ML20205F624
| ML20205F624 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1986 |
| From: | Rushwick J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-359 OL, NUDOCS 8608190272 | |
| Download: ML20205F624 (38) | |
Text
h, UED CORatwk Filcd: Auguot /4, l 1986 if0
- *s 18 Ato;3, s'N 't fbO)E[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-445-OL TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446-OL COMPANY et al. )
) (Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
)
ANSWERS TO BOARD'S 14 QUESTIONS (Memo;- Proposed Memo of April 14, 1986)
Regarding Action Plan Results Report III.d In accordance with the Board's Memorandum; Proposed Memorandum and Order of April 14, 1986, the Applicants submit the answers of the Comanche Peak Response Team ("CPRT") to the 14 questions posed by the Board, with recpect to the Result: Report published by the CPRT in respect of CPRT Action Plan III.d.
8608190272 860814 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G pop t- Sb3
FE ,
Opening Request:
Produce copies of any CPRT-generated checklists that were used during the conduct of the action plan.
Response
The only checklists used were for document review; they are attached. Completed checklists are in the working file.
Question:
- 1. Describe the problem areas addressed in the report. Prior to undertaking to address those areas through sampling, what did Applicants do to define the problem areas further? How did it believe the problems arose? What did it discover about the QA/QC documentation for ..tose areas?
How extensive did it believe the problems.were?
Answer:
This Action Plan was prepared to address two concerns expressed by the NRC-TRT. The NRC-TRT's first concern was the reliance placed on the initiative of individual System Test Engineers (STE) to obtain the latest design information in order to prepare test procedures and perform testing activities on their assigned systems. The second concern was related to the problems identified with the Document Control l
l Center prior to 1984. The NRC-TRT could not conclude
- that these problems had no effect on the test programs.
l-L
- p. . 1 I
i For the first concern, the evolution and effectiveness of the measures taken to provide convenient STE access to design documents was evaluated. We determined that the current practices are adequate. For the second concern, we explored the population of design documents used by STEs on a sampling basis to determine if any discrepancies could be identified. None was identified.
No QA/QC documentation was reviewed; such documents were not pertinent to this particular activity.
Question:
- 2. Provide any procedures or other internal documents that are necessary to understand how the checklists should be interpreted or applied.
Answer:
The use of these checklists was self-evident to the experienced personnel who used them. Some on-the-job training was given, but not documented. Each checklist was reviewed and dispositioned by the Review Team Leader, Mr. Rushwick.
Question:
- 3. [ Original acceptance checklists. See Transcript of the Pre-Hearing Conference of April 22, 1986, at 24,353-57.]
f-- .
t Answer:
TUGCO did not perform a review of this kind, and therefore did not generate any document review checklists such as used in this ISAP.
Question:
- 4. Explain the extent to which the checklists contain fewer attributes than are required for conformance to codes to which Applicants are committed to conform.
Answer:
No attributes on the checklists relate to code conformance; these were used for document reviews only.
Question:
- 5. (Answer question 5 only if the answer to question 4 is that the checklists do contain fewer attributes.) Explain the engineering basis, if any, for believing that the safety margin for components (and the plant) has not been degraded by using checklists that contain fewer attributes than are required for conformance to codes.
Answer:
Not applicable due to the nature of the answer to question 4.
Question:
- 6. Set forth any changes in checklists while they were in use, including the dates of the changes.
1 l
l
(; ,
Answer:
No changes were made to the checklist.
Question:
- 7. Set forth the duration of training in the use of checklists and a summary of the content of that training, including field training or other practical training. If the training has changed or retraining occurred, explain the reason for the changes or retraining and set forth changes in duration or content.
Answer:
The only training performed was the initial on-the-job explanation of the task being accomplished.
Question:
- 8. Provide any information in Applicants' possession concerning the accuracy of use of the checklists (or the inter-observer reliability in using the checklists). Were there any time periods in which checklists were used with questionable training or QA/QC supervision? If applicable, are problems of inter-observer reliability addressed statistically?
Answer:
Each checklist decision / disposition was reviewed and concurred with by the RTL. He reviewed the original documents from which the checklist were filled out in doing this, thus validating the decision.
F' .
Question:
- 9. Summarize all audits or supervisory reviews (including reviews by employees or consultants) of training or of use of the checklists. Provide
-the factual basis for believing that the audit and review activity was adequate and that each concern of the audit and review teams has been resolved in a way that is consistent with the validity of conclusions.
Answer:
None were performed or deemed necessary due to the involvement of the RTL in the checklist review process.
Question:
- 10. Report any instances in which draft reports were modified in an important substantive way as the result of management action. Be sure to explain any change that was objected to (including by an employee, supervisor or consultant) in writing or in a meeting in which at least one supervisory or management official or NRC employee was present.
Explain what the earlier drafts said and why they were modified. Explain how dissenting views were resolved.
Answer:
l There was no instance where a draft report for III.d, "Preoperational Testing," was modified as a result of management action. Earlier drafts of the i
report were modified to make it easier to understand by
! -s-i
I .
{
a more general audience and to clarify test program jargon.
Question.
- 11. Set forth any unexpected difficulties that.were encountered in completing the work of each task force and that would be helpful to the Board in understanding the process by which conclusions were reached. How were each of these unexpected difficulties resolved?
Answer:
For prerequisite and preoperational testing, the Action Plan was designed to check how well the test procedures picked up functional system changes. For the period in question, very few such changes were made. This in turn necessitated the review of a very large number of design documents that dafine functionality in order to obtain a sample of sixty for each type of testing. This took more time than originally thought necessary.
Question:
- 12. Explain any ambiguities or open items left in the results report.
Answer:
There are none apparent to the RTL.
f~ .
~
Question:
- 13. Explain'the extent to which there are actual or apparent conflicts of interest, including whether a worker or supervisor was reviewing or evaluating his own work or supervi_ sing any aspect of the review or evaluation of his own work or the work of those he previously supervised.
Answer:
Mr. Rushwick has had a previous involvement with the TUGCO startup organization as shown on the attached objectivity questionnaire. 1he following procente a more detailed description concerning that involvement.
Mr. Rushwick was responsible for marketing startup program services to TUGCO in early 1975. At that time, he was employed by EDS Nuclear Inc. in San Francisco. From 1975 until 1978, the nature of his involvement with the TUGCO startup group consisted of general contract administration, general employee related administration, and the assignment of personnel for the startup program. Mr. Rushwick was responsible for Mr. R.E. Camp's assignment as the Lead Startup Engineer with TUGCO in 1975. (Mr. Camp is currently under contract to TUGCO, but not in a startup job or capacity.) At no time did Mr. Rushwick become involved in the startup program other than as stated above.
I '
aus"ilr '1ss 13:12 CPRT-CLEN RO + .- ~ PAGE.02 U+ d)' F ~ muu so uu asau sisi no en oei ==-
I j Mr. Rushwick is now self-employed and in no way obligated to the corporate entities involved oarlier in l marketing the program to Tuoco. His knowlege is very useful as a third-party reviewer. The CPRT feels that i
i no actual conflict exists.
Question:
- 14. Examine the report to see that it adeguately i discloses the thinking and analysis used. If the j language is ambiguous or the discussion gives rise to obvious questions, resolve the ambiguities and anticipato and resolve the questions.
Answer:
A re-eMamination of the report by Mr. Rushwick 1
did not disclose any area of ambiguity. No obvious
. questions arise either. Mr. Rushwick believes that the i
olose review given this report has been sufficient to i
! inject clarity into the report.
Respectfully submitted, l
! J es E. Rushwick
! sting RaviaW Team Lander and Action Plan I!!.d Issue coordinator I
! The foregoing responses have been reviewed and are concurred in by the CPRT 9enior Review Team.
I i
I
! i
. . .1. W. M .i SCll
-3Ce6; SCREENING CHECKLIST SEQ #
PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING SAMPLE #
Sample Drwg# #of revs Current Rev
- 1. Identify the preoperational test procedures which reference the sample drawing, determine the test start date, and determine the sample drawing revision issue dates for the interval from the revision current at preoperational test ,
start date to revision current on May 15, 1984.
Preoperational Test Procedures Data Drawing History (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Revision Test Rev Current Applicable Referenced Procedure # Start Date @ Start Drwg. Revs Rev/Date Issued C-1 C
C+1 _
C+2 C+3
. C+4
- 2. Examine each applicable drawing revision from column (5) above and determine if any applicable change was likely to affect a preoperational test procedure. Are there any changed which are likely to affect a preoperational test procedure?
IF YES, list and describe the changes: ), ..
Rev # Description of Change of Interest
- t l
i i
i
S e-Il
-9003 SCREENING CHECKLIST PREOPERATIONAL TESTING (cont'd)
- 3. Identify and examine outstanding DCAs/CMCs not incorporated on drawing revisions as of May 15, 1984. Are there any changes which are likely to affect a preoperational test procedure?
If YES, list and describe the changes:
DCA/ CMC # Description of Change of Interest
- 4. Correlate the specific changes identified in Steps 2 and 3 with the specific preoperational test results package which should have tested the change.
