ML20154S834
| ML20154S834 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1986 |
| From: | Gardner R, Kropp W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154S826 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-456-86-06, 50-456-86-6, 50-457-86-05, 50-457-86-5, NUDOCS 8604080169 | |
| Download: ML20154S834 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000456/1986006
Text
.,
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-456/86006(DRP); 50-457/8600S(ORP)
Docket Nos.- 50-456; 50-457
Licenses No. CPPR-132; CPPR-133
'
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company
Post Office Box 767
Chicago, IL 60690
Facility Name:
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2
'
Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braidwood, IL
Inspection Conducted:
January 27, 1986 through March 29, 1986
,
hb"
/dg
Inspector: Wayne J. Kropp
Date
h-
A/85
Approved By:
Ronald N. Gardner, Chief
Reactor Projects 3A
Date
Inspection Summary
Inspection on January 27, 1986 through March 29, 1986 (Reports
No. 50-456/86006(0RP); 50-457/86005(0RP))
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced safety inspection of activities with
regard to licensee action on previous inspection findings, plant tours, pipe
supports, essential service water, and the mechanical contractor audit
program. The inspection consisted of 128 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC
inspector including 5 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
MA' M S N J'
O
-
..
.
'
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Commonwealth Edison Company (CECc)
- M. J. Wallace, Project Mansger
C, W. Schroeder, Services Superintecdent
D. L. Shamblin, Project Construction Superintendent
- G. E. Groth, Assistant Construction Superintendent
- E. E. Fitzpatrick, Station Manager
- G. Marcus, Assistant Manager Quality Assurance
- T. E. Quaka, Site Quality Assurence Superintendent
W. Yahle, Engineering Manager
J. W. Gieseker, Engineer
M. Gorski, Engineer
$0. Boone, Project Construction Field Engineer
- E. Wondorf, Engineer
- P. Barnes, Regulatory Assurance Supervi'scr
- L. E. Davis, Assistant Superintendent Technical Services
- D. Pan,uette, Maintenance Assistaat Superintendent
- R. Kyrouac, Station Quality Assurance Supervisor
- 0. E. O'Brien, Operations Assistant Superintendent
- C. J. Tomashek, Project Startup Superintendent
- 0. L. Cecchett, Regulatory Assurance
- A. J. D' Antonio, Regulatory Assurance
- T. Miosi, Nuclear Licensing Administrator - G.O.
- T. Simpkin, kegulatory Assurance
The inspectors also cont 6cted other licensee and contractor personnel,
. including craftsmen, and technical and engineering staff cembers.
- Denotes those attending the exit meeting on March 27, 1986.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
a.
Violations
(Closed) 456/83-09-02A; 457/83-09-02A:
Two drawings were not stamped
with field change request (FCR) document numbers.
Part of the
licensee's corrective action was evaluated and verified for implemen-
tation during the inspect-lon period documented in Inspection Reports
No. 456/65032; 457/85031. The licensee':s corrective action consisted
of:
Stamping drawing M-2539C-4 with FCR L-9194 and urawing
M-2542C-121 with FCR L-9988.
These drawing; were identified
in the violation as not being stamped with these FCRs as
2
.
.
required by Phillips Getschow Procedure PGCP-1.1, " Control of
Engineering Change Notices and Field Change Requests."
Drawings M-2539C-4 and M-2542C-121 were verified to be stamped
with the appropriate FCRs during the inspection period documented
in Inspection Reports No. 456/85032; 457/85031.
Intensifying and increasing training in document control
activities.
The inspector verified that training was conducted
in document control activities.
This training was conducted with
production, engineering, and QC personnel in September 1983.
Conducting audits to verify that the corrective action was
acceptable.
One of the audits, Phillips Getschow Audit
No. 83-BR15, was conducted July 26, 1983, which commenced prior
to the extensive attention placed on document control by Phillips
Getschow (August 1983).
This audit did identify drawings that
were not stamped with the appropriate FCRs or Engineering Change
Notices (ECNs).
However, subsequent followup audits (September,
October, November, December, 1983 and August 1984) reviewed by
the inspector revealed no problems with document control.
The
inspector also reviewed licensee QA Surveillances No. 2981
(June 1983) and No. 3450 (February and March 1984) which were
performed to followup on deficiencies noted in document control
during the licensee site QA Audit No. 20-83-15 (March 1983) of
Phillips Getschow.
These surveillances noted no problems with
drawing control.
Based on the results of the followup audits
conducted by Phillips Getschow and the followup QA surveillances
by the licensee, the corrective action appears effective.
Since installation activities were performed to the drawings and
process documents in the production data packages, the lack of
stamping drawings located at the document control stations with the
outstanding ECNs and/or FCRs would not directly affect the
installation of components.
In addition, the review for the impact
of an ECN or FCR on installation activities is independent of the
stamping of the ECN or FCR on controlled drawing copies.
The
inspector selected several drawings which were noted in the licensee's
Audit No. 20-83-15 as not having been stamped with the appropriate
FCR/ECN and verified that the installed component was not affected.
This was accomplished by reviewing the production data packages and
inspecting the installed component.
This item is considered to be
closed.
(Closed) 456/85007-02; 457/85007-02:
The installation of the
containment spray pumps was not in accordance with design drawings.
The corrective action consisted of the piping contractor, Phillips
Getschow, issuing a Nonconformance Report (NCR) 3963 to document the
'
deficiency in the installation of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 containment
spray pumps.
The Unit 1 and Unit 2 residual heat removal (RHR) pumps,
which are of the same design as the containment spray pumps, were
examined by Phillips Getschow and similar deficiencies were identified
on each pump.
Phillips Getschow issued NCR 3961 to document the
3
.
.
deficiencies with the RHR pumps.
Both NCR 3963 and 3961 required the
pumps to be reworked in accordance with applicable design drawings.
The inspector reviewed the installation records and inspected the pumps
and noted no problems.
Both NCRs were closed January 30, 1986.
The
corrective action to avoid further noncompliance includes a Phillips
Getschow equipment installation procedure, QCP-822, and improved
equipment grouting control instituted in the last year.
The inspector
reviewed procedure QCP-B22 and the equipment grouting controls and
found them satisfactory.
To ensure other equipment does not have
deficiencies similar to the containment spray pumps and the RHR pumps,
the licensee issued NCR 6083.
This NCR provides for reviews of other
safety-related equipment pump bases and supporting documentation to
ensure correct installation, grouting and inspection.
NCR 6083 was
closed March 27, 1986.
The inspector reviewed the disposition and
closure of this NCR with no problems being noted.
This item is
considered to be closed.
(Closed) 456/85015-06:
The licensee's Quality Assurance Department
inappropriately closed Nonconformance Report (NCR) 600 and as a result
did not assure that conditions adverse to quality were corrected.
Parts of the licensee's corrective actions were evaluated and verified
for implementation during the inspection periods documented in
Inspection Reports No. 456/85032; 457/85031 and 456/85058; 457/85054.
The inspector verified that NCR 600, which was reopened, was properly
and effectively closed by the licensee's QA Department.
NCR 600 was
reclosed by Surveillance 5548, on February 26, 1986.
The pipe supports
associated with NCR 600 were inspected by the licensee's QA department
to verify compliance with the design drawings prior to reclosing NCR
600.
The inspector selected four of the 14 pipe supports inspected by
the licensee's QA department to evaluate their effectiveness.
The
results of these four inspections are documented in Paragraph 4 of
this report.
The licensee's response to this violation stated that
NCR 744 was issued to identify concerns which were noted during a
special audit conducted by Phillips Getschow.
NCR 744 was closed
March 27, 1986. The inspector reviewed the disposition and closure of
this NCR with no problems being noted.
This item is considered to be
closed.
b.
Open Items
(Closed) 456/85038-09; 457/85037-07:
The processing of site
contractor documents, which identify significant conditions adverse
to quality, was not performed in a manner commensurate with the
processing of NCRs.
The licensee has sent letters to the major site
contractors (Newberg, L. K. Comstock, Phillips Getschow, and Pullman)
which standardized the approach for processing documents identifying
significant conditions adverse to quality.
These documents are
required to be submitted to the licensee for approval of the proposed
resolution.
This item is considered to be closed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
3.
Plant Tours
The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work, and
plant status during general inspections of the plant.
Observations of.
activities included:
storage of electrical raceway components for Unit 2,
structural welding, cable tray hanger installation for Unit 2, housekeening,
cable trays, junction boxes, mechanical equipment, and high strength
bolting.
During this inspection period, the licensee commenced Integrated
Hot Functional Testing (IHF).
The inspector observed various IHF activities
and monitored control room activities.
The housekeeping of Unit 1 areas
has improved since November.
However, one item was discussed with the
licensee regarding action to protect the Main Control Board (MCB) from
unnecessary exposure to dust and dirt.
The doors on the back of the MCB
were left open even though there is no work in progress.
This item was
identified by the licensee management during a tour and management agreed
that some action would be taken to ensure the doors remained closed when
work was not in progress. The inspector will monitor this area to
ascertain the effectiveness of management's action to resolve this issue.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Pipe Supports
The following ASME Class 1 supports were examined to verify compliance
with design drawings and the ASME code in the areas of weld quality, weld
configuration, location and hanger configuration:
Identification
System
Type
1CV06031V
Chemical & Volume Control
Spring Hanger
1SI25004F
Safety Injection
Pipe Clamp
1RH02050R
Sway Strut
1SIO401?S
Safety Injection
Shock Suppressor
The inspector also reviewed the data packages which include the
installation traveler, weld issuance tickets, nondestructive examination
records, and any closed deficiency documents.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Essential Service Water
The licensee informed the inspector of an error in the radiographing of two
welds in the Essential Service Water system.
During the NRC Construction
Appraisal Team (CAT) inspection documented in Inspection Reports
No. 456/84044; 457/84040, the CAT inspectors determined that the radiographs
provided by the vendor (Southwest Fabricators) for welds SX-36-1-W3 and
SX-36-1-W4 were radiographs of the same weld (W3).
Therefore, W4 was never
radiographed.
In order to determine the acceptability of the unradiographed
weld (W4), the site independent testing contractor, Pittsburgh Testing
Laboratory (PTL) was directed by the licensee to radiograph both welds.
The radiographs produced by PTL.were provided to the CAT inspectors and
5
.x
.
!
'
their review and interpretation determined that the welds were acceptable.
Subsequently, while reviewing the installed pipe spool, the site mechanical
contractor noted that field weld 8A was identified on the pipe as shop weld
W3.
A field review of the spool and radiographs by the licensee determined
that PTL had radiographed field weld 8A as shop weld W3 and shop weld W3 as
- -
shop weld W4.
This resulted in Southwest Fabricator's shop weld W4
remaining unradiographed.
Therefore, the CAT inspectors concern pertaining
to the two identical radiographs for shop welds SX-36-1-SW3 and SX-36-1-SW4
is now identified as an unresolved item (456/86006-01; 457/86005-01).
At
this time, the involved spool is full of water due to testing and cannot be
radiographed.
The licensee has stated that all three welds (8A, W3, and W4)
will be radiographed and evaluated for final disposition when the spool is
available for radiographing.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Phillips Getschow Audit Program
The inspector reviewed the following Phillips Getschow internal audits for
compliance to Phillips Getschow Procedure QAP/8R 12.1, Revision 8, " Site
Internal Audits":
Audit No.
Subject
Date
86BR8
Final Line Walk of
February 11-24, 1986
Compcnents. Supports /
Restraints
,
'
86BR12
Component Support Mater'ial
February 28 - March 4,
and Item Substitution and
1986
the Restocking of Deleted
s
or Unused Component Support
Material and Items
4
868R5
Mechanical Joint Review /
January 20-27, 1986
Retrofit Program .
I4
86BR13
Base Metal Accepta1ce and
February 1986
Repair for AISC, Category I
'
'
Steel
86BR18
Calibration by Outside
March 11-13, 1986
Source
The checklists utilized in performing these audits were reviewed by the
inspector.
The checklists identified the objective evidence evaluated by
the auditor during the audit.
The audits verified the implementation of
the procedures that were being audited.
The inspector also reviewed the
training and certification files for six lead auditors.
No violations or deviations were identiffeu.
s
6
r
.
,
7.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations, or
deviations.
An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is
discussed in Paragraph 5.
8.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee and contractor representatives denoted in
Paragraph 1 during and at the conclusion of the inspection on March 27,
1986.
The inspector summarized the scope and results of the inspection and
discussed the likely content of this inspection report.
The licensee
acknnwledged the information and did not indicate that any of the
information disclosed during the inspection could be considered proprietary
in nature.
7
u