IR 05000483/1978013
| ML19294A736 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1979 |
| From: | Hayes D, Mattia J, Schweibinz E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19294A734 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-483-78-13, 50-486-78-03, 50-486-78-3, NUDOCS 7903130021 | |
| Download: ML19294A736 (8) | |
Text
,
%
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-483/78-13; 50-486/78-03 Docket No. 50-483; 50-486 License No. CPPR-139 and CPPR-140 Licensee: Union Electric Company P. O. Eox 149 St. Louis, MO 63166 Facility Name:
Callaway, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
SNUPPS, Home Office, Gaithersburg, Maryland Inspection Conducted:
November 20-22, 1978 I [' dek..
./>-.t..
-
23'
/
,
Inspectors:
E.
R. Schweibinz
~'
.
?$
!;1 %.~6'.
, ' 'y h _,,',
.
f.e.-J.
C. Mattia u
(Region I)
~
,. dn!...
b'
'
c.
.
,_ y,* _ 3,,
,
/C.
R. Oberg
<
p.
(Region IV)
.
t_.)
"
- '--
!
Approved by:
D. W. Hayes, Chi I )F 7'/
Projects Section
/
,
Inspection Summary Inspection on November 20-22, 1978 (Report No. 50-483/78-13; 50-486/78-03)
Areas Inspected: The 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 a total of 48 inspector-hours in the SNUPPS Gaithersburg office by three NRC ine,ectors.
R_ sults:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7903130O)2(
g
.
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Individuals Centacted 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.
Management Reviews The IE inspector reviewed the implementation of SNUPPS Staff Admin-istrative 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 manage-ment in significant quality matters).
The IE inspector concluded that management is conducting reviews 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 a.
(1/2/75), " Corrective Action System" b.
SNUPPS Standard QA Manual, Section B-10, Revision 6 (12/9/77),
" Corrective Action" c.
SNUPPS Staf f 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:
.
t
There is very low activity in this area.
Corrective action
.
a.
reports, as defined in the above procedures, are only used by one utility.
b.
Activities affecting quality and in need of correction are handled in letters, audit reports and unique AE and utility corrective action reports.
The scope and application of the correctiva action system, as c.
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-mentation 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 Comr.ittee.
(483/78-13-01)
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
--
Revicw of Bechtel 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:
.
%
An index is provided specifying r.ecord title, date, retention a.
-
times and file location.
b.
QA records to be controlled are identified.
Audits have been conducted that verify accurate records are c.
identified, stored and maintained.
d.
A plan is being developed for turnover of appropriete recnrds to the SNUPPS utilities.
Records are stored in a secure area which protected the recorcs e.
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 Proaram 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:
a.
ACP 13.1, " Audit Program," Revision 4 (1/13/77)
b.
SNUPPS Standard QAM B-13 " Audit and Surveillance," Revision 4 (5/12/75)
Surveillance Report, Implementation of ACP 13.1, SLS78-11E c.
(File 0491.13.3) of 11/14/78 d.
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)
e.
External Audit Log 11/73 - 11/78 f.
Internal Audit Log 6/74 - 8/78
.
t g.
Other Audits Involving SNUPPS Participation (Log) 7/73 - 11/78
,
-
h.
SNUPPS Audit of Bechtel Internal Audit Program 9/27/78 - 10/15/78 SLBM 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 reouired.
One instance of a lack of audit coverage was identified during an internal audit.
d.
Audit reports are ccmplete.
Responses and resolutions to identified problems are received and evaluated.
e.
Cooies of audit reports are sent to the audited organization and records are maintained of audits conducted.
No items of noncomoliance were identified.
6.
Processing of Noncenformance Reoorts During the inspection, the IE inspector reviewed Section B-9,
"Nonconfcrming Material Control," Revision 8 (10/27/78).
This precedure requires all nonconformance reports, within the SNUPPS concept, to be _.
.
forwarded to the lead A/E or NSSS supplier for acticr.
In practice.
(
l
.__ _.. __ begi_nning about July 1978, the site representative fo-Bechtel, the_ ead A/E) is new reviewing and dispostioning a larger portion of the EPs.
_
Specific guideliness and agreements are identified in varicus letters and meeting minutes.
Emphasis on a field dispositioning system has de-creased the time required for dispositiening.
Approxir.ately 165 cf all NCRs are now sent to the Gaithersburg office of the lead A/E versus ap-proximately 60% earlier.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Review of Standard Plan PSAR Revisions The following procedure was reviewed for its adequacy and to establish the csanitments by which the chosen records would be audited: SNUPPS.
-
-
.
.
Staff Administrative Control Procedure (ACP) No. 3.3, Revision 3,
,
dated February 10, 1977, citled, 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 these documents was revie<.ed to verify compliance with the applicable procedures:
PSAR Change Notice No.1-78, with regard to reinforcing cover a.
tolerances in the reactor building.
(1)
Bechtel letter to SNUPPS proposing the change, BLSE 5525, dated February 7,1978, transmitting this cnange as PSAR Change Notice No. 37-77.
(2)
Bechtel letter to SNUPPS, 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 February 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 en use of easily decontaminated coatings.
(1)
Bechtel letter to SNUPPS proposing change, BLSE-5110, dated November 7, 1977.
(2)
SNUPPS letter to Bechtel requesting evaluation of this change with regard to radiation exposure requirements.
SLBE 78-116, dated February 8,1978.
(3)
Bechtel letter to SNUPPS providing evaluation of the abeve 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 comnitments 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.
e
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 responses that involve outgoing correspondence.
The concurrence of the Executive Director, or in his absence a staff member other than the author, shall be obtained for all outgoing Such concurrence shall be reflected by the individual's correspondence.
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 In all cases, the documentation determine the above comnitment was met.
reflected that a staff member or the Executive Director had concurred with the outgoing correspcndence.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Review of CA Procram Related to Desian & Procurement 9.
a.
Desian OA Prooram The inspector reviewed the following SNUPPS administrative (1)
control procedures (ACP) related to design control to verify compliance with regulatory requirements and PSAR cormitments :
ACP 3.1, Revision 2 ACP 3.2, Revision 6 (Design Portion only)
ACP 3.5, Revision 2 No items of noncompliance wert identified.
Various documents in the SNUPPS files were reviewed to (2)
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 Specifications 10466-M-082, 10466-E-057, 10466-E-035, 10466-M-140, 10466-C-112 and 10466-C-103A.
No items of noncompliance were identifie.
.
.
t
The inspector reviewed th3 following lists identifying the Design Documents to be reviewed and the level of review (3)
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.
Procurement Control 0A Procram_
b.
The inspector randomly selected various procurement documents
_
(bid evaluations, purchase orders and recannended bidders)
M-082, E-057, E-035 and C-ll2 to verify comp ACP Procedure 4.1.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Unresolved Itens_
20.
Unresolved itens are matters about which more information is re in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, ite noncompliance, or deviations.
this inspection is discussed in paragraph 3.
Exit Interview The inspectorsmet with t[e. licensee representatives (denoted in 78.
paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspect and the findings.