IR 05000389/1979001
| ML17206A724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1979 |
| From: | Bradley R, Herdt A, Wright R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17206A720 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-389-79-01, 50-389-79-1, NUDOCS 7904110203 | |
| Download: ML17206A724 (8) | |
Text
~f1 REQy P
~4 O~
Cy
I g
+
/P +**++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report No.:
50-389/79-01 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company P.
O. Box 013100 Miami, Florida 33101 Facility Name:
St. Lucie Unit 2 License No.:
CPPR-144 Inspection at St. Lucie Site on Hutchinson Island, Florida and FPGL General Office, Miami, Florida Inspectors:
R.
W. Wri ht i
IR 7 Da e
S gned IQ R. D. Brad ey Approved by:
A. R.
erdt, Section Chief, RCES Branch Date igned o2 gQ 7 Da e Signed SUMMARY Inspection on January 9-12, 1979 Areas Ins ected This routine unannounced inspection involved 64 inspector-hours onsite and at the Miami General Offices of status of construction; work and gC activ-ities for reactor containment vessel support placement No.
19; inspection and enforcement history; construction deficiency reports and resolution; gA manual review and control; gA management; gA/gC organizational/ functional alignment; drawing-document control and training.
Results Of the nine areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in eight areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (Deficiency - Failure to follow document control procedures-Paragraph 6d).
DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Em lo ees
"B-W.
W.
""S.
"A C.
J.
L.
T.
A.
H.
Other Or anizations J. Escue, Site Manager M. Gaines, Site Engineer, EPP L. Parker, Project QC Supervisor M. Hayward, Supervisor - QA Engineering - Construction A. Robinson, Contract Administrator E. Siebe, QA Asst.
MGR Systems S. Kent, Project Manager - Engineer N. Buford, Supervisor - Engineer, EPP L. Leskovjan, Licensing Engineer, LEP P. McKinnon, QA Engineer (Const. Training Coordinator)
Walcutt, Staff Area QC Supervisor Lindstrom, QC Training Coordinator E. Vessely, Director QA W. Sherman, QA Engineer, Construction-R.
-W.
C.
F.
C.
J.
A. Garramore, Senior Resident Engineer (EBASCO)
J. Taylor, Project Superintendent (EBASCO)
J.
Capezza, Resident Engineer Office (EBASCO)
V. Pelosi, Site Project Engineer (EBASCO)
W. Farrell, Field Training Coordinator (EBASCO)
Aquadro, Document Control Supervisor (EBASCO)
L. Fields, Project Welding and QA Superintendent (CBGI)
A. Baysinger, Process Control Specialist (EBASCO)
-Attended site exit interview conducted on January ll, 1979.
--Attended Miami General Office exit interview conducted January 12, 1979.
---Attended both exit interviews.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January ll 6 12, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The licensee acknowledged the noncompliance discussed in Paragraph 6d which has been classified as a Deficiency.
The inspectors were advised that the QA department had performed a drawing document co'ntrol audit just prior to our inspection and their findings were essentially the same.
The non-compliance was considered to be a Deficiency since there was insufficient time to complete appropriate corrective actio.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
(Open) Noncompliance 389/78-10-01:
Failure to report safety significant deficiencies.
The licensee submitted a response (L-78-391)
dated December 19, 1978, to the above deficiency.
The subject response takes exception to the findings noted by the inspector.
FPL's opinions on significant deficiencies and what constitutes reportable matters was discussed and the inspectors discussed the IE interpretation of the
CFR 50.55(e)
regulations.
This item remains open pending further evaluation by IE.
4.
Unresolved Items 5.
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
Inde endent Ins ection Effort a.
Construction Status On January 9,
1979 the inspectors conducted a walk-through inspection of the intake structure, auxiliary and reactor containment buildings noting the construction activities underway, status of construction and general housekeeping conditions of these facilities.
Inspection of the three charging pumps which have been stored in-place in the auxiliary building revealed that one of the pumps (charging pump 2A) did not have an effective heat source (light bulb burnt out) to provide a surrounding temperature above ambient to prevent condensation.
Discussions with the process control specialist revealed that the subject pump was last routinely inspected on December 15, 1978 and found satisfactory; therefore the heating device became inactive sometime during the interim period.
January's routine monthly maintenance inspection had not been performed to date and the execution of this inspec-tion would have discovered and rectified the problem.
This condition was corrected prior to the inspectors leaving the site.
b.
Concrete Placement Activities The inspectors observed the preparation, partial placement, inspection and testing for a Unit 2 reactor containment vessel support pumped fillconcrete placement No.
19.
The following documents governing the concrete placement activities were examined and these activities were inspected in accordance with the below listed currently approved specifications, procedures and drawing:
PSAR Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.3 FPL equality Instructions gl 10.3, 10.6, 10.71 and 10.77
-3-Ebasco Concrete Specification Flo-2998.473 Construction Site Procedures CSP-2 and
Drawing Number 2998-G-493 Within the above areas of inspection, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Overall Review and Ins ection of the ualit Assurance ( A) Pro ram Im lementation a
~
General The purpose of this inspection was to complete an overall review of the implementation of the FPM. QA program for QA, design, procurement and construction activities.
Inspection activities at the IE:II regional office, FPRL corporate office, and the construc-tion site included review and inspection of the following areas:
status of construction inspection and enforcement history; construction deficiency reports and resolution; QA manual review and control; QA management; QA/QC organizational/functional alignment; and training.
Inspection activities at the construc-tion site related to QA manual review and control; training; and document control.
FPSL has delegated responsibility for design and procurement of systems, components, and structures to the architect engineer, Ebasco Services, and the NSSS supplier, Combustion Engineering (C-E).
FPM. provides assurance of program implementation through monitoring, surveillance and auditing functions.
FPGL performs audits of C-E and major suppliers to C-E.
FPSL also assures that review and approval of basic design documents are accomplished by Ebasco.
Additionally, FPM, performs audits of Ebasco engineering and QA functions.
Construction is under the overall supervision of the FPSL site manager with QA/QC by FPM. except for QC provided by CBSI for ASME containment code work.
The controlling procedures for design, procurement, and construction are assembled in the FPM, QA Manual, QA-QI Manual, CPL-QI Manual, ASME QA Manual, Ebasco QA Manual, and the CBRI QA Manual.
b.
A Manual Ins ection and Enforcement Histor Review The inspectors performed a review of the QA manual and docket files to include the following:
inspection relative to QA programs and site; enforcement correspondence and responses; and the con-struction deficiency report fil FPSI, QA/QC procedures for the control of QA related activities within construction are contained within their QA manual.
For FPM delegated activities, the QA procedures for control of design, and procurement are contained in the Ebasco and C-E procedure manuals.
The review findings indicate that FPGL has developed and is executing a
QA program consistent with FPGL's Topical Quality Assurance Report (FPL TQAR 1-76A) relative to design, procurement, construction, and enforcement response.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
A Manual Review Followu
- Document Control Procedures QP 2.3, "Preparation and Revision of Quality Procedures, QI 2:
QAD 4, "Preparation and Revision of QAD QI's", QI 6.1,
"Preparation, Revision, Review, Approval and Issue of Quality Instructions and Inspection Procedures,"
and ASP-2, "Preparation of Site Procedures" are the controlling procedures for the QA manual and its revisions.
The inspector verified that the IE:II copy of the QA Manual and the following selected copies of the utility (constructors)
QA/QC manuals:
QA manuals S/N's 014 and 149, CQC QI manuals S/N's 011 and 022, ASP Manuals S/N's 025 and 2-CS-5 are being maintained current with the latest revisions.
Examination of the revisions to the procedures confirms that an effort is maintained to upgrade the program and increase effectiveness.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Drawin Docuemnt Control Procedure ASP 4 "Document Control" is the applicable procedure for drawing control.
The inspectors discussed this procedure with the Document Control Supervisor, physically examined the adequacy of the facilities related to the control and storage of drawings, and assessed the adequacy of the drawing record card file by checking a representative set of Ebasco, Combustion Engineering (C-E), and Chicago Bridge and Iron (CBGI) drawings in the master set file on site.
The inspectors then selected a set of five drawings from each of the following locations:
FPSL project QC supervisor's office, Union Boiler general foreman's office, and the ACSE trailer.
Revision levels of drawings from each of the following areas:
(1)
containment (civil, structural drawings);
(2) mechanical piping;
and (3) electrical and instrumentation. drawings were reviewed to determine they were the latest revisions recorded in the Document Control Center (DCC) drawing record card file.
As a result of these reviews, the inspectors found one item of noncompliance.
During the review to verify the adequacy of the drawing record card file, it was noted that one CBBI reproducible drawing 2998-767R5 and a preliminary copy of CBGI drawing 2998-827Rll had been received by the DCC and recorded on the applicable Record of Drawings Card, but could not be found by the Document Control Supervisor.
FPRL Administrative Site Procedure ASP-4 requires that a reproducible of current documents be maintained on file in the DCC.
During the review to determine if revision levels of field drawings were the latest revisions recorded in the DCC drawing record card file, the following discrepancies were noted:
(1)
Containment Drawing 2998-G-517R1, selected from the project QC supervisor's office files, reflected FCR No. 2-557 as being applicable.
The DCC reproducible copy also indicated this FCR as being applicable.
A check of the Record of Drawing Card however, disclosed that FCR No. 2-434 was appli-cable.
The FCR control file revealed that FCR No. 2-434 and not FCR No. 2-557 was applicable.
(2)
Electrical drawing 2998-G-386R2, selected from stick file 1-OF4-1S in the ACSE trailer, indicated that FCR No. 2-614 was applicable.
Checking the DCC card file, it was found that not only was the noted FCR applicable, a
DCN No. 560.009 was also outstanding.
Procedure ASP-4 requires that when a change to a controlled design document is approved via a FCR/DCN, the reproducible and each controlled copy of an affected document be stamped with the specific FCR/DCN number.
This item of noncompliance was classified as a Deficiency due to the following circumstances:
The two CBSI reproducible drawings that could not be found in the DCC are not used for construction or inspection activities by FPSJ. (information use only).
CBGI personnel have their own drawing control system in place which was verified to have the most current revisions of the subject drawings; consequently construction and inspection activity has been accom-plished in accordance with the latest drawing revisions.
In addition, at the conclusion of the inspection, the inspectors were advised by the FPSL QA supervisor that their site QA department had performed a drawing document control QA audit (report QAC-PSL2-78-52, dated January 8,
1979) just prj.or to our inspection of this
-6-area.
Review of a draft copy of this audit report diclosed findings essentially the same as noted during this inspection.
Consequently, corrective action for these findings was not completed prior to our inspection.
This Deficiency is classified as a Failure to Follow Document Control Procedures and is designated as 389/79-01-01.
e.
~Teainin FPSL procedure Nos.
ASP 12, CPL:QI 2.4, and QI2:
QAD5 are the controlling procedures for training construction, QC and QA personnel.
The Field Training Coordinator (EBASCO) is responsible for deve-loping, implementing, scheduling, recording and conducting all indoctrination and training for construction personnel (manual and non-manual with the exception of FPM.'s QA/QC personnel).
The Superintendent of Construction QC and the Project QC Supervisor are responsible for assuring indoctrination and training of General Office and site QC personnel respectively in accordance with CPL:QI2.4.
The Assistant Manager of QA - Construction through his designee (The QA - Construction Training Coordinator) is respon-sible for the implementation and administration of an on-site QAC training program.
The inspectors held discussions with the respective training coordinators and reviewed the certification and training records of the following personnel:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
C.
W. Bailey, Construction Department Assistant Engineer R. Gibson, Construction Control Superintendent M. Mygrant, Civil Field Inspector - Level I H. D. Bryant, Radiographic Inspector J.
R. Luke, QA Engineer L. T. Page, QA Engineer No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie ~
A J