ML102940327

9/16-09/17/2010 - Trip Report on Watts Bar 2 Accompaniment

ML102940327
Person / Time
Site:	Watts Bar
Issue date:	10/21/2010
From:	Lesser M NRC/RGN-II/DCI/CIB1
To:	Ogle C NRC/RGN-II/DCI
References
Download: ML102940327 (3)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 245 PEACHTREE CENTER AVENUE NE, SUITE 1200 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-1257 October 21, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: Charles R. Ogle, Director Division of Construction Inspection (DCI)

FROM: Mark S. Lesser, Chief /RA/

Construction Inspection Branch 1 Division of Construction Inspection

SUBJECT:

TRIP REPORT ON WATTS BAR 2 ACCOMPANIMENT DATE OF TRIP: September 16-17, 2010 OBJECTIVES OF TRIP:

The objective of this trip was to accompany the electrical issues inspection at Watts Bar 2.

INSPECTORS OBSERVED:

Guillermo Crespo, Lisa Castelli, Nick Karlovich, R. Mathis SENIOR MANAGER:

I met with Masoud Bajestani for 15-20 minutes. I discussed the Center for Construction Inspection organization and the role of DCI Branch 1. I also voiced concern with their recent response to a Notice of Violation which stated, The calculated natural frequencies of the front cover panel . were in excess of 33 Hz and rigid. When our inspector asked to review the calculation, he was told that it was an informal calculation. Masoud was not aware of the issue and said he would look into it.

OBSERVATIONS:

The inspection objectives were to inspect applicant activities associated with electrical Corrective Action Plans, Special Programs, and variety of electrical open items, and to inspect electrical cable and equipment installation. The inspection plan included good scope and work assignments.

The inspectors noted problems with the applicants computerized cable routing system in that there is missing and erroneous data. The inspectors appropriately discussed this with the applicant who stated that the corrective actions associated with this system are still in progress.

The inspectors attempted to observe in-process field work (cable and component installation).

The applicants schedule was delayed and changed and the inspectors were not able to observe much. Continued coordination with the applicant is necessary. I discussed with the inspectors the benefit of having a backup plan to review records, conduct walk downs, or other inspections, when field work gets delayed.

C. Ogle 2 Inefficiencies were noted with observations made during walk downs, in that it was difficult for the inspectors to know whether deficiencies they identified were associated with completed work (resulting in a finding) or in-process work. Obtaining the answer to this question takes a while and unnecessarily consumes resources if the work is in-process. I discussed obtaining information from the licensee on work that is completed (available for inspection) vs. in-process, which would help focus our inspections.

I reviewed inspection activities on receipt inspection of components. I discussed with the inspectors the need to sample and verify that correct regulations and qualification requirements were correctly invoked and flowed down from licensing documents to engineering and procurement documents; and to verify the received components met them.

The inspectors exit meeting with the applicant was conducted appropriately.

CC:

L. Reyes L. Plisco R. Croteau J. Moorman R. Haag G. Crespo L. Castelli N. Karlovich R. Mathis

ML102940327 SUNSI REVIEW COMPLETE OFFICE RII:DCI SIGNATURE MSL NAME M. Lesser DATE 10 / 21 / 10 E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO