IR 05000456/1986024

Insp Repts 50-456/86-24 & 50-457/86-20 on 860625-26,0701 & 0710.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected: SER Open Items,Ie Insp Procedures 92701B,92702B & 92719 & Previously Identified Items

ML20203E361
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	07/18/1986
From:	Muffett J, Westberg R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20203E321	List: IR 05000456/1986024 ML20203E316
References
50-456-86-24, 50-457-86-20, NUDOCS 8607240134
Download: ML20203E361 (3)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report Nos. 50-456/86024(DRS); 50-457/86020(DRS)

i 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, Illinois Inspection Conducted: J 25-26, Jul 1,.and July 10, 1986 uv -

CC y

/

InspectorhR.A.Wetberg

"

~7 . I f

-

Date '

'

/ -

N Approved By: Chie 7 P #b 9)J.W.Mfet 1 ant Systems'Section Date <

/

Inspection Summary Inspection on June 25-26, July 1, and July 10, 1986 (Report Nos. 50-456/86024(DRS); 50-457/86020(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced closecut inspection of previously identified items and SER open items. IE inspection procedures reviewed during this inspection included 92701B, 92702B, and 9271 !

Results: Three previously identified items and three SER open items were closed. No violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000456 G PDR

.

.

.

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)

• M. J. Wallace, Project Manager

• C. W. Schroeder, Station Services Superintendent

• G. E. Groth, Assistant Construction Superintendent

• G. F.'Marcus, Assistant to Quality Assurance Manager

• L. E. Davis, Assistant Superintendent

• P. L. Barnes, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor

• T. W. Simpkin, Regulatory Assurance

• A. J. D' Antonio, Regulatory Assurance

• D. L. Cecchett, Regulatory Assurance

• M. Takaki, Quality Control Supervisor

• T. VanDeVoort, Quality Assurance (0perations)

• J. K. Jasnosz, Regulatory Assurance

• S. H. Stapp, Quality Assurance Inspector

• Denotes those attending the exit interview conducted on July 10, 1986 and informally at various times throughout the inspection perio . Action on Previously Identified Items (Closed) Open Item 456/82-03-03; 457/82-03-03: During a previous inspection, it was observed that it was difficult to determine when Napoleon Steel Contractors, Inc. (NSCI) Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) were closed. This item was complicated by the fact that NSCI has completed their work and left the site. Site Quality Assurance surveyed this item in December of 1984 and determined that one NCR had not been properly closed. CECO Project Construction was notified and a CECO NCR was generated to assure the implementation of corrective action. The inspector reviewed NSCI NCR No. 210, CECO NCR No. 697, and QA Surveillance No. 4059 and determined that this item had oeen adequately addresse Based on this review, this item is close (Closed) Open Item 456/84-04-02: It was previously identified that schedules and calibration dates had not been established for panel gauge The inspector reviewed Procedure No. BwHP 300-03,

" Inspection / Test / Repair of Station Fixed Instruments and Relays by Southern Division Operational Analysis Department (SD0AD),"

Revision 0, and verified the inclusion of selected gauges in the Braidwood computerized General Surveillance Program (Calibration Schedule). Based on this review, this item is close (Closed) Violation 456/85021-01; 457/85022-01: Lead inspectors designated as leads were not Level II's as required in procedure Part a. of this violation was deleted in a February 14, 1986 letter, J. J. Harrison to Cordell Reed. With respect to parts b. and c.,

L.K. Comstock issued NCR No. 4527. The inspector's review of this

0 NCR indicated that the violations were not programmatic (requirements); they were isolated cases of procedural nonconformance. Further, they were limited in nature and the performance of the QC inspections was not affected by these violations since they were perforced and reviewed by certified personnel. A review of lead inspectors certifications and areas of responsibility did not produce any further concerns. Based on its lack of safety significance and no further recurrence of similar problems, this violation is close (Closed) SER Open Item 456/8600002: " Class 1E emergency power to remote-manual isolation valves on reactor coolant pump seal injectionlines." This Safety Evaluation Report (SER) item requires the licensee to provide redundant Class 1E power to the subject valve prior to fuel loa The inspector reviewed schematic diagrams and verified that the valves were being fed from redundant motor control centers (MCCs) associated with Class 1E buses 131 and 13 . (Closed) SER Open Item 456/8600006: Verify that Class 1E power to the hydrogen recombiners and their associated suction and discharge valves comes from the same power supply. By letter, dated February 22, 1984, the NRC was notified that the present recombiner system design differed from that described in the SER. Specifically, the suction and discharge valve operators are powered from opposite division Class 1E power supplies. This arrangement prevents backflow through a failed recombiner. This item was accepted by the staff in Supplement 5 to the Byron SE (Closed) SER Open Item 456/8600012: " Electrical power distribution system voltage verification." The inspector reviewed Pre-operational Test No. BwPT-AP-16, Sections 9.1 and This test measured and documented the loaded voltage levels of the safety-related buses from the 4-KV level down to the 120V level. The test evaluation compared measured ESF bus voltages with the ESF bus voltages predicted by a computer analytical mode Acceptance criteria were met in that measured bus voltages fell within + three per cent of

,

the predicted values.

,

3. Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee and contractor representatives denoted in Paragraph 1 during and at the conclusion of the inspection on July 10, 1986. The inspector summarized the scope and results of the inspection and discussed the likely content of this inspection repor The licensee acknowledged the information and did not indicate that any of the information disclosed during the inspection could be considered proprietary in nature.

3

.__ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _