ML20204J174
Text
v-
, jP o UNITED STATES i 0 ~ ' ,t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, { g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ,
g f
\...../ NOV 15 1984 .
MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noonan Project Director Comanche Peak FROM: Richard H. Wessman Technical Review Team Comanche Peak
SUBJECT:
FEEDBACK INTERVIEW 0F WITNESS SRT-A-2 On October 30, 1984, Witness SRT-A-2 was interviewed by R. Wessman and A. Johnson of the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) staff. This interview, held in Granbury, Texas was to provide feedback from the TRT to this witness regarding the assessment of concerns he had raised to the NRC staff during the Special Review Team inspection of April 3-13, 1984. (Report l 1ssued July 13, 1984). 'This interview was transcribed and a copy of the vi 1: transcript is being placed in the TRT file. N During this interview their witness provided supplemental information regarding j allegation numbers AQE-34, AQE-35, and A F -37. SRT-A-2 stated he would J,1 provide further information by telephone, w' thin a few days. On November 9, 4 1984, SRT-A-2 was contacted by Mr. Wessman. Specific documents were J[
identified by SRT-A-2 as relevant to Allegations AQE-34, AQE-35 and AQE-37. 4 These document numbers and relevant dates have been provided separately to 4 J. Calvo for further evaluation. g l During the interview the witness stated he desired a confidentiality a agreement. Subsequent to the interview the witness changed his mind and w elected not to sign a confidentiality agreement. He asked that the staff ;
limit the use of his name to a "need to know" basis, however. 3 a
d.L h - --- -
Richard H. Wessman Technical Review Team Comanche Peak cc: R.C. Tang -
D. Eisenhut B. Hayes, 01 J. Calvo J. Zudans A. Johnson a F01A-85-59 Tf/ll/0#5 g f.h3
1
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
'2 NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM' .
3 ,
4 5
TECHNICAL INTERVIEW '
6 7 .'
' Tuesday, October 30, 1984
~
6 -
9 -
This interview was commenced at 6:30 p.m.
10 i
11 j 12 PRESENT: ,
13 MR. DICK WESSMAN . ,
l Technical Review Team Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission l '34 l washington, D. C. 20555 I
MR. AL JOHNSON Technical Review Team Staff I '
Nuclear Regulatory Co'unission Washington, D. C. 20555 20 21 :
e C ' NTL1T Tt TMT mat @ 'In !
7 NT f*Id l
l 4
' I. ,
_. t
f'*cy >g , fll .
,;& f., ONITED STATES go
, y e g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p <.M 1
- 1- i j W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 e
'k."... JUL 131984 ?
( ~ hlg Docket Nos.: 50-445 #/
and 50-446 Mr. M. D. Spence President Texas Utilities Generating Company 400 N. Olive Street, L. B. 81
~ Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Spence:
Subject:
Comanche Peak Special Review Team Report Enclosed is the Special Review Team Report that resulted from the special review conducted during the period of April 3-13, 1984 at the Comanche Peak site. The purpose of the review was to: 1) evaluate the current implementa-tion of the applicant's management control of the construction, inspection and test programs, 2) provide an indepth understanding and background infor-mation to the NRC management team established by the Executive Director for Operations, and 3) obtain information necessary to establish a management plan for resolution of all outstanding regulator) actions.
The review identified a numoer of actions to be Tollowed by the TechnicaT Re-view Team established pursuant to the management plan. Additionally, three potential enforcement actions were identified during the review. These actions will be referred to the Administrator of Region IV for appropriate action.
The Special Review Team found during this limited review that your management i control over the construction, inspection, and testing programs is generally effective and is receiving proper management attention. The Special Review Team concluded that your programs are being sufficiently controlled to allow continued plant construction while the NRC completes its review and inspection .
- of the facility.
l Should you have any questions concerning this review, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
I Sincerely,
~
/
//
arrell . Eisenhut, Director
Enclosure:
As stated a cc w/ encl.: See next page 41 .
g3(OTE%3Y fff ( l ',l
60
- a. General The reviewer conducted tours of containment, auxiliary building, safeguards building, and control building for both units to generally observe quality, work in progress, material control, and protecticn of HVAC equipment, as well as weld rod control. Discussions were held with craft and inspection personnel during these tours relaiive to plant quality.
- b. Review Effort Previous discrepancies identified by NRC regarding HVAC installation ,
served as a driving force for this review effort. A review was made of evaluations and calculations perfonned as a result of the previously .
identified problems. In addition, the reviewer observed HVAC ducting and supports for confonnance to applicable drawings, specifications, l and standards.
The reviewer generally observed ducting in various areas of the containments, auxiliary building, safeguards buildings, and control building for both units for proper . bolting, proper gaskets, and structural integrity. In addition, the inspector observed duct and equipment supports for confonnance to requirements. Supports reviewed included unit 2 duct hangers 2J-IR, 2J-IV, and 2J-RIB; Unit 1 duct hangers 1J-RIL, IJ-10C, IE-1A, IE-1L, and 1H-RIG; floor mount of Unit 1 Train A Containment Spray Pump Room fan coil unit; and the two unit 1 Safety Injection Pump Room Fan Coil unit hangers.
- c. Conclusion No significant problems were identified relative to ducting. Only l
minor problems, well within previous discrepancies evaluated, were l found in duct supports. Dimensional variations were noted in the l hangers for Safety Injection Pump Room Coolers. These deviations were analysed during the review indicating that these hangers were accept-able. Several minor drawing errors were also noted which were
- corrected during the review. The evaluations and corrective actions perfonned as a result of previously identified problems with HVAC installation appear to be adequate.
! I. Fonnal Interviews of QA/QC Personnel
- a. Fonnal interviews were conducted of QA/QC personnel in order to assist in assessing site quality and management support of site quality. It _
was felt that discussions with inspection personnel would give a good conservative insight into whether or not the plant was being const-ructed properly. Interviews of five management personnel and twenty- -
eight inspectors were conducted. Inspectors were selected at random "ith one exception. Electrical inspectors were primarily selected from a group of inspectors which had recently been involved in a personnel
61 incident involving a dress code "(Tee Shirt)" issue in order to assess whether these persons had significant technical concerns. In addition, two electrical inspectors indicated a desire to talk to NRC and were interviewed. Several additional electrical inspectors were chosen in !
' addition to inspectors in various other disciplines. j The group included inspectors working for eight differer.t supervisors.
Experience of these personnel ranged from persons who had been in QC ;
j less than a year, to persons who had been at Comanche Peak from early construction (mid 1970s). Most had some previous experience such as site craft, non-nuclear industry or military experience.
Some had worked at other nuclear facilities.
The major thrust of the interviews was to detennine if the personnel had any plant safety or quality concerns. Concerns in these areas were solicited from all those interviewed. Discussions of other subjects were also held with most of the individuals interviewed. These subjects included intimidation, support for identifying problems, ability to have problems evaluated and corrected as necessary, feedback on evaluation of problems, adequacy of training program, and relation-ship with NRC.
All but two inspectors stated they felt the plant would be safe which meant they had no significant quality problems which they felt would compromise safe operation. One inspector, who was not sure of the l plant's safety, stated he was assigned to an area which was less controlled than he was used to, e.g., non-ASME code work versus ASME code work (which has the most stringent requirements), and was uncomfortable with the leeway allowed in this area. This person also
! indicated he had doubts about QA at nuclear plants in general. The l other individual who was unsure of plant safety indicate he was satisfied with , quality with one exception. This involved a specific problem which he was not sure was adequately evaluated. This item was described to the NRC:RIV Senior Resident Inspector for followup. Two inspectors who stated they had decided on their own that they wanted to talk to NRC, expressed very strongly that the plant quality was
" excellent" and there was no plant safety concern. Another inspector, with over twenty-years' experience, who was at his fifth nuclear plant i said Comanche Peak was the "best" plant he had seen.
1 Seven inspectors expressed one or more specific concerns. These concerns involved questions on whether a particular procedure require-ment or whether a particular technical evaluation was appropriate, documentation problems not involving quality of construction, questions _
whether certain personnel transfers were discriminatory, inaccuracies in some written Nonconfonnance Report (NCR) evaluations, and concerns which had recently been brought up and were yet to be evaluated by the licensee. All concerns have been fonvarded to the Comanche Peak Project Director for followup for review and evaluation as necessary.
l Several concerns were given to NRC:RIV personnel during this inspection and followup showed that there was no technical problem identified.
e e - - - - ,,,--p-----,,.*,*-.,m. , , , , _ ---.m ,. - '
_-. _. - .- =. --
. l
. 62 The NRC Resident Inspector was familiar with one of the concerns and had already evaluated the condition as technically acceptable. Several additional concerns were given to RIV personnel verbally on the last
- day of this inspection for timely followup.
The special team interviewer reviewed the concern regarding transfers 4 of six of seven individuals mentioned in the personnel transfer concerns. These transfers appeared to be non-discriminatory. It should be noted that in all cases of concerns involving specific hardware discrepancies these discrepancies had been identified to appropriate licensee personnel and had been or were being evaluated.
I All inspectors questioned (21) as to their ability to identify problems such as via NCRs, indicated no suppression in this area. Several inspectors indicated that NCR written evaluations could be more clear l and complete in some cases.
i Feedback regarding problems, such as via explanations of NCR evalua-tions, was considered good by 19 of the individuals questioned. One i individual indicated he did not always receive complete feedback but these items did not involve significant technical concerns. Two individuals stated they felt uncomfortable with some "use-as-is" NCR i evaluations. One stated that more feedback was needed as to reasons for procedure changes.
Many of the inspectors indicated that comunications'were improving and the assignment of the new site QA manager was a positive step in improving comunications. It was clear that some comunications problems had existed in the past and rapport between inspectors and their management had been strained previously in some areas. Comuni-cations in the ASME code construction area appeared to be exceptionally positive.
All but a few inspectors were questioned regarding intimidation by craft. No significant problems were identified although two indivi-
- duals mentioned two incidents when the craft were upset with inspectors
! when problems were found. No threats were made during these incidents.
Generally, the rapport between craft and inspection appeared to be very good.
- Adequacy of the training program was discussed with approximately half of the inspectors. Several indicated that the fomal training could be better, f.e., tougher (not necessarily more extensive) but femal training, plus on-the-job training was adequate to perfom the -
4 inspection functions. Many stated that the training was excellent.
1 Twenty inspectors felt no hindrance at all to talking with NRC and
! indicated that the freedom to talk with NRC has been continually .
stressed by management. Several indicated some apprehension about 1 talking with NRC which appeared to be a natural fear of the position
4
'e 63 4
NRC holds. Several were under the impression for a short while that they must have their "act together" if they were going to see the NRC, but now appear to feel no hindrance. Most ir.dicated they saw NRC inspectors regularly in the field but a majority indicated that they had not talked directly with NRC in the field.
l Interviews of management indicated they were very supportive of inspectors and sensitive to inspector concerns. There appeared to be a i strong encouragement for personnel to come forward with any concerns, as evidenced by a memorandum dated March 22, 1984, to all QA/QC j personnel from the Site QA Manager. Postings indicating management support for inspectors and other personnel in identifying problems were prominently displayed along with NRC Fom 3, NRC Information
- Notice 84-07 and 10 CFR 21 infomation.
In sumary, although some concerns were expressed requiring further -
- review, these concerns did not appear to be excessive in number or serious and would be nomally expected during the interview process.
Generally, the most experienced inspectors had a high confidence in the quality of the plant. Past problems in comunication and.some past apprehension about management support had existed but there seems to i
have been a marked improvement in this area. No one indicated that i past comunication problems had caused them to not perform inspections
! properly or not to identify problems when found. Inspector freedom to
! identify problems and freedom to talk with NRC has apparently been strongly stressed. Management appeared to be sensitive to employee concerns and appeared to be seriously evaluating existing concerns.
~
- b. In addition to femal interviews, numerous infomal discussions were held between the NRC team personnel and site managers, craft, inspec-tors, engineers, and office personnel as indicated previously in other sections of this report. The coments received from these individuals were consistent with those received during the fomal interviews.
These discussions covered topics such as plant quality, training, management support, and document control. ,
Appendix A, which follows, is a sanitized listing of concerns raised by individuals during the interview process. The concerns are only those which will require followup by the Comanche Peak Project Director.
The interviews were sanitized only so far as confidentiality is .
related.
--w -wwo.---- - - ---- - - - . --- - m- - - , . - , - - e,wwa-----e.e-e.-e =w-ee s=um.-==-mi--e.----- - ' - v---tv--we--+v------emewMu :n u p-- e
. 64 APPENDIX A Inspector Name: A-1 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Connents:
- Uncomfortable with less structured program for non-ASME versus ASME; e.g., seem to change dwg. when structure doesn't meet original, can add welds in field and he doesn't think it gets incorporated into dwg., QC lead can approve changes to travelers for non-ASME structures, not much QA involvement in this area.
- Specific: Procedure QIQP 1114-12, electrical mounting backfit, craft complained so procedure was revised to reduce number of inspections, 4 revisions made to delete requirements (bolt tight-ening,etc.)
- Has the impression that QA has been generally deficient at nuclear plants and QC has not been supported at Comanche Peak in the past.
- Indicated main problem is probably him being able to adjust to non-ASME work: is not aware of code violations taking place.
i 1
. - . , _ ..-.,_______m-___. _,....._m_.._r.,_ . _ _ -. _ . _ ._ , _ . - . - _ _
65 Inspector Name: A-2
, Data Interviewed:
! General
Background:
Interviewee Coments:
- Has some concern with use-as-is NCR situations, use-as-is seems l
particularly prevalent when using Specification ES-100.
- Specific Technical Concern: NCR was written when cable damage
, occurred during Biso Seal removal using a threaded rod. This occurred in Auxiliary Building, elev. 832'. NCR said no damage was done to cable but some insulation had been scraped off by rod. Feel further evaluation may be in order for these cables and there may be similar problems elsewhere.
- Specific: Wrote 2 NCR's regarding traceability of fuse blocks.
Blocks were not marked "Q". NCR said OK as-is because no non-Q blocks.were purchased via order MS-605. Feels other similar non-Q blocks have been purchased via different purchase order and could have been installed as Q. Thinks this a possible paperwork problem.
- Specific: Wrote recent NCR (not yet evaluated) on GE Motor
! Control Centers. Compression lugs have bends as much as 180
! degrees (more than nomally done done by site construction).
Don't think GE can violate requirements and may be a problem elsewhere in GE MCC's. Also have some broken wire strands which we are fixing as we find.
- Specific: Had previous paperwork conflict problem in solving rework of teminal blocks. 6 page RFIC involved and Proc. SAP-6 i
! involved. Wrote 2 NCR's. NRC inspectors Creek and Johnson were
' aware, Creek told NRC inspector Taylor, Taylor told to have an answer. Never got feedback as to results.
- Specific: Repaired a solenoid, shortly after coming to Comanche i Peak in craft, without paperwork. Don't know if it was safety related. Not concerned with solenoid technically - did a good job.
Notes: The specific concerns were given verbally to the SRI - Construction on 4/12/84 for further followup. It was indicated during the interview he would get more specifics for SRI. MCC problem was still being evaluated. !
l suggest allowing the licensee to evaluate and then followup for adequacy of ,
4 corrective action.
i
_ - ~ , - _ _ _ _ , - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , - . - ____- - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ - - - - - ---
- +
i
.' 66 Inspector Name: A-3 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Comments: .
- Generally concerned with finding numerous problems during past construction inspection and procedure being changed to delete inspection, e.g., loose teminations found in lighting. .
- Some NCR's are answered simply that the problem is not addresse'd in Specification ES-100.
1
- Recent NCR written because restraint cable (lighting) crimp gages were worn & therefore, inspection was inadequate. This is still being evaluated.
- Wires of two different gages were terminated at some lugs and many teminations are loose.
- Have more pressure not to write NCR's during turnover.
f l - Found loose LB's (elbow temination fittings) 9 East & South ends j of Unit 1 Diesel Generators, wrote two NCR's, was accepted as is.
l Found cables not trained (routed) in workmanlike manner in Unit 1 Cable
- Spread Room 9 junction boxes 1058 and 1059. NCR said OK because cable radius was OK but did not admit workmanship problem.
f' - Feels post construction inspectors were transferred to Unit 2 as
, retaliation for finding problems.
! - Heard second hand that IR's (inspection reports) were being j written falsely (without reinspection) to clear IIRN's (discrep-Heard from lady in Paper Flow Group ancy)
(PFG and report) lady onincable vault.trays.Said he would get back to NRC with more specifics.
l
, Notes: Some review of the lighting termination issue and post check procedure was conducted by team member Ruff. The site inspector l
, indicated he had told of most of these issues and QA was -
i evaluating. I forwarded concern relative to 1058 & 1059 junction boxes to RIV: Martin and he. indicated he inspected these boxes and sees no technical problem. Resident Inspector: Smith partic-ipated in most of the interview and indicated he was aware of 4.
the D/G loose fittings and sees no technical problem. I evaluated reasons why 6 personnel including were transferred to Unit 2 and this move does not appear to be discriminatory.
.,---,--=--,----n..~,m,_-, -,,--,.------~m -
. 67 Inspector Name: 'A-4 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Coments:
- Uncomfortable with some use-as-is situations, e.g., cable separation problem found in fuel building during walkdown did not meet procedure but was evaluated as use-as-is. He can show someone where it is.
- Wrote NCR on lack of 5-thread engagement on a conduit fitting
- poor evaluation in that they simply said that couldn't see it; a second NCR was written on this area for cable damage, seemed to be looking for a way to buy this area off, took two tries to get everything evaluated. knows about this but didn't get back
- to him on fact that NCR's were poorly handled, i.e., non-tech-nical aspects.
- Feels discriminated against in that he was transferred to Unit 2 where there is no overtime. Got grilled on cable damage NCR at the same time as being counseled on a personnel issue so it
) appeared that his transfer had something to do with NCR.
Management is aware of this concern.
Note: I did not review this person's transfer situation.
l I
1 l -
l
_ . - . _ - . . . . _ . - - - - - - .--------...---.---..---m- . - - , - - - - - , ,, ., _. -,
l 68 l
Inspector Name: A-5 l Date Interviewed:
G;neral
Background:
Interviewee Connents:
- Had problems with post check, e.g., loose lighting terminations and junction boxes. Took lighting out of procedure and made it more difficult to look at junction boxes. Management was made aware of these concerns. (Has no significant safety concern)
- More tendency toward use-as-is when pressure is on (safety requirements are being met, however)
- Has had some fear of talking with NRC, didn't think reporting 1 on-site would ever get off-site, doesn't have NRC RIV phone number i
- Feels discriminated against by being transferred to Unit 2
- Some NCR evaluations are inaccurate or unclear, e.g., statement that workmanship was not compromised when in fact workmanship was poor but the item was technically acceptable Notes: I reviewed the transfer situation; appears to be reasonable but not as clear as reasoning on other 5 transfers. NRC Form 3 appears well posted so I'm not sure why he doesn't have the number. He does not appear to fear talking with NRC now.
Although, he stated he does not have significant safety / quality concerns, his comment on NCR answers is interesting. Similar general comments were received from other inspectors and this could indicate a need for better answers on NCR's. An example would be that if a workmanship question was not addressed properly then perhaps needed retraining of personnel as preventive action
- would not get performed. Perhaps the licensee needs to improve in this area. '
6 l
l
f 69 Inspector Nane. ' A-6 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Comments:
- Added higher sides to some cable trays to keep cables in trays
- Also there may be cable density / compaction problem in this area
- It's tough to keep people off trays to keep from damaging them
- Have had problems with clearance of pipe and cables, have to notch insulation, place metal between insulation and trays
- There is alot of rework to get proper separation Notes: This man was questioned primarily to get input for RIV review of cable spread room as to where there could be problems. He personally has little problem with plant quality. RIV - Martin
-was at the interview and verbal feedback on the first two items indicated that the situations were acceptable.
1 l
t
__ _m___ __ . . - . . _ . , _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - ~ _ - _ _ _ _ ._-
$2 / /l~ 5
~
%jddd p my 6s os gpm[9 g UNITED STATES g.c c y, 3 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.;g yl WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 '
Tfj/ JUL 131984 g Docket Nos.: 50-445 (,L and 50-446 .
1 Mr. M. D. Spence President Texas Utilities Generating Company 400 N. Olive Street, L. B. 81
' ~ Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Spence:
Subject:
Comanche Peak Special Review Team Report Enclosed is the Special Review Team Report that resulted from the special review conducted during the period of April 3-13, 1984 at the Comanche Peak site. The purpose of the review was to: 1) evaluate the current implementa-tion of the applicant's n'anagement control of the construction, inspection and test programs, 2) provide an indepth understanding and background infor-mation to the NRC management team established by the Executive Director for Operations, and 3) obtain infortnation necessary to establish a management plan for resolution.of all outstanding regulatorp actions.
The review identified a number of actions to be Tollowed by the TechnicaT Re-
. view Team established pursuant to the management plan. Additionally, three potential enforcement actions were identified during the review. These actions will be referred to the Administrator of Region IV for appropriate action.
The Special Review Team found during this limited review that your management control over the construction, inspection, and testing programs is generally effective and is receiving proper management attention. The Special Review Team concluded that your programs are being sufficiently controlled to allow continued plant construction while the NRC completes its review and inspection .
of the facility.
Should you have any questions concerning this review, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. .
Sincerely, t
. arre 1 u. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing ,
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl.: See next page
r 60
- a. General i
' The reviewer conducted tours of containment, auxiliary building, safeguards building, and control building for both units to generally observe quality, work in progress, material control, and protection of HVAC equipment, as well as weld rod control. Discussions were held l
! with craft and inspection personnel during these tours relative to '
t plant quality. !
- b. Review Effort Previous discrepancies identified by NRC regarding HVAC installation l
served as a driving force for this review effort. A review was made of evaluations and calculations performed as a result of the previously i identified problems. In addition, the reviewer observed HVAC ducting and supports for confomance to applicable drawings, specifications,
! and standards.
The reviewer generally observed ducting in various areas of the
- containments, auxiliary building, safeguards buildings, and control i building for both units for proper bolting, proper gaskets, and structural integrity. In addition, the inspector observed duct and equipment supports for conformance to requirements. Supports reviewed j included unit 2 duct hangers 2J-1R, 2J-IV, and 2J-RIB; Unit I duct hangers IJ-RIL, IJ-10C, 1E-1A, IE-1L, and 1H-RIG; floor mount of Unit 1 Train A Containment Spray Pump Room fan coil unit; and the two unit 1 Safety Injection Pump Room Fan Coil unit hangers.
- c. Conclusion 4
l No significant problems were identified relative to ducting. Only minor problems, well within previous discrepancies evaluated, were ,
found in duct supports. Dimensional variations were noted in the hangers for Safety Injection Pump Room Coolers. These deviations were analysed during the review indicating that these hangers were accept-able. Several minor drawing errors were also noted which were corrected during the review. The evaluations and corrective actions perfomed as a result of previously identified problems with HVAC installation appear to be adequate.
I. Fomal Interviews of QA/QC Personnel
- a. Formal interviews were conducted of QA/QC personnel in order to assist in assessing site quality and management support of site quality. It _
was felt that discussions with inspection personnel would give a good conservative insight into whether or not the plant was being const-ructed properly. Interviews of five management personnel and twenty-eight inspectors were conducted. Inspectors were selected at random '
"ith one exception. Electrical inspectors were primarily selected from a group of inspectors which had recently been involved in a personnel
l 1
i 3 61 incident involving a dress code "(Tee Shirt)" issue in order to assess whether ttese persons had significant technical concerns. In addition, two electrical inspectors indicated a desire to talk to NRC and were interviewed. ' Several additional electrical inspectors were chosen in
' addition to inspectors in various other disciplines.
- The group included inspectors working for eight different supervisors.
Experience of these personnel ranged from persons who had been in QC less than a year, to persons who had been at Comanche Peak from early construction (mid 1970s). Most had some previous experience such as site craft, non-nuclear industry or military experience. Some had worked at other nuclear facilities. .
The major thrust of the interviews was to detennine if the personnel had any plant safety or quality concerns. Concerns in these areas were
- solicited from all those interviewed. Discussions of other subjects were also held with most of the individuals interviewed. These subjects included intimidation, support for identifying problems, ability to have problems evaluated and corrected as necessary, feedback on evaluation of problems, adequacy of training program, and relation-4 ship with NRC.
All but two inspectors stated they felt the plant would be safe which
! meant they had no significant quality problems which they felt would compromise safe operation. One inspector, who was not sure of the j plant's safety, stated he was assigned to an area which was less i
controlled than he was used to, e.g., non-ASME code work versus ASME code work (which has the most stringent requirements), and was uncomfortable with the leeway allowed in this area. This person also indicated he had doubts about QA at nuclear plants in general. The
, other individual who was unsure of plant safety indicate he was satisfied with , quality with one exception. This involved a specific problem which he was not sure was adequately evaluated. This item was described to the NRC:RIV Senior Resident Inspector for followup. Two inspectors who stated they had decided on their own that they wanted to talk to NRC, expressed very strongly that the plant quality was
" excellent" and there was no plant safety concern. Another inspector, with over twenty-years' exp"erience, who was at his fifth nuclear plant said Comanche Peak was the best" plant he had seen.
Seven inspectors expressed one or more specific concerns. These concerns involved questions on whether a particular procedure require-ment or whether a particular technical evaluation was appropriate, docenentation problems not involving quality of construction, questions _
whether certain personnel transfers were discriminatory, inaccuracies in some written Nonconfonnance Report (NCR) evaluations, and concerns which had recently been brought up and were yet to be evaluated by the licensee. All concerns have been forwarded to the Comanche Peak
- Project Director for followup for review and evaluation as necessary.
Several concerns were given to NRC:RIV personnel during this inspection and followup showed that there was no technical problem identified.
i, ,
1
. \
. 62 i
The NRC Resident Inspector was familiar with one of the concerns and had already evaluated the condition as technically acceptable. Several additional concerns were given to RIV personnel verbally on the last day of this inspection for timely followup.
The special team interviewer reviewed the concern regarding transfers of six of seven individuals mentioned in the personnel transfer concerns. These transfers appeared to be non-discriminatory. It should be noted that in all cases of concerns involving specific hardware discrepancies these discrepancies had been identified to appropriate licensee personnel and had been or were being evaluated.
All inspectors questioned (21) as to their ability to identify problems such as via NCRs, indicated no suppression in this area. Several inspectors indicated that NCR written evaluations could be more clear y
and complete in some cases.
Feedback regarding problems, such as via explanations of NCR evalua-l tions, was considered good by 19 of the individuals questioned. One individual indicated he did not always receive complete feedback but these items did not involve significant technical concerns. Two i individuals stated they felt uncomfortable with some "use-as-is" NCR evaluations'. One stated that more feedback was needed as to reasons for procedure changes.
Many of the inspectors indicated that comunications were improving and i the assignment of the new site QA manager was a positive step in l improving comunications. It was clear that some comunications j problems had existed in the past and rapport between inspectors and j their management had been strained previously in some areas. Comuni-cations in the ASME code construction area appeared to be exceptionally positive. ,
All but a few inspectors were questioned regarding intimidation by craft. No significant problems were identified although two indivi-duals mentioned two incidents when the craft were upset with inspectors ,
when problems were found. No threats were made during these incidents.
Generally, the rapport between craft and inspection appeared to be very good.
Adequacy of the training program was discussed with approximately hr.lf I of the inspectors. Several indicated that the fomal training could be
- better, i.e., tougher (not necessarily more extensive) but femal training, plus on-the-job training was adequate to perfom the .
i inspection functions. Many stated that the training was excellent.
Twenty inspectors felt no hindrance at all to talking with NRC and indicated that the freedom to talk with NRC has been continually
- stressed by management. Several indicated some apprehension about l talking with NRC which appeared to be a natural fear of the position i
b i
i
l *
. l
' l l
l
,. 63 l NRC holds. Several were under the impression for a short while that they must have their "act together" if they were going to see the NRC, but now appear to feel no hindrance. Most indicated they saw NRC inspectors regularly in the field but a majority indicated that they had not talked directly with NRC in the field.
Interviews of management indicated they were very supportive of inspectors and sensitive to inspector concerns. There appeared to be a strong encouragement for personnel to come forward with any concerns, i
as evidenced by a memorandum dated March 22, 1984, to all QA/QC j personnel from the Site QA Manager. Postings indicating management j support for inspectors and other personnel in identifying problems were
! prominently displayed along with NRC Form 3, NRC Information Notice 84-07 and 10 CFR 21 information.
In sunnary, although some concerns were expressed requiring further
- review, these concerns did not appear to be excessive in number or i serious and would be nomally expected during the interview process.
Generally, the most experienced inspectors had a high confidence in the quality of the plant. Past problems in communication and.some past i apprehension about management support had existed but there seems to I have been a marked improvement in this area. No one indicated that past connunication problems had caused them to not perform inspections
! properly or not to identify problems when found. Inspector freedom to
) identify problems and freedom to talk with NRC has apparently been strongly stressed. Management appeared to be sensit'ive to employee concerns and appeared to be seriously evaluating existing concerns.
i
- b. In addition to formal interviews, numerous infomal discussions were I held between the NRC team personnel and site managers, craft, inspec-
! tors, engineers, and office personnel as indicated previously in other sections of this report. The connents received from these individuals were consistent with those received during the formal interviews.
These discussions covered topics such as plant quality, training, management support, and document control __ -
Appendix A, which follows, is a sanitized listing of concerns raised by individuals during the interview process. The concerns are only those !
which will require followup by the Comanche Peak Project Director. /
j The interviews were sanitized only so far as confidentiality is /
9 i
l 1
L _ - - _. - - . . - - - - . _ _
f
- 64 APPENDIX A
~ Inspector Name: A-1 i Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Comnents:
- Uncomfortable wf th less structured program for non-ASME versus ASME; e.g., seem to change dwg. when structure doesn't meet original, can add welds in field and he doesn't think it gets incorporated into dwg., QC lead can approve changes to travelers
- for non-ASME structures, not much QA involvement in this area.
- Specific: Procedure QIQP 1114-12, electrical mounting backfit, i
craft complained so procedure was revised to reduce number of 1 inspections, 4 revisions made to delete requirements (bolt tight-ening,etc.)
i
- Has the impression that QA has been generally deficient at nuclear plants and QC has not been supported at Comanche Peak in the past.
~
- Indicated main problem is probably him being able to adjust to non-ASME work: is not aware of code violations taking place.
l 1
1 1
i l
l t
.._ - ,-. , ,, - m_.._...-m-,.. ...e--,_,_-_.-._,- . . _ , - . . -
O t
4 l
- 65 Inspector Name: A-2 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Comments:
- Has some concern with use-as-is NCR situations, use-as-is seems particularly prevalent when using Specification ES-100.
! - Specific Technical Concern: NCR was written when cable damage occurred during Biso Seal removal using a threaded rod. This occurred in Auxiliary Building, elev. 832'. NCR said no damage was done to cable but some insulation had been scraped off by rod. Feel further evaluation may be in order for these cables and there may be similar problems elsewhere. 1
- Specific: Wrote 2 NCR's regarding traceability of fuse blocks.
Blocks were not marked "Q". NCR said OK as-is because no non-Q blocks were purchased via order MS-605. Feels other similar non-Q blocks have been purchased via different purchase order i and could have been installed as Q. Thinks this a possible paperwork problem.
- Specific: WroterecentNCR(notyetevaluated)onGEMotor l Control Centers. Compression lugs have bends as much as 180 degrees (more than normally done done by site construction).
Don't think GE can violate requirements and may be a problem elsewhere in GE MCC's. Also have some broken wire strands which we are fixing as we find.
l
- Specific: Had previous paperwork conflict problem in solving rework of terininal blocks. 6 page RFIC involved and Proc. SAP-6 involved. Wrote 2 NCR's. NRC inspectors Creek and Johnson were l
, aware, Creek told NRC inspector Taylor Taylor told to I have an answer. Never got feedback as to results.
- Specific: Repaired a solenoid, shortly after coming to Comanche Peak in craft, without paperwork. Don't know if it was safety related. Not concerned with solenoid technically - did a good job.
~
I Notes: The specific concerns were given verbally to the SRI - Construction l
on 4/12/84 for further followup. It was indicated during the interview he would get more specifics for SRI. MCC problem was still being evaluated. I suggest allowing the licensee to evaluate and then followup for adequacy of '
corrective action.
1 o 66 Inspector Name: A-3 ,
Date Interviewed: ,
General
Background:
Interviewee Comnents: , .
- Generally concerned with finding numerous problems during past construction inspection and procedure being changed to delete inspection, e.g., loose teminations fcund in lighting. .
- Some NCR's are answered simply that the problem is not addresse'd in Specification ES-100.
Recent were worn NCR written because
& therefore, inspection restraint was inadequate. cable (lighting)his r is ,stillcrimp gages being evaluated.
- Wires of two different gages were teminated at some lugs and many terminations are loose.
- Have more pressure not to write NCR's during turnover.
- Found loose I.B's (elbow temination fittings) 9 East & South ends of Unit 1 Diesel Generators, wrote two NCR's, was accepted as is.
- Found cables not trained (routed) in workmanlike manner in Unit 1 Cable Spread Room 9 junction boxes 1058 and 1059. NCR said OK because cable radius was OK but did not admit workmanship problem.
- Feels post construction inspectors were transferred to Unit 2 as retaliation for finding problems.
1
- Heard second hand that IR's (insaection reports) were being written falsely (without reinspect on) to clear IIRN's (discrep-i Heard from lady in Paper Flow Group ancy) report)
(PFG and ladyon incable vault. trays.Said he would get back to NRC with more l specifics.
! Notes: Some review of the lighting temination issue and post check procedure was conducted by team member Ruff. The site inspector indicated he had told of most of these issues and QA was -
evaluating. I forwarded concern relative to 1058 & 1059 junction boxes to RIV: Martin and he. indicated he inspected these boxes
! and sees no technical problem. Resident Inspector: Smith partic-1 pated in most of the interview and indicated he was aware of .
j the D/G loose fittings and sees no technical problem. I evaluated reasons why 6 personnel including were transferred to Unit 2 and this move does not appear to be discriminatory.
67 Inspector Name:* A-4 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Coments: .
- Uncomfortable with some use-as-is situations, e.g., cable separation problem found in fuel building during walkdown did not meet procedure but was evaluated as use-as-is. He can show someone where it is.
- Wrote NCR on lack of 5-thread engagement on a conduit fitting
- poor evaluation in that they simply said that couldn't see it; a second NCR was written on this area for cable damage, seemed to be looking for a way to buy this area off, took two tries to get everything evaluated. knows about this but didn't get back
- to him on fact that NCR's were poorly handled, i.e., non-tech-nical aspects.
- Feels discriminated against in that he was transferred to Unit 2 where there is no overtime. Got grilled on cable damage NCR at the same time as being counseled on a personnel issue so it appeared that his transfer had something to do with NCR.
Management is aware of this concern.
Note: I did not review this person's transfer situation.
m 4
J
I I
i
- l
- 68 Inspector Name
- A-5 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Coments:
- Had problems with post check, e.g., loose lighting tenninations and junction boxes. Took lighting out of procedure and made it more difficult to look at junction boxes. Management was made aware of these concerns. (Hasnosignificantsafetyconcern)
- More tendency toward use-as-is when pressure is on (safety requirements are being met, however)
' - Has had some fear of talking with NRC, didn't think reporting i
on-site would ever get off-site, doesn't have NRC RIV phone number
- Feels discriminated against by being transferred to Unit 2
- Some NCR evaluations are inaccurate or unclear, e.g., statement that workmanship was not compromised when in fact workmanship was poor but the item was technically acceptable ,
Notes: I reviewed the transfer situation; appears to be reasonable but not as clear as reasoning on other 5 transfers. NRC Form 3 appears well posted so I m not sure why he doesn't have the numter. He does not appear to fear talking with NRC now.
Alttough, he stated he does not have significant safety / quality concerns, his connent on NCR answers is interesting. Similar gentral coments were received from other inspectors and this I could indicate a need for better answers on NCR's. An example would be that if a workmanship question was not addressed properly then perhaps needed retraining of personnel as preventive action would not get perfonned. Perhaps the licensee needs to improve in this area. -
I e>
4 l
i f 4
' 69 Inspector Name: "A-6 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
l Interviewee Coments:
- Added higher sides to some cable trays to keep cables in trays Also there may be cable density / compaction problem in this area
- It's tough to keep people off trays to keep from damaging them i
- Have had problems with clearance of pipe and cables, have to notch insulation, place metal between insulation and trays
- There is alot of rework to get proper separation Notes: This man was questioned primarily to get input for RIV review of cable spread room as to where there could be problems. He personally has little problem with plant quality. RIV - Martin
- was at the interview and verbal feedback on the first two items
) indicated that the situations were acceptable.
e m
L I
+++= ~" - _ , - _ . . _ .- . _ _ _ _ _ , * * - ~ ** - ~ ~.
- _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _._,_,_______-_i'*__*i',*_.,._,._______.__,__._,
/
$e 638b7 ,
r
[(pmy 5.
fg 3 g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- gg#
. 5' , /:j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 '
, '] JUL 131984 3 Docket Nos.: 50-445 9 .'
L
)
and 50-446 .
1 Mr. M. D. Spence -
President Texas Utilities Generating Company 400 N. Olive Street, L. B. 81
- Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Spence:
Subject:
Comanche Peak Special Review Team Report Enclosed is the Special Review Team Report that resulted from the special review conducted during the period of April 3-13, 1984 at the Comanche Peak site. The purpose of the review was to: 1) evaluate the current implementa -
tion of the applicant's management control of the construction, inspection and test programs, 2) provide an indepth 'nderstanding u and background infor-mation to the NRC management team established by the Executive Director for Operations, and 3) obtain information necessary to establish a management plan for resolution. of all outstanding regulato'ry actions.
The review identified a number of actions to be Tollowed by the TechnicaT Re-
. view Team established pursuant to the management plan. Additionally, three -
potential enforcement actions were identified during the review. These actions will be referred to the Administrator of Region IV for appropriate action.
The Special Review Team found during this limited review that your management control over the construction, inspection, and testing programs is generally effective and is receiving proper management attention. The Special Review Team concluded that your programs are being sufficiently controlled to allow continued plant construction while the NRC' completes its review and inspection .
of the facility.
l Should you have any questions concerning this review, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. .
Sincerely,
, r arrell Eisenhut, Director I
Division of Licensing ,
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl.: See next page elw
,. 60 i
1 a. General l
- The reviewer conducted tours of containment, auxiliary building, safeguards building, and control building for both units to generally observe quality, work in progress, material control, and protection of HVAC equipment, as well as weld rod control. Discussions were held with craft and inspection personnel during these tours relative to plant quality.
- b. Review Effort j Previous discrepancies identified by NRC regarding HVAC installation served as a driving force for this review effort. A review was made of evaluations and calculations perfomed as a result of the previously
- identified problems. In addition, the reviewer observed HVAC ducting and supports for conformance to applicable drawings, specifications, and standards.
j The reviewer generally observed ducting in various areas of the .
i containments, auxiliary building, safeguards buildings, and control i
building for both units for proper bolting, proper gaskets, and i structural integrity. In addition, the inspector observed duct and
! equipment supports for confonnance to requirements. Supports reviewed included unit 2 duct hangers 2J-1R, 2J-IV, and 2J-RIB; Unit I duct
{ hangers 1J-RIL, IJ-100, IE-1A, IE-IL, and 1H-RIG; floor mount of Unit 1 l Train A Containment Spray Pump Room fan coil unit; and the two unit 1 l Safety Injection Pump Room Fan Coil unit hr.ngers.
i - c. Conclusion No significant problems were identified relative to ducting. Only
! minor problems, well within previous discrepancies evaluated, were l found in duct supports. Dimensional variations were noted in the hangers for Safety Injection Pump Room Coolers. These deviations were analysed during the review indicating that these hangers were accept-l able. Several minor drawing errors were also noted which were corrected during the review. The evaluations and corrective actions
', perfomed as a result of previously identified problems with HVAC installation appear to be adequate.
I. Fomal Interviews of QA/QC Personnel t
I a. Fomal interviews were conducted of QA/QC personnel in order to assist in assessing site quality and management support of site quality. It .
was felt that discussions with inspection personnel would give a good conservative insight into whether or not the plant was being const-j ructed properly. Interviews of five management personnel and twenty-eight inspectors were conducted. Inspectors were selected at random
- j dth one exception. Electrical inspectors were primarily selected from j a group of inspectors which had recently been involved in a personnel i
4 i . .
O i
i-j . 61 incident involving a dress code "(Tee Shirt)" issue in order to assess whether these persons had sigaificant technical concerns. In addition, two electrical inspectors indicated a desire to talk to NRC and were interviewed. ~ Several additional electrical inspectors were chosen in addition to inspectors in various other disciplines.
The group included inspectors working for eight different supervisors.
Experience of these personnel ranged from persons who had been in QC less than a year, to persons who had been at Comanche Peak from early construction (mid 1970s). Most had some previous experience such as site craft, non-nuclear industry or military experience. Some had j worked at other nuclear facilities.
The major thrust of the interviews was to determine if the personnel had any plant safety or quality concerns. Concerns in these areas were ,
solicited from all those interviewed. Discussions of other subjects
{
were also held with most of the individuals interviewed. These
! subjects included intimidation, support for identifying problems, i ability to have problems evaluated and corrected as necessary, feedback i
on evaluation of problems, adequacy'of training program, and relation-ship with NRC.-
l All but two inspec' tors stated they felt the plant would be safe which
! meant they had no significant quality problems which they felt would l
compromise safe operation. One inspector, who was not sure of the
- plant's safety, stated he was assigned to an area which was less I controlled than he was used to, e'.g., non-ASME code work versus ASME l
code work (which has the most stringent requirements), and was l
uncomfortable with the leeway allowed in this area. This person also l
indicated he had doubts about QA at nuclear plants in general. The
[ other individual who was unsure of plant safety indicate he was satisfied with , quality with one exception. This involved a specific problem which he was not sure was adequately evaluated. This item was described to the NRC:RIV Senior Kasident Inspector for followup. Two inspectors whc' stated they had decided on their own that they wanted to i
_ talk to NRC, expressed very strongly that the plant quality was
- " excellent" and there was no plant safety concern. Another inspector. -
l with over twenty-years' experience, who was at his fifth nuclear plant said Comanche Peak was the "best" plant he had seen.
Seven inspectors expressed one or more specific concerns. These
' concerns involved questions on whether a particular procedure require-ment or whether a particular technical evaluation was appropriate, documentation problems not involving quality of construction, questions ,
whetner certain personnel transfers were discriminatory, inaccuracies in some written Nonconfonnance Report (NCR) evaluations, and concerns which had recently been brought up and were yet to be evaluated by the licensee. All concerns have been fonvarded to the Comanche Peak '
Project Director for followup for review and evaluation as necessary.
Several concerns were given to NRC:RIV personnel during this inspection !
and followup showed that there was no technical problem identified.
s e w - -e e-%-w - s -- nw w 4-%.-_ we e- m- er a- ne-w e--eeio--s--wwwm-w_w--e'e_=e-we--w --w-__ _ _ -- , , , , _ _werew w w wmre--
w-v---
l ,'.
. 62 ,
The NRC Resident Inspector was familiar with one of the concerns and had already evaluated the condition as technically acceptable. Several additional concerns were given to RIV personnel verbally on the last day of this inspection for timely followup.
The special team interviewer reviewed the concern regarding transfers of six of seven individuals mentioned in the personnel transfer concerns. These transfers appeared to be non-discriminatory. It should be noted that in all cases of concerns involving specific, '
hardware discrepancies these discrepancies had been identified to' appropriate licensee personnel and had been or were being evaluated.
All inspectors questioned (21) as to their ability to identify problems such as via NCRs, indicated no suppression in this area. Several 4 inspectors indicated that NCR written evaluations could be more clear and complete in some cases.
Feedback regarding problems, such as via explanations of NCR evalua-tions, was considered good by 19 of the individuals questioned. One individual indicated he did not always receive complete feedback but these items did not involve signifi. cant technical concerns. Two individuals stated they felt uncomfortable with some "use-as-is" NCR evaluations. One stated that more feedback was needed as to reasons for procedure changes.
Many of the inspectors indicated that comunications were improving and the assignment of the new site QA manager was a positive step in improving communications. It was clear that some comunications problems had existed in the past and rapport between inspectors and their management had been strained previously in some areas. Comuni-cations in the ASME code construction area appeared to be exceptionally positive.
All but a few inspectors were questioned regarding intimidation by craft. No significant problems were identified although two indivi-duals mentioned two incidents when the craft were upi;et with inspectors i
when problems were found. No threats were made during these incidents.
Generally, the rapport between craft and inspection appeared to be very good.
Adequacy of the training program was discussed with approximately half of the inspectors. Several indicated that the fomal training could be i.e., tougher (not necessarily more extensive) but fomal better, training, plus on-the-job training was adequate to perfonn the -
inspection functions. Many stated .that the training was excellent.
Twenty inspectors felt no hindrance at all to talking with NRC and indicated that the freedom to talk with NRC has been continually .
Several indicated some apprehension about stressed by management.
talking with NRC which appeared to be a natural fear of the position
. 1 I
63 1
NRC holds. Several were under the impression for a short while that they must have their "act together" if they were going to see the NRC, but now appear to feel no hindrance. Most indicated they saw NRC inspectors regularly in the field but a majority indicated that they had not talked directly with NRC in the field.
Interviews of management indicated they were very supportive of inspectors and sensitive to inspector concerns. There appeared to be a strong encouragement for personnel to come forward with any concerns, as evidenced by a memorandum dated March 22, 1984, to all QA/QC personnel from the site QA Manager. Postings indicating management support for inspectors and other personnel in identifying problems were prominently displayed along with NRC Form 3 NRC Information
- Notice 84-07 and 10 CFR 21 infonnation.
In sumary, akthough some concerns were expressed requiring further
. review, these concerns did not appear to be excessive in number or serious and would be normally expected during the interview process.
Generally, the most experienced inspectors had a high confidence in the quality of the plant. Past problems in comunication and.some past apprehension about management support had existed but there seems to have been a marked improvement in this area. No one indicated that l past comunication problems had caused them to not perform inspections j properly or not to identify problems when found. Inspector freedom to identify problems and freedom to talk with NRC has apparently been strongly stressed. Management; appeared to be sensitive to employee concerns and appeared to be seriously evaluating existing concerns.
- b. In addition to formal interviews, numerous informal discussions were l held between the NRC team personnel and site managers, craft, inspec-tors, engineers, and office personnel as indicated previously in other
! sections of this report. The coments received from these individuals were consif.ent with those received during the formal interviews.
These discussions covered topics such as plant quality, training, management support, and document cont Appendix A, which follows, is a sanitized listing of concerns raised by individuals during the interview process. The concerns are only those which will require followup by the Comanche Peak Project Director.
The interviews were sanitized only .so far as confidentiality is related. ,
D
I.
t
, 64 APPENDIX A Inspector Name: A-1 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Coments:
- Uncomfortable with less structured program for non-ASME versus ASME; e.g., seem to change dwg. when structure doesn't meet original, can add welds in field and he doesn't think it gets incorporated into dwg., QC lead can approve changes to travelers for non-ASME structures, not much QA involvenent in this area.
- Specific: Procedure QIQP 1114-12, electrical mounting backfit, craft complained so procedure was revised to reduce number of inspections, 4 revisions made to delete requirements (bolt tight-ening,etc.)
Has the impression that QA has been generally deficient at nuclear plants and QC has not been supported at Comanche Peak in the past.
Indicated main problem is probably him being able to adjust to non-ASME work: is not aware of code violations taking place.
9
d 65 Inspector Name: A-2 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Comments:
- Has some concern with use-as-is NCR situations, use-as-is seems particularly prevalent when using Specification ES-100.
- Specific Technical Concern: NCR was written when cable damage occurred during Biso Seal removal using a threaded rod. This occurred in Auxiliary Building, elev. 832'. NCR said no damage
, was done'to cable but some insulation had been scraped off by
! rod. Feel further evaluation may be in order for these cables and there may be similar problems elsewhere.
- Specific:. Wrote 2 NCR's regarding traceability of fuse blocks.
Blocks were not marked "Q". NCR said OK as-is because no non-Q blocks were purchased via order MS-605. Feels other similar non-Q blocks have been purchased via different purchase order and could have been installed as Q. Thinks this a possible paperwork problem.
- Specific: Wrote recent NCR (not yet evaluated) on GE Motor Control Centers. Compression lugs have bends as much as 180 degrees (more than normally done done by site construction).
Don't think GE can violate requirements and may be a problem elsewhere in GE MCC's. Also have some broken wire strands which we are fixing as we find.
- Specific: Had previous paperwork conflict problem in solving rework of terminal blocks. 6 page RFIC involved and Proc. SAP-6 involved. Wrote 2 NCR's. NRC inspectors Creek and Johnson were aware, Creek told NRC inspector Taylor. Taylor told to have an answer. Never got feedback as to results.
i
- Specific: Repaired a solenoid, shortly after coming to Comanche Peak in craft, without paperwork. Don't know if it was safety related. Not concerned with solenoid technically - did a
! 9ood job.
~
Notes: The specific concerns were given verbally to the SRI - Construction on 4/12/84 for further followup. It was indicated during the interview he would get more specifics for SRI. MCC problem was still being evaluated. I suggest allowing the licensee to evaluate and then followup for adequacy of l '
corrective action.
' 66 Inspector Name: A-3 ,'.. ,
Date Interviewed: .-
General
Background:
Interviewee Coments: -
- Generally concerned with finding numerous problems during Isast.
construction inspection and procedure being changed to delete inspection, e.g., loose terminations found in lighting. -
- Some NCR's are answered simply that the problem is not addresse'd' '
in Specification ES-100. .
- Recent NCR written because restraint cable (lighting)" crimp gages were worn & therefore, inspection was inadeouate. This is still being evaluated.
l - Wires of two different gages were tenninated at some lugs and many
( teminations are loose.
- Have more pressure not to write NCR's during turnover.
- Found loose LB's (elbow termination fittings) 9 East & South ends of Unit 1 Diesel Generators, wrote two NCR's, was accepted as is.
Found cables not trained (routed) in workmanlike manner in Unit 1 Cable Spread Room 9 junction boxes 1058 and 1059. NCR said OK because cable radius was OK but did not admit workmanship problem.
- Feels post construction inspectors were transferred to Unit 2 as retaliation for finding problems.
- Heard second hand that IR's (inspection reports) were being written falsely (without reinspection) to clear IIRN's (discrep-Heard from lady in Paper Flow Group ancy)
(PFG and report) ladyonincable vault.trayr..Said he would get back to NRC with more specifics.
Notes: Some review of the lighting termination issue and post check procedure was conducted by team menber Ruff. The site inspector -
indicated he had told of most of these issues and QA was -
evaluating. I forwarded concern relative to 1058 & 1059 junction boxes to RIV: Martin and he indicated he inspected these boxes and sees no technical problem. Resident Inspector: Smith partic-ipated in most of the interview and indicated he was aware of ~..
the D/G loose fittings and sees no technical problem. .I evaluated reasons why 6 personnel including were transferred to Unit 2 and this move does not appear to be discriminatory.
- - . - - - , - - , + . ,, - , , _ - --
~
a 67 Inspector Name: 'A-4 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Coments:
- Uncomfortable with some use-as-is situations, e.g., cable separation problem found in fuel building during walkdown did not meet procedure but was evaluated as use-as-is. He can show someone where it is.
- Wrote NCR on lack of 5-thread engagement on a conduit fitting
- poor evaluation in that they simply said that couldn't see it; a second NCR was written on this area for cable damage, seemed to be looking for a way to buy this area off, took two tries to get everything evaluated, knows about this but didn't get back
- to him on fact that NCR's were poorly handled, i.e., non-tech-nical aspects. ,
- Feels discriminated against in that he was transferred to Unit 2 where there is no overtime. Got grilled on cable damage NCR at the same time as being counseled on a personnel issue so it appeared that his transfer had something to do with NCR.
Management is aware of this concern.
Note: I did not review this person's transfer situation.
t
=
m
- - - ~ - - - - -
- -- - - - - - ~
- e. .
68 Inspector Name: A-5
)
Date Interviewed:
GIneral
Background:
Interviewee Coments:
- Had problems with post check, e.g., loose lighting terminations and junction boxes. Took lighting out of procedure and made it more difficult to look at junction boxes. Management was made aware of these concerns. (Has r,o significant safety concern)
- More tendency toward use-as-is when pressure is on (safety requirements are being met, however)
- Has had some fear of talking with NRC, didn't think reporting on-site would ever get off-site, doesn't have NRC RIV phone number
- Feels discriminated against by being transferred to Unit 2
- Some NCR evaluations are inaccurate or unclear, e.g., statement that workmanship was not compromised when in fact workmanship was poor but the item was technically acceptable Notes: I reviewed the transfer situation; appears to be reasonable but not as clear as reasoning on other 5 transfers. NRC Form 3 appears well posted so I'm not sure why he doesn't have the number. He does not appear to fear talking with NRC now.
Although, he stated he does not have significant safety / quality concerns, his coment on NCR answers is interesting. Similar general coments vere received from other inspectors and this could indicate a need for better answers on NCR's. An example would be that if a workmanship question was not addressed properly i then perhaps needed retraining of personnel as preventive action would not get performed. Perhaps the licensee needs to improve in this area. -
e
i s
69 Inspector Name: 'A-6 Date Interviewed:
Gen:ral Backgr.)und:
Interviewee Comments:
- Added higher sides to some cable trays to keep cables in trays
- Also there may be cable density / compaction problem in this area
- It's tough to keep people off trays to keep from damaging them
- Have had problems with clearance of pipe and cables, have to notch insulation, place metal between insulation and trays
- There is alot of rework to get proper separation Notes: This man was questioned primarily to get input for RIV review of cable spread room as to where there could be problems. He personally has little problem with plant quality. RIV - Martin
.was at the interview and verbal feedback on the first two items indicated that the situations were acceptable.
e
MEMORANDUM TO: Vincent S. Noonan,' Director Comanche Peak Project FRON: ( lDs1 u sMss DATE: 4 / j'
( / -
SUBJECT:
ALLEGER FEEDBACK Alleger i I A I A - L/
Allegation is Ad1-4#. /I S f - W (-
/
A. O Feedback Conducted:
Type of Feedback:
Feedback Date:
Staff Involved: .
A11eger Comments:
Followup Action Required: (listallegationsandanyNRCcommittments)
New Allegations:
l.
B. Feedback Not Conducted Justification:
g 1. A11eger declined feedback on /o 2 9 - F-gf
/
c 2. A11eger Address / Phone i Unknown D 3. Feedback Correspondence Undeliverable / Returned 4f- see Signature FO\A-85-59
SAE Oi -:
see. y (,3 $ foUNITED l' STATES ,
/ s u % :,g jo
,~>
.g o c j<M I g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg 3l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Q' JUL 131984 T)
/ -
a 1 Docket Nos.: 50-445 :
and 50-446 .
