ML20214P710

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discovery Rept 10 Requesting Agreement/Disagreement on Listed Statements.Related Correspondence
ML20214P710
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 09/18/1986
From: Garde B
Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
To:
Shared Package
ML20214P697 List:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8609240031
Download: ML20214P710 (10)
v • d • e


Text

_ ___

D htLATED COftRESPOttD%

BEFOR8 Td8 00CKETED USNRC l

ONITED STATES NUCLEAR RBGOLaTORY COMMI6SION Betore the Atomic Safety ano Licensing Board36 SEP 22 P1:08 GIFICE OF .is.r w v In tne Matter or 00Cx t riin ,. < t . .,,gI-.

) Eh rnp[ '

1 texas OTILITIES GdN8 RATING COMPANi, ) DKt. Nos. Su-445-OL et al. ) 50-44o-OL (Comancne Peak Steam diectric J

Station, Units 1 ano 2) )

CPRT DISCOVERY - 10 Witn respect to each of the following statements, please inoicate whether you agree or oisagree with the statement. If you agree in part ano cisagree in part, please inoicate the extent of your agreement and disagreement. with respect to each statement or portion of a statement with which you disagree, provice tne to11owing:

a. Identity precisely those portions or the statement with wnica you disagree.
o. Provide tne full ano complete oasis for your oisagreement, incluaing the reason for the disagreement, all the tacts upon wnich you rely to supporc~ your position, and identify all oocuments upon which you rely to support your position.
c. luentity tne person or persons who have personal Knowleoge or tne Iacts upon Wnich you rely in support of your position.
o. 1r your current position is ditterent from an earlier positionts) on tne suoject or tne statement, ioentity precisei'y 8609240031 860918 PDR ADDCK05000g5 G

wnere ano in wnat accument(s) the earlier position (s) was taken ano of wnom ano thek tuli reason for the changed position.

e. Prouuce for inspection and copying all documents icentitiea in the answers to tnese questions and all documents examinea ana/or reliea upon in preparing the answers to these questions.

In answering these questions, whether by agreement or l

alsagreement, tne previously filea instructions are applicable ano snoula oe rollowea.

STATEMENTS

1. Tne Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) activities will not ce utilizea or relleo upon as the inspections of record for Comanche Peak.
2. The appicant will rely on the implementation of the originai QA/QC program to provide reasonable assurance that the plant was constructea in compliance with the construction permit and in a manner that would not endanger the public health and sarety.
3. Tne CPRT program results do not substitute for the QA/QC program results regarding the quality or the plant.
4. Tne CPRT program is not a program that meets the requirements or 10 CFR 60 Appenaix 8 criteria.
6. The CPRT program results ao not dictate retroactive programmatic changes, only hardware corrective action and l

! programmatic cnanyes ror f uture work.

l o. Tne CPRT program management is not inaepenuent of the

Appicant in that tne Senior Review Team is chaired by, and the  !

CPRT oirector is employeo oy, the Applicant.

7. Tne Overview wuality Team (OQT) is directed by and reports to tne Senior Review Team.
o. Tne OgT coes not have the responsibility to identify, in writing, all f ailures or the CPRT to conform to the CPRT program plan.
9. Tne OyT coes not have the adthority to issue stop work orders ror ongoing CPRT worx.
10. Tne inspections conoucted by the QA/QC Review Team are not inspections for acceptance of the naraware and are not conouctea unoer tne requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix 8 or the TUGCo QA program.
11. Tne CPRT inspections do not go beyond the installation or fabrication of the hardware (i.e., the construction process) in evaluating the effectiveness of the implementation of the original VA/QC program.

12 Tne CPET's conclusion about the conoition of the plant will be cased on the testing of the work processes.

13. The CPRT's conclusion about the adequacy of the implementation ot the original QA/QC program will oe based on the collective evaluation of the testin3 of the work processes.
14. The homogeneous work activities were developeo cased on tne original work processes, not the original quality control inspection processes.

Id. Tne CPRT coes not prone tne root cause or generic

~ . .-. . _. .

