ML20215F195
| ML20215F195 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1986 |
| From: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| 86-585, NUDOCS 8610160116 | |
| Download: ML20215F195 (5) | |
Text
r.
~-
c bMD 4
VIHOINIA ELacTHIC AND POWEH COMPANY Ricnuox o,, V GINIA 20261 3 6 ober 2, 1986 w.L.sTHWART
)
Vacs Passionar
. NucLeam Ormaations Dr. J. Nelson Grace Serial No.86-585 Regional Administrator NAPS /JHL Region II Docket Nos. 50-338 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 50-339 Suite 2900 License Nos. NPF-4 101 Marietta St., N.W.
Dear Dr. Grace:
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY NORTH ANNA POWER STATION UNITS NO. 1 AND 2 RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS REGARDING INSTALLATION OF EMERGENCY LIGHTING (FILE NO. RII-85-A-0067)
We have reviewed your letter of August 28, 1986, in reference to the alleged concerns regarding the installation of emergency lighting on North Anna Unit No. I during May, 1985. The enclosure to this letter provides the response to these items of concern.
If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours, L
N W. L. Stewart i
Enclosure gOl60116861002 p
DOCK 05000338 PDR
\\
[
)
IL
^
cc:
Mr. Virgil L. Brownlee, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Mr. Lester S. Rubenstein, Director PWR Project Directorate #2 Division of PWR Licensing-A Mr. J. L. Caldwell NRC Senior Resident Inspector North Anna Power Station Mr. Leon B. Engle NRC North Anna Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #2 Division of PWR Licensing-A
(= =
't ENCLOSURE RESPONSE TO THE ITEMS OF CONCERN REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OF EMERGENCY LIGHTING (FILE NO. RII-85-A-0067)-
RII-85-A-0067 Statement of Concerns BACKGROUND: A concerned individual contacted Region II'and stated'that he had' concerns that he wanted to discuss regarding the improper inspections at the North Anna Nuclear Plant. The concerned individual.. hereinafter referred to as the. ALLEGER, stated'that in May,1985 he worked on the " Appendix R Emergency Lighting design' change." ALLEGER stated that while electricians were putting up unistrut hangers for the lighting, they encountered a bolt that they could not reach with a calibrated torque wrench.
An electrician's helper went and obtained an " adapter" for the wrench. The ALLEGER stated that he did not see the " adapter" used, but from conversations that were overheard, he assumed that it was used as a common practice. The ALLEGER also questioned whether or not the inspector who inspected and signed off the work knew that an " adapter" was used on the calibrated torque wrench. The ALLEGER identified the mounting in' question as being in the Unit 1 switchgear room, first isle on the right (coming through the double doors from Unit 2) in the overhead. The ALLEGER stated that he heard that there were other places where bolts in the unistrut damaged the unistrut because 29 foot pounds of torque were being applied.
The following questions were raised by the ALLEGER regarding work being done at the North Anna Plant in May 1985.
85-0067-001: Does the use of an adapter on a torque wrench invalidate the torque wrench calibration since the adapter extends the wrench?
RESPONSE
The use of an adapter on a torque wrench does not invalidate the torque wrench calibration provided allowance is'made for the use of the adapter.
It is assumed that the adapter referred to is a
" crow's foot" which is used to extend the lever arm of the torque wrench.
Allowance is made in one of two ways, by applying a conversion factor to the torque reading which is determined by engineering, or having the torque wrench re-calibrated with the adapter.
In this case, the torque wrench was re-calibrated with the adapter attached.
Q
85-0067-002: Raising safety concerns and questioning procedure resulted in lay off from the job as workers with less seniority and experience were still working and Daniels Construction Company was still hiring personnel.
RESPONSE
Reductions in force (layoffs) are predicated only on job requirements, an individual's classification and an individual's performance. Seniority is not a criteria. A review of hiring and terminating transactions during the period April 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985 was made. The termination transactions fit the existing policy and procedure.
Any concerns raised about safety or procedures were dealt with through the supervisory chain and were not cause for retribution.
85-0067-003: Did the QC Inspector who signed off the bolt torque know an adapter had been used on the torque wrench? If the QC Inspector knew an adapter was used why didn't he question the practice?
RESPONSE
The QC Inspector knew that an adapter was used on the torque wrench. This is evidenced by the Support Data Sheet which documents the installation of the hanger and notes the calibration and use of the torque wrench with the adapter.
85-0067-004: Workmen in the field worked off of Xerox copies of controlled drawings which were hard to read and, in some cases, controlled copics of drawings had changes which were not on the Xerox copies.
RESPONSE
Known instances of workmen using other than the latest issue controlled drawings were documented on Inspection Reports and were dispositioned.
In addition, in June, 1985, training on North Anna Power Station Administrative Procedure 3.1 (ADM-3.1), " Administrative Procedure for Control of Design Change Implementation" was added to the Craft Procedure Training Program.
ADM-3.1 provides the requirements for controlled drawings. The use of controlled drawings only in the performance of work is emphasized in this training.
85-0067-005: Some Stone and Webster drawings were inadequate in that hanger dimensions were not given on the drawings. The common practice was to make the hanger fit and then update the drawings.
RESPONSE
North Anna Power Station Administrative Procedure 3.2 (ADM-3.2)," Changes to Approved Pipe and Conduit Support Sketches" provides the necessary control for making changes to conduit support sketches. The ability to make changes to conduit support sketches is necessary due to physical interference problems encountered during installation.
\\
=-
.g.
s' I
ADM-3.2 provides the method by which authorized personnel revise dimensions on the Conduit Support Sketches to accommodate field conditions.
NOTE: In the last sentence of the text, reference is made to unistrut being damaged due to the application of a torque of 29 foot-pounds. A torque of 29 foot-pounds was specified in the Design Change Package.
' Damage to galvanizing was observed, recorded on a Non-Conformance Report and repairs were made..
Y