ML19274C812
| ML19274C812 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/05/1978 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274C806 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900403 NUDOCS 7811170350 | |
| Download: ML19274C812 (2) | |
Text
t
... ~.
The General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business Group Docket No.
99900403/78-03 NOTICE OF DEVIATION i
Based on the results of a NRC inspection conducted on September 11-15, 1978, it appeared that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements as indicated below:
Criterion V (Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings) of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 states in part, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed... and shall t'a accomplished in accordance with these instruc-tions, procedures, or drawings." The corresponding Section 5 (Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings) of the General Electric Company Topical Report NED0-11209-04A states in part, " Activities affecting quality, inculding methods of complying with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, are delineated, accomplished, q
and controlled by such documents as policies, procedures, operating instruc-tions, design specifications...."
t Contrary to the above, certain activities were not accomplished in accordance with your precedures as follows:
1.
Subsection 4.2.d. of E0P 40-6.00 (Independent Design Verification) issued July 7,1977, states in part, concerning the verifier, " Prepare a verification statement that the design document is verified...."
Additionally, Subsection 4.2.c. of E0P 40-10.00 (Design Record Files) states in part, " Develop DRF contents to provide documented traceable and retrievable evidence of technical activities undertaken, such as
... Evidence of appropriate design verification."
.4 Contrary to the above, neither the verification sta+ vent nor other evidence of appropriate design verification was in the Design Record File for CHAST 06. Additionally, the file did not contain the results of a design review on September 23, 1977, of the gama smearing model.
It does appear; however, that the design verification was accomplished.
2.
Exhibit B (Design Review Report) of EP&P 5.39 (Design Reviews) issued September 22, 1975, presents instructions for completion of the Design Review Report (DRR) for i.e., Type of Review (Conceptual Preliminary, Problem, Final or Verification) and Discussion of Design Review Presentation (detailed text of design review proceedings).
Contrary to the abova, the DRR for the September 1,1976, review of CHAST 05, Swelling and Rupture Model, did not indicate the Type of Review nor provide a Discussion of the Design Review Presentation.
781117039
_ _. 3.
Exhibit C (Design Review / Verification Cover Sheet) of EP&P 5.39 (Design Reviews) issued September 22, 1975, requires a statement of design adequacy per paragraph 5.2 which states, "... the review
" ' ' "'I team shall in the reporting documentation establish a position which will provide either: a.
An unconditional statement of design adequacy or b.
A statement of adequacy conditional upon the resolution of certain specific documented open items...."
Contrary to the above, the Design Review / Cover Sheet for the CHAST 05 Swelling and Rupture Model, Design Review of September 1, 1976, did not have a statement of design adequacy.
' l
- t