IR 05000029/1986017
| ML20214V584 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1986 |
| From: | Eapen P, Hunter J, Ruscitto D, Winters R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214V556 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-86-17, 50-29-86-17, NUDOCS 8612090748 | |
| Download: ML20214V584 (16) | |
Text
-
,
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-029/86-17 Docket No.50-029 License No. DPR 3 Licensee:
Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham Massachusetts 01701 Facility Name: Yankee Rowe Inspection At: Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection Dates: September 29 - October 3,1986 is)El %b Inspectors:
~
i R. W. Winters, Reactor Engineer date
)ll38 %
'
-
G.'H6nter III, Reactor Engineer date /
k 8b ti 2.
i D. Ruscitto, Restbent Inspector, Seabrook date M
/d Il Approved by:
-
.
Dr. P. K. Eapen, Chieff Quality Assurance date '
/
Section, Operations Branch, DRS, RI Inspection Summary: Routine unannounced inspection on September 29 - October 3, 1986 (Report No. 50-029/86-17)
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection on September 29 - October 3, 1986 by two region based inspectors and one Resident inspector to assess the overall effectiveness of the licensee's Quality Control (QC) Group activities, as well as the Quality Assurance (QA) audit, procurement, material receipt, and storage programs.
Results: One violation for failure to follow procedures with multiple examples.
%k b
.
O
_
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Yankee Atomic Energy Company
- L. Bozek, Quality Control Supervisor
- R. Dobosz, Storekeeper D. Ellis, Technical Services Engineer
- N. Fetherston, Chemistry Manager
- M. Gilmore, Quality Assurance Department
- T. Henderson, Technical Director
- K. Jurentkuff, Plant Assistant Operations Manager
- J. Kay, Technical Services Manager
- P. Laird, Maintenance Manager
- T. Long. Quality Assurance Department
- A. Shepard, Director of Quality AsvJrance
- R. Wellor, Chemistry Manager
- B. Wood, Adminietrative Service Manager United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- L. Bettenhausen, Chief, Operations Branch
- Irdicates those who attended the exit meeting on September 19, 1986
The inspectors also interviewed other site personnel during the inspection.
2.0 Introduction, Methodology, and Results 2.1 Introduction In Inspection Report 50-029/85-01 the NRC identified inconsistencies between the licensee's approved quality control inspection procedures and the implemented " peer" quality control inspection program.
The licensee's failure to adhere to procedures was classified a violation.
In response to this violation, the licensee established a Quality Control Group, under the Quality Assurance Department, to ensure, through an inspection program that quality assurance requirements were met.
2.2 Inspection Methodology The effectiveness of the licensee's QA and QC activities was assessed by reviewing purchasing, receiving, stores, maintenance and surveillance activities and the QA/QC overview of these activities. Audit reports, purchase orders, receiving reports, and QC inspection reports were reviewed for adequacy and completeness,
. __ _
._
_ _ _ _ _
._.
._.
__
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
_
_ __ - - _.
..
.
.
.
2.3 Inspection Results One violation with multiple examples was identified and is discussed in paragraph 3.2.
3.0 Quality Control Program 3.1 QC Group The QC Group is responsible for monitoring and inspecting safety-related plant maintenance, modification, surveillance, design change, rad-waste, and operations activities to verify adherence to quality assurance requirements. The QC Group consists of a Supervisor and three inspectors. The licensee plans to add a fourth inspector in 1987. The QC SLpervisor considers his staff to be adequate to cover operations activities. Provisions are available to increase the QC staff with corporate inspection personnel during outage periods.
The inspectors verified that the staffing is adequate based on the extent of inspection coverage of maintenance, operations, rad-waste, and surveillance activities.
A schedule of planned surveillances is maintained by the QC group.
QC inspection coverage is provided based on inspector availability.
Design changes installed by the plant personnel and unapproved vendors are monitored through QC inspection. The QC group inspects various maintenance activities including vibration monitoring,
inservice testing, equipment history review, preventive maintenance, and dimensional clearance checks. All safety-related
.
MRs are reviewed by QC upon initiation and final closecut. Selected maintenance request related activities receive QC field inspection.
The QC Group also inspects control room logs for adequacy and document control. These inspections include biweekly reviews of the Switching and Tagging Equipment Control, and Lifted Lead Logs, and a bimonthly field verification of information contained in the logs. A controlled document review is also performed quarterly to ensure the accuracy, location and condition of various logs, including the maintenance request, operating, special order,
'
station and key logs. The QC Group also performs inspections of
rad-waste solidification, packaging, and transportation related activities.
The QC Group's activities are specifically covered 'y two
procedures. AP-0209, " Inspections", establishes the measures for inspection of quality assurance related activities to verify conformance with approved procedures, drawings, and specifications.
0QA-X-5, " Quality Control Inspections" provides instructions and requirements for performing inspections of site activities including maintenance, modifications, surveillances and tests.
,
!
,,,_
~
-
-.
.,... -,-
, - _, -.. ~. - _ ~ - - _ -,. -
, - ~ -.
~,
.
.
.
.
AP-0209 requires inspection of safety-related activities in accordance with approved written procedures that establish the requirements, acceptance limits, and inspection responsibilities.
The procedure also requires that the inspection results be evaluated to determine that the inspection demonstrated that the plant can be operated safely as designed.
The 0QA-X-5 procedure instructs the QC inspectors to review all Maintenance Requests (MR), to assign hold / notification points based on a review of repair plans or procedures to be utilized and, to ensure that the correct safety classification has been assigned. The QC group shall maintain a log to track the initial review, hold /
notification point establishment, inspection, and final QC review.
The 00A-X-5 procedure requires for actual field inspection that the QC personnel witness and document that hold / notification points have been adhered to; note on the inspection form any noncompliance to instructions or acceptance criteria; notify plant management of the need for corrective action; and record when corrective action has been completed. 0QA-X-5 also requires that the QC inspector perform a final review of the completed MR package to verify that procedures utilized are complete, accurate and correct; hold / notification points are met; and references to Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) used, material used and tests performed are included in the package.
The QC inspectors are also responsible for reporting to management any deficiencies or deviations they identify during the final revie,w and documenting such on the inspection report.
3.2 QC program Implementation To asses the effectiveness of the QC inspection and review of maintenance, surveillance, and other plant activities the inspectors interviewed QC personnel and reviewed the applicable procedures, selected safety related MRs, completed surveillance procedures and QC inspection reports listed in Attachment 1.
The inspectors reviewed various Quality Control Inspection Reports (QCIRs), however, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the inspections were performed in accordance with approved written procedures that establish the requirements, acceptance limits, and inspection responsibilities. There are some general QC inspection guidelines for conditions where there are no plant procedures, but their use in the field was infrequent and rarely documented on the QCIR. The QC personnel use applicable plant raintenance and surveillance work procedures to verify the adeauacy of the work. QC considered this inspection method an acceptable practice and felt that no other inspection guidance was warranted. However, this practice is contrary to the requirements of AP-209 and constitutes the first example of a violation for failure to follow procedures.
(50-029/86-17-01)
-
-
.
-
.
.
!
-
,
f
c.
No QC hold points were identified in the MR packages reviewed and the only QC notification points established were at the start of
.
.
the work.
This is due to the fact that the QC review is conducted
~
prior to the review by the Maintenance Department to determine the.
,
instructions or procedures to be used to accomplish the work. Since e
specific work activities have not yet been identified at the time
,
of this QC review, the basis for their judgement on what hold points are appropriate is limited to the information provided by the MR originator. This is often merely a statement of the problem. The inspectors also noted that no hold points were
'
inserted after the start of work. The failure to invoke hold points deemed necessary for inspection based on a review of repair plans or procedures is inconsistent with the requirements of 0QA-X-5. This
,
is another example of the violation for failure to follow procedures.
"
,
(50-029/86-17-01)
i
The inspectors reviewed the QC inspection log and determined that
for approximately seven percent of the MRs, QC was not notified prior to the start of work. As a result, some QC inspections were not performed. The inspector was also informed by a QC inspector
that there had been instances where QC notification was made after-
-
,
the start of work. The QC Supervisor identified the problems
-
regarding QC notification and generated a three way memo to the Maintenance Department to address them.
<
AP-0209 requires that inspection results be evaluated to determine whether the inspection demonstrates that the plant can be safely
'
operated. There was no evioence that all of the QCIRs-receive any management review or evaluation. The QC Supervisor stated that he
,
seldom reviews QCIRs, and that they are sent to document control or the cognizant department upon completion of the final review by the QC inspectors.
This indicates that QC inspectors are the only personnel that review and evaluate all QCIRs prior to final closecut. The lack of management review and evaluation of the QCIRs
"
is considered a weakness of the QC program.
The post maintenance review of the MR packages and completed
surveillance procedures, referred to as final review on the QCIR, was signed off in all cases. However, a QC inspector and the QC Supervisor were unsure as to how the inspection report final review section should be completed and its significance, even after ten months of program implementation. As a result, a qualitative QC final review of work packages and completed surveillance procedures was not documented and deviations existing at the time of the review were not always identified.
,. - - -,,
.
,..
- - - - - -.,,,.
,-
,
--- -,
.
-
.
.
.
,
hE
"
..
%
-
'y
,
J Only two of twenty five QCIRs reviewed had reported deviations
.
other than the failure to notify QC prior to start of work.
.
'
Several of the work practices noted below were possible topics for
'
.
identification as deviations,
.,
t
-
,
(1) Water was added to a safety related diesel fire pump battery
,
y,
/.
during a surveillance test, OP-4565, without any MR,
'
.?
procedure, record, notification, approval or quality assurance
- '
47 d r'
measures. The QC inspector noted the activity on his QCIR.
'.
Otherwise the action would have never been documented. The QC
inspector, however, did not identify that the work performed without approval, an MR, or documentation was a deviation.
,
'
(2) MR 86-471, Replacement of the air motor for a safety related Main Steam (MS) Non-Return Valve (NRV) and MR 86-825, refurbishment of spare hydraulic pump for NRV were performed without any procedural controls. The Maintenance Manager stated that his policy was not to reference vendor technical manuals because of the difficulty in controlling updates of the material. Although discussion with the technician who performed the maintenance verified his knowledge with respect to the NRV, this policy is not in accordance with AP-0214,
" Maintenance and Changes of Safety Classified Systems, Components, or Structures " and allows maintenance to be performed without identification of appropriate precautions and limitations and without specific guidance of acceptance criteria. The Maintenance Manager also informed the inspector that the work in question required only skills normally possessed by maintenance personnel and therefore no procedure was necessary. The QC inspection report did not identify the lack of procedural controls as a deviation.
(3) During performance of surveillance OP-4216 on 5/13/86 HV-SOV-2 would not close. The licensee stopped the surveillance and noted that it failed due to HV-SOV-2 being inoperable. Both the NRC and QC were notified of the failed surveillance. MR 86-717 was initiated to address the problem. However, no maintenance work was documented, instead the MR documented that the surveillance test was run again on 5/14/86 and the valve closed. The MR was cancelled due to the fact that the retest surveillance revealed that HV-S0V-2 worked properly.
QC was not notified of the start of retesting. The QC inspector did not question the practice of retesting rather than performing maintenance.
'
-
-
,,
,
.
.
+
,
Subsequent to the inspection, the M censee informed the inspector that the spool piece adjacent to the valve was hy removed and the valve seat was visually examined for any
obstructions that would have prevented the valve from closing.
.,
'
No obstructions were found and operations exercised the valve successfully. The lack of documentation of the work performed n.
is indicative of poor practice and inconsistent with the s
requirements of AP-205.
(4) MR86-703was-initiathdbecausethe#2VitalBusInverter voltage was low. The work performed to address the problem was to check the AC, output with a ca71brated volt meter. The volt meter read 120 Molts and the inverter meter read 119 volts at the time of the retest.
The MR was then signed off as completed with static electricity listed as a possible cause of the low reading.
The;NRC inspector obtained a copy of the operators log for the date in question and noted that low voltage values of 114 volts at 1300 hours0.015 days <br />0.361 hours <br />0.00215 weeks <br />4.9465e-4 months <br /> and 115 volts at 1500 hours0.0174 days <br />0.417 hours <br />0.00248 weeks <br />5.7075e-4 months <br /> were recorded and the voltage at 1700 hours0.0197 days <br />0.472 hours <br />0.00281 weeks <br />6.4685e-4 months <br /> was 119
'
volts and back within acceptable limits. QC was not notified o
of the start of work. Additionally the QC inspector did not question, during the final review cycle of the MR, why an adequate evaluation was not performed to determine the cause
'
of the icw voltage.
s (5) MR 86-259 was initiated because valve EBF-MOV-5S6 main control
"
bo'ard indication showed the valve closed before it was completely closed. To address the problem operations stroked the valve and flow tested the system.
The above situation could not be duplicated. No flow was sensed when the valve was closed and flow tested. Based on this, the MR was signed off as comphte.
Possible, reasons for the #aulty indication were recorded on the MR but there is no detailed evaluation of the actual cause"of the situation. QC was present during the stroking of the valve and recorded the time on there QCIR.
However, there was no retest procedure or data referenced on the MR for the valve stroke or the flow test performed. The final QC review did not identify tht the retest procedure was not recorded in the MR package or that an adequate evaluation of the cause of the situation was not performed.
(6) While reviewing MR 86-561, concerning the repair of a safety related spare circuit breaker for Emergency MCC3, the inspector noted that certain retesting was not performed because the megger was offsite for calibration. After repeated requests by the inspector to review the follow-up test results, the licensee indicated that no retest was required since it was a spare breaker.
MR 86-561 was
.
.
.
. _.
-_
_
.
_______ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
completed in April 1986 and reviewed in June 1986. The inspector could find no evidence that the retest had been conducted as required or would be conducted in the future.
This was also reviewed by QC but there was no deviation written to address the lack of retest for the completed and signed MR.
AP-0205, " Maintenance Request", establishes the guidelines for proper generation, identification and control of Maintenance Requests. The procedure states in part, "...Any maintenance performed on systems, components, or structures that require quality assurance utilizing materials, parts, replacement components or documentation shall necessitate the implementation of a Maintenance Request...".
The following list of deficiencies, including those mentioned above, were identified by the NRC inspectors while reviewing the MRs and QCIRs listed in attachment 1.
MR 86-772A work instruction not documented in OP-5103 MR 86-259 retest procedure used not documented MR 86-770 form APF-0205.2 not fully complete MR 86-561 retest not performed MR 86-717 description of work performed not documented MR 86-801 description of the material used not documented OP-4565 MR not written to document work The above examples indicate inadequate implementation of the requirements of AP-205. This is another example of the violation for failure to follow procedures.
(50-029/86-17-01)
The lack of QC identified concerns regarding the work practices mentioned above indicates that QC inspectors accept the practices of plant personnel without independently identifying or questioning deviations from specific requirements. It also appears that QC is reluctant to write deviations during the final review since this would effect the MR process. OQA-X-5 provides guidance on the conduct of QC inspections and how the QCIR is prepared. The documentation of field inspection and final review activities reviewed by the NRC inspectors indicates that the QC inspectors merely document their observations without evaluating and reporting noncompliances ade-quately. Furthermore, the QC inspectors stated that they were rarely informed when retests would be performed by operations and that they did not always review the completed procedures used to accomplish the retest if it was not enclosed in the MR package. The failure to review all of the procedures used to accomplish the MR reiated and surveillance activities and the failure to identify and document the above deviations is contrary to the requirements of 0QA-X-5 and another example of the violation for failure to follow procedures.
(50-029/86-17-01)
- _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
\\
.
.
.
The Yankee Equipment Classification Manual states that repair items such as gaskets and lubricants which support the operation of safety class equipment shall be covered by the Operational QA Program. Charging Pump No.1 (P15-1) is a Safety Class 2 component.
It was repaired under MR 86-801. The repair consisted of adding hydraulic fluid to the pump coupling.
The type of fluid added was never documented on the MR.
Further discussion with the Maintenance Department indicated that the fluid used was Sunvil
- 921 011. This is turbine lubricating oil and was procured under a Material and Service Purchase Request without any Quality Assurance program applied. The Yankee Atomic Operational Quality Assurance Manual requires the plant to be responsible for the storage of lubricants and other consumables and the maintenance of traceability of their use. The licensee position on whether the operational QA Program applies to this lubricant is not consistent with the Equipment Classification Manual. Although Administrative Procedure AP-0211 entitled " Material and Service Procurement Program" provides such controls, they were not, in this case, implemented because the lubricant was normally purchased in bulk for use in the main turbine generator.
It is not known what other lubricants or spare parts for safety related equipment may be similarly treated. The failure to maintain the lubricant in accordance with the QA program requirements for controlling issuance and storage and maintaining traceability is a failure to follow the Yankee Atomic Operational 0A Manual as required by the Equipment Classification Manual. This is another example of the violation for failure to follow procedures.
(50-029/86-17-01)
3.3 Conclusions I
Several deficiencies were noted in the implementation of the MR program.
The scope of these deficiencies ranges from minor such as missing data and information or unidentified M&TE to significant such as omitted retesting, not using procedures, no traceability of materials, no notification of QA prior to start of work and failing to perform in depth reviews of defective conditions to determine root causes. These deficiencies collectively indicate a weakness in the licensee's maintenance request program, especially with regard to attentiveness to documentation requirements.
The observations made with respect to implementation of the QC program taken collectively provide indication that the Quality Control Program is not yet being conducted in accordance with procedural requirements. The lack of management review of all QCIRs; the lack of understanding the significance and method of completing the final review section of the QCIRs; and the failure to identify that QC inspection procedures were not implemented as written are indicative of weak QC management involvenent to assure
-.
_
.
.
.
quality. Management's position that the QA program does not apply to certain consumables, such as the lubricant for the charging pumps, is not consistent with the Equipment Classification manual.
It appears that the licensee has not effectively identified the structures, systems, and components covered by the QA program especially in those cases where only certain portions of the safety class equipment are to be under the program.
4.0 Audit Program and Audit Program Implementation 4.1 Program Review Organizational charts, plans, schedules and procedures were reviewed and discussed with licensee personnel to verify the following:
a.
That audit schedules have been developed and are being implemented as required by the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and Quality Assurance Topical Report (QATR).
b.
That audit reports were written in a timely manner and responses were received from the audited organizations as required by commitments to codes and standards described in the FSAR and QATR were adequate, and timely.
c.
That audit reports and checklists include the appropriate attributes to be audited and include requirements for reaudit of identified deficiencies.
d.
That follow up actions are taken to assure audited organizations are correcting previously identified deficiencies.
4.2 Iruplementation and Organization Auditing of the Yankee Rowe operations is performed by personnel from the Yankee Atomic Energy Company (YAEC), Framingham, Ma.
Quality Assurance organization in accordance with procedure AP-0208, "In Plant Audits". An audit schedule showing the audit
,
number and scheduled date is published annually and updated
~
periodica11y as audits are performed. Audits are normally announced to the audited organization and conducted by one to three qualified auditors, supplemented by technical specialists as required, using comprehensive checklists for each audit.
- --
.-
. _
-
-
-
..
-
.
.
.
Preliminary results are discussed with personnel of the audited organization at the end of the audit.
Reports are issued in a timely manner, usually within thirty days of the end of the audit.
The inspector reviewed audit reports SYR85-103, Y-85-02, Y-85-03, Y-85-07, Y-85-08, Y-86-02, Y-86-08, Y-86-11, Y-86-15, Y-86-16, Y-86-18, and Y-86-19 to verify audited organizations were responding in accordance with FSAR commitments. The responses were timely either as a direct answer to the audit or as a request for additional time to respond to items of a complex nature.
However the auditor closed a deficiency reported in audit Y-86-18
" Inspection and Test" relating to revision of procedure AP-0209 without verifying the procedure had actually been revised. As of the date of this inspection this procedure had not been revised to incorporate the auditors comments.
