ML20203K251
| ML20203K251 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1986 |
| From: | Hawkins F, Thomas Taylor, Vandel T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203K236 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-456-86-25, NUDOCS 8608070132 | |
| Download: ML20203K251 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000456/1986025
Text
r
.
1
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-456/86025(DRS)
Docket No. 50-456
Construction Permit No. CPPR-132
Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company
Post Office Box 767
Chicago, IL 60690
Facility Name: Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1
Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braidwood, IL
Inspection Conducte : May 19-22, 27-30, June 2-13, and July 10-11, 1986
) Lb,
h
.
'7-d/vfd
Inspectors:
T. E. Vandel
_Dal'e
7-3/ efd
T. E. Taylor
_Dat6
h
c2<'
'
Approved By:
F. C. Hawkins, C
f
7-8/-88
Quality Assurance Programs
3ect' ion
Section
In_sp_ection Summary
n
Inspection on May 19-22, 27-3_0_, June 2-13,~and July 10-11, 1986 Report
~~~
~
~~~~
No. 50-456/860B(Dh_3]T~
Areas Inspected: Routine safety inspection to followup previously identified
inspection findings; review the preoperational QA progran and activities in
progress; review the QA administration, auditing, maintenance, and surveillance
i
program procedures for plant operations.
i
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, one violation was identified regarding
failure to control nonconformances (Paragroph 3) and adoitional unresolved
issues were identified (Paragraphs 3 and 4) that require additional NRC review.
I
l
l
f
8608070132 860731
ADOCK 05000456
G
l
r.
.
DETAILS
1.
_ Persons Contacted
o
CommonwealthEdison__CompanyJEC_oj
- P. L. Barnes, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor
T. Bobic, Master Electrician
- D. L. Ceccheti, Radiation Health Physics
- L. Davis, Assistant Superintendent
T. Dehnert, Project Engineering Department
- G. E. Groth, Assistant Construction Superintendent
S. Hedden, Master Instrument Mechanic
J. Huffman, Master Mechanic
- S. C. Hunsader, Site QA Supervisor
M. Inserra, Chairman, Test Review Board
- J. K. Jasnosz, Radiaticn Health Physics
.'
S. Johnson, Project Construction Mechanical Coordinator
- R. D. Kryonac, Station QA Supervisor
- G. F. Marcus, Assistant to QA Manager
- E. R. Netzel, Site QA Supervisor
- D. E. Paquette, Assistant Superintendent
M. Peterson, Surveillance Coordinator
T. Penddergast, Site QA Lead Auditor
J. Purrazzo, Project Construction Electrical Coordinator
T. E. Quaka, Site QA Superintendent
N. Schmitt, Startup Test Engineer
- C. W. Schroeder, Services Superintendent
- D. L. Shamblin, Project Construction Superintendent
- D. J. Skoza, Project Field Engineering
S. Stapp, Station QA Lead Auditor
C. Tomashek, Project Startup Superintendent
J. Thunderstedt, Project Startup Staff Assistant
R. Ungeran, Operations Engineering Supervisor
P. Zolan, Site QA Audit Coordinator
J. A. Zych, Site QA Surveillance Coordinator
U. S. Nuclear Regulato_ry Commission (NRC)
- W. Kropp, Senior Resident Inspector (Construction)
- T. Taylor,ResidentInspector(0perations)
'
- T. Tongue, Senicr Resider.t Inspector (Operations)
!
- Denotes those in attendance at the exit meeting held on June 13, 1986.
f
Other licensee project construction, startup and operations personnel-
were contacted during the course of the inspection.
I
2.
Licensee Action on Prev,ious I_nsp_ec_ tion Finding
i
l
(Closed) Open Item (456/85045-02(DRP); 457/85044-02(DRP)) - Instructions for
!
control of Startup Deficiency Reports (SDRs). The inspector has determined
that instructions for control of SDRs is not adequate. This item is
addressed as part of Violation 456/86025-01 (Paragraph 3).
l
l
2
i
-.
- -
- -
- . - -.
.
-.
_ - _ _ - _
- - ~
. _ - -
-__
f.
,
.
(Closed) Open Item (456/85045-03(DRP); 457/85044-03(DRP)) - Review of the
procedures controlling the deficiency reporting process revealed there is
no requirement to identify on the SDR document items such as work requests,
NRCs, and evaluations used in the resolution of the deficiency. The
inspectors review of this ara determined that the licensee should evaluate
the traceability of the above mentioned documents. This item is addressed
as part of Violation 456/86025-01 (Paragraph 3).
(Closed) Open Item (456/85045-04(DRP); 457/85044-04(DRP)) - The inspector
was unable to determine whether or not provisions in existing Project
Construction Department procedures would ensure that SDRs receive a review
to identify nonconforming items identified on SDRs. This issue is
addressed as part of Violation 456/86025-01 (Paragraph 3).
'
(Closed) Unresolved Item (456/85055-01(DRS) - The inspector is concerned
that the system does not contain the positive controls necessary to ensure
that all deficiencies are noted and properly addressed. The inspector has
determined that deficiencies are not always reviewed for nonconformances
and test deficiencies (alpha deficiencies) are not always tracked nor
addressed by administrative documents. This item is addressed as part of
Violation 456/86025-01 (Paragraph 3).
(Closed) Open Item (456/85055-02(DRS) - The Startup Manual which provides
the procedure for completing and processing the deficiency report does not
appear to be adequate. The inspectors review of this item is contained in
the details of Violation 456/86025-01 (Paragraph 3).
(Closed) Unresolved Item (456/85055-03(DRS); 457/85055-03(DRS)) - Procedural
control for determination of nonconformances from startup deficiencies.
There is no procedure for this item nor do startup personnel review SDRs
for nonconformances on a routine basis. This issue is addressed as part
of Violation 456/86025-01 (Paragraph 3).
3.
Quality __As_suranceAograms for Preoperations Testing
e
_
This inspection was performed to ascertain that the licensee has a program
that will provide adequate controls over the conduct of preoperational
testing and related activities to assure that safety-related equipment and
systems will function as oesigned.
Program adequacy was assessed by review
of the QA program manual, the Braidwood startup manual, site quality
instructions, licensee procedures, selected audits and surveillances,
pre-op test related documents; by discussions with licensee personnel and
by observations of related activities.
<
A history of concerns has been developed over the past year by the NRC
regarding SDRs described in Section 4.1.4 of the Braidwood Project Startup
Manual.
This history, including the inspection items detailed in
Paragraph 2 of this report, relates to the failure to review SDRs for
nonconformance and to the apparent inadequacy of instructions relating
to the handling, review and determination of nonconforming conditions.
3
_.
..
fL
.
.
To assess this concern, the inspectors interviewed licensee personnel
-involved in startup activities regarding their understanding of what
,
procedures are followed for SDR handling and if they are required to review
SDRs for possible nonconformances.
It was apparent from the responses that
SDRs are not reviewed for nonconformances by startup personnel and that
many of the activities involved with the handling of SDRs by startup
support groups are not administratively controlled.
Interviews with
project construction department (PCD) personnel along with review of
documents relating to construction activities in support of the pre-op
testing program established that SDRs may occasionally be reviewed for
nonconformances, but are not routinely done.
A list of 42 SDRs developed by NRC personnel from review of nine different
preoperational test deficiency logs, was reviewed by PCD personnel'for
possible nonconforming conditions. The same list was independently
reviewed by the NRC inspectors. While PCD determined that only one SDR
required identification as a nonconformance and the NRC inspectors believed
that six should be so identified, it was confirmed that a lack of adequate
review for nonconforming conditions exists.
The six SDRs considered to be nonconformances are:
Deficiency No.
Description
Date Issued
DG-10-091
Diesel Generator 1-A required
03-16-85
20.5 seconds to reach speed
and voltage after being at
rest for seven days.
DG-11-092
1DG01KB experiences problems
05-17-85
making 10 second start time
after two week shutdown.
'
DG-10-102
1DG01XA experiences problems
05-17-85
making 10 second start time
after two week shutdown.
.
DG-10-136
Frequency response plus blackout
12-17-85
safeguards loadings out of spec.
ECCS full flow pre-op, acceptance
Criteria 4.10 requires minimum
of 57 HZ during safeguards loading.
4
For the "A" DG, the frequency
dropped to approximately 57 HZ
when the 1A A.F. pump was started.
AF-10-338
Crankabout switch S2, 1-4030AF12,
03-01-86
is not operating correctly. The
switch hangs up and does not show
the engine to start when all
indicators say it should. Switch
should be wired to ready to start
circuit or removed.
4
Q-'
.
.
.
CC-10-416
Valve ICC 94930 is installed
01-24-86
backwards, RCP-ID upper bearing
return isolation valve.
The inspectors felt that the lack of administrative guidelines relating
to handling and review of SDR's by licensee personnel was the major
contributing cause for the failure to identify nonconforming conditions
in SDR's.
Additionally, the NRC inspectors selected one closed deficiency for an
in-depth review. Deficiency No. SX-10-231, dated January 29, 1985, " Motor
Current Exceeds Full Load Running Allowable for ISX01PA," closed on
February 20, 1985, was selected. The Essential Service Water system (SX),
is a safety-related system with a Class 1E motor. The results of the
review included the following:
The NRC Inspectors reviewed the initial pump run (IPR) performed in
April 1962, and observed the following documented results of testing.
_
Characteristic
Max./ Min.
Actual
Pump Flow
33,000/4,800
26,200 gpm
Current
157/70
171 amps.
Stator Temp.
70 C
The inspectors established that the design maximum flow is 24,000 gpm
and thus the current value of 171 amps. was, in fact, a nonconforming
overload condition.
