ML20214E714
| ML20214E714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1986 |
| From: | Sommerfield T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-A-081, OL-A-81, QA-20-83-59, NUDOCS 8705220214 | |
| Download: ML20214E714 (44) | |
Text
.P do - y 5G/qS7 -6 L
~
~
,A} - 8/
b.P. FORM 18-1.28 4 W 7//a Q
Commonwealth O, Edison Company DATE
- gC e
GUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL M 14 P9:37 OFFIC{r ~:cd
- AUDIT REPORT GCCK TU %B"' -
a QA-20-83-5P
.n e
Type Audit:
/IT/ Program Audit
/
/ Product Inspection Point O Records M Special To:
F. Rolan/I. DeVald s
12/5-9 Project Braidwood Visit Date &12/83 Report Date 12-19-83 System N/A Component Identification M/A Material Description Electrical Installation L. K. Comstock '
Location Braidwood Vendor Subcontractor N/A Location _ N/A Contacts See recort P.O. No.
231260 Spec. No.
svona Recommended Inspections:
6 mos 3 mas 1 mo Other:
As scheduled Notes:
L. K. Comstock to respond in writing by 1-11-84 as indicated within this report.
Date / /##
2 Overall Lead ito Lead Auditor M'E M Date /1 h 7 [9 )
Auditor h 8.S{AA/#
Date 12-2%93 Observer $Aln. a /hr11.so n
~
Da
/8-91-93 hyrW ate /2-2~/-T3 Reviewed DAH/n1w
/
cc: Manager of Q.A.
Director of Q.A. (Engr-Constr)
Site Constr. Supt.
Site Quality Assurance /2 Project Manager Project Engineering Mgr.
Manager of Projects auditee 870522O214 860710
.hy hg h
{DR ADOCK 0500 6
I Quality Assurance Department Audit L.
K.
Comstock Braidwood Units 1 & 2 Audit QA-20-83-59 I
December 5 thru 9 12 1983 Summary This audit was performed to verify that L.
K.
Comstock is implementing their Q.A.
Program in accordance with 10CFR50 Appendix B as applied to electrical installations work at Braidwood.
The following areas were covered:
1.
Handling / Material Control 2.
Calibration / Control Test Equipment 3.
Welding / Weld Rod Control 4.
Terminations 5.
Cable Installation / Pulling 6.
Equipment Installation 7.
Q.C.
Inspections 8.
CEA Installation 9.
Document Control
- 10. Reinspection Program
- 11. Torquaing of Items Out of the eleven (ll) audit areas listed above, four (4)
Findings were identified.
Identified Deficiencies The following is a brief description of the deficiencies identified during the audit:
Findine #1:
.L. E.l'Comsteck,40es act decument er trend visual welding"S$atemIt'estkiUSyidentified by PTL's overview inspections.
E. Coasteck',s calibratiOR record reports Findina #2:
5d hedtalh"phhke'503154"informatiha,
'spie'c1 2cally a checknark indicating acceptance of the calibration and the initials of the O.C.
inspector that
, performed the calibration.
Findine #3:
L.
K.
Comstock has not torqued cap screws with spring nuts for cable pan and conduit supports per design requirements.
Findina #4:
L.
K.
Comstock had installed a piece of equipment approximately 42" out of design location and Q.C.
had inspected and accepted the equipment as being installed Per design.
The specific details of each deficiency are presented in Attachment "A".
(Ol67Q)
i QA-20-83-59 Page 2 Assessment L.
K.
Comstock has been repairing welds that were identified as deficient by PTL's overview but those deficiencies have not been trended.
Since a trend was not performed the cause of the condition has not been determined nor has corrective action been taken to preclude repetition.
Also, LKC Q.C.
does not perform an inspection on the reworked weld.
This practice has been in existance for approximately one year (see Finding #1).
L.
K.
Comstock is adequately calibrating their instrument and test equipment, but they are not acceptably documenting some of the calibration.
Calibration records were found to contain photocopied information, such as the checkmark indicating acceptance of calibration and the initials of the O.C.
inspector.
The actual calibrations are not in question because the measured values are original (see Finding #2).
L.
K.
Comstock Q.C.
is required to check the torque values on safety-related cable pan and conduit cap screws with spring nuts but is not properly doing so.
A review of cable pan and conduit cap screws found numerous deficiencies of undertorquaing.
On conduit, required Q.C.
review for overtorqueing of cap screws is not being done.
l One piece of equipment was found to be installed out of design t
I location.
The MCC was installed at the wrong end of the equipment pad.
The pad had been designed for two future cubicles at one end.
LKC had inspected the MCC and accepted it (see Finding #4).
Documentation of equipment installation was also found to be deficient.
This item is not included as a finding in this audit, however, because it was previously identified and will be tracked by Finding #8a of the G.O.
Mega-Audit of Braidwood (performed September
- October, 1983).
General Evaluation L.
K.
Comstock is properly implementing their procedure for I
handling, receiving, and storage of materials.
LKC is storing their weld rod in calibrated rod ovens.
The weld rod ends have been painted and controlled in accordance with their procedures.
L.
K.
Comstock was found to be acceptably performing, inspecting, and documenting cable pulls, cabla terminations, and CEA installations.
Field activities were observed in each of these areas, and records were reviewed to verify compliance with LKC approved procedures.
The work was performed in accordance with the procedures, and the required documentation for each of these areas was retrievable and completed in an acceptable manner.
(01670)
QA-20-84-59 Page 3 In the area of document control L.
K.
Comstock is properly I
marking FCR's and ECN's on design documents.
A review of drawings in the construction office and in the field found no deficiencies.
A review of the L.
K.
Comstock's reinspection program found that it is being performed properly.
L.
K.
Comstock has implemented the reinspection program in accordance with instructions given by PCD.
Adequate control exists to assure that all items identified for reinspection will not be overlooked.
Audit Team S.
C.
Hunsader (overall Lead Auditor)
D.
A.
Hoffer (Lead Auditor)
J.
D.
Tolar (Auditor)
C.
A.
Hayes (Observer)
Contacts The following are the personnel contacted during the audit:
NAE 1 Position L.
Phillips LKC Q.C.
Inspector J.
Seeders LKC Q.C.
Inspector I.
DeWald LKC Q.C.
Manager F.
Rolan LKC Project Manager D.
Schirmen LKC Q.C.
Inspector N.
Kimble LKC Q.C.
Inspector R.
Saklak LKC Q.C.
Inspector G.
Freinark LKC Q.C.
Inspector T.
Stewart LKC Foreman T.
Stewart LKC Q.C.
Inspector J.
Cameron LKC Engineering S.
Weikart LKC Q.C.
Clerk L.
Seese LKC Q.A.
Engineer B.
Brown LKC Q.C.
Inspector J.
Hii LKC Project Engineer J.
Blanchette LKC Document Control Entrance / Erit Meetinas The audit entrance meeting was held on 12-05-83 and the exit meeting was held on 12-12-83.
The attendees of the meetings are listed on Attachment "B".
(01670) i i-i
CA-20-83-59 Page 4 Audit Response
~
A written response stating corrective action taken, date when full compliance will be achieved, and the action taken to prevent recurrence is required for all deficiencies identified.
The response should be sent to T.
R.
Sommerfield by Janaury 11, 1984.
The audit team would like to thank L.
K.
Comstock for their cooperation during this audit.
1 l
l l
l l
(0167Q)
Attachment "A"
Findina el Contrary to 10CFR50 Appendix B.
Criterion XVI which states in part " Measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality...are promptly identified and corrected...the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition."
L.
K.
Comstock has not documented or trended visual welding nonconformities identified by PTL.
Discussion L. K.
Coastock's present program prescribes that when conditions adverse to quality are identified a Nonconformance Report (NCR) or an Inspec, tion Correction Report (ICR) is to be generated.
LKC was directed by PCD to discontinue documenting deficient welds identified by PTL on LKC's NCR or ICR reports.
LKC was to continue to track the deficiencies identified by PTL in order to prsvent any recurring deficiencies and their procedures were to be reviewed for compliance and changed if required.
LKC stopped writing NCR and ICR reports, but did not track the deficiencies identified by PTL in order to prevent recurring deficiencies.
Also, LKC's procedure was not revised to reflect the change.
In addition to not trending PTL identified deficiencies, L.
K.
Comstock does not update their weld inspection file with an LKC Q.C.
weld inspection report for the reworked weld.
The inspection report that is in file is an acceptable inspection for the weld that was identified as deficient by PTL.
The weld inspection report in LKC's file is for a weld that no longer exists in the field.
This practice has been in existence for approximately one year.
Corrective Action LKC will respond in writing by 1-11-84.
Action Taken To Prevent Recurrence Same as corrective action.
Findina #2 Contrary to 10CFR50 Appendix B Criteria XVII which states in part that " sufficient records shall be maintained to furnished evidence of activities affecting quality."
Thirteen (13) Comstock instrument calibration record reports were found which did not furnish proper evidence of an acceptable calibration.
l l
(0167Q) l
Attachment "A"
Page 2 Discussion Thirteen (13) calibraton record reports associated with weld cod ovens and crimpers (Comstock Form #23) were found to contain photocopied information, specifically, a checkmark indicating acceptance of calibration and the initials of the O.C.
inspector that performed the calibration.
The following are examples of deficient calibration records.
Item calibrated calibration Date Crimper A926 8-25-83 9-26-83 Crimper A335 0-16-83 8-18-83 7-18-83 6-17-83 5-18-83 4-18-83 Rod Oven A137 3-02-83 9-02-03 6-02-83 Rod Oven A763 7-05-83 Rod Oven A2209 6-30-83 The measured values were original on the calibration records.
Corrective Action L.
K.
Comstock is reviewing the calibration files to identify all photocopied reports.
New calibration records are bieng generated with original signature and being attached to the photocopied report.
LKC will respond in writing by 1-11-84 for date of expected compliance.
Action Taken To Prevent Recurrence LKC will respond in writing by 1-11-84.
Findina #3
(
Contrary to IOCFR50 Appendix B Criterion V which states in part
" Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings."
L.
K.
Comstock has not torqued cable pan and conduit cap screws with spring nuts per S & L requirements.
(01670)
Attachment "A"
Page 3 Discussion On drawings 20E-0-3353A Rev. AB and 20E-O-3053H Rev. H an area located on Unit 2 side Elevation 426' Aux. Building was selected to verify the torquaing requirements on cable tray and conduit cap screws with spring nuts are being adhered to by L.
K.
Comstock.
Twenty-one (21) cable pan hangers and twenty-seven (27) conduit hangers were checked.
Thirty (30) out of one hundred twelve (112) cap screws checked on safety related pan were undertorqued.
Additionally, five (5) out of fourteen (14) non-safety-related cable pan cap screws were found undertorquad.
All of the above safety related cable pans were O.C.
inspected.
Q.C.
did not re' cord the torque wrench they used on the inspection reports.
Out of fifty (50) cap screws on safety related conduit nine (9) were undetorqued and and thirteen (13) were overtorqued.
Out of twenty (20) cap screws on non-safety related conduit twelve (12) were undertorqued and two (2) were overtorqued.
In total.,out of the fifty-two (52) deficiencies on both safety-related conduit and pan, forty-eight (48) can be attributed to installations already inspected by LKC Q.C.
r It was also observed during thin audit that in procedure 4.8.5, I
the Cable Pan Inspection Checklist (Form 17) does not include a t
space to record the torque wrench number used for torque verification.
In addition, Q.C.
does not assure that cap screws on conduit are not overtorqued.
Additionally, conduit trapeze type hangers that are bolted together are not Q.C.
inspected for torquaing requirements.
Only the conduit strap cap screws are checked for the required torque.
Corrective Action LKC will respond in writing by 1-11-84.
Action Taken To Prevent Recurrence Same as corrective action.
Findina #4 l
Contrary to 10CFR50 Appendix B Criterion X, which states in part l
I that "A program for inspection of activities affecting quality shall be established and executed by or for the organization performing the activity to verify conformance with... drawings," equipment installed by LKC was not per the latest S & L drawing revision, yet L
it was inspected by Q.C.
and found to be acceptable.
(0167Q) i l.
