IR 05000424/1987015

Insp Repts 50-424/87-15 & 50-425/87-11 on 860224-27.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Employee Concerns,Lers & Const Deficiency Repts

ML20205Q625
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	03/17/1987
From:	Conlon T, Hunt M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205Q624	List: IR 05000424/1987015 ML20205Q619
References
50-424-87-15, 50-425-87-11, NUDOCS 8704030588
Download: ML20205Q625 (6)

Text

r a

g>2 4:g UNITED STATES

1. #e,

NUCLEAR RECULATERY CO".ZISSION

[ n ' REGION ll

$ $ 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900

• * ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30323

\,

....+

/

Report Nos.: 50-424/87-15 and 50-425/87-11 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket Nos.: 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos.: NPF-61 and CPPR-109 Facility Name: Vogtle 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: February 24-27, 1987 Inspector: /24. &LJ M. D. Hunt 3//&/D Fate Sfgned f

Approved by: M # j /7 87 T. E. Conlon, Section Chief te 51gned Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of employees concerns, licensee event reports and construction deficiency report Results: No violations or deviations were identifie M7 R ADOCK O 424 PDR _

- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

.

.

REPORT DETAILS Person Contacted Licensee Employees

• T. Greene, Plant Manager, Unit 1

• D. M. Fiquett, Field Construction Manager, Unit 2

• C. E. Belflower, QA Site Manager, Unit 1

• E. D. Groover, QA Site Manager, Unit 2

• W. Gover, Engineering Supervisor

• W. C. Gabbard, Senior Regulatory Specialist

• G. McCarley, Project Compliance Coordinator Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, and office personne NRC Resident Inspector

• John Rogge

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 27, 1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding No dissenting comments were received from the license The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.

< Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio . Employee Concerns The NRC has been contacted at varicus times by individuals who expressed concerns relating to the construction activitie As a result of these concerns, the NRC inspectors interviewed various personnel, examined QC records, personnel records, engineering specifications, and other details

r

.

.

.

in order to arrive at an accurate assessment of the reported concer Often concerns are similar in nature and content and at times are examined l as a single concern, but most are considered individuall The following concern was examined during this inspection. A discussion of the evaluation of the concern and the findings resulting from the examination of specification / procedures and interviews with personnel are described belo Concern l

l QC supervision is giving verbal instructions on what existing procedures can or cannot be used for inspection criteria and that uncontrolled RCIs and ems shall be used for inspection criteria in specific and generic application (Case No. RII 85-A-0209)

Discussion:

i This concern was expressed by two persons and contained several detailed items which were included into the above concer A Deviation Report (DR) was written against Engineering Specification X3AR01, Section E 9 but was voided by a supervisor on the basis of information contained in Request for Clarification or Information (RCI) No. 0039 This RCI defined the use of field procedures

!

'

containing the inspection attributes and references as the guidance for inspection acceptance / rejection activities. Further, RCI No. 0039E indicated that the procedure should be the document that the DR is written against and not the engineering document when only !

the procedure is to be used as inspection criteri l The inspector was advised that there was confusion about writing DRs I against the engineering' specification when the short coming was in

-

reality the inspection procedure. As the result of several NRC ]

i inspections performed in the time frame of this concern, the pro-cedures were revised to include adequate checklists for the per-

-

formance of QC inspection RCI and Engineering Clarifications (EC) answers gave direct inspec-tion criteria. The concern listed four ECs which define acceptable methods for the installation of conduit into junction boxes and local instrument terminal boxes, in addition to the use of splicing materials at motor connections. Tnese ECs did not define what the

! acceptance criteria should be and it would appear that the acceptance criteria for the inspection required would be found in the procedure for conduit fitting installations and/or cable termination The QC inspectors -were required to use vendor documents to perform inspections. The concern centered or whether or not all inspectors were torquing solenoid covers to the 10 inch pounds and insuring that

.

, _ - _

. 3

.

the conduit to these solenoids were properly installed to prevent moisture accumulatio Because of some confusion as to what requirements the QC inspectors were meeting, the responsibility for torquing the covers on the solenoids was transferred to the Nuclear Operations grou This was a management decision and fully within the scope of the licensee's responsibility. Approved vendor drawings if properly identified and approved can be used for inspection criteri A DR was written which described an accessibility problem in the inspection of limit switch terminations. The DR was invalidated on the basis that it did not constitute a nonconformance a's described in Nonconforming Procedure GD-T-01. Under the conditions described by the DR preparer, this was the method used by the QC inspectors to describe the passing of hold points established in the termination procedure, rather than against the terminatio The inspector was advised that the hold points were established to provide ease of inspection of cable terminations prior to installing covers or bundling wires in cabinets. There appears to be no safety problem existing as long as the terminations are inspected as required which was accomplished in this instance by removing the entire limit switch assembly to permit inspection. In other ,

instances, the concerned individuals stated that ty-raps on large bundles of cables had been removed to permit inspectio The passing of this type of hold point is a production problem (in requiring work to be redone) rather than a safety proble The individuals were contacted by an NRC investigator in the third quarter of 1986 to discuss the case with the Both individuals were working in a different capacity and satisfied with their position One individual felt that the problems surrounding his concern were caused more by the lack of proper communications techniques of his former supervisor. He now understood better the supervisor's position. He did not feel any intimidation or harassment issues existed and advised that things were satisfactor The second individual also advised that he now saw things under a different prospective and "everything here is great" and conditions have turned aroun Findings:

Discussions with various personnel revealed that the QC supervision had given instructions on what procedures applied to what type of inspection activity, further it was determined that RCIs had been used for clarifi-cation of inspection procedures but the requirements of the procedure or the documentation were not change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

, .- . _ _ _ .

. 4

.

In view of these facts the concern is substantiated. The supervisor used RCIs for clarification of procedure requirements but no procedure  !

requirements were altered. The supervisor -acted within his respon- -I sibilitie Further, there does not appear to be any action taken that I was adverse to safet . Licensee Event Reports (LER)

(Closed) LER 87-002, Potential Failure of MSIVs to Close Following Postulated Small Steam Line Brea i l

This item was identified by the licensee's A-E on January 22, 1987, and I reported to NRC January 23, 1987. It was determined that there was a '

potential for rapid increase in hydraulic pressure within the MSIV's l actuators as the result of a rise in ambient temperature that could result I in failure of the MSIVs to clos The corrective action taken was the installation of a relief valve in the hydraulic line to the solenoid valve which opens the MSIV. This action ,

has been evaluated by the MSIV. supplier by testing and a final report is '

to be issued on or about March 20, 1987. The inspector examined the installation of the relief valve on two of the MSIVs (1 HV-3006A and 1 HV-3006B). The relief valves were installed in accordance with the as-built drawing The equipment qualification certifications are being developed for thes valves as modified by the manufacturer. This item is close . Inspector Follow-up Itens (IFI)

(Closed) IFI 50-424/85-20-01, Examine the Corrective Actions Relating to IEEE 384 Separation Concerns. This item was identified in part by an employee concern identified during cable installation and termination inspections. A Fire-Separation Barrier Request (FSBR), ED-T-32 control '

procedure was developed to identify areas where separation of redundant wiring could not be accomplished at the time of inspection. This pro-cedure required a review of all FSBRs initiated up to the time of this  ;

procedure origi '

This item had also been identified as QA Audit finding 689-II of QA Audit Report ED04-84/5 The corrective action taken was the revision of Specification X3AR01 Sections E-8 (Raceway System) and E-9 (Cable Installation and cable termination) to permit deviation from Regulatory (RG) Guide 1.75 and IEEE Standard 384 on the basis of test results from a Wiley Laboratories test progra The raceway separation exception from RG 1.75 and IEEE 384 are identified in Engineering Field Change Request No. EFCRB-1759 :

L___-___--________-__-____-_-_-_-_-_-___

., . . -

..,--

. .. .

. - .- . . . - n;n - - , . ..

-

,

, ..a .. ,

y c s. . ~\- , ./ ' V -

g .}3;,

e, , -

!  ;. . ,

. n

'("

., . < ' s,,

\ '  % i s

.,j l' ' '

s

., ., ,

, .. . , .

,

, .

l

,

,

3- , ,

y (t

- ,

.s

. . .,, ,

y

,

'

. , - ,

q,, '1

.

,

i i O

!

. , . J >

The' Wiley test. results have'Jeea accepted by the NRC and classified 3s.tha '

necessary analysis to.devipM from RG'1.75and IEEE 384 'senaration Tequire ' a j- neant This' item is closed. r ' q,

"

, ,s

<

%<

' y R

• ' , ,

j'.g o , (1 f,

g  ; ,

.

,

-.

a, ..

'

, . n

,

,h , ,

-r ,..,

._ . . .

w

s , ,

. s v.; '

It

<

, .>-

., ,

,

_ ,

_

-\_k

, , ,

" '

,/. t a  %

'

I  ;

', f "g i

'

, s ,

a ' .

> , s ;

.

g,, ,y .

X (. p .

gi * k,.>\ (i

, x* 3 i

.

/ c* , ( ,

l \~ ,

f, X e. > ,

- s L

.

,/ /a ,

'

,

,

'

"%. '

(g' . fI

']

• . * 14

~" .j I /= '

_

>

,f _r,.  ? Y ,

' ,

_f1 I

' *

'

,s* ,,

e a

l ,

. . p .

1. ~

( ,)

'

a 1 +

~ '. -

.

, ~ /1

'

_ _

, \

> j

' '

<  %

, 4

. I

s e 4

-

-

N )

"

, ,

i e

,%

/e

. .. .

. .c

$

<

L _ , ,

g

.

,

.. ,

,,

P I -'

g k\b $

g

-

i, ,

a L*  %

, g

%

e T \ g

~ ;,.. ,

,

. g MP

+ r

~ '

-

,

• * 1 . , \

,

~

, ,' *- =* j '

/

'

,

/

i

-

-

'. ; , ,1

-

,.

• ' ,

i,.- t , 1 ,

.'

l

• s *

,,~

)

.

'

,

l

- . .

,* . - . - p<

..e ga

,~~*

-

.

, ,

_

,

\ s \

\ ig

'

.

%

o * .- (

.

,

V f l; i

• i ',s

'1 f '

't #6 )

'

- P o

, _ .

• ' ' ,

,

't .  ;

t l ,e- )

i l - > g< ,,

. ~ . , --, e

, , ,

b b '

I g  % 5"-

! J J ,,' '

s ,

f

• s L _ _ _ _ . .

.