ML20195G273

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards List of Recommended Actions,Persons W/Lead Responsibility & Date Originally Estimated for Completion. Monthly Progress Rept on Items Will Be Submitted
ML20195G273
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 12/11/1987
From: Warnick R
NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:
NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
Shared Package
ML20195G199 List:
References
FOIA-88-322 NUDOCS 8811230328
Download: ML20195G273 (31)
v • d • e


Text

  • UNITED STATES

/ 'o,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

!" c W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 f . ,i DEC I l 198T

%.,...../

MEMORANDUM FOR: NRC Site Staff FROM: R. F. Warnick for Inspection Programs Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects

SUBJECT:

CPRRG Recommendations (Arlotto Report)

The estimated completion dates established by OSP management for performing the recommendnd follow-up actions are fast approaching.

The Enclosure to this memo lists the recommended actions, the person with the lead responsibility, and the date v.iginally estimated for completion. We have been asked to keep headquarters aware of our progress in completing the recommended actions; therefore, starting in January we .ill be submitting a monthly progress report on these items.

I solicit your help in getting these closed on schedule and in providing an explanation for the scheduled datos that we miss.

W0)U R. F. Warnick, Assistant Director for Inspection Programs Comancho Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects

Enclosure:

Assignments for Follow-up on CPRRG Recommendations for Comancho Peak cc w/cnclosure:

C. I. Grimos P. F. McKeo J. E. Lyons C. C. Williams 1

80j123g3go001100 CONDIT00-322 PDR h

\

Enclosure Assignments for Follow-up on CPRRG Recommendations for Comanche Peak ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION QA ISSUES COMPLETION DATE ID# LEAD INSPECTOR ACTION 23 Williams Verify that an adequate December 1987 quality control procedure exists for QA inspectors to witness the transfer of marking for material that would otherwise lose its i traceability when cut into smaller sections. .

24 Hale Review NEO procedures for December 1987 adequacy of records system.

25 Hale Review NEO procedures for December 1987 i adequacy of ANSI N45.2.9 requirements. ,

26 Hale Review NEO procedures for December 1987 L adequacy of records ship-monts to contractors.

27 Hale Review NEO procedures for December 1987 adequacy of records ship-ping containers.

1 28 Hale Review NEO proceduren for December 1987 adequacy of backup records.

29 Hale Review NEO proceduros for December 1987 adequacy of records ship-

monts accounting. j 30 Halo Roview NEO procedures for December 1987 '

adequacy of records ship- t monts to contractors.

31 Hale Review NEO procedures for December 1987 adequacy of backup records.

1 1 ,

I i

i

2 CONSTRUCTION CA ISSUES COMPLETION DATE ID1 LEAD INSPECTOR ACTION 32 Hale Review NEO procedures for Deceraber 1987 adequacy of records ship-ment accounting.

33 Hale Review NEO procedures for Cecember 1987 adequacy of records storage. 7 34 Hale Review NEO procedures for December 1987 adequacy of records filing.

L 47 Hale Monitor applicants' re- December 1987  ;

sponse to staff concerns raised in SCER 11 regard-ing their audit program, particularily with respect i to RPV surveillance. l 59 Kelley Review Operations Traveler December 1987 '

criteria, control and effectiveness.

63 Williams Verify adequate material December 1987

' identification and trace-ability program for earlier '

work or review procurement and control program for the bulk piping stock at CPSES.

66 Kelley Determine if the Regula- December 1987 tory Guide 1.97 QA commit-monts have been properly j implemented at CPSES.

i

< 67 Kelley Review the adequacy of December 1987 I the licensee's program to i update permanent installa- l' tion documentation when i

components are changed or t replaced.

69 McKee Emphasize safety signifi- December 1987 cance in all pertinent aspects of the licensee's  !

QA Program.

3 ESTIMATED -

CDR AND 50.55(e) REPORTING COMPLETION DATE ID# LEAD INSPECTOR ACTION i 35 Hale Audit the CDR program to January 1988 verify its adequacy. ,.

(Applicant should revise  ;

Procedure NEO CS-1.)  !

36 Hale Resolve conflicting TUEC January 1988 [

4 procedures for 50.55e re-  ;

porting. -

37 Hale Evaluation condition of January 1988 TUEC 50.55e files.  ;

i 38 Hale Evaluate TUEC for report- January 1988 ing 50.55a corrective actions.

39 Hale Evaluation condition of January 1988 TUEC 50.55e files.

I ESTIMATED I d

DISPOSITION OF NRC BULLETINS COMPLETION DATE

! t l I 40 Lyons Provido applicant with June 1988 clear and concise written evaluation of actions taken '

to date and specify addi- ,

tional actions required to  ;

close IEB 79-14. l 4

41 Wiebe Evaluato TUEC program for June 1988 I i NRC Bulletin handling. i i

42 Wiebo Evaluate TUEC proceduros June 1988 L 4

and process for NRC Bulle- [

tins. t

'i I 43 *ilobo Evaluate TUEC tracking June 1988 f and assignment for NRC  !

Bulletins.  !

44 Lyons Evaluate TUEC resolution June 1988 of IEB 79-14.

l 72 Lyons Inspect TUEC resolution Juno 1988 l of IEB 79-14.  :

[

4 ESTIMATED COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCT"O_N INSPECTION COMPLETION DATE ID6 LEAD INSPECTOR ACTION 52 Livermore Inspections included in May 1988 the 1986 inspection pro-gram, but not completed at Unit 1, should be reviewed, and those determined to be necessary to confirm plant quality, should be cecomp-lished.

73 Livormore Inspections included in May 1988 the 1986 inspection pro-gram, but not completed at Unit 1, should be reviewed, and t. hose determined to be necessary to confirm plant quality, should be accomp-lished. <

UNIT 2 RPV INSTALLATION 20 Lyons Perform a detailed review January 1989 of Westinghouse's engin-coring evaluation regarding '

translation of design cri- ,

teria into installation specifications, procedures, l and drawings and failure to '

control deviations regarding Unit 2.  !

21 Wiebo/ Williams Perform a visual inspec- January 1989 tion of the accessible l 2 reactor vessel surroundings  !

during or after hot func-

tional test.

, 22 Lyons Perform a dotalled review January 1989 of Westinghouse's engineer-ing evaluation of the fail- ,

ure to maintain tolerance for RV support brackets and shoes.

i e

- 5 IDI LEAD INSPECTOR ACTION 46 Livermore Evaluate traveler and NCR January 1989 procedures with respect to the Unit 2 RV support brack-ets and shoes.

60 Livermore verify the adequacy of January 1989 Level I QC inspection of RPV installation.

61 Livermore Review the completeness of January 1989 QC coverage and technical  :

acceptability of the actual  !-

inspection criteria for the installation of all the ,

major NSSS components.

SPOOL PIECE COMPONENTS 51 Williams If spool CVCS spool piece March 1988 was not marked at the time of inspection, then addi- i tional review would be warranted. Resolve uncer-tainty associated with when the spool piece was marked.

62 Williams Inspect other field- March 1988 fabrication spool pieces.

NAMCO SWITHCES (IEB 79-28) r 49 Wagner Notify TUEC of recommended February 1988 1 actions and monitor resolu-tion in EQ CAP.

CONCRETE RECORDS 48 Lyons/Runyon Review statistical data December 1987  ;

regarding uniformity of l concrete and review larger  !

sample of concrete compres-sion tests.  ;

r

.s 0 .*

MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations -

fg' p

u FRON: James G. Keppler, Director Office of Special Projects h o E

SUBJECT:

CPRRG REC 0lHEN0ATIONS E

. [) 0

-e In response to the Chairman's May 12, 1987 memorandum, we have reviewed all of g your Category I recomendations and related aspects of the Coman6he Peak Reporc 3 d5, Review Group (CPRRG) recomendations. Based on that review, we have identified recommt oc4c tloni u3hich ujoccont c.crtcun cct ont cs prT of ou r J 45 spec 6fMessusMcMcan be generalized as 20 technical review assignments, 20 inspection assignments, and five project management assignments. While some reccmmendecno of these acatow are discrete and straightforward, others apply broadly to the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) and related activities. In addition, we have reviewed the CPRRG report, as required by item 2 of the Chairman's memorandum, reccmme ridas.chs and conclude that there are no additional utdod or lessons-learned beyond3 those identified in your April 14, 1987 memorandumy However, we will continually CP2VG refe: to the report to ensure that the intent of the recomendations is being fulfilled and to reflect on this question, w mecont on 01her cctEcel .

The Comanche Peak Project Division (CPPD), in a letter dated May 12, 1987, has requested substantial clarifications of the TU Electric programs in conjunction with Revision 4 to the CPRT Plan. This information will be used to augment the  ;

staff's project review schedule which is currently based on the projected fuel load in July 1988.

Many of the assignments evolving from the CPRRG reconnendaticns are closely related to the/ review and inspection activities being developed by CPPD, We believe it would be impractical and inefficient to attempt to resolve the CPRRG recommendations separate from these other activities. Rather, we intend to incorporate the CPRRG reconnendations into the related project activities.

The ttcdot of coch of thc.sc. ecce rn en e ndaficos du. be track.e el an6ceper.t. thty--rewhttheparatetyin-+-Supplemetrt4L.S+fety_.Iv4Mt(w t.coccof eN cnct th eir ect.ot ud ion ec por t ccl sepccaf Jieport{ prior to licensing.

James G. Keppler. Director Office of Special Projects CC: d. ylor T. Murley W. Mcdonald -

R. Martin -

C. Grimes DISTRIBUTION:

DocketFile(50-445/446)

MRC-PDRH tocat-PORN OSPRedding(87-51))

CPPDReading(87-51 JAAxelrad 8Tompkins(87-51) 1 r

I I

I i

CPRRG RECOMENDATIONS

[. Comanche Peak Actions

  • ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES ID RECOMENDATION 02 Reinspection of OSP pg 3-8 hardware and design during current Comanche Peak re-review. (Explicit recomendations in ref e rene cc4 sequence numbers 22 through 50.)

18 Clarify agency pg 5-1, pg 3-25 i OSP @ recomenda guidence: Clear lines of responsibility tion #2 between the Comanche Leak augmented inspection program and i

the established licensing, and

  • inspection and enforcement processes -

were not established '

or maintained in implementing the inspect, program

& 20 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1, App A Table action. Perform a recomenda L, IR 85-07/C detailed review of tion #1 Item 1 (1)

Westinghouse's engineering evaluation regarding translation of design criteria into installation specifications, procedures and drawings and failure to control deviations regarding Unit 2.

&, h Confirmatory NRC OSP 1 pg 5-1 App A, Table actions: Perform a recomenda 1. IR visual inspection of tion #1 85-07/05,Ite the accessible reactor 1 (2),AppA vessel surroundings pg3-3 during or after hot functional test.

i t

}

CPRRG RECOMENDATIONS Comanche Peak Actions

. ID RECOMMENDATION ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES 4 22 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1, App A, Table action: Perform a recomenda 1, IR detailed review of tion #1 85-07/05, Item Westinghouse's 2. App A pg engintering 3-3 evaluation. Failure to maintain tolerance required and failure to report tolerance deviations on an NCR with regard to Unit 2 RV support brackets and shoes.

5 @ Confirmatory NRC OSP I pg 5-1, App A, Table action: Verify that an recomenda 1. IR adequate quality tion #1 85-07/05, Iter control procedure 4 exists for QA App A pg 3-12 inspectors to witness ,

the transfer of marking for material that would otherwise lose its traceability when cut into smaller sections.

G 24 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1 App A, Table action: Issue: FSAR recomenda 1, IR 17.1.17 does not tion #1 85-14/11, Item describe TU Electric 1 (1),AppA records system. p3-22 Action: Review the revised NE0 procedures upon their complet!on and verify the implementation. Verify adequacy of applicants indu dc M ~6 4 corrective action.

'l 25 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1 App A, Table action: Issue:QA recomenda 1, IR manual does not tion #1 85-14/11 Item address ANS! N45.2.9 3 requirements /comitmen ts. Action: See actions Sequence Number above.

CPRRG RECOMENDATIONS Comanche Peak Actions

,c . ID RECOMENDATION ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES .

,;p V' 4. 26 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1, App A, Table Action: Issue: TU recomenda 1, IR Electric failed to tion #1 85-14/11 Item have/use procedures to 3 control shipment of i design records for piping to Stone and Webster, NY. Action See Sequence Number tc{ce enced above.

4: 27 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1, App A, TrM e recomenda 1, IR action: Issue:

Original design tion #1 85-14/11,Iterr records shipped in 4 cardboard boxes to Stone and Webster.

  • Action: Jee Sequence NumberGj2bove. (cl c r e neccl .

to 28 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1, App A, Table action: No backup copy recomenda 1. IR of records made for tion #1 85-14/11, Item records shipped to 5 Stone and 'lebster.

Action: e Sequence Number above. rcier e nccd e 29 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg S-1 App A, Table action: Issue: Failure recomenda 1, IR to control and account tion #1 85-14/11, Item for QA design records 6 transfer.ed from site I to Stone and Webster, NY. TV Electric stated.... Action See Sequence Number 4 cc4ccenced above.

n. 30 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1, App A, Tabis action: Issue: Site recomenda 1, IR records containment tion #1 85-14/11, Item liner and mechanical 7 penetration of Chicago Bridge and Iron shipped to Houston, Texas, in cardboard ,

L box s. Action: Set Segunce Number (4) tcd crented abovs.  !

. . _ - , - - - - _ _ __, . . . ~ ,

CFRRG REC 0t91ENDATIONS Comanche Peak Actions

, 10 RECOMMENDATION ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES 11 31 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1, App A Table action: Issue: No recomenda 1. IR backup copy of records tion #1 85-14/11, Jtem made for records 8 shipped to Chicago Bridge and Iron.

Action: e Sequence tomber above. tclercnecd la 32 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1 App A. Table action: Issue: TU recomenda 1 IR Electric failed to tion #1 85-14/11, Item inventory records sent 9 to Chicago Bridge and Iron. Action: Se I Sequence Nu.b:r 4 e c4 e renced above.

