ML20023C217
| ML20023C217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1983 |
| From: | Burwell S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023C216 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305160244 | |
| Download: ML20023C217 (6) | |
Text
.
o UNITED STATES y
g 3 5 g
_ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{ -(3,. ( ;
n},ay WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o.
/a
+S, MAY 4 1983 s
Docket Nos.:
50-445 and 50-446 APPLICANT: Texas Utilities Generating Company FACILITY:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING ON COMANCHE PEAK ADDED ASSURANCE PROGRAM Summary On Wednesday afternoon, April 13, 1983, a meeting was held at NRC Headquarters, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify any misunderstanding between the utility and the NRC staff of its feeling concerning Comanche Peak and to identify the basis for the staff's need for added assurance that the plant has been designed and constructed in accordance with the application.
The meeting also included a discussion on the findings of the Construction Appraisal Team inspection at Comanche Peak and the need for good communication between the utility and the staff if Unit 1 is ~to be licensed without a regulatory delay. A representative for CASE made a short statement at the end of the meeting.
A list of attendees is given in Enclosure 1.
Meeting Details The meeting-opened with Mr. Eisenhut giving a brief history of the NRC staf f's views concerning the staff's reauirements for an appropriate independent veri-fication program at Comanche Peak. The staff made a tentative decision as a result of the meeting on December 16, 1982 that it would not require an Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP).
In the light of continued allegations and recent inspection findings, the staff felt that the balance on the earlier decision had shifted and that the applicant should conduct some type of program which would provide the staff with the added assurance it required.
The applicant was advised of this decision at the meeting on March 10, 1983.
Mr. Eisenhut noted that the meeting notice dated April 1,1983 was wrong in its statement of the purpose of this meeting. The purpose was to clarify any misunderstanding of NRC staff feelings concerning Comanche Peak and the reasons for our decision to require some form of added assurance program, and to clear up any breakdown in communicaticas between the NRC staff and the applicant.
9305160244 830504 PDR ADOCK 05000445 O
MAY 4 1933 Texas Utilities Generating Company Mr. Fikar respo ded by citing the utility's efforts to assure quality at the Comanche Peak facility:
a.
The utility on its own initiative, hired Sargent & Lundy (S&L) to conduct an independent design related inspection at Comanche Peak and give an oral report to the utility management. This was completed about 18 months ago.
b.
The utility on its own initiative hired Mr. F. B. Lobbin to conduct an evaluation of the quality assurance program at Comanche Peak.
This report was made available to the NRC and was introduced into evidence in the hearings. The utility considered this a favorable report on the cuality assurance program and took action to adopt or resolve its recommendations, c.
The NRC staff has been doing the SALP reports over the last several years. The utility considered the latest report favorable, and the utility has acted on the relatively minor points identified.
d.
The utility commissioned a self-evaluation program using a team of experienced engineers from Sargent & Lundy. This self-evaluation was the first inspection utilizing the INP0-type criteria. The utility considered it a thorough evaluation and felt it was favorable. - The NRC has received copies of this report.
e.
The staff did an evaluation of the allegations by Messrs. Walsh and Doyle. The utility considered this a thorough evaluation, and the utility felt it was favorable.
f.
Recently, the NRC Construction Appraisai Team (CAT) inspection report was issued. The utility considered this an extremely thorough inspec-tion, and again found it a favorable report.
In summary, the utility stated that it felt good about the above reports. The utility believed that the bottom line in each of these reports was a finding that the utility is doing things right.
Mr. Eisenhut stated that the staff does not see any evidence of a major breakdown in quality assurance programs at Comanche Peak. But, each of these reports do identify one or more items that require attention and the staff views these as indicators or signals that the utility should continue to press for improvement.
As a result of these items the staff had previously shifted in its earlier views and now believes that some type of evaluation effort should be initiated by the utility to address-the concerns raised. The staff stated that it i_s not pressing for an evalu'ation with the same scope as previous Independent Design Verifications performed by other utilities in the last two years. However, the added assurance program selected by the utility evaluation should encompass both the design control and construction issues raised.
Texas Utilities Generating Company -
Mr. Collins noted that the Office of' Inspection and Enforcement had issued the CAT inspection report to the utility on April 11, 1983 for their review for proprietary information that may be withheld under the criteria given in 10 CFR 2.790(a). The utility advised that it had determined there was no infor-mation in the report that it would seek to be withheld, and. agreed to its imediate release to the public. Copies were then made available to attending members of the public.
Mr. Heishman, IE, discussed the findings of the. CAT inspection. The team did find items that require attention: (a) the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system; (b) cable separation problems; and (c) cable and piping supports. There was a pervasive breakdown in quality assurance for the work performed by the heating, ventilation and air conditioning subcontractor.
In other areas there were deficiencies not indicative of such breakdown. Nevertheless, it was expected that the utility's QA/QC organization should have identified these items and tightened up on the related construction activities. The utility was also urged to review work of any other subcontractors doing safety-related work.
