ML20217M868
| ML20217M868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/21/1999 |
| From: | Stein S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9910280062 | |
| Download: ML20217M868 (3) | |
Text
r I'
hldN(< 0 r ;
l
]w '3 i b l.!<
i L
October 21,1999 l
7 TUCLIC ::C /1_s T Ruy:
MEMO TO FILE
}
FROM:
Steven'R. Stein a DCT ?.5 H :<t?
Inspection Program Branch Division of Inspaction Program Management
SUBJECT:
THRESHOLD FOR DOCUMENTING INSPECTION FINDINGS The attached chart and explanation were developed to assist NRC inspectors determine if an issue is important enough to mention in an inspection report. The chart and guidance will be incorporated 'into inspection Manual Chapter 0610, " Inspection Reports," when the chapter is
' reissued early in 2000 for full implementation of the new reactor oversight process.
i 1
i l
/
QM Df l
L I w E M iS C-l 1
Attachme: ; Draft, Minimum Threshold for Documenting inspection Findings Cc: POR LL6 J' l
_.,A l
9910290062 991021 PDR ORG NRRA i
- / DRAFT MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DOCUMENTING INSPECTION FINDINGS DRAFT is b ue isusue inspection }.
f Documentin m
I'**
l viola ion?
on?
ynspection Repo NO YES 1rN Does issue affect
. NO a comerstone or is it related to a safety-related system?
YES 1r
- 1. Does the issue involve an actual or credible potential impact on safety?
- 2. Is the issue an immediate precursor to a more significant issue?
- 3. If no action is taken, will the condition worsen?
- 4. Will recurrence of the issue result in a more significant concem?
1r 1r NO Any extenuating NO is any answer circumstances m
"Yes*?
associated with issue?
YES YES j
1r 1r 1r
[ Document; )[
Do not
}
{
45DP: Document 2 green
( no color ] ( document j l
Q
~
DRAFT' MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DOCUMENTING INSPECTION FINDINGS DRAFT l
EXPLANATION OF CHART l'
Documentino violations that are areater than minor:
1 SDP type issues would be evaluated with.the SDP. Non-SDP issues would be assigned a severitylevel.
L Comerstones/Safetv-Related System decision block:
Determine if the issue has a credible affect on one of the comerstor.3 nbjectives. The questions to ask include:
Can this issue cause an initiating event or increase the likelihood of an initiating event?
Can this issue cause a mitigating system to be unavailable or adversely affect the e
reliability or functional capability of a mitigating system? '
e.
Can this issue degrade the integrity of a fission barrier?
Can this issue reduce the effectiven' ss of the emergency operating plan?
e e
Can this issue increase the exposure to radiation of members of the public during e.
' routine operations?
' Can this issue increase the exposure to radiation of plant workers during routine plant e
operations?
. Can this issue reduce the plant's protection to the design basis threat of radiological e
sabotage?
Minor violation decision block:
- if the issue is a violation, it should be compared to the guidance for minor violations.
Extenuatina circumstances decision block:.
From IMC 0610*, minor violations are only documented when there is a specific reason to document it.~ Those reasons include:
if the minor violation is part of the resolution of an alegation e
the associated technicalinformation may relate directly to an issue of agency-wide e
concern (e.g., the inspection was performed in response' to an NRC temporary.
instruction (TI)).
Four auestions decision block:
The following questions shou?d be asked of issues that are not violations to determine if they warrant documenting in an inspection report:
. Does this finding have any actual impact (or any significant potential for impact) on
~
ec safety?.
Le :
Could this finding be viewedr'4,2i himediate precursor to a more sicnificant event?
if the licensee takes no action on this matter, will the condition worsen (i.e., will the
.s safety significance increase)?
e" If this finding recurs, will its recurrence result in more significant or additional safety concems? -
Pl venfication issues are alwavs documented in insoection reoorts i
,.