Implications of railure or tne original wA/gC program to meet a commitment in tne original program if the resultant hardware conoition is/was aeterminea not to nave any safety signiricance.

10.

What corrective action snoula be taken as a result of CPRT-laentitiea ceticiencies, aeviations, and other failures to meet commitments is cecidec oy the Applicant.

17. Tne evaluation of railures to meet commitments in order to determine wnetner sometning is a aeviation or a deficiency is maae of tne CPSES Project quality Engineers.

lo. Tne preliminary inspections and reviews aone to cetermine tne scope of tne CPRT were not written down or recorded pursuant to tne requirements of iaentification or non-conforming conaitions pursuant to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.

19. Reinspection work cone unoer Revisions 0, 1, and 2 will not ce redone under Revision 3, but at most the work products will oe reviewea.
20. Tne CPRT is not a 100s reinspection program of all sarety-relatea systems.

I

21. Tne results of the CYGNA effort have not been included in tne reinspection program.
22. None or the thira parties are inaependent of TUEC, since all or tne consultants are unoer the direction of the CPRT.

Za. Tne tnira parties were selected solely by TUEC, alsregaraing tne importance of the concurrence of the public, ano tne nomination ano approval proceautes for indepsndent third parties usea of tne NRC since lwoe.

24. Under Revisions u,1, ano 2 or tne CPRT, many of the

I review team leaders, issue coordinators, ano aavisors were primarilyy respons1 Die to, or were in f act TUGCo personnel wno were involveo in tne construction project for a long time.

23. Tne tniro party consultants, inolvioually and organizationallyy, are not being consioereo a part of the normal re3ulatory process, ano tneretore not required to report all satety-related information reportable unoer 10 CFR s30.5b(e) and 10 CFx Part 21 to the NRC airectly.
20. Tne tnirc party consultants can only recommend T

corrective action to TOEC/TOGCo, but they cannot control the I

implementation of tne corrective action, nor does the third party nave tne autnority to insist on accomplishment of a particular corrective action as a caveat for any conclusions.

27. Tne SRT responsibilities, under the airection of a TOGCo vice Presioent, control the CPRT erfort through selection or management ' personnel, approval of tne action plans, review and approval or the " safety-significant" oetermination, and root cause and generic implication assessment, and approval of corrective action.

26.

TouCo is also in charge of the issues raiseo through the SAF8TBAM ano other project activities, i.e., there is no proceoure for inclusion of new issues or expansion of the scope of tne CPRT withoutt approval of TudCo management.

49.

Tne reinspection methocology is not done through estaolisheo professional codes (ASMB, ANSI, AWS, e tc. ).

30. Tne metnocology is amoiyuous about commitment to the

PSAR, and provides no criteria upon wnich an exception will oe sougnc.

al. Reporting procedures for third-party auditors exclude indepenaent contact with the NRC.

J 2.

Issues "closeo out" of the external source for whatever reason are not considered for potential root cause or generic implications.

JJ. Tne program plan does not include all vendors, or separate construction activities, and therefore presumes that work was accomplisneo in accordance with regulatory requirements.

Tnere is notning to justify this position.

34. There is no new retraining ana/or recertification program for TOEC or B&R QA/wC or crart personnel that insures tnat tne TRT-identified failures in the training program implementation are not repeated.

Ja.

Tne CPRT criteria for determination of defects is its

" safety signficance," not necessarily non-compliance with FSAR or VA/QC requirements.

Jo. Tnere is no provision for assessing deficiencies in inaccessicle haroware components.

37. Tnere is no provision tor logical consideration of potential progorammatic generic defects, such as inadequate l

t cesign review.

All defects, deficiency reviews, etc., are going on simultaneously and have oeen since October 1984.

Jo.

Tne scope of tne DAP was developed oy eliminating original inspection elements and oy reliance on the inspection by numerous otner external sources, wnicn tnemselves were separate l

_7_

trom ttne current ettort and conducted according to totally altterent proceoures, ano intenaea to aiscover difrerent intormation.

Jy.

Tnere is no aucitable justification ror the creation of aroitrary nomogeneous naraware groups to use as a Dase to extrapolate results of the DAP.

