ML20235E103
| ML20235E103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1986 |
| From: | Emerson M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235E045 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-331 NUDOCS 8707100421 | |
| Download: ML20235E103 (4) | |
Text
--
pe q ra u ua i ail UNITED ST ATES s4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[.,
I ntciow iv
((
611 RY AN PLAZ A oRIVE. SUITE 1000 ARLINGTON T E X AS 76011 i
l MAY 1 GB6
[
a
/
~
Mr-
\\
m
/
'A a r
~
Allegation 1[o.4-85-A-102
Reference:
This refers to my letter to you dated October 7,1985, which indicated that we had requested our inspectors look into your concerns regarding original QA j
vault documents at the Wolf Creek facility.
Our inquiry regarding this matter has been completed, and our findings areWith regar documented in an enclosure to this letter.
requirements identified during our inquiry KG6E is required to inform us in Our vriting of the corrective actions they have taken, or plan to take.
such actions to insure proper resolution.
b inspectors will continue to o serveI assure you that we will monitor such action Should you find that the NRC was compliance with regulatory requirements.
unable to substantiate part of your concern, this does not necessary mean weit means on find the facts as you stated them to be untrue, h
to obtain objective evidence to corroborate your statements throug As a regulatory interviews, document reviews, and/or direct observation.importance along with insu agency, objectivity is of utmost with regulatory requirements.
Ve have benefitted from hearing about your concerns and f eel that our actions Ve take our safety 1.n this matter have been responsive to those issues.
responsibilities to the public very seriously and will continue to do so vigorously within the bounds of our lawful authority.
Sincerely,
//
c Mark Emerson Allegations Coordinator Enciosure: As stated ec: Allegation File Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the Fredom of Inf I
Act, exempt' k-F0IA-l 8707100421 870701 PDR FOIA STEPHEN 86-331 PDR
G*
b ENCLOSURE On following up on the concerns, the inspector interviewed QARR personnel and also personnel in maintenance and the warehouse. ' The information below was furnished by the individuals interviewed.
On two occasions (around July 1985)' of ficial records, documents that the been previously accepted and filed in the QARR had mistakenly been returned to the. field without the proper procedures being followed.
J Records were mistakenly returned once to the warehouse and once to maintenance.
In the maintenance instance, the mistake was identified by the individual receiving the records in the field and the records were
~
returned to QARR.
3 The events appear to have been caused' by the method used at the tim'e for making changes, submitted from the field, to documents already filed in the QARR. Changes to records in the QARR are made by submitting a supplemental / correction report (S/CR) to the QARR. When the S/CR was received, personnel would pull the records affected by the change, and during the process of checking the S/CR against the records would place -
both in the same file drawer that was used as a pickup point for records being returned to the field.
In the two cases where the QARR records were returned to the field, a runner mistakenly picked up the S/CR and the records that were-being checked and returned both to the field (only the S/CR should have been returned to the field). After these two incidents happened, the practice of placing QARR records in the same file drawer happened, the practice of placing QARR records in the-same file drawer with documents being retuned to the field was stopped.
Two contributing factors to these incidents may have been:
1.
A large number of documents were being received in the QARR at the time due to the plant being in the startup phase.
2.
Due to the large volume of work, a number of temporary employees were being used in the QARR.
==
Conclusion:==
The allegation is substantiated in that on at least two occasions records were mistakenly returned to the field.
Spacific parts of the allegation not directly addressed above are repeated and discussed below:
1.
Allegation: In at least one instance, the originals had been thrown away
'i
' af ter being returned from the vault to the warehouse. Vault personnel I
then obtained "Information Only" copies from the warehouse files and placed these copies in the vault as originals.
You do not think that copies were available for all documents that were i
thrown away.
I i
1
l Enclosure g
Substantiated - Some of the QA records mistakenly returned to Findings:
the warehouse were thrown away. The two QARR personnel who rebuilt the records stated that all records were retrieved-copies of warehouse records were used where originals could not be located. The records were rebuilt using the S/CR and transmittal sheet (copy attached) to verify that the rebuilt records were complete. According, to QARR personnel, a 100 percent search of procurement document transmittal sheets, identified by File No. K09-004 was performed to rebuild files. Missing pages were replaced with copies fron the warehouse files.
2.
Allegation: When originals that had been incorrectly sent to the field were returned to the vault, the transmittal sheet and computer record left were revised so that the records would indicate the original had not the vault.
Findings: Could neither substantiate nor refute this statement.
Individuals interviewed stated that they knew of no cases where transmittal sheet dates were altered, however, in the two instances discussed above, the documents were placed back in the vault on the original transmittal without updating the dates.
Therefore, in these two instances the available documentation does not reflect the fact that the files lef t the QARR and were returned at a later date.
3.
Allegation:
Individuals in the field frequently called the vault and told them the vault had mistakenly sent them originals.
Findings: Could neither substantiate nor refute this statement.
Individuals interviewed stated that they did,ot know of any cases where this had happened.
Since you had stated that these concerns had been expressed to Quality First (Q1) at your termination interview, the Q1 file for this concern was reviewed, after it had been investigated and closed by Q1. The concerns expressed to the NRC inspector were more detailed and therefore, substantially different from those expressed to Q1. The Q1 investigator substantiated the allegations given to Q1.
i
Q SENDER: Cork 6teses k,2,3 er:d R
Put your addreen en the "Rt TURN TO" apace om she, 3
roweres side. Fs46 wee to do the ordt prweat this card i
g w;e.r.toroode.,oo 1 eam,.r.
t w....
..l yo nom..tme,ereo,eo. ea
.t..
ostiver y For gooitaorwa toes the fossoweag serveces me.
I evessebas. Conewl postmester for fees and check tesfes) 4 tot serv.cete) requested.
j
- 1. O show t.. nom. oste end addre oe doo ory.
g. 2, O Restektod Delivery, w
- 3. Art.cte A
/
I
,f
- 4. Type of serwece Artlese Nu
- V O cetifes u coo
. J' O n. sistered gsneur.d O Express Mea P 475 069?39S,.
^
Aleusys obtain @ture of addrgotheg, t and QATE DELIVERED.
g
- 7. o.t. of o.m 8
O-& RL g
.~e w puro
, u.m 3
2 3
I Information in this record was deleted in accordance with e Freedom of inlormauon Act, exemptiona F01A $-
r-I r