IR 05000456/1982003
| ML20214F127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1986 |
| From: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| OL-A-185, NUDOCS 8705220419 | |
| Download: ML20214F127 (13) | |
Text
-
k 9my i /f S,.
, l
-
i
-
- -
[,,,,, S
~
UNITED STATES o
-
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e CKETED
-
{ pC - C
,
,,
'S 5,
I REGION lit.
L.,.
790 ROOSEVELT ROAO o
OLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 30137
.
'87 APR 22 P6 :30
'
.....
.
JUL 1 6 882 mctua uma commsson.
'
cadat &V5f JYS4cL jgg
_
cm,,
Docket No. 50 45s la th asas, d h fd.s ** O Docket No. 50-457
" -
""U Commonwealth Edison Company
- -
ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed WC3D lama *=r
Vice President m //- / f- %
cesrsorr Post Office Box 767
'
Chicago, IL 60690 c,,,,,,
- -
-
Y
-
Gentlemen:
?
n porter
/
This refers to the special safety inspection conducted by Mr. D. H. Danielson and other staff members of this office on May 24-28, and June 1-4, 1982, of activities at B,raidwood Station. Units 1 & 2. authorized by NRC Construction
^
Permits No. CPPR-132 and No. CPPR-133, and to the discussion of our findings with Messrs. W. J. Shewski, R. Cosaro and others of your staff at the con-
.
clusion of the inspection.
'the purpose of this special team _ inspection was to assess the adequacy of certain MRects of the quality. assurance / cons, ruction activities at the Braidwood Station.
t L
The scope of this assessment included audits of quality assurance program inter-faces and overview, corrective action systems, design change control, material
'
traceability of installed structures and components, electrical cable Installa-tien, inprocess inspections, and ef fectiveness of quality control inspectors.
Within these areas the inspection consisted of a selective examination of pro-cedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel.
In general, within the areas inspected, the quality assurance program for the Braidwood Station appeared good. However, examples of program implementation deficiencies were identified which require corrective action on your part.
In addition, certain of your activities appeared to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Appendix. A written response is re-quired. No response is required for Item 1.b of the Appendix. The corrective action taken and the corrective action to prevent recurrence is described'in Section 2.b.(11) of the report.
~
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed in the
NRC's Public Document Room. 'If this report contains any information that you (or your contractors) believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by telephone within ten (10) days from the date of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b) ' submit within twenty-five (25) days from the date of this letter a written application to this of fice to withhold such information.
~
.
870S220419 861119 kg PDR ADOCK 0500
G w*
,
-
,...
_
,.
_ _, _..
- _. _ _ _... _ _ _,
_
.,,
., _
,,,....,.,
.
.
.
-l
-
s
%
.
.
Commonwealth Edison Company
Jijl 1 6 te2
.
k
.
If your receipt of this letter has been delayed such that less than seven (7)
days are available for your review, please notify this office promptly so that
-
a new due date may be established. Consistent with Section 2.790(b)(1), any such, application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the ownce of the information which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld,
~
and which contains a full statement of the reasons which are the bases for the claim that ths information should be withheld from public disclosure.
This section further requires the, statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4). The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, a copy of this letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed in the Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, 22 iJ
.*
-
f//G
,
C. E. Norelius, Director ivision of Engineering and g
,
Technical Programs
,
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix, Notice of Violation 2.
Inspection Re No. 50-456/8 -03 DETP)
No. 50-457/82-03(DETP)
D'
,
REGION III==
Report Nos. 50-456/84 DETP); 50-457/82-03(DETP)
-
b Docket Nos. 50-456; 50-457 License Nos. CPPR-132; CPPR-133 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690
,
Facility Name: Braidwood St'ation, Unit 1 and 2 Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braidwood, IL Inspection Conducted: May 24-28, an.1 June 1-4,1982
.
Inspectors:
D. H. Danielson 6hs/fb
'
/
J. M. Peschel G
F' --
S R. S. Love t
wx
-
Sb k J.'N ler[4 d
V
'
E.
re~
<
'
.
.
6/J# N G. L. McGregor
(SRI Braidwood)
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief Materials and Processes Section Inspection Summary Inspection on Ms? 24-28, and June 1-4, 1982 (Recorts No. 50-456/82-03(DETp);
i 50-457/82-03(DETP))
i Areas Inspected: QA Program interfaces and overview; corrective action systems; design change control; material traceability of installed structures
.and components; electrical cable installation; inprocess inspections; QC inspector effectiveness. The inspection involved a total of 467 inspector-hours onsite by six NRC inspectors.
.
-
..
_
_
_
___. _- - -__ _ _
_ _ ~., -. - - - -
_
..
