ML20206S562

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discovery Rept 4 Re App B,Requesting Responses to Listed Questions Concerning Comanche Peak Response Team Insp of Qa/Qc Program.Related Correspondence
ML20206S562
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 09/16/1986
From: Garde B
Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
To:
Shared Package
ML20206S559 List:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8609220266
Download: ML20206S562 (8)
v • d • e


Text

s

. . gs.MbaW-!YN pgN

~

dEFOMS Trit. 00CMETED UNITED STATES NUCL8AR R8GULATORY COMMISSION Before tne Atomic Safety and Licensing-Board

. . '86 SEP 18 All:25 0FFICE OF !! D.Lin '

In tne Matter of ) 00CKETIN'i A sir en.!.

BP:J m

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ) Dkt. Nos. 50-445-OL et al. ) 50-446-OL

) {

(Comanche Feak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 ano 2)  ;

CPRT DIECOVERY - 4 APPENDIX d

1. 8xplain, in precise detail, how the completion of tne first and second component of the CPRT (described in Appendix B, summarized in the last two paragraphs of 99 2) will fully.

resolve and/or fully cound the safety-significant implications of deficiencies in the CPSES construction VA/QC program?

2. Appendix e (page 31 states tnat the self-initiatea component of the CPRT will permit the CPRT to make a firm statement about the "... acequacy of tne VA/vC program employed during its construction". Explain, in precise detail, witn reference to the elements of the program plan, what ISAPs/0 SAPS explore tne f ailures of the QA/gC program to meet original commitments witnout regard to tne adequacy of tne resultant hardware. (Throughout these discovery requests, the railure of QA/uC to meet an original commitment, sucr. as failing to report an unsat conuition, it it is not aeemed a oeficiency or a 4

~

8609220266 860916 PDR G ADDCK 05000445 PDR

, discrepancy by the CPRT, will oe referred to here as a " boo-boo."

3. Appendix B provides for the DAP to report " areas of concern" involving design control processes required by 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix 8, Criterion III to the QA/QC Review Team Leader for evaAuation. In regards to this element of the program:
a. Identify all procedures or documents which are used in the identification of the area of Concerns.
b. Explain, in precise detail, the term

" areas of concern" as used on page 3 of Appendix 8, including but not: limited to how design observation becomes an area of concern, wno is responsible for making the decision whether a boo-boo is an area of concern, and what source documents are reviewed to determine if a boo-boo is an area of Concern.

c. Ioentify all forms or procedures used to provide the concern to the QA/QC RTL for evaluatioa.
d. Identity, by name and form number, the procedures used to perform the evaulation rererreo to on page 3.
e. Ioentify the person or persons responsible for conducting the assessment of the concerns.
f. Ioentity the procedures used to perform the assessment and if required, the analysis

_3 described on page 3, para. 4.

4. Provide tne matrix referreo to on pg. 4, para. 7.
5. Explain, in precise terms, how a concern is determined to be " valid" in order to be tracked on the matrix.
6. Identify the person or persons from the QA/QC review team assigneo to oevelop the matrix.
7. Explain, in precise detail, the circumstances under which external source issues would not be adequately addressed oy existing ISAP's such that revisions ot ISAPs or new ISAPs would be necessary. (Page 4)
d. Explain in precise oetail now a review and verification of an already implemented TUGCo Corrective Action program would be used to provide additional data to the collective evaluation process.
a. Identity each TUGCo. program wnich falls into the description provide in response to question 6.
b. For each pro 3 ram identified provice the following information:
1. When tne program was instituted.
2. If concluded, when the program was concluded.
3. What was the original impetus or  !

the program.

4. Name the organization and the principal individuals responsisble
4. Provide the matrix referred to on pg. 4, para. 7.
5. Explain, in precise terms, how a concern is aetermined to oe " valid" in order to be tracked on the matrix.
6. Identity the person or persons f rom the QA/QC review team assi*gned to develop the matrix.
7. Explain, in precise detail, the circumstances under which external source issues would not be adequately addressed by existing ISAP's sucn tnat revisions of ISAPs or new ISAPs would be necessary. (Page 4)
d. 8xplain in precise detail how a review and verification of an already implemented TOGCo Corrective Action program woulo De used to provide auditional data to the collective evaluation process.
a. Identify each TUGCo. program whicn falls into the description provide in response to question 8.
o. For eacn program identified provide the following information:
1. Wnen the program was instituted.
2. If concluded, when the program was concluded.
3. What was the original impetus of the program.

. 4. Name tne organization and the principal individuals responsisole '

tor conducting the program.

9. List all the procedures used in developing and/or implementing the CPRT activities described in Appendix 8.
10. Identify all evaluations which will be conducted by another Review Team instead of the Safety Significance dvaluation group.
11. Identify the form or procedure used by the safety-significant evaluation group to identify design-related deviations in oraer to turn them over to the Design Adequacy Review Team.
12. Explain in precise detail the actual methodology by which the CPRT will determine,
a. the root cause of any safety-significant deficiences,
o. the generic implications of the root cause in order to determine if other areas of hardware might contain safety-significant deficiencies attributable to the same root cause, and .
c. how it will be determined if additional hardware evaluations would be required to establish root cause or to bound the root cause or determine generic implications.
13. 8xplain how the SIE will "save timd* in the resolution of areas which the category I ISAPs indicated had generic implicatior.s as a result of the root cause determination.

i

14. Explain how the SIB resolves tne concerns that mi9nt exist about the QA/vC program breakdown which results from evidence of inadequate qualifications of QC inspectors in the 1

.. past.

13. explain how the SIE resolves concerns that might exist aoout the QA/QC programs implementation over the history of tne project as a result or potential occurrence of harassment, intimidation, or pressure of gC inspectors.

lo. To tne extent that the presentation or Mr. Hansel and others at the Octooer 2 or 3, 1985 puolic meeting, does not

  • adequately aescrioe or explain or differs from now the installed safety-related hardware was categorized into populations, and then into homogenous work activities, provide a correct explanation.
17. Iaentity each population into which safety-related haraware was/is categorized (App. B, pg.d-9).-

lo. Identify the person or persons wnose " experience" was relied upon to categorize each of the populations identified aoove. (App. B, pg.8-9).

19. Identify for eacn population the " reasonably homogenous work activities" identified. (App. B, 99 8-9).
20. Describe, in detail, the process used to determine-whica " quality characteristic" tor eacn HWA to use.
21. Iaentify each quality characteristic for each HWA which will be verifiea, and which characteristics will be veritied oy sampling methods and wnich characteristics will be verifiea of actual inspection or the installed work (99 8, et seq.).
22. Identity, ror each attribute of each dwA, which

. attributes will be reinspected and which attributes will oe reviewea tot samples of the hardware. (pg.9)

23. Explain the process in detail, including identifying the procedures used to accomplish the tasks described in the above questions.
24. Identify (by name, job title, entity employed by, supervisor) the person or persons responsible for selection of the samples described on page 9, paragraph 2 of Appendix 8.

Include in your response the person or persons (identified by name, job title, entity employed by, supervisor) responsible for selecting the subset of the population defined as "having greater importance to satety."

25. Identify the procedures or instructions used by the individuals identiried in response to the previous question to accomplish the sample selection process.
26. Idenfity all sources of input to the collective evaluation of CPRT findings, observations, and conclusions that relate to the adequacy of the CPSSS construction QA/QC program.
27. Ioentify all sources of input to the collective evaluation of CPRT findings, observations and conclusions that relate to the quality of the installed hardware at CPSES.
28. Identify (by name, job title, entity employed by, i supervisor) the person or persons who are responsible for preparing each of the collective evaluation reports identified above.
29. Describe in detail the process oy wnich the two collective evaluations will be merged to torm tne summary report 1

O O

-g-on tne QOC.

30.

Identity (by name, job title, entity employed by, supervisor) tne person or persons responsiole to preparing tne VOC Summary Report.

31.

Explain now the SIE resolves concerns that might exist about the VA/QC program's implementation over the history of tne project as a result or the potential f ailure of management to possess or exhibit the proper character or competence to properly implement the VA/QC program.

32. Produce for inspection and copying all documents identified in the answers to these interrogatories and relied upon or examined in the course of answering these interrogatories.

Respectfully submitted, Billie P. Garde pf 'T' Trial Lawyers for Public Justice ,.

2000 P Street, Nd washington, D.C.  !

20036  !

(202) 463-8600 Counsel for CASE Dated: September 16, 1986 l

l 1

,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20206S562&oldid=3053881"