type: other

text:
France, Conseil d'État, 9 / 10 ssr, 19 juin 2002, 194476
 Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche France, Conseil d'État, 9 / 10 ssr, 19 juin 2002, 194476
 Sens de l'arrêt : Annulation rejetType d'affaire : AdministrativeType de recours : Recours en cassationNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 194476Numéro NOR : CETATEXT000008028636 Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;fr;conseil.etat;arret;2002-06-19;194476 Analyses : CONTRIBUTIONS ET TAXES - GENERALITES - TEXTES FISCAUX - OPPOSABILITE DES INTERPRETATIONS ADMINISTRATIVES (ART - L - 80 A DU LIVRE DES PROCEDURES FISCALES) - EXISTENCE - a) Documentation administrative 4-G-3324 du 30 avril 1988 prévoyant la prise en compte du cachet de la poste pour apprécier le respect de la date limite de dépôt des déclarations par les personnes morales (article 223 du CGI) - b) Conséquence - Hypothèse dans laquelle la date de réception de la déclaration indiquée par l'administration correspond au second jour ouvrable suivant l'expiration de la date limite - Preuve que les déclarations ont été expédiées après cette date limite à la charge de l'administration.19-01-01-03-01 a) Constitue une interprétation par l'administration des dispositions de l'article 223 du code général des impôts relatives à la date limite de dépôt des déclarations par les personnes morales, invocable sur le fondement de l'article L. 80 A du livre des procédures fiscales, la documentation de base mise à jour au 30 avril 1988 sous 4-G-3324, qui prévoit que "depuis la souscription en 1987 des déclarations relatives aux exercices clos en 1986, il est admis qu'en cas d'acheminement des déclarations par la voie postale, la date retenue pour le dépôt de ces déclarations est celle figurant sur le cachet de la poste qui fait foi de la date d'expédition". b) Une société fait valoir qu'eu égard aux dates de réception de ses déclarations indiquées par le ministre, et qui correspondent, chacune, au second jour ouvrable suivant celui de l'expiration du délai prévu par l'article 223 du code général des impôts pour expédier la déclaration, il ne saurait être présumé qu'elle n'a pas respecté ce délai. Le ministre ne produisant pas les enveloppes sous lesquelles ont été acheminées les déclarations et portant le cachet de la poste faisant foi de leur date d'expédition, la tardiveté qu'il invoque ne peut, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, être regardée comme établie.CONTRIBUTIONS ET TAXES - IMPOTS SUR LES REVENUS ET BENEFICES - REVENUS ET BENEFICES IMPOSABLES - REGLES PARTICULIERES - BENEFICES INDUSTRIELS ET COMMERCIAUX - PERSONNES ET ACTIVITES IMPOSABLES - EXONERATION DE CERTAINES ENTREPRISES NOUVELLES (ART - 44 BIS ET SUIVANTS DU CGI) - Biens d'équipement amortissables selon le mode dégressif (CGI art - 44bis-II-2°) - Existence - Matériels acquis et utilisés par l'entreprise pour les besoins du contrôle et de la rectification des produits dont la fabrication est sous-traitée à une autre entreprise.19-04-02-01-01-03 L'activité d'une entreprise de "régie technique publicitaire" consiste principalement en l'élaboration puis la diffusion auprès de magasins de grandes surfaces de cartouches audiovisuelles contenant des messages publicitaires. Cette entreprise a, durant les années 1984 à 1988, fait effectuer, en sous-traitance, les opérations de fabrication, en grand nombre d'exemplaires, de ces cartouches, procédant toutefois elle-même au contrôle final et, le cas échéant, à la rectification de leur contenu. Les matériels acquis et utilisés par cette entreprise pour les besoins du contrôle et de la rectification des produits reçus de son fournisseur, opérations constitutives de l'achèvement d'un processus de fabrication industrielle, ont le caractère de biens amortissables selon le mode dégressif.Texte : Vu 1°), sous le n° 194476, la requête sommaire et le mémoire complémentaire, enregistrés les 25 février et 22 juin 1998 au secrétariat du contentieux du Conseil d'Etat, présentés pour la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING, dont le siège est R.N. 307, à Feucherolles (78810) ; la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING demande au Conseil d'Etat d'annuler l'arrêt du 30 décembre 1997 par lequel la cour administrative d'appel de Paris a annulé le jugement du tribunal administratif de Paris du 6 juillet 1995 et l'a rétablie aux rôles de l'impôt sur les sociétés de chacune des années 1985, 1986 et 1987 à raison des cotisations auxquelles elle avait été assujettie par voie de rôle mis en recouvrement le 30 septembre 1990 ; Vu 2°), sous le n° 207414, la requête sommaire et le mémoire complémentaire, enregistrés les 30 avril et 30 août 1999 au secrétariat du contentieux du Conseil d'Etat, présentés pour la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING, dont le siège est R.N. 307, à Feucherolles (78810) ; la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING demande au Conseil d'Etat d'annuler l'arrêt du 16 février 1999 par lequel la cour administrative d'appel de Paris a annulé le jugement du tribunal administratif de Paris du 10 décembre 1996 et l'a rétablie aux rôles de l'impôt sur les sociétés de l'année 1988 à raison de la cotisation à laquelle elle avait été assujettie par voie de rôle mis en recouvrement le 31 décembre 1991 ;
 - le rapport de M. Fabre, Conseiller d'Etat, - les observations de la SCP Lyon-Caen, Fabiani, Thiriez, avocat de la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING, - les conclusions de M. Goulard, Commissaire du gouvernement ;Considérant que les requêtes susvisées de la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING, respectivement dirigées contre l'arrêt du 30 décembre 1997 et l'arrêt du 16 février 1999 par lesquels la cour administrative d'appel de Paris l'a, successivement, rétablie aux rôles de l'impôt sur les sociétés des années 1985 à 1987, puis de l'année 1988 à raison de l'intégralité des cotisations auxquelles elle avait été assujettie et dont le tribunal administratif de Paris lui avait accordé la décharge, présentent à juger de mêmes questions ; qu'il y a lieu de les joindre pour y statuer par une seule décision ;
 Considérant qu'aux termes de l'article 44 quater du code général des impôts applicable en l'espèce : "Les entreprises créées du 1er janvier 1983 au 31 décembre 1986, soumises de plein droit ou sur option à un régime réel d'imposition de leurs résultats et répondant aux conditions prévues aux 2° et 3° du II et au III de l'article 44 bis, sont exonérées d'impôt sur le revenu ou d'impôt sur les sociétés à raison des bénéfices industriels et commerciaux qu'elles réalisent à compter de la date de leur création jusqu'au terme du trente-cinquième mois suivant celui au cours duquel cette création est intervenue. Les bénéfices réalisés au cours des vingt-quatre mois suivant la période d'exonération précitée ne sont retenus dans les bases de l'impôt sur le revenu ou de l'impôt sur les sociétés que pour la moitié de leur montantà" ; qu'aux termes du 2° du II de l'article 44 bis : "le prix de revient des biens d'équipement amortissables selon le mode dégressif en application des dispositions du 1 de l'article 39 A doit représenter au moins les deux tiers du prix de revient total des immobilisations corporelles amortissablesà" ; que le 1 de l'article 39 A prévoit que : "L'amortissement des biens d'équipement autres que les immeubles d'habitation, les chantiers et les locaux servant à l'exercice de la profession, acquis ou fabriqués à compter du 1er janvier 1960 par les entreprises industrielles, peut être calculé suivant un système d'amortissement dégressif" ; qu'enfin, l'article 22 de l'annexe II au code général des impôts précise que : "Les entreprises passibles de l'impôt sur les sociétés ou de l'impôt sur le revenu au titre des bénéfices industriels et commerciaux peuvent amortir suivant un système dégressifà les immobilisations acquises ou fabriquées par elles à compter du 1er janvier 1960 et énumérées ci-après : Matériels et outillages utilisés pour des opérations industrielles de fabrication" ; que les dispositions précitées du 1 de l'article 39 A et de l'article 22 de l'annexe II autorisent toute entreprise dont les résultats entrent dans la catégorie des bénéfices industriels et commerciaux à amortir suivant un mode dégressif les biens d'équipement acquis par elle et qui sont normalement utilisés dans leur activité productive par des entreprises industrielles ;Considérant qu'il ressort des pièces des dossiers soumis à la cour administrative d'appel que la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING a créé, en 1984, une entreprise de "régie technique publicitaire" dont l'activité consiste principalement en l'élaboration puis la diffusion auprès de magasins de grandes surfaces de cartouches audiovisuelles contenant des messages publicitaires ; qu'elle a, durant les années 1984 à 1988, fait effectuer, en sous-traitance, par la S.A. Mood-Music les opérations de fabrication, en grand nombre d'exemplaires, de ces cartouches, procédant, toutefois, elle-même, au contrôle final et, le cas échéant, à la rectification de leur contenu ; que, pour accueillir les conclusions des recours du ministre de l'économie, des finances et de l'industrie tendant au rétablissement des cotisations d'impôt sur les sociétés auxquelles la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING avait été assujettie, au titre de chacune des années susmentionnées, en raison de la remise en cause par l'administration de son droit à bénéficier de l'exonération puis de la réduction d'impôt prévues par l'article 44 quater précité du code général des impôts, la cour administrative d'appel a fait droit au moyen tiré par le ministre de ce que la société ne remplissait pas la condition posée par le 2° du II de l'article 44 bis, faute de pouvoir prétendre au caractère amortissable suivant un mode dégressif des matériels acquis et utilisés par elle pour les besoins du contrôle et de la rectification des produits reçus de son fournisseur ; qu'en se fondant, pour statuer ainsi, sur ce que lesdits matériels, servant à vérifier la qualité de produits fabriqués par un tiers, ne concouraient, dès lors, pas directement à une opération industrielle de production, alors que les contrôles et rectifications effectués à l'aide de ces matériels par la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING étaient, par nature, quel que soit leur opérateur, constitutifs de l'achèvement d'un processus de fabrication industrielle, la cour administrative d'appel a commis une erreur de qualification juridique des biens d'équipement dont s'agit ; que la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING est, par suite, fondée à demander l'annulation des deux arrêts attaqués ;
 Considérant, en premier lieu, qu'il résulte de ce qui a été dit ci-dessus que le ministre de l'économie, des finances et de l'industrie n'est pas fondé à soutenir que, les immobilisations susmentionnées de la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING ne pouvant être amorties suivant un mode dégressif, celle-ci n'aurait pas rempli la condition, posée par le 2° du II de l'article 44 bis et à laquelle est, notamment, subordonné le bénéfice des dispositions de l'article 44 quater du code général des impôts, relative à la proportion minimale du prix de revient de biens amortissables selon un tel système de calcul ;Considérant, en deuxième lieu, qu'aux termes du III de l'article 44 bis : "Les entreprises créées dans le cadre d'une concentration ou d'une restructuration d'activités préexistantes, ou pour la reprise de telles activités, ne peuvent bénéficier de l'abattement ci-dessusà" ; que le ministre soutient que ces dispositions, auxquelles renvoie, notamment, l'article 44 quater, sont opposables à la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING, en faisant valoir que l'activité de celle-ci a constitué le prolongement des activités déjà exercées, antérieurement à sa création, par la S.A. Mood-Music et ses filiales, auxquelles elle est économiquement liée ; qu'il résulte, toutefois, de l'instruction qu'antérieurement à la création de la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING, ni la S.A. Mood-Music, spécialisée dans la fabrication et la location de cassettes de "musiques d'ambiance", ni aucune de ses filiales, n'exerçait les activités de régie publicitaire et de diffusion de supports audiovisuels auxquelles la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING s'est consacrée, et que c'est à compter, seulement, de la création de cette dernière, que la S.A. Mood-Music a, elle-même, étendu son activité à la fabrication de cartouches audiovisuelles ; que, dans ces conditions, la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING ne peut pas être regardée comme ayant été créée dans le cadre d'une restructuration d'activités préexistantes ou pour la reprise de telles activités ;
 Considérant, en troisième lieu, que, si le 3° du II de l'article 44 bis, auquel renvoie, notamment, l'article 44 quater, dispose que : "Pour les entreprises constituées sous forme de société, les droits de vote attachés aux actions ou parts ne doivent pas être détenus, directement ou indirectement, pour plus de 50 % par d'autres sociétés", les droits de vote attachés à des actions ou parts souscrites par une personne physique ne peuvent, pour l'application de cette disposition, être réputés indirectement détenus par une société que si cette personne physique apparaît comme étant, en fait, le simple mandataire de celle-ci ; qu'au soutien du moyen tiré de ce que la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING aurait cessé de satisfaire à la condition dont s'agit au cours de son exercice clos en 1987, le ministre fait état de l'acquisition de 49 % de son capital par la S.A. Sofideps, et de 22 % de son capital par M. X..., en faisant valoir que ce dernier était associé minoritaire et président-directeur général de la S.A. Mood-Music ; que ces seules circonstances ne sont pas, toutefois, de nature à établir que M. Y... aurait, au sein de la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING, été le simple mandataire de la S.A. Mood-Music ;Considérant, en dernier lieu, qu'il résulte des dispositions de caractère interprétatif de l'article 44 quinquies du code général des impôts que les entreprises soumises à l'impôt sur les sociétés ne peuvent bénéficier des allègements fiscaux prévus à l'article 44 quater que dans la mesure où elles déposent leurs déclarations de résultats dans les délais prescrits à l'article 223 du code ; que le ministre invoque un dépôt tardif, par la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING, des déclarations de ses résultats de chacun des exercices clos en 1986 et 1987, respectivement parvenues au service le 4 mai 1987, alors que le délai admis par l'administration expirait le 30 avril, et le 4 mai 1988, alors que le délai admis par l'administration expirait le 2 mai ; que la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING se prévaut, toutefois, ainsi que l'y autorisent les dispositions de l'article L. 80 A du livre des procédures fiscales, de la solution retenue par l'administration, exposée dans la documentation de base mise à jour au 30 avril 1988 sous 4-G-3324, et selon laquelle "depuis la souscription en 1987 des déclarations relatives aux exercices clos en 1986, il est admis qu'en cas d'acheminement des déclarations par la voie postale, la date retenue pour le dépôt de ces déclarations est celle figurant sur le cachet de la poste qui fait foi de la date d'expédition", en faisant valoir qu'eu égard aux dates de réception de ses déclarations indiquées par le ministre, et qui correspondent, chacune, au second jour ouvrable suivant celui de l'expiration du délai accordé pour expédier la déclaration, il ne saurait être présumé qu'elle n'a pas respecté ce délai ; que, le ministre ne produisant pas les enveloppes sous lesquelles ont été acheminées les déclarations et portant le cachet de la poste faisant foi de leur date d'expédition, la tardiveté qu'il invoque ne peut, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, être regardée comme établie ;
 Considérant qu'il résulte de tout ce qui précède que le ministre de l'économie, des finances et de l'industrie n'est pas fondé à soutenir que c'est à tort que, par les jugements dont il fait appel, le tribunal administratif de Paris a accordé à la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING la décharge des cotisations d'impôt sur les sociétés litigieuses ;
 Considérant que, dans les circonstances de l'affaire, il y a lieu, par application des dispositions de l'article L. 761-1 du code de justice administrative, de condamner l'Etat à verser à la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING, en remboursement des frais exposés par elle tant devant la cour administrative d'appel de Paris que devant le Conseil d'Etat et non compris dans les dépens, la somme de 5 000 euros ;
 Article 1er : Les arrêts de la cour administrative d'appel de Paris du 30 décembre 1997 et du 16 février 1999 sont annulés.
 Article 2 : Les recours présentés devant la cour administrative d'appel de Paris par le ministre de l'économie, des finances et de l'industrie sont rejetés.
 Article 3 : L'Etat versera à la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING, au titre de l'article L. 761-1 du code de justice administrative, la somme de 5 000 euros.
 Article 4 : La présente décision sera notifiée à la S.A. MEDIA SHOPPING et au ministre de l'économie, des finances et de l'industrie.Références : CGI 44 quater, 44 bis, 39 A, 44 quinquies, 223CGI Livre des procédures fiscales L80 ACGIAN2 22Code de justice administrative L821-2, L761-1Publications :Proposition de citation: CE, 19 juin 2002, n° 194476Mentionné aux tables du recueil LebonTélécharger au format RTFComposition du Tribunal :Président : M. StirnRapporteur : M. FabreRapporteur public : M. GoulardOrigine de la décision Pays : FranceJuridiction : Conseil d'ÉtatFormation : 9 / 10 ssrDate de la décision : 19/06/2002Fonds documentaire : Legifrance Haut de page


jurisdiction: US

text: b' AUDIT REPORT\n\n\n Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance\n Planning for New Reactors\n\n OIG-10-A-02 November 16, 2009\n\n\n\n\nAll publicly available OIG reports (including this report) are accessible through\n NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Web site at:\n http:/www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen/\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001\n\n\n\nOFFICE OF THE\nINSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n November 16, 2009\n\n\nMEMORANDUM TO: R. William Borchardt\n Executive Director for Operations\n\n\n\nFROM: Stephen D. Dingbaum /RA/\n Assistant Inspector General for Audits\n\n\nSUBJECT: AUDIT OF NRC\xe2\x80\x99S QUALITY ASSURANCE PLANNING FOR\n NEW REACTORS (OIG-10-A-02)\n\n\nAttached is the Office of the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s (OIG) audit report titled, Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s\nQuality Assurance Planning for New Reactors.\n\nThe report presents the results of the subject audit. Agency comments provided during\nand subsequent to a September 1, 2009, exit conference have been incorporated, as\nappropriate, into this report.\n\nPlease provide information on actions taken or planned on each of the\nrecommendations within 30 days of the date of this memorandum. Actions taken or\nplanned are subject to OIG followup as stated in Management Directive 6.1.\n\nWe appreciate the cooperation extended to us by members of your staff during the\naudit. If you have any questions or comments about our report, please contact me at\n415-5915 or Sherri Miotla, Team Leader, Nuclear Safety Audit Team, at 415-5914.\n\nAttachment: As stated\n\x0cElectronic Distribution\n\nEdwin M. Hackett, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Reactor\n Safeguards\nE. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and\n Licensing Board Panel\nStephen G. Burns, General Counsel\nBrooke D. Poole, Jr., Director, Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication\nJames E. Dyer, Chief Financial Officer\nMargaret M. Doane, Director, Office of International Programs\nRebecca L. Schmidt, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs\nEliot B. Brenner, Director, Office of Public Affairs\nAnnette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission\nR. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations\nBruce S. Mallett, Deputy Executive Director for Reactor\n and Preparedness Programs, OEDO\nMartin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research,\n State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs, OEDO\nDarren B. Ash, Deputy Executive Director for Corporate Management\n and Chief Information Officer, OEDO\nNader L. Mamish, Assistant for Operations, OEDO\nKathryn O. Greene, Director, Office of Administration\nPatrick D. Howard, Director, Computer Security Officer\nRoy P. Zimmerman, Director, Office of Enforcement\nCharles L. Miller, Director, Office of Federal and State Materials\n and Environmental Management Programs\nCheryl A. McCrary, Director, Office of Investigations\nThomas M. Boyce, Director, Office of Information Services\nJames F. McDermott, Director, Office of Human Resources\nMichael R. Johnson, Director, Office of New Reactors\nMichael F. Weber, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards\nEric J. Leeds, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation\nBrian W. Sheron, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research\nCorenthis B. Kelley, Director, Office of Small Business and Civil Rights\nJames T. Wiggins, Director, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response\nSamuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region I\nLuis A. Reyes, Regional Administrator, Region II\nMark A. Satorius, Regional Administrator, Region III\nElmo E. Collins, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region IV\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the design, siting,\n construction, and operation of nuclear power plants. Title 10 Code of\n Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 (Part 52) establishes the process to\n apply for a combined license, which, if approved by the NRC, allows the\n applicant to construct and operate a nuclear power plant. The Office of\n New Reactors (NRO) is responsible for reviewing combined license\n applications.\n\n Under Part 52, each combined license applicant is required to submit a\n final safety analysis report that describes the facility and presents a safety\n analysis of the facility as a whole. This report must include a description\n of the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s quality assurance (QA) program to be applied to the\n design, fabrication, construction, and testing of the structures, systems,\n and components of the facility. Part 52 references the QA program\n requirements, which are described in Title 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B\n (Appendix B). Appendix B applies to all activities affecting safety-related\n functions of the facility. NRO staff reviews, which include an evaluation of\n QA, are performed in accordance with NUREG-0800, the standard review\n plan.\n\n During the application process, applicants often conduct activities\n associated with new nuclear power plant construction, including\n developing processes that will be used during construction, testing, and\n operations; establishing programs for areas such as corrective action,\n security, and training; and procuring materials and parts. The applicant\n must provide oversight of vendor programs if safety-related parts are\n procured. Many nuclear vendors are now foreign-based companies and\n oversight of these foreign-based companies can present new challenges,\n such as overcoming cultural and language barriers.\n\n PURPOSE\n\n The audit objective was to determine the extent to which NRC provides\n oversight of applicant and licensee new nuclear power plant QA programs.\n\n RESULTS IN BRIEF\n\n The purpose of Appendix B QA programs is to ensure the nuclear power\n plant safety-related systems perform adequately in service. Given that the\n interest to build new nuclear power plants is in its infancy, NRO is\n appropriately focusing on QA as it relates to design and procurement\n activities. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has identified areas\n\n\n\n i\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n needing management attention while NRO continues its ongoing QA\n review activities. Specifically,\n\n \xef\x83\x98 Coordination of QA reviews among NRO branches is informal.\n\n o The coordination among NRO branches of QA reviews during\n the combined license application review process, when it\n occurs, is informal. Sections of the standard review plan specify\n that the responsible technical reviewer will coordinate the\n applicable QA reviews with the NRO\xe2\x80\x99s QA branches. However,\n this coordination is not clearly defined and there is no process in\n place to ensure that it occurs. Consequently, there is no way to\n verify that the QA review coordination has occurred, nor that all\n the QA portions of the standard review plan technical chapters\n have been fully satisfied.\n\n \xef\x83\x98 NRC\xe2\x80\x99s QA oversight does not include a review for accurate\n translations.\n\n o NRC\xe2\x80\x99s oversight of applicant and licensee QA programs and\n activities does not include a review for accurate document\n translations, and NRC has not fully assessed the impact of\n translated document quality on QA oversight. Consequently,\n NRC and its new nuclear power plant applicants and licensees\n could be relying on inaccurate translations. Furthermore, the\n accuracy of translated documents used for design, construction,\n and operation of new nuclear power plants could be called into\n question.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n\n This report makes four recommendations to help NRC improve its\n oversight of combined license applicant and licensee QA programs. A\n consolidated list of recommendations appears in Section VI.\n\nAGENCY COMMENTS\n\n On August 25, 2009, OIG provided a draft report to the Executive Director\n for Operations. OIG held an exit conference with the agency on\n September 1, 2009. During that meeting agency management provided\n informal comments to the draft report. Also, on September 8, 2009, OIG\n held an additional meeting with NRC staff to discuss the agency\xe2\x80\x99s informal\n comments to the draft report.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\nOn September 24, 2009, OIG provided the agency a final draft report, and\non October 1, 2009, the agency declined to provide any formal comments.\nThe final report incorporates revisions made, where applicable, as a result\nof meetings with NRC staff.\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n\n[Page intentionally left blank.]\n\n\n\n\n iv\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\nABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS\n\n\n ABWR Advanced Boiling Water Reactor\n\n AP1000 Advanced Passive 1000\n\n Appendix B Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix B,\n Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and\n Fuel Reprocessing Plants\n\n ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers\n\n B&PV Boiler and Pressure Vessel\n\n CFR Code of Federal Regulations\n\n EPC Engineering Procurement Construction\n\n EPR United States Evolutionary Power Reactor\n\n ESBWR Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor\n\n NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission\n\n NRO Office of New Reactors\n\n OIG Office of the Inspector General\n\n Part 50 Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Domestic\n Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities\n\n Part 52 Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52, Licenses,\n Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants\n\n QA Quality Assurance\n\n US-APWR United States Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor\n\n\n\n\n v\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n\n[Page intentionally left blank.]\n\n\n\n\n vi\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... i\n\n ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS................................................................ v\n\n I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 1\n\n II. PURPOSE .............................................................................................. 5\n\n III. FINDINGS................................................................................................ 6\n\n A. COORDINATION OF QA REVIEWS AMONG NRO BRANCHES\n IS INFORMAL................................................................................ 6\n\n B. NRC\xe2\x80\x99S QA OVERSIGHT DOES NOT INCLUDE A REVIEW FOR\n ACCURATE TRANSLATIONS ......................................................... 11\n\n IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 16\n\n V. AGENCY COMMENTS .......................................................................... 17\n\n VI. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 18\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 19\n\n\n\n\n vii\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n\n[Page intentionally left blank.]\n\n\n\n\n viii\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\nI. BACKGROUND\n\n The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) protects the health and safety\n of the public and the environment by regulating the design, siting,\n construction, and operation of nuclear power plants. With a renewed\n interest in nuclear energy in the United States, energy providers have\n submitted applications to NRC for nuclear power plant standard design\n certifications and for the construction and operation of new nuclear power\n plants. NRC reviews applications submitted by prospective licensees and\n issues, as appropriate, standard design certifications, early site permits,\n and combined licenses. As of May 2009, NRC had received 17 license\n applications for 26 new nuclear power plants using 5 different designs. A\n map of the projected new nuclear power plant locations is shown in Figure\n 1, below.\n\n Figure 1: Location of Projected New Nuclear Power Plants\n\n\n\n\n Source: Information depicted based on NRC public Web site as of July 9, 2009.\n\n\n\n\n Source: NRC Public Web site.\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n The Office of New Reactors (NRO) is responsible for reviewing early site\n permit, standard design certification, and combined license applications.\n For fiscal year 2009, the agency budgeted $243.5 million, including 819\n full-time equivalent staff, for all activities associated with reviewing new\n nuclear power plant applications. Among NRO\xe2\x80\x99s activities are quality\n assurance (QA) licensing and inspection, which is primarily performed by\n two QA and vendor branches.\n\n NRC regulations establish the process for obtaining approval to construct\n and operate new nuclear power plants. All of the 104 operating nuclear\n power plants were licensed under the two-step process described in Title\n 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50, Domestic Licensing of\n Production and Utilization Facilities (Part 50). Under that regulation,\n applicants were first required to submit an application for a construction\n permit for NRC approval. For the second step, the applicant submitted an\n application for an operating license, usually during construction. In an\n effort to improve efficiency and reduce potential regulatory risks during\n licensing of new nuclear power plants, NRC established a one-step\n licensing process under Title 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and\n Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 52). Part 52 establishes the\n combined license, which is made up of a construction permit and an\n operating license. Part 52 also describes the rules and procedures for\n issuing standard design certifications for new nuclear power plants, in\n which NRC approves a nuclear power plant design independent of an\n application to construct or operate a plant at a specific site. The 17\n applications for new nuclear power plants under NRC review utilize the\n Part 52, one-step licensing process.\n\n Under Part 52, each applicant is required to submit a final safety analysis\n report that describes the facility, presents the design bases,1 as well as\n presents a safety analysis of the facility as a whole. The final safety\n analysis report must include a description of the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s QA program to\n be applied to the design, fabrication, construction, and testing of the\n structures, systems, and components of the facility. Part 52 references\n the QA program requirements, which are described in Part 50, Appendix\n B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel\n Reprocessing Plants (Appendix B). Appendix B applies to all activities\n affecting safety-related functions of structures, systems, and components\n that prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that could cause\n undue risk to the health and safety of the public. QA comprises all\n planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate\n1\n Design bases means that information which identifies the specific functions to be performed by a\nstructure, system, or component of a facility, and the specific values or ranges of values chosen for\ncontrolling parameters as reference bounds for design. These values may be (1) restraints derived from\ngenerally accepted "state of the art" practices for achieving functional goals, or (2) requirements derived\nfrom analysis (based on calculation and/or experiments) of the effects of a postulated accident for which a\nstructure, system, or component must meet its functional goals.\n\n\n 2\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n confidence that a structure, system, or component will perform\n satisfactorily in service. A QA program includes elements such as\n procedures, recordkeeping, inspections, corrective actions, and audits.\n\n Applicants often conduct activities associated with new nuclear power\n plant construction during the application process. These activities include\n developing processes that will be used during construction, testing, and\n operations; establishing programs for areas such as corrective action,\n security, and training; and procurement of materials and parts for nuclear\n power plant construction. The applicant must provide oversight of vendor\n programs if safety-related parts are procured. Many nuclear vendors are\n now foreign-based companies and oversight of these foreign-based\n companies can present new challenges, such as overcoming cultural and\n language barriers as well as technical standards for parts fabrication.\n\n Industry Role in QA\n\n QA of every safety-related component and service used in a nuclear\n power plant, including those provided by vendors and sub-suppliers, is\n ultimately the responsibility of the applicant or the licensee. In practice,\n the applicant or licensee oversees its Engineering Procurement\n Construction (EPC)2 contractor\xe2\x80\x99s QA program; the EPC oversees its\n vendors\xe2\x80\x99 QA programs; the vendors oversee their suppliers\xe2\x80\x99 QA programs;\n the suppliers oversee their sub-suppliers\xe2\x80\x99 QA programs; and so on, as\n shown in Figure 2 below. Ultimately, the applicant or licensee must\n ensure that applicable regulatory requirements, which are necessary to\n assure adequate quality, are included in the documents for procurement of\n material, equipment, and services, whether purchased by the applicant, or\n licensee, or by its vendors or sub-suppliers.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Typically, an EPC is a company, or a consortium of companies, hired by a new nuclear power plant\napplicant to manage all, or most, of the new nuclear power plant project, including engineering design,\npreparation of construction drawings, procurement of parts and materials, construction management, and\npre-operational testing.\n\n\n 3\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n Figure 2: QA Program Oversight Process\n\n\n\n\nSource: OIG analysis and NRC documents.\n\n\n NUREG-0800, the Standard Review Plan\n\n NRO staff conduct reviews that result in a safety evaluation report\n describing the staff\xe2\x80\x99s review, findings, and conclusions. These reviews,\n which include an evaluation of QA, are performed in accordance with\n NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis\n Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. In all, there are 19 standard review\n plan chapters, which are broken down into sections. The individual\n sections are assigned to an NRO branch to perform the review. For each\n section of the standard review plan, the responsible reviewer from the\n assigned NRO branch writes the corresponding section of the safety\n evaluation report.\n\n In general, the standard review plan chapters correspond to the final\n safety analysis report chapters in the power plant standard design\n certification and combined license applications. Chapter 1 is the\n introduction and general description of the plant. Chapter 17 pertains to\n QA. Chapters 2 through 16, 18, and 19 guide the review of specific\n technical aspects, components, or systems, and are referred to in this\n\n\n 4\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n report as \xe2\x80\x9ctechnical chapters.\xe2\x80\x9d The 2 NRO branches\xe2\x80\x94Quality & Vendor\n Branch 1 and Quality & Vendor Branch 2\xe2\x80\x94responsible for the chapter 17\n reviews are referred to in this report as the \xe2\x80\x9cQA branches.\xe2\x80\x9d The 34 NRO\n branches responsible for reviewing the technical chapters of the\n application are referred to in this report as the \xe2\x80\x9ctechnical branches.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Growing Dependency on Foreign Suppliers\n\n There have been many changes in the nuclear industry since the previous\n generation of nuclear power plants. One of the most significant\n differences is the current prevalence of foreign vendors and suppliers.\n The change in the composition of companies accredited by the American\n Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) to supply parts to U.S. nuclear\n plants illustrates this change. As of July 2009, 100 of the 210 existing\n ASME-accredited companies were foreign firms. Moreover, there are\n many components that are available only from foreign companies, such as\n reactor vessels and other critical parts and systems. Under NRC\n regulations, some safety-related components must meet the requirements\n of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code. In order to supply\n components that meet the ASME code, an ASME N-type or material\n organization accreditation is required.3 The number of companies\n accredited by ASME as N-type providers or material organizations has\n decreased from more than 600 in 1980 to fewer than 200 in 2007. That\n decline was due almost entirely to the reduction of the number of\n American firms accredited by ASME.\n\n This necessary reliance by the United States on foreign vendors as a\n significant source for nuclear plant components is likely to have important\n implications for quality in new nuclear plant construction. For example,\n foreign vendors bring new challenges, such as language and cultural\n differences and technical standards that may need adjustments to meet\n code requirements for U.S. reactors. This new global environment makes\n the translation of documents from foreign languages to English an\n essential aspect of the nuclear industry, as NRC and its applicants must\n rely on documents that were originally written in a foreign language.\n\n\nII. PURPOSE\n\n The audit objective was to determine the extent to which NRC provides\n oversight of applicant and licensee new nuclear power plant QA programs.\n The appendix provides information on the audit scope and methodology.\n\n3\n ASME provides many different types of B&PV code certifications for suppliers to nuclear plants and\nother industries. N-type accredited firms supply B&PV code-certified components to nuclear power\nplants, such as vessels, pumps, valves, and other supports. Material organizations supply the\nmaterials\xe2\x80\x94such as tubes, plates, and fasteners\xe2\x80\x94to be used by N-type accredited firms.\n\n\n 5\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\nIII. FINDINGS\n\n NRO conducts reviews of applicant QA programs for new nuclear power\n plant design, construction, and operation, as well as reviews of vendor QA\n programs. Given that the interest to build new nuclear power plants is in\n its infancy, NRO is appropriately focusing on QA as it relates to design\n and procurement activities. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has\n identified areas needing management attention while NRO continues its\n ongoing QA review activities. Specifically:\n\n A. Coordination of QA reviews among NRO branches is informal.\n\n B. NRC\xe2\x80\x99s QA oversight does not include a review for accurate\n translations.\n\n\n A. Coordination of QA Reviews Among NRO Branches Is Informal\n\n The coordination among NRO branches of QA reviews during the license\n application review process, when it occurs, is informal. Sections of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s\n standard review plan\xe2\x80\x94a document to assure the quality and uniformity of\n staff safety reviews\xe2\x80\x94specify that the responsible technical reviewer will\n coordinate the applicable QA reviews with the QA branches. However,\n this coordination is not clearly defined and there is no process in place to\n ensure that it occurs. Consequently, there is no way to verify that the QA\n review coordination has occurred, and therefore that all the QA portions of\n the standard review plan technical chapters have been fully satisfied.\n\n NUREG-0800, the Standard Review Plan\n\n The principal purpose of the standard review plan is to assure the quality\n and uniformity of staff safety reviews. It is intended to be a\n comprehensive and integrated document that provides the reviewer with\n guidance that describes methods or approaches that are acceptable for\n meeting NRC requirements. The standard review plan was also designed\n to make information about regulatory matters widely available as well as to\n improve communication among NRC, interested members of the public,\n and the nuclear power industry, in order to increase understanding of\n NRC\xe2\x80\x99s review process.\n\n The standard review plan was developed from many years of NRC\n experience in establishing and applying safety requirements for various\n nuclear power plant designs. It was first issued in 1975 as a routine tool\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n for NRC staff to use in evaluating nuclear plant designs. According to an\n Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation office instruction, the standard\n review plan was established to document:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 \xe2\x80\x9cthe integrated result of the hundreds of conscious choices made by\n the staff and by the nuclear industry in developing design criteria and\n design requirements for nuclear power plants,\xe2\x80\x9d and\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 \xe2\x80\x9cthe most definitive basis available for specifying the NRC\'s\n interpretation of an acceptable level of safety for light-water reactor\n facilities.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Although the standard review plan is guidance as opposed to a regulation,\n it is NRC management\xe2\x80\x99s expectation that it be used by reviewers, and that\n deviations from its use, if any, be based on consultations between\n reviewers and their supervisors.\n\n QA Review Coordination According to the Standard Review Plan\n\n Sections of the standard review plan specify that the responsible technical\n reviewer will coordinate the applicable QA reviews with the QA branches.\n This coordination is described in the standard review plan in different\n ways, assigning responsibility for the QA review coordination to different\n entities. For example:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Chapter 2, Site Characteristics, specifies that the QA branch reviewers\n will coordinate the review of geotechnical engineering QA aspects with\n the staff members responsible for reviewing the stability of slopes.4\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Chapter 3, Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and\n Systems, specifies that the review for QA is coordinated and\n performed in accordance with the standard review plan chapter 17.5\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Chapter 5, Reactor Coolant System and Connected Systems, specifies\n that the responsible technical reviewer for reactor coolant pump\n flywheels will coordinate with the staff member responsible for\n performing QA.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Chapter 7, Instrumentation and Controls, specifies that parts of the\n chapter 7 review should be coordinated with the QA branches as part\n of the QA branches\xe2\x80\x99 primary review responsibility.\n\n\n\n4\n This refers to the stability of all natural and man-made earth and rock slopes whose failure could\nadversely affect the safety of the nuclear power plant.\n5\n Chapter 17 of the standard review plan is titled, \xe2\x80\x9cQuality Assurance.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n 7\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\nQA Review Coordination Among Branches Is Informal\n\nCoordination of QA reviews among the technical reviewers and the QA\nbranch reviewers, when it occurs, is actually informal communication.\nSome individual reviewers informally communicate through phone calls\nand e-mail, usually to address a specific issue rather than to coordinate a\nQA review. For example, OIG learned that a QA reviewer may ask a\ntechnical reviewer to provide assistance with a technical issue, or to\nparticipate in a QA audit or inspection. Similarly, a technical reviewer may\nhave a question for the QA branch regarding QA requirements. This\ninteraction is dependent on the initiative of an individual reviewer.\n\nOIG attempted to obtain evidence of more formal QA review coordination\namong NRO branches by reviewing safety evaluation reports associated\nwith standard design certification applications. The safety evaluation\nreports contain sections that correspond to sections in the standard review\nplan. The reports are intended to describe the staff\xe2\x80\x99s safety review,\nfindings, and conclusions. OIG reviewed selected final and draft sections\nof various safety evaluation reports and found that none documented any\ncoordination of QA review. Some of these reports described the use of\nQA guidance and regulations, but otherwise did not indicate that any QA\nreview coordination occurred.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n\nFigure 3: Cutaway View of the U.S. EPR Standard Design\n\n\n\n\n Source: NRC public Web site.\n\nNo Definition of or Process for QA Review Coordination\n\nThere is no definition of, or process for, the QA review coordination\ndescribed in the standard review plan. Specifically, NRO staff members\ncould not explain what QA review coordination means or how it is\nsupposed to occur. There is no definition in the standard review plan that\nclarifies what is meant by QA review coordination, nor are there any office\ninstructions explaining the coordination language. NRO staff also could\nnot identify any system that alerts license application reviewers of the\nnecessity of QA review coordination.\n\nMoreover, some staff members were either unaware of the QA review\ncoordination language in the standard review plan, or opted not to follow it\ndue to a lack of understanding of what it means or what is expected. One\nNRO manager pointed out that QA review coordination may be necessary.\nHowever, the manager added that coordination, when it occurs, is more\nthe exception rather than the rule. Another NRO manager said that there\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\nwould be no way for the QA branch reviewers to become aware of the\nexpectation to coordinate with the technical branches unless they read the\nentire standard review plan, which the manager said is unreasonable.\n\nQA Review of Technical Chapters Cannot Be Verified\n\nWithout a definition of, or process for, QA review coordination, there is no\nway to verify that any necessary coordination between branches has\noccurred. The QA review coordination described in the standard review\nplan cannot be ensured due to the fact that it is not defined in the first\nplace. Therefore, there is no way to know if all QA aspects of the\nstandard review plan have been satisfied. This could cause missed\nopportunities for component-specific QA reviews. This is important\nbecause the QA program is the primary measure used by the nuclear\nindustry to provide assurance that errors are found and corrected.\n\nFor example, the standard review plan specifies that the responsible\ntechnical reviewer for a certain safety-related system will coordinate with\nthe staff members responsible for performing QA. The QA review of this\nsystem is important because the component\xe2\x80\x99s failure would have\nsignificant safety consequences, as it could lead to possible damage to\nthe reactor coolant system, the containment, or the engineered safety\nfeatures. The draft safety evaluation report for a standard design\ncertification application makes no mention of a QA review for this safety-\nrelated system. Because it is unclear what is meant by QA review\ncoordination, there is no way to verify that all QA portions of the standard\nreview plan have been met. One reviewer responsible for this safety-\nrelated system stated that QA was not reviewed as part of the evaluation.\nTherefore, because NRC has not performed a QA review for this safety-\nrelated system, the agency unnecessarily accepts increased risk that this\nsystem may not be able to perform its safety-related function.\n\nRecommendations:\n\nOIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations:\n\n1. Clearly define the QA review coordination requirements of the standard\n review plan.\n\n2. Develop a process for reviewers to coordinate QA reviews and a\n method to determine that the QA coordination has occurred.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n B. NRC\xe2\x80\x99s QA Oversight Does Not Include a Review for Accurate\n Translations\n\n NRC\xe2\x80\x99s oversight of applicant and licensee QA programs and activities\n does not include a review for accurate document translations. Translation\n service companies and an international translation guide emphasize the\n importance of QA for translations. However, NRC has not fully assessed\n the impact of translated document quality on QA oversight. Consequently,\n NRC and its new nuclear power plant applicants and licensees could be\n relying on inaccurate translations. Furthermore, the accuracy of translated\n documents used for design, construction, and operation of new nuclear\n power plants could be called into question.\n\n The Importance of QA for Translations\n\n Translation service companies and an international translation guide\n emphasize the importance of QA for translations. Applying a QA process\n to translations can help ensure that the translation is accurate and meets\n the needs of the requester.\n\n ASTM International, one of the largest voluntary standards development\n organizations in the world, provides an important new guide for the\n professional translation industry and its clients. The Standard Guide for\n Quality Assurance in Translation defines translation as the \xe2\x80\x9cprocess\n comprising the creation of a written target text based on a source text in\n such a way that the content . . . can be considered to be equivalent.\xe2\x80\x9d6 The\n guide notes that translation QA includes writing clear translation\n specifications and adhering to them throughout the process. It provides\n that translation quality is the degree to which the translation fulfills the\n specifications of the customer. The guide also identifies attributes of\n quality language translation services, which include selecting the\n appropriate translator(s), utilizing specific methodologies for editing and\n formatting the translation, and undertaking proofreading and verification\n steps.\n\n Translation service companies also use QA processes that include\n translation by a professional translator, editing by a native language\n speaker, and proofreading. Additionally, translation service companies\n and translators stated that when translating a highly technical document,\n knowledge of that subject matter is key. Moreover, some translation\n experts contend that translations of foreign language documents into\n English should be produced by translators whose native language is\n English.\n\n6\n Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation, Designation F 2575-06, ASTM International,\napproved May 1, 2006, published June 2006.\n\n\n 11\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n NRC Does Not Verify QA for Translations\n\n NRC\xe2\x80\x99s QA oversight for new nuclear power plants does not include\n verifying whether applicants, licensees, and vendors assure the quality of\n translations. This includes documents submitted to NRC as part of an\n application review or inspection activity, as well as documents submitted\n to applicants and licensees from vendors. Individual NRC staff members\n had varying opinions regarding the applicability of Title 10 CFR Part 50,\n Appendix B QA criteria to translations. Most NRC staff members\n interviewed during this audit did not consider the quality of translations to\n be covered by Appendix B, particularly for licensing activities.7 However,\n some staff members and managers acknowledged that there may be\n instances where Appendix B does apply to translation.\n\n Given the current industry reliance on foreign vendors and sub-suppliers\n for the design and manufacture of safety-related components, such as\n reactor vessels, the accuracy of translated design basis and other\n documentation, such as technical manuals, becomes more relevant for\n applicants/licensees and NRC alike. Indeed, OIG discovered one large\n nuclear vendor with a QA procedure for translation that it uses in-house for\n foreign language document translation. The vendor does not, however,\n apply the same QA procedure to its foreign suppliers, and simply requires\n its suppliers to provide documentation in English, without regard for the\n translation process.\n\n Like applicants and licensees, NRC relies on translated documents to\n conduct QA oversight activities. During new nuclear power plant licensing\n and inspection,8 NRC staff sometimes need documents to be translated\n from a foreign language into English. For example, NRC staff requested\n that a vendor supplying the digital instrumentation and control system for a\n new nuclear power plant design translate several documents from\n Japanese into English. Also, one NRC QA inspector told OIG that during\n inspections in France and Spain, each vendor translated documentation\n into English for the purposes of the inspections. Furthermore, in\n anticipation of an upcoming NRC inspection of a Japanese vendor working\n for new nuclear power plant applicants, an inspector said that the vendor\n would need to translate all its audits into English.\n\n\n\n7\n According to NRC managers, NRC reviews application information in English no matter the source of\nthat information. Any license granted would be based on the information provided in the English\ndocumentation. Managers stated that if a licensee misrepresented information in an application due to an\nerroneous translation of a licensing document, the licensee would have to apply to NRC for a licensing\namendment.\n8\n NRC conducts QA oversight through licensing activities, which includes reviewing combined license\napplications and certified design applications, as well as inspections of combined license applicants\xe2\x80\x99 and\nvendors\xe2\x80\x99 implementation of QA.\n\n\n 12\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n In isolated instances, some NRC staff members attempted to verify\n translated documents, but through inadequate means such as comparing\n word and page counts and document formats between the source and the\n translation. One NRC staff member said that NRC document translations\n are reviewed by counting the number of words in the source document\n and the translated document. Another NRC staff member said that the\n accuracy of a document translated from a foreign language and submitted\n to NRC is sometimes verified by comparing the graphics and numbers in\n the source document and the translated document. Comparing the\n similarity of graphics and numbers or counting words in the two versions\n does not assure that the translation accurately reflects the message of the\n source document.\n\n NRC Has Not Assessed Impact of Translated Document Quality\n\n NRC has not fully assessed the impact of translated document quality on\n QA oversight. On the whole, NRC has undertaken some efforts to assess\n impacts of the changing nuclear industry on its vendor inspection\n program.9 However, NRC has not assessed how translated documents\n from foreign providers of safety-related systems might impact the quality of\n safety-related components supplied to new nuclear power plant applicants\n and licensees in the United States.\n\n Many suppliers of designs and major components are based in foreign\n countries where English is not the predominant language. For example,\n as of June 2009, the reactor pressure vessel closure head and three\n complex steam generator parts for the AP1000 standard design could only\n be manufactured by firms in Korea and Japan. NRO managers were not\n aware of any formal activity where NRC analyzed the impact of\n documents translated into English for NRC\xe2\x80\x99s licensing and inspection\n purposes.\n\n\n\n\n9\n See, for example, SECY-07-0105: Enhancement to the Vendor Inspection Program within the Office of\nNew Reactors.\n\n\n 13\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n Figure 4: Cutaway View of the AP1000 Pressurized Water\n Reactor Standard Design\n\n\n\n\nSource: NRC public Web site.\n\n NRC and Applicants Could Rely on Inaccurate Translations\n\n NRC and its new nuclear power plant applicants could be relying on\n inaccurate translations and, thus, the accuracy of documents used for\n design, construction, and operation of new nuclear power plants could be\n called into question. Without applying a QA process to document\n translation, there is no way to be certain that a document translated into\n English meets the customer\xe2\x80\x99s requirements. This could result in NRC\n basing licensing decisions on inaccurate documents.\n\n During the course of licensing and inspections for new nuclear power\n plants, NRC staff members discovered documents written awkwardly in\n English. This could be a result of a faulty translation. For example, one\n NRO technical reviewer described encountering translation problems,\n including broken English. Similarly, an NRO manager described an\n instance where NRC technical staff members were frustrated when\n reviewing a standard design certification application with obvious\n translation problems. Awkwardly written English documents may be an\n\n\n 14\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\nindicator of a faulty translation, and NRC should continue to identify these\nerrors to applicants and vendors submitting the translated documents to\nNRC. However, an awkwardly written English document is not the only\nindicator of poor translation. Word choice in a translated document\nreveals nothing about the qualifications of the translator or the efficacy of\nthe review process, if any, applied to the translation. Therefore, without a\nmeans to ensure quality translations, nuclear power plant applicants and\nNRC may be missing instances where documents are written in English\nwith correct style and grammar, but do not accurately reflect the meaning\nof the source document.\n\nRecommendations:\n\nOIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations:\n\n3. Determine how the quality of translated documents impacts:\n\n a). NRC and industry ability to assess the quality of foreign-supplied\n safety-related parts and services to new nuclear power plants.\n\n b). NRC and industry QA oversight, including licensing and\n inspection activities.\n\n4. Incorporate results of the assessments into NRC\xe2\x80\x99s QA oversight\n activities.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\nIV. CONCLUSION\n\n The early stages of new nuclear power plant licensing present an\n opportunity for NRC and industry to improve QA oversight and therefore\n reduce the likelihood of problems during construction and operation. Even\n at this early stage, there are some challenges associated with\n implementation of the regulatory vision articulated in Part 52, as well as\n ongoing changes in the nuclear industry and global supply chain. In the\n spirit of engaging these early challenges at an opportune moment, OIG\n has identified areas needing management attention, such as QA review\n coordination and document translation.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\nV. AGENCY COMMENTS\n\n On August 25, 2009, OIG provided a draft report to the Executive Director\n for Operations. OIG held an exit conference with the agency on\n September 1, 2009. During that meeting agency management provided\n informal comments to the draft report. Also, on September 8, 2009, OIG\n held an additional meeting with NRC staff to discuss the agency\xe2\x80\x99s informal\n comments to the draft report.\n\n On September 24, 2009, OIG provided the agency a final draft report, and\n on October 1, 2009, the agency declined to provide any formal comments.\n The final report incorporates revisions made, where applicable, as a result\n of meetings with NRC staff.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\nVI. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations:\n\n 1. Clearly define the QA review coordination requirements of the standard\n review plan.\n\n 2. Develop a process for reviewers to coordinate QA reviews and a\n method to determine that the QA coordination has occurred.\n\n 3. Determine how the quality of translated documents impacts:\n\n a). NRC and industry ability to assess the quality of foreign-supplied\n safety-related parts and services to new nuclear power plants.\n\n b). NRC and industry QA oversight, including licensing and inspection\n activities.\n\n 4. Incorporate results of the assessments into NRC\xe2\x80\x99s QA oversight\n activities.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n Appendix\nSCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\n The audit objective was to determine the extent to which NRC provides\n oversight of applicant and licensee new nuclear power plant QA programs.\n To address the audit objective, OIG observed three NRC QA\n implementation inspections, which include NRC\xe2\x80\x99s review of the applicants\xe2\x80\x99\n oversight of vendors according to certain Title 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix\n B criteria. OIG also reviewed NRC regulations and guidance, and\n interviewed NRC staff members and industry officials. Additionally, OIG\n identified and reviewed QA-related reports, reviewed nuclear and\n translation industry standards, and analyzed NRC QA implementation\n audit and inspection reports. Some of the key documents reviewed\n include:\n\n \xef\x83\x98 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety\n Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants.\n\n \xef\x83\x98 NUREG-1055, Improving Quality and the Assurance of Quality in the\n Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants: A Report to\n Congress.\n\n \xef\x83\x98 Title 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization\n Facilities.\n\n \xef\x83\x98 Title 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for\n Nuclear Power Plants.\n\n \xef\x83\x98 Inspection Manual Chapter 2502, Construction Inspection Program:\n Pre-Combined License (Pre-COL) Phase.\n\n \xef\x83\x98 Inspection Procedure 35017, Quality Assurance Implementation\n Inspection.\n\n \xef\x83\x98 Management Directive 3.12, Handling and Disposition of Foreign\n Documents and Translations.\n\n \xef\x83\x98 Regulatory Guide 1.28, Quality Assurance Program Requirements\n (Design and Construction).\n\n \xef\x83\x98 Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements\n (Operation).\n\n \xef\x83\x98 NRC Information Notices.\n\n \xef\x83\x98 Agency Office Instructions.\n\n\n 19\n\x0c Audit of NRC\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Assurance Planning for New Reactors\n\n\n\n\n\xef\x83\x98 QA implementation audit and inspection plans and reports.\n\n\xef\x83\x98 Nuclear industry QA standards and translation industry standards.\n\n\xef\x83\x98 Commissioners\xe2\x80\x99 speeches and NRC press releases.\n\nAuditors conducted interviews with 47 agency and industry employees,\nincluding NRC managers and staff members at headquarters and one\nregion, members of the nuclear industry, and members of the translation\nindustry.\n\nOIG conducted this audit at NRC headquarters, one region, and selected\nnew nuclear power plant applicants\xe2\x80\x99 facilities between December 2008\nand July 2009 in accordance with generally accepted Government\nauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the\naudit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable\nbasis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We\nbelieve that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our\nfindings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\nMajor contributors to this report were Sherri Miotla, Team Leader;\nR.K. Wild, Audit Manager; Kevin Nietmann, Technical Advisor;\nMichael Zeitler, Senior Management Analyst; Rebecca Ryan,\nManagement Analyst; and Vidya Sathyamoorthy, Student Management\nAnalyst.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
David Hubert (Ukkel, 12 ta' Frar 1988) huwa plejer tal-futbol Belġjan li jilgħab bħala midfilder ma' Zulte Waregem
 Bijografija
 Hubert għamel id-debutt tiegħu fi Frar tal-2008 f'logħba kontra KVC Westerlo. Fid-19 ta' Mejju 2011 kien imsejjaħ fl-iskwadra Belġjana għall-kwalifiki tal-Kampjonati Ewropej kontra t-Turkija.
 Unuri
 Klabb
 Genk
 L-Ewwel Diviżjoni Belġjana: 2010–11
 Tazza Belġjana: 2008–09
 Supercup Belġjana: 2011
 Referenzi
 Ħoloq esterni
 Profil fuq Transfermarkt
 Twieldu fl-1988
 Nies ħajjin
 Futbolers Belġjani
 Plejers ta' KV Mechelen
 Plejers ta' KRC Genk
 Plejers ta' KAA Gent
 Plejers tal-Ewwel Diviżjoni Belġjana


text:
Lindisfārna ir šaura zemes strēle Nortambrijā, Ziemeļanglijā, kuru divreiz dienā no krasta šķir Ziemeļjūras paisums. Bēguma laikā uz salas iespējams nokļūt kājām.
 Salu slavenu vispirms padarīja ķeltu mūks Eidans, kurš ap 635. gadu pēc karaļa Osvalda pieprasījuma dibināja klosteri. No šejienes tika sekmīgi evaņģelizēta Ziemeļanglija, kā arī tika nosūtīta veiksmīga misija uz Anglijas vidieni. Pēc tam Lindisfārnu slavenu darīja Lindisfārnas evaņģēlijs. Šajā grāmatā ir neticami krāšņas ilustrācijas. Grāmata tiek dēvēta par Nortambrijas renesanses šedevru. Slavenais Lindisfārnas evaņģēlijs tapis neilgi pirms 700. gada. Tajā redzams krusts, kuru veido apbrīnojami skaists, mežģīnēm līdzīgs raksts no fantastiskās formās savītiem pūķu un čūsku gredzeniem, kas atrodas uz vēl sarežģītāk ornamentēta fona. Ir ārkārtīgi aizraujoši mēģināt orientēties šajā galvu reibinošajā labirintā un vēl pārsteidzošāk atklāt, ka šie raksti nerada vis nepārskatāmu jucekli, bet gan līniju un krāsu harmoniju.
 Grūti pat iedomāties cilvēku, kuram būtu piemitusi tik bagāta iztēle un bezgalīga pacietība savas ieceres īstenošanā.
 793. gadā notikušais vikingu uzbrukums klosterim, kas bija pirmais vikingu iebrukums Lielbritānijā, iezīmē Vikingu laika sākumu Lielbritānijas vēsturē. Pēc atkārtotiem uzbrukumiem mūki pameta klosteri 875. gadā, bet tiem izdevās izvest Lindisfārnas evaņģēliju, kamēr citi dārgumi tika izlaupīti. Benediktīniešu mūki jaunu klosteri iepriekšējā vietā uzcēla 11. gadsimtā. 1540. gadā no klostera akmeņiem tika uzbūvēta Lindisfārnas pils, bet 1903. gadā tā pārveidota par dzīvojamo ēku, kurai piekļaujas mūru ieskauts dārzs.
 Ārējās saites
 Lindisfārnas svētā sala
 Northumbrian association Lindisfarne Gospels
 Anglijas vēsture
 Anglijas salas
 Apvienotās Karalistes kultūrvēsturiskie pieminekļi