ML20209J115
| ML20209J115 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1987 |
| From: | Garde B GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | James Keppler NRC |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3240 CPA, NUDOCS 8705040209 | |
| Download: ML20209J115 (4) | |
Text
-
1, m
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 (202) 232C0 Woshington. D.C. 20036 MID-NP.ST OPPICH 104 H. Hinconnin Ave.
Appleton, WI.
54911 (414)730-8533 April 24, 1987 James E. Koppler Director, Office of Special Cases U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 RE:
Comancho Peak 1
Dear Mr. Koppler,
Over the past neveral months you have boon briefod by the staff and the Applicant on soveral occasions regarding the status of the Comancho Peak construction project and the plans that the Applicant han for innuring that thoro is roanonablo annuranco that the plant, when completed, will be able to oporato in a mannor that docu not ondangor public health and nafety.
To dato the Intervonorn have boon unable to give you i
a nimilar bricting on our collectivo views on why there is not l
ruanonablo annuranco that the plant, as donigned and built, will bo nafo.
!!opofully that briefing will be scheduled shortly.
Nonetholonn, recont developments require that wo bring to your attention norious concorna that wo have rogarding Texas Utilition'(TU) ongoing efforts at the plant, and requent that you and your staff dotormino if our concerns aro valid.
Canontially it in our concern that thoro in nignificant innpocrinn and rework ongoing at the plant without any regulato::y overnight and in noncomplianco with fodoral regulations and industr, ntandards.
Thin situation came to our attention during i
the April 2, 1987, mooting in nothonda, Maryland allogodly concerning i
tho statun of the progronn of the Comancho Ponk Rosponno Toam offort.
Sinco you woro in attendanco at that mooting 1 am nuro you will recall tho norion of quantions which I ankod about the ucopo and procoduron of the Appljcants' curront offorts. Further inquiry han confirmed that the Applicanta havo already embarked on a major now reinnpoction and rowork plan which in not publicly available and in not availablo for NRC approval.
4
)
Moro nignificantly it in my undarstanding that the efforta v.:
i the !itano and Wobntor pornonnel are not boing dono in conjunction 1
with the CPRT offortn, but rathor are a now program that in not covered by any of the CPRT proceduron or guidelinon.
No underntend 1
i that the now program will juntify tho an-built condition of tho
- plant, i
[!
e7Sso4onov E 4 Po Acock 445 A
PDR g o i
Jamon M.
Keppler April I m17 i
Unfortunatoly, through regulatory oversight or deliberate.. c va, tho Applicant han been allowed to conduct a major change in its reinnpection of the as built program without any notico to the :..
the board, or the public.
The justification of tho as built i
cotuli t ion of the plant, is not an activity that should bo presento as a fait accompli.
TV's bold actions in this regard do not surprise us.
Since January 1985 the Applicant has operated on the assumption that it could do whatever it wanted to do and then toll the NRC what it had done.
Lip service was paid to the notion that ongoing and unapproved efforts, wore being undertaken at the Applicants' own risk.
This implomontation effort occured in a virtual information blackout, with CASE having access to data only after Applicants ccc.p-loted their work.
In addition, the CPRT itself was not static anc moved f rom Rev 1 to llov 3 and an of t-promised Rev 4 in its two and a haif years of existence.
The over clusivo, but vitally important, i
Renults Report VII.C, which was to ovaluato the root causo and gonoric implications of the known construction deficiencios and QA/QC breakdownn, has yet to be published and thoro is not a firm data for l
ils reloano.
Uf courno, on you havo learned from experience, the only risk Involved.in to the public.
We are hopeful that you have the forecight i
to recognize that another reinnpoetion program of tho as built condition of the plant, coming on the hools of the CPRT, neither of
)
which complies with 10 CPR 50 Appendix B in a blueprint for a i
i diantor.
Moro importantly wo hopo that you have the authority to force some sort of complianco with the regulations, r
Wo have advocated to the staff on numeroun ocassions that the only way for the NRC staff to got an accurato assessment of the sectus of the plant, and for the criteria and plans by which the utility was going to justify the safety of the plant was to issue a stop-work order as a proper means to provido roanonablo assuranco, followed by a tough implomontation innpoetion polLcy.
Our ploaa have fallon on deaf cars.
The result is a convoluted serios ol innpoetion activitics, rework activition, contractor audits, undi: el-oned information regarding the extent of the breakdown and a rolnnpoetion program largely donigned by lawyors to achiavo legal licensing as opponod to a plan written by ongincorn to discover the truth about tho an bullt condition of the plant and the method through which reasonablo annuranco could be established.
8 For its part, the Staff han boon at most a bit player in thia j
drama, chooning to rely on the TRT and routino inspections as itt
{
principal contribution'to the question of the magnitudo of the Q/.J i
breakdown.
The recontly rolonned report of tho Offico of Inspoet a and Audit in pornunnivo ovidence of how inadequato the Staff has m a at publicly identifying or privatoly pursuoing the full extent of tha i
problomn at Comancho Peak.
The staff has not contributed in any nignificant mannor to expediting the proconn for resolving the outntanding innuon hero, choosing instead to play a pansivo rola, an bent oxempliflod by itn virtually usolons SSER 13.
i
James E. Koppler April 24, 1987 I
At this point we sock only answers to the following questions regarding ongoing activitiou at the plant.
Based on the answers we will consider requesting further relief.
I QUESTIONS:
1.
To what extent does the Design Basis Consolidation Program (DBCP) include reinspection of completed construction work?
2.
What are the procedures to be used in determining whether the specifically reinspected componont is or is not acceptablo?
3.
Havo the proceduros boon reviewed by the NRC staff for comp-licence with Appendix B?
4.
What percentage of the plants will bo subject to DBCP review?
5.
What portions of the plant will not be subjected to the D3CP review?
6.
To what extent do Applicants intend to rely on the original QA/QC program and its implomontation as a basis for concluding that any of the plant was proporly constructed?
7.
To what extent do Applicants intend to roly on the resulta of the CPRT offort to establish that any of the plant as originally constructed was accepted?
8.
To what extent will the DDCP identify problems with construction not identified by the CPRT?
9.
To what extent will the DBCP identify problems with QA/QC for construction not identified by the CPRT?
10.
To what extent will the DHCP identify the root cause of construction problems or QA/QC for construction failuren where the problems or failures were not proviously identified by the CPRT?
Whoro they woro previously identiflod by the CPRT?
11.
To what extent will the DBCP identify the genoric implications of construction problems or QA/QC for construction failures woro not previously identified by the CPRT7 Whoro they woro previously identiflod by the CPRT?
12.
How does the DBCP results comply with the traceability requirmonts of 10 CPR 50 Appondix B.
L.
James E. Keppler April 24, 1987 For at least three years the parties have been in dispute over the extent of the breakdown of the QA/QC for construction at Comanche Peak.
The principal reason for this dispute is that its resolution would be a nrincipal part of the evidence used in deciding the scope, depth, and type of reinspection effort required.
Resolution of this initial dispute has consumed considerable time and effort as the parties fought over issues of worker harassment and intimidation, the extent to which other past management practices were proper issues for this proceeding, and the adequacy of the CPRT as a mechanism to uncover all construction defects and to identify the root cause of and generic implications of all those defects and of the failure of QA/QC to previously find the defects.
The struggle over those issues has consumed tens of thousands of pages of the record and tens of thousands of hours of human effort.
No one wants the struggle to last any longer than absolutely necessary.
The ability to take control of this regulatory nightmare lies exclusively in your hands.
Please start by getting information about what is going on at the plant.
Sincerely, gh%b% Q C4 Billie Pirner Gardo, Esq.
Attorney for CASE cc:
Service List ca i
l
-