ML20132E531
| ML20132E531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1985 |
| From: | Varela A, Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132E520 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-456-85-22, 50-457-85-23, NUDOCS 8508020015 | |
| Download: ML20132E531 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000429/2005003
Text
m
-
.
.
.'
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-456/85-22
Report No.
50-457/85-23
50-456
Docket No.
50-457
CPPR-132
License No. CPPR-133
Priority
Category
A
--
Licensee: Commonwealth Edison
M , Box 767
Chicago, Illinois 60690
Facility Name: Braidwood Units 1 and 2
Inspection At: Joilet Illinois
Inspection Conducted: April 29 - May 3, 1985
N/
Jt/ile // /988
Inspectors: . AY A. T rela, Lead Reactor Engineer
datd
-
.
Approved by:
[W
b/E!b
=
1.' Wi ggi n s ,
hRf,MaterialsProcesses
date '
J/jS ction, DRS
(
\\)
Inspection Summary:Ings ection on April 29 - May 3, 1985 (Report Nos.
50-456/85-22 and 5F4517is-23)
Areas Inspected: A routine, unannounced inspection by one region-based
l
inspector of previously identified NRC open items relating to concrete
l
construction, of apparent concrete deficiencies and concerns indicated by an
l
unidentified individual and, review of CECO procedures for reportability of
significant construction deficiency or significant damage as identified in 10
,
i
CFR50.55(e).
,
Results: No violations were identified,
k$
.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Commonwealth Edison Company
P. L. Barnes, Licensing Engineer
D. A. Boone, PCD Engineer
D. L. Cecohett, Licensing Engineer
J. Gieseker, PCD Engineer
C. D. Gray, Project Structural Supervisor
L. M. Kline, Licensing and Compliance Supervisor
N. N. Kaushal, BCAP Director
J. F. Phelan, PFE Supervisor
C. W. Schroeder, Project Licensing & Compliance Superintendent
T. E. Quaka, Site QA Superintendent
D. L. Shamblin, Project Construction Superintendent
D. Skoza, PFE Supervisor
T. Ryan, BCAP
E. E. Fitzpatrick, Assistant Manager QA
D. H. Smith, Nuclear Licensing
W. Vahle, Project Field Engineering Manager
M. Wallace, Project Manager
Sargent and Lundy
D. A. Gallagher, Project Manager, Field
R. Johnson, Site QA Coordinator
J. D. Regan, Electrical Engineer
G. K. Newberg
R. Donica, QA Manager
D. Craven, Project Manager
'
NRC Region III
M. J. Farber, Project Inspector
R. Gardner, BCAP Inspector
W. J. Kropp, Resident Inspector
F. Hawkins, QA Programs Section
J. Harrison, Chief Engineering Branch, DRS
R. D. Schulz, Senior Resident Inspector
All of the above attended exit interview.
2.
CECO Action on Previously Identified Items
__
(Closed)OpenItem(50-456/85-02-05;50-457/85-02-05) consisting of the
following elements:
.
w
- . -
- .
.
. . .
. .
J
.
2
BCAP reinspection checklist for concrete placements does not address
-
attributes such as cracking and patch quality.
BCAP reinspection should inspect both sides of concrete walls for
-
all attributes whether attachments are Q or not-Q for the affect of
these Attachments on the structural integrity of the wall.
BCAP procedure #06, revision 8, BCAP-24, revision 3, and revision 3 to
Concrete Placements Checklist Instruction CSR-I-S-001 do address cracks
and patch quality and support closing both parts of this open item.
Additional CECO response, contained in letter of March 26, 1985 from S&L,
provided engineering justification for not including cracks as an
inspection item in BCAP's CSR reinspection checklist in concrete
placement. This was reviewed and discussed with BCAP engineers. The
licensee revised CSR-I-S-001 checklist as follows:
Related to this Checklist Instruction, reinspection for concrete cracks
will include this as an attribute:
"For beams and slabs, if in the inspector's judgement questionable cracks
are evident, the Level II inspector will request an evaluation by the
Level III inspector. Otherwise, the attribute on concrete cracks will be
accepted. For any such questionable cracks the Level III inspector will,
when requested, determine the acceptability of the cracks.
If the Level
III believes the crack requires further engineering evaluation, then the
attribute will be rejected and (the inspector will) write an observation
report. Otherwise Level III will accept the attribute."
(Closed)OpenItem(50-456/85-02-06;50-457/85-02-06) CECO response to
this item identifies existing G. K. Newberg's QC procedures that should
provide adequate controls on initial preparation of existing concrete for
patching of repairs, material to be used for the patch and on the method
of placing and curing of the patch. The inspector reviewed with CECO and
GKN's responsible engineers their response to this open item. GKN's
quality control procedures number 11, 12, 29, 36', 52, NCR procedure and
referenced ACI and ASTM standards appear an acceptable response to this
item.
3
Inspection of Apparent Concrete Deficiencies in Unit 1
Refueling Water Tunnel (RWT) and Its Attachment to Refuel Tank Slab
An inspection was perfonned of Unit 1 RWT walls and ceiling to observe
two apparent concreto defects and evaluate their significance. These
l
were of concern to an unidentified individual,
t-
l
1.
Beneath the refuel water tank slab, the concrete construction joint,
slab to walls, at Elev. 395'-0", contains a thin layer of sand and
,
l
appears to lack consolidation.
Evidence of thin sand in this con-
!
struction joint and a minor indication of honeycomb were confirmed
l
l
l
.
.
r
>
p
.
.
.
'
!
3
)
to exist. The inspector evaluated the significance of these condi-
,
tions and concluded the minor imperfections did not warrant further
investigation. His review of relevant concrete drawings identified
the construction joint at Elev. 395'-0" contains a keyway and water
stop. Based on the above observations and consideration that the
tank's concrete slab was constructed bearing mostly on adequately
compacted soil he further concludes those imperfections are not
indicative of deficient QC inspection prior to concrete placement nor
of inadequate concrete consolidation.
2.
The concrete in the ceiling of RWT contains a h"x6" embed plate
across the 7' wide tunnel.
Spalled concrete adjacent to a weld for
attachment of one 24" pipe sway strut is an apparent concrete
deficiency. This condition was inspected to evaluate its
significance. Spalled concrete triangular in area approximately
5"x10" and h" maximum wedge thickness was observed in the tapered
concrete void adjacent to h" embed plate.
The concrete that had
spalled was observed to have been a shear failure of well bonded
concrete as determined by visual observation.
Concrete at other
sway struts in the RWT at welded attachments did not contain
concrete spalls.
The spalled concrete was concluded not to have
been evidence of concrete deficiency, nor to have been caused by the
welding.
The missing concrete adjacent to the embed is not of
structural significance.
No violations were identified.
'
4.
Review of Licensee procedure for 10 CFR 50.55(e) Determination
and Ranorting
CECO procedure for 10 CFR 50.55(e) Determination and Reporting, PM-04
dated S/29/84 was reviewed.
It appears to track well with 10 CFR in all
requirements for reportability to the NRC. However, Exhibit B - Con-
struction Deficiency Evaluation (COE) contains in Part 28, " Significance"
of the deficiency, a value of $100,000 for use in assessment of a QA
breakdown or of expenditures necessary to rework an item to bring it into
compliance with the approved design.
Exhibit B, Part 3, "Reportability of 50.55(e) Notification" indicates that
if the deficiency, whether or not safety related, affects safe operation
of the facility and requires less than $100,000 for either of the above
reasons, it does not have to be reported to NRC Region III Headquarters.
The inspector identified the above at the Exit Interview as an open item
(Unresolved items 50-456/85-22-01 and 50-457/85-23-01) and requested CECO
make available for subsequent NRC review the CDE of all potential signi-
ficant deficiencies.
Those that were not formally reported in writing to
the NRC, as required by 10 CFR 50.55 because of cost, should be extracted
for NRC review.
-
,. ..
,
'
.
,
l
4
5.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is necessary to
l
determine whether it is a violation, a deviation or acceptable. An
unresolved item is discussed in paragraph 4.
!
6.
Exit Interview
An exit interview was held on May 3, 1985 at the Braidwood plant with
members of licensee's staff identified in paragraph 1.
The inspector
summarized the scope and findings of this inspection.
The licensee
acknowledged the inspector's comments. At no time during this inspection
was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.
!
!
!
i
i
!
!
,
!
'
.
l
1..
-