ML20141C966

Trip Rept of 851009-10,15-17 & 28-31 Site Visits Re Methodology Used by Applicant/Contractor in Establishing Equipment Populations & Equipment/Work Processes Homogeneity

ML20141C966
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/18/1985
From:	Tomlinson E NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:	Calvo J NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
References
NUDOCS 8601060428
Download: ML20141C966 (3)

Text

Ve dignohed of\fmaA 6

p reg o UNITED STATES g

, g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L "E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20t,55

,/

k .. ..

IEC I 8 585 MEMORANDUM FOR: J.A. Calvo, Manager Systems / Operational Group Comanche Peak Project FROM: E.B. Tomlinson, Leader Review Support Group Systems / Operational Group Comanche Peak Project

SUBJECT:

TRIP REPORT - COMANCHE PEAK SITE VISITS

Reference:

1. Site Visit - October 9-10, 1985

2. Site Visit - October 15-17, 1985

3. Site Visit - October 28-31, 1985 References 1, 2, and 3, were all conducted for the purpose of establishing

, level of confidence in the methodology used by the Applicant / Contractor in establishing the equipment populations and equipment / work processes homogeneity. These populations and work processes form the base of the CPRT Construction Adequacy SELF-INITIATED Program.

Reference 1. was conducted in order to resolve questions regarding equipment population homogeneity base on work processes which were raised at the October 2-3, 1985 public meeting in Granbury, Texas. During this site visit the following observations were made:

a) Homogeneity is established at the work process level and not at the population level. The population boundaries; i.e., electrical cables, were established on a much broader base for the purpose of determining sample size and to facilitate random sample selection.

b) The basis for establishing work processes and work attributes is design and construction documentation, i.e., specifications, drawings, vendor requirements, ir.dustry codes and standards, etc.

c) The data reviewed during this site visit was not sufficiently complete to allow the staff / consultants to follow (audit) the evolution of populations, work processes, attributes, check lists, and quality instructions in order to evaluate their adequacy. It was agreed that the capability to audit; i.e., auditable trail was essential if this portion of the CPRT Program Plan was to be approved.

d) The Applicant / Consultants committed to provide complete documentation packages for selected populations for review by the CPP staff / consultants during the week of 10/28/85.

Oh 26on=#o%22 >of pg, ,9 1

Reference 2. was for the purpose of ensuring that the documentation packages discussed during the previous visit (Ref. 1) were being prepared and would be -

available for staff review within the established time-frame. No specific observations were made during this visit.

As stated previously, Ref. 3 was conducted for the purpose of reviewing the documentation packages for specific populations. The following are the findings / observations resulting from this review:

e) There is in auditable documentation trail for the populations reviewed.

f) The documentation contains the rationale and/or basis for selecting populations and for developing work processes, attributes, checklists, and acceptance / rejection criteria.

g) The methodology associated with the Construction Adequacy SELF-INITIATED Program appears to be sound.

h) A more detailed review will be rco,uired before the CPP Staff / Consultants can draw any c?nclusions.

No conclusions were drawn or discussed during any of the above site visits. A detailed report covering References 1-3 is in preparation and will be submitted for inclusion in the November 1985 Region IV Inspection Report.

Y' E.B. Tomlinson, Leader u

Review Support Group Systems / Operational Group Comanche Peak Project cc: V. Noonan C. Tramell A. Vietti-Cook L. Shao T. Westerman E. Marinos E. Tomlinson t

l