IR 05000455/1986042

Insp Repts 50-455/86-42 on 861029-30.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Ie Bulletins & Previous Insp Findings

ML20213E201
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	11/07/1986
From:	Muffett J, Neisler J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20213E188	List: IR 05000455/1986042 ML20213E184
References
50-455-86-42, IEB-77-03, IEB-77-11, IEB-77-3, NUDOCS 8611130053
Download: ML20213E201 (4)

Text

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

. .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-455/86042(DRS)

Docket No. 50-455 Construction Permit No. CPPR-131 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Facility Name: Byron Station, Units I and 2 ,

Inspection At: Byron Site, Byron, Illinois Inspection Conducted: October 29-30, 1986 Inspector: John H. Neisler //-4 Date-Yh {

dwo U8 Approved By: James W. Muffett, Chief 4!'!86 Plant Systems Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on October 29-30, 1986 (Report No. 50-455/86042(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Unannounced inspection of IE Bulletins and previous .

inspection finding I Results: No violations or deviations were identifie ThllO7 PDR ADOCK 05000455 G PDR

,

.

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted

• G. Sonenson, Project Construction Manager

• R. Klinger, Project Quality Control Supervisor L. Bihlman, QA Engineer

• E. Zittle, Regulatory Assurance

• E. Martin, Quality Assurance Superintendent

• J. Steinmetz, Electrical Supervisor, PCD, Unit 2

• Denotes those persons attending exit intervie The inspector also contacted other personnel in the construction, quality, engineering and administrative area . Licensee Activity on Previously Reported Items (Closed) Unresolved Item (455/86003-01): Completion of licensee walkdowns for separation requirements on conduct, cable trays and hardware in Unit The inspector ascertained that the licensee, the contractor and the architect / engineer have each completed walkdown inspections for separation conflicts at Byron The walkdown identified 28 discrepancies. Analysis of each of the discrepancies was performed by the architect / engineer and dispositioned for necessary corrective actio See also IS finding 455/85047-01 closure in this repor (Closed) Open Item (455/86003-02): Review of CSCR logs and closecu The inspector reviewed the Hatfield Company's CSCR logs and the Open CSCR Results of these reviews were compared to the Sargent and Lundy Interface Review Report. The comparison revealed that seven of the ten open CSCRs identified by the inspector were still open. The difference in the log and the Interface Review Report is attributed to the time lag between S&L review and the final closecut by Hatfield. This time lag and the number of open CSCRs are not considered significant. This item is closed.

i (Closed) CAT Finding (455/85027-03): Cable tray and conduit separatio The team determined that some Class IE Raceways have not been installed in accordance with FSAR commitments for electrical separation. The architect / engineer, S&L, had completed two walkdown inspections of raceways at Byron 2. PI-BB-39, " Cable Tray to Conduit Separation Walkdown," and PI-BB-53, "Walkdown One-Inch Separation of Conduit."

Their review of each of the identified discrepancies shows that the as-installed separation is acceptable for each of the identified cases, i

l

i

. .

The Byron /Braidwood FSAR Chapter 8.3.1.4.2.2 on Page 8.3-17 states that the mininium distance between enclosed raceways and between barriers and raceways is one inch. The cable trays are steel trays with solid steel bottoms and sides and, where required are equipped with solid steel covers thus qualifying as barriers and n.eeting the separation requirements of the FSAR and IEEE-38 The FSAR also states that all conduit qualifies as barrier Hatfield Procedure No. 98, Revision 16, October 30, 1985, Appendix A, Section 6c states, the conduit will maintain a minimum one-inch separation from cable tray unless noted on appropriate drawings. Form HP-98-1 requires the issuance of a Cable Plan Separation Notification Form for engineering evaluation when three inches horizontal or twelve inches vertical separation distances are not attaine The inspector determined that the cable tray to conduit separation walkdown has been completed. The architect / engineer's analysis of each identified violation of separation requirements has been completed, necessary corrective action taken and that the as-installed raceways are separated according to IEEE-384. This item is considered to be close (Closed) IDI Team Finding (455/85047-01): Different classes of conduit in contact with each other. Completion of walkdown of conduit systems according to PI-BB-53 must be accomplished. The inspector verified by review of walkdown documentation and discussions with cognizant personnel that the PI-BB-53 walkdown has been completed and identified deficiencies have been resolved. This item is considered to be close (Closed) IDI Finding (455/86047-02): For situations where actual cable lengths (pulled lengths) are different than those used for voltage drcp calculations, the NRC team found that S8L had generated an Electrical Department Instruction ESI-253, dated August 6, 1985, for reviewing the final calculations using the as-built cable lengths as noted on the cable pull cards of the contractor. The team finds the newly generated instruction provides a reasonable solution. This item will be considered open pending the completion of implementation prior to fuel loa The inspector reviewed riocumentation from S8L attesting to the completion of the implementation of ESI-253 and that the final check of safety-related voltage drop calculations based on as-built cable lengths for Byron 2 has been completed. This finding is close . _Inspec_ tion _ an_d_En_fo_rc_ement Bulletins (Closed) I & E Bulletin 77-03 (455/77003-B8): Solid state protection system failure. The inspector reviewed Byron Operating Surveillance Procedure Nos. BOS-3.1.1-20 and 805-3.1.1-21 and found them to be adequat These surveillances are performed bimonthly on a staggered schedule Their function is to test those parameters within the solid state protection system recotoended by Westinghouse Bulletin 77-11. The testing of the solid state protection system is also required by Technical Specifications 3/4. and 3/4.3.2. This bulletin is considered to be close o . .

4 Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)

at the conclusion of the inspection and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's comments. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspectio The licensee representatives did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietar