IR 05000424/1982011

IE Insp Repts 50-424/82-11 & 50-425/82-11 on 820410-0510. Noncompliance Noted:Failure to Follow Procedures Re Storage & Preservation of Matl & Failure to Have Instructions or Procedures for Survey Group

ML20062K057
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	06/22/1982
From:	Brownlee V, Sanders W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20062J966	List: IR 05000424/1982011 ML20062J963 ML20062K016 ML20062K045 ML20062K054
References
50-424-82-11, 50-425-82-11, NUDOCS 8208160535
Download: ML20062K057 (5)

Text

'

, . .

[pa ne 'o UNITED STATES

~

8 n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ E REGION ll e, ~ 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 g ***** s Report Nos. 50-424/82-11 and 50-425/82-11 1.icensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Facility Name: Alvin Vogtle 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Inspection at Vogtle luclear Station site near Waynesboro, Georgia Inspector: .

% Mc:p:2,. g // M E nders (/(/ // Date Signed Approved by: Nu h V. L. Brownlee, Secti6nfChief, Division of 6 2 t [8't Ddte Signed Project and Resident Programs SUMMARY Inspection on April 10 - May 10, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 174 resident inspector-hours on site in the areas of installation of concrete forms, concrete placements, inspection of piping, dimensional inspections, installation and location of imbeds and review of licensee's action on previous inspection finding Results Of the six areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in four areas; two violations were found in two areas (failure to follow procedures relative to the storage and preservation of material - paragraph 10; failure to have instructions or procedures for the survey group - paragraph 9).

8208160535 820804 PDR ADOCK 05000424 0 PDR

r

. .. .

DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager D. O. Foster, Project General Manager W. T. Nickerson, Manager Generating Plant Construction J. A. Bailey, Licensing Project Manager B. Bolander, Supervisor Survey

• W. R. Evans, Project Section Supervisor

• M. H. Googe, Assistant Construction Project Manager

• E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor

• C. W. Hayes, Project QA Manager P. Herman, Generic Licensing Engineer

• R. W. McManus, Manager of Quality Control

• C. R. Miles, Jr. , QA Field Supervisor S. C. Persyn, Environmental Manager Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, technicians and office personne Other Organizations

• H. R. Reuter, Resident Engineer, Bechtel Power Company Corporation (BPC)

S. Hayter, Engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC)

J. P. Runyan, QA Manager, Pullman Power Products

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 11, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed belo (0 pen) Violation - 424, 425/82-11-01: " Failure to control the storage and preservation of material."

(0 pen) Violation - 424, 425/82-11-02: " Activities affecting quality were not prescribed in documented procedures." Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspecte '

, . .. .

4. Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio . General Inspections were made periodically throughout this reporting period in the form of a walk-through inspection in different sections of the facility to observe activities in progress for obvious defective items or noncompliance with the required codes and regulatory requirements. On these inspections, particular note was made of the presence of quality control inspectors, supervisors and quality control evidence such as available process sheets, drawings, material identification, material protection, performance of tests, housekeeping, etc. Interviews are also made with craft personnel, supervision, coordinators, quality control inspectors and others as they are available in the work area Within the areas examined, no items of noncompliance were identifie . Specific Areas Inspected

. Unit 1 and Unit 2 containment structure . Unit I and Unit 2 setting of concrete form . Observation of activities in the Unit I and Unit 2 auxiliary buildin Fuel handling building on all level . Observation of the backfill compactio . Other areas inspected include a site inspection subsequent to the major rain storm on the 21st of April. This was a follow-up to a previous environmental inspection and the findings identified as 80-06-01 and 80-06-02. This inspection included batch plant and No. 2 run off pond.

! . Actual erosion and run off control on the perimeter base of the

, category 1 back fill stock pile.

. Material laydown and storage areas and material protectio . River intake structure and run off control at the river. The conditions observed here were subsequently discussed with the site i Environmental Manage . Observed general water conditions at the power block and the general drainage system Within the areas examined, no items of noncompliance were identifie r -

. . . . . ,

3 Plexiglass Concrete Forms  ;

New type concrete forms, consisting of plexiglass on one side are being used for walls that are l' wide. This provides direct visibility on one side to observe'the concrete placement and vibrating results in the tight -

areas between rebar, imbedments, and other obstructions. This has enabled t the contractor to increase the wall placement from 6' to 12' high. During this report period the inspector made several inspections on the setting of !

these forms on wall A-11-A-034. In addition, visual inspections were made ,

of walls A-11-A-035, 025, 026 which had been completed by utilizing these -

types of forms. No significant surface defects were observe ! Fuel Pool Concrete Placement ,

I Several inspections were made throughout the setting of the forms for the ~

placement of concrete in walls A-09A-011 A, A-09A-011 B, A-09A-011 C, and A-09A-011 These are located in the fuel handling building. Periodic inspections were made of pipe and electrical imbedments, cleanliness and general pour s preparations. The inspector observed the set-up to optically inspect the straightness and verticality of the west wall of the building. Within the areas examined no items of noncompliance were identifie . Inspection Procedures

10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V, requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescibed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawing Contrary to these requirements, final inspections for acceptance of completed i work were being made without written instructions or procedures. These inspections by the survey group involved acceptance of tendon locations, equipment verticality and orientation, location of imbeds and penetrations, wall alignments, location and setting of equipment, circularity and i diametral inspection of the reactor building containment line '

t This is a violation (50-424, 425/82-11-02 - Failure to have procedures -

Inspection Survey Group Final Inspectio . Handling, Storage and Shipping 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V, requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, prc:edures or drawing ;

l l Pullman Section XIII-5 and Bechtel X4AZ01 procedures require that stain-  :

'

less pipe be stored off the ground. Contrary to this requirement, on  !

May 10, 1982, the inspector observed 29 pieces of stainless pipe spools on i r

.

- . . , . - -- - - - - . , - . - ~ - - , - - - . .- . - - - . , , , .

.. ... .

the ground in the storage area on the entrance hill to the power bloc Persons in the yard started immediate action to correct the problem. The inspector informed the Pullman QA/QC Manager who stated that he would take additional action to preclude recurrenc This is a Violation (50-424, 425/82-11-01-Failure to follow procedures -

material storage).

11. INP0 Evaluation The evaluation of the Vogtle project, which has been selected for the pilot program by INP0 was initiated on May 3,1982, and is to be concluded in 3 weeks on May 21, 1982. The evaluation is being performed on site by an initial compliment of 28 people who are evaluating the following areas:

. Organization & Administration

. Construction Control

. Design Control

. Project Support, Training of Project Documentation

. Procurement Control

. Site Q. A. Operation and Audit result

. Procurement Organization Controls

. Site Power Supply In addition to the above items, which are not all inclusive, part of the team evaluated design control interfaces at Southern Services Company in Birmingham, Georgia Power Corporate in Atlanta, and Bechtel Power Company in

-

Los Angeles. The inspector was informed that a formal report with recom-mendations would be submitted to Georgia Power Corporate headquarters.