ML20235T848
| ML20235T848 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1989 |
| From: | Barnes I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235T837 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-89-02, 50-298-89-2, NUDOCS 8903080497 | |
| Download: ML20235T848 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000298/1989002
Text
y_.,.
__
_
,
i;
"
'
,
.
APPENDIX
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION
REGION IV
-
NRC Inspection Report:
50-298/89-02
Operating License:
Docket:
50-298
'
Licensee:
Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
P.O. Box 499-
Columbus, NE 68602-0499
Facility Name:
Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)
Inspection At:
NPPD Offices, Columbus, NE
Inspection Conducted: 1 January 23-27, 1989
Inspectors:
L.-Gilbert, Rcactor Inspector, Materials and Quality
Programs Section (M&QPS), Division of Reactor Safety-(DRS)
R. Stewart, Reactor Inspector, M&QPS, DRS
A.' Singh, Reactor Inspector, Plant Systems Section (PSS), DRS
P. Wagner, Reactor Inspector, PSS, DRS
Approved:
d8%
24.7/97
lan Barnes, Chief, Materials and Quality
Date
Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety
Inspection Summary
Inspection Conducted January 23-27, 1989 (Report 50-298/89-02)
Areas Inspected:
Special, announced inspection of the engineering and
technical support capabilities and activities for the CNS which were provided
by the NPPD offsite staff.
The NRC inspectors ' reviewed the NPPD Nuclear Power
Group organization, concentrating mainly on the Nuclear Engineering and
Construction Division.
The staffing and expertise of the organization together
with the procedural controls and interactions with other organizations was
evaluated.
The NRC inspectors also reviewed records of audits of the
engineering function which had been conducted by NPPD Quality Assurance (QA)
Division.
89030B0497B?ph99
ADOCK 0
pg
G
. _ _ _ _ _ __ .-_
h
1
<
.
f-
.
.
,
,
L
T
,.
-2-
.
!
,
The NRC inspectors, selected ten design change packages for detailed review in
order to evaluate the quality and completeness of the engineering activities.
~
>The packages were selected from changes implemented on the residual heat
removal (RHR) system over the plant life,.to obtain a perspective on past and
present activities over a variety of engineering disciplines.
The NRC
inspectors also discussed the NPPD Configuration Management Plan.
Results:
The NRC i'nspectors identified one violation (failure to update a
,
drawing properly, paragraph 3.d) during the inspection of design change
packages.
The NRC inspectors found the other design changes to have been
implemented acceptably.
The NRC inspectors found the NPPD engineering
organization and procedural controls to be acceptable but noted that both had.
been recently revised.
The~NRC inspectors found that the QA audits of
engineering had been of sufficient scope and depth to detect engineering
division weakness.
The NRC inspectors also discussed the NPPD Configuration Management Plan with
involved NPPD personnel to gain an understanding of the scope and status of
this undertaking.
The NRC inspectors qLestioned the schedule for the Plan and
were informed that the NPPD schedule was consistent with the schedule at other
facilities implementing similar plans.
_ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ ___ _
+
.'
. , -
-3-
.
,
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
T. Arlt, Licensing Specialist
~A. Boesch, Instrument and Control Engineering Supervisor
K. Dowe, Mechanical Engineering Supervisor
W. . Fisher, Electrical Engineering Supervisor
A. Heymer, Manager, Configuration Management
L. Kohles, Manager, Nuclear Projects and Construction
L. Kuncl, Nuclear Power Group Manager
S. McClure, Manager, Nuclear Engineering
H. G. Parris, Vice President, Production
M. Siedlik, Civil / Structural Engineering Supervisor
G. Smith, Acting Division Manager, QA
G. Trevors, Division Manager, Nuclear Support
K. Walden, Licensing Manager
R. Wilber, Division Manager, Nuclear Engineering and Construction
Other NRC Personnel
L. Constable, Chief, Projects Section C
The above personnel attended the exit interview conducted on January 27,
1989.
The NRC inspectors also contacted and interviewed other 1.icensee employees
during the course of the inspection.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
(Closed) Open Item (298/8212-01):
Training for offsite staff.
An NRC
inspector determined, during this earlier inspection, that no formal
training plan for offsite personnel had been implemented in response to a
NPPD task force recommendation.
As discussed in paragraph 3.b., below, a
training plan has now been implemented; therefore, this item is closed.
3 .'
Engineering and Technical Support
The NRC inspectors evaluated the effectiveness of the NPPD r.orporate
engineering program in the areas of adequacy of staffing levels and
experience, training, interfaces with other organizations, design changes,
i
I
and QA audits.
The evaluation consisted of documentation reviews and
personnel interviews to verify that the license requirements included in
!
the Technical Specifications (TS) and Codes and Standards were being
implemented and that the commitments contained in the Updated Safety
Analysis Report (USAR) and other correspondence were being followed.
_
._
g-z
-
,
cc
-
+
u
-
e:
.
MY
'4
'
"
,
-
,
'a.
Organization and Staffing (40703)
'
L The licensee- sutimitted 'a change to.the USAR 'concerning the
organization- structure by letter dated ' January 13, 1989.
The'NRCf
' inspectors questioned the status:of'the revised organization,
including.the new Nuclear Power Group (NPG),fand were informed,that
^
the.new organization had recently.been implemented', Further' review
.
.
disclosed that the license? amendment-requeststo revise..the
Organization Charts in Section 6.0 of the-TS had'not,las yet, been
submitted forLNRC review and approval.
The licensee. amendment-
-
request is presently being processed within.the lice'nsee's organization.
This change will be submitted to the NRC'in the near future.
The NRC inspectors evaluated the new organization'to ascertain
-
whether the offsite technical support staff, functions.were performed.'
by qualified personnel in accordance with licensee approved.
administrative. controls.
The NPG, under the Vice-President, Production, has~ direct
- responsibility for the operation'of CNS including providing technical-
- >
support to the CNS site. -.The Nuclear Engineering and Construction
Division (NED) has direct responsibility'to provide offsite
technical support to CNS.
The NED is. comprised of six major disciplines.in the areas of-
Electrical,' Mechanical, Civil / Structural, Projects. & Construction,
'
Configuration' Management:and Nuclear Fuels: Department. 'The NED
provides technical support for station operation and maintenance.
These activities are under the direction'of the Division Manager'who
reports directly to the Vice= President of Nuclear Power Group,
Production. 'It is the' responsibility of this group to ensure'and
"
verify the safe, reliable,'and efficient operation of the station and
the adequacy and accuracy of records kept concerning the technical
aspects of operation.
The engineering work requests for modification
to the plant or.' equipment are evaluated by this group.
The NED. consists of 67 individuals with specialized experience.
Members of the engineering staff are required to have as a minimum a
Bachelor's' degree in engineering or in an appropriate field.
The
average total experience of the NED staff is 12.45 years with
approximately 4 years with CNS.
The NRC inspector nottd that the
.
majerity of the engineering staff are registered professional
engineers.
Review of personnel records and interviews with various members of'
the offsite technical staff did not identify any questions or
inconsistencies concerning individual qualifications.
Each
department and group maintained administrative procedures which
.
f
_ . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
J
-
_. . - .
o
p
,
3
,
<
.,
i
v
-5-
,
.
?
described the responsibilities, lines of communication, and
interfaces with site personnel and organizations.
The engineering work requests can be generated by anybody at CNS
~
and are reviewed by the applicable system engineer and department.
manager.at the site before submittal to the NED. 'The assigned design
engineer has the total responsibility from the beginning to the
completion of the task.
If the assigned task involves more' than
c
-$150,000s then the appropriate engineering services are contracted.
Design packages are prepared on the bases of.a 12 month refueling'
cycle.
The nonoutage work packages are prepared at least 90 days
before they are required.
The outage packages are prepared at least-
60 days before an outage.
Consultants are used to prepare the
packages; these consultants are hired in time to allow them to meet
the scheduled outage dates.
The licensee also stated that some
consultants are used year-after year.
The licensee does not have a
qual.ified fire protection engineer on the staff but is considering
such an addition.
A contractor, Engineering Project Management.(EPM),
is the licensee's permanent consultant for the fire protection
issues.
The turnover rate in the NED has been minimal.
The turnover rate
was 2.4 percent in 1987 and 6.1 percent in 1988.
It was noted that
the turnover rate included an individual who left the engineering
division for promotion wi Din the licensee's organization.
No violations or deviations were identified in the area of
organization and staffing.
b.
Training (40703)
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's training program for.the
offsite technical staff in the NED. 'The licensee implemented a new-
,
training plan on July 8, 1988, which the NRC-inspectors found to be
acceptable.
All new engineering staff members. are required to spend
a minimum of 6 months at the site before coming into the NED.
All
staff engineers are required to attend sixty hours of~ video taped-
seminars on the respective systems of the CNS. . The staff members are
also encouraged to: attend the seminars.such as EPRI and INP0
meetings.
No violations or deviations were identified in the area of training,
c.
Interfaces with Internal and External Organizations (37700 and 40703)
The NRC inspectors performed an inspection of the licensee's
interfacing policies and procedures related to internal and external
. coordination in the" design and engineering activities of the CNS.
The NED is the primary design engineering department within the
district's NPG, located at the NPPD facilities in Columbus, Nebraska.
_ _ - _ _ - _
7sv m 7 .
- y-
- - -
a
'
g3
E
<
,
,
o
m
o
c
.>
4,
' '
.y
,
'
.; ,
4
>
o
o
U
Y
-6-
.
m
'
"
,
,
,
q
h
Two additional engineering organizations', operations; engineering'and
plant engineering, may provide design engineering,- but have
operational support and maintenance support as their. primary activities.'
Both plant" engineering-and operations engineering are in the
. Technical: Department of.the Nuclear Operations Division'(N0D) located
~
n s.
at the CNS site.- -Both NED and N0D ultimately; report to the Manager,
-
'
NPG, a'nd all three engineering organizations share.the common task ofJ
providing. engineering support to CNS..
,
,
,
[f
The NRCj nspectors reviewed the principal CNS engineering procedures
'
,
'which prescribe the engineering policies and activities. -These-
proceduras included CNS Engineering Procedure 3.1, '" Engineering
'
Interfaces," and CNS Engineering Procedure l3.4, " Station Design
y
Changes."
. ;
>
~
During the' review',' the NRC inspectors examined ~ additional, associated
l
h.;
l administrative directives and procedures (delineated in Attachment 1).
t
!?'
and verified that engineering interfacing responsibilities.and
j
activities included the following:
.
'
Timelyidentification,"evaluationandresolutkonofproblemsand:
'
'
. !
concerns,
w
l
Interfacing work assignments'between corporate and site-
l
~
engineering staffs.
'
.
Engineering organization involvement in evaluation and
>
,
resolution of LERs, 10 CFR Part 21 reports, NRC reporting
requirements, and NRC Bulletins.
' )
~
l
Evaluation and resolution of< issues generated within thei
.
3
engineering organizations and issues generated by-other
.
organizations; e.g., plant staff, QA/QC.
,
s
'
"
,
Engineering reviews and activities associated with plant
G
information with regard to equipment / component history and-
trending.
'
,
During the inspection, the NRC inspectors interviewed several NED
staff engineers to ascertain their familiarity with the plant
site, frequency and purpose of plant visits, and opportunities for
. ,
system walk-downs.
The NRC inspectors had no significant concerns
i
resulting from those interviews.
l
During the inspection, the NRC inspectors met with the cognizant NED
licensing representative for the purpose of determining engineering
interfacing activities associated with external organizations.
The
,
licensee representative provided the NRC inspectors with a-copy of
j
3
the "BWR Owners Group Activities and Participation Commitment
Summary," which reflects those committees in which NPPD participates
(4
f
.
l
, ' '
.?
'
<
>
-- = - - '
r.
>
,;
_
w.
,
,
~
'k
'-
<
~
'g
,
,
,
'
e
+ . . ;
.
y
>'
..Y
'
y,
,
- . . g.
. (*
o
,
'
'
1
4.
-
- -7-
'
.
.(
,
l1 '
'*
-
~ as a member.- In' addition, the'NRC inspectors discussed NPPD :
~
interfacing. activities with other. external.organizationsLand' owner-
'
'
Y
groups.
<
,
.
l'
'
-
g
No violations or deviations'were identified.
g
- d .-
Design Changes and Modifications (37700 and 37701)
- The NRC inspectors evaluated the results'of the. engineering / technical
support efforts through the review of completed engineering tasks.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the CNS procedures appli'able to the NED
c
o
and found them to be of acceptable detail and content. .The reviewed
,
!
procedures are listed in Attachment 1.
The NRC inspectors noted,.
"
however,;that the 3.4 series procedures:had'all been' revised (and new
procedures added) in December 1988.
The NRC inspectors were informed
'
,
L
.e
that most of.the. requirements which appears in the new, more task
specific' procedures, had been included as' parts of larger
,
procedures.
The NRC. inspectors then selected a number of' design changes for
detailed review from a listing of those which~had been_ implemented on-
,
the RHR system. The NRC inspectors chose a system approach in order
to obtain'a variety ofetypes of design changes (DCs). 1The RHR system
was' selected because of its'importance to safety in both normal and-
accident operating conditions. -The inspectors reviewed the DCn
,
'
packages to verify that procedural and regulatory requirements had
s
been. fulfilled. The types of. items the NRC. inspectors ve'rified
included evaluations-for 10 CFR 50.59 determinations, proper
NRC reporting requirement considerations, fire protection and
.equipmentLqualification considerations, and calculation-
- checks.-In addition,'the NRC inspectors verified acceptable-
levels of' review and approval of the DC, including any changes to the
.
original DC, and that closure of the DC included required.
procedure / drawing revisions and personnel training.
The following DCs to the;RHR system were selected from the licensee ~
provided list of changes to the RHR, service water, core spray, and
~
high pressure coolant injection. systems.
^
DC 76-079
Addition-of Flow Restricting Orifices to the RHR-
Pump Discharge Liries -
~
DC 76 aa5
Addition of Pressurization Valves
DC 77-017
"
Addition of Loss of. Voltage Sensing Relays for
RHR/LPCI Motor Operated Valves (MOVs).
DC 77-053
. Addition of Test Jacks to the Motor Control
FCenters (MCCs) for RHR Suction Valves
..
l
- - -
-
- __
a
,
__
_ _ _ _ _
[
~
p
..
n
.
h
-8-
.
'
- '
'DC 77-055
Addition of Reset Push' Buttons for' Testing RHR
-Valves
DC 77-089
Addition of Leak Test Connection for RHR
Containment Penetration Valves
.DC 86-111
Modification of RHR Pumps' Impeller Wear. Ring
DC 86-125
Removal of RHR Pump Minimum Flow Line Orifice
DC 86-148
Upgrade of Power Supply Cable and Fuses for RHR,
DC 88-024
Modification of RHR Piping-Supports
With the exception of DC 76-079, which was the most technically.
involved modification reviewed, the NRC inspectors found the above
'DCs to be acceptable. "In a number of cases the NRC inspector
requested clarifying information.
This information was usually in
the form of supplemental evaluations.
Some problems with drawing
revision following completion of modifications were observed and are
discussed below.
DC 76-79.
,
,-
The addition of orifices to the RHR pump discharge lines, which was
1
'
- implemented by DC 76-79, was recommended by General Electric
>
Company (GE) in their letter to NPPD, RHL-76-156 dated August 2,
1976.
The recommendation was made to provide additional flow
resistance in each RHR pump discharge line which would,.in turn,
,
,
provide runout protection for the pump during the low pressure
coolant injection (LPCI) mode of operation.
The GE letter went on to
recommend that when these pumps are used in the containment spray
mode that:
" Hydraulic calculations should be performed to evaluate
possible flow limits due to the added resi;,tance.and to evaluate the
necessity of removal of some spray nozzles if the pressure drop
available at the nozzles is insufficient to permit proper droplet
formation.
Although unlikely, the shutdown cooling mode may be
affected.
This mode should be evaluated via testing or hydraulic
calculation to verify that the present shutdown rated flow is not
[
reduced by the added orifices."
The NRC inspector requested the results of the GE recommended
i
hydraulic calculations and was shown a copy of a Burns and Roe
evaluation.
That evaluation, however, concluded that the containment
spray flow rate would be 3.8 percent lower than the previously
assumed flow rate.
The NRC inspector then requested the evaluation
of the acceptability of the lower flow rate.
The NRC inspector was
informed on February 1, 1989, that the analyses which had been
performed concluded that containment spray flow was not required to
mitigate unacceptable containment responses to an accident.
The NRC
4
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
___J
r y'
-
,y
.
,,
^
5
s
'
4
q
>
.
.,
,
M
f
'
'
q
i
'
-9-
-
,
.
y
-
.
! inspector verified that USAR Section 6.3'.3.3 included'a Case D study
which concluded acceptableLresults for no containment spray.
j
p
'
i
The NRC inspector had also questioned how the addition of!the;
!
. orifices to the RHR pumps' discharge" lines had been' reported to the'
i
,
NRC and was provided a copy of the NRC Safety Evaluation approving
the' proposed change and a-copyLof the NPPD Annual Operating'_ Report
forl1976 (letter to NRC dated _ March 1,.1977) which documented the1
completion- of the modification.
~
'
-
' ~ Additionally, tb? NRClinspector questioned how the operability of the
orific.es was be %g verified;11.e., how was' erosion and/orEcorrosion
l
.
monitored. .Ik w rector was provided a copy ~of Surveillance .
I
~
Procedure 6.34 : which required monthly; fullsflow (>7700 gpm) tests
of the RHR pumps. .This test would provide assurance of-ac.ceptable
minimum flow rates but.not acceptable maximum flow rates.
The NRC'
inspector was unable.to determine how maximum flow rates 'or. orifice
condition was being' monitored.
The NRC' inspector was subsequently
^
informed that;the licensee would develop a surveillance test to
ensure proper' orifice performance.
i~
In order' to evaluate the RHR system configuration following the
installation of the flow restricting orifices, the NRC inspector;
.
reviewed the' Piping;and Instrument ~ Drawing (P&ID) contained in the
USAR. .The NRC inspector noted, however, that'this modification, and
the modification implemented by.DC 76-085 had not been incorporated.
I
onto the P&ID; USAR. Figure IV-8-2, Revision No.'l dated September 21,
1978.
The NRC inspector was informed that a similar. problem had been
recently discovered.by licensee personnel on a separate system.
The
problems apparently'resulted from the existence of two sets of P&IDsg
' one developed by Burns and Roe, the other by GE.
The plant operators
,
use the Burns & Roe P& ids.
Licensee engineering personnel showed the.
>
inspector that the Burns and Roe.P&ID (Drawing No. 2040, Revision N18-
dated July 10,1985) had been revised to include the modifications
and informed:the NRC inspector that the Burns and Roe P& ids were
utilized by both engineering and operations personnel.
The existence of drawings in the USAR which had not been
revised to include the effects of changes made in the facility is an
apparent violation of 10 CFR Part 50.71(e).
Since the licensee had
initiated corrective actions and since'the violation was of minor
safety significance, no Notice of Violation is being issued in
accordance with Section V.A. of the NRC's Enforcement Policy.
The NRC inspector noted a similar occurrence during the review of
the Configuration Management Plan which is discussed in paragraph 4,
r
below.
Neither of the P& ids involved in that, problem, however, were
included in the USAR.
,
a
- _ _ .____:__-_________
_-
.
. _ _ _ .
_
7
_
_ _ _ - _ _
w
IC :
_-
!
-10-
i
.
l
i<
>
c
i
e.
Quality Ass'urance Audits (37702)
The NRC inspectors performed an inspection of the licensee's QA
audits.' conducted during 1987 and 1988 that were applicable to design
activities.
The licensee schedules an annual audit of design' control
which was verified by reviewing ~the 1988 and 1989 audit schedules.
The annual. audit performed by-the licensee exceeds the 24 month
auditing requirement.specified in Section'6.0 of the TS. Two audit
reports were celected for review to verify that annual audits were
performed, aucitors were qualified, audit findings were reported to
senior management, corrective actions were implemented in a timely
fashion, and trend analyses were performed on audit findings.
The
two audit reports selected are listed below:
. Audit'#87-01;lDesignControl,.datedMarch30,1987
Audit #88-02;< Design Control, dated 0ctober 21, 1988
The auditi were performed in accordance with the general guidelines .
of QA Instruction QAl-5 and the1 requirements of QA Plan QAP-1700 for
conducting audits of DC.
The qualifications of two auditors and two
lead auditors who participated in the audits selected above were-
reviewed.
The qualifications of the audit personnel were consistent
with the requirements specified in the NPPD QA Division Training and
Qualification Programi 'The scope of the audits were generally
programmatic in nature; however, the audits also incorporated QA -
,
surveillance, that had been performed since the previous audit,
which included technical assessments of performance.
The audit
findings were reported to senior management staff at the plant and
the corporate office.
Negative audit findings were assigned to
specific management personnel for resolution with a. response _due date
for corrective action.
The resolution of audit findings for the-
above audits were reviewed and the dispositions were considered
thorough.
The corrective actions for the audit findings were
considered to be implemented in a timely fashion.
The audit and
surveillance findings'were trended in the audit reports and the
quarterly trend analysis.
No violations or deviations were identified.
1
!
4.
ConfigurationManagementPlan(407031
The NRC inspectors discussed the Configuration Management Plan for the.CNS
with involved licensee personnel to gain an understanding of the scope and
schedule for this undertaking.
The NRC inspectors were informed that the
concept of design criteria collation was approved by NPPD in mid-1986.
An
early review was performed on the core spray system (approximately
500 manhours of effort) in early 1987 and an independent review of the
high pressure coolant injection system is planned for early 1989
(approximately 1250 manhours).
I
b
=
_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _
_ - - _ _ .
.g L1i
e
q
-
-
,
,
'
a
g.
,
.
- -11-
.
l
The present. NPPD plan;is~ divided .into four parts which work together and -
utilize information- from each other.
The four parts include: As-Built'
Drawing Walkdowns, Data Base Management,', Design Cri_teria. Development' and
Probabilistic. Risk Analysis (PRA). . The NRC inspectors wereLinformed that
the as-built' effort had been completed on 79 drawings- and.had been
scheduled to be completed for; the remaining drawings (approximately;
p
2700 drawings) included in the program by mid-1993.
The. licensee was-
i"
utilizing; original design criteria documentation in PRAs' to establish
<
component'and system priorities within the plan._' The NRC inspectors were
informed that' difficulties-were being encountered because NPPD lacks a
~
considerable amount of the original design documentation. ~The NRC
inspectors were'also informed /that the implementation of the plan was
L
being controlled by existing facility procedures.but that new interfacing,
'
' computer software QA and.PRA procedures would be developed.
NPPD had
'
established mid-1994 as the completion schedule for.the plan.
~
The NRC _ inspectors reviewed some of the findings from the as-built
activities. - The consultants performing the walkdowns report identified
problems to NPPD by. letter along with a recommended corrective action.
One of the walkdown findings was similar-to the violation described in
paragraph 3.d.
When the emergency diesel generator ' air header system was
reviewed, the consultants' discovered differences between the Burns and Roe
-P&ID (Drawing 2077) and the vendor P&ID'(Drawing KSV-36-7).
This problem-
was discussed in the consultants report, APA Problem'No. 5346, with the
recommendation that the vendor drawing be corrected. ~The NRC1 inspectors'
found the problem reporting and the_ resolution activities to be acceptable.
The-NRC inspectors quostioned the' completion schedules, especially'for the;
'as-built program, and were informed that NPPD' considered the time frame to'
be comparable to other such industry efforts.
The NRC inspectors noted
that NPPD would.be in the Region IV office during the week of February 6,_
1989, to discuss the plan with~NRC management.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Exit Interview (30703)
!
,
An exit interview was conducted on January 27, 1989, with licensee
representatives (identified'in paragraph 1).
During this interview, the
_
NRC inspectors reviewed the scope and findings of the inspection.
Other
meetings between the NRC. inspectors and licensee management were held
i
periodically during the inspection to discuss identified concerns.
The
licensee did'not identify as proprietary any information provided to, or
reviewed by, the NRC inspectors'.
_____
__ ._
__
_
_-_
-
. _ _
__
.
.
_ _ _ _ _ .
._
- _ _
. _ _
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
cr
y
i
.T
.
n
. , .
~
ATTACHMENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
CNS Procedure 0.5.3, Revision 0,r" Licensee Event Reports"
,
CNS Procedure 0.10.1, Revision 3, " Operating Experience Review"
CNS Procedure 1.10,~ Revision 2, " Document' Control"
CNS_ Engineering' Procedure'3.1, Revision 2, " Engineering' Interfaces"
-
CNS Engineering' Procedure 3.2, Revision 2, " Systems Engineers and Engineering'
Specialists"
'
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.3, Revision 8, " Station Safety Evaluations"
CNS Engineering' Procedure 3.4, Revision 8, " Station Modifications"
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.4.1, Revision 0, " Engineering Work Request and'
Authorization"
,
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.4.2, Revision 1, " Basis of Design Document"
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.4.3, Revision 0, " Design Change"
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.4.4, Revision 3, " Temporary Design' Change"
,
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.4.5, Revision 0, " Equipment Specification Change"
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.4.6, Revision 0, " Design Review' Checklists"
,
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.4.7, Revision 0, " Design Calculations"
_
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.4.8, Revision 0, " Design Verification"
'
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.4.9, Revision 0, " Implementation and Acceptance
Testing Activities"
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.4.10, Revision 0, " Revisions, Amendments, and
On-The Spot Changes"
!
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.4.11, Revision 0, " Status Reports"
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.4.12, Revision 0, "DC/ ESC Completion Reports"
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.11, Revision 1, " Vendor Contract for Verification
f'
and Manuals"
CNS Engineering Procedure 3.20, Revision 0, "10 CFR 21 - Reporting of Defects
and Noncompliance"
CNS Surveillance Procedure 6.3.5.5, Revision 15, "RHR Pump Operability Test"
l
_ _ _ _ . _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ - _ . - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _
_
g -- .
. . . .
-
,
.,
t .-
m
@ ; . ' ., . o. .l <
- $
lu
g
,
.
QA Instruc' tion.QAI-5, Revision 27,'" General Guidelines
. Quality Assurance-
- j
Audits"
.;
~
.QA' Procedure QAP-1700, Revision 6, " Design Changes'(Major & Minor)"
l
NPPD Quality Assurance " Division Training and. Qualification Program,"
Revision 3-
i.
'
' Quarterly _NCR Trend-Analysis - Fourth Quarter, 1988, dated January. 10, 1989
'
,
,r
I
l
.s
t
i
,
l
4
5
i
l
l
i
1
1
1
_
. - - _
_- ___-____