ML20011E336
| ML20011E336 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1990 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011D121 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002130259 | |
| Download: ML20011E336 (2) | |
Text
__
a
[..:n\\
)
UNIT E D sT AT E s I
- e. -['
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N I
N
,,,l,, - k m ALMINGT ON. D C. PDEbb j*
t, W.[#/
t FE6 01 Igg l
i MEMDRANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFES$10NAL OPINION CONCERNING COMANCHE PEAK's FUEL LOAD READINESS AND SALP REPORT On October 6,1989, I received a copy of an unsigned anonymous memorandum from i
NRC staf f inspectors to the Chaiman, dated October 4,1989. The memorandum asserted that Comanche Peak was not ready for fuel loading and that the draft
$ ALP report was neither factual nor complete. After review of the memorandum and consultation with the cognizant NRR senior managers, I decided to treat the memorandum as a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO), even though the memo.
rendum does not contain all of the necessary elements specified in NRC Manual Chapter 4125.
Because of the uniqueness of this matter, I dispensed with the i
NRR Standard Review Process (MC 4125034) and convened a meeting of the NRR senior managers as an Ad Hoc DP0 Panel, which included the Chairman of the NRR Standing Review Panel, to detennine the appropriate course of action.
On October 10, 1989, I infomed you of the actions taken or planned in response l
to the DP0 memorandum. NRC actions already planned or completed prior to receipt of the DP0 were found to be adequate for arriving at a staff deter-mination regarding Comanche Peak readiness. The results of the special OperationalReadinessAssessmentTeam(ORAT)InspectionsandasurveyofNRC personnel to determine if there existed any safety concerns, combined with nomal inspection and licensing activities, are being used in detemining readiness for fuel load. The initial ORAT inspection was conducted in October 1989 and, consistent with the conclusions of the NRC onsite inspection staff, concluded that the utility had to complete many open items before a low power license could be granted. A followup ORAT inspection began on January 22 and r
will be completed en February 2,1990.
To address the accuracy of the draft SALP report, ! established a DP0 Review Panel to review the evolution of the draft SALP report and to evaluate the conduct of the SALP process at Comanche Peak. Comments included in the DP0 and f
a subsequent letter from Ms. Billie Garde were reviewed by the panel. The panel thoroughly reviewed the development of the SALP report, reviewed relevant documentation, and interviewed SALP Board members. The panel concluded that the SALP process had been conducted in accordance with agency guidance and that the draf t SALP report is an accurate reflection of Texas Utilities Electric's perfonnance during the SALP period. The panel's report is enclosed for your infonr.ation,wThe panel reconsnended that the SALP report be issued with several
- ciner revisions'.-l ave accepted the panel's reconenendation and am directing Cp> 011 b 7 S c, N
)&
M
4 James M. Taylor-
-2 RB 011180 the Associate Director for Special Projects to proceed with the issuance of the SALP report.
During the DP0 Panel's review of the SALP process, it became evident that external organizations and individual NRC staff members do not have a clear understanding of the objectives of SALP. The SALP process is retrospective and therefore the performance surrnary provided to the utility in the SALP report is to a large extent historical in nature. Although the SALP perspective is used as an input to NRR's determination of fuel load readiness, current information, such as findings from licensing and inspection activities provides a much stronger and accurate basis for a licensing decision.
The anonymous memorandum also asserted that NRC inspection reports and other documents had been edited to create an inaccurate characterization of the utilities' performance. This assertion could imply inappropriate action on the part of NRC supervisors and managers.
Therefore, on October 10, 1990, I referred this matter to the Office of Inspector General (0!G) and by copy of this memorandum 1 am providing the conclusions of our review to O!G.
In conclusion, the staff has thoroughly evaluated the regulatory matters raised in the anonymous letter and has concluded that the issues have been adequately addressed.
Or$Cinn) sigt.e A t, TLW L. ht uy Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Memo F. Miraglia to T. E. Murley, dtd 1/30/90,
" Anonymous Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) on Comanche Peak"
- cc:
D. Williams Distribution:
TEMurley JHSniezek JPartlow FMiraglia [
LPlisco
- See attached for previous concurrences FC :NRR
- NRR:ADP
- NRR;ADT
- NRR:DD
- NR :D p...:............:............:............:.............
AME :LPlisco*
- JPartlow*
- FMiraglia*
- JHSniezek* :T Murley
...:............:............:............:............:...e........:............:.........
E *1/19/90'
.:1/19/90
- 1/25/90
- 1/25/90
- 1/) /90
y..
c/
N UNIT E D sT ATis j'
f g* ;*
NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
.,, i s
W ASNtNGTON D C 20ttb 4.,
h February 5, 1990 Docket ho. 50-445 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde. Esq.-
Robinson, Robinson, Peterson, Bert, Rudolph, Cross and Garde 203 East College Avenue Appletor., Wisconsin 54911
Dear Ms. Garde:
This is in followup to my letter of December 8,1989 regarding your letter
-of November 20, 1989, in which you outlined concerns you had with the Comanche Peak systematic assessment of licensee perfomance (SALP) process and the regulatory process associated with the final licensing decision.
The unsigned memorandum from *NRC Staff Inspectors
- to Chairman Carr of October 4, 1989 was handled as a staff Differing Professional Opinion. A panel of three senior managers was established to review the issues and make appropriate recomendations to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The panel has completed their review of the SALP process at Comanche Peak, including the coments in your November 20, 1989 letter. The panel reviewed the development of the SALP report. and conducted interviews with some SALP Board members..As a separate initiative, the staff members involved with the Comanche Peak inspection program were requested to provide any comments they might have on the SALP report. They were told these coments I
could be provided anonymously. The results of the survey were also reviewed by the panel. Based on the survey comments, several minor changes to the SALP report were recomended by the NRR Associate Director for Special Projects.
The panel has concluded that the SALP process for Comanche Peak was conducted consistent with agency 9uidance, and recomended that the SALP report (as modified by Special Projects) be issued. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the panel's report and the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's disposition of this matter.
As ! previously discussed in my letter to you of December 8,1989, a decision on the issuance of an operating license is separate from the SALP process and t:111 not be made until the necessary licensing and inspection efforts are completed, and the ORAT inspection is completed. Although the insights derived 1
.from the SALP process are used as an input to the NRC's determination of fuel load. readiness, the findings from the licensing and inspection activities pro-vide a more current assessment as a basis for a licensing decision. The SALP l
process is retrospective and therefore the performance sumary provided.t.o.the.
- l-utility in the SALP report is to a large extent historical in nature.
l l
-wtrzMoqq...-m.3ep y
L l
6 d
F i
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde.
I The anonymous memorandum also asserted that NRC inspection reports and other dacuments had been edited to create an inaccurate characterization of the utility's performance.
This matter has been referred to the Office of the Inspector General.
In summary, we have reviewed the comments in the anonymous memorandum and the concerns voiced in your letter regarding the SALP evaluation process and have concluded that the issues raised have been or are being adequately addressed.
Sincerely, n/
Janes M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Memorandum F. Miraglia to p.
T. E. Murley, dtd 1/30/90
" Anonymous Dif fering Professional Opinion (DPO) on Comanche Peak" 2.
Memorandum T, E. Murley to J. M. Taylor, dtd 2/1/90,
" Differing Professional Opinion Concerning Comanche Peak's Fuel Load Readiness and SALP Report" cc:
See next page Distribution:
JMToylor TEMurley JHSniezek FMiraglia DCrutchfield FGillespie CGrimes LPlisco Central File PDR
,j, i
- N p :NRR:
- N R
- N
- EDO FC
- NRR f...:NRR:ADSP
/f
...e!
i AME :LPl W
- CGrimes
- DCrutchfield:FM a
S z
- 1EMurley
- JMTaylor 0...:............:............:............:..
- 2/ //90
- 2///90
- 2/ /90 2/ //90 fTE':1/31/90
- 2/g/90
- 2/\\/90
~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY f
' Document Name: GABRIEL 154
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde.
cc:
Mr. Robert F. Warnick Jack R. Newman, Esq.
Assistant Director Newman & Holtzinger h
for Inspection Programs 1615 L Street, NW Comanche Peek Project Division Suite 1000 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20036 P. O. Box 1029 Granbury, Texas 76048 Chief. Texas Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health Regional Administrator, Region IV 1100 West 49th Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78756 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suitt 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Honorable George Crump County Judge Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Mrs. Juanite Ellis, President Citizena Association for Sound Energy Mr. W. J. Cahill, Jr.
r" 1426 South Polk Executive Vice President Dallas, Texas 75224 TU Electric 400 North Olive St., L. B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 E. F. Ottney P. O. Box 1777 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Mr. Roger D. Walker Manager, Nuclear Licensing Texas Utilities Electric Company 400 North Olive Street, L. B. 81 Dallas,' Texas 75201 Texas Utilities Electric Company c/o Bethesda Licensing 3 Metro Center, Suite 610 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 William A. Burchette Esq.
Counsel for Tex La Electric Cooperative of Texas Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20007 GDS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Suite 720 1850 Parkway Place Marietta, Georgia 30067-8237 I
t,
,