IR 05000344/1983018
| ML20214X389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1983 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Withers B PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214X367 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-416 EA-83-085, EA-83-85, NUDOCS 8612110094 | |
| Download: ML20214X389 (6) | |
Text
\\
',
Y
.
'
-
om o
UNITED STATES g
t
!\\
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
s
c e
REGION V
o, f
1450 MARIA LANE, SUITE 210
,&,.
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFoRN'A 94596 SEP 2 91983
-
-
Docket No. 50-344
.
'
EA 83-85
,3
+
,
Portland General Electric Company
,
121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
. 9
~
Attention: Mr. Bart D. Withere Vice President, Nuclear Gentlemen:
,
.-
Reference: NRC Inspection Report No." 50-344/83 18 A special inspection was conducted by this'Effice/od }uhe 20-24, 1983 and July 26-28, 1983 of activities authorized by NRC Opericing License No.
A report of the results of the inspection,Vo. 50-344/83-18 was
's forwarded to you on August 31, 1983. The inspection' consist 31 of an c
examination of steps taken by you to assure compliance with(10 CFR 50.48 and, in particular, Sections III.G. J, and 0 of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 relating to fire protection.[ The results of this inepection were discussed on September 9, 1983, during an enforcement conferenew hald at the NRC Region V
.
offices between Mr. Bart D. Withers and other me.abers of your staff and j
Mr. John B. Martin and other members of the RRC staff.
,
The results of the inspection revealed several viofations of 14RC fire protection requirements. These violations appear to ha:e been the result of an inadequate reassessment of the fire protection faatures at.the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant.
NRC generic letter 82-12 dated Februdry 20, 1981'specifically emphasized the need
^
_
for you to reassess fire protecticn' features at your facility..to assure compliance s
with the new NRC requirements in this area.
,N
,,
- &
t These violations and the surrounding ' circumstances were discussed during the i
enforcement conference. Your past efforts to upgrade' fire protiction features I
were also discussed..However, as pointed out at the conference, NRC, notified
. o you specifically in 1981 that you were expected to reassess the fire protecrig t
features at the Trojan Nuclear Plant to^ ensure that condit4ous satisfied the new
,
l requirements prescribe.d 'in Sectiorfs III.G, J, and -0 of Appendix R,10 CFR Part 50.
The inspection demonstrated that you failed to comply with :the new Appendix R - g,
_
,
-requirements. As further discussed in the conference, the underlying causelof ^
)
this, failure was inadequate control of engineering activities, includingt (1) an
"!
inadequate reassessment of plant conditions regarding the appljcable Appendix R requirements, (2) lack of documentation of. reassessments and reiriews,. and (3)glack '
l of, supervisory reviews' to assure technicci adequacy and, accuracy of the reassessments, ~ l This reflects a significant breakdown in'the, administrative controis used to.
'
f
-
.. ensure compliance with fire protection requirements; % We are confident that, had your engineering activities related to the ne'c'esnty reassessment been of the
'
- Q G ",
l
. N
<
t CERTIFIED MAIL e GL 1
,
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
~
\\
k
,s
.s
- y{ -.
.,
.
.
I.,,, ) 4.
8612110094 Gb1205g j I.A-80 j.
s.
,
- -
,
q
/.
- ~
,
,
-
.
.
- 1s x
.
. xs.
.
..
-
.
.,
'.
e
Portland General Electric Company
SEP 2 91983
'
quality expected of NRC licensees, any confusion as to what the new rule' required would have been detected and promptly resolved.
Your efforts to improve fire protection features at Trojan prior to the new NRC requirements were considered. Nonetheless, your failure to recognize the need for a formal reassessment of the fire protection features at the Trojan facility after the new NRC requirements became effective indicates a serious breakdown in your efforts at ensuring compliance with NRC requirements.
In order to emphasize the importance NRC places on compliance with the fire protection requirements and the need for licensees to maintain proper control over all aspects of safety-related activities including engineering evaluations, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for the violations set forth in the enclosed Notice. These violations have been categorized as a Severity Level III problem in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C.
A civil penalty of $100,000 is being proposed because of the significance of the administrative breakdown discussed above.
You are required to respond to the enclosed Notice and, in preparing your response, you should follow the instructions specified in the Notice. Your response should address the corrective actions taken or planned. including those actions necessary to reassess fire protection features at the Trojan facility.
Your written reply to this letter and Notice will be the basis for determining whether additional enforcement actions are warranted.
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not
subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as j
i.
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
'
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2 Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the j
enclosure will be placed in,the NRC's Publ cument Room.
't Since ly,
,
b s
N John B. Martin Regional Administrator Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Imposition of Civil Penalty
..,
cC's:
l C. P. Yundt, PGE J. W. Durham, Esq., PCE I.A-81
_
H A
-
-
-
-
-
-
_ _
.
.
~
$/4/74
^
.
Wl&~t Phe
,
+
PMNC
[;SPECTOR(Naeet wat erst andmeg mc
,i. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
N C FO w 766
b INSPECTOR'S REPORT REVIEWER
Office of Inspection and Enf xcement f p,, RJ 9 ff
'" a.'.* % s e v
/ AGaus A.
s.'ww
/ s. wY
'
p u,.,s.so J a. ' c., n o i A g.
REPORT NEXIINSPEC DATE TRANSA TION DOCLET NO 180q tv 0R UCENSg LtCENSEE VENDOa NO av PRODUCTItt3a gitsi g
g o 5 o o'ol 24 o'6 B <> 2.4
^
se s tWJ CM[o v As I A-
[
' ~*o*'""'
M-"
c'
wsoa i <w c s
,_
- DELETE C
D D
R - REPLACE i4
18
2 ORGAN 12ATCN CODE OF AEGION/HQ CONDUCT.
INSFECT80% PEnf 0AMF0 8 r D D.iOD OF INV ESTaGAYiON /IN SPECTION ING ACTIVITY (See IEMC va) " Manpower Reoort.
FAOM TO M
i - REG"ONAL OFF!CE STAFF OT **E R
,w,,9 g,npo,,,,, g,,o,nna " 8er code 1
_PEGION DivfSON BRANCH MO DAY YR MO DAV VR 2 - RESIDENT INSPECTOR O!/3 d3 d/2 3 - PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TEAM j
o
/
8 0':D
J
35
25
31
TYPE OF ACTIVITY CONDUCTED tCneca one t>on onivi REGIONAL ACTION (C%cn one ton orwyl N
02 - S AFETY
_
06 - MGMT.VI%'T
_
10 PLANT SEC.
14 - INQUIRY
_
03 - INCIDENT 07 -- SPECIAL 11 - INVENT.VER.
15 - INVESTIGATION f - N AC FORM 591
2 - KEGIONAL OFFICE LETTER 04 - ENFORCEMENT 08 - VENDOR 12 - SHIPMENT / EXPORT 09 - M AT. ACCT.
13-lMPORT
Ob - MGMT. AUDIT 37 38
iN5FECT.QN aNw E5TaGATiON hNDiNGfD TOTAL NUMBER ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT CONTAIN 1790 LETTER OR REPORT TRANSMITTAL DATE INFORMATCN scheck oao bou casvi OF VOL.ATCNS AND HELD A
C D
DEVIATCNS NPC FORM 591 REPORT SENT ON AEG.
TOHQ FOR
%
1 - CLEAR LETTER fSSUEC ACTION 2 - VOLATCN
C D
A
C D
MO.
DAY '
YR.
MO.
DAY Y R.
I Afg i
3 - DEVIATION A
g C
D j
1 - WS i - nS
{l[g gyg gp l
l l
4 - VIOLATCN & OEVIATON
,c
,
,
,
,
40 41
43
9
55
MODutE iNFORu ATiON MODULE INFORu AtiON C
MODULE REO. FOLLOWUP f hIff MODULE NUMBER INSP 6g O MODULE REO FOLLOWUP
"od MODULE NUMBER INSP.
gg e O
E3 EgE35 i e r
55 3 3e r
r
- !
!e s
- 5 8e
. ; h$$s 5 @ * s
. i s
-! s
'
r s
8s
- h$$a i 5 =
-
r 9 5 a; EE i
Esa2ii
i
=5Eo-..I rSe3I=l s o $ yjst
.
s 85 s: I 2 Et
B y i @ 9 5
$ '. ! :
E g L_ist
t!
ms 8 e 3 l' s 5 Ei
- !
I 15 Ie u
!
E 15 ga s
liil
- l i i l ~.
5 c.l 7io i el
^
i f:af isic o i
.5 3 p l7 io, al i+v i,
i
^
i
i IiiI l i n 'l
//44,7 gg
ii ii i
i; fo7h^tG/
ii ii i
Ii,I I i. i l
,,,,
c i,
i,
,
C u c r/ w
,,
,,
,
lI I
meekboM liil
.
i i e i i
e
,,
,,
i liil
i 5 3i7l7ioiol f i2.i s-'/ io io 8 i'l i i l e
5 6 ff l7io i4.I
^
i /6 /ioio C i
"
i liil W 66*cb'
liiI i i i i i
Despc/
l ii i i i
,,,,J, f
liiII li l
.z- /6;1Xh e
, i
, i i
c L
ii i i i
l.iIJ
I,,I o
, i i i i
o ie i,
,
liiii
i 5 si717ici/ l
^
iz;s-/,o c c liiIe
.5 7 F170 ill
^
i30 /io p C i
'
i i
i U
' '
' lI '
l i i l' ( rr+ cup
'
ITR d #h/
'
ii i i i
liiI Mal OcadtoW c
iliil r#q A%f c
i i i i i
'
ii i i l,il il,il a
o i,
ii i
o s i s i lhl \\,
il l^
,
3DC il l
le 5 9 / l7 O Ol
^
i2_i f ' i i
i i ii i
i s
i i
i
,
=
-
.
-u
--
t I
f f
i i i i
,
. _,. -
e
<s a
..
,
'
r'
,
. p m co, UNITED STATE 3
/
o 5 'g.,y - }
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
"C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- g o,
a O....
.
/-
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Dennis Allison, Acting Chief Events Analysis Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response, IE THRU:
Eric Weiss Events Analysis Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response, IE FROM:
Penti Koutaniemi Events Analysis Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response, IE SUBJECT:
STARTUP EXPERIENCE EVALUATION OF RIVER BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT The purpose of this review was to compare the startup experience of River Bend Nuclear Power Station with the experience of Limerick and Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plants.
All these Nuclear power plants are BWR-units vendored by General Electric.
Grand Gulf and River Bend are BWR-6's and Limerick is a BWR-4.
The startup experience evaluation was made on a basis of events reported to the NRC according to the 10 CFR 50.72.
In the attached tables the events were further classified according to their significance (significant vs. events are not necessarily reportable or without much safety significance), reporting categories (ESF Actuation, Scram etc.) and causes (personnel error, procedure inadequacy,etc.)
i The startups of River Bend, Grand Gulf and Limerick occurred as follows:
This l
l
\\
analysis covers a period one month prior to and 2 months after the operating license issuance.
River Bend Grand Gulf Limerick Date Initial Criticality Aug 29, 1935 Aug 18, 1982 Dec 22, 1984 Date Operating License Issuance Oct 31, 1985 Nov 1, 1984 Aug 8, 1985 l
As a result of this review, the following conclusions were reached.
1.
The number of reportable significance events at River Bend unit seems to be more than the number of events at Grand Golf and Limerick Units.
g
_ ______
._.. _ _____
.., y.
.,
,.
Dennis Allison-2-Further, River Bend unit seems to report more of those events that are not necessarily reportable.
However, on the basis of this statistics it's premature to conclude that the situation at River Bend pl, ant is
,
'
worse than that at Grand Gulf and Limerick nuclear power plants during the comparable period.
2.
ESF actuations and LCO Action Statements play a major role in River Bend events statistics.
The number of scrams is approximately on the same level at all three plant units.
3.
According to event causes classification personnel errors, procedure inadequacies and equipment failures play a major role in River Bend statistics.
Design errors which generally are expected to be found in
.
startup stage, are unusually low, just one at Grand Gulf Nuclear power l
plant.
However, information concerning event causes may be unreliable because the 10 CFR 50.72 reports are made very soon af ter the event is identified.
