ML20141D372

Responds to 860310 & 20 Ltrs Advising That Case Presently Unable to Provide Comments on Comanche Peak Technical Review Team Program Plan.All Comments Received by 860401 Will Be Considered During Evaluation of Plan

ML20141D372
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/28/1986
From:	Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Garde B GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
References
NUDOCS 8604070518
Download: ML20141D372 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _________

[ UNITED STATES

, f- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h .j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

% 5

% ***** /

MAR 2 8 1996 Docket Nos: 50-445 and 60-446 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Suite 202 Washington, DC 20036

Dear Ms. Garde:

1 This is in response to your letters of March 10 and 20,1986, advising us that CASE is unable to provide comments on the CPRT Program Plan for consideration by the staff at this time. As you have noted, the staff, by letter dated March 11, 1986, requested that CASE provide its comments by March 27, in order that the staff could take CASE's coments into account prior to completing the Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) on the Program Plan. The thrust of your letters is that, without access to the checklists prepared by the CPRT and an opportunity to review them, CASE is unable to provide meaningful coments.

Although we appreciate the significance of the checklists, we are unable to agree with your position that, without the checklists, meaningful coments cannot be provided. As you no doubt recognize, the Program Plan itself presents the overall approach and methodology to be followed by the CPRT in .

perfonning its functions. The various appendices describe, in a significant I amount of detail, the CPRT plans for the design adequacy program, quality of construction and QA/QC adequacy program, the issue-specific actions, the  !

sampling approach, the method for tracking and evaluating discrepancies, planned interfaces, the quality assurance program, and the procedure for implementation of corrective action. The staff's SSER on the Program Plan

• l is intended to present the staff's evaluation of the adequacy of the Pro-gram Plan's overall approach and methodology. It is not intended to address whether this approach and methodology has been implemented by the CPRT. The checklists that CASE refers to were developed in accordance with procedures and criteria set forth in the Program Plan; the staff's evaluation in this SSER is to be limited only to whether it is acceptable from a conceptual standpoint to develop checklists using such proposed procedures and criteria.  :

The adequacy of the checklists themselves, and whether they were developed in l accordance with the Program Plan's comitments, is a matter of implementation, I and will not be evaluated in the upcoming SSER. Accordingly, we believe that CASE could, even without an opportunity to review the checklists, provide com-ments on the Plan itself.

8604070518 PDR ADOCK  %$45 PDR A

It should be stressed that CASE's assertion that the staff has deliberately tried to evade the production of documents, such as checklists, by failing to take possession of them is incorrect. The staff has reviewed the checklists in its audit activities as it would any detailed document of this type. The staff normally would not take possession of such documents but would examine them in the location where the work is taking place. It is erroneous to suggest that this was done to avoid providing the documents to the public. CASE's request for access to such documents must be made to the applicants. It has been staff practice to place all trip reports additing the applicants activities, and Region IV inspection reports, in the public document room upon their completion.

The foregoing is totally consistent with the staff's previous commitments to you in this regard.

Additionally, you had questions concerning the Program Plan and its conform-ance to Appendix B criteria. The NRC staff evaluation of the CPRT Quality Assurance Program, which will be provided in the upcoming SSER, is based on a review of the program against the appropriate provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.

Regarding public meetings, several have been held on the activities described in the applicants Program Plan since its inception. At each of these meetings the representatives for CASE have been given an opportunity to provide their comments.

With regard to your discussion of SAFETEAM, the staff in its inspection of the SAFETEAM files, reviewed the coninents made by the " steering committee" (composed of legal, QA, and public affair representatives), since the draft of the investi-gation reports are retair,ed in the SAFETEAM files. Comments we reviewed were not inappropriate and in some cases prompted further investigative work which improved the final investigation and response to the concerned individual.

Finally, you identify personnel employed at the site you believe to be the ,

source of the problems at Comanche Peak. Irrespective of the particular )

individuals employed by the applicants or its contractors, applicants will .

have to provide reasonable assurance that Comanche Peak has been designed and constructed adequately and can be operated safely.

In closing, as stated in my letter to you dated March 11, 1986, the staff is finalizing its evaluation of the CPRT Program Plan. As discussed with you in a telephone call on March 27, 1986, the staff will consider all coments on the Program Plan that are submitted by April 1,1986. Should you have further comments, please provide them by that date.

Sincerely, ,

c/ &

'S . Nc an, irector WR Project Qirecto ate #5 Division of PWR Licensing-A cc: See next page

MAR 2 81986 MN ~

e It should be stressed that CASE's assertion that the staff has deliberately tried to evade the production of documents, such as checklists, by failing to take possession of them is incorrect. The staff has reviewed the checklists in its audit activities as it would any detailed document of this type. The staff normally would not take possession of such documents but would examine them in the location where the work is taking place. It is erroneous to suggest that this was done to avoid providing the documents to the public. CASE's request for access to such documents must be made to the applicants. It has been staff practice to place all trip reports auditing the applicants activities, and 3

Region IV inspection reports, in the public document room upon their completion.

The foregoing is totally consistent with the staff's previous commitments to you in this regard.

Additionally, you had questions concerning the Program Plan and its conform-ance to Appendix B criteria. The NRC staff evaluation of the CPRT Quality Assurance Program, which will be provided in the upcoming SSER, is based on a review of the program against the appropriate provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.

Regarding public meetings, several have been held on the activities described in the applicants Program Plan since its inception. At each of these meetings the representatives for CASE have been given an opportunity to provide their comments.

With regard to your discussion of SAFETEAM, the staff in its inspection of the SAFETEAM files, reviewed the coments made by the " steering comittee" (composed of legal, QA, and public affair representatives), since the draft of the investi-gation reports are retained in the SAFETEAM files. Coments we reviewed were not inappropriate and in some cases prompted further investigative work which

, impro,ed the final investigation and response to the concerned individual.

Finally, you identify personnel employed at the site you believe to be the source of the problems at Comanche Peak. Irrespective of the particular individuals employed by the applicants or its contractors, applicants will have to provide reasonable assurance that Comanche Peak has been designed and constructed adequately and can be operated safely.

In closing, as stated in my letter to you dated March 11, 1986, the staff is finalizing its evaluation of the CPRT Program Plan. As discussed with you in a telephone call on March 27, 1986, the staff will consider all comments on the Program Plan that are submitted by April 1,1986. Should you have further comments, please provide them by that date.

Sincerely, Vincent S. Noonan, Director PWR Project Directorate #5 Division of PWR Licensing-A cc: See next page

^

Distribution:

Docket Files OELD M. Rushbrook

+ NRC POR E. Jordan ACRS (10)  ;

&c acewou.s r 4mcw% A Local POR B. Grimes T. Novak l PD#5 R/F J. Partlow A. Vietti-Cook l PD#5 t PD#5

• OELD + DIR:PD#5 AVietti-Cook CTramell LChandler VSNop an

.s/42/86 a/g/86 3/ae,/86 $/J4/86

h .

- I't should be stressed that CASE's assertion that the staff has deliber tely tried to evade the production of documents by failing to take possess'on of the checklists is incorrect. The staff has reviewed the checklists its audit activities as it would any detailed document of this type. Jestaff normally would not take possession of such documents but would exjfmine them in the location where the work is taking place. It is erroneous tv suggest that this was done to avoid providing the documents to the public./ Inasmuch as the staff does not have these documents, CASE's request for acc9(s must be made to the applicants. It has been staff practice to place all trip reports auditing the applicants activities, and Region IV inspection repor,(s, in the public document room upon their completion . The foregoing is/t otally consistent with the staff's previous commitments to you in this rega Additionally, you had questions concerning the Program Plan and its conform-ance to Appendix B criteria. The NRC staff evalt3ation of the CPRT Quality Assurance Program, which will be provided in thy upcoming SSER, is based on a review of the program against the appropriate provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.

Regarding public meetings, several have be n held on the activities described in the applicants Program Plan since its At each of these meetings therepresentativesforCASEhavebeen,g/nception.iven an opportunity to provide their comments.

With regard to your discussion of SAFETEAM, the staff in its inspection of the SAFETEAM files, reviewed the comments made by the " steering committee" (composed of legal, QA, and public affai gation reports are retained in/r the 'SAFETEAM representatives), since we files. Comments thereviewed draft ofwere the investi-not inappropriate and in som:(cases prompted further investigative work which improved the final investigdtion and response to the concerned individual.

Finally, you identify pyr/sonnel employed at the site you believe to be the source of the problems /at Comanche Peak. Irrespective of the particular individuals employed <by the applicants or its contractors, applicants will have to provide reas,onable assurance that Comanche Peak has been designed and constructed adequa'tely and can be operated safely.

In closing, a ated in my letter to you dated March 11, 1986, the staff is finalizing i,ts evaluation of the CPP.T Program Plan. As discussed with you in a telephone pall on March 27, 1986, the staff will consider all comments on the Program fian that are submitted by April 1,1986. Should you have further commen f, please provide them by that date.

f

/ Sincerely, Vincent S. Noonan, Director PWR Project Directorate #5 Division of PWR Licensing-A cc: See next page Distribution:

Docket Files NRC PDR sEN'E.ELD Jordan M. Rushbrook ACRS (10)

Local PDR B. Grimes T. Novak PDq5R/F ,J. Partlow A. Vietti-Cook

1. 9 h E DIR:PD#5 q W ook Ta 11 LChandler VSNoonan g /86 /86 $/d/86 g / /86

d. .

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

Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak Bishop, liberman, 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 Fobert A. Wooldridge, Esq. Regional Administrator, Region IV Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wooldridge 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 2001 Bryan Tower, 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.O. Box 355 Government Accountability Project Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 1555 Connecticut Avenue N. W.

Suite 202 Washington, D. C. 20009 Renea Picks, 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 lawyers 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

.- . l

~.

Texas Utilities Electric Company 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 400 North Olive Street I. B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. Jack Redding I.icensing 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.

Washington, D. C. 20007 ,

GDS Associates, Inc.

25 Cumberland Parkway Suite 450 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Adminiutrative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, DC 20555 Elizabeth B. 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 F. Jordan 881 Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennesse 37830