ML20055B252
| ML20055B252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/19/1979 |
| From: | Stewart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Crossman W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055B245 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-266 NUDOCS 8207210070 | |
| Download: ML20055B252 (4) | |
Text
.
tn.n E: sitiE!
tJUCL E AR R EGLf L G O V C O'.".* ! SS I Oi, t,[
Tr/
-3 i
F.E G t D* ' lV turve..rA to=wt sunt ion
%,, Yd=....f A5;ur.clor. Tt x As 7t.cn October 19, 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR:
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section FROM:
R. C. Stewart, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section
SUBJECT:
TREND ANALYSIS - 1978
-The attached information is provided you in response to your memorandum, same subject, dated February 2,1979.
The information, prepared by each of the assigned project inspectors, include only those facilities that were in an active construction status durinc CY 1978.
()
O I/
/
V).9 -
/
R. C. Stew Reactor Inspector s,
Projects Section i
=
'266
~
PDg
-,m y
y p
w u-+
w<.
South Texas Project Units 1 & 2, DN 50-498; 50-499 TREND ANALYSIS - 1978 Number and Repetitiveness of Construction Deficiency Reports a.
Seven items were reported as potential construction deficiencies of which four were determined to be reportable in the context of 50.55(e).
Two of the items (voids in Lift 15 of Unit 1 containment and voids in the slab under Unit 2 spent fuel pool) were repetitive.
b.
Enforcement History (See attached sheet) c.
Responsiveness of Licensee to Enforcement Action (1) The licensee was timely in all responses except to our letter of November 15, 1978, which transmitted report No. 78-16.
The response to this letter was dated January 8,1978.
This late response was apparently due to simultaneous reassignment of the Project QA Supervisor and the Site QA Supervisor at that time which caused a temporary discontinuity in their tracking system.
(2) Answers were generally adequate except the initial response to report No. 78-16.
Items failed to adequately address corrective actions to preclude recurrence.
A subsequent response, which we requested, was adequate.
(3)
Inadequate answers were not our fault.
The licensee attributed the inadequacy of their response to report No. 78-16 to undue haste in preparation after being informed by our office that their response was overdue.
(4) Corrective action was done promptly.
A (5) The licensee has been responsive, d.
Unresolved Items (1) Unresolved items were cleared in a timely manner.
}
(2) The number of unresolved items per inspection has increased.
This
[
increase may be attributed in part to increased construction activity g
at STP and to the focusing of our attention on certain areas because
, dl of recent allegations.
Another factor is the recent change (June 1978) of the site quality procedures which has caused some confusion in implementation and documentation.
(3) None of the unresolved items were escalated to enforcement items.
South Texas Project,
j e.
Cqrporate Management in Regulation Matters (1) There was sufficient management representation at exit interviews.
(2) Managementh attitude was receptive.
(3) Signature on licensee letters was of appropriate level.
(4) Management appears to be involved in QA matters.
Their involvement appears to have intensified since our management meetings which took place following our investigations of allegations.
Their increased j
involvement is evidenced by their recent reorganization of the STP project team by which liL&P has become much more active in construction and QA activities.
In addition, HL&P management has been frequently observed at the STP site during our inspections.
f.
Effectiveness of QA/QC Program (oral presentation) g.
Any Other Trends Indicative of Poor Performance Frequent allegations of questionable QA/QC practices.
i e
l l
l l
8 L
~
South Texas Project Units 1 & 2, DN 50-498; 50-499 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY Report No.
Dates V
I D
D U
M/D Remarks 78-01 1/10-13 0
2 0
0 0
6-3/8 78-02 1/25-27 0
0 0
0 2
2 Environmental 78-03 2/21-24 0
0 0
0 2
9-3/4 78-04 3/21-23 0
1 0
0 0
10 Infraction not cited 78-05 3/21 0
0 0
0 0
-3/4 Investigation 78-06 4/04-07 0
0 0
0 0
3-1/2 78-07 4/17-20 0
2 0
0 1
9 78-08 5/16-19 0
0 0
0 0
3 i
78-09 5/16-19 0
0 0
0 0
6 Investigation 78-10 5/30-6/2 0
0 0
0 2
7 78-11 6/11-14 0
0 0
0 0
9 78-12 6/25-28 0
0 0
0 0
9 Investigation 78-13 8/15 0
0 0
0 0
Meeting 78-14 8/22-25 0
0 0
0 0
6-7/8 Investigation 78-15 9/11/14 0
2 0
0 3
6-1/2 Investigation 78-16 10/24-27 0
3 0
0 1
9 78-17 12/05-08 0
0 0
1 0
6 78-18 12/19-22 0
0 0
0 1
6 4
=
4 r