IR 05000424/1985032

Insp Repts 50-424/85-32 & 50-425/85-27 on 850716-19.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Unresolved Items,Violations,Instrumentation Procedures & Readiness Review Activities

ML20133M318
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	07/30/1985
From:	Conlon T, Hunt M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133M303	List: IR 05000424/1985032 ML20133M299
References
50-424-85-32, 50-425-85-27, NUDOCS 8508130089
Download: ML20133M318 (4)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ .__ _ - - _ _ _

UNITED STATES

,

[p[too o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[' o REGION il y' j 101 MARIETTA STREET. * s ATLANTA GEORGIA 30323

'+9 . . . . . ,o

,

Report Nos.: 50-424/85-32 and 50-425/85-27

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 Facility Name: Vogtle 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: July 16-19, 1985 Inspecto r j . hs>?p ?v ekx s 7 ~Sr ~55 M. D. Hunt ( Date Signed Approved b .. <<h'V 4/. 7 " 30 -f$"

T. E. Conlon, Section Chief Date Signed Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 26 inspector-hours at the site during normal duty hours, in the areas of unresolved items, violations, Instrumentation Procedures and Readiness Review activitie Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

I R ADOCK05oh4p4 g

VDH I

- - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . - _ . -

. __,

'

) .

!

i REPORT DETAILS

! Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• M. H. Googe, Project Manager

• B. C. Harbin, Manager Quality Control (QC)

• E. D. Groover, QA Site Manager l

• G. A. McCarley, Project Compliance Coordinator

• C. Hayes, Vogtle QA Manager

• P. McCall, Assistant Project Section Supervisor, Electrical Field Office

• R. E. Duke, Project Section Supervisor Electrical Field Office

• G. Glasscock, Engineering Supervisor. Electrical Field Office Other licensee employees contacted included construction craf tsmen, engineers, technicians, and office personne Other Organization

• J. Mamon, Project Field Engineering - Quality Engineer, Bechtel Power Corp.

! NRC Resident Inspectors W. Sanders J. Rogge R. Schepens

• Attended exit interview I 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 No areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding dissenting connents were received from the license The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Closed)UnresolvedItem 50-424, 425/82 25 01 Field Change Notice Procedure Clarification - This item was the result of a review of procedures DC A-01, Orawing Control IV and DC A 03, Change Requests and Notices which identified a cond9 tion relating to work performed by Field Change Requests (FCR) that are later disallowed. There appeared to beThe no provision for evaluating or licensee was working on a redoing the work if the FCR was rejecte revision to procedare DC-A 03 when the condition was identified and later

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __________-_ _

!'

,

,

1 completed the revision which included instructions to all involved disciplines for evaluating work performed on rejected FCR This item is close (Closed) Violation 50-424, 425/84-35-01, Failure to Establish a Documented QA Program for Safety-Related Work Done by Protection Engineering. The licensee's response dated January 18, 1985, acknowledged the violation and committed to develop a comprehensive and fully controlled QA program to meet the applicable equipments of the QA program related to GPC's nuclear projects. The inspector reviewed System Protection Section (SPS) Note 28 which was issued March 25, 1985, to meet the requirements of ANSI N45.2.11 required by the plant Vogtle QA Program. The SPS Note 28 was found adequate for the purpose intended. This item is close (Closed) Unresolved Item 50-424, 425/84-35-02, Voiding Previous Cable l Termination Inspections. This item identified a concern for the voiding of

'

previously documented terminations when additional terminations are made at the same terminal block point. Procedure ED+T-08 Rev. 5 " Cable Termination" now requires documentation of any lugs that are determinated and relanded during cable terminations. The documentation is accomplished on the back of the termination card. This item is closed.

l (Closed) URI 50-424, 425/85-10-01, Review Approval Requirements for Cable

'

Pulling Calculations. The inspector reviewed the completed records for l several power cables that had been pulled by mechanical methods. The l

electrical engineering department had calculations and records that verified

'

the information found in the permanent records vault with the cable pull

card. This item is close . Unresolved items Unresolved items were not identified during the inspectio . Independent inspection Effort Construction Progress I The inspector conducted a general inspection of areas where cables were l

being installed and terminate The control room cabinet area was congested due to termination l

activities. QC personnel were in the area observing the activitie The craftsnen interviewed were knowledgeable and appeared interested in performing their work in a proper manne The housekeeping and storage of electrical materials appeared adequate but care must be exercised to insure that the areas remain clean and uncluttere ..

,

3 Readiness Review (RR) Comments There seems to be a large number of findings that will require evaluation for reportabilit In reviewing a sample of the findings for module 6 it was noted that there could be a considerable time lag between the time the finding is identified and the time it is evaluated. An overall observation is that the Readiness Review Program has resulted in an increase in the number of items to be reviewed for reportability over the number that would normally develop on the sit Provisions should be made to insure adequate qualified review personnel are on hand to perform this evaluatio A problem with the flow of RR findings was identified by the GPC QA Engineering Support grou The problem was basically the same concern that the inspector identifie As the result of the weakness identified, a definite pattern for the flow of RR findings was established to insure compliance with the Vogtle Project Readiness Review Program Procedures, Section 9.4 Discrepancy Reporting. All findings relating to construction and engineering deficiencies will be evaluated by the construction QA section and operating deficiencies will be evaluated by operations Q . InstrumentComponentsandSystems-ProcedureReview(52051)

The inspector reviewed construction procedure GD-T-20, Control of Instrumentation components which establishes the method for controlling and handling instrumentation components and bulk material It further describes a means for maintaining a component history from receipt to turnover for operation. This procedure references several other field procedures for cable installation and termination, receipt inspection, storage and handling, nonconformance control, inspector qualification and certification and other site specific generic procedure The QC receipt inspector and QC document review personnel verify that the documentation for manufacture and testing of materials meets the specification requirements. The inspector also verifies the proper storage classification. Additional review of other procedures relating to the installation of instrumentation components will be made during subsequent inspection Within the areas examined no violations or deviations were identifie . InspectorFollowupItem(IFI)

(Closed) IFI 50-424, 425/84-35-03, Followup on Licensee Corrective Actions Regarding Cable Reel Storage in the Power Block. The inspector examined cable reels which had been moved into the diesel generator building, the containment building and the auxiliary building to determine that adequate protection was being provided for the cable reels during cable installation and storage. The cable reel storage area on the auxiliary building roof was also examined and in all areas the cable reels appeared to have adequate protection in the form of covers or the remoteness of the area in which they had been placed. This item is closed.