ML20205D499
| ML20205D499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1986 |
| From: | Blake J, Kleinsorge W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205D492 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-86-56, 50-425-86-25, NUDOCS 8608180058 | |
| Download: ML20205D499 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000424/1986056
Text
v
.
.
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- R. H. Pinson, Vice President
- E. D. Groover, QA Site Manager - Construction
- M. H. Googe, Project Construction Manager
- R.W.McManus,ReadinessReview(RR) Manager
Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen,
engineers, technicians, and office personnel.
Other Organization
R. C. Somerfeld, RR, Bechtel Power Corp.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- H. Livermore, Senior Resident Inspector - Construction
J. Rogge. Senior Resident Inspector - Operations
- R. Schepens, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
2.
ExitInterview(307038)
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on June 20, 1986, with
those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the
areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed
below. No dissenting coninents were received from the licensee.
(0 pen) Deviation 50-424/86-56-01 and 50-425/86-25-01:
Failure to Revise
FSAR As Committed, paragraph 3a.
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item 50-424/86-56-02 and 50-425/86-25-02:
Inconsistencies, paragraph 6a.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided
to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
3.
LicenseeActiononPreviousEnforcementMatters(927018)(927028)
a.
(0 pen) Violation 50-424, 425/85-23-02:
Failure to Install Pressure
Taps in Accordance with the FSAR and P&ID
0600100050 860729
DR
ADOCK 0500
4
L
'W
-
.
2
.
GPC letter of response dated July 22, 1985, has been reviewed and
documented to be acceptable by Region II.
The inspector held discus-
sions with cognizant engineers and examined the corrective actions as
stated in the letter of response. The inspector concluded that GPC had
determined the full extent of the subject noncompliance, performed the
necessary survey and follow-up actions to correct the present condi-
tions and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude
recurrence of similar circumstances. The corrective actions identified
in the letter of response have not been implemented. GPC letter dated
July 22, 1985, indicated that FSAR Figure 9.4.1-2 (Sheets 1 and 3 of 3)
will be revised by such that Air Filter Unit 1-1531-N7-002-000 Static
Pressure Sensor / Pitot Tubes locations in the FSAR correspond to the
as-built configuration by September 13, 1985.
To date, contrary to
the above, FSAR Figure 19.4.1-2 has not been revised.
Therefore, the
licensee deviated from a commitment to the Commission in that they
failed to revise the FSAR.
This deviation will be identified as
50-424/86-56-01 and 50-425/86-25-01:
Failure to Revise FSAR as
Committed.
b.
(Closed) Violation 50-424/85-60-01 and 50-425/85-40-01:
Failure to
Comply with Welding Requirements
GPC letters of response dated February 14, 1986 and March 14, 1986,
have been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by Region II.
The
inspector held discussions with the cognizant engineer and examined the
corrective actions as stated in the letter of response.
The inspector
concluded that GPC had determined the full extent of the subject
noncompliance, performed the necessary survey and follow-up actions to
correct the present conditions and developed the necessary corrective
actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstances.
The correc-
tive actions identified in the letter of response have been imple-
mented.
4.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort
Housekeeping (548348), Material Identification and Control (429028) and
Material Control (429408)
The inspector conducted a general inspection of the power block to observe
activities such as housekeeping, material identification and control;
material control, and storage.
Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified.
.
v
~
.
.
3
6.
Review of Readiness Review Module 18A, Heating Ventilation and Air Condi-
tioning(HVAC)
a.
General
This inspection report documents Region II's initial site inspection
relative to the evaluation of GPC's Readiness Review Module 18A, HVAC.
The inspection was conducted to aid in determining whether Module 18A
provided an acceptable basis for its reported conclusion, concerning
Unit 1 of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), that the design
and construction programs, and processes associated with the safety-
related and Seismic Category I heating, ventilation, and air-condi-
tioning systems within the scope identified within this module were in
accordance with applicable licensing commitments.
Readiness Review Module 18A is one portion (module) of a many part
review being conducted by GPC to aid in assuring that VEGP Unit I will
be operationally ready in accordance with scheduled plans for obtaining
an operating license. The GPC Module 18A review activities, data and
results are summarized in the Module 18A report, which was submitted to
the NRC March 24, 1986. The module report consisted of eight sections:
1.0, Introduction; 2.0, Organization and Division of Responsibility;
3.0, Commitments; 4.0, Program Description; 5.0, audits; 6.0, Program
Verification;
7.0,
Independent Design Review; and 8.0,
Program
Assessments / Conclusions.
The inspector conducted a general inspection of the Unit I containment
and auxiliary building to observe examples of the hardware included in
Module 18A.
The objective during this examination was an overview and
familiarization with the interrelationships between the types of
hardware involved.
Types of hardware examined included:
ducts, duct
supports, fans, dampers, cooling and filtration units, fire dampers,
chilled water equipment containment penetrations and HVAC controls
(local /inline instruments) added familiarization of the readiness
review process for Module ICA was gained through a general presentation
provided by GPC and follow-on discussions with Readiness Review
personnel. The inspector compared the FSAR with the commitment matrix,
Section 3.4 of Module 18A to determine whether any changes had been
made to the FSAR after the effective date November 1,1985, of Module
18A.
With regard to the inspection above, the inspector noted that FSAR
paragraph No. 2.2.3.1.4.1.2 is identified as commitment reference
No. 1873.
FSAR paragraph No. 2.2.3.1.4.1.2 was deleted in FSAR
amendment No.16.
The inspector further noted that FSAR paragraph
2.2.3.1.4.1.3 references paragraph 2.2.3.1.4.1.1 which was also deleted
by FSAR amendment No. 16.
This matter will be identified as inspector
followup item 50-424/86-56-02 and 50-424/86-25-02:
FSAR Inconsisten-
cies.
L
_
..
,
4
b.
Boundaries of Module 18A
The inspector completed the initial examination of the boundaries
associated with Module 18A as indicated within Section 1 of the report.
The objective during this examination was to get clear understanding of
the commitments, activities and hardware items included in Module 18A
and to aid in determination of the extent to which impcrtant activities
and commitments have been included and treated in the GPC review.
c.
Comitment Implementation
Section 3.0 provides the comitments GPC identified for Module 18A and
the verification of their implementation.
Subsections 3.1 through 3.3
of Section 3.0 provided brief introductory information - including a
definition of a commitment, information regarding the sources of the
comitments, and a listing of the typical documents that were deter-
mined to implen'ent commitments.
Subsections 3.4 and 3.5 of Section 3.0 presented respectively, a matrix
listing the comitments identified and a matrix listing the documents
considered to implement the comitments.
In addition to providing a
listing of the comitments identified, Subsection 3.4 provides an
identification of all the other Readiness Review modules to which each
Module 18A comitment was assigned and a determination as to whether
implementation of the commitment was a design organization responsi-
bility, a construction organization responsibility or the responsi-
bility of both.
The Subsection 3.5 matrix includes, for each comit-
ment, an identification of design and/or construction documents that
were determined to implement the comitment.
The inspector completed an initial review of the material presented in
the Module 18A Subsections 3.4 and 3.5 matrices to determine whether
the Readiness Review had satisfactorily identified commitments for the
module and if it had satisfactorily determined their inclusion in
implementing documents.
Requested clarification is specified in the
attachment.
Attachment:
Substance of NRC Questions of June 20, 1986 on Module 18A
Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified.
L
.
._-
.
-
-
..
.
ATTACHMENT
SUBSTANCE OF NRC QUESTIONS OF JUNE 20, 1986, ON MODULE 18A
1.
FSAR Section 9.2.2.1.1.1.B
Ref. No. 3441: DC-1592-3.1B calls for a maximum
nuclear service cooling water temperature of 95 F rather than a maximum
ambient air temperature of 104 F which is what the commitment calls for.
It
is not readily apparent that the two temperatures are equivalent.
2.
FSAR Section 9.4.5.4.1.C. Reg. No. 4073:
DC-1532-3.1.B. E and 4.0.A. Rev. 3
doesn't say what the commitment calls for.
The ccmmitment asks for each
electrical equipment room cooled by an HVAC unit to have the fan powered
from the same ESF bus as equipment in the room. The DC doesn't specifically
say that the fan is to be on the same ESF bus as the equipment.
3.
FSAR Section 9.4.5.5.F. Ref. No. 4080: The commitment calls for the battery
room exhaust fans to be Seismic Category I and to have explosion proof fan
motors. There appears to be no design document reference for commitment for
the fan motors to be explosion proof.
4.
FSAR Section 9.4.5.5.j, Ref. No. 4084:
The commitment calls for the minimum
acceptance criteria for HEPA filters to be the removal of 99.97% of the 0.3
micron thermally generated, monodispersed dioctyl phthalate particles.
Spec. X4AJ07-4.8.B. Rev.10 refers to ANSI N509, Para 5.1 which in turn
refers to MIL-F-51068C as modified by NRC Health & Safety Information Issue
306, June 1970.
It appears that neither N509 nor MIL-F-51068C specify that
the particle size removed must be 0.3 microns.
5.
FSAR Section 3.1.5, Rev. No. 2026:
This commitment for periodic leak
testing does not seem to be adequately supported by first order design
criteria.
6.
Why are the below listed FSAR references not listed in Section 3.4 as
Commitments? Programmability, what assures that the below listed references
are implemented?
FSAR References
6.2.5.1.1.0
6.2.5.1.2.C
6.2.5.1.3.0
6.2.5.1.5.A
6.4.2.2.2.J
6.4.2.2.2.L
6.4.2.2.2.H
6.4.2.2.2.N
6.5.1.1.E
6.5.1.3.E
9.4.6.1.2.A
,