IR 05000315/1981016
| ML20010E484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1981 |
| From: | Baker K, Schulz R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010E478 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-81-16, 50-316-81-19, NUDOCS 8109040175 | |
| Download: ML20010E484 (4) | |
Text
-_
.
s F.S. NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report Nos. 50-315/81-16; 50-316/81-19 Docket Nos. 50-315; 50-316 License Nos. DPR-58; DPR-74 Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana & Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, New York 10004 Facility Name:
D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 Inspection At:
D. C. Cook Site, Bridgman, M.ichigan Inspection Conducted: July 28-29, 1981 Inspector:
Ro Iz
/ [/
Approved By:
8,
-/
r
<-
Inspection Summary Inspection on July 28-29, 1981 (Report Nos. 50-315/81-16; 50-316/81-19)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the licensee's Quality Assurance program in the areas of procurement and receipt, storage and handling. The inspection involved 10 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
e i
l
,
8109040175 810824 PDR ADOCK 05000315
_
G f@kt
_
_.
-
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted
- D. Shaller, Plant Manager
'
' *J. Stiettal,. Quality Assurance Supervisor
- M. McAllister, Stores Supervisor
R. Youngblood, Q.C. Inspector A. Foley, Senior Stores Attendent R. Dudding, Maintenance Superintendnet
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Receipt, Storage and Handling of Equipment and Materials Program Receipt, storage and handling of equipment and materials was reviewed to ascertain whether the licensee is implementing a QA program that is in conformance with regulatory requirements and commitments in the implementing procedures. The inspector verified that respon-sibilities were assigned for receipt, acceptance, release, storage, and handling of items. Receipt inspection reports were examined for applicable signatures, justification for use, damage recorded, and stipulated inspection criteria. Procedures were reviewed for ap-propriate environmental conditions, including shelf life. Test reports for received material were checked for conformance to pro-curement requirements.
a.
Documentation Reviewed
,
FSAR, Section 1.7.19.2, Quality Assurance Program
j PMI-3130, Revision No.2, Plant Stores Material, Storage and Handlicg Control.
i
!
AHP-3120. SRI.001, Revision No. 3, Stores Receipt Inspections.
,
l 12-AHP-3130 SMC.001, Revision No. 3, Stores Class I Control
'
Tags.
12-AHP-3130 SMC.002, Revision No. 2, Plant Stores Material
j Identification.
!
12-AHP-3130 SMC.003, Revision No. O,.ccores Material Accounting.
!
12-AHP-3130 SMC.004, Revision No. 2, Stores Control of Ncn-Conforming
!
Class 1 Material.
'12-AHP-3130 SMC.005, Revision No. 2, Stores Material Issuing-i Control.
I l-2-
-
__ _
_ - - _ - _ _ - _
_ _ - _ _ _ _
.
.
AHP-3130 SMH.001, Revision No. 1 Plant Stores Material Receiving Control.
AHP-3130 SMH.002, Revision No. 1, Plant Stores Material Handling Control.
AMP-3130 SME.001, Revision No.
1, Plant Stores Control of Material in Storage.
AHP-3130 SMS.002, Revision No. 2, Storage and Surveillance of Plant Stores.
b.
Findings No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
c.
Discussion Unresolved Item (50-315/81-16-01; 50-316/81-19-01)
The shelf life program does not appear to include 0-rings, diaphragms, and other types of elastomers. The licensee stated that procurement documents will be used to obtain shelf life data on chese tyres of materials.
3.
Procurement Program The procurement program was reviewed to ascertain its conformance with regulatory requirements and commitments in the operational quality assurance program. Precurement documents were checked for technical requirements, QA program requirements,10 CFR 21 provisions, and specific idantification of items.
Procedures were reviewed to determine if responsibilities were assigned in writing for:
(a) Ini-tiation of procurement documents, (b) review and approval of procurement documents, (c) processing of procurement documents, and (d) basis for classification of procurement items. An approved vendors list was examined. Procurement documents for various systems were checked, along with the supplied materials documentation, including traceability to the item.
'
(
a.
Documentation Reviewed FSAR, Section 1.7.19.2, Quality Assurance Program.
PMI-3010, Revision No. 2, Plant Procurement Control.
12-AHP-3010 PAE.001, Revision No. 2, Award Evaluation.
l b.
Findings No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
.
-3-L____________________________________________________________________.--
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _
____ _ __
.'
,
c.
Discussion (1) Unresolved Item (50-315/81-16-02; 50-316/81-19-02)
An approved supplier's list is issued from the New York office. The list does not contain information stating the.
justification for vendors being placed on the approved supplier's list nor were records justifying placement of vendors on the approved list available at the plant. The licensee stated that either the records justifying the ap;toval of vendors would be transferred to the D. C. Cook Plant or the approved supplier's list would contain information as to the reason for vendor placement on the list. The inspector was not able to determine if D. C. Cook material suppliers had an approved QA Program in accordance
with 10 Cit 50, Appendix B, for safety related material.
(2) Unresolved Item (50-315/81-16-03; 50-316/81-19-03)
Occasionally, purchase orders were placed with vendors that did not appear on the approved supplier's list.
There appears to be two reasons for this; either an order was placed with a unapproved vendor that was an affiliate of the approved vendor but at a different address; or orders were placed with unapproved local suppliers, who reordered the material from a vendor on the approved supplier's list.
It was discussed with the licensee that the vendor is only approved for that particular location at which the vendor was audited and appears on the approved supplier's list. The issue of placing orders with local suppliers not on the approved supplier's list, who then reorder from an approved vendor was discussed. The local vendor must be placed on the approved vendor list, then the procurement document written to restrict the ver:dcr to the extent required to maintain quality. Far example if the vendor has a QA program that covers only handling and storage; then he is only allowed to do that.
If he has no QA program then he is approved only for brokering and the procurement document should require he reorder from an approved vendor and for direct shipment only from that vendor.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on July 29, 1981.
The purpose and scope of the inspection were summarized and the inspector discussed the unresolved items in each area.
-4-
-. -
..
-
_.
,
--..
.-
.
-..
..
,- -
- - -. -
--
,-