ML20138J273

Submits Comments on 970113-16 QA Insp of Sierra Nuclear Corp in Scott Valley,Ca

ML20138J273
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan  File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	01/21/1997
From:	Bless A OREGON, STATE OF
To:	Danni Smith OREGON, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9702060302
Download: ML20138J273 (3)

Text

7 To: David Stewart-Smith DEPARTMENT OF l From: Adam Bless Date: January 21,1997 4

Subject:

Quality Assurance Inspection of Sierra Nuclear Corp.

i On January 13 through January 16,1997, Jim Woessner and I accompanied representatives of Podland General Electric's (PGE) Quality Assurance (QA) department on an inspection of Sierra Nuclear Corporation (SNC) in Scott's Valley, CA. Our primary purpose was to observe QA audit activities by PGE as part ofour ongoing verification ofPGE's QA program. We also made our own direct observations of SNC's Quality Assurance program.

Our overall conclusion is that PGE is conscientiously and effectively using its vendor audit l

program at SNC. PGE inspectors followed up on findings from previous audits at SNC and '

reviewed recent SNC calculations for compliance with SNC Quality procedures. They also reviewed audits of SNC by other utilities and by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

PGE's inspectors showed an excellent working knowledge of SNC's QA program and procedures, and they covered an impressive amount of material in depth. This was partly due to the number of previous audits done by PGE. Also, PGE has a re.presentative stationed full time at SNC headquaners to ensure that SNC complies with the terms ofits contract. We verified that adherence to a QA program which meets PGE requirements is one of those terms.

In the course of our observations, we also reviewed aspects of SNC's QA program. We reviewed SNC procedures for compliance with NRC regulations at 10 CFR 72, subpart G, particularly in the areas of design control, procurement, internal and external audits, and corrective action programs. We took a detailed look at SNC's corrective action progrun, its audits of fabrication subcontractors, and its process for checking calculations and computer codes. (See the attached ODOE Surveillance plan for SNC) h We found that SNC's QA program generally meets the NRC requirements, but continued monitoring by PGE remains necessary. We found that SNC aggressively audits its fabrication bg subcontractors, but in some cases SNC did not adequately follow up on the fmdings from those audits. We n eviewed SNC's corrective action program, and found it generally acceptable m nu.

except in the area of trending. Our observations were consistent with the findings by PGE's auditors. PGE's auditors found, and we concur, that SNC should take steps to ensure better compliance with its own procedures. We believe PGE has identified valid concerns, and that their continued su;veillance is warranted, especially as l SNC moves from the design phase to the construction phase.

625 Marion Street NE UCENSING Salem, OR 97310 9702060302 970121 (503) 378-4040 PDR ADOCK 03000344 JAN P,8 393 r^x (503) 373-7806 Y PDR Toll-Free 1-800 221 9035

9 l In the case ofone fabrication subcontractor, March Metalfab (MMI), we noted that SNC has

, identified numerous QA issues. (MMI has previously constructed ISFSI components for three

other utilities.) However, we could not verify that all of these concerns have been corrected to SNC's satisfaction. IfMMI is used for Trojan, then we believe PGE should verify that these

, outstanding QA issues are closed out before fabrication begins. We will add this recommendation 4

to our ODOE inspection plan.

In summary, we found SNC's QA program adequate to ensure the ISFSI can be designed and constructed in compliance with EFSC rules. However, PGE should watch carefully to ensure j' that SNC follows its quality procedures. Based on this observation ofPGE QA activities and its record of prior audits, we find PGE is applying an appropriate level of surveillance to ensure that its QA requirements are met.

t ec: EFSC Members l Ray Pate, PGE

] Dan Nordstrom, PGE a

e i

4 i

i l

,  ?

6 4

4 i January 9,1997 l d

SNC Surveillance Plan .

I The following represent general areas ofinterest for examination by ODOE iwramiives during

! the planaed Portland General Electric quality assurance survaillance of Sierra nuclear Corporation at their Corporate offices in Scotts Valley, California, during the week ofJanuary 13-17,1997.

1. Review the implementation of selected elements of SNC's QA program (policy,

{ procedures, implaman+ing instructions) to verify adequate coverage of 10CFR72, Subpart G. Primary areas ofinterest include design control, procuramant, nonconformances, corrective action, records and audits.

2.

{

t Review the results of recent PGE audit and surveillance finding = at SNC.

, 3. Review SNC's nonconformance and corrective action program, including documentation, j review, and follow-up of. corrective actions.

i a

j 4. Review SNC's intemal and external audit program, ineinding procedures, recent internal and external audits, and follow-up of corrective actions.

I

5. Review SNC's program and procedures for calculations. Include selected calculations 3 used in support ofPGE's ISFSI program.

Review SNC's procedures for conducting independent review and verification of l calculations.  !

Review SNC's procedures and implementation for validating and benchmarking computer codes used in calculations. (See NRC RAI Q 1-20 and Q 7-2 regersug ,

the qualification of QAD-S and MCNP compu?.er codes. PGE's answer referenced l

documents ANO-109.001.002 {MCNP validation document}, CCV-1.4.2, and  !

CCV-1.4.4) l Include also a review of the corrective actions taken as a result of the observations l ofPGE's Supplier Surveillance Report 95-22. l l

i