ML20052A495
| ML20052A495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1978 |
| From: | Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052A488 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204280387 | |
| Download: ML20052A495 (6) | |
Text
,
/p o'ouq'o, us:T r o STAT ES CASE ATTACHMEtiT A - Page 12 NUCLE A R REGULATORY COMMISSION
[\\
'n -
REGION eV E.
611 RYAN l'L AZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000 f
ARLINGTON, TL X AS 76011 o
%..... 'd' October 6, 1978 i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
K. V. Seyfrit, Director FROM:
W. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ES Branch
SUBJECT:
USE OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INFORMATION, MEMO 10/3/78,. DAVIS TO SEYFRIT' In response to the subject memorandum, the attached Trend Analysis in-formation generated for those facilities assigned to the RC&ES Branch during the year 1976 and 1977 is provided for your information.
I initiated this on-going analysis in' ray memorandun to W. A. Crossman dated January 4,1977, a copy of which is attached.
You will note in Crossman's implementation memorandum of January 6,1978, page 2, para-graph 'f (copy attached) that I discuss each facility with the ass,igned project inspector.
If you have any specific questions regarding this matter, I would be pleased to discuss them with you.
t s,
/
W.C.SeidlehChief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Attachments :
Memo dated 1/4/77, W. C. Seidle to W. A. Crossman Memo dated 1/6/78, W. A. Crossman to Project Inspectors Trend Analysis Book - 1976 and 1977 E 820428 0 387
i..
9
~
i CASE ATTACHMENT A - Page 13 I
s a
1
\\
fj'ef'<s~cMm~c.,
h.cl a<cC.
M g
ettdc, h// _ /M
/k h '.
4* W
~
e r.
M.
t i
d6...a-
- b...u..t.._a-< 4.a. <f
-u...:u.,._.c 4..._.f dlasc w b d.-
.._... c m d a u_ 2 M.. k f. 7 < e 1. M b" cv_x4. usd6_.
/
4 yker...._.La/;s<de..
at-u
.....do. y aigC
..n..c._ d.. g / t t f..
/
.___...i
/
" S 4 c _._.
g t
m'
/ -r u.
.e..
..e e.*
ea
.e
...m.
.e.
w
.ie.es.
e.
w.
.i.W..
....pe_e p..e,e...
.g e.
._a g.
6 L
S 6
a.
e.6.
I Comanche Peak CASE ATTACHMENT A - Page 14 Units 1 & 2, DN 50-445; 50-446 TREND ANALYSIS e
i a.
Number of Repetitiveness of Construction Deficiency Reports The licensee reported a total of six potential construction-deficiencies l
(50.55(e)) items during calendar year 1978.
The licensee did not convert any of these items to be fully reportable CDNs.
I do not consider that any of these items to have,been of repetitive nature.
l b.
Enforcement History
'(See attached sheet) c.
Responsiveness of Licensee to Enforcement Action (1) The licensee has consistently met our date in his responses.
3 (2) The licensee's responses are generally adequate, although we have had to ask for additional information on.two occasions. ' Inadequacies were for failure to provide a definitive commitment for action to prevent repetition.
(3)
No (4) The licensee's corrective actions have been in place on or before the dates committed to.
L (5)
On subjective ~ basis, I would consider the licensee to be fully responsive.
d.
Unresolved Items (1)
Unresolved items have generally been cleared within one or two odditiona'l inspections although some items have taken several months.
These are generally as a result of being unable to locate W documentation on site.
Also note that CDNs are usually carried in the reports as unresolved
[
items for tracking purposes.
(2)
Without the benefit of last years report on Comanche Peak and without a good deal of research, I cannot be sure but I don't think that this is the case.
(3)
No unresolved items have been converted to enforcement items in 1978.
I S
4
CASE ATTACHMENT A - Page 15 Comanche Peak.
e.
Corporate Management Involvement in Regulation Matters (1) Site management is always at the exit / management meetings.
Site QA supervision is always present and construction is usually represented by one or both of the Project General Managers.
It has'not been normal practice to have attendance from the Dallas office personnel.
(2)
Yes 1
(3) Yes (4) The various. levels of licensee. management who should be involved in the affairs of the project have been.
The designated signatory licensee (Gary) and the management person directly in charge of con-struction appear to be very well aware of problems and have been helpful in correcting them on occasion.
f.
Effectiveness of 0A/QC Program The licensee's QA/QC program is generally effective in my opinion.
It is somewhat encumbered by too many procedures and occasionally by not having enough real talent to do the job correctly.
Instances of the latter seem rare but do show up occasionally in invalid NCRs which in turn reflect that the inspectors don't really know what they are inspecting.
In my particular situation, if I believed that they were more than just a little ineffective, i.
I would be forced to attack the situation head-on.
g.
Any Other Trends Indicative of poor performance None t
6 4
9
CASE ATTACHMENT A - Page 16 Comanche Peak Units 1 & 2,.DN.50-445; 50-446 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY Report No.
Dates V
I D
D U
M/0 Remarks 78-01 1/03-13 0
'O 0
0 2
10.6 78-02 1/30-2/2 0
0 0
.0 0
9.9 78-03 2/08-10 0
0 0
0 0
3.0 78-04 2/28-3/3 '
0 0
0 0
1
- 9. 0 78-05 3/21-24 0
1 0
0 1
3.8 78-06 3/21 0
0 0
0 0
.5 Ward /Huback off-site investigation 78-07 4/11-21 0
0 0
.1 2
12.8 78-08 4/26-28 0
0 0-0 2
2.6 ~
Environmental 78-09 5/16-19 0
0 0
0 l'
7.2 78-10 5/30-6/1 0
0 0
0 0
4.1 78-11 6/20-23 0
1 0
0 0
3.6 78-12 8/22-25 0
2 0
0 2
7.0 78-13 8/t, l-31 0
2 0
0 1
15.8 RRI 78 14 9/14 0
0 0
0 0
4.0 Glen Rose Meeting 78-15 9/05-15 0
0 0
0 0
7.0 RRI 78-16 10/02-31 0
_0 1
1 1
13.5 RRI 78-17 10/04-12 0
0 0
0 0
2.0 Investigation-78-18 10/10-13 0
1 0
0 1
6.4 78-19 10/31-11/03 0
0 0
0 0
4.2 78 11/01-30 0
0 0
1*
0 13.8 RRI
- Deviation noted withdrawn
i..,
CASE ATTACHMENT A --Page 17 Comanche Peak 1
~
Report' i
No.
Dates V
l_
D_
D U
M/D Remarks 4~
78-21 11/20-22 0
0.
0 0
0 2.2 j
78-22 12/01-31 0
0 0
'O 0
7.8 RRI 78-23 12/18-20 0
- 0 0
0 0
5.6
+
)
e s.
a.-
6 9
4 e
l B
n e
e b
1 i
.