4.
For further analyses of 10 CFR 50.72 events it is recommended that the reliability of the information will be verified.
5.
Based on conversations between Eric Weiss and Johns Jaudon, several hypotheses have been developed that may explain why River Bend has such a large number of events reported pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72.
One explana-tion is that River Bend chose not to take credit for all of the surveil-lences performed during start up testing and decided to perform all of the required surveillances prior to criticality even if that meant repeating some of the surveillances. Another possible explanation has already been mentioned namel, chat River Bend has made several reports of events such as half-scrams and half isolations that may not be reportable.
On a basis of this review it is recommended that more detailed analysis of events and working routines at River Bend plant including a study of LERs and a site visit by NRC personnel such as the project manager.
,
Pentti Koutaniemi Events Analysis Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response, IE
.
QbLO c
.
I d
1.
y
.
APPENDIX "R" INSPECTIONS PLANT REPORT NUMBER INSPECTION HOURS SONGS I 50-206/86-24 228 WNP-2 50-397/86-05 118 DIABLO CANYON 50-275/85-36 211 RANCHO SEC0 50-312/85-22
,
183 PALO VERDE 50-528/85-06 170 TROJAN 50-344/83-18 377 ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS TROJAN Civil Penalty - $100.000.00 PALO VERDE No Violations RANCHO SEC0 No Violations DIABLO CANYON No Violations WNP-2 Enforcement Pending SONGS I No Violations
'
N, s.,
-
- ~
pa**c, oq
'f k
UNITED STATES y
, v.,
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO MISSION M
,
-
E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
,,
s i
%.m., y
....
July 5, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard Bangart Director Region IV Comanche Peak Task. Force
.
FROM:
Thomas A. Ippolito, Project Director Comanche Peak Division of Licensing
,, _,
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK TEC3NICAL REVIEW TEAM PERSONNEL Attached is a list of personnel assigned to the Co=anche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT).
You are requested to make arrangements with the applicant for site access and badging.
Team members will be arriving on site Monday morning, July 9, 1984.
- Additional personnel may be added to the team, as conditions warrant.
Site access for additional personnel would be requested at that time.
.
/I
=.
=
-
'$
homa
. Ippolito, Project Director
'
O Comanche Peak Division of Licensing
.
Attachment:
As stated
,
cc:
J. Gagliardo D. Eisenhut
Group Leaders
.
.
.
.
..
'
.
-
.
'
COMANCHE PEAK IECF.NICAL REVIEW TEAM
-
-
l Group:
Electrical & I&C
'l Name Social Security No.
Discipline Organization Jose Calvo Group Leader NRR/DSI/ICSE Bubert Li Instrumentation Engr.
NRR/DSI/ICSB Allen Johnson Electrical Engineer Region IV J. Marini Electrical Engineer Parameter George Myers Electrical Engineer Parameter Electrical Engineer Livermore Bob White Jim Selan Electrical Engineer Livermore Group:
.
Philip Matthews Group Leader NRR/ DST /SPEB
,,Claude Johnson Reactor Inspector Region IV
_
Chemical Engi,neer NRR/DE/CNIB ($,gStan Kirslis
...
Chemical Engineer Brookhaven 7 John Taylor Vince Lettieri Chemical Engineer Brookhaven S. John cechsle Coatings Consultant Brookhaven William C. Wells Coatings Consultant Brookhaven Group:
Test Program
~
Richard Keimig Group Leader Region I Ward Smith Comanche Peak Region IV
'
Sr. Resident Ops.-
,
-
Arthur D. Mackley.
General Testing INEL
' avid Beahm Mechanical Testing INEL D
.
.s
,.
COMA?CHE PEAK IECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM
.
.
Grou;:
Civil Mechanical Na:e Social Security.No.
Discipline Organization Larry Shao Group Leader RES
- David Terao Mech. Engineer NRR/DE/MEB Shou N. Hou-Mech. Engineer NRR/DE/ NIB
-^
Dave Jeng Structural Engineer NRR/DE/SGEB Joe Tapia Civil Engineer Region IV R. Hubbard Mech./QA Sandstone Corp.
