ML19210B641
| ML19210B641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1970 |
| From: | Cantrell F, Moseley N US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210B637 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-69-06, 50-289-69-6, 50-320-69-02, 50-320-69-2, NUDOCS 7911110112 | |
| Download: ML19210B641 (20) | |
Text
,
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION REGION I DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE Report of Inspection C0 Reports Nos. 289/69-6 and 320/69-2 Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Units 1 and 2)
License Nos. CPR-40 and CPR-66 Category A Date of Inspection:
November 3, December 1-5.
- a. and 9, 1969 Date of Previous Inspection:
July 25, 1969 Inspected By:
R. M. Gustafson, Metallurgical Engineer, DRS G. C. Lainas, DRL J. B. Henderson, Senior Construction Engineer, CO:HQ F. S. Cantrell, Reactor Inspector, C0:I
- N. C. Moseley, Senior Reactor Inspector, CO:I
- D.
E. Whitesell, Reactor Inspector (Construction). CC:I Compiled By:
2 %
F.'S.~Cantrell,ReactTyfgspector,CO:I
'Da(e Reviewed By:
.2 70 N. C. Moseley, fenior Reac/ Inspector, CD:I
' Dat e Proprietary Information NONE
- Initial Management Meeting 1*l 1ErO 1
Isvv i
1 17911110 //
2-I.
Summary The inspection revealed that the applicant is making a strong effort to insure that a Quality Assurance Program for Three Mile Island Nos. I and 2 is in conformance with the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
The Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed) has a complex organization for Unit Nos. I add 2.
The three level QA 'rogram preceeds, but is similar to the program reported for Calvert Cliffs (CO Report 317, 318/62-2).
A review of documentation and of the QA efforts at Met-Ed, JCP&L - GPU, Gilbert Associates, and Burns and Roe indicate conformance to the AEC require-ments. The basic requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 are invoked contract-ually for Unit No. 2.
Met-Ed is making a strong effort to back fit the same program to Unit No. 1.
It is recognized that in some cases the exact require-ment can not be met.
Previously conducted onsite inspections have indicated that site quality control is being effectively implemented.
A review of the QA efforts at Babcock and Wilcox Company, NPGD, Lynchburg, Virginia revealed numerous deficiencies as follows:
The QA group does not appear to have sufficient authority.
It does a.
not have "line status" and does not " sign off" on specifications or procurement documents as does Engineering, Design or Management Groupe, b.
Inadequate control is being exercised by the Lynchburg QA group over work performed by their Barberton Division.
c.
The field QA representatives lack experience and training and the Lynchburg QA staff relies e "- heavily on the Barberton QA staff to augment their QA efforts.
d.
The procedures for vendor inspection, surveillance and evaluation are not well defined.
e.
A deficiency in control of changes was identified.
In this case B&W has elected to eliminate hydrostatic testing of some primary system piping and use the installed system hydrostatic test as a substitute.
The applicant was unaware of this change.
f.
The Lynchburg QA group does not currently have a program of internal or external audits.
s u' u l I'
e 3-II.
General A.
Background and Purpose The Quality Assurance program inspection was conducted to meet the ob-jectives outlined in J. P. O'Reilly's memorandum dated June 24, 1969 and in PI 4000/1, Quality Assurance.
The introductory management meeting and scoping inspection was held at the Met-Ed office in Reading, Pennsylvania, on November 3, 1969.
Met-Ed committed itself to the QA program in the PSAR for Unit 2 and stated in the application that the program meets the incent of the proposed Ap-pendix B to 10 CFR 50.
Met-Ed stated that this program was being backfitted to Unit 1, where possible. The purpose of this inspection was to obtain objective avidence. regarding the implementation of these commitments.
The first day, December 1, 1969, was spent at the Met-Ed home office in Reading, Pennsylvania. The second day was spent at the office of the archi-tect-engineer for Unit 1, Gilbert Associates, Incorporated (GAI), in Reading, Pennsylvania. The third and fourth days were spent at the office of the archi-tect-engineer for Unit 2, Burns and Roe, Incorporated (B&R), in Oradell, New Jersey. The fifth day was spent at the Jersey Central Power and Light Company -
General Public Utility Ccepany office in Parsippany, New Jersey. The sixth and seventh days were spent at the Babcock and Wilcox design office in Lynchburg, Virginia.
B.
Team Membership and Assignments R. M. Gustafson Materials and Metallurgy Branch, DRS Responsible for inspection of procurement and conformance with the ap-plication and with QA criteria IV, VII, VIII, X, XII, and XIII throughout the inspection.
G. C. Lainas, Reactor Prof ects Branch, DRL (1st Week)
J. B. Henderson, Senior Construction Engineer, CO (2nd Week - B&W)
Responsible for inspection of design conformance with application and with QA criteria III, V, VI, XVI, XVII, and XVIII.
F.
S. Cantrell, Reactor Inspector, CO:I In charge of coordinating the inspection activities and was responsible
~
for inspection of the overall administrative programs for conformance with the application and with QA criteria I, II, III, EK, X, XI, XII, XIV, and XV.
4 r 9
1i) i auu
e
, C.
Sequence of Events 11/3/69 Meeting with Met-Ed and principal contractor MOSELEY personnel at Reading to discuss inspection HENDERSON plans and to make preliminary scoping in-WHITESEDL spection.
CANTRELL 12/1/69 Inspection of IMI-l Project CANTRELL QA Program at Met-Ed GUSTAFSQi Home office in Reading, Pennsylvania LAINAS 12/2/69 Review of the GAI QA program for TMI-l CANTRELL at the GAI engineering office in Reading, Pa.
GUSTAFSON LAINAS 12/3-4/69 Review of the B&R QA program for TMI-2 CANTRELL at the engineering office in Oradell,11. J.
GUSTAFSON LAINAS 12/5/69 Review of the TMI-2 QA program at the CANTRELL JCP&LC-GPU office in Parsippany, N. J.
GUSTAFSON LAINAS 12/8-8/69 Review of the B&W QA program for TMI-l and CANTRELL 2 at the B&W design office in Lynchburg, Va.
GUSTAFSQI HENDERSON D.
Personnel Contacted During Inspection Activities Metropolitan Edison Company, Reading, Pennsv1vania, Initial Management Meeting, November 3, 1969 T. Hreczuch, Resident QA Engineer, Met-Ed K. A. Matt, Administrator, Met-Ed G. F. Bierman, Project Manager, Construction, Met-Ed J. G. Miller, Project Director and Vice President, Met-Ed R. L. Williams, Project Msnager, Design, Met-Ed W. E. Granger, QC Engineer, Met-Ed K. C. Lish, Burns and Roe J. Brodsky, QA Supervicor, Burns and Roe P. Nardone, Project Manager, Burns and Roe iEC3 114
. N. R. Barker, QA Engineer, GAI C. H. Bitting, Project Manager, GAI W. H. Traffas, QA Manager, GAI J. B. Silverwood, UE&C Howard F. Dobel, QA Manager, B&W R. W. Heward, Jr., GPU
- B. G. Avers, QA Manager, GPU
- N.
