ML20055B244
| ML20055B244 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1982 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Mccann W AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, AUSTIN, TX |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055B245 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-266 NUDOCS 8207210060 | |
| Download: ML20055B244 (2) | |
Text
~~
j plG-Clb CrO35 S EQUE-r LL M
s "*c o
h NUCLEAR RE U T RY COMMISSION
~
Mf 1,'
C s,!kY;'?) h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 July 2, 1982 Mr. William D. McCann, Jr.
Energy Reporter THE AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN Box 670 IN RESPONSE REFER Austin, TX 78767 TO F0IA-82-266
Dear Mr. McCann:
This is in response to your letter dated June 8,1982, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, copies of any Standard Assessment of Licensee Performance conducted between the years 1977 and 1982 for the South Texas Nuclear Project.
In response to your request, copies of the documents listed on Appendix A hereto are enclosed.
We are continuing to process your request, and we will communicate with you again concerning other documents which appear to be subject to your request.
Sincerely,
,/
Q,j/'gr
/
<J/ M. Felton, Director
Y Division of Rules and Records
/
Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated r207210060 820702 PDR FOIA MCCANN82-266 PDR I
Re:
F01A-82-266 APPENDIX A 1.
1/4/77 Memo to W. A. Crossman, from W. C. Seidle re: TREND ANALYSIS - 1976 (7 pages) 2.
10/6/78 Memo to K. V. Seyfrit, from W. C. Seidle re: USE OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INFORMATION, MEM0 10/3/78, DAVIS TO SEYFRIT (7 pages) 3.
2/1/79 Handwritten note to Bill Crossman, from W. T. Seidle CONCERNING TREND ANALYSIS (1 page) re:
4.
2/2/79 Memo to W. G. Hubacek et. a l., from W. A. Crossman re:
TREND ANALYSIS - 1978 (6 pages) 5.
5/21/81 Memo to N. C. Moseley, from John T. Collins re: SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT SALP REVIEW (2 pages) 6.
6/12/81 Routing and transmittal slip to R. Purple from F. J. Diraglia re:
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT (4 pages) 7.
6/31 Working paper SALP STAFF Summary - South Texas Project (STP) Units 1 and 2 (4 pages) 8.
Undated NRR Performance Evaluation from D. Sells re: SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT APPRAISAL PERIOD: 7/1/80 to 6/30/81 (3 pages) 9.
6/18/82 Letter to G. W. Oprea, Jr. from J. T. Collins, re:
THE SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP) BOARD REPORT OF THE SOUTH TEXAS FACILITY, UNITS 1 and 2, CONSTRUCTION PERMITS CPPR-128 and CPPR-129.
(16 pages) 10.
6/23/82 NUREG-0834, FINAL REPORT, NRC Licensee Assessments (58 pages)
e L". t' E ; i T A' E !
r.UC L E AR R f C J. Al oF ' C O W.* tS S t oN office oF lt.Sr L CTIO*J A'JO E re 5 oRCE'.if NT r.E GION IV 611 RY Afi PL AZ A oRIVE. SUITE 1000 A RLINGT oN. TE X AS 7 601.'
Jenuary 4, 1977 W. A. Cross =an, Cnief, Projects Section TREND A';AL' ISIS - 1976 The start of a new year is a good time to step back and take a look the performance of our assigned licensees during the past year.
at If, in our evaluation, we detect negative trends, then ve should promptly arrange through rej;ional supervision to discuss these findings with corporate management.
Please request your Facilities Inspectors to conduct a trend analysis 6f the perfor=ance of each of their assigned " active" licensees during calendar year 1976.
Specific areas to be considered should include:
- Number and repetitiveness of Construction Deficiency Reports.
- Enforce =ent history, e.g., ut=nber and repetitiveness of non-
=
compliance ite s.
- Responsiveness of licensee to enforcement action.
- Nu=ber of outstanding unresolved ite=s - timeliness of resolution.
- Corporate canagement involvement in regulatory matters.
- Effectiveness of QA/QC programs.
- Any other trends indicative of poor performance.
Please forward your written evaluations to me be COB January 28, 1977.
/.
/,.-
h W.C.SeidleYChief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch cc:
R. E. Hall W.
E. Vetter PDA m M 37?
M o
a TREtiD ANALYSIS 1976 REACTOR CONSTRUCTION BRAflCH I
t I
=
J
,,G.,
f*
t1 Ji' E D 5T A7 E J
f.,
t;Urt t I.4 M C L'6A1 GP Y co.".1ssioN
, (j','
- g F: f C, e 0 7. I V O
I
/'.,-- f C11 F:Yt.N Ft J.7.:. D R6VE, tOIT E 1030
- ,, $~T.,.'y, /e p
', ("
f A R L i**C,7 O?.. T f.\\ AS 7 C011 q
..: n p January 14, 1977 MD10RA'O'O! FOR:
W. G.11ubacek R. G. Taylor R. C. Stewart C. R. Oberg -
FROM:
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
SUBJECT:
TREND ANALYSIS - 1976 Enclosed is a memo from Bill Seidle 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.
Enforcement llistory For each facility list:
(1)
Inspection Report Number (2)
Dates of Inspection (3)
Number of Violation (4) Number of Infractions (5) Number of Deficiencies (6)
Number of Deviations (7) Mandays involved (f or that inspection)
(S)
Remarks (indicate if repeat Irom 1976 and 1975)
(8)
Number of outstanding unresolved itecs c.
Responsiveness of Licensee to Enforcement Action W-I (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 donc promptly?
(4) Are any inadequate answers our fault?
3 (5)
Is the licensee responsive in your opinion? Why?
PDR a n, / wn a L.
e g
7 ixvw vv s a
.~......
. d.
Ku ber of Unresolved Items - Ticeliness Resolution (1)
Numbers are Siven 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 Regulation Matters (1)
Suf ficient management representation of exits?
(2)
Attitude receptive?
(3)
Signature on licensee letters appropriate level?
(4)
Is management involved?
(indicate, basis for answer) f.
Ef fectiveness 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.
g.
Any Other Trends Indicative of Poor Performance List and discuss any other indications that may point out poor /
good performance.
As a last item, give me your. general recommendation 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
" active" facilities.
Please have your information to me by COB on January 25, 1977.
l WW w
U. A. Crossman, Chief Projects Section p.
Enclosure:
As stated I
cc:
W. C. Seidle i
TREND At'ALYSIS SOUTH TEXAS, UNITS 1 & 2 b.
Enforcement History See attachment c.
Responsiveness of Licensee to' Enforcement Matters (1) Yes (2) On the basis of one completed correspondence cycle - yes they are adequate.
(3) Yes (4) Not applicable (5) Yes - licensee personnel, while well qualified, are somewhat in-experienced at QA and have expressed appreciation for the occasional suggestion on how to head off problems.
d.
Number of Unresolved Items - Timeliness ' Resolution
( ~
(1)
In b above (2) Yes (3) General one inspection cycle.
,(4) No e.
Corporate Management Involvement (1) Both licensee and general contractor site management and usually the licensee's home office project QA manager attend the exits.
(2) Very (3) Executive Vice President appears adequate.
(4)
I believe licensee management is very involved. The impression is i
that the executive VP is of the opinion that their program should be good enough that we will have no_ negative findings.
(
f.
Effectiveness of QA/QC' Program
=
l It appears that the licensee has gathered a group of technically sound, agressive people to maintain surveillance over the general contractor who has line level QA/QC responsibility. The general contractor (Brown & Root)
_1_
QA/QC appears to have an adequate program but has some reluctance to exercise its authority.
Few strong positions are taken unless the licensee provokes action.
Programmatically both the licensee and Brown & Root are quite adequate.
The only real solution (s) are:
(1) The licensee take over full QA/QC responsibility with B&R having none, or (2) Replace B&R QA/QC site management and perhaps some home office management with personnel with more intestinal fortitude.
g.
Any Other Trends As a further point on f above, it was the licensee who provoked B&R QA into taking action against PDM.
B&R supported the December 30, 1976, Stop Work Order with a very weak group of descrepancies uncovered by an audit performed that day, but had been maintaining full time surveillance over PDM for six weeks.
It has always been axiomatic that it is far easier to be agressive and firm with subcontractors than with your com-panies' construction forces for obvious reasons such as continued employ-ment.
Here we have the situation where B&R QA could not bring it upon themselves to take effective action with a subcontractor.
What is probable when B&R begins the more difficult and important work involving
(
piping and electrical systems?
I think we wait and see.
I see no reason for periodic senior level management meetings.
Manage-ment meetings should be reserved for actual need so as to keep high visibility status.
1 l
I
2
)
y l
1 n
n O
s o
t i
i t
f n
c n
U e
I p
s s
s k
n 1
a r
I x
a t
e m
i T
e v
n R
n U
h E
(
tuo s
S me Y
t T
I I
L 1
2 1
1 I
s C
e A
r F
n U
sya D
2 9
6 4
8 4
2 n
1 a
M
.v e
D fe D
.r 1
1 fn I
lo i
Y V
R OTS I
s H
e 3
t
/
T a
2 N
D 0
3 8
3 4
1 E
3 2
1 1
2 7
M 0
E p
9 1
6 0
1 4
3 C
s 2
2 1
1 2
/
/
R n
/
/
/
/
/
0 1
f O
I
)
1 4
6 8
9 1
1 O
F N
E
.o c
N b
tr 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
p e
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 R
7 7
7 7
7 7
7
r-
' i, w a t a rst w. n :,5, o n c.
n-u :. o. r,
.]
on nu.rmcrc ouvt..sm ic:..
1 (;{J; a f Anuwctor..Tc xcs 7t: -
October 6, 197E.
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 rtv memorandum 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 assigned project inspector.
If you have any specific questions regarding this matter, I would be pleased to discuss them with you.
JM<' / J ~f
/
ch e~.
~-
W. C. Seidl Chief 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 8
PDK r.,,-,, e m' 2 o -7 l
' y u g ' &, '
-sc
/
i
.. ^ ~'
f u. re nuc;
/
i f.UO LL A h & i C U. AT Di V C O'. *.1:55tO v
[s r
Fil O tDN IV
,.C.
i Cal P Y AN h A2 A DhlVE 5U:TE 100D
$1_gf' [
t.Ft IN GT ON. "i t y. A5 7E.011 t,. -
-< g
- 0
+
January 6,1978 l
MEMORANDUM FOR:
W. G. Hubacek R. G. Taylor R. C. Stewart C. R. Oberg FROM:
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
SUBJECT:
TREND ANALYSIS - 1977 Please perform a trend analysis of the performance of each of your assigned
" active" licensees for the calendar year 1977.
In cases where responsibility for licensees is being reassigned, the inspector who was responsible for the licensee in calendar year 1977 will prepare the analysis.
Your analysis should incluce the following information:
a.
Number and Repetiveness of Construction Deficiency Reports b.
Enforcenent History For each facility list:
(1)
Inspection Report Number (2)
De:es of Inspection (3)
Nuncer of Violations (4)
Nunoer of Infractions (5)
Hurcer of Deficiencies (6) Nur.ber of Deviations (7)
Mandays involved (for that inspection)
(8)
Rer. arks (indicate if repeat from 1977 and 1976)
(9)
Nurcer of unresolved items c.
Resoonsiver.ess 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) Are any inadequate answers our fault?
l (4)
Is corrective action done promptly?
l (5)
Is the licensee responsive?
g l
l V
_ a,,., i o n o s. LS - $
L
C I
1 : etters - T' rejects Section January f,197F s
d.
Unresolved Items (1)
Are unresolved items cleared rapidly?
(2) Are numbers / inspection on the increase? Why?-
(3) tiu.Tber of unresolved items escalated to enforcement items.
e.
Corporate Managerent Involvement in Regulation Matters (1) Sufficient management representation at. exit interviews?
(2) Attitude receptive?
(3)
Signature on licensee letters appropriate level?
(4)
Is management involved?
(Indicate basis for answer) f.
Effectiveness of 0A/0C Procram This is a very subjective matter.
I desire your own opinion and basis for your opinion.
If too early in construction phase to state, indicate this.
Also indicate what you believe we can do to have them improve their program.
This information should not be included in the documented analysis, but you should be prepared to discuss it with Mr. Seidle.
~
g.
Any Other Trends Indicative of Poor Performance List and discuss any other indications that may point out poor / good performance.
Please have your information to me by CCB on January 31, 1978.
W
^
W. A. Crossman, Chief Projects Section cc:
W. C. 52 idle e
S 1
MEMORANDUM FOR:
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section FROM:
R. G. Taylor, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section
Subject:
TREND ANALYSIS - 1977 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNITS 1 & 2 DN 50-498 & 499 The following information is provided in response to your memorandum, same subject, dated January 6,1977.
a.
Number and Repetiveness of Construction Deficiency Reports (1) Number = 1 (2)
Repetiveness = 0 b.
Enforcement History Please see attached summary.
c.
Responsiveness of Licensee to Enforcement Action t'
(1)
Licensee has been on time with responses.
(2) Two of five responses were considered inadequate.
(3)
I don't believe that we were at fault for the licensee's inadequacy.
(4) The licensee is very prompt with his corrective action.
(5) The licensee is responsive to our actions.
d.
Unresolved Items (1) Unresolved items are generally cleared very quickly.
(2) There is no particular trend apparent.
(3) None of the unresolved items have been escalated.
9 a
s
s' W. A. Crossman e.
Corporate Management Involvement in Regulation Matters (1) The licensee and his general contractor have been very adequately represented at exit meetings.
(2) The licensee management's attitude is very good.
(3) The licensee's executive vice president is signatary on letters to us.
(4) The licensee's management gives a picture of close involvement as based on discussions with subordinate personnel and review of notes attached to audit reports and letters reviewed during inspections.
f.
Effectiveness of QA/QC Program The licensee appears to be well motivated.
Such problems as there are have been discussed with you and Mr. Seidle.
g.
Other Trends Indicative of Poor Performance None.
4 t
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNIT 1 D/N 50-498 Report Dates y_
1_
D D
M/D U
Remarks 77-01 1/03-06/77 0
0 0
0 7.875 1
77-02 1/27-28/77 0
0.
0 0
.375 0
Envi ronmental Inspection 77-03 2/02-03/77 0
0 0
0 2.5 0
Investigation 77-04 2/15 & 3/1-4 0 1
0 0
6.875 1
77-05 3/27-31/77 0
2 0
0 7.875 1
77-06 4/26-29/77 0
0 1
1 4.75 1
77-07 6/20-22/77 0
0 0
0 4.25 1
77-08 7/06-08/77 0
0 0
0 3.5 0
Investigation 77-09 9/27-30/77 0
0 0
0 6.375 0
77-10 10/25-28/77 0
0 0
0 c.625 1
77-11 11/08-11/77 0
0 0
0 6.5 1
77-12 11/29-12/1/77 0 0
1 1
1.5 0
77-13 12/19-21/77 0
0 0
0 2.0 0
77-14 12/15-16/77 0
0 0
0 1.5 0
Investigation TOTALS 0
3 2
2 58.5 7
I b
e
, e a
4' SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNIT 2 D/t; 50-499 Enforcement Report Dates V
I D
D M/D U
Remarks 77-01 1/03-06/77 0
0 0
0
.125 0
77-02 1/27-28/77 0
0 0
0
.375 0
Environmental Inspection 77-03 1/26-29/77 0
0 1
0 1.25 0
77-04 9/27-30/77 0
1 0
0 2.875 0
77-05 10/25-28/77 0
0 0
0
.25 1
77-06 11/08-11/77 0
0 0
0 3.0 0
77-07 11/29-12/1/77 0
0 1*
1*
1.375 0
- shared with Unit 1 77-08 12/19-21/77
.0 0
0 0
3.125 0
77-09 12/15-16/77 e0 0
0 0
1.5 0
Investigation TOTALS 0
1 2
1 13.875 1
l t
E
,48.
I' l
j
(.
C
[
.