ML19263C185
| ML19263C185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1979 |
| From: | Naventi R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263C186 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902080297 | |
| Download: ML19263C185 (4) | |
Text
.
pa aro,v 8
UNITED STATES
- 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIMION f
D WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- Y }*f s
JAN 171979 Docket Nes:
50-445 50-445 APPLICANT:
Texas Utilities Generating Company FACILITY:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 5 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF OCTOBER 23, 1978 MEETING WITH TECHNICAL REVIEWERS A meeting was held on October 23, 1978 in Bethesda, Maryland with the Division of Systems Safety and the Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis technical reviewers assigned to the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) operating license safety review.
The objectives of the meeting were to discuss the review status, review schedule and site visit.
A list of attendees is provided in Enclosure 1 and the meeting notice in Enclosure 2.
The status of the review was discussed.
Reviewers were informed that majority of Q-l's had been received and were in the process of transmittal to the applicant.
Those branches with Q-l's outstanding were asked to keep the projcct manager informed of progress, particularly any schedule slips.
Reviewers were also requested to alert the project manager either with a note or verbelly of any schedule slips and of potential problem areas which could require design changes.
The reviewers were informed that a change in the CPSES review schedule was being prepared.
It was noted that the new schedule would slip the CPSES review b, approximately eight nonths and that it was developed according to the project priority list.
It was also noted that this schedule might require further modification since it projected a completion of t'.e licensing review eight months after the applicant's proposed ru'31 load date.
Alternate approaches which were beinz concidered to expedite the licensing review were ?ieeussed.
Ccaments were made regarding the pros and cons of the taric"< alternatives.
90208o293
/'
. ggg 17 3979 A proposal by Gibbs and Hill to submit CPSES drawings on aperature cards was discussed.
Examples of aperature cards and blow back prints were circulated.
Reviewers indicated their concerns regarding availability of acceptable aperature cards viewers and in-house capability to provide a blowback print if needed.
The project manager agreed to obtain additional information on in-house capabilities and solicit reviewer input before responding to the Gibbs and Hill proposal.
The project manager stated that a visit to the CPSES site was planned for November 1978.
Those reviewers interested in this visit were asked to provide input to the project manager regarding items of interest for the site visit.
jf
~
Ronald.avent',
roj ect Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Proj ect Management
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page
JAN 171979 Texas Utilities Generating Company ccs:
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street Washington, D.C.
20036 Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Project Manager - Nuclear Plants Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. H. R. Rock Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 Mr. G. L. Hohmann Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Richard Lawene, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General P. O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 Mr.
R. J. Gary Executive Vice President S General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201
-