ML20023C421
| ML20023C421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1983 |
| From: | Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305170321 | |
| Download: ML20023C421 (3) | |
Text
_
a o
..e x
,e
=
o MAY ] ; ggg 60 bf)
So - a3o MD10RANDUM FOR:
T. M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, Division of Licensing
~ ~ '
FROM:
R. F. Warnick, Director, Office of Special Cases
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF TERA'S ENGINEERING PROGRAM PLAN FOR MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (IDCVP)V Your memorandum of March 11, 1983, requested Region III to review assigned sections of the IDCVP. This review was concluded and comments provided at the meeting betwcan NRC and TERA on April 13, 1983. The enclosure to this memorandum documents these comments.
Please contact the Midland Section Chief (J. Harrison, FTS 384-2635) should you have any questions regarding these cornents.
"vah m,:
. g. m _ j,,, ;,.
.g R. F. Warnick, Director Office of Special Cases
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl:
DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII The Honorable Charles Bechhoefer, ASLB The Honorable Jerry Harbour, ASLB The Honorable Frederick P. Cowan, ASLB The Honorable Ralph S. Decker, ASLB William Paton, ELD Michael Miller Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry Barbara Stamiris Mary Sinclair Wendell Marshall Colonel Steve J. Gadler (P.E.)
Howard Levin (TERA)
_d-Billie P. Garde, Government Aucuuitsbilit3-Prvjuc t 1
'"CEk ff 8305170321 830511
)
1 5'"" " >. !..ris.9,n/,l s,,Warnick.
PDR ADOCK 05000329 A
- 5. /.11. /. 8 3
. l.
,l, nac,onuaienc ecmueve " "
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY s uuo w-w]
a ENCLOSURE a
y 6
COMMENTS ON MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM The following comments were made as denoted by applicable section and were resolved at the April 13, 1983 meeting:
Section 1.2 - The IDCV scope did not include system walk-down or turn-over and program interfaces.
Section 2.0 - Sections 2.1 and 2.2 appear to be in conflict in that the Project Quality Assurance Engineers work with the Project Manager to resolve deficiencies or make recommendations and are responsible for implementation of the Project Quality Assurance Plan and concurrent auditing of the entire program. That is, performing the actual work activities and auditing that same activity.
Section 3.2.1 - did not include construction specifications review or conformance to those specifications.
Section 3.2.1.2 - did not include review of system layup; this is extremely critical after system has contained water and was drained, causing possible corrision problems.
Section 3.2.14 - system walk-down and turn-over was not included. Also systems important to safety and II/I issues were not discussed.
Section 3.2.2 - Define ".
. will generally follow.
." The following sampling basis must be established prior to program utilization:
Confidence Level 1
Population Definition Sample Selection Sample Size Biased / Unbiased Sampling Basis Sampling Program Basis (i.e., National Standard)
Section 3.2.3.1.2 - Define ".
. all major.
Section 3.2.3.1.3 - Assurance of "Q" Supports being installed on "Q" system is not addressed; part of inherent process. The snubber versus the solid support restraint; stationary device being defeated by a moveable device.
The length of anchor bolts was not included. Weld sizes greater in throat thickness and weld length than specified was not included as an attribute.
..m.
1 ENCLOSURE p.
i Section 3.2.3.5.2 - Post tensioning materials were not included in the materials review.
Section 3.2.5 - Program checklists are very general in form and care needs to be taken to assure expansion to include specific requirements. Also, current checklist appears to look at filling in blanks and counting items by number; detail should be given to content as well as form.
Section 3.2.5.3 - The section on current revisions of drawings and specifications should also include Field Change Requests and the system for followup and close-out actions.
Section 5.1 - Corrective Action Requests should be added to the types of reports to be prepared.
Section 5.2.1 - If the project team does not concur with the reviewer on the potential open item, the item appears to be lost in the document system trail; i.e., does not become a quality record.
Section 5.2.1 - How will the NRC and the licensee be kept informed of open, confirmed, and resolved item reports, finding reports, finding resolution reports, and final reports?
_.