IR 05000456/1985046
| ML20133F055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1985 |
| From: | Hawkins F, Smeenge R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133F040 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-456-85-46, 50-457-85-45, NUDOCS 8510100105 | |
| Download: ML20133F055 (4) | |
Text
n
'
L'
!
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
.
.
Reports No. 50-456/85046(DRS);50-457/85045(DRS)
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 Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braidwood, IL Inspection Conducted: September 12 and September 16-19, 1985 h
k Inspector:
R. J. Smeeng6
/oN/6f Dat'e h
Approved By:
F. C. Hawkins, Chief
/ oN/67_
Quality Assurance Programs Section Da t'e
'
Inspection Summary Inspection on September 12 and September 16-19, 1985 (Reports No. 50-456/85046(DRS);-50-457/85045(DRS))
Areas Inspected: Unannounced, routine safety inspection by one regional inspector of licensee audits of contractor QA/QC activities. The inspection involved a total of 32 inspector-hours onsite.
Results: No violations or deviations were. identified.
.
-
.
- - -
.
.
.
DETAILS s
1.
Persons Contacted
'
.
.
.
Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)
T. Quaka, Site QA Superintendent
'
- C. Schroeder, Project Licensing Superintendent
'
B. Vine, Audit Coordinator
'
- E. Fitzpatrick, Assistant Quality Assurance Manager
- D. Cecchett, Project Licensing E. Wilmere, CA Supervisor
,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC)
's
- T. Tongue, Senior Resident Inspector (0Ps)
- M. Farber, Reactor Inspector j
Other personnel were contacted as a matter of routine durirfg the inspection.
- Indicates those attending the exit meeting on September 19, 1985.
2.
Licensee Audit of Contractor QA/QC Activities A review was conducted of the onsite quality assurance program established. for audit of contractor QA/QC activities to verify compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
The objectives of this review was to determine the status and effectiveness of licensee management and implementation of the corporate quality assurance; program for ongoing activities of design, procurement and construction, a.
Documents Reviewed
(1) Topical Report CE-1-A, " Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Program".
.(2)
Q.P. No. 18-1, " Quality Program Audits".
(3) PM-04, "10 CFR 50.55e Determination and Reporting," Revision 0.
' bl Audits Reviewed (1) QA 20-84-550, Sargent & Lundy Company (2) QA 20-85-503, L. K. Comstock (3) QA 20-85-504, Sargent & Lundy Company (4) QA 20-85-510, Nuclear Installation Service (5) QA 20-85-514, G. K. Newberg
',
(6) QA 20-85-518, Midway Industrial Contractors L. K. Comstock
.(7{QA10-85-522, (8, QA 20-85-523, PCD Site Purchasing
,
(9) QA 20-85-526, Phillips Getschow (10) QA 20-85-528, G. K. Newberg
. -
. -..
-.--.-
- .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
-- --- -- --
- - -. - - -. - -
- -.
- -
- -
.
1-
.
-
~_
-
.
,
.
e
<
.
c.
Ins'pection Results The inspector reviewed the licensee's quality assurance organization and program. From this review it was demonstrated that the site QA organization had sufficient authority and organizational freedom to
%, t jdentify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, and provide
.
i
-
f sClutions; and to verify implementation of solutions. The quality s
assurance function reports to a management level such that the required authority and organizational freedom, including sufficient independence from cost and schedule, are provided, t
The contractor's annual audit schedule was reviewed against a matrix of; contractors versus applicable 10 CFR 50, Appendix B Criteria, s
and it was found to be complete. The annual audit schedule had been st reviewed and approved by the-Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)
"
Quality Assurance Manager. A CECO audit of the site contractor audit program, conducted ^during July 1985, identified Appendix B
attributes which had not been scheduled for two of the contractors.
'
The audit schedule had been revised, reviewed and approved, and the
-
omitted audits had been performed prior to this inspection.
s
,
s s.
A review of a typical auditor's schedule indicated that the workload
.
is distributed to allow the auditors sufficient time to prepare, conduct, report, and verify corrective action for each audit.
~
Generally, an auditor is scheduled for only one audit during a six week period with the audit being performed during one week. By
_ procedure, the report is required to be completed during the week
'following the audit. The audit packages reviewed were found to be s complete.
Checklists had been reviewed and approved prior to
','
' conducting the audits. Documented evidence of the areas audited
. were provided in each package, and the results were clearly identified.
Both deficient areas and adverse conditions were properly classified, and completea" corrective action had been verified by documented surveillances.
Audit open items are tracked and reported to upper management on the monthly Audit and Surveillance Open Audit Items report. Audit
. deficiencies open for more than 60 days are reported monthly to management on the 60 Day Audit Item Status.
The qualification of four auditors and four lead auditors were also reviewed. One of the lead auditor's qualification package did not have an annual evaluation for 1985, as required by ANSI N45.2.23.
Upon further review it was determined that the auditor had not led an audit during 1985, and that the evaluation had been completed during February without providing a copy for the auditor's qualifi-cation package. A copy of the evaluation was inserted into the qualification package during this inspection. The inspector has no further questions regarding this matter.
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
,
S n
'[
.
'
.
p
~
l;..
.-
.
[.
!-
p p
3.
-Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
g on. September"19, 1985, and sumarized the purpose, scope, and findings of
- .
the inspection. -"The inspector also discussed the likely informational L
content of-the inspection report with regard to documents or processes
- ,
' reviewed by the inspector. The licensee did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary, p
-
i I-l'
!.
f
!
,
,.
t.-
,
u
.
l
- _
1
'
__