IR 05000424/1985033
| ML20133Q173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1985 |
| From: | Brownlee V, Long F, Schepens R, Sinkule M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133Q150 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-85-33, 50-425-85-28, NUDOCS 8508150046 | |
| Download: ML20133Q173 (5) | |
Text
- - -
. _ _ - -
_
.
.
.-
-.
. -..
..
.
.... - _
.
l
[SQ 080
UNIVED STATES
'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,83
- "*
REGION il p
J g
j 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
- g ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
'+9..
,o
...
!
. Report Nos.:
50-424/85-33 and 50-425/85-28 I
Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545
Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket Nos.:
50-424 and 50-425 License Nos.: CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 i
Facility Name: Vogtle 1 and 2 i
!
Inspection Conducted: July 10-11, 1985 Inspectors:
7-2. 3 -#
.,
!
F. J Long Date Signed
!
(w 1.nw &
,/>,/c
-
V.~ L Srown ee Da'te S'igned wudu V 7ki/rr l
+
.
i R' J. 5therien's
'
Date Signed Approved by:
f
~7 7/
S-
M. V. Sinkule, Section Chief Date Sfgned
~
Division of Reactor Projects
)
SUMMARY
Assessment of the licensee's program and performance with regard to the Vogtle Project Quality Concern Program (QCP).
Results:
In the areas inspected,~ no violations or deviations were identified.
!
!
i
[
}
M $50o$$24
!,
,
'
. - -.
,,..
. - -.
,. _..
.,.
, _.....
. _,. _. _ _
- _ _ _ _ _ _ -.....
... _., - - _. _ _... _,, _,,.
-
..
.
.
._. - -
- -. -
.
_-
.
i
i
'
.
.
I I
i
i
~
REPORT DETAILS
'
1.
Persons Contacted i
Licensee Employees
,
t
- C. W. Hayes, Vogtle QA Manager (QAM)
I s
- L. W. Glenn, Vogtle Quality Concerns Manager (QCM)
A. E. Simmors, Senior Construction Analyst
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 11, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph I above. The licensee did not identify
'i as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
i 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters No previous enforcement matters were inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items
,
1 Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
i 5.
Review of the Vogtle Quality Concerns Program (QCP)
a.
General
,
A special onsite review was conducted by a team of inspectors which i
included the cognizant resident inspector and branch chief, accompanied
'
by the Assistant to the Regional Administrator.
The purpose of this
'
.
special inspection was to. assess the effectiveness of the licensee's l
performance with regard to the QCP.
t (1) Program
,
i
,
The Vogtle progam is procedurally formalized and aimed primarily l
at assuring quality of the permanent structures and systems. The
'
QCP. scope is not limited -to Safety-Related and/or Important to Safety aspects of the plant but encompasses all aspects of the
.
Project activities where individuels have concerns relative to the quality of the plant.
The utility. currently plans to continue i
!
the program for Units 1 and 2 througnout construction and preopera-i tional testing. At the issuance of.the -full power license for
'
both Units the utility plans to implement a quality concerns program similar to the Hatch program.
,
e
_
,
...
- -. _ _ - -
_
.
.. -.
__.. _. _ - -
_.-
_. _, - _
.
.-
The program at Vogtle is managed by a staff onsite, specifically assigned and full time. There is a QCM, five investigators, two clericals and a coordinatar.
The day-to-day operation of the QCP is the responsibility of the Vogtle QCM. The QCM reports administratively and functionally to the Vice President and General Manager of the Vogtle Project with responsibilities also to the Vice President and General Manager of Quality Assurance.
The site staff maintains all records on expressed concerns, confidential files being maintained where submitters so requested. An index number and separate folder are maintained on each separate concern. The details of the concern, interviews of workers, supervisors and other technical personnel, concurrences, and interim or permanent disposition / closeout information are contained in these folders.
It is important to note that many concerns that employees have are not brought into the concerns program.
A cornerpost of the program is a letter to all employees from the president of the company that encourages reporting of concerns direct to immediate supervision or other management levels first and to the concerns office if not satisfied or if confidentiality is desired. There are no specific records of concerns reported directly to super-vision. Employees may register a concern by placing the item in a drop box, verbally-describing it on the telephone (toll free number) or by simply delivering it to the QCM's office.
For mail-in responses to questionaires, a special postal box address is used and mail is picked up by concerns offico staff only.
Contractors working onsite are required by Georgia Power Company
,
j to have a program for handling concerns. The functioning of these programs is monitored and closely observed by the Vogtle QCM or
his representatives.
(2) Employee Awareness The Vogtle QCP is fully implemented. When entering, touring, or departing the site, the observer sees considerable evidence of the concerns program.
An extensive awareness program for GPC em-ployees and all contractor personnel is evidenced by large signs posted at key locations, flyers passed out to all personnel arriving or departing the site, wallet calendars, various types of logos for wearing on hats and clothing, and vehicle bumper stickers. The general message conveyed by the printed materials is l
that GPC intends to build the plant in a high quality manner which meets or exceeds all Regulatory requirements.
Employees and all others entering the site are advised to report promptly any indications of the compromise of quality they become aware of.
Several options for reporting concerns are provided.
The posted and other printed materials are supplemented by orientation sessions for new personnel and exit interviews for the majority of terminated personnel.
'
l
--
_ _ _, _
. - -
,
,-
...
.. -
.
. _ _
.
.
.
,
,
The goal has been to interview 100% of terminated employees.
-
Experience at Vogtle indicates about 70% of terminating personnel
sign the concern program forms on termination.
The forms are
-*
mailed to the remainder of the personnel with stamped reply envelopes. Approximately 50% of the forms have been returned.
b.
Inspection Efforts The team met with the licensee staff for a briefing on the QCP. The
"
briefing included the licensee effort involved, procedures, staffing and a walk through of the system utilizing an actual case file.
The inspectors subsequently examined the controlling procedures and associated forms.
Frc:a a record of statistics on categories of concerns processed, examples of categories which were more numerous were selected for review. These categories were as follows:
harassment / discrimination, welding, technical, training, documentation and drawings and quality assurance and quality control. The inspectors selected nine case files for review.
Some of the selected case files were closed while others were still active at the time of the inspection. Three of the selected
case files were selected for Inspector Followup.
These case files, 84V400, 84V396 and 85V025, were selected to follow through the overall quality system for appropriate closecut and traceability since the technical closeout was controlled through other Quality Assurance control measures such as Corrective Action Requests,. Discrepancy Reports and Audit Finding Reports. The inspector followup item number is 50-424/85-33-01 and 50-425/85-28-01.
,
Additionally, the inspectors were shown the indoctrination and exit interview facilities and had discussions with the responsible individual in this area.
'
c.
Summary It is evident that this program has had top management support and involvement.
The program is formalized, staffed and concerns are screened for evaluation of reportability in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) and 10 CFR Part 21.
,
The program appears to be an effective mechanism for getting concerns reported to licensee management.
Most concerns are recorded during termination exit interviews.
Although many reported concerns have relatively minor quality / safety significance, the overall results are positive. The licensee estimates that about 40% of reported concerns have substance; however, about 80% of these substantive concerns are i
already documented in various quality control systems.
Nevertheless, figures indicate that about 20% (or 1 in 5) of the substantive concerns are new or have not been entered in any control system.
Several i
_. -,
.-
_
,
_-
- _ _ -
,.
.
_.
.-
- -
-
O
..
%
reported concerns have had very considerable quality / cost savings significance and have resulted in commendatory letters being sent to the employees.
Discussions with.a sampling of employees raveal strong support for the program, its positive affects on employee morale being the major reason.
l Minor problems which would be expected in any program of this type have been experienced. For example, in a few cases employees believed they j
could avoid pending layoffs by submitting a quality concern.
.
Additionally, a few employees have held off on reporting concerns until
'
some disagreement developed between the employee and his supervision.
Such problems appear to be few and not of significant substance. There was essentially no backlog of concerns pending resolution. The staff appeared adequate to assure prompt handling of reported concerns.
In many cases, investigations are initiated on the concerns within 24
hours, depending on the significance of the concern.
The conclusion is that the QCP program is a viable program and appears i
to be functioning in accordance with the objectives of the program as stated in the company policy and procedures.
!
!
!
<
I
.
1 I
j
)
.
,w
-,, -, - - -
ew,
,
- -,,
,,, - -
--r
.-