ML20107J462
See also: IR 05000363/1974002
Text
,
'
j-
.
. .
.
..
- . ,
'
.'
?
.
.
- .
.
.
.
.
.
U. S. ATO>1IC ENERGY COM>lISSION
.
,
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
.
.
REGION I
"
-
.
. , . .
.
50-363
RO Inspection Report No.:
50-363/74-02
~
Dock 5t No.:
.
-
i
~
Licensce:
Jersey Central Power and Light ComIapy
License No.:
'
260 Cherry Hill Roa'd -
Priority:
,
.
..
A
Parsippany, New Jersey
07054
Category:
.
,
(Forked River Unit 1)
.
.-.
ForRed River, New Jersey
-
,
.
M,1070 We (CE)
' Type of Licensee:
.
,
Routine
, Type of Inspection:
-
'
Dates of Inspection:
-
April 23-26, 1974
Dates of Previous Inspection:
-
.
.
.
Reporting Insp6ctor:
/
M
d /4/7
,
y!.F. Barker, Reactor Inspector
'pggg
,
-
.
.
,.
'
j
.
.
DATE
-
-
.
.
Accompanying Inspectors:
DATE
'
.
.
.
DATE
-
.
.
NONE
j
Other Accompanying Personnel:
DATE
Reviewed By:
/
',
[N 7
fp
'
'
R.#F. Heishman, Senior Reactor Inspector
DdfC
.
9604250107 960213
<
DEKOK95-258
.-
.
.
.
1
.
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS _
.
- f:
- ds
Enforcement Action
"'
None
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters
Not Applicable
Design Changes
None Identified
-
Unusual Occurrences
None
Other Significant Findings
A.
Current Findings
1.
Construction Manager's - QA Program
kWd
The Stearns-Roger Quality Assurance Plan, with selected
implementation procedures, were in the process of revision and
review.
(Details, Paragraph 2)
2.
Construction Manager's Corporate Organization
Audit of the existing Stearns-Roger Quality Assurance Plan re-
vealed there was no description of responsibilities for the
Project Executive. This matter is considered unresolved.
(Details, Paragraph 3)
3.
Physical Project Status
Site work in process was observed as erection of temporary
buildings, installation of railroad siding and construction of
the cut-off wall.
(Details, Paragraph 5.c)
4.
Engineering / Design Status
The licensee's representative informed the inspector that as
of the end of April, the A-E had completed 69% of the engineer-
ing and 52% of the design.
(Details, Paragraphs 5.a and 5.b)
,
l
.
.
-2-
5.
NSSS - Procurement Documentation Equipment / Material
The licensee's representative stated that he was negotiating
.
with the NSSS with respect to the quality documentation to be
e,.
4/J
shipped with equipment / material to the site.
(Details, Para-
graph 4)
6.
Vcndor Surveillance
The inspector's audit of the GPU activities for conformance to
" Vendor Surveillance" as described in the QA Plan, Procedure
6-13, with respect to Steam Generator Fabrication, revealed
No.
no apparent deficiencies.
(Details, Paragraph 6)
Status of Previously Reportad Unresolved Items.
-
B.
1.
Vendor's Audit Planntag - Minimum Frequency
The licensee's QA Plan, Procedure No. 6-1, Audits of ist and
2nd Level Contractors / Vendors, requires that these audits be
conducted on an annual basis.
This item is considered re-
s olved.
(Details, Paragraph 7)
2.
Procurement / Documentation - A/E Procured Equipment
Mb@d
The A-E's specifications contain a matrix of quality documenta-
tion that the vendor must supply with the shipnent of material.
This item is considered resolved.
(Details, Paragraph 8)
3
Regulatory Guide Incorporation
It was found that GPU had initiated a program to verify con-
formance to Regulatory Guides or justify exceptions for design
as stated in Article 1.4 of the PSAR.
The program is incom-
plete and this item remains unresolved.
(Details, Paragraph
9)
Management Interview
At the conclusion of the inspection at the General Public Utilities
Service Corporation (GPLEC) offices on May 8, the inspector held a
meeting with the following personnel:
OPUSC
Mr. B. G. Avers, Manager, Quality Assurance (Part-Time)
Mr. E. Allen, Quality Assurance Supervisor
Mr. J. Bansch, Quality Assurance Representative
,
,
.
i-
.
.
-3-
A summary of the discussion is as follows:
,
.' r.
> 10
A.
Previously Identified Unresolved Items
a., e
The inspector stated that as a result of his review of documentation
and discussions with GPU personnel, the following two previously
identified items are considered resolved:
Documentation of the frequency of audits of 1st and 2nd level
1.
vendors.
(Details, Paragraph 7)
2.
Procurement Documentation for A-E procured equipment that must
be supplied by the vendor.
(Details, Paragraph 8) '
,
The inspector stated the following iten remains unresolved:
3.
Regulatory Guide Incorporation into design criteria. The in-
spector stated that he had reviewed the GPUSC program to
evaluate the facility design for conformance to AEC's Regula-
tory Guide as committed in Section 1.4 of the PSAR.
The licensee stated that the review of comments from the
consultants and contractors concerning incorporation of Regula-
tory Guides into design criteria was targeted for completion
EN
by the end of 1974.
(Details, Paragraph 9)
B.
Current Findings
1.
NSSS Procurement Documentation
The inspector stated that he had been informed negotiations
were underway with the NSSS to determine that the necessary
quality related procurement documentation was available at the
time of equipment receipt.
The licensee stated that this was true but at this time he was
unable to state when this matter would be concluded.
The inspector stated this item remains unresolved.
(Details,
Paragraph 4)
2.
Engineering / Design Status
The licensee confirmad that the A-E's project completion
status as of the end of April 1974 was:
Engineering 69%,
Design 52%.
(Details, Paragraph 5)
.
, ,
$
9
-,
'
<
-4-
3.
Vendor Surveillance
,
ss
"$
The inspector stated that his review of the vendor surveillance
$
reports, concerning the fabrication of major primary components
at the NSSS Combustion Engineering (CE) shop, revealed no
apparent deficiencies in the QA procedure.
(Details, Paragraph
6)
At the conclusion of the inspection of the site activities, and review
of the Stearns-Roger QA Plan, a meeting was held at the site on May 9,
with the following personnel in attendance:
GPUSC
-
<; .
3'
Mr. J. Bansch, Quality Assurance Representative
Stearns-Roger
Mr. H. White, Site Manager
Mr. T. Frost, Quality Assurance Manager (via telephone)
A.
The inspector informed the personnel in attendance of RO:I policy
concerning:
ORM
1.
Reporting incidents and information of a nature which would be
of interest to the general public and handled through the RO:I
Public Information Office.
2.
The inspector discussed the provisions of reportability of
significant deficiencies to the Director of Regulatory Opera-
tions as required by 10 CFR 50.55(e). The inspector quoted
i
the personnel in attendance examples of recent deficiencies
l-
reported to the Director of Regulatory Operations.
a:
The personnel in attendance acknowledged the inspector's
comments.
B.
Construction Manager's Corporate Organization
The inspector stated his review of the Stearns-Roger QA Plan indica-
ted that the Project Manager and Quality Assurance Manager reported
to the Project Executive.
The inspector requested additional
information as to the responsibilities and corporate function of
the Project Executive.
The licensee stated he would provide additional information for the
inspector's review at a future inspection.
(Details, Paragraph 3)
w
e
,
,
, -. -.
l
..
.
.
i
l
-s-
i
.
J
C.
Construction Manager's QA Program
,
'
.
.N*{
The inspector stated that his review of the Stearns-Roger QA Plan
in effect had been approved by the licensee on March 1, 1971.
""
There was no evidence of subsequent review and revision, where '
'
necessary, to meet the intent of the AEC's Regulatory Guide.
The Stearns-Roger representative stated that the QA Plan and certain
procedures were in the process of review and approval at the pre-
i
'
sent time. The revised procciares would be available for the in-
spector's review at a future inspection.
(Details, Paragraph 2)
D.
Physical Project Status
..
The inspector asked the number of craf t personnel at the site.
.
The licensee stated that at the present time 200 workers were on-
site employed by several sub-contractors.
(Details, Paragraph 5.c)
E.
Quality Assurance / Site Coverage
The licensee informed the inspector that GPUSC-QA personnel would
be assigned to the site at the start of Batch Plant Testing which
,
f
is expected to begin in July 1974.
if54
The Construction Manager stated the Stearns-Roger Site QA repre-
i
sentative.had been selected but had not arrived at the site as of
the date of this inspection.
,
$
.
i
- - - - -
-- - -
.
-
.-
.
.
.-
.
._
-
_
.
.-
. ..
. .-. .
-
T
..
,
.
.
DETAILS
,
M
4!)
1.
Persons Contacted
-
GPUSC
Mr. E. Allen, Supervisor, Quality Assurance
Mr. B. G. Avers, Manager, Quality Assurance-
Mr. J. Bansch, Quality Assurance Representative
Mr. K.'Pastos, Project Manager
Stearns-Roger
,
_
Mr. T. Frost, Quality Assurance Manager
Mr. H. White, Site Manager
2.
Construction Manager's QA Program
The inspector reviewed the Stearns-Roger QA Manual for control of
the Forked River construction activities. It was found that the
manual describes the QA Plan and numerous quality. procedures (QP's).
It was also found that the manual had been reviewed and approved by
.
the licensee on March 1, 1971. There was no evidence of subsequent
db5
review and revisions to assure that changes in code requirements,
the AEC Regulatory Guides and industry policy had been incorporated.
The Stearns-Roger representative stated that this item had been
recognized, and that portions of the QA Manual had been revised and
were in for review and approval. The portions of the manual under
revision were stated to be:
a.
Quality Plan
b.
QP-1 " Qualification Requirements and Responsibilities of
QA Personnel"
QP-3 " Vendor Evaluation and Selection"
c.
d.
QP-4 " Drawing, Specification, Purchase Document, and Procedure
'
Review"
QP-11 "Non-Conforming Material and Worknanship Criteria"
e.
The revised procedures will be available for the inspector's review
,.
at a future inspection.
3.
Construction Manager's Corporate Organization
4
~ During -the site visit a review of the Stearns-Roger QA Plan revealed
<
that the Quality Assurance Nknager and Project Nhnager both report
.to an individual in the corporate structure titled " Project Execu-
tive".
The inspector asked what the relationship of the Project
'.
e
a
..
-7-
Executive was with respect to direct responsibility for the cost ,
and schedule of the Forked River project.
e2
It was initially stated that the Project Executive was associated
with only the Forked River project; subsequently, the RO:I in-
spector was informed that the " Project Executive" was responsible
for all nuclear projects.
The
The inspector asked the licensee to clarify this matter.
licensee stated that he would provide this information for the
inspector's review at a future inspection.
This matter is considered
unresolved.
4.
NSSS - Procurement Documentation Equipment /Fbterial
-
The licensee stated that he was in the process of negotiating with
the NSSS supplier, Combustion Engineering, as to what quality docu-
mentation records would be availabic prior to shipment.
It was
further stated that this problem existed with equipment fabricated
in the CE shops. The particular example quoted was the submission
of radiographs of weld seams.
The licensee stated it was his intent that radiographs be provided
for site records. The NSSS position was that the radiographs would
E%f
be retained at his shop. This matter is considered unresolved.
5.
Project Status
a.
Engineering / Design Status
The licensee furnished the inspector with information concern-
ing project status for the Architect Engineer's activities, as
of the end of April 1974.
Engineering
69% Complete
Design
52% Complete
b.
Purchase Orders Let
Equipment Specification Procurement
28 Completed
As of May 1, 1974
89 Total
(Approx) 31% Complete
Construction Specification
11 Completed
Procurement as of April 26, 1974
38 Total
(Approx) 29% Complete
'
..
.
.
-8-
c.
Physical Project Status
A tour of the plant site and discussions with the licensee's
fE.
representative revealed the following:
I
The site had been cleared and leveled; security fencing,
access roads, railroad spur, equipment transfer road, and
temporary buildings for contractor's and the site warehouse
were under construction.
The principal activity in progress
was installation of a cut-off wall around the foundation area
of the containment, auxiliary, fuel handling, and turbine
buildings.
It was stated that the cut-off wall was approxi-
mately 80% excavated and 60% back-filled.
i
The licensee furnished the inspector with the target dates for
the following activities:
Erection and Testing of Batch Plant
July - November 1974
Initial Concrete Placement in Mud Mat
November 1974
Initial Delivery of Reinforcing Bar
December 1974
Initial Class I Concrete Placement
March 1975
6.
Vendor Surveillance
An audit was performed concerning the licensee's implementation of
iRBS
the " Vendor Surveillance Plan for Pre-Purchased Items" as described
in the Quality Assurance Plan, Procedure No. 6-13.
Surveillance records for the Steam Generator being fabricated at
the NSSS plant were reviewed.
It was found that 25 surveillance'
reports had been issued in the period September 11, 1973 through
December 5, 1973. The surveillance ef f ort was stated to be above
the normal level, as a QPU-QA representative was in residence
during the tubing operation.
The GPUSC-QA representative had
observed the " Witness Points" specified in the NSSS Integrated
Manufacturing Plan. The inspector's review revealed no apparent
deficiencies.
7.
Vendor Audit Planning - Minimum Frequency (50-363/73-05)_
A previous inspection revealed that a formal vendor audit frequency
had not been established in the licensee's QA Plan.
The licensee showed the inspector the 1974 audit schedules for "CE
NSSS Supplied Equipment" and " Vendor Audit Schedule Burns and Roe
Procured Equipment".
It was found that the NSSS equipment in
fabrication had been scheduled for an annual audit at the vendor's
facility.
There was one audit planned at the rebar vendor's. plant
e
-
-
-
.
,.
.-
.-
.- - - .
-
-
- . .
.
.
..
..
1
,
.
,
,
,
-9-
scheduled in 1974. The licensee stated that this was the only non-
NSSS supplied equipment for which a firm fabrication schedule had
f (b,!
been established. An audit had been scheduled for this vendor.
, s.
v
,
i
~
The inspector reviewed the licensee's QA Plan, Procedure 6-1 en-
, .
titled, " Audits of ist and 2nd Level Contractors / Vendors", Section
7.0, Audit Frequencies. It was found that paragraph 7.1 states, in
part, .. ." Formal audits will normally be held on an annual basis
..." The licensee had established a formal audit schedule and.this
matter is considered resolved.
'
8.
Procurement / Documentation - A/E Procured Equipment (50-363/73-05).
.
The licensee has required the A/E (Burns-and Roe) to defidE what
.
specific documentation must be subjected to Engineering Approval
(60 days af ter award); Engineering for Information; Vendor Surveil-
'
lance; and what specific documentation must be included with the
.
Shipment of Material.
,
1
This information was contained in the " Specification of Minimum QA
Procedure / Documentation Requirements" which is attached to the
purchase specification. The inspector audited Specification 2700-
25 " Heat Exchanger" and 2700-69 " Reinforcing Steel for the Forkad
River Nuclear Station Unit No. 1".
The licensee had provided the
44W1
vendor with a listing of the documentation to be included with the
j
shipment of material in each instance. The licensee stated that a
copy of the specification, including documentation requirements,
J
would be furnished to site personnel for use at receiving inspection.
<
This item is considered resolved with respect to A/E procured
'
material. The NSSS had not agreed to provide the documentation
requested by the licensee upon shipment of equipment / material
(reference paragraph 4).
i
?
9
Regulatory Guide Incorporation (50-363/73-05)
t
Section 1.4 of the PSAR entitled, "AEC General Design Criteria for
'
Nuclear Power Plant Construction Permits" states, in part,
..."It
1
is intended that the Forked River Plant will be designed to , meet
the requirements of the AEC's Safety Guides. No exceptions are
known to date.
If any are identified they will be described and
justified to the AEC."
This statement was made in a June 30, 1972
4
. revision to the PSAR.
.
oubsequent to that time, the AEC Safety Guide had been changed to
Regulatory Guides.
The licensee showed the inspector documentary
evidence that he had requested all contractors involved in the
project to review their designs for conformance to the Regulatory
'
,
o
.-
-
-
j
- . . - . .
--
.. .
..
-
. - - . - -
-.
.-. -
l
..
- -
..
-
,
-
.
-10-
i
!
Guides. The letter requesting this design review for conformance/
exception was dated February 28, 1974 and addressed to Dames and
,3, ,.
- fdp'
Moore; Burns and Roe; Stearns-Roger; Pickard Lowe, and Associa:es;
-
-@
Combustion Engineering; and Jersey Central Power and Light.
~
The licensee showed the inspector the comments received to date. .
It was stated that.where exceptions are noted and will be included
,
in the design, he will provide justification for the exception to
the Directorate of Licensing. It was futher stated that results of
the initial review have been targeted for submittal by the end of
1974. This item remains unresolved.
...
,
N
.
. ..
O
. .
.
.
_ . , _ . .
, . ,