ML20132E146

From kanterella
Revision as of 11:58, 5 July 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 1 to Allegation Investigation Rept 4-84-A-06-53 Re Allegations A-158 & A-272 Concerning Issues Raised in Ebasco 830609 Memo on Ja Jones Const Co Qa/Qc Documentation. Expanded Review Performed by Util Adequate
ML20132E146
Person / Time
Site: Waterford Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 06/06/1984
From:
NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML17198A272 List:
References
RTR-NUREG-0787, RTR-NUREG-787 4-84-A-06-53, 4-84-A-6-53, A-158, A-272, A-84-A-6-53, NUDOCS 8509300578
Download: ML20132E146 (10)
v • d • e


Text

E l REVISIGN 1 l

  • l 06/06/84 -

h 4 f wo <t.c o 'I  ;

SSER

'h 4 % hrJ l Task: Allegations A-158 and 272 -

Reference Number: A-84-A-06-53 and 4-84-A-06-154 Characterization: In an internal Ebasco memorandum dated June 9, 1983, concerns were raised regarding J. A. Jones quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC)documention. The following four areas were identified as areas of concern:

1. The lack of certification of Ebasco quality control (QC) inspectors responsible for monitoring the installation of safety-related work.
2. Theabsenceon5recordso& f ide*tification of an authorized individual and a date when records were supplemented or corrections made.

3.

Noticeabledifferencesinseveralsignaturesorgnitialsonthedaily Cadweld inspection reports as recorded on Nonc h N Report (NCR)

No. W3-6245.

4. A majority of the Cadweld records lacked the initials, date, and stamp of the QAE reviewer.

w5 It ts alleged that based on the above,the scope of the QA review should have been expanded.

Assessment of Alleoation: LP&L, as a result of a September 21, 1983, memorandum (File Report W3, QA-26572), undertook a 100% review of the concrete placement packages. This included J. A. Jones OA/QC documentation. tAs g i esw d of 4/

thirty-three NCRs, each addressing multiple placements, were generated to address the deficiencies noted.dtning t% rewfee. LP&L also performed a 100% review of soils packages for completeness with 50% review for technical accuracy (see Allegation A-145).

8509300578 840606 .

PDR ADOCK 05000382 E PDR

3Y Based on its review, the NRC staff concluded that the expanded review of quality records perfonned by LP&L was adequate. Although some records were determined tg be missing or incomplete, the extent was determined not to be significant. Consequently, the allegation has no safety significance and its generic implications are addressed in the other referenced allegations.

The NRC staff conducted an inspection of each of the four areas of concern, mentioned in the Ebasco internal memorandum, ifHiepar4te-allegatinnt,%

9 # f Mu Es k ihh4 G it l de respectively+

<w h ssa s E M rd t a % A N nlhybs v % 3 ;tetti tg

1. A1]egations A-110, A-130 and A-148.
2. A1.1mgation A-117, A-131 and A-269. -'  :
3. Allegations A-106, A-108, A-133, and A-156. -

llt hM dtA lb, Nogpecific review was conducted by the NRC staff in connection with tMs

- U ;3owever,tksafetyreviewofcadweldingwasconducted(seeSSER of Allegation A-146 and A-157).

The possible safety impact and _the staff's conclusions are detailed in the dr to stsW .

SSER of each of the above (a. .egations.

, s Potential Violations: Violations involving missing or incomplete documentation gill be included in the specific SSERs referenced. ,

std dws Actions Required: See specific SSERs , referenced.

I l

~

~ * ~ .

. ~

References:

1. Memorandum from J. D. Czyrko to L. A. Stinson,W3QAIRG-540, dated June 9, 1983.
2. Memorandum from G. Hill to J. Czyrko, dated June 6, 1983.
3. Memorandum from J. D. Davis to M. Burgan, dated December 9, 1982.
4. Memorandum from J. D. Davis to R. S. Leddick, dated December 22, 1983.
5. Letter from R.;S. Leddick of LP&L to D. G. Eisenhut of NRC, dated Apcil 21,1984 "" i
6. Memorandum from A. Cutrona to R. Milhiser, dated September 21, 1983.
7. See SSERs A-106, A-108, A-110, A-112, A-130,.A-131, A-133, A-145, A-146, A-148, A-156, A-157, and A-269.

This statement prepared by N. C. Chokshi Date Reviewed by:

Team Leader Date Reviewed by:

Site Team Leader (s) Date Approved by:

Task Management Date m -

. _. . . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . . ._ . . _ . _ _ _~ _. .. . . - - _ - - _ _ _ _ - -

t-l, . . .

i

~4" D cument Name:

l .

SSER X A-158- [- - - - .

)

. - Requestor's ID: J. -

CONNIE- .

. Author's Name:

N. C. Chokshi I

Document Coments:

A-272

{

(

I V

l' i

i .

t f

I l  ;

l l

l l

l i

REVISION 1

,1- 06/06/84

d. SSER -

... . .s .

Task: Allegations A-158 and 272 Reference Number: A-84-A-06-53 and 4-84-A-06-154

. Characterization: In an internal Ebasco memorandum dated June 9, 1983, cans-/cuenon ce ~ anu concerns were raised regarding J. A. Jones 3 quality assura#nce/4uality control (QA/QC) documention. The following four areas were identified as areas of concern:

1. The lack of certification of Ebasco quality control (QC) inspectors responsible for monitoring the installation of safety-related work 4 M e M e#

7 the

2. The absence on records gof identification of an authorized individual and a date when records were supplemented or corrections made.
3. Noticeable differences in several signatureseor /crmneeinitials on the daily s

CadweldinspectionreportsasrecordedfpnMoncopli=ccgeport(NCR)

No. W3-6245. -

4. A majority of the Cadweld records lacked the initials, date, and stamp of the Q M eviewer.

It is alleged that based on the above the scope of the QA review should have been expanded.

/2eference .

Assessment of Alleoati n: LP&L, as a result of a September 21, 1983, menorandum (File 3 4 -26572),

0A undertook a 100% review of the concrete placement packages. This included J. A. Jones OA/QC documentation.Atr.ni-su#o/ Y/5 revdeW hirty-three NCRs, each addressing multiple placements, were generated to address the deficiencies noted,thrriiig the reviews LP&L also performed a 100% review of soils packages for completeness with 50% review for technical accuracy (see Allegation A .

/36l,g -

a. .

. ,s .

Based on its review,the NRC staff concluded that the expanded review of quality records performed by LP&L was adequate. Although some records were determined to be missing or incomplete, the extent was determined not to be significant. Consequently, the allegation has no safety significance and its generic implications are addressed in the other referenced allegations.

The NRC staff conducted an inspection of each of tgfjur # areay of concern, mentioned in the Ebasco internal memorandum, beparate8a51egatbnb '#

respectively;.m ekumenN in ?We SSE2 seefars de n(c C//sw akfabos.'

l

1. Allegations A-110 T,/30 frd'-A1148.
2. Allegation A-112 A7131 7 an &Af269.

i

3. Allegations A-106 4 108 Ar133 .alid1Ay156.

Ajac Sbl{l.a2s emduelef on osswerl/

4. No specific review was conducted by the NRC staff in connection with this concern;however,thegafetyreviewof(adwelding.wescerducted-(seeSSER of Allegation A-146 andl# 157).

eseric ;-pbcaNo'ss The pessible-safety impact nd the staff's conclusions are detailed in the SSER of each of the above allegations 1 SSEP see.fong, r -

l Potential Violations: Violationa involving missing or incomplete documentation will be included in the specific SSERA feTnced. d secJioas Actions Required: SeespecificSSEPgreferenced.

i

. s. .

References:

1. Memorandum from J. D. Czyrko to L. A. Stinson,W30AIRG-540, dated June 9, 1983.
2. Memorandum from G. Hill to J. Czyrko, dated June 6,1983.
3. Memorandum from J. D. Davis to M. Burgan, dated December 9, 1982.
4. Memorandum from J. D. Davis to R. S. Leddick, dated December 22, 1983.
5. Letter from R. S. Leddick of LP&L to D. G. Eisenhut of NRC, dated April 21, 1984.
6. Memorandum from A. Cutrona to R. Milhiser, dated September 21, 1983.
7. See SSERs A-106, A-108, A-110, A-112, A-130, A-131, A-133, A-145, A-146, A-148, A-156, A-157, and A-269.

This statement prepared by N. C. Chokshi ,

Date Reviewed by:

Team Leader -

Date e

Reviewed by:

SiteTeamLeader(s) Date Approved by:

Task Management Date  !

l l

~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~

, 06/06/84 l

! /

SSER

{ g p/ 6 cou v& ~'

Task: Allegations A-15E and 272 -

l Reference Number: A-84-A-06-53 and 4-84-A-06-154 Characterization: In an internal Ebasco memorandum dated June 9,1983,

concerns were__ raised regarding J. A. Jones _ quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC)documention. The following four areas were identified as areas of }

concern: gl

1. The lack of certification of Ebasco quality control (OC) inspectors responsible for monitoring the installation of safety-related work.

o pj[d oddp

2. The absence on'. records of identification of an authorized individual and a date when records were supplemented or corrections made.

! 3. Noticeable differences in several signatures or initials on the daily Cadweld inspection reports as recorded on Noncompliance Report (NCR)

No. W3-6245.

4. A majority of the Cadweld records lacked the initials, date, and stamp of 0

l the QAE reviewer. el)

It is alleged that based on the above the scope of the QA review should have g been expanded.

4 ((@ /\ - } 13 j A ' MT Assessment of Allegation: LP8 , as a result of a September 21, 1983, memorandum (File Report,W3, QA-26572), undertook a 100% review of the concrete t 9/f[..

placement packages. -This included J. A. Jones QA/QC documentation, f tu^

Thirty-three NCRs each addressing multiple placements, were generated to h[

address the deficiencies noted during the review, LP&L also' performed a dd 100% review of soils packages for completeness with 50% review for technical /9 accuracy (see Allegation A-145). ,S 1

. l Based on its review the NRC staff concluded that the expanded review of quality records performed by LP&L was adequate. Although some records were determined to be missing or incomplete, the extent was determined not to be significant. Consequently, the allegation has no safety significance and its generic implications are addressed in the other referenced allegations.

The NRC staff conducted an inspection of each of the four areas of concern, mentioned in the Ebasco internal memorandum, in separate allegations, respectively
1. A1]egationsA-110,A-130andA-148.
2. A11agation A-117, A-131 and A-269. "- ;_ .
3. Allegations A-106, A-108, A-133, and A-156. ~

4 No specific review was conducted by the NRC staff in connection with this concern; however, the safety review of cadwelding was conducted (see SSER ofAllegationA-146andA-157).

The pessible safety impact and the staff's conclusions are detailed in the SSER of each of the above allegations, r

Potential Violations: Violations involving missing or incomplete documentation 1 n

{yrillbeincludedinthespecificSSERsreferenced.

Actions Required: See specific SSERs referenced.

_m

j '.

I i

References:

L

1. Memorandum from J. D. Czyrko to L. A. Stinson,W3QAIRG-540, dated June 9, 1983.

l

2. Memorandum from G. Hill to J. Czyrko, dated June 6,1983.
3. Memorandum from J. D. Davis to M. Burgan, dated December 9, 1982.
4. Memorandum from J. D. Davis to R. S. Leddick, dated December 22, 1983. *
5. Letter from R..S. Leddick of LP&L to D. G. Eisenhut of NRC, dated Apcil 21,1984 " i
6. Memorandum from A. Cutrona to R. Milhiser, dated September 21, 1983.

I

7. See SSERs A-106, A-108, A-110, A-112, A-130,.A-131, A-133, A-145, A-146, A-148, A-156, A-157, and A-269.

This statement prepared by N. C. Chokshi Date  :

Reviewed by:

Team Leader Date s

Reviewed by:

SiteTeamLeader(s) Date Approved by:

Task Management Date

,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20132E146&oldid=2884994"