IS 33 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1, App A, Table action: Issue: Plant reco tion,menda 1,. IR records stand in ,

  1. 1 85-14/11, Item folders or open 14 binders in open face cabinets at records i

center. Action:

4 Sequence Number 24 cc4cccoced above.

l (., 34 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1, App A Table action: Issue: Failure recomenda 1 IR to provide temporary tion #1 85-14/11, Item a

or permanent storage 15 facility for records App 8 pg 101 ,

ontered into the '

permancat records center then co-mingled ,

with in-process documents in paper l flow group. Action See Sequence Number ec4ccenced above.

("I h Confirmatory NRC OSP I pg 5-1, App A, Table  ;

action. Issue: recomenda 1 IR Failure to tion #1 85-16/13. Item i develop / implement 1. App Ap procedure to 3-28/9 demonstrate 50.55(e) ,

deficiencies 1 corrected. Action: .

Audit the CDR program i to verify its ,

adequacy. (App 1tcant i should revise -

mclucle %- %~

Procedure NEO CS-1.) , ,

CPRRG RECOMENDATIONS Comanche Peak Actions

. 10 RECOMENDATION ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES -

A h Confirmatory NRC OSP I pg 5-1 App. A Table action. Issue: TU recommenda 1. IR Electric failed to tion #1 85-16/13, Iten revise implementing 2.

procedures containing 50.55(e) reporting before cerporate NEO ,

Procedure CS-1 was implemented resulting in a conflict with 5 ,

other procedures. i Acti  : See Sequence No. above. KNC 13 h Confirmatory NRC OSP I pg 5-1, App A, Table action. Issue: recomenda 1 IR Failure to maintain tion #1 85-16/13, Item retrievable 50.55(e) < 3.

files (i.e., could not produce record in -

almost a month). .

Action: ee Sequence Number above, t c{er enccc4

@ h Confirmatory NRC OSP I pg 5-1 App. A. Table ,

action. Issue: recomenda 1 IR Failure to report to tion #1 85-16/13, Item NRC actual corrective 4.

action taken on 50.55(e)s. Action:

SeeSequenceNumberh referenced above.

01 39 Confirmatory NRC OSP 1 pg 5-1, App. A Table  !

action. Issue: TU recomenda 1 IR 4

Electric's 50.55(e) tion #1 85-16/13, Item i files not auditable. 5. '

Action: ee Sequence Number above. (cA cc enc ed M 40 Additional NRC action. OSP pm pg 5-1, App. A, Table issue: TU Electric recomenda 1. IR never responded to all tion #1 85-16/13, item aspects of IEB 79-14. 6 4 p. 3-33.

Action: Provide applicant with clear 4 l

concise written evaluation of actions taken to date &

i specify additional actions required to -

close the issue of IEB 79-14.

, - - - _ _ _ , - - - _ _ - _ _ . _ - . , . . - . - - - - - . _,- , _ , , , - _ . , , , . _ . - - , _ . - - - _ . - _ . - _ _ _ - - - - . - - - - - + + - - -

f CPRRG RECOMMENDATIONS

,, Comanche Peak Actions

. 10 RECOMMENDATION ORCAN ZATIONS REFERENCES ,

B1 h Confirmatory NRC OSP I pg 5-1, App. A, Table action. Issue: TU recomenda 1. IR Electric's IEB record tion #1 85-16/13, Item files were incomplete 7 4 p.

(1982 & 1985). 3-36,37.

Action: Evaluate effectiveness of applicants' program through an audit.

(Assure that all Sulletins were received, processed, &

corrective actions gd 4 - 44 initiated...

tit @ Confirmatory NRC OSP 1 pg.5-1, 5p. A, Table action. Issue: >

recomenda 1. IR Deficiency in TU tion #1 85-16/13,Jtem procedures to handle 9'8 p. 3-36.

IE8s. They do not -

describs how construction management persor.nel Sandle IEBs requiring action, especially hardware repair, replacemen' 4 modification. AcMon:

See Sequence No(J4 . (c4 cr en el gc, h Confirmatory F C OSP I pg 5-1, App. A, Table action. Issue: No recomenda 1. IR focal point in TU tion #1 85-16/13, Item Electric to track IEB 10.

items. Action: Joe SequenceNumberd4 above.

tdreenc.cd Ok h Confirmatory NRC OSP 1 pg 5-1, A.np. A, Table action. Issue: TU recomenda 1. IR Electric's internal tion #1 85-16/13, letter stated that TU Item 11.

Electric would not identify nonconformances on IE8 79-14 to NRC. Action SeeSequenceNumberO4 pC4 c , tgegc4 above.

CPRRG REC 0tHENDATI: -

.. Comanche Peak Actionc

. ID RECOMMENDATION CRGANIZATIONS REFERENCES -

61 (h)ConfirmatoryNRC OSP 1 pg 5-1, action. ' Issue: App. A, Table Insufficient evidence recommenda 1. IR of successful testing tion #1 85-16/13, Item 12 of BISCO fire seals -

filing of false reports by BISCO, validity of BISCO seal questioned. Action:

Verify :dequacy of new seal installation.

01 46 Confirmatory NRC OSP 7' pg 5-1 App. A Table action. Issue: recommenda 2, IR Failure to maintain tion #1 85-07/05, Item tolerance and to 24 App 1 ;g report tolerance 3 deviations on an NCR .

re Unit 2 kV support t brackets and shoes. .

Action: Examine ,

traveler and NCR ,

procedures, confirm changes are in plant-specif. design +

i maintained...

09 47 Confirmatory NRC OSP 'I pg 5-1, App. A, Table action. Issue: recommenda 2, IR '

Failure to perform tion #1 85-07/05, item  :

audits of 3  !

surveillances of ,

reactor pressure vessel specs, procedures &

installation. Action:

Monitor applicants' response to staff concerns raised in t SSER 11 regarding .

their audit program, t 9bo 48 i ifirmatory NRC OSp T pg 5-1, App. A, Table

, k.tions. Issue: No recommenda 2, IR objectiveevidence tion #1 85-07/05, Item i (records) that mixing 6. App A p  !

blades had been 3-l' inspected quarterly  !

si. ice 1977. Action:

Review statistical l data re uniformity of r concrete and review larger sample of e.oncrete compression tests.

CPRRG RECOMMENDATIONS

,' Comanche Peak Actions r . 10 REC 0t94ENDAT!0N ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES

~

i 49 Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1, App A Table 2, action. Issue
NAMCO recommenda 1A switches IE8 79-28 tion #1 85-16/13, Item were not properly 8.p3-41,42: pg identified on 3-8 installation travelers. Action:

Monitor applicants' EQ CAP. Note (3)

Applicant actions. list ij h Confirmatory NRC OSP T pg 5-1, App A Table action: Issue: recomenda 1, IR Insufficient evidence tion #1 85-16/13, Item of successful testing 12 8 pg 3-46  :

of 815C0 fire seals, c filing of a false report by

  • BISCO --validity. '

Action: Aoinspect seals and certification documentation.

O h if spool CVCS spool OSP I pg 5-1, pg 3-10. App B piece was not marked recomenda pg 15 at the time of tion #2 inspection, then additional review would be warrented.

Resolve uncertainty associated with when i the spool piece was  ;

marked. i M 52 Inspections included OSP 9(C App C, in the 1986 inspection Table 1, i program , but not pp.10-12 t comple,ted at Unit 1, 7 should be reviewed, ,

and those determined  !

to be necessary to  ;

confirm plant quality, '

should be  !

accomplished.  !

i 1

CPRRG REC 0m ENDATIONS Comanche Peak Actions

. ID REC 0K4ENDATION ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES -

15 53 The status of the OSP Pm pg 5-1, pg 3-27/28, inspection programs recomenda App C pg 4 for Unit 2 should be tion #3 monitored with respect to all NRC inspection activities to assure that inspections keep r pace with construction and "windows of opportunity" are not lost. *

% h Further review of OSP I App B pg Operations Traveler 15 criteria, control and effectiveness is ,

warrented if it has '

not been done as s part of inspection -

activities completed -

to date.

V @ A need to verify the OSP I App B pg adequacy of Level I QC 15 inspection of RPV installation may exist.

B 61 Further NRC review of OSP T App B pg the coup 1.tness of QC 15 coverage and technical acceptability of the actual inspection criteria for the  :

installation of all the major NS$$

components is possibly warranted.

36 h Inspection of other OSP I App 8 pg '

installed 15 field-fabricated spool pieces should be considered.  ;

CPRRG RECOMMENDATIONS Comanche Peak Actions 10 RECOMMENDATIM ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES .

k h Verify adequate OSP I App 8 pg material 15 identification and traceability program for earlier work er review procurement and control program for the bulk piping stock at CPSES with further inspection directed to the checks and balances precluding install, wrong material 4\ 66 Determine if the CSP T App 8 pg Regulatory Guide 1.97 16 QA commitments have . ,

been properly ,

implemented st the CPSES and whether Region IV has monitored such implementation, b2. h The adequacy of the OSP I App 8 pg  ;

licensee's program to 16 update permanent i.

installation documentation when components are changed should or replar.ed should be reviewed, if i not already evaluated in inspections to l date.

G '

The need to evalu?te OSP T App 8 pg safety significance 17 Rec. #

and all pertinent 1.7.9 aspects of the i licensee's QA Program l may need to be emphasized. ,

l l

l

CPRRG RECOM4ENDATIONS Comanche Peak Actions

, 10 RECOMMENDATION ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES .

44-(ff) Additional inspection OSP I App B pg by NRC is required to 4.6-6 review engineering Items 28/33 s to close IES 45 73 Region IV selectively OSP Pt'Y) App C pg 3 review records to see if specific inspection .

gaps were caused by non-performance. If so, Task group recommends "the Region" (sic) take appropriate action to close those gaps where there remains a clear ,-

benefit to... plant quality.

6 900 03 co 1E l l

i i

h F

I

CPRRG RECOMENDATIONS

c. General Programatic Actions ID RECOMENDATION ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES 04 AN!! N45.2.9 is silent NRR RES pg 3-13 app 8 pp on shipping records. A 75-77, pg 3-14 definitive and two places.

documented regulatory position does not exist on controls during transfer between organizations.

05 Clarify agen;y NRR ~ pg 5-1 pg 3-25, pg guidence: IE MC 9900 recomenda 3-18, App 8 pg guidence was tion 2 16, App 8 pg misinterpreted on 116 applicability of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8 criteria to to the requirements of 10 CFR /

50.55(e).

11 Clarify agency NRR NUSS OE pg B-1,' pg 3-24, pg guidence: recomenda 3-22 Philosophical tion #2 App 8 p 10 differences ... on two issues: first, to what extent should inspectors focus on "hardware" vs QA "records" second, to what extent should violations be developed prior to issuance.

64 The philosophical NRR NMSS App 8 pg pesition as stated by 16 Region IV (that although a procedure required blade inspections, it did not require documentation of such inspections) requires careful consideration.

, CPRRG REC 0tt4ENDAT10NS

.., General Programatic Actions ID REC 0fMENDATION ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES 65 Consideration should NRR NMSS RES App B pg be given to the TRT 16 position that "permanent" records removed from storage  ;

for use or revision revert to an "in-process" status, i which do not require application of the full ANSI N45.2.9 provisions.

75 NRC Headquarters NRR App C pg 9 sbauld improve its rigional assessment t function to require i nore frequent and timely in-depth .

evaluations of the -

regie's plant inspection performance '

and documentation practices.

57 Lack of formal OE NRR NMSS App 8 pp App B pg 17 discretionary guidence 6-11 Recomendation ,

provided to #1.7.8 supervisors and -

management when dealing with ,

non-escalated ,

enforcement. When does a non-compliance become a violation 7 Expand MC 0400 and -

0610 accordingly. Also see Sequence number 68.

68 Consideration should OE NRR NMSS App 8 pg be given to amplifying 17 Rec. #

MC 0400 and MC 0610 1.7.9 l regarding how to develop and document violations of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B Criteria. Also see i Sequence number 57.

l I

CPRRG RECOMENDATIONS

.. General Programatic Actions ID RECM94ENDATION ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES 07 No URC guidence exists OE NRR NMSS pg 3-23 on the time permitted a licensee to retrieve a document which is required to be retrievable.

12 Clarify agency CE NRR NMSS pg 5-1, pg 3-25 ,

guldence: Authority of recomenda inspectors and tion #2 supervisors to disposition violations involving isolated matters having minor -

, safety significance and for which the licensee takes /

i imediate, effective corrective action. .

14 Clarify agency OE NRR NMSS pg 5-1, pg 3-25 guidence: Ne recomenda definitive guidence tion #2 exists regarding the acceptability of multiple violations for the same underlying cause.

17 Clarify agency OE NRR pg 5-1, pg 3-25 guidence: The FSAR is recomenda part of the tion #2 application for an t operating license and '

enforcement submitted to NRR for review. The role of the FSAR in i the inspection process for facilities under construction is unclear (IE MC 9900).

i j

-- -,--..----.--,-.,----.,,-e- - , , , , , , - , , . - --- , - -- - - - _ , -- ,

--g--- - --. -

CPRRG RECOMMENDATIONS Data Management Impmvements

- ID RECOMMENDATION ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCES 54 Develop a more NRR OIRM pg 5-1, pp 3-28-32, comprehensive, unified recommenda App C pg 9, 766 System that meets tion #4 App D pg I-2 current agency needs, and pg VI!!

Consider the monitoring of site ,

e specific inspection programs, periodic regional monitoring of inspection program status, and He overview Possibly then do Sequ#s 76 and '

77.

l 76 Establish inspection NRR OIRM App D pg App D pg VIII I and enforcement data I-2 Rec. # Roc. #2 quality assurance . 2 policies and procedures as well as a training program to help assure a consistent, reliable, and timely agency data source. This could be accomplished after i Sequence number 54.

Consider collecting NRR OIRM App D pg App D pg VI!! ,

all inspection and I-2 Rec. # Rec #3 enforcement staff 3 resource data in RITS.

Evaluate the benefits of collecting ,

, inspection information l by SALP functional [

area rather by L inspection module. l This could be accomplished after L Sequence number 54.  !

l l

I

.knin ca v c u L on y o cu, Pagk No. I scarruso ON socctPrra=$vo*

04/02/87

~

CPRRG REPORT ACTION 0AGANIZATION AS$1GNMENTS SEQ # RECOMMEND LEAD ORG OTHRESPORG1 OTHRESPORG2 PRIMLOCAT SECLOCAT 01 NRC procedures and DEDO OE PC 3-3 guidence already exist but are not used effectively by the region. For example, information needed to support a violation -

and the differing professional opinion process.

03 Regional management DEDO pg 3-9 incorrectly ,

interpreted how design changes should be controlled ,.

06 Provide guidence about DE00 pg 3-23

  • the propriety or '

responsibility to accept new information from the licensee after the end of an inspection but prior to the issuance of the inspection report.

08 Regional Management DEDO pg 3-24 Implicit did not always throughout identify and document report the specific actions required to resolve  !

the items nor, in some cases, give direction to the party responsible to take ,

that action.

09 The development of DEDO pg 3-24 '

several inspection items was narrow and the associated disposition was tightly focused. A broad view was not I always tsken with t regard to safety significance, root cause, or programmatic implications.

Additional work (is) appropriate.

Page No. 2 04/02/87 CPRRG REPORT ACTION ORGANIZATION ASSIGNMENTS SEQ 3 REC 0 MEND LEAD ORG OTHRESPORG1 OTHRESPORG2 PRIMLOCAT SECLOCAT 10 Meetings by management DEDO pg 3 24 with the licensees to '

discuss or resolve items raised by the inspector, or other matters within his assigned areas of responsibility, without his presence, are not good practice and should be avoided if possible.

13 Clarify agency DE00 pg 5-1, pg 3-25 guidence: Reasonable recomenda individuals can differ tion #2 on the interpretations of .

highly complex and

  • to:Mical documents such as ASME Code, 10 -

CFR 50 App 8, and the '

associated ANSI standards.

15 Clarify agency 9EDO pg 5-1, pg 3-25 guidence: Inspection recomenda report changes after tion #2 signing by principle parties. Meaning of signing or concurring.

When issues should be elevated to higher management, forwarded i to headquarters for review, or resolved by a peer panel, h Clarify agency DEDO pg 5-1, pg 3-25 guldence: The use of recomenda open and unresolved tion #2 items was not always controlled such that the necessary actions, responsible party, and schedule were assigned to provide for I adequate, timely followup of the issues.

"Page'No. 3 04/02/87 CPRRG rep 0RT ACTION ORGANIZATION ASSIGNMENTS SEQ # RECDMMEND LEAD ORG OTHRESPORG1 OTHRESPORG2 PRIMLOCAT SECLOCAT 55 Alertness for DEDO App A, pg ,

employee /organizationa 1-3 1 goal mismatch and appropriate corrective actions, ensure manager training for these interactions, and ensure DP0s are processed within established procedures to prevent unnecessary escalation.

58 Management classified DEDO OE App 8 pg inappropriate 13 violations as -

unresolved in order to appease the '

inspector... This .

resulted in the '

issuance of an inspection report without clear definition of the action needed to disposition the unresolved items.

74 NRC Headquarters DEDO should provide App C pg 9 additional instructions to the regions requiring a closer, more frequent monitoring of the  !

status of completion of its inspection requirements.

6 5

C PRRG Raco m wevicW 49 r 1/Pr/8B M ' *5 Bldes .Topb - Odb <% </f Ge<ak N i) a 2hile7 phou a ll , & 'Tuk_ 6< p wu in O m) 67 He 4(I:ea,d -lh+ a u.dh,e& J vs,1a4,z,, .f we.,ek 4., -

.wsJA L. g, d e.A A 4L 4 L . App w.n4(r, -h ww nd M. clbi n ts/ :

Stu,  :

rn. t: ns '

  • l' I" rysco no.,uka, allvhs' dkr 4LJ p ou d. - ~ nr L.s are 'UI" ,

< l 6 is:.

w dea 9 b .s tss r, h w su. kl vn sal ins p h%s h

  • ine ,)sles Lh.14 sll L pa$<~J rav en y 4 <c e. w As  % L ,1s cv d

'jI 5 (

v Intu Ln i hje5~ , vh4 Ws L. ? =

cd247 m~".ls ~ w N O ( ~ d9l ele 7 i

, Mem- 7 25 S5 .fw b FMcC,y., o $g g.) 123 s h k, 44 k hs hs Lt4 n, 5,hle wear n /0 ye as s d <pk '%. m re.r hbles kve a [a w bp 6 p rt.5 M U d ' vm 64 -65' :. cito? I4 5 2 A>u k/ Rd' lup k m %L  :

RT- 37,N f41

\

Og hvdf Vdt d ' *W s ' 4 4 [revihd k

g Irewa I kod- 7bf[Cf di#O 2'#T f M Awebs uaf [ill. -[r- ry 1p.ek;a -

I^5tN'hvek f Abdtf ak l:60 [

- t

2. .. n ,a 4 1 11- H d'W ' II 1<d QgQ i fu},,,,3 to tv M 'i t.8 # I l i s 5 t s' #5 .. . tu . s.3
r. r- o s s te- *+ e. u- ea 1-i-#5[,.\c. led 6 25' #3 n-ieLIu**) l l
3. iv. .: tu ,.44) t - , - s s ( ..r . . < l , ,

ne.gs ww.%- a 1 -b 33 1-15 55 c _ k p g _. gc g t

1'21 b 5 n ti-t,

g,

. t f

&-11 18 k it. rl. ) ,

va a-te (>&sd,el s**ll it 1.* *I t - ?$ ~ .

ItIt*/t

... r IL.7*'ln . . _. . . . . . .

7

. . l l*jagt 4.s A';L [

  • t t ? ~71 j .\ . .

l

, , , , . . . . ~ ..

k s-f* 0 0 i

. .. ~4 ti t v ( u. r & el7) bb~ ~ }VO)V.G.- .

l . f= 3 0 $ -t f to .$.h NOhl{

i l

p 21 0b */- I g s. Q}- pbyQ g . 7 . to  ? 7 30 t I l ' \ C' !~' (.h e.bg ) , . g- Bo

  • 8p.24 r. 9 So e
  • Lt
  • SD 1-f*89 >

. i t * $1 -

r', .1- n T* E O

(

.g ge 8 @ 1. I6 SO r-7 g .00 \- *l-17-#J p .4 0 1-2 i' *

  • 7
    • re f.ir. n

. . . - l

) 77- SO p.gf.yo  !

t

.j' dD 7

  • I f
  • I.P t

. A>( f 4.1) /4-se  !

i b[ M e bd) J- & 10

....(u,.w 3.r.,e l

+(*~"' . . . .  !:' . . . . . .. .

i 7 - e.

t.2 i.

i t

, . gc i

0 s-c.st. A. s, s I e 4so -

3 ; ~5L  ; . q . gg 6 M *C g ;g.q

(, . st - ;t, G t 4 C) ,jW 7 ti- su 7 - t 4./i f - 1 p. 9-ts'$ t I- i-$L , 9 2A 8 6 y u . s t. q t4-d' I ' It "Sk 4.,

p.li-Su n 1-W 1- g - S t t

q LL - $1, < 44)1

g. p

,, - ( t - D ,

r-p- g tw to $ v s a \ s . f z, it" (I ! V

\i- tw ' i k a lY*$V ii. t t it t

K es 1A )<) lonuk hve.N FCT-f\ W)dt.s lvafsJ OX, Je.s h a (< w a & % s .% s.-la y a k 4b/4- y ..a :

at A ww . LJ ou .mIt L.L+ at A ydan , ri.oh C. t <c t.te) . n (nnoLUyx adJ.: 2 adui k 444 % vt A rk w ~t ase-d ,- 16 + n. L)&s - u,.4

-k_4A < . 7 y nM kQ 64% yh J

%bn, n. rus- k mp+ M .snd gif

. AAa (7 il, A Jam 7 an As u d< eu , cr_ W 4 /< Alces - 4.% Q-n(d (

y-s L M y % R ad I .s p s.

N4% Naurl 4 p"A l .

.I

\

btk b be '

a 4 t, tos.hdve}of-Vu,db n .; - L _ , u b .l c4 a tt

1 I

2.'R.i.l68. - '

e

.... AC.T 3\8-7l %W . 4. l* & . . - . . . . . -. .

.. n .. . . .. . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . - . . .

.301-72. d 17,2-- . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ._. . . , _ _ _ . .

3, 8, 2. 3 . . . . .... . . ...,

[

i b4 . - - . .

. - . ..  ; .-. _. . . . . r - - ~-

fr$Fm t H~ 74 kb
~. N.S'. l .. - . c 1

-- - L

.a. L.sp J.h..s , Lk ~4 s pass ~b.I1 &.L. Ge  !

M wt, J ~., it . no, . ,,,17 1.L, .k7 W -

i

..s4 - e u 3.u L 4 - Se p..

  • 3 t

e i

+e = b MW .

4 Y .. I. F . W..

.y q J > p.. v . , r t\ k ( s, L L v u u r.a .

v ..

1 f f

. . {

} l

~

. h

i

( . . ... I

\ f i

9 . r i f I l . .

-.. .. .,h . - . . .. . . . . . . . . ~ . . ... .

t

.. . .._ t

! , . I f

a J

t

. . . . . . . . I. >

}' . . . . .

f

. v

. . . . . .l .-.

t i i

!

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20195G273&oldid=3345743"