IR 05000454/1985050
| ML20138D151 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1985 |
| From: | Danielson D, Ward K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138D077 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-454-85-50, 50-455-85-36, NUDOCS 8512130160 | |
| Download: ML20138D151 (4) | |
Text
.
.
,
~
U.S. NUCLEAR PFGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-454/85050(DRS); 50-455/85036(DRS)
Docket Nos. 50-454; 50-455 Licenses No. NPF-37; CPPR-131 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Byron Site, Byron, IL Inspection Conducted:
November 21-22, 1985 Inspector:
W
/
I Date W+ /r-1 b/@-
.
Approved By:
. H. Danielson, Chief I
Materials and Processes Date Section
.
Inspection Summary
.-
Inspection on November 21-22, 1985 (Reports No. 50-454/85050(DRS);
50-455/85036(DR5))
Areas Inspected:
Unannounced special safety inspection of Construction Ap)raisal
'
Team (CAT) findings. The NRC inspection involved a total of 11 inspector-1ours by one NRC inspector.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
'
.
8512130160 851206 DR ADOCK 0500
y
.,
.
,. -
_ - -
-
-
-.
I
!
-
r
-
DETAILS b
1.
Persons Contact'ed
.
c Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)
-
- R. Tuetken, Startup Coordinat'or
.
,
s
.
..
l Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
,
- J. Hinds, Jr., Senior Resident Inspector
'
l Theinspectoralsocontactedandibterviewedotherlicenseeandcontractor employees.
<
,
m
!
- Der"tes' those individuals at'tendiiig the exit interview.
!
2.
Licensee Actions on N'RC CAT Findings
i The NE lear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducted a Construction Appraisal j
~ Team (CAT) inspection (Report No. 50-455/85-27) at the Byron Unit 2 facility
~
)
>
~
on fagust 19-30, 1985, and September 9-20, 1985.
During the course of this inspection, deficiencies noted by 'tha NRC CAT indicated that a number of
'
construction progrm weaknesses existed which warranted additional j
7,adagement attention.
These included:
,
J Varicus struct. ural steel end connection bolts were found to have
tension values'less than the test torque used by the NRC inspectors.
The bolt tension on certain NSSS support steel connections were
!
found to have-tension values less than the test torque used by the
-
j NRC inspectors.
'
s
?
Equipment mounting bolts for certain 16rae vendor-supplied ASME
pump-motar assemblies were found to not have the required material (
.
identification markings for traceability.
The wiring of a number of motor operated valves were not in accordance
vith approved design drawings.
Review of radiographs for vessel ICS01f resulted in an interpretation
s
.,
of a potential. linear indi' ation.
"
c
.
,
,
During the csurse of the CAT iry;pection period, the~ 1icensee performed an
evaluation of the findings of't:e inspection t'o determine the effect on 8 ron Unit 1 o erations and determined,that the inspection results contained
rdware defic encius of potential design significance.
Consequently, the
.
icensee committed ta perform a reinspection of the corresponding hardware l
items in b..it 1 during the next scheduled outage.
These commitments were
'
ttracked in accordance with the licensee's Quality Assurance Manual
'
' fequir ments of QP 16-51 as Action Item Records (AIR) Nos. 6-85-347, -348,
~
e e349, -350, and -351.
i
,.
'e
l
.
)
.<
c m.
,..
,
.
h,______...__.._.___..._..____._
...:..-.
__
_
_.
_
__
,
.
=
!
<
The following (identified by the licensee's tracking number) describes the actions taken and results of the NRC inspection:
a.
AIR No. 6-85-347:
tracked the licensee's action of reinspecting the 29 Unit 1 structural steel end connections requiring tension in the bolts to transfer axial loads. As noted in the CAT inspection report, in report Section V.B.1.b, the licensee perforced a reinspection of these 29 connections in Byron Unit 2 during the course of the CAT inspection period and an engineering evaluation of the results determined that those bolt connections found with torque values below the inspection torque had no design significance. The licensee's inspection of the same 29 Unit 1 bolt connections revealed that the as-found torque values in Unit I were similar to those found in Unit 2
.
and the detailed engineering evaluations likewise concluded there was no design significance in the as-found condition. The licensee, l
however, re-tensioned those fasteners in Unit 1 found to have torque values less than the torque value initially specified.
,
,
b.
AIR No. 6-85-348:
tracked the licensee's action of reinspecting certain NSSS support steel bolted connections requiring tension. As noted in the CAT inspection report, in Section V.B.1.b, the licensee perfortred a reinspection of these connections in Byron Unit 2 during the course of the CAT inspection period and an engineering evaluation of the results determined that those bolt connections found below the inspection torque had no design significance. The licensee conducted an evaluation of the corresponding Unit 1 NSSS support steel connec-tions and determined that there was no design significance. However, the licensee comitted to perform a reinspection on the corresponding connections during the next scheduled outage. The licensee found similar results during the Unit 1 inspection, however, some of the Unit 1 bolts exhibited lower as-found tension values than found for the corresponding Unit 2 connections. The licensee reinspected all
'
Unit 1 connections of this type. A detailed engineering evaluation of the as-found condition of the Unit 1 connections concluded there was no design significance. The licensee, however, re-tensioned those fasteners in Unit 1 exhibiting torque values less than the torque values initially specified.
c.
AIR No. 6-85-349:
tracked the licensee's action of reinspecting equipment mounting bolts for certain large vendor-supplied ASME pump motor assemblies. As of November 22, 1985, the licensee had completed the inspection and forwarded the results to their Engineering
.,
Departnent for evaluation. The licensee's Engineering Department completed and formalized their evaluation and forwarded the results to the various equipment suppliers for review and concurrence.
The results indicated that the detailed evaluation found no design significant conditions.
d.
AIR No. 6-85-350: tracked the licensee's action of reinspecting various Unit 1 motor operated valves. As noted in the CAT inspection report, in Section II.B.3.b.8, a number of motor operated valves
,b inspected by the NRC CAT inspectors contained wiring not terminated at the termination points identified on the design drawings. The as-found wiring terminations resulted in electrical circuitry which was
,
t-
-
,
.--
,_
,
,
,
- -
. _ -.
_. _
.
.
_
-_
_ _ _..
.
_ _. _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_.
l
,.
.
functionally acceptable, however, the specific details of termination points were not per the wiring diagrams. The licensee conducted an
,
evaluation of the as-found Unit 2 condition on the corre.sponding Unit 1
"
equipment and determined there was no design significanc'e. However, the licensee committed to perform a reinspection of the corresponding Unit 1 motor operated valves during the next schedule outage. The
'
licensee's inspection results found that all of the valves reinspected were terminated per the wiring diagrams.
_
e.
AIR No. 6-85-351:. racked the licensee's action of re-examining Unit 1
!
containment spray additive tank ICS01T. The licensee re-radiographed the tank at the location which had been interpreted by the NRC as
.potentially having a linear indication. A review of the radiograph found no unacceptable indications. Ultrasonic examination (UT) was also performed on the area of interest with no resultant indication.
Records indicate that the subject tank was hydrostatically tested after the date of the radiography and found to be acceptable.
It is the NRC inspectors opinion that the original radiograph may have had a film artifact, a dirty lead screen or a surface indication. The indication
-
was very small and difficult to see, the NRC inspector reviewed AIR No. 6-85-351, work request, NDE records including radiographs and found the Weld No.141-1 CIR to be acceptable. The NRC inspector agreed with the actions taken by the licensee and considers this item closed.
.
?
'
'
The NRC inspector reviewed the above AIR's (Paragraphs a through e above)
docuaentation and agreed that the initial reviews perfonned by the licensee for Unit 1 identified no design significant as-found conditions. However, s
this item will remain open for Unit 1 pending completion of the licensee's reviews' and evaluations for Unit 2, including generic implications (50-454/85050-01).
>
'
3.
Open Items
\\
!
Open items are matter which have been discussed with'the license which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which' involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both.
Open items disclosed during i
the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 2 a through 2 d.
!
4.-
Exit Interview The inspector met with site representatives (denoted in Persons Contacted
'
Paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of'the inspection noted in this report. 'The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents /
' processes as proprietary.
,
'
h$
s r
.
,
,
,
- i V
,
, f
-
-
m,__
_