IR 05000456/1986003

Staff Exhibit S-25,consisting of Forwarding Insp Repts 50-456/86-03 & 50-457/86-03 on 860109-0305.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Facility Const Assessment Program

ML20214C848
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	11/20/1986
From:	Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
OL-S-025, OL-S-25, NUDOCS 8705210121
Download: ML20214C848 (18)

Text

I

' ~ - '

_

S -Q 5 j-+ .y s' ' t

,

!ULnf TE{

-

W: \

.E a *

,

'

'87 Am 24 P4 45 I l

NUCLIAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N Decket No. SD M4M1 official hiNeS'r 2I Docket No. 50-456

'"S'"'""

'^' E' f v totminen 4- j

,

Docket No. 50-457 swr

"'"' "

Commonwealth Edison Company '"'"" "'"

-

ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed C'#8 "

Vice President C*xur WE /g 4

'

Post Office Box 767 mt==N J O Chicago, IL 60690 oan

- Gentlemen:

Re WW f , ,

l I

This refers to the special inspection conducted by Messrs. R. Gardner, R. Mendez, and Z. Falevits of this office on January 9,13, and 17, February 25, 26, and March 5, 6, 1986, of Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (8 CAP) activities

' at Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, authorized by NRC Construction Permit No.132 and No.133 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. C. Schroeder and others of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. The purpose of

,

this report is to document the Region III actions taken to assure that the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (8 CAP) was properly carried out and to document the Region 111 review and evaluation of the final " Report on the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP)," dated November, 1985 submitted by Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco).

' The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personne No violations of NRC requirements were identified during the course of this inspectio ,

'

Based on the results of all Region III activities and inspections referenced in J the attached report, we conclude that the BCAP was satisfactorily completed in accordance with programmatic and procedural requirement !

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC Public Document Roo '

8705210121 861120 6 PDR ADOCK 0500 ,

, G

.

f h  !

!j gt. y - _ _

. . . . o

.

- , - . , . - - - , - - --- , . , , . . . , - , , - , , . - , - . - - , - . - - - - - - - , - - - . , , , - , , , , , , - _ - . - . , . . . - . - - , .

. . . .. .

. . .

.

. =

. .

. '

- .

M -9 m -

Commonwealth Edison Company 2

.i

.

'

e We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspectio 'l

Sincerely, Charles E. Morelius, Director *

Division of Reactor Projects .

Enclosure:

Inspection Reports No. 50-456/86003(DRP);

No. 50-457/86003(DRP) ,

REGION III==

.

Reports No. 50-456/86003(DRP); 50-457/86003(DRP)

'

Docket Nos.-50-456; 50-457 LICC3505 NO- CEEE-132I CEEE-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: January 9,13, and 17, February 25, 26, and

,'

March 5, 6, 1986

'

Inspectors: R. Gardner 6/7/EI -

,

, Date ii yV

' ;- '

z.raisitr s/m/u Date i b

R. Mendez 6~/)hP/r4 Date Approved By: i e, Direc or / i Braidwood Project Ratg Inspection Summary Inspection on January 9,13, and 17, February 25, 26 and March 5, 6, 1986 (Reports No. 50-456/86003(ORP); 50-457/86003(DRP))

Areas Inspected: Summary of the Region III inspection effort regarding the BCAP, review of licensee actions on previous BCAP inspection findings, and reviews of BCAP discrepancie Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie *

.

W l

j .

,( ~. - .

.

l

' -

l .

m'

• ,

l t

.

l

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ , _ , . _ , _ . _ . .- _ _ _ .

--

. __._ ._._ _ _ -

.___ -.- _ _ _ _ _ _ - -, - _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ __.__l . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ .-_ -_.-_

. . *

.

, .

I

.

.

.- - DETAILS

. .s

,

.

. Persons Contacted l

.

• T. Maiman, Vice President

• L. Del George, Assistant Vice President

.

j

• M. Wallace, Braidwood Project Manager l

• G. Fitzpatrick, Braidwood Station Manager l

• W. Shewski, Quality Assurance Manager

• 1. C. Schroeder, Braidwood Services Superintendent

' *fT. Migsi, Nuclear Licensing

'

• 1. N. Kauschal, BCAP Director

1. P. Barnes, Braidwood Regulatory Assurance Supervisor '

• B. Byers, BCAP Assistant Director l

1. D. Cecchett, Licensing Engineer

• Frankel, Statistical Consultant

1. J. Janesz, Regulatory Assurance

• I. Johnson, Nuclear Communications Coordinator

• 1. G. Orlov, BCAP Assistant

*T. han, BCAP Engineering ,

i

1. T. Simpkin, Regulatory Assurance

,

1. W. Marcus, Quality Assurance

• D. Smith, Nuclear Licensing Administrator

• N. Smith, BCAP Quality Assurance

• R. Williams, BCAP Ouality Assurance

.

