ML20203A098

From kanterella
Revision as of 08:27, 1 January 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Memorandum & Proposed Memorandum & Order Granting Case 860409 Motion to Compel Production of Checklists & Scheduling Discussion of Applicant Motion Re Scheduling on 860422,respectively.Served on 860415
ML20203A098
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 04/14/1986
From: Bloch P
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
CON-#286-781 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-6-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8604160227
Download: ML20203A098 (7)


Text

__ _ _ . - - _ ___

.g L8P ! DOCMETED i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'8 Before Administrative Judges: APR 15 #0:15 Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom l((ICEOF3rc.m.

I W M d;'.

Dr. Walter H. Jordan 08ANM 4

) SERVED APR151986 In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-445-0L

) 50-446-OL

)'

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.)

i (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,

--) ASLBP No. 79-430-06 OL

)

Units 1 and 2) )

) April 14, 1986 MEMORANDUM, PROPOSED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MEMORANDUM i (Motion to Compel Production of Checklists)

Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) moved on April 9, 1986

' to ccmpel expedited production of all " checklists" (also known as

! attribute lists, quality instructions, Issue Specific Action Plan / Design l Specific Action Plan [ISAP/DSAP] checklists, and other terminology) currently in the possession of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.

l (Applicants). With respect to checklists for completed results reportsI , this motion shall be granted. With respect to other results reports, we defer decision pending receipt of Applicants' response.

4 1

I In this memorandum, we refer to completed documents dealing either with construction or design as "results reports."

8604160227 860414 4 PDR ADOCK 05000445-G pop

! 956L

9 Compel Checklists: 2 i

The next section of this document consists of a Proposed Memorandum that is relevant to CASE's motion with respect to checklists being used for in-progress results reports and that also addresses the needs of the Board for carefully prepared and presented results reports that will permit the Board to assess the adequacy of the work that was done.

We are issuing the ensuing memorandum in " proposed" form so that the parties will be able to assist us in honing our questions to be as effective as possible and to avoid unnecessary costs of response.

PROPOSED MEMORANDUM (Questions Needing to Be Resolved in Results Reports)

We are appreciative of CASE's need for the checklists it requests, but we assure CASE once again that Applicants' delay in providing the documents will not be pemitted to interfere with CASE having adequate i

time to prepare its case. Additionally, the Board has needs concerning

the adequacy of the record, including the adequacy with which the use of the checklists has been explained.

The Board's concerns about an adequate record are not new. They arise from our concern that we develop an understanding of this complex record and that we not just stand passively by calling balls and strikes. It also arises from our awareness that our acceptance of sketchy results reports makes us susceptible to misunderstanding subtle nuances of words, that are forced to do extra duty in a short document i

1

Compel Checklists: 3 and may stand for substantial supporting analysis that is not present-l ed.

Each results report addresses one or more issues. The issues must be carefully described. Furthermore, Applicants' initial assessment of those issues must be described: How was it done? What initial conclu-sions were reached? Part of what must be included is Applicants' assessment of how the problems arose and whether the QA/QC documentation i

for those problem areas indicates any difficulty that resulted in the problem areas being missed. Is the nature of the difficulty likely to be systematic or isolated? In short, what were the problems? How did

, they arise?

It is only after the problem has been described ,that the stage is c

! set for Applicants to describe their method for resolving the problem.

l "The filing should describe how the problem is resolved by the ap-proach,3 including a description of the problem, the legal setting in which it arises, the reasoning applied to the problem and how the approach was implemented. . . . If new problems were encountered 2

LBP-85-47, 22 NRC 835 (1985), especially 836-37, stating among other things that "The reader must be informed of how the problem 4

was logically and fully resolved." On these same two pages, we

also stated that "If mastery of technical issues is not attained or

, if the presentation is lacking in thoroughness or clarity, then the work of the Licensing Board becomes far more difficult and the t

outcome may be clouded by doubt."

3 Sampling",

See Memorandum, " Statistical Inferences from CPRT Hovember 11, 1985 (inadvertently not published) at 2-4 l

4 Compel Checklists: 4 during implementation or if the resolution is uncertain, the problems or uncertainties should be described."

With respect to the specific question CASE has raised, we consider the production of the requested checklists to be pre-requisite to CASE obtaining the understanding it needs to assist the Board by responding reasonably to Applicants' results reports. We also consider the re-sponse to the Board questions to be prerequisite to our having enough understanding to evaluate the controversy between the parties. Accord-ingly, we will not require any written response by CASE concerning any 5

results report for a minimum of one month following the production for the Board and parties of the checklists used in generating a results report and of acceptable answers (as of the time the answers are filed) to the following Board questions with respect to the work on that results report:

1. Describe the problem areas addressed in the report. Prior to undertaking to address those areas through sampling, what did Applicants do to define the problem areas further? How did it i believe the problems arose? What did it discover about the QA/QC l
documentation for those areas? How extensive did it believe the problems were?
2. Provide any procedures or other internal documents that are necessary to understand how the checklists should be interpreted or applied.

I I f l 1

4 Id.

5 l Except for our explicit action, we are not resolving Applicants' scheduling motion nor the counter suggestions of CASE.

1 1

y r ->

e Compel Checklists: 5

3. Explain any deviation of checklists from the inspection report documents initially used in inspecting the same attributes. (This question is applicable only to construction results reports.)
4. Explain the extent to which the checklists contain fewer attributes than are required for conformance to codes to which Applicants are committed to conform.
5. (Answer question 5 only if the answer to question 4 is that the checklists do contain fewer attributes.) Explain the engineering basis, if any, for believing that the safety margin for components (and the plant) has not been degraded by using checklists that l

contain fewer attributes than are required for conformance to codes.

6. Set forth any changes in checklists while they were in use, including the dates of the changes.
7. Set forth the duration of training in the use of checklists and a summary of the content of that training, including field training 4 or other practical training. If the training has changed or retraining occurred, explain the reason for the changes or retrain-ing and set forth changes in duration or content.
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 used with questionable training or 0A/QC supervision? If applicable, are problems of inter-observer reli-ability addressed statistically?
9. Sumarize all audits or supervisory reviews (including reviews by employees or consultants) of' training or of use of the check-lists. 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.
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, supervisor 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.

11. Set forth any unexpected difficulties that were encountered in completing the work of each task force and that would be helpful to

9 Compel Checklists: 6 the Board in understanding the process by which conclusions were -

reached. How were each of these unexpected difficulties resolved?

12. Explain any ambiguities or open items left in the results report.
13. Explain the extent to which there are actual or apparent conflicts of interest, including whether a worker or supervisor was reviewing or evaluating his own work or supervising any aspect of the review or evaluation of his own work or the work of those he previously supervised.

14 Examine the report to see that it adequately discloses the 1 thinking and analysis used. If the language is ambiguous or the discussion gives rise to obvious questions, resolve the ambiguities and anticipate and resolve the questions.

Whenever helpful to clear communication, the Board would appreciate that answers be set forth in tabular or graphic form (for ease of analysis) as well as in narrative form.

After Applicants have completed all the results reports, we require one more report containing an overview on areas of uncertainty remaining because of the approach of the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) in verifying plant qualities after its completion. That overview also should assest management's role in supervising the construction of the plant and the CPRT effort.

l The Board is convinced that careful responses to these questions  ;

will expedite the case by making it easier for the, Board to comprehend I important questions related to the work of the CPRT.

l

0RDER i

I l

l

Compel Checklists: 7

, For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 14th day of April 1986 ORDERED:

1. That Citizens Association for Sound Energy's (CASE's) Motion to Compel of April 9,1986 is granted with respect to all checklists and related procedures used at any time in generating the results reports already released. Action on the remainder of the motion is deferred.

. 2. The Proposed Memorandum --as well as Applicants' Motion Concerning Scheduling-- is scheduled to be discussed at the conclusion of the April 22, 1986 special prehearing conference in the companion case involving application for an extension of time for the construction permit for Comanche Peak. If argument on the Proposed Memorandum is

]

not completed at the scheduled time, it shall be continued by telephone.

3. Parties will have ten days following the completion of argument on the Proposed Memorandum to coment in writing.

FOR.THE .e

! ATOMIC SAFETY Atl0 LICENSIflG BOARD Lftl Feter BT Bloch, Chairman

)

ACMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

! Bethesda, Maryland l

l 1

, 1 l

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