Preop. Test # Rev/DCA/ CMC # Description
- 5. Were the specific changes identified in Step 4 of such a nature that they created a need to change a preoperational test procedure or to perform a preoperational retest?
NO No further action required YES Go to III.d. ISAP, attachment 3.
I .
EC01 PREREQUISITE TESTING SEQ #
EVALUATION CHECKLIST - SAMPLINC PLAN TYPE:(Check One)
> ATTACHMENT 2 TO ISAP III.d DCA CMC DWC. REV.
Document No. Rev.
Other related documents:
NOTE: These questions need not be answered in sequence, at the discretion of the evaluator. If in doubt, check with CPRT. .
2.4.1 Review the prerequisite testing records to see if they show that all or part of the change was tested.
Was the change tested?
Initial /Date: Yes / Item passes.
Initial /Date: No / Co to 2.4.2.
Source of information:
2.4.2 Determine, if possible, the date of incorporation of the change into the plant. Date Source of information:
Initial / Dates Cannot find / Co to 2.4.3.
Determine the most recent performance of the prerequisite test procedure against the affected drawing prior to May 15, 1984. Date Was the change incorporated into the plant at the time of the latest performance of the procedure before May 15, 19847 Initial /Date Yes / Co to 2.4.4.
Initial /Date No/ Don't Know / Co to 2.4.3.
2.4.3 Check to see if any evidence can be found that the change was being tracked as an open item.
Was the change being tracked as an open item?
Initial /Date: Yes / Item passes.
Initial /Date: No / Co to 2.4.4.
Attach documentation which shows the item was being tracked.
Provide a clear explanation as to how the conclusion was
-anched.
l
.,. - - - - - --- ,,,,...w,. ..- , , . - - - . , . -.-,-----,,7,_,.-,,,----,,----..--vc, - . - - . - ,---a , ---_.
EC01 PREREQUISITE TESTING EVALUATION CHECKLIST - SAMPLING PLAN -
ATTACRMENT 2 TO ISAP III.d (Cont'd) 2.4.4 Look for any other evidence that S/U was aware of the change, such as Startup Work Authorizations, memos, or other documents.
Is there evidence S/U was aware of the change?
Initial /Date: Yes / Pass.
Initial /Date: No / Fail.
Attach documentation / written explanations as necessary to justify the answer.
Remarks:
Disposition: Pass by step Fail
- r Signed: /
CPRT DATE l
S c. I ?- M $6G 0 X-
.. PRGREq SEQ
- 6cEEE9tNCr GumT- hWER.AL_
rats iTec 9As tssee ee.sewee eur ecc me Fo u.o u > t ucr RE-Aeed :
l ING1N-lD*sTG ,
)
- r I
V S C,IN'- see*
.. f*eesows rre - bcn /cuc (Misc.) _
DcA4 CIL" -
1.LS Tlie C)hw @ MWRA*>lcW i 6L6cTcicW. o R. I f c. ?
l um % /bMG '. Yes / Ph t our MmeAtime CeetrusT-6JO ! Gro@ 2.
lutTl19t[fw'tG __
- 2. Inc<e -me ceewes Assocme wrra ws o c 4 u c. a suca A usTee ww w-y cameo A useo To hr-ceM 1esT19cr / fleTesriN4 7 -
IN mM. DATG : M6_ / CxPund IWisa f4o % .E.J W,mr2.
W tt1M. BATE: 4D / re ToK14ec Aeriou Rsooissb 1
l .,*
1 i
SC10 PREREQUISITE - DCA/ CMC (M;chtnicci) SEQ #
SCREENING CHECKLIST DCA #
CMC #
REV 0F SHEET (Fill out a sheet for each Rev.)
- 1. Determine the issue date of this revision of the DCA/ CMC.
I Date .
I Was this revision issued after May 15, 19847 Initial /Date: Yes / No further action required.
Initial /Date: No / Go to 2.
4 For DCA's/ CMC's which affect Mechanical drawings applicable to the i Prerequisite Test program:
- 2. Was this revision of the DCA/ CMC incorporated or awaiting
- incorporation into any affected drawings?
i Initial /Date: Yes / Go to 3.
- Initial /Date
- No _
/ No further action required.
- 3. Drawing No. Rev. No. (incorporation status) l (Use continuation sheecs for additional affected drawings.)
- 4. Decernine when this revision of the DCA/ CMC was issued and when the
- drawing revision that incorporated this revision of the DCA/ CMC was
, issued.
- DCA/ CMC Rev. Issue Date Drawing Rev. Issue Date
- 5. Determine the System or Subsystem which include (s) the hardware
- shown on this drawing.
System / Subsystem No. .
l' i 6. Determine the date of release from construction of the i System / Subsystem. (If there were several partial releases, the
- r date of the earliest partial release may be used.)
\
! Date .
Was the date of release from construction before, during, or after
, the period determined in (1) above?
Initial /Date: Before or during / Co to 7.
l Initial /Date: Afters / No further action required.
SC10 PREREQUISITE - DCA/ CMC (M chanicci)
SCREENING CHECKLIST (C:nt'd)
- 7. Were the changes associated with this revision of the DCA/ CMC against this drawing of such a nature that they created a need to perform flushing /reflushing?
Initial /Date: Yes / Go to 8..
Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
- 8. Determine which XCP-ME-4 Flush Package (s) the subject drawing was associated with.
Flush Package No. Go to 9.
(Use continuation sheets for additional affected Flush Packages.)
Initial /Date: None / No further action required.
- 9. Determine the date flushing started under the flush package noted in (8) above.
Date .
Was the date flushing started earlier, during, or later than the period defined in (4) above?
Initial /Date: Later / No further action required.
Initial /Date: During or Earlier / Go to III.d.ISAP, Act, 2.
- r l
p
SC10C CONTINUATION SHEET -SEQ #
PREREQUISITE - DCA/ CMC (Michtnical) DCA #
SCREENING CHECKLIST CMC f REY OF SHEET
- 3. Drawing No. .
Rev._No. (incorporation status)
- 4. Determine when this revision of the DCA/ CMC was issued and when the
' drawing revision that incorporated this revision of the DCA/ CMC was issued.
i DCA/ CMC Rev. Issue Date Drawing Rev. Issue Date
- 5. Determine the System or Subsystem which include (s) the hardware i shown on this drawing.
System / Subsystem No. .
i
- 6. Determine the date of release from construction of the System / Subsystem. (If there were several partial releases, the date of the earliest partial release may be used.)
Date .
Was the date of release from construction before, during, or after the period determined in (1) above?
! Initial /Date: Before or during / Go to 7.
l Initial /Date: After / No further action required.
- 7. Were the changes associated with this revision of the DCA/ CMC l against this drawing of such a nature that they created a need to perform flushing /reflushing?
Initial /Date: Yes / Go to 8.
Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
- 8. Determine which XCP-NE-4 Flush Package (s) the subject drawing was associated with.
r Flush Package No. Go to 9.
(Use additional continuation sheets for additional affected Flush Packages.)
Initial /Date: None / No further action required.
-ww,,,,.,r., ,-,-,,-.--,,----v,. --w,.-ww-,aw,. , , . _,e,w,,,-,m -,---.-,,,~....--.-,m.-,-- . . , - - - v.-...,-w-.,-,-..w--. y...--.-m--,, --w--
CONTINUATION SHEET SCl0C PREREQUISITE - DCA/ CMC (M:chtnicci)
SCREENING CHECKLIST
, (C:nt'd)
- 9. Determine the date flushing started under the flush package noted in (8) above.
Date . .
Was the date flushing started earlier, during, or later than the period defined in (4) above?
Initial /Date: Later / No further action required.
Initial /Date: During or Earlier / Go to III.d.ISAP, Att. 2.
.- SC05 PREREQUISITE - REUISIONS (I & C) SEQ f SCREENING CHECKLIST DWG f REV SHEET 1
- 1. Determine when the sample revision and the next revision were issued.
Sample Rev./Date Next Rev./Date .
Was the sample revision issued after May 15, 19847 Initial /Date: Yes / No further action required.
Initial /Date: No / Go to 2.
- 2. Check to see what changes the sample revision included: DCA's, CMC's and additional changes other than incorporation of DCA's/ CMC's.
Did the sample revision include changes other than incorporation of DCA's/ CMC's?
Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
Initial /Date: Yes / Go to 3.
- 3. Were " additional changes" (noted in 2) of such a nature that they created a need to perform testing / retesting?
Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
Initial / Dater Yes / Go to 4.
Justification of either responses (attach drawings, sketches, etc.,
as necessary to provide a clear and complete explanation).
l l
- 4. Determine which components need to be tested / retested as a result of the change.
Component No. Component Type .
(Use continuation sheets for additional affected components.)
- 5. What type of component is noted in (4) above?
i Initial / Dates Pneumatic Valve / Go to 6.
l Initial /Date: Other / Go to 7.
l t
e SC05 PREREQUISITE - REVISIONS (I & C)
SCREENING CHECKLIST (Cont'd)
- 6. Determine the date of earliest EE-11 testing of the component noted in (4) above.
Date . .
Was the date of earliest testing earlier, during, or later than the period defined in (1) above?
Initial /Date: Later / No further action required.
Initial /Date: During or Earlier / Go to III.d.ISAP, Att. 2
- 7. Perform case-by-case evaluation to determine if the change was picked up elsewhere in the Sampling Program, or otherwise should be eliminated from the sample population. If not, evaluate per III.d.ISAP, Act. 2.
Initial /Date Eliminate / No further action required.
Initial /Date: Cannot eliminate / Go to III.d.ISAP, Act. 2 Justify elimination
.e Approved: /
CPRT DATE
SC05C CONTINUATION SHEET SEQ #
PREREQUISITE - PEVISIONS (I & C) DWG #
SCREENING CHECKLIST REV SHEET
- 4. Component No. Component Type
- 5. What type of component is noted in (4) above?
Initial /Date: Pneumatic Valve / Go to 6.
Initial /Date: Other / Go to 7.
- 6. Determine the date of earliest EE-11 testing of the component noted in (4) above.
Date .
Was the date of earliest testing earlier, during, or later than the period defined in (1) on Sheet 17 Initial /Date Later / No further action required.
Initial /Date: During or Earlier / Go to III.d.ISAP, Act. 2
- 7. Perform case-by-case evaluation to determine if the change was picked up elsewhere in the Sampling Program, or otherwise should be eliminated from the sample population. If not, evaluate per III.d.ISAP, Act. 2.
Initial /Datet Eliminate / No further action required.
Initial / Dates Cannot eliminate / Go to III.d.ISAP, Act. 2 Justify elimination et t
Approved /
CPRT DATE l
. SC07 PREREQUISITE - REVISIONS (Elcctrical) SEQ f ~~
SCREENING CHECKLIST DWC f -~~'
REV
- 1. Determine when the sample revision and the next revision were i s.s u ed .
Sample Rev./Date Next Rev./Date .
Was the sample revision issued after May 15, 19847 Initial /Date: Yes / No further action required.
Initial /Date: No / Co to 2.
- 2. lietermine the date of earliest EC-8 resting of harilwar show el s ..w i n g . Date tias the date of earliest testing earlier, during, or later than the period defined in (1) above?
Initial /Date: Later / No further action require.l.
Initial /Date: During or Earlier / Co to 3.
J. Check to see what changes the sample revision included: DCA's, CitC's
- and additional changes other than incorporation of DCA's/ CMC's.
Did the sample revision include changes other than ' incorporation of DCA's/ CMC's?
Initial /Date No / No further action requireet.
Initial /Date: Yes / Co to 4.
, 4. Were " additional changes" (noted in #3) of such a nature th.it the r created a need to' perform testing / retesting?
Initial /Date No / No fdrther action required, initial /Date: Yes / Go to !!I.d ISAP, Act. 2.
j Justification of either responses (attach drawings, sketches, etc.,
as necessary to provide a clear and complete explanation).
- t l
l I
i
. 'SC06' PREKEQUS@I2@ - Q@ VISIONS (Michinicci) SEQ O~
SCREENING CHECKLIST DWG #
REV SHEET 1
- 1. Determine when the sample revision and the next revision were issued.
Sample Rev./Date Next Rev./Date .
Was the sample revision issued after May 15, 1984?
Initial /Date: Yes /. No further action required.
Initial /Date: No / Go to 2.
- 2. Check to see what changes the sample revision included: DCA's, CMC's and additional changes other than incorporation of DCA's/ CMC's.
Did the sample revision include changes other than incorporation of DCA's/ CMC's?
Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
Initial /Date: Yes / Go to 3.
- 3. Were " additional changes" (noted in 2) of such a nature that they created a need to perform flushing /reflushing?
Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
Initial /Date: Yes / Go to 4.
Justification of either response (attach drawings, sketches, etc.,
as necessary to provide a clear and complete explanation).
- 4. Determine which XCP-NE-4 Flush Package (s) the subject drawing was associated with.
Flush Package No. Go to 5.
(Use continuation sheets for additional affected Flush Packages.)
, Initial / Dates None / No further action required.
- 5. Determine the date flushing started under the flush package noted in i
.c (4) above. .
Date .
Was the date flushing started earlier, during, or later than the period defined in (1) above?
Initial /Date Later / No further action required.
Initial / Dates During or Earlier / Go to III.d.ISAP, Att. 2
. SC06C CONTINUATION SHEET SEQ #
PREREQUISITE - REVISIONS (M;chtnical) DWG #
SCREENING CHECKLIST REV SHEET
- 4. Flush Package No. Go to 5.
- 5. Determine the date flushing started under the flush package noted in (4) above.
Date .
Was the date flushing started earlier, during, or later than the period defined in (1) on Sheet 17 Initial /Date: Later / No further action-required.
Initial /Date: During or Earlier / Go to III.d.ISAP, Att. 2 t
1 l
n .
SCREENING CHECKL:ST DCA #
CMC #
REV 0F SHEET (Fill out a sheet for each Rev.)
- 1. Determine the issue date of this revision of the DCA/ CMC.
Date .
Was this revision issued after May 15, 198 7 Initial /Date: Yes / No further action required.
Initial /Date: No / Co to 2.
For DCA's/ CMC's which affect Electrical drawings applicable to the Prerequisite Test program:
- 2. Was this revision of the DCA/ CMC incorporated or awaiting incorporation into any affected drawings?
Initial /Date: Yes / Co to 3. .
Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
- 3. Drawing No. Rev. No. (incorporation status)
(Use continuation sheets for additional affected drawings.)
- 4. Determine when this revision of the DCA/ CMC was issued and when the drawing revision that incorporated this revision of the DCA/ CMC was issued.
DCA/ CMC Rev. Issue Date Drawing Rev. Issue Date
- 5. Determine the date of earliest XCP-EE-8 testing of hardware shown on the drawing.
Date Was the date of earliest testing earlier, during, or later than the period defined in (4) above?
i Initial /Date: Later / No further action required.
l r Initial /Date During or Earlier / Co to 6.
l 6. . Were the changes associated with this revision of the DCA/ CMC against this drawing of such a nature that they created a need to perform te9 ting / retesting?
Initial /Date: Yes / Co to 7.
Initial /Date No / No further action required.
~ ~ -~
(C:nt'd)
- 7. Waro th2 ch:ng2s costciated tsith this revisien cf the DCA/ CMC against this drawing modified by a subsequent revision to the DCA/ CMC such that the need for testing is negated?
Initial /Date: Yes / Co to 8.
Initial /Date: No / Co to 111.d.ISAP. Att. 2.
- 8. Was physical work performed to implement this revision of the DCA against this drawing, such that a need to perform testing / retesting was created?
Initial /Date: Yes / Co to III.d.ISAP. Att. 2.
Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
.c l
I
PREREQUISITE - DCA/ CMC (Electrical) DCA f SCREENING CHECKLIST CMC i REV 0F SHEET
- 3. Drawing No. Rev. No. (incorporation status)
- 4. Determine when this revision of the DCA/ CMC was issued and when the drawing revision that incorporated this revision of the DCA/ CMC was issued.
DCA/ CMC Rev. Issue Date Drawing Rev. Issue Date S. Determine the date of earliest XCP-EE-8 testing of hardware shown on the drawing.
Date Was the date of earliest testing earlier, during, or later than the period defined in (4) above?
Initial /Date: Later / No further action required.
Initial /Date: During or Earlier / Go to 6.
- 6. Were the changes associated with this revision of the DCA/ CMC against this drawing of such a nature that they created a need to perform testing / retesting?
Initial /Date: Yes / Go to 7.
I Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
i
- 7. Were the changes associated with this revision of the DCA/ CMC against this drawing modified by a subsequent revision to the DCA/ CMC such that the need for testing is negated?
Initial /Date: Yes / Go to 8.
Initial /Date: No / Co to III.d.ISAP, Act. 2.
- 8. Was physical work performed to implement this revision of the DCA against this drawing, such that a need to perform testing / retesting was created.
~
Initial /Date: Yes / Go to III.d.ISAP., Att. 2.
Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
l l
l L
SCO3 PREREQUISITE - DCA/ CMC (I & C) SEQ f I SCREENING CHECKLIST DCA i I CMC f REV 0F SHEET (Fill out a sheet for each Rev.)
- 1. Determine the issue date of this revision of the DCA/ CMC.
Date . .
Was this revision issued after May 15, 19857 Initial /Date: Yes / No further action required.
Initial /Date: No / Go to 2. l For DCA's/ CMC's which affect I & C drawings applicable to the Prerequisite Test program:
i
- 2. Was this revision of the DCA/ CMC incorporated or awaiting incorporation into any affected drawings?
Initial /Date: Yes / Go to 3.
Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
- 3. Drawing No. Rev. No. (incorporation status)
(Use continuation sheets for additional affected drawings.)
- 4. Were the changes associated with this revision of the DCA/ CMC against this drawing of such a nature that they created a need to perform testing / retesting?
Initial /Date: Yes / Go to 5.
j Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
4
- f. Determine when this revision of the DCA/ CMC was issued and when the drawing revision that incorporated this revision of the DCA/ CMC was issued.
, DCA/ CMC Rev. Issue Date Drawing Rev. Issue Date l
- 6. Determine which components need to be tested / retested as a result of the change.
T Component No. Component Type .
(Use continuation sheets for additional affected components.)
- 7. What type of component is noted in (6) above?
Initial /Date: Pneumatic Valve / Go to 8.
Initial /Date: Other / Go to 9.
SCO3I/ PREREQUISITE - DCA/ CMC (I & C)
SCREENING CHECKLIST (Cent'd)
- 8. Determine the date of earliest EE-11 testing of the component noted in (6) above.
Date .
Was the date of earliest testing earlier, during, or later than the l period defined in (5) above?
Initial /Date: Later / No further action required.
Initial /Date: During or Earlier / Go to III.d.ISAP, Att. 2 1
- 9. Perform a case-by-case evaluation to determine if the change was picked up elsewhere in the Sampling Program, or otherwise should be eliminated from the sample population. If not, evaluate per III.d.ISAP, Act. 2.
Initial /Date: Eliminate / No further action required.
I Initial /Date: Cannot eliminate '/ Go to III.d.ISAP, Att. 2 Justify elimination i
Approved: /
CPRT DATE
- SCO3C CONTINUAIION SHEET SEQ f PREREQUISITE - DCA/ CMC (I & C) DCA #
SCREENING CHECKLIST CMC #
REV 0F SHEET
- 3. Drawing No. Rev. No. (incorporation status)
- 4. Were the changes associated with this revision of the DCA/ CMC against this drawing of such a nature that they created a need to perform testing / retesting?
Initial /Date: Yes / Go to 5.
Initial /Date: No / No further action required.
- 5. Determine when this revision of the DCA/ CMC was issued and when the drawing revision that incorporated this revision of the DCA/ CMC was issued.
DCA/ CMC Rev. Issue Date Drawing Rev. Issue Date
- 6. Determine which components need to be tested / retested as a result of the change.
Component No. Component Type .
(Use additional continuation sheets for additional affected components.)
- 7. What type of component is noted in (6) above?
Initial /Date: Pneumatic Valve / Go to 8.
Initial /Date: Other / Go to 9.
- 8. Determine the date of earliest EE-11 testing of the component noted i in (6) above.
Date .
Was the date of earliest testing earlier, during, or later than the period defined in (5) above?
Initial /Date: Later / No further action required.
.c Initial /Date: During or Earlier / Go to III.d.ISAP, Act. 2 l
l l
l s
I
SCO3C CONTINUATION SHEET PREREQUISITE - DCA/ CMC (I & C)
SCREENING CHECKLIST (Cont'd)
- 9. Perform a case-by-case evaluation to determine if the change was picked up elsewhere in the Sampling Program, or otherwise should be eliminated from the sample population. If not, evaluate per III.d.ISAP, Att. 2.
Initial /Date: Eliminate / No further action required.
Initial /Date: Cannot eliminate / Go to III.d.ISAP, Att. 2 Justify elimination i
1 Approved: /
CPRT DATE af l
l i
f W. % ~ i c EC03 PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING SEQ #
EVALUATION CHECKLIST - SAMPLING PLAN
. - ATTACHMENT 4 TO ISAP III.d SAMPLE #__
Sample Drwg # Rev #
For each change verified in Step 5 of the Screening Checklist, complete one of these forms. Transfer the following information for one change:
Affected Preop. Change Type Chang'e Test No. (Rev/DCA/ CMC) I.D. No. Chance Description 3.3.1 Was the test procedure revised, or was a preoperational retest procedure perfonned to test the change?
Initial /Date: Yes / Item passes.
Initial /Date: No / Go to 3.3.2.
3.3.2 Determine the date of incorporation of the change into the plant. Date Source of information:
Initial /Date: Cannot find / Go to 3.3.3 Determine the date of starting the last performance of the test before May 15, 1934.
Date Was the change incorporated into the plant at the time of starting the last performance of the test before May 15, 1984?
Initial /Date: Yes / Go to 3.3.4.
I
! Initial /Date: No/ Don't Know / Go to 3.3.3.
3.3.3 Check to see if any evidence can be found that the change was being tracked as an open item.
Was the change being tracked as an open item?
Initial /Date: Yes / Item passes.
l
. Initial /Date: No / Go to 3.3.4.
Attach documentation which shows the item was being tracked. Provide a clear explanation as to how the conclusion was reached.
t EC03 PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING EVALUATION CHECKLIST - SAMPLING PLAN
-ATTACHMENT 4 TO ISAP III.d (Cont'd) 3.3.4 Look for any other evidence that S/U was aware of the change, such as Startup Work Authorizations, Memos, or other documents.
Is there evidence S/U was aware of the change?
Initial /Date: Yes / Pass.
Initial /Date: No / Fail.
Attach documentation / written explanations as necessary to justify answer.
Remarks:
l l
Disposition: Pass by Step Fail Signed: /
CPRT DATE
X a.4.24.oc u d
CPRT OBJECTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE
- 1. Name A ME3 E. S HIJIC K
- 2. Position on CPRT R,l b , N5 ,,v [rv,c ~/ . c , ,, ,. ' j, l
I
- 3. Name of current employer h)ts e / AJJ orsdN, E e
~
- 4. Date this questionnaire is completed F/dy E.7, 19 #.5
- 5. Do you hold any stock or other securities of Texas Utilities Company? No
- 6. Have you ever been a director, officer, or employee of Texas Utilities Company or any of its subsidiaries *? No
- 7. Have you ever entered into a contract, whether oral or written, with Texas Utilities Company or any of its subsidiaries or with another person, firm, or corporation who has acted as a contractor for the Comanche Peak project other than a contract relating to your involvement in the current CPRT program? W-J
- 8. Would the answer to any of the above questions be "yes" if answered by any member of your immediate family (father, mother, spouse, son, or daughter)? N,
- 9. Have you been promised any additional compensation or reward or anything of value by anyone, contingent upon the position you take on any issue being considered by you in the CPRT program? No
- 10. Do you know of any reason, whether inquired about in this questionnaire or not, which would affect your ability to be completely objective in performing any of the tasks assigned to you l under the Comanche Feat CPRT program? No
- 11. Would the answer to any of the above questions be "yes" if answered by your current employer? Yec I 12. If the answer to any one or more of the above questions was "yes" then please fully explain each such "yes" answer, by number, on the reverse side of this questionnaire. Attach additional sheets to provide further information, if necessary.
(L - . -u $ '
k , . (.
t lignature T \d SubsidiariesofGexasUtilitiesCompanyareTexasUtilities.
Electric Company q which has four divisions: Texas Power 8 Light Company Texas Electric Service Company, Dallas Power 81.ight Company, and Texas Utilftfes Generating Companv; Texas Utilities Mining Company; Texas Utilities Fuel Cornpany; Easic Eesources Inc.;
and Chaco Energy Company, i
Zll,-
l f!!i /97[ Taursot /97e, Ts.uns a davas,aa Hnence re.e 1:23 AI ,s s ne, .Tr> <
Ti's .' /~r es otte r r'e K Plovoorart $sn e tu ? Teffser [separts Te Tu p p o ,*.
N/ /~ a - /9e2 h /7ev, cxvir /,,,) o,,
a ;s svc a n < A u, ; +L 7w c,-e.c oe .tc li. .
Y, c < v le e - e, f p. J. (v, A c as-h p$1P J i~ s' Dpra bo >tr l2c v'i .c~J Oe-z < < r G bh.c ///kni -
//c.,,tw .
,, ,--_,,n- ,,-w- - n---, -
g- e -w
-w-- , . . - - , ,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert K. Gad III, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on August 14, 1986, I made service of the within " Answers to Board's 14 Questions (Memo; Proposed Memo of April 14, 1986) Regarding Action Plan Results Report III.d" by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Mr. Thomas F. Westerman Chairman Comanche Peak S.E.S.
Administrative Judge c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board P.O. Box 38 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mr. William L. Clements Administrative Judge Docketing & Services Branch 881 W. Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Stuart A. Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the Executive President, CASE Legal Director 1426 S. Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Renea Hicks,. Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Assf.stant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C. 20555 Anthony Roisman, Esquire Mr. Lanny A. Sinkin Executive Director Christic Institute Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1324 North Capitol Street 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611 Washington, D.C. 20002 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Robert D. Martin Administrative Judge Regional Administrator 1107 West Knapp Region IV Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
Citizens Clinic Director Office of the Executive Government Accountability Project Legal Director 1901 Que Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20009 Maryland National Bank Bldg.
Room 10105 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Nancy Williams Cygna Energy Services, Inc.
101 California Street Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111 ,
k -
V i
,v- g Robert K. Gap /III l
l
, _ . . _ - . . - - . - . _ . ,. - - ._. - - - .