IR 05000454/1981008
| ML20010C339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1981 |
| From: | Gardner R, Love R, Norton J, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010C333 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-454-81-08, 50-454-81-8, 50-455-81-07, 50-455-81-7, NUDOCS 8108190365 | |
| Download: ML20010C339 (11) | |
Text
e
.
,
_
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
'
REGION III
Reports No. 50-454/81-08; 50-455/81-07 Docket Nos. 50-454; 50-455 Licenses No. CPPR-130; CPPR-131 Licencee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Byron Site, Byron, IL Inspection Conducted:
July 7-10, 1981 f. f\\ llynk I
Inspector:
R. N. Gardner ll R.
. Love T/3,/ F/
&~4-n J. F. Norton
$/3/E 1 Accompanying Personnel:
R. B. Landsman (July 7, 1981)
'
c Approved By:
C. C. Williams, Chief 8/(,/6 l Plant Systems Section
' '
Inspection Summary Inspection on July 7-10, 1981 (Report No. 50-454/81-08; 50-455/81-07)
Areas Inspected: Observation of electrical installation activities, review of electrical contractor's QA implementing procedures, review of electrical inspection, test, and nonconformance reports, and review of vendor's docu-mentation for Class IE equipment. Observation of containment post-tensioning work act.ivities, review of post-tensioning QA implementing procedures and review of QA records. This inspection effort involved a total of 76 inspector-hours onsite by four NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviat. ions were identified in six areas; one apparent item of noncompliance (failure to properly calibrate instruments - Paragraph 1.c.) was identified in one area.
^108190365 810807 PDR ADOCK 05000454 G
,
i
.
.
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company 40. Sorensen, Project Construction Superintendent
- J. O. Binder, Lead Electrical Engineer
- R.-R. Guse, Structural Engineer H. Harger, Field Engineer
- A. A. Jaras, Supervisory Engineer, POAD
- J. A. Klink, QA Inspector
- J. J. Mihovilovich, Lead Structural Engineer E.-Sager, Field Engineer
- G. K. Schwartz, Master Electrician
- M. A. Stanish, QA Superintendent
- L. J. Stern, QA Engineer
- L. A. Sues, Assistant Superintendent Maintenance
- R. Tuetken, Assistant Project Superintendent, PCD The inspectors also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during tnis reporting period.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected Details of the functional or program areas inspected are documented in Sections I and II as follows:
-2-
)
2_
m
-
~
.
.
r
,
Section I Prepared by J. N. Gardner R.-S. Love
.
Reviewed by C. C. Williams, Chief Plant Systems Section 1.
Observation of Electrical Work Activities a.
The RIII inspectors observed the.in process splicing of Class IE wires for Electrical Penetration number E-44 (ICIE, IS103F). The inspectors observed that.T&B crimper number GE002-was being used-in the splicing operation._. The crimper had' bee'n calibrated on January 16, 1981 and was due for re-calibration on September 11, 1981. It was noted that Raychem WCSF coated heat shrinkable sleeves were being used to cover (insulate) the wire splices.
The inspectors questioned the licensee as to whether a compatibility analysis had been performed for Raychem material and applicab!c cable wire being used on the project. The licensee stated that compatibility analysis had been performed and documented as follows:
(1) Raychem/Conax is documented in Conax Report IPS-395 for Raychem type WCSF-N sleeves, (2) Okonite letter to Sargent and Lundy (S&L),
dated July 10, 1980, states that Raychem type WCSF uncoated heat shrinkable sleeves are compatible with the 600 volt power and control cables being supplied to the Eyron station under S&L specification F/L-2823, (3) Okonite letter to S&L, dated June 28, 1979, states that Raychem splice material is compatible with the medium voltage cables being supplied to the Byron station, (4) Telex dated August 26, 1980, states that based on the tests performed, we cannot foresee any i
compatibility problems between Raychem's WCSF-U and DeKcron's Hypalon.
