ML20237L478
Text
- - - - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _
l a
d UNITED STATES w
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
REqiON IV
[
811 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000 j
l 4
ARUNGTON, TEXAS 76011 j
i May 12, 1986 l
l MATRIX OF DRAFTS FOR REPORT 85-16/13 H.
S.
PHILLIPS i
\\
i l
Documents:
1 la & 1h
- Handwritten draft for Unit 2 construction inspection.
(Submitted 3rd week Dec. 1985) 2a & 2b First revisions per comments on ia.
3 First draft of report.
4 First draft reviewed by management and management writes in conclusion and directed changes on pages 7,8,12 and 13, Para. 6 was revised because status changed.
Sa & Sb Second draft and Final draft.
Final incorporates minor revisions.
6m Final report is a composite of construction, operations, and RIV technical review team followup.
Exit Inspector informed TUGCO of violations on December 4, 1985.
KEY
- Original Submission l
- Difference
- Mgt directed change implemented j
S'UBJECT/ PARAGRAPH DOCUMENTS COMMENTS (Insnecter) la ib 2abb 7 4
Sa i
Readet Cover Pace Violations dropped.
Action on 10CFR50.55(e)
(
Deficiencies Identified
)
by the Aeolicant/ Para 3.0 l
a.
TUGCO failed to NA Violation dropped.
develop / implement a procedure to show or reference objective evidence that defi-ciencies were corrected.
e Violation of Criterien V " Procedures, Instruc-tions and Drawings" of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
(Phillips,McClenkey finding; Phillips wrote the violation).
Attachment O B708200231 870819 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
I 1
g 5/12/06 i
SUBJECT / PARAGRAPH DOCUMENTS COMMENTS Pg 2 I
(Inspector) la 2 a t<b 5
4 Sa b.
TUGCO failed to re-NA Violation dropped.
vise implementing procedures'before corporate NEO Pro-cedure CS-1 was implemented, result-ing in conflict l
with five other proce-dures.
Violation of Criterion VI'" Document Control". (Phillips finding and wrote the violation.)
c.
TUGCO failed to main-Violation dropped.
tain 50.55(e) files (OA records) that were retrievable-i.e, could not pro-I duce record in almost a month.
Violation of i
Criterion XVII "QA Records". (McCleskey j
finding; Phillips wrote j
the violation.)
J l
d.
TUGCO failed to re-Violati on dropped.
gprt to the NRC:the corrective action actually'taken and changes to commitment regarding corrective action reported to NRC. Violation 10CFR50.55(e)
(McCleskey, Phillips
~
finding; Phillips wrote the violation.)
- o. TUGCO failed to have Mgt changed finding a procedure. This to a positive state-violation of Criterion ment about TUGCO V was changed to an action. TUGCO unresolved statement never discussed in 1.a.
(revision 4 this commitment para. 3.)
(Phillips) with inspectors before this change was made to report.
Insert #1.
l
f 5/12/86-
' SUBJECT / PARAGRAPH-DOCUMENTS COMMENTS.
Pg 3
. ( I,n sp ect or ),
la 2ahb 3'
4 5a Lf. TUGCO, files'were not Mgt. dropped para.
auditable with respect
-and substituted to corrective action.
para, where TUGCO Violation of 10 CFR.
admitted violation Part.50.55(e) and many but was taking TUGCO letters which action. Insert #1.
stated: records avail--
able. Changed from violation to strong paragraph.
- (McCl es k ey ).
Acolicant Action on
{
IE Bulletins Para. 4
- a. TUGCO never responded Statement' dropped.
to all aspects of Unresolved item-IEB 79-14. Unresolved
-dropped per item pending_further direction.
review.(McCleskey, Phillips) 1
- b. TUGCO IEB' files for Statement dropped.
1992 and 1985 did Unresolved item not contain suffi-
' dropped.per-cient records or ref-direction.
erence to records yhich show IEB action /
corrective action complete. Unresolved item.(Phillips, McCleskey)
- c. TUGCO had replaced Violation dropped NAMCO switches per to' unresolved.
IEB 79-28 but 2 of 14 that were field inspected were not properly identified on installation traveler. Violation of Criterion VIII
" Identification /
control of Materials, Parts,and Components" (McCloskey, Phillips finding.
Phillips wrote the violation.)
-l e
' ___________________________________i_i___._______._.____._.____.1
~
5/12/86 SUBJECT / PARAGRAPH-DOCUMENTS COMMENTS Pg 4 (Inspector) la 2abb 3
4 5a i
d.
TUGCO procedures for Mgt. dropped.and handling IEB are wrote insert #2 are deficient in that in Document #4/
{
{
they do not describe l
how construction manage-ment / personnel handle IEB requiring action, especially hardware
~repair, replacement j
and modification.
Prior to writeup, I stated to management that this is a viola-tion but mgt. disagreed 4
and I wrote it as I
unresolved.(McCleskey, Phillips finding) l
- o. No TUGCO construction
.Mgt. dropped and focal point was found wrote insert #2
{
for tracking such IEB in Doc.#4.
j actions.
Prior to writeup I stated to-
)
l management that this 4
is a violation but mgt.
I disagreed and I wrote it as unresolved.
(McCleskey,Phillips)
)
i l
AEtion on Previous Inscection Findino l
l Para 2 1
)
Failure to properly re-The droppino of i
view design change i.e.
this violation was DCA 18728, not reviewed coordinated with
~
for impact before sign-T.
Young by ing DCA 29894.
Vi ol a-Messers McCleskey tion dropped.(McCleskey, Phillips) and Phillips as additional infor-mation was fottnd to show compliance.
Mr. Young agreed.
El ect ri cal Penetration Seals Whole paragraph changed Violation dropped.
after management di-Request for office rected additional in-cpection in late Dec.
investigation to review also 1985 and after BISCO dropped.
Memo to IE reviewed by RIV Mgt.(T. Young)
,