IR 05000445/1985016

Ack Receipt of 860616 & 0905 Ltrs Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-445/85-16 & 50-446/85-13.Corrective Actions Will Be Examined During Future Insp

ML20206S889
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/17/1986
From:	Johnson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
NUDOCS 8609230019
Download: ML20206S889 (2)

Text

- -

-.

...,

SEP ll N In Reply Refer To:

Dockets: 50-445/85-16 50-446/85-13 Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: Mr. W. G. Counsil Executive Vice President 400 North Olive, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen:

Thank you for your letters dated June 16, 1986, and September 5, 1986, in response to our letters dated April 4,1986, and August 12, 1986. We have no further questions at this time and will review your corrective action during a future inspection.

Sincerely, c .inni signed BY.

E. H. Johnson.,

E. H. Johnson, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects cc:

, Texas Utilities Electric. Company l ATTN: G. S. Keeley, Manager l

Licensing

'

Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Juanita Ellis President - CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 RIV: CPG RSB DRSPTQi IBar s:gb TFWesterman Johnson c/// /86 y /ff/86 Epl/p/86

/EO/

8609230019 860917 1\

PDR ADOCK 05000445

_ . . ,

G PDR

.. . - . . . - - . . - -

'

V

.; . .

Texas Utilities Generating Company 2 Renea Hicks Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 - 2548 Administrative Judge Peter Elech U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Elizabeth Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory P. 0. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge. Tennessee 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Anthony Roisman, Esq.

Executive Director Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P. Street, N.W., Suite 611 Washington, D. C. 20036 Texas Radiation Control Program Director bec to DMB (IE01)

bec distrib by RIV:

• RFB * MIS System

• RRI-OPS *RSTS Operator

• RRi-CONST *R&SPB

• T. F. Westerman, RSB DRSP V. Noonan, NRR R. Martin, RA S. Treby, ELD *RSB

.

'

• RIV File J. Taylor, IE

• D. Weiss,LFMB(AR-2015) J. Konklin, IE i

• I. Barr.es, CPTG

• w/766

.

_ , _ . - . . . . _ , - _ _ , _ . _ _ , _ _ , - - . , , . _ _ _ , . . . _ - . , _ , , - _ , . . - . . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ . _ - _ . _ - - . , _ - . _ - - - - _ _ - - -

SEP 5 '86 16:18 LICENSE TUGCO PAGE.02

. <. ,

i i 0 Log # TXX-4992 File # 10130 o IR 85-16 85 13 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY '7 EKYW AY TOWER . 400 MoaTN 01JVB STREET. L.B. 91. DAIJ,,AS. TRE.As 7s3o1 September 5, 1986 _:- -

T m@ W :W W W a===

' ' * '

Mr. Eric H. Johnson, Director -

Division of Reactor Safety and Projects 1 i.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000

'

Arlington, TX 76012 i SUBJECT: COMANCHE PEAK S' TEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES) ,

'

DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 RESPONSE TO NRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION e

! f l INSPECTION REPORT NOS.: 50-445/85-16 AND 50-446/85-13 ,

Dear Mr. Johnson:

We have reviewed your letter of August 12, 1986 and have provided the additional information you requested regarding Notice of Violation 445/8516-V-03(ItemA)intheattachmenttothisletter. We requested and received a two week extension in providing this information in a phone discussion with Mr. I. Barnes on September 2, 1986.

You also requested that we confirm that all references .to training sessions, meetings, and discussions are appropriately documented and available for audit. Our responses have indicated when these items are formally documented.

In those cases where we have not indicated formal documentation, such as l meetings and discussions, key personnel are available to confirm that these meetings and discussions took place as stated. We consider that training

'

sessions should be documented and the confirming documents are available for your review.

We believe that our approach is consistent with 20CFR50 Appendix B and meets l

all applicable regulations.

l Very truly yours, -

.

W. G. Counsil

'

JWA/amb ,

Attachments @]j .

'

c-NRCRegionIV(0+1 copy) " N 'H# E3 7 h ~

Director, Inspection & Enforcement (15 copies) '

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. V.S. Noonan Mr. D.L. Kolley

'

a asvraron or ruxaa t/vitriiss mLECTRIC COMPANT

[C / _____ _. .. ._ -. .. .____. - _ _ - . _

,

SEP 5 '86 16:19 LICENSE TUGCO PAGE.03

,

) Additional Information to g NOV 445/8516-V-08 1. RC Concern -

"

... [Y]our response failed to provide any action taken with respect to the failure of tie design review process to identify the technical inadequacy of Design Change Authorization 13,349."

Response A. corrective Action IAkta add Results Achieved As stated in our original response, the DCA was re-reviewed and additional calculations were done to show that the design change was acceptable. This re-review of the DCA was performed in accordance with project procedures which insure that the design change receives the same design control measures as those applicable to the original design.

B. Action la Prevent Recurrence As stated in the response to Concern No. 2, we believe the instance noted in this Violation is an isolated occurance. However, the engineering personnel involved in the review and processing of DCA 13349 will be counseled regarding the applicable design control measures.

In the event that the engineering review delineated in Part B of the response to Concern No. 2 determines this violation is widespread, additional corrective action will be formulated.

SEP S '86 16:19 LICENSE TUGC0 ,

, PAG . b4 i .

.s ~ -

, .

,

,

' ' '

l

'

Additional Infofwaticn -l 1

-

s

'J

! 'a .' -

to N3V 445/8515-V OS . i .,

-

e ,

,

- ,

i 4

'

2. MG Concarn y s

3 ;r

'

"...,[W]edonotconsiderthatreliancesolelyonpersonnIi1 discussion's providas and adequate basis for determining that the irientified use cf a

'

'

grouted Richmond Insert was a single case. Accordingly, please describe '

those actions, planced or t made from discussions withperstennel aken, which

. "- will substantiate the ccnclusions

,

' '

, .

,

Reseense i

A. Corrective Action Ighgfl And Besults &c.bfered In our previous response, the cbnclusio.n this issue "is not generic" was based upon extensive discussions with txperienced engineering personnel who have been involved in the structural design of CPSES fc-several years. The calculat8ons noted previously have confirmed the i

installation is acceptable. '

,

'

'

8. Action in Frevent Racurranra /l '

'

1 ,

H s>

'-

To provide additional assurance tte int.tance,roted in the Violation was an isolated case, an engineering review will t,e conducted involving all

.

i

!

design changes originated within the civil engineering disciplinet ') f This review will provide an assessment of 'the review process, verify *

the technical adequacy of information provided by the originator of the ,

design change, and support our position the instance cited was ,1 isolated. This review is scheduled for comoletion by Novamber 7,1986.

'

l .

s ,

I '

i -

'

,  ;

'

$q s 'g e

f

'

.

!

+

,

\

+

a b

'4 ,

}

,

t

?

'.

I i ~

._ E .5ba5fAlt Mh ----