Mr. M. D. Spence 1 President Texas Utilities Generating Company 400 N. Olive Street, L. B. 81 Dallas, Texas .75201
Dear Mr. Spence:
Subject:
Comanche Peak Special Review Team Report Enclosed is the Special Review Team Report that resulted from the special review conducted during the period of April 3-13, 1984 at the Comanche Peak site. The purpose of the review was to: 1) evaluate the current implementa -
tion of the applicant's management control of the construction, inspection and test programs, 2) provide an indepth understanding and background infor-mation to the NRC management team established by the Executive Director for Operations, and 3) obtain information necessary to establish a management plan for resolution.of all outstanding regulator) actions.
The review identified a number of actions to be Tollowed by the TechnicaT Re-view Team established pursuant to the management plan. Additionally, three potential enforcement actions were identified during the review. These actions will be referred to the Administrator of Region IV for appropriate action.
The Special Review Team found during this limited review that your management l control over the construction, inspection, and testing programs is generally l effective and is receiving proper management attention. The Special Review Team concluded that your programs are being sufficiently controlled to allow continued plant construction while the NRC completes its review and inspection .
of the facility.
Should you have any questions concerning this review, we will be pleased to discu's s them with you.
Sincerely, r
arrell Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing ,
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl.: See next page M .
e o
60
- a. General The reviewer conducted tours of containment, auxiliary building, safeguards building, and control building for both units to generally i observe quality, work in progress, material control, and protection of HVAC equipment, as well as weld rod control. Discussions were held with craft and inspection personnel during these tours relative to plant quality.
- b. Review Effort Previous discrepancies identified by NRC regarding HVAC installation served as a driving force for thi, review effort. A review was made of evaluations and calculations perfonned as a result of the previously identified problems. In addition, the reviewer observed HVAC ducting and supports for confomance to applicable drawings, specifications, and standards.
The reviewer generally observed ducting in various areas of the containments, auxiliary building, safeguards buildings, and control building for both units for proper bolting, proper gaskets, and structural integrity. In addition, the inspector observed duct and equipment supports for confonnance to requirements. Supports reviewed included unit 2 duct hangers 2J-1R, 2J-IV, and 2J-RIB; Unit 1 duct hangers 1J-RIL, IJ-10C, 1E-1A, IE-1L, and 1H-RIG; floor mount of Unit 1 Train A Containment Spray Pump Room fan coil unit; and the two unit 1 Safety Injection Pump Room Fan Coil unit hangers.
- c. Conclusion No significant problems were identified relative to ducting. Only l minor problems, well within previous discrepancies evaluated, were found in duct supports. Dimensional variations were noted in the hangers for Safety Injection Pump Room Coolers. These deviations were analysed during the review indicating that these hangers were accept-able. Several minor drawing errors were also noted which were corrected during the review. The evaluations and corrective actions performed as a result of previously identified problems with HVAC installation appear to be adequate.
l I. Fonnal Interviews of QA/QC Personnel
- a. Fonnal interviews were conducted of QA/QC personnel in order to assist in assessing site quality and management support of site quality. It ~
was felt that discussions with inspection personnel would give a good conservative insight into whether or not the plant was being const-ructed properly. Interviews of five management personnel and twenty-eight inspectors were conducted. Inspectors were selected at random
'ith one exception. Electrical inspectors were primarily selected from -
a group of inspectors which had recently been involved in a personnel
4 61 incident involving a dress code "(Tee Shirt)" issue in order to assess whether these persons had significant technical concerns. In addition, two electrical inspectors indicated a desire to talk to NRC and were interviewed. ~ Several additional electrical inspectors were chosen in
' addition to inspectors in various other disciplines.
The group included inspectors working for eight different supervisors.
Experience of these personnel ranged from persons who had been in QC less than a year, to persons who had been at Comanche Peak from early construction (mid 1970s). Most had some previous experience such as site craft, non-nuclear industry or military experience. Some had worked at other nuclear facilities.
The major thrust of the interviews was to detemine if the personnel had any plant safety or quality concerns. Concerns in these areas were solicited from all those interviewed. Discussions of other subjects i
were also held with most of the individuals interviewed. These subjects included intimidation, support for identifying problems, ability to have problems evaluated and corrected as necessary, feedback
! on evaluation of problems, adequacy of training program, and relation-ship with NRC. ,
All but two inspectors stated they felt the plant would be safe which meant they had no significant quality problems which they felt would compromise safe operation. One inspector, who was not sure of the plant's safety, stated he was assigned to an area which was less controlled than he was used to, e.g., non-ASME code work versus ASME code work (which has the most stringent requirements), and was uncomfortable with the leeway allowed in this area. This person also indicated he had doubts about QA at nuclear plants in general. The other individual who was unsure of plant safety indicate he was satisfied with . quality with one exception. This involved a specific problem which he was not sure was adequately evaluated. This item was described to the NRC:RIV Senior Resident Inspector for followup. Two inspectors who stated they had decided on their own that they wanted to talk to NRC, expressed very strongly that the plant quality was
" excellent" and there was no plant safety concern. Another inspector, with over twenty-years' experience, who was at his fifth nuclear plant said Comanche Peak was the "best" plant he had seen.
Seven inspectors expressed one or more specific concerns. These concerns involved questions on whether a particular procedure rec,uire-ment or whether a particular technical evaluation was appropriate, documentation problems not involving quality of construction, questions -
whether certain personnel transfers were discriminatory, inaccuracies in some written Nonconfomance Report (NCR) evaluations, and concerns
' which had recently been brought up and were yet to be evaluated by the f licensee. All concerns have been forwarded to the Comanche Peak .
Project Director for followup for review and evaluation as necessary.
Several concerns were given to NRC:RIV personnel during this inspection and followup showed that there was no technical problem identified.
-v- . ~ ~ - _ _ , - . - - .._m , _ , _ _ - . , . . _ --__
62 The NRC Resident Inspector was familiar with one of the concerns and had already evaluated the condition as technically acceptable. Several additional concerns were given to RIV personnel verbally on the last day of this inspection for timely followup.
The special team interviewer reviewed the concern regarding transfers of six of seven individuals mentioned in the personnel transfer concerns. These transfers appeared to be non-discriminatory. It should be noted that in a~ll cases of concerns involving specific hardware discrepancies these discrepancies had been identified to appropriate licensee personnel and had been or were being evaluated.
All inspectors questioned (21) as to their ability to identify problems such as via NCRs, indicated no suppression in this area. Several inspectors indicated that NCR written evaluations could be more clear and complete in some cases.
Feedback regarding problems, such as via explanations of NCR evalua-tions, was considered good by 19 of the individuals questioned. One individual indicated he did not always receive complete feedback but these items did not involve significant technical concerns. Two individuals stated they felt uncomfortable with some "use-as-is" NCR evaluations. One stated that more feedback was needed as to reasons for procedure changes.
Many of the inspectors indicated that comunications were improving and the assignment of the new site QA manager was a positive step in improving comunications. It was clear that some communications problems had existed in the past and rapport between inspectors and their management had been strained previously in some areas. Comuni-cations in the ASME code construction area appeared to be exceptionally positive.
All but a few inspectors were questioned regarding intimidation by craft. No significant problems were identified although two indivi-duals mentioned two incidents when the craft were upset with inspectors when problems were found. No threats were made during these incidents.
Generally, the rapport between craft and inspection appeared to be very good.
Adequacy of the training program was discussed with approximately half of the inspectors. Several indicated that the femal training could be -
better, f.e., tougher (not necessarily more extensive) but fomal training, plus on-the-job training was adequate to perfom the -
inspection functions. Many stated that the training was excellent.
Twenty inspectors felt no hindrance at all to talking with NRC and indicated that the freedom to talk with NRC has been continually ,
stressed by management. Several indicated some apprehension about talking with NRC which appeared to be a natural fear of the position
,w= - ,--.-,--,,,------m----- - - . - - - - - - - , . - - , , ,
63 NRC holds. Several were under the impression for a short while that they must have their "act together" if they were going to see the NRC, but now appear to feel no hindrance. Most indicated they saw NRC inspectors regularly in the field but a majority indicated that they
~ had not talked directly with NRC in the field.
I Interviews of management indicated they were very supportive of inspectors and sensitive to inspector concerns. There appeared to be a strong encouragement for personnel to come forward with any concerns, as evidenced by a memorandum dated March 22, 1984, to all QA/QC personnel from the Site QA Manager. Postings indicating management support for inspectors and other personnel in identifying problems were prominently displayed along with NRC Form 3, NRC Infomation Notice 84-07 and 10 CFR 21 infomation.
' . In sumary, although 'some concerns were expressed requiring further l - review, these concerns did not appear to be excessive in number or serious and would be nomally expected during the interview process.
! Generally, the most experienced inspectors had a high confidence in the quality of the plant. Past problems in comunication and.some past apprehension about management support had existed but there seems to have been a marked improvement in this area. No one indicated that past comunication problems had caused them to not perform inspections properly or not to identify problems' when found. Inspector freedom to identify problems and freedom to talk with NRC has apparently been strongly stressed. Management appeared to be sensitive to employee concerns and appeared to be seriously evaluating existing concerns.
- b. In addition to fomal interviews, numerous informal discussions were held between the NRC team personnel and site managers, craft, inspec-tors, engineers, and office personnel as indicated previously in other sections of this report. The comments received from these individuals were consistent with those received during the formal interviews.
l These discussions covered topics such as plant quality, training, management support, and document control. , _
f -
f Appendix A, which fo1 Tow _s_, 1s a sanitized listing of concerns raised by %N
~ ~
individuals during the interview process. The concerns are only those ,
which will require followup by the Comanche Peak Project Director. )
i The interviews were sanitized only .so far as confidentiality is related.
x -
l.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i 64 APPENDIX A Inspector Name: A-1 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Coments:
- Uncomfortable with less structured program for non-ASME versus ASME; e.g., seem to change dwg. when structure doesn't meet original, can add welds in field and he doesn't think it gets incorporated into dwg., QC lead can approve changes to travelers for non-ASME structures, not much QA involvement in this area.
- Specific: Procedure QIQP 1114-12, electrical mounting backfit, craft complained so procedure was revised to reduce number of inspections, 4 revisions made to delete requirements (bolt tight-ening,etc.)
- Has the impression that QA has been generally deficient at nuclear plants and QC has not been supported at Comanche Peak in the past.
- Indicated main problem is probably him being able to adjust to non-ASME work: is not aware of code violations taking place.
l l .
l E
n _g --, - - ,, , . _ , - - -.----e ,
- , - , - _ ~ , 7
- j .
65 l
l Inspector Name: A-2 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Coments:
- Has some concern with use-as-is NCR situations, use-as-is seems particularly prevalent when using Specification ES-100.
- Specific Technical Concern: NCR was written when cable damage occurred during Biso Seal removal using a threaded rod. This occurred in Auxiliary Building, elev. 832'. NCR said no damage was done to cable but some insulation nad been scraped off by rod. Feel further evaluation may be in order for these cables and there may be similar problems elsewhere.
- Specific: Wrote 2 NCR's regarding traceability of fuse blocks.
Blocks were not marked "Q". NCR said OK as-is because no non-Q blocks were purchased via order MS-605. Feels other similar non-Q blocks have been purchased via different purchase order and could have been installed as Q. Thinks this a possible papemork problem.
