ML20207E606

Affidavit of B Brink.* Discusses Concern Re Operation of Plant.W/Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc

ML20207E606
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/12/1988
From:	Brink B CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION
To:
Shared Package
ML20207E518	List: ML20207E515 ML20207E526 ML20207E594 ML20207E606
References
CPA, OL, NUDOCS 8808180104
Download: ML20207E606 (57)

Text

-

AFFIDAVIT OF SETTY ERINK

-STATE OF TEXAS S 5

COUNTY OF TARRANT $

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared Betty Brink who, being by me duly sworn, on her oath deposed and said as follows:

"My. name is Betty Brink. I am over the age of eighteen years and I am competent to make this affidavit.

"I am a duly authorized representative of Citizens for Fair Utility Regula tion. I reside at 7600 Anglin Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76119. The foregoing petition was prepared under my supervision and direction and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it and the facts contained therein are true and correct.

My family and I use the area within fifty miles of the plant for many . recreational activities including canoeing in the Brazos diver. The area within five miles of the plant is a favorite camping site for my family ano we use it during the summer for hiking and fishing. I frequently visit the restored town of Granbury, a local tourist attraction, that is within twelve miles of the plant. I eat the food produced within fifty miles of the plant. I live on and own property that has been in the family for fifty-seven years. I am concerned that operation of the plant will cause loss of health to myself and my family aio Mat 8808180104g8]8 ADOCK 0 45 PDR PDR 0

ATTACHMENT C

safety proolems at the plant will J eopardize .T.y .ife and ny property." ,

/ -

SETTY HINK SUBSCRIBED TO AND SWORN BEFORE ME, on this the [ day of July, 1988.

/

~

, --* ?;r ANN W SCWAITMAN. Notary Pytlic

@ ./

'h - co ss$n [r'eI[$t y" Notary Puolic, State or Texas NA/ . GANMd Printeo name of Notary Puolic My Commission Expires: 3!U 8[

/ /

t 1

- ,- - , - _ , , .. - . , . - . , - , _ - -,e. . - . , ,--,,._.-,--,,m- - , _ _ _ _ _. - ---4-, ,

l l

l PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 1

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWRRN CASE, l

MRS.JUANITA ELLIS AND TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY I l

l RECTPAI4 This Settlement Agreement is made and entered into this 28th day of June,1988, between Texas Utilities Electric Company, separately and acting as the Project Manager under the Joint Ownership Agreement on behalf of all the owners of CPSES (hereinafter collectively referred to as "TU Electric"), Citizens AssociatiNfor Sound Energy and Mrs.

Juanita Ellis (hereinafter the use of the term "CASE" shall refer to Citizens Association for Sound Energy and Mrs. Juanita Ellis in her capacity as President of CASE. Provisions of this Agreement specifying Mrs. Juanita Ellis in any capacity other than as President of CASE shall refer specifically to Mrs.Juanita Ellis):

WHEREAS, TU Electric and Citizens Association for Sound Energy ("CASE") are parties to a number of proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in connecticn with the licensing of Comanche Penk Steam Electric Station Units 16nd 2 <

("CPSES"), as more fully descrioed in paragraph 1.1 of Article 1 of this Settlement Agreement ("Agreement"); and WHEREAS, TU Electric and CASE have decided that those proceedings should cc ,

resolved in accordance with the terms of this-Agreement; THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:

OPERATIVE PROVISIONS I. Resolution of All NRC Proceedings 1.1. TU Electric and CASE agree to execute and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") a Joint Stipulation and Joint Motion for Dismissal of NRC droceedings, specifically Docket Nos. 50-445 OL, 50-446 OL and 50-445 CPA, in a form ATTAC10!ENT D

1

. . , as set forth in Exhibits A and B attached to this Agreement the terms of wnica are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes of this Agreement.

1,2. TU Electric and CASE agree to prosecute diligently, in accordance with their respective charters, such Joint Stipulation and Joint Motion for Dismissal and to provide i any additional information, file any additional pleadings, make such appearances, and provide such support before the NRC and any other body as may be necessary to effectuate me cirmissal of the above-referenced NRC proceedings. In fulfilling their respective obligations under this paragraph, Mrs. Juanita Ellis or other representatives of CASE wul not be required to undertake travel away from Dallas, Texas, 1.3. Upon the effactive f.ste of the Joint Stipultion, CASE and Mrs. Juanita Euis agree that they wul not contest before the NRC, any cther regulatory body or any court the issuance. of any_on=*=ti=g_ll_c.sLise_or_any amaadmants.to_the_ construction permit for CPSES Units I r.n 12, includinst the iguanq_e___of any associated licenses or permits, except as expressly provided in the Jcint Stipulation. This provision does not apply to any proceedings before the Texas P'ibile Utilities Commission nor, notwIi5s'tanding Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2. does it apply,to any_ amendments to fuu power CPSES operat2ng !] censes. This agreem nt is based.upon.the undnitanding and. trust by CASE tnat TV Electric nas agreed to complete and carry through on its commitments as provida<1 in the Joint Stipulation to ensure that the design and construction of CPSES Units 1 and 2 are accordplished correct!.y in a manner specified by TU Eleottic and approved by the NRC Stdf.

II. Commitments of TU Electrie_

2.1. TU Electric agrees to comply with the Joint Stipulation when 9ffective.

2.2. TU Electric agreet that Wullam G. Counsil Executive Vice President, Nucleac Engineering and Optrations will continue to serve as the orimary point of contact for CASE within TU Electric lw the period tn.it a representative of CASE serves on the Operations Review Cor.1mittes pursuant to the Joint Stipulation. TU Electric wul take no action to prevent or lessan ?!r. Counsu's accessibility to CASE while he is employed by

TU Electric. Nor shall TU Electric terminate Mr. Counsil's employment for reasons inconsistent with this paragraph 2.2. In the event Mr. Counsil ceases to be employed oy )

TU Electric, CASE may designate any then-current TU Electric nuclear officer 1/ as the primary point of contact and may change such contact at CASE's discretion.

2.3. In recognition of CASE's concerns asout workers formerly employed in connection with the construction of the CPSES, who may have employment discrimination j claims against TU Electric or a contractor thereof, whether pending or anticipated, at tne  !

time of the signing of this Agreement, or who have assisted CASE in the CPSES licensmg proceeding, TU Electric has also entered into good faith settlement negotiations whien will resolve the disputes with the representatives of the former workers currently engaged in litigation if and when the Joint Stipulation becomes effective. Now and'in the future, TU Electric agrees to make a goori faith effort to investigate and resolve issues brougnt to CASE by CPSES workers or others.

2.4. Contingent upon the Joint Stipulation becoming effective, then upon either the issuance of a dismisse.1 of Docket Nos. 50-445 OL, 50-446 OL and 50-445 CPA or the issuance of an operating licens,a to operate CPSES Unit 1, whichever comes first, TU Electric willissue to the public and the news media the following statement and will file with the NRC the request I* that it be made part of the record of the ASLB proceeding in the previously referenced OL and CPA dockats:

1/ As used herein, nuclear officer means the Executive Vice President of Nuclear Engineering and Operations, or any officer who reports directly to him.

2,/ It is agreed that the parties will file within five (5) days after entry of an Order of Dismissal of said Dockets such staterrent as reflected in Exhibit C hereto together with any additional docunnnts to be included b the ASLB rece,rd, providing the parties have mutually agreed in advence to the appropriateness of suon additional inclusions in the record, provided, however, that all documents specifically identified in the Index of Exhibits to the Joint Stipulation shall be excepted from this provision. This Agreement will be contingent upon admission of the statement in the record of the  ;

proceedings.  ?

l L

\

TU Electric recognizes that the Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) l and its President, Mrs. Juanita EUis, have made a substantial, personal, and unselfish contribution to the regulatory process wnien assures that Comanche i Peak Steam Electric Station ("Comanche Peak") wiu be a safer plant. Througn the untiring efforts of CASE representatives, deficiencies wnich existed in the early 1980's have been revealed in the design of substantial portions of the plant which no one else including TU Electrie. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), or other tnird party experts had fully recogmzed or discovereo. As a result Comanche Peak is a better, safer plant than before and, through the reinspection and Corrective Action Program, has a grer.9er assurance of safety and reliable generation. We commend CASE, together with its technical advisors, Jack Doyle and Mark Walsh, and other worxers, public interest organizations, and supporters for their courage and devotion to ,

CASE's goals of finding the facts and informing the puDlic. Because of these activities, CASE's President, Mrs. Ellis, has been appointed to the Operations Review Committee ("ORC") at Comanche Peak, an unpaid but important position which will provide CASE with the opportunity to continue to play an active part in assuring itself that Comanche Peak is as safe a nuclear facility as possible.

The ORC is required by the Comanche Peak technical specifications and functions as an independent body assigned the responsibility for review of various safety related matters including nuclear power plant operations, nuclear engineering, radiological safety and quality assurance practices among others. Among its duties, the ORC will be responsible for independent review of proposed modifications to the Comanche Peak facilities or procedures, changes to the Technical Specifications and license amendments, any violations or deviations which are required to be reported to NRC and other safety related matters deemed appropriate by the ORC members. The ORC meets periodically to review and discuss various issues bearing on the safe operation of Comanche Peak and reports its findings and recommendations directly to the Executive Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations.

Tti Electric _also recognizes. its_own. shortcomings in assuring the NRC that they fulfilled NRC Regulations.___We. acknowledge thr.t nuclear expertise did not exist to meet those demands and that its nuclear management did not have

~

full sensitivity to the regulatory environment. CASE, Mrs. Ellis, and her colleagues played a sotistihtIal part in~ achieving our current level of

- awareness.- -- - -

IH. CPSES Operations Review Committee 3.1. As provided in the Joint Stipulation, CASE's designated representative, Mrs. Ellis, or its designated alternate, will serve, without salary reimbursement from TU Electric, as a member of the Operations Review Committee ("ORC"). In the event Mrs. Etis resigns or is otherwise unable to serve, CASE may designate a representative.

3.2. TU Electric agrees that CASE's designated representative, Mrs. Ellis, or its alternate, in furtherance of his/her duties as a member of the ORC, may engage the

. .g .

services of one or more technical consultants 2/ at TU Electric's expense.

Suen consultant (s) shall be subject only to the qualification requirements of CASE and not those of TU Electric. The total fees and expenses of all such technical consultants shall not exceed $150,000.00 on an annual basis, such fees to De in addition to any amcunts payaoie pursuant to paragraphs 4.1 and 6.1. Such payment shall continue during such period of service on ORC in accordance with paragraph A.6 of the Joint Stipulation.

3.3. in addition to the fees and expenses of technical consultants set forth in paragraph 3.2, TU Electric agrees to reimburse CASE's representative, Mrs. Ellis, or its alternate for any other reasonable costs and expenses he/she may incur in furtherance of his/her duties as a member of the ORC, in accordance with normal TU Electric company I policy.

IV. Reimbursement of Licensing Costs and E&

, 4.1. In recognition of the significant contribution made by CASE and the tremendous cost and expenses incurred by CASE from 1979 through 1988 in the NRC l

licensing proceedings involving CPSES, including the separate, simultaneous dockets in 1984 and 1985, and the dockets relating to the construction permit extension requests and appeals therefrom to the NRC and the Federal Courts, TU Electric agrees to reimburse CASE the amount of V 500,000 for all costs, expenses, attorneys fees, consultants fees, court costs, salaries and debts incurred by CASE in the past and pay for such costs and expenses'which CASE will incur in closing out its participation in the NRC licensing proceedings and_ establishing _its oversight role. .

4.2. The payment specified in paragraph 4.1 will be made to CASE within thirty daysw of the date the Joint Stipulation becomes effective in the manner specified by CASE at that time. _ . _ _ _

3/ As used herein, "consultant" shall mean any individual hired by either CASE or TU Electric for the purpose of providing advice, recommendations, opinions, technical assistance, or special services, whether or not paid by salary, commission or any other form of reimbursement.

4.3 Payment obugations hereunder na11 not be suoject to Aroitration.

V. Mutual Releases 5.1. Upon the effective date of the Joint Stipulation, TU Electric agrees to release and discharge CASE and 31rs. Juanita Ellis, their successors, assigns, officers, Boaro of Directors, members, consultants and attorneys from any and all claims, demands, and causes of action that TU Electric may now have or that might sucsequently accrue arising out of or connected in any way with the design, construction, operation or Ucensing of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

5.2. Upon the effective date of the Joint Stipulation, CASE and Stes. Juanita Ellis each agree to release and discharge TU Electric, its predecessors, successors, assigns and any of its parent or sister companies, officers, directors, managers, agents, employees, contractors,M consultants and attorneys from any and all claims, demands, and causes of

, action that CASE or Juanita Ellis may now have or which might subsequently accrue arising out of or connected in any way with the design, construction, operation or licensing of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

5.3. At the time of payment by TU Electric pursuant to paragraph 4.1 above, CASE shall deliver to TU Electric a General Ralease in suostantially the form set forth in Exhibit D, attached, from Jack Doyle, Stark Walsh and any person, other than CASE or Strs. Juanita Ellis, who is to receive reimbursement as a consultant to or an expert

, witness for CASE out of the amount specified in paragraph 4.1.

5.4. It is understood and agreed that the release granted in paragraph 5.2 and 5.3 shall have no effect on any claim which is otherwise within the terms or coverage of the l Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. 2210. It is further agreed that the releases granted in l

l l

l 4/ As used herein, "contractors" shall mean any company or organization hired by either CASE or TU Electric for the purpose of providing advice, recommendations, opinions, technical assistance, or special services, whether or not paid by salary, ecmmission or any other form of reimbursement, d

-S-

paragrapns 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 shall not prevent the releasing party from asserting any defense or counterclaim with respect to claims which are the subject of such release asserted against the releasing party by any one not a party to this Agreement or by any owner of Comanche Peak other than TU Electric.

VI. Indemnification 6.1 Upon the effective date of the Joint Stipulation and subject to paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of this Agreement, TU Electric as defined in the first paragraph of the ftecitals hereto, agrees to indemnify and defend CASE, and 51rs. Juanita Ellis, their successors, assigns, Board of Directors, members, consultants, and attorneys from any and all claims, demands and causes of action asserted or brought against them in violation of the release set forth in Article V, paragraphs 5.1 and 5.3.

Such indemnification shall' include all attorney's fees that CASE, or 51rs. Juanita Ellis may incur by reason of or in consequence of any such claim, demand or cause of action, provided however, that TU Electric's total liability under this paragraph 6.1 shall not exceed $4.5 million, which amount would be in addition to the sums paid in paragraphs 3.2 and 4.1.

6.2 CASE and 51rs. Juanita Ellis shall notify TU Electric of any such claim.

demand or cause of action asserted or brought against them or any one of them and TU Electric will assume and defend, at its sole cost and expense, any and all such claims, demands or causes of action. TU Electric will, however, provide to CASE copies of all pleadings and briefs filed in the case.

6.3 The notice required by paragraph 6.2 shall be provided not later than fourteen days af ter CASF. or 5trs. Juanita Ellis receive or obtain knowledge of any such claim, demand or cause of action. Notice shall be provided as specified in paragraph 10.5.

6.4 Notwithstandin7 the vrovisions of paragraph 10.1, TU Electric may, after prior notice to CASE, dLclose this Agreement or the tt.rms of this Agreement if, in TU Electric's sole discretion, such disclosure is necessary to the defense of any such claim, demand or cause of action.

~

VII. Conditions of Settlement '

7.1. This Agreement, the Joint Stipulation and the Joint 51otion to Dismiss are null and void and of no legal effect if TU Electric, CASE and the NRC Staff fail to execute and jointly file the Joint Stipulation and Joint 5fotion for Dismissal.

7.2. In the event the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") fails to either grant or deny the Joint afotion for Dismissal within 30 days of its filing, TU Electric may, in its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement, the Joint Stipulation and the Joint Stotion for Dismissal by written notice to CASE made within 30 days after the expiration of the 30-day period following filing of the Joint Stotion. If TU Electric fails to make written notice to terminate within the 30-day period, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and neither party shall be entitled to rescind this Agreement except as provided in paragraph 7.3 below. In the event that TU Electric elects to so terminate, the period for deferral of actions required under the hearing schedule, as specified in the Joint 31otion, shall be extended for an additional period of time equal to the number of days between the end of the 30-day period following filing of the Joint Stotion and the day on which the notice of termination is made.

7.3. At any time up to 30 days after the ASLB issues an order denying the Joint 3fotion for Dismissal, TU Electric may, in its sole discretion, by written notice to CASE, either:

(a) make the Joint Stipulation effective as to the rights and obilgations of TU Electric and CASE thereunder, subject only to the concurrence of the NRC Staff as to the applicability of Section 8 thereof. Upon such concurrence by the NRC Staff, the Joint Stipulation shall be deemed effective as if the ASLB had accepted the Joint Stipulation and dismissed the proceedings; or (b) after such denial, terminate this Agreement.

.g.

'This Agreement shall terminate upon the expiration of suon 30 day period unless TU Electric exercises its rights under this Article.

VM. Arbitration 3.1. Except as provided in paragraphs 4.3 and 3.3 of this Agreement, all disputes regarding the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or of paragrapns A.5, A.6, and A.3 of the Joint Stipulation, which the parties cannot resolve amicably shall be resolved in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") except as modified by this Agreement. Arbitration will be commenced by the service of a written notice by the party seeking arbitration setting forth the matter in dispute and requesting a ruling pursuant te this Article.

3.2. The arbitration panel will be composed of three arbitratcrs, one appointed by TU Electric, one appointed by"d5SE, anbhe third arbitrator appointed by the two aroitrators named by theharties. If one party falls or refuses to appoint an arbitrator

~ ~ . .

within thirty days of the commencement of arbitration, the arbitration will be conducted by the aroitrator appointed by the other party. If the two arbitrators are unable to reach agreement on a third arbitrator within thirty days of their appointment, the third

~

arbitrator will be appointed by the AAA.

~

8.3. The arbitration panel shall issue [ written decision declaring the rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement, and shall have authority to issue an order requiring the parties or either of them to take or refrain from taking action; provided that the arbitration panel shall have no authority whatsoever to hear or decide any dispute falling within the terms of Section B of the Joint Stip;:lation attached. The decision of the arbitration panel will be f!nal and binding on the parties.

8.4. The situs of the arbitration will be Dallas, Texas.

8.5. All costs of arbitration incurred by both parties, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, witness fees, and administrative costs, shall be borne as determined to be appropriate by the arbitration panel, pursuant to the rules of the AAA.

.g.

3.6.

In resolving any dispute between the parties pursuant to this Article, the aroitration panel shall apply the substantive law of the State of Texas excluding, however, the con'llet of laws provisions of the State of Texas. In addition. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to any and all claims made pursuant to Article V!U of this Agreement.

IX. Resolutions and Legal Opinions 9.1 The parties agree to exchange copies of duly executed and approved resolutions of their respective Board of Directors in form and content set forth in Exhibits E and F attached. In addition, TU Electric shall deliver to CASE a legal opinion of the firm of Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & Wooldridge in form and content set forth in Exhibit G attached.

X. MLe =neous n

10.1. Except for the information set forth on Exhibit H attached, which may be released to the public when the Joint Stipulation is filed, this Agreement shall be maintained in confidence by TU Electric, CASE and Mrs. Juanita Ellis and neither the Settlement Agreement nor the terms of this Agreement may be disclosed to any other l

person unless such further disclosure is required by law (af ter diligent attempt is made to l

prevent such disclosure) or is agreed to in writing by all parties. If any party to this Agreement is threatened or compelled by operation of law to disclose this Agreement or the terms of this Agreement, such party shall, prior to disclosure, immediately notify the other parties to this Agreement of such threatened or compeHed disclosure in order that all parties may contest the disclosure. The obligation to maintain this Agreement in confidence shall survive the termination or cancellation of this Agreement. It is agreed that any public statements or press releases concernir.g the Agreement made by any party to the Agreement shall first be approved by the other parties hereto.

10.2. This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of CASE, Juanita Ellis and TU Electric, their successor and assigns. This Agreement will not be assignable by any of the parties hereto without the written consent of the remaining parties.

10.3. This Agreement will become effective upon its execution by TU Electric, CASE and Juanita Ellis.

10.4. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, promises, and understandings, whether oral or written, express or implied. This Agreement may only be amended or modified by a writing signed by all parties. This Settlement Agreement and the Joint Stipulation will be construed in a consistent manner, taking into consideration the purpose of this Settlement Agreement. If any of the provisions are not consistent or are contradictory, CASE and TU Electric agree that the Settlement Agreement will govern.

10.5. Any communications or notices made or given by any party in connection with this Agreement shall be in writing, to the following:

If to TU Electric:

William G. Counsil Executive Vice President, TU Electric Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 If to CASE:

Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street m Dallas, Texas 75221 With a copy to:

Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project Midwest Office 104 East Wisconsin Avenue - B Appleton, Wisconsin 54911-4897

= = === i

==

~~~

C 7t/ ELECT =iC 1 l

William re,m,- G.. Coumd

,n,'+~

June 28,1988 i Mrs. Juanita Ellis .

President, C ASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 752

Dear Juanita:

We have agreed that when the NRC licensing proceedings for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (NRC Docket Nos. 50-445-OL,50-446-OL and 50-445-CPA) have been dismissed and the Joint Stipulation has become effective, you will be authorized to release this letter to the puolle and the news media and we will file it with the NRC as part of the record of the licensing proceeding. I am duly authorized to make the statements herein on behalf of TU Electric and to sign this letter.

TU Electric recognizes that the Citizens AssociatioEt for Sound Energy (CASE) and its President, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, have made a substantial, personal, and unselfish contribution to the regulatory process which assures that Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

("Comanche Peak") will be a safer plant. Through the untiring. efforts of CASE deficiencies which existed in the early 1980's have been revealed in the representatives,Etiallortions design of s6

' u'sta of the planrwhich no one else, including TU Electric, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRCL or athatthird-party experts had fully recognized or discovered. - As a result, Comanche.2eak is a better, safer plant than before and, through"the' reinspection .and Corrective Action Program, has a greater assurance of safety and reliable generation. We commend CASE, together with its technical advisors, Jack Doyle and Mark Walsh,' and other workers, public interest organizations, and supportere for their courage and devotion to CASE's goals of finding the facts and informing the public. Because of these activities, CASE's President, Mrs. Ellis, has been appointed to the Operations Review Committee ("ORC") at Comanche Peak, an unpaid but important position which will provide CASE with the opportunity to continue to play an active part in assuring itself that Comanche Peak is as safe a nuclear facility as possible.

~

The ORC is required by the Comanche Peak technical specifications and functions as an independent body assigned the responsibility for review of various safety related matters including nuclear power plant operations, nuclear engineering, radiological safety and quality assurance practices among others. Among its dutlas, the ORC will be responsible for independent review of proposed modifications to the Comanche Peak facilities or procedures, changes to the Technical Specifications and license amendments, any violations or deviations which are required to be reported to NRC and other safety related matters deemed appropriate by the ORC members. The ORC meets periodically to

. h ATTAC&!ENT E wo worsk olin Street LsAl Dettas, tosnt 11.'0I

.,trs.

Juantta Ellis June 23,1988 Page 2 _

review and discuss various issues tearing on the safe coeration of Comanche t'eak and reports its findings and recommendations directly to the Executive Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations.

TU Electric also recognizes its own shortcomings in assuring the NRC that they fulfilled NRC Regulations. We acknowledge that nuclear expertise did not exist to mest those demands and that its nuclear management did not have full sensitivity to the regulatory environment. CASE, Mrs. Ellis and her colleagues played a substantial part in achieving our current level of awareness. ,

Sincerely, l fft W. G. Counsil Executive Vice President, Generating Division TU Electric f.

I h

1 l

l 1

EXHIBrr D GENERAL RELEASE The undersigned, in c9nsideration of the payment of cash to De made to me pursuant to a Settlement Agreement with Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) on the day of June,1988, does hereby release and forevea discharge TU Electric, Texas Utilities Company, Texas Municipal Power Agency, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Brown & Root, Inc., Ebasco Services, Inc., C. Thomas Brandt, and any other person, firm, or corporation wno performs work for or have been associated with the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station project ("Comanche Peak"), together with each of their respective attorneys, related or affiliated companies, successors, assigns, officers, directors, managers, agents, partners, and employees, and each of them, hereihafter collectively referred to as the Released Parties, from any and all claim or liability arising out of my employment at or involvement with the Comanche Peak project or any other claims or actions of any nature whatsoever 1 might have arising out of any acts or omissions on the part of said ileleased Parties, whether known or unknown, as of the date hereof.

The undersigned understands that this General Release tesolves and extinguishes, among other things, any and all claims raised in complaints filed before the Department of Labo[or under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act and any and all claims raised in any complaints filed in any state or federal cour; or administrative agency, together with any and all claims that I might have asserted or can assert in any suit, cause of action, charre of discrimination, or other claim agairut any and all of the Released e

Parties. _

If I am presently a party to any legal action in any court or administrative forum, state or federal, against any one or more of the Released Parties herein, I agree to immediately cause such suit or legal proceeding to be dismissed with prejudice to my right to refile same.

i

I further agree that this General Release shall be binding on the unde agents, attorneys, representatives, executors, personal representatives, heirs, successor and assigns.

I hereoy acknowledge that I have read this General Release and that I fully understand the terms, nature, and effect of the Generaj Release and have soluntari

'<nowingly executed the General Release. I further acknowledge that, by the payme the consideration herein to me, neither TU Electric nor any of the other Released Parties admits liability or responsibility to me in any respect but rather denies same and I recognize that the sum so paid is to buy peace and avoid further litigation or the assertion of claims.

Signed this day of June,1988.

Witness:

6 2-

Mr. David H. Bolt: and Ms. Barbara N. Bolt:

2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Board of Directors -

Citizens Association for Sound Energy (C.A.S.E.)

1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 July 19, 1988

Dear Sirs and Mesdames:

It is with deep regret that we must ask the C.A.S.E. Board of Di-rectors to accept our joint resignation both from the Board and f, rom our positions as C.A.S.E.'s Vice-President and Secretary, eft' active im-mediately. We have each served on the Board for approximately eight (8) years and we regret that we must terminate 6ur relationship at this time, but we feel that we simply have no other alternative.

It became apparent to us during the July 14, 1988 Board meeting that our calls for genuine discussion of several issues of deep concern to us would not result that day in Board decisions on proposed resolutions sub-mitted to Board members on July 12.

During the -past several months we have experienced an increasing sense of isolation and a deepening feeling of alienation from the other Board members. We have also sensed a lack of genuine communication be- --

tween us and the rest of the Board, a lack of open discussion and frank deliberation, and the inability of the Board to come to grips with several concerns which we believe to be critically important not only for C. A.S.E.

and for its members, but for the public as well. We have concluded that the current atmosphere makes it impossible for us to function effectively as responsible Board members and that, therefore, we have no choice but to step down.  ; 3 One issue which we have repeatedly, and! unsuccessfully, raised is whether or not C. A.S.E. pledges to pursue an aggressive intervention before the Public Utility Commission of Texas in the upcoming rate base case for Comanche Peak. It has always been our understanding that C.A.S.E. would do so--the only question has always been if sufficient funding would be available to do it "right" with expert witnesses, an attorney, etc. In the past C. A.S.E. has always ,said that the , cost overruns associated with the problems at Comanche Peak'should not be passed on unchallenged to the ratepayers. C. A.S.E. has proudly proc 1.Laed its success in past interven-tions in DP&L and TUIC rate cases, so we were confused recently when we could not get confirmation of C. A.S.E.'s continued intention to proceed on the rate base case. At the July 14 Board meeting, the Board failed to unequivocally af firm that C. A.S.E. intends to aggressively pursue the ATTACHMENT T W

4 Solt:' Resignation .

July 19, 1988 Page 2 case. We do not understand why such an affirmation was not quickly forth-coming. The absance of such an affirmation concerns us deeply.

~

We also sought assurance that the amounts and distribution of the sizeable monetary award that came to C.A.S.E. as part of the settlement agreement would eventually be made public. In discussions at both the June 14 and the July 14 Board meetings, the Board appeared reluctant to voluntarily release the details of the disbursement of these. funds; even to the mem-bership, after requests for reimbursement come in. The Board failed to agree to fully disclose this information. We believe that C.A.S.E. has nothing to hide. We fear that, if C.A.S.E. does not fully disclose all of this financial data in a timely manner, such apparent reluctanen could be construed by the public in a manner that could jeopardize C.A.S.E.'s credibility. Such apparent reluctance could perhaps also adversely i= pact the public's perception of the validity of C.A.S.E.'s future activities, even those responsibilities connected with thel 0RC. The Board did not concur vich our concerns.

}

We are also deeply concerned that, at the July 14 meeting, the Board failed to make any initial decisions which appeared to us to be necessary to begin to immediately implement some of the provisions of the ORC which were awarded to C.A.S.E. as part of the settlement agreement. It disturbs us that any decisions on these matters were deferred to an as-yet unspeci-fied date. We rear that, by this inaction by the Board, C.A.S.E. may be perceived as either unwilling or unable to begin immediately to exercise its many rights. We are also very concerned that the Board ~ failed to call for or accept volunteers ta fill initial assignments and/or positions. __

Such failure to act, comb!aed McLeh the Board's apparent lack of interest (demonstrated by its lack of attentiveness to a psretal presentation of some of the cptions open to us), could jeopardize C.A.S.E.'s right to fully exercise those options at a later date.

For the past few weeks we have attempted to raise the questions of C.A.S.E.'s future intervention in the rate base, case for Comanche Peak and of the voluntary, full disclosure of where the settlement money will go. 2 The issue of the Lamediate implementation of portions of the ORC provisions was raised at the July 14 Board meeting. Each' issue (except for the one dealing with the ORC activities) required only a statement of C.A.S.E.'s .

committment to take action in a given way in the future. We are confused, disappointed, and uncertain why our concerns have not yet been fully addressed, despite our repeated attempts to do, much less why they have not yet been voted on and, in the case of the CRC, acted upon. Af ter all this time, we do not yet know the Board's response to our concerns. This distresses us particularly since, when we first raised each of thca, we did not believe that any of them would require more than brief consideration and quick approval. Unfortunately, this was not the case, and none of the discussions has provided what we feel are satisfactory answers to our questions, nor has the Board resolved to commit itself to actions which would address our concerns.

Bolt:' Resignation July 19, 1988 Page 3 Under these circu= stances, having been repeatedly unsuccessful in obtaining what we feel to be satisfactory resolution of our concerns, we f eel that we have no alternative but to resign our positions imme- .

diately. We do this in part to protect ourselves from the unknown; to release ourselves of responsibility for possible future actions or dect-sions by a Board on which we feel our voices are no longer heard, our opinions are no longer desired, and our concerns are no longer taken seriously. ,

We do not, by this, i= ply wrongdoing on the part of any Board mem-bar. But we are deeply concerned that we no longer know the direction in which C.A.S.E. as an organi:ation may be going. Once ve did. We do not wish to continue on a journey together when we are suddenly so unsure of our eventual destination.

I Sincerely, David H. Sole:

dy-[.fu .

s

/

Barbara !. 3olt: b}

cc: Mrs. Juanita Ellis (original)

Mr. Marshall Gilj. ore .

Ms. Cebbie Gill = ore Ms. Irene Grey Ms. Kathleen Welch Ms. Jean Altes ,

Mr. Jerry Lee Ellis l I

\

l i

' C NEWSLETTDt v r:- '

lCITLZDS AMOCl4fl0'I Rt 5000 Gitcu MARK W R NA mal, WM i P. 9. aos 4123 Ostina. Tetas 13:08 Whof Att CASE meeners, friend 6 and fastly (no very test'. thtidren. Please) e O

S s 184/9e4 9444

'. en? Saturday Octobe W. 7:M p.e.

StD te-trrf 87 s

• Where? David 6 8arbara tolts' home

~ 2012 $. Folk P [ ,f

-q/ v /' b^M f Dallas. Texas 75224

-' s I . f l (214) ))9-4979 c

M/.2 7.fM l ANNUAt,MtgTING: $aturday evening, October h

• A sy

\

-N 4

f a $

8 b[h'k' W-at 7:30 p.m.. CASE will hold its Annual Meeting for all members in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. We will plan FWD-RAl$tt$ and S $ g* g

(.

- TO INCREA$5 FUlt,1CITT and greater pubite

• C - / participation. So, bring yourself, your Fra Mos' spouse, your environmentally-aware f riends g neighbors - and your lawn chairs (if the l weather and the pollen count perett) f or a Q informative. Informal strategy session ano g

[g get-together. To help larb plan refreshme please call her by Friday, October 9.

IN Mr. MORT: Meddie Gregory - 8/21/87 CASE to saddened to report the deaths of two very spe Richard Fouke - 9/22/37 peoplet Meddie Gregory of Glen Rose and Dick Founa c l

I Arlington. Both died, almost a month apart, after battatng cancer since 1984 Medate was one of our most courageous whistleblowere who reported a proslees with critical documentation at the Comanche Pest site. Her steadisat deterstaation to continue to pursue the truth and to instet that the probless be corrected even during her long illness was remarkable. Dick vse a long-time CASE member who worked quie;1y in the background f 1974. dLitgently dealing with engineering and other technical tesues so toportant to plant safet His wry humor, his dedication and his eye for detail will be sorely elesed. To the isst, both working to bring the problems at Comanche Pesa to light. We so well as everyone else in the Metroples, owe thee a debt of gratitude which we canne,t repay except to continue to seem the te-COMANCMg Ft.AK - AN UPDATE: As 1987 comes to a close, the operating Itcense hearings f or Coman=

Pean enter their 7th year. Neither we not the utility, nor anyone else ever imagined that Cos Peak would still be unlicensed. But then, in 1974 when CASE was formed or in 1979 when we bece.

Intervenor in the operating license hearthes. neither we not anyone else suspected that the pro at the plant would prove to be so pervasive and unamenable to solution.

Texas Utilities Electric Co. (TVEC) is now in the 4th sajor revision of its 3rd get-vell

, to get an operating license for the plant. They are rebuilding, reinspecting, redesigning and redocumenting (not necessarily in that order) parte of the plant - a piece at a ttee. Early t year they finally removed Gibbe & Hill as architect / engineer, but kept Brown & Root on cons t ruc tion. Now they have Stone & Webstet Engineering Company. Ebasco. Impe11. Cygna, Tara, working on rechecking and tedesigning certain parte of the plant. TUtc to in charge of decidie to fix a given probles, and has put itself in charge of auditing most of the resulting changes.

Meanwntle, majority owner TVEC and minority ownere Ten-La, tratos Cooperative, and TMPA are esorotted in a tangle of suits and countersuits over who told who wnst about the plant's prople and who's responalble for leading the Itcensing charge. Basically, it appears that the eteorit to let them os owners want OUT of Comanche Peak (which is understandable) and TVtc doesn't want At the same time, NRC Region IV in Arlington (which has always been held in low regard by whistleblcwors) has come under fire by some of its own inspectors, who charged that g were t harassed and intialdated by their own management f rom including findings in inspection reports were unfavorable to Comanche Peak.

A number of Congresetonal investigations are underway on Re IV and the HEC in general, and partly as a result, a new nC manaseteet tete was cometted f rom various regions to take over the NRC's Comanche Peak licensing ef forts.

On a brighter note. TVEC has not filed for another rate hike before the Public Uttitties Commission since 1984, no doubt partly due to that last case which cost thes 89.8 at11 ton in t' first-ever rate decrease given a utility in Texas. CASE, as an intervenor, provided inf ormatti which was instrumental in helping to inform other intervenors and the Cometeston of the facts .

Comanche Peak. But CASE knova that this respite to only temporary, f or if TVIC ever manages t-obtain a 81 cense to load fuel it will only be e setter of weeks or days before they file to pi of Comanche reak into the rate base. The new Coasteston is likely to stve thee what they want unless someone (such as CASE) has the money to hire expert witnesses to bring out the facts ans testify about how such of the cost everruns were due to the uttitty's utseaangement.

Back at the operating license hearings. TVEC has recently filed . sotton to reeuse the he (which have been in recess at the utt11ty's request since January 1985, when the NBC's Technic Review Tese reports were made public, detetitag the validity of hundrede of probless brought t tegy appears to be

/ attention of the NRC by many dosene of whistleblowers). RC's current et, get an operating Itcense based on the results of a newly revloed reinspectten/ redesign / yet se reconstruction plan which to being done under their control, such of which CAis has not est import ant , the effort to not h' " done on the whole plant - it is noj a LO0t leves is essential. Nor is it beLng done by an redeettn/ reinspection effort, which CA effort is too little. ton late.

CAgt beltevee

,ispartist thted party.

ATTAC CEST G

, . Rss11stically, CASE be11tvis that part of th3 utility's plan is to dstus) us with de<ueelte b tive us little stee to considir the:. Their propsset schedule is (tpassibly unttallette and alle's

.s only a asalt itsetton of the time necessary to asetellate 600's of L.000's of pases of highly techolcal docueents and drawings -- euen of it brand new to CASE and to its witnessest u,

["solved, or if the plant has been properly fixed and 16Weable fearto that bewe operated will never knowNor safely. if the problems will the f NRC, which has adattted that their eariter inspections were inadesuate and cannot now be retted up to assure the plant's aListy. But the NRC Staff now appears ready to conclude that it doesn't satter -- that they may be willing to rely on the results of the most recent utility-drafted.

uttitty-audited reinspection / corrective action program. Right now. CASE does not even know all th Jetatis of this latest plan. But we are no,t,willing t to rely on the utt11ty's team (many of whoe a the same people who created the probless in the first place) to find and fin thee properly.

VE INTERRUPT THIS NEV12TTtt TOR AN IMPORTAVT ANNOUNCEMENT . . . .

GA54 does not selteve that anyone can ever identtfy. auch less correct. all of the many problems at Cosanche Peak, and we therefore believe that it should never recetve an operating license. But in order to ensure that the f acts come out. and that our witnesses can testify about what they kvr ,. we need money for the upcoming hearings. Back in June 1982, we thought that veen j hearings woul' be our last (so did the utility and the NRCl). but we (and they) were wrong.

Comanche Pea i.se turned out (or has been found out) to be one of the worst (Lt not the worst) designed, constructed. and inspected plante in the country. Because of what has been uncovered -

primarily because of CASE, its witnesses and whistleblowers - and because of what we feel has not yet been found (such lese fixed), it is more vital than ever for us to be able to continue eftectively in the hearings.

This may truly be the final push - the ultteate battle that will either turn Comanche Peak e or keep it of f (in the shape it's in). Even with the bad economic times in Texas now. think how l such worse it wesid be if we had a Chernobyl or worse only 65 to 40 miles away.

We,need your helpt Regular senterships are $15/ year - but we need more escetitclal g

contenbuttons rtsht away. We nesd money now to cover easelve copying costs, incr9asint long-distance telephone bille between va and our witnesses, whistleblowers, and lawyers, of fice supp!!e sages for typiste and transcribers. We wt11 need such more in the near future for such things as

{ witness transportation and testimony preparation. depositions (which are one of the most effective but exoensive. tools we can use). and money to purchase computer diske of the transcripts of the proceedings - a great and essential t!ae-savet (considering the hundreds of thousands of pages of I the record) for dotag findings of fact. (yor the first stee, the transcripts will be available on computer diska, but only to those who have the money to pay for thee. Right now the uttitty and t l VRC can af ford thest CASE cannot ) Also, a recent Licensing Board Order requires all parties (including CASE) to prepare the moet toportant filings ( Q . preftled testtoony of out witnesses, and protooed findings of f act and conclusions of law) not only on paper but also on computer dieke l As a result. CASE desperately needs at least one computer (more sophisticated with a larget eenor than the sea 11 FC which CASE currently borrows) and a modes in extellent working order, as well as l dedicated telephone line for sending and receiving. This is the only way CA$t wt!! be able to participate more equally with the utility and the NRC Staff in this round of hearings. Without th noney and the proper equipeent, we will be technologically out-classed, since what we are able to l accomplish depends in large part directly on how such money we are able to raise. We could lose r

- battle to bring out the truth about Comanche Peak, not on the sertts of the case (t.e., t%at l Comanche Peak was and to still uneefe and unable to be econostcally operated), butt ~the f act the electric typewriters and file bones are no estch for more sophisticated computers and hard disks.

REMRMbst - ALL ColfftItVf10188 TO CASE ARE TAX-DEDUCT 18Lt. (And don't forget to come to r.he i

Annual Meeting to help plan ways to reach out to others in the Metroples who have beneftted from CASE's ef forte in the past, and who now reed to get involved in keeping us going in the fvture.)

AND NOW A ROUND OF APPtAU$t FOR . . . CA$t's ef forts in the ongoing operating License proceedtags are spearnesseo by CASE's indoetnable President. Juanita Ellis, who has been working overttee for least the past five years. Because she has developed painful arthritts in her back (due. she believes, primarily to all those years of typtng filings for hours on end). CA$t has recently had hire P&rt-ttee typists and transcribers to assist her in getting out the ftlinge necessary to contlnue in the hearings. Her husband Jerry Ellis ateo deserves a hug for pitching in with I

co11 sting stiltone of copies, rushtag mattings to the Post Office in the nick of time to meet deadlines, etc. CASE Vice-Freetdent David Botta astoneantes CASE whistleblowers on plant tours to potat out probless to the NRC and acts as a CASE observer at technical oeotings at the plant. CAS Secretary Eart Solts eaststa La the vitally toportant groqadwork of (aformation analysts and ta l final proofreading.

I CA$t is also especially fortunate to have the able ingal espertise of TJay toissan formerly e

{ frial Lawyers for Public Justice in Washington. D.C., and of Me. 81111e Carde of the D.C.-based Government Accountability Project. Free Wisconsta. 81111e continues to give tavsluable legal g guidance to the whistleblowere the are still coming forward to report probless in the reinspection programs now underway at the plant. 80th Tony and lillie astiet with the numerous legal pleadings analyses, etc., which are an ever-present and vitally leportant part of the proceedings.

l And CASE cannot leave out a special word of thanka to each of our whistleblowers who have had the courage to come forward and the stubbornness to persist, sonettoes in the face of losing jobs.

l and homes, and health, to do all in their power to ensure that the probleme at Comanche Frik are brought out, and if possible, property corrected. For all that CASE does, we must never forget th e it la the witnesses and the whistleblowers thesselves who are responsible for ensuring that if I

Comanche Peak is ever alleved to operate it will do so in a lot better shape then it would have 1 they had remained silent.

WE MvFD ?0ttt MELF MOW AS NtYtt StFOLE - SEND T0 tit TAI *DEDUCTf 9LE CONTttlVTION TODATI I

~

..' l

• i, p *

• M ., \ UNITED states r

! 'f, i NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

.- y)/ ,i s.

/ W ASHINGTON. O. C. 20555 June 23. 1988

' , , ..../

Dacret hos. 50-45/85-2A ar:e SC-446/5E-21 Mr. Willian. G. Counsil Executive V1te President Texas Utiitties Electric Company 40C hc. Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dalitt, TX 75201 Gentlemen:

This refert tc tne inspection conducteo by Mr. Cordell C. Williams in ccnjunc-tjor witn Mr. Steven M. Matthews, Director and Chief Inspector, Boiler Division.

Texas Capartnent ct Labor and Standards (TOLS) during the period Maren 8 throuen June 3.1988, cf activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPFR-127 for the Comantne Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, ano to the oiscussior, cf our findings with Mr. L. D. Nace and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

The enciored inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection, k'ithin these areas, the inspecticn consisted of selective examination of pro-cecures anc rcrresentative records, interviews with personnel, and cbservations by the ir.spectors.

Durine this inspection, it was found that certain of ycur activities were in violatier ci NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed hotice of Violation.

A nritten rescense to these violations is required. Please accress and include the unresolvec matter identified in paragraph 30(2)(c) of the encloseo report in your cccumented response.

In accoroance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Comission's regulations, a copy of this letter, the enclosures, and your response te this letter will be placeo in the tJC Public Occument Room.

The responses airecteo by this letter and the accompanying hotice are not sub-ject to tbc clearance procedures of the Office of Managemnt and Budget as requireo by the Papemark Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

l ATTACID!ENT H

T 4

f

's l'eCtriC

- E- '

Fr. n. G. Counsi)

She ( jou have 6ry cuestier.s concerning this inspection, we will be pleasec.to ciscuss ther. > itn you, Sincerely, .

-7 C.1. Grimes, Directer Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects

Enclosures:

Appenoi;. # - hetice of Violation ,

Appenote L - :nspectier. Report 50-445/88-24:50-446/88-21 .

ce w/ enclosures:

See next page .

5 E

l F

. - , . , - -e------ev,w-ne, ,t ,,+v-r -

-r- -- -t,*-v-w-+-emn >w----~~--vwe+v--,,---------+--r,+-~,rw v'y, y, -- '--T---*y--s -vw--

J W. G. Cour.sil Comanche Peak Steam Electric !tetion Texar t tilities E!ectric Ccr.pany Units 1 and 2 cc:

JacA E. Newn.ar., Esc. Asst. Cirector for Inspec. Prccrams Nevrar a Holt:1r.gtr. P.C. Coranche Peak Project Division' Suite 10CC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O, box 1029 IC15 L Street. h.h.

hasningter, D.C. 200:t Granbury , Texas 7604C l

Robert A. Woolcriege, Esc. Regional Acministrator, Region IV l Worsher , Fcrsythe, f amcels ! L'.S. huclear Regulatory Commissicr.  !

hoolaricge 611 Ryan Pla:a Drive Suite 100C l 2001 Eryan Tower, Suite 1500 Arlington, Texas 76011 )

Dallas, Texas 75201 4

Lanny A. Sinkin Mr. For.er C. Schn.1ct Christic Institute  !

Director of Nuclear Services 1324 North Capitol Street l Texas Utilities Electric Company hashington, D.C. 20002 Skyway Tower 4L0 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde, Esc.

Callas, Teyas 75201 Government Acccuntability Project Midwest Office F.r. R. W. Ackley 104 East Wisconsin Avenue Stone & Webstcr Applecon, Wisconsin 54911 Comancht Peak Stean Electric Station P. O. Ecx 1002 Cavid R. Pigott, Esq.

Glen Rose, lexas 76043 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street Fr. J. L. Vets San Francisco, California 94111 Westinghcuse Electric Cercoration F. C. Sor. 355 Anthony Z. Poisman, Esq.

Pittscurgn, Pennsylvania 1525C Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, NW Susan M. Theisen Washington, D.C. 20005 Assistar.t Attorney General Envircnmental Protection Civision Robert Jablon

, P. O. Box 12548, Capitc; Station Bonnie S. Blair Austin, Texas 78711-1546 Spiegel & McDiarmid 1350 hew York Avenue, NW Hrs. Juanita Ellis, President Washington, D.C. 20005 4798 Citizens Assceiation fer Sound Energy 1426 South Polk George A. Parker, Chairman 0611as, Texas 75224 Public Utllity Committee' Senior Citizens Alliance Of Ms. Nancy H. Willians Tarrant Ccunty, Inc.

' CYGNA Energy Services 6048 Wonder Drive 0121 N. California 81ve., Suite 390 Fort Wortn, Texas 76123 Walnut Creek, CA 94596

L. G. Counsi; Comanche Peak Electric Staticr Texas Otti; ties Electric Compar.) Units 1 and 2 cc:

Joseph F. Fulbright Steven it. ftattnews Fulbright 1 Jaworski Difector & Chief Inspector 12C1 PcKinney Street Texas Dept. of Labor & Stancares nousten, Texar 77010 Boiler Division E. O. Thompson State Office Builcin; Roger C. Walker P. 0. Box 12157, Caoitol Station fianacer, Nuclear Licer,sino Austin, Texas 78711 Texas Uti'ities Electric Company Skyway Tower 4L'O h' orth Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 ,

Mr. Jack Reddine c/o Bettesca Licensing Texas Ltiitties Electric Company 3 Metro Center, Suite 610 Eethesda, Marylano 20814 Villicm A. Burchette, Esc.

Counsel for Tex-La Electric Cec;erative of Texas Heren, burenette, Fuckert a Rothwell suite 7tt-1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, hk Washington, C.C. 20007 GDS ASSCC:/TES, !!'C.

Suite 72C

EE0 Parkwt;. Fiace Parietta, Gecrgia 30067-8237 Administrat1ve Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Connissior, hashingter., D.C. 20555 Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessec 37830 Or. kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 7a075 Or. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Guter Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37620

s APPENCIX A NOT:CE OF VIOLATION  :

TV Electric .

Dockets: E0-445/85-14 50-446/88-21 i

Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station Permits: CFFR-126 Units I anc 2, Glen Rose, Texas CPPR-127 ,

Curing an NPC inspectior, conductec cn March 8 through June 3, 1988, violations of NRC_ requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NPC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C '

(196E), the violations are listed below:

A. Critericr. Y of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as implemented by Section E.0, Revision 0, of the TV Electric Ouality Assurance Manual dateo February 1, i 1986, requires that activities affecting cuality shall be prescribed by anc accomplished in accorcance with documenteo instructions, procedurts, or orawings.

TV Electric Final Safety Analysis Report Table 5.2.1 establishes commit-mente to appropriate ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Coo'as. The ASME ,

Boiler ano Pressure Vessel Ccde Section !!! Division 1-1974 Eoition, Sutsection hA, Article NA 4112 states in part that ... the applicant shall establish a ... Quality Assurance Program for the control of the cuality of specific items ... or for the other work which he preposes to pe rfo rm. " ,

further. Article NA 4400 states, "The Certificate of Authorization helcer shall maintain a written description of the procedures used by his crgani-zation for contrei of quality and examinations, showing in fttail the implementation of the quality assurance requirements of this section."

The applicants' procedure number CP-QAP-12.2 dated May 11, 195E para-craph 1.t states that "Vendor components that have not been pressure '

tested by the venocr shall be tested as part of the system pressure test.

... ensure that the component manufacturer and the component manufacturer's AN! have witnessed and shown concurrence on the Pressure Test Data Sheet."

Contrary to the above:

l 1. No comprehensive and detailed procedures could be identified that could objectively demonstra6e control of the conversion of the documentation content of piping (component) data packages to "marked-up" isometric drawings that were used by the inspectors during their examination to assure that all vendor welds, shop welds, field welos and high stressed areas were appropriately examined during hydro-static testing and examination of the CPSES Unit-1 primary coolant system.

A-1 [

i. The cole hydrostatic test procecures (CP-CAF-12.1, CP-0AP-12.2, CP-0AP-18.2 and CP-CEM-6.91), either inoivicually or collectively, co not adequately demorstrate requisite contrei of the piping system examination activities during the Unit-1 primary system cold hydrostatic test. Moreover, in the instance cf the Unit-i reactor c'cciart syste'r Fycrostatic test (No. ICP-PT-55-1) the completeo "Pressure Test Data Sheet" catee July 31, 1962 has no provision for the venecr's ANIS tc concur by sienature.ano vendor concurrences are not apparent on this document nor were they indicated by referte e to cther occunents.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement II). (445/6824-V-C1:

446-6621-V-01)

8. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 6, Criterion XVil states in part that "SQfficient recoros shall be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affectinc ouality. The records shall include at least the following: ...The results of reviews, ... Records shall be identifiable and retrievable ..."

Section 17.0, Revision 0, of the TV Electric Quality Assurance Manual dated February 1, 1980 implements these reovirements.

TU Electric precedure No. CP-0AP-12.1. "Inspection Criteria and Documen-tation Pequirements Prior 10 Release For Pressure Testing," paragraph 3.4 states in part that "... The Quality Engineering Review Group shall verify that all documentation within the subject test boundary is complete

... All doeurentation pertainino to the subject boundary shall be statused on a Occumentation Status Form (Attachtrent 1)."

Contrary to the above, the subject record (Occumentation Status Fom) was not availaole for any of the Unit-1 primary system piping data packages exanineo by the NRC and the TLDS. TV Electric's representatives indicated that only a few of these records have been identified by their review of the 6ecoros of the Unit-1 Primary System Hydrostatic Test cated July 31, 1982. The documents, according to TV Electric personnel, were lost.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II) (445/8824-V-02).

Fursuant to the provisiens of 10 CFR 2.201. TU Electric is hereby required to suomit a written statement or explanation to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissicn, ATTN: Document Control Oesk, Washington, DC, 20555, with a copy tc the Assistant Director for Inspection Prograts, Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special Projects, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a hotice of Violation" ano shculd include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation if acmitteo, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrected steps that will be taken to avcid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

If an adeouate reply is not received within the tire specified in this hotice, an order may t'e issued to show cause why the license should not be modifiec, A-2

I suspeneet, or revokee er why sucn ctner actier as may be proper shoule ret be

- taken. 'arcre g000 cause is shown, censiceraticn will be given to extencing the response titre.

FOR TFE huCLEAR REGULATORY CCW ISSION

\ .

C. 1. Grimes, Director Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects Dated at Rech ille, ht.ryland tr.is 13ro cay cf June, 19EE A-3

A APPEhClX S U. S. ALCLEAR REGULATORY CCFM:SSION OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS

~

hk, inspection Report: 50-445/S0-24 Pe rnits: CPPR-126 5L-ate /88-21 CPPR-127 OccLets: SC ;;f Category: A2 50-44E Construction Permit Expiration Dates:

Unit-1: August 1, 198E Unit-2: Extension request submitted App '. i c an t: TU Electric Skyway Tower 200 North Olive Street Lock Box 01 Callas. Texas 752C1 F6ctitty hane: Comanche Pean Steam Electric Station (CPSES).

Lnits 1 & ?

inspectior /t: Comanene Feax Site, Glen Rose, Texas Inspectier. keview Perice: March 8-11, March 21-21, May 11-12, and June 1-2, 1988 5 SO Inspec:cr: blcB P MA e Coroeii C. williams, Date Technical Assistant to the Director Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects N% MSS keviewed By: vate

c. 1. Gricts, Director Coranche Peak Project Division Office of fpecial Projects B-1

rsee:uct- St. wary:

Inspection Conducted Intermittently: Maren 8 througn June 3,19CS (Report 50 45/52-24; EC-446/68-C )

Areas irspectec: Announced special inspection conducted feintly witr. tne Texas epartment cf ,anor anc Standards (TDLSi, Chief Inspector. Eo11er Divisien, on previounty identified AD'E Codt tespection findings ano allege-tions regarcing (i./0; prograrr and implementabon, P e s t.1 ts : Within the areas inspected, two apparent violations were identifid:

failure tc provice acecuate procedures and failure to follow procecures re-garoing the (; nit-1 primary system hydrostatic test activi .es paragraph 3.t(;)(a); ar.e (2) failure to maintair. cuality related records of Unit-1 primary syster. hycrostatic test activities, paragraoh 3.D(2)(b). Also, one significar.t unresolvec ?.atter, paragrapn 3.D(1;(c), was identified.

p ,

, n! ..

., s 4

1 I !. ' (

, . i -' 1 h ' - ,* /

'- 3.:

.t  : --

e ,

• l, i e

I 6-2

Details

'.. Persons Cerjacted L. C. Nace. 01.ector of Engineering. Texas Utilities Electric Company k, Lowe. Director of Engineerine, Texas Utilit es i Electric Company

• C.

F. W. Maccer, Meenanical Engi' leering Manager, Texas Util! ties Electric Company

• ltike Staccs, Supervtscr, Codes and Standaro'. Texas Utilities Electric Company ochn Ce-Bonis, Pechanical Engineer, Texas Ut.iitties Electric Company G. E. Purdy, CA Faaager, Brown and Root

• R. T. Jer. Kins, Meactr. Mechanical Engineering, Texss Utilities Electric Cen.pany

' Steven M. Nttrews. Texas Ceparttrent of Labor anc Standards (TOLS) Of rector ar chief inspu tor, Eoiler Division The JC inspector anc the TOLS Chief Inspector also interviewed other applicant empicyt:cs curing this inspection period.

• terctes perscnnel present at the June 3, 1968 final exit meeting.

2. Ic:1cn or. oravious insrection fincines (927011 A (Clos m ) Unresolved item (445/88-13-0-01;446-88-13-0-01):

>as creviously reported, TV Elect- R susmitted a potential SU.55(e) indicating that the hyorestatic test pressure recuirements for Unit-1 primary system may not have been met. Several interim retpcases to this concern raisec additional questions. Subsecuently,

7. Eltctric concluded that the nyorostatic test pressure require-u ts cf th2 ASME Code were, in f" % met during the July 31, 1962 pertorcance of the Unit-1 priet : :7 Gem cold hyorostatic test. The matter cf requirec hydrostati M " pressure has been reviewed ano concurreo in by the NRC and the TCLS Chief Inspector. TU Electric is in tr.e process cf submicting a'i FSAR change request ho. NE-196(2.

datee uune 7, 1988 to "Clarify ano correct applicable ASME Codes for rerformance of pressure test." Further, TV Electric indicated that "This FSAR change provides clarificatier and consistency between CPSES project documents /corritments." This item is closed.

B. (C1csec - upgraced to violations) Unresolved item (445/8507-07; 446/05UE-09):

As previously reported, the NRC examineo the cunpleted Unit 1 primary system hydrostatic test data packaca (PT-55 01) for Loop 3 cold leg.

In suvary, the previous NRC inspector quet tiened the adequacy of the proceoures controlling the implementaticn of the hydrostatic testing, the adequacy of the examination of tne primtry system during this test and the methocology and adecuacy of the records eenerated by tnii, telt.

Subsec:oently, the hRC Cf fice cf Special Frojects received further clarificatien of this unresolved item as originally identified from the superviser involveo in the initial inspection. (Robert D. Martin /

C. i. Grimes Memorandum dated September 4, 1987) This cdditional Hforr.ition focused on tne identification of broader programatic cencerns. Also, on Novem.cer 5, 1987, the NRC received an allegation B-3

.~ . - . _,

with four issues regarding this same arca cf concern. This allegation is ioentif tec as Allegation No. OSP-87-A-0088. This entire matter has been reexaminea by the NRC and TCLS. As a result, the previous unresolved iten is closed by incorporation into the allegations ano relateo ccncerns as ioentifiec ir this inspection report. Certair.

o: the issues are documented herein as violations.

3. Followee in conjunction with TDLS on the examination of Unit-1 orimary system colo nycrostatic test recoros ano a relateo aliecation (99014)

A. As a result of the icentification of unresolved itec Mo. 445/8507-07; 446/8505-09 as acoressec in paragraph 2.S above, and the subsecuent Allegaticn No. OSP-87-A-0088, a joint followup inspection was in-itiated of this area with TCLS.

The purpose of this inspection was to determine if the controlling procedures, implementation, and records of the CPSES Unit-1 primary system cold hydrostatic pressure test met the requirements of the applicable ASME Coce and other NRC requirements.

E. The NRC and TCLS conducteo interviews with TU Electric's representa-tives, examined procedures, and hydrostatic test records. This effort included review of the significant historical practice as recalled by tne applicants' agents who were involved in the imple-mentation of the Unit-1,,rimary system hydrostatic test activity.

As indicatec in paragraph 2.A above, the Unit-1 primary system cold hydrostatic test was to be conducted in accorcance with the recuire-ments of the ASME Coce. "his is scecified by the Final Safety Analysis Repcrt Section 3.9N.1.1 (Test Conditions) as modified by FSAR change reouest he. NE-19663 which stipulates that such testirg is in accorcance with the ASME Code,Section III. Article N8-6000,1980 edition summer 1981 Addenda ano test procedure No.1-CP-55-1. The completed "Pressure Test Data Sheet" is dated July 31, 1982.

(1) Tc facilitate the purpose of determining if all of tne NRC and ASME Code requirements were met relative to the conduct of the Unit-1 cold hydrostatic testing, the following specific concerns were also examined:

a. What ducumented procedures and instructions directed ano controlled the conversion of piping documentation packages to marked-up isometric drawings used during the field exam-ination of the primary system during hydrostatic testing?

b. What documented procedures and instructions comprehensively cooressed the inr iusion and examination of all field welds, venoor welds, shop welds, base metal repairs, ano high stress areas during cold hydrostatic examination of the completed system?

c. Why did the markec-up isometric drawings used for waltdown examination of Unit-1 primary system during the cold hydro-static test indicate that "No major base metal repairs could B-4

be located," when in fact some of the related pipina data packages contained documents labeled and described as "Base-Metal Repairs"?

c. Is it a valio and accepted practice to document and delay the acccmplishment of a vendor recuired hydrostatic test for a component until the completed system is hydrosta-tically tested? ,

e. Detemine if there is any verifiable substance to NRC i l

Allegatien Number OSP-87-A-0088, items 1 ano 2. These ttems allege in sumary that the adecuacy of the proce-dures and recoros used and generateo curing the Unit-! ,

primary system hydrostatic test is questionable and th6t 1 it is questionable "If the hyorostatic test meets as occumented all of the NRC and ASME Code requirements."

The inspecticn findings related to a. b ano c. above are described collectively in sectiun C.I. below anc partially ir the description of the procedures and recoros reviewed. Items c ano e. are addressed respectively in sections 4.A and 8. below.

C. Proceoures And Records Reviewed The following procedures and records were jointly examined by NRC and TOLS ouring this inspection:

(1) Procedure titieo "Inspection Criteria and Documentation Recuire-ments Prior to Release for Pressure Testing," No. CP-QAP-12.1, Revision 3, issued May 20, 1982.

(2) Procecures titled "Inspection Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for ASME Pressure Testing," No. CP-QAF-12.2 Revision 2, dateo t

May 11, 1982.

(3) Proceoure titit.d "Quality Assurance Review of ASME III Docu-mentation," No. CP-QAP-18.2, Fevision 1, dated February 15, 1982.

(4) Engineering Procedurc Specificaticn No. 2323-MS-100. Revision 9,Section III.

l l

(5) Test Procedure ICP-PT-55-1 (6) Brown 6nd Root Interoffice Memorandum dated September 3, 1985,

'G. R. Purdy/C. H. Welch).

(7) Selected records from the Unit-1 Reactor Coolant System Cold Hydrostatic Test Package Number PT-55-01.

(8) The applicants' documented interim responses to NRC and TOLS l

questions at various presentations during the course of this inspection.

B-5

{

.91 The Pressure Test Data Sheet for the l; nit-1 reactor coolant systert, hydrostatic test, datec July 31, 1982 at 0524.

(;0) Data Package bark No. RC-1-520-01/RPS-15Q1 Locp 3 Cold Leg.

l (PT-55-01) including "rarked-up isometric drawing hc.

l BPP RC-1-LE0-001.

l (11) Repair Process Sheet t CE R-0149, Crawing No. RC-1520-001-2, Welo

[

i No. 1501 at FW-23 and hDE Serial A-0149. No w that this reccrd I identifies a "Ease Metal Repair", however, the inspector's exarriration fcunc not a base metal repair, but a "housekeeping f

i activ i t) . "

(12, NDE reports and associated cocumentation for Loop ho. 3 SPL-15 at Fiele Weld No. 15.

1501, PC #14 and (13' Veld Data Card Serial Nc. 40577 weld ho associateo recorcs.

(14) Erown and Root nonconformance report NCR M1750.

(15) Repair Process Sheet and associated Welc Cata Card No. 52324, Weld f:c. ITE 4338.

(16) Souttwest Fabrication and Welding Co. NPP-1 data reports relatec' to orcer No. 06214-TEX, Reacter Coolant Piping Serial No. 13283.

MK - TFX-Loop-3-RCP/RU dated July 23, 1979.

!17) Other examples of vendor and field "Base Metal Repairs" within the Unit-1 Ccid Hydrostatic Test Package Number PT-55-01. The following specific examples were identifieo in the record by the acclicants' agents in response to an NRC/TDLS Request (3-11-EE) that the applicant audit this entire data package to put the records in order, and te identify any exceptions to the record recuirements. The NRC and TCLS inspectors' review included vendor repairs on non-loop piping as documented on Crawings Nos.

BRP-451-1-RB-037 (compartment 1), spool #1TT-2; BRP-v51-1-RB-039 (comoartr:ent 2), spool #ITT-3; BRP eSI-1-RB-053 (compartcent 3) geol #ITT-2; SRP WSI-1-RB-038 (compartment 4), spool !!TT-6; Base Metal Repairs (compartment 4) BRP-#RC-1-520-001, spool 20-QL ano FW29; four examples shown on BRP-#51-1-SB-003 (cosmetic grinding); BRP-#CS 1-RB-005 cosmetic grinding).

(18) Procecure titled "Pressure Testing" No. CP-CPM-6.91, Rev. 5.

)

(Reviewed 6/16/88)

C. Findinos anc' Conclusions as jointly established by NRC and ~0LS (1) In general, there are substantial procedures and records avail-able relative to the implementation of the Unit 1 primary system cold hydrostatic pressure test as completed on July 31, 1982.

During the initial phases of this NRC/TDLS inspection (March 21, 1988) the records (Document Package No. PT-55-01) as found in the CPSES pemanent files vault and other areas were somewhat dis-oroerly, which contributed to a cegree of confusion regarding G-6

_ _ _ . __ \

tre adecuacj anc completeness of the records as perceived by the NRC and TCL5 inspectors. This cono1 tion had previously been noted (September 3,1985) by the Brown and Root QA Manager, G. R. Purcy (para. C.(6) aboso). TV Electric's representatives were verbally recue:ted to perform a complete housekeeping aucit of the Unit 1 hydrostatic test record package No. PT-55 Ci to correct or identify all such discrepancios. This was done ano the NRC/TDLS inspection continued to completion on June 3, 1986. Based on this review, the NRE and Chief Inspector TOLS concluded that, while these records and procedures are sub-l stantial, in the specific areas identified below, important I activities affecting ouality apparently were not conductec in accordance with aceouate and comprehensive'y documented pro-cedures. Some requirements of the applied procedures were apparently not followed and certain NFC/TDLS identified "walk-down" drawings ano other repair records appeared to be t inconsistent.

There apparently were no detailed ano clear procedures con-trolling the necessary conversion of the component documenta-tion package information to "marked-up" isometric drawings to be useo by personnel conducting the field walkdown inspection during the primary system cold hydrostatic test. Further, TU Electric does not adequately describe by procedure or instruction how vendur ano/or field welds, base metal repairs, and other high stressed areas would be annotated and differentiated on marked-up 1sometric drawings used by field examination personnel. N severt.1 instances ioentifiso by NRC and TCLS, the isometric drawing indicateo that "No n.ajor base metal repairs could be located" ano "nc hangars with weld attachments could be' located."

However, examination showed that the same packages contain records labeled and identified as "base metal repairs". These circumstances led to the specific instance identified previously as an unresulved matter (445/8507-07;446/8505-09) adoressed in 2.B. The NRC anc TOLS inspectors concluded that the identifieo base metal repair in the document package associated with drawing ho BRP-RC-1-520-001 was labeled in error, in that the described activity consisted of cosmetic cleanup of the weld area.

In response to questioning, TV Elect;ic contends that since they examined all areas of the piping system, differentiation and annotation of vendor welds, shop welds, field welds, base metal repairs, and high stress areas is not necessary.

However, it was still unclear from the proceoures and the records reviewed how the applicant identified and controlled the examina-tion of all field welds, vendor welds, shop welds and base metal repairs in the context of the "marked-up" isomt.tric drawinos.

Moreover, the "Document Status Form" as required by procedure No. CP-QAP-12.1, Attachment 1, and which appears to have been important to this process, was not available for any of the document packages reviewed by NRC and TDLS. The applicant's representatives indicate 0 that most of these records are not available ano had apparently been lost.

B-7 1

In actition to the above, this inspection oisclosed that the recuirements of procedure ho. CP-QAP-12.2, Rev. 2. paragraph E a titled "Fressure Testing of Venoor items Curing System Pressure Testing" states that "Vendor components which have not been pressure tested by the venoor shall be tested as part of the system pressure test. Quality Engineering Ccmpletions Group shall ensure that the component canufacterer and the com-poner:t manufacturer's AN! have witnessed and shown concurrence on the Pressure Test Data Sheet." However, NRC and TOLS in-spectors' review of the Unit-1 Hydrostatic Test No. ICP-PT-55-01, Pressure Test Data Sheet dated July 31. 1982 did not demon-strate vencor signatures en this Pressure Test Data Sheet nor were their signatures indicated by reference, to other documents moce available curing this inspection.

A more com,srehensive unoerstanding of how the applicant con-trolleo and implemented its requirement to adequately examine all welds, base metal repairs, and other high stress areas during the Unit-1 primary system cold hydrostatic test could not be established during this inspection without reliance on the historical memories of S me of the engineering and QC persennel who were invelved with tne test during the time of its imple-trenta tion. The NRC and TOLS insp u ers interviewed several of these persons. It was reported that while the documented procedures were not comprehensive or complete regarding the conversion to drawings, annotation and differentiation of the records for field welds, shop welds, vendor welds, base metal repairs, and cther high stress areas examined during hydrostatic testine: it was "understood" by all personnel involved that all such areas would be examineo during the primary system walkdown l

inspection for the cold hyorostatic test. Further, it was the assunption and belief among the personnel involved in the imple-rrentation of the hydrostatic test that "all base tretal repairs" occurreo in the shop or field weld zone and that no unique netttions were needed because all welds would be examined. NRC and TOLS inspectors don't agree with these assumptions ano identified one area where -a base metal (grinding) repair was not immediately involved with a component joining weld (Orawing No RC-1-520-1, NDEP ho. B131). Several base metal repairs i

l in other areas were observed to involve base metal ano extend i across it for approximately two inches into the "joining weld".

1 As a result of these findings, TV Electric's representatives committed to re-audit the entire data package to identify all conforming ano nonconforming procedures, records, and practices.

The results of this effort will be evaluated by to the NRC and TOLS during a future inspection.

(2) The apparent violations and unresolved matters identified by the hM are iDL5 inspectors (a) Based on review of documer ntion and the activities as cut-lined in O(1) above, the ha and TOLS inspectors concluded that an apparent violation of NRC and ASME Code requirements existed. That is, comprehensive and detailed dJcumented pro-B-8

cecures were not made available for review that could objec-t1vely demonstrate control'of the conversion of the documen-tation ccntent of piping component data packages to "marked-up" isometric drawings for the applicant's inspectcrs use during piping system examination. Adequately "marked-up" orawings were neeoed to assure that all vendor welos, shop welos, field welds, base metal repairs, anc high stressed area; were apprcpriately examined during cold hyarcstatic testir.g and examination of the.CPSES Unit-1 primary ccolant system.

The prccedures made available for review (CP-QAP-12.1, CF-QAP-12.2, CP-QAP-18.2 and CP-CPM-6.91) appear collec-tively insufficient to demonstrate the requisite contrcl of the piping system examination activity during the Unit-1 primary system cold hydrostatic test. Moreover, contrary to CP-QAP-12.2, Rev. 2, in the instance of the reactor systeni hydrostatic test (No. ICP-PT-55-1), the completeo "Pressure Test Data Sheet" dated July 31, 1982, has no provision for the vencor's ANI to concur by signa-ture and vendor concurrences are not apparent on this document nor were they inoicated by reference to other documents.

This failure to conply with procedural recuirements is a violation cf Criterion V (50-4458824-V-01; 50-446/8821-V-01).

(b) Eased cr. review of documentation discussions with the applicant's representatives and the details as described in D.(1) abcve, the NRC ano the TOLS inspectors also conclude that an apparent violation to NRC and.ASME Code requirements exist in that procedure ho. CP-QAP-12.1, Rev. 3, "Inspection Criteria And Documentation Requirements Prior To Release For l

Pressure Testing," paragraph 3.4, "Walkdown And Cocumenta-tion Review Prior To Pressure Test," states in part that "The Cuality Engineering Review Group shall verify that all l

documentation within the subject test boundary is complete l

, and reviewed in accordance with reference IE. All dccumen-l taticn pertaining to the subject test boundary shaii be

'- statused on a Documentation Status Form (Attachment-1)."

Contrary to this, Documentation Status Forms were not avail-able for any of the Unit-1 primary system piping / component data packages examined by the NRC and TOLS inspectors.

TV Electric's representatives indicated only a few of these records have been identified by their review of the records l

i for the Unit-1 primary system cold hydrostatic test. The bulk of the documents are believed to be lost. This failure to comply with procedural equirements for tte establishrent

' ano maintenance of quality related records is a violation of Criterion XVII (50-445/8824-V-02).

i B-9

I (c) based on the forecoing issues outlined in itenas 0.(2)(a) l and 0.(2)(b), the NRC and TOLS irspectors conclude that an unresolvec matter exists. The applicant apparently faileo to establish and/or comprehensively follow detailed procecures controlling the examination of the Unit-1 primary system cold hydrostatic test examination activities and concurrently the applicant apparently failed tc main-tain objective records of related activities. To this extent, the acceptability of tbe cold hydrostatic test of the Unit-1 primary system is considered indeteminate as cccumented in Locumentation Package ho. PT-55.01, including Pressure Test Data Sheet dated July 31, 1982.

This matter was discusseo with the TU Electric's represen-tatives extensively. Their response acknowledged the concern and incicated that every effort would be mace to evaluatt, clarify, and reconstitute the record to the extent necessary to establish documentation demonstrating that all i

ASME Coce and NRC requirements have been or will be met ir.

I regare to the Unit-1 primary system cold hydrostatic test.

This matter is considered unresolved (50-445/8824-U-03).

4 Cther Considerations And Evaluations Included In This Joint NRC/TOLS insoection A. As indicated above, paracraph 3.8(1)(c), an additional question was raised by the original NRC incpector and his fomer supervisor in association with the previously identifiec unresolved matter No. 445/8507; 446/8505-09. The additional question was amplified in an NRC memorandum (R. D. Martin /C. I. Grimes dated September 24, 1987). Subsecuently, the NRC inspector discussed the matter with the cricinal NRC inspector and his supervisor. The additional issue is understood as follows: "Is it a valid and accepted practice to l

document and celay the performance of a vendor required hydrostatic test for a component until after installation and the completed l pipino system is hydrostatically tested.

l After review, the NRC and TDLS inspectors concluded that such I practices are valid and ccmon in the industry and are acceptable as long as the ASME Ccde comitments of the vendor are met curing j

the ccmpleted system hyorostatic pressure test and examinations.

S. As indicated above, paragraph 3.B(1)(e) identifies two issues (nos. 1 and 2) of a four-part allegation received on November 5, 1987 and assigned NRC tracking number OSP-87-A-0088. The a11eger presented infomation that he indicated was personal knowledge of the issues captured in part by NRC unresolved matter No. 445/8507-07 and 446/8505-09. Discussions with the alleger established, in fact, that the substance of these two issues are clo:.ely related. Moreover, the alleger indicated that he had previously raised the same issues with the NRC, but had not as yet received a response that addressed I his concerns.

l l

i The concerns of the alleger addressed during this inspection are unoerstood by the NRC as follows:

B-10 l

l .. .. .-. . -. . -. . . . _ _ . .

(1) He incicated that "as a result of his present and past uncer-starding of the cold hydrostatic testing of CPSES Unit-1 in 1982 " he has questions regaroing the adecuacy of the procedures and records useo and generated during the subject hydrostatic test. How have these issues been resolved?

(2) He inoicatec that "based on his experiences and observations" at the CPSES plant site, he questioned "if the hydrostatic test meets, as documented, all of the NRC requirerents."

Durino this inspection, the NRC inspector and the TDLS Chief Ir.spector examineo the available procedures and records relative to the Unit-! primary system cold hydrostatic test perfomed on July 31, 1982. Based on this inspection and the resulting identiff-cation of two items of violation ano one unresolved matter involvinc procedurt.s, records and testino adequacy relative to this cold hydro-static test, the NRC and the TDLS Chief Inspector consider that the general basis for concern raised by iters 1 and 2 of this allegation bave been substantiateo. This matter (Allegation No. OSP-87-A-0080) rema1ns open pending hRC examination of its remaining two elements ano TU Electric's response to the violations and unresolved matters occumented herein. (0 pen Item No. 50-445/8824-0-04)

5. Unresolvec Items Unresclved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertair,whether they are acceptable items, violations, or devittions. One unresolvec item was disclosed during the inspection and is discussed in paragraph 3.D(2)(c).

j

6. Open Itercs Open itens are matters which have been discussed with the applicant, which will be revieweo further by the inspector, and which involve some action on the part of the KPC or the applicant or both. One open item discicsed I during the inspection is discussed in paragraph 4.8.

L

7. Exit Meetine (30703) l l

During the course of this joint inspection by NRC ano the TDLS Chief Inspector a number of interim evit briefings were held with the applicant's management. The final exit was conducted on June 3, 1988.

The applicant did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or re-viewed by the NRC inspector during this inspection. During this meeting, l

' the NRC inspector ano the TDLS Chief Inspector sumarized the scope anc findings of the inspection.

B-11 l

[

.c\

^

ATTACH 3ENT I ,m ,

JUN I 7 1988 In Reply Refer To:

Dockets: 50-445/88-34 50-446/88-30 TU Electric ATTN: Mr. W. G. Counsil Executive Vice President 400 North Olive Street, Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. H. S. Phillips during the period May 4 through June 7, 1988, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with you and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the. inspection.

The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection. Within these a'reas,;the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures andirepresentative records,interviewswithpersonnel,andobservationslbythe .

. inspectors.

Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identified.

.In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely, ORTGINAL SIGTED BY R. F.17.CJ"CE

/

R. F. Warnick, Assistant Director for Inspection Programs Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects

Enclosure:

i Inspection Report 50-445/88-34; 50-446/88-30 cc w/ enclosure:

See next page 0

IP:CPPD:OSP AD:IP:CPPg4pP RWarnickj gdP:CPPD:OSP HLivermore SPhillips 6/i7/88 y

6/q/88 6/I1/88 6806300270 880617 S PDR ADOCK 0S000

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS NRC Inspection Report: 50-445/88-34 Permits: CPPR-126 50-446/88-30 CPPR-127 Dockets: 50-445 Category: A2 50-446 Construction Permit Expiration Dates:

Unit 1: August 1, 1988 Unit 2: Extension request submitted Applicant: TU Electric Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 -

Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),

Units 1 & 2 Inspection At: Comanche Peak Site, Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conducted: May 4 through June 7, 1988 Inspector: E MdueMt -

- 6s-/'768 H. S. Phillips, Senior Resident Inspector Date Construction Reviewed by:

'8'l+t//22 s 6-/766 H. H. Livermore, Lead Senior Inspector Date 8906300293$8)h45 PDR ADOCW ppg G

M 2

Inscection Summary:

Inscection Conducted: May 4 throuch June 7, 1988 (Recort 50-445/88-34; 50-446/88-30)

Areas Inspected: Unannounced, resident safety inspection of: (1) applicant's actions on IE Bulletins (IEBs), (2) applicant's action i

on construction deficiencies, (3) general plant inspections, (4) fire prevention / protection, (5) mechanical components, and (6) quality programs and administrative controls.

Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations, were identified; however, two unresolved items involving site application of service water piping cotaing without QA/QC controls (paragraph 6.b.1) and removal of the coating without violating pipe i minimum wall thickenss (paragraph 6.b.3) and five open items l concerning the service water pipe coating work (paragraphs 6.b.1, '

l 6.b.2, 6.b.3 ( two items) and 6.b. 4 ) were identified. l t

_ _ - _ , - _ _ _ _ _ __ . ,- -_ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ -?

L 3

DETAILS

1. Persons contacted

• W. G. Counsil, Executive Vice President, TU Electric

• G. G. Davis, Nuclear Operations Inspection Report Item Coordinator, TU Electric

• T. L. Heatherly, Licensing Compliance Engineer, TU Electric

• J. J. Kelley, Manager, Plant Operations, TU Electric

• L. D. Nace, Vice President, Engineering & Construction, TU Electric

• D. M. Reynerson, Director of Construction, TU Electric

• M. J. Riggs, Plant Evaluation Manager, Operations, TU Electric

• A. B. Scott, Vice President, Nuclear Operations, TU Electric

• J. C. Smith, Plant Operations Staff, TU Electric The NRC inspectors also interviewed other applicant employeas during this inspection period.

• Denotes personnel present at the June 7, 1988, exit meeting.

2. Applicant Action on IE Bulletins (92701)

a. (Closed) IEB 80-04, "Analysis of FWR Main Steam Line Break with Continued Feedwater Addition": This IEB was previously reviewed by the NRC inspector and the results of that review are documented in NRC Inspection Report (IR) 50-445/88-12; 50-446/88-10. It was held open pending the receipt of additional information.

TU Electric supplemented the file with information from the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)

Sections 6.2.1.1.3, "Design Evaluation"; 6.2.1.4, "Mass and Energy Release Analysis for Postulated Secondary System Pipe Ruptures"; and 15.1.5, "Steam System Piping Failure." The data shows that the potential overpressure of the containment resulting from a main steam line break and increased reactivity was evaluated. The NRC inspector has no further questions.

b. (Open) IEB 80-11, "Masonry Wall Design": This IEB concerned the structural integrity of concrete masonry walls with attached seismic Category I piping and the interaction between the two. The NRC inspector reviewed this item in NRC IR 50-445/88-12; 50-446/88-10 and a Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued because the Design Change Authorization (DCA) 23040, Revision 3, conflicted with the statements in FSAR Volume XVI (Response 130.36).

The NRC inspector randomly selected two DCA files (35700 - 35719; 35720 - 35739) which contained 39 DCAs

4 concerning civil, electrical, or mechanical components.

The purpose of the review was to determine if other DCAs were processed by the applicant without a determination if the change affected licensing documents. It appears that the issue with DCA 23040 is an isolated case. This item remains open pending the completion of the modification of masonry walls as described in the FSAR.

c. (Closedl IEB 80-18, "Maintenance of Adequate Minimum Flow Through Centrifugal Charging Pumps Following Secondary Side High Energy Line Ruptures": In May 1980, Westinghouse (W) reported that under certain conditions centrifugal charging pumps could be damaged due to a lack of minimum flow before applicable safety injection (SI) termination criteria are met. Specifically, it involves the unavailability of pressurizer power operated relief valves (PORVs) with the operation of one'or more charging pumps repressurizing;the reactor during SI following a secondary system high energy line break. The SI signal isolates the charging pump miniflow return line but at the same time flow through the charging pumps is determined by the pump characteristics (head vs. flow curve), pressurizer safety valve set point, and the flew resistance and : pressure losses in the piping and in the reactor core. )m a result, minimum flow may not ensure pump cooling and result in pump damage before SI termination. Westinghouse recommended that calculations be performed to ensure adequate cooling is present under all conditions.

The NRC IEB required operating plants and those near licensing to respond. NRC Region IV letter dated July 1980 transmitted this IEB to TU Electric and stated that it was furnished for information purposes only. This IEB l was reviewed and closed in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/84-07 on the basis that no response was required.

During this inspection, the NRC inspector reviewed the technical aspects of this IEB to assure that TU Electric evaluated this conr'ition. The file, which has been supplemented with information that was unavailable during the original NRC inspection, now contains correspondence dating back to 1980. Westinghouse letter (WPT-4662) provides Design Change Notices (DCNs) CVCS-1-6 and 515-1-6 and guidelines for charging pump alternate miniflow path. TU Electric letter (TSG-4357) and DCA 15226, Revisions 0-2, document the acccmplishment of modifications recommended by W. This item is closed.

No violations or deviations were identified.

A A 5

3. Action on 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) Deficiencies Identified by the Aeolicant (92700)

(open for Unit 2, Closed for Unit 1) SDAR-CP-84-02, Defective Diesel Generator Push Rods: TU Electric reported that defective push rods were observed in the Unit i diesel generators. Specifically, linear indications were found between the "ball" and "rod" on two primary and one intermediate push rods. This deficiency was documented on nonconformance report (NCR) M84-00109S. Unit 1 and 2 replacements were requisitioned.

This item was inspected and closed out in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/85-03; 50-446/85-02. During a subsequent inspection, a NRC inspector noted that TU Electric's reports did not fully address construction deficiencies per.10 CFR Part 50.55(e) and this finding was documented in NRC' Inspection Report 50-445/85-16; 50-446/85-13. Specifically, corrective action commitment dates were not met and initial, interim, and final 50.55(e) reports often omitted the corrective action for Unit 2 and subsequent tracking to completion.

TU Electric reviewed all of their 50.55(e) files to identify those cases where this type of deficiency was not' fully addressed. TU Electric letter (TXX-6453) dated May.1987 identified.38 cases where the deficiency was not fully addressed. This was in addition to 20 cases where TU Electric reported (TXX-4508, July 1985) that their 50.55(e) reports had not stated whether the deficiency applied to Unit 1 or 2 or both. All of these incomplete reports covered the time frame from 1977 through 1986.

The NRC inspector reinspected TU Electric's file (SDAR-CP-84-02) and noted that the Final Report TXX-4108 dated February 1984 was inccmplete because this report did not indicate whether the deficiency applied to Unit 2. The file has been supplemented to show that the deficiency applies to Unit 2. The final report was amended in report TXX-88361 dated April 1988 and was changed to read "Supplemental Report." The latest report now discusses Unit 2 and the schedule for corrective action. A licensing commitment form (LCR) was developed and is now being used to track Unit 2 commitments (or Unit 1). The future use of this form represents a tracking improvement.

The NRC inspector also reviewed the other documents in the file (requisitions, receiving reports, inspection reports, maintenance action reports, in-process quality checklist, and various correspondence). The file documented the completion of work on Unit 1. The work on Unit 2 is tracked by

t 6

TU Electric and is identified as LCR-88-403 with a completion due date of March 30, 1991.

The construction deficiency in the Unit 1 diesel generators is closed based on the rework documented in the file, but remains open for Unit 2 diesels pending the completion of commitment LCR-88-403.

No violations or deviations were identified.

4. General Plant Inspections (50053, 50073, 51053, 51063, 52053)

At various times during the inspection period, the NRC inspector conducted general inspections of the Unit 1 reactor containment (RCB), safeguards (SGB), auxiliary (AB),

electrical control (ECB), and diesel generator (DGB) buildings, the service water intake and the turbine buildings.

Selected rooms in these buildings were inspected to observe current work activities with respect to major safety-related equipment, electrical cable / trays, mechanical components, piping, welding, coat. tags, and Hilti bolts. The housekeeping storage and handling conditions inside these buildings and various outside sto. rage areas were also inspected.

Work activities that were selected for more detailed inspections are described in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7.

No violations or deviations were identified.

5. Fire Protection / Prevention (42051)*

The NRC inspector observed plant conditions relative to material and heat source control in all areas described in paragraph 4 above. The plant was free of accumulated combustible materials and fire watch personnel were posted throughout the plant where welding was in process. In addition, the inspector reviewed the results of several TU Electric surveillances of plant conditions which included cleanliness and control of combustible materials.

No violations or deviations were identified.

6. Safety-Related Mechanical Components (50073)

a. AFW Pume Overhaul _

on May 24, 1988, the NRC inspector observed workers overhauling the steam driven auxiliary feedwater (AFW) pump. The pump was being reoverhauled following a recent overhaul because the gap between the head and the block of the pump was excessive after torquing. Subsequent follow-up with results engineering revealed that a

?

7 nonconformance report (NCR) was not written because th'e NEO Procedure (3.05) allowed the pump to be reworked to meet the original gap per maintenance procedure /

instructions.

The NRC inspector stated that a nonconformance should have been written on the gasket when it was found to be -

unacceptable and also to address the improper material I (spare part) supplied by the vendor. The material was I I

too thick and prevented the proper gap between the head and block of the pump. At a subsequent meeting between the NRC and operations personnel, TU Electric personnel  ;

stated that they may issue a NCR. Answers to NRC J questions concerning procurement and receipt inspection were not available. Also, no information was available as to whether this gasket material was installed in other equipment. ,

The Senior Resident and Resident Inspectors of operations identified similar concerns during this inspection period. This issue was referred to NRC operations inspectors for furthe'r review and fol16w-up. This will be reported and tracked as an unresolved item in NRC Inspection Report-50-445/88-39; 50 ,446/88-33.

b. Removal of Plasite Coating From Service Water System on May 2, 1988, the NRC inspector observed work activity performed by Cannon Company whic,r_ is removing the Plasite 7121 liner from the 4, 10, 24, and 30 inch service water system (SWS) piping. This system removes heat from the emergency diesel generators, and The component cooling water SWS also supplies system (CCWS) heat exchangers.

cooling water to the safety injection, centrifugal charging pump lube oil coolers and the containment spray pump bearing oil coolers. The SWS also supplies cooling water during normal operations or after a postulated loss of coolant accident from the ultimate heat sink which has

• a 30 day supply of cooling water.

The SWS liner is an epoxy coating that was applied to the inside of the carbon steel piping, ASTM A106 Grade B. In the 1975-76 time frame, the specifications originally described the coating and application as safety-related.

The vendor applied a "Q" coatingThe at their shop prior to coating on field weld shipping the pipe to the site.

areas was applied by the site contractor without QA/QC program controls according to TWX No. 12523 fromThe site engineering to Gibbs & Hill (G&H) engineering.

coating was specified to protect the piping from the slightly corrosive water supplied from the Squaw Creek

- - - , , - , . .-....a..--,-, . - - - - - - , . , . - , . - - , , - . - - . , . . . - - , - , - , , - , . - .-,w-m ,, , . , , , - - . , , , - .w ,-,-..,--,-.,,-.e --,--,-,,-,--.,,m --

8 Reservoir. The Unit 1 system has operated for about s'ix years and about half of this time it was in wet lay up.

(1) Evaluation of Coating Failures - The NRC inspector reviewed the TU Electric files and actions.

Construction deficiencies (CP-80-07 and CP-86-07) files were reviewed.

(a) Evaluation of CP-80-07 .

In September 1980, the NRC was notified concerning the coating failure. Site engineering requested an evaluation from the G&H, New York, Office relative to the safety significance per 10 CFR 50.55(e). In the request, the site engineer stated that ITT Grinnel procured "Q" coating materials (Belzona) and applied it under the controls of a QA/QC program but that the coating' applied on site was not procured or applied under a QA/QC program. The request also asked for the impact of a coating failure on plant safety if the coating were to come off and plug the CCW heat exchanger tubes.

G&H provided a response on october 17, 1980, (telecopy 910-8908-660). After receiving the G&H evaluation TU Electric concluded on the-basis of the evaluation that this deficiency had no safety significance.

The NRC inspector questions the G&H response and evaluation of CP-80-07 and feels that it did not adequately address (1) the lack of a site QA/QC program during coating application, (2) the basis for the conclusion that flaking or sheets of coating that might come off would breakup and not plug the CCW heat exchanger or other safety-related equipment (described in the beginning of this section). In the inspector's view, the failure to implement QA/QC controls over site applied coatings may have caused the failure. The NRC inspector feels that an inadequate evaluation resulted in an inappropriato engineering decision to downgrade the specified requirements.

Approximately the same time, two design change authorizations DCA 8809 and 8810 were processed to change G&H Specifications MS-43B and MS-100 to read: Plasite No. 7122 and its application '

are not safety related ("Q"). The l

i

9 justification was that the loss of the coatings is not detrimental to the safety of the plant.

In May 1981, Section 9.2 of the final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) was changed to reflect the DCA decision to downgrade the coating.

