ML20211C565
| ML20211C565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1985 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC |
| To: | Poslusny C NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211C348 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-312 NUDOCS 8606120344 | |
| Download: ML20211C565 (3) | |
Text
... .
., e l
l Note to Chet Poslu 1/28/85 From Joe Scin Re: Trend Info for Contention 5 Panel Mrs. Ellis asked Mr. Noonan to assure that the Contention 5 Panel was aware of certain Trend reports by Region IV. Specifically, she asked that the Panel be provided with NRC Staff Exhibits 182-195.
I am enclosing a copy of each of these exhibits.(Attachment 1).
A brief description of each of these documents is set forth at the beginning of Attachment 1. Iamalsoenclosing(asAttachment2)a copy of the staff testimony which related to these exhibits (exhibit 180) and a copy of the other exhibits also related to this testimony (exhibits 181 and 196). In addition I am enclosing Staff Exhibit 15 which relates to the 1980-1981 SALP report. It was offeredinconnectionwithearliertestimony(5/24/82).
cc: Noonan Treby 8606120344 860606 PDR FOIA QARDE83-312 PDR fb 'h b .
J D ATTACHMENT 1
182 Memo from W. Seidle to W. Crossman re Trend Analysis for 1976 1/4/77 183 Memo from W. Crossman to W. Hubacek, R.G. Taylor, R.C. Stewart and C.R. Oberg re 1976 Trend Analysis l 1/14/77
. 184 Comanche Peak Trend Analysis - 1976 185 Memo from W. Crossman to W.G. Hubacek, R.G. Taylor, R.C. Stewart and C.R. Oberg re 1977 Trend Analysis 1/6/78 186 Memo from W. Seidle to K.V. Seyfrit re use of licensee i performance evaluation information 10/6/78 -
187 Comanche Peak Trend Analysis for 1977 188 Memo from W. Seidle', re Trend Analysis for 1978 2/1/79 189 Memo from W. Crossman to W.G. Hubacek, R.C. Stewart, R.G. Taylor and C.R. Oberg re Trend Analysis for 1978 2/2/79 190 Memo from R.C.' Stewart to W. Crossman, re Trend Analysis - 1978 10/19/79 l
191 Trend Analysis - 1978 l .
192 Memo from W. Seidle to W. Crossman, re Trend Analysis - 1979 l (
1/4/80 193 Memo from W. Cressman to W.G. Hubacek, R.C. Stewart. .
R.G. Taylor, C.R. Oberg, H.S. Phillips, re Trend Analysis, 1979 1/17/80 l
194 Memo from C.R. Oberg to W. Crossman, re Trend Analysis.
1979 f 3/3/80 195 Trend Analysis, 1979
. NRC Staff Exhibit III UNITED STATES Nuc.E Am R!cutATomy COMMISSION OFFict oF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGloN IV
$11 RY AN PL AZA DmlVE. susTE 1000 I A7LINcToN. TEX AS 76012
- January 4, 1977 f
- ~
W. l.. Cress =an, Chief, Projects Section TEEE A'Al* ISIS - 1976 The start of a new year is a good time to step back and take a look i at the perfor=ance of our assigned licensees during the past year. ,
, If, in our evaluation, we detect negative trends, then we should pro =ptly, arrange through regional supervision to discuss these findi=gs with corporate canagement.
Please request your Facilities Inspectors to conduct a trend analysis 6f the perfor=ance of each of their assigned " active" licensee:s during calendar year 1976. Specific areas to be considered should includa:
. - Nu=ber and repetitiveness of Construction Deficiency Reports.
- - Enforce =ent history, e.g., mu=ber and repetitiveness of non-co=pliance ite=s.
- Responsiveness of licensee to enforcement action.
- Nc=her of outstanding unresolved items - timeliness of resolution.
_ - Corporate management involvement in regulatory matters.
- Effectiveness of QA/QC programs.
- Ar.y other trends indicative of poor perfor=ance.
Please fervard ycur written evaluations to me be CO3 Jaruary 28, 1977.
._ s .
W. C. SeidleT Chief
. Reactor Construction and i Engineering Support Branch !
ec: R. E. Hall W. E. Vetter g
a o
~1 .
NRC Staff Exhibit II3 l 4' 'e u . T!D ST ATEL
,f " ,
N'J LE AR A15U6aTORY COV'.5:&SICN
. . r.rs oN iv
- t .1 %." ' i sit nyaN psA:A D4 EVE.SJtTE 1000 Am us:Tos. T E xas 7 toti
- .:r.r --p'/ , :;
. ~
~
I %., '~ ' ' /
- ...a January 14, 1977 .
. i+
2.
sr MDDFX.7.S: TOR: W. G. Hubacek E, G. Taylor R. C. Stewart C. R. Oberg g FRO.v.: W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section SUEJECT: TREND ANALYSIS - 1976 Inclosed is a meco from Bill Seidle concerning licensee performance trend analysis. To answer his questions please provide the following CY 76 infor=ation.
- a. Nu=ber and Recetiveness of Construction Deficience P.eports (I have this inforcation already)
- b. Enforce =ent Historv Tor each facility list:
(1) Inspection Report Number (2) Dates of Inspection (3) Number of Violation l (4) Number of Infractions (5) Number of Deficiencies (6) Number of Deviations (7) Mandays involved (for that inspection)
(4) Renarks (indicate if repeat from 1976 and 1975)
(b) Number of outstanding unresolved items Responsiveness of Licensee to Enforcement Action c.
W-(1) Is licensee on time with answer to our letter?
l (2) Are answers adequate? Do we have to go back for more information?
(3) Is corrective action done promptly? '
(le) Are any inadequate answers our fault? ,
(5) Is the licensee responsive in your opinion? Why? f
- ?
m...
~
lL .
. a:
I !
- d. _
Eu bat- of Caresolved Items - Ticeliness Resolution fg
.. t
~(1) Su=bers are given in b.(9) above. e ,
(2) Are unresolved items cleared rapidly? , l (3) Average time to clear.
(t) Are numbers / inspection on the increase? Why?
- e. Corocrate >!anagement Involvement in Regulation Matters (1) Sufficient management representation of exits?
(2) Attitude receptive?
(3) Signature on licensee letters appropriate level?
(4) Is management involved? (indicate basis for answer)
- f. Effectiveness of QA/QC Program This is a very subjective matter. I desire your own opinion and what you base your opinion on. If too early in construction phase to state, indicate this. Also indicate what you believe we can do to have the= improve their program.
( g. Anv Other Trends Indicative of Poor Performance List and discuss any other indications that may point out poor /
good performance.
As a last ite=, give me your general reco=mendation on advisability of holding a periodic management meeting with all licensees to discuss past performance and identify possible problems for the licensee to avoid.
As indicated in the enclosure, this is to be your assessment of your
" active" facilities. Please have your information to me by COB on January 25, 1977.
===-w W. A. Crossman, Chief Projects Section 3.
Enclosure:
As stated M
cc: W. C. Seidle $
-i
NRC Staff Exhibit IM
- TREND ANALYSIS COMANCHE PEAK, UN'ITS 1 & 2
- b. Egorcement History See attachment ,
- c. Responsiveness of Licensee to Enforcement Action Although the licensee has been generally responsive to enforcement correspondence, the Principal Inspector has, within the past year, requested additional information in order to clarify corrective action taken in order to preclude recurrences. In addition, informal dis-cussions were held with the cogninnt licensee representatives in order to have the licensee improve a general weakness in providing a reply that is fully responsive to each of the three basic questions contained in the notice. An improvement has been evident; however, an adequate level of confidence has not been fully achieved.
- d. Number of Unresolved Items - Timeliness Resolution The IE inspection reports indicate sixteen (16) unresolved items iden-tified during the past twelve (12) months. It can not be demonstrated that items are cleared rapidly; however, the licensee has had problems I with their contractor (Brown & Root) in obtaining timely corrective measures, or adequate responsiveness to internal audit findings that generally impact on IE unresolved matters. (see paragraph f below) e,f&g. Corporate V.anagement Involvement in Regulatory Matters During the early part of 1976, it became apparent to the Principal Inspector that the effectiveness of the licensee's QA/QC Program was in a state of degradation as a result of a domineering and overpowering control by the contractor's site construction management.
On June 11, 1976, at the request of the Region IV staff, the President of TUGCO/TUSI, two Senior Vice Presidents and the QA Manager met in conference at the NRC regional office in order to alert top management j of the seriousness of the apparent breakdown in corporate management.
Follow-on meetings were held July 30 and September 3,1976 (ref. IE i
Inspection Reports 76-08 & 76-09). In addition, numerous informal discussions were held on and off site during the period September 1976 thru January 1977. Recent site inspections have revealed signs of a slow, but progressive, turn-around to a more effectual management control by the licensee; however, the matter remains an item of priority i*
.y
until a more satisfactory condition is demonstrated by the licensee.
( Additional meetings with the licensee corporate management have been mutually agreed to. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for ,
the second week in February 1977. g,
~ t P[riodic management type meetings with licensees are always useful; .
however, they should be tied to specific problems if possible since the utility top management's time is valuable. .
I I
l t
I 2
2 A
1 .
_. s -
t i
n Y' U ,
k '
a e s P k r
e a h m c e n R a
m o
C s m
e Y t T I I 2 L . 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 I s C e A r F n U
s y 5 5 5 5 a 5 3 5 0 7 5 7 0 7 0 7 D 0 6 9 0 6 5 7 8 2 8 6 2 n 1 1 1 1 a
M I v 1 e
D f
e D
r f 1 3 n 5 I
l '
i o
Y V R
O T
S I s H e 8 t
T a 2, 7 N
E D 6 1
2 4 1
8 1
6 1
0 3
7 2
4 2 5 lu1-M .
9 1, - 9 - - - - - - - - 4 E p - 5 0 - 2 6 3 6 4 1 2 91 g C s 7 1 1 7 1 1 1 2 2 2 / //
R n / / / / / / / / / / 1 z2 ,
O I 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 1 i 1 ,._
F N
E o
. N b t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1
r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 o
p 6
6 6
6 6
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 e 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 R
CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY REPORTS
-1976- :
. It
. g ANO-2 4/26 6/29 10/27 ,
Waterford 3 7/6 8/18 Comanche Peak 1 4/9 9/20 Comanche Peak 2 9/20 South Texas 1 South Texas 2 River Bend 1 10/4 River Bend 2 Wolf Creek 1 Ft. Calhoun 2 Black Fox 1 Black Fox 2 Allens Creel 1 Blue Hills 1 Blue Hills 2 i
t t
- 4 .
.' ..*. u%:TE D sTaits suctcan na cutatomy covwssios y
3,-
, nr oson sv NRC Staff Exhibit IIf 1
- 4 ./ ' r su avam ets.za on vt. suite ioco Sjg-f.s pf ,i
, s ;-
an Linctos.Ttxas vson
-* January 6,1978 ,
~ M
- n ' .
)
MEMOPRIDUM FOR: W. G. Hubacek R. G. Taylor R. C. Stewart C. R. Oberg FROM: W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section SU3 JECT: TREtiD AfiALYSIS - 1977 Please perform a trend analysis of the performance of each of your assigned
" active" licensees for the calendar year 1977. In cases where responsibility for licensees is being reassigned, the inspector who was responsible for the licensee in calendar year 1977 will prepare the analysis. Your analysis should include the followin5 information:
- a. fiumber and Recetiveness of Construction Deficiency Reports
- b. Enforcer +nt History For each facility list:
(1) Inspection Report Number (2) De es of Inspection (3) tiu ser of Violations l (4) Nurcer of Infractions -
(5) flu ser of Deficiencies (6) Nu .ber of Deviations (7) P.andays involved (for that inspection)
(8) Rer. arks (indicate if repeat from 1977 and 1976)
(9) Nu-ber of unresolved items
- c. Resconsiveness of Licenses to Enforcement Action (1) Is licensee on time with answer to our letter?
(2) Are answers adequate? Do we have to go back for more information?
(3) Are any inadequate answers our fault?
(4) is corrective action done promptly? a (5) 1s the licensee responsive? p NoThI i kh .
l I .
. . s ,
l i
I
' ' 1rspe: tors - Projects Section January 6,1978 1
m.
- d. Unresolved Items rc
- 1) kre unresolved items cleared rapidly?
- 2) Are numbers / inspection on the increase? Why?-
- 3) tiumber of unresolved items escalated to enforcement items.
- e. Corporate Managerent Involvement in Regulation Matters (1) Sufficient cana5ement representation at exit interviews?
(2) Attitude receptive?
(3) Signature on licensee letters appropriate level?
(4) Is canagement involved? (Indicate basis for answer)
- f. Effectiveness of OA/0C Procram This is a very subjective matter. I desire your own opinion and basis for your opinion. If too early in construction phase to state, indicate this. Also indicate what you believe we can do to have them improve their program. This inforcation should not be included in the documented analysis, but you should be prepared to discuss it with Mr. Seidle.
- g. Any Other Trends Indicative of Poor Performance List and discuss arye other indications that may point out poor / good pe rf o rmance.
Please have your inforcation to te by CC3 on January 31, 1978.
W ^
W. A. Crossman, Chief Projects Section ec: W. C. 5 sidle
_. a h
?
UNittPS1Alth
/ ' .. . q 'c, huCLE AR REGUL A1oRY Cov'.*!$5tok i e REGION IV 3 sti RvAN naza oRivt.suitt tooo NRC Staff Exhibit II6 a 1;) , j,y ARuscTou. te xAs noit 4.....- October 6, 1978
- h
-, y MEMORANDUM FOR: K. V. Seyfrit. Director FROM: W. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ES Branch
SUBJECT:
USE OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INFORMATION, MEMO 10/3/78, DAVIS TO SEYFRIT In response to the subject memorandum, the attached Trend Analysis in-formation generated for those facilities assigned to the RC&ES Branch during the year 1976 and 1977 is provided for your information. I initiated this on-going analysis in qv memorandum to W. A. Crossman dated January 4,1977, a copy of which is attached. Yru will note in Crossman's implementation memorandum of January 6,1978, page 2, para-graph f (copy attached) that I discuss each facility with the assigned project inspector.
If you have any specific questions regarding this matter, I would be pleased to discuss them with you. ,
/.
[ ,[/ M __
W. C. Seidl Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Attachments:
Memo dated 1/4/77 W. C. Seidle to W. A. Crossman Memo dated 1/6/76, W. A. Crossman to Project Inspectors Trend Analysis Book - 1976.and 1977
_ )-[N ..
=
a.
NRC Staff Exhibit II7 Comanche Peak, Units 1 & 2 TREND ANALYSIS - 1977 e
- a. N mber and Repetiveness of Construction Deficiency Reports EU None reported.
t
- b. Enforcement History .
(Seeattachedsheet)
- c. Responsiveness of Licensee to Enforcement Action (1) Yes.
(2) Yes.and No.
(3) No.
(4) Yes.
(5) Yes,
- d. Unresolved Items (1) Yes.
(2) No.
(3) None.
i e. Corporate Management Involvement in Regulation Matters (1) Yes.
(2) Yes.
(3) Yes.
(4) Yes, Executive Vice President & General Manager is personally involved. ,
- f. Effectiveness of 0A/0C Program l
Thg, contractors QA/QC Program is considered to be "too wieldy" in its 4 structure and is undergoing progressive chance by the licensee. A ;
significant organization and management change initiated January 3, r ~
1978, should improve overall QA/QC Program effectiveness.
l 1 ___-.___-
~
- ,. ..k
- _ r, , , 'd? , :
. . , -: &~ , , ;- ,
_ hv- 4 l g* - ~
- * ? . .
b"g
- i .
~
- g. Any Other Trends Indicative of Poor Performance None.
- t. .
M Mi y
.: .1 a
e 4
iI 9
i c
I i
l -
e.
5 en e
l
t Cor.anche Peak, Units 1 & 2
~ Enforcement M' Report 3 Dates V I D D M/D U Remarks j 77-01 1/18-21 & 2/2-4 0 0 0 0 13.5 . 1 77-02 3/01-04 0 2 0 1 9.6 1 Investigation 77-03 3/15-18 0 0 0 0 11.3 0 77-04 4/26-28 0 0 0 0 3.6 1 77-05 4/26-27 0 0 0 0 1.6 1 77-06 5/10, 11, & 13 0 0 0 0 6.9 0 77-07 6/07-09 0 0 0 0 6.1 0 77-08 7/05-08 .0 0 0 0 7.1 1 77-09 8/16-19 0 0 0 0 10.8 2 77-10 9/27-30 0 1 1 0 3.5 2 77-11 10/11-14 0 0 0 0 6.8 3 77-12 .11/07-11 0 0 0 0 3.8 0 77-13 11/28-12/2 0 0 0 0 17.4 1 77-14 12/15 & 16 0 0 0 0 3.0 0 Investigation TOTALS .0 3 1 1 105.0 13
4
nne Staff Exhibit III
/ A -
p u c , - . -~. . -. . ' aiu Se ocE # -
ft
.-' y t:tc< ~<c kunuac. , di; & $ zfje .s .-d e.afi dar a &a / m.dkJ< dun 4 -t dia$ .culed e n g /.<.a z c . A rf y < a s, uu?/ de cau k N . Ac-g2,p er .. u ipaki 44u Af< l g. g a u < dt. < /ttr.
O d./-1f Y5-s , N 5 c.J a a T t.t a s A ssi g 10 M&vT. lN 14.* s A s w-r rs 1a .
I isd Yt vi eI S i=0 is - rue PS trJ59E- m w% t Al e w
/5 <c.c_ C ,
4.
k l
. )
NRC Staff Exhibit II9 r
e February 2,1979 I .
1 I
MEM3RAMM FOR: W. G. Hubacek
!- R. C. Stewart R. G. Taylor . ,
4 C. R. Oberg .
FRON:
W. A. Crossman, Chief. Proje:ts Section
SUBJECT:
TREND ANALYSIS - 1978 Please perforn a tiend analysis of the performance efench of your ,
assigned 4ctive* Jicenseas for the calendarsaar1978. -In cases J where responsibilit;y for 21censees is helas finassigned; the inspector 4 who was responsible Tor ~ihelicensee ta'malendar, year 1978 er1119rs- O, pare the analysts. >: Tour analysis shoG1d Anclude t.he Tollowing infor- .
.mation: .,,,. -A
. :s. . _hber end atapettvenessif tonstinction hficiency Steports ., ,,,rd-
- s:.G
'e A. .. Enforcement Wistory - T for each facility list:
)
4 inspection Report 4asaber ..
Sates of Inspection
{(
1 umber af Violations
. .O N3 I I Weber af Infractions -
?.D 1
hber.af Deficiencies * .j 1
l l5*andays involved (for that inspection)
} .* mber af Deviattons h "
4
,Q )) 'Aamarks (indicate if repeat from 1978 and 1977) ,
i 4 Sumber af.amresolved (tess ..
1-
. ~ . . , - T.
- c. %sponstveness of Licensee to Enforcement Action 1 ,
(1)
- 52) -is .Arelicensee answers on edequataf time with answer Do we have to togo our back letter? for more infor -
. .i.
-; O emation? - :
p Are argy .4nadequate answers cirrfault? E
, ,.; J .12s ccn ..ctive ection done .promptly?
. '_.= , ,, if=
fgs the 11 cans,ee responsive?
f0f~ '
. -sRIV
' 4#ef.m.V.ENsmaan7ah '
. ' ~
- ~. -
. .g M
-'+il
, *i:Y)
~
~-
_i ~
e'~
~ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ ._ _ ___ ___
february 2,1919 ,
gnspectors - Projects Section
- d. ' Unresolved ..
items E({i g ., -
I;) ' A're unresolved items cleared rapidly? nt items.
L2 (3
Are nup6ers/ inspection thtters on the increase ,
l Corporate knagement Involvement in Regulationt e.
. Sufficient management represen a l?
(l 1
i
, Attitude receptive?$tgnature on licensee letters appro j 1s management involved 7 ;
(4 .
4
- 1. -rIff activeness of CA/0C Proorant desire your own opinton and .]
.i~
.7his-is a vary.aAjective matter. 3 easts Tor.your opinion. 3f too you scely believe in eseconstru
- 5. Also indicate what can de
. state. -indicate 2his. This int'ornetton should notbu .2
. to have 1. hee deprove their progma. )~
-be1acivded in the doceanted analysts. ' :
- to disms1 tar'Ith 9tr. Seidle. -
'.. 5
. sAny tther Trends Indicative of foor$ Performance _y point out
. <3 i -1.ist end. discuss any $ther indications t at an perfonaance. y 28.1979.
[ ' 11aase have your infonmation to me by COB en Tabruar w&
b w. A. W
- g. A. Crossaan. Chief '
- Frejects Section .
. w : M.E.Seidle .
=. . .
._. ~~.
'j
.~
y .,rish . . : * .-. %
~
.; ; - - -- ?
. . . .x- . -
~: .
O -
1 .
l
' . . ' .?~.
. .; . t . .....-
- ~ ~ ~ -'
~.*
K-
- NRC Staff Exhibit 190 UNITED sT ATEs
' ' ,.. m .,,
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- * * , RE GION IV i sit avas Ptara omivt suiTt 1000 f
.$,,'h[/ J amuscios,t t st4 7sou f October 19,1979 etc.
, e...e J.
b
=
fW. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. C. Stewart, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section FROM:
TREND ANALYSIS - 1978 SU5 JECT:
dm same The attached infomation is provided you in response to your memo i that were in an subject, dated February 2, 1979. assigned project inspectors, in active construction status durine r CY 1978.
/
> I ,
Reactor Inspector R. C. Stew ,
Projects Section r
f.
. J k
3
NRC Staff Exhibit 19 1 to.an:he Feak Units 1 & 2, DN.50 445; 50 446 TREND ANALYSIS .:
~ P*p Number if Repetitiveness of Construction Deficiency Reports _ ytd
- a. ~
_The licensee reported a total of six potentiel construction defic (50.55(e)) items during calendar year 1978. I do not consider that any of these items to be fully reportable CDNs.
any of these items to have been of repetitive nature.
- b. Enforcement History _ .
(See attached sheet)
- c. Resoonsiveness of Licensee to Enforcement Action -
The licensee has consistently met our date in his responses.d (1)
The licensee's responses are generally adequate, Inadequacies were although w (2) to ask for additional information on two occasions.fo repetition. A e
(3) No the The licensee's corrective actions have been in place on or bef (4) dates committed to.
(5)
On subjective basis I would consider the licensee to be fully responsive.
- d. Unresolved Items _ dditional Unresolved items have generally been cleared within These are one or tw (1) inspections although some items have taken several tion onmonths.site.
l d generally as a result of being unable to locate W documenta Also note that CDNs are usually carr,ied in the reports as unr items for tracking purposes. d without Without the benefit of last years report on Comanche i k that this Peak an (2) a good deal of research, I cannot be sure but I don't th n ,
is the case. in 1978.
(3) No unresolved itens have been converted to i enfo il
' 4 t t1
- . ~
t O
1 I.] i A
s'.'. .
3 a; . ;. ._ w.s 3
e a -
, . l Cor,anche Peak ,
? -
a; .
e.
Corporate Management Involvement in Regulation Matters "'
Site QA l-
)lid .
(1) Si(e ' management is always atIt has thenotexit been / managem by one or both of the Project General Managers. normalb pr t (2) Yes t ,
(3) Yes i '
The various levels of licensee management The designated who signatory should be involve (4) the affairs of the project have been. .
licensee (Gary) and the management person directly in charge of co struction appear to be very well aware of problens and have been helpful in correcting them on occasion. :
- f. _ Effectiveness of OA/0C Program It is The licensee's QA/QC program Instances ofis thegenerally latter seem that effec .
enough real talent to do the job correctly.Inrare buti do show my particular l
the inspectors don't really know what they are inspe I would be forced to attack the situation head-on.
- g. Any Other Trends Indicative of Poor Performance _
None i
l I
i i
l
=,
E
~. .
i
( - - - - - - - - _ ___ . #--T g- - _ _
Co:.3nche Peak Units 1 & 2, DN 50-445; 50-446 ENFORCEPINT HISTORY .
~
Report .,
M/D Remarks Oates V I D D U No._
0 0 0 0 2 10.6 78-01 1/03-13 0 0 0 0 0 9.9 78-02 1/30-2/2 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 78-03 2/08-10 0 0 0 0 1 9.0 78-04 2/28-3/3 0 1 0 0 1 3.8 l 78-05 3/21-24 0 0 0 0 .5 Ward /Huback off-site 3/21 0 investigation 78-06 0 0 0 1 2 12.8 78-07 4/11-21 0 0 0 2 2.6 Environmental 4/26-28 0 78-08 0 0 0 1 7.2 5/16-19 0 78-09 0 0 0 0 4.1 5/30-6/1 0 78-10 0 0 0 3.6 6/20-23 0 1 78-11 2 0 0 2 7.0 8/22-25 0 78-12 0 1 15.8 RRI 0 2 0 78-13 8/01-31 0 4.0 Glen Rose Meeting 0 0 0 0 78-14 9/14 0 0 0 0 7.0 RRI 9/05-15 0 78-15 1 1 13.5 RRI 10/02-31 0 0 1 78-16 0 0 2.0 Investigation 0 0 0 78-17 10/04-12 0 0 1 6.4 10/10-13 0 1 78-18 0 0 0 0 4.2 4 10731-11/03 0 78-19 0 0 0 1* O 13.8 RRI *0eviatih 78-20 --11/01-30 noted withdrawn
' ~ ~ ~~^ ~ ^
- a: . :e : .
-.?! M ;k"_; '
.m,w :+'-
g- _ss .- -
P ww -
. Co.anche Peak ,
t 4 ,
l ,_.
Report 9 No. -Dates V 1 D .U. M/D Remarks n .
-- .D. .
8 p
78-21 11/20-22 0 0 0 0 0 7.2 78-22 12/01-31 0 0 0 0 0 7.8 RRI :
78-23 12/18-20 0 0 0 0 0 5.6 e
I e
l e
~
9 W
e f "' 't, UNITE D $T ATE s NRC Staff Exhibit 19 1 j! h.,d C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
E REGION IV poi lh*/ *[.
t, $11 RY AN PL A2 A DRIVE, $UITE 1000
%, , ,r AR LINGT ON. T E x As 76012 January 4, 1980 .
~ t-
.- 1 4
MEMORANDUM FOR: W. A. Crossmaa, Chief, Projects Section yROM: W. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ES Branch
SUBJECT:
TREND ANALYSIS - 1979 Please request your project inspectors to conduct a trend analysis of the perfor:.ance of each of their assigned facilities during calendar year 1979.
The analysis should be consistent with the considerations identified in my '
me=orandu= to you dated January 4, 1977 (copy attached).
Please provide me with the analyses by COB February 15, 1980.
W. C. Sei e, Chief '
Reactor C struction and Engineering Support Branch cc: K. V. Seyfrit R. E. Hall k'. E. Vetter I
l i
4 l - 1 I
I
< /<
. , .. t" tTED $T AT E!
NUCLE AR REGULATORY CO?.U/.tSSION
[ ',",p
- .e ,. f *.r At C10P. IV cis ano6A
- A cm.vt. suits toce
%~~s.Z.,.;.y- v'I e 6metor . vt Fa$ M012 NRC Staff Exnibit 193 January 17, 1980 EORACUM.}0R: W. G. Hubaeek R. C. Stewart
[J
~~
R. G. Taylor C. R. Oberg E. S. Phillips TROM: W. A. Crossman, Chief , Prcj ects Section SU5 JECT: TPEND ANA1YSIS - 1979 Please perfo:: a trend analysis of the performance of each of your -
assigned " active" licensees for the calendar year 1979. Your analysis should include the f ollowing inferr.ation:
- a. Nnber and Recetitiveness of Constructier. De.ficienev Reperts
- b. Enforec=ent Einterv For each f acility list:
i (1) Inspection Report Nu=ber (2) Dates of Inspection (3) Nu ber of '.'iolations (4) Nu=ber of Infractions
($) R=ber of Deficiencies (C) Nu=ber cf Deviations (7) Mandays invcived (for that inspection)
(8) Re= arks (indicate if repeat from 1978 and 1979)
(9) Nu ber of unresolved items
- n. Responsiveness of 1.ieensee to Enforcement Action (1) is licensee on time with answer to cur letter?
(2) Are answers adequate? De ve have te go back for u.cre inforcation?
(3) Are any inadequate answers our fault 7 (4) is corrective actiou donc promptly?
(5) Is the licensee responsive?
- d. Unreselved Ite=s, (1) Are unresolved ite=s cleared rapidly? 4 (2) Are numbers / inspection on the increasa? Why? g (3) Ndber of unresolved items escalated to enf orcement itens. .
. ,~ s .
Inspett6:e - Frejects Section January 17, 1980
- e. Corporate Nnare:efit Involvement ic Rerulatien Matters ,
P (1) Ed,fficient management rspresentation at exit intervievs? g .
J (2) Attitude reesptive7 (3) Signature on licanaee 2.4tters appropri&te levait (4) Is ornagement iryelved? (Indicate basis for ansvar)
- f. Effectiveness,6f_QA/QC Prograz n.is is a very subjective matter. I desire yopf own opinion and basis f er your epinion. If too early in construction phase to state, indicat's '
this. Also indicate cha; you believe we can de to hai/e the: improve their program. This inforn.ation should not be included in the documented ana13 sis, bot you should be prepared tc, discuss it with Mr. Seidla.
- g. fe.y Other Trende Indicative of_ poor Perforcance ,
1.izt and c'.iscuss any other indications thai may point cut pocr/ good performance.
ples.se have your inf cr=ation te ne by CO2 en February 15, 1980.
& ',.h ? N -+< S j t;./k'. A. Cros sman, Chief Troje:ts Section ec: W. C. Seidle ,
f I
i
?
i
. d.
, , n - -, y, - - ,- ----e- 4