ML20148H426
| ML20148H426 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1987 |
| From: | Phillips H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Gower G NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148H406 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-865 NUDOCS 8803290422 | |
| Download: ML20148H426 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000445/1986008
Text
,-
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___.________________
-
.
e
.
.
.
.
March 18, 1987
.
Memorancum Fort
George Gower
Senior St a f f Mernber
NRC Headquarters
F-om:
Harry Shannon Fhillips
Senior Resident Inspector
Comanche Peak Construction
Subject:
Inspection Report 445/06-08; 446/86-06
>.
Reference:
(1) Memor andum, Spessard to Martin, 2/27/87
(2) Merno r andurn , Martin to Phi 11ips, 3/3/87
(3) Memorandum, Phi 11ips to Martin, 3/6/87
I transtaitted a report that I would sign and concur with as
requested by references 1 and 2.
You responded to this revised
report transruitted by reference 3.
I have reviewed two suggested paragraphs that you propose for
the letter of transtaittal and paragraph 4.d of the subject report.
Your suggested paragraphs again omat two violations that vere in my
ortginal and latest version of report 86-08/06.
Supporting findings
or facts are also not included and I believe this gives a false
impression to the public about these matters.
I .would like to better understand your reasoning for your
suggested paragraph 4.d.
In attachment No. 1,I arn 1isting items
omitted, mabing statements, and asking questions.
P1 ease provide
answ+rs.
s
<4-, w
,
Harry
1annon Phi 11ips
Enclosures
1.
Attachment 1 - Comment s /Ouest i on's
2.
MAC Letter 5/17/78
3.
Exhibit 23
89032h.f.-
pg
s.
.
2
-
.
.
.
t he' i nspec t i on (84-32/11).
As a result, the NRC inspector reviewed
the MAC report during the current inspection and found that MAC had
f ound TUGCo's audi t progr am de fic i ent . "
Coenmen t :
This is similar1y an understatement.
TU rnanagernent were
aware that I asked for alI consultant reports, audits, reviews, etc.,
to show that they had regularly reviewed the status and adequacy of
the QA program.
I received a copy of the MAC Peport JPJ-471 dated
May 1978 in 1 ate 1995 or about a year a f ter tnspection 84-32/11.
In
September 1986 I learned that TU managernent made a rnat er i al false
st atement as document ed in Board Noti fication No. 86-20.
I r eal i :: ed
that they had also rnade a mat erial false st at ernent to toe when they
said they had no other consultant reports other then Lobbin which
they provided to me.
..
The withholding of the MAC report dignt ficantly altered the
direction of inspection 84-32/11 and the en forc ernent recommended in
the report.
It al so al t er ed ray concl usi ons r el at i ve to fuel loading
which was proceeding in September 1984;
i.e.,
it would have
n egat i vel y impacted the expedited hearing for fuel Icading.
If I had
knowledge of this report I would have per f orrned a rnore comprehensive
and focused inspection.
Question 2:
Why do you propose to drop this statement?
3.
"The Comanche Peak response Team (CPRT) evaluation of audits,
Pesults Report for Issue Speci fic Ac tion Plan (ISAP) VII a.4 dated
June 28, 1985, did not d1scuss the MAC report as TUGCo did not commit
to followup an thi's' audit in ISAP VII
a.4.
The results report ISAP
VII
a.4, dated April 18, 1986, did not address the speci fic B&R audit
pr ogram de fic i enc i es, ident i fi ed by the NRC inspector during the
current inspection.
In addition, TUGCo had issued no response to
Inspection Report 50-445/84-32; 50-446/84-11 to out1ine corrective
action.
Ccwnmen t :
Considering 1 and 2 above this too is an understatement in
paragraph 4d.
It simply supports the fact that they did not take
cc4npr ehensi ve and e f f ec t i ve cor r ec t i ve ac t i on conc erning the audi t
program f r orn 1978 until the present.
.
Question:
Why do you propose to drop this statement?
4
"B&R management also f ail ed to take corrective action on MAC
atdit MAC-77-66, dated June 3, 1977 and as a r esul t their site audit
pr ogr am has r ernained de fic i ent since 1977 based on a review of B&R
audi t s CP-12 t hrough CP-16 (1978 - 1979).
Finding nuraber 15 in the
sanagement surnma r y s t a t ed , 'The site audit prograro is ineffective.'"
Cuestion:
Considering the fact that the B&R audit program has been
in continuous noncompliance f r orn 1977 until now, how can you justify
dr opping this violation?
.
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __
,
3
.
.
.
.
NOTE:
The BLR QA manager said they did not perform all audits
b+cause TU would not pay them to per form the audi t s needed.
front of witnesses.
This was
stated in
5.
"TUGCo management, according to MAC (MAC-JPJ-471), were aware of
that MAC had audited BLR Houston and Comanche Peak site and had
identi fied program de ficienci es.
As a result of ineffective
corrective action concerning the MAC findings, the BLR audit program
was de ficient from 1980 through 1985 as described above in paragraphs
4. b , 4.c and 4.e."
Ccenment :
Bot.rd Not i f i c a t i on No. 86-20 Cont ains st atements that
are
at best unclear and at worst are falsel
Page 21 of Exhibit 23 states
that the President of Texas Utilities > Generating Company did not inow
that MAC audi ted Brown & Rocc but the let ter to htm (Exhibit 1)
parageaph
1, 1ast sentenee talks about t' hat audit.
I discussed this
letter with MAC and they con firmed that TUGCo knew about the report.
I believe this is a material false st at ernent but the
i n ves t i ga t i on report does not address this.
This is my finding until
someonw can show otherwise.
The statement is necessary to support a viofation; i
e. , TUGCo
failure to followup and review the status and adequacy of thts QA
p r og y at:. .
Question:
Why do you propose to drop the understated finding?
6.
"At. the titue NRC Inspection R+rport 50-445/84-32; 50-446/84-11
was issued, the option was offered and accepted by your letter
TX X -4453 dated March 11, 1985, whereby you elected to respond to
vi olations centained in this report as part of the Comanche Peak
Pesponse Tearn P1 an. "
Comment:
It never was an option concerning corrective action to be
taken only the option to respond;
i.e., 84-32/11 NOV page 3 requires
cor r ec t i ve action taken and corrective steps to avoid further
violation.
Page 6 of the final report (86-08/06) that RIV and Hg. proposed
to i ssue states that the B&R audit p r og r ane, a part of the licensee's
audit program, was in viofat1on as a'udtt report CP-27 (1985) was a
part of the noncoropliance.
This proves that they cont inued in
noncernpliance a f t er the 1984 violations in 84-22/11.
TU did not respond until February 2,
1987 and it does not
addr ess the de fic1 ent BbP audi t program.
Cuestion a:
How does this justtfy continued nonc orop l i anc e for 21/2
years after the 84-32 violations were identi fi ed?
.
-n-,
- .- - . - - - - - - -
r-------n
- , - - - - - - _ - ~
--
- - - . . - , - - - - _- . - - , -
-,
,
--e
-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4
.
.
.
.
.
Question b:
How can anyone .just i f y a response to serious violations
taking 1'1/2 years while the audit program for Unit 2 construction
was indeterminate and finally identi fied by NRC to be in
neccompliance?
7.
"It was our understanding the expectation that these violations,
together wi th r el at ed per t inent external source issue (e.g.,
TRT,
MAC) would be specifically included in the assessments per formed by
Issue Speci fic Ac tion Plans (ISAPs) VII.a.4 and VI.a.5, given the
sc op e of each.
As a result of NRC review of the results reports for
these ISAPs, it is apparent that the r esul ts repor ts, in t h e rns e l ve s ,
do not explicitly ident i f y and describe the disposition of these
external source issues.
This i s a roa t.t e r of concern when viewed in
the light of the findings noted i n t h i.'s,
r ep or t regarding the BtR
audit prograrn and will be the subject o f separate corr espondence from
the NRC."
/
Comment:
This basically states they failed to tak e corrective
a: tion.
This is an under st at ement as ISAP VI!.a.4
states that they
never intended t o t ake c ornpr ehensi ve c or r ec t i ve ac t ion.
They only
looked to see if TU went through the rnotions not to assess audit
e f f ec t iveness which was the real issue.
Apparently they did not even
see if B&R went through the rnotions.
In Sept ernber 1985 I spect fically asked C.
Hal e,
PIV Comanche
Peak Task Group, to look at B&R audit prograrn because I had seen
i ndi c at i ons o f pr obl erus.
He ignored the *equest.
He had no
int ent ion of pursuing the issues in the MAC report and was well aware
that TU made no comm1 t roent in the ISAP to addr ess the issues.
Questio'n
How does this . justify not issuing violations whether in
86-08/06 or frorn the RIV CPTG r epor t ?
8.
"Criterion XVI of appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as irnplernent ed by
FSAR, Section 17.O, and TUGCo OAP, Section 16.O, Revi sion 0,
dated
July
1, 1978, requires that conditions adverse to quality be promptly
identi fi ed, reported, and cor rec t ed.
Ee Liutt_t9_Vitt x_G9ttestL90_91_ou_eudti_Deitsttuix
f
FSAR, Section 17.1.16, states that TUGCo r equi res rueasure be
established to assure that conditions adver se t o quali ty are prornpt 1y
1denti fied, reported, and corrected.'
!
TUGCo pr oc edur e COI-C S-4. 6,
Pevision 3,
dat ed August 8,
1982, states
in part, 'Ver i fic at ion o f t rupl ernent a t i on o f cor r ec t i ve actions shall
be accornpli shed by appropr 1 at + means. '
Cont rary to the above, Audit De fic t ency No. 1 of TUGCo OA Audit
TC o-51 ( sep t ernb er 199"D was i rnpr oper l y c l osed out .
That is, the
audttor did not veri fy the t rnp l ernen t a t i on of
c orn .1 t roen t s t o c or r ec t
r
the deficiency prior to closing the audit f i ndi ng.
Pecords show that
in thi s case TUGCo had inttiated plans for r esol vi ng the audit
.
P
.
.
5
.
.
. deficiency through review of the oper at ion t ravelers (445/8608-V-06;
446/8606-V-08).
.
This is a Severity Level V violation. (Supplement II)"
Cornmen t :
This violation was identi fied by a
junior inspector who
submitted the viol ation to me without proper proc edural references
and being in the correct format.
I obtained the re f erences and wrote
at in the proper format as he had left site.
The point is that this finding sailed through and was never
qwestioned but ray violations which identify fatture to take
corrective action and per forrn audits h' ave been taken to task.
vi ol at i on in compartson to the
This
f ailure to tak e corrective action on
CA prograne breakdowns is
vi ol at ion and raine were dropped.insigni fi c ant ,, yet , this is an acceptable
This is not only incredible but the
p r e judic e is evident.
C estion:
How can you propose that this
c-opping two serious violations?
violation be issued whtle
3.
Appendis C of 10CFR Part 2 states that the purpose of the NFC
e f orc ernent program is to promote and protect the health and safety
of the public by ensuring cornpliance with NRC r egulations and by
obtaining prornpt correction of violations and adverse quality
conditions which r n af f ect safety and deterring future violations.
a
Cc rntnent :
This seetion of Tit 1e 10 says that +ach en f orc ement action
ts dependent on th'e' circumstances but no wher+ does it say that NRC
rn a n a g e r s , supervisors, and inspectors can arbitraryily decide not to
write up noncompliancec and notices of violattans. The only
justi fic at s on is if all the following are sattsifled
the licensee
1 d errt i f i ed the problem, it is severity Ievel IV and V,
it was
r+ ported tf required, at was or vi11 be corrected...within a
r+asonable ttrne, and it was not a violation that could reasonably be
espected to have been prevented by the l i c ensee's cor.r ec t i ve ac t i on
for a previous violation.
I cannot see how the violations ! proposed
3.e e t any of these conditions rouch less all.
Question:
How can you justify not issuing the violations I proposed
as they do not meet any of the cri'eria for not writing a vi ol a t i on?
10. Appendix C of Part O Suppl ernent !! i s spec t fic about the failure
tc audit and corr ect deficienci es or t o t ak e p r ornp t corrective
a:t1.sn.
C : *,r ent :
It believe I can rnal e a c ase for a e t ,tl penalty and a OA
n
p r :.g r arn brealdown c ortnec t ed to hardware but it will require rnore
trspection.
I really prefer to have the licensee identify the
- .b l eras as a result of a Level IV viofation.
Question:
Why not 1ssue the proposed viof at1ons and Iet TU respond?
.
..
~
,'
..
_ _ . - -_
.
,v
. ' , -
,
,
-
Managemen..t Ann!} sis Catopnny
hhh
11100 Roemde St Sea O!sgo. CA 92121
l: L)2}
- E
T14145213*1
T
-
- 5 .,, ' . f ' 'Y , ,#
,
f,y
.
,
?g
,
f
.
~
<*/ a
1. .
J g FMay TT,197E
'h
~
MAC-JPJ-471
9
Mr. Perry Brittain
Prtsfdent
y
Texas Utilities Generating Ccepany
200T Br
.~
Callas.yan Tower
. TX 75201
>
Cear Mr. Brittain:.
Enciosed is the report of the Managecent Quality Assurance Audit c
for Texas Utflities Generating Ceepany.
en ucted
The audit disclosed that, in general, the Quality Assurance activiti
effeettve, that there is good tea.t spirit between TUGCO/iljSt perso
the Architect / Engineer and the Constructor.
es were
CffcationMome faflures t2 comely with requiatsrf recutrementsThe au
_
F
T
Quality Assurance Plan or cliiii75TR.
Wfa
x the
These cef1clenctes are fcentified~fn
C' '
an Audit Report as Accendix A.
These are fdentified as Cbser<ations and Recom
improved practice.
and
endix E ts this letter.
Wyou knew, MAC particTMeMart audit of IM
~
t.e Comanch
ak.sile E
,
s gnf ficant improvement is noted since that auditP
Management Analysis C=pany received full cecp
// b
I
personnel con-
general openness of persennel and their frank discussion not only e
f"
.
.
Thet i
I
of any deffcfencies,the conduct of the audit, but exemplifies. an attitude c:
.
ucive to correctiert
DA $
n anced
Company and Texas Ut111 ties fervices Inc. and hop
If there are any c:nnents or questions re
rating
so frr the future.
Mr. J. R. Norris or me at (714) 452-139T.garding thrts work, please centact
.
l
Sfnee S y, 7J
,f/
-
-
.
!
John ?. Jackscn
/
JPJ:bew
Principal Partner
Enclosurts: Appendix A
Appendix 3
.
._
.
.
'
n
.
--
,
.
.
1-
l
.
.
.
.
.
O.
I may nave
already asked
.
you this, but jus
.
2
.
-
,
in case 2 naven't:
Are you aware of brown & Root
,
0
- i
having hired MAC
to pertorm any re, views or audit of
4
their implementation of the QA Program at Comanche
5
,
Peak?
.
'
i
.
6
l
A.
No, I am not.
'
,
f
7
.
C.
Or any r e p o r t.,a generated by them?
6
A.
No.
..
'
.
N
9
O.
Oxay.
let me ask you an all
,
10
encompassing
question.
Otner tnan what I nave
.
,
11-
!
already asxed
yo2,
can you thinx 'ot
Do you have
--
any xnowledge,
12
interoation from
<
I
con ersations, meetings, dbcuments
{g
Ig
that
- L' .}
you ,have been privy to; anything that sheds any
L
,
14
light on the origins of the f1AC report'of why it was
.
15
+'
withheld from sne Intervenor's request or how it was
'
4
16
produced in 1960 or why it was not produced earlier
17
-
that we have not discussed?
'
18
.
.
h.
No, I have not.
19
Q.
You were interviewed
20
by Mr.*Wooldridge here.
t
were:you not?
'
~41
'
A.
I was.
'
.
22
.
g.
Was tnw information
you gave Mr.
wooldridge
23
tne same information you nave given me here tocay?
2,
-
n.
Yes.
I mean ne may not nave asxed
.
.
.
,
.J '
25
exactly
\\
.
tne same
t
t
questions, cut ene substance of it was
'
.
L
. , . . .,:-- -.
-
.
. . . .
.
FEDE"RAL COUXT REPdRTERS
_L
-
. .e.. % .w.4.v+ w . H-
_ ~ . . ~ . ~ . - ,;.-
-
g.
i
[
%,
UNITED STATES
i
3
NUCLCAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,,
$
,
CEGION IV
{
'
- .
/
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000
*4 , ,
.,
ARLINGTON. TEX AS 76011
l
l
TRA!!SMITTAL SF.ET . REGION IV
l
'
.
DATE:
3-19-87
..
.
>
M.ESSAGE TO:
GECRGE GCWER
TELECOPY NUM ER:
VERIFICATION NUM"ER:
.
NUMBER OF PAGES:
B
PLUS INSTRUCTION SHEET
MESSAGE FROM:
HARRY SHANNON PHILLIPS
CONTACT:
............................................................................
SPECIAL INSTTICTIONS:
MExo Ano onsTIcNs cN REpon: 86 08/06
Fo% A-91- M
Ll1
.
- - - - -
_.
.----_._._,__,y
. ,,
, _ _ . _ . _ , - - - . _ . . _ _ . , - - _ _ , - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ , - ~ , _ - , ,
- - _
--
_ - -
.
-