IR 05000373/1978032
| ML19282B576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1979 |
| From: | Hayes D, Neisler J, Phillips H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19282B571 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-78-32, NUDOCS 7903150407 | |
| Download: ML19282B576 (9) | |
Text
.
_
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION A'iD ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-373/78-32; 50-374/78-23 Docket No. 50-373; 50-374 License No. CPPR-99; CPPR-100 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2
.
Inspection At:
La Salle Site, Marseilles, Illinois Corporate Office, Chicago, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
November 30, and December 18, 19, and 20, 1978 (site, December 13 and 14, 1978 (Chicago)
~
/
'. ',
<
a cl.C e,- o Inspectors d S F illips q
l.
/ - 3I6 7p n
,
'
d. H' Nsisler'i '*
.
r -
d
'
- /
j
.
l&).bc'Y
'F. Maxwell
/ ' h[ - ['/
.
,
s
_
- -
F. J. Jablonski
, /~
/
'
-
-
'.
7'~1
~' '. '= 4 {
-
P. A. Barrett
,,",,_ y.
-
,
Accompanying Personnel:
R. F. Heishman, Chie f Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch (November 30, 1978, only)
,
Nb.Ls --. 7 J. </ e a i
Approved By; D.W.'Hahed, Chief 2 '
F Projects Section
".
7 9 0 3 15 0'+0 l
~
Insoection Summary 30, 1978 (Report No. 50-373/78-32: 50-374/78-23)
Meetinc on November 50.55e licensee requested a training session on 10 CFR Part La Salle County The reporting requirements and procedures be presented at Mr. R. F. Heishman, Reactor Construction and Engineerip2 Station. Branch, Chief, gave the presentation to licensee and site contractor personnel on November 30, 1978.
The meeting involved a Support lfcensee's corporate office and total of 39 inspector-hours at the 37 inspector-hours at the site.
No.
Insnection on December 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20, 1978 (Recort 50-373/78-32; 50-374/78-23)
(Mid QA Followup on previous inspection findings Areas Insoected:
Inspection Report No. 50-373/78-02; 50-374/78-02); followup on bulletins / circulars, 50.35e reports, and other previous inspection review of construction status and formal transfer of NRC findings;inspector responsibility from H. S. Phillips to J. H. Seisler.
project ti:e This inspection involved a total of 38 inspecto.-hours at inspector-licensee's corporate off ce by four inspectors and 34 hours3.935185e-4 days <br />0.00944 hours <br />5.621693e-5 weeks <br />1.2937e-5 months <br /> at the site by two inspectors.
Results:
Five areas were inspected. All items identified as open Bulletin, circular, items during the mid QA inspection were closed.
and 50.55e reporting and followup on previous inspection findings No items of noncompliance, deviation or unresolved was satisfactory.
matters were identified.
.
p
.
d d-2-
DETAILS Persons Contacted Princioal Licensee Employees
- W. J. Shewski, Manager Quality Assurance (QA)
- G.
F. Marcus, Director of Quality Assurance
- R. Todd, Quality Assurance Coordinator, SNED
- T.
E. Watts, La Salle Project Engineer, SNED C. Reed, Assistant Vice President M. Turbak, Nuclear Licensing Administrator E. C. Thoele, Engineering Associate, SNED J. E. Rohde, Quality Control Supervisor, SNED R. Scott, Engineer, SNED E. R. Netzel, Quality Assurance Engineer A. Sallers, Quality Inspector
- L. J. Burke, Site Project Supervisor
- R.
T. Rose, Project Structural Engineer
- J.
R. Kodrick, Quality Mechanical Coordinator
- L.
J. Tapella, Quality Assurance Engineer Other Personnel R. C. Shultz, Quality Control Supervisor, Morrison Construction Company
- M.
R. Dougherty, Quality Assurance Supervisor, Walsh Construction Company The inspectors a: so talked with and interviewed several other licensee and contractor employees, including members of the quality, technical, and engineering staffs.
- penotes those attending the exit interview at corporate offices on
, December 14, 1978.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview at site en December 20, 1978.
Licensee Action On Previous Inspec-ion Findings (Closed) Unresolved Matter (373/77-01; 374/77-01, Section 1, Paragraph 5.d.):
Cable testing 1.e., negger and continuity, is performed by Edison OAD.
A review of test procedurea indicated there is no requirement to megger contrui, instrument or high voltage feeder cables nor was there a co==itment to IEEE Standard No. 336.
A similar item was subsequently reviewed and identified by another RIII inspector.
Therefore this iter is closed and will be considered open under Item No. (373/78-24-02; 374/78-15-02)
,
- 3-
-
Section 1, Paragraph (Closed) Unresolved Matter (373/ 77-11; 374/ 77-10, 1.a.):
August 31, 1977 flood damage to equipment stored in reactor RHR, inspectors reviewed records which indicated that basement. The LPCS, HPCS, and RCIC pumps were cleaned, dried pnd coated with Tower 635 where recommended.
Six local instrument panels had been cleaned; parts had been repaired or replacement parts were ordered, Off-gas equipment was cleaned. The 48" RER discharge line which floated 8" above the intended position was evaluated by Sargent and Lundy.
The pipe condition was acceptable.
(Closed) Unresolved Matter (373/77-11; 373/77-10,Section I, Paragraph 3.c.):
Edison QA Manual, QP No. 15-1 contained statements related to conditional release which appeared too permissive.
The inspector reviewed this matter and noted that the QA manual was revised to clarify this statement.
(Closed) Noncompliance (373/78-02-01; 374/78-02-01):
Organization charts of site station construction did not agree with Edison QA Manual.
The inspector reviewed revisions submitted to the office and considered the matter closed at that time.
This documents the review and close out.
(Closed) Unresolved Matter (373/78-02-02; 374/78-02-02):
This matter concerned Edison General Office audit dated November, 1977 which ident-ified field change requests (FCR) back to 1974.
"Of 15 FCRs in 1974 one was denied and only 5 were closed. Of the total written to date (155)
only 38 are closed." The RIII f ollowup on this matter during the mid QA inspection showed that the licensee was working on the field change 3.2.
request system which included revision of Quality P ocedure No.
The inspectors observed at that time that the old FCRs had not been evaluated by QA auditors or SNED personnel to determine the effect on construction and document control.
The RIII inspector, on December 13 and 14, 1978, followed up to assure that actions were taken to answer previous concerns.
The inspectors found that audits of Edison Station Nuclear Engineering Department (SNED) and Sargent and Lundy Engineering (S&L) were conducted in March, 1978 subsequent to the mid QA inspection. Sargent and Lundy was audited again October 30, 31 and November 1 and 2, 1978.
These general office audits were comprehensive and in depth. It also showed that the licensee, through the audit process had followed up to assure adequate corrective action.
The inspector reviewed the FCR log and determined that action was FCRs complete on all FCRs which were open during the mil QA inspection.
J-1 through J-226 had been reviewed and approved except for J-182.
Th2 balance, J-227 through s-459 were also reviewed.
.
d-4-
The inspector went to SNED and selected two FCRs, J-350 and J-356, to de te rmine if the new procedure, Q.P.3.2, was adequately controlling the processing of FCRs through SNED and S&L Engineering Departments.
Review and approval was properly controlled.
The inspectors found several administrative errors i.e., the major / minor blocks were not checked.
The licensee committed to review the FCR forms already processed to correct the errors and assure that future forms are properly filled out.
The general office followup of audit findings in the area of field change request was found adequate.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/78-02-03; 374/78-02-03): Auditor quali-fication. The inspector reviewed QA Department Memorandum No. 9 dated January 31, 1978 and verified that specific formal and on-the-job training requirements have been documented for auditor qualification.
(Closed) Noncompliance (373/78-02-04; 374/78-02-04): Audit personnel.
In addition to the response provided by the licensee in the attachment to the April 26, 1978 letter to NRC, iten E.4, the Director of QA (Engineering and Construction) certified by internal memorandum that he reviewed the audit findings of the auditors in training and determined the findings to be legitimate.
(Closed) Noncompliance (373/78-02-05; 374/78-02-05): Field change requests. The inspector reviewed the Station Nuclear Engineering Department's (SNED) field change request log for La Salle County Station and verified that all past, i.e., prior to December 1977, field changes have been consolidated and are being reviewed by SNED and the architect engineer as appropriate.
In the April 26, 1978 response attachment provided to 5RC by the licensee, this matter was identified as D.1.
(Closed) Noncompliance (373/73-02-06; 374/78-02-06):
Drawing transmittals not being stamped and dated by the assigned CECO Project Engineer's representatives (La Salle, Units I c.d 2).
The inspectors observed that SNED Procedure Q.11 has been revised, delegating the review of detail design drawings t the Architech-Engineer (A-E).
However, SNED has
. retained the responsibility for the review of safety-related or ASME Section III 30P functional design drawings.
On December 13, 1978, the inspectors selectively reviewed the A-E transmittal letters for both the mechanical and electrical functional design drawings which have been transmitted to SNED for review covering time periods of July 1978 until present.
The inspectors observed that in each case the transmittals for the electrical functional design drawings are being documented / marked in accordance with SNED Procedure Q.11, Revision 1 and/or 2, Paragraph 4.2.10.
Of the transmittals reviewed for the mechanical functional design drawings, six out of approximately one hundred were found not to be documented / marked in accordance with SNED Procedure Q.11, Revision 1 and/or 2, Paragraph 4.2.10.
On December 14, 1978, the inspectors
,'
-5-
.
.
discussed, with the responsible SNED Project Eagineer's representative and the CECO Director of Quality Assurance (Engineering / Construction),
the six A-Z transmittals which had not been docu-the concern about mented/ marked as required by SNED Procedure Q.11, Revision 1 and/or 2, Paragraph 4.2.10.
The inspectors were assured that the drawings which were forwarded to SNED with the A-E transmittals had been properly stamping the transmittals was simply an oversight.
reviewed and that not Further, the inspectors were informed that CECO Quality Assurance would conduct a surveillance of transmittals, relative to La Salle, Units 1 1 and 2 of SNED Procedure and 2, which have been affected by Revision Q.11.
-
to this inspection CECO Quality Assurance personnel completed Subsequent their surveillance of SNED, relative to properly documenting the results
_
of drawing reviews (per SNED Procedure Q.11, Paragraph 4.2.10).
As a the afore CECO Quality Assurance has taken action to resolve result, mentioned concern. This item is closed.
(Rescinded-Closed) Noncompliance (373/78-02-07; 374/78-02-07):
Inade-taken in regards to questionable qualifications quate corrective action not of a specific individual. The CECO General Of fice audit, dated March 7-9, Audit had 1977, of Sargent and Lundy indicated that Question 4 of that ; dual had been closed, even though the qualification of specific in-been documented as being verified. An extensive review, subsequent not to the NRC findings, by CECO QA of the followup actions of the above Team Leader to S&L dated audit, produced a letter from the CECO Audit June 15, 1977. Exhibit A of that letter indicated that the original audit finding had been properly followed-up and that appropriate corrective action had been taken. Confusion was added to the development of the audit finding in that the individual, whose qualification was in There-question, had gotten married during her period of employment.
qualification record was filed uncer a different name fore, her The RIII inspector reviewed the qualification record tnan expected.
during this inspection and has no further questions regarding this m'a t t e r. The item of noncompliance is hereby rescinded.
.
Measures to
'(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/78-02-08; 374/78-02-08):
assure documentation deficiencies resulting from inadequate checklists The RIII inspectors reviewed and discussed the checklists are evaluated.
S&L personnel. The inadequacies were defined as with the pertinent failure to identify the entire scope of equipment / components that requires various documentation rather than failure to identify the different types of documentation required.
Thus there was no need for additional documentation evaluations.
The checklists were modified to identify the scope of the equipment / components.
(Closed) Unresolved item (373/78-02-09; 373/78-02-09): Approval of 167530. During vendor QA program prior to letting Purchase Order No.
the course of developing the CECO QA program, the activities related to
',
-6-
.
_
Purchase Order No. 167530, awarded December 20, 1973, were also being The RIII inspectors reviewed a letter dated June 10, 1975, pursued.
from ITE Imperial to Sargent and Lundy Engineers which indicated that the fabrication of the equipment, purchased on order No. 167530, did not start until July 25, 1975 which was after ITE Imperial's QA program had been approved on May 15, 1975.
(Closed) Noncompliance (373/78-02-10; 374/78-02-10):
on January 11, 1978 the inspectors observed that specification J2533 did not reflect Outstanding Field Change Requests (FCRs).
"The inspectors were informed that design changes such as FCRs, EDRs, MDRs, Speedy Mecos, etc. are not included as part of document control".
The inspectors found that drawings This was recorded in
,
were now being annotated to show outstanding FCRs.
NRC Report No. 373/78-15; 373/78-11.
In addition, the licensee QA 1978 and in personnel onsite performed a QA surveillance on December 14, The the work location reflected outstanding FCRs.
all cases drawings at inspectors were informed that specifications are now handled in similar fashion.
(Closed) Noncompliance (373/78-02-11; 374/78-02-11):
Inadequate review of E. G. Smith's (a site contractor) QA Manual. The inspectors observed additional training has been administered to those CECO QA personnel that responsible for the review of QA programs. The inspectors selected and reviewed the re-evaluations which CECO QA has performed, relative to contractors which were placed on the CECO approved bidder's list prior to 1976.
The inspectors observed that these re-evaluations have identified /
required many of these contractors to revise their QA programs to comply with current CECO requirements; if applicable contractors / vendors are to remain on the approved bidder's list.
This closes item A.3 identified in Appendix A of IE Inspection Report 50-373/78-02; 50-374/78-02.
(Closed) Noncompliance (373/78-09):
Improper storage of Limitorque valve and tendon grease caps.
The inspector verified that this equip-mynt was now properly stored.
(Closed) Noncompliance (373/78-15-01; 374/78-11-01):
Walsh failed to The inspector reviewed requalify QA/QC personnel to visual requirements.
La Salle QA Surveillance Report No.78-296 which documented corrective action.
-
(Closed) Unresolved Matter (373/78-16-01). Inspectors were unable to the time such testing was witnessed, review the Unit Hydro Report at therefore, the matter was unresolved.
The inspectore reviewed the final results met requirements.
hydro report and procedures to assure test Additionally the inspectors identified isolated cases where further testing would be required.
~
-7-
,
.
n.
,
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Review Of Bulletins and Circulars
!
The RIII inspectors reviewed all bulletins and circulars issued in
!
CY 1978. The primary emphasis of the rsview centered around i
evaluating the system for handling these documents.
The files contained objective evidence which showed that all applicable bulletins and circulars were received and assigned to Edison Project Engineers and to AE/NSSS Engineers when necessary.
Results of engineering evaluations were documented in letters in file.
The licensee had completed the action required by the bulletin /
circulars.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
2.
Review of General Electric Safety / Relief Valve Control Sytems on October 14, 1977 Commonwealth Edison notified Region III of a possible deficiency regarding the subject valves at La Salle County Station. An interim report was made on November 11, 1977 which stated that General Electric would perform a plant unique analysis for La Salle County Station to describe the number of SRV that could reopen after the initial pressure transient from the design basis transient isolation event. After the General Electric Analysis, Sargent and Lundy also performed an analysis to specify how many SR'i may reopen, thus assuring that containment loads would not be exceeded.
The inspectors followed up on this item.
Sargent and Lundy has just completed their analysis. Their analysis concluded that the K.
'4. Quencher modification will lower the overall load on contain-ment during such an event to the point where the reopening of the valves will be below the maximum load permitted. The full details will be submitted in a 'r.55e report January 19, 1978.
'
.
No items of nonccmplianca were identified.
!
'
3.
"Meetine (November 30, 1978) to Discuss 10 CFR 50.55e Reoorting The La Salle Construction Project Superintendent requested additional
.
information concerning 10 CFR 50.55e reporting requirements and procedures.
Mr. R. F. Heishman, RIII Construction 3 ranch Chief, l
gave a presentation to approximately thirty (30) site personnel which included licensee and contractor personnel.
.
The meeting provided a clearer understanding of N'RC reporting requirements and policies.
_ _ _
_
._
tems of noncompliance were identified.
No i Exit Interview The inspectors met with site staff representatives (denoted in the Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 14 and 20, 1978.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledge the findings.
The project inspector stated that the Edison General Office had performed an in depth followup and close out on items identified at the corporate office and the site during the mid QA inspection. Documentation to support followup was organized and efficiently presented.
General Office involvement at the site was more visible and comprehensive audits have been performed during the last year.
The inspectors also stated that followup of Open Items at the La Salle
_
imoroved over the past several months.