Cole, QA Engineer, MPR D. Chapin, QA Engineer, MPR Metropolitan Edison Company, Reading, Pennsv1vania, December 1, 1969 G. F. Bierman, Project Manager, Met-Ed B. G. Avers, QA Manager, GPU W. E. Granger, QC Engineer, Met-Ed K. Matt, Administrator, Met-Ed N. Cole, QA Engineer, MPR J. Gorman, QA Engineer, MPR Dick Klingerman, GPU Gilbert Associates, Incorporated, Reading, Pennsylvania, December 2,
.1969 C. N. Bitting, Project Manager, GAI W. H. Traffas, QA Manager, GAI N. R. Barker, QA Engineer, GAI G. F. Bierman, Project Manager, Construction, Met-Ed Burns and Roe, Oradell, New Jersey, December 3 and 4, 1969 R. L. Williams, Project Manager, Met-Ed R. A. Burns, Project Engineer, Met-Ed P. Nardone, Project Manager, B&R R. Dobbs, Project Engineer, B&R J. Brodsky, QA Supervisor, B&R S. Zwickler, Lead Engineer, Chemical and Nuclear, B&R S. McPherson, Lead Mechanical Engineer, B&R S. C. Gottilla, Lead Instruction Engineer, B&R Jersey Central Power and Light Company (JCP&LC) - General Public Utility (GPU), Parsicoanv, New Jersey, December 5. 1969 R. L. Williams, Project Manager, Design, Met-Ed R. A. Burns, Proj ect Engineer, Met-Ed P. Nardone, Project Manager, B&R
+
- Attended all meetings.
.e sou
_a
. Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W), Lynchburg, Virginia, December 8-9, 1969 W. B. Beisel, Project Manager, B&W H. F. Dobel, QA Manager, B&W R. E. Braumiller, QA Engineer, Core Components, B&W W. A. Cobb, Project Engineer, B&W F. R. Thomasson, Assistant Project Manager (No.1), B&W E. G. Ward, Assistant Project Manager (No. 2), B&W A. N. Lazar, Manager Contract Engineering, B&W C. W. Beckman, Purchasing Department Representative, B&W R. L. Williams, Project Manager, Design, Met-Ed J. A. Gorman, QA Engineer, MPR J. E. Thornhill, Electrical Design Engineer, B&W K. Schroder, Group Supervisor, Auxiliary Systems, B&W C. M. Fletcher, QA Representative, Electrical Equipment, B&W E. C. Anderson, Group Superviosr, Primary System Components, B&W III.
Initial Management Meeting Mr. N. C. Moseley, Senior Reactor Inspector, Region I, explained the purpose of the inspection and outlined the method of inspection per memo from J. P. O'Reilly, October 17, 1969, Initial QA Inspection.
Mr. G. F. Bierman, Project Engineer, Met-Ed, told the inspector of a change in the organization and provided new organization charts for TMI-1 and 2.
Mr.
Bierman is Project Manager for construction of both units.
Mr. R. L. Williams has been appointed Project Manager for design. Previously there was a Pro-ject Manager for each unit.
The vendor surveillance function was transferred from Burns and Roe to United Engineers and Constructors.
The same man represents Met-Ed in dealing with site contractors for both
~
units. UE&C has a functioning vendor inspection program and B&R is not staffed to handle a vendor inspection.
IV.
Significant Inspection Findings The significant findings during the inspection are summarized below and tabulated by criterion. The supporting details are retained in the C0:I files and are available for review if required.
Criterion I - Organization A.
Description Both Unit I and 2 are jointly owned by Met-Ed and JCP&LC. Met-Ed and JCP&LC are owned by General Public Utility Company. Met-Ed is responsible for the construction and operation of both units.
rco 1io
- ou
t
~ The Babcock & Wi".cox Company has a contract to design, fabri-cate, and delivar to the site the nuclear steam supply system.
This includes the reactor vessel, the primary piping, the pres-surizer, the steam generators, the core flooding tanks, and the controls.
Heavy vessels and reactor coolant piping are manufactured at the B&W Barberton or Mt. Vernon shops.
Instrumentation systems come from the Bailey Meter Company, a wholly owned subsidiary. Control rod drives are obtained from the Diamond Power Specialty Company, another wholly owned subsidiary. Other components such as reactor coolant pumps and motors are supplied by independent vendors to B&W speci-fications. Diamond Power Specialty Company and Bailey Meter Company are reported to be created as independent vendors as far as quality assurance is concerned.
GAI has been assigned responsibility for the design of the balance of Unit 1.
B&R has the responsibility for tl.e design of Unit 2.
Both GAI and B&R develop purchase specifications and are responsible for "second level" quality surveillance audits at the site.
United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C) is the Construction Manager for both Unit l'and 2.
UE&C is required to have a quality audit or-ganization to monitor work performed by subcontracters and vendors.
When UE&C acts as a constructor, they are required to have a "first level" quality control organization.
(GAI or B&R are then responsi-ble for the "second level" audits of the UE&C QC program). UE&C is re-sponsible for purchasing components that require significant field labor, e.g.,
the containment liner.
Unit I components outside the B&W and UE&C scope are purchased by Met-Ed from their Reading Office, using GAI specifications. For Unit 2, these components are purchased by JCP&LC as Met-Ed's agent ' rom the Parsippany f
Office using B&R specifications.
MPR has a contract to perform design reviews and quality assurance audits as requested by the Met-Ed Project Director, Mr. Miller. This includes audits of major contractor and vendor QA-QC programs, and specif.ic reviews of GAI, B&R and B&W designs.
The responsibility for the overall QA-QC program has been retained by Met-Ed and assigned to a QA manager who reports directly to the Director of the Nuclear Power Activities Group of GPU. This group reviews the QA-QC program of the major contractors and vendors. A weekly QA meeting is held at the site with the contractor QA personnel.
\\suu
\\\\l C
0
a-
. B.
Findings 1.
Met-Ed, JCP&LC, GPU, MPR The overall program meets the intent of this criterion, however, the duties and responsibilities of individuals within the organ-ization are not clearly established in writing. The complex ar-rangement of companies involved, makes the lack of written as-signments of responsiblity a weakness in the system.
2.
B&W Management is not regularly reviewing the status and adequacy of the QA program. The duties and responsibilities of individuals are not clearly established in writting. The Lynchburg organiza-tion is almost totally dependent on the Barberton organization
.for the design.and the development of a QA program for items that "Barberton" manufactures. The Lynchburg QA group does not pres-ently have the manpower or training to properly administer an adequate QA program.
Criterion II - Quality Assurance Program A.
Discussion 1.
Met-Ed Ihe QA program established for TMI-1 and 2 has three functional levels as shown in Appendix 1 which is typical for both units.
Each major contractor or vendor for Unit 2 is required by con-tract to have a QA plan that meets the intent of " Appendix B".
Met-Ed is attempting to back fit these requirements to Unit 1.
~
The details are covered in " Met-Ed QA Plan for Nuclear Gener-ating Stations at TMI-1".
2.
B&W B&W has a written QA plan for Unit 1 (BAW-1337) cad a draft plan for Unit 2.
Their plans are supplemented by generic specifications for B&W purchased equipment, BAW 1132/0369, "QC Program Specifi-cations for IMI-l and 2".
The QA manager reports directly to the Manager of Nuclear Power Generating Department. The project manager reports one step below in the organization to the contract manager.
Individual pieces of equipment have been assigned different levels of quality, according to a schedule prepared by Met-Ed, B&W, and MPR.
'l
}iU
}rbVV
e
. 3.
GAI GAI has a written QA plan for TMI-l covering GAI's responsibilities.
The project QA engineer, reports directly to the QA manager who in turn reports directly to the Vice President of Operations. GAI's generic specifications for QC are contained in SP 5550.
4.
Burns and Roe B&R's QA plan for TMI-2 is contained in B&R procedure number 2555-QAP-1.
The procedures for engineering and design are contained ta B&R number 2555-EDP-1.
5.
UE&C As construction manager, UE&C has developed detailed procedures for their QA/QC program. A number of their procedures have been reviewed during routine inspections of Unit 1 (UE&C was not rein-spected). These procedures have been approved by Met-Ed and GAI.
These procedures are being submitted to B&R for approval prior to applying to Unit 2.
