IR 05000482/1978016
| ML19281A177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1979 |
| From: | Crossman W, Mattia J, Oberg C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19281A176 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-78-16, NUDOCS 7903070168 | |
| Download: ML19281A177 (8) | |
Text
'
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. STN 50-482/78-16 Docket No. STN 50-482 Category A2 Licensee:
Kansas Gas and Electric Company Post Office Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 Facility Name:
Wolf Creek, Unit No.1 Inspection at:
SNUPPS Home Office, Gaithersburg, Maryland Inspection conducted: November 20-22, 1978 Inspectors:c M, f? d /. d m I
///N79
_
~
gg C. R. Oberg, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section Date
& Y7 SY 5.,t o N ll/> b 9 p-tJ.Mattia,ReactorInspector,RI Date 0, 97lNd b
/ //)/29 fel E. Schweibinz, Reactor Inspector, RIII Date Approved: 0 !?l?${IVAl-l ll ) bc)
ptW.A.Crossman, Chief,ProjectsSection Date Inspection Sumary:
Inspection on November 20-22, 1978 (Report No. STN 50-482/78-16)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of aspects of the Quality Assurance Program relating to the control of design and procurement, overall conduct of the audit program and document control.
The inspection involved forty-eight in-office inspection-hours by three NRC regional based inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
7903070/6 g
.
DETAILS 1.
Individuals contacted SNUPPS Organization
- Mr. W. W. Baldwin, Administrator Manager
- Mr. E. Beckett, Licensing Manager
- Mr. N. A. Petrick, Executive Director
- Mr. F. Schwoerer, Technical Director
- Mr. S. J. Seiken, QA Manager
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Mana:ement Reviews The IE inspector reviewed the implementation of SNUPPS Staff Ad-ministrative Control Procedure (ACP) 2.5, Revision 2 (10/20/75),
" Management Reviews of the Quality Assurance Program," by discussion with responsible staff members.
Review of applicable documents was conducted including: (1) procedures (for administrative review and approval); (2) audit reports (for adequacy of management review and response); and (3) meeting minutes (for involvement of SNUPPS management in significant quality matters).
The IE Inspector concluded that management is conducting review of the QA program as prescribed.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Corrective Action Reports The IE inspector reviewed the following documents pertaining to the Corrective Action System:
SNUPPS Staff Administrative Control Procedure 10.1, Revision 1 (1/2/75), " Corrective Action System" SNUPPS Standard QA Manual, Section B-10, Revision 6 (12/9/77),
" Corrective Action" SNUPPS Staff File 0491.10.1, " Corrective Action Reports and Log" After discussion of the procedures and current activities with the appropriate SNUPPS Staff QA member, the following was determined:
-2-
a.
There is very low activity in this area.
Corrective action reports, as defined in the above procedures, are only used by one utility, b.
Activities affecting quality in need of correction are handled in letters, audit reports and unique AE and utility Corrective Action Reports.
c.
The scope and application of the corrective action system, as noted in the above procedures, are not clear and do not appear to be fully implemented. This is based on the apparent low level of reports from the utilities and AE and the use of an unauthorized form for the 109 The SNUPPS QA Manager stated that above procedures and their imple-menr.ation would be reviewed during the next SNUPPS QA Committee meeting. The proper log form was utilized prior to the end of the inspection.
This item is considered unresolved pending review of the procedure by the SNUPPS QA Comittee.
4.
Quality Assurance Records The IE inspector reviewed the implementation of the Quality Assurance record system by discussion with responsible SNUPPS staff members, inspection of record keeping facilities, and examination of appropriate documents as listed below:
ACP 12.2, " Quality Assurance Records," Revision 3(3/18/77)
Surveillance Report: Control of Design Documents SLS78-109 (File 0491.4.1.) of 11/16/78 Review of Sechtel Control Logs (August, September and October 1978), SLS78-116 (File 0491.4.1) of 11/13/78 QA Records Index, SLS 7-36 (Interoffice Memo File 0491.12)
of 2/17/77 The IE inspector determined that the QA records are being maintained in accordance with the requirements of ANSI N45.2.9 - 1974 and ACP 12.2 in that:
-3-
a.
An index is provided specifying record title, date, retention times and file location.
b.
QA records to be controlled are identified.
c.
Audits have been conducted that verify accurate records are identified, stored and maintained.
d.
A plan is being developed for turnover of appropriate records to the SNUPPS utilities.
e.
Records are stored in a secure area which protects the records against possible destruction.
f.
Monthly survey surveillances and monitoring of' records are con-ducted to assure records are logged in, available and properly stored; to assure control system is adequate; and to ensure facilities are in good functional condition.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Audit Program The IE inspector reviewed the implementation of the internal and external audit program being conducted by the SNUPPS staff.
Dis-cussions were held with appropriate staff members involved in audits.
The following documents were examined:
ACP 13.1, " Audit Program," Revision 4 (1/13/77)
SNUPPS Standard QAM B-13, " Audit and Surveillance," Revision 4 (51/12/75)
Surveillance Report, Implementation of ACP 13.1, SLS78-118 (File 0491.13.3) of 11/14/78 Audit Schedules September 1978 - August 1979 for: (1) SNUPPS Audit Program for Bechtel: (2) SNUPPS Internal Audit Program; and (3) Nuclear Projects Incorporated (NPI) Procurements; SLS 78-87 (File 0491.13.3)
External Audit Log 11/73 - 11/78 Internal Audit Log 6/74 - 8/78-4-
.
Other Audits Involving SNUPPS Participation (Log) 7/73 - 11/78 SNUPPS Audit of Bechtel Internal Audit Program 9/27/78 - 10/18/78 SLCM 78-381 (File 0492.13.1 of 10/23/78 The IE inspector concluded that the SNUPPS audit program is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of ANSI N45.2.12-1973 and applicable SNUPPS procedures.
Specifically:
a.
Audits are planned.
b.
Audit team members are qualified.
c.
Audits are scheduled and concluded as required.
One instance of a lack of audit coverage was identified during an internal audit.
d.
Audit reports are complete. Responses and resolutions to identi-fied problems are received and evaluated.
e.
Copies of audit reports are sent to the audited organization and records are maintained of audits conducted.
No items of nonccmpliance were identified.
6.
Processing of Nonconformance Reports During the inspection, the IE inspector reviewed Section B-9, "Non-conforming Material Control," Revision 8 (10/27/78).
This procedure requires all Nonconformance Reports (NCRs), within the SNUPPS concept, to be forwarded to the-lead A/E or NSS Supplier for action.
In practice, beginning about July 1978, the site representative for Bechtel (the lead A/E) is now reviewing and dispositioning a larger portion of the NCRs. Specific guidelines and agreements are identified in various letters and meeting minutes.
Emphasis on a field dispositioning system has decreased the time required for dispositioning. Approxi-mately 16% of all NCRs are now sent to the Gaithersburg office of the lead A/E versus approximately 60% earlier.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Review of Standard Plan PSAR Revisions The follcwing procedure was reviewed for its adequacy and to establish the commitaents by which the chosen records would be audited: SNUPPS Staff Administrative Control Procedure (ACP) No. 3.3, Revision 3, dated-5-
.
February 10, 1977, titled, Revision of the Standard Plan PSAR, Site Addenda and Environmental Reports.
The inspector selected records which pertained to review and approval of PSAR change notices. The handling of the following documents was reviewed to verify compliance with the applicable procedures:
a.
PSAR Change Notice No.1-78, with regard to reinforcing cover tolerances in the reactor building.
(1) Bechtel letter to SNUPPS proposing the change, BLSE 5526, dated February 7,1978, transmitting this change as PSAR Change flotice No. 37-77.
(2) Bechtel letter to 3NUPPS, BLSE 5575, dated February 24, 1978, reassigning PSAR Change Notice 37-77 to PSAR Change Notice No. 1-78.
(3)
SNUPPS letter to NRC, SLNRC 78-03, dated Febuary 13, 1978, requesting change to PSAR on the above subject.
(4) SNUPPS letter cancelling PSAR Change Notice No.1-78, SLBE 78-349, dated April 10, 1978.
b.
PSAR Change Notice No. 32-77, in regard to revised descriptions on use of easily decontaminated coatings.
(1)
Bechtel letter to SNUPPS proposing change, BLSE-5510, dated November 7, 1977.
(2) SNUPPS letter' to Bechtel requesting evaluation of this change with regard to radiation exposure requirements.
SLBE 78-116, dated Febuary 8, 1978.
(3) Bechtel letter to SNUPPS providing evaluation of the above change and a cost savings estimate, BLSE 5788, dated April 3,1978.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Review of Correspondence Control The following SNUPPS Administrative Control Procedure (ACP) was referred to during the course of the inspection for commitments made for the control of all outgoing correspondence: SNUPPS Staff Admin-istrative Control Procedure No. 5.1, Revision 6, dated November 17, 1978, titled, Correspondence and Commitment Control.
-6-
.
It is a requirement of each cognizant member of the SNUPPS staff to obtain written concurrence of other staff members involved with or affected by proposed respor.ses that involve outgoing correspond-ence.
The concurrence of the Executive Director, or in his absence a staff member other than the author, shall be obtained for all outgoing correspondence. Such concurrence shall be reflected by the individual's initials on the initial Record Note Form, it shall also become part of the subject file copy.
Approximately 37 outgoing items of correspondence were reviewed to determine the above commitment was met.
In all cases, the documen-tation reflected that a staff member or the Executive Director had concurred with the outgoing correspondence.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Review of QA Program Related to Design & Procurement a.
Design QA Program (1) The inspector reviewed the following SNUPPS administrative control procedures (ACP) related to design control to verify compliance with regulatory requirements and PSAR comni tments:
ACP 3.1, Revision 2 ACP 3.2, Revision 6 (Design Portion only)
ACP 3.5, Revision 2 No items of noncompliance were identified.
(2) Various documents in the SNUPPS files were reviewed to verify compliance with the requirements of the above SNUPPS ACP 3.2 and 3.5 procedures. The files included the following:
Comments, resolution of comments and approval letters which were transmitted between the various utilities, SNUPPS organization and Bechtel which related to the approval of Bechtel Technical Speci-ications 10466-M-082, 10466-E-057, 10466-E-035, 10466-M-140, 10466-C-112 and 10466-C-103A.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
-7-
-
.
(3) The inspector reviewed the following lists identifying the Design Documents to be reviewed and the level of review to be performed to verify compliance with the requirements of ACP 3.1:
Callaway Site List dated 8/25/78 Wolf Creek Site List dated 8/25/78 Tyrone Site List dated 8/25/78 Bechtel Specification List dated 8/25/78 Bechtel Drawing List dated 10/20/78 The inspector also reviewed two SNUPPS letters (Code SLBE 4-294 and 4-259) relating to the Design Document Lists.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Procurement Control QA Program The inspector randomly selected various procurement documents (bid evaluations, purchase orders and recommended bidders)
related to the following Technical Specifications 10466-M-140, M-082, E-057, E-035 and C-ll2 to verify compliance to SNUPPS ACP Procedure 4.1.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
10.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
One unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 3.
11.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 22, 1978.
The inspectors summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
-8-