ML20136B298: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML20136B298
| number = ML20136B298
| issue date = 03/12/1982
| issue date = 03/12/1982
| title = Forwards Rf Reedy,Inc QA Rept on PG&E & 820312 Ltr to Denton
| title = Forwards Rf Reedy,Inc QA Rept on PG&E & to Denton
| author name =  
| author name =  
| author affiliation = ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC.
| author affiliation = ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC.
Line 12: Line 12:
| case reference number = FOIA-84-293
| case reference number = FOIA-84-293
| document report number = NUDOCS 8601020518
| document report number = NUDOCS 8601020518
| title reference date = 03-12-1982
| package number = ML20136B092
| package number = ML20136B092
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION/CONSULTING FIRM TO NRC, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION/CONSULTING FIRM TO NRC, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
Line 1,816: Line 1,817:
1977 transmits a number of iso-metric drawings to be used for llosgri re-evaluation.
1977 transmits a number of iso-metric drawings to be used for llosgri re-evaluation.
: 2) Check control over IG&E        2) EDS received Rev. 2 via letter document " Guidelines for Pipe    dated July 12, 1978 and Rev. 3 via c
: 2) Check control over IG&E        2) EDS received Rev. 2 via letter document " Guidelines for Pipe    dated July 12, 1978 and Rev. 3 via c
Supports and Restraints". Why    letter dated December 27,1978.EES}
Supports and Restraints". Why    {{letter dated|date=December 27, 1978|text=letter dated December 27,1978}}.EES}
did EES use Revision 4 & EDS      received Rev.1 via letter of                                                    W only have Revision l? What was    October 27, 1977.
did EES use Revision 4 & EDS      received Rev.1 via letter of                                                    W only have Revision l? What was    October 27, 1977.
in Revisions 2, 3, and 4 that would pertain to EDS scope? What was in Rev. 2 (not received by EES) that would effect EES scope?          l
in Revisions 2, 3, and 4 that would pertain to EDS scope? What was in Rev. 2 (not received by EES) that would effect EES scope?          l

Latest revision as of 02:31, 14 December 2021

Forwards Rf Reedy,Inc QA Rept on PG&E & to Denton
ML20136B298
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 03/12/1982
From:
ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC.
To: Engelken R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
Shared Package
ML20136B092 List:
References
FOIA-84-293 NUDOCS 8601020518
Download: ML20136B298 (1)
v • d • e


Text

ll & 7b ' l. .. ' i

.j][* e,gy p eg.:

ROBERT L. CLOUD

- -, y AND ASSOCIATES. ItIC.

. Oy 05 gA 125 UNIVERSITY AVEf1UE 1.'175r, .

g

[MQi BERKELEY CA 94710 '

(415) 841-0296 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO Nuclear Regulatory Commission DATE March 12, 1982 -

Region V SUBJECT Suite 202 Walnut Creek Plaza ATTN Mr. R. H. Engelken PROJECT Seismic ~Veiification NUMBER P 105-4_

Transmitted herewith is/are the following:

One copy of the R. F. Reedy, Inc. Quality Assurance Report on Pacific Gas and Electric Company (cover letter included).

One copy of the 3/12/82 Cloud letter to Denton. Region V was inadvertently left off the distribution list.

Via: Hand Delivery X g g.p.gq 3 Mail

? ((

Other Robert L. Cloud sociates s I B60102o518 BD1125 UY N '

PDR FOIA LEIGHTO84-293 PDR t /

. 'h e .h. . f

-f .

+

ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC.

! ss UNIVERSITY AVENUE

.] BERMELEY. CALIFORNI A 94780 i

j j e4:s> e4i.ons.

P 105-4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

March 12, 1982 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director -

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20114

Dear Mr. Denton,

~

i Roberc L. Cloud Associates will issue the ninth progress report on the Seismic Verification Program on Monday, March 15, 1982. -

, Yours truly, a .

ko r R. L. Cloud s'

s cc: Distribution List ..

. RLC:lj s 4

9 9

4

  • v v a n ~ ,- .

.a . . . -

g .s i.

DISTRIBUTtQN LIST Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20114*

Attention: Mr. Hans Schierling, Program Manager Mr. George Maneatis i

Senior Vice President Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street .

San Francisco, California 94106  :

}k. Roy Fray Pacific Gas and Electric Company 215 Market Street _

San Francisco, California 94106

~

Mr. R. F. Reedy, President' ,

R. F. Reedy, Inc.

236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 Mr. Carl O. Richardson, Jr.

Assistant Engineering Manager Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation 245 Summer Street Boston, Massachusetts 02107 e

F.

. .a

. 1 4

2 .. ..

R. F. REEDY, INCORPORATED 236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, Callfornia 95030 = (408) 354-9110 -

!farch 8, 1982 ( , .

J MR 10.1982 Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc. '

125 University Avenue I"~* ' 'e.": ?-I Ef5AW Berkeley, CA 94710

Subject:

Report of R. F. Reedy, Inc.

Review of Pacific Gas and Electric Company D e a r !.! r . Cloud:

Attached is a copy of our Quality Assurance Audit and Review report of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). We have reviewed the Quality Assurance Program as it related to seismic safety-related design performed prior to June, 1978.

The details of our review are contained in this final report. .

I am' transmitting a copy of this report to }.fr. Harold Denton of the NRC.

V ly yo s Rog F. e dy, P.E. ~'

R. . REEDY, INC. .

RFR:me, Encl.

cc:  !!r. Harold Denton ,

Huger F. Reedy. P.E. - Engtncering Cemsniting

- r.-m-- m . . - - ,e.- y ,, -3 ,- ,- - - - .

. . . . = . - - . - _ . . . . . . . - .. .- . . . _ .

-. . e a

4 1

J

QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW AND AUDIT REPORT t

PHASE I I

By: R. F. REEDY, INC.

On: SAFETY-RELATED ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC t

! PRIOR TO JUNE, 1978 ,

a l

i .

I' 4

i s

~

t

l 1

t 1 ..>, --

4. .
, n.*

1 l

l

}

5 t

i  !

j i- . .

I- .PG&E - March 8, 1982 ,

! 1/S9 _

I I- '

t r i i l .' [

I ,. .- --,.,.. - ,, , , , . . - . , ~ . -,. -..... . ,,, ,. ,. ,... .-, , - - - , - - , - . , . , . . - + . , , , . . . - , , .

, o o

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM' REVIEW REPORT PHASE I SAFETY RELATED ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

-~

PRIOR TO JUNE 1, 1978 Introduction Scope: .

On February 23, 1982 R. F. Reedy, Inc. completed the Quality Assurance Review and Audit of Pacific Gas and Electric (PGaE) -safety related activities concerning the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Project.

The purpose of this review and audit was to assess the adequacy of PG&E Quality Assurance Program prior to June, 1978 with particular emphasis on activities that could affect seismic related design. The baseline for this review and audit were the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B.

PG&E Activities:

PG&E had the responsibilities of Architect-Eno,ineer and Construction Manager for the Diablo Canyon Project. PGaE was supported in their design activities by contracted design consultants.

Evaluation Criteria: -

This Quality Assurance the requirements of 10CFR50, Review and Audit of PG&E addressed -

Appendix B with selected parts of ANSI N45.2.11 being considered for guidance.

Follow-up items were introduced that evolved from earlier R. F. Reedy, Inc. audits of PG&E design consultants.

Method of Review and Audit: -

The review and audit was . conducted in three steps: 'l. '

Introductory meetings; 2. Quality Assurance Manual and Procedure review, and,.3. Audit of program implementation.

Steps 2 and 3 were performed to_ detailed checklists, and a general questionaire was used for Step 1.

The ' introductory meetings were held at PG&E on Dec. 17 and 18', 1981. The discipline groups visited were- Quality 1 .- .

PG&E - March 8, 1982 2/89 g-y % m =y---- 9g- p ----r - , - + -

y so *y

i .

Assurance, Design-Drafting, Mechanical, Civil, Electrical, and. Engineering Services. The Chief Engineers and other persons from these groups were met to discuss' review and audit approach, PGaE program and project status prior to June, 1978. Attendees at these meetings are listed in Appendix A.

The Quality Assurance Manual and Procedures review was completed on - Jan. 30, 1982 at R. F. Reedy, Inc. offices. ,

Revisions of the Manual between-1970 and 1978 were reviewed .

along with applicable implementing procedures. The completed checklist from this review is included as Appendix B to this report.

The implementation audit was performed Feb. 2-23, 1982 at

.PGSE. This step of the review and audit was broken into three parts:

Part A: General Requirements and Management Control of

, Quality Assuran,ce ,.

Part B: Design Control o .

_ Part C: Follow-up Questions from Supplier Audits.

Procedures and documentation were examined to ascertain

, program coverage. Where procedural coverage .was not in J.,' . pface, the design documentation was used for determining if

, po'sitive though informal controls were practiced.

. .,1 Documentation examined was from design activities performed priorb to June 1, 1978. Later activities are to be .

separately covered in the Phase II review. Completed-checklists-from Parts A, B, and C are included in Appendix C ..

to this report.

Conclusions:

1. The PG&E Quality Assurance program for design work was not adequate in areas of. policy, procedures and implementation. The Quality Assurance organization had insufficient program responsibi,lity.
2. A general weakness existed in internal and external interface and document controls. This questions whether appropriate design information was being exchanged and utilized by design groups and consultants.

PG&E - March 8, 1982 3/89 4

--- . - - - . - . - . - . . . = - - - -

One concern is if the latest Hosgri seismic' data was inputted for design analysis.

3. The design verification program was not formalized and was inconsistently impleraented and documented. This included major gaps in design overviews of the design approach for mechanical and other equipment. -

Findings Programmatic Deficiencies:

1.. Quality Assurance as defined ~1n the QA Manual was op,- C essentially an audit role. The Quality Assurance group was not assigned a primary role in determining QA

/

ffi

g ,7 requirements.

g t3

2. PG&E had no procedure for assuring the completeness of .

the QA program to address the requirements of 10CFR50,'

Appendir B.

Y 3. There were no provisions for document control of I

correspondance a'nd design documents. g pcr NW wr2 c.ccd.TJ.:n.

(_. i Ness t ovrPcf.C cYdCPT 00 e. t vice f*- N .-

E sco :u-e 4. During Phase:I, there were no controlled procedures for -

9amcw)

  • M design control, design interfacMii'd7esign responsi-g . bilities. PRE-9 and PRE-lO on these subjects were o

ccuruu.ar. released in 1979 and are to be audited during Phase II.

5. PG&E did not require design consultants to implement G M L 1-Quality Assurance requirements. 4"# " #'
6. Corrective action provisions were not addressed except J AP 80 '

II, (, -

with respect to audit deficiencies.and deficiencies at

' '2'fl$7v

, the site. .

[, v.?tt M rj.7.9 lo fIndoctrination 'p" and trainir.g were not addressed in the 2.$h'f' p.g ,u ),g,f(qVAf.0'QA yifNf', 14anual or procedures. - , er I) Q 8 . The QA flanual' contained no provisions for PG&E prr .c -

,[j;,,.9 k, {-r/

management review of the QA program for status and 7 ',f'" 7 f,.sc ' ' adequacy. vug .

Implemer.tation Deficiencies:

1. G&E management did not review and assess the

, effectiveness of the Quality Acsurance Ivegram.

p y, llEi:A af AlfY* l/11f pthCilpr Avon 10 612 (covd.

PG&E - March 8, 1982 lU Y Cfd'l &LJOIT - } Ultf2 t,&pf,<,, pg y,,w Al89

  • w.us.,
  • n,..e a* ,

9

. (KMMQQ ()Q\pt) { Q)3rfGL ylf p j)gf, QdI' f

/ 0.' . ,

9,,pf.6fP pf p o No documentation was available to verify that PGaE reviewed the QA program to show

, h9 /gp' gj ',88 requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix that B were addressed all 1 , .f and met.

4 .

( I, j /

o Management Review committees only reviewed plant operational considerations and experiences from the

. _~ g Humbolt Bay Plant. They did not review the QA

@fk g f*} for- design and construction of the Diablo

,F l'p.) program Canyon Plant. '

g,d,/g . _ _

f o A program review by Energy, Inc. for an ASME N-(, gp stamp (December 22, 1975) lists many of the same '

, findings that were found during this Phase I Review.

2. The PG&E audit system and corrective action system were not effective.

o Audit reporting and follow-up was not timely.

Reports were issued sometimes three or four months after the audit.

~

o Corrective actions for audit findings were ineffective in that the same. findings were found during later audits.-

o Corrective action verification was by re-audit only.

o Formal corrective actions were not invoked on the *

[ engineering groups. ~

3. Design consultants were not required to implement Quality Assurance Programs.

o Blume had first contract to require Quality Assur.ance in late 1977.

o Responsible engineers did not document Quality Assurance requirements for purchase. specifications on consultants, as required by the Quality Assurance Manual.. -

t o -The . Quality Assurance group did not. review the I Quality Assurance Programs of design subcontractors prior to mid-1977.

/ ,

i PG&E - March 8, 1982 5/89  ;

9 l . . . . . . .

i.

~

t.

. o WYLE was not contractually required to have a Quality Assurance Program until Dec. 1, 1979.

o ANCO was not contractually required to have a Quality Assurance Program until May 1978.

4. PG&E design . verification on in-house activities and -

suppliers was unstructured and applied inconsistently.

We consider that design verification consists of tua .

following three elements:

l 1) Design overview for design approach, methods, j design input selection, and assumptions.

i

" 2) Detailed checking of design steps and completed design documents. -

, 3) Verification of approved "As Built" condition against approved design.

.?

J-Activities for element 3 were not initiated until 1979 and are to be reviewed during Phase II. Documentation

.showed detailed checks to be performed on PG&E work with design overviews being performed on a selective.

basis. Most of what PG&E refers to as Design Reviews -

consists of element 2. _

1 .

I -o Comprehensive overviews and detailed checks were performed by EDS on Class I electrical design,

' 'some HVAC, and structural items. Design overviews were -not evident for mechanical ~ designs.

~

! o PG&E did not require designfcontractors to perform

design reviews of their own work.

i -

~

o For the majority of cases ' reviewed ,- ' design j verification criteria were not defined and s re dependent on. the discretion of the reviewing -

3

, engineer.

o Documentation of design verifications was inconsis-i tent and at times incomplete.
5. There was no effective' document control system j established. '

i o Design interfaces- internal'ly and externally were 4 . ,

PGGE March 8,' 1982 6/89 i

not effectively controlled.' Various organizations sometimes had different revisions of.'the same documents.

~

o Identification and contro1 of support drawings was inadequate. There. were. cases where different versions of the same drawing revision were in use.

o Engineering groups considered the Hosgri design criteria in the FSAR as a controlled document, -

which it was not.

o There was no effective method for controlling the l Hosgri seismic data which was distributed within i PG&E and to design consultants.

o Historical copies of some procedures and manuals

  • revisions were not available. i o The construction drawing list (January 1982) was not accurate for some of the support drawings which were checked.

o Approval signatures were not entered on support drawings, but approvals were in the calculation package.

o There was no evidence that all- revisions of

, supplier test plans, procedures and reports were

reviewed by PG&E.

r I

e e O

( PC&E - March 8, 1982 1

7/89 l

, s..- ..] ., . . . - . . = =.:

_ _. _ . . . . . ~ . . -- --

^N ENOyg AUDIT ATTEnggNCE LIST

. I I: -

aOPFi ,

/.-

  • f, + ' C 14, .

~

~

's I+w.. . . . a W *-*' i ?* . *

  • '[~{ . (*;

,- s -

... [' is:, , ' L . x,. , ,

,e.

i

,v, - W.~,%Bsw k* "; -f.M-9p*r9?3r a W%*

.- r ., u.

, ~ .-: ,.' . ;. 4. ,w a e e .

. . . - -s.

. .. -+,,1 <.as- (',,1.r .5.~.; a 5G&& _ cMar h 8/89 a' 1982 ,

, .:- ... .,' ?r^yo ,n t  : n- .,u... ~.

t s .

q. %;,
a. .~ , a .-

... . . . . . e.=

,.A*)M. mamene-A....

_w- . . .gg W- 1. , . w y xM.-.

. .V,. '-%--, , . 's.

.~ , _

,,7.--g.y .

...  : ,3 .

. sam._., * . , -

n,_,,,, __

f,  ?*4 '?,i

s.4

  • a hW.a + &4 ._m . , &# .-n k 1.14 ,.u..I _-__,_s .m.-4e ab.im tr

_ , 4 :L ._

. P.

ATTENDANCE LIST FOR INTRODUCTION MEETI;:GS

, , 12/17/81 12/18/81 .

W. S.' Gibbons R. F. Reedy, Inc. x x

~

P. J. Herbert R. F. Reedy, Inc. x x

~- R. F. Reedy R. F. Reedy, Inc. x x P. Chen R. L.. Cloud & Assoc. x x E. Dennison R. L. Cloud & Assoc. x l

C. Ralston PG&E x i

W.~Raymond PG&E -

x .

J. Rocca PG&E x C. Eldridge PG&E x J. McCracken PG&E ,

e x x R. Bettinger ~ PG&E x E. P..Wollack PG&E ,..

x J. McCann PG&E x A. Lomas PG&E x M. Cunley PG&E x

~

i E. Kahler PG&E x G. H. Aster PG&E x J. R. Herrera PG&E x W , l*

1 g

.

  • I

~

PG&E - March 8, 1982 9/89 '

l 1 e s 4

I 4

b ATTENDANCE LIST AUDIT INTERVIEWS 1982 Name ' Company 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/9 2/10 2/11- 2/12 2/16 2/17 W. S. Gibbons. R.F. Reedy,Inc. x x .x x x P. J. Herbert R.P. Reedy,Inc. x x x x x x x R. F. Reedy R.F. Reedy,Inc. x x 'x x x x R. F. Petrokas R.F. Reedy,Inc. x -

x x 'x x -

F. Zerebinski PG&E x x x x x x x x x x T. deUriarte PG&E x x x x x ,x D. O. Brand PG&E 'x x E. P. Wollak PG&E x. 'x D. Smith PG&E x ,

D. L. Polley PG&E x

3. J. Hansen PG&E x x R. M. Laverty PG&E x x T. N. Crawford PG&E x F. J. Dan PG&E x E. R, Kahler PG&E x ,

W. Vahlstrom PG&E *x x J. E.-Herbst PG&E x x x x i P. Antiochos PG&E. x x M. D. Tresler PG&E x x C. M. Li PG&E x J. Ante PG&E x x x R. Breed PG&E x O. Rocha PG&E x -

- G. Tiedrick PG&E x P. Hinschberg PG&E x C. Coffer PG&E x . .r.

R. Kelmanson' PG&E .

X B. Lew . PG&E x i J. Bulanda PG&E x S. Skidmore PG&E x .?

'J . IIcch PG&E .

X

. PG&E - March 8, 1982 '

10/89 .

1

  • O

_. , , . , , - - . . . - . - - - - - . ..v-.- ,-,-~..v. --.v

. y- .-.2 ---,,-e.----....-y.,.

.. . . . . , , , . . . , . - - . - --.w- + ,. , . ~ , - , , , _ , . . - - , -

._..v.

l*

9.

ATTENDANCE LIST

' EXIT INTERVIEW AT PG&E

  • Name Company Name Company 4

W.'S. Gibbons R. F. Reedy, Inc. J. R. Herrera PG&E-R .. F . Reedy R. F. Reedy, Inc.. D. A. Brand PG&E

  • i P. J. Herbert R. F. Reedy, Inc. J. J. McCunn PG&E I T. G. dcUriarte PG&E J. V. Rocca PG&E J. W Colwell

, PG&E' E. Denison R. L. Cloud & Assoc.

Dan Brand PG&E J. B. Hoch PG&E R. M. Laverty PG&E G.'H. Moore PG&E J. E. Herbst PG&E M. R. Tresler PG&E F. Zerebinski PG&E ,

G. H. Aster PG&E E. R..Kahler PG&E E. P. Wollak PG&E R. S. Breed PG&E D.'L. Polley PG&E W. A. Raymond PG&E ,

C. E. Ralston PG&E R. V. Bettinger PG&E l

PG&E - March 8, 1982 11/89 0

r e I

APPENDIX B PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST

= -

m PG&E - March 8, 1982 12/89

l l

R. F. REEDY, INC.

PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST

~

ORGANIZATION: PG&E Co.

ADD'RESS: 77 Beale Street i San Francisco, CA 94106' QA PROGRAM

REFERENCE:

  • QA Manual, January 1970
  • 0A Manu'a'1,'Rev. 3, Apr'il 15, 1974

~

REVIEW CONDUCTED BY:_ W.,'S. Gikbons Y DATE: 1/30/82 REVIEWED BY: / _DATE: Z j y TE: fE DATE:

-.I 1.

  • Through Manual Change No. 36 (4/24/78):

Volume I -

Policy -

Volume II.- Quality. Assurance Procedures a

NO. OF PAGES: 22 PG&E - March 8,. 1982 13/89 .

. - ~ . - . . ~ . . . . . .. . ._ .-._ ,_....,..._ ,_ w . _ _- -_ _ . . .

. b;

  • s

~

PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982 ROJECT: Diablo Canyon"

Subject:

I Orcanization (Ann. r) Page 1 of 3

. PROGRAM AND

" REQUIREMENT- PROCEDURE YES . NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS 0* . REFERENCES

./  ;

1.  % e applicant shall be responsible QAM Authoriza- X 'Aoplicability of OAM to Unit 1 is not #

for the establishment and execution tjon of the quality assurance program, clear in that tion Statement QAM addresses Unit 2Pev.

only. O" and

% e applicant may delegate to FSAR Chapter 17 (17.0 Quality Assurance) others, such as contractors, agents , p. 17.0-1 states QAM would also be used.

-or consultants, the work of estab- for Unit 1 to the extent possible. FSAR lishing and executing the quality knendment 14, 17.1.1, July 1974, states assurance program, or any part "PG&E... Units 1 and 2, established a

.thereof, but shall retain responsi- quality assurance program for design, bility therefor. construction and startup of the plant which controls PG&E's activities and the activities of suppliers and contrac-

, tors." ,

2.- .

%e authority and duties of per- QAM 2.0 (Rev.0) X Project Engineer is also Chief' Mechanical sons and organizations' performing Engineer... " coordinates engineering .

activities affecting the safety- activities within the Engineering and Con-related functions of structures, stniction Departments. . . ". Coordination M..

'. /

systems, and ownts shall be is not clear in absence of controlling cil65Hy3 c established and delineated i procedures until PRE-9, Design Responsi-in ~ writing. % ese activities bilities and Interfaces (issued 6/18/79) /

include both the performing func- and PRE-10, Design Control (issued /

tions of attaining quality objec-

  • 6/18/79) - (note, these dates exceed tives and the quality assurance June 1978.)

functions. % e quality assurance-functions are those of _ (a)' assuring that an appropriate quality assur-ance program is established and effectively executed and (b) veri-

~

fying, such as by checking, audit- -

ing, and inspection, that activi- , .PG&E - March 8, 1982 ties affecting the safety-re, lated . 14/89 functions have been correctly

~

performed. ,

I

-nn... ~*

__ __ ._ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _. _ _ . - . . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - - . _ _ _m _

.' . i. .

  • - - . 3, i-r .

U 4

f t PROCRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST

. January 30, 1982

'ROJECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

I Organization (Apo. B) Page 2 of 3 PROGRAM AND REM PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS REQUIREMENT NO. .

REFERENCES

3. Wepefsonsandorganizationsper- 0AM 2.1.1 and X* Independence of OA not established in forming' quality assurance functions 2.1.2 QAM Rev. O as OA (Quality Engineering) shall have sufficient authority and is responsibility of VP Engineering in OAM ~

organizational freedan to identify until 6/9/72. VP Engineering is also l quality problems; to initiate, responsible for design (2.1.3) . 0A for recerinend, or provide solutions; and construction is covered by assignment of to verify inplementation of- solu- OA engineers to site by Director of Quality tions. Such persons and organiza- Engineering who reports to VP Engineering.

tions performing quality assurance OAM change 21, 6/9/72, recognizes organiza-functions shall report to a manage- tional change which established a Director mnt level such that this required of Quality Assurance reporting to the Senior authority and organizational free- VP (who is' responsible for both Construc-dcm, including sufficient indepen- , tion and Engineering).

donce frcxn cost and schedule when -

opposed to safety considerations, QAM Rev. O and Rev. 3, 2.1.2: "he.Soction are provided. (Quality Engineering Section and Quality Assurance Depart 2nent) will carry on its function largely by conducting periodic

audits.".. ." insofar as possible, audits l will be conducted by individuals,who have
had no close connection with the function j

of being audited.

I '

I  !

!  !

  • Until 3/1/72 when reorganization was I -

effected. -

~ ~

j .

t l

i .

i PG&E - March 8, 1982 I '

i L

15/89 l -

. i i l

> a,

PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982

Subject:

I Organization Am. B1 Page 3 of 3

)ROJECT: Diablo Canyon PROGRAM AND TM PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS REQ 0IREMENT NO. .

REFERENCES

4. ...the individual (s) assigned the 2.0 X After 6/9/72 QAM revisicn.

responsibility for assuring effec- *

, tive execution of any portion of the quality assurance program at any location t.bere activities subject' to this Appendix.are being performed shall-have direct access to such levels of management as may be necessary to perform this function.

l - PG&E - March 8, 1982 16/89

. r

N .8 N PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982

0JECTt Diablo Canyon .

Subject:

II Program (App. B) Page 1 of 3 gg PROGRAM AND

,0 REQUIREMENT M.0CEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS REFERENCES

.. The applicant shall establish.at ON4 3.1.1 X See I, 1. (P 1) the earliest practicable time, con-sistent with the schedule for accom- X Requires written procedures. QAM*does plishing the activities, a quality not relate implementing procedures cssurance prog' ram which complies wit i , to specific requirements of 10CFR50, .$

the requirements of this Appendix. Appendix B. ~ ,1

'Ihis program shall be documented by '

written policies, procedures, or 3 instructions, and shall be carried l' out throughout plant life in accor-dance with those policies, proce- ,

dures, or instructions.

. 'Ihe applicant shall identify the ON4 1.2 .' X Items classified as Design Class I.

structures, systems, and camponents to be covered by the quality assur- PRE-12 'X Rev. 0 (7/17/70) classification of ance program and the nujor organiza- -

Structures, Systems and,Ccmponents, requires tions participating in the program, Project Engineer to establish classifications.

together with the designated func-tions of these organizations. PRE 12 refers to PRP.4 X PRP 4 - Suppliers / Contractors Ouality

. Assurance Requirements aoplies for' imposing quality requirennnts.

1 I

  • PG&E - March 8, 1982
17/89 ,

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

'l

!! I i t ,

l,

, PROGRAM REVIEW CllECKLIST ~

January 30, 1982

' 2ROJECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

II Pluiram (Aop. B) Page 2 of 3

PROGRAM AND QUIREMENT PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS

0' . REFERENCES

,[ 3. 'Ihe quality assurance program PRE-12 X Addresses classification of structurns, shall provide control over activi- systems and cmponents. .
ties affecting the quality of the
identified structures, systems, and cmponents, to an extent consistent with their inportance to safety. ,
4.
  • Activities affecting quality X Construction is contracted.

shall be accmplished under suitably controlled conditions. Conditions include the use of appropriate equipnent; suitable environmental ,

i conditions for accmplishing the ,

activity, such as adequate clean- -

ness;.and assurance that all pre-requisites for the given activity have been satisfied.

5, 'Ihe program shall take into ON4 3.3.6 X (X) Construction is contracted.

account the need for special con- QAM addresses requirements.

3~

trols, processes, test equipnent, I t2x>ls, and skills to attain the required quality, and the need fori ,

verification of quality by inspec -

l' tion and test.

j *

'PG&E - March 8, 1982

! 18/89 i

. 1 I  :

. i

'E i I '

f .

PROGRAM REVIEW CllECKLIST January 30, 1982 ROJECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

II Program (App. B) Page 3 of 3 PROGRAM AND 0, REQUIREMENT PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS REFERENCES

6. W e progiam shall provide for- X Not addressed in QMt.

indoctrination and training of per, -

Not included until PIU1-4 (12/3/?9),

connel perfonning ectivities affec- Training of Personnel, ting quality as necessary to assure that suitable proficiency is achieved and naintained.

f

7. %e applicant shall regularly Ovi 2.1.2 X j W e Director Quality Engineering . c d'g 't review the status and adequacy of

...is to review continually the QA

[ Program the quality assurance program. Man- and to report on its adequacy ,(i g

agement of other organizations par- and the extent to which it is being p -

ticipating in the quality assurance carried out. There is no requirement '40 program shall regularly review the status and adequacy of that part of for PG&E management to review the Quality Assurance Program.

/ad the quality assurance program which  %

' qp,.

they are' executing. ig/

+

PG&E - March 8, 1982 19/89 -

; 4 y PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982 Diablo Canyon

Subject:

III Design Contirol (Ano. B) Page 1 of 5 f 2RO.TECT* PROGRAM AND b, " REQLlIRDENT PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS

  1. . REFERENCES

,1 masures shall be established to OAM 3.2.1

  • X
assure that applicable regulatory
  • requirements and the design basis, PRE-4 X Specifications.  ;

L as defined in Para. '50.2 and as specified in the license applica- OAM 3.2.2.1  !

i . tion,' for.those structures, systems PRE-3 X Drawings.

and couponents to which this Appendix applies are correctly QAM 1.4 X Procedures to be'in other Volumes.

i translated into specifications, i drawings,' procedures, and instruc-1 tions.

I

! 2, 'Ihese measuren shall include provi- OAM Rev. O j siens to asxre that appropriate and Rev. 3, i quality standards are specified and 3.2.1 X Engineering responsible for.

included in design documents and

that deviations fran such standards PRE-2 are' controlled. (7/17/70) 3.3.2 X Mercrandum of Design Criteria includes Quality Assurance Requirements.

OAM 3.2.2.3

, PRM-3 Nonconfor-

, mances and l Corrective i Action X Addresses design changes.

j PRM-3 (issued 2/1/78) - addresses depar-l' tures fran approved requirements. . . . . _ .

design.

j . PG&E - March 8, 1982 20/89 t

, e to i .  ! i i I 4 . ,,

.- ,, _ _ .=

. . 1

( 4 I

l PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982 0]ECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

III Design Control (Aop. B) Page 2 of 5 8 PROGRAM AND l EM PRoCEnuRE no n/A REVIEW COMMENTS REquinEMENT l YES g* . REFERENCES 1 Measures shall also be established ON4 3.2.4.1 X Addresses subject.

for the selection and review for -

suitability of application of PRE-2 materials, parts, equipment, and Design Devel- l processes that are essential to the opTent X Not addressed. "3"Po' safety-related functions of the .

structures, systems, and conponents. PRE-6 ] -

Cauprehensive Design Review X Not addressed.

L. Measures shall be established for OM1 3. 2. 4.1 X For specifications only.

the identification-and control of design interfaces and for coordina- PRE-2 tion among participating design Design .' 'j,'

,, e organizations. Developnent X Assigns to Responsible Engineer.

PRE-3 Drawing Prep-aration, Review and Approval X Not adequately addressed. ;v'8

' PRE-9 Design Responsibil-

'ities and Interfaces X First issue was 6/18/79. I I

, t--

l

.PG&E - March 8, 1982 s

21/89 ,'

8 b

1- ,- .< ,. ,

. I PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982 OJECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

'III Design Control (App. B} Page 3 of 5 PROGRAM AND .

EM PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS REQUIREMENT

[0.

. REFERENCES i..  % ese measures shall include the OAM 3.2.3 X Requires procedures, but ,r redure establishment of procedures among PRE-9 not issued until (J18/79.

  • participating design organizations See III, 4. , tdove.

for the review, approval, release,

, distribution, and revision of docu-ments involving design interfaces.

i.  % e design control measures shall OPM 3.2.2.2 X Inadequately addressed.

provide for verifying or checking

- the adequacy of design, such as bY PRE-2 the performance of design reviews, (3.2.5) by the use of alternative or simpli- Design Devel-

'fied calculational methods, or by opment ,

X Only checking of calculations. O",,

/

the performance of a suitable test-

'ing program. ' % e verifying or PRE-3 checking process shall be' performed Drawing Pre-by individuals or groups other than paration, those who performed the original . Review and # ,'f . . r design, but who may be frca the samc Approval X i 3.5.2 - Responsible Engineer may waive organization, checking at his discretion.

PRE-6,

  • Ccuprehensive .

i

' Design Review  ; X "Suoervising Engineers are responsible for selecting structures, systems and ccmponents which require ccnpre-hensive design reviews..." rather than for all Class I items.

' PG&E - March 8, 1982 s -' . 22/89 6

  • I I '

- 5

  • f - f i I a .

PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982 CT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

III Desion Cont ~ol (Ao3. B) Page 4 of 3 PROGRAM AND

  • REQUIREMENT -PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS REFERENCES

. Whcre a test program is used to ver- X Not addressed, ify the adequacy of a specific design feature in lieu of other ,

verifying or checking processes, it shall include suitable qualifica-tions testing of a prototype unit' under the most adverse design condi-tions. Design control measures

, shall be applied to items such as the following: reactor physics, stress, thermal, hydraulic, and accident analyses; conpatibility '

of materials; accessibility for inservices inspection, maintenance, and repair; and delineation of acc3ptance criteria for inspections and tests.

r i i l i

i

}

i i I'  !

I i e PG&E - March 8, 1982

~

l 3

- i 23/89 e , , - , - - - - - , , , . .- -. I

i.

i j i I .

9 PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982 CT Ditblo Canyon . Subject! III Desian Control (Arm. B) Page 5 of 5 PROGRAM AND PROCEDURE YES NO .N/A REVIEW COMMENTS REQUIREMENT REFERENCES .

Design changes, including field CAM 3.2.2.3 X only requires referral to Responsible changes, shall be subject to design Engineer and Supervising Engineer for

  • control measures connensurate with review and written approval.

thoso applied to the original design and be approved by the organ- PRE-2 .

ization that perfonned the original Design Devel-design unless the applicant desig- opnent X Does not address subject, pTo' nates another responsible organiza-

tion. PRE-3

' Drawing Prep-aration, Review and ., ; e F Approval X Addresses for PG&E drawings. /

1.

~

PRE-4 Specification l Preparation, Review and i Approval X Addresses for spec changes.

PRE-10  ; -

Design Control X Issued 6/18/79.

}

}

I 4

4  ;

PG&,E - March.8,'1982

! 24/89 i  : -

l

- i i

9 PROGRAM REVIEW C11ECKLIST January 30, 1982 JJECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

IV Procurement Document Control (Arn. B) Page 1 of 1 PROGRAM AND

~

PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS REQUlilEMENT

  • REFERENCES i4casures shall be established to GM13.2.4 and

(

assure that applicable regulatory 3.2.5 X Adequately addressed. -

requirencnts, design bases, and other requirements which are nece-ssary to assure adequate quality are suitably included or referenced in docunents for procurencnt of mater-ial, equiptent, and services, whether purchased by the applicant '

or by its contractor or subcontrac- --

tor.

!. To the extent necessary procurement OM1 3.2. 5. l' X Adequately addressed.

documents shall require contractors or subcontractors to provide a qual- PRP-4

'.ty assurance program consistent Suppliers /

with the portinent provisions of Contractors this Appendix. OA Programs X Addresses Suppliers and Contractors -

for equiurent and field contractors.

Does not include specifically consul-

'i tants until Rev. 3 (9/15/78).

PG&E - March 8, 1982 25/89

. 4

. .. ,- s PROGRAM REVIE11 CHECKl.IST

. LECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

January 30, 1982

." V Instructions, Procedures, and Drawinas (Ano, n) Page 1 of 1 PROGRAM AND

  • REQUIREMENT _

PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REFERENCES REVIEli C0&fENTS Activith J af eCting quality Shall OAM 1.4 and be prescribed by documented instruc-ON4 3.1.1 X tions, procedures, or drawings of a Requirement for procedures prescribed type appropriate to the circumstan- 'and are contained in Supplem2ntal c,s and shall be accmplished in Volumes, accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.

~

7 >

Instructions, precedures, or draw- ' OAM and $

1 M 4W. # QAM ings shall include appropriate or' Quality Asssr-qualitative acceptance criteria for ance Program determining that important activi- Control s

ties have been satisfactorily' X' ,

accmplished. 'Ihese do not address this requirement, however, it is included in the speci-fic procedures.

s 1

ifI i

4 g

I i

PG&E - March 8, 1982 0 26/89 y

(

1.ense* ~ _ m ey , i i

i j

s

)

i , i

~

PROGRAM REVIEW CllECKLIST January 30, 1982 ROJECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

VI Document Control (App. B) Page 1 of 1 j PROGRAM AND .

r I,O. REQUIREMENT PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS '

REFERENCES

!. . I Measures shall be established to 3.1.2 X Requironent addressed.

control the issuance of documents, such as instructions, procedures, OM1 3.2.3 ,

and drawings, including changes Written pro-thereto, which prescribe all activi- cedures are ties, affecting quality, required to control cor-respondence, drawings, specifica-tions,...etc.

PRE-5 Correspon1 donce Control X Never issued.

'. These neasures shall assure that GAM 3.1.2 and i documents, including changes, are 3.1.1 X Requiremnts addressed.

reviewed for adequacy and approved for release by authorized personnel, OMI 3.6.2 X Audit programs will examine adequacy and are distributed to and used at of procedures....

the location where the prescribed activity is perforned. ,

l. Changes to documents shall be OMt 3.1.1 X Original reviewer aspect not speci-reviewed and approved by the same l fically stated in ON4 for procedures, organizations that performed the however, it is included in PRE-3, original review and approval unless 4 Drawings. . . , and PRE-4, Specifications. . . .

the applicant designates another responsible organization.  :

t

.PG&E- March 8, 1982 27/89 l .

i -

l l -

( PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST amary 30,1982 m VII Control of Purchased Material, ,

ECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

Fauirrtent, and Services (App. B) Page 1 of 3 'j PROGRAM AND .

' YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS ,.7 REQUIRE}{ENT PROCEDURE a

. REFERENCES

- Measures shall be established to QAM 3.2.1 X Addresses equiptent supoliers and field ,

cssure that purchased material, OAM 3.2.4 contractors. Does not address design equiprent, and services, whether OAM 3.2.5 consultants.

purchased directly or through con- ,

.i t-actors and subcontractors, confont PRP-1 to the procurement documents. ' Suppliers Pre- *

- Award Quality ,

Survey and Evaluation (PRP-1 Rev.3, 9/15/78, re-vised to in-clude servicer in supplier .'

definition) -

PRP-4 Suppli-ers'/Contrac-tors' Quality Assurance Pro-

. grams.

PRP-5 .

Qualified ,

Bidders List

- PRE-7 i Supplier Did Review and Award PRE-8 EFM ,

. Preparation ,

and Release PG&E - March 8, 1982

28/89

- i

.Ii

f

. t i  ; . ,

PROGRAM REVIEW CllECKLIST anua q 30, 1982 VII Control of Purchased Material,

) JECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

EquipTent, and Services (App. B) Page 2 of 3 PROGRAM AND ,

"* REQUIREMENT PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS

. REFERENCES These measures shall include provi- See 1, sions, as appropriate, for source above and evaluatica and selection, objective 0,v1 3.3.9 X Objective evidence of quality covered evidence of quality furnishcd by in PRP-4.

the contractor or subcontractor, inspection at the contractor or subcontractor source and examination of products upon delivery.

Documentary evidence that material X To this Phase I, work.

md equiptent conform to the pro-curement requirements shall be available at the nuclear power-plP.nt... prior to installation or .' ,

use of such material and~equipTent.

This documentary evidence shall be retained at the nuclear power-plant

...and shall be sufficient to iden-tify the specific requirements, such rs codes, standards, or specifica-tions, met by the purchased material and equiprent. '

PG&E - March 8, 1982

~

29/89 t

, {.

. .o

, . ~!

1 PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST

- January 30, 1982

.VII Control of Purchased Material, .

OJECT ' Diablo Car. yon Sub y,iet FCranent, and Services (Aco. ' B) Page 3- of 1 1 PROGRAM AND .

'EM REQUIRE"ENT Pl$QCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS

0. - REFERENCES .
4. 1he effectiveness of the control OMi 3.2.5 .

of quality by contractors shall be OAM 3.6 .  :

cssessed by the applicant or desig- -QAM 3.6.2 X Covered by PG&E Surveillance and audits. .I nee at intervals consistent with States: Audits will be apolied to PG&E's the iJnportance, canplexity, and 'own organization, as well as consultants,- .

quantity of the product or services. contractors, and supoliers." 3 in i 1 i  !

t i

PG&E - March 8, 1982

  • 30/89

. J .

e -

I .,'

. {

i i PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982

)ROJECT Diablo Canyon

Subject:

XVI Corrective Action (Apo. B) Page 1 of 2 PROGRAM AND LTM PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS REQUIREMENT

  • NO. , REFERENCES
1. M2asures shall be established to- ~_0AM X Addressed for nonconfonnances, assure that conditions adverse to deviations, discrepancies, defici-quality, such as failures, malfunc- encies, etc..

tions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipnent, and nonconformances are pronptly identified and corrected. .

2 In the case of significant condi- OtM 3.2.5.3 tions adverse to quality, the mea- and 3.3.5 X" Addresses corrective action for sures shall assure that the cause Supoliers and Contractors of the condition is detennined, and corrective action taken to preclude .PRC-12 .'

repetition. On-Site

. Discrepancies X* Addresses corrective action to preclude

. repetition for on-site discrepancies.

CAM 3.6.2 X* Mentions corrective action for audit program results.-

  • Corrective action provisions are not prescribed except for those cases noted above.

I

'PG&E - March 8, 1982 31/89 -

' 1

.\

. . . -- .. . _ _ - - - . . - - ~ . . - . . . . - . -- .-.

t .

  • ;L. e - -

PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982 ROJECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

XVI Corrective Action (App. B) Page 2 of 2 _i PROGRAM AND TEM YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS REQlIIREMENT PROCEDURE 0.

. REFERENCES

3. The identification of the signifi- OMi 3,s.3 X See items 1. and 2., above. " Audit .

cant conditions adverse to quality, reports forwarded to appropriate.

the cause of the condition, and the management officers."

corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropri- \

ate levels of management.

f

. I  !

I tj t

[

'I l

! l . ,

l l l

t l

l l . .

1 ,

PG&E - March 8, 1982

, 32/89

. I .- .

i

\ 1: .

w...._._. _ _ _ ._ ,

. .- 5-2

, I l PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982 GCT: Diablo Canyon .

Subject:

XVII Quality Assurance Records (App. B) Page 1 of 2 F '

PROGRAM AND REQUIREMENT PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS REFERENCES Sufficient records shall be noin- ON4 3.5 x Addresses overall requirements.

tained to furnish evidence of activj -- ,

ties affecting quality. PRE-14 Engineering Release X Addresses for purchased equipnent.

PRP-4

  • Supplier / Con-tractors OA Programs X Addresses for QA Programs of Suppliers /

Contractors. *

, No specific procedure addresses records (prior to June 1978) .

'Ihe reco'rds shall include at least See 1., above the following: Operating logs and the results of reviews, inspections

, tests, audits, monitoring of work performance, and materials analyses

'Ihe records shall also include

. closely-related data such as quali-fications of personnel, procedures, and equipnent.

Inspection and test records shall, See 1., above, as 'a mininun, identify the inspec-to; or data recorder, the type of observation, the results, the .

] acceptability, and the action taken in connection with any deficiencies PG&E - March 8, 1982 noted. ,

33/89 T

e

4. . t  : '. ,

PROCRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982

'ECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

XVII Quality Assurance k mords (Aco.'B) Page 2 of 2 ,

PROGRAM AND N PROCEDURE YES NO N/A ' REVIEW Cate!ENTS REQUIREMENT

. REFERENCES Records shall be identifiable and See 1., above.

retrievable. Consistent with appli- ~

  • cable regulatory requirements, the i applicant shall establish require-ments concerning record retention, such as duration, location, and assigned responsibility.

i a o I

i i

I I

i i

" ~

j PG&E - March 8, 1982

, . 34/89

  • I l

h c

PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST January 30, 1982 0 JECT: Diablo Canyon

Subject:

XVIII Audits (App. B) Page 1 of 1 PROGRAM AND PROCEDURE YES NO N/A REVIEW COMMENTS REQUIREMENT 3* . REFERENCES

. A ccuprehensive system of planned OAM 3.6 X Prescribes aoplicable requirements.

and periodic audits shall be carried PPM-2 Audits Does not provide specific frequency out to verify cmnliance with all of Quality - considerations are: "The audit espects of the quality assurance Assurance Pro- should be conducted early enough so program and to determine the effec- grans that any necessary corrective action '

tiveness of the program. can be taken in a timely and efficient tranner."

> The audits shall be performd in See 1.,above.

accordance with the written proce-dures or check lists by appropri-ately trained personnel not having direct responsibility in the areas ceing audited. /

. Audit results shall be documented See 1.,above.

and reviewed by management having responsibility in the area audited.

. Follow-up action, including reaudit "'

X Follow-up within 10 days by Quality of deficient areas, shall be taken Engineering in PIN-2 Rev. O. Changed where indicated. to "prmotly" in Rev. 1 (3/15/77).

PG&E - March 8, 1982 35/89 I

e

w '.

. u..

a

.k

~~* *:'.y}.,

s v.w 1, c,-

.:M..

.y n ..

, . .f

,. 3

~O APPENDIX C '

PART.A GENERE AND REMENTS OE AGEMany CONTROL QUALITY ASSu gycg

. ~-i .

M

.= .

h' af a

s. -l i

.pi-j l

- g.e. . ~ ,

.:.7,Ny 1 1.s l

PG& ~ '

arch 8' 1982 36/89 Yf

. . . . NWSrH3}:;:i$N.r-@+:M';cge'i rmigatW e@/.?@pt%~.,,,_, ,

M~. . '

  • * * $15A U.. 4 . m ' awo $les.;> The *-*. *~ J. +s .

...u...

, w-

"**1"_"l , , r. (. ;* .o p e o 't h - . . ,

c

AUDIT CHECKLIST Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company . Page 1 of 19 Auditor WSG-

~

Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Date February 2-23, 1982 B.

Statement Audit Instruction Comment I Such persons and organiza- (a) Determine project organ- (a) Historical copies of organ-tions performing quality as- ization and specific person- ization charts were not surance functions shall re- nel in effect for time per- retained as QA records, port to a mangement level lod (pre-June 78) by review Reviewed the charts that were such that this required auth- of objective evidence. made available (earliest was crity and organizational 1/13/70) and other documants freedom, including sufficient to verify existence of project independence from cost and organizational structure.

schedule when opposed to Responsible engineers were safety considerations, are identified in. discipline provided (10CFR50, App. B). group lists issued as memoranda It may be possible to establish 2.1.2 ... Responsibility for execu- the precise organization in tion and implementation of ,' effect at a given time, but

.the Quality Assurance Program this would require a detail #d is assigned to both the Vice -

review of memoranda and was.

President-Engineering and not done for this audit. ' .!

Vice President-General Con- / .

struction. . .The Vice President (b) Verify for quality en- (b) Until March 1982 Q0ality

-Engineering has primary gineering and quality assur- Engineering, which had'respon-responsibility for design... ance that the job functions sibility for total quality (and) is also responsible for and relationships described program, was part of.engipcor-development and coordination include sufficient indepen- ing and reported to same of the Quality Assurance Pro- dence from cost and schedulc Engineering Vice-President, gram. l >

considerations when opposi- During this time Quality j tion to safety considera- Engineering was not independent 2.1.2 Has authority to,stop work if tions may arise. of Engineering. Reorganization (a)p8 technical and regulatory -

in March 1972 created Ouality requirements are:not being Assurance Department reporting observed. . to the Executive Vice-President PG&E - March 8, 1982 37/89 s

,e

' AUDIT CHECKLIST Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page 2 of 19 Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 B.

Statement Audit Instruction Comment which was independent of Engineering and Construction.

Some of the Field QA Engineers were loaned from Engineering to OA for temporary assign-

, ments to the field.

(c) Verify that Quality (c)Not applicable to Phase I.

personnel performing verifi-cation actions (Tests, In-spections, etc.) have auth-ority and organizational freedom to identify quality

/ problems, initiate, recom-mend or provide solutions to problems; verify imple-mentation of solutions, and control further processing

.. of nonconformances until proper dispositioning has occurred.

(d) Was work stopped by (d) It was stated that GA OE/QA manager? stop-work in the field had not been documented and that stop work had not been applied to engineering work.

PG&E - March 8, 1982 38/89 I

~i l

~ i

  • s AUDIT CHECKLIST t ,

Comp:ny Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page 3 of 19 i

. 'licable QAM Rev. 0-thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 ,

f APP. B. GAM Crit. Ref. .

Smet ' Audit Instruction Comment- [

2.1.3.1 Each Department Chief is re- (a) Determine how this was (a) Was to be performed by sponsible for... Development accomplished. Responsible Engineer.via i of quality assurance require- Procedure PRE-2 which required I ments for all vital compon- a Memorandum of Design Criteria i ents... Review and approval of These Memoranda were not ade- '

. quality assurance programs quately developed; however,

. developed by others. for procured equipment appro-priate QA requirements were invoked; for subcontracted i design services they were not.

2.1.3.4 Project Engineer: Coordina . (a) Determine how this was (a) In the absence of con-tion of all engineering acti- accomplished. trolling procedures coordina-vities with other departments. tion was at the discretion of the Project Engineer. The Project Engineer distributed all correspondence as he deemed necessary. In addition, Responsible / System Engineers were responsible for inter-i faces with other aff'cted e disciplines. Memoranda were reviewed that did list which engineer and discipline were to be involved, but these memoranda were not in a con-trolled system.

PG&E - March 8, 1982

39/89 N

e

i ,  !

AUDIT CHECKLIST I L

Censun/ - Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page 4 of 19 Applictble QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG ~ Date ' February 2-23,,1982 App. B. GAM Statement Audit Instruction Comment crit. Ref. .

2.1.4 (For information)._

fTheVicePresident-General Construction is responsible ,

~

for administration and man- *

  • agement of. plant construction j test, and startup, including full responsibility.for all  !

qualityEassurance aspects  !

included in these activities'

...the Manager, Station-Construction... Plans.for and -

i implements field quality control... Evaluates contrac- - I tors. Ths Project Superin-tendent ( 's) . . . responsibility e

~l include (s) . . . Administration of construction contract,  !

including the quality assur-ance_ provisions.... Review and approval of contractor's quality control programs... , '

Also on the Project Su erin-tendent's staff and re orting directly .to him. is the 'Coor- j dinating Quality Control '

Engineer...the responsibili-  ;

ties of a Resident Engineer s include... Direction of qual-ity control activities...

approval...of quality? control -

I plans. . . Supervision of .Ipspec- ~-

tors.

PG&E - March 8, 1982

= .

40/89 _

1 I i

~c n .. ,. - , ,  :- - . - - - - - - - - -

.p AUDIT CHECKLIST $

Comp;ny _ Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page 5 of 19 Applicable QAM Rev. O through Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 AP

  • St a te:nent ' Audit Instruction Comment 3.2.5.2 On-site surveillance is per- Review for evidence of on- Not applicable for' Phase I.

formed by the Station Con- site surveillance by the

  • struction Department. Inspection Section. l 3.2.5.3 The surveillance representa- Review reports of surveil- Not applicable for Phase I.

tive confirms on a continuing lance by Inspection Section.

. basis that the supplier's or contractor's sytem is adequat e to assure that quality work will be accomplished.

II 3.1.1 The Quality Assurance Program (a)!!ow did program assure (a) No formal method (matrix, requires that written pro- procedures were developed etc.) was used to assure cco-cedures be used in all key .'for all key activities. prehensiveness of procedures activities... periodic' audits to 10CFR50, Appendix B require

... provide objective assur- ments. Audits were relied ance of both the adequacy of upon to assure adequacy of the procedures and compliance procedures. Audit reports wer t with them. ,

reviewed that did include

~

evaluation of a given procedur< -

for adequacy. It was stated that in 1974-1976 an audit had been performed for compar-ison of the program to Appen-dix B requirements. This audit was not reviewed because there are clear pro-

~

cedural gaps in the program all the way through this

,- Phase One review.

i PG&E - March 8, 1982

41/89 h0dl cdE e

-. - - - - . - - . -. -= - _-- _- - - - - _ - - - _ -- -. - - . . - - - -

9 s

AUDIT CHECKLIST Corpany Pacific Gas & Electric Company .Page 6 of 19 n

Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 APj*t. Statement ' Audit Instruction Comment II 3.1.1 cont. (b) Verify that quality as- (b) See (a) above.

surance audits provided ob-

  • jective evidence of the ade-quacy of the procedures, as

, well as compliance with them. (See XVIII) '

3.6.2 Audit programs will examine (c) Verify that the follow- (c) Received PRE-6, Rev. 0 (1) the adequacy of proce- ing procedures existed and and PRE-ll, Rev. O. Record dures and practices, and (2) are available: copies of other procedures the. compliance with estab- were not located during this 4

lished procedures. PRM-1, Rev. O audit.

,' PRE-1, Rev. O PRE-6, Rev. 0 PRE-ll, Rev. O PRE-12, Rev. O PRE-13, Rev. 0 PRP-4, Revs. O, 1, 2 PRP-5, Rev. O

_, PRC-ll, Rev. 2 .

i 4

r yr. .

., ,j

- \

ii . PG&E - March 8, 198p?

  • ; 42/89

- i ,

5

s .

AUDIT CHECKLIST Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company ,

Page 7 of 19 Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 App. B. QAM crit. Ref.

Statement Audit Instruction Comment

""~

II 3.6.2 -

cont. (d) Prior to, PRE-9 and PRE--(d) Noformalproceduresf 10, what procedures applied existed. I

~~'

to interface control and L., design control?

PRM-1 The Director, OA, will main- (e) verify distribution to (e) Could not verify, as 4.0 tain a list of those holding identified Project person- records are not available QA manuals. - nel, earlier than 1979.

1.2 ...These items are classified (For information) as Design Class 1. The Pro-gram will be applied to any particular component, system.'

'or structure in a manner and to the extent appropriate to its importance in preventing

  • or mitigating the. consequence s of a nuclear accident. -

3.2.1+ ...The Project Engineer is (a) Determine how these (a) Program was applied via PRE-12 responsible for idenpifying . items were classified and Classification of Components, structures, systems and com- designated, and how the Systems and Structures issued ponents covered by the Qual- extent of application of by Project Engineer. Veri-

, ,ity Assurance Program, the Program was determined, fled by review of April 13, reviewed, and verified. 1972. (DCPE-1), Project Engineer Instruction No. 1.

Distribution shown was acceptable. Listing did not _

address service contractors. ,

.PG&E - March 8, 1982

. '. 43/89

~

N .

A'JDIT CHECKLIST Page 8 of 19 Pacific Gas & Electric Company lComprny Date February 2-23, 1982 Auditor WSG lApplicableQAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 l

Comment j l

App. 8. GAM Audit Instruction j Statement Crit. Ref. ~

(a) Could not verJfy -

The program shall provide for and (a) Verify that training j

indoctrination and training wereindoctrination programs no"'~

conducted and documen-procedure existad.

of personnel performing acti- ted (prior to PRM-4, vities affecting quality as <*

necessary to assure that 12/3/79). '

suitable proficiency is (b) Verify that effective- (b) Could not verify.'

achieved and maintained. ness of training p ograms (10CFRSO, App. B.) was audited and documented.

(a) It was stated that (a) Verify that the status QA/QE

)

Policy: Train field person- and adequacy of the PG&E Director gave verbal 3.3.2 nel-for proficiency in spe- status reports to Executive quality assurance program cial skills required by as- 'was regularly reviewed and Vice-President.-

no objective evidence of There was signed duties. that the reviews were ade- management reviews for Items for incorporation as quately documented. status and adequacy. A 3.6.2 report:" Evaluation Report-part of these audit programs include the following as Pacific Gas and Electric applicable... Familiarity of Quality Assurance Program",

personnel with required 12/22/75, performed by documents... Effectiveness of Energy Incorporated to deter-training programs. mine PG&E's status for ASME Certificates, was the only The applicant shall regularly evidence provided to docu-review the status and ade- ment a management type of Laacy vf'The quality assur-of review. This did present ans program. Management to PG&E management many of other organizations partici- .the same findings as deter-I pating in the quality assur- minedbythisPhaseOnerevew.( s,-

ance program shall regularly Several management commit-tecs (e.g., CONPRAC) were review the status and ade- chartered to provide a quacy of th,at part of the PG&E - March 8, 1982 quality assurance program 44/89 which they are executing ,

(10CFR50, App.B) -

s *

~

AUDIT CHECKLIST Ca.pany Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page 9 of 19 Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 Ap B.

Statement Audit Instruction Comment II 3.3.2 3.6.2 ,

b.l.b Report on its adequacy and management review, but (p.6) the extent to which it is review of their minutes showed cont, being carried out (Director, that they were only for

- QE,QA). operational considerations for the Humbolt and Diablo projects.

1b) Review evidence of (b) These and other commit-review by General Office of . tees only reviewed g -

Nuclear Plant Review and tional considerations, not

.' pudit Committee. desigd and construction ?

, i

.4 9

.PG&E - March 8, 1982 45/89 i ,

9 I t I

et>

AUDIT CHECKtIST Page 10 of 19

'Cr:pany Pacific Gas & Electric Company Date February 2-23, 1982 Auditor WSG Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Comment App. B. GAM ". Statement Audit Instruction Crit. Ref.

(a)' Do any of these requireT(a) QA requirements not o 1 IV 3.2.5.3 ' Specific requirements for ments apply to subcontrac- , initially imposed.on design suppliers' and contractors' ted designers or consul- consultants EDS imposed quality assurance are con-tant? If yes, verify that their QA. program themselves, tained in the following ap- Responsible Engineers did they were included in appli-plicable documents which are cable procurement documents not documcrt QA requir,ements either appended to or made a If no, determine what qual- for these contracts. Ini-part of the specification or tial PG&E reviews for QA other purchase documents.... ity assurance requirements Determine whenrequirements started in Supplementary Specification were imposed.

1977 with alternate quality assurance require- requirements specifications OA for Manufacturer's Ouality Control Systems...Contrac- ments were imposed on sub-contracted designers or such as ADAP-51, EO-C-0, tor's Quality Assurance Re- etc., URS/Blume's first quirements... Supplier qualitfy consultants by PG5E.

contract that required QA requirements for some compo- was in 1977, but a complete nents or work, where the implemented program cannot above documents would be in- be verified by objective appropriate are either in- evidence entil 1979. WYLE cluded in the specification was contractually required or in additional documents. to apply OA from 12/1/79.

These provisions require the AMCO was contract'ually re-supplier to use appropriate quired to apply OA from 5/78, quality control systems to IILA was not contractually assure that the technical re- required to apply QA. EES quirements are being met... was contractually required to Equipment suppliers are re- apply OA in March, 1977 quired to prepare and submit (in accordance with their their quality assurance pro- proposal of February 1977).

grams for review and approval

... Field contractors are re-quired to prepare and submi't their quality assurance man- PG&E - March 8, 1982 uals and inspectirn and test 9 46/89 plans for review and approval w l -

s AUDIT CHECKLIST Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page llofl9 Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 B. .

fp Statement .tudit Instruction Comment IV 3.2.4.3 The Responsible Engineer re- (a) Verify that the Respon- (a) No objective evidence coives a copy of the purchase sible Engineer documented order after issuance and is his approval of the techni- for quality-related, require-required to confirm that the ments.

cal and quality-related technical and quality control requirements of purchase requirements are correct, orders for subcontracted design and consulting ser- '

vices.

{'(b) Was Quality Assurance (b) Only for equipment pur-angineering involved in the chase orders.

review of purchase orders QE/QA was not brought into involvement in I to ensure inclusion of appli -design consultants contracts '

cable quality assurance re- until late 1977.

j guirements? --

3.1. 2 Ilhe procedures developed to (a) Verify that such a Leontrol documents include... means of determining the (a) No means was available.

a menas by which persons status of documents was involved in the work can ivailable.

verify that a copy of'a docu- .

ment which they hold is an (b) PRE-1, Rev. O, Project .

'(b) It was stated that they up-to-date and complete copy. Cngineer function referenced could not reach agreement on PRE-5, Correspondence Con- procedure.

trol, from 6/30/70 until 9/2/75. Why was PRE-5 never issued? '

~

'

  • PG&E - March 8, 1982

' 47/89 N

88D #6DNNpere a w ees,,e p g g,,,9 g b

AUDIT CHECKLIST Company Pacific Gas & Electric. Company Page 12 ofl9 1

Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 8*

Statement . Audit Instruction Comment VII ,3.2.4.] Lists of technically quali- N a) Was Quality Assurance (a) Yes for equipment J fled suppliers'for equipment Engineering involved in the suppliers. No_t until 1977 f specifications are developed review of the programs of for design consultants, by the Responsible Engineer equipment suppliers, design -

  • d and' reviewed and approved by subcontractors, or con-the Materials Department... ~

sultants? ~

. Qualified bidders' lists for construction contracts are (b) What policies were es- (b) It was stated that developed by the Manager, tablished by the Vice Pres- PRP-5 Rev. 0 (6/70) was Station Construction, and re- ident of Engineering with used. A record copy of this viewed and approved by the regard to bidder evalua- procedure was not available.

Materials Department... The tions? Verify that they Review of PRP-5, Rev. 1 Responsible Engineer reviews were followed. (4/25/72) showed'it to be of the program the equipment .' .

little value for this review, suppliers intend to follow to and then further view for this meet the specified quality checklist item was stopped.

control requirements. . . (The) recommendation as to which (c) llow does the Station (c)'\Not applicable to Phase i bidder should receive the Construction Department I.

award...is approved'by the verify that contractors'

  • Responsible Engineey's super- proposals h. ave adequate vision in accordance with quality assurance provi- '

policies established by the sions?

Vice President-Engineering...

For construction contracts, the Station Construction De-partment evaluates.the con-tractors' proposals and pre-pares the recommendation for __

award. .

, i PG&E - March 8, 1982 '

48/89 q

. , t 1

_ . - , , = . - . , , - , --

AUDIT CHECKLIST Comp ny Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page 13 of 19 Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 B. Q Statement Audit Instruction Comment VII 3.2.5. 3 The PGEE surveillance repre- (a) What criteria does the (a) Not applicable for Phase sentative... brings major PG&E surveillance repre- I review.

problems to the attention of sentative use to determine the supplier's or contractor' swhen problems are major and management.and the Responcibl 3should be brought to the Engineer, and in these cases attention of the Responsibl e it is required that the cor- Engineer?

rective action be appr'oved by the Responsible Engineer. (b) Verify that corrective (b) Not applicable for Phase action was approved by the I review.

Responsible Engineer.

(c) Was Quality Assurance (c) Not applicable for Phase E,pgineering involved in I review.

subcontractor surveillance?

t tj e

PG&E - March 8, 1"J2 fa.

  • 49/89

% .m:

y . ,

AUDIT CHECKLIST Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page 14 of 19 Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 Apga. ,

statement . Audit Instruction Comment VII 3.3.1 Policy: Execute the on-site (a) Verify that inspection (a) Not applicable for Phase

  • quality control necessary to activities were recorded in I review,
  • support the PG&E Quality As- daily logs.

surance Program...Each field engineer or inspector is as- (b) How did the supervision (b) Not applicable for Phase ,

signed an individual structure determine the extent of in- I review.

, and/or item of work for which- spection that was necessary '

he is responsible for verify- Was Quality Assurance En-ing compliance with Engineer- gineering of the Responsi-ing design and specification. ble Engineer involved in Only the latest drawing infor- that determination?

mation is used. Either PG&E or contractor prepared quali- (c) How did the field .(c) Not applicable for Phase ty procedures are used for ex

  • engineer'or inspector know I review.

amination of the work...A re- that he had the latest port of the examination re- drawing?

sult is prepared, dated and signed by the inspector and (d) Who determined what (d) Not applicable for Phase forwarded to his superior. If procedure to use for the I review.

lack of compliance i~s evident, work? How was that docu-the matter is immediately ta- mented?

ken up with the responsible

  • contractor for correction.

Upon completion of the work, including correction.if re-quired, the report is filed.

Daily logs are maintained to provide a history of activity and continuity of work. In-spection is performed to the extent deemed necessary by the supervision, taking.into . PG&E - March 8, 1982 account the ' subject mattdr, 50/89 .

records kept, design and specification, and criticality of the system. ,

.__ . . _ . . __ _ . _.__. _ _ _ - . . . . . . . . .__ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _m.__ . _ . _ . ._ - .

i f .

AUDIT CHECKLIST Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page 15of l9 Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 B. A Statement Audit Instruction Comment VII. Documentary evidence that Verify that the designs, an- See Part B Checklist.

material-and equipment conform alyses, tests, and qualifi-l to the procurement require- cations' subcontracted by l ments shall be available at PG&E were actually per-l the nuclear power plant... formed, received, and re-prior-to installation or use viewed by responsible PG&E of such material and equipment . personnel to verify con-This documentary evidence formance to the specified shall be retained at the procurement requirements.

nuclear power plant...and ,

shall be sufficient to identi-fy,the specific requirements, such as codes, standards, or specifications, set by the ,'

purchased material and equip-ment. (10CFR50, Lapp.' B) .

The effectiveness of the con- $herifythatdesignsubcon- Initiated in late 1977. Was trol of quality by contractors tractors' and consultants' not fully effective until shall be assessed'by~the appli quality assurance programs 1979. d cant or designee at inte'rvals were surveyed an'd audited consistent with the impor- at intervals consistent witl tnace, complexity, and quality importance, complexity, and of the product or services. quality of service.

(10CFR50, App. B) L ,

o..,

n . ._

l ~s 3 ef

  • PG&E - March 8, 1982 51/89 t

I

AUDIT CHECKLIST Comp::ny Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page 16 of 19 Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 Statement Audit Instruction Comment fE c= ej XVI Measures shall be established rior to issuance of PRM-3 / Corrective action program was to asstre that con <litions ad- (2/1/78), what measures wer limited to audit findings and verse to quality, such as established to. identify.and site discrepancies only. J failures, malfunctions, de- pontrol'conditionsadverse L ficiencies, deviations, de- to quality and obtain cor-fective material and equip- rective action to prevent

. nient , and nonconformances are ecurrence? Verify that K'"

promptly identified and cor- :hese measures were fol- e rected. In the case of sig-nificant conditions adverse flowedandthatcorrective actions were effectively ,,

to quality, the measure shall implemented. J' assure that the cause of the -

condition is determined, and ' '

corrective action taken to preclude repetition. The identification of the signi-ficant conditions adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the correc- .

tive action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of manage-ment. (10CFR50, App. B)

'PG&E - March 8, 1982

52/89 , ,

e

r

,. ;I *

+

,P AUDIT CHECKLIST Cipp ny Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page l7 of 19

' Applicable GAM Rev. 0-thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982

App. B. QAM Statement
Crit. Ref. .

' Audit Instruction Comment 1XVIII 3.6.14 The Director, Quality Engineer -(a) Review audit schedules (a) Audit schedules revie ed 4

PRM-2 ing, is responsible for making for planning. (1969 - 1978), and were.compre-planned. periodic audits of. hensive.

design, procurement, supplier ,,1 i and contractor quality control kb) Veri'fy that all aspects (b) i '

Quality Assurance /QualityD) construction, start-up, rec- of the quality assurance Engineering were not audited.

i

.ords, training programs, and program were audited, in-personnel and procedure certi- cluding Quality Assurance Reviewed audit reports from i April 1970 through March 1978.

fication functions as they relate to the Quality Assur- b , Engineering. Audit scope and coverage was acceptable, t

ance Program... Members of audit teams will not have (c) Verify that audits (c) Some audits did cover direct responsibility in the evaluated adequacy of pro-area of being audited. adequacy of procedural subject cedures. area being audited. However, 2.1.2 ... Engineers assigned to the audits did not assure total

! Quality. Engineering Section program adequacy of 10CFR50, ,

Appendix B requirements. '

will be experienced in plant i design and construction and (d) Verify.that auditors familiar with the quality re-(d! QA auditors were indepen-t quirements of the projec t. . . were independent of the arei dent. Reviewed. engineers .

being audited (especially temporarily assigned to audits Personnel assigned to thle' for engineers assigned to Quality Engineering Section- and concluded they were suffi-

will be experienced engineers auditing).

-l ciently independent of specific specially chosen for their activity being audited.

knowledge and judgement. In- ,

, sofar as possible, audits will r be conducted by individuals '

d who have had no close connec-tions with the function"bein'g audited. "', PG&E - March 8, 1982

);

53/89 it

., . i

  • ir

{- .

l

. . f. .

v--- -- . + - t - -

-. _ - - . .. . ..~ . - - . -. . ..- -

i' -

js , .

,. AUDIT CHECKLIST -

Cocpany Pacific Gas & Electric Company

< Page 18 of 19 Applicable QAM Rev. 0 thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982

. B.

Statement Audit Instruction Comment XVIII 3.6.1+

PRM-2 2,1,2 '

  • cont. (e) Verify that auditors (e) Auditors training and

, were properly qualified and qualification was not documen ,

trained. ted until Procedure QAPD17.1

, Rev. O, was issued June 1977.

Qualifications for eleven auditors who performed audits from 1970 to 1978 were re-quested, only two were docu-mented. '

' (f) Verify that audit re- Audit reporting was not

, (f) sults were issued within 10 timely. Generally, the 10 days and were reviewed by day results requirement was responsible management, not met. Many of the -

audit reports were formally transmitted to management three months after the audit. There was no docu-mented evidence of the (appropriate)Vice-Presidents' review of audit reports sent i

to them.

" PG&E - March 8, 1982 l 54/89 e

w.

-) '

AUDIT CHEC4 LIST Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page 19 ofl9 Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor WSG Date February 2-23, 1982 App. B. QAM Crit. Ref.

Statement . Audit Instruction Comment XVIII 3.6.1+

PRM-2 2,1,2 cont. I ('g) Verify that follow-up (g) Review of audit reports -

action and timing including shows that corrective action reaudit of deficient areas, by the audited group was w

L 'as taken where necessary.

, ineffective. The same subject areas are repeatedly audited with the same findings re-curring. Audits of Design Reviews (PRE-6) performed l from May 1972 through Feb-ruary 1978 show that corrective action was ineffective. The same results apply to the f Construction Drawing Index.

N

, i

.i. ,,, i . , .., ,,,

o i , g o ,,, , ,i i ,,.i . , . , . ,.

, , .i t,  : --

,.i . . ,

t tr. t i l f .I l- p j i g1 i .

.. i

, it ,ei., ,

, ii.i. ,, , PG&E - March 8, 1982 e l .i .,,..t ,. , 55/89

.i - , .,
  • l 1I l * ,

l I.itil i i . . ,

APPENDIX C PART B DESIGN CONTROL PG&E - March 8, 1982 56/83 .

9 O w__ ' '

1 *-

AUDIT CHECKLIST PW B ,

tespany Paci.fic Gas and Electric Camany Page 1 of 14 Applicable OAM Rev. O thn Rev. 3 Auditor R. F. Reedy & R. F. Petrokas Date Feb. 3-16, 1982 APy,8* statement Audit Instruction Comment III 3.2.1 Ihe Department of Engineering is (For Information) responsible for the preparation of .

designs and specificaticns...,'Ihis mspcusibility includes the specifi-catim of quality assurmce require-imnts. . . .'Ihe nuality Assurance Pro-gran requires written procedures dtich assure that the regulatory re-quirenents and the design bases are properly incorporated in the speci-ficaticos, drawings, and the other design doctments prepared b

. Department of Engineering. y theA systan ,

of design reviews is provided to -

verify that designs neet require-nents in all respects....Pesponsi- .

ble Engineers develop design criter- .

ia...Where design cannitments are rrnde in the PSAR or other filings '

before the Atanic Energy Cdraiiission, '

they are incorporated into the i #

desipi....nuestions in this area are referred for revolution to the Safety Analysis Report Group.

3.2.2.1 Using the desip criteria, the design inputs, and ccnceotual design as a starting point, design draw-ings are prepared, ,

PG&E - March 8, 1982 3.2.2.2 Specifications and ourchase orders SU89 are reviewed by the Safety Analysis '

Report Group to ccnfinn that the regulatory requiranents are properly . . i incorporated. ,,

AUDIT CHECKLIST p "T B

- Page 2 Of 14 Campany Pacific Gas & Electric Company Auditor R. F. Reedy & R. F.

Petrokas Date Feb. 3-16, 1982 Applicable QAM Rev. O thru 3 Comment App. 8. QAM- Statement Audit Instruction Crit. Ref.* .

PRE-1, ,

1. Revs.

1, 2, (a) Verify that the Project (a) Index and specification -

The Project Engineer is re- stamary prepared as sponsible for preparation and Engineer prepared a Project Correspondence File Index required. .

issuance.of the following: I Project Correspondance File

~

and a Summary'of Specifica-Index tions.

$ b) Randomly select a mini- (b) Items selected:

mum of 6 Class I items (2 1.MSIV* M 8721 from each discipline, Elec- 2.CCWilX M 8757 Summary of Specifications ,

3.EXP JTS M 11GO

  • trical, Mechanical, and Civil),from the Summary of 4. PIPING STS )

M Specifications for later 3.4.16 KV E 8805 T use in verifying design 3.480 VMC CENT. E 0738 criteria and engineering 7. EXil . VENT C/S8831 releases were prepared per OUTDOOR TNK C/S8844 1

PRE-2 and PRE-14 (See Check.. 'llOSGRI ONLY list items y and u )

PRE-2, Para. 3.2.1 - Each assigned VerifythatDesignCriteria/I)esign Criteria Memorandum

2. Rev 3- engineer shall develop and Memoranda were prepared sere prepared gly for t.he ,

prepare information which iden for items selected in 1, piping systems./ Criteria tifies the specific functions above.- for equipment were to be performed by a struc- ilocumented in purchase

> ture, system,or component, specifications or by letter and the specific' values,or 3r vendor reports, but no range of values cliosen for Design Criteria Memoranda controlling parameters as ref- vere available for these erence bodnds for design... items.

This information is to be doc-amented by a Design Criteria PG&E - March 8, 1982 j 58/89

'lemorandum or similar docu-'

4' mont.  ;

1

e AUDIT CHECKLIST Ccspany Pacific Gas & Electric Company Page 4 of 14 _

Applicable QAM lley. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor R. F. Ilcedy & II. F. Petrokas Date Feb. 3-16, 1982 statement Audit Instruction Comment AP[U* ,

5., system and procedures in place cont. during Phase I would not assure that required overviews sure

, constantly perfonned. The details and documentation of I

the reviews were Icf t to the judgment of the reviewing engineer.

r i

l I

i 4

t PG&E - March 8, 1982 60/89

. 1 9

, g,

- y-

, , _ , , , , , .,,,,,,_,-g. ,,, .; .

g s

.Y i '

9 AUDIT CHECKLIST '

PART B Company ~

pacific Gas & Electric Company.

Page 3 of 14 i

Applicable QAM '

. Rev. O'thru Rev. 3 Auditor R. F. Reedy & R. F. Petrokas Date Feb. 3-16, 1982 App. B. .W Statement.

i -

q Crit.- Ref. Audit Instruetion Comment .

PRE-3, N8V* ' I Para. 2.2-Responsible-Engin- For the.. items ' selected in Prepared'for piping

3. cers are responsible for:1) 1., above, verify. written systems. This requirement providing written design cri- design. criteria were pro-
is not applicable to other teria in accordance with..

vided.to the Design Drafting items which are designed PRE-2, " Design Development," Department. by the vendors.

  • to the Design-Drafting Depart- ,

ment for the Development of Project drawings...

i PRE-4, The complete file of specifi-Revs. Verify that the specifica-4, cations with all approved tion file for the items Reviewed for selected 1, 2 changes is located in the items. Found no chosen in 1., above, is discrepancies.

Engineering Department Cen .' complete. Some '

tral Files. piping design criteria in  !

FSAR.

5* 3.2.2. Design reviews'are conducted. (a). Verify that Design Re- .

by competent persons'other views were performed, and' addressed (a) and (b) IUaE's program ,

2 than those who performed the' by individuals.Other than the hbove three elemnts original design... Comprehen- those'who performed the as follows! ,

t sive reviews of' Design Class I original design. For element 3. ,,As Btiilt,, veri-structures and systems as- fication, review work was initi-sure that the necessary design (b) How were the necessary ated in 1970 and will be within steps have b'een taken.. design ' steps determined and the scope of Phase II.

documented? Verify that N01'E the necessary steps were Element 2. Detailed checks were Verification should-include 3 ele- taken.

perfonned on IXi&E designed items, f mn s: such as piping systens and con-

l. Overview of ' design approach sultant's design. reports. _

methods, input. selection and assump- Element 1. Design byerview acti-tions. vities were- performed by IRS on PG&E - March 8, 1982  !

2. Detailed check of design , steps a nd conplete design. 59/89 ITi&E design items for Class I electrical designs and sane liVAC -
3. Verification of approved design -

and structural designs. No de-

~ against "6s Built" condition. sign overview was documented for

' .echani

- $ - cal systons designs. The' ^ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

_- - - - - - - -- - - - - ~ .- -.-_- .: - - -

, ', :?

AUDIT CHECKLIST P RT B I Company Pacific Gas & Elcetric Company  : Page 5 O f 14 gg ggg Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor R. F. Reedy & R. F. Petrokas Date Feb. 3'-16, 1982 '

App. B. QAM.

Re f. -

St a t e.sent Audit Instruction Commen t .

Crit.

e 4

PRE-6 Para. 3.1 - Comprehensive re- (c) Verify required design (c) . Reviews perfor,med on Rev. O views of Design Class I struc- reviews for items chosen in consultant work and piping

5. .(?) tures and systems ~shall be 1., above, have been per- systems as discussed in cont.- 7/17/70 conducted to assure that the design is complete and ade-formed. (a) and (b).

quate, and confirm.that the design bases have been pro-perly incorporated in the de-sign.

  • Para. 3.2 - The Responsible .(d) Check reports for the (d) Reporte were available Engineer or Lead Engineer'will items chosen in 1.,above, but in cases they were -

notify the Supervising EnginA uncontrolled or eer when the design is com- incomplete.

plete enough for a review to NOTE: Final Hosgri~ Criteria

, be conducted. The Supervis- established May 9, 1977.

ing Engineer will then desig-nate an engineer to conduct the review. The design review will be conducte by a quali - >

fled engineer wh has had no e significant involvement in the design under review. lThe reviewing engineer will pre- ,

pare a report of his work. i l

9 l

! PG&E - March 8, 1982

, 61/89

. l, ,

  1. i

. o AUDIT CHECKLIST PART B Company Pacific Gas and Electric ' Page 6 of 14 <

Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor R. F. Reedy'& R. F. Petrokas D a t e Feb. . 3-16, 1982 App. 8. QAM Statement Audit Instruc tion Comment Crit. Ref. ,

Design reviews shall. consider (e) Verify existence of ('e) Review plan ont. R 0 as a minimum the design s.teps plan developed in accord- developed only Tor (7) utlined in Quality Assur- ance with PRE-6.(Note this outdoor storage tanks 7/17/7( ance Procedure PRE-2, " Design requirement was deleted in (dated November 17, Development". An engineer Rev. 1, dated March 15, 1977.: 1978). See (a) and (b) conducting a review shall above.

make thorough preparations and shall develop a plan to assure that al critical as-pects of the design.are ex-amined. Engineers conduct-ing reviews shall also justi-

. fy why_certain aspects, i'f any, were not considered. A typical System Design Review Check' List for guidance in preparation of the design re-view procedure is attached.

PG&E - March 8, 1982 s

, . 62/89 ,

4 *  !

e

AUDIT CHECKLIST part B

wpany Pacific Gas and Electric Gxnpany Page 7 of 14 applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Audi torr. F. Reedy & R. F. Petrokas Date Feb. 3 -16, 1982 App. B.' QAM Ref.

Statement At.dit Instruction Comment crit.

III

6. 3.2.2.3 Design changes, including changes (a) Verify thct design changes (a) Design changes w re proposed by suppliers and contrac- were approved by the Responsible approved for all itons.

tors, are referred to the Responsi- Engineer and his Supervising flowever, for supports approvals ble Fngineer and his Supervising Engineer. of the design change 2

Engineer'for review and written calculations were not traceable

!. , approval. (b) Verify that Design Reviews to the drawing (drawings not

. were perfonned to detennine the signed-off).

inpact of design changes on the (b) Design changes were reviewed f N original designs, for impact.

/ p/ Ilowever, no review sign-of fs .

PRE 11 # (c) Verify that changes were were evid,ent for supInrt

/

. reviewed for inpact and change drawings.

,to FSAR. -

(c) 'niere was no evidence of impact reviews. (DCN's introduced in phase II control this activity.)

i PG&E - March 8, 1982

, , , 63/89

i AUDIT CHECKLIST Part B CCpany Pacific Gas and Electric Cmpany - Page 8 of 14 Applicable QAM Rev. O thnt Rev.' 3 Auditor R. F. Reedy & R. F. Petrokas Date Feb'. 3 - 16, 1982 APj't . .',

Statement Audit Instruction' Commen t

',p

. /

'III  :

7. 3.2.2.2 Suppliers / contractors performing .(a) How did PG&E ensare that (a) and (b) 'Ihe requirement-design are also required to conduct suppliers / contractors conducted for design reviews was not design reviews. - design reviews? Verify that PG&E inposed on suppliers. Any procurement documents required design reviews perforned design reviews to be performed. were done by EG&E i r con-sultants design work.

The Responsible Engineer does not (b) What criteria is used to check a supplier's design unless determine the necessity of such there is reason to believe such a a review? Determine.if any check is necessary. such reviews were performed.

l a

I G&E - March 8, 1982 64/89 .

I .

h i------ ,_ - = . _ _ .. . -,___t. . . , _ __. _

i AUDIT CHECKLIST

!capanY Pacific Cas and Electric Capany Page 9 of 14

uplicebte'QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor R. F. Reedy & R. F. Petrokas ,

Da t e Feb. 3-1G , 1982 App. B. QAM -

Statement Audit Instruction Comtr.en t

, Crit.. Ref.

. III ,

8. 3.2.4.1 The Responsible Engineer develops (a) How does the Responsible En- (a) For purchased equignent and -
  • the technical requironents and coor- gineer coordinate the interfac- piping systons the dinates the work done by interfacing ing engineers for wrk on speci- specifications were circulated engineers cn the specification, , ficaticns? via routing slips. There was no Draft specifications are reviewed by evidence of interface reviews for all engineers engaged in the desip (b)Were final soecifications piping support specifications.

Jiose wrk might be affected by the reviewed with all the interfacing (b) Final specifications were equipment, and by other engineers as engineers who made ccrmunts on circulated except for piping appropriate, e.g., material applica- the draft specifications? supports as identified in (a) tlcus and quality assurance,,,,'Ihe above.

final specifications are reviewed (c) Verify that the final specio (c) All specifications were and signed off by the Responsible ficpticns were reviewed and- approved as required except for Engineer, and the Department Chiefs approved by the Responsible supports as noted alnve.

... Engineer and the Department Qtiefs, n

1

, i - _ .

  • 'PG&E - March 8, 1992 65/89 i '

.i  ?

- - , , -e . -

. .] _ .... ... a. _ m_ ..._., _. .., ... .._

' * .. /.i . .; .i ;. .. a .;

. -. . . . n. .. , . . . . . .

AUDIT CHECKLIST -PART B Page 10 of 14 Company Pacific Gas and Electric Ccimany Auditor R. F. Reedy & R. F. Petrokas Da te Feb. 3 -16, 1982 Applicable OAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 r App. B. GAM Audit Instruction Comment Statement crit. Ref. j y, ,

'?

III-& IV .

(a) Hio!deterndnes do may be (a) The Responsible Engineer 3.2.2.2 . . .Correspcndence, constructica detennines sho tray be affected on

, drawings, specifications, etc. are affected? Miat criteria are

! 9. reviewed by Stpervising Engineers used in the detennination? the basis of personal and others who may be affected in judgnent.

their principal respcnsibility. . . . (b) Verify that correspondence (b) Evidence exists to verify In additicn, the Respaisible Engi,- was reviewed by Stoervisinct that correspondence sas revie.ved necr reviews correspcodence received Engineers and the D sponsiBie but no fonnat procedures sciu Cron suppliers, Engineer.- used. s (c) Review correspondence and (c) Evidence exists that doctanentation to and fran IVSE correspondence was received, distributed and filei, but and ANOD, URS/B1trne, EDS, EES,

- liarding-I;twson and Wyle for con- correspondence was not logged nor

- trol and distribution. distributio'n controlled and documented.

. (d) Review drawing transmittals (d) Blume used design drawings to,Blume for piping analysis for their analysis, work to detennine whetherldesign] ~

or as-builts were sent.

-i .

t

~

~

l - .

PG&E - March 8, 1982

' 66/89 i

..-m ..>-m.,----- .,_ -e..._?-,.m- ,---,.-.---,-.2-.---.---#-.--,- - ..- - , ~ . - _ . - - - - . . - . . . . ,- . . <v . - - .----.-- . . .

. e?

! g '

i .

AUDIT CHECKLIST '

PM B Company . Pacific Gas and Electric Ccupany Page 11 of 14 .

Appticabte oAM -Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor R. 'F. Reedy & R. F. Petro'<as Da t e Feb. 3-16, 1982 8

,' . Statement Audit Instruction tomment

'III 3.2.2.2 Were a design is so innovative or Does the Supryishig Engineer Not applicable - design,s of

10. has so many inter-related require- determine wien a design $s so concernzwere not ments that independent review by innovative" or has 'han innovative.

Individual engineers would not- related reouirements"? W1at y inter-assure a cmprehensive view, a criteria are used in the deter- -

review meeting is held with con- mination and hcw is it docmen-

- cerned engineers and the Responsi.- ted?

ble Engineers. Situaticns reouir-ing this review are identified by the Supervising Fngineers and it is their responsibility to call and conduct such meetings, o

t

  • L g l

- ,n .

PG&E - March 8, 1982-67/89

. l .s l

AUDIT CHECKLIST PART B cccpany Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany * ' Page 12 of 1,4 Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Audi tor R. F. Reedy & R. F. Petrokas Da te Feb. 3 -16, 1982 APP. B. GAM Audit Instruction Comment

. Statement Crit. Ref.

i1II

.; 3.2.2.1 If changes are made later to the Verify that drawing changes were Drawing changes approved as

, drawing, they nust be designated in approved by the Responsibic required. . Ho.vever as stated i the change block and approved by- Engineer or the Supervising Engi- previously, approval of support 11*.

the Respmsible Engineer (the Imad neer, prior to 4/15/74, and by design is evident only on the gineer,, and) the Supervising the Responsible Engineer, the design calculations. There are no Engineer. (Rev. 3,4/15/74). lead Engineer, and the Su approval signatures on or directly Engineer,after 4/15/74. pervising traceable to the drawing issued.

3.2.4.3 . . .'Ihe Station' Construction Depart- llow is it detennined whether the Evidence exists that the ment may edit the technical mater- Station Construction Department Responsible Engineer was contacted li. fal furnished in the Eti, but any changes to technical material are for direction on station initiated changes of substence to the techni- editorial or technical, and who changes.

  • cal material require anproval of thotakes that determination?

Responsible Enginee'r.

~

PG&E - March 8, 1982 68/89

  • I

.t-1 i j AUDIT CHECKLIST .PART B i h

Page 13 of 14 $

i Company pacific Gas & Electric Chnpany -

Auditor R. F. Reedy & R. F. Petrokas Date Feb. 3 -16, 1982 Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3  :

Commen t App. B. Q'A5 Statement Audit Instruction Crit. Ref.

PRE-13, Para. 2.1 (Rev. 1) The Supervisor, Verify existence of Construction .

13. Revs. Records and Reproduction, of Design Drawing List.

1&2 -Draf Ling Department is responsible for preparing and distributing a) Check that Construction Drawin0 a) The current list has been copies of the Construction Drawing List was kept up to date.

updated, but old lists are not kept.

List. .

b) Ver.ify that Construction Draw- b) Evidence indicates the ing Index supplements were is- list was regularly Para. 3.2 (Rev. 2) The Construction sued periodically. distrib2ted.

Drawing List will be reissued renthly.

c) Verify that applicable drawingsc) Equipnent drawings for Para 3.2.1 - Supplements to update for itans chosen in 1. , above, checked itans were vertfled the Construction Drawing Index,Will appear on the Construction Drawing to be entered correctly. One support drawing was absent be issued phriodically, but at List.

fron list (support 48/17R) 1 cast every two sucks. tnd another support had incorrect revision Intry.

PG&E ' March 8, 1982 3 69/89 k

. . . . . . . ... . . . , , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . u .. . .. . u. ....a .. _. .. ___ .

. , . . ~ . .....

AUDIT CHECXLIST PART B

Page 14 o f 34 I Company Pacific Gas & Electric Canptny ,

t

' Applicable QAM Rev. O thru Rev. 3 Auditor R. F. Reedy & R. F. Petrokas Da te Feb. 3-16, 1982 Comment APP. B. GAM Statement Audit Instruction Crit. Ref.

Verify that engineering release Engineering Release Forms PRS-14, Para. 2.1 - The assigned engir.eer were canpleted for,itons Rev. 1 is responsible for: (1) initiating forms were canpleted for the itens chosen in 1. , above. verified.

the Engineering Release form; (2)

14. coordinating, if necessary, the review of all documents listed on.

the fonn; and (3) evaluating, ap-proving, and forwarding the Engin-cering Release to his supervisor.

Verify, if possible, that re- Either Engineering Releases Para. 2.5 - The hwager, Station or Manager Releases were used Construction, is responsible for 1 cases were issued prior to in-sta11ation for the itens chosen as permitted by the Program.

issuing Manager's Releases and in 1., above. (Note that supple-Field Installation Releases'anci' ment to PRE-14 dated January 20, assuring that no Design Class I conponent is installed in the plant 1971, . modifies this requiranent without a satisfactorily canpleted under certain circumstances.)

Engineering Release, Manager's Release, or Field Installation Re-lease. A Field Installation Re- -

lease nny be used for listed Design Class 1 off-the-shelf itens pur-cimsed by FG&E Engineering for ,

which the quality can be verified after receipt.

PG&E - March 8, 1982 70/89 ,,

8 V -- --

APPENDIX C PART C FOLLOW-UP FROM SUPPLIER AUDITS w

=

PG&E - March 8, 1982 71/89

=

~

AUDIT CHECKLIST Company WYLE/PG&E Design Control Interface Page 7 of 7

Applicable QAM PG&E Auditor P. J. llerbert Date Feb. 2-17,.1932 Ap;). B. QAM Ref.,

Statement Audit Instruction Comment' Crit.

3.1.2 Document Control '

. er fy la G used a Not Acceptable. PG&Egid-I 11 a est ap ro ed drawings, specifications pr cedure to assure that not establish their j, procedures, purchase orders, WYLE was issued and used Document Control Procedure and other documents are in the correct !!OSGRI data in PRE-5 and it was never establishing their Test issued. ,

the hands of personnel carry-ing.out the work. Plan Report No. 26286.

2. Determine if PG&E'can Not-Acceptable. PG&E could verify what !!OSGRI data not provide documentary was used by WYLE to develop evidence to establish

, the Test Plan Report exactly .what 110SGRI data No. 26286. was given to WYLE. The Responsible' Engineer stated that WYLE made' copies of selected IIOSGRI Data during meetings with PG&E. No documentation exists to establish exactly what IIOSGRI Data WYLE received i in this manner. ,

(a) On Nov. 25, 1981 PGLE requested by letter that WYLE "... document the Spectra you used to develop the IIRS Plots... contained in your report No. 2G286...and Ad-dendum...." WYLE responded on Dec. 15, 1981 and pro- --

vided attachments but did PG&E - March 8, 1982 not establish dates in their 72/89 letter for the attachments. .

(b) In an internal PG&E memo O. Steinhardt t o .I . lierbst 1-I

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

4 AUDIT CHECKLIST Company WYLE/PG&E Design Control Interface Page 2 of 7

?

Applicable QAM PG&E Auditor P. J. IIerbert Date February 2- 17,'1982

. App. B. QAM Statement

  • Audit Instruction Comment.

Crit. He f.

dated 2-16-82-Mr. Steinhardt states "In 1977...I made available...the currently applicable IIOSGRI spectra. . .

" Currently applicable" is 'no identified by Mr. Steinhardt

- by date or any other trace- -

, able characteristic. .

- i r

i ,

. e

, i . . .

i i.

Ii 4 .

1 i

i PG&E - March 8, 1982 73/89 N

, - , - , ,-  %, -w 4 - , , , . - , , = -

?sw - - . - - - = - ---..-,e--. --

--.vrq..,. r w%. . , .--,y 3 , , , - -y- y y.- e-, , w4,,,n %-y,.-,

9

~

AUDIT ' CHECKLIST ,

Page 3 of 7

~

Company WYLE/PG&E Design Control Interface Applicable QAM Auditor P. IIerbert Da te Feb. ~ 2- 17, 1982

) PG&E J.

M

  • B.

Statement Audit Instruction Comment

. 3.2.2.2 Supplier Contractor Designs

Specifications require sup- Verify whether WYLE pre- WYLU prepared and submitted pliers and contractors t pared detailed test plans test plan (Report No. 2G286) submit detailed... test plans and test procedures and and Addendum to this test 3

etc., as the work progresses.' submitted them to PG&E as plan -- both were submitted the work progresses. to PG&E for review and

  • approval.,

WYLE prepared test procedure j No. 3642 and revisions A, B,

and C to this procedure. The original procedure No. 3G42 and Revision A were submitted <

/ to PG&E and were approved by PG&E, No records were i ,

available to verify whether Revisions B and C were sub-mitted to PG&E for review i and approval. The Responsible Engineer stated that he was 9

in residence at WYLE when 1 Revs..B & C were prepared i during testing and he ver-bally agreed to the revisions but did not sign off as approving them. ,

i k

. PG&E -' March 8, 1982 74/89 1

j .

t  ;

AUDIT CHECKLIST Ccapany WYLE/PG&E Design Control Interface Page 4 of 7 ,

Applicable QAM PG&E Auditor' P. J. Herbert Date Feb. 2-17, 1982 App. B. QAM i

Ref.

Statement Audit Instruction Comment Crit.

3.2.2.2 These documents are reviewed Verify that the Responsible Test Plan by the Responsible' Engineer Engineer (nr another engin- The Test Plan Report and/or other engineers and eer reviewed WYLE's Test No. 26286 was' reviewed returned to the supplier with Plans and Test Procedure for the Responsible Engineer

. comments and/or approval. and returned them to WYLE by Mr. O. Steinhardt. It either approved or with was returned to WYLE '

comments. unapproved with comments requesting revisions to Figure 8, page 22 (Response Spectrum) for the Vital Relay Board.

WYLE prepared and submitted Addendum to Report No. 26286, PG&E could not provido documentation establishing that Addendum 1 to Report

. No. 26286 had been reviewed to verify that WYLE in fact made the required revision to Figure 8.

A cursory check of th'e re-vised Response Spectrum in

, Figure 8 of Addendum 1 disclosed that WYLE had not included all the requested changes.

. Test Procedure Review and approval signa-PG&E - March 8, 1982 tures are in evidence for

  • 75/89 Test Procedure No. 3G42 and Revision A to this proced-

. u r e .' Review and approval

- i

._.,s.. .A - 4 AUDIT CHECKLIST

  • Corp:ny WYLE/PG&E Design Control Interface Page 5 of 7 Applicable QAM PG&E Auditor P. J. IIerbert Date Feb. 2-17, 1982 App. B. QAM Audit Instruction Comment Statement

' Crit.

Ref. ,

signatures are not in evi-dence for Revisions B & C to this procedure. ,

(See previous comments concerning this test pro-cedure.) .

'\.

' I ti l t* . -~

PG&E - March 8, 1982

. i 76/89 i

, ~ ,

. i i

g

. I AUDIT CHECKLIST Cc pany WYLE/PG&E Design Control Interface Page 6 of 7 Applicable QAM PG&E Auditor P. J. Herbert Da te Feb. 2-17 , 1982 AP *

. Statement Audit Instruction Comment Appendi x XVI Corrective Action Verify that Responsible 1. WYLE NOD #3 l

A Pg. Measures shall be estab- Engineer was cognizant of The Responsible Engineer lished to assure that con- WYLE Notices of Deviation provided a copy of NOD #3 and XVI ditions adverse to quality No.'s 3 and 4 which.were it was written by WYLE on the such as failures, malfunc- not included in their Final Vital Relay Board Test for tions, deficiencies, de- Test Report No. 58255. structural failure during viations, defective mater- testing. Note the comm'ont ial and equipment, and above for Figure 8 of WYLE 4 non-conformances are Test Plan Report No. 2G286 promptly identified and NOD #3 was shown to be incor-corrected. porated in design documents but the system did not pro-

- vide evidence that the field implemented tne change.

2. WYLE NOD #4 The Responsible Engineer pro-vided a copy of NOD #4 and it was written by WYLE on the  ;

r 4160 Switch gear for specimen failure during testing. It was established that the 4160 Switch gear was redesigned by General Electric nnd new test procedures were prepared by

, GE/WYLE/PGLE and were reviewed and approved.

After-the modified test spe- __

cimen of the 4160 Switch gear was satisfactorily tested.

, ,' s

, PG&E - March.8, 1962 PGLE Engineering prepared

, 77/89 design drawings for field -

4 . modification to other sections  !

e

$ .e - _ - _ _ _ - -_

addit CHECKLIST ,

! comptny WYLE/PG&E Design Control Interface Page 7 of 7 Applicable QAM PG&B Auditor P..J. lierbert Date Feb. 2-17, 1982 APP. B. QAM Statement Audit Instruction Comment Crit.. Ref. .

of the 4160 Switch gear and ,

design drawings were checked.

No evidence were on file verifying field incorporation of the design modification.

Ver'ify in PG&E nurchase Contract #5-G7-77 was voided.

records that Contract

  1. 5-67-77 was not activated with WYLE. *

. i i . .

l .

PG&E - March 8, 1982

, . 78/89 .

e

f.

AUDIT CHECKLIST Company ANCO/PG&E Design Control Interface Page 1 of 5 l

Applicable.QAM PG&E Auditor P.J. lierbert Date February 2-17, 1982 Statement- Audit Instruction Comment fP[*t. '

3.1.2 Document Control: Procedures are fa.- Verify that PG&E used a pro- a. Not Acceptable. PG&E's used to assure that the latest cedure to assure that ANCO was procedure was not,in effect approved drawings, specifications, issued and used the correct for the control of infonnation procedures, purchase orders, and IIOSGRI Data in establishing their PG&E gave to ANCO. L other docements are in the hands oj 'Ibst Plan. #

personnel, carrying out the work, e M i

b. Determine if PG&E can verify' b. Not Acceptable. No docu-that IIOSGRI Data was used by mentary evidence was made ANCO to develop the Test Plan. available to the audit team fran which a detennination could be made as to what ilOSGRI Data or other data.was given to ANCO by PG&E for use in developing Test P1an(s) .
  • g i l 3 i

i 4

i PG&E - March 8, 1982 i ,

79/89

" " ' ' ' - ~

-'-m ,- - , _, , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.i

'l AUDIT CHECKLIST -

Cccpany ANCO/PG&E Design Control Interface Page 2 Of 5

' i Applicable QAM Auditor Date February 2-17, 1982 PG&E P. J. Jierbert App. B. QAM '

Crit. Ref.

Statement ' Audit Instruction Comment 3.2.2.2. Supplier Contractor Designs . Test Plans 3 .

Specifications require suppliers Verify whether AN00 prepared .de- It was verified that NCO did pre-and contractors to submit det- tailed test plans and test pro- prepare a test plan memo for each ailed .. . test plans, ect., as cedures and submitted them to item to be tested. (See Attached the work progresses. PG&E as the work progressed. Table 1)

  • To perform or control the Test Procedures testing program. Not Accentable .

ANCO did not sulmit detailed test procedures to PG&E for~ approval

. prior to testing. The Test Plan

&mos contained sane details, but no procedure controls, acceptance criteria.. The final reports gave details of what was done but not how.

t..f.

e 1

'PG&E - March 8, 1982 i

! 80/89

.

  • 1 1
  • me .. - -

AUDITCHEfKLIST Company ANCO/PG&E Design Control Interface Page 3 Of 5 l

Applicable QAM PG&E AuditorP.J. IIerbert Date February 2-17, 1982

. Statement Audit Instruction Comment \

3.2.2.2. 'Ihese documents are reviewed by Verify that the Responsible Not Acceptable.

the Responsible Engineer and/or Engineer or another engineer .

other engineers and returned to reviewed ANCO's Test Plan, and See Table 1.

the supplier with ccmments and/or Test Procedure and Test Reports approval. and returned them to ANCO either Note. Responsible Engineer _PG&E approved or with connents. could not verify that he or another engineer had reviewed 5 of 11 N 00 ,

Test Plans subnitted.

No detailed test procedures approved.

by the Responsible Engineer or another engineer.

1-The Responsible Engineer provided documentary evidence which verified

, that he had reviewed the draft ANCO Test Reports and provided N00 with comnents or approval.

The Responsible Engineer could not

' verify that the Final Test Report had been revised by ANCO to include PG&E review ccnments. Their is no evidence of PG&E review and/or approval

  • of Final Test Reports.

PG&E - March 8, 1982 s .

81/89

. i

. - - . . ~ ,- , , - -

. 4 i

.. ' AUDIT CHECKLIST Company AN00/PG&E, Page 4 of 5 Apptieable QAM PG&E I' S;di t# P.J. Herbert Date February 2-17, 1982 ,

1 App. B. QAM

  • Audit Instruction Comment Statement crit. A e. f .

Appendix XVI Corrective Action: Measures Verify that Responsiblo Engineer Acceptable. It was determined A, Pg. shall be established to assure was cognizant oR.N00 Notices of during these tests.that the XVI that conditions adverse to quality, Deviations. cmponent cooling water heat 5 such as failures, malfunctions, exchanger required redesign of

- deficiencies, deviations, defec- its support to be acceptable tive material and equipnent, and for llOSGRI design. PG6E non-confonnances are prmptly prepared design change draw-identified and corrected. ings for field modification of these support which cmr-plied with the MCO recamenda- ,

tions. It was not verified fran as-built drawings that

  1. the required fielr7 nedifications have been made.

' ' ' c.r.

3 a

.?

4 PG&E - March 8, 1982 82/89 6

, ._. _ __ . . _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ __ . .__ _ _ = _ ._ - _ .

3- .: , ; , . .;. .

page g ot. 5 February 2-17, 1982 TABLE 1 i

. Initial TEST PLAN TEST PROCEDURES

. PG&E ANCO PG&E ANCO PG&E Prelim. Final i Data Subm. Appr. Subm. Appr. Test Rpt. Report

1. Diesel Generator

& Acc.

4 1 11-8-77 3 2 7-5-78 2

2. Borick Acid Tank 4 1 12-1-77 3 2 7-5-78 2,
3. Liquid Holdup-Tank 4 1 12-1-77 3 2 7-14-78 2

'4.

Comp. Cooling 4 1 11-8-77 3 2 7/78 2

5. Comp. Cool n p p e Tank 4 1 12-1-77 3 2 7-13-78 2 G. Limitorque Oper.

Valve '4 2-3-78 2 3 2 7-14-78 2 -

7. Rotork Oper. Valve 4 2-3-78 2 3 2 7-14-78 2
8. Air Oper. Valve 4 2-3-78 / 2 3 2 7-14-78 2 9*

81[_(fpfRuns 2") 4 11-30-77 1-10-78 3 2 7/78- 2 10.- 45 Pipe Hangers 4 2-3-78 2 3 2 7/78 2

11. Diesel' Gen. Air 4 3-78 2 3 2 7/78 2

Tank

  • l.- ANCO' Submittal was not dated or signed 2 - No record of.PG&E review and approval 3 -- No record of preparation or transmittal by ANCO 4 - No record.of PGLE initial data transmittal or data useago by ANCO PG&E - March 8, 1982

, 83/89

. 1

l ,

  • /

PART C ,

AUDIT CHECKLIST Ccapiny PG&E ,

Page 1 of 5 t

Applicable QAM Auditor R. F.'Petrokas Date February 9, 1982 App. B. QAM Ref.

Statement' Audit Instruction Comment Crit. '

i III Items for PG&E Audit - from 1) Review contents of PG&E 1) The files were not

, RFP's EDS Audit File. File 146.29, plus others as checked but evidence from applicable for evidence of elsewhere showed thdt  !

interface instructions, control of design inputs, control of design criteria, criteria, etc., was donc control of design inputs, by letters. No written etc. procedures. Interface instruction from EDS l governed document. distribution 1

across PG&B/EDS interface. ,

See EDS Interface Control. '

Instruction, Rev. O, 8/31/77.

2)' Review level of control 2) Control was by'trans-

, established for PG&E docu- mittal letter prior to July ment " Guidelines for Design 1978. '

of Pipe Supports & Re-straints." This was basic criteria document for both EDS & EES work.

3) Review design file for 3) Couldn't find Rev. 3 of support #58S-37A (EDS cal- EDS calculations in the culation package #002). EDS package. Found two versions
. recommended stiffening of of PG&E Baseplate Detail j support to meet design al- Drawing No. 040264 (Sht.

lowables. Was support 05A/95B) both labeled as changed in. field? (Rev. 3 'Rev. 1C. Neither detail

'- of calculation package m hes Teledyne drawing,

, should be in file as current (Do No. 4121-0028) Rev. 2

-a revision.) stampe s" Issued for Con-structioA".

s .

PG&E - March 8, 1982 84/q9

.j; , .

AUDIT CHECKLIST Co:pany PG&E Page'2 Of 5 Applicable QAM Auditor R, F, petrokas Date February 9, 1982 AM ApgB. ,

Statem'ent -Audit Instruction Commenti III.

cont.

4) Review design file for 4) Rev. O was in.PGLE file. L support #98-96A (EDS cal- Rev. I was reviewed by EES, culation package #030). Rev. 1 shows added anehor EDS recommended modificatior bolts. No evidence of field to meet criteria. Was modification is in the file.

support modified in field?

(Revision 0 of calculation file'was used by EDS.)

5) Review design filc for 5) PG&E notes anchor bolts support #74-6A (EDS calcu- to be verified by TES (Rev'.

lation package #036). EDS 3A). EDS audit indicated recommended anchor bolt EDS Rev. 4 was.used, licre mpdification to meet design Rev. 4 is a modification criteria. Were anchor bolt issued by PG&E. Not clear changes made? (Revision 4 how PG&E~ Revs. relate.

of calc'ulation'was issued Cannot verify' hardware by EDS and should be in changes made by reviewing file.) hanger package.

PG&E - March 8, 1982.

s .

85/89 9

e

5 7

i AUDIT CH.ECKLIST, , , .

Cespiny PG&E Page 3 of 5 Applicable QAM Auditor R. P. Petrokas Date February 9, 1982 App. B. QAM Statement Audit Instruction Comment I Crit. Ref. - ,

III Items for PG&E Audit -- from la) Review FG&E file for evi- la) Rev. O of EES interfaces is RFP's EES (Cygna) Audit File. dence of scope of work defini- dated 8/20/79. Earlier menn to tion and interface controls. file on interfaces was da'ted June 28, 1978 (File 146.56).

lb) Was EES ever responsible Ib) Apparently so. PG&E letter of for piping analysis 7 February 23, 1978 transmits draw-ings and criteria to be used.

Letter from PGSE dated October 31, ,

1977 transmits a number of iso-metric drawings to be used for llosgri re-evaluation.

2) Check control over IG&E 2) EDS received Rev. 2 via letter document " Guidelines for Pipe dated July 12, 1978 and Rev. 3 via c

Supports and Restraints". Why letter dated December 27,1978.EES}

did EES use Revision 4 & EDS received Rev.1 via letter of W only have Revision l? What was October 27, 1977.

in Revisions 2, 3, and 4 that would pertain to EDS scope? What was in Rev. 2 (not received by EES) that would effect EES scope? l

3) FG&E letters transmitted lists 3) Yes. PGLE Ietters dated:

of hangers to be analyzed,.And 10/31/77, 8/21/78, 8/19/77, therefore established scope of 8/24/77 and 8/26/77.

work. EES file had the follow-ing letters: 10/19/77, 9/26/77,

'i 9/7/77, 9/1/77, 8/16/77 (2'ltrs),

'. 7/25/77, 7/13/77, 7/12/77, 7/6/77,~7/1/77, and 3/1/77. Is s

+

there evidence of other letters ' \

in IU&E file not received by PG&E - March 8, 1982

.' . EES?

' 86/89

.- .. J ~ ,

AUDIT CHECKLIST ,

Company N&E Page 4 of 5 Appticable QAM Auditor R. F. petrokas Date February 9, 1982 App. B. GAM Statement ' Audit Instruction Comment Crit. Re f. - .

III, 4) M&E letters dated 7/13/77 4) Support is in M &E files.

cont. transmitted data indicating de- Records show it was verified by sign of support #48-17R should URS/Blume,'not EES. Drawing be verified by EES. EES has no 040256, Sht. 21, Rev. 2, for this record of what was done with support not in M &E Construction this support (See EES AFR-1). drawing index. Several different What are M&E records regarding versions of this drawing are in this support? the file, all of which are labeled "Rev. 2". N&E has a calc. file for this support.

5) Check a minimum of 5 more 5) Chose 42/40R. Cover shoot supports chosen at rand m from records 4 sheets of Rev. 3, but data a correspondence listed in item 3, package includes 5 sheets of Rev. 4, above, to verify that M &E also. For drawing 040254, Sht. 4G:

design criteria were met. Check

- There are 3 different Rev. 2's.

documentation acconpanying transmittal of design criteria,

- There is Rev. 2A & 2B.

- There is Rev. 3 & 3A and transnittal of engineering suppliers recomnended design - Latest mod is shown as "Rev. 2A.

- Construction drawing list shows changes.

Rev. 2A to be the latest version.

Could not verify what was installed

] in the field from data in the cale.

I package. Insofar as this support, as well as the five others reviewed, showed the same general character-istics in their design files, it

' ~

was decided not to review fournfore randomly chosen supports. -(

PG&E - March 8, 198@

87/89 ,t' 1

e

  • t

_ _ _ _ . . . .. _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ - - . -. _ . _ . - ~ . _ _ .- - -

s * .

~

\ . .

AUDIT,C,HECKLIST ,

Cospany FG&E Page 5 Of 5 Applicable QAM. Auditor R. F. Petrokas Date February 9, 1982 App. B. QAM' Statement Audit Instruction Comment Crit. Ref. .

III, G) EES recanmended a change to G) Design nodification suggested cont. design of hanger #98-134R. by EES was found in N&E's package.

Check for evidence of receipt of Could not' verify actuat change wns infornntion at M &E and imple- unde in file fran date in hanger nentation of recannendation file. Itev. number on several (EES calculation file #137). drawings in file was struck over and no new rev. numbers were assigned.

o I

e i,. -

t. ,

~

j PG&E - March 8, 1982

, , 88/89

'h -h

_a .a.

/

  • a PART C^ *

'[4 AUDIT CHECKLIST f.

roupany CONSULTANTS /PG&E. '

Page 1 of 1 l

Appticable QAM - PG&E Auditor- R. P. REEDY Date' February 17, 1982 0

Apj.B.

statement Audit Instruction Comment llow were llLA-Reports .used Per E. R. Wollak --

in the design process for effect of report minimal each structure? since: Intake structure,

. Water Storage Tanks and Salt Water Piping are all' on bed rock.

What did EES, EDS, and Original approved design.

Blume use for analysis.--

"As-Built" or Approved Design?

Ilow can it be verified Only by examining the that each piece of equip- files for each piece of ment was analysed to the equipment.

final llosgri?

t s

t PG&E - March 8, 1982 .,

  • 89/89 .

f g .,!

4

. . . . - - - - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20136B298&oldid=3375178"