R. Masterson Piping /Cocponents Parameter /
Engineering Ans Service C. Ecfmayer Seismic / Mech. Equip.
INEL P. Chen Piping Design INEL/ETEC
- R. Philleo Structural / Concrete Parameter V. Ferrarini Piping /Co=ponents Paramster/ Engr.
Anal. ServicG E. G. Thompson Mechanical Engineer ETEC John Devers Structural / Concrete Parameter /RTS 3h
.
Group:
Quality Assurance Tom Conlon Group Leader Region II Louis Jackson Reactor Inspector Region II Cliff Hale Reactor Inspector Region IV Vern W. Watson QA/QC INEL Thomas E. Curry i
QA/QC INEL Victor Wenczel QA/QC (Supervisor)
INEL Dean L. Summers QA/QC INEL Milton G. Bullock QA/QC INEL W. Wade
-
QA/QC LLNL
- C. Morton QA/QC LLNL
- Ernie Hill Systems Testing LLNL c*G. Cummings Systems Testing _
LLNL
..-
,
D
-
-
,
_
,. _ -_,
__ _ - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - -
,
,
..
.
,
,
COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL REVIEW !EAM
.
.*
.
.
Project Director Staff Name Social Security Nv.
Title Thomas A.
Ippolito Project Director James Gagliardo Assistant Richard H. Wessman Staff Annette Vietti Staff
- *Yvonne S. Terry Secretary j
- * Kathy A. Baumann Secretary
- *Patrica A. Bjerke Secretary Technical Review Team Phone Numbers
.
Trailer No.
Com=ercial Brown & Root
'
$
.
(jp/
(817) 897-316#
'(817)'897-4881 - Ext. 871
(817) 897-3166 Ext. 854
(817) 897-4683
.
Ext. 812
.
NRC Resident Inspector Office (817) 697-2201
.
.
- Part-time
.
- Late arrivals
-
.
%
.
.
-v
-
-
-
.
-
-
~
_.
.
flt b $ ) $ $ h.$$* $ $.5 b' $ ' I - -as
'
~-
-- -- ~ -
--
'
tj
"*
-
-
TECllNICAI. RE TEAll (TRT)
',
g
.
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
~
.
. '.
's
.
Project Manage:-
.
d]
.
T. A. Ippol1to, AE0 i
Staff
.
'
Assistant 01 Interface
- .
,
J. Gaglfardo. IE R. Wessman,ilRR A. Vietti R. C. lang, NRR
,
.
,
I
'
..
.
.:
,
Electrical /
Civil / Mechanical QA/QC leader Coatings leader Test Progrens Instrumentallon leader.
,
I 8'avler g
1.cailer
- '
J. Calvo,llRR 1.. Shao, RES T.'Conlon, R-II P. Matthews,ilRR R. Keimiy, R-I
.
I I
I
l l
"
u _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_. _ _ _ _ _ _.l
<_ _ _ _ _ __
_____t____
______:
-7 A. Johnson RIV
,
- D.
Terso
.- NRR/DE C. Itale
- RIV C. Johnson - RIV W. Smlth - RIV ll. Li'
- NRR/DSI S. Hou
- NRR/DE
- L..lackson
- RII S. Kirsli,s - NRR/DE A. Nackley-INEL
,
- i
,iW. Marini - RTS D. Jeng
- NRR/DE V. Watson
- INEL J. Taylor
- Brookhaven D. Ileahm - INEL 1G. Myers
- Parameter J. Tapia
- RIV T. Curry
- INEL V. Lettieri - Brookhaven
'.jR. White
- LLNL R. Hubbard - Sandstone Corp. V. Wenczel
- INEL S.J. Occhsle-Brookhaven
.J. Selan
- LLNL R. Masterson -Parameter D. Summers
- INEL W. Wells
- Brookhaven
-.'
- R. Philleo - Parameter M. Bullock
- INEL V. Ferrarin$ -Parameter W. Wade
-
LI.NI.
,
C. Hofmayer.- INEL
- C. Morton
- LLNL
.
P. Chen
- INEL
- E.
11111
- LLNL
>
E. Thompson - ETEC
~i
.
J.~Devers
- Parameter
}j Site Phones:
'I Commercial:
(817)897-316A, 3166, 4683
)*I,ateArrivals
. !-
Brown & Root:(817)897-4881, ext. 871,854
,(PA Pcrt-time j.
6 812
- p.
NRC Resident:(817)897-22DI
.q
%
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~
'~
-~
-
~~
. INTERNATIONAL
,
'
ENERGY ASSOCIATES LIMITED
'
June 6, 1986 Mr. Donnie Grimsley, Director W NMON Division of Pules and Records DT Fora Pb-416 Office of Administration U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
/
Dear Mr. Grimsley:
On April 11, 1986, a Freedom of Information Act request was submitted to you by Ms. Lesley Evans of this firm, asking for certain information on nuclear power plants which have received operating licenses f rom NRC since the TMI accident in March 1979.
I am writing to make a supplemental FOIA request for additional information on the post-TMI OLs as well as earlier plants.
I am requesting the following information in three categories:
additional information on post-TMI OLs; inf ormation on plants receiving OLs since 1972; and other information.
I.
Additional Information on Post-TMI OLs (to supplement information requested in April 11 letter)
1. Please provide the following information on each NRC Special Task Force Inspection, such as those conducted at Comanche Peak, Waterford, River Bend, Wolf Creek, Watts Bar, and others:
a. What plant was involved and what was the task force's assignment?
b. What was the duration of each task force effort?
c. How many NRC staff members and how many consultants were on each task force, and what was the total number of NRC staff and consultant hours expended?
d. Please provide copies of the final reports issued by each task force.
3 o.
"
2000 VIRGINIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037 ole Cable IEAL WASHOC
~
m.._c,
-.
.-
%
.
-
.
Mr. Donnie Grimsley June 6, 1986 Page two
II. Inf ormation on Plants Receiving OLs since January 1, 1972 1.
Please provide the names of all plants receiving operating licenses f rom January 1,1972 to the present.
2. For each of these plants, please provide:
a. The construction permit issuance date.
b. The low-power OL issuance date.
c.
The full-power OL issuance date.
d. The number of NRC hearing days expended in each year, subdivided according to safety or environmental hearings.
e. A list and description of other enforcement actions,
'
other than civil penalties, including:
-
show cause, stop work, or other enforcement orders
-
confirmatory action or immediate action letters enforcement conferences
-
the number of non-compliances or violations,
-
according to NRC category (i.e., violations, infractions, or deficiencies, under old system; category number under current system).
3. For each of these plants, please state:
a. The number of inspections.
'
b. The number of inspection staff-hours expended per inspection.
c. The number of. resident inspectors assigned.
d. The number of investigations, e. The number of staff-hours expended per investigation.
I anticipate that much of this information on enforcement actions and inspections may be available f rom the Inspector Manhour Form 766 database.
III.
Other Information 1.. Please provide a computer printout of Inspector Manhour Form 766 data, entitled " Inspection Tracking System Status
- - -
--
-
--
--
.- - -. -.. - -
....
-
--
.
\\
-
.
Mr. Donnie Grimsley
June 6, 1986 Page Three l
Report," for each of the Palo Verde docket numbers.
Include the following minimum fields:
I a. Inspection Module Number.
b. Percentage completion of each module.
c. Inspection Report number for each entry.
d. Inspector name for each entry.
e. Cumulative inspector hours per module.
f. Violations issued by module, g. Any additional fields that will reveal closure data of violations and open items.
h. Opening date for each module.
1. Closure date for each module.
2. Please provide a copy of the NRC Regional Administrator's (9340) letter certifying completion of the inspection program and unit readiness for operation for Palo Verde Units 1 and 2.
3. Regarding NRC's Appendix
"R" Inspections and Human Factors Inspections, please provide the following:
a. Which plants were these inspections conducted on?
b. How many NRC staff-hours were expended on each inspected plant?
c. What enforcement action was taken as a result of each inspection?
Thank you for your assistance.
Please call me at 342-6758 if there are any questions regarding this request.
Sincerely, Af.
/f
/
Neil J. Numark Staff Consultant
..