Latest revision as of 22:46, 22 May 2025

Text

Package Consisting of 870417 Request for Premium Cost Mail Svc & Unsigned & Undated Ltr to Util Forwarding Draft Insp Repts 50-445/87-02 & 50-446/87-02 & Notice of Deviation
	ML20236M401
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/17/1987
From:	; NRC
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20236M375	List: ML20236M373; ML20236M401;
References
	FOIA-87-446 NUDOCS 8708110050
	Download: ML20236M401 (73)
	v • d • e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . .

. _ _ _ _

_

h/A S7&& Y'

'

,

'

e

.' .

..

,

, . -

e

l

,

.

.,

l

-

.

...

!

-

s e - ~- m-n yg-- : rn, -

-

u , ,,; ~ y .p ..

+r

y

,

l

.

-

l

(

NRC FORM 420 '

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N -

RE0viRED DE Liv ERv O AYE

"'"

l

I'

(6 82)

.

4/17/87

'

NacM 0255

REQUEST FOR PREMlUM COST MAIL SERVICE

I

g {

~

ER l

{ORbAN

BON (Of fice. 06 vision, Brang

[

FROM:g

IPgE

rn o...t uavic...ou reo l l ExPnESS

l l ,R iO R ir y

l l PRiv ATE DELivERv l IOTsER

l

[

-

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLE

I

Draft Inspection Report

x

MF."^f4?i fli&47'Chfef, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coeurfssi$it Parkway Central

i

"

Plaza Building, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000. Arlington, Texas 76011

JUSTIFICATION F OR SE RVICE REQUESTE D

Draft Report Corrections

,

seevice egtseicaYiom gigv

g<,g.;,ge,og..,i . ze.. .

j to ine ceacuci .* e"=i.i ov=aa'

lDA

"

.e in. o

ai

,,

,

?. "' "95;"ZX /,1

'"%. %n

8 '

l D ATE

b

39

lORG ANIZATION (Offhi r[' ivision)DD/CEP

'[ !

'

SIGN ATU R E-Oi

C

R

'

Deputy Direct

!

A

P. F.

'

,

RETAIN THE REQUESTER COPY, AND M All THE BLUE COPY TO: CHIEF,M All AND MESSENGER BRANCH, FOS, ADM. FOR Mall ROOM USE ONLY.

,

lDATE

l

APPROVE D-M AIL AND MESSENGE R AUTsORIZE D OF FICI AL

l

l CALL NUMBER

l

VENOOM

6

Odl

W.2 3 9 gy /

l SIGN ATURE

Wil./5 7

6/,L kb d.lb

OATE Sy/IPE9

.,

REQUESTER CCfY

f

.

-

'

-

.

,

_

I

-

..

,

~

-

i

l- -

,

4

t

I

t

8708110050 870007

!

PDR

FDIA

P'DR

BAUMAN87-446

,

-_______ _ _ _ _ _

[]

<

o

0001.0.0

In Reply Refer To:

l

Dockets:

50-445/87-02

'

60-446/87-02

{

TV Electric

ATTN:

Mr. W. G. Counsil

Executive Vice President

l

'

400 North Olive Street, L.B. El

Dallas, Texas

75201

.

I

'

i

Gentlemen:

1

This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. I. Barnes and other members of

the Regicn I" Comanche Peak Group curing the period January 1 through

l

February 28, 1987, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits

.

CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peek Steam Electric Station, Units 1

and 2, and to the respective discussions of our findings with you and other

members of your staff during and at the conclusion of the inspection.

l

Arees examined during the inspection were principally Comanche Peak Response

Team activities.

Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective

examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with

personnel, and observations by the inspectors.

These findings are docu.nented

in the enclosed inspection report.

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

____

'

\\

-

l

0002.0.0

]

During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities appeared

to deviate from commitments made to the NRC.

These items and references to the

comitments are identified in the enclosed Notice of Deviation.

You are

requested to respond to these deviations in writing.

Your response should be

based on the specifics contained in the Notice of Deviation enclosed with this

1

letter.

,

l

I

1

l

We have also examined actions you have taken with regard to previously

j

i

!

identified inspection findings.

The status of these items is identified in

i

il

l

paragraph 2 of the enclosed report.

i

l

-

1

,

The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not

l

subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as

1

required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

l

!

.

1

i

!

I

i

!

l

!

i

,

!

.

0003.0.0

TU Electric

-2-

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to

discuss them with you,

i

Sincerely,

l

i

-

,

E. H. Johnson, Director

Division of Reactor Safety and Frojects

Enclosures:

1.

Appendix A - Notice of Deviation

.

2.

Appendix B - NRC Comanche Peak Response Team Activities Inspection

1

Report

)

l

50-445/67-02

50-446/87-02

CC:

TV Electric

ATTN:

G. S. Keeley, Manager,

Nuclear Licensing

Skyway Tower

400 North Olive Street

Lock Box 81

Dallas, Texas 75201

,

.

0004.0.0

Juanita Ellis

President - CASE

1426 South Polk Street

Dallas, Texas

75224

Renea Hicks

!

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Protection Division

P.O. Box 12548

<

l

Austin, Texas

78711-2548

.

h

I

l

f

.

i

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

.

\\

'

0005.0.0

TV Electric

-3-

Administrative Judge Peter Bloch

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C.

20555

Elizabeth B. Johnson

Administrative Judge

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

P.O. Box X, Building 3500

!

Cak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

l

Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom

l

1107 West Knapp

'

Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075

l

Dr. Walter H. Jordan

881 Outer Drive

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

'

~

i

Anthony Roisman, Esq.

Executive Director

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice

1000 P. Street, N.W., Suite 611

Washington, D.C.

20036

Texas Radiation Control Program Director

.

i

.

i

0006.0.0

bec to DMB (IE01)

bec distrib. by RIV:

RFB

MIS System

RRI-OPS

RSTS Operator

RRI-CONS

R&SPB

T. F. Westerman, RSB

DRSP

,

V.7 00r,dn . -NRft---

R. Martin, RA

l

.N

-S -Trebyr ELD --

RSB

RIV File

J. Taylor IE

D. Weiss , LFMB ( AR-2015)

4.= Konkt s n;11E=-.

I. Barnes, CPG

w/766

l

.

t

.

I

.

0007.0.0

l

APPENDIX A

!

1

NOTICE OF DEVIATION

l

TU Electric

Dockets:

50-445/87-02

50-446/87-02

Comenche Peak Steam Electric Station,

Permits: CPPR-126

Units 1 erd 2

CPPR-127

l

-

l

'

Based'on the results of an NRC inspection conducted on January 1 through

,

February 28, 1987, two deviations from commitments were identified. The

deviations consisted of several concrete pours not being identified on the

Population Items List and documents missing from the Issue-Specific Action Plan

(ISAP) VII.c project files.

In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy

.

anc Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C (1986),

the deviations are listed below:

1

A.

ERC document QA/QC-RT-1628, Revision 1, " Population Items List Concrete

Placement." states, in part, that the list ". . . includes all

safety-related concrete pours in Unit 1, 2 and areas common to both units."

Attachment 6.3 of ERC Procedure CPP-005, Revisicn 3, states, in part, "The

responsible QA/QC Discipline Engineer . . . Provides the basis for

accepting the list as valid."

In addition, "The QA/0C Lead Discipline

Engineer and the OA/QC Engineering Supervir,ar review Population Items Lists

,

.-..._..-__.__--___._._..___Q

i

I

1

.

i

1

.

0008.0.0

1

l

to ensure that they are complete, accurate, and consistent with the

requirements of this procedure."

.

I

In deviation from the above, NRC inspection of the Population Items List

for concrete placement revealed the followino discrepancies:

l

1.

Pour Nos. 205-9810-039 through 205-9810-056 are shown as block-out

type pours in the east diesel generator foundation, Unit 2, on Drawing

i

SSB-20655, Sheet 1, Revision 5.

Pour hos. 205-9810-040 and

205-9810-048 through 205-9810-056 were not on the Population Items

j

List and no corresponding pour cards could be obtained in the TV

-

,

Electric Records Center.

Pour hos. 205-9810-039 and 205-9810-041

through 205-9810-047 were on the Population Items List but were

assigned on drawings at least twice and are shown, for example, on

Drawings 55B-20605, Sheet 1, Revision 7, and 55B-20618, Sheet 1,

Revision 2 to be concrete curbs, removable slabs, etc.; not

.

block-outs.

2.

Pcur No. 205-4822-003 is shown as a shielding wall for the Primary

Sampling room on Drawings SSB-20605, Sheet 4A, Revision 0, and

SSB-20605, Sheet 4, Revision 0.

This pour number was not on the

Population Items List.

The above discrepancies indicate that the Population Items List is not

entirely complete and accurate and does not include all safety-related

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

_

.

0009.0.0

!

The ERC review of the Population Items List to ensure

concrete pours.

l

accuracy and completeness was inadequate (445/8702-0-02; 446/8702-D-02).

l

Section 5.3.1 of Revision 2 to ERC Procedure CPP-004, " Project Working

'

B.

Files " dated December 17, 1985, for ISAP VII.c states, in part, "The

Records Administrator shall review each document received for filing fer

physical quality (e.g., reproducibility, legibility, condition) and

j

!

l

completeness (e.g., number, file location, sequence of attachments, etc.)."

!

In deviation from the above, NRC inspection of the Population Items List

for electrical cable, revealed that the records administrator failed to -

"

identify that pages 813 and 814 of the Electrical Management System cable

I

population listing and the list of Essential and Emergency Lighting

circuits were missing from the cable population listing (445/8702-D-03;

446/8702-D-03).

.

TO Electric is hereby requested to submit to this office within 30 days ot' the

date of the letter transmitting this Notice, a written statement or explanation

in reply, including for each deviation:

(1) the reasons for the deviations if

admitted, (2) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results

achieved, (3) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further devi6tions,

and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is

shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.

- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _

__

_

.

0010.0.0

Dated at Arlington, Texas

this _, day of

. 1987

!

I

f

I

e

i

6

t

i

1

.

0011.0.0

APPENDIX B

NPC COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM ACTIVITIES INSPECTION REPORT

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report:

50-445/87-02

Permits: CPPR-126

50-446/87-02

CPPR-127

Dockets: 50-445

Category: A2

-

,

50-446

.

Construction Permit

j

Expiration Dates:

Unit 1: August 1, 1988

, ,

Unit 2: August 1, 1987

Applic6nt: .TV Electric

Skyway Tower

400 North Olive Street

Lock Box 81

i

Dallas, Texas

75201

Facility Name:

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),

Units 1 & 2

Inspection At:

Glen Rcse, Texas

Inspection Conducted: Jariuary 1 thrcugh February 28, 1987

______________-__-_a

~.]

1

,

j

'

.:

.

,

,,

0012.0.0

i

"

<

Inspectors:

,,

L. E. Ellershaw, Reactor Inspector, Region IV

Date

/

'

CPSES Group

(paragraphs 2.a-h, 2.j-n, 2.p, 2.u, 3.b, 4.a. and 4.b)

',

j '4

s

l

,

j

C. J. Hule, Reactor Inspector, Region IV.

Date

CPSES Group

(paragraphs 2.1, 2.c, 2.s-t, 3.a

3.c, and 5)

'

'+

,

.

E Wagner, Reactor Inspector, Region IV

Date

CPSES Group

(paragraphs 2.q-r and 4.a)

'

,

s

EG&G - J. Dale (paragraphs 2.a. 2.d-h, 2.j ,)2.1-n, and d.b)

Consultants:

A. Maughan (paragraphs 2.q-r and 4.a

l

W. Richins (paragraphs 2.p and 4.a)

V. Wenczel (paragraph 5.)

Parameter - J. Birmingham (paragraphs 2.i, 2.0, 2.s-t, 3.a. and'

>

3.c)

K. Graham (paragraphs 2.b-c, 2.k. 2.u, and 3.b)

- '

<

D. Jew (paragraph 4.a)

,

c

Feviewed By:

R. L. Spessard, Deputy Director Division of

Date

Inspection Programs, Office of,. Inspection and Enforcement

Approved:

I. Barnes, Chief, Region IV CPS $5 Group

Date-

%

Inspection Sumary

t\\

l

4

j

~7-

.

q

n

,

..

4

\\

0013.0.0

'

i.

,

-

Inspection Conducted: January 1 through February 28,1987 (Report 50-445/87-02;

50-446/87-02)

'

i

l

'

Areas Inspected:

Nonroutine, unannounced inspection of applicant actions cr.

p*evious jnspection findipgs, Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Issue-Specific

,

Action Plans (ISAPs), assessrnent of VII.c populations, and the ISAP sample

selection pr'ocess.

'

e

Pesults: Within the four areas inspecte.d. two dev1ations (several concrete

pours were not included on the Population Items List, aragraph4.a.[3]: and

documentsmissingfromthe'ISAPVII.cpro.jectfiles, paragraph 4.a.[43)were

-

,

/.

identified.

l

l-

,

I

t

l

1

l

!

f

\\

,

'

.

t

I'r

/.

>

s

k

. - _ _

- - _ _ _ _ _ _

.

!

0014.0.0

1

DETAILS

1.

Persons Contacted

- J. M. Ayres, Quality Engineering (QE) Supervisor, TU Electric

l

- - R. P. Baker, Regulatory Compliance Manager, TV Electric

- - J. L. Barker, Engineering Assurance Manager, TU Electric

- J. W. Beck, Vice Frcsident, TU Electric

)

- G. L. Bell, Nuclear Licensing, TU Electric

j

P. Boortz, Engineering Assurance Supervisor, Evaluation Research

l

'

Corporation (ERC)

-

I

,

'

D. Boultan, Pcpulatior. Engineer, EP.C

D. Boydston, Issue Coordinator, ERC

1

- E. J. Brab6 Ion, Deputy Program Mar.eger, CPRT

l

1

'

T. Braudt, CPRT, TO Electric

- J. A. Buck, Senior Review Team (SRT), CPRT

.

- F. G. Burgess, CPRT Project Manager, TV Electric

l

R. E. Camp, Unit 1 Froject Manager, TU Electric

- - W. G. Counsil, Executive Vice President, TU Electric

- - R. D. Delano, Nuclear Licensing Engineer, TV Electric

D. Ferguson, Results P.eport Review Committee Chairman, CPRT

- J. R. Gelzer Issue Coordinator, ERC

- M. R. Gross , Jr. , Staff Member, CPRT

- J. Guibert, SRT, CPRT

- - P. E. Halstead, Site Quality Control (QC) Manager, TU Electric

_ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ - - - -

l

.

0015.0.0

I

- J. Hansel,ReviewTeamLeader(RTL).ERC

.

- - T. L. Heatherly, Regulatory Cornpliance Engineer, TV Electric

l

- G. S. Keeley, Nuclear Licensing Manager,~~ TU Electric

]

- - J. E. Krechting, Director of Engineer 1 rig, TU Electric

l

D. McAfee, Cuality Assurance (Qt.) Manager, TV Electric

-)

,

I

'J. McNally, Populatiun Engineer, ERC

J, R. r5ffett, Executive Assistant, Engineering & Construction,

J

'TU hiectric

s

- - L.

D. Nace, Vice President, TV ilectric

.

'

- W. Nyer,'SRT, CPRT

A. Pattersen, Issue Coordinator Eit

'

i

s

j

,

(

- - D. M. Reynerson, Unit 2 Project Manager,,10 Electric

l

1

G. W. Ross, Issue Coordinator, ERC

!

R. K. Sanan Issue Coordinator, TERA

)

'

i

J. Schauf, Construction Evaluation Engineering Group Supervisor, ERC

- - C. E. Scott, Startup Manager, TU Electric

.

"* J. Smith, Operations Staff TU Electric

- - M. R. Steeln.an, CPRT Support, TU Electric

j

- J. F. Streeter, QA Director, TU Electric

J. Tableriou, Population Engineer, ERC

T: G. Tyler, CPRT P)ogram Director, TV Electric

C Vincent, Issue Coordinator, ERC

1

x

F. Webster, Engineering Statistics Advisor, CPRT

D. R. Woodlan, Licensing Supervisur, TU Electric

- - J. E. Wren, QC Services Supervisor, TU Electric

i

o

e

0016.0.0

i

!

J. E. Young, Issue Coordinator, EPC

P.

2111, QA & Personnel Supervisor, ERC

!

)

The NRC inspectors also interviewed other applicant employees during this

'

inspection period.

Denotes personnel pre ent at the February 10, 1987, exit interview.

- Denotes personnel present at the March 3, 1987, exit interview.

- - Denotes personnel present at both of the above exit interviews.

Applicant Actions on Previous Inspection Findings

2.

-

,

a.

(0 pen) Open Item (446/8513-0-09):

Potenti61 ceviations were

identified by ERC concerning: (1)weldlocation,(2)undersizewelds,

(3) welding not per weld symbol, and (4) violation of minimum thread

l

engagement. These conditions were documented on Deviation Reports

)

, ,

(DRs) I-S-hVDS-109-DR-1, DR-2, DR-3, and CR-d and incorporated into

i

Nonconformance Report (NCR) M86-250134X.

This item will remain oper

'

pending disposition of the NCR.

b.

(Closed)OpenItem(445/8513-0-45):

ERC identified the following

conditions to the NRC as subject to evaluation as potential

deviations: (1) clamp bolts did not have locking devices, and

(2) paint was identified or. spherical bearings. The NRC inspector

verified thet a DR was written for each deviating condition.

The DRs

were subsequently documented on NCR k-23284N. The NCR was

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

i

.

'

i

t

I

0017.0.0

dispositionec: "I-S-LBSN-037-DR-1 and 2 are not nonconforming

conditiens" for the following reasons: (1) Peint is an acceptable

locking device (reference NCR M-23216N R-1) and was verified to exist

1

on threaded connections of the subject support, and (2) paint on the

spherical bearings does not impair free gimbaling of the snubber which

is the ecceptance criteria defined by QI-QAP-11.1-28, Revision 34.

Since it was determined that these conditions are not nonconforming,

this item is closed,

i

c.

(Closed)OpenItem(44E/P513-0-47):

During an NRC witnessec

i

inspection, ERC icentified the following ccnditions to the NRC

inspector as subject to evaluation as pctential deviations:

(1) missing locking devices, and (2) dimensional discrepancies were

icentified during reinspection of I-S-LBSR-029.

The NRC inspector

verified that a DR was written for each deviating condition.

The DRs

,

were subsequently doce . anted on NCR M-23135N which was dispositioned:

"I-S-LBSR-029 DR-16 2 are not nonconforming conditions" for the

following reasons: (1) paint is an acceptable locking device

(reference NCR M-23216N R-1) and was verified to exist on threaded

connections of the subject support, and (2) dimensional discrepancies

identified were not a valid deviation. * The note on the drawing

stating all dimer.sions plus or minus 1/4" is applicable for base

plates only; not the location of piping (which was the icentified

diirensionally aiscrepant condition).

_ _ _ _ ._-__-____ - _- _ -

1

,

9

-

0018.0.0

i

Since these conditions were determined to be not nonconforming, this

item is closed.

l

d.

(0 pen)OpenItem(445/8514-0-15):

Potential deviations were

identified by the ERC inspector concerning a missing color cooe and

1

the allowable distance between color code marks was exceeded. These

'

were identified on DRs 1-E-IN1ti-066 DR 1 and CR 2 and subsequently on

I

i

NCR I-85-102025SX. This populatfori was reinspected at a later date

i

for additional attributes and the package designation changed from

I-E-ININ-066 to I-E-1NIN-066R. The reinspection generated one

additional DR, DR I-E-ININ-066R-DR-3, which resulted in the issuance'

-

cf hCR I-86-101916X. This NCR also incorporated the previously

identified NCR. This item will remain open pending disposition of the

NCR.

4

(0 pen)Openitem(445/8514-0-16):

A potential desiation was

,

e.

identified by the ERC inspector concerning location of sending Units

1-LS-6712 and 1-LS-6717 being reversed on the tank for package

I-E-ININ-069. This was subsequently identified on DR

I-E-ININ-069-DR-1, and NCR I-85-101890SX. Because of added

attributes, this population was reinspected and the NCR superseded by

i;CR I-86-101915X. This item will rema'in open pending disposition of

the NCP.

!

f.

(C1csed) Open Item (445/8514-0-24):

A potential deviation was

identified by the ERC 1rispector concerning a missing nameplate and an

l

t

!

l

.

1

.

0019.0,0

I

l

actuator spring that could not be located on 1-H-HVIN-043. A

J

I

subsequent inspection located the nameplate anc identified the fact

i

!

that the damper is a fail-safe damper and does not require a spring.

!

l

J

This item is closed.

l

1

9

(0 pen)Openitem(445/8514-0-28): A potential deviation was

j

)

identified by ERC concerning an undersize horizontal brace. This

j

l

condition was identified in DR I-S-HVDS-023-DR-4 and incorporated into

j

hCR M-86-1003215XRI. This item will remain open pending disposition

J

,

)

of the NCR.

h.

(0 pen) Open Item (445/8514-0-29):

A potential deviation was

identified by ERC concerning undersize fillet welds. This condition

f

1

was identified in DR I-S-HVDS-041-DR-4 and incorporated into NCR

M-85-101991XR2. This item will remain open pending disposition of the

l

NCR.

,

i.

(Closed)OpenItem(445/8516-0-12;446/8513-0-08): The ERC

l

ncnconformance evaluation checklists did not provide for the

evaluation of the technical adequacy of NCn dispositions.

This ERC CA/QC RTL and the VII.a.2 iss'ue coordinator has stated that

evaluation of the technical adequacy of NCR dispositions is outside

the scope of ISAP VII.a.2. The applicant has, however, initiated a

program (performed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation) to

evaluate the disposition of 300 NCRs with use-as-is or repair

-

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

,

.

0020.0.0

j

dispositions for technical adequacy. The evaluations assessed the NCR

dispositions to determine: (1) if the disposition fully addressed the

i

nonconformance; (2) if en adequate technical justification was

provided; and (3) whether the disposition block was correctly

j

i

identified.

To provide further assurance, the applicant has decided

to expand its program to assess the technical adequacy of the

i

remaining NCRs with these disposition categories. This activity will

{

be overviewed by TERA as an independent third party.

NRC inspectier,

1

of this process will be reported in a subsequent inbptction period.

j.

(0 pen) Open Item (445/8516-0-15):

Potential deviations were

i

identified by the ERC inspector concerning locknuts missing from clamp

bolts and a bolt hole was incorrectly located. This condition was

subsequently identified in DRs I-S-0S42-25-DR-1 and CR-2 and

incorporated into NCRs M-25216HR1 and P-25338N, respectively.

This

item will remain open pending disposition of the NCRs.

,

k.

(Closed) Deviation (445/8516-D-35):

The ERC inspector failed to

record the presence of eristing additional field welds to those

specified on the drawing for Verification Package I-S-LBSR-041 and did

'

not provide objective evidence of reinspection. The deviation

resulted from inspection personnel not'being able to distinguish

vendor welds from field welds on vendor supplied components.

ERC

Qt.ality Instructions (QIs) QI-019,01-027, and QI-029 were revised to

incorporate inspection requirements for these welds. Weld inspections

performed prior to the procedure change were reviewed and supplemental

4

- - _ _ _ _ -

__ _

.

'

i

0021.0.0

i

inspection instructions were issued on a case-by-case basis to assure

compliance with revised procedural requirements.

The NRC inspector

reviewed the corrective action taken and concluded that the revised

instructions should prevent recurrence.

,

i

1.

(0 pen) Open Item (445/8516-0-38):

Potential deviations were

!

identified by ERC concerning: (1)weldsymbolsandlocations,

i

(2) undersize welds, aho (3) a Hilti Kwik Bolt embed violation. These

i

conditions were documented in DR I-S-HVDS-029-DR-1 and DR-2, and

incorporated inte NCR M-85-102014X. This item will remain open

'

pending disposition of the NCR.

'

(0 pen) Open Item (445/8516-0-39):

Potential deviations were

m.

identified by ERC concerning: (1)incorrectmemberdimensions,

(2) incorrect weld configuration, (3) incorrect weld size.

(4) incomplete fusion in welds, and (5) violation of weld undercut

.

1

criteria. These conditions were documented in DRs I-S-HVDS-089-DR-1,

DR-2, DR-3 DR-4, DR-5, and DR-6.

These DRs were then incorporated

into NCR M85-102027X for DR-1 through DR-5 and NCR M86-103774X for

DR-6.

This item will remain open pending disposition of the NCRs.

(0 pen)OpenItem(445/8516-0-40):

Potential deviations were

n.

identified by ERC concerning: (1) dimensior. violations, (2) incorrect

ductaimension,(3)incorrectorientation,(4)welaswereundersize,

and(5)incorrectweldprofile.

These conditions were documented in

DRs I-S-HVDS-103-DR-1, DR-2, DR-3, DR-4 AND DR-5.

These DRs were then

l

'

.

,

0022.0.0

incorporated into NCR M85 101991X.

This iten will remain open pending

disposition of the NCR.

(Closed) Violation (445/8518-V-03; 446/8515-V-02):

Item A.1, failure

o.

to certify an inspector in accordance with procedural requirements.

I

'

s

As corrective action for this violation, the applicant committed to

,

revise Procedure CP-QP-2,1, aTraining of Inspection Personnel, with

date of full compliance by May 21, 1986. The procedural revision was

l

to provide for identification of qualification responsibility and

euthority of Level III personnel invclved in training and

i

certification activities including those areas where a cross-over of

qualification authority existed.

The violation was issued due to the

failure to identify this cross-over authority. The NRC inspector

verified that CP-0P-2.1, Revision 21, dated May 8, 1986, and

essociated nuorandum TUQ 3748 dated May 12, 1986, provide for this

.

identification of cross-over authority. This item is cicsed.

!

Item A.2, failure to follow procedures when justifying waivers of

on-job training (0JT) in the certification of four QC inspectors. ,

j

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~~

_ . .

-

U.1he NRC inspector has reviewed the information provided in the

i

l

supplemental response to this violation. This review and reinspection

j

i

of the files for the fcur QC inspectors verified that justification

l

'

other than ". . . I hours OJT and previous related inspection

4

activity . . ." was included.

The justification on the waivers

'

1

!

l

i

$

l

. _ - _

1

.

I

'

C023.0.0

l

i

included ". . . demonstration of practical field ability to the

satisfaction of a certified Level II."

This demonstration provided

O

. . . assurance that the individual does have comparable' or

e

"

\\

/

'

dequivalent' competence to that which would have been gained . . . ."

Therefore, specification on the waiver of the previous related

i

inspection activity was not required in these cases. Since the

required infonnation was included elsewhere in the certification

files, a violation did not occur in this example and this item is

closed.

l

'

p.

(Closed) Open Item (445/8603-0-15): This open item addressed

'

I

inspector certification documentation for fill and backfill

I

placements.

ERC issued DR R-5-FILL-GEN-DR-1 regarding inspector

certification for the safe shutdown impoundment dam construction for

the period Apri's 24, 1976, through April 19, 1977.

Inspector

l

I

certification documentation for Freese & Nichols Consulting Engineers

.

(F&N) and Mason & Johnson Associates

Inc. (M-JA) could not be located

during tFc initial ERC documentation reviews.

l

TV Electric subsequently requested copies of certification records

from F&N and M-JA.

These documents were obtained and are being

transmitted to the Permanent Plant Records Vault (PPRV). The NRC

inspector reviewed these inspector certification documents and found

that the inspection personnel were qualified to perform the

inspections and/or laboratory tests.

This item is closed.

l

t

_ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ - - . -

.

l

1

0024.0.0

'

1

q.

(Closed)UnresolvedItem(445/8607-U-17):

Incomplete craft

installat1cn procedure instruction. NRC inspector review of

l

Revision 5 of construction Procedurc eel-8, " Class IE and non-Class

Cable Terminations," had identified the omission of inst 611ation

I

i

requirements for uninsulated cable splices.

This omission was noted

in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/86-07; 50-446/86-05 during the

evaluation of CPRT committ.ents related to preinsulated environmental

sealed (PIES) splices.

During this report period, the NRC inspector

reviewec Eevision 6 of EEI-8 dated September 23, 1986, ano determined

that adequate provisions for all types of splices had been

incorporated therein.

l

,

l

r.

(Closed)UnresolvedItem(445/6607-U-18):

Incomplete inspection

,

1

procedure instructions.

In addition to revising eel-8, the CPR1 also

cormitted to having certain inspection requirements for PIES splices

irstalled in control beards incorporated in the QC inspection

,

procedure, Ql-QP-11.3-28. " Class 1E Cable Terminations." The NRC

inspector review of Revision 28 of this procedure had indicated that

other types of splices and PIES splices installed in locations other

than control panels were not subjected to the same requirements as the

PIES splices in control panels.

Further NRC inspector review of the

applicable facility commitments and of Revision 31 to QI-QP-11.3-28

found that all of the applicable provisions not previously included

had been incorporated into the procedure.

<

.

0025.0.0

s.

(Closed) Violation (445/8615-V-06):

Failure of the Unit 1 PFG to

provide specific instructions for the control of design cocuments

issued for exterded time periods.

The NRC inspector verified that Procedures CP-CPM-7.4 and CP-CPit-7.4A

were revised July 25, 1986, te provide instructions for the control of

design dccuments issued for extended time periods. As stated in the

response, these two procedures were superseded by issuance of

Revision 3 of Procedures CP-CPM-7.1 and CP-CPM-7.1A on December 15,

1986. The NRC inspector verified that a daily review of the Package

Inventory Card for document packages issued for extended time periods

,

was required in these procedures and that the requirement applied to

both 011ts 1 and 2.

These procedural revisions provide the requireo

j

controls. This 4 tem is closed.

I

,

t.

(Closed) Viciation (445/8615-V-07; 446/8612-V-07):

Failure to control

.

the activity by which the onsite fabrication shop provides inspection

traceability of idertical shcp fabricated items.

.

NRC review of Procedures CP-CPM-7.2A, " Material Storage / Identification

for Structural Steel Fabrication," Revision C, LCN #2, dated

August 12, 1986, and QI-CP-11.14-1, Revision ?d, dated July 28, 1936,

verified that these procedures were revised to incorporate methods to

'

control inspection traceability of identical shop fabricated items.

Since the violation was issued for failure to procedurally control the

activity and no hardware deviaticns were noted during the previous

,

u

.

CC26.0.0

inspet. tion, the above revisions to the applicable procedures close

'

this item.

(0 pen) Open Item (445/8615-0-11):

During inspection of Verification

u.

Package I-M-MEIM-035, the NRC inspector identified that an equipment

foundation anchor bolt nut was not bearing load and that a 1/4" gap

existed between the anchor nut and the load bearing mating surface.

Subsequent NRC review of ERC overview inspection documentation

revealed that an ERC overview inspector had already identified the

deviating condition and that DR I-M-MEIN-035-DR2 had been issued and

1

validated, resulting in the issuance of NCR M-23094 NR-2.

This item

,

remains open pending disposition of the NCR.

3.

CPRT ISAPs (excluding ISAP VII.c)

OC Inspector Qualifications (ISAP I.d.1)

,

a.

.

During this inspection period, the NRC inspector inspected tha

processing of DRs and the verification of inspector qualifications

hep u

a s gcC.

performedg .1dAP I.<171, personnel for inspectors whose certifications

b

were not found acceptable during ISAP.VII.c review.

This inspection

y

d]

was accomplished by first reviewing the controlling Procedures

1y ~

CPP-025, "QC Inspector Qualification Evaluation," and CPP-010.

" Preparation of Deviation Reports," and then performing a detailed

review of DRs related to inspector certification that were generated

!

'

..

.

0027.0.0

during the VII.c review process. The DR processing was reviewed by

the NRC inspector for the following attributes:

.

!

l

I

(1) Inspector certific.ation related DRs were forwarded to the

ISAP I.d.1 1ssue coordinator in accordance with CPP-10.

(?) The validity of DRs was properly evaluated by the ISAP I.d.1

issue coordinator.

1

t3) The transmittal of CRs was in accordance with (,PP-10.

l

.

>

(4) The determinations of inspector qualification for the uncertified

1

CC inspectors was proper and the determinations were documented

,

onthefnspectorfertificationfvaluationfmmary(ICES) form.

(5) The determinations to reinspect any previous work of unqualified

inspectors were proper and documented on a memorandum addresse.d

.

to the ISAF VII.c file as required by procedure.

(6) Reinspection of any previous work performed by the unqualified

OC inspectors were accomplished in accordance with QI-005,

!

" Evaluation of Inspector Performance."

1

(7) Validated CRs were transmitted to TV Electric for documentation

on an NCR/OR.

1

l

I

--

.

_-

.

1

-

0028.0.0

t

I

The above procedures were determined by the NRC inspector to provide

the necessary controls for evaluation and processing of the DRs. The

proceduras specified the personnel responsible for performing the

DR evaluations and the actions required for documenting the

evaluations.

The procedures also prcvided guidance for the

l

j

DR evaluations by reference to ISI.P I.d.1

"QC Inspector

J

l

Qualifications," and Q1-005, "Evalustion of Inspector Performance,"

<

which detail the methods to conduct evaluation of QC inspector

)

certification and qualification.

The process by which ERC performs en analysis of file docurrentation to

s

evaluate the qualifications of QC inspecto,rs is being inspected by the

.,

c.

c'

7/c EC C

1

l

hRC under its WpertiorCof ISAP 1.d.1.

,Th&t process is identical to

E~

.

the process utilized for evaluation of inspectors identified by

'

.;y d

f

ISAP VII.c, with the exception that proper QC inspector certification

g

b

l

is determired by the ERC VII.c inspectors in accordance with VII.c

j

inspection / documentation review required in 28 of the 75 QIs used for

reinspection.

l

During sample inspection of the document review packages, the NRCet(as_

ed

i

6 den verifytT@ whether a certification exists for the inspector of

record, where required.

l

,

To evaluate the system by which inspector certification / qualification

,

is evaluated, the NRC selected a sample of 32 DRs concerning inspector

certifications that were identified during the VII.c document reviews.

l

1

j

L

,

0029.0.0

All 32 DRs were found to have been transmitted, processed for

validation, and maintained as specified by CPP-10 and CFF-025. The

NRC inspector verified that the results of the I.d.1 issue

coordinator's review of the certifications in question were documented

on inspector certification summary forms and that justification for

the results was provided.

The NRC inspector found that of the 32 DRs selected. 28 were

determined by the issue coordinator to be valid and 4 were determined

to be invalid.

NPC review of the packages for the four invalid DPs

'

found tt.st the certifications had existed for the certifications

,

questioned by the VII.c DRs and that documentation existed to support

i

the certifications.

NRC review of the packages for the 28 valid DRs found that

l

2 inspectors were determined by the I.d.1 issue coordinator to be

unqualified for the inspections performed. Therefore, a I.d.1

.

Phase III reinspection was specified as corrective action.

The

26 remaining inspectors were determined by the I.d.1 issue coordinator

to have been qualified for the inspections performed. The basis for

the disposition of the 28 valid DRs is shown in the following table:

Inspector ovalified under equivalent

'

brown & Root (B&R) certification.

9

Inspector ou61ified under Level II

and all dauchter certifications.

I

.

0030.0.0

]

Inspector qualified under contractor

certification other than B&R

(e.g., R. W. Hunt).

4

-Inspector qualified as determined

by Special Evaluation Team /RTL review.

2

Inspector qualified but

administrative / clerical errors

I

require DR.

5

Inspector qualified under previous

similar certification.

5

,

Total determined qualified.

26

Total determined not qualified and sent

to Phase III for Reinspection.

2

l

. .

The NRC inspector verified during review of the validated VII.c DRs

that the I.d.1 determinations of qualifications were supported by

cocumented evidence of comparable prior certification, sufficient

training and examination for the inspection activity, or in the case

of the two inspectors determined by the issue coordinator's review to

be qualified, that previous training and inspection activity was

sufficient and applicable for the certification in question.

,

The NRC inspector verified that the 28 valid DRs were transmitted to

TU Electric and NCRs were prepared.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ -

.

4

0031.0.0

As reported in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/86-22; 50-446/86-20, the

NRC inspector reviewed four reinspection matrices utilized for the

ISAP I.d.1 Phase III reinspection of construction inspectors whose

qualifications were determined to be unsupported by file

documentation. The four matrices were found to be in compliance with

QI-005, " Evaluation of Inspector Performance." Additionally, the NRC

'

inspector witnessed two field reinspection which were satisfactorily

performed by ERC inspectors in accordance with these matrices.

flo violations or deviations were identified.

The evaluation of DRs

pertaining to inspector qualifications generated by ISAP VII.c or

.

,

other ISAPs will cortinue to be inspected by the NRC.

b.

Inspection for Certain Types of Skewed Welds in NF Supports (ISAP V.a)

Status of NRC Inspection Activity

'

l'. ts

The NRC inspector verified compliance with the following ISAP activity

g

connitments:

Chronolooy of Inspection Methods (NRC Reference 05.a.01.00)

.

The methods for QC inspection of type-2 skewed welds and the written

procedures describing the methods and means of documenting the

inspections have changed during the construction of the CPSES project.

/

\\,a

The technical focus of thiTAP is the inspection of the geometric

.

___

._

--_

s

.

,

0032.0.0

and dimensional characteristics of skewed welds at locations where

'

sirrple fillet gauge measurement was not possible.

In order to determine what inspection instructions were applicable for

specific time frames, a chronology of inspection methods documented in

QC procedures was developed to correlate the period of time and

i

l

specific procedure revisions for inspection of type-2 skewed welds.

The inspection techniques used and the methods of documenting the

inspections of type-2 skewed welds involved the following procedures:

.

,

l

QI-QAP-11.1-26: which addressed the fabrication, installation and

1

inspection of ASME pipe and attachments welded to the pipe.

I

Ql-QAP-11.1-28: which addressed the fabrication, installation and

inspection of ASME pipe supports except for attachments welded to the

,

pipe.

CP-QAP-12.1: which addressed the final verification of ASME pipe

supports prior to certification (preparation of the ASME N-5 form).

Relevant historical changes affecting these quality procedures are as

follows:

QI-QAP-11.1-28: Revision 12 dated September 3, 1982, and Revision 13

dated September 21, 1982 - Specific criteria for the measurement of

i

1

.

0033.0.0

I

type-2 skewed welds using the scribe line technique was incorporated

l

into the procedure at that time.

.

1

Ql-QAP-11.1-28: Revision 16 dated December 15, 1982 - The type-2

skewed wsld inspection methodology was deleted from the pipe support

procedure.

1

CP-QAP-11.1-26:

Revision 9 dated December 16, 1982 - The type-2

skewed weld inspection methodology was incorporated into the piping

procedure.

j

.

i

QCWI-1: Dated February 21, 1983 - This B&R instruction was issued to

inform inspectors to use inspection methodology and acceptance

criteria in piping Procedure QI-QAP-11.1-26 when measuring type-2

l

I

l

skewed welds on pipe supports.

-

j

CP-QAP-12.1: Revision a dated February 2, 1983, and Revision 5 dated

March 18, 1983 - These revisions were issued to initiate reinspection

of all accessible structural welds on ASME pipe supports.

QI-QAP-11.1-26: Revision 13 dated August 4, 1983 - The profile

technique for measuring size of type-2cskewed welds was added to the

piping procedure.

1

l

[

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -

-

..

_

__

,

J

.

0034.0.0

QI-0AP-11.1-28: R rision 29 dated January 25, 1985 - The scribe line

f

technique for measurement of type-2 skewed fillet welds was

l

reincorporated into the support procedure,

01-0AP-11.1-28: Revision 30 dated April 15, 1985 - The profile

,

technique for measurement of type-2 skewed welds was incorporated into

the support procedure,

i

Six different methods of documenting the results of type-2 skewed weld

inspections were permitted by procedure at various times. These

methods were:

.

(1) HIR

Hanger Inspection Report

(2) CSC

Component Support Checklist

(3) bWDC

Multiple Weld Data Card

(4) WICL

Weld Inspection Checklist

(5) CSF/SWIR

Component Support Fillet and Skewed Welo

Inspection Report

,

N (6) COT

Construction Operation Traveler

l

g , ,",/ This activity is complete. NRC inspection of activities listed above

-

!

p-

I

also provide a basis for completion of activities required by NRC

Reference 05.a.01.01 and 05.a.01.02.

No violations or deviations were identified.

Third-party to Evaluate the Physical significance of any Procedural

Changes (NRC Reference 05.a.02.04)

. .

.

. . . . . .

. . . .

..

. . . .

. . .

.

..

.

>

0035.0.0

Ntew/>a1.Titzt$5dbt

The NRC inspector questioned ngineering personnel from TERA as to

-fielho L

what was the ir. tent of this-(ey.n

ntsand what actions Wre taken.

i

reme

TERA persunnel stated that their review of procedure changes indicated

that an overall improvement with respect to inspection methodology had

.

tla ba wul

1

occurred. This trend resulted in improved performance by inspection

1

A

personnel.

.

NRC review of data presented in the results report for this ISAP-

confirms this conclusion. This activity is complete,

ho violations or deviations were identifiec.

,

Cocument Centrol (ISAP VII.a.3)

c.

During this report period, the activities identified by NRC Reference

07.a.03.04 and the closecut of related external issues were inspected

..

as follows:

Procedure Evaluation (NRC Reference 07.a.03.04)

This ISAP required an evaluation of the current CPSES document control

The issue coordinator performed the evaluation, conducted

procedures.

and documented the results of the interviews, and completed a

procedure checklist, which in total formed the basis for the

evaluation.

_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _

,

.

0036.0.0

The NRC reviewnd the procedure checklist and compared it to the

requirements in Criterion VI of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and to

the commitments in the CPSES FSAR.

The procedure checklist was found

to address the requirements and commitments concerning distribution

and control of documents affecting quality. Utilizing thic checklist,

the NRC inspected the current controlling Frocedure DCP-3,

Revision 19 "CPSES Document Control Program," to verify that ERC had

implemented the checklist properly and that the procedure met the

above requirements and commitments.

The procedure was found to

properly contain the following attributes: measures to assure that all

documents, and changes to documents, were reviewed and appruved by

,

authorized personnel prior to distribution; and measures to assure

that all documents used for construction or inspection activities were

maintained current and in a controlled status.

Additionally, the

procedure provided for retrieval or identification of superseded

documents and for an ongoing monitoring of document control

, ,

performance of all controlled document files by an independent

monitoring team.

No differences between the NRC and ERC results were

noted in the completed checklists.

In addition, the NRC inspected the implementation of DCP-3 by

requesting a sample of 20 drawings and 10 procedures from the document

control center (DCC) and one satellite. These documents were found to

be at their current revision with all design changes entered when

'

compared to the DCC master list of controlled documents.

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

__

_

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

'

!

'

0037.0.0

!

The implementation of the independent monitoring team was inspected by

j

the NRC inspector by interviewing the head of the monitoring tebm,

l

'

reviewing monitoring reports and executive suninary reports, and

reviewing the report distribution which included the vice-president,

engineering and construction.

The nionitoring team's reports indicated

,

I

that the document control groups were achieving an error rate of less

than 0.1L

l

I

,

. ~

h ,.4, H ;,

1

.~

TheNRCinterviewedtheERCengineersresponsibfefor11ofthe

32 populations in ISAP VII.c to obtain(similar information from the

implementation of the VII.c ISAP.

These engineers stated that of the

,

4,000 drawings utilized during inspection of the 11 populations, they

found 6 document control errors or a 0.15% error rate.

Based on the foregoing NRC inspections and the favorable comparison

with the results of the ERC inspections, this item has been properly

..

implemented.

No violations or deviations were noted during the

inspection of this area of the document control program.

Closecut of Related External Issues

Two external issues related to document control were identified in

ISAP VII.a.3.

The issue of unauthorized procedures used for

cold-springing of piping was addressed in ISAP V.e and was not

considered further in this ISAP.

The issue that a " Controlled Copy"

stamp was improperly used by B&R ASME QA personnel was addressed.

L----------- - ---- ------ -- --- -- --

- - - -

-

_ _ _ . _

- - - - - .

. - - _

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _

.

0038.0.0

{

I

i

l

The NRC interviewed the current B&R document review supervisor who

l

stated that the document review group does not currently use a ontrolf,A[

~ ~ '

Cc'opy" stamp; however, this supervisor did state that for a short time,a

stamp was used to mark drawings prior to presentation to the

Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) for review. The NRC also

interviewed the B&R QE group supervisor that was involved when this

stamp was used.

This individual indicated that the stamp was used on

copies of small bore typicals before presentation to the ANI for

review.

The practice was stopped and the stamp defaced after'irsuance

of Special Inspection Services (SIS) Report 355, which documented the

ANI's concern about the use of the stamp.

Evidence of the stamp

-

i

defacing was provided by a memo to the QA file dated August 10, 1984,

bearing an imprint of the stamp before and after defacing. The

corrective actions taken appear sufficient to prevent recurrence.

The

i

improper use of the " Controlled Copy" stamp had been previously

,

1

determined by the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) in SSER 11 to have

. .

had no adverse safety implications.

No further NRC inspection of this

'

item is planned.

,

1

4

Construction / Reinspection (ISAPVII.c)

1

l

'

a.

Establishing Populations

,

Section 4.3.1 of ISAP VII.c, Pevision 1, required safety-related

hardware to be categorized into populations with homogenous work

l

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

,

.

0039.0.0

activities (HWAs) and associated quality characteristics (attributes)

from which the required random samples were selected.

It also

required that a description and justification for hornoeneity be

prepared for each population.

Finally, each population was to have a

list of all final CC accepted safety-related items.

The CPRT

guidelines for establishing homogenous populations were contaired in

the project procedure for ISAP VII.c. Procedure CPP-005, Revision 3.

This procedure required the discipline engineers to review equipment

lists from CPSES in order to subdivide the plant into homogeneous

populations that have been constructed using reasonable horrogeneous-

i

l

work processes. The equipment reviewed was limited to that which was

j

safety related, construction complete and final QC accepted.

The

l

i

equipment would be inspected for attributes selected after a corrplete

I

review of engineering documents pertaining to the individual

populations.

,

The generation of a Population Description, Master Population List,

Population Items List, and a Work Process Memorandum are also

procedurally required along with adequate control of subsequent

revisions to each of these documents.

'

The NRC inspectors reviewed tha following six ISAP VII.c populations;

V

[(Large Bore Supports Rigid, large Bore Supports Nonrigid, Small Bore

l

Pipe Supports, Pipe Welds / Material, Concrete Placement, and Electrical

Cable)

ensure that the homogenous populations were correct and

.

- - - - _ _ -

-

(

,

1

8

s

1

0040.0.0

adequate and that ERC procedures, primarily CPP-005, were being

]

adhered to.

,

\\

]

Large Bore Supports Rigid (LBSR), large Bore _ Supports Nonrigid

j

(1)

(LBSN), and Small Bore Pipe Supports (SBPS),

,

1

.

The NRC inspector's review of these three populations was

performed concurrently because the population descriptions are

j

l

similar except for the population boundaries (large bore rigio,

large bore nonrigid, or small bore) and the Population Items

Lists were all derived from the same source document; the Hanger-

I

.

'

l

installation Tracking System (HITS) list.

-

/

'

,

s

(a)

Population Descriptions

NRC inspection verified that the systems listed by the CPRT ~

for inclusion in these three populations were designated in

Section 17A of the FSAR as safety related, either Safety

Class 1, 2, or 3, and Seismic Category I.

Cross checking

from FSAR Table 17A to the three populations, however,

identifiedthattheChilledWaterSystem(CWS)wasomitted

from the CPRT populations. Subsequent review of the

s

Population Items Lists did reveal that this CWS was included

in the population; it was only inadvertently left off the

The NRC inspector

Pcpulation Description lists of systems.

t

concurred with the listed population boundaries and the

- _ - - _ - _ - _ -

-

,

'

o

0041.0.0

'

s

items not to be_ included within the scope of the

populations. All CPRT sign-offs for review and approval as

7

>

%

well as control and vaulting cf the population descriptions

were performsc per procedure.

l

(b) Master Population List

'

l

NRC inspector review of the original Master Population List

and all subsequent revisions. (one through five) verified

thattheabovethreepopulati$nswereincludedonthelist

<

>

and that review, approval, and control of the documents are

,

per procedure.

1

(c) Population Items List

Each of the three Population Items Lists were derived from

-

.-

..

-

the{ame. Source-document _;;t[e7HITSlist. The CPRT initially

,

'

established the validity and accuracy of the HITS list and

then segregated out the three homogenous pipe support

1

populations (LBSR,LBSN,andSBPS).

To establish validity

and accuracy of the HITS list, the CPRT randomly selected

60 B&R Hanger Location (BRHL) drawings out of the listed

total of 2013 and manually checked to see that all supports

4

listed on the 60 BRHLs were also listed on the HITS list.

To verify the accuracy of the support status listed on the

(

HITS list, 60 supports were re.ndomly selected from the

<

6

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _

.

4

0042.0.0

60 BRHLs and their status individually verified by checking

records in the various vaults and processing areas. This

was required because only final QC accepted pipe supports

were to be reinspected under the VII.c program. No

discrepant conditions were detected by the CPRT.

To assess validity and accuracy of the CPRT verification of

the HITS list, the NRC inspector selected 10 out of the

60 BRHLs that the CPRT had reviewed, and verified that all

supports shown on the BRHLs were included on the HITS list.

To further assess the HITS list, ten additional BRHLs not *

..

l

selected by the CPRT were selected by the NRC inspector and

l

checked against the HITS list for support inclusion.

These

ten BRHLs were selected such that a wide variety of

!

safety-related systems were included in the review.

Finally, the NRC inspector reviewed the support status of

,,

10 of the 60 supports that the CPRT had verified by

?

j[9idtct d> ,

..

researching the various records in the various vault

locations.

(d) Work Process Memoranda

.

Revision 3 to Procedure CPP-005 dated May 28, 1986, required

all ISAP VII.c populations to have a Work Process

Memorandum. This memorandum was to identify safety-related

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_

_ - _ _ -- --_ ,

.

-

,

.

,

0043.0.0-

h-

l

construction work processes and attributes that can be

Reinspected and/or ver'ified by document review.

j

l

.

t

j

,

~

,

'

During this report period, the Work Proc 0ss Memoranda were

v 3

~

in the final draft stages; therefore, they will be reviewed

at a later date. This is an open item pending completion of

the Work, Process Memoranda (445/8702-0-01: 446/8702-0-01).

O

.

(e) Revisi ns

]

NRC review of all revisions to the Master Population Listi

,

Populat?on Descriptions, and the Population Items L"ist for

the three populations revealed'that the criteria' of

Section5.5ofProcedureCPP-0UPwere~beingadheredtoas

i

.

far as sign-offs for review and approval,' and control and

,

!

thaultinooftheLubsequentrevisions

'

.

,

'

~

3

.

"

,

't

_

to violatidono*r deviations were identified.

h

1

,

.%

l

(2) Pipe Welds /Matefial (PIWM)

,

'

, :3

'-

4

s

!

This population was created by combining the two populations

1

a

.

which were previously titled Largg* Bore Pipe Welds /Materiale

%.

(LBWM) and Small Bore Pipe WeldssNaterial (SBWM).

In addition to

'

,'s"

n

.

this combination, mechanical equipment," site-made, pressure

'

>

'

l

r

,

t-

.e4

5

-

y,

g

'

s1

,

1

4

g

'g

.4

\\'

.

0044.0.0

boundary welds were added to the PlWM population, and tubing

welds were organized into a separate pcpulation (TUWM).

(a) Population Description

NRC inspection verified that the systems listed by the CPRT

for inclusion in this population were designated in

Section 17A of the FSAR as safety related, either Safety

Class 1, 2, or 3, and Seismic Category I.

In reviewing

Table 17A, bewever, it was observed that the Boron Thermal

Regeneration System, Combustible Gas Control System, Post -

'

Accident Sample System, and the Plant Gas System were.not

i

listed in the CPRT Population Description, though they

should have been.

Subsequent review of the Population items

List, however, verified that these systems were included in

the population; they were, apparently. inadvertently left

, ,

out of the Population Description.

The hRC inspector cor. curs with the population boundaries,

items not included in the population, and specific

interfaces as listed in the Population Description.

.

(b) Master Population List

.

NRC review of the original Master Population List and all

subsequent revisions (one through five) verified that this

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _

4

.

0045.0.0

,

population was included on the list and that review,

approval, and control of the documents were per procedure.

(c)

Population Items List

The source document for the Population Items List was the

B&R Comanche Peak Craig Computer Tracking System (CCTS)

i

Report WEC-C-WE-REPORT issued June 12, 1985. This report

was a computer sort listirg all safety-related and QC'

accepted large and small bore pipe welds and instrument

tubing welds. The weld was considered QC accepted when

-

,

construction was complete and inspection holdpoints had been

accepted by QC as documented by QC signatures on the B&R

Weld Data Card (WDC).

.

)

1he WEC-C-WE-REPORT included a total of approximately 66,000

.

safety-related and construction-complete site-made welds.

]

To establish validity of the source document, the CPRT

performed the following reviews:

(1) Verified that the 591 site-made welds listed on the

ASME III N-5 Data Repor.t Index for the Unit 1 Auxiliary

Feed Water system were on the Population Items List.

i

____

_

___._________________m___

_ _ _

_ _ _ _ . _ _

_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _

__ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

_ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ .

.

0046.0.0

I

l

(2) Reviewed all 26 Unit 1 BRP drawings for tie Residual

l

Heat Removal system and 26 randomly Folmeted Unit 2 BRP

l

drawings were listed on the Population items List.

l

f

(3) A review of 675 WDCs from several Unit 2 systems for

instrument piping welds was performed ano all welds'

were included.

(4) A review of the construction complete (C/I) status of

I

the source document and the review showed that most of

thedieselgenerator(Unit 1andUnit2)pipesite-made

,

welds had not been assigned a complete / incomplete

status under the C/I column. These welds were added to

l

I

the source document to complete the Population Items

j

l

List.

!

I

l

!

.

The NRC inspector initially compared the systems listed in

FSAR Table 17-A to the source document to assure

!

consistency. Next, the NRC inspector randomly selected

i

23 BRP drawings for Unit 1 and Unit 2 not previously

selected by the CPRT and verified that the 416 site-made

welds were included on the Population Items List. No

4

omissions were noted,

j

l

1

.

0047.0.0

To further verify accuracy of the CPRT approach,10 of the

52 BRP drawings reviewed t'y the CPRT were compared to the

source document.

No discrepancies were found.

,

(d) Work Process Memorandum

Revision 3 to Procedure CPP-005 dated May 28, 1986, required

all ISAP VII.c populations to have a Work Process

Herrorandum. This memorandum was to identify safety-related

construction work processes and attributes that could be

reinspected and/or verified by document review.

-

'

The Work Process Memorandum for PIWM was in draft form;

therefore, it will be reviewed at a later time. This is

another part of open item (445/8702-0-01; 446/8702-0-01).

.

(e) Revisions

NRC review of all revisions to the Master Population List.

Population Descriptions and the Population-Items List for

the PIWM population revealed that the criteria of

Section 5.5 of Procedure CPP-005 were followed.

No vio'.etions or deviations were identified.

,

(3) Concrete Placement (CONC)

_

i

.

0048.0.0

I

The concrete placement population contained 7617 concrete pours

l

identified on a computer printout generated by B&R from concrete

!

pour cards.

)

l

(a) Population Descriptions

l

The NRC inspector reviewed ERC document QA/QC-RT-328,

Revision 0, " Population Description for Concrete Placement."

The population boundary included all Categcry I concrete

construction that had been completed and approved as of

August 1, 1985. The Category 1 structures were listed in'

i

1

Attachment A of the Population Description.

The NRC

inspector verified that Attachment A agrees with the FSAR,

Section 3.2.1.1.1, which also lists Category 1 structures.

AsubsequentreviewofthePopulationItemsList(seebelow)

verified that the list contained concrete pours from each of ,

j

,

the Category 1 structures listed in Attachment A.

The NRC

inspector concurred with the population boundary and the

items not included within the scope of the population. The

CPRT review and approval as well as the filing of the

Population Description were performed per Procedure CPP-005.

.

(b) Master Population List

NRC review of the Master Population List, Revision 5,

,

verified that the concrete placement population was included

.

0049.0.0

on the list.

Review, approval, and control of the Master

Population List was per Procedure CPP-005.

(c)

Population Items List

The NRC inspector reviewed ERC document 0A/QC-RT-1628,

Revision 1, " Population Items List Concrete Placement." The

population source was a 254 page computer printcut generated

)

{

from individual concrete pour cards by B&R. 1his list

j

i

included the ennerete pour number, date poured and a brief

'

description of the area poured for each of the 7617 concrete

,

pours in the population.

According to this document, the

population list " . . . includes all safety-related concrete

l

pours in Unit 1, 2 and areas conrnon to both units."

Attachment 6.3 of ERC Procedure CPP-005, Revision 3, states, .

in part, "The Responsible QA/QC Discipline Engineer . . .

Provides the basis for accepting the list as valio."

In

addition, "The QA/QC Lead Discipline Engineer and the QA/QC

l

'

Engineering Supervisor review Population Items Lists to

ensure that they are complete, accurate, and consistent with

the requirements of this procedure." ERC stated on the

i

Population Items List that the following three steps were

taken to validate the list:

1

)

-

i

0050.0.0

1

1)

Twenty arbitrarily chosen pour numbers identified on

B&R drawings were found to be on the population list.

)

2)

An arbitrary selection of concrete pours from

Inspection Report Logs were reviewed against the

population list and no discrepancies were identified.

3)

A review of the population list confirmed that no time

gaps were apparent in the pour dates.

The NRC inspector reviewed the steps taken by ERC to

-

,

validate the population list for concrete placement. Only

)

l

step 1 above was documented.

A handwritten, unsigne.1 and

undated memo describes the 20 concrete pours (10 from the

,

random sample and 10 from the safe shutdown sample) that

were verified by ERC to be on the population list. This

. .

represents only 0.26% of the total population of 7617. The

NRC inspector verified that the 20 concrete pours selected

1

by ERC were on the population list.

j

The NRC inspector prepared a randomly selected list of

134 concrete pours from 17 B&R drawings and compared this

]

q

list with the Population Items List to determine if the

1

134 concrete pours were included.

The following

j

discrepancies were discovered:

i

.

9

i

0051.0.0

1)

Pour Nos. 205-9810-039 through 205-9810-056 are shown

as block-out type pours in the east diesel generator

l

foundation, Unit 2, on Crawing 558-20655, Sheet 1,

l

Revision 5.

Pour Nos. 205-9810-040 and 205-9810-048

through 205-9810-056 were not on the Population Items

List and no corresponding pour cards could be obtained

in the TU Electric records center.

Pour

Nos. 205-9810-039 and 205-9810-041 through 205-9810-047

were assigned on drawings at least twice and are shown,

for exaniple, on Drawings 558-20605, Sheet 1,

f

Revision 7, and 5S8-20618, Sheet 1, Revision 2, to be-

i

concrete curbs, removable slabs, etc.; not block-outs.

Pour Nos. 205-9810-039 and 205-9810-041.through

205-9810-047 were on the Population Items List.

They

did not, however, represent the block-out pours in the

diesel generator foundation as determined by checking

, ,

the concrete pour cards.

The NRC inspector verified by

field inspections that the block-out pours had been

ir.s talled.

2)

Pour No. 205-4822-003 is shown as a shielding wall for

the Primary Sampling room on Drawings $58-20605,

~

Sheet 4A, Revision 0, and SSB-20605, Sheet 4,

Revision O.

This pour number was not on the Population

Items List.

A pour card for this pour was located in

the TV Electric Records Center. The NRC inspector

1

l

.

'

i

0052.0.0

)

i

!

J

verified by field inspection thet the shielding wall

'

had been installed.

.

The above discrepancies indicate that the Population Items

List is not entirely complete and accurate and does not

include ". . . all safety-related concrete pours in

Unit 1, 2 and areas common to both units," as stated. The

ERC review of the Population Items List to ensure accuracy

and completeness was inadequate. This is a deviation

I

f

(445/8702-D-02;446/8702-D-02).

a

I

(d) Work Process Memorandum

j

1

P.evision 3 to Procedure CPP-005 dated May 28, 1906, required

all ISAP VII.c populations to have a Work Process

i

Memorandum.

This memorandum was to identify safety-related

_

construction work processes and attributes that could be

i

reinspected and/or verified by document review.

]

The Work Process Memorandum for concrete placement was in

draft form; therefore, it will be reviewed at a later time.

This is another part of opencitem (445/8702-0-01;

446/8702-0-01).

'

(e)

Revisions

.

l

1

_ _ _ - - _ _ ___ __

- _ __ _

.

.'

0053.0.0

NRC review of all revisions to the Master Population List,

Population Descriptions and the Population Items List for

the concrete placement' population revealed that the criteria-

of Section 5.5 of Procedure CPP-005 were followed.

No other violations or deviations were identified.

(4) Electrical Populations

.

The NRC inspector reviewed the Population Items List

docurrentation for each of the electrical populations to determine

,

which sources were used to develop the population and the basis

for the CPRT determination that th'e developed popu.lation was

accurate.

The NRC inspector found that the conduit, cable, cable tray,

, ,

electrical equipment and NIS cable termination (CDUT, CABL, CATY,

EEIN, and NIST) population lists were generated'using the

TV Electric Electrical Management System (EMS) as a source.

EMS

was a computerized cable and raceway schedule developed by site

personnel to track the status of Unit 1. Unit 2, and Common

i

cables and raceways.

Cable and receway changes authorized by

designchangeauthorizations'(DCAs)wereenteredintoEMSona

daily basis. The EMS then provided a printout of these daily

changes on a Daily Activities Report.

Since EMS was neither a

required document nor controlled by procedures, the previous EMS

,

_

.

. _ .

n

i

.

l

0054.0.0

1

revisions and Daily Activity Reports had not been retained as

permanent plant records.

The NRC inspector observed that copies

i

of the EMS printouts which had been used by ERC for population

list development, were retained in the QA/QC Review Team fi?es in

the CPRT document control center.

I

The electrical cable (CABL) population was selected for a more

detailed NRC inspection to evaluate the implementation of the

appropriate precedures for establishing and accepting the

population.

l

.

,

(a) Population Description

I

The NRC inspector's review of the Population Description for

cables identified that the population was to include all

Class 1E, safety-related power, control and instrument

l

, ,

cables.

The population boundary for samples selected for

reinspection / documentation reviews was restricted to those

cables which had been installed, terminated on both ends and

QC accepted.

Excluded from the population were electrical

l

conductor seal assemblies, NIS cable connectors, and

unscheduled lighting (except for separation barrier material

inspections).

These three groups were excluded from the

cable population because they were included in other

t

populations.

The NRC inspector concurred with the

population boundary and the items not included within the

i

.

0055.0.0

scope of the population. The CPRT review and approval as

i

well as the filing of the Population D3scription was

performed per Procedure CPP-005.

l

(b) Master Popula' tion List

!

NRC review of the Master Population List, Revision 5,

verified that the electrical cable population was included

i

on the list.

Review, approval, and control of the Master

Population List was per Procedure CPP-005.

- )

!

-

1

,

1

(c) Population Items List

!

f

A comparison of the items documented in the Cable Population

l

Items List to the items required by CPP-005 was perforrred.

The list was divided into three parts: Population List

, ,

Source; Basis for Accepting the List; and Basis for

Accepting any Additional Items. The NRC inspector

determined that the provided information met the

requirements of CPP-005.

~

The Population List Source contained the listing and

description of the documents used to develop the listing of

applicable electrical cables.

The sources referenced were

'

the EMS cable report (ELE SAFETY RPT) dated June 17, 1985,

and the Gibbs & Hill (G&H) Lighting Panel Schedule, Drawings

l

.

'

i

0056.0.0

2323-El-0942-01 through -05 and E2-0942-01 through -03.

NRC

inspector review of these documents disclosso that Drawing

2323-E2-0942-03 does not exist.

The NRC inspector then

reviewed the file applicable to the Basis for Accepting the

List.

While no problems were identified with this file, the

NRC inspector questioned how the EPS was validated es a

complete source of applicable electrical cables. The NRC

inspector was informed that the QA/QC discipline engineer

responsible for the cable population had selected 30 cables

j

'

aach from the raceway schedules for Unit 1 and Unit 2

u

(2323-El-1700 and 2323-E2-1700) and then compared these

-

i

cables to the EMS listing he had used.

The NRC inspector

noted that the population included cables whi.ch were

deleted, spared, not yet QC accepted, not yet installed, and

those which may not be accessible, and that the validation

process was not a procedurally required formal process nor

, ,

was it documented.

The NRC inspector determined, however,

that the requirements of CPP-005 had been fulfilled in

,

i

establishing this population.

In an effort to evaluate the acceptability of the cable

population (which containedi ver 14,000 cables) the NRC

o

inspector chose an arbitrary sample of affected cables.

'l

Between 1 and 6 cables from each safety-related plant system

f

!

from the Unit I and the Unit 2 raceway schedules and

$

14 cables from the unscheduled lighting panel drawings were

I

.

I

0057.0.0

selected. This resulted in a sample which contained

i

125 cables from 55 systems in Unit I and 122 cables from

51 systems in tinit 2.

These cables were then compared to

the cable population list obtained from the QA/QC Review

Team Records Control Vault to provide assurance that the

population list used by ERC was complete.

The comparison of

l

these lists produced the following findings:

1)

The list of Essential and Emergency Lighting cables was

}

rot in the file,

,

'

i

l

2)

Pages 813 and 814 of the EMS listing were missing from

i

the file,

i

3)

Cable E0000425 was not included in the file list, and

4)

Cable E0135036 was shewn as EG135036 in the file list.

f

The NRC inspector then determined that: a copy of the list

of Essential and Emergency Lighting cables was available in

the electrical conduit population files; the missing EMS

pages were available from working copies; DCAs 18,100

and 10.547 authorized a designation change for cable

E0000425 to A0000425; and the improper separation train

designation (G vs. 0) for cable E0135036 was a data entry

error.

The NRC inspector found that the population list was

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ - _ _

.

4

0058.0.0

acceptable. However, the condition of the record files net

being complete as evidenced by 1) and 2) above is a

deviation from ERC Procedure CPP-004, " Project Working

Files," Revision 2, dated December 17, 1985 (445/8702-D-03;

446/8702-0-03).

(d) Work Process Memorandum

Pevision 3 to Procedure CPP-005 dated May 28, 1986,' required

all ISAP VII.c populations to have a Work Process

Memorandum. This memorandum was to identify safety-related

.

i

I

construction work processes and attributes that could be

reinspected and/or verified by document review.

)

The Work Process Memorandum for cable was only in draft

form; therefore, it will be reviewed at a 16ter date. This

.

is another part of open item (445/8702-0-01; 446/8702-0-01).

(e) Revisions

NRC review of all revisions to the Master Population List,

Population Descriptions and the Population Items List for

the cable population revealed that the criteria of

Section 5.5 of Procedure CPP-005 were followed.

.

.. _ . ..

. .

..

.

_.

.

..

. .

1

'

l

!

0059.0.0

No violations or deviations other than as discussed in (c),

above, were identified.

b.

Reinspection of HVAC Equipment Installation (HVIN)

'

l

Status of CPRT Activity

l

A total of 181 HVAC equipment packages were randomly selected and

inspected from a population of 604 packages representing Units 1,

2 and common. A total of 331 DRs were written with 187 determined to

be valid.

ERC has completed all planned HVAC equipment installation'

i

reinspection.

,

Status of NRC Inspection Activity

The NRC inspector reviewed the HVIN population with respect to HVAC

,

fire dampers and their inclusion in the population. The NRC inspector

identified that approximately 30% of the first and second sample were

fire dampers that were statused as " Abandoned In Place." This raised

a question with respect to the inclusion of nonsafety-related

eouipment in the population.

This was discussed with the population

engineer who provided the following inf'ormation.

Fire dampers are not

required for a safe shutdown but were included in the HVIN population

as an accessory connection and were reinspected to verify proper-

mounting and bolting, but not operability.

A visual inspection was

1

!

J

.- D

.

- --

-

_ _ _ _ _ _ ,

I

,

.

0060.0.0

l

also performed for configuration. This information was subsequently

l

included in a letter to file No. QA/QC-RT-5584 dated February 2,1987.

The NRC inspector found this to be consistent with ISAP VII.c

regarding population items list development.

The NRC inspector has previously witnessed four inspections and

performed five inspections, with no further inspection activity

planned for this population.

1

No violations or deviations were identified.

1

.

,

5.

ISAP Sample Selection Process

'

The purpose of this NP.C inspection was to determine whether the methods

used to select items and related documentation for reinspection or review

was performed in accordance with the requirements of the CPRT Program Plan, .

Appendix 0, Revisions 0 and 1 "CPRT Sampling Policy Applications and

Guidelines." Appendix D prescribes the various applications of sampling

within the CPRT program and defines guidelines for selecting samples

whenever random sampling techniques are used in ISAPs and Design Specific

ActionPlans(DSAPs).

This inspection was restricted to the review of ISAP

sample selections. The scope of the inspection covered electrical,

mechanical and piping, QA/QC, and the Quality of Construction ISAPs.

The

preoperational and testing ISAP sample selection was reviewed in a previous

inspection with results documented in NRC Region IV Inspection Report

50-445/85-18; 50-446/85-15.

Another activity previously inspected by the

(

i

l

<

l

0061.0.0

l

NRC fur compliance to Appendix D was the ERC Overview Inspection Program's

'

sample selection.

Results of this inspection were documented in NRC

]

Region IV Inspection Report 50-445/86-22; 50-446/86-20.

!

l

The NRC approach used to review ISAP documentation and the inspection of

)

samples selected was: (1) to review the requirements identified in

1

Appendix 0 and the applicable procedures, and (2) to verify implementation

)

1

of the sample selection prccess by comparing the samples selected to the

i

controlling commitments.

Samples were then reviewed to assure that: rancom

number selection and item number calculations were correct; items

'

identified for inspection had a valid sample number and a random number

assignment; errors in the selection of items for inspection had been

resolved; departures from the sampling process had been identified;

1

populations were clearly defined and segregated; acoitional sampling

,

required to achieve minimum sample size (based on population size increase)

was correct and documented; expansion of sample size, based on identified

~

hardware deficiencies, conformed to requirements; and the sample selection

l

1

process w6s suitably documented to provide an auditable trail,

j

l

1

Of the 19 external source issue ISAPs considered for inspection,

'

5 completed and 1 inprocess ISAP were inspected.

From ISAP VII.c, 5 of

31 inprocess populations were inspected.

The following are the results of

this NRC inspection.

a.

QA/QC ISAPs

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

. _ _ .

- _ ,

,

.

,

0062.0.0

,

l

i

!

(1)

ISAP VII.a.2:

Nonconformance and Corrective Action (inprocess).

j

J

I

This ISAP contained six populations, each requiring a separate

sample selection that would provide a 95/5 screen to detect

,

l

programmatic or systematic deficiencies.

(The 95/5 screen or

sampling plan provides a 95% confidence that not more than a

j

i

5% deficiency rate exists in the sampled population.) Of the six

l

1

populations, the sample selection for NCRs covering the years

1975 to 1977 was reviewed by the NRC inspector. Twenty-one of

)

1

the sixty-three selected samples were examined.

No errors were

'

.

noted in random number calculations or sample item identification

from the population item list.

It was determined, based on the

NRC inspection, that the NCR sample selection conformed to

l

Appendix D requirements.

!

. ,

(2)

ISAP VII.b.2:

Valve Disassembly (complete).

!

,

i

During the NRC's inspection of VII.b.2, no errors in the 95/S

t

sampling plan were found.

The NRC inspector reviewed 21 of the

111 sample selections and found them to conform to Appendix D;

ERC's implementing Procedure QAI-002, Revision 2, " Sample

Selection"; and CPP-006, " Sample Selection." Prior to completion

and issuance of the VII.b.2 Results Report (RR) on March 19,

1986, ERC's QA/QC surveillance group and the Results Report

,

Review Conmittee's (RRRC) review of sample selection identified

j

_ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _

._

_ _ _

1

.

0063.0.0

i

errors in the selection process.

Corrective action by the ISAP

j

1

issue coordinator included revising the Random Sample

Identification List and performing additional hardware

reinspection.

j

i

l

b.

Electrical ISAPs

(1)

ISAP 1.a.1:

Heat Shrinkable Insulation Sleeves (Revision 1 of

the RR issued December 30,1986).

The NRC inspected 13 of the 111 samples selected for this ISAP.-

,

1

,

From the CPRT reinspection of the initial 60 items randomly

i

selected, provid'ng a 95/5 sampling plan, one was considered to

)

!

be a defect requiring sample expansion.

As required by

Appendix D of the CPRT Program Plan, the sample was expanded by

an additional 35 randomly selected items.

Four of the additional

!

,

thirty-five samples were found to be invalid and were deleted

because they represented locations that did not use heat

shrinkable insulation sleeves.

To reach the required expanded

1

I

sample size, seven addit 1onal items were selected. Thus, the

)

i

total valid samples selected by CPRT for reinspection was 98;

)

i

however, during implementation ofcISAP I.a.2, " Inspection Reports

l

on Butt Splices," 146 items were discovered th6t had been

inadvertently excluded from the original heat-shrinkable

insulation sleeve population.

Proportional sampling was used on

this additional population by selecting 12 of the 146.

The CPRT

I

____-_-_a

.

i

0064.0.0

advisor on engineering statistics approved the use of this

proportional sampling which was not addressed in Appendix D of

the CPRT Program Plan.

Due to errors in the calculation of the random numbers, one item

that should have been inspected in the additional 35 items

selected had been omitted.

This item was, however, inspected and

is referenced in the working files as the " missed sample." With

the inspection of the " missed sample," the total number of valid

randomly selected items inspected was brought to 111 (the initial

98,12fromproportionalsampling,andtheone"missedsample").

i

Based on the review of sample selection documentation, detailed

inspection of 13 sample selections, and a review of other

sampling activities associated with this ISAP, the NRC inspector

determined that the 1.a.1 sample selection process confomed to

.

Appendix D.

(2)

ISAP I.a.4:

Agreement Between Drawings and Field Terminations

(Revision 2 of the RR, issued July 23,1986).

Of all the ISAPs and VII.c populations using random sampling,

this ISAP used a 95/1 screen instead of 95/5.

Both screening

techniques are addressed in Appendix 0, Table 1.

As with

ISAP I.a.1, additional population items were discovered during

ISAP implementation.

Proportional sampling was again used and

1

$

j

'

0065.0.0

<

approved by the ERC engineering statistics advisor. Based on a

review of sample selection documentation and verifying in detail

the selection process (38 out of 383 selected items), the NRC

inspector determined that I.e.4 sampling conformed to Appendix D.

j

c.

Mechanical ISAPs:

l

(1)

ISAP V.a:

Inspection for Certain Types of Skewed Welds in NF

Supports (iiiiissuedOctober..

._

l

22, 1986) C

I

The NRC inspector examined in detail 16 of the 60 samples

~

,

se'lected and found sample selection conformed to Appendix D;

however, three documentation inconsistencies were.noted between

the Random Sample Identification List (RSIL) and ERC Procedure

QI-006, Attachment 6.5, Revision 2.

Listed on Attachment 6.5

4

were the 60 hangers inspected by ERC as taken from the RSIL.

The ,

inconsistency was not with the actual unique hanger number, but

l

with the alphanumeric suffix character which indicates the type

i

of hanger; i.e., A-anchor, S-spring, R-rigid, or K-snubber.

,

Three hanger types were incorrectly coded as "K" instead of "R".

l

4

The suffix characters also identify building, elevation, and code

I

class.

From reviewing the actual packages inspected, the NRC

i

irspector verified that the correct hangers were selected and

j

i

inspected.

The ISAP V.a issue coordinator is in the prccess of

i

correcting the documentation inconsistencies identified by the

i

NRC.

t

i

I

)

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

____

$

.

0066.0.0

-

-.

J

(2)

ISAP V.d:

Plug Welds (Revision 1 of the RR, issued December 18,

h)'.

This ISAP contained four populations.

Sample selection for each

population was based on the 95/5 screen.

The NRC inspector

examined 67 of the 750 sample selections from the 4 populations.

Eleven errors were found by the NRC inspector involving random

number calculations and item selections.

It should be noted that

prior to the issuance of the RR (Revision 1), the statistical

advisor reviewed 100% of this ISAP's sample selection.

Based on

this review,14 of the 250 samples had been identified with the-

,

same type errors that the NRC inspector had identified.

These

14 errors included the 11 errors found by this NRC. inspection.

The scope of the statistical advisor's review of sample selection

is further discussed in paragraph e. below.

Based on results

,

I

obtained from ERC inspections, plug weld testing, and bounding

,

analysis performed by Ebasco, the statistical advisor determined

the errors found in the sample selection did not impact

inspection results nor was there a need to reopen the inspection

program. Since the errors resulted in a different item being

inspected and the statistical advisor's determination that the

sampling process was not compromised, it was not necessary for

these errors to be corrected.- This conclusion was supported by

referenced documentation which was found in the RR working file.

.

- _ _ _

_-

_.

i

.

'

.

0067.0.0

l

d.

ISAP VII.c:

Construction Reinspection / Documentation Review Plan

!

1

(inprocess).

'

I

This ISAP is unique because the VII.c work activities are divided into

32 homogenous populations. On completion of all work activities, a

summary RR will be issued.

Details of reinspection and document

j

reviews performed will be addressed as appendices to the summary RR.

At the time of this NRC inspection., the RR and associated appendices

were in their draft form and subject to various CPRT inprocess

I

reviews; e.g., RP,RC, ERC engineering assurance and QA.

.

Thirty-one of the thirty-two populations used statistical random

sample selection with the 95/5 screen.

The NRC inspector examined

sample selections fer 5 of the 31 populations that used statistical

sampling.

From these 5 populations, 154 of the 502 sample items

selected were inspected for compliance to Appendix D of the CPRT

q

,

Program Plan and ERC Procedure CPP-006, Revision 3, " Sample

Selection." Procedure CPP-006 was more prescriptive than Appendix D

i

in that it provided ERC personnel with details for implementing the

j

i

requirements for sample selection.

The five populations inspected by

!

I

the NRC were: Cable Tray, Nuclear Instrument System Cable Termination,

!

'

Electrical Equipment Installation, Instrumentation Equipment

Installation, and Large Bore Piping Configuration.

l

!

Typical errors encountered were calculation of random sample number,

I

i

use of duplicate random numbers; incorrect population item used;

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

---

_

'

i

s

'

>

'

0068.0.0

'

3

1

'

deviations from Appendix D not adequately documented; selection of

>

items related to safe shutdown; and numbering of inspection work

x

7,

packages.

The potenc.ial impact of these errors was that not all items

in a given homogenous population had an equal chance of being selected

fer reinspection review.

Problems encountered that were not

'

(

s

deviations from Appendix D or CPP-006 but made vtH fication of sample

selection difficult were; inadequate guidance for proportional

,t

l

sampling which was necessary when increases in population sizes were

j .

j

required methcdofnumberingPopulationItemLists;andinadequate

guidance for the resolution of problems encounter d during sample

selection.

These errors and problems are

rther iscussed below.

-

,

x

'

e.

Sample Selection Review by the SRT

j

The statistical advisor to the CPRT has conducted and is continuing to

I

conduct reviews of ISAP sample selection.

By direction of the SRT,

the statistical advisor was required to conduct reviews of those ISAPs

and VII.c. populations using sample selection to assure conformance tc

Appendix D.

This requirement was delineated in CPRT' memorandum

CPRT-138 dated December 3, 1985, which the statistical advisor stated

is being implemented by a 100% review of the semple selection process

forallISAPsandVII.cpopulationsutilizingstatistjcalsampling.

To date, the statistical advisor has reviewed 100% of the samph

selection process for 9 cf 22 ISAPs and 19 of the 31 VII.c.

populations using statistical san:pling.

1

,.

!

3

o

'

4

f

-s

q

0069.0.0

\\

!

A checklist was developed and used by the statistical advisor to

\\

'l

perform the reviews and to document the findings and actions required.

,

On complet%n of the' review, the issue coordinator or population

s

[

engineer was given a copy of the checklist.

Each finding and the

i

actions required were discussed with the audited group. A formal

tracking mechanism to verify comhletion of actions required had not,

'

as yet, beer. ceveloped or implemented.

From interviews with the

statistical advisor, a formal procedure and tracking system will be

I

J

devekped and implemented to assure actions required are completed in

3

a timely manner. This activity will be followed by the NRC as an open

'

s

\\

item (445/67C2-0-04; 446/8702+-0-04).

-

,

Each of the errors and problems fcund by the NRC inspector had been

identified ar.o occumented by the statistical advisor.

i

t

ToassurethatnoRRispublishedwyth'cpensampleselectionerrors,

, ,

the RRRC revised its working file check ' list on February 17, 1987, to

require all open sampling errors identified against a RR be resolved

,

prior to RRRC approval of the working file and submittal of the RR to

I

the SRT.

)

f

,

f.

ERC's Review of ISAP brd VII.c Sample Selection

\\

(1) Engineering Assurance:

1

,

- _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ -

i

,

.

0070.0.0

I

l

,

ERC has established an engineering assurance (EA) group to

i

perform final review and assembly of records and supporting

documentation (working file) required for ISAP VII.c prior to

turnover to the CPRT central file. This effort h overred by

,

Procedure CPP-026, Revision 0, " Final Review of ISAP VII.c

l

Working Files." EA had perfonned an initial review of VII.c

sample selection during July and August 1986. A written

checklist was used to direct the review and document findings for

follow-up. Several items remain open.

It should be noted that

l

during the EA initial review of sample selection not all sample

selections were finalized.

Work was still inprocess to develop-

,

and complete some populations and perform sample selections.

The

final review by EA for sample selection was scheduled to start in

February 1987, but was contingent on Population Rancom Selection

Identification Lists being completed and approved.

(2) Quality Assurance:

The QA surveillance group had perfortned indepth reviews of sample

selection during surveillance of inprocess activities on ISAPs.

For example, in ISAP VII.b.2, a number of errors were detected by

QA prior to completion ano publication of the RR. The noted

errors were corrected and reviewed by QA for adequacy.

Surveillance report II CS06 documented QA's review of

VII.b.2 sample selection.

Rather than perform a 100% review of

l

,

_.

,

_

_---_ _ _

%Q

^

.

u,

,

.

~

-

,.

c

~.

.

p

A

,

s. ., ,

t[

0071.0.0

h.

%

s

EA work, QA will review the EA ISAP V!I.c work on a sampling

,

'[

_

basis to assure the proc #s t conformed to procedural requirements.

<

-

%

N,

',.

% s.

,

In addition to surveillance of ISAP sample selection, the ERC QA

audit group had perfo*wed two programmatic audits of the sampling

process as documer[fid in ERC audit reports ERC-P6-05 and

ERC-86-06.

No findings were noted in those audit reports.

.

,

'

l

g.

Overview Qualfty Tecm (00T)

s1

.

,

'

' Baseheninteviewswith0QT,thesampleselectionprocessforseveral

3

ISAPshavebeenoverviewedenacase-by-casebasis;howeser,nc

.

indepth prograrratic review of ISAP sample selection was scheduled.

t$e responsibility for ISAP sample selection verification had been

placed with the CPRT statistical aavisor and the RRRC.

!

In sumrtary, of the 50 action plans using sample selection (19 external

- '

s

l

issue ISAPs and 31 VII.c populations), the NRC inspected 11 for conformance

to Appendix D.

From khe 11 action plans, 330 of the 1480 sample .selectione

were examined for erhors by the NRC inspector.

Foi those action plans

l

inspected, the sample selection efforts were found to conform to

s

' ppendix D.f Those errors in the sampling process that were identified by

A

.

-

the NRC inspector had also been identified by the CPRT statistical advisor

_

ar.d action to correct or (Ts(osition the errors had either been taken or

'

was being taken.

i

s -,

g

.s

i

'

p

%

'r

t.

s

t

A,

t

,-

t-

1

1 g

\\ I iv

.__ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _

.,

e'

0072.0.0

At present, the statistical advisor does not have a system to verify the

completion of action required to correct or disposition idertified errors.

I

A comitment has been made to develop and implement such a system. This

comitment will be followed as a NRC open item.

>

No violations or deviations were identified.

l

6.

Exit Interview

Exit interviews were conducted February 10, 1987, ard March 3, 1987, with

the applicant's representatives identified in paragraph 1 of Appendix C of.

l

.

this report. During these interviews, the NRC inspectors sumarized the

scope and findings of the inspection. The applicant acknowl. edged the

findings.

..

.

k.

ML20236M401: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 22:46, 22 May 2025

Text

Navigation menu

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 =Text=
-{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . .                          . _ _ _ _
+{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . .
-                                '
+. _ _ _ _
-                                                                                                     '
+_
-                                                                                                                                                                                     h/A S7&&
+h/A S7&& Y'
-                                                                                                                                                                                                       Y'
+'
-                                                                                                                                    _
+'
-                                                                                                                                                                    ,
-                                                            '
-                                                                                                                                     e
-                                                     .' .     ; ..             ,      , . -
-                                                                                                                                                               e
-                                                                            .       .,      ,          l
 ,
-l                                                  -                                   .      ...
+'
+e
+.' .
+; ..
+,
+, . -
+e
+l
+,
+,
+.
+.,
+l
+-
+.
+...
 !
-    y                               ,       u , ,,; ~ y .p ..                 +r
+-
-                                                                                                   -
+s e - ~- m-n yg-- : rn, -
-                                                                                                            s e - ~-     m-n yg-- : rn, -                    -
+-
-                                                                                                         -
+u , ,,; ~ y .p ..
++r
+y
+,
 l
-    .
+.
-                                                                                                                      U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY            COMMIS$10N -        RE0viRED DE Liv ERv O AYE
+-
-l   (                  NRC FORM 420 '                                                                                                               "'"
+l
-l   I'                 (6 82)
+(
-                                                                                                                             '
+NRC FORM 420 '
-                                                                                                                                  .
+U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N -
-g {                   NacM 0255                                           REQUEST FOR PREMlUM COST MAIL SERVICE
+RE0viRED DE Liv ERv O AYE
-                                                                                                                                                I
+"'"
-/17/87
+l
-                                                                                                                                                                                 ~
+I'
-    [               FROM:g                                                          IPgE             ER l                     {ORbAN          BON (Of fice. 06 vision, Brang
+(6 82)
-                     rn o...t uavic...ou reo l l ExPnESS                                                   l l ,R iO R ir y                  l l PRiv ATE DELivERv l IOTsER
+.
-l   [
+/17/87
-    -
-                     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLE
-    I                                                                      Draft Inspection Report                                                                      x
-    i                          MF."^f4?i fli&47'Chfef, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coeurfssi$it Parkway Central
-                                                "
-    ;                               Plaza Building, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000. Arlington, Texas 76011
-                     JUSTIFICATION F OR SE RVICE REQUESTE D
-                                                                           Draft Report Corrections                                                                                         "
-                                                                                                                           ai                                                lDA
-      ,
-                       seevice egtseicaYiom gigv
-                                                                               .e in. o
-                                                                                 ,,    g<,g.;,ge,og..,i . ze.. .
-                                                                                                            ,       ,       j to ine ceacuci .* e"=i.i ov=aa'
 '
-    ?.'
+NacM 0255
-                       "' "95;"ZX /,1
+REQUEST FOR PREMlUM COST MAIL SERVICE
-                      SIGN ATU R E-Oi                    C    R
+I
-                                                                                                           '"%. %n                                                           l D ATE
+g {
-                                                                                                                                                                                      '' 8 '
+~
-                                                                           '[ !                 A           lORG
+ER l
-                                                                                                               DeputyANIZATION
+{ORbAN
-                                                                                                                           Direct                  (Offhi r[' ivision)DD/CEP           b 39
+BON (Of fice. 06 vision, Brang
-!     '
+[
-                                          P. F.                                                                                          ,
+FROM:g
+IPgE
+rn o...t uavic...ou reo l l ExPnESS
+l l ,R iO R ir y
+l l PRiv ATE DELivERv l IOTsER
+l
+[
+-
+BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLE
+I
+Draft Inspection Report
+x
+MF."^f4?i fli&47'Chfef, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coeurfssi$it Parkway Central
+i
+"
+;
+Plaza Building, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000. Arlington, Texas 76011
+JUSTIFICATION F OR SE RVICE REQUESTE D
+Draft Report Corrections
+,
+seevice egtseicaYiom gigv
+g<,g.;,ge,og..,i . ze.. .
+j to ine ceacuci .* e"=i.i ov=aa'
+lDA
+"
+.e in. o
+ai
+,,
 ,
-                           RETAIN THE REQUESTER COPY, AND M All THE BLUE COPY TO: CHIEF,M All AND MESSENGER BRANCH, FOS, ADM. FOR Mall ROOM USE ONLY.
+,
-                       APPROVE D-M AIL AND MESSENGE R AUTsORIZE D OF FICI AL                                                                                                  lDATE
+?. "' "95;"ZX /,1
+'"%. %n
+'' 8 '
+l D ATE
+b
+lORG ANIZATION (Offhi r[' ivision)DD/CEP
+'[ !
+'
+SIGN ATU R E-Oi
+C
+R
+'
+Deputy Direct
+!
+A
+P. F.
+'
+,
+RETAIN THE REQUESTER COPY, AND M All THE BLUE COPY TO: CHIEF,M All AND MESSENGER BRANCH, FOS, ADM. FOR Mall ROOM USE ONLY.
+,
+lDATE
 l
+APPROVE D-M AIL AND MESSENGE R AUTsORIZE D OF FICI AL
 l
+l CALL NUMBER
 l
-                      VENOOM                                                                                                                  l CALL NUMBER
+VENOOM
-                                         Odl                                                                                                      W.2 3 9 gy /
+Odl
-                       OATE Sy/IPE9                                l SIGN ATURE
+W.2 3 9 gy /
-                                          Wil./5 7                          6/,L kb d.lb
+l SIGN ATURE
-       .,
+Wil./5 7
-                                                                                                              REQUESTER CCfY
+/,L kb d.lb
-                                                                                                                                                                      f
+OATE Sy/IPE9
-  .                                                                                                                                                                   .
+.,
-                                                                                                                 -
+REQUESTER CCfY
-                                                                                              '
+f
-                                                                                                                                         -
+.
-                                                                                         .
+.
-                                                                                                                                                                                   ,
+-
-                                                                                                                                       _
+'
-                                                                                                                                       I
+-
-                                                           ..                         *-          ,
+.
-                                                       ~
+,
-                                              -
+_
-                                                                                                                                           i        l- -               ,
+I
+*-
-                                                                                                                                                                        t
+..
-                                                                                                                                                                       I
+,
-                                                                                                                                                                       t
+~
-                                                                                                                                                                       !
+-
-                                        8708110050 870007
+i
-                                        PDR FDIA                              P'DR
+l- -
-                                        BAUMAN87-446                                                         ,
+,
+t
+I
+t
+8708110050 870007
+!
+PDR
+FDIA
+P'DR
+BAUMAN87-446
+,
-    -_______ _ _ _ _ _
+-_______ _ _ _ _ _
-                       <
+[]
-                                                                                                              []
+<
-  o
+o
 .0.0
-                         In Reply Refer To:
+In Reply Refer To:
-                                                                                                                 l
+l
+Dockets:
+-445/87-02
 '
-                         Dockets:   50-445/87-02
+-446/87-02
--446/87-02
+{
-                                                                                                                 {
+TV Electric
-                         TV Electric
+ATTN:
-                         ATTN:   Mr. W. G. Counsil
+Mr. W. G. Counsil
-                                 Executive Vice President                                                        l
+Executive Vice President
+l
+l
 '
-                                                                                                                 l
+North Olive Street, L.B. El
-North Olive Street, L.B. El
+Dallas, Texas
-                         Dallas, Texas    75201
-                                                                                                          .
+.
-     '
+I
-                                                                                                                 I
+'
-                                                                                                                 i
+i
-                         Gentlemen:                                                                              1
+Gentlemen:
-                         This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. I. Barnes and other members of
-                         the Regicn I" Comanche Peak Group curing the period January 1 through                   l
+This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. I. Barnes and other members of
-                         February 28, 1987, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits            .
+the Regicn I" Comanche Peak Group curing the period January 1 through
-                         CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peek Steam Electric Station, Units 1
+l
-                         and 2, and to the respective discussions of our findings with you and other
+February 28, 1987, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits
-                         members of your staff during and at the conclusion of the inspection.                   l
+.
-                         Arees examined during the inspection were principally Comanche Peak Response
+CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peek Steam Electric Station, Units 1
-                         Team activities.    Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective
+and 2, and to the respective discussions of our findings with you and other
-                         examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with
+members of your staff during and at the conclusion of the inspection.
-                         personnel, and observations by the inspectors.    These findings are docu.nented
+l
-                         in the enclosed inspection report.
+Arees examined during the inspection were principally Comanche Peak Response
+Team activities.
+Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective
+examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with
+personnel, and observations by the inspectors.
+These findings are docu.nented
+in the enclosed inspection report.
-                                                                                      - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .     ____
+- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
-       '
+____
-   -
+'
-                                                                                                                  \
+\\
-                                                                                                                  l
+-
-.0.0
-                                                                                                                 ]
-         During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities appeared
-         to deviate from commitments made to the NRC.     These items and references to the
-         comitments are identified in the enclosed Notice of Deviation.      You are
-         requested to respond to these deviations in writing.     Your response should be
-         based on the specifics contained in the Notice of Deviation enclosed with this
-,        letter.                                                                                                 1
 l
-                                                                                                                 I
+.0.0
+]
+During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities appeared
+to deviate from commitments made to the NRC.
+These items and references to the
+comitments are identified in the enclosed Notice of Deviation.
+You are
+requested to respond to these deviations in writing.
+Your response should be
+based on the specifics contained in the Notice of Deviation enclosed with this
+letter.
+,
 l
-         We have also examined actions you have taken with regard to previously                                   j
+I
-i                                                                                                                 !
-         identified inspection findings.   The status of these items is identified in                              i
+l
+We have also examined actions you have taken with regard to previously
+j
+i
+!
+identified inspection findings.
+The status of these items is identified in
+i
 il
-l        paragraph 2 of the enclosed report.
+l
+paragraph 2 of the enclosed report.
+i
+l
+-
+,
+The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not
+l
+l
+subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
+required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
+l
+!
+.
 i
-l                                                                                                       -
+!
-     ,
+I
+i
-         The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not                                l
+!
-                                                                                                                   l
+l
-         subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
+l
+!
-         required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.                                             l
+i
-                                                                                                                 !
+,
-                                                                                                          .
-                                                                                                                 i
-                                                                                                                 !
-                                                                                                                 I
-                                                                                                                 i
-                                                                                                                 !
-                                                                                                                 l
-                                                                                                                 l
-                                                                                                                 !
-                                                                                                                 i
-                                                                                                                 ,
-                                                                                            !
+!
-      .
+.
-  .
+.
 .0.0
-        TU Electric                              -2-
+TU Electric
-        Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to
+-2-
-        discuss them with you,
+Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to
+discuss them with you,
+i
+Sincerely,
+l
 i
-                                                  Sincerely,
+-
-                                                                                            l
+,
-                                                                                            i
+E. H. Johnson, Director
-                                                                                        -
+Division of Reactor Safety and Frojects
-    ,
+Enclosures:
-                                                  E. H. Johnson, Director
+.
-                                                  Division of Reactor Safety and Frojects
+Appendix A - Notice of Deviation
-        Enclosures:
+.
-.    Appendix A - Notice of Deviation
+.
-                                                                                          .
+Appendix B - NRC Comanche Peak Response Team Activities Inspection
-.    Appendix B - NRC Comanche Peak Response Team Activities Inspection
+Report
-                Report                                                                      )
+)
-                                                                                            l
+l
 -445/67-02
 -446/87-02
-        CC:
+CC:
-        TV Electric
+TV Electric
-        ATTN:   G. S. Keeley, Manager,
+ATTN:
-                Nuclear Licensing
+G. S. Keeley, Manager,
-        Skyway Tower
+Nuclear Licensing
-North Olive Street
+Skyway Tower
-        Lock Box 81
+North Olive Street
-        Dallas, Texas 75201
+Lock Box 81
-                                                                   _
+Dallas, Texas 75201
-           ,
+,
-       .
-.0.0
-             Juanita Ellis
-             President - CASE
-South Polk Street
-             Dallas, Texas    75224
-                                                            !
-             Renea Hicks
-             Assistant Attorney General
-             Environmental Protection Division
- <           P.O. Box 12548
-l            Austin, Texas    78711-2548
 .
-                                                        .
+.0.0
-         h
+Juanita Ellis
-                                                            I
+President - CASE
-                                                            l
+South Polk Street
-                                                             l
+Dallas, Texas
-                                                             f
-                                                          .
+Renea Hicks
-                                                             i
+!
-______
+Assistant Attorney General
+Environmental Protection Division
+P.O. Box 12548
+<
+l
+Austin, Texas
+-2548
+.
+.
+h
+I
+l
+l
+f
+.
+i
-  - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _         .
+- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
-                            .
+.
-            '
+.
-                                                                               \
+\\
-.0.0
+'
-                              TV Electric                             -3-
+.0.0
-                              Administrative Judge Peter Bloch
+TV Electric
-                              U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
+-3-
-                              Washington, D.C. 20555
+Administrative Judge Peter Bloch
-                              Elizabeth B. Johnson
+U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-                              Administrative Judge
+Washington, D.C.
-                              Oak Ridge National Laboratory
-                              P.O. Box X, Building 3500
+Elizabeth B. Johnson
-!                             Cak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
+Administrative Judge
+Oak Ridge National Laboratory
+P.O. Box X, Building 3500
+!
+Cak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
 l
-l                             Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom                          l
 l
-West Knapp
+Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom
+l
+l
+West Knapp
 '
-                              Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075
+Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075
-l                             Dr. Walter H. Jordan
+l
-Outer Drive
+Dr. Walter H. Jordan
+Outer Drive
+Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
 '
-                              Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
+~
-                                                                           ~
+i
-                i
+Anthony Roisman, Esq.
-                              Anthony Roisman, Esq.
+Executive Director
-                              Executive Director
+Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
-                              Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
+P. Street, N.W., Suite 611
-P. Street, N.W., Suite 611
+Washington, D.C.
-                              Washington, D.C.   20036
-                              Texas Radiation Control Program Director
+Texas Radiation Control Program Director
-                                                                             .
+.
-                                                                  i
+i
-      .
+.
-  .
+.
-.0.0                      i
+i
-         bec to DMB (IE01)
+.0.0
-         bec distrib. by RIV:
+bec to DMB (IE01)
-         *RFB                            * MIS System
+bec distrib. by RIV:
-         *RRI-OPS                        *RSTS Operator
+*RFB
-         *RRI-CONS                       *R&SPB
+* MIS System
-         *T. F. Westerman, RSB             DRSP                    ,
+*RRI-OPS
-          V.7.N00r,dn . -NRft---           R. Martin, RA           l
+*RSTS Operator
-        -S -Trebyr ELD --               *RSB
+*RRI-CONS
-        *RIV File                         J. Taylor IE
+*R&SPB
-        *D. Weiss , LFMB ( AR-2015)      4.= Konkt s n;11E=-.
+*T. F. Westerman, RSB
-        *I.    Barnes, CPG
+DRSP
-        *w/766
+,
-                                                                   l
+V.7 00r,dn . -NRft---
-                                                                   .
+R. Martin, RA
+l
+.N
+-S -Trebyr ELD --
+*RSB
+*RIV File
+J. Taylor IE
+*D. Weiss , LFMB ( AR-2015)
+.= Konkt s n;11E=-.
+*I. Barnes, CPG
+*w/766
+l
+.
 t
-                                                              .
+.
-    I
+I
-                                                                .
+.
-  .
+.
 .0.0
-                                                                                                             l
-                                            APPENDIX A                                                       !
-                                                                                                             ;
-                                        NOTICE OF DEVIATION
-                                                                                                              l
-      TU Electric                                              Dockets:   50-445/87-02
--446/87-02
-      Comenche Peak Steam Electric Station,                    Permits: CPPR-126
-      Units 1 erd 2                                                       CPPR-127
 l
-                                                                                             -
+APPENDIX A
-    '
+!
+;
+NOTICE OF DEVIATION
 l
-      Based'on the results of an NRC inspection conducted on January 1 through
+TU Electric
+Dockets:
+-445/87-02
+-446/87-02
+Comenche Peak Steam Electric Station,
+Permits: CPPR-126
+Units 1 erd 2
+CPPR-127
+l
+-
+l
+'
+Based'on the results of an NRC inspection conducted on January 1 through
+,
+February 28, 1987, two deviations from commitments were identified. The
+deviations consisted of several concrete pours not being identified on the
+Population Items List and documents missing from the Issue-Specific Action Plan
+(ISAP) VII.c project files.
+In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy
+.
+anc Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C (1986),
+the deviations are listed below:
+A.
+ERC document QA/QC-RT-1628, Revision 1, " Population Items List Concrete
+Placement." states, in part, that the list ". . . includes all
+safety-related concrete pours in Unit 1, 2 and areas common to both units."
+Attachment 6.3 of ERC Procedure CPP-005, Revisicn 3, states, in part, "The
+responsible QA/QC Discipline Engineer . . . Provides the basis for
+accepting the list as valid."
+In addition, "The QA/0C Lead Discipline
+Engineer and the OA/QC Engineering Supervir,ar review Population Items Lists
 ,
-      February 28, 1987, two deviations from commitments were identified. The
+.-..._..-__.__--___._._..___Q
-      deviations consisted of several concrete pours not being identified on the
-      Population Items List and documents missing from the Issue-Specific Action Plan
-      (ISAP) VII.c project files.   In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy
-                                                                                                     .
-      anc Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C (1986),
-      the deviations are listed below:
-      A.   ERC document QA/QC-RT-1628, Revision 1, " Population Items List Concrete
-           Placement." states, in part, that the list ". . . includes all
-           safety-related concrete pours in Unit 1, 2 and areas common to both units."
-           Attachment 6.3 of ERC Procedure CPP-005, Revisicn 3, states, in part, "The
-           responsible QA/QC Discipline Engineer . . . Provides the basis for
-           accepting the list as valid."    In addition, "The QA/0C Lead Discipline
-           Engineer and the OA/QC Engineering Supervir,ar review Population Items Lists
-                                                                                                             ,
-                                                                               .-..._..-__.__--___._._..___Q
-                                                                                                                                                         i
+i
-                                                                                                                                                          I
+I
-                                                   .
+.
-                                                                                                                                                         i
+i
-  .
+.
-                                                                                                         0008.0.0
+.0.0
 l
 l
-                                                                           to ensure that they are complete, accurate, and consistent with the
+to ensure that they are complete, accurate, and consistent with the
-                                                                           requirements of this procedure."                                               .
+requirements of this procedure."
-                                                                                                                                                         I
+.
-                                                                           In deviation from the above, NRC inspection of the Population Items List
+I
-                                                                           for concrete placement revealed the followino discrepancies:                   l
+In deviation from the above, NRC inspection of the Population Items List
-                                                                                                                                                          l
+for concrete placement revealed the followino discrepancies:
-.   Pour Nos. 205-9810-039 through 205-9810-056 are shown as block-out
+l
-                                                                                type pours in the east diesel generator foundation, Unit 2, on Drawing
+l
+.
+Pour Nos. 205-9810-039 through 205-9810-056 are shown as block-out
+type pours in the east diesel generator foundation, Unit 2, on Drawing
 i
-                                                                                SSB-20655, Sheet 1, Revision 5.    Pour hos. 205-9810-040 and
+SSB-20655, Sheet 1, Revision 5.
+Pour hos. 205-9810-040 and
+-9810-048 through 205-9810-056 were not on the Population Items
 j
--9810-048 through 205-9810-056 were not on the Population Items
+List and no corresponding pour cards could be obtained in the TV
-                    ,
+-
-                                                                                List and no corresponding pour cards could be obtained in the TV     -
+,
-                                                                                Electric Records Center.   Pour hos. 205-9810-039 and 205-9810-041
+Electric Records Center.
-                                                                                through 205-9810-047 were on the Population Items List but were
+Pour hos. 205-9810-039 and 205-9810-041
-                                                                                assigned on drawings at least twice and are shown, for example, on
+through 205-9810-047 were on the Population Items List but were
-                                                                                Drawings 55B-20605, Sheet 1, Revision 7, and 55B-20618, Sheet 1,
+assigned on drawings at least twice and are shown, for example, on
-                                                                                Revision 2 to be concrete curbs, removable slabs, etc.; not
+Drawings 55B-20605, Sheet 1, Revision 7, and 55B-20618, Sheet 1,
-                                                                                                                                                       .
+Revision 2 to be concrete curbs, removable slabs, etc.; not
-                                                                                block-outs.
+.
-.   Pcur No. 205-4822-003 is shown as a shielding wall for the Primary
+block-outs.
-                                                                                Sampling room on Drawings SSB-20605, Sheet 4A, Revision 0, and
+.
-                                                                                SSB-20605, Sheet 4, Revision 0.    This pour number was not on the
+Pcur No. 205-4822-003 is shown as a shielding wall for the Primary
-                                                                                Population Items List.
+Sampling room on Drawings SSB-20605, Sheet 4A, Revision 0, and
-                                                                           The above discrepancies indicate that the Population Items List is not
+SSB-20605, Sheet 4, Revision 0.
-                                                                           entirely complete and accurate and does not include all safety-related
+This pour number was not on the
-   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
+Population Items List.
+The above discrepancies indicate that the Population Items List is not
+entirely complete and accurate and does not include all safety-related
+_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
-                                                                                           _
+_
-    .
 .
-.0.0
+.
-                                                                                             !
+.0.0
-           concrete pours.    The ERC review of the Population Items List to ensure
+!
-                                                                                             l
+The ERC review of the Population Items List to ensure
-           accuracy and completeness was inadequate (445/8702-0-02; 446/8702-D-02).          l
+concrete pours.
-                                                                                             '
+l
-      B.   Section 5.3.1 of Revision 2 to ERC Procedure CPP-004, " Project Working
+accuracy and completeness was inadequate (445/8702-0-02; 446/8702-D-02).
-           Files " dated December 17, 1985, for ISAP VII.c states, in part, "The
+l
-           Records Administrator shall review each document received for filing fer
+Section 5.3.1 of Revision 2 to ERC Procedure CPP-004, " Project Working
-                                                                                             j
+'
-            physical quality (e.g., reproducibility, legibility, condition) and                !
+B.
-                                                                                             l
+Files " dated December 17, 1985, for ISAP VII.c states, in part, "The
-            completeness (e.g., number, file location, sequence of attachments, etc.)."
+Records Administrator shall review each document received for filing fer
-                                                                                             !
+physical quality (e.g., reproducibility, legibility, condition) and
-            In deviation from the above, NRC inspection of the Population Items List
+j
-  "         for electrical cable, revealed that the records administrator failed to -
+!
-            identify that pages 813 and 814 of the Electrical Management System cable
+l
-                                                                                              I
+completeness (e.g., number, file location, sequence of attachments, etc.)."
-            population listing and the list of Essential and Emergency Lighting
+!
-            circuits were missing from the cable population listing (445/8702-D-03;
+In deviation from the above, NRC inspection of the Population Items List
-/8702-D-03).
+for electrical cable, revealed that the records administrator failed to -
-                                                                                         .
+"
-       TO Electric is hereby requested to submit to this office within 30 days ot' the
+identify that pages 813 and 814 of the Electrical Management System cable
-       date of the letter transmitting this Notice, a written statement or explanation
+I
-       in reply, including for each deviation:     (1) the reasons for the deviations if
+population listing and the list of Essential and Emergency Lighting
-       admitted, (2) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results
+circuits were missing from the cable population listing (445/8702-D-03;
-       achieved, (3) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further devi6tions,
+/8702-D-03).
-       and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is
+.
-       shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
+TO Electric is hereby requested to submit to this office within 30 days ot' the
+date of the letter transmitting this Notice, a written statement or explanation
+in reply, including for each deviation:
+(1) the reasons for the deviations if
+admitted, (2) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results
+achieved, (3) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further devi6tions,
+and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is
+shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
-  - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _                   __    _
+- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _
-                          .
+__
-                 .
+_
-.0.0
+.
-                            Dated at Arlington, Texas
+.
-                            this _, day of            . 1987
+.0.0
-                                                                            !
+Dated at Arlington, Texas
-                                                                            I
+this _, day of
+. 1987
+!
+I
 f
 I
-                                                                        e
+e
-                        i
+i
-                                                                      t
+t
-                                                                            i
+i
-      .
+.
-  .
+.
 .0.0
-                                             APPENDIX B
+APPENDIX B
-                   NPC COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM ACTIVITIES INSPECTION REPORT
+NPC COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM ACTIVITIES INSPECTION REPORT
-                                U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-                                               REGION IV
+REGION IV
-        NRC Inspection Report:   50-445/87-02                    Permits: CPPR-126
+NRC Inspection Report:
--446/87-02                              CPPR-127
+-445/87-02
-    ,   Dockets: 50-445                                          Category: A2           -
+Permits: CPPR-126
--446
+-446/87-02
+CPPR-127
+Dockets: 50-445
+Category: A2
+-
+,
+-446
 .
-                                                                 Construction Permit                 j
+Construction Permit
-                                                                 Expiration Dates:
+j
-                                                                 Unit 1: August 1, 1988     , ,
+Expiration Dates:
-                                                                 Unit 2: August 1, 1987
+Unit 1: August 1, 1988
-        Applic6nt: .TV Electric
+, ,
-                     Skyway Tower
+Unit 2: August 1, 1987
-North Olive Street
+Applic6nt: .TV Electric
-                     Lock Box 81                                                                     i
+Skyway Tower
-                     Dallas, Texas     75201
+North Olive Street
-        Facility Name:   Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),
+Lock Box 81
-                         Units 1 & 2
+i
-        Inspection At:   Glen Rcse, Texas
+Dallas, Texas
-        Inspection Conducted: Jariuary 1 thrcugh February 28, 1987
-                                                                                 ______________-__-_a
+Facility Name:
+Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),
+Units 1 & 2
+Inspection At:
+Glen Rcse, Texas
+Inspection Conducted: Jariuary 1 thrcugh February 28, 1987
+______________-__-_a
-      ,                                                                                                       ~.]       1
+~.]
-  .
-                                                                      '
+,
-                                                                                       ,
+j
-                                                                                              .:               j
+'
-                                                                                                     ,,
+.:
-.0.0
+.
-                                                                                          i
+,
-                                                                                   "
+,,
-                                                                                            <
+.0.0
-         Inspectors:                                                                                        ,,
+i
-                     L. E. Ellershaw, Reactor Inspector, Region IV
+"
-                         CPSES Group
+<
-                                                                                  Date        /                   '
+Inspectors:
-                                                                                                 ',
+,,
-                         (paragraphs 2.a-h, 2.j-n, 2.p, 2.u, 3.b, 4.a. and 4.b)
+L. E. Ellershaw, Reactor Inspector, Region IV
-                                                                                            s                    j '4
+Date
-                                                                                                                         l
+/
-                                                                                                                         l
+'
-                                                                                                                      ,
+CPSES Group
-                                                                                                                        j
+(paragraphs 2.a-h, 2.j-n, 2.p, 2.u, 3.b, 4.a. and 4.b)
-                     C. J. Hule, Reactor Inspector, Region IV.                   Date
+',
-                         CPSES Group
+j '4
-                         (paragraphs 2.1, 2.c, 2.s-t, 3.a 3.c, and 5)                     '
+s
-                                                                                                    '+
-                                                                                                        ,
-                                                                                                      .
-                                                                                                          :
-                     E Wagner, Reactor Inspector, Region IV                      Date
-                        CPSES Group
-                         (paragraphs 2.q-r and 4.a)
-                                                                                                '
-    ,
-                                                          s
-        Consultants:
 l
-                       EG&GA.  - J. Dale (paragraphs
+l
-                                  Maughan   (paragraphs 2.a.
+,
-.q-r2.d-h,
+j
-                                                               and 4.a2.j ,)2.1-n, and d.b)
+C. J. Hule, Reactor Inspector, Region IV.
-                               W. Richins (paragraphs 2.p and 4.a)
+Date
-                               V. Wenczel (paragraph 5.)
+CPSES Group
-                       Parameter - J. Birmingham (paragraphs 2.i, 2.0, 2.s-t, 3.a. and'
+(paragraphs 2.1, 2.c, 2.s-t, 3.a
-.c)                                                                             >
+.c, and 5)
+'
+'+
+,
+.
+:
+E Wagner, Reactor Inspector, Region IV
+Date
+CPSES Group
+(paragraphs 2.q-r and 4.a)
+'
+,
+s
+EG&G - J. Dale (paragraphs 2.a. 2.d-h, 2.j ,)2.1-n, and d.b)
+Consultants:
+A. Maughan (paragraphs 2.q-r and 4.a
+l
+W. Richins (paragraphs 2.p and 4.a)
+V. Wenczel (paragraph 5.)
+Parameter - J. Birmingham (paragraphs 2.i, 2.0, 2.s-t, 3.a. and'
+>
+.c)
+K. Graham (paragraphs 2.b-c, 2.k. 2.u, and 3.b)
+- '
 <
-                                     K. Graham (paragraphs 2.b-c, 2.k. 2.u, and 3.b)                         - '
+D. Jew (paragraph 4.a)
-                                     D. Jew (paragraph 4.a)
+,
-                                                               ,
+c
-                                                                 c
+Feviewed By:
-        Feviewed By:                                                                                                *
+*
-                       R. L. Spessard, Deputy Director Division of               Date
+R. L. Spessard, Deputy Director Division of
-                           Inspection Programs, Office of,. Inspection and Enforcement
+Date
-        Approved:
+Inspection Programs, Office of,. Inspection and Enforcement
-                       I. Barnes, Chief, Region IV CPS $5 Group                   Date-
+Approved:
-                                                             %
+I. Barnes, Chief, Region IV CPS $5 Group
-        Inspection Sumary
+Date-
-                                                                           t\
+%
-                                                                                                                         l
+Inspection Sumary
+t\\
-                                                                                                                        j
+l
+j
-                                                     .
+~7-
-      ~7-                                                                                          q
+.
-      n
+q
-             ,
+n
-     ..
+,
+..
-                                                     \
-.0.0
+\\
-                                                       '
+.0.0
-             '
+'
-               ,
+'
-                           i.
+i.
-                                                 -
+,
-                 Inspection Conducted: January 1 through February 28,1987 (Report 50-445/87-02;
+-
--446/87-02)
+Inspection Conducted: January 1 through February 28,1987 (Report 50-445/87-02;
-                              '
+-446/87-02)
-                                                                                                    i
+'
-                                                                                                    l
+i
-                                                                                                    '
+l
-                 Areas Inspected:    Nonroutine, unannounced inspection of applicant actions cr.
+'
-                 p*evious jnspection findipgs, Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Issue-Specific
+Areas Inspected:
-                                            ,
+Nonroutine, unannounced inspection of applicant actions cr.
-                 Action Plans (ISAPs), assessrnent of VII.c populations, and the ISAP sample
+p*evious jnspection findipgs, Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Issue-Specific
-                 selection pr'ocess.
+,
-                                              '
+Action Plans (ISAPs), assessrnent of VII.c populations, and the ISAP sample
-             e
+selection pr'ocess.
-                 Pesults: Within the four areas inspecte.d. two dev1ations (several concrete
+'
-                 pours were not included on the Population Items List, aragraph4.a.[3]: and
+e
-                 documentsmissingfromthe'ISAPVII.cpro.jectfiles, paragraph 4.a.[43)were
+Pesults: Within the four areas inspecte.d. two dev1ations (several concrete
-                                                                                                 -
+pours were not included on the Population Items List, aragraph4.a.[3]: and
-           ,
+documentsmissingfromthe'ISAPVII.cpro.jectfiles, paragraph 4.a.[43)were
-                                                         /.
+-
-                 identified.
+,
+/.
+identified.
 l
 l-
-                                                                                 ,
+,
-       I
+I
-         t
+t
-                                                                                                     l
+l
-                                                                                                     l
+l
-                                                                                                    l
+l
-                                                                                                    !
+!
-                                                                                                    f
+f
-                        \
+\\
-                   ,      \
+\\
-                                '
+,
-                                                                               .
+'
-                                                                               t
+.
-  /.                                                              >
+t
-                                                                     I'rs
+I'r
+/.
+>
+s
 k
-        . - _ _      - - _ _ _ _ _ _
+. - _ _
-      .
+- - _ _ _ _ _ _
-  .
+.
-                                                                                                                         !
+.
-.0.0
+!
+.0.0
-                                                         DETAILS
-.      Persons Contacted
+DETAILS
-                ** J. M. Ayres, Quality Engineering (QE) Supervisor, TU Electric                                         l
+.
-                ***R. P. Baker, Regulatory Compliance Manager, TV Electric
+Persons Contacted
-                ***J. L. Barker, Engineering Assurance Manager, TU Electric
+** J. M. Ayres, Quality Engineering (QE) Supervisor, TU Electric
-                ** J. W. Beck, Vice Frcsident, TU Electric
+l
-                                                                                                                          )
+***R. P. Baker, Regulatory Compliance Manager, TV Electric
-                ** G. L. Bell, Nuclear Licensing, TU Electric                                                             j
+***J. L. Barker, Engineering Assurance Manager, TU Electric
-                    P. Boortz, Engineering Assurance Supervisor, Evaluation Research
+** J. W. Beck, Vice Frcsident, TU Electric
+)
+** G. L. Bell, Nuclear Licensing, TU Electric
+j
+P. Boortz, Engineering Assurance Supervisor, Evaluation Research
+l
 l
 '
-                                                                                                                          l
+Corporation (ERC)
-                                     Corporation (ERC)                                                               -
+-
-                                                                                                                          I
+I
-    ,
+,
+'
+D. Boultan, Pcpulatior. Engineer, EP.C
+D. Boydston, Issue Coordinator, ERC
+** E. J. Brab6 Ion, Deputy Program Mar.eger, CPRT
+l
 '
-                    D. Boultan, Pcpulatior. Engineer, EP.C
+T. Braudt, CPRT, TO Electric
-                    D. Boydston, Issue Coordinator, ERC                                                                  1
+*
+** J. A. Buck, Senior Review Team (SRT), CPRT
-                ** E. J. Brab6 Ion, Deputy Program Mar.eger, CPRT                                                         l
+.
+** F. G. Burgess, CPRT Project Manager, TV Electric
-                                                                                                                          '
-                *   T. Braudt, CPRT, TO Electric
-                ** J. A. Buck, Senior Review Team (SRT), CPRT
-                                                                                                                       .
-                ** F. G. Burgess, CPRT Project Manager, TV Electric
 l
-                    R. E. Camp, Unit 1 Froject Manager, TU Electric
+R. E. Camp, Unit 1 Froject Manager, TU Electric
-                ***W. G. Counsil, Executive Vice President, TU Electric
+***W. G. Counsil, Executive Vice President, TU Electric
-                ***R. D. Delano, Nuclear Licensing Engineer, TV Electric
+***R. D. Delano, Nuclear Licensing Engineer, TV Electric
-                    D. Ferguson, Results P.eport Review Committee Chairman, CPRT
+D. Ferguson, Results P.eport Review Committee Chairman, CPRT
-                ** J. R. Gelzer Issue Coordinator, ERC
+** J. R. Gelzer Issue Coordinator, ERC
-                ** M. R. Gross , Jr. , Staff Member, CPRT
+** M. R. Gross , Jr. , Staff Member, CPRT
-                ** J. Guibert, SRT, CPRT
+** J. Guibert, SRT, CPRT
-                ***P. E. Halstead, Site Quality Control (QC) Manager, TU Electric
+***P. E. Halstead, Site Quality Control (QC) Manager, TU Electric
-                                                                 _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ - - - -
+_ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ - - - -
-                                                                                         l
+l
-      .
+.
-  .
+.
 .0.0
-                                                                                        I
+I
-          **J. Hansel,ReviewTeamLeader(RTL).ERC     .
+**J. Hansel,ReviewTeamLeader(RTL).ERC
-          ***T. L. Heatherly, Regulatory Cornpliance Engineer, TV Electric
+.
-l         ** G. S. Keeley, Nuclear Licensing Manager,~~ TU Electric
+***T. L. Heatherly, Regulatory Cornpliance Engineer, TV Electric
-                                                                                        ]
+l
-          ***J. E. Krechting, Director of Engineer 1 rig, TU Electric
+** G. S. Keeley, Nuclear Licensing Manager,~~ TU Electric
-                                                                                        l
+]
-         *    D. McAfee, Cuality Assurance (Qt.) Manager, TV Electric                  -)
+***J. E. Krechting, Director of Engineer 1 rig, TU Electric
-                                         ,                                               I
+l
-             'J. McNally, Populatiun Engineer, ERC
+D. McAfee, Cuality Assurance (Qt.) Manager, TV Electric
-        *     J, R. r5ffett, Executive Assistant, Engineering & Construction,           J
+-)
-                     'TU hiectric             s
+*
-        ***L.     D. Nace, Vice President, TV ilectric
+,
-                                                  .
+I
-                                                  '
+'J. McNally, Populatiun Engineer, ERC
-        ** W. Nyer,'SRT, CPRT
+J, R. r5ffett, Executive Assistant, Engineering & Construction,
-    i         A. Pattersen, Issue Coordinator Eit                                  '
+J
-,                                                      s                                 j
+*
-(       ***D. M. Reynerson, Unit 2 Project Manager,,10 Electric                          l
+'TU hiectric
+s
+***L.
+D. Nace, Vice President, TV ilectric
+.
+'
+** W. Nyer,'SRT, CPRT
+A. Pattersen, Issue Coordinator Eit
+'
+i
+s
+j
+,
+(
+***D. M. Reynerson, Unit 2 Project Manager,,10 Electric
+l
-              G. W. Ross, Issue Coordinator, ERC
+G. W. Ross, Issue Coordinator, ERC
 :
 !
-        '
+R. K. Sanan Issue Coordinator, TERA
-              R. K. Sanan Issue Coordinator, TERA                                        )
+)
-                                                                                         i
+'
-              J. Schauf, Construction Evaluation Engineering Group Supervisor, ERC
+i
-        ***C. E. Scott, Startup Manager, TU Electric                                 .
+J. Schauf, Construction Evaluation Engineering Group Supervisor, ERC
-        "* J. Smith, Operations Staff TU Electric
+***C. E. Scott, Startup Manager, TU Electric
-        ***M. R. Steeln.an, CPRT Support, TU Electric                                    j
+.
-        ** J. F. Streeter, QA Director, TU Electric
+"* J. Smith, Operations Staff TU Electric
-              J. Tableriou, Population Engineer, ERC
+***M. R. Steeln.an, CPRT Support, TU Electric
-              T: G. Tyler, CPRT P)ogram Director, TV Electric
+j
-              C Vincent, Issue Coordinator, ERC                                          1
+** J. F. Streeter, QA Director, TU Electric
-                         x
+J. Tableriou, Population Engineer, ERC
-              F. Webster, Engineering Statistics Advisor, CPRT
+T: G. Tyler, CPRT P)ogram Director, TV Electric
-        *     D. R. Woodlan, Licensing Supervisur, TU Electric
+C Vincent, Issue Coordinator, ERC
-        ***J. E. Wren, QC Services Supervisor, TU Electric
+x
+F. Webster, Engineering Statistics Advisor, CPRT
+D. R. Woodlan, Licensing Supervisur, TU Electric
+*
+***J. E. Wren, QC Services Supervisor, TU Electric
-                                                                                                                                                           i
+i
-                                          o
+o
-  e
+e
-.0.0                                           i
+.0.0
-                                                                                                                                                           i
+i
-                                                                                                                                                           !
+i
-                                                                          J. E. Young, Issue Coordinator, EPC
+!
-                                                                          P.   2111, QA & Personnel Supervisor, ERC
+J. E. Young, Issue Coordinator, EPC
-                                                                                                                                                           !
+P.
-                                                                                                                                                             )
+, QA & Personnel Supervisor, ERC
-                                                                                                                                                             '
+!
-                                                                      The NRC inspectors also interviewed other applicant employees during this
+)
-                                                                      inspection period.
+The NRC inspectors also interviewed other applicant employees during this
-                                                                         * Denotes personnel pre ent at the February 10, 1987, exit interview.
+'
-                                                                        ** Denotes personnel present at the March 3, 1987, exit interview.
+inspection period.
-                                                                      *** Denotes personnel present at both of the above exit interviews.
+* Denotes personnel pre ent at the February 10, 1987, exit interview.
+** Denotes personnel present at the March 3, 1987, exit interview.
+*** Denotes personnel present at both of the above exit interviews.
 :
-                   ,                                               2. Applicant Actions on Previous Inspection Findings                              -
+Applicant Actions on Previous Inspection Findings
-                                                                      a.     (0 pen) Open Item (446/8513-0-09):   Potenti61 ceviations were
+.
-                                                                             identified by ERC concerning: (1)weldlocation,(2)undersizewelds,
+-
-                                                                             (3) welding not per weld symbol, and (4) violation of minimum thread
+,
-                                                                                                                                                             l
+a.
-                                                                             engagement. These conditions were documented on Deviation Reports         , ,   )
+(0 pen) Open Item (446/8513-0-09):
-                                                                             (DRs) I-S-hVDS-109-DR-1, DR-2, DR-3, and CR-d and incorporated into
+Potenti61 ceviations were
-                                                                                                                                                             i
+identified by ERC concerning: (1)weldlocation,(2)undersizewelds,
-                                                                             Nonconformance Report (NCR) M86-250134X.     This item will remain oper         '
+(3) welding not per weld symbol, and (4) violation of minimum thread
-                                                                             pending disposition of the NCR.
+l
-                                                                       b.     (Closed)OpenItem(445/8513-0-45):       ERC identified the following
+engagement. These conditions were documented on Deviation Reports
-                                                                             conditions to the NRC as subject to evaluation as potential
+)
-                                                                             deviations: (1) clamp bolts did not have locking devices, and
+, ,
-                                                                              (2) paint was identified or. spherical bearings. The NRC inspector
+(DRs) I-S-hVDS-109-DR-1, DR-2, DR-3, and CR-d and incorporated into
-                                                                             verified thet a DR was written for each deviating condition.      The DRs
+i
-                                                                             were subsequently documented on NCR k-23284N. The NCR was
+Nonconformance Report (NCR) M86-250134X.
-   _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
+This item will remain oper
+'
+pending disposition of the NCR.
+b.
+(Closed)OpenItem(445/8513-0-45):
+ERC identified the following
+conditions to the NRC as subject to evaluation as potential
+deviations: (1) clamp bolts did not have locking devices, and
+(2) paint was identified or. spherical bearings. The NRC inspector
+verified thet a DR was written for each deviating condition.
+The DRs
+were subsequently documented on NCR k-23284N. The NCR was
+_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
-                                                                                                     ;
+;
-      .                                                                                              i
+i
-  '
+.
-                                                                                                     i
+'
-t                                                                                                    I
-.0.0
-           dispositionec: "I-S-LBSN-037-DR-1 and 2 are not nonconforming
-           conditiens" for the following reasons: (1) Peint is an acceptable
-           locking device (reference NCR M-23216N R-1) and was verified to exist                     1
-           on threaded connections of the subject support, and (2) paint on the
-           spherical bearings does not impair free gimbaling of the snubber which
-           is the ecceptance criteria defined by QI-QAP-11.1-28, Revision 34.
-           Since it was determined that these conditions are not nonconforming,
-           this item is closed,
-                                                                                                    i
-                                                                                                *
-    i   c. (Closed)OpenItem(44E/P513-0-47):       During an NRC witnessec
 i
-           inspection, ERC icentified the following ccnditions to the NRC
+t
-           inspector as subject to evaluation as pctential deviations:
+I
-           (1) missing locking devices, and (2) dimensional discrepancies were
+.0.0
-           icentified during reinspection of I-S-LBSR-029.        The NRC inspector
+dispositionec: "I-S-LBSN-037-DR-1 and 2 are not nonconforming
-           verified that a DR was written for each deviating condition.                   The DRs ,
+conditiens" for the following reasons: (1) Peint is an acceptable
-           were subsequently doce . anted on NCR M-23135N which was dispositioned:
+locking device (reference NCR M-23216N R-1) and was verified to exist
-           "I-S-LBSR-029 DR-16 2 are not nonconforming conditions" for the
-           following reasons: (1) paint is an acceptable locking device
+on threaded connections of the subject support, and (2) paint on the
-           (reference NCR M-23216N R-1) and was verified to exist on threaded
+spherical bearings does not impair free gimbaling of the snubber which
-           connections of the subject support, and (2) dimensional discrepancies
+is the ecceptance criteria defined by QI-QAP-11.1-28, Revision 34.
-           identified were not a valid deviation. * The note on the drawing
+Since it was determined that these conditions are not nonconforming,
-           stating all dimer.sions plus or minus 1/4" is applicable for base
+this item is closed,
-           plates only; not the location of piping (which was the icentified
+i
-           diirensionally aiscrepant condition).
+c.
-                                                              _ _ _ _ ._-__-____ - _- _ -
+(Closed)OpenItem(44E/P513-0-47):
+During an NRC witnessec
+*
+i
+i
+inspection, ERC icentified the following ccnditions to the NRC
+inspector as subject to evaluation as pctential deviations:
+(1) missing locking devices, and (2) dimensional discrepancies were
+icentified during reinspection of I-S-LBSR-029.
+The NRC inspector
+verified that a DR was written for each deviating condition.
+The DRs
+,
+were subsequently doce . anted on NCR M-23135N which was dispositioned:
+"I-S-LBSR-029 DR-16 2 are not nonconforming conditions" for the
+following reasons: (1) paint is an acceptable locking device
+(reference NCR M-23216N R-1) and was verified to exist on threaded
+connections of the subject support, and (2) dimensional discrepancies
+identified were not a valid deviation. * The note on the drawing
+stating all dimer.sions plus or minus 1/4" is applicable for base
+plates only; not the location of piping (which was the icentified
+diirensionally aiscrepant condition).
+_ _ _ _ ._-__-____ - _- _ -
-      ,
+,
-                                                                                         -
+-
 .0.0
-                                                                                         i
+i
-            Since these conditions were determined to be not nonconforming, this
+Since these conditions were determined to be not nonconforming, this
-            item is closed.
+item is closed.
-                                                   Potential deviations were               l
+l
-        d.  (0 pen)OpenItem(445/8514-0-15):
+d.
-            identified by the ERC inspector concerning a missing color cooe and
+(0 pen)OpenItem(445/8514-0-15):
-'
+Potential deviations were
-            the allowable distance between color code marks was exceeded. These
+identified by the ERC inspector concerning a missing color cooe and
-            were identified on DRs 1-E-IN1ti-066 DR 1 and CR 2 and subsequently on       I
-                                                                                        i
+the allowable distance between color code marks was exceeded. These
-            NCR I-85-102025SX. This populatfori was reinspected at a later date         i
+'
-            for additional attributes and the package designation changed from
+were identified on DRs 1-E-IN1ti-066 DR 1 and CR 2 and subsequently on
-             I-E-ININ-066 to I-E-1NIN-066R. The reinspection generated one
+I
-    -       additional DR, DR I-E-ININ-066R-DR-3, which resulted in the issuance'
+i
-            cf hCR I-86-101916X. This NCR also incorporated the previously
+NCR I-85-102025SX. This populatfori was reinspected at a later date
-             identified NCR. This item will remain open pending disposition of the
+i
-             NCR.
+for additional attributes and the package designation changed from
+I-E-ININ-066 to I-E-1NIN-066R. The reinspection generated one
-        e.   (0 pen)Openitem(445/8514-0-16):       A potential desiation was          ,
+additional DR, DR I-E-ININ-066R-DR-3, which resulted in the issuance'
-             identified by the ERC inspector concerning location of sending Units
+-
--LS-6712 and 1-LS-6717 being reversed on the tank for package
+cf hCR I-86-101916X. This NCR also incorporated the previously
-              I-E-ININ-069. This was subsequently identified on DR
+identified NCR. This item will remain open pending disposition of the
-              I-E-ININ-069-DR-1, and NCR I-85-101890SX. Because of added
+NCR.
-              attributes, this population was reinspected and the NCR superseded by
-              i;CR I-86-101915X. This item will rema'in open pending disposition of
+(0 pen)Openitem(445/8514-0-16):
-              the NCP.
+A potential desiation was
-                                                                                           !
+,
-         f.    (C1csed) Open Item (445/8514-0-24):    A potential deviation was
+e.
-               identified by the ERC 1rispector concerning a missing nameplate and an
+identified by the ERC inspector concerning location of sending Units
-                                                                                           l
+-LS-6712 and 1-LS-6717 being reversed on the tank for package
+I-E-ININ-069. This was subsequently identified on DR
+I-E-ININ-069-DR-1, and NCR I-85-101890SX. Because of added
+attributes, this population was reinspected and the NCR superseded by
+i;CR I-86-101915X. This item will rema'in open pending disposition of
+the NCP.
+!
+f.
+(C1csed) Open Item (445/8514-0-24):
+A potential deviation was
+identified by the ERC 1rispector concerning a missing nameplate and an
+l
 t
-                                                                                       !
+!
-    .
+l
-                                                                                        l
+.
-  .
+.
 .0,0
-                                                                                        I
+I
-                                                                                        l
+l
-          actuator spring that could not be located on 1-H-HVIN-043. A                 J
+actuator spring that could not be located on 1-H-HVIN-043. A
-                                                                                       I
+J
-                                                                                       i
+I
-          subsequent inspection located the nameplate anc identified the fact           !
+subsequent inspection located the nameplate anc identified the fact
-          that the damper is a fail-safe damper and does not require a spring.         !
+i
-                                                                                        l
+!
-                                                                                       J
+that the damper is a fail-safe damper and does not require a spring.
-          This item is closed.                                                          l
+!
+l
-           (0 pen)Openitem(445/8514-0-28): A potential deviation was                   j
+J
-                                                                                 )
+This item is closed.
-           identified by ERC concerning an undersize horizontal brace. This             j
+l
-                                                                                       l
-          condition was identified in DR I-S-HVDS-023-DR-4 and incorporated into       j
+(0 pen)Openitem(445/8514-0-28): A potential deviation was
+j
+)
+identified by ERC concerning an undersize horizontal brace. This
+j
+l
+condition was identified in DR I-S-HVDS-023-DR-4 and incorporated into
+j
+hCR M-86-1003215XRI. This item will remain open pending disposition
+J
 ,
-           hCR M-86-1003215XRI. This item will remain open pending disposition         J
+)
-                                                                                       )
+of the NCR.
-           of the NCR.
+h.
-      h.    (0 pen) Open Item (445/8514-0-29): A potential deviation was
+(0 pen) Open Item (445/8514-0-29):
-            identified by ERC concerning undersize fillet welds. This condition         f
+A potential deviation was
+identified by ERC concerning undersize fillet welds. This condition
+f
-           was identified in DR I-S-HVDS-041-DR-4 and incorporated into NCR
+was identified in DR I-S-HVDS-041-DR-4 and incorporated into NCR
-            M-85-101991XR2. This item will remain open pending disposition of the       l
+M-85-101991XR2. This item will remain open pending disposition of the
-                                                                                        l
+l
-                                                                                   , ,
+l
-l           NCR.
+l
-       i.    (Closed)OpenItem(445/8516-0-12;446/8513-0-08): The ERC                     l
+NCR.
-             ncnconformance evaluation checklists did not provide for the
+,
-             evaluation of the technical adequacy of NCn dispositions.
+,
-             This ERC CA/QC RTL and the VII.a.2 iss'ue coordinator has stated that
+i.
-             evaluation of the technical adequacy of NCR dispositions is outside
+(Closed)OpenItem(445/8516-0-12;446/8513-0-08): The ERC
-             the scope of ISAP VII.a.2. The applicant has, however, initiated a
+l
-             program (performed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation) to
+ncnconformance evaluation checklists did not provide for the
-             evaluate the disposition of 300 NCRs with use-as-is or repair
+evaluation of the technical adequacy of NCn dispositions.
+This ERC CA/QC RTL and the VII.a.2 iss'ue coordinator has stated that
+evaluation of the technical adequacy of NCR dispositions is outside
+the scope of ISAP VII.a.2. The applicant has, however, initiated a
+program (performed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation) to
+evaluate the disposition of 300 NCRs with use-as-is or repair
+-
+-
+-
 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
-                             ,
+,
-             .
+.
-                                                                                                                 l
+.0.0
-.0.0                                         j
+j
-                                                                                                                ;
+;
-                                     dispositions for technical adequacy. The evaluations assessed the NCR
+dispositions for technical adequacy. The evaluations assessed the NCR
-                                     dispositions to determine: (1) if the disposition fully addressed the       i
+dispositions to determine: (1) if the disposition fully addressed the
-                                                                                                                 !
+i
-                                     nonconformance; (2) if en adequate technical justification was
+nonconformance; (2) if en adequate technical justification was
-                                     provided; and (3) whether the disposition block was correctly               j
+provided; and (3) whether the disposition block was correctly
-                                                                                                                i
+j
-                                     identified.    To provide further assurance, the applicant has decided
+i
-                                     to expand its program to assess the technical adequacy of the               ;
+identified.
-                                                                                                                 i
+To provide further assurance, the applicant has decided
-                                     remaining NCRs with these disposition categories. This activity will       {
+to expand its program to assess the technical adequacy of the
-                                     be overviewed by TERA as an independent third party.     NRC inspectier,
+i
+remaining NCRs with these disposition categories. This activity will
-                                     of this process will be reported in a subsequent inbptction period.
+{
-                                                                                                            *
+be overviewed by TERA as an independent third party.
-                  i               j. (0 pen) Open Item (445/8516-0-15):   Potential deviations were
+NRC inspectier,
-                                     identified by the ERC inspector concerning locknuts missing from clamp     l
-                                     bolts and a bolt hole was incorrectly located. This condition was
+of this process will be reported in a subsequent inbptction period.
-                                     subsequently identified in DRs I-S-0S42-25-DR-1 and CR-2 and
+j.
-                                     incorporated into NCRs M-25216HR1 and P-25338N, respectively.     This
+(0 pen) Open Item (445/8516-0-15):
-                                     item will remain open pending disposition of the NCRs.                   ,
+Potential deviations were
-                                  k. (Closed) Deviation (445/8516-D-35):     The ERC inspector failed to
+*
-                                     record the presence of eristing additional field welds to those
+i
-                                     specified on the drawing for Verification Package I-S-LBSR-041 and did
+identified by the ERC inspector concerning locknuts missing from clamp
-                                                                                                                '
+bolts and a bolt hole was incorrectly located. This condition was
-                                     not provide objective evidence of reinspection. The deviation
+subsequently identified in DRs I-S-0S42-25-DR-1 and CR-2 and
-                                     resulted from inspection personnel not'being able to distinguish
+incorporated into NCRs M-25216HR1 and P-25338N, respectively.
-                                     vendor welds from field welds on vendor supplied components.     ERC
+This
-                                     Qt.ality Instructions (QIs) QI-019, 01-027, and QI-029 were revised to
+item will remain open pending disposition of the NCRs.
-                                     incorporate inspection requirements for these welds. Weld inspections
+,
-                                     performed prior to the procedure change were reviewed and supplemental
+k.
-                                                                                                                 !
+(Closed) Deviation (445/8516-D-35):
-                                                                                                                 l
+The ERC inspector failed to
+record the presence of eristing additional field welds to those
+specified on the drawing for Verification Package I-S-LBSR-041 and did
+'
+not provide objective evidence of reinspection. The deviation
+resulted from inspection personnel not'being able to distinguish
+vendor welds from field welds on vendor supplied components.
+ERC
+Qt.ality Instructions (QIs) QI-019, 01-027, and QI-029 were revised to
+incorporate inspection requirements for these welds. Weld inspections
+performed prior to the procedure change were reviewed and supplemental
-  - - _ _ _ _ -              __ _
+- - _ _ _ _ -
-                   .
+__ _
-               '
+.
+'
+i
+.0.0
+i
+inspection instructions were issued on a case-by-case basis to assure
+compliance with revised procedural requirements.
+The NRC inspector
+reviewed the corrective action taken and concluded that the revised
+instructions should prevent recurrence.
+,
+i
+.
+(0 pen) Open Item (445/8516-0-38):
+Potential deviations were
+!
+identified by ERC concerning: (1)weldsymbolsandlocations,
+i
+(2) undersize welds, aho (3) a Hilti Kwik Bolt embed violation. These
 i
-.0.0
+conditions were documented in DR I-S-HVDS-029-DR-1 and DR-2, and
-                                                                                                      i
+incorporated inte NCR M-85-102014X. This item will remain open
-                        inspection instructions were issued on a case-by-case basis to assure
+'
-                        compliance with revised procedural requirements.      The NRC inspector
+pending disposition of the NCR.
-                        reviewed the corrective action taken and concluded that the revised
+'
-                        instructions should prevent recurrence.
+(0 pen) Open Item (445/8516-0-39):
-                                                                                                      ,
+Potential deviations were
-                                                                                                        i
+m.
-                                                                                                      !
+identified by ERC concerning: (1)incorrectmemberdimensions,
-. (0 pen) Open Item (445/8516-0-38):    Potential deviations were
+(2) incorrect weld configuration, (3) incorrect weld size.
-                        identified by ERC concerning: (1)weldsymbolsandlocations,
+(4) incomplete fusion in welds, and (5) violation of weld undercut
-                                                                                                      i
+.
-                        (2) undersize welds, aho (3) a Hilti Kwik Bolt embed violation. These         i
-                        conditions were documented in DR I-S-HVDS-029-DR-1 and DR-2, and
+criteria. These conditions were documented in DRs I-S-HVDS-089-DR-1,
-                        incorporated inte NCR M-85-102014X. This item will remain open
+DR-2, DR-3 DR-4, DR-5, and DR-6.
-                                                                                                '
+These DRs were then incorporated
-                 '      pending disposition of the NCR.
+into NCR M85-102027X for DR-1 through DR-5 and NCR M86-103774X for
-                     m. (0 pen) Open Item (445/8516-0-39):    Potential deviations were
+DR-6.
-                        identified by ERC concerning: (1)incorrectmemberdimensions,
+This item will remain open pending disposition of the NCRs.
-                         (2) incorrect weld configuration, (3) incorrect weld size.
+(0 pen)OpenItem(445/8516-0-40):
-                         (4) incomplete fusion in welds, and (5) violation of weld undercut         .
+Potential deviations were
+n.
-                        criteria. These conditions were documented in DRs I-S-HVDS-089-DR-1,
+identified by ERC concerning: (1) dimensior. violations, (2) incorrect
-                         DR-2, DR-3 DR-4, DR-5, and DR-6.     These DRs were then incorporated
+ductaimension,(3)incorrectorientation,(4)welaswereundersize,
-                         into NCR M85-102027X for DR-1 through DR-5 and NCR M86-103774X for
+and(5)incorrectweldprofile.
-                         DR-6.    This item will remain open pending disposition of the NCRs.
+These conditions were documented in
-                     n.   (0 pen)OpenItem(445/8516-0-40):      Potential deviations were
+DRs I-S-HVDS-103-DR-1, DR-2, DR-3, DR-4 AND DR-5.
-                         identified by ERC concerning: (1) dimensior. violations, (2) incorrect
+These DRs were then
-                         ductaimension,(3)incorrectorientation,(4)welaswereundersize,
-                         and(5)incorrectweldprofile.         These conditions were documented in
-                          DRs I-S-HVDS-103-DR-1, DR-2, DR-3, DR-4 AND DR-5.     These DRs were then
-                                                                                         l
+l
-                                                                                         '
+'
-      .
+.
-  ,
+,
 .0.0
-            incorporated into NCR M85 101991X.     This iten will remain open pending
+incorporated into NCR M85 101991X.
-            disposition of the NCR.
+This iten will remain open pending
-            (Closed) Violation (445/8518-V-03; 446/8515-V-02):       Item A.1, failure
+disposition of the NCR.
-        o.
+(Closed) Violation (445/8518-V-03; 446/8515-V-02):
-            to certify an inspector in accordance with procedural requirements.           I
+Item A.1, failure
-                                                                                         '
+o.
-                                                                                         s
+to certify an inspector in accordance with procedural requirements.
-            As corrective action for this violation, the applicant committed to          ,
+I
-             revise Procedure CP-QP-2,1, aTraining of Inspection Personnel,'' with
+'
-            date of full compliance by May 21, 1986. The procedural revision was         l
+s
-             to provide for identification of qualification responsibility and
+As corrective action for this violation, the applicant committed to
-    i        euthority of Level III personnel invclved in training and
+,
-             certification activities including those areas where a cross-over of
+revise Procedure CP-QP-2,1, aTraining of Inspection Personnel,'' with
-             qualification authority existed.     The violation was issued due to the
+date of full compliance by May 21, 1986. The procedural revision was
-             failure to identify this cross-over authority. The NRC inspector
+l
-             verified that CP-0P-2.1, Revision 21, dated May 8, 1986, and
+to provide for identification of qualification responsibility and
-             essociated nuorandum TUQ 3748 dated May 12, 1986, provide for this        .
+euthority of Level III personnel invclved in training and
-              identification of cross-over authority. This item is cicsed.
+i
+certification activities including those areas where a cross-over of
+qualification authority existed.
+The violation was issued due to the
+failure to identify this cross-over authority. The NRC inspector
+verified that CP-0P-2.1, Revision 21, dated May 8, 1986, and
+essociated nuorandum TUQ 3748 dated May 12, 1986, provide for this
+.
+identification of cross-over authority. This item is cicsed.
 !
-              Item A.2, failure to follow procedures when justifying waivers of
+Item A.2, failure to follow procedures when justifying waivers of
-              on-job training (0JT) in the certification of four QC inspectors. ,        j
+on-job training (0JT) in the certification of four QC inspectors. ,
-                                           ~~
+j
-                                                       ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
+~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-                            _ . .
+~~
-                   -
+_ . .
-                                                                                         ;
+-
-           U.1he NRC inspector has reviewed the information provided in the               i
+;
-                                                                                           l
+U.1he NRC inspector has reviewed the information provided in the
-              supplemental response to this violation. This review and reinspection        j
+i
-                                                                                          i
+l
-                                                                                          '
+supplemental response to this violation. This review and reinspection
-              of the files for the fcur QC inspectors verified that justification
+j
-                                                                                          l
+i
-              other than ". . . I hours OJT and previous related inspection
+of the files for the fcur QC inspectors verified that justification
+l
-               activity . . ." was included. The justification on the waivers
 '
-                                                                                         !
+other than ". . . I hours OJT and previous related inspection
-l                                                                                        i
-                                                                                         $
+activity . . ." was included.
-l                                                                                         l
+The justification on the waivers
+'
+!
+l
+i
+$
+l
+l
-        . _ - _
+. _ - _
-      .
+.
-  '
+I
-                                                                                                    I
+'
-                                                C023.0.0                                            l
+C023.0.0
-                                                                                                    i
+l
-                   included ". . . demonstration of practical field ability to the
+i
-                   satisfaction of a certified Level II." This demonstration provided           O
+included ". . . demonstration of practical field ability to the
-                                                                       #
+satisfaction of a certified Level II."
-                   "  . . . assurance that the individual does have comparable' or              e
+This demonstration provided
-                     /                                                                              \
+O
-                                                                                                    '
+#
-                   dequivalent' competence to that which would have been gained . . . ."
+. . . assurance that the individual does have comparable' or
-                   Therefore, specification on the waiver of the previous related
+e
+"
+\\
+/
+'
+dequivalent' competence to that which would have been gained . . . ."
+Therefore, specification on the waiver of the previous related
 i
-                   inspection activity was not required in these cases. Since the
+inspection activity was not required in these cases. Since the
-                   required infonnation was included elsewhere in the certification
+required infonnation was included elsewhere in the certification
-                   files, a violation did not occur in this example and this item is
+files, a violation did not occur in this example and this item is
-                   closed.
+closed.
-                                                                                                    l
+l
-                                                                                                    l
+l
-                                                                                                    l
+l
-                                                                                           '
+'
-    '
+p.
-                p.  (Closed) Open Item (445/8603-0-15): This open item addressed
+(Closed) Open Item (445/8603-0-15): This open item addressed
-                                                                                                    I
+'
-                    inspector certification documentation for fill and backfill                     I
+I
-                    placements.    ERC issued DR R-5-FILL-GEN-DR-1 regarding inspector
+inspector certification documentation for fill and backfill
-                    certification for the safe shutdown impoundment dam construction for
+I
-                    the period Apri's 24, 1976, through April 19, 1977.    Inspector                l
+placements.
-                                                                                                    I
+ERC issued DR R-5-FILL-GEN-DR-1 regarding inspector
-                    certification documentation for Freese & Nichols Consulting Engineers     .   .
+certification for the safe shutdown impoundment dam construction for
-                     (F&N) and Mason & Johnson Associates    Inc. (M-JA) could not be located
+the period Apri's 24, 1976, through April 19, 1977.
-                    during tFc initial ERC documentation reviews.                                   l
+Inspector
-                                                                                                    l
+l
-                    TV Electric subsequently requested copies of certification records
+I
-                     from F&N and M-JA.    These documents were obtained and are being
+certification documentation for Freese & Nichols Consulting Engineers
-                     transmitted to the Permanent Plant Records Vault (PPRV). The NRC
+.
-                     inspector reviewed these inspector certification documents and found
+.
-                     that the inspection personnel were qualified to perform the
+(F&N) and Mason & Johnson Associates
-                      inspections and/or laboratory tests.   This item is closed.
+Inc. (M-JA) could not be located
-                                                                                                    l
+during tFc initial ERC documentation reviews.
+l
+l
+TV Electric subsequently requested copies of certification records
+from F&N and M-JA.
+These documents were obtained and are being
+transmitted to the Permanent Plant Records Vault (PPRV). The NRC
+inspector reviewed these inspector certification documents and found
+that the inspection personnel were qualified to perform the
+inspections and/or laboratory tests.
+This item is closed.
+l
 t
-                                         _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ - - . -
+_ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ - - . -
-    .
+.
-                                                                                                                             l
+l
-                                                                                                                             '
+.0.0
-.0.0
+'
-                                                                                                                             ;
+;
-      q. (Closed)UnresolvedItem(445/8607-U-17):                                                Incomplete craft
+q.
-         installat1cn procedure instruction. NRC inspector review of                                                         l
+(Closed)UnresolvedItem(445/8607-U-17):
-                                                                                                                             l
+Incomplete craft
-         Revision 5 of construction Procedurc eel-8, " Class IE and non-Class
+installat1cn procedure instruction. NRC inspector review of
-         Cable Terminations," had identified the omission of inst 611ation                                                   I
+l
-                                                                                                                             i
+l
-         requirements for uninsulated cable splices.                                              This omission was noted
+Revision 5 of construction Procedurc eel-8, " Class IE and non-Class
+Cable Terminations," had identified the omission of inst 611ation
+I
+i
+requirements for uninsulated cable splices.
+This omission was noted
 :
-         in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/86-07; 50-446/86-05 during the
+in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/86-07; 50-446/86-05 during the
-         evaluation of CPRT committ.ents related to preinsulated environmental
+evaluation of CPRT committ.ents related to preinsulated environmental
-         sealed (PIES) splices.   During this report period, the NRC inspector
+sealed (PIES) splices.
-         reviewec Eevision 6 of EEI-8 dated September 23, 1986, ano determined
+During this report period, the NRC inspector
-         that adequate provisions for all types of splices had been
+reviewec Eevision 6 of EEI-8 dated September 23, 1986, ano determined
-                                                                                                                             ;
+that adequate provisions for all types of splices had been
-                                                                                                                         *
+;
-  ,      incorporated therein.                                                                                               l
+incorporated therein.
-                                                                                                                             l
+l
-      r. (Closed)UnresolvedItem(445/6607-U-18):                                                Incomplete inspection         ,
+*
+,
-         procedure instructions.   In addition to revising eel-8, the CPR1 also
+l
-         cormitted to having certain inspection requirements for PIES splices
+r.
-         irstalled in control beards incorporated in the QC inspection                                                     , ,
+(Closed)UnresolvedItem(445/6607-U-18):
-         procedure, Ql-QP-11.3-28. " Class 1E Cable Terminations." The NRC
+Incomplete inspection
-         inspector review of Revision 28 of this procedure had indicated that
+,
-         other types of splices and PIES splices installed in locations other
-         than control panels were not subjected to the same requirements as the
+procedure instructions.
-         PIES splices in control panels.             Further NRC inspector review of the
+In addition to revising eel-8, the CPR1 also
-         applicable facility commitments and of Revision 31 to QI-QP-11.3-28
+cormitted to having certain inspection requirements for PIES splices
-         found that all of the applicable provisions not previously included
+irstalled in control beards incorporated in the QC inspection
-         had been incorporated into the procedure.
+,
+,
+procedure, Ql-QP-11.3-28. " Class 1E Cable Terminations." The NRC
+inspector review of Revision 28 of this procedure had indicated that
+other types of splices and PIES splices installed in locations other
+than control panels were not subjected to the same requirements as the
+PIES splices in control panels.
+Further NRC inspector review of the
+applicable facility commitments and of Revision 31 to QI-QP-11.3-28
+found that all of the applicable provisions not previously included
+had been incorporated into the procedure.
 <
-      .
+.
-  .
+.
 .0.0
-        s.  (Closed) Violation (445/8615-V-06):     Failure of the Unit 1 PFG to
+s.
-           provide specific instructions for the control of design cocuments
+(Closed) Violation (445/8615-V-06):
-            issued for exterded time periods.
+Failure of the Unit 1 PFG to
-           The NRC inspector verified that Procedures CP-CPM-7.4 and CP-CPit-7.4A
+provide specific instructions for the control of design cocuments
-           were revised July 25, 1986, te provide instructions for the control of
+issued for exterded time periods.
-           design dccuments issued for extended time periods. As stated in the
+The NRC inspector verified that Procedures CP-CPM-7.4 and CP-CPit-7.4A
-           response, these two procedures were superseded by issuance of
+were revised July 25, 1986, te provide instructions for the control of
-           Revision 3 of Procedures CP-CPM-7.1 and CP-CPM-7.1A on December 15,
+design dccuments issued for extended time periods. As stated in the
-. The NRC inspector verified that a daily review of the Package
+response, these two procedures were superseded by issuance of
-    ,
+Revision 3 of Procedures CP-CPM-7.1 and CP-CPM-7.1A on December 15,
-           Inventory Card for document packages issued for extended time periods
+. The NRC inspector verified that a daily review of the Package
-           was required in these procedures and that the requirement applied to
+Inventory Card for document packages issued for extended time periods
-j          both 011ts 1 and 2.    These procedural revisions provide the requireo
+,
-           controls. This 4 tem is closed.
+was required in these procedures and that the requirement applied to
-,                                                                                         I
+both 011ts 1 and 2.
-        t. (Closed) Viciation (445/8615-V-07; 446/8612-V-07):       Failure to control
+These procedural revisions provide the requireo
-                                                                                       .
+j
-           the activity by which the onsite fabrication shop provides inspection
+controls. This 4 tem is closed.
-           traceability of idertical shcp fabricated items.
+I
-                                               .
+,
-           NRC review of Procedures CP-CPM-7.2A, " Material Storage / Identification
+t.
-           for Structural Steel Fabrication," Revision C, LCN #2, dated
+(Closed) Viciation (445/8615-V-07; 446/8612-V-07):
-           August 12, 1986, and QI-CP-11.14-1, Revision ?d, dated July 28, 1936,
+Failure to control
+.
+the activity by which the onsite fabrication shop provides inspection
+traceability of idertical shcp fabricated items.
+.
+NRC review of Procedures CP-CPM-7.2A, " Material Storage / Identification
+for Structural Steel Fabrication," Revision C, LCN #2, dated
+August 12, 1986, and QI-CP-11.14-1, Revision ?d, dated July 28, 1936,
+verified that these procedures were revised to incorporate methods to
 '
-           verified that these procedures were revised to incorporate methods to
+control inspection traceability of identical shop fabricated items.
-           control inspection traceability of identical shop fabricated items.
+Since the violation was issued for failure to procedurally control the
-           Since the violation was issued for failure to procedurally control the
+activity and no hardware deviaticns were noted during the previous
-           activity and no hardware deviaticns were noted during the previous            ,
+,
 u
-        .
+.
- .
+.
-                                             CC26.0.0
+CC26.0.0
-                inspet. tion, the above revisions to the applicable procedures close
+inspet. tion, the above revisions to the applicable procedures close
-                                                                                           '
+'
-                this item.
+this item.
-                                                                                           l
+(0 pen) Open Item (445/8615-0-11):
-                                                                                           l
+During inspection of Verification
-             u. (0 pen) Open Item (445/8615-0-11):     During inspection of Verification
+u.
-                Package I-M-MEIM-035, the NRC inspector identified that an equipment       ;
+Package I-M-MEIM-035, the NRC inspector identified that an equipment
-                                                                                           i
+foundation anchor bolt nut was not bearing load and that a 1/4" gap
-                foundation anchor bolt nut was not bearing load and that a 1/4" gap        i
+existed between the anchor nut and the load bearing mating surface.
-                existed between the anchor nut and the load bearing mating surface.        l
+Subsequent NRC review of ERC overview inspection documentation
-                Subsequent NRC review of ERC overview inspection documentation
+revealed that an ERC overview inspector had already identified the
-                 revealed that an ERC overview inspector had already identified the
+deviating condition and that DR I-M-MEIN-035-DR2 had been issued and
+validated, resulting in the issuance of NCR M-23094 NR-2.
-                deviating condition and that DR I-M-MEIN-035-DR2 had been issued and
+This item
-                 validated, resulting in the issuance of NCR M-23094 NR-2.    This item
+,
-     ,
+remains open pending disposition of the NCR.
-                 remains open pending disposition of the NCR.
+.
-. CPRT ISAPs (excluding ISAP VII.c)                                             l
+CPRT ISAPs (excluding ISAP VII.c)
-             a.  OC Inspector Qualifications (ISAP I.d.1)                                  ,
+OC Inspector Qualifications (ISAP I.d.1)
-                                                                                         .
+,
-                  During this inspection period, the NRC inspector inspected tha
+a.
-                  processing of DRs and the verification of inspector qualifications
+.
-                         hep u          a s gcC.
+During this inspection period, the NRC inspector inspected tha
-                  performedg .1dAP I.<171, personnel for inspectors whose certifications
+processing of DRs and the verification of inspector qualifications
-                  were not found acceptable during ISAP.VII.c review. This inspection
+hep u
-    yb
+a s gcC.
-                  was accomplished by first reviewing the controlling Procedures
+performedg .1dAP I.<171, personnel for inspectors whose certifications
-       d]         CPP-025, "QC Inspector Qualification Evaluation," and CPP-010.
+b
+were not found acceptable during ISAP.VII.c review.
+This inspection
+y
+d]
+was accomplished by first reviewing the controlling Procedures
 y ~
-                  " Preparation of Deviation Reports," and then performing a detailed
+CPP-025, "QC Inspector Qualification Evaluation," and CPP-010.
-                  review of DRs related to inspector certification that were generated
+" Preparation of Deviation Reports," and then performing a detailed
+review of DRs related to inspector certification that were generated
-                                                                                        !
+!
-                                                                                         '
+'
-      ..
+..
-  .
+.
 .0.0
-                                                                                        :
+:
-         during the VII.c review process. The DR processing was reviewed by
+during the VII.c review process. The DR processing was reviewed by
-         the NRC inspector for the following attributes:                                 .
+the NRC inspector for the following attributes:
-                                                                                        !
+.
-                                                                                         l
+!
-                                                                                        I
+l
-         (1) Inspector certific.ation related DRs were forwarded to the
+I
-                 ISAP I.d.1 1ssue coordinator in accordance with CPP-10.
+(1) Inspector certific.ation related DRs were forwarded to the
-         (?) The validity of DRs was properly evaluated by the ISAP I.d.1
+ISAP I.d.1 1ssue coordinator in accordance with CPP-10.
-                 issue coordinator.
+(?) The validity of DRs was properly evaluated by the ISAP I.d.1
+issue coordinator.
-          *
-          t3) The transmittal of CRs was in accordance with (,PP-10.
-                                                                                         l
-                                                                                  .
-    >
-          (4) The determinations of inspector qualification for the uncertified
-                 CC inspectors was proper and the determinations were documented        ,
+t3) The transmittal of CRs was in accordance with (,PP-10.
-                 onthefnspectorfertificationfvaluationfmmary(ICES) form.
+*
-          (5) The determinations to reinspect any previous work of unqualified
+l
-                  inspectors were proper and documented on a memorandum addresse.d
+.
-                                                                                    . .
+>
-                  to the ISAF VII.c file as required by procedure.
+(4) The determinations of inspector qualification for the uncertified
-           (6) Reinspection of any previous work performed by the unqualified
-                  OC inspectors were accomplished in accordance with QI-005,
+CC inspectors was proper and the determinations were documented
-                                                                                        !
+,
-                  " Evaluation of Inspector Performance."
+onthefnspectorfertificationfvaluationfmmary(ICES) form.
+(5) The determinations to reinspect any previous work of unqualified
-            (7) Validated CRs were transmitted to TV Electric for documentation
+inspectors were proper and documented on a memorandum addresse.d
-                   on an NCR/OR.
+.
+.
-                                                                                        ;
+to the ISAF VII.c file as required by procedure.
-                                                                                        l
+(6) Reinspection of any previous work performed by the unqualified
-                                                                                        I
+OC inspectors were accomplished in accordance with QI-005,
+!
+" Evaluation of Inspector Performance."
+(7) Validated CRs were transmitted to TV Electric for documentation
+on an NCR/OR.
+;
+l
+I
-                                                 --        .   .
+--
-                                                                     .   ----          _-
+.
-       .
+.
+.
+----
+_-
+.
 -
+.0.0
-.0.0
+t
-                                                                                           t
+I
-                                                                                          I
+The above procedures were determined by the NRC inspector to provide
-               The above procedures were determined by the NRC inspector to provide
+the necessary controls for evaluation and processing of the DRs. The
-               the necessary controls for evaluation and processing of the DRs. The
+proceduras specified the personnel responsible for performing the
-               proceduras specified the personnel responsible for performing the
+DR evaluations and the actions required for documenting the
-               DR evaluations and the actions required for documenting the
+evaluations.
-               evaluations.    The procedures also prcvided guidance for the               l
+The procedures also prcvided guidance for the
-                                                                                          j
+l
-               DR evaluations by reference to ISI.P I.d.1    "QC Inspector                J
+j
-                                                                                           l
+DR evaluations by reference to ISI.P I.d.1
-               Qualifications," and Q1-005, "Evalustion of Inspector Performance,"
+"QC Inspector
-                                                                                           <
+J
-               which detail the methods to conduct evaluation of QC inspector             )
+l
-               certification and qualification.
+Qualifications," and Q1-005, "Evalustion of Inspector Performance,"
-               The process by which ERC performs en analysis of file docurrentation to
+<
-   s
+which detail the methods to conduct evaluation of QC inspector
-               evaluate the qualifications of QC inspecto,rs is being inspected by the    .,
+)
-                                   c.   c'                7/c EC C                        1
+certification and qualification.
-               hRC under its WpertiorCof ISAP 1.d.1. ,Th&t process is identical to         l
+The process by which ERC performs en analysis of file docurrentation to
-      E~       the process utilized for evaluation of inspectors identified by
+s
-            .
+evaluate the qualifications of QC inspecto,rs is being inspected by the
-   '
+.,
-       .;y d g ISAP VII.c, with the exception that proper QC inspector certification
+c.
-     f
+c'
-  b            is determired by the ERC VII.c inspectors in accordance with VII.c
+/c EC C
-                                                                                          l
-                                                                                           j
+l
-        j
+hRC under its WpertiorCof ISAP 1.d.1.
-               inspection / documentation review required in 28 of the 75 QIs used for
+,Th&t process is identical to
-               reinspection.                                                              l
+E~
-                                                                                           l
+.
-               During sample inspection of the document review packages, the NRCet(as_
+the process utilized for evaluation of inspectors identified by
-                            ed                                                             i
+'
-den verifytT@ whether a certification exists for the inspector of
+.;y d
-               record, where required.                  ,                                  l
+f
-               To evaluate the system by which inspector certification / qualification
+ISAP VII.c, with the exception that proper QC inspector certification
-                                                                                          ,
+g
-                is evaluated, the NRC selected a sample of 32 DRs concerning inspector
+b
-               certifications that were identified during the VII.c document reviews.
+l
+is determired by the ERC VII.c inspectors in accordance with VII.c
+j
+j
+inspection / documentation review required in 28 of the 75 QIs used for
+reinspection.
+l
+l
+During sample inspection of the document review packages, the NRCet(as_
+ed
+i
+den verifytT@ whether a certification exists for the inspector of
+record, where required.
+l
+,
+To evaluate the system by which inspector certification / qualification
+,
+is evaluated, the NRC selected a sample of 32 DRs concerning inspector
+certifications that were identified during the VII.c document reviews.
-l                                                                                 1
+l
+j
 L
-      ,                                                                           j
+,
-  ,
+,
 .0.0
-        All 32 DRs were found to have been transmitted, processed for
+All 32 DRs were found to have been transmitted, processed for
-        validation, and maintained as specified by CPP-10 and CFF-025. The
+validation, and maintained as specified by CPP-10 and CFF-025. The
-        NRC inspector verified that the results of the I.d.1 issue
+NRC inspector verified that the results of the I.d.1 issue
-        coordinator's review of the certifications in question were documented
+coordinator's review of the certifications in question were documented
-        on inspector certification summary forms and that justification for
+on inspector certification summary forms and that justification for
-        the results was provided.
+the results was provided.
-        The NRC inspector found that of the 32 DRs selected. 28 were
+The NRC inspector found that of the 32 DRs selected. 28 were
-        determined by the issue coordinator to be valid and 4 were determined
+determined by the issue coordinator to be valid and 4 were determined
-        to be invalid.    NPC review of the packages for the four invalid DPs
+to be invalid.
-                                                                              '
+NPC review of the packages for the four invalid DPs
-    ,
+'
-        found tt.st the certifications had existed for the certifications
+found tt.st the certifications had existed for the certifications
-        questioned by the VII.c DRs and that documentation existed to support
+,
+questioned by the VII.c DRs and that documentation existed to support
 i
-        the certifications.
+the certifications.
-        NRC review of the packages for the 28 valid DRs found that                l
+NRC review of the packages for the 28 valid DRs found that
-inspectors were determined by the I.d.1 issue coordinator to be
+l
-        unqualified for the inspections performed. Therefore, a I.d.1           .
+inspectors were determined by the I.d.1 issue coordinator to be
-        Phase III reinspection was specified as corrective action.    The
+unqualified for the inspections performed. Therefore, a I.d.1
-remaining inspectors were determined by the I.d.1 issue coordinator
+.
-        to have been qualified for the inspections performed. The basis for
+Phase III reinspection was specified as corrective action.
-        the disposition of the 28 valid DRs is shown in the following table:
+The
-                                                 '
+remaining inspectors were determined by the I.d.1 issue coordinator
-         Inspector ovalified under equivalent
+to have been qualified for the inspections performed. The basis for
-           brown & Root (B&R) certification.                  9
+the disposition of the 28 valid DRs is shown in the following table:
-         Inspector ou61ified under Level II
+Inspector ovalified under equivalent
-           and all dauchter certifications.                   I
+'
+brown & Root (B&R) certification.
+Inspector ou61ified under Level II
+and all dauchter certifications.
+I
-      .
+.
-  .
+.
-.0.0                                                                                                  ]
+.0.0
-         Inspector qualified under contractor
+]
-           certification other than B&R
+Inspector qualified under contractor
-           (e.g., R. W. Hunt).                                              4
+certification other than B&R
-        -Inspector qualified as determined
+(e.g., R. W. Hunt).
-           by Special Evaluation Team /RTL review.                          2
-         Inspector qualified but
+-Inspector qualified as determined
-           administrative / clerical errors
+by Special Evaluation Team /RTL review.
-I          require DR.                                                      5
-         Inspector qualified under previous
+Inspector qualified but
-           similar certification.                                           5
+administrative / clerical errors
-                                                                                                                                        *
+I
-    ,
+require DR.
-         Total determined qualified.                                   26
-         Total determined not qualified and sent
+Inspector qualified under previous
-           to Phase III for Reinspection.                                   2
+similar certification.
+*
+,
+Total determined qualified.
+Total determined not qualified and sent
+to Phase III for Reinspection.
 l
 l
-                                                                                                                                          . .
+. .
-         The NRC inspector verified during review of the validated VII.c DRs
+The NRC inspector verified during review of the validated VII.c DRs
-         that the I.d.1 determinations of qualifications were supported by
+that the I.d.1 determinations of qualifications were supported by
-         cocumented evidence of comparable prior certification, sufficient
+cocumented evidence of comparable prior certification, sufficient
-         training and examination for the inspection activity, or in the case
+training and examination for the inspection activity, or in the case
-         of the two inspectors determined by the issue coordinator's review to
+of the two inspectors determined by the issue coordinator's review to
-         be qualified, that previous training and inspection activity was
+be qualified, that previous training and inspection activity was
-         sufficient and applicable for the certification in question.                                                                         ,
+sufficient and applicable for the certification in question.
-         The NRC inspector verified that the 28 valid DRs were transmitted to
+,
-         TU Electric and NCRs were prepared.
+The NRC inspector verified that the 28 valid DRs were transmitted to
-                                                          _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ -
+TU Electric and NCRs were prepared.
+_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ -
-      .
-  *
-                                                                                       l
-.0.0
-                                                                                       l
-           As reported in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/86-22; 50-446/86-20, the
-           NRC inspector reviewed four reinspection matrices utilized for the
-           ISAP I.d.1 Phase III reinspection of construction inspectors whose
-           qualifications were determined to be unsupported by file
-           documentation. The four matrices were found to be in compliance with
-           QI-005, " Evaluation of Inspector Performance." Additionally, the NRC
-                                                                                 '
-           inspector witnessed two field reinspection which were satisfactorily
-           performed by ERC inspectors in accordance with these matrices.
-           flo violations or deviations were identified.   The evaluation of DRs
-    ,
-           pertaining to inspector qualifications generated by ISAP VII.c or      .
-           other ISAPs will cortinue to be inspected by the NRC.
-        b. Inspection for Certain Types of Skewed Welds in NF Supports (ISAP V.a)
-           Status of NRC Inspection Activity
-                                                                                     '
-                                                                                       I
-                                                                          l'. ts       1
-           The NRC inspector verified compliance with the following ISAP  g activity
-           connitments:
-           Chronolooy of Inspection Methods (NRC Reference 05.a.01.00)
 .
-           The methods for QC inspection of type-2 skewed welds and the written
+*
-           procedures describing the methods and means of documenting the
-           inspections have changed during the construction of the CPSES project.
+.0.0
-                                       /
+As reported in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/86-22; 50-446/86-20, the
-                                      \,a
+NRC inspector reviewed four reinspection matrices utilized for the
-           The technical focus of thiTAP is the inspection of the geometric
+ISAP I.d.1 Phase III reinspection of construction inspectors whose
+qualifications were determined to be unsupported by file
+documentation. The four matrices were found to be in compliance with
+QI-005, " Evaluation of Inspector Performance." Additionally, the NRC
+'
+inspector witnessed two field reinspection which were satisfactorily
+performed by ERC inspectors in accordance with these matrices.
+flo violations or deviations were identified.
+The evaluation of DRs
+pertaining to inspector qualifications generated by ISAP VII.c or
+.
+,
+other ISAPs will cortinue to be inspected by the NRC.
+b.
+Inspection for Certain Types of Skewed Welds in NF Supports (ISAP V.a)
+Status of NRC Inspection Activity
+'
+l'. ts
+The NRC inspector verified compliance with the following ISAP activity
+g
+connitments:
+Chronolooy of Inspection Methods (NRC Reference 05.a.01.00)
+.
+The methods for QC inspection of type-2 skewed welds and the written
+procedures describing the methods and means of documenting the
+inspections have changed during the construction of the CPSES project.
+/
+\\,a
+The technical focus of thiTAP is the inspection of the geometric
-        .                                                              ___     ._ --_
+.
-      s
+___
-  .                                                                                     ,
+._
-.0.0
+--_
-          and dimensional characteristics of skewed welds at locations where
+s
-                                                                                         '
+.
-          sirrple fillet gauge measurement was not possible.
+,
-          In order to determine what inspection instructions were applicable for
+.0.0
-          specific time frames, a chronology of inspection methods documented in
+and dimensional characteristics of skewed welds at locations where
-          QC procedures was developed to correlate the period of time and
+'
-                                                                                        i
+sirrple fillet gauge measurement was not possible.
-l         specific procedure revisions for inspection of type-2 skewed welds.
+In order to determine what inspection instructions were applicable for
-          The inspection techniques used and the methods of documenting the
+specific time frames, a chronology of inspection methods documented in
-          inspections of type-2 skewed welds involved the following procedures:
+QC procedures was developed to correlate the period of time and
-                                                                              .
+i
-    ,                                                                                    l
+l
-          QI-QAP-11.1-26: which addressed the fabrication, installation and
+specific procedure revisions for inspection of type-2 skewed welds.
+The inspection techniques used and the methods of documenting the
-          inspection of ASME pipe and attachments welded to the pipe.
+inspections of type-2 skewed welds involved the following procedures:
-                                                                                        I
+.
-          Ql-QAP-11.1-28: which addressed the fabrication, installation and
+,
-          inspection of ASME pipe supports except for attachments welded to the       ,
+l
-          pipe.
+QI-QAP-11.1-26: which addressed the fabrication, installation and
-          CP-QAP-12.1: which addressed the final verification of ASME pipe
-          supports prior to certification (preparation of the ASME N-5 form).
+inspection of ASME pipe and attachments welded to the pipe.
-          Relevant historical changes affecting these quality procedures are as
+I
-          follows:
+Ql-QAP-11.1-28: which addressed the fabrication, installation and
-          QI-QAP-11.1-28: Revision 12 dated September 3, 1982, and Revision 13
+inspection of ASME pipe supports except for attachments welded to the
-          dated September 21, 1982 - Specific criteria for the measurement of
+,
+pipe.
+CP-QAP-12.1: which addressed the final verification of ASME pipe
+supports prior to certification (preparation of the ASME N-5 form).
+Relevant historical changes affecting these quality procedures are as
+follows:
+QI-QAP-11.1-28: Revision 12 dated September 3, 1982, and Revision 13
+dated September 21, 1982 - Specific criteria for the measurement of
-                                                                                                                      i
+i
-                                                                                                               1
-  .
-.0.0
-                                                                                                                      I
-        type-2 skewed welds using the scribe line technique was incorporated                                          l
-        into the procedure at that time.                                                                              .
-        Ql-QAP-11.1-28: Revision 16 dated December 15, 1982 - The type-2
-        skewed wsld inspection methodology was deleted from the pipe support
-        procedure.
-        CP-QAP-11.1-26:     Revision 9 dated December 16, 1982 - The type-2
-        skewed weld inspection methodology was incorporated into the piping
+.
-        procedure.                                                                                                    j
+.0.0
-                                                                                                         .
+I
-    i
+type-2 skewed welds using the scribe line technique was incorporated
-        QCWI-1: Dated February 21, 1983 - This B&R instruction was issued to
+l
-        inform inspectors to use inspection methodology and acceptance
+into the procedure at that time.
-        criteria in piping Procedure QI-QAP-11.1-26 when measuring type-2                                             l
+.
-                                                                                                                      I
-        skewed welds on pipe supports.                                                                                l
+Ql-QAP-11.1-28: Revision 16 dated December 15, 1982 - The type-2
-                                                                                                                    - j
+skewed wsld inspection methodology was deleted from the pipe support
-        CP-QAP-12.1: Revision a dated February 2, 1983, and Revision 5 dated
+procedure.
-        March 18, 1983 - These revisions were issued to initiate reinspection
-        of all accessible structural welds on ASME pipe supports.
+CP-QAP-11.1-26:
-        QI-QAP-11.1-26: Revision 13 dated August 4, 1983 - The profile
+Revision 9 dated December 16, 1982 - The type-2
-        technique for measuring size of type-2cskewed welds was added to the
+skewed weld inspection methodology was incorporated into the piping
-        piping procedure.
+procedure.
+j
+.
+i
+QCWI-1: Dated February 21, 1983 - This B&R instruction was issued to
+inform inspectors to use inspection methodology and acceptance
+criteria in piping Procedure QI-QAP-11.1-26 when measuring type-2
+l
+I
+l
+skewed welds on pipe supports.
+-
+j
+CP-QAP-12.1: Revision a dated February 2, 1983, and Revision 5 dated
+March 18, 1983 - These revisions were issued to initiate reinspection
+of all accessible structural welds on ASME pipe supports.
+QI-QAP-11.1-26: Revision 13 dated August 4, 1983 - The profile
+technique for measuring size of type-2cskewed welds was added to the
+piping procedure.
 l
 l
-                                                                                                                      [
+[
-                                                                  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
+_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
-                                                              -                ..
+-
-                                                                                    _       __
+..
-       ,
+_
-  .                                                                                              J
+__
-.0.0
-                     QI-0AP-11.1-28: R rision 29 dated January 25, 1985 - The scribe line         f
-                     technique for measurement of type-2 skewed fillet welds was
-l                    reincorporated into the support procedure,
 ,
--0AP-11.1-28: Revision 30 dated April 15, 1985 - The profile
+J
-                     technique for measurement of type-2 skewed welds was incorporated into
+.
-                     the support procedure,
+.0.0
+QI-0AP-11.1-28: R rision 29 dated January 25, 1985 - The scribe line
+f
+technique for measurement of type-2 skewed fillet welds was
+l
+reincorporated into the support procedure,
+-0AP-11.1-28: Revision 30 dated April 15, 1985 - The profile
+,
+technique for measurement of type-2 skewed welds was incorporated into
+the support procedure,
 i
-                     Six different methods of documenting the results of type-2 skewed weld
+Six different methods of documenting the results of type-2 skewed weld
-                     inspections were permitted by procedure at various times. These
+inspections were permitted by procedure at various times. These
-                    methods were:                                                         .
+methods were:
-    .
+.
-                     (1) HIR              Hanger Inspection Report
+.
-                     (2) CSC              Component Support Checklist
+(1) HIR
-                     (3) bWDC             Multiple Weld Data Card
+Hanger Inspection Report
-                     (4) WICL             Weld Inspection Checklist
+(2) CSC
-                     (5) CSF/SWIR         Component Support Fillet and Skewed Welo
+Component Support Checklist
-                                            Inspection Report                                     ,
+(3) bWDC
-                N (6) COT                 Construction Operation Traveler                         l
+Multiple Weld Data Card
-      p-g , ,",/ This activity is complete. NRC inspection of activities listed above
+(4) WICL
-                                                                                               -
+Weld Inspection Checklist
-                                                                                                  !
+(5) CSF/SWIR
-         I
+Component Support Fillet and Skewed Welo
-                     also provide a basis for completion of activities required by NRC
+Inspection Report
-                     Reference 05.a.01.01 and 05.a.01.02.
+,
-                     No violations or deviations were identified.
+N (6) COT
-                     Third-party to Evaluate the Physical significance of any Procedural
+Construction Operation Traveler
-                     Changes (NRC Reference 05.a.02.04)
+l
+g , ,",/ This activity is complete. NRC inspection of activities listed above
+-
+!
+p-
+I
+also provide a basis for completion of activities required by NRC
+Reference 05.a.01.01 and 05.a.01.02.
+No violations or deviations were identified.
+Third-party to Evaluate the Physical significance of any Procedural
+Changes (NRC Reference 05.a.02.04)
-                                                                                                            .
+. .
-                                                                                                   .
+. .
- . .   . .   .  . . . . . .         . . . . ..      . . . .   . . .                    .  ..
+.
-           .
+. . . . . .
+. . . .
+..
+. . . .
+. . .
+.
+..
+.
+.
+.
+.
+>
+.0.0
+Ntew/>a1.Titzt$5dbt
+The NRC inspector questioned ngineering personnel from TERA as to
+-fielho L
+what was the ir. tent of this-(ey.n
+ntsand what actions Wre taken.
+i
+reme
+TERA persunnel stated that their review of procedure changes indicated
+that an overall improvement with respect to inspection methodology had
 .
-                                                                                                                   >
+:tla ba wul
-.0.0
-                                                                      Ntew/>a1.Titzt$5dbt
+occurred. This trend resulted in improved performance by inspection
-                            The NRC inspector questioned ngineering personnel from TERA as to
-                                                                    i
+A
-                                                                                             -fielho L
+personnel.
-                            what was the ir. tent of        this-(ey.nreme ntsand what actions Wre taken.
+.
-                            TERA persunnel stated that their review of procedure changes indicated
+NRC review of data presented in the results report for this ISAP-
-                            that an overall improvement with respect to inspection methodology had
+confirms this conclusion. This activity is complete,
-                                                                                                                   .
+ho violations or deviations were identifiec.
-                                                                                             :tla ba wul           1
+,
-                                                                                                                   I
+,
-                            occurred. This trend resulted in improved performance by inspection                    1
+Cocument Centrol (ISAP VII.a.3)
-                                                                                               A
+c.
-                            personnel.
+During this report period, the activities identified by NRC Reference
-                                                                                                                 .
+.a.03.04 and the closecut of related external issues were inspected
-                            NRC review of data presented in the results report for this ISAP-
+..
-                             confirms this conclusion. This activity is complete,
+as follows:
-     ,                       ho violations or deviations were identifiec.                                 ,
+Procedure Evaluation (NRC Reference 07.a.03.04)
-               c.            Cocument Centrol (ISAP VII.a.3)
+This ISAP required an evaluation of the current CPSES document control
-                             During this report period, the activities identified by NRC Reference
+The issue coordinator performed the evaluation, conducted
-.a.03.04 and the closecut of related external issues were inspected
+procedures.
-                                                                                                              ..
+and documented the results of the interviews, and completed a
-                              as follows:
+procedure checklist, which in total formed the basis for the
-                              Procedure Evaluation (NRC Reference 07.a.03.04)
+evaluation.
-                              This ISAP required an evaluation of the current CPSES document control
-                              procedures.      The issue coordinator performed the evaluation, conducted
-                              and documented the results of the interviews, and completed a
-                               procedure checklist, which in total formed the basis for the
-                               evaluation.
-                                                                                                                                                          _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _
+_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _
-                                                                                    ,
+,
-                      .
+.
 .0.0
-                                                                                      The NRC reviewnd the procedure checklist and compared it to the
+The NRC reviewnd the procedure checklist and compared it to the
-                                                                                      requirements in Criterion VI of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and to
+requirements in Criterion VI of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and to
-                                                                                      the commitments in the CPSES FSAR.     The procedure checklist was found
+the commitments in the CPSES FSAR.
-                                                                                      to address the requirements and commitments concerning distribution
+The procedure checklist was found
-                                                                                      and control of documents affecting quality. Utilizing thic checklist,
+to address the requirements and commitments concerning distribution
-                                                                                      the NRC inspected the current controlling Frocedure DCP-3,
+and control of documents affecting quality. Utilizing thic checklist,
-                                                                                      Revision 19 "CPSES Document Control Program," to verify that ERC had
+the NRC inspected the current controlling Frocedure DCP-3,
-                                                                                      implemented the checklist properly and that the procedure met the
+Revision 19 "CPSES Document Control Program," to verify that ERC had
-                                                                                      above requirements and commitments.     The procedure was found to
+implemented the checklist properly and that the procedure met the
-                                                                                      properly contain the following attributes: measures to assure that all
+above requirements and commitments.
-                                                                                      documents, and changes to documents, were reviewed and appruved by
+The procedure was found to
-                                                                                                                                                                              *
+properly contain the following attributes: measures to assure that all
-                                                             ,
+documents, and changes to documents, were reviewed and appruved by
-                                                                                      authorized personnel prior to distribution; and measures to assure
+*
-                                                                                      that all documents used for construction or inspection activities were
+,
-                                                                                      maintained current and in a controlled status.    Additionally, the
+authorized personnel prior to distribution; and measures to assure
-                                                                                      procedure provided for retrieval or identification of superseded
+that all documents used for construction or inspection activities were
-                                                                                      documents and for an ongoing monitoring of document control                               , ,
+maintained current and in a controlled status.
-                                                                                      performance of all controlled document files by an independent
+Additionally, the
-                                                                                      monitoring team.   No differences between the NRC and ERC results were
+procedure provided for retrieval or identification of superseded
-                                                                                      noted in the completed checklists.
+documents and for an ongoing monitoring of document control
-                                                                                      In addition, the NRC inspected the implementation of DCP-3 by
+, ,
-                                                                                      requesting a sample of 20 drawings and 10 procedures from the document
+performance of all controlled document files by an independent
-                                                                                      control center (DCC) and one satellite. These documents were found to
+monitoring team.
-                                                                                      be at their current revision with all design changes entered when
+No differences between the NRC and ERC results were
+noted in the completed checklists.
+In addition, the NRC inspected the implementation of DCP-3 by
+requesting a sample of 20 drawings and 10 procedures from the document
+control center (DCC) and one satellite. These documents were found to
+be at their current revision with all design changes entered when
 '
-                                                                                      compared to the DCC master list of controlled documents.
+compared to the DCC master list of controlled documents.
 ,
-  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
+_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
-                                                                  __             _        _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
+__
-            '
+_
-                                                                                                                                                             !
+_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
-     '
+'
-.0.0
+!
-                                                                                                                                                              !
+'
-                           The implementation of the independent monitoring team was inspected by                                                            j
+.0.0
-                           the NRC inspector by interviewing the head of the monitoring tebm,
+!
-                                                                                                                                                              l
+The implementation of the independent monitoring team was inspected by
-                                                                                                                                                              '
+j
-                           reviewing monitoring reports and executive suninary reports, and
+the NRC inspector by interviewing the head of the monitoring tebm,
-                           reviewing the report distribution which included the vice-president,
+l
-                           engineering and construction.        The nionitoring team's reports indicated                                                       ,
+'
-                                                                                                                                                              I
+reviewing monitoring reports and executive suninary reports, and
-                           that the document control groups were achieving an error rate of less
+reviewing the report distribution which included the vice-president,
-                           than 0.1L                                                                                        . ~
+engineering and construction.
-                                                                                                                                                              l
+The nionitoring team's reports indicated
-                                                                                                                                                               I
+,
-                                                                                      h ,.4, H ;,
+I
-                                                                                                          ,
+that the document control groups were achieving an error rate of less
+than 0.1L
-                                                                                   .~
+l
-                           TheNRCinterviewedtheERCengineersresponsibfefor11ofthe
+I
-populations in ISAP VII.c to obtain(similar information from the
+,
-        ,
+. ~
-                           implementation of the VII.c ISAP.          These engineers stated that of the
+h ,.4, H ;,
-,000 drawings utilized during inspection of the 11 populations, they
-                           found 6 document control errors or a 0.15% error rate.
+.~
-                           Based on the foregoing NRC inspections and the favorable comparison
+TheNRCinterviewedtheERCengineersresponsibfefor11ofthe
-                           with the results of the ERC inspections, this item has been properly
+populations in ISAP VII.c to obtain(similar information from the
-                                                                                                                                                        ..
+implementation of the VII.c ISAP.
-                           implemented.      No violations or deviations were noted during the
+These engineers stated that of the
-                           inspection of this area of the document control program.
+,
-                           Closecut of Related External Issues
+,000 drawings utilized during inspection of the 11 populations, they
-                           Two external issues related to document control were identified in
+found 6 document control errors or a 0.15% error rate.
-                           ISAP VII.a.3.      The issue of unauthorized procedures used for
+Based on the foregoing NRC inspections and the favorable comparison
-                           cold-springing of piping was addressed in ISAP V.e and was not
+with the results of the ERC inspections, this item has been properly
-                           considered further in this ISAP.          The issue that a " Controlled Copy"
+..
-                           stamp was improperly used by B&R ASME QA personnel was addressed.
+implemented.
-L----------- _ -_ _---- _ ------ _ _ _-- ---_--_--__- -_- _ -                       -          _ _ _ . _                              - - - - - . . - - _  _
+No violations or deviations were noted during the
+inspection of this area of the document control program.
+Closecut of Related External Issues
+Two external issues related to document control were identified in
+ISAP VII.a.3.
+The issue of unauthorized procedures used for
+cold-springing of piping was addressed in ISAP V.e and was not
+considered further in this ISAP.
+The issue that a " Controlled Copy"
+stamp was improperly used by B&R ASME QA personnel was addressed.
+L-----------  -  ----  ------   -- --- -- --
+- - -  -
+-
+_ _ _ . _
+- - - - - .
+. - - _
+_
-                                                                    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _
+_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _
-  .
+.
-.0.0                                                                                                         {
+.0.0
-                                                                                                                                                        I
+{
-                                                                                                                                                        i
+I
-                                                                                                                                                         l
+i
-            The NRC interviewed the current B&R document review supervisor who                                                                          l
+l
-            stated that the document review group does not currently use a ontrolf,A[
+The NRC interviewed the current B&R document review supervisor who
-                                                                                                                              ~~'
+l
-           Cc'opy" stamp; however, this supervisor did state that for a short time,a
+stated that the document review group does not currently use a ontrolf,A[
-            stamp was used to mark drawings prior to presentation to the
+~ ~ '
-            Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) for review. The NRC also
+Cc'opy" stamp; however, this supervisor did state that for a short time,a
-            interviewed the B&R QE group supervisor that was involved when this
+stamp was used to mark drawings prior to presentation to the
-            stamp was used.   This individual indicated that the stamp was used on
+Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) for review. The NRC also
-            copies of small bore typicals before presentation to the ANI for
+interviewed the B&R QE group supervisor that was involved when this
-            review.    The practice was stopped and the stamp defaced after'irsuance
+stamp was used.
-            of Special Inspection Services (SIS) Report 355, which documented the
+This individual indicated that the stamp was used on
-            ANI's concern about the use of the stamp.     Evidence of the stamp                                                       -
+copies of small bore typicals before presentation to the ANI for
-    i
+review.
-            defacing was provided by a memo to the QA file dated August 10, 1984,
+The practice was stopped and the stamp defaced after'irsuance
-            bearing an imprint of the stamp before and after defacing. The
+of Special Inspection Services (SIS) Report 355, which documented the
-            corrective actions taken appear sufficient to prevent recurrence.                                                      The                  i
+ANI's concern about the use of the stamp.
-            improper use of the " Controlled Copy" stamp had been previously                                                                             ,
+Evidence of the stamp
+-
-            determined by the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) in SSER 11 to have
+i
-                                                                                                                                                    . .
+defacing was provided by a memo to the QA file dated August 10, 1984,
-            had no adverse safety implications.     No further NRC inspection of this                                                                    '
+bearing an imprint of the stamp before and after defacing. The
+corrective actions taken appear sufficient to prevent recurrence.
+The
+i
+improper use of the " Controlled Copy" stamp had been previously
 ,
-            item is planned.
+determined by the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) in SSER 11 to have
+. .
+had no adverse safety implications.
+No further NRC inspection of this
+'
+item is planned.
+,
+Construction / Reinspection (ISAPVII.c)
-Construction / Reinspection (ISAPVII.c)
 l
 '
-        a.  Establishing Populations                 ,
+a.
-            Section 4.3.1 of ISAP VII.c, Pevision 1, required safety-related
+Establishing Populations
-            hardware to be categorized into populations with homogenous work
+,
+Section 4.3.1 of ISAP VII.c, Pevision 1, required safety-related
+hardware to be categorized into populations with homogenous work
 l
-                                                                                                                _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
+_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
-      ,
+,
-  .
+.
 .0.0
-        activities (HWAs) and associated quality characteristics (attributes)
+activities (HWAs) and associated quality characteristics (attributes)
-        from which the required random samples were selected.       It also
+from which the required random samples were selected.
-        required that a description and justification for hornoeneity be
+It also
-        prepared for each population.      Finally, each population was to have a
+required that a description and justification for hornoeneity be
-        list of all final CC accepted safety-related items.       The CPRT
+prepared for each population.
-        guidelines for establishing homogenous populations were contaired in
+Finally, each population was to have a
-        the project procedure for ISAP VII.c. Procedure CPP-005, Revision 3.
+list of all final CC accepted safety-related items.
-        This procedure required the discipline engineers to review equipment
+The CPRT
-        lists from CPSES in order to subdivide the plant into homogeneous
+guidelines for establishing homogenous populations were contaired in
-    i   populations that have been constructed using reasonable horrogeneous-
+the project procedure for ISAP VII.c. Procedure CPP-005, Revision 3.
-                                                                                                 l
+This procedure required the discipline engineers to review equipment
-        work processes. The equipment reviewed was limited to that which was                     j
+lists from CPSES in order to subdivide the plant into homogeneous
-        safety related, construction complete and final QC accepted.        The                  l
+populations that have been constructed using reasonable horrogeneous-
-                                                                                                 i
+i
-        equipment would be inspected for attributes selected after a corrplete                   ;
+l
-                                                                                                 I
+work processes. The equipment reviewed was limited to that which was
-        review of engineering documents pertaining to the individual
+j
-        populations.                                                                         ,
+safety related, construction complete and final QC accepted.
-        The generation of a Population Description, Master Population List,
+The
-        Population Items List, and a Work Process Memorandum are also
+l
-        procedurally required along with adequate control of subsequent
+i
-         revisions to each of these documents.
+equipment would be inspected for attributes selected after a corrplete
-                                                                                               '
+;
-         The NRC inspectors reviewed tha following six ISAP VII.c populations;
+I
-         V
+review of engineering documents pertaining to the individual
-        [(Large Bore Supports Rigid, large Bore Supports Nonrigid, Small Bore
+populations.
+,
+The generation of a Population Description, Master Population List,
+Population Items List, and a Work Process Memorandum are also
+procedurally required along with adequate control of subsequent
+revisions to each of these documents.
+'
+The NRC inspectors reviewed tha following six ISAP VII.c populations;
+V
+[(Large Bore Supports Rigid, large Bore Supports Nonrigid, Small Bore
 l
-         Pipe Supports, Pipe Welds / Material, Concrete Placement, and Electrical
+Pipe Supports, Pipe Welds / Material, Concrete Placement, and Electrical
-         Cable)       ensure that the homogenous populations were correct and
+Cable)
-                                                                .
+ensure that the homogenous populations were correct and
-                                                                               - - - - _ _ -
+.
+- - - - _ _ -
 -
-                                                                    (
+(
-    ,
+,
-            8
-                                                                        s
-                               0040.0.0                                                   ;
+s
-      adequate and that ERC procedures, primarily CPP-005, were being                       ]
-      adhered to.
+.0.0
-                                                                                         ,
+;
-                                                          \                                 ]
+adequate and that ERC procedures, primarily CPP-005, were being
-                                                                                             j
+]
-      (1)  Large Bore Supports Rigid (LBSR), large Bore _ Supports Nonrigid
+adhered to.
-           (LBSN), and Small Bore Pipe Supports (SBPS),
+,
-                                                       ,
+\\
-                                                      .
+]
-           The NRC inspector's review of these three populations was
+Large Bore Supports Rigid (LBSR), large Bore _ Supports Nonrigid
-           performed concurrently because the population descriptions are                      j
+j
-                                                                                             l
+(1)
-           similar except for the population boundaries (large bore rigio,
+(LBSN), and Small Bore Pipe Supports (SBPS),
-            large bore nonrigid, or small bore) and the Population Items
+,
-                                                                                             .
-  '         Lists were all derived from the same source document; the Hanger-                I
+.
-                                                                                            l
+The NRC inspector's review of these three populations was
-            installation Tracking System (HITS) list.          /              ,
+performed concurrently because the population descriptions are
-                                                                                           -
+j
-                                                                                               '
+l
-                                                                                s
+similar except for the population boundaries (large bore rigio,
-             (a)  Population Descriptions
+large bore nonrigid, or small bore) and the Population Items
-                  NRC inspection verified that the systems listed by the CPRT ~
+Lists were all derived from the same source document; the Hanger-
-                                                                                           :
+I
-                  for inclusion in these three populations were designated in
+.
-                  Section 17A of the FSAR as safety related, either Safety
+'
-                                                                 Cross checking
+l
-                   Class 1, 2, or 3, and Seismic Category I.
+installation Tracking System (HITS) list.
-                   from FSAR Table 17A to the three populations, however,
+-
-                   identifiedthattheChilledWaterSystem(CWS)wasomitted
+/
-                                                                                           s
+'
-                   from the CPRT populations. Subsequent review of the
+,
-                    Population Items Lists did reveal that this CWS was included
+s
-                    in the population; it was only inadvertently left off the
+(a)
-                                                                 The NRC inspector
+Population Descriptions
-                    Pcpulation Description lists of systems.
+NRC inspection verified that the systems listed by the CPRT ~
-                                                          t
+:
-                    concurred with the listed population boundaries and the
+for inclusion in these three populations were designated in
-                                                                     - _ - - _ - _ - _ -
+Section 17A of the FSAR as safety related, either Safety
+Class 1, 2, or 3, and Seismic Category I.
+Cross checking
+from FSAR Table 17A to the three populations, however,
+identifiedthattheChilledWaterSystem(CWS)wasomitted
+from the CPRT populations. Subsequent review of the
+s
+Population Items Lists did reveal that this CWS was included
+in the population; it was only inadvertently left off the
+The NRC inspector
+Pcpulation Description lists of systems.
+t
+concurred with the listed population boundaries and the
+- _ - - _ - _ - _ -
-                                                                                            -                                                         ,
+-
-                                           '
+,
-                                                                                                                          o
+'
-                                                                                                                        '
+o
 .0.0
-                                                                                                                                                                              s
+'
-                                                                                                                                         items not to be_ included within the scope of the
+s
+items not to be_ included within the scope of the
-                                                                                                                          >
+populations. All CPRT sign-offs for review and approval as
-                                                                                                                                         populations. All CPRT sign-offs for review and approval as
-                                                                                                                            %            well as control and vaulting cf the population descriptions
+>
-                                                                                                                                         were performsc per procedure.
+%
+well as control and vaulting cf the population descriptions
+were performsc per procedure.
 l
 l
 l
-                                                                                                                                '
+(b) Master Population List
-                                                                                                                                    (b) Master Population List
+'
 l
-                                                                                                                                         NRC inspector review of the original Master Population List
+NRC inspector review of the original Master Population List
-                                                                                                                                         and all subsequent revisions. (one through five) verified
+and all subsequent revisions. (one through five) verified
-                                                                                                                                         thattheabovethreepopulati$nswereincludedonthelist
+thattheabovethreepopulati$nswereincludedonthelist
-                                                                                                                                                                  <   >
+<
-                                                                    ,
+>
-                                                                                                                                         and that review, approval, and control of the documents are
+and that review, approval, and control of the documents are
-                                                                                                                                         per procedure.
+,
+per procedure.
-                                                                                                                                    (c) Population Items List
-                                                                                                                                         Each of the three Population Items Lists were derived from   -
+(c) Population Items List
-                                                                                                                                                               ..
+Each of the three Population Items Lists were derived from
-                                                                                                                                                .-                  -
+-
-                                                                                                                                  ,
+.-
-                                                                                                                                         the{ame. Source-document _;;t[e7HITSlist. The CPRT initially
+..
-                                                                                                                                         established the validity and accuracy of the HITS list and
+-
-                                                                                                                                    '
+the{ame. Source-document _;;t[e7HITSlist. The CPRT initially
-                                                                                                                                         then segregated out the three homogenous pipe support
+,
+'
-                                                                                                                                         populations (LBSR,LBSN,andSBPS).       To establish validity
+established the validity and accuracy of the HITS list and
-                                                                                                                                         and accuracy of the HITS list, the CPRT randomly selected
+then segregated out the three homogenous pipe support
-B&R Hanger Location (BRHL) drawings out of the listed
-                                                                                                                                         total of 2013 and manually checked to see that all supports
+populations (LBSR,LBSN,andSBPS).
-                                                                                                                                listed on the 60 BRHLs were also listed on the HITS list.
+To establish validity
-                                                                                                                                         To verify the accuracy of the support status listed on the
+and accuracy of the HITS list, the CPRT randomly selected
-                                                                                                                                                                        (
+B&R Hanger Location (BRHL) drawings out of the listed
-                                                                                                                                         HITS list, 60 supports were re.ndomly selected from the
+total of 2013 and manually checked to see that all supports
-                                                                                                                                                                        <
+listed on the 60 BRHLs were also listed on the HITS list.
-  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _
+To verify the accuracy of the support status listed on the
+(
+HITS list, 60 supports were re.ndomly selected from the
+<
+_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _
-                                                                      .
+.
 .0.0
 BRHLs and their status individually verified by checking
-                                                                                                                                   records in the various vaults and processing areas. This
+records in the various vaults and processing areas. This
-                                                                                                                                   was required because only final QC accepted pipe supports
+was required because only final QC accepted pipe supports
-                                                                                                                                   were to be reinspected under the VII.c program. No
+were to be reinspected under the VII.c program. No
-                                                                                                                                   discrepant conditions were detected by the CPRT.
+discrepant conditions were detected by the CPRT.
-                                                                                                                                   To assess validity and accuracy of the CPRT verification of
+To assess validity and accuracy of the CPRT verification of
-                                                                                                                                   the HITS list, the NRC inspector selected 10 out of the
+the HITS list, the NRC inspector selected 10 out of the
 BRHLs that the CPRT had reviewed, and verified that all
-                                                                                                                                   supports shown on the BRHLs were included on the HITS list.
+supports shown on the BRHLs were included on the HITS list.
-                                        ..                                                                                         To further assess the HITS list, ten additional BRHLs not *
+To further assess the HITS list, ten additional BRHLs not *
-l                                                                                                                                  selected by the CPRT were selected by the NRC inspector and
+..
+l
+selected by the CPRT were selected by the NRC inspector and
 l
-l                                                                                                                                  checked against the HITS list for support inclusion.   These
+l
-                                                                                                                                   ten BRHLs were selected such that a wide variety of
+checked against the HITS list for support inclusion.
-!                                                                                                                                  safety-related systems were included in the review.
+These
-                                                                                                                                   Finally, the NRC inspector reviewed the support status of       ,,
+ten BRHLs were selected such that a wide variety of
-of the 60 supports that the CPRT had verified by
+!
-                                                                                                                                                                                                   ..   ?
+safety-related systems were included in the review.
-                                                                                                                                   researching the various records in the various vault    j[9idtct d> ,
+Finally, the NRC inspector reviewed the support status of
-                                                                                                                                   locations.
+,,
-                                                                                                                              (d) Work Process Memoranda
+of the 60 supports that the CPRT had verified by
-                                                                                                                                                                 .
+?
-                                                                                                                                   Revision 3 to Procedure CPP-005 dated May 28, 1986, required
+j[9idtct d> ,
-                                                                                                                                   all ISAP VII.c populations to have a Work Process
+..
-                                                                                                                                   Memorandum. This memorandum was to identify safety-related
+researching the various records in the various vault
-  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
+locations.
+(d) Work Process Memoranda
+.
+Revision 3 to Procedure CPP-005 dated May 28, 1986, required
+all ISAP VII.c populations to have a Work Process
+Memorandum. This memorandum was to identify safety-related
+_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-                                                                                                  _
+_
-                                                                                                                        _ - _ _ -- --_ ,
+_ - _ _ -- --_ ,
-                     .
+.
-          -
+-
-    ,
+,
-        ,                                                                                                                                     .
+.
-.0.0-                                                  h-
+,
-                                                                                                                                                  l
+.0.0-
-                                                          construction work processes and attributes that can be
+h-
+l
+construction work processes and attributes that can be
+Reinspected and/or ver'ified by document review.
 j
-                                                          Reinspected and/or ver'ified by document review.
+l
-                                                                                                                          *
+*
-l                                                            .
+.
-                                                                                         .
+.
-                    ,
+t
-                                                                          ~ t                                                                     j
+j
-                               :,
+,
-                                  '
+~
-                                                          During this report period, the Work Proc 0ss Memoranda were
+:,
-            v 3
+'
-                        ~
+During this report period, the Work Proc 0ss Memoranda were
-                                                          in the final draft stages; therefore, they will be reviewed
+v 3
-                                                          at a later date. This is an open item pending completion of
+~
-                                                          the Work, Process Memoranda (445/8702-0-01: 446/8702-0-01).
+in the final draft stages; therefore, they will be reviewed
-                                                                                                           O         .
+at a later date. This is an open item pending completion of
-                                                 (e) Revisi ns                                                                                  ]
+the Work, Process Memoranda (445/8702-0-01: 446/8702-0-01).
-             ,                                           NRC review of all revisions to the Master Population Listi
+O
-                                            ;            Populat?on Descriptions, and the Population Items L"ist for
+.
-                                                         the three populations revealed'that the criteria' of
+(e) Revisi ns
-                                              .          Section5.5ofProcedureCPP-0UPwere~beingadheredtoas                                      i
+]
-                                                         far as sign-offs for review and approval,' and control and                             ,
+NRC review of all revisions to the Master Population Listi
-                                                                                                                                                !
+,
-                 '
+Populat?on Descriptions, and the Population Items L"ist for
-                          ,
+;
-                                                     thaultinooftheLubsequentrevisions              .
+the three populations revealed'that the criteria' of
-                                                                                                                                            ~
+Section5.5ofProcedureCPP-0UPwere~beingadheredtoas
-                                                                                                      '
+i
-                                          .                    3
+.
-;                                                         ;"        ,
+far as sign-offs for review and approval,' and control and
-                           _                                     't
+,
-                             h                  to violatidono*r deviations were identified.
+!
+thaultinooftheLubsequentrevisions
+'
+.
+,
+'
+~
+.
+;
+;"
 ,
+'t
-                                                               .%
+_
-                                        (2) Pipe Welds /Matefial (PIWM)                     ,
+to violatidono*r deviations were identified.
-                                                                                                                                                l
+h
-                                                                  '
-, :3                                                                    ;'-                                 4
+,
-                                                                      s                                                                           !
+.%
-                                                This population was created by combining the two populations
-                  a                                                                            .
-                       ;                        which were previously titled Largg* Bore Pipe Welds /Materiale
-                                                                                           %.
-                                    '
-                                                (LBWM) and Small Bore Pipe WeldssNaterial (SBWM).
-                                                                                              ,
-                                                                                                           In addition to
-             n     .
-                                                                                               's"
-             '
-                                                this combination, mechanical equipment," site-made, pressure                                    >
-                                                                                                                                                '
 l
-r     ,
+(2) Pipe Welds /Matefial (PIWM)
-                                                                                                               * t-    .e4
+,
-                                :y,
+'
-                                                   -
+, :3
-                                                                                                                    g
+;'-
-                                                                                                                '
-                                s1       ,    1
+s
-                  g 'g     .4                                                                      \'
+!
+This population was created by combining the two populations
+a
+.
+;
+which were previously titled Largg* Bore Pipe Welds /Materiale
+%.
+(LBWM) and Small Bore Pipe WeldssNaterial (SBWM).
+In addition to
+'
+,'s"
+n
+.
+this combination, mechanical equipment," site-made, pressure
+'
+>
+'
+l
+r
+,
+* t-
+.e4
+-
+:y,
+g
+'
+s1
+,
+g
+'g
+.4
+\\'
-                                                .
+.
-                                 .
+.
 .0.0
-                                                  boundary welds were added to the PlWM population, and tubing
+boundary welds were added to the PlWM population, and tubing
-                                                  welds were organized into a separate pcpulation (TUWM).
+welds were organized into a separate pcpulation (TUWM).
-                                                  (a) Population Description
+(a) Population Description
-                                                       NRC inspection verified that the systems listed by the CPRT
+NRC inspection verified that the systems listed by the CPRT
-                                                       for inclusion in this population were designated in
+for inclusion in this population were designated in
-                                                       Section 17A of the FSAR as safety related, either Safety
+Section 17A of the FSAR as safety related, either Safety
-                                                       Class 1, 2, or 3, and Seismic Category I.     In reviewing
+Class 1, 2, or 3, and Seismic Category I.
-                                                       Table 17A, bewever, it was observed that the Boron Thermal
+In reviewing
-                                              '        Regeneration System, Combustible Gas Control System, Post -
+Table 17A, bewever, it was observed that the Boron Thermal
-                                                                                                                          l
+Regeneration System, Combustible Gas Control System, Post -
-                                                       Accident Sample System, and the Plant Gas System were.not          i
+'
-                                                       listed in the CPRT Population Description, though they             ;
+Accident Sample System, and the Plant Gas System were.not
-                                                       should have been.    Subsequent review of the Population items
+i
-                                                       List, however, verified that these systems were included in
+listed in the CPRT Population Description, though they
-                                                        the population; they were, apparently. inadvertently left     , ,
+;
-                                                        out of the Population Description.
+should have been.
-                                                        The hRC inspector cor. curs with the population boundaries,
+Subsequent review of the Population items
-                                                        items not included in the population, and specific
+List, however, verified that these systems were included in
-                                                        interfaces as listed in the Population Description.
+the population; they were, apparently. inadvertently left
-                                                                                     .
+, ,
-                                                   (b) Master Population List             .
+out of the Population Description.
-                                                         NRC review of the original Master Population List and all
+The hRC inspector cor. curs with the population boundaries,
-                                                         subsequent revisions (one through five) verified that this
+items not included in the population, and specific
+interfaces as listed in the Population Description.
+.
+(b) Master Population List
+.
+NRC review of the original Master Population List and all
+subsequent revisions (one through five) verified that this
 - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _
- .
+.
-.0.0                                                                                                 ,
+.0.0
-                                         population was included on the list and that review,
+,
-                                         approval, and control of the documents were per procedure.
+population was included on the list and that review,
-                                     (c) Population Items List
+approval, and control of the documents were per procedure.
-                                         The source document for the Population Items List was the
+(c)
-                                         B&R Comanche Peak Craig Computer Tracking System (CCTS)                                                                    i
+Population Items List
-                                         Report WEC-C-WE-REPORT issued June 12, 1985. This report
+The source document for the Population Items List was the
-                                         was a computer sort listirg all safety-related and QC'
+B&R Comanche Peak Craig Computer Tracking System (CCTS)
-                                         accepted large and small bore pipe welds and instrument
+i
-     ,
+Report WEC-C-WE-REPORT issued June 12, 1985. This report
-                                         tubing welds. The weld was considered QC accepted when                                         -
+was a computer sort listirg all safety-related and QC'
-                                         construction was complete and inspection holdpoints had been
+accepted large and small bore pipe welds and instrument
-                                         accepted by QC as documented by QC signatures on the B&R
+tubing welds. The weld was considered QC accepted when
-                                         Weld Data Card (WDC).
+-
-                                                                                                                                                                      !
+,
-he WEC-C-WE-REPORT included a total of approximately 66,000                                         .
+construction was complete and inspection holdpoints had been
-                                                                                                                                                                    )
+accepted by QC as documented by QC signatures on the B&R
-                                                                                                                                          .                       .
+Weld Data Card (WDC).
-                                         safety-related and construction-complete site-made welds.                                                                  ]
+.
-                                         To establish validity of the source document, the CPRT
+)
-                                         performed the following reviews:
+he WEC-C-WE-REPORT included a total of approximately 66,000
-                                          (1) Verified that the 591 site-made welds listed on the
+.
-                                               ASME III N-5 Data Repor.t Index for the Unit 1 Auxiliary
+.
-                                               Feed Water system were on the Population Items List.
+safety-related and construction-complete site-made welds.
-                                                                                                                                                                      l
+]
-                                                                                                                                                                    i
+To establish validity of the source document, the CPRT
-____     _ ___._________________m___                 _ _ _      _ _ _ _ . _ _  _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _     _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ .
+performed the following reviews:
+(1) Verified that the 591 site-made welds listed on the
+ASME III N-5 Data Repor.t Index for the Unit 1 Auxiliary
+Feed Water system were on the Population Items List.
+i
+____
+_
+___._________________m___
+_ _ _
+_ _ _ _ . _ _
+_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _
+__ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
+_ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ .
-                                                                           :
+:
-      .
+.
-  .
+.
 .0.0
-                                                                           I
+I
-l       (2) Reviewed all 26 Unit 1 BRP drawings for tie Residual           l
+l
-                                                                           l
+(2) Reviewed all 26 Unit 1 BRP drawings for tie Residual
-             Heat Removal system and 26 randomly Folmeted Unit 2 BRP       l
+l
-             drawings were listed on the Population items List.
+l
+Heat Removal system and 26 randomly Folmeted Unit 2 BRP
+l
+drawings were listed on the Population items List.
 l
 f
-        (3) A review of 675 WDCs from several Unit 2 systems for
+(3) A review of 675 WDCs from several Unit 2 systems for
-             instrument piping welds was performed ano all welds'
+instrument piping welds was performed ano all welds'
-             were included.
+were included.
-        (4) A review of the construction complete (C/I) status of         I
+(4) A review of the construction complete (C/I) status of
-             the source document and the review showed that most of
+I
-    ,
+the source document and the review showed that most of
-             thedieselgenerator(Unit 1andUnit2)pipesite-made
+thedieselgenerator(Unit 1andUnit2)pipesite-made
-             welds had not been assigned a complete / incomplete
+,
-             status under the C/I column. These welds were added to      l
+welds had not been assigned a complete / incomplete
-                                                                         I
+status under the C/I column. These welds were added to
-             the source document to complete the Population Items        j
+l
-                                                                         l
+I
-                                                                         !
+the source document to complete the Population Items
-             List.
+j
-                                                                         I
+l
-                                                                         l
+List.
-                                                                     . . !
+!
-        The NRC inspector initially compared the systems listed in
+I
-        FSAR Table 17-A to the source document to assure                 !
+l
-        consistency. Next, the NRC inspector randomly selected
+!
-                                                                         i
+.
-BRP drawings for Unit 1 and Unit 2 not previously
+.
-        selected by the CPRT and verified that the 416 site-made
+The NRC inspector initially compared the systems listed in
-        welds were included on the Population Items List. No
+FSAR Table 17-A to the source document to assure
+!
-        omissions were noted,                                              j
+consistency. Next, the NRC inspector randomly selected
-                                                                         j
+i
-                                                                          l
+BRP drawings for Unit 1 and Unit 2 not previously
-                                                                           l
+selected by the CPRT and verified that the 416 site-made
+welds were included on the Population Items List. No
+omissions were noted,
+j
+j
+l
+l
-    .
 .
-.0.0
+.
-                                                                               l
+.0.0
-               To further verify accuracy of the CPRT approach,10 of the
+To further verify accuracy of the CPRT approach,10 of the
 BRP drawings reviewed t'y the CPRT were compared to the
-               source document.    No discrepancies were found.                ,
+source document.
-          (d) Work Process Memorandum
+No discrepancies were found.
-               Revision 3 to Procedure CPP-005 dated May 28, 1986, required
+,
-               all ISAP VII.c populations to have a Work Process
+(d) Work Process Memorandum
-               Herrorandum. This memorandum was to identify safety-related
+Revision 3 to Procedure CPP-005 dated May 28, 1986, required
-               construction work processes and attributes that could be
+all ISAP VII.c populations to have a Work Process
-                                                                          -
+Herrorandum. This memorandum was to identify safety-related
-  '             reinspected and/or verified by document review.
+construction work processes and attributes that could be
-                The Work Process Memorandum for PIWM was in draft form;
+reinspected and/or verified by document review.
-                therefore, it will be reviewed at a later time. This is
+-
-                another part of open item (445/8702-0-01; 446/8702-0-01).
+'
-                                                                            .
+The Work Process Memorandum for PIWM was in draft form;
-           (e) Revisions
+therefore, it will be reviewed at a later time. This is
-                 NRC review of all revisions to the Master Population List.
+another part of open item (445/8702-0-01; 446/8702-0-01).
-                 Population Descriptions and the Population-Items List for
+.
-                 the PIWM population revealed that the criteria of
+(e) Revisions
-                                                                              ;
+NRC review of all revisions to the Master Population List.
-                 Section 5.5 of Procedure CPP-005 were followed.
+Population Descriptions and the Population-Items List for
-                                                                               l
+the PIWM population revealed that the criteria of
-            No vio'.etions or deviations were identified.
+Section 5.5 of Procedure CPP-005 were followed.
-                                                                              ,
+;
-      (3) Concrete Placement (CONC)
+No vio'.etions or deviations were identified.
+,
+(3) Concrete Placement (CONC)
-                                                                             _
+_
-      .
+i
-                                                                                     i
+.
-  .
+.
-.0.0                                              ;
+.0.0
+;
 I
-        The concrete placement population contained 7617 concrete pours
+The concrete placement population contained 7617 concrete pours
-l       identified on a computer printout generated by B&R from concrete
-!       pour cards.
-                                                                                      )
 l
-        (a) Population Descriptions
+identified on a computer printout generated by B&R from concrete
+!
+pour cards.
+)
 l
 l
-             The NRC inspector reviewed ERC document QA/QC-RT-328,
+(a) Population Descriptions
-              Revision 0, " Population Description for Concrete Placement."
+l
-             The population boundary included all Categcry I concrete
+The NRC inspector reviewed ERC document QA/QC-RT-328,
-              construction that had been completed and approved as of
+Revision 0, " Population Description for Concrete Placement."
-    i        August 1, 1985. The Category 1 structures were listed in'
+The population boundary included all Categcry I concrete
+construction that had been completed and approved as of
-              Attachment A of the Population Description.    The NRC
+August 1, 1985. The Category 1 structures were listed in'
-              inspector verified that Attachment A agrees with the FSAR,
+i
-              Section 3.2.1.1.1, which also lists Category 1 structures.
-              AsubsequentreviewofthePopulationItemsList(seebelow)
+Attachment A of the Population Description.
-              verified that the list contained concrete pours from each of ,   ,      j
+The NRC
-              the Category 1 structures listed in Attachment A.    The NRC
+inspector verified that Attachment A agrees with the FSAR,
-              inspector concurred with the population boundary and the
+Section 3.2.1.1.1, which also lists Category 1 structures.
-              items not included within the scope of the population. The
+AsubsequentreviewofthePopulationItemsList(seebelow)
-              CPRT review and approval as well as the filing of the
+verified that the list contained concrete pours from each of ,
-              Population Description were performed per Procedure CPP-005.
+j
-                                             .
+,
-         (b) Master Population List
+the Category 1 structures listed in Attachment A.
-               NRC review of the Master Population List, Revision 5,             ,
+The NRC
-                                                                                   ,
+inspector concurred with the population boundary and the
-               verified that the concrete placement population was included
+items not included within the scope of the population. The
+CPRT review and approval as well as the filing of the
+Population Description were performed per Procedure CPP-005.
+.
+(b) Master Population List
+NRC review of the Master Population List, Revision 5,
+,
+,
+verified that the concrete placement population was included
-    .
 .
-.0.0
+.
-          on the list.   Review, approval, and control of the Master
+.0.0
-          Population List was per Procedure CPP-005.
+on the list.
-      (c) Population Items List
+Review, approval, and control of the Master
-          The NRC inspector reviewed ERC document 0A/QC-RT-1628,
+Population List was per Procedure CPP-005.
-          Revision 1, " Population Items List Concrete Placement." The
+(c)
-          population source was a 254 page computer printcut generated     )
+Population Items List
-                                                                          {
+The NRC inspector reviewed ERC document 0A/QC-RT-1628,
-          from individual concrete pour cards by B&R. 1his list          j
+Revision 1, " Population Items List Concrete Placement." The
-                                                                         i
+population source was a 254 page computer printcut generated
-          included the ennerete pour number, date poured and a brief
+)
-                                                                         '
+{
-  ,
+from individual concrete pour cards by B&R. 1his list
-          description of the area poured for each of the 7617 concrete
+j
-          pours in the population.    According to this document, the
+i
-          population list " . . . includes all safety-related concrete   l
+included the ennerete pour number, date poured and a brief
-          pours in Unit 1, 2 and areas conrnon to both units."
+'
-                                                                           l
+description of the area poured for each of the 7617 concrete
-          Attachment 6.3 of ERC Procedure CPP-005, Revision 3, states, .
+,
-          in part, "The Responsible QA/QC Discipline Engineer . . .
+pours in the population.
-          Provides the basis for accepting the list as valio."     In
+According to this document, the
-          addition, "The QA/QC Lead Discipline Engineer and the QA/QC      l
+population list " . . . includes all safety-related concrete
-                                                                           l
+l
-                                                                           '
+pours in Unit 1, 2 and areas conrnon to both units."
-           Engineering Supervisor review Population Items Lists to
+Attachment 6.3 of ERC Procedure CPP-005, Revision 3, states, .
-           ensure that they are complete, accurate, and consistent with
+in part, "The Responsible QA/QC Discipline Engineer . . .
-           the requirements of this procedure." ERC stated on the
+Provides the basis for accepting the list as valio."
-                                                                           i
+In
-           Population Items List that the following three steps were
+addition, "The QA/QC Lead Discipline Engineer and the QA/QC
-           taken to validate the list:
+l
-                                                                           l
+'
+Engineering Supervisor review Population Items Lists to
+ensure that they are complete, accurate, and consistent with
+the requirements of this procedure." ERC stated on the
+i
+Population Items List that the following three steps were
+taken to validate the list:
-  -
+)
-                                                                       )
+-
-                                                                       i
+i
-                                                                       !
+.0.0
-.0.0
+)
-)    Twenty arbitrarily chosen pour numbers identified on
+Twenty arbitrarily chosen pour numbers identified on
-          B&R drawings were found to be on the population list.        )
+B&R drawings were found to be on the population list.
-                                                                       l
+)
-)    An arbitrary selection of concrete pours from
+)
-          Inspection Report Logs were reviewed against the
+An arbitrary selection of concrete pours from
-          population list and no discrepancies were identified.
+Inspection Report Logs were reviewed against the
+population list and no discrepancies were identified.
-)    A review of the population list confirmed that no time       ;
+)
-                                                                       I
+A review of the population list confirmed that no time
-          gaps were apparent in the pour dates.
+gaps were apparent in the pour dates.
+The NRC inspector reviewed the steps taken by ERC to
+-
+,
+validate the population list for concrete placement. Only
+)
+l
+step 1 above was documented.
+A handwritten, unsigne.1 and
+undated memo describes the 20 concrete pours (10 from the
 ,
-    The NRC inspector reviewed the steps taken by ERC to         -
+random sample and 10 from the safe shutdown sample) that
-    validate the population list for concrete placement. Only          )
+were verified by ERC to be on the population list. This
-                                                                       l
+. .
-    step 1 above was documented.    A handwritten, unsigne.1 and
+represents only 0.26% of the total population of 7617. The
-    undated memo describes the 20 concrete pours (10 from the          ,
+NRC inspector verified that the 20 concrete pours selected
-                                                                       !
-    random sample and 10 from the safe shutdown sample) that
+by ERC were on the population list.
-    were verified by ERC to be on the population list. This
+j
-                                                                   . .
+The NRC inspector prepared a randomly selected list of
-    represents only 0.26% of the total population of 7617. The         !
+concrete pours from 17 B&R drawings and compared this
-    NRC inspector verified that the 20 concrete pours selected         1
+]
-                                                                       !
+q
-    by ERC were on the population list.                                j
+list with the Population Items List to determine if the
-    The NRC inspector prepared a randomly selected list of
-concrete pours from 17 B&R drawings and compared this          ]
+concrete pours were included.
-                                                                       q
+The following
-    list with the Population Items List to determine if the            1
+j
-concrete pours were included.    The following                 j
+discrepancies were discovered:
-    discrepancies were discovered:
+i
-                                                                       i
-      .
+.
 i
 .0.0
-)  Pour Nos. 205-9810-039 through 205-9810-056 are shown
+)
-            as block-out type pours in the east diesel generator           l
+Pour Nos. 205-9810-039 through 205-9810-056 are shown
-            foundation, Unit 2, on Crawing 558-20655, Sheet 1,             l
+as block-out type pours in the east diesel generator
-            Revision 5.    Pour Nos. 205-9810-040 and 205-9810-048
+l
-            through 205-9810-056 were not on the Population Items
+foundation, Unit 2, on Crawing 558-20655, Sheet 1,
-            List and no corresponding pour cards could be obtained
+l
-            in the TU Electric records center.     Pour
+Revision 5.
-            Nos. 205-9810-039 and 205-9810-041 through 205-9810-047
+Pour Nos. 205-9810-040 and 205-9810-048
-            were assigned on drawings at least twice and are shown,
+through 205-9810-056 were not on the Population Items
-            for exaniple, on Drawings 558-20605, Sheet 1,
+List and no corresponding pour cards could be obtained
-            Revision 7, and 5S8-20618, Sheet 1, Revision 2, to be-
+in the TU Electric records center.
+Pour
+Nos. 205-9810-039 and 205-9810-041 through 205-9810-047
+were assigned on drawings at least twice and are shown,
+for exaniple, on Drawings 558-20605, Sheet 1,
 f
-    i
+Revision 7, and 5S8-20618, Sheet 1, Revision 2, to be-
-            concrete curbs, removable slabs, etc.; not block-outs.
+i
-            Pour Nos. 205-9810-039 and 205-9810-041.through
+concrete curbs, removable slabs, etc.; not block-outs.
--9810-047 were on the Population Items List.    They
+Pour Nos. 205-9810-039 and 205-9810-041.through
-             did not, however, represent the block-out pours in the
+-9810-047 were on the Population Items List.
-             diesel generator foundation as determined by checking     , ,
+They
-             the concrete pour cards.    The NRC inspector verified by
+did not, however, represent the block-out pours in the
-             field inspections that the block-out pours had been
+diesel generator foundation as determined by checking
-             ir.s talled.
+, ,
-)  Pour No. 205-4822-003 is shown as a shielding wall for
+the concrete pour cards.
-                                      ~
+The NRC inspector verified by
-              the Primary Sampling room on Drawings $58-20605,
+field inspections that the block-out pours had been
-              Sheet 4A, Revision 0, and SSB-20605, Sheet 4,
+ir.s talled.
-              Revision O.   This pour number was not on the Population
+)
-              Items List.   A pour card for this pour was located in
+Pour No. 205-4822-003 is shown as a shielding wall for
-              the TV Electric Records Center. The NRC inspector
+the Primary Sampling room on Drawings $58-20605,
+~
+Sheet 4A, Revision 0, and SSB-20605, Sheet 4,
+Revision O.
+This pour number was not on the Population
+Items List.
+A pour card for this pour was located in
+the TV Electric Records Center. The NRC inspector
-                                                                                 l
+l
-      .
+.
-                                                                                 !
+'
-  '
+i
-                                                                                 i
+.0.0
-.0.0                                           )
+)
-                                                                                 i
+i
-                                                                                 !
+!
-                                                                                 !
+J
-                                                                                 J
+verified by field inspection thet the shielding wall
-                   verified by field inspection thet the shielding wall          '
+'
-                   had been installed.
+had been installed.
-                                                                               .
+.
-             The above discrepancies indicate that the Population Items
+The above discrepancies indicate that the Population Items
-             List is not entirely complete and accurate and does not
+List is not entirely complete and accurate and does not
-             include ". . . all safety-related concrete pours in
+include ". . . all safety-related concrete pours in
-             Unit 1, 2 and areas common to both units," as stated. The
+Unit 1, 2 and areas common to both units," as stated. The
-             ERC review of the Population Items List to ensure accuracy
+ERC review of the Population Items List to ensure accuracy
-             and completeness was inadequate. This is a deviation              I
+and completeness was inadequate. This is a deviation
-             (445/8702-D-02;446/8702-D-02).                                    f
+I
-                                                                          *
+f
-    a
+(445/8702-D-02;446/8702-D-02).
-                                                                               I
+*
-                                                                               j
+a
-        (d) Work Process Memorandum
+I
+(d) Work Process Memorandum
-             P.evision 3 to Procedure CPP-005 dated May 28, 1906, required
+j
-             all ISAP VII.c populations to have a Work Process                 i
-             Memorandum.    This memorandum was to identify safety-related
+P.evision 3 to Procedure CPP-005 dated May 28, 1906, required
-                                                                            _
+all ISAP VII.c populations to have a Work Process
-             construction work processes and attributes that could be          i
+i
-             reinspected and/or verified by document review.
+Memorandum.
-                                                                                ]
+This memorandum was to identify safety-related
-             The Work Process Memorandum for concrete placement was in
+_
-             draft form; therefore, it will be reviewed at a later time.
+construction work processes and attributes that could be
-             This is another part of opencitem (445/8702-0-01;                   l
+i
-/8702-0-01).
+reinspected and/or verified by document review.
-                                                                                 !
+]
-                                                                                 '
+The Work Process Memorandum for concrete placement was in
-         (e)  Revisions
+draft form; therefore, it will be reviewed at a later time.
+This is another part of opencitem (445/8702-0-01;
+/8702-0-01).
+'
+(e)
+Revisions
 .
-                                                                                 !
+l
-                                                                                 l
- _ _ _ - - _ _ ___ __                                                                   - _ __ _
+_ _ _ - - _ _ ___ __
-                        .
+- _ __ _
+.
 .'
 .0.0
-                                     NRC review of all revisions to the Master Population List,
+NRC review of all revisions to the Master Population List,
-                                     Population Descriptions and the Population Items List for
+Population Descriptions and the Population Items List for
-                                     the concrete placement' population revealed that the criteria-
+the concrete placement' population revealed that the criteria-
-                                     of Section 5.5 of Procedure CPP-005 were followed.
+of Section 5.5 of Procedure CPP-005 were followed.
-                                                                                                           !
+No other violations or deviations were identified.
-                               No other violations or deviations were identified.                          !
+(4) Electrical Populations
-                          (4) Electrical Populations
+.
-                                                                                                 .
+The NRC inspector reviewed the Population Items List
-                               The NRC inspector reviewed the Population Items List
+docurrentation for each of the electrical populations to determine
-                      ,
+,
-                               docurrentation for each of the electrical populations to determine
+which sources were used to develop the population and the basis
-                               which sources were used to develop the population and the basis             l
+for the CPRT determination that th'e developed popu.lation was
+accurate.
-                               for the CPRT determination that th'e developed popu.lation was
+The NRC inspector found that the conduit, cable, cable tray,
-                               accurate.
+, ,
-                                                                                                            l
+electrical equipment and NIS cable termination (CDUT, CABL, CATY,
-                               The NRC inspector found that the conduit, cable, cable tray,            , ,
+EEIN, and NIST) population lists were generated'using the
-                               electrical equipment and NIS cable termination (CDUT, CABL, CATY,
+TV Electric Electrical Management System (EMS) as a source.
-                               EEIN, and NIST) population lists were generated'using the
+EMS
-                               TV Electric Electrical Management System (EMS) as a source.         EMS     ;
+;
-                               was a computerized cable and raceway schedule developed by site
+was a computerized cable and raceway schedule developed by site
-                               personnel to track the status of Unit 1. Unit 2, and Common                 i
+personnel to track the status of Unit 1. Unit 2, and Common
-                               cables and raceways.     Cable and receway changes authorized by
+i
-                               designchangeauthorizations'(DCAs)wereenteredintoEMSona
+cables and raceways.
-                               daily basis. The EMS then provided a printout of these daily
+Cable and receway changes authorized by
-                               changes on a Daily Activities Report.     Since EMS was neither a
+designchangeauthorizations'(DCAs)wereenteredintoEMSona
-                               required document nor controlled by procedures, the previous EMS            :
+daily basis. The EMS then provided a printout of these daily
-                                                                                                           ,
+changes on a Daily Activities Report.
+Since EMS was neither a
+required document nor controlled by procedures, the previous EMS
+:
+,
-                            _             _      _    .      . _ .
+_
-                                                         .
+_
-      n                                                                           i
+_
-  .
+.
-                                                                                    l
+.
-.0.0
+. _ .
+n
+i
-        revisions and Daily Activity Reports had not been retained as
+.
-        permanent plant records.     The NRC inspector observed that copies       i
+l
-        of the EMS printouts which had been used by ERC for population
+.0.0
-        list development, were retained in the QA/QC Review Team fi?es in
-        the CPRT document control center.
-                                                                                    I
+revisions and Daily Activity Reports had not been retained as
-                                                                                    ;
+permanent plant records.
-        The electrical cable (CABL) population was selected for a more
+The NRC inspector observed that copies
-        detailed NRC inspection to evaluate the implementation of the
+i
-        appropriate precedures for establishing and accepting the
+of the EMS printouts which had been used by ERC for population
-        population.
+list development, were retained in the QA/QC Review Team fi?es in
-                                                                                    l
+the CPRT document control center.
-                                                                            .
+I
-    ,
+;
-        (a) Population Description
+The electrical cable (CABL) population was selected for a more
-                                                                                    I
+detailed NRC inspection to evaluate the implementation of the
-              The NRC inspector's review of the Population Description for
+appropriate precedures for establishing and accepting the
-              cables identified that the population was to include all
+population.
 l
-               Class 1E, safety-related power, control and instrument         , ,
+.
-               cables.  The population boundary for samples selected for
+,
-               reinspection / documentation reviews was restricted to those
+(a) Population Description
-               cables which had been installed, terminated on both ends and
+I
-               QC accepted.    Excluded from the population were electrical
+The NRC inspector's review of the Population Description for
+cables identified that the population was to include all
+Class 1E, safety-related power, control and instrument
 l
-               conductor seal assemblies, NIS cable connectors, and
+, ,
-               unscheduled lighting (except for separation barrier material
+cables.
-               inspections).    These three groups were excluded from the
+The population boundary for samples selected for
-               cable population because they were included in other
+reinspection / documentation reviews was restricted to those
-t              populations.    The NRC inspector concurred with the
+cables which had been installed, terminated on both ends and
-               population boundary and the items not included within the
+QC accepted.
+Excluded from the population were electrical
+l
+conductor seal assemblies, NIS cable connectors, and
+unscheduled lighting (except for separation barrier material
+inspections).
+These three groups were excluded from the
+cable population because they were included in other
+t
+populations.
+The NRC inspector concurred with the
+population boundary and the items not included within the
 i
-    .
+.
 .0.0
-           scope of the population. The CPRT review and approval as
+scope of the population. The CPRT review and approval as
 i
-           well as the filing of the Population D3scription was
+well as the filing of the Population D3scription was
-           performed per Procedure CPP-005.
+performed per Procedure CPP-005.
-                                                                              l
+l
-      (b) Master Popula' tion List
+(b) Master Popula' tion List
-                                                                              ;
+;
-                                                                              !
+!
-           NRC review of the Master Population List, Revision 5,
+NRC review of the Master Population List, Revision 5,
-           verified that the electrical cable population was included         i
+verified that the electrical cable population was included
-           on the list.    Review, approval, and control of the Master
+i
-           Population List was per Procedure CPP-005.                        -)
+on the list.
-                                                                       -
+Review, approval, and control of the Master
-                                                                              !
+Population List was per Procedure CPP-005.
-  ,                                                                           1
+- )
+!
-      (c) Population Items List                                               !
+-
-                                                                              :
-                                                                              f
+,
-           A comparison of the items documented in the Cable Population       l
-           Items List to the items required by CPP-005 was perforrred.
+(c) Population Items List
-           The list was divided into three parts: Population List        , ,
+!
-           Source; Basis for Accepting the List; and Basis for
+:
-           Accepting any Additional Items. The NRC inspector
+f
-           determined that the provided information met the
+A comparison of the items documented in the Cable Population
-           requirements of CPP-005.
+l
-                                         ~
+Items List to the items required by CPP-005 was perforrred.
-           The Population List Source contained the listing and
+The list was divided into three parts: Population List
-           description of the documents used to develop the listing of
+, ,
-           applicable electrical cables. The sources referenced were
+Source; Basis for Accepting the List; and Basis for
-                                                                               '
+Accepting any Additional Items. The NRC inspector
-           the EMS cable report (ELE SAFETY RPT) dated June 17, 1985,
+determined that the provided information met the
-           and the Gibbs & Hill (G&H) Lighting Panel Schedule, Drawings
+requirements of CPP-005.
-                                                                               l
+~
+The Population List Source contained the listing and
+description of the documents used to develop the listing of
+applicable electrical cables.
+The sources referenced were
+'
+the EMS cable report (ELE SAFETY RPT) dated June 17, 1985,
+and the Gibbs & Hill (G&H) Lighting Panel Schedule, Drawings
+l
 l
-      .
+.
-  '
-                                                                             i
-.0.0
--El-0942-01 through -05 and E2-0942-01 through -03.     NRC
-        inspector review of these documents disclosso that Drawing
--E2-0942-03 does not exist.     The NRC inspector then
-        reviewed the file applicable to the Basis for Accepting the
-        List.    While no problems were identified with this file, the
-        NRC inspector questioned how the EPS was validated es a
-        complete source of applicable electrical cables. The NRC
-        inspector was informed that the QA/QC discipline engineer
 '
-        responsible for the cable population had selected 30 cables          j
+i
-        aach from the raceway schedules for Unit 1 and Unit 2               u
+.0.0
-        (2323-El-1700 and 2323-E2-1700) and then compared these      -       i
+-El-0942-01 through -05 and E2-0942-01 through -03.
-    i
+NRC
-        cables to the EMS listing he had used.     The NRC inspector
+inspector review of these documents disclosso that Drawing
-        noted that the population included cables whi.ch were
+-E2-0942-03 does not exist.
-        deleted, spared, not yet QC accepted, not yet installed, and
+The NRC inspector then
-        those which may not be accessible, and that the validation
+reviewed the file applicable to the Basis for Accepting the
-        process was not a procedurally required formal process nor      , ,
+List.
-        was it documented.     The NRC inspector determined, however,
+While no problems were identified with this file, the
-         that the requirements of CPP-005 had been fulfilled in              ,
+NRC inspector questioned how the EPS was validated es a
-                                                                             i
+complete source of applicable electrical cables. The NRC
-        establishing this population.
+inspector was informed that the QA/QC discipline engineer
-         In an effort to evaluate the acceptability of the cable
+responsible for the cable population had selected 30 cables
-         population (which containedi over 14,000 cables) the NRC
+j
-          inspector chose an arbitrary sample of affected cables.           'l
+'
-         Between 1 and 6 cables from each safety-related plant system        f
+aach from the raceway schedules for Unit 1 and Unit 2
-                                                                             !
+u
-          from the Unit I and the Unit 2 raceway schedules and
+(2323-El-1700 and 2323-E2-1700) and then compared these
-cables from the unscheduled lighting panel drawings were        $
+-
-                                                                             I
+i
+i
+cables to the EMS listing he had used.
+The NRC inspector
+noted that the population included cables whi.ch were
+deleted, spared, not yet QC accepted, not yet installed, and
+those which may not be accessible, and that the validation
+process was not a procedurally required formal process nor
+, ,
+was it documented.
+The NRC inspector determined, however,
+that the requirements of CPP-005 had been fulfilled in
+,
+i
+establishing this population.
+In an effort to evaluate the acceptability of the cable
+population (which containedi ver 14,000 cables) the NRC
+o
+inspector chose an arbitrary sample of affected cables.
+'l
+Between 1 and 6 cables from each safety-related plant system
+f
+!
+from the Unit I and the Unit 2 raceway schedules and
+$
+cables from the unscheduled lighting panel drawings were
+I
-      .
+.
-  .
+.
-                                                                          I
+I
 .0.0
-        selected. This resulted in a sample which contained
+selected. This resulted in a sample which contained
-                                                                           i
+i
 cables from 55 systems in Unit I and 122 cables from
-systems in tinit 2.     These cables were then compared to
+systems in tinit 2.
-        the cable population list obtained from the QA/QC Review
+These cables were then compared to
-        Team Records Control Vault to provide assurance that the
+the cable population list obtained from the QA/QC Review
-        population list used by ERC was complete.       The comparison of
+Team Records Control Vault to provide assurance that the
-l       these lists produced the following findings:
+population list used by ERC was complete.
-)    The list of Essential and Emergency Lighting cables was
+The comparison of
-                                                                           }
-              rot in the file,                                            ,
-                                                                       '
-    i
 l
-l       2)    Pages 813 and 814 of the EMS listing were missing from
+these lists produced the following findings:
-i             the file,
+)
+The list of Essential and Emergency Lighting cables was
+}
+rot in the file,
+,
+'
 i
-)    Cable E0000425 was not included in the file list, and
+l
-)    Cable E0135036 was shewn as EG135036 in the file list.       f
+l
-        The NRC inspector then determined that: a copy of the list
+)
-        of Essential and Emergency Lighting cables was available in
+Pages 813 and 814 of the EMS listing were missing from
-         the electrical conduit population files; the missing EMS
+i
-         pages were available from working copies; DCAs 18,100
+the file,
-         and 10.547 authorized a designation change for cable
+i
-         E0000425 to A0000425; and the improper separation train
+)
-         designation (G vs. 0) for cable E0135036 was a data entry
+Cable E0000425 was not included in the file list, and
-         error.   The NRC inspector found that the population list was
+)
+Cable E0135036 was shewn as EG135036 in the file list.
+f
+The NRC inspector then determined that: a copy of the list
+of Essential and Emergency Lighting cables was available in
+the electrical conduit population files; the missing EMS
+pages were available from working copies; DCAs 18,100
+and 10.547 authorized a designation change for cable
+E0000425 to A0000425; and the improper separation train
+designation (G vs. 0) for cable E0135036 was a data entry
+error.
+The NRC inspector found that the population list was
-- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _         _ _ _ - _ _
+- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-                      .
+_ _ _ - _ _
+.
-.0.0
-                                               acceptable. However, the condition of the record files net
+.0.0
-                                               being complete as evidenced by 1) and 2) above is a
+acceptable. However, the condition of the record files net
-                                               deviation from ERC Procedure CPP-004, " Project Working
+being complete as evidenced by 1) and 2) above is a
-                                               Files," Revision 2, dated December 17, 1985 (445/8702-D-03;
+deviation from ERC Procedure CPP-004, " Project Working
-/8702-0-03).
+Files," Revision 2, dated December 17, 1985 (445/8702-D-03;
-                                          (d) Work Process Memorandum
+/8702-0-03).
-                                                Pevision 3 to Procedure CPP-005 dated May 28, 1986,' required
+(d) Work Process Memorandum
-                                                all ISAP VII.c populations to have a Work Process
+Pevision 3 to Procedure CPP-005 dated May 28, 1986,' required
-             .
+all ISAP VII.c populations to have a Work Process
-                                                Memorandum. This memorandum was to identify safety-related
+Memorandum. This memorandum was to identify safety-related
-                                                                                                                        i
+.
-                                                                                                                        I
+i
-                                                 construction work processes and attributes that could be
+I
-                                                  reinspected and/or verified by document review.
+construction work processes and attributes that could be
-                                                                                                                        )
+reinspected and/or verified by document review.
-                                                  The Work Process Memorandum for cable was only in draft
+)
-                                                    form; therefore, it will be reviewed at a 16ter date. This    .
+The Work Process Memorandum for cable was only in draft
-                                                    is another part of open item (445/8702-0-01; 446/8702-0-01).
+form; therefore, it will be reviewed at a 16ter date. This
-                                           (e) Revisions
+.
-                                                    NRC review of all revisions to the Master Population List,
+is another part of open item (445/8702-0-01; 446/8702-0-01).
-                                                    Population Descriptions and the Population Items List for
+(e) Revisions
-                                                    the cable population revealed that the criteria of
+NRC review of all revisions to the Master Population List,
-                                                     Section 5.5 of Procedure CPP-005 were followed.
+Population Descriptions and the Population Items List for
-                                                . .       ..                 .               .
+the cable population revealed that the criteria of
-                                                                                                     _.    .   ..   . .
+Section 5.5 of Procedure CPP-005 were followed.
-                        .
+.
-                          .. _ . ..                                                 .
+.. _ . ..
-                                                                                                   .
+. .
+..
+.
+.
+.
+.
+_.
+.
+..
+. .
-      '
+'
-                                                                                       l
+l
-  *
+l
-                                                                                       l
+*
-                                                                                       !
+!
 .0.0
-                 No violations or deviations other than as discussed in (c),
+No violations or deviations other than as discussed in (c),
-                 above, were identified.                                               ;
+above, were identified.
-                                                                                       '
+;
-        b. Reinspection of HVAC Equipment Installation (HVIN)
+b.
-                                                                                       l
+Reinspection of HVAC Equipment Installation (HVIN)
-           Status of CPRT Activity                                                     l
+'
-                                                                                       l
+l
-           A total of 181 HVAC equipment packages were randomly selected and
+Status of CPRT Activity
-           inspected from a population of 604 packages representing Units 1,
+l
-and common. A total of 331 DRs were written with 187 determined to
+l
-    i      be valid.    ERC has completed all planned HVAC equipment installation'
+A total of 181 HVAC equipment packages were randomly selected and
-           reinspection.
+inspected from a population of 604 packages representing Units 1,
+and common. A total of 331 DRs were written with 187 determined to
+be valid.
+ERC has completed all planned HVAC equipment installation'
+i
+reinspection.
+,
+Status of NRC Inspection Activity
+The NRC inspector reviewed the HVIN population with respect to HVAC
 ,
-           Status of NRC Inspection Activity
+fire dampers and their inclusion in the population. The NRC inspector
-           The NRC inspector reviewed the HVIN population with respect to HVAC       ,
+identified that approximately 30% of the first and second sample were
-           fire dampers and their inclusion in the population. The NRC inspector
+fire dampers that were statused as " Abandoned In Place." This raised
-           identified that approximately 30% of the first and second sample were
+a question with respect to the inclusion of nonsafety-related
-           fire dampers that were statused as " Abandoned In Place." This raised
+eouipment in the population.
-           a question with respect to the inclusion of nonsafety-related
+This was discussed with the population
-           eouipment in the population.   This was discussed with the population
+engineer who provided the following inf'ormation.
-           engineer who provided the following inf'ormation.    Fire dampers are not
+Fire dampers are not
-           required for a safe shutdown but were included in the HVIN population
+required for a safe shutdown but were included in the HVIN population
-           as an accessory connection and were reinspected to verify proper-
+as an accessory connection and were reinspected to verify proper-
-           mounting and bolting, but not operability.     A visual inspection was
+mounting and bolting, but not operability.
+A visual inspection was
-                                                                                       !
-                                                                                       J
+!
-                                                                              .-_ _D
+J
+.-  D
-                                                                        .   - --          -
+.
-                                                                                            _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
+- --
-                                                                                                          I
+-
-      ,
+_ _ _ _ _ _ ,
-  .
+I
-.0.0
+,
-                                                                                                          l
+.
-                also performed for configuration. This information was subsequently                       l
+.0.0
-                included in a letter to file No. QA/QC-RT-5584 dated February 2,1987.
+l
-                The NRC inspector found this to be consistent with ISAP VII.c
+also performed for configuration. This information was subsequently
-                regarding population items list development.
+l
-                The NRC inspector has previously witnessed four inspections and
+included in a letter to file No. QA/QC-RT-5584 dated February 2,1987.
-                performed five inspections, with no further inspection activity
+The NRC inspector found this to be consistent with ISAP VII.c
-                planned for this population.
+regarding population items list development.
+The NRC inspector has previously witnessed four inspections and
+performed five inspections, with no further inspection activity
+planned for this population.
+No violations or deviations were identified.
-                No violations or deviations were identified.
+.
+,
-                                                                                        .
+.
-    ,
+ISAP Sample Selection Process
-. ISAP Sample Selection Process
+'
-                                                                                                          '
+The purpose of this NP.C inspection was to determine whether the methods
-           The purpose of this NP.C inspection was to determine whether the methods
+used to select items and related documentation for reinspection or review
-           used to select items and related documentation for reinspection or review
+was performed in accordance with the requirements of the CPRT Program Plan, .
-           was performed in accordance with the requirements of the CPRT Program Plan, .
+Appendix 0, Revisions 0 and 1 "CPRT Sampling Policy Applications and
-           Appendix 0, Revisions 0 and 1 "CPRT Sampling Policy Applications and
+Guidelines." Appendix D prescribes the various applications of sampling
-           Guidelines." Appendix D prescribes the various applications of sampling
+within the CPRT program and defines guidelines for selecting samples
-           within the CPRT program and defines guidelines for selecting samples
+whenever random sampling techniques are used in ISAPs and Design Specific
-           whenever random sampling techniques are used in ISAPs and Design Specific
+ActionPlans(DSAPs).
-           ActionPlans(DSAPs).       This inspection was restricted to the review of ISAP
+This inspection was restricted to the review of ISAP
-            sample selections. The scope of the inspection covered electrical,
+sample selections. The scope of the inspection covered electrical,
-           mechanical and piping, QA/QC, and the Quality of Construction ISAPs.       The
+mechanical and piping, QA/QC, and the Quality of Construction ISAPs.
-            preoperational and testing ISAP sample selection was reviewed in a previous
+The
-            inspection with results documented in NRC Region IV Inspection Report
+preoperational and testing ISAP sample selection was reviewed in a previous
--445/85-18; 50-446/85-15.      Another activity previously inspected by the
+inspection with results documented in NRC Region IV Inspection Report
+-445/85-18; 50-446/85-15.
+Another activity previously inspected by the
 (
-                                                                                                                                                                   i
+i
-                                     <
+l
-                                                                                                                                                                     l
+<
-                                                                                                                                                                     l
+l
-                                                                                                                                                                     l
+l
-                                                                                                                                                                     l
+l
 .0.0
-                                                                                                                                                                   l
+l
-                                                                                                                                                                   '
+NRC fur compliance to Appendix D was the ERC Overview Inspection Program's
-                                                                      NRC fur compliance to Appendix D was the ERC Overview Inspection Program's
+'
-                                                                      sample selection.    Results of this inspection were documented in NRC
+sample selection.
-                                                                                                                                                                  ]
+Results of this inspection were documented in NRC
-                                                                      Region IV Inspection Report 50-445/86-22; 50-446/86-20.
+]
-                                                                                                                                                                   !
+Region IV Inspection Report 50-445/86-22; 50-446/86-20.
-                                                                                                                                                                     l
+!
-                                                                      The NRC approach used to review ISAP documentation and the inspection of                     )
+l
-                                                                      samples selected was: (1) to review the requirements identified in
+The NRC approach used to review ISAP documentation and the inspection of
+)
-                                                                      Appendix 0 and the applicable procedures, and (2) to verify implementation                   )
+samples selected was: (1) to review the requirements identified in
-                                                                      of the sample selection prccess by comparing the samples selected to the                    i
+Appendix 0 and the applicable procedures, and (2) to verify implementation
-                                                                      controlling commitments.            Samples were then reviewed to assure that: rancom
+)
-                                                                      number selection and item number calculations were correct; items
-           '
+of the sample selection prccess by comparing the samples selected to the
-                                                                      identified for inspection had a valid sample number and a random number
+i
-                                                                      assignment; errors in the selection of items for inspection had been
+controlling commitments.
-                                                                      resolved; departures from the sampling process had been identified;
+Samples were then reviewed to assure that: rancom
+number selection and item number calculations were correct; items
+'
+identified for inspection had a valid sample number and a random number
+assignment; errors in the selection of items for inspection had been
+resolved; departures from the sampling process had been identified;
+populations were clearly defined and segregated; acoitional sampling
 ,
-                                                                      populations were clearly defined and segregated; acoitional sampling
+required to achieve minimum sample size (based on population size increase)
-                                                                      required to achieve minimum sample size (based on population size increase)
+was correct and documented; expansion of sample size, based on identified
-                                                                      was correct and documented; expansion of sample size, based on identified
+~
-                                                                                                                                                            ~
+hardware deficiencies, conformed to requirements; and the sample selection
-                                                                                                                                                                     l
 l
-                                                                      hardware deficiencies, conformed to requirements; and the sample selection
+process w6s suitably documented to provide an auditable trail,
-                                                                      process w6s suitably documented to provide an auditable trail,                                 j
+j
 l
-                                                                      Of the 19 external source issue ISAPs considered for inspection,
+Of the 19 external source issue ISAPs considered for inspection,
-                                                                                                                                                                     '
+'
-completed and 1 inprocess ISAP were inspected.            From ISAP VII.c, 5 of
+completed and 1 inprocess ISAP were inspected.
-inprocess populations were inspected.           The following are the results of
+From ISAP VII.c, 5 of
-                                                                      this NRC inspection.
+inprocess populations were inspected.
-                                                                      a.    QA/QC ISAPs
+The following are the results of
+this NRC inspection.
+a.
+QA/QC ISAPs
 l
-  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _                             . _ _ .
+_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
-                                                                                                                                                              - _ ,
+. _ _ .
+- _ ,
-                                                                                 ,
-  .
-                                                                                   ,
 ,
-.0.0
+.
-l                                                                                  i
+,
-                                                                                   !
+.0.0
-      (1) ISAP VII.a.2:    Nonconformance and Corrective Action (inprocess).
+,
-                                                                                   j
+l
-                                                                                  J
+i
+!
+(1)
+ISAP VII.a.2:
+Nonconformance and Corrective Action (inprocess).
+j
+J
 I
-          This ISAP contained six populations, each requiring a separate
+This ISAP contained six populations, each requiring a separate
-          sample selection that would provide a 95/5 screen to detect
+sample selection that would provide a 95/5 screen to detect
-                                                                                   ,
+,
-l         programmatic or systematic deficiencies.     (The 95/5 screen or
+l
-          sampling plan provides a 95% confidence that not more than a             j
+programmatic or systematic deficiencies.
-                                                                                  i
+(The 95/5 screen or
-% deficiency rate exists in the sampled population.) Of the six         l
+sampling plan provides a 95% confidence that not more than a
+j
-          populations, the sample selection for NCRs covering the years
+i
-to 1977 was reviewed by the NRC inspector. Twenty-one of            )
+% deficiency rate exists in the sampled population.) Of the six
+l
-    .     the sixty-three selected samples were examined.     No errors were       '
-          noted in random number calculations or sample item identification
+populations, the sample selection for NCRs covering the years
-          from the population item list.    It was determined, based on the
+to 1977 was reviewed by the NRC inspector. Twenty-one of
-          NRC inspection, that the NCR sample selection conformed to             l
+)
-          Appendix D requirements.
-                                                                                  !
+the sixty-three selected samples were examined.
-                                                                             . ,  ;
+No errors were
-          ISAP VII.b.2:    Valve Disassembly (complete).                         !
+'
-      (2)                                                                        ,
+.
-                                                                                 i
+noted in random number calculations or sample item identification
-          During the NRC's inspection of VII.b.2, no errors in the 95/S
+from the population item list.
-          sampling plan were found.    The NRC inspector reviewed 21 of the       t
+It was determined, based on the
-sample selections and found them to conform to Appendix D;
+NRC inspection, that the NCR sample selection conformed to
-          ERC's implementing Procedure QAI-002, Revision 2, " Sample
+l
-          Selection"; and CPP-006, " Sample Selection." Prior to completion
+Appendix D requirements.
-          and issuance of the VII.b.2 Results Report (RR) on March 19,
+!
-, ERC's QA/QC surveillance group and the Results Report
+;
-                                                                                  ,
+. ,
-          Review Conmittee's (RRRC) review of sample selection identified
+(2)
-                                                                                 j
+ISAP VII.b.2:
+Valve Disassembly (complete).
+!
+,
+i
+During the NRC's inspection of VII.b.2, no errors in the 95/S
+t
+sampling plan were found.
+The NRC inspector reviewed 21 of the
+sample selections and found them to conform to Appendix D;
+ERC's implementing Procedure QAI-002, Revision 2, " Sample
+Selection"; and CPP-006, " Sample Selection." Prior to completion
+and issuance of the VII.b.2 Results Report (RR) on March 19,
+, ERC's QA/QC surveillance group and the Results Report
+,
+Review Conmittee's (RRRC) review of sample selection identified
+j
-    _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _        ._    _ _ _
+_ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _
+._
+_ _ _
 .
 .0.0
-                                                                                                              i
+i
-                                    errors in the selection process.     Corrective action by the ISAP        j
+errors in the selection process.
+Corrective action by the ISAP
-                                    issue coordinator included revising the Random Sample
+j
-                                    Identification List and performing additional hardware
-                                    reinspection.                                                             j
+issue coordinator included revising the Random Sample
-                                                                                                              i
+Identification List and performing additional hardware
-                                                                                                              l
+reinspection.
-                          b. Electrical ISAPs
+j
-                             (1)    ISAP 1.a.1:   Heat Shrinkable Insulation Sleeves (Revision 1 of
+i
-                                    the RR issued December 30,1986).
+l
-  ,
+b.
-                                    The NRC inspected 13 of the 111 samples selected for this ISAP.-          ,
+Electrical ISAPs
+(1)
-                                    From the CPRT reinspection of the initial 60 items randomly               i
+ISAP 1.a.1:
-                                    selected, provid'ng a 95/5 sampling plan, one was considered to
+Heat Shrinkable Insulation Sleeves (Revision 1 of
-                                                                                                              )
+the RR issued December 30,1986).
-                                    be a defect requiring sample expansion.     As required by                !
+The NRC inspected 13 of the 111 samples selected for this ISAP.-
-                                    Appendix D of the CPRT Program Plan, the sample was expanded by
+,
-                                    an additional 35 randomly selected items.      Four of the additional  ,
-                                                                                                              !
+,
-                                    thirty-five samples were found to be invalid and were deleted
+From the CPRT reinspection of the initial 60 items randomly
-                                    because they represented locations that did not use heat
+i
-                                    shrinkable insulation sleeves. To reach the required expanded             1
+selected, provid'ng a 95/5 sampling plan, one was considered to
-                                                                                                              I
+)
-                                    sample size, seven addit 1onal items were selected. Thus, the             )
+!
-                                                                                                              i
+be a defect requiring sample expansion.
-                                    total valid samples selected by CPRT for reinspection was 98;             )
+As required by
-                                                                                                              i
+Appendix D of the CPRT Program Plan, the sample was expanded by
-                                    however, during implementation ofcISAP I.a.2, " Inspection Reports        l
+an additional 35 randomly selected items.
-                                    on Butt Splices," 146 items were discovered th6t had been
+Four of the additional
-                                    inadvertently excluded from the original heat-shrinkable
+!
-                                    insulation sleeve population.     Proportional sampling was used on
+,
-                                    this additional population by selecting 12 of the 146.      The CPRT
+thirty-five samples were found to be invalid and were deleted
-                                                                                                              I
+because they represented locations that did not use heat
-                                                                                                    ____-_-_a
+shrinkable insulation sleeves.
+To reach the required expanded
+I
+sample size, seven addit 1onal items were selected. Thus, the
+)
+i
+total valid samples selected by CPRT for reinspection was 98;
+)
+i
+however, during implementation ofcISAP I.a.2, " Inspection Reports
+l
+on Butt Splices," 146 items were discovered th6t had been
+inadvertently excluded from the original heat-shrinkable
+insulation sleeve population.
+Proportional sampling was used on
+this additional population by selecting 12 of the 146.
+The CPRT
+I
+____-_-_a
-    .
 .
-                                                                               i
+.
-.0.0
+i
-          advisor on engineering statistics approved the use of this
+.0.0
-          proportional sampling which was not addressed in Appendix D of
+advisor on engineering statistics approved the use of this
-          the CPRT Program Plan.
+proportional sampling which was not addressed in Appendix D of
-          Due to errors in the calculation of the random numbers, one item
+the CPRT Program Plan.
-          that should have been inspected in the additional 35 items
+Due to errors in the calculation of the random numbers, one item
-          selected had been omitted.   This item was, however, inspected and
+that should have been inspected in the additional 35 items
-          is referenced in the working files as the " missed sample." With
+selected had been omitted.
-          the inspection of the " missed sample," the total number of valid
+This item was, however, inspected and
-          randomly selected items inspected was brought to 111 (the initial
+is referenced in the working files as the " missed sample." With
-  i       98,12fromproportionalsampling,andtheone"missedsample").
+the inspection of the " missed sample," the total number of valid
-          Based on the review of sample selection documentation, detailed
+randomly selected items inspected was brought to 111 (the initial
-          inspection of 13 sample selections, and a review of other
+,12fromproportionalsampling,andtheone"missedsample").
-          sampling activities associated with this ISAP, the NRC inspector
+i
-          determined that the 1.a.1 sample selection process confomed to     .
+Based on the review of sample selection documentation, detailed
-          Appendix D.
+inspection of 13 sample selections, and a review of other
-                                                                                 l
+sampling activities associated with this ISAP, the NRC inspector
-      (2) ISAP I.a.4:   Agreement Between Drawings and Field Terminations        l
+determined that the 1.a.1 sample selection process confomed to
-          (Revision 2 of the RR, issued July 23,1986).
+.
-          Of all the ISAPs and VII.c populations using random sampling,
+Appendix D.
-          this ISAP used a 95/1 screen instead of 95/5.    Both screening
+(2)
-          techniques are addressed in Appendix 0, Table 1.    As with
+ISAP I.a.4:
-          ISAP I.a.1, additional population items were discovered during
+Agreement Between Drawings and Field Terminations
-          ISAP implementation.   Proportional sampling was again used and
+(Revision 2 of the RR, issued July 23,1986).
+Of all the ISAPs and VII.c populations using random sampling,
+this ISAP used a 95/1 screen instead of 95/5.
+Both screening
+techniques are addressed in Appendix 0, Table 1.
+As with
+ISAP I.a.1, additional population items were discovered during
+ISAP implementation.
+Proportional sampling was again used and
-    $                                                                               j
+$
+j
 '
-                                                                                     !
+.0.0
-.0.0
+<
-                                                                                    <
+approved by the ERC engineering statistics advisor. Based on a
-              approved by the ERC engineering statistics advisor. Based on a
+review of sample selection documentation and verifying in detail
-              review of sample selection documentation and verifying in detail
+the selection process (38 out of 383 selected items), the NRC
-              the selection process (38 out of 383 selected items), the NRC
+inspector determined that I.e.4 sampling conformed to Appendix D.
-              inspector determined that I.e.4 sampling conformed to Appendix D.
+j
-                                                                                    j
+c.
-      c. Mechanical ISAPs:
+Mechanical ISAPs:
-                                                                                    l
+l
-         (1)  ISAP V.a:   Inspection for Certain Types of Skewed Welds in NF
+(1)
-                                                ._                                   l
+ISAP V.a:
-              Supports (iiiiissuedOctober..22, 1986) C
+Inspection for Certain Types of Skewed Welds in NF
-                                                                                    I
+Supports (iiiiissuedOctober..
-  ,          The NRC inspector examined in detail 16 of the 60 samples         ~
+._
-             se'lected and found sample selection conformed to Appendix D;
+l
-             however, three documentation inconsistencies were.noted between
+, 1986) C
-             the Random Sample Identification List (RSIL) and ERC Procedure
+I
-             QI-006, Attachment 6.5, Revision 2.     Listed on Attachment 6.5
+The NRC inspector examined in detail 16 of the 60 samples
+~
-             were the 60 hangers inspected by ERC as taken from the RSIL.     The ,
+,
-             inconsistency was not with the actual unique hanger number, but        l
+se'lected and found sample selection conformed to Appendix D;
-             with the alphanumeric suffix character which indicates the type
+however, three documentation inconsistencies were.noted between
-                                                                                    i
+the Random Sample Identification List (RSIL) and ERC Procedure
-             of hanger; i.e., A-anchor, S-spring, R-rigid, or K-snubber.
+QI-006, Attachment 6.5, Revision 2.
-                                                                                    ,
+Listed on Attachment 6.5
-             Three hanger types were incorrectly coded as "K" instead of "R".
-                                                                                    l
+were the 60 hangers inspected by ERC as taken from the RSIL.
+The ,
-             The suffix characters also identify building, elevation, and code      I
+inconsistency was not with the actual unique hanger number, but
-             class.   From reviewing the actual packages inspected, the NRC         i
+l
-             irspector verified that the correct hangers were selected and          j
+with the alphanumeric suffix character which indicates the type
-                                                                                    i
+i
-             inspected.    The ISAP V.a issue coordinator is in the prccess of      ;
+of hanger; i.e., A-anchor, S-spring, R-rigid, or K-snubber.
-                                                                                    i
+,
-             correcting the documentation inconsistencies identified by the         i
+Three hanger types were incorrectly coded as "K" instead of "R".
-             NRC.
+l
-                                                                                    t
-                                                                                    i
+The suffix characters also identify building, elevation, and code
-                                                                                    I
+I
-                                                                                    )
+class.
+From reviewing the actual packages inspected, the NRC
+i
+irspector verified that the correct hangers were selected and
+j
+i
+inspected.
+The ISAP V.a issue coordinator is in the prccess of
+;
+i
+correcting the documentation inconsistencies identified by the
+i
+NRC.
+t
+i
+I
+)
-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    ____
+- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-                     $
+____
-           .
+$
-.0.0
+.
-                                                                     -
+.0.0
-                                                                                      -.
+-
-                                                                                                    J
+-.
-                            (2)  ISAP V.d:   Plug Welds (Revision 1 of the RR, issued December 18,
+J
-                                   h)'.
+(2)
-                                This ISAP contained four populations.     Sample selection for each
+ISAP V.d:
-                                population was based on the 95/5 screen.     The NRC inspector
+Plug Welds (Revision 1 of the RR, issued December 18,
-                                examined 67 of the 750 sample selections from the 4 populations.
+h)'.
-                                Eleven errors were found by the NRC inspector involving random
+This ISAP contained four populations.
-                                number calculations and item selections.     It should be noted that
+Sample selection for each
-                                prior to the issuance of the RR (Revision 1), the statistical
+population was based on the 95/5 screen.
-                                advisor reviewed 100% of this ISAP's sample selection.      Based on
+The NRC inspector
-                   ,
+examined 67 of the 750 sample selections from the 4 populations.
-                                this review,14 of the 250 samples had been identified with the-
+Eleven errors were found by the NRC inspector involving random
-                                same type errors that the NRC inspector had identified.      These
+number calculations and item selections.
-errors included the 11 errors found by this NRC. inspection.
+It should be noted that
-                                The scope of the statistical advisor's review of sample selection
+prior to the issuance of the RR (Revision 1), the statistical
-                                is further discussed in paragraph e. below.      Based on results       ,
+advisor reviewed 100% of this ISAP's sample selection.
-                                                                                                        I
+Based on
-                                obtained from ERC inspections, plug weld testing, and bounding        ,
+this review,14 of the 250 samples had been identified with the-
-                                                                                                        I
+,
-                                analysis performed by Ebasco, the statistical advisor determined
+same type errors that the NRC inspector had identified.
-                                the errors found in the sample selection did not impact
+These
-                                inspection results nor was there a need to reopen the inspection
+errors included the 11 errors found by this NRC. inspection.
-                                program. Since the errors resulted in a different item being
+The scope of the statistical advisor's review of sample selection
-                                inspected and the statistical advisor's determination that the
+is further discussed in paragraph e. below.
-                                sampling process was not compromised, it was not necessary for
+Based on results
-                                these errors to be corrected.- This conclusion was supported by
+,
-                                referenced documentation which was found in the RR working file.
+I
-                                                                                                      .
+I
+obtained from ERC inspections, plug weld testing, and bounding
+,
+analysis performed by Ebasco, the statistical advisor determined
+the errors found in the sample selection did not impact
+inspection results nor was there a need to reopen the inspection
+program. Since the errors resulted in a different item being
+inspected and the statistical advisor's determination that the
+sampling process was not compromised, it was not necessary for
+these errors to be corrected.- This conclusion was supported by
+referenced documentation which was found in the RR working file.
+.
-  - _ _ _       _-  _.
+- _ _ _
-                                                                                                                    i
+_-
-                                                                                                                    '
+_.
-              .
+i
-          .
+.
-.0.0
+'
-                                                                                                                    l
+.
-                   d.   ISAP VII.c:   Construction Reinspection / Documentation Review Plan                         !
+.0.0
+l
-                                                                                                                    '
+d.
-                        (inprocess).
+ISAP VII.c:
-                                                                                                                    I
+Construction Reinspection / Documentation Review Plan
-                       This ISAP is unique because the VII.c work activities are divided into
+!
-homogenous populations. On completion of all work activities, a
-                       summary RR will be issued.     Details of reinspection and document                          j
+(inprocess).
-                       reviews performed will be addressed as appendices to the summary RR.
+'
-                       At the time of this NRC inspection., the RR and associated appendices
+I
-                       were in their draft form and subject to various CPRT inprocess                               I
+This ISAP is unique because the VII.c work activities are divided into
-                       reviews; e.g., RP,RC, ERC engineering assurance and QA.
+homogenous populations. On completion of all work activities, a
-            .
+summary RR will be issued.
-                       Thirty-one of the thirty-two populations used statistical random
+Details of reinspection and document
-                       sample selection with the 95/5 screen.      The NRC inspector examined
+j
-                       sample selections fer 5 of the 31 populations that used statistical
+reviews performed will be addressed as appendices to the summary RR.
-                       sampling.    From these 5 populations, 154 of the 502 sample items
+At the time of this NRC inspection., the RR and associated appendices
-                       selected were inspected for compliance to Appendix D of the CPRT                            q
+were in their draft form and subject to various CPRT inprocess
-                                                                                                                 ,
+I
-                       Program Plan and ERC Procedure CPP-006, Revision 3, " Sample
+reviews; e.g., RP,RC, ERC engineering assurance and QA.
-                       Selection." Procedure CPP-006 was more prescriptive than Appendix D                         i
+.
-                                                                                                                   i
+Thirty-one of the thirty-two populations used statistical random
-                       in that it provided ERC personnel with details for implementing the                         j
+sample selection with the 95/5 screen.
-                                                                                                                   i
+The NRC inspector examined
-                       requirements for sample selection.     The five populations inspected by                    !
+sample selections fer 5 of the 31 populations that used statistical
-I                      the NRC were: Cable Tray, Nuclear Instrument System Cable Termination,                      !
+sampling.
+From these 5 populations, 154 of the 502 sample items
+selected were inspected for compliance to Appendix D of the CPRT
+q
+,
+Program Plan and ERC Procedure CPP-006, Revision 3, " Sample
+Selection." Procedure CPP-006 was more prescriptive than Appendix D
+i
+i
+in that it provided ERC personnel with details for implementing the
+j
+i
+requirements for sample selection.
+The five populations inspected by
+!
+I
+the NRC were: Cable Tray, Nuclear Instrument System Cable Termination,
+!
+!
 '
-                                                                                                                   !
+Electrical Equipment Installation, Instrumentation Equipment
-                       Electrical Equipment Installation, Instrumentation Equipment
+Installation, and Large Bore Piping Configuration.
-                       Installation, and Large Bore Piping Configuration.                                          l
+l
-                                                                                                                   !
+!
-                       Typical errors encountered were calculation of random sample number,                        I
+Typical errors encountered were calculation of random sample number,
-                                                                                                                   i
+I
-                       use of duplicate random numbers; incorrect population item used;                            l
+i
-                                                                                                                   ;
+use of duplicate random numbers; incorrect population item used;
-                                                                                         _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
+l
+;
+_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
-                                                                           ---                   _
+---
-      '
+_
-                                                                i   s
+'
-  '
+i
+s
+'
 >
-                                                            '
+'
 .0.0
-                                                                                                   '
+'
-                                                                                       '
+'
-           deviations from Appendix D not adequately documented; selection of                    >
+deviations from Appendix D not adequately documented; selection of
-           items related to safe shutdown; and numbering of inspection work           x
+>
-,
+items related to safe shutdown; and numbering of inspection work
-           packages.    The potenc.ial impact of these errors was that not all items
+x
-           in a given homogenous population had an equal chance of being selected
+,
-           fer reinspection review.     Problems encountered that were not                   '
+packages.
-                                                                                               s
+The potenc.ial impact of these errors was that not all items
-                                                                  (
+in a given homogenous population had an equal chance of being selected
-           deviations from Appendix D or CPP-006 but made vtH fication of sample
+fer reinspection review.
-           selection difficult were; inadequate guidance for proportional              ,t
+Problems encountered that were not
-                                                                                                   l
+'
-           sampling which was necessary when increases in population sizes were       j.
+(
-                    j
+s
-           required methcdofnumberingPopulationItemLists;andinadequate
+deviations from Appendix D or CPP-006 but made vtH fication of sample
-           guidance for the resolution of problems encounter d during sample
+selection difficult were; inadequate guidance for proportional
-    ,
+,t
-           selection.    These errors and problems are        rther iscussed below. -
+l
-                                                                                                   l
+sampling which was necessary when increases in population sizes were
-                                                                                                   l
+j .
-                                                                                                   l
+j
-                                                                                           x       1
+required methcdofnumberingPopulationItemLists;andinadequate
-                                                                                         '
+guidance for the resolution of problems encounter d during sample
+selection.
-        e. Sample Selection Review by the SRT                                                      j
+These errors and problems are
-           The statistical advisor to the CPRT has conducted and is continuing to                  ;
+rther iscussed below.
-                                                                                                   I
+-
-           conduct reviews of ISAP sample selection.       By direction of the SRT,
+,
-           the statistical advisor was required to conduct reviews of those ISAPs
+x
-           and VII.c. populations using sample selection to assure conformance tc
+'
-           Appendix D.    This requirement was delineated in CPRT' memorandum
+e.
-           CPRT-138 dated December 3, 1985, which the statistical advisor stated
+Sample Selection Review by the SRT
-           is being implemented by a 100% review of the semple selection process
+j
-           forallISAPsandVII.cpopulationsutilizingstatistjcalsampling.
+The statistical advisor to the CPRT has conducted and is continuing to
-           To date, the statistical advisor has reviewed 100% of the samph
+;
-           selection process for 9 cf 22 ISAPs and 19 of the 31 VII.c.
+I
-           populations using statistical san:pling.
+conduct reviews of ISAP sample selection.
+By direction of the SRT,
+the statistical advisor was required to conduct reviews of those ISAPs
+and VII.c. populations using sample selection to assure conformance tc
+Appendix D.
+This requirement was delineated in CPRT' memorandum
+CPRT-138 dated December 3, 1985, which the statistical advisor stated
+is being implemented by a 100% review of the semple selection process
+forallISAPsandVII.cpopulationsutilizingstatistjcalsampling.
+To date, the statistical advisor has reviewed 100% of the samph
+selection process for 9 cf 22 ISAPs and 19 of the 31 VII.c.
+populations using statistical san:pling.
-    ,.
+,.
-                                                                                                          !
+!
-                       '
-       o
+o
+'
-         -s        f
-                       q                                  0069.0.0
+f
-       \
+-s
-                                                                                                                           !
+q
-                              A checklist was developed and used by the statistical advisor to
+.0.0
-          \
+\\
-            'l                perform the reviews and to document the findings and actions required.
+!
-           ,
+A checklist was developed and used by the statistical advisor to
-             s               On complet%n of the' review, the issue coordinator or population
+\\
-[                            engineer was given a copy of the checklist.    Each finding and the
+'l
+perform the reviews and to document the findings and actions required.
+,
+On complet%n of the' review, the issue coordinator or population
+s
+[
+engineer was given a copy of the checklist.
+Each finding and the
 i
-                             actions required were discussed with the audited group. A formal
+actions required were discussed with the audited group. A formal
-                             tracking mechanism to verify comhletion of actions required had not,                          '
+tracking mechanism to verify comhletion of actions required had not,
-                             as yet, beer. ceveloped or implemented.    From interviews with the
+'
-                             statistical advisor, a formal procedure and tracking system will be                           I
+as yet, beer. ceveloped or implemented.
-                                            J
+From interviews with the
-                             devekped and implemented to assure actions required are completed in
+statistical advisor, a formal procedure and tracking system will be
-  a timely manner. This activity will be followed by the NRC as an open
+I
-                                                                                                                           '
+J
-                                                                 s
+devekped and implemented to assure actions required are completed in
-                             item (445/67C2-0-04; 446/8702+-0-04).                                         -
-                     \
+a timely manner. This activity will be followed by the NRC as an open
+'
+s
+\\
+item (445/67C2-0-04; 446/8702+-0-04).
+-
+,
+,
+Each of the errors and problems fcund by the NRC inspector had been
+identified ar.o occumented by the statistical advisor.
+i
+t
+t
+ToassurethatnoRRispublishedwyth'cpensampleselectionerrors,
+, ,
+the RRRC revised its working file check ' list on February 17, 1987, to
+require all open sampling errors identified against a RR be resolved
+,
+prior to RRRC approval of the working file and submittal of the RR to
+I
+the SRT.
+)
+f
+,
 ,
+f.
+ERC's Review of ISAP brd VII.c Sample Selection
+\\
+(1) Engineering Assurance:
 ,
-                            Each of the errors and problems fcund by the NRC inspector had been
+- _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
-                            identified ar.o occumented by the statistical advisor.
-                                                              i    t  t
-                            ToassurethatnoRRispublishedwyth'cpensampleselectionerrors,                                 , ,
-                            the RRRC revised its working file check ' list on February 17, 1987, to
-                            require all open sampling errors identified against a RR be resolved                           ,
-                            prior to RRRC approval of the working file and submittal of the RR to
-                 I
-                            the SRT.
-                                              )         ,
-                                                          ,
-                                                            f
-                         f. ERC's Review of ISAP brd VII.c Sample Selection
-                                                      \
-                            (1) Engineering Assurance:
-  ,                                                                                                                        1
-                                                                                                 - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
-      ,
+i
-                                                                                  i
-                                                                                  ;
-  .
-.0.0
-                                                                                  I
-                                                                                  l
-                                                                                  ,
-             ERC has established an engineering assurance (EA) group to
-                                                                                  i
-             perform final review and assembly of records and supporting
-             documentation (working file) required for ISAP VII.c prior to
-             turnover to the CPRT central file. This effort h overred by
 ,
-             Procedure CPP-026, Revision 0, " Final Review of ISAP VII.c
+;
+.
+.0.0
+I
 l
-l            Working Files." EA had perfonned an initial review of VII.c
+,
-             sample selection during July and August 1986. A written
+ERC has established an engineering assurance (EA) group to
-             checklist was used to direct the review and document findings for
+i
-             follow-up. Several items remain open.      It should be noted that
+perform final review and assembly of records and supporting
-l            during the EA initial review of sample selection not all sample
+documentation (working file) required for ISAP VII.c prior to
-    ,        selections were finalized.     Work was still inprocess to develop-
+turnover to the CPRT central file. This effort h overred by
-             and complete some populations and perform sample selections.     The
+,
-             final review by EA for sample selection was scheduled to start in
+Procedure CPP-026, Revision 0, " Final Review of ISAP VII.c
-             February 1987, but was contingent on Population Rancom Selection
+l
-             Identification Lists being completed and approved.
+l
-        (2) Quality Assurance:
+Working Files." EA had perfonned an initial review of VII.c
-             The QA surveillance group had perfortned indepth reviews of sample
+sample selection during July and August 1986. A written
-             selection during surveillance of inprocess activities on ISAPs.
+checklist was used to direct the review and document findings for
-             For example, in ISAP VII.b.2, a number of errors were detected by
+follow-up. Several items remain open.
-             QA prior to completion ano publication of the RR. The noted
+It should be noted that
-             errors were corrected and reviewed by QA for adequacy.
+l
-             Surveillance report II CS06 documented QA's review of
+during the EA initial review of sample selection not all sample
-             VII.b.2 sample selection.     Rather than perform a 100% review of
+selections were finalized.
-                                                                                    l
+Work was still inprocess to develop-
-                                                                                  ,
+,
+and complete some populations and perform sample selections.
+The
+final review by EA for sample selection was scheduled to start in
+February 1987, but was contingent on Population Rancom Selection
+Identification Lists being completed and approved.
+(2) Quality Assurance:
+The QA surveillance group had perfortned indepth reviews of sample
+selection during surveillance of inprocess activities on ISAPs.
+For example, in ISAP VII.b.2, a number of errors were detected by
+QA prior to completion ano publication of the RR. The noted
+errors were corrected and reviewed by QA for adequacy.
+Surveillance report II CS06 documented QA's review of
+VII.b.2 sample selection.
+Rather than perform a 100% review of
+l
+,
-          _.                    ,                                                                  _                           _---_ _ _
+_.
-     %Q                      .
+,
-                                                       ~
+_
-                                                         ,
+_---_ _ _
-                                                                                                   u,  ,
+%Q
-                                                                                                             '''       ^
+^
-                                                                                                 c
+'''
-                                    -
+.
-     ,.
+u,
-        .
+,
-                                                                                               .                 ~.
+,
-              p                                             A
+.
-                                                                               *
+~
-                                                                                                    ,
+-
-      s. ., ,
+,.
-         t[                                                                             0071.0.0
+c
-  h.   %
+~.
-                                                                                          %
+.
-                                                                                                                         *
+p
-                                                                                                                  s
+A
-                                                           EA work, QA will review the EA ISAP V!I.c work on a sampling                              ,
+*
-                '[
+,
-                <
+s. ., ,
-                                      _
+t[
-                                                           basis to assure the proc #s t conformed to procedural requirements.
+.0.0
-                                                                       -
+h.
-                                                                                          %
+%
-                           N,                                                              ',.
+%
-                         % s.                                              ,
+*
-                                                                                    ,
+s
-                                                           In addition to surveillance of ISAP sample selection, the ERC QA
+EA work, QA will review the EA ISAP V!I.c work on a sampling
-                                                           audit group had perfo*wed two programmatic audits of the sampling
+,
-                                                           process as documer[fid in ERC audit reports ERC-P6-05 and                         #
+'[
-                                                           ERC-86-06.     No findings were noted in those audit reports.                       .
+_
-                                                                             ,        ,
+basis to assure the proc #s t conformed to procedural requirements.
-                                                                                        '                                                  l
+<
-                                  g.            Overview Qualfty Tecm (00T)
+-
-             s1      .
+%
-                                                                        ,
+N,
-           '
+',.
-                                            ' Baseheninteviewswith0QT,thesampleselectionprocessforseveral
+% s.
+,
-                           .
+,
-                                                ISAPshavebeenoverviewedenacase-by-casebasis;howeser,nc
+In addition to surveillance of ISAP sample selection, the ERC QA
-                                                indepth prograrratic review of ISAP sample selection was scheduled.
+audit group had perfo*wed two programmatic audits of the sampling
-                                                t$e responsibility for ISAP sample selection verification had been
+process as documer[fid in ERC audit reports ERC-P6-05 and
-                                                placed with the CPRT statistical aavisor and the RRRC.
+#
+ERC-86-06.
+No findings were noted in those audit reports.
+.
+,
+,
+'
+l
+g.
+Overview Qualfty Tecm (00T)
+s1
+.
+,
+'
+' Baseheninteviewswith0QT,thesampleselectionprocessforseveral
+ISAPshavebeenoverviewedenacase-by-casebasis;howeser,nc
+.
+indepth prograrratic review of ISAP sample selection was scheduled.
+t$e responsibility for ISAP sample selection verification had been
+placed with the CPRT statistical aavisor and the RRRC.
 !
-                                  In sumrtary, of the 50 action plans using sample selection (19 external s                                      - '
+In sumrtary, of the 50 action plans using sample selection (19 external
-l                                issue ISAPs and 31 VII.c populations), the NRC inspected 11 for conformance
+- '
-                                 to Appendix D.                  From khe 11 action plans, 330 of the 1480 sample .selectione
+s
-                                were examined for erhors by the NRC inspector.                                      Foi those action plans               l
+l
-                    s           inspected, the sample selection efforts were found to conform to
+issue ISAPs and 31 VII.c populations), the NRC inspected 11 for conformance
-                                ' ppendix D.f Those errors in the sampling process that were identified by
+to Appendix D.
-                                A
+From khe 11 action plans, 330 of the 1480 sample .selectione
-                                                                                                              -
+were examined for erhors by the NRC inspector.
-                                              .
+Foi those action plans
-                                the NRC inspector had also been identified by the CPRT statistical advisor
+l
-                  _
+inspected, the sample selection efforts were found to conform to
-                               ar.d action to correct or (Ts(osition the errors had either been taken or
+s
-                         '
+' ppendix D.f Those errors in the sampling process that were identified by
-                               was being taken.                                ;i
+A
-                       s -,                                                     g  .s                                                                  i
+.
-                  'r
+-
-                       '
+the NRC inspector had also been identified by the CPRT statistical advisor
-                               p                                                 %
+_
-                     *
+ar.d action to correct or (Ts(osition the errors had either been taken or
-                                          t.
+'
-                           s
+was being taken.
-                                                     t
+;i
-                                         A,
+s -,
-                                            t
+g
-                                                  ,-                                        t-
+.s
+i
-g                                                            \ I iv
+'
+p
+%
+'r
+*
+t.
+s
+t
+A,
+t
+,-
+t-
+g
+\\ I iv
-                                                                    .__ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _
+.__ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _
-       .,
+.,
-   e'
+e'
 .0.0
-             At present, the statistical advisor does not have a system to verify the
+At present, the statistical advisor does not have a system to verify the
-             completion of action required to correct or disposition idertified errors.                                              I
+completion of action required to correct or disposition idertified errors.
-             A comitment has been made to develop and implement such a system. This
+I
-             comitment will be followed as a NRC open item.
+A comitment has been made to develop and implement such a system. This
-                                                                                                                                     >
+comitment will be followed as a NRC open item.
-             No violations or deviations were identified.
+>
-                                                                                                                                     l
+No violations or deviations were identified.
-. Exit Interview
+l
-             Exit interviews were conducted February 10, 1987, ard March 3, 1987, with
+.
-             the applicant's representatives identified in paragraph 1 of Appendix C of.                                             l
+Exit Interview
-     .
+Exit interviews were conducted February 10, 1987, ard March 3, 1987, with
-             this report. During these interviews, the NRC inspectors sumarized the
+the applicant's representatives identified in paragraph 1 of Appendix C of.
-             scope and findings of the inspection. The applicant acknowl. edged the
+l
-             findings.
+.
-                                                                                                                                  ..
+this report. During these interviews, the NRC inspectors sumarized the
-                                                            .
+scope and findings of the inspection. The applicant acknowl. edged the
+findings.
+..
+.
 k.
 }}

ML20236M401: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 22:46, 22 May 2025

Text

Navigation menu

Search