ML20206S889

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)

See also: IR 05000445/1985016

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 B. Johnson

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 ~ -

9

, .

,

,

' ' '

l

'

Additional Infofwaticn -l 1

-

5

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

5

?

'.

I

i ~

._ E .5ba5fAlt Mh ----