ML20141D361

Summary of 860318 Meeting W/Util,Nirs & Jba to Discuss Statistical Matter Discussed by Licensing Board in 851111 Memo Re Statistical Inferences from Review Team Sampling. List of Attendees Encl

ML20141D361
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/01/1986
From:	Trammell C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8604070507
Download: ML20141D361 (13)

Text

.

p

/  %*o .

UNITED STATES d,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h .. $ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

....4 01 &

Docket Nos. 50-445-and 50-446 APPLICANT: Texas Utilities Electric Company (TVEC) et al.

FACII.ITY: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON MARCH 18, 1986 TO DISCUSS STATISTICAL MATTERS

. On March 18, 1986, the NRC staff met with representatives of Texas Utilities Generating Company (for TUEC) and its consultant to discuss statistical matters discussed by the licensing Board in its November 11, 1985 Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling). Those in attendance are identified in the Attachment. Highlights of the meeting are discussed below. The meeting was recorded by a representative from intervenor CASE, the NRC staff, and the applicant. A copy of the NRC staff's recording is in the custody of the NRC project manager who attended the meeting.

The meeting served to clarify some of the statements made in Applicants' Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling) dated January 31, 1986, and Appendix 0 to the CPRT Program Plan, " Sampling."

1. Table 1, App. D of the Program Plan has a 6-stage sampling table. Texas Utilities (TV) explained that it intends to expand sampling at most once.

2. Two-stage sampling results in less than 95/5 assurance in the classical sense (about 93/5 with the numbers given). TV stated that this would not be true for the Bayesian approach to statistical analysis. In addition, other factors tend to increase the actual assurance:

a. The sampling plan assumes a population of infinite size, yet obviously the populations are finite in size.

b. TV conducts an engineered (biased) sample which focuses on important safety systems, in addition to the random sample,

c. Any deficiencies found are corrected,

d. The root cause/ generic implication analysis would strongly tend to root out other deficiencies of the same type.

0604070507 860401 5 PDR ADOCK 050 l

1 1

3. TU was questioned on the use of one-sided tolerance limits (App. D, Attachment 2). TV said that no ISAPs currently use this method. However, it was included in App. D to be used if needed in evaluating discrepancies.

4. Conduit supports and small-bore piping issues do use sampling per App. D.

5. Two deficiencies with the same attribute and some root cause would lead to be 100% inspection for that attribute.

6. TV was questioned about its statement of the null and alternative hypothesis as presented in the Applicants' Memorandum of January 31, 1986. TU explained that the same conclusion can be reached by looking at it another way, and that they would explain this further in a supplement to the January 31 memo.

l l 7. TU was requested to consider a revision to App. D to show, for example, that at most 2-stage sample expansion is being used. The appendix also contains other material which is not applicable to actual CPRT activities.

TU will supplement the January 31 memo in a few days.

MM /riedl Charles M. Trammell, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #5 Division of PWR I.icensing-A

Attachment:

1.ist of Attendees

Texas Utilities Electric Com$any Comanche Peak Electric Station

. Units 1 and 2 cc:

Resident Inspector - Comanche Peak c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1029 -

Granbury, Texas 76048 Mr. John W. Beck Vice President Texas Utilities Electric Company

Skyway Tower j 400 North Olive Street,I., 8. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 l Mr. Jack Redding licensino Texas Utilities Generating Company

4901 Fairmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 William A. Burchette, Esq.

Peron, Burchette, Puckert & Rothwell Suite 700 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.

j Washington, D. C. 20007 ,

GDS Associates, Inc.

1 25 Cumberland Parkway Suite 450 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Elizabeth 8. Johnson Administrative Judge

Oak Ridge National I.aboratory P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennesse 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Division of Engineering, Architecture and Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennesse 37830

4 W. G. Counsil Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Texas Utilities Generating Company Units 1 and 2 cc: .

Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esc. Resident' Inspector / Comanche Peak Bishop,l.iberman, Cook, Nuclear Power Station Purcell & Reynolds c/o V. S. Nuclear Regulatroy Commission 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W. P. O. Box 38 Washington, D. C. 20036 Glen Rose Texas 76043 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq. Regional Administrator, Reofon IV Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wooldridge 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Arlington, Texas 76011 i

Dallas, Texas Mr. Robert E. Ballard, Jr. lanny A. Sinkin Director of Projects Christic Institute Gibbs and Hill, Inc. 1324 North Capitol Street 11 Pen Plaza Washington, D. C. 20002 New York, New York 10001 Mr. R. S. Poward Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Westinghouse Electirc Corporation Citizens Clinic Director P.O. Box 355 Government Accountability Project Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 1555 Connecticut Avenue N. W.

Suite 202 Washington, D. C. 20009 Renea Hicks, Esq. David R. Pigott, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Ferrington, & Sutcliffe Environmental Protection Division 600 Montgomery Street P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station San Francisco, California 94111 Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Citizens Association for Sound Energy Trial I.awyers for Public Justice 1426 South Polk 2000 P Street, N. W.

Dallas, Texas 75224 Suite 611 Washington, D. C. 20036 Ms. Nancy H. Williams Nancy E. Wiegers CYGNA Spiegel & McDiarmed 101 California Street 1350 New York Avenue, N. W.

San Francisco, California 94111 Washington, D. C. 20005-4798 Robert P. Lessy, Jr.

Morgan, Lewis & Bokius 1800 M Street, N. W.

Suite 700, North Tower Washington, D. C. 20036

t

) .

i

• ATTACPMENT 3 NRC/TUGC0 MEETING RE: STATISTICS DATE: 3/18/86 ATTENDANCE NAME AFFII.IATION C. Trammell NRC j E. Marinos NRC P. Tymon NIRS* (for CASE)

J. Reddding TUGC0 i G. Gower IE/NRC T. Tyler TUGC0 J. Beck TilGC0 R. Webster JBA (consultant)

D. I.urie NRC G. Mizuno NRC/El.D

l. Chandler NRC/0El.D D. Norkin NRC/IE i

i i

i

• Nuclear Information and Resource Service l

M 01 ggg Meeting Summary Distribution

• Docket or; Central File

~

NRC Participants NRC PDR local PDR C. Trammell PD#5 Reading File E. Marinos J. Partlow (Emergency Preparedness only) G. Gower V. Noonan D. Lurie Pro.iect Manager C. Trammell G. Mizuno, El.D OELD 1.. Chandler, OELD E. Jordan D. Norkin, IE B. Grimes ACRS (10)

M. Rushbrook A. Vietti-Cook C. Early cc: Licensee and Plant Service list

.. M 8 1 1 peg Meeting Sumary Distribution Docket or Central File NRC Participants NRC PDR I.ocal PDR C. Trammell PD#5 Reading File E. Marinos J. Partlow (Emergency Preparedness only) G. Gower V. Noonan D. Lurie Pro.iect Manager C. Tramell G. Mizuno, ELD OEl.D l. Chandler, OELD E. Jordan D. Norkin, IE B. Grimes ACRS (10)

M. Rushbrook A. Vietti-Cook C. Early cc: Licensee and Plant Service f.i s t l

,p u rg

[g-

' bh UNITED STATCS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

^%,

• ...+

/ OR0 %-

Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 APPLICANT: Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) et al.

FACII.ITY: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON MARCH 18, 1986 TO DISCUSS STATISTICAL MATTERS

On March 18, 1986, the NRC staff met with representatives of Texas Utilities Generating Company (for TUEC) and its consultant to discuss statistical matters discussed by the licensing Board in its November 11, 1985 Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling). Those in attendance are identified in the Attachment. Highlights of the meeting are discussed below. The meeting was recorded by a representative from intervencr CASE, the NRC staff, and the applicant. A copy of the NRC staff's recording is in the custody of the NRC project manager who attended the meeting.

The meeting served to clarify some of the statements made in Applicants' Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling) dated January 31, 1986, and Appendix D to the CPRT Program Plan. " Sampling."

1. Table 1, App. D of the Program Plan has a 6-stage sampling table. Texas Utilities (TV) explained that it intends to expand sampling at most once.

2. Two-stage sampling results in less than 95/5 assurance in the classical sense (about 93/5 with the numbers given). TV stated that this would not be true for the Bayesian approach to statistical analysis. In addition, other factors tend to increase the actual assurance:

a. The sampling plan assumes a population of infinite size, yet obviously the populations are finite in size.

b. TV condacts an engineered (biased) sample which focuses on important safety systems, in addition to the random sample.

c. Any deficiencies found are corrected.

d. The root cause/ generic implication analysis would strongly tend to root out other deficiencies of the same type.

t I

7

3. TU was questioned on the use of one-sided tolerance limits (App. D, Attachment 2). TV said that no ISAPs currently use this method. Powever, it was included in App. D to be used if needed in eyaluating discrepancies.

4. Conduit supports and small-bore piping issues do use sampling per App. D.

5. Two deficiencies with the same attribute and some roof cause would lead to be 100% inspection for that attribute.

6. TU was questioned about its statement of the null and i alternative hypothesis as presented in the Applicants' '

s Memorandum of January 31, 1986. TU explained that the same conclusion can be reached by looking at it another way, and that they would explain this further in a supplement to the January 31 memo.

7. TU was requested to consider a rev sion to App. D to show, for example, that at most 2-stage sample expansion is being used. The appendix also contains other material which is not applicable to actual CPRT activities.

TU will supplement the January 31 memo in a few days.

Cb A M /r Y Charles M. Trammell, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #5 Division of PWR licensing-A

)

Attachment:

1.ist of Attendees

Texas Utilities Electric Company Comanche Peak Electric Station Units 1 and 2 cc:

Resident Inspector - Comanche Feak c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Bcx 1029 -

Granbury, Texas 76048 Mr. John W. Beck Vice President Texas Utilities Electric Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, l. B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. Jack Redding licensing Texas Utilities Generating Company 4901 Fairmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 William A. Burchette, Esq.

Peron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Suite 700 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20007 GDS Associates, Inc.

25 Cumberland Parkway Suite 450 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Elizabeth 8. Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National laboratory ,

P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennesse 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Division of Engineering, Architecture and Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Dr. Walter F. Jordan 881 Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennesse 37830

W. G. Counsil Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Texas Utilities Generating Company Units 1 and 2 cc:

Nicholas S, Reynolds, Eso. Resident inspector / Comanche Peak Bishop,l.iberman, Cook, Nuclear Power Station Purcell & Reynolds e/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatroy Commission 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W. P. O. Box 38 Washington, D. C. 20036 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq. Regional Administrator, Reaion IV Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wooldridge 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 2001 Bryan rower, Suite 2500 Arlington, Texas 76011 Dallas, Texas Mr. Robert E. Ballard, Jr. lanny A. Sinkin Director of Projects Christic institute Gibbs and Hill, Inc. 1324 North Capitol Street 11 Pen Plaza Washington, D. C. 20002 New York, New York 10001 Mr. R. S. Howard Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Westinghouse Electirc Corporation Citizens Clinic Director P,0. Box 355 Government Accountability Project Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 1555 Connecticut Avenue N. W.

Suite 202 Washington, D. C. 20009 Renea Hicks, Esq. David R. Pigott, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe Environmental Protection Division 600 Montgomery Street P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station San Francisco, California 94111 Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Anthony 7. Roisman, Esq.

Citizens Association for Sound Energy Trial I.awyers for Public Justice 1426 South Polk 2000 P Street, N. W.

Dallas, Texas 75224 Suite 611 Washington, D. C. 20036 Ms. Nancy H. Williams Nancy E. Wiegers CYGNA Spiegel & McDiarmed 101 California Street 1350 New York Avenue, N. W.

San Francisco, California 94111 Washington, D. C. 20005-4798 Robert P. Lessy, Jr.

Morgan, Lewis & Bokius 1800 M Street, N. W.

Suite 700, North Tower Washington, D. C. 20036

j..

~

i-* '

ATTACPMENT NRC/TUGC0 MEETING RE: STATISTICS

! DATE: 3/18/86 i

i ATTENDANCE NAME AFFil.IATION C. Trammell NRC E. Marinos NRC P. Tymon NIRS* (for CASE 1 J. Reddding TUGC0 G. Gower IE/NRC j T. Tyler TUGC0 J. Beck TUGC0  :

R. Webster JBA (contultant) i D. lurie MRC l G. Mizuno NRC/Ei.D

] i.. Chandler NRC/0El.D l D. Norkin NRC/IE I

i i

i l

i 1

i I

i l

• Nuclear Information and Resource Service

~

5 01 % i

3. TU was questioned on the 0$e of one-rided tolerance limits (App. O, Attachment 21. TU said that no ISAPs currently use tnis method. Powever, it was included in Anp. D to be used if needed in evaluatlng discrepancies.

4. Condait supports and .small-bore piping issues do use sampling per App. D.

5. Two deficiencies with the same attribute and some root cause would lead to be 100% inspection for that attribute.

6. TU was questioned about its stateinent of the null and alternative hypothesis as presented in the Applicants' Memorandum of January 31, 1986. TU explained that the same conclusion can be reached by looking at it another way, and that they would explain this further in a supplement to the Janyary 31 memo.

7. TU was requested to c9ncider a revision to App. D to show, for example, that at most 2-stage s3mple .9xpansion is beina used. The appendix also contains other material which is not applicable to actual CPRT activities.

TU will supplement the January 31 memo in a few days.

Charles M. Trammell, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate M Division of PWR licensing-A

Attachment:

List of Attendees mmell

/(/86 b