IR 05000424/1986043
| ML20206L450 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1986 |
| From: | Burnett P, Jape F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206L447 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-86-43, NUDOCS 8606300270 | |
| Download: ML20206L450 (3) | |
Text
-_
__._
N
.
s
,
(A Kf c,
UNITED STATES o
[
'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON
'
["
REGION 11 n
$
j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
- ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%,...../
Report No.:
50-424/86-43 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: May 13-15, 1986
/ / wM
/8 wT Inspector:
~~
~
Qate Signed P.'T. Burnett~
as
/7
>er$
Approved by:
jmwNd R
F. Jape, Section Chief
/
(/ V Date' Signed Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection addressed the area of readiness review in support of-the startup testing program.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
'
,
,
s
'
8606300270 860617 PDR ADOCK 05000424 O
-_.,.
. _ _.
. _ _ - _.
-_
_
-
'
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees S. Bradley, Module 7 Readiness Review Manager
- C, E. Belflower, Quality Assurance Site Manager
- C. L. Cross, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor
- W. C. Gabbard, Regulatory Specialist
- T. S. Hargis, Operations Shift Supervisor R. W. McManus, APCM II
- H. P. Walker, Manager Unit Operations Other licensee employees contacted included engineers and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors H. H. Livermore, Senior Resident Inspector, Construction
- J. F. Rogge, Senior Resident Inspector, Operations R. J. Schepens, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview j
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 15, 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 No unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
5.
Readiness Review and Startup Testing (72400)
The following documents were reviewed on site:
a.
Readiness Review Module 7, b.
Administrative Procedures for Startup Testing (1) SUA-01 (Revision 0), Startup Test Procedure Preparation, Review, Approval, and Revision,
...
.
-
. _ -..-
.
(2) SUA-02 (Revision 0), Startup Test Program Implementation, (3) SUA-03 (Revision 0), Startup Shift Test Director and Test Supervisor Qualification Checklist.
The three (SUAs) reference the FSAR Chapter 14 startup test descriptions and acceptance criteria; and Regulatory Guide 1.68, but do not reference the readiness review program or the regulatory compliance commitment list.
(The latter was described by licensee personnel as continuing the commitment ended.)g program from the point at which the readiness review program trackin However, the Startup Procedure Review Checklist, a two-page, desktop procedure, clearly addresses a requirement to incorporate commit-ments, and references the commitment book and computer tracking as the sources.
The commitment book is organized by startup test procedure with a page describing each applicable commitment filed by procedure.
The pages come from either the readiness review program or the regulatory compliance conniitment list.
The reference to computer tracking is to the updated commitment list maintained by regulatory compliance.
Based upon these reviews and discussions with persons responsible for writing the startup test procedures, it was concluded that the readiness review program had made a significant contribution to establishing a commitment data base and to sensitizing procedure writers to incorporate connitments in the startup test procedures.
The readiness review program also included a review of procedures, some of which were in draft, to confirm that each commitment had been addressed.
However, the review was limited to confirming that each commitment had been addressed in at least one place without confirming that each commitment had been addressed everyplace it was required.
Moreover, that review did not evaluate the technical adequacy with which a commitment was implemented.
For these reasons, the effort involved in the inspection of the startup test procedures will continue as these procedures are prepared and issued for use.
No violations or deviations were identified.
._.