- -. -, - - -, - -. - -., - - - - -, - -, -,, - -, - - ~
s Attachment "A"
Page 4 Discussion Equipment no. LAP 32E (installed 8-3-79) was reinspected by LKC Q.C.
on 10-20-83, and the inspection results were documented on LKC Form 38.
Per this inspection report. the equipment was installed in accordance with the applicable S & L drawing (2OE-O-3352).
During this audit, however, the field location of equipment no.
LAP 32E was checked and found to be in conflict with the most current revision of the drawing-(Rev. AJ. 11-18-83).
It was discovered that while the drawing requires the MCC to be 10 inches south of 16 line, it is installed approximately 52 inches south of 16 line.
The MCC was installed at the wrong end of the equipment pad.
The pad was designed for two future cubicles at one end.
Corrective Action LKC will respond in writing by 1-11-84.
Action Taken To Prevent Becurrence' same as corrective action.
(01670) e
.- ~ -. -
,,,n..,
49ugu:xEeCv ms MCy%mcoe 3eeusda HN:o@aem B r-ue4s 4
Q.
4.
Mowweu UMUo O.4.
NCp Ceeu e
Urgwx UMUo O.4.
NCy,4Ceeu p.
J.
4 N.
- e. to9eox2eC UMUo O.4.
NCarCeeu 4
M.
%. 2e.ueaoC 0M2 O.4.
E4CeOeu 4
Q.
Po4gu 0NUO O.4.
NCe Ceeu e
4 c
b.
MoeeC
.WU
.u0meUu EeCg5eu o
J b.
M.
Mec4 ope 4e 0W2 O.4.
NCpcCeeW c
e O.
U.
2o>ex h,4eee 0 4*NO.U* EeCgpeu 2HtUO e
o 3.
4.
24uoEeCC 2HtUO
.e4c NCO,Ceeu o
.3 4
0.
- 4. 2e>ee UMUO 0 4.
NCp,Ceeu 4
+
t c
M.
oe49EgCC
.MU 0.4.
NCp.Ceeu 2
4 M.
Qe3e4e e
.MU 0.U. E4Cgoeu 3
MMru Xeeuwde NieNIem 4
4 4
P r-4We4e Q.
4-Eowweu UMOO O'4.
NCorCeeu e
b.
M0e4C
.MO
&u0eeU4 E4C4aeu J
4 U.
4-
%eheo UMUO O 4.
NC0rCeeu e
P.
W-o o E E e u u 4" t
e t
e49 UMUO O 4.
oDo9urCMeC9eCo e
e O-Po4eu UMUO O 4.
NC54Ceeu M.
oe4WE4CC-t e
.MU O 4.
MCpwCeeu 3
4 M.
4-Z,-
4MU
.u0neU4 MCprCeeu o
4*
4 Q.
4*
muo3C UMUO O 4.
m3oe4>reOu e
H.
b-Qe3e4e e
.MU O 0.
34c4peu 2
J.
4-Peoe4te UMUO
&M0eeUW epm
- ce n
U.
EeCCeuxe UMUO oUQ
- O9*b0^
4 1ll
i
.r
- J-23 Revision 0 CC::STRUCTIO!! DEFICIE:;0Y EVALUATIO!
12-22-82 C. d(ja ps.,: w *,~ ar'r / d r iso- ? % -5~9 PART 1 DESCRI.:!IO!;
Describe The Deficiency (Attach references)
- /A
' ' d.
p i
s& o c. -,, ;s,a.
r.:.
m.
.... \\, <. o,~ s / p.* /,
. in. /.
'/1 'or s ', ' f.0 f i.5* L ' < l C
$'J & O, *,t./ :q 11.1 J s) sJit' &..t'ei N A 3 r4
'.-).fo) i ? ;- a,5.-]
32
/* ?!
e n
i PART 2 EVALUATIO!!
2A-Safety Impact YES NO Y
Does this deficiency, whether or not safety related, er.'ect
\\
safe operation of the facility.
2B Significance 6-. J-6:. ? :.3N YES MC
-?
j
% a ' rad.Qogr_ is OA Progru appare.it'whiti 'equires
(.J 41v.'e,;vu.r. : creurces to re-establish assurance of
' "..:2, progr.m?
~
~'- -
.+
...,,..~.. :L -:
,.t. : e...... ',;..-
.n-
~
- -,; y,..
~...
~
Are expenditt,u'et of: $100,0.0G.necessary:.l.a ionolGM'aumre..
5.9 s,.,
.. b
._sNte5c, c~o5p;of.ents'into' ~com..plicice.u1'tE'appr overt. desis.r.T'
- .'N.37.O'.7
-. ~.. -,
-Are expenditures of $100',000 necessary to reoair structures, systems, components into compliance with approved desi.,n?
K Is approved final desi.::n inadecuate te a:sure cc pl!.a.nce with SAR and construction pernit?
I i
l I
. m.. ~.,
BG-23
, s (2)
Devision 0
" -y 2-22-62 YES NO F
During Installation / Testing is it apparent that a structure, system, comc0nent supplied by others can not meet the required performance specifications and should be reported (10CFR21) other users?
(i.e. Potential Industry Deficiency) e
~
Does Inadecuate Management review / corrective action exist which ignores significant adverse trends?
Do pre-operational or start-up test results determine a system that does not meet safety analysis report or technical specification requirements?
PART 3 REPORTABILITY OF A 50.553 NOTIFICATION If the answer to Part 2A is Yes and any answer in Part 2B is Yes, this deficiency shall be reported to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III Headquarters.
v I
Item not reportable Item reported to date NRC Region III 3 ~5 -s,/
Evaluated /Reportedby'j/!.,,].
.7 t,-. date
[(1 CommonwealthEdis]
~
--~--
. - ~ ~
y_.~-.
1 ~ M.-..
~...
~
- 4....; - a -.'
i.. 14 -. d;c..
,.1l, a-s. '%.
... I. -
3
' - E,'
- .,' m..
- 2,:l-l-.. '.~; -
?.. '
.i 5f.- W l ~.~ -$.*
_. * ~. _. '.
> ~. _.
,l-
~. - -
.y s
- '-_.. y;. _.:- - _._- ;
.. *-.__..._.,_.--,.-=~,t s. e
.a
..._,a.
--... ~.
t I
I l
...s i
- s.
e A
J' J-23
~'5 Revision 0 CC::STRUCTIC : DEFICIE!!CY EVALUATIO!!
12-22-82 D. 2 O lli
' A U/~t I *C =~/'J N 23-03-57' PART 1 DESCRI?!IC!;
Describe The Deficiency (Attach references) l~il'E)Hi 0
- l., k'. 0.n,. 1.' Toc X
/ Ass- [ *u,<re:iv [
'J
,11! '
- 2 C 1 " 3 x).
E-r. ' #
[ r,% o 10,4 g p_~.
fj pg,. r 1
v~
!.O U r 2 h/
l ) ? 13 U o [~ fiM s s is'; d
)0h. sAd Ecia + a r 7
~
u O i:
Aiv A&Y j'Ta BL f 0y L-i,d.c.+ ;hs,a >
PART 2 EVALUATIO:1 2A Safety Impact YES NO Does this deficiency, whether or not safety related, er.'ect safe operation of the facility.
2B Significance YES NC
$C4 Mi. 7 ~.?;.J '...
I. -'
l
. a,[ra 31.qu'fr_ E QA Progru 2ppare.it whic i -equires r
- -' e:c -
f_
,pisle,;vG J. reccurces to re-establish assurance of i
program?
~
-" e l
~
. A ce. ex p.cndi ttges.. cf: $100,0.0G.
,.. ~..
~- - :q.:.;:.
x,.::...,..
.n.
- D.
i y '
~
~ I sy5tes.c, c'p5pbkntifin td ~i cmp.necescary:.tc. rmI49R'.nts tures',. <l
. [ ' =..
~
~
'. ?.
.T. _. : -
,;.~~.-D~'_.
~ ~. -,. '. *-
.-4 l
Are expenditures of $100',000 necessary to recair structures, t
l systems, components into compliance with approved design?
I l
Is a; proved final desi.:n inadequate to accure cor.pliance with SAR and construction perr.it?
-J i
-.. ~. - - -
BG-23
/
(2)
"evision 0
,2-22-62 t\\DuringInstallation/Testingisitapparentthatastructure, systen, cocoonent supplied by others can not meet the required performance specifications and should be reported (10CFR21) other users?
(i.e. Potential Industry Deficiency) t e
Does Inadecuate Management review / corrective action exist which ignores significant adverse trends?
Do pre-operational or start-up test results determine a system that does not meet safety analysis report or technical specification requirements?
PART 3 REPORTABILITY OF A 50.55*, NOTIFICATION If the answer to Part 2A is Yes and any answer in Part 2B is Yes, this deficiency shall be reported to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III Headquarters.
Item not reportable Item reported to date
~~
NRC Region III Evaluated / Reported by Nd, I vt --, date b 9 L-
[ Commonwealth n
~
- . - u ~, ;.'.
p...:.-
- ~m.
m,---...
1~..;-Jy..
n.:. - c. - - a -,-
. - =::-- -
3; -
. -. ~.
- . ' N::[??. jg(f Ap.' kTI*. / 55~ ~ !- '*: ~jf-O)2.'.);,.'Z/.i.g.f_
.,s.
~.' j.~h
. -. _... +.
~r.;..
T
... ~..
,-,e 2<>.
- ~ + - >
7m
._ -.. -. *' ~
DD t
.e me
_...w..
e.
.o a.
G 23
~7 5 Revision 0 CC::STRUCTIC?! DEFICIE ;0Y EVALUATI0t!
12-22-82
[. C' n DL
- r t
.s..^
" 10 - 9 3 - Y' PART 1 DESCRI?!IO.';
Describe The Deficiency (Attach references) c
- ~
p *l.p 2
'.:.3 i.., z
- i. c u.s 3. K
s-s n.
s o. '. - c o
' ')
0, = <~1 n /,..
^,1 si
(%.v,% 7 (N't.'.L'c',y V ca, y 2 i !'//
.s G'<rUp A/ :/ 3
/%.
-3 i L
.b4 )a,<,eg u.x,j g
'J o
r PART 2 EVALUATION 2A Safety Impact YES NO j
Does this deficiency, whether or not safety related, ef.'ect safe operation of the facility.
2B Significance l
YES MC iI.. C, : C..:. 5 64_.
- ~
__]
- r. a ', ra 31.qu'ir, is QA Pro!;r c appar?a c 'w'11c ;
equires
- - ' - ~ 'rl -
t_.
,s i.,,.,, )ug.r. rescurces. to re-establish assurance of program?
. i.
_: c,.. ',..
c-
__... %,.,.__ w..
... _Ac.e.. ex. pend.it,uret of: $.100.,0.00 nece.sse/.:.Liicco8*.-96.ac tu rds.
~?..
.;e.
.c
~
.2
~.syyten:3, compolent:r 'into compliance with stpprove.d.. de.ngr.?- -.~.f.&.'F. _.. s'E
..... ~........
[
'Are expenditures of $100,000 necessary to repair structures, systems, component.; into compliance with approved desi!;n?
\\~.'
Is approved final desi,:;n inadequate to accure compliance with St.R and construction permit?
.*4
- d s
e et
--..L_._._..____.-
i BG-23 (2)
"evision 0
.2-22-62 YES NO PA During Installation / Testing is it apparent that a strue:ure,
. f.
.p, system, conconent supplied by others can not eeet the
'1 required performance specifications and should be reported (10CF?.21) other users?
(i.e. Potential Industry Deficiency) 8 4
Does Inadecuate Manr.gement review / corrective action exist which ignores significant adverse trends?
Do pre-operational or start-up test results determine a 1
system that does not meet safety analysis report or technical specification requirements?
- )
PART 3 REPORTABILITY OF A 50.55 NOTIFICATIC" If the answer to Part 2A is Yes and any answer in Part 2B is Yes, this deficiency shall be reported to Nuclear Fegulatory Commission Region III Headquarters.
~
Item not reportable s.
~
/
Item reported to date NRC Region III Evaluated / Reported by'// L T,
m n date 3-U ~177 gM Co==onwealth Ed*,s0.~
~
\\r N
... ~
. ?
... N J**
-.+.
...- ~.
.=
l p
- h*%
.....~
- D:.~& : e.
i:,
g.
.. u-s; u
'.~~$..
