ML19343B295
| ML19343B295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/22/1980 |
| From: | Donna Anderson, Hale C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343B290 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900404 NUDOCS 8012230183 | |
| Download: ML19343B295 (4) | |
Text
__
O U. S. NUCI. EAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCIMEN REGION IV Report No.
99900404/80-03 Program No.
31100 Company: Westinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear Technology Division P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA Inspection at: Monroeville, PA Inspection Conducted: August 12-15, 19,80
/
%v V
Inspector:
~
D. G. M erson, Inspector [~ '
Date Program Evaluation Section Vendor Inspection Branch Approved:
C. J'@(, Chief Date Program Evaluation Section Vendor Inspection Branch Summarv Inspection on August 12-15, 1980 (99900404/80-03)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR Part 21 requirements, particularily to verify data provided by Westinghouse in their NS-TMA-2381 letter dated 1
July 24, 1980. The inspection involved twenty-seven (27) onsite hours by one NRC inspector.
l I
l l
l 801:28o 3 3
I DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted
- T. W. Coffield, Quality Engineer J. C. Connor, Principal Engineer
- P. T. McManus, Manager, Product Assurance Systems
- R. A. Wiesemann, hanager, Regulatory and Legislative Affairs
- Indicates those present at the exit meeting.
3.
Safety Review Committne Documentation Inspection At the request of Region IV/0IE, Westinghouse Water Reactor Division submitted statistical informatica (NS-TMA-2281, July 24,1980), related to elapsed time intervals.for evaluation of potential safety items identified and reviewed in accordance with Westinghouse Policy and Procedure WRD-OPR-19.0.
The information submitted was for items reviewed after the effectivt cate of 10 CFR Part 21 and is separated into items reportable, not reportable, and currently under review.
1.
Objectives The objective of the area of the inspection was to review the file folders of the Safety Review Committee to assure that:
The statistical infocnation reported in NS-TMA-22P1 reflects a.
the dates when the item was originally identified.
b.
The documentation identifies the safety significance of the potential item.
c.
An evaluation was conducted to determine the reportability or non-reportability of the potential item.
d.
In the case of reportable items, that the utilities affected, l
and NRC, were promptly notified.
l e.
The evaluation time is reasonable with respect to the complexity of the technical details of the potential item.
2.
Methoc of Accomplishment The inspector reviewed WRD-0PR-19.0, Identification and Reporting of Substantial Safety Hazards, Significant Deficiencies, and Un-reviewed Safety Questions, to assure that the activities being implementen by the Safety Review Committee meet the procedural requiremenca of the Westinghouse Quality Assurance program. The i
l t
~
3 inspector reviewed Potential Items 77-01 through 79-70 to determine elapsed times from identification of the item to completion of the evaluation by the Safety Review Committee.
Included in this list of potential items were the following:
PI-77-4, -6, and
-8.
SRC-ID-77-121, -124, -125, -126, -127, -128, and -12?.
SRC-ID-78-130, -131, -132, -133, -134, -135, -136, -137, and -138.
SRC-ED-79-144, -147, and -150.
ERC-ID-80-157.
3.
Findings The inspector found, for the most part, that the information contained in NS-TMA-2281 reflects the time interval between the identification of the potential item to the Safety Review Committee and the completion of the evaluation. To properly reflect evaluation times, the inspector feels that the time interval should include the time from initial identi-fication of the item by the originating engineer or identification of a problem in a nonconformance report, to the date the item is reported to the NRC or the utility is notified. Westinghouse indicated during this inspection that the elapsed times may not necessarily include time retro-active to the actual technical problem occurence or identification. For example, a nonconformance report, identifying and documenting a previous equipment failure / discrepancy, say be reviawed in series by various inter-facing Westinghouse personnel. The records of identitication may differ from those of recognition of the safety impact of the item. The Westinghouse Safety Review Committee files do not necessarily include such first identification records, and therefore, that infoenation was not retrieved in the statistical information of NS-TMA-2281, because of the time required to obtain this additional data. However, where such information on first identification of technical problems, suitable for evaluation, was contained in the Committee files, it was accounted for in NS-TMA-2281.
In this area of the inspection, no items of noncompliance, deviations i
or unresolved items were identified.
4.
Followup Item 4
Tb inspector noted that certain potential items (PI-77-4,
-6, and -8) were being deleted early in the tracking system provided by WRD-OPR-19.9 by merely a note to file by a single individual.
This action would normally preclude further consideration of the safety.
i i
l I
4 significan:e or reportability of this item.
Euring a future inspec-tion, we will examine further Westinghouse procedures and practices to verify that these type items are being dispositioned properly.
C.
Exit Meeting An exit zeeting was conducted at the conclusion of the inspection on Friday, August 15, 1980, with :esnagement representatives of Westinghouse.
In addition to those individuals indicated by an asterisk in the paragraph A. above, the following were present:
T. M. Anderson, Manager, Nuclear Safety H. H. 3runko, Manager, Product Assurance E. S. Hampton, Manager, Design Assurance Dr. W. M. Jacobi, Manager, Nuclear Technology Division The inspector discussed the scope and results of this inspection.
Potential problems which have been encountered with the implementation and enforcement of 10 CFR Part 21 were discussed by the inspector and Westinghouse management.