B. ' Findings 1.
The inspectors found that Met-Ed and B&R and GAI have QA plans Sr Unit 1 and 2 that satisfy this criterion. The current QA plan for TMI-l was developed af ter the design and procurement of a sub-stantial part of the plant was fixed. As a result, the main QA effort is directed toward site activities. Met-Ed and GAI have upgraded the nuclear pipe and valve specification to meet USAI
'B31.7 (February,1968) and required their ven' dors to meet GAI's present generic specifications for quality.
The Met-Ed program for Unit 1 and 2 meets the requirements of their criterion, however, all of the systems, structures and com-ponents to which the plan applied have not been identified at this deme.
2.
B&W has established a program by procedure that is generally ade-quate, however, the inspectors found that the described program had not been implemented.
The number of people and the levels of training are not adequate to implement the program.
B&W has assigned quality levels to individual components, but it is difficult to relate this level to the importance of the system.
E'9 11O Juu 1 I/
e
. Criterion III-Desian Control A.
Discussion 1.
Met-Ed The principal effort for design review is the responsibility of the project manager for design (R. L. Williams). His group con-sists of seven engineers who am lomasi from the GPU organization.
The Met-Ed QA plan does not contain an organization chart or job description to reflect the specific responsibility for design review.
This group is located in Parsippany, New Jersey, and is primarily concerned with TMI-2.
Calculations are not reviewed.
A review of the files for the emergency diesel-generator, rad-waste evaporator and emergency feed pumps indicated these com-ponment specifications had been reviewed and coordinated with the cognizant organization and consultants.
The project manager for construction is responsible for the con-struction of both units, procurement of equipment for TMI-l and is the coordinator for the design effort of GAI.
MPR has design review responsibility for nuclear related equip-ment.
Specifications are reviewed for material compatibility, compliance to PSAR requirements, conformance to the QA program and design code applicability. A check of calculations or a review of special topical reports is not done.
2.
pal A design review procedure has been established for TMI-1.
The procedure is a recent inovation, but is being implemented and is adequate. A preplanned schedule of calculation has been pre-pared and assignments for checking are for the most part complete.
3.
B&R Each lead engineer is responsible for the implementation of the requirements of the PSAR to the actual design.
A design and procedures manual has been developed for IMI-2.
De-sign review requirements are included in the manual. The Chief Engineers and their Superviosry Engineers exercise technical re-view and approval of all engineering and design efforts. They
~
are separate from the project organization. The project lead engineer, in general, authorizes and directs calculations. Checking ibu3 1nc0
r
.* of calculations is done by another engineer which may be the
. Supervising or Chief Engineer.
4.
B&W A system definition is provided by the " performance engineering" groups. Within this framework, a functional specification is developed by a " components" group. For B&W manufactured equip-ment, the functional specification is transmitted to "Barberton" where a detailed standard specification is prepared.
This stand-ard specification is sent to Lynchburg for review. A review was reported to be made at each step; however, the inspectors could not determine the extent of these reviews or if the re-views were actually made.
B&W has a procedure for notifying IIet-Ed of changes to the PSAR, however, a change in the hydrostatic test requirements for nuclear piping was not documented.
Specifications for externally procured items are developed by
~
B&W, Lynchburg, however, there was no record of how or who reviews various designs.
Each piece of equipment furnished by B&W has been assigned a
" quality control level" from one to four, with No. 1 being the highest level of quality. All of the requirements of their generic specifications apply to level No. 1.
Basically, level No. 1 is nuclear related equipmenc that is inaccessible during operation and is not redundant.
(i.e. reactor coolant pump motor, control rod drive motor,or high temperature and
. pressure equipment within containment.)
Level No. 2 is assigned to redundant equipment that is inaccessible during operation (i.e. make-up pump motor, pressurizer spray con-trol valves). The inspector was told that the quality levels were assigned in a meeting between B&W, Met-Ed and MPR.
The original purchase order to Allis Chalmers for reactor coolant pump motors did not disclose any requirement for a QA program as indicated above. A subsequent revision of the purchase order invoked a QA program generally consistent with the requirements of the proposed Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
R *
..
- B.
Find ing s 1.
