IR 05000412/1987003

Insp Rept 50-412/87-03 on 870112-16.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Qa Program,Receiving Insp,Storage & Handling,Design Change & Mod Program & Onsite Safety Committee.List of QA Documents Reviewed Encl

ML20207S490
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	02/17/1987
From:	Eapen P, Hunter J, Napuda G, Oliveira W, Winters R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207S478	List: IR 05000412/1987003 ML20207S477
References
50-412-87-03, 50-412-87-3, NUDOCS 8703190540
Download: ML20207S490 (15)

Text

-

, .-

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /87-03 Docket N License N CPPR-105 Licensee: Duquesne Light Company 1 0xford Center 301 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15279 Facility Name: Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 Inspection At: Shippingport, Pennsylvania Inspection Dates: January 12-16, 1987 Inspectors: / 7 G. Aapuda, Lead Reactor Engineer, DRS crate /

1197 R. Winters, Rdactor Engineer, DRS date 4 '

__ l Hug d,' Reactor Engmeer, DRS date i Y n W. Oliveira,' Reactor Engineer, DRS Y7kl date '

Approved by: I- Nbhb 0 7![f 7 Dr. P. (. Eapent Chief, Quality Assurance dat'e '

Section, Operations Branch, DRS, RI Inspection Summary: Routine announced inspection on January 12-16, 1987 (Report No. 50-412/87-03)

Areas Inspected: QA Program, Receiving Inspection, Storage and Handling, Design Change and Modification Program, Onsite Safety Committee, and Non-Licensed Training Progra Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

A Q

- _. --

. .

.

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Duquesne Light Company D. Allison, Quality Control Training Coordinator, Operations D. Beron, Supervisor, Receiving and Stores T. Burns, Director of Operator Training

• J. Carey, Senior Vice President - Nuclear A. Cooper, Senior Procurement Engineer

• N. Daughterty, Director, Systems Testing

• J. Dusenberry, Assistant Director, Quality Assurance Surveillance

• S. Fenner, Director, Quality Control

• J. Godleski, Senior Test Engineer C. Haney, Maintenance Department Superintendent, Unit 1

• T. Heimel, Nondestructive Examination Specialist

• J. Kasunick, Director Maintenance, Start Up Group

• W. Lacey, Plant Manager

• T. McGhee, Onsite Safety Committee Chairman

• A. Morabito, Manager, Nuclear Training

• T. Noonan, Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance, Start Up Group

R._ Perry, Supervisor, Nondestructive Examination Services

• R. Rabenau, Compliance Engineer D. Roman, Operations Quality Assurance Supervisor

• R. Rossomme, Quality Control Coordinator, Unit 2

• C. Schulte, Procedure Review Committee Chairman

• R. _ Swiderski, Start Up Manager

• N._Tonet, General Manager Nuclear Engineering and Records

• G. Wargo, Assistant Director, Start Up Quality Control United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• J. Beall, Senior Resident Inspector, Unit 2

• L. Briggs, Lead Reactor Engineer

• D. Florek, Lead Reactor Engineer

• L. Prividy, Resident Inspector Unit 2

• W. Troskoski, Senior Resident Inspector Unit 1

• denotes those in attendance at exit meeting held January 16, 198 Other administrative, engineering, QA/QC, operations, start up and technical personnel were contacted during this inspectio .0 General The inspection was performed to assess the adequacy of the licensee's Quality Assurance, Design Change and Modification, Non-licensed Training, Receiving Inspection, Storage and Handling Programs and the Onsite Safety Committee for the operations phas . .

.

3.0 Receiving Inspection, Storage, and Handling 3.1 Program Review The procedures shown in Table I were reviewed to determine whether administrative controls clearly describe the following:

--

Receiving inspection addresses shipping damage and quantities receive Receiving inspection verifies that the purchase order requirements, including revisions, have been satisfie Receiving inspection results are documented and stored in an acceptable manne Acceptable materials are appropriately tagged or marked and store Items with specified shelf life are identified and the shelf life is clearly indicate Unacceptable items are identified, segregated and controlled to prevent inadvertent us TABLE I Number Revision Title OP-6 0 Material Control SUM Procurement SUM 4. Preparation of Spare Parts Recommendations SUM 4. Processing of Space Parts Recommendations SUM 4. Stock Item Request SUM 4. Equipment Qualification Requirements for Class IE Components 3.2 Implementation Receiving operations are performed in a large offsite warehouse dedicated to receiving and storage operations. The main portion of this warehouse met the requirements of ANSI N45.2.2 level B storage, with the remainder designed for ANSI N45.2.2 level A storag Incoming material, components and items are received in the level B section of the warehouse, inspected and then shipped to the onsite warehouse for issue, stored for future use, or sent directly to the plant for immediate application. When material, items or components are received they are visually inspected for shipping damage and quantities, unloaded and where possible inspected to the requirements of the purchase order including changes. Items received in special

. .

packaging such as hermetically sealed containers are not opened to protect the integrity of the produc Inspection is performed using the attributes required by the purchase order as acceptance criteria. Results are documented and the records maintained in the receiving inspection offic At intervals receiving documentation is microfilmed for duplicate and permanent storag Subsequent to the inspection the items accepted are tagged and either stored or distributed as described above. Nonconforming items are tagged as nonconforming and segregated to prevent inadvertent us The inspectcr determined that shelf life items have a sticker or label attac?.ed to the container during receiving inspection based on purchase order requirements. These items are then entered on a list maintained by the stores personnel in order to track the shelf life and flag items that are approaching their expiration date or have expired expiration date In the absence of definitive information from vendors a shelf life of five years from receipt of the product has been established for items requiring shelf life contro .3 Conclusions The inspection of this area established that the facilities for receiving, handling and storage were large, clean, well ventilated, and adequate for these operation Receiving inspection of materials, components and items not requiring shelf life was adequate, and well documented. However, for shelf life items the inspector noted that one item that should have been identified as a shelf life item was received and not entered into the program, one item received without shelf life requirements was entered into the program, and one item required to be tagged by the vendor was so tagged but not entered into the progra The engineering justification for establishing the five year shelf life of items where shelf life was not furnished by the manufacturer was not availabl It also appeared that the procedure for control of shelf life items lacked clarit The licensee stated this area would be reviewed to determine, should action be taken to improve documentation of engineering judgements and procedure clarity. These items will be followed up during a future inspectio .0 Quality Assurance / Quality Control 4.1 Program Review Quality Assurance (QA) program documents (see Attachment A) were reviewed to verify that the following administrative controls have been established for the QA/QC overview effor . .

t

--

Independence, qualification and training of QA/QC personnel

--

Documentation and review of corrective actions

--

Surveillance of ongoing activities

--

Quality element trending

--

Auditing, including checklist preparation and implementation 4.2 Organization The QA Manager reports directly to the Vice President, Nuclear. A Director Operations Quality Control, three supervisors and staff; Director Preservice/ Inservice Inspection (PSI /ISI), three supervisors and staff; Director Quality Assurance Engineering Procurement, three supervisors and staff; and Director Quality Assurance Operations, three supervisors and staff report to the Quality Assurance Manage Additionally, the construction phase Site Quality Control and Test Quality Control Directors with their respective Assistant Directors have been integrated into the Operations Quality Control group. Most personnel in these construction QC groups will not be retained after all construction has been completed. Selected QA individuals were interviewed and their qualifications were reviewe .3 Implementation The biennial audit schedule, including those audits required by the proposed Technical Specifications, was reviewed. One hundred and fifty nine audits are to be conducted in eighty functional activity areas. Audits will address both Units 1 and 2, as well as offsite vendor Preservice Inspection reports and corrective actions associated with the welding of two heat exchanger units were reviewed and discussed with PSI /ISI personnel. Both of these heat exchangers were supplied by the Joseph Oat Company. The liquid penetrant test results of various power piping systems was also reviewed and discussed with the same personnel. The problem centered around the difference between the ASME Code Section III used for construction and Section XI used for preservice and inservice inspection in the area of acceptance standards for liquid penetrant indication During performance of the required preservice liquid penetrant inspections the licensee's inspectors identified indications that were acceptable using the standards in Section XI but unacceptable using the more stringent Section III construction code. The NRC inspector had concern that the licensee had not resolved these discrepancies in a timely manne The details of these two preservice inspection issues are discussed more fully in Inspection Report 50-412/87-0 .

.

The corrective actions associated with cable storage deficiencies identified by site QC during the past 14 months and the inclusion of this information into the licensee Quality Trending effort was discussed with cognizant QA/QC Supervisors and Managers. (A violation was identified in Inspection Report 50-412/87-02 concerning inadequate cable storage.) Several audit checklists, field notes and associated reports were reviewed in detail and discussions were held with cognizant personnel to determine whether licensee auditors could have identified those cable storsge deficiencies and similar deficiencies during the conduct of an audi .4 Conclusions Administrative controls have been established and they appear adequate. The audit schedule addresses appropriate activities and planned staffing appears to be sufficient. Discussions with managers indicated that they track workload and other indicators to determine if additional personnel are needed. However, the following portions of the QA/QC overview effort appeared to be ineffective:

A. Audits Audits are oriented almost entirely to the review of documents, records, schedules and fulfillment of administrative require-ment Some audits by nature are review of " paper". Audits DC-2-85-33, Electrical Installations; DC-2-85-29, Material Control and Rigging; and DC-2-86-29, Material Control and Rigging, contained approximately 17 attributes for observations of ongoing activities or physical conditions from a total of 183 checklist attributes. An extreme example was Audit BV-1-86-02, Operations Q All of the 91 checklist attributes were for

" paper" reviews. This latter audit was of Unit However, the li:ensee plans the same type of audits during the operating phase of Unit Such " caper review" audits of material control (i.e. warehousing, laydown areas, and storage) are not capable of identifying the cable storage deficiencies discussed in Inspection Report 50-412/87-0 Technical Aspects of Corrective Action

,

The tecanical aspects of the corrective action associated with defective welding of the heat exchangers was determined to be adequat But it was noted that no effort was made by QA or other licensee technical groups to conduct a review of similar components at Unit 1 or of other components at Units 1 or 2 in order to determine if the vendor who had supplied the subject heat exchangers had manufactured similar items that were installed in the plant __ ._

. . . - - - . = _ - - - . . . . . . .. - . -

. .

.

- .

>

?

. Technical Requirements and Verifications in Attribute Listis

~

The specific QC surveillance checklists that 'did not inclu'e d attributes addressing the protection and sealing of cable ends

'

,

have- been_ _ revise _ Discussions - with cognizant personnel L indicated that there is no intent to review other checklists,

-even on ' a sample basis, in order to. determine if similar 1 specification or technical requirements omissions exist

'

elsewhere.

L j' . Trending Report i

The semiannual trending report uses numerous graphs and tables containing numbers of happenings, such as identified

.'

deficiencies. Vast amounts of data' are also 1ncluded. This report appears to be more of an activity report than a trending

.

j analysis. Various other trending efforts exist within specific

groups. _ The entire collection ~ of trending efforts failed to l

1-highlight . that the Site QC Surveillance group was continuously identifying problems with the storage and protection of cable reels.

'

It is also doubtful that the existing trending effort is coordinated so as to accomplish- a comprehensive trending ,

i analysis. ~ Licensee management indicated that the shortcomings-of their trending effort' had been recognized and a revised program was placed in effect ' January 9,1987 with the issuance '

i of Procedure SQC-1.5, Trend Analysis and Corrective Action, dated January 12, 1987.

