ML20151B549
| ML20151B549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1988 |
| From: | Conlon T, Hunt M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151B541 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-425-88-10, NUDOCS 8804080278 | |
| Download: ML20151B549 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000425/1988010
Text
- - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
UNITED STATES
-0
4
j ,'
,j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION 11
_ o,
[
101 MARIETTA ST, N.W.
%
j
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
e,,,,
\\
Report No.:
50-425/88-10
.
<
,
Licensee: Georgia Power Company
P. O. Box 4545
Atlanta, GA 30302
Docket No.:
50-425
License No.:
CPPR-109'
.
Facility Name:
Vogtle 2
Inspection Conducted:
February 22-25, 1988
'
d
7
Jo 8
Inspector:
W
M. D. Hunt
Date Signed
'
Accompanying Personnel: ' M. Miller
.
Approved by:
/W
y So W
T. E. Conlon, Chi'bf
Date' Signed
Plant Systems Section
Division of Reactor Safety
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was in the areas of Electrical
Work Observation and Records for Raceways and Instrumentation Procedure Review
i
and Work Observation for Instrument Calibration.
,
Results: One violation was identified.
!
'
t
8804080278 880331
ADOCK 05000425
O
,
,
,
I
.,s.
-m--,
,
, , , , -
,,.,,-----,----,-n,,
-
, , , , ,
,-r
- - = - -
--
-
. _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ - _
..-
,
.
..
.
'
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- J. Adams, Lead Instrumentation Engineer, Mechanical Discipline
- S. Boutwell, Instrumentation and Control Supervisor, Maintenance (Startup)
- C. Coursey, Maintenance Superintendent (Startup)
- E. Duke, Assistant Manager, Electrical Discipline
- M. Duncan, Instrumentation and Controls Supervisor, Nuclear Operations
- D. M. Fiquette, Manager, Field Construction - Unit 2
- J.- J. Gilmartin, Staff Engineer Supervisor, Mechanical Discipline
- L. B. Glenn, Manager, Quality Control
- E. D. Groover, Quality Assurance Site Manager, Construction
- H. Handfinger, Plant Startup Manager
- A. W. Harrelson, Manager Electrical Discipline
- C, W. Hayes, Quality Assurance Manager - Site
- R. E. Holland, Electrical Construction Supervisor
- C, W. Rau, Manager Mechanical Discipline
- P. D. Rice, Vice President and Project Director
Other licensee employees contacted included construction engineers,
technicians, and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
- R.
Schepens
- Attended exit interview
2.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were sumarized on February 25, 1988,
with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspectors
described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection
findings.
No dissenting coments were received from the licensee.
The
following new items were identified during this inspection:
VIO-88-10-01, Violation - Failure to issue Field Change Requests (FCR)
for addition of fire protection piping to cable tray
supports.
URI-88-10-02
Unresolved Item (URI) - Review the requirements for the
perfomance and acceptance criteria of instrument loop
checks during construction acceptance tests
The licensee did not identif~ as proprietary any of the materials provided
to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
_ _ - _ _ _
'
.
O
,
2
>
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters
.This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
-Unresolved Item
An Unresolved Item is a matter about which more information is required to
determine whether it is acceptable or may involve a violation or
deviation.
One unresolved item identified during this inspection is
discussed in Paragraph 6.
1
5.
Electrical Components and Systems-Work Observation (51053).
The inspectors selected several raceway supports for examination.
The
supports selected were parts of conduit and cable tray systems.
The
inspection was conducted to verify that proper materials- had been
specifieo and installed; weld inspections were performed as required,
anchor bolt torque requirements had been verified; the supports met the
specification requirements for spacing; and, the location of the supports
-met the construction drawing requirements.
The QC inspection and acceptance of raceways and supports is performed in
accordance with Procedure E0-T-02, Quality Control Raceway and Inspection
Checklist.
This checklist requires, verification that support materials
and bolted assemblies meet the detail drawings as specified; and
verification of welded assemblies for adequate size, length, type and
configuration.
Additionally, the Q/C inspector reviews the appropriate
j
drawing Field Change Requests (FCR) to verify that all changes from the
original design have been evaluated. Procedure ED-T-02 requires a minimum
of 10% test of bolt torques.
The following conduit runs were examined to verify installation in
accordance with procedures, specifications and drawings:
2BE8F2RS05D
',
2BE8F2RL135
2BE445RLO91
2BE445RLO87
2AE445RLO79
i
2AE445RLOS6
The following cable trays supports were examined for various attributes
used by the QC inspectors for acceptance of the installation:
TS160360
TS15437D
TS154306
TS160197
TS154493
TS154285
TS149301
TS154508
TS154311
,
TS149347
TS154320
TS154200
-
TS17566
TS154298
TS17187
l
_ _ - _ - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - - . _ _ _ .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ - _ _
..
.
,.
3
.
It was noted that fire protection pipe support attachments were mounted on
some of the above lish4 cray supports.
In some instances, the cable tray
supports had been inspected, accepted and documented by the electrical QC
inspectors.
The inspectors inquired about the method for permitting
additional attachments to be made to the cable tray supports and what
reanalysis was performed that assured that the support loading would
remain within seismic requirements for which it was designed.
The
inspectors- were advised that attachments were not made to cable tray
supports -until a seismic reanalysis was made and a FCR issued.
The.
inspectors selected eight supports on which additional attachments were
mounted for review of the required documentation.
The review of records
for these eight supports revealed that Support Nos. TS-154-370, TS-154-493
and T3-154-508 did not have FCRs for the addition of the fire protection
piping supports.
The licensee later determined possible two other cable
tray supports had additional attachments that had not yet been evaluated.
Specification X3AR01, Section E8 states "No pipes, ventilation ducts, or
other non-electrical material or equipment shall be permanently attached
to or supported by the cable trays on the tray support systems, unless
otherwise approved by Engineering."
The licensee was advised that the
failure to control the attachment of un-evaluated permanent fire
protection piping supports to the cable tray supports appearc to be a
violation of construction Specification X3AR01-E8 and is identified as
50-425/88-10-01, Failure to Issue FCRs for Addition of Fire Protection
Piping Supports to Cable Tray Supports.
Before the inspectors completed this inspection, the licensee had held
training sessions for the craftsmen instilling the fire protection piping
cn the subject of attachments to cable tray supports and how they are
controlled.
The licensee advised the inspectors that the undocumented
attachments would have been found during a finalization walkdown.
While
the final walkdown may have identified these supports, it is important to
perform the construction as specified to insure that all specifications
and drawings requirements are met and appropriate inspections performed.
6.
Instrument Components and Systems - Procedure Review (52051)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program to determine the
requirements and methods used for implementing construction testing
[ calibration] for instrumentation.
After the insiallation phase of
construction is completed, the instruments are either released for test or
turned over to the Nuclear Operation Department (N.O. Dept.) for testing.
The N.O. Dept. is responsible for instrumentation calibration during the
initial test program (ITP).
The facility's Safety Analysis Report,
Chapter 17.1.6, states the start up manual sets forth the general policies
and procedures for the initial test program and that procedures for plant
operation and maintenance may be used.
The inspectors examined the following procedures in or referenced in
Start-Up Manual [ SUM] relating to the ITP for instrumentation calibration:
__ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-__
_ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _
_-_ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ .. . _. . _ _ .. __ _- - _ _ - - - _ - _ __.
-
t
,
.
,
4
,
'
SUM-1
Start-Up Manual Introduction and Control
SUM-3
Preoperational Test Program Organization, Responsibilities,
and Interfaces
SUM-5
Rules for Performing Procedures
4
SUM-11
Construction Acceptance Test Program
,
!
SUM-12-A Construction Acceptance Test Implementation
SUM-18
Operations Deficiency Reports (ODR)
'
SUM-24
Initial Test Program Personnel Certification
j
00201-C
Quality Control Inspection Program
l
!
85301-C
Work Planning and Hold Point Assignment
,
CAT-E-08 Instrumentation
4
1
These procedures in the SUM define the requirements, administrative
'
controls, and organizations for conducting Construction Acceptance Tests
(CAT).
CAT-E-08, Instrumentation, is the general CAT procedure used for
implementing instrumentation calibration during the initial test phase.
i
CAT-E-08, Instrumentation, requires the Miintenance Department (Nuclear
.
Operation) will calibrate instrumentation using approved maintenance
,
procedures in conjunction with CAT-E-08.
These approved maintenance
procedures are instrument / loop specific and have been developed for
.
,
'
instrument, channel, or surveillance calibration requirements when the
.
plant is operational (fuel loaded),
The initial instrument / loop calibration is performed using the specific
I
y
maintenance procedure (s) as required by CAT-E-08.
However, in Section
t
Check, of CAT-E-08 Step 6.4.1 requires all components to be loop
i
6.4, Loop (after initial calibration) to ensure the loop will perform its
checked
i
intended function.
A note in Step 6.4 specifically states the Channel
Status Check performed by the Maintenance Procedure (s) does not fulfill
<
,
requirements of the Loop Check.
The requirements for the performance and
'
the acceptance criteria of the Loop Check in Section 6.4 of CAT-E-08 nes9s
to be further reviewed to ensure the intended function of the loop is
adequately tested.
This loop check situation will be examined further
during subsequent inspections and is identified as Unresolved Item (URI)
'
50-425/88-10-02, Review the Requirements for Performance and Acceptance
Criteria of Instrument Loop Checks During Construction Acceptance Testing
l
,
(CAT-E-08).
i
Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified.
!
?
,
t
y
- - - - - - -
.,
v.-
, -. - _ , - , - . ,
.-_,
_w.
_ . . _ , , - , , . , _
. , .
,,..__m,
, . .
, .
-
-_-----___--r-
- - _ _ __ - - , - = - - - ,,-
.
- _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
._
.
.
.
.
s
5
7.
Instrument Components and Systems - Work Observation (52053)
The inspectors observed testing and calibration activities for two safety
related instruments in the containment building. The instruments were the
pressurizer Pressure Transmitter 2PT-457 and the pressurizer Level
Transmitter 2LT-461.
The work package for each _ instrument was examined to determine if the
latest approved drawings and procedures were being used.
Each work
pachge was found to be complete containing all the required
documentation.
Both packages contained the general Construction
Acceptance Test (CAT) Procedure CAT-E-08, Instrumentation, and the
specific maintenance procedure for the instrument calibration.
The two
maintenance procedures, for calibration vere:
24527-2
Pressurizer Pressure Protecticn Channel 3 2PT-457
Analog Channel Operation Test and Calibration
24531-2
Pressurizer Level Protection Channel 3 2LT-461
Analog Channel Operation Test and Calibration
Each of these procedures was reviewed and the inspector verified the
required calibrated measuring and test equipment was being used by the
instrument technicians. However, neither transmitter could be calibrated.
Pressure Transmitter 2PT-457 had the signal wires incorrectly terminated.
This required the technicians to suspend work and initiate an Operation
Deficiency Report (ODR) as required by Procedure SUM ')8, Operations
Deficiency Report (ODR).
The technicians attempting to calibrate Level Transmitter 2LT-461
I
suspended work when they experienced set-up problems and were not sure of
the calibration requirements.
The QC inspector agreed work should be
stopped until the instrument foreman could be notified and clarify the
l
'
calibration requirements.
Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified.