ML20215M519

Expresses Concerns Re NRC Employee Allegation That Util Apparently Concealed Knowledge of Serious & Pervasive Errors & Misstatements in Facility Tech Specs

ML20215M519
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	09/11/1986
From:	Guste W LOUISIANA, STATE OF
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19306C227	List: ML20215M516 ML20215M519
References
NUDOCS 8610300359
Download: ML20215M519 (3)

Text

- - _ _ _ _ _ ________

, [ s

, Diate cf Youisiana ocuserwa ser ce susti e . j' .-

l wm. s overs.s. , . . . < ~ .

, , . . o . c. . . o . ..

"' * '''' '""' ' ~~'

September 11, 1986 O

Admiral Lando Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 This letter contains a Freedom of Information Act Request 5 U.S.C. Sec. 532 et seg.

Dear Admiral Zech:

I have been startled to read documents obtained from a Louisiana citizen in response to a Freedom of Information Act request in which an NRC official expressed the belief that Gulf States Utilities Company had apparently concealed

/ knowledge of serious and pervasive errors and misstatements in the River Bend Technical Specifications.

The NRC official, Mr. Dean Houston, has expressed his misgivings, not only about the concealment, and the prevalence of errors in the technical specifications, but also about what he evidently considered to be an unwise policy decision by NRC to accelerate its review of the technical specifications.

Mr. Houston's memc of May 1st refers to the fiasco to which, in his view, a similar policy led with respect to Grand Gulf.

I amnotsureoftheexte[t'ofthefiascooverGrand Gulf to which Mr. Houston refers; I fam painfully aware, however, that only days after that plant had been declared in commercial service, and therefore, Middle South Energy's customers had become responsible for its capitol costs, the plant was shut'down for an extended. period, to accomplish by retrofit compliance with NRC requirements which had been deferred until that time.

Quite apart from the safety implications of Mr.

Houston's revelations, which, I trust, you will examine

$b 8610300359 861024 ADOCK 05000458

__ QK -

5ffo . _ . ,

- s

~ ~ .

Admiral Lando Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 11, 1986 page Two thoroughly, I am concerned about their significance for economic regulation of Gulf States Utilities Company by the Louisiana public Service Commission. The Louisiana Commission, like its counterpart in Texas, has before it the question of whether River Bend has "gone commercial" and, if so, when.

The company has suggested that River Bend was placed in commercial service on June 16, 1986.

I should be grateful if you would cause your staff to send me whatever information NRC may have that may be relevant to that determination, '7cluding, but not limited to, any l documents containing any information concerning changes made in the technical specifications, the operating procedures, the f training of personnel, and the physical plant itself, 8

subsequent to June 16, 1986; whether decisions to make those

! changes have been made or are under contemplation,'and whether such changes will cause or extend any shutdown of the plar.t, f or any operation at reduced power. .

I

, I should further like to ask you, Admiral, in a spirit of comity, and apart.from the specific requirements of l the Freedom of Information Act, to advise'me of any NRC r

requirements,,or contemplated requi'ements,' or indeed to

,' advise me of anything of which your agency has knowledge, (apart from normal fuel consumption) which may affect the -

capacity factor performance.'of River Bend. .

, I trtist that yob will direct you'r staf f to respond to

' this, request in kepping with the spirit as well as the letter of the Freedom of Information Act.-

Inasmuch as this info'rmation is sought for use by a state government -- actually'two state governments, since~we will share it with our Texas' counterparts -- in the economic regulation of a publ'ic utility company, a use which primarily

~

benefits the general public', I request that you direct your c

4 s

Admiral Lando Zech, Chairman U.C. Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 11, 1986 Page Three agency to waive or substantially reduce the fees it is authorized to charge for compliance 'th this request.

Very truly ou

/

WILLIAM . USTE, .

Attorn 4eneral

/

WJG,JR./vpf Enclosures cc: Members, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission FOIA Office, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Members, Louisiana Public Service Commission Louis S. Quinn, Secretary, Louisiana PuDlic Service Commission Secretary, Public Utilities Commission of Texas James Boyle, Office of Public Utility Counsel T

f r

6

- -__.A W- I I_ w* M m- e .h - _

1. ~a**~ **

• g'g -

UNITEO STATES

. I ,,

• r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N 3  ! waammerow.o c.senes k..... May 1,1985 Note To: E. Butcher, Group Leader TSRG, DL From: D. Nouston, TSRG, DL

Subject:

Concerns About River Bend Technical Specification Development Initial feedback from Region IV auditors and NRR reviewers in regard to Rive.'

Send Tech Spec review would indicate that: (1) this draft of Tech Specs has

' some serious problems -to be resolved. (2) numerous deficiencies in plant pro-cedures exist in about all areas when compared against this draft and (3) the i plant itself will not be ready for Itcensing before September,1985. It would l appear that our accelerated review schedule is inappropriate and our " Final Draft" questionable. Therefore. I feel that the future develo'wnent of R975

~

should be reassessed upon the conclusion of the current review, on or about May 15,1985, and see if a normal schedule (enclosed) would not be the better way to proceed. .

The licensing process for River Bend follows that for Grand Gulf during the last year of review. Grand Gulf was always to be ready for licensing in the next month or two from November 1981 to June 1982. Due to this antictoated action, technical reviews and Tech Spec development could not be perforer . der ideal conditions.

We are all aware of the problems that surfaced afterwaru. on GGTS but yet it

, appears to me that we have ignored some of the lessons learned from the GG case by accelerating the R8T5 development, thus giving reviewers less time to perform

'. their review and eliminating some logical steps in our estabitshed procedure.

Dr. kiver Bend, the basic problem with the review is 'that the utility has failed to solution of numerous issues in a timely manner. When confronted with the pursu[itons restr'c on containment purge, their Itcensing contact said they wer g .

Paring a submittal for next week to address the problem that has been known to i , exist for months. Currently, the LPM carries 67 open items for. resolution in the i 1

\ SER and SSERs. This resoluttor. in many cases depends upon future FSAR amendments, j

not just the ones in the past few weeks which have yet to be reviewed. As of now, 1 A58,C58,E08,ICSB.PSB andR58 branches are looking at or are awaiting information.

all of which might affect R8 Tech Specs. Compare this to Perry which expects a license in June-July,1985, only a total of 21 items remain open..

From the Regtysl Audit viewpoint, we have turned the Audit Team loose with a cet m m ar dech Spec: right off the press. On a normal schedule, they would have had the TS for 5 weeks to review, consnent and resolve outstanding items prior to their audit function. The utility would also have had 5 weeks to review their procedures before the audit. By accelerating the schedule, both the Region and the utility are poorly prepared for this important step in the TS process.

The same can be said for our consultant review and for the utility certification.

All of these functions were again an aftermath of the Grard Gulf fiasco and we have lessened the review. - - ~ ~

Due to the uncertainties s'ssociated with the current safety review, I would rec-onenend that the TS situation be reassessed in the near future and a realistic schedule be set. If many problems exist er are still to be resolved, a normal schedule ending in August should be adopted. Obviously, with current and future TSRG resources available, my participation in the realistic schedule should net -

be required and a near-future departure to ACRS can be arranged. Please inform me of a suitable transfer date. g g pc D. Houston, TSRG,DL N 1-

//

cc: D.Crutchfield, AD/5A, DL S t AI L._ J - _ L _

- -__--_= ~ -

. - . . _ = _ _ -- = -_

---

e ,bdl

-~

" F 6W-s ' M -e!.g .l

. .I !!l!! h l 37 -'

gjgo--- _fpfe,2- -= 'WI la;plI.,ll ~

4 '

! liflllE,hl: -ver77 -1+A'*Ij' jjjjj{ljj;'l' -' '

8- ---

1,nl,1,il,' w' 'P P -*1'blI qSg -

y,, .

35 '

y

, l T. 7/ M [ [ 4 !,0,1I N,,

)[  ! lNll!Ll1lC _795g4 8 15

\

3! ,e, R~

Jgf/jg ~Y

~~

lt

!!!!$ i !!!*-_yfgrep,_ 8 j gge Ml hi!!!ile---izy-- - j -

                                                                                                                                                        ---- ygg-.! ii!!.in i

E lll1 1*----ggj dii.-Z-- -: z- - -- - -- - ----o I lij[]

                                                                                                                                                                                                         ~        '
                                               ,1 j!n .---------- -

1A. SMdBM Ps. All

            ~

y> I 3

• k g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wauu=c row. o. c. tom 5 I

        %, ...../                                             May 17, 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward J. Butcher, Group Leader Technical Specification Review Group Division of Licensing FROM:                M. Dean Houston, Reactor Engineer Technical Specification Review Group
   .,                                Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

DEFICIENCIES IN REGARD TO GSU CERTIFICATION OF RIVER BEND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (FINAL DRAFT) By letter dated May 2,1985, Gulf States Utilities (GSU) was requested to review the final draft of River Bend Technical Specifications and submit by May 13, 1985, a certification under oath and affirmation that the final draf t accurately reflects the FSAR, SER and as-built configuration of the plant. By letter dated May 6, 1985. GSU submitted their certification, under oath and affirmation, of the final draft of River Bend Tech Specs. Included in their submittal were: (1) identified editorial changes (173 items), (2) proposed changes to the Tech Specs (38 items), (3) proposed revirions to the SER (7 items) and (4) identification of FSAR sections to be revised with some proposed FSAR revisions (55 areas).

          . In my review of their submittal, numerous deficiencies, acts of omission and comission, have been identified. Examples of editorial errors that were not identified by GSU are presented in Enclosure 1. The attached pages are from the GSU submittal, some with their markup, and the errors that were not detected are circled. These errors take many forms - typos, missed headings, non-existent trip signals, nomenclature, etc. While misspelled                   I words can be properly interpreted, many of the other unidentified errors                   I would have contributed to operator confusion. The enclosure is not intended i

to be a complete compilation of overlooked errors but does establish that l the GSU review process was less than thorough. Approximately 20% of the errors in the final draft were nnt detected during their review. This is an unacceptable level by any standard and their review process for certi-fication at licensing must be improved. Examples of deficiencies by acts of comission are presented in Enclosure 2. Two of these are editorial errors and one is based on a possible false statement regarding their as-built plant. (1) GSU proposed changes to page 3/4 8-5 of the River Bend . Tech Specs as shown. As proposed, the change was to be inserted between 10.and seconds. On page 3/4 8-6 of the

        ,>1s-             1 J-.

D J p } f J-(f' f f$ r ai s

    /

Edward J. Butcher 2 May 17. 1955 same submittal, GSU properly proposed an identical change with the clause to be inserted after 10 seconds. As pr.cposed on 3/4 8-5, the revision makes no sense and would confuse the ) operator. l (2) In Attachment B of the GSU submittal of May 6, 1985, Item 29 reouests a deletion of a surveillance requirement because -

                        "There are no valves in the flow path of any PGCC subsyster."

In past discussions, GSU has resisted this requirement on the basis that the valves did not have a position indicator although, in fact, the valves do have a trip indicator. A copy of FSAR Figure 9.5-13 is enclosed which shows numerous solenoid operated valves as well as a couple of check valves

 ..                     in the flow path. Therefore, the GSU statement of "no valves in the flow path" appears to be a false representation.

(3) Also, in Attachment B, Item 30 refers to adding a footnote to TS 3/4.7.6.4, Table 3.7.6.4-1. This is in error as the propcsed footnote,was identified with TS 3/4.7.6.5, Table 3.7.6.5-1. In addition to the deficiencies noted above I would like to comment briefly on other uncertainties associated with the River Bend Tech Spec review. GSU has submitted a listing of 55 areas in the FSAR that need revision to support Tech Spec. sections. Amendment 19 to the FSAR was delivered en May 14, 1985 and only 12 of these areas were addressed. Therefore, in the other 43 ateas, the NRR Technical Reviewer has not seen the necessary documentation to support the current Tech Spec section or a proposed revision to a section. There is also the potential for additional FSAR revisions resulting from the reviewer's evaluation. This lack of timely infomation will impact the accelerated schedule for issuance of the Tech Specs with the River Send license in June,1985. There seem to be some values in the FSAR and Tech Specs that are constantly being changed. For example, the DBA activity release to the environment following a LOCA (used for containment Tech Spec review) were revised in Amendment 18 to the FSAR dated April 1985 and revised again (increased) in Amendment 19 on May 13, 1985. In the Tech Specs, GSU has proposed that the water level for the Ultimate Heat Sink be 112'4" (2nd Oraft),108'6" (Final Draft) and 111'10" (current revision). Changes of this frequency

would indicate that the utilities review process has not settled down, l

All of the above matters should be given due consi6 rations when discuss.ng comitments and completion schedules for the River Bend Tech Sp*cs. N.  ? M. Dean Houston, Reactor Engineer Technical Specification Review Group Division of Licensing . cc: D. Crutchfield R. Benedict S. Stern - =

r. . .

s . Edward J. Butcher May 17, 1985 same submittal, G5U properly proposed an identical change with the clause to be inserted after 10 seconds. As proposed on 3/4 8-5, the revision makes no sense and would confyse the operator. (2) In Attachment B of the GSU submittal of May 6,1985, Item 29 requests a deletion of a surveillance requirement because -

                                                  "There are no valves in the flow path of any pGCC subsystem."

In past discussions GSU has resisted this requirement on the basis that the valves did not have a position indicator although, in fact, the valves do have a trip indicator. A

                                                . copy of FSAR Figure 9.5-13 is enclosed which shows numerous solenoid operated valves as well as a couple of check valves in the flow path. Therefore, the GSU statement of "no valves
                                           ,      in the flow path" appears to be a false representation.
                                  *    .-(3) Also, in Attachment B. Item 30 refers to adding a footnote to TS 3/4.7.6.4, Table 3.7.6.4-1. This is in error as the proposed
                               .     ./           footnote,was identified with TS 3/4.7.6.5. Table 3.7.6.5-1.
                                  ,l'n addition to the deficiencies noted above I would like to consnent briefly
                      /          fon other uncertainties associated with the River Bend Tech Spec review.
                              / GSU has subeitted a listing of 55 areas in the FSAR that need revision to
                            /

support Tech Spet sections. Amendment 19 to the FSAR was delivered on May 14, 1985 and only 12 of these areas were addressed. Therefore, in the

                      /

other 43 areas, the NRR Technical Reviewer has not seen the necessary

                                  < documentation to support the current Tech Spec section or a proposed
            , ,                    revision to a section. There is also the potential for additional FSAR
          /

revisions resulting from the reviewer's evaluation. This lack of timely infortnation will impact the accelerated schedule for issuance of the Tech Specs with the River Bend license in June, 1985. There seem to be some values in the FSAR ar.d Tech Specs that are constantly being changed. For example, the DBA activity release to the environment following a LOCA (used for containment Tech Spec review) were revised in Amendment 18 to the FSAR dated April 1985 and revised again (increased) in Amendment 19 on May 13. 1985. In the Tech Specs, GSU has proposed that the water level for the Ultimate Heat Sink be 112'4" (2nd Draf t),108"6" (Final Draft) and 111'10" (current revision). Changes of this frequency would indicate that the utilities review process has not settled down.

                  .               All of the above matters should be given due considerations when discussing consnitments and completion schedules for the River Bend Tech Specs.

Original signed by M. Dean Houston, Reactor Engineer Technical Specification Review Group Division of Licensing cc: D. Crutchfield TSRG:DL Distribution - R. Benedict DHouston:jc Docket File *TSRG File S. Stern 5//p/85 l

                                                                                                               ^                  -

m w % ma M m --

                                                                --M        ~ - -                            ,,       .

r . ~~~

           /        *; ,

• UNITED STATES

    '/           .#t                      NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO* ilSSION f         y       h/ 1$-                            naswmctos.o e acts 5 o

5,

                  -/                                          May 21, 1955 l

MEPORANDUM FOR: Edward J. Butcher, Group Leader Technical Specification Review Group, DL s FROM: R. A. Benedict, Reactor Engineer Technical Specification Review Group, DL

SUBJECT:

MORE DEFICIENCIES IN REGARD TO GSU CERTIFICATION OF RIVER BEND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (FINAL DRAFT) Further to Dean Houston's May 17, 1985 memorandum to you on this same subject, i there are an additional 38 pages in which editorial errors were not identified by GSU. Tne missed errors are circled on the enclosed pages. All told, 79 pages.out of 509 had editorial errors that GSU missed. R. A. Benedict, Reactor Engineer rs Technical Specification

                      .                                          Review Group, DL

Enclosure:

       ,     As stated p c'.:    D. Crutchfield
               /       O. Houston
                     'S. Stern
     -        Y
       - y - , ,7 , 7                     f S

9

p cu % -

                    /.                                  UMTED STATES

[d er i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g y- nas n=ctow.o c mss July 9, 19E5

         %.....f Docket No. 50-458 NOTE TO FILE:

SUBJECT:

RIVER BEND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS On July 8,1985, a highly reliable source with professional ties to Gulf States Utilities remarked in the presence of another TSRG member and-myself that the River Bend staff was aware of many errors, discrepancies and problems in the current River Bend Technical Specifications. He further said that GSU management had apparently instructed their staff to not pursue resolution of these items at this time since jt would be time consuming and hold up the issuance of a license. They have detemined that the plant can live by the current Tech Specs and changes will be pursued after licensing. This philosophy is identical to that of MP&L or Grand Gulf and we are all too aware of the disastrous results of that case. Another reason that GSU.would not want to pursue resolution at this time is that changes to Tech Specs will result in changes to operating procedures. With some 900 procedures to re-review and modify, if necessary, more time will be lost toward licensing. If the above is true, CAUTION should be the mode for iSRG, technical reviewers, Region IV and EG&G in the final audit and review of Appendix "A" to the license. GSU has already demonstrated their , inability to identify all errors in the certification of the

               " Final Draft." I would expect that their final certification will be perforced in the same haste and will definitely not identify all problems if the above instructions are true.
                                                            / _ A$ _ A -

Dean Houston, Reactor Engineer Technical Specification Review Group Division of Licensing cc: R. Benedict M. Virgilio D. Crutchfield I ffAOA bh }f O

        \  gj e + () 6 w      77 I
 , .n
         ,,.~4.,s.=-;...~ a w .w - w a.                                  ~.       .+.

                                                                                            .q, p* **

y '

• UMTED STATES i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.dy.7' M was uwctow.o c roas g.vf ....f /

s July 15, 19.85 Docket No. 50-458 NOTE TO: File

      .        FROM:      Dean Houston, TSRG:DL

SUBJECT:

RIVER BEND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION NOTE OF JULY 9, 1985 In my note of July 9,1985, I made reference to errors, discrepancies and problems in the current River Bend Technical Specifications that allegedly were known to GSU staff members but were not pursued for resolution due to time constraints. During the noted conversation, the source was specifically asked about details concerning these areas and the question was evaded and no specific examples were furnished. The basis for my concern is that GSU has already de onstrated a weakness in their certification (under oath) of the Final Draf t. Following that certification, Bob Benedict and I issued memorandums, dated May 17 and 21, 1985, respectfully, in which we identified numerous errors that were not uncovered in their review (Enclosures I and 2). To the best of ny knowledge, I am unaware of specific details that would indicate. errors, deficiencies, or problem areas in the current Technical Specifications. However, it would not surprise me if there were. For example, in Amendment 20 to the FSAR, that has been the basis of our review, dated late June 1985, eight new ventilation systems and one new building were identified for the first time. While it may be true that these systems did not affect'the Technical Specifications, it is an indication that the FSAR has not truly reflected the as-built plant. If similar discrepancies exist for safety systems,sthe Technical Specifications could be in error, o As further evidence of uncertainties in the ability of the utility to review Technical Specifications, note the differences between their markup from the

• certifiebcopydatedApril 26, 1985, and a markup dated June 28, 1985 (Enclosures 3 and 4). Three key instrumentation setpoints for the HPCS system were changed, herefully the last set is correct but why wasn't the matter caught before?

                                    /

One area that hasjpreviously been discussed and withdrawn that might represent a problen is in Technical Specification 3.6.1.2, Primary Containment Integrity - Fuel Handling. As written, all primary containment penetrations required to be closed during accident conditions are closed by some mechanism. GSU had infortnally requested that some of these penetrations be put into operable status rather than closed. Their request was conditioned that if it took some time to review and approve, tnat we should forget it. Since pytting valves into ot' r than a closed category would have reopened the review of this area, we did not grant the change or pursue it further. There is sor e indication that the GSU concept for this Technical Specification is fine in principle, but may not work in the real world. This may be an area that G5U should be pursuing now. l t .- ' A f l \ . t

I File - 2- July 15, 1985 , I The entent of errors and discrepancies is not known other than noted above. 1

                                                                                    /
                                                                  & $[ _-Sg                                                :

Dean Houston Technical Specification Review Grou;:, DL

Enclosure:

As stated cc: D. Crutchfield M. Virgili: O s 9 __ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ - - , , -m- - --- - - - --ga6 w=w' T* - " ~ ' " - '

                                                                                                              ~v "'- F'# "

File '- 2 July 15, 1985 The entent cf errors and discrepancies is not known other than noted above. Original signed by Dean Houston Technical Specification Review Group, C' Enclosu-e: As stated cc: . D. Crute" field M. Virgilic . C! STE!PL' TION T5R5 iidg . DHCuston i N

• n > . ' /<,1 Q,;(

N& C e r t <a / F. la j-, 9 . r. < L . . .. , ,

       \
          '7na W TSCG:CL DHopton:dm 7//3 /E5 l            t O

l

                                                                                                    */ u.'   u.-
 .           Jt, '         .

UNITED STATES E[ , L NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION { I was.uncrow.o c.rosss

• S .

 % . . . . . **                                        July 18, 1985                                             )

PE*0R A'C".'" FOR : Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator Region IV FRO *: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION The purpose of this memo is to request your assistance in investigating an allegation of wrongdoing by Gulf States Utilities, the applicant for River Bend. By mero dated July 9,1985, Mr. Dean Houston, a Reactor Engineer in the Division of Licensing, NDD, informed us of an allegation regarding the quality of certain licensing documents. In Mr. Houston's presence, an individual with professional ties to the applicant stated that the applicant's staff is aware of many errors, discrepancies and problems in the River Bend Technical Specifications. He further stated that Gulf States Utilities' management had instructed their staff not to pursue corrections at this time since it would hold up issuance of a license. As Enclosure 1, I am providing a copy of Mr. Houston's July 9,1985 meto. Mr. Houston believes the alleged activities likely occurred. This is based . en his assessment of the applicant's perfomance throughout the Technical Specification development process. As Enclosure 2, I em providing a second me'o on this subject from Mr. Houston dated July 15, 1985. This memo was uritten at our request to document relevant background infomation. Mr. Martin Virgilio of the Technical Specification Review Group, DL, has been designated as office contact for this action. Mr. Virgilio can be reached at 492-8987 H o d R. Denton f ra "g 0 e of Nuefea Restto regulation

Enclosures:

As stated ec: J. Taylor - B. Hayes ni i_ 11 1 ovpB 7 Z y f l PpK A i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}