IR 05000354/1985038

Insp Rept 50-354/85-38 on 850729-0802.No Violations Identified.Major Areas Inspected:Qa Program for Design, Design Changes & Mods & Tests & Experiments

ML20137H161
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	08/22/1985
From:	Eapen P, Napuda G, Winters R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137H142	List: IR 05000354/1985038 ML20137H139
References
50-354-85-38, NUDOCS 8508280204
Download: ML20137H161 (7)

Text

. ._ _-, __ _ _ . . . _ __ _. _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . -. _

'

'

i i

v i

.

t U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

l

I Report N /85-38 i Docket No. 50-354 f

l Construction Permit No. CPPR-120 Category A t

l l

Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Company -

80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07101

, Facility Name: Hope Creek Generating Station

!

Inspection At: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: July 29-August 2, 1985

,

Inspectors: ed

G. $buda, Lead Reactor Engineer '

da'te u

~

'2.) M R. Winters, Reactor Engineer date

! Approved by: Eh F/.?Q M.f~

l Dr. P. K. Eapen, Chlief, Quality Assurance / date'

j Section, 08, DRS l Inspection Summary: Routine announced inspection on July 29-August 2, 1985  ;

)

(Inspection Report No. 50-534/85-39).

l Areas Inspected: Quality Assurance Program for Design, Design Changes and  !

Modifications, and Tests and Experiments. The inspection involved 88 inspector hours by two Region based inspectors.

, Results: No violations were identified.

!

.-

1 O

'

l i

!

!-

-

.

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

-

.c,- , - - , , . , - -, - - . . - - , - - ,.,y-,- , - , . . er--.,,,..m-,.--,-, ,,,,,,r ,

3,--,,--. -- , , , ,,w%.=

. - . .. . _- _-. . . - ._ .. - . .- . l

.

f DETAILS

'

1.0 Persons Contacted Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G)

• R. 8

• C.4dpurchman, urricelli, General Manager-Nuclear Site Engineering Manager Engineering

• F. Cielo, Principal Engineer

• E. Devoy, Supervising Site Engineer

• R. Donges, QA Engineer D. Evans, Lead QA Engineer J J. Gassaway, Senior Engineer-Site Engineering

'

• R. Griffith, Sr. Supervisor-Operations QA

• A. Giardino, Station QA Manager

• G. Goldsmith, Resident Engineer (Bechtel)

'

.

• C. Johnson, General Manager-Nuclear QA L. LaBruna, Assistant General Manager-Operations

! *E. Logan, Site Manager

] *A. Meyer, Senior Staff Construction Engineer

. *M. Metcalf, Supervisor-Startup QA i

M. Murphy, Methods and Systems Supervisor K. Petroff, Test Engineer (Electrical)

E. Rozovsky, Lead QA Engineer

'

W. Ruthers, Supervisor-Procurement QA

• S. Schoenwiesner, Licensing Engineer

*W. Schultz, Program and Audits Engineer

,

t

] M. Thompson, Materials Control Supervisor

, The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

<

! *R. Blough, Senior Resident Inspector

• J. Lyash, Resident Inspector Other administrative, construction, engineering, QA/QC, operations and

. Technical personnel were contacted during the inspectio '

j * denotes those attending the exit interview.

, 2.0 General

, The intent of this inspection was to ascertain the readiness of the i

ifcensee's design, design change and modification, and Tests and Experi-l ments programs for the operational phase of the station. Procedures were l reviewed to verify that they were detailed and consistent with the licen-

<

see's commitments. Employees were interviewed to determine that they were i

aware of their authorities and responsibilities, and were knowledgeable  !

in applicable procedures. Training and personnel records of selected I

, employees were also reviewed to verify that job incumbents had adequate '

!,

t

- . - - . - - - - - . . - , . . ,y., -- ..-,- -- . , , ,e - ~ . . - . . . _ . - . , . - - . . , _ , . , , - . - . - ~ , . . - , , , , . , , - , y ,, y

. ._ ._ _ _ .. _ _ _ . - . _ _ ~ - . - . _ _ . _ _ _

.

