IR 05000311/2005017

Insp Rept 50-458/85-19 on 850311-0517.Violation Noted: Failure to Incorporate Engineering & Design Coordination Rept Info Into Drawings & Use External Historical Data in Evaluation of Suppliers

ML20136H158
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, River Bend
Issue date:	08/01/1985
From:	Barnes I, Jaudon J, Renee Taylor NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20136H136	List: IR 05000311/2005017 ML20136H131 ML20136H149
References
50-458-85-19, NUDOCS 8508200211
Download: ML20136H158 (14)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

.

APPENDIX B  ;

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV {

!

l NRC Inspection Report: 50-458/85-19 Construction Permit: CPPR-145 Docket: 50-458 I

Licensee: Gulf States Utilities '

P. O. Box 2951 i Beaumont, Texas 77704  !

Facility Name: River Bend Station  !

!

Inspection At: River Bend Site, St. Francisville, Louisiana l Inspection Conducted: March 11-May 17,1985

!

Inspectors: 1 U JId's'

R.'~ Tfylor, Reactor Inspector, Project Section A, Dafte Reactbr Project Branch

/ f]lYb i g,I. BarneA, Reactor Inspector, Project Section A, DMe ReactdrProjectBranch

/

l Approved: . M s/ M _C J.g.J{udon,C flef, Project lection A. Reactor Uate wrojeet Brang1 ,

,

Inspection Summary ,

l Inspection Conducted March 11-May 17. 1985 (Report 50-458/85-19) ,

I i

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of mechanical components  !

containmentpenetrations,sitedesigncontrol,licenseemanagementofqua1Ity  :

assurance (QA) activities, and licensen action on previous inspection finding }

The inspection involved 251 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspector I i

Results: Within the five areas inspected, two violations were identified (

(incorporation of engineering and design coordination report information into i

, drawings, paragraph 2.e; and use of external historical data in evaluation of j suppliers, paragraph 6).

l l t

{jeaj${$ e

!

~ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - ---- ---_ -

I

'

.

-2-DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted The following persnnnel attended one or more of the exit interviews conducted on April 26, 1985, May 10, 1985, and May 17, 198 An NRC senior resident inspector attended the meetings held on April 26, 1985, and May 10, 198 Culf States Utilities (GSU)

W. J. Cahill, Senior Vice President J. C. Deddens, Vice President T. L. Crouse, Quality Assurance (QA) Manager R. B. Stafford, Director, Quality Services I. M. Malik, Supervisor, Quality Engineering P. J. Dautel, Licensing Staff Assistant L. R. Sutton, QA Engineer G. V. King, Plant Services Supervisor K. C. Hodges, Supervisor, QA Systems R. E. Hebert, Senior Purchasing Agent G. Kelley, Supervisor, Purchasing and Materials R. Callegati, System Engineer, Technical Staff T. W. Over11d, Process Systems Supervisor A. D Kowalcruk, Assistant Plant Manager, Maintenance and Materials G. D. Mahan, QA Engineer B. Bryson, QA Engineer T. F. Plunkett, Plant Manager R. E. Turner, QA Engineer P. D. Graham, Assistant Plant Manager D. R. Gipson, Assistant Plant Manager R. W. Helmick, Director, Projects L. A. England, Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing Stone and Webster (SA.W)

R. L. Spence, Resident QA Manager B. R. Hall, Assistant Superintendent, Field Quality Control (fQC)

G. M. Dyrnes, Asei. tant Superintendent, FQC W. I. Clifford, Senior Construction Manager T. M. Batee, Assistant Superintendent, Engineering H. E. Stuobs, Supervisor, Mechanical FQC T. M. Vears, Lead Structural Engineer D. M. Scheele. QC Engineer The NRC inspectors also contacted other site personnel including administrative, technical, and inspection personne *

.

-3-2. Licensee Action on Previous NRC Inspection Findings Closed (50-458/78-05) Open Items: These open items all centered around NRC followup on a 10 CFR 50.55(e) report dated November 1, 1977, relative to problems identified at a supplier of reinforcing stee These items are closed as a matter of record based on final closure of the 10 CFR 50.55(e) report as documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-458/80-0 Closed (50-458/79-06) Unresolved Item: This item is considered closed based on correspondence related to an NRC Immediate Action Letter dated December 13, 1979.

l I Closed (50-458/80-04) Open Item: Maintenance of nonsafety switchgear.

l This item is considered closed for record purposes since the NRC inspector was stating his intention to follow up on an area of interest which was not within the jurisdiction of the NRC.

l Closed (50-458/80-13) Unresolved Item: Qualification of H.V.

l Electrical Cable

, Closed (50-458/81-09) Unresolved Item: Qualification of NSSS l Equipment i

l Closed (50-458/82-01) Unresolved Item: Qualification of HPCS l Equipment

! Closed (50-458/84-36-11) Unresolved Item: Qualification Records for H.V. Electrical Cable

! The above four items all involving an aspect of the licensee's program l for environmental qualification of electrical equipment are considered l closed for Region IV inspection purposes since the responsibility for the l activity has been assumed by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation as l documented under Section 3.11 of the Safety Evaluation Report related to

'

the Operation of River Bend Station, NUREG 0989.

( e. Closed (458/8436-12) Unresolved Item: Drafting errors in incorporation of Engineering and Design Coordination Report (E&DCR) information into l

<

drawing Apparent drafting errors in incorporation of E&DCR information into design drawings with respect to cable tray supports AB 375 KS-1, FB 183 KS-1, and AB 572 S-1 were identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-458/84-36 as an unresolved item. The report additionally indicated that S&W had agreed to research these errors further and identify the possible generic scope of the problem. Followup of this unresolved item during this inspection revealed that Engineering Assurance (EA) had performed a surveillance (i.e., EA Surveillance #32) on November 27, 1984, with respect to this subject. Examination of the surveillance report dated December 17, 1984, I

.

-

,

-4-showed that the auditor had selected a sample of 21 E&DCRs which affected various 340 series EE drawings. The surveillance ascertained that approximately 33% of the sample reflected apparent incorporation errors or omissions on the drawing / tab sheets. EA concluded that the NRC inspector's observations could not be regarded as an isolated occurrence and recommended that the last major incorporation of E&DCRs into electrical drawings be reviewed for accuracy and identified errors be corrected. Review of the response dated March 13, 1985, to EA Surveillance #32 showed, however, a commitment by the Cherry Hill Operations Center electrical design group to only correct errors associated with the E&DCRs identified in the surveillance repor The NRC inspector was informed during review of this subject that the EA surveillance program was an additional activity to the committed EA audit program and was not addressed by a written procedure. Formal criteria had therefore not been established in regard to surveillance performance and review and acceptance of

,

corrective action responses to surveillance findings. As a result of the apparent failure to assess the scope of E&DCR incorporation errors in electrical drawings and perform required corrective actions, the unresolved item has been closed and replaced by an apparent violation (458/8519-01).

3. Mechanical Components The purpose of this inspection was to examine the entire process of purchasing, source and/or receipt inspection, maintenance and installation of a selection of mechanical components typical of a broad range of similar components utilized in safety-related systems. The goal of the inspection was to determine whether the process complied with NRC requirements and licensee commitments including compliance to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section II The components selected, their respective safety classes, and relevant documentation reviewed follow; Standby Liquid Control System Pump C41*PC001, Class II The NRC inspector reviewed General Electric (GE) Purchase Specification 21A1921, Revision 4, Data Sheet 21A1921AE, Revision 2 and Drawing 10505648, all of which describe an electric motor driven positive displacement pump that meet the commitments contained in FSAR Section 9.3. Certifications were available from GE, the vendor, and the ASME that all requirements of the purchase specification had been satisfied. The manual was found to contain recommended practices for maintenance and instructions for installatio Review of the S&W Equipment Storage History Card for the component established that the requirements provided the craft maintenance force were comparable to the practices recommended by the vendor. Field QC inspection reports indicated that the maintenance work had been accomplished. Review of QA Inspection Plan R1229160F05240A01 and associated inspection reports . - _ - . . _ -_ - - - . - - _ - _ . . . - - . - - - . - . -_

i

'

.

l' t

'

-5- i

!

indicated the installation work had been done and verified in  !

l- accordance with the manufacturer's requirements. The NRC inspector's ,

i examination of the installed components did not reveal any l l inconsistencies with these instruction i i

l

'

b. Mainsteam Safety-Relief Valve 1821*F041G, Class I The NRC inspector reviewed the following GE documents which establish I requirements for the above and like valve ,

(1) 22A6441, Revision 3: Specification for S/R Valve OS i

! (2) 21A9538, Revision 2: Safety-Relief Valve Purchase  !

Specification Data j (3) 21A3530, Revision 0: Specification for Valve Actuators, '

l Safety-Related, Pneumatically Operated f (4) 767E897, Revision 3: Purchase Part Drawing - Safety Relief i

Valve  !

l The NRC inspector reviewed the vendor supplied installation and l

.

'

maintenance manual and found that the vendor statement of valve performance characteristics was comparable to the above i specification requirements and were found to be comparable to the r i commitments pertaining to the family of valves contained in FSAR -

Section 5.2. The vendor stated in the manual that no in-storage .

maintenance was required. The vendor provided instructions for l

tightening the two flanged connections and for installation of [

[ electrical and pneumatic connections to the actuator attached to the I

'

valv The NRC inspector reviewed the vendor quality data package and I i the code data form which indicates'that the valve met the t specification and ASME Code requirements, j The NRC inspector reviewed QC records pertaining to the setting of the l

! valve (installation) and torquing of the bolts in the flanged connections and found that the work had been accomplished as .

recommended by the vendo Visual examination of the installed i q -

valve revealed no inconsistencies with.the above requirement t Y c. Mainsteam Isolation Valve 1821*F028A, Class I f

I The NRC inspector reviewed the following GE document pertaining to s

<"

( !

L' the above identified valve: .

l (1) 21A9506, Revision 5: Purchase Specification for Valve, MS !

!

(2) 10504935AT, Revision 0: MSID Data Control Sheet j i

(3) 10504935, Revision 8: Purchase Part Drawing i

i

I r

I  !

U

, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

-6-l The commitments contained in FSAR Section 5 were found to be . l satisfied by the requirements imposed by the above documents. The NRC inspector reviewed the vendor's quality documentation and the code data form which indicated that the valve conformed to the above specifications. Review of the vendor manual indicated that *

in-storage maintenance should include a quarterly inspection of the .

valve packaging and a yearly replacement of the vapor phase '

inhibiting covering. Review of inspection reports indicated the i

'

quarterly inspection had been accomplished and the phase inhibitor was replaced as recommended. Review of inspection reports pertaining to field welds FW-A7 and FW-A8 as shown on drawing

~

1-MSS-600, Revision 21, revealed that the valve had been installed ,

during August and September 1982, the only principal installation l action involved. The NRC inspector's examination of the installed valve did not reveal any inconsistencies with the above documentation, d. Standby Liquid Control System Valve IC41*F004, Class I The NRC inspector reviewed the following GE documents pertaining to -

the component:

(1) 21A9370, Revision 6: Purchase Specification (2) 21A9370AB, Revision 7: Purchase Specification Data Sheet ;

(3) 1101434: Drawing - Outline These documents describe a positive zero leakage valve which can only be opened by an electrically activated explosive squib installed into the valve body. The data generally satisfies a functional description contained in FSAR 9.3 and would also satisfy the requirements for a Class I valve as contained in ASME Code,Section III. The NRC inspector reviewed the vendor's quality documentatica and the code data report which indicated that the valve satisfied all requirements of the above specifications. Review of the vendor's manual indicated no in-storage maintenance was required. Inspection reports pertaining to Drawing 1-SLS-006, Revision 6 showed that upon installation, the flanged connections had been tightened to prescribed torque valves. The NRC inspector verified that the valve was installed and had no indications of damage or deterioratio ,

e. Fuel Pool Cooling Heat Exchanger ISFC*E1A, Class !!!

The NRC inspector reviewed S&W Specification 223.312 with addenda to No. 7 dated February 2, 1982. This specification stipulates that the heat exchanger should meet performance requirements that are equivalent to those provided in the FSAR Section 9.1. In addition, the specification requires the component be designed, fabricated, tested, and certified in accordance with ASME Section III,

!

!

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

f

!

'

.

-7- <

Subsection N The NRC inspector selectively reviewed material test [

reports and other quality data along with the code data report and the certification by S&W Procurement Quality Control that components met all requirements. The documentation reviewed satisfied code and l specification requirement l The NRC inspector reviewed the vendor furnished " Installation, l Operation and Maintenance Instruction." Maintenance inspection was i recommended bimonthly for evidence of contaminates and monthly for :

condition of desiccant. The NRC inspector noted during review of f Specification 223.312, Addendum 7, that the component design had j been changed such that sealed covers were installed on nozzles to ;

allow for use of a nitrogen purge other than using desiccants to keep the interior of the component dry. The change reflected that i Specification 229.170, " Storage and Maintenance of Permanent Plant Equipment," would be utt11 zed as the inspection requirement. This specification requires a quarterly inspection of heat exchangers for '

attributes detailed on an Equipment Storage History Card. The NRC i inspector verified by review of inspection reports that the .

'

component had been under continuous purge untti piping was connected to the nozzles of the unit based on quarterly inspection l The NRC inspector reviewed inspection documentation pertaining to f fabrication of the lower and upper component supports, Drawings l 1-SFC*Sup.1AB, Revision 4, and 1 5FCaSup. IA, Revision 5, respectively. The documents indicated that all work had been [

accomplished and accepted by QC in January 198 !

The NRC Inspector verified that the component was in place and '

connected to piping but could not examine the unit or Its supports due to the facility design and a lack of scaffolding that would '

facilitate acces No violations or deviations were identified in the overall inspection [

are '

4. Containment penetrations

The NRC inspector examined procedures for and records of the receipt, l storage, and installation of one electrical penetration assembly and one i process piping penetration as reasonably representativo of activities in i this general are l f

'

The eltctrical penetration assembly was identified as 1RCp*LV105A. This component carries safety-related instrumentation cab 11ng for the " red" j i segregated train. The NRC inspector initially reviewed the applicable

component specification, 241.211 Revision 1, to establish the technical (

i

'

requirement The pressure boundary portion of the assembly was required to be designed, fabricated, tested, and certifled in accordance with the ,

1977 (with amendments to summer 1979 version of) ASMC Section !!!,

'

l 1 l

!

i

! i

'

.

-8-  !

!

Subsection N The NRC Inspector then reviewed the vendor, Conax Corporation, manual describing storage and installation requirements for the component. The vendor records were examined and it was found that pressure boundary of the ASME pressure test had been conducted and all other ASME requirements had been satisfied as attested to by a code data report dated July 1, 198 The specification required leak rate test was performed on July 16, 1981, with a member of S&W Procurenient QA as a witness. The component was received onsite on July 30, 1981, as ;

documented by Material Receiving Report 81-13267 and provided with appropriate warehouse storage until it was installed on November 7, 198 !

The NRC inspector examined Equipment Storage History Card No. 667 and .

found that maintenance both prior to and af ter installation had been l carried out as recommended by the vendo The S&W QA Plan No. R1999999507, RevisionA,documentedtherequirementsofthevendorforInstallatio ;

Inspection Report E1100114 documented inspection of the installation in accordance with the attributes specified by the QA plan. The NRC inspector noted that several Nonconformance and Olsposition Reports were issued following installation, which documented a shorted feed through tube in ,

'

one module of the penetration, a general problem with nicked conductc,rs and unsatisfactory butt splices in the pigtall connection Engineering i and Design Coordination Reports C25074, C25074A, and C250420 documented investigative and corrective actions for these problems that provided .

satisfactory resolutions to these problem I The NRC Inspector chose pipe penetration 1KJB*Z8 as typical of its typ This penetration is essentially a 20 Inch pipe of standard wall 10 feet long with a collar welded approximately 9 inches from one end, which at installation is welded to the containment vessel proper. The penetration ,

serves to carry water from the suppression pool in containment to the high pressure core spray pump located outside. The NRC inspector found i that Graver Tank and Manufacturing Company had furnished the component in accordance with Specification 219.710 Revision 12, both of which were reviewe Manufacturing records indanddrawingEV-1Klcatedth

,

had been heat treated, radiographed, and hydrostatically tested in the period of June through October 1981 in accurdance with the ASME Code, Section !!!, Subsection NE, 1974 as required by specificatio ,

No violations or deviations were identified in this inspection are <

0. Sito Dosion Cnntrn1 l The scope of this inspection was to review compliance of current design l change control activities with program commitments. The results of two ,

'

areceding inspections of site design control activities are documented in !

1RC Inspection Report Nos. 50 450/85 10 and 85 12. The examples noted by the NRC Construction Appraisal Team of what were termed isolated deficiencies in design change control were considered during performance ;

of the Inspection. The NRC inspector reviewed the design change control ;

program requirements contained in procedure R0p 12.0 13 through Change

>

'

Notice No. 4 dated March 20, 1985, "En0ineering & Design Coordination

!

l

{ l

--

'

.

. Report Procedure," and Engineering Assurance Procedure 6.5, Revision 0 through Change Notice No. I dated July 27, 1984, " Preparation, Review, Approval, and Control of Engineering and Design Coordination Reports -

Computerized Logging and Tracking System." Twenty-seven E&DCRs (i.e.,

C31701, C31703, C31704, C31706, C31707, C31712, C31739, C31751A, C31773, C25539, C25540, C25542, C25545, C25568A, C25580, C25587, C25589, C25590, C25593, P12950, P12957, P12960A, P12961, P12967, p12990, P129910, and P13042C) were reviewed with respect to apparent adequacy of dispositions, compliance of processing with program requirements, and reficction of correct status in the computerized tracking system. Dates of current revision of affected drawings were compared against approval dates of unincorporated EADCRs and a computer printout of construction completion status, to assure that all available EADCRs had been incorporated at the time a drawing revision was mad Within this area of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identifie . Licensco Managnment of QA Activitics QA Program: The NRC inspector reviewed Chapter 17.2 of the FSAR through Amendment 16. " Quality Assurance During the Operations Phase," and Chapter 17.1 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Revision 2. " River Bond Station Construction QA Program."

The scope and adequacy of the documented QA program were assessed by review of the following sample of QA and related procedures:

• QAl-2.0, Revisfon 0 through Change Notice 2.0-0-2, approved January 31, 1985 " Planning and Scheduling GSU Quality Assurance Audits and Surveillances"

• QAl 2.1, Revision 1 through Change Notice 2.1-1-1, approved November 14, 1984, " Audit Performance and Reporting"

• QAl 2.2, Revision 5 dated March 27, 1985, "QA Review of Procurement Documents"

• QAl-2.4, Revision 0 dated September 23, 1981, and Rt: vision 1 through Change Notico 2.4-1 2, approved March 8, 1985, " Quality A9suranco Evaluation of Supp1 tor / Contractor QA Programs"

• app QAl 2.7, Revision November 1 through 14, 1984, " QualityChange Notico Surveillance of 2.7-1 Supp11l ors ' roved

• QAl-2.11, Revision 0 dated December 11, 1981, and Revision j through Chango Notice 2.11 3 1, approved March 8, 1905,

" Qualified Suppliers List" e QAP 1,3, Revision 2 offcctive January 29, 1985, " Indoctrination, training, Qualification and Certification of Quality Assuranco Audit /Survelliance Personnel"

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

.

,

-10-

• QAP-1.7, Revision 0 effective August 24, 1984, "QA Trend Analysis Reporting"

• QAP d.8, Revision 1 effective July 3, 1984, " Processing Corrective Action Reports (CAR) to Management"

• QAP-1.9, Revision 1 effective September 4, 1984, " Initiation and Processing of Stop Work Directives"

• QAP-1.10, Revision 1 effective March 5, 1985, " Reporting of Status of Open Items to Management"

• ADM 0004, Revision 6 effective January 31, 1985, " Procurement of Items and Services"

• ADM-0034, Revision 1 effective January 4, 1985, " Industry Experience & Technical Document Review"

• Project Procedure RBPP 4.1, Revision 1 effective May 7, 1982,

" Processing NRC Correspondence"

• PEP-0007, Revision 3 through Temporary Change Notico 85-042, approved March 19, 1985, " Technical, Quality and Documentation Requirements for Purchase Requisitions" The NRC inspector interviewed the QA Hanager and Director, Quality Services with respect to irrplemented and planned changes in organizational structure and responsibilities, staffing plans, and QA policies. Changes to two procurement related procedures, QAl- and QAl-2.11, from original issue to current version were assessed and a review rnade of the findings contained in the document, " Combined Utl11ty Assessment of Gulf States Utilities QA Program," which was performed during September 24-28, 1984. The NRC inspector also reviewed the QA subject material contained in the document, "!NPO Corporate Assistance Visit to Gulf States Utilities," which was performed during October 22-26, 1984. The approach and status of the QA trend analysis system was discussed with responsible QA personnel and a review made of the initial draft repor Within this area of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identiffe b. Desijn: The NHC inspector reviewed the following documents in FeliardtoGSUauditsoftheS&Wdostonprocess: (1) PSAR 17.1.18A, (2) Regulatory Goldes 1.28,1.33,1.144, and 1.146; (3) QAl-2.0, Revision 0 through Change Notice 2.0 0 2 " Plan OSUQualityAssuranceAuditsandSurveillances;ningandScheduling and (4) QAl 2.1, Revision 1 through Change Notice 2.1-11, " Audit Performance and Reporting." four quarterly CSU audits of S&W site activities (i.e. , G50 Audit Nos. SWCli/IIVAC-8S/04, S&WS PPf185/03, SSWS 84/12,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,. .

-11-and SWSP-84/09) were reviewed with respect to audit plan and procedural requirements, of which SSWS-84/12 included site design activities in the audit scop Similar reviews were performed of two semiannual GSU audits (i.e., GSU Audit Nos. SWCH-84/11 and SWCH/ MISC-85/04) of the S&W Cherry Hill Operations Center and a GSU audit, GSU Audit No. SSWT-84/12, of S&W Toronto. Each of these three audits included design in the audit scope. The qualification records of eight GSU auditors were reviewed relative to the requirements of GSU Procedure QAP-1,3, Revision 2, " Indoctrination, Training, Qualification and Certification of Quality Assurance Audit / Surveillance Personnel."

The NRC inspector reviewed GSU Project Procedure RBPP 4.1, Revision 1, " Processing NRC Correspondence," with respect to evaluation and tracking of required actions resulting from receipt of NRC Information Notice Procedure compliance was assessed by review of the status and actions taken with respect to Information Notice Nos. 83-20, 83-28, 83-63, 83-80, 84-50, and 84-7 Within this area of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identifie c. Procurement: The NRC inspector was informed on commencing review of U5U procurement controls, that procurement of spare parts was in the process of transition from GSU direct procurement to utilization of Nuclear Parts Associates (NuPA) for supply of spare and replacement parts. From review of the NuPA QA program, the NRC inspector ascertained that NuPA would utilize the QA programs and QA organizations of its parent companies (i.e. , Gti and S&W) for vendor qualification, audit, and surveillance activitie On completion of the transition, GSU procurement activities for parts would be limited to definition of purchase requisition requirements. GSU QA personnel indicated that procurement of services would remain as a GSU activit The NRC inspector compared the requirements of the procurement procedures identified in paragrapn 6.a above against the guidance contained in ANSI N45.2.13 and Regulatory Guide 1.123. Responsible QA supervisors were interviewed with respect to their understanding of respective responsibilities for procurement document review and evaluation, audit, and surveillance of vendors. The purchasing function's knowledge of types of procurement requiring QA review was confirmed by interview of the lead purchasing agent. Eight vendors currently identified on the Qualified Suppliers List (QSL) were selected for review of GSU compilance to the requirements of procedure QAl-2.4, Revision 1 through Change Notice 2.4-1-2, approved March 8, 1985, " Quality Assurance Evaluation of Supplier / Contractor QA Programs." The NRC Inspector included in this sample two vendors (f.e., Transamerica Delaval Engine and Compressor Division and llayward Tyler Pump Company) for which the NRC had previously identified quality assurance problem . 4

,

-12-Review of the Transamerica Delaval evaluation file showed memoranda prepared by a QA System engineer and his supervisor relative to the initial evaluation of the vendor for supply of spare and replacement part The QA engineer's memorandum reflected acceptance of the vendor's QA Manual and cognizance of both equipment problems reportec to the NRC and the results of two followup NRC inspections at the vendor facilit The memorandum additionally recommended that, if the vendor was to be included on the QSL a prior facility survey and/or source inspections prior to release of shipments be performe The supervisor's memorandum dated December 2, 1983, approved Transamerica Delaval on the basis of the acceptability of the documented QA program, GSU involvement in prior S&W audits of the vendor, and the ability to perform source and receipt inspection The memoranda were referenced in the supplier certification forwarded to Purchasing, but mandatory source inspection was not specifically identified as a procurement document requirement. Review of 1984 and 1985 purchase orders to Transamerica Delaval for parts did not show any provisions for source inspection at the vendor facilit Review of the Hayward Tyler evaluation file showed that the vendor was approved on September 19, 1983, on the basis of QA Manual review and analysis of S&W audit records. The approval was unconditional and did not reflect any required procurement actions resulting from the issue of IE Bulletin 83-05 dated May 13, 1983, pertaining to this vendor. The NRC inspection report referenced by IE Bulletin 83-05 was present in the evaluation fil Review of procurement records did not indicate that any spare parts had been ordered by GSU from this vendo Subsequent to this inspection, additional information in this subject area was forwarded to Region IV by the NRC Vendor Program Branch (VPB).

