p 25,corrective action plans,to suppl a to 'engineering ... · p.o. box )os46 birmingham, ala....

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS PAGE

Discrepancy No. EVP-U-14

Discrepancy No. UIR-46





Discrepancy No. UIR"51


25.1

25.2

25.3

~ . . 25.4

25.5

25.6

25.7

25.8

'8303300230 830325PDR ADGCK 05000389A

. PDR

-25-

DISCREPANCY NO. EVP-U-14

-25.1-

UNRESOLVED ITEM (DISCREPAti'CY REPORT

EHGIHEERIHG VERIFICATION PROGRAM-SL2

REV($ (OPJ

EVP- u.- t+

A. PREPARATION BY C-E TASK FORCE INITIATOR

DATE: ('< 8 2.

AFFECTED ITEM: % 2 ) V(cl(-v6 V-3(et+ MRXIMuht CHI-ORIDC Cdd'TE'N'l OFS f/'(el<.Klnl(> MA'Tgg,lpll

AVrncH HAUNT I (g FI'4I- S(rE QuAw~y.P((occouo(6'o. SQP-IX RKVCrR(VZ PQCJ4(MCP ++POR< Q 3(O(9 ( PWCP(FO $ -28-8%)

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: (0-) R6'cdIP1 gP(S Pgcw(o~ II6 Po(Er R-8(-<C '(3-(0- 8 i ( I= I'4 I-'}

(3) RFC&Or QF(f PECTIOA( R6'POa< R-8(- (I~I DTD

DIFFERENCES TO BE RESOLVED:

DESIGN RELATED Q FIELD INSTALLATIDN RELATED Q START-DP PERFDRNANCERELATED

V Pg t HAS F~~(DE'D CE'R<<I I(-Rv loN5 OF HAxlMHM CH«R1DcCo~zeey 56'PC0 Mt- +4+0 ~No GRAFO(I I cR Ai TEACH~(."-NT5

(z.), (3),(+), (5') Ado (Q.A(-T'Hou.('„li THGSc CMv'(I=I<ATIQN5 30 END Ichzc TAAv t H~ Phd<I ggMIArTcglp( 5 I~A<g A CH(OR(Di CCPtJ rCaf'F l c S5 WEAN 200 I PM(

XT QgNrLIo7. 3A~ CouP(A~Go T~T &HE PR<v(H6 HA7'GclAI 4~CD INi'HG VA(.v(= (Arr~cH<~r (t)) wp 5 oF 7 It< DAHN' o7 ORlOCScR.IGc D 'Qq ~$ 65 g (" ER7 (P'I(. g 7 Iop(5.

PREPARED BY:

B. PEVIEW BY C-E TASK FORCE

COB'IEHTS/RATIONALE:

A<%A(k(AFmT,'s) pM<<PP M)Pter(o4 Rgf'or(7 R- 8(" IRxs DT

S-I7-Sl (F eat.)(Q) yacc I p-, 7ggpcc.zvrP4 R(.'Pa(ET g-8l- l5"IQ DTD

II-2-9 I (FP Cl-)

Ts~H lC.H

~n( Vg

P Pf J (ROD(Dg

A pp( ~~~, t r(I ('c(N 5, Qp WgR,(g( + Sc 0

Q~ g~~(O~D Py Q'fT(DICE H+~T'l ) ~

C~v'(I-r('.e re>SIQ

C3 DIFFERENCES RESOLVED

Q RE-REVIEW RE(UESTED

DiFFERENCES UHRESDLVED.DISCREPANCY TRANSMITTED TO REVIEW COt'AITTEE.

DATE'~ 9 ez.

:l ~ P~D.r

L': 'L~~.

IOl PO" KR Cs tlGHT CO:.LP*NY

A pTMHH6'h)T (>)

Construction QualitYOct ol

Receipt InspectionReport

jo EVP- U.- (+RGV. 3-

RXR !'o.g-8/- 2(u 0!ERR No.:

wyos4Unit:

Q ltS

SeismicASHL' Yes

+NoSect.

Class

Page I of

!<aterial Description

ypcvE

SupplierPdo 4A~M C <p

ub Supplier

P.O. Number

Sub. P.O. Number

SupplementsOO

Sub Supplements

Supplier's Address

Qo/AVIDLY ) g$, Supplier Approved

I

Source InspectionPerformers gkp z/m/pg

Spec tic tice Ncn@er

Yes No

- H wrA

Yes No

N/A

Drawing Number

Permitted,t

O Vot Permit.ted.

uzacture Documentation: Accept/Reject Criteria Source"QU1R:-D

g Y~eS Q NO

LjN/AR™r.Cr.IVr"D

Pg YPeS NO

. oc J. j EhCIPIb'L~ Cgiorrods 6 W

PPg

'P- P-g.Z. 7-/

Inspection ItemsAccept/RejectRequirements A R VgA Remarks

Ident i.fication 6 Markings

!'anufacturer Documentation

/jw,7. f7 4 ~c.

Protective Covers 6 Seals rid~' C

Coating 6 Preservatives

Inert Ga Blanket

Desiccant

Fhy ical. Damages Q.Z /Cleanliness 6~2.Z ./Chemical Properties

lt1 'Ht c}1nnical Prouorties

~ 4 ~ ~ e ee ) «ee 'Ie' e ~.' 9 Y eii" fr~ r eee r ~ ~ I ~ e rt, ~ v'Np ~

1,

xnspcct on ItemsAccept/RejectReauirements R 8/A Remarks

Dimensions

12 t!eld Pre~aration

13 Workmanship

Luh icant & Oils

15 Elect".ical Insulation

Special Inspection

Checklist Approved For Use:S

QCSTitle Signature Date

Release Info: Full Release Mat'1. Release No.:~ ~

0 Partial Release Mat'1. Release No.:

0 Other Related RIR:

All Items On Hold

Discrepancies RemarksInspector's Signature Date

N/A

DR NOs.RMApproved By: SW~d

Title SignatuB-y~Pg

Date

. DMI ~

FLORIDA POPOVER 5 LIGHTCOilIPANY

P.O. No. ~I~ yp,

Construction Quality Control

Haterial Release Notice

MRN NO. SL- ~(7wm go.:

g-h'/- Z4'P

page W afPartial Release„

Q Full Release

Items Inspected: (P.O. Line Item No.)

vszv~=

Item A R Qty Item

Lc5' L. ]It%Rod

/oo /0 m ~ r ~or ) ~ wa,lc

r. A I oM PrIG~

SToQ,S g~ ~ +dan

0 /OC JP ~ s-kg~ o /Po g r" C

~Tot< Sdo - go

~ .

Additional Information on BackNo Additional Information on Back

, The material marked asacceptable above isauthorized to be,releas'ed: Title Signature D te

P.O. BOX )OS46 BIRMINGHAM, ALA. 35202 ~ PHONE 205 663 225l ~ HIGH'sYAY 3l S..PELHAM, IQ.

February 20, l981Rat" ZiVZD

MAR 9 ]98t

EBASCO SERVICESOOCUQEHT INSPECTOR

ST. LUCIE UNIT 2

GRAFOXL CERTiFZCATZON CERTIFXCATE

Ne hereby certify that the Nuclear Grade Grafoil material, .

furnished Florida Power and Light, on Purchase OrderNeer 7740325402SSLl~989$ Lhas less than 50 parts per million ofleachable chlorides and a sacrificial anode was furnished.

SFPCO Corporation

~ ~ s 1sI t s As. ss 7: ss)l

D'on DonnellyAssistant Custom~er Seryices Hanager

Q

~ ) /t IsI+IsIUF/ CT(IRERS OF FLUIDSE. t LINC PRODUCTS~st ~ ~ tssr tt tttt tltsls sst ~ Sststsstas' ss ~ tssst ts tf+mtsst Clsslst t'oil(sssl Attttt'IttltSSl

L IQOi~/))-,,

I'A POWER EI LIGHT COMPANY

5 GYAc.HHZt4Y (3)Ctlo/P Cit

N/A

Ilaterial Description

Con,truction QualityControl

E

Receipt InspectionReport:

Tg 5v P-U.-~+A.c V. '3

RIR No.

ttRR N

3E//<Unit:

P3L" 2

QNSSeismic

ASNE Q Yes

QNoSect.

'Class

Q/Q'goAI / ~kl/I/fC

SupplierXd'Id'~ DPd-WS - &

Sub Supplier

P.O.,Numberzc-P9'd'ub.

P.O. Number

Supplements

Sub Supplements

Supplier's Address

Pd~k P /< d'-C

Supplier Approved Source InspectionPerformed '/7N'p//m

cification Number

Yes No

H N/A

Yes No

0 8/A |waived

Drawing Number

Pe~tted

Not Pe Itlia,ted

.. nufacturer DocuIRent;ation:Required Received

H g 0 erwrdd~ prQ

HA

Accept/Re ject Criter'a Source

po.Q.S- P/

Inspection Items Accept/RejectRequirements A R N/A Remarks

Identification & Narkin s Ni-/2, 'fC' < d S O ~

I

3

manufacturer Document:ation

Protective Covers a Seals

v~f"8'87/VF PIC ~dr

Coatings 6 Preservatives

5 Inert Gas Blanket

6 Desiccant

7 Physical Damages

Cleanliness

9 Chemical Properties

10 Nochanical Pro erties

Accept/RejectReauirements A R N/A Remarks

Dimensions

3:2 Held Preoaration

13 Horkmanshio . //15

Lubricant 6 Oils

Elec"rical Insulation

3.6 Special Inspection

17 ,fitness and Hold Points

Checklist Approved For Use; QCSTitle Signature ate

Release Info: g pull Release Hat'1. Release So.: $ -g9fgPartial Release Mat'1. Release No.:

Other Related RIR:

All Items On Hold

Remarks:

~ ~

s

f:iscrepancies RemarksIn pector's Signature ate

N/A

DR NOs-

NCR NOs.

I

Wppsovea sy: AGCYTitle "- ' ' 'ignatur D te

)+Ds2 wP),r~

FLORIDA I'0'aVrfI 6 LIGHT CO'.If'ANY

Construction Quality Control

llaterial Release Notice

lhRll NO. SL- P 3 P gllRR NO.: gg'/gg

Items Inspected: (P.O. Line Item No.)

g/ggg~ +~~/A/

CVO/PC><

Page W of ZPartial Release

g Full ReleaseQAll Items on Hold

Iy, Item

P ff(eg Ro-ao Pp roj

IO~ 'P~0If

Ifa -g O 4:CS'

rH dd-M

R Qty Item

ll w rLcO

.V PAf'8 4 ~ 87K

Qo e lj -3of

Idwo~ 8 a z z< ow zx

material marked asacceptable above isautforized to bereleased:

e ~ Titie


Signature

[email protected]. SOX ]CS46 SIRIAIIIGHAM,AUt. 35202 ~ PHOHE 205.663.2251 ~ HIGHWAY 31 S,.PQ.HAM, ALA

September 1, 1981

MATERIAL CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATE

he hereby certify that. the Nuclear Grade material furnished

Florida Power 6 Light, on Contract Number 77403-25402-SL

18989, Release Number 5381, has less than 50 parts per

million of leachable chlorides.

SEPCO CORPORATION

Don DonnellyInside Sales Supervisor

DD/tf

hfANUFACTURERS OF FI,UIDSEhLINC PRODUCTSNational Assoclatlon of Manufacturlntt CS Menso~t Flulc Sssllntt Assoclatlon

' '» ',' ~ > p > g'»" ~. ~ ~ 'Y >'>' n> ~'~">" '>' >"> <>'>', ' ' + >" '(' ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~,' >

v '0 .i)'

I(~h, t.: rz

t,;:='- r'.,;..'i.--i'

PO't'er.R C LIGMZ CO:r!PANY

oq„gConstr'jfgQ g;rani ty

g~M.'en trol

Receipt InspectionReport

)gal(gH(gy +) 7o BP-tA." t f R.cv B

~AII'lc./,—j.'l- /J 77

! lMi No.:

5'~0.7~

Onit:jUI "0

g S Q".SSeism'

ASSS Q~yag

H!oSect.

ClassCIAO/PC'

N/A Page / of "}

vw teria 1 Description

vier vw p~winrc

S o3ierJ

Sub Supplier

P.O. Nurserai;-/PK 7ZSub: P.O. Number

Supplements

Sub Supplements

Supplier's Address

+SI Ate >QN Vc-QQ.iQ R,

c'fi™ation Numb r

Supplier Approved

Yes No

2 II/A

Source In-pectimnPerfox med

Yes No

Il/A Q IIetved

DraiIIing Incur &w

Permittedp

ufacturer hme. entation:Required .Received

ccept/Re ject C" iteria Source-.

nsg'o

OCtz<Isaccm o+ Co<<ItI I<I<<s

O 0 iQCiv.QQLiqc.gp,gl g C.HW+-IOF CO >>md

Xaanecwon Items Accept/RejectRequirements R N/A Remarks

Icentii cation 6 !Iarkings

>anu acture" Documentation

Protective Covers & Seals


Inert Gas Blanket

Desiccant

Physical Damages

Cleanliness

Chemical Proper ties

10 t!cchanical Prooer ties

Inspection ItemsAccer~t/Rej ctRoc uircmrnts R 7 j//.4

Dimensions eR 5" 4,

12 ';.'eld Preparation

) 3 '~workmanship

14 lubricant 6 Oils

15 Elect"ical Insulation

16 Special Inspection

17 2itness and Hold Points

Checklist Approved For Use:Title Signature ygP

Release Info: ul'elease Hat'1. Release No.:

Parti'al Release Hat'1. Release No.:

Other Related RIR:

Q All?tems On Ho' .-

Remarks;

Discrepancies RemarksInspcc tor ' S~.ihture Date

N/A

O DR NOs.

NCR NOs. Aopxovec'y:Title

K.Q.Ws~ QJnSigna tare Da te

Mechanical Packings, Seals and GasketsHarch 16, 1981

Florida Power 5. LightC/0 Ebasco Sacs Inc.P..O..Box 1117Densen Beach, Fl'a. 33457

ATTEHTION: D. L. Pari erequality Control Supervisor

CERTI FI CATION CERTIFICATE

Me hereby certify that tha packing material

-furnished Florida Power and Light on Pur'chase

Order >77403-24986S-SL'-:18573 has less than 100

parts per million of leachable chlorides.

SEPCO SALES CORPORATION

DS/al s

Do ce 5'cuderi-Account tianager

P:D.'pox 47819 / 3234 Oakcliff industrial Street / Doraviile, Georgia 30362 / (404) 451.8667e

'lI.~Fl.OAIDAPO',vEh 6 Li4iiTCc.'. v wv

IConstructio~i Puality Control

Haterial Release 1'otice

H%3 HO. SL- Q3'Q)HRR 110.: gP.D

7P'IR

tiO.:rP-dV- ll-7

page Z of~'-/8'5

73'tems

Inspected: (P.O. Line Item No.)

vw~v<

,. C,s'"/PC) 1 Partial Releaseg Pull ReleaseQA11 Items on Hold

ty. Item

5 ~ ilLi. P ( c C

A R Qty Item

g ~

llL 5 KlW v= Pwc««Le

'

,aterial marked asptable above is

authori zrd to berrleased:

I ~ Titie


Signature

3 Q~g,' 4r. )

L

L'

r ' r 0'vcKA rI. UcHr cof <pAN~

mHwCw< 4 ). <o

Con s tr Llc t 3 0 n Pu pig'LvCong gw'I. ~

RQQ~kj) It)!:po"tionRepor t

Qf'-U.-ie ~A 3

RIR No.R-F/-/~~a.'ZZ'S/P

QsQ'o

ism t.(:ASNt," Q Ycs

I3 NoSect.

C'pCHpFjX/

PS'~- >, Class

t!aterial D scription

yg l'pe- f'gclc/hfC

SupplierS~< ~

Sub Supplier

P,O. Number

Sub. P.OS Number

Supplements'O

Sub Supplements

h'8Supplie 's A dress

I

BIZNOo4, FC..