4u. Expansion criteria tor indivioual components or systems are amoiguous ano rely on no oevelopea acceptability level.

41. Tne proposeo sampling approacn is generally baseo on tne conouct of reinspection of ooth bias and ranaom samples. The reinspection itselt is done against unknown caseline criteria ti.e., sometimes tne FSAR, sometimes "sarety signiticance,"

sometimes an unknown attrioute checxlist) using a 95/5 sampling plan.

42. Tne cases ror the CPRT decisions will De engineering evaluations or tne safety signiricance of design, construction, or process dericiencies, not raw cata. Therefore, only those 4

detects tnat are juageo of TOEC to have any sarety significance will ever ce useo as a basis to reach the threshhold for expanalng tne sample size.

4J. Exploratory evaluations that are not recoraed are used to identity tne specitic suo-population, renaering the sampling process olaseo rrom tne oeginning.

44. Tne samp11ng approacn is not committeo, bu t rather is a snitting target.
43. ISAPs are not prepared on any issues not yet iuentified

of tne NRC-TRT, incluoing over 700 internal allegations in the dAFETEAM Illes.

40. ISAP development, cone oy the issue coordinators or tield consultants, ao not coincide with a standard set of requirements (i.e.,

some ISAPs use the FSAR as the acceptance criteria, some use regulatory guides, some use professional s tanca ros). Therefore it is not possiole to draw conclusions about compliance with the originally prescrioea standards.

47. ISAPs ao not aadress the history of other proolems relateo to tne specitic issue.

4u.

The ISAPs/DSAPs do not incluoe the results of the exploratory investigations that are used as a casis to develop tne ISAP.

4w. Tnere is no accurate, up-to-cate list of remaining work against a defined caseline of actual work necessary to complete Unit 1 ano Unit II.

50. Tnere are no work controls on ongoing work, including onwoing reinspection work ano any ongoing corrective action work.
31. There are no NRC inspection and review hold points at critical reinspection points.
32. Tnere were no inspections attrio'ute checklists j availaole to tne NRC and CASS for review and analysis prior to j most or tne reinspections to insure that the reinspection effort woulo be comprenensive.
33. Tnere is no signiricant change in the organization and i

management personnel associateo with the construction of the plant tas opposed to QA/wC).

34. Most wA/wC management personnel now at the plant were at tne plant oerore but in citterent jobs or employed by dirterent organizations or in oifterent status.
33. Tnere is no internal management analysis to determine tne root cause or tne implementation failures of the initial construction ano inspection ettort.
30. Tnere is no verifiaole central control with stop work autnority over the multiple reinspection programs to insure that tne interraces necessary ror successful implementation and communication exist at tne racility.
37. Tnere is no acceptacle aucitable protocol Detween the CPRT-SMT, TdEC, and otner contractors, 3o. Tnere are no third-party controls over the implementation of tne corrective action measures.
39. Tnere is no contractual independence of the evaluators on tne SRT trom T08C management.

o u. Tnere is no separation oetween the reinspection effort and tne worn completion eftort.

01. Tnere is no program to consider the implications of narassment and intimidation on the work atmosphere, o 4.

Tnere is no program for retraining anc recertifying all inspectors to new inspection criteria.

ca. Tnere is no justification provioed for the loentitication or tne homogeneous haroware groups tnat are to provice tne oasis for tne conclusions or the self-initiated evaluation.

o4. Tnere is no acequate plan ror innelementation ot oversignt controls on the selt-initiateo evaluations, or tne

! ISAP/DSAPs.

c5. Tnere is no program to consioer the existence and implications or inaaequate management character, competence, or commitment to coingliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, as one of tne causes Ior tne prooiems with ianpiementation of the wA/QC program in previous years.

Respectfully submitted, iA BILLIt: P. GARDE ' 'i Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 3424 North Marcos Lane Appleton, WI 54911 (414) 730-ds34 Counsel for CASE -

Dated: Septemoer 16, 1966 l

__ _ - . ~ _ -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20214P710&oldid=3088139"