ML20126H363
| ML20126H363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, South Texas |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1980 |
| From: | Hubacek W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A238 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-393 NUDOCS 8506100319 | |
| Download: ML20126H363 (3) | |
Text
.
= -..
=...,
.. - ~ ~. - - - -
- act O f
5%q%
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t,
Asesom iv g
s11 RYAN Pt.AZA DRIVE, sulTE 1000 5
ARLINGTON, TEXAS 7s012 e
June 4, 1980 Docket No. 50-498
~
50-499 I
MEMORANDUM POR: Pile
, TERU:
[gfW.C.Seidle, Chief,RC&ESBranch W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
.PR(Bt:
W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section SULTECT:
MEET 7]IG WITE BL&P MANAGEMENT TO DISCUSS EL&P RESPONSES TO IR INVESTIGATION REPORT 79-19 AND THE REIATED SHOW CAUSE ORDER, SOUTE TEEAS PROJECT, UNITS 1 & 2, DN 5 N 98; 50-499 A meeting was held at the Region IV offica on May 16, 1980, at the request of H1AP management, to discuss EL&P responses to IE Investigation Report 79-19 and the related Show Cause Order.
The following persons were in attendance:
E. A. Turner, Vice President, Power Plant Construction and Technical Services, HL&P D. G. Barker, Project Manager, EL&P R. A. Prasar. QA Manager, EL&P K. V. Seyfrit, Director, RIV W. C. Saidle, Chief, Reactor Construction & Engineering Support Branch, RIV W. E. Vetter, Assistant to the Director, RIV W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section, RIV R. E. Ball, Chief, Engineering Support Section, RIV J. I. Tapia, Reactor Inspector, RIV W. G. Bubacek, Reactor Inspector, RIV The discussion, lead by EL&P, concentrated primarily on proposed HL&P responses to the Show Cause Order (SCO) to determine if the proposed responses would be acceptable to the NRC. It was emphasised that the information presented was tentative and subject to change. The following SCO items were discussed:
5 gi g9840620 GLASSP
-393 PDR
((f p
.._______ 's.
.s w
m,.
t.-
.=
(
k1 File - DN 50-498; 50-499 June 4, 1980 L
s__
[
VA(1) 7 HL&P expressed desire to use Bechtel as a consultant because of Bechtel's extensive nuclear experience. Pros and cons of selection of Bechtel were discussed. HL&P is also pl'anning to contract with Management Analysis i
}{, -
Corporation (MAC) for assistance with the QA progra= and staffing of key QA positions by MAC personnel.
(Mr. Seyfrit requested RIV be provided f
restses of the MAC personnel.) EL&P would maintain oversight of the
'prograr.. More personnel with experience vill be provided by HI4P and l
B&R. Training courses for top HL&P and B&R executives are planned (RIV invited to attend).
Ja
-9 VA(2) 5 s
i HL&P vill assemble a " Blue Ribbon" panel for consultation on soils problem.
~
i-Panel members are to include Professor Seed of the University of California, 5
e -
Dr. Castro of Boston, and Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
1 VA(3) a g
HL&P plans to utilize Nutech'as a velding consultant.
Mr. Seyfrit expressed l,
concern about Ngtech's NDE czperience. Joseph Artuso (previously involved Q
at Crystal River) vill be utilized as a concrete consultant.
VA(4_)
The B&R QA program brochure and video tape vill be destroyed. New documents vill be developed.
VAp)\\
Z New stop ork procedures vill be developed to clarify requirements. Training
]
will be provided to QA'/QC and construction personnel involved.
VA(6')
i B5R has initiated a trend analysis program for FREAs and NCRs. Not enough m
r experience exists yet for valid analysis of results of first trend report.
~
]
VA(7)
~
j, The Design Change Notice vill be the only formal method for design change.
T
__.1
~
The FREA vill be eliminated.
.93,8)
+
The record system vill be reviewed. Retrievability of documents will be improved.
3 1
}
J-i.
-d
....E..'........--.---
....---.u-~......-------..-.---.--
<g o
~
File - DN 50-498; 50-499 June 4, 1980 VA(9)
The audit system will be revised. New procedures will be developed.
More rraining will be provided and management will become more involved in resolution of audit findings. Apparent problems are with depth of audits, not form. Surveillance group on site will continue to monitor day to day status of work.
VA(10)
FSAR, Section 2.5.4 will be addressed.
In addition, the HL&P representatives stated that they did not plan to contest the Notice of Violation or the Civil Penalty. They anticipated that timely responses will be submitted.
M W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector Projects Section cc:
H. S. Phillips
_m___
_ _. -_____ -.