Met-Ed, B&R, GAI Design control appears to be adequate as far as B&R, GAI, and Met-Ed are concerned.
The lack of detailed description of the Met-Ed review organization is considered a weakness that could be corrected with adequate job descriptions and organization charts.
2.
B&W Procedures for design control and review are inadequate to meet the intent of this criterion. The inspectors did not find ob-jective evidence that current practices were implementing the in-tent of this criteria.
Criterion IV - procurement Document Control A.
Discussion
. Met-Ed or Jersey Central performs the procurement of all components for IMI-1 and 2 except for the NSSS which is a function of B&W, and construction materials bought by UE&C.
Specifications are developed by the A/E and submitted to Met-Ed for review and approval, and the QA requirements are included in the purchase order, the majority of the purchase orders for Unit I were awarded prior to the development of t.he present program. Met-Ed has back fitted a QA program to the containment liner, nuclear piping and valves, and other selected com-ponents. The QA requirements are a part of the purchase order for Unit 2 equipment.
Babcock and Wilcox, Lynchburg, prepares functional and equipment specifications which are submitted to the applicant for review and approval, and to the respective architect-engineers, Gilbert Asso-ciates, Incorporated, for Unit 1, and Burns & Roe, Inco rporated,
for Unit 2 for review and comment.
In addition, copies of all speci-fications are submitted to MFR Associates for review.
B&W, Lynchburg, procurement involves two types:
(1)
Items procured on internal purchase crders from other divisions of Babcock and Wilcox, and (2) Outside procurement.
~
}'.
O
}r's u O
=
.. Internal procurement involves items such as the Reactor Pressure Vessel, Primary Piping, Steam Generators, Pressurizers, and Core Flooding Tanks. Components and materials for these items are pro-cured by the Barberton Division of Babcock and Wilcox.
B.
Findings Met-Ed has developed procedures to insure that the technical and quality assurance requirements are included in both preliminary and final procurement documents. This involves review by knowledgeable engineers, design people, and quality assurance people.
Sign-offs from each of these groups are required before a procurement specifi-cation is issued for bids. The present procedures and implementation meet the intent of their criterion.
The current B&W procedures are adequate to meet the intent of this criterion; however, the QA group does not sign off on specifications and the procedures do not appear to have been consistently implemented.
Criterion V - Instructions, Procedures and Drawings A.
Discussion Met-Ed reviews the specifications that have been developed by the A/E to assure that the appropriate QA requirements are included. These requirements are a part of the procurement contracts for Unit 2 and have been back fitted to selected contracts for Unit 1 (both Met-Ed and B&W procured equipment).
B.
Findings The inspectors found evidence that Criterien V was being implemented for Unit 2 and for specific equipment for Unit 1, i.e.
field fabri-cation of the containment liner, nuclear piping and valves, and the installation of nuclear related equipment.
Criterion VI - Document Control A.
Discussion Met-Ed and its contractor have a system for approval of procedures and changes to the PSAR.
Field procedures are prepared by UE&C and sent to Met-Ed, the A/E and MPR for comment with Met-Ed retaining the right to resolve disagreements.
The A/E's,UE&C and B&R, are required to send Met-Ed a PSAR Deviation Form for any change to the PSAR.
)buU
a.
.. B.
Findings The system set up for control of documents is adequate if properly administered. There is evidence that the system is working; however, the inspectors were told that individual section of pipe for the primary system (manufactured by B&W) was not to be hydrostatic tested, but a hydro test would be performed after the system is completed.
A PSAR deviation had not been prepared for this change.
Criterion VII - Control of Purchased Material. Equipment, and Services A.
Discussion There is evidence of vendor evaluation prior to the placement of orders by all procurement groups. Code requirements and unusual inspection requirements are included in the procurement contract.
UE&C and Met-Ed (MPR) perform audits of vendor's QA program for Met-Ed, Jersey Central, or UE&C procured equipment. B&W relies on the Barberton QA group to perform the vendor surveillance of both Lynchburg and Barberton procured equipment.
B&W, Lynchburg, is currently training people for this function. Reports of these in-spections are sent to B&W, Lynchburg. Met-Ed and/or MPR also audit the QA programs for B&W manufactured equipment and B&W purchased e-quipment. Prior to shipping major ccmponents, the B&W Project Mana-ger or the B&W QA Manager must authorize the shipment.
B&W is re-quired to furnish receiving inspection procedures to the site. Site receiving inspections are made by UE&C using procedures developed by B&W, B&R, or GAI.
B.
Findines The program for Met-Ed, Jersey Central, and UE&C procured equipment is adequate. The program for B&W procured equipment is deficient in that (a) Lynchburg QA group appears to exercise little control over work performed by the Barberton Division, (b) the Lynchburg field QA group lack experience and training and is relying heavily on the Barberton QA staff.
Criterion VIII - Identification and Control of Materials, Parts, and Components A.
Discussion Requirements for identification, process control, and traceability of
~
components are being imposed by contract for Unit 2 and have been back fitted to certain equipment for Unit 1.
Procedures have been set up on site to maintain this identity.
i ]!1 r^^
\\s a
e
.. = B.
Findings The requirements of this criteria are being met by Met-Ed and its Contractors.
Criterion IX - Control of Special Processes A.
Discussion The requirements for control of special processes are included in the specification developed by the A/E's.
These requirements are made a part of the purchase order by Met-Ed.
Records and procedures are required for control.
These requirements are carried out by B&W by their "QC Program Specification", which invokes the same re-quirements.
B.
Findings The requirement of this criterion is being met on Unit 2 and is being back fitted to selected items for Unit 1.
Some B&W specifica-tions did not require documentary evidence of compliance.
B&W has the same requirements for control of special procedures, how-ever, the inspectors did not find evidence that the requirements were being implemented at this time.
Criterion X - Inspection A.
Discussion The Met-Ed QA plan requires each contractor and vendor to have $
written QC plan with appropriate records to assure the required in-spections have been made. This requirement is included in the par-chase order for Unit 2.
This requirement has been back fitted to selected items for Unit 1.
B.
Findines The inspectors found this criterion being implemented for equipment and services procured by Met-Ed.
The only process hold point inspection required by B&W is hydrostatic testing.
}7I 4 ir 1 JUd
^
a 16 -
Criterion XI - Test Control A.
Discussion Met-Ed in conjunction with UE&C and their A/E's have developed general procedures for in-process and final acceptance testing. Specific pro-cedures are written as needed. Acceptance criteria are included as appropriate.
B.
Findines The inspectors found that the requirements of this criteria are being met as required. Baseo on present conformance, it is reasonable to expect other procedures to be developed when needed.
Criterion XII - Calibration Measurement and Test Eouipment A.
Discussion Met-Ed's contractors are required to have written procedures for control of measurement, inspection and test equipment. B&W's "QC
' Program Specification" imposes similar requirements on their vendors.
B.
Findings The inspectors found that the requirements of this criterion are being met.
Criterion XIII - Handline, Storage, Shippine and Preservation A.
Discussion A review of documents indicates that vendors and contractors are required to provide instructions for the proper handling,. storage, shipping, and preservation of equipment that they supply.
B.
Findines The inspection determined that this criterion is being met.
Criterion XIV - Inspection, Test, and Operating Status A.
Discussion Met-Ed's generic specifications (in PSAR for Unit 2) require a system for identification or marking the inspection status.
FF0
}2b seu
' B&W's procedure 1132/0369 "QC Specification", requires " Control of Inspection Status".
B.
Findings The inspectors determined that this criterion is being met.
Criterion KV - Control of Nonconforming Items A.
Discuseion Met-Ed's generic specification (in PSAR for Unit 2) requires each contractor to have a system for " Control of Nonconforming Materials, Parts, Equipment and Workmanship. This generic specification is a part of the procurement document.
B&W's procedure 1132/0369 "QC Program Specification" requires " Con-trol of Nonconforming Materials, Parts, Equipment and Workaanship" in current purchase specifications.
UE&C has developed a detailed procedure for " Control of Nonconforming Items", (QC-17).
Routine site inspections indicate this procedure is being implemented for Unit 1 material.
B.
Findinas The inspection indicated that this criterion is being met.
Criterion XVI Corrective Action A.
Discussion In generic specification, the applicant has required all subcon-tractors of particular nuclear related equipment to establish a QA program that meets the requirements of this criterion.
The UE&C site procedures require that defects be reported to th.e QA Manager.
Specific deficiencies may or may not be reported immediately to the applicant. A QA meeting in which the applicant. and representatives of all interested parties participate is held weekly. Specific de-ficiencies and their resolution are discussed. Minutes are kept of each meeting.
B.
Findings Monthly raports from the B&W Lynchburg QA representative at Barberton were reviewed. Corrective action was nat apparent on-deficiencies highlighted in earlier reports. From the size and training of the B&W Lynchburg staff, it does not appear that the Lynchburg QA staff has
- 3. c ' o i'7
,-o
..* the time or necessary training to see that an adequate solution is achieved.
Criterion KVII - Quality Assurance Records A.
Description UE&C had developed a procedure for " Records and Filing System" (QC-16).
This procedure has been reviewed and it specifies the surveys, re-oorts, certification, etc., that must be assembled and turned over to the owner.
B&R, GAI and B&W have generic specifications that require these records. These are contractually required in TMI-2.
Met-Ed is at-tempting to backfit these requirements to TMI-1.
B.
Findings The GAI, B&R and B&W procedures are adequate; however, the inspectors did not see evidence of how the B&W procedure was being implemented.
This information should be available when B&W equipment is delivered to the site.
Criterion XVIII - Audits A.
Discussion The generic specifications require vendors to have previsions for internal audits for equipment required to meet their Level 1 QA Requirements.
The applicant, together with MPR, is conducting active auditing of both the major contractors and vendors' facilities. However, the degree of auditing is limited by the number of personnel available for shop inspection.
MPR stated that about five man-years of effort are being expended for both reactor plants.
Included in this estimate is the effort required in formulating the overall program, developing the detailed plan and the evaluation and review of equipment specifications to SAR requirements.
B.
Findings A comprehensive system of preplanned audits and written procedures was not apparent for both MPR and the applicant; however, the audits that have been made appear to be adequate to meet this criterion.
} bod
.,a 19 -
B&W does not presently have a program for internal audits that meets the intent of this criterion.
V.
Site QA Program o
Each of the major contractors, except B&W, have QA-QC personnel presently assigned to the site. The QA program for TMI-l has been reviewed in CO Reports 289/69-2, 3, 4, 5 and is considered adequate to meet the commitments made in the PSAR and meets the intent of Appendix B to 10 CFR 20.
Met-Ed has stated that the site program for Unit II will be essentially the same as for Unit I with B&R in place of GAI as A/E.
1sUV I L /.
S
V e,
'\\;
- 1..
ii
__i d i v
.c u-
!! $[
e.1[.y i; i
.. 2;-
l-i ill l
l IE i
~
e a
J U :.1 ii
[ rd.P' 0,
.i i
n:!!! _ m v
i
> 'jj M3 i
rl rH l.
i _.h
~
k sr2 tu s I'i j uu
. ~ ~
ps 2!
j'i l
2 i
L
- !,!! lIf,I, i_i-i4
.o! :l d
I_
E ld[I
[f:
ff b
-l e
!1;(I I
EilL _ P "iT) lk k
-2ll 1b1$
f_
r' L
O
%rijJ i. h[*
k x.m$rA I
_n m
, l f, a
~
2 7
i i-4 1 -in, a Ij!?
i i
rJ l
.l' j 110,t,
.imli$l l I
I
'lllllll; I n;j{
.f; aj
--I 1r^o 17; IJUU l J