ML20212N773

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Div of Compliance Mgt Meeting Rept 50-323/70-01 on 700106. Major Area Discussed:Results of Initial QA Insp Conducted on 691208-09.QA Program Seriously Inadequate Due to Lack of Systematic,Documented Program to Implement QA Plan
ML20212N773
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 01/23/1970
From: James O'Reilly, Spencer G
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212N718 List:
References
FOIA-86-585 50-323-70-01-MM, 50-323-70-1-MM, NUDOCS 8608290148
Download: ML20212N773 (5)
v • d • e


Text

.

c . .. . .

o' s.

(

(

('- .

U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE, REGION V Report of Inspection CO Report No. 50-323/70-1 N'NN Licensee: 1acific Gas & Electric Company

' Diablo Canyon Unit No. 2 Category A Date of Inspection: _ January 6, 1970 Date of Previous Inspection: December 8 and 9,1969 j.,, ,, y Inspected by: I/2 /7 G. S. Spencer Senior Reactor Inspector

  • .';. i I \

Reviewed by: j CLtc. bS*M f M

. P. O'Reilly,, Chief V

/h 7 eactor Inspection & Enforcemert Br.

.$$$ Proprietary Information: Nor.e SCOPE

~

Type of Facility:

Pressurized Water Reactor Power Level: 3250 Mwt Location: Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California Type of Inspection:

Management Meeting (Post QA visit)

Accompanying Personnel: A. D. Johnson - Reactor Inspector J. L. Crews -

Reactor Inspector J. B. Henderson - Senior Construction Engineer, CO:HQ h2 8 860826 SHOLLY86-585 Pan

.) .

(

s

(

c-SUMMMtY A meeting was held with PG62 management at the company's main office in San Francisco, California on Jenuary 6, 1970 The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the results of an initial quality assurance inspection con-ducted on December 8 and 9, 1969 for the Diablo Canyon Unit No. 2 project.

Due to a serious shortcoming found during the inspection, several prelimin-M.NQ ary discussions were held, by telephone, with PG&E's Executive Vice .

[President inspection.andThisVice President, Engineering, within a week following the had been done in an effort to impress upon these execu-tives the urgency and necessity for an isusediate high priotity effort '

towards establishing an apceptable implementing QA program, hopefully before the project came to hearing on January 13, 1970 Durtng the formal management meeting held on January 6, 1970 PG&E was again informed that their QA effort was seriously inadequate because they did not have a systematic, documented program to implement the QA " plan" described in the PSAR for Diablo Canyon Unit No. 2 In addition to this major deficiency, several specific observations were discussed in the areas of (1) design review.

(2) handling, storage, shipping and preservation, (3) nonconforming material,

{g parts or components, (4) audits and (5) test control.' i

,.(

. PG&E management did not disagree with Compliance's findings and acknowledged the lack of a documented, implementing QA program. According to PG64, Westinghouse has been contracted to provide assistance in the preparation of a QA manual, a draft of which is currently being reviewed by PG&E. The target date for completion of that portion of the manual containing the overall .

program 1970". policy instructions (Vol. I) was given as the "last half of February i

vM%c ws Detailed procedures associated with these instructions (Vol. II) are also being written, with priority given to activities currently in progress. -

DgTA M A. Persons Contacted The post-QA inspection management meeting was held with the following PG&E representatives in attendance:

J. F. Bonner - -

Executive Vice President J. D. Worthington -

Vice President - Engineering

  • D. V. Kelly -

Chief Mechanical Engineer q J. O. Schuyler -

Supervising Mechanical Engineering W. J. Lindblad Senior Mechanical Engineer R. S. Bain -

Construction Superintendent -

G. V. Richards -

Director, Quality Engineering 2

l

a** .

( (,

, B. Meetina Results G. S. Spencer opened the discussion by outlining the Division of Couplisace objectives for the meeting as described in J. B. Henderson's memo, " Initial Quality Assurance Inspections", dated October 17, 1969 Following this, the findings of the initial quality assurance inspection conducted on December g4xyj 8 and 9, were presented and discussed.

Findina No. 1 - Ouelity Assurance Proersa (Criterin g PG&g was informed that their overall QA effort was seriously inadepa,te because of a. lack of a systematic, documented program implementing the QA " plan" described in the PSAR for Diablo Canyon Unit No. 2. Mosers.

Bonner and Worthington were reminded that this was considered to be s'sch a major shortcoming that Region V had held several preliminary discussions of the matter with them by telephone, within a week following the inspection.

It was pointed out that this had been dcne in an effort to impress upon them the urgency and necessity for an insiediate high priority effort. aimed at establishing an acceptable, implementing QA ' program, hopefully before the project came to hearing on January 13, 1970 C p-l.g;, .

e Bonner and'Worthington both agreed that their program was deficient is"

' this respect and stated that, a greater effort had been made, following the inspection and preliminary discussions, to speed up the development of a QA manual. According to Worthington, Westinghouse has been contrec-ted to provide assistance in the preparation of the manual. Drafts of .

current efforts along this line were displayed by G. V. Richards, Director of Quality Engineering for PG&E, and the inspectors were invited..to look

? , at them for general content and scop.e. A review of these desfes (following the meeting) indicated that the approach being used is to formulate a QA manual made up of the following sections

Vol I -

Policy Instructions

  • Vol II QA Procedures Vol III -

, QA Standards for don-Destructive Tests

,p Vol IV -

QC Surveillance Plans J. O. Schuyler, Supervising Mechanical Engineer, stated that generation of the policy instructions and the QA procedures implementing the policy instructions covering activities currently in progress (i.e. design revt.ew, procurement and certain on-site activities) was being given first priority.

Although the policy instruction drafts (Volume I) appeared to cover the major portion of the program in scope, they were still in the process of being reviewed and revised and as such could not be presented, or accepted by Compliance, as " officially approved" QA program isolementing docunents. Both Messrs. Worthington and Richards stated that the draft sections of the manual were " subject to drastic change or revision."

  • Includes suppliers, manufacture;s and contractors.

( c .

C :.Qd .

. 3 Although target dates for completion of the entire package had not as yet been firmed up, the inspectors were given a "second half of February 1970" commitment by PG&E officials for completion .and management review and approval of Vol I (Policy Instructions), the most significant and highest priority section of the package.

m

AMd Findinn No. 2 - Handlina. Storane. Shionina and Preserystion (Criterion g

During the initial QA inspection it appeared that, in addition to a lack of specific written procedures related to PG&E's responsibilities concerning t.his criterion, the point seemed to be uncertain between PG&E .

and Westinghouse as to just when responsibility for site storage of Westinghouse-supplied equipment would shift from Westinghouse to PG&I.

It was apparent from the several different answers given in response

' to this observation that uncertainty still existed in the minds of several of those present. However, Schuyler stated that he had checked

(  :$. $

out this point, subsequent to the inspection, and was informed that the

[@,i transfer of responsibility was made when the equipment or component was

.'o . loaded on the carrier at the vendor's plant. He also indicated that '

this item would be spelled out clearly in the QA procedure for this criterion.

! Y Findine No. 3 - Desian Review (Criterion III)

It wee not apparent to our inspection team how the PG&E group leaders

. . s.3 perform their design review function, including the review to assure that commitments made in the PSAR have been incorporated in the design.

It was also noted that the development of a system to tapdate (internally, within PG&E) the PSAR as the design evolves had not yet been accomplished.

A third observation made was that although design information received from Westinghouse is reviewed by the responsible PG&E engineer, this review does not include in all cases a check of design detail (e.g. heet loads following a loss-of-coolant accident, cooling requirements for pumps, structural loads, etc.).

Schuyler and Lindblad, the principal authors of the proposed (draft)

QA procedures relating to design review, acknowledged the' deficiencies in the present design review " practices" and indicated that they would ,

be taken into consideration in the write up of the QA procedure covering this criterion. However, they stated that in regard to the third item, PG&E relies on Westinghouse's QA program to recheck design details and PG&E limits their review to an assurance that the design appears to be reasonable, ,

. .s . -

,,,.,.---..,,.-----.-._..,w -,- .-. _ n n ,. _ , , , , , -, _n_w-.-v - - - - , . , - - - - , - - , - - ,

r  ;

.=**,. ,

(

(

t i Findien No. 4 - Audits (Criterion XVIII)

In addition to a lack of written procedures for performing the audit function, the inspection team found that apparently no audit of the program had been made as of the date of the inspection.

., ;cg f" Gordon Richards, Director of Quality Engineering for PG&E, confirmed the Compliance finding regarding the failure to perform any audit. He stated that during the relatively short time he has had the assignment he has been tied up on the development of the QA manual. He also indicated that he is currently auditing the various departments involved in the project to determine where they stand on their QA

. procedures, as opposed to the implemer.tation of such procedures.

Findinn No. 5 - Test Control (Criterion XI)

The inspection team found that although. PG&I's Standard Practice No.

420-1 outlined the responsibilities of the General Construction and

( ,

Operation Departments in regard to preoperational testing, no' mention i

was made of the responsibilities of the Engineering Departw nt. This raised a question as to the role, if any, played by the design engineers in the review of testing procedures and testing results.

Kelly and.Schuyler explained that it.is PG&R's policy to assign primary responsibility for such test activities to the General Construction Department, but that the design engineers are always consulted and kept informed on an informal basis. Schuyler agreed that the QA manual should indicate the extent of the design engineering 4;94j involvement and stated that this would be incorporated into the procedure.

Findina No. 6 - Nonconformina Material. Parts or Components (Criterion XV)

As in Finding No. 5 (above), the participation of the Engineering Department concerning the disposition of nonconforming material or work practices, was not defined in PG&E's. draft procedure " Instructions for Discrepancy Control".

Schuyler stated that this would be remedied by a revision to the draf t.

o 1

, 0:

. . - . - , . , _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ - . . - _ __ . - . ~ _ ._ , - - ..-.... .._- .. - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - . _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20212N773&oldid=3097160"