Y

Supplier Ap;."oved

'I

Yes . No

2 N/A

Source InspectionPerforrreg

Yes No

,N/A waived

~m"'y/r</~Permi tteci

tNot Perm'ted

Sp"c' ication Nu-..herdA

Drawing Number

vms. '.

'NO

NA

acturer 12ocumentationrRequir ed Peceived

El LA'PiFIMd-pp'' gypped/A ICE

Accept/Reject C iteria Source

'P,'d.8-X 7~/

Enspection Items

Identification & Harkinqs

Narrufacturer Documonta tion

Accept/RejectReguirements

-p 6ra~~t(o 5iza-

Sc8 ps v'~

R N/A Remarks

Protective Covers ( Seals ov c~8i 'r>k'A~N'oatings

6 Preservatives

Inert Ga Blanket

Desiccant

Pixy..ical Damages

:an1 lrress

dZ ./2-Zl

lo

homical Properties

tech Jn leal Pr'0 or tie's

f~

~ Xnsp ction ItemsAccep t/R<. )ec tReonireir .rts R Penar!:s

ll Dimensions r-e. R 0

13

d Prewar at). on

Nor!:nnnshin Q.S. g. /Lubricant 6 0 ls

Electrical Insulation

Special Inspection"

17 .0itness and i!old Points

Checklist Approved For Use: QCSTitle Signature Da e

Release Info: .«ull Release Hat'1. Release Ho.: 5/ +4~/Partial Release Mat'1. Release No.:

Other Related -RIR:

Remarks:

All Itens On Hold

Discrepancies RemarksInsp ctor's Signature date

jvos.JJCR NOs. ~ Approved By: AQcS

Title Si<jnatu|'c ' te

$ /

"T"FLOAIDA f'0'e'o'a".n a LIGH!'O: rAWY

Cons t.rue tion Oua 1 ity Control

Mat.": .".l . Release Hotice

j)ml !!O. Sj'~ ~~<>WP'lRR

HO.: ~ P~/-'-!

RIR j!0+-6"- l2 z~Pac3e Z of

P 0 No: pg7gItem'nspected: (P.O. Line Item No.",''

yPL,VL

~QI,:,l1 I Pg.'a rtia 1 ~ Rc'aseg I'ull ReleaseQ All Items on. !!o'd

Sty. Item R Qty

~c.ic P~e8i/are .'Ed<-sis

jI

I

aterial marked as

Mditional Information on Backt!o Additional Information on Back

acceptable above is..u tnor imeri to bere] eased:

Yi.tie SignaLurc Date

Sl- PQQ SR~i. ES CF)F.P'QLZE4 t] llQI'4Mechanica'I Pat.kings, Seals 'and Gasf<ots

t"arch 16, 1g81

F'lorida Power 8 LightC/0 Ebasco Sacs Inc.

: P. 0. Box 1117Jensen Beach, Fl'a. 33457

~ ATTEHTIOH: J. L. Parker

equality

Control Supervisor

CERTIFI CATION CERT IFI CATE

Ne hereby certify that the pack" ngmaterial'urnished

Florida Power and Li'ght on Pur'chase

Order -'77403-24985S-SL'-:18573 has less than 100

parts per million of leachable chlorides.

SEPCO SALES CORPORATIO'A

JS/al s

Jo ce 5'cuderi-Account tianager

~ ~ ~

p.p. Box 47819 / 3234 pakcliff industrial Street / Doraville, Georgia 30362 / (404) 451 6667

RIPrh PO'LaER (a LIGHT CG eIPA!<Y

CHIC P~ 4 WO0/l

Con.: true t inrr p:Tel igyControl

RccSQNJ Ins;rL et)onRef!Ol t

EVf'-Q." I+ REV B

r"-=I- /W/8"I I RI< No ~:

sf 79/Unit:

Sc t.smicve e>Q.

'.'o

ASIIId

Sect.

Class

Page I

tcrial Description

Lrp L Lrc f Jcf-/&/=

"."""Ger.do S'a/ed Corer

b Supplier //'L

P.O. Number

Sub. P.O. Number

Supplerrents .,OO

Sub SupplementsP'/rL

upplier's Address

Sea Jo- 8Supplier Approved Source Inspection

Performed 'jPXFfj~i/eYes 'o

g rr/A

pecifica tion Nu.-aber f//P

Yes No

g N/A Waived

Drawing Number py~

Permi" ted

an u e uccueanaacicn!.uired Received

Accept/Reject Criteria Source

'FS

L Q

Inspection Items

Identification & I/rarkinc s

Accept/RejectRequirements

1

/Yo. <ice

R N/A Remarks

er'anufaCtule DOCumentatiOn

Protective Covers 6 Seals


oVE,

7ie~ePK

Inert Gas Blarl)lct

Des iccaal t

Physical Damages

a nl iness

C micall PrOPert) eS PerT . D.

IO Nr c)lnnical Plnr>crtics

I~ I

X»s)!< etio» ItemsAcceptfRejectRcc uirements A R I</A Rema k

me Ils 1 0 n s

.ld Preparation

13 ii'orkmanship

1I'i Lu'irica»t C< Oils

15 Electrical Insulation

16 Special Inspection

17;.'itness and !fold PointsI <'

~

Checklist Approved For Use: QCSTitle "'ignature

Release Info: Full Release Hat 1. Release No.: S™275

Partial Release Hat'1. Release No.:

Other Related RIR:

All 'cetera On Hold

Remarks: , ~

DiscrepanciesI'A Remarksnspect r's Sip .ature Da e

Approved Bp ~

Title Signatur a e

FLORIDA I 0 VFH 5 LIG)ITCOle VARY

Con" true t'n Quality Control

Ha teria 1 Re 1 ea se Notice

HRH 1/O. SL- Q PQ f5!RR NO.: P g /cJ t

PBCJQ . ~ ofCMO PCi~tP.o. No.:>~

Items lnsJ>ected: (P.O. Line Item No.)

Va.l~e 7ecA(~g -Sfe~ Z

Par tial Releaseg Full ReleaseQ All Items on Hold

ty. Item A R Item

~,~ s 31 5'~

5 oo/s ~ed

I>l'~e PaeKi~o S1 -goo 3lD-

Pet'. lS It 6 'ZSehO ~e

'exial

marked asacceptable above isauthorized to bereleased: Title

Additional Information on BackNo Additional Info~ation on Back

I Z.PiSignature Di e

~EiPCO $ $4LES COPPORATiloNMechanical Packings, Seals and Gaskets

Harch 16, 1981.

Florida Po'rier 8 LightC/0 Ebasco Sacs Inc.P. 0. Box 1117Jensen Beach, Fl'a. 33457

~ 'TTENTION: J. L. Parkerequal ity Control Supervisor

I

CERTIFICATION 'CERTIFICATE~ ~

He hereby certify that he packing r:,aterial

furnished Florida Power and Light on Purchase

Order 877403-24986S-SL-:18573 has less than 100

parts per mill ion of 1 eachab1e chlorides.

SEPCO SALES CORPORATION

: JS/al s

Jo ce 5'cuderi.-Account

Yianager'.Q.Box

47819 / 3234 Qakcliff Industrial Street / Doraville,Georgia30362 / (404) 451.8667

gWii AC 0vn'.,rJ <

M< JAiN 151983

ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGRAH

Project Response to:Verification Item:

EVP-U-14 Revision B

>'/2, Valve V-3614, Maximum ChlorideContent of Stem Packing Haterial

On October 27, 1982 the EVP Task Force issued EVP V-14 whichrequested documentation showing chloride content of stem packing to be

less than 200ppm. Valve V-3614 was repacked by using SEPCO M. 4444

and GRAFOIL packing on April 28, 1982 (documented in EVP-U-14, Revision A) .

Attachments to EVP-U-14, Revision B provided certification of maximum

chloride centent of SEPCO kiL 4444 and GRAFOIL packing. Tne EVP Task Forcecomment in EVP-U-14, Revision B further requested confirmation that thepacking material used in repacked valve V-3614 was of the same lot and sizedescribed by the certi&ications provided in EVP-U-14, Revision B.

An historical review revealed that the same type problem was tnesubject of a QA audit report (audit report attached). Subsequent to thataudit correct've actions ia the form of a QC site procedure was written.The procedure required certifications be rovided during valve revacking.In as much as the EVP Task Force found a potential flaw in the QA/QC

procedures, the project determined that more positive corrective actionswere needed. As a result of our investigation into the EVP comment

the project is establishing a team assigned to resolve the concern

described in EVP-U-14, Revision B. The review team will be providing an

evaluation which will cover the following:

A. Safety impact

B. Impact on the Quality Assurance Program

C. Its reportability per 10CFR50.55e.

'TER.OFFi:": CORRESPONDFNCFI F F 0 0 E 2 QAC-PSL2-82-06File: 03.06

To

F Roe

L. Pa ker/ J. R. Hartin

A""it o Control of !1echanical AssemblyA ='vi"ies @AC-PSL2-82-06

LOC*TION

OATS

copjss To R. F.B. J.D. P..

N. T.R A.D. R.1'7. B.

EnglmeieMEscuoCoooer»eemsGarramoreStoneDerrickson

'SL-2

April 8, 1982

Attached is a copy of the activitv aud't reoort fo" a Qualitv Assu ance Auditconducted bv a rep esentative of FPL/OA Construction.

Cor "ctive actior. for Pindinc No. l is the responsibility of the Projectgc-.lity Cont"ol Supervisor and co"rective action for Finding No. 2 is theresponsibility of the Resident Fngineer.

Please provide a written response to the finding or which you are resoon-sible by April 23, 1982f

Th's response shall include the following:

(a) Corrective 'action taken, or planned to be taken, to correct andprevent recurrence of the 'deficiency.

(b) Da-e :~hen corrective action was or will be imo emente".

(c) The person (s) responsible for assuring that corrective action was orwill be implemented.

»e appreciate the cooperation of personnel contacted 'during tne audit, and thepositive at"itude taken toward correcting the noted deficiencies.

Principal Auditor J. R. Luke

S t ntxn endeSt. Lucie Projects — QA

T. »eems

I!I)!:JRI,: 1jd

$)t"achm)=nt

f O .'.j tC:a)8 Ffa J. j 'vi

F LOB IOA PO",)ER 6 LIGHT CO:.IP~igY

R:->OAT OF QUALITY ASSU>aIa<CEDEPARTah'.EitT AUDIT

Audit Yo I QAC-PSL2-82-06 Control o Hechan'al Insta 1 '"ion ActivitiesAudit Scooe:

An Ac ivit Audit of control of Ilechanical Instal 1 ation Activities wasconducted at St. Lucie Unit No. 2 to veri y selected requ'ements in designatedSe te Quality Procedures ~

Audi SunrIIarv:

=valuate on of QA Pro am. Effectiveness.

Except as noted in the findings, the QA Program is effective in al 1 otne" a"easaudited.

A review o the audit findings in previous audits indicated two tre..ds, asfollows:

( 1 ) Documentation (of the servicinc and maintenance of valves) submittedhy FPL/QC to the QA Records Center is not always cosolete. (Rey: AuditQAC-PSL2-80-29 Finding 1 ) ~

(2) barking 'of completed (high strength) bolted field connections fo" ins-pection is not always accomplished. (Ref: Audit QAC-PS 2-79-42 Finding5) ~

Satis factorv Conditions:s

1 - Rotation of Limitorque Operators on Va ives I-hV-14-1 7, 1 8, 1 9 and theinspections thereof .

Unsatis facto Conditions:

1. QC Inspectors are not attaching Valve Pac);ing Report Forms to GeneralInspection Reports and transmitting them to the QA Records Center (Ref: SQp-1 2 ) .

2. Construction bolting crews are not mar):i ng completed (high strength) boltedfield connections. for inspection. ( Re f: SQP" 45)

Pa,ge 1 of 5

IaEOIIL c ScRVI."'G I +C LC

I ~r

FLORI5* >O'VER 6 LIGHT CO'IP~VY

R:-PORT OF QUALITy ASSURANCEDEPARTS!EiVT AUDIT

Au"it ho I QAC-PSL2-82-06 . Control o Y>echani cal Installa" ion ActivitiesAs dit Scooe:

An Activit Audit of control of Ysechanical Installation Activities wasconducted at St. Lucie Unit No. 2 to verify selected requirements in designatedSite Quality Procedures.

Audi" Su~harv:

=-valuat'on of 9A Pro am.Effectiveness.

Except as noted in the findings, the QA Program is effective in all othe" a easaudited.

A review of the audit findings in previous audits indicated two trends, asfollows:

(1) Docunentation (of the servicinc and maintenance of valves) submittedby Fob/Qo to the QA Records center is not always cooplete. (Ref: auditQAC-PSL2-80-29 ." inding 1) ..

(2) 11ar3:ing of completed (high st ength) bolted field connections for ins-,pection is not always accompl'hed. (Ref: Audit QAC-PSL2-79-42 Fincing5).

Satisfactory Conditions:

1. Rotation of Limitorque Ooerators on Valves I-hV-14-17, 18, 19 and theinsoections the eof.

Unsatisfactor Conditions:

1. QC Inspectors are not attaching Valve Packing Report Forms to GeneralInspection Reports and transmit ing them to the QA Records Center (Ref: SQP-12).

2. Construction bolting crews are not marking completed (high strength) boltedfield connections. for inspection. ( Ref: SQP-45)

Page 1 of 5

rFOrI c iPXI C r< LE

D.M.

K.H.C.D.C.J.J.

JordanRaverSarilesLightfootGarciaSlposCrosbyShannonCarloRicleyEllisonCape==aHartin

Department/Group

Lead EngineerSystem EngineerConstruction SupervisoConstruction SupervisorResident EngineerConstruction Test EngineerQC SuoervisorAssistant SuperintendentMech. Q.C. SupervisorCivil QC SupervisorTest Mech. SupervisorResiaent EngineerResident Engineer

A

XX

XXX

XXX

XXX

X

X

X

X

Kev:

A — Attended Pre-Audit Conferenc3 — Inte viewed or Contacted During the AuditC — Attended Post-Audit Conference

Pre-Audit Conference Not applicable (activity audit)

Post-Aud't Conference

Location: St. Lucie Unit N2Date: March 23, 1982

Summa. of Post-Auait Conference

Tne first audit finding was discussed and QC agreed that the Attachment (4.4) inSPP-12 which documented the valve acking was not being processed per p oceduralreauirenents. i

i

The second audit finding was not discussed as it had been previously agreed to'y the Pesident Engineer.

Other matters discussed included items pertaining to'SQP-12 which were deemed notto be quality violations but were of concern and .are recorded as follows:

(a) The timeliness of notifications to QC that necessa y venao" representa-tion is on site for puma/valve work.

(b) The backlog of Pump and Valve Construction Process Sheets awaitingincorporation.

(c) The Constru" ion Test Program for statusing packed valves at turnover.

(d) The lack of instructions for the disassenbly of certain types of valvesp ior to welding.

(e) The total lack of Construction activity on Attachment 4i13 items,particularly the staking of locking nuts on Limitorqua Operators perNRC-1E Circular 79-04 and CE letter F-CS-600. (These nuts have caused

i

Page 2 of 5

S:,...,a .v n: Pos"-Audit Con erence Con't

(e) problems at =ort Calhoun, Davis-Besse, Brown's F -rry 2, Three l!ile.Island 1 and other plants.)

he lack of construction activity as evidenced by the lack of InspectionReports for Contromatics Ball Valves, the Rotation of l1otor Ooerators onTarget Rock Valves, the ja~zed jacksc ew on I-HCV-14-9 and the requi edmoto" pinion key modifications on Limito que Operators.

Aucit D tails:lnv ln ito ~ 1

Cr'teria: SQP-12 (Rev.6) Attachment 4.6 (Se . 10.0)

"The packing installer shall complete and sign a Valve Packing Report (Attachment 4.4)for each valve which has been packed. QC shall attach th's form to their GeneralInspection Report for transmittal to the (QA) Records Vault." ~

~in."'in": Q is not attaching Valve Packing Resorts to General Znsoection Reportsand " ansmitt'. ng them to the (QA) Records Vault.

Discussion- Last fall, QC decided to institute a general su veillance prog amfo" valve packing activities instead of the program required by SQP-12. QCaccordingly created a Revision Request (11/24/81) to 'have the SQP prog am changedto be compatible 'with the new QC program. Unfortunately, the Revision Request~'as never incorporated into SQP-12 and based on discussions at the Post AuditConference probably won't be unless rewritten. The Revis'on Request only coversGrafoil packing henc other (braided) packings were not included.

a

The status at the present time is'that QC's general surveillance program is inv'olaticn of he inspection/transmission requirements "f the SQP and ha" beansince last fal'. It is also possible that had the SQP-12 program been inplemented,some DRs for leaking valves .during integrity testing might have been avoided.

Recommendations:

()) QC to obtain all tho existing Attachment (4.4) Valve Packing Reports and:

(a) Co:pare =them with the list prepared by the Senior Resident Engineershowing valves to be packed and oacking requirements and identify anymissed val-es/missed requirements per JPC:QI 15.1.

(b) Tra..smit them with accompanying Gene al Inspection Reports to the QARecords Vault.

(2) QC to follow the requirements of SQP-12 until such time as QC is successfulin changing the recuirements.

Page 3 of 5

C„:teria: S9P-45 (Rev.l) Attachm nt 4.3 (Se . 3.4)

"Bo'ing crews shall mark each connection as i" is completed to ensure tnat noconnection will be overlooked."

Finding: Bolting crews are no marking each connection as it is completed toensure tha no connection will b overlooked.

Discussion: 'basco Specification 501-76 (High Strength Bolted Field Connec 'ons"or Structural Steel) recuires such marking and SQP-45 provides implement'ngins ructions.

The purpose o= the marking is to make Q aware of which connections are 100%co..piete and ready xor inspection in that QC inspections may lag cons ructionand also may only sample the bolts in a connection (i.'n FPL's case, the JPC:QI

10.15 allows a 10t sample size of bolts per connection) ~ ~

was observed during the .erection o the Fuel Cask Craneway h t the QC inpec-tions were lagging the construction and that the bol ed connection were not beingmarked as completed by the bolting crews.

Discussions with cognizant personnel provided the in ormaiion that rather than

e

t tmark completed connections, construction was verbally notifying QC.

FCR 6478E was initiated to change the Specification to permit this alternativemethod of notification.

Recommendations

(1) Resident Enginoering to enhance FCR 6478E to ensure that the no"'ice 'on to QCbe a documented statement from Construction that the connection was comolete (totake the place of physical markings).

(2) Resident Engineering to review all connections in the Fuel Cask Cranewaywith QC to assure that QC has not sampled 10~ of the bolts in incompletelyt'ghtened connections.

(3) Resident Fngineering to review other sample (high strength) bolted structureswith QC for similar assurances.

(4) Resident Engineering to arrange for a change to SQP-45 to implement FCR 6478Eas enhanced.

Dates of Audi : February 1- tlarch 23; 1982

Location of Audit: St. Lucie Unit No. 2

Page 4 of 5

Qz~C- PSL2- 8 2-05

References:

SQP-12 (Rev.6) 11/8/81:

SQP-16 (Rev.6) 1/11/S2:

"Servicing and Naintenance o Pumps and Valves"

"Pipe Support =-rection"

S~P-32

SQP-46

(Rev.4) 3/12/Sl:

(Rev.l) 4/22/81:

"Permanent Plant Eau'pment Installation"

"High Strenght Bolted Field Connection for St uctu alSteel".

SQP"46 (Rev.0) 4/13/7g: "Fabrication of Class 1 Structural Steel"

Pri neigh 1

A-d'oJ. R. LukeQuality Assurance Engineer

(j' 2.Date

AccomoanvingAuditor: N. F. >>cGayic Date>

Review andA~9 oval

H. T. NeemsS ntendent of QASt. Lucie Projects

Da" e

Page 5 of 5

I ~

7-

FLORIO> PO'V!II 6 LIGHT COMP NV

R.Q I- t'CE COB R ESPOIND ENCPQAC-PSL-82-250File: 12.13.02

To R. Sipos

FRoM J. R. Luke

sUBJEcT: S P-12 (Rev. 6) para. 8 5 7 3

LocATloN PST~2oATs Parch 29, 1982-

coPIEs To M. E. DeckG. E. Rock-el'I

For record purposes in our audit file l az confirning our recen conversationto the effect that none of the valves covered oy ihe subject paragraph haveundergone Turnover to Startup and that Construction est vi» be perfomingfunctions reouired 'by the paragraph concerning packed valves prior to suchTurnove s.

in that connection nay X.suggest that Construction Test arrange for anothercolumn in .~hich the reouired information could be recorded for its use on, ei herpage 10 of 22 or page 16 of 22 of SQP-64 Appendix B.

J. R. Lu3te

:l; I JRL:ljd

i~

- /I,Approved: i. "~~ H. T. Ueems

r

PROP~.'.. 5":RVI<'<6 PI OI'LEFORM 100b RSV. 1//S

I ~ /

/Iv ~ 'Pw vJ . (~

pLQItrQ PQv'f R 8 LIGHT CQMPANY

ETER-OF F ICE COR R ESPOMD ENCE

To

FROM

SUBJECT:

D. R. Cooper

R. A. Garramor e

AUDIT QAC-PSL2-86-06FINDING NO. 2

LOCATIONDATE

COPIES To

St. Lucie PlantApril 21, 1982FM-2-82-4130.Listed Below

MZ ~ I Memorandum to J. Parker//J. R. Martin for J. R. Luke dated4-8-82 — Audit QAC-PSL-2-86-06

The following is Construction Engineering's response to your AuditQAC-pSL2-86-06 Finding No. 2. The item numbers correspond to youritem numbers in Finding No. 2.

1. FCR 2-6478E was generated and approved to permit an alternative innoti ving Quality Control that a bolted connection is complete andreacy for inspection. The original recuirement of FLO 2998-761and 501-76 reauired only an acceptable marking of the completedjoin" to signify the connection was reacy for inspection. Theneed for a cocumented statement rom Construction signifying that—.theconnection is complete is considered unnecessary and an over-cormtitment considering the current status of const uction. Tnere isno basis for providing Quality Control with a written notificationfrom Construction and the QC inspection report will provide thenecessary acceptance and documentation.

2. NCR 3347C has been issued documenting nonconformances in the boltingof the structural connections in the Fuel Cask Crane StructuralS eel. The engineering disposition reauires a 100% inspection ofthe bolted connections in the structure to assure adeauate inspection.The Structural Steel Specification FLO 2998.761, 501-76 High StrengthBolted Field Connections for Structural Steel parag aph 15.02 andAlSC Section 5, Specification for Structural Joints (dated 4-26-78)paragraph 6.5 reauires inspecttion of only "104 of the bolts or twobolts, which ever is greater". This inspection provides for a randominspection of any of the bolts in a connection. Quality Control hasthe option to perform a 100~ inspection of the bolts in any connectionif deemed necessary.

PEOPLE. ~ . SERVING PEOPLEFOrm 1008 fStodktd) Rev. 8/81

D- R. CooperAUDIT QAC-PSL2-86-06FINDING NO. 2.PAGE TWO

3. As stated in item 2, a random sampling of the bolts in any connectionis the minimum requirement of the project specification and A1SC.Quality Control should have the necessary documentation to verifythe acceptance of the bolting in any structure.

PR44. A procedure revision request to SQP ~Attachment 4.3 paragraph 3.4

was generated on March 30, 1982. The next revision to the SQP Millreflect the change as indicated by FCR 2-6478E.

P

Please advise us of any questions.

RAG/JRM/clcc: B. J. Escue

tl. A. GarciaC. W. BaileyJ. L. ParkerT. Geissinger

A

fI.ORI0* POiYf R 6 LIBN~ COSIPAhY

NTER.OF F I CC CORRESPONDENCE

( fo.

TO

F ROtA

J. Luke

J. L. Parker

svBJEcT: A~~t QAC-PSL2-82-06"Ymchanical AssemblyActivities"

LOCATION

DATE

COPIES TO

SIQ-82-l59PSL-1 jQril 22, 1982

D- R. StoneB. J. EscueN. T. Neems

3'e request an e><ension of thirty (30) days b granted on our replyto we subject audit. Ke are concerned ~~i> the completeness of theinforfration provided in the valve packing reports as prepared by con-strucmon. Vne problem is b ing addressed by interested parties andresolu"'on is needed before v can complete our response.

J| o/CC/db

FP2 ~ 1982

Floral ~ Pu)I 'f 5,Ollhf.it 4

>C.': -'': i-'l'LO

CFF:C

PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLEFORb1 f008 REV. 1/76

FLORIDA POM,'ER 8 LICIT COMPANY

TER-OFFlCE CORRESPONDENCE QA=-PSL-82-<osFile: 03.06

To

FROM

J. L. Parker

J. R. Luke

LOCATIONDATE

COPIES TO

PSL-2,May 24, .1982

N. T. Neems

SUBJECT: Audit @AC-PSL2-82-06Control of Mechanical Assembl Activities

QC's request, an extension in due date was granted untilMay 23rd so that. QC could evaluate the completeness of theinformation provided in the valve packing reports prior totransmitting them to the QA Records Center.

Please respond to the audit at this time including a statement's

to QC's position with regard to Attachment 4.13 of SQP 12 perletter QAC-PSL-82-377.

J. R. Luke

HTNIJRLcld

Approved: ~~ N. T. Heeee

PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE Fotm 1008 (Stocked) Rev. 8/81

' ~ Iv ~ ~ ~

l2.

LOAIOA POPOVER Ee LIGHT COMPANY

ERNF F ICE CORRESPOi CADENCEQAC-PSL-82-377Pile:

03.06'O

FROM

J. L. Parker

J. R. Luke

LOCATIONDATE

COPIES TO

PSL-2Hay 13, 3.982

Audit 82-06

AUDIT QAC-PSL2-82-06Control of Mechanical 'As'sembl 'ctivi:ties

Further to your letter SLQ-82-159 requesting an extensionfor your reply, an extended date of 1Iay 23, 1982 is satis-factory.At the time of the audit, construction forces had not per-formed any work requiring documentation on (SQP-12) Attachment4.13, a form which, like Attachment 4.4,. must be transmittedby QC to the QA Records Center.

In order to prevent recurrence of the problem of lack oftransmittal of (SQP-12) attachmients to the.QA Records Center,

~le~se confirm in your audit response that QC. will be trans-mitting all Attachments 4.13 to the QA Records Center.

J .. Luke

Approve T. Wee s

NT97l JRL: ec

PEOPLE ~ ~ ~ SERVING PEOPLE Form 1 OOS ISIoCI edI Rev. 0/II1

'

~ l -": —. (

l I

CR/oagiR8 ilCHrCO.P~Y

'p"-F)C CORilQS)'Oi~.'DSACcF

QAC-PS};82-424Pile: 12.13.02

To Jo"danLOCATIONOATE

PSL-2curie 1, 1982

F

RO:v'VBJE.CT:

3. R. Luke CO&I~M To

SPP-12 (Rev. 7)Servic'nq -nd ))aintenance of Pum s ana Vrilves

R. A. GarramorePile

Thc subject revision of the above-refcrericed procedure has beenr."viewed against the FPL/QA Hanual ancl the PPL/AS!}=- QA hanual andthe following comments are offered:

A. Quali y Affecting Comments to be resolved prior toprocedure issuance.

1. Attao)ments 4. 2. 3. A4. 2. 3.B

9A Records (Pa a: 10.1) requires the docurRents generatedper Pa: a. 8.5.7.2 to be reviewed and sent to the QA RecorasVault by QC. These documents include the Valve Pac) ingReports.

The p:oposed changes to Attachments 4.2.3.A and 4.2.3.B renot consistent with this long-stand'ng requirem nt which(editorially) should also have its own 10-Series Numberp"ragraph.

Also, op n audit 82-06 has identified that QC has not beenreviewing anQ sendinc the Valve Packing Reports to the QARecords Vau) t and has recommended that thc procedure befolloweQ.

It is, thcreforc, proposed tha" the fol.lowing intermediatewo Qirig be used i:i Attachn )it 4.2.3.A (Para. 1.10) andAt"achm nt 4.2.3.B (Para. 10.0) .

"Thc foreman hall coirplctc anQ sign a,

Valve Pac)'ing Report (Attac)imelit 4.2.5.A)for each valve w)rich has bee}i pac) ed andtrar.smit the completed Rcport to QC for itsreview and tr arlsmittal to t)ie QA Rccol:r sVault."

Form rOOO ('Ao:L"iJr Aev. 8/8r

~ 2 ler'>'" 1" (Rev. 7)S.:rv.'. -.i ng and llaintcnancc of Pumps and ValvesPclgc

Tnis wording avoid problems which wouM occur if the forerenwere to send thc Reports to th Vault such «s the loss of the9C Review to Site Criteria and thc inability of 9A'to audit theforemen for co>>pliance.

2. ALtachment 4.2.5.A

Thc Valve Packing Report requires ncw signature (and dating)lines as follows:

(a), Foreman/Date

(Required because existing and proposed pa.'.graphsrc.-,uire him to sign but no place c>'.ists.)

(b) 9i Review/Do-te

(Re:oui rcd because p."o".:o"ed 'se agre>'>)ls revui e 9C tosign for a Review instead of e>:is ting paragra>>hs which1e 'uirc an Xnspectioli Rcj>ol. t )

E.diLo"'l C>>.">m nts

1. li';:.",bcr 'the revision block continuation sheet as 2 o 2.

2. Pc,ra. c. 2 and 8. 2. 1.

Change "from «re ted systems" Lo in crccted systems."

3. Para. 8.3.1

Chctn< fc factor)'eprcsE: ltastiv, to facL'orv 1 cprescntative"

7 a". a. a. 6. ( (Rev. 6)/

Snow as b."ing dcleLed in th. revision bin k continuation sheet.

". c . '3 . 2 . 2. A

Grii>n. !,1 J>i ap)'>ragm Valve> sh~>uld he in Scq. 4.2.1.3 " ries'ndal so dc -cribc the di::as«:~>rbly before w«lding.

G. Att:hach:. nt d. 0. 3, $ }>ec t 3.

CPS Slg>)at uJ e Sh~'t L should rc:f>».::>N.v Valves as wc 1l as pumps.

c >'.i ! 0 (!w',v 7)S.» v)ca.r>g ann Viai»te»ance of Eu:n}>s ar>J Valve:

3

ll

B. Edi tor ia 1 Co:-.i~en t.s — contin»ed:

7. Attach-...ent 4.0.1, Shc et 2 (Seq. 4.2.1.1.A)

Change "Cromatics" to "Contromatics"(Also Attacl>ment 4.2)

8. At.tach:::>nt 4.0.1, Sheet 3 (Scqs. 4.2.1.2.A 6 B)

Change "!:cro 7'est" to "Kerotc sL"(Also Attachment 4.2)

9. Attach:.". »t 4.0.1, Sheet 4 (Sec!s. 4.2.1.7, 4.2.1.7.A, 4.2.1.7.B)

Cha»ge "Limatorqu " to "I.imit'orcue"

10. A"'t»ch:;.cnt 4>.0.1, Sheet 5 (Sec!. 4.2.2)

Cancel this sec!uence number and put thr Cri»nell Valves intoScc,. 4. 2. l. 3 l>cr Co~me»t 5.