Stone and Webster Engineerina Company (S&W)

l *P. Dunlop, Engineering Manager Sargent and Lundy Engineers (S&L)

l

• D. Fischer, Project Manager

• K. Kostal, Braidwood Project Director

• D. Leone, Byron /Braidwood Project Director .

o *B. Pardunn, Project Engineer

1, Evaluation Research Corporation (ERC) )

• J. Hansel, Project Manager

• R. Man, Deputy Project Manager

• R. Laney, Consultant

• W. Chase, Consultant

-

Isham. Lincoln, and Beale

• M. N111er, Attorney -

• P. Steptoe, Attorney

.

- -

'

Nuclear Regulatory Commission- _ _ _ _

• .

• V. Roonan, Directer, Project PWRS

.;

• J. Calvo, NRR Staff

l

.;-

, > *

,

'

l

- _ . _ . . _ . . . _ . _ . . - - . . - - - - - _ . _ _ _ . - - . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - . - . _ . , , . , _ . _ . _ . ,--m.,_ . . - ~.- __ _ _ _. _ _ _ -

. .- .- . . - - . . _- - .. ..

. .

.

, ,

.

- -

'; .

• J. Stevens. Licensing Project Manager .

'

,

• C. Trammell, NRR Project Manager

• T. Westeman, Inspector, RIV

• S. Treby, ELD

'

• E. Chan, ELD

."G. 8erry, ELD

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety

• R. Ninue, Nuclear Engineer

-

• S. Swartz, Leatd Nuclear Engineer l

-

l Other -

.

'

• Gaitsill, BPI -

'

• Guild, BPI, Attorney

• Garde, GAP  !

• Linnemeir, GAP 3

.

l

.

The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of this inspectio l l '

!

• Denotes those present at the October 15, 1985 public meeting on BCA <

1. Denotes those present at the January 17, 1986 exit meetin . Summary and Conclusions

.

!

L Purpose

.

.

The purpose of this report is to document the Region III actions taken to

! assure that the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP) was

- properly carried out and to document the Region III review and evaluation of the final " Report on the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP)," dated November,1985 submitted by Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco).

Background a

The SCAP was a program of reinspections and reviews undertaken by the licensee in response to concerns regarding the overall quality of construc-

^

tion of the Braidwood Station. BCAP was developed by Ceco to provide an overall assessment of the quality of safety-related construction work at Braissood. The stated objectives of the .BCAP were to assure that:

• No unidentified or unaddressed programmatic design-significant construction problems exist;

• Onsite contractor's safety-related procedures address all applicable design and regulatory requirements; and -

i,

/ * Significant corrective actions have been adequately 1splemented and i' documented for past construction deficiencies.

! ,

'

,.-

Il'

-

'

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

.

. ..

. .

.

.~

'

To accomplish these objectives BCAP utilized the following three program

-

4 elements: .

• Construction Sample Reinspection (CSR) - a visual reinspection of a sample of safety-related construction work completed and QC accepted .

through June 30, 1984, and a review of the associated documentation; e Reverification of Procedures to Specification Requirements (RPSR) - a review of onsite contractor's installation, inspection, and personnel qualification and certification procedures for ongoing and future safety-related construction activities as of June 30, 1984; e Review of Significant Corrective Action Programs (RSCAP) - a review of methodologies, implementation, and resulting documentation associated with nine significant corrective action program The BCAP was implemented under the control of a Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) task force. A group within the Ceco Quality Assurance (QA) Depart-ment was established to conduct reviews, assessments, verifications, audits, and surveillances for the implementation of the BCAP. In addition, Ceco retained the Evaluation Research Corporation (ERC), an independent organization having no prior connection with Braidwood, to provide an .

independent overview of the BCAP progra Summary of Region III Inspections to Monitor BCAP Activities

'

Region III assigned a dedicated inspector to assure that the BCAP was properly implemented, that identified deficiencies were properly processed and evaluated, that potential adverse trends were detected, and that the results of the program were accurately documented and evaluated. Table 1 is a chronology of BCAP activities including Region III inspection activitie From August 20, 1984 to the end of June,1985, the assigned inspector was at the Braidwood site monitoring the BCAP program and the review and evaluation of identified discrepancie ,

The Region III inspection focused on key aspects of the BCAP program during its implementation. These key aspects included: education and qualification of. BCAP personnel BCAP personnel training BCAP QA Independent Expert Overview Group (IEOG) BCAP procedures, checklists, and instructions performance of CSR reinspections RPSR reverifications RSCAP reviews evaluations of discrepancies

.

-m- -...,.%_,, _ ,

. . . . .-e e+-- .- ,

.

-

4 .

_ - _ . - - - .

_ - . . _ _ _ . - _ ._ . _ , . . _ - , . . _ _ _ . - .

_ _ _ . ____ . _ _ . . . . . ._ _ _

.

. .

*

, .

• .

,

The detailed results of the Region III inspection of these key espects are delineated in the NRC inspection reports iden*.ified in Table 1. In a meery,

-

,

>

i-the inspection results indicate that the SCAP program was carried out in a J

. highly satisfactory manner. A brief discussion of each of the key aspects .

defined above follows:

.

' BCAP task force personnel, who were primarily Ceco, Stone and Webster, and Daniel Construction Company personnel, were identified as being qualified for their assigned tasks with a good balance of education '

and experience in the nuclear industr ~

l Early problems identified in the area of BCAP personnel training were l i

dealt with in an expeditious manner resulting in a well defined and well executed training progra ,

' The BCAP QA organization responded promptly and effectively to an -

- early NRC finding. Subsequent reviews of BCAP QA revealed that

- organization to be staffed with qualified individuals who performed

,

in a highly satisfactory manner.

IEOG audits reviews, and overinspections were timely and effectiv l As a result they provided a valuable overview of all aspects of the . !

BCAP progra During the initial stages of the BCAP program, BCAP procedures,

!

checklists, and instructions were subjected to an extensive amount i

'

.of scrutiny which resulted in a number of revisions to those documents.

i However, NRC inspections found that the procedures, checklists, and instructions which were utilized during the implementation of the BCAP program were comprehensive, well-organized and adequately addressed all areas of the BCAP program.

! A major focus of the NRC's inspection effort was directed towards the l'

- performance of CSR reinspections. The assigned NRC inspector observed BCAP task force reinspections, BCAP QA overinspections, and IEOG over-l inspections. In addition, the inspector reviewed the results of the NRC Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) inspection of components previously reinspected by the BCAP task force. In response to CAT and IEOG findings, the licensee suspended BCAP reinspections and initiated significant corrective actions. These corrective actions were proven effective during subsequent NRC and IEOG overviews of BCAP reinspection activities and contributed to an overall satisfactory assessment of BCAP CSR reinspections.

! RPSR checklists, generated during implementation of the RPSR element, l

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 applicable construction procedures were in compliance with

the requirements. These checklists were determined to preside an acceptable verification of Braidwood construction procedures.

.

..

h

-

_ . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ : _ . _ .__ ___ _ _ _ .. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _

- _ . _

. .

. .

,

.

-

. The final RSCAP reports regarding the nine corrective action

,{'

programs reviewed by BCAP were completed during the latter stages of the BCAP. In addition, a number of the programs were revised during the period of the RSCAP review. As a result, this element of the -

BCAP received less NRC review than the CSR and RPSR elements. The results of the NRC reviews, however, indicated that the RSCAP was l

accomplished by competent, well trained individuals who performed in an acceptable manner.

J

'

.i .

The evaluations of the discrepancies identified during the BCAP project were technically accurate and were in accordance with the

' applicable BCAP procedures. The records of the observations and their evaluations were maintained in a manner such that the complete'

,

documentation associated with a discrepancy was readily retrievabl Conclusions

'

i

,

Based upon the Region III inspections and the review of the " Report on the

'

Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP)," dated November 1985, it is concluded that the BCAP was satisfactorily prescribed and implemented .

and that the results of the BCAP provide additional confidence in the

' '

acceptability of the past, ongoing, and future construction activities at -

Braidwoo .

4 l

s

.*

-

!

.i l

!

. l

. . , 1 i

!. 6

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

_ . _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_

-

. .

.

. .

, -

.

'

,

TABLE 1

.

.

BRAIDWOOD CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

-

CHRONOLOGY OF ACTIVITIES CECO began development of BCAP February, 1984 program Ceco retained the Independent March 19, 1984 -

, Expert Overview Group (IE0G)

June 8, 1984 Ceco presented the BCAP program to the NRC at a public meeting

,

June 11, 1984 Formation of the SCAP task force was started ,

June 22, 1984 Ceco submitted the BCAP program document to the NRC ,

July 27,1984 - The NRC provioed comments on the BCAP program document to Ceco August, 1984 BCAP task force liittistss RSCAP activities Ceco submits response to NRC August 30, 1984 comments September 6, 1984 The first monthly BCAP public meeting was held at the Mazon

Emergency Offsite Facility (E0F) to discuss the BCAP, its progress and the IEOG's ,

review of the SCAP September 10, 1984 The first Progress Report concerning BCAP activities ,

was issued by the NRC. The  !

report covered the period  ;

of August 20 through August 31,  !

1984. Progress reports were I

issued between the normal l

]

'

monthly inspection reports to infom NRC management of ongoing BCAP activities and issue .

ABCAPprokiressreportwas September 17, 1984 issued by the MC for the '

-

period of September 4-14, 1964

. . . _ . .__ . . _ . , ~ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ . . __ _

___- _ _ _ __._ _ ._ ,_. _ . - _

, ~- . - - . . _ - -

. .

,

'

._

'

.

.

'

'.

_

October 4, 1984 -

~

The monthly SCAP pubile meeting

.i *

was held at the Maron EOF

'

October 4,1984 Region III Inspection Reports

' No. 50-456/84-25; 50-457/84-24 -

was issued to document the results of the NRC inspection effort regarding BCAP October 5, 1984 BCAP task force initiates CSR

-

reinspections

,

October 10, 1984 A SCAP progress report was issued by the NRC for the period of September 24 through October 5, 1984 '

.

October 30, 1984 Region III Inspection Reports No. 50-456/84-30; 50-457/84-28 was issued to document the

,

results of the NRC inspection

':

effort regarding BCAP -

October 30, 1984 A BCAP progress report was issued by the NRC for the period of October 9-19, 1984

'

November 8, 1984 The monthly BCAP public meeting was held at the Mazon EOF November 27, 1984 A BCAP progress report was issued by the NRC for the

,

period of November 13-23, 1984 December 6, 1984 The monthly BCAP public

,

meeting was held at the Mazon EOF December 10, 1984 Region III Inspection Reports No. 50-456/84-32; 50-457/84-30 i

was issued to document the

,

results of the NRC inspection l effort regarding BCAP A BCAP progress report was

'

December 19, 1984 issued by the NRC for the period of December 3-14, 1984 The monthly BCAP public January 3,1985 seeting was held at the i ,

Mazon'E0F l

. !-

-l

.- . - - . - - . - _ - . . . - . . - . - - - - -. -

- - - - . -

.- . . .. _ _ _ - _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .

.

. .

.

.

~ Region III Inspection Reports

.

January 10, 1985 ..

No. 50-456/04-37; 50-457/04-37

-

T ~ was issued to document the results of the NRC inspection 4*

effort regarding BCAP ,

< A BCAP progress report was January 22, 1985 issued by the NRC for the ,

i peciod of January 7-18, 1985 January 31, 1985 BCAP task force initiates RPSR activitie Region III Inspection Reports February 13, 1985 No. 50-456/85-02; 50-457/85-02 was issued to document the

. results of the NRC inspection effort regarding BCAP The monthly BCAP public February 14, 1985 meeting was held at the

+ Region III office in ,

Glen Ellyn A BCAP progress report was i,

March 1, 1985 issued by the NRC for the period of February 8-22, 1985

<

.

Region III Inspection Reports March 8, 1985 No. 50-456/85006; 50-457/85006 was issued to dociment the results of the NRC inspection effort regarding BCAP

' The monthly BCAP public March 14, 1985 meeting was held at the Mazon EOF

.

Region III Inspection Reports April 11,1985 No. 50-456/85012; 50-457/85012 was issued to document the results of the NRC inspection effort regarding BCAP The monthly BCAP public i April 11,1985 meeting was . held at the  !

Mazon EOF l A BCAP progress report was l April 12,1985 issued by the NRC for the 1 period of March 8-22, 1985

.