- S7ecific: Wrote recent NCR (not yet evaluated) on GE Motor Control Centers. Compression lugs have bends as much as 180 4 degrees (more than nomally done done by site construction).
Don't think GE can violate requirements and may be a problem elsewhere in GE MCC's. Also have some broken wire strands which we are fixing as we find.
- Specific: Had previous papemork conflict problem in solving rework of teminal blocks. 6 page RFIC involved and Proc. SAP-6 invol ved. Wrote 2 NCR's. NRC inspectors Creek and Johnson were aware, Creek told NRC inspector Taylor, Taylor told to have an answer. Never got feedback as to results.
- Specific: Repaired a solenoid, shortly after coming to Comanche Peak in craft, without papemork. Don't know if it was safety related. Not concerned with solenoid technically - did a
- good job.
Notes: The specific concerns were given verbally to the SRI - Construction on 4/12/84 for further followup. It was indicated during the interview he would get more specifics for SRI. MCC problem was still being evaluated. I l suggest allowing the licensee to evaluate and then followup for adequacy of .
corrective action.
66 .
Inspector Name: A-3 ,
Date Interviewed:
Gen 2ral
Background:
Interviewee Comments: ,
- Generally concerned with finding numerous problems during Isast.
construction inspection and procedure being changed to delete inspection, e.g., loose terminations found in lighting.
- Some NCR's are answered simply that the problem is not addres.se'd' in Specification ES-100.
- Recent NCR written because restraint cable (lighting) crimp gages were worn & therefore, inspection was inadequate. This is.still being evaluated.
- Wires of two different gages were terminated at some lugs and many terminations are loose. .
- Have more pressure not to write NCR's during turnover.
- Found loose LB's (elbow tennination fittings) 9 East & South ends of Unit 1 Diesel Generators, wrote two NCR's, was accepted as is.
Four.) cables not trained (routed) in workmanlike manner in Unit 1 Cable Spread Room 9 junction boxes 1058 and 1059. NCR said OK because cable radius was OK but did not admit workmanship problem.
- Feels post construction inspectors were transferred to Unit 2 as retaliation for finding problems.
- Heard second hand that IR's (inspection reports) were being written falsely (without reinspection) to clear IIRN's (discrep-Heard from lady in Paper Flow Group ancy) report)
(PFG and lady onincable vault.trays.Said he would get back to NRC with more specifics.
Notes: Some review of the lighting termination issue and post check procedure was conducted by team member Ruff. The site inspector indicated he had told of most of these issues and QA was -
evaluating. I forwarded concern relative to 1058 & 1059 junction boxes to RIV: Martin and he. indicated he inspected these boxes and sees no technical problem. Resident Inspector: Smith partic-1 pated in most of the interview and indicated he was aware of "*
the D/G loose fittings and sees no technical problem. I evaluated reasons why 6 personnel including were transferred to Unit 2 and this move does not appear to be discriminatory.
A .
67 Inspector Name: A-4 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Connents:
- Uncomfortable with some use-as-is situations, e.g., cable separation problem found in fuel building during walkdown did not meet procedure but was evaluated as use-as-is. He can show someone where it is.
- Wrote NCR on lack of 5-thread engagement on a conduit fitting
- poor evaluation in that they simply said that couldn't see it; a second NCR was written on this area for cable damage, seemed to be
, looking for a way to buy this area off, took two tries to get everything evaluated. knows about this but didn't get back
- to him on fact that NCR's were poorly handled, i.e., non-tech-nical aspects.
- Feels discriminated against in that he was transferred to Unit 2 where there is no overtime. Got grilled on cable damage NCR at the same time as being counseled on a personnel issue so it appeared that his transfer had something to do with NCR.
Management is aware of this concern.
Note: I did not review this person's transfer situation.
i m
9
.Oe .m. , e ,. .,
l F F Dee De M 4--* w . a .
. ._, _-_ - . __se_. _ _ , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ - _ _ . . _ . , , . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _
i .
. 68 Inspector Name:* A-5 Date Interviewed:
.t G2neral
Background:
Interviewee Connents:
- Had problems with post check, e.g., loose lighting tenninations and junction boxes. Took lighting out of procedure and made it more difficult to look at junction boxes. Management was made aware of these concerns. (Hasnosignificantsafetyconcern)
- More tendency toward use-as-is when pressure is on (safety requirements are being met, however)
- Has had some fear of talking with NRC, didn't think reporting on-site would ever get off-site, doesn't have NRC RIV phone number
- Feels discriminated against by being transferred to Unit 2
< - Some NCR evaluations are inaccurate or unclear, e.g., statement that workmanship was not compromised,when in fact workmanship was poor but the item was technically acceptable t Notes: I reviewed the transfer situation; appears to be reasonable but not as clear as reasoning on other 5 transfers. NRC Fonn 3 appears well posted so I'm not sure why he doesn't have the number. He does not appear to fear talking with NRC now.
Although, he stated he does not have significant safety / quality concerns, his comment on NCR answers is interesting. Similar general comments were received from other inspectors and this could indicate a need for better answers on NCR's. An example would be that if a workmanship question was not addressed properly l then perhaps needed retraining of personnel as preventive action would not get perfonned. Perhaps the licensee needs to improve in this area.
l l
l l '
i
a I
69 9
Inspector Name: 'A-6 Date Interviewed:
General
Background:
Interviewee Coments:
- Added higher sides to some cable trays to keep cables in trays 1
. Also there may be cable density / compaction problem in this area
- It's tough to keep people off trays to keep from damaging them
- Have had problems with clearance of pipe and cables, have to notch insulation, place inetal between insulation and trays
- There is alot of rework to get proper separation Notes: This man was questioned primarily to get input for RIV review of cable spread room as to where there could be problems. He personally has little problem with plant quality. RIV - Martin was at the interview and verbal feedback on the first two items indicated that the situations were acceptable.
l l
l l
(
I twe*******
- o.e _ .
>2 Cf c F/C E W
, # o g UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
h -
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\*****/ FEB 111985 Docket No.: 50-455 and 50-446 MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director Comanche Peak Division of Licensing FROM: Annette Vietti, Project Manager Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT)
Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
FEEDBACK INTERVIEW 0F WITNESS SRT-A-5 On Thursday, November 8, 1984, Witness SRT-A-5 was interviewed in person by A. Vietti, J. Zudans, and J. Calvo of the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) staff. This interview held Granbury, Texas, was to provide feedback from the TRT's investigation into the concerns raised by this witness during the Special Review Team inspection of April 3-13, 1984. This report was issued July 13, 1984.
This feedback interview was transcribed and a copy of the transcript is attached.
In addition, the TRT reviewed a deposition that was taken of the individual during discovery for the ASLB intimidation hearings and considered technical concerns raised in the deposition.
. During this interview J. Calvo presented the results of the TRT investigation i into electrical and instrumentation concerns AQE-46, AQE-47, AQE-48, AQE-52 and AE-53. A. Vietti presented the results of the TRT investigation into a QA/QC i concern AQE-41.
The witness was s-tisfied with the results of the TRT's investigation into the concerns and prov ded us with no further information.
During the interview the witness stated he did not desire confidentiality. The witness was informed that it was routine that the staff would limit the use of his name to a "need to know" basis.
Q 'O Annette Vietti, Project Manager Comanche Peak Technical Review Team Division of Licensing cc: See next page i
l we 8g. F0lh85-5v(
c W7
4
. Vincent S. Noonan 2 cc: w/o enc 1. w/ enc 1.
J. Zudans J. Calvo D. Eisenhut B. Hayes S. Treby E. Case J. Youngblood Docket File 50-445 and 50-446 0
FEP 111985 Docket No.: 50-455 and 50-446 MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director Comanche Peak Division of Licensing FROM: Annette Vietti, Project Manager Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT)
Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
FEEDBACK INTERVIEW 0F WITNESS SRT-A-5 On Thursday, November 8, 1984, Witness SRT-A-5 was interviewed in person by A. Vietti, J. Zudans, and J. Calvo of the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) staff. This intersiew held Granbury, Texas, was to provide feedback from the TRT's investigation '.nto the concerns raised by this witness during the Special Review Team inspection of April 3-13, 1984. This report was issued July 13,1984.
This feedback interview was transcribed and a copy of the transcript is attached.
In addition, the TRT reviewed a deposition that was taken of the individual during discovery for the ASLB intimidation hearings and considered technical concerns raised in the deposition.
During this interview J. Calvo presented the results of the TRT investigation into electrical and instrumentation concerns AQE-46, AQE-47, AQE-48, AQE-52 and AE-53. A. Vietti presented the results of the TRT investigation into a QA/QC concern AQE-41.
The witness was satisfied with the results of the TRT's investigation into the concerns and provided us with no further information.
During the interview the witness stated he did not desire confidentiality. The witness was informed that it was routine that the staff would limit the use of his name to a "need to know" basis.
Annette Vietti, Project Manager Comanche Peak Technical Review Team Division of Licensing cc: See next page ifRR/CPTRT dwtw%
\\ /10/84
. Vincent S. Noonan 2 cc: D. Eisenhut B. Hayes S. Treby J. Youngblood J. Calvo J. Zudanz A. Vietti Docket File 50-445/446 l
l l
l l
Document Name:
MEMO WITNESS SRT-A-5
. Requestor's ID:
LINDA Author's Name:
Poslusny Document Comments:
11/28/84 Final E
a l
l I
l l
FEB 111985 0
Docket No.: 50-455 and 50-446 MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director Comanche Peak Division of Licensing FROM: Annette Vietti, Project Manager Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT)
Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
FEEDBACK INTERVIEW OF WITNESS SRT-A-5 On Thursday, November 8, 1984, Witness SRT-A-5 was interviewed in person by A. Vietti, J. Zudans, and J. Calvo of the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) staff. This interview held Granbury, Texas, was to provide feedback from the TRT's investigation into the concerns raised by this witness during the Special Review Team inspection of April 3-13, 1984. This report was issued July 13, 1984.
This feedback interview was transcribed and a copy of the transcript is attached.
In addition, the TRT reviewed a deposition that was taken of the individual during discovery for the ASLB intimidation hearings and considered technical concerns raised in the deposition.
. During this interview J. Calvo presented the results of the TRT investigation into electrical and instrumentation concerns AQE-46, AQE-47, AQE-48, AQE-52 and AE-53. A. Vietti presented the results of the TRT investigation into a QA/QC concern AQE-41.
The witness was satisfied with the results of the TRT's investigation into the concerns and provided us with no further information.
During the interview the witness stated he did not desire confidentiality. The witness was informed that it was routine that the staff would limit the use of his name to a "need to know" basis.
Annette Vietti, Project Manager Comanche Peak Technical Review Team Division of Licensing cc: See next page yRR/CPTRT OwtL%
\\ /1C/84
. Vincent S. Noonan 2 cc: D. Eisenhut B. Hayes S. Treby J. Youngblood J. Calvo J. Zudanz A. Vietti .
Docket File 50-445/446 3
( .
2 1
l I
~,
(AM $M a u..
- UNITED STATES o,, -
8 a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. ! ,I ,
wassincrow. o. c. rosss
\...../ .
FEB 111985 Docket No.: 50 455 and 50 446 MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director Comanche Peak Division of Licensing FROM: Annette Vietti, Project Manager Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT)
Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
FEEDBACK INTERVIEW OF WITNESS SRT-A-5 On Thursday, November 8, 1984, Witness SRT-A-5 was interviewed in person by A. Vietti, J. Zudans, and J. Calvo of the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) staff. This interview held Granbury, Texas, was to provide feedback from the TRT's investigation into the con'cerns raised by this witness during the Special Review Team inspection of April 3-13, 1984. This report was issued July 13, 1984.
This feedback interview was transcribed and a copy of the transcript is attached.
In addition, the TRT reviewed a deposition that was taken of the individual during discovery for the ASLB intimidation hearings and considered technical concerns raised in the deposition.
During this interview J. Calvo presented the results of the TRT investigation into electrical and instrumentation concerns AQE-46, AQE-47, AQE-48, AQE-52 and AE-53. A. Vietti presented the results of the TRT investigation into a QA/QC concern AQE-41.
The witness was satisfied with the results of the TRT's investigation into the concerns and provided us with no further information.
During the interview the witness stated he did not desire confidentiality. The witness was informed that it was routine that the staff would limit the use of his name to a "need to know" basis.
y' i d%
Annette Vietti, Project Manager Comanche Peak Technical Review Team Division of Licensing cc: See next page
/psang'o
/
~
UNITED STATES <' '
(
~~~
I 8"
'j o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i I
~CIRd' NOV 6 1984 l
Li fJ e l
[' MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noonan Project Director Comanche Peak FROM: Dick Wessman
- Technical Review Team /
Comanche Peak
SUBJECT:
EFFORT TO CONDUCT FEEDBA INTERVIEW 0F WITNESSES SRT-A-5, T-A- and A-38 This is to document the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) staff efforts to interview witnesses SRT-A-5, SRT-A-6 and SRT-A-38. The interviews were for the purpose of providing feedback to these individuals regarding the TRT assessment of concerns they had raised regarding construction of the Comanche Peak facility. -
Witnesses SRT-A-2, SRT-A-5 and SRT-A-6 were contacted during*the week of October 22, 1984 by R.C. Tang of TRT staff. (Two additional individuals who worked with SRT-A-2, SRT-A-5 and SRT-A-6 were also contacted because of their potential interest in the subject matter.) Tentative arrangements were made for a group interview to be held late in the afternoon on Tuesday, October 30, 1984. On October 29, 1984, the individuals were recontacted by R.C. Tang to confirm the time and place of the interview (scheduled for 4:00 pm on October 30, 1984, at the Granbury Inn with R. Wessman and A. Johnson of the TRT sta.ff). SRT-A-5 stated that the group had discussed the proposed meeting and decided not to participate. No specific reason was fiven. SRT-A-5 subsequently agreed (in a phone conversation on the %n ing of October 30, 1984) to attend an interview at 6:30 pm at the G W Jry nn. SRT-A-5 failed to appear for the scheduled interview. Efforts b. . ;;sman to reach him by phone that evening were unsuccessful.
Witness SRT-A-2 appeared the afternoon of October 30, 1984 and met with the NRC staff. The results of that interview are documented separately. SRT-A-2 said he had not seen SRT-A-5 that day and that he did not know anything about SRT-A-5's failure to appear.
Witness A-38 was contacted during the week of October 22, 1984 by R.C. Tang.
He agreed to a tentative interview on October 30, 1984. R. Wessman ymmf , F0lA-85-59 e wr
- '984 4
f.0V recontacted A-38 on the evening of Octobe'r 29 and established a mutally agreeab7b meeting time of 8:00 pm, October 30, 1984 at the Granbury Inn.
Witness A-38 failed to appear for the scheduled meeting. Efforts by * '-
R. Wessman to reach him by phone that evening were unsucesssful.
- h Dick Wessman Technical Review Team Comanche Peak f
cc: R.C. Tang D. Eisenhut B. Hayes, 01 f
.h f
Am9
, S 2 7" -G ( 7~. OEwEY CUUCI0 QAn 3 hka o =.g 3 c 3 PIGS
+ *g UNITED STATES O o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O 8 W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20666
'+,.....,o NOV 6 1gy MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noonan Project Director Comanche Peak FROM: Dick Wessman Technical Review Team Comanche Peak
SUBJECT:
EFFORT TO CONDUCT FEEDBACK INTERVIEW OF WITNESSES SRT-A-5, SRT-A-6 and A-38 This is to document the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) staff efforts to interview witnesses SRT-A-5 SRT-A-6 and SRT-A-38. The interviews were for the purpose of providing feedback to these individuals regarding the TRT assessment of concerns they had raised regarding construction of the Comanche Peak facility.
Witnesses SRT-A-2, SRT-A-5 and SRT-A-6 were contacted during the week of October 22, 1984 by R.C. Tang of TRT staff. (Two additional individuals who worked with SRT-A-2, SRT-A-5 and SRT-A-6 were also contacted because of their potential interest in the subject matter.) Tentative arrangements were made for a group interview to be held late in the afternoon on Tuesday, October 30, 1984. On October 29, 1984, the individuals were recontacted by R.C. Tang to confirm the time and place of the interview (scheduled for 4:00 pm on October 30, 1984, at the Granbury Inn with R. Wessman and A. Johnson of the TRT staff). SRT-A-5 stated that the group had discussed the proposed meeting and decided not to participate. No specific reason was given. SRT-A-5 subsequently agreed (in a phone conversation on the morning of October 30, 1984) to attend an interview at 6:30 pm at the Granbury Inn. SRT-A-5 failed to appear for the scheduled interview. Efforts by R. Wessman to reach him by phone that evening were unsuccessful.
Witness SRT-A-2 appeared the afternoon of October 30, 1984 and met with the NRC staff. The results of that interview are documentcd scparately. SRT-A-2 said he had not seen SRT-A-5 that day and that he did not know anything about SRT-A-5's failure to appear.
Witness A-38 was contacted during the week of October 22, 1984 by R.C. Tang.
He agreed to a tentative interview on October 30, 1984. R. Wessman
NOV b 1984 recontacted A-38 on the evening of October 29 and established a mutally agreeable meeting time of 8:00 pm, October 30, 1984 at the Granbury Inn.
Witness A-38 failed to appear for the scheduled meeting. Efforts by R. Wessman to reach him by phone that evening were unsuccessful, h
Dick Wessman Technical Review Team Comanche Peak cc: R.C. Tang D. Eisenhut B. Hayes, OI i
I i
l
MEMORANDUM TO: Vincent S. Noonan. Director Comanche Peak Project FRON: $.heslosb'y DATE: S !2/ I -
/ /
SUBJECT:
ALLEGER FEEDBACK A11eger # I/T MM Allegation is 4f -2 9. A I -Io A f- F/ Ao J t/ s
/ /
A. O Feedback Conducted:
Type of Feedback:
Feedback Date:
Staff Involved:
A11eger Comnents:
Followup Action Required: (list allegations and any NRC committments)
New Allegations:
B. 15 Feedback Not Conducted Justification:
p 1. A11eger declined feedback on _ _ //-//-y r3 2. A11eger Address / Phone i Unknown i
D 3. Feedback Correspondence Undeliverable /Returr.ed l a- wer Signature F01A-85-59 !
fl1D
A 'ZI f dASE D2- l 4//c 4" I w ,3
_no,f n,e/e ,
19 IN - (s 3 % , , g a jo n 44 4a se/) M cd hbh,';f"'
WDC w-u wwi, acc. ,u d 4 ,<,w e i b'b:7"~~/
naw-2s m s _ z ai weas
- ,c. - ~ a .-
- A; l . [ ***e A P-lo S w ,,ye by1 ~d Aiue - Rp,/qe:s>><:
SbuAY N L suresek ]n SE'/2 h 0]eedu/Qlifiply t*
- 6 p ri d e a yesteby o< k m. M/sM ex copie.s L 4e. avs 4 4/e n wt- f.Why (. r etoe d .,s - A Slwudd Sd //-w/ d cyy a.6 M fine, wM.
s-/-r c FC A-85-5On,
O MEMORANDUM TO: Vincent S. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Project FROM: $ f/5LUS/VF DATE: (I/[6 j ..
(
SUBJECT:
ALLEGER FEEDBACK Alleger # [r d [
Allegation is A/-h AN/d AduhA5 /1//.JdY A4ud. 3
/ / /
A. O Feedback Conducted:
Type of Feedbac't:
Feedback Date:
Staff Involved:
Alleger Coninents:
Followup Action Required: (list allegations and any NRC consnittments) i New Allegations:
B. @ Feedback Not Conducted Justification: / f JQ l. Alleger decifned feedback on 4/ u / Fj'
/ /
c 2. Alleger Address / Phone i Unknown j D 3. Feedback Correspondence Undeliverable / Returned i
/Y N4 b 2! f)
F0lA-85-59 (8 %
a h-TELEPHONE C0flVERSATION RECORD PARTY CALLED: A-22 11/8/84 9:20AM (called 8:55PM cn 11/7/FL, no answeri He was very bitter. He said that NRC shoulc have done this years ago.
He said that NRC is trying to save face and p.rotect itself. He acrtiered his interview by E. Griffin (NRC/01) a few years ago and apparently is unhappy about it. He said that he recently saw the TUGC0 lawyer (Rar.c1('s) and was told by him thet the polar crane had been fixed. I told him that I could not comment on this but would be glad to arrange for an intervice with him for such discusticns. He said that he was leaving for Lcs Angeles tomorrow (11/9/84) and wculd stay there for 3 months. He said he wcs very busy packing.
He did agree to t;'lk to fF.C/TRT for a few minutes this afterr. con but refused to drive across town. he finally agreed to possibly meet at Ramada Inn on South Freeway, Ft. Worth, Texas. He also said that he neeced tc check with Juanita Ellis (CASE) on this.
I then called R. E.cr; cart (P-IV). He said that S. Phillips ano W. Smith would handle A-EE's allegatiers (AM-14, AM-15) sirre Bangart would not be at the office this cfterrcer. A-22 also has another allegaticn on welding. The TRT reviewer Ferrarini is flying to Washington, DC frem tFc site tocay. I phoned S. Fre (section leader) and was tc1d that f:asterson could do the telephone interview ter Ferrc.riri. Since this is such a sFert retic <i and d i revichcrs are at different locations (R- V, CP5ES site, rgt
, C' E f b ,
w i
I it v.as determined that a telephone interview would be the most appropriate order the circumstances. R. Bangart wculd contact A-22 re a mutucl!y agreesble time for the interview today.
10:25AM - Doyle Hunnicut (R-IV) called. He had centacted A-22 and A .22 agreed to talk to TRT erytire today by telephone.
11:10AM - A conference call is scheduled fer 1PM (EST) today.
Participating parties are: Dcrwin Hunter, Doyle Hunnicut, Sharci, Phillips, L'ard Smith (all from R-IV), John Zudans (TPT Steff), Bob Masterson (TRT raechanical/ piping reviewer) and e ecurt reporter (ACE Federal). A transcrip:
is ordered for the next day.
C.C. Terc, TRT cc: V. Noonan, TRT
- . , . . - . . . , , - . , _ , . , . - . _ . - - - . . - . . . , - - , . - . . . - , . .. . . , - . . . - . , - - - - _ . - . . - . - - , . . . , . . - - .