ML20137J303
Text
.
- y
),
.,, GC, I.%' MENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT s155 : ~+:,:
A.enue. NW. 5sae 202 Tw
- r DC 20336 (202)202-6550 Se;
- te.ber 26,19S4 s
", :a rre
. E's sahat
.'; e:t:r U visitr. Of.*:cfr. sir.;
- .: lear Ece:::r T.e;uiation -
U.S. *;u:l etr Fe;.:la t:ry C:--is s icn Wa s Mr.; ten. D. C.
20555 De a r .r. Eisenhut:
Re:ently, you provided to M. D. Spence, Pres f:ent of Te as,'Jtil.ities Electric C::pany (TUEC), a request for further infcr.1:fon rega-dir.g several items ur. der review by the Technical Review Team (TRT) that haie potential safety significance.
It is my understanding that these items were also dis-cussed with TUEC at a public meeting in Bethesda last week.
After reviewing your letter of September 13,;1984, and the transcript of the September-18 meeting, it is apparent that there are vital unanswered cuestions about both the methodology by which the TRT is resolving issues that are brought to their attention by allegers, and the adequacy of the depth to i
which the TRT is looking at specific issues.
Your letter states that further background information regarding the issues identified in the September 13 letter and, presi;mably, the other items I
being resiewed by the TRT, will be published in a Supplement to a Sa fety Evaluation Report (SSER) which "will document the overall TRT's assessment of the significance of the issues examined." (September 13,19S4 letter from D.
l Eisenhu: to M. D. Spence.)
The Gcvernment Accountability Project (GAP.) believes that any assess.
l ment of the overall significance should be publicly disclosed prior to the issuance of the SSER.
Frankly, we think that there is significant evidence f
i available to our investig6 tors that the TRT, other members of your staff, and Region IV. inspectors have fallen short of the in-depth inquiry which would provide the basis of the adequacy of any overall assessment.
{
GARDE 8 5-59 PDR i
i re';,.
i.er y ;
W h;tt :U M.lH' rage no Turther, we celieve that ycur request frc TUEC for arditional infor-mation through "a prcgram and schedule for completing a :etailed and thcrcagh auessment cf the issues identified" falls short of the cbviously r.e:essary re: irs ar.; f:r :: ;rthe.s.e Or:; rams
- idertifv the 'wil ::::t :,' the t W ~':a: cef':'trcies 'isted 4 r the letter. 'n's n: t e
.6 a
' r
- e r e :ee r t t ' a a
f prc. gram plan "should address thtg
-2 so f e a ch rc
- 1 =- W a r.t i f i e d a nd i t s f,' </u.
- i e
- i--l io t 4 :r cn s a 'et. -e: a t ed i.>ite-s, ;rc gr! s Or a re a s,' a s ne','
a s i
t tne cclietti<e ti:ni'icance of thest de fic i e nc i es. " Mc.ever, you have nct k " h '.r
/ ' re:Lired that TL'EC's propcsed response must first include an identification of
,s8,
the extent of the identified problen.
This " backward look" is critical to any
}{
1 meaningful asser.sment of the adequacy of a TUEC "get well" prcgram.
P Further, we do not understand the instruction tc TUEC to submit a response which addresses those items listed in your September 13, 1984, letter in the face of the large volume of outstanding items, yet to be identified, i
and the findines of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) team.
It j
appears to us that your direction to TUEC was vague and inappropriate, at this time.
It neither' ordered a reinspection conmensurate with the level of
\\ (p I
deficiencies discovered, nor simply informed TUEC of some of the TP.T's findings.
ad '
d We note that all of the identified problems in this letter wera first i
identified by former employees at the Comanche Peak site, yet in no case that we are aware of, has the TRT re-contacted that employee with its findings to d2 we r get further direction or guidance, or clarifying information regarding the y,,/
specific confirmed item.
A good example of this is the finding under Test
[g Program Areas; Prerequisite Testing (Section Ill(c).) Your request for addi-tional information stated that after a review of the final Safet) Aralysis g r l' Report (FSAP) com,itments, appropriate procedures, records, and interviews, the F
W following problem was identified:
p *,. o k '
- h l [tw S[i r-e d The review of test records revealed that craft persennel hJ
{,,y g y-were signing to verify initial conditions for tests in
,W violation of startup Administrative Procedure-21, en.