The inspectors observed that the inert gas pressure on the electrical penetrations checked, ranged between 13 psig and 37 psig. The li-censee stated that the periodic maintenance checks on the penetrations indicate that there is only a minimal pressure drop from.nonth to month. The inspectors also reviewed the storage, handling, and maintenance instructions furnished by the penetration fabricator (Conax).
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
b.
The RIII inspectors observed a 2 1/2" vertical separation between Class IE electrical cable tray (pan) 1799-PIE and non-Class 1E cable tray 1799V-P1B at elevation 414 in area 5 of the Auxiliary Building. The inspectors reviewed Field Change Request 3403, dated October-28, 1980, which identified this inadequate existing
-3-
.
.
.
.
-
,
_
.
+
,.
..
.
-
.
.
tray design location and requested design approval in relocating the non-Class IE cable tray. The inspectors observed that raceway drawing 6/20 El-3043, Revision L, identified the aforementioned raceway as being "On-Hold" pending design review. This item is unresolved pending subsequent review by RIII inspectors to assure implementation of the Byron FSAR separation requirements (50-454/81-08-01; 50-455/81-07-01),
c.
The RIII inspectors observed that the battery charger and voltmeter calibration stickers for units IDC5JE and IDC04E indicated a calibration date of May 13-15, 1980 with no reference to a calibra-tion due date. The inspectors reviewed the calibration data for the meters and observed that the recorded data for the 0-150 Vdc voltmeter located on battery charger IDC03E indicated an out-of-tolerance condition for one of the six readings recorded. This condition was not flagged on the calibration data record which had been reviewed and approved. Furthermore, there was no calibration period specified for the subject meter. The licensee attempted to obtain new data to verify the accuracy of the subject meter and informed the inspectors that the subject meter was pre-sently out-of-tolerance at several inspection data points and would require readjustment.
The RIII inspectors reviewed pre-operational test No. 2.21.10,
"125 VDC Distribution", and observed that the subject voltmeter was used in obtaining data during pre-operational test activities performed in March, 1981.
The RIII inspectors informed the licensee that failure to properly calibrate, at specified periods, instruments used in activities affecting quality so as to maintain accuracy within necessary limits is considered an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XII as described in Appendix A of the report transmittal letter.
(50-454/81-08-02).
2.
Review of Procurement Decumentation - Class IE Equipment The RIII inspectors reviewed procurement documentation relative to low voltage electrical penetratica ILV05E and battery chargers IDC03E and 1DC04E. The inspectors reviewed purchase order specifications, Material and Equipment Receiving and Inspection Reports (MRR), and vendor doca-mentation. The following observations were made:
a.
Electrical Penetrations - The licensee has purchased both Amphenol Sam and Conax Corporation electrical penetrations. As previously stated, the inspectors reviewed documentation pertaining to electri-cal penetration ILV05E (supplied by Conax).
Sargent and Lundy (S&L) specification F-2804 delineates the docu-mentation requirements while MRR No. 4/51, dated January 5,1979,
-4-
)
.
r
.
.
.
,
identifies the receiving and inspection activities and the status of vendor quality documentation. MRR No. 4751 indicates that an interim QA acceptance for penetration ILVOSE (S/N998) was granted on January 18, 1979 while final QA acceptance was granted October 16, 1979. The licensee stated that final acceptance is based on quality documentation being received, reviewed, and accepted by S&L Quality Control. The MRR indicated that no damage was observed during tue receipt inspection activities. The followiag data was included in the on-site documentation package for elc.ctrical penetration ILV05E:
(1) Certificate of Conformance, dated December 15, 1978 (2) ASME N2 Partial Data Report, dated December 13, 1978 (3)
IPS-365 Data Sheet "A", dated December 21, 1978 (4) Tabulation of Materials, dated December 13, 1978 (5) Certified Material Test Report for Item 4, dated September 15, 1978.
The RIII inspectors compared the chemical and physical ceri.ificetion data with the requirements of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section II, Part A, 1977 edition through Summer 1978 Addenda.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
Battery Chargers - The RIII inspectors reviewed documentation O.
pertaining to Power Conversion supplied battery chargers IDC03E and 1DC04E. S&L specification F-2820 delineates the documentation requirements while MRR No. 6543, dated April 12, 1979, identifies the receipt and inspection activities and the status of vendor
-
quality documentation. MRR No. 6543 indicates that interim QA acceptance for the subject battery chargers was granted on May 15, 1980. Final QA acceptance has not been granted. The MRR further indicates that no damage was observed durir.g the receipt inspection activities.
Certificate of Conformance No. 1, dated September 24, 1979, indicates compliance with IEEE-278, 336, 323 and 344. The RIII inspectors reviewed the exception list associated with the turnover of battery chargers 1DC03E and IDC04E for pre-operational testing. The subject exception list properly identified the missing QC documentation as noted on MRR No. 6543. The licensee stated that prior to turnover for pre-operational testing, incomplete documenta-tion must be identified as an exception item and that all exception items would be resolved prior to plant operations.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
-5-
_.
~
.
.
.
,
c.
The RIII inspectors observed that the licensee has divided the procurement documentation into quality documentation and engineering documentation. The licensee stated that quality documentation per-tains to matafacturing cocuments such as:
Certificate of Conformance; Certified Material Test. Reports; and ASME Partial Data Reports, while engineering dommentation would include such documents as seismic and environmental reports. The final QA acceptance of an item is based on quality documentation ONLY. Furtherm;re, the licensee stated that documentation requirements for the installation of Class IE equipment pertain to quality documentation and not engineering documentation. The licensee stated that the status of bngineering documentation is not required before Class 1E equipment is installed.
Criterion VII of 10 CI3 50, Appendix B, states in part, " Documentary evidence that material and cquipment conform to the procurement re-quirements shall be available at the nuclear power plcat... prior to installation or use of such material and equipment." The li-censee's uifferentiation of vendor documentation into two categories and the licensee's method of acceptance for installation of Class IE equipment is not unique in RIII. This matter is unresolved pending the review of NRR's position as to the requirements of Criterion VII of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
(50-454/81-08-03; 50-455/81-07-02)
Review of Inspection and Test Reports - Electrical-
.
The RIII inspectors reviewed in process and fit a1 inspection records for cable terminat ions. During ti.e review of "Inprocen Inspection of Power Cables", Form HP-115, Revision 0, it was noted that the bolt-torque value was listed in the " comment column" and the torque wrench number, calibration date and due date was listed on the bottom of the form.
During a reviey of project requirements to confirm that the proper torque value had been applied, it was observed that Hatfield Electric Company (licensee's electrical contractor) Procedure No.11, Revision 5 - Issue 1, approvad by S&L on January 26, 1981) does not require quality control to witness or verify the torquing of bolts used in cable wire terminations. The required torque values are listed it:
Note 44 on drawing 4390. The licensee agreed to incorporate into the appliceMe procedure the requirement for the quality control inspector to witness / verify and document the torquing of bolts used in cable / wire terminatious. This item is unre w1ved pending the review of the revised /new procedure and the implementation thereof.
(50-454/81-08-04; 50-455/81-07-03)
4.
Review of Nonconformance Report F-580 The RUI inspectors reviewed Nonconformance Report (NCR) Number F-580, dated Deceeter 18, 1980, wnich identified nine instances within Class 1E equipment in wnich Class 1E cables were not separated (i.e. in contact with) from non-Class IE cables by the separation criteria delineated in IEFE 494-1974 and the Byron FSAR. The inspectors verified that the specitic examples listed on the NCR did deviate from FSAR requirements-6-u
__
.
._
,,
-
,
J
.
- -;.
,
.
_
.,
-
as stated. -The inspectors met with licensee representatives to discuss
.
- the corrective -action to be taken to entrect the lack of separation
~
- Identified by NCR F-580 and the ccrrective action to preclude repetition.
The licensee stated that construction personnel would be -instructed to -
rework the cables involved-inithe nine instances.- If construction efforts n
to; achieve the separation criteria were unsuccessful, the licensee would.
n
' document-this condition'to Sargent and Lundy (S&L), Architect Engineer,
~
~
. here;an analysis would be performed to demonstrate thatfthe lack of-w separation would not result in a' degradation of the performance of the
>
F cables' safety related-function. The-licensee furtt.er stated that current procedures would be revised or a new procedure written to assure that each instance of inadequate cable separation would be identified and controlled.
The RIII inspectors-informed'the licensee that the. aforementioned analysis must be in conformance with IEEE 384-1976 and that the-analysis must'be
'
,
submitted as.part of the. Safety Analysis Report as stated in Regulatory Guide 1.75.
This matter is unresolved pending review of the-licensee's
- corrective action during a subsequent-inspection.
(50-454/81-08-05;
50-455/81-07-04)
5.
Review of Storage Facilities - Cable Yard i
.The RIII inspectors toured the cable ~ reel yard to check for proper -
,
storage. The cable reels were stored on dunnage (plywood) identified and separated as to type. The cable receiving. area was identified and
cable laydown areas'were located so as to minimize the possibility of'
L damage from vehicular traffic. The inspectors observed three c2ble
,
end-seals.that had deteriorated on the cable's bitter-end. The licensee took immediate_ action to have the cable end-seals repaired or replaced.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l i
'
C 1.
l'
'
'
-7-f l
!
L:
IE~
-
iT
' <
>
__
.
~';
g:,
-
+
'
Section II
-
,
Prepared by J. F. Norton
.
Reviewed by C. C. Williams, Chief
.
Plant Systems Section 1.
.
.
.
.
Containment Post-Tensioning Review of Quality Records-(Units-1 and 2)
l The inspectors reviewed the licensee's -quality assurance implementing-
. procedure and quality 1 records relative to post tensioning for selected-
, _
, tendons.~ Records of complete. tendon history were examined for tendons (f"-
.DI-5, D1-31, and V-22 as follows:
!
i a.
Shipping ~and Receiving:
r
'
>
Records were reviewed of shipping, receiving, and material
.
traceability.for the shipment containing tendon D-31 and
appurtenant hardware. The records were found to be in accordance with requirements b.
Storage:
.
Storage records of tendons and associated hardware were found
to be complete and in' order.
'
.
c.
Pulling:
Tendon pulling cards were examined and found.to be completed t
with all quality control requirements evaluated.
d.
Anchqtheads and Buttonheading:
,
'
Documentation records of field anchorhead installation and i
buttonheading were observed.. Deficient buttonheads were
recorded on coordinate location drawings with specific
~
deficiencies nc~ed.
The field fabricated buttonheads,' with deficiencies noted, had been checked against acceptance criteria,as specified in the construction specifications and i
applicable procedures.
!-
>
.
It was noted in checking the Buttonhead Inspection Documentation
Record (BBC-BIDR-79(45)Rev. 2).for tendon D1-31, that tue field.
- f end was rejected due to.four buttonheads having slips greater than the 0.005 inch. allowable -under ~Inryco criteria BH-102.
Notation on the form indicated the slip tolerance was broadened
t-to. allow slips greater than 0.010 inches as per letter dated
,
"
,
.-e
'
.
8-
-
'
,,
-
-
-
n
.,,..;-,
..,
- ., ~
c,
--4,
< --.
l-,
- - - +
.
.
.
May 15,~1979, and that all rejectable buttonheads were found
.to be less than 0.010 inch May 16, 1979. The separately filed
.
letter from Ca. gent & Lundy to the. licensee stated in part...
"The field buttonheading of the tendons which are presently at the Byron Station for Unit 1 and a portion for Unit 2, are
'
to be installed utilizing the Inryco Criteria BH-102 with the following exception to the. slip allowable of 0.01" in lieu of the 0.005" as indicated in BH-102".
Subsequent review of the criteria change and the Sargent & Lundy letter indicates additional information.is needed to comprehensively evaluate whether the inspection criteria change was in accordance with appropriate procedures. This item is considered unresolved and will be reviewed further during a subsequent inspection.
(50-454/31-08-06; 50-455/81-07-05).
.
e.
Bearing Plates:
Records of bearing plate instailation and inspection were in order.
f.
Stressing:
Stressing cards and records were examined. Appropriate
.
inspector data was recorded. This included stressing ram pressures, shim thickness, total elongations, and calcula-tions to verify elongation to be within design criteria, g.
Greasing:
Greasing cards and records contained all pertinent data and inspection checks relevant to this post-tensioning facet.
h.
Tendon Tags:
Tendon tags were appropri_'.ely filed in the records.
1.
Grease Shipment:
ine receipt record and specification sheet of Batch No. 3-3-6R
of protective grease was examined. The record documented the required chemical and physical data of the material as well as the test results, showing that requirements were met.
2.
Containment Post-Tensioning - Observation of Work Activities a.
Installation:
'
The inspector observed insertion of vertical tendon No. 345 on July 7 and vertical tendon No. 300 on July 9, 1981.
i e-9-l L_ ---
,
7._
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
'
..m
.
.~
..
.b.
Buttonheading:
Tendon buttonheading was observed during replacement of the shop
'anchorhead RC 577-on July 9. LThe original shop head ras rejected-due to incorrect heat treatment. Also, buttonheadP 3 was observed on tendon V-360 in the post-tensioning gallery o' Unit _1 containment on July 9.
On each tendon, a quality control. inspector was gauging
'c4;h buttonhead-to= verify compliance of fillet radius and flashing width requirements.
It was also observed that the unstressed tendon had been treated for corrosion protection subsequent to field buttonheading.
,
c.
Stressing:
Stressing was' observed on tendon No. NR-228 on July _7 and tendon No. D-633 on July 9.
Both are done tendons in Unit 2 containment.
Although double enu stressing was accomplished, observation was at the shop end only. Ram No. 8780 equipped with gauge No. N-328 was applied at the shop end and ram No._8783 with gauge No. N-258 at the field end. The inspector verified calibration was accomp-lished on the stressing equipment on March 19, 1981. A quality
_
control inspector was present to observe stressing. All pertinent data.was being recorded and checked. The tendon stressing card was reviewed and discussed with the QC inspector. The three laborers on duty were observed to be performing in an orderly, workmanlike, and well coordinated manner.
d.
Storage:
Storage areas for the tendons and associated hardware were inspect 2d July 7, 1981. The materials are stored in pole barn warehouses with crushed stone floors and ventilating fans. The storage areas met ANSI N45.2.2 Level D storage requirements.
- 3.
- Discussion The inspector discussed the project post-tensioning operation with the Lead Structural Engineer, the Project Construction Engineer, the Quality Assarance Engineer, and various others. - Conscientiousness in the post-tensioning program was evidenced by all.
Unresolved Items
,
.
Unresolved. items are matters aoout which more -information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncampliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection.are dis-cussed in Section I, Paragraphs 1.b, 2.c, 3, 4, and Section II, Paragraph 1.d.
.
- 10'-
'
-
.
...
.
.
.
_..
_
_
_.
_.. -
-...
.
,,'\\. {
.
- N
,
.
Exit Meeting The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted under Persons
-!
Contacted) and conducted'an exit meeting at the conclusion of the inspection
'
on. July' 10, 1981. The inspectors stumnarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings repo-ted herein.
.
,
s
i
!.
r
.
F a
0 i
_
I i
e
I
>
- 11 -
'
t
. - -