IR 05000400/1986033
| ML18003B347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1986 |
| From: | Belisle G, Foster L, Moore L, Runyan M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18003B346 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-86-33, NUDOCS 8606190651 | |
| Download: ML18003B347 (31) | |
Text
~
~
~C
~ps RE0y
~
=':y
+i*++
Report No.:
50-400/86-33 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323
'icensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company, P. 0.
Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Docket No.:
50-400 Facility Name:
Harris
License No.:
CPPR-158 Inspection Conducted:
April 28 May 2, 1986 Inspectors:
L. E. Foster M. F.
Runyan Date Si ned D t Signed L.
R.
oore t
Approved by:
G. A.>Belisle, c ing Section Chief Division of Reactor Safety Da e Signed D t Signed SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted on site in the areas of records; document control; quality assurance
- quality control (QA/QC)
administration; procurement; and receipt, storage and handling.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
SbOb190b51 Sb0b0b PDR ADOCK 05000400 PDR
)
)
~ ~
j
)
)
r C/
E<
1I, I
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees M. Baker, Senior Specialist, Document Control R. Baldwin, Senior QA Specialist, Performance Evaluation Unit (PEU)
"H. Bowles, Director, On Site Nuclear Safety
- L. Capps, Superintendent, Materials Administration
"C. Gibson, Assistant to General Manager, Harris Plant Operations Section (HPOS)
"J
~ Harness, Assistant Plant General Manager
"B. Herring, Materials Supervisor, Administration
"W. Hindman, Manager, Harris Project Administration
"C. Hinnant, Manager, Startup R. Hunt, Senior QA/QC Specialist
"E. Johnson, Principal Specialist, Document Services
~J. Kirk, Document Control Center (DCC) Project Administrator A. Klemp, QC Supervisor
"J.
Lawrence, Technical Assistant, Harris Plant Engineering Materials Section (HPEMS)
"T. Lentz, Engineering Supervisor
"C. McKenzie, Acting Director, QA/QC (Operations)
"L. Olsen, Project Specialist, Technical Support A. Roberts, Senior Specialist, Spare Parts C.
Rose, QA Supervisor
"T. Strehle, Project QA Engineer, Operations R. Stroud, Inventory Control Analyst
"M. Thompson, Manager, HPEMS
"D. Tibbitts, Acting Director, Regulatory Compliance
- R. Van Metre, Manager, Technical Support
"E. Wagner, Engineering General Manager
"H. Wagner, Specialist, QA/QC
"M. Wallace, Specialist, Regulatory Compliance
"J. Willis, Plant General Manager J. Yelverton, Materials Control Receiving Foreman Other licensee employees contacted included technicians and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
"G. Maxwell
- S. Burris
- P. Humphrey
"Attended exit interview
5, P
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 2, 1986, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
Inspector Followup Item:
Listing of Required Records, paragraph 5a.
Inspector Followup Item:
Record Retention Times, paragraph Sb.
Inspector Followup Item:
Transfer of Construction Records to Operations, paragraph 5c.
Inspector Followup Item:
Drawing Distribution Procedure, paragraph 6a.
Inspector Followup Item:
Expiration of Temporary Changes to Procedures, paragraph 6b.
Inspector Followup Item:
Onsite Packaging of Equipment and Materials, paragraph 8a.
Inspector Followup Item:
Control of Shaft Keys, paragraph 8b.
Inspector Followup Item:
Inconsistent Designation of Procurement Requisition Forms, paragraph 9.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspections 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4 ~
Unresolved Items Unresolved items. were not identified during the inspection.
5.
Records (35748)
References:
(a)
CFR 50.54 (a)(1), Conditions of Licenses (b)
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Section 17, guality Assurance Program (c)
CFR 50, Appendix B, guality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants (d)
Regulatory Guide 1.33, equality Assurance Program Requirements
(e)
ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Control s and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants (f)
Regulatory Guide 1.88, Collection, Storage, and Maintenance of Quality Assurance Records for Nuclear Power Plants (g)
ANSI N45.2.9-1974, Requirements for Collection, Storage, and Maintenance of Quality Assurance Records for Nuclear Power Plants (h)
Technical Specifications, Section 6. 10 The inspector reviewed the licensee'
admini strative control program for the collection, storage, and maintenance of records required by references (a)
through (h) to determine if the administrative controls are in accordance with regulatory requirements, industry guides and standards, and Technical Specifications.
The following criteria were used during the review to determine the overall acceptability of the established program:
Responsibilities had been assigned to assure that records will be maintained, and the retention periods had been specified.
Record storage controls had been established which accomplish 'the following:
Define the record storage locations.
Designate a custodian(s)
in charge of storage of each class of records.
Describe the filing system(s)
to be used to allow for the retrieval of records.
Establish a
method for verifying that the records received for storage are in agreement with any attendant transmittal documents.
Nake provisions for governing access to files and for maintaining an accountability of records removed from the storage facility.
Establish methods for filing supplemental information and disposing of superseded records.
The documents listed below were reviewed to determine if these criteria had been incorporated into the licensee's administrative procedures for the control of records.
Nuclear Records Management Manual RMP-001 Filing Index and Instructions, Revision
~
a
'I,
~
RMP-003 Micrographic Instruction, Revision
RMP-006 Records Storage Area, Revision
The records program and associated hardware were essentially in place and meeting regulatory requirements.
Several exceptions are discussed below.
Procedures for the disposal of superseded records had no't been established for the apparent reason that, at the date of the inspection, no records had been disposed.
This included hard copies which had been microfilmed wherein the microfilm was the official gA record.
The licensee stated that procedures describing disposal methods will be approved prior to disposing superseded gA records, although, inasmuch as nonpermanent records will be stored on the same film as permanent records, some if not all nonpermanent records will be retained permanently.
Records receipt control procedures did not require records personnel to verify that the record contains the required approval signatures.
The licensee stated that this responsibility would be placed solely upon the originator of the record.
As described in RMP-001, Section 6.4, the originator can be a technician or a supervisor but the verification must be made prior to transmitting the document to the Document Service Center.
It is the licensee's position that the originator of the record is better qualified to verify proper approval signatures but that records personnel would monitor for blatant omissions.
The inspector toured the records vault to determine compliance with ANSI N45.2.9-1974,
.Section 5.6.
The vault appeared to meet all requirements.
Floor drains were not provided but the vault surface was raised above floor level and there were no exposed water pipes.
Fire control is provided with a halon system and the foundation is well sealed.
Temperature and humidity were monitored ro'utinely and kept normally between 32-75 degrees F and 30-60 percent relative humidity.
The licensee had an approved exception to ANSI N45.2 '-1974 to require a two-hour fire rating instead of four though some components, including the vault door, were rated at four hours.
Files were neatly organized and there was no evidence of loosely stored records.
The inspector observed a
demonstration of the Storage Information and Retrieval System (STAIRS),
a computer data base.
Several sample records were readily identified and located which demonstrated good record retrievability.
Within this area, three inspector followup items were identified.
a.
Listing of Required Records Procedure RMP-001 contained an incomplete listing of required records in that a one-to-one correspondence with Technical Specification (TS)
6,. 10.2 and 6. 10.3 was not readily apparent.
The licensee is generating an expanded listing of required records which will be included in RMP-001 or a
new plant procedure.
Until the new expanded listing is
complete and verified to comply with the TS, this item is identified as Inspector Fol 1 owup Item 400/86-33-01.
b.
Record Retention Times Procedure RMP-001 contained an incomplete listing of required record retention times for each type of record.
Also, site procedures did not assign responsibility to establish retention periods for records not covered by the FSAR or TS.
Until this is corrected, this item is identified as Inspector Followup Item 400/86-33-02.
c.
Transfer of Construction Records to Operations The construction QA records vault does not meet all of the requirements of ANSI N45.2.9-1974 or NFPA-232-1975 as described under Amendment
to the FSAR, Section 1.8.
The transfer of records required for the operations phase is approximately 10-15 percent complete and will not be finished prior to fuel load.
Though the licensee has not made any time commitments for this transfer, NRC considers an expeditious records transfer to be important to safety and will track this as Inspector Followup Item 400/86-33-03.
6.
Document Control (35742)
References:
(a)
CFR 50.54(a)(1),
Conditions of Licenses (b)
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant FSAR Section 17, Quality Assurance Program (c)
CFR 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants (d)
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (e)
ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants (f)
Regulatory Guide 1.88, Collection, Storage, and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plant Quality Assurance Records (g)
ANSI N45.2.9-1974, Requirements for Collection, Storage, and Maintenance of Quality Assurance Records for Nuclear Power Plants
I
~
~
'
~
The inspector, reviewed the licensee's document control program required by references (a) through (g) to determine if the program had been established in accordance with regulatory requirements and industry guides.
The following criteria were used during this review to determine the overall acceptability of the established program:
Administrative controls had been established for drawing issuance, drawing change review, obsolete drawing control, and as-constructed and as-built drawing updating.
Administrative controls had been established for maintenance of indices for drawings,, manuals, Technical Specifications, FSARs, and procedures.
Administrative controls had been established which assign specific responsibilities for drawing and document control programs.
The following documents were reviewed to determine if these criteria had been incorporated into the licensee's gA Program for document controls.
AMM-005 Document Control - Conduct of Operations, Revision
RMP-002 Document Distribution and Control, Revision
AP-005 Procedures Format and Preparation, Revision
AP-006 Procedure Review and Approval, Revision
AP-007 Temporary and Advance Changes to Plant Procedures, Revision
AP-IX-02 Document Distribution and Control, Revision
Harris Plant Engineering Section (HPES) Instruction 3. 14, Preparation and Control of HPES Site Originated Design Drawings, Revision
HPES Instruction 3. 15, Revision of Original Design Changes for Incorporation of Design Changes, Revision
HPES Instruction 3. 19, Processing and Control of Drawing'hange Authorization, Revision
The inspector reviewed a computer printout which lists each procedure and the current revision level.
Similar controls were provided for drawings and manuals.
The administrative procedures listed above provided a
mechanism for document is'suance and distribution and required that they be periodi-cally reviewed.
A printout from the STAIRS data base is distributed weekly to holders of controlled procedures to provide information concerning current revision numbers.
When a procedure is revised, notification is made immediately to those affected in lieu of first notification via the print-ou Drawings were still being controlled by construction procedures.
Individual drawings were not annotated to show outstanding field change requests (FCR)
or plant change requests (PCR).
(The PCR will be used in lieu of the FCR during the operations phase).
Instead, a computer is used to cross match FCRs or PCRs to a drawing.
The licensee stated that procedures may be revised to control distribution of aperture cards and hence post outstanding PCRs on the aperture cards.
Within this area, two inspectors followup items were identified.
a.
Drawing Distribution Procedure Hardcopy drawing distribution was being controlled by Construction Procedure AP-IX-02.
There was no procedure to handle this function in the operations phase.
To this end, RMP-002 may be revised or a
new site procedure may be written.
Until a
procedure for drawing distribution in the operations phase is approved, this item will be identified as Inspector Followup Item 400/86-33-04.
b.
Expiration of Temporary Changes to Procedures There exist many outstanding temporary changes to procedures which have not been formally incorporated as revisions.
This situation creates confusion to a reader who must compare the temporary change to the main body of the procedure to determine what changes have been made.
The licensee has committed to retire all temporary changes by fuel load or convert them to a
new method (a revision to AP-007) which will require temporary changes to expire automatically within 14 to 21 days.
Until these steps are taken, this item will be identified as Inspector Followup Item 400/86-33-05.
7.
QA/QC Administration (35740)
Reference:
CFR 50, Appendix 8, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants The inspector reviewed the licensee's QA/QC administration program required by the reference to determine if activities were conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements, and industry guides and standards.
The following criteria were used during this review:
Licensee QA program documents identify those structures, systems, components, documents, and activities to which the QA program applies.
Procedures and responsibilities have been established for making changes to these document J I
Administrative controls have been established for QA/QC department procedure review, inspection, and auditing.
These controls assure review and approval prior to implementation, provide methods to make changes and revisions, and establish methods for distribution and obsolete procedure recall.
Responsibilities have been established to assure QA program review for overall effectiveness.
Administrative controls have been established to modify the QA program based on identified problem areas.
The documents listed below were reviewed to determine if these criteria had been incorporated into the licensee's administrative procedures for QA/QC administration activities.
FSAR, Section 3.2 QAP-101 Preparation, Review and Approval of QA/QC Procedures, Revision 0.
QAP-102 QA/QC Procedure Control, Revision
QAP-201 Surveillance Program, Revision
CQAD 70-4 Corporate Quality Assurance Nonconforming Trending Reports, Revision
The licensee's'A/QC Administration program appeared to be complete although two areas of concern were raised.
First, a
procedure did not exist requiring an overall review of the effectiveness of the QA program.
The inspector was informed that this requirement is met by way of a directive signed by the Executive Vice President to the Manager of Corporate Health Physics, who assesses QA program effectiveness twice a year.
Second, site procedures did not explicitly develop a program for providing increased QA emphasis in identified
"problem" areas.
This objective is covered adequately in corporate procedures (QA auditors are corporate-based)
which include an impressive trending program delineated in procedure CQAD 70-4.
t Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Receipt, Storage, and Handling of Equipment and Materials (35747)
References:
(a)
CFR 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants (b)
CFR 50.54(a)(l), Conditions of Licenses (c)
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant FSAR 'Section 17, Quality Assurance Program
l II I*
F
(d)
Regulatory Guide 1.38, guality Assurance Requirements for Packaging, Shipping, Receiving, Storage and Handling of Items for Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (e)
ANSI N45.2.2-1972, Packaging, Shipping, Receiving, Storage and Handling of Items for Nuclear Power Plants The inspector reviewed the licensee's program and procedures required by references (a)
through (e) to determine if controls were established and being implemented for receipt inspection, initiation of nonconformance reports, disposition of nonconformances, handling, storage, and issue of safety related equipment.
The following criteria were used during this review:
Administrative controls were established for conducting and documenting receipt inspections and reporting nonconformances.
Administrative controls were established for disposition of items, marking, storing, and protection during storage.
Administrative controls were established for limited shelf life items and for performing audits and surveys of storeroom activity.
The following procedures were examined to determine if selected elements of receipt inspection, storage, and handling were being implemented.
PMC-002 Material Control Receiving, Revision
PMC-003 Material Issue, Revision
PMC-013 Materials Control - Conduct of Operations, Revision
gCP-402 Receipt Inspection, Revision
gCP-403 Material Verification AI-12.6 Packaging of Materials, Revision
MOD-103 Procedure for Engineering Evaluations and Procurement Problem and Reviews, Revision
AI-12.7 Materials Handling, Revision
AI-12.8 Offsite Shipment of Materials, Revision
Inspector review of the above documents indicated that an adequate program existed for the receipt, storage, and handling of material and equipment.
Regulatory requirements addressed in the upper tier documents were reflected in lower tier working level documents.
Responsibilities for receipt of safety related material and equipment were clearly designated in the
+ ~
- I I
K
p'
~
procedures.
Specific guidance for receipt inspection of safety related equipment was provided by QA/QC procedures.
The inspector toured the licensee's warehouses and observed that the storage areas were clean and well maintained.
The service building warehouse was designated level B storage.
Random sampling of stored items in this area identified some isolated deficiencies.
One packet of non-Q Buna-n 0-rings was identified which was not entered in the shelf life program.
Protection of exposed threads and open parts on components was inconsistent.
Some electrical equipment was not covered, exposing contacts and delicate mechanisms to du~t which exists even in a supposed
"dust-free" environment.
Several components with finely machined edges were stored within the same plastic bag with no protection from damage due to collision within the bag.
The management was aware of these problems and was in the process of correcting these deficiencies.
In general, items were found to be adequately protected and stored.
A level A storage facility does not currently exist on site.
An upgraded level B area was maintained for those items requiring greater than level B
requirements.
The climate control storage (CCS)
area contained a humidi-fier, hydrometer, thermometer, and air sealed doors.
Readings are taken daily to verify conformance to requirements.
A hydrometer with strip chart recorder was on order but not yet received.
The inspector reviewed the bulk storage warehouse and did not identify any deficiencies.
The licensee maintained a separate warehouse for chemicals and hazardous materials providing an adequate storage system for the chemicals.
These storage areas were clean and well maintained.
The licensee did not have material stored which required special conditions such as gas blankets or desiccants.
The inspectors review of monthly warehouse inspections indicated that deficiencies identified were corrected and rodent control measures were in effect.
The inspector.
toured the receipt inspection area and observed the perfor-mance of receipt inspection for
"Q" and
"non-Q" items.
The receipt inspection was performed as required by procedure.
The QA hold area was examined for items rejected from the QA receipt inspection.
The following items were examined:
CPKL Part No.
Nomenclature 724-164-98 724-140-97 727-800-67 727-798-79 723-129-45 Static Inverter Lapping Compound Pump Controller Electric Wire Paint Primer
t
,l r
P II'if
'
~ I I
~
The reasons for rejection of these items were as follows:
inconsistency between purchase order and accompanying invoice material, lack of chemical certifications, and manufacturer part number change.
These items were stored separately from accepted items and were awaiting evaluation and disposition.
An additional packaging/protection deficiency was identified in the receipt inspection area.
A valve stem and disc assembly was stored on metal shelving adjacent to metal components.
Casual handling of the assembly could easily result in damage to the valve seat which was protected by only a thin plastic covering.
Additional handling in transport to a permanent storage location could additionally damage the assembly.
With the exception of the packaging/protection weakness, the receipt inspection area was well maintained.
The inspector selected the following random sample of items to verify traceability to purchase order, adequate marking and storage, and identifi-cation of shelf life, if required:
Part No.
Nomenclature 727-697-97 726-852-74 727-910-64 724-602-07 725-944-19 724-654-61 723-942-65 725-428-89 728-308-96 723-692-75 723-752-49 722-716-04 725-748-66 Relay Volt meter PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB Plug Breaker Gasket 0-Ring 0-Ring 0-Ring All items were located, adequately marked and stored, and entered into the shelf life program as required.
Within this area, two inspector followup items were identified.
a ~
Onsite Packaging of Equipment and Naterials The previously discussed examples identified inadequate protection of items in the warehouse and receipt inspection area.
,Packaging for storage and handling on site needs to be reviewed by technical staff personnel cognizant of the potential damage which items are subject to during storage and handling.
This is identified as Inspector Followup Item 400/86-33-0 I
0 N
l ct II II t
f'I il
- t
'I E
L J
b.
Control of Shaft Keys The licensee does not have nor could identify any program for control of shaft keys.
During a
walkthrough inspection, the inspectors informed the storekeeper that some motors did not have keys attached to the shaft or motors.
This is a potential problem area as soft keys can be substituted for heat treated keys and vice versa.
This is identified as Inspector Followup Item 400/86-33-07.
9.
Procurement (35746)
References:
(a)
CFR 50,, Appendix B, guality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants (b)
CFR 50.54(a)(1),
Conditions of Licensees (c)
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP)
FSAR Section 17, guality Assurance Program (d)
Regulatory Guide l. 123, guality Assurance Requirements for Control of Procurement of Items and Services for Nuclear Power Plants (e)
ANSI N45.2. 13 - 1976, guality Assur ance Requirements for Control of Procurement of Items and Services for Nuclear Power Plants The inspector reviewed the licensee's procurement program required by references (a) through (e) to determine if the program had been established in accordance with regulatory requirements, and industry guides and standards.
The following criteria were used during this review to determine the overall acceptability of the established program:
Administrative controls were established to assign departmental responsibilities for procurement activities.
Administrative controls were established to identify safety-related equipment, supplies, consumables, and services to be procured under the gA program.
Administrative controls were established to provide measures and assign responsibilities for the preparation, review, approval, and changes to procurement documents.
Procedures were established to assure that vendors, contractors, and suppliers conform to procurement and quality assurance document requirements, industry standards and codes, and that nonconformances are properly reported and corrected.
Controls were established to provide for audits and survei llances of procurement activitie ~ 'L k
~
t ll r. -,
II
The documents listed below were reviewed to determine if the above criteria had been incorporated into the licensee's gA program to control procurement of safety-related items and services:
Corporate guality Assurance Manual, Section 4, Procurement Control PMC-001 Procurement and Cataloging of Parts, Material, Equipment and Services, Revision
gCP-401 Procurement Document Control, Revision
TMM-104 Determination of Technical and gA Requirements for Procurement Document, Revision
PMC-013 Materials Control - Conduct of Operations, Revision
MOD-103 Procedure for Engineering Evaluations and Procurement Problems and Reviews, Revision
AP-610 Processing Vendor Recommendations, Vendor Manual Revisions and Equipment Technical Information, Revision
The inspector's review of the above documents indicated that an adequate procurement program for procurement activities associated with safety related items had been established by the licensee.
Regulatory requirements were addressed in upper tier documents and consistently reflected in lower tier working documents.
Purchasing for on-site material was via corporate purchasing and corporate gA, therefore, the approved vendor/supplier list was maintained by corporate gA.
The program for maintenance of this list was not reviewed during this inspection.
Procedure PMC-001 provided standardized instructions for procurement and cataloging of parts, materials, equipment, and services.
The following documents are utilized in plant procurement and designated as gA documents in accordance with this procedure.
Original copy of New Item Request Form 36012 (NIRF)
Copy of Materials Requisition Form 106 Copy of Corporate Purchase Order Original Blanket Purchase Order Request (Against P.O.) with attach-ments, if applicable.
Any other documentation as determined by the Materials Control Supervisor that may be used to document the integrity of the parts or materials.
Any document that is used to change the SIS data base.
Document Control shall control these documents to ensure retrievabilit I
" II
The Spare Parts Group within the Engineering Technical Support Group had the responsibility for procurement of initial spare parts for the plant and for procurement document technical review.
