ML20011E442

Responds to 891010 Request to Review Initial SALP Rept & Comment on SALP Board Findings.Author Agrees W/Using Insps as Input for Functional Areas as Indicated in SALP Rept

ML20011E442
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/23/1989
From:	Norkin D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20011D121	List: ML20011D120 ML20011D122 ML20011E336 ML20011E429 ML20011E435 ML20011E437 ML20011E438 ML20011E439 ML20011E440 ML20011E441 ML20011E442 ML20011E444 ML20011E445 ML20011E446 ML20011E447 ML20011E448 ML20011E449 ML20011E450 ML20011E451 ML20011E452 ML20011E454 ML20011E455 ML20011E456 ML20011E457 ML20011E458 ML20011E459 ML20011E460 ML20011E461 ML20011E462 ML20011E463 ML20011E468 ML20011E469 ML20011E470 ML20011F392 ML20011F393 ML20011F394 ML20011F395 ML20011F400 ML20011F401 ML20011F404
References
NUDOCS 9002140050
Download: ML20011E442 (1)

Text

.

I

+f.nnolo,,

UNITED STATES g

)

8

,I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

n e

/

WASHINGTON, D. C. 70666

)

%,,,,,.o#

October 23, 1989 l

HEMORANDUM FOR: Dennis M. Crutchfield, Associate Director for Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

)

FROM:

Donald P. Norkin Comanche Peak Project Division 4

Office of Nuclear Reactor Rtgulation

SUBJECT:

NRC STAFF DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON COMANCHE Your memorandum dated October 10, 1989 requested that those of us involved in the inspection activities for Comanche Peak review the initial SALP report and coment on the Board's findings.

During the rating period of September I, 1988 through August

~

31, 1989,'I was the team leader for three NRC team inspections (Inspection Reports 89-14, 89-28,.

and 89-61)..The inspection teams were comprised of NRC and consultant inspectors from Bob Warnick's organization; Frank Ashe participated in one it wection.

Two of the inspections addressed the Post Construction Hardware Validation Program (the design / construction interface), and the third r. overed Final Reconciliation (the confirmation process for calculation assumptions).

.The SALP report references the three team inspections under " Engineering and Technical Support."

alludes to NRC inspection of PCHVP.In addition, " Construction and Corrective Action for these two functional areas as indicated in the SALP report.I agree with usi For both areas, the team inspections considered alone would support a Category 1 SALP rating since we generally found good applicant programs and identified few issues.

4 I have no further comments on the SALP report.

M.NL nbP.Norkin Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a

cw01Mou 50 1()-

~-