ML20237G261
| ML20237G261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Comanche Peak |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1986 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Heltemes C NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237F649 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-377, RTR-NUREG-0090, RTR-NUREG-90 NUDOCS 8709020169 | |
| Download: ML20237G261 (4) | |
Text
_
CH l
[
4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
[ y,,.
g e
~
8 REGION IV j
- 'k..
o 8
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000
'\\
8 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011
</
J Oct /.
JUL 3 01986 i
/
ORANDUM FOR: Clemens J, Heltemes, Jr., Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data FROM:
Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator 5
SUBJECT:
INPUT TO THE ABNORMAL OCCURRENCE REPORT TO CONGRESS I
l In accordance with your July 1, 1986, memorandum on the abnormal occurrence report to Congress for the second quarter of calendar year 1986, we have j
reviewed activities in this region for deportability. We are aware of one Region IV event of interest as referenced in your memorandum (i.e., III.3,
" Construction Problems at Comanche Peak"). The write-up on this issue is enclosed. Our comments on issues of interest though which we believe are not J
l worthy of reporting are as follows.
1.
Alleged Violations at Pathfinder Mines Corporation - An enforcement action was taken on October 23, 1985, against Pathfinder Mines Corporation.
^
That action was the issuance of a proposed imposition of an $8,000 civil penalty concomitant with a Notice of Violation that contained six viola-1 tions. Four of the violations were evaluated by NRC as an aggregated Severity Level II problem. Those violations stemmed from the unauthorized construction of leach pile-evaporation ponds. We have reviewed the licensee's November 19, 1985, response to our Notice of Violation and proposed civil penalty. To enable us to better understand the positions i
taken by the licensee in their response, NRC held a management meeting with representatives from Pathfinder on January 15, 1986. In that meeting, the licensee described supplemental information to their November 19, 1985, letter. Subsequently, Region IV's recommendation to IE was that two of
)
the four assessed violations be withdrawn and that the severity level be decreased to an aggregate Eeverity Level III problem. Also, as discussed
{
l in a June 23, 1986, letter to the licensee, the NRC staff does not intend i
to impose the associated civil penalty (i.e., $5,000) in lieu of e.n $8,000
)
fine to be paid by the licensee to the State of Wyoming.
j j
Inasmuch as the proposed enforcement action, which is now being reviewed by NMSS, OGC, and IE, calls for a reduction to a Severity Level III with no civil penalty, we believe that this issue does not warrant inclusion in the report to Congress. Should Headquarters not agree with our proposed enforcement action, we will consider this issue for deportability in the input to the report for Congress for the next quarter of CY 1986.
To-4 M l
8709020169 870820 r/ /
r/ A PDR FOIA GORDONB7-377 PDR
a, Memorandum to Clemens J. Heltemes JUL 3 0 h..:o 2.
Exposure of Radiographic Personnel Due to Management and Procedural Control Deficiencies (A0 85-17) - This item involving Western Stress was originally reported in the report to Congress for the third quarter of 1985. The OI report was issued on July 9, 1986. The OI report entitled
" Western Stress, Incorporated: Alleged Material False Statement (4-85-017)"
is presently under review for potential enforcement action by Region IV.
For this reason and another more important reason that should not be discussed herein, we recommend that an update on this matter to the report to Congress not be made until a later date.
l 3.
Rupture of A Uranium Hexafluoride Cylinder and Release of Cases (A0 86-4) -
Region IV has no information to recommend for updating on this matter.
We do, however, recognize that licensing activities have been ongoing between the licensee and NMSS and that those issues may be worthy of inclusion in the report to Congress.
Any questions on our input may be directed'to ale A. Powers at FTS: 728-8195.
/
N.Y Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
P. Bobe. AEOD R. Smith, URF0 R. Bangart, RIV T. Westerman, RIV l
l
ENCLOSURE APPENDII C OTHER EVENTS OF INTEREST i
l The following item is described below because it may possibly be perceived by the public to be of public health significance. The item did not involve a major reduction in the level of protection provided for public health or safety; therefore, it is not reportable as an abnormal occurrence.
l 1.0 Construction Problems at Comanche Peak The Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Units 1 and 2, utilize Westinghouse-designed pressurized water reactors and are located near I
Clen Rose, Texas. They are owned by Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC). On May 2, 1986, the NRC Director of Inspection and Enforcement transmitted to TUEC two separate Notices of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $250,000 as a result of multiple failures on TUEC's part to meet requirements pertaining to the construction and quality assurance program at CPSES Units I and 2 and in the amount of $120,000 as the result of TUEC's failure in three instances to assure quality control inspectors the organizational freedom to identify problems.
Construction and Quality Assurance The NRC has devoted substantial resources to evaluating the adequacy of j
construction at the CPSES facility. In addition to the routine and special inspections conducted by NRC Region IV, a Construction Appraisal Team inspection was conducted by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement on January 24 - February 4,1983, and February 14 - March 3,1983. From April 13 - 18, 1984, a review by the Special Review Team (SRT) was conducted by representatives of NRC Region II.
Subsequently, the NRC l
Technical Review Team (TRT) was assembled which consisted of approximately 50 specialists from NRC headquarters, NRC regional offices, and consultants, to evaluate and resolve technical issues and issues identified as a result of allegations. The results of the review of the issues by the TRT are documented in Safety Evaluation Report (SER)
NUREG-0709, Supplements 7, 8, 10, and 11. These isroes include failure to ensure that quality control inspectors were properly qualified and certified, ineffective interactions between the various engineering and construction groups, deficiencies in the quality control inspection program, and failure to properly implement the site's corrective action program. In response to these issues, TUIC has issued a " Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan and Issue-Specific Actions Plan" to describe l
planned corrective actions.
1 Two separate special inspections were conducted on November 18 -
l December 18, 1985, and J'anuary 1 - March 4,1986, respectively, by l
Region IV, concerning the TUEC Unit I as-built cable tray inspection
1
)
I I
l
. program and the procurement and installation of electrical containment containment penetration assemblies furnished by the Bunker Ramo Corporation. These two inspections identified failures to properly inspect the Unit 1 cable trays and deficiencies in the procurement and installation of electrical containment penetration assemblies.
On June 25, 1986 TUEC was granted an extension in responding to the TRT issues and Region IV special inspections.
)
1 Organizational Freedom As a result of the numerous allegations of intimidation, harassment, and discrimination, and the relevance of this issue to the contentions in the ongoing operating license hearing, the NRC undertook a comprehensive-d review and evaluation of the allegations of intimidation, harassment, and j
discrimination at CPSES. A report prepared by an NRC Comanche Peak l
Intimidation Panel (Panel) aided by a Study Team of consultants was f
issued on November 4, 1985.
(" Report of the Review and Evaluation of Allegations of Intimidation and Harassment of Employees at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2," October 1985.) The NRC staff has reviewed the Panel report, the completed Department of Labor discrimination cases regarding CPSES, the Office of Investigation reports, and the TUEC responses regarding intimidation at CPSES. Three incidents were identified as violations by the NRC staff as a result of this review.
l On June 2, 1986, TUEC responded to the violations concerning intimidation, harassment and discrimination and requested further NRC staff consideration with regard to two of the violations. The response is under review by the NRC staff.
1 i
l 1
)
1 U