.

education and experience or proper supplemental training for their posi-

>

tions. Records of completed activities were reviewed to determine the effectiveness of the established program. When possible, ongoing activi-

+

ties were observed to assure they were accomplished in accordance with '

established procedure .0 Requirements 3.1 10 CFR 21, Reporting of defects and noncompliance

3.2 10 CFR 50. Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control ,

, 3.3 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Test and Experiments ,

3.4 ANSI N45.2.11-1974 Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design

'

of Nuclear Power Plants -

3.5 Regulatory Guide 1.64 Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants

4.0 The Design Modification Program Review

] The Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) design modification program is j contained in Site Engineering Instructions (SEI). These SEIs are divided j into the following seven groups.

I i Organization and Administration Interface

Technical Activities i

Configuration Management and Change Control

, Engineering Controls i Core Group (Procurement)

Design The inspector reviewed the procedures listed below:

SEI No: Title Re Effective Date i Organization 1 02-15-85 Preparation of Site Engineering 0 02 98-85

Instruction (s)

Training - Site Engineering 1 05-23-85 l

{ Instructions

, Correspondence Logging, Routing, 2 11-30-84 Component Functional Classification -0 02-26-85 j

'

2.1-1 Classification of Work Orders 0 03-01-85  ! Preoperational Testing Review 3 04-17-85

, Committee (PORC)

+ Review / Approval of Site Initiated 0 01-25-85 Test Procedures /Results

! Review and Disposition of Startup 1 06-05-85 l Deviation Reports (SDR's) and i- Hope Creek Operations Field Questionnaires (FQ's)-

,

,

'

_ - . _ , . , . , _ _ , . , - - _ _ , _ _ . _ , _ . . . _ . . , . _ _ _ , _ , ,.- , , . - _ . _ . .

-

_ _ . . , . . - _ , , . . _ _ . , _ _ . _ - _ . _ . , _ , _ _ , . , _ , _ .

.

.

SEI No. Title Re Effective Date Review of FSAR and Licensing 0 04-18-85 Activities Preparation and Distribution of 0 04-25-85 Equipment Qualification Maintenance and Surveillance Information Sheet Systems Analysis Group - Response to 0 04-15-85 Nuclear Industry Documents Coordinated by Response Coordination Team Trending Analysis 1 04-09-85 Site Engineering Technical Documents 0 01-30-85 Instrument Setpoint Register 0 03-06-85 Design Calculations 0 04-18-85 3B Systems Description 1 09-15-84 3G Spare Parts Quality Determination 1 04-12-85 3H Control of P&ID Overlay Drawings 1 09-15-84 Design Change Control 0 02-28-85 Design Verification 0 02-22-85 Jobsite Change Board (JCB) 0 05-08-85 Project Completion Screening Board 0 04-25-85 Hope Creek Master Equipment List 3 06-27-85 Document Receipt and Distribution 1 06-28-85 Procedure Review and Control of Vendor 1 06-28-85 Documents and Technical Manuals Records Turnover Schedule - 0 01-23-85 Appendix P (RTSP) Receipt and Processing of Turnover 0 06-27-85 Drawings and Calculations Transfer of Bechtel Functional 0 02-07-85 Units to Engineering and Construction (E&CD) Receipt / Process of Security Documents 0 06-06-85 Transfer of Bechtel Useful Materials 0 02-05-85 5.10 Hope Creek Master Equipment List 1 06-27-85 Core Procedure 0 02-22-85 Procurement Specifications 0 04-22-85 ' Preparation and Issue of Design 0 05-14-85 Drawings Enhancement of Illegible Drawings 0 07-15-85

_

+ e

__ . _ ._ _ _ . _ . . .

. .

.

i i Design Interfaces among PSE&G, Bechtel Construction, Inc. , (The A-E) and General Electric (GE) the NSSS supplier are established in SEI's 5.6, 5.7, and 5.9. It should be noted that GE is a subcontractor of Bechtel and NSSS documents will be turned over to PSE&G by Bechtel. The Bechtel/GE inter-face is controlled under the Bechtel Progra Document Control is addressed in SEI's 1.3, 1.6, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8 and The procedures describe the handling of documents

from various sources, such as Bechtel, vendors, and various groups within '

PSE& I Design input and review by independent individuals are described in SEI's

! 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5. These procedures adequately specify the design input

'

and independent review requirement ! A system analysis group has been established in accordance with SEI 2.7,

!

to analyze and determine applicability of industry experience reports to l HCG ,

The SEls reviewed, were adequate to meet the requirements of the documents identified in paragraph 3 abov No violations were identified.

t

, 5.0 Engineering Organization and Staffing The inspe'ctor noted that SEI 1.1 did not include the operational phas In discussion, the licensee stated that the organization described in SEI 1.1 was designed to handle the transition from construction phase to operations, then as the transition is completed, this organization will be changed to an operating organizatio The details of this transition are

,

discussed below.

i The transition from a Site Engineering Division in the Engineering and

Construction Department to a Station Systems Engineering (SSE) group and a Nuclear Engineering (NE) group within the Nuclear Department is scheduled for the second half of this year. Unpublished detail charts, that included tentative assignments, were reviewed and discussed with the Site Engineering Manager. A notable feature of the new organization is that the SSE, which will report to the station Technical Manager, is to be the i

focal point for all station work. Also, a Configuration Management group

will have Material Equipment List (MEL) and vendor technical manual con-trol responsibility. The current engineering staff is capable of provi-

, ding the resources for the new organizational structure. Individual

! qualifications, engineering discipline, organizational needs, past per-

! formance, experience, and many other aspects of transition were considered by management in the selection of individuals for the new positions. The need for supplementary training was also considered during these evalua-tions. The education, experience and qualifications of six lead or super-

.

visory individuals were reviewed. These individuals were adequately l

( _ _ . _ . _ , . - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -- ~ _ --- - - - - - - ---

... . . -

- - . - - . . . _ - ~ . - . -.- . - _ - -- . _ - - _ _ _

.

.

)

,

'

!

trained and qualified for their position It was determined that PSE&G

'

is prepared to implement the above transition. The engineering organi-zation is capable of supporting plant operations.

l No violations were identifie '

i

6.0 Material Equinment List (MEL)

,

The architect engineer, Bechtel, was given the responsibility to establish j classification of MEL items. The MEL is entirely computerized and access j to it will be by numerous display terminals distributed throughout the

plan Item classifications were based on P& ids and the required func-j tion. The list is structured for optimum retention of information but does provide the traceability to other types of information. The ongoing jl classification of items under the spare parts procurement program is

'

'

factored into the listing. The status of this effort is consistent with the timetable established for plant licensin No violations were identifie ,

j 7.0 Commercial Grade Items

'

The method of writing, reviewing and approving procurement specifications for purchased material, components and items is described in SEI GA and j To determine PSE&G's controls for Commercial Grade Items, the inspector j reviewed the process for a randomly selected printed circuit (PC) board i from initiation of the purchase request to installation of the item.

i

"

The Purchasing and Receiving program for this PC board contained the following features: '

,

--

The PC board was classified as Commercial Catalog Item (CCI) in the

Material Order / Item Classification Form J

l --

Purchase Order clearly identified the PC Board es- CC '

--

Receiving Inspection Request and the Certificate of Conformance (C0C)

l were reviewed by Quality Assurance Department (QAD)

,

--

QAF-8 (Receiving Inspection Report) was also reviewed by QAD.

From the Storeroom Material Issues and Returns form it was determined

.that ten PC boards were issued for use under work order TPR-PKE-000 i These PC boards were functionally tested in a test stand prior to instal-

, lation. After installation, proper function was assured by energizing the i

--

,~ - -+-+-,r-.n - -------.,.--m y , , , - . ,w-- , - . - , . , - > . .e g ,,, - - , ,m- - - - . . - -,-g,-- w r,,-,,

.

.

PC board. Preoperational tests were conducted to verify the annunciator /

alarm circuitry. The final test verified the alarm for a malfunctio From the above it was concluded that PSE&G provided adequate controls for CCI .0 Management Meetings Lienseee management was infnrmed of the scope and purpose of the inspection at the entrance interview cn July 29, 1985. The findings of the inspections were discussed with licensee representatives during the courre of the inspection and presented to licensee management at the August 2, 1985 exit interview (see paragraph I for attendees).

At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector .

l l

i I

l I

J