...
.
%
.
.
.
Results: Of the areas inspected two apparent violations were identified (failure of site contractors to follow their procedures - paragraphs b.(11.(b),
,(
e.(2).(a).3, and e.(2).'(b).i.; failure of site contractors to accomplish activities in accordance with procedures - paragraph f.(2).(a)).
.
.
.
.
1
4 l
.
O e
2 i
.
. -.
..
.
_. _ _
.
. _.
_. _
, __ _
_
. _ __. __
_ _ _ _ _, _ _ _, _ _,
. _ _ -.
--
-
.s
.
.
.
.
,
.
-
.
DETAILS
,
.
k 1.
Persons Contacted
.
.
Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco)
- W. J. Shewski, Manager Quality Assurance
- D. Cosaro, Project Construction Superintendent
- T. Trams, Nuclear License Administrator
- R. C. Schleiter, Administrative Assistant Construction V. I. Schlosser, Project Manager (Byron and Braidwood)
G. F. Marcus, Director of Quality Assurance (Engineering and Construction)
- T. R. Sommerfield, QA Superintendent R. M. Sacco, Engineering Technician
-
R. C. Tate, QA Engineer
.
S. M. Jaques, QA Engineer i
V. D. Bruns, QA Engineer D. C. Boes, QA Engineer S. A. Reece, QA Engineer R. D. Pickell, QA Engineer
- C, D. Gray, Project Construction Structural Supervisor
- J. Merwin, Project Construction Mechanical Supervisor
.
J. Hoffman, Project Construction Department D. Hoffer, QA Engineer M. Togliatti, Project Construction Department R. Vignocchi, QA Inspector
-
4, -
J. Natisotto, Field Engineer
- C. A. 'Mennecke, Project Construction Electrical Supervisor B. H. Kulik, QA Inspector (Documentation)
J. Galligan, Instrument Engineer E. A. Kram, QA Engineer
- L. J. Tapella. Electrical Field Engineer
- D. A. Brown, QA Supervisor j
- S. C. Hunsader, QA Supervisor
M. A. Gorski, QA Engineer K. Miller, QA Inspector l
Phillips. Getschow Company (PGCo)
l A. Rubino, Quality Control Supervisor E. Ullrich, Assistant Quality Control Supervisor R. Cronkite, Calibration Technician A. Rohla, Training and Procedures Coordinator R. Veronda Engineering Clerk
G. Jenkins, Draftsman
'
J. Matrisotto, Field Engineer D. Ortiz, Area Foreman G. Balzer, General Foreman l
l J. Ryder, Document Control Technician
'
J. Devine Instrument Superintendent C. Johnson, Engineer S. Goryl, Field Engineer
,
,
.
-
.. _ - - -.
- -.
..
. -
.. -
-. -
.. -.
- -
-
.
_ _ _____ ______ -.
I
-
'
s
.
.
L. K. Coastock and Company Inc. (LKC)
R. A. Brown, QC Manager C. Stiles, QA Engineer J. Hii, QC Inspector
~
J. Peters, QC Inspector
.
'
F. Rolan, QC Inspector
-
.T. Rolan, QC Clerk R. Martens, Cable Engineer M. Kost, QC Supervisor
-
Pittsburgh Testinz Laboratory (PTL)
-
_
L.'E. Smetana, Site Manager
,
S. L. Bank, Site Auditor Vestinghouse (V)
R. Schultz, Site Manager
'
Sarzent and Lundy Enzineers (S&L)
C. A. Zalesisk Field Engineer
.
-
.
Napoleon Steel Contractors. Inc. (NSC)
C. Zavada, QC Manager
'
, Pullman Construction Industries, Inc. (PCI)
D. Grant, QA Manager
.
Nuclear Insta11stien Services Company (NISCo)
J. Pruitt, QA Manager J
Pittsburnh-Des Moines Steel Company (PDM)
D. Pint, QA Manager H'artford Steam Boiler Engineering and Insurance Company (HSB)
L. Parkey, Authorized Nuclear Inspector
- Denotes those personnel attending the exit meeting held at the Braidwcod Site on June 4,1981. During the inspection at the Braidwood Station exit meetings were held on Wednesday and Friday in order to keep the licensee infor=ed of any findings.
The inspectors also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during this inspection.
,
.
e
4
.
_ _ _ _.. _
_
-
_
._
.e
_... _
.
.
. _ _
_. _.
.
-
s
.
.
\\
.
2.
Function or Progras ' Areas Inspected i
(
a.
General Backatound
.
%.
The purpose of this special tfas ins tion was to determine if there are indications of existing or potential construction
-
,
. problems similar to some of those identified at a number of other plants under construction. The scope of the assessments included quality assurance program interfaces and overviews, corrective
action systems, design change control, material traceability of installed structures and components, electrical cable installa-tion, inprocess inspections, and effectiveness of quality control inspectors.
.
,
,
.
L
-
f f
e
.
i
.
!
.
.
e e
.
...e.
...
.-,- - -
.p,.__-.-------m-,,m,_,n-,,----,_--
y.-mpp-._-
7w-
_ -,
,,ymy.,i_c-3,,---w,nr.,v----
.. _,,
_ _ _..- _ _ -, _ _ - _. - - -_
-- -<- -- - - -
..
...,
_ -
- -.
-..
-
-. -
-- -
'.
.
-
.
'
,.
.
'
.
Prepared By:
G. L. McGregor
\\
h.
Q.C. Inspector Effectiveness L
'
(1) Obiective.
.
"
The objectives of this assessment were to determine if:
(a) any problems exist that inhibit an inspector from properly
executing his assigned functions.
(b) the' training, qualifications, and certification of QA/QC personnel working for contracting organizations to the
Licensee are in compliance with 10 CFR 50r Appendix B,
.
ANSI N45.2.6 1978, ANSI SNT-TC-1A, USNRC Regulatory i
Guides 1.58, USNRC Generic' Letter 81-01; Ceco Quality
,,
Assurance Program Manuals, Ceco Response to Generic Letter 81-01 (L. D. De1 George to D. G. Eisenhut -
-
,
.
August 17, 1981); and Contractor Qua,11ty Assurance Manuals.
(2) Discussion The individuals selected for interview were chosen at random
,
.
by the NRC Inspector from QA/QC inspector lists furnished by each contractor.
'
All contractors utilizing QA/QC personnel to monitor and accept production activities at the site were selected. The organi-
'
,~
sations selected, production function monitored by the in-spectors, number of inspectors in the organization, number of inspectors interviewed and percentages are identified in
'
Table I.
Each inspector interviewed was asked a standard set of questions. The answers provided were summarized and are provided as Table II.
The individuals selected for interview were requested to provide the record of their training, qualification and certification to the NRC inspector. The inspector reviewed each of the training, qualifications and certification records to verify compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, standards and FSAR commitments. In verifying the implementation of the approved requirements emphasis was placed on (1) evaluation of performance / reevaluation; (2) de-termination of initial capability by suitable evaluation; (3) physical requirements identified and examined yearly; (4) written certification in appropriate form; (5) records of qualification established and maintained; and (6) quali-fication criteria followed.
Table II is provided as a summary of QC/QC inspector answers to the standard set of interview questions. Answers to
<
questions 1, 2, 4, and 5 are self-evident and do not require further definitions.
.
G
.
..
-
- - -
- -. - -. -
j
.
..
,
. b **
,
.
)
.
.
-
.
Question 3 relates to the number of inspectors that indicated
during their answers to question 2 that they had prior inspec-g tion experience. Of the 46 inspectors, 78% indicated prior
,
nuclear inspection experience; only 17% no nuclear experience; and 4% had no inspector experience.
,
-
.
.
Question 6: All inspectors answered with a resounding No or very few hours per week. When asked to qualify "very few hours", the inspectors replied two to three hours with
-
a maximum of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> in any week.
,,
Questions 7 and 8: The inspectors indicated that an insufficent number of QC inspectors cont.ributed to work being backlogged.
- Concrete expansion anchors, some small bore pipe welding, and -
cable paa supports were indicated as areas which need extra
'
inspection efforts.
'
One inspector noted that radiographs with questionable indica-
'tions were being approved by contractor QC personnel or addi-tional radiographs were being taken. Specific examples were given. The RIII inspector reviewed the radiographs for the
.
examples given, as well as for several adjacent veld joints.
No ASME Code unacceptable indications were identified.
.
Question 9: 'Ihe inspectors generally feel they have the authority to stop an activity if their contractor's work is not being properly performed.
A Question 10: The majority of inspectors interviewed indicated that the training they received was adequate for the work activity they are required to perform. The majority of in-spectors indicated they would welcoes additional training.
Question 11: The inspectors do not feel that a lack of i
inspection personnel has caused construction activities to j
come to a stop.
,
Question 12: All inspectors indicated that their activity did not require additional checklist data sheets or guide-lines. One inspector felt that the welding production foreman should sign the completed work form before turnover to the QC department for inspection.
-
Question 13: All inspectors indicated they have no problems going to chair management, regardless of the position, to communicate their problems.
Open Item (456/82-03--06: 457/82-03-06)
Based on the interview of inspectors, it is apparent that some areas are in need of additional inspectors to ensure
'
.
e
.
.
.. _ _.._
. _. _-
_.
.
.
_
_
_ _
_
_
_ _
_
_
_ - _.
'
'
.
.
.
.
.-
.
.
.
,.
that a backlog of inspection'a does not exist and that in-creasedworkeffortsdonotcombundtheinspectionprogram.
.
I No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
'
"
3.
Unresolved Items
. Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain weather they are acceptable items, violations, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are dis-
,
!
cussed in Paragraph f.(2).(c).h 4.
Exit Interview
'-
l
The inspectors set with licensee personnel (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on June 4, 1982. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the special inspection, which were acknowledged by the licensee.
,,
,
Attachments:
.
1.
Table I, QC/QA Inspection
~
Interview Summary
-
2.
Table II, Summary of Questions
Asked QC/QA Inspectors i
During Interviews
!
,
.
'
.
.
,
e e
l
.
- - emoe e
-
- - - -,
.e- -, - - - - - - -
w ww-rw-*=w*-e------' ' --+mwe
- - * **='re==----'vv='*
-
-N'-
--- ' - - * - ' " " = ' "
- * " - - " ' " - ~ '
<
-
..
.
,,. #
.
,
,
.
.
,
THE I
.
QA/QC INSPECTOR INTERVIEW SUMMARY Total Inspectors
-
,
Ornanization Function Inspectors Interviewed
%
G. K. Newberg General Contractor
1 100 Concrete and Labor Force NISCO Erection NSSS Equipment 2
50 Wallgren Concrete Block Wall
1
Erection Napoleon Containment Tendon
3
Installation
Midway Field Finish Coatings
1 100
Pullaan HVAC
2
,
,
Pittsburgh Independent Inspection 22
59 i
Testing Lab (PTL)
ANL Testing, NDT and
,
Concrete
,
(
.
.,
L. K. Coastock Electrical
9
'
Phillips, Piping Systems
14
Getschow
.
en e
r
-,.n.-
,
,, - -,, -., -
.,.. _,.,,.,,,,. -,
,,, _., _, _,., - -, -.,,,,. -.,. - _, -, - -. _ - -. - -... _.... -., - - -,,,.. - - - - - -*.,.,,
. -,,. -,.,.. -. -
.
...
.-
4.
s
.
,
'
..
.
.
.
TABLE II
-
(
,
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS ASKED QC/QA INSPECTORS DURING INTERVIEWS
.
<3 mo.
<6 me.
6 mo.-1 yr.
,,
1.
How long esployed as an inspector
onsite?
1
,
1-2'vr.
2-3 yr.
>3 yr.
>5 yrs.
-
5
10'
Years Yes No
.
2.
Prior inspection experience?
<1
2 1-2
>3-4
>5
.
.
.
.
Nuclear Non-Nuclear
-
l Au 3.
What discipline (s)?
8
,
[
Yes No Comments
.
.
4.
Is there a sense of intimidation
based upon the need/ requirement to keep up with construction?
5.
Is there a reluctance to make
- adverse findir.as if they will impact on the construction or audit schedule?
6.
Is it routine for QC inspectors
.to be working frequent and/or excessive overtime?
...
l 7.
Do the inspectors feel that their
'22 22 '
Need more particular section is adequately inspectors for
,
'
staffed?
welding and con-crete expansion
'-
anchors
'
.
.
e
.
- - - - -,, - -.,,
--.,r,,..
.e--,,,..7.-
-~,_~,,,,m,,,,.
_, -,,,,, _
_,gy.,,,,
-_,
,n,
.,m
+,
-n,,----,,-,
-,,,-_nn
-
(-.
.-
-
.
"
,,-
,
'*
^
=
,.
.
'
.
S Yes No Comments 8.
Do they feel the required inspec-
10 Backlog for k-
,
tions are being conducted promptly?
hangers l
,
i 9.
Do the QC inspectors have stop work
1
.
i
!
and/or stop procesa authority?
. Have they ever ussd this authority?
1 If so do they feel they were supported 33
,
or will have the' support of manage-ment in the event of a stop work?
,
10.
Do the inspectors feel the training
4 More formal they have been provised is adequate?
classroom training for General Fore-men and
-
,l Foresen
-
11.
Do situations arise where the lack
of A QC inspector causes construction
activities to coes to a stop?
.I
,
,
12. Are the QC inspectors provided
adequate check lists for all activities they are inspecting?
,
'
%g a
13. Do they feel that they have an,
,',
synnue to management if they come across a probles?
D 'they feel manassent will get
9 lepolved?
The totals for the questions differ because of the type of inspectocs inter-
,
viewed and the inspector replies to the various questions.
.
O I
l
,
G b
.
l l
L
-