The NRC inspector has been unable to find an adequate engineering basis for downgrading the application of the coating (even though the coating itself may not be safety-related). The effect of a non-quality item on safety-related

' piping and equipment in the system should have been considered. That is, the coating may have been applied for commercial considerations (premature replacement of the piping); however, the improper application of coating inside the piping could (1) introduce materials.that are deleterious to the carbon steel (and other materials) and (2) should the coating fail and come off in sheets, it could stop up safety-related equipment and degrade plan't l

safety. The design requirements described in Criteria 1 and 44 of Appendix A of 10 CFR50 require redundancy in the cooling system !

assuming a single failure. If applicable',

TU Electric should also' identify other cases and effects, if any, where non "Q" coatings have been applied without the controls of a QA/QC Program per 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. This item is unresolved pending the receipt and review of any additional information relative to the procurement and application of coatings (including Belzona) to the 4.nside of the SWS or other American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME) piping, Class 1, 2, and 3, (445/8834-U-01; 446/8830-U-01).

(b) SignificantEvent Report (SER) Evaluation In 1983, TU Electric received Significant Event Report (SER) 6883 from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). It discussed the failure of Plasite 7122 at the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant. This issue was reviewed and dispositioned by Texas Utilities engineering and it appears that the disposition heavily relied on the G&H evaluation previously described. The construction deficiency (CP-80-07) evaluation which is referenced in the file was also considered in the basis for closing the SER.

I

1 I

I 10 l (c) Information Notice (IEN) Evaluation In March 1985 NRC Information Notice (IEN) 85-24 was issued concerning the failure of Plasite 7122 pipe coating and the adverse effects in the SWS that occurred at the Palo Verde Plant. The IEN stated that the information should be reviewed and action taken, if applicable, to preclude the recurrence of the blockage of safety-related equipment.

Based on questions raised in regards to the original evaluation by G&H, the inspector feels a re-review of the SER and IEN by.TU Electric should be considered. The generic implications, if any, should also be considered. This is an open item.

(445/8834-0-02;.446/88.30-o-02).

r (d) Evaluation of CP-86 1 on September 23, 1985,: a construction paint foreman reported that the subject pipe coating had deteriorated. ope'ationsr issued a problem

- report (PR)85-532. In October a Work Request (1363) was issued to open the piping (24" and 30") from the'SWS pump:to the CCW heat exchangers and from the heat exchangers to the

,SWS discharge canal. A significant amount of deterioration was found. TU Electric notified the NRC of this deficiency on January 23, 1986.

It appears to the NRC inspector that the coating issue was not recognized as a

. significant construction deficiency as it was only reported after weld failures in the SWS

' piping were identified (described in PR 85-699 dated December 20, 1985). These wcld deficiencies were reported along with the coating deficiencies.

Nine interim 50.55(e) reports were made to the NRC on these subject deficiencies as of March 1988. One of these reports (TXX-4762 dated April 1986) stated that the plastic coating would be repaired using Belzona coating I and stated that pipe coating failure or corrosion was not a safety issue as periodic inservice inspection would detect any loss of integrity of this piping. It was only considered reportable because of

11 erosion-corrosion caused by cavitation across Valve 1SW-023.

(2) SWEC Corrosion Report - The NRC inspector reviewed SWEC Corrosion Control Report, SWTU-7749.

Revision O was originally issued in November 1987.

Revision 2, dated April 1988 was reviewed and it stated that the pipe coating in Unit i SWS failed because of poor application at field welds and in areas of high turbulence. The corrosion report described 1/16" to 1/8" diameter blisters uniformly distributed and spaced 3/8" apart and a few 1/2" to 3" apart. All of the blisters broke while scrapping a putty knife across them. Microbiological 1y induced corrosion (MIC) was found in the carbon and stainless steel piping which can cause pin holes and drips. The SWEC report identified cases of crevice corrosion between flanges and galvanic corrosion between different metals (stainless steel, carbon steel, and monel). Asiatic clam growth was also found in the copper nickel tubes of the CCW heat exchangers.

Page 5-5 of the report stated t: tat the shop o'r vendor applied coating was adherent with small blisters, but the site applied coatings were degrading. A few pits were present in Unit 1 piping which had been repaired with Belzona. Appendix A, page A-3 of the SWEC report states, "Due tothe Belzona coating repairs, measurement of pits which may have formed previously is not possible."

Recommendations for corrective action were also made to correct and control these problems. The report recommended the complete removal of the liner from the piping.

The NRC inspector contacted TU Electric Operations (the organization which wrote the 1985 problem report to describe the coating defects) to determine if all surface defects inside the piping were identified and measured, and whether the possible violation of minimum wall thickness was considered.

i specifically, the inspector's question is whether l

there are pits under the Belzona coating in both j accessible and inaccessible piping that were not l

measured, dispositioned and documented. TU Electric Procedure (NEO 3.05) does not require nonconformance l

reporting if the item can be restored to the

! original specification requirements by rework, repair, or scrapping the item. Because of this policy there is some question as to how these

12 defects were documented and dispositioned. If surface pits were present and were not repaired or reworked, it appears that these defects should have been identified and documented on a nonconformance report to show that the defect did not violate minimum wall thickness. The disposition TU of the Electric defects should have been described.

should determine if the mapping of these defects by visual and ultrasonic examination (UT) was adequate to identify, document, and disposition defects. If UT was used through the paint on the outside, the process should be described. This item is open pending the receipt and review of documentation of the defects a sample and visual inspection (by NRC) of the piping (445/8834-0-03; 446/8830-0-03).

(3) Observation of Coating Removal and Inspection - The NRC inspector observed Cannon personnel who were pulling a . camera through the 10" piping to determine if all coating had been removed. Many spots were not removed by the flint grit sand blasting. The NRC inspector noted that the picture distorts the view of such spots and questioned how they could be measured. The criteria for residual coating in Procedure EME 3.21-08 allows a residual of 10 spots, 1/4" diameter (maximum) per square foot and a 1/4" wide band (maximum) around the girth on the

- faces of the mating flanges at the pipe ends. This criteria was established by blasting prototype coating from piping to determine the amount of residue that would be left after an acceptably controlled sandblast operation. This is an open item pending NRC inspection of how the specs or flakes can be measured to assure that they do not exceed the criteria (445/8834-0-04; 446/8830-0-04).

In discussions with engineering, the NRC inspector found that no analysis (with calculations) was made to determine the maximum amount of coating residue that could be tolerated. Instead TU Electric will utilize surveillance and inservice inspections to prevent equipment blockage. This item is open pending receipt and review of information to show that such surveillance / inservice inspection will prevent blockage (445/8834-0-05; 446/8830-0-05).

The inspector also learned that the sandblasting apparatus cannot remain in one area for more than a minute or pipe wall thinning may occur. Since inspection occurs after sandblasting, it was observed that there would be no way for an Ebasco inspector to directly determine if the blaster

. 13 thinned the wall unless the inspector timed the pull  !

I rate through the 10" piping or physically observed the blasting in the 24" and 30" piping. The wall thickness could be measured by ultrasonically testing / measuring the thickness after blasting.

This item is unresolved pending the receipt of evidence that an adequate inspection was accomplished and that minimum wall thickness was not l violated (445/8534-U-06; 446/8530-U-06). l (4) Licensing Document Changes - Section 9.2 of the FSAR was amended to reflect the DCAs and specification l changes which stated that the coating was nonsafety related. The description of the coating and all references to the coating was deleted when Amendment 66 was submitted. Since a residual of coating will remain, it appears that it would be appropriate to recognize its presence and' discuss in the FSAR how surveillances or inspections will monitor loose flakes to preclude blockage of

. filter / strainers. With no protective liner the surveillance / inservice inspection should be discussed in terms of the corrosive SWS water.

TU Electric should review and address these issues.

This item is open pending the receipt and NRC review of information concerning the need to submit an FSAR Amendment (445/8834-o-07; 446/8830-0-07).

7. Quality Programs and Administrative Controls Affectinc Ouality (92702, 57050, 57060, 57070, 57080, 57090)_

a. Work Travelers QC inspector did (Closed) Violation (44G/8617-V-05c):

not verify the surfaces of the concrete foundation to assure that they were free of oil, grease, and foreign materials. Brown & Root, Inc., (B&R) Procedure QI-QAP-ll.1-39, Revision 4, required such verification prior to setting mechanical equipment. A review of work l

travelers ME79-260-5700 (for safety injection accumulator tank) revealed that QC had not verified that the surface I was acceptable prior to locating the equipment. The l

' findings were discussed with QA management during the inspection, at the management exit, and after the exit.

They did not state their disagreement with this specific finding or present the additional information.

' Subsequentl'I the TU Electric response to this part af the violation provided additional information.

The Notice of Violation was issued on March 30, 1987, and the response (TXX-6504) from TU Electric was dated July 13, 1987. The response provided additional i

l

14 information and tTRC letter dated August 26, 1987, acknowledged that additional information showed that work activities were in compliance with Traveler Procedure CP-CPM-6.3 and Inspection Procedure QI-QAP-11.1-39.

Accordingly, this portion of the violation (A.2.c.) was withdrawn. Specifically, the information showed that:

(1) the setting of the nitrogen accumulator tank was a special case where TU Electric deemed that such inspection was not necessary, and (2) the inspection criteria was therefore not included in the procedure and was not required at the time the safety injection accumulator tank was set. In spite of the fact that the criteria was not in the procedure, additional information in an inspection report (TU Electric IR C-1840) documents the surface condition. This item is closed.

(Closed) Violation (446/8617-V-05d): QC inspector did not verify equipment position, orientation, and elevation by signing the form and sketch required by QI-QAP-ll.1-39, Revision 4. The background concerning this violation is discussed in the paragraph above.

This part of the violation (A.2.d.) was also withdrawn because the nitrogen accumulator Tank 1 is a special case because it was set on tcp of another tank, that is, safety injection accumulator Tank 2. The location for~

Tank 2 was recorded and satisfied the requirement for Tank 1. This item is closed.

(closed) Violation (446/8617-V-05e): Minimum clearance l was not on Traveler ME82-2702-5700 for Tank 1. The background, additional information and withdrawal for i

this portion of the violation (A.2.e.) is discussed in the first two paragraphs above. This is also the basis for closing this item.

QC inspector (Closed) Violation (446/8617-V-05f):

verification of anchor bolt condition / bolt-nut tightening l The background, was not on Traveler ME83-2702-5700.

additional information, and withdrawal of this portion of the violation is discussed in the first two paragraphs above. This is also the basis for closing this item.

I b. Work Packages In conjunction with the above follow-up inspection, the inspector observed work in progress and ASME work l

packages which included work instruction / travelers. It was learned that the ASME packages are to be reviewed and streamlined like the non-ASME packages. The goal is to simplify work instructions. TU Electric's construction management is aware of various problems in these packages l

1

15 and the sequencing of work and are taking action to improve the instructions,

c. Nondestructive Examination (NDE) and Welding In preparation for the site inspection by the NRC Region I NDE van, the NRC inspector reviewed selected NDE procedures (ACP-10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, These 10.6) procedures and welding procedures (CP-CPM-6.3 and ACP-11.1).

were previously reviewed by NRC inspectors when these activities began. During this inspection, it was noted that procedures for ASME and non-ASME activities were separated. The ASME procedures control the work performed by B&R, the constructor which is responsible for ASME work. These procedures contain the same basic requiraments relative to inspection acceptance criteria.

The NRC inspector reviewed the NDE program to determine how past activities were controlled. Discussions were held with the current NDE Level III inspector. A review of past NRC inspection reports revealed the acceptability of NDE practices (50-445/88-08, 50-446/88-05; 50-446/87-29; 50-445/87-16:, 50-446/87-13; l

50-445/85-13, 50-446/85-09; and 50-445/83-15, 50-446/83-09). ,

8. Unresolved Items ,

l Unresolved items are matters about which more.information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable

( items, violations, or deviations. Two unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in paragraphs 6.b.1 and 6.b.3.

9. Open Items open items are matters which have been discussed with the applicant, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or applicant or both. Five open items disclosed during the l inspection are discussed in paragraphs 6.b.1, 6.b.2, 6.b.3(two items), and 6.b.4.

10. Exit Meetino (30703)

An exit meeting was conducted June 7, 1988, with the applicant's representatives identified in paragraph 1 of this report. No written material was provided to the applicant by The applicant did the inspector during this reporting period.

not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection. During this meeting, the NRC inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.

..i.

N ' t.

'88 AUG 15 A10:07 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE crr e.:  :.

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoinpiddbume7t werb .

mailed first class mail, postage prepaid, to the "fBIIowing parties on August 11, 1988:

Chairman ASLB Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary Attention: Docketing & Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton , D.C. 20555 Mr. William G. Counsil Texas Utilities Electric Co.

Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201' n

Richard Lee Griffin

['

I k