ML20011E461

Advises of No Unit 1 Concerns Not Being Tracked by Insp Repts or Other Public Records,Per 891011 Request.Comments Re SALP Process Listed

ML20011E461
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/24/1989
From:	Richins W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Charemagne Grimes 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 9002140101
Download: ML20011E461 (2)

Text

.

- a u:q'og

' UNITED STATES.

!8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n

j WASHINGTON, P. C. 20066 '

%.....,l' OCT 24 w I

i

^

MEMORANDUM FOR:

C. I. Grimes, Director Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

William D. Richins, Consultant Civil / Structural-Engineer c

SUBJECT:

IDENTIFICATION OF COMANCHE PEAK ISSUES In response to your memorandum dated October 11, 1989, to all CPPD staff.

I have no Comanche Peak Unit I concerns that are not currently being tracked by inspection. reports or other public records.

I have a good cooperative working relationship with Herb Livermore, Mike Runyan, and Bob Latta; such that my concerns are adequately addressed and documented by the staff here on site.

Regarding the SALP process, I have the following comments:.

I compiled the Construction and Corrective Action Programs section based on several informal discussions with the construction group here on site (Chen, Dale, Latta,.Richins, Runyan,andStanish).

Each individual had written input t

and reviewed the ' final product as it went to the SALP board.

i Joe Taylor also had the opportunity to review this section l

when he returned from time off. ;I believe that the group agreed with the contents of the section.

I rece hed very little guidance regarding which section (Construction and Corrective Action Programs, Engineering

'y l

and Technical Support, etc.).. various applicant activities i

should be addressed in.

The result was, I believe, that several activities were moved to other sections by the SALP 3

board.

I perso'nnally wish the AFW events and the failure of the Borg-Warner check valves were more fully addressed by the SALP report as it went to the SALP board.

I realize, i

i however, that the AFW events were only part of the puzzle l

and that length constraints do not allow further detail.

hvw a,

lY W_.

39 C. I.l Grimes.. OCT 2(1989

,; i.,.. )$1,-l ?

I I believe that the performance ratings were justified' and were unaffected by the changes made to the SALP report

c at the board meeting.-

m IflI.can provide additional information, please contact me.

3 I

William D. Richins', Consultant-

' g' Civil / Structural Engineer i

Comanche Peak Project Division-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation-

. i

}-

g-h I

u 5

l T

h 0

6 i

3

- l

+