11. Atl " 'n: >n" 4.2.1.5.>:, Shoat >)

S?>o~; valve ident.ity in heading (Rockwell Glo)>e ValvesCat. 2 through 7)

l2. l cstinghousc Chcc>; Valve.. and l>acific Chcc): and Gate Valvesa>'>d 7'I. % > lvcs

D>>vcloz ...>ccific Construction Process Sheets for inclusion inS>)v-12 R> v 8

13. PiJ>. >, ( '.> 3: Pm'. > dc ai> Aj>','andi v. tn t ke Sg" listing thc itemsa» >ro .'>"d ) >y i'>:. Sc»i or Pcs 'c> > t 1'><gi >>ce 1

R. 1u> c

Cl

lt +

JLI

PLOII,Gg. FO1q'TII L LIGHT COMPANY

TER.OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

(./6.

TO

FROM

J. R. Luke

J. L. Parker

LOCATION

OATE

COPIES TO

S Lg-82-201PSL-IIHay 28, 1982

SU8JECT1 Audit - i(AC-PSL2-82-06Control Of tJIechanicalAssembly Activities

SQP-12 is in the final review/signature cycle. Appropriatesequences were rewritten to have valve packing documentationforwarded directly to the vault by Construction. Since

they're

holding numerous valve packing reports, you should expectreceipt of these in the near futures

~nsferri ng of the valve packing reports becomes .construction'sreponsi bility.

JLP/CC/db

PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

~i I t i~>

fI ORIg~ POVV1II tI UGHT CO.'A&ANY

ER~FFlCE CORRESPONDENCE

To -.'J.. R,'-'Luke/6- E. Rockwell

FROM D. R. Cooper

SUQJECTi R-SLI TS OP 2QNAG~iZHT MEETING ~ TORESOLV" OP:"N AUDIT ITEMS

LOCATIONDATE

COPIES TO

/7..

QAC-PSL-82-485 '-:.Pile: 16.02 11

'SL-2

June 24, 1982

~ (Meeting Attendees)H. B. LeeJ. D. Ki kT. D. Ge:ssinger ~

"B. J. EscueR. F. Eng~ier .

J. E. Vessely

A meeting. was held with the Directors of Construction and Nuclear Affaixson June 22, 1982, at PSL-2 to resolve open audit items in accordance withQP 16.1, Paragraph 5.5.l.d.

J ~

Based on this meeting, the following action is to be taken for each of theitems discussed:

-l. Audit AC-PSL2-81-14 '(Control of HDE)

~ ", I~ ..Open'tems 51 and 02 are waiting on comoletion of 'a Dual Records

~ .'to age Facility, and correction of Inspector Qualification Records.These items are to be completed by QC by June 30, 1982, at which timeJ.,R. Luke is to verify the completion and close the audit.

2. Audit AC-PSL2-81-35 (Torauin of Flan ed Connections) .

Ooen Item 54 is to be closed immediately by G. E.. Rockwell, based on thedetermination that the general requirements of QP 10.2 on 'assembly.verification do not specifically apply to flanged connections. In addition,it was determined that the requirement for inspection of flanged connections,and other similar quality-related activities, may be deleted or 1udifiedby QC if they are self-imposed and not based on other specific QA programrequirements.

I

3. Audit AC-PSL2-81-36 (Protective Coatin s)

Open Item Il is waiting on a revision to JPC:QI 9 7, based on the factthat the requirements of the Ebasco Specification were relaxed Thisrevision is to be completed by June 30, 1982, at which time J R Lukeis to close out the audit.

Audit QAC-pSL2-82-02 (Control of'onstruction p Instructions)

Construction QC letter GF21.4.2, dated llay 20, 1982, did not addressopen audit Item gl. J. D. Kirk is to immediately provide a response toQA memo QAC-PSL-82-40$ , dated Hay 24, 1982. Based on the response received,J. R. Luke is to close out the audit, or request that it be foa'arded toQA management for resolution.

PEOPLE .. ~ SERVINC PEOPLE Fotm 100S (Sto<I eel Rcv. d/II1

v%

QAC-PSL-82-485Results of Ravagement Meeting held toResolve .Open Audit ItemsPage

\~ ~

5;--.-Audit'AC-PSL2-82-06 (Control of Mechanical'Asseribl 'Activities) ~

Open Item Il is waiting on revision of SQp-12, which will transferresponsibility fo checking valve packing from Construction QC toConstruction. Specifically, the site Piping Directo will review all -.

past and fu ure documents verifying valve packing at PSL-2 andforward'hem

to the QA Records Center. It was determined that this will satis ythe QA Program requirements for records authentication. When SQP-12 isissued, J. R. Luke is to close out the audit.

D. R. Coo er

-.A p'roved:

'rj; Mc'rJ"'QN. T. >7eems

Nsv7:DRC:ec

FlORIDA POWER h LIGkT Cob(PANYQUALITYASSURANCE DEPARTMENT

CORRECTIVE ACTION STATUS

1.0

2.0

f~ITEM IDENTIFICATION:

Report/Letter MOO I -Q.—ACTION REQUESTED BY:

+%tern No: ,.„, viz/zz.

3.0 ORGANIZA'ITON/INDIVIDUALRESPONSIBLE FOR RESPONSE: ~ C.' ~~ k C.P

3.1 Response Due Date: r~ Z 3 P-

4.0 QA ENGINEER RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOW-UP:

5.0 „REPORTABILITY:

The Item identified above is/is not m potentially reportable in accordance with10CFR50.55(e), 10 CFR21 or y a o ortable occurrence (LER).

tLead Auditor

See Parag aph 5.2.of QI 16 QAD 4 for instructions if the item is potentially reported in

accordance with any of these requirements.

6.0 STATUS:

p e

s- av PZ, e c+ p e a ('u - CeP,~ ~C- 2,"/a5& Kv 2 R&k~)

/ 8 Ar "h)SAe-LW r-e oHXC ) pcs/UQ f I4)fO g P JZ

. Fal~u C, Z I'k'4k)

/o~u '+a 2. C W)2- 9PS

7.0 FINALDISPOSITION:

7.1 Closed By:

7.2 Reviewed

By.'(rIam < CS~P- /2 ~.> A~W dW~

Date:

Date:

Form QI 16 QAD 4-1 (11/81)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLE'HNG FORM OI 16 OAD 4-1 (11/81)

2.0

3.0

3.1

4.0

Identify item, enter date of report/letter.Id'entify who issued the report/letter.Identify the organization/individual responsible for. generation and transmittal of theinitial response to party in Block 2.0.

Enter the date the initial response is due.

Enter the name of the QA Engineer responsible for follow-up.5.0 Indicate if the item above is or is not potentially reportable. The lead auditor signs in

the indicated location.6.0 Indicate status of the item. All entries shall begin with the date (e.g., 1/Z8/77) and end

with the signature o. initials of person making the entry. NOTE: Refer to Figure QI 16QAD -'-1 for'mxidance on completing this section. This section may be continued on theback of the form or on a referenced sheet.

7.0 Final Disposition

7.1

7.2

QA Engineer who closes the item signs and dates.Assistant I»anager or designee sign and date indicating his review.

I'I

6.0 STATUS: (Continued from the front)i &C + =mA~ = ~Cji ~~r~ cr

Ha

1

cp/ Q» pp'5 3 ~ ZZ

fgog~og, ppwER L LIGHT coMPANYQUALITYASSURANCE DEPARTMENT

CORRECTIVE ACTION STATUS

1.0

2.0

A->( ( gZ.-eITEM IDENTIFICATION:.

Report/Letter No:/4-/~4-g - 2. Item No.ACTION REQUESTED BY: Qe jP s

3.0 ORGAN1ZATION/INDIVIDUALRESPON SXBLE FOR RESPONSE:

3.1 Response Due Date: 5 73 @PE4.0 QA ENGINEER RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOW-UP:

5.0 RE PORTABILITY:

The Item identified above is/is not + potentially reportable in accordance with10CFR50.55(e), 10 CFR21 or a~ a ~p rtable occurrence (LER).

Lead AuditorSee Paragraph 5.2 of QI 16 QAD 4 for instructions if the item is potentially reported inaccordance with any of these requirements.

6.0 STATUS:

c5 ~~~ YU&@cd Zv M ~

A» 2'- ~2-Vl e R 1 ( ~ (

~en ( la t

~ lK

7.1

7.2

Closed By:

Reviewed By.

7.0 FINALDISPOSITIONr

nate: s l 4 /paDate: S

Form QI 16 QAD 4-1 (ll/81)

2 2 ~

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM OI 16 OAD 4"1 (11/81)

1.0

2.0

3.0

3.1

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

7.1

7.2

Identify item, enter date of report/letter.Identify who issued the report/letter.Identify the organization/individual responsible for generation and transmittal of the

initial response to party in Block 2.0.

Enter the date the initial response is due.

Fnter the name of the QA Engineer responsible for follows-up.

Indicate if the item above is or is not potentially reportable. The )ead auditor signs inthe indicated location.indicate status of the item. All entries shall begin upwith the date (e.g., 1/28/77) and end

with the signature or initials oi person making the entry. NOTE: Refer to Figure QI 16

QAD 4-1 for 'guidance on completing this section. This section may be continued on the

back of the form or on a referenced sheet.

Final Disposition

QA Engineer mho closes the item signs and dates.

Assistant Manager or designee sign and date indicating his review.

6.0 STATUS: {Continued from the front)

~ y ~ I4m')

'IGINEERIHG VERIF I CATION PROGRAM

MBUSTION ENGINEERING, IHC.000 PROSPECT HILL ROAD

WINDSOR, CT 06082

January 28, 1983EVP-529/SL2

Mr. D.L. Christian; EVP Review Committee ChairmanPower Plant EnqineeringFlorida Power 5 Light Company700 Universe Blvd.Juno Beach, FL 33408

Subject: Engineering Verification Program, St. Lucie Unit No. 2 UnresolvedItem (Discrepancy) Report EVP-U-14, EYP Task Force Concurrence wi thProject Team Action.

ear Mr. Christian:

EVP-U-14 was issued by the EVP Task Force during the Design Verificationphase of the program on October 27, 1982. Documentation was requested to in-dicate that chloride content of Valve V-3614 (Verification Item -,'2, SafetyInjection Tank Isolation Valve) stem packing is less than 200 ppm.'he dis-crepancy was unresolved and was carried over to the Field Installation phaseas EVP-U-14,, Revision A.8 B, dated December 2 and 9 respectively. Revision Brequested confi rmation that packing material used in the repacked valve wasof the same lot'and size described by certifications provided on-site.

At the December 15, 1982 EVP Review Committee Meeting, the discrepancy wasclassified an an Observation and transmitted to the Project Team for review andfurther processing.

A written response, transmitted to the EYP Task Force on January 11, 1983,indicated that the same problem was the subject of a previous gA audit. Thenew gC site procedure resulting from that audit finding required that certifi-cations be provided during valve repacking. Since the EVP Task Force identifi.eda potential flaw in the gA/gC procedures, as confirmed by project investigation,a review team is being assigned to resolve the concern expressed in EVP-U-14,Revi.sion B. The project review team evaluation will cover the following:

a. Safety impactb. Impact on the (}uality Assurance Program

c. Reportabi lity per 10CFR50.55(e)

Hr. D.L. ChristianJanuary 28, 1983

aoe Two

A review of the Project Team response, made jointly by the Task Force engineerL.l<. Hack and the writer on January 14, resulted in Task Force concurrence withthe planned actions regarding EVP-U-14.

Ver truly yours,

D. D. HillerC-E EVP Task Force hianager

DDM/dm

cc: EVP Review Committee llembersE.!1. Dotson, FPLJ.C. Moulton, C-EE.Z. Zuchman, EbascoT.H. Blodgett, Ebasco

DISCREPANCY NO. UIR-46

-25.2

UNR"SOLV:-': s~,', '. 'CREP/.NCY) REPORT

ENGINEERi'.::. VERIFICA ION. PRl'-RP"i — SL2

A. PREPARATION BY EBASCO TASK FORCE INITIATOR

A. FECTED ITr~:/n ccPron ~~p +c'~+

Pressure +s ~e 6 J

REFER".NCE DOCL'NEbiS:.Fi e IJ I4> / P n ~o m/a ~r s on <,",~e

I I')J P'"8-'"~'.kJ IR-I-ZZq g g ghee/S S8~x(- j,na Qa„-ron.— ~D ~ D~~~ ~~

DIFFERENCES TO BE RESOLVED:

A g~r n ro glj~g r o gC vJ'=i'-rre na <~~ pea jos m- rdenflrrCa Trans " P< o ( «d' o Z.. k. H~~ ~+r ~«e > ( <ec

~ DESIGN RELATED gg FIELD INSTALLATIOh RELATED ~ START"LP PERFOR~diNCE RELATED

PREPAID BY: C M G>rZ DATE: /2 2 $ 2

REVIEW BY EBASCO TASK FORCE

COUNTS WTIOhALE'i y Ite + e C'rr c.-~ rroB ~~ PcJnC

PIdm rcpt P+> y g > ~gPnec Ir/pr77 r Pg g q qg g gg+'Shp>+ ~

QcL

gev. I Izll4 8~'Fsese j)eel ~-r /~yes W>'TH VH6 4'T'TA <HMe N r

~]~3 E cw f c~ laic spoQsg

QEvZ ol 2 83DIFFERENCES RESOLVED (gsg FonCe CO~CuaS W)VH 4CTleNS

I t=~,&«A~vae HveoT'~ RE-REVIEW REQUESTED*

~'DIFFERENCES UNRESOLVED. DISCREPANCY TRANSNITTED TO REVIEW COMMITTEE"

I Rodt" ~

,r 17 DATE /Z P Z

C. RESOLUTION BY REVIEW CONNITTEE

COUNTS/RATIONALE:

P'DDRCsr > A y Dt=c. l g PEVlcry CDMMin r'co

/gal T>H 6 ~ ~CS 35CLOW QA- WIS P<SIiI,>+

9

DISCREPANCY IS ACCEPTABLE. RECYCLED TO TASK FORCE.

DISCREPANCY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ~ AS OBSERVATION

TRANSHITTED TO PROJECT TEAN AS FINDING

BY ~ DATE: Z

D. REVIEW AND PROCESSING BY PROJECT TEAN

OBSERVATION ~ FINDING

CO%ANTS:Ac i„c,oJicQ. ciycuAnq c0 power paneIr ~ beo f&xeb' n o ycoAcw ca, col n PD Q Ivl Q~ oboe'eqc~~ey on/+

CORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE TMN'ms~y

q Not i~4v'~ CCt grea3Cc,<e L Po~e,e Pcu e.(S 2~I ~<O< ~~ '3m>W tken+ifqin'q nu~bcrs. 1rovi&p4ofoqynpki'e c4c~entnILrn.

TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE OBTAINED BY: DATE: 2d SW

CORRECTIVE ACTION INPLEHENTED:~ ktlcokn ont 2 k&34 Tonuosq <, l~a~ Ar pko~o~rq.Ilute ttocuuwd~.gg~t ~~ gQ~~ Ta~~~g Z4; 'lR8~4 r~as'kRgca. c ~roe ce..

FINDING 'REPORTABLE UNDER10 CFR 50.55(e) or 10 CFR 21

FINDING NOT REPORTABLE

BY: DATE:

C. RESOLUTION BY REVIEW CO. 1ITTEE~~

~CO.-ZNTS/RATIONALE:

ALinzsIFCJ> 4w 'Dec i.io Qev>e~ CcAewn~ea

g<~-Ti 9 6, Sr-a EC'LOW 9R. QiS Pog<ViOH.

LL'ISCREPA!BEYfS AC™CEPTABLE. RECYCLED TO TASK FORCE.e

DISCREPANCY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.. ~ AS OBSERVATIONr /TR."eeSNITT D TO PROJECT-'TEAN ~ AS FINDING

e

~'eL

DATE: Z

D. REVIE" AiD PROCESSING BY PROJECT TEA.f

OBSBBUAIIDN ~ FINDING

COUNTS: J,r '> I

As-insiLLll+Q 'ciecL LFrq LLC geicee tDc ck'OLLeibc LRLCI L'ULCQ" BL~LLLO"'«'r

O.'Ff1ieCk lie OACOOrlleOLCLc LLLI ~ 'PPLe teS DOALL SLOTS ICLSLAjeCU e„'f

CORPZCTIVE ACTION TO BE T MN'TcLe

+~Spy"g +ho,C jz4yg 'C~. I7'fga3Q~f D P>~~< P~<j> ~O~ ~ l1

LOLtli I il CeereFgll Ll LSILLLLbcrS, I reic!4L p40fOLled lelLLC O~ceL LAiLee

TASK FORCE CONCURREhCE OBTAIheED BY: DATE: 2@7

CORRECTIVE ACTION EMPLEHENTED'-

S ktlccl o t Z RAATas~)S,l~a~krpl 4)r iL'g gA~ Ta+~rg 24 )98%4ir~o 5'4 Fpyca. ~curv~ce,.

FINDING REPORTABLE UNDER10 CFR 50.55(e) or 10 CFR 21

~ FINDING NOT REPORTABLE

~ DATE:

FLORIDA PO'HER & LIGHT COMPANYST. LUCIE PLANT — UNIT NO. 2

ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGRAM

PROJECT RESPONS": . UIR-46I

VERIFICATION ITEN l- HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION PU.'$P .NO. 2A

There is no design document that requires a feeder directorywithin electrical panels. However, complete directory assis-tance is provided by the use of the PDM sheets (2998-B-33S)which identifies each circuit and i"s respective load. The

circuits are clearly numbered at the panels. Some panels may

contain a di ectory developed by the Construction Dep rtmentfo" the'" own ease of installation anc testing. This'ocumentis not a recuirement.

~--„ine r'rg Verifica ion ask Fo.ceEbasco Serio s "ncorvora edTwo World ade CenterNew York, IQ'0048

Januot ~ 2l. 1 o~,

nO. E Z Zuci=..an/T Feigenbaum — »n sco Pro)ect earn

FROM: «t'n ~lo"gett — roasco ~ Task ro. "e bwana"e-"~ i~~y~cfr > f7'>

SO~a "CT: EllG:iiE~ «N» VZ~ ="CAT1OIt PBOG=-""S 'C PlZ IiO. 2

yg ~«( y PA ~ ~ ~ Ay ) W~Aa«A /t ~ 1,(~l«I WVw«3 ~',e A«vb h«'l«w ), O v ~ t ~ — -A)~ A I.«» ' gC

I AAi 'tv t«'I

««' ««A«AtI ~I "«'I « ~ 6«« ~

t/'s<0 t~+~ot' <g «ot o [re qo> a< «t ~ ~ «to ~ «ac: Ao Tps

'Ins ai a Io ve icp ion h se of » e ro p

Un: 2 )ovsi e '. ear:„. 3ecet-„e 10zc. At tne ~ece.

V V',V ««C

Tt ~ AW aV

«

Rev'w Co=-..': —e m Se hesca, t~aryland, those sev -..

classi ied as Observationsby the co=it ee and t ans=itted t" he

Pro)ect T«ea~ fo" rev'ew and

UZB.

nt oAos« ' ps eq igovAod .a „C o eAcn

2. Memo EZZ-ST=2-83-003, dated January 5, 1983 (.. o Feigenba'-'o 31o"g --.)

transmitted. a description of the Pro)ect Teu actions'o be implemented

for UZBs 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, all o which are concerned with elec.ricaleouipment color coding. A review of that memo and attachments, made

)ointly by E7r engineer C'h Ruiz and the ~viter on January 5, resul ed

Task Force concurrence with the proposed ac ions for those five U|:Bs.

3. Memo EZZ-SL-2-83-003 also transmit ed photographic documentation (per aini..gto UIR-46) of identifying tag n znbers affixed to Po~er Panels 201 and 202.

A rev'ew of the memo and attachments, made Jointly by ETF engineer C N Rui"

and the writer on January 5, resulted in Task Force concurrence with theactions taken by the Prospect Team regarding UlR-46.

trans.-.itied hotoara"hic doc"~entation (perta-'ndn~ .o '-".l) c.iden:ifyin~ taa, n"".)U rs af ixed to "==V DC Po.».er Panel "-A.' -. vi-"of the le.-er a~d a ac."~ en s, rade Jointly bv " ~ e-.."ineer C Y. Hui=

and the ~'riter on Janu ry 10, resu"ted in Tas> :o ce concurrence ":4tne ac.ions a~en by he Pro)ect Te~= re-ardi .c. U"R-5l.

5. All ask Force activi-ies in connect. on .-' U:~s h6 hroughcons''dered o be cc="le e.

5"- are

J C

D D

n

Moul o", C-:-t.'$ -.>3 a~ I

Zuc~l ~-o04$ I v

FLORIDA PO)>ER & LIGHT COMPANYST. LUCXE PLY>T — UNIT NO. 2

ENGXN"ERING X ERXFXCATION PROGRAM

PROJECT RESPONSE: UIR-46 (REVISION 1)UIR-51 (REVISION 1)

VERIFICATION ITEN 1 - HIGH PRESSURF SAFETY INJECTXON PUNP NO. 2A

On December 3, 1982, the EVP Task Fo 'ce issued UIR-46 whichs ated the following difference to be resolved as a resul" oftheir field inspections:

"No nameplates or identification have been provided in powerpanels 201 and 202 for the services (feeders)".

On December 10, 1982, the Project, Team responded as ollows:

"There ' no design document that requires a feeder directoryw'hin elec" rical panels. However, complete directory assis-tanc is provided by the use o the PD&YiD sheets (2998-B-335)which identi ies each circuit and its respective load. The


contain a directory developed by the Construction Departmentfor thei" own ease of installation and testing. This document

is no t a requireme nt. "

Subsequently, on December 14, 1982, the EVP Task Force supple-mented UIR-46 with the following comment:

"During the field installation verification by the Ebasco TaskForce no circuits or feeder were numbered at the panels as perPD5TD Sheets 2998-B-335. The subject PDND Sheets show thefeeder directory (number and load) and this design document mustbe implemented for,identification purposes. "

4

The EVP Task Force designated this item as an observation to beincluded in the final report, which should be addressed andd'spositioned by the Project Team.

The Project Team has reviewed this item with appropriate per-sonnel from, Cons"ruction, Construction Test, ESSE Engineeringand NYO Engineering Groups and has concluded that sufficientin ormation al eady exists at the power panels to identify the,as-'nstalled circuitry in conjunction with the PD&M Data Sheets(2998-B-33S Series).

The Project Team has verified that the individual circuitbre'akers at PP 201 and 202 are tagced with an identifyingnumbe" (1, 2, 3, 4...,,,etc.) to aid personnel that are re-quired to work on the panel. Photographs of the subject powerpane's a e attached to document this verification.

is the Project's opinion that no signi icani advantageexists in having the feeder directories located at the powerpanels. Whether personnel are using the PD&N Data Sheets ordirectories mounted at the panel, they must coun" .down the rowsor circuit breakers to locate the desired service. En fact, asthe PD6MD's a e controlled documents, thev provide the mostaccurate information source since a power directory is not nor-mally considered controlled in ormation and could be outdatedfollowing a plant modification.

Based on the above, we conclude that no action is required on'this EVP observation and none is anticipated.

r

A k,

Qr. ~A%Q

Rg

~~~wE~m)pI q lP".~C ~<, .Q», e

«I~w 'k~

~~ g-i

*)- ~" . -l, /&Pc

P

PP ~0 I 4=F i 5'/BE

" Qe

~l\

l n(~~C'( q

l(, )l;"J"'j

I i..I.:, '::I

~ ., t

Ll 4JI Ill

I

pp Z>Z glsH < SeE.

.-~; '!(0

C4Cl

~ +;U~

~> ry'i7/Sz(Pgglg

/2/jT/I'Z

c

I

~gP~l

\II

,~

C

~$ .

~ (\

l

~A+wg

j r- 2a'c. Zr r < rpj)r

.a ~ J ~

~ ~ ' I

.~4 .'n'P'S~>~ @+%/II E g" p-e Pl

vg

«+'t

QvV Ia.L.a

~r ~

p (hl

"i g

]=i Zw( l- l6/-'7 5/8„=.

~"

I

ts

%0 ~ ~ .

e e

~kg~>

i.< ~r=.(.is~ rc".'' 4'rr7/gz

3J'%weHE~ i

<le-4c (zz<.iVLQ-5 L QZZUi


-25.3-

UNRESOLVED IT&'i (DISCREPANCY) REPORT

ENGINEERING 4'ERIFICATION. PROGRAM — SL2 UI R-47


AFFECTED ITM:pr ssui<- +< ++ gy /ng ec Hioo ><F'

gg~, jlCa7 (0/12 A.-

RE:-R""NCE DOCUMENTS: 'g y g // pa p gg g)@ger~ on ~h c~(~/==~~/ndepenc4n~ ~~~49~ ~ p

g' ~ I p p~.~ je~P~ 4 5 5Q @grid ++

g pl~ (rnid z) ~~rgn, a.) pD ~ +ag p~ //~ 7 ron.

DIFFEPZNCES TO BE RESOLVED: b) ~ /Bc 4 r + ~ j'~~ 7, g-/ geneAt/ n

27I sh.ey 7-I/$ y (J mdiv> g

I p] g3 8 z4,-~ DESIGN RELATED ~ FIELD INSTALLATION RELATED ~ START-LP P RFOR~NCE RELATED

PREPS".D BY: C' Z DATE:


~ DIFrERENCES RESOLVED

~ RE-REVIEW REQUESTED

fjg DIFFERENCES UNRESOLVED. DISCREPANCY TRANSMITTED TO REVIEW COMMITTEE

CO% .NTS/RATIONALE: Qi or~re 4X Z/~Jr~< Wa>~ ~»'~

Q pg/7 4'e(g<h e«-

I-o tin /e Jeff

i2ev. 4 (o i/24./83)~~Sg PORC/ Co Nco A.5 XITQ ACT<oMS Ic BE l+ IcCHBf pfEad~cT Tc.AQ

p7E'R A'TTAcHM~T

~i l?~

DATE:

C. RESOLUTION BY REVI

V'OUNTS/RATIONALE:

ac+>~.fyc SC'~P

CO."MITTEE

H~gw'~rr~p /~ad ~c''Ms4'//

c'~ <z~chal~

~c~


DISCREPA'.TCY IS, NOT ACCEPTABLE. ~ AS OBSERVATION

TRANSMITTED TO PROJECT TEAM ~ AS FINDING

BY: DATE: /g /S Z

D. REVIEW A%) PROCESSING BY PROJECT TEAM

OSS:"RVATION FINOING

)CORCBTS

u.s~, of c pp~pY)d,~ c04)r-c.o~I i gs, pa.>~ t. or ta.pe..

CORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN:Eevceco safe+- rd& c44lrc4JL ocOlilpcee+ Ca Mcucre. tccopccr Gclor oo~ oP

4~s. Co pM +~ rev>~ ~ Cd\ [email protected] ~eL4~~s prie'rU~it 2. Cov ~e.~M

opero+vr'OO

QmgFSf 2 ~tkfL 3~IA~ Q )Q QQ ~r~~k Q~ Q,~~T'Y ~W,CORRECTIVE ACTION IPZL~NTED:

f



BY; DATE:

C. RESOLUTION BY REVIEW

CO~NTSIRATIONALK:

chFr C <6'af

CO. KITTEK

gPgig ~7+ rl r PagVierragr ACEDe'C

'-/-/.-"v~ ~//'/ ar//~re >~r 8r/-"y

pz<rp 4 y~ H>[email protected] 5's z/g cAv< ~cb

DISCREPANCY

DISCREPANCY

TR.kNSMITTKD

IS ACCEPTABLE ~ RECYCLED TO TASK fgRCK ~

rIS NOT ACCEPTABLE ~ AS OBSER)'nZION

10 PROJ"CT TEA% +~. FQ;DZQ

~ Q IF

DATE: /'2 /S Z

D. RKVIK" AND PROCESS NG BY PROJECT TEAN

OBSERVATION ~ PIhDING

4 S~V - .>~ e~ l < 'S"'""U 0'F G4ppropY<d C 0 ter-c e ~~-"~

< ~ i,~ ~««or 4a.p~.

CORM~C IVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN:Reve~ Safe+- ralM %.44lr<A ~alps+ Co '~cure. 'pAper CoLoY co~

~l'

J Pl P~ jg,"; C~P~ i~ l Vl~ ~ a3't YCQ.UArQ5L W~<i~~g Priar

un<i 2 c o'~me.~M oparo+c.

Se,e Alta'e~t 2 554- ~m~~ 24; I% 83 d'or'Tmg R ~ c ~ur~~~ ~

CORRECTIVE ACTION IKL-ANTED:

PINDING REPORTABLE UNDER ~ FIVHNG hOT REPORTABLE1Q CPR 50.55(a) or 10 CFR 21

DATE:

~ I

I

FLOP.IDA PO'wr R 6 LIGHT COYZAi<YST. LUCIE PLANT — UNIT NO. 2


P ROJEC ~ RESPONSE: UIR-47UIR-48UIR-49UIR-50UIR-52

(R=VISION 1)(R"VISION 1)(REVISION 1)(REVISION 1)(REVISION 1)

V RIFICATION ITEMS 1 g 2 g 3 g 4 g 7

The cable tray/raceway system at St Lucie Unit 2 is properly colorcoded, however, certain MCC's, switchgear, power panels, etc may

not be similarly color coded although all equipment has the properidentification clearly indicated.

Although not specifically required by Regulatory Guide or IndustryStandard,'he St Lucie Unit 2 FSAR does specify that safety re-lated electrical equipment must be identified by color coded 'tags,pain or tape according to the appropriate color schemes code

provided.

The color coding has no effect on safe operation or design of theecuipment. All electrical panels/equipment are provided with name-

plates conta.ining the correct equipment tag number which includessafety channels. This method of identification readily distin-quishes between redundant Class IE Systems and non-class IEsystems. During routing of the cables to and from equipment, Elec-tricians utilize cable pull cards which designate the equipment tagnumbers that the cable is to be routed to/from and the color codingscheme is not relied upon for installation purposes nor do the pullcards even refer to a color code scheme.

The only purpose of the color code scheme for electrical panelsis to provide easy recognition of equipment for individuals notfamiliar with the plant layout, and color codes are never used

as a subst'tute for nameplates when performing maintenance ortesting on electrical equipment. However, as we are not in con-

formance with the FSAR, the Project will recommend that a totalreview of sa ety related electrical equipment be performed toensure proper color coding of equipment tags in accordance withthe FSAR criteria. The review and all required modificationswill be completed prior to commercial operation.

E.".gineer'.,g Verification sk For'ceEbascc Septic incorpora.edTwo World Trade CenterHew York, R'004B

Ja.".ua~ 24, loB3

TO:

FROM:

SUBJ:".CT:

E Z Zuchman/T Feigenbaum - Eb sco ProJect Team

T H Blodget - Ebasco ~ P Task Force Manager~,~~g~NrfflElfGiV ERTIiG V:Ri?iCATXOIi ?ROGR:"-'~i

ST LUCTE UNiT NO. 2UbRESOL'~:"D iTEM (D~SCRE?AGCY) RE?OR S (U~~-46 T:"~U L ",-52)

CO"CU - '"= "i'" " 0 ."' '"' 'iO"

1. UiRs 4o through 52 wer genera.ed oy the fiasco Task Force u i.ig t ie+iel d ins al 1 pt 'r ve 'icatio~ gbasD o ne grog pm p he c LuciUnit 2 Jobsite in early December 19~2. At .he December 15 19:2 ~::-Re'view Commi zee meeting in Be hesca kaQ p .d those se've.. 's we

classi iec.as Observationsby .he co=i ee and trans=it-ed t™ thP."oJect Team or rev'ew ard processing, as evidenced on ?a": C of eacn

UiR.

2. Memo EZZ-S~ 2-83-003, dated January 5, 1983 (from Feigenbaum to 3lodge- )

transmitted a descrip ion of the ProJect Tem actions to be implementedfor UiRs 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, all o. wh'ch are cOncerned ~ath elec ricpleouipment color coding. A revie~ of that m mo and attachmen+s, made

Jointly by ETF engineer C M Ruiz and the miter on January 5, resulted inTask Force concurrence with the proposed actions for those five UiRs.

3. Memo EZZ-S~~2-83-003 e,'so transmitted pho ographic documen+ation (pertainingto UiR-46) of iden ifying tag numbers affixed to Power Panels 201 and 202.A revie~ of the memo and attachments, made Jointly by ETF engineer C M Ruizand the write on January 5, resulted in Task Force concurrence with theactions taken by the ProJect Team regarding UiR-46.

A Speed L t er da ed Janu ry ln, lg63, fro.", Fei>enba -., to halo«brett,

transmitted photographic doc" ~entation (pertaining to U:5-5l) ofidenti g ng tae, numbers affixed to l=5U DC Power Panel =A. A revie'-of ha le ter and a tach.-.ents, made )ointly by TF enrireer C '8 ~ui=

and the vriter on January 10, resulted in Task Force ccrcurrence "iththe actions taken by the Prospect Tea~ regarding UiR-5l.

5. All Task Force activi es ir. connect'on .-.ith UZHs b6 through 5= are

considered to be co=p"ete.

P::3: r>h

cc: D LTlh

J C

D DE ZT H

~l

Do son, FPHoultor., C-:-Yiiller, C-:-Zuch ar.Blod<e t

C)C'2'd~idC'

zs-. ~-

UhRESOLVED ITEM (DIS;.P:iPANC'. ~ REPORT

ENGINEERING X'ERIFICATION PROGRAM — SL2 UIR-WS


AF. ECTED ITB".:

... —...s i./-~"- ~-~'"Z Pem 7 - ~~ ~e6 ~G'c

~'-g6/'F-~ she=7'al-~~i

REFER"-NCE DOCUMENTS: ~ /J /AS y~ f/% 8/OO P(, /,~~pendbn - 5 '

p g /2 z p2AS

Z,- E) iSAgg Ve~rga.— ~/e~kr /p ) ~pm

gg'IFFER"NCES

TO BE RESOLVED:

(~ v imago n A) <ino

~$ ~ ~~~ep/~re~ <~ /~ gx p~„~ be~n |='</4'~ ~~~e~

(Q i Lg/N/OA j.(<rtQ'Q~ 2 8-~ «~ ~

g + .~~hgrcronc(, %VAN~=~, ph /i q'g 2 green /<4'c

~ DESIGN RELATED ~FIELD INSTALLATION RELATED ~ START-UP PERFORMANCE R LATED

PREPARED BY: C ~ I 'C IZ DATE:/z- s'z.


r

'4V (

Qo'Bn co ~

gi uisi~n»~. lm

12av 201./2 0/8 5)'ASK FORCE CONCVRS 4/1TH jE~TLON< ~< +4 lAKGN

lay 7ga~~t w TGAH, ~leak AvTAcHwFNT X.n)ti7~

DIFFERENCES RESOLVED

RE-REVIEW REQUESTED

/g~- Z z

DIFFERENCES UNRESOLVED. DISCREPANCY TRANSMITTED TO REVIEW COMMITTEE

'„

s

C. RESOLUTION BY REVIEW COMMITTEE

CONVERTS/RATIONALE: ggesN Z 7P/s I jQQfl/NvM/ peÃ/ l'or /Pv r 1

ss ry~ Ãc r 72/m 4J/(rr ~/r A4'~ <>S+i <p l~. 5'Z>Jr

P8SrP'm ~ r ~ +H ~cp~Ars- Cp r~w



TRANSMITTED TO PROJECT TEAM AS FINDING

BY: DATE:

'. REVIEtvs AtvD PROCESSING BY PROJECT TEAM

gg OBSERVATION FINDING

CO%ANTSE'SAIC speci'lies i&hlic&~epsom'e+-eel~ el&n&<equip~~use ot pp~pv~ co@ v co~ ~s pcuo4 or ta pc.,

'ORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE Tg&g:tpcwe~ so+e+- r 4dik aleotv~ co, p W ~ or,sure p~pev coLo co~ez~t ~~Y tgz. C~pl~ f4. r ev<~ M o3L ~u,>rA ~+~K QNSTQ 2 CO~gyg~ OQY~4tlYFBBo

TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE OBTAINED 'Y: W .vv H~ DATE: Z ASScL IflcLck~cBBW 2, M~+0.EBEA,SS,~ Q+ )QQ'3 ~+~ ~cE gQ P

CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLANTED:

FINDING REPORTABLE UNDER ~ FINDING NOT REPORTABLE10 CFR 50.55(e) or 10 CFR 21

BYE DATE:

RESOLUZIQN BY REVIEW CO. fITTEE~ ~

CO'NESTS/RATTONABE: CvtggrSv Z fgvS'F - /QSSAY4'iwvF Pit/Fcr /PFvsIt

QCPfy<. Pi y ZC l +&~ ~2/(( 8s's A4'< <>SÃj<P I5r'~'lC

DoMAwcp r~mt

BY:


DISCREPANCY IS NOT ACCEPTABL . ~ AS OBSERVATION

TRANYSiLITTED TO PROJECT TEA.f ~ AS FINDING co

DATE:

D. REVIEW ~XD PROCESSING BY PROJECT TEAN

gg OBSERSATTON ~ FZBY>TNG

COLHENTS: s

N'SAtE speci< a's ih kilic& 'fsa4'e+ noM& clsJn& cauiptcsc ck ~pvopr~ coL v coW.-~s, pcioQ cv ss.pc.,

CORRZCTIVE ACTION TO BE T~:'Pcyiotu soft+- ro47c8. clcotr~ coutpr stat, bs cnsuxc ptopcr cohv cosuoul 'f

TgZ. C~Pl~ f4. t"eVt~ ~ OBJET, ~u,\F-W ~CLED ~s.: P<~T-~VCL OI

TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE OBTAINED BY: 8 .nt &~ DATE: C >.S/I5~ iaCk~<% g MM 4EBBA,ES.~ 24; l983 ~e Ta,5 IS.'FCFT ~ C~CEA.yB.~C .

CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLANTED:

~ FINDING REPORTABLE UNDER~

~10 CFR 50.55(e) or 10 CFR 21FINDING NOT REPORTABLE

BY: DATE:

FLORIDA POKER & LIGEiT COYiPAXYST. LUCIE PLANT — UNIT NO. 2


PROJECT R" SPONSE: UIR-47UIR-48UIR-49UIR-50UIR-52

(REVISION 1)(REVISION 1)(REVISION 1)(REVISION 1)(REVISION 1)

VERIFICATION ITEMS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7

The cable tray/raceway system at St Lucie Unit 2 is properly colorcoded, howeve , certain MCC's, switckgear, power panels, etc maynot be similarly color coded although all equipment has the properidentification clearly indicated.

Although not specifically required by Regulatory Guide o IndustryStandard, the S" Lucie Uni" 2 FSAR does speci y that sa ety re-lated electrical equ'pment must be identified by color coded tags,paint or tape according to the appropriate color schemes codeprovidedo

The color coding has no effect on safe operation or design o theequipment. All electrical panels/equipment are provided with name-

plates containing the correct equipment tag number which includessafety channels. This method of identification readily distin-quishes between redundant Class IE Systems and non-class IEsystems. During routing of the cables to and from equipment, Elec-tricians utilize cable pull cards which designate the equipment tagnumbers that the cable is to be routed to/from and the color codingscheme is not relied upon for installation purposes nor do the pullcards even refer to a color code scheme.

~(~%)

The oniv purpose of tne color code scheme for electrical panelsis to provide easy recognition of eauipment for individuals notfamiliar with the plan layout, and color codes are never used

as a substitute "or nameplates when performing maintenance ortesting on electrical ecuipment. However, as we are not in con-

formance with the FSAR, the Project will recommend that a totalreview of safety related electrical eauipment be performed toensure proper color coding of ecuipment tags in accordance withthe FSAR criteria. The review anc all reouired modificationswill be completed prior to commercial operation.

L".gineering Verification Task Forcer.oasco Se~ice ncorpor .edTvo World Trade Cer. erIle~ York, A'0048

Ja»ug»y 1083

Z Zuchman/ Feigenbaum - H sco Protect ea

FROM:

SU J"CT:

T H Slodgett -:" sco P~ Task Force i'anager~r IA

+gQIg ~I/)0 Q „I CATIO,j PO~~"'')ST LUCIZ KiIT PO. 2UliR-SO ~ I . -'. ( IS 8-.-.".: "Y) .-."?OH S (U".".-46 T:"-.U "-".=-52)

UIBs ~6 through 52 vere generated oy .he s~~asco Task ?cree d':=".;- the- 'ld install '.. ve i ation <hase o the Qro . am a» the -uci e

)obsi e in ea»1 december lo, A he ~eca be» 19=2:..:"?evie- "o~"i:-.ee »ghp . »g I v\ ge Ppscg J

'r%( a»t <oso st) c5

classi.ied as Obse~ationsby .he co~ittee and trans..i -ed -o t"..

?ro feet Team for review -and processin", as evidenced on ?a"". C o. eachUIH.

2. Memo ZZ- L-2-83-003) dao ed Janua g 5, 1983 ( o Feigenbaum .o ""lo"get )

transmit ed a descr'ption of the ?."o)ect Tea= ac ions to'be imple=en.e"or UIBs 47, 48, 49, 50 ard 52, all of vhich are concerned math ele .rical

eouipm nt color cod'ng. A review of that me o and attachmen.s, ace

Jointly by ETF engineer C M Huiz and the ~ iter on January 5, resul ed 'nTask Force concurrence vith the proposed a" ions for those ive UIBs.

3 ~ Memo "ZZ-SL-2-83-003 also transmitted photographic docmen;a ion (per:ainingto UIB-46) of identifying tag numbers affixed to Power Panels 201 and 202.A review of the memo and attachments, made Jointly by ET."" engineer C M quizand the vriter on January 5, resulted in Task Force concurrence vith theactions taken by the Prospect Team regarding UIR-46.

