IR 05000333/1982007
| ML20052B374 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1982 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052B365 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-82-07, 50-333-82-7, NUDOCS 8204300354 | |
| Download: ML20052B374 (3) | |
Text
._
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I Report No. 50-333/82-07 Docket No. 50-333 License No. DPR-59 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Power Authority of the State of New York P. O. Box 41 Lycoming, New York 13093 Facility Name:
J. A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At:
Scriba, New York Inspection Conducted:
March 18-19, 1982 Inspectors:
kcm dati 4//Zf 82.
S. K. Chaudhary,/ Reactor Engineering Inspector dat'e signed date signed Approved By:
I
-
I/5'/[Ju S. D.'Ebneter, Acting Chief, Materials date signcd and Processes Section, EPB Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 18-19, 1982 (Report No. 50-333/82-07)
Areas Inspected: A routine unannounced inspection of the licensee's QA program for changes and implementation, and to ascertain if key personnel were cognizant of the program and changes, if any. The inspection involved 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in plant by one regional based inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified, e
a p. 0 4 5 0 o35%
-
.
.
L-DETAILS 1.
_ Persons _ Contacted PASNY
- C. McNeill, Station' Manager J. Patch, QA Engineer
'
- J.
Linville, Senior Resident Inspector
,
'
(Persons denoted with * attended exit interview).
2.
QA Procram Annual Review The inspector ascertained.the status of plant QA program by direct questioning of licensee personnel and review of records, and the Quality Assurance Manual for the plant. The objective of the inspection was to ascertain, (1) if personnel responsible for developing QA procedures for NRR-approved program implementation were familiar with program changes; (2) if the revisions of implementing procedures were in conformance with the NRR-approved changes in the programs.
In addition to the discussions with supervisory QA personnel, the following doccments were reviewed:
a.
Quality Assurance Program Manual, Revision 3.
b.
Quality Assurance Procedures Manual.
c.
Quality Assurance Procedures:
'
QA Organization, QAP 1.1, Revision 0.
-
Conditional Release and Stop Work, QAP 1.3, Revision 0.
-
-
QA Program Scope, QAP 2.1, Revision 2.
-
QA Program Status, QAP 2.2, Revision 2.
-
QA Program Assessment, QAP 2.4, Revision 0.
,
!
Preparation and Processing of QA Program, QAP 5.2, Revision 0.
-
-
Control of QA Manual, QAP 6.1, Revision 0.
-
Inspection of Quality Related Activities, QAP 10.1, Revision O.
-
QA Department Record Retention, QAP 17.1, Revision 0.
.
-
_
_
-.
-. _
,
-.
e
.
-
d.
Revised QA Program. Manual - DRAFT.
Based on the reviews of above documents, discussions with cognizant personnel, and personal observations, the inspector determined as follows:
-
No changes in QA Program were either requested by the licensee or approved by NRR in past year.
-
The licensee had extensively revised plant QA procedures to upgrade the procedures, and to provide additional clarifiction of QA requirements.
-
The licensee had initiated an in-depth review of the NRR-approved plant QA program with a view to up grading and incorporating current QA requirements. A QA Manual draft was being reviewed for comment for in-house approval before its submittal to NRR for approval.
The inspector observed that the draft revisi> a of the QA Manual had
.
realigned several functions and responsibilities, which in the approved program were assigned to A/E and other contractors, but were actually obsolete due to the operating status of the plant.
The current QA implementing procedures as revised in the summer of 1981 were adequate for functions described in them, and vere in conformance with the approved QA program. The inspector also noted that the licensee's administrative control program included provisions for informing key supervisory personnel of new and existing regulate commitments.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted * in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection.
- i