It was further learned from the author that
Deficiency No. SX-10-231 was written for this condition on January 29,
1985. However, the deficiency was closed on February 20, 1985, by
attaching a note to the SDR regarding a service factor of 1.15 for the
motor, without evaluation of the nonconforming ccnditions. During
discussions with the author of the attached note he stated that he had
prepared the note in response to an unrelated verbal inquiry regarding
the service water pump motor being slightly in excess of full load
motor condition. He, in addition, stated that he was unaware of its
use to close this SDR.
_
The inspectors reviewed the vendor motor manual provided by the motor
supplier Westinghouse Electric Company.
Item No. 6, under Operations
on Page 23, stated that the motor power supply voltage must be
maintained at 5% of the motor nameplate voltage (4,000 volts). This
item was discussed with the licensee and the inspectors expressed
concern that this constraint would impact the system voltage test
required by NUREG 0876 Item 8.2.4.
Later the inspector was infomed
that Westinghouse Electric Company personnel had authored a letter to
CECO's Station Nuclear Engineering Department dated June 17, 1986,
infoming them that the Instruction Leaflet IL-5500A (Vendor Motor
Manual) dated September 1,1978, will be fomally amended with regard
to Step 6 of the instructions given on Page 23, to a voltage variation
- 10% of motor nameplete voltage.
The lack of review of SDRs for identification, disposition, and control
of nonconformances is considered to be a violation of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix B, Criterion XV (456/86025-01(DRS)).
,
5
'
.
.
Concerning t:1e new submittal to be sup) lied by Westinghouse Electric
Company, this matter is considered to )e unresolved pending further
review (456/86025-02(DRS)).
4.
Operational Readiness
This inspection was performed to verify that management controls and
procedures,lity, have been documented and implemented. including Quality Ass
of the faci
Operational
readiness was assessed by review of the applicable governing procedures and
instructions, by discussions with licensee personnel and by observation of
activities and documents relating to these procedures and instructions for
the following activities.
a.
QA/QC Administration and Audits
The inspectors verified by document review, discussions with auditors,
and by observation of a sampling of schedules, audits, and certifica-
tion files that the station QA department has established appropriate
controls and mechanisms for performing the operational functions, has
completed qualification and certification of auditors, and is
implementing scheduling and auditing activities.
b.
Maintenance
Through discussions with licensee personnel and review of maintenance
department procedures, the following concerns related to the admini-
stration of the maintenance program were identified.
(1) Administrative procedures describing the scope and program
responsibilities for the licensee's preventative maintenance
program are needed.
The licensee is in the process of addressing
this concern.
(2) Procedures for inservice inspection program administration,
surveillances, and corrective and preventative maintenance for
the electrical and instrument departments are incomplete.
The
licensee stated that the procedures required for fuel load will
be completed by fuel load.
(3) The maintenance history trending program is not structured
to trend on an equipment type basis.
The present system will
identify recurring maintenance by EID number only.
The licensee
should reevaluate the system to ensure all types of recurring
,
maintenance activity is trended.
(4) Work request program Procedure 1600-1 instructions are lacking in
,
detail for some of the steps noted.
The licensee is reviewing
1600-1 and is considering adding information to areas identified
such as for the Master Mechanics and Technical Staff Supervisor's
review, and disposition of the work package when an item fails
post-maintenance testing.
,
6
c
1
, .
.,
i
Items (1) through (4) above are considered to be an unresolved item pending
further review (456/86025-03(DRS)).
,
c.
Surveillance
The surveillance program administrative guidelines were assessed by
review of procedures and discussions with licensee personnel.
The
surveillance program is a computerized system controlled by Procedure
No. BWAP 1400-1, " General Surveillance Program." This system
schedules-allperiodicsurveillancefunctions,includingthose
. required by the Technical Specifications.
The licensee s program
meets regulatory requirements except for the following items.
The licensee has a "GSIN" program which is used to control
calibration /surveillances on safety-related components, some of
which are used'as data points for technical specification required
surveillances.
The licensee has no administrative controls for
this program.
This item is considered to be unresolved pending
further review (456/86025-04(DRS)).
Licensee Procedure No. 1400-1, Section 10, requires that each
department using the general' surveillance program write a general
surveillance procedure specific to their department.
The Mechanical
Maintenance Group was the only department'that had such a procedure.
This item is considered to be unresolved pending further review
(456/86025-05(DRS)).
5.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations or
deviations.
Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are
identified in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this inspection report.
.
6.
Exit Meeting
,
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the Braidwood Station at the conclusion of the inspection. The purpose,
scope and findings of the inspection were summarized.
The inspector also
discussed the likely informational content of this inspection report with
'.
!
regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector.
The licensee
did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.
4
I
i
!'
!
!
e
'
7
_..
.
- _
_
, . _ _ _ _
..
.. -..
.
-
.