N,ogsP*Tq
-P f'g g NM ** *
- Y titled:
" Conduct of Testing" (CP-SAP-21).
This procedure j f d,si'#
f i
% % [o requires this function to be performed by Syr, tem Test pp o g, 7me-Engineers (STE).
Startup management had issued a memcran-c' c,,Ar' W rp-
, dum improperly authorizing craf t personnel to perform (g#
g, (g" 1
9 o m r u m n-these yer4#D " i m -c" !*'?d M '?'t"N i,
thryf vvs' NL E'*T A-D O e *J y r d
- 4 sd t
~
L yo pu yt esr~ ktta W e
-M
% en-'-*- h '~Ji t t
(,,p y Arra w1
& L
&o-
,3 N4-Me&b,o *\\(
TlA 18 s %.&m
- 7..
F 5,e:*e-tt-v,. ' *, er-el' 3. [*:e 9,;
M. 191.4 f
rege 'hree i
Wr letter th6r ap;erer.tly instructs I'JEC to:
(1) resc'nd the 5ttr*up r.ercrendum (STP-E20!!); and (2) ensure that no other rerDr3nda tre is sued which are in conflict with aporcved pro:edures.
Efter ;;i n; ver tris eirding w'te the alit;e 5.
.e : s *: ( e:
several things whicn your re;,Drt did not dis:c.er ard d:e5 n:t ecdress.
- First, t*t t..:randum (SIM-E3051) *nich the IRT has i:entified. uns n:,1 the beginning of the ?"Obler which per.mitted unqualified perscnnei ic perfor.- ;rerequisite tests.
Ine er:rar.due, in fact, placed a limitation cn the tests wnich un-qualified craft persennel were allowed to perform.
Prior to'the issuance of the memorandum, there had been n_o controls on the craf t personnel perferring o
verification tests.
A mcre detailed explanation has been previced to the TET ence, and a random review of prerequisite tests performed prior to t'ee issu-ance of 5;M-830S4 would have demonstrated that prerequisite tests were perforr.ed almost exclusively by unqualified personnel.
Ycur requirer,ent for TUEC to rescind the memorandum in conflict with CP-SAP-21 is totally ir. adequate to deterr.ine the consequences of an unknown majority of prerequisite testing done by unqualified people.
Another example of the inadequate approach being taken by the TRT and other branches of your agency is the handling of problems identified in the electrical / instrumentation area.
Your September 13 Request for Additional Information identifies five problems with electrical cable terminations, butt splices inside panels and vendor-installed terminal lugs.
It also requires certain procedural or re-inspection requirements for each of the problems.
A cursory review of the corrective actions indicates that those actions are totally inadequate.
For example, the TRT discovered that electrical QC inspectors interviewed did not even know that inspection Reports (IR's) were supposed to include verification of witnesses to installation of i; certain " nuclear heat shrinkable cable insulation sleeves." The sclution for i
this identified problem was only to improve training, daily procedures and to rnake sure that the problem does not happen in the future.
. _ ~
,. - ~
Mr*l ;arrell G. Eisenhut I
- e :. e-l,e r Zi, ??Ba i
Fage reur i
I The IF.T failec it state eat all e'e::ri:a' :r: es c e irstal'ed, at all inspection.s are already perferred.
Tne corrective ectier* for the f uture
, T,u es es
- s e t s er, ially meer.ingless ir. t"i: :ese.
~ rther, IFe "F
'ai'e: tc dis;;ser
- f v4f) a
- ni!
- l' ! *. -
- r::lem had teer itemi' e: ;re. c.:s'.
t,. e's.tri:ai DC tes:e:::rs c*
I
,,Q.
':t, as..sil as in : s:vss4.:. ;t ". a ' ' ;,. E r.; U w s '; E,..: na: or ::er.
Lr l
- e inade:.ite ;roce: ares ir the firs; place.
terhe es '.i s vM e, t l a i r.e : 33 r,*:<- ^
- l e
j
- ' e f act 15a t he
'c'
" d rs 4rdeniew the electricai "" ir.s e::ces wh; in-
,,.1 e s y t
.w. v W i ti ally ice nt i fi ed jffarr.id em.
parc M r.
the The Septentier 13 letter also inappropriately places wi:h TUEC the g-t.;
cf 6 #',g esp;nsibility to give' the NPC assurance that all the QC inspections wh j
l 6 6 e. re:.,f red wi'.r.essing "for butt splices have been performed and ;rsperly docu-v/
mented," and verifying that the " butt solirat a-e crocerlv ien 4'ied on the l [vag
~
g' j
appr:priate drawinos and are ohvsically identi fiet),itbin t_h.e_ajpropriate g.r,
l ranels." Your letter did not even reonica * *
'ha -etF-ft ody TUEC uses to \\
l I
ne";
I v
rea:n its assurance be re,iewed prior to the work bein; dtne, nce does ycur / p n 'r" -
r*
1etter specify that the assurances will come frorr a review of 100 percent of f T y* l the affected inspectio'ns.
d' l
Additionally, the TRT mentions a lack of splice qualification require-f
\\
gements.
As you know, the lack of qualification requirements is an extremely j
)
significant deficiency.
In some ca'ses, the_leck of oualification requirements l
Df - - -
' a t*;d or electrical cable has resulted in the requirement for cables to be replaced.; ##
fr Your suggestion to TUEC that the development of adequate installaticn and in-l
(#
spection procedures for future wire splicing materials is grossly insufficient. s. N W l
The first step of any review should be to. ascertain those cables which have J /Ws W 1-ws wsuer splices and all circuits affected by those splices, i
re" o m o n>
l l
n* r We note that without any idea of the extent, of the problem, Mr.
7 H85 l
Youngblood of your of fice, has already judged that the use of wire splices f
)
inside centrol panels is acceptable.
(See September 14, 1984, letter to M. D.
Spence from B. J. Youngblood,
Subject:
Acceptability of Updated FSAR Commit-ment on the Use of IEEE-Std-420 for Comanche Peak Steam Ele'ctric Station
(
(Units 1 and 2).)
l w
A -
w 2
l
".,: 2rreil 5. Eise r%;
h::(-rer M, 19U r3;e Five l
e belte,e this micrucost of bctivity by your of fice is indicative of t e t;;:rta ct. being talen en serious technical and hardware deficiencies at the
, c r.
- *a 4 3 ; ;1ar:
A :a rerd
,1.e c;- ' t e.t
- e ra se 1.E P;d er! '
- ~;re f
/,/
l ptel
' :: tant 17.- the
- ,re ;.r dent a;;-:.ech c f firs t det e.ir.ing t'e p t ti_ '
g 7g 7 t
fi *
- .s :rd le, end 1.en ascertainin; heiner a sti., tier is at:c;t a:.ie.
E.,
t N --
se:vete
'.e ter it:ey.
e. eve recuested under the Freedo c' Ir.f t atier. Ac t
- R;:.', all aterial availarlo to P.r. Yc.;ncblood whicn he used as a basis for
- t C.
l'.e S taf f's etall.,ation rep 0rt on hire splices.
p-p-
W y.*?
We also note that n,o QC inspectors who identified the splice qualifi-(: ~l[dpl#'
I ci catior, problem aere cortacted by the TRT.
{ # pt-s
- m w
In ancther technical-related problem, we, note that the TRT found I
f.C ' '
caHe terminations which did not agree with their location on the drawings.
o y
Ycur response is tc require TUEC to do an "as built walkdown" of the locations hre 8
g ra cof 'all safety-related and associated terminations in the ' control room pa.nels and in the termination cabinets in the cable spreading room.
This_As_suQ
- .g
[ t y ara h ? ret d rirawinos that is, in fact, accurate. We do not believe
,e.
'e do believe that the requirement will amount to an NRC j.
that to be the case.
W T A
- t.,F instructed update of electrical drawings instead of a ' documented reinspection. p^,.o,.9,
f pu lp[.
z.
This is particularly likely given the lack of specicivity in your request for a reinspection--spch as your failure to set what level of nonconformances is b d an_ unacceptable level, and what t_he original scope of the insoection should be.
gi M
t.
gk The final electrical problem identified in the TRT's September 13 f /
.,v:
d{' M i
e c
- report reveals incredible failure to expand the scope of the TRT's own review when problems are discovered. The issue, improperly closed NCR's on vendor-
)
h f'7 [
j pf installed terminal lugs, should have demonstrated again that the ver. dor inst.ection procram at Comanche Peak has sicnificant problems.
Evidence
,te available to us indicates that the flaw applies to NCR's on all vendor-f*
l ins talled conponents.
Even more significant than the improperly dispositioned NCR's, are site procedures and practices which improperly exempt all vendor-installed components from QC review during construction, including their exemption from the final quality document review.
l The TRT report drew conclusions about electrical equipment separation t._. _
~-
. : e - e l l ';.
. < - 5.
c
- y...-
- +r Zi. i.'?'
te ;e 5 's,
- [ /
~
5 l. claticns, tut failed ::. er;' air what g
i;5' a-d wns vi:lattd--Ei 1% or Nu l
- s; Guide'l.75.
W' i n:,u: s ; e:i f;. ' n; d.a tt.e -iri ; se; arc t i : r. r e :.., : e e nit are, it is im;ossible f:.r ei;"er IJE; cr the putiit to ascertain 6.a: :ne IEI is talkinc about.
WithT;t su h clari#ica tion, it is E si.*.ingl ss t
e.er: itt :t 1::s ::
- e.a' ::t '. E ~ ' : ar.a',es's Jus:i:.' ; *tsir.. '. t.. a n,.
he 12 ; i;e :' the ertire se::icn is er. 3 ;; en r :*e -:t.rge:.
sirce the fundamental issue--the separation criteria which is ap; oved by the
[ f
(,.. :--is not t eenti fied.
(,
it
,ji,y is alsc apprcpriate tc note that this item'was also brcu;ht to
- Y L,the attenticn of the TF.T by a former employee, and that empicyee has never teen subseqJently c0ntacted for clarlfication of this issue.
rg Le 4-7 F,g,/
There are s.erous other e>amples of sienificant findines which we fp r,
gd li of:lieve are not adequately addressed by scope or corrective ac, tion requ t
tr' r,,
In surmary, the TRT's update report prevides the foi
.a Pd'insicht)
-F g5 sMQ into the million dollar effort launched by your office:
i rr p~;
fdIb w..,a m ~ ~f w a y n w %'.
V I.
It has continued to tak a pieceme M-l r A d
approjchtothe
- f
/p[' /[
v increasing number o identified probl ms. I WW l #
.e d
h
,g f l
- bf, 2.
It fails to prov de any assurance that problems other i
g' than those iden/
V g
t' L^' M
.J tified by the whistlebl owers, inter-venors, or o[hers will be independentl Q
- p [f' d Thereisng/
\\
y found.
p o : T' t
r attempt made to qualify t e percer.tage l ",-ry 3.
pj of deficiencies discovered.
,e e o e' # n ^ ".
K No "backwalrd look" is being required to examine u
z forf W J
4 t' M f M
ccmoleted sy5tems which have been nstalled with f,
A /
the use cf inaccurate documentatior), unclear pro-Afw ell d '.
/
cedures, o unqualified crafts e'n or inspectors.
A gr e m.
/
N Your review team is to he commended for their diligent pursuit of a K')
J
, /-
<_.T rrammoth number of deficiencies which ave accumulated over the last seven (k NU years.
Unfortunately, their ability to do a comprehensive job is being i
i I
a6998'*
- es e 44g Qq 4
444 m----
me7 m.ph g,-q be g#
me a4-g.re,ym-
==e,i e
se ti e
ume gg p 4
r
.,.*.a.,,
r;, p.t...;.
Ie:*.e :t. :..lFI' T:;V I e. t ?>
I ha. :ered by a rethodclogy which fails tc ir::rptrate the best in'ormation tJtd(
avail arie-- Nat of t hos e em;loye es, ;ual * *.. ::r:rc'. i n ; et;;rs, ar.: engineers e
x c !c:a -the scope, extent, ar.d c:.ot cause o' the ;-:it ert they brea;5 :: the a t t e * *. ' ; - i f t h e
- .0.C.
t.is unf:rturate that y ;r a;e.:. :ar ::
':e at:ve the -' stat en-ir.
- resticn
- nat only N;C investicators, ins:e:t;rs ar: er.;f r.sers are able to identif and evaluate ser;;us deficienciet.
2;F's ::r.:ern tor.:i.;es ;c ce inat ycar' T.;i will conclude with a c:r;er.tiur c f e,er 1,000 allegatices f ror. :;rrent scurces, with a r.atched set of 1,000 resoluticns advanced by' TUEC and entcrsed by the NRC.
That scenario does very little to answer the ultimate cuestions about rar.agement c r.petence, quality assurance breaid: ns, do tentation
- haos, and indeterminate systems, structures, and cc ;,cnents throughout this
}
plant.
As you are aware, I was not able to' attend the TRT br'iefing last week
)
because of the en.coino. harassment and intimidation hearines in it. 'n' orth.
After a review of the recent IE, 01 and other NRR reports, including this TRT t
report, I respectfully request to meet with you and Mr. Ippilito at your earliest conveience.
Sincerely,
{
1b bCL
-C i
Billie Pirner Garde i
Citi: ens Clinic Director
)i BG:me cc:
Service List 4
i i
v
---****"~*-**'"'*-~+*1,
{ ' T
. +. - -
==-
..a+*---*-
.... _. ~.. _... _.
SETVICE t!Si
.. 6 Mr. M. D. S pe n:e -
Mr. James E. Cu--ins s
Tresident Resident Ir.:pe:torf:: an:he' reat Te>es Utilities-Gererating Cc pany-
--- - Nuclear Prwer 5:et-ien r
00: Ntrt*. Cli.e Street, L.E. El c/c U.S..
N.;1 ear 'e;.iatory Callas, Te>as *75201
- ~Ccin.i s s i en Pcst Of fice 5:9 25
.nc!:las 5. Eejno)ds, Es:vi-e Glen Ecse, 'exas IfG;3 E4sht;, Lite-er, C::L, i
r.rcell 5 r ;..:1ds Mr. J-hn ~
C 17 i r.s e
i200 S e ve rteer.th Stree t, fi.W.
U.S. 'd:le ar Esp;ia
- 0ry Cc--i ssi on Westi ;*.:r., 0.;.
20:3f Fe ;': r : ','
611 Ejar ria:a Drive F.: tert A. W::1dridge, Es;cire Saite 1000 W; r s ".a n, T:rs;.the, Sarcel s Arlir.gton, Teras 7f 011
& Weeldridge 2001 Bryan Tc er,'. Suite 2500 Mr. Lanny A'.an Sir.Lin Dallas, Texas 75201 114 West Se enth, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 75701 Mr. Hemer C.'Schmidt Mer.6;er - Nuclear Services Mr. B. R. Cle er.ts Te r.as Utilities Generating Cc..pany Vice Fresident f.uclest Styway iceer Texas Utilities Generating Cer.pany l
400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Skyway Tower Callas, Texas 75201 400 North Olive. Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. H.
R.' Rock Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
William A. Burchette, Esquire 393 Seventh Avenue 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
New York, New York 10001 Suite 420 Washingt,on, D.C.
20036 l
Mr. A. T. Parker.
Westinghouse E1.ectric Corporation David R. Pigott, Esquire Post Office Box 355-Orrick, Herrir;gton & Sutcliffe i
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Renea Hicks,' Esquire Assistant Attorney General Anthony Z. Roisman, Esquire Environmental Protection Division Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Post Office Sox 12548, Capitol Station 2000 P Street, N.W.
Austin, Texas 78711 Suite 611 i
Washington, D.C.
20036 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk I
Dallas, Texas 75224
!i Ms. Nancy H. Williams I
CYGNA 101 California Street San Francisco, California 94111 i
I
~
.. -.. - - + ~. - - -. - ~ ~ - -
~<~-
--,- ~ ~
k