ML20236D771

Advises That Review & Insp of Plant Safeteam Scheduled for 860505-09,using Efforts of Ie,Nrr & Region Iv.Ofc of Investigations Requested to Assist T Westerman Re Review of Plant Safeteam Investigations & Action.Plan for Review Encl

ML20236D771
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak, 05000000
Issue date:	04/28/1986
From:	Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Herr R NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
Shared Package
ML20236D451	List: ML20236D449 ML20236D613 ML20236D655 ML20236D740 ML20236D771 ML20236D856 ML20236D902 ML20236D938
References
FOIA-87-413 NUDOCS 8710280356
Download: ML20236D771 (6)

Text

- . - - . - -. _ _ . - -

7

' \

1:s: ._ b ; ; W. ", pJf ~l g [# N , o UNITED ST ATES

{ g .., ,.n. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'

" 1 $ REGtON IV t [ .-

,,'];[' 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000

>> . 5( ARUNGTON, TEXAS 76011 J ' 49R 2 3 1.w:.. . ,

l l

I

-MEMORANDUM FOR: . Richard K.! 11 err, Director -l Office of Investigation.

.FROM : .

Robert D.. Martin, Regional Administrator

SUBJECT:

- REQUEST FOR' INVESTIGATION ASSISTANCE DURING 1 AN UPCOMING REVIEW OF COMANCllE PEAK SAFETEAM ..

-)

4 A review and inspection of the: Comanche Peak Safeteam is scheduled between May 5-9, 1986, utilizing the combined efforts of ISE, NRR, and Pagion IV personnel.- 'It is Region IV's intention to monitor the Comanche Peak Safeteam' on'a quarterly basis in the belief that the Safeteam will become an:fssue during ASLB hearings.

In consideration of the significant number of Safeteam'inve'stigations

. involving alleged' wrongdoing .I request that you assist Thomas.Westermen and

the Comanche Peah Group with their upcoming' review'of the adequacy and

' completeness of Safeteam investigations and recommended corrective action. ,

'Please-inform me if you believe the need.for further investigation by 01 is- J warranted and if any significant information is developed during this review. {

7 N.. l J u ff $[Ac ~

. Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator-  !

cc: T. Westerman I. Barnes-Emerson. )

1 l

)

8710280356 071023 PDR- FOIA MAXWELLO7-143 PDR

./

J lJ h 1

_ _ __z__ __-__ _ J

l'. -

e 3.

Plan for Review of South Texas SAFETEAM The general approach to a review of the Safe Team program will be that the NRC' l conduct a review of progrannatic. features as well as a sampling of concern l l processing files covering hardware and wrongdoing matters under the licensee's l program. The identification of weaknesses and areas needing improvement is l a fundamental objective.

Team l G.L. Madsen, D.P. Tomlinson, and D.R. Carpenter l

l~ Schedule l l

eek of October 21,1985 )

Initial Review ,

1. Review of program description documentation to detennine intended  !

I objectives, responsibilities, organization, organizational relationships, I information flow, qualifications of personnel, etc. l

2. Review of program practices as they relate to the items noted in No. I above, and note any differences between stated intentions and actual- J practices. ,

Evaluation of intentions and practices as the NRC sees them. This would I 3.

be-a general comparison of HL&P Practices to NRC practices if the NRC had received the. worker concern as an allegation. This evaluation would include the consideration of concern classification, confidentiality, investigation / inspection completeness, documentation completeness, identification of corrective actions, corrective actions taken, consideration of root cause and generic implication when the allegation was substantiated,' timeliness of actions, and feedback to the concerned i worker. l

4. Select and review about 20% of technical concerns which n _gp has closed or are only lacking recontracting of the worker. The samp1e should be based on the summary descriptions of the concerns and should not include items relating to industrial safety, labor relations, industrial health, etc.

5. Select and review a sample of the wrongdoing concerns which HL&P_ has f closed or are only lacking recontracting of the alleger. (Concerns i related to harassment, intimidation, drugs, falsification, uHjust I termination,etc.) j

> (

'Y \9 l 1

j

l j

6. The reviews prescribed in items 4 and 5 above will be conducted in

( accordance with the attached SAFETEAM review protocol and data sheets will be prepared for each concern file reviewed (Attachments 1 and 2).

i

- Follow-on Phases '

The follow-on phases would involve periodic reviews of new files opened would The reviewer since the last review using the general approach outlined above.

be directed to review additional closed files of high interest which were not reviewed in previous inspections, with the goal of having reviewed at least 50% of all high interest files before a scheduled licensing decision; we may aim at a higher level .of review based on later developments. .

Documentation _

The reviewers (s) will document the results of the review in inspection reports issued by RIV. A standard form containing evaluation points and comments ,

would be used during the inspection, and a record will be kept of all files  !

t reviewed.

i I

l l

l i

l l

l l

l

____-_-_ _ . _ _ i

c . . .

L . . , g p;q 7.o . .

1 Attachment.1- j NRC TASK FORCE - HLAP' SAFETEAM Team Members y

l Objectives l l To review HL&P SAFETEAM files to detemine' whether HL&P has properly dealt' L with the concerns brought to this organization by the-employees.of HL&P and j

'its contractors.

' ~

l- .]

. As a result of the review, to determine what'NRC actions are required. .]

']

General Protocol l

' NRC review will be (generally) based on a review of the files, independent investigations and inspections are not anticipated during this effort. a l

There are to'be no in-process discussions with HL&P. personnel regarding the process, j concerns, results. . documentation, etc. An exit discussion will- be held. i No material is to be given to HL&P No material is to be.taken or reproduced from the HL&P files without team leader approval. j All reviews are to be documented on the task force. record of review forms;

~ -

.. . . . 1 Do not record the names of persons expressing concerns - protect confidentiality.

Conduct reviews using the general standard of: Did HL&P handle the matter like the NRC would have handled it? This includes proper followup with person concerned.

Bring significant issues to the attention of the team leader at once.

i l

l l

l 1

- _1_____2__ _ _ _ _ )

r: .

1 2

i Alert the-01 members to any significant issues involving intimidation /

harassment or wrongdoing.

}

Be! alert to signs of modified files, incomplete work, ignoring of leads, etc. )

Give' priority ~ to health and safety issues, but also to management integrity issues. Get the non-NRC issue interest out of the way quickly with minimal time spent. l l

l

, c. .

' Attachment 2 NRC TASK FORCE ~- HL&P - SAFETEAM.

Record of Review NRCReviewer(s): .DatE of Review:

. File Data:

HL&P- Identifier: _

Open Date: Close Date:

CONCERN: >

HL&P Concern Classification:

Plant' Safety: Security: Management: Industrial Safety:

. Miscellaneous:

HL&P Inspector / Investigator: I HL&P Reviewer / Approver: Was it 50.SS(e) Reportable:

Was it Reported: Was the Alleger Recontracted: ,

l NRC Evaluation: l Are File Contents Complete: Consents:

Does context of initial alleger contact re.. proper depth of information for followupl ,

i l

Yes: No:

Comments:

Concern Properly Classified: Comments:

Does this concern relate directly to nuclear safety? Yes: No:

l 1

,.j- -j

..i I

m ecewA,a The Light company noswei _ mus-1. u ,g o ggn. _

ST-HL-AE-2211 File No.* G02 May 27, 1987 f

l i

f,  ;

Mr. Robert'D. Martin '

' ' .l'I {

-Regional Director, Region IV )

Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 ,

Arlington, Texas, 76011 l l

RE: Allegation of Potential Fastener Problems at. the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STPEGS)  ;

Dear Mr. Martin:

-l The purpose of this letter is to provide to you the results of our j investigation into remarks made regarding the South Texas Project Electric I Generating Station (STPEGS) and suspect 'olting materials during a nevs broadcast. ]

On May 13, 1987, a Houston television station, Channel 11, aired a j segment in a news program that alleged the discovery of improperly l marked / unmarked / counterfeit fasteners at the STPEGS. ]

The broadcast contained several quotes from the Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) Inspectiorn2eport dated February 5,1986. Specifically, it quoted from Potential Enforcement Actions 3.a; bolting in load-side terminal extensions and 5;~ traceability and control of some fasteners. Finally, it included an interview with Tommy Grant towner of Grant Fasteners in_ Houston

- who spoke of the " potential disaster" of counterfeit bolts and displayed a box .

of fastener materials which he stated ;had been purchased from the STP as surplus and including one bolt which had failed hardness testing. The reporter added that HL&P would not comment without further investigation.

1' This matter was turned over to our SAFETEAM organization for l investigation. The SAFETEAM investigation proceeded along two lines of  !

inquiry; 1) the presence of unmarked /misaarked/ counterfeit bolting at the j STYECS; and 2) the circumstances surrounding the surplus sale of bolting l j

materials,and the stated failure of a bolt to pass a hardness test.

l 1

The SAFETEAM investigators reviewed the CAT report and associated correspondence and determined that the Notices of Violation identified in that l report had been responded to by HLAP; and that the remedial and corrective

. actions taken had been verified by the NRC and the Notices of Violation closed. ,,

y

[ 49tphpMV %g, L +" - .-___

J

-} fa , ib ~* .

!" f ilonyon Lighting & lher Wmpany ' .

b {

ST-HL. AE- 2211 l File No'.: G02 i

- Page Two.  ;

f The SAFETEAM investigator also determined that an investigation into I counterfeit / mismarked bolts had been conducted by H14P in April.1987. The q investigation was initiated by the receipt of a research' report from the j

--Industria1' Fasteners Institute.(IFI) titled " False Grade 8 Engineering l

. Performance Marks on Bolting and Improper-Marking on Grade 8 Nuts".

The

report indicated that testing of'a sample of bolts from various geographic locations had discovered a number of Grade 8.2 bolts which were identified as Grade'8. These bolts have similar physical properties but different l chemistries. The Grade 8.2 bolts are susceptible to failure at temperatures

^

exceeding 650. degrees.F.

The investigation determined that Grade 8 bolts have not been purchar.ed in bulk by the STPEGS. A walkdown was conducted of those areas of the plant ,

exposed to temperatures exceeding 500 degrees F. A number of Grade 8 bolts were found which were considered suspect. A sample of the bolts was subjected to chemical analysis which determined that a number of the bolts in the sample

.were Grade 8.2 that were improperly marked as Grade 8.

These bolts were furnished by Pacific Valve as a part of their product.

An analysis of the. test results by Pacific resulted in their recommendation that the bolts did not have.to be replaced since the bolts are exposed to  !

temperature of less than 570 degrees F.

Equipment from other suppliers (Cooper & Westinghouse) was also walked down and no suspect bolts were identified. In response to our request, both Westinghouse and Cooper have stated that they have reviewed the records of their equipment supplied to the STP and determined that no suspect bolts were  !

provided.

In summary, the investigation into the first part of the allegation determined that mismarked Grade 8.2 bolts were supplied to the STPEGS as part I of vendor equipment. The bolts are utilized in non-safety related equipment, are not exposed to temperatures exceeding 650 degrees F; and do not represent a threat to the health and safety of the public, to the health and safety of plant personnel; or the safe operation of the plant.

The SAFETEAM investigation into the circumstances surrounding the sale of surplus bolting materials included a review of project procedures for surplus materials, an interview with the surplus dealer and Tommy Grant, and a review of the test reports provided by Tommy Grant.

The investigation determined that approximately 40,000 pounds of surplus fasteners of different safety classes, sizes, materials, etc. were sold to a surplus dealer. The materials were sold "as is" and "where is" without any documentation or warranty, in accordance with project procedures. Our review of the' marketing efforts of the surplus dealer revealed no evidence of unethical conduct.

j

e .

,4  ;, 3 linosion 1.igining & IN>wer Compan) l ST-llL- AE- 2211 l: -File No.: G02 Page Three Our review of the test report for the bolt that was reported as failing the hardness test determined that the bolt in question was from a lot of 1500 A307 galvanized carbon steel bolts purchased from a domestic supplier as non-safety related for use in railings, stairs, and gratings. A sample of the lot was subjected to a user test upon receipt, including chemical analysis, physical testing, and a hardness test The test results were acceptable, llL&P engineering review of the test results provided by Tommy Grant has determined that the hardness test results of that bolt are acceptable for its intended applications at STPEGS.

The results of the SAFETEAM investigation are being forwarded to ilL&P legal counsel for their review and determination of possible legal action.

The SAFETEAM investigation is available for review by members of your staff at any time.

Very truly yours,

<4 J. H. Goldberg Group Vice-President, Nuclear JEG/sd s

1 1

, p ,, e 1 y 3. s , a

.iliiuston 1 igining X: l'oner Coinpm ST-HL-AE-2211 File No.: G02 Page Four cc:

Regional Administrator,LRegion IV T. V. Shockley/R. L. Range  !

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Central Power & Light Company .

.611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 P. O. Box 2121 Arlington, TX 76011~ Corpus'Christi, TX 78403 l

G. L. Constable,~ Region IV M. B. Lee /J. E. Malaski '!

Nuclear Regulatory Commission City of Austin j

.611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 P. O. Box 1088 m . Arlington, TX 76011 Austin, TX 78767-8814 I

M. Emerson, Region IV A. von Rosenberg/M. T. Hardt Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Public Service Board

'611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 P. O. Box,1771 Arlington,'TX 76011 San Antonio, TX' 78296 N. Prasad Kadambi, Project Manager Advisory Committee'on Reactor Safeguards

'U.. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission q 7920 Norfolk Avenue 1717 h Street f Bethesda, MD 20814 Washington, DC 20555 Robert L. Perch, Project Manager A. Self (2)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~7920 Norfolk Avenue H. R. Kelly Bethesda, MD 20814 i Dan R. Carpenter Senior Resident Inspector / Operations -l c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

'P. O. Box 910 Bay City, TX 77414

. Claude E. Johnson l Senior Resident Inspector /STP c/o U. S, Nuclear Regulato:y Commission P. O. Box 910 Bay City,-TX 77414 I

i M. D. Schwarz, Jr. , Esquire Baker & Botts One Shell Plaza llouston, TX 77002  ;

1

.J. R. Newman, Esquire Newman & Holtzinger, P. C.

1615 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 t

1

- _ _ - _ = - _ - _ _ _ _ -