IR 05000352/1986014
| ML20199K967 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1986 |
| From: | Eapen P, Winters R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199K955 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-352-86-14, NUDOCS 8607090285 | |
| Download: ML20199K967 (9) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-352/86-14 Docket No.
50-352 License No.
NPF-39 Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Co.
2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pa.
19101 Facility Name:
Limerick Generatina Station Inspection At:
Limerick, PA.
Inspection Conducted:
May 30 - June 5, 1986 Inspectors:
.
.
I b
R. W. Winters, Reactot Engineer datd Approved by:
k.
fw
-
Dr. P. K. Eapen, Chief ( Quality Assurance
'da te Section, OB, DRS Inspection Summary:
Routine unannounced inspection conducted on May 30 - June 5, 1986 (Inspection Report No. 50-352/86-14).
Areas Inspected:
Effectiveness of Quality Assurance and Quality Control Activi-ties in Procurement, Receipt, and Storage, activities of the Independent Safety Engineering Group, and Design, Design Control and Modifications.
The inspection was conducted by one region based inspector.
Results: No violations were observed.
8607090285 860703 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Philadelphia Electric Co.
P. Alverson Spare Parts Group, Supervisor J. Corcoran Engineering and Research, QA Field Section Head P. Driehaus Engineer, Independent Safety Engineering Group
- C. Endriss Regulatory Engineer J. Franz Manager, Limerick Generating Station G. Gibson Engineering and Research, Field QA Unit 1 Branch Head M. Hennessey Site Supervisor, QC W. Lenke Lead Quality Reviewer J. Magyarik
- Engineer, Quality Control C. Mengers General Supervisor, Quality Assurance
- J. Rubert Site Supervisor,- QA
- W. Texler General Supervisor, Quality Control J. Todd Manager, Stores G. White Assistant Manager, Stores W. Winters Engineer, Independent Safety Engineering Group Bechtel Construction Incorporated R. Gray Purchasing Supervisor United States and Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- P.
Eapen Chief, Quality Assurance Section
- E.
Kelly Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended Exit Meeting 2.0 QA Program and Implementation Review The purpose of this inspection was to determine whether the personnel responsible for developing implementing procedures for the licensee's
!
Quality Assurance (QA) program are familiar with the program; the implementing procedures are in conformance with the QA program; and the program has been implemented in accordance with regulatory requirements and commitments.
!
.
i
,,. -.
,
._
.m._.
,-- -
-
--
,,.....
-
-
.
.
.
2.1 Details The inspector reviewed the QA Program, implementing procedures, inter-viewed personnel, and observed execution in the areas of Procurement, Receipt and Storage, Design Control and Modifications, and the Inde-pendent Safety Engineering Group as discussed in paragraphs below:
3.
QA Program Review The inspector reviewed Revision 46, dated March 86 of the QA program for the operations phase. This program is contained in paragraph 17.2 of the FSAR, and in Volume III of the Limerick Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Quality Assurance Plan, Operatio'ns Phas~e. The inspector determined that these documents satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B and other licensee commitments.
4.
Implementing Procedures To verify that the implementing procedures met the requirements of the QA Program, the documents shown on Attachment I were reviewed.
These procedures included procurement, receiving, storage as well as design and modification procedures for safety related systems.
De-sign control procedures used by the licensee's major subcontractor, Bechtel Construction Incorporated (BCI), were also reviewed.
Imple-mentation of these procedures was verified as discussed in subsequent paragraphs of this report.
No violations were observed.
5.
Storage The inspector visited the main onsite storeroom inside the protected area to determine that received items were adequately controlled.
It was noted that this storeroom met ANSI N45.2.2 for level B storage requirements, was clean, and had no backlog of items to be stored. A representative sample of five safety related items was chosen to test the system for procurement, receiving, receiving inspection, storage, and handling.
Stock numbers for the items chosen are shown in Attach-ment II.
In all cases the computer system used by the licensee accur-ately located, described, and identified the item as safety related.
In addition the purchasing and receiving inspection documents were available and readily retrievable.
Safety related items were segre-gated and stored in a designated area of the storeroom.
Discussions with storeroom personnel indicated these personnel were cognizant of the requirements for storing, handling and issuing safety related items.
.
..
._ -
__
..
.
.
The inspector chose approximately ten purchase orders prepared by storeroom personnel to determine if preparation and review by store-room management was adequate. There purchase orders were adequately prepared and reviewed in accordance with applicable licensee proce-dures.
6.
Procurement Verification that the procurement process provided adequate control of vendors and product quality was accomplished by tracing the pro-cess used for purchasing those items identified in paragraph 3.3 above.
Identification of the need for items is from the Master Parts List, per the original equipment manufacturers' recommendation and as re-quired by the user, (e.g., maintenance) or as required by stores to maintain stock levels. All requests for safety related spare parts are processed by stores.
Stores reviews each request to determine whether the item has been previously ordered (has a stock number) or is new. Requests for new (not previously stocked) items are sent to the Spare Parts Group to assign a Corporate System Wide Stocking System stock number for the item and for safety related or non-safety related classification. Quality Assurance and regulatory re-quirements to be included in the purchase order are also specified during this process.
By discussion with the Spare Parts Manager and other personnel and review of several requests for new items in vari-ous stages of processing the inspector determined that adequate re-views were' performed by Quality Assurance to assure that current qua-lity and regulatory requirements were referenced for incorporation into subsequent purchase orders. Subsequent to approval of the quan-tity and product description by Maintenance Engineering and the qua-lity requirements by QA, the request is returned to stores.
Process-ing of previously ordered items is the same as that for new parts, except for the stock number assignment.
Stores prepares a request for purchase order (RFP) based on the in-formation required to purchase an item under its stock number. RFP's for safety related items are reviewed by Quality Control Engineering prior to sending them to the purchasing subcontractor. BCI provides services for obtaining quotations, evaluation of the quotations for terms, conditions, price and delivery, and placing the order. BCI performs no technical evaluation if the vendor cannot meet technical or quality requirements. Vendor exceptions are evaluated by the Spare Parts Group with the same control as those required for entry t
of new items.
No violations were observed.
,
,,,
-
-
--,
---
-,-
, =.
. - - -
.
.
7.
Receiving Operations Receiving operations are performed by the licensee.
The receiving area was adequate, with some backlog due to the prioritizing of items to support the outage in process.
One full time QC inspector was assigned to this operation.
Safety related material was segregated into a separate area and additionally identified by color coded con-tainers when size permitted.
Staffing was adequate to handle the receiving operation.
Receiving personnel were knowledgeable in the requirements and control required for safety related items.
No violations were observed.
8.
Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG)
The ISEG consists of two engineers with an engineer as supervisor re-porting to the corporate ISEG section.
In interviewing the members of the group, and reviewing a representative number of event and monthly reports the inspector determined that the group was indepen-dent and performed investigations as required by events in the plant.
In addition this group reviews INPO Nuclear Network daily reports to determine if events at other plants could affect the operation of this plant. The group maintained cognizance of plant activities by attending the shift turnover, Plant Operating Review Committee, and the three day outage planning meetings.
Investigations of events were thorough and recommendations made by ISEG were well received as determined by a review of the Report of Recommendations and Status provided to the inspector.
The groups effectiveness was not diluted by other assignments.
No violations were observed.
9.
Design, Design Control and Modifications Three safety related design change packages were reviewed.
In all cases the licensee had subcontracted the design to BCI while retaining the final design review and approval responsibilities. There was objective evidence that these designs were performed, reviewed, and approved both by BCI and the licensee.
Installation was performed under the direct supervision of the licensee.
The Quality Control overview for these modifications were provided by the Engineering and Research Field QA Section.
Examples of the modifications reviewed are in Attachment II.
No violations were observed.
.
..
.
.
__ _
_.
..
-
-
.
_. -
_~
.
.t
.
,
-3.0 Management Meetings i
Plant management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspection
,
at an entrance interview conducted on May 30, 1986.
The findings of the inspection were periodically discussed with plant representatives during j.
the course of the inspection. The exit interview was conducted on June 5, 1986 (see paragraph I for attendees) at which time the findings of the
,
inspection vere presented. The licensee did not indicate that any proprietary material was involved in this inspection.
!
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the applicant by the inspector.
4
.I s
f t
l l
i I
,
f t
l I
-,-
,
e.--
..<-,
n,-
,. -- - -
,
.. -,.
--.. - - - -... - -,.... -... -.. _ - - ~ _ _ _ _. - -.. - - - - -. -.. -
-..
-
-.
. _ -
-
-
.
...
.
ATTACHMENT I Documents Reviewed No.
Rev.
Date Title
,
QADP-17
12/84 Procedure for Review of Procurement Documents QADP-102
1/85 Preliminary Procurement Document Review and Receiving Inspection SDA-9
5/2/86 Service Operation Department - Stores Division A-27.1
10/30/84 Administrative Procedure for Procurement 'of Coded j
Q-Listed Items A-27.2
10/30/84 Administrative Procedure for Procurement of
,
,
Non-Coded Q-Listed Items A-27.3
10/30/84 Administrative Procedure for the Procurement of
'
Safety-Related Services i
A27.4
3/24/85 Administrative Procedure for Receipt Inspection
of Q-Listed Items A27.6
3/11/84 Administrative Procedure for Establishing
'
Procurement Codes for Q-Listed Items A27.7
9/28/84 Administrative Procedure for Designating Q-Listed Items as Catalog Items A27.8
1/21/86 Administrative Procedure for Receipt Inspection Deficiencies I
7 ~
,.-
--
,
- - - -,
,,,, -,. -,..
-., -. -, - -
- -.
.
.. ~. -
.. - -,
, - - - -
..
Attachment
.-
A27.9
11/1/85
- Procedures for Transfer of Unit 2 Q-Listed Equipment from Bechtel to PECO Groups Other than the PECO Storeroom A-14 3~
12/18/85 Procedure for Control of Plant Modifications EOPI 4.73.1 6
--
Modification Design Change Packages - Limerick Generating Station Unit 1 - Job 8031 (BCI Procedure)
~
EDPI 4.27.1 2 Safety Evaluation-Limerick Generating Station-Units 1 and 2 - Job 8031 (BCI Procedure).
e
.
,
ATTACHMENT II Stock No.
Purchase Order 114-44929 Rosemont Transmitter 114-48129 Trip Unit 114-34673 AB Delon Circuit Breaker 114-39634 GE - Temperature Indicator 114-24606 Gould 30 Amp Bass Fuses Modification Package 682 - Replace existing dampers mechanisms with limitorque Type mechanisms 549 - Installation of Test Drain Valves
!
l I
l
!
l
!