IR 05000424/1985029

Insp Rept 50-424/85-29 on 850715-19.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Readiness Review Module 4, Mechanical Equipment & Piping

ML20134B241
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	08/01/1985
From:	Blake J, Girard E, Hallstrom G, Vias S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20134B232	List: IR 05000424/1985029 ML20134B229
References
50-424-85-29, IEB-77-04, IEB-77-4, NUDOCS 8508150559
Download: ML20134B241 (8)

Text

I

, UNITED STATES

8jfA H?og'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.[" n REGION ll 3 ,j 101 MARIETTA STREET, * 'c ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

%, . . . . . p# .

Report Nos.: 50-424/85-29 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. 0. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket No.: 50-424 License No.: CPPR-108 Facility Name: Vogtle 1 Inspection C d: uly 15-19, 1985 Inspector :

r

-

9 //

. Date Signed 9/ Sf Date Signed

.

'aGsK 1s om au Date' Signed Appro ed by:

J J Blake, Section Chief

_ 6///If Date Signed

eering Branch i ision of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This special, announced inspection entailed 111 inspector-hours on site in the area of Readiness Review Module 4, Mechanical Equipment and Pipin Results: No violations or deviations were identifie * '

B508150559 850805 gDR ADOCK 05000424 PDR-

f

.

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• C. Hayes, Quality Assurance (QA), Manager

• R. W. McManus, Readiness Review (RR)

G. McWhorter, RR Other Organizations

• W. C. Ramsey, Southern Company Services (SCS), Manager RR

• G. F. Trudeau, Bechtel Power Corp. (BPC) - RR

• M. Wright, SCS - RR

• C. Meyer, BPC-RR

• R. C. Sommerfeld, BPC - RR

• G. C. Bell, BPC - RR - QA

• B. L. Boherty, BPC - RR

• J. H. Draggs, BPC - RR - QA NRC Resident Inspectors W. F. Sanders J. Rogge R. Schepens

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 19, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding No dissenting comments were received from the license Inspector Followup Item 424/85-29-01, Readiness Review Module 4 Boundaries, paragraph Inspector Followup Item 424/85-29-02, Applicability of Statistical Methods to Readiness Review, paragraph Inspector Followup Item 424/85-29-03, Questions Regarding Module 4 Commitments, paragraph Inspector Followup Item 424/85-29-04, Acknowledgement of Access and Shielding Considerations in Designing for Inservice Inspections and Tests, paragraph .

.

.

The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspectio . Unytsolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio . Readiness Review Module 4 - Mechanical Equipment and Piping (92700B)

The inspectors began an evaluation of the Mechanical Equipment and Piping review that is being conducted by Georgia Power Company (GPC). The GPC review is being perfonned to aid in assuring that the Vogtle plant will be operationally ready in accordance with schedule plans for obtaining an operating license. This GPC Readiness Review is intended to specifically assess compliance with the regulatory comitments and requirements (both referred to by GPC and hereafter in this report as commitments) applicable to designing and constructing the plant and readying it for operation. GPC has divided the review into segments or portions which they term modules, to facilitate management of the review. GPC refers to the reports of their module reviews as modules and they will be similarly referred to herei The portion 'of the review being evaluated by the inspectors, Mechanical Equipment and Piping, is Module 4 of a planned 20 modules. The inspectors'

evaluation of GPC's Module 4 review is intended to assist the NRC in determining whether the GPC Readiness - Review provides an adequate identification of the applicable comitments, assessment of comitment implementation, and identification and resolution of review findings requiring corrective actio Sections 1,. 2, 4, 5, and 8 of Module 4 presented the introduction, company organization and division of responsibility, work processes, results of audits and special investigations, and the assessments and conclusions. The more significant aspects of the module are covered by sections 3, 6, and Section 3 lists the commitments that the reviewers identified applicable for the Vogtle plant mechanical equipment and piping covered by Module Section 3 also provides the reviewers' determination of the organization (either design or construction) responsible for commitment implementation and indicates the reviewers' detennination as to project documents that have implemented the comitments. Section 6 describes the activities undertaken by the reviewers to ascertain whether the Vogtle plant design and construc-tion work was adequately controlled to assure compliance with the identified commitment This involved, in a large part, a sampling review of comitment implementation. Section 6 also describes the reviewers' findings and conclusions. Section 7 is to describe an independent design revie The independent design review has not been completed or provided for NRC's evaluatio _ _ _

.

l The inspectors' evaluation of Module 4 during the inspection described herein involved a general examination of Module 4 and a detailed examination of Module 4, Section 3. Section 6 will be addressed in detail in subsequent NRC inspections. The inspectors general examination of Module 4 and their detailed examination of Module 4, Section 3 is described belo General Examination of Module 4 The inspectors generally examined the entire module to aid in understanding the boundaries of Module 4 and in understanding how the review was accomplished. The module itself stated that it covered ASME Section III mechanical equipment and piping work that was not the From responsibility of the Westinghouse Electric Corporatio information given in Module 4 and discussions with Readiness Review team members it is the inspectors' understanding that onsite activities for which Westinghouse has responsibility will be addressed by Module 16, NSSS (Nuclear Steam Supply System), while the The Westinghouse offsite inspectors found activities will not be addressed in the revie the exact boundaries difficult to ascertain, as some of the hardware procurement and installation in a given system was stated The to be the inspectors responsibility of Westinghouse while others were no requested that better information on Westinghouse responsibilitiesThe be provided to aid in establishing the extent of their evaluatio review design team leader indicated that additional information would be obtained and provided. The inspectors identified the better establishment of Westinghouse's responsibilities and hence the better establishment of boundaries of Module 4, as Inspector Followup Item 424/85-29-01, Readiness Review Module 4 Boundarie In their general examination of Module 4, the inspectors found no mention of any consideration of the use of statistical methods to plan or evaluate the review. The inspectors questioned review personnel regarding this and were informed that there was no use of statistics intended in the review and that they believed the NRC had been so informe The inspectors indicated that the applicability of statistical methods to the review would be examined further' in subsequent evaluation of the Readiness Review and that this would be identified as Inspector Followup Item 424/85-29-02, Applicability of Statistical Methods to the Readiness Revie During the general review of the module, the inspectors found that the review (Module 4, Section 6.1.3.7, Table 6.1-9) had examined, as part of a selected sample, the procurement specification and vendor submitted drawing for the residual heat removal isolation valve encapsulation vessels. The inspectors noted that the NRC had been previously requested to grant relief from certain ASME Section XI valve inservice tests because of valve access difficulties created by the size and construction of such encapsulation vessels. The test difficulties could result in excessive diversion of personnel and equipment needed for other safety-related work was The relief request and described result in for unnecessary radiation exposur __ - -

^

{

.

.

the Farley nuclear plant in a letter from Alabama Power Company to the NRC dated November 28, 198 The inspectors questioned review personnel as to whether such limitations had been taken into account in their review of the design. The inspectors were informed that the reviewers considered only whether tests or inspections could be performed, not whether they would be difficult to perform or whether installation of shielding should be considered to limit personnel exposure. The inspectors informed the reviewers that they considered that this matter should be examined further and identified it as Inspector Followup ' Item 424/85-29-04, Acknowledgement of Access and Shielding Considerations in Designing for Inservice Inspections and Test b. Examination of Module 4, Section 3 The inspectors examined the adequacy of reviewers' identification of Module 4 comitments and of their verification of implementation of the comitments in project documents. The examination of the identifi-cation and assignment of comitments was accomplished by independently selecting a sample (63) of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and all (13) Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin (IEB) commitments that appeared applicable to fiodule 4 and then examining Section 3 listings of the commitments to determine if they were included in the revie The commitments selected are identified in Table 1 of this repor Readiness Review team leaders were requested to provide explanations for any omissions noted. Comitments for which further explanations of omissions are required are denoted in Table 1. Twenty-seven of the commitments were examined by the inspectors to verify their inclusion in the project documents identified as implementing the comitments in Module 4, Section 3 listings. These are also denoted in Table 2. In some instances, the implementation could not be varified. These were identified to the review team leaders for resolution. (Table 2 identifies these too.) The inspectors' unresolved questions regarding omitted comitments and commitments whose implementation could not be verified in project documents were identified as Inspector Followup Item 424/85-29-03, Questions Regarding Module 4 commitment The questions identified to the review team for resolution with respect to this item are as follows:

(1) The commitment in response to IEB 77-04 was not assigned to Module 4 but rather to dummy Module 21W (for Westinghouse offsite activities not to be addressed in the readiness review). Can you provide documentation verifying that Westinghouse was assigned and has taken responsibility for compliance with this comitment?

(2) Explain the omissions identified in Table (3) Explain the comitment implementations that could not be verified as indicated in Table _ __

..-

TABLE 1 COMMITMENTS EXAMINED FOR PROPER MODULE ASSIGNMENT Comitment : o* Omitted in Ommission Requires or Source Module 4 Further Explanation 145 X 154 217 X X 218 - X X 227 X X 322 682 703 X X 711 '

880 885 889  ;

924 g-+ . . . . _ .

932 X Y-947 948 - - - - - _ . ...;.

950 951 952 953 954 956 957 958 1509 1537 X 1541 X X 1543 1558 X X 1569 1571 1578 1579 1599 1611 1688 1743 1744 1753

• Comitment No. assigned documented module f *

..

! 2 TABLE 1 (continued)

COMMITMENTS EXAMINED FOR PROPER MODULE ASSIGNMENT

.

Commitment No* Omitted in 0mmission Requires or Source Module 4 Further Explanation 1754 1764 1765 1778 1779 1781 1786 1787 1788 1789 1832 1841 1842 1855 1989 2170 2346 2486 2515 2809 2816 4673 4674 4675 4679 4890 4891 4892 4916 4917 4932 4933 IEB-77-04 X X IEB-78-04 X IEL -79-01B X IEB-80-18 X X IEB-81-02 X t

'

• Comitment No. assigned documented modules.

!

I l

i

-

..

e TABLE 2 VERIFICATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS IN PROJECT DOCUMENTS Implementation Could

. Commitment N Not Be Verified 322 924 948 X 950 951 952-953 954 955 956 957-958 X 1509 1688 X 1743 1744 X 1753 1764 X 1765 X 1778 1779 X 1781 1786 X 2816 4916 4917

'

4933

.