ML20024A490
| ML20024A490 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1983 |
| From: | Whicher J BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FOR THE PUBLIC INTERES, DEKALB AREA ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ROCKFORD, IL, SINNISSIPPI ALLIANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (SAFE) |
| To: | Callahan A, Cole R, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| 830613, NUDOCS 8306170371 | |
| Download: ML20024A490 (17) | |
Text
m _-
9 BPI DA
~
Business and Professional People for the Public Interest
, 109 North
Dearborn Street,
Suite 1300 . Chicago, Illinois 60602
- Telephone: (312) 6415570 j
June 13, 1983 Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . .g o)
__. _~
Washington, D.C. 20555 y g Dr. A. Dixon Callahan / $'/'F Administrative Judge Union Carbide Corporation
(?]!.r,I '# M
-i 16 E P.O. Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee O> US g 38730
_ gfg get S Dr. Richard F. Cole 9/. -
Administrative Judge ' hI]T.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
Dochet No. 50-454 and 50-455
Dear Administrative Judges:
The enclosed Region III inspection report was received by this office today. It contains support for Joint Inter-venors position that Commonwealth Edison has neither the willingness nor the ability to maintain an effective quality assurance / quality control program.
Your attention is particularly drawn to the following:
- 1. The iten of noncompliance concerns interim use of lead auditors who are not certifiable under ANSI 45.2.23 (passim).
( '"' ' 3
,",,,,,,,, C' ",0:' O.*O". ,,'#-' 'Ci"L "
~~
=J c5="
- ra,=, :=::=, , , , _ , , OA,h".6 ,,,
- - - .- -- ~
02 a*C",, "
2.* L.
E'%.'W ?T".1 J,
== "0.71##
- "r ..,'" 07..*.'*"'"""*
tm :=-
- '."*c."''
- o. O.E'""~
a- ~
c, M ,,,, s, % . o o.no u. ~,. s e ; ;. ;. ,..
" ~ -
EW. a ScP.*^'.o, l'
C.h"e:'* , Dn'.1% '."l.A lL, n,_ t t ,,., a- a,.. -..
sm. t. ,
sot Y m . ..,,F .,weel M4,h c , e.cD V.M,.. J.m O W.to re,,-a ^J "- gi, ~
,, M ,,oo W , 4,,,,,, gan,,, g gg,,,
L era D Fenne, John L Mc%nt W.yn. W Wh.4n 8306170371 830613 PDR ADOCK 05000454 G PDR e n
7
- 2. This appears to be standard Commonwealth Edison practice at all sites. (cover letter at p.1; Notice of Violation at p.5).
This information is being provided pursuant to the disclosure requirements of Duke Power Company (William B.
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB - 143, 6 AEC623, 625(1973) .
Very truly yours, 4C . k, T OK Jane M. Whicher, attorney for the Rockford League of Women Voters and DAARE/ SAFE on all issues and matters relating to quality assurance /
quality control JMW/ll encl.
cc: See attached service list
k O
4 SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Administrative Judge Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Uashington, D.C. 20555 Commission
- Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callahan Office of the Secretary of Administrative Judge the Commission Union Carbide Corporation ATTN: Docketing & Service P.O. Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee Section 38730 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge David Thomas, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 77 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 60621 Washington, D.C. 20555 Alan P. Bielawski, Esq. Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Isham Lincoln & Beale Th ree Firs t National Plaza Isham Lincoln & Beale Chicago, IL 60603 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
P om 325 Unshington, D.C. 20036 Ms. Betty Johnson 1907 St rat ford Lane Ro ck fo rd, IL 61107 i
I
~
f o UNITE 2 STATES
/ o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- i nEoionsii 799 ROOSEVELT ROAO GLEN ELLYN,ILLINOl8 60137 gg 311983 j N1 2
.' e
, 3 Docket No. 50-454 , f '
fi in .: 'N' Commonwealth Edison Company 11 'I Se i n ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed Vice President
.(_.
y "nR?'3 i'
.gf L ' ,p Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 V ( Cg N .
"ddb Gentlemen: ~~
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. R. S. Love of this office on March 21-25, and April 4-8, 1983, of activities at Byron Station authorized by NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-130 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. G. Sorensen at the conclusion of the inspection.
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 personnel. ,
During this inspection, certtin of your activities appeared to be in non-compliance with NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Appendix.
A written response is required. Information gathered in this inspection indicates that the use of interim lead auditors who are not certifiable per ANSI 45.2.23 may be common practice at Ceco construction sites. Please include in your response to the item of noncompliance a discussion of the extent of this practice at all CECO sites, including steps being taken to remedy the problem. Also, include in your response the steps you plan to take to assure that audits conducted by non-certifiable lead auditors were properly conducted.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure (s) will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the re-quirements of 2.790(b)(1). If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, a copy of this letter, the enclosure (s), and your response to this letter will be placed in the Public Document Room.
g .
2 Commonwealth Edison Company gggg 311983 The responses directed by this letter (and the accompanying Notice) are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, W. S. Little, Chief Engineering Branch II
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix, Notice of Violation
- 2. Inspection Report No. 50-454/83-16(DE) cc w/encls:
D. L. Farrar, Director of Nuclear Licensing V. I. Schlosser, Project Manager .
Gunner Sorensen, Site Project Superintendent R. E. Querio, Station Superintendent DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII Byron Resident Inspector, RIII Braidwood Philip L. Willman, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division Reed Neuman, Esq., Assistant Attorney General i Ms. Jane M. Whicher Diane Chavez, DAARE/ SAFE l
l i
i L _ - , ,
- . . , - - + . - .
r M ~
4 Appendix NOTICE OF VIOLATION ,
Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-454 As a result of the inspection conducted on March 21-25, and April 4-8, 1983, and in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982), the following violation was identified:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criteriot. II, states, in part, "The program shall provide for indoctrination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality as necessary to assure that suitable proficiency is achieved and main-tained."
Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) letter, L. O. De1 George to D. G. Eisenhut, U.S. NRC, Director, Division of Licensing, dated August 17, 1981, affirmed CECO commitment to Regulatory Guide 1.146, August 1980 and ANSI N45.2.23-1978 as required by Generic Letter 81-01.
ANSI N45.2.23-1978, paragraph 2.3, states, "An individual shall meet the re-quirements of paragraphs 2.3.1 through 2.3.5 prior to being designated a lead auditor."
ANSI N45.2.23-1978, paragraph 2.3.1, states, in part, " Education and Experience.
The prospective lead auditor shall have verifiable evidence that a minimum of ten (10) credits under the following scoring system have been accumulated.
Education (4 credit maximum). Experience ( 9 points maximum). Other credent-fals of professional competence (2 credit maximum). Rights of Management (2 points maximum).
Contrary to the above, the Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance Lead Auditor performing the Power-Azco-Pope audit was not adequately qualified
- and/or trained to perform lead auditor functions. Details of apparent non-compliance to the above requirements are delineated in paragraph 3. A. (1) of the attached report.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each item of noncompliance: (1) corrective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
//d s?7 /f/3 Datepf /
/ dWN8 V. S. Liftle, fChief
~
V Engineering Branch II A
~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Report No. 50-454/83-16(DE)
Docket No. 50-454 License No. CPPR-130 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Byron Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Byron Site, Byron, IL Inspection Conducted: March 21-25 and April 4-8, 1983.
Inspector Love x
' f/
' /'
Approved By'-
' Plant Systems Section ief f/ 7 9
' /
Inspection Summary Inspection Areas on March 21-25 and April 4-8, 1983 (Report No. 50-454/83-16(DE))
Inspected:
Review of licensee action on previously identified items.
Reviewed installation of instrument sensing lines, installation and ters-ination of instrumentation cables, and the review of associated procedures and records.
NRC inspector. This inspection involved a total of 69 inspection-hours by one Results:
identified.In the areas inspected, one potential item of noncompliance was The licensee failed to assure that CECO lead auditors were properly qualified and certified (Paragraph 3.A.(1)).
-,o u DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)
- G. Sorensen, PCD Construction Superintendent
- R. Tuetkon, PCD Assistant Construction Superintendent
- J. T. Westermeier, PED Project Engineer
- M. A. Stanish, QA Superintendent
- R. B. Klingler, Staff Assistant
- P. T. Myrda, QA Supervisor
- R. A. Westberg, QA Engineer
- A. J. Rosenbach, QA Inspector
- F. A. Hazzini, QA Engineer
- M. E. Lohmann, PCD Mechanical Supervisor
- K. J. Hansing, QA Supervisor
- E. Sager, Field Engineer
R. P. Larkin, QA Manager R. C. Schulz, Project Manager
- D. M. Nelson, QC Supervisor
- M. C. Donohoe, Engineering Manager .
Hatfield Electric Company (KECo)
T. Hill, QA/QC Manager J. D. Spangler, Lead Welding Inspector (PTL)
R. Quias, Welding Inspector (PTL)
G. A. Cason, QC Lead Inspector (PTL)
Westinghouse
- M. D. Pitlyuk, Manager
- G. L. Laughlin, Engineer The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee and con-tractor personnel during this reporting period.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on March 25, 1983.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on April 8, 1983.
- 2. Action on Previously Identified Items (CLOSED) Noncompliance (50-454/80-25-13): This item pertained to the failure to apply hold tag on items identified on CECO Nonconformance Report (NCR) F-529. This NCR identified the fact that the cable tray 2
g stiffener welds did not meet the requirements of AWS D1.1 and the purchase order specifications. Weld profile maps were prepared on cable tray stiffner welds that did not meet the acceptance criteria. The design engineer, Sargent and Lundy (S&L), performed an analysis on the identified weld and with a few exceptions, found that the welds met the design intent. The welds that did not meet the design intent were repaired by the electrical contractor. Paragraphs 3.10.3.2.2.a.1 of the FSAR was revised by Amendment 41, February 1983, to state, " Deviations from the AWS requirements for specific weldments are made on the basic of design calculations." This item is closed.
(CLOSED) Unresolved Item (50-454/81-16-03; 50-455/81-12-03): Hatfield procedures did not address methods to verify that maximum cable pulling tension had not been exceeded when small cables were pulled. S&L drawing 6E-0-3000B, Sheets I thru 5, and Hatfield Procedure No. 10 were revised to address the required precautions to be taken when small cables are pulled. This item is closed.
(CLOSED) Unresolved Item (50-454/81-16-04; 50-455/81-12-04): This item identified that the safety-related switches, instruments, recorders, etc., in the main control room were not distinctly identified as being in the protection system. Paragraph 8.3.1.3.3 of the FSAR identifies the fact that the switches, instruments, records, etc. in the main control room would not be color-codes to identify the items as being in the protective system. This item is closed.
(CLOSED) Noncompliance (50-454/82-05-09b; 50-455/82-04-09b): This item identified that ECo procedure number 6 did not address corrective action to prevent recurrence when a nonconformance or deviation was identified.
! Procedure 6, Revision 11, dated October 9,1982, now addresses corrective action to prevent recurrence. A review of ECo NCRs indicates that the procedure is being implemented. This item is closed.
(CLOSED) Noncompliance (50-454/82-05-09c; 50-455/82-04-09c): This item identified that ECo procedures did not address the precautions to be taken to prevent exceeding maximum cable sidewall pressure during cable installation. Also, this procedure did not address cable rework. ECo Procedure 10, Revision 19, dated February 14, 1983, satisfactorly addresses cable rework and steps to be taken so as not to e::cced cable sidewall pressure. This item is closed.
{ (CLOSED) Noncompliance (50-454/82-05-11d; 50-455/82-04-11d): This item identifies that PAP procedure QC-4 did not address corrective action to prevent recurrence when a nonconfor.aing condition was identified. PAP Procedure QC-4, Revision 10, dated Spetember 21, 1982, satisfactorly addresses corrective action'to prevent recurrence. This item is closed.
l (CLOSED) Open Item (50/454/82-05-12; 50-455/83-04-12): This item identi-fied that CECO NCRs were remaining open for an extended period of time.
[
A review of the identified NCRs indicates that a concerted effort has i
been made to implement the disposition and close these NCRs. The Ceco PCD Staff Assistant is implementing a tracking system to expedite the closure of NCRs. This item is closed.
3
w (CLOSED) Noncompliance (50/454/82-05-13; 50/455/82-04-13): This item identified that NCRs were being improperly closed / voided by CECO and HECo. Improperly closed / voided NCRs were reopened by preparing a new NCR. These NCRs were then properly closed and procedure were revised so as to mitigate the possibility of this situation re-occuring. This item is closed.
(CLOSED) Open Item (50-454/82-05-15; 50-455/82-04-15): This item identi-fied that there was not a procedure inplace that addressed the installa-tion of covers on cable tray and risers. HEco Procedure 9C, Revision 1, was prepared to address the installation of cable tray and riser covers in accordance with S&L drawings. This item is closed.
(CLOSED) Unresolved Item (50-454/82-05-16; 50-455/82-04-16): This item identified that HECo procedure 9E did not meet the requirements of IEEE-384 as relating to marking of cable tray risers. Procedure 9E, Revision 10 Paragraph 5.3.1, now requires risers to be identified every 15'. This is in accordance with IEEE-384. Inspection Reports for the retro-fit of riser markers were reviewed by the inspector. This item is closed.
(CLOSED) Unresolved Item (50-454/82-17-01; 50-455/82-12-01): This item identified the possibility of QC inspectors inspecting items that they had installed or worked on. Hunter, HECo, and PAP are utilizing craft personnel as QC inspectors. These contractors reviewed their records and determined that no QC inspector had final inspected his own work.
This item is closed.
- 3. Functional or Program Areas Inspected A. Powers-Azco-Pope (PAP)
(1) The Region III inspector reviewed the last three CECO audits of PAP, (PAP is the licensee's non-electrical instrumentation installation contractor). These audits were conducted on June 8 thru 10, 1982, December 15 thru 21, 1982, and February 1 thru 4, 1983. The findings and concerns identified during the audits were corrected by PAP.
During the review of Ceco audit reports, the Region III inspector observed that the CECO lead auditor that performed the PAP l
audit was classified as an Interim Lead Auditor. The auditor's qualification and certification records contained a letter from the Byron Station Quality Assurance Superintendent to the CECO Manager, Quality Assurance. This letter (BY8067, August 24, l
1982) was a request for Interim Lead Auditor Certification for the subject auditor. However, the letter indicated that the lead auditor candidate, based on education, experience, etc,...
had accumulated eight (8) points to date. This is less than the minimum of 10 credit points specified by ANSI N45.2.23-1978.
Moreover, an approved procedure allowing the use of lead auditors l
who do not meet the minimum requirements of the referenced code 4
o
-n was not available. This letter received the concurrence of the CECO Manager, Quality Assurance on August 26, 1982.
Interim Lead Auditor Certification is not addressed in the CECO Quality Assurance Manual, CECO Topical Report *(CE-1-A),
nor in ANSI N45.2.23-1978. CECO letter, L. O. DelGeorge to D. G. Eisenhut, U.S. NRC, Director, Division of Licensing, dated August 17, 1981, affirmed CECO commitment to Regulatory Guide 1.146, August 1980 and ANSI N45.2.23-1978 as required by Generic Letter 81-01.
During interviews with Byron Station Quality Assurance personnel, including site Quality Assurance Superintendent, the Region III inspector was informed that it has been standard practice within CECO to certify an individual as an Interim Lead Auditor when he/she does not meet the qualifications of a Lead Auditor.
The licensee was informed that failure to assure that Lead Auditors were trained, qualified, and certified in accordance with the CECO Quality Program and ANSI N45.2.231978, was an item of noncompliance in accordance with Criterion II of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B (50-454/83-16-01),
(2) During this reporting period, the Region III inspector reviewed three CECO Material Receiving Reports (MRR) for material to be installed in the safety-related instrumentation system by PAP.
Following are the results of this review:
(a) MRR-50225 was for 3/8" x 1/2" U-bolts. The original purchase order stated that three U-bolts were to be manu-factured to the ASME Code,Section III, Subsections NF-2130 and NF-2150, 1974 edition through summer 1975 Addenda. The Code edition and addenda was revised (CECO letter to Elcen Metal Products company, December 12, 1979) to read, 1977 edition through summer 1977 addenda. Certi-ficate of Conformance, September 2, 1980, stated that the 3/8" x 1/2", SA-36, Ratch / Lot No. A000812A, U-bolts meet the requirements of Subsection NF of the 1977 ASME Code through 1977 addenda.
(b) MRR-50554 was for 81 safety-related pressure gauges per Purchase Order 247695. Certificate of Conformance, July 10, 1981, was in the documentation package. Engineer-ing qualification tests (environmental, radiation, seismic, etc.) have been submitted to Sargent & Lundy for their evaluation and approval.
(c) MRR-52904 was for 3 safety-related Rosemount 1153 pressure transmitters per Purchase Order 261620. Certificate of l Conformance, September 21, 1982, was in the documentation package. Preliminary qualification test data to the re-quirements of IEEE-323 and IEEE-344 has been submitted to 5
CECO. This data indicates that the pressure transmitter will qualify to the requirements of IEEE-323 and IEEE-344.
Final test data is being prepared by Wyle Laboratories.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this irea.
(3) During this reporting period, the Region III inspector reviewed the following PAP procedures:
. FP-1, Document and Drawing Control, Revision 5
. FP-2, Control of Procurement and Requesitioning of Material and Services, Revision 9
. FP-4, Material Storage, Revision 6
. FP-5, Weld Filler Material Control, Revision 10
. FP-12, Cold Bending of Pipe and Tube, Revision 6
. FP-13, Hanger Installation and Control, Revision 9
. FP-16, Identification and Marking of Pipe and Components, Revision 8 The above listed procedures appeared to be adequate.
(4) During this reporting period, the Region III inspector reviewed the installation of the instrument sensing lines for the following instruments:
(a) 1 FT-0434 - Loop "C" flow, instrument mounted on panel IPL66J, located in the Containment Building at 377' elevation between Radius 1 and 2. The instrument .
sensing lines were installed in accordance with drawings T4-1FT-0434, Sheets 1,~2, and 3 and were identified in accordance with Field Change Request (FCR) 15437. This FCR modified specification F-2906. The installation and separation appeared to be adequate.
(b) 1 LT-548 and 1 LT-549 - Redundant level transmitters for Steam Generator No. 4. During a walk down of the sensing lines for these instruments, the Region III inspector observed that there was caly a 2" separation (18" required) between the sensing lines near hangers ILT548H135-12 and ILT549H136-7. The licensee's instrumentation installa-tion contractor (PAP) prepared Fabrication / Installation
! Surveillance Report No. 992, March 24, 1983, to document the separation violation identified by the NRC.
In accordance with FCR-15437, the licensee has instituted a program to identify instrument sensing line separation violations for Containment Building safety-related RPS sensing lines:
h PAP prepares as-built drawing of the installation and submits these drawings to Westinghouse Electric Corporation-Nuclear Technology Division (WNTD) for review.
6
_.s - __
-,y -
2 I
- 2. Utilizing their computer system, ENTD reviews the as-built drawings for separation violations.
Violations are then analyzed on a case by case basis to determine acceptability and/or provide recommended resolutions.
To confirm that this method of analysis will in fact identify separation violations, the Region III inspector requested that a computer run be made on the sensing lines for instruments ILT-548 and ILT-549. Note the full computer run for instrument sensing lines for Unit #1 is scheduled for June 1983. The inspector also requested that ENTD be provided the information on the separation violation observed.
During the week of April 4-8, 1983, ENTD performed an analysis on the subject sensing lines. This analysis indicated a separation of 3", center to center, in the same area identified by the Region III inspector.
Pending a review of the Unit #1 final separation analysis by ENTD, this item is open (50-454/83-16-02).
(5) During this reporting period, the Region III inspector reviewed the installation and inspection documentation and as-built drawings for the following instrument sensing lines:
(a) Pressurized level transmitter ILT-0460 Installation drawing T146-ILT-0460, Sheet 1 of 4, Revision 5; Sheet 2 of 4, Revision 6; Sheet 3 of 4, Revision 6; and Sheet 4 of 4, Revision 8.
As a result of a previously identified item of noncom-pliance (Reference 454/82-05-19; 455/83-04-19), PAP has instituted an extensive re-inspection program. During a review of the sensing line installation records for this instrument, it was observed that for Weld Numbers 1 thru 16, 8 of these welds were rejected during the re-inspection. The original wel' xaspection was performed on October 29, 1980 by Inspector "A". A review of l
Inspector A's qualification records indicated that he had been certified as a Level I weld inspector on November 1, 1980, and a Level II weld inspector on November 15, 1980.
Inspector "A" was terminated on July 8, 1981. It is the Region 'III inspectors understanding, that, as a minimum, all accessible welds inspected by Inspector "A" through April 1981 will be re-inspected. This understanding is based on interviews with licensee and contractor personnel and a review of the re-inspection program. This re-inspec-tion effort is being tracked by the item of noncompliance referenced above.
1 i
i 7 i
(b) Loop C flow transmitter IFT-0434 Installation drawing T4-1FT-0434, Sheet I of 3, Revision 4; Sheet 2 of 3, Revision 6; Sheet 3.of 3, Revision 3.
During a review of the sensing line installation records for this instrument, it was observed that Inspector "A" (Reference paragraph (5).a above) performed a visual inspection on 56 welds in this system in one day. Per the re-inspection program, these welds ate scheduled for re-inspection. It was also observed that the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) performed / observed one visual weld inspection and 6, liquid penetrant examinations (PT) on the welds in this system. The re-inspection effort for this system is being= tracked by previously identified item of' noncompliance (Reference 454/82-05-19;.455/82-04-19).
(6) Summary of PAP Re-Inspection Effort, as of Aprjl 3,1963. x x , -
(a) Asaminimum,<tNefirstthreemonthsofeachcertified inspectors (22)" work will be re-inspected. Depending upon the reject'l rate as defined in the proc'edure, the re-inspection for a given inspector's work may; encompass an additional three months or longer. s (b) The initial scope (three months per inspector) of the re-inspection ' effort has been defined.
? .
(c) Approximately 257,of the re-inspection effort has been completed. To date, April 3, 1983, 125 valid welding rejects have been identified.
B. Hatfield Electric Company (HECo)
(1) During this reporting period, the Region III inspector veri-fied the installation and, termination of instrumenation cables
~
for instrument 1FT0434, ILT0548, and ILT0549. This verifica-
~
tion consisted of!a physi n l valkdown of the cables, inspection of the terminations, and W review of the associated records.
(a) Loop C flow trassmitter 1FT-0434 is mounted on instrument rack, IF166J. Signal sent to Process I&C Protection Channel 1> Cabinet 1, Panel IPA 01J.
l 1_ . Cable IRC-723 - From transmitter-1FT-0434 to ' junction box IJB-428R. As of April 7, 198,3, this cable has not been installed. '
- 2. Cable IRC-364 - From 1JB-428R to electrical penetration E24-1S105E-1K1R. Cable type - ITW-PR #16 (ohielded),
600 volt. Reel.N9. 02166-39. Installed. December 4, 1980 to Revision'A of the pull card. Cable routing '
. + ,
I 8 ,, 1 s
1 3 -
Q_ -Q _
, is as follows: 1JB-428R, C1R-1303-1K1R, IJB-334R,
'CIR-2301-1K1R, IJB-348R, C1R-2371-1K1R, IJB-623R, C1R-4326-1K1R, 1377U-1K1R, 1359U-1K1R, terminating
'(inline splice) at electrical penetration, inside Coatainment Building. ,
3_._ Cable IRC-363 - From electrical penetration E24-IS105-
, IKIR to Panel IPA 01J. Cable type IW-PR #16 (shielded),
600 volt. Reel No. 02166-41. ' Installed April 5, 1981 to Revision 'E of the pull- card. Cable routing is as follows: inlice splice at penetration, 1823D-1K1R, 1829D-1KIR, 1973D-1K1R, 1828D-1K1R, 1827D-1K1R, IR3191 1KIR, 11885F-1K1R, 11886F-1K1R, 11887F-1K1R, 11888F-1K1R, 11889F-1K1R, 11890F-1K1R, 11891F-1K1R, 1R401-1K1R, Panel IPA 01J.
This installation was in accordance with drawings, cable pull card and S&L Cable Tabulation printout.
(b) Steam Generator No. 4 level transmitter ILT-0548. Signal to Process I&C Protection Channel 3, Cabinet 3, Panel IPA 03J.
i L Cable IFW-057 - Fron transmitter ILT-0548 to electrical penetration E51-IS107E-1K3R. Cable type - IW-PR #16 (shielded), 600 volts. Reel No. 02166-69. Installed October'21, 1982 to Revision B of the pull card.
Cable routing 'ie :as follcw:s: ILT-0548, CIR-4103.-1K3R, IJP074R, C1R-4104-1K3R, terminating at the penetra-tien, inside containment.
L 'E51-1S107E-1K3R to Panel IPA 03J.Cable Cable IW-056 - From electric Type l'lW-PR 316 (shielded), 600' volts. Reel No. 0216631.
'. Installed April 2, 1980 to Revision B of the pull
- , , card. ; Cable routing is as follows: inline splice at penetration, 1798J-1K3R, 1797J-1K3R, 1972J-1K3R,
- IC216D-1K3R, 11880A-1X3R, 11881A-1K3R, 11882A-1K3R, o 11883A-1K3R,-IR400-1K3R, Panal IPA 03J, terminal block l F, landing points 10, 11, and 12.
t
> +
- Where cable'IEV-056 enters conduit IC216D-1K1R, it 1- . was observed _that the cable jacket was damaged at N cable footage marker 4684. The shield wire was exposed
[butdidnotappeartobedamaged. The licensee's 6 electri' cal contractor, HECo, prepared NCR 597, L, h \ April (,' 1983, to document the damaged cable jacket.
j Also, du-ing the labeling of ecnduits IC216C and tLe markings were reversed on both ends of r s \ .IC216D,'
these em bedded conduits. Field Change Request (FCR) j '
, , 22863,Aprib7,1983,waspreparedtohavethiserror y
- C corrected on the a 6 built drawing. This item is open
& \ ~
G
.cvs' r
- 3. -- b .
9 s ,
. p.p l x e ~. i .
t -
J. &2
T
,N -
pe'nding a review of NCR,55t? br proper closure and review of FCR 22863 forr approval and correction of,as-built drawing (50-454/83-16-03). g Except as noted, this installation was in accordance with
' drawings, pull cards, and S&L /
Cable Tabulation printout.
s ,
s (c) Steas, Generator No. 4 level transmitter ILT-0549. Signal
, s to Piacess'I&C Protection Channel 2, Cabinet 2, Panel IPA 02J .
J. Cable 1FW-049 - From transmitter ILT-0549, Rack i
IPL57J, to electrical penetration E35-IS106E-1K2R.
\ Cable installed November 5,1981, to Revision A of s
i the pull card. Cable type - ITW-PR #16 (shielded),
600 volts. Reel No. 02166-46. Cable routing is as follows: . ILT-0549, C1R4478-1K2R, IJB088R, C1R5124- s IK2R, terminating at penetration, inside containment. / <-.
- 2. Cable IN-049 - From electrical penetration E35-IS106E-c IK2R to Panel IPA 02J. Cable installedJpril 8,1981. '
to Revision A of the pull card. Cable type ITW-PR
- 16, 600 volta. Reel No. 02166-41. Cable routing is~as follows: inline splice at penetration, ,
11458H- 1K2R , 1R364-1K2R , 1 %67H- 1K2R , 11485H- 1K2R , '
11464H-1K2R, 11418H-1K2R, 11417H-1K2R,i l1620H-1K2R, 11623H-1K2R, 11624H-1K2R, Panel IPA 02J,, terminal block J, landing points >22, 23, and;24. e .
' z. ./- /
This installation wah tirl,accoirdance witiifdrawings, s' '
pull cards, and S&L Cable Tabulation printout.
1 3 (2) Summary of HECo Re-Inspection Effort as of April 3, 1983.
H (a) As a miniamo, the first. three months of 22 certified inspectors work will be re-inspected. The 22 inspector g
equals 1 in 5 of all inspectors employeed by HECo since l
start of project. Depending upon the rejection rate as defined in the procedure, the re-inspection for a given inspector's work may encompass an additional three months or 100% of his/her work. In addition, the original sample size of inspectors may be increased 50%.
(b) The initial scope'(three months per inspector) of the re-inspection effort has been defined.
(c) Approximately 5% of the inspection effort has been completed.
- 4. Status of' Installation Effort l
Unit 1 Unit 2 Cable tray installation 100% 98%
i Conduit installation 90% 54%
10 i - .-__ - - - - .
V o
!. s Cable installation 80% 34%
Cable terminations 80% 30%
Equipment installation 100% 90%
.I p Instruments & sensing linea 98% 01%
- \
! 5. Open Iteau Open items are matters, not otherwise categorized in the report, that need to be followed up on in future inspections. Open items disclosed during g this inspection ate discussed in paragraphs 3.A.(4).b and 3.B.(1).b.2.
i _
b
- 6. -Exit Interview
~
The inspector met with ]feensee representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) on March 25 and April 8, 1983. The inspector summarized the stope and findings of the inspection. The licensee representatives acknowledged this information.
s i
e h
11