ML20236E018

Answers to Board 14 Questions (Memo;Proposed Memo of 860414) Re Action Plan Results Rept VII.a.2.* Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20236E018
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/20/1987
From:	Boydston D, Hansel J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
References
CON-#487-4674 OL, NUDOCS 8710290028
Download: ML20236E018 (142)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:l 47f 00tHEitp UbHRC Filed: Octob r 20, 987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FFICE OF m y y g7 IjhgfM NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l l ) In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-445-OL l ) 50-446-OL i TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) COMPANY et al. ) ) (Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating License) Station, Units 1 and 2) ) ) ANSWERS TO BOARD'S 14 QUESTIONS (Memo; Proposed Memo of April 14, 1986) Recardina Action Plan Results ReDort VII.a.2 In accordance with the Board's Memorandum; ProDosed liemorandum and Order of April 14, 1986, the Applicants submit l the answers of the Comanche Peak Response Team ("CPRT") to the 14 questions posed by the Board, with respect to the Results Report published by the CPRT in respect of CPRT Action Plan, VII.a.2 "Non-Conformance and Corrective Action Systems". ODenina Request: Produce copies of any CPRT-generated checklists that were used during the conduct of the action plan. ResDonse: The checklists are attached. h 8710290028 871020 aQ PDR ADOCK 05000445 'D G PDR

b Question No. 1: 1 1. Describe the problem areas addressed in the report. j I Prior'to undertaking to address those areas through sampling, what did Applicants do to define the problem areas further? How did it believe the problems arose? What did it discover about the QA/QC documentation for-those areas? How extensive did it believe the problems were?

Response

This ISAP was developed in response to findings iden-i tified by the TRT that (1) several weaknesses existed in the NCR and deficiency identification reporting. systems; (2) that the corrective action request (CAR) dealing with inadequate construction training and records remained open for one year, and the identical problem was identified in a subsequent CAR, which still had not been closed at the time of the TRT on-site review; (3) that the Brown & Root corrective action system was generally ineffective and was bypassed by the Brown & Root QA Manager; and (4) that potential weaknesses existed in the TUEC 10 CFR 50.55(e) deficiency reporting system. In addition to addressing the above-mentioned issues, the SRT determined that it would be appropriate to evaluate the TU Electric Design Deficiency Report (TDDR) system to determine whether the system was effective in identifying design deficiencies / errors and obtaining corrective action. Specific problem areas in the TDDR system had not been previously identified. 1 1 Since'the approach required by the ISAP was to assess the programmatic acceptability of each of the systems (nonconformance, corrective action, 10 CFR 50.55(e) report-ability, and the TDDR system), the Applicant did not take steps to define the problem areas further prior to imple-menting-the ISAP. Since the ISAP required an evaluation of each system identified by the TRT as having problems, the Applicant did j not take further action prior to implementation of the ISAP to determine how the problems arose, to discover information ) about the QA/QC documentation-for those areas, or to deter-4 mine how extensive the problems were. Question No. 2: 2. Provide any procedures or other internal documents that are necessary to understand how the checklists should be interpreted or applied. ResDonse: The checklists were developed and used by the Issue j l Coordinator and members of the QA/QC Review Team. When the ) l checklists were prepared and used by the same individual, no additional instruction in the use of the checklist was j 1 required. When the user of the checklist was different from j i the preparer, the ISAP Coordinator or his designee instructed j the user in the function of the checklist. Therefore, no additional documentation was required. i , l I

Question No. 3: 3. Explain any deviation of checklists from the inspection report documents initially used in inspecting the same j attributes. Resoonse: No TU Electric checklists were generated to perform the activities that this Action Plan sets forth; i.e., review and evaluation of the TU Electric and Brown & Root construction nonconformance and corrective action systems and the TU Electric deportability system. Therefore, a comparison j l cannot be made. I I Ouestion No. 4: { d 4. Explain the extent to which the checklists contain fewer 1 attributes than are required for conformance to codes to which Applicants are committed to conform.

Response

J The CPRT checklists were based on the requirements of 10 ) l CFR 50 Appendix B, 10 CFR 50.55(e), the FSAR, ANSI N45.2, and in some cases, implementing procedures. The checklists contain the attributes to permit an evaluation of the conformance of systems to applicable codes and standards. l Question No. 5: 5. (Answer Question 5 only if the answer to Question 4 is that the checklists do contain fewer attributes.) i Explain the engineering basis, if any, for believing l that the safety margin for components (and the plant) l has not been degraded by using checklists that contain fewer attributes than are required for conformance to codes. l l l -4 i N_ _. _ __ _ _ -

I Resoonse: i By reason of the answer to Question No. 4 above, this . question is not applicable to this ISAP. Question No. 6: 6. Set forth any changes in checklists while they were in use including ~the dates of the' changes. I Resoonse: I No substantive changes were made to the checklists i during implementation of the ISAP. Qggstion No. 7: 7. Set forth the duration of training in the use of checklists and a summary of the content of that train-ing, including field training or other practical training. If the training has changed or retraining l occurred, explain the reason for the changes or retrain-ing and set forth changes in duration or content. ResDonse: In some instances the checklists were prepared and f implemented by the same individual. The ISAP Coordinator was cognizant in those instances. In other instances the 1 individuals implementing the checklists were instructed by the ISAP Coordinator or his designee in one-on-one sessions. The instruction was in the nature of field training in that the individual and the ISAP Coordinator or his designee jointly used the checklist for reviewing documentation until such time as the individual could proceed on his/her own. The duration of these sessions was approximately one-half to l one hour. The training did not change, and, consequently, l retraining did not occur. i 1 w________

l e t Ouestion No. 8: 8. Provide any information in Applicants' possession concerning the accuracy of use of the checklists (or the inter-observer reliability in using the checklists). Were there any time periods in which checklists were l used with questionable training or QA/QC supervision? If applicable, are problems of inter-observer reliabil-ity. addressed statistically? ResDonse: The checklist was either used by the ISAP Coordinator or [ closely reviewed by him, so.that accuracy in the use of checklists was never in question. Question No. 9: 9. Summarize all audits or supervisory reviews (including reviews by employees or consultants) of training or of use of the checklists. Provide the factual basis for believing that the audit and review activity was adequate and that each concern of the audit and review teams has been resolved in a way that is consistent with the validity of conclusions.

Response

Three internal ERC audits and one ERC surveillance (listed below) were conducted during implementation of this ISAP. The two audits conducted in 1986 were overviewed by the CPRT Overview Quality Team. 1. Audit 85-03 (12/9 - 13/85) 2. Audit 86-05 (8/18 - 22/86) 3. Audit 86-06 (9/15 - 19/86) 4. Surveillance II 8511 (10/9/85) A concern was raised about the lack of a review signa-ture on checklists. The concern was quickly resolved by l l 1ssuance of a procedure requiring a review, and checklists used prior to this finding were reviewed and signed by the Issue Coordinator. No other concerns were identified. t

[ I 1 l Question No. 10: 10. Report any instances in which draft reports were modified in an important substantive way as the result of management action. Be sure to explain any change that was objected to (including by an employee, super-visor or consultant) in writing or in a meeting in which at least one supervisory or management official or NRC employee was present. Explain what the earlier drafts said and why they were~ modified. Explain how dissenting views were resolved. Resoonse: No substantive modification was made to Results Report drafts as a result of management action. Question No. 11: 11. Set forth any unexpected difficulties that were encountered in completing the work of each task force and that would be helpful to the Board in understanding the process by which conclusions were reached. How were each of these unexpected difficulties resolved? Resoonse: Unexpected difficulties were not encountered in complet-ing the work for this report. 1 Ouestion No. 12: { 12. Explain any ambiguities or open items in the Results Report. Epsoonse-l After review of the report, we believe that it contains 1 no ambiguities. TU Electric has decided to perform a self-l l initiated review of all NCRs generated prior to 12/22/86, for technical adequacy of those dispositioned "use-as-is," " repair," or " void." The conclusions of the review will be reported in a supplement to the Results Report for this ISAP. 1 -. - - - _.. _.. - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ -

t Items have been transferred-from other ISAPs to ISAP VII.a.2 for information and action as applicable; these will be considered during the collective evaluation of programmatic issues. Question No. 132 Explain the extent to which there are actual or apparent 13. conflicts of interest, including whether a worker or supervisor was reviewing or' avaluating his own work or supervising any aspect of the review or evaluation of i his own work or the work of those he previously ) supervised. Rasponse: I The Issue coordinator believes that no conflict of interest existed or exists. ouestion No. 14L Examine the report to see that it adequately discloses f 14. the-thinking'and analysis used. If the language is j j ambiguous or the discussion gives rise to obvious questions, resolve the ambiguities and anticipate and { j resolve the questions, l Responnat l The Issue Coordinator has reexamined the Results Report and sees no ambiguities or obvious questions. Respectfully submitted, Nh David L. Boyds g _ Action Plan VIr.a.2 l Issue Coordinator _g_ 600*390d 31IS O'd 31 53Sd3 WOdd Sr:e 49, g 13o

) i l i l l 1 I l 1 hn L. Hansel view Team Leader f The foregoing resp'onses have been reviewed and are l concurred in'by the CPRT Senior Review Team.- l .i 1 l .i j l l l l l Ot0'30ed 3115 OM31 S3Sd3 WOdd at:e 49, 6 130

i r deh v p 's ewtd 1 e r s i 4 roe unnd t w oe f t eeti vti o T d d s6i rsses N_ e e i8 vuii i e 1 E_ s s l/ etl vdl r j u u k5 rakeeki f M c0 ncrncu eg O t t e/rge geq a C_ o o h3 oihoihe P N N C0f sct scr 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 E / / / / / / / / T 3 7 3 7 7 8 4 5 A 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 D / / / / / / / / 8 8 8 1 2 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST V S E_ 0 0 I R LK CE d d d H l l l C e e e n n Wd Wd Wd o o 2 l l l i s i s te te te t e t e a. n n rW rW rW ar ar o 1 os o o o l u l u I N t Ne pe pe pe ud ud I s r pp pp pp pe pe V f i f u ui ui ui oc oc F o l od SP SP SP Po Po k e r r O w c wc fd fd fd fP fP e e eo on on on o o T i h i r a a a d d S v C vP w w w we we I L es e e) e) e) et et ) ) ) Rt m Rm iss iss i ss i a i a r e e v v v vl vl ro t rt eDD e'D D eDD ee ee op s os RLL RLL RLL RR RR E. fe y f y WW WW WW L R S S rSP rSP rSP r-r- T s s o( o( o( o o ( ( ( I ne R ne f f f f m f m T oc C oc ss ss ss e e in N in tdd tdd tdd tt tt T t a t a srr srr srr sI sI N cm t cm iaa iaa i aa i i E ur n ur lCC lCC lCC l e l e M ro e ro k k k kl kl U tf r tf caa caa caa cp cp C sn r sn ett ett ett em em O no u no h aa h aa h aa h a h a D I C C I C CDD CDD CDD CS CS 1 5 1 1 2 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R E B B C B B B C C B_ 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 M_ U 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N a a a a. a a. a a E L_ I I I I I I I I I_ I I I I I I I I F V V V V V V V V l

o rtt pes ei 4 ehl usk f T s c d d o N_ sre e E i eh s 2 M vc u M so e O ice t t C_ h h o g a Tat N N P 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 G 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 E / / / / / / / / / T 1 8 3 4 2 3 1 1 9 A 2 2 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 D / / / / / / / / / 5 2 2 2 3 4 3 1 2 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / 2 0 / V 8 E 0 R_ f o w e w n t t e v e o w t s s i i i d N e n i i v t v w n s s i e l l e c e e e mf m v m k k R e R i r nror e e c c r v u n oo o R l e e l r e e d g NFwF p h h a o r R e i e r t t p C C t C u c s ftit o s su n d e ot e ouvu f e eS n n e f e r rs D pep u u o o m o c u Pi wnRn s qw qw i i e o d l t eI I t ee ee t t l w r e k n ) i r e Ri Ri a a p e P c Rc a vmom e v v t t p i o Ae c eef e h ne ne n n u v n r Dh i Rt t s oR oR e e S e o P SC f sns k i i m m R i ( i E ryoy cs t n t nt e e t t s n n L oSiS ee co coe l l e r c i yo g T f t h r Ai Aie p p e os A s ti i I ece Cu t th m m h f o y it S T t cuc d ea eaS I I S n e l l a enrr de vt vt t e v at it g T. eat a ec in i na g g a sM i ns b n n N_ hmsm t o t e t et n n t i t Ai ae i E srnr er cm cma i i a l n c l t m t M k oI o lP ee eeD d d D ko e dk re r U_ cf f p rl rl n n ci r nc ol o C endn mR rp rpr e e r et r ee pp p O hono oD om oma r r a h c o rh em e D CCaC CF CI CIC T T C CA C TC RI R 1 2 1 2 3 4 4 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R E B C B B B B B B C C B B B_ 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 M U 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N a. a. a. a a a a a a a. a. a E L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F V V V V V V V V V V V V

ene ene iir ii r vt u vt u eld eld 4 rue 1 rue f - sc sc T reo6 reo1 d d o N orr1 orr-e e E f p-f pS s s 3 M s P s C u u M dRmQ dRm e O eAo-eAoO t t g C sDrP sDrE o o a P USfC USfN N N 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 E / / / / / / / / 6 / / T 1 1 9 4 3 9 1 4 8 5 8 A 3 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 / 0 1 D / / / / / / / / 9 / / 7 7 5 3 3 5 2 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 V E 1 1 1 1 1 1 R "s e ms t e rn "s u t oo n b u t t t m Fi o di d b s s s r t i s nr n i i i i o ra te at a r l t l l t t F el ar t t k s k k s s hu l u nA nt c i c c i i r t p ud g gnA e l e e l l e Oo pe is io h k h h k k h " P oc t se sNs C c C C c c t Po e ei e t e e e O lD r e Dc Drn e h e e h h aL fP h n oe r C r r C C cW o S te t n u u u t iS d ni nso d m d d m m n r/ we a ac at p e e e e e e e oD et t ci ccm c t c c t t r tL ia a if ieo o s o o s s r sW vl D f e ffC r y r r y y u iP ee iD ie P S P P S S C H RR n E n nDn e o L gn g i y y y y y y f fh r-i T i o in t t t t t t o ot o t I Si Sos i i i i i i f m a T t ie l l t l l l t lt n nf e u gct gt ct i in i i in i n o oo tt l T nus ncns b be b b be b e i i sI a N i ri iuai a am a a am am t t e i v E ttl t ril t t e t t t e t e a ad l e E M rsk rtl k r rl r r rl rl u ui ki U onc ospc o op o o op op l l s cp R C poe pnme p pp p p pp pp a at em D O eCh eooh e eu e e eu eu v vu h a D D R C RCCC R RS R R RS RS E EO CS T 3 3 1 5 3 4 1 0 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R A B C B E B B C C C C C C 0 0 0 1 B_ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 M_ U 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N a. a a a. a a a a. a a a a. E L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F V V V V V V V V V V V V

4 f T o N E 4 M M e O g C aP 6 7 8 8 E / / J 2 8 A 2 1 D / / 2 3 1 0 ~ VER -ts i l kce h s C te w e e h i S ve a R t a e D r u l d a e t E c n L o e T r m I P e T l R' p T C p N N u E T S M / U R R C D D O D D D T T 6 9 0 0 0 0 R B B E_ 1 1 B 1 1 i 2 2 U_ N E_ a. a. L I I I_ I I F V V l

D.o.1-48,oco 7 Rev 0 08/13/85 f _n

g -

INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEW OF NON-CONFORMANCE REPORTS N1 7 This instruction is intended for use during review of Non-conformance Reports (NCR's). A checksheet titled "Checksheet for Review of Non-conformance Reports" is provided for recording the results of the NCR review. Enter the applicable information in the spaces provided. Summarize the non-conforming condition in the remarks column of the checksheet. This summary will be used later when evaluating corrective action / trending and deportability. 1. The non-conforming item is properly identified. (Reference Action Plan (AP) Par. 4.1.1.2). 2. The non-conforming condition is properly described. (Reference AP 4.1.1.2). I 3. The disposition is identified as use-as-is, rework, repair, or scrap. l (Reference AP Par. 4.1.1.2). 4 The inspection requirements for the dispositioned non-conformance are stated. (Reference Standard Review Plan (SRP) Par. 15.3). 5. Signature approval of the disposition is provided. (Reference SRP Par. 15.3). 1 i 6. Quality assurance review of the NCR has been done. (Reference AP Par. 1.1, ] TRT Finding). 7. Reworked, repaired, and replacement items have been inspected and tested in accordance with original requirements or acceptable alternates. (Reference AP Par. 4.1.1.2). 8. NCR's which describe non-conforming conditions have been closed out. (Reference FSAR Par. 17.1.15). 9. An independent review of the non-conformance, including disposition and closeout by appropriately qualified personnel, has been conducted. (Reference AP Par. 4.1.1.2). 10. The cause of the non-conformance and the steps taken to prevent recurrence is stated. (Reference AP Par. 1.1 TRT Finding). 11. The NCR indicates that deportability per 10CFR50.55(e) has been considered. (Reference AP Par. 4.1.1.2). 12. Form number and form revision date are included on the form to provide for form control. (Reference AP Par 1.1, TRT Finding). l l3. Ten n on e o n r ortw rt cE or mcL ub&b /N TM 7 UNO ANAL ys).t Ptp<A.r5 AN6 Rw s e su pos corrg c n vt A c now. A94 ggn

W >p Y m.2-4-8.oc; 1 NCR M W.A M A s >eit 4/. /. / tie i i ben >h /? g +.s;< ; =L A.A 1 -th Nc $s. v{. 2n 'k. 2 1 -th.L.eAsK..A A ( pm M - a. m.

u., - s

..,x y M % y n T th &. = '... - -tLa f.a ite 2 4' tb atC d~h g, L 's. -th n - a ) ,,, Qo-7d th M. L.& A J i us.a% w n af

a aca. vs m a J

>s~u r +eict.c -4 1 4 W J J-e M 4 s w >eo. v' r y, r'y u y ac a a m y m e.. 1 i i i

n ' )f ! ~ N{f [kg; , y l ?,

• iN Y! '

M ** ~ " * *

• Y

}: },Y /hh 8/7//86 ? 'T Page'l of 4 .~ 4 VII.a.2 ~, a NONCONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS V' r .r D l TITLE: ~CGAENT NCR SYSTEM CHECKLIST PREPAkED: 4 h DATE: //7/ /gj' h; APPROVEDk _h /dMn)~// h[2h/fb DATE: r ,o PURPOSE / SCOPE - The attached checklists for evaluation of TUCCO and .h Brown & Root NCRs are to be used for collection of date'which serve as input. for answering the questions on Ethe current NCR system checklist, .) also attached. The current,NCR system 'hecklist contains attributes c which are based.on: _10CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion XV; FSAR Section ( 17.1 Amendment 55 dated July 19,'1985, pages 17.1-35, 17.1-36, 17.1-37,~ and 17.-1-33; and ANSI R45.2-1971. The objective of the current NCR system checklist is to answer the question:f i a Ari all nonconforming conditions reported on Nonconformance Reports (NCRs), identified, documented, resolved, and closed out in' accordance with Regulatory requirements'and Licensing commitments?~ The ktt ributes on 'the checklists for evaluation of TJCCO and Brown & Root 1NCRs'are self explanatory. These checklists 3re to be used for '? ? recording data during the review of those NCRs which have been _ selected k from the' current NCR systems in use by Brown & Root and TUGC0 at CPSES. F The attributes are self explanatory. An NCR checklist must be completed j for each NCR reviewed. One NCR system evaluation must be prepared.using the attributes shown in the system checklist. l ) I I, l I a 1 1 1336/ MISC 12 i _____-_________-w

m i f '.- l l y' f Qi { C/7//86 \\Page 2 of 4 t.. m, (y 1 CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATION a# ' OF TUGC0 MCRs ' I )s - b, . YES' NO. / lY ~ et

1.. Is the item uniquely identified, is qhere

. sufficient information. to identify / locate the iten:? Is the nonconforming coridition{ full i 2.- and clearly. described?. f- .o 3. Does the NCR indicate that a hold tag was applied? If hold tag was not applied,. state cessor:. fg g p 4. Is document violated sh'own? l -5. Is originat'or's name printed and signed? e .6. Name (and.date) of persons that' signed the review / approval box.- -7. Name (and date) of person that filled cu!t.jhe t 50.55e box. Record SDAR number if presen,r.. /.jW Ba. Does the stated disposition appeary to fix the: p' nonconformance? i ) 'f { 8b. Is the' disposition clearly defined? J j ri ,.V .\\ '8c. Is justification shown for "use-as-is" fnd '( non-standard repair disposition? j Bd. Is there a good reason shown for voiding? 9. Are inspection requirements shown? (

10. Name (and date) of person that signed addreseea j

review / approval box. 'L_ t

11. Name (and date) of person (s) that signed i

disposition and closure box. _- \\ s 5

12. Name (and date) of person (s) that signed 1

a disposition & closure box. j I .)

13. Comments should be put on separate sheet. Che'ck YES if comment sheet is attached.

CHECKLIST COMPLETED BY: DATE: 1336/ MISC 12 / I lo f'

x. 4[/ ~ 7( ,8/7//86 1 .i Page 3 of 4 ('] : 1 p. y a. 1 j ./ . CHECKLIST FOR EVA:.UATION i )

• !pF BROWN & ROOT NCRs

,, n s s o YES I.NO_ )' y 1 g s l

1..Is the item uniquely identified, is'there i

sufficient information to identify / locate the item? 2. Is the nonconforming condition fully and clearly l described? \\' 3. Does th* NCR indicate that a hold tag was applied? .[ y If hold tag was not applied, state reason. a l Jo 4. Is document violated shown? ,/ i 5. Is' originator's name printed and signed? N* I 6. J ' .Name (and date))of persons that signed the ,M, - ,{. b review / approval bo'. V, 'g x E,. N Y ~ ~ ' \\ ;' % Q 7. -Wame in action addressee box 8 l 8a. Does the stated disposition ' appear to fix the 4 s f nonconformance? i 3 8b. Is the disposition clearly defined? y s 8c. Is justification shown for "use-as-is" and Y d ~ r non-st:4ndard repair disposition? 'j l' Mt b. ~ 8d. Is theyl a good reason shown for voiding? p, ) 9. Are inspection requirements shown? I(' ] .10. Name (and date) of person that signed Engineer ) I+ review / approval bqx. f Y

11. En:e (and date) of person that filled otit the

=u @7 $0.55e box. Record SDAR number if present. ,4' ) ) z!y i

12. Name (and date) of person that signed the-const.

~ review / approval box. J ii 13(,TName fand date) of person that signed QA review 1 t b ox. '^ a' 1 s'M[

14. Name (and Mtte) of person that signed the QC 3

verificatit,n' box. i ,1 115.Name(anddate)chersonthatsignedtheQC \\ s q} Westh.ghouse cont.u' rence box. 'A t j i, )

• 16. Eame (and date) of person that uigned the ANI

~ 1 4 review / concurrence box. 4,

17. Namc {and date of pe'rson(s) that. signed QA g

3 3 ~ ? rtvfrs/ closure box. ) l s.k 18, tomsats r,hould be put on separate sheet. Check NESl12commentsheetisattached. i . it CHECKLIST,UNFLETEDB'1: DATEi I s.] g 1 1336/ MISC 12 'l' ^ -______________9 i. (

8/7//86 Page 4'of 4' CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATION OF THE NCR SYSTEM l -l 1.0 The nonconforming condition is fully and clearly described. The' item is uniquely identified and there is sufficient information to 1 identify / locate the item. ) 2.0 Nonconforming items are tagged to identify status and where ) practical, are segregated. j q 3.0 j Control of continued work on a nonconforming part is accomplished j through proper request and review process by applicable i disciplines. 4.0 NCR logs (B&R and TUGCO) provide identity and status of each NCR. 1 Action organization and status is indicated for each NCR. 5.0 Disposition of each unsatisfactory, unacceptable, or indeterminate condition recommended for disposition to "use as-is" is provided by j appropriate engineering personnel. 6.0 NCRs dispositioned for " rework" or " repair" have been properly repaired and inspected in accordance with specified engineering requirements. i 7.0 NCRs dispositioned as " voided", " duplicate", "not an NCR" (or '{ similar terms) should state the reason that it will not be evaluated as a unique NCR. 8.0 TUGCO periodically evaluates "use as-is" and " repair" non-conformances. Trend reports are issued, reviewed, and used to i take appropriate corrective action where required. 9.0 Significant conditions reportable to NRC per 10CFR 50.55(e) are identified, reported, and corrective action taken to preclude i repetition. 10.0 Component Modification Cards (CMCs) and Design Change i Authorizations (DCAs) are not being used to circumvent the NCR system. 11.0 NCR's are approved / reviewed /dispositioned/ verified by personnel authorized to perform these functions. 12.0 A comprehensive system of planned and periodic audits is being carried out to verify compliance with all aspects of the non-conformance program and to determine the effectiveness of the program. M CHECKLIST COMPLETED BY: MI.Mady b U) DATE: //6/fd a v 1336/ MISC 12 f-L_________

f i Y m.,2-4C.00l l REV.o-08/13/85 1-Pg e se z INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEW OF NON-CONFORMANCE SYSTEM PROCEDURES This instruction is intended for use during review of CPSES Procedures which are used for non-conformance system control A checksheet titled "Checksheet for Review of Non-conformance System Procedures" is provided for recording the results of the procedures review. The procedure review is intended to be historical so that significant changes within the system may be identified and correlated to time periods which may in turn be correlated to Non-conformance Reports. Enter the applicable information in the blocks provided on the checksheet. The " Summary of Changes" section of the checksheet is intended to reflect the main points of change.in the NCR system, e.g., " Trend analysis added". The following items relate to the : system elements" section of the checksheet. When reviewing consider whether the procedure / revision provides for the following items: 1. The non-conforming item is properly identified. (Reference Action Plan (AP) Par. 4.1.1.2). 2. The inspection requirements are stated. (Reference Standard Review Plan (SRP) Par. 15.3). 3. The non-conforming condition is properly described. (Reference AP 4.1.1.2). 4. The disposition is identified as use-as-is, rework, repair, or scrap. (Reference AP Par. 4.1.1.2). 5.- Signature approval of the disposition is provided. (Reference SRP Par. 15.3). 6. Reworked, repaired, and replacement items have been inspected and tested in accordance with original requirements or acceptable alternates. (Reference AP Par. 4.1.1.2). 7. An independent review is conducted of the non-conformance, including disposition and closeout by appropriately qualified personnel. (Reference AP Par. 4.1.1.2). 8. The non-conformance is included in the trend analysis process and reviewed for corrective actions. (Reference AP Par. 4.1.1.2). 9. The non-conformance is reviewed to determine necessity for conducting further evaluation for 10CFR50.55(e) deportability. (Reference AP Par. 4.1.1.2). 10. Af fected organizations are notified of non-conforming materials, parts, components, and as applicable to services (including computer codes) if disposition is other than to scrap. (Reference SRP Par. 15.1). l 0133

1 l . R E V. O 08/13/85 Pg. s or s INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEW OF NON-CONFORMANCE SYSTEM PROCEDURES (Cont'd) 3 11. Form number and form revision date included on the form to provide.for form control. (Reference AP Par. 1.1. TRT Finding). 12. Only one version of the TUEC NCR form exists. TRT finding indicated 2 versions, one with and one without space for authorized Nuclear laspector signature. (Reference AP Par. 1.1. TRT Finding). I .13. The NCR Form has space to. identify the cause of the non-conformance and the steps taken' to prevent recurrence. (Reference AP Par. 1.1. TRT Finding). 14. The NCR Form has provision for quality assurance review. (Reference AP j Par. 1.1. TRT Finding). f

15.. Repetitive non-conformances are recorded on NCR Forms.

(Reference AP. Par. J 1.1 TRT Finding about missing locknuts). 16. NCR forms which describe non-conforming conditions are closed out. (Reference FSAR Par. 17.1.15). - d 1 J 1 l l 1 l l l l l l l 1~ l l l l 1 -0133 l l l L_________.____._____

a ca -C c c' l Jcn. 27, 1986 1 $q /f f j VII.a.2 I Non-Conformance/ Corrective Action Systems j i TITLE: Checklist for Review of-Support Weld Data Cards (SWLD's) and. 1 Pipe Weld Data Cards WLD's) PREPARED BY:. # ,d/ DATE: S/t/' F/- // CONCURRED BY: M[. Ibr DATE: 2/4/I(. Package No. Item No. Sequence No.. Randon No. 1.) If there are no "Unsat" conditions identified on the IR, the IR will not be included in the sample. 2.) Itea #1 is for NCR's identifying non-conformances that were not identified as "Unsat" conditions on some other document (i.e., Weld -Data Card, Inspection Report, etc.); if the deficiency identified on the NCR is the only deficiency identified in the package it vill i not be included in the sample. 3.) Item #2 thru #9 are self explanatory. 4.) Item fl0 review applicable inspection / construction procedures to identify required responsible organization approval of the l' disposition. If required sign-offs are completed the attribute is acceptable. If the attribut'e is determined to be unacceptable, use back of checklist to explain your concern. f 5.) Item #11 review applicable inspection / construction procedures to identify the individuals and/or organizations required to review 1 and approve completed deficiency / rework documentation. 6.) Item #12, 13 and 14 are self explanatory. l 0722/ MISC 2

f. .Jcn. 27, 1986' P 32 1 of 3 l- ' .VII.a.2 SWLD and PWLD Review Data Sheet Package No. Item No. Seq.- No. Random No. l 1.) Non-conformances identified on NCR7 Yes (List NCR No's.) No Partially 2.) Non-conformance(s) identified on. document other than an NCR. IList title of form, form no./rev. (if available), sequential no. of form and date non-conformance was identified.] 3.) List procedure (s) and revision inspection was performed to: 'i 4.) Enter description of non-conformance(s): ( deficiency not clearly stated, explain) 5.) Deficiency (ies) is (are) reworkable? Yes No Partially Indeterminate 1 (Use back of page for comments) l 0722/ MISC 2

Jcn. 27, 1986 Pcgs 2 of_3 Yf S VY \\ VII.a.2 SWLD and PWLD Review Data Sheet (Cont'd) 6.) If answer to 6.) above is "No" was an NCR issued to resolve deficiency? Yes No Partially I l 7.) Enter disposition of non-conformance: not identified r (IR closed Yes No Date closed ) i i i .8.) Deficiency resolved? Yes No Indeterminate 9.) Reworked, repaired, and replacement items were inspected and tested in accordance with original requirements or acceptable alternates? Yes No, Explain, on back of this page l 10.) Disposition (s) were assigned, reviewed and approved by appropriate ( personnel? i _ Yes No Indeterminate 11.) Non-conformance, disposition and close-out were independently reviewed by appropriately qualified personnel? Yes No Indeterminate I 12.) Non-conformance was processed in accordance with procedure? Yes No, explain on back of this page. 13.) Non-conformance was included in Trend Analysis program? Yes Indeterminate (Use back of page for comments) 0722/ MISC 2 -_2

a.,

Jen.-27, 1986' Prga 3 of 3

• Vy.Y'/ Y VII.a.2 SWLD and PWLD Review Data Sheet l'

(Cont'd) l l 4 14.).Non-conformance was reviewed for deportability under 10CFR50.55(e)? Yes Indeterminate l l 15.) Comments by reviewer. t i l i i Signature.of Reviewer ( l J 'l 1 I l l 1 (Use back of page for comments) I 0722/ MISC 2

L.!).: 2 t.4. CC 2 02/07/86' Page t of 4 VII.a.2 Non-Conformance/ Corrective Action Systems TITLE: ' Checklist for Review of Su port Weld Data Cards (SWLD's) and ' Pipe Wald Data car 's) PREPARED BY: r$zul DATE: ef $3, CONCURRED BY: d7M M 23J[f6 DATE: c, 1.) If there are no "Unsat" conditions identified on the Weld Data Card and/or Supporting Documents, the weld will not be included in the sample. 2.) Itea #1 is for NCR's identifying non-conformances that were not identified as."Unsat" conditions on some other document (i.e., Wald Data Card. Inspection Report, etc.); if the deficiency identified I on the NCR is the only deficiency identified in the package it will not be included in the sample. 3.) Itea #2 thru #9 are self explanatory. 4.) Itea #10 review applicable inspection / construction procedures to identify required responsible organization approval of the disposition. Review applicable WDC, RPS, etc., to verify required organizational authority has been provided as evidenced by signature in the appropriate space. If the attribute is determined f to be unacceptable, use back of chocklist to explain your concern. 5.) Ites fil will always be completed as " indeterminate" unless IR references other documents in the body or remarks section. The j references shall be addressed by :he ISAP VII.a.2 Coordinator on a { case by case basis. Note: Use backside of checklist to explain yes or no comments. 6.) Item #12, 13 and 14 are self explanatory. 0722/ MISC 2 J

I 02/07/86 l P' age 2 of-4 i VII.a.2 SWLD and PWLD Review Data Sheet Package No. Ites No. j Seq. No. Randon No. 1.) Non-conformances identified on NCR7 C Yes ] (List NCR No's.) 1 Q No Partially 2.) Non-conformance(s) identified on document other than an NCR. [ List j title of form, form no./rev. (if available), sequential no. of form and date non-conformance was identified.] 3.) List procedure (s) and revision inspection was perfomed to: 4.) Enter description of non-conformance(s): ( deficiency not clearly stated, explain) 5.) Deficiency (tes) is (are) reworkable? l lYes l l No U Partially R Indeterminate (Use back of page for comments) l 0722/ Misc 2

iy 03/07/86 Page 3 of 4 VII.a.2.SWLD and PWLD Review Data Sheet (Cont'd) ~ i 6.) If answer to $.) above is "No" was'an NCR issued to resolve I deficiency? i i ~ C Yes No U Partially 1 7.) Enter disposition of non-conformance: C not identified (IR closed -- Ye s No Date closed ) 1 8.) Deficiency resolved? R Yes R No Indeterminate 9.) Reworked, repaired, and replacement items were inspected and tested in accordance with original requirements or acceptable alternates? O Yes l l No - Explain, on back of this page I 10.) Disposition (s) were assigned, reviewed and approved by appropriate level of personnel? R Yes No R Indeterminate 11.) Non-conformance, disposition and closeccat were independently reviewed by appropriately qualified personnel? Yes R No Indeterminate i 12.) Non-conformance was included in Trend Analysis progras? l lYes Indeterminate (Use back of page for comments) 0722/ MISC 2

l 02/07/86 Page 4 of 4 VII.a.2 SWLD and PWLD Review Data Sheet (Cont'd) l 13.) Non-conformance was reviewed for deportability under 10CFR50.55(e)? l l [ Yes C Indeterminate 14.) Comments by reviewer. Signature of Reviewer /Date (Use back of page for comuments) 0722/ MISC 2

l.u. 4. J % c,0c. 02/18/86 Page 1 of 4 VII.a.2 Non-Co'nformance/ Corrective Action Systems TITLE: Checklist for Review of Support Weld Data Cards (SVLD's) and Pipe Weld Data Cards 's) PREPARED BY: h-zf/ DATE: MMi'- V6 CONCURRED BY: /yht[ DATE: / /n 1 m. 1.) If there are no "Unsat" conditions identified on the Weld Data Card and/or Supporting Documents, the weld will not be included in the sample. 2.) Item #1 is for NCR's identifying non-conformances that were not identified as "Unsat" conditions on some other document (i.e., Weld Data Card, Inspection Report, etc.); if the deficiency identified on the NCR is the only deficiency identified in the package it will not be included in the sample. 3.) Item #2 thru #9 are self explanatory. I 4.) Item #10 review applicable inspection / construction procedures to identify required responsible organization approval of the disposition. Review applicable WDC, RPS, etc., to verify required organizational authority has been provided as evidenced by signature in the appropriate space. If the attribute is determined to be unacceptable, use back of checklist to explain your concern. 5.) Item #11 will always be completed as " indeterminate" unless IR' references other documents in the body'or remarks section. The references shall be addressed by the ISAP VII.a.2 Coordinator on a case by case basis. 6.) Item #12, 13 and 14 are self explanatory. 0722/ MISC 2

-r -02/18/86 Page 2 of 4 VII.a.2' SWLD and PWLD Review Data Sheet 4 Package No. Item No. Seq. No. Randon No. 1.) Non-conformances identified on NCR7 (__j Yes .l (List NCR No's.) l I No R Partially 2.) Non-conformance(s) identified'on' document other than an'NCR. [ List title of form, form no./rev.-(if available), sequential no. of form i and date non-conformance was identified.] l 3.) List procedure (s) and revision inspection was performed to: l 4.) Enter description of non-conformance(s): J (t3 deficiency not clearly stated, explain) 5.) Deficiency (ies) is (are) reworkable? I lYes l I No I lPartially i l Indeterminate i 0722/ MISC 2

j 02/18/86 Page 3 of 4 VII.a.2 SVLD and PWLD Review Data Sheet i (Cont'd) i 6.) If answer to 5.) above is "No" was an NCR issued to resolve deficiency? 0 i l }Yes 1 I No 1 I Partially. i 7.)' Enter disposition of non-conformance: l lnot identified I (IR closed Yes , No Date closed ) i l 8.) Deficiency resolved? l l Yes l l No l ( Indeterminate 9.) Reworked, repaired, and replacement items were inspected and tested f in accordance with original requirements or acceptable alternates? { l lYes l l No, Explain, on back of this page 10.) Disposition (s) were assigned, reviewed and approved by appropriate l level of personnel? I U Yes l l No l Indeterminate ) 11.) Non-conformance, disposition and close-out were independently reviewed by appropriately qualified personnel? R Yes l I No l l Indeterminate i 12.) Non-conformance was included in Trend Analysis program? l lYes 1 Indeterminate I i f I l 0722/ MISC 2 l L___------_-_---

02/18/86 Paga 4 of 4 1 VII.a.2 SVLD and PWLD Review Data Sheet 1 i (. Cont'd) i. -I ~ 13.),Non-conformance was reviewed for deportability under 10CFR50.55(e)? U Yes l Indeterminate I 14.) Consents by reviewer. 1 I 4 -I -i Signature of Reviewer /Date i r 0722/ MISC 2 ________m.__.____---__-----

Fcbru ry 14. 1986 .N; %s*'*' Page 1 of 4 i VII.a.2 i NONCONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS i T7TLE: CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF POPULATION SAMPLE ITEM - RELATED PROCEDURES. i o2!// d PREPARED BY:_ d 8 DATE: i CONCURRED BY,.: //$/./bt4 DATE: ,3 /f f /P/_ yr'- i i STEP 1.) Identify the procedure / revision to be reviewed from the Document Review Data Sheet. STEP 2.) Review the procedure to: A.) Determine the requirements for processing deficiencies. l B.) Identify any additional procedures (relative to deficiency processing) referenced within the i procedures being reviewed. C.) Ascertain which of the essential criteria for i adequate nonconformance control is included. The essential criteria are: 1.) The nonconformance item is properly identified. 2.) The nonconforming condition is i properly described. j 3.) The disposition is identified as use-as-is, rework, repair, or scrap. 1 4.) The nonconformance report contains l signature approval by appropriate level of personnel. j 5.) Reworked, repaired, and replacement l items are inspected and tested in f accordance with original i requirements or acceptable alternatives. 0750/ Misc 5 a-_-______-___

I ! Fcbruary 14', 1986 Page 2 of 4 t 6.) An independent review is conducted of the nonconformance, including- ' disposition and closeout by appropriately qualified personnel.. ,] 7.) The nonconformance is included in the trend analysis process and f reviewed for corrective action. 8.) The nonconformance is reviewed'to l determine necessity for conducting l further evaluation for 10CFR50.55(e) l deportability. STEP 3.) Repeat steps 2A, 2B, and 2C for the procedures identified during implementation of-step 2B. Continue this process until the trail of procedures has been exhausted. STEP 4.) Document the results of procedure reviews on the Procedure -Review Data Sheet. A.) Indicate the population name. I B.) List the sample item number and each procedure (number, title, revision.and revision date) reviewed for that sample item. i Note: Sample item numbers relating to identical " sets"of procedure revisions may be. listed together. l C.) Place a check mark ( / ) in the appropriate block (s) for' essential criteria included in each procedure. i I Note: Block numbers correspond to the numbers for i essential criteria listed in Step 20. ] D.) Place an "X" in the appropriate block (s) to indicate essential criteria not included in each procedure. E.) For essential criteria items partially addressed in i procedures or requiring an explanation, piece a j numbered triangle (d) in the appropriate blocks (s). Place an identical symbol in the " Comments" section of the Procedure Review Data Sheet and provide the l l explanation. 3 l 0750/ MISC 5

i Fcbruary 14, 1986 Page 3 of 4 STEP 5.) A). Collectively tabulate the results of procedure reviews I for each sample item. I i B). If all of the 8 essential criteria items have been procedurally addressed, the sample item will be considered acceptable. C). If any of the 8 essential criteria items have not been procedurally addressed, the sample item will be considered unacceptable, or justification for acceptability will be given. STEP 6.) Indicate acceptability /unacceptability by placing a check mark ( /) in the appropriate block on the Procedure Review Data Sheet. For " justified acceptability", place a numbered triangle (b in the " accept" block. Place an identical symbol in the " Comments" section of the Procedure Review Data Sheet and provide the justification for acceptability, e i 1 i i 0750/ Misc 5 l )

I i l\\Il l4 ~ tpe 6 c 8 c 9 a 1 n U e 44 g ~ 1 f yo t r p a4 e g u c g re c g b g A g ea g PP g g 8 g g d g ~ e 7 g sse 6 r d g d 5 g A g g g a 4 i ) r s e 3 g g ( t R i g E r 2 g T B C g ^ ^ E M g g E U 1 H N g S g M g A E g T T g A I 3 D 3 E n 3 W L o 3 E P i e 3 I M st 3 V A i a 3 E S vD 3 R e 3 R 3 E 3 R 3 U 3 D 3 E 3 C 3 O 3 R n 3 3 P o ir 3 2 se 3 ib 3 a. vm 3 eu 3 = I RN 3 I 3 V 3 3 3 3 m m m m m m m m m m e m m l t m m iT m m m m m m m m m m m N m O m I m T a A S L m U e m P r M O u e s P d r m t m n ee m e cb m n om u ru m n PN m o E C

x s Marsh 5, 1986 Pass 1 of 4 VII.a.2 f NONCONPORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 1 l TITLE: CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF POPULATION SAMPLE ITEM - RELATED l PROCEDURES. l l PREPARED BY: d' DATE: // d j/ l .. d 4,b M. DATE: J/f, /f6 CONCURRED BY: STEP 1.) Identify the procedure / revision to be reviewed from the . { Document Review Data Sheet. j STEP 2.) Review the procedure to: A.) Determine the requirements for processing deficiencies. 3.) Identify any additional procedures (relative to deficiency processing) referenced within the I procedures being reviewed. C.) Ascertain which of the essential criteria for adequate nonconformance control is included. The essential criteria ares j 1.) The nonconformance item is properly identified. 2.) The nonconforming condition is properly described. 3.) The disposition is identified as use-as-is, rework, repair, or scrap. 4.) The nonconformance report contains signature approval by appropriate level of personnel. 5.) Reworked, repaired, and replacement items are inspected and tested in accordance with original requirements or acceptable alt e rnatives. 0750/ MISC 5

March 5, 1986 Page 2 of 4~ I f I. 6.) An independent review is conducted of the nonconformance, including -) disposition and closeout by appropriately qualified personnel. 7.) The nonconformance is included in l the trend analysis process and f reviewed for corrective action. l I 8.) The nonconformance is reviewed to i determine necessity for conducting -i further evaluation for 10CFR50.55(e) deportability. STEP 3.) Repeat steps 2A, 2B, and 2C for the procedures identified during implementation of step 2B, Continue this process until the trail of procedures has been exhausted. I i STEP 4.) Document the results of procedure reviews or the Procedure l Review Data Sheet. l A.) Indicate the population name. B.) List the sample item number and each procedure (number, l title, revision,and revision date) reviewed for that j sample item. l Note: Sample item numbers relating to identical " sets"of procedure revisions may be listed l together. C.) Place a check mark ( / ) in the appropriate block (s) l for essential criteria included in each procedure. Note: Block numbers correspond to the numbers for essential criteria listed in Step 2C. D.) Place an "X" in the appropriate block (s) to indicate essential criteria not included in each procedure. E.) For essential criteria items partially addressed in procedures or requiring an explanation, place a j numbered triangle (d) in the appropriate blocks (s). i Place an identical symbol in the " Comments" section of l the Procedure Review Data Sheet and provide the explanation. i l 0750/ MISC 5 2 i l

( l March 5, 1986 Page'3 of 4 1 STEP 5.) A). Collectively tabulate the results of procedure reviews for each sample ites.. l l B). If.all of the 8 essential criteria items have been -l procedurally addressed, the sample iten will be considered acceptable. C). If g of the 8 essential criteria items have not been procedurally addressed, the sample ites will be considered unacceptable, or justification for l acceptability will be given. -STEP 6.) Indicate acceptability /unacceptability by placing a check mark ( / ) in the appropriate block on the Procedure Review Data Sheet. For " justified acceptability", place a numbered triangle (d) in the " accept" block. Place an identical symbol in-the "Conunents" section of the Procedure Review Data Sheet and provide the justification for acceptability. STEP 7.) Sign as reviewer and date. L 0750/ Misc 5

l t p e c c an 6 U 8 94 ,f e 1 o t = + 5 p 4 e h c ce c m rg A e aa MP w 8 de 7 s s e 6 r dd 5 A ,w a 4 i ) r s e 3 ( t R i E r 2 T B C E M E U 1 H N S i A D T T A I D s E n W L o E P ie I M st V A ia E S vD R e R E RU DEC O R n P o i r 2 se ib a. vm eu I RN I V e l t iT E T A N D O / I R T E A W L E U I e P V r O E u s P R d r t ee a cb e om n r u n PN o C l j(!

1 11 I. I ll i t -s s e e s f t k z o r t n a a_ t m / o e 0 o R 0 F o d 8 e v. 7 re e )

b n

s R 2 e m e n z u k o i N a -a i S T W t = c e n u l I o r p i t m t s a c n S A I ees ( S M R O S F I S T P e U O r P N u N Y t I S an M g E i T S S y Y t f S Q o E n e C o n t N i o a A t i D M a t R l i O u d F p n N o o O P C CNO N F O W E e t I l a V b s E a n R k U r R o O w t F e a LT R T d E e m%d E w H e EN:: S i /o K v C e e mD1 E

R t

rM ; H y a os C t g D Fsr i n sfC t i n e e O e B l r r d a e I u m m i b t r r r m n o o e u na o F F S N i g i t f a o S l e r r u e l e e p m p m b S w o a m e m E e P N a t u T S I N O v i N e h

1 Rsv o L a/a/a r l Instruction for Review of Nonconformance System Input Forms This information is intended for use during review of forms which have been used to document and control reworkable items. not intended for evaluation of the nonconformance system.,This instruction is Enter the information in the spaces available provided on the attached checksheet. i Determine whether or not the form was used to report a reworkable { condition, not a condition which required engineering input prior to j taking action to correct the condition. j ,,,,,a #44 n/~/M I For "unsats",3a brief synopsis of the condition and the action that was I taken to correct the condition. { In the event an unacceptable condition should have been procossed as a nonconforming ites, and there is no reference to a { NCR, provide a numbered footnote indicating the information which led to the { conclusion, e.g. The FDR reports unacceptable rebar placement but i the pour was made and there is reference to a Drawing Change Authorization (DCA). A followur review of the DCA might indicate that the DCA should 4 have been the result of a NCR disposition rather than without benefit of j the NCR. 1 I l l j l I l l I i l l 1 l I

u.

.i.. g. t

a..

\\ ,1, j l 2Zr. a. '. 2 7 C. D o 2 I 1 [- 7 ,j . i f-. c l. ./ { 'I . 1 .i, -l I [ k .0n A'Ai[ & ksY h-., i?AAiw Y s \\ I o f.h R ' PiAm#

.')

%8 l { s i. e' JJ j i /-{ j ( s l s ). -a e i3 A a ( 7, I i _4s 1 s ; e..A+1A 44 L-. e r-aP 'j(..?I wG~ o -+ t.. =- A. ( 7%. AM ' N . V -LLt & .r-mdL&8A dd "+Laca/r.A a1 6 nA hasa i r-L 'EC.a'.t.- 4c, .i \\, .h ] ,f i 'J ', 7J ( _/ l i 'J' ? , i; '. l ?! '/ \\ ' I t \\ i, / .i. i .I i m\\ \\, ,{ .k l / i t i .I

- i

\\ 1 j .I / } t. / ) i g g~j \\ \\ i ,s t l ., / 1 i' i j f l ( y '. l 4 I Y's I (' il l \\ / [ i I 1

= - - r- ,)> ?.C./ l, ? ,(( I a ,j /II.a.2 d-lp 5 NON-CONFORMANCE/CORRECTINE ACTION SYSTEME-h,Jf 3- ~ 6 01/96

oly,

,0 ^ Page 1- 'of 7 4 <,1/

Title:

CORRECTIVE ACTIO. REQUEST 1 IMPLEMENTATION REVIEL l 52.w......_..._. cates.necef.. ?esoarea sv Aporoved Bvs__ M 4 _____________Datet_ gy k_. } .t e The ourpose'and scope of this checklist is as f ollows:-

< ~

3

y

Purpose:

To. review the C,R process withinthe-7;

enstraints of the FSAR.'the CAR orocedures.

~ -and:the external' action input'and outou'- l ' interfaces. -1 p 3coces .The review will.be based'on discuss' ions wgth cast and cresent TUGCO and B&R personnel., -eviews and observat t ens of act'ual CAR data.. mackages (using CAR Data Sheets), and the review of any documentation invoking, t -modifying or changing the CAR'. actual -emolution handling process. Tne CAR Data Sheet and coservations noted during CAR osckage review shall' constitute the major corticn of material usec for'the review.- The procedures that interface wilI ce, _,~ i, eviewoo under their own orocedure checkli st and the cata' y l shall be used'in the conservation remarks. The.ceriod of review is cased on defined oeriods of ma,,or. changes in management or crocedure/CA chilosoons, r 4 -( ' f f /j1 /^ J ) \\ \\ - - -. _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - _ _ ~ _ -_

'Q; }W; jfj_ . f[t.. \\(t R \\ {D - .,.y (f I }. I r g QC zg m . w,,;. .] 1.; j# .. ;.S '4 / N 'Oh j[1,,,; .j. \\ MM-CONFORMANCE/CCRRECTIVE 3s CTION,SYSTEME. i t. t c'

,...,, g n

Page~~ of /.

Title:

CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUEST IMPLEMENT 4) TION REVIEW 9!' g. 43: ience Procedure + N u m b 'a r a _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R e v., _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ D a t e _ _ _ _, g _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ )l Portcd o f r e v i e w s _,_ _, _ _, _ _ _ _. _, _ _ _, _ _ _ _, _, _ _, _ _ _, _ _ _ _, _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ h ab y 3 s-1. In accordance with the above procedure. die tne [ .3and1&ng process follow the crocedural steos consi stenti v s; 3: I n s, ) ( ) a. -Root cause determination: V e s _ _, _ _ NO _, _ _ _ b... Recordli49 resolution action taken: Y e s _, _ _ _, N *.: _ _ _ _ c. , Evaluating resolution effectiveness g /es____No__a_ d. Follow-uo of resolutions over time:Yes____Nc____ e. Timelv resolution actica: Y e s _ _ _ _, No _, _ _ _ Root.i,t ab i l i t y review / action: Y e s _, _ _ _ N c., _, _ _ +'. i g. ClosuFe.of, CAR's ( e s _,_ _ _ N o _ _ _ _ l 6 I. q . ~, l fb , e v ,, o., j.. 3 V. O. Do the source documents identifvtng the significan*. a Ano/or generic problem crovide the,information necessarv to ] initiate the CAR orocess? (i.e. Letters of Concern. NCF's. -] IR's) Y e s, _, _ _ N o _ _ _, _ Remarks ( s I i i i .g 4 S h 4' / o' 1 J 1

27 BY Y e i VII.a._ NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

1/Bo Fage ! of 4

Title:

CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUEST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW 3. Did.the responsible organt:stions follow accepted procedural.steos to occument-the resolution and notify the specific CAR coordinator of resoluitton orogress. status or necessary extensions anc closures of Intattating non-conformances related to the specific CAR 7 1 Yes____No____ Remart.s 1 i 4 Are the significant conditions criterza necessarv to Initiate a CAR part of the crocedures anc review crocess of the source non-conformance systems and independent input orocedures? Yes____No____ Remarts: i 5. Does the CAR resolution crecess effectively nandle NRC rejecteo resolutions of recortable signift: ant conditions-res____No____ Remarts: I 1 i m. Are untrended significant croblems carefully documented to provice a comDiete auditable and traceable record" j les____No____ Femarvss l ( i

Y l VII.a.C NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 1 ./C1/86 Page 4 of 4 Titlet CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUEST IM* LAMENTATION REVIEW Does the actual orocess comolv with thi s review e ceriod's CAR procedure and the FSAR7 Yes____No_.__ Remarkst 1 3. Does the CAR resolution f ormat used orovide the information required for the balance of the reportab111tv cycle for period reported non-conformance/ items? Yes____No____ Remarkst t Y. Are the " Letters of Concern" describing the problems concise enough to permit anvene to Lnderstand the cast-oroblem, the contributing factors. and orovide soecific reference to the relevent non-conformances/1tems of tne soecific CAR reviewed? Yes____No____ Remarks: General Remartst l i R.v,. .rt.............................C.t..................

r--______

• d*

Y l: L VII.a.2 NON-CONF 0FMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 2/28/86 Page 1 of 1 j t

Title:

CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUEST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW 3UFPLEMENT -- CAR DATA SHEET [,fryscjfmfa;-) l Prepared Bys_ _______________Date__ d_ _ Aoproved By:__ _ M ______________Date__J///F,j.___ The Purpose and Scope of this data sheet is as follows:

Purpose:

To provide a method for recording data contained in Corrective Action Requests (CAR's) to be used for reference in the evaluation of the implementation of the Corrective Action System. Scope The data sheet applies to each CAR that w111 be reviewed as part of the Action Plan. It will nave soaces f or recording the data elements covered by procedure and documentation requirements. Summary information of root cause and corrective actions taken will be included. 1 t f !t' j

t fy )- f u CAR DATA SHEET 4 RPLy b of b ATE 1 } 01. CAR N )fpty A(c7yAL bAYE ' \\ l ?. ' Originator's names ( l 07. Date originator signea: 4 ?4. Date' CAR accrovea for issues l1 05. Accreval namet 1 ?c. Deficiency requiring corrective action I, 07; Deficiency coce: 38. Date of first ceficiency requiring CA: GC. Date of last deficiency requiring CA:

0.

Quantity of same deficiencies recutring CA: 11. Action accressee: i i 10, Action accresse's-orgent:ational group: 1 j 4 10.- Date corrective action was completect 1 14 Name et approval et co'rrective action: 15. Date CA versfaea:

o.

Date CA determined to oe effective: a 17. Name of person determining effectiveness: I l i 18. Root cause a 1 1C. Corrective action taken: l REMARKS: 1 l I l l l l l l b {

1 ( un f fd. < *- i Februtry 03, 1986 j Page 1 of 4 VII.a.2 i NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

Title:

TRENDING IMPLDENTATION CHECKLIST Prepared bys 'Yrw f( mm) Dates dl-]d.fd ,y ~ i Concurred by: didMI Date , /so/r/. u Reference Procedure Issue Datet Period of Review: 1 1. Do the Trend Reports reference procedure and revision being followed? t 2. Are the reporting periods consistent with procedure or at least quarterly? 1 3. Are the issue dates of the Trend Reports within prescribed issuance time frame? e 0739/ MISC 4

February 03. 1986 Page 2 of 4 4 VII.a.2 NON-CO'NFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

Title:

TRENDING IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST I (Cont'd) 4. Is the report and graphic presentations in compliance with required format and content of FSAR,10CF*50-Appendix B, and procedure? 5. Are trending categories established by the procedures and letters of instruction being followed. t 6. Is the trending data and analysis sufficinut information to accurately inform uppar management of current status actions pending and those resolved from previous adverse trends reported? 4 i 7. Are the non-conformances required to be trended, presented in the i reports? IR's yes no NCR's yes no DR's yes no List of Otherst l 0739/ MISC 4 ___ _D

i. Feb ruary 03, 1986 l Page 3 of 4 '] VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

Title:

TRENDING IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST (Cont'd) 8. Are the figures and information separated into the Unit I and 2 designated columns to present correlated trends of non-conformances? yes no Remarks: I l i 9. Are there overall summaries of trended items from specific categories with a concise explanation of the adverse condition, pad are they uniquely identified? I l

10. Can management, removed from the actual construction activity, utilize the information presented to acquire additional information

) easily? This covers the unique identifiers of trended problems, its traceability, source detail and responsible area supervision. I \\ 1 l ~ 11. Is there a trending action committee comprised of Utility engineering and QA personnel, and Constructor engineering and QA personnel required to review identified adverse trend problems? Does their committee charter include significant problem review for deportability? ^ ' ?/::: 00 '.

1 Feb rua ry

• 03, 1986 q

Page 4 of 4 d VII.s.2 l NON-CONTORMANCE/ COP.RECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS l

Title:

TRENDING IMP 1.EMENTATION CHECKI.IST (Cont'd)

12. Doon the trending program have a normalizing method for the i

nonconformance quantity to the construction activity? l 3 13. Is there recorded action to have the trended data monitored for developing adverse trende prior to formal monthly, or quarterly trend reporting? 14. Does the procedure or process provide for the continued monitoring of previously addressed adverse trends where corrective action is being implemented er has been done, and rec';rrseca prevention i verification must be ascertained? Yes No Remarks: 1 l Reviewer Signature: pg. 0739/ MISC 4 l l [ b

[J d 5 f$. c'd Y fy/f f /II. a. O NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 7/4/S6 Page 1 of 1 I

Title:

TRENDING IMPLEMENTATION CHECVLIS? Preoared Bve__ W_ _________________Datesf,{'f_(~_k_ evi__ p 9 M _ d _______________Datei a/s/ a __ Approved Note: This' author 1:es the use of. and provides a Purcose and Scope for. the attached checklist titled " TRENDING IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST". dated February 00. 1986. t PURPOSE: Thi s trending implementation checklist in.for the purpose of verifving compliance with the trending procedure and/or accepted industry trending analysis practices. SCOPE: This encompasses the action limits imposed by the FSAR requirements. Interfacing crocedures, and utilltv industry practices necessary to prepare accurate and useful trending information. i i L.

1 f Felicuary 03, 1986 Page 1 of 4' VII.a.2 i NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS -Title: TRENDING IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST Prepared by:- rw N m2 Date s df-fd.gd' Concurred by: diddI Date: , /2,,/rt. Reference Procedure: Issue Date: i Period of Review: 1 1. Do the Trend Reports reference procedure and revision being j followed? t l i 2. Are the reporting periods consistent with procedure or at least quarterly? 3. Are the issue dates of the Trend Reports within prescribed issuance time frame? l l l l l i I 0739/ MISC 4 i

1 1 Fcbrutry 03, 1986 Page 2 of 4 ) .$Y 0f5 VII.a.2 l NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS I i Title TRENDING IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST (Cont'd) l 'Is the report and graphic presentations.in compliance with required I 4 format and content of FSAR,10CFR50-Appendix B, and procedure? l l 5. Are trending categories established by the procedures and letters of instruction being followed. 4 6. Is the trending data and analysis sufficient information to accurately inform upper management of current status actions pending and those resolved from previous adverse trends reported?- 7. Are the non-conformances required to be trended, presented in the reports? l IR's yes no NCR's yes no l 1, DR's yes no List of others: l l 1 0739/ MISC 4 l c

i Tcbru:ry 03, 1986 I ( Page 3 of 4 $y Yf f VII.a.2 i NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS i

Title:

TRENDING IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST 1 (Cont'd) 8. Are the figures and information separated into the Unit 1 and 2 designated columns to present correlated trends of non-conformances? yes no Remarks: 1 'i i l l l 9. Are there overall summaries of trended items from specific l categories with a concise explanation of the adverse condition, and are they uniquely identified? 1 \\ l l 10. Can management, removed f rom the actual construction activity. utilize the information presented to acquire additional information l easily? This covers the unique identifiers of trended problems, y its traceability, source detail and responsible area supervision. l I i j t ? l 11. Is there a trending action committee comprised of Utility engineering and QA personnel, and Constructor engineering and QA personnel required to review identified adverse trend problems? j l I Does their committee charter include significant problem review for l deportability? i n 710 /ut er/, u_____.__.__

i Februsry 03, 1986 Page 4 of 4-i y NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

Title:

TRENDING IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST (Cont'd) I 12. Does the trending program have a normalizing method for the nonconformance quantity to the construction activity? i i l t .d ve p ng adver a rends pr or to ormal a n hly, q ar er y trend reporting? t e } i i i 14. Does the procedure or process provide for the continued monitoring of previously addressed adverse trends where corrective action is being implemented or has been done, and recurrance prevention verification must be ascertained? Yes No Remarks: i l Reviewer Signature: Date: l l 0739/ Misc 4 l

r-r; I l-j-zII. 7 - e 8. os t Vy / /Y f __. CKneTA EMEET CUPPLEMENTA L MV/Ek/ l review w9: n?a cic ha lcok k~- bcnds' l at:d cronCIe DA crearana f/Sern ancc anGWC/2 /c h.e Io '10.w' ?ebcn2 i Q /b rou0 b '<'. WC f u e ~7 rc Q E

i. ?ct b I 'h l00 0!

lAG c oa e, a u kTcwe<.aa= f % CA cy% peaa

ci, cl a

W : 4 i,

Gr,.. Ia pe.o incorancE/ co'>clu:ic a. c Se /o ra t irn.)or Na N b<t e. C i ten. - y Cen hYior22 OSeY Cb < rin o ~n e ren e d-5 C9e Ar* l were c r.irilfer? Sl: 0 <w. n c bn e hu fGk/ctnS.

)ueskn e:

,l.k<e loen m ve Ac & ^<eyueaf issude,:p a. & sion 'E.ent condhbne coleese +a guaN,+y ? b. Ye $k? /52uf0 l2a vd Qgf0,Or/Q bC- ) and'. sound resolumns.? i hay I / /ofon olon e 7bn eh.<naon s/- in a i a,< d s o A /e 4 de, orch /e,n candAbn.' 3 l c]. Lere /Aeae CAP resclufune ond aebne

G?y &y/r ceaaung/ bJAehmLin ,... p _ _ _.. =221M%% in resdu.41w ae ens cheeAed .: were }heae +. dde.<,mne whe#e>- #ey we<e eKck l in yecluding )repahkon oFM,e etc n:Re~anHy ac verse condth'em ? t .i s. We<e -he CA 6 a/eaed an/v oGr-of ressIukem aclierns ' had been fafen includin3 H>e check +o dekemtna resoluhbn ef&c.h'veness anol recurrevicg. l .s p<evedere ? i. i. l h eicicc,, Ced hs.

1 I.

7Ee 6fR sys7bir> not used exc/ueneh waa l tar-non -l14rdrvard prokleme. (Uh"u. $U. NOS i wM s \\ve 4c na<eim e p.<au mi +h cal' c]g a poadaa o

2., Th e A42f 4'ystvm can be uCe$ bo 'Yenbtf

. g ece dl freiklfn.9 a n Gl inplen) enIabc)) %deGNneies. 4..' I 3 VenScab'ar) ofe'$ck'veness anc/ fccurrenec' i prevenbicm Mfuires Schal evlolenCG l h. tr> c ll^ ess of ochons kben Gvalu o fic y) ~ fa kes ink consiolo, ahon comp /Ed/y ano exhenl~ csf an iolcnhi5ed prob lern. --- SHb on c uscials7 octsnoNs O?"8 4/P/87 ~

_?s A P E. s. 2. 11/I, *., 2. - 8 /3. O Z 2, 'l 4<e i P L '8 E g r, na : enexu s r sea Re ne w \\ oe comerne Ac now /%no a \\ { l ewuss : %./ /& W z 87 \\ n.a.,a o vo.c row osrz $ ($1AAll - Ws'/77 t anaovso : p.e.cau rn r om Punto:s/Ce.oea ras.Amn y w f ~E AA q ny l Ad e Q TVCrCo M,' w,- b \\ - r & -t. /- = - J n. - a i 1. a.c.e M w Md /o;. M _>^ c t - Q A P - ( 7, /. T h U A'~E A 9s

1. -l 8 n

to cpg

n. p Q

pggg, TSA M j-

~d. M a.~_tese Q B,w $ R 4 B ~- tL g 7/ro/ey T u c c_ o o 3/sfet, g 'hae x u A$A ~()(.x U m= > - A w J%f.aa u -tCa y J

i Caegust p~ct klVtf)J of sa xare rtvg A C T10 N MKNOS fCONY} h . Mmo smaar : in 2 <,. g s3 3/u/ev i. Mn & -- u 4 -W & 1-wwM4a At.a A ng to e}he muumv3 -cd x - a a. x (< m.a

w. w, _ a- ? y

2. b-6 a.,=b &

nAQ: u -th. A A ry 4 stJ ae g 4L p : e n :e W k ~.,1ctaa ? % *** % / p ( A .;e q ~ yh). 3 o a x s /a n-h tR.e. -t.fa. n.,, e a ~ta e & st% L c.Fy ya d m.

y. u m

& u.x -u <e -b a dv A -uLa-A -c. u, y e.. e &A " f ' Alo, Mr L Q ~L A y p, w a u m. 6/.W </u/n R e vi e w ek on

Qi / l- !.!, c c i VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 4 0/0/86 Page 1 of o Titles CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCEDURE REVIEW Preoared bv _m ___________ D at ef d___ ) e y : __.;5i3ff. dhM________________Dat e _J/s/EJe _ _ Approved Puroeses This checklist provides a list of attributes for use during the review of procedures which provide directions for. performing corrective action.ns required by the FSAR anc of 10 CFR 50 Apoendia B. .The corractive action system must, ,i among other things. provide f or evaluating each unacceptable condition to determine if the condition is part of an " Adverse Trend" or is a "Significant Condition Adverse to Quality".and therefore recuires action to orevent recurrence. (See the flow diagr%n dated O/05/86 attached hereto).- l Scoce: This checklist pertains to the procedural process - for corrective action reauests. This includes any externai anout to the CA procedure, and the review of any other pertinent material used by Brown & Root or TUGCO to handle Corrective Action Requests. 1 i l 1 )' i I l l

i l'- \\ 4 VII.a.: NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS !./0/86 Page 2 of 6 I

Title:

CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCEDURE REVIEW Identifv and list the title, numcer, revision. anc cate of 1 oroceeures in use at CPSES for requiring corrective action { to prevent recurrence within the organizations of Brown I and Root. Tugeo. Startuo and Test. and Operations. a. 1 i l D. C' J c. i i l i e. l

i i /I I. a. l NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 3/~/86 Page 3 of 6

Title:

CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCEDURE REVIEW For each of the above crocedures perform a review in accordance with the checklist items below. Procedure to be reviewed: Titles ______________________________________________________ Nummert____________________Revistent______ Dates _____________ l 1. Does the procedure provide f or review of e4ch condi tion i included in the. procedure. for determination of the need for i corrective action to prevent recurrence? Yes______No _____ Remarks: i, k l C. Does the procedure provide detail methodology for determination of those conditions which reoutre corrective action to orevent recurrence (Threshold of need for - corrective action to prevent recurrence)" Yes_____No______ Remarks l l l 0. Does the procedure assign the review f or-determination I of the need for corrective action to orevent recurrence to a technical supervisory level person, an engineering level l corson or similar level person? Yes_____No_____ Remarks i

r: l. l VII.a.: l NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS C/~/86 Page 4 of 6

Title:

CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCEDtJRE REVIEW I 4 Does the crocedure provide a method for documenting the results of the review for determination of the need for corrective action to orevent recurrence? Yes ____Nc_______ Remarks l l 5. Does the crocedure require the signature of the person performing the review to be recorded and retainedT. fes_____Nc______ Remarks: 6. When it is determined that corrective action to prevent recurrence (APR) is needed. does the procedure ordvide fort a. Determining the "cause"? Yes _____No______ b. Record 1ng the action taken? Yes______No______ c. Evaluating the effectiveness? Yes._____No______ d. Requiring timely action? Yes______No______ e. Signature records for the above? Yes _____Nc______ Remarks l s l l t

) i 1 1 VII.a.: { NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 1 0/0/86 Page 5 of 6

Title:

CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCEDURE REVIEW Does the orecedure provide for reporting documented i significant conditions adverse to quality to, as a minimum I a. Immediate management? Yes______No______ i .q b. Upper levels of management such as the Managers of Construction. ] Startuo and Test. Operations. anc Quality Assurance? Yes______Nc______ 1 Remarks: i I i d 1 8. Does the procedure provide f or NRC rejected resolutions to be re-initiated and reviewed for new accootable resolutions.? Yes ___No____Remarkst .l l l l j I. 1 ~ 1 4

'l I l

• VII.a.C 3

NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS l + 0/0/96 Page 6 'of 6

Title:

CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCEDURE REVIEW 8 Does the crocedure.orovide for a ceriodic current status reocrt of CAR's activities with exclicit detall to 3 ascertain' current status of all unclosed CAR's? I Yes____No____Remarvs: GENERAL' REMARKS: i l Reviewer's Signatures ________________________ Dates _________

4 ,. ; p ; J o A January 31, 1986 Page 1 of $ i . VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

Title:

TREND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE REVIEW CHECKLIST I Prepared by: Ye ( u,,,,.x ; Date: M.,;P-N -/ c-Concurred by: / g2,Maf' Date: ,,L /2c /pc I J 1. Procedure Title, number and issue. dates when trending techniques i .used are described: Current title, revision'and issue date: } Previous title, revision and issue date (g): i l 2. Record the non-conformance documents required to be trended per QA Plan Section 25.0, FSAR, and the trending procedure. I 3. Are Trend Reports required at least quarterly for adverse non-conformance reporting ? A) quarterly basis? B) monthly basis? C) Record time periods of each issue basis including periods of no issues: 1 i l 0735/ MISC 4 L-______-_

January 31, 1986 Page 2'of.5 VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

Title:

TREND. ANALYSIS' PROCEDURE REVIEW CHECKLIST (Cont'd). 4. -Is the procedure scope clearly stated? .f 5. Does the procedure' outline the steps required'to develop's Trendi Report? (i.e., Sources of data, nonconformance categories or problem / discipline grouping,' presentation format, significant trend thresholds, evaluation ~ methods) 6. Are owner, constructor and subcontractor input requirements for ' source data and reporting clearly' defined? 7. Do the procedures describe how to assimilate data, calculate and evaluate each required non-conformance to~be trended? l-1: f.- 0735/ MISC 4

g-- 3 m,, z.

pr-y

.y ,s 5 .i. d

p i

'( ,,_ y. 's (j) ,} ilf 1. i /+ Jcnunry 31, 1986 4n, Page 3 of 5. " 4 ?p L P.- f, - I.), e ,e i< VII.a.2 ' t.( j NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 1>

Title:

TREND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE REVIEW CHECKLIST (Cont'd)' i* 8. Are the interfacing procedures for each data source and trending: ' output referenced? ( , ) 1.is t title, rumber, and Rev..of these documents? ?. g .\\ / o 9. Are specific:levelti of management position and corresponding. responsibilities for reporting, taking action, and follow'-up',for effectiveness clearly stated? I t 10. Are response times to adverse trends defined for each level of i evaluttion and review? l y 4 1 j y 11. In the procedurt is there a defined process fgr the: A) Systematic collection and normalization of Trend Data? j B) Adverse Trends Presentation (i.e., text, graphs, charts)? 0735/ MISC 4 i I

j e / - a January 31 1986 .l Page 4 of 5 .] i ,) VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTIdN SYSTEMS

Title:

TREND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE REVIEW CHECKLIST

1. }

(Cont'd) 11. (Cont'd) i C) Distribution of Trend Reports to QC and Construction supervisors responsible for the adverse trend items areas? I i D) Resolution, development, and transmittal of tren'd reports? 1 ) -t E) Unique identification of each adverse condition / trend so it.may il be tracked for status later? i 4 F) Corrective action recurrence monitoring of previously identified j potentially adverse trends,to verify action is taken and recurrence prevented on the long term? l f C) Determination of 10CFR50.55(e) deportability of adverse trends? j i 1 I H) Performance of trending and preparation of the Trend Report? i I) Performance of evaluation, resolution and formal response to the site QA manager? I l 12. Is there a moving trend review covering the most recent period und ) at least the previous 12 months or four quarters for anticiput.ipg and monitoring adverse trends? h 0735/ MISC 4 1 L

J, N l ,4 i h ' /l F -') [;- 5; i {,. / 4 [- - / ,j .f. January 31.'1986 .,/ a. , -> y Page 5 of 5' \\ i i ? y< 4 l 'VII.A52 i NON-CONFORMANC1'/ CORR %CTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS ..r f

1. [Titla - TREND ANALYSDI PP.CCEDURE REVIEW CHECKLIS (Cont'd)

-l

13. 'Are the documentation and Trend Report work sheets and forms used.

defined and are examples provided? g ,y e 5. +. j' c j .v'? l h 14. Are Trending categories defined or at 'least referenced if in f ,.y another piocedure? eo j. l l .su e ~ ~ t c,l, T l { ' y;., . {, < < I1 i g

15. Additional Remarks:'

S / i ) .,1 f' i .t. .p. i 3-3 ) y .I t i Reviewer Signature: Date: / t F 0735/ MISC 4 s a L

f:.V /

• a 2 c78 -col 5

p# >.-} e s.- ' VII.A.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS O/11/86 Page 1 of 4

Title:

DEPORTABILITY (SDAR) PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST l I-Preoared:_ get,_ _ _ _______________ Dates g fA 8I_ b M [,_______________Date: __kd ff Concurred SDARTitles_______________________________________________ . SDAR.No._______________Rev._____________ i Procedure followed No._________,________Rev_______________Date: _______________ 1. In this SDAR, are the proper forms and step processes for preparation followed? Yes_________No________ Remarks: l i O. Were the reporting and time periods met for this SDAR7 Yes_______No________ I ~. Does the SDAR state clearly the source of the nonconformance(s). the problem, the justification for potential safety significance reporting, and the current status of resolution actions? Yes_______No________

f 1 1 l ) VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 2/11/86psr/a/&s Page frF of 4 A_ i

Title:

DEPORTABILITY (SDAR) PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST l 4. Does the problem meet the reportabili ty - cri teri a? Yes______No_______ .i i 5. If. reported, are there documents in the SDAR package covering the NRC notification of the problem In accordance j with the procedure? Yes______No______ 6. If the resolution of the problem occured after the original NRC notification, is there a followup letter to the NRC reporting resolution and status of the GDAR file? Yes______No______ 1 7. Were the commited response, resolution and action J { performance dates met if greater than the procedural time i requirements? Yes______No_______ Remarks? I i l l 1 I 1 I l f l _mm_...-.__._

i I l m. l I i VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS C/11/86p.3 r/u/s/ j Page 2 of'4 j 3 \\

Title:

DEPORTABILITY (SDAR)' PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST i i 8. What are the SDAR's: l 1 a. Problem initiation date (see-nonconformance form for discovery date)?____________________________ b. Discoverer's immediate supervisor report date? Date____________________ SDAR deportability evaluation date7______________ c. d. NRC report date7__________________ NRC resolution response date7____________________ e. i f. This SDAR is Open7________ C1csed7_______Date_________ h. Nonconformance closure date7_____________ C.- Summary of SDAR problems i l 10. Source documents: i i

r. l VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 2/11/86 95 Wu/s> .Page 3.cf 4 Y-Tities DEPORTABILITY-(SDAR) PROCEDURE ~ IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST - 1 1. Root Cause:

12.. Remarks 4

-q 13. Is this SDAR-referenced'by a TRT or SSER finding (s)7 Yes__________No_________ i f i t I ( R e v i e w e r s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,, _ _ _ _ _ _ D a t e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i l-j i____________-. l

K. 4. 2. - 9. /d. 0 0 z ?lW9 7 W* y., '. _ ? 3 # 05 f /f ^ f REPORTING SIGNIFICANT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES ATTRIBUTE CHECKLIST EVALUATION RESEARCH CORPORATION COMANCRE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM ISSUE-SPECIFIC ACTION PLAN VII.a.2 i f!/9!8/:n Approved: 11/ J Date: rategoTy'~I Programmatic / ISAP Supervisor Reviewer Date: Reviewer: Date: i ) 0963/ MISC 6 l

0 / f Af 1 4 BACRGROURD The Texas Utilities Generating Company-(TUGCO) procedure CP-QP-16.1 ~ addresses processing significant design and construction deficiencies found at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) from 11/28/78 to 1/17/86. Based on 10CTR50.45(e),.it establishes the method to d identify and evaluate deficiencies-for significance and, as required, advise the NRC. This attribute checklist provides guidance when verifying the 1 implementation of the program relative to design and construction deficiencies found at CPSES. Supplemental attribute checks may be f added. Findings are documented on Attachment 1. PERSONNEL CONTACTED q i + ) i I l 2 0963/ MISC 6

hf 3[t 1.0 INITIATION, REVIEW, AND NOTIFICATION Identified design and construction deficiencies are accurately dispositioned in a timely manner-and the NRC notified as required. 1.1 The found deficiency is recorded on a-form as required by the applicable issue of CP-QP-16.1. 1.2 The SDAR form indicates the (CP-QP-16.1, Figure 1): a. Unit Number; b. Structure; c. System; i d. Componenti e. Safety Class; f. . hether the finding represents a potential design or W construction deficiency; g. name of the individual identifying the deficiency, h. the time, and i. date; j. TUGC0 QA individual notified of the deficiency, k. the' time, and 1. date; I a. format. l 1.3 'The " Description of Deficiency" is recorded comprehensively so as to facilitate an accurate disposition relative to its i significance. 1.4 The preliminary engineering enalysis provides rationale which supports the conclusion indicated. 1.5 The preliminary engineering analysis concludes that the finding: ] could* adversely affect the safe operation of the plant a. (indicated as "YES"), b. could not adversely affect the safe operation of the l plant (indicated as "NO"), or i c. the affect is " UNKNOWN." l

• "could" implies a probability that safe operations may be adversely affected if the proper conditions exist.

1.6 Found deficiencies determined to be significant represent: a breakdown in the QA program (indicated as 2.b); or e. b. a noncor b m nce in the design released for construction (ind N ced as 2.c); or in dequate construction of, or damage to a structure, c. h system or component (indicated as 2.d); or d. a deviation from performance specifications (indicated as 2.g). 3 0963/ MISC 6 L_______-__---_._

m 07 Yf 1.7 'Found deficiencies which meet 10CFR50.55(e) reportable requirements ('as. indicated by a "YES"'or "UNKNOWB" in Part 1 of the SDAR analysis and "TES" in part 2.b or 2.d..or "No" in part 2.c or 2 3 of the SDAR analysis) are denoted ~asi s.

reportable. b.- unknown, or c. potentially reportable. -1.8 Found~ deficiencies which do not meet 10CFR50.55(e) reportable requirements (as indicated by a "NO" in parts 2.b, 2.c, 2.d.. and 2.h of'the SDAR analysis) are denoted as unreportable. 1.9 The.TUCCO Site QA Supervisor or Product Aasurance Supervisor indicates the completion of the analysis by: ) a. signing ' the CONCLUSION section of the SDAR, then b. indicating the date, and c. time.- 1.10 SDAR forma indicate the: a. date and b. time the NRC was notified of the (potentially) reportable 1 deficiency. 1 ~1.11 Notification is made to the NRC, Region IV. j 1.12 Notification is made within 24 hours of the time the TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor or Product Assurance Supervisor was cognisant of the (potentially) reportable deficiency. 1.13 The name of the TUGC0 Manager QA or Site QA Supervisor representing TUGC0 is indicated on the form.- i 2.0 REPORTING AND WITHDRAWAL NOTIFICATION Written reports concerning (potentially) reportable deficiencies ( y are sent to the NRC in a timely manner and provida the necessary 1 information. Conversely, the NRC is notified when the analysis { confirms the acceptability of the identified condition, 2.1 The analysis confirms that the identified condition is: ) 1 a. reportable or j b. not reportable j 2.2 Notification f non-reportable condition de to the NRC are documented. I 2.3 Notification of non-reportable conditions are made to the appropriate NRC Regional (IV) Office. i 3 4 0963/ MISC 6 j i )

s m-Soyt 5 7 4 2.4 Interia and final reports relative'to (potentially) reportable deficiencies are submitted to the appropriate NRC Regional (IV) Office. 2.5 Copies of interim and final reports are sent to the Director of IEE, NRC, Washington, DC 20555.. 1 2.6 An interia report, in lieu of a final-report..is submitted within 30 days af ter the initial notification. 2.7 Interim. reports address the: a. notification; b. potential probles; c. proposal to resolve the probles; d. ' status of the proposed resolution; reason for the final report delay; e. f. date corrective action is scheduled, and 3 date the final report is scheduled to be submitted.' 2.8 A final report is submitted: a. within 30 days af ter the initial notification, or b. in accordance with the scheduled date indicated in the interia report (s). 2.9 The final report addresses the: i a. description of the deficiency; b. analysis of safety implications; c. corrective action taken. 2.10 The analysis specified in the final report: is supported by records which demonstrate that adequate - i a. evaluation / analysis of the deficiency was made regarding the impact on safe operatico. b. identifies the interfacing systems; c. considers the possible interactions and interfaces, and i d. provides assurance that any design margins are sufficient. 2.11 The corrective action taken as stated in the final report, corrects the found deficiency. 2.12 The causes of the deficiency are identified in the final report. [ 2.13 Preventative corrective action specified in the final report is based upon the identified causes. I ( 1 I 5 0963/ MISC 6 l 1

Py < fe 3.0 CLOSURE 3.1 As applicable, indicate the number of the NRC Inspection Report which serves to close the issue. 3.2 Verify that the referenced report does, in fact, close the issue. 4.0. SUPPLEMENTAL CHECKS 4.1 Review the SDAR file to' ensure that the records are applicable to it. i t i 6 0963/ MISC 6 1 I

P:ge 1 of 6 f, .2, [ - ? i ' 2 2 3 EVALUATION RESEARCH CORPORATION COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM ISSUE-SPECIFIC ACTION PLAN VII.a.2 i ) i I I REPORTING SIGNIFICANT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES l ATTRIBUTE CHECKLIST REVISION: .1 k j Revised to reflect grammatical errors, clarify i attribute checks, etc., evident in the checklist approved 5/19/86 and noted during the review. i The results of the review (documented on the attachment (s)) are based upon the attributes indicate.i in this revision. i 1 Approved: 7/3/ Eb Date: Category I Programmatic ISAP Supervisor 1 7/3/.!$(/ Reviewer: Date: Reviewer. M Date: M i ) i 0963/ MISC 6

1 BACKGROUND l i ) The Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) procedure CP-QP-16.1 addresses processing significant design and construction deficiencies found at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) from 11/28/78 to 1/17/86. Based on 10CFR50.55(e), it establishes the method to identify and evaluate deficiencies for significance and, as required, advise the NRC. .This attribute checklist provides guidance when verifying the implementation'of the program relative to design and construction { deficiencies found at CPSES. Supplemental attribute checks may be ( added.. Findings are documented on Attachment 1. l PERSONNEL CONTACTED N. M A. Nw 4 i

d. Alg a L.

E Sh

v. /% /uh, %w) v' 8 '

(yec) .j i l 1 l I i 2 0963/ MISC 6 l l 1

l 1.0 INITIATION, REVIEW, AND NOTIFICATION Identified design and construction deficiencies are accurately dispositioned in a timely manner and the NRC notified as required. 1.1 The found deficiency is recorded on a form as required by the I applicable issue of CP-QP-16.1. t 1.2 The SDAR form indicates the (CP-QP-16.1, Figure 1): a. Unit Number; b. Structure; c. System; d. Component; j e. Safety Class; f, whether the finding represents a potential design or construction deficiency; i g. name of the individual identifying the deficiency, h. the time, and i. date; j. TUGC0 QA individual notified of the deficiency, k. the time, and l 1. date; m. format. 1.3 The " Description of Deficiency" is recorded comprehensively so as to facilitate an accurate disposition relative.to its significance. 1 1.4 The preliminary engineering analysis provides rationale which supports the conclusion indicated. 1.5 The preliminary engineering analysis concludes that the finding: could* adversely affect the safe operation of the plant a. (indicated as "YES"), b. could not adversely affect the safe operation of the plant (indicated as "NO"), or c. the affect is " UNKNOWN."

• "could" implies a probability that safe operations may be adversely affected if the proper conditions exist.

1.6 Found deficiencies determined to be significant represent: a breakdown in the QA program (indicated as "Yes" in a. 2.b); or b. a nonconformance in the design released for construction or inadequate construction of, or damage to a structure, c. system or component (indicated as "Yes" in 2.d); or d. a deviation from performance specifications (indicated as "No" in 2.g). 3 0963/ MISC 6

I 1.7 Found deficiencies which meet 10CFR50.55(e) reportable requirements -(as indicated by a "YES" or " UNKNOWN" in Part 1 of.the SDAR analysis and "YES" in part 2.b br 2.d, or "No" in part ! c or 2.g of the SDAR analysis) are denoted in'the " CONCLUSION" portion of the form as; j a. reportable, b. unknown, or c. potentially reportable. 1.8 Found deficiencies which do not meet 10CFR50.55(e) reportable requirements (as indicated by a "NO" in parts 2.b, 2.c. 2.d. and 2.h of the SDAR analysis) are denoted as unreportable. 1.9 The TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor or Product Assurance Supervisor indicates the completion of'the analysis by: a. signing the CONCLUSION section of the SDAR,'then b. indicating the date, and c. time. 1.10 SDAR forms indicate the: a. date and b. time the NRC was notified of the (potentially) reportable deficiency. 1.11 Notification is made to the NRC, Region IV. 1.12 Notification is made withir 24 hours of the time the TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor or Pre suct Assurance Supervisor was cognizant of the (potentially) repor_able deficiency. 1.13 The name of t'a TUGC0 Manager QA or Site QA Supervisor representii. UGC0 is indicated on the form. 2.0 REPORTING AND WITHDRAWAL NOTIFICATION Written reports concerning (potentially) reportable deficiencies are sent to the NRC in a timely manner and provide the necessary information. Conversely, the NRC is notified when further analysis confirms the acceptability of the identified condition. ) 2.1 As required, the analysis confirms that the identified condition is l l a. reportable, f f b. not reportable, or c. still under investigation. I 2.2 Notifications of non-reportable conditions made to the NRC are 3 I. documented. l l 2.3 Notification of non-reportable conditions are made to the appropriate NRC Regior. il (IV) Office. 4 0963/ MISC 6 l I -_._-________ _ _3

l ' j lr : l I 2.4 Interim and final reports relative to (potentially) reportable. deficiencies'are submitted to the appropriate NRC Regional (IV) Office.- i 2.5' copies of interim and final reports are sent to the Director of I&E, NRC, Washington, DC 20555. 2.6 An interim report, in lieu of a final report, 1s submitted ^ l within-30 days after the initial notification. \\ 2.7 Interim reports address the: I a. . notification; b. potential problem; I

d..

proposal to resolve the. problem; c. status of the proposed resolution; e. reason for the final report delay; f. date corrective action is scheduled, and .i g. date the final report is scheduled to be submitted. i 2.8 A' final report is submitted: within 30 days after the initial notification, or a. i b. in accordance with the schedule date indicated in the1 i interim report (s). j 2.9 The final report addresses the: description of the deficiency; a. b. analysis of safety implications; c. corrective action taken. 2.10 The analysis specified in the final report. 4 0 is supported by records which demonstrate that adequate a. evaluation / analysis of the ' deficiency was made regarding the impact on safe operation. l b. identifies the interfacing systems; considers the possible interactions and interfaces, and c. d. provides assurance that any design margins are J sufficient. l l 2.11 The corrective action taken as stated in the final report, ) corrects the found deficiency. { 2.12 The causes of the deficiency are identified in the final l i report. 1 2.13 Preventative corrective action specified in the final report 1s based upon the identified causes. 1 1 5 0963/ MISC 6 U

i i j i 3.0 CLOSURE j 3.1 As applicable, indicate the number of the VRC Inspection Report which serves to close the issue. t 3.2 Verify that the referenced report does, in fact, close the

issue, j

4.0 RECORDS RETENTION 4.1. The TUGC0 S1te QA Secretary maintains the records relative to CP-QP-16.1. (CP-QP-16.1, Section 3.4) 5.0 SUPPLEMENTAL CHECKS-5.1 Review the SDAR file to ensure that the records are applicable to it. l 6 0963/ MISC 6

y. Page 1 of 8 .f s ' : - ::.:), EVALUATION RESEARCH CORPORATION-COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM ISSUE-SPECIFIC ACTION PLAN VII.a;2 i 1 I l ] 1 i REPORTING SIGNIFICANT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 'I DEFICIENCIES'AND DEFECTS OR NON-COMPLIANCES IN COMPONENTS ATTRIBUTE CHECKLIST REVISION: 1 l l l i Revised to reflect grammatical errors, clarify attribute checks, etc., evident in the checklist approved ~6/19/86 and noted during the review. The results of the review (documented on the attachment [s]) are based upon the attributes indicated in this revision. { I k 1 1 I i Approved: hdfMr 5//76 Date: Category I Programmatic ISAP Supervisor t I t h 7/5//frI-Revie.e, Date: l ) f/3//f Revie.er: A) ft d. Date: \\ i g / i-1022/ MISC 8 9

ga. 2. - 9 8, o o '/ P i. g BACKGROUND The Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) procedure NEO CS-1 (affective from November 1,1985 to the present) addresses processing significant design and construction deficiencies found at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) and/or defects or non-compliances in basic components of the facility which could create a substantial safety hazard. Based 'on 10CTR50.55(e) and 10CFR21, it establishes the method to identify and evaluate deficiencies, defects, and non-compliances and, as required, advise the NRC. This attribute checklist provides guidance when verifying the implementation of the program relative to design and construction deficiencies found at CPSES and those applicable defects and i non-compliances. Supplemental attribute checks may be added. When applicable, the source of each attribute check is indicated in t parenthesis. Findings are documented on Attachment 1. PERSONNEL CONTACTED-Yh , //R N. E'. W V M (na.M q 4 I 2 1022/KISC8

e L meir. a.. t - 9 8. o o J L p1 1.0 INITIATION, REVIEW', AND NOTIFICATION Identified design and construction deficiencies, defects and non-compliances are recorded in a log which indicates their current status. They are accurately dispositioned in a timely manner. The NRC is notified of (potentially) reportable deficiencies as required. 1 1.1 -The Site Coordinator maintains a. log of (potentially) reportable items / events which indicates their current status. (6.2.2) 1.2 The Site Coordinator records the found deficiency, defect, or non-compliance or a form as required by NEO CS-1, Revision 0. (6.2.1)- 1.3 The "Potentially Reportable. Item / Event" form indicates the (Figure 7.2): a. date the potentially reportable item / event was identified; b. source of information; c. statement of problem so as to facilitate an accurate disposition; d. name of individual responsible to conduct the evaluation; e. evaluation due date; f. evaluation which supports the conclusion indicated; g. name of the individual performing the evaluation; h. date;. 1. notation as to whether the item / event is reportable (indicate "Y" for "yes" if it was determined to [potentially) reportable, or "N" for "no" if it was determined not to be reportable) and, as applicable, j. notation of the appropriate NRC regulation (s). 1.4 Based upon the determination of a (potentially) reportable item / event (as indicated by a "Y" for Attribute 1.3.1), a written report is prepared and forwarded to the responsible vice president which includes, as applicable, the (6.4.2): a. name and address of the individual (s) informing the NRC; b. identification of facility, the activity, or the basic component supplied which fails to comply or which is defective; i identification of the firm constructing the facility, c. or supplying the component which fails to comply or which is defective; 3 1022/MISCB

L_. G IT. c. 2 - t 6. o o 4 i $ V' d. nature of the defect or failure to comply; safety hazard. created or which could be created by the e. identified defect or non-compliance; f. date on which the information concerning the defect or non-compliance.was obtained; g.- number of components in use at, supplied for, or being supplied which fail to-comply or which are defective; h. . location of components in use at. supplied for, or L being supplied which fail to comply or which are defective; i. corrective action which has been, is being, or will-be taken; j. .name of the individual or organization responsible for corrective action; L k. length'of time'that has been or will be taken to complete corrective action;~and 1. advice concerning the defect or non-compliance and relative to the facility, activity, or component that has been, is being, or will be given. I 1.5 The deficiency, defect, or non-compliance determined to be l reportable, as documented on the "Potentially Reportable-Item / Event" form, and the written report described in Attribute 1.4 are forwarded to the responsible vice president *- who indicates (6.4.3 and 6.5.1):- l whether the item / event is reportable : a. b. his or her signature, and c. the date the conclusion was made. The appropriate vice president is: 1) the Vice President, Engineering and Construction and CPSES Project General Manager when the evaluator was a Construction Manager, 2) the Vice President, Nuclear q 1 Operations, when the evaluator was.an Operations l I i Manager, or 3) the.Vice President responsible for QA, j Licensing and Nuclear Fuels when the evaluator was a i Manager of QA, Licensing, or Nuclear Fucis. 1.6 Upon receipt of the "Potentially Reportable Item / Event" form and, as required, the written report from the responsible vice president, the Site Coordinator enters it in a log to indicate l i transmittal to the Licensing Coordinator. (6.5.2) -j { 1.7 The Licensing Coordinator transmits "Potentially Reportable j Item / Event" forms indicated as reportable and reports to the Executive Vice President, NEO. (6.5.3) 1 l l l 4 1022/ MISC 8 [ J

J f 22[a.7. - 9 8, o oQ /pE 1.8 Evaluations which were determined to be reportable by the responsible vice president ~and manager, and in which the Executive Vice President', NEO concurs'. indicates (Figure 7.2): that it is reportable (as indicated by a "YES" in the a.. " DETERMINATION" portion of the form), b. notation of the-appropriate NRC regulation, the signature of the Executive Vice President, NEO, and c. d. the date the determination was made. 1.9 The Licensing Coordinator transmits "Potentially Reportable Item / Event" forms indicated as non-reportable to the.Vice President, QA, Licensing, and Nuclear Puels, or the Executive Vice President, NEO. (6.5.4) 1.10 Evaluations which were determined to be non-reportable by the. responsible vice president and manager and in which either the Vice President, QA, Licensing, and Nuclear Fuels, or the Executive Vice President, NEO concurs, indicates (6.5.4 and Figure 7.2): .that it is non-reportable (as indicated by a "NO" in a. the " DETERMINATION" portion of the form), b. the signature of the Vice President, QA, Licensing, and Nuclear Fuels, or.the Executive Vice President, NEO, and c. the date the determination was made. 1.11 Evaluations which were determined to be non-reportable by the responsible vice president and manager, and in which the Vice President, QA, Licensing, and Nuclear Fuels discounts, indicates (6.5.4.2 Figure 7.2): that it is reportable'(as indicated by a "YES" in the a.- " DETERMINATION" portion of the form), b. notation of the appropriate NRC regulation, the signature of the Vice President, QA, Licensing, and c. Nuclear Fuels, and d. the date the determination was made. 1.12 Evaluations which were determined to be non-reportable by the responsible vice president and manager, but was determined to be reportable by the Vice President, QA, Licensing, and Nuclear Fuels indicates a final decision by the Executive Vice President NEO. (6.5.4.2) 1.13 Prior to 31 days after the (potentially) reportable item / event was identified, the Licensing Coordinator documents notification to tie NRC. (6.7.1) L 1.14 The notification is made to the Region IV NRC office. 1.15 The Licensing Coordinator maintains a log which serves to indicate the status of the (potentially) reportable item / event. (6.7.1.3) 5 1022/ MISC 8

- t// l, o,2. -3 8. oo Y ! 4 ? 2.0 ' REPORTING AND WITHDRAWAL NOTIFICATION l l Writteh reports concerning'(potentially) reportable deficiencies to the NRC in a timely-manner and provide the necessary are sent information. Conversely, the NRC is notified when-further analysis L confirms the acceptability of the identified condition. 2.1 As required, analysis confirms that the identified condition i is: a. _. reportable, b. not reportable, or c. still under investigation. 2.2 Notifications of non-reportable conditions made to the NRC are -documented in s transmittal endorsed by the Executive Vice President, NEO. ) -) 2.3 Notification of non-reportable conditions are made to'the appropriate'NRC Regional (IV) Office. 2.4 The Executive Vice President, NEO endorses letters which j transmit interim and final reports to the NRC. (6.8.2) 2.5 Interim and final reports relative to (potentially) reportable deficiencies are submitted to the appropriate NRC Regional' (IV) Office. 1 2.6 Copies of interim and final reports are sent to the Director of I&E, NRC, Washington, DC 20555. I J 2.7 An interim report, in lieu of a final report, is submitted within 30 days after the initial notification. 2.8 Interim reports address that a. notification; b. potential problem; c. proposal to resolve the problem; 1 d. status of the proposed resolution; e '. reason for the final report delsy; f. date corrective action is scheduled, and g. date the final report is scheduled to be submitted. j 2.9 A final report is submitted: within 30 days after the initial notification, or a. i b. in accordance with the schedule date indicated in the interim report (s). l 6 1022/ MISC 8

^ .] 3; l I ~1 Z1 e.,l - 9 8, o o d .l 2.10 The final report addresses the (6.8.1): { j i name and address of the individual (s) informing the a, NRC;- b. identification of fac'111ty, the activity, or'the basic component supplied which fails to comply or which is -defective; I identification of the firm constructing the facility, l c.. or-supplying the component which fails to comply or .which is defective; d. nature.of the defect or failure to comply; safety hazard created or which could be created by the e. identified defect or non-compliance; f. date on which the information concerning the defect or' 1 non-compliance'was obtained; j g. number of components in use at, supplied for, or being supplied.which fail to comply or which are defective - h. location of components in use at, supplied for, or l being supplied which fail to comply or which are j defective; l 1. corrective action which has been, is being, or will be j taken; j. name of the individual or organization. responsible for- ) ) corrective action; k. length of time that has been or will be taken to- ) . complete corrective action; and 1. advice concerning the defect or non-compliance and j relative to the facility, activity, or component that ) has been, is being, or will'be given. l 2.11 The analysis spectiied in the final report-f is supported by records which demonstrate that adequate a. evaluation / analysis of the deficiency was made regarding the impact on safe operation; b. identifies the interfacing systems; considers the possible interactions and interfaces; and c. d. provides assurance that any design margins are sufficient. 2.12 The corrective action taken as stated in the final report, corrects the found deficiency. 2.13 The causes of the deficiency are identified in the final report. l 2.14 Preventative corrective action specified in the final report is based upon the identified causes. I 7 1022/ MISC 8 )

-g.e.2-98,oo4 /p 8 3.0 CLOSURE -3.1 As applicable, indicate the number of the NRC Inspeedion Report which serves to close the issue. 3.2 Verify that the referenced report does, in fact, close the issue. l 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION l The unique identification and listing of records relative to NEO i CS-1 facilitates their-retrieval. Records are retained / preserved by the Site Coordinator in facilities commensurate with the d requirements of ANSI N45.2.2-1974 \\ 4.1 Records relative to NEO CS-1 are listed in an index. 4.2 The index indicates the a. record retention times, b. where the records are stored, and the location of the records within the storage c. facility. 4.3 The records indexed are: a. available, b. filed in the correct location, and controlled in accordance with ANSI N45.2.9-1974, c. Section 4.3, 4.4, 5.5, and 6.2. 4.4 Record storage facilities are in good condition. 4.5 Temperature and humidity controls and protective devices appear to function properly. 4.6 Stored records are in good condition. 4.7 Proper storage and handling practices prevent the deterioration of records. 5.0 SUPPLEMENTAL CHECKS 5.1 Review the SDAR file to ensure that the records are applicable to it. 8 1022/MISCB

Mo.L ~1. v. 0 0 u ) PA C 6 t o c. ( y,, _..yc _. ; ; R6visien 1 ) May li, 1966 j Page 1 of 7 ] ) ) i i i VII.a.2 j NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 1

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST E _ _ %. 5~//?/#4 Prepared By: 7/ M D Date: Approved By: Msg Date: / _s"' sg/ 3 L

Purpose:

.This checklist provides a list of attributes to be used when reviewing deportability procedures for compliance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) and 10 CFR 21 deportability requirements for compliance with these regulatory guides, FSAR requirements, j and the detailed process of handling significant concerns or identified problems. J i Scope: This checklist applies to each procedure that has been used or is in use by Brown and Root or TUGC0 for processing conditions which may be reportable under the requirements If.sted in { " Purpose" above. ~ i l 3 3 0932/ MISC 7 j 2

3 m iL h ;a,Z '.O.oct %GG 2.or-3' JQ= i 'R2vicion: 1 '4 .May:19, 1986 h?ege2of7 l I. i I \\ l 1 f. s0 l I. -l VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS l l l

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDUAE CHECKLIST. 1 i - ) Frocedure to be' reviewed: -e 1

Title:

j,"N I s,s L... e, ?.UL l L i n,a-w e s,.e'm a.. a.1% X.-- 9,, .a y, 1 .?tocedure Number: _ fed %' V T.wm f//h Rev: 'ee d.4 4MDa te: //////d TUCCO __ v ~~ B&R Superseded Date " /26/r# l .m I 1 l I l 1. Does the procedure provide for evaluating each non-conforming ] condition for reportatility? j ies v' No ? i Remarks: 1 J i D. s., 2 +~)*, '2 ~ y ') 't... 4 %,.) i l 2. Does the procedure reference interface procedures and source input Ldocuments? - Yeo No / If so, list theYterface documents (procedures) below and use the Deportability System Checklist Supplement to evaluate the J L. applicable attributes. [... Reference documents: j 'T At. sp w n.r..s ?.. n :.!r4~ V m p -- ..n V ,y,..w .-r p.LM vt u ?"- U r.- 3, g ',..' e.,s to d 4 ' s' M A * J 0932/ MISC 7 s

l3p -

_?, y,;' Pac.cf. o o i j m A. >3 o 5 Ravisicn 1 .May 19 '1986 Page 3 of 7 1 1 'N. ' j 1 c. / r. p/ VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS ey

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST 1, 3. Are the threshold criteria (as listed in 10 CFR 50.55(e)) for Y) j 'reportebility determinations stated concisely? c,/ Yes c-No i Remarks: ,J. '7, .3/ t f i :) 4. Is there clear instruction as to the~ evaluation process for the /r problems identified regarding determination of deportability? Yes c /' No u Remarks: .M ,-s. < y *.x, A s in 3 7a %..r........, .s.., ,a } ' l ..k f, l db s.<.e,w x.ce /c.b 0 \\' ' N.. p.~ w te-

.t.4,.>Q..ai.~e.

. w z' A a J 7,'-..,-,c .,)s. .\\

• [ f

, 4st ad Eb ~ b p@ et +.I / ef .f g g g Am< ik <. n ..s ra - .ne. m m-f r. M-pya. q' l,,,.. e w 2., J. e....es ~. a p a.. y G', jj / i 4 .3 0932/MISg7, ./

l yN c.. - - _ i L ,.,yy V4i .a.,, L. 9. c., o o / _,F PAGG %oai 4 Rcvision 1 / / 'mp s< - e - 'o. t May 19, 1906 p g, 4 of f s N 'u

f,)l s i

t 'v., s ,r ,; 1 i ~ ! I./,. a j (hj. ,s i l VII.a.2~ -/ *'4 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTFKi v ~ 1 1

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDUKE CHECKLIST ~ ' q):. 5. Is a checklist used,for determining deportability? : l Yes No / ~ Remarks: 74 6.. c e d, d u.G S A Pe r u & ' lff ^' ! ,n ?s-Y W t x s ca. .se, vf '- v.- OAl Lla... :.. ~ b, {'..,,,, yr,. - -1 (.%., i. y ) ./ 6. Does the Deportability Checklist (SDAR) address: 7 e/'s Yes ' No

• 0ignificant breakdown in the QA Program j

l Yes / No 'Significant deficiency in design documents l las released for construction Yes No 'Signijtcant deficiency in construction g Yes No

• Signith: ant deviation from performance specifications eRemarks:

l Pb i iD< ,, e. -v x p w.c < st- ,<.s." r / i

r

.4 maa l,-

lYf?

y ,f i ,,h-7e Does the procedure provide for documenting the potentially '/ reportable. condition and its evaluation? .c /'. < Yes / No l i I 1 Remarks: } 's i s }. i/ a y \\ 4 4 ,j' f 8. Are the response times governing the deportability notification stated? l 24 hours to the NRC: Yes No / Report in 30 days to the NRC: Yes No Remarks: 4 - ? .7 s. r% l., u.,4ll. d,,. ra,., <. / & /e * ,,, //, ' _'. a ea ~ T... v' ..,x,, -,/.),ss.,

m. i.c,, ya A < c.

..w \\ s. .' l A <* m s. lr*,, oa.:.. ~ /,..,.. _, x,,,wY d 0932/ MISC 7 ic.: r A n' a ')h'). -t(< r / . 4f/c e 1 j. p 4

M .a. L =t,c.aoo PACE 5 og 5 R:visicn 1 May 19, 1986 Page 5 of 7 i VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST 9. Is the Utility's reporting responsibility for each process step i defined where an action is required? I Yes v ' No Remarks: fg. s.c.w, u.:: d,... c,.i f. > s e < JA

• JN.< "

s.-*ps.ra, Y: 4,../ /m A d.Y WA "W pet se ,esa<. v.e W...< d l ~~ W

10. Are the steps for performing the evaluation and notification clearly stated as to where the next step is done, who is to be notified, where the follow-up responsibility lies or other pertinent,iteas?

Yes u' No Remarks: 11. For items determined to be not reportable, are the provisions for documenting the determination and provisions for return of the item to its originating procedure for processing? Documenting the deter 1nination: Yes No Return of the item: Yes No Remarks: ) 1 4 { 0932/ MISC 7

o 3 i' Me O-e l = 1. C, 0 0 l i PM6 (e o c.' i. ; R:;visien 1 l May 19. 1986 [ Page 6 of 7 i VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST \\ 12. Does the procedure define. for items determined to be reportable, follow-up steps to document and verify that action has been taken within prescribed or committed time tables? Yes v' No Remarks: 5t:c> ty?'.. .; si w.._,,, c,,,., a d.,. e. ad ~< ~- J w,z.s. J d' J..w W ~"d-r n, / ..f ,.,.u..;,.i?s ~' c.~< ~.s-s- ..,.a a 13. Is there a status reporting document issued regularly to provide 4 SDAR status to all y cerned parties? { Yes No L i Remarks: ( i u.;. ........r......./..~l.'/ ~ <.,.. L f,. ,u.-4 ) P.., /-a L.', e.... .....,, /,;,. ,,,_.,,c,,,, l 9 . p. u A.. - y.<<< -... -va;< l 4 ~ s e c. -. ~ &< a. / i i 14 Are example NRC notification letters with instructional steps and addresses provided for preparation of NRC Notifications and 1 Reports? Yes No V Remarks: I I l i i 0932/ MISC 7 j i

i: E. o 1 '). C. o o f SM '? o r-1 R;visien 1 May 19, 1986 Page 7 of 7 l s 1 i i VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST 15. Is there a second review process for NRC rejected resolutions to initiate a new or modified acceptable ' resolution to an identified reportable deficiency? Yes No u Remarks:

• / '. "^

s , u Y..., c) .16. Is there a distribution address list providing current mailing and . quantity information? j Yes No Remarks: l.. + + wf.de-.eb ..n c e, < n..., A a \\ y > ; sin c ~-4,1.../ GENERAL REMARKS / f.c e b.Y. (s -. I Reviewed By // -"'C Date (6 4,, 0932/ MISC 7

.V_u.. a. 2 - 9. C, co / TnGd Son 8 l t i Gco. Q4 F/m Sa% 2? Ga.m/ i%uds. A?n ' f, (?- n r.- /::. /.' c.,,. ',a t e aa/sg) 54 j e..N s'<.m u C~. ap /,, n .c *5, G

t. ?. : *-

naw/rau enes nb' Acr~..<.e.c )%.~. %,,- y t s<. de hstc. d w-*u .h.z.,% **d' u r ue! .G< h..~

- f w. ;4' ey ed C'e,wc u WN.< '

,m, an.4 a w a<<.ea X w.. s.. t A'Y o* *** ' - f,, s <*'1' /? 'C h' prt< <' ~!**'r 1 CAA ^ y s,< e ene sej ,e

c. ~,

.>e , <... + w 'y w z <e tzr + e,,.av.s.,,, a / wf A p M Sp ~.m=.uc.4. /c.c .a yes .e. y .s - u,s.p ..o a *s a a. </ ,.a w.r r u v.c .. yl ss m. s .. e .% +<e '..,'3.g*1l*M4f etJsf e'**#b# w. i J d4 / p,* )." 1 4 L 'e 54 s 4 .,,, M dC w' } A ," ~ ; A. t, 's L.4 n < <. / .r<. 4 p -s <* .. e.g s' , 4.e ed au .c

e f.e.

' i k .t /*.* t ! c 5-s* s ffa l 1 i l i l l l l l

f, a C. - % - J I 9 II.c.O NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTErlE

• i41Bo Fage 1 of REv. I

Title:

DEPORTABILITY SYSTEM CHECKLIST SUFFLEMEN~ treoared Sv: ______,______,_____Date: _go{-[_,___ 4 Accrevec By:_ ___,__________Date: _J/j[S(,____ Puroeses This checilist is a supplement to the "Frececure and Implementation' checi;11 st because of tne preliminary '%eportab111tv System" reviews done in other. interfacing nonconformance crocedures. These review ouestions are tc ansure tne action locos are closed for "recortab111tv" recuired functions. Scope: The' checklist cuestions are to vertiv that the inouts. outputs, anc carallel coerations of the 'Nonconformance/ Corrective Action System". succorting the deportability orocess. are met. _(p_th_ _c_[_[f_hs g g {_. igg /_ _ _#gan i:a.4_4r~:, 0-ceaure T1t1e: f N u m b e r i ce:.edtm3_/_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R e v ___d______catei_?du_kr____ yue M an4AC 99%- JJ N' / 7" " -.- A av - MJ. 'M 's 1. 095 the nonconformance crocedure orovide for the identification and review for ootenti al recortab111tv" Yes__ g__No____,__ Aemar6si b 5oh, , n, y y,lgj g) w f f no s afW) 1 N # l g{,, c ip s t >> 'd i l I I i

r i 'E.o-.2.

o. 1.oio l

p 1 /II. a. : NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEME

.; 4 / Bo

-Page C of ;

Title:

DEPORTABILITY SYSTEM CHECFLIST SUFFLEMENT I 2. Does the nonconformance crocecure which feeds the reocrtability system nave a list of criteri a to be used for determining the cotenti al recortability of the noncanfarmance? Y e s _ _k_'_ N c _ _ _ _ _ What are the criteria in the reviewed crocedure? .YN

• /

te c/*/' f 0.jYQ) t How are nonconformances creviousiv closed by tne .t t i l i t y re-coenec se re-Initiated in the event the NRC refuses to accept the closure reoort" /v'h / ahYa's.sc,N' f J. Althin the Nenconformance/ Corrective a tion Systems, c was sne is there currentiv a list of authori:ed signatures "or each level'of a c c r o v a l ' Ye s _ _ __,,No _ M_ _ n., . s+ s, n, 's, j. 9. u u ~.r t.r...x... n l g, p,L c. E^.s., vers,i s. hy Aha... p w-s.L/....J~L~A/ ,.4 i'e. . he ?. A. e o A c...n a.A 4 Aa 4 - % ~# , p < /* l e lo AA rwy. il ,s n C C **' G ' ' '; '. msd 42 -w / r /.~t sJ &e~,a A na sw 8 5. x e a pg,yJ ~ n--As~~-y z r s s. H y j d y /> A. Reviewer signature: _<f [___[_ u h 0 '.,.,' 4_ _%___ 1 Date: 4 _ _ _ _ _.rc_

1 l l . 7. - 3/ 7 i ~ 'l VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 0/3/8e l Page 1 of 8

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST i Precared By:_ D a t e 0 3_* 0_4 ~_0 8 Aporoved By:_ N hf_% E _____________ Dats_MY[fA_ f i, I Purpose .This checklist orovides'a list of attributes to be j used whenf reviewing reportabili ty procedures for compliance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) and 10 CFR 21 recortability requirements for compliance with these regulatory guides.I FSAR requirements, and the detailed process of handling ~ significant safety concerns or identified oroblems. i Scope This checklist apolies to each procedure that has been used or is in use by Brown and Root or TUGCO for crocessing conditions which may be reportable under the requirements listed in "Purcose" above. I I, Y ,j je.) \\ is l-t

s 1 ) E o.,7,,-9.C.. Oi3

r...

F I

i

/II. a. C NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

/~iBb Page C of 6 i

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECMLIST 1 l 2rocedure to be reviewedt Titles ______________________________________________________ L Procedure Number _________________Revt________Datet__________ i TUGCO_________P & R ____________ Superseded Date____________ l t i 1. Is the scope and purpose clearly stated in accordanc's i with 10 CFR 50.55(e) requirements for deportability? Yes_____ Nc_____ Remarkst i i 1 l C. Does the crocedure reference interface crocedures and source input documents" Yes____ Nc____ If so. list the J interface documents (crocedures) below and use the l Deportability Svstem Checklist to evaluate the aDolicable j 1 attributes. Reference documentst ] l 1 ) i l I'

l ~ E 4

2. - 9. 4, O i ")

i 1 l 1 III.a.: NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 0/3/86 Page ~ of 6

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST ~.' .Are the threshold criteria (as listed in 10 CFR 50.55(e)) for deportability determinations stated conciselv' /es___No___ a ) Significant breakdown in the OA Frogram. /es___No___ b ) Significant deficiency in design documents as released for construction. (es___No___ c > Significant. deficiency in construction j or. damage to structure, system. or component which will require extensive redesign or repair to meet stated recuarements. i Yes___No___ d ) Significant deviation from performance specifications which wall. require eatensive evaluation, repair. or redesign. Remar 6:s t I 1 Is there clear instruction as to the evaluation process for the arablems identified" Yes______ No______ Remarks l l

i l' l . V i l. o.. 2. - C). ' C. 6 3 l l VII.a.O NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS j 3/3/86 I Page 4 of 8 l l Title ' DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE.CHECKLIS' l '5. Are the SDAR and notification forms and formats cart of the procedure and are the preparation instructions outlined o steo by step? Forms and formats: Yes______ No______ j Step by step: Yes_____ No______ j Remarks: / I 1 'l i i I i i Does the crocedure' state the types.cf evaluation s. documentation to be i r, the evaluation notification. -esolution, justification, and verification oackages transmitted to the NRC* Yes______ No______ Remar6se .l l l 1 ) l i 1 l l Are the response times governing the deportability l notification stated." j 24 hours to the NRC: Yes____. "o______ l Report in 30 days to the NRC: Yes_____ Nc______ ) Remarks ) l 1 l l i 1

-i 1 ]Z1; a. 1 - 9, d O f 3 F 1 i l F i l I-1 1 1 l VII.a.* i l NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS. 3/0/86 Page 5 of 8 l

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECVLIST i i 8. Is the Utility's reporting responsibility for each process step defined where'an action is reautred" (es______ No________ Remarks: ~ f 3 1 C. Are the evaluation and notification outouts of the qpAR orocedures as to where the next step 1s done.'who is to be j notified. where the follow-up responsibility lies or.other Items certinent to the process steo and responsibility ) stated in the crocedure? Yes,_____ No_______ Remarks: 4 i l 10. For items determined to be not reoortable, are there provtsiens for documenting.the determination and orevisions for return of the item to its originating procecure ter i orocessing" Documenting the determination: Yes_____ No______ Return of the item: Yes_____ No______ Remarks: l i

$,0.. 'l - Q C. o n.7 /!!.a.O NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 7/7/06 Fage 6 of,8

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECELIST 1 1. - Does the crocedure define. for previously processed ~ reportable items.; follow-up steos to document and verifs that action has been taken within Drescribed or committed time tables *- Y e s _ _ _ _ _,, N o _., _ _ _,, Remarts: I i a i IC. Is there a status reporting document issued regularly to provide SDAR status to all concerned parties? Yes.,_____ No_______ Remarks 17. Are enamole NRC notification letters with instructional. steps and addresses provided for preparation of NRC Notifications and Reports Yes_____ No_______ Remarts: l l t l 1 l 1 l 4 l I

M. o.7. - 9. C. o ( 2 VII. a. : NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

/3/86 Page 7 of S

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECVLIST 14 If insufficient information exists for a definitive report to the NRC in 30 days. is there a orovision for an interim recort and commitment orocess for final response to be sent to the NRC* (es____ No_____ Remarts: t 15. Is there a second review process for NRC rejected resolutions to initiate a new or modified accentable resolution to an Identified reportable deficiency? Yes_____ Nc______ Remarks:

i 1 $L A.7 - 9. C,. O \\ t f I 1 /II.a. NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS i 7/0/06 Page 8 of 8 i

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST 16. Does the crocess instruct where or how the ut111tv i closed nonconformance is reopened or reinitiated when the utility report has been rejected by the NRC7 If so under which crocedure" Yes_____. No______ .I i Procedure number ____________ Rev_____ Date______________- l Remarks: 1 t \\ 17. Is there a distribution address li st oroviding current mailing and quantity information? Yes_____ No_____ Remarts: GENERAL REMARKS: I i Reviewed By-----------------________--____Date___________

l l I Rsvision 1 May 19, 1986 Page 1 of 7 j { ~_.,. VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS j

Title:

FIPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST l -cm Prepared By: /((M D Date: 8~

1. 6 I

Approved By: MM2/ Date: /, /gL i i

Purpose:

This checklist provides a list of attributes to be used when reviewing deportability procedures for comp 11ance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) and 10 CFR 21 deportability requirements for compliance with these regulatory guides, FSAR requirements, and the detailed process of handling significant concerns or identified problems. Scope: This checklist applies to each procedure that has been used or is in use by Brown and Root or TUGC0 for processing conditions which may be reportable under the requirements listed in " Purpose" above, i l h I 0932/ MISC 7 L-_________-____-_

M.a,. "2 Cl. C... O t 4 , Rovision 1 May 19, 1986' j Page 2 of 7 l VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST l Procedure to be reviewed:

Title:

Procedure Number: Rev: Date: TUGC0 B&R Superseded Date 1. Does the procedure provide for evaluating each non-conforming condition for deportability? Yes No Remarks: f 1 I i 2. Does the procedure reference interface procedures and source input documents? Yes No j { If so, list the interface documents (procedures) below and use the I Deportability System Checklist Supplement to evaluate the j applicable attributes. Reference documents: l l 1 0932/ MISC 7 1 i

f6 .j W. a.. 4 Ci.c.oi4 Revision 1 'O May 19, 1986 Page 3'of 7 l 1 l l' i VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS l-

Title:

DEPORTABILIT

Y. PROCEDURE

CHECKLIST 3. Are the threshold criteria (as listed in'10 CFR 50.55(e)) for deportability determinations stated concisely? Yes No-Remarks: i 4. Is there clear instruction as to the evaluation process for the problems identified regarding determination of deportability? Yes No Remarks: 1 i I 1 l- ) ) l l-1 1 1 l j. 0932/ MISC 7 l-

= - - M. o.' 2. - 9. C. d i et ROvision 1 l May 19, 1986 ) Page 4 of 7 j I J a VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS 1

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST l Is a checklist used for determining deportability? l 5. Yes No j 4 Remarks: -l 6. Does the Deportability Checklist (SDAF) address: Yes No 'Significant breakdown in the QA Program { Yes No

• Significant deficiency in design documents as released for construction Yes No
• Significant deficiency in construction Yes No

'Significant deviation f rom performance specifications . Remarks: 7. Dees the procedure provide for documenting the potentially reportable condition and its evaluation? Yes No Remarks: I 8. Are the response times governing the deportability notification i stated? 24 hours to the NRC: Yes No Report in 30 days to the FRC: Yes No Remarks: 0932/ MISC 7

l it i ~. o. 2 - 9.' c.. o # 4 ' Revision 1 May 19, 1986 Page 5 of 7 l e i VII.a.2. NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS _ -j j

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST d .9. Is the Utility's reporting responsibility for each process step defined where an' action is required? Yes-No Remarks: i

10. Are the steps for performing the evaluation and notification clearly stated as to where the next step is done, who is to be notified, where the follow-up responsibility lies or other pertinent items?

Yes No Remarks: 11. For items determined to be not reportable, are the provisions for documenting the deter 1nination and provisions for return of the item to its originating procedure for processing? Documenting the determination: Yes No Return of the item: Yes No Remarks 0932/ MISC 7

.Mu 1. L.. 4. C. g c[ (. Revision l-May 19, 1986 'i Page 6 of 7 l 1 I I VII.a.2 - NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS i i

Title:

DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST 1 l l

l L

12. Does the procedure define, for. items determined to be reportable, follow-up steps to document and. verify'that action has been taken within prescribed or committed time tables? Yes No Remarks: 13. Is there a status reporting document issued regularly to provide SDAR status to all concerned parties? Yes No Remarks: 14 Are example NRC notification letters with instructional steps and addresses provided for preparation of NRC Notifications and Reports? Yes __ . No Remarks i l l 0932/ MISC 7

1 ' 1 2. 3, 2., O N R3 vision-l May 19, 1986 Page 7 of 7 -VII.a.2 NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS -Title: DEPORTABILITY PROCEDURE CHECKLIST

15. 'Is there a second review process for NRC rejected resolutions to initiate a new or modified acceptable ' resolution to an identified reportable deficiency?

Yes No Remarks: 16. Is there a distribution address list providing current mailing and quantity information? Yes No Remarks: GENERAL REMARKS: L { Reviewed By Date 0932/ MISC 7

07 'f/ C:~, a, 2 - ? : - S/ A VII.a.2 v ' e-NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS C/11/S6 Page 1 of 1

Title:

DEPORTABILITY SYSTEM CHECKLIST SUFFLEMENT aarre I h s______________ Dates _#_F_~#_____ Prepared: Concurred __ hh ____________Date: _h.p/d/,____ Referenced Procedures _____________________________________ Rev______Date_____________ 1. Does the nonconformance procedure provide for the identification and review f or potential deportability? Yes______No______ Remarks 2. Does the nonconformance procedure which feeds the deportability system have a list of criteria to be used for determining the potential deportability of the nonconformance? Yes ____No_____ What are the criteria in the reviewed procedure? 2. How are nonconf ormances previously closed by the utility re-opened or re-initiated in the event the NRC refuses to accept the closure report? 4. Within the Nonconformance/ Corrective Action Systems, was and in there currently a list of author 1:ed signatures for each level of approval? Yes_____No______ Reviewer signature ________________________ Dater _________

l \\ t, [.~L- - 2/h t 4 1 II. .O NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTErlE ~/4tBo Fage 1 of ; k.w. )

Title:

DEPORTABILITY' SYSTEM CHECKLIST SUFFLEMEN~ 'recared Bv s ' _ __________________ Dates dl'd(~[_d ' Acorovec by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D a t e t _ J/p[$(p_ _ _ _ - Aurcose This chectlist i s a sucolement to the "Procecure l and 1molementation" checLllst cecause of the oreliminarv j Recortability Svstem" reviews done in other interfacing nonconformance crocedures. These review ouestions are tc i ensure the action locos are closed for "recortabilitv" reautred functions. f i l. Scoce The checklist cuestions are to verifv that the incuts. outputs. and carallel coerations of tne 'Nonconf ormance/Correcti ve Action System". suoporting the recortability orocess. are met. ~ Titles ____________________________________________ rocedure l Numoert____________________^evt____________Latet____________ Does the nonconformance crocedure or: vide tor the identification and review for ootential recortab111tv" Yes______No______ Aemarts: l 9

W. o. 2. - Q C.o16 l /II.a. NON-CONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEME l 7 4,'8e Page of I l

Title:

DEPORTABILITY SYSTEM CHECFLIST SUPPLEMEN~ 1 2. Does the nonconformance crocedure which feeds the recortability system nave a list of cri teri a to be usee +c' Determining the cotential reocrtability of the nonconfarmance* Yes_____Nc_____ 4 hat are the criteria in tne reviewed crocedure? How are nonconformances oreviousiv closed by tne .ttility re-coenec or re-initiated in the event the NRC refuses to acceot the closure recort~ 2 41 thin the Noncontormance< Correct 1,e Action Systems. was anc is there cur-entiv a list of aut nor t :: ed signatures -or eacn level o t' accroval' ves_____No______ Reviewer signature: ___________________________Date:

W. a.,2 -lO A, c o 3 ' E vet unio n or Cu ant,v 7 I**n "O *rH EA fa nns " W16 Pp t o p t Ib M e t--> t>Y W_- ' kh d w % ~ f e._...k " & % F m," 7 Q-e =f* W F m " var. e b - M l '. ~ r 4->._a __i h - e b y e c # }'- f l W s A &,.- A 9 a n l +.. n rusco A ;0 Ac a ;- 1.af& k M. 74 -4 A * :- J n, A -tf u r " % fm " : ';,.L +

1..o a 4

.a A - _s&a& et '- 6 w L "D. ~ ) L a:- L a ; w L b a -t. tAe A a L e K <4L u.f y v ) e $ E 4. PNL A 5 40L.h Q. e- -tA. @, J J ' e :: m A 'J.p L & -t t.a , r-ISA P L.,2,'- - t ;- to M Q D -_.a -6Aa.ts - w M e ~Aba m 7 W LLe.&, M, w A e M 4e My A J '-;- = =h 4 26. ~T.h n)Lq % & m c-~JD.4 A tt c s weh J PM b d4_- L 4 A, - cA. J ~ a.L; A % " O A, O M a ,h4

f, "{"g_ ,j ,s f g,i.2-LOB.00 ? +

• " g t._ -t i g N i

a A

O "0L F % Pua/swa ryJ=%} v,. =. 8 t ' 6' rx n2.. c +- s 4 e. M-g a J:a* a o " 96 fnx -t. z.--- o M ,.-" ^ ^ ^ ,J +Le lyq4 kbd4 bst CA (s wcs,ny_.4%). P4No-iy % } o A s eu = s ~f f. 4 ^ L; " YA $ ~ 4.k % t/u.a. h " O A A, 4 s s ch t w o

e. n. s o >a ~JA.<.

\\ m A. :. 4 #DJs... e - AQ ' f A l q.., a A { A a d e'=- n m p s owco a s~a g a r. 7~4. &;&c nm =sk ~tia Q & IsAP w k - % -4 a 6 A % -th naw'stM u, K m \\ R ? -A A.a m m/ y i M.M A W 1- > u _a_ M f Au.0<. Th m[. ~~bh O x - 4 e<n Jtt -tLa.. A} $ n% of & ewa j swa v M a. A sp m n ,~ p 7 =a=. b -j t a D

g ;n j,jf} 'A J' W.a!.h-se.C f cyI,,J o h vch 5, l'"e66 Ptfe 1 of 4 i i f{ j , VII.a.2 j. .,y NONCONFORMANCE/ CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS j' TITLE: CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF POPULATION SAMPLE ITEM - RELATED PROCEDURES. PREPARED BY: M' DATE: // [o O i, ,i, CONCURRED BY: /2fLbM DATE: J/f,[f$ ~ ,t ) .,i I j;' s t STEP 1.) Identify the procedure / revision to be reviewed from the i t-Document Review Data Sheet. i STEP 2.) Review the procedure to: ( 7 i A.) Determine the requirements for procqssing deficiencies.

).:.b..

m B.) Identify any additional procedures (relative to deficiency processing) referenced within the procedures being reviewed. C.) Ascertain which of the essential criteria for adequate nonconformance cont:rol is included. The essential criteria ares The nonconformance item is properly i,. d i r 1.) r) identified. (- / 7 2.) The nonconforming,c;ondition is j properly describe. l j 3.) The disposition is identified as use-as-is, rework, repair, or scrap. 4.) The nonconformance report contains i signature approval by appropriate level of personnel. I 5.) Revarked, repaired, and replacement items are inspected and tested in 1 / accordance with original Q requirements or acceptable 3 alternatives. ,3 ; 0750/ MISC 5 l s.

.f 2-March 5,1986' I Page 2 of.4 J 6.) An independent review is conducted j of the nonconformance, in-luding f disposition and closeact4 y i / appropriately qualified personnel, j p r J iu I -, j 7.) 'The nonconformance is included in l , p' the trend analysis process and = / g reviewed for corrective action. >[j j t A 7 ;,.' p'. ) The nonconformance is reviewed to ,j determine necessity for conducting further evaluation for 10CFR50.55(e) z deportability. j i ,4 y STEP 3.) Repeat steps 2A, 2B, and 2C for the procedures identified ,.\\ during implementation of step 2B. Continue this process until u-the trail of procedures has been exhausted. ji STEP 4.) Document the results,of procedure reviews on the Procedure Review Data Sheet. a ) ff;[, 5 A. )1 Indicate the population name.

1. p

// B.) List the sample item number and each procedure'(number,, { title, revision.and revision date) reviewed for that sample item. j. Note: Sample item numbers relating to.tdentical / 1 " sets"of procedure revisions mad be H stei l together. l 4 C.) Place a check mark ( / ) in the appropriate' block (s) 9,. for esoantial criteria included in each procedure. 1 1 ,,f[ Note: Block numbers correspond to the numbers for -{ 1 7 essential criteria listed in Step 2C. D.) Place an "X" in the appropriate block (s) to indicate g / fl essential criteria not. included in each procedure,

3

?l ' / f E.) For essential criteria items part'g?ly addressed in f W b procedures or requiring #an explanation, place a / numbered triangle (d) in the app'ropriate blocks (s). Place an identical symbo} in the Edomments" section of the Procedure Review Data Shen and provide the explanation. 1 1 I \\ ') l 5 r 0750/ MISC 5 g s / z 1 i .1-

a L March 5, 1986 Page 3 of 4 STEP 5.) A). ' Collectively tabulate the.results of procedure reviews for each sample item. B). If all of the 8 essential criteria items have been procedurally addressed, the sample item will be considered acceptable. C). If any of the 8 essential criteria items have not.been procedurally addressed, the sample item will be j considered unacceptable, or justification for acceptability will be given. STEP 6.) Indicate acceptability /unacceptability by' placing a check mark ( v/ ) in the appropriate block on the Procedure Review Data Sheet. For"justifiedacceptability",placeanumberedtriangle(/ks) .in the " accept" block. Place an identical symbol in the i " Comments" section of the Procedure Review Data Sheet and provide the justification for acceptability. STEP 7.) Sign as reviewer and date. r l 0750/ MISC 5

i I t p e c c 5 a C n 6 U S 8 I 9 M 1 / 0 t 5 7 5 p e 0 h c c c r A a M 11 d e 7 s s e 6 r d d 5 ~. A a 4 i ) r s e 3 ( t R i E r 2 T B C E M E U 1 i N i S M A E T T A I D E n W L o E P i e I M st V A i a E S vD R e R E R U D E C O R n P o i r 2 se ib a. vm eu I RN I V = e l t i T E T A N D O / I R T E A W L E U I e P V r s O E u t P R d r n ee e cb e om s r u o PN C !ltl

JZZT.,4.2.-/h3-005" 11/18/86 Page 1 of 1 VII.a.2 Nonconformance Corrective Action Systems Prepared by: D. k Date: //-/P-f6 Approved by: [3Mfi j/. v - Date: ////p/16 Purpose / Scope: The attached 2-page data sheet. "TDDR Evaluation Data Sheet," dated 11/18/86 is to be used to gather data from TDDRs.- The data will serve as a portion of the basis for the evaluation of'the adequacy of the TDDR system used by TUGC0 Nuclear Engineering. The data to be collected relate to the TDDR procedures (TNE-AD-5 Revision I through 9) and applicable requirements from ANSI N-45.2.11. j i d 1 l i l 1 l 1 1449/ MISC 11 I l l

l Pb ::ttrE 3 11/18/86 Page 1.of 2 l 4 TDDR Evaluation Data Sheet l I ISAP Sample No. TDDR No. q Population Item No. TDDR Report Date, d I Yes No .r 1. Is the design deficiency (or error) sufficiently and clearly described? 2. Is there adequate reference to a drawing, code, ~ standard, calculation or procedure that has been violated? i 3. Is the designated organization / discipline reasonable and appropriate for resolving the i reported problem? 4. Is the corrective action considered reasonable, complete and clearly defined and responsive to the reported problem? 5. Has preventive action, where appropriate, been i addressed? f 6. If no preventive action is considered I necessary, is that determination indicated? 7. Has the-TDDR been reviewed for deportability per 10CFR21 and 10CFR50.55(e)? 8. Is the above review for deportability reasonable? 9. Has a reasonable implementation due date been established? l 10. Has the implementation been achieved in a timely manner? 11. Has reasonable justification been provided if TDDR has been voided? 12. Record the name and date of the person performing the management review and approval of the corrective / preventive action. 13. Hss evidence of the corrective / preventive action implemented been provided or referenced? 1449/MISCll 1

l h 30h3 TDDRi-11/18/86 Page 2 of 2 TDDR' Evaluation Data Sheet (Cont'd) 'i Yes No 14. Do-superseded (revised) TDDRs' indicate the { reason for' revision? 1 i

15. Has all the required back up documentation (attachments, etc.) been provided or referenced as appropriate?

Give a brief description of the following: ) Problem Identified - l i Corrective Action - I' l-Preventive Action - Additional Comments for Evaluation l I l I l l { I Reviewed by: Date: i l l 1449/MISCll 1

M. 0. 3. - H 13 0 0 6 p g q[ttk 12-22-86 Page 1 of 1 VII.a.2 Prepared by: d, b Date: Jo2-DC D Approved by: M Date: /2 e/% Purpose / Scope: The attached checklist, "TDDR/TNCR Procedure Review Checklist" dated 12-22-86, is'to be used to evaluate present and past revisions of TUGC0 Nuclear Engineering ) procedure TNE-AD-5 to applicable requirements. l 1 l l 1487/ MISC 12 e_--______-_____-

n___-_ f . Q AE l 12-22-86 Page 1 of 1 TDDR/TNCR Procedure Review Checklist Review the applicable procedure (s) to assure that the requirements of the procedure are in compliance with the following items and, that organizational and individual responsibilities are properly indicated for each specific item. 1. Yhat conditions adverse to quality are; A. Promptly identified. B. ' Reviewed for deportability under 10CFR 50.55(e). C. Corrected as soon as practicable.- D. Properly controlled pending disposition. 2.. For significant and recurring conditions that; i A. The cause is determined. B. They are reported to management. C. Corrective action is provided to preclude repetition. J 3. There are adequate follow-up actions to assure timely resolution and/or completion of the corrective action. l i 1 ) 1 l l I. 1 1487/ MISC 12 L_______-____-_

t gll~ a. 2 - ll 6. 009 3 &7 r h l D 3 6->~7-F4 p 1 1 y v ?p& : & C&-/k&c-u s. 3)JF}F7 bO 3!/ 6Yk Pe/%. i ,L aas6c "Agim am u. k A A m n p ww.a m y m e > % e e A A A A A .r u p. i p 3 l {

~ l Speed tettfro 434s T. f,L E W. R. 2- //B, OO f + c09 prom A t.: a ; Subj ct MESSAGE. J' /8' is D o.t. -r w a %-ddsa2,. L A"- a i a u w w A ALA-s A.daA ~ .dk,oodArncs Am & A rssomr.a.s. u .,66. m J ah vJrr&. M.2.L. L wAM.kAJ A AM Le. &-d & W s N &c. & cp UiT Y L daka 142 m O JDd & da.:6 vv r $p xha. r l ~ '

• signed 1.

1 REPLY o t. 1e 1 l 1 1 l Signed SENDE A-DFT ACH ANr AS' A'N vc' ' % rnov tr No wwire a wn o'w < ra e.e e. ~ -aeo

3-/ P-P 7 ) SIN- -rDDR/rnce f5 ? cf$ 3 -fV,,'>1,, l L.a.D=- +! bdCo. forf yas uo N/g l /. &.>66. ) *,J_4>'- n- (w m)i1A14 ,_, & T sk-2 a L. + 0 94 -h a. Jn +. -- .2. ba 44. -rooc, M. A &;t4 % g flA m & 4= 4-1 Q w a J-W. l I

3. h #A.rdce a>..+ A A. a'-A l

of.A. % +% ~ q ? i

4. M & h ;66.-rhPLA

-,,+L, C.A p-s.r6 c9. s)? 4 e e EYJ ~I"'D bf.r Mk 9MI ] I i l l I w_-_-__

00lKETED 1 USNRC l a l L lil DCT 23 20:56 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -l GFFICE Of $EChiAriY BSCKEhNG 4 fiERVICL .l I, R. K. Gad III, hereby certify that on October 20pR4Mu!h7, ) l I made service of " Answers to Board's 14 Questions (Memo; Proposed Memo of April 14, 1986) Regarding Action Plan Results ) Report VII.a.2" by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to: j Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Mr. James E. Cummins Chairman Resident Inspector Administrative Judge Comanche Peak S.E.S. Atomic Safety and Licensing c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 38 Commission Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Administrative Judge GAP-Midwest Office 881 W. Outer Drive 104 E. Wisconsin Ave. -B Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Appleton, WI 54911-4897 Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing i Appeal Panel Board Panel 'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Lawrence J. Chandler, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the Executive President, CASE Legal Director 1426 S. Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsburg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel P. O. Box 12548 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Capitol Station Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C. 20555 g

i 1 Anthony.Roisman, Esquire Mr. Lanny A..Sinkin Suite 600 Christic Institute 1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20005 Washington, D.C. 20002 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Robert D. Martin Administrative Judge Regional Administrator 1107 West Knapp Region IV H Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i Commission Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive i Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B. Johnson Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P. O. Box X, Building 3500 U.S. Nuclear Re.gulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission = Washington, D.C. 20555 i Nancy H. Williams 2121 N. California Blvd. Suite 390 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 i s .w t zuss R. K. Gad III j l t I 1 _}}