ML20237L240

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Author Re Hs Phillips Concerns of Region IV Insp Program for Plant.No Evidence Found That Downgrading of Proposed Violations Had Adverse Effect on Plant Safety
ML20237L240
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 11/05/1986
From: Thomas Scarbrough
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To: Mulley G
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA)
Shared Package
ML20237F760 List: ... further results
References
NUDOCS 8708200139
Download: ML20237L240 (6)
v • d • e


Text

.

?

I November 5, 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: George A. Mulley, Jr., OIA ,

FROM: lOh Thomas G. Scarbrough, ASLAP

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK l

In a July 8, 1986, memorandum to you, I discussed my .]

review of the concerns expressed by H.S. Phillips regarding_

the Region IV inspection program for Comanche Peak. One.of those concerns was that violations proposed by Phillips and other inspectors as a result of their. findings during inspections were unjustifiably downgraded to unresolved items by Region IV management, especially T.F. Westerman..

Based on my review of the proposed violations, inspection reports, and transcripts of interviews with NRC inspectors and consultants, I found that, while the downgrading of l

violations in some instances was well within management prerogative, there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation that several violations were downgraded without good cause. This. led to my conclusion that there had been j an effort on the part of T.F. Westerman and, possibly to a

l. lesser extent, E.H. Johnson to limit'the number of f

l violations assessed against the applicant. I did not find l

l any evidence, however, that this downgrading of proposed violations had an adverse effect on plant safety. .

t 8708200139 870819 ADOCK 05000445 <

PDR G PDR. ,

. l 2 )

\

l Essentially, I considered the improper downgrading to be a i

case of poor management action.

On November 4, 1986, you requested that I review the l

J transcripts of several interviews with T.F. Westerman and l

determine whether that information affected my position )

1

. I regarding the alleged improper downgrading of violations.

{

While my review has been unavoidably brief, I have found that the information does enable me to refine my position on l the subject. l To beg'in, Westerman clearly indicates in the interview l that he has attempted to limit the number of issues

' ]

I initially classified as violations in inspection reports.

Westerman Interview of July.10, 1986 Tr. 196-199. His l 1

stated basis for this action is that an issue initially l labelled as a violation, which later may be resolved as not an actual violation, can lead to questions regarding the credibility of the NRC staff when testifying before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. He appears concerned that interveners to the licensing proceeding will use any violations initially identified in inspection reports regardless of the later disposition of the issues. As a result, he prefers to label identified items as unresolved

( until there is undeniable evidence that a violation has occurred.

I agree with Westerman that it is proper to collect all of the facts before classifying an issue as'a violation. -

m____..__._ _ ... _ ___.____ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ______.___d

I '

H L ,

i 3 i l

l In the 700-page transcript oflhis interview, he discusses many of the instances of improper downgrading alleged by ,

H.S. Phillips. As I' indicated in my July 8 memorandum, I agreed with Westerman on some of the downgrading instances but on others I did not. My brief review of Westerman's- I J

. interview leads me to agree with him'in cer'tain additional l

~

instances that maintaining the issues as unresolved was appropriate until more facts were received. I do not agree with Westerman,-however, in every instance of downgrading.

For example,.in. Inspection Report 85-14/11, th'e continuing problem of water leakage into the record storage area, in my 1 I

opinion, should have been identified as a violation. In 1 J

regard to the shipment of records offsite in non-fire rated packages and without a backup copy discussed in that same inspection report, I disagree with the view supported by Westerman that there are no requirements for the protection of those records.

As I noted in my July 8 memorandum, downgrading of violations without good cause is contrary to the guidance of I&E Manual Chapter 0215 on Inspector Objectivi;y. Further, even the appearance of arbitrary downgrading of violations can cause the perception by the public of a failure on the part of the NRC staff to be objective in its dealings with an applicant. Westerman's practice of downgrading a large number of violations proposed by his inspectors can lead.to that perception regardless of his intentions. In -.<

i I

l 4

addition, the lack of communication between Westerman and Phillips has magnified the problem by giving the appearance I

to Phillips, and possibly others within and outside the l staff, that Westerman was arbitrarily downgrading proposed violations. -

l To resolve this problem, I suggest that Region IV l i l management, if.it agrees with Westerman's approach, provide  !

to its inspectors specific guidance as to management's intent that all issues be labelled as unresolved until the l facts clearly establish that a violation has occurred. The l l

issues should be fully tracked until a determination is made 1

as to their proper classification. 1 It is obvious that Westerman and Phillips disagree on quality assurance requirements in certain areas. This is l

1 not unusual within the NRC staff. In situations where the inspector and the immediate supervisor disagree on a quality assurance matter, it is important that the disagreement be 4

resolved such that the inspector accepts the supervisor's view of the quality assurance requirement. If necessary, an 0

interpretation of the quality assurance requirement should l

l be requested from the headquarters quality assurance staff through management channels. Westerman indicated that he had attempted to determine proper quality assurance requirements from headquarters staff personnel in at least in one instance. See Westerman Interview of July 10, 1986

, -c l

l

5 Tr. 235. His effort, however, was largely,on an individual basis and apparently did not invo1ve the request for a management position from the quality assurance. staff. ,

In summary, I conclude that T.F. Westerman is concerned l about the number of violations assessed against the 1

applicant. This concern appears to stem from the belief that interveners to the licensing proceedi,ng will ask questions of the staff that might damage its credibility if i an issue initially classified as a violation is later

-~~dstermined not to be a violation. Although Westerman's concern may be' genuine, I do not consider the potential for damage to the credibility of st aff witnesses in the licensing proceedirg to be so great as to necessitate actions by the staff that give the appearance of a lack of 1

objectivity'in its-dealings with the applicant.  !

While I agrbe that it is proper to collect all of the

}

l facts before assessing a violation against the applicant, :

believe that the large number of proposed violations downgraded by Westerman has caused the appearance of a lac <

of objectivity in his dealings with the applicant. In reviewing his extensive explanations for downgrading the proposed violations, I have found his explanations reasonable in many instances. I do believe, however, that in certain instances identified problems were downgraded te unresolved issues when, in my opinion, sufficient information existed at that time to consider the issue as a -

6 I

i violation. To resolve this. matter, Region IV management  :

l should provf.de clear guidance as to' the stage . at which issues raised.during inspections should he classified-as '

4 violacions, d In addition.to instances where Westerman and Phillips I

disagreed whether the information surrounding an issue was El l

sufficient to establish that a violation had occe.rred, j l

. disagreements between them concerning quality ausurance requirements resulted in certain proposed violations being I

downgraded. Those disagreements shocid have been resolved' by_ Westerman through a request for an interpretation of the proper quality assurance requirement from headquarters management of the quality assurance _ staff. As I stated in my July 8 memorandum,JI do'not find any evidence that the downgrading of proposed violations had en adverse effect on plant safety but do consider certain of the. instances of  !

I downgrading to involve poor management action. j Mr

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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20237L240&oldid=3221337"