IR 05000424/1986023
| ML20205M083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1986 |
| From: | Jape F, Schnebli G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205M072 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-86-23, NUDOCS 8604150067 | |
| Download: ML20205M083 (3) | |
Text
9 UNITED STATES
.
[p Mc
'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_[
REGloN 11 n
y.
j 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
- ATL ANTA. GEORGI A 30323
\\...../
.
Report No.:
50-424/86-23 Licensee: Georgia Power Company
'
P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket No.:
50-424 License No.:
CPPR-108 Facility Name: Vogtle 1 Inspection Conducted: March 14-17, 1986 Inspector:
W
"
~
A. Schnebli y //
Date Signed Accompanying Personnel:
F. Jape Approved by:
Cu2 Mh
,
F. Jape, Section Chief" yf Datd Signed Engineering Branch
<
Division of Reactor Safety
'
SUMMARY Scope: This special, unannounced inspection entailed 32 inspector-hours on site in the area of witnessing the Reactor Coolant System Cold Hydrostatic Test.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
,
1 K
G
-
-.
..
-.
-.
.
- -
-
. -
-
-
- -
-
_ __ _.
.._
. _. _.
_
__.
__
.
__..
.
[
l
-l o
.
.
l l
l
.,
REPORT DETAILS
!
l l
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees J. Aufdenkampe, Lead Integrated Test Supervisor
- C. Belflower, QA Site Manager - Operations
- R. Bellamy, Manager Test and Outage G. Bockhold, Plant General Manager
- H. Handfinger, Preoperational Test Superintendent
- A. Mosbaugh, Superintendent Engineering Liaison L. Smith, Preoperational Test Director
- G. Spell, QA Engineering Supervisor J. Trawber, Preoperational Test Director Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, engineers, technicians, operators. mechanics and authorized nuclear inspectors (ANIS).
I NRC Resident Insp3ctors
- J. Rogge, Sepior Resident Inspector - Operations
- H. Livermore, Senior Resident Inspector - Construction
- R. Schepens, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 17, 1986, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the
'
'
areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved Item were not identified during the inspection.
i
- - - - - - - - -..
-
. -
-
.
-
-
-
- -
- - -
'
_
.
.
.
<
.
.
.
l 5.
On March 14-17, 1986, the inspector witnessed the final preparations for and the successful completion of the Reactor Coolant System Cold Hydrostatic j
'
Test. Licensee activities were observed to verify the folloving:
Testing was conducted in accordance with approved procedures and the j
latest revision of the test procedure, VEGP-1, 1-300-03, Revision 1, was available and in use by personnel conducting the test.
'
i
Test procedure prerequisites were met.
Valve lineup and system check sheets were completed, as required.
Water quality and system temperatures were monitored and met vendor requirements.
,
Pressure gauges of the required range and special test equipment as specified by the test procedure were properly calibrated and installed, as required.
Relief valves were installed where required and relief paths verified for system overpressure protection.
Data required were colle:ted by the proper personnel.
Adequate coordination existed among the responsible organizations to l
conduct the test properly.
A pretest oriefing was conducted and potential problem areas were discussed.
!
All leakage was properly documented.
- I
Leakage was directed away from other components under test to avoid masking leaks from other joints.
Proper plant systems were inservice.
Hydrostatic test pressure was reached on March 16, 1986, at approximately 12:03 p.m.
System temperature and pressure were verified to be within the
'
!
required limits for the specified hold time. The inspector observed QC and ANI inspections of various primary systems and components. The inspector considered that performance of the test was exceptional. The direction and coordination showed evidence of prior planning and experience.
Problems that developed throughout the test were handled expeditiously and properly.
No violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
I
-
-
- - -
-
. - -
.
-
- - - -
.
-
- -
.
-
- -- -
--
.
--
.
- -
-