ML20083N135

FOIA Request for Documents Re Encl IE Insp Repts 50-498/79-13 & 50-499/79-13 on 790806-10

ML20083N135
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/14/1984
From:	Samp R SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FOIA-84-108 NUDOCS 8404190077
Download: ML20083N135 (2)

Text

- .

s SHAW, PlTTMAN PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE

. p..,ms ..-** or P.o' t ..ch.L Co**0 toa. j 1800 M STn[ET. N W.

wASHsNGTON, o C. 20036 sur. O mott.. e c so-N t mot 6. e c RO2) 822 'OOO or.o..- . ..u.r. .. .. -. .oon e .o..= *

1. '#'l'e',' f;;'.".*0o f. c l 1"?T't"4"l'"

   :! -  !!S;;'t"nU'"2 "f,O'.1" ". "JJ ' "

2; ~~!c2."2;'A.n  ?!!T"As." "t."JJ."1! ,nw,== 'o:: .T. '."?,;a" ,. ?l,'/ * " ** "'

Tra.'!!,t?3X*ot"/cc Ont?."*rA'Vc c won en o .seizee 81?"fc'it"t""*

IE'? " "?c"ft;0, TJ",t!r!,' t ""ulf2' "8"i"; & i'o".'J,"Isc -  ;,7c'.ni.; 3"?.*01,",".<

$1Pn'.t" f ~2? "C',t "ta!"' '~ '." "c"'" ' c !" f!". ".3sf'!,7 * . c ..... . . ,oo  !!:.As".20*JI~

. ilt"".i"."."? '"!.

t!,1^o 't3'*?e '" '

• lt'c'la*l 1"t/;i'E.";'t '

• won .,, e,,  ?'rt. : ^c*"! 'f',,""' " l22L't ?"?*?!!A~

?,"l~;h'.."::**t * *- '?"' " ?.,, b'e" ' c ^ _ tie'.: 'a'll.l' "~o *mt;?'"? o'M"'c'""

?,.;;.o t'".'.v"."P.?,!

o. .~. .c sil.1c*

"1.c"-.'.".

. .o 7.A, o ,? '.'<', ' "

,u,. ',e.l.f ' c'".'!.!J.

. . ~ oot ~o l",."*1'#

-e-u ' ". c.

• s'.'t,! "'." t'J.". I * . . . c Ei#?!,at"..'! Phil * * * 'm k"^ * ' * * * * *) L"3",'? tv';!L'e,  !!AftMf.".M.v. ~

"l,"!.',"?'.'*t!!"A c. e 7,," "t3 * "!!?""'c" ca* "'**~ c t..?#'.'Ir ".! 1"r .. .-. E23..".?ti'"'"

c

%  :','"": **",3' 1 'a'."??

ci'Ta c' " "e":'"** -

he':".o'o**;3:s."...

c, *?,*?? :"' n .

n"%c.'e ct"1*:,t 'A'at "ll:::l? : a 2'A'?..c,.

C!;it iS"'.'s a*U"

" 7'L"!!" ncJ.fleT.c.c. "?!!";."/?"fft * 'co" c u ' " '"  !"ct"**/.,t"RE"'" '" aio;*,,O""

'81TJo'.?f,!!r/?... c """

W!!!O iu"!c'J.'s" '* 't!!". io'J.""'"' "lc;;;"?

. . ". .^.?!s"E" .

February 14, 1984 ... ... ....c o..<,,v-...

(202) 822-1209 Mr. J. M. Felton, Director FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Division of Rules and Records ACI REQUEST office of Administration United States Nuclear Regulatory FotA_ggjog Commission M,.h g l Q-g Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Mr. Felton:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. S 552, and 10 C.F.R. Part 9.

The NRC conducted an inspection of the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, on August 6-10, 1979. The NRC transmitted its inspection report, Inspection and Enforcement Report Nos. 50-498/79-13 and 50/499/79-13 (" Report No. 79-13") to Houston Lighting &

Power Co. ("HL&P") on October 5, 1979. A copy of Report No. 79-13 and the October 5, 1979 transmittal letter is attached.

I write to request copies of all records leading up to, arising out of, or in any way pertaining to Report No. 79-13.

This request encompasses, but is not limited to, (1) all records located in Region IV or any other NRC branch office; (2) all records to or from Region IV or any other NRC branch office; (3) all internal NRC memoranda and communications discussing or relating to Report No. 79-13 and the associated Notice of Violation; and (4) any notes or minutes of discussions 8404190077 840214 PDR FOIA SAMP84-108 PDR

> a SHAw. PITTMAN PoTTs & TROWERIDGE

. m .v c .. or . 46co t.o..

Mr. J. M. Felton February 14, 1984 Page Two between NRC personnel and HL&P personnel at the conclusion of the August 6-10, 1979 inspection.

I hereby agree to pay the prescribed fees for locating and copying the records sought by this request.

Please call me if you have any questions about the scope of this request.

Sincerely yours,

/ ,

• ^

Richard A. Samp RAS:tms Attachment I

l i

,./.** " h

.** .-- g'o U'4:750 570.755 ,

' ,~-

%,y-' - ,,.e'

- *s,.3

. m. ,C:-

. L . R .,,:G v.L . s- - ./ a.

a n ...!a a m. .,.

, :,::. "*.:).

t REGtCN IV _

../ sn avan *'. AZA om t. sw 1*:::

g% ,> 4 a' -i j / aams 09. sus n: :

Cc:::e f, 13 3 n Reply Refer To:

3 ..

Oo:ket No. 50-493/ap:. 79-13 50-499/Rp:. 79-13 Houston Ligh:ing and Power Co:pany ATIN: Mr. E. A. Turner, Vice ?residen:

? ve: Plan: Cons: ue:ica and Technical Services Pos: Office Sox 1700

• Houston, Texas 77001 Gentle =en:

This ref1:s to r.he inspection conducted by Mr. **. G. Eubscek and ::her ne=bers of our s:sff during the peri:d Augus: 6-10, 1979, Of a::ivi:1e s--

authori:ed by URC Cons::ue: ion Perni:s No. C??R-123 and 129 fe: Sc.::h Texas ? ojec:, Uni:s No. I and 2, and to :he discussion of Our findings -

t.-ith Mr. R. A. 7:a:ar and o:her cembers of your s:aif a: the conclusion of :he inspec:icn.

Areas examined during :he inspe::ica and cur findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection repc::. 'Tithin these areas, the inspe::ica ::n-sisted of . selective exsmina:1cn of procedures and representa:1ve records, in:e: views with personnel, and observa:1ons by the inspe::::s.

During :he inspec: ion, it was fcund tha: cer:ain ac:ivities unfe: yeur-license appea :: be in nonce =pliance vi:h Appenii:e 3 to 13 07150 of :he NRC Regula: ions, " Quality Assurance Criteria for :*celes: ?:ue Plants."'

The 1:e:s of non:: pliance and references to the partinen: requirenen:s are identified in :he enclosed Notice of Tiol2: ion.

Nine new unresolved 1:e=s are identified in paragraphs 3.:, 3.d, 3.h, 3.1, 3.=, 3.n, 6, 9, a:d 10 of the snel: sed repc :. ,

This notice is sen: to you pursuan: to the provisions ef .See:1:n 2.201 of

he NRC's " Rules of ?:actice," Par: 2, Title 10, Cefe of Fede:21 Regula:1:ns.

See:1on 2.201 requires you to sub=1: to this ef fi:e, vi:hin 30 fays cf your-receipt of this no:1:e, a wri::en sta:e=en: c: a: plana:1:n in reply including:

- (1) corree:ive s:eps which have been :aken by you, and the resu*.:s schieved;-

(2) corrective s:eps which vill be taken to aveid further . ncenpliance; and (3) the date when full conpliance vill be achieved.

t i"

/ 'g

/l O 1 STAFF EXHIBIT NO. 27 O

a

-l l

\

l l

2

0 Hous::: ligh:ing and ? cue: Cc:pany 2 Cc::ber 5, 197?

In a: ords::e vi:h Se::1:n 2.790 of the 730's "Kules Of ?:2::1:n," ?::: 2, Ti:le 10, Code of Tederal Regu'a: ices, a ::;y f :his le::e and :he enclosed inspection repor: vill be placed in the ::RC's Publi: Cocu=en: 2:c . If :he report contains any infor:atica :ha: y:u believe to be proprie:ary, i: is necessary tha: you sub=i: a wri::en.applica:icn to this effice, vi:hin 20 days of the da:e of :his le::er, :equesting :ha: su:h infor:a:ica be vi:hheld fr::

public disclosure. The applica:ica zus: include a full sta: ace:: ef :he reascas why 1: is claimed tha: :he indor:ati: is proprietary. The applica:isn should be prepared so that any proprie:ary i f:::ation identified is co::ained in a:

enclosure :o :he applica: ion, since :he app'icarica vi:heu :he a::1:sure vill also be placed in the ?ublic Decu:en: R::=. If va do not hear fre: you in this regard vi:hin the specified peri:d, the repor: vill be placed 1: the ?ubli:

Docu=en: Rec =. ,

Sheuld you have any ques:10:s concerning this 1:spection, va vill be pleased to -

discuss the= wi:h you. -

Sincere.lv. , -

-5> / -/ ,.

y -

~.C.Se.<.a,~e,Nu_se.e a

. Rese:c Consi:de:icn and Ingineering Support 3:anch Inclosures: -

1. Appendix A, Notice of ','iolation

2. II Inspe:: ion Repor No. 50-498/73-13 ew*%eegn ,J7 65*,)6 a

l I

i

T 50 '98/79-13 1 50-499/79-13 L:?:.. ..t..v N....y. . - . . . . . _ . . . .

. v...- s: ..._ . . . . . .

Based on the results of the NP.C inspection co:due ed on Augus- 6-10, 1979, it appears that certain of your activi ies were no: conduc ed in full co:-

plia:ce with the cenditions of you: NRC Co:strue:io Per=its No. CP?R-123 and 129 as i:dicated below:

A. Failure o Follow P:ccedures for Mai::ai ier P:M CA Ma: als 10 CTR Pa:t 50, Appendix 3, Criterio: V requires tha ac:?vities affecting quali:7 shall be acco:plished in accordance with instructicas, peccedures, or drawings.

Pittsburgh Jes Moines (PDM) QA Manual, Sectie: 12 requires tha the

=ssual shall be reviewed se:ian:ually or more frequently by the QA Cne-

=ittee to keep the manual current wi:h Code Addenda and PEM cc:struc-io:

a:d QA procedu:es.

i Contrary to the above:

The PDM QA Manual did not appear to have bee: reviewed on a se=iannual or more frequent basis in that it was not curre:: or adequately con :alled as exe=plified by the following:

1. Section 12, " Manual Revision and Distribution," does not describe how supple =e :s are to be integrated in o the =acual after receip .

2. Section 13, " Audits," does not state lead Auditor and audi o: qual-

, ifications requre=ents nor does i: ' describe how : hey a:e qualified.

3. QA Masuals No. 67, 132, 152, and 177 were found deficie:- 1: several areas such as missi:g see-ions, differe:: supple =et:s , a superseded procedure and an usauthori:ed =ecorandum imposi:g addi-ional re-quire ents.

I This is an infraction.

3. Failure to Tollow Procedures for Co: duct ef PEM Site Audits 10 CTR 50, Appendix 3, Criterio: V requires that activities affecti:g quality shall be acce=plished is accordance wi-h i:s ruc-io:s, proce-dures, or drawings.

p f. *' unV '

, l1lg '

m . --

PCM QA Ma:ual, Sectie: 13.0 requires tha : 2::ual or more freque::'

audits be perfo =ed at each cc strucn: site; deficie::ies a:d cor-i rective actions be brough: to the anenti:: of respo:sible cacage:s;~

audit results be reviewed by respensible :ansge:ent; and reaudi:2 be

, perfo =ed to assure correctic: ci deficie::ies.

Contrary to the above:

1. A::ual or = ore frequent audits a: the cots .ruction site vere zo:

perfomed in that the QA progra: vas :o: cc:pletely audited i 1976,

2. Deficiencies a:d corrective actio:s were appare:tly not brought to the attention of responsible ma: agers i: that cc :ective acti::

., statements have not bee: sig:ed off by anagemen.'since 1976.

3. There is no evidence that audi. results have bee: revieved 57 respo:si-ble manage =e:: to dete=ine required' corrective 20:1:n. ?.eaudics i were not perfo =ed to assure co::ec ues of deficiencies. 'In one case, recurring deficiencies were identified in 1977, yet,the '

deficiencies have not been corrected to date (Augus

16', 1979)..

• This is an infraction. . -.

(

C. Failure to Delineate Orzacizational Change in the ICM QA Ma:ual -

4 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterio I requires that autbrity and duties i of perso:s and organi:ations affecti:g safety-related functions of structures, systems, and co:ponents shall be clearly established a:d 4

4 delineated in writi:3 - o Contrary to the above:

A new positio: that had been established be: Vee: the ?tM Divisi3: QA

, Manager and the PCM Site QA Manage: was :o: delineated i: ie ?2 QA t Manual.

<,4 1 This is a deficie:cf. ' ' C 2 -

i i

.l .

3 D. Failure to Maintain Coroleted Audit Checklists in Audi: Files <

x F

10 CFR 50, Appendix 3, criterion XVI: requires that sufficienti:eco':ds.

shall be maintained to furnish evide ce of activities afic; ting quiitf -

_ ., i

_ s s 1 .

Houston Lighti=g & Power Company (HL&?) ?:ocedure Q.O-53 requires . hat completed audit checklists shall be cai::ained'i: the 'QA~ audit files ?' - . .

j .. b 't } . h v w

i

,' ' ~

s 7 i

. . s . . ~ - [

, +g 4

s. 1 f - -. Al'l s -

- g* 3u +

t y _ ; . C.?.?*

.\  % ,  % .%

. < +,

% ,,\

,I. "

{ ,

\- .M g -

s g ,

g, 9

' {1

.s 4: .,  ;

. . !, s

.} r Na -Sw 4 w g

' (i (4 .,.s #-

y}

i

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - m -

C :::ary to the above:

The QA file for audi; ."-60 cc: ai:ed :v: :.::::p _e.e audi , :he:hlis:s .

This is a deficiency.

E. Failure to Destroy or S: amp a teleted CA ?:::edure 10 CFR 50, Appendix 3 Criterien V requires th.: ac-tvities affecti:g quality shall be accc=plished in acec dance with ins ru:-i :s, proce-dures, or drawings.

3:cun & Root ?::cedure ST-QAP-2.2, A ach:e:- 6-0 requires , hat super-seded QA program docu=e::s must be dest:cyed or s amped " void" or " super-seded". .

Con : arf to the above: .

3:cun & Root QA Manual No. 19 contained ?:scedure 5T-QAP-5.12 which had been deleted per a "Su==ary of Revisic " da ed 0 ber 13, IL73; 5:vever, the procedure had et been stamped " void" c: " supe rs ede d". -

This is a deficiency. -

1

)

3 4

i L . -_ _ _ _ _ _._ -----_---_--- - - ------- ----- ---------- ----

. \

I U. S. NUCI.IAR RIGU .CCRY 00?.I5 SICS OFFICE CF INSPI !IC.4 AND II.:- - e.T RIGICN I*.'

4 Report No. 50-498/79-13; 50-499/79-13 j

Docke No. 50-493; 50 '99 Category A2 Lice =see: Houston Lighti=g a:d Power Company Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility Name: Sou-h Texas Project, Uni:s 1 & 2 Inspection at: Housto Offi:es and South Texas Project Inspection co: ducted: August 6-10, 1979 -

Inspectors : [/ A =

/#/J ,I79 .

' g7 W. G. Eu'oacek, Reactor Inspec:ce, Projects Cate 4 Section (paragraphs 1, 2, 3.k, 3.:, 7,10, 11, 12 & 13)

W wL -

10 - 2 '70 J. I./jiapi'a, Rey :or Inspector, Eng::eeri:3 Date Sudport Secti . (paragraphs 3.1, 3 & 9) h$ w -- -- /off/7f L. E. Foster, Inspection Special:s , RII Date ..

(paragraphs 2, 3.a. 3.b, 3.c, 3.e, 3.f, 3.g, '

4, 5, 6 and 7) ,

/f,45$ /0 $ 77 H. S. Phillips, Resident Reacto: !:spector, Date .

Projects Section (paragraphs 3.c, 3.d, 3.h, 3.j, 3.1 sed 3.m) k f

/ .

l l

.t.

)

j lf J' E T

s C:her Accc=panyi g Perse: el: L. S. Valler, I:giseeri:3 Aide (~:-op) . E:E; eeri:3 S;;p:::

Sectie:

Approved: e /4 7 7f W. A. Cross =as, Chief, Projec:s Section ;afe O

. , . &mn>> Ac S.?f

.f.jf R. :. iiall, C .ef, Eng :eer :3 Supper- Sec, : , /.;ars I:s ection Sc==a:r:

inspection on August 6-10, 1979 (Reco:: No. 50-493/79-13: 50-499/79-13)

Areas I:spected: Special, ataounced %:d-Ier: QA inspectics of :te establish =ent and i=plementati n of the licensee's QA progra= for site related actirities.is-cluding design, procure:ent and censtruc-ion. Areas i:spected included QA

=anage=ent, procure ent control, docu=ent control, design control, vendo:

survaillance, audits, QA/QC organi:ation and site installation activities. The inspection 1:volved on '" d--d thirty-two inspector-hours by four NRC j inspectors.

, Results: Of the eight areas inspected, five ite=s of =ccc:=plia:ce 'ere identi-fied := three areas (failure to follow procedures for mai::aining ?tM QA Ma: als -

, infraction, paragraph 3.=; failure to follow procedure for conduct of PIM site audits - infrae: ion, paragraph 3.=; failure to delineate organi:stie 21 cha:ge in the PEM QA Manual - deficie:cy, paragraph 3.=; failure to ais si: c =pleted

~

audit checklis

s in audi: files - deficie:cy, paragraph 3.k; a:d failu:e o destroy or sta:p deleted QA procedure - deficie:cyj paragraph 3.c'.

1 s

i t

i L

A 2-e

l D......

i .s . _:

1. Persons Contacted Princi:al Licensee I:elovees

• R. A. I: azar, Manager, Quality Assurance

• D. G. Barker, Manager, South Texas P: jec

• J.

t H. Ferguson, Tech ical Consultanc to the ' lice Preside::, P:wer Plas:

Construction a:d Technical Services

• V. N. Phillips, Project QA Manager

• T. D. Stanley, Project QA Superviso

• L. D. Wilson, Site QA Superviso:

• D. G. Lo:g, QA Lead E=gineer

• T. J. Jordan, QA lead I:ginee:

• M. H. Smith, Plant QA Engineer ,

• S. A. Viaclovsky, Supervisor, Suppor: Divisio

• R. L. Ul:ey, Senio QA Specialist

• E. G. Overstreet, lead QA Specialist, Veedo: Surveillance

• A. J. Granger, Project Engineeri:F Manager

• 3. F. Duncas, Startup Manage: -

A. E. Schoeneberg, Project Purchasi:3 Ma:ager

• R. C. Henson, Operations QA Supervisor -

J. L. Slau, Supervising Project Engi:ee:

J. R. Molleda, Lead Project Engi:eer - Mechanical D. R. Valley, QA Specialist - Audit Coordisator P. A. Swearingen, Ge:eral Supervisor, Records Managere:: Divisio:

M. S. Mosteith, QA Technicia:

G. A. Marshall, Senior QA Specialist J. A. Anderson, QA Specialist R. R. Her:asdez, Lead Project Engineer - Civil S. C. Siss, Leader, Administrative Group C. L. Grosso, QA Associate Engineer C:her ?erseccel J. Dodd, Senior Project Manager, 3rown & Root (3&R)

• C. W. Vince::, Project QA Manager, 3&R

• G. T. Warnick, Site QA Manager, 3&R

• H. O. Kirkland, Acting Project Ge eral Manager, 3&R

• J. M. Salvitti, Assistant Construction Project Manager, 3&R

• S. A. Rassick, Manager, Constructie: Engi:eeri:g, 3&R

• R. G. Withrow, Assistant Engineering Project Ma:ager, ELR D. E. Sewell, QC Civil I spector, 3&R E. R. Vickery, Acti:g Lead Cadweld QC Inspector, 3&R 3

[

t i.

L. Tofte, QA Traini:3 C:ordi ator, 3E2 G. Mills, Chief Draf tsman, S::uctural G::up, I&R A. F. Holb:cok, Assista:: QA Ma:2ger, ILR R. Childers, Assista:: to QA Coordi:ator, 3&R R. Ki= ball, P::j ect Ve=do: Surveilla:ce Coordi:ator, 3&R A. S. Goewey, NCR Supervisor, 3&R J. Purdy, QA Turnover Supervisor, 3&R D. Shu=way, Day Shif t Supervisor, QC Engi:eeri:g, B&R C. M. Singleton, Area Supervisor, QC E:gineerisg, 3&R

3. F. Mitchell, Quality Engineer, B&R C. Mudd, Supervisor, Docu en Co::rol 3&R S. Earton, Site I::e :a1 Surveilla:ce Supervisor, 3&R D. Whittaker, Aut::ative Syste: Specialist, S&R I V. Abra:s, QA Specialist, B&R -

R. Fountan, lead Clerk, 3&R C. Chaplin, Site QA Manager, Pi::sburgh Des Moines (?EM)

M. L. Self, Site Superintende::, PCM ~

R. Barker, Site Engi eer, PEM A. H. Ewten, Site Manager, Pittsbu:gh Tes:i:g Lacoratory

2. Review of CA Proera: and Ins;ecties and I: force:ent Riste:7 The II inspectors perforced a review of the QA =a=uals and docket files of the lice:see, architect engineer a:d constructors to include the followi:g: inspectices relative to QA p cgra:s and site; enforce:ent correspondence and responses; audits; responsibilities of key perso::el; construe: ion deficiency repor:s; c:ga:ization; executio: of the QA p: -

gra: and cc :inued develop ent oi the QA program for the South Te:as ?::je::.

QA procedures for the control of activities withi the Rous := lighti:g and Power Co:pany (EL&?) QA, I:gi eeri:g, and Purchasing Orga:i:a:i::s are contained withis the organi:ation's respective QA =acuals. I: the esse Of El&P delegated activities, the QA procedures for co trol of design, , re-cure =ent and constructics are contained withi: the B&R and W QA =anuals.

Major subcontractors (Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory and PitEsburgh~ 2es.

Moice: Steel Co:pa y) have their ow: QA =asuals which have been app::ved by the lice:see.

I vas noted that the Hi&? organizatie: for project :a: age e :, which is described is the ?:oject Quality Assurance Plan'(?QA?), Revisic: '

dated July 20, 1979, differs f::: that shews in Chapter 17 of the S:::h Texas ?:oject (STP) PSAR. The -ft:ctie:s previously perfor=ed by t

4

, V r

several E;&? depart:ents have bee: :::s:lida ed i: the S!? organi:stica under the direc-io: of the Manager, S!? who repor:s to the Vi:e ? eside::,

Power Plant Constructie: a nd Te c'- ' ' ca-vices. Tic Ma:ager, S!? is responsible for engi eeri:g, c::struc-i::, star up, c:s a:d sdhedule activities and results of S!?.

Changes have also bee: =ade in the li:e:see's Quality Assurance depar:reet.

The QA Manager now reports to the '* ice Preside::, Power Plant C :struction 4

and Techni:al Services rather tha: to the Executive Vice ? esident as stated in the STP ?SAR. The position of ?:ojects QA Manage: has been added and has responsibility for pla= ing, develop:ect, implementati , coordination, and ad=isistration of the Quality Assurance program for power pla:: pro-jects (including ST?) during engineering, desig:, procurece:: and ce:-

strue: ice activities. The ?:ojects QA Manager reports to the QA Manager.

The positice of Supervising Engineer has been changed to Project QA Supervisor with continued responsibility for devel:peest, i:ple=entation, coordination and administration of ST? quality ac-ivities. The ?:oject QA Supervisor reports to the ?:ojects QA Manager. The Supervisor, Site ,

QA, who is assigned to the site, is responsible for site quality assurance ,

surveillance of activities for STP during constructics a:d startup opera-tio:s. The Supervisor, Site QA, repor:s to the ?:oject QA Supervisor.

The review findings indicate that EL&? has developed and is conti:uing to upgrade the QA progra: consisten: with the SAR cc =i :ents relative to -

design, procurement, construction, enforce =ent response and reporting of deficiencies. QA =anuals and procedures are being revised to depict organization changes and i: prove =ents to the overall program. The lice:see advised the II inspectors tha: the PSAR was :ot revised to depict changes as NRC licensing does c desire to review the cha:ges.

3. On-Site Review of QA Manual and QA Manual !=ple=entation

a. QA Manual Reviews (El&? and 3&R)

The HI&? QA masual, identified as -he ST? Quali:7 Assurance Pla: (?QA?),

describes the HI&P Quality Assurance plan. I: delineates the poli:ies, organizatio=al responsibilities a:d cethods used by ' o c:afo = to the eighteen " Quality Assurance Cri eria" set forth in Title 10, Part 50, Appendix 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

EL&P has provided their posities descriptions for QA perso:cel, QA for=s and QA procedures in a bound volu=e a:d has identified it as the ST?

Quality Assurance Manual. This =anual details the-require =e: s to =ee:

, their-co==it=ents ade in the PSAR.

I BER has provided a QA' acual which specifies thei QA p cgram for: design, procure:ect and construction activities associa ed with S!?. The 3&R QA manual and associated procedures for STP vere reviewed and approved 5

by the lice:see to e:sure tha: 3&R's "A p::gra: :ee:s -he require-

=ents of the El&P QA progra=. The 3&R ;A =anual specifies that STP is to be constru:ted in ac:c:dat:e with ASMI, Secti:: III, 197 Editio , Divisic: I with 'a'ister 1975 Aide:ia. Iie li:ensee has a's:.

co==itted to ASMI, Sectica III, Civisi:: II. The 3ER ;AM also specifies that the requireme-:s of 10 CTR 50, Appe:di-; 3 will be met and that :te QA procedures will zee; the QAM require e::s.

Several sectio:s of the 3&R and EL&P QA =acuals and precedu:es were examined in detail to deter =ine if -he acuals and pr:cedures were being upda:ed to correct progra::atic deficiencies, changes in QA/QC organizational structure, technical require:e::s and if the changes were being reviewed a:d approved by the licensee. 3&R =a :a1 secticas and QA procedures exa ized in de ail were:

(1) Section 10, " Examination, I:spectic:s and Tests" (revised 3/3/79)

(2) Sectie: 9, "Special ?:ocesses" (revised 2/5/79)

(3) Section 1, "Organizatica" ,

(4) Section 2, " Training" (5) QA?-2.6, "Noccc=for:ances" (revised 3/15/79)

(6) QA?-2.7, "Stop 'Jork Authority" (7) QA?-2.4, "QA Docu:en: Review" (revised 3/1/79)

(8) QAP-2.3, " Document Ad=icis :sti::" ,

(9) QAP-5.4, "S :uctural Integrity Tests" (revised 2/2L/79)

(10) QAP-5.6, " Post Tensiccing' (revised 2/24/79)

(11) Quality Assura:ce Traini:g Manua'.

EL&P canuals exa:ined i: detail included:

(1) El&P Project Engineering ?:ccedures Manual No. ?I?-01,

"? eparation and Control of ?:oject Engi eering ?::cedures" (2) El&P Project Quality Assurance Plan, Revisi: 6, dated 6/20/79 (Sections 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8)

?:ocedures are being revised to elici:ste deficiencies and to improve the effectiveness of progra: executio:. C :parise: of 6

3&R =anuals in the co pera:e office a:d at the site ::: fir:ed tha:

the =a uals a:e being =ai::ai:ed curren; with the lates: revisi::s.

During discussi :s with 3&R QA pers:::el, the 'I i:spect:: was infor:ed tha: the site organi:stic: :har shews i ::e 2: al had not been updated to show the latest si:e CA st::::ure. The basie resco sibilities of the 3&R QA departmen: have :: changed, bu: the Qua'lity Control Engi:eeri:3 G:oups have bee: assigned (: resp :si-bilities for cer:ain areas of the plant ins ead of :he previous disciplice assig:=e::s. QC Engi:eering perse::el co::inue ta rep:::

to the QA depart:ent.

Exa:inations of the QAMs, procedures and docuse: ation revealed that the licensee and constructor have adequate QA pr:gra:s and appea: to be i=ple:ecti:3 the specified p :gra:s.

No items of ::::::pliance or deviatic:s were ide :ified.

b. QA Ma:ual Docu=e:: Control (HILP)

~

The licensee's ?QA2 Manual is issued to defice and control activities at the licensee's corporate offi:e and STP site.

The ?QA? Manual delegates responsibilities for c:::rol of -

contractor's QA =acuals to the cc:::ac:::s. The licensee is responsible for auditi:g the contractor's control of their QA -

manuals.

?QA? Manual,' Revision 6, dated June 20, 1979, describes the methods used for preparing and cc rolling quality related ac:i-vities. Sections 3, 6 and 7 specifically address doct=ent cc:::cl.

The Records Manage =ent Division under the QA depar =ent is respon-sible for maintaining copies of the STP records which i :1ude drawings, copies of all in-house correspendence, 3&R's design anual a:d typical reference documents, audi: rep:::s, procurement d: cure::s, specifications a:d correspondence be: vee the li:ensee and :ajor venders (3&R and W). This Divisi:: d:es no- issue and dis::ibu e infor=atica but is mainly a filing operatic ; h: wever, i:ers : : he checked ou for use by licensee perse::el. The II inspector was advised that the lice =see is developing a c =puter syste: f:: :::-

trol of docu=ents.

Responsibility for the development, control and i=ple e::sti:: of the ?QA? Manual is assig=ed to the EL&? Corporate QA Manager.

Depart = ental procedures are prepared by each CA Division and.are coepiled into a Quality Assurance ?:ccedures-(QAP) Manual. Res-pensibility for control of the PQA? and QA? Manuals has been assigned I

,7 l

1 1

l

4 to the Supper: Division of the ;A depart:ent. Each ca..ual is :::-

bered 3:d es:h h:lder of a ca ual is assi;:ed a ::::::'.'ed anua'

t:ber. The leader, Ad:izistrative Iup;::: fe::i:- ';2.) keeps a record of all anual holders, lates: rev si:: to see:i::s, ca e of issue and a:k:owledge ect of re:ei;- by the :atua'. h:1 der. A

~

= aster folder is kept up to date and i::'u:es

. a lis:s of all

~

revisions to the PQAP and QA2 Ma:uals.

The II i: spec:or selected two perso:s assigned unrela:ed QA/QC fu:c-tio:s and interviewed the: concer i:3 thei: respo:sibilities assoc-iated with the control of the =a::als and verified that procedures and

=acuals necessary for thei: responsibilities were available.

l The II inspector selected five POA? Ma:uals (No. 52, 51, 65, Si, and 35) and four QA Manuals (No. 5, 10, 11, and 29) for exa:ina:ien.

The II inspector visited the offices of the cantal holders and co:-

fir:ed that each i:dividual had ra:uals assig ed to hi=. The II inspector also reviewed -he lates: list of revisic:s :o the pro:s-dures and verified that the cacuals had been upda ed o include the ,'

latest revisions.

No items of conce:pliance or deviations were identified. -

^

c. QA Manual - Docu=ent Control (3&R) -

3rown & Root, Incorporated provides written procedures for con-trolling the preparatica, review, approval and issuance for docu-cents affecting quality. The QA Manager is responsible for the

)

control of these docu=ents.

) The II inspec:or reviewed E&R ?:ocedures QAP-2.3, "Docu=e:: Ad=in-1 istra-ion," QA?-2.2, "Cc ::al of ?:oject _ ?:ogra: Docnnen:s," QAp- -

6.1, " project QA Records," and QA?-6.3, " Codification of Jo:uce::s,"

to deter = ice if these procedures were adequate. The II instecto held discussions with respe

sible a:2ge:e : persoccel, examized the files a:d obeerved the facili-ies provided for the c::::o'. of

=anuals.

-2&R uses a "For: Control" described i: ?:ocedure QA?-2.;; for i trans=ittal of revised procedures. All revisions to -he QA/QC

' =acuals are prepared and issued by :he Housto: QA Depa--- - ~'-

Revision Record Sheet is prepared a:d su::ari:es the sa:ual page :: ber, description of changes a:d,revisio: date, p'.us i:-

i structices for entering into the :acual. A cover le: er-is utili:ed to trans=it revisions to each =atual holder and this cover letter is signed by the receiver and retur:ed to the QA repart:e::. If the QA Department does not receive the ack=culedgeze: receip

within 30 days, the =acual holder is sent a .cotice requesting 4

U

=8

- - r v v

I that he check his =a:ual for the revisio: and retur: the sig:ed acknowledge ent. The QA Depa:::e:: also perforts audi:s of the ca uals.

Controlled =acuals No. 10,15,17 a:d 19 were examined to deter =ize if the latest revision to the ca: als had been in:orp::a:ed by :he cacual holders. The II inspec:o found :ha- Manual No. 19 co::aised a procedure (QA?-5.12) which had bee: dele:ed pe: the "Su==ary of Revision" dated October 13, 1973. The II inspec:or was informed by -

the ca ual holder that he kept a complete set of procedures in his cacual for reference purposes a:d had inadvertently forgotte: to sta=p the procedure " void" as specified i: the procedure. Although the holder sta: ped the procedure " void" in the presence cf the II inspector, the failure to keep the QA =acual current as specified in QAP-2.2 is a deficiency.

The IE inspector also observed that ST-QA-2.3, "Doct entation Admi -

istration," paragraph 5.3.1 shows examples of sta:ps to be used c docu=entation. The sta:p i= print is :o: legible and shculd be cor-i rected. ST-QAP-2.2, " Control of Project ?:cgram Cocu e :," paragraph 5.3 requires trans::::al =e:orandu: or record be returned. While reviewing this area, the II inspector noted that the procedures-do not clearly state the effective date of revised procedures.

j' The atters concerning illegible procedures and effective date of revised procedures are considered unresolved.

(

d. EL&P Audit of 3&R's Control of Macuals After reviewing the controlled racuals, the II inspector requested the latest audit of docu ect control which was Audit No. ER-26, dated June 1-4, and 11-15, 1979. The audit identified a fi: ding concerning the ecstrol of 3&R QA Traini:g Manual No. 2L. The response to this audit finding addressed only the correctio: of Manual No. 24 The corrective action did not i:clude :eview of other QA traini:g =anuals or similar :anuals. Therefore, cc rective action was no taken by EER QA to ide :ify the cause of the condi-tien nor was action take: to pro:ptly identifiy si=ilar conditions adverse to quality.

The II inspector reviewed this audit prior to:HI&? review and follow up. EL&? infor=ed the II i:spector a the-exi: i::erview that so only was this answer inadequate but responses to several other findings in the sa:e report were inadequa:e. T-= 7: 4-spector stated that EL&P follow up was not questioned since they were i: the process of reviewing the responses.

9- .

f i

1 l

\

The =a- e: concer:ing the inade 22:e 2&R resp::se to the audi:

fi: dings is cc:sidered unresolved.

e. CA Manual - Docume : Cent::1 (5i e';

The II inspector exaa#->> 27 QA Ma:uals Nc. 20, 22, 37 and '6 assig:ed to site personnel a de er=i e if : e =a: sis were c: -

trolled and if the latest revisi::s :: ?::cedures No. QA?-2.6, 2.12, 5.1, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and 7.1 had been i:corporated into the :anuals.

Discussic:s with persoccel revealed that they were knowledgeable of the procedures for the control of docu=ests a:d the review of their manuals verified that the =a:ual procedures were current.

No ite=s of socccmplia:ce or devia:i::s were identified.

f. Drawings - Docc=e : Control (2&R Cor: orate Office)

The IE inspector d'iscussed the c::::o1 of drawings, specifications .

and design cha:ges with EER Corporate Offi:e respo sible perso :el ,

(Project Quality Engineer and Lead Clerk) to determine 'their k:cw-ledge and i=plements:ics of the pr:cedures. A physical exa ication was performed of the Engi:eeri:g Docu=en: Control Center where the receipt, storage a:d distributie of drawi:gs, specifica-ions and other QA documents are controlled. Access to the Engineeri:g Docu=e:t Co:: o1 Center is restricted to certain perso: el and a list of authorized perso::el is pos ed.

The IE inspector selected thirteen curren drawings from the master index a:d perfer=ed a i: spec-ic: of the records (sicro-fil=s and original vellums) :o verify -hat all of the drawings were of the latest revision and if they were stored and filed per procedure.

The IE i:spector selected eight c:he drawings fron the mas er list and examined all QA docuse::sti:: associated vi-h the drawings, fr:m the original review and app: ral to the latest review, approval and distribution. Records of comments made during design review and resolutio s of these c::=ents were also reviewed by the IE inspector. 3&R issues a drawing revisic: list each week 2:d a current revisio: list of all drawings and Design Change Notices are issued every two months-to perso::e1 specified on the s andard '

distribution list.

Procedures a:d other documents examined ere as follows:

(1) Procedure ST?-DC-002-1, "E gineeri g Procedure for 0: swing Control" 10

--y 4 M -

m 3 eg. --

e. .

(2) ?::ced :e 5??-DC-010 " :dift:2:_:: 5fs e=

(3) ? ocedure STP-CC-005-E, "?repara-i:n and C:::::1 of Spe ifi:3-i::s" (4) Procedure ST?-DC-014 "I:gi:eeri:g ?::ce d::e f or F.e tiew and Cceme::"

(5) ? ocedure STP-CC-013, "I:gineeri:g ?:::edure for :.::: en: C: ::ge Noti:e Control" (6) Procedure STP-DC-015, "Desig: 'le:ificaticas" (7) Drawi:gs associated with cc:::ete, piping and electri:21 activities:

(a) 11C1509 (b) 1C1512-5 (c) IC1540-6 (d's IC1542-5 (e) IC1544-3 (f) IP5051-1 (g) 1P5052-0

. (h) 1?5231-1 (i) IP5234-0 (j) 1I1909-2 (k) 1I1916-0

_(1) 1E2472-0

.(m) 1E1940-2 -

(c)' IC1509-6 (o) IC4193-1 11

~ - -

(S) E:gi:eeri:g Review, Desig:, Cha:ge Noti:es and ec :ents on the following drawi:gs: 1~'213-A; '.5 -!.; 3 2 - 0 ; 0 0 0 '.J.C ;

1-C4026-0 and 1-C4031-1.

(9) Co:plete History Card No. 3:01-10130? whi:h in:1;ded a historf of eve:fthing done e: -h s drawing f:c Ao:il 25, ~

1973, to July 23, 1979.

No ite=s cf = caco:pliance or deviaticas were identified.

g. Drawings - Docu=ect Control (Site)

'"o verify that the site was con :cIling drawings, specificatio:s and design changes as required by the p ccedures (see above para-graph), the II inspector discussed de control of these ite=s vid the Docu e:: Control Supervisor a:d the CRT Superrisor. A wali-through inspectie: of the site docu=en control ce: e and dis-cussicas vid oder personnel confir:ed that doc.:. entatics was controlled, drawings and specifications were readily retrievable,

• access to the area was restricted and personnel were knowledge:ble of thei: responsibilities.

To verify that the site had the latest revisic:s of drawings and that they were distributed to required personnel, the II inspector-requested that the site check the latest revisions to eleven draw-ings previously selected by the II inspector fro: the corporate

= aster list. Five concrete drawi:gs, four piping drawings and two electrical drawings were checked against de revisions reviewed at the corporate office (see above paragraph) and they agreed.

No items of acacompliance or deviations were identified.

h. ESP ? ocure:ent Docu=ent Cc :rol The STP QA Supervisor and the Ma:ager of ?:cjec: Pur:hasi:g were interviewec' o review the substance of QA manual provisic s relating to assigned procure:e:: activities and deter ine the location of EE? storage facilities for procure =ent docu=ents and evaluate the adequacy / con :ol of documents.

The II inspector reviewed procurement docu e :s for =aterial or ,

cocrponents for installatica activities rela:ing to major site contractors. Westinghouse Electri: Cc:peratio Purdase Order

(?O) 8141 for electric penetrations; Sou dwes: Fabrication ?.0.

6014 for ASME Section III Fipi:g 2 " and larger; Analog Con::cl 12

P.O. 4105 for ins::::en:stion a:d con::als I & C, (change order); '

a:d Hayward Tyle: Pump Co. P.O. 4122 (:ha:ge order) for ASME III Class 3 pu=ps were reviewed to assure 1h2: purchase c:ders co::si: d the scope of work, tech:ic:1 require:e::s, CA requireme::s, rign: of access and docume::2 io: requirece::s.

No items of nocco:pliance or deviati::s were iden:ified.

J

i. Desian Coct:cl 4

The Houston Lighting & Power Co:pacy quality Assurance Maccal (QAM) i:ple=entation was reviewed with specific attention to those sections of Criterion III which require that the design con :al =easures pro-vide for checki g the adequacy of desig: by the perfor:ance of design reviews and for subjecting design changes, includi:g field cha:ges, to design control ceasures cc=:ensura e with those applied to the original design. The progra: established by Els? is docu-

=ented by written policies, procedures and instructices con:aised or referenced in the QAM,1: depart =e::al procedures and in the .

ST? PQA?.

I Project I:gineering Procedure PE?-05, Revision 0, "Perfor:ance of Desig Reviews," was reviewed for confor:acce with Section 4.3 of the QAM. This section e::itled, " Review of Design by HI&P," delegates to the El&P engineering groups the responsi- '

bility for perfor=i:g techni:al reviews of design docu=ents developed by the Architect /I:gineer (A/I).

The procedure was also reviewed for confor:ance to Section 4.4 of the PQAP. This section describes the process fo: :he design review perfor:ed by E;&?. I:ple:entation of ?:ocedure PEP-05 was verified during this inspection by discussiccs with the Lead Project Engineer-Civil who was in the process of gen-erating a Docu=ent Review Sheet for a revision to 3&R ?:ocedure ST?-EMO-21, " Procedure for Field Request for Engi eeri:g Actio:."

The Docu=es: Review Sheet generated by the Lead ?:oject I:gineer-Instru=enta: ion and Control for the same document was-also reviewed.

Requests originating fro: the STP site to chacge,Ldevia:e fro =,.c:

clarify design drawings and specifications are co:::elled through a system called Field Requests for E:gineering Actio:- (FRIA), which provides for review and approval of field changes by the Engineering-Depart =e=t through control of the FREA for=. 3&R ?:ocedure STP-PMO-21, " Procedure for IREA," Revision e provides the' require-ments .<or twe origination, coordina: ion, review, disposition, t

i i

a 4

13 4

I i

1 1

I 1

1

distribution and control of the FRIA. 3::wn & R:o: Procedure No. STP-DC-023, "E:gi eering Procedure for FEIA," Revisio: H provides direc-io: for the e:gi:eeri:3 ac:ivities inv:1ved i:

processing the FRIA.

Implementation of the TRIA s/ste: was c:: fir:ed by reviewing the field request for zodifying the heigh: of ec: crete place e number 7 for the Uni 2 Reactor Contain:e - 3cilding (RC3). The Ecgineering Depart =est was in the process of reviewi:g the site orginated reques:

to make the loca: ion of the eight inch cha: el liner plate stiffener coincide with the top of all subseque:: cocere:e place:ents so -ha-the probability of void formatio beneath the channel, such as that which occurred in Unit 1, will be reduced.

No items of conce=pliance or deviatio:s were identified.

j. Brown & Root Vendor Surveillance The II inspector interviewed the 3&R Project Vender Surveilla::e -

Coordinator. The vender surveillacce program is broken into five -

regions across the United States. The II inspector reviewed :.e following: _

(1) B&R Vendor Surveilla:ce Schedule Job No. CR-O'21 for April,-

May and June 1979.

(2) Surveillances perfor=ed in Regions I, II, III, IV and V daring July 1979.

(3) Vendor Surveillance Reports:

Report Manufacturer Item K085-92 Kerotes: ANSI 331.1. Valves Co-95-006 Capital Pipe & Steel Fla:ges P365-51 Prescon Tendons W-12050 Westinghouse. 1000 & 1200 K7A transfor=ers P097-189 PDM Des Moines NR S ::ctural Steel No items of sencompliance or deviations were identified.

k. Licensee Audits of QA Program Ele:ents The II inspector reviewed selected reports of licensee audits performed to verify i=plementation of.QA program ele:ents re'.ated-to design control, procuremes , docu=es control, =aterial l 14

l receiving, c::structie and QA re:ords. The audit records were  ;

examined to de:er= ice if audited Orgaci:sti::s received copies i of the audit repo::s; to deternize if app::priate standards were used for =easuring perf:::a::e; to as:er:si: if audi:::s were selected in accordance with QA =23:21 provisi::s; to review corrective actio:s; a:d to review ide::ifi:ation of substantive design or hardware deficie::ies. The following audit reports were revie-ed:

BR-7, audit of B&R Docu:en: Control Cente: and E gineering, perfor:ed Ja:uary 19-31, 1975 3R-9, audit of B&R QA progra: i=plementation, perfor=ed March 15-18, 1976 1

3R-14, audit of B&R persoccel qualifications, records, docu=ent control, receivi:g inspec-ic a:d storage, perfor:ed October 26-28, 1976 -

3R-21, Audit of 3&R Pur:hasing, performed Augus: 22-23, 1373 BR-22, audit of 3&R Civil Design, perfor:ed Nove:ber 13-l7, 1978 -

5R-26, audit of B&R QA progra: i=ple:entation, perfor=ed June 4-6 and 11-13, 1979 R-27, audit of 3&R welding progra=, perfor:ed June 11-12, 1979 HL-7, audit of EL&? Furchasing Depart =ent, perfor:ed April IS, 1978 EL-60, audit of EL&P Constru:: ion Depart en:, perf:::ed February 19-20, 1979 EL-67, audit of EL&P Records Manage =en: Division, perf:::ed June 13-14, 1979 The IE inspector observed that the checklist for audit 3R-7 was co:

completed and that the file for audit 3R-9 did not con:ais 2 check-list. The IE inso.ector :oted that failure to =aintain audi check-lists had previously been identified 'sy the.NRC y and the licensee response indicated that corrective action had be- ' ple=e::ed to-assure that audit checklists are =aintai ed.

i 1/IE Inspec: ion Report 50-493/77-12; 50-499/77-07,- da:ed Dece:ber 9,1977 15  ;

i I

l F - T "

Duri:3 review of audi EL-60, the :I inspec:c: es:ed tha: =c ereus (13) i:e=s on two audit _checklis:s i: the file ve:e ince:ple:e. Curi:g discussi :s with licensee re.::ese::ativei, i: was p:i::ed ou :hs: ene ,

of the checklists was used as a ' feeder" to the other (recced) copy; however, it was observed that ::e i e: :: the rec::d c:py was :::

checked "sa:", "unsat" or "N/A".

It was noted that the licensee's audit reports su::arize areas covered duri:g-audits and that only deficies: areas are described in detail in Audit Deficie cy Reports issued with the repor:s. Iie co=plete audit scope cannot be deter =ized without referring to the audit checklists. The presence of the ince:plete audit checklists in the HL-60 file was contrary to the licensee's respo:se to previcus inspe -

j tion findings and to paragraph 7.2.4 of HL&? QA Departmen- ? :cedure QAP-53 which requires tha: c:=pleted audit checklists shall be mai:tained in the QA audit files. This is an ites of :::c: pliance with the require =ents of 10_CFR Par 50, Appendix 3,'Criterio: I"II, in that a QA audit file was not properly =aintained.

The IE inspector also observed that certification records of c e

^ EL&P e=ployee who participated in audits EL-7 a:d 3R-21 a:d a::-her employee who participated in audi: 3R-14 could not be found in.,the QA auditor qualification file. Discussions with licensee represe -

tatives revealed that supporting decurents, includi:g cc pleted .

j examinations, were on file but the actual certificati::s of the two individuals had apparently been re=oved f::m the audit::

l qualification file.

This matter is considered unresolved pending completion of a rec::ds review for the missing docume::s by the licensee a:d subsequent review by IE.

1. Pittsburgh Testing Laboratorv OA Manual I::lece :stion The HL&? Quality Assurance p:cg:2m require =ent for the establish:ent of a test regram e to meet the require =ents o' c 4 -- -- .s; c: Appendix 3 to 10 CFR 50 was reviewed with respec: := concrete testi:-5 services.

The Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) QA =anual for i:specti: and testing services was reviewed for c:sferrance to See: ion 4. "I:spectice of Concrete Construction," of ANSI N45.2.5-1974, "Sec. ole =entarv, Quality Assurance Require:ents for Installation, I specti:n and Testing of S::uctural Co: crete a:d S::uctural Steel During the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants."

Implementation of PTI Procedure _QA-1A, "I::ernal. ~ Audits," was' reviewed.

Specific attention was given to the site initia:ed cc: rec:ive action response required for all audit report findings and observati::s.

4 f

16 .

I l

r I

+

The followi:3 records were specifically reviewed:

(1) pTL Corporate QA Aud : Sum =ary Reper s of PT* Site Lab::at::7 operatic:s No. I th:: ugh 3, covering :he period f::: May 11,

,4:<

- o, , to .o.a r s_ w.3,

_ .is (2) S!? PTL Audit Reports No.1 through 3 Respcases (3) PIL Corporate Close-ou- Reports 3rown & Rco corporate audits of PTL vere also reviewed. These audits were perforced is accordance wi-h 3&R Precedure ST-QAP-7.1, "Houste QA Audits ," Revised February 2' ,1979. 3&R QA Audi- Reports No. P262-1, -2, -5, -6, and -7 vere reviewed. Audit Repor s No.

P262-3 and -4 were not located i: the site QA vault ,2s required by B&R Procedures ST-QAP-7.1 a:d ST-QAP-2.3, "Docu ent Ad icistratice,"

revised August 28, 1973. Discussions with the EL&P site QA Superviso 1:dicated that this deficiency had been ide -'#4 A #-

HL&P audit of 3&R Report No. 26 as Audit Deficiency Report (A:3)

No. 3R-26-D-01. The II inspect : was # '---ad -'** the audi: repc :s were located at the B&R QA he:e office facilities but were to be routed to the STP site QA vault for filing and retention in resic:se to the EL&P audit.

Inclusion of the audit reports in the vault is considered an unresolved ite: to be reviewed at a later date.

PTL Procedure No. QC-CRN, " Cent::1 & Reporti:g of Ncace:for:ances,"

Revisio: 3 was reviewed fc: c::for:acce to the PT' QA pr:gra: and for i ple ectatic:. PIL in ernal :::cc for:acce reports No. 32, 83, 84, 85 a:d 86 were reviewed with specific atte :io: :ade to the require =ect for reinspectie: and verifica-ion of all ec:cc forma:ces.

In addition, the log of all :::ce:for:a:ce repc::s was aisc reviewed.

The training and indoctriza-i:: require =ents of ANSI N'5.2.6, " Qual-ifications of I: spec-ica, Ixaciza i::, a:d Testi:g Persetzel is:

the Ccestructie: Phase of Nuclear P:wer Plants," were applied to the personnel record of one rande:ly sele: ed Level II concrete field inspector. The file indicated cc:for:acce to the requi--- s of the ANSI sta:dard.

No items of soccompliance or deviations were identified.

m. Pittsburgh Des Moines (PDM) CA Manual I :lementatio (1) QA/QC Organization The IE inspector interviewed the si e QA Ma:ager to de:er=ine whether individuals were assig=ed to QA =anual ide:-ified positio:s relative to the following:

17 l

I i

(a) Conti:ued developee:: :f QA/QC p:::edures a:d i:st::ctic:s (b) Inspecti:

(c) Audits (d) Manage:ent of the si e related progran i plere: a-i:

The IE inspector found tha; procedures are c::::alled by the organization located off si e a:d audits are perfor=ed by the sa:e group. PLM has on-site i:spectors and a QA Manager. The PEM QA Manage was selected f : the positie: in the las: three weeks. He was for:erly a lead inspec ::. Whe: the i::erview was conducted, he appeared he perfor=ing the,responsibili-ies of lead inspector and QA Ma:ager. He stated that his workload was declici:g and fel- he would be able to perf::a be '- '"---'oss.

This individual was also i::erviewed to deter = ice if, while as l

! an inspector and QA Manager, he had and :w has the authori .y and organizatic al freede: :c ide:-ify :::ce:formances a:d seek resolution fro: appropria:e levels of 22:agement. He s ared that as an inspector and QA Ma: age he had received adequate support f:c: QA persoccel a:d QA Ma: agers. I was also stated that he had not been subjected to threats or undue pressure from anyone which would have i: flue:ced the perfor=ance of his duties.

The II inspector deter =ized -ha rece:t organi:2-i::al changes I had bee = =ade; however, such cha:ges were neither described in the QA =anual 20: shown c: c:ganizatio:al charts. A new posi-ties was created betwee: the Civisio: QA Ma: age: and the Si e QA Manager.

The findi:g regarding the QA pesities not bei:g described represe ts a conco:pliance wi-h 10 CTR 50, Appe: dix 3, Cri:erio:

I and El&? QA manual, Sec-ic: 2.

(2) PDM QA Manual Coct:11 l l

The EE inspector .. viewed the.c:n rol and develop =en: ef QA/QC procedures and inst::cticas 2:d f:und :he following:

(a) PDM QA =anual docu=ent Co:: o1 seasures. fec-io 12, "Mascal Revision and Distributics," did : - describe h:w supplements would be i: egrated into the :acual af er receipt. Also there is a: appare t conflict between :he 18

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ --- - - - - ..Q.

supple:ents as used ::w and revision i:st::::i::s described in Secti: 12.C cf :he =acua'. . (i.e., supple-cents which cha:ged paragraphs were ::: at:::ated i: the cargi: as requi:ed by the p:::edure.) AN5: N05.2, para-graph 2 sta:es i: part, "Participati:g orga:iza-ices shall have p:ccedures f:: c:::::1 cf the docu ents and :ha:ges thereto to preclude the possibili:f of use of outdated or inappropria:e docume::s."

Sectio: 13, "Audi:s," was another ext =ple supporting the NP.C findi:g that the PEM =anual does not fully incorporate the provisions of ANSI N'5.2. PEM ?:ccedure No.13 does co state lead auditor and audi:or qualifi:atic:s require-ments nor does it decribe how they are qualified. The basis of audit frequency was act described,, that is, prior to and i::ediately af:e: award of contrac s, after signi-ficant changes is functic:al areas of quality assurance or when the safety perf ::a :e or reliability of ite s are .

suspected. This sa:e precedure was found to con sic a .

reference to audit report for: 17949C? which had bee:

superseded be. 17949ER listed i: Section 15, " Sample F ::s ,"

Revision 3, dated November 19, 1976. "

Four QA Manuals (No. 67, 132, 150 and 177) were reviewed to deter = ice if casuals cc tained current revisions and to determine if procedures were properly distributed. The following discrepa::ies were noted:

Manual 150 did not cc:tain Section CP-1, "Calibratio:

Procedures." Manual 177 did not c:::ain Sec-ica C?-1 and Sectio: !!-1, " Indoctrination and Training ?:o-cedures."

Manuals 67,132,150 and 177 did se: cct:ain :he sa:e supple =ents (docu=ents pertaining calf o South Texas Proj ect) . That is ca uals 67 and 154 la:'.'.ed fupple--

ment 210; =anual *.32 lacked Supplece:: 211; =acual 177 contained :: supple =en:s.

The indoctrica ics and ::aining pr:cedure whi:h had been superseded by a new precedure was in the =anual; however, the old precedure was =ct =arked "vcid"

" superseded" or "for infor:atie caly."

Manual 67 contained a policy =emoraedu which imposed additional require =ects; however, the QA ma:ual Sectica-12.0 does not authorize the macual :: be revised or 19 r

supple:ented by me= ors:du:. C:e su:h =e ora:du ,

"A u.. . .*.* s p e s a. C"i .' a. 3.i.d-"," d.a..>. S.f. '..-.. .S, 19 7 5 , s . .' . =. ^. ~. '. a . 1.". .'. . .'.'.'-'....~~;

= .. ' . . . - . . ....

. - ' b=.

resolved withi: 2C days of receip:.

~'

i. e s e a r e . ' ,-..' a . ' e x .' ..f.' =_ s o. '. ' .-.= - > . .' ' . -" - = - .~ - . ...

The II i:spectors ide::ified c-her exa:p'.es which were i

similar to those described above.

PDM QA =acual, Section 12.0 s ates in par , "This ca: al shall be reviewed se ia::: ally or =c:e freque::1y by the QA Cecmittee . . .. The 12:ent of this review shall be to keep the =anual curren; with Code adde:da a:d with PCM construction a:d qua ity assura::e procedures . . ..

Revisions to the =anual shall be highlighted by revisio:

!  :: bers in the =argic."

The II 1:spector's findi:gs showed that the =acual was not currect :or adequatelv. co : o. led. -

This finding represe::s a concompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appe: dix 3, Criterion */.

{ (3) Control of ?CM Site Origina ed ?:ocurece::s The II inspector selected, for review, two site origi:ated purchase requisitions for veld materials and s :uctural steel.

The procureces docu=e::s were located offsite at the varieus plants or corporate QA records centers. Therefore, the II inspector reviewed Field Re:eivi:g Reports (For= 130'7) No. 10*.

(3 de e plates) and 108 (doce pla:e stiffe:ers) and structural steel purchased under co :act No.15680; FRR No. SL (I 6010 and I 7023, 3/16 welding red) under cc ::ac: No. 15679 for certification that:

(a) Specification of standards was proper.

w te.d.a l phys .' ..' .1 *

(s) aa __d. " _ _ . ' . . = . ' ....'.##.a.'..

_ .. s ..

require =ents.

(c) Receipt inspection /tas-ing was perfor:ed.

t No ite=s of =c: compliance or deviatio:s were identified.

(4) POM Audits of p M Site A::ivities The following audit reports were :eviewed. The II inspector's findings are described :=de: "Cc==ents" applicable to -he respective audits.

20 i

d A u . d. *. R. e p o .- . C..... . . s _'. a s . .' .b 'to a g 1.

ho. Ca....

r

_ e ..a.... : . _. _ _ ......

s . . . . , . s .::. .. :. :. .. .. ..76-203 a:d 9/15/76 Site Review of audi ree :ds

, 6 .* ' ._? a.' .' . d .i c .s . . '. ._'a...-.3.'..'..'._3 1,/li

. /,o- .e. ... .. .i .. .s c .: . ..., . s .,.

~ _

_a_.._._.- , -

..e.. .. _ .o. . ......a..ac..e  :

._. ,c..

c,,

.. ,s..:..:..

1.0 Design Centrol

'o . O C- . . . .-t . c.' " . . ' su.'_g .

a _ _' ~. .s . _= g-"_3- .f -w. _- .

3.0 Heat Treat e -

9.0 .c.o .'.g. a_ '.. __'#a ._'_--,

'0.0 A :x.

. _ a _ ;. _. a ... : c _. a _. 2

. ,. s .--6

.4..

11.0 . s. .. .: ...2. : o:. a

...._ _ a.

Training .

12.0 Manual Revisic:/

Distributic:

13.0 Audits I,r . 0 .n.......4..,

Co.....:_e

....... a .....

c ._p '. . . , s ; .--

. 3 a .". .- .

a..d da . . ...' s s ' ..' ..77-201 1/2/77 Si:e See:icn 12.0 "Ma:ua' Revisi:: .

a,d

. a._d D:s.. ou..;..,~ .:-__a a.

1/'1/'i 7 ' c ep. a b .' . k ," ' . .'.". , ": . . .V.:. .^ ..#.# 2 -

1' gs sk_.".

'__.=-"___3.-_

. _ - .A.

o:. revis ::.77-201 1/3/77 Si e Sectie: 1.0, "Desig:,".(co:-

..ot

.. o:. da.s'g_ d..-_ - . -..s, ...c-c-A.u.--s, sr...#..'

Section 8.0, .'...' .... s,Tneat _'reatm a:d Sectica l'.0, "Cocu=ecta-tien," were not audited in CY 1977. No:e: Docume :atic:

21

and Heat Trea::e:: were :::

audited fs: two years a:d additional.7, s :=c::d us:ifyi:;

u .,. .,. c...a...... ........ .... ....... ...

a .. .a ....

.a . . ;77-203 9/27 - Ees

oices This audi: identified docu:e :

30/77 cc::rol proble:s in audi: :e-

c'.e . w.. **.o..-N.'.'..'.>...,

yet site follow up was not apparent. Corre:-ive a :ia:

signature black, lead audi ::

o.- ig__..:..; s. a a. ..,.,..

signed.77-202 2/1-2/75 Site Sectie 12.1 audi- by PDM f:und acceptable, ye: N?.0 fot d areas need cc e:-io:. lead audito:

not identified. -:::e:-ive .

action sigta ure black.73-210 6/5-S/79 Des Moines Corrective a::io: sig:sture black "79-203 3/23 - Site Lead audi c: cot identified.

~

29/77 Corrective a::i:: signature blank. PDM audit of Sec-i::

12.0 acceptable while NRC I

findings showed ::::ecti::

needed.

i s ._

Ae: . spec:ce reviewed -he above audi results for rends and found the fol'owing discrepancies:

Section 2.0 (2.1, " Drawing, Prepara-ie: and Issua::e", 2.2, "Drawi:g Distributi::") was ide:-ified in each ?:M audi: as (c), correctio:s required, however, the areas re ai:ed deficient fr:o September 15, 1975, un-il March 27, 1973.

Corrective action was :o: adequa:s.

Section 12.0 was repeatedly audited, ye the II i:spector found that follow up to assure cerre:: ion of docu:e: ::::::1 deficiencies on site was not adequa e.

Additic ally, the II inspector found that only nega-ive audi; fi: dings '

were docu=ented. When audit resul s are.so docu ented, it is i: pes-sible fo: the reviewer to'deternice on what basis acceptable findi:gs are cade. That is, if Section 12.0 were audited a the site, did the 22

auditor icok at c e manual or a'.1 =anuals? Did the audit::

check each See: ice for curren revisi:cs :: ::.y c e Se: tion?

Specifically, the audi: fi:di:gs .ere ::: supported by : ference to the areas audited.

PDM QA Manual Section 13.0, " Audits," s:ates i: par , "The Corporate Chief Engineer a:d Civisic: Chief E:gi:eer shall i:itiate annual, c ore freque :, audits of each field :::-

strue: ion site. The purpose of -hese audits shall be to 1'

deter ine the effectiveness of the QA progra: . . . . The Division Chief Engineer shall bri:g deficiencies and --- -- -d corree-ive action to the attenti:: of the respective depart:ent

=anagers for their action. Audi: results shall be reviewed by responsible canage:e : :: deter ire -he required ::::e::ive action . . . . The Division QA Manager shall i itiate reaudits as required to assure cor:e::ie: Of deficie::ies."

Based on the findi:gs described above, follow-up actices were :::

taken to assure that deficie:cies were c :rected. In c e case, -

recurring deficiencies were ide::ified in 1977, ye: the de-ficiencies have not been eo: ected to date (S/;6/79). Cecumented audit results did :ot reference what was reviewed / observed.,when areas were f und acceptable. The audi: report did not identify lead auditors and the procedure did act state audi:o: qualifi-cations require =ents. The QA progra: was not totally audited

i

1976. Management had co signed off the cc::ective action 4

state ent on the audit report f:r= dating back to 1976.

These fi:di:gs represent a co:ce:pliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix 3, Criterion 't.

(5) PDM Israeetion Person =e1 Qcalificati::

The II inspector reviewed three ?EM inspector's files to deter = ice if weldi:g and NDE inspectors were qualified. Of the three files reviewed, one inspector's qualifi:2-ic s was c::sidered i: adequate.

The PDM QA =anual, Sectie: 1.0, paragraph 10.3.1 s:stes i: part,

" level I, II, and III NDE personnel shall be certified in accordance with PDM Writte ? acti:e QAS I, II or III which ee:s the require ent of the Code." The PDM Writte ?:actice QAS II requirements are basic educatio: plus sine =ct hs of experience.

! The licensee's representative i: e:preted nine ::::hs laboratory experience as work experience. The II inspector did so: c:::ur.

l with this interpretation.

The IE inspec:o: consulted NRC =a: age =e::~and NDE specialist who concurred that the individual did :o: initially =ee: Eevel II 23

I e > a

.,,. q.....

,: . . . s :._. ...s. u .u. ._e c: .. s.. -..._.

u , .....,,A.

_. . . . . . . .u,..a qualified. However, he would be qua.'ified subseque:: to 1 working in this area f:: ti e ::::hs. Work peri:::ed duri:g the first nice :n :s sh:uld he rev eved by the 11:e:see :

assure that radiographs were :or::: 'y disp:si-i: ed. .

.A d d. i. *.. . - ..' 1. .' / , . .'- . 5. 5.". Q.2. '

___= - ~_ _' ...s

'. --.. s..=.. ...-4___

. 4.. s . . s- . . .-

qualifications. The licensee representative i:fsr:ed the II inspec or tha: -he licensee had c:::i- ed to ANS: 545.6.

The above catters are c::sidered u::esolved pe: ding additional 4

inspection in these areas.

(6) PDM C :struction Persen:el (a) PEM Site Superintende:-

The site superi::enden; was interviewed to de:er=ine h:w welders are qualified; deter =ine the nu:ber of personnel supervised and coeperatica cf craf ts and QA/QC perso: e'..

• The 7v i-scec-e.- .'w u-d .'.a. ..'.- su,....~-.. .'. . ..->. s'.-

QA Manager are located is adjace::. offices is: ease of interface between -hese two groups. The forena: s ated that relaticus between the two groups were go:d. He sta ed that some welders who were ::: qualified in each position had welded i: positices which they had not bee: qualified.

This happened a: the beginning of work at ST?. The NRC, . licensee and c::s rue::: identified this pr:ble: and corrected it early in the project. .

Welder qualifica:ica records were reviewed f:: the foll: wing welders: Weld -Sy=bol 104, 112, 120, if0, 156, 153, 176, 192, 194,195,197 and ic9. The II inspec:o: was "-= o view radiographs because they were se:: off si:e to ree::d storage.

No items of none::pliance :: deviatices were ide:-ified.

c. Bowen Industries. Inc. QA Manual The IE inspector reviewed -he 3cwen 'Indus ries, Inc. (3cwec) QA =anual for adequacy and. ,=p,e=entatica c: progra: require:e s. _s

. i e .: 1: spec-tor was infor=ed that Bowen's (:he cc ::ac :: for heati:g, ve:-ila-ing and air conditioning (HVAC) sys e:s installa: ion) QA =a:ual was accepted for site use, but work has ::: coc=esced c safety-rela ed HVAC syste=s. The IE inspector observed that implementi:g procedures related to the Bowen QA =anual have 0o: been issued and were not available for review.

24

Euri:g the review, the II inspector Observed tha the anual stated that acadestrue:ive testi:g pr::edures shall be prepared 2:d app::ved by a " Level II Examiner" and :..e QA Mz:ager. Di::ussi::s with licensee represe::stive failed to resolve the II inspe:::r's ques-ic:s c:::e::i:g approval of the procedures by a level I:: perse:. :: the abse: e :f Bowen represe::a:ives, it could co- be de:e:: iced if the " Level I:

Examiner" was a typographical error c: if -he QA Ma:ager was a level III perse: authori:ed to approve the pt:cedures.

This matter is censidered u :sselved and will be reviewed during a subsequent II inspection.

4. QA/QC Ortasi:ation (3&R) 3: wn & Root, Incorporated the construe:c: ef South Texas Pla::

was inspected to deter =ine if individuals had been assig ed to the QA catual identified QA/QC positions.

Review of the 3&R QAM a:d discussions with persencel revealed the foll:wi:g: '

a. E&R QA Procedures No. ST-QAP-1.0 and 1.1, dated Mar:h 1, 1979, defice the 3&R QA orgaci:ation. --

b. The B&R corporate office' develops the basic QA require:e::s (QA =anual) and the site QA group develeps the site procedures a:d ins u:-ic:s.

c. Inspectie: activities at the site are controlled and i:plerected by the Projec- QA Manager, Site QA Manager and the Quality Con :al Engineering Supervisor. Area engi eering supervisors have a staff of quality engineers who actually perform QA/QC activities. A QA Specialist, Document Control Supervisor and an Administrative Super-visor and staffs are responsible for o-her QA/QC activities such as preparing procedures, reviewi:g drawings, co:::al cf documenta:io and administrative duties.

d. Audits are performed on the site activi ies by the C:rporate QA staff, responsible to the Corporate QA Manager. Surveil'a :e a :ivities are perfor ed by site QA/QC persoccel. Audits and surveillan:es are performed according to procedures.

e. Overall =acage:ent of the site related QA progra: i: place :ati: is performed by the ?:oject QA Manager.

f. The B&R Site QA Manager is responsible for surveilla::e of a::ivities perfor ed by other subccatractors as specified i ?:ocedures No.

ST-QAP-5.5, 5.4 and 5.3.

No ita:s of soccc plia ces or deviations were identifiec.

l l

l 25 I

1 l

l l l l I

t 't t

5. Ce:::al of Site Installatie The II inspector selected -he Reac:o- c--

- -- Eu.1 ding s ::::ure and e.va:ized records a:d de:ucentati:= ass::iated wi i the pla:e:e of :::-

crete a:d reinforci:g steel. These operati::s are c:: rolled by ?:::edur:s No. 5.4, 5.5, 4.6, 2.6, CCP-3 and CCP .

The following recc:ds of cc: crete pla:ece: were exa:ined a:d all QA/QC records were properly signed.

a. Pour No. mil-W251-02

b. Pou: No. MEl ~4923-1 l

l

c. Pour No. mil-W217-13 l Discussic:s were held with respcesible 3&R and EL&? pers:::el regarding the activities associated wi-h cots ructics inspec-ic: a:d d:cu:e: a-ics ,

of the cc: tai:=ect building.

No ite:s of :::ccepliance er deviations were identified. --

6. Audits and Surveillances of Constructi:: Activities -

The II inspector ext ined several audit a:d surveillance reports applicable to constructice activities. Se:e of the audits and surveillances were conducted both by EL&P and B&R corperate effice and site perso :el. The II inspector also reviewed ::aicing and qualification records of feu: 3&R QA/QC perso el. Discussions were held with the 3&R Trai i:g C:ctdi a or a:d QA/QC personnel of HL&P and 3&R.

Audits a:d surveillance reports exa:ined were as fell:ws:

a. ST-23, Hoisting, Riggi:3 and Cha:pi:: (supplier)

b. ST-22, Geotech and Vibroflotatica

c. ST-14, Concrete Constructica

d. ST-13, Cadwelding and Reinforcing S eel

e. 3R-24, EL&P Audit of B&R's Vendo: Surveillacce G::cp

f. 'B3-19, EL&P Audit of B&R's Corpora e Office a:d Site -

g. 3R-22, El&P Evaluation of Civil I:gineeri:g QA ?:cgra;

h. Site .yeternal Survez.3.,acce

. (5.S)

,..,, 1,, e. .d ca.s:::a:,o: o: . . st e e . ..

26

4 -, -

N s

..~ .~

f

i. S:5-3, Documen.a-i~o Admitis :2:i::, Turn:ver

j. SIS-5, Surveillance of Calibra-ic: Fa:il :

~ ,

e

k. S&R's Surveilla:ce Reports ;.f Pi: s' ::;$Qs-i:; .a:::n: yf s Si:e s

Work, dated January 15, 19 3, and February-1, 1973 N- N s

1. Site Internal Surveillance I.og Beck ,

j

. Status Report of Site Inter:al Surve:.11acce issued c: August 2,1979 m

The II inspector also reviewed cc::ee-ive ac-ice , epor s for several of :Ee' - N ' '

abcve audt:s and surveillacces. Euring discussicas wi-i persc::el, the II inspector was infor:ed that the audited orgaci:stie had ten days in which to answer adverse findings; h:vever, if respe:ses are co. received i e:

days they usually receive a for=al letter requesting e:c:ecsion of -ize.

The audit group evaluates the respo:se and if a:swers are.:o adequa:e, they are tot accepted. The II i:spect:: reviewed -he respcese to co::ec.ive.(

actions rela-ite to surveilla:ce Nc. SIS-17, " Require:e:. for Field Fab- -

ricatics of Steel to AS*4 D1.1."

The II inspector noted that the audit report folders, at the site, di t not ec::ain c::plete infor:ation c: the audit as required by SI-QA?-213.

The audit reports exa=i:ed did act contain approved checklis.s, therefore,., - -

the II inspector could tot deter ice if the audits were ade-ha e. 'The .

folders only contaited a su==ary, deficie:cy report, pre-addit =ee:ing a:f '-

post audi =eeting. The licensee explained that the entire audi: repo::4 %_

w and retained checklists the referenced weredocuments.

kept at theThe corporate II inspectorOffice i: forced and thethat'chelicense site ~

o tha: P::cedure ST-QA?-2.3 states : hat "c=17 referenced d:cume::s'will be T kept at the hc=e effice and -hat all CA and NS records origina-i:g wi .hin . ' ,

the home office shall be routed to tha site for fili:g." Contrary o' c Procedure ST-QA?-2.3, the site audit ree::ds did;:ct cc :si: an app::ved -

audi checklist; therefore, the II inspec.:: couli ca: cc: fir: whe-hs: .i'

.w.... a,.,a.4 3 u...

... ... ... . : o _.a. acc ...a..,...

