ML20107A695
See also: IR 05000219/1973002
Text
.
.
-
,
.
'b
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
.
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
REGION.I
-
d
RO Inspection Report No.: ~ 50-363/73-02
Docket'No.: 50-363
Licensee: Jersey Central Power & Light Co./ General Public
' License No.:
Utilities
_
.
Madison' Avenue & Punchbowl Rd.
Priority:
~
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
(Forked River Unit No. 1)
Ca'tegory :
^~1
.
Location: Lacey. Township, New Jersey
_
,
1
.
- Type of. Licensee: Power 1070 MWe
Type of'Inspectdon: Quality Assurance Program. Implementation
l
Dates'_of Inspection: April 30 and May 2, 1973
Dates of. Previous In'spection:~
June 29, 1971
~
.
-Reporting Inspector: %\\i. h .
u
%\\A $%
Wm. M. Hayward, Rea g r Inspector
Date'
,
. .
,
None-
j
- Accompanying Inspectors:
Date
'
j
i
l
.
,
Date
]
.
.Other' Accompanying Personne'l:
.l
C
,
Reviewediby:'
S ' N [ ,. u ._, , -
f-f s,(. 7 a
m _.
.
J.H. TiTiou,: Senior Reactor Inspector.
Date
'
j
,
-.--.3--
j
,
,
1
..
<
'i
I'
.
i
. i
9604150082I960213
. ',
r
i
PDR -FOIA
DEKOK95-258-
.PDR
g^.
-
__
_
_
.
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
~
~
{
}
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
,
' Enforcement Action
None
.
4
_ Licensee Action on Previously' Identified Enforcement Matters
None required ~
[
Design Changes
4
i
None
-
t
Unusual' Occurrences
.
g-
None
,
i
)
Other Significant Findings.
'Curr'nt Findings
A.
e
!
This inspection was performed to examine-that portion of the quality
1
. programming which has been updated and/or' implemented subsequent to
l
the RO:I inspection in June of 1971.
,
Quality program procedures to control requirements of Criterion I,
1
[
II, III, IV, VII, and XVIII were examined, and were found to comply
L
with the respective criteria. Samples,. examples, and evidence of
-implementation of the procedures were examined, and were also found
to conform to the above regulatory criteria.
f
r
l
B.-' Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
- -
One outstanding item was identified in the June '71 inspection.
The program had been found to omit provisions for assuring that
quality requirements were included in procurement specifications.
The deficiency was .found to have been corrected in the applicant's
'
. program as well as in the programs provided by contractors to the
applicant.
Management Interview
- Persons Contacted:
E$ ~ Allen, Representing GPH, . QA' Management
,
T. Frost, Representing Stearns-Roger, QA Management
t
These findings were' discussed with the persons listed above.
The-Quality Assurance' Program documents provided to control and to im-
piement Criteria I, II, III,'IV, VII, and XVIII were~ inspected, and were
found to comply with and implement these requirements of Appendix B,
4
-
d
f
/
.
,d t
-e.
c
-
-
. .
-- -
- --
._
..
_
.
.
_ . .
.
_ ..
_ - _ _ . _ . . -
_ _ . _ _ _ . .
_
..
4
?)
)
-2-
a
No additional findings were made.
,
The GPU representative acknowledged the findings,
i
<
s
s
4
y
j
.
e
i
f
a
'
p
,
4
i
4
e
i
f
!
i
J
i
.
F
e
,
/
,
-
.
-
, . _ .
.
. -
.
j
DETAILS
1.
Criterion I, Organization
Assignment of quality-determining tasks was found in the GPU
I
program documentation.
Assignment of quality determining tasks
to be performed by contract organizations was found to be refer-
'enced in the PSAR and the contract conditions.
The applicant was
observed to have approved / accepted the several contractor / vendor
QA Programs by approval signature on the face sheet of the docu-
ments, or by reports of audits, in which the programs were found
acceptable.
A " Vendor Documentation Cross-reference Sheet" was
,
i
provided as a checklist.
It was developed to designate the
retained and assigned quality. tasks, and to assure that all
tasks were identified and responsibility assigned.
QA Program manpower requirements of skills and numbers needed was
found to have been planned for a minimum of three years, and in
one case for the entire design, procurement, construction phase.
Each quality organization was observed to have available manpower
required for the 12 month period following this inspection date.
Each of the quality assurance programs was found to provide speci-
fic measures to stop work to preclude quality deficiency in product
or process.
The portion of the Forked River quality programs controlling Cri-
terion I appears to comply with and be implemented according to
Criterion I requirements.
2.
Criterion II Quality Assurance Program
The most recent revision to the Forked River quality program was
dated May 2, 1973.
The quality assurance procedures to implement C.ie program are all
identified and issued.
The procedures required to be implemented at
this stage -' progress of the program were found to be implemented.
Results and documents were observed as evidence of implementation
in compliance with those procedures.
The procedures provided pre-requisites to quality-verifying activi-
ties, instructions, and check sheets.
The pre-requisites are required
to be verified prior to initiation of the quality-determining tasks.
The program provides for selection and qualification of procedures
and personnel for NDT and special processes.
The NSS supplier demon-
strated maintenance of a continuing qualification program applied to
source and construction facilities.
The applicant, the NSS supplier, the A-E, and the constructor, have
implemented orientation / indoctrination / training programs.
,
.
f
.
.
-4-
g
All four organizations have provided, in their quality programs,
for appraisal of' status and effectiveness of the quality pro-
grams for construction of the Forked River project.
The appraisal
controls were observed to include requirements to prev
reports
to corporate level Management for review, and corrective action
when indicated.
The portion of the Forked River quality programs controlling
Criterion II requirements appears to comply with and be imple-
mented according to Criterion II requirements.
3.
Criterion III Design Control
The Forked River quality program wus observed to provide a listing
of components which were identified as being subject to control of
the QA Program
The program was observed to provide specific controls over deviations
from quality standards contained in design specifications and drawings.
The program was found to implement the procedure for seicetion, and
review for applicability of product and process to design requirements.
The project controls referred to in the quality program documents
were observed to e"stablish and administer the design control inter-
faces.
Independence of design reviewers from those providing the design was
confirmed in written controls and completed portions of design.
The
architect engineer is formally assigned design review responsibility
for all of the Forked River designs.
A.G.P.U. project document was
l
identified by the quality program as the document providing specific
controls over field changes.
It was confirmed that review of field
changes is controlled and approved in a fashion commensurate with
that for original design.
The portion of the Forked River quality program controlling Criter-
ion III requirements appears to comply with, and be implemented
according to Criterion III requirements.
4.
Criterion IV Procurement Document Control
The Forked River quality program was observed to contain and imple-
ment procedural controls to assure that design and regulatory re-
quirements were included in the procurement documents.
The program was found to require and implement specific provisions
for contractors / vendors to establish / operate quality programs which
comply with Appendix B requirements.
The portion of the Forked River quality program controlling Criterion
IV requirements appears to comply with and be implemented according
to Criterion IV requirements.
.
.
,
-- .-
- -
- _
.
..
_
-.-..--.. ..-
-
.-
- .
.
J
-5-
1
5.
Critorion VII Control of Purchased Material Equipment and Services
l
The Forked River quality program was observed to p ovide procedural
cou..vls for receiving inspection in which tht precurement require-
ments are'used as acceptance standards..
The program was found to require and implement controls which eval-
uated and qualified potential contractors according to established
written standards / requirements contained in Appendix B criteria.
The program was demonstrated to provide a. quality program instruction
and associated reporting format, to assure that each procured. pro-
duct conforns to the codes, . standards, design. specifications, and
i
drawings referenced-in the procurement requirements.
The quality
program was found to include procedural controls for an identifi-
cation, retrieval and safeguard system to maintain product and
process quality data.
I
The portion of the Forked River quality program controlling
Criterion VII requirements appears to comply with and be implemented
according to Criterion VII requirements.
6. - Criterion XVIII Audits
.
The Forked River quality program was found to include provisions
'
to control and implement the audit task.
Sample audit requirements
and reports were examined and found to confirm that regulatory and
design requirements were being translated into engineered specifi-
. cations and drawings. Audits were observed to have been performed
and reported to evaluate the effectiveness of design reviews. Other
.such. audits are in the schedule to be performed.
Scope of audit
schedules now appear to respond to the status or level of activity
of the project. Procedures and check lists were demonstrated to
have been used in performing the audits which were selected as sam-
ples.for this inspection.
The written controls were observed to
establish the qualifications for, and independence of the auditors.
The audit procedures and reports demonstrated performance of the
audits according to pre-established written requirements, and the
!
audit reports made specific findings against those requirements.
Coverletters and follow-up correspondence demonstrated delivery of
<
the audit reports to corporate level management positions.in addition
to managers of areas audited.
Examination of sample audit reports
and corresponding letters confirmed that corrections were made to
deviating conditions reported in audic findings.
Subsequent re-audits
!
- -
reported verification of corrective actions.
'
The portion of the Forked River quality program controlling Criterion
XVIII requirements appears to comply with and be implemented accord-
ing to Criterion XVIII requirements.
I
1
(
.
/
_-
.
-
. .
.-
,
_
,
, . - _ . . . - - ,
. .
.
4
4
F a' unoa-
l 5** ** s oouna'*-
F a' c o**
MEMO ROUTE $ LIP
1N.,....,.....
, , , . , . . . .
,,,,,,,,=.,i...
r . Arc.,,in... u.,i4.i,4 , att o24o -
To isem. .aa veio
..u n e
nuinas
RO INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-363/73-02
RO Ch, Field Sup & Enf
Br, llQ
RO:HQ-(5)
JERSEY CENTRAL POLE R 6 LIGHT CG. (FORKED RIVER 1
>
odra
DR Central Files
Regulatory Standards (3)
Directorate of Ticensine (13)
To chame and wa iti
instlALS
MM AA KS The subject inspection report is forwarded for
RO Directors
information.
oats
LPDR
T o (Nam. .a4 waiu
. une
n anas
State of New Jersey
DATE
raoM (Name sad unio
g uAang
E. M. Howard, RO:I
c~b/s/f/r.)
PHON ( paa
DAf(
3450
5/22/73
...,,,.,,,.,/,
un oma six ro. .co.no .e u...
.
cn,
t
.
T
4
1
k