IR 05000522/1978002
| ML20148N694 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1978 |
| From: | Albert W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148N686 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-522-78-02, 50-522-78-2, 50-523-78-02, 50-523-78-2, NUDOCS 7811270199 | |
| Download: ML20148N694 (5) | |
Text
- - - .. .--
,
U . - !
U. S.: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF If1SPECTION AND ENFORCEMEllT REGION V-50-522/78-02 Report N /78-02 50-522 .
Docket ~No'. 50-523 License N None Safeguards Group Licensee: Puget Sound Power and Light Company Puget Power Building Bellevue, Washington 98009 l Facility Name: Skagit Units 1 and 2
Inspection at: Corporate Office (Bellevue) and Warehouse 1 Inspection Conducted: September 2f-28,1978 Inspector Yu
'W. G'. A'1bert,'Reacto'r Inspector
/df/lW 4at( Signed Date Signed Approved By: %- -- - /o//., /78 i R. D. Haynes$tef4 Project Section, Reactor Date Signed Construction and Engineering Support Branch Summary:
)
~ Inspection on. September 25-28, 1978 (Report Nos. 50-522/78-02 and 50-523/78-02) l l
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of open items, QA audits, QA l
- procedures, engineering review, and controls over reports to be provided' NRC following issuance of a C.P., including Bulletin l Results: Of the areas inspected, no deviations from commitments by the !
'
- applicant were noted. ..An item of concern was noted in the procedures area as discussed in Paragraph .
l
,
,7'811270./7%
f
'
IE:V' Form 219 (2)
_ _ _ - _ - _ _ .
DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Puget Sound Power & Light Co. (PSP &L)
- J. Ferguson, Vice President
- E. V. Padgett, Manager, Quality Assurance
- R. N. Hettiner, QA Specialist
- J. R. Fishbaugher, Project Engineer
- W. J. Miller, Nuclear Licensing Engineer J. E. Mecca, Manager, Nuclear Licensing D. J. Murphy, Manager, Security J. K. Simpson, Security Supervisor J. F. Helle, Manager, Mechanical Engineering J. F. Watkins, Acting Manager, Electrical Engineering G. R. Reid, Mechanical Engineer S. Martsolf, Construction Engineer
- Denotes those present at exit intervie 'Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
R. A. Nuttall, Materials Control Supervisor J. W. Allison, Field Engineer Snelson Company D. W. Roo, Warehouseman 2. Project Status The applicant reported that engineering on the project was over 60% complete. They further noted that licensing delays were re-sulting in curtailment of Bechtel engineering activity ar;d sharp reductions in engineering personnel assigned to the project by Bechte PSP &L review of Bechtel drawings and specification has been expanded from an original sampling of 10% to 20%. In addition, selected aspects of other design disclosure documents are being examine The warehouse in Burlington, Washington, is routinely receiving quality class components from the NSSS Vendor (GE).
.__ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. ,
'
-2-Since sufficient meteorolog1 cal data had been obtained at the time the meteorological. tower was vandalized in May 1978, no attempt has been made to restore this facility to servic The investigation of the incident is continuin v. ' Applicable Actions on Previous' Inspection Findings . (Closed)' Open Item (50-522/78-01): Warehouse concerns regarding stainless steel marking, colors of tape, indica-tion of desiccant quantity and procedures for corrective l action on nonconformances were satisfactocily resolved, i (Closed) Open Item (no previous report): RIV-VIB referred to RV a concern regarding GE diesel-generator heat exchanger design criteria. This was discussed with licensee, (0 pen) Open Item (50-522/78-01): During the previous NRC inspection and also during audits, it had been found that I specifications and the PSAR did not always reference codes' l and standards with the same date. A comprehensive audit of I this concern remains to be completed. Upon completion, the !
a)plicant will submit an amendment to his PSAR or require l c1anges in specifications, as appropriat j (Closed) Open Item (50-522/78-01): Corrective action on audits not readily available. An examination of audit files did not indicate that this was a current problem, QA Audits Schedules, planning and ' reports for QA audits conducted since the previous inspection were examined for conformance to proce-dures. No deviations from commitments were foun . 'QA Procedures Changes to QA procedures since the last inspection were examined for conformance to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. All changes conformed to regulatio QA procedures for handling corrective action and nonconforming materials were examined for conformance to 10 CFR 50, accepted practices and consistency between.Bechtel and PSP &L procedure __
.
.
.
-3-Inconsistencies between Bechtel and PSP &L procedures were note For instance, PSP &L procedures have provisions for PSP &L rein-spection of nonconforming items (2.5 QAP 10), Bechtel final accounting of nonconforming items (4.0 QAP 17), and PSP &L approval of certain Bechtel nonconformances (2.2a QAP 17). However, implementation of such provisions is not provided for in either the Bechtel QA Manual or tLa Bechtel Field Inspection Manua Further, Bechtel procedures provide for installation (under cer-tain conditions) of some nonconforming items without PSP &L review or approva The inspector found that QAP-10 on corrective action utilized nonconformance reports as the vehicle for identifying signifi-cant conditions adverse to quality, whereas, the nonconformance report itself appeared to be confusing corrective action on
" conditions adverse to quality" with the " disposition" of a particular nonconforming ite The inspector's concerns were discussed at the exit interview, see belo ' Engineering Review Activities The review and subsequent resolution of comments from the PSP &L engineering review of design disclosure documents was examined with particular emphasis on c.onsideration of PSAR commitment From the sample of activities in the mechanical section, the ,
inspector had no questions regarding this activity which was ex-amined against PSP &L Procedure BE- Discussions with the licensing engineers indicated that an internal PSAR deviation control system would be activated when a CP is issued. The " TERA" program which identifies all PSAR commitments by component or system was described and demonstrate . 'IE Circular and Bulletin Follow Up The inspector discussed with the applicant the IE Bulletin and Circular system. Selected bulletins and circulars issued during the past year were provided and discussed with the applicant. The applicant stated that a procedure for the handling of bulletins and circulars would be develope . Part 21 Procedure The applicant's procedures for reportin nonconformances to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55 e) and 10 CFR 21 were
. . . . . . . . . . . . , _ . . . . _
.
.
.
-4-I examine The inspector had no questions regarding the 10 CFR 50.55(e) procedure. The 10 CFR 21 posting in one building was verified and a copy of Procedure G-ll was obtaintd for in-office examination. This examination,. conducted in-office, showed the Skagit document to be in conformance to the requirements of 10 CFR 21. The one question raised by the inspector was whether a delay permitted in the start of the mandatory 2 day NRC report-ing time limit, until completion of evaluation of the submitted Quality Deficiency Report (QDR), was within the intent of the -
regulation. The time limit for this evaluation being undefine This was resolved by telephone conversation with Mr. E. V. Padgett, Skagit QA Manager, and reference to Item 7, Page 21.21(b)(2)-3 of NUREG-0302, Revision 1. The resolution was also discussed with IE:H .
9 ' Management Interview The status of open items, as discussed in Paragraph 2 above, was reviewe Problems pertaining to the QA procedures discussed in Paragraph 5 above were explained by the inspector. The applicant stated that the system would be reexamined and conflicts with Bechtel proce-dures resolved, e
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _