ML20238B495
| ML20238B495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1987 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237K807 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708210282 | |
| Download: ML20238B495 (165) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3 .. ..
,. ./ f i.;i / .'
REPORT SY THE 766 TASK GROUP TO THE COMANCHE PEAK REPORT REVIE'd GROUP l
i
- t. DRAFT j CATED: r ebrua ry 17,19F-l 8708210282gg2 ADOCK q
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
I EXECtlTIVE
SUMMARY
II TASK REQUEST AND METHODOLOGY III OIA REPORT
SUMMARY
ON 766 SYSTEM IV PURPOSE, DESCRIPTION, AND HISTORY OF 766 SYSTEM V
CL'RRENT 766 SYSTEM PROCEDUPES. AND PRACTICES VI GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS VII CONCLUSIONS VIII RECOMMENDATIONS IX APPENDICES l
e l
's c -
- 1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This task group was charged to look at the NRC 766 Inspection Statistical Data System, its purposes and uses, and to make appropriate recommendations to assist the Comanche Peak Report Review Group in its task.
OIA Report 85-10 and its attachments relevant to the 766 system were reviewed. NRC personnel in Headquarters and Regions I and III were interviewed and 766 documentation, correspondence, reports, analyses, and .
supporting information were collected and ' reviewed. Many of the observations about the 766 system covered in Section VI of this report
.,are subjective in nature. People interviewed had perceptions and opinions about the system and shared them with the group. While there were some variations in terms of attitude and perceptions, most people who were interviewed expcused the sare general view. The subtask group with some variations also came to the same general conclusions. Had more time been available, the suotask grouc might have been able to be more quantitative when discussing the accuracy of cata in the 766 system. The changes over the years in the inspection program, management and management philosophy, and indivicual Inspectors, among other variables, make a quantitative assessment quite difficult.
.n the light of the shift in emphasis # rem plant: under ccrstruction t0 plants in operation and considering the irrirtr: :JC -ecrgani:atier, it l is not clear that the consiceraole ef#crt recu: rec .: -atrcsrectice'.
'o ,-
I-2 check past data would be productive. Accordingly, the subtask group concentrated on speaking to purposes and uses that the current system can support, with recommendations for future consideration. . .
I Observations, Perceptions, and Conclusions The current 766 system is outmoded ano does not really meet the needs of either IE Headquarters or the Regional Offices. It is perceived by the Regions to be a Headquarters system and an administrative burden, with limited.use to the Recions. The system is not timely or accurate enouch to suit most planning needs.
The 766 system is used in oversight by IE to ' monitor Regional performance in areas such as the timeliness of the issuance of inspection reports and expenditure of inspection time versus SALP ratings, and as a data source to add perspective in enforcement activities.
The system is not relied on by the Region to provide the definitive status of the inspection precram at a particular facility, although it can provice some input. Different systems, automated and/or maneal, are used fer that purpose.
Most of the people interviewed indicate that tne;. ectic expect scre werdr in an inspectien reccrt for each recule listec 'n : e ccrrescercinc ~ # .
fe rm. Others disagreed arc incica:ec :Pa: tne ;L dcance en ::r ea- #
inspection reports haa var'ed over :dre.
I U- _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - -
, o I-3
-Training of Inspectors in 766 reporting procedures is minimal and this has exacerbated problems with data quality.
Recommendations
- 1. Perform an inspection and enforcement program data needs assessment and then develop a mcdern system to support both Headquarters and Regional programi.
P. Establish inspection and enforcement data quality assurance policies and procedures as well as a training program to help assure a censistent, reliable, and timely agency data source.
l
- 3. Con' sider collecting all insrection and enforcement staff resource data l in the Regulatory Information Trackino System (RITS). Evaluate the benefits of collecting inspection information by SALP functional area rather than by inspection ecdule.
l 1
I
'i l
l l
l 0 'O =
. I i
l l
l' II. TASK REQUEST AND METHODOLOGY I The letters establishing the Comanche Peak Report Review Group (CPRRG) 1 contained the reoufrement that:
"The Group shculd review the purpose and significance of NRC Form 766 and make any appropriate recommendations concerning its use."
The Chairman of the CPPRG requested the Acting Director, Office of Information Resources Management (IPM) to assist in performing the review.
Work was begun based on a verbal request which was, formalized in a letter from G. Arlotto, Chairman, CPPRG to William G. Mcdonald, Acting Director, IRM, dated February 12, 1987. (Appendix 1)
A 766 System Peview Group was formed by Mr. Mcdonald including five people from IRM and two from IE, as follows:
Richard Hartfield, Grcuo Leader, IRM Will Bell, IRM Leonard Cobb, IE
'rt Davis, IPM David Diehl, IRM
!saac Xirk, IRM Debert Pierscn, IE Several of the peccle assi; red had werkir ev:erience ia deve::: ;,
cesignirg, and c:erating :ne 766 system :L e i r.; <aricer parts of ::
lifetime. Ore 7 ember hac prepared the ;982 version of :ne '## II "n.ua..
II-2 .
One member had utilizec the 766 foms as a resident inspector and another participated in an extensive review of the 766 system, culminating in a task force report in December 1984 (Appendix 2)
Group efforts began with the review of OIA Report 86-10 and its attachments pertaining to or including coments on the 766 system.
. Appropriate sections of the IE Manual were obtained and reviewed.
Discussions were held with Headquarters persennel from OIA. IE, and DEDROGR. Three man teams were sent to Regions I and III, equipped with a comprehensive questionnaire, and held discussions with a bread spectrum of Regional personnel, including Divisi_on Directors, Branch Chiefs Section Chiefs, individual inspectors, and resident inspectors. Copies of actual inspection reports with the accompanying 766 foms and other documentation and correspondence were obtained. Various computer orintouts from the 766 system were cbtained.
The Group then reviewed the collectec information and 'ormulated its report to the CPRRG.
1 a
4 ,
l III. CIA REPORT
SUMMARY
ON 766 SYSTEM The basic allegation made was that the data documented in Region IV's i NRC Form 766 Inspector's Report was inaccurate. In addition:
"0IA interviewed a number of Region IV managers and inspectors concerning the accuracy of the information recorded in the NRC Fom 766 system. The general consensus of those -interviewed was that because of carelessness, lack of knowledge about the 766 system, and lack of quality
, control over information entered into the system, the in'fomation entered into the system, the information in the automated inspection and enforcement statistical data system was inaccurate. It was generally believed that little reliability could be pidced on any information obtained from the system. Hcwever, there was no indication that inaccurate cata was intentionally recorded and cut into the system in an e# fort to make the Region IV inspection program at CPSES look better.
It appeared to OIA that Region IV personnel were ' uncertain about the proper method for ccmpletinc the flRC Forms 766 and whether there shoulo be a direct correlation between a i
reference in an inspection report ena an entry cr the 766 form. There was also confusion Ocncem're how ;c de: ermine the percentage .of ccepietion c' er ins:ec:1cr 7:dule. 7u:
cuestions centered arcunc wr.e:her :,crcer of 00r;ietion src.::
.- j
III-2 be viewed as a percentage of the inspection modules completed or as a percentage of the inspected work activity that was completed at the construction site. Frequent changes in the implementai. on of the 766 system over the years has also created confusion. Additionally, several individuals stated that certain information was recycled on the NRC Forms 766 merely to get the computer to accept the data."
A consultant to OIA reviewed the accuracy of the NRC Forms 766 that were highlighted in the documentation provided to OIA. Based on his review of a number of NRC Forms 766 for CPSES, he determined the 766 data for CPSES was unreliable. He noted discrepancies between the information on the NRC Forms 766 and the information documented in the associated inspection reports. He concluded that some of the NRC Forms 766 data for CPSES overestimated the extent of completion of the Region IV inspection program. His comments are documented in Attachment HH of CIA Pecort 86-10.
O!A then concluced that:
" Based on the information developed during this investigation, the data recorded in the NRC Forms 756 certaining to CPSES is iraccurate and unreliable.
The incorrect re erting rangec #P ;.-
inspection activity reccrced on the N:C :or s 756 for wnich : + e is no documentation in associatec irs:ection reccr:s t: ' -' :
III-3 inspection modules as 100 percent complete on the forms without completing the recommended inspection activity, merely to close the module. T'he cause of the discrepancies appears to be a lack of understanding on the part of NRC inspectors as to the propet method of completing the NRC Foms 766."
4 l
l 0
O f
_ . , _ , , . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - ^ - - - - - - -
IV. PURPOSE, DESCRIPTION, AND HISTORY OF 766 SYSTEM PURPOSE The purpose of the 766 computer-based information system as originally stated in the Inspection and Enforcement Manual Chapter 0535-01 was "to improve organizational effectiveness and efficiency in the areas of collection, processing, retrieval, analysis and management of inspection related data"; the data being a combination of statistical, planning and textual infccmation that is recorded on Fores NRC 766 and.NRC 7665 (See Appendix 3). It was further stated that "The 766 system is a management tool used to capture, maintain and report statistical and planning data concerning inspection, investigation, inquiry activities and associated enforcement act1ons conducted by IE."
DESCRIPTION The system was designed to record en a two part form, pertinent T.anagement-orierted information for each inspection, investigation and ir.cuiry. On the 766 part of the form, ene fines the tyre and dates of the inspection and investigation, the nurber ano type of modules (inspection procedures) utilizec and related mccule statistics, such as hours spent, percent ccmplete, etc. On the ~6d5 (currer.t!y the 766A) part of the fcrm, one finds the inspection 'incir.gs witn associated textual information on the viciut:cns or aes istions fcur.;
ard tre actions taken.
e e l-IV-2 l
The ab.iective of the system was to minimize record keeping for inspection-related data and to provide centralized access to
{
inspection cata. From talking to personnel who were working in this I
, j area in the mid 1970s, the review group has cuncluded that the
- original intent was primarily for IE Headquarters to use the !
collected data in budgetino and resource allocation and to monitor Regional perfonnance. For example, since the module system was new, I IE planners needed to knew how much time, on the average, was being used for each module. The impact of adding a new module could then be estimated by utilizing data on a comparable module. One cuuld also look for gross differences in time spent on any particular module or on all modules by different Regions and could form 1ulate questions to help understand those differences.
The timing and flow of the 766 process as originally planned is essential to the understanding of the current situation regarding the utilization of the 766 system. The completed 766 Forms are entered into the 766 system only after the inspection report has been completed and approved by management. This was because the inspection findings (contained on the 7665 form) could chance curing the inspection report review and concurrence precess. ~his {
i total process is currently supposec to take apprcxira'.ely cne man:n but f
at times could take censicerably lcrger deper cing on tyce cf inspec:1on and the enforcement findings. The reutine cats ci nciate. u' a the mccule apoarently is mccifiec far 'ess #recuertiy tnan :ne "n:71.
l i
- s. .
IV-5 By the early 1980's , the management approach had chanced to one of decentralization (regionalization) which gave considerably more power and authority to the Regions for the management of their programs. With IE Headquarters having decreased authority anc support and with the increased availability of microcomputers in the Regions, the usefulness of the 766 system data for Regional planning became eroded. The 766 system was still perceived as a~ Headquarters system and one that has became less and less relied on by the Regions for infortnation.
I O
l
+
V-2-.
entered into the 766 system. They also' checked for cata completeness and
{
contacted Inspectors when they uncovered problems of emission. Regional supervision indicates that they checked'for the " reasonableness" of the 766 data included with the inspection report.
Training to inspectors on how to fill out the 766 forms appeared to be primarily on-the-feb training with lead inspectors or supervision.
4
VI. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS I
l Cl'RRENT USE OF THE 766 SYSTEM
, I. By Recional Offices Data.from the 766 systen is used by Region III to assist in the management of the reactor inspection program. However, there is a considerable amount of information outside of the data in the 766 system that the Region reeds to manage the inspection program, such as unresolved matters from previous inspections that require additional inspection effort; incidents, IE information notices and bulletins; and requests from NRR that need followup inspection. Project inspectors maintain records of the inspection work that has been accomplished as measured against the inspection plan for the plant.
They develop inspection schedules basec on their reccrds of the status of the inspection program (some of the data comes from the 766 system); the computerized outstanding items list for the plant; SALP ratings for individual furctional areas; and other plant specific data.
I i
t Region I uses little data from the 766 systen in the management of the reacter insoection progran. Senior res1 cent inscectors maintain records of what inscecticn work has been ac:cmplished anc wPat still needs to be dore. Decien I uses the cutstardirg items list arc other {
olant specific cata in the same canner as hpf cn ::'. ?ut ?sgion . c.e:
not normally extract data free the 756 s ever te assist in *.ne : ' - - - -
and scheduling of ins:ections.
I 1
s .
VI-2 With the exception of limited use of the 766 data in the regional system for tracking inspection work, inspectors generally do not use
^
data from the 766 system. They view the 766 system as being primarily for the benefit of Headquarters management.
i Management in the_two regions has made limited use of 766 data as an oversight to for determining whether specific. types of inspections have been performed at a plant and for estimating inspection work that needs to be completed to satisfy the requirements of the IE Manual. i This overview takes into account the fact that the data may be two to three months old at the time they see it, and that it may not
,e b completely accurate. However, it is sufficiently current and reliable for a cross check of regional inspection activity.
The Regions have developed their own systems for canaging the reactor inspection program because the 766 data was not timely and aid not contain many types of information needed to plan anc schedule regicnal inspections. The 766 system was designed to record the history of individual inspections. It was not designed tc be a scheduling tool.
As a consequence, there are certain types of data that are ret incluced in the 766 system, but which are vite.? To the plannirg and scheduling of inspections. So regional offices have develoceo other systems tc reet that reed.
VI-3 4
Data is put into-the 766 system arter the inspection report and accompanying letter to the licensee has been issued. The reason for that requirement was to ensure that the record in the computer reflected the. record in the inspection report and letter to the licensee. While that step helps to ensure that violations in the 766 record are the same as those actually cited to the licensee, the delay makes the data less valuable for planning and scheduling inspection work. Recently IE provided a summary of data to the regions, which showed a country-wide average delay of about two months from the last date of an inspection until the date that th'e inspection is recorded in the 766 system. Part of that celay involves a delay in providing input forms to the regional computer staff and in. further delay when other work assioned to that staff has a higher priority.
- 2. By Headquarters The Enforcement Staff routinely uses the record of violations in the 766 system for a particular licensee to add perspective tc a decision about what level of escal6ted enforcement action to take acainst that licensee.
The insoection procedure data are usec to a limitec extent by :E in the assessrsr,t of regicr.ai erforrance For esamela, detarmine rougnly whethe- the r:u:ine orogrcr cf ins:ecu cn cas :'een cer:letec and to mcnitor excenciture of irspection t;me varsus S< re 1r;s. ac
_ ___m__m --------- ---"
c
- o. . .
l~
VI 4 I
example of this latter use is a memorandum dated January 2,1987 from the Director, Division of Inspection Programs, IE, to each project Division Ofrector in the NRC regional offices. (Aopendix 7) ,
~
The average time to issue inspection reports periodically is tabulated and provided to the regions. Those offices who are not meeting the standard for issuing reports are requested to take corrective action to meet the standard. An exampla of that use of the 766 data is the memorandum issued by the Director, Division of Inspection, IE, to the Deputy Regicnal Administrators, dated December 31, .
1986. (Appendix 8)
Regarding delays in getting 766 data inte the computer, IE, has brcught this subject to regional attention frem time to time. An example of that usage'is the memorancum dated Cecemoer 19, 1986 from the Director, program Support and Analysis Staff, IE to the Directors.
Division of Resource Management and Acministratien in the regional offices. (Appendix 9)
Recently the 766 record of inspections at Comanche Peak was used by one of the Groups of the Task Force. ~hese cata cave ar overview of the dates and numbers of inspections, the areas that were inspected ano a histcry of violations that had been ident'riec curinc these ins;ections.
1 I
s VI-5 l
PROPLEMS WITH THE 766 SYSTEM l
There is a belief among many of the regional staff who were interviewed that the 766 data is unreliable. They point in particular to the data about time expenditure, percent ccmpletion cf individual inspections procedures, and the difficulty of determining , at times, i
to which procedure inspection tire should be charged. However, the feeling about the peor cuality of the dcta in the 766 system includes more than the three data fields just identifified This general feeling about the inaccuracy of the' data apparently has discouraged scme regional staff members from trying to use it. Others have tried, but
~
having encountered a problem, have decided te devise their cwn system of cuclicate data collection. For exanple, to record manually certain data frem the 766 input form such as time charged against each irs:ection procedure. Curing interviews in Regicns I anc ::I no s:ec1fic examples were produced which clearly demonstrated the
'tr-eliability" of the data.
On the other hand, specific efferts were identified in Regions I. and III to ensure a reasonable level of data cuality in the 766 system.
Section Chiefs statec that they give a " reasonableness creck" to the cata ircut form that is part of the package which the section chief accroves in connection with approval of an inspection resort. The
- cmouter staff in eacP cf the two Regions described the edits they
- er#crr1 wnen they receive the 756 system input forms from the inscection staff. These cuality checks involve examining the form to
r VI-6 determine whether there is missing data. Fewever, it was also reported that persennel worked around the system if cata was rejected because t,f inva' lid modules, etc.
The 766 system automatically edits the data as it is being inputted into the computer and rejects records that do not meet the criteria built into the comouter audit. The computer staff returns these re,iected forms to the ir.spections staff for correctiori and, in general, reports reasonable cooperation in correcting the errors and ret'urning the forms to the computer staff. As a further irdication of 3 cuality of the data in the computer, both regions reported that the same individuals have been inoutting the data for a number of years, are familiar with the data and the system, and review the data in the ccmputer against the input forms in.ar. effort to ensure accurate transfer of informatic.n into the ccmcuter.
~he following sectices discuss specific prcblems with the existieg 766 system:
- 1. Timelines.s cf the Data 1
' i On the average the data about an inspection is about two . months cid before it is entarec ir.:o the system. his is partiy due to manage- )
ent airection that there be no data ertry until tne insoection recor:
I l is 30 proved and issued -- and partly cue to delays ir. gettir.g the ;
s : -
VI-7 necessary input form to the ADP staff for processing. A further problem is that updating the system has received a !cw priority as cor. pared to other source data collection work such as the Regulatory Information Tracking System (RITS). The priority assigned to processing cata appears to be related to the Region's cerception of Headquarters' interest in the system. Region I stated that RITS has received more attention than the 766 system because it is the basic system for controlling allocation and use of human resources, a subject in which both Headquarters and the Regions have great interest.
An illustration of Regional response to Headquarters interest in the system.irvolves the memorandum of December 19, 1986, oreviously cited.
The computer staff in Region I described the acticrs that Regicn I was taking to improve the tireliness of the data, These actions are summari:ed in the response from Regicn I to IE, cated January 29,
'987. (Aopencix 10)
- 2. Record o# Violations The recorc cf violations in the 756 system is ret completely accurate because the final decision about viciations in an escalated enforcement case may not acoear in the 766 syster. There is no requirement in the !E procecure for revising the data in the 756 system to reflect these final cecisions. Althougn the 'cregoing is a
o i
e , I I
VI-8 }
l l
fact, the net effect is ret large because of the small number of
' escalated enforcement cases versus the volume of citations that are handled routinely by the regions as a Notice of Violation. However, this lack of updating of the data after escalated enforcement has taken place does mean that the enforcement history of a plant may not be completely accurate as recorded in the 766 system. i
- 3. Percent Comoletion ofjn In'scection crocecure The individuals interviewed in Regions I and III repeatedly emphasized their belief that the data in the 766 system concerning the per cent completion of an inspection procedure was not reliable. They expressed the opinion that these dath were unreliable because of the design of the inspection pecoram itself and the design of the 766 systen.
First, there is no defined balis for calculating per:ent complet cn.4 Is percent completed based on tne number of lire items within the inspection procecure that are com::eleted, the inspection time estimated by the Inspector to complete the procecure, or en some other basis? Seccrdly, the volume of work is not, anc probably can not be rigorcusly cefined becauta of croblems encountered at the site ard the fact that judgement is a large # actor in hcw much the inspector dces to complete the intent e# the inspection procedure. Thircly, the 765 system design coes not a17cw #or rur r.ing up coroletfen percentages
c o VI-9 when more thhn one inspection by more than one Inspector is necessary to complete the work. The system may shcw only that fraction of work which was completed during a particular inspection.
Construction inspection procecures generally. require more than one inspection to complete; sometimes considerable time passes before the work is ' completed under the inspection procedure and the remainfog work may be perfonned by a different inspector. Consequently,
/
estimates of percent completion serve only as indicators of the status of construction.
As an illustration of the little meaning that can be placed on' the
" percent completion" cata, here are quotations fror the current IE '
Inspection Manual that il'ustrate the expected verability of work on' indivicual inspection procedures in order to carry cut NRC inscection policy. IE Manual Chapter 2512 describes the Orogran for reactors under construction (Light Water Reactor Inscecticn Program -
Construction Phase). In Section 2512-C6 the policy is statea that l "The amount of inspection effort required te ensure the same degree of ccnfidence that construction is adequate wil? vary from site to site.
Similarly, different types of construction ectivity at the same site may recuire various levels of effort to provide the same degree of assurance of ;uality work. Generally, an increase er decrease of inspection effort will be baseo on an evaluation ;f the licensee's cerforrance such as through the SALP program.' Similiarly for
- operating reactors the :ertinent IE Marual Chaoter is 2515, Lignt
(
\
- _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ . - - - - - - ^ - - - - - - -- ~ ^
f ('
l VI-10 Water Reactor Inspection Procram - Operations Phase. Section 2515-09 of that Chapter states that "Although each inspection procedure contains many line items, these items are provided as guidance and the-individual inspector is expected to apply a professional judgment regarding the need for completing each specific item." i Section 2515-06 requires that resident inspectors spend about 20% of their time on what is termed " independent inspt c . ion effort", f.e.
inspection not required by a routine inspection procedure. That rather large block of time must be civided between inspection procedures based an' the Inspector's judgement as to where his/her effort falls. This introduces a significant uncertainty in the et cons f stency_ with which data about independent inspection effort is recorced and thus a definite unreliability in the time shewn for individual inspection procedures.
- 4. ~ime Scent on Individual Insoection Procecures The 766 system requires that the time spent making an inspection against each inspection procecure be recorded in the system.
Both inscectors and supervision in the two regiers stated that tire i data for incivicual insoection procedures probably is grossly inaccurate. This is due to a variety of factors including /1) the insoection work can not be logically recordec against any cne inspection procedure, i.e. the work could fit under either of two I
different procedures; (2) the indivicual insoector decides against t
l:
l' VI-11 which inspection procedure to shcw the tine; (3) the nature of the-
. activities at the site frecuently dC not allow an inspector to concentrate solely on one inspection procedure until the work is finished -- he/she may werk now on one, then another, etc., then back to the first or second --- thus creating time keeping difficulties;
- ana,(4) lack of motivation on the part of sece inspectors since they rarely see the data after it is recorded on the 766 input form.
l NRC currently collects time data from inspectors in three systems: the T&A for payroll; the RITS for bucgeting, licensee fees and tracking use of time-against budgeted levels; and the 766 system for tracking use of-time against specific inspection procedures (modules). Obviously-this creates scoe confusion and an administrative'l'Leder: on. inspectors.'
The Pegions are focused en acccunting for time in tems of SALp 1
functional areas in accorcance with IE directives on this subject.
Those directives require that irspection effort at individual plants be related to SALP ratings. Some inspectica precedures cannot be categorized into just one SALP functional area.
The resident inspector or project inspector .civides the time cnargec f to an inspection procedure between the appropriate SALP functional areas. Ecwever, the 766 system was not designed to ::o this.
Consequently, each inspection procedure must be assioned to a particular SALP functional area wnen data is retrieved from the 7E6 I l
-system and reported by IE as inscection time expended for ecch
- o. ,
i VI-12 functional area., These 766 data do not necessarily agree with the Regional data, thus creating the appearance of unreliable data. However, the
' difference is not due to unreliasle data but en how the data is split
- between SALP functional areas. For example, Inspection Procedure 71707, Operational Safet:. Verification, requires.a weekly inspection '
of accessible areas in the plant. The scope of these weekly inspections covers all aspects of the plant and potentially can fall into at least these eight SALP functional areas: plant operations, ra'diological-controls, maintenance, survefilance anc in-service testing, training, emergency prepar.edness, fire protection and housekeeping, and security and safeguards. While the region splits l the inspector's time between the various SALF functional areas, the
. 1 766 time for Inspection Procedure 71707 is prcbably shown ecmoletely as the SALP functional area: plant operations.
T:.AINING AND MANAGEPEl!T ATTENTION l
Most inspectors learn how te complete the 766 #orn ' rom other inspectors as part of their on-the-job training and/or they are given the written instruction that describes the system. Region I and III staf# nembers said that there is a line item in the orientation jcurnal dealing with computerized esta systems. As part of ini-fal qualifications for the inspector position, rew employees must comoiete this item as well as the others in the jourr,61. However, no formal training program exists in the two Regicns to ensure that ins:ecters uncerstcod hcw to comp!ete the 766 forms.
l l
, e i
i I
VI-13 .
i l
I Persens interviewed in the two Regions opined that regional management )
i had devoted little attention to the 766 system. As compared to other I
{
problems involving substantive safety issues and other matters of im1ortance to both Regional and Headquarters maragement, the 766 system has not aD;: eared to merit particular management attention.
1
.- s VII. CONCLUSIONS -
The 766 system does not appear to be actively and extensively used in support of Headquarters or Regional canagement. The purpose of the 766 system has changed over the years to the point where .%st inspectors and i
some managers are not really aware of its intended purpose and use. The
-current system is over ten years old. During this time the NRC inspection program has changed and traragement needs have been redirected to address operating reactors. The system has not kept pace with technology benefits which are currently available within the NRC. Policies and procedures have ,
not kept pace with 766 system upgrades thus leaving the Regions little option but to establish their own tracking systems. As a consequence each Region reviewed appearea to have developed their own intJrnal tracking system for monitoring inspection requirements independent of the 766 system. .
Headquarters cannot monitor Pegderal perforacree $r'a timely basis with the 756 system because the data car, be as much is two to three :renths cid before it is entered into the system. In effect sc. e of the data when enterec is too old to provide an up-to-date database for use in inspection plarning and ronitoring. The principle reason for this is due to a management decisior that :here be no data entry until the inspection report is approved and issued. Headquarters, hcwever, does have a neec for serre of the types of inferration incluced in the '66 system.
l
VII-2 For a number of reasons some of' the data is inherently inaccurate and unreliable. There does not appear to be any formal training for Inspectors in the use and purpose of the 766 system. Training of new Inspectors in the use of the 766 system is provided by the new Inspectors' supervisors and the consistency and ouality of this training varies from' goed to nonexistent. Because of the relative ignorance of inspectors as to the purpose ano function of the 766 system, many inspectors have a low regard for the 766 system and treat their oata input tasks as an administrative burden with little regard for the accuracy of the data. Compounding this problem are the intrinsic difficulties in maintaining time accountability against a particular module number due to the way the inspection procedures in the modules are written and the nature of the activities being inspected. As a result.in some cases the hours coi'scted against a carticular module represent at most the cumulative best riass estimate of a number of dnspectors. Section Chie#s do give a reescnableness check to the data input '$rm but there is no decicated effort tcward qualit/ control such as recuired periodic eLdits of the data against the source documents - inspecter eports. The 'E Manual centains an instruction which requires the Pegicns and Heaoguarters to make certain quality checks. Mcwever, with the exception of occasional memos, there has been no persistent management attention to insisting that the data be accurate. As a result it can be concluded that the present methed of attributing a certain Sumter of hours in an inspection effert to a particular modula is cumberseme and in many cases of such dubious quality as to be meaningless. Also contributing to the p
L
l VII-3 cifficulty of using the 766 system as a reliable and accurate tracking .
1 system is the lack of conformity in defining how to compute percent f I
completion of a mcdule and the inability of the syst'em to add up the percentages of completeness when more than cre inspection is made under the same procedure. Redefining and quantifying percent completion with respect to the inspection modules would provide more consistency and Regional conformity but at the expense of Inspector flexibility and effectiveness. The net result likely would be counterproductive and the tracking insight gained would not be worth the reduced Inspector
~
productivity.
As presently construed and implemented, the 766 system provides a data record that shcws that a certain Inscector performed an inspection at a plant at a particular time and also indicates ,hich ecdules the Inspector thought be was inspecting at that time.
)
VIII. RECOMMENDAT!ONS
/
- 1. The current state of the 766 system and the pending NRC -
reorganization reflects a need_ for a complete inspection ;needs assessment. The information needed to support management and staff inspection pro. grams appear to exceed the current system's functional capabilities and a system should be develcped which facilitates current technology capabilities (i.e., online access for updating and reoort'ag etc.). A single system should be established which supp6rts both Headquarters and Regional inspection programs.
- 2. Establish enforcement and inspection data quality assurance policies and procedures, and a training program which will assure consistent and reliable information. Accountability for the integrity and reliability of the infernation should be assigred to the Office / Reg'on with the pregram furction.
i
- 3. Consicer ccrsolidating the collection of sta## resource data into the Pegulatory Information Tracking System (RITS). Evaluate the benefits of collectirp staff rescarces as they relate to the SALP functieral areas as opposed to current 756 precedures which collect resources by irstection mocu'3
i
\
l
!7 APPENDICES Apperoix 1 - Memorandum from Guy A. Arlotte, Chairman, CPRRG to William G. McConald, Acting Director, IAM dated Februa ry 12, 1987, re Comanche Peak Report Review Group Task RG IRM-01 Appendix 2 - Memorandum frem 766 System Task Force to J. Nelsen Grace, Director, Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and j Inspection Prcgrams, IE datec December 13, 1984, re Report of the 766 Systen Task Force {
(
}
Appendix 3 - NRC IE Manual Chapter 0535, " Statistical Data Reporting (76c -
Computer System)" dated November 24, 1976 I
Apoendix a - NRC Form 766, Inspector's Report, Office of Inspection and Enforcement {.
Appendix 5 - NRC IE Manual Chapter 0535, " Statistical Data Reporting (766 Computer System)" dated January 1,1982 Appendix 6 - NRC T.E Manual Chapter 0537, "Cuality Assurance Program for 766 Computer System" dated December 31, 1979 Apoendix 7 - Memorandum from James G. Partlew, Director, DIP:IE to Dennis F. Virsch, Directer, DRSP:RV dated January 2,1987, re Periodic Report on Regional Implementation cf the 2515 Program Apcendix 8 - Memorandum from James G. Particw, Director, DIP: IE to James M. Allan, Deputy Regienal Administrator, P! dated Cecemoer 31, 1986, re Elapseo Time to Issue Reactor nspecticn Reports Accendix 9 - Note from James L. Blaha, IE to Distribution Lis; dated Cecember 19, 1986, re Timeliness Statistics from 766 System Accendix 10 -Merorancum frcm Anthony . Gccy, Director, DAMA:PI to James L. Blaha, Director, FSAS:IE dated January 29, 1987, re Timeliness Statistics from 766 System
APPENDIX 1
+ pa aseg#*, UNITED STATES
.' f e
. g, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
, wAsHmcTow, o. c. noess L \y v /
pg 12 567 MEMORANDUM FOR: William G. McDonale, Acting Director Office of Information Desources Management FROM: Guy A. Arlotto, Chaiman Comanche Peak Report Review Group
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK REPORT REVIEW GROUP (CPRRG) TASX RG IRM-01
. By a memorandum of January 21, 1987, entitled OIA REPORT REVIEk': DIA FILE
- 86-10-ESTABLISHMENT OF REVIEW GROUP the Executive Director fer Operations assigned to the CPRRG the task of reviewing the purpose and significance of the ecmnputer-based .NRC 766 System and make appropriate recommendations concernino its use. A copy of the ED0's memore'dum is attached.
In order to assist the CPRRG in the accomplishment of this task, we reouest that you assign appropriate personnel to examine the NRC 766 System purpose e.nd use and provide the CPRPG with a report that includes the following:
- 1. The intended purpose and use of the 766 System.
2.. Determine if the current use of the 766 System by both Headquarters and Regional Office management is consistent with the intenced purpose. Does the existing 766 System meet the stated purpose? What reasonable use can be made of the 766 System?
- 3. -If the 766 System does not fulfill its irtended purpose and if this purpose is necessary for an effective Inspection and Enforcement program, how are these ebiectives currently being accomplished?
4 Alternatives and recommendations for the continuation of the NPC 756 System in order to satisfy the needs of NRC Headquarters and Regicna7 Office management.
In perfoming this task, clease dncument this basis 'or 1.rur cc c!csiens cr noinions. In develoof rg this basis you should, as acor ana:e, ir:erview r, embers of the IE and Regional Office sta'fs.
.- 1
--_ _- _ a
William G. Mcdonald Your draft report should be submitted to th CFPPG ty rebruary 17, 1987.
/ [
r /66
/ Guy . Arlotto, Chairman Coma che Peak Report Review Group
Attachment:
As stated cc: C. Heltemes, AEOD C. Paperiello, RIII J. Lieberman, OGC J. Goldberg, OGC R. Erickson, NMSS P. McKee, IE S. Collins, RI D. Crutchfield, NRR R. Hartfield, IPM 4
.s
/p nug'e APPENDIX 2 g
J e UNITED STATES l
1- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,I_ wAsWNoToN, D. C.2cS55
- {)
\
.....,/ December 13, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: J. Nels:,'n Grace, Director Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inoaction Programs, IE "
FROM: 766 Systen Task Force
SUBJECT:
REPORT OF JHE 765 SYSTEM TASK FORCE Encloseo is a report of the results of of the 766 System. .e review that the Task Force completed As you requested, the review was focused primarily on regional offices, their use of the data, the problems they were encountering with the regiona.1 the system, and the ways the system could b,e improved to make it more useful for offices.
The task force was made up of the following members:
Steve Ramos, Chairman
. Edwin Fox George Barber James Konklin Wayne Scott Judy Kronenberg Edouard Trottier Leonard Cobb Steve Ramos, the Chairman, left for the private sector before the Task Force had prepared a formal report of its efforts.
Force designated me as the one to prepare the report.In a subsequent A craft report wasmeeting, trans- the Tas mitted into the to eacn final Task report.Force member for review and their comments were incorporated ,
Thus, the report represents a consensus view of wnat i needs to be done to improve the 766 system. On one coint, however, involving timekeeping, there is a minority view and that view is clearly ;:cinted out in the text of the report. j j
s
.>. 5:
December 11, 1984
.. REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE 766 DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM DIVISION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE, SAFEGUARDS, AND INSPECTION PROGRAMS OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT SCOPE The Director, Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs, IE, established a task force to recommend whether the so-called 766 system ,
should be terminated, comb,ined with another system or improvements made in the ;
existing system. The facts that were developed during intensive interviews with regioDat inspectors, supervisors, and manag;.': were the primarly basis for the evaluation of the system and subsequent recommendations.
METHODOLOGY Sub groups from the Task Force visited each region and held intensive interviews j
with resident inspectors, regional inspectors, first-line supervisors and various higher levels of regional manage. gent including the regional administrator, wnen available. The purposes of these interviews were to deter =ine how the data from the 766 system was being used in each region, to identify problems encountered in attempting to use the system and to solicit recommetidations for system improve-ment. After interviews with regicnal staff were completed, a . subgroup from tne Task Force met with representatives from all regions to discuss ideas for improve-ments in the system including concepts for development of a new and improved !
system. i
]
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Uses of the Svstem In regions where One capability exists to retrieve ca:a fror :na sys 5. , :. 3 ;
principal use is to develop data about inspection findings as cart :f f.e ';..:
evaluations. There is also limited use ey :ne enforcement staf' anc o;. sore :f
~
f 1
the technical inspection sections, especially those where the section makes f
inspections at an annual or semi-annual frequency and can tolerate the delay in updating the status of inspection-information in the system. However, the vast majority of inspectors derive no benefit from the system and track performance of required inspections by a variety of manual means. In addition, each region has a computerized system for tracking " outstanding" . items. These include non-compliance items, reported incidents, unresolved matters that were discussed with ;
licensee management, planned repairs of defective / failed equipment, etc. !
When the data in the 766 system is used by a region, there also exists an appropriate management climate and ADP capability for prompt retrieval of the i
data.
By appropriate climate, we mean that the regional management supports and encourages the use of the data. Management also provides an adequate auto-mated data processing staff so that requests for reports can be handled in no more than a couple of days. Regions II and III were examples of an appropriate management climate and an adequate ADP capability. Region I had no retrieval capability. gJ !
Region IV and V had the necessary ADP capability but the super- ,q ,
visors who were interviewed indicated that the '766 system was moia of a problem '
than a help in getting their work completed.
All regions would use an automated data system to track inspection completion and to aid in planning future inspections if the data could be entered into the system promptly after each inspection. The Regional Administrator, Region III, has formally requested the Director, Office of Resource Management to develop such a systemi however, no work has been undertaken on his request. The Regional Administrator, RII, has proposed that the development of such a tracking /
planning system be consicered as a program improvemen; initiative in resconse to the October 22, 1984, request from the Director, IE. No formal cecision has :een made regarding those program impovement initiatives. They are being considere for inclusion in the next budget request.
Althougn.the fe:us of :ne Task For:e was on regional uses, aa note na. tri E is considerable use of the 766 system by ne !! staff. Tnese uses in:h:e
' development of background information by the PAT an: CAT teams on rea::: s : s2 plan to inspect, monitoring by SMPB of the status of the regional fuel 's:i:ities and materials inspection program, assistance in cete mining relative ::m: f an:e
-3 records between lictnsees who have received civil penalties and a licensee for whom one is being considered, evaluation of program areas to determine where
{
more or less emphasis should be placed, and as input to the " white book" published !
by the Vendor Branch. l I
l Timeliness 4' The current system is designed so that no data can be entered into it until the inspection report is issued tc the licensee. That requirement was put into the system to ensure that recorded none:mpliance items are the same as appear in the notification to the licensee as to the results of an inspection. The inspec-tor's preliminary findings are reviewed by supervision.and are subject to change in either direction. As a consequence, there is an appreciable delay before the data can ue entered into the system.
In addition, a further significant delay occurs in some regions because of the low priority that.is given to updating the 766 system as c:mpared to systems the region generates for internal use and the need to update the RIT3 system. (RITS is a staff hours tecounting system with a considerably higher amount of det il than the one it replaced, the so-called MPS system that had been used to account for use of regional staff time.)
As previously stated, the regions have a need for an aut: mated system for track-ing inspection procedure c =pletion. The 755 system could be used in place of the many manual systems for keeping track of the status of the inspection :rogram.
I from the data in the 766 system the inspectf ons that need to be performed during !
the next quarter of the year could be derived. The resulting inspection senedulec l would require modification due to SALP results, plant status, anc ott ar ::nsider- t ations. I I
If tne n:nc:moliance data could be cetached fr: 0 :ne ~55 system, the : ne :2:a
{
could ce inputted into the system witnin a 'e+ cays :1 tre returr :f rns ' :E:::-
to the office. None Of the Other cetails in :ne 5/5cem reccire a "e','i- "
judgment on the part of the supervisor. They are matters of fact: who was inspected, when, what procedures were used, per cent completed, time applied against each procedure, etc. '
Accuracy of the Data l
Accuracy of the data ?n the system is a continuing problem. Although we have not done an audit of the data, we gained the impression from our interviews that I accuracy is a function of supervisory interest and regional use of the data.
When the only activity is inputting of the data for someone in headquarters to use, the accuracy appears to suffer.
ADP staffers told us that the rejecting j rate for data on forms that inspectors fill out averages 24L Rejection is based '
on a review by the ADP person to determdne that all blanks on the form are com-plated and that in general, there are no ebvious errors. If the form passes that visual test, the data is inputted into the computer and checked against a computer edit. For example, the computer checks a docket number against a list of docket numbers to determine that the number is a valid docket. It can't tell, however, whether a wrong docket was put into the computer. Based on these visual and computer checks, the ADP person returns to the inspector any forms that she/he can not correct. The problem is that frequently it takes many weeks before the form is returned to the ADP staff for final inputting into the 755 system.
Scme regions, or parts of regional staffs, have instituted their own quality checks.
For instance, during the assessment of the regional materials inspection program in 1984, two regions described a required review of data entered into the computer against the records of the inspection. This quality check was cone by the originating inspectors. Also, in all regions, the 755 input form is cart of the package that the Section Chief reviews wnen the inspection report is suo-mitted by the inspector for signature. In contrast to the relatively undisciplined or nonexisting quality control program in some of the regions, the NRC Occument Control System has a 10C% audit cf all entries in:: tne c:couter by an ince:e :e :
staff n ersure essentially error free cata. Gi.en :na: :ne 755 syste- is ir official agency recorc, similar effort cy tne regi:ns seems warrantec f:r ass #;
the cccuracy of the 756 data.
' )
i
-l Time Recortina Under the 766 Svstem l
h For many years there have been two systems accounting for the inspecten (
time of inspectors. The first is the MPS or RITS system that accounts for all time and the second is the 766 system that accounts for only time spent on direct inspection activities. Recently the complexity of having to maintain two sets of records has bean increased because of the increased detail involved with the RITS system, the region - sponsored replacement for the IE-sponsored MPS system.
The mere fact that the inspector has to divide his/her time in two different ways is sufficient to introduce a significant element of inaccuracy in the data. .
However, for the 756 system an even more important factor is the manner in which many inspections at reactors are conducted as compared to the way the insp'ection program is constructed. As reported by essentially all inspectors we inter-viewed, they frequently are working on a number of inspection modules at the same time. That is, they do some work on one, move to another, perhaps get involved in a third, than follow up latter in the week with the second, etc.
Thus,-at the end of a week in the majority of cases, and even at' the end of a day in a few cases where inspectors are particularly conscientious in their time keeping, the possibility of reasonably accurate accounting of time is not high.
Unless we want inspectors to spend an inordinate amount of time checking their watches and writing down times, instead of fecusing on the inspection itself, it is unlikely that we will have truly accurate records of how time was spent to perform particular inspection procedures.
i Another factor that was stressed by a number of inspectors was the fact that in a significant numoer of cases it is not absolutely clear against nat inspection procedure they should record their time. A frequently cited examole was :ne case of inspecting to find out the nature and cause of a licensee event anc later to followu; on licensee :,orrected actions. These ins ect'ons involve i. ems .na i i
could be charged eitner to a routine or an "as neecec" insoec:i:r ;r::e: re, s e j most commonly cited ;reelem related to :ne in:e:encent ins:ection mcdu:e. a't the increased regi:nal attention to ensure a nign fraction of time :Pa ;i: ::
independent in2pection, the tendency it .c em:nasi:e the ince:encence ' *"
inspection effort ratner than attribute it to other inspection pro:ecures.
s .,
6-Individual inspectors had sucjective estimates of the error involved in the time charged to individual modules based on the above analysis and other factors.
These estimates varied from about-20% to about 100% error in the recorded in the 766 system.
I J
Another problem with the timekeeping data in the 766 system is the fact that there is no computer edit of the timekeeping data. A typical computer edit would ensure that the total time recorded for an inspection would not exceed the i
total time the inspector was on site, or on-site plus off site time spent inspecting licensee documents.
Thus, even though the times charged to individual inspection procedures might not be accurate, the edit would at least detect .
overall errors in the inputt'ing of the data. New 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> can be inputted as !
2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />, or 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> (and an infinity of other poss.ibilities) and the
~
system will not reject the erroneous data. By contrast the MPS and RITS staff time accounting systems edit total time against time charged in the payroll system for that individual.
Timekeeping has been a part of the 766 system since its inception in the early 1970s.
Despite 10 years or so of data, it is hard to find examples of where any use has been made of that data. All known attempts to use the data have i
ended up in frustration and failure due to two factors:
a.
The wide variation in times that were charged to an inspection pro:edure I with no statistically meaningful pattern to the data.
b.. Although one would think that the direct inspection time for a particular plant in the 756 system should bt: reasonacly close to the direct ins:ee: ion time recorded in its MPS system (now RITS), we know cf n: cases wnere nere was a satisfactory comparison. This tends to discrecit the data in the the 756 system since the MPS is viewed as being an inneren:1y more a:: urate system cue to tne built-in checks :na: e nave :revicusly des ribe:.
Timekeeping agains: insoecti:n pr::ecures .as :een acvancec as 3 .ecessa 3 mean: of building a bucget. However, NRC te:ght e:isions on E pr:gra s are based in large : art on MPS data (RITS) anc on NRC managemen;'s an: ne S--'Isi:r's
y
.)
1 L
7 perception of which programs should be cut or increased. They are not generally based on detailed expe?ience data from the 766 system.
There are two practical alternatives that the task force sees with respect to the time data in the 766 system:
- 1. Timekeeping could be eliminated from the 766 system on the basis that it is unlikely to be used any more in the future than it has been in the last 10 years, that the data is inherently inaccurate, and that by eliminating the time data we would reduce the number of data elements in the system that could be a step in the right direction since, from the point of view of inspectors, there is a strong trend in the other direction.
- 2. Time values could be assigned to each inspection procedure based on a carefully designed experiment or analysis to estimate what the time ought to be in a typical case. (There is a minority dissent from <nis possibility. That view is that assigning a time value "to each procedure would be hard to determine and would lead to confusion. We could record total time per inspection type, e.g. , health physics, physical security, etc.)
Trainino and Orientation of New Inscectors on the 766 Svstem 7here does not seem to be any routine, systematic procedure in the regions for acquainting new inspectors with (1) how the 766 data sheets are to be completed, and (2) what uses the inspector could make of the data. The majority of inspectors informed us that they learned about the system from another inspector. ,
In some cases, the inspector had read the 766 procedure in the IE manual wi*.n no additional indoctrination or training on the system. We are not aware of sry systematic training that ne regions were ::n::::ing a: :ne time we visite: :ne regions. Regional management believes : at stru:
re: : rasing on :ne sys.e-is botn desiracle and needed.
aw .- . .
~B-Comolexity The 766 form and system appears to the inspector to be unnecessarily complicated.
For instance, in addition to such frustrations as timekeeping, the inspector is asked to show which inspection module produced each item of compliance or deviation. This is a relatively simple task in some cases and complicated in others because of the previously discussed matter of independent inspection versus planned routine inspection and unstructured inspection activities such as walk throughs and observations of work activities.
Another example is the column on Form 766 marked " Module Requiring Followup."
We wonder what use has been made of the data recorded under that category.
The same general thought arises regarding the data captured under the title
" Type of Activity Conducted." For example, when an inspector visits a site because of a reported event, should he/she indicate the activity as "03 Incident" or "07 Special" or perhaps "02 Safety"? Five of the 15 choices only apply to safeguards inspections. Perhaps there is a need to identify the1inspection in some fashion, but we doubt that these are the appropriate categories for the.
current program.
Data Elements 00 Not Satisfy All Needs Noncompliance items currently can only be retrieved against the specific module number against which they were shown in the computer. They can not be retrieved by rule, SALP category, reactor system, Standard Review Plan Chactar nummer or other subject designations. The c:mputer can make a word search but because of non-standard methods of entering none:mpliance items such searens are selcom successful and complete. The principal payoff in analy:ing compliance experience may be to look at data in ways other than how the instect:r charged the n:nc:m-pliance to an inspection pr:cedure. As an examcle, NM55 .antee to evaluate tre ncne:m:liance ex:erience of :ne acpr ximately ?,500 ecical licensees as part of its project to completely rewrite 10 CFR 25. He-ever, cue t: .ne ri;ic':y O' the :ystem cesign IE was acle :: retrieve none:m:liance cata in only twc cate- ;
geries: all nonc:mpliance items for d:ctors and all nonc:meliance for nes:itais. '
This necessitated a costly manual effer by NMSS to review and cate;: ~i:e tne cata.
i
t s' l- ..
.g.
1 l
CONCLUSIONS
- 1. There are certain self evident needs for the general types of data that are contained in the 766 system. These are as follows:
a.
Data about the status of program completion is'needed to help IE carry out its oversight function. Is each region getting the planned program of inspection performed as envisioned in the allocation of FTEs for the current fiscal year?
b.
Data about the findings of inspections is desired to assist in program
, development. ,
- c. The regions have a need for tracking program completion. Generally, this is now attained by manually maintained systems, although the essentia,1 tracking data is in the 766 systen computer but not inputted in a timely fashion due to system design and ether fac~ tors.
- d. There is the need to have overall data about numbers of inspections, frequency of inspection, and inspection findings to answer requests from Congress, the Com=ission, or others as to the extent of our inspection program and generally to characterize the nature of inspec-tion findings.
- 2. System training and orientation of regional inspectors is spotty and not designed to motivate the inspector conscientiously to c:mplete the ::mouter input forms.
- 3. Regional use of.the 756 system is proportional to the ADP staff's acility to retrieve requested cata in a relatively pr:m:: fashion and to mana;e-ment's attitude t: ward tne system. If regional ana;ement views tre 755 system as a necessary evil snat must ce at::mme:stec solely because :E -ants the data, then there is little use Oy tne regional staff anc *ittle m:tiva-tion to ensure hign quality data in tne system.
4.
Few inspectors derive any benefit from the 766 system. Some supervisors use the system for limited tracking of program completion and for evalua-ting enforcement but the principal regional use is to provide data as part of the SALP evaluation process. . .
5.
The main reasons that the regions make such limited use of the data are.the .
delay of 2-3 months in getting the data into the computer and the inaccuracy of the data.
6.
Some improvements could be made in the current 766 syste,m at a modest cost and with a significant payoff.
a.
With minor changes to the computer edit program, the basic information about each inspection could be entered into the computer within a day or two of the return of the inspector to the regional office.
Subsequently, at a later date, and after NRC management signs the inspection report, the data about noncompliance could be entered into the computer.
Questionable elements in the system cou}d be eliminated from the program so that the volume of data would be reduced to that
, actually used and needed.
b.
Each region should be required to establish a QA program to ensure that data in the 766 system is reasonably accurate. (A revised craft IE Manual Chapter on that subject was given to the Director, Program Support and Analysis Staff, IE, some months' age.)
c.
Each region should include a formal orientation on the 766 system in the training program of each new professional employee. The orienta-tion should be presented by a member of management, not an ADP techni-cian. It should inform the new employee aceut how the data in tr.e system can be used as well as the procer -ay to ecore data E:: ":/
ner inspection activities.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - ~ - ' - ^ ' - - '
.: .g .
RECOMMEND'ATIONS 1.
The 766 system procedure should be modified (along with minor changes in the computer edit program) so that inspection status data about.each inspection will be entered into the computer within a few days after the end of an inspection.
- 2. The system should be modified to remove the timekeeping data elements and other data elements of little value in the management and development of the. inspection program. If needed, individual IE Branches should
-)
establish an estimated time for completing each routine inspection pro-cadures. (There is a minority dissent to the use of estimated time valuest) j
- 3. l The IE Manual Chapter on the 766 system should be completely rewritten {
to meet these~ goals:
. i
)
- a. Place formal responsibility on the Regional Administra'ter for the quality and timeliness of the regional data. -
1
- b. Require updating of the system at least weekly. Basic inspection 1
)
{
program tracking data should be entered within one week of the last J day of the inspection.
- c. Require establishment of an orientation program to ensure that employees are knowledgeable about how the system can ce used as well as how to complete the forms and to motivate them to care a: cut the accuracy of the data. Orientation should be by regional manage-ment.
I
- c. Require establishment of a QA system ina. rests specific, :e" e:
- riteria to ensure reasonaole a::ura:y :f tre ca:a in tne 0 3.1-
12
- 4. IE should take the lead on efforts by Region II, III, V, and others to design a flexible ADP system that puts the data from each inspection into a data base that can be manipulated to serve a wider range of needs than would the 766 system even with the recommended changes. The effort to design a new system should be coordinated with the Office of Resource Management's project to establish a corporate data base for the agency. . ,
If the new NRC concept can not accommodate a new automated data inspection and enforcement system within the next 24-30 months, we should insist that the work be done independently from the project because it is a vital need of both the regions and IE.
5.
The Division (QASIP) should assign a technical program staff person full time to be the project leader for carrying out recommendations 1-4 above.
4 a
6 sua , ' ' In - ' - . - - . . - . . - . - - . . - . -
6
- 0 APPENDIX 3 !
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT IE MANUAL NCv S I DIO l
CHANGE NOTICE NO. 76-35 SUPERSEDED: TRANSMITTED:
{
I Number Date Number Date
. Iks l
. I See " Remarks" See " Remarks" !
DISTRI3UTION: Distribution List A REMA.ES :
The enclosed instruction, MC 0535, " Statistical Data Reporting (766 Computer System)," is a co=plete reprinting of the manual chapter except for Enclosure D to MC 0535, " Catalog for Coding Items of Nonce =pliance & Vendor program Deviations". Ihe pre-vious version of MC 0535 and Enclosures A, B, C, E and F should be replaced with the attached instruction.
Principal changes made from the previous version are as follows:
- 1. Due to changes to Chapter 0800, items of nonco=pliance not cited are now referred to as "11:ensee identified items".
- 2. It is now required that a Form NRC-766-5 be completed for each item of noncompliance set out on a For: NRC-591 and : hat the text be the statement of :he 1:e= of nonco:pliance as it appears on the Form NRC-591.
- 3. The inspection programs currently modulari::d whose module nu=-
bers should be used for reporting purposes ins:ead of du==y modules are listed.
- 4. Certain modules are listed for whi:h nonce:pliance should no:
be coded (page 17) .
- 5. Recording inspection time against nodules (pages 19 . 20) .
i
- 6. Addi:1on of Du=r.y Module 099013 for Jd!CR - ?:ver Ascension Phase (Region IV).
- 7. Changes :o terminology used in 31 :ks .* an: " :- 7:rm ';R -766.
information bicek a: :he ::p :i For "R: s'. . :e 2, and :n:n;n j in terminology used on Eo N '!RC ~56-3 ir 11 : A 25 :he '.e3:1::. l (Over' ,
1 i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
2 Note that =odule tracking information is now required for inspections made under the fuel cycle f acility inspection program and the materials inspection program. Module tracking infor=ation vill be required for i inspections made under the research reactor inspection program effective IbL January 1, 1977.
Although changes have been =ade to Forms NRC-766 and -766-5, Regional Offices should conciaue to use current stock. Recrders for the for s will be filled with :.he revised versions.
The enclosed instructions were prepared by the Progra Support 3 ranch.
S
. 1
- s
O<
, . .. o U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.'iMISSION OFTICE OF INSPECTION AND EAFORCDfENT INSPECTION AND ENFORCD'.ENT MANUAL CHAPTER 0500 MC 0535 STATISTICAL DATA REPORTING (7&j COMPilTER SYSTDf)
- g TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 0535-01 PURPOSE 1 0535-02 3ACKCROUND 1 0535-03 OBJECTIVES 2 031 General 2
-032 Inspection Tees 2
-033 Minimizing Repetitive Data 2 0535-04 IETINITIONS 3
-041 Inspections. 3
-042 Inquiry 6
-043 Ir:wstigation 6
-044 Announced 7
-045 Unannounced 7 0535-10 ! INSTRUCTIONS - GENERAL 7
-101- Use of Separate Torns 7
-102 Report Numbering System 8 .
-103 Submic:ing Completed Fo=s 9
-104 At:achments :o MC 0535 9 0535-15 PREPARING TORM NRC 765 - TRONT SIDE 10
-131 Identifying Infc =a: ion 10
-152 Transac: ion Iype 10
-153 31ock A - Oceke: Number or *.icense *0 Number (3yprodue:)
-154 Block 3 - Report Number 11
-155 31ock C - Trom Oa:e (!nquiry/Inves:1 gation/ Inspection) 11
-156 31ock D - To Date (Incuiry/Inves: iga ,
cion/~nspec:icn) 12
-157 31ock I - Region Condue:ing'Ac:ivi:y 1:
.53 Block F Type of Ac:ivi:y C:ndu::ed 1
-159 31ock G - Announced '.* nann un:ec '. ;
i -1510 31ock H - :nspec:icn/!nvestiga:1:n ;;
No:ification l
t --
1 l
\
1
)
Page
-1511 Block I - Inspectien/ Investigation Findings 12 1
)
-1512 Stock J - Number of Noncompliance Items in Letter to Licensee 13
-1513 Block K - Number of Deviations in Letter to Licensee
{
1%e -1514 31ock L - Number of Licensee Identified )
Items 13
-1515 Block M - Number of Abnormal Occurrences Reviewed Onsite this Inspection 13
-1516 Block N - Regional.Of fice Letter or Report Transmittal Data for Inspection or Investigation 13 1517 Block 0 - Subject of Investigation 14
-1513 31cek ? - HQ's Acticn on Insp./ Invest. 14
-1519 31ock Q - Date HG's Enforce =ent Letter, Notice, Order issued 14
-1520 Block R - Civil Penalty Issued 14 3
-1521 Block S - Date 766 Entered into Computer l File 14
-1522 AITS Reference 14 0535-16 PREPARING FORM NRC 766 - SIDE 2 l 's
-161 Line Key 15
-162 Noncompliance (Right hand side of page) IS ,
0535-17 PREPARING FORM NRC 766 - SIDE 2 - MODULE TRACKING INFORMATION - LEFT MAND SIDE OF PACE 17
-171 General 17
-172 Form Processing 17
-173 Correct'ons to Module Tracking :nformation 13
-17; C:=pleting the Module Tracking ?crti:n Of Form NRC-766 iS
-175 Cuidelines - 1WR Progra=: "Operati ns" Phase 21
-176 MTS Coding 24 0535-20 PRE?ARING FORM NRC-7665 25
-202 Block A - Type of Findings
-203 31ock 3 - Noncompliance and Oeviatien Coding :-
-204 31ock C - How Item :dentified 29
-205 Block D - 0:nsequences :9
-206 31ock I - Exempt Ini:::ati:n 2C
-207 31ock F - Addici:nal l'aits 20
-203 Slack G - Text 21 11 .. . " *
. . i l
- y. l 0535-30 PREPARING FORM NRC 766 FOR 766 MASTER FILE CHANGES 32 l
-301 General 33 l
-302 Responsibility 33 l
-303 . Form Processing 33 I
-304 Dele' ting Entire Record from 766 Master File 34 I
-305 Modifying an Existing Record on 766 Master File 34 l
t 9
4 4 4 4 ee se -
.__m__m--____ __ - - - _ _ _ _ _ ____ ._. _m----_
U.S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CC.$CSSION l 07? ICE OF INSPECTION AND EN70RCIMENT INSPECTION AND EN7CRCEME:C P&TAL
\
l CRAFTER 0500 MC 0535 - STATISTICAL DATA REPORTING (766 CCMPUTER SYSTEM) ,
0535-01 ?URPOSE .
The 766 computer - based information sys:em has been developed to i= prove' organizational effectiveness and efficiency in the areas of collection, processing, retrieval, analysis and management of inspec:1:n related data. This data, a ec=bination of statistical, planning and :extual infor=ation, is recorded on Tor =s NRC 766 and 7665 for even:ual entry into the ermputer.
This chapter provides the instructions for :he co=pletion and handling of the For=s NRC 766 and NRC 7665 for the various sta:1stical, planning and textual data concerning inspec:1on, investigation, inquiry and associated enforcement actions conducted by the Office of Inspec:1on and.
Enforcement. This instruction also discusses the responsibilities of
- he appropriate persons for filling ou: :he f or=s and f oruarding the completed for s :o headquarters for processing..
0535-02 3ACKCROUND The 766 System is a =anagement tool used :o capture, main:ain and repor:
s:atistical and planning data concerning inspec:1on, investigation, inquiry ac:1vi:1es and associated enforcemen acti:ns condue:ed by OISE. ,
The data is captured via the 7 r:s NRC 766 and NRC 7665 and nain:ained on a ce=puter disk file at the National Institu:es of Heal:h (NIH)
Cc:puter Center. The 766 forms are used :o record basic s:atistical da:a concerning each inspec:icn, inves:1ga:1:n :: inquiry, related M dule Tracking Sys:e: ini r=a:icn, ncnc:=pliance s:stistics and the
- ext rela:ed :: each 1:e= cf nonc::pliance, Licensee Iden:ified ::e=,
and deviation. Da:a from :he forms f eeds in:o :he 766 sta:is:ical ia:a file, :he= Module Tracking Syste= :o upda:e the inspecti:n scheduling and planning networks, and :he Enforcement Tex: Sys:e= which provides een:h'y .
input for the various Rainbow Socks.
Y
r * .
i
)
MC 0535 The forms function as computer input forms and, accord-ingly, information must be recorded in strict compliance gg with certain conventions and criteria as discussed later in this chapter. Incomplete, inaccurate or illegible data entered on either for= will result in the introduction of faulty data into the statistical data file, :he Module Tracking Sy' stem (MTS) and/or the 766 Enforcement Text System. The result of f aulty data will be extra =an-hours of regional inspector and headquarters personnel ti=e to trace and correct the errors.
0535-03 OBJECTI7ES 031 General The System has been designed to record in one place pertinent management-orienced infor=ation for each inspec-tion, investigation and inquiry of concern to'=anage=ent and includes:
- a. The number and types of inspections and investigations.
- b. The nu=ber.and nature of inspection findings with associated tex: of~ noncompliance 1:em and deviation.
- c. The ac:1on :aken and by whom.
- d. The nu=bers and :ypes of =cdules inspec:ed and related sta:istics.
- e. Elapsed ti=e statistics.
032 Inseee:ien Tees The Farm NRC 766 has been designed in an:icipa:1:n of assessing inspec: ion f ees (:ype Of inspecti:n, ::u:ine-f ee and no fee). No decision has been reached ressrdin; :he i:posi: ion of inspec:icn fees; :heref:re, no further discussi:n or specific ins: u::1:ns er :his a::er vill be nade a: :his :ime. Should such fees be assessed. z:diti:nal ins:ru::1ons for implemen:a:1:n an: ::4:n; 2:.. Se :is:rit;:e-033 Minimi:inz Fereti:1re 21:2 The ':RC 766 and 7665 for:s have :eer. :evel: ped v :h :he Objec:ive :f minimi:tr.g :he number Of :ites ins:ect :n
- 1. :
y-MC 0533 related data =ust be recorded for en:ry into ec=pu:er based infor=a: ion syste=s. Tha basic 766 system serves as the pri=ary source of all statistical infor=ation rela:ing to inspec:1ons, investigations, in-quiries and enforce =ent. The 766 Enforce ent Tex: System serves as the primary source of all text on ite=s of nonce:pliance, Licensee Ide'nti-fled Items as well as deviations. The 766 Module Tracking Syste: is 31, the source of basic data for =aintaining the facility inspection i
networks as well as the source of statis:ical data on module inspection practices.
Since these data bases func:1on as the source of official-hist:ric.s1 data and the source of infor:ation fo: :he Module Tracking System and the enforce =ent text for the various " rainbow books",
it is i=cortant that data be entered co=cletelv and accuratelv.
0535-04 DEy!NITIONS This section defines the':ypes of ac:1vities (inspec: ice, inquiry, investigation) listed in block F of Form bRC 766 and :he ter:s announced and unannounced appearing in block G. Any conflicts between defini:icns
' appearing herein and those appearing in MC Sec: ion 1205 (under develop-
=en: as of June 9, 1975) are to be resolved in favor of MC 1 05.
Oil Inspections
- a. Routine (02)
Cons:ruction, quality assurance, operational safe:y, radio-logical health and safety, environ = ental pro:ee:1:n and e ergency planning inspec:1ons perf:r:ed a: prescribed frec.uen-cies and in accordance wi:h :he procedures and ins: rue:icns covering :he rou:ine inspection progra= as descri',ed in :he
!E Manual. Safeguards inspecti:ns (:a:erial acccan: bili:y, plant securi:y, c:c.) and vender inspec:i:ns are not in:1uded here.
Rou:ine inspec:1:ns are strue:ured such :ha: :hrough :ne ::
- ore inspection visits Over a period of : ice a cc=plete review will be =ade of =ajor activities au:horized by an au: hor-i:a: ion, construc:icn per:1: cr license. Ter sc e *.1:enses
- he review may be completed in :ne inspec: ice visi: each year, each :wo years, e::., in other cases p ::1:ns :f :he rev:ew are =ade during each of several inspec:i:n cisi:s .ade : ::n; a yearly period.
t
- 6
MC 0335 _4 Frequently during a routine inspect 16n visit', a reviev vill be =ade of the status of previously identified enforce =ent =atters, reported incidents or abnor=al occurrences and othe: 3atters identified t%. for follovup review.
Note: At this ti=e, all routine inspections vill be coded T Routine (no f ee) . Block T Routine (fee) vill not be used, and accordingly no instructions have been prepared setting forth criteria fer dis:inguishing between ene Fae at< No Tee classification of Routine inspections.
i
. b. Incident (03) i Unscheduled inspections performed as a result of an incident or abnor=al occurrence reported by a licensee, or repor:ed by others as having occurred at a licensed facility or associated with some aspec: of a licensee's ac:1vi:1es, involving construction defi:1encies, equip =ent failures, exposure to radiation, release of radioactive materials, loss of use of a facility, property da= age, acciden:a1 criticality, conta=inacion problems, loss or : heft of =aterial, transportation, and si=11ar types of unusual or unforeseen even:s.
- c. Enforce =ent (04)
- enroutine inspec:icns performed for the exclusive purpose of reviewing in a :i=ely nannar a licensee's correc:1ve ac:icn or response :o significan 1:e=s of nonco=pliance iden:ified during a previous inspec:1cn. Such inspec:icns =sy be performed prior to or subsequent to :he issuance of a no: ice of inspec:icn findings :o :ne licensee.
s
- d. . Manage =en: Audi: (05)
Comprehensive tea = inspec:1ons, scheduled as a l resul: of progra==a:i: require =en:s Or as a resui: i of inspection findings, whi:n focus :: :ne anagemen:
aspec:s of fzeili:y li:enses for pur::ses of
(
l ase:r:aining nov :he corp::a:e en:i:y, as an "?,: i licensee, is Organi:ec :o effe:: ice;;: =:;eren:
regulatory rectirEOents is !?.e'; Teil:e :: *uaiel; safe:y.
l l
e e e .
MC 0535 -5~
- e. Manage:en: Visit (06)
Those periodic visits to facilitias, performed as
] a result of progra==atic requirements, the ain purpose of which is to infore the licensee =anagement of IE inspection practices and =ethods. Such gg, visits ner ally occur shortly after a utility has indicated to NRC that it vill or intends to apply for a construction per it and whenever the inspec:1on responsibility shif ts between various groups or branches in a Regional Of fice. The visits do not involve fact gathering activities.
- f. Soecial (07)
Nonroutine inspections perfor:ed when it appears that significant regulatory require =ents are not being fully complied vi:h, or when potential safety items have been identified, and pro:pt resolution of catter is required by the licensee to assure continued safe operations.
A special inspection =ay include the performance of routine inspection items.
- g. Vendor ._ (08)
Inspection activities performed of : hose companies or organizations which comprise the archi:ec:-
engineer, nuclear s:cac syste supplier, and component supplier groupings iden:ified in :he vender program, or :he con:inua:icn of such vendor inspec: ions :ha: =igh: be condue:ed a: a licensed facility.
- h. Ma:erial Con:rol and Accounting 'Ma:1 Ac::) (09)
Inspections perfor:ed in :he areas of ca:erial control and accoun:ing and licensee =easure=en:
programs covering all :ceponen:s of naasure en: used for =aterial con:rol and accoun:ing purposes.
(Safeguards only)
- 1. Plan: Securi;v (10)
- nspec:icts perfor:ed f:: ?P"51:21 pr::e: i:n Of 5:.'M a : fixed si:es and :f plan:s 1. wht:r EN" :s used for :he pur;:se of pr::e::::r :;2:ns: 2::: ::
indus: rial sa:::2;e and :".cf:s :f SN".
O
MC 0535 j. Inventerv Verification (11)
Inspections performed to evaluate licensee programs gg for accounting of SNM and for the conducting of physical inventories in order to provide independent assurance that the licensee's program is capable of detecting losses or diversion of SNM.
- k. Shipment / Export (12)
- 1. Shipmen: (of SNM)
Inspe::1ons performed in the area of physi-cal protection of SNM in-transi: for the purpose of protection agains: : heft and sabotage.
. 2. Export (of SNM)
Inspec:icns and independent verification to determine the ele =an: and iro:opic content of all exports of SNM to assure integrity of such shipments and to ascertain whether physical security requirements are being met.
- 1. != ports (of SNM) (13) inspec:1ons and independen: verifica:1ons :o determine :he gross quan:1:1es and integrity of import shipments of SNM :o assure :ha: the licensee, upon receipt of the shipmen: :akes required actions.
042 Incuirv (14)
An inquiry is an activity wherein a minimum amount of investigative
- echnique (telephone, correspondence, or in-cifi:e review of ma:erial) is used :o determine if an investiga:i:n, a :u:ine er special inspection, or no a:: ion is required as a res.'.:
Of (1) an allegacion. ::= plaint or repor: rela:ed :: li:ensed facilities or =aterials, er ma:erials subjec: :: 11:ensing, or (2) inac:icn by a recipient :: an Order issue: b:. N?.C /see M 1210 f:r fur:her inf:::ation).
043 *nvestira:i:n 13- I An investiga:1cn is an 2::ivi:,. ::nd_::ed :n resp:nse :: ;
- plaint er an allega: en :o ga:her, ::rrela:e 2nd ef ;.;2:e material in cep:h for :he purpose Of #.i;5:;ishin; :he :nute, l
~
MC 0535 k nature, extent and particulars of a condition or occurrence; the status of compliance with Regulatory Requirements; adequacy of actions being taken by a licensee; assistance needed by a licensee; and corrective actions needed to minimize or preclude such conditions or occurrences. An investigation for a matter other than a complaint or al-legation may be requested by IE:HQ'S. (See MC'1210 for Ikm further information.)
044 Anncunced An inspection or investigation visit is considered to be announced if the licensee has been informed by IE personnel, through any verbal means, prior to the actual arrival on, site that one of,these activities is to be conducted by one or more inspectors. Announcement can take the form of a written com=unicatian, telephone call from home, office or hotel prior to actual arrival on site, or orally informing any member of the licensee organization that a visit may or vill be made at some specified time or date.
045 Unannounced An unannounced inspection is one where the licensae, or members of the licensee organization, is not notified by the inspector of an inspection or investigation until the inspec-tor (s) arrives on site or at the place wbers the inspection is to be conducted.
0535-10 INS RUCTIONS - CINIRAL 101 Use of seearate Forms A Aeparate form 766 is prepared for each unique activity conducted, i.e., a separate form for each inspection, investigation and inquiry performed which results in an ins;2ction or investigation report (letter to the licensee) and an inquiry report. There nust be a one-to-ene relation- {
ship batveen an " activity", whether it be an inspection, !
investigation or inquiry, and a " report". (The activity nu=ber and the report number vill be synonymous). A " report" may consist of nothing more than a Form NRC-591 and related documentation.
o .
. 1
-s-MC 0535-i Whenever items of noncompliance or devia: ions have been identified in i the report to the licensee, a for= NRC 7665, appropriately marked, =ust I be completed for each such item, even if the report is only an NRC for=
591. Furthermore if there are Licensee Identified Items referred to Ibi or discussed in the report, a form NRC 7665 must be completed for each such iten.
102 Report Numbering System The numbering system for activities will be as follows:
The combination of the docket number and repor: nu=ber is the controlling identification for each activi:y reported to the 766 system.
- a. For each licensee, facility or vendor the first inspection, investigation or inquiry conducted in each calendar year will co==ence with the number 01 preceded by the last two digits of the year and run consecutively throughout the year, i.e., the first report for any ac-tivity related to a particular licensee, vendor, applicant, etc. for 1975 vill be 7501 and the second report will be 7502 etc. One nu= bering system covers inspections, investigations and inquiries.
- b. For persons other than licensees, applicants and vendors, each inspection, investigation or inquiry report =ust have a unique report number within each regional office. The first such repor: for each calendar year will coe=ence wi:h nu=ber XX01, :he second repor:
XXO2 (where XX represen:s the year - 75, 76, etc.), regardless of :he fact tha: differen: individuals or organi:ations may be the subjee: of the activi:y (see also See:1on 0535-153 & 154).
- c. When a single " report" (or let:er to :he licensee) is vri::en for activities concer=ing more than one facili:y or license, a separs:e Form NRC 766 must be prepared, along with the app;cpria:e NRC 7665 forms, for each facill:y or license involved in :he inspection or investigation. (The single written report is in essence.a mul:1ple report wi:h unique report nu=bers for each facili:y or 11:ense),
- d. For " assist" inspec: ions , che Region responsible f:: ::rres-pending wi:h the licensee (1ssue a 591 or le::er) will :: p.e:e and submit the appropriate 766 forms :o " headquarters. lare mus: be :ske-
- o coordina:e wi:h :he Region holding :he license tha: a :stree:
report number is given :o :he ac:ivi:y. Only :ne un ;ue repor: unter for each ac:1vi:y is allowed in :he :cepu:er sys:e: 'iup;ica:e reprr-nu=bers for'a par:icular docke: nu=ber vil; ::use :he re rd :: te rej ected) . Regions involved in inspec:i:ns :f ..:enses wi:5 .;;;;'. .
loca:icns of use mus: ecordina:e :n :he re;; - .u:: erin; sys e . -
q SW9
.. .o
. 1 MC 0535'.
example,.a Region I license having authorized places of use in Region I and Region III requires that Region I and Region III work out an acceptable report numbering scheme - e.g... Region I uses even nu=bers and Region'III uses odd numbers, or Region I uses numbers 01-50 and Region III uses numbers 51-99.
gg 103 Submitting completed For J Completed For=s NRC 766 and NRC 766S are.to be reviewed by the Regional Information Systems Coordinator before being sent to the Office of the Assistant to the Director, Headquarters. Completed forms shotid be submitted on a weekly basis. This will allow headquarters to enter the input data.and update the master file weekly rather than once at the end of the month. This will result in a quicker update to the 766 Files and therefore more timely access to the data. The. Form is considered complete when the Regional Office has entered data in all required sections and:
. A Form NRC-591 is issued; or
. A letter (report) has been sent to the licensee following an inspection or investigation; or .
. A report or inquiry sent to Headquarters for action has been acted upon by Headquarters and the resulting docu=entation sent back to the-Region for completion of the Form.
In the future the regions will be responsible for entering their own data into the co=puter for updating. Detailed instructions and' training will be provided prior to implacencing this procedural change.
104 Attach =ents to MC 0535 Inclosure A - For NRC 766 Inclosure 3 - Form NRC 7665 Inclosure C - The list of " Codes of Deviations" we m G
0
MC 0535 Enclosure D 'The "Ca:alog for Coding Nonce =pliance and l Vendor Program Deviations."
Enclosure E - The list of HQ Action Codes k
Enclosure F - Listing of Du=my Module Numbers 0535-15 PREPARING FORM NRC 766 - FRCNT SIDE The individual who is in personal charge of the inspection /
investigation / inquiry is responsible for what appears on the Form NRC 766. Those parts of the form co=pleted by the Regional Office staff can be filled out by anyone in the Regional Office, including the clerical staff. Nevertheless, the individual-in-charge (the principal inspector or senior) should review the form for correctness before it is sub-mitted to Headquarters. Headquarters related information is entered on the form by the Regional Office staff upon receipt of action notification and related correspondence from HQS.
The following are the items on the front side of the NRC 766 form and the instructions for completion:
151 Identifvine Information ,
I The Facility Name, Licensee / Vendor Name, Principal Inspec:or, Inspector (s) (for this inspection, e:c.) and the Reviewer ite=s at :he :cp of the page are :o be filled in but the data is not captured by :he co=puter. Ihis space has been provided for regional office use and the 1:e=s are self-explana:ory.
152 Transac: ion Tvee There are :hree Transaction Types for deleting (removal of an entire 766, 7665 record previously en:ered into the sys:em),
inser:ing (adding a new 766, 7665 record :o :he compu:er sys:e )
and modifying records (changing par: of a record). For a period.
of :1:e all forms =arked delete or modify will require coordinatic,n between E:HQS and :he appropria:e Regional Cf fi:e Coordinator or inspec:or.
153 31ock A - Oceke: Number er _i:ense ', umber '3e-Fr:du::
The appropriate S digi: numeri: Cocke: 'ceber (e.g., 03 :;960, C5000341, 07000216), or projec: number (2000:476) for non-docketed facili:ies is :o be re::::e: f:: 1.1 a::ivi::es involving rea:: ors, special nuc;ea: a:ert:., s:ur:e and priori:y I ma:erial 11:ensees, p: .a:erial li:enses c:her
- han priori:y : i: is preferab;e :na: :he app::prt :e : : ,:::. _ _
docke: number be usec: however. :ne sy-produe: +1:ense hun:c:
1
, e l
l l
( i:C 0535 -
11 -
i l
l can be recorded on the form and the corresponding Docket Number vill be entered by the co=puter. l i
l The License Number cust be entered exactly as it appears I en the license (include hyphens, leading zeros and left justify).
Exa=ples: 45-00317-01E i
SUB-520 l X5NM-453 !
l 1'
Doeket Nu=bers for Vendors and A/E's are the unique 999xxxxx number for each.
I l The Docket Number to be recorded for a non-license is 9999000R, where R is the numeric Region Number (e.g., for Region I - 99990001, Region II - 99990002, etc.).
l
, The Docket Number is one of the key fields that uniquely defines the records in the system. Se extre:ely careful j
not to =ake errors in coding as a ti=e consuming =anual correction effort will result.
134 Block 3 - Recor: Nu=ber The ap3ropriate 4 digit numeric (e.g. , 7501) Report Number should be recorded vich the first 2 numerals for the calendar year and the second 2 numerals for the report. Refer to 0535-102 above for a more detailed explana:1on of :he repor:
numbering requiremen:s.
Wi:hin in each :egion the repor:s for non-licensee Oceket Su bers (e.g., Region I 99990001) must be uniquely numbered, ce==encing uith XX01 for each calendar year.
The Report Number is one of :he key fields : hat uniquely i
I defines :he records in :he syste= so be very careful !
not to nake coding errors.
155 31ock C - Fr:: Date (:neuirv/Inves:iza:1:n/:nsee::i:nT !
Inter the date : hat :he activi:y began in :he for:a: MMODTi including leading zeros (e.g.. 010175, 100175). If cu:-ef-Office direc: effort was involved, enter :he da:e 1: began bu: do not include ::avel : ire. f ne cu:-ci-:ffice eff:::,
en:er the date in-office firec: eff::: began.
l
. . 4 l
MC 0535 I l
156 Block D - To Date (Incuirv/ Investigation /Inscection) '
Enter the date that the activity ended in the for=at MMDDYY 36 including leading zeros (e.g., 011675, 1l1675). If out-of-office direct effort was involved, enter the date it ended but do not include travel cine. If not out-of-office, enter the date in-office effort ended.
NOTE: Regarding blocks C & D. If the effort began and ended on the sa=e date, enter this date in both C and D.
l
) 157 Block E - Region Conducting Activity Enter the code for the Regional Office conducting the activi:y, whether or not the f acility listed in 31 oak A is in tha: region.
Use. numerals 1 through 5 to indicate :he region.
- 158 Block F - Tvee of Activi: V Conducted Check only one box. (See 041 for defini:1ons.) If box 15 (investig'acion) is checked also check one box in block O. i Until further notice do no: use the box 01 (Routine-Fee).
See Sections 03 (Objec:1ves) and 041.a for an explana:1on.
159 31ock C - Announced - Unannounced Check :he appropriate box (see Section 0535-044 for defini:icns).
1510 3 lock H - Insee::1:n/ nves: ira:1on No:1ft:a:1:n
?:: inspec: ions and inves: iga: ions record :he :::ple:ing ac:1:n by checking the appropria:e box. Also c:=ple:e da:a biccks in N.
1511 Block I - Insrec:1en!!nves i:a:1:n ?indin:s Tor inspec:fons and inves: iga:1:n check Onl'/ :ne box ::
record the appropria:e findings. If :here are :n;y n:
cited 1:ers of nonce:pliance, :he inspec:i:n sh:u;d :e checked as Clear (3cx 1). !! :here are no: :i:e: i:e s f noncereliance and devia:1:ns, :he inspec:1:n sh:u;; be checkec as Oeviation (3ex 3).
NOTI: (See also 0533-::: :. . . . :1:stle :: ens ;n.
- vered durin; can::: :ns;e::::ns are :: :e indicated as CeVia:: ns. I'.is is als; in:;;;;e; in Block 3 and :n 'iii.
9 s h
~ ~
3C 0535-1512 Block J - Nu=ber of Nencocoliance Ite=s in letter to Licensee Record the number of cited items of noncompliance identified in the-letter to the licensee. This number cust correspond with the nc=ber of noncompliance codes recorded on the back of the NRC 766 form as well as the number of NRC 7665 forms completed for cited i: ems of non' compliance 3%g or the entire input record vill be rejected by the co=puter program.
1513 Block K - Number of Deviation Items in Letter to Licensee-Record the number of deviation ice =s identified in :he letter to li-censee. This number must correspond to the number of NRC 766S forms ,
completed for items of deviation or the entire input record will be rej ected.
1514 Block L - Nu=ber of I:ees Iden:1fied by Licensee i
Record the nu=ber of 1:e=s identified by the licensee. This number must I correspond with the number of NRC 7665 forms co=pleted for Licensee l
%dentified Items or the untire input record vill be rej ected.
- j l
1515 Bleck M - Number of Licensee Events Reviewed Onsite this l' Inspec:fon Record the appropriate nu=ber of "Repor:able Events" reviewed onsite.
1516 Block N - Regional Office Le::er or Recor: Transmittal Date -
for Insoection or Investi ation The Report Transmit:a1 Date (Slock N) '=ust be greater than or ecual :o the :o date (31ock D).
i
- a. 591 or Letter Issue Enter :he date : hat the let:e or "crs 591 was sent :o :he licensee by the Regional Of fice in the for=at MMDDYY including leading : eros (e.g.,
020175, 110175)..
- b. Recor: Sent to HOS Repor: Sen: :o Headquar:ect f: Ac: ion - Do n:: en:e: any ini:rna:1:n i-this block unless the repor: is sent :o Headquar:ers f:: eni:::ecen:
ac:1on or, for an inc.uiry a repor: is wri::en. In:er :'.e ia:e in :he forma: MMDDYY including leading :eres (e.g., 00:175'..
m OQ e
l MC 0535 1517 Block 0 - Sub_4ect of Invest 12a:1on Check the appropriate box (one only) if and only if box 15 (investiga-tion) in Block 7 is checked.
The folleving ite=s (Blocks P thru R) should be co=pleted by the I%s regions after being notified by HQS of the action taken. Copies of all HQS actions and correspondence are sent to :he field and consequently the regions vill have the source docu=ents needed and would be more informed chan HQS to complete the forms:
1518 31ock P - HQ's Action on Inse./ Invest.
Referred by Region. Enter the appropriate numeric code only if HQ's action is required (31ock H. Box 3 or 4 is checked). See enclosure I for coded list of HQ's ac:1ons.
1519 Block 0 - Da:e HQ's Enforcement Letter, Notice, Order Issued.
Enter :he date thac 2 Headquarters Enforceman: Lett&r, Nocice or Order was issued only if Block P is co=pl'eced. Enter in the for a: MMDDYY and include leading zeros (e.g., 010975). A1 1520 31ock R - Civil Penalev Issued.
Check :his box if a notice of proposed imposicion of civil penal:y was issued.
1521 Block S - Date 766 4:ered into Comeuter File Enter :he date (month, year) :ha: 766 Fer vill be inpu::ed :o :he ec=:u:er in :he formac MMYY and include leading : eros (e.g., 0175, 0975).
1520 A!TS Re fe rence.
I En:cr A!!S reference if applicable. This informa: ion is :o be en:ered l by :he regional office and will be used for reference purposes by Region l Coordina: ors and :he CAD staff. This data is no: capturec by :he ::::u:er system.
66 @
f I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ i
MC 0535 0535-16 PRE?ARING FORM NRC 766 - SIDE 2 The following are the items on side two of the NRC 766 form and the instructions ,for co=pletion:
The "B" in the first colu=n has been pre-printed and is used by the computer system for reference purpose only, it is not entered into g the system. -
161 Line Kev.
The line Key colu=ns (2 and 3) are used internally by :he computer system for referencing specific lines of Module Tracking Data and Nonce =pliance Codes. The uni:s position has been pre-printed bu: the Tens position =ust be completed. If f only 1 NRC 766 back side is used for recording MT3 and Non-l compliance da:a nothing need be recordad in col ==s 2, the : ens positien. If a second NRC 766 back page is to be used, the Continuation box at :he bottom of the first 766 back page is checked, and the tens position on :he second back page is filled with :he number 1, i.e., the first line on the continua-tion page will read 310, the second' line Bil, etc. If a second continuation page is'needed (1.6., core :han 20 line entries), the first line of that page vill need 320.
162 Noncompliance (Richt hand side of page).
Inter the noncompliance codes for : hose 1:e=s of nonco=pliance identified in :he enforcement let:er or on a For: NRC 391 (Do not include Licensee
- den:ified Items). L'here a modular inspec: ion pregra is in effec:,
i.e., inspec:icn procedures have been defined in :he IE Manual, the codes should be en:ered on :he line with the corresponding Module : hat was being inspected at :he :1:e the nonc:=pliance was uncovered. If more :han 5 nonce =pliance codes are iden:1fied with a par:1cular Module,
- entinue the codes on the next line in :he proper area en :he for=.
If inspection procedures have not been es:ablished (see See:i:n 171 f or : dulari:ed programs), a du==y :dule mus: be en:ered (See Enclosure F for :ne module nu=ber and ins: ructions) sne en:er :he coded 1: ens of non:::pliance rela:ing :o the du==v module, if any.
1 The nonce pliance code en:ered sh:uld be a - :igi: 11;ha numeric c:de as f:llows:
The first :hree posi:icns are f:: :he F.equiremen:s C::e -
See In:1:sure ? Ca:21 ; f:: ~::in; ::e :i S:nce:7_;2 :e j and ' lender Progra Devia:icns.
The f:Urth and las ; sit;;r is f:r :,e Sever;;. ... ,, .
assigned :: !ad ". n :::1;5n:e ;;it i- :te e #:- e- -
le: Car. The ::cing :f the 3dver;;y V;.; he ;;e 23 fell Vs*
We 9
- c. _. _______ - _ _
i.
MC 0535 1 - Violation 2 - Infraction 3 - Deficiency (The coded severity level noted in the catalog is to be used only as a guide in deter =ining whether nonco=pliance-
- Um should be desigt. aced as a violation, infraction or deficiency).
If multiple back pages of the NRC for= are used to code modules inspected and/or nonco:pliances, be sure to check-the continuation box at the lower right hand side and :o increment the ten's posi: ion value of :he line key by 1 as noted in sub paragraph 0535-161 above.
0535-17 PREPARING FOP.M NRC-766 - SIDE 2 - MCDUI.I T?acKING INFORMATION - LEFT EAND SIDE OF PAGE 171 General Inspection staff perfor=ing inspections must be fa=111ar wish the i
various manual chapters covering inspec:1on progra=s and procedures in i order to correctly provide statistical information concerning =odules f' a ,
8 i
(procedures) and to co= ply with the requirements of this section.
I Supervisors should ensure that all personnel reporting to : hem provide the required information corree:1y and in a ti=ely manner.
i The following programs are currently modularized and :he appropria:e
' =edule numbers should be used for reporting purposes instead of du==y module nu=bers.
MC-2500 Reae:or Inspection ?regra:
-2510 Light 'a'acer Reac: ors l -2520 HTCR
-2540 Research Reac: ors (Effec:ive 1/1/77) i MC-2600 Fuel Cycle Facility Inspec:1on Progra:
-2610 Reprocessing Facili:1es
-2620 Plutonium Facilities
-2640 Uranius Facilities
-2650 UF-6 Conversion Facili:1es
-2660 Uranium Mills
-2670 Fuel Receiving & S:orage Facili:y
-2660 Fuel Facility Safeguards Inspec:1:n Pr:gra:
MC-2700 Licensee Cen::ac:Or i Vender :nspec:i:n ?r:grs=
, -2710 Nuclear Staa: Syste= Suppliers
-2720 Archi:ect Engineering Firms
-2:20 :ndependen: Suppliers
-2740 Third Par:y :nspe::icn Organ:s:::ns I
...."R l
l
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
~ ~
MC 0535 l
MC-2800. Materials Inspection Program l
-2820 Processors and Distributors !
-2830 Radiography ,
-2840 Waste Disposal
-2850 Industrial, Academic, Environmental, Source Material and SNM
. (other than Fuel Cycle Facilities covered by MC 26xx series),
gg, other specific licenses
-2860 Medical
-2&l0 Shipping casks. Transportation This part of the form has been developed to provide a vehicle for :he recording and collection of basic data concerning the status of the inspection program as applied to each individual facility. The data j~ thus collected will be used to update the Module Tracking System and other associated program management systems. The data recorded on For:
NRC-766 also will be stored separately in the 766 file for future reference and analysis.
The Module Tracking Information part of the form will also be used to
. relate all cited items of noncompliance 13sted in enforce =ent corres-pondence to a specific procedure (module) or a program =atic function or activity (dummv module) as discussed in Enclosure F.
In all_ instances,where noncompliance is listed a module number =ust be recorded on the form.
The use of this form will require that, for each inspection perfor=ed, the inspector record:
- a. What modules were inspected.
1
- b. What sedules were completed,
- c. What modules were left open, !
i
- d. How much of each :odule was inspected (*), and
- e. How much time was spent.
Do not~ code noncompliance against modules which are in: ended :o ini:::
the licensee of our programs, su= mart:e inspec:icn results (such as i 30702, 30703, 30800) er follow-up on ac:1:ns :r even:s f:: uni:5 :n:: -
pliante would be charged :o an inspec:icn module.
172 Form Processinc One or more Side 2 of Form NRC-766 will be used :: f cu=en: :he resui:s of each inspection. The Module Trackin; ~-f-- ::::. ::::icn :f :'a
- 7---
NRC-766 provides for :he reco: ding :f ini:r a:::- :. =a: :::..:
4 6 .
I. _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - . !
l; i
l I
l l
i MC 0535 l 1
I i
I inspected and relate it to the inspec:1on trip and report. For esch module nu=ber entered on the form, the status, the percent complete, and the professional =anhours expended are recorded. {
24, l In those instances when team inspections are perfor=ed, each '
individual inspec:or is responsible for providing the inspec:or-in-charge with all data pertaining to his own inspection effort, i necessary to complete ene MTS input. (All informa:ica required by the 766 =ust be provided in a manner which will allow the inspector-in-charge to correc:1y co=plete a 766 form for data processing.)
The MTS input from the individual participa:1ng inspec: ors should be consolidated into a single 766 covering that inspection.
Any ques:1ons concerning proper co pletion of the Module Tracking Po,rtion of Form-NRC 766 should be directed to the designated contact, Office of the Assistant to :he Director or the desig-nated regional coordinator.
173 Corrections To Module Tracking Svstem Infor=a: ion 1
A MTS printout for each facili:y will periodically be provided to the Regional Office. This is available :o review, cc pare wi:h 766 submissions and to mark up with any changes or correc: ices which =ay be necessary :o :he MTS data base. The :arked-up printou: will be returned :hrough :he appr:pria:e superviser ::
- he MTS C:ordinator.
Corrections to :he M!S data base mus: be handled by :en:ac:ing the desigra:ed Regional Informa:1:n Sys: ems C :rdina:or. He vill prepare new MTS inf:::a:icn as appr:pria:e, based en :he ini:r:a:icn given, and will upda:e :he MTS :::pu:er files ac: rdingly. (See also il74.d below.)
174 Comoletine The Module Trackine ?:::1on of 7:r ':EC ~66 A specifi: module mus: be lis:ed en :he 766 whenever ar. :::e nas been expended en 1: during :he inspec:1:n.
.';0TI :
In those cases where a :dule is ne: :: te inspec:ed at all, or :he "eind:w :f :;;::: uni:y" has irre:rievably passed :: w 1. : ass bef:re another inspe::i:n :an be peri:r e:. :::f.
ei:her :he Regi:na. :nf:r a::;r .~s:=-
2Ordina::: :: :he des;;nate: :I:i:5 ::::::: wr; will appropriately 01:se :;; :.e .::;_e :-
inser:ing C*4 :::p'.e:e, : es: .:;rs and at: 2 :
I direc:ly into :he appr:pria:e "!I e:w:r' . b .
passing :ne ~66 Sys:et.
Se O 4 I
l
. ,. t MC 0535 I
)
i The specific data elements present on the form are :o be co=placed I as follows: l
- a. Module Number Inspec:ed: The seven-digit nu=ber assigned to this inspection module. j The module nu=ber ;
is composed of four parts: Phase, Manual Chapter, Procedures, and Level of Effor:, for a total of seven )
i 3%s positions. 1 Phase - A nu=ber from 0 to 6 indicating the phase of the facility. Phases 1 to 6 are LWR phases and Phase 0 is for du=my modules: -
Phase 0 = Du=sy Module (see enclosure F) I i
Phase 1 = Pre-CP (MC-2511)
Phase 2 = Construe:1on (MC-2512)
Phase 3 = Pre-Operation (MC-2513) i Phase 4 = Startup and Power Ascension (MC-2514)
Phase 5 = Operation (MC-2515) j Phase 6 = Deco ==1ssion (MC-2516) i i
Manual Chaeter - The first two (2) digi: nu=ber of the I6E Inspec:1on =anual chap:er nw ber which contains the inspec:icn procedure being docu=ented.
Procedure Number - The three (3) digit nu=ber frem :he I&E Manual which identifies the discrt:e inspection precedure being documented.
Level of Effer: - The one (1) alpha character corresponding to the A, 3, or C level of effor: :o be expended. (All are 3 level a: present.) i 50!E: A codule number may be en:ered On the individual 766 form only once. The recording of a codule nu=ber ore :han once is no: valid except in :he case of module number 927013. I i
- b. Manhours Excended This Re ort: For each module lis:ed l
indicate the :otal professi:nal tanhours of direc:
inspec: ion effer: expended :n :::pleti:n Of :he line 1: ems in :his :odule during the peri:d ::vered in :his l report by all inspec:::s who par:1: ipa:ed. Cnly '..d0lI HCURS are recorded. ~he sys:e= does n:: a::ep: :en:hs of hours. Therefore, f: any inspe :1:n inv:lving :Vo )
- scre modules 1: nay be necessary :: sh:v 3 h urs i:r
(
- e : dules :n :he 76d f:r: so as n:: :: dis:::: the distribu:icn of :1:e spen: :n ::u.es :: :: irfla:a :n=
- 31 : ice ac:ually spen: :r :".e ins e:::: . p::
9 9 9
O 4 MC 0535 exa=ple, if the total site time is in the order of 1.or 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, the 15 or 20 =inutes spent on 30703 should not
, be rounded up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. A distorted picture of the inspection could result.
4%g, ! The following guidance is suggested to prevent introduction i of =1sleading site (Direct Inspection Effort) hours
- into the 766 syste=, Record 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> agains: 30703 if the total =an hours of direc: inspec:1on effor for an i
inspection is less than (a) 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, or (b) 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and less than 1/2 hour is spent on 30703. The total inspection time should be recorded against the major inspection
=edule used.
The regional staff will have to exercise judge =ent on other variations, such as use of 9xxxx =cdules and different co=binations of progra= inspection and exit intervicv ti=e, in order to =aintain a correct balance
. of recording time against =odules so as no: to exceed the total ti=e actually spent conducting an inspec:1on.
The only =anheurs :o be repor:ed here are as follows:
- 1. Ou: of Office Inspection Effort, which includes onsite and offsite inspection effort, and
- 2. In Office Inspec:icn Effer:, which includes :he inspec:icn of licensee records; fac:-ga:hering ac:ivities which are more efficien:17 perfor=ed in
- he office :han at :he licensee's facili:y; and an extension of :he field inspec:icn process, bu:
perforced in the office.
Only :he : ice actually required to co=pla:e inspec:1:n Of the line 1:e=s contained wi:hin a specific =odule should be a::ribu:ed to :ha: :odule. In the even: proble=s or poten:ial proble=s are identified during the ec=ple: ion of a module, the :1:e expended in resolving the proble: should be a: ribu:ed :o :he appr:; iate follow-up module 927013.
!;0TE: Direc: inspec:1cn effort d:es no: in:;ude preparation for an inspec:::n; documen:::i:n of and reporting :he resul:s :f :he inspec:1:n; preparation of regular and enf:::e=en: :: res pendence; or ::avel :o and fr:r :..s 5::e.
- . Per:en: C riete :: Da:e: 7;r es:h .::u;e .:s:e:. :.
per:en :o:plete :s a ;u:gren: :n :ne ar: :i : .e inspector reflec:ing :he z=:un: :f eft::: ex;en;e; ;;
Se W
4 4 O MC 0535 percent of the total effort to be eventually required as defined by the Manual. (In instances where all the individual line items of a procedure cannot be accomplished because of the nonexistence of referenced systems, components, reports, etc., then the percent of total effort should be based on what is applicable at that facility.) The percent should be rounded in nultiples of 10, gg and must be cumulative to date. For example, if a module was repo'rted 70% complete the first time it was inspected, and the remaining 30: was completed on the second inspection, then the module status form docu=enting the second inspection would show a total of 100*, i.e.,
the actual total percent complete at the time of the report. 100 is the maximum entry.
Computation for Determining % Coeolete Total Manheurs Expended Through current Inseectien X 100 = ,.,
Total estimated Manhours Needed to Complete Module NOTI: Do not enter Percent Complace or Status on Form 766 for Module 30703, modules in the 92XXX, (
93XXX and 94XXX series, or modules designated i "When Required."
I
- d. Status: For each module listed, indicate the appropric:e status code, as follows:
31ank = Oeen: Leave open, this module is :o be inspec:ed fur:her on a subsequent inspec: ion.
C = Closed: A closed condition can be achieved via 766 input entry in only one of :vo ways, as follows:
- 1. b* hen all line ite=s have been inspected - 100% of the work ef~ ort for the module has been completed.
(Any unresolved items, deviaticns, non-compliances, or other problems encoun:ared will be fc110wed up under the applicable general inspec:icn pr:cedure in the 92XXX series.)
- 1. The opportuni:y for :: ple:ing a par:: ally :ns:e::e:
module (the " window") will ; ass before :he ex:
inspec:icn regardless Of :ne a::ual ::n:le:t:n status. [in :his case :he werk performance may have been some per:en: age less : nan .::', bu: :he oppor: uni::. :: achieve 1:1>'; nas ::;e: an: :ne module should be ::nsidered :1:se: f:: all ;r :::: .
purposes.} The ecdule is :1:se: .: ;_rin; :. 3 curren: inspe::1cn.
0
w a l
I i
MC 0535 1 1 If a module is never to be inspected, the Regional Infor=ation Coordinator should be )
notified so that module can be closed out at 0%
complete with 0 man hours. Also if a module has been partially completed and it has been decided I that no more work will be perfor=ed on it, then IL, the Regional Infor=ation Coordinator should be i notified to close out the module. The 766 form i should not be used to perform either type of closure.
NOTE: It is important to remember that the required inspection frequency, or vindow of opportunity for repetitive inspection requirements, is specified in the program =atic manual chapters, not by the MTS printout. For example, MC 2500 requires that =odules with a quarterly inspection frequency be complaced four times per year at l intervals of no less than evo =enths and no more than four months. Thus the actual window of opportunity for a particular quarterly module and the MTS schedule date for that =edule may at times vary. '
L = Reecen and Leave Ocen: This code is used in cases where a module was previously closed (based on the assu=ption : hat opportunity to do more work has passed) but the inspector is able to do addi:icnal work en a previously closed module and now vents it left open indefinitely. 3y using the L code, :he =cdule is reopened and lef t open indefinitely or until the inspec:or decides to close it later, p = Reecen f or This Transac:1:n Cniv: This :cde is used in a manner similar :o :he i code above, excep:
that a module closed previously will be reopened :o receive addi:icnal manhours or a revised per:ent cc:ple:e esti= ate for :his one occasion :nly, and will : hen be closed.
NOTE: Cer:ain modules are never :'.: sed by :he inspec:: .
These include Modula 30703, emeules in :ne 9 :'XX, 93.i.O.
l and 94XXX series, and any ecdule designa:e: ",,*nen Required" (indicated by a "'*" in :ne en:1:sures :o :he progra==a:1: manual chap:ers). Theref:re, "?er:en:
C place" and "5:a:us" d :: a;p'y :: :hase ::dules and these :w ::12:ns should be *.ei: b.ank :n :he f:::.
l These :::ules vill be :1: sed ::: :n . <e :1f basis b.
- he Fegi nal Cecidina::: :: Mea: quar:ers 2 aff.
.. . ~~.
O
l l
\ . < . ,
l 1
! 1
- . l MC 0535 l
- e. Modules Recuiring Tollev-up When a proble or potential 'l I
proble= is identified by the inspector during the ec=-
plation of a =edule, the :ime expended in resolving the proble= or potential proble= should be attributed to ,
j Module 92-7013 (Tollow-up on Inspector Identified j Proble=). The module being inspec:ed when the proble gg or potential proble= is identified should be recorded in the colu=n " Module Req. Follow-up." Each =edule requiring follow-up should be documented on a separate line on the =edule tracking infor ation portion of the 766 for=.
- f. Guidance for use of =edule 92701. Any 01:e spent following up on what are nor= ally referred to as
" unresolved i:e=s," or other ti=e spent on resolving proble=s identified during acce=plish=ent of a specific module should be reported under 92701 vich the appropriate module listed as requiring follow-up. As an example, during the review of log books specified in 71710-Review of Plant Operations, the inspec:or =ay infer that the nu=ber of inoperable centrol rods exceeds the li=1t specified in technical specifications. The time expended for follow-up inspection effort on the control red prob-le= is reported under 92701 with 71710 listed on for:
766 as the module requir,ing follow-up.
In contrast, a situation =ay arise which is totally unrelated to the =edule(s) being inspected. As an
- exa:ple, if during the c ndue: of :he inspection pro-cedure 71710, an exp1:sion occurred in :he CTF-CAS syste= at a 3RR facility, the inspec:1on ti=e expended for the follow-up or this unplanned event will be charged against 93701 - follow-up en significant event that occurs during inspec:icn. Condue: of the inspection precedure 71710 in no vty leads :o
- he iden:ificati:n of :he "proble=".
- g. Guidance for One et " Independent Insce::1on Eff:r:"
Re orted under Module 92706 As sta:ed in Section III of :he procedures f:r this =cdule, :he defined inspec:1:n require =en:s contained in :he =anual are :o cens:itu:e fC'; cf
- he allotted onsi:e inspec:1:n effort. :CT: :f :he inspec:icn eff :: is available :: :he inspe::::
for activi:1es curside the defined 1 spec:::n progra=. "Outside" the defined inspe::1 : :gra=
means :ha: :he ac: vi:7 excee:s : e f:4;uen:y,
\
1 1 .
1 l
MC 0535 scope, sample size, etc., prescribed in other modules . For example, if the inspector examines aspects of core physics, fire protec: ion, training, gg welding, modifications, etc., which are not included in, the inspection procedures, the time would be charged against module 92706. Likewise, any nonco:pliances identified by the inspector during the additional inspection effort would be coded against Module 92706.
As with prescribed modules, ti=e spent foll wing up on resolving ite=s identified during independent inspection effort is charged against Mcdule 92701 with Module 92706 listed as the module requiring follow-up.
175 Cuidelines - L'*R Program: "0:erations" Phase Quarterly, refueling and annual modules must be closed out indicating the end of cycle "N" before inspection results can be reported against :he sa:e : dule numbers for cycle "N
- 1".
176 MTS Coding The examples contained in the following sec: ion are provided in an attempt to elininate confusion and nonunifor=1:y in reporting module status.
- 1. Informa:1:n was available f or inspecti:n, bu: :he inspector had insuffi:1en: time during :he inspec:1:n
- rip :o c =plete :he : dule as scheduled bu: sufficient time remains :o :: ple:e :he : dule during a fu:urie inspection and mee: :he required inspe::i n frequency for the : dule. (See inf orma:icn :encerning wind:w of oppor: uni:y under Sec:1cn 171.d.2.)
ACT10NS RIQU! RID
- a. If inspec:1:n effer: vas expended :n :he :cule.
list i: n :he 766 and provide :he required :a::,
leaving :he ::dule : pen. If no inspe::i:n eff:::
was expenced, do nc: lis: :dule :n 750 .
- b. Include the ::dule in a su:sequen: inspe::i:n as necessary :: mee: the required frequene/.
.. 'is: :he : dule :n :ne subsec.en: -:: f:r ,
re:Ording 1"pr:pr:2*t 3:2;;s.
- 2. Inf:::att:0 Vas availa:1e f:; inspe;;;:n, but :ne module was n : :::;1e:e: sn: ::n :: be res:He:; e: :: j i
l
.....a. \
E . c - - - - - -
- ~
l - .
l -
1 j
MC 05 5 1 meet the required inspection frequency or vindow of j opportunity. (Se's infor=ation concerning vindow of 1 opportunity under Sec:1on 174.d.2.) .
i ACTIONS REQUIRED I%s a. Enter the module nu=ber en the 766 and close the module indicating the actual percent ec= place.
Note: If no inspection effort has been expended on the module, notify the Regional Information Systa= Coordinator who will arrange to close the module at 0% ce=plete by ssparate processing action. This action =ust be acco plished before the MTS will recogni:e inspectica effor: exp ended on the module during the nex: inspection interval.
- 3. Information was not available for inspec:icn :o persic module completion within the required inspection frequency or due to some other circu= stance the module was not inspected.
ACTION REQUIRED
- a. Notify the MIS coordinator to close out :he =odule.
4 All line items were inspected but :he findings on one or more line 1:ecs were unacceptable (i.e., noncompliance, devia:1ons or unresolved i:e=s).
ACT!ONS REQUIRED
- a. List :he module on the 766 and close 1: a: 100%
comple:e.
- b. Iden:1fy all nonce =pliances, devia:icns and unresolved items in :he Su==ary and Oe: ails of the Inspection Report. '
l
- . Follow-up nonce:pliance devia:icn er unresolved l l
1:e= under Module 92701 during subsequen: inspec: ion. ;
- 3. Effee:1ve Oc:ober 1,1976, modulari:ec inspec:1:n procacuras for ma:erials licensees and fuel :ycle facili:ies were pu: in:o effec:. A: :ha: :ize use of the du==y modules (see enc 1:sure T, ':: :53f) f:: cos:,
if not all, inspection ac:ivi:ias sh:uld have 3::pped.
~
J - .
d MC 0535 Inspections and investigations starting after October 1 will 1 require recording of the new inspec: ion module numbers on side 2 of the 766 form:
Ike Each routine materials inspection will involve the use of at least three modules -
L 30703 - mg=nt meeting /exi: interview-excepe for multiple si:e '
l 92706 - independent effort 7xxxx - specific program procedures Initial inspections will also require the use of 30800 -
. initial mgsnt meeting.
Nonroutine inspection activities will require use of appropriate "when required" modules in addition to 30703.
Fuel cycle facilities will involve more modules. The reprocessing,
. uranium and plutonium facilicies which involve more than one inspection per year will require the use of several modules each inspection - some completed each inspection, others partially completed.
Other fuel facili:1es most likely will be inspected once/ year and all appropriate modules should be shown for each inspec:1on.
0535-20 PREPARING FORM NRC-766S 202 Block A. Tvee of Findings There are three Findings Types which can be reported On 7665:
- a. Box A. SCNCOM?LIANCE - found during inspec:icns and investiga: ions condue:ed by the Office of :nspec: ion anc Enforcemen: or repor:ed by licensees and then refle::ec in.the associated enforcement actions. For each non ceplian:e case identified on an NRC 766, INC'_"DINC : hose involving issuance of a Form 391, this box must be checked and the for= completed.
I
- b. 3ox 3. L:CENSEE IOENTIFIED !! EMS "neer :he pr::eduras contained in Manual Chapter 0300. :er:ain i: ems reter:ed by licensees are no: included in :he enf:::emen: corres; n=en a from the Regional Office or Headquar:ers :: :he li:ensees.
Specifically :h:se 1: ens in :he infra::i: and def :ienc'*
- 1. 2 'i
_ - _ . -____--_ ~
MC 0535 .
categories which have been identified by the licensee, where corrective action was taken and appropriate documentation =ade or reports submitted are in this category.
For each item identified by the licensee which 1
% does not appear in the Notich of. Violation this .
box must be checked and the form completed.
- c. Box C. DEVIATION - Wen a licensee does not conform to commitments to the Co==ission, or to the provisions of guides, codes and standards or to' acceptable practices which were approved by the Cc= mission a .d =ade available to the licensee and such lack of confor=1ty does not constitute an .
item of noncompliance, then it is referred to as a "deviatien."
Chapter 0800, Section 0802.08 defines deviation.
- Section 0850.03 contains guidance regarding citations for deviations. P.anual Chapter 1005, " Inspection Docu::entation - Routine Inspections," discusses documentation require =ents for deviations (Section 1005-25).
Citable items uncovered during vender inspections which are considered to be deviations from the 13 Quality Assurance Criteria vill be coded as deviations.
See the See:1on I, Part 3 Catalog for Coding Nonce =pliance Ice =s and Vender Deviations for-coding of these items. For each deviati:n identified which appears in a correspondence for a particular inspection or investigation, this box cust be checked and the for c =placed.
'203 31cek 3. None::cliance and Deviatien C0di.4
- a. Soecific Nonce =pliance or Licensees Identified :cers - !
This field is cc=placed if 3ex A Or 3 of 310ck A '
is checked. Inter the 6 posi: ion none =pliance code as derived fr:= Enc 1:sure D. See page iv of the Int;; duction Secti:n of the "Catal ;" f::
examples of nonce:pliance :cding.
l i
l
MC 0535 28 -
The firs: three positicas for the requirements code - Sectien.I, Par A of Enclosure D.
3g, The fourth position for the cause code -
See:1on II, Enclosure D.
The fifth posicion for he inspection procedure code - Section III, Enclosure D.
The sixth position for the severity level assigned to the noncompliance 1:e=. Coding will be as follows:
1 - Viola:1on
, 2 - Iqfraction 3 - Deficiency See also See:1on 0535-162 of :his chap:er for codinE of severity levels. The severi:y coding on
- he 766 and 7665 forms mus: agree. ].
(The coded severi:7 level no:ed in :he ca:alog is
- o be used only as a guide in de:er=ining vnether nonc==pliance should be designated as a viola:icn, infrac:1:n or deficiency.)
- 5. Specifi: Deviation - This field is :ceple:ed if 3cx C of 31ock A is checked.
n the :OENT!y!CA!!ON block, en:er the 3 :o 5 charac:er iden:1fying : Ode fr:: ei:her See::: ~,
Part 3 "'.' ender Deviation Codes," Inclosure 3 c:
the lis: o f c o==1: en:s , :: des , guides. s:cndards, or acceptable practices shown in :he a:: ached
" Code of Devia: ions," (In:1:sure C). This sec:1:n represen:s :he set of codes, guides :: s:andards agains: which devia: tons '.ere :1:ed.
.. .. ..a..
. e s ,.e
. C . . y... r. .. . ; v ,. s- o. .m, . r.2 3., w3...
a.-- . ..
...... .w...e number :: c:her sy:bol :ha: 1:en:1:1es the spe:ifi:
su sc: Of :he :cde, guide :: s:an ard n::ed in he
......s..... .. . . r. .
5 X17.O l e .. . f *. h e d e'.' '.2
- 1 : n ' 'a s f :O n 7.e g u la ". .' *?
Cuide . 10 " hen "he fiel: a': U. : e :ded in .s f:11;ving nanner:
y _______ _
, t.
4 . ,
MC 0535 1. The appropriate code for Regula:ory Guide would be - found in :he list of codes, guides and standards found in Enclosure D. This Code (REGCD) would then be coded into IDENTIFICATION block.
- k~ 2. The guide number 1.16 would be coded in :he firs: 4 posicions of the SFECIFIC CUIDE OR-STANDARD block and the las:-6 positions would be isfc blank.
Examele 2. If a citation were =ade agains: ANS N18.7, the coding in Block 3 would be:
- 1. ANSI would be coded in positions 1-4 of :he IDENTIFICATION block.
No reference is =ade to the particular sec: ion of the standard.
204 Block C. - How Item Identified Check the box that bes describes who identified :he ite= of nonce:pliance or devia:icn.
' - identified by :he Licensee (if Box A, 3. or C of Block A is checked)
I - identified by :he Inspector (if 30x A :: C of Block A is checked) 0 - other (such as represen:a:1ves of :he s:2:e :: local jurisdic icn or priva:e individuals) (if 3cx A or C of Block A is checked) 205 Block D. - Consee_uences Enter the code :ha: bes: describes any : f.secuences f the i:e:
Of Noncompliance :: Deviation.
A - caused or cons:1:u:ed an ac:ual :::urren:e* (if Iox A or C of 310:k A is :hecked) p - had po:en:ial :: resul: in an ac:ual :::urren:e 'if 3-A, 3, :: I Of 310 k A is checkec' ,
i
. 4 ee' e
'g
)
1 1
1
MC 0535 ,
N - did no: have potential to resul: in an actual occurrence Tif Box A, 3, or C of Block A is checked)
Ib5 *An occurrence is defined as an event that has some safety sig-nificance (may or may not be covered as a r.eper:able incident in regulations).
206 Block E. - Examet Infer =acion In those cases where data to be included in Block G (Text) deals with those areas,which are exe=pt from public disclosure under 10 CTR 2.790, place a check in the space provided. This will su; press the printing of this item of Noncompliance or Deviation in :he
. Gray or Yellow Book or other public disclosure.
207 Block F. - Additional Units
- a. NONCOMPLIANCE (Sox A or Block A checked)
In some instances, during an inspection trip at a mul:1-unit power reac:or station, a specific item of noncompliance is found : hat does lead to a ,
ci:a: ion agains: more than one unit at that station.
In :hese cases ei:her :he enforce =en: : correspondence or the report de:sils, :: :th depending upon
- ircu=s:ances would reflec: the fac: :ha: :he 1:e=
of noncompliance or devia:1on was charged to each of the involved uni:s. A separa:e Tor = 756 for each uni: so ci:ed must be prepared.
- 5. LICENSEE ! EN!!?~ED !! EMS (Sox 3 of 3 lock A checked)
In some instances, an i:e= repor:ed by a licensee, involving a mul:1-uni: power reac:or sta:icn, =ay be associa:ed wi:5 : ore :han One uni: 3: :ha:
station.
- .
- EV_*f !!CN (3cx C Of 3':ck A :hecked)
~n sc=e instances, devia:i:ns a: 2 ul:1-uni:
power reac::: s:2:i:n nay 'e : asse:ia:ed w :: :: e
- han :ne uni: a: :ha: s:a:1:n.
- d. When anv sf the :::re si:ua:::ns ::::::
.. In:er "M" in ;:si:i n ; :t :he f::::.
- 2. In pesi:1:ns 2, 3, and - :f the fie;: en:e; in nu=erical sequen:e :he designa:i:n :i :'.e -
-. W D ev ##
. \
l MC 0535 .
other units which have.also been cited for .
this item of noncompliance or associated with f this deviation or Licensee Identified Ites.
- 3. Example 1. During an inspection at the Dresden uite an 1:em of noncompliance or 30s deviation is identified which is charged :o units 1, 2, 3.
On the Form 7665 for Dresden 1 in Block
. .. F enter M23 On the For= 7665 for Dresden 2 in Block F enter M13 On the Form 766S for Dresden 3 in Block F enter M12 The text field is repea:ed on each of the three 7665 for:s.
Examele 2. During an inspection at the Harris sica, an 1:em of noncompliance or deviation is identified which is charged to units 2 and 3, but not 1 c ed 4 On the Fors 7665 for Harris 2 in Block F enter M3 On the Fors 7665 for Harris 3 in Block ?
en:er M2 The : ext field is repeated :n both of the 7665 forms.
The purpose in doing thi- is :o be able :o iden:ify : hose uni:s uniquely having noncesp1.:4nce or -levia:1:ns and also :o be able
- o identify noncc=pliancs or cavfacions cc =on to ::re than one uni:.
20S 31eck G. - Tax:
- a. NONCOMPLIANCE Each 1:es of n n::=pliar.ce :ust be described in detail :o include the appli:able requiremen: and
- he f ae:ual infer =a:icn :na: de=:ns::a:es :ha:
an item of nene: pliance exis:ed. i!he require-
=en: should be referenced, n:: described. If
- 1:ed, :his i:e: should appear essen:ia _;. :2 4
0
a p ., ,
6 1
MC 0535 1 it appeared in the enforcement let:er to che licensee..
- The text should be developed in accordance with the instructions in Chapter 1000. Samples of " Notice of g Violation" from which the narrative should be :aken can also be found'in Section 0875 of Chapter 0800.
If the item of noncompliance is associated wi:h a NRC -
Form 591, the text is to be the statement of the 1:em of noncompliance as it appears in the NRC Torm 591' . For example, the text of a estation for failure to post a radiation area would be " Rooms or areas were not properly f posted to indicate the presence of a radiation area."
- b. LICENSEE IDENTIFIED !TDi
- 1 Each item must be described in detail to include the j applicab 4 requirements. (The text should be developed
'n as described in Section 208.a.)
I
- c. DEVIATION Each deviation =ust be described in detail :o include the ,
item not complied vi:h and.the factual infor:ation that demonstrates that a deviaticn existed. In general, :he applicable commitment, code, guide, s:andard or accept-able practice should be referenced, not described.
Usually, the reference cust be specific. In some cases, in order to clarify :he applicable com=1:sen:, code, guide or standard, i: =ay be necessary :o provide a brief description in addi:1on :o :he ref erence. This 1:e should appear essen:ially as 1: appeared in :he letter :o
- he licensee. The :ex: should be developed in accordance vi:h the instruc: ions in Chapter 1000, !!anual Chapter 1005, See:1cn 1005-25.
Provisions have been =ade for cap:uring up :o 500 charac:ers of text for nonce:pliance anc devia: ion 1:e:s. Should
- he actual :ex: of the 1:e=, in appearing in ei:her the enforcement le::er :r :he repor: de:sils, ex:aed :nis nu=ber 1: will be necessary :o paraphrase :ne 1:e: ::
keep wi:hin 300 charac:ars. N :hing precludes para-phrasing all such 1: ems, bu: 1: should be re:ecoered :ha:
- he :ex: as recorded in ~665 vill be used verba:1: as the inpur :o :he Inf:::e en: 5:a:us f the " Rain:ov bocks.
0535-30 PRI?ARINO TORM NEC ~66 ?;I ~66 P.45:IR ? ;I :FcIS
- e. . .;
G S
. )
e 1
1 l
MC 0335 l 301 - ceneral l l
Once a record has been created on the 766 Master File, i.e. , the 766 j for=(s) have been processed and the data entered into the ce=puter I system, = modifications to the record for that inspection,, inquiry or investigation are =ade through the use of :he sa=e for= (NRC 766) that 3%= vas used to originally create the record.
NOTE: For=s NRC 766 and NRC 766S cannot be used to =odify infor:acion !
in the Module Tracking System (MTS) or the Enforce =ent Tex:
Sys:e=. Changes to these files cust be done directly in the ,
appropriate syste= through your regional or the headquar:ers l coordinator. !
Changes to :he MTS data in the 766 Master File record can be =ade via
- he NRC 766 form but it is i=portant that the sa=e changes are also =ade 4 1
in the Module Tracking Syste= and vice versa. Any changes to nor.co=pliance and/or deviation counts or codes =ust be =ade on both sides of :he For NRC 766 as appropriate as well as to the Enforce =ent Text Systes directly via INQUIRE.
- The key to uniquely identify records in the 766 Master File is :he Docket / Report Nu=ber ce=bination. To uniquely identify the 766 Master File seg=ents containing the MTS and related nonce =pliance (cited) codes, the unique Line Key (For= NRC 766 - Side 2) is needed along vich
- he Docket / Report Nu=ber ce=bination.
302 - Responsibili:V As :he regions accep: the responsibili:y for their Ovn 766 data entry and pre-edi: processing : hey vill also be responsible for :he accuracy of the 766 Master File. This vill require :he use of F::= :TRC 766 :o delete and nodify :he 766 Master File data.
The Regional Inf or=ation Sys:e=s (M:5) Coordina::: vill be responsible f r ::ordinating record =odifica:1:ns vi:h :he regi:nal inspec:::s and verifying the use of the NRC 766 for:s :o insure :he in:egri:7 and accuracy of :he 766 Mas:er File.
303 - Fer ?rocessinz 4
i The NRC 766 for=s used :o =cdify or dele:e rec:rds :n :ne 756 :bs:er
{
File vill be processed along vi:5 the regular weekly 756 inpu: da:a
- hr: ugh :he 766 Systa=. {
The c:=ple:ed for=s for deleting :: ::difying {
rec:rds can be placed anywhere in :he weekly inpu: da:a se:, An j i
1 l
\
"E e' 1 1
j
~
MC 0535 internal computer sort routine vill organize the input data prior to the updating of the Master File.
304 - Deleting Entire Record fro: 766 Master File ._
l g If a record gets created with an erroneous docket and/or report nu=ber, the only way to correc: this type of error is to totally delete the incorrect docket / report record and re-enter it under the correct docket /repor: number co=bination.
To delete an entire record,~a-Foru NRC 766 with the Delete box checked under Transaction Type and the appropriate Docket /Repor:
Number ce=bination must be co=pleted and entered into :he 766 System. The entire record =ust then be entered under the correct Docket and Report Nu=ber as necessary (see Sections 0535-15 and 0535-17).
305 - Modifying An Exisring Record on 766 Master File To change data in an existing 766 Master Tile record, :he Modify box under Transaction Type =ust be checked and the docket and report nu=bers of the record to be changed =ust be co=placed no 4
=atter if the field (s) to be = edified are on Side 1 and/or Side 2 of For: NRC 766.
NOTE: It is i=portant :ha: corresponding changes are made to all fields (s) which have a data rela:icnship.
- a. Modifying Fields (s) on Side 1 Co=plete only : hose fieldi that are to be replaced vi:h the new inf er=a:icn you want :o appear on :he 766 Master File. If a field con:ains da:a and i: is :o be blanked out, 1: =ust be replaced wi:h :er:s.
NOTE: Never replace the Date 766 In ered field unless :he originally en:ered date was incorrec:.
- 5. Modifying Field (s) en Side 2 To =ake :ctrec:1:ns :b Ter: URC 766 - Side 2 da:a (MT5 and Nonce =pliance), :he entire line (766 Mas:er File l seg=ent) =us: be replaced. The exac: Line Key (Tr:=
766 Master File) of :he da:a :: be replaced =us: be
- oded al:ng vi:h :he :c=ple:e line as i: is :o appear in :he Mas:er file. Also, "?". Ihis ::ce w ,; be used by :he c =puter sys:e= :: ;eners:e One ::ansac:::
. . . . =..
l l
MC 0535 - 33 ~
record to delete the line -(seg=ent) and a second transaction record to create the line vich the new data. If you want to blank out an entire line (segment),
code the appropriate Line Key and the Replacement Code and leave the rest of the line blank.
gg c. Inserting Line(s) on Side 2 To insert a new line (segment) into the 766 Mascar File, code the Line Key field.with a unique key (Line Key that does' not exist) followed by the module information and appropriate noncompliance codes. Do Not enter the Line Replacement Code as this will cause a transaction error when the system attempts to delete a seg=ent that does not' exist.
NOTE: Prior to coding a cecord to = edify or insert an NRC .
766 - Side 2 segment, it vill be necessary to coordinate the change with your Information Syste=s Coordination
, for a comparison of the current 766 Master File record.
I I
.. . ~0 a
- o j s e d
9
'.:C 0535 -
'::1csura A-1 se anac na Neverber 2. 1976
..reo sv.ris uveu.a ..w ro., ee-si,o.
Ic"7 '" INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT - STATISTICAL DATA I sac)Lif v maug A57E c*t a.5. * * 'NC .* a t 65#tC'"4 kiCt%$ttvt% Dom agvigwga
,a4N5 OX"8' *v* 8 '
- A. ansca f No Ga*t5 ^QsN=45? N 5# a t : Cs ON 9 #
aCT,'g 0'*0= ? NO ev ?o
."0" M Ac* . v i
- .e
- * ll l l l l l C:
l"l^ l* l; l l . ll E-
% 6 ' *
~
~ +4 g
- . . e, s s, se . . ..e w.
i , , i j
. l n 1 gll tiI III : I I ! t ; j jo !l # 1 1 !ij 1 *vse :s e: vi * ??sM*s t e.s 3 ?sg q<. ag-M 34 sset
- C% *=.is 8 Je g ecyfigg egg :S O vasaCivgN
- av:af l 9 C va f. 4::' 3g upcat 7 4; ..cg e ,
j :: C 806f'%E NC 8 t i- "6 C VAA4GivtNfwi38f 'O C *.ANfSE: l S c 95 g3f, car.co.
- 3 C 4NCi:t %f O' O 57tCLA6 O sves t , g a.s
( ,g 3 3 f480eCEvtNT 'M C stscom ;c 5.evggrgapeer ..g gg .
l ssagc' := te . , ts. 0 4 r.a s : C awc.NCE: : C .sa ,s; s g: >
, l 23
_ . 58 6 :
- C *. . (1 * ; a f C . '.c " s . - :.q , .43,. . ,
le
. l ' C 10 C a t ; :*.as :s s.Ct .t"I* 3 C agsgang: *: .;s s;a ac* 7. 4 0 a g ;.; . 3 "g a S .0g s ; a ..
- 7,
. s,..c es . . .,, m . . .. . :. . a : .. m. . c . m .
37 f
l'CO.gaa 2 C ' CNCO'd86.asCE a C NO ,07.*s<. a .0 3 $ t . a
- as-
- C :t. 4
- Oy
- a 1 wve t * '8 NCNC* v8. AN:s '1914 .t "s a - . I *.S i t I ' ..,g
"" ....g.s * *
- , -jg' ,.,,,4 3. g g .,4 , g . ?.g - o g .f , ;,,7, O *t: "t v s ;;. e, . .;g
! ...v . . .: , : . . . . C . . . . . , , . ., ....:. C,si,,
.$ j",i;c :i ri:":
r
. * % "9f t s . "1.it t :t'.**10 *1"5
. . tE * :s . ;g. 3g 3 a s 4 grg i
i as: . . , : s : .: . r " r e : s a s s- s e sa p..
- 4.s r a
.s :s s :- .a q+ .
in ,a.g**ta is,g:= , g.sgg 4 4 a p; a . ;g , ; . ,, ,
9 l
?
T.s.t:* :s .g;* . - ..: ;. .
% :6
- sa * !* * :a act *. ss 4 : a : 4/4
- s rg s g at 2., g a g .a 5.a g 4e <
- :: . .geg,,;<,ag i; ;s - , ; ;, ,,
- ,,{ "; O g a rg a sag g(a g s s?$ ,at *3 ;0 !s* ,iagna;3s as .: , ,5 ; . . p - ;; , ,g,,
23 0 8t.'la14*:..sg; .ag. 20 , g g . ;g ;; sa ,g.g, .
,7:
- 0.;33 :8840 40 4 0 i e .in .. .i. .: *s..p.4*. . :.q:-
l t O 8 * '. 8 t * * . '
4 .1 .: , . , , s ;; 3 :: . .
i O: .
t0 .s.
...: .a. si. s.
s s a
= : .: ,.s .!: ata4 , , . .
- a. .
ame. mum
, :4 ! ..g g .s:s;j g , *l a .
M 3 .U!\*b Jed _
g' I
34**'964%ftst: : :' *. ! 4
- t "O *
' .'s t f a s ,
o
+
".C 0535 Enclosure A-2 November 2, 1976 I .. e
, i 3.=.=.2
. . . . .c -
- - - - 3 wwp .
e
, , T O W 3 2 l 4 3 f
v ', E
' l l 3 l l ! ! I l. l !
l l l +.
i.
d a-> I I 1 II I I i i l ll Is j y , i i i i
, i I .6 i i
~
- l 5 I ! l l ,
i l t ! i t i jj C i
t ; i
' i i - l l_i }
. i f
a
. t .
l ! !
ff i ese v , t I i ! i ! i , ,! ; i 4 m - z -
l W = l l I ! I I ' t 6 l (
= Ee
- - v 4
,e 5 i !
i 'l i ,
i i i i ; i i .- i
~ ~
It i3 EW at I 1
- ?' =
h )
- 1 ! I !h ! l N Q
s
~
~
E Y z !
' ! l 6 ! l !l I i i
, j i j
y
- 5 3-w i I I I i i i )
i i ,
i i i i i ,
' ' ' f I f I l *
@ I '
t A-) i ! E i l l j i l { j(
@ I f I l 4 i Q l 4 2
!i s !I ' I l }
I
_i i lt I
. i ,
y - I !I l i 1 i i e i !g w = -l v -
E -fN l 13^ 51 1 j t ! #
l ! l l i
, j ; i- j ,*,,
o os, s< , ,-, * '
' i I i E i i o ...
~
I .
W
,o 32
-2 $ e E d M j -o ,cua s
t i ,
. . . , s- ,
I E I dE (3- *9,.* .
C
- Pzz?
me "" ; "T 2
- F N ? /4 g i
g ghee ,
is y n.e . m w -
" 4..=3 : *!" .
- g i a 2 E -. a, 5 ~
3 "I- z s,n y .s =
i i :
(
U E l i
J
- 4 d E-2 g -=
- I 4 f 6 , ; *
.A 3
', 3 i.~,
- C I I I : 1 -
e e 4 .
3m O7 m - k O *. I f l t dc a
- 3. ugg:::II' '
- I t- ' l O* *E "s.J <I " 2 * " n- :
I c -t .: - -s - : s l 3*s2 .s
,= ?
2
- 9. < ==.gg 3
- 3 s 3* : <
3 3 I l 2.i < .,
~ **
2 i t '_'
i
-5s
. = r .
E :: . ;
9 g e e e* g '
v 3 7 = ,,
1- ->E ~ -
-<3g2.S -0 * ? * ". 7 5N t
- 2 4 35?-1 * [
t e .~e j =
. . r. v..-
6 e e e $ $ h e i
. I l
- - - - - - - _ I
l P.C 0535 Enclosure 3 - November 2, 1976 sesy %se *ge 3 Nca. t"tt e '974 NC 1635e umfte states muctsaa neougarose comemsson INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT-STATISTICAL DATA SUPPLEMENT Ct% feat Nsesu cmo%g ggecx 4 uuST 48 ChtCxt0 70 SMCW W*t 08 '48Cauaf404 CONTA Ntc ON '-t sceu i 1
ONE 80#u iS 70 et C0uai.t?to som EaCa ias oftW 08 NONCousva=Cg 0;ft0 )
9: LactNS84 rotNf*8sto sttus l CJ OtviAfiON C:fte IN IN8wAC(@(NT 00AA(170NCENCE i
l0 Cut? Nuwets Om pctygg gyugga ageomeNyugge i
a - f.. e. Ne.Nes .....,% m ...ac, , , ,.
[ 0et;m ONS 90s ONLv. > I l as fI l
! l l l l 3 4 ] NONC0uava=Ct $$90 ' c Of ca r cas i e 8 * *
- l ' 1 e i i t
- 2 S .'Cas$8t CINf s 60.f tvs
, t l l i * ' I l ! l ;- ; l l I l i 0 OEv'APCN ;gwr+8 Caf>0N l 581: 8 % ...$4 :s 3 a .cas; i
- O==Ca +t u
- f N'.e.g3
- 3. 3,, _. , % e.g
- .ad:n Ja d 8Ca CNgp n
q g-;n ;%g gas ongee
= CtN&It a "AwSE 08 00N$t %f!O AC*.A 6 000.88tNCE ,
. e ' O Ni>' fea ' - O - o e* INT : <> 4A- A ::: 'Nei !
0 O fwte y C
- 3.g sof . ave scfg%f ag e at5..* N AC% As 000.magseg ,
i i e
- t .g etus' %stewatcN ;
s.4:3. at , , %, *3
! g%tga v
' % s as* go sog.;w g: 3. *.ga .%,f %,uggas. !
23 5 ] :=E*x goa a gutvs' %scauaf c%
S '**C.20tc N 't s? sg.* n ste > s'
<a 0 0 F# # '90 l I I l ; Ii t
I
- 3. ;,- g ge e -O m 0.amac tas eca tac. tu s e tif s* *=t s s00ue. 4%ca a :a. af :% g.:gg:s . 5...vsta -
.v 4.. sg %g"135AA*
- a samas=8458 6
I.
J I
i ! ;
$ - .: t :44 t.a. .is. .4 4 i. :n . . , . . . .
t a
(
L .'o .
MC 0535 Enclosure C CODE OF DEVIATIONS CODE NAME OF COMMITMENT, OUIDE, CODE, OR STANDARD
COMMITMENTS
k ?SAR PRILDiINARY SAFITY ANALYSIS REPORT FSAR )
FINAL SAFITY ANALYSIS RIPORT l APPL A2?LICATION 1 1
CVTR VENDOR TOPICAL UFORT OCOM OTHER C05CiITMENTS TO NRC(NRR, SMSS , A'?D ISE) f q
CUIDES
........ j REGGD REGULATORY GUIDE NO.
I
= STANDARDS OR CODES = 4 KISI AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE
'ASME AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MICHANICAL ENGINEIRS ,
ASNT ' A".ERICMI SCCII'"Y FOR NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING !
ANS .etERICAN NUCLF.AR SOCII~Y 1 ASTM AMIRICXi SOCIETY FOR *ESTING AND MATERIALS 4
IEEE INSTITUTI 0F ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS C:CI::EIRS ASA AMIRICMI STA:iDAPDS ASSOCIA!!ON AC: AMERICAN CONCRITI INST! UTI NF?A :'A!!CNAL FI?I PROTIC!CN ASSOCIA!!ON EPA CT'/:RONMC;TAL PROTICT 0N ADMINISTRAI!ON SIMA NATIONAL ELEC'"RICAL MA PJFAC~URERS ASSOCIA!!CN nas n.u.:.R C a, .,ar. , D&.v
. .,..4:av
. . . . C .a
. . s. .. s, .,,.
ASCE AMERICMi SOCIETY OF C'*l L C:G:NEERS j AND! ASSOCIATION OF :T,'CLIA?. INSTRCtI:: Mr."JFAC-".*RERS j ESSA C?V!RONMENTAL SC:INCE SERVICES ADMIN:STRA!! ': 1 NAS NATIONAL ACAD.r.'.'Y OF SC C;CES 1 j
NBS NATIONAL SURIAU OF STA'?DAP.DS
..,.,v. {
. . . . . ,. . _ . J s-
..as. . e ,ue
. . . ..w
. . . v. R
- .av. .n. . s. R:. ..a . , a. , ,. .,.
. .. .a.a. :..,:.. . .. .._
..s~A ..... .S...., ,.,, Le . . ., u.
.i sv :. . .. ._. . .c
.s :.r. .. .a . .
l
.,. ,1.3
.v ...at.v
. . . . N AA., CCl..v. ... .. v. .. .
c.C......,,__....
.a..... ..u.:....... .... ._ 1
- tEASURD!C:!
..e, 3 . .
o 9
_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _O
a z- ,
MC 0535 Enclosure C OSHA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
OTHER STRiDARDS OR CCDES (SEE NSIC 112 OR LATER EDITION)
ACCEPTABLE PRACIICE
g .............. ...
CAPI GENERALLY ACCE?!A3LI PRACTICES IN THE INDUSTRY l
l l' b 1
i e
l l
1 I
e k
MC 0535 Enclosure E List of HQS Action Codes Action Code 4 No action required 01 Letter issued to lice,nsee 02 Part 2 Notice Issued to Licensee 03 Order issued 04 Proposed Civil Penalty issued 05 Referred to licensing for resolution 06 Referred to Region to close out 07 Other reason 08 O
l I
i 1
--- _ D
l
. . s ENCLOSURE F (REVISION II) I I
DUMMY MODUI.ES (PROCEOURE) NUMBERS Use of these =odules, in the absence of an appropriate procedure number for chose progra=s currently =edularized, is required for each inspeccion and investigation (see Section 171 for a list of
=odularized progra=s). The purpose of the du==y =odule nu=ber is to provide a record of the diree'c inspeccion effort and related 3g, ite=s of nonco=pliance associated with those specific (or general) i prograc=acie functions or activicies conducted by IE which are not presently modularized. .
The modules are to be used for all ac:ivities whether clear and not clear. For each du==y =odule entered on :he 766 For=, record l the hours of direc: inspec: ion effer: and any nonce =pliance i according to :he inscrucciens under MC 0535 See: ions 174 and 162 respectively. The use of these =odules will enable the field inspection staff to further define che nature of the various activities included in an inspection, and the corresponding i inspection report, as shown in Block F of For: NRC 766. For exa=ple, a roucine inspeccion of a fuel facility =ay have included ,
I a review of nuclear safety, radiological protec: ion and planc security. Only box 02 (Rou:ine - No Fee) of Block ~ cn Tor: NRC 766 can be checked; however, recording of various "de==y" :odules on side 2 of the for= under Module Tracking Infor=ation, will enable the region to show :he various =ajor inspection ele =en:s included in this report. The Phase in the Module Nu=ber !nspec:ed field =use always contain a zero (0) when a "du==y" :odule nu=ber is being used.
List of "Du==v" Medules Module Identification Module Nu=ber (!ncludinz Phase'>
Abnormal Occurrence 099001 Emergency Planning 099002 Enviren=encal Pr:tection 099003 Ceneral Health & Safety 099004 Material Control i Ace': 099005 Nuclear Safety 099006 Plant Security 099007 j Radiological Procec:1on 099008 )
Reac:or Construe: ion 099009 4 Reac:or safety 099010 Transportation 099011 1 LWR's Under Construe:1:n (:o be dele:ed'; :9901: l LWR's 3eing Cece==issioned 299013 Investiga: ions l 29901- l 3 Mile !sland :nspec:icns.;er Sandia 3:udy 0990'3 .
Test i Star:up (Region ~ ) ?9015 Vender Inspec:i:n .??O;~
HTOR - ?cwer Ascensi:n Phase Ee;::n ~7 F L: .' : I
....~:
a O
__________-J
MC 0535 !
ENCLOSURE F (REVISION II)
For modularized programs (see Section 171 for a list of . .
4- modularized programs) use the applicable procedures (modules) ^
that have been established in the 9200, 9300 and 9400 chapters for all types of reportable, nonroutine and unplanned activities.
For all other programs . chat are not modulari:ed use the "dueny" modules.
Use of these codes is on an incurim basis pending incorporation of inspection requirements into the IE nanual.
i 4
i l
I 1
i4
)
I 1
.. l
APPENDIX 4 ac .:.. ns e-e we ui as.wc,. Lam % # :avc; w 15'04 *+ c ' * - 5": :=**~..*>'m*~..
{ (NSPECTCR'S REPORT ,n.....
Cfhce of inscectron anc Enforcement va n ...
g -__
- r .ies .c.::e ' * * ' 5 8,[ '
l :::.e so e m. a . ci*sa t *""" ' '" *
- S " c :* "
se e. **co.c s e.
.. s g a a y , , , . ; ,,o , .-
~ . I i ' I . .
w waa 8 '
f
. t )
. , , , j
,e , , , ,
- r. e 's l * ,.
, e _;
t 4 av e..o . ' i , . I ! i
- t. 35 c. s .
- s * ; . . ; s u se . .s i F*s e M5., ~ MhM QWA , m _ -f ' - _ - I;"' 11 I l
sg. =a. . . w. a .
..). . .
I s a .. .. . . . = . Mi . . -,
-o :s. . s .o s . n n..,,, s .. . ~;i c .. .
.oposur ssnc :.
, .r -< . ,,,,,,,,,,_s
- w. . i . we ,
l t i !
- t 7
- M"~G ., .% r. &~
etes.:ew.=ca .. ..sas t w i l ,
m:
5 KGWW5 NP&MdM.'cip;i Q swc- 1-:L5 ax-3,c7:
- nocu .:.:s j
5 :s .c %.< . .:ac e a c . .-. . .-
r
~_.=$ -
I l :: s.q ,. i i a . we, v.s., i i ,o . ,s.= r sac ; e . .
=
e
=aC some ses '
l 22 ..%g,0s r j9 at . $NCA W cs.n, 2 .f .c=as 988aC8 68 "88 . A 8 %# cat gand%
p
, j 2 ..smoca
.i. I ="'*v ie r et. l 'l . =vilf#.A f.08e
= ,
g t . g awent gescar e
t :Pt . wC u r avoer ss a.at actf , - .t M Ju' --d as~ --w.
17,r Y_wl q=p_T'-- -E b a T^
- 3. =se.' s
- - -* ' #de ' - -'
"*d i..y ' :.; ;;
r.. s. e e ss* .csws~ .:rn.<~ce
- l*i*ia! 28 e 0,,a t 7*1 a=0
- . 4 s
- 460
- v; * ' . ;' ' *
- i *
- 0****0" .s ~n. v . c 'es~sw r'ss :s ts i i j ,
ein,. ,.e ,e.., . ...e.,,,,,,
l I f l1 vattA ' CN :a 'o-o ca i ,
.I"f.ns $3.g3 agfose r"I--t w * ~ ~ "T ~ a
.l' la.a e oI ***ic6cl
- ! , ,. .. . . m 4 . . . . c =
l , ; ;..s , , j j.
_wo 1 '+ ' ' ' I ~o ' : * ' ' ** '
.is ,,,ii i I '
S E M ="~i R W '5? W T.h 8 ? k % W <"-U.A .
- s. .,s... .
A W W=
- L - - - --h 4
it'. , uv.,. . w w.. 4. .- ,
. . ~.
- 3 , , , . , j ; ... . : ...e.. ...- !!ii w"es.: ,ww. o t
! . 514i J4 : I . '
3.4,9 i *o .* oa *eu -v*
i l . .--a- n. t. .:.:.a: : i
.i i ! r r .
!g .
=
,i . . *.
!J i t ..g ! : pu ar l ..: -
1 . .
- a.
i - Sil, ;t i -3i s - . ! l: ;.
j 21 :l 2; sf .-!
ii- 3 - .=
- . All i ' . , !. t, ;
s i
c.. . j. - . i 1- :e. g!
j 1 t.--; .a. .
u g % Inr5 a
., .. j
.t 1 8.2 -1. }
. = -
! i
- 5 ,I s3 .J i - - '
y
. 4
- 1 e , i i
. .4 ; -
, , I ,
- i. , , - , . .i l
, , i . . l J.i . . l .
j i '
- - ! l
! . t. i l ! l I
, , l 3' !
L; e i
- t l I i .i r l , f '-' i ,
. . .- { ,
- l ) I i i '
j I ; **
. , i l . . l i:s , I ll '
I
- e. . ! , , l., I,,Il l l , , ! l.l.l l I e' ' '
i - .
I I
- .i j,. J, i
. i ,. , ;l .,
! f 1
- i ! l , ; ; l I . .
el , . , e' i
' I ! ! , 1 O ,1 l ! *i
)
- - I
, , , i ,,
i 4
i
, l .,
m
. . i
- 1. . ..
1l =# i f
.f . e i l I 4-, -
i j a O
4 < .e . . ,
- c *oa * * :ocao e .. ......o. u:e se l *"o" l -
- 8 * * * *" t-, 's
., Jf , c # meano. ,
, ,, , ,,, ; , , , i INSPECTOR'S REPORT ' i i i i i I i i i I 8 I i i I i a * * : u "' ' ' ' :' ' ; ' *- ' ,,$ " l
" (Continuation) I ' I I i 8 i 1 ' ' I i 1.1 l ' ' e ,j,j,l,j,!,l 9 Office of tascoction and Enforcement i ' ' ' ' i ' I I I i ! 8 i ! ' ' ' j {i l i j p T-~e .
! ' ~
- I L I l l 1 f I i 1 i i l l l l l 0 x ,
WNMlNN M M WidIN A d4fW g$ 19 dM NM % Ma M 8# N 90 MM N M M MN & M48 bM dW M N.WMIM WA l 1
1
. t i
e!
4 8
- t l
.. I
.i l I
1 I
g - - .. . . .
i l
l l e
't M '
"" ==- w
. *e - eue .
I!
11 I l
- n
\
% I N
1 I
\
l
_ _ _ _ =
1 a oe e.m e e ee.
6 m
I i
i 3
l l . ,
m a
I i l l
.4
- e. . .
U.S. M UC'. l AA A EQ u:.ATO RY 0 0 W his
APPENDIX 5 U.S. NUCLEAR REr.ULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT INSPECTION AND FNFORCCMENT MANUAL l
CHAPTER 0500 1 l
l MC 0535 - STATIST! CAL DATA REPORTING (766 C 0!!PU T E R SYSTEM) 0535-01 PURPOSE The 766 computer-based information system has been cevetooec to imerove organizational effectiveness and efficiency in the areas of Oct;c::icn.
processing, data.
retrieval, analysis and managemant of inspection related This data, a combination of statistical, planning and textual information, is recorced on Forms N2C 766 and 766A.
This chapter provides the instructions der the cemejetion and handling of the Forms NRC 766 and 766A for the various statistical, planning and textual data concerning inspection, investigation, inquiry, and associated enforcement actions conducted by the Office of Insce: tion and Enforcement. The instruction also discussos the responsibilities of the sopropriate persons for filling out the Forms.
0535-02 BACXGROUND The 766 System is a management tool used to capture, maintain sne report statistical and planning data concerning inspectiun, investigs::en, inquiry activities, and associated enforcement accions concv::ec oy !E.
The data is captured via the Forms NRC 766 and NRC 766A anc main:sincJ
- n a computer disk file at the Nation 91 Insri:vt: 5 cf Hesith (N*H1 Concuter Center. The 766 forms are used to record basic sto: sticai cata concerning eacn inspection, investigation or incuiry. re'3:ce M cule Tracking information, vtolation statiste:s anc :Ne ic<- eistet .
to each item of violation and deviati:n.
~he icems function as computer inpu forms one, a:::rcinely, i9 formation must ce recorded in strict 00*oliance With Ocria's
- enventions and :riteria as discusse: later in :his : acter.
- ncomnlete, inaccurate or illegibic cata en:erce :n e :! e - 3:-- ..
result in the introduction of faulty data 'm:0 th? s:3;'s ':s'. ::
base. The rasult of faulty data will be e=: ra sit'49:urs : d
-e: : s; inspector, and Region Comouter Staf3 an: ne::c;sr:e-s :e-s: e, -
to trace and correct the errors.
3535-03 CBJECTIVE5 031 C , m a r 31 The Systen has :een cesignec :: re::r a
- e :'a:e :e -
i-- --- :--
nent-:rien:ed inderma:i:n der esen i 3:e:: ' : a
. a.es ;s :- : :
incuiry of :encern to manageren; an: nc.sces f
_ ____-- ~ - - - - - ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~~
I'..p. ,
- a. The number and types of inspection- and investigattunt.
- 5. The number and nature of insoection findings with associated text of violation item and deviation.
- c. The action taken and by whom.
- d. The numbers and types of modules inspected and related ststistics.
- e. Elapsed time statistics.
032 Minimirime 9 e c a t i t i 'e a Dats The NRC 766 and 766A forms have been developed with the objec;tve Of minimizing the numbte of times inscection related dato must ue recorced for entry into computer based information systems. The basic 766 sys:em serves as the p r,i m a r y source of all statistsest information ~ relating ic inspections, investigations, inquiries and enforecaent. It also serves as t h e, primary source of all text on items of violation and deviations. Data from the system is used to analyze various ascoct: of f the in:pection progroms; snswer inquiries from Congress, the Commission and other sources; provide part of tive basis for budget requests:
help in the analyses of enforcement cases: and provide reavested data to licensees and contractors regarding the compliance receres of licensees. Since this data base serves so many i mportant purposes, it is important that data be entered c:cAletely ano 1ecurately. .
J 0535-04 DEFINITIONS -
TYPE OF ACTIVITIES CCHOUCTED (Columns 37/33)
This section d.efines the types of activities (inspection, incviry.
investigation) listed in columns (37/3C) of Corm NRC 766.
061 Ins-ae-iens
- a. Seda v (02) ;
{
Construction, quality assuran:e, := era: anal safety.
radiological health and safety, en/ir-ne ntal : ::c:t :n an; I omergency slanning inscecti:ns cerdermed a: 9res:-iced l frequencies and in accorcance with :ne : ::e:s es ":
I l instructions covering :he -cutine ins e: ten :gs- as de:ribed in the !! "anual. "aJeguar s i s:e: ? :s ::e- 2.
ac:cuntecilt:y, plant secur':y, e::.) an: . e ::- --- : - : s are not in:luded here. I 1
Rev 19e inspections are stru::vre: ss:- ?a :--:vg :e :-
more ins:e :icn visits Over a :er :: 0 3 e 3 ::- .e:e : +.
wi!! be mace of ?ajor ac: tvi: ies a.: Or':e: 07 a -
suthert:aci:n const ve:icn :erm': : r 4 : $-se. ::- :: e esses the e v.i e w may ce ::m: .2:e -
One '4 s e:- :- e.c/
year, every tuc years Or every nroe .- ears. .n : e- ::32s porticos of the rev'ew are mace cua 'ng ei:n :# ;e.e-3.
Ins ection vist :s m30e Our'93 a yearly *ea i : 0, 7
i . *. . .: w
e D j Page 3 t
crequently during a routine inspection visit. a review will oc mace of the status of previously identified enforcement matters, reported incidents or sonormal occurrences and other matters identified for followup revrew.
1
- b. Imeident (03)
Unscheduled inspections performed as a result of an incident or reported by others as having occurred at a licensed facility or associated with some aspect of a licensee's activities, involving construction deficiencies, equiomont failures, espesure to radiation, release of radioactive materials, loss of use of facility, property damoge.
accidental criticality, contamination problems, loss or theft of metertal, transportation, and similar types of unu".ual or unforseen events.
- c. Ea#necement (04)
Nonroutine inspections performed for the exclusive purpose of reviewing in a timely manner a licensee's ccreective action or response to a significant item of violation identified during a previous inspection. Such inspections may be performed prior to o r- subseouent to the issuance of a notice of inspection findings to the licensee.
- d. Man = cement Audit (05)
Comprehensive team inspections. seneduled as a result of programmatic requirements or as a assult of inscection findings unich focus on the management ascects of Jacility licenses for ourposes of ascertaining how the corocrate entity, as an NRC licensee, is organized to effectively isolement regulatory requirements as iney relate to nucl2ar safety.
- e. w ar,ee en- Visi' (06)
Those periodic visits to faci;ities, cerfor to as a result Of programmatic requirements. *re 9ain purocse :f .ni: 9 !s to indorm the licensee management of !E insce: .:.- :r3: ' es 3"t methods. Such visits normal.y ocese s crt.y sd'e-
- u '1 */
Mas indicated to NRC that it will er a: eats :: 30: ., #:" :
ConsT*uc*fon cermit and wne*ever "ne i*sce: : 0 .9 "es :*s :'.
- snif*s between V8cious ge:VDs :P c'3n 9es '" . 3 #eg "r1. ~## P The visits oc not involve fa:: a t e a ig a: 'si-'es.
Page 4
- f. Scacial (07)
Noncoutine inspections perfermed when it sogears that significant regulatory requirements are not being fully complied with, or when potential safety items have been identified, and prompt resolution Of matt 2r is reoutred by the licensee to assure continued safe operot' ens.
A special inspection may include the performance of supplemental inspection items.
- g. Vander (08)
Inspection activities performed of those ecmoanies =r organizations which comprise the architect-engineer. nuclear steam system supplier. anc component supplier grovoings identified in the vencer program, or tne continuation of sven vencor inspections tnat might be conductcc at a licensed facility. -
- h. dytaria1 tomteol 9md Accountime tW=al a--*) (09)
I n s p*c c t i o n s performed in the arcas of material :entrel and accounting and licensee measurement programs cvaring all ecmponents of measurement used for matertal control'snd accounting purposes. (Safeguards only)
- i. olent SeeJ-ity (10)
- nscections performed for physical protecti:n of SNM cf fixed sites and of plants in which S Nf1 is used for the ourcese :4 c-etection against sets of incustetal soccrage and the4 s :(
SNM.
- j. faiameer" VaaiJiestiem (11)
In cettien cerformed to evaluate .i:ersee -:gra s 3 0-accounting of SNM gnd for the cencv: ting f :qysi:31 inventories in order to =covide ince:em:ca: assa-an:e tha:
the licensee's crogram -i s capacle :4 cete:: tg 1 sses :-
diversion of SNM.
N. $4ic****/Ev96*? (12)
- 1. Shioment (of SNN)
!.Scectians 00r4c'9ec :n tre seta :4 : .' e s i c a ; *-: e:* --
c4 anc SNM in-taans': 4:e *e :v-::se : 4 :-::e:- :-
against theft and sacotage.
Page 5
- 2. Export (of SNM)
Inspections and independent verification to determine the
~
element and isotopic content *f all esports of SNM to assure i n t eg r'i t y of such shipr ents and to ascertain whether physical security requirements are being met.
- 1. Imeerts fe4 SNM) (13)
Inspections and independent verifications to determine the gross quantities and integrity of import shipments of SNM to assure that the licensee. upon receipt of the shipment takes required actions.
I 042 imeuirv (14)
An inquiry is an activity wherein a minimum amount of investigative technique (telephone. correspondence, or in-office review of material) is used to determine if an investigation a routi.n6 or special inspections or no action is required as a result of (1) an allegation, complaint or recort related to licensed facilities or materials, or materials subject to licensing or (2-)~ inaction oy a recicient to an order issued by NRC.
043 Investientien (15) l An investigation is an activity conducted in response to a complaint, incident or an ollegation to gather, correlate and evaluate material
. In depth for the purpose of establishing the cause, nature, eutent and particulars of a condition or occurrence; the status of compliance with Regulatory Requirements; adequacy of actions being taken'by a licenseet assistance needed by a licensee; and corrective actions neecec to minimize or preclude such conditions or occurrences. An investigation for matters other than a complaint or allegation may oe reovested by IE3HQ.
0535-10 : INSTRUCTIONS -
GENERAL 101 'J s e ed '44/?464 re ms The 766/766A forms are designed so that when insce:tions of the same activity types are conducted, they can be ree:rcet :n :ne same der 9 If cach inspection action is unique, a secarate Jerm ~66/766A es precared. Whenever items of violation or deviatt:n have been identified in the ecport to the licensee, a ~65A 'Orm Sus: :e ecmpletec, l
l
'. , '. / 3 2
. . . i I
1 Page 6 102 #eeert Numb -iae tvstem .
ie numbering system for activities will be as folicus:
The combination of the docket number and rescre numoer is the controlling identification for each activity reported to the 766
)
system.
- a. For each licensee. facility or vender the first inspection, investigation or inquiry conducted in each calendar year will j commence with the number 01 preceded by the last two digits of J the year and run consecutively throughout the year, i.c.. .the first report for any activity related to a particular licensee, vendor, applicant, etc., for 1981 will be 3101 and the second report will be 8102, et:. One numcering system covers inspections, investigations and inquiries. .
For persons other than licensees, applice.nts and vendors,.each
~
b.
inspection, investigation or incuiry repor t m us t have a unique _
report number within each regional office. The first such l
. report for each calendar year will ecmmence with number XX01, the second report XX02 (where X.X' represents the year - 80, 81, etc.), regardless of the fact that difde-ent individuals or ceganizations may be the subject of the cotivity (see also Section 0535-153 and 154).
- c. The revised 766/766A Forms minimize administrative paperwork for inspectors. Inspectors may now enter results of several inspections, where types of activity conducted are icentical, on a singic form. However, a separste report number must be issued for cach insoection.
- d. For " a s 's i s t " inspections, the Region responsible der corresconoing witn the licensee (iesue a 591 or letter) wi!!
- -olete ano incut the cata on the 766 + le. Care must te taken to ccordinate with the Region holding the license tha*
a c:Prect recort number is given to the retivity. Cnly one ,
Jnicue recort nuncer for each actia ity i: a!! owed in 75e !
- omouter system (cuplicate report nu-= eat der a carti:viar !
00:4e number will cause the re :rt t: :e rejected). 8eg *s l involved.in inspections of licenses witn multiole 10:3t' s of use must coordinate on One resce nu-:: a:ng syste". : P eramole, a Region I license having act9ces: 3d Oiaces 3 # sSe I" Region I and . Region III recuires that ie98:n ! 3ssign a "*:0*?
number to Region lI! fer incse insce:Ti: as ::n:v::ec y Region III. i t
I
. . .7
Page 7
- e. For inspections per4cr9ed by a Res4 cent inspector or a Performance Accraisal 7eam the regsonal office in whi*h the inspection was per ecemed will be re:ponsibic for assigning a Report Number and performing the 7 /, 6 data entry funct ent. 7he 766/766A forms should be completed Oy the Resident Inspector or Performance Appraisal 7aam and sent to the appropetste regional office.
103 Submit
- lac Comolat=d Feems Completed Forms NRC 766 and NRC 766A are to be reviewed by the Ecg1onal Information Systems Coordinator before beinq ontered into the c'o m o v
- e r system. Completed forms should be entered anto the comcuter en s' weekly basis. ,This will result in a Quicker undste to the 766 Ji!c and therefore, more timely sc: css to the data. 7he Form is :ensiderao comolete when the Regional Office has entered dats in all required sections and: ,
- A Form NRC-591 is issued; or -
- A letter (report) has been sent to the licenset following an inspection or investigation.
105 At?9emmen*v te MC 0935 Enclosure A -
Form NRC 766 Enclosure D - Forn NRC 766A
~
Fnelemure C - Dummy Modules (Procedures) Numdars Enclosure D - Code uf Deviacions 0535-15 PREPARING FCRM NRC 766 -
FRONT SICE (Columns t/55) 7me sucervisor of the princical insoec:ce wne is in oirect ena*ge of ine
~ ins =ection/ investigation / inquiry is responsible for wha: acceari :n t*? ?"9 NRC 746. Those car:s of the Jorm com leted by the *eg:09a!
c4# ice sta3f can ce 4illec out by anyone in *he regional odde:e.
in:19eing the :lerical staff.
Nevertheless, the individual-in-O'3rgo (tno crincipal inspector or senior resicen ) shovie review the 4--
for correctness. 7he following are the ite95 :n the NRC 766 dor- 1*:
the instructions for completion:
t5t Identievine !aee -n+ien The Li:ensee/ Vender Name. 8ainci al Inscetter.
Inspec*cr(s) (for Orts inspection, etc.) ar: *Pe 'evic.er '!e s 1 the Dy the t:0 of the page are to be filled in :u: :e :a:s .s ac- :2:*.*::
empu!cr.
7his scace has been Or:va :ec #
0* *egi:nal : J# :3 use and The itens are seld-er= lana;;*y.
.i.
a
- ?
.s b
.' C Page 3 152 Tromsset;en Iv r e (Column 1) he four transaction types used to capture and maintain data in :no 766 aata case are:
- Insert --
to add a new record to the data. base
- Modify --
to alter information in the data base
- Delete --
to remove a record from the does base
- Replace -
to reweite textual cata in the data base
' Detailed instructions on these transactions are found in the Users Guido. ,
1
.- 153 An,c,k_t,,t Nomha- ne t i e r,,n_s e Noaher ( n " - P e e n . r,,,f_). (Columns 2/t41 The appropriate 3 digit numeric Docket Number (e.g., 03004?60.
05000341) or project number (00000476) for noncocketed 'actlities is recorded for all activities involving reactors.. soc-ial nuclese naterial, source and orlority I material li:ensees. For material licens=s other than priority I it is preferable that the aporcariste 030XXXXX docket number be used: however.~the Dy-F oduct License Number can be recordec on. the form and the corresponding Docket NumOer will be entered by tne computer.
The License Number must be entered exactly ns it appears on the license (include hyphens, leacing geres and left justify).
Examples: 45-00317-01E SUB-520 X5NM-453 Oceket numcers for' venders and A/E's are the unicuo 799XXXXX aumber ior cocn.
The docket numoer to be recorted fer a noni :ense is 95990309. wreae R ts :re numeri: region numoer (e.g., for : cien -
- 99300'. Fa :a I -
?*990002, e::.).
The 00: Let Numoer is ene cf the key fie' s :ha: .a i:ve;y defi es tne records to the system. Se ent-emet, :s'e4 Wi 40: c :<e errors in coding as a timo censumt g aousl ::rae;;;:n e#3:--
.t l l l result.
1 5 '+ . 3eece* Nv=$aa (Columns 15/12)
The soprocreate 4 digi numers: (e.g., St ?, s e::-- .. :e- s :..: :e *
-ecorrec with the 4irst numa als 3:e the :s'e va- /::- a
. e s r. : :
2 aumerals 3:e :se re:ce:. - efer to 0333-::: 2:: e 4: - a -: Le :'.?: i e 11, nation of :he coce; num:e-.ng -: u, : e- 3 '
W i h t r- e s t. h c:9;on t,e ener:5 4:e nen.::e.see :::.e- ses : : .
'rgien : Sa99000f1 must ce sn::vely s ge-e:. ::- e : g :- r: '
3: -
.c h :alendar year.
The Report Number is :no ad ne key f e :s ina: ;mi:ve;f ce d es e re :r:s n the sys;;, so :e vo y :s r eu; :: :: -:. ::: 4 eeeces.
. _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ U
b P39e 9 l 9
155 AI,ha Stnu aee ced.* (A. B- C_. 01 (Column 19)
WhcN there is more than o si e in pectico of the :ame type performed. :he alpha sequence codes are used in recording (' a t s o I d i i f oren t docketc on the same form. When filitng out the f o r ri . the in:pector houlo say soecial attention to the docket /licenic number. Columns -16 inspection / investigation findings. Column 3?. total numoer =f violations and deviations. Columns 40-41, enforcement conference held.
Column 62. recort contain 0.790 information. Colunn 43. module tracking information and on 760A. site related. C o l u.1n OS.
156 Sevt Insnection Unte r e n t e n n all this date is supplied by the inspector sfter a m3terial licenta i n e. p a c t i o n is performed. It is used oy the MIS Coordanster to update the material master file only.
157 8e-led-;f fa"es*ie= tina /ta=mae*ien (Columns 20/31)
If the ef. fort began 4Md ended en the same date. ente
- this cate in both Columns (20/05) and (06/3t).
. a. F-e* Da*2 (Columns 20/25)
Enter the date that the activity began in the for-se Mtt00YY including leaoing zeros (e.g.. 010151. 100tS11 If l
oct-of-office direct effort uas involved, enter the care it
, began but do not include travel tinc. If nc out-of-cfFle effert. enter *he sate in-office direct effer* began, b .. J* S3** (Oolumns 26/3t)
Enter the date that *he activity ended in the ':enat M00VV in:tunino leading zeros (e.:.. atis31. t0068ti. ::
out--4-nesir, cirper effort use ia relvec. enter tha 03""
ended uvt co net incivce travel tico. : 8 net Out-of-O :e.
enter :he care in-office ef cre eccec.
158 1212ae-tem o, eeraad 9v c lumn 3:
Check tha appropriate nor to incicate ant *ner t*e 'ns:00 'On - es aerformed by the regisnal office s afd. a esi:ent as:e:t-- : - a performance operaisal team memuor. ;f en s:::ti:n s :e-4 0- e: -
j 3 combination af sny of the acove me-sers :- g :ves, tren :-e nrincicol inspectar snculd precare t. e 7 6 s / '* 6 = A Jor s. at 3-:.;;
'ndicate the voicue modules intmecte: an: Outsin 4 -e: -t . ;r* ':-
the aporcoriate :ource. NOTE: Sor _ , _ :* 'as b:en accat - :
a c ::aio d a t e 3d:st*:nal greves whi:n :e-f- m ::r: ! :ns. "::ts # !* j rsecial inscacti:n pr:v:s ine;uce! ~;' ::- aa!'On ns:e:: :- :' (
regional stafd a .a : cesi: ant ins ect:- (5; e e gency : c:a e: ess ac ratsal team. (6) ::nst uction ins:e :::- tes . : ? es.- '- .s :s socraisa4 t:am. Otner :::es d er 6::-t;: aal s:c:ial ins:c:: :- :: .:s Wi ll be # Ventshed Oy Weac: Var:ers.
e a f*nge ,v j
' l
,sg r)ee,n,r...nn enn,,,7,, o , , i - a / u un n o o,e, ,, nue. _.y.:.J 2 iColumns 33/35)
)
? org,nization code wi'11 bn adapted from 'he M f' S code A n r: r n o i s B.
.annene 0530 and will ine.ude the regioit. division and uranch.
- a. Racien (Column 33)
Enter the MPS IE HQ/ Region Identification code for the l Region conducts.ng the activity, whether or not the facility issteo en Columns 2/14 is en tnat region,
- b. Divisten (Co)umn 34)
Ior the divisien code, enter the MPS first organi:stional subdivision with IE HQ/kvi,isosi code.
- c. 9eanan (Column 35)
For the branch code, enter the MPS second organizational *
- subdivision werh IE HG/ Region code.
I l
1510 ecica=1 Aetica (Column 36)
For i n s p e c t i o'n s and i n v e s t i g a t i o ris .ecced the completing action by cheewing the appropriate box. Leave clank if recort sent to HQ +0-action.
. 151t ve* nd acti"itv Cendoc*ed (C:1umns 37/3C) I
'. o e e v n"ty one cou. (See see: ions v61-U63 der cu intenons.)
1512 laseeetion/im"as-iea~iem riaciaes (Colv n 39:
r insce:tions are investigations eneck :nLy One :: to ee:ac :Pe anor :riste fincings. If there are no items Of siciati n. :"e
.n -- nn should be :neckno as Clear (Pos *J t511 *e*=1 u s-bme c e viel,';eas sad ?=> ,- 'e- : o!.-n 4 /;t' Rec rc :he number Of ited itens of VIOlati:n 300 .eV:
- a!8 :n #
0*
?he do:<ct sn the letter to the licensee.
1514 jadarteamae Otadaceers Wal; (Cols-n e;!
4
- nus. ate ay checkine this con unether an en e:r:n s--
- ::-s e-e : e .as t
- art of tne inscettien. !' t,e :ve::se : 3 -'e a:e/'- .as ;;- !
enforcement the ty e cd activity, Ca;m-ns 3 /22, ::. ; s~:..: :e
- nockec al:ng with !,is ::x. i d accli: sole, j
i 1515 eee - em ='a 2 t' :-de--= e- :: .-- ;3
' '9 i s :0Lunn snesid e :Se:We :nij .*en : eae s a es: -.-- - -e )
- Pt t'n! nas Oeen na'<e: as "eie-::" {
1
{
I I
I O
Page.11 1516 Lee ar se penee* Tennsmitta! Saee (Columns 44/55)
The Report Transmittal Oste must be greater then or ecual to the To Date (Columns 26/31).
- a. NPC Form 541 er Danimmal latte- I9,1, ped (Column 3 44/49)
Enter the date that the letter or Form 591 was sent to the licensee my the' regional office in the format Mtt00YY includina leading zeros (e.g., 020181, 1101311.
- b. #eneet Sent te WO 4mr Ac*ien (Columns 50/55)
Report Sent to Headquarters for Action -
Ce not enter any information-in tiis column unless the report is sent to Hoodquerters for enforcement action er. for an inouiry. Enter the cate in the format MftDDYY including loading zeros (e.g.,
0201813.
0535-f6 PREPARING MODULE DA7A The fo11 cuing crograms are. currently.modularized and the accrocritte.
module numbers should be used for reporting puroeses instead of dummy module numbers.
MC-2500 Reactor Inspection Program
-2510 Light Water Reactors
-2520 HfGR
-2540 Research Reactors (Effective 01/01/77)
MC-2600 Fuel Cycle Facility Insoection Progran.
-2610 Racrocessing Facilities
-2600 Plutonium Facilities
-2640 Uranium Facilities
-2650 UF-4 f 7n"eesion :scilities
-2660 Jrenium Mills
-2670 : vel 'eceiving 1 Storage Facility
-2650 Fue1 Facility Safeguards :nsoaction or:: cam MC-2700 Licensee Contractor i Vendor Irspecti:n 'coges"
-2710 Architect Engi9eer (AE)/ Nuclear 5:eo- Sjs cm $;:ne- .
(NSSS) Inspection Program
, --2720 Reactive Inscaction Progrem l
-2730 Independent Svooliers !
-0740 *hird Poety Insoestion Organi::ti:as MC-0500 Materials Inspection 8 ogram
-0300 Processors anc Dis:*;out:rs
-2330 Radiography
-:340 Waste Disocsal
-0250 Incusterol. acace-i:. 5-- -o- ents;. ::.-:e *ste- 2. s; i."
(other t tan F;e! O fe;e Fn: ; : es :: c-a; :y -:
te* +s Other spe:i 3ic 1.:enses
-2360 Feci:a!
-2370 Sntocing Oasks. Transportation
..t
^
s .
" age lc ;
I
~~
ts o r t of the. f orm hos
.cang and :ollec*6cm -F even developed to provice a vehicle for the t S .- f r data ecmcernia: tha s t a t u r. nf the l
- cece'en program as applieo to each individual facelity. The dato
-%n . er en L a Form NRC 766 wall be stored In the 766 file for future and. analysis, i
l Ino nor le Information part oF the form will also be used to relate 341 cited. Items of vsolation listed in enforcencnt correspondence to o sniaet'c (dummy module) orocudure (modu;o) in as discussed or Enclosure a programmatic C. function or activsty
!=
' sit r v instances where-violation is . listed a module number must ce e'.i en the form.
i -
rse o+ chis term wall require that. for each inspecteon pervormeu.
The inspector recore:
What modules were insecctec.
? What mooule, were completed.
c.
What modules were left ocen.
e d.
Wow much of each module has i>een (cumulative) inspected ( P. ) . and
- a. How much time was spent.
4 Priority ranking of each Insoection procedure Do not' code violation against modules which are i ri t e n c e d to s 'i ' O r m thc ticensee of our programs, summarize insoce:'on resul:s (suen as 33700.
- !001 o*
- )*03.
fo!!owup en actions or events f:r ahrch sic ation
- 5. ; '.1 2 .e enargod o an insoecteon wocule. !ncicate anich no v.e.
sher 'hin the three tvces snecified above. was in /iolarien.
52"* " - *M' S i"C
~'a " *une Inf:r-arion portion of the Fora
-a '4 : 0 *s6 .etvi:es * : a -a=
the neeena of i .a eor-stion :n each module i n s .? e : : c a': -e;,tes : --
entpaction rio and recort. For eacn me ule um:e- eate-c; :m the
- nrm. the status. the percen* ::molete. an: 9e -J ess. nsi et9t# h urs evotnded are recorded.
A *pe: $fia mocu!e mus e v o c n et e d on ce listeo :n t1e
- ;uring tne ins ection.
's6 wnere.e- sa. ? 0 35 :ee-T e e r .e c i f i c cata e;ements paesen: :n :Me 4 0--
- 0. l t a t ie. '
are :: :e :: :.: e: ss
'52 D=cea? *ma 2 (*:lumn !)
.e "B" sM:vic be en:erec in ::!u n :-e :: a: :ste a ::w.e -a::--;
Page il 163 8eceed Numbe- (Columns 2/3)
The record number is the numerical secuence in which data is :toreo in the file and must ce supplied by the MIS Coordinator.
164 Medute Numbee (Columns 4/10)
The seven-digit number assigned to this inspection module. The module numoer is composed of four parts: Phase, 'l a n u a l Chapter.
Procedures, and Level of Effort, for a total of saven positiens.
A. P_h e M e (Column 41 -
A numoer from 0 to 7 indicating the phase of the module assigned by the Manual Chacter. Phases 1 to 7 are LWR phases and Phase 0 is for dummy mocules:
Phase 0 = Dummy Module (see enclosv.e C, page 211 Phase 1 s Pre-CP Phase 2
- Construction .
Phase 3 = Pre-Operation Phase 4 s Startup and Power Ascension Phase 5 = Operation Phase 6 = Decommission Phase 7 s fla j o r Modification Work .
B. ._= m u m 1 Chaorar/o eeaduce Numtie (Columns 5/10)
The five digit numoer from the ISE Manual which identifies the discrete inspection manual chacter and pecceduro be,ing
., documented.
Level of Effort -
The one alpha character corresponding to the A, 9. or C level of effort to be espenced. This may not ce acclicable for various modules.
NOTE: A module numoer may be entered on the individual 766 forn only once. The recording of a mocule num:er more than once is not valid escept in the case of m0dule numoer 927C18.
C. -;S-i'v (Column 12)
For the construction crogran enter the cri: Pity r a .a < ing # om MO 2512 using aracic symeals (eithe- 1 2. e- 3). - :- a.1 other programs lesve blank.
- 2. Diear- twse e ie- ;JJe,* i. c t , J J w - .; 5 ,-n- ,e -' 3
!a= Sac-iam (Columns 13/t5)
Por eacn moogle listed indicate -he !*!al :-O dessi:*a.
stafdhours c4 cirsc* insce *:n e dd: -- 7, eacec :n :: -a .e :-
- f the line items in this -:cvie : . .-- ? .a e seei:: : :.eee: -
l this report ey al; ins:ecters no ea - : ::3 ec.
~'
~.~
l
. . :: I 1
e
l - '
~. .
l Page 14 .
HOUR 5 are recorded. The system does not secent tenths of hours. Therefore, for any inspection involving two or more modules it may be necessary to snow 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> for some mocules on the 766 form so as not to distort the distribution oF time scent on mocules or to inflate the total time actually spent on the inspection. For ezample. if the total site time is in the order of I or 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, the 15 c r 20 minutes spent on 30703 should not be rounded up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. A distorted ptcture j of the inspection could result.
The following guidance is suggested to prevent .nt*.7tatien of misleading site (Direct Inspection Effort) hour 3 +qto the 766 system. Record 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> against 30703 if the tes i man-l hours of direct inspection effort 'or an inspection is less l than (a) : hours, or (b) 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and less than 1/2 hour is spent on 30703. The total inspection t i m e-" s n o u l d be recorced against the major inspection module used.
l The regional staff will have to exercise judgement on other variations, such as use of 9xxxx medules and d Lf f erent combinations of program inspection and exit interview time, in order to maintain a correct belonce of recording time against modules so as not to enceec the total time actually spent conducting an inspection..
The only staffhours to be reported here tre as follows:
- 1. Out of Off, ice Inspection Effort, which includes ensite and offsite inspection effort. and
- 2. In Of fi c e Inspection Effort, which includes the inspec-tion of licensee records; fact-gathering activities
.which are more efficiently performed in the office chan at the licensee's facility; and an ettension of the field inspection crocess, out performed in the office.
Only the time actually required to complete inscecti:n of the line items contained within a specific medule should be at*ributed to that 9edule.
In tre event preolems or potential croblems are i entifiec auring the
- molecion of a module, the time expenced in r e s o l v i 'i g the : : le, should be attricuted to the soprocriate fol;:w-up ,coule 92'2t3.
NOTE! Direct InsDection effort da."? "0" "*!v"e :*ec3 ration for an inspection: documenta:>cn : J sm: e:Orting tre results of the inspection; ,,repar:: :n Of aegv;sa ac:
enforcement cerrescencence; or tra.ei :: ar: Jr:- -"e site.
E. Dea?cm*9ee OSac!*>ed *? Sm*e ( O o 1 V '" 9 s 's/'3I For each nocule listec. the : eater- :: :;e:e is a ;u:ge e ?
on the part of the insoec:ce reJie;;teg ime a.:vnt :J eJJ:*:
espenced as a percent of the ::tal JJ:r: :o te e.en:.c.;f recuired as cefine cy the Manual. ' .' n ;9stan:cs nca e s..
The indivicual lime items Of a c r o c. e c u r e Osnno ce :::: : ; s e:
cecause of the nonexistence of reforen:ec systems. :: n:* ears.
L'1/ 32
Page 15 reportse etc., then the percent of total effort should be be bared on what is applicable at that facility.) The percent should me rounded in multiples of 10, and must ce ;
cumulative to date. For example, if a module was reported I 70% complete the first time it was insoected and the remaining 30% was completed on the secono inspection. then the module status form documenting the second insoection would snow a total of 100% . i.e., the actual total percent complete at the time of the report. 100% is the maximum entry.
Computation for Determining *: Complete Total Staffhours Enpended Through Current I n s p e c t, i o n , over the total estimated staffhours neecac to complete modvie.
times 100 equals the percent.
NOTE: Do not enter P e r r. e n t Comclete or Status on Form 766 .
for Module 30703, modules in the 9:XXX. 93XXX and 96XXX series, or moc-Jies designated "When Req 0 ired".
F. Status (Cclumn 19)
For each module listed, indicate the appropriate status coce, '
as follows:
Slank = Open: Leave open, this module is to be inspected further on a subsequent inspection.
C = Closed: If all line items for an inscection have been inspected, then the module should be closed. (Note: there are other situations wnen a module should be cicsed.)
L a Reopen and Leave Open: This coce is used in cases where The inspector is able to do odditional work on a prov cus;y closed mocule and now wants it le': coen indefinite;/. By using the L code. ne mocule is reccenec and led t Open indefinitely or until the in:pector dec: des to : lose .:
later.
P = Reopen for this Trar on Only: This ;cdc is use: 'n a manner similar to the w . e acoco, e i : 2,0 : inat a -:: ale closed prevacusly will be re:cene: to -e:cive acci i ai staffhours or a revised per:en: :: :lete es: -ate 3:e s one occasion only, and will then be :i:sec.
- e. .. =
Pnne i6 )
l l
G. %du! s raau;rino ff1 L{p_w_p.p. (Columns 20/26) j When a Dr.oblem or 'notential orablem is identified cv I
the inspector during the completion of a module, tne teme escended in resolving the problem ne potential prontem sno613 be attributed to Module 927010 (Follow-vo on Insnector Identified Problem). The module being inspected when the problem ne potential problem is i d t ii t i f i e d should be recoroed in the column "f to d u l e Req. Follow-up". Esch module recuiring i follow-up_should be documented on c. seosrate line on t ie i .
module information portion of the 766 4crm. l l
H. Guidance ene use c4 Medute 42701 Any time spent following up on what are normally-referred :
as " unresolved items", or other tite scent on resciving problems identified during accomplishment of a speci di:
module should be reported under 92731 with the appropriate module listed as recuiring follow-up. As an examolo, su rtog the review 'i f 100 books specified in 71710 - Review of
'. a n t 1 operations, the inspector may infer that the number ci inoperable control rods esceeds.the limi'. specified in !
technical specifications. The' time empended for follow-up
. insoectipn effort on the control rod problem is resortec l
under 92701 with 71710 listed on form 766 as the mocule requiring follow-op.
In contenst. a situation may arise which is totally
. unrelated to the module (s) being insoccted. As an evample.
if during the conduct of the inspection crocecurc ' 7 J. aa erplosion occurreo in the OFF-GAS ,ystem at a Stir faci..tv.
ne inspection time expended for the 'ollow-vo or this anciannte event will be charged ag: inst 93701 - dellow vo :n significant event that occurs curing insoection. Conow t a J I the inscec-tion crocedure 71710 in no way leaus to tu identi4ication of the "croulen".
..t Y
, +
Page 17-I. Guidanea der use e4 " independent ingneerinn edese** 9*23* tat under Me d es i e e?70A.
As stated in Section III of the procedures for this module, the defined inspection requirements contained in the monvol
- 'are to constitute 80" of the allotted onsite inspection effort.
Twenty percent of the inspection effort is availaole to the I inspector for activities outside the defined inspection program. "Outside"'the defined inspection program moons that the activity esceeds the frequency, scope, sample size, etc..
prescribed in other modules. For example if the inspector eramines aspects of core physics, fire protection, training, welding, modifications, etc.. which ore not included in the inspection procedures, the time would be charged against module 92706. Likewise, any violation identified by the inspector during the additional i rt s p e c t i o n effort would.be coCed agninst Module 92706.
0535-17 PREPARING FORM NRC -
766A (Columns 27/23) 1 71 Tdentidvino indeenerlen The docket / license. Recort, Secuence and the module number must be entered o'n the form 766A. These elements are the link between the 766 form and the 766A form. (The 766A form is to be used eniv when a deviation or viciation occurs.)
172 Vielstion Se" *itv er Deviation 746A (Column 27) l A. Vielation Seve-itv (Column 27) !
Enter the severity level assigned to the violation item for those violations icentified in the enforcement letter o- oN a Form NRC 591. See 45RF66754 for information on the :oding of severity levels. Where a mocular inspection orogrom is in effect, i.e., inspection proceoures have been oefince in l the IE Manual, the severity snevid ce entered on the 'ine .
l with the corresponding Module that was being inspected at j ine time the violation was uncovered.
If .insoection n e c c e d'u r e s have not been established (see Section 0535-16 for moculari:ed pr1 grams), a :v- y -:: vie j must be entered (See Enclosure C e er tne moevie ,.-De- c: i instructions). Enter any violation seve**;y ae.se as c: -O i dummy module.
l l
l
. . :3 m .'-m
Page to B. Deviation (Column 27) '
When a licensee does not conform to commitments to the Commission, or to the provisions of guides, codes and standards or to acceptable practices which were approveo 5y the Commission and made available to the licensee ano such lack of conformity does not constitute a violation, then it is referred to as a " deviation". A "D" is entered in Column 27 whenever a deviation has been found. The actual deviation code should be placed in the first five ' positions '
of the deviation teut. (See Section 174 Teut, for more detailf a b o u st the testual information.) ;
173 5ite D e l_m ;Jul ( C o l u m n 28)
In some instances. during an inspection trio at a multi-unit pcwer )
reactor station, o specific item of violation or oeviption is Jound I that does lead to a e. i P a t i o n against more than ena unit at that sestion.
When the above situation occurs:
1
- 1. Enter "S" in the box entitled Site Relateo (beginning with Dox A) on 766A form for one unit onlj.
- 2. On each nddlttonal unit at that same site, enter "A" in the succeeding bonos entitled Site Reloted.
)
NOTE: Efannia t During an inspection at the Cresden sien a violation or rio v i a t i o n is scentified which is charged to uni:s 1 2. 3.
On the form 766A for Dresden 1 enter "5" in co A. entitlec Site Related.
On the form 766A for Orcsden 2 enter "A" in box 5 entitlec Site Rela *ed.
On the form 766A ior Dresden 3 enter " I in oo= 2. e-t' tie:
Site Related.
NCTE: Eva-ele 2. During an insceetion at tne -ar- s s te. a violatien or ceviation is identi diec wr.':n es C,arge: :: .- is 2 and 3, but not I and 4 8 9
. Os e
P Paqe.1?
Cn the form 766A for Harris 2 enter "S" in con A, entitled Site Related.
On the' form 746A for Harris 3 enter "A" in box B, entitled Site Pelated.
174 T*vt (Cclumns 2/$11 For each violation or deviation begin the tcut with the s t a temeri t "Contrarv To" and s p r* c i f y the seccific guide or ctsndard that the text refers. Provisions have been mode for capturino up to ?409 characters of text of violstion and ceviation items. Should the actual test of the item. in appcoring in etther the enforcement letter or the report details, esceod tit i s number it will be necessary to parochrase 'he item to keep within 0400 characters.
t Nothino precludes parapneasing all such items, but it should be recogni:ec that the wording will be used verbatim as the input to the Enforcement Status of the " Rainbow" books.
- a. 'llelation
- Each violation must be described in detail to incluoe the applicable requirement and the factus1 information that demonstrates that a violation esisted. (The requirement should ce referenced, not described. If cited, this item should appear essentially as it appeared in the enfo :cment lotter to the licensee. The test should be cave!: pc in 1ccordance with the instructions in Chapter 1000.
If th51 violation is ascociated with 3 NRC Form Sil, ?ne test is to be the ststoment of t ii e slolation as it a near. in tne HRC".orm 591. For example, the text of a citation for failure to nest a radiation crea woute be " Rec 45 er a-eas more not neccerly costed to indicate the cresence Of a ractat' ion area."
b, m vi,ee eg Each caviation iu s t be escriceo in :e:si! :o inelse : ae item no: c molied with anc the 'ac: val in3:r-s;.an : 3:
- demonstrates thst <a deviari:n esistco. 7c #'*s! di e positions in the text shoulo : ntain the c. : ::n : .a.
general, the aoplicable ::-mi::ent. :::c. gu i:e. s : : " .. s e : :-
secootable practres shoulo te -edc*en:20 :- :35:- eet.
Usually, the reference must be sce:if : ** 5: e :25 5. $
oruer to clarify the acclt: au;c : - -- : :::1 . :2 :-
stan=ard, it may be necessary to -:v :e 3 --
V. ::s: :: ::-
in socicion to the reference. J
%:s e- s- ..; s:::;-
essentially as i: a:nearec >1 "c 1: :e- :: :- . :s :ee.
The tes; should be deve!::ce i t' a::: caa: e ,
-' -e ins:au:tions n :ha ;e- :: . 'anaa. a: e- : :. I::- :-
1005.*S.
. . :s ..
D
.. ._ - _ - - - . - _ - --- ~~ ~~
e ,*
c -
Page 00
- 1. .
0535-80 PREPARING FORMS NRC 766 and 766A FOR 766 MA$7E9 fit,E CHANGEg .
!*~ S01 ri o n e r a t Once a record has been created on the 766 Master File, i.e., the Forn 766 and Form 766A have been processed and the datn entered into the '
i computer system, modifications to the record for that inspection, I incuiry or investigation are made through the use of the same forms I
( N R C 7 6 6 ', 766A) used to o r i g iis a ll y create the record.
302 eesmonsih*1itv As the regions accact the responsibility for their own 766 data ent y afid.ete adit processing they will also ce responsibio for the accuracy
.ct' the 766 Master File. 7his will require the use of Forms NRC 766 and 766A to delete and modify the 766 Master File dato.
l l
n i
. . ". .?
W
artLwNMa a !
i 4
=ac o.w = s s. wcw a acoa.A re a y c:ws s40= , ~=c.>a sei: : .-. .., , . . - ~., j e-4 <. us i INSPECTOR'S REPORT , , , , . . . .
Off3C4 Of th5CtC!)Cn and EnfCf0ement '
s sai- ... l I
- t .tre . .:;e .8,,* j ' . %ie se ses. ;s.:tsst ''** 3 ' * * *9 C * * "
l sc 4* **C3vs* ' t w* ,
go , ,sa } ,,',0 6 e
'88"
~
I i r i i I t i t i l i 4 i iil i
- I I i i w w^'** i i l , i e i t i i i e i i i 'N
- r6s 't I : i I 4 i i i l 1 e I i i :
- *es.*cf i i
- t i ! I i , ! i i l i i i ! ; j l l W y x- _~_-}-^ - _ , - __ .-
-_, = -- t
- i ets;c:e s..s se ;s was. .s , % s, , *a . . . . .
. .m.4=.....= .. ni ..= , s seau , . es,..+.. :ss-;s e ase %. 6 v . . . .e .x . .
t s'-ta
- m. ; ,,,.w. .w .
wo :.!a i vu a.. * '. e.sioa=f wasC*o* g .' T'E - I'" d*m #
j i j l l l l l
- i ; !! .t**Jewa=Cg am a.ga '(aw ! 8 g'
r ,M%- # My**154ii:4 M*.*-S %. , , . _ _ ~ -
" ' - - - ^~ - M sescu,a;.cs et :s ac w. e .:s c t: ; . e. se. sa . i
'*'N*****'
- J gastf. I i as. wcur ensar ee 1 0 . e. an t gg*. e = *Cw.a e j s =#C 818w M' 13 . e=Csof tsf a1 47 - 1*tC.Ak I i *=we=F <te i 1 8=v45CafiCm
! ets.0=ag Jd8'C 4.8 **Is m 4%scacggager ; l 3 .vtaeoca l 3 . Sm.etsger gaeget M . wCut avoit , .9 . wa f aC C F l ')..weCa' M ~. w = ' G J* *4MAQy .- af A~ m Ty
~
. x: ~~: ~ ~m: "
..M'
.J; i:, ,;," ,;.' -*
i J 's. sweg a e sscaClw t %';;%# t at%c3 ra=; in 4 escmeo 'c,a;es=a t o= , g.. g g. g .,;, , . .. g., .. , ;, , g
- s.;,,ary%g g .q,g .
- I#36 III *lva'C%$ eg.ontgegr g,4 ,qew g.
i ' c., g aa :ssec 'D =0 8Ca
.g **g e $ s,,,4 0 aG? om I i e 2 v<va l 08e 1 Of *'e f 0's a a l4 -a
, i e
. l . g,a ~3i el8IC40l wo ! Sa, wo 34, i to i j , . ....is=4. .rc= l , ; , .es , , , ,, .,, , , , ,, , , ,
K- .
e- &M 5*.e LM X M $ i M -- W K 5 "
w ...u. ,- ,. ..
e
- h j vvuu. . s ... s . : i ; , , ,, .,- woev % .. . - . . t wr= . asc e c y i .. : . . ..: . . . . . , ni 4I .
. .i *i, ! +} . S t 3. 3. 3! i, , I
. i a , ; N.- : . ll.g 4. , , ..~
i
.SI:s.s 4..
t
- 3. * . , ; ., 6 i
I
.' *; ~12s 1 :
}{.'5: ; i 3 ..1*:12- fI - *
- 1 : I f.
- 3 3 I -3
{ ;l *: :: i :.
- n l .pn n.s i ra .j tmes}
- i r
i 1 ,. , . ,
i ci u
, d4 . . e2 1
e p*j t, e
, : 1i ,i :-.m i
s. pm a i :c :1 ::e:.
ne e 4
.s ;.i : e2s a p-il l I ,
I l,,i,.'I I , i , . I lI,! l i l . I I'i ! . I , , !l I I ; i , [,
eI i , , i i i, i s. , , . >
1
,T lU '
r
, l ,
I i , , l EI e , , ' I !
- i l
- I' l l ,
il , ! ! 3' I,,I,, Iii .
l , , ! !.l . l i ' ' ,
.i l , , l, I i i , l .,
..I I,, i,
, .. i, ,
t 1
"I i $
f f 1! < '
!, , l i l f,! *' '
si ' i i o
, l , , ,
l
- i i
1 i
li *'
ky' ' *3 ,
l t ,
l I i 4
- 1. -
' I i ;
- ! 1, * * '
.. .i-I m (L3ph. '
vs i g g,g, a g .,4 af si
.g i g , a M t 4.a.Jav.._ @.pe% AS-7"" _
n _ _ . , . _.- f
- e 9
ENCLOSURE 3
. . , ' ,*ac,o** * ^ :ecase.,o
- w. c..
wn .o.a.
. . u s. se i
i=cowu aw=**a
,,,,3,
.. 6.;w - l INSPECTOR'S AEPORT i i ' i i i I i 1 6 i i i i i i * - 'c-a a-*
- a:. 4:c i r-l (Continuation) 3 ' I f a ' I i ' i i i ) i i i s .l,l,l,1,l. 9es.
Office of inscoction anc Enforcement ' ' ' i I ' '
' I I i i i i
' i i i I I i i ' '
l i l l l i i l i o i
' ; ; l l l 1
l] b. '""",""'" i viou nan r om oe via rc = w... .e = 4.or s=ww. w , m ., ra. _. n w, . v,.. . . ,e m,,, , ,
e I
i I
.1 i
e!
I e
e oI ,
,i l i
't i
'I
.4 8
t 8
e l
n D
I
- 1 ,
- e
' l D
e J
's l
, i I
, i I
I I
i W.3. NUC'.1AA R EGL;LAf 0 Av O u wiS3aC
ENCLOSURE C (REVISION I!)
DUMMY MODULES (PROCEDURE) NUMBERS l
. i I
/
Use of these modules, in the absence of an aonropriate procecure numoer for those programs currently modularized. is recuired for cach inspection and inves t i ga t i on- ( s ee Section 171 for a list of modularized programs). The purpose of the dummy module number is to provido a record of the direct incocction effort and relatec violation associated with those specific (or gencesi) p r o g r a mn.i t i :
functions or activitics conducted by IE which are not presently ;
modularized.
The modules are to be used for all activities unether ciene or nct clear. For each dummy mcdule entered on the 766 Forme reciro the hours of direct inspection effort and any violation sc:ording t the instructions under MC 0535 Sections 163. The use of these modules will enable the field incoection staff to *urther define *the nature of the various octivitics. The Phsse in the Module Number Inspected field must always contain a :cro (0) when a "c u m. iy " nocule numece is being used.
Lier of " D u m m v Heeu!as Medu!. Idantistention Dj o t e Numnee ' !ae liid i o n P h , s_,
.a_),
Abnormal Occurrence 099001 Emcegency Planning 099000 Environmental Protection 099003 fie n c e s ! Health 1 Ssfety 0?9004 Materini Control & A::'t 097005 Nuclese Safety 099006 Plant Security 0=900-Rscielogical -Protection 099003 Reset:r Construction 099009 Reactor Safety :a9010 Tran:cortstion :?nct-LWR's Uncer 0:nstruction (to Oe celetad) c'801:
Luo's Being Occ:mmissi:ned O'50'3 Investigations 01: 0t; 3 Mile :sland Inspections Per Sandia Stu:y O'-:'5 Test '. Startup (Region :: ) ::';*6 Vencor Inspection 7:: '-
4 TOR -
T:wcr Ascansien P5sse 'Regi:n :V: :'?:*I feasibility Stucy of :necnenuant NDE :::
Construction Defi:icacy Reporting - 50,55(I' ::::::
Gystematic asses:mont f '. i : e n s e e Pc ~ r-=":e :::: '
I G
l
.i
- 1
., e l
+
Encle:ure C I l
For 9 o d u l a r :'.") progrons (sea Section '~1 for a l i '. t of 1todulari:ed programs) use :he applicab!c pr o cdur e- (modules) that aave been established in the 9200 9303 tod 0 00 !
c it a n *: e r s for 111 types of reportsele. nonecutine s ii d )
uncienned scrivities. For all other p ogr:-: that see not ]
-odularized use the " dummy" modulos.
Use of these cedes is on an interim basis pencing incorporation of inspection requirements into the IE manunL.
m 9
C e' ,
MC 0535 CNCLOSURE O l
CODE OF DEVIATIONS CODE NAME OF COMITMENT, CUIDE, CODE, OR STAWARS
. . = COMMITMENTS =
PSAR PRELDtINARY SAFE 7f ANALYSIS REPORT FSAR FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT APPL APPt.ICATION CVTR VENDOR TOPICAL REPORT OC0M OTHER COMMITMENTS TO NRC(NRR, SMSS AND 16E)
=CU ID ES = j 1
RICGD RICULATORY GUIDE NO. !
=STAN0ARDS OR CODES = j
.I NISI AyiRICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTI?JTE ASME AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ?diCHANICAL INCINEEKS ASNT AMERICAN SOCIETY TOR NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTINC MIS VSRICAN NUCLEAR SOCIEri
' ASTM AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TEST!NC mfd MATERIALS IEEE INSTI?JTE OF ELECTRICAL A.N'D ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS ASA AMERICAN STANDARDS ASSCC!ATION ACI AMERICAN CONCRETI DIST!?JTE NFPA NA!!ONAL TIRE PROTIC* ION ASSOC *AT 0N IPA ENVIRON 1"NTAL PROTICTION A MINISTRAT:0N N D'.A NATIONAL ELICT7.ICAL MA.WTACT.'RIRS ASSOCLATICS A'.* S AMERICAN '4LDING ASSOCIATION ASCE AMERICAN SOCIE"Y OT OI?!L EN0!NIIRS AN~M AS SOCIATION OT 2."JCLE.AR INS ** .'.7.ENT P.CfJTACT.'RERS ESSA ENVIRON 1"NTAL SC;INCE SERV;CES AOM:N:5 7,AT:0N NAS NATICNAI. ACAO.N.Y OF SC!D;0ES S'B S NATIONAL SUPIAU 07 STA2,*: A.2.DS
!!C'M lNST!?JTE CT h*JCLIAR MATER0.LS w.u;A;Ey2h--
SA NSTR'.Y. INT SOC!I7l 0T ViR * :A NCRP NAT!ONAL COUNC;L CN RAO*.AT*:N :ECTI:T:::. cr; MI.ASURD'I'iT
MC 0535 ENCLOSURE D CSHA OCCL'PATIONAL SATITY AND EEALT"d ADMINISTRA* ION USAS USA STANDARD OSOC QTHIA STANDARDS OR CouES (SII NSIC 112 CR LATIR IDITION)
ACCIPTAALI PRACTICE
CAPI CDIERALLY ACCIPTABLI PRACTICES IN TdE INDUSTRY 9
- n. MuW "I'# ' T AS
. . :I
' l MC 0535 Inclosure E' List of ECS Ac:1:n C: des Action Code No action required 01 Letter issued to licensee 02 Part 2 Nacice Issued to Licensee 03 Crder issued . 04 Fr: posed Civil Penal:7 1ssued 05 Referred to licensing for resciutien 06 Ref erred to Region :s elese cut 07
- Other reeeca Os
]
0535E-1 :,;5 --
I .
l IsC:. sta! 7 (2 7:s::s ::) i j
4 OCMM! MCDC:.I3 (?ROCI" G.I) CSEls ]
l J
Use of these sedules, 1: :he absencs of as app;cpriate precedure :::bar for those programs cur :::17 r.edulari:ed, is squired for each inspec-
- 1cn and i=ves:1ga:1cn (see See:1cn 1*1 for a lis: of =cdulart:ed p;cgrs=s).
The purycas of :he du=my =cdule sun' c er is :s p;cvide a record of :he firect inspec:1en effer: med rela:ed i:m:s of scuc==plia:ce assccia sd vi:h these specific (er general) p;cgra==a:1: functices or ac:1vi:ies
- endue:ed by II whien are se: presently =cdularized.
The =cdules are :o be used for all ac:ivi:ias une: hor clear and no:
clear. For each du=my =cdule entered on the 766 Tor =, rec:rd :he hcurs of direc: i= spec:1cn effer and any act::=pliance ac:ctding :c the ins:ruc:1cus under MC Cf 25 See:1cus 174 and 152 respec:ively. The use of )
- hese =cdules will e=able :he field inspection s:aff :c further defi e
- he nature of the various activi:1es included is an 1: spec:ica, a:d the corresponding 1=rpec:1:n report, as shewn i: 31cck i of Tor: NRC 756. Ter example, a, ;cs:1:e inspection of a fuel fac111:7 =ay have included a review cf uclear saf e:7. radiologi:ti p?c: action and 711== secu 1:7 Only box 02 (Rou:1:e - Ne fee) of Sleck i en Term NRC 756 =an be :hecked hevever, :ecord1=g of varicus "du==7" =cdulas en side 2 of :he for: under Medule 7:ack1:3 Infer =a:1ca, vill enable :he engi:n :s shev :he va:1cus
=ajor inspec:1cn air:ents included is :his reper . The Phase in :he Module Nw=ber *:spected field =us: always con:ain a :are (0) when a "du=my'* =edule number is being used.
lis: s f "*h==v" Module s Medule Iden:1ft:.stien Medule Ne=ber I g!;ite: ?T.s s e )
Abnor:41 Oc:urrence 099001 Emerge ==7 ?lanning 099002 Inv.ren= ental ? ::ecti:n ?9002
- eneral Her.1:h 5 Safe:7 099004 Ma:artal :en:rci & Ac:': 299005 i
Mucisar Safe:7 099C06 Plan Securs:7 0990C7 Radic1cgi:21 ?;c ecti:n 299CC8 Rese:ce Cons:ruc: ten 9CCC9 Reac:cr Safety 099010 T:snsect:a:1cn :900
1WR's 'Jader C:estru::1:n (:o be deletsc) : 9 90'.
l'a2's 3eing Cec:==:ssi:ned :99C'. ,
~nves::ga:1cns 29901a
- Mile Island *: spec:1:ns ;e Iancia 3:u:y !9?Cif Tes: & 5:artus (?.egi:n ::} ?9016 7ende : spec-1:n !??C17 ET02 - ?:ver Ascensi:n ?hase /?.egi:n 7 :~9:13 Teasib111:7 I:ud7 :f
- decenden: FOI :99019
a ..
P.C 0535 ,
, OtC*.0$m i (pr/ 3: N ::)
For modulartzed prograss' (see See:1on 171 !s; a 113 of modulart::ad prograss) use :he applicable precedurne (:cdulas) that have baan established i: :he 9200, 93C0 and 9400 chap:ars for all types of reportable. cercu ::a and u=p;4csad ac:1v*. :t a s .
For all other programs : hat are .cc =cdularized use :he "du=m7" modulasI~
'Jsa of these endas is cu an is:ari:s basis pend 1=g incorpe ra: en of 1: spec:1cn raquaramen:s 1::s :he II =acual, '
.i i
l l
. I i
1 l
2525F-2 ;,-.--
, ,o
- APPEMDIX 6 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF' INSPECTION.AND ENFORCEMENT
. INSPECTION AND ENOFRCENENT MANUAL Chapter 0500 MC 0537 - QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR THE-766 COMPUTER SYSTEM TABLE OF CONTEMTS
!. Pace 0537-01 PURPOSE '
0537 02 BACKGROUND 1
0537 03 POLICY l 1
. 0537-04 STANDARD
- 1 l
l 0537-05 RESPONSIBILITIES I 2
-051 Regional Directors 2
-052 Executive Office for Ocerations Support 3
-053 Executive Office for Management and Analysis ,
3 !
0537-06 DEFINITIONS 3
-061 Audit 3
-062 Corrective Action 3
-063 Quality Assurance 3
-064 Quality Control 4
-065 verification. 4
-066 Inspection Report 4
-067 Investigation Recort 4 0537-07 GENERAL INFORMATION 4 )
i 0537-08 I l STATISTICAL DATA SHEET AND SUPPLEMENT 5 !
0537-09 NRC 766 - SICE 1 AUDIT 5 l
-091 Block A - Occket Numcer or Licensee Nummer !
(By Porcuct) 5
-092 Block 3 - Recort Numcer 5
-093 31ock C - Facm Cate 5
-094 Block 0 ~o Date 5
-095 Slock E - Region Concuc.:os a ct:v ity 5
-096 Block i - Ins:ection c dermec e Ej i
, -097 51 cx n - Acc:uncec/Unanncuncec i
-093 31ock J - :sscect :ne: vestiga :n l No ti fi:s tien i
-039 21 ck < - Inspect on,*wes-';a f:n i
Fiacings i l
- C/I'. ~? j
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ = . . . l
i U. 5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT MANUAL .
, CHAPTER 0500 MC 0537 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR THE 766 CCMPUTER SYSTEM 0537-01 PURPOSE This chaoter requires establishment of a formal program in eacn Regional Office and in Headquarters to assure that important data in the 766 Computer System is as accurate as possible.
0537-02 BACKGROUND The 756 Computer System contains a variety of verbal and numerical data about inspection activity, enforcement actions, the results of inspections and . !
investigations, the status of the routine inspection orogram at each facility -
and the cost in manhours of performing the routine and reactive inspection procedures.
- The data is utilized by NRC program offices, tne Of fice of Inspector >
and Auditor, the General Accounting Office and by increasing numcers of licensees and their consultants. It forms the basis for answers to questions that NRC receives frem Congress, the Commission, State governors, interveners, and other interested parties. These are official agency answers.
They must be as accurate as practical so that the receiving parties can rely on their validity. ;
Further, requests. the data is used in the analysis of IE programs anc to support budget ;
There is a ready means of cnecking the accuracy of the cata if an -
outside party wants to do so. For examole, it is a relatively simple matter to check the cata acout a licensee's recorc of noncompliance witn the recorts and letters NRC has sent that licensee anc placed in tne Puolic Occument Rocm. If 1 i
- nese two sources of data do not agree, it oulc ce a source of embarrassment.as l
of minimum, a the agency.andThedepending on :ne situation, coule seriously eroce :ne crecicility parties outsice of NRC certainly have One right to excect inat NRC would have the types of cata ne collect in our 756 omauter Sys:em anc :na; i
'ould
- ce as accurate as practical.
0537-03 POLICY Eacn Regional Office and Headquarters will estaDlisn and carry out a program to assure the accuracy of the inspection, investigation and enforcement cata -ni:n it enters anc maintains on the 766 Comouter System. ~he inci ddual cragrams must conform to the stancarc :nat is given in :nis instrue: ion.
. 0537-04 STANDARD The Reoional quality assurance orogram snall consis: of these three 5:ess - o-must ce taxen oefore releasing ne cata to tre :-0;ran vanagemer: Info- at':-
3ranen for entry into :ne master :omoutar file.
H37-1 l ,
l i
1 C.. Running all required computer edits. i i
, D. Correcting all errors in a prompt manner, ,
I E. Having data available to Headquarters for system update within seven (7) working days after an inspection report l i
is issued. ._ .)
052 Executive Officer for coerations succort A. ' Verifying on a monthly basis the accuracy of data about Headquarters enforcement actions on the 766 system.
B. Reporting any errers to the Executive Officer for !
Management and Analysis, f 053 Executive Officer for Manacement and Analvsis , y A. Update of 766 file within two (2) working days of notification by Region of data availability. '
- 8. Running a quality assurance statistical sample audit and reporting results.
C. Notifying the Region of possiele missing inspection recort.
O. Correcting errors which Headquarters nas (centified.
0537-06 DEFINITIONS
(
061 Audit. A planned and documented activity performed to determine ey examination or evaluation of 766 ano 766-3 forms the adequacy (accuracy and completeness) of and ccmcliance witn established procacures, instructions and otner apolicaole cocuments, 1 and the effectiveness of implementation.
062 Corrective Action. Measures taken to rectify conditions adverse to cuality ano wnere necessary, to precluce recetition.
063 Ouality Assurance. All tnose clannec anc systematic actions necessary to provice assurance tnat tne 756 anc 766-5 cata is va:!c. ,
)
3537-3 I l . :. r. :- )
-y - 0
)
and prior to data base update, the data is to be compared with the original 766 and 766-5 forms to insure that no errors have been introduced during keyboarding.
0537-08 STATISTICAL DATA SHEET AND SUPPLEMENT In order to conduct a quality check it is necessary that one statistical data sheet (form 766) be completed for eacn unit or license inspected during an inspection and that a supplemental data sheet (form 766-5) be prepared for each item of noncompliance and deviation.
If one or both of these forms are missing and not part of the review materials, notify the principal inspector of the fact. A review should not proceed until all materials are available.
0537-09 NRC 766 - SIDE 1 AUDIT 091 Block A - Occket Number or License Number (By-Product) I Validate that the DOCKET NUMBER is the same as the Docket Numoer contained on the Inspection Report Cover Page. For a multi-unit facility compare all. docket numcers. This applies to other than Part 30 licensees. If the license number is coded instead of the docket number, which may be the case for material licensees other than priority 1, verify that it matches the if cense numoer found on the Inspection Recort Cover Page. .
092 Block 8 - Recort Numeer Validate that tne Report Number is the same as the Report Numcer contained in the Inspection Report Cover Page. For a multi unit facility compare all report numoers since they may differ fr:m unit to unit.
i 093 31ock C - Frem Date k j
Validate the cate entered on the form against the cate on wnien tr.e f activity began which is found on tne Inspection Recort Cover Dage.
094 Block 0 - To Cate
{
Validate the date entered on tne form against tne cate the acti,ity ended wnich is found on tne Insoection Recort Cover Page.
NOTE: Regarcing blocks C & 0. !f tne e" ort :egan anc erce !
on the same date, tnis cate is erterec in oth C 4.c C.
C527-5 e + ee j
l I
1
a .s
'. , o 7
on the back of the NRC 766 form as well as the number of NRC 766-5 forms completed for cited items of noncompliance.
0911 Bleck N - Numoer of Deviation Items in Letter to Licensee Count tne numeer of deviations identified in the letter to tne licensee and verify snat it matches the numoer entered in Block H. Count only those deviations related to the docket in Question.
This numeer must corresponc to the numoer of NRC 766-5 forms completed for items of deviation.
0912 Bicek 0 - Number of Licensee Events Reviewed Onsite This !nseection If " Reportable Events" are reviewed onsite they may be enumerated in the report. If available, count the numoer and validate it against the numcar entered in Block O. Count only those related to the docket in question.
0913 Block 0-Contains 2.7900 Information This block should be checked.cnly when there is text within the report that has been marked as " exempt". If this block is checked tne report should also be stamped that it contains 2.7900 data. Validate that the block and tne report are :ensistent in their designations.
NOTE: Classified data is not allowed on the 756 data base.
0914 Block R - Regional Office Letter or Recort Transmittal Data for Inscection or Investigation The Report Transmittal Date (Block R) must ce greater nan or ecual to the "T0" date (Block 0)
- a. 591 or Letter Issue Validate the date enterec on tne form vs. tne date tne letter or Form 591 was sent to tne Licensee.
NOTE: The other fields in tnis clocx cannot :e vali:atec.
0537-10 NRC 766 - SIDE ? Ac0IT 101 .Manheurs Excenced This oecort Acd up tne total manhours of cirect fas:ection eff:rt ev:e e: # 0-One Sice 2 of tne 766 f:rm anc c: :are 't :tn tre 9'P:er :' :L's 2537-7
a . D y j
/
.g.
- If box A of Block A is checked the three character noncompliance code derived from the " Catalog for Coding Items of Noncompliance -
(enclosurc D) was used. Verify that the code is a valid code and the same code is used on side 2 of the 766 form. If box C of Block A is checked verify the 3 to 5 character identifying code against either Section I, Part B " Vendor Deviation Codes", Enclosure D, or the list of connitments, codes, guides, standards or acceptacle practices shown in the " Code of Deviations" Enclosure C, all of ,
MC-0535. The Cause, Procedure and Severity are to be used only for specific items of noncompliance cut not deviations.
Cause - The cause code must be alphabetic and one of the codes listed in Section II, Enclosure 0, MC-0535.
Procedure - The procedure code must be alphabetic and one of the codes listec in Section III Enclosure 0, MC-0535.
Severity - Verify that the severity code is the same code as that used on the 766 form Side 2 for the specific item of noncompliance.
114 Block C - Module Number The module number must match against the associated module numcer frcm l
the 766 form Side 2. -
115 Block G - Additional Units If a noncompliance is cited against mor,e than one unit at a multi-unit facility it may ce so stated in the Summary Section. Cetermine if the field is coded accorcing to tne rules stated in Section 2CS, MC-0535.
Ils Block I - Text Review the text on tne form and the text in the bocy of :ne inspection L report to determine if they deal with the same sucject matter anc con-form to the rules as stated in Section 210, MC-0535. The text for security noncompliance will not :e the same as in the insoection re; ort. I 0537-12 Recorts j
Statistics must be keet for each set of 70% anc 766-5 forms aucitec.
, 7hese statistics should incluce cata o*.
Incorrect or no entry in eacn of the nucitec clocxs Severity coce on 756 coes. t agree .itn tnat :n 756-5 0537-9 .
'. 2. 3 * . ~ 9
APPENDIX 7
/ o UNITED STATES f 3, ~ ,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ! h ,g
- 3 WASMip6470N, D. c. 20665
,, s wr # f X..&J-January 2,1987 MEMORANDUM FOR: Dennis F. Kirsch Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects
- Region V FROM: James G.P 'artlow, Director Division of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
PERIODIC REPORT ON REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2515 PROGRAM This memorandum forwards the. " Periodic Report on Regional Implementation of the 2515 Program." The report presents a compilation of 766 inspection data for all Region Y operating units and SALP evaluation data for selected operating units. It provides the ability to monitor changes in inspection resource i allocation from one SALP evaluation period to the next.
The report consists of 3 enclosures.
Enclosure 1. Average Inspection Hours, provides regional and national per unit averages of the inspection hours ,
reported during the most recent SALP evaluation period. In addition, !
Enclosure 1 identifies the relative contributions of the inspection effort in each SALP functional area. l I
Enclosure 2. Inspection Effort Per Operating Site, provides data derived from the 766 system.
It is an alphabetical listing, by sitt,>that details reported inspection hours for each inspection procedure for the region. To ' provide a {
historical perspective, inspection hours are reported forthe most"recent and i the two previous SALP evaluation periods. j V 1 Enclosure 3, Inspection Resource Allocation for Plants of Interest, lists inspection effort and SALP ratings fue selected operating sites. The sites reported are those two in the region with the highest and two with the lowest combined SALP ratings in the operations, maintenance, and surveillance '
functional areas. Selection is based on the latest 5 ALP reports.
The report represents the first use of information assembled in a new 2515 inspection effort /SALP database. Technical notes and 'a list df effective procedures are included with Enclosure 2 to provide badgecunn information to assist in interpretation of the reported data.
.s This report is intended to provide insight into regional inspection effort on a specific operating unit level. Variations in the data may he'the result of several f actors, including: (1) inspection procedure performance frecuen:y; (2) variatiens in the length of SALP evaluation perieds; g) inaccuracies in 755 data recorting; and (4) inspection effort adjustments dictated by chan;as '
in :ne level cf licensee perfor ance. Jince valic analysis of this catt >:.::
, s T
h ig
- . s .
Dennis F. Xirsch require consideration of the above as well as other factor: such as the number of residents per unit, etc.; this report does not present conclusions on the region's effectiveness in implementing the 2515 inspection program. Rather, it is intended as a tool for use by IE and region management to facilitate more efficient use of limited inspection resources. .
Your coments on femat and content changes which would increase the usefulness of the report are requested within 6 weeks of the date of this memorandum. If there are any questions, your representative should contact Michael Johnson on FT3 492-4808.
O Jame:
kW G. Partlow, Director '
Division of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
i Periodic Report on Regional Implementation of 25I5 Program >
cc w/ enclosure:
J. Taylor, IE R. Starostecki IE ~
F. Hebden AEOD l W. Brach, EDO J. Blaha, IE-E. Jordon, IE
- 3. Grimes, IE R. Scarano, RV S. Faulkencerry, RV l
_ .____._.______-._2_ - - - _ - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - " ' - -
._, 9 ', ,
f 1
ENCLOSURE 1 AVERAGE INSPECTIChN HOURS PER UNIT
- REGION 5 Region Nationwid6 i
Average' % of Average % of Per Unit Total Hours Per Unit Total Hours OPS 1323.5 41.4 745,4 30.1 i RADCON 169.3 5.3 182.3 7.4 MAINT 201.0 6.3 186.0 7.5 SURV 224.4 7.0 247.1 10.0
- {
FP 27.5 0.9 28.6 1.2 t
EP 150.7 4.7 191.7 7.7 SEC 79.5 2.5 73.5 3.0 OUTG 214.1 6.7 169.0 6.8 .
OP 75.8.8 23.8 612.5 24.2 LIC 3.9 0.1 1.6 0.1 TRG 40.8 1.3 35.9 1.5 TOTAL 3133.5 f 2473.6 DAYS 440.0 468.5 IN RATING PERICO i
- Ca a recortec is for :ne lates: 5 ALP recer: perioc.
1-1 i
!1 ENCLOSURE 2 INSPECTION EFFORT PER OPERATING SITE This enclosure provides an alphabetical _ listing, by site, that details recorted inspection hours for each inspection procedure. Tha following technical noces and the List of Effective Procedures assist in data interpretation. .
- 2. "$ ALP rating period - not defined," is intended to indicate that since the database is keyed to operating SALP evaluation periods. . inspection hours , i are not reported prior to the issuance of the site's first operating SALP, j
- 2. On'.y those inspection procedures which were effective during the SALP evaluation period under consideration were downloaded from the 766 systen,
- 3. Zeros reported for inspection procedures during earlier SALP evaluation 1 periods may indicate procedures that became effective too late in the period to have been implemented.
4 Inspection procedures for which no 766 system entry was made during the
- period under consideration are not listed. Similarly, functional areas are not listed if no inspection procedures in that functional area were entered in the 766 system.
- 5. Inspection procedures 30702, 30703, 94600, and 94703 make up the Inspector Meetings section of the 2515 inspection program and do not directly correlate with any SALP functional area. For this reason, hour.s expended on these procedures are not included in this report.
-1
__..._____m_ _ _m_____-_ .--._ _ _
f '
1 1
1 I
1 LIST OF EFFECTIVE PROCEDURES Initial Cancellation Initial Cancellation Module issue Date Date Module issue Date Date 30700 07/01/77 09/13/83 60710 30702 10/01/80 '
07/01/77 61700 01/01/82 -
30703 01/01/82 35001 61701 10/01/80 I 07/01/86 61702 10/01/80 35030 01/01/77 04/01/83 61703 1
35701 10/01/80 05/12/86 {
01/01/82 61704 10/01/80 04/12/86 1 35750 08/23/85 61705 35751 10/01/80 01/01/79 02/12/86 61706 10/01/80 36100 0t/01/83 61707 10/01/80 36700 01/01/82 61708 1
36701 10/01/80 I 01/01/79 09/13/83 61709 10/01/80 l 37700 01/01/82 61710 10/10/80 37701 10/01/80 61711 10/01/80 02/12/86 f
37702 01/01/79 61719 l 37703 10/01/80 10/03/85 01/01/79 61720 10/01/80 " l 38700 08/15/82 09/13/83 61721 08/15/81 09/13/83 1 38701 01/01/79 61724 38702 10/01/79 08/23/85 01/01/79 61725 04/01/80 l
39701 01/01/79 61726 10/01/80 1 39702 10/01/79 61728 40700 01/01/84 08/15/81 61729 08/05/81 03/07/86 I 40701 01/01/79 62700 01/01/82 40702 04/01/80 62701 10/01/80 09/13/83 40703 01/01/79 62702 40704 01/01/82 01/01/82 62703 01/01/82 41400 05/23/85 62704 07/11/85 j 41700 01/01/82 05/29/85 62705 07/11/85 '
41701 08/15/81 63700 10/01/80 42400 10/03/85 01/01/79 64703 08/15/81 02/12/86 42451 10/01/76 64704 08/15/81 42700 01/01/82 65051 01/01/83 50095 0 /11/79 70307 10/01/79 .
54701 01/01/79 09/13/83 70313 04/01/76 10/03/85 55050 06/20/83 70323 08/15/75 )
55100 06/20/83 70370 04/01/77 !
55150 06/20/83 71707 01/01/82 56700 01/01/82 71708 08/15/81 12/27/82 57050 06/20/83 71709 08/15/81 12/27/82 j 57060 06/20/83 71710 12/27/82 57070 06/20/83 71711 10/01/80 57080 06/20/83 71714 01/01/82 57090 05/20/83 71715 06/25/84 57700 01/01/76 72700 0U01/81 607:5 10/01/80 72701 10/01/80 2-2 l
I
m.
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PROCEDURES Initial Cancellation Initial Cancellation Module issue Date Date Module issue Date Date 73051 10/01/80 '
81151 02/24/79 05/09/84 73052 10/01/80 81153 02/24/79 05/0?/84 73753 01/01/79 81155 02/24/79 05'/09/84 73755 01/01/79 81157 02/24/79 05/09/84-79501 05/23/85 81159 02/24/79 05/09/84 79502 05/23/85 81210 79701 01/31/76. 05/09/84 08/06/85 81230 80521 01/31/76 05/09/84 01/01/84 81300 09/01/79 80721 01/01/84 08/16/82 81362 04/01/80 08/16/82 81018 05/09/84 81364 04/01/80 08/16/82 81020 05/09/84 81366 04/01/80 08/16/82 81022 05/09/84 81401 06/13/85 81034 05/09/84 81403 06/13/85 81038 05/09/84 81431 06/13/85 81042 05/09/84 81501 05/09/84 81046 05/09/84 81601 05/09/84 81052 05/09/84 81810 81054 10/01/82 05/09/84 82201 12/27/82 81058 05/09/84 82202 81062 12/27/82 05/09/84 82203 12/27/82 81064 05/09/84 82204 81066 12/27/82 05/09/84 82205 12/27/82 81070 05/09/84 82206 81072 12/27/82 05/09/84 82207 12/27/82 81074 05/09/84~ 82208 12/27/82 01/01/84 81078 05/09/84 82209 81080 12/27/82 05/09/84 82210 12/27/82 81084 05/09/84 82211 12/27/82 01/01/84 81088 05/09/84 82301 07/01/83 81121 02/24/79 05/09/84 82701 S1123 05/26/86 02/24/79 05/09/84 82710 10/01/76 81125 02/24/79 05/23/84 05/09/84 82711 03/31/76 05/23/84 81127 02/24/79 05/09/84 82712 81129 03/31/76 05/23/84 02/24/79 05/09/84 83522 01/01/84 81131 02/24/79 05/09/84 83523 81133 01/01/84 02/24/79 05/09/84 83524 01/01/84 81135 02/24/79 05/09/84 83525 81137 01/01/85 02/2?/79 05/09/84 83526 01/01/84 81139 02/24/79 05/09/84 83527 81141 01/01/B 02/24/79 05/09/84 83722 01/01/24 81143 02/24/79 05/09/84 83723 C1/C1/34 81145 02/24/79 05/09/84 83724 81147 01/01/84 02/24/79 05/09/84 53725 01/01/84 81149 02/24/79 05/09/84 83726 C1/01/34 2-3
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PROCEDURES Initial Cancellation Initial Cancellation Module issue Date Date Module Issue Date Date 83727 01/01/84 83728 01/01/84 83729 01/01/84 ,
84522 01/01/84 84523 01/01/84 {
84524 01/01/84 84525 01/01/84 84722 01/01/84 e4723 01/01/84 84724 01/01/84 84725 01/01/84 84850 02/21/84 85102 01/01/79 86700 10/01/80 86721 01/01/84 86740 01/01/82 90712 04/01/79 90713 10/01/80 90714 10/01/80 92700 10/01/80 92701 04/01/77 92702 01/01/82 92703 08/15/81 92704 01/31/75 10/31/85 92705 05/30/75 10/31/85 92706 10/01/80 06/07/85 92709 10/01/80 92710 10/01/80 92711 10/01/80 92712 10/01/80 92715 10/01/78 C8/13/84 92716 10/01/77 08/13/84 92717 08/15/81 10/31/85 .
92720 l 03/14/86 93 01 10/01/80 C8/13/84 93702 10/01/76 94600 10/01/80 94700 10/01/80 10/31/85 94702 10/01/80 94703 08/15/81 1
l I
I 2-4
N; 'e l
l l
DIABLO CANYON 1/2 Region 5 "SALP. Rating Period 1 :01/01/83 - 06/30/84 SALP Rating Period 2 - 07/01/84 - 07/31/85 SALP Rating Period 3 - 08/01/85 - 07/31/85 SALP Rating Period 1 2 3 1 2 3- 1 2 3
'Doerations 42700 0 20 110 71709 0 0 0 92709 0 71707 743 1060 1549 71710 0 9 116 309 533 93702 80 290 384 Totals for Oeerations: 939 1679 2585 Radiologi, cal Controls 79701 0 0 8 83726 0 0 38 84724 0 0 83722 0 14 32 24 83728 0 0 26 84725 0 83723 0 12 0 15 90 84525 0 15 0 84850 83724 0 1- 0 12 0 16- 84722 0 0 14 83725 0 .0 86721 0 0 13 18 84723 0 0 17 Totals for Radiolecical Controls: 1 56 313
. Maintenance 62700 0 0 149 62703 83 223 217 62705 0 0-
- 62702 56 93 79 23 62704 0' O 37 Totals for Maintenance: 139 315 505 Surveillance 61700 'O 94 54 61719 0 50 0 61725 24 72 75 61709 0 0 12 61720 0 0 16 61726 108 171 222 61711 0 0 10 61724 0 0 0 72700 0 0 4 Totals for surveillance: 132 35? 392 2-5
l DIABLO CANYON 1/2 '
Region 5
.SALP Rating Period 1 - 01/01/83 - 06/30/84 l i
SALP Rating Period 2 - 07/01/84 - 07/31/85 1 SALP Rating Period 3 - 08/01/85 - 07/31/86 sat.P Rating "
1 Period 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Fire Protection 64703 0 24 0 64704 20 57 60 {
Totals for Fire Protection: 20 81 60
. Emergency Preparedness 82201 27 31 6 82205 12 0 4 82202 8 30' 6 82206 82301 76 126 329 27 42 20 82712 0 0 0 82203 10 18 6 82209 0 0 7 82204 8 30 15 82210 8 33 15 Totals for Emereenev Preoare'dness: 176 316 408 Security '
B1018 0 1 1 81054 0 0 5 81078 0 2 1 B*020 0 2 0 81058 0 2 0 81080 0 3 0 81022 0 4 1 81062 0 1 1 81084 0 2 0 81034 0 3 2 81064 0 2 0 81088 0 1 1 81C38 0 5 1 81066 0 2 0 81501 4 2 0 !
B1042 0 2 0 81070 0 4 10 81601 3 1 0 81046 0 4 0 81072 0 1 0 81810 10 0 0
{
81052 0 3 2 81074 0 0 85102 1 0 10 20' $
Te:als fer Secu it',' 1" 63 40 0 tages 35750 0 0 44 37702 0 32 53 73052 0 12
)
0 37700 0 73 59 72701 0 0 j
1 73755 0 0 41 37701 0 0 4 73051 0 12 0 L e d Ye e 2-6 i
, C DIABLO CANYON 1/2 Region 5 SALP Rating Period 1 - 01/01/83 - 06/30/84 SALP Rating Period 2 - 07/01/84 - 07/31/85 SALP Rating Period 3 - 08/01/85 - 07/31/86 SALP Rating Period- 1 2 3 1 2 -3 1 2 3 Quality Programs 35701 0 65 0 40700 22 0 0 92701 85 63 147 35751 0 0 2 40702 4 8 0 36100 92702 57 20 33 0 0 53 40704 12 0 0 92703 15 54 79 36701 0 0 0 50095 0 0 86 38700 92704 78 45 26 0 0 0 65051 0 0 30 38702 0 0 25 92705 862 663 44 90712 0 0 36 ' 92706 821 856 39701 0 0 0 0 90714 0 0 0 39702 92717 15 56 6
, 0 0 0 92700 45 61 176 Totals for Oualitv Procrams: 2016 1891 743-Licensing Activities 94702 0 0 0 Totals for Licensine Activities: 0 0 0 Training and Qualification 41400 0 0 42 41700 10 42 0 41701 10 34 38 Totals fer Traia.ine and Qualification: 20 76 E0 2-7
g . - - - _ , .__
,. ,3 PALO VERDE 1/2/3 Region 5 SALP Rating Period 1 - 07/01/81 - 02/28/83 SALP Rating Period 2 - 03/01/83 - 03/31/84
-SALP Rating Period 3 - 04/01/84 - 09/30/85 SALP. Rating Period 1 ~2 3 2 1 3 1 2 3 Operations 42700 0 0 42 71710 0 0 39 93702 0- 0 101 71707 0 0 1151 92711 0 0 4 Totals for Ooerations: 0 0 1337' Radiological Controls 84850 0 1 0 Totals for Radiolecical Controls: 0 1 0 Maintenance
- 62700 0 0 4 62702 0 0 13 62703 0 0 41 ,
Totals for Mainterarte: 0 0 59 Surveillance 61700 0 0 65 61703 0 0 8 61708 0 0 16 61701 0 0 8 61705 0 0 5 51725 0 0 44 61702.. 0 0 8 61707 0 0 5 Totals fer Surveillance: 0 0 :59 1
2-2
PALO VERDE 1/2/3 Regien 5 SALP Rating Period 1 - 07/01/81 - 02/28/83 SALP Rating Period 2 - 03/01/83 - 03/31/84 SALP Rating Period 3 - 04/01/84 - 09/30/85 SALP Rating Period 1 2 3 1 2 3 1- 2 3 Fire Protection 64703 0 3a 4 64704 0 0 39 Totals for Fire Pretection: 0 34 43-Emergency Preparecress 82204 0 0 20 82210 0 0 20 82206 0 0 40 82301 0 128 162 Totals for'Emercenev Preparedness: 0 128 242 Security 81018 0 0 4 81054 0 0 2 81078 0 81020 0 0 3 -
81058 0 9 0 0 2 81080 0 0 81022 0 0 7 81062 2 0 0 2 81084 0 8103 0 0 8 0 3 81064 0 0 2 81088 81038 0 0 0 0 2 7 81066 0 0 4 81501 81042 0 0 0 0 3 7 81070 0 0 7 81046 0 0 81601 0 0 1 2 81072 0 0 81052 0 0 1 85102 0 28 0 6 81074 0 0 1 Totals fe- Secu-itv: 0 2B 85 Outages 37700 0 0* 6 Tetals 'er Outacee: 0 0 6 2-9
. -~
PALO-VERDE 1/2/3 Region 5 SALP Rating Period 1 - 07/01/81 - 02/28/83 SALP Rating Period 2 - 03/01/83'- 03/31/84 SALP Rating Period 3 - 04/01/84 - 09/30/85 TALP Rating Period 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Quality Programs e
38702 0 0 8 90712 0 0 4 92701 0 0 157 92706 0 0 416 92702' O O 20 92716 90/13 0 0 28 0 0 2 92704 0- 0 18 92700 0 0 155 92717 11 2 142 92705 0 0 161 Totals for Ouality Dreerams: 11 2 1111
, Training and Qualification 41700 0 0 29 41701 0 0 36 Totals for Trainine and Qualification: 0 0 65 o
O 2-10
t RANCHO SECO 1 Region 5
.SALP Rating Period 1.- 10/01/82 - 11/30/83 l- .SALP Rating Period 2 - 12/01/83 - 05/21/85 I
SALP Rating Period 3 - 06/01/85 - 06/30/86 l
SALP Rating -
Period 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Operations 42700 0- 0 101 71710. 38 124 121 71707 396 936 513 92712 0 0 2 71709 157 0 0 71715 0 0 438 93701 26 0 0 86700 8 7 0 93702 48 579 1718 Totals for Oeerations: 673 1646 2893
. Radiological Controls 80721' .0. 16 0 83724 0 30 12 84722 83522. 0 0 69 0 12 0 83725 0 12 30 84723
-83523 0 0 20 0 8 46
-83726 0 19 0 84724 83524 0 0 36 83727 0 16 30 0 1 4 84725 83526 0 0 38 0 64 54 83728 0 19 20 84850 83722 0 18 8 0 0 4 83729 0 24 11 86721 83723 0 18 8 0 10 20 84523 0 0 10 86740 12 0 0 Totals for Radic1ccical Centreis: 12 267 120 Maintenance 62700 0 64 4 62702 0 0 62703 109 301 297 62705 0 0 40 50 62704. 0 0 2 l
Totals for *aintenance: 109 365 393 Surveillance 61702 0 0 0 61719 23 0 0 61709 0 0 0 61725 15 61725 85 145 255 {
0 59 72700 0 0 2
{
k Tetals for Su vedi'ance: 123 '!
. 32E 2-11
-- , _ _ _ = - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - _ -_- __- - -_________ ___ ___
i e .
. . RANCHO SECO 1
' Region 5 SALP Rating period 1 - 10/01/82 - 11/30/83 SALP Rat 4ng Period 2 - 12/01/83 -.05/21/85 SALP Rating Period 3 - 06/01/85 - 06/30/86
- SALP. Rating.
. Period 'I 2 3 1 2 3 4
1 2- 3 Fire Protection
'64703 0 36 10' 64704 0 36 20 Totals for Fire Protection: 0 72 30 Emergency Preparedness 82201 16 25 2 82205 .
8 ~0 0 82202 16 15 0 82710 0 0 0, 82206 15 33' 18 82203 8 21' 2 82711 0 0 0 82210 9 10 0 82204 6 42 0 82712 0 0 .0 82301 80 194 159 Totals for Emereeney Preparedness': 158 340 181 Security 81018 0 0 23 81054 0 3 41 81078 81020 0 2 26 81058 0 1 11 0 1 2 81080 81022 0 0 38 0 1 28 81062 0 2 8 81084 81034 0 3 12 81064 0 1 5 0 1 5 81088 81038 0 2 65 81066 0 1 6 0 1 8 81501 81042 0 2 15 81070 0 4 24 0 2 65 81601 81046- 0 1 9 0 2 .5 81072 0 2 15 81810 81052 0 3 3 81074 6 1 0 0 1 9 85102 32 0 _32 Tetais for SecuH tv- 32 37 455 Ou ages 37700 27 23 176 60710 9 50 0 37701 0 22 20 73052 2 0 0 71708 34 0 0 37702 0 13 100 71711 0 0 73753 15 0 :
60705 10 73755 7 0 0 7 24 0 72701 0 0 22 eta's '-- Outaces: :~:2 ::: 25 2-12
l !
[
i RANCHO SECO 1 Region 5 SALP Rating Period 1 - 10/01/82 - 11/30/83 t
'SALP Rating Period,2 - 12/01/83 - 05/21/85 1
'SALP Rating Period 3 - 06/01/85 - 06/30/86 )
5 ALP Rating . .
Period 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
, Quality. Programs 35701 0 34 16 40701 :
0 0 40- 92703 L
35751 0 __0. - 48
~
30 3 90 40704 21 0 0 92704 36100 0 0 20 65051- 0 10 44 119 129 0 92705 36700 0 0 6' 90712 1 1 13 208 121 . 10 37703 0 0 8-92706 465 1317 '233 90713 5 6 20 92716 38700 0 0 0 3 0 0 92700 170 518 210 39701- 0 0 0 92717 13 24 16 92701 15 54 389
'40700 0 34 0 92702
. 23 19 112 Totals for Ouality Procrams: 998 2260 1360 '
Licensing' Activities 94702 0 4 25 Totals for Licensine Activities: 0 4 26 Training anc Qualification 41700 0 40 C 41701 38 40 8
~o tats for Trainia; an: Cua14fication: 3a go g i
l' i
j i
2-13
l SAN ONOFRE 1/2/3 Region 5 3 ALP Rating Period 1 - 07/01/81 - 06/30/82 SALP Rating Period 2 - 06/01/83 - 09/30/84 SALP Rating Period 3 - 10/01/84 - 05/31/86 SALP Rating Period 1 2 3 i 1 2 3 1 2 3 Oeerations 42700 12 0 145 71707 80 1147 3237 71710 0 164 430 93701 8 0 0 86700 1 0 5 71709 87 0 0 93702 140 266 1661 92712 0 0 10 Totals for Ooeratiens: 329 1577 5:28 Radiological Centrols 79701 0 0 22 83726 0 e 32 84723 80721 0 10 25 0 6 41 83727 0 0 25 84724 83527 0 0 6 0 6 82~
83728 0 4 9 83722 0 3 28 83729 0 4 73 84725 0 104 209 83723 0 4 30 84850 0 4 0 84523 0 0 10 86721 83724 0 6 68 0 0 18 84524 0 0 10 86740 83725 0 4 29 30 20 0 84722 0 0 40
. Totals for Radic1ccical Centrols: 30 175 747 Maintenance 62700 17 26 155 62702 0 16 30 62703 79 259 7:8 Tetals for Mainteracce: 96 301 934 Surveillance 61700 3 0 115 61709 0 0 8 61724 9 3 61702 12 0 4 61710 2 C
0 13 61725 10 0 106 61705 0 0 5 61711 0 0 0 61706 3 0 4 61719 61726 87 129 672 20 C 92 61729 0 6 61707 3 0 6 61720 0
0 0 15 72700 61705 1 0 10 61721 30 C
0 0
~: :ais 'e- Su-zeil:a e: 15: ' T : ' ' :-
2-1:
______.___________._m_. ___J
, 4 SAN ONOFRE 1/2/3 '
Region 5 SALP Rating Period 1 - 07/01/81 - 06/30/82 ~
SALP Rating Period 2 - 06/01/83 - 09/30/84 SALP Rating Period 3 - 10/01/84 - 05/31/86 SALP Rating '
- Period 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Fire Protection 64703 36 0 0 64704 0 16 83 Totals for Fire Protection: 36 16 83 Emergency Preparedness .
82201 0 24 46 87,205 0 0 6 82202' 82210 40 0 33 O 17 - 6 82206 0 10 55 82203. 82211 0 18 0 0 24 28 82208 0 21 0 82301 0 130 123 82204 0 10 55 82209 0 0 3 Totals for Emereenev Preeared. ness: 0 25: 360 Security 81018 0 0 3 81054 0 0 9 81078 0 0 5 81020 0 0 3 81058 0 0 3 81080 0 0 5 81022 0 0 13 81062 0 0 5 81084 0 0 6 8103: 0 0 11 81064 0 0 3 81088 0 0 2 81038 0 0 15 81066 0 0 2 81501 0 4 6 810 2 0 0 5 81070 0 0 3 81601 0 2 2 31:06 0 0 4 81072 0 0 3 81810 0 3 0 81:52 0 0 5 81074 0 0 2 85102 30 5 31 Totals for Seturitv: 30 1 177 Outages 35750 0 0 56 57080 0 0 90 71711 0 C 13 37700 13 78 21 57090 0 0 120 72701 20 0 f3 37731 0 36 156 57700 0 0 36 73051 0 5 25 L- 37702- 0 24 :: 60705 9 0 62 73052 0 3 33 56700 10 0 17 60710 19 0 31 73753 19 0 51 57 70 0 0 100 71708 325 0 0 73755 0 0 5 Tetals 5 0- Outaces: J'5 15
.:~I 2-15 t - . _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e f6 - .
I SAN.ONOFRE 1/2/3
. Region 5 SALP Rating Period 1 - 07/01/81 - 06/30/82 SALP Rating' Period 2'- 06/01/83.- 09/30/84 SALP Rating Period 3 - 10/01/84 - 05/31/86 i-SALP Rating Period 1 2- 3- 1 2 3 1 2 3 Quality Programs 35701 4 77- 52 40700 3 0 48' 92702 35751 0 0 11 39 84 77 40701 0 15- Ib - 92703 36100 0 0 6 40702 0 0 42 33 227 71 -
92704 0 0 42 36700 -4 0 9 40704 9 0 0 92705 15 37703 5 0 0 65051 1 83 138701 0 .0 17 92706 244 2105 1428 13 50 54 90712 38702 14 23 5 64 112 92716 1 1 0-8 90714 5 0- 0
- 39701' O O 20 92717 12 8 66
- 92700- 144 256 468 39702- 0 61 0 92701 181 34 553 Totals for Ouality Procrams: 740 2812 3365'
. Licensing Activities 94702 0 0 17 Totals 'for Licensine Activities: 0 0 17 Training and Qualification 41400 0 0 18 41700 13 15 144 41701 36 0 24 Totals for Trainine and Qualification 49 15 186 2-16 g
e 6
,A
)
1 l.
TROJAN-Region 5 )
SALP Rating. Period 1 - 09/01/82 - 08/31/83 1 SALP Rating Period 2 - 09/01/83 - 10/31/84 SALP Rating Period 3.- 11/01/84 - 10/31/85 .
5 ALP Rat 1ng I Period ' 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
. Operations 42700 0 33 45 71709 107 0 0- .71714 0 4 71707 261 732 759 71710 3 100 110 4
93702- 0 302 178 Totals for Ooerations: 371'1171 1096 f Radiological Controls
'79701 0 0 4 83726 0 6 0 84724 00721 0 6 0 83727 0 0 0 0 , 25 j 3 84725 0 41 83722 -0 5 10 55 83728 0 0 0 84850 83723 0 -5 0 10 0 10 83729 0 2 25 83724 0 86721 0 22 11 i 11 0 84722 0 0 8 83726 0 86740 22 0 0 i 5 16- 84723 0 0 27 l
Totals for Radiolecical Controls: 22 113 194
'Ma4ntenance 62700 13 0 10 62702 0 20 30 62704 0 0 17 62701 31 0 0 62703 74 257 108 62705 0 0 17 Totals for Maintenance: 113 277 132 '
Surveillance-61700 13 16 98 61708 0 0 4 61725 12 0 10 61701 8 12 10 61709 0 0 5 61726 99 207 91 61702 0 0 7 61710 0 0 7 61729 8 C 0 61705 0 0 3 61711 0 0 3 72700 36 22 4 61706 0 0 4 61720 12 15 21 61707- O' 2 0 61724 0 0 10
~: tals ':- su ve411ance: 1? ~~a 2
2-17 I
i
'a TR00AN Region 5 SALP Rating Period 1 - 09/01/82 - 08/31/83
'SALP Rating Period 2 - 09/01/83 - 10/31/84 SALP Rating Period 3 - 11/01/84 - 10/31/85 SALP Rating Period 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Fire Protection 64703 0 0 24 64704 12 0 18 Totals for Fire Cretection: 12 0 42 E:ner;ency Preparedness 02201- 10- 14 0 82204 15 14 18 82210 82202 15 14' 0 82205 13 14 18.
10 0 0 82203 15 14 0 82206 10 14 30 82301 0 234 177 82712 79 0 0 9
Totals for Emercency Preparedness: 167 318 243 Security 81018 0 0 4 81054 0 0 3 81078 81020 0 0 1 81058 0 0 2 0 0 3 81080
<81022 0 0 1 0 0 3 81062 0 0 3 81084 81034 0 0 3 0 0 3 81064 0 0 3 81088 81038 0 0 3 81066 0 0 1 0 0 1 81501 81042 0 0 3 81070 0 2 6 0 0 5 81601 81046 0 0 3 0 0 4 81072 0 0 4 81810 81052 0 0 6 0 0 1 81074 0 0 2 Totals for Securitv: 6 2 62 Outages 35750 0 0 27 60705 17 10 11 37700 0 21 25 73052 8 0 52 60710 45 76 56 73753
. 37701 0 0 30 8 0 C 71711 14 0 34 73755 37702- 0 27 20 8 C ;5 72701 0 0 3 56700 10 30 43 730f1 0 0 12 T: ais f:- Ou: aces: 1:0 :!: 22:
2-18 m__.____--_. _m ____ ..m.
., 14 TROJAN Region 5 !
1SALP Rating Period 1 - 09/01/82 - 08/31/83 SALP Rating Period 2 - 09/01/83.- 10/31/84 j
SALP Rating Period 3 - 11/01/64 - 10/31/85 i SALP Rating. .. .
Period 1 2 3 !
1 2 3 1 2 3 _ _ _
Quality Programs i 35701 3 8 12 39702 35751 0 23 24' 92701 42 43 68 6 6 0 40700 1 25 28
-36100 0 0 92702 2 0 3 6 40701 0 16 20 36700 4 -92703 11 8 10 20 10 40702 0 10 53 37703 0' 92704 1 0 43, 10 0 40703 6 6 15 38700 6 44 92705 5 83 32 0 40704 1 10 10 j 38701 0. 92706 169 842 220 '
39 1' 50095 0 0 46 38702- 0 64 92717 6 1 46 0 90714 0 9 26 29701 0 25 0 92700 58 68 59 Totals for Ouality Procrams: 321 1360' 73'2-Training and Qualification 41700 16 29 38 41701 12 06 12 Totals for Trainino and Qualification: 29 125 50 w
1 2-19 l
. >A- ,
i WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 Region 5 ;
SALP. Rating Period 1 - 08/01/82 - 07/31/83 1 5 ALP. Rating Period 2 - 08/01/83 - 01/31/85 i SALP Rating Period 3 - 02/01/85 - 01/31/86 4
SALP Rating I Period 1 2 3 l 1 2 3 1 2 3 !
Operations
- 42700 0 0 46 71710 0 140 48 93702 0 15 219 71707 0 775 841 71714 0 8- 6 Totals for coerations: 0 938 1160 Radiological Controls
, 79501' O O 2 83726 0 2 4 84724 0 03722: 0 0 4 83727 0 0 38 2 5 84725 83723 0 0 4 83728 0 0 '46 : 24 5 4 84850 0 83724 0 4 5 84722 0 1 18 0 18 86721 0 03725 0 0 4 0 20 84723' O O 38 Total: for Radic1ccical Controls: 0 60 188 Maintenance 62700 0 0 20 62702 0 48 29 62703 0 130 90 Te:als fer Maintenance: 0 178 139 ~!
Surveillan:e 61700 0 0 60 61725 0 13 49 61702 0 0
, 1 61726 0 179 125 Te als #er Su-vei11ance: 0 192 233 2-20
, A '
i WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 -
Region 5 SALP Rating Period 1 --08/01/82 - 07/3.1./83 SALP Rating period 2 - 08/01/33 - 01/3*/95
'SALP Rating Period 3 - 02/01/85 - 01/31/86 SALP Rating Period- 1 2 3 1 2 3' 1 2 3 Fire Protection.
64704 0 12 45 Totals for Fire Protection: 0- 12 45 Emergency Preparedness 82204 0 0 20 82210 0 0 20 82206 0 20 30 82301 78 173 154 Totals for Emergency Preparedness: 78 193 224 Security 81018 0 0 2 81054 0 0 3 81078 0 0 4 81020 0 0 1 81058 0 0 2 81080 0 0 7 81022 0 0 1 81062 0 0 2 51034 81084 0 0 2 0 0 2 81064 0 0 5 81088 0 0 1 81038 0 0 5 81066 0 0 2 81501 0 13 4 81042 0 0 5 81070 0 0 81046 1 81601 0 9 2 0 0 0 81072 0 0 81052' 1 81810 0 7 0 O O 2 81074 0 0 1 85102 0 4 0 Totals fer Security: 0 33 55 Outages 35750 0 0 83 56700 0 12 0- 73052 0 0 10 37700 0 0 38 72701 0 0 2 37702 0 0 70 73051 0 0 14
~g tais #:- Outaces: 0 *I
. 2 *.
- 1 2-21 i
. - u -- -. , ,
. . dh WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 Region 5 SALP Rating Period 1 - 08/01/82 - 07/31/83
'SALP Rating Period 2 - 08/01/83 .01/31/85 SALP Rating Period 3 - 02/01/85 - 01/31/86 SALP Rating ,
period 1 '2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Quality Programs '
35701 0 0 64 40704 0. 0 6 92704 0 39701 0 0 7 50095 0 0 20 0 16 92705 0 15 39702 0 0 6 60 90712 0 17 41 40700. 0 13 50 92700 0 139 92706 9 323 123 55 92716 0 8 40701 0- 0 0 40702 'O 1 92701 5 176 452 92717 39 9 24 O 25 92702 0 32 50 40703 0 0 7 92703 5 18 29 Totals for Ouality Programs: 58 750 1036 Training and Qualification 41700 0 32 59 -
41701 0 6 1 j
Totals for Trainine and Qualification: 0 38 60 i
i 2-22 i
. a l
ENCLOSURE 3 INSPECTION RESOURCE ALLOCATION FOR PLANTS OF INTEREST REGION-5 f,'OTE: The ' Plants of Interest' are the two plants in each Region with the highest and lowest combined SALP ratings for Operations,. Maintenance, and Surveillance. Where identical SALP ratings exist for several plants in those areas, the selection of Highest / Lowest plant is based on an average of the ratings assigned in the remaining functional areas.
The inspection hours and SALP ratings are for the latest SALP report period.
OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE SURVEILLANCE Insp. Hours / Insp. Hours /
SALP Rating Inso. Hours / !
P1 ants witn ne. !
HIGHEST Ratings DIABLO CANYON 1/2 2585 / 2 505 / 1 393 / 2
, TROJAN 1096 / 2 182 / 2 277 / 2 Plants witn :ne 0 WEST Ratings WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 1160 / 2 139 / 2 238 / 2 RANCHO SECO 1 2893 / 3 393 / 3 338 / 2 Average Ins:ection 1323.5 201.0 Hours for tne Region 224.a (All Plants) -[ ,'
3-1
__ _ _ - _ _ -- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - ~
4 Dennis F. Kirsch Distribution (w/ enclosure)
DCS .
D1 Reading ORPB Reading JGPartlow RLSpessard PFMcKee til. Wheeler MJohnson l l
e 8
+e i
3 L __
d o
. i.-
'. 4 ,
December 31, 1986 gppggg7x g MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Allan, Deputy Regional Administrator Region I FROM: James G. Partlow, Director Division of Inspection Programs '
Office of Inspection and Enforcement -
SUBJECT:
ELAPSED TIME TO ISSUE REACTOR INSPECTION REPORTS
~
'It is important th'at reports of NRC inspections be issued with reasonable promptness in order to communicate formally to the licensee any results that require corrective action on the part of the licensee. The report also informs interested NRC management and staff and outside parties about the current status ,
of plant problems and licensee performance. In this connection, IE Manual Chapter 0610-07 sets a goal of 20 calendar days for issuance of inspection reports with a 10 day extension to 30 calendar days for reports of major team inspections.
To determine how well the regions are meeting the elapsed time goal specified in the IE Manual, we obtained data from the 766 system regarding reactor inspection reports issued curing FY 1986. These data indicate an average time of 37 days for reports issued by Region I during that period. Enclosed is a copy of the computer printout which provides the details of how the
- average time,was computed. After reviewing these data I am sure you will agree that increased attention should be devoted to the matter of shortening the time between the end of the inspection and the issuance o~f the report.
We appreciate your cooperation in striving to reduce the elapsed time for inspect. ion reports. If you have any questions or comments about this matter, please, call me. I would be happy to discuss them with you.
CEN.'. ! ."~ E sa.:n G.rAhi;04 James G. Partlow, Director Division of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Computer Printout
[-
, 4 December 31, l'86 9 a
. :. , 5 MEMORANDUM FOR: Malcolm L. Ernst, Deputy Regional Administrator l Region II s FROM: .
James G. Partlow, Director Division of Inspection Programs n i S s Office of Inspection and Enforcement' s s
SUBJECT:
ELAPSEDTIMETOISSijEREACTORINSPYCTIONREPORTS '
5 s V
'i '+ %
It is important that reports of NRC inspections,'be issued dith reasonable '
. promptness in order to communnate femally to the licensee any results'that require corrective action on the part;of the licensee. The report slso informs interested NRC management and staffland outside parties about the current status of plant problems and licensee pergamance. In thi>' connection. IE Manual Chapter 0610-07 sets a goal of 20 ' cal'endar days for issuance of inspection '
reports with a 10 day extension to 30 calendar days f or reports for majce
, team inspections. s
.n To detemine how well the regions are meeting the elapsed time goal specified ' '
in the IE Manual, we obtained data' from the 756 system regarding reactor '
inspection reports issued during FY 1986. These data indicate an average time of 35 days for reports issued by Region II during that period. Enclosed is a copy of the computer printout which provides the details of how the aver:ge time was computed. After reviewing these data I am sure ydu will agree that increased attention should be devoted to the matter of startening the time between the end of the inspection and the issuance of the report.
We appreciate your cooperation in striving to redace the elapsed ti$e for inspection reports. If you have any questions or comments about this matter,. %.
please call me. I would be happy to discuss them with you.
CTS *t !!ONED BY: ,
)
30 3. FARTLOW .
James G. Partlow y Director Division of Inspdction Programs Office of !nspsction and Enforcement s
Enclosure:
Computer Printout 1
1 1
I
- 4
)
)
December 31,.1986 MEMOPANDUM FOR: A. Bert Davis, Deputy Regional Administrator Region III FROM: .
James G. Partlow, Director Division of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
ELAPSED TIME TO ISSUE REACTOR NSPECTION REPORTS s
, I want to comend' Region' III on the fine record you have achieved for FY 1986 in essentially meeting the goal for prcmpt issuance of inspection reports.
The IE Manual sets a goal of 20 calendar days for issuance of inspection reports with a 10 day extension to 30 calendar days for reports of major team inspections. Data obtained from the 766 system for FY 1986 gave an
' average elapsed time of 22 days from the end of the inspection until the report was issued by Region III. Enclosed is a copy of the computer printout
' that gives the data for your region.
I am sur:a the excellent results achieved in this area can be attributed to the active interest and attention of Region III. management and staff, c;.1;;;;:1!*0M.0 BY:
's JA,l.~.5 G. PATM James G. Partlow, Director m
Division of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
]
Enclos #e:
Ccmputer Printout ,
s h
\
. S- .
l
)
December 31, 1986 NEMOP.ANDUM FOR: Paul S. Check, Deputy Regional Administrator Region IV FROM: James G. Partlow, Director l
D. vision of Inspection Programs j I Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
ELAPSED TIME TO ISSUE REACTOR INSPECTION REPORTS I
l It is important that reports of NRC inspections be issued with reasonable promptness in order to communicate formally to the licensee any results that require corrective action. These reports also inform interested NRC management and staff and outside parties about the current status of plant problems and licensee performance. In this connection, IE Manual Chapter 0610-07 sets a goal of 20 calendar days for issuance of inspection reports with a 10 day extension to 30 calendar days for reports of major team inspections.
To determine how well the regions are meeting the elapsed time goal specified in the IE Manual, we obtained data from the 766 system regarding reports of .
l reactor inspections that were made during FY 1986. These data indicate an average elap:ed time of 62 days for Region IV reactor inspection reports.
Encloset is a copy of the computer printout which provides the details as to how the average elepsed time was computed. I am sure you will agree that significant attention needs to be focused on this aspect of the Region's operation so as to substantially reduce the time between the end of an inspection and the date when the report is issued.
I appreciate your cooperation in striving to reduce the time for issuance of inspection reports. If you have any questions or comments about this matter, I would be happy to discuss them with you.
CRITJ?L SZNCO BY NES 2. F4! LOW James G. Partlow, Director '
j Division of Inspection Programs '
Office of Inspection and Enforcement Enclosure-temputer er,ntout l
)
l I
l i
1 l
l
il December 31, 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Bobby H. Faulkenberry, Deputy Regional Administrator Region Y FROM: James G. Partlow, Director Division of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
ELAPSED TIME TO ISSUE REACTOR INSPECTION REPORTS 4 i
I want to comend Region Y en the fine record you have achieved for FY 1986 in meeting the goal for prompt issuance of inspection reports. The IE Manual sets a. goal of 20 calendar days for issuance of inspection reports with a 10 day extension to 30 calendar days for reports of majcr team inspections.
Data obtained from the 766 system for FY 1986 gave an average elapsed time of 20 days from the end of the inspection until the report was issued by Region V. Enclosed is a copy of the computer printout that gives the data for your region. -
I am sure the excellent results achieved in this area can be attributed to the active interest and attention of Region V management and staff, ,
c:. ,rt r* C !Y:
N.is G. FaIA0d James G. Partlow, Director Division of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Computer Printout
3
~
APPENDIX 9 DEC19IS*6 NOTE TO: Anthony T. Gody, DRMA, Pegion I Ricnard J. Maley, ORMA, Region 11 Gen W. Roy, ORMA, Region III William H. Foster, ORMA, Region IV Kathleen Hamill, DRMA, Region V FROM: James L. Blaha, IE SUB.1ECT: TIMELINESS STATISTICS FROM 766 SYSTEM Recently we gathered statistics on the time taken to issue an inspection report and the time taken to initiate a 766 record of an inspection. Calendar days of elapsed time were calculated for each 766 record of an inspection c'empleted in FY 1986 (i e., report issued in FY 1986). Average number of days were calculated by docket and region. I enclose the appropriate sections for your region.
Elliott Greher (FTS 497-4969) is available to assist you in reviewing this data.
The overall results are:
(Field) Inspect To Date Issue Report Date Until Until Issue Pecort Date 766 Record Create Date Non-050 Mon-050 050 Deckets Dockets 050 Ocekets Occkets Pegion I 37 Days 39 Days 75 Days lla Days Degion II 36 13 22 27
?egion III 2? 6 27 27 Rsgion IV 6 T. 23 24 3e
- egion V 20 10 35 56 I all Regicns 33 21 37 60 O! has rescensibility 'or the results for inspection re:crt timeliness. 25 5 is concerned with the cuality assurance and timeliness of 766 rec rds. I ex:ect to include these statistics in a cuality Assurance focus on ?66 data which we are undertaking in accordance with IE MC 0537. I would a: *eciate your correr*s en '.*e time lag fer data entry into the 766. Ctrer c:reents with res:ect ::
your region's pr: cess for 766 data entry, the rescensif e :erson #cr 766 : a.y and timeliness arc rec:mmedation for a reescrable i e 5: 31 wculd be "e':#u'.
'l s'
- r. . .
- Jares L. Siana, !E Enc'esures:
as Stated u____ __ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- i
I--Q_ - - .- [7
- p ashg\,, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR MEGULATORY COMMIS$10N APPENDIX 10
, y % neGl!N l 3 4 su **ax vs us
(**"j j)
- ni.. . , n o.. ...s~~. n v ,~i , i....
I JAN 2 51937
)
i MEMORANDUM FOR: James L. Blaha, Director Program Support and /nalysis Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM: Anthony T. Gody, Director .
Division of Resource Management and Administration '
Region I
SUBJECT:
TIMELINESS STATISTICS FROM 766 SYSTEM As requested in your memorandum dated December 19, 1986, we have reviewed tne timeliness statistics for our region and discussed these statistics with regional personnel involved in the 766 System.
We have also reviewed IE MC 0535 and 0537 and recognize that both manual chapters and the NRC Forms 766 and 766-A require updating in order to enacle meaningful implementaf. ion of quality assurance audits.
To improve our timeliness in the area of data entry, we have developed a 766 tracking system and ORMA procedures and regional instructions that document the processing and handling of NRC Forms 766 and 766-A in Region I. We are also issuing a 766 Newsletter that will be sent periodically to Region I technical personnel for the purpose of providing further supplemental guidance to improve the accuracy of the 766 data. Supplemental guidance is also being discussed with Elliott Greher, IE, and my staff before issuance of the 766 Newsletter.
Region III's recommendation of 21 days accears to allow sufficient time for the processing, handling and quality' assurance of the 766 Forms.
Jchn Mc0 scar, Chief, Resource Management Branch, is the person responsible for 766 quality and timeliness, and shoulc be informed of any areas focusing on :ne 766 system. Nancy Young has been designated as the 766 Coordinator.
I can assure you that once our procedures become ef fective, our timeliness statistics will reflect a more favoracle trenc. If you nave any ;uestions regarding this matter, I can be :entacted at FTS 453-1350.
[ s'$f
% Y.aua/&sA Antneny T. Seey, O W or g Division of /esour:e Manager.ent
, and Acm(p4s t-ation v' l'
l l
1
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______________-.____________________J