«2

4. A Sue " ~~tt r dated Janu-~y p0 1a"'q

trans=)ttec photograph=c documentation (pertaining to U"~-51) ofidentifyin< a~ nu".;hers affixed to 125V DC Po"er 'Panel 2A. A review:

of that le ter and a tacn..en-s, ede )oint y by =F en@neer C M Rui=

and the «.ite" on January 10, resu" ed in Tas'2:orce cc""u""e""e v'-"the actions, taken by the Pro3ect Te= re>a ding U"R-5

5. JQ.1 ast Force ac ivi ies in connec.'on "ith U:~s 46

considered to be cc"pie e.

Lhrpu<' awe

~s~ «h ~ I

cc: "

D L$)

J C

D DE ZPl

J ~

C. 's) «)~ sv'c )

Dot son )

Moulton) C-:-Mi'er, C-:-Zuch=anlpd

1 v

!

DISCREPANCY NO". UIR-49

-25.5-

UNR"..i'. ':g I'! EM (DISCREPANCY) REPORT

ENGINEER'G VERI ICATION PROGR!M — SL2


A:FECTED ITW:b? jc)!

'LJQ fs fi'c c 4 i o n Z '4 n"~~ /g~ / p ~ v'- 25 I'4"

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: . z y p y g g (psych S/?<~'7 (/p~app<Qen 8 ~e~(g'? ~

g~g~g. tz-i-82" g <~~p-9-2,'7Ip. --+XI f ln< Qa g/g . Q/gg g'gccf / & /a~/all~/ion W.-

g/~ef 7 / Z 76'e7 7 8DI:FERENCES TO BE RESOLVED:') (.„~, p~,~ c~lm csZeJ ~ t~

I~Z(~Z'ck

a('0<!d —Q789$ // a n4

~ DESIGN RELATED ~FIELD INSTALLATION RELATED ~ START-H'ERFORMANCE R".LATED

PREPARED BY: C M ~ G u i Z DATE: / Z 8 Z


COK'ANTS/RATIONALE: gg ~ Ir ~(ygQ~ show /

a'oH 5 P~ua urn codive< ion~ 4 a ndW~m e co /m-

e v. 1 ( 0 I /z 4./p g)

/g S/C

~~ ~W~ecv kg



~ DIFFERENCES UNRESOLVED. DISCREPANCY TRANSMITTED TO REVIEW COMMITTEE

ATE: />-3- P>.~//P + />(oP 8+~ 0


CO~NTSi»ION«: O/<~ Zr~/~~ - A@~i~i~g<~~y~'C:~~~~,~'/~~ r~~~ ~ g/' +4'~~ ~ os/.Fr Mesc

g y </p p i8/ vi /7 + b<N

DTSCREPANCY IS ACCEPTABLE. RECYCLED TO TASK FORCE.


TRANSMITTED TO PROJECT TEA"f ~ AS 'FINDING

BY: DATE:

D. REVIEV AND PROCESSING BY PROJECT TEA.f

OBSERVATION FINDING

CO%ANTS:p'5'Q( ~ pKciFi<z iM+ifxM~ o F sd+e~ - 1"e)~ w(tctviM |Bp&l )~en~i

1

u.ce og ~pvapy i Co/OY Ga ~ g~ PEs ERE+ Or 4~g,CORRECTIVE ACTION TO 'BE TAKEN:

Review safe/ F(~.-elect M eg,'p~F eC +e C~p.Q K rem,~4r 'UVRE 2. COW~ 4Y'CA EBPC YEE~

TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE 0 T Ih D BY: ( JS~ A4~~ 0 ~ ~~~~ 24; lRs'3 -4

CORM~CTIVE ACTION IMPLANTED:

n pev c,o4r conc o'a,r ~~ o h.mica.~ g t.."r<'os'ATE:

/Sd// '

or~ ~~v~c.e.


BY: DATE:

C. RESOLUTION'Y REVIEW COiKITTEE

CO. ANTS/RATIONALE:

8c'qua, ~r~('4u le>~ ~irr 8'i ~44'w ~ ></jr/ P~~sc~ 8

J/st < y ~ pp 4"$ C'cr Pic'p c A)~'1


I'

BY:

DISCREPANCY IS

TRANSMITTED TO

NOT ACCEPTABLE. ~ AS

PROJECT..TEAM .. ~ AS,Nh

OBSERVATION

FINDING .

DATE:"

D. REVIEW AND PROCESSING B'f PROJECT TDD

gg OBSERVATION FINDING

tCOHKhTS:

Fs'Wa ~P~~~+«C i4 +if'iM~ oW S~+e+w-7C)~ wtccCviM ega(~~e~lWCe o'P ~pa py'(. 'co(ar-c ~+s,( '+ o t~c

CORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN:

Rcv~cw sAfep'-rc(rucQ clca<i~ cat pic«+ M Ans~rc pr perAAQLIP can +4 C01 PQ4J % I c vl aw ~ cJJj V4.+VAr~0 u~s4 2 COm~e~rP sperm~

TASK YORCE CONCURRENCE OUT/I D BY: C J DATE:Vidlr'40

AttA4k&%vugg 2 ~MIA4p'q 24''983 Qg 7y gk'CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLEMENTED:

BY:


DATE:

1

FLORIDA POP'ER G LIGHT COMPiYi'iST. LUCIE PLANT - UNIT NO.- 2


PROJECT R SPONSE: UZR-47UIR-48UIR-49UIR-5 0UIR-52

(REVISION 1)(REVISION 1)(REVIS ION 1)(REVISION 1)(REVISION 1)

VERIFICATION ITEMS: 1 ~ 2, 3, 4 g 7

The cable tray/raceway system at St Lucie Unit 2 is properly colorcoded, however, certain MCC's, switchgear, power panels, etc maynot be s'milarly color coded although all ecuipment has the properidenti ication clearly indicated.

Although not specifically required by Regulatory Guide or IndustryS and rd, the St Lucie Unit 2 FSAR does spec'fy that safety re-lated electrical ecuipment must be identified by'color coded tags,paint or tape accord'ng to the appropriate color schemes code

provided'he

color coding has no effect on safe operation, or 'design of theequipment. All electrical panels/equipment are provided with name-

plates containing the correct equipment tag number which includessafety channels. This method of identification readily distin-quishes between redundant Class IE Systems and non-class IEsystems. During routing of the cables to and from equipment, Elec-tricians utilize cable pull cards which designate the equipment tagnumbers that. the cable is to be routed to/from and the color codingscheme is not relied upon for installation purposes nor do the pullcards even refer to a color code scheme.

,~(gal)

0

The onlv purpose of the color coce scheme for electrical panelsis to provide easy recognition of equipment for individuals notamiliar with the plant layout, and color codes are never used

as a .substitute for nameplates when performing maintenance ortesting on electrical equipment. However, as we are not in con-ormance with the FSAR, the Project will recommend that a total

review -of safety related electrical equipment be performed toensure proper color coding of equipment tags in accordance withthe FSAH criteria. The review and all required modificationswill be completed prior to commercial operation.

~~

Engineering Veri ication Task ForceEbasco Se.—.ices Incorpora.edTvo World Trade CenterNev York, NY 10048

January 24, 1983

TO:

FROM:

E Z Zuc? an/T Fe'genbeum — Eb sco Pro)ect ee

T H Blodgett — Eb sco EVP Task Force Manager

Sb+JECT: E?IGI?i ERING VERI."ICATION ?BOG?~"iST LUCIE UNIT NO. 2U? RESOLVE 1 >l (~ISCREPAN"Y) BE?0? S (UIR-46 THBU ":.=.-5 )

l. UIRs 46 throu-h 52 ver genera ed oy, he =besco Tesi ."orce d ringfield inste a ion ve ificetion phase o the program e: the St " cieUnit 2 Jobsite in eer'y Decemoe» 1982 At the December 1=, 19-"2 :-.:"~evie" Co.==':.ee me ing in -e hesce,

r?~e~ e"", t"os sev -. U =s "-

clessi iedas Observationsby the cr it ee end transmit ed t"Prospect Teem .or revie«end processing as evidenced on Pe»t C o eacn

UIB.

2. Memo EZZ-SL-2-83-003, da ed Je .uery 5, 1983 (f om Feigenbe"- to "-'o"" "z ),rensmit ed e desc"iption of the P."o)ect Teem ec ions o be impl en.e"

for UIBs 47, 48, 49, 50 end 52, all of «'hich are concerned «5th elec."icaleouipment colo" coding. A reviev of that memo and ettac?™ents, =ade

Jointly by ~r engineer C M Buiz'nd the writer on January 5, resul ed 'nTask Force concu»rence vith the proposed ac ions or those five UIBs.

3. Memo EZZ-SL-2-83-003 also transmitted photogrepnic doc~entation (per.ainingto UIB-46) of identifying tag numbe. s af ixed to Pover Panels 201 end 202.A revie~ of the memo and attachments, made Jointly by ETF engireer C M Buizend the vriter on January 5, resu1ted in Task Force concu=rence «ith theactions taken by the Pro)ect Team regarding UIR-46.

A Speed w+te dated ~~~us~ 10,

transzitted "ho oaraphic docvn ntation (pert ning o UZR-~l) ofidenti ying ta> n"-.3ers affixed o 125V DC Po-er Pane "-A. A revie-of tha le-ter and at ach-..cuts, rade Jointly by =sr engineer C M Rui=

and the wi e" on Janu ry 10, resul ed in Task =o ce cc..curr .." «i-.h

the actions .taken by the Progec e~= e>ardinr. U"R-51.

5. All Task ."orce activities in connec 'on vi h U:Rs 46 hrough 52 are

considered to be co=piete.

~>~ g ~ @AD

J C

D DZ Z

DOYrsonyMoul:cn

Zuch=.anQ1 o~ocy

ar Pw

C-:.C-=


-25.6-

'.~ ..::SC V:.D ITEM (DISCREPANCY) REPORT

Ei'i ":ZT'PING VERIFICATION PROGRAM - SL'2

A. PREPS WTION BY EBASCO ":ASK FORCE INITIATOR

AFFECTED ITrW:

V p o p o Z/e~ a — Fyl>r~gen Need

REFERENCE DOCPZNiS: n@g~ ](~/e,c/.)- < / S 2I. f) Gpc/ g ender,H Desgi n- Fie/8 Intel<///a o n o P gp c f8'7««/ insk//~~ton "'" "

)(,s4,ng ~es ign.- Z'Iecdric,a / <e+~r~sh~ef v-i z6m 7

8'IFFER".NCES

TO BE RESOLVED:

~)~~)- / 1a Pe= ~ P

g) /+ g Qgpn co/~

DESIGN RELATED ~ FIELD INSTALLATION RELATED ~ START-UP PERFOR~WNCE RELATED

PREPAID BY: C ~ /+ ~ i- >i > 'C'.+ @ DATE:

REVIEW Bv EBASCO TASK FORCE

CO.~ANTS/RATIONALE: <Ao ~ 7'» ~,

o /d

/a jc?Sp~g g ~~me cd l~

C'0 de/. W ~

'Rev. 5 Ot 24-89I +5/c QiZCG Co pJCuiZ S W> TH13y 'Ill>JQQ+ l6'AM, Pt=g. ATTA<HNc~T 5.

')7


DATE:g2 o3 62


DIFFERENCES UNRESOLVED. DISCREPANCY TRANSMITTED TO REVIEW COMMITTEE

BY:~~+ j / .

C. RESOLUTION BY REVIEh'OMMITTEE

co~NIBSATIONAIE: G<~+~ ~ <+r'7 @+<+'rA'r '/ < ~/+'~ '9p(Cyan, j roj ZC 72+~ &pre ~ ypgzC rgg Jl ~ r'~r..:r' 'j

g(gP ~ g~ Pg kF -5 S. /78' C +7VC QC+SM


DISCREPANCY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. QQ AS OBSERVATION

TRANS. fITTED TO PROJECT TEA".f ~ AS FINDING

BY: 'DATE: g2 l~ i5

D. REVIEh'ND PROCESSING BY PROJECT TEA.f


CO."PANTS: I

FEAR Sfe.cia lee' Mtl'Ft~~ o < Sn i ~ - Yi'(g~ e.lac,ii:~use of shepsofss 'OLor-coU. + s, p~C or l-ye.

. CORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN:'e( &sseaQ CIEoA[~ |or ~r u.re. proper ooLov ootj<q

of ~~yw,<nI, 6 s. Cov p~~ Y'evi~ ~ cxU reesur4- ~Xiii ~~.~ prior'V~ 2 ~~c~~ oy~ea~.

TASK FORCE CONPJRREN(E OB A NED BY'.c,$ 'c O'&~~~X 2 Z~uoq ZAp )fQ$ $ r+<fQ RTcc,~~vl ~cc.

CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLEHENTED:



BY: DATE:

~

~

RESOLUTIOh BY REVIEW CO~AITTEE0

CO~NTSIRATIONALE:

P ( P( p~ /+>~ gC B

~Q 6'H . 4 c:/t'A'L'<

fir,(r,.'gw rj ( wcg'p. v mrs rvs

pc/S Zj~rvC rg Ch ~<

DISCP-""PANCY ISl

DISCREPAhCY IS

TRA'BSMITTED TO

h'OT ACCEPTABLE.

PROJE& YEAH

~ AS OBSERVATION

~ AS FINDING

ACCEPTABLE. RECYCLED TO TASK FORCE.

BY: DATE: 8< <~ 8'<

D. REVIEts AND PROCESS1NG BY PROJECT TE'

OBBBBVAYSOB ~ BSBOLSG

CO. ANTS: I %1

F$pR g g ~t $ ~ 0 5'O ~ y gL~~ +(QC)+;~ eQ AIQBoS,~ LLfiuse of ofPro~rs 'oLor-Cc&+s, P~C or '<-


Brl~ Swg Ya&~ ctsc~rs~ 4.~[~M ~s'ur a propov co@>v cocbnq

oZ ~m)w ~CA r. Coi p~M Ye,v<Qv ~ M ~r4- ~ ~~~.r Prior',4 VwX 2. ~me,y~ ape.ro~ ~

TASK FORCE CON@RREN+E OB A NED ,L.—5'C" g'aC4mt.X< 2 Z~uag ZCf )<83 +B ~PgQ Fui CC ~~B B mCW.B

'ORRECTD'E ACTION IiPLEHENTED:


FLORIDA PO'P!ER & LIGHT C"YsP~X'iST ~ LUCIE,PLANT — UNIT NO.. 2

ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGM~f

PROJECT R" SPONSE: UIR-47 (REVISION 1)UIR-48 (REVISION 1)UIR-4 9 (REVIS ION 1)UIR-50 (REVISION 1)U IR-5 2 ( REVlS ION 1 )

VERIFICATION ITEMS 1 g 2 g 3 g 4 g 7

The cable tray/raceway system at St Lucie Unit 2 is properly colorcoded, however, certain MCC's, switckgear, power panels, etc maynot be similarly color coded although all equipment has the prope"identification clea ly indicated.

Although not specifically required by Regulatory Guiae or IndustryStandard, the St Lucie Unit 2 FSAR does speci y that safety re-lated elec" ical ecuipment must be identi ied by'color co"ec tags,pain or tape according to the appropriate color schemes codeprovidedo

The colo" coding has no effect on sa e operation, or 'design of theequipment. All electrical panels/equipment are provided with name-plates containing the correct equipment tag number which includessafety channels. This method of identification readily distin-quishes between redundant Class IE Systems and non-class IEsystems. During routing of the cables to and from equipment, Elec-tricians utilize cable pull cards which designate the equipment tagnumbers that the cable is to be routed to/from and the colo" codingscheme is not relied upon for installation purposes nor do the pullcards even refer to a color code scheme.

,~(gal)

0

The only purpose of the color cooe scheme for elect-ica panelsis to provide easy recognition o equipment o" in"ividuals notfamiliar with the plant lavout, and color coces a e never used

as a substitute for name~lates w¹n performing main enance ortesting on electrical equipment. However, as we are not in con-

formance with the FSAR, the Project will recommend that a totalreview o safety related electrical ecuipment be performed toensure proper color coding of equipment tags in accordance withthe FSAR cr'teria. The review and all required modificationswill be completed prior to comme cial operation.

ATTACHMC» i I

Qgjneer1 >g Vq 1 ica ion TaskEb sco Se=.'ce Zncorpora edTwo World Trade CenterIlew York, R 10048

Januar ~ 24 1 c83

cPO E Z Zuchman/T Fe genbaum - =o sco Prospect earn

OM:

SlJBJ CT:

T H 31odgett - r.-"asco .VP Task:orce 'janage"~ i .

r( ffE IG7Ã:":.-.7NG V:.HiF7CATZOH P.".OG:~'lS LUC:2 UIii'O. 2P Q ISO'Mt) 7 II ~ (»I7$ I

P ~ ~ ay ) «gg«( U«

1. U"Rs 46 through 52 were genera.ed oy he =basco . ask Force durin- =he~ield installation veri 'ation -hase

j» Do«$ 1 Qe«e««D«Q -he Dece."..ber

of «'»o»»o «a«

1lA lr

T ~cl~ v

1 Q 2

PIevi e ot «i ee meet . ng 1 n «e hest Ma~ and, .hose s>v~ ~I

class1 iec as Observationsby the co i ee and .ens-.,i ted .c thP."object Team for rev'ew and processing, as evicenced on Pa«z C o."„eachU7.B.

2. Memo FZZ-SL-2-83-003, dated Janua~> 5, 1983 (from Feigenbaum to "-lo"=et:)ransmit ed a aescription of tne Pro„'ect Team ac ions .o be impl

for UXBs 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, all o which are concerned «5th elec.r:caleouipment colo cod'ng. A review o that me o and attachments, =aceJointly by ZTr" engineer C M Buiz and the writer on January 5, resu'ed 'nTask ."orce cor cu".ence with the proposed ac ions for those five Ul'Rs.

3 ~ Memo ZZZ-$7~2-83-003 also transmitted photographic doc~~entation (pertainingto U78-46) of identifying tag numbers affixed to Power Panels 201 and 202.A review of the mero and attachments, made Jointly by Ki~ engineer C M Ruizand „the writer on January 5, resulted in Task Force concurrence wi h theactions taken by the Prospect Team regarding UIH-46.

>I ~sanua~., 1O ~ Q,.o ~~o ip: ~aJ 'I 'r ) 'i lq 4vs ~ vv 4 J os( vv

ans.~i teQ ho oQ an ic jocu:Beni '.. ( e ai.. n to U'

