ML20214C330

Affidavit of Jm Jacobson Supporting Staff Response to Applicant 851220 Motion for Summary Disposition of Rorem QA Subcontention 3.C.Related Info Encl

ML20214C330
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	02/13/1986
From:	Jeffrey Jacobson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20214C321	List: ML20214C317 ML20214C330 ML20214C334 ML20214C358 ML20214C380 ML20214C409 ML20214C439 ML20214C451 ML20214C468 ML20214C496 ML20214C514 ML20214C526 ML20214C552 ML20214C569 ML20214C580 ML20214C583 ML20214C596 ML20214C606 ML20214C628 ML20214C676
References
OL, NUDOCS 8602210097
Download: ML20214C330 (20)

Text

-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -

In the Matter of )

COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-456

) 50-457 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 )

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN M. JACOBSON IN SUPPORT OF NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF ROREM QA SUBCONTENTION 3.C I, John M. Jacobson, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

1. I am employed as a Reactor Inspector (Metallurgical Engineer) in the Division of Reactor Safety of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Region III, 799 Poosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137.

I have been employed by the NRC in this capacity since June 10, 1984. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.C-1.

2. As Reactor Inspector I am primarily responsible for performing inspections.of plant materials and processes to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

3. The purpose of this Affidavit is to support the NRC Staff's Response to Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of Rorem QA Subcontention 3.C. This subcontention states:

3. Contrary to Criterion II, " Quality Assurance Program," of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Commonwealth Edison Company has failed to establish a quality assurance program which complies with the requirements of Appendix B and which is documented by written policies, procedures and instructions and is carried out 8602210097 860218 PDR ADOCK 05000456 G pm

in accordance with those instructions. Edison .

has failed to assure that its QA program provides controls.over activities affecting quality and that such activities are accomplished under suitably controlled conditions and are appropriately verified for j

quality by inspection.

C. The Applicant's electrical co'ntractor i (Comstock) utilized Level I Quality Control

Inspectors for inspection and acceptance of electrical welds. This involved 14 different Level I inspectors over four years.

(Inspection Report 85-06 Exh. 11).

4. In preparing the Affidavit I reviewed the following documents:

I

a. Applicant's Statement of " Material Facts As To Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard;"

b. Comonwealth Edison Company's Level I Reverification Program;

c. Testimony of J. W. Giesker (on Rorem Subcontention 3.C);

d. Testimony of M. R. Frankel (on Rorem Subcontention 3.C);

i

e. Testimony of K. T. Kostal (on Rorem Subcontention 3.C);

f. Inspection Report Nos.50-456/85006 and 50-457/85006;

g. Comonwealth Edison Company's May 6,1985 Response to Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85006 and 50-457/85006.

5. This violation was identified during a review of Applicant's l

l BCAP activities by Region III NRC Inspector R. N. Gardner. During this review, the NRC inspector observed that the BCAP documentation review checklist instructions stated that the acceptable certification level -for l

l weld inspectors who inspected and accepted welds was a minimum of l Level I. The use of Level I inspectors in this manner was deemed contrary to the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6 and in violation of 10 CFR 1

i t ._ . __- _ _ .. - ._ - .

Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion II. The circumstances surrounding this -

violation are discussed more fully in Inspection Report 50-456/85006 and 50-457/85006, th'e pertinent portions of which are attached as Exhibit 3.C-2 to this Affidavit.

6. In its May 6, 1985 Response to Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85006 and 50-457/85006, Applicant took the position that ANSI N45.2.6 - 1978 specifically permits Level I inspectors to perform inspections, examinations, and tests. (A copy of the pertinent part of that Response is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.C-3). Applicant's position is not incorrect. However, ANSI N45.6.2 does not permit construction activity to be accepted solely on the basis of a Level I inspector's review. The adequacy and correctness of that review must be confirmed by a Level II inspector. In the case of the E. C. Ernst Level I inspections, there was no apparent Level II involvement in the review of the Level I inspector's inspections. During an interview of L. K. Ccmstock (LKC) Level II inspectors which I conducted on November 27, 1985, I learned that the Level II involvement consisted only of reviewing inspection reports for completeness and not the adequacy or correctness of the underlying inspection activity. Level II involvement of this small level does not satisfy the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6 because no evaluation of the inspection results is perfomed.

7. The Applicant proposed and has taken a number of corrective actions to address this violation of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion II. First, the Applicant issued a directive to its site contractors regarding the use of Level I weld inspectors in May 1983.

This directive provides that only Level II or III inspectors are

authorized to perform weld inspections. For other types of inspections, -

Level I inspectors are required to record specific data which is to be reviewed, evaluated, and verified by a Level II inspector.

8. In addition, L. K. Comstock's procedures were revised to define better the responsibilities of the Level I and II inspectors with regard to the gathering and review of inspection data. Essentially, the Level I inspector responsibility is limited to gathering and recording data while the Level II inspector's responsibility is to evaluate the data so gathered and recorded.

9. I have reviewed the remedial measures described in Paragraphs 7-8; their implementation should eliminate any recurrence of the type of violation which forms the basis of Rorem Subcontention 3.C.

10. To assess the quality of past inspections performed by Level I inspectors without adequate Level II review, Applicant developed the

" Level I Reverification Program" (LRP). This program is designed to demonstrate through a sampling of actual inspections and hardware, that the welds accepted by the Level I inspectors contain no design significant discrepancies. The LRP is described more fully in the testimony of James W. Gieseker and Martin R. Frankel, which is attached to Applicant's Motion for Sumary Disposition on Rorem Subcontention 3.C.

I have reviewed'the methodology of the LRP and agree that upon completion, there will be no design significant question regarding the acceptability of the welds previously inspected by Level I inspectors.

11. This issue will remain open pending the completion of the LRP.

The closure of this issue will be based on the statistical assurance

provided by the LRP and by the knowledge of the relative lack of ,

complexity of the weld inspections involved.

12. Based c., the above, I agree with Applicant that there is no genuine issue to be heard regarding Rorem Subcontention 3.C.

,CN, k. s -4.,

n

\/x,, John M. Jacobson Sworn and subscribed before me tinis f 'il- day of February,1986 s %. .- , :. L: [ ..,-

Notary Public My Commission expires: EY SdQ2DNII" 27' e

i l

l l

l i

Y.

Ed M s.c-1 Professional Qualifications JOHN M.JACOBSON .

Organization: Region III

Title:

Reactor Inspector (Metallurgist)

Birth Date: May 25, 1949 Education: B.S. Metallurgical Engineering, University of Illinois ,1975 Ex perience: -

1984 - Present Reactor Inspector, Division of Engineering - Responsible for routine and reactive inspections and investiga-tions of reactor plants under construction and operatin g . (NRC) 1982 - 1984 Senior Consultant - Responsible for providing senior consulting services in the areas of welding metallurgy, materials, engineering, welding program development and field operations. (N utech Engineers) 1980 - 1982 Senior Welding Engineer - Responsible for welding procedure development, resolution of metallurgical / welding issues for both shop and field fabrication of nuclear containments. D uties included responsibility for the Metallurgical Laboratory and numerous research and development programs.

l (Graver Energy Systems) 1977 - 1980 Maintenance Staff Engineer - Responsibilities included coordination and development of station welding programs, preparation of maintenance and repair procedures, design of plant modifications and technical direction of large scale maintenance p rojects. (Commonwealth Edison, Dresden Nuclear Power Station) 1975 - 1977 Quality Assurance Engineer - Responsible fo- review of contractor's procedures, daily monitoring of welding and erection activities of the LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station, review and acceptance of N DE results and auditing of supplier's facilities.

! (Commonwealth Edison, LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station) l l

l

l 3o $ ** I

)

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  !

REGION III Repoet No. 50-456/85-006(DRP); 50-457/85-006(DRP)

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 Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braidwood, Illinois Inspection Conducted: February 4 through March 1,1985 Inspector: R. N. Gardner j r LM _

Approved By: , e /

Date Inspection Summary Inspection on February 4 throuah March 1,1985 (Report Nos. 50-456/85-006(DRP);

50-457/85-006(DRP))

Areas Inspected: Special, announced safety inspection of the Braidwood Con-struction Assessment Program (BCAP) in regards to licensee action on previously identified items, Construction Sample Reinspection (CSR) Documentation Review Checklists, invalidated BCAP discrepancies, CSR reinspection activities, and

'- RSCAP activities. The inspection consisted of 144 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.  ;

Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in three areas; two items of noncompliance were identified in the remaining areas (failure to ensure that inspection personnel have acceptable level of capability - Paragraph 3; and failure to take proper corrective action - Paragraphs 3 and 4).

I I

I

M. g - 6 Other M. Francis, MRF&A, Statistical Consultant The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of this inspection.

Denotes those present at the February 14, 1985 public meeting on BCAP.

Denotes those present at exit interview.

2. Licensee Action On Previously Identified Item l (Closed) Open Item (50-456/85-02-01;50-457/85-02-01): The BCAP task-force informed the inspector that an observation would be initiated to document the unacceptable utilization of Level I QC inspectors.

This item is closed as a result of the issuance of an item of noncompliance (see section 3 of this report).

3. Review of CSR Documentation Review Checklist As previously reported in NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85-002 and 50-457/85-002 the inspector observed that the BCAP documentation review checklist instructions for population AWS DI.1, Electrical Welds, stated that the acceptable certification level for L. K. Comstock, electrical weld inspectors who inspected and accepted welds was a minimum of Level I. This did not meet the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6 which requires, as a minimum, a Level II certification for Quality Control (QC) inspection personnel who inspect and accept construction activities.

Also, as previously reported in the aforementioned NRC Inspection Report, BCAP personnel were aware of the nonconforming utilization of Level I l QC inspectors and had informed the inspector that a BCAP observation

]

would be issued to document this matter.  ;

Subsequently, the inspector was informed ths.t a BCAP observation would not be issued. Thus, BCAP would not identify, as a nonconforming condition, the use of Level I inspectors who inspected and accepted construction activities. This failure of the licensee to assure that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected is j an item of noncompliance to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI (50-456/85-006-01(A); 50-457/85-006-01(A)).

While the above comments deal with the failure of the BCAP program to document the identified nonconforming condition, the thrust of this issue concerns the acceptability of inspections performed and accepted solely by Level I QC inspectors. Prior to December 7, 1984, L. K. Comstock, Weld Inspection Procedure 4.8.3 allo ~wed a Level I or Level II inspector to perform weld inspections and determine acceptability of the inspected welds. The licensee has identified that 14 Level I weld inspectors performed inspections of and accepted welds on electrical components.

i The time period in which these inspections took place was from 1979 to the end of 1983. The acceptability of the welds inspected by these i

i 3

N Level I inspectors is questionable. Previous inadequacies in the training program for Level I electrical weld inspectors, as documented -

in NRC Inspection Report Nos. 456/84-07 and 457/84-07, increases the concern regarding the acceptability of welds inspected and accepted solely by Level I QC inspectors.

This failure to establish and implement a program which assures that QC '

inspection personnel, who are performing activities affecting quality, are trained and certified to the level required to adequately perform ,

those activities is an ites of noncompliance to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, l Criterion II (50-456/85-006-02; 50-457/85-006-02).

4. Review of Invalidated BCAP Discrepancies The inspector reviewed 37 BCAP observations which documented deficiencies I

identified during Construction Sample Reinspection (CSR) documentation reviews. The population for which the documentation reviews were per-formed was small bore piping configuration. The observations dealt with the lack of QC verified " red-lined" record copy drawings required by Phillips Getschow Co. (PGCo) procedures. While the observations were validated by CSR engineers, they were subsequently invalidated by Sargent and Lundy (S&L). The inspector was informed by Evaluation Research Corporation (ERC) personnel that ERC observation number 007 had been initiated by ERC to document the Independent Expert Overview Group (IEOG) position that the S&L invalidations were unacceptable. The ERC obser-vation correctly concluded that in developing the "As Constructed" drawing, QC was required by procedure to verify the accuracy of the verification drawing and that at issue in the BCAP observations was the lack of the signature or initials of the certified inspector who performed'the verification. Since the inspector who performed the verification was not known, the acceptability of that inspector's level of certification could not be determined, and therefore rendering the status of the inspection indeterminate.

The inspector subsequently reviewed the BCAP written response to the ERC observation. This response stated that the QC signature on the verification drawing was not required as the QC inspector who performed the field verification marked up the verification drawing copy as necessary and signed the "Stop Work Order" to signify completion of the QC verification. The BCAP response further stated that the BCAP Small Bore Pipe Configuration Document Review Checklist would be revised to reflect the QC signed "Stop Work Order" form as an acceptable alternative to the QC signed or initialed " Red-line" drawing. (This revision was subsequently issued on February 1,1985.) Finally, the BCAP response stated that observations describing the lack of a QC signature on the

" red-line" drawing previously processed as valid would be reprocessed as invalid observations. ERC concurred in the response.

In reviewing this matter the inspector, accompanied by the Senior Resident Inspector, discussed the PGCo implementation of procedures i QCP-40, Revision 3 and QCP-21, Revision 6 with PGCo engineering and QC personnel. As a result of these discussions the inapectors determined 4

O Commonwealth Edison hd;[ y, c- 3 -

one First Nabonat Pta2a. Chicago. Ilhnois O Iccress Reply to Post Othee Box 767 Chicago. !Ilinois 60690 May 6, 1985 -

Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Administrator Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 RoosevLit Roed Glen Ellyn, Il 60137

SUBJECT:

Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 Response to Inspection Reports Nos.

50-456/85-006 and 50-457/85-006 NRC Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457 REFERENCE (a): R. F. Warnick letter to C. Reed dated March 8, 1985

Dear Mr. Keppler:

This letter is in response to the inspection conducted by Mr. R. N. Gardner on . February 4 through March 1,1985, of activities at Braidwood Station. Reference (a) indicated that certain activities appeared to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements.

The Commonwealth Edison Company disagrees with the items listed in the Notice of Violation. Our detailed discussion of the bases for our disagreement is provided in the enclosure.

Commonwealth Edison Company has initiated increased interface of the Project Licensing and Compliance group with the NRC BCAP resident inspector. It is our desire to assure that routine---

onsite communications w.ith the NRC are clear and provide an appropriate. level of attention to NRC concerns.

The delay in submitting this response was discussed with S. Little on April 22, Mr. R. F. Warnick on April 8, 1985 and Mr. W.

1985.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please direct them to this office.

Very t uly yours

_ =:m D. L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing

/klj Enclosure cc: NRC Resident Inspector - Braidwood , p,AY 8 1985 0052K

dEY 3.c - 3 )

ENCLOSURE ONE '

COMMONWEALTH E0ISON COMPANY ONE

, RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORT 50-456/85-006 AND 50-457/85-006 ITEM 50-456/85-006-02 AND 50-457/85-006-02 Item of Noncompliance

1. 10 CFR, Appendix B, Criterion II, states, in part, that "The quality assurance program shall provide control over activities affecting the quality of the identified structures, systems, and components.... The program shall provide for indoctrination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality as necessary to assure tnat suitable proficiency is achieved and maintained."

Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Requirement No. 2.0, Section 2.3, states, in part, that " Qualifications and certifications will be... established to meet the applicaole requirements of... ANSI Standard N45.2.6... Contractor personnel engaged in inspection...will be required to be trained, qualified, and certified to perform their specific activity in accordance with the above requirements.

ANSI N45.2.6-1978, Paragraph 4, states, in part, that

" Personnel who are assigned the responsibility ano the authority to perform functions covered by this stancard shall have, as a minimum, the level of capability shown in Table 1. Table 1 requires a Level II capability for -

personnel evaluating the acceptability of inspection and examination results. According to Table 1, Level I inspectors are authorized to act as data takers but they are not authorized to determine the acceptability of construction activities.

Contrary to the above, the licensee's electrical contractor utilizeo Level I Quality Control (QC) inspectors for inspection and acceptance of electrical welds. This practice involved 14 different Level I inspectors over a  !

four year time period.

RESPONSE

I Commonwealth Edison Company does not agree that this is an  :

example of non-compliance. We do believe, however, that resolution l of this issue does lead to an enharTed inspection program. "

~-

L&W~We_W The subject of inspector activities has been previously reviewed by NRC personnel and CECO QA personnel at Braidwood Station. We believe that a review of pertinent historical information is useful and provides insight into the practices previously utilized. This information, including a review of ANSI N.45.2.6 requirements, is enclosed as an attachment to this response.

Commonwealth Edison Company believes that no corrective action is necessary. Commonwealth Edison Company has confidence in the quality of the Braidwood Station. Further confirmation of the quality of the installed hardware, including welds by the electrical contractor, is provided by BCAP and other reinspection /overinspection programs already in progress at Braidwood.

In order to reach resolution of this issue, the following response acknowledges the previous practices while providing for enhanced inspection activities in the future.

Commonwealth Edison Company will issue a memo by May 15, 1985, to site contractors that will provide the following directions for the use of inspectors in ANSI N.45.2.6 programs:

1. Level II or Level III inspectors are to be used for inspection and acceptance of welds.

2. For all other types of inspections, Level II inspectors are to be used whenever practical. If Level I inspectors are used, specific data is to be recorded for each item inspected. This data will De reviewed by a Level II inspector, certified in the appropriate discipline, to determine the acceptance

. of the installation. ,

N ATTACHMENT TO ENCLOSURE ONE ,

50-456/85-006 AND 50-457/85-006 ITEM 50-456/85-006-02 AND 50-457/85-006-02 In order to provide the proper perspective to this issue, we believe that it is necessary to document pertinent information

, regarding ANSI N45.2.6 and historical information specifically related to the use of electrical contractor Level I QC inspectors at Braidwood. This review will address:

4

1. Revi,ew of ANSI N45.2.6-1978 Requirements.

! 2. Review of NRC Xtem 50-456/80-06-01; 50-457/86-06-01, part j.

3. Review of NRC Item 50-457/83-18-01-03A; 50-457/83-17-01-03A, section regarding Level II review of Level I data.

4. Review of Quality Assurance Audit QAA 84-122, Open l Item #1, Concern #5. '

REVIEW OF ANSI N45.2.6-1978 REQUIREMENTS For completeness and ease of reference, a copy of ANSI N45.2.6-1978 is enclosed.

In the description of the item of non-compliance, paragraph i

I quoted 10 CFR, Appendix B, Criterion II to establish requirements for inooctrination and training. Commonwealth Eoison Company does not dispute this paragraph.

In the description of the item of non-compliance, paragraph II quoted the Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance Manual to establish the applicability of ANSI N45.2.6-1978. Commonwealth 1

Edison Company does not dispute this paragraph.

In tha description of the item of non-compliance, paragrapn III sentence 1 quotes from paragraph 4 of ANSI N45.2.6-1978.

Sentences 2 and 3 of paragraph III of the item of non-compliance, however, are not quotes from ANSI N45.2.6-1978.

In order to understand the intent of the standard, we refer to paragrapn 3.2 of ANSI N45.2.6-1978 which states, in part, that:

"A Level I person shall be capable of performing the inspections, examination, and tests that are required to be performed in accordance with documented procedures and/or industry practices." -

The ANSI N45.2.6-1978 furthermore provides in paragraph

• l .4 definitions of Inspection, Examination, and Testing as follows:

ATTACHMENT TO ENCLOSURE ONE -

50-456/85-006 AND 50-457/85-006 ITEM 50-456/85-006-02 AND 50-457/85-006-02 "1.4.1 Inspection. A phase of quality control which by means of examination, observation, or measurement determines the conformance of materials, supplies, parts, components, appurtenances, systems, processes, or structures to predetermined quality requirements.

1.4.2 Examination. An element of inspection consisting of investigation of materials, supplies, parts, components, appurtenances, systems, processes, or structures to determine conformance to those specified requirements which can be determineo by cuch investigation. Examination is usually )

nondestructive and includes simply physical  ;

manipulation, gaging, and measurement. '

l.4.3 Testing. The determination or verification of the capability of an item to meet specified requirements by subjecting the item to a set of physical, chemical, environmental, or operating conditions."

Therefore, ANSI N45.2.6-1978 does specifically provide that Level I persons are capable'of performing inspections, examination, and tests and ANSI N45.2.6-1978 does specifically define these to mean determination of the conformance to predetermined or specified requirements. Commonwealth Edison Company believes that this is how L. K. Comstock Level I weld inspectors were utilized.

The Level II~ review of the inspection results was performed

' In retrospect neitner tne

'g3.stoprocedure determine norvalidity ano acceptability.

the documented objective evidence on the inspection checklist were sufficient to determine the method used by the Level II for establishing validity and acceptability of the results during the 4 year period in question.

< Review of NRC Item 50-456/80-06-01; 50-457/80-06-01 NRC Inspection Report 50-456/80-06; 50-457/80-06 dated July 9, 1980 addressed the qualification level of individuals i performing procedure 4.8.3. Specifically, Item 50-456/80-06-01, 50-457/80-06-01, part j stated:

"In weld procedure 4.8.3, the qualification level for the performance of the inspectors was not indicateo."

In response to this NRC concern, L. K. Comstock QC Procedure 4.8.3 was revised to state:

" Inspection and Documentation shall be performed by a

Level I or Level II Inspector qualified per Section 4.1.3 of the Q.C. Manual."

e

tx 3.%-3 ATTACHMENT TO ENCLOSURE ONE ,

50-456/85-006 AND 50-457/85-006 ITEM 50-456/85-006-02 AND 50-457/85-006-02 The NRC Region III personnel reviewed, accepted, and closed i this item, as documented in Inspection Report 50-456/80-12 and I 50-457/80-11 dated October 23,1980. The NRC stated:

... Procedure 4.8.3 has been revised to clarify the functions of the welding inspector and his level of qualification."

Thus NRC Region III reviewed, accepted, an'd closed the specific subject of L. K. Comstock Level I QC personnel performing inspections of electrical welds in accordance with procedure 4.8.3.

Review cf NRC Item 50-456/83-18-01-03A; 50-457/83-17-01-03A NRC Inspection Report Item 50-456/83-18-01-03A l 50-457/81-17-01-03A addressed the subject of review of data by a Level II inspector when a Level I inspector records the data.

Specifica.tly, this item stated, in part,

"(8) Procedure 4.8.5, " Inspection of Class lE Safety-Related Cable Pan Installation", Revision A, dated February 4, 1983.

Paragraph 3.2.2.1 - This paragraph needs to be revised to require the Level II inspector performing the review of Form 17 for completeness to also review the data for acceptability /rejectability when a Level I. inspector records the data. All procedures / forms need to be revised, as required, to clarify this requirement."

In L. O. DelGeorge letter to J. G. Keppler dated March 23, 1984, Commonwealth Edison Company provided the following response to this item:

" Response / Corrective Action Taken Commonwealth Edison Company acknowledges the need to revise Procedure 4.8.5 so that the scope of a Level II inspector's review of a Level I inspector's records clearly includes recorded data for acceptability and rejectability. Prior to the NRC Inspection, in an in-house letter, L. K. Comstock's Project Quality Control Manager clarified the level of review to be completeo when Level I and Level II inspectors sign reviews. These clarifications will be incorporated into all applicable L. K. Comstock procedures. We further believe that the actual practice of a Level II signing for a Level I has been in accordance with ANSI N45.2.6.

fx D-@-3 ATTACHMENT TO ENCLOSURE ONE 50-456/85-006 AND 50-457/85-006 .

ITEM 50-456/85-006-02 AND 50-457/85-006-02 l

l Date of Completion Applicable L. K. Comstock procedures are expected to be revised by March 30, 1984."

As a result of this item, various L. K. Comstock procedures were revised. Specifically, Procedure 4.8.5 (Inspection of Class 115 Safety-Related Cable Pan Installations) Revision C was revised to address the specific concern. Procedure 4.13.1 (Quality Control Documentation Requirements of Quality Related Records) Revision C paragraph 3.4.2.2 generically specified "When a Level II Inspector reviews the documentation of a Level I, the Level II evaluates the validity ano acceptability of the inspection and test results as recorded by the Level I". Procedure 4.8.3 (Weld Inspection)

Revision F paragraph 3.24.1 was added to address specific concern.

The NRC Region III personnel reviewed, accepted, and closed this item, as documented in Inspection Report 50-456/84-19; 50-457/84-18.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT QAA 84-122 The same concern identified by the NRC inspector was previously identified as a concern by Commonwealth Edison Company General Office Audit QAA-84-122 of L. K. Comstock at Braidwood which was performed 9/10/84 through 9/14/84 and documented in a report dated 9/21/84. Specifically, Open Ite,m #1, concern #5 states:

"5. (Question #28) Although Comstock did not currently employ Level I Inspectors, the Welding .

Inspection Procedure 4.8.3 revision E addressed their utilization in the completion of weld and other related inspections. Level I Inspectors would be required to pass judgement on the acceptability of observed conditions to utilize the checklists supplied by this procedure.

Commonwealth Edison Co's Q.A. Department will only allow a. Level I Inspector to operate in the capacity of a data gatherer. That data in turn, must be analyzed for acceptance by an inspector of a higher level.

Recommendations:

Either the references to the employment of Level I inspectors should be deleted froc. the Comstock's procedures outlining their inspection program or those inspection procedures should be revised to precisely define the limited nature of the Level I capacilities."

<-,,,tw-. - --.w-- ,. - + - - - - - - - , , . - - ~ - - - - . - ,. , , , - - - , , , - - . - . . - , , . - -

, m h

ATTACHMENT TO ENCLOSURE ONE 50-456/85-006 AND 50-457/85-006 ITEM 50-456/85-006-02 AND 50-457/85-006-02 This item was classified as an open item based on the fact that there were no Level I L. K. Comstock Welding Inspectors at the time of the audit. Commenwealth Edison Company has conducted Q.A. ,

Follow-up on this issue by surveillances which documented the following status:

Q.A. Follow-up 12/12/84 Concern #5 - L. K. Comstock has revised procedure 4.8.3 in revision G to eliminate all references to a Level I Q.C. inspector.

Q.A. Follow-up 2/1/85 Concern #5 - Procedure 4.8.3 revision G received final approval on 1-11-85.

Q.A. Follow-up 2/12/85 Concern #5 - Tnis concern remains open pending the establishment of a program for evaluating the acceptability of previous work performed by Level I inspectors.

We feel that, in light of questions raised by Q.A. and the NRC, it is prudent to assure that all parties involved are fully satisfied. The corrective actions listed in our response to this NRC item are also being presented to Q.A.

i

SUBCONTENTION 5.A ,

Subcontention 5.A, as admitted in this proceeding, states:

5. Contrary to Criterion III, " Design Control,"

of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Comanwealth Edison Company has failed to establish measures to assure that applicable regulatory requirements and design bases are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions including provisions to assure that appropriate quality standards are specified in design documents and the deviations from such standards are controlled. Applicant has also failed to require that measures are established for the identification and control of design interfaces and for the coordination among participating design organizations, that the measures include t!'e establishment of procedures among participating design organizations for the review, approval, release, distribution, and revision of documents involving design interfaces and that the design control measures provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design, such as by the performance of design reviews,

, by the use of alternate or simplified calculational methods, or by the performance of a suitable testing program.

A. The NRC CAT inspection concluded that in the

, area of design control the most significant t finding was the failure to annotate unincor-porated design chinges on controlled design documents. The most significant finding in

. the area of design change control was design i change documents written against superseded l

' revisions of the approved design drawings. In at least one instance, this deficiency resulted in a pipe support being installed and inspected to other than the latest approved design. (CAT Inspection Report 84-44/40, Exh. 10.)

The Staff agrees that this subcontention should be dismissed summarily. As the attached affidavit of Region III NRC Inspector J.W. Muffett indicates, the items listed in Rorem Subcontention 5.A are I

l l

not indicative of a programatic breakdown in Applicant's design control .

activities.

The items cited in Subcontention 5.A were identified during an inspection of Applicant's construction activities by an NRC Construction Appraisal Team (CAT). It is important to note that with respect to Applicant's design change control activities, the CAT Team conciuded:

" Design change control was determined to be generally in conformance with applicable requirements." See Executive Sumary to Inspection Report-Nos. 50-456/84044 and 50-457/84040 (attached in Ex.5.A-2 to Affidavit of James W. Muffett In Support of NRC Staff's Response To Applicant's Motion For Sumary Disposition of Rorem QA Subcontention 5.A). It is not disputed that the CAT inspectors discovered a limited number of design drawings that were not annotated in compliance with applicable procedural requirements. Muffett Affidavit at 15. The existence of a limited number of unannotated design drawings, however, is not inconsistent with the CAT Team's overall conclusion that Applicant's " control of design documents is generally adequate," (see Ex.5.A-2); after all, the CAT Team did not find, and need not have found, that Applicant's design control program was flawless. NRC Inspector Muffett adds the proper perspective:

"Rorem Subcontention 5.A is not based on a violation. I believe that the coment in the CAT inspection report [ cited in Subcontention 5.A] was motivated by an interest in improving an already acceptable process."

Muffett Aff.idavit at 18.

Applicant has moved to increase the effectiveness of its design control by revising a procedure of Sargent & Lundy, Applicant's architect-engineer, to enjoin site engineers from issuing an Engineering l

l

\ -- ..

Change Notice (ECN) until after the completion of the relevant rev. sed ,

drawing. See Muffett Affidavit at 16. NRC Inspector Muffett has - l reviewed this change in procedure and is satisfied that it will increase l the effectiveness of Applicant's design change control program. Muffett l Affidavit at 17. To the best of NRC Inspector Muffett's knowledge, there has been no recurrence of the type of -incidents which form the basis of Subcontention 5.A. Muffett Affidavit at 17.

The isolated occurrences identified in the subcontention do "not l -represent a significant breakdown in Applicant's quality assurance program relating to design control." Muffett Affidavit at 18.

l Accordingly, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact to be litigated regarding this subcontention and Applicant is entitled to a favorable decision on this issue as a matter of law. Consequently, the l

Motion for .Sumary Disposition should be granted.  !

l l

1 I

O l

- . - . . . - - . .-. . - - . _ _ _ . _ . ___ . -.