IR 05000483/1980001
| ML19312E664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1980 |
| From: | Hansen W, Knop R, Wescott H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312E662 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-483-80-01, 50-483-80-1, NUDOCS 8006050511 | |
| Download: ML19312E664 (9) | |
Text
.
O
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-483/80-01 Docket No. 50-483 License No. CPPR-139 Licensee: Union Electric Company Post Office Box 149 St. Louis, MO 63166 Facility Name: Callaway, Unit 1 Inspection At: SNUPPS Home Office, Gaithersburg, MD Inspection Conducted: January 7-9, 1980 MlMl8C
/
Inspectors:
H. M. Wescott, Region III A c 16~*Y W.Hansen,RegionIyI g/ go Se f C. R. Ober;, Re &
YT d
-
gion IV
/7/f0 J. Mattia Re
/[f'O Approved By:
R. C.
op ef Projects Section 1 Inspection Summary Inspection on January 7-9, 1980 (Report No. STN 50-482/80-01)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based in-spectors of aspects of quality assurance program relating to the control of design and procurement, overall conduct of the audit program and docu-ment control. The inspection involved sixty-cight inspector-hours by four NRC regional based inspectors.
Results: Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified.
8006050Sll Q
r -
(i
)
'
.
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted SNUPPS Oraanization - (Gaithersbura, Maryland)
- Mr. N. A. Petrick, Executive Director
- Mr. S. J. Seiken, Quality Assurance Manager
. Mr. R. L. Stright Licensing Manager
- Mr. R. P. White, Nuclear and Fuel Engineer
- denotes those present at the exit interview
.
Bechtel Corporation - (Gaithersburg, Maryland)
.
I Mr. D. C. Kansel, Project QA Manager 2.
Design and Procurement Documents The inspectors selected a sample of documents to verify that the SNUPPS organization's review and comment of design and procurement documents, coordination of the review with the utilities and transmittal and follow-up of review coments to the Bechtel organization were in accordance with the requirements of their administrative control procedure 3.2, revision 6.
The following documents were reviewed:
Procurement Documents Bid packages for specifications M-160, M-189 and A-076 and the
-
applicable review and coment letters transmitted by various organizations involved.
Desian Documents
'
Drawings J-05045, J-05046 and E-01014 and the applicable
-
review and comment letters or memorandums transmitted by the various organizations involved.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
--.
.
..
-
-.
-
...
. _ -....,
-...-.
_ -.
b
)
.
x.
.
.
.
3.
Control of Desian Documents
.
.
The inspector sampled several design drawings and specifications to verify that these documents are controlled in accordance with the SNUPPS administrative control procedures.
The following documents were selected from the current (11/20/79) SNUPPS drawing and specification release logs (Register) and the files were inspected to verify that the latest revisions were in the SNUPPS files:
.
Drawing Numbg Revision M-02BBU1
M-02BG02
M-02BG05
E-01001
E-01010
E-OlNG02
J-02EN01
J-02GSO4
C-03AB53
C-0C2412
C-V203
Specification No.
Revision A-074
C-100
E-057
J-481
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Control of Changes and Revisions to Desian Documents The inspector selected several drawing and specification changes to verify that the requirements of SNUPPS administrative control procedure 3.5 were adherW to, The following design documents were selected and the various SNUPPS letters and memorandums associated I
with these changes were reviewed by the inspector:
Revision 7 to Specification C 160
-
Revision A to Drawing E-01014
-
i l
l No items of noncompliance were identified.
!
. ___.... _ _ _ _ _
-
...
.
_. _
_
. -
.
('
')
'
-
-
s.
.
5.
Procurement Services The inspector selected two current SNUPPS contracts for the procurement of services to verify that they were processed in accordance with SNUPPS administrative control procedure 4.1.
The following are the contracts reviewed:
Nuclear Service Corporation consulting contract (Task IV).
-
Bechtel consulting contract (Job No.12429)
-
The inspector also verified that the required semi-annual listing of procurements was issued.
The current listing was issued on September 14, 1979.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Ajdit Program The IE inspector reviewed the activities of the SNUPPS QA a.
staff in regard to the accomplishment of the Audit Program as described in ACP 13.1 (Rev. 4) (1/13/77). During the review of the program status, it was noted that the Bechtel Audit Program was not being reviewed by SNUPPS on an annual basis as stated in ACP 13.1, paragraph 6.2.4.
The last audit on this major activity had been done in September 1978.
However, follow up on the results of that audit and surveillances has been done in this area.
After discussion of the item with the QA Manager, he stated that this area would be audited during the month of January 1980.
The IE inspector stated that the item would be considered unresolved and would be examined during the next inspection.
(50-485/80-01-01).
I b.
The IE inspector also reviewed a Bechtel 0A audit relating to the processing of Nonconformance Reports (NCR), Field Change Requests (FCR), and Construction Variance Requests (CVR) (July 13 - September 26,1979); and the Bechtel Project QA Audit of PACAL (Paper-Calmerson) (July 24-27,1979).
The Master Audit Plan for Bechtel Project QA was also reviewed and discussed
'
with the Bechtel Project QA Manager.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l
.
- - -, - - -
,, -, - -,
-
-,, -
,,, - - -
('
'
)
,
.
7.
Reporting of Significant Deficiencies and Defects
~.
-
L The IE inspector reviewed the SNUPPS staff activities relating to I
the reporting of construction deficiencies.
SNUPPS Staff Administrative Control Procedure (ACP) 10.2, Rev. 3 (12/5/77) was reviewed and discussed with the staff personnel.
Six significant deficiencies have been reported to the NRC (Region I) by(Chapter 17 of the the SNUPPS staff. This is in accordance with the SNUPPS QA manual PSAR), paragraph 17.1.16 which states, "For deficiencies within the SNUPPS concept involving hardware which has not arrived at the plant site, the utilities' management have assigned the reporting responsibility to the SNUPPS Executive Director." This responsibility was assigned in writing by the four participating utilities in Aucust-September 1975.
Specific files of 10 CFR 50.55(e) reports were reviewed for conformance to the above ACP.
It was determined by the IE inspector that the requirements were being met for reporting of deficiencies to the NRC.
However, the ACP does not clearly identify who is responsible for the reporting of deficient items when material has been delivered to one site, but not to the other sites.
The SNUPPS DA Manager
- tated that the SNUPPS QA comittee has an agenda item scheduled for the next meeting concerning 50.55(e) item reporting and that
'
'
this interface problem would be discussed. The IE inspector stated that this would be reviewed during the next IE inspection.
(50-l 485/80-01-02)
l 8.
Licensee Act';n on Previous Inspection Findings
,
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-485/79-01-01): Timeliness of Audit Responses.
Three audits have been conducted by the SNUPPS staff on Bechtel activities since April 1979.
Written responses by Bechtel to the audit findings were timely and met the ANSI standard require-l
!-
ment of 30 days.
This item is considered resolved.
9.
SNUPPS Ouality Assurance Program for Desian and Construction The SNUPPS staff has s;ubmitted an updated QA Program Document to
_
,
the NRR QA Branch. _IJ This document contains Chapter 17 of the
'
PSAR, but incorporates outstanding revisions and PSAR Change Notices.
Program commitments applicable to fire protection, Non-Category I seismic items and quality group D items (au;mented) are also included.
This document will be reviewed by NRR QA. This document will be controlled and maintained in place of the QA Program description previously contained in the SNUPPS PSAR.
I if SNUPPS letter SLNRC 79-24, File 0542/049.1 of December 20, 1979
.
-
.
__
_ - _ _ _ -
-
.
.
.
- _ - - _
k*
()
'
-
,
.
10.
Dccument Review Selection The inspector reviewed SNUPPS Administration Control Procedure 3.1
" Selection of Documents for Review", Revision 3, dated 4/30/79.
To verify confomance to this procedure the following was reviewed:
a.
File No. 0491.4.2, "SNUPPS Design Document Review Process 1 and 2" b.
Mechanical and Plant Design Categories c.
Control Systems Drawing Categories d.
Electrical Drawings e.
Civil Structural Drawing Categories f.
Architectural Drawings g.
Specification Control Log (Printout), dated 5/7/74 h.
Drawing Control Log, dated 4/22/77
,
1.
Review of correspondence SNUPPS - Bechtel.
Discussing level of review recommended.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area of the audit, 11.
Plant PSAR Chances
.
The inspector reviewed SNUPPS Administration Control Procedure 3.3,
!
" Revision of Standard Plant PSAR Site Addenda and Environment Reports", Revision 3, dated 2/10/77.
To verify confomance to this procedure the following was reviewed.
a.
SAR files No. 8 and 9 containing SAR change notice No.'s 32-77, 37-77, 2-78, 5-78, 6-78, 8-78, and 9-78.
b.
Review of Change Notice 32-77 and associated correspondence from Bechtel Power Corporation, BLSE-5788, File 3430, Bechtel Job No.10466, SNUPPS Project, Subject:
Coating of Concrete Walls Within Containment, stating that, "We propose, therefore, to modify our requirements and leave the coatings on the floor and 12 inches up the wall (similar to the auxiliary building)
l only.
l
.
.-.
-. -. _. _.
_
_
..
- _ _
_
__. __ -_
____
O
-
,
7 Regulatory Guide 8.8 (Position c.2.f(6)) addresses the use of special coatings to aid in the decontamination of surfaces.
We have reviewed these requirements and find no inconsistency with our proposed changes." A SNUPPS letter to Bechtel, SLBE 78-411, File: 3430, dated April 24, 1978 reference:
Same subject, stated that, "SNUPPS confirms concurrence of the painting scheme.... "
The above was also a concern of a NRC Region III inspector du-ing the NRC audit on November 20-22, 1978.
The inspector submitted a memo to FFMS Branch, Region III, as a result of this memo a note from the Leader, Radiation Protection Section, RAB, DSE, NRR, dated 2/8/78, stating that, "During our OL review of each SNUPPS application we will require the reactor, auxiliary and radwaste building to meet the proposed change."
Based on experiences at Three Mile Island and other operating plants, this item will be reviewed further to determine the adequacy of painting only the bottom 12 inches of the containment wall.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area of the inspection.
12.
Corresponunce and Commitment Control l
The inspector reviewed SNUPPS Administration Control Procedure 5.1, l
" Correspondence and Commitment Control", Revision 6, dated 11/17/78.
To verify conformance to this procedure the following " Correspondence Control Logs" were reviewed.
Union Electric Letters to SNUPPS (ULS)
a.
b.
Union Electric Problem Letters (UE)
Union Electric Letters to QA Committee (ULQAC)
c.
I d.
Bechtel Letters to SNUPPS Management (BLSM)
SNUPPS Letters to Bechtel Engineering (SLBE) - OUT e.
l
__
~ _.,
_ _ _. _
__
,
_ _ _
.
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
()
i3
'
.
,
.
Q./
.
,
f.
SNUPPS Letters to Bechtel Management (SLBM) - OUT No items of noncompliance were identified in this area of the inspection.
13.
Control of Nonconfomances The inspector reviewed SNUPPS Administration Control Procedure 9.1
" Control of Nonconfomances", Revision 2, dated 10/3/78.
To verify
.
conformance with this procedure the following was reviewed.
.
.T
,
"
a.
File No. 0491.8.4.1, Nonconfomances numbered 2-SN-701 thru 2-SN-750.
I b.
"SNUPPS Nonconfomance Report Trend Analysis" dated 3/30/79 and 10/10/79.
c.
" Correspondence Control Log-In" containing NCR's, FCR's, CVR's, atd SDDR's.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area of the inspection.
14.
Control and Trend Analysis of Nonconfomance Reports The control and analysis of nonconfomance reports in accordance with ACP 9.1, " Control of Nonconfomances" was reviewed.
The trend analysis program is performed on NCRs pertaining to the power block. Trending is perfomed each six (6) months as required by ACP 9.1.
NCRs are controlled and reviewed as required by ACP 9.1.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
15.
Construction Variance Control The control of Construction Variance!. in accordance with ACP 3.7,
" Construction Variance", was reviewed.
Construction variance requests 2-0098C, 2-0091-C pertaining to the Callaway site were specifically reviewed to determine that the control was performed as required by ACP 3.7.
In addition to this the method of logging k.
and maintaining control and status of CVRs was reviewed.
It was determined that the Administrative control procedures are being correctly followed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
__
_.
.
(i
)
'
- 16.
Field Chance Control
-
The control of Field Changes in accordance with ACP 3.6, " Field Change Control," was reviewed.
Field Changes 2-0272-M, 2-0273-M, 2-0327-C, 2-0329-C, 2-0343-C, and 2-0375 were selected at the Callaway site and used to determine if the control procedure was being followed.
Field Change approval tracking logs were being used for control.
The dates of receipt and approval were consistent with the logs ;ept at the Callaway reactor plant site.
The review
.
and disposition of Field Changes is being performed as required by the Administrative Control Procedure.
No items of ncncompliance or deviations were identified.
17.
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.
Three unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in paragraphs 6, 7, and 11.
18.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 9, 1980. The inspectors summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
-
.
-.
.
.
_.
. - - _ _..
..
-