ML20058H864

Notice of Violation from Insp on 820524-28 & 0601-04

ML20058H864
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	07/16/1982
From:	Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20058H854	List: ML20058H852 ML20058H864 ML20058H880
References
50-456-82-03, 50-456-82-3, 50-457-82-03, 50-457-82-3, NUDOCS 8208090094
Download: ML20058H864 (2)

Text

._ .

Appendix-NOTICE OF VIOLATION i Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-456 Docket No. 50-457 As a result of the inspection conducted on May 24-28, and June 1-4, 1982, and in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982), the following violations were identified:

1. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V states in part, " Activities affecting

, quality shall be prescribed ... and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures or drawings."

1 The licensee's Topical Report, CE-1-A, Revision 20, Section 5 states in part, "The quality assurance actions carried out for design, con-struction, testing, and operation activities will be described in documented instructions, procedures, drawings, specifications, or checklists." ... " Activities affecting quality are required by the Edison quality program to be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures or drawings."

Contrary to the above; the following activities were not accomplished according to procedures or instructions:

a. On May 27, 1982,- it was identified that the Phillips, Getschow Co.

l Quality Assurance Manager had not prepared a training requirement i sheet for.the Braidwood' site during the first and second quarters 4

of 1982. This is contrary to Phillips, Getschow Co. Quality Assurance Procedure QAP-105A.

b. On May 28, 1982, it was identified that Phillips, Getschow Co. was

, not stamping and marking affected documents to annotate applicable ECN's. This is contrary to Phillips, Getschow Co. Construction Procedure PGCP-7.

c. On June 1, 1982, it was identified that weld stub barrels in the auxiliary, containment and containment air lock areas had abundant

amounts of unbent weld rods, as well as weld stub barrels at Cribs l #3 and #4 not being secured or welded shut. A stub barrel in the Unit 1 air lock was also noted to be unlocked. This is contrary to Phillips, Getschow Co. Quality Control Procedure QCP B.8.

{

d. On June 2, 1982, it was identified that a L. K. Comstock and '

Company, Inc. portable weld rod oven was not plugged in as required by L. K. Comstock and Company, Inc. Procedure 4.3.10.

j This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).

8208090094 820716 PDR ADOCK 05000456

, G PDR

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

Appendix 2

2. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, states in part, " Activities affect-ing quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances...."

The licensee's Topical Report, CE-1-A, Revision 20, Section 5 states in part, "The quality assurance actions carried out for design, con-struction, testing, and operation activities will be described in documented instructions, procedures, drawings, specifications, or checklists." " Activities affecting quality are required by the Edison

, quality program to be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures or drawings."

Contrary to the above, as of May 28, 1982, the following activities were not controlled by documented procedures or instructions:

a. L. K. Comstock and Company, Inc. Procedure 4.8.1 did not contain the requirement to verify that conduit plugs or caps had been installed in accordance with project standards.

b. L. K. Comstock and Company,-Inc. Procedures 4.3.8 and 4.8.8 did not address Class IE electrical cable rework.

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 state-ment 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 com-pliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.

Dated N ffc2 l5/ ..ph) b YL 4 C. t. N6relius, Director

/ Division of Engineering and Technical Programs l

[

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