ML20155A566

Suppl to 860131 Memorandum in Response to ASLB Memorandum Re Statistical Inferences from Review Team Sampling. W/Certificate of Svc

ML20155A566
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/01/1986
From:	Gad R GAD, R.K., ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#286-677 OL, NUDOCS 8604090079
Download: ML20155A566 (8)

Text

r .__

Dstid: April 1, 1986 00(, METED

'JSNRC 16 AMt -7 N1 :43 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FFICE Of 3L .. : > > -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION KETg&yP.'M.

before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-445gyc_

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) 50-446 COMPANY et al. )

) (Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating License)

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

APPLICANTS' Supplement to MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO BOARD'S MEMORANDUM (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling)

On January 31, 1986, the Applicants filed and served the " Memorandum in Response to' Board's Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling)"

(" Applicants' Response"). Based on discussions with the NRC Staff on the topics covered therein, the Applicants now provide the within clarifications and corrections to that response.

1 8604090079 960401 PDR ADOCK 05000445 l G PDR DSol  ;

l

1. Footnote 1 (pages 5-6) was intended to distinguish statistical analyses contained in the ISAPs from testing hypotheses regarding the mean values of parametric distributions. Rather, the CPRT is focusing on population extremes. The term " tolerance limits,"

however, may have been used in a technically inaccurate fashion in the note. CPRT's examination of population extremes is accomplished by confidence limits (or probability intervals) as discussed in the Applicants' Response and in Appendix D of the Program Plan.

Although there are similarities between tolerance limits and confidence limits they are different in that the interval defined by the confidence limit is thought to contain the unknown parameter value (i.e., the population deficiency rate) and the interval defined by the tolerance limit is thought to contain a prescribed proportion of the population.

2. In clarification of the hypothesis test-statement on page 9 of Applicants' Response, an equivalent (and perhaps more conventional) statement of the hypothesis test would have the null hypothecis state that the population deficiency rate is equal to or greater than 5 percent. The alternative hypothesis i

is that the percentage of deficient items in the population is less than 5 percent. The level of significance would be 0.05. The test statistic would be the number of deficient i: ems found in an initial sample, and the cricical region would be zero deficient items observed in the sample. It is important to point out that in both cases the " consumer risk" of not detecting programmatic problems, if they exist, is the same. It should further be noted that the Critical Region column of Table 1 of Attachment 1 to Appendix D is consistent with the hypothesis test described in Apolicants' Response to the Board.

3. It should also be clarified that, although no specific ISAP or DSAP calls for the use of parametric tolerance limits, Attachment 2 to Appendix D is intended to be used if needed to evaluate deviation trends in numerically valued quality characteristics (attributes). It is not a CPRT requirement that such deviation trends be evaluated in this manner, but in some cases it may be a useful tool in evaluating the adversity of a trend. To date, this tool has been used in only one ISAP (i.e., V.a Skewed Welds) to evaluate a trend of weld stress margins. It is not known at this

(

'l i

time which, if any, other ISAPs or DSAPs will employ this tool. Table 2 of Attachment 2 lists tolerance factors for various tolerance limits (i.e., ninety-nine, ninety-five, ninety, and fifty percent), but the tolerance level (confidence) in all cases is 95 percent. Table 2 is intended for use in a variety of potential applications. Therefore, if and when tolerance limits are to be used to evaluate deviation trends, the criterion used to judge adversity will be set on a case-by-case basia.

4. The citation in footnote 1 on page 6 should be "Id. at 407."

Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Wooldridge Worsham, Forsytbs, Sampels &

Wooldridge 2001 Bryan Tower - Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 979-3000 Nicholas S. Reynolds William A. Horin Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 857-9800 O

Roy P. Lessy, Jr.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W. r Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202)872-5000 7

r t

Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.

R. K. Gad III ,

Ropes & Gray 225. Franklin Street ,

Boston, Massachusetts 02110 i Telephone: (617) 423-6100 t'

1 >

) .

l By I un  :

Thomas G. Digng,.Lr.

R. K. Gad III r -

Dated: April 1, 1986. .

t i

s I

i

r. - -1 DOCHETED I USNPC 86 APR -7 N143 ,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I OFFICE 0 Na ~

00CHETibG M M.

i3RANDi I, Robert K. Gad III, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certif y that on April 1, 1986, I made-service of the within " APPLICANTS' Supplement to-MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO BOARD'S MEMORANDUM (Statistical Inference from CPRT Sampling)," by. mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:

Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Mr. James-E. Cunmins Chairman Resident Inspector <

Administrative Judge Comanche Peak S.E.S.

Atomic Saf~ety and Licensing c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 38 Commission Glen Rose, Texas 76043

• Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mr. William L. Clements Administrative Judge Docketing & Services Branch I 881 W. Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C. 20555 i

Chairman Chairman j Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing '

Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission +

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i Washington, D.C. 20555

~

t Stuart A. Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis ,

Office of the Executive President, CASE  :

Legal Director 1426 S Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 i

t n_ __ _ __. _ _ - - _ _ . - _ _ - - _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ , - _ _ _ _ . . _ - - - _ . _ - . - - - _ _ - - - _ - _ - - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ . ,

,. - ~ ~ . . _

i1 h

Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Acsistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection bivision Board Panel P.04 box 12548, Capitol Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C. 20555 '

Anthony Roisman, Esquire Joseph Gal c. Esquire Executive Director Isham, Lir, sin & Beale i Trial Lswyers for Public Justice 1120 Conntaticut Avenue, N.W.

2000 P Stre,et, N.W., Suite 611 Suite 840 Washir,gton, D.C. 20036 Washington, D,C. 20036 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Lanny A. Sinkin Administrative Judge Christic Instituta Dean, Division of Engineering, 1324 North Capitol Street Architecture and Technology Washington, D,C. 20002 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Robert D. Martin Citizens Clinic Director Regional Administrator, Government Accountability Project Region IV 1901 Que Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C6mmission

• Washington, D.C. 20009 Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011  :

Eli=hbeth B. Johnson Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.O. Box X, Building 3500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C. 20555 Nancy Williams Cygna Energy Services, Inc.  :

101 California Street Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111

..j l ~\ . (/

kobert

%- L K,. Gad III W fg]p )

v' '

i w.__._