IR 05000522/1979001
| ML19259C804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1979 |
| From: | Albert W, Dodds R, Hernandez G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19259C797 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-522-79-01, 50-522-79-1, 50-523-79-01, 50-523-79-1, NUDOCS 7908150199 | |
| Download: ML19259C804 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFoRCEME!TT
REGION V
50-522/79-01 Report No.
50-523/79-01 pocket No.
50-522 & 50-523 License No.
flone Safeguards croup Licensee: Puget Sound Power and Licht Company Puget Power Building Bellevue, Washington 98009 Facility Natre : Skagit Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: PSP &L Corporate Office (Bellevue) and Bechtel Corporate Office (San Francisco) Inspection conducted: May 15-18, 22, 1979 Inspectors: N %, b [[77/'[[ W. G.4 Albert, Reactor Inspector Date Signed n %,-. i.
6M/77 J. H.
ckhardt, R'eactor Inspector Date Signed 0.. l i o iv/N. fhl7Q G/pernandez,ReactodInspector Date Signed Approved By: M iXtt /s 6 [27 /7 [ , R.T.Dodds,Ch'iefSupportSection, Da t'e Si' ned ' g Reactc: Construction and En';ineering Support Branch S urr ma ry. Inspection on flay 15-18, 22,1979 (Report tios. 50-522/79-01 and 50-523/79-01) Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of open items, QA procedures, QA Manual review, concrete acceptance tests and qualification.
The inspection i;.olved 40 hours by three fiRC inspectors.
Results: Of the areas inspected, no deviations from the applicants corrnittents were noted.
. RV Forr 719 (7) b'b b M b h0815o
. DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted a.
Puget Sound Power & Light Comoany (PSP &L)
- G. W. Jacobsen, Director, SflP
- V. G. Grayhek, Senior Staf f Engineer - I;uclear
- B. F. Burton, Associate Engineer - f;L&S
- R. fl. Hettinger, QA Manager S. Martsolf, Construction Engineer J.
P,. Fishbaugher, Project Engineer b.
Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) B. Peacock, Project QA Engineer J. Kotter, Construction Coordinator R. Dougherty, Construction Quality Control D. E. Graham, Engineering Specialist - Concrete E. E. Goitein, Project Engineer for Skagit
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
2.
Project Status The applicant estimates project engineering to be approxitrately 623 complete.
PSP &L anticipates an LWA or CP by October of 1979.
Site work could start before the end of the calendar year.
The warehouse in Burlington, Washington, is routinely receiving quality Class I Components from the t;SSS Vendor (G.E.). The reactor vessel with internals is currently in storage at Chicago Bridge and Iron-fluclear (CBIN) shop in t',emphis, Tennessee.
The present schedule calls for shipment to the site in nid-1982. At this time, 70% of the major equipment is under active procurenent.
3.
Applicant Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(0 pen) Open Items (50-522/78-01) Specifications and the PSAR did not always reference codes and standards with the same date.
The comprehensive audit mentioned in the last inspection report is still continuing.
Upon completion, the applicant will submit an anendment to his PSAR or require changes in specifications as appropriate.
b.
(0 pen) Open Item (50-522/78-02) Inconsistencies between Bechtel and PSP &L Procedures.
ti!F6326
. -2-The inspector's review of other quality control procedures revealed other instances where Bechtel and PSP &L vere incomplete or were inconsistcnt.
See Paragraph 6 below.
c.
(0 pen) Open Iten (50-522/78-02) Procedure for handling bulletins and ci rcul a rs. The applicant stated that they vare in the process of developing a procedure for handling Fulletins and Circulars.
The need for a system to assure review and follow-up on Bulletins and Circulars within both PSP &L and Bechtel and the difference between IE Bulletins, Circulars, and Information f:otices were discussed.
4.
Oroanization Changes to the PSP &L organization, including functional alignunt ar.d staff changes, were exanined. The inspection verified that functional elignment continued to provide the necessary independence of action for the PSP &L QA organi za tion. 5.
PSP &L DA flanual Review The revisions and changes to the QA fianual were examined.
In essence, all changes were made to clarify requirer.:ents or to provide improved or simplified control.
flo deficiencies viere noted.
6.
QA Procedures From the examination of PSP &L and Bechtel QA fianuals and Procedures, the following comments were noted and discussed with the applicant.
a.
Project Procedures Manual.
PPM-20, Paragraph 5.4.3, does not state how unsatisfactory test reports will be dispositioned and controlled.
b.
PPM-20, Paragraph 5.4.4, regarding forwarding of NCRs and NCR/ Logs to PSP &L by Bechtel appeared to igncre practical follow-up censiderations by PSP &L during construction. A stated two-week delay in the forward-ing of such reports seemed unreasonable.
c.
The Project Procedures Manual is the interfacing manual between Bechtel and PSP &L.
As of this inspection, it was not approved and some sections were obviously out of date.
d.
Bechtel's Field Inspection Manual and Construction QC !1anual both contain methods for nonconformance reporting, but Bechtel has not specified which method they will use.
e.
Client involvement in the release for construction of non-conforming items is not specified in the Bechtel Construction QC f tanual. 656327
' . -3-f.
A provision in the construction QC flanual (Section III, Paragraph 6.2.2) stated that preventive maintenance prograns would start after receiving inspection was conplete rather than upon receipt.
7.
Examination of Concrete flix Design and Qualification of Acarecates On May 22,1979, the inspectors exanined records for aggregate qualification and testing of concrete mix designs at Bechtel Corporation in San Francisco.
fio deviations were found.
However, it was noted that sufficierit time had elapsed since the initial qualifications that nany tests would have to be performed again because of source and vendor changes.
Management Interview The status of open items, as discussed in Paragraph 3 above, was reviewed.
Problems pertaining to the QA procedures discussed in Paragraph C above were explained by the inspector. The applicant stated that the systen would be re-examined and conflicts with the procedures resolved.
Efi63'd8 }}