ML20027D931
| ML20027D931 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/02/1982 |
| From: | Potapovs U NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Hendrickson T BURNS & ROE CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027D914 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900503 NUDOCS 8211100401 | |
| Download: ML20027D931 (2) | |
Text
_
ggg2 M Docket No. 99900503/82-01 Burns and Roe, Incorporated ATTN:
Mr. T. A. Henderson Assistant to the President 550 Kinderkamack Road Oradell, NJ 07649 Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter of June 18, 1982, in response to our letter dated May 19, 1982. We note that you do not concur with items C.1 and C.2 of the Notice of Nonconformance. We have reviewed your Procedure WNP-2-ED-010, and our inspector's records, and conclude that:
1.
With respect to C.1, we concur that the subject procedure does not specifically define when more than one lead sheet is to be used with a singularly-identified calculation.
However, Sections B.3, B.4.a., B.4.b.,
B.6, and 8.16 imply that there may be n: ore than one lead sheet in that they contain requirements for the responsible engineer and group supervisor to make entries on, review, concur, or initial the " lead sheet (s)" of the calculation.
Consequently, we consider this item unresolved and will reinspect this area during future inspections.
2.
With respect to C.2, we concur that the subject procedure does not specifically preclude the group supervisor from performing the check function.
However, the intent of the design checking / verification is to provide independent assurance of the design, which is in addition to the control provided by the normal design and approval process.
Further, Sections B.8, B.11, B.13, and C.5 of WNP-2-ED-010 imply that the group supervisor is not the assigned checker in that they contain requirements for the group supervisor to assign the checker and to resolve differences between the checker and the responsible engineer, and for the assigned checker to return the checked calculation to the group supervisor.
RIV CI:RSS*
SC:RSS BC:VPBh D: ins 74(
RgRIV DFFox/j h CJHale UPolarf EHJohnson JEollins 7/t/82 7/f]/82 704/82 7/M//82 7/M /82 9
fW1/tf v 8211100401 821026 i] Q PDR GA999 EECSURO 99900503 PDR
~
l Burns and Roe, Incorporated 2
l i
Consequently, we consider this-item to be a nonconformance against current procedural requirements and request that you provide us with the infor-mation identified in our letter of May 19, 1982.
We have no further questions at this time with respect to items B and C.3 of the Notice of Nonconformance and will review your corrective actions and preventive measures during a future inspection.
Please provide this additional information within 25 days from the date of this letter in order that we may complete our review in a timely manner.
Sincerely, Uldis Potapovs, Chief Vendor Program Branch bec:
NRC:PDR JTCollins EHJohnson JAMarshall DFFox
. -