ML20052C996
| ML20052C996 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1982 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| GL-81-01, GL-81-1, TAC-47563, TAC-47564, NUDOCS 8205060180 | |
| Download: ML20052C996 (3) | |
Text
i l
th(J APR 191982 jgg.g[Q Docket Nos. 50-266 Y
e Mr. C. W. Fay s
Assistant Vice President Wisconsin Electric Power Company D
F ; M h-Q
,0 a -
231 West Michigan Street E
[ fc Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
(
A9 q
-\\
L u
Dear Mr. Fay:
(,y N RE: GENERIC LETTER 81-01.
By letter dated April 2,1982, we transmitted our evaluation and acceptance of your response to the above generic letter.
In our letter we incorrectly stated that you committed to meeting the require-ments of Regulatory Guide 1.58, Revision 1 and Regulatory Guide 1.146 with regard to qualification of inspection, examination and testing and audit personnel. In actuality as stated in your July 31, 1981 response, you proposed alternatives to satisfy the intent of the above-listed Regulatory Guides. Our acceptance of your alternative methods is discussed below.
V Generic Letter 81-01, " Qualification of Inspection Examination, and Testing and Audit Personnel." requested licensees to furnish either:
1.
Commitments to meet regulatory positions C.5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of Reg-ulatory Guide 1.58, Revision 1, and Regulatory Guide 1.146, and your planned date for doing so; or 2.
If you elect not to adopt the methods given in Regulatory Guides 1.58, Revision 1, and 1.146 describe your alternative methods of c;mplying with 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B regarding qualification of nuclear power plant inspection, examination, and testing personnel, and qualification of audit personnel, and your schedule for imple-menting the alternative methods.
You responded by letter dated July 31, 1981, choosing alternative 2, above. The first paragraph on page 2 of your response indicates you meet ANSI N45.2.23 which, in fact, satisfies Regulatory Guide 1.146.
The next two paragraphs of your response indicate a) The use of " peer" type, independent, inspection for final accep-tance of work b) initial evaluation and periodic reevaluation of personnel who per-form these inspections m.
O e,,,c.,
.e _,
---~~------
p! P n 8s J 88 826 Nacs P PDR OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mi-awm
5 l
. s s c) necessary training to assure acceptable proficiency of these person-nel d) requirement for demonstrated proficiency of these personnel e) The use of only one level of qualification in lieu of the three levels discussed in ANSI N45.2.6, with supervisory or management personr.el reviewing, evaluating, and approving related proceduns.
We found that the above conunitments provide reasonable assurance of the qualifications of personnel discussed in the generic letter. This accep-tance is contingent upon your maintaining adequate records to provide objective evidence of performing the actions noted above, and we believe that lack of such objective evidence should be considered a basis for corrective action.
We are sorry for any inconvenience r,r original response may have created for you.
Sincerely, Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File Local PDR ORB Rdg D.Eisenhut JHeltemes RAClark PKreutzer OELD NSIC' I&E (1)
ACRS (10)
TColburn Gray File omcr >
R.B, [,
,,pk;,qgg,g,,QC,,,0,, '
,,, alp,dg3,,,
suamue>
..P.K
.ut.
..IO.9.1##.r#1.d.d...Q
.f.e.
......(..,R.A,,0,lh,rk,,,,,,
..L.../.82...
.4B.k1.82...
.4Ll.*)l.8.?........41\\.QJB2....
om>
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 024o OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usaro.mi mm