? z~.~-..1 ^ J_" ~'. :WNQ:Y~~_h '.'. '.'..'.. *.....~ '~..
.5 i ~.
.m -. & :5.. a,.
~
I.g. a *. *r'.*,
.7
.x.
. - f..
~,4.'
~.8
'**.**g
- -***** *-i - *
'~~.*"'W'-
- y --'.- -
s
' ~ -
. ~.
,. ~, -. * - -
O
-==.m w
9
$9*
--i.
7 7
-p
.. - 0 t
A, s*
.-23 Revision 0 CC::STRUCTIO : DEFICIE!!OY EVALUATIO::
12-22-82 0,~~i o y: ka: T
- " /' ' ~~ " ' ' ' A ** *'
PART 1 DE2CRI?!IC::
Describe The Deficietcy (Attach references) 1/
l
/ / / ' /. / l.
L/
.)
/*
- J s
.<s _ '
s.: _'
n
) <v '
j
,t;,, 'n e' c
.. -,, =
l $* :,,* 'sr., c
> */
j's:s
/7
'?.
/W h /;-
-J 's; ja.o n
'~
A-r*/. ^
. 2.*
? *n n
../f/> : -
g z1 s s.ty y * ~ -,, ~'"e p }',,/,-
</ u' 'i,ria, ;. }
Ai ?E
- f *
' M % [l.O' 0"
e,.,
r-s PART 2 EVALUATION 2A Safety Impact YES NO Does this deficiency, whether or not safety related, effect s\\
safe operation of the facility.
s x
2B Significance i I- ~ -,a;h.. _
YES I;C
-'r
-~
w l
j l~
~. a [ra 31.(gsr_ i-QA Progru rappare.it "whic :
equires r
C-
)
(..> J
,ci.J 's, 3ug.r. Percurces to re-establish assurance of progr u::?
.Ar.e.. expend.it.ufec._ of- $100,0.0G.neces.s. ary.2.c.YenceE9. t; uc turds,. <..
J,.
~
...,.~
- . :. :c...,:.
.y
. ~-
-c
. ; f, -..
. systems, co=.pc~n.ents into. c_omplianc.c with stpproved desi.sr.7 ' -fd.' - _~ 4-7
~
\\
Are expenditures of $100,000 necessary to repair structures, systems, ccaponents into cc:pliance with approved design?
(
Is approved final desi;:n inadecuate to assure c0r.pli.':nce with SAR and construction perr.it?
1 M*WNaHBMWNEG. y - -
_. _ samk-ype. %.agspapa h..e% SdEDEBk WEEW-temnde -
- e.es..
BG-23 e'
(2) 7evision 0
.i
. YES NO
(
During Installation / Testing is it apparent that a structure, system, conconent supplied by others can not meet the required performance specifications and should be reported (ICCFR21) other users?
(i.e. Potential Incustry Deficiency) i
- (
Does Inadecuate Management review / corrective action exist which ignores significant adverse trends?
Do pre-operational or start-up test results determine a system that does not meet safety analysis report or technical specification requirements?
PART 3 REPORTABILITY OF A 50.55 NOTIFICATION If the answer to Part 2A is Yes and any answer in Part 2B is Yes, this deficiency shall be reported to Nuclear Regulatory Com=ission Region III Headquarters.
Item not reportable Item reported to date NRC fiegion III Y-Evaluated / Reported by 4s<,
ate 3 F V (a 9Co.monwealth Edis-4
~
- =~~..,.,...-%
.~
.. y,;..v-
._L -.,s m ;..
a,.-
~.~j,.;
.. -... -~~.. U.',.- %.. -
'. -(~ ~. y
-:=e'=~~~... _ -- ; : -
- '. _ ~ '. -
~ - :
S
_'- /
...;; h, w?
- .c e-.
.,. _,..=m...'...--.
.a-
..., ~ ~
4.-: *.g
.,..v.~- -. y.-.
.a
.. - - ". -. ' - 7~ -W
.'?"
_,j.. -
,, j '
~7
-, ~~.
.e 6
"^
-s'..'-*
~
e e
...,e i
'm4 ene
- p. m.
i.
-,y-
}
> s. -
f..
-l t
(
a CHECKLIST AND RECORD SHEET BRAIDWOOD STATION AUDIT NO.OA-20-83-59 j
AUDIT OF:
L.
K.
Comstock Page 2 of 14 Checklist Prepared By:
D.
A.
Hoffer.
J.
D.
Tolar.
M.
P.
Vela Lead Auditor:
D.
A.
Hoffer Auditors:
J.
D.
Tolar fg M.
P.
Vela M/
C.
A.
Haves
/
No.
/
Ouestion
/ Reference
/ Acc / Def / N/A 0,., ha e V r e b v1 he-chts er 2.
Verify that L.
K.
Comstock 10CPR50 calibrates measuring and testing Appendix B g
equipment in accordance with Criterion XII approved procedures.
TAe c < l. h< he., t...k ( G,<cl< ( W -77' G<rl c S N"' y ' ll a b /
aev,ewcc/-re a e v. ff
+ bn +
+ b < y, ew c b Any c c' w e e, e n,..A 17
&,. p,, +
C,. s. s *L
/
ic c jaJH it i A 735~
rc =
nD7 Ic 3 p qp1 I/ 1 r ry v. e l E cablan}-I e+ +4e 7 G n hc. e I.,%c/
r y v.,;
suaee
.cv a.yu o c
oee fac. u. 9.1 IL.C, I
fc,A 4l, m ic{ vsclrve1s N~c I'bI'"' N 'f~ '" /
a ea 4 t,. -c( ?)us. 4 h 9 T4.
c a f L <a %
% /,. _,, / A. y,
fa-rG#
c' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
- i gi; %.ici'r f<< (E Jci/ 2
- v 0 a..</ 2 5 e ' 4.g ce"F f'c (Eyk l S') c -l-rm v '
- w o cl a -c/ fe...< e-t c-
,cIct Th f- /It'..
e a s.
x bL<d,..
Av v.,I /
ca o
c/ r e A, -,, c - / e:.,...,
l
' do ec
. ? u, u/.
/
G.u!coc~*
- f..l c ~. #
A ~ 13 1 M- ~ 7? )
1 y) ~I ) 7 n Lc 9 g
V8f (01510) if -7 i
, -, +., - - - -
e
- o
?,, c :.. - 7
,3 / -J L -35 C
- c. n Th<
c ilN be a faa.,
sb kje<
ec a c.~ c d o T I, <j.. I.'. m./,,, c is w,1 4 L k C 's fc,e.
LI 9. Y R xv. 3/n/sf.
c a /, L.a % C -....
-f e br y '.-
e f t + o r p <.w ren e f n/.d. A,c4
~,,p,aa / n4r ac<
wrcl/
,.,e p.,, L.
The eds.x
<s #
4 re c, s.
yy (or f
ho w'
~/Ne Yeevi ack'ey c'e V; 4,.e e f c v L' e w er y cw d L., / a<< yM/e :
To % cA 4 +
l l5 7 17 'l l1 l 60 7 9 7 '/
+ L al,c,,4 / s g,,,t/c 5 4.,_;
w 4: Ie
< u i, ~,.,
i G {drd:
Lcad '
.<- n en +L.
- .y if was idesk/,.thj wf* +-L,%D 3) e?y+,as,...g1 cc n cc G~-.I +nacn%waxpl. i, c ji.) iw G.~ 1-),,1, T4 -
c i, ck ~,. 6 n,,(, c. r, y & ca tc,p% < r c f c, /, t.. s a,
a u /
t tG
< a, ha Is
& +4,
,,, p J., c + L,.i
.. 4.~,,/
\\
.n<9, af clefici s c I,k s'. p L. s c,,p 'c /.
+L<
ca l,L a L us w v,
A f (.
.1 y ac c
h b
- vanh, r
su C, j, wk/
f 1, L.,.1,,
bgc c <,, y., i+ 9 u g/w/g 3 7/u/f3 I
8'
- c-7
~
s gh-c 4i4 '
6*
p,, l,lb.d<l Ca I, l>. < ha.. 0fe C v m p v A -7 Hi 7 /16 ff 1 9/<s'/f3 7 / /1/9)
.cli7/9) r/is/s]
y/a/9 Roc / 6ve,, ///37 3/2/97 9h/H c/z/n Red dv<n A70 1/r/f )
(?a)6aroI127c7 6 /1sl3 J TI, e in e s e.~.cl v a l. c,
um lou
-; 4 =
w cet en c a {.
t e c c ecf'.
A+6cl s<<
+ l, <ne.(1)c F F h <
ci L.
e
/:/ /
r <pe + h.
Thx v.~b<vs ci:~c-l-c/
e r :7 u s< < l k <
ort i
af,
- s. a y + L.y I,
- s y t. +, cy fa it,,9 st,
~,,
A, _/ L,9+ 7s V; n U ~ h/
T t~
S ~ /.<,
oc L,,.. k Ra Sc h t h y T,6 -
T.< / @
- y. /
+ en
/'
IQ. 1 0 6 7 C r imf < a A IC T 7 Ii 13 IGli S r v.jpe < s
&Ih 7 Ce...yc-
/3/126 N /7) 2
//
?,,:, u.- 7 g'g_y.;:2 c;.
- T' c i &
Tec/ Tc1 or~
//
s
[]
(. f' t & kt f g.*
A u9 a
'4ID7 6 % jpw f+ /33 I e r J,5eo/e,->
cs if,;c/ $< c< I, l >d ~ o e,cf + f, c_
was P.;,sc+ v, cc/ fa<
vLe ss)~cltw>c.alda4l TAe qLe
/,4 / ec/ k I, a c 1 e < /, 4 t d e /
J, cc cc, t-/. < e a, / 4 L x 91 % c 43o3,/ qca
+4e alave sl <;/,cc ecb 4~-
9 2,, { ([ g nd a<cy M r.
s, n,J eL,c e, +c u i,
y
CHECKLIST AND RECORD SHEET BRAIDWOOD STATION AUDIT NO.OA-20-83-59 AUDIT OF:
L.
K.
Comstock Page 3 of 14 Checklist Prepared By:
D.
A.
- Hoffer, J.
D.
Tolar.
M.
P.
Vela Le.Ad Auditor :
D.
A.
Hoffer Auditorr,:
J.
D.
Tolar
/Q M.
P.
Vela
,7 C.
A.
Hayes No. /
Ouestion
/ Reference
/ Ace / Def / N/A 0 d ocf.
f 3.
Verify that welding 10CFR50 non-conformities identified by Appendix B PTL have been documented and Criterion XV processed in accordance with L.
K.
Constock's Quality control Section 4.11 "Non-conforming Items and Corrective Action".
V ( W'
!)
H
'# "l "
' N
. (es., $ hec 1 fV ' S *** fl/*lf'* **1 fo vs C/
ib <.t h k*clq ll/C /f s e f c 8 av<
ae/ciem e h cy, J/.yct r cJ<Enskh cm cher,'cfg' h,q,;c0 (sn p
resaJW)1.
,a na d.c _.i j,
i
-u; a
n oles fa.l k f7L on Lk c's rycq,, Icn /%g,), bu + & c/
Lk c cdeficie
+ rack,y 7h<
Luas
+c ca.i av<
n cie,
>c h,prt
,a s, 6 to
+a k x a c4;sw, % pc~ed e b c ico c in i Al'0) W 5 f 'er en au ; y r cuvvy w e r -<
-lo L.e
- c. v cw c/ %
vmp l-c7 m, d c1, C~ slec k 5
(*l c v e. V/l-y [a ne c f re g,3 v ve i
s TcR $ Cow PTL b j,,b< f U ma'l vne& vfr eb h e <~u i,
+ < ~ cl' N > o, bec scln~ < >
n 'f re e.se J' fee a/
e nfL1Eu p.yo c,.,
Lp, 1s M/e, (3ayc/y Ac9 5~e+4hyved,o%is c/n aay
<01,1,,
da f,ca.uda.
M i
CHECKLIST AND RECORD SHEET BRAIDWOOD STATION AUDIT NO.QA-20-83-59 AUDIT OF:
f,s.,,_ l( comstock Page 4 of 14 Checklist Prepared By:
D.
A.
Hoffer.
J.
D.
Tolar.
M.
P.
