ML20138P043

Requests That NRC Consider Elements of QA Procedure Review Program as Passive (Ongoing) Rather than Active (Specific Completion Date) for Reasons Discussed.Written Concurrence Requested

ML20138P043
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	12/11/1985
From:	Singleton L PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO
To:	Johnson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
P-85466, NUDOCS 8512240263
Download: ML20138P043 (3)

Text

7 ' '

T r .

Public Service- Off o-.

Company of Colorado

'16805 WCR 19 1/2, Platteville, Colorado 80651 December 11, 1985 Fort St. Vrain' Unit No. 1 P-85466 Regional Administrator Region IV M@MDW3 ~ ~

~~R U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 h Arlington, TX 76011 DEC l 61985

(

ATTN: Mr. E. H. Johnson - -

Docket No. 50-267 ,

SUBJECT:

QA Procedure Review Program

REFERENCES:

1) PSC Letter, Gahm to Collins, dated May 1, 1984 (P-84127)

2) NRC Letter, Denton to Walker, dated October 16, 1984 (G-84392)

3) PSC Letter, Lee to NRC Regional Administrator, dated January 4, 1985 (P-85003)

4) NRC Letter, Martin to Lee, dated January 17, 1985 (G-85024)

5) PSC Letter, Singleton to Johnson, dated January 29, 1985 (P-85028)

6) NRC Letter, Butcher to Lee, dated

,.. November 19, 1985 (G-85470)

Dear Mr. Johnson:

The purpose of this letter is to request that the NRC staff consider the elements of the QA Procedure Review Program..as passive rather than active commitments.

8512240263 851211 i PDR ADOCK 05000267 ,

hp//@

P PDR ,

_ mm , ,.

mm , -

.# ~

]# * ~

r- 1+

/*%f) jkMQf% 'g4 , ?

^'

gy - = -

l$9 yy , , g; "

Vi  :

.+;

h-@ $I g <

f':. L .

y ' ,

, . ~ ~ - < x -

M , -

& ' N, m s .

M, 1Twol:PublicGServichC5mpanyJcommitmentstotheNRC:areinvolvedin-C N~ , J _ithistprogram(f0neMisato(establish; procedures for ' reviewand. ,

concurrenceO by fQA of safety-r. elated procedures and changes therets

, vi ; > }

jTheiotherjisito! implement (aQA':reviewofthecontentandadequacy of' .

g ,

w y , W W Technical,$pecification Procedures' m x , ,

93 - . . _ ,

-

• 47~ '

71QJan'uary,i1985,iPublic'ServiceCompanyLsubmittedairesponse:tothe T NRC whichiclarifled the; phased implementation of fthei QA< Procedure.

~ mw

- w g Review; Program.

w k[ 'y ,

[ [:The Nesponse, which was'submi[teiin Refere'nce 5), P-85028, provided:-

w,m.

2

.,TbackgrouridGinf0rmat'fo'nassociatedwiththefprogram,andprovided1 7- *

ja' basis)fromfwhich'theprogramwasderived.

e < -

. . . _ . . = .

H

• 1 thetj implementation_1 status.. of-T,  ? the: program, :and included:

imethodolo'gy used to integrate:the two commitments.

, , r

~ g .

'c . 4 f ' ja2 thejtimetable' ant'icipated=for;completionofftheprocedure. review- 'd 16 -

v process.

- , jw. MA M en time, [it wasianticipated that'QA'would complete a review of.

o s - ' - Tall. procedures--atlleast'onectime--by' July 1,-1986. ;In: addition, :it ~ .

g ~ V '

, M as:'anticipatedF that' QA. would. complete;a review *of:the Technical H,'- iSpecification : Surveillance Requirement (SR): ' Requirements, . ; excluding?

ef "

^

. the MEnvironmental; iSurve111ance - Requirements M (ESR's) by .Jan'uary :1,= .

m -

i1986.

- . ~

v'2':V i [ToisE[1Atter; process; . was- .to ; tiegin . in conjunction withi;the-- '

implementation' phase'of the SRiTest Program which~1s'a1: parte offthe

' Fort 15t.:Vrain Technical, Specification , Upgrade Program.

m y:

n .

+ LAsf a? result of: the' proposed schedule for' completion:of this Upgraded Program'as contained'in: Reference?6)/G-85470, the' Quality Assurance: '

[Operationsq Department ,has- reassessed-5the-viability of anticipated y y, .

.m '

?completionfdates'~of11ts two ~ commitments ~~to'Jthe Procedure- Review-

?>

N ' Program.L '

h (AL majorf consideration in that reassessment was-the motivation to be

. ~ i >

, . responsive to:the intent.of'the JNRC. staff findings -that prompted J y ' establishment <'of.<the Review Program. .Another consideration 7was the

"" . - y recogni_ tion <thatiany; delays.in beginning the SR Test _ Procedure review m" , ,'* process would be. undesirable. This consideration-is reflected in the '

jfactthat1the';-.QA10perations-Department began reviewing SR Test' y ,, .

v - . , Procedures - for, content and adequacy in July,1985.

• I FdrthermoreL approxima'telyll250 safety-related procedures,-and.75LSR:

J f .

l Test Procedures-have.been reviewed to date as part'of the continuing.

e <

fprocess;,which constitutes the QA Procedure Review Program as defined

iin Reference (5), P-85028 and the attachments thereto.

. ~

w k b-

. '\ <

c y

}n

...S' 2A f I3-

'1 e + ,.-

7 9

f,4f

n i.

. For~ the:' reasons' Cstated ~above we believe that a transition of the Review? Program commitments: 'from an- active (specific 7 date .for:

. completion) to a passive.(on, going): status'is justified,'and request

, your written concurrence 'with:this proposal.

~

If. ' youl have' Lany' L further. q'uestions inithis matter, please contact-

~

.Mr..M.;H.-Holmes at (303) 480-6960.

3' ,

.Very truly.yours,.

4

, ;L.- W. Singlet

. Manager, Quality Assurance Division

% Fort St. Vrain Nuclear 4

Generating Station thS/MJFkac

e

-li

' :q; I

k

+W i.#

, .' s a * +

..