ML20237L367
See also: IR 05000445/1985007
Text
i'
i
%,
c ,o g g g - 7 7
cf# "8
UNITED STATES
-
.p'
- $
- ( .
,5
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
"
,
.-
,,1
D
REGION IV
/
/
', /~
- o
611 RYAN PLAZA oRIVE, SUITE 1000
,.
,
,
ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011
-
JAN 2 ' 1987
MEMORANDUM FOR: John G. Davis, Director,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards
FROM:
Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region IV
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON CPSES INSPEC
1 have prepared the attached general notes in order to pro id
v e the CPRRG
l
with some additional background on the overall Comanche Peak P
i
reports of interest relate to that project.
roject and how the
\\
I trust you will find it useful.
f
Id$s0
a$-
e
t
Robert D. Martin-
Regional Administrator
Attachment:
As stated
i
k
\\
l
.
0708200192G{$$h43
ADOCK O
G
_
_ - _ -
_
e
C
l
.
-
.
.
Attachment
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON
COMANCHE PEAK INSPECTION REPORTS
General
The Comanche Peak Project was formed by EDO in his memoranda of March 12, 1984
and June 12, 1984. The Project was to be under the direction of the Comanche
Peak Project Director. The first Project Director, T. Ippolito, was succeeded
by V. Noonan.in October 1984. When Region IV resumed responsibility for
implementation of field inspection activities, the region formed the Region IV
Comanche Peak Group (July 1985) under the direction of T. Westerman. Westerman
was succeeded by I. Barnes in June 1986. Prior to the formation of the
Region IV Comanche Peak Group in July 1985, the limitec' inspection activities
l
of Region IV were conducted under the management of the Chief of Reactor
Projects Branch 2 in Region IV.
After formation of the group, it was found that only a few inspection reports
had been issued up to that point in 1985. There were inspection reports and
inspection-related correspondence that had been prepared, but not signed out by
the Division Director (that Division Director left NRC in November 1985).
I
Westerman was given the assignment to get all outstanding inspection-related
correspondence through the Project Director (Noonan) and ELD review chain.
!
Because of the complex hearing in process for Comanche Peak and the extensive
inspections, reviews, and evaluations r nducted by the Technical Review Team
during the period from the summer of 15d4, it was decided that all Region IV
inspection reports reports would receive review by the Comanche Peak Project
i
Director and ELD (now OGC) to assure consistency of NRC positions with TRT
actions and prior hearing testimony.
Initially, upon formation of the Region IV Comanche Peak Group it was believed
that a joint report for all Region IV inspection activities would be most
useful. Therefore, the reports of inspections of preoperational testing,
readiness for operation, construction, and oversight activities for the
<
~
licensee's Comanche Peak Response Team program were synthesized into a common
document.
In February 1986, this practice was discontinued becaue of the
varying preparation, review, and issue resolution time required for each of the
report segments. Since that date, each unit of the task group issues
individual reports.
(It should be noted that report 85-07/85-05 was prepared
prior to formation of the Region IV Comanche Peak Group, but was one that had
{
not been processed out of the region when the prior Division Director left.)
1
The Regional Administrator, by memo dated June 12, 1986, requested IE to
provide the review function for inspection reports prepared by Region IV for
!
Comanche Peak. This was done when the region became aware of the OIA
investigation and the Regional Administrator was asked to suspend his review of
the issues in contention for the duration of the investigation.
l
!
l
'
l
l
\\
L
--_____
-
(
.
-
.
-2-
i
Inspection Report 85-07/85-05
Period of Inspection:
April 1 - June 1, 1985
First Draft Produced:
August 28, 1985
Sent to NRR and ELD for Review: Early October 1985
Revised Version:
November 26, 1985
Sent to Licensee:
February 3, 1986
Two prior versions and the final report are in the p6ssession of Region IV.
There is the initial draft which was provided to Region IV management in late
August 1985, by the inspectors. There is the second version which represents a
signed revision of the first version by H. Phillips and N based on
comments provided by T. F. Westerman and reviews done by 1. Barnes. This
second version, which had been signed, was sent to NRR and ELD for review and
comment in early October 1985. This was the first report to be handled by the
Region IV Comanche Peak Group. Further revisions to the report were made to be
responsive to the review comments made by NRR and ELD. Those revisions were
made by November 26, 1985 and returned to NRR for concurrence on December 3,
1986.
Prior to issuing the revised report to the licensee, the revisions were
discussed with the SRI-construction (H. Phillips) who was the team leader for
the inspection and who signed the report for himself and for
who was
not available at that time. After the report was issued, Mr.
questioned
why the report had been changed and a meeting was held on February
5, 1986,
with C
T. Westerman, I. Barnes, E. Johnson, and R. Hall to
discuss this repor .
On March 12,1986,M met with R. Hall and E. Johnson to continue
l
discussion of the report. Althou M apparently had no further
j
questions on the report
was still questioning why the report had
J
been changed to drop unresolved tems. 6 said he understood the
I
reasons for deleting the violations since they were clear items.