Vela Lead Auditor:
D.
A.
Hoffer Auditors:
J.
D.
Tolar M.
P.
Vrla
/,2.
C.
A.
Haves No. /
Ouestion
/ Reference
/ Acc / Def / N/A
{Cn C^ C he$tt f
1 4.
Verify that L.
K.
Comstock's Q.C.
10CFR50 has inspected weld repairs that Appendix B resulted from welding Criterion X non-conformities identified by PTL.
f d*ty wf. N ( Wefc YCYV!$bLV'tV<
a.1< m Sic </ t v b
f~ C Y ' ' W e
p.1< prL n a /nn a.,
- a..x,,, m w wan ac p.r y ar/> E cs-ive nis) bu.r_Eh/n' 6g/n z/2r/ri '
22 rn &
c c -in /o - ma vMn dw),
2,4,/o at 91; E n pic /s - So 2 2 v/u/n t/idn
> JA 3 gnve u n / i-30n" 7Ns2 n u n t y. r ep>/n
- une H n / i-,0 n H a
3IO$5 E W V ' 2-I~ S' N
l'/IIl?)
I' 3, ' /el>,-+
A rLan by a &~ t Lkc cdc, m./ y c44 4 4 ei>. to /<! k e L,.
y Sii<, 44 a.y a c - c idi.ys,~
n
+4 ye wss/
w e (Isi 7L ru sf e k r<
4 i;,
Rh is UN an a << a e
Jbc,da-r,hs,J f., +
w e ls/ tL1' was icU ; / < 5 in 4
1, rt, rn i uc dd' 4 <c%
e n Rfr h &
.a mlJ kl Jae, ~-t. exist a, tG c f;t/ u
/s Jcens e.
n i n wa, 01510)e a wsAd'
(
T3#
f I
E
CHECKLIST AND RECORD SHEET BRAIDWOOD STATION AUDIT NO.OA-20-83-59 AUDIT OF:
L.
K.
Comstock Page 6 of 14 Checklist Prepared By:
D.
A.
Hoffer.
J.
D.
Tolar.
M.
P.
Vela Lead Auditor:
D.
A.
Hoffer Auditors:
J.
D.
Tolar M.
P.
Vela yg3 C.
A.
Haves No. /
Ouestion
/ Reference
/ Ace / Def / N/A 4M 6.
Verify that cable terminatione f 10CFR50 are properlyfdeoulassted/and Appendix B completed per the latest S& L Criterion XVII drawing.
LKC Procedure 4.3.9 Rev.
B, 7-20-83 G..c s. < ~ g(,cq/i i 2lr?
Orscp veca 9c kr=cac.n e cerce:rwc GAomc4 mns c
VTCM is AceGerAga.
i.
b (01510)
AVO
- 40. 'GA-2c-6 3 6 t 6pafAcss:
bcM Sentensg qvtsfica $6 AlcKH ktM0LG
'fGRH t M A1's od Id fsit V 86 CNfckEO A6AsuST WsRad& ps AG RAM, Adp RGSJtr5 ARG pccvMidfdp of Lkc. Qc. ed FotM 36. fM FoLLOWorJ6 TWKMes.lAT1es.1 sMsP6crocds W6Ks fGitfotM60 + Wo rs.ldS369 eA.I 82 6'5:
(sgH Okit of ILIG L
- C AOLG do.
ad na eras be A6.
S+L REL TGRH/struen IPA 387 LVKoo2 C-46 i,-ZoG-t-4I % C.
5 S
/
ti-z1-n} F.
so-26-sslR I PA ss ~f ICSob'] ctB i-4160 A f'
P J
Alc4 - c od FogM A Alcgs :
1) 6*' 54PAKAflpd vsoLAricW [Fgg Lkg:. '/,3,9 pAgA 3,( A) Fgeu I c. sow 1 CI6 1o*
a) iA fo16 kle -
IMs: # IAFo'76-1 b)I AFo93 kib IKg
- th fo43-I c.) ICSoG6 Kth -
IKK* ICS,oG6-I d) l Afl4s Kl0 ICK A ssas} Watffra Iz-s s s 14'tMS Q. (Hgov4M C ddKd hi'ggsov$sY IpgNTiFt6p As IM PA CAfgr St Igg 5 $ d40WM.
I'fTsM (MA6 A.lof @sVict'3 6.Y' l
1 pguTIfofp, AdP WAs bocvet64160 g/ $c. CM tc.R * $ etosa:J.
h OLACK + idasT6 CedadcToK5 OF PhtA N. (f6R Mid Afge od T6 6) 2 i
fo gd.DdoGo ed 19 + 20 sJtRC wsrc e+dP.
rnos WAs peuvuG^ irs O V L k e g c. e d I c g W 'b B s 3,
panffta 12-6-63, I PA l l r" 16Fa6p alG l 4fl8 b F
F
/
ti-esn'Sk t.)
lo " SEPARATi od Vg ot. ATh od fgoM
( S f o h n Ci d -fo' 176 09 0 C IB>.
I ICR # sse WKarrrd 12-5-s3 Bv LRc-4h.
3 i
2)
STRnredK h-lobo Cetu! -f"wL h
- ) 36 1
+ FMou 5+L R JT-ovr LLW146 of LAfser APPAov6e cRAWi Al65,
I-Avp Alo. GA-2e-e3.sq Qutsreca #to PAsc 2 TsSG fouLoWed W cAguts u)tRG RAdDeMLV SGLdcrup ja Tag fugLa As A 5AH A.6 Ada cud'craEk fo VdetW -re4A1r -r14tra fgacMid ATicd5 m)GR6 in AcccKDA M M
ix).Tu THE APPRerRI ATE WsKsah % A6r-Ak<.
-T746 QC IdSPccriod REf%,trs {.fcKkl ?A:)
Adp 'r6O4td Ariod CARPb LdGRC k L.Sc. REVstse66 1o k nry PRorcR coneatnoa :
Lds R t 4G K6V f d f. C w h
- ForcH f6KH c Ans r-Alo-
_ _fAdfL D e A da
'I'ERM.
