ML20006B647

Forwards 900124 Ltr to Util Re Licensee 900122 Response to Case 900110 Ltr & Advises That Ltr self-explanatory & Contains Info Needed to Resolve Matters Raised in Case 900110 Ltr from Bp Garde to Recipient

ML20006B647
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	01/25/1990
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Murley R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9002050170
Download: ML20006B647 (5)

Text

,

• 4 C A S E

== -

214/9k6-9hh6 (CITIZENS ASSN, FOR SOUND ENERGY)

January 25, 1990 Dr. Thomas Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Was hingt on, D. C. 20555 Dear Dr . Murlay s Subj ec t : Texas Ut111tses Electric Company, et al.,

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units l 'and 2) Docket Nos. 50-445/50-446 CASE Concerns , and 'TU Electric's Res pons e Dated January 22, 1990, to CASE Letter of January 10, 1990, to NRC We are attaching a copy of my letter dated January 24, 1990 (mailed today) to Mr. Wil11ern Couns11, regarding TU Electric's letter dated January 22, 1990, f rom W1111am J . Cahill, Jr . , by John W. Beck. to you, under subj ect

" Response to Ct3E/NRC Letter of January 10, 1990* (TXX-90028).

We believe our letter is soli-explanatory and contains inf ormation which 'ycu need ir order to resolve the matters raised in CASE's January 10, 1990, 1stter from Billie P. Garde to you.

If you need any additional inf ormation, please let us know.

Sincerely, CASE (Citizens Ass ons ation f or . Sound Energy)

/ k_- &

re . ) Juanita Ellis Pr esident cci Mr . Christ opher I . Grimes . Director , Comanche Peak Pioj ect. Divis' ion,' .

Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC Mr. Dennis Crutchfield, Assistant Direct or of Special' Pr oj ects , NRC Mr . R. G. Warnick, Assis tant Director for Inspection Program, Comanc he Peak Proj ect Division. NRC Mr . William Couns11, Vice Chairman, TU Electric Mr. W. J . Cahill, Jr . , Executive Vice Pr esident TU Electric Dr . Ausaf Husain, Chairman, Operations Review Committee (ORC) TU Electric Mr. George L. Edgar. Esq.. Newman t. Holtzinger, P. C.

Ms. Susan Palmer Stipulation Manager..TU Electric-9002050170'900125 ' ' ~

PDR A .ADOCK 05000445 PDC 3~ OD j 9 .I

C A S E ==

Elk /9L6 'ohk6 (CITIZENS ASSN, FOR SOUND ENERGY)

Januar y 24, 1990 (Ma 1ed January 25, 1990)

Mr. William Couns11 Vice Chairman TU Electric 2001 Br 'an Tower , Suite 1900 Dallas, Texas 75201

Dear Mr . Counsil :

Subj ec t : Texas Ut:11 ties Electric Conpany, et al., ,

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit s 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445/50-446 CASE Concerns, and TU Electrae's Response Dated January 22, 1990, to CASE-Letter of January 10, 1990, to NRC I received in today's mail your lett er t o me dated January 22', 1990, regarding the status of CASE concerns (LIT-90/681), and a copy of the letter also dated January 22, 1990, from William J. Cahill, Jr., by John W. Beck, t o t he NRC's Dr . Thomas Murley, under subject

• Response to CASE /KPC Letter of January 10, 1990* (TXX-90028). I am not att empting here t o respond to each of the specific it ems addressed either in CASE's letter or the two TU' Electric lettersi however , there are some process issues which I believe I must now address an writing, specifically in regard to the CASE ' C onc er ns (on w'hich we were working when we r ec eived t oday's mail). It appears that t her e is a breakdown an communications somewhere within TU regarding some important f acts of which you are aware.

First, regarding the concerns which CASE has about Comanc he Peak, ' our concerns should not be conf us ed wit h what is ref erred to in Mr . Ca hill ' s letter to the NRC as "the CASE Concerns process." As we have discussed on numerous occasions at the CASE /TU management me et i ngs , they are not necessarily one and the samet as we have explained , it has not been that we .

are not working on our concerns, but - rat her t hat we have been putting our limit ed time , per s onnel, and f unds into addr es sing those CASE c onc erns on which we plac e mor e import anc e (suc h as t he curr ently open dis put es . Mr .

Doyle's r oot cause report, etc.).

l.

In short , as we have r epeatedly discussed with you, it has not been' that we are not working on " CASE c onc erns ,

• but rather that we ar e wor king . on thos e i concerns of CASE which we consider ed mor e urgent at the time.

To. f urther clarif y, and s o t hat at will be crystal clear in the future and so that no misunderstanding will occur on the part of either TU Electric or-the NRC, t he

• CASE Concerns process *' discussed by Mr. Cahill an his lett er is not 'now , nor was it ever intended or r epr es ent ed " t o be , the only or even the highest tier process f or presenta no t he concerns of CASE. It is . only one part of CASE's overall Monit oring Progr am f or monit oring Comanche Peak:

I 1.

m o

.- ( ,. ,

r h

an f act . compared to other methods of communicating concerns of CASE to TU, I con:Ader at to be one of the lower tiers of such methods .

4 -

In f act (and as we have also diccussed many times). the

• CASE Concerns proces s' as r ef er enced by Mr . Cahill was developed primer 11y at a method of f keeping track, an writing, of those concerns which had been raised by' the CASE Monitors an their monitoring of audits , but to which they had not >

received an answer from TU.

t As-you will recall, several.cf those r pecific concerns prepar ed in the

• CASE ^

Concerns pr ocess

• wer e supplied r o .TU some time ago , and TU has ; in f act r esponded to them. (In most i ns t anc es . TU's response has been'quite I satisf actory an regard to the. corrective action f or specific;1nstances s ' '

however , ther e a s' s till conc ern by CASE. r egarding TU's r espons e to i programmatic and more, generic aspects of some of those Jeoncernal)

There have been other numerous concerns raised by thh JA$E Monitors during or as the r esult of < audits . t o which TU has provided r esponses- and which '

responses have satisfied the CASE Muns t or s i - an those cases , .ther e was. no need to writo up a separate " C onc e r n. ' and this has saved both CASE and TU c onsider abl e time and effort. It is a pr ocess which has worked well on many -

occasions , and I cert ainly. hope that at is not now being anticipated-by TU.

that a new process should be developed which would necessitate the CASE Monitor s to have to write up a " CASE Concern * - on each. and every such item. ]

If such were necessary, I believe that it'would be counterproductive'in many ' ,

r instanc es , c.3 that CASE and TU would have lost a.very-amportant advantage which the CASE Monitoring Program off ers over the licensing hearings pr oc e s s '. In addition, there is no requir ement that all c onc er ns of CASE about Comanche Peak must be an writing in eather the CASE /TU Settlement - 4 Agreement or the CASE /TU/NRC Staf f Joint Stipulationi indeed, I would never j have agreed to_ such a requirement .

Further -(as ~ we have pr eviously discussed), with very' f ew. ifIany.. ,

exc eptiens , the concern 6 of CASE which are being written up as:part of the ,

• CASE Concerne process' are not new and have previously been reported' to TU ':

through some mechanism (usually the verbal notification process which has '#

worked well in so many instances i n - t he pas t ) . but to which f orf nome reason -[

TU has not yet provided CASE with an answer so that we can close out those [

particular open items. In most instances, thes e ar e not -ba g 1ssues , but #

they are concerns to which we do need an answer:bef ore we can close them. '

out, '

You are correct , as stated in your . letter, that we did state at the January.

~19th CASE /TU. management meeting that. we' dad not think that any of' those CASE i Concerne - on the la st pr eviously pr ovid'ed t o - TU ;(other' than' those Jadentified- L in the January 10th letterL to Dr) Murley) would be necessary pre'equisites r f or - a f uel load / low cpower lic ens e ' decisionc. You are:also correct. however, t hat we are in the process of reviewing the CASE Concerns on the list .

previously.provided to TU; as we also stated, because of the pres s of other'-

s

'2 ,

i i

n- - :I

F f

matter s , thos e CASE Conceins had not yet received the conplete CASE management review to which they would normally be subj ect ed.

Pr eliminar ily , it appears from our currently-in-process review (as we had-  !

expect ed) that many of the listed CASE Concerns have already been addressed and satisf actorily resolved by TU: we will so advise TU and in due course close out those Concerns in writing (although such written close-out is not one of our t op priorities). In a few instances (for example, emer genc y lighting and fir e extinguishers), although there could possibly be an impact ,

on a fuel load / low power license decision, at is difficult f or us to believe t hat TU would not by t hi s time have already taken care of those c onc erne --

or t hat the NRC would not als o have identified and r equir ed corr ection of any s uch csissions . I expect to have our review complet ed s oon (hopef ully t hi s w e ek , unl e s s I find at necessary to write any more letters such as ,

this), and we will advise you verbally and 'immediat ely (with writ t en f ollow-up) if there are any other Concerns w!uch we believe might impact a f uel lor 4/ low power license decision.

In e131 tion. let me remind you that , at the same time that the list of CASE concerns was first provided to TU Electric 'Cand to the Operations Review Committee (ORC) at its request), I specifically and strongly suggested to the TU Manager of Quality Assurance that CASE and TU have an inf ormal meeting that same day or the next day so that the CASE Monitors who. had rais ed the Concerns could brief TU 1mmediately on details of the Concerns .

Thi s of f er was r epeated later , but never eccepted by TU.

Finally, it was surprising and disappointing to me that TU's-January 22nd-letter to Dr. Murley gives the erreneous ampression that concerns of CASE which have been raised several times t o TU, 'and in s ome instanc es regarding which TU has even given CASE special brsefings , are somehow big surprises '

now. (Thi s will be discussed in more detail elsewhere.)

Equally surprising and disappointing was the s t at ement in Mr-. C ahill' s let t er t hat i r

• TU Electric has an open mind with respect to' potential improvements. in such [ root .cause analysis) program, and intends to f ollow-up with CASE to assure that at unders tands any specifie L

suggestions intended by Mr. Doyle's report and any ot.her l improvements that may be suggested by Mr. Doyle or CASE. TU i Elort rie Int ends t o meet wit h CASE at CASE's ea rli e_s t c onve ni enc e, L and t o incorpor at e impr ovements in its pr ocedure es may_be l warranted.* (Emphasis added.)

• L i This was part1cularly dAsappointing in light of the facts: I spoke to Susan Palmer this past weekend to set up just such a meeting between CASE Cons ult ant Jack Doyle and TU, Just toda-g (the same day that I received Mrs .

Cahill* s let ter), Mr. Doyle was in f act at Comanche Peak in an effort to '

meet with anyone with TU who was knowledgeable about the root cause analysis ,

pr ogram and/or the downgrading of saf ety s ys tems or portions of systems ; he #

3 i O. J

.o .

= .' <.

'l ,

was advised by Susan, that no one was available and would not be available '

for at least a week. Mr. Doyle took those documents which were made available and left. For t he r ecord, CASE and Mr . Doyle have been ready and i are ready now to meet with knowledgeable TU personnel on the root cause analysis program and/or the downgrading of saf ety systems or portions of systems: this as necessary an order f or CASE to make an accurate ascessment ,

of the status of the current root cause analysis pr ogram, how much it has progressed, etc., and the e xt e nt of problems wath the downgrading of saf ety systems.

If you have any questions or need additional inf ormation, please let me' know.

Si nc e r ely . -

V CASE (Cita= ens Association f or Sound Energy) 21g p& fANA *

.) Juanata Ellis President i

cci Dr . Thomas Murley, Director, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. NRC ,

Mr. Denni s Crutchfield Assistant Darector of Special Projects. NRC Mr . Chxist opher I . Grimee Dir ect or , Comanche Peak Pr oj ect Divasaon, Off ace of Nuclear Reactor Regulataon, NRC Mr . R . G . War ni c k , A s s i s t ant Dir ec tor f or Inspecta on Pr ogram, Comanche Peak Proj ect Da yl o t on , NRC Dr. Ausaf Husaan, Chai r man , Operations Review Conmdttee (ORC). TU Electrac Mr . W. J . Cahall , Jr . , Executive Vic e Pr esident . TU Electric Mr. George L. Edgar Esq. , Newman & Holt: anger , P. C.

i 1

Ms. Susan Palmer, Stipulats on Manager , TU Electric l

I' l

4 l' . $

1