E. Johnson
said that management must ensure that technically accurate reports are written
i
and since the apparent unresolved items were clear items, we were not required
to write a report that basically said that the inspector saw an item which was
believed to be unresolved but then was determined not to be unresolved.
Inspection reports did not have to be a diary of inspector activities.
1
On or about March 12
T. Westerman and E. Johnson briefed R. Martin on this
i
issue since he had been called by V. Noonan to report that he (Noonan) had
i
received calls from Phillips and Q (who was at the site) to express
l
concerns about report handling.
]
R. Martin directed T. Westerman to interview all the NRC inspectors and
consultants at the Comanche Peak site to determine if they had concerns over
the handling of reports or inspection issues. These interviews were conducted
on March 13 and 14, 1986. The results of the interviews are contained in an
April 3,1986 memo from T. Westerman to E. Johnson.
i
)
_ . _ _ - _ _ - _ _ .
_ _ _ _ _ _ - . - _
_ . _
_ _ _ _ .
,
,
- l
.
.
,
.
-3-
T. Westerman infonned E. Johnson that H. Phillips andM still had
apparent problems. As a result
E. Johnson issued a memo, dated March 25,
1986, to each of these people directing them to put their concerns in writing
so they could be dealt with. A similar memo was sent to
to give him
the opportunity to express any remaining concerss.
.
On March 14. E. Johnson talked to J. Partlow to ask if IE would be available to
-
provide a person to assist Region IV in reviewing inspector findings when the
.
inspector had an issue that could not be resolved by regional management.
J. Partlow agreed to do so. This was discussed with Y. Noonan on March 17, and
he also agreed to provide a consulting expart if one was required. This was to
be an ad hoc arrangement.
As a result of the difficulties encountered in addressing the HQ comments on
this report after it had been signed by the inspectors, signatures were not
obtained on any further reports until all regional and HQ comments had been
resolved.
.
.
t
I
-
.*
. - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - - _ _ _ .
.__ - -
.
-
s
,
,
..
-4-
!
Inspection Report 50-445/85-14; 50-446/85-11
Period of Inspection:
October 1 - October 31, 1985
First Draft Produced:
7 drafts produced over period of
11/1-12/23/85.
'
Sent to NRR and ELD for Review: January 22, 1986
Sent to Licensee:
March 6, 1986
This inspection combined the construction report, operations inspection, and
the Comanche Peak Region IV inspection of the Comanche Peak Response Team
activities into one common report.
There was a continuing interface between Regional management and the inspector.
These discussions dealt largely with the handling of issues in the inspection
The inspector expressed disagreement; however, as the drafts of
report drafts.
the inspection report evolved, it was Regional management's understanding that
resolution had been reached on all issues. The inspector signed and concurred
in the report.
Regional management considers that an inspector, when concurring in and signing
an inspection report, is stating that he or she is in agreement with the report
in those areas for which the employee has knowledge, expertise, or
Due to issues which developed from this report, Region IV
responsibility.
issued Policy Guide No. 0220, Revision 1, " Meaning of Concurrence" to
communicate this understanding to all of the staff.
The statement in the OIA Investigation Report, that " Westerman and Johnson were
also aware that Phillips andMdid not concur with changes made in
inspection reports and signed the reports only because management wanted them
It is true that Mr. Phillips and
to" is not correct and is misleading.
did express disagreements; however, it was not until Mr. Phillips'
C ~ 1986, memo, which was received after the report was issued, that
April a,
Regional management was aware that the inspector (Mr. Phillips) was only
signing and concurring in inspection reports to acknowledge that "My signature
means I recognized that supervisors and managers have the authority to make
such changes."
The OIA Report conclusion states that " Westerman and Johnson accepted thisThat
situation and took no action to address the inspector's disagreements."
A number of initiatives were taken by Regional
statement is incorrect.
These initiatives
management once it was identified that there were concerns. commenced in
i
I
discussed previously.
4
4
1
.-_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
6
-
.
-
,
,
-5-
Inspection Report 50-445/85-16; 50-446/85-13
Period of Inspection:
November 1-30 1985
First Draft Produced:
7 drafts produced over period
12/9/85 - 2/14/80
Sent to NRR and ELD far Review': March 8, 1986
Sent to Licensee:
April 4, 1986
In order to follow all the management actions relative to this report, the
following documents would have to be examined:
Phillips Memorandum of May 12, 1986 " Matrix of Drafts for Report
85-16/13"
Report Drafts la and Ib
'
Report Drafts 2a and 2b
l
Report Drafts 4
Report Drafts 5a and Eb
Final Report Draft 6.a
The drafts of this report were, in Regional management's judgement, poorly
written, organized, and difficult to read. This certainly compounded the
difficulties of review of this report.
Mr. Phillips' memorandum, mentioned previously, stating that his signature only
indicated that he acknowledged management had the right to make changes to the
report, was dated April 4, 1986, and was received after issuance of this
report. Regional Management would not have issued the report had Mr. Phillips'
memorandum been timely.
.
__
I
1
.
k)
T
e
i
,
N
-
- _ _ - - _ - - - _ - - - - -