ML20052F214
| ML20052F214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1982 |
| From: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052F212 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-82-05, 50-329-82-5, 50-330-82-05, 50-330-82-5, NUDOCS 8205120238 | |
| Download: ML20052F214 (2) | |
Text
.
Appendix A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Consumers Power Company Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 As a result of the inspection conducted on February 3-5, 17-19 and March 17-19, 1982, and in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982), the following violation was identified:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, states in part that, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions...and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions... instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appropriate quantitative or qualita-tive acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished."
CPCo Quality Assurance Program Policy No. 5, states in part that,
" organizations... prepare and maintain procedures as necessary to provide instructions...for a consistent method of performing recurring engineering, construction and Quality Assurance activities...these documents provide qualitative and quantitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished."
Contrary to the above, the inspector determined the following four examples of noncompliance:
Mergentine's Field Procedure FPC-1.00, Revision 3, dated January 26, a.
1981, was not reviewed and approved prior to initiation of access shaft work as required by Site Procedure FPG-1.000.
This was the result of CPCo allowing Mergentine to proceed without having an approved procedure to prepare procedures.
b.
Site Procedure EDPI 4.49.1 does not have time limits established from engineer approval of the SCN, to distribution of the controlled copies of the specifications on site.
This results in untimely delays for important changes.
c.
Specification C-88, for-the initial 20 dewatering wells, does not have acceptance criteria for determining if the actual amount of gravel pack / grout used in the dewatering wells was within an acceptable range.
05120238 820426 R ADOCK 05000329 G
}
Appendix A 2
This resulted in inadequate assurance that the wells are acceptable.
Furthermore, Specification C-118, for the remaining 40 wells, does not have acceptance criteria for this attribute.
i l
d.
Site Procedure E-1M does not have adequate instructions to prepare or implement overinspection plans.
In that, it did not address how SCN's, j
FCN's, FCR's and DCN's are incorporated into the plans. This resulted in Overinspection Plan C-17B having contradicting and nuclear acceptance criteria. As a result, the inspection reports document erroneous results.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each item of noncompliance:
(1) correc-tive action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
popiginal SiON05 b7 C*E.fofolICL" 4
i
//7ABV Dated C. E. Norelius, Director Division of Engineering and Technical Programs s
(
l i
9 I
.-....~7-.
-.