CORAgd1" faiRM. CVAKCMr_ __ 36
_c.AAD l
I AFIy1 dzg I PMo t 7 l - 84 0' H V 8 it-it-33 fd e '
/
/
FRoa (Rsfd8HD I APsit CIE I Pv 9.7 l-4oM A)
H1.i14; & s.si.s3 Ye5 do
/'
/
To
('rdt.Mic A1n. lo-za-sd
.9rnserts 28t CbMP6K 1%%I ICCo51 CIE I PM oFl' l 'fo5'4 F L 5.!,.es -
v,5 s
6
('TkRM. 2-lo-6N
)
SrterfGM Z8\\
Chn etM 89%t IHS 5$2 CIG l PM O b'.1~
l 'lc5'l C F 9-24.pt P 4 2-%
'fGS Mo
/
J fro s (rses. z-z-s=)
sTnwecs 1st cR Mrgg 99%1 l AF032 Cl6 IFMod I-do64 )(
M lo.5-61 YWS
/
'/
6
(.TEKH. 2-11-9 Grnierde A-215 f-R IM PER AJ (12.-166 56criou od pW4 d oTEp "FoA DYgod odLV" WAS AL5c, e d srAu.go, fHis WAS Occ0M6dTGc> DN 6cTa FoKM % Ad a IcR
- 2M 4 Ar Tks. -fiu s Of R GTERM id Arm.
(d 6Lv6 LAdD6e cd b8 Tust UERg podC PER 4%g Raf. kT Tn6 -TTM6 CF f6KMidhnc Iddf[Bck od 'To Ado A46 STia id FLAcc #d THe Fs ELp, es/r Te'teV 9e Nor AfftAR cd -fi49 CoKR641-Rcd.
A pt-m u cAeo WAs pu plus A1~L.Mc.,
sJQgen Is nys ugenAatsM Ugp S
'To deKRdc.T ~f14E P tSCRifAdcY 661%%dal 'T~s46 OL% AOP THC FiGLb ld5TALLh1\\oN,
b L>i r-
, 4 A 2c t3. y G CCSTu cM && r% 63 (s)
(st;lEn C. c u u J c ro g ss Sergt ad FlCLp ( As fcx OCsdG pascxAa Rev. AT flH e cP fuTHINArs cM ) Bv1' s5 5 tts%N Ti> 24 L AM elp 04
') ? CM LAracs Rc al.
ICA *
'3631 W AS WRffrtM en/ Licc 6c. fc DecvadNT ms ps 9c c erAu c.v'.
A5 cc4cTee ned.
F'Xc6cCwds cc AS I;LGOs cKV S,' Lkc CC CCCo Ckp, Parl6 M
'auL BC sSt KAPLP
& 14 C hic 5r c:tMKCMT~ V'RA S4s46 XCVs'.as ch), j',adCLs i' LL dE rYC -n4C LAT&T" t
PifALuod b RCViss ed PR s oR ~1~0 Y14 Cog 'f"OKd - e/6R 11> Q tr ef>Ts cM,
bli CALsbCA* Tied AdccCv!.s fcx 'l146 'fers.s v%*p Wigg KLyn6 & % t/ggsp,o 17+ A,1-mg 1491RJMgaTS kick 2 CALJ6RA*T60 M* tug WH6 of Tf* CH tMATi ca. fi&d pec.JM cMTAT)M IdAG RGrRt6VAPL6 Adp % 90tedR'.
PAfic cF t d W K U M E M f (g) flg M t U A-t*t cM I. C>. A l o -
II. 4 -83 6
A-640 11-16-63 i z -le - 63 C
A-938 lo-28-8l b
2.'l l 10-2-60 8 8 B e C
qqql 2 ic-6:
6 29 i
% 'f-61
~5 '/. o z C
999l 2 2 62 S
2'11 s-422 1 -'l-F =
e-c.
39, 2-e q. 8 z 5
A-295
'2-4-g M -6 C.
Altl2-Ib6 (4) 5: Weart'est...
C: CK L &t r
- fool.
o CHECKLIST AND RECORD SHEET BRAIDWOOD STATION AUDIT No.OA-20-83-59 AUDIT OF:
L.
K.
Comstock Page 7 of 14 Checklist Prepared By:
D.
A.
Hoffer.
J.
D.
Tolar.
M.
P.
Vela Lead Auditor:
D.
A.
Hoffer I
Auditors:
J.
D.
Tolar M.
P.
Vela MI y
C.
A.
Hayes No.
/
Ouestion
/ Reference
/ Acc / Def /'N/A
([
7.
Verify that L.
K.
Comstock has 10CFRSO propegly installed. inspected Appendix B and documented emble'pullingiin criterion XVII &K accordance with approved procedures.
6,.s e v.ve 17;'-
8 a c o w e a w s u rrAc. w p oarderwe sesace, al.5 im i S Aage1 Asts.
/
e (01510)
.--,--n.
,a-_.-
-~.---.-,...--------n v,--.
e l
AOC do Q A-2c 63 -5'l QU kSTsod W !l OCdYACT+:
(nL6edd fRG eH AKE "Ih KR'( DTCWART fag for t.cas44 creLc PUL.l.s QGRg LOi1'ACS$$a gd fgg, flgg.p 04 lL a1 bS,'
%n cans e do (Ro M 4o _
fWe o g,) g g 2ptopt 2 Pit 1 1 5 sf D C C A fr 6M] ' Lit RhCk. I Codps.s TCzA1 tB]
,f s
(&)
RACK 2 LU 2DCool 2PtG GQ. do. 2Dcc66 12SV DC CA M KV 2.I 8 Codove r CzAn s et.
/
(4,o' }
RACu. z ca 2bc.och 2P66 69.do. 2VCoS6 515 V DC OktYtiet 2 t\\
Ccd pus r atA'1i66
/
(55b KAck l M Psg Lke. Paccsovas
'f. 3. 8 Rsv. e, rAzA. 3.2 9.2. 3, Caps.g WAs Fusaso Tatev6a code.a s T
{ codovsT~ Ltd&TH 4 25 Pr.) Ad D do TGdSe cd Med nroetas 06dsc6s WGR6 Vsta.
SGS dorg ld Prac z.
dAet.6 idFo:
Soco V, 790 HCH dApt.4 CcP6' O(166 86 f,L. d o.
SR 'M dAbt.E l.D. W AS CWdCKