ML20198G172

Summary of 971215 Meeting W/Util in Rockville,Md to Discuss Quality Programs at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.List of Meeting Participants & Meeting Handouts Encl

ML20198G172
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	12/18/1997
From:	Hansen A NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	TOLEDO EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 9801120263
Download: ML20198G172 (32)

Text

-

• '. Ikdcaber 18, 1997 LICENSEE

  Toledo Edison Company FACILITY: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

SUMMARY

OF DECEMBER 15, 1997, MEETING ON QUALITY PROGRAMS On December 15, 1997, NRC management and staff met in Rockville, Maryland, with representatives of Toledo Edison Company. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss quality programs at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. A list of the meeting participants is included as Attachment 1, and a copy of the meeting handouts is provided as Attachment 2.

The licensee opened the meeting with a description of the management structure at the Davis-Besse facility, particularly in the area of nuclear assurance.

The Davis-Besse quality assurance (QA) program was then discussed, including the QA standards which the site adheres to. The Updated Safety Analysis.

Report change process was then described, followed by a discussion of proposed _.

changes to the QA program. Details of planned corrective action process arid material receipt inspection changes were provided. The meeting closed with a discussion of long-term plans for QA program enhancements.

Or18tnal signed by:

Allen G. Hansen, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 .

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-346 Attachments: 1. List of Meeting Participants

2. Meeting Handouts cc w/atts: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page DOCUMENT NAME: G:\DAVISBES\DBQA. HTS P03-3:PM _lr lC MQ OFFICE- PD3-3:LA C HQMB:BC NAME AHansen #) c.} w/c. eve.h 5 SBlack 4T, DATE fL//7/97' ai/r1/97 it/ pit /97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY.

\. \

$ $ Sbb W 9901120263 971218 PDR ADOCK 05000346 P PDR c . c 3

e , Decc;ber 18, 1997 LICENSEE: Toledo Edison Company i FACill!Y: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

SUMMARY

Of DECEMBER 15, 1997, MEETING ON QUAllTY PROGRAMS .

On December 15, 1997, NRC management and staff met in Rockville, Maryland, ,

with representatives of Toledo Edison Company. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss quality programs at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. A list of the meeting participants is included as Attachment 1, and a copy of the meeting handouts is provided as Attachment 2.

The licensee opened the meeting with a description of the management structure i' at the Davis-Besse facility, particularly in the area of nuclear assurance.

The Davis-Besse quality assurance (Qti program was then discussed, including 't the QA standards which the site adheres to. The Updated Safety Analysis.

Report changs process was then described, followed by a discussion of proposed changes to the QA program. Details of planned corrective action process and material receipt inspection changes were provided. The meeting closed with a discussion of long-term plans for QA program enhancements.

Original signed by:

Allen G. Hansen, Project Manager Project Directorate 111-3 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-346 Attachments: 1. List of Meeting Participants

2. Meeting Handouts cc w/atts: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page DOCUMENT NAME: G:\DAVISBES\DBQA.MTS OfflCE P03-3:PM _lr P03-3:LA C HQMB:BC lC NAME AHansen # / c4 w/c-reveWas SBlack 4Y, DATE IL//7/9T 6/r1/97 Jt/d/97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY e ..y -e-- ,,e,.,y-,,,- , - - . . - . , , , - , -- m- -= .- , - ---- ,.

pa*8eg p* k UNITED STATES

• ] "

NUCLEAR REGULATORV COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. fee 6H001

%,'**** December 18, 1997 LICENSEE: Toledo Edison Company FACILITY: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

SUMMARY

OF DECEMBER 15, 1997, MEETING ON QUALITY PROGRAMS On December 15, 1997 NRC management and staff met in Rockville, Maryland, with representatives of Toledo Edison Company. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss quality programs at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. A list ,

of the meeting participants is included as Attachment 1, and a copy of the meeting handouts is provided as Attachment 2.

The licensee opened the meeting with a description of the management structure at the Davis-Besse facility, particularly in the area of nuclear assurance.

The Davis-Besse quality assurance (QA) program was then discussed, including the QA standards which the site adheres to. The Updated Safety Analysis Report change process was then described, followed by a discussion of proposed changes to the QA program. Details of planned corrective action process and material receipt inspection changes were provided. The meeting e.losed with a discussion of long-term plans for QA program enhancements.

Allen G. Hansen, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects II:/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-346 Attachments: 1. List of Meeting Participants

2. Meeting Handouts cc w/atts: See next page

DISTRIBUTION FOR SUMARY OF DECEMBER 15, 1997, MEETING WITH TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY

'4ard to w w/atist kH:ket :lle PD !!!-3 Reading PUBLIC GGrant, RI!!

AHansen Hard Cooy w/att 1:

ARCS OGC E-mail w/att l'

$ Collins (SJCl)

FMiraglia (FJM)

GTracy (GM1)

RZimerman (RPZ)

EAdensam-(EGA1)

RSavio 1 Martin'(e-mailSLM3)

RGram MBugg

t

.' h Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit I  !

Toledo Edison Company i

cc j t

Mary E. O'Reilly Chief  ;

Centerior Energy Corporation Robert Bureau of E.Radio Owen, logical Health  !

300 Madison Avenue Service '

Toledo. OH 43652 Ohio Department of Health P.O. Box 118 Columbus 0H 43266-0118 James L. Freels .

Manager - Regulatory Affairs' Attorney General-Toledo Edison Ccapan Department of Attorney General Davis-Besse Nuclear ower Station 30 East Broad Street {

5501 North State - Route 2 Columbus, OH 43216 ,

Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760

. Donna Owens. Director- ,

Gerald Charnoff, Esq. Ohio Department of Commerce i Shaw, Pittman, Potts Division of Industrial Compliance  !

& Trowbridge Bureau of Operations and Maintenance 2300 N. Street.-NW. 6606 Tussing Road Washington, DC 20037 P.O. Box 4009 Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-9009 Regional Administrator i U.S. NRC, Region 111 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency  ;

801 Warrenville Road DERR--Compliance Unit ,

Lisle, IL 60523-4351 ATTN: Zack A. Clayton  !

P.O. Box 1049 ,

Robert 8..Borsum Columbus, OH 43266-0149

Babcock & Wilcox '

Nuclear Power Generation Division State of Ohio 1700 Rockville Pike, Sui?9 525 Public Utilities Commission

-Rockville, MD 20852 180 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43266-0573 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission James R. W1111 ems  !

5503 North State Route 2 Chief of Staff Oak Harbor, OH 43449 Ohio Emergency Management Agency ,

2855 West Dublin Granville Road .

James H. Lash, Plant Manager Columbus, OH 43235-2206 '

Toledo Edison Company Davis-Besse Company John K. Wood 5501 North State Route 2 Vice President-Nuclear, Davis-Besse Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760 Centerior Service Company .

c/o Toledo Edison Company 1 President Board of County Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station CommissIonersofOttawaCounty 5501 North State Route 2 Port Clinton, OH -43452 Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760 Roy P. Lessy, Jr. ,

Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP

-1333 New Hampshire Ave.. NW., Ste. 400  ;

Washington, DC 20036 i

l I

MEETING ATTENDEES NRC AND TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY DISCUS $10N OF QUALITY PROGRAMS DECEMBER 15, 1997 E

R. Grassa M. Bugg i A. Hansen Toledo Edison Ca=aany J. Sturdavant D. Poage M. Beier H. Stevens Public  !

S. Crawford b

Attachment 1 ,

i e

<p- -r,e- -w e mee- vo.-+ m-y e-m,- e e e m-- - -- + - a.--#ew.-- pr .e w - -w - --w

l .

. . c .. , . ..

- c. .

l I

6. - ,

l 1

1 w. .

NRC/ TOLEDO EDISON -

,a l

INFORMATION MEETING y..;- ' .

..i. .

ON ... l l

\ .

QUALITY PROGRAM CHANGES l ..

i .

I .

- r Rockville, Maryland ,

~;nN.sw.- ..

m p.y. .

December 15,1997 ,?. .),. -

4%.% 8 '

.$.yfty1?

, ,- .g);1@is~ .

.. .. .'.f, ;-2 ,

. s . , . . -

e 4 *

.I i - '-

. . , . f ..

j

? ,

il

~~ ~ '

VI

~

j A M-WLWi ,

Attachment 2 l i

.~

g.

=..,, - ,_,-. w . ,

. a , .

_ - - _ _ - - - - - . ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

i AGENDA e INTRODUCTION e NUCLEAR ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION e USAR 17.2 OVERVIEW e USAR CHANGE PROCESS

• PROPOSED CHANGES TO QA PROGRAM

- Corrective Action Transition

- Material Receipt Inspection

- Long Term Plans

-..~._ _,_. ., ,..., . . _ . . _ . m

--G _u-, a +

k 4

.ild e O l'll l lgl[g > I I

3 I l

u-------- --------.....___.I

llI - fl , Il s

!l .

I! .p! i g8 l r gl

.l ,

1 I

lEl

~:=.

I T-

,o i, ,i -li .g .n .<

g~ - , ,--

g; -- _..___ e __ _

=

6 g I sl

+g

@+48PWM I

llI

.. agg .,1

- 1 i, i i l I is!

?

DIRECTOR -

NUCLEAR ASSURANCE L W YK)Rt FY STAFF ADVISOR Ombudsman CNR8 Admrnstrabon i I MANAGER - NUCLEAR MANAGER-  !

SAFETY & INSPECTIONS QUAUTY ASSESSMENT H. VI. Stevens. Jr. ,

M. C. Beier QUAUTY CONTROL AUDITS Inspectori(Plant) NDE Intemel Receiptinspechon, Source li%. Vendor AVI.

ASME Pmgram ISEG SURVEILLANCES Techrncal Assessments Shutdown Risk Operahng Expenence PROGRAMS

] CORRECTNE ACTION USAR 17.2 Program Admmistrator NOAM Revew Board Chawman Trendmg l Management Revew Committee Sef-Assessment 1

,-. - _ - - - y

UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS

. REPORT (USAR)

I CHAPTER 17.2 l

1 i 1 l

l 1

i

USAR 17.2, QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAlM USAR 17.2.0, NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM POLICY USAR 17.2.1, - ORGANIZATION USAR 17.2.2, QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM USAR 17.2.3, DESIGN CONTROL USAR 17.2.4, PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT CONTROL USAR 17.2.5, INSTRUCTIONS, PROCEDURES,4ND DRAWINGS USAR 17.2.6, DOCUMENT CONTROL USAR 17.2.7, CONTROL OF PURCHASED MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND SERVICES USAR 17.2.8, IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF MATERIALS, PARTS, AND COMPONENTS USAR 17.2.9, SPECIAL PROCESS CONTROL USAR 17.2.10, INSPECTION US AR 17.2.11, TEST CONTROL i

USAR 17.2.12, CONTROL OF MEASURING AND TEST EQUIPMENT USAR 17.2.13, HANDLING, STORAGE AND SHIPPING USAR 17.2.14, INSPECTION, TEST, AND OPERATING STATUS USAR 17.2.15, NONCONFORMING MATERIALS, PARTS, OR COMPONENTS USAR 17.2.16, CORRECTIVE ACTION USAR 17.2.17, QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDS USAR 17.2.18, AUDITS TABLE 17.2-1, NRC REGULATORY GUIDES, ANSI STANDARDS & INDUSTRY CODES

QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS  :

1 REGULATORY GUIDFJ INDUS11tY CODE REGULATORY GUIDE *ITTLE ANSL STANDARD

1. 1.28 Rev. 2,209 Quality Assurance Program Requiremen4 N45.2-1977 (Design and Constmetion)

2. 1.30 (Safety Guide 30) Quality Assurance Requirements for the N45.2.41972 802 Installation, inspection and Testing of Instrumentation and Electrical Equipment

3. 1.33,(Safety Guide 33) Quality Assurance Progrem Requirements ANSI /ANS3.21982 1102 (Operational)

4. 1.37,303 Quality Assurance Requirements for Cleaning N45.2.1 1973 of Fluid Systems and Associated Components of Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants

!. 1.38, Rev. 2,507 Quality Assurance Requirements for N45.2.21972 Paekaging, Shipping, Receiving, Storage, and

! Handling ofItems for Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants

6. 1.39, Rev. 2,907 Housekeeping Requirements for N45.2.?-1973 Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants

7. 1.54,603 Quality Assurance Requirements for N101.4-1972 Protective Coatings Applied to Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants .

8. 1.58, Rev.1,9/80 Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant N45.2.6-1978 Inspection, Examination, and Testing Personnel

9. 1.64, Rev. 2,606 Ouality Assurance Requirements for the N45.2.11-1974 Design of Nuclear Power Plants 10.1.74,204 Quality Assurance Terms and Definitions N45.2.10-1973 11.1.8 Rev. IR,905 Personnel Selection & Training N18.1 1971 l

l l

QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS REGULATORY GUIDP)

INDUSTRY CODE REGULATORY GtHDE TrI1E ANSI STANDARD 12.1.88, Rev. 2,10n6 Collection, Storage, and Maintenance of N45.2.91974 Nuclear Power Plant Quality Assurance Recor:!s 13.1.94, Rev.1,406 Quality Assurance Requirements for N45.2.5 1974 Installation, inspection and Testing of Structural Concrete and Structural Steel during the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants l

14.1.116, Rev. 0.R Sn? Quality Assurance Requirements for N45.2.8-1975 Installation, inspection, and Testing of Mechanical Equipment and Systems 15.1.123. Rev.1,7n7 Quality Assurance Requirements Control of N45.2.13 1976 l Procurement ofitems and Services for Nuclear Power Plants 16.1.144, Rev.1, 9/80 Auditing of Quality Assurar.ce Programs for N45.2.12-1977 Nuclear Power Plants

17. 1.146,8/80 Qualification of Quality Assurance Program N45.2.23-1978 Audit Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants

18. 4.15 Rev.1,2n9 Quality Assurance for Radiological N/A Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) -

Efiluent Streams and the Environment

19. SNT TC-1 A-1980 Personnel Qualification and Certification in N/A Nondestructive Testing l

l

PROGRAM DOCUMENT HIERARCHY NUCT F AR OUAUTY ASSURANCE PROGRAM DOCUMENT HTERARCHY Regulatory Requirements, Codes and Standards, and Commitments 1P 1P ASME Quality Nuclear Nuclear Quality Assurance  : Group . Assurance Manual Policies Manual

.................................................. i 1P No _

Organizational Interface Reqd.

Yes i

- A. .

Nudcar Group Procedures 1P Department Procedures

. ,P 5ection Procedures

a .m.m

• ,A-*su,m-24--,,waL 'sm.A- au & -sm4m,+ -m-- .o-.A aA n a,M<m -aaa am-~"-s A--+ aam- ,zA- -- k se,- A e 4 e

USAR CHANGE PROCESS I

l 1

l l

UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (USAR) e 12 Volumes e Regulatory Guide 1.70, Rev. O e Material Incorporated by Reference

- FHAR

- TRM e Current Revision 20 1

USAR CHANGE INITIATION

• Proceduralized Process

- NG-NS-00806, Preparation and Control of USAR Changes e Employee Initiates Change (UCN)

- Safety Review / Safety Evaluation Preparation and Approval

- Document Interface Worksheet Preparation

• Initiator's Management Approves e Licensing Review e Cognizant Department Review & Approval

- Section 17.2 QA Review (10CF$.50.54(a))

• Licensing Approval e Post Approved Changes

- , --.u- , ~ , . .+ r .- - . + ,, . u-u._-.-o .m em :. - - - a ,a.+y_ sm.a ...a_.. a.----az. n ae,r,-.a .,, - ea s, ++x+e-m--- --,w+ut,sa - - >. -

I I

l l PROPOSED CHANGES  ;

l l TO QA PROGRAM i

1 i

- - - - - - _ a ea m.p. m. a:. -.a w ,.-----.wwwma s aA.s.-._A. .-. ay--maa. asee 4,mwwmaa__.m.h,---- w sw--. - - ------ ---

4 g 'b i

f l

l l

i l

I I

I l

I CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CHANGES l

l 1

4

- . - ~ - , m - . - .- . . = . --

, --,.--- , . I

CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS CHANGES ,

• CAPIT Formation

- Current process requires excessive evaluation /

documentation / review of minor issues.

- A need to streamline the process so appropriate focus is placed on significant issues.

- Selfidentified, CNRB, and audit issues concerning the corrective action process at DBNPS.

- Current trending data is not readily available to site. Trend categories need improvement.

• CAPIT Objectives

- Dramatically Improve the Corrective Action Process based on weaknesses identified by CNRB (PCAQR 97-0224), QA Audit Findings, Culture Survey, and INPO using current re-engineering l techniques.

l t

- Develop a process which would be seen as "Best in Class".

.e .

CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS IMPROVEMENT TEAM e Team Composition

- Operations - Quality Control

- Maintenance -Quality Assessment

- Engineering - Perry

- PCAQR Administration - Corporate Auditing e Benchmarking of Other Plants and Industries

• Nuclear Plants

• OtherIndustries Benchmarked Reviewed

- Browns Ferry - Automotive

- Catawba - NASA

- Comanche Peak - Airline

- Duane Arnold - Petrochemical

- Palo Verde

- Perry

- Robinson

- South Texas

]

NEW PROCESS HIGHLIGHTS

. New Condition Report (CR) categorizations.

Significant Important Routine NCAQ

. Focuses attention on significant issues.

. More management involvement.

- SRB and MRC

. MRC ensures upfront consensus assignment of owner and categorization.

. Reduced CR Admin /QA burden, i - Site " owned" process.

- More responsibility on supervisors and managers.

l l

l l

l W M -**P - - -

l .-

! NEW PROCESS HIGHLIGHTS l (continued) e Procedure will be less prescriptive, more principle based guideline - more common sense.

• Supervisors can review and close lower issues early in the process.

. Trend data done by evaluator and input earlier.

. Trend data readily available.

. Central tracking system.

. Improved initiation guidance.

PROCESS CHANGES i

• - Short Term  :

^

- Allow easier closcout of conditions adverse to quality with low

-significance.

- Management Review Committee for initial screening.

B

- Supervisor determines if there is an impact on Plant Operations.

- Improved site trending program.

- Selected Licensing response.

- SRB review of SCAQRs.-

i

- To be implemented early 1998.

[

• Long Term

- Eliminate in line QA reviews.

- LER paperwork satisfies CR.

1

- Improved initiation guidance.

^

- Simplified principle based procedure.

- Implement mid 1998.

4

10CFR50.54(a) EVALUATION

. USAR 17.2 currently states:

1) 17.2.1.4, Page 17.2-5: The Manager - Nuclear Safety & Inspection is also responsible for review of all conective action documents for close out...

, 2) 17.2.15.2, Page 17.2-43: When the nonconformance has been resolved, Nuclear Assurance a personnel signify their concurrence on the conective action document.

3) 17.2.16.1, Page 17.2 44: Corrective action documents contain provisions for ... the Nuclear Assurance Department's documented concurrence of the adequacy of the corrective action.

4) 17.2.16.1, Page 17.2-44: The Nuclear Assurance Department also has the fmal review of all corrective action documents for closcout.

5) 17.2.16.2, Page 17.2-45: When the corrective action to a significant condit ion adverse to quality has been completed, the Nuclear Assurance Departmert performs a follow-up review or audit to verify the adequacy of the corrective action.

I

. Proposed USAR 17.2:

1) See items 2 and 3 below.

2) 17.2.15.2: When the nonconformance has been resolved, responsible management personnel signify their concurrence on the corrective action document.

3) 17.2.16.1: Corrective action documents contain provisions for ... the responsible management's documented concurrence of the adequacy of the corrective action.

4) See item 3 above.

5) 17.2.16.2: When the corrective action to a significant condition adverse to quality has been completed, the correcti.e action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management.

o' y .

l 10CFR50.54(a) EVALUATION-(Continued)

.- Justification:

Recent analysis of the Nuclear Assurance close-out review of corrective action documents (including signifiet conditions adverse to quality) indicated a reject rate of 0.79%. Since all of the rejections involved minor administrative errors and not failures of the corrective action ,

process, the Nuclear Assurance in line review is not warranted. .

'!he existing reliance on Nuclear Assurance for in line review, concurrence, tracking, close-out, and follow-up reviews and audits of corrective action documents will be modified to make line management responsible for proper corrective action administration and implementation.

Recent Nuclear Assurance audits of corrective actions to significant conditions a6 rse to quality have established that the pogram is adequate und effective. Therefore, the specific requirement for Nuclear Assurance reviews / audits of all sign!ficant condition corrective actions is not considered to be warranted.

Nuclear Assurance will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the nonconformance / corrective action program, and the effect of the proposed changes, as it performs Technical Specification 6.5.2.8.c required audits of the "results of actions taken to correct deficiencies occurring in equipment, structures, systems or method of operation that affect nuclear safety" at least once every six months.

While the changes are considered to be reductions to existing commitments, the requirements of the associated 10CFR50 Appendix B criteria, and related Regulatory Guides and Industry Standards, will not be affected by the proposed changes. All 10CFR50 Appendix B nonconformance and corrective action program requirements will continue to be satisfied by n Davis-Besse's Nuclear Quality Assurance Program.

References:

10CFF.50 Appendix B Criterion XV (Nonconformances) 10CFR50 Appendix B Criterion XVI(Corrective Action) 10CFR50 Appendix B Criterion XVIII (Audits)

RO 1.28-2n9 and ANSI N45.2-1977 (Quality Assurance Program Requirements) j- RO 1.33-1In2 and ANSI /ANS 3.2-1982 (Quality Assurance Program Requirements)

RG 1,144 9/80 and ANSI N45.2.12-1977 (Auditing of Quality Assurance Programs)

Davis-Besse Technical Specifications 6.5.2.8.c (Administrative Controls)

Davis Besse Updated Safety Analysis Report 13.4 (Review and Audit)

' Davis-Besse Updated Safety Analysis Report 17.2 (Quality Assurance)

--. 4 %a-.4 .-a _.e A w..eAa ,e,6 a. L..Aa.4... ,A,.--..aa_ .hr.. ,am ..4,.. .e .a _4,,. .2s-.: s.,-A, 4,4.,a...,.A4.4 .e.,,tw-saa I

l MATERIAL RECEIPT INSPECTION h

i i

l j

u - - a,a - --

g 44 k

I MV auf[,

-I ju .w

+.

I it i

.i 1-------.

. ___------------ , l l,}.f .

.tI l!

i l!

• l,l

!I 8-11 B

l " a J 1l.

l .l llla v l m '

ce*l 5 l l

g b pl .gu -I m '

o z *ll I .l,!

N ll?

J*

lji g

l g g!!g!

L l

l Il! ill! gI

" " -- 'l i l ' ' ,

g!asi

10CFR50.54(a) EVALUATION

. USAR 17.2 currently states:

The Manager - Nuclear Safety & Inspections is also responsible for ... receipt inspections, vendor surveillances and review of vendor cupplied documentation and Nuclear Safety & Inspections Staff Training.

. Proposed USAR 17.2:

The Menager - Nuclear Safety & Inspections is also responsible for receipt inspections, source inspections and review of vendor supplied documentation associated with nuclear fuel.

The Manager - Design Basis Engineering is also responsible for Procurement Engineering, receipt inspections, source inspections, and review of vendor supplied documentation (except for nuclear fuel).

De training and qualification program for plant and receipt / source inspection personnel are maintained by Nuclear Assurance, i

l-l l

. J, 10CFR50.54(a) EVA"JATION (continued)

. Justification:

Inspections will continue to be performed by individuals other than those who performed or directly supervised the activity being inspected.

Organizationally, it will align itself as an in line function since it is integral to the Procurement Engineering function of supplying qualified materials for maintenance and modification actisities.

Individuals performing receipt inspections will continue to be certified per N45.2.6 by the Quality Control organization.

Inappropriate work pressure can be reported in several ways (in order of escalation):

. To direct supervision.

. Via the Corrective Action Program.

. Via the Ombudsman Program.

• Direct appeal to the Chairman. President and Chief Executive Officer.

The function will continue to be assessed by Quality Assessment during scheduled audits and surveillances and by Procurement Engineering :, elf-assessments.

Receipt inspection does not report to QA at other nuclear utilities. Examp!es include:

Brunswick D. C. Cook Cooper Shearon Harris Calvert Cliffs Robinson Duane Arnold While the changes are considered to be reductions to existing commitments, the requirements of the associated 10CFR50 Appendix B criteria, and related Regulatory Guides and Industry Standards, will not be affected by the proposed changes. All 10CFR50 Appendix B nonconformance and corrective action program requirements will continue to be satisfied by Davis-Besse's Nuclear Quality Assurance Program.

References:

Davis-Besse USAR 17.2.7 (Control of Purchased Materials, Equipment, and Services)

ANSI N45.2 1977 (Quality Assurance Program Requirements)

ANSI N45.2.6-1978 (Qualification ofInspection, Examination, and Testing Personnel)

NQAM Policy Rev. 8 l i

c.- n

-- .,-,an, ---- _ _,, oae, -- .a._-,,

LONG TERM PLANS i

l l

I l

l 1

1 1

i