ML20055A559

Forwards Request for Addl Info to Complete Review of Rept Re Audit of Morrison Const Co Activities

ML20055A559
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	07/11/1982
From:	Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 8207190158
Download: ML20055A559 (4)

Text

. _ . . . ._ __ . . _. _ _ ._ _ __ _ _ _ .

O 1

July 11, 1982 1-Docket No. SG+373 Docket No. 50-374 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN

Mr. Cordell Reed Vice President Post Office Box 767 i Chicago, IL 60690

Subject:

Report of CECO Audit of Morrison Construction Company Activities i at the LaSalle County Nuclear Station, dated 7/8/82 a

Gentlemen:

i We received the subject report on July 9, 1982, and have concluded our pre-liminary review. We cannot complete our in-depth review to determine the effectiveness of the audit without responses to certain questions which arose as a result of the preliminary review. I have attached the questions resulting from the preliminary review, and which require response prior to the completion of the review, as Attachment A to this letter. A copy of Attachment A has been separately telecopied to the LaSalle site in its preliminary form to assist you in expediting your response.

I suggest we meet promptly to discuss thcse matters. Please let me know when your staf f will be available for such a meeting.

Sincerely, ll[rfjIiaI'$ ICE N b [ Y. O CI W

! C. E. Norelius, Director i

Division of Engineering and Technical Programs cc: Louis 0. De1 George, Director of Nuclear Licensing D. L. Shamblin, Site Construction Superintendent  !

l T. E. Quaka, Quality Assurance Supervisor R. H. Holyoak, Station Superintendent >

B. B. Stephenson, Project Manager DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)

! Resident Inspector, RIII Karen Borgstadt, Office of J

Assistant Attorney General RIII RIII o a n/np- N 1hs --

I 7/11/82 8207190158 820711 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P PDR

GENERAL

1. What was the audit method? (i.e. , number of records examined, time frame covered).

2. What is significance of 1.2% rejection rate by Independent Testing Agency?

. Did it require any anchor replacement?

3. We note that the individuals who did the torque wrench calibration and their supervisor were not contacted as part of the audit. Why?

Summary

1. What are the audit questions?

2. Page 5 - What information is available to demonstrate the cause of the audits' failures to find the problems? (People or procedures) What does the cause tell us regarding the adequacy of audits of other contractor activities?

3. Page 6, last paragraph - What is the basis for their conclusion that Quality Control personnel are knowledgable? Who did they talk to? What did they ask?

1

(

4. Page 7, Paragraph 1 - What is the sample size? What is the basis for the statement that with the exception of calibration records, all record types reviewed were complete and acceptabic? (See finding no. 7 on page 4 of Attachment A)

5. Page 7, Paragraph 2 - What evidence exists that uncalibrated or out-of-calibration equipment was not used?

6. Page 7, Item 3 - What were the specific items reviewed for each of the identified documents?

7. Page 8, Paragraph 1 - What is number of instances which are termed

" isolated"? Did these instances raise questions as to the adequacy of the equipment being calibrated? What is basis of conclusion that these were not attempts at falsification?

8. Page 9. Item 4 - What was basis for assuring that eyesight of QC inspectors is acceptable?

9. Page 9, last paragraph - What is basis of concluding the addition of initials was not an atteript to falsify? Was management aware of this practice?

10. Page 10, Item 6 ' What do "cujority" and " extremely close" mean?

i I

L l

i 2

5

. ,e

11. Page 2 of Attachment A, Finding #4 - What are the details which support these findings? What is affect of all of these discrepancies on the safety of the plant?

12. Page 3 of Attachment A, Finding #5 - What does " extremely close" mean?

13. Page 4 of Attachment A, Finding #7 - What is the sample size? Was it expanded from the original based on adverse findings? Did they assure that this was the right procedure? Regarding Item b, what does this tell us regarding the adequacy of the weld quality?

Report on Torque Wrench Certifications

1. Page 2, Paragraph 2 - Of the nine hangers with problems, did any bolts need to be replaced to perform their function? Why did they only look at four hanger assemblies?

2. Page 3, Item III - What is basis for conclusion that test data for hydro pressure gauges was a go/no go test?

3

___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _