Text

Forwards Comments & Questions on Paragraph 4.d Inclusion in Insp Repts 50-445/86-08 & 50-446/86-06,JP Johnson & Exhibit 23
	ML20148H426
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/18/1987
From:	Phillips H; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Gower G; NRC
Shared Package
ML20148H406	List: ML20148H402; ML20148H426;
References
	FOIA-87-865 NUDOCS 8803290422
	Download: ML20148H426 (8)
	v • d • e

,- _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___.________________

.

-

e

.

March 18, 1987

Memorancum Fort George Gower

Senior St a f f Mernber

NRC Headquarters

F-om: Harry Shannon Fhillips

Senior Resident Inspector

Comanche Peak Construction

Subject: Inspection Report 445/06-08; 446/86-06

>.

Reference: (1) Memor andum, Spessard to Martin, 2/27/87

(2) Merno r andurn , Martin to Phi 11ips, 3/3/87

(3) Memorandum, Phi 11ips to Martin, 3/6/87

I transtaitted a report that I would sign and concur with as

requested by references 1 and 2. You responded to this revised

report transruitted by reference 3.

I have reviewed two suggested paragraphs that you propose for

the letter of transtaittal and paragraph 4.d of the subject report.

Your suggested paragraphs again omat two violations that vere in my

ortginal and latest version of report 86-08/06.

or facts are also not included and I believe this Supporting gives a false findings

impression to the public about these matters.

I .would like to better understand your reasoning for your

suggested paragraph 4.d. In attachment No. 1,I arn 1isting items

omitted, mabing statements, and asking questions. P1 ease provide

answ+rs.

s

<4-, w

,

Harry 1annon Phi 11ips

Enclosures

1. Attachment 1 - Comment s /Ouest i on's

2. MAC Letter 5/17/78

3. Exhibit 23

pg

s.

89032h.f.-

.

-

2

.

t he' i nspec t i on (84-32/11). As a result, the NRC inspector reviewed

the MAC report during the current inspection and found that MAC had

f ound TUGCo's audi t progr am de fic i ent . "

Coenmen t : This is similar1y an understatement. TU rnanagernent were

aware that I asked for alI consultant reports, audits, reviews, etc.,

to show that they had regularly reviewed the status and adequacy of

the QA program. I received a copy of the MAC Peport JPJ-471 dated

May 1978 in 1 ate 1995 or about a year a f ter tnspection 84-32/11. In

September 1986 I learned that TU managernent made a rnat er i al false

st atement as document ed in Board Noti fication No. 86-20. I r eal i :: ed

that they had also rnade a mat erial false st at ernent to toe when they

said they had no other consultant reports other then Lobbin which

they provided to me. ..

The withholding of the MAC report dignt ficantly altered the

direction

the report.

of inspection 84-32/11 and the en forc ernent recommended in

It al so al t er ed ray concl usi ons r el at i ve to fuel loading

which was proceeding in September 1984; i.e., it would have

n egat i vel y impacted the expedited hearing for fuel Icading. If I had

knowledge of this report I would have per f orrned a rnore comprehensive

and focused inspection.

Question 2: Why do you propose to drop this statement?

3.

"The Comanche Peak response Team (CPRT) evaluation of audits,

Pesults Report for Issue Speci fic Ac tion Plan (ISAP) VII a.4 dated

June 28, 1985, did not d1scuss the MAC report as TUGCo did not commit

to followup an thi's' audit in ISAP VII a.4. The results report ISAP

VII a.4, dated April 18, 1986, did not address the speci fic B&R audit

pr ogram de fic i enc i es, ident i fi ed by the NRC inspector during the

current inspection. In addition, TUGCo had issued no response to

Inspection Report 50-445/84-32; 50-446/84-11 to out1ine corrective

action.

Ccwnmen t : Considering 1 and 2 above this too is an understatement in

paragraph 4d. It simply supports the fact that they did not take

cc4npr ehensi ve and e f f ec t i ve cor r ec t i ve ac t i on conc erning the audi t

program f r orn 1978 until the present.

.

Question: Why do you propose to drop this statement?

4 "B&R management also f ail ed to take corrective action on MAC

atdit MAC-77-66, dated June 3, 1977 and as a r esul t their site audit

pr ogr am has r ernained de fic i ent since 1977 based on a review of B&R

audi t s CP-12 t hrough CP-16 (1978 - 1979). Finding nuraber 15 in the

sanagement surnma r y s t a t ed , 'The site audit prograro is ineffective.'"

Cuestion: Considering the fact that the B&R audit program has been

in continuous noncompliance f r orn 1977 until now, how can you justify

dr opping this violation?

.

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __

.

,

3

.

NOTE: The BLR QA manager said they did not perform all audits

b+cause TU would not pay them to per form the audi t s needed. This was

stated in front of witnesses.

5.

"TUGCo management, according to MAC (MAC-JPJ-471), were aware of

that

identi MAC fied had audited

program deBLR ficienci Houston

es. and Comanche Peak site and had

As a result of ineffective

corrective action concerning the MAC findings, the BLR audit program

was

4. b , de4.c ficient from 1980 through 1985 as described above in paragraphs

and 4.e."

Ccenment :

Bot.rd Not i f i c a t i on No. 86-20 Cont ains st atements that are

at best unclear and at worst are falsel Page 21 of Exhibit 23 states

that the President of Texas Utilities > Generating Company did not inow

that MAC audi

parageaph 1, 1ast ted sentenee

Brown & Rocc but the let ter to htm (Exhibit 1)

talks about t' hat audit. I discussed this

letter with MAC and they con firmed that TUGCo knew about the report.

i n vesI tbelieve i ga t i on this is adoes

report material false stthis.

not address at ernent but the

This is my finding until

someonw can show otherwise.

The statement is necessary to support a viofation; i e. , TUGCo

failure

p r og y at:. .

to followup and review the status and adequacy of thts QA

Question:

Why do you propose to drop the understated finding?

6. "At. the titue NRC Inspection R+rport 50-445/84-32; 50-446/84-11

was issued, the option was offered and accepted by your letter

TX X -4453 dated March 11, 1985, whereby you elected to respond to

vi olations centained in this report as part of the Comanche Peak

Pesponse Tearn P1 an. "

Comment: It never was an option concerning corrective action to be

taken only the option to respond; i.e., 84-32/11 NOV page 3 requires

cor r ec t i ve action taken and corrective steps to avoid further

violation.

Page 6 of the final report (86-08/06) that RIV and Hg. proposed

to i ssue states that the B&R audit p r og r ane, a part of the licensee's

audit program, was in viofat1on as a'udtt report CP-27 (1985) was a

part of the noncoropliance. This proves that they cont inued in

noncernpliance a f t er the 1984 violations in 84-22/11.

TU did not respond until February 2, 1987 and it does not

addr ess the de fic1 ent BbP audi t program.

Cuestion a: How does this justtfy continued nonc orop l i anc e for 21/2

years after the 84-32 violations were identi fi ed?

.

-n-, - .- - . - - - - - - - r-------n - , - - - - - - _ - ~ -- - - - . . - , - - - - _- . - - , - -

-, ,

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

. . 4

.

Question b: How can anyone .just i f y a response to serious violations

taking 1'1/2 years while the audit program for Unit 2 construction

was

neccompliance?

indeterminate and finally identi fied by NRC to be in

7.

"It was our understanding the expectation that these violations,

together wi th r el at ed per t inent external source issue (e.g., TRT,

MAC) would be specifically included in the assessments per formed by

Issue Speci fic Ac tion Plans (ISAPs) VII.a.4 and VI.a.5, given the

sc op e of each. As a result of NRC review of the results reports for

these ISAPs, it is apparent that the r esul ts repor ts, in t h e rns e l ve s ,

do not explicitly ident i f y and describe the disposition of these

external source issues. This i s a roa t.t e r of concern when viewed in

the light of the findings noted i n t h i.'s, r ep or t regarding the BtR

audit prograrn and will be the subject o f separate corr espondence from

the NRC." /

Comment: This basically states they failed to tak e corrective

a: tion. This is an under st at ement as ISAP VI!.a.4 states that they

never intended t o t ake c ornpr ehensi ve c or r ec t i ve ac t ion. They only

looked to see if TU went through the rnotions not to assess audit

e f f ec t iveness which was the real issue. Apparently they did not even

see if B&R went through the rnotions.

In Sept ernber 1985 I spect fically asked C. Hal e, PIV Comanche

Peak Task Group, to look at B&R audit prograrn because I had seen

i ndi c at i ons o f pr obl erus. He ignored the *equest. He had no

int ent ion of pursuing the issues in the MAC report and was well aware

that TU made no comm1 t roent in the ISAP to addr ess the issues.

Questio'n How does this . justify not issuing violations whether in

86-08/06 or frorn the RIV CPTG r epor t ?

8.

"Criterion XVI of appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as irnplernent ed by

FSAR, Section 17.O, and TUGCo OAP, Section 16.O, Revi sion 0, dated

July 1, 1978, requires that conditions adverse to quality be promptly

identi fi ed, reported, and cor rec t ed.

Ee Liutt_t9_V itt x_G9ttestL90_91_ou_eudti_Deitsttuix

f

FSAR, Section 17.1.16, states that TUGCo r equi res rueasure be

established to assure that conditions adver se t o quali ty are prornpt 1y

1denti fied, reported, and corrected.'

! TUGCo pr oc edur e COI-C S-4. 6, Pevision 3, dat ed August 8, 1982, states

in part, 'Ver i fic at ion o f t rupl ernent a t i on o f cor r ec t i ve actions shall

be accornpli shed by appropr 1 at + means. '

Cont rary to the above, Audit De fic t ency No. 1 of TUGCo OA Audit

TC o-51 ( sep t ernb er 199"D was i rnpr oper l y c l osed out . That is, the

audttor did not veri fy the t rnp l ernen t a t i on of c ornr .1 t roen t s t o c or r ec t

the deficiency prior to closing the audit f i ndi ng. Pecords show that

in thi s case TUGCo had inttiated plans for r esol vi ng the audit

.

P

. .

5

.

. deficiency

446/8606-V-08). through review of the oper at ion t ravelers (445/8608-V-06;

.

This is a Severity Level V violation. (Supplement II)"

Cornmen t : This violation was identi fied by a junior inspector who

submitted the viol ation to me without proper proc edural references

and being in the correct format.

at in the proper format as he hadI left obtained

site. the re f erences and wrote

The point is that this finding sailed through and was never

qwestioned but ray violations which identify fatture to take

corrective

vi ol at i onaction and per forrn

in compartson to theaudits h' ave been taken to task. This

CA prograne breakdowns is f ailure to tak e corrective action on

vi ol at ion and raine were dropped.insigni fi c ant ,, yet , this is an acceptable

p r e judic e is evident. This is not only incredible but the

C estion: How can you propose that this

c-opping two serious violations? violation be issued whtle

3.

Appendis C of 10CFR Part 2 states that the purpose of the NFC

e f orc ernent program is to promote and protect the health and safety

of

the public

obtaining by ensuring

prornpt cornpliance

correction of with NRC r egulations and by

violations and adverse quality

conditions which ar n af f ect safety and deterring future violations.

Cc rntnent :

This seetion of Tit 1e 10 says that +ach en f orc ement action

ts dependent on th'e' circumstances but no wher+ does it say that NRC

rn a n a g e r s , supervisors, and inspectors can arbitraryily decide not to

write up noncompliancec and notices of violattans. The only

justi fic at s on is if all the following are sattsifled the licensee

1 d errt i f i ed the problem, it is severity Ievel IV and V, it was

r+ ported tf required, at was or vi11 be corrected...within a

r+asonable ttrne, and it was not

a violation that could reasonably be

espected to have

for a previous violation.

been prevented by the l i c ensee's cor.r ec t i ve ac t i on

I cannot

3.e e t any of these conditions rouch less see all.

how the violations ! proposed

Question:

How can you justify not issuing the violations I proposed

as they do not meet any of the cri'eria for not writing a vi ol a t i on?

10. Appendix C of Part O Suppl ernent !! i s spec t fic about the failure

tc audit and corr ect deficienci es or t o t ak e p r ornp t corrective

a:t1.sn.

C : *,r n ent :

It believe I can rnal e a c ase for a e t ,tl penalty and a OA

ptrspection.

r :.g r arn brealdown c ortnec t ed to hardware but it will require rnore

I really prefer to have the licensee identify the

.b l eras as a result of a Level IV viofation.

Question:

Why not 1ssue the proposed viof at1ons and Iet TU respond?

.

~

,' ..

_ _ . - -_

..

.

,v .',- ,

, -

Managemen..t Ann!} sis Catopnny hhh

11100 Roemde St Sea O!sgo. CA 92121

T14145213*1 -

,

l: L)2} T :E

f,y * 5 .,, ' . f ' 'Y , ,# .

?g

,

.

~ f

<*/ a 1. .

J g FMay TT,197E

~

'h MAC-JPJ-471

9

Mr. Perry Brittain

Prtsfdent y

Texas Utilities Generating Ccepany .~

200T Br

Callas.yan Tower

. TX 75201 >

Cear Mr. Brittain:.

Enciosed is the

for Texas Utflities report Ceepany.

Generating of the Managecent Quality Assurance Audit c

en ucted

The audit disclosed that, in general, the Quality Assurance activiti

effeettve, that there is good

the Architect / Engineer and the Constructor. tea.t spirit between TUGCO/iljSt

es were

F

_

perso

T

CffcationMome

Quality Assurance Planfaflures or cliiii75TR.t2 comely with requiatsrf recutrementsThe x the Wfa au

an Audit Report as Accendix A.

improved practice. These cef1clenctes are fcentified~fn C' '

and

t.e Comanchendix E ts thisTheseletter. are fdentified as Cbser<ations and Recom

ak.sile E Wyou knew, MAC particTMeMart audit of IM

,

~

s gnf ficant improvement is noted since that auditP

personnel con- // b cecp

I

Management Analysis C=pany received .

full

f"

general openness of persennel andaudit, their but frank discussion annot only c:

e

.

I

.

Thet i

of any deffcfencies,the conduct of the exemplifies.

n anced

ucive to correctiert DA $

attitude

Company and Texas Ut111 ties fervices

If there are any c:nnents or questions re

Inc. and hop

rating

so frr the future.

.

Mr. J. R. Norris or me at (714) 452-139T.garding thrts work, please centact

l

Sfnee S y,

7J

,f/

-

- .

!

/

John ?. Jackscn

JPJ:bew Principal Partner

Enclosurts: Appendix A

Appendix 3

.

._

. --

n

.

'

,

.

1-

.

l . . .

O. I may nave

.

already asked

.

2 -

you this, but jus

in case 2 naven't:

.

,

0 -i Are you aware of brown & Root

having hired MAC

4 their

to pertorm any re, views or audit of

implementation of

5

the QA Program at Comanche

,

Peak?

.

'

i .

6 A. '

l , No, I am not.

.

7

f C.

Or any r e p o r t.,a generated by them?

6 A. ..

'

.

No.

N

9 O. Oxay.

let me ask you an all

,

10 , question. encompassing

.

11-

Otner tnan what I nave already asxed yo2,

!

can you thinx 'ot --

Do you have

12 any xnowledge,

<

interoation from

{g I con ersations, meetings, dbcuments

Ig that

L'L.} you ,have been privy to; anything that sheds any

, 14

.

15 +'

light on the origins of the f1AC report'of why it was

' withheld from sne Intervenor's request or how it was

4 16

-

17 produced in 1960 or why it was not produced earlier

that we have not discussed? '

. 18 h.

.

No, I have not.

19 Q.

t

You were interviewed by Mr.*Wooldridge here.

20 were:you not?

'

~

41 '

A.

'

I was. .

22 g. .

Was tnw information you gave Mr.

23 wooldridge

tne same information

- 2, you nave given me here tocay?

.

n. Yes.

.J '

.

25

,

I mean ne may not nave asxed exactly

\

t

.

tne same questions,

'

.

cut ene substance of it was

. , . . .,:-- -. L *

-

.

. . . . . -

FEDE"RAL COUXT REPdRTERS _L

.

.e.. % .w.4.v+ w . H- _ ~ . . ~ . ~ . - ,;.- -

g. i

i [ %, UNITED STATES

3 ,, NUCLCAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ l

' *

, CEGION IV

. / {

611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000

*4 !

, , ., ARLINGTON. TEX AS 76011

l

TRA!!SMITTAL SF.ET . REGION IV '

.

DATE: 3-19-87 ..

.

>

M.ESSAGE TO: GECRGE GCWER

TELECOPY NUM ER:

VERIFICATION NUM"ER:

.

NUMBER OF PAGES: B

PLUS INSTRUCTION SHEET

MESSAGE FROM: HARRY SHANNON PHILLIPS

CONTACT:

............................................................................

SPECIAL INSTTICTIONS: MExo Ano onsTIcNs cN REpon: 86 08/06

Fo% A-91- M

Ll1

.

- - - - - _. ----.----_._._,__,y _ - -

. ,, , _ _ . _ . _ , - - - . _ . . _ _ . , - - _ _ , - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ , - ~ , _ - , ,.

-

- - _ --

ML20148H426

Text

Navigation menu

Search