ML20246H369
| ML20246H369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1989 |
| From: | Warnick R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | William Cahill TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246H373 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905160076 | |
| Download: ML20246H369 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000445/1989028
Text
_-
w
,
f
Y.'
's?
MAY - 91989
I.
p-
.In Reply Refer To:
Dockets:.
50-445/89-28
50-446/89-28
Mr. W. J. Cahill
4
L
cutive Vice President
TU Electric
400 North Olive Street, Lock Box 81
Dallas, Texas
75201
Dear Mr. Cahill:
This refers to the NRC team inspection of the Post-Construction
Hardware Validation Program (PCHVP) conducted by the NRC's Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the' Comanche Peak Project
Division, Mr. D. P. Norkin and NRC consultants, during the period
April-10 through April 21, 1989, of activities authorized by NRC
Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peak:
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, and to'the discussion r,f our
findings with Mr. H. D. Bruner and other members of your staff at
the conclusion of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our' inspection report identifies areas
examined during the inspection and areas of PCHVP'which were
j
inspected by the NRC prior to that date.
This inspection addressed
the actual' physical validations performed under the PCHVP.
NRC
Inspection Report 50-445/89-14; 50-446/89-14 covered TU Electric's
decisions regarding use of Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT)
results and technical dispositions as the basis for not performing
physical validations.
In. summary, the NRC inspection team found that the physical
validation portion of the PCHVP has'been implemented in an
acceptable manner.
Reinspection scopes were consistent with CPRT
recommendations.
Acceptance criteria were traceable to design
documents and had adequate design bases.
Independent NRC
inspections generally confirmed PCHVP inspection data.
Technical
dispositions provided adequate technical bases for not physically
validating portions of attribute populations.
Discrepancies
identified by reinspection were appropriately handled by NCRs.
Finally, the NRC jnspection team found that appropriate decisions
were made regarding the choice of engineering walkdowns or Quality
. Control-inspections for PCHVP field verifications and that
'.
' personnel were properly qualified and trained relative to the
- specific field verification methods.
.
!
HLivermore hg AD:IP:CPPD:NRR
IP:CPPD:NRR
CPPD:NRR #
4
RWarnick gy
n DNorkin:ww
g
5/5'/89
5/>'/89
5/r /89
<8
8905160076 890509
'
ADOCK 0500044b_
o
'g
,
-
_.
. _ - - _ _ __
.
_ -_
w
.'%
. W.. J.'Cahill_
2
MAY - 9 lg89
,.
_
- Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations
..
werel identified.
l:
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations,.a
'
copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be
placed.in the NRC Public Document Room.
'Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will
be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
MdiiiEi SIGNED E d.E. UNEICN
'
R. F. Warnick, Assistant Director
for Inspection Programs
Comanche Peak Project Division
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 50-445/89-28; 50-446/89-28
cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
i
.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
- __
!
!
'
50-445/91-2F; 50-446/ff-AP
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Files (50-445/446)'
NRC PDR
LPDR
CPPD-LA
l
CPPD Reading (HQ)
ADSP
Reading
- Site Reading File
- R. Warnick
- J. Wiebe
- H.
Livermore
- MIS System, RIV
- RSTS Operator, RIV
RPB, RIV
RIV Docket File
- L.
Shea, ARM /LFMB
J. Taylor
C. Grimes
P. McKee
J. Lyons
J. Wilson
M. Malloy
J. Moore, OGC-WF
M. Fields
J. Gilliland, RIV
D.
Crutchfield
E. Jordan
B. Grimes
B.
Hayes
- w/766
l
_ - _ _ - . _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
___-__ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
%
!(
+
'o
UNITED STATES
g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
o
y
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\*..../
MAY - 91989
In Reply Refer To:
Dockets:
50-445/89-28
50-446/89-28
Mr. W.
J.
Cahill
Executive Vice President
TU Electric
400 North Olive Street, Lock Box 31
Dallas, Texas
75201
Dear Mr. Cahill:
This refers to the NRC team inspection of the Post-Construction
Hardware Validation Program (PCHVP) conducted by the NRC's Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Comanche Peak Project
Division, Mr. D. P. Norkin and NRC consultants, during the period
April 10 through April 21, 1989, of activities authorized by NRC
Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peak
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our
findings with Mr. H. D. Bruner and other members of your staff at
the conclusion of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas
examined during the inspection and areas of PCHVP which were
inspected by the NRC prior to that date.
This inspection addressed
the actual physical validations performed under the PCHVP.
NRC
Inspection Report 50-445/89-14; 50-446/89-14 covered TU Electric's
decisions regarding use of Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT)
results and technical dispositions as the basis for not performing
I
physical validations.
In summary, the NRC inspection team found that the physical
validation portion of the PCHVP has been implemented in an
acceptable manner.
Reinspection scopes were consistent with CPRT
recommendations.
Acceptance criteria were traceable to design
documents and had adequate design bases.
Independent NRC
inspections generally confirmed PCHVP inspection data.
Technical
!
dispositions provided adequate technical bases for not physically
I
validating portions of attribute populations.
Discrepancies
identified by reinspection were appropriately handled by NCRs.
Finally, the NRC inspection team found that appropriate decisions
were made regarding the choice of engineering walkdowns or Quality
Control inspections for PCHVP field verifications and that
personnel were properly qualified and trained relative to the
specific field verification methods.
!
W/Q( %l.,dYOG/
1
o
U /t
fa
Dy
1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_. _
-
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ __
_ _ _ _ _
'
.s
HbY ~ b Ib09
, .W . J. Cahill
2
,
Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations
were identified.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a
copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be
placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should ycu have any questions concerning this inspection, we will
be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
&5
0Y
R.
F. Warnick, Assistant Director
for Inspection Programs
Comanche Peak Project Division
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 50-445/89-28; 50-446/89-28
cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
i
.
____ ___ __________- _--
.
s
W. J.
Cahill
MAY - 91989
,
,
cc w/ enclosure:
Roger D. Walker
TU Electric
Manager, Nuclear Licensing
c/o Bethesda Licensing
TU Electric
3 Metro Center, Suite 610
Skyway Tower
Bethesda, Maryland
20814
400 North Olive Street,
L.B.
81
Dallas, TX
75201
E. F. Ottney
P. O. Box 1777
Juanita Ellis
Glen Rose, Texas
76043
President - CASE
1426 South Polk Street
Joseph F.
Fulbright
Dallas, TX
75224
Fulbright & Jaworski
1301 McKinney Street
Susan M. Theisen
Houston, Texas
77010
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Protection Division
George A.
Parker, Chairman
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Public Utility Committee
Austin, TX
78711-1548
Senior Citizens Alliance of
Tarrant County, Inc.
GDS Associates, Inc.
6048 Wonder Drive
1850 Parkway Place, Suite 720
Fort Worth, Texas
76133
Marietta, GA
30067-8237
Lanny A. Sinkin
Christic Institute
1324 N. Capitol Street
20002
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.
Garde Law Office
104 East Wisconsin Avenue
Appleton, WI
54911
Regional Administrator, Region IV
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
611 Ryan Plata Drive, Suite 1000
Arlington, Texas
76011
William A. Burchette, Esq.
Counsel for Tex-La Electric
Cooperative of Texas
Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell
1025 Thomas Jefferson St.,
NW
20007
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _