ML20052A492
| ML20052A492 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1977 |
| From: | Crossman W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Hubacek W, Stewart R, Renee Taylor NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052A488 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204280381 | |
| Download: ML20052A492 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. s,' e""*% uniTeo s r Arss CASE ATTACHMENT A - Page 2 / 0,, NUCLE AR 41EGUL AToRY COV.?.lisSloN $ i., DECeoN IV j. ). j G11 f tYAN plt.Z A DrisVF. CUITE 1000
- 4 D(P/ $
+
- r ARLING TON. T E XAS 7G011 Q?~?e
%.~. '
- f January 14, 1977 MDIORA.NT.4 FOR:
W. G. Hubacek R. G. Tay1'or R. C. Stewart C. R. Oberg.- FROM: W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
SUBJECT:
' TREND ANALYSIS - 1976 Enclosed is a memo froni Bill Ssidle concerning licensee performance trend analysis. To answer his questions please provide the following CY 76 information. a. Number and Repetiveness of _ Construction Deficiency Reports ( (I have this information already)- b. Enfcreement History For each facility list: (1) Inspection Report Number (2). Dates of Inspection l (3) Number of Violation (4) Number of Infractions (5) Number of Deficiencies i-(6) Number of Deviations-l (7) Mandays involved (for that inspection) l (9) Remarks (indicate if repeat from 1976 and 1975) l (8) Number of outstanding unresolved itecs c. Responsiveness of Licensee to Enforcement Action . ;/. (1) Is licensee on time with answer to our letter? (2) Are answers adequate? Do we have to go back for more information? (3) Is corrective action done promptly? (4) Are any inadequate answers our fault? (5) Is the licensee responsive in your opinion? Why? . 0.. E l, .3 2.0 4 2 8 o 3 gf 8
L
- /
CASE ATTACHMEilT A'- Page 3 d. Number of Unresolved Items - Ticeliness Resolution (1) Numbers are given in b (9) above. (2) Are unresolved items cleared rapidly? (3) Average time to clear. (4) Are numbers / inspection on the increase? Why? e. Corporate Management Involvement in ?.egulation Matters ,S-(1) Sufficient management representation of exits? .TE (2) Attitude receptive? 'i. (3) Signature on licensee letters appropriate level? (4) Is management involved? (indicate basis for answer) i f. Effectiveness of QA/QC Program This is a very subjective _ matter. I desire your own opinion and what you base your opinion on. If too early in construction phase to state, indicate this. Also indicate what you believe.we can do to have.them improve their program. ,' t, ..: g. g. Any Other Trends Indicative of Poor Performance Es. \\. List and discuss any other indications that may point out poor / good performance. As a last item, give me your general reco=mendation on advisability of holding a periodic management meeting with all licensees to discuss past performance and identify possible problems for the licensee to avoid. As indicated in the enclosure, this is to be your assessment of your I " active" facilities. Please have your information to me b'y COB on January 25, 1977. b h W. A. Crossman, Chief Projects Section .;/.
Enclosure:
As stated cc: W. C. Seidle (, e ,m
l 2 1 s t in U kae s P kr e a h a t c e n R amo C sme Y t T I I L 1 1 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 I s C e A r F n U sya 5 5 5 5 D 0 5 0 0 7 0 7 3 5 7 5 7 n 6 1 9 0 6 5 7 8 2 8 6 2 a 1 1 M 1' .v e 1 D fe D .r fn 5 1 3 I lo i Y V R O T S I s H e 8 t T a 2, N D 7 E 6 2 4 8 6 0 7 4 U1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 5 1 M 9 9 - 4 E p 5 0 2 6 3 6 4 1 2 91 C s 7 1 1 7 1 1 1 2 2 2 / // R n / / / / / / / / / / 1 22 O I 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 1 1 1 F l t E .o l f b t 1 2 '3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 $?a. o p 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ' [Er e 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 R hp[No lll
CASE ATTACHMENT A - Page 5 9 TRENO ANALYSIS COMANCHE PEAK, UNITS 1 & 2 b. Enforcement History See attachment c. Responsiveness of Licensee to Enforcement Action i Although the licensee ha's been generally responsive to enforcement correspondence, the Principal Inspector has, within the past yes, requested additional information in order to clarify corrective action taken in order. to preclude recurrences. In addition, informal dis-cussions were held with the cognizant licensee representatives in order to have the licensee improve a general weakness in providing a reply that is fully responsive to each of the three basic questions contained in the notice. An improvement has been evident; however, an adequate level of confidence has not been fully achieved. d. Number of Unresolved Items - Timeliness Resolution The IE inspection reports indicate sixteen (16) unresolved items iden-tified during the past twelve (12) months. It can not be demonstrated 'thatitems are cleared rapidly; however, the licensee has ~had problems ( with their contractor'(Brown & Root) in obtaining timely corrective measures, or adequate responsiveness to internal audit finding.s that generally impact on IE unresolved matters. (see paragraph f below) e,f&g. Corporate Management Involvement in Regulatory Matters During the early part of l'976, it became apparent to the Principal Inspector that the effectiveness of the licensee's QA/QC Program was in a state of degradation as a result of a domineering and overpowering control by the contractor's site construction management. On June 11, 1976, at the request of the-Region IV staff, the President of TUGC0/TUSI, two Senior Vice Presidents and the QA Manager met in conference at the NRC regional office in order to alert top management of the seriousness of the apparent breakdown in corporate management. Follow-on meetings were held July 30 and September 3,1976 (ref. IE t Inspection Reports 76-08 & 76-09). In addition,' numerous informal discussions were held on and off site during the period September 1976 thru January 1977. Recent site inspections have revealed signs of a slow, but progressive, turn-around to a more effectual management control by the licensee; however, the matter remains an item of priority l 0- ~ * .l_ 6 9
CASE ATTACHMEi!T A - Page 6 .e I until a more satisfactory condition is demonstrated by the licensee. Additional meetings with the licensee corporate management have been mutually agreed to. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for the second week in February 1977. Periodic management type meetings with licensees are always useful; however, they should be tied to specific problems if possible since the utility top management's time is valuable. I ~ ee e ? Il: i ( l'. =mm}}