In addition, the CAT was of the opinion that too many construction modifications were being performed at the last moment, i.e., construction activities were crossing over into testing activities. In short, the interfaces between construction, design control, QC inspection and testing are complex to monitor.
The utility stated that it appreciated the staff and its own consultants pointing out sreas which need attention. The utility believes that it has taken prompt action in response to these; e.g., it issued a stop work order on the HVAC construction and it is taking the initiative to confirm that the other similar contractors are performing satisfactorily.
Mr. Eisenhut summed-up the meeting by saying that we hoped we had identified the areas that are indicators of " problems" to permit the utility to respond to them.
We pointed out that the burden is now on the utility to convince the NRC that he has addressed these problems.
The utility acknowledged that "the ball was in its court" and advised that it will request another meeting in the near future to describe and seek staff comments on its proposed program to deal with these problems.
Completion of Licensing The utility stated that it was on the final cotmtdown to completing Unit 1 and is scheduled to load fuel in September. The utility requested that the NRC join in making a concerted effort to identify and communicate the remaining items that must be completed for licensing this unit. Discussions established that the l
utility, the NRC Region IV and NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation have
NAY 4 1983 Texas Utilities Generating Company **
compiled lists for their respective use. All agreed to communicate with the others in the near future to assure that all items are identified.
The staff advised the utility that it should study recent operating licenses issued by the NRC as background on the license conditions likely to be included in the Unit i license. The staff also indicated that the forthcoming modifica-tions ' associated with correcting the steam generator preheater tube vibration was a review item that might result in a delay in fuel loading.
Closing Comments The utility thanked the staff for the meeting. The utility appreciated our discussion on the nature and significance of our concerns and requested that we ask any questions which might alleviate these concerns. The utility eiriphasized the need for good communications to complete the licensing without a fuel load delay. The utility closed with the statement that it believed that Comanche Peak is a uood plant.
The staff encou' raged the utility to call Mr. Collins, Regional Administrator, on all matters concerning inspection and enforcement and Mr. Eisenhut on all natters concerning the licensing review. The NRC would like to stay on top of the status and significant occurrences in the interim between now and lice 6 sing.
Comments from the Public The meeting was cpened for comments from the public and Ms. Meier, a representative for CASE, made three statements.
a.
She thanked the staff for giving her a copy of the CAT inspection report.
b.
She observed that there appeared to be conflicting views between the utility and the staff (i.e. CAT) on whether it was too early to be identifying deficiencies in the plant or it is too late to have these deficiences resolved.
c.
At Zimmer and Midland problems were discovered due to the efforts of public interest groups. She hoped the staff will ( 2ntinue to give the same type of attention to allegations on Comanche Peak.
f /. /
wrum S. B. Burwell, Project Manager Licensing Branch Ho. 1 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl.: See next page i
Mr.
F.. J. Gary Executive Vice ~ President and General Manager s
Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 cc: Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Mr. Robert G. Taylor Debevoise & Liberman Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.
Nuclear Power Station
. Washington, D. C.
20036 c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels P. O. Box 38 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 2001 Bryan Tower
~
Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. John T. Collins U. S. NRC, Region IV Mr. Homer C. Schmidt 611 Ryan Plazc Drive Manager - Nuclear Services Suite 1000 Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Arlington, Texas 76011 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. Larry Alan Sinkin 838 East Magnolia Avenue Mr. H. R. Rock San Antonio, Texas 78212 Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 Mr. A. T. Parker
~
Westinghouse Electric Corporatior P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 David J. Preister Assistant Attorney General Er.vironmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Citizens Association for Sour.d Energy 1426 South Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 e
e 4
ENCLOSURE 1 MEETING ATTENDANCE
~
MEETING ON COMANCHE PEAK ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION PROGRAM April 13, 1983 NRC Staff Texas Utilities D. G. Eisenhut L. F. Fikar J. T. Collins R. J. Gary V. Stello J. B. George R. A. Purple B. R. Clements J. M. Taylor H. C. Schmidt R. F. Heishman G. L. Madsen T. M. Novak B. J. Youngblood R. H. Vollmer S. Treby J. F. Scinto M. V. Rothschild S. B. Burwell Public P. Meier, CASE /NIRS J. Booth, Dallas Times Herald 4
l i
e
ja MAY 4 1983 DISTRIBUTION FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION 83-29C INFORMATION FROM CONSTRUCTION APPRAISAI TEN! (CAT) INSPECTION OF COMANCHE PEAK 1/2
-,en, = --. m--.~.
f:DocumentControli(50-445/446)L d2D NRC PDR L PDR PRC System NSI,C LBil Rdg.
JYoungblood SBurwell MRushbrook TNovak/MStine OEisenhut/RPurple MWilliams HDenton/ECase PPAS JYoungblood ASchwencer GKnighton EAdensam RVollmer R!'attson TSpeis
';Ti :gson Attorney, OELD ELJordan, DEQA:IE JMTaylor, DRP:IE WJDircks, EDO (4)
EChristenbury, OELD JScinto, OELD s
ABennette, OELD STreby, OELD MRothschild, OELD cc: Board / Licensee Service List
_ _ _