ML20236H382
| ML20236H382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1987 |
| From: | Rushwick J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4743 OL, NUDOCS 8711040095 | |
| Download: ML20236H382 (13) | |
Text
r
' Y 74/:3
. l Filed: October 29, 1 RC l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~~
-)
'87. NDY -2 P2 31 j
m-1 GFr!"S S; N ;M, Q 00c/
I before the aun n ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL 1
i 50-446-OL TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
COMPANY et al.
)
)
(Application for an 1
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2) i
)
l 4
{
ANSWERS TO BOARD'S 14 QUESTIONS l
(Memo; Proposed Memo of April 14, 1986)
Regarding Action Plan Results Report III a.1
)
In accordance with the Board's Memorandum; Proposed Memo-J l
randum and Order of April 14, 1986, the Applicants submit the answers of the Comanche Peak Response Team ("CPRT") to the 14 questions posed by the Board, with respect to the Results Report published by the CPRT in respect of CPRT Action Plan III.a.1, l
" Hot Functional Testing."
l Opening Request:
Produce copies of any CPRT-generated checklists that were used during the conduct of the action plan.
Response
A copy of each checklist used and an explanatory memorandum from the working file are attached.
07i1040095 871029 ADOCK0500ggg5 PDR G
o Quest:en No.
1.
1.
Describe the problem areas addressed in the report.
Prior to undertaking to address those areas through sampling, what did Applicants do to define the problem areas further?
Ilow did it believe the problems arose?
What did it dis-cover about the QA/QC documentation for those areas?
Ilow extensive did it believe the problems were?
Response
l The NRT-TRT expressed a concern that retests specified by the Startup organization and approved by the Joint Test Group subsequent to the original test were insufficient.
A second issue was that the NRC-TRT believed that a procedure requirement was violated and not documented.
First, the Review Team Leader examined the NRC-TRT's i
description of the issues and the Startup organization's post-operational test documentation.
j In the Review Team Leader's judgment, the problem arose partially because (a) justification for retesting was not com-l pletely documented in several instances in which credit was i
taken for other known plant programs, and (b) technical justifi-cation for not retesting was not stated in another instance.
The Review Team Leader reviewed actual Startup test records rather than QA documentation.
Because of his review of the JTG reevaluation effort and the sampling performed, he concluded that the problem was not extensive.
Question No. 2:
2.
provide any procedures or other internal documents that are necessary to understand how the checklists should be inter-preted or applied. - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
t
Response
Other than the attached memorandum, no internal documents were generated that expiained the checklists.
The Review Team Leader believes the checklists to be self-explanatory.
Question No. 3:
3.
Explain any deviation of checklists from the inspection report documents initially used in inspecting the same attributes.
Response
No checklists of this type were used prior to the Review Team I.eade r 's review.
Question No. 4:
1 4.
Explain the extent to which the checklists contain fewer attributes than are required for conformance to codes to which Applicants are committed to conform.
Response
No codes or standards are applicable to this subject.
l l
Question No. 5:
5.
(Answer Question 5 only if the answer to Question 4 is that the checklists do contain fewer attributes.)
Explain the engineering basis, if any, for believing that the safety margin for components (and the plant) has not been degraded by using checklists that contain fewer attributes than are required for conformance to codes, j
l
Response
This question is not applicable by reason of the response l
to question 4.
l Question No. 6:
6.
Set forth any changes in checklists while they were in use, including the dates of the changes.
j i
l 1
________d
Response
No changes to the checklists were made.
4 i
Question No. 7; i
7.
Set forth the duration of training in the use of checklists and a summary of the content of that training, including field training or other practical training.
If the train-ing has changed or retraining occurred, explain the reason for the chances or retraining and set forth chances in duration or content.
Response
The checklists were self-explanatory, used only by the Review Team Leader, and no training was required.
j i
Question No. 8:
/
l 8.
Provide any information in Applicants' possession concern-ing the accuracy of use of the checklists (or the inter-observer reliability in using the checklists).
Were there any time periods in which checklists were used with questionable training or QA/QC supervision?
If applicable, are problems of inter-observer reliability addressed statistically'
Response
The checklists were used only by the Review Team Leader; therefore, inter-observer reliability was not a concern.
Question No. 9:
9.
Summarize all audits or supervisory reviews (including reviews by employees or consultants) of training or of use of the checklists.
Provide the factual basis for believing that the audit and review activity was adequate and that each concern of the audit and review teams has been resolved in a way that is consistent with the validity of conclusions.
Response
The work was performed by the Review Team Leader.
No audits were performed.
_ 4 _
1
)
{
Question No.
10:
10.
Report any instances in which draft reports were modified in an important substantive way as the result of management action.
Be sure to explain any change that was objected to (including by an employee, supervisor, or consultant) in writing or in a meeting in which at least one supervisory or management official or NRC employee was present.
Explain what the earlier drafts said and why they were modi fi ed.
Explain how dissenting views were resolved.
Response
No draft Results Report were modified in any substantive manner.
Question No. 11:
11.
Set forth any unexpected difficulties that were encountered in completing the work of each task force and that would be l
helpful to the Board in understanding the process by which conclusions were reached.
How were each of these un-expected difficulties resolved?
l
Response
1 No difficulties were encountered while the work was being j
performed.
1 Question No. 12:
l 1
l 12.
Explain any ambiguities or open items in the Results Report.
Response
1 l
No items remain open, and the Review Team Leader believes l
l l
the Results Report contains no ambiguities.
1 Question No. 13:
1 13.
Explain the extent to which there are actual or apparent conflicts of interest, including whether a worker or super-visor was reviewing or evaluating his own work or supervis-ing any aspect of the review or evaluation of his own work or the work of those he previously supervised.
5 -
Response
Mr. Rushwick was previously involved with the TUGCO Startup organization.
This involvement is discussed in the objectivity evaluation in the action plan working file, as well as below:
Mr. Rushwick was responsible for marketing startup program services to TUGCO in early 1975.
At that time, he was employed by EDS Nuclear, Inc.,
in San Francisco.
From 1975 until 1978, the nature of his involvement with the TUGCO Startup group con-sisted of general contract administration, general employee-
)
related administration, and the assignment of personnel for the startup program.
Mr. Rushwick was responsible for R.
E.
Camp's 1
l assignment as Lead Startup Engineer with TUGCO in 1975.
At no i
time did Mr. Rushwick become involved in the startup program other than as stated above.
l Mr. Rushwick is now self-employed and in no way obligated to the corporate entities involved prior to 1978 in marketing the program to TUGCO.
Question No. 14:
l 14.
Examine the report to see that it adequately discloses the thinking and analysis used.
If the language is ambiguous or the discussion gives rise to obvious questions, resolve l
the ambiguities and anticipate and resolve the questions.
Response
The Review Team Leader has examined the Results Report and l
l believes it contains no ambiguities or obvious questions.
l l
l l
l l
l l j
1 9
i l
Respectfully submitted,
[
. _h Jame E.
Rushwick A :t ic., Plan III.a.1 ssue Coordinator and Review Team Leader The CPRT Senior Review Team has reviewed the foregoing l
responses and concurs in them.
l l
l l
i I
d i
l l
)
l l
l i
E---_______________
1
.i 4
4 l
n r T r.. r 32 7.,
)
1 FROM:
J.
E.
RUGHWic"
.-.. r c.,.
+1 %. s _-
,u
... ;. :,,_ v-l + 1
- ..w-r g
4 J
I I
' =
g l
9 1
-a
. g. f -
7e Vi, m
, [
t.,
7.(
t,g,
.g
,(
....4,,,-
} [f L' e :
3. :.
.L.e e i t-
' - e.
i t
b.1 G C O r i I Oli r4 C E IlIl 1 ['l ? Iil } f ^ j i A I ] 3f4 CI IHE C O L. M,'J r 0 71 1H_
O,A : 4 4
1.,,
st.r;rF,-
- rai
..c
.._ t,, L l. 1 6
c
,e 6
--,.f4-,6 s 4 L.
.- i g rPur T.-
. v,,4.- m a.
c.,
e I.
A I
....lh s,
g g is
('
, -i g 1
('
l l
i 1
e.
ae.
y e. een m
i
. DR l
tl ch a p
l l
sact t
?i l
a yva p du n?.
so,t, e eq n
e i
r c
t e vt.
g cpeac e
tM.
i p v h.
a l
w ie.
i r
f ai t eo c
o i t
r dl e
. ee.
cGch o l
l jr.
s eTec t a i
. b e a
pJju, n F
. OW s bse eo p
v n o,i mt e
p o
g e
p inrtdt id noc ue r
i t ueh e? qg sqtt jden e
ee eb e a
h t R amoith t
f nc r
otti a f. o
.t ssrl n?
oGf s eeeped T
cet t v t e eJ eig tit c
rt nr,enss n.
nyusaosbeie no.
abdih t
nut oi.
m erc.nt aqn
. it.
rd ce aeomeu a
oeot eimnrr tpi.
f vrch rt epn iv.
ropat eid p i
. re.
er r
t ml ea cD.
ppwasimunrm s
e peh arooaee ef.
R aN cW cccWW r DO.
E.
?
L d
P.
e M
? g A
dn S.
ea
?
h d
teC N.
IO.
1.
g ee e
l T.
n Dt IA.
- a..
c a
i t
h t s V.
l.
. s e,
C ni E
i e
eu
)
?.
2, t
mq 1
l t
n pe
..i.s E. P.
isd.
eO 1
e i r R
A e
t
- D t
ue U.
S.
ug.
oE T
n qr D.
I.
qn.
N - H R
I EP h
ea.
r rh.
u.
eC.
R.
. r P.
. P T.
?.
S.
tn T
ed.
E me.
pt
. i e ul qe
, ED r
e d
d a
tne e.
eg.
f n.
tna m
r a
h.
I C.
t T
o e
c y
r.
e b
w e.
t e
Db.
e d
s P
D e
v m.
Tu.
7 t
e 8
N e
t a
R
/
r r
u
.k 1
u o 2
t p
l c
a a
i m
/
r.
a e
v w
a pe.
r R
e h
r 10v ob.
e s
g em.
p y
s u
o y
u.
m c
e R
r r
PN.
Tee l
P e
n ey p
t 9 l i m
E g
a epc a
n Dg
. ler.
cui n
w i e.
nof c
t pl i
s - a c.-
t u.
mm.
n -
t oD 4
m s
a u.
o sm l
a A
J 1
e SN.
s
- i rt vn.
t
- nen i m
-. e,
a - eh e r
cr.
s
- RTT Py ne.
v -
. eb e-
. um r -
qu.
b - D R
. eN b - TrD
. S A.RTT l
lI
a Ovi e
1
. ev t
e.
c 1
t a
aR.
I D
r a
h c
a m
e e
l t
i
. n s
F o.
y i.
s
. t ut.
c n.
l oe.
i f
sm.
i em.
c R o e
C p
.. y s
cr.
nO.
g n
e/.
n a
r id i
i o cn t. mc t
. iA sl ei c
. f ea t n e
. e.
t v sh t
. D o
y c e
rr S e D
op T
f p g
e a
n pl r e
i uau n*
rG l
ovt
. e.
uT oroa
. vt dJ oGmr e
C ee ie.
M.
cs tR p t
. c oe es m
lE..
ee.
rr r et e
. jr pi oTaT P.
b e u
C e
M OW.
wq l H e A.
ee ya c
S.
?.
NR ccl n niaa T.
d.
erut H.
1.
. t e.
gtd s o
. nv.
rcii P.
- a..
el c
eess o.
E.
t ml ee t
H.
l.
ev.
e.
EERR Y
I i.
R n l
2, C.
1 S
N P.
CGRD IE.
A.
T CTHT IS.
IC.
R EERR F
E.
D.
T.
. f S
. o y.
E c
T.
. isn.
e si pc oi.
nf y
y e l
SD.
l r
a e
n d
i a
g e
i L
r o
m a
n e
a T
y r.
p b
w e.
o e
Rb e
d i
D m r
e v
7
. T u.
p t
e H
N.
a R
/
e u
k 9
h l
c s
2 t
a i m
/
r.
v w
a d
pe.
f e
h r
u7 ob oG s
g
. em T
s u
o
,7
. r u.
eJ e
R r
PN c
ey r; y l
P p
t g ab m
E g
a m
a n
Dy er.
rl e
s s
i e.
lpb.
g _
t v
I m
s
'oe e
t tu mm.
n _ r o l
a e
o au.
o _ er A
J T
t.
SN.
i. pp s
t
_ ep a
g e,
n _ R a cr.
r y ne.
i _
Pp v _ -
eb.
)
e _
um.
r _. M qu b.
I eN.
b l.
S A
H
_(
.lll'
l]-
q i'
lll1-j, II 3
0
~
0
~
a s
i c
t i
4 t
l s
n-i o-r a.
i.
e I
Rt.
t I
. Du.
c i
Tl-a r
o.
a n.
e.
h H.
c e
m e
e l
t i
s F
y s
c i
r-f e-i Rb-c
. Dm-e
. Tu-p N-s g
n d.
i r
e.
o t.
u.
~
. R sl t
Ds.
ea cs Ts.
t v ee o
t r I
rr eu op Dd f p e
a ec t
E, e
ro r
C-
- P rG ur o
N-
- A uT t P p
A-
- S e.
dJ a
e c
e rn H
- l..
n.
l -
- f cs eo E. -
P-
- Oa.
oe pi y
t -
M-i rr mt c
I' -
O-
. nl ~
pi ea n M-C-
. o p~
u Treei im, A-
~
wq el o
ee eppe S-E-
t R-pC-NR cOui N-U-
- i -
n of
(
D-
- rn-ance
)
E.
co.
simooD 1.
t i-T.
C
. sN.
A-O-
- a..
e c.
it rt
. D t
I -
R-saen l.- P.
l.
e, et h e it t.
RSTT O-E 2
l.
V.
I P.
l i.
k T,
A.
DP R
T TOCD A-S s?.
ti-R-
. P H
RSTT I
lf.- -
T-AK~
S-
. SO~
- H-I -
(
k-N-
P-I -
M-r-
D-S-
A-O -
P-T-
t T-R-
n.
A~
- no.
y T~
- oi l
S-it l
r t a-a e
pi-n l
a iv-i a
re.
f t
cD.
s e
i s
r ef.
o m
- DO.
a n
e a
T y
p b
w o
e e
l n
e r
e s
7 p
e t
H a
R i/
e u
.h r-h t
.c s
Z
)
e-t e
n
.i
/
I b-v
.u n
. P m-
'l e
3
_h r
0
. Tu-oG n
g N-T s
_ u o eJ e
.H r
c l
P ep ny p
t g r.
ab m
E g
a pe.
m a
n D,
ob.
rl s
.s e
s
. m-oe
.e t
-- r u-s.
I m
s e _
't a
A t.
l' tu l' N-
- n. i m l
a e
i pp tn, t
- ep i
. e -
s.
. N a cr-h,,
- ne-v _ -
eb-e.
s m-r _ O p u-b. D
<eN-b. F S
A _ R
000KEfE0 USNRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEg7 I,
R.
K. Gad III, hereby certify that onqpctopppggg,7 1987, I DOCXCTING A 3(i'VICf made service of " Answers to Board's 14 QuestiondlEfN6ko; Proposed j
Memo of April 14, 1986) Regarding Action Plan Results Report III.a.1" by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Peter B.
Bloch, Esquire Asst. Director for Inspection Chairman Programs Administrative Judge Comanche Peak Project Division Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission W
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory P.
O.
Box 1029
]
Commission Granbury, Texas 76048 l
Washington, D.C.
20555
]
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Administrative Judge GAP-Midwest Office 881 W. Outer Drive 104 E. Wisconsin Ave.
-B i
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Appleton, WI 54911-4897 Chairman Chairman 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 Washington, D.C.
20555 Janice E. Moore Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the General Counsel President, CASE U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 1426 S.
Polk Street Commission Dallas, Texas 75224 Washington, D.C.
20555 Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsburg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel P.
O.
Box 12548 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Capitol Station Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C.
20555 1
)
?
Anthony Roisman, Esquire Mr. Lanny A. Sinkin Suite 600 Christic Institute 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C.
20005 Washington, D.C.
20002 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Robert D.
Martin Administrative Judge Regional Administrator 1107 West Knapp Region IV Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 l
Elizabeth B.
Johnson Geary S.
Mizuno, Esquire l
Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.
O.
Box X, Building 3500 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 Nancy H. Williams 2121 N.
California Blvd.
Suite 390 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
)
s_N
~
/
-C-R.
K. Gad III,
\\
l l
l l
.. _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _.