IR 05000416/1980024
| ML19350C001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1981 |
| From: | Kellogg P, Wagner A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350B997 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-416-80-24, NUDOCS 8103240634 | |
| Download: ML19350C001 (7) | |
Text
.
_
.._
__
.
.-
o UNITED STATES
- !
- ,t, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
REGION il O.
-
'ai
^a' "^=' ~
=u
3'oa
<<
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3o303
.....
Report No. 50-416/80-24 Licensee: Mississippi Power and Light Company Jackson, MS Facility Name: Grand Gulf l
Docket No. 50-416 License No. CPPR-118 Inspection at Grand Gulf near Port Gibson, Mississippi Inspector:
M A
/h8/
[
A.G.-Wapr
$*** $18 ed Approved by:
/
/
/ /7 F/
P. J/ Kelligg,_Sec)Kon Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed Qj,f-SUMMARf Inspection on October 1 - 31, 1980 i
Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 81.5 resident inspector-hours onsite in the areas of system walkdown, preoperational test procedure review,
!
field report and design changes, water chemistry control, document control, test i
equipment, plant maintenance, and temporary alternations and jumpers.
,
Results
,
Of the eight areas inspected,-no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in six areas; three items of noncompliance were found in two areas (Infraction
. failure to follow walkdown procedure, paragraph 5.a and 5.b; Infraction - failure to protect plant equipment, paragraph 5.b; Deficiency -
c failure to control system alternations, paragraph 12).
L l
I 810324 063y
,,
.
,.
-.
-.
. -.
.
-
-
.
_ _
O DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- C. K. McCoy, Plant Manager
- T. E. Reeves, Jr., Manager Quality Assurance
- C. L. Stuart, Assistant Plant Manager
'
- C. R. Hutchinson, Startup Superintendent
- J. W. Yerverton, Field QA Supersvisor
- D. L. Hunt, Plant Quality Supervisor
- G. A. Johnson, Operations Superintendent
- J.
C. Roberts, Assistant Supervisor Startup
- D. D. Cochran, Plant Quality Engineer
- D. F. Mahoney, Field QA Engineer E. L. 'Foria, Test Supervisor S. Sarvar, Test Supervisor
-
N. Fleucant, Test Supervisor D. Pace, Test Supervisor M. Madison, Test Supervisor J. Raines, Test Supervisor Other Organizations Bechtel
- L.
E. Ruhland, Site Project Manager
- R.
L. Scott, Project QA Manager
- H. H, Weber, Project Startup Engineer L._Chumley, Test Supervisor L
T. Dempster, QC Supervisor
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 10, October 17,
'
and October 31, 1980 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The licensee had no comments regarding the inspection findings. The resident inspector also attended the exit meeting of B._ Miller (NRC) on October 31, 1980.
- 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings The inspector reviewed the corrective actions _taken in regards to noncompliance 416/80-18-06. These. corrective actions were also discussed with Region II-welding personnel.
-- -.. - --
..
_
..-.
_
. = -
-
. --
-
.-
-
.
_.
_
t
.
-2--
,
The inspector reviewed the job bulletin issued to bring the matter ta the
,
attention with all welding craft personnel. This was also discussed with lead engineers. The inspector has noted no additional problems with welding rod control during subsequent plant inspections.
There are no further questions concerning the above noncompliance. This item is closed.
[
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
System Walkdown
.
The following system walkdown packages and plant walkdowns were reviewed I
for conformance with the requirements of Grand Gulf Startup Manual 7000, paragraph 4.1.4 and Bechtel Checkout and Turnover Organization Manual, Chapter 4 Section 16.
a.
T-46 ESF Switchgear Room Cooling System
,
Noncompliance (Example 1)
During the review of the walkdown package on October 9, 1980, the inspector noted that the inventory record was not completed as required by CTO Manual, Chapter 4 Section 16 which requires the walkdown notifi-cation and startup field reports to be checked and included if applicable or as otherwise noted. This is an example of an item of noncompliance identified as example of infraction (416/80-24-01), failure to follow walkdown procedures.
j, The inspector discussed minor comments concerning the system walkdown
and walkdown package..These items were resolved or placed on the construction master punch list for resolution.
l l
b.
E-21 Low Pressure Core Spray System l
Noncompliance (Example 2)
l:
l During the review of the walkdown package and walkdown of the system
.on October 14-15, 1980, the inspector noted that there were two open-
l-construction work permits and numerous condition reports not on the construction master punchlist as required by CTO Manual, Chapter 4,
.Section 16, Paragraph 3.1.
CWP.E-21-P8, CWP-E-21-P14, CR 3396, 4269, 4142, 4174, 4190, 3503, 3109, 3204, 3481, 3482, 3557,_3844, 3861, n
3944, 4070, 4112,_ 4145, and' 4176 were not included in its punchlist.
-This is an example of an item of noncompliance identified as example 2 of an' infraction (416/80-24-01),' failure to follow walkdown procedures.
_- -
-.,
.. -.
.., _
_.
_
.
__
-
_
-
..
- '
.
. -
__
,
d-3-
.
Noncompliance (Example 3)
During the review of the walkdown package and walkdown of the system on October 14-15, 1980 the inspector noted that there five outstanding construction work permits, CWP-E-21-E2, CWP-E-21-P10, CWP-E-21-P11, CWP-E-21-E4, CWP-E-21-El-6, listed on the construction master punchlist and two work permits working in the field, CWP-E-21-P15, E-30-PS,
which affect the system and are not. included in the package as required by CTO manual, Chapt.er 4, Section 16, paragraph 14.2.4.5.
This is an example of an item of noncompliance identified as example 3 of an infractior.(416/80-24-01), failure to follow walkdown procedures.
Noncompliance (Example 4)
During the walkdown of the system on October 14-15, 1980 the inspector noted that a part of the system was being hydrostatically pressure tested by Bechtel personnel. There were no copies of drawings depicting the scope of outstanding testing included in the walkdown package as required by CTO manual, Chapter 4, Section 16, paragraph 4.2.6.
This is an example of an item of noncompliance identified as example 4 of an infraction (416/80-24-01), failure to follow walkdown procedures.
Noncompliance (Example 5)
During the walkdown of the system on October 15, 1980 the inspector noted that the responsible CTO engineer did not have the necessary drawing with him as required by CTO manual section 4, chapter 16, paragraph 4.7.1.
This is an example of an item of noncompliance identified as example 5 of an an infraction (416/80-24-01), failure to follow walkdown procedures.
Noncompliance (Example 6)
During the review of the system walkdown package on October 14, 1980, the inspector noted that the package did not include a copy of Startup Field Report SFR 1-E-916 as required by CTO Manual, Section 4, Chapter 16, Chapter 16, paragraph 4.2.4.4.
This SFR was listed as outstanding on the construction master punchlist. This is an example of an item of l
' noncomp'iance -identified as example 6 of an infraction 416/80-24-01,
-
failure to follow walkdown procedures.
!
The above 6 examples are all example of failure to follow walkdown l
procedures. Infraction (416/80-24-01).
Noncompliance (416/80-24-02)
l
'
During the walkdown of the system on' Ocobter 15, 1980 the inspector noted that the temperature detector well on - the suction line of the pump did not have its protective cap installed. The cap was attached l
to the pipe in the well area by a chain. Caps are required to be in
[
place for equipment protection by Bechtel Construction Work Procedures
!
l l
l
.
___ _
-
-
..
.
.
-4-Manual WP/P-3, paragraph 6.1.4.
In addition there were several condolets which had the covers removed. They contained an accumulation of diet and debris and were not in any other way protected. This is an item of noncompliance identified as an infraction (416/80-24-02), failure to protect plant equipment.
Open Item (416/80-24-04)
During the review of the walkdown package the inspector noted that the
,
data sheets for the motor operated valves did not list serial number and calibration data for the stop watch used. The data sheet was signed off by the test engineers performing the valve stroking test.
The sheet also contained the cignature of the Bechtel QC inspector witnessing the stroking test. Although this problem had been identified by the licensee; the inspector is concerned with the effectiveness of the QC inspector to detect system testing problems and ensure procedural compliance during testing in the field.
Other minor comments were discussed with senior licensee representative.
These items were either resolved or added to the construction master punch list for the Low Pressure Core Spray System for resolution prior to system turnover as required.
6.
Preoperational Test Procedure Review The following procedure was reviewed for conformance to FSAR sections 8.3, 14.2, SUM 5000, 7000,- Regulatory Guides 1.6 and 1,68.
IR21PTF - 26KV Preoperational Test, Preliminary copy.
The
.edure did not -contain the prerequisite for having the ESF room e
ventilation and cooling system in operation as required by FSAR chapter
,.
l'
14.2.
The prerequisites were subsequently added to the procedure prior to (
approval and issue.
7.
Field Reports and Design Changes The following~ field reports and subsequent design changes were reviewed for compliance and control in ' accordance with Startup Manual Chapter 5000 paragraph 4.7.11 and Grand Gulf Plant Administrative Procedure 01-S-07-12.
a.
P64-0047~ Fire Protection System b.
P52-0003 Instrument Air System c.
P43-001 Turbine Building Closed Cooling Water System There were no items of noncompliance or deviations identified.
,
l
'
8.
Water Chemistry Control The.nspector interviewed MP&L startup and CTO test personnel, reviewed chemi.try reports and logs for the Makeup Water System Flush and the Reactor l
,
-.
,-
-
..~
~
-
....
,
.-
-
"
.
-
.
d-5-Pressure Vessel Flush procedure. The interviews and reviews were conducted to verify compliance with CTO manual, section 4 chapter 12 and Grand Gulf procedure 01-S-07-13.
No items of noncompliance or devaitions were identified.
9.
Document Control The following drawings were reviewed to ensure that design changes and revisions were incorporated in accordance with Bechtel Quality Control Work Procedure Manual WP/P-4.
a.
M1067A reviewed for incorporation of FR PS2-0003
.b.
M1068A reviewed for incorporation of FR P52-0003 c.
M0035B reviewed for incorporation of FR P64-0047 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Test Equipment The, inspector reviewed and verified the calibration dates for four pieces of test and measuring equipment being used in the field by test personnel for system testing and grooming.
Two fluke meters, one 269 multimeters, and one stopwatch were being used for the Neutron Monitoring System and-the-Reactor Pressure Vessel Flush. The test equipment was determined to be in calibration and suitable for use in accordance with CTO Manual, Chapter 4, Section 14 and Grand Gulf procedure 01-S-07-3, paragraph 6.6.3.
.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Plant Maintenanc,e The inspector reviewed records, observed preparations and part of the actions conducted in the field 'for MWO ELOO92, ' maintenance on the safety i
related '125V battery.
The inspector verified that the activities were
!
controlled and conducted in accordance with Grand Gulf procedure 01-S-07-1 including the interface with preoperational test supervisor.
i j
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
12.
Temporary Alterations and Jumpers i
The ~ inspector reviewed the following temporary system alterations for compliance with Startup Manual 5000, paragr.ph 4.12 and Grand Gulf procedure
01-S-06-3.
l
!
a.
Alteration 80216 on the Condensate, Refueling Water System - No Comments.
l lb.
Alteration 80172 on the Reactor Control and Information System - No'
l Comments c.
Alterations 80156 - on the 125V Battery System i
l
.e
. __
e-6-Noncompliance (416/80-24-03)
The inspector noted that the alteration form for IB3 battery was outstanding.
A subsequent of the alteration revealed that the alteration had been removed from the battery. The alteration was installed in accordance with preopera-tional test 1L21PT01. The test procedure indicated by signature that the alteration had been removed. When an alteration is to be left in place for an extended period of time the operations procedure for control of jumpers and altera *, ions is also used. When the procedure required the removal of the alteration it was apparently removed without also cleaning the operations alteration records. The licensee is unable to know the alteration tags were removed or what the disposition was. This noncompliance is identified as a deficiency (416/80-24-03), f ailure to control system alterations.
.
13.
Plant Tour On October 10, 1980 the inspector toured the ESF switchgear rooms d'aring walkdown of the ESF ventilation systems. Minor comments were resolved with preoperational test supervisor.
On October 15,1980 ~ the inspector toured portions of the auxiliary building and control building during walkdown of the Low Pressure Core Spray system.
Minor comments were resolved with the preoperational test supervisor.
Other comments with regards to the system are discussed elsewhere in this
,
report.
On October 28, 1980 the inspector toured portions of the Diesel Generator building and the Fire Protection building.
The inspector noted the fire header pressure cycling above the range of the header pressure gages. This has been previously identified by the licensee and documented by technical l
Work Request 80-07.
l l
,
l l
l l
L