Tracking of audit findings and deficiencies is by computer on the
" Summary and Status of Corrective Action - In Plant Audit" report.
This report provides a printout of audits and the status of findings. This report is updated monthly, items that have been closed are listed on the report the month following closure and then purged from subsequent reports. A review of this report and associated audit reports indicated observations and deficiencies found during audits are closed in a timely manner commensurate with the complexity of the observation or deficiency.
4.3 Conclusions The review of this area determined that the YAEC audit group is independent, and is performing its assigned responsibilities in accordance with the published schedule.
Responses from the audited organizations are received in a timely manner and these responses address both the immediate deficiency and the cause.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.0 Procurement, Material Receipt and Storage 5.1 Program Review Procedures, purchase orders, receiving inspection reports and facilities were reviewed and discussions held with licensee personnel to verify the following:
a.
That adequate controls and responsibilities are assigned for initiation of purchase orders and revisions to purchase orders, review and approval of purchase orders and revisions, and provisions are made for vendor approval.
,
_,,.
.. _ _ _
- - - _ _
~
_
_
._,s_
. -
. _ _.
.
.
.
b.
That procurement documents provide specific identification of the item purchased including technical, documentation, quality control and regulatory requirements.
c.
That receipt inspection is performed by qualified individuals, to predetermined acceptance standards, and adequate records are maintained.
d.
That the status of material is maintained by a suitable marking / tagging system and nonconforming items are clearly identified and segregated when feasible.
e.
That administrative controls are in place to control environmental conditions, access to materials in storage, inspections of material while in storage, and shelf life materials are identified and controlled.
5.2 Implementation and Organization Initiation of procurement documents is in accordance with procedure AP-0211, " Material and Service Procurement Program". The inspector reviewed this procedure and verified implementation by selecting the items listed in Table 1 found in the storeroom and reviewing the documentation package associated with each.
TABLE I P. O. Number Item 106061 Pyrotenay Compound and Activator 106627 Service Water Pump P6 - Shaft 106861 12 Volt Relay - Model 700-N200A1 106820 Superflex Gasket 105644 Disk and Bushing Assembly Receipt inspection is performed in accordance with procedure AP-0212, " Control of Purchased Material, Equipment and Services".
The inspector verified this procedure was acceptable and the items listed in Table I had been received in accordance with the requirements of the procedure.
Procedure AP-0213, " Identification and Control of Materials, Parts, and Components" describes the method used for identification and control of materials in the storeroom. The inspector observed material in the storeroom was adequately identified and in some cases the level "B" storage in that area exceeded that required by ANSI N 45.2.2.
t I
i
.
.
-.
Material that required shelf life control was covered by procedure DP0616, " Shelf Life Storage Control". The inspector reviewed this procedure and found it inadequate in that no provision was included to dispose of materials with expired shelf life dates nor was responsibility for evaluating materials with expired shelf life dates assigned. The materials listed in Table 2 were observed to have expired or indeterminate shelf life dates recorded on the identification tags.
Reference to the appropriate records indicated the dates on the tags were correct.
TABLE 2
'
P.O. Number Item Date Shelf Life Received Expiration Date 218289 Packings 3/8/77 1/80 276957 Mechanical Seal Ass'y 3/5/81 3/5/86 U 4142 Asco Repair Kit 4/15/81 4/86 265152 0 Rings 11/3/79 1984 265152 Packing 11/3/79 1984 265152 Diaphragm 11/3/79 1984 U 4381 Diaphragm 8/25/83 None Listed U 4003 Diaphragm 7/23/82 None Listed 100987 Diaphragm 9/2/80 None Listed The inspector reviewed the records for issue of the items listed in Table 2 and observed none had been issued for safety related application.
5.3 Personnel Qualification and Training The inspector reviewed the training records for two receiving inspectors and observed these inspectors were adequately trained and qualified for the functions they were performing.
5.4 Conclusions With the exception of shelf life control described below Procurement, Material receipt and storage was found to be adequate.
No violations or deviations were observed.
Shelf life control was found to be inadequate as described above.
The licensee has committed to the following actions to correct the inadequacies in this program.
l l
l l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..
.
.
..
Commitment Action Date 10/31/86 Revise procedure to provide disposition / evaluation 10/31/86 Segregate into a controlled, identified area all materials with expired shelf life.
11/31/86 Verify no material with expired shelf life dates has been used in safety related applications or provide an engineering disposition for material that has been used in a safety related application.
12/31/86 Completely implement the shelf life control program.
Unresolved item 50-029/85-01-03 remains open and is modified to include the above commitments.
6.0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or violations. An unresolved item is updated in paragraph 5.4.
7.0 Management Meetings Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspection at the entrance interview on September 28, 1986. The findings of the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives during the course of the inspection and presented to licensee management at the October 3, 1986 exit interview (see paragraph I for attendees).
At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspectors. The licensee did not indicate that proprietary information was involved within the scope of this inspectio.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1 1.0 Procedures Reviewed YOQAP1-A Rev. 16
" Operational QA Manual" 0QA-X-5 Rev. O
" Quality Control Inspections" AP-0205 Rev. 10
" Maintenance Request" AP-0206 Rev. 8
" Nonconforming Materials Parts and Components" AP-0209 Rev. 8
" Inspections" AP-0211 Rev. 14
" Material & Service Procurement Program" AP-0214 Rev. 10
" Maintenance and Change of Safety Classified Systems, Components or Structures" AP-0228 Rev. 5
" Quality Assurance Program" AP-5010 Rev. 6
" Maintenance Department Corrective Maintenance" 2.0 Maintenance Requests Reviewed (associated QC Inspection Report)
MR 86-15/0QC-YR-86-4 NSV48 MR 86-471/00C-YR-86-111
- 3 NRV MR 86-303/0QC-YR-86-68
- 3 NRV MR 86-801/0QC-YR-86-210
- 1 charging Pump MR 86-703/00C-YR-86-182
- 2 Vital Bus Inverter MR 86-259/00C-YR-86-54 MOV 556 MR 86-267/0QC-YR-86-56 MOV 557 MR 86-717/0QC-YR-86-188 HV-SOV2 MR 86-1211/0QC-YR-86-334
.
'
MR 86-813/00C-YR-86-214 M0V 515 MR 86-780/0QC-YR-86-201
- 3 Steam Line Trap Isolation Valve AS-V631 MR 86-746/0QC-YR-86-194
- 3 Intermediate Range Nuclear Instrument 3.0 Completed Surveillances Reviewed (Associated Inspection Reports)
OP-4562/0QC-YR-86-03 1/3/86 Periodic Inspection and Testing of Fire Hose Stations OP-4521/0QC-YR-86-170 4/29/86 Semiannual Testing of the Vapor Container Personnel Hatch Interlock OP-4565/0QC-YR-86-28 1/29/86 Weekly Check of Diesel Fire Pump Batteries OP-4630/0QC-YR-86-26 1/21/86 Accumulator Time Delay Actuation Verification
i'
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1 Cont'd)
OP-4665/0QC-YR-86-19 1/14/86 Comsip Model K-III Post Accident Hydrogen Analyzer (HV-GA2) Calibration and Functional Test OP-4604/0QC-YR-86-33 1/23/86 Steam Generator Water Level-Channel l
- 0P-4261 6/3/86 Main Steam NRV Operability Test
- 0P-4217 2/15/86 Operability Test of #3 Charging Pump
- 0P-5755 4/15/86 Inspection and Maintenance of ACB and/or Contactor
- 0P-4517 2/11/86 Surveillance of Motor Operated Valves
- 0P-4216 5/13-14/86 Testing of Post Accident Hydrogen Venting System
- 0P-5103 5/29/86 Inspection Maintenance and Testing of Safety Relief Valve No. SV805
- 0P-4517 6/2/86 Surveillance of Motor Operated Valves (MOV 48, 515)
- included as part of the MR Packages in Section 2.0 4.0 Other Quality Control Inspection Reports 00C-YR-187 5/13/86 Review of Switching and Tagging Logs 0QC-YR-190 Solidification Inspection of Evaporator Bottoms
. - - -, -..
- -. -.
-.-
- -. - - - - -