IR 05000367/1979001
| ML19261C441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1979 |
| From: | Hayes D, Maxwell G, Phillips H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261C435 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-367-79-01, 50-367-79-1, NUDOCS 7903220428 | |
| Download: ML19261C441 (9) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. 'l '. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFIC'
.2 INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-367/79-01 Docket No. 50-367 License No. CPPR-104 Licensee: Northern Indiana Public Service Company 5256 Hohman Avenue Hammond, IN 46325 Facility Name:
Bailly Generating Station Nuclear I Inspection At:
Bailly Site, Porter, IN Inspection Conducted:
Januarv 30, 31, and February 1, 1979
]); I,7
-
-
Inspectors:
G. F. Ma 911
_/'/#'//
E'Y
'
H. S. Phillips 2 /i2 / 7'/
$C fw f#
2 'I 3 ' Il
.
Approved By:
D. W. Hayes, hief Projects Section Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted January 30, 31, and February 1, 1979 (Report No.
50-367/79-01)
Areas Inspected: Previously identified items of noncompliance and unresolved matters; reported construction deficiencies 10 CFR 50.55e.
This inspection involved a total of 28 onsite inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Two areas were inspected.
No items of noncompliance, deviations, or unresolved matters were identified.
903220%g m
.
DETAILS
.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Personnel
- R. J. Bohn, Manager Nuclear Staf f, NIPSCo
- J. W. Dunn, Nuclear Staf f, NIPSCo
- C. A. Carlisle, General Quality Assurance Engineer, NIPSCo
- E. Kritzer, Jr., Senior Quality Assurance Engineer, NIPSCo
- A. F. Shahbazi, EC&I Supervisor Nuclear Staff, NIPSCo Other Personnel
- D. K. Maxwell, Site Quality Control Supervisor, C. F. Braun Co.
- E. E. Ba rne t t, Project Manager, C. F. Braun Co.
- J. S. Fiedler, Project Quality Assurance Engineer, C. F. Braun Co.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Matter (367/78-01-02): Hold tags were removed f rom equipment prior to closing out the nonconformance.
The RIII inspector found that the hold tags had been attached because documentation had not been received.
C. F. Braun found that there was a mix up and documentation had been received. Accordingly the hold tags were temoved prior to closing the nonconformance.
(Closed) Unresolved Matter (367/78-02-04):
NIPSCo Quality Assurance had not audited several f unctions performed by NIPSCo Nuclear Staff.
At the time the licensee did not consider the functions to be safety related.
Two areas in question were review of specifications / drawings and control of the nuclear staff manual.
The inspector reviewed NIPSCO QA Audit Report No. 2118, dated May 9, 1978 and the applicable checklists.
This audit of the Nuclear Staff Manual covered procedure Nos. 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 23.
This matter is closed based on the understanding that future audits will be performed at predetermined frequencies recorded on a schedule.
-2-
.
.
(Closed) Noncompliance (367/78-02-05):
No Index of QA records was available at the site.
Several audits were not readily retrieviable from site files.
The inspector verified that a master index of QA records had been developed.
Records of audits were also available in the records center.
(Closed) Noncompliance (367/78-02-08): No procedure available for reporting construction deficiencies per 10 CFR 50.55(e)
The RIII inspector reviewed a procedure in the nuclear staff manual which described hcw reporting would be accomplished.
This matter is closed.
(Closed) Noncompliance (367/78-05-01):
Four inspectors had not been certified to ANSI N45.2.6, Level I qualification requirements. Records Thatcher Engineering file did not contain evidence of visual acuity test per Procedure 10-5.
The inspector reviewed eight certifications of inspector's qualification.
C. F. Braun indicated that their program should have identified that eye examinations that had not been administered to inspectors.
However, surveillance of Thatcher Engineering was not accomplished because of the oversight. A checklist has now been developed to assure that inspector eye examinations are administered in the future.
(Closed) Unresolved Matter (367/78-07-01):
Staff Nuclear Engineering Group did not have a procedure describing the transmital of safety related records to QA records center.
The inspector reviewed this matter with licensee personnel.
The licensee indicated that QA records would be microphotographed and cross indexed in a computer program currently planned. Additionally, records of Nuclear Staff's review and comment are currently being maintained at Sargent and Lundy and the NIPSCo QA offices.
(0 pen) Unresolved Matter (367/78-07-02):
Staff nuclear procedures did not describe how Items 12, 13, 14, and 15, of Paragraph D.2-71, Amendment No. 11 to the PSAR would be accomplished.
The inspectors found that the nuclear staff manual was still being revised.
The inspector emphasized that procedures should be developed to assure that amendments to PSAR/FSAR and other safety related documents are properly prepared, reviewed and distributed.
(Open) 50.55(e) Report of Construction Deficiency (367/77-XX-01): GE Safety Relief Valve Control.
-3-
.
.
This matter is still open pending GE review. The licensee stated that the plant unique analysis by GE should be completed in coming months.
(Closed) 50.55(e) Report of Construction Deficiency (367/78-XX-01):
Anchor Darling valve, HPCS, bypass (E-22-F012) has 150 lb disc vs 600 lb disc specified by design.
NIPSCo sent the subject valve back to the manufacturer.
The disc was replaced.
(Closed) Noncompliance (367/78-07-03): Prerequisites for the Vertical Pile Test performed October 4, 1978, had not been met.
The inspector reviewed supportive documentation supplied by the licensee to substantiate the validity of the Vertical Pile Test. Documentation included the following:
a.
Certificate of Verification for the five million pound testing machine supplied by the University of Illinois.
b.
Calibration of load cell "H" over the loading range required.
c.
Calibration of dial gauges in accordance with TEC QC Procedure 12-1, Section 2(B)1.
d.
Calibration of the hydraulic jack based on the method of its intended project use.
Lack of correlation between the hydraulic jack and load cell "H" e.
was attributed to the hysterisis and slight non-linearity exhibited by the load cell. For the purpose of this vertical pile test, the load applied to the pile was monitored by the calibrated hydraulic jack and gauge.
f.
Load cell data sheet f-the test did exhibit a dial reading equivalent to approximately 10 tons when no load was actually being applied to the loading apparatus.
Load indicated by load cell "H" was not used to evaluate results for this v.rtical pile test.
-4-
Section I Prepared by:
H. S. Phillips Approved by:
D. W. Hayes, Chief Projects Section 1.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected NRC Open Items The RIII inspector discussed the need for an open item tracking system with the licensee's QA representative. A commitment was given to write a brief procedure to describe how open items would be tracked.
During this inspection nine open items were reviewed.
Five unresolved matters, three noncompliances and one 10 CFR 50.55(e)
item were reviewed and closed.
The licensee requested a summary of open items remaining as of Inspection Report No. 50-367/79-01.
The following items are currently open:
Item No.
Description 78-02-l6 (Noncompliar.ce) Inadequate corrective action of adverse conditions identified in audits.
78-02-07 (Noncompliance) Audit Findings not adequately reported.
78-02-09 (Unresolved Matter) Incorporation of commitmerts i
to regulatory guides into the licensee's QA manual and implemention procedures.
78-07-02 (Unresolved Matter) Revision of Staff Nuclear Manual to include procedures describing how amendments to the PSAR/FSAR are to be handled see PSAR Amendment No. 11, Paragraph D.2-7.1 pages D.2-7.1 through D.2-7.2.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-5-
.
-
b 2.
Review of Bulletins Procedures The inspector found that no procedure was available which would describe how bulletins / circulars would be handled. Since the licensee has a system for handling these matters they committed to write a orief description in an office procedure to describe responsibilities.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Review of Construction Deficiencies Reported per 10 CFR 50.55(e)
The inspector reviewed the only two reported de_ficiencies which remain open to date, GE Safety Relief Valve Control Deficiency a.
Review of this matter showed that General Electric has not yet completed their evaluation of this matter but should be completed in coming months.
b.
Anchor Darling Valve Bypass Disc The inspector reviewed this matter and found that the subject valve had been returned to the manufacturer and had been repaired.
The licensee had not reported this action by letter to Region III because of an administrative oversight.
The letter will be issued immediately.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-6-
- _
b Section II Prepared By:
G. F. Maxwell
.
Reviewed By:
R. L. Spessard, Chief Engineering Support Section 1 1.
QA Program Review - C. F. Braun and Company a.
The inspector reviewed selective sections of the C. F. Braun and Company (CFB) Quality Assurance Program.
C. F. Braun is a site contractor responsible for the majority of the safety-related installation and inspection activi_ ties at Bailly Generating Station Nuclear 1.
The selected sections were compared with the requirements of the Northern Indiana Public Services Company (NIPSCo) Quality Assurance Manual; 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and ANSI N45.2(1971).
The sections were selected from the C. F. Braun Project Procedure Manual (PPM), C. F. Braun Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual Volume II (NQAM) and C. F. Braun Nuclear Field Inspection Manual (NFIM).
Sections, which were reviewed, are as follows:
(1) Organizational Structure and QA Personnel - (C. F. Braun NQAM, Volume II, Part 1.1.3.9, Revision 1; C. F. Braum PPM, Procedure PL-4, dated May 16, 1977; C. F. Braun NFIM, Procedures 2.8, Revision 3 and 1.3, Revision 3)
(2) Requirements for Work and Inspection Procedures -
(C. F. Braun NQAM, Volume II, Parts 4.6, Revision 1 and 4.11, Revision 1)
(3) Control of Material - (C. F. Braun NQAM, Volume II, Parts 4.9, Revision 2; 4.14, Revision 1; 4.15, Revision 2 and 4.16, Revision 2; C. F. Braun NFIM Procedures 2.3, Revision 3, and 2.11, Revision 2)
(4) Control of Processes - (C. F. Braun NQAM, Volume II Part 4.10, Revision 2)
(5) Corrective Action - (C. F. Braun NQAM, Volume II, Part 4.17, Revision 1)
(6) Document Control - (C. F. Braun NQAM, Volume II, Parts 1.2, Revision 2; 4.7, Revision 1, and C. F.
Braun PPM, Procedure FEl, dated April 10, 1978)
-7-
.
-
(7) Requirements for Test Control - (C. F. Braun NQAM,
_
Volume II, part 4.12, Revision 1)
(8) Control of Measuring and Test Equipment - (C. F. Braun NQAM Volume II, part 4.13, Revision 1 and C. F. Braun NFIM Procedure 2.10, Revision 3)
(9) Quality Records - (C. F. Braun NQAM, Volume II parts 1.1.3, Revision 1; 4.18, Revision 2; C. F. Braun NFIM Procedures 1.18, Revision 1; 1.3, Revision 3; 2.3, Revision 3 and 2.5, current revision)
(10) Audits - (C. F. Braun NQAM Volume II Part 4.19, Revision 1 and C. F. Braun QA Project Instructions dated June 1, 1978)
b.
As a result of the review the inspector had the following comments, which the C. F. Braun QA manager indicated that he would have resolved within 60 days:
(1)
The C. F. Braun QA program did not address Regulatory Guide 1.54.
(2) The procedure (s) for material control did not clearly describe how " conditionally released" materials will be identified, as required to assure compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.38, and therefore, ANSI N45.2.2 (1972)
Section 5.3.3.
(3)
C. F. Braun NFIM procedure 2.10, Revision 3 does not clearly require measuring and test equipment to be calibrated / checked for accuracy in accordance with written procedures; a requirement of the NIPSCo QA Manual Section 12, Paragraph 12.2.
(4)
C. F. Braun NQAM Volume II, Part 4.19, Revision 1 does not require that the results of C. F. Braun internal audits be forwarded to C. F. Braun senior management personnel for evaluation.
The inspector was informed that a site quality assurance instruction will be written to elaborate in more detail how C. F. Braun internal audits are scheduled, processed, distributed, etc.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
-8-
a
'
2.
QA Programs - Northern 3r3iana Public Services Company and Thatcher Engineering Corporation a.
The inspector reviewed the revised FIPSCo Quality Assurance Manual Sections I; 10; and 11; NIPSCo QA procedures QAP 2, Revision 1; QAP 4, Revision 2; QAP 7, Revision 1; QAOP 7, Revision 0; and QAOP 8, Revision 0.
As a result, the inspector observed that those concerns previously identified in IE Report 50-367/78-07,Section II, Paragraph 1.a have been resolved.
'b._
The inspector reviewed C. F. Braun letter to Thatcher Engineering Corporation BLF-395 dated October 11, 1978; Sargent and Lundy letter to NIPSCo dated November 1, 1978; Thatcher's QC Proce-dures 10-5, Revision 1 and 12-1, Revision 1 and interviewed the C. F. Braun Site Quality Control Supervisor. As a result, the inspector noted that those concerns previous 1/ identified in IE Report 50-367/78-07,Section II, Paragraph 2.b.(3) have been resolved. The inspector was informed that the remaining concerns documented in IE Report No. 50-367/78-07,Section II, Paragraph 2.b. will be resolved prior to allowing Thatcher Engineering to resume work at the site.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with site staff representatives (denoted in the Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 1, 1979.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings.
-9-