ML20197H985

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Status Rept for Technical Review Team Activities Covering Period 840730-0810.W/o Encl
ML20197H985
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Comanche Peak
Issue date: 08/13/1984
From: Ippolito T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Eisenhut D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17198A302 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-299, FOIA-85-59, FOIA-86-A-18 NUDOCS 8408170005
Download: ML20197H985 (8)
v • d • e


Text

r yg.

r-ms la and

~

MEMORANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut,. Director Division gf Licensing.....

FROM:

Thomas A. Ippolito, Project. Director.

Comanche Peak.

Division of Licensing.

SUBJECT:

TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM ACTIVITIES. AT COMANCHE PEAK FOR SECOND SESSION.(JULY.30. AUGUST 10, 1984)

Enclosed for your information, is the status of activities performed by the Comanche Peak Techn4emi Review Team for.the second session beginning July 30, 1984, and ending August 10. 1984... -..

I am prepared to discuss this.information with you in more detail at your request.

.r.

-, p J-w r.,-/

a --+ -7.s

-/,,

W f, jf.,f ~L -.:-

.. Thomas.k.. Ippolito.' Project Director Comanche Peak Division of Licensing Enclosute:

DISTRIBUTION As stated Central File w/o enclosure TAPMG chron file cc:

J. Collins TIppolito rf R. DeYoung MVietti J. Scinto S. Treby T. Novak J. Youngblood p,p."**"*""

P0A? 85-59

,~w u w ee xg y

~

i I

mer),..

P.,M..G..:.p t.

Pe A M e

kO...

(.

^ " >

. 8 /.i.5./.6 A....... R //.3/24........

ronu ais iio soisacu o2' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY v.s. am tou-4eo.24

.O.

\\

]

9 TRT ACTIVITIES AT COMANCHE PEAK JULY 30 - AUGUST 10, 1984 General Approximately 50 people on team (some part-time).

Approximately 500 allegations being worked on.

(Many are general and vague.

This is increase of about 100 allegations from the " Plan").

Investigation of Electrical and Test Program allegations is nearing completion.

QA/QC area will require an additional 2-week session (September 10-21, 1984), with a high probability for a fifth session.

Civil / Mechanical may require an additional session of on-site work for a few selected areas.

Selected contractor personnel will continue inoffice effort while off-site.

Region IV completed 65 line ite=s and 19 inspection procedures to date.

Allegations Breakdown Area Leader No. of Categories

  • No. of Allegations Draft SSER's Electrical Calvo 9

51 9

Civil / Structural Shao/Jeng 17 51 10 Mechanical / Piping Shao/Hou 45 143 30 QA/QC Livermore 28**

132 0

Coatings Matthews 7

62 0

Test Programs Keimig 8

27 6

Miscellaneous Bangart 19 23 3

TOTAL 133 489 58

  • Each category will be separate SSER input C* QA/QC may have more than one SSER input for each category

(

,' V i

P_otential Problems Getting QA/QC area caught up.

OI resource limitations prevent pursuit of several allegations.

Alleger interviews may yield additional allegations.

Non-TRT Matters Applicant schedule slipped 3 weeks from late September 1984.

Needs to finish Control Room HVAC testing which is a prerequisite for performing ICP-PT-57-10. " Load Group Assignment Test" Preparations continue for intimidation /harassmeht hearings, scheduled for August 27, 1984.

Tentative initiation of Fire Protection inspection scheduled for August 20, 1984.

Next Session Continue to meet with all allegers.

Continue Review / Resolution of Allegations.

Hope to complete all areas except for QA/QC Continue to integrate draft SSER.

.e.

O O

)

)

f L. Shao August l. 19E' R

^'

Status of Comanche Peak (1) No. of Allegations As of now, the number of civil / structural and mechanical / piping allegations on Comanche Peak has grown to 194. The additional allegations came through interviews with the allegers.

(2) Recent NRC Management Decision The recent NRC Management decision that all allegers need to be interviewed to define their concerns and to discuss the Team's findingf afterwards with the allegers will greatly increase the workload and delay the schedule as there are more than 50 allegers.