af fixeQ to 125V DC Po~'er Panel ZA ~ 4 «ev» ev

of that letter and at ac'~ments, ra~~e )ointly by Z'r engineer "M 'Rui=

and - he ~.iter on ~anu ry 10, resu ec in Task:creethe ac.ions aken by .he Prospect e~- e~ar~~inz UZB-51.

5. ~l Task ."orce ac i".ies in co..n c='on vith U:~s 46

considered o be cc=ple e.

throu"h 5"- are

L"3:i".h

cc: D L

j C

D D

2

sv an)C.1 vq

Dotsoa!Coulton, C-:-

C

Zuch .a..Sloc~ett


-2507"

UNRESOLVED ITB) (DISCREPANCY) REPORT

ENGINEERING V:"RIFICATION PROGRA."f — SL2

A. PREPARATION BY EBASCO TASK FORCE INITLKTOR

AFFECTED ITW ,cv oeio n V'u /Ve.

Qg f'/P/ c~ t ion Z ™ y~y ~in Steam

„~,n sg <y r «/~c/)R"-:=RENCE DPClPZh S: p /g /ns1ai'l+ y ion Coi P<

g3 3+~ S/7eP. - E)(Is hog DeSign; PD ~~ ><~~.

DI:..EREhCES TO BE RESOLVED:

$a ve Seen c v''c=. ~ inI G na ii'r ~to fc-. ~ iZen fi yea flonW

+one / P~ /he wer uices ( Qe cter ). -~"fein B.

~ DESIGN RELATED ~ FIELD INSTALLATION RELATED ~ START-UP PERFOR~WXCE RELATED

PREPA~""D BY: DATE: /2- Z-Z2

REVIEW B: EBASCO TASK FORCE

COUNTS/RATIONALE:

~ DIFFERENCES RESOLVP.'

RE-REVIE'Q REQUESTED

gfDIFFERENCES UNRESOLVED.

i2e.v. O I 24 R'3

TASQ Q,CQ CoNC RS' T'H 4P><ODBCT WHAM~T ER QTT'ACHfrtE'hJT 2.

DISCREPANCY TRANSHITTED TO REVIEW COMMITTEE

C. RESOLUTION BY REVIEV CO.KITTEE

CO. ANTS/RATIONALE:

p /AY''C Sg 4Q N 3E . lE 12Cvy~

. S~ ~ r)asi

BY:


DISCR"PANCY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ~ AS OBSERVATION

TRANS".IITTED TO PROJECT TEP f ~ AS FINDING

DATE: (Z l'

D. REVIE'W AND PROCESSING BY PROJECT TEA".f


CO. ANTS g n, i b..+X,,0[~gt~ [(Q c<rcu<Tvq oi (ou>er p~~ "~ ~~ '"' "l

a54>x t~ a.e.cod@ ~ ~iW 75) 4 >~Shet't rt'-Qa<~me+fs

TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE OBTAINED

CORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE TAWN:Ensnare W~g ~'~Qvi~ ccrc bie Jcev.r 04 I'2~ V >< 'Uu~ 'Po er ~~~4. -'~

y,ra f~q~ m<C )Mt'qcvj au~ +Y'S'. 7nVAe )4ÃgraPn(C

BY: v'-N~ DATE: /c'/<le

CORPZCTIVE ACTION ZHPL~NTED:s~ Ac+.l «t z. ~ ~'i'«> < ~44q~h~ Ro~u~~S~ Attend ~erg 3 ~3CW~24; !AS~ y lask R)v~ Co~~~~~

FINDING REPORTABLE UNDER ' FINDING NOT REPORTABLE t10 CFR 50.55(e) or 10 CFR 21

BY: DATE:

RESOLUTION BY REVIEV CO.MITTEEE

CO~K S/RATIONALE:

A king+ $ I'4 ~ tI~ I5 Harv>~ ~a~ j i~I

-DISCR"PANCY IS

DISCREPANCY, IS

TRA!tSHITTED TO

ACCEPTABLE. RECYCLED TO TASK FORCE.

NOT ACCEPTABLE., -"gg AS OBSERVATION~ g e

PROJECT TEP t''"',~ AS FIh&ING

DAi=: /Z lD. REVIE" AND PROCESSING BY PROJECT TEA't

'BSERVATION ~ FINDING

CO~NTS:; y J~ ) \

O.-",4'<X tn a.CC,OVM~ ~tW ~)Q >~S'het'-t r|'-QV.tW~e~ t

COR!KCTIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN:E~suv-e Wu.t )x4v~44 c<~ gt<~~g of lKV DC. t3us 'Pokey lo.<v. "A

gt-a, faqqak wi"tent t~f>$>t~ nu~bcys.7cvA )47qra,p~tc 4=~~<>'

'7BY: DATE:TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE OBTAINED

CORPS CTIVE ACTION IMPLANTED:S~ Ati'a I 'e i Z Z~~ ~ 'o, I<~> ~ ~4 4qrap4~ kobu.~eh~S~ Atto.ck~exi' ~ Tax~ 2+ 1'tS~ ~ ties t For~ Ccx~~~


BY: DATE:

A~ACWmGtJT g ioUT p

FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT CO~~ANYST. LUCIE PLANT — UNIT NO. 2

ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PBOGRA>

PROJECT R-SPONSE: UIR-51

VERIFICATION IT"~f 7: HAIN STEAN ISOLATION VALVE I-HCV-08-1A

There is no design document that requires a feeder directorywithin electrical panels. However, complete directory assis-tance is provided by the use of the PDN sheets (2998-B-335)which identi ies each circuit and its respective load. The


contain a directory developed by the Construction Depar"mentfor their own ease of installation a..d testing. This doc —.,entis not a requirement.

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANYST. LUCIE PLANT - UNIT NO. 2


PROJECT RESPONSE'. UIR-,51 (REVISION 2)

VERIFICATION ITEM 7: MAIN STEAM ISOLATION VALVE I-HCV-08-lA

The project team has verified that the individual circuit brea-kers at the 125V DC Bus 2A are tagged with an identi ying number

to aid personnel that are required to work on the panel. Photo-

g aphs of the subject equipment are attached to document thisveri ication.

The project team has reviewed this i"em with appropriate personnelfrom Construction, Construction Test, ESSE and NYO EngineeringG"oups and has concluded that sufficient information alreadyexists at the electrical panel to identify the as-installed cir-

tc i- y in conjunction with the PD&M Data Sheets (2998-3-335Series).

Based on tne above, tne project team concluded tna" no action isrequ'red on this EVP'bservation and none is anticipated.

pwTgC ~wc>> . p >o v-i~- I i - F 2~W~i&C ~042 >4 y ~ < '$ c > l ( PFV2)

-;-.~)%>~~~~4„~~gee

'I \

~<<V Dc so~ z~ lZ~ V D~ Bus ZA

>gineer-'ng Ve ificatfon 'psfi creeibas o Se~i~e'"""-o"~~~"Tvo Vorld rad Ceo erNe- York, NY 10048

Jan a~ 24 lc83

TO:

FROM:

SUBJ" CT:

= Z Zuchman/T Fe'genbau. — Zc scc ProJect Tea~

T H Blodgett — ""asco GAP .-ask:cree IIaneg ".~ i <~g+-~tv~:-.fG:ii:-~lIlG V:"RZF CATlOIi PROP.;-"'.S; LUC"'. UIiiT I<0. 2

(D Sg g ~v) Pgw (]t» ),g I, ~u Q 5~)I t I ~ I P A

~ 0I

UZRs 4o t} ou h 52 vere generp „ed by >o casco Tpsk ot co 1 v ', +'e-.o~ y

v,'e'd

~ ~ p. '- 0 v c" io~ + s o the D~o «2~ aW

A::he Dece".3 ."

%6V ~T ~ ae4 ssV 11 ~ 4,

P~ r-'. ~ ~ ~ ~ ». ev ov Co-.. zzee et nc i i a~ o~ Pl~~ ~ p thoso seve Uv s 0 g

class'ec as Observationsby the c=i:.ee and trans-i.-edProJec Te"- for eviev pnd processing, as evidenced on Part C o- each

U'ZR,.

2. Memo EZZ-SL-2-83-003, da ed January 5, 1953 ( rom Feigenoa ™ to Blodg - ),trans it ed a description of the ProJec. Team actions to be irple=en.e"for UXRs 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, all o vhich a.e concerned iath elec r'ca.eouipment co"or coding. A reviev o that memo and a tach.-.ents, =ade

Jo'n.ly by ZT7 engineer C M Ruiz and the smiter on January 5, resulted ir.Tpsk Force concurrence vith the Proposed ec.ions for those five UERs..

3. Memo ZZZ-SL-2-83-003 also transmi ted photographic documen.ation (pertaini..gto UZR-46) of i.dentifying tag numbers affixed to Pover Panels 201 and 202.

A reviev of 'the memo and attachments, made Jointly by ETF engineer C M Ruiz

and the vrite" on January 5, resulted in Task Force concu. rence vith theactions taken by the ProJect Te'am regarding UXR-46.

A + - Ip te \ at>c+ %t.~ns~'-. ea photo< aohic doc"zen a.io.. (pe~~-'-- o p"i-c»

~ ~ bb I ~

tag n embers aNwi~eg

o tha't 1 tte~ a. 8 a a">~egts r,a"e go -.. ly bv "-": e.".-.'n

~FP ~ 1

ana the writer on January 10, resulteo in Task :o ce irv h1 VOh+D~ \ 1 ~ t

the actions taken by the Progec Teo" regar=inc ~~ B-"1 .

5. All Task ."orce activities in connec.ion with '-' is h6 hrou~h 5"- are

considered. to be co=pie e.

L~~:E..h

c

J C

D D

E ZT

H'.Dovson )Moul o. C-.Yiller, C-:-Zuc?~a»Bio Qee tt


-25.8-

UNRESOLi~D IT~~ (DISCREPANCY) RE>ORT

ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGRAM"i - SL2 UI R-sz


AFFECTED IT&i:/ Hc J-08- ~~

c i ~g 7 fv/own ~4<~VQ i g 5 I C cZ l"~O <

P~:rRENGE DocUHEhrs:, ~ py g ~P //~ g<>~ +y~Pare~an —hc.=-< C~ '~/p~~nH~n 2 Qe ig n ~ Fi

DI FERENCES TO BE RESOLVED: +8 8- 8 3$

7 he name p/'<~< ~+~ ~~ +< j«gqr ounce.- Zgerrt

/~ ty<(< oue

~ DESIGN RELATED Qg FIELD INSTALLATION RELATED ~ START-UP PERFORYu'FACE R"LATED

PREPARED BY: ~ ~ DATE:


CO~i:NTS/RATIONALE: ~lg(S/0 ry/ f Q P g 'H 7

gpt„qD'~~

~e, j(oi/Z4/ss)l

l Asg @oscar govcv25 Wivh' erioNs /o 3~ jA~<+

Qy tt0J~Cy le'AAf, Pe'g. A

TT'ACHING'A/7

1. )

/Z-3- ~'>.

iz/os/ez.--BY:

~ DIFFERENCES RESOLVEDI ~ RE-REVIEW REQUESTED

1

~DIFFERENCES UNRESOLVED. DISCREPANCY TRANSMITTED TO REVIEW COMMITTEE,


CO. ANTS jj RATIONALE; D,~C rd ~ / F~<< — r P~ Cg

~+ j/c:rd, Po Cs / ic/ / /// 8 // /'/-.

uv p4 /r 8 ~~ Wrr'w;km'C



TRA!BSHITTED TO PROJECT TEAH ~ AS FINDING

BY: DATE: c Z

D. REVIEW AND PROCESSING BY PROJECT TEAN

OBSERUATION ~ FINDING

COUNTS:j-"5'*jE sjcccipies ~Wgjf~M~ cfsefap-v'el~ e4ctslcak ee!4Iu.se og gj~j>s~ o j s-c


P~,~ se<e+ «<~ ~5«M e~~ij ~ M e s~se. j~~Fe«oj=~4 e,q~ij~< t.~s. C~pm 9~ r~<~ M a'll r~~ vR ~jjtM UwA 2 Cjo+me.~~ opera~

TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE OBT INED BY: + / DATE: >re/deS~ O'Rachw <4 2 ~~~ jj4; (Qpp ~„~q,gk g~

CORRECTIVE ACTION XHPLEHENTED:


DATE:

RESOLUTION BY REVIEW CO.-fITTEE

CO~NTS/RATIONALE: ,~CDIF<< Pr/n

jg QF„

~ j+g l4 /; ~~ ~~ @JAN/C I~y

q—cg~ (~it/ Eir/ipse.. )>sA

<re~; lr~r

Jf aide I

W~(..~~ 2

DISCR"-"PANCY IS ACCEPTABLE.,RECYCLED TO TASK FORCE.

DISCREPANCY

- T~S.tITTEDIS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ~ AS OBSERVATION

TO PROJECT TEA.f ~i AS FINDINGe% 'g

/Z — Z

D. REVIEW AND P'ROCESSING Bv PROJECT TE


CONK'.BTS:FSA R, spo«6|.< I Wtl. f \ M~ o F ~~+<~- Y<~~ 4 lt.ctv(~ 44~)j"'~

I ~

CORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN:SlllgEA pAh~ W&ll~ ECll Ep ~M ~FLEUVE l~

a4 eg~ij~~< t~S. C~P~ 9~ r~E~ W C ll r~uly W<L~ m~~ t'E ierM UnA 2. comme.vc,~ ape>~~

TASK FORCE CONCllRRENCF OBT INED BY: +~ lc DATE: Z gw fa3Ss Anzac.t e,4 2 "~~ Z4; (qPP ~„~P,gk g„~ C

CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLEHENTED:

BY:



DATE:

FLORIDA POVvER & LIGHT COMPANiST. LUCIE PLANT — UNIT NO. 2


PROJECT RESPONSE: UZR-.47UIR-48UIR-49UIR-5 0UIR-52

(REVZB ION 1)(REVISION 1)(REVIS ION 1)(REVIS ION 1)(REVIS ION 1)

V"RZFICATION ITEMS: 1 g 2 p 3 g 4 g 7

The cable tray/raceway system at St Lucie Unit 2 is properly colorcoded, however, certain MCC's, switchgear, power panels, etc maynot be similarly color coded although all equipment has the properidentification clearly indicated.

Although not specifically required by Reg"latory Guide or IndustryStandard, the S" Lucie Unit 2 FSAR does specify tha" sa ety re-lated electrical- equipment must be identif'ed by color coded bags,pain or tape according to the appropriate color schemes code'

divided

The color coding has,no effect on safe operation or design of'heecuipment. All electrical panels/equipment are provided with name-

plates containing the correct equipment tag number which includessafety channels. This method of identification readily distin-quishes between redundant Class IE Systems and non-class IEsystems. During routing of the cables to and from equipment, Elec-tricians utilize cable pull cards which designate the equipment tagnumbers that the cable is to be routed to/from and the color codingscheme is not relied upon for installation purposes nor do the pullcards even refer to a color code scheme.

~(~%)

g'7TACH ihFM«(0 lg, I

(+DC « /

tThe only purpose of the color code scheme for. electrical panelsis to provide easy recognition of equipment for individuals notfamiliar with the plant layout, and color codes are never usedas a substitute for nameplates when performing maintenance ortesting on electrical equipment. However, as we are not in con-formance with the FSAR, the Pro ject will recommend that a totalreview of safety related electrical equipment be performed toensure proper color coding of equipment tags in accordance withthe rSAR criteria. The review and all required modificationswill be completed prior to commercial operation.

AT iPCHWc'NEST 2 lo )II -=.('vc.

Engine 1 ing Veri. 'etic. ask FoEoas"o Se~ices ncorpora edT"o World ~x. ade Cen.erIie- Y~"I'~ 10048

Janu ry 24, l983

TO: Z Zuc?man/T Fe genbaum — =" sco Prospect Tea

FRO«: T H lodge — Ebasco EP T sk =orce l'lanager~ j~c IA

Sb~~ "CT:, Ei'tGZIl'"=~:VG V:.RZF"'CATlON PROGF "'.ST LUCRE UI1 T 1<O. 2UIRESO 'i:-3 1:~'. ! lSCRE:-A:iCv) (Uwg T<ZU i..= -52)

U ~ Rs 46 th ough 52 were gene a.ed cty t ie Ebasco Task "o ce A)~ ~'r 4L~in+ 4

iield ins.all"= 'on ve"i "'cation pnase of the program a-. -he St LucieUnit 2 )obsite in early December A-:he Dece."ber l5, '9"2:-",=Rev'w Co....'e I ee 'g i.. bethesda '!";» a d those sev~ U ~ s - ~ c,

classified as Ocservationsby the co. i ee and „rans..it e to the

Pro)ec Tea~ or review a, d processU R.

as evid ncec on Pa" C o. each

2. Memo EZ"-SL-2-83-003, da.ed Je .uary 5, 1983 (from Feigenbaum to "lodg vt),transmitted a descrip ion of the Prospect Temm actions o be imple=entedfor UlRs 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, all of which are concerned math electricaleouipment colo". coding. A review of that memo and attachments, made

goin ly by ~r engineer C M Ruiz and he writer on January 5, resul ed inTask Force concurrence with the p.oposed ac ions for those five UZRs.

3. Memo EZK-SL-2-83-003 elso transmitted pho ographic documen ation (per ainingto UlR-46) of identifying tag numbers affixed to Power Panels 20l and 202.

A rev'ew of the me-,o and attachments, made )ointly by E r engineer C M Ruiz

and the writer on January 5, resulted in Task Force concurrence with theactions taken by the Pro)ect Team regarding UXR-46.

A ~peec getter deteo January lQ 1 GSR 4r~ .. "e. r o~b~'< ~ sQ a bQvaa ''o J oake M4

trans'.itted photographic Qocu~entati on (pertair.in'o >J'T <I > of

iden~i.z"in'ag n"-.bers affixed to l"$U DC Po~.er Panel "-" A revie=of the le ter and attachments, made )ointly bv»xr engineer C !~ Rui=

an the ~~ite on Janu r> 3.0, resulted, in Task:orce cc..cur nce =i ".~i I ~

the ac.ions aRe.", by t?:e Progect T o= re-ardin- UZR-jl.

5. Al" Task force activities in connec ''on vith U:~s ~6 through ).-" are

consiLe ed to be co=pie e.

i."3:r";hI cc: DW

J C

D DZ Z

C""'.'".Dotson )l!oulton, C-:-hlille , C-:-Zuc? -.a..)o o~V4$ l v

p 25,corrective action plans,to suppl a to 'engineering ... · p.o. box )os46 birmingham, ala....

Documents