Changes to procurement requirements must be reviewed by the Spare Parts Group and approved by gA.
Changes of material were evaluated by the Harris Project Engineer Support Group (HPES).
A vendor manual coordinator was designated by the Plant General Manager to have overall responsibility and authority to ensure vendor manuals are revised/updated as required by Administrative Procedure AP 610.
The licensee stated that vendor manuals were not being considered as controlled-documents but did receive a controlled distribution.
, The coordinator received vendor manuals and revisions, then forwarded these to document control for distribution.
The Document Control Supervisor was responsible for the controlled distribution of these manuals and subsequent revisions.
Procedures did not require that the recipient of the manual revision verify that all affected procedures, instructions, etc.,
had been changed to reflect the manual revisions.
Vendor manuals were being entered into the data base at the date of, the inspection, which would permit cross reference to affected plant procedures associated with each vendor manual and revision.
Procedure MOD-103 provides guidance for performing procurement problem reviews, for evaluating
CFR 21 reports, resolution of nonconformances to codes, resolution of minor deviations from specifications, and to determine the suitability of using safety related par ts (including off-the-shelf parts) that do not meet the original design requirements in form, fit, and function.
The licensee stated that they had developed procedures for preparation and control of component Level g-List (HPES 3.16)
and Reportabi lity of
CFR Part
and 50.55e Items (HNP-POM, AP-008).
These procedures were not reviewed by the inspectors.
Procedure TMM-104 establishes the method for determining and assigning the technical and gA requirements to procurement documents.
Responsibility for the above has been assigned to the Harris Plant Technical Support Group.
This procedure provides systematic guidelines to the Harris Plant Technical Support Group for developing and/or reviewing applicable technical, gA, and other requirements which are necessary to assure that adequate performance and quality requirements are included in procurement documents.
Some examples of technical and gA requirements reviewed by the Technical Support Group are:
Operating history including NPRD data, concerning the item being procured to determine failure rates, types of problems, and changes needed.
Specifications, codes, and regulation lt
IP v
vv c
15 Technical data such as seismic, environmental qualification, design pressures and temperatures, tests, materials, shelf-life, parts lists, receipt inspection, handling, storage',
calibration, and vendor manuals.
Supplier QA program requirements (ASME, ANSI, etc.).
QA requirements during design, fabrication, testing, packing, and shipping as applicable to the particular product.
This procedure, if implemented properly, should give more assur ance that the procured 'item will adequately perform its intended function.
Procedure QCP-401, Procurement Document Control, requires that procurement documents be routed to QA/QC for review.
This QA/QC review is to ensure that:
The material is properly classified; Off-the-shelf items are identified; Technical requirements are s'pecified with references to applicable codes, standards, specifications, or modification package; The procurement documents include requirements for a documented QA program, right to access, documentation, reportabi lity, special storage, and shelf life determinations; The purchase orders were issued to approved suppliers, if appropriate; and The technical and quality requirements of the purchase order are the same as shown on the requisition.
Basically, the above QA/QC review should assure that the procurement documents being transmitted to the vendor include all technical, administrative, and QA/QC requirements for the material or services being procured.
The licensee had developed a shelf life program based on the INPO Standard Practice CY 703 which was used as a guide.
The licensee's Chemistry Department is responsible for assigning shelf life to items.
Procedure AP 501 lists the items and contains a "Fact Sheet" which gives detailed information on different materials.
Plant Stores identifies and marks the shelf life items to ensure that parts will not be used if the shelf life has been exceeded.
Examination of the storeroom identified that parts were being marked with a
unique green tag which included all pertinent information.
The inspectors observed a cart which contained expired shelf
I r
II
'l tf t
II
~
~
~
life items which had been removed from the shelves.
One packet of 10 rubber
"0" rings had not yet been identified.
These were removed from the drawer by stores personnel who stated that these
"0" rings would be properly processed to depict the expiration date.
Within this area, one inspector followup item was identified.
Procedure PNC-001, Revision 3, paragraphs 5.7. 1, 5. 1, and 5.7.3 states that parts and materials that are g-List (safety-related)
must be submitted on a Green 106 purchase requisition.
The licensee stated that this note applies to manual procurement of g-List items and that automated procurement was performed using the New Item Request Form 36012 which was not green.
The licensee stated that they would review the procedure and correct this statement since presently written procurement activities could be performed and not be in accordance with the procedure.
This is identified as. Inspector Followup Item 400/86-33-08, Inconsistent Designation of Procurement Requisition Form N
0 P
'h I
II I I
e II