IR 05000425/1987049
| ML20237F005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1987 |
| From: | Jape F, Scott Sparks, Szczepaniec A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237E993 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-425-87-49, NUDOCS 8712290305 | |
| Download: ML20237F005 (4) | |
Text
- - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _
. _ _
$5 REC -.-
UNITED STATES -
/
'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
["
- T_ o REGION 11 g
j
- 101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
- i c-
' ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 i.
.....
Report No.:
50-425/87-49 Licensee:
Georgia Power Company P. 0. Box 4545
!
Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket No.:
50-425 License No.:
CPPR-109 j
Facility Name:
Vogtle 2
-
Inspection Conducted: November 30 - December 3, 1987
'
/ 2.- / l-P7 Inspectors:
,ic m m A. J,;Siczebahibc Date Signed b k.
M i2.13-87 S. E. Sparksi Date. Signed
/-//M/h Approved'by:
'
%
F. Jape, Chief
[/ /
Date Signed Test Programs'Section Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was in the area of 'overall preoperational test program.
A' review of a Unit 2 quality concern was also performed.
Results:
In the areas' inspected,. violations or deviaticas were not identified.
I h-8712290305 871221
?
PDR ADOCK 05000425-PDR a
_
- _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _
_,]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees M. Ajiuni, Startup Operations Superintendent
- G. Bockhold, General Manager Vogtle Nuclear Operations
- T. Green, Plant Support Manager
- S. M. Hall, Procedures Superintendent
- H. M. Handfinger, Assistant Startup Manager D.. Harless, Quality Concerns Manager
- C.3 Hayes, Vogtle Quality Assurance Manager M. W. Horton, Nuclear Operations Test Engineering Superintendent
- P.
D. Rice, Vice President and Project Director Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, engineers, technicians, operators, and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
- R. J. Schepens, Senior Resident Inspector (Construction)
- Attended exi t interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on December 3,1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Overall Preoperational Test Program (70301) - Unit 2 An inspection was made of the overall preoperational test program as being implemented for unit 2.
A comparison was made between the test procedures that are currently scheduled to be performed, and the test procedures that are committed to in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
The comparison verified that scheduled test procedures have been designated to meet each FSAR commitment.
Each test committed to in the FSAR has an
~
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
i
..
.
.
assigned test procedure, although at this time. only a few selected procedures ~ were ' reviewed to ensure those commitments are indeed included in the specified procedure. The procedures reviewed, all associated with
' fuel handl.ing and storage, were:
2-3KE-01 Fuel Handling and Vessel Servicing
~2-3KE-03 Fuel Transfer System 2-3KE-04 Refueling Machine
.2-3KE-05 Refueling Machine Indexing 2-3KE-07 New Fuel Elevator l
The above were analyzed for embodiment of the necessary test prerequisites, preparations, instructions, acceptance criteria and technical content.
In addition, the preoperational testing results for procedure 2-3KE-07 were reviewed and found to be in order.
Furthermore, the licensee's preoperational test program associated with
',
fuel handling and storage equipment was verified to be consistent not only
.with the FSAR commitment, but also, with Regulatory Guide 1.68.
Appropriate preoperational tests are scheduled to be conducted for equipment and components used to handle or cool irradiated fuel and to handle non-irradiated fuel to demonstrate operation in accordance with design.
During' the review of the test program's compliance with the FSAR, the following discrepancies within the FSAR were discovered. Table 14.2.1-1, which lists the test committed to be performed for the test program, was not updated to reflect modifications made ta the test abstracts, which provide. summaries of the. tests iisted in. Table 14.2.1-1.
Paragraphs affected are 14.2.8.1.85, which should now be designated " Safeguard Test Cabinet Testing Capability" and 14.2.8.1.98, "ESFAS Master and Slave Relay" which was deleted.
Paragraph 14.2.2.2, also states that qualifications for key management personnel and those plant personnel that review preoperational test procedures are stated in paragraph 13.1.2.
A review of paragraph 13.1.2 shows that the qu'alif*:ations of test procedure. reviewers, including test review board members, are not specified. Additionally, it was observed
.
(paragraph 13.1). that resumes' of personnel filling key management
. positions are not current for Unit 2 staffing, but rather reflect the personnel associated with Unit 1 testing.
{
l
~ The FSAR also specifies in paragraph 14.2.2.2 that the designee of the general manager for reviewing plant procedures (preparation) is the assistant startup manager.
A review of the format being used for procedure preparation has a signoff for the plant support manager.
It is noted that the licensee has initiated actions to correct or resolve the discrepancies observed.
These items will be reviewed during future routine inspections.
_-_. __-
- _ _ _ _
..
,
The inspectors also conducted a plant tour of the Unit 2 facilities. The turbine building, auxiliary building, containment building and control room were all inspected. A portion of the construction acceptance test of the "B" train centrifugal charging pump was also observed.
Within the area inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Quality Concern Review (92705)
Quality Concern 86V5011 of the Vogtle Quality Concern Program involves the performance of pneumatic testing, vice hydrostatic testing, and the acceptability of such as discussed in ASME Code,Section III. The quality concern and its handling, in accordance with the Vogtle Quality Concern Program, were reviewed.
Through correspondence and personal meetings involving the licensee, appropriate contractor engineering personnel, and the original submitter, the original submitter became satisfied with the licensee's actions.
The resolution agreed to was reviewed by the inspectors and found to be satisfactory. No violations or deviations were
.
identified within the areas inspected.
!
i
_