ML20198D141

Partially Withheld Assessment of Allegation AQ-134 to Allegation Category Qa/Qc 2, Document Control Re Concerns That Const Operational Travelers Not Submitted to Authorized Nuclear Inspectors for Review

ML20198D141
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/07/1985
From:	Livermore H, Wenczel V, Winczel V NRC, NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198C597	List: IA-85-517, Partially Withheld Assessment of Allegation AQE-41 to Allegation Category Qa/Qc 6, QC Insp Re Worn Gauges Used to Calibr Lighting Restraint Cable Tools Resulting in Incorrect Installation & Issuance of Nonconformance Rept ML20198C594 ML20198C616 ML20198C640 ML20198C704 ML20198C711 ML20198C794 ML20198C831 ML20198C859 ML20198C871 ML20198C883 ML20198C897 ML20198C933 ML20198C974 ML20198D040 ML20198D103 ML20198D141 ML20198D170 ML20198D231 ML20198D267 ML20198D290 ML20198D314 ML20198D348 ML20198D373 ML20198D377 ML20198D391 ML20198D411 ML20198D419 ML20198D424 ML20198D427 ML20198D432 ML20198D437 ML20198D445 ML20198D450 ML20198D460 ML20198D471 ML20198D479 ML20198D487 ML20198D492 ML20198D507 ML20198D510 ML20198D523 ML20198D529 ML20198D534 ML20198D545 ML20198D554 ML20198D559 ML20198D565 ML20198D576 ML20198D585 ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59, FOIA-85-89 NUDOCS 8605230161
Download: ML20198D141 (2)

Text

. _, -

l. Allegation Category: QA/QC'2,pacumentControl

2. Allegation Number: AQ-134

3. Characterization: There is a concern-that various types of construction operational travelers were not submitted to the Authorized Nuclear Inspect. ors (ANIS) for review and the establishment of hold points prior to issuance.

4. Ass'essment of Safety Significance: This concern was raised by the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) in its review of nonconformance report (NCR)

M-2690. An ANI had issued a memorandum on February 15, 1980, which stated, in part: " Effective Monday, 2-25-80, routing of component support traveler package, manufacturers' record sheet, and weld data card through the ANI office should cease." Therefore, beginning on February 25, 1980, the ANIS did not review these documents for establishing necessary inspection hold points.

On February 25, 1981, the Hartford Steam Boiler (HSB) Regional Supervisor and an HSB home office representative notified Brown & Root (B&R) that the February 15, 1980, memorandum was void and that the ANIS did not have the authority to waive a preliminary documentation review. Therefore, as of March 2,1981, weldi .g documentation packages were once again routinely routed through the ANIS. Some packages were inadvertently issued-to craft personnel without ANI review; however, when this occurred, it was docu-mented on NCRs as required by the B&R QA program.

As a result of the February 15, 1980, memorandum and because no ANI reviews were performed for approximately 13 months, TUEC and HSB agreed that the ANIS would review all inprocess welding documentation packages that were issued between. February 24, IS80 and March 12, 1981. The only exception would be completed packages that were issued during this period. Weld documentation' for'these packages was to be referenced on NCR M-2690 and reviewed-by the ANIS during their firial review. The TRT reviewed a number of the welding packages to assure these ANI reviews were conducted.

The TRT also interviewed various ANIS and the Authorized Nuclear Inspection Specialist (ANIS) to determine their perceptions of the ASME QA program at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Stati.cn (CPSES). The T.RT found_that the CPSES ASME QA program was significnntly upgraded as a result of an ASME survey in November 1981.

5. Conclusion and Staff Positions: The TRT concludes that the concern-that.

various types of operational travelers were not submitted to the ANIS for their review was- substantiated for the period from February 24, 1980 to' March 12, 1981. The TRT determir.ed that all welding documentation'for work 'in fabrication since March 2,1981, was routed to the ANIS for review and the establishment of remaining hold points. All welding documentation packages which were processed between February 24, 1980 and March 12, 1981, were subsequently reviewed by the ANIS.

Based on the described corrective actions taken by TUEC, and which were ,

! verified by the TRT, the TRT concludes that this concern has no generic implications.

~

$bg1 860512 0-83 CARDE85-89 PDRI

~

8 The source of this concern was not an alleger. Therefore, no exit inter-view was conducted.

8' 1

7. Attachments: None.  ;

Reference Documents:

ASME B&PV Code, Section NA-5000.

1. '

2. Hartford Steam Boiler, Office Memorandum, dated February 8,1984, I to Jim Westmoreland, from Steve Timko

3. Hartford Steam Boiler, SIS Report, dated November 4, 1980

4. Brown & Root Nonconformance Report, No. M-2690, Revisions 3 through 6,

Subject:

"ANI Waiver of Preliminary Documentation Review."

8. This statement prepared by: ,k [

V. Wenczel FTRT' Date Technical Reviewer Reviewed by: &Laett >- 6 6 H. Livermore, Date Group Leader Approved by:

V. Noonan, Date Project Director l

i 0-84