ML19210B684
| ML19210B684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1970 |
| From: | Heishman R, Howard E, Hunnicutt D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 50-289-70-05-01, 50-289-70-5-1, 50-320-70-04, 50-320-70-4, NUDOCS 7911110151 | |
| Download: ML19210B684 (3) | |
Text
.
/6 9
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY CC" MISSION REGION I DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE Report of Inspection C0 Report Nos. 289/70-5 320/70-4 Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Company 04et Ed)
(Three Mile Island Uaits No. 1 and 2)
License Nos. CPPR-40 and CPPR-66 Date of Inspection:
June 18, 1970 Date of Previous Inspection:
May 26-28, 1970
' Inspected by:
')M
~.,'d ~
7/4 /70 D. M. Hunnicutt, Reactor Inspector (Principal)
' Ddte
?' + 7e R. 'F. Heishman, Reactor Inspector Date 9
Reviewed by:
h/f u'cMT' 7
/70 E. M. Howard, Senior Reactor Inspector
'Date Proprietary Information:
NONE SCOPE The purpo.se of this management meeting was to discuss with Met Ed and B&W the comments and findings obtained during the B&W QA inspection (CO Report Nos.
289/70-3 and 320/70-3).
The meeting was held in the 36W office, Lynchburg, Virginia.
The significant findings of the inspection were reviewed with Met Ed and B&W corporate and staff personnel.
The specific areas of concern were discussed in detail by Mr. Heishman.
B&W and Met Ed were responsive to the C0 comments and indicated that corrective action would be ini.tiated at the earliest date practical.
A.
Meeting Attendees B&W W. H. Rowand, Vice President and General Manager, NPCD G
H. F. Dobel, Manager, QA R. E. Braumiller, QA Representative E. G. Ward, Project Manager, TMI 1 and 2 D. W. Montgomery, Manager, Nuclear Systems Engineering
} {8 h k nd C. R. Powers, QA Representative 791111 o /f/
Q)
/63
. Met Ed G. Bierman, Project Manager, TMI 1 and 2 T. G. Hreczuch, Construction Engineer MPR Associates Dn
.@ D
'b n
I l U t
Q N. M. Cole da CPU B. G. Avers, Manager, QA B.
Introduction Mr. Heishman stated the purpose of the meeting was to review the observa-tions made by C0 during the re-audit of the B&W program.* C0 stated that the re-audit sought objective information on the establishment and implementation of a QA program to determine how the B&W QA effort ce= pares to commitm.ents in the FSAR, as amended, and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
G The specific observations were discussed with B&W and Met Ed to verify that the CO understanding of the B&W QA program was correct and to assure that no misunderstandings of C0 comments occurred.
B&W and Met Ed were encouraged to participate in the discussion.
Areas that require fc11owup were identified.
C.
Discussion of Criteria 1.
Criterion I - Organization The re-inspection indicated that the B&W organization met the commit-ments in the application and the intent of this criterion.
Since the re-inspection, B&W has prepared a document that delineates the respon-sibilities for the N P G D Quality Assurance, a line organiza' tion, and the Engineering Technology Department, a staff organization.
This documentation defines the responsibilities of the QA-QC groups in the area of establishing policy and guidelin.,s related to the reliability and quality of products.
The definition and delineation of authorities contained in the documentation appears adequate to assure that con-flicting policy and guidelines are not promulgated.
2.
Criterion II,- QA Program o
O B&W indicated that the procedures for training and qualification of 0.'.-qC personnel were being prepared and in some cases, particularly NDT, implemented.
- C0 Report Nos. 289/70-3 and 320/70-3
)E0
fa </
- CO stated that verification of the adequacy of these procedures and instructicns would be accomplished during subsequent inspections.
3.
Criterion III - Desten B&W indicated that the program for development and implementation of instructions pertaining to the scope and det of review to be per-formed on systems and components has not bee, completed.
B&W re-stated their position that completion of the remaining procedures vould be accomplished on or about August 1, 1970.
CO stated that verification of the adequacy of these procedures and instructions would be accomplished during subsequent inspections.
4.
Criterion VI - Document Control B&W corporate management has not reached a decision concerning obsolete document centrol and long term record retention.
Long term record re-tention has and is being given attention on the corporate level, and 9
at this point in time, neither the form (microfilm or actual document) nor location has been decided.
C0 stated that verification of the adequacy of these procedures and control and retention of obsolete documents and long term records would be accomplished during subsequent inspections.
5..
Criterion XVIII - Audits B&W has not prepared instructions delineating the depth and scope of internal and vendor audits.
E&W had completed an initial internal audit in accordance witn a prev-ious commitment.*
1F^/
1'O IJUJ lLU 9
- C0 Report Nos. 289/70-3 and 320/70-3, Criterion XVIII.
.