IR 05000354/1980006
| ML19320D390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1980 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320D389 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-354-80-06, 50-354-80-6, 50-355-80-06, 50-355-80-6, NUDOCS 8007210309 | |
| Download: ML19320D390 (4) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
-
Region I 50-354/80-06 Report No. 50-355/80-06 DU-J34 Docket No.
50-355 CPPR-120 License No. CPPR-121 Priority Category A
--
Licensee:
Public Service Electric.& Gas Company 80 Park Place Nc.vark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name:
Hope Creek Units 1 & 2 Inspection at:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection conducted: April 23-25 and 29,1980 Y,n%d>M -
5f/9/80 Inspectors:
t'K. Chaudfrary( Reactor Inspector date signed date signed date signed
<
f/zs/ggi Approved by:
/
,U S. D. Ebneter, Chief, Engineering Support date ' signed Section No. 2, RC&ES Branch
.
Inspection Sumary:
Units 1 & 2, Inspection on April 23, 24, 25, 29, 1980 (Combined Inspection Report No. 50-354/80-06 and 50-355/80-06)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of the licensee activities in the area of nonconformance control, trend analysis, and control of field change request. The inspection involvec 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> on site by one regional based inspector.
Results: No item of noncompliance was identified.
!
8 0 0 7 210 JD*1
.
..
- -
.
.
.:..
T'
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
,
Public' Service: Electric & Gas Company
- A. E. : Giardino, Project-QA Engineer
- L. Jankowski, Site QA Engineer
- P. J. Kudless, Principal Contruction Engineer Bechtel Powar Corporation f
- J. B. Gatewood, L. S. QA Engineer
- R. Hanks, Project Construction QC Engineer
- W. -Hindle, Project Field _ Engineer
- G. Moolton, Project QA Engineer i
. W. Schuetz, Resident Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- W. H. Batenan, Resident Reactor Inspector (* Denotes people attending exit interview)
2.
' Plant Tour Ur.its 1 & 2
,
-The inspector conducted a walk-through plant tour of Units 1 & 2 primary con-
<
tainments, reactor buildings and diesel generator buildings to assess the work procedure and general. conformance to good construction practices in the areas of rebar installation, concrete pre-placement activity, and installa-
-tfon of structural steel.
The resident inspector accompanied the inspector on this tour.
-
'
No item of noncompliance was observed.
3.
Review of Nonconformance Control Process
' The' inspector reviewed the procedures and other documents to determine licensee's compliance to the requirement of nonconformance control.
The
.following documents were reviewed:
.Bechtel Nuclear'QA Manual Bechtel QC Instruction Manual
~PSE&G Trend Analysis of NCR Bechtel specification C-103, for concrete placement
r~
~
,
g y-y
,-
,,e-.
<,,, --,
,,---- - -
~r--
w e
m__.
-.,,,,
...--,vw
-.n,-mv
,, - -
w
O
+
Bechtel specification C-112, for erecticn of rebars PSE&G Audit no. H-178 " Control of nonconformances" PSE&G letter no. HQL-468, dated April 23, 1980 Nonconformance Reports nos. 501 to 630 covering the period
\\
September 18, 1979 through February 5,1980.
\\
Based on the review of above documents the inspector determined that the licensee was exercising sufficient control over the process of nonconfor-mance reporting system.
The licensee had conducted a comprehensive audit of project nonconformance system in the months of March-April,1980.
The conclusions derived by the licensee through the audit was independently verified by the inspector to be valid and acceptable.
The inspector verified that the licensee was reviewing, and tabulating the reported nonconformances in broad categories for evidence of any signifi-cant trend.
The inspector observed that there is no requirement in the licensee procedures for trend analysis, however, the licensee was main-taining a tabulated form of nonconformance trend as an unofficial document.
The review of open and closed NCRs disclosed that the nonconformances were
-
reported on proper forms in sufficient details with information on items, locations, inspection report numbers and other pertinent data for, the engineering disposition.
The closed NCR3 were properly dispositioned by the responsible engineering organization, and the disposition was properly verified by quality control.
No item of noncompliance was identified.
4.
RJ"iew Field Chance Requests The inspector reviewed the system of field design changes as implemented on the project through the Field Change Request (FCR) system.
The FCRs were reviewed by the inspector for format, content and completeness, types of changes rec';asted, and the proper approval of the change by responsible organizatiori involved in.he design change process.
The following FCRs were reviewed:
FCRs M-024 C-2208 C-2276 M-025 C-2209 C-2299 M-026 C-2210 C-2302 C-2104 C-2211 C-2304 C-2117 C-2220 C-2305
.
.
.
.
'
FCRs (Continued)
C-2122 C-2221 C-2311 C-2123 C-2245 C-2314 C-2137 C-2246 C-2317 C-2138 C-2247 C-2320 C-2166 C-2249 C-2367 C-2173 C-2266 C-2396 C-2188 C-2269 C-2414 C-2206 C-2271 C-2415,
C-2207 C-2272 C-2452 C-2481 Based on the review of above FCRs and discussions with the licensee and constructor personnel the inspector's observations are as follows:
The FCRs initiated at the site conformed to the requirement of format and
. proper review and approval by responsible organizations, and were properly controlled.
However, the inspector observed that a number of FCRs were initiated for in-process works where the completed work was not accomplished per the approved design.
These FCRs requested that the work already com-pleted should be accepted as approved design.
Furthermore, these FCRs were not incorporated in the project drawings or specification, and were valid for the requested situation only, and some of the FCRs were approved with such statements as
"USE-AS-IS".
In discussion with the licensee and constructor personnel the inspector was informed that such FCRs were routinely initiated by the field engineering for in-process work.
The inscector questioned the propriety of this practice' of design change to approve a work in progress which was not carried out per approved design.
The licensee maintained that any in-process work in variance with the approved design was rot a nonconformance because it was not formally (80-06-01).
verified and accepted by quality control. This item is unresolved No item of noncompliance was identified.
S.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations.
Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are dis-cussed in paragraph 4 of this report.
6.
Exit Interview The-inspector met with licensee representative,s (denoted * in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on April 29, 1980.
The inspector sum-marized the purpose, scope, and the findings of this inspection.