I The assessment that the QA Program had serious weak ses and was not'

fully effective was _ based on the analysis discussed herei It was

!

'

stated at the exit interview that Region I management would be apprised of this assessment for their appropriate action.

1 5.0 Design Changes and Modifications ,

c The inspector reviewed the licensee's Quality Assurance Procedures OP-4,

!' " Design Change Control"; OP-10, " Maintenance Modification Planning"; and

OP-11 " Control of Maintenance and Modification". _ The procedures delineate

'

the requirements and responsibilities for design change control and

.

planning, executing and controlling maintenance modification activities.

l OP-4 requires that a design group shall' implement a program commensurate with the applicable requirements of ANSI N45.2.11.

'

The design change and modification program will be controlled by the licensee's architect engineer, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation #

(SWEC) existing procedures as well as licensee and SWEC procedures currently being developed. Licensee management has committed to complete by February 15, 1987, a Site Administrative Procedure for Design Control,

_

a Nuclear Engineering Procedure for Station Modification and a SWEC Pro-E cedure to address design responsibilities and interfaces with the i

i

!

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

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

. . . . _

. .

.

'

licensee, design concept preparation, safety evaluations and design change package turnover. Completion of the above implementing procedures for the design change program is an open item (50-412/87-03-01) and will be reviewed in future NRC inspection '

6.0 Onsite Safety Committee (OSC)

6.1 References / Requirements 10CFR50.73

Beaver Valley Unit 2 proposed Technical Specifications, Section Beaver Valley Unit 2 Final Safety Analysis Report ANSI N18.7 - 1976, Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants i'

ANSI N18.1 - 1971, Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Quality Assurance Program i Requirements (0peration)

NUREG - 0800, Revision 1,' Standard Review Plan 6.2 Program Review The basic requirements for the Onsite Safety Committee are described

in the documents listed above, and implemented by the following licensee's procedures

--

Onsite Safety Committee Charter, 9/22/86

--

SAP-10, Revision 7, 10/15/86, Onsite Safety Committee

--

OP-3, Revision 0, 11/15/86, Administrative Controls

--

OP-2, Revision 0, 11/15/86, Organization and Responsibilities

. --

Onsite Safety Committee Membership revision 12/1/86 The inspector reviewed the Onsite Safety Committee Charter and implementing procedures to determine whether administrative controls have been established for the following:

.

--

Independent review authority and responsibility

--

Ensuring the completion of reviews required by Technical Specifications

,

'

--

Membership, alternate members, and quorum requirements

--

Meeting frequency, maintenance and distribution of minutes i

--

Lines of communications and interfaces with other groups such as the Offsite Review Committee 6.3 Implementation and Organization i

The licensee intends to use the existing Unit 1 Onsite Safety Committee for both Units 1 and 2. This committee will be functional for Unit 2 sixty days prior to fuel load. The inspector reviewed a

!

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

.. . - -- __-____

-

. .

several meeting minutes of the OSC pertaining to Unit 1 and verified that the committee was performing Technical Specification responsibilities such as review of plant procedures, reportable events, and proposed changes or modifications to plant systems that affect nuclear safet The OSC organization consists of a chairman and nine full time members meeting the qualification requirements of the Technical Specifications and assigned for a period of six months. The chairman has also designated two alternates for each discipline to serve should a full-time member be unable to fulfill his duties. The inspector reviewed training and qualification forms and educational '

experience of selected members and alternates of the OSC and verified compliance with the proposed Technical Specifications and the FSA The chairman has also appointed temporary OSC members and alternates from the Unit 2 Operations and Testing and Plant Performance staff to provide guidance on Unit 2 matter The OSC will eventually be comprised of members from the staff of each unit or staff knowledge-able about both units.

l 6.4 Conclusions l

l The licensee has a Procedure Review Committee (PRC) composed of l

'

personrel from various Unit 2 safety organizations including Testing, Instruments and Controls, Operations, and Mechanical and Electrical

Maintenanc The licensee is utilizing the PRC to perform as the Unit Review Group until approximately sixty days prior to fuel load

, when the PRC and the existing Unit 1 OSC merge to form the site OSC.

l

'

The licensee's Startup Manual Chapter 3.1. " Procedure Review Committee", defines the organization functions and responsibilities of the PRC. The PRC is responsible for review of all Unit 2 l procedures recommended in Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, and any other procedure, programs, or changes that affect nuclear safety as determined by the Unit 2 Operation or Startup Managemen The PRC has reviewed approximately 100 calibration, test and maintenance procedures to be used during operations to determine that an adequate technical review was performed, unreviewed safety questions did not exist and the procedure does not compromise the safety of the plant or personne The inspector reviewed several meeting minutes and safety evaluations pertaining to the PRC and verified that the review process was performed in accordance with procedural guideline _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ _

.

The licensee intends to meet the OSC's procedure review requirements of the proposed technical specifications with the PRC review proces However, this is inconsistent with the proposed technical specifi-cations which require that the OSC shall review and recommend approval, to the plant superintendent, of the above procedures used for operations. The proposed technical specifications also require that the plant superintendent or his predesignated alternate approve the procedures. Upon identification by the inspector, the licensee agreed to resolve this inconsistency. This item remains open pending OSC review and plant superintendent approval of the procedures in accordance with the proposed technical specificatio (50-412/87-03-02)

Site Administrative Procedure 10, Revision 7, "Onsite Safety Committee" defines the organization, responsibilities and administrative requirements for the BVPS OSC. The inspector reviewed the procedure and determined that inconsistencies existed between it and the proposed Technical Specifications. Paragraph 6.5.1 states in part, "The OSC shall be responsible for: review of all procedures required by specification 6.8 and changes thereto ..." however, SAP 10 only charges the OSC with the responsibility for review of intent changes to those procedures required by specification Additionally, paragraph 6.8.3 states that temporary changes may be made provided the change is reviewed by the OSC, however, SAP 10 does not charge the OSC with review responsibility of temporary change The acceptability of SAP-10 is open pending the incorporation of review responsibilities for temporary procedure changes and consistency with the proposed Technical Specifications regarding review responsibilities. (50-412/87-03-03)

Based on the review of the administrative procedures and implementa-tion for BVPS-1, the inspector determined that administrative controls for the OSC have been established and implemented in accordance with requirements. Except for the resolution of the unre-solved items mentioned, the OSC is capable of supporting Unit 2 operation .0 Non Licensed Training 7.1 Introduction The documented Non Licensed (NL) Training Program applies to both Units 1 and 2 where applicable and is in accordance with FSAR Chapter 13.2. Since some of the systems have not been turned over to Unit 2 Operating Plant Staff, activities such as those performed by the mechanical and electrical maintenance personnel were observed being performed at Unit __

, .

,

The established training program is administered by the Manager of Nuclear Training. The NL program effort is adequately staffed with approximately twenty (20) trained and qualified instructors for both Units 1 and 2. The inspector observed that the established training program was effectively used in training the personnel recently acquired from Phillips Power Statio .2 Training Policy and Progress The documented NL Staff Training Program and its policy is addressed primarily in the Nuclear Group Training Administrative Manual (NGTAM), Revision 2 for Units 1 and 2. The manual is divided into two i volumes. Volume 1 describes the organization and administrative aspects of the training program. Covered in Volume 1 are such topics as organizational responsibilities including Training Committees; requirements; program development; personnel qualifications; imple-mentation and evaluation; records and reports. Volume 2 describes the specific training programs including: General Employee Training and Refresher Training; initial technical training; on the job (0JT)

training; and continued training. The Plant Staff Departments are responsible for OJT trair.ing with the Nuclear Training Department assisting as requested. Training for Unit 2 plant specifics are developed as the systems are being turned over from Construction to Operations. This is in consonance with FSAR Chapter 13.2. The FSAR also states that the training program includes the necessary training for those individuals assigned specifically to Unit 2 and those in-dividuals whose duties cover both units. This was verified by the inspector observing a class being taught regarding Unit 2 Radiation Monitor The inspector reviewed the documented training program and found the program to be in compliance with the Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.8, Revision 1-R, September 1975, Personnel Selection and Training, which endorses ANSI N18.1-1971; Item II.B.4 of NUREG-0737 regardi Mitigating Core Damage; the FSAR Chapter 13.2; as well as Self Evaluation Reports (SERs) for each of the training areas, all of which have been accepted by INPO. The Training Department provided the following status for INP0 accreditatio Licensed Operator Training, Non Licensed Operator Training, and Requalification Training Programs have been accredite Shift Technical Advisor , Radiation Technician, Chemistry Technician, and Instrumentation & Control Technician Training Programs are awaiting accreditation board revie Mechanical Maintenance, Electrical Maintenance, and Technical Staff &

Managers Training Programs are awaiting INPO accreditation visi , _ _ . . -

. .- -. . . -- - . . . - -

_ - . -

f J L;

.

. 12 The inspector interviewed several instructors at the training cente The- instructors were well trained and qualified to RG 1.8. The instructor at the training center walked the inspector through the

-

selection and job / task analyses (JTA) of course subject; and the

' development, paer and system expert reviews and Director approval of the lesson plans'. The . instructors have adequate preparation time,

visual aids, handouts, and classroom environment. The continuing

,

training and evaluations for instructors were also adequate. Plant

!_ supervisors did not have any inputs in the development of the course subjects. Supervisors however, did participate in the JTA effort. The plant supervision did not critique or visit any of the classes though

_ they were invited. The' inspector confirmed this when he interviewed i the maintenance plant supervisors and management. The Maintenance l Department Superintendent stated that measures will be established to

enhance the department's involvement in personnel trainin , The inspector' interviewed 'several foremen regarding the training of their personnel as well their own training. One foreman ' in th Maintenance Department conducted OJT for his personnel. The . OJT is now structured and documented.

t i The inspector reviewed the Maintenance Department OJT -training records and Operating Quality Control inspector training record The 0JT records were complete and accessible. The QC training records met the minimum requirements of ANSI N45.2.6. and are being revised (see paragraph 7.5) to document specific training an individual has receive .4 Observation of Work Activities The inspector witnessed a ' number of work activities in Operations, Maintenance, Radiological Control, and Engineering. These activities

, were conducted in .accordance with the procedures by personnel knowl-edgeable

~

in the requirements of the procedures and technical requirement This was especially evident in the following activities:

'

The inspector walked down an Equipment Clearance Permit with a Startup (SV) operator. The permit No.

00666 was for Unit 2 I 2RHS*FT-6078 flow transmitter. The SU operator was trained' and i qualified to clear the permit. He received the request from his shift i

'

foreman, checked the location and valve position from the drawing in a the control room and proceeded into the plant. He found, verified the "

valve positions, tagged the valves and recorded the information on

'

'

the permit. He explained the required action if the valves were not in the prescribed position. The SU operator returned to the control room and reported the clearance action of the permit to his forema This SU operator was trained at Unit 1. He is learning the Unit 2

plant specifics mainly from OJT and required reading, as well as the i prior Unit 1 experience.

f

,

, _ , , _ - . , - , , . _ . - _ . _ _ - , .,. __ _ _ . - .. _ -- _ _ _ , _ , , , . _,,_____._..m_ _ _ . -

. -

The inspector witnessed two Meter Control Repairmen (MCR) perform a verification of " Missing Material on Instrumentation System". This action was requested by a written memorandum from a Site QC Enginee For the three safety related instruments witnessed, the MCRs did verify missing drain plugs. They explained that they would not only report the missing material but also prepare a material request to replace the missing materia The inspector walked down the maintenance of the Unit A Control Room Air Compressor (A/C) Condensing Unit with an experienced electrician. The maintenance activity by the electrician included:

cleaning the A/C cooler, changing the oil and filter, greasing the bearings, inspecting the evaporator coils and the duct work, and adjusting the belts. The electrician explained that 99% of what was done in maintaining the Condensing Unit was learned from OJT. He and his foreman did participate in a JTA exercis The inspector walked down the Corrective Maintenance Procedure (CMP)

1-75-84, Repair of Ingersoll Rand In Liner Pump with a veteran mechanic. He also walked down CMP 1-7CH-P-8-MI (Maintenance Work Request 87-0009), Boric Acid Transfer Pump Overhaul with another veteran mechani Both mechanics were knowledgeable of their tasks, procedural, ALARA, and the Technical Specification (TS) requirement They also were aware of the shelf life requirements and QA/QC's role in plant operations. They learned their skills from the OJT proces The inspector received access training in accordance with NGATAM Chapter 1.3. The training included a plant tour by a radiation protection foreman, instruction for and receipt of a film badge and dosimetry, signing in and out via the Access Work Permit, performing a whole body frisk and understanding the classification markings posted in the radiation area .5 QA/QC Interface With Training The inspector observed a QC inspector and trainee witnessing the verification of Missing Material on Instrumentation Systems. Also another QC inspector walked down the CMP of the Ingersoll Rand Pum The inspectors were qualified to ANSI N45.2.6. They were knowledge-able of their assignments as well as the procedural and TS requirement sThe inspector reviewed two 1986 QA audits (Nos. BV-1-86-12 and 16)

regarding training. They were comprehensive compliance audits. The inspector discussed these audits with a team member of audit BV-1-86-12 who was also the team leader of audit BV-1-86-16. The inspector discussed these audits with the auditors supervisor. The supervisor assured the inspector that future training audits will include attributes verifying the training effectiveness by observing work activities as required in QA Department Instruction (QADI)

J

. . .

a

18.2.2, Conduct of Audits. The inspector noted in his review of QADI 18.2.1, Planning of Audits, that there was no mention of hardware attribute The supervisor agreed to review this omission and take corrective action (see paragraph 4.4.A for further discussion on audits).

The inspector interviewed the QC inspector trainee. She was the first trainee in the new training program started on January 6,198 Later, the inspector reviewed the new training program with the Training Coordinator. The program follows the INP0 Guideline 84-003, Quality Control Inspector and Non Destructive Testing. This action was taken in anticipation of the training being INP0 accredited in the future. It has been approved by management and the JTAs are being performed by a contractor and 25% of the JTAs have been complete The training records reviewed reflected the old training program. The new training program will be more specific as to what qualifications a trainee or an inspector has complete .0 Unresolved Items Unresolved Items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or violation Unresolved Items are discussed in paragraphs 3.0, 5.0, and .0 Management Meetings Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspection at the entrance interview on January 12, 1987. The findings of the inspection were discussed with licenue representatives during the course of the inspection and presented to licensee management at the January 16, 1987, exit interview (see paragraph I for attendees).

At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector. The licensee did not indicate that proprietary information was involved within the scope of this inspectio .-. . . - . , . _ . , _ . _ - - - .

m

., - ..

ATTACHMENT A 1. Procedures SQC January 12,1987 Trend Analysis and Corrective Action IP 7.35 January 10,1987 Surveillance of General Construction Activities 2. Audits DC-2-86-37 Startup Activities DC-2-82-16 S&W Procurement QA Division DC-2-83-09 S&W Procurement Activities DC-2-84-11 S&W Procurement QA Division DC-2-86-13 S&W Procurement QA Division DC-2-85-33 Electrical Installation DC-2-86-34 Construction Installation DC-2-86-29 Material Control and Rigging DC-2-85-29 Material Control and Rigging DC-2-86-03 Site QC Unit DC-2-85-02 Site QC BV-1-85-01 Operations QC BV-1-86-02 Operations QC