!

)

,

'

.

l .

A BCAP progress report was ,

i

April 25,1985 issued by the IWtc for the l period of April 8-19, 1985 ,

I

)' i

' 9 f

- _ - - - - _ - - - - -- -_- ,- . -- - - - - . - - - - - - - -

. . .

.

.

. .. ,

• Region III Inspection Reports

,

, May 16, 1985 -

No. 50-456/85018; 50-457/85019 was issued to document the results of the NRC inspection

,

effort regarding BCAP .

A BCAP progress report was May 30, 1985 issued by the NRC for the period of May 6-17, 1985 Region III Inspection Reports June 11, 1985 No. 50-456/85025; 50-457/85026

-

was issued to document the results of the NRC inspection effort regarding BCAP ,

"

.

RPSR reviews were cc:nplete June 13, 1985 CSR reinspections were June 24, 1985 completed The monthly BCAP public -

June 25,1985 meeting was held at the Region III office in Glen Ellyn The final BCAP progress report June 27, 1985 was issued by the NRC for the period of June 3-14, 198 . Region III Inspection Reports July 9,1985 No. 50-456-85030; 50-457/85029 was issued to document the results of the NRC inspection effort regarding BCAP Region III Inspection Reports i

'

September 4,1985 No. 50-456/85019; 50-457/85020 was issued to document the results of the NRC inspection effort regarding BCAP (the sole open item regarding BCAP was subsequently closed in Inspection Reports No. 50-456/85040; 50-457/85039)

The final monthly BCAP October 15, 1985 public meeting was held at the Region III office

,in' Glen Elly .

< ee e

e

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

- _ _

.- - - - - _ . -. .-. _ . . .

. .

.

January D , 1986 Region 111 Inspection Reports

. ( No. 50-456/85054; 80-457/85052 was issued to document the results of the NRC inspection

-

,

effort regarding BCAP Exit Interview i The inspector met with licensee and contractor representatives denoted in Section 1 during and at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the scope and results of the inspection and discussed theN likely content of this inspection report. The licensee acknowledged the infomation and did not indicate that any of the information disclosed during the inspection could be considered proprietary in natur ~ Functional or Program Areas Inspected ,

c The details of this inspection are documented in Sections I and I Section I documents the review and closure of previous inspection '

'

findings.Section II documents the results of the review of electrical

.

8 CAP discrepancie .

Attachments:

1. Ltr from CECO to J. G. Keppler dtd 9/5/85 2. Ltr from Ceco to J. G. Keppler

,

dtd 10/18/85

<

i

.

. .

_

.

,- .

.

. .

O

t i

ha

]i 1}

___ _. _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ .._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . .. _ _ . _

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

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ,

'

.

~

'

. .

-

i

[

r

-

.

'

SECTION I

-

l Prepared by R. N. Gardner ,

t

'

l Reviewed by W. Little, Director, Braidwood Project 1 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings

(Closed) Noncompliance (50-456/85006-01(s); bu-45//tssuue-uhuj): ine licensee invalidated 37 BCAP observations even though the documented basis for the invalidation of the observations did not support the invalidations. The inspector reviewed the final status of the 37

,

observations and observed that each observation was identified as a valid observation. The inspector also observed that NCR 6124 had been initiated by the licensee in accordance with the BCAP requirements for valid observations. In addition, the inspector reviewed the BCAP QA

,

' records which document the results of the BCAP QA review of approxi-U mately 5200 invalidated BCAP observations. The records indicate that

'

BCAP QA identified comments requiring resolution for 24% of the .

reviewed observations. The BCAP QA review resulted in a marked

' improvement in the documented justifications for invalid observations.'

'

This item is closed.

..

!' (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-456/85-02-03; 50-457/85-02-03): BCAP

!

reinspection deficiencies were identified by the NRC Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) and the Independent Expert Overview Group (IEOG).

l As stated in NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-456/85-02 and 50-457/85-02, t

the licensee suspended BCAP reinspections and initiated a program which included the partial repeat reinspection of 160 previously

' reinspected mechanical pipe supports, the review of 51 electrical conduit support packages, the implementation of additional training i for BCAP inspectors, and the revision and clarification of BCAP

,

checklists and instruction During this inspection, the results of the BCAP QA Reinspection Evaluation were reviewed. This evaluation compared BCAP QA

.

everinspection results with BCAP task force reinspection result The nimber of QA overinspection agreements or disagreements with the BCAP task force reinspection results provided an additional indicator of i BCAP task force inspector performance. The acceptance criteria for comparisons between the BCAP task force and BCAP QA was established as

,

95% for objective attributes and 90% for subjective attributes. Of the

' 35 BCAP task force. inspectors evaluated, all but two inspectors received a rating which exceeded the acceptance criteria. One of the inspectors received a 94.1% objective rating (98% subjective) while another inspector received an 85.SX subjective rating (985 abjective).

,

.

Records indicate that the 94.1% objective. rating was based on 16 abjective agreement calls out of 17 possible calls. The licensee stated that the single disagreement was attributed to an inspection

! / error which the licensee concluded was an isolated occurrence. Records i s further indicate that the 85.55 subjective rating was based on 100

. i subjective agreement calls out of 117 possible calls. The inspector entermined that 35 of the 17 disagreements were' associated with one

! !-

>.

-_-.____._m._..,., - , _ _ _ . . _ ~ , _ _ , _ , . _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ , - _ _ _ _ . -

- - . - . -. - - - - - ---

-

. . .

,

,

, . l

'

l .

I

reinspection package and pertained to DCAP task force acceptance of en Anf5 weld attribute which BCAP QA subsequently identified as being

.

I not applicable (N/A). For these 16 disagreements no QA observation was required since no hardware deficiencies were identified. The *

remaining disagreement did result in a valid observation; however, the '

,

licensee considered this disagreement to not reflect the need for an

'

expansion of the overinspection The corrective actions taken by the licensee in response to the CAT x findings and the IEOG find 1ngs were prompt, ano effecuve. Ime corrective actions were proven effective during subsequent NRC and

,

. IEOG overviews of BCAP reinspection activities and contributed to an l

overall satisfactory assessment of the 8 CAP reinspection effort -

(Inspection Reports No. 50-456/85030 and 50-457/85029). The BCAP QA

j Reinspection Evaluation provides additional confidence in the adequacy

of the BCAP CSR reinspections. This item is close (Closed) Noncompliance (50-456/85006-01(A); 50-457/85006-01(A))

Failure of the licensee to identify, as a nonconforming condition,

[ the use of Level I inspectors who inspected and accepted constructi_on activities. This noncompliance is withdrawn based on the subsequent -

',

,

disclosure that the licensee had written an observation. This information was not made known to the NRC inspector at the time of the

inspectio ,(Closed) Open Item (50-456/85-012-01; 50/457/85-012-01): Due to

<

concerns with the Sargent and Lundy (S&L) BCAP review process the Inspection and Enforcement (IE) QA Branch would conduct a review of

.

the S&L discrepancy evaluations. Based upon subsequent satisfactory IE QA Branch reviews of S&L discrepancy evaluations (for other' facilities)

and also based upon the extensive Region III review of this matter, no

'

additional inspections of the S&L BCAP review process are deemed necessary. This item is closed.

l

l

<

.

.

,

O r

.

t '-

'. }

<

i+ .

.- - - - - - - - -- .- -.- . . .- - - - ~_ . . - - - . - -

. .

.

. , . . .

,

.

.

.. ..

'

!

'

Section II

.

.( ,

,

Prepared by Z. Falevits and R. Mendez

,

-

!

F Reviewed by J. Muffett, Chief, Plant Systems Section.

l a. Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP) Review i Ceco's implemeniet. ion of DCAP disc 10:ed a number of generic and

isolated discrepant items. These discrepa,ncies were potential

'

violations or deviations from specifications and design drawing requirements. The licensee attributed the cause of nonconfomances to contractor personnel not performing work in strict conformance with specifications and procedural requirements, and QC personnel not identifying the deviations subsequent to the inspection. In addition,

-

!,

', the licensee noted that construction activities have affected the status of the installations since the inspections were complete .

The inspectors conducted an inspection both at the Architect Engineers offices and in the field to determine whether the program in the Electrical area identified field deficiencies in the sample population and whether the engineering resolutions to the identified deficiencies ' were properly performed.

i Sargent and Lundy (S&L) engineers performed an analysis and evaluation ,

l by comparing the identified discrepancies with established design i'

' paramstars, tolerances and applicable industry codes and standard The S&L engineers documented the results and conclusions of these l

evaluations which were arrived ~at either by actual' calculations or by engineering judgemen l In the electrical area the licensee determined that of the total number of observations, approximately 70% were insignificant, 30%

were notable and none were design significant. The licensee defined l

" design significance" as a discrepancy which would impair the item's l'- ability to perform its intended safety functio l~

The inspectors reviewed the electrical BCAP inspection checklists

! which contained the following cable attributes: cable identification, cable type and size, cable routing, bending and training radius,

,

l i

separation of cables in air and inside electrical equipment, cable

! termination,t,plice and cable damage. The inspectors selected the

!

following electrical BCAP observations for review of S&L evaluation

!

results and proposed corrective action:

j Observation N ,

f CSR - I-E-C8L-002-02 CSR - I-E-C8L-017-03 CSR - I-E-C8L-018-01 .

'- ~

CSR - I-E-C8L-020-01 . ,

.

l

. _____ _-- _ _ _ _ __

.-- - .. . -

. . . .-. . .

.. -.

'

. . ,

!. ,

. . . ,

,

' '

,.

'

.r

'

CSR - I-E-CSL-021-278 CSR - I-E-CBL-022-01

,'

-

,

CSR - I-E-C8L-022-116

- CSR - I-E-C8L-022-901 .

CSR - I-E-C8L-031-01 CSR - I-E-CBL-034-02 CSR - I-E-C8L-039-01 CSR - I-E-CBL-040-01 CSR - I-E-C8L-046-02

.

eee - t e-cR!-OA9-112

CSk - 5-E-CBL-050-01 CSR - I-E-C8L-050-02 CSR - I-E-C8L-058-01

' CSR - I-E-C8L-060-01 CSR - I-E-C8L-105-01 CSR - I-E-CBL-110-02

-

'

CSR - I-E-CBL-111-01 CSR - I-E-C8L-112-02 l

CSR - I-E-C8L-116-01 CSR - I-E-CBL-117-01 .

.

CSR - I-E-C8L-119-01 .

CSR - I-E-CBL-119-02 CSR - I-E-C8L-132-03 -

CSR - I-E-C8L-134-02 CSR - I-E-CBL-138-01 CSR - I-E-C8L-138-02

,

!-

- CSR - I-E-C8L-140-01 CSR - I-E-C8L-145-02 CSR - I-E-C8L-147-01

,

'

CSR - I-E-C8L-149-02 l

CSR - I-E-CBL-153-02 l

CSR - I-E-C8L-154-01 CSR - I-E-C8L-155-01

,

>

'

l CSR - I-E-C8L-157-01 CSR - I-E-C8L-158-01 l

! CSR - I-E-CBL-160-01 .

CSR - I-E-EIN-112-02

CSR - I-E-EIN-116-01 CSR - I-E-EIN-122-02

CSR - I-E-EIM-126-02 CSR - I-E-EIN-127-02 CSR - I-E-EIN-131-01 CSR - I-E-EIN-134-02 In addition, the inspectors reviewed the following separation f

'

interface analysis for completeness, engineering evaluations and judgements and technical accuracy: '

,

, .

(1) IRR IMS032-1, dated July 15, 1985 , '

(2) IRR IM029-1, dated July 15, 1985,

./

(3) IRR IM5027-1,' dated July 15, 1985' ,

(4) IRR IEF073-1, dated July 30, 1985 ,,

,

' 2

i

,

. - . .-- .

. - __ . . . . .

.

.

. .

.

'

. . . .

.

, -

The inspector's review and examination of the selected 1 CAP

.i observations and the $4L analysis, evaluation and proposed corrective action did not reveal any safety significant discrepancies. The evaluation of discrapancies found by BCAP was found acceptable both -

procedurally and technicall On March 5 and 6, 1986, the inspectors conducted a visual field inspection to examine the following selected BCAP observations:

CSR - I-E-CBL-111, 002, 017, 018, 020, 021, 022, 031, 034, 039, 040, 049, Ill. 116, 119, 134, 147, 157, 158, 160 and CSR - I-E-EIN-112

• 4:nd 116. The inspectors verified tiit the above chtsrvations wer*

.

'

properly dispositioned and that sosie were reworked at the licensee's option. Some discrepancies between drawings and hardware were observed but were determined to be outside the scope of BCAP sample population. These discrepancies will be followed up in a subsequent inspectio ,

No other discrepancies or deviations were identified.

,

e i I i

e

% I

-

!

r I

t

'A ,

4

'i

.,

,

i' '

i o

e