IR 05000425/1989009

Insp Rept 50-425/89-09 on 890123-27.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Qa Coverage for Startup Testing & Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items

ML20235T049
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	02/21/1989
From:	Jape F, Moore L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235T045	List: IR 05000425/1989009 ML20235T041
References
50-425-89-09, 50-425-89-9, NUDOCS 8903080120
Download: ML20235T049 (6)

Text

.

._

,

- _ _ -.

_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _. _ _ _

...

sh asr

'

y'

'{

UNIIED STATES

'

_g

,g

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION ll o,

[

101 MARIETTA ST N.W.

.

.+,,g, ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30323

[

i Report No.:

50-425/89-09 Licensee: = Georgia Power Company P. O.~ Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201

'

Docket No.:

50-425 License No.:

CPPR-109 j

' Facility Name: Vogtle Unit 2 Inspection Conducted:

nuary 23-27,1989 Inspecto :

1. d d

/

.'Mo' ore Dhte Signed

'

' ' '

tu h 1/2//S Approved by:

D x-

,

F. Jape, SMfion ChieV/ /'

D6te Signed Quality Performance S6ction Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of QA coverage for Start-up Testing and licensee action on f.eviously' identified items.

I Results In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified. Adequate-o resources and planning have 'been dedicated to provide QA coverage for Unit 2 start-up test phase activities.

.

,

9, 8903080120 890224 PDR ADOCK 0500

0

-

. _ -.

_

i

,

. __ _

-

'

..

.

.

c

.

.

<

REPORT DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Licensee Employees T.'Aversano, QA Start-up Test Engineer M. Dugan, Nuclear Safety and Compliance (NSAC)-Surveillance Coordinator R. Folker, QA Engineering Support. Supervisor

• G. Fredericks, Safety Audit and. Engineering Review Supervisor

• T. Green, Plant Support Manager

• C. Hayes, Vogtle Project QA Manger M. Hobbs, Instrument and Control (I&C)- Superintendent N. Isbel, Supplier-Quality Audit Team Leader H. Jaynes, Maintenance Engineering Supervisor

• C. Miller, Engineering Support Superintendent

• W. Nickland, Compliance Supervisor

.

R. Porter, Operations Surveillance Procedure Coordinator -

B. Quick, Document Control Supervisor

'

J. Sutphin, I&C Supervisor

• J. Swartzwelder, NSAC Manager D. West, Operations Procedures Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, technicians, and administrative personnel.

NRC Resident Inspectors

• R. Aiello

• C, Burger

• J. Roggie

' Attended exit interview 2.

QA for the Start-up Test Program (35501)

The inspector reviewed the licensee's allocation of resources and scheduled activity to provide quality assurance coverage for the start-up test and power ascension test program.

Planned quality assurance activity primarily consists of real time observation, surveillance, and scheduled audits to be conducted during the start-up test phase of Unit 2 operations. The QA Surveillance Plan for the Start-up Test Program, January 12, 1989, documents the allocation of resources and activity coverage planned for surveillance activity.

The surveillance plan provides the objectives, scope, and documentation guidance for the start-up test surveillance activity.

Identified deficiencies will be documented and trended via existing QA administrative procedures, QA-05-17, QA Surveillance, revision 4 and l

l

. - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_

_ _ - _ _

- _ _ _ _ _ _

. _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _

. _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. '.

.

-

.

.

QA-05-20, QA Trend Program, revision 2.

The 1989 Nuclear Operations Quality Assurance Audit Schedule identifies the QA audits which will be performed during the start-up test phase.

The surveillance plan dedicates three QA Engineers to full time surveillance The assigned engineers are activity for the start-up (test program.-Bechtel Power Corporation BPC) contractors w test' engineer at other commercial power plants and Vogtle Unit 1.

These start-up specialists will be supplemented with GPC QA engineers for.

programmatic and special reviews.

The Quality Engineering Support Supervisor also serves as a nonvoting member of.the Plant Review Board (PRB) and thereby will participate in start-up test review activity.

Real time observation will include full coverage of two shifts and partial'

third shift coverage for the entire start-up test period.

Sufficient schedule flexibility exists such that significant events will be observed regardless of shift and. GPC engineers can be utilized to. fill other-manpower needs.

The QA surveillance representative will be included-in daily and shift briefing meetings.

The basic' objectives for QA surveillance activity during the start-up test program are stated in the surveillance plan. The following are the stated objectives.

a.

To confirm that precautions and limitations are observed during the start-up test program, b.

To verify that Technical Specifications a're satisfied (i.e.

LC0's and Surveillance tests).

c.

To observe the major evolutions and the performance of selected activities of the Starp-up Testing Program (i.e. maintenance, operations, and testing).

-d.

To report and record results of observations.

Discussion with the QA Engineering staff indicated an understanding of

,these objectives.

The staff was knowledgeable of testing activities and requirements, test documentation, documentation and trending of findings, and M&TE control requirements.

Documentation of QA surveillance will be accomplished with a QA Activity

'

Evaluation Report and a Pass Down Log (PDL). Findings will be documented on a QA Evaluation finding form.

Administrative guidance for these mechanisms is provided by procedure QA-05-17-1, VEGP QA Evaluations, Revision 4.

In addition to evaluation reports, surveillance activity will be documented in a PDL which will provide continuous documentation of a specific activity observance. Surveillance preparation will include a preplanned check list and pre-reviewed test procedures.

_ _ _ _ _

_

_ - - _

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _

_- --

_..

..

r

."

.

.

i

Concurrent with the planned real. time surveillance. activity will be the

. performance of audits covering various start-up related activities.

The following Operations QA audits are scheduled for performance during the start-up test phase:

Radiation Protection Reactor and Plant Operations Material Control Quality Control

'

Surveillance Program / Technical Specification Compliance Test Equipment and Calibration Control Design Change and Modification Control Maintenance Program Fuel Handling-Records Management and' Document Control In addition, any identified need-for programmatic audits will be performed.

The schedule flexibility permits the realignment of resources as needed.

.

In conclusion, the resources allocated for programmatic and real time QA activity of the start-up test phase appear adequate.

The scheduled activity provides a thorough overall review of evolutions and provides the flexibility to deal with potential situations which may develop.

3.

Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701, 92702)

a.

(Closed) Violation 50-425/88-51-01:

Failure 'to Follow Procedure.for Reviewing Problems for Potential Deportability.

The licensee's written response dated January l'7,1989 and verbal response via January 19, 1989 telephone conference between GPC-Unit 2 QA manager and the NRC was considered acceptable by Region II.

The inspector reviewed documentation; memorandum dated November 18, 1988 from QA to the ODR Coordinator, and Operation Deficiency Report (0DR) T-2-88-1670.

This documentation-verified performance of deportability reviews for the ODRs perviously unreviewed and engineering deportability evaluation for the specific ODR sited in the violation.

The memorandum additionally reinitiated the performance of the procedurally required reviews which had been informally discontinued and initiated the use of transmittal letters for ODRS distribution to provide a feedback mechanism to assure that all 0DRs are distributed to QA for the required reviews.

The inspector concluded that the licensee had determined the full extent of the violation, taken action to correct conditions, and developed corrective actions need to precluded recurrence of similar problems.

Corrective actions stated in the licensee response have been implemented.

,

-

.-

._. _. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _

.

.

..

..

<

.

I b.

(Closed)- Inspection Followup Item 50-425/88-51-02:

Deficiencies in Administrative Procedure 00100-C, QA Records Administration, Revision 7.

This item identified the following deficiencies in AP 00100-C:

1.

Record storage deficiencies were not required to be reported in the plant deficiency reporting system.

2.

Construction record transfer guidance to operations was improperly referenced.

3.

Figure number references in the procedure text were

,

incorrect.

These deficiencies were corrected in revision 8 of AP 00100-C dated December 9, 1988.

c.

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-425/88-51-03:

Lack of Trending for Document Control Audit findings.

This item identified that Operation Document Control's Audit findings from internal audits were not trended or reviewed for operational significance.

These audit findings will now be identified via the plant deficiency reporting system. This system provides for trending and evaluation of identified deficiencies.

d.

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-425/88-25-01: Master Surveillance Schedule Incomplete.

This item was incomplete, primarily due to incomplete identification of components to be entered into the surveillance programs.

The master surveillance schedule or Master Surveillance Data Base was completed in December 1989.

Completion verification was accomplished by sample review of the Surveillance Data Base and surveillance program inputs from the draft Technical Specifications and ISI programs.

e.

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-425/88-25-02:

Surveillance Procedures Incomplete.

This item identified that procedures to perform Unit 2 surveillance tasks were not complete Review of commitment documentation from all organizations with responsibility for surveillance tasks and cross verification of surveillance tasks with implementing procedures indicated that surveillance procedures to meet operational commitments were complete.

f.

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-425/88-25-03: TS/LCO Instrument Identification and Calibration Program Incomplete.

During the identifying inspection, instrumentation to verify Technical Specifica-tions but not specifically required by TS for surveillance activity, was not identified and entered into a calibration control p(rogram.

Review of the Nuclear Plant Management Information System NPMIS)

indicated that this instrumentation has been identified.

Entering this instrumentation into a calibration control program requires a down load program from the NPMIS to a Repetitive Task subprogram.

Action on this item by the license is sufficient to pennit closur _

_.

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

l

.-

4

.

.

5-g.

(Closed). Inspector Followup Item 50-425/88-25/04:

Operations Surveillance Procedures of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or less incomplete.

Review of TS, Master Surveillance schedule', and applicable procedures indicated l

that these surveillance requirements are identified and addressed by prc.cedures.

4.

Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on January 27, 1989, with

- those persons indicated in paragraph 1.

The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results.

Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.

i

- _ - _

-__

_

_ _ _.

__

.. _ -

_ _ _ _

__

._

. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _. _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _. _ _ - - _ - - _ -