ML20238A966

From kanterella
Revision as of 01:42, 24 January 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Nonconcurrence W/Nrc Insp Repts 50-445/86-08 & 50-446/86-06.All Matters Re Insps Properly Handled
ML20238A966
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 03/09/1987
From: Martin R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Phillips H
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20237K807 List: ... further results
References
NUDOCS 8708210136
Download: ML20238A966 (5)
v • d • e


See also: IR 05000445/1986008

Text

_----- _ _ - _

-

'

  • '*****',

- whsTro $Tatts

{ , 3

/ s, NUCt!AA REGULATORY COMMISSION

f'  ! k ,,kI *iecioNav l

',

g

g '

'

'g Y.I

, , ,]'; , "

sit avam eLAza oaive. svitt 1o0o

AmumsTow Texas acu

' I4

I

MEM0F.Ah0VH FOR: K. S. Phillips Senior Construction

l

,

ltesident Ir.spector, Comanche Peak

.

FPCM: P.obert D. Martin  ;- -

Regienal Administrator

,

.

, SUBJECT: NONCONCURRENCE WITH NRC IN5FECT10N REPORT 86-08/06

(Docket Numcers 50-445,50-446)

)

i

Your niemorandum to me, same subject, dated February 23, 1987, indicated ycur

decision not to sign or concur wit'i the subject inspection report and indicated

your reascns for not signing the report of your inspection activities. Each of

-

, -

the reasons you gave are discussed below: .

,

1)

You stated that violations were dropped and will not te written'by

..-

  • another inspector accceding to an understanding reached. Even though

! the review and document preparation assistance were provideo from

the Office of Irspection and Enforcemer.t (!E), anc we are not fully

l aware of all that has transpired in reaching the current version, we

have reviewed your drafts for the sucject report, and assume that you

-

are referring to initially craftec violations discussed below: .

. ,,'

a. Item A of your original craft (May 30,1985) Notice of Violation

(FCV) was a citation concerned with insufficient correcthe 'f

i actior relatec principally to the 1976 TUGC0 MAC report. This '

pecposed violation,was not included in Draft 1 (August 1, 1986),

tre first versicn of the report reviewed by IE, but was .

discussec in paragraph 3 of the report and left as an open area *

related to violations 8432-02 anc 8411 02. A draft violation '

'

involving a 1977 B&R MAC report was included as a part of

violation C in Draft 1. This violation does not appear in Draft

2 (September 11, 1983). The supporting text in Draft 1 leaves

<

' this matter coen, a.1so as a part of 8432-02, 8411-02. Neither

the preposed violations relateo to MAC audits, nor the

su porting text are reflectec in crafts subsequent to Oraft 1.

I

1

'

considering:

i

- that the appropriateness of citing a licensee in 1986 ,

  • for actions which he failed to take in 1977 ar.d 1978 '

is questionable; ,

- that the transmittal letter for the violations cited [l

  • '

in inspection report 84-32/11 permitted the licensee

the option of responcing cirectly to the citations or <

. .

incorporating them into their if AP on QA audits (they

chose the latter option); and j

. j 'I

i

1

, .

i l QS-Q3 37 ;3:52 c, 1

FECM NRC RIV .: F L . * 1 . 2

8708210136 870312

PDR ADOCK 05000445

G PDR

I

-- _ _ _ _ _

-- -- _

____,

":

i . * $

3 a

1_

'

TR - 9 -

,

( I

H. 5. Phillips -2-

that the ISAP '/II.a ser'es has been judged by the NRC

, {,.

.

i

'

staff to represent an acequate vehicle to assure'

' evalbation of the safety significance and to identify

recessary corrective actions for the ereis of tne [*

adequacy of tne licensee's entire audit program, and *

that of its contractors. .-

the present. documentation of this issue is suitaDie and no ,

'

acditional efforts or enforcement actions are warranted. {

' .

Draft 1 of the inspection report contained another matter

-

'

b.

' concerning insufficient corrective action as Violation. A. This

item related to the Fred Lobbin report and to a CAT inspection

"j report. This violation was not included in Draf t 2. Resciut. ion -

j

of the matter of insufficient corrective action was incorporated

,

into the ISAP VII.a series. The CAT findings are.dispositioned '

' as a part of the norzel inspection program. The ISAP VII.a

prograta is an ongoing activity cn wnich tne NRO has not as yet

cornsleteo our review and inspection act.ivities; therefore. ,

issuance of this violation would not be appropriate. ,'

Draft 1 also contained as Violation D, an item cor.cerning inccmpletc .i .

'

torquirg of gland nuts on instrument isolation drain valves. This

item is addressed further in paragraph 5.d of the latest draft anc

apcears appropriately closed. Apparently tnis initially cefineo

! vit.iation was properly removec after additional infonnation was ,

' obtainec by the inspec, tor.

Your February 23,1987, mer.1orandum implies that you expected ancther

l

inspector to write violaticns similcr to a. and b. abovei however

oJr understandir.g is riore like the character 12ation you stated in

.

your fremorandum cateu Octcber 31,1986, in which you said: "On i; - "

Septemoer 2,1985 Gentge-Gower can.e to site and went over the repcrt

and esked me to crop two failure to take corrective action "

-

'

violaticos, as Clif Hal'e would take care of these areas." Our

e

orderstandtry is that the CPTG woulc esspre that the CPRT collective ,.

evaluation of the ISArs incluced these areas, and that upon

,

completion, the ISAF iteports would be reviewed and inspected as ,

-

,

appropriate. Le co not believe that it was the intent of another

inspector to issue your perceived violations, a fact that was

confirmed by discussions with *. hat inspector. ~

You expressed concern that for over a year Region !Y renagement had "

f

2)

.

-

rishandled and delayec issuance of the' violation included in the ,

suDjeC: report. The celays in prccessing this report have been

cirectly related to the efforts to resolve allegations concerning ,/

irrproper hanoling of your previots reports, and to the method for

prccessing of reports coring the tine the OIA investigation was in

i

i

6

e

e

.

'

03/09,CT 13:c2 p, 3

FCCM NFC RlU A I.' L . T 4

l

1

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

- _ _ _ _ _ -__. _

' ;i

i

\  !

wa - G '

F. S. Fhillips -3- l-

process. Tne initial draft violation packcse was prepared by you -

in May 1986 (hand dated May 30,1985), and Craft 1 of the inspection

,

report was receivec in the region August 1, 1966. Fullowing the

precess definec by the EDO. your suoervisor prepared his comments on

,f your draft. Your draf t, along with the supervisor's coments were

transmitted to IE on August 21. 1986. Following discussions betweer, r

j [,

you and the !! reviewer, you prepared Draft 2, which was received in

l the region on September 11, 1986. Your craft and the acc:rrpanying

'. i

supervisor's comments were forwarced to IE on October it.,1986. Atter

, i

another round of discussions between the IE reviewer and ycurself, you i

.' prepared Draf t 3, which was received in the region on

hovember 6, 1986. The supervisor again provided his connents to tne

I'

I

IE reviewer on Novernber 7,1986. A final version of the report was h

prepareo for signature arc initially sent to the region for

signatures and issuance on January 23. 1987. In your memorandum to

l

a

1. Barnes dated January 6.1987, you indicated your intent not to

sign the report. On February 23, 1987, you wrote your refusal to i

,

sign and concur with the report on the original copy and returnec it

to the region. ',p

I-

As is evicent from tre aoove secuence, the Office responsible for

,

working with ycu in issuance of your reports had difficulty in

i

working witt you in eciting yoJr reports such that they were

acceptaDie for release as agency cccuments. Accordingly, at least

three drafts of this report were necessary, and a fourth version is  !-

' now to be preparec. In c.y review and assessment of the delays in

issuance of this recort, I believe that it is inappropriate for you

!

' to assign responsibility for all of these delays to either your

i

supervisor or to the 19 reviewer.

.

3) You alsc expressed ccocern that your supervisor did not provide -

cenrents directly to you en the report. In accordance with the above 4

a

'

g

noted interim processing procedure, your reports were sent tc the

'

!

responsible reviewir.g official without cher.ge from wnat you prepared.

Accertpanying each such. draft subruittal was a marked up copy

,

reflecting tne changes tnat your supervisor would have made en the

araft had he been responsible for reviewing and precessing the :l

inspection report. This procedure for interim processing of your ,

reports did not allow direct coanments from your supervisor to you

regarcing report centent to preclude both the reality arc any

,

I ,'

j appearance of any intimidating activity of the kind that was under  !

I

investigation by OIA at that time.

4) Ycu stated that the final reocrt barely reseinbled the inspection you "

docu'nented Decause screone else wrote it. The final version of the

inspection report has been significantly editec during the review

process. Discussions with the principal reviewer confirin that the

' l

1

,

I i

-

i

h

= = ,:m dp: m:u c=t. .x. 02 03 r 12:=2 p. .:

__ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ __ _

.

. .  ;

'

't p.; . q

i

i

" r. 5. Phillips -4-

report was edited during meetings with you, and that you were always

i in agreen 'nt with the changes he proposed. Teerefore, we cannot .

'

fir,o support for your contcrtion tnat scmeone else wrote this

,

.

', inspection report as it presently exists.

, -

,

On tne basis of the 'oregoing. I conclude that all matters concerning

.' inspection report 50-445/86-08, EC-4A6/86-06, have oeen properly hardled or

are being appropriately pursued. I had decided to 1ssue this report withcut

your signature in accordance with Regicnal Office Policy Ouide (ROPG) 0220.

However, as you know, we have been advised that the Director Office of

1 Inspection and Er,'orcement has requestec that you further edit this report to

! resolve your objections for his review ard final dispositioning. Accordingly,

,1 the subject inspection report wi.ll not be issued until dispositicned by the j

DirCCtcr IE. i*

THs letter, and your letter outlinirg your basis for not signing the report,

will be placed in tre regional docket file along with the various drafts and

the supporting informatier related to this report.

f

th[ l

Robert D. Martin

hg l.

Regional Admir.istrator

cc j.

J. M. Taylor

.

,

- l G. A. Arlotto 2

-

.

'

F.. L, Spessarc

E. H. Jonnson

,

i-

1. Barnes

!

'] C. Hale - t

l.

.

. .

,

'

,

g

s

s

. ,

e *

f

4

4 i

t

.

,

  1. 84

.

0

i

F R 0r1Ml F C  ::. I U

tFL.TX, 03 0 /37 ;5:ga p, g 7c7 g ; 5

l

l

. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

l.'

U%fTso stA11s

CY R6 - y j

p***'"".,, .

NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N

?  ;*p . . i ;

.

.

-

atoiok tv l'

!

w A[*- Jl

', e 1 av AN puZf. 0af vf. $ditt 1000

ARLifvGTON, f(KAS *sgtt

b, ,e

1

FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL '

l i

' DATE/T78E: f Y /,' 3 8O #R IOR f ?_Y,: .p -

8 Ime:iately

/

I 1 Mour

f .

I

'

2 4 Heurs

.

.

.

I, MESSAG* TC: s.

i

vi

'

'

MESSAGE TRCM: dCb'/ i i

.

f

NUMBER OF PAGES: PLUS TRAN.SMITTAL SHEET l'

t

.

VERIFICATION NUMBER:

.- TELECCPY NUMBER:

I

'

CONTACT: _

._

_

,

.

..... ,

I

1

m...............................:.......................................

SDECIAL INSTRUt*10NS/ATTACWVE'4T(S):

I

M Ar+r- .

}.

..

i !

! '

'

4

i

\

.d

,

e

01SDOS! TION:

Transmitted & Verified by: Retarn :: Ori g t r. ate r

Place in Mail

I CATE

Other

WE

,

,

,$

y

p.

. . T'

y = o n #: uv m. . 0 ze 3. 3- n.s 1

l

\l

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20238A966&oldid=3110849"