This information was obtained by the VPB during a visit to the River Bend site in regard to NuPA activities. VPB pers'onnel indicated that Guildline Instruments were placed on the active QSL on December 1982 following completion of corrective actions required by a December 1981 survey. The corrective actions consisted of preparation of a QA Manual and procedures. Procedure QAI-2.4 requires an annual evaluation be performed of suppliers. The December 1983 annual evaluation of this vendor was based on a survey by another utility which identified numerous omissions in the QA program and lack of documented evidence of performance of QA activitie The vendor was maintained on the QSL without any apparent actions in regard to the utility survey finding Paragraph 3.9 in Procedure QAI-2.11, Revision 3 dated December 19, 1984,

" Qualified Supplier List," provides for conditional approval of suppliers whose quality programs have been found to not meet specified requirements. Subparagraph 3.9.2.b shows, as an example, evaluations based on historical data from sources such as CASE, architect engineers, NRC Inspection Reports / Bulletins / Notices, and other t __

r -

'

'

,

-13- i

<

utilities, in which these sources have identified problem area Conditional approval is permitted for this example, provided either source inspection's stipulated in the procurement document, or if the problems are not believed sufficient to warrant source inspection, adequate followup corrective action is specified and can be verifie Paragraph 3.5 of this procedure requires annual evaluations per

.

QAI-2.4 to determine _whether their approved status should be maintained, modified, or revoked. The evaluations are required to be based on the review of the supplier's performance history, audits, surveillances, NRC Inspection Reports, receiving inspections and any other supplier information availabl Revision 0 of this procedur dated December 11, 1981, was ascertained to not include provisions for conditional. approval of suppliers and was not as specific in regard to annual evaluations; i.e., paragraph 3.5 states, in part, " . . . The annual evaluation shall be based on the review of suppliers performance, audits and/or surveillances performed."

The continuing approval of vendors with identified QA deficiencies, without implementing actions to assure their effective control of quality, is an apparent violation (458/8519-02).

The NRC inspector additionally noted other minor isolated deficiencies

during review of the QSL and vendor evaluation files. The QSL was not uniform in its identification of vendors approved for furnishing parts subject to the rules of Subarticle NCA-3800 in Section III of the

~

ASME Cod For example, Pyco was denoted as being approved for supply of thermowells. Review by the NRC inspector established that thermowells are installed in Section III piping systems and would be accordingly subject to NCA-3800 requirement On examination of receiving inspection reports for purchase orders (P0s) to this vendor, the NRC inspector ascertained, however, that receiving inspection personnel had identified that the vendor was not appropriately approved for supply of Section III material This subject is considered an open item pending review of the NuPA program and GSU/NuPA interface (458/8519-03). The NRC inspector also observed a few examples of documents, which were required by procedure to be maintained in the-working files, that were missing; e.g., a copy of the Velan ASME Certificate of Authorization and an evaluation checklist for Aloyco were not in the vendor files. A copy of the Velan ASME Certificate was placed in the file prior to the end of-the inspectio The NRC inspector reviewed seven P0s and applicable purchase requisi-tions for compliance of processing and content to QA program requirements. Receiving inspection reports and vendor documentation for received items were examined to ascertain adequacy of receiving inspection review of vendor documentation review. No violations or deviations were identified in this area of the inspection.

l r

. - - . . - - , . . . - . - .

.. -

,

3 ,

.

%4

, - , , o-14-7. Exit Interview-e i Exit interviews were conducted during the inspection on April 26, 1985, and May 10, 1985, and at the conclusion on May 17, 1985. Personnel

attending one or more of these exit interviews included those personnel denoted in paragraph 1 of this report. At these exit interviews, the NRC inspectors sumarized the scope and findings of this inspectio i

..

l-l 1:

1

}

T

$

.

!'

,