ML20005G544
| ML20005G544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1989 |
| From: | Garde B Citizens Association for Sound Energy, ROBINSON, ROBINSON, PETERSON, BERK, RUDOLPH, CROSS |
| To: | Counsil W, Charemagne Grimes Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005G539 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001190311 | |
| Download: ML20005G544 (12) | |
Text
-
-~
]
g' y,,4 Attochm:nt #3 p
@ (.
i L
- Robinson, l'
Robinson. Peterson, Berk, Rudolph, Cross & Garde i-
.hfary Lnn Robinson Attorneys at Law l
j Nilajenn Robinaon los East College Avenue i
(
John C. Petetaon Appleton, Wisconsin 649n Avram D. Berk
- 4:41731 1837 I
(blichns1 Rudoiph '
Dan Croma' Green Ilay 494 Moo Fax 730-884 I
f Illllie Pirner Garde i
l 7
November 29, 1989
+
J 3
. William G. Counsil i
Vice-Chairman' i
F TU Electric 2001 Dryan. Tower Dallas, TX 75201 Christopher Grimes, Director
. Office of Special Projects Comanche Peak Project Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 RE: ~ Documented Request for Action (re:
Thermo-Lag /50.57 dispute between CASE and TU Electric)
Docket Nos.:
50-445, 50-446
Dear Messrs. Counsil and Grimes:
Confirming.our verbal notification on November 13, 1989, to TU Electric and the NRC, this letter is to formally notify you of a
dispute - between the Citizens Association for Sound Energy l
(CASE) and TU Electric over a November 2, 1989, incident between i
t
'a Quality Control Inspector and his management concerning an instruction to not write a non-conformance report (NCH) on I
identified deficiencies in Thermo-Lag received on the Ccmanche Peak site from Thermal Science, Inc., and to request action by i
the NRC in regards to this incident.
Pursuant to Paragraph D.3 of the Joint Stipulation between
!?
the parties, CASE informed TU Electric of their concern regording this issue on Novembei 8,
1909.
On November 16,
- 1989, TU Electric notified CASU of the preliminary results of their investigation.
A copy of the November 16, 1989, letter ( L 1'I -
t 89/633) are enclosed for your information as Attachment 1.
L 1
9001190311 900110 L
- PDR ADOCK 0500044S g
PNV
m 3;
4
,l
}..
CASE recognizes that TU has not finalized their review of this matter.
- However, we are elevating this matter to the dispute stage because TU Clectric has not taken immediate remedial action to' address this matter.
It is CASE's position that TV should have already taken prompt action in response to this incident that indisputably involved instructions b
management to a QC inspector to not write an NCR, or otherwi_y se follow instructions and procedures.
CASE believes that the failure'of TU Electric to do so has sent the message t.o. o t he r inspectors and supervisors within the QC Receiving Department (and possibly other departments) that management prerogati;u overrides mandated procedures.
Additionally, since the person giving the instruction was a Level III inspector and his instruction was acquiesced to by the QC supervisor, the additional message has been sent that both procedures and the direct chain of authority for QC inspectors may be arbitrarily overridden to accommodate scheduling concerns,
" critical path"
- items, and 'other = issues such as regulatory concerns.
We believe that the actions by TU Electric to date violate the provisions of 10 C.P.R. 50.7 and 10 C.F.R., Part 50, Appendix B,
Criterion I, which requires that applicants for an operating license maintain an environment for their workforce free from any type of pressure,
- coercion, harassment, intimidation or even 1
innuendo that suggest not following QC procedures, including taking action to insure that inspectors are free to identify nonconforming conditions.
Specifically, CASE requests.that the NRC independently conduct an inspection / investigation of the following issues:
a.
The incident of November 2, 1989.
l This incident revolved around the words spoken by a Level III inspector to a QC inspector in front of other QC personnel in the department.
Those words were, "We will not write NCR's on Thermo-Lag," or words to that effect.
There was no discussion between that inspector and the Level III at that time, or before the inspector's lay-off later that same day, that the identified deficiencies in Thermo-Lag should be written on an unsat Inspection Report.
That instruction, cou history of identifying non pled with the already-established conforming Thermo-Lag material on i
- NCRs, the extent of the identified deficiencies in the
~
material (up to 100% rejection rate on some mated al), and i
the previous existing problems in similar aspects of the Thermo-Lag program, convince CASE that the response :rovided by TU Electric in their November 16, 1989, letter, part A, is inadequate.
The explanation, absent any prompt remedial 2
1 i
s.-
4
j
,g p
si action by' management to insure that the quality control staff could not and did not misinterpret the Level III inspector's words, raises the. concern to CASE that TU L
management is not effectively communicating with site management as to the proper method of handling disputes involving the identification of non-conforming conditions.
Additionally, no discussion was included by TU in its
's letters regarding the Level III inspector's requesting that the acceptance specifications for the material be changed.
b.
The implications of the November 2, 1989, incident o
y TU Electric has, on the basis of the investigation b
conducted by.SAFETEAM and Security, reached the preliminary position that Inspector A was not " wrongfully harassed,"
" wrongfully laid off," and that Inspector C was not demoted.
or (See TU Electric's November 16, 1989, letter LIT-89/633. )
However, TU Electric has not identified or addressed the issue of concern that CASE believes is at least one of the root causes of the problem, i.e.,
the lack of professional commitment to the highest quality standards by at least one Level III inspector at the site.
Purther, based on the best information available to CASE, we have a difference of opinion regarding harassment and intimidation in this instance.
c.
The quality control / quality assurance breakdown at Thermal Science, Inc., and TU Electric.
CASE also has concerns regarding the apparent breakdown in the quality control / quality assurance program at CPSES as it relates to implementation of the requirements of PO #665-71871 Requiremen/15/81),
(6 and the attached Technical and QA ts.
Those concerns are documented in more detail r
in Attachment 2 e
to this letter.
(See, Sequence of Events and Preliminary Findings.)
Except for the failure of TU Electric's Quality Assurance Program to issue any type of stop-work order against Thermal Science, Inc., TU Electric to date has not taken any position in regards to the causes for and existence of receipt of large amounts of i
nonconforming Thermo-Lag materials.
Although CASE has not yet completed its full analysis of 4
this matter, it appears to us to be a reversion to some past practices of pressure on quality control inspectors by their own supervision to not conform to the procedures as issued when they identify non-conforming conditions and/or processes.
This condition, coupled with the weaknesses in the QA Program and its implementation department evident to CASE, raises this matter to one of the utmost concern to us.
On the issues identified herein, CASE requests NRC intervention and resolution.
3
w:
-4 l
[~
If CASE may'be of any assistance to you in your pursuit of this matter, please advise either Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President L
of CASE, at (214) 946-9446, or me.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
F Respectfully, t
'W' Billie Pirner Garde i
Attorney for CASE i-cc George Edgar, Newman I, Holtzinger Susan Palmer, Stipulation Manager, Comanche Peak
' Robert
- Warnick, on-site Asst.
Director for Inspection Programs, Office of Special Projects h
a b
h i
4 l.
r.
G b
UJ ATTACHMENT l-l i'
LOG #
LIT-89/633
~
FILEf 10086
]
==
1 e
j i
C C
j
+
Il TilELECTRIC
}
1 November 16, 1989 wn c.c d U
Farv Chorese i
P I
Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President H
Citizens Association for Sound Energy ~
a 1426 South Polk Dallas, TX 75224
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
TU Electric has undertaken an investigation of the
" Inspector A" concerns under the auspices of the SAFETEAM program, with assistance,as appropriate from t
TU Electric Corporate Security. -This'is to confirm the i
results of our telephone conversation of November 15, 1989 concerning the preliminary results of that
(
investigation.
Based upon my review of.the preliminary j
results of the investigation, with particular emphasis on the harassment and retallatory layoff allegations:
A.
It does not appear that Inspector A was wrongfully harassed.
It appears that Inspector A's perceptions were driven primarily by a difference in interpretation of applicable procedures by QC Supervision.
In particular, QC Supervision maintained that an "Unsat" Inspection Report, rather than an NCR, was a correct method for documenting the deficiencies under applicable TU Electric procedures.
In addition, QC Supervision did not effectively communicate with the QC inspectors concerning its position as to the proper means for documenting the deficiencies.
B.
It does not appear that Inspector A was wrongfully laid off.
The November 2 events that form the basis for Inspector A's allegations played no role in the layoff decision.
The layoff decision was made pursuant to established procedures by QC management, without input from the individual who was alleged to have harassed Inspector A.
p 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas Texas 75201
l, -l * %
?
L
+
November 16, 1989 Juanita Ellis l
[
Page-2 C.
Inspector C was not demoted.
He was assigned to a two-man inspection team with the L-responsibilities of a QC receiving inspector.
The other member of the team was designated as lead,
. but Inspector C was not designated as a " helper".
j 9
D.
There is no evidence that non-conforming b
thermolag material has been released to the field or installed in the plant in connection with the
. specific events associated with Inspector A's
[
allegations.
.All of the foregoing are preliminary results, of L'
course, subject to completion of the ongoing SAFETEAM investigation.
Upon completion of the SAFETEAM L
response to Inspector A's concerns, which includes the input from Corporate Security, we will make it available to you, subject to receipt by SAFETEAM of an appropri' ate waiver / consent from Inspector A.
I will conduct a review of the completed response and any corrective actions associated with Inspector A's allegations.
I will advise you if my review indicates any need for modification of the response.
Please advise me immediately if you have any questions concerning the foregoing.
Very truly yours,
/
/
. G. Couns I'
WGC:lmi 1
1 L
y
}
p E
j ATTACHMENT 2 F
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND PRELIMINARY FINDINGS I
The following is a selection and summary of the relevant i
events and documents that CASE is considering in its review of this incident.
Since all background material and facts have not yet been received by CASE, this is a preliminary report.
t 1
I.
SITE FABRICATED T11ERMO-LAG 09-01-88 TXX-88652 responded to an NRC Notice of Violation concerning TU Electric's (TUE) concerning their failure to include design requirements into specifications ArW pumps / motors.
The response stated that as a part of their corrective action all site specifications were reviewed to assure their adequacy.
(Date unknown) Specification 2323-MS-3811 for Thermo-Lag had likely been used as the basis for
- design, procurement, fabrication, installation procedures prior to September 1988.
(Date unknown) Purchase-order (PO) for material for Thermo-Lag fabricated on-site.
(Date unknown) Receipt or acceptability inspection of Thermo-Lag fabricated on-site.
(Date unknown) 14,000 square feet of Thermo-Lag panels installed on-site.
(Date unknown) First type 330-1 panel found to be less than 1/2 inch minimum thickness specified.
07-28-89 NCR 89 8519 R.O was written on Thermo-Lag panels in the warehouse was observed as less than 1/2 in minimum.
07-29-89 Block 21, NCR 89 8519 for 50.55(e) was marked N/A.
(Note:
This appears to be inappropriate.)
07-31-89 NCR 89 8519 was dispositioned was to investigate 60 type 330-1 panels that were installed and QC accepted.
(Note:
This is unusual because there was 11,000 sq. ft, sitting in the warehouse that
y -
+
i(
could be inspected to show the 7.ot or lots received were statistically acceptable or L
unacceptable.
The installed Thermo-Lag could be shown unacceptable based on such inspection.
In TXX-89737 these deficiencies are discussed and it r
appears TU personel knew that the panels in the warehouse did not meet specification.)
j-08-16-89 Corrective Action Request (CAR)-89-009 was issued, and referenced specification 2323-MS-38H and NCR 89 8519.
John Streeter signed the CAR for D.E.
i e
L
- DeViney, the Director of OA.
Engineering i
estimated that 2000 sq. ft. of nonconforming panel i'
had been installed.
On October 30,
- 1989, the potentially reportable block under NEO 9.01 was i
blank.
08-22-89 Memo OIM-89337 from K. Smith to D. Reynerson asked that the CAR be investigated.
09-06-89 Memo NC-4405 answered OIM-89337.
It pointed out 3
the following:
- 1) panels fabricated on-site or elsewhere could not be determined, 2) installation was inadequate to assure 1/2 in, min. specified maintained at seams, joints, edges, and bolts, and 3) process control was inadequate for applying adhesive to build up at protrusions.
In addition the cause of the deficiencies were determined to be the Specification 2323-MS-38H, Appendix A,
Section 7.4, which did not require adequate inspections of the cross-section of panels.
i Discontinuities were caused when fabricated on-site.
Because the material would have to be
- retested, it would take time and may fall.
Therefore, it was decided to remove and scrap all-site-fabricated Thermo-Lag in the plant and warehouse.
l I 20-89 Memo NC-4 4 83 indicated that the CAR had been misdirected to construction in terms of evaluating the generic implications and reportability per NEO*9.01.
It was then referred to engineering (CECO).
09-15-89 The deficiencies were-verbally reported to the NRC.
10-15-89 TXX-89737 made a
final report to the NRC and stated
- that, if undetected, a
fire could have breached the barrier and adversely affected the shutdown of the plant had it been operating.
It basically repeated the findings in Memo NC-4405 and said they were the causes.
The stated generic implications made little sense and showed an inadequate evaluation.
(Note:
The report did not
m i
E even mention an important generic implication, that is, a OA program breakdown.
QA controls the L
CAR.and avoids self-inspection.)
10-30-89 CAR-89-009 closed out.
It is CASE's understanding i
't that recurrence of similar problems was to be prevented by changing f rom. site to off-site fabricator.
CASE's Preliminary Pindings o
1.
The correcthve action taken on all specifications did not
!~
preclude recurrence in the Thermo-Lag program.
This appears to be a failure to take effective corrective action.
2.
It appears that the quality organization recognized a
r serious problem with nonconforming Thermo-Lag before NCR 89 8915 was issued, did not document the extent of the known nonconformances, but instead used the disposition
" Exploratory Investigation" to buy time.
3.
_ When the CAR was signed on 08-16-89 and the highest levels of OA were aware of_ the
- problems, they should have recognized that a OA program breakdown had - occur red, yet they did not issue any stop work order.
However, on 09 89 the Director of Construction voluntarily imposed a hold.
t (Note:-
_It is not credible for QA management not to know about subsequent problems with the off-site Thermo-Lag vendor and handling of the NCR incident.
4.
The 10 CFR 50.55(e) actions appear a.
to be untimely, b.
to be inadequately evaluated for generic implications which included 1) an apparent QA program breakdown as about 14,000 sq. ft. of deficient fire barrier material was installed and had to be removed and scrapped, along with 11,000 sq. ft. in the warehouse that had not been installed, and 2) an inadequate generic review of specifications in response to a previous NRC violation.
11.
VENDOR FABRICATED THERMO-LAG 06-15-89 A Purchase-Order was issued for Thermo-Lag for conduit s
L was fabricated off-site by Thermal Science, Inc.
The PO was marked " Priority one" and was needed to meet the construction schedule for Unit 1.
Page 13 and 14 of the PO required Thermal Science Inc.
to submit any nonconformances on the materials to TU Electric as well as a Certificate of Conformance.
- Fire, radiation,
- chemical, and seismic testing reports were also
f Y,
,j,p 4
required..The specifications e 1.ed for a thickness of 0.625 plus'or.a minus 0.125 was' required for all of-the
~ items (some having different configurations).
J1-02-89 Three OC inspectors performed. receipt inspection on Thermo-Lag ~ received from Thermal Science, Inc.
They found 30-401 of the 5 in, diameter X 36 in. long Items for conduit.and 94% of the 3/4.in dia..X 36 in. long was itss than the specified thickness of 0.625 plus or--
minus 0.125.
111 03-89 Two Inspectors continued. inspecting while a third was 4
reassigned to another-area.
- Finally, the inspectors-6'
= discussed with'their lead OC inspedtor whether an NCR should be written.
All three agreed that an NCR should be ' written.
The OC supervisor and his Level III inspector were present and, according to statements of witnesses; the Level III inspector stated that "no NCR would be written. "
The QC supervisor supported the statement made by the Level III.
11-03-89 According,to the SAPETEAM statement, the Oc supervisor and Level Ili asked the lead procurement enginee-to f
change the= = acceptance criteria from 1/2 to - 3/8 in-thickness, thereby permitting acceptance of the a
received materials.
11-03-89 One of the inspectors insisted that an NCR should-be written as required by paragraph 6.1.3 of NOA-3.09-11.03.
In a matter of hours he was laid off.
11-03-89 The Level III met with the NRC on previously identified potential violation regarding site f abricated Thermo-Lag. that the NRC vas reviewing.
It is CASE's understanding that he argued against issuing the violations. However, he did not provide. complete and accurate information to the NRC because he did not bring the newly found deficiencies with off-site fabricated Thermo-Lag to the NRC's attention.
11-04-89 Contrary to the directive, the second inspector wrote the NCR against the Thermo-Lag and forced the issue.
When confronted with the NCR, the-supervisor signed the NCR.
Subsequently, this inspector was temporarily made a " helper."
Although this shift in duties did not affect his pay status.
11-07-89 NRC holds the exit and issues 2 violations on-site fabricated Thermo-Lag panels 330-1, without the knowledge of the deficient 3/4 and 5 inch diameter Thermo-Lag for conduit fabricated by the off-site vendor.
11-08-89 CASE raised the issue to W.
Counsil, TU Electric, and
.c
.mf r
,z,T,y eg_
e t
')
,,,c w
y i
,o remedial action to. counter the perceived b
asked -'f or ~ andJinstructions'by management to disregard f
harassment I
, procedures :without any explanation and the perceived P
retallation.
11-08-89' TU' Electric Corporate Security,.at the request of W. G.
Counsil, interviewed'the inspector who was terminated.
i The SAFETEAM statement;was provided to the investigator and the' events were repeated., CASE also noted'that the
~
~
,Le' vel III was at Thermal Science, Inc. and raised the
= 1 s su e. of Certificates of Conformance stating that
~ material' met specification, which did not.
j q 10-89 TU Electric was unable to or chose not to take any
[
1 action in regards to these matters.
l n
s CASE's Preliminary Findings w'
~1.
CASE contends that this is a QA breakdown concerning l
activities which should not be that difficult to control,.
and-rears that this is a forewarning of things to some when
_l
.the plant is-operating.
Instead of identifying generic issues, the focus was narrow and near-sighted as usual.
CASE sees a great deal of similarity between the way project
- 2.
management handled the removal of coating from service water system piping andithe fabrication of Thermo-Lag.
That is,
'the failure to establish adequate QA/QQ and technical failure requirements,-failure to control special processes, to-have ~ ' adequate QA/QC procedures, and-failure to take action.
In both cases, there were program l
corrective breakdowns that TU. Electric refused to adequately address.
3.
.For the 330-1 panels, QA management failed to recognize that thefinspection: requirements for about 26,000 sq. ft. of site fabricated Thermo-Lag _. (14,000 installed and 11,000 in the That is,
' warehouse waiting to be installed) was inadequate.
the most critical characteristic (minimum thickness)-was not adequate to insure quality.
This is very similar to the inadequate inspections of the service water system work of 0.B. Cannon.
4.
In this case even though 26,000 sq. ft, was scrapped because of inadequate QA management project oversight and no source inspection b e.i n g subsequently imposed on the items fabricated off-site.
In addition, the vendor was asked to expedite the manufacturer to meet the construction schedule which was critical path for fuel loading.
The decision to require no source inspection was poor f r oin both the production and quality standpoint.
5.
Inspector A stated that the Thermo-Lag received was still 2a
J k._
. -,, 7. 3. r t
9 m
1 wet' and in1 this state cannot be handled without~ causing i
damage which, reduced the thickness.
There was some 4
accommodation made with the. vendor to change the curing-formula to make it cure faster so it could be sent to site.
L 6.
i the QC supervisor and the - Level III handed the-ins measuring device ~ to use that Thermal-Science,- Inc.
had brought:on-site.
-- been calibrated.
The inspectors pointed out that it had not
- It was then 'sent to the calibration lab.
_This appeared inappropriate for-QC ' personnel who are supposed" to know better than to suggest using measuring devices that had not been through site calibration.
7.
Inspector A stated that measuring device-because problems were -later found with the one arm of
' threw'the, dial. indicator off by 0.005 of an inch.the device sagged and t
8.
- The - precedent for writing nonconformance reports against nonconforming Thermo-Lag is clear, suggestions that OA
-management. and supervisory directions or otherwise raises questions about suggestions to do their instruction.
The PO required.the off-site vendor to make nonconformance reports
'i f Thermo-Lag did not conform.-
In July, 1989, NCRs were written.for the site fabricated panels, therefore, in
(
-November, 1989, NCRs were appropriate for the Thermo-Lag
. fabricated off-site for conduit.
9.
It. appears that QA management was a part of the problem for
-Thermo-Lag fabricated both on and off-site.
Accordingly, it appears
'the issue it appears they were trying to expedite productio by ignoring 10 C.F.R.'50, Appendix B requirements by:
j a.
Preventing or delaying NCRs from being written; Lb.
Getting _the acceptance criteria and specifications 3
changed to avoid the writing of an NCR and identification of program breakdowns; c.-
Not informing the NRC about the new problems with Thermo-Lag to avoid or minimize the seriousness of NRC violations that were forthcoming at the exit in a matter of one working day; and, d.
Terminating the inspector who was the most the deficiencies.
vocal about I
m.
-.- i A
-