changed because inspectors;hlVCbeerriookins too far. -Understands Class 1E~ . L lighting is not to be inspected. . Concerned bec'ause evidence 6f rat ' damage has been observed. Feels push from Area Management to meet turnover schedule. Has no problems with issuing NCR's. Has no problems with document packages.- { ys j 3. l- - r. g :
. . . R '-
l.- . .,
~
. . , , p.
' ~ *
, . . ,.. ..n. .
,e.. - . - . - . _ . ~
s... . . . ATTACHMENT A - con't t i ?. Inspector H Has had prcblems with interpretation of post construction inspection procedure, Procedure is being changed and feels problems are being resolved. Training will be conducted in revised procedure. Documentation has been a problem because of documents missing from packages. Feels situation is improving. Has no problem with issuing NCR's. Sometimes does not agree with NCR disposition. , Insoector I Concerned that inspection procedures are being changed to eliminate removing ;/T , of covers on function boxes. Feels this may be compromising quality because , , inspe'c'tions1111 be only a cosmetic look. Has problems with response from QE on questions. No problems with documentation. No problems with issuing /. G , NCR's. Sometimes does not agree when disposition is "use-as-is". l Inspector J Has no problems with inspection procedures. Feels training being conducted 8
'Ig is good. Has had problem with incomplete document packages but feels situation is improving. Has no problems now with issuing NCR's but has had problems i
~ in the past. Feels dispos.ition "use-as-is" is excessive. - Has gone to supervisor, 6 QE and engineer to resolve disagreements on disposition. . Feels post construction. inspections are being limited. . Concerned because QA management -and Area i Management don't seem to care about quality. Does not believe there is any. way equipment is being damaged by inspection. . j Inspector K , Concerned because of problems with procedures and shut down of inspections. Has no problems with training. Has problems with incomplete document packages. { Inspector L Ha' s found number of problems with lighting tenninations during inspections, f j Feels inspections now being limited. Understands inspection procedure is . being changed. Believed now procedure will not find problems. Training now j 9oing on is reading procedures and responding to questions!. No problems with.. . , documentation. No problems with issuing NCR.'s but some problems with- . dispositions. . ; , i-f i e .
* ~
c -
. . ~ , .. .;. . , . . .
m~- - - m+w - ,, ., ....,,.y.. . . , . , . , , , p. ,y, ., ,,h,, . , , , ,
.. o- .
, ATTACHMENT A' ' con't
, - 1
- gg;Mt ,,*,t. -
Inspector M
,/ : 1.g j
Concerned becausE inspection procedures are being Changed frequently. 'Some procedures have been chanced 3-4 times since Task Edrce was formed. One .}_ , procedure was changed twice last week. Has found,4roblems with documentation . l ~2-packages. Found four packages concerning s3me_c4ble tray with different ' number.s. assigned.to_the_paclaggi. aL Also problem getting ut.A's. Pfevibiisly I.'
; had own prints but now can't get print when someone else has it checked out.
No problems issuing NCR's.
- Inspector N Understands post construction inspection procedure is being revised to relax 'c
- regu.i ue tements.. Concerned because of probleliii Thit inave been.ideEfi'G'th e
] light.ing .ter.1ninati.o.ns. Feels procedure requirement for STE or EE present -I-l when equipment is opened inhibits inspectors. Has no problems issuing NCR's. Feels electrical problems are not limited to the Safeguards Building. -Training ; 10 being cond,ucted consists of instructor reading inspection procedures and answering questions. Feels documentation support is improving. 'Has had problem retrieving IR's. Concerned about promotion policy. Feels his pay increase is overdue. Inspector 0-f , Feels inspection nracedu m are'a problem. .There is no system for iDsp_ec_t.nr.s. to request cha_pges_.in. procedures or for consnenting on new' procedures. Believes there sholild be system for feedback from inspectors. Feels there is pressure f '- on craft to meet turnover schedule resulting in conflicts between craft, Area : ' Management and QC. Feels PFG was not ready for Task Force operation. Has. Jo had problems with duplicate documentation packages and with retrieving IR'.s. Two people are assigned to the records yault to correct problems. Has no ./ problems issuing NCR's or with dispositions. Believes inspector training '
- should be improved. Feels testing for certifications is not ' strict _enougti.
Inspector P l Has no problems with inspection procedures. Believes Area Management feels that problems with delays are because of QC.' Has no prob.lems with training. 3 Feels that: documentation problems are being resolved. Has.had~ problems - ! . retr ~ievirigh Has no. problems issuing NCR's. .' Believes seoaration was ,, 10 .' not built-in in the Safeguards Building. Feels that construction training' ; - in separation criteria was lacking. 1 - 1
- .,. ~!
L w
, t.
. -I 7,
( . t / , i
- e. ..
- 4 . .
~
.* e .' ',.
, e , , , . - p w e -
,*r
-o@me
COMANCHE PEAK STEAnt ci c"'n'" *'* *""' '
~
TEXAS -UTILITIES AT.TACHMENT B NONCONFC GENERATING CO R M R H M @ H @pag. =a -
, A .-
t,- UNIT STRUCTURE / SYSTEM ITEu/ COMPONENT TAG /ID NUMBER LOCATION OR ELEVATION RiR NO. h* C\ v>'E S a # e ,a ;3 -4 5 cc as a v to' I NONCONFORMING CONDITION ci s cas,a N/A lh( a l w rn . n o m k 6 (v eado,- 3 ppl.N.1) Jh a r (l es con d '. 4 c. g % ag i,q 2. y aff,ck.> Io C ?1 - M E ATIN oa m ; 3 loos e . T his hr. s b < r, id en4:i:=a on j f Pc,,,t c;o3N c4:om V<r; b d :oa D J:c; . q Lead I D.*oiosi E, I4em* t f t-vc. 4 :-.- ; -; E- d c A 4 I):<3 ,e G . ,,,,. b r .n s k:4, 2 g RECO@ dold 43 o ppi:<a. f pSS . oA N G0 $ DAN , T.EFERENCE DOCUMENT- bI O N 3 *D REV ! ' PARA REPORTED BY: DATE: CAL S A u I isiva 2E REYlEW/ APPROVAL: DATE:
, .,,,,n._ _
/ i.s' t ry ACTION ADDRESSEE #'
~ /- DEPARTMENT '
nTn > , -e s / Cc, >i 7 A-7i/ SM=7 Cnor DISPOSITION:
- REWORK REPAIR USE AS IS XYY SCRAP wf xxcrxsss or vr/s vrwooc svak.ieo go m.srstan ca is ava -rD
- 9/G f D 13E/HCr
- SAC.XED-off fNOggM *lfO* gy,,gy POj jffyyjyg. f2}Q,$[fgA/pggf" i -
TO MEWr/2LO CMf/&#fkf'sh4/, / WOffJAAN.1N/P AMD 'SY375t\A . /HTE(.gg(Q_'_ MAV5 N0Y ilCA M ComPROM/JGD; YH6XCfb2C , /dirdLinT/DAf if Acc.s/rpDLt J.$ /S. ,_ ENG. REVIEWiAPPROVAs.
/
[ ('g DATE: U
%. 1 l / b 1896 CE CEVIEW APPROVAL:
CS Ytjk/er Q?,f/Aij p,us,w ' DATE:
) t/r's W 1 POSITION VERIFICAT d A' OSURE( ~[ DATE:
* / ^ / /Y/ $V OMMENTS: f7N4(,, g/g . f;./ gC/gg3(,f P
e, e- *
, 2 *
- TEtai uriptE5 " ' ' ^^ ' ^ ' HMENT B - Ccn't roENERATING CO
^f' C NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) g.
\
! _ 't . . hg
~
1 irEu,Ccw e4td Tv4G,iD ~
. .,. .m _.m -
F 'b}. unit u Sw CruaE sysrEu Nuussa (OCariou Oa tit, -,,' ...a...
~
,; ,,3 o 3., s i w, a e '
l _ d e' . t u q ,- d (o.T ow.5 E l '> (./)b 7 3 3ICs t e\. 'gk NONCONFORMING C'ONDITION I
! i lk< u14m.n m L B (,v eA- s ppit<J) w h e r- I t ey c c... .t . . . t (sc,,n.33 l g , y.,, , k . > 4. C PI - h C ArMW -oa m ;S loose . Th43 h<.s b<c, iJ<=d.V: a o..
h fe,$ t (, ,,, d ,% c I 4 V en b < 4 loa D eUc; aq R ce A I D:'otoSi E. I f e.. "1 C '
$ L u c. 4 ... .> E -) s .s i 4 D ' c 3, f () , nce .Is r es 5k.d, o ,
z i E o lb te 1 3 - 7 p i . ,, . ~
- c. !
W C : REFERENCE DOCUMENT- OT 'O O- ' REV Ib PARA REPORTED BY: DATE: CAL, 5 ~jk a i is ,w i E REVIEW / APPROVAL:
,/ DATE: l
, s , , . , 1.. / ts try O l s.CTION ADDRESSEE - ' ' ' '
DEPARTMENT
- ?n>3 c S.;' l.t*'}? l.,$/Y/
.5 ' * * ~~' ' ll o o .2 y -)
DISPOSITION:' l REWORK REPAIR USE AS IS NY SCRAP I i g b& n d A ae d.dr d S A 1 . B. Nr A df* l e hdao aMe p% AA.L.B. Awj&W . AA
- n
&.skn b s e
O '
~z .ab- 6 d Ann >jak
>w/
; , . aa .na.
i j . ENG' REVIEW /APPROVAt.~ / DATE:
. v. -
i-~ [> _ f
- J
) i g;', g4 QE R EW APPROVAt.:
- DATE:
,0 w fws-_ 0 'l l SI SY OISPOSITION VERIFICATION 4 CLOSURE: . ,M ' DATE:
r _ m". _ .m. w ., . = ..
; /
s Wy. ~ _ _ . _ u - y FOR I.N.FORMAIlbi DEY 1Oy-. .
~
~
,s .c . .
4 e # t ,
1 6*- :-
- W-YN..'iV AlND~"E11VH03NI'H0J .
"1 . . . . . . !. w*f/P Mid3PECTich5--159 f'-', .*- fg. . _gfgg cacuairr.caclosiu;f+6 cumur.ca e gnsia / sTaucmu ===
couc r C I36/Ab?? % SP*.C.4 lArv. RU G A CCC. 4 4CV. & CMAJerme, .40.
~
P/0 's G #/ Am.75 C 5 '% GM 6 UT JQiJd. *QQT.go. f6-/00 el 2- . 01-09 ti. P 23 fes 9 r ds , O%T, O v g sshha,noa OMpoT %;L_. ,,, 0 %wcne, W-umEP. Rt3UL.T3 o i - eno.
. ,u. ~.a ~ - cre- 0nJ)8t/i.x/sy ;
. - e- i= u2= - / " '"*** " " ""
,c mspection 4TTaisuTEs
; $ pra e- s d*m,,
/\t/SS AS /S 74 tJ dis sss;Naa of itA I I l A/ct n Try-ooo W. Disons;/!ased ks s%/e/td l I I
% e;& erra
/ /
d % /.% % :ses<ive % orued I ti i
} /
l* j l l 1 - Ii l i I
!I I Li i i
li l I il i i i i II I i i l I
. I
_u l ll 1 i L"* PLT. REccon Ii l
\ l '"," T' l ll kn s t
I i ua LJ! w?21
-- Co un,,- . _ ~~
l 1l W.W / ' i
- l !I W/
n v. --
;, ; ; y y 1 -
I 1ii If l I I I /3F - l l 1 ~l I 4 i M/d Tae He m,pd Il l l
' i l l t I
== m as,% c:a 1 Il l e
/._ O $ "
a v . coo v r i 77v.'$'Tye J ta cas% O l"gj ; ===- 4 c ;, ,)
% abJb~/bAl hz f ' u dzf4 / .!
r.l. .
- , .I -
9 * . p .e i
. i ATTACHMENT C TEXAS UTitiTIES COMANCHE PEAK STEAu cs erra.c. evavin.. ~
^
GENERAMG CO- NONCONFt. . F a
._ H f-Ooo </9 UNIT STRUCTURE /SYSTEu TEurCOMPONENT TAG /lO NUMBER LOCATION OR ELEVATION RIR NO T m. S5 Can,1 G 1 % C m .n3 Co C.+ C.196 m 44 8 i O' N/A NONCONFORMING CdNDITION T h c. b con 64- Sor e o6eoss is loose on boh
.O c a s. n. 3 L s b~ d . .d : V: s -- ha Ro,d Fe a , o - i
4A U c < .' k , c . + '.o^ D e ( . c .' e a c q 3 e po s E 2. D 01o*31 'd bley i3
) c,C a. .t .~ b ~. < >< t C < J" r b"D6d b'EO DOd~~
U I - I)O h ? D w' .CO m at +- h e c = $f e a ch o d- 4-k e. D ,' c 3 c t C,,, n , o ,3% [ $o A s'.3, bold hs.3 a{p' lled REFE7.ENCE DOCUMENT- r - O P O .B - 4 O RgV I3 paar REPORTED BY: DATE: c
\/$ID
..OE 8:EVIEW/ APPROVAL:
- DATE:
'k ./ .ru
' f tr / PL/
ACTION ADDRESSEE r?O)N ', / / 0.* > > i /$h. DEPARTMENT
$/W P D 9?*-
DISPOSITI', N: ' REWORK XYY REPAIR USE AS is /W SCRAP
..l . THE Loos ENESS OF THE PLE.>< RT THC EQosPw.4T* UNth t% h4 oNct' TU .
L waa-ow in n.c ec riirim, Tw sowsers -rxe me-ro n,ee ews~r c TMEE6 /$ P2W2 7HXE4O EN6)GG^^CH[AAfD *THG MOCCMh5HrP if4S NW
.ma em%.2s rNeacroec sstw.mio is sc.mau as is, a 2. we mx ews to ras i>acosa co~Oc,eewoex w ne~rix n-QA RECORD QA REVICp M W tlWM p- a y
- ENG. REVIEW /APPROVAt.
&av.."
/ .D&l.e s
[I , 'DATE: [ s w / I'
/ //8 't M OE REVIEW APPROVAL: ..
DATE: C.0Y /l///f*f _ i m / Mn2s l ll? /W
.HSPOSITION VERIFICATI'ON & CLOSURE: / .
DATE:
<2flWwvpJ
~ l t/4'tlV-
^ COMMENTS:):~/M$t .Z.R E-PdO/3 *f'Jb '
. \
- y
- 6
.. e. ,
'. .e .
ATTACR4ENT C - Con't 1E.A; y,3.mS =- 4 GENEATiNG CO . ueAlN0 Iq11VMH03NI H01pm4 A
. % . yga, e.uy._j3.gg-$
_ __ s i-c
-. .. - . . . .. - . . . . . . = _ _ . -
f UNeT STRUCTURE /SYSTEu iTEu/ COMPONENT I T AG. 80 NUMBEn LOCA f TON OR ELEVA'lON . RiR
~
, . No. . _. .l
- h. 55 cs 1i I
- 1. % Cud,A Co e $
C i2wov'1 S I O' N/iA NONCONFORMING CdNDsTION I Thc flc3 cond a for C 'M
- 7'I'i i > lese - tr . u. l
$ e.na s . TM3 L43b<en ' \ a4 Oc 2 - o' b3 Qo.s si r d ', o m !
= m I h
m V c < .' (, c + .oa Dck.c~u<3 2eporY 1 D OloIlI) ley i3 I 3 b,+a;,b.,.,,tc-<.L. R *ss a h e E. O . E . ,. L - ~ . . I
@ C9I 'D O A ? D w - c,a tv. .t i +
- c . ,t .... a e 3 4w, D . , ., , g g, ,, ,,. , .. N 5 . ,s . . .
JC ( 0fE t J. .. p i,sa [ '. c .4 REFERENCE DOCUMENT. -Or-O H .B- 4O 'REV PARA REPORTED BY: DATE: U ~n_ b ek \ / 5 / h's,
. OE REVIEW / APPROVAL:
DATE: t,L~- , ./ 90~Li / ff f P'/ T ACTION ADDRESSEE ~ Y / *. DEPARTMENT ' e l t
- jN 'l / 0O F 1 i $. '
-,$NT.
- N' 0?~.
REWORKh)XM REPAla USE AS IS [/ IW SCRAP a 0) d - i w ;6f, 6 -
. A u-NQ s+>s.,$W+mY#h-b -- =
ENG. REVIEW / APPROVAL ~
~
au-a f.g ([, u~auuww DATE: 3 J v- u1 } 16 184'i
-l OE c fLEWAPPROVAL: r n-o ' OtSPOSITION VERIFICATION & CLOSURE:
DATE: - i isirr DATE:
.' / 't COMMENTS: -
~
. -' ;.. Y .,['s.16,q;;r.- .. . . . - -
, -Q: :: _
n ., c : u. . .
,:y
- 7, .156.* .
I . \ .
- u. .
ATTACHMENT C - con't
=ugex' ~ ~ 11NO,.Mgl1VH03NI110J fE;;g .
9 c eca ,r.ca C/sS s JG (%Ja;-/- w.r.ncanca e MYWW=5sh?h99.\ p m m 31=uc w as. onca sm e r C/3 G o ti?9V ~ ^' A E10'SL i Em.75 - g ar,. au. ac. coc. a arv. a w a = = = ca .u1 puliocer..o. J5-/oD el2 . Or-o ? It . 3-a3 R.9 ' , u4 . OI",;isy. OF%"5sh2tJioa Omir; %y:,,,
=5P. _
" _T3 OPEYrica ,
Er=smma c==uns , a meam. rras urw - EA& 5 -Am i 3<< O =amma c=wum i,.un=crent irne unm new. "'"
,e ir a ,e.
INSPECTION ATTRiotJTE3 ; 3 cart
, -e an e
f I C /2G 0479V f/ce A4< Aee- 4/c 4 A ,, e2 1 II I lw h e< e H ee,,. a eds L, & w b e/ded co,1- l ll l l du W a s o e .- dhom/hw n J! Al ef E g tt . I ?. i l I no o qq '/Je,., *3 , IV l l l ' ' lI I I II I l l l l l 1 ' Il l l \ l I l I I ) I l ll l \ i ( il l . _ td i
-1 l II I M ?5 1
i ii i %e
- lll l '% a l
i lil l 7 PERM. PLT. RFrnAn l !l I I T am , nu wc. , Il l l 1 - L 17.1.99.21 i IIi I I 7 ~ _CONDU:TNO. . l l l 1 1 l III l I I I ! I a-m ie a.sn:2, c::a I Il l Q :.s o's itoh Ne- e]OSInj ZN k/ MCR E7'/-Ocx) Y1. Y$-N95 .. l t 8 C :3Ca4 O i "*g 4 i *"" oc Sd- . ., l E e v s <.J. b # w Wl Y /A:$ J n y e . 3?'Z~ %e _t//rff e 4 e n
\
ATTACHMENT C - con't i mgcJ4. m AlN0;gi1HH03NI H0J
. g : 1 WillsiptcTioN AMEPORTX?N- fTghhgpf, . ;
. c. coc.si,r.c. u.wnur.a ,.o. f ,
mor.c., .\ ; mm l5 Co ><Iu?? r C/2r; n 4794 .insrc.e 3rnucny. 3G /Rn . iao. inu ac. coc. a n o. a m .,o. -m a ca sur wA 'o}cer . o. VT~
,FS Jo o .l 'L .lQ/ a p /431$/? 9 ,
M/ . Q %"c??c',, a r. a a.a.rs O l ? d ;'$ W Z'*" Q T M QG %en QP%%, , Q em c:-um , u.a. - ucau mm ur:sru:ron a., u /- /3 - r</ Oem e==ure, unun=ctent aro= usm acaw **'"'"*" "" ec 170d MQ. INSPECTION ATTMsW E3 m -
; 3 cart s d[we
- 1. l Af n la 7x o 17 o > - v e cl pe>- IUl l ll.fi c on r;m: a sien s s%'- n o n v9 lA I I I
lIi l i l~ l l I I ~ li I I I III I I II i l ' lI I I II I I
' I li I I
I 1ii I . I l ll 1 /
- I , ic, ek /
i I l lN W / I i 1 4 M il / I I ! l.N 1/ I Il / I - I Ili /F i I Ii/d I I I I i l I i li I NMM. PLT. RECORD I i i ! l xo..,a I "T" l F 8C'oc. nl l l d ! %ma r:a # J/ 8 vu.zl suersi.c Loc. -
------ CONDUlT NO. -
l t
/f /( C h / rp s f Y
*e Eh.lc$ y'9 . l ' R CBC lI/4 i"* jfx * "** ? ac nr.:- n .
a , . o* % l I \
'1 , . . . .
ATTACHMENT D TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY TUQ-1982~ e OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
" w site OA/Oc PeMonnel Gk Emme. Tesa. March 77_ 19R4 s.Wees OA Policy P
i i i Effective March 16, 1984, I assumed the position of TUGC0 Site QA Manager at Comanche Peak. . I ask for your support in carrying out the following polis ~es and objectives: i
- 1. TUGC0 Management has been and remains totally committed to a safe
- and reliable plant in full compliance with all applicable requirements I 2. TUGC0 Management is totally dedicated to a strong and ef'fective j Quality Assurance / Quality Control program at Casanche Peak.
l
- 3. TUGC0 Management strongly supports and encourages all QA/QC personnel '!
l
. to express quality related concerns. I wish to promote free discussion-
, between inspectors, their. " leads", QC supervisors and QA management.
- I wish to encourage the use of the Request for Infomation and
- Clarification (RFIC) as a means to communicate questions on procedures
! and instructions. I also wish to point out the availability of (' Mr. Boyce Grier to listen to any of your concerns. While your first recourse on concerns should be to your supervision, if you are not . R satisfied with the response from supervision, or for any reason you prefer not to go to supervision, Mr. Grier is available. I maintain an "open-door" policy. Please feel free to visit with me at any time. !- I encourage you to voice your concerns without fear of retribution. j We will make every effort to address your concerns in a complete manner. i .
- 4. Quality Engineering is being reorganized reporting directly to the l TUGC0 Manager Quality Assurance in Dallas. This pavides an added i
measure of independence for that organization in order to assure that
- inspection procedures and instructions accurately reflect design j requirements. Quality Engineering will also be working toward. improving l our program for training on inspection procedures and instructions.
i l We intend to place more emphasis on systematically. infoming the affected inspection forces of changes to inspection procedures and instructions, especially when changes appear to relax or delete procedural requirements. Our objective is to comununicate reasons for the above changes, such as declassifications, alternate inspection programs or. inspections or test p.rovisions during other project phases such as preoperational testing. l: . , s Our objective iis to continue to promote it high degree of confidence tha- { t . . ,, inspection procedures and instructions,.which prescribe inspection work
- j. activities, accurateTy address design requirements. .
~
e
- a. .. . . ,. ; .
..--_.,ye r.e. ,. .-,c. .,.--.c#. > ,.my. ..p.,--,,.y., - , m-,, y.,-. ...,--,m,--,w --e .,--..e...,r.
-: . . . ATTACHMENT D co'n't -! i. s- - .I again. request your support so that together we can continue to work toward a safe and reliable Comanche Peak-Steam Electric Station. . i Thank you, f A. Vega . l TUGC0 Site QA Manager AV/bil 1 4 i
?
4 I i l
- s. .
t i i i l i i * [ ,, i i .I i t i c .
^
I 1 . i~ , l l 1 . 4 .
. , . = . *
. 4. , * . . ,
4
, 0 .
, 4 ' 4
, . . v4 e
,, e . -.wr -- - . , - , -, y v - i e y, , - -
- n . - - ,,e---+ .- ,v- = - - , . - -w w f . - - + , - ,
TEXhS UTILITIES GENERATING COhiPANY - . ATTACHMENT E OFFICE MEMOR A NDU M File ,r - April 30, 1984 ra I s biece Top Management Participation in Site Meetings with QC Inspectors I i This will document Mr. Mike D. Spence's involvement in meetings with QC . Inspectors at Comanche Peak S.E.S. These meetings included both informal meetings and fonnal training classes. The attendance rosters for the formal meetings are attached. Mr. Spence, as President of TUGCO, presented top management's priorities and consnitments as they apply to Comanche Peak. 1 The meetings between Site QA Management and the inspectors were undertaken to personally re-emphasize the QA policy elements documented in memorandum TUQ-1982, dated March 22, 1984, a copy of which is attached. Mr. Spence stated that Texas Utilities because of its size has many important priorities. However -Texas Utilities has no higher priority than constructing Comanche Peak correctly. Mr. Spence stated that Site QA Management's consnitment to an open door policy and more informative consnunication is a reflection of his policies. As examples, he stated that inspectors have the right to ask for information and receive infonnation on use-as-is dispositions on NCR's. He supported i the intent to inform inspectors of underlying reasons for changes to inspection procedures. Mr. Spence also emphasized TUGCO's responsibility for the safety of Comanche Peak. He stated his belief that this is a responsibility that TUGC0 has accepti.d and which it cannot delegate to any organization. He stated his belief that quality cannot be legislated; that it' must originate with top management support for quality. He further stated that quality c.annot be inspected into the plant; that it must be built by the craftsman into the plant. He discussed the economics and the management support for " building it right the first time" as opposed to building it right on the second or
! third effort. Mr. Spence stated he saw Quality Assurance as an essential tool l
in assuring an effort is done correctly the first time. Mr. Spence then opened the meeting for questions, dei:laring an "open season ', on the President of TUGC0".. * ? i
- l I
S k b i i - p
.p ,
- ~
g ,
a.. , e AfTACHMENT E - con't a 3 File Page 2 TUQ-2046A 1 During this part of each meeting, the inspector's questions, concerns and connents were addressed. These included: i
- The effect of security measures, in the pennanent plant records vault, on inspector's accessibility to records.
- The review of QA records by non-QA organization personnel.
- Possibility of across-the-board salary increases.
- History / purpose of Component Modification Cards (CMC's).
- - Plans related to the completion of Uisit 2.
l
- Sources of financing for the project.
~
- Status of the licensing process.
- State of the nuclear industry, especially plans.for new plants, in the present regulatory environment.
- Inquiries as to what TUGC0 is doing to present the positive aspects of Comanche Peak.
- I believe these meetings have made a significant contribution in improving communications with the inspection forces.
i
,. fy,gz, A. Vega TUGC0 Site Manager AV/bil cc: ' M. D. Spence ,
B. R. Clements . D. N. Chapman
. ~
. . . ~
1 ..
- l, .
u
_ . , . . l iTTACHMENT E - con't TRAINING RECORD h Cor%NCHE PEAK STEN 4 ELECTRIC STATION DATE: i l THE LNDERSIGNED CKtOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF SPECIALIZED TRAINING IN: i 1 O/2 /[* DC M ~ GIVEtt BY: [/d/, /2/~/ D (IrlSTRUCTOR) THIS DA , AT CDMANCHE PEAK PROJECT. nw (pRinren) BADGE E j5SN SIGNATURE EHDAry' LIM VL YS2 M ] [ nn. obm _ ff9-93 v 0 rs' 4 nrell f; .Yr/~ _ Q WO * / 7
; eco,e manecern rass nuk A n 19 'u>~
James ee616,e _ 0% M1 ' /4
*C.n, hM _Vfu,iM Idll t-nt L i(.
4 i. ,
, VX\ bounN H.
i. M av:a K.ecnu l lIAsi lNn
- e
! / .7 ' " r e l ( ( ( ( . 1 S 1
/ l l }
( / / /
.\ ( ( (
)
( ) -
)s .
r er b L/fo// fMJ/'P '; - INSTRUCT 06'S'51GNATLRE
.~ ibmS OF TRAININGt D M2/N C. l Tine, @20dH' ~ /0: Q%'Al#;/
i
, ,e e * )
e e , e "p 8 %i t ' . = -. ,%,, a
,%,. _. _s _s a -
a ATTACHMENT E.- con't 1RAINitG RECORD l Cat %NGE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION IRTE: M 7-THE IJNDERSIGNED ACKtOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF S'PECIALIZED TRAINING IN:
~
h 5 O S /b ~~~ $ $ 76 /A GIVEN BY: / !F//_ / - Nrv IINSTRUCTOR) THIS DATE, AT COMMCHE PEAK PROJECT. NAT (PRIrffED) SIGNATlRE BADGE # 3).al M:ll,- 0'h7Z41Y f>?94 G<=uE z /s an. sos L U = SL 00 % l~ e a M . % -ff~ E,M1$ NO.3n/ k?ko '-. $h.,,j yr &lh"kbL
- 6.'M Dmo nyaxocs ML f/h.'$p &?O
\(- . ~ y y p ( f ( (-
\ \ \ \
) \ T \ .
/ \ >
/ / / /
) ( (
\\ / \ \
)
i 'i M/ ' 1.o _ W/h/
. lW -
; INSTRUCT 6ffSTIGRATIRE gg.y/
i i IblRS 'OF TRA!'HING! MI/8M l Titer :-
' %BN' M'BFW i ;l -.
rr,
*;. P . ,..j l l.,
. {: .
'l
- i
_a
- ATTACHf1ENT E - con't TRAINING RECORD Cor%NCHE PEAK STENT ELECTRIC STATION h.:
f l t.'
* - " W l DATE: / ~'/." -
t l. THE UNDERSIGNED ACKtchtEDGE RECEIPT OF SPECIALIZED TRAINING IN: l
'",* .'f ) _,. * ~- -
"'~E* ? Q/.h
*. "'# / C/ 77'MidSTRUCTOR) THIS DATE, AT C0fMNCHE PEAK PROJECT.
GIVEt: EY: SIGNATiRE BAfYiF # I,Sf3 . IW~f (i '"!TED)
- a ,d.Olwcc 4% bOk- .
bm: t'./ ,& V.h.'4ffo ,. ':+ A-77 = Y i, mrv !,o,nb o'b,:.n/C$ d No. 71c. . TneA # h . o , ...jh i s th r _ B f%.-. ~ .' A. M B.N. I
- I 9
i t b /!
. ("(f l$h{
a I j ./ \ I I lNSTRUCTOR'S SIGNATURE l J r .la .hr-lCMw. o
; , IbtRS OF TRAINING: T->/ru d I C. s I
i IlME: n*nnJ
->vos Qf /Lq)= *dh v.,,7.sg i .
OOd - 3l/ (9 A - a:j 1:l '
-l'.,'
.. i . .
it., .,%,,,,. ,g y,, y, , g .g4,p ,3g. pg ",y _
-.---.-.-,e. . - .
]'
ATTACHMENT E - con.'t .; TRAINING RECORD COMANCHE PEAK STEAtt ELECTRIC STATION { y,g . h I' Y* $ l l THE tt0ERS!GNED ACKtOhtEDGE RECEIPT OF SPECIALIZED TRAINING IN: S.E f /Y ff <?&- W GIVEtt BY: / , '/ _/ C/ ~[7 '.lifgTitUCTDR) THIS DATE, AT C0fMNCHE PEAK PROJECT. NA"E (PRitiTED) SIGNATIRE RADF,F # fdtl ;
-l f. :. %d .I db,htib. 0A.rf- 00M1 ,
Ac Gb0aui ( .b t h37
.Er.N., - . /;i. f . W,,,/ffLL > 7.s4 1
D. B. Dionne. _ A 6. & N *Nf*
/a o/ // , % 6 h > //V//;-A # 8 72.
w ,< c ,, , & ,2
- 1,4 f, fL 1- 2 n , ,_ c hm,6 i,;ni
- sl- O -la .x.> > ll::r' -
!a ,, n.. , i s i , - tHi, /( fav% . - Jor!
1
'////WbrS, INsmucTm'S SIGNATURE Acfg s,,gg/jj, t
d IbuRS OF TRAINING: 'W " " "
- 1/8
( I
..,. n . /,,-. ,n n . , /. 1
*7N slMEt > u un 6: coa .9 YON .
.l . ,
~ _ . ... . . -
.l
-i l
-. +.
.1
. ..r.
- +
P- , ,
- b. 700.-1982' TENAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMi%NY ATTACHMENT E . con)t-
, OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM~ -
! Site OA/DC Personnel cla no T March 77_19R4
- h. T.
son,j.a OA Policy l- - l i Effective March 16, 1984 I assumed the position of TUGC0 Site QA Manager at Comanche Peak. j I ask for your support in carrying out the following policies and objectives: i
- 1. TUGC0 Management has been and remains totally connitted to a safe l and reif able plant in full compliance with all applicable requirements.
- 2. TUGC0 Management is totally dedicated to a, strong and effective Quality Assurance / Quality Control program at. Comanche Peak.
I
- 3. TUGC0 Management strongly supports and encourages all QA/QC. personnel 4
to express quality related concerns. I wish to promote free discussion between inspectors, their " leads". QC superv.. sors and QA management. - I wish to encourage the use of the Request for Information and
- Clarification (RFIC) as a means to communicate questiens oc procedures l and instructions. I also wish to point out the availability 1of r Mr. Boyce Grier to listen to any of your cancerns. While your first recourse on concerns should be to your supervision, if you are not l satisfied with the response from supervision, or for any reason you prefer not to. go to supervision. Mr. Grier is available. I. maintain 1 i an "open-door" policy. Please feel free to visit with me at any time.
I encourage you to voice your concerns without fear of retribution. We will make every effort to address 'your concerns in a complete manner.
- 4. Quality Engineering is being reorganized reporting directly to the l
, TUGC0 Manager. Quality Assurance in Dallas. This provides an added measure of independence for that organization in ordeC to assure that inspection procedures and instructions accurately reflect design requirements. Quality Engineering will also be working toward improving. our program for training on inspection procedures a'nd instructions. 1 We intend to place more emphasis on systematically informing the affected
- inspection forces of changes to inspection procedures and instructions, especially when changes appear to relax or delete procedural requirements.
Our objective is to communicate reasons for the above changes, such as declassifications, alternate inspection programs or inspections or test Provisions during other project phases such as preoperational testi_ng.
^
i Our objective is 'to continue to promote a high degree of confidence that inspection procedures and instructions, which prescribe inspection work activities, accurately address desJgn requirements. , i 3 f, '
,g ,,,
1;!, ',
- y*, . ,
l R* *: n. ~ i .
, . n .
v . , ,w,-+.-+-g---,-,-e,-,-+,ve --og--4 --s,,-y- ,s, ,-e,--my,,,-wm-, ,,r,v-y-en +-sn -s- ,, -4 a-yerr wwe.-r.s,,-,-e ..,m.m.,--zr -wr- - v- wv4 mi-w-,,, #--,-
*0-e
.. ,w ,
~ ' '
i . ATTACHMENT E - con' t ofo - , G. .
- I again request your support so that- together we can continue to work toward a safe and reif able Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
Thank yo'u, , k J A. Vega TUGC0 Site QA Manager AV/bil -
- y ..
i A . i . t i n . h . e Ii ) i , I. u ,
- g. .
i . i - e.
. 8 a g ,
-g,,.- *
- . . .~ '-
l
. TEX 5S UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ATTACHMENT F OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM -
b.i T. . .
, C. H. Welch cien m.,, T, March 21. 1984 subject InsDector Interviews f, ;. M '
CONFIDENTIAL.
. / S"~ ~
1 Concerns have been expressed related to document packages and duolicate ' pa,S k ages -with-diffarent numbers for the same component,s, presented to f inspectors for their use in condu~cTTfig inski.*onsF ' A concern has.also been expressed on the retrieveability of IR's. The / (, problem appears to' have been observed during the establishemnt of work packages related to the integrated building management system. An improvement has been noted in some instances. Please arrange for a surveillance of this activity and advise me by March 23,1984, of your schedule for conducting this surveillance. I . '
- (, -
_f. ss. . f
.AMkga.
TUGC0 Sit. i QA Manager i AV/bil cc: 8. R. Clements D. N. Chapman B. H. Grier. MHom a
=
- ew + 4 e s
i S f 'k C i I ( .
- i . .
i ..
, g, ,
i
.s. ..
TEXAS' UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
' ATTACHMENT G OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM -
( 7. ~ Distribution aten no .T. i March 30. 1984 G' subj.ct COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION The CPSES Monitors Team is established as a management oversight group under my direction. Its purpose is to monitor records processing acti - vities as they relate to construction and startup activities. Initially, efforts will concentrate on records necessary to complete construction within security boundary of Unit 1 and connon. The scope will include all of the departments cited on the attached flow diagram between the points labeled DCC and PPRV/ BOP Vaults. Activity reports and recommenda-tions will be made on a regular basis to me and the management of the groups affected. This team is being chartered as a result of an alttady successful moni-toring effort in DCC and requests made by several building managers. It supplements the existing QA internal audit program. f
- 2
/J. T. Mrri t, Jr. '
f t. Proj ct Genera anager K. Vega W / - TUGC0 Site QA Manager JTM:AV: pew cc: B. J. Murray G. B. Crane F. L. Powers J. A. Dittmar R. D. Gentry . H. A. Hutchinson ' . C. Boyd l i C. Welch - C. Osborne , I L. M. Richman ' L. D. Platt .l 1 l I I
;. \
* , l
.(
+
.. .}}