ML20133C241

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Assistance in Inspecting QA Program on Priority Basis Since QA Modules More than 6 Months Overdue.Licensee Auditing Staff Cannot Meet Audit Workload
ML20133C241
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Davis Besse
Issue date: 07/08/1983
From: Norelius C
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To: Spessard R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20132B273 List: ... further results
References
NUDOCS 8510070278
Download: ML20133C241 (1)


Text

,,

~

.. =.

ar.m c.

.w:

Jgy k._g)., _ :c

- + :, :. m

- 3 e.r.i

e

,'*- 43[9.!

cis.

..s u. s 2 5 m ;a July 8, 1983 MEMORA'iDUM FOR:

R. L. Spassa rd, Director, Division of Engineering FROM:

C. E. fiorelius, Director, Division of Project and Resident Programs

SUBJECT:

INSPECTIO.'i 0F QA PROSP.AM AT DAVIS-BESSE Since the last QA inspection by the PAS Team, the licensee has totally renritten t'.eir QA Manual.

In. this new revision, the licensee took numerous exceptions to ANSI Standards / Reg. Guides requirements where no previous exceptions were taken.

We are concerned that these changes may have weat en&d the licensee's Quality Program.

As you know, the licensee's recent subrittal under 50.54 is under revien-by DE.

Dring a, audit of their CA Frogram, the licensee found that their auditinc staf f car, r.ct.eet the audit workload.

We also question whether the auditing staff is 6f:;.ately trair.ed arid /or experienced to perfor. audits in all a reas recaired by ths CA F rogram.

Tne i,RC CA r.:-1,les a re c',erdue by more than 6 cor.ths.

In addition, oc lespe:tica findings indicate that the QA Frogram at Cavis-Eesse r.iy be deficient at identifying problems.

As a result of all of these concerns at Davis-Besse, we request your assist-ance in inspecting the QA Program at Davis-Sesse on a priority basis.

Ot2W C. E. fiorelius, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs e-so* $

_p - [. -

g

!d7!,bgyPg By ff4

, V, u~ gcp

e'

- :::=W'

4,.

Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 964

",*"*""C"*

f July 18, 1983

.[

e<n w'

L N

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation y

Attention:

Mr. John F. Stolz o

Operating Reactor Branch No. 4 l

Division of Operating Reactors i

United States maclear Regulatory Commission i

Washington, D.C.

20555

l !

x

Dear Mr. Stola:

4 i

-):.

n The purpose of this letter is to provide a status report on Toledo Edison's ongoing activities towards developing and implementing its Integrated 9

Living Schedule Program (II.SP) for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station cil Unit No. 1.

The present letter is pursuant to our letter of May 10, 1983

@2 (Serial No. 940).

Ud j i.. ;..

h'p letterwehavep%;l-t! -

since our May 10. 1983 rogressed aggressively towards cup internalizing the ILSF into our normal ~ management programs and processes.

.h During this period we have been concentrating our efforts on developing f

the Fiscal Year 1984 Capital and Operating & Maintenance Budgets for Davis-Besse. In accordance with standard company practices, the budget 3

development'and approval cycle ~cosasaces during the late sprias and is

$.4 completed durtag the. winter of each" year.YThis year. ;the budget develop-

/O ment activities have been 'modifiedfto'incoiporate all'of the basic con-4 cepts that will constitute out.ILSP._i k ? J f!. ? %

~

Y h M

'7

& f W l N $ $Li % n h a N U -l N h W

We are currently prioritislag projects.~ planning their implementation

'yl; based upon,the relative' priorities and realistic planning constraints y,n

-ariteria, and propering detail d implementation schedules using our W

, Project /1~planninglandg % systesi.T While these ongoing activities

- - have provided'usfeitF valuable information on how to improve the implemen-tation'ef'many~of M I1SP concepts. they have also delayed the actual "9

'ia sobeiasias(faff the)lan? " dine'te the demands of our budget developmen embaission~e sur, M eraft' plan to the NRC. We;believe that the delay

'0 process and;the leseemsl learned during it, will definitely benefit the f)4

~

actual product'ultiastely_ submitted to the.NRC, As you will note from the j

~

subsequest.discussisef we~have clearly inititated internal implementation

't of the ILSF ~and have also identified a reasonable program for submitting a meani,ngful pisa to the NRC.

.: a;p m V y d 1

During'the' period 'sEb's4EntYo'our' May 10s '1983 letter, we finalized and Ij issued a Toledo Edison Nuclear Mission " Practices and Procedures" which j

incorporated the philosophy and concepts of the ILSP inta our standard d

management operating practices. The issuance of this specific " Nuclear Practices and Procedures" forms 11y established the ILSP as a pc Licy directive within Toledo Edison.

\\

THE TOLEDO ED860N COMPANY EDISCN Pt.AZA 300 MAD: SON AVENUE TCLEDO. CRO 43652 8307280330-830718

\\

PDR ADOCK 05000344 P

PDR

9

' Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 964 Page 2 E

L C

The Davis-Besse Work Scope Committee (DBWSC). which represents the manage-f ment entity in the Nuclear Mission responsible for recommending and ultimately managing our overall budget programs, has primary responsibili-e ty for directing the internal implemsstation of our ILSP. This committee

{

was initiated prior to ILSP development and we have expanded the charter j

to include operating and asistenance projects to be consistent with the ILSP philosophy., The D5WSC accomplished the_following pertinent activi-ties during the months of May and James $ 9 ? A J % #A-A "Prioritization Sebcommittee[$3Nk3;NMUN'

  • :- if.
MM'fpNQ'g 1.

to the DEWSC w W established. This ij subcommittee contaisis representatives from the following Toledo Edison Divisions ' 'Devis-Bessej Stattoo;. Nuclear Facility Engineering; i.;hj t

,f Nuclear Services (including Nuclear Licensing); Nuclear Projects; and l,gd Nuclear S&fety. This subcommittee.wae'.taaked with the responsibility to assign projects to specific prioritization categories as part of

'-]q

~

.r the ILSP..la addition..duringitbe development' of Fiscal Year 1984 7..

budgets, the subcouaitteelhas also beenlassigne ' the responsibility

. )].l to validate the planalag information,associatei with all projects

'M incorporated into thejl&SF#%;Mdg/W - c.m; Vf JO 3 99.iWOMf$24M!kkM b.,14J V

h 2.

A guidance assorandua' addressing;the'*Istegrated Living Schedule Program - Project Prioritisation: Actihties" was finalized and M.

~

isoned. This memorandums iri1Fand has'.siready been used by the d !-

~

Frioritization M ea==4tteaftalaccomp11.hio. its responsibilities.

'3

~

The~smidance offered by.the DENSC addresses the following prioritiza-ties factors:1.Ma)!sde nefT' i*.(b)isesslatorysignificance;(c)

  1. M]

plant _ reliability /availabilityg d)* practicality /econcales; ~(e)

'M,

.g.d personnel safetyc @M 4 @,T

%.sY hR g% 3:av N S Ma. %-M !s ;

~

'"~

2 - p w

4

,, e 2.,c t, N

~9.

y :::+

.z-

- 3(f4; -

.A guidance (',. e.a..e m.< 4,ymemoranden addres.,w n mstag tho' " Integrated 3

3.

t f

a Program - Seemario Development" ess;finalised and issued.. This

' amenoraades identifies the semeral' planning'_ constraints and evalua-

- #2ld 1

^;,yt$ans'thselshould'bi' performed'liaTdevelopingtheoverallProject/2 3'd schedule ~scenarieTforithe1LgP..The memorandum also discusses the Nt

.pim==ing review ~. add analyses that umst be prepared and presented to "c1 the DalsC sham "neum modified ta:the ILSP; projects are added to, or existing projects are M ':Bb9

-/

i

.:R %. W Q.Q M flw p W U ;., A' r j

i 4.

The Fiscal Year'1984.sedget development process (capital and operac-ing & maintenance' projects)' was commenced. As stated previously the y

l budgets are beias established with full cognizance and utilization of

~

the ILS? concepts.

~

i s.-

i In addition to the DSWSC activities identified above, we have also accom-

]

plished the following pertinent activities:

(

1.

Finalization and issuance of specific projects related procedures that address the following activities within the context of the ILSP; l

issuance of work authorizations; development of planning worksheet l

' Lkenne No. NPF-3 Serial No. 9o4 Page 3 4

f

\\

i inputs that are necessary for both prioritization and ItsP scenarie development activities; preparation of detailed project implementa-tion schedules; and modifications to the approved capital budget.

l

.I" 2.

The Research and Development Division in cooperation with Nuclear 1

Services. Nuclear Safety, and Davis-Besse Station has initiated a

, 7J j]y program to impreve our internal capabilities (tools, information.

expertise) for assesoing the safety related priorities for proposed capital and operating.4 maintenance projects at Davis-Besse. This T.A program wtll involve the use of existing PRA' analyses, coupled with

,4 available Davis-Besse specific PRA,related~information to improve our fj basis for assigning safety related prioritiess In' addition, we have Q

m retained a highly qualified consulting organisation experienced in W

developing and utilizing FRA's to work jointly with Toledo Edison personnel in order to help us' implement lthis program and to train

QyW)

Toledo Edison personnel in PRA related techniques and uses.

M a

7 Asevidentfromtheprecedingkiscdssica;swohavemadesignificantpro-

1. ae.l.

gress in developing and internalizing our ILSP. ' When we initiated our L

ILSP activities late last year, we were only considering safety and

.Eyi regulatory factors in our prioritization process? This year we have 3

4 expanded the prioritization' effort to include plant perforrance charac-p teristics personnel safety cosiside'rationsraad practicality / economic

~

factors. This prioritiaation~ effort.~of'necissity, is'still primarily 9@9

'J using qualitative based criteria (.However, sk have formally internalized the process within which the'prioritisation ' activity occurs and we have

%;c specified a common set of critaria for each prioritization factor being

.,ie considered.

In addition.;as indacated. e are working;towards an improved y

w and more quantitative approach'to ' assessing safety related priorities. We

~

M expect results from this effort will be available for use as' a " technical

,, Q9pi validation" of the safety",related priorities',that will be assigned to the 6,ep Fiscal Year 1984 budgeted projects based.upon our current " critical safety I

e G

function" criteria.. CQ f, t.. j.; M M

e

W

, n '9:3

'X

^

Civen our current status, we have identified 'a schedula'for finalizing and l,g

,w submitting a draf t IL5P plan toithe NRC. The oubmission schedule recog-($;

nises.the fact that'our internal budget' development process and the t 7,' -

scheduled July outag' ;for Davis-Besce represent real and significant Jf*,1 s

events af factimig the' timing for~ sabeission of the Plan to the NRC. In

~ 31 addition, our experiencelf*o"date 'indicatea that.the nose productive

-W dialogue with the NRC cone'erning the~ ?lan would occur af ter we have

\\W completed implementing many of the ILSP concepts during the preparation of

~

the Fiscal Year 1984 recommended budget. In this regard, we have estab-11shed an internal schedule that results in the submission of a draft ILSP

. ~.

Plan to the WRC by September 1.198';. We expect the Plan will contain the

-W types of information indicated previously in our May 10. 1983 letter.

i Furthermore, we anticipate the Plan would be incorporated as a license amendment and would be treated from a regulatory perspective in a similar manner as our security plan.

I l

i...-

'\\

6 Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 964 Page 4 s

i Shortly af ter September 1,1983 we expect to have the Imple.nentation f

il Schedule for the Fiscal Year Budget ~1984 activities available for present-

,b acion to the NRC. While we definitely intend to have our ILSP include all

'j of our known activities (beyond e., threshold, level of expenditures), we y

have separated the overa1LILSPJisteitvo' parts'. The first part extends j

over.approximately a:2 year; time" period and is' called an " Implementation

,l Schad=1=".? The "Implementattee Schedula" represents all.af the activitier that have been incled.d is am 7spproved bidget'.T This~is tie portion of the j

overall ILSP that would be available in September.f The second part of the

)-

i.

f.

ILSP is designated the "Long Range Plan". The "Long Range Pisa" will be f

4 scheduled by activity task and :is expected to extend from approx 1=tsly

(

't Year 2 through Year 5.

We do not' expect to have the complete "Long Range

~j Plan" part of our ILSP available by September 1,1983.

L id %..

I 4

I trust the information presented in this letter has been useful and

}~

j informative. We will continue our efforts toward the development and

{

j implementation of the ILSP and will' keep our NRC-Project Manager informed

y of its status. Unless our schedule for submission of the draf t plan to l'

the NRC changes, we do not plan to formally submit additional status T'

information to you, prior to September 1,1983.

{.

?'

i,

e s

4 Very truly yours, f

=='

RPC:MSF:1rh ec: DB-1 NRC Resident Inspector l

i


+c.,y%w-

-m--i---

m w w--

-.s-gww-w

--w--.m--%

w--,,-.me-mie--y-w wwwgaw---,-w-g-www-www.-..