During the interviews, more allegations will be generated. For instance one alleger claimed be has 900 additional allegations (mostly in the mechanical area) for us to look at (see attached).

Alsc, some of the allegers are unemployed and very vindictive. It will be very difficult to satisfy them.

(3) Schedule Without (2), in spite of the additional allegations, we are on schedule. We should be able to finish all the site work by the end of August. However, withn(2), I have no idea when the job will be completed.

(4) Interviews with allegers The majority of the allegers are blue-collar workers. Some are unemployed and have a vindictive attitude. One alleger who was contacted pointed a handgun at the NRC members. Many of the Technical Review Team members are now worried about their personal safety during these interviews.

F0;A-85-59

,Plza

f

/ t, k[1,

(5) Morale In July and August, the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team members spend 6 weeks at the site and 2 weeks at the Washington office.

For each week at the site the working hours are 50 - 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br />. Of course the team members are tired especially when they are away from their families for so long. The present approcah of the TRT is based on a short term resolution of their concerns. However, if the work at the site goes beyond August as scheduled, the mode of operation has to be changed, otherwise, there will be a morale problem.

l

I 4

.s.

n Waterford There will be a meeting on August 17, 1984 on Waterford in Washington with the Louisiana Power and Light Company. During this meeting LP&L will present their approach to, resolution of our concerns related to Waterford allegations.

1 y._._

'O j

The recent NRC managemGnt decision that all allegers need to be interviewed to define the concerns and to discuss the TRT's findings efterwards should be tempered by the following p6ints:

(1) As opposed to Waterford which only had three major allegers, there are more than fifty allegers at Comanche Peak.

(2) The r6ajority of the allegers at Comanche Peak are blue-collar workers who allege about items they are not very familiar with.

(3) There seems to be a vindictive attitude which permeates throughout some of the allegers' motivations. This can usually be attributed to human relationship problems and to dissatisfaction with job dismissals.

(4) Many allegations are very vague and further interviews have not helped to clarify the concerns.

(5) One alleger who was contacted pointed a handgun at the TRT interviewers.

This man proved to be a prime example of point no. (4).

The safety of the TRT members cannot be assured as a result of dealing with distrusting and often angry individuals described in point no. (2).

(6) Further contact with allegers is not always productive.

One recently recontacted i

alleger stated that he had 995 more items to give the NRC.

He stated he would give us 85 to see how we would handle them. Of these 85,15 were duplicates.

Of the remaining 70, 3 have been reviewed to date and all were considered unfounded.

It is therefore very important to consider the possible snow-balling effect that is possible from unecessary contacts.

(7) The amount of manpower and time which would be invested in such an effort would not always represent an increase to the health and safety of the public. Some allsgers will nev ( be found.

One allegerwks incarcerated in a federal penitentiary while anoth r resideg in a mental institution. Weight must be given to the source of a

the allegation.

(8) Many of the allegations being reviewed by the TRT (those prior to 1982) have been made part of the ASLB hearing. Several have been ruled on.

(9) The present approach of the TRT is based on a short tenn resolution of the concerns (i.e.- 2 weeks on site, I week off, for a total of 6 weeks on site).

Because of the delay in schedule which this management policy represents, the present mode of operation is not feasible. There will also be a tremendous increase in manpower requirements.

Based on the points listed above, the policy on recontacting allegers should focus _ on:

(1) Detennining how thoroughly they were originally contacted.

(2) Whether the allegation represents a substantive issue which deserves further investigation.

(3) The establishment of a clear policy such as that of the CRGR for weighing the impact on safety of pursuing specific allegations.

(4) The composition of teams contacting allegers and the control of the environment where these interviews are to occur.

(5) The realization that not all allegers will be fully satisfied even after a monumental effort on the part of the NRC to address their concerns. Such was the case at Waterford.

DISTRIBUTION L. Shao G. 1*eTi' V. Moore B. Bagchi D. Jeng P. T. Kuo N. Chokshi W. Buckley H. Shierling H. Polk T. Chang D. Serig J. Tapia C. Hofmayer S. Chan R. Lipinski T. Novak D. Crutchfield G. Lainas

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20197H985&oldid=4104458"