ML20101A900

FOIA Request for Documents Re Listed Problems W/South Texas Project Units 1 & 2

ML20101A900
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	11/17/1995
From:	Lawrence J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Racquel Powell NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
Shared Package
ML20101A732	List: ML20101A900
References
FOIA-96-23 NUDOCS 9603130334
Download: ML20101A900 (6)

Text

.

EGAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Counselors at Law 2300 N Street, N.W.

l Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone (202) 663-9200 Fax (202) 663-9066 November 17, 1995 DlfEDOM 0F INFORMATION VIA FACSIMILE ((301) 415-5130)

ACT REQUEST AND FIRST CLASS MAIL go y jy-f.5 - M Mr. Russell A. Powell, Chief 4, g, g,,,9 c5 FOIA/LPDR Branch Division of Freedom ofInformation and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 RE:

Freedom ofInformation Act Request

Dear Mr. Powell:

Pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Act (5 U.S.C. 6 552) and the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 9, Subpart A),

please provide me with a copy of the following documentation.

All documentation, including but not limited to handwritten or typed notes, agendas, or participant lists, of the telephone conference call that took place on the morning of February 4,1993, between NRC personnel in Region IV and representatives from Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) regarding problems with the South Texas Project, Unit I and 2 turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pumps, and in particular, the names of the NRC and HL&P personnel participating in the telephone call.

A potential source that could be consulted to obtain this documentation (or further information regarding where such documentation could be obtained) is Mr. James L.

Blaha, Assistant for Operations, Office of Executive Director for Operations.

Specifically, Mr. Blaha sent a letter to Mr. Victor S. Rezendes, Director, Energy and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, on September 11,1995 (attached),

that refers to such a telephone call.

9 31 4 960201 LESEY96-23 PDR

')

EGAN & A JOCIATES, P.C.

Counselors at bzw e

Mr. Russell A. Powell November 17, 1995 Page 2 If any or all of this request is denied, please cite the specific exemption (s) that supposedly justify the refusal to publicly release the information, and inform me of any appeal procedures available under the law. I would appreciate NRC handling this request as quickly as possible, and look forward to hearing from you within 10 days as required by law. Finally, please advise me of the cost involved in obtaining this documentation if such cost is estimated to exceed $500.00.

If you need any funher information to process this request, please do not hesitate to contact me during the day at (202) 663-8139.

l Sincerely, u

NN I

Joh ti W. Lawrence, Esq.

i Attachment

Appendix Il Comments From the Nuclear Regula1:ory ommission 1

l l

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the fCport text appear at the end of this appendix.

g'**eg\\

verreo states f

NUCLf?Jt RSOULATORY COtAMISSION e.c. semani e

September 11. 1995 Mr. Victor 5. Rezendes Director. Energy and $ctence !ssues U.S. General Accounting Offtce Washington, DC 20548

Dear Mr. Rezendes:

We have rewtowed the GA0 draft report

,alatina r " < man in uncan f aamartian ?,

se at the Sauth Taran leuc nar r Pleat. as requested in your letter of Aesgust 22. IVgl. Ine followtop Comments are provided and are referenced to the assectated pages in the draft report.

paan 2 fand ti.

' " tha i u.-ti.

The fourth paragraph states. *1GC later determined that one reacter's pep and two of its three generators had been simultaneously inoperable for extended perteds." For clarity and accuracy.

the correct nemenclature for the generators is diesel generators and the See comment 1.

correct neuenclature for the peeps is auxiliary feeduster pups. The plant has numerous pumps and generators unrelated to these discussed in the report.

The first paragraph states on line 8. "Although Imc was aware of P,aga,,2 other. long-standing management and technical problems and a decitne in the Itcensee's performance, it did not know the magnitude of these problems until April Igg 3. when the results of a comprehensive evaluatten of the plant httaae b comment 1' available.' The letters 'NRC' should be added before the werd comprehensive in this sentence to identify uhe performed the evaluetten.

The toport notes that, as a result of its evaluation. NRC revised its overall assesament of the licensee's performance from good to peer and declining.

See comment 1*

Whfit the plant was rated good in everall performance and taprovements were noted in certain programs, the IstC did point out in its October 2.19g2. SALP report that this assessment represented the second consecutive assessment certed in which performance had decitned in certala areas or the effectiveness of taprovement inttlatives was misod. The NRC aise pointed out that te prevent a further decitne in performance, addittenal management attention was required.

P*aa' 4 & 15 The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 4 should be Now on pp. 4 and 22.

amended to state, 'NRC was avere of problems with the reacter's turbine-driven aux 111ery feedwater pump, and recognited that the problems could result in a technical specification-required shutdown of Unit I because troubleshooting and repair activities during the three day technical specificatten allowed autage time had not been successful in resolving the pump overspeed See comment 1.

The resident inspectors were aware of the pump troublesheeting j

conditten.'

activities and had continually apprised Region IV management and supervisten of the licensee's activities throughout the 3 day allowed outage time.

Furthermore, on the morning of February 4. leg 3. a few hours before the expiratten of the allowed outage time, a conference call between Region IV and the licensee was conducted to atscuss the status of the pimp. During this GAOSCID 88 It Somsk Tense Neelear Power Flaat Page 44 s

Appeodiz D Comunente From the Nuclear Regulatory Co==wton conference call, the licensee tried to make a case for considering the pop to be operable; however, because of guestions free the NRC staff, the licensee decided to shut dem Unit I and to continue to troublesheet the pump. The second paragraph en page 25 aise requires clarificatten for the same reason as noted above.

Now on pp. 4 and 23.

In addition, as stated en pages 4 and 25. It is true that the IIRC was not suare that the painting of the diesel generators had tenebtitaed see See Comment 1' generator; however, the NAC was eusm that the painting was la progress, and had cauttened the Itcensee before the painting began about the contents of the informatten nettte that.dtscussed emergency diesel generater patating problems at other plants.

=

Now on pp. 5 and 23.

Th' 8****"ce beginning en 1tne e of the second paragraph etsstates the purpose ef the istC's Inspection program. The IIRC Inspection program is designed to See comment 2.

ensure, threwgh selective exaetaations, that the Itconsee ideattfles and resolves potential safety issues before they result in sisatricant problems.

Responsibility for safe operetten of the plant rests with the Itcensee. This bisstatement aise occurs en page 26.

Now on pp.11 12 and 18.

p,

. in. 11. and is. The situation described en these pages she=1d be referred to as a 'less-of-effsite peuer' and est as a 'statten blackest.'

See comment 1.

Less-of-offsite peuer refers te a less of ac power being suppited externally to the plant, uhtle a station blackest refers to a less of all ac peuer, both externally and laternally, including the less of all of the diesel generators.

Now on pp.12-13 and 15.

paan 12 med 15 The first seatseco at the top of page 12 states. "On February 4, Igg 3, the iteensee at the 5esth Texas plant informed INIC that it was shuttlag deus the two reacters because of continuing malfunctions with the reacters' turbine-driven auxiliary pumps.'

See comment 1.

Unit I was sheidene en February 4,1993, because the Unit I turbine driven auxtitary feeduster pump could est be returned to operable status within the three dtr allowed outage ttee. Iteuever, Unit 2 had tripped the day before, en February 3,1993, as a result of low-law staan generater water level (unrelated to the problem with the turbine driven aust11ary fecesater pap).

Sees after that trip, the tuttime driven aux 11tary feeduster pump recetwee a valid start signal tot tripped on sechanical overspeed. Unit I was stready shutdem en February 4, Igg 3.

This factual error is repeated on page 15 in the seceed full sentence at the top of the page.

I Now on p.15.

EaggJ. The first sentence in the second paragraph states that the turbine-driven amatitary feedwater pump was inoperable escause of '...a mechanical See comment 1.

failure in the turbine.' The true fallers was with a valve assectated with the ter$1ne, but not in the turbine itself.

Now footnote 5.

fanL18. Feetnote 4 is not correct in stating the amber of regatred off-stte power searces. The footnote should be revised to state. 'According to NRC, See comment 1.

nuclear plants typically have tuo er more searces of off-stte peuer, unich, in llRC's view, preytde a suffittent margta of safety.'

Peso da GAQfBCED-86-10 Seusk Texas N= elase Power Plant

--.L.--

Appendiz 11 Commients Fross the NuclIar Regulatory Coeunisolon 3

Now on p. 24.

m fifth sentence of the second paragregh should state that the g, initiated corrective action programs, tecluding a program to reduce incensee i

See comment 1.

the frequency of ' plant trips

• rather than "pues estfunctions.

N second paragraph states that the senior resident inspector said Now on p. 31.

t et, there were not enough resident inspectors at the plant and, consequently, they did not have time te oversee the Itcensee's corrective See comment 1.

acttens.' The senter resident inspector has been quoted out of contest, and says he stated that due to asapouer constraints and competing inspection priorities, they did not felleuup on everv -t of the Itcensee's corrective actions. He states that he explained that they did maintain an evervleu of the licensee's engeing efforts to assure themselves that the Itcensee uns conducting an appropriate leve6tigatten to determine the cause of the overspeed tripping.

Now on p. E P-41-42. The exagles pertaining to problem reporttag and staffing noted in the second peregraph of page 41 were considered for enforcement, as See comment 1.

approprtste. Some resulted in escalated enforcement action (with civ11 penaltiesissuod). Others resulted in non-escalated enforcement er non-cited violettens. Some were not cited because they were detemined to be addittenal exemples of violettens that were the subject of escalated enforcement and more identified as such in the inspection reports and inspection report cover letters. Inst every precedural pnblem or usakness constitutes a violetten of an IRC requirement.

Now on p. 42.

Essa g. Add the fellesing at the end of the second paragraph, 'Ol's rebuttal to the 014 report states tant the 250 allegattens were not pursued because See comment 1.

addittenal infomation uns not fortheeming free the organ 13atten representing the allegers. Ol's rebuttni uns provided to Congresamen Ityden by letter dated Joe 16, 1935.*

Now on p. 43.

To clarify the last pereproph en this page it should be replaced with the

'IAC issued a report en its restes of allgttens regarding South fellest :

in meanse to Congmestenal concerns.

K food that Texas See comment 1' nearly al of these concerns had been previously identified by the K, the licenses or by a tous allegetten. Therefore, the IAC uns able to close these allegattens en IRC tospection reports, closed allegation files, censultatten'with the IAC technical staff, and the Itcensee's correctlye actions. Isille seen of the technical tssess were substantiated, and tselsted esaples of discrtelnatory behavier were identified, the IAC concluded thet these sabotentiated allegattens did not affect the safe operatten of the plant."

Stacerely, g

mes L. glabe sistant for Operettens fice of the Executive Ofrector for Operattens Pagede GdOSCAD 0614 Seesk Tenne Neaient Power Finat

e Appezdiz II Comments From the Nuclear Regulatory Commission The following are GAO's comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRc) letter dated September 11,1995.

GAO's Comments 1 "" 8"88"**d ""*"b '*h*"8"

• dify inf nnad n in thueport.

We incorporated the agency's comments where appropriate.

2. Our report clearly states that (1) the licensees are ultimately responsible for the safe operation of their facilities and (2) NRC conducts inspections to obtain independent assurance that the licensees are operating their facilities safely. However, as discussed in Nac's 1994 annual report, the inspection program is also " intended to anticipate and preclude signincant events and problems by identifying underlying safety problems."

l l

Page 47 GAGSCED-Ele seeth Texas Nedear Power Flast