IR 05000456/1985025
| ML20126C794 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1985 |
| From: | Little W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126C536 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-456-85-25, 50-457-85-26, NUDOCS 8506140525 | |
| Download: ML20126C794 (4) | |
Text
____ _____ _ ________-_
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-456/85025(ORP); 50-457/85026(DRP)
Docket Nos. 50-456; 50-457 Licenses No. CPPR-132; CPPR-133 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767.
Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: ' Braidwood Site, Braidwood, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
May 6 through May 31, 1985 Inspector:
R. N. Gardner
,
Approved By:
e, Director d
Braidwood Project Date/
Inspection Summary
Inspection on May 6 through May 31, 1985 (Report No. 50-456/85025(DRP);
50-457/85026(DRP))
Areas Inspected:
Special, announced safety inspection of the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP) in regards to licensee action on previously identified items, Construction Sample Reinspection (CSR)
reinspection activities, review of CSR reinspection checklists, review of CSR documentation review checklists, and review of Reverification of Procedures to Specification Requirements (RPSR) activities.
The inspection consisted of 125 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8506140525 850611 PDR ADOCM 05000456 G
..
..
._.
.
.
..
.
.
..
_ - _
.
_.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)
M. Wallace, Project Manager E. Fitzpatrick, Assistant Quality Control Manager 1. Schroeder, Licensing and Compliance Superintendent C
y. Quaka, Site Quality Assurance T
I. Kaushal, BCAP Director N
I. Smith, General Quality Assurance Supervisor N
3. Orlov, Assistant BCAP Director G
R. Byers, Assistant BCAP Director 3. Clinton, BCAP Inspection Supervisor M
I. Kline, Licensing and Compliance L
B. Williams, BCAP Quality Assurance Evaluation Research Corporation (ERC)
W. Chase, Mechanical and Piping J. Hoff, Inspector P. Clark, Inspector The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of this inspection.
IDenotes those present at exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-456/84-25-03; 50-457/84-24-03):
The inspector requested the licensee to assure that BCAP inspectors were certified in accordance with the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6.
During this inspection period, the inspector reviewed the education and experience data for 18 BCAP taskforce inspectors.
In each case the documented data exceeded the requirements delineated in ANSI N45.2.6.
This item is closed.
b.
(Closed) Open Item (50-456/84-30-02; 50-457/84-28-02):
The results of a QA overinspection pointed out a number of variations between the findings identified by BCAP QA and those identified by the BCAP inspectors.
The results of the BCAP QA overinspection were documented by QA on BCAP observation number CSR-I-H-03-018-QA-001.
In addition, BCAP QA Special Instruction QASI-18 was issued on February 28, 1985, to provide a uniform method for evaluating the performance of the BCAP taskforce inspectors.
Variations between BCAP taskforce inspector findings and BCAP QA inspector findings are compared against established performance criteria so that the acceptability of individual BCAP taskforce inspector performance can be determined.
This item is closed.
~
3.
CSR Reinspection Activities a.
On May 6, 1985, the inspector witnessed the partial overinspection of electrical switchgear 2AP05E.
The overinspection was performed by ERC inspectors.
The CSR reinspection package number was CSR-I-E-EIN-111.
The overinspection focused on the switchgear to imbed welds.
During the overinspection, the inspector determined that the reinspections performed by the BCAP taskforce accurately documented the acceptability of the switchgear to imbed welds.
b.
'On May 14, 1985, the inspector witnessed the overinspection of a cable pan _ support located in the Unit 2 cable spread room. The overinspection was performed by ERC inspectors.
The.CSR reinspection package number was CSR-I-E-CPH-051.
The cable pan support had previously been reinspected by the BCAP taskforce.
During the overinspection, the inspector determined that the reinspections performed by the BCAP taskforce accurately documented the acceptability of the cable. pan support.
c.
On May 14, 1985, the inspector witnessed the overinspection of a block wall located in the Unit 2 auxiliary building.
The overinspection was performed by ERC inspectors.
The CSR reinspection package number was CSR-I-S-004-028.
The block wall had previously been reinspected by the BCAP taskforce.
During the overinspection, the inspector determined that the reinspections performed by the BCAP taskforce accurately documented the acceptability of the block wall.
d.
On May 22, 1985, the inspector witnessed the overinspection of a concrete placement.
The overinspection was performed by ERC inspectors.
The CSR reinspection package number was CSR-I-S-001-14.
The concrete placement had previously been reinspected by the BCAP taskforce.
During the overinspection, the ERC inspector determined that BCAP CSR engineers had failed to identify, on the reinspection package, the existence of a concrete patch.
Thus the subject patch was not reinspected by BCAP inspectors.
The licensee took prompt -
corrective actions to correct this error and to ensure that there were no other instances in which patches were not identified on CSR reinspection packages.
e.
On May 29, 1985, the inspector witnessed the overinspection of instrument pipe / tube supports.
The overinspection was performed by ERC inspectors.
The CSR reinspection package number was CSR-I-M-15-092.
The instrument supports had previously been reinspected by the BCAP taskforce.
During the overinspection, the inspector determined that the reinspection performed by the BCAP taskforce accurately documented the acceptability of the instrument pipe / tube supports.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
_ _ _
_
-
___
__
.
._.
_
__
4.
Review of CSR Reinspection Checklists The' inspector reviewed the following CSR reinspection checklists:
,
CSR-I-H-08 Revision 0 NSSS Equipment Installation
.CSR-I-H-10 Revision 0 NSSS Support Verification CSR-I-S-001 Revision 4 Concrete Placements No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Review of-CSR Documentation Review Checklist The inspector reviewed the following CSR documentation review checklists:
.CSR-R-H-06 Revision 2 Mechanical Equipment Installation No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
-Review of RPSR Activ'ities The inspector reviewed the results of the RPSR review of procedures utilized by L. K. Comstock, the electrical contractor.
Included in the RPSR documents reviewed were the L. K. Comstock. procedure checklist and the observations written during the procedure reviews.
The checklist consisted of an itemized listing.of FSAR and specification requirements, a determination as to whether the requirements were-
>
considered to be essential, and a corresponding determination as to whether the L..K. Comstock procedures were.in compliance with the requirements. The' inspector observed that the checklist provided an acceptable-verification'of the L. K. Comstock procedures.
Also, the inspector. observed that observations were written by BCAP to document the instances in which the L. K. Comstock procedures were not in compliance with FSAR or specification requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee and contractor representatives denoted in Paragraph I during and at the conclusion of the inspection on June 4, 1985.
The inspector. summarized the scope and results of the inspection-and discussed the likely content of this inspection report.
The licensee acknowledged the information and did not indicate that any of the information disclosed during the inspection could be considered proprietary-in nature.
- Attachments:
1.
Letter from Ceco to James G. Keppler-dated May 13, 1985 2.
Memorandum from C. E. Norelius to James G. Keppler dated May 30, 1985 4