.. .-... .. _ u..e...... ... ..:.. ~b

.. 4 _. t..s......... . ,.

t

.s..

approved checklist. A -

W-s ,, ,,

e

\ q, x

This is an unresolved ites and will be exa ined duri:3 subseque:: i~: spec:i::s .

6 x1-1 -

7. Review of QA/0C P:cgra: f 4 The II inspectors held discussio:s with severs'.' licensee a:d c: rac ::

a personnel to dete::ine the following: '

is '

es

v. Y

a. Adequacy of training on new or revised pr:cedures s

, g- s c

b. K:culedge of their posities responsibilities and p::cedhres p

, i n -

t. --6 'g '

91 J c. Access to manage:e:: and feedback :::= cacagene:: c_c:ce,imi:g s e' V resolution of problems v

._: _ h.. _\ \ j at~ s s% '

s g *

. ., . 6 s,ss.

\, =n 4 l 27: -\

- &Dq~ - - %s=} ~ ~, wT-_e L g

3 y  %,

Y} \ - g S;. c  %

<' .s -i T

w

,,i  %) +

% u j W -

n' ' '%:-

a\

\-

r

[?s,4 Nn N'A .

s.,

s s. .

'( s f{4 3 t

ir y

g

'd

1. - ,.l

4

.v

. 33

, s

d. QA orie::2: ion a:d :: sizing f:: :ev e:ployees

~~ '

e. Ide tification of cocconfor:an:es a:d ce: hods f:: resol 2:ie:

f. Ability to perfore their job f;;:: ions and s:cp work au::::ity

g. Morale of QA/QC Personnel

~h. Adequacy of docu=ect control =easures e i. Adequacy of support of QC perso el by QA

j. Ability of construction persoccel to identify and cc: rect problems

k. Staffing of QA/QC positions m

l. Working relationship with other licensee and contractor groups

c. If they contact other licensee abou: p cblems they encounter s- and discuss solutions to generic : ee cre.le:s o w..::c: :av. .se present at the South Texas ?:oject Results of these interviews revealed the followi:g: site personnel --

have access to high catage:ent; feedback fro = =acage=ect appears satisfactory; persoccel appeared to be R owledgeable of their disciplice end responsibilities; orie::stice of new employees on QA require:ents and importance of QA/QC activities is sini=al; cost people are i= doc-tricated by production; staff meeti:gs are held every week and the QC supervisor attends daily =eetings with construction supervisors; L

staffing of positions is a continual problea as the size is isolated;

the licensee and contrac c

are ::yi:3 to increase staffing of the

=echanical QC group and presently have fourtee: new QC persoccel and have eight : ore reporti:g soon; the overall working rela:ionship betwee:

' QA/QC and cesstruction has i:p cved over the past four :ceths; inspectors identify socconformances and deficie:cies when they find them a:d cost of the findi:gs are corrected; the lice:see and construe:c: have been etales-ting the problems associated with voids in concrete and they believe that they have a solution to the problem; they don't freque::ly cc::ac: c:her licensees to discuss proble:s they hate encountered with cc:struction,

. venders and installation of equip =ent.

No new concerns were identified duri:g these discussions; however, a licensee representative reported rece:: alleged incidents of i :izidatio:

. s of two B:cun & Root QC inspectors by 3:ow & ?.co: constructie: p e rs o::el .

It was alleged that the constructie

;erso :el threate:ed the QC inspec:::s 0

28

e 'ee e a:d used abusive and vile la:guage duri:g conversations with the 1: spec o:s during the performa ce of their inspectica du:ies. The II i: spec:or reviewed the results of licensee and 3:ow: L ?.c o investigations into this =atter but did co: discuss the allegati:: with the individuals i:volved. The allegations will be the subject of a detailed inves:igati::

which will be addressed in a separate II i:vestigt:_o: report.

No:conformances S.

i criterio: XV of Appendix 3 to 10 CFR 50 requires that =easures be established to control equipmen , :sterial, services, or activities which do =ot confo== to requirs=ents. EL&? QAM i=ple=e::stion ci this requirement was reviewed during this inspectig:. 3&R Quality Assura:ce Procedure ST-QAP-2.6, "Nonconfor=a ces," Revised March 15, 1979, and Engineering Procedu:e STP-DC-022, " Engineering Procedure.for Processing Nonconfor=ance Reports," Revision D were reviewed for cc:'for=ance with EL&P QAM and PQAP require =ents. The procedures establish a system for docu=enting the identification, descriptic:, disposition, approval, verifi:ation and close out of socconfor=acces, a:d for providing directie for the eng a - d g activitifs involved i: reviewing, pro-i cessing, controlling and disposi-ioning of socconfor:ance repor s (NCRs) originating on site. -

~

Discussions with the site Qua1ity Assura:ce Ma:ager indicated -ha: NCRs are bei:g analyzed for quality trends by a site NCR Supervisor and sub- '

seque::ly ::assaitted to the Quality Assurance Managere:: Review Board for review as required by Section 17.1.153 of the STP Preliminary Safety A=alysis Report. NCRs originated a ':he h::e office a:d at ve: dor shops are su==arized and included in the Mo:thly Ac-ivity Report whici is also ::ansmitted to the Review 3 card. Man hlv Ac-ivi v Repor: No. 41 was

~ '

~

reviewed duri=g this inspection. 'l ~ --

I:plementation of the NCR syste= was evaluated by- reviewing NCR No. ,

S-C2706 which deals with the void investigatio for -he U:i: 1 RC3. The

end analysis program NCR Report No. 3 was aire reviewed.duri:; this . ,

inspection. 4 r ,

No items of no cc=pliance or deviations were' .ctified. 1 s

9. Eoui: ment Storage and Maintenance ,

I=ple=entation of Criterion XIII cf A;;endix 3 o 10 CFR 50 by EER fo:

measures to control the storage of equipme:- in a::cordance with verk -je a:d i=spection instructions was tviewed. 3&R QJ.ali y Cons:::ctio:

• I Procedure No. A040KPGCP-35, " Storage and Mainte:ance," Revisio: 0, 5

29

./

1 f

.+

/  ;

I V~

~

i

't  !

. J  !

l

• , i )

e 1

i. *

'b* '

by > _

e s_g. _- ;i -

Sectie: 3.6 requires an Equi;:e:: S::: age and Mai::e:sa:e Ins:::::i:

CISMI) card for ssiety related equip:e::. The ISMI fo: the High Head Safety I:Jection Pu=p No. 3 was reviewed. I was de er ined tha: the ESMI card 1eaui.:=ent : :ber being used f : ::e .ou:0 .as a::ual'v. the equi; ent number for the pump :::::. ; scussi::s with the El&? lead QA Engineer-Mechanical i:dicated tha: :..:s dis:repan: c:r.di-i: h:d been identified by El&? and docune::ed i: Site Discre;ancy Me o (51M)

M-051. This =e o addresses the Cce:ai::e:: S; ay Pu:p M: o ISMI :ard as listing the equip:en cu=ber for the pt=p i: stead of the =otor.

El&? has required a new plan of I&R :s pr: vide fo: :41 and ac: urate i=ple entation of the require:ents i : e 3&R Storage and Mainteca::e Procedure. As a result of this required a::i:: on the par of EER, the ESMI su= bering syste: vill be revised at a later date.

I:ple=entation of the revisions to the ISMI syste: is c::sidered as unresolved ite: to be reviewed at a later date.

10. Cadweldine Activities The II inspector reviewed Cadweld inspe: tion records and the status f the -

ongoing Cadweld records review i:itiated as a result of the licensee's speed le: et C-OL6 which requested tha- 3::wn & Root under:ake a th::: ugh review of all Cadweld records. The II inspector was inf:r ed tha: the Cadweld*:ecords review was approxi:2:ely 50% c::plete as of Augus: 5, 1979. A 3:own & Roo: represe::ative estimated that ec pletion of the .

review will require app cxicately six additic al on-hs of effer .

The II inspec:or observed that Cadweld inspe:: ion results were recorded in Cadweld Inspection Sooks as required by ?:ocedure CCP-11, "Reinf ::i:3 Steel Mechanic:1 Splicing (Cadwelds)," Revisio: 9. The Acting lead Cadweld QC Inspector s ated tha: :ost inspecti:: results are ente:ed directly is inspection books which are'taken i::o the field by QC inspectors or, if direct entry is act possible and field cotes are used, i: spec: ion results are entered i::o the inspe:: ion books by -he responsible inspect::.

A licensee representative stated ths; Cadwelder helpers are to lo:ger used and all Cadwelding steps are perf:::ed by qualified splicers. The l'icensee representative also stated tha: appr:pria e p:::ec:i:: is provided if Cadwelding is performed duri:g wet weather ccedi-ices. '

Cadwelding work activities were ::t cbserved by the II inspec :: duri:g this inspection.

During review of Cadweld QC I:spe::c: Ce:-ificati: records, :he II inspector observed that one i dividual was ce:-ified as a "S :::: ural Metallic Material Technician (5M) L I:," (Li=ited to Cadweld I: spec-ion),

. 30

. i

but the II i: spec:c: was :able :o deter:ine f::: recc:ds in -he file how the individual =e: the experie:ce require:en:s for level II stated in the Brow: & Roe: ::aining =2:ual. The 3::wn & Roo- C::pera:e level III individual who signed Cadweld i:spe:: r's cc::ifica ::: rec :d was not available for i::erview.

This catter is co:sidered u: resolved pendi:3 clarificati:: of -he i: divi-dual's experie:ce record and review by II during a subseque:: inspection.

11. Site Drafting Activities The II inspector reviewed site drafting activi:ies with :he Brown &

Root Chief Drafts:an, Structural Group. The g :cp is currectly engaged in producing drawings for cable ::ay and structural compo:ents fabri-cated on site. Drawings' cc:pleted by the g::up are app cved ce site and see: to the 3:ow: & Root Houston office for verifica-io=.

The group consists of eleve: individuals, tv: of which are engi:eering students in traini:g status. The remaiider of the individuals have three or : ore years of drafti:g experience. ~

No items of conec:pliance or deviations were identified.

12. Unresolved Ite=s U :esolved items are =atters about which : ore informatie: is required i:

order to ascertai: whether they are acceptable ite s, ite=s of conce:pliance, or deviations. Nice unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in paragraphs 3.c, 3.d, 3.k, 3.1, 3.=, 3. , 6, 9 and 10.

13. Exit In erview The II inspectors cet with licensee represe:ta-ives (de:::ed in paragraph

1) at the conclusion of the inspecti:: c: August 10, 1979. The II-!: spec:::

st==arized the purpose and the scope of the inspectics 2:d -he findings. A licensee representative ack:owledged the state:e::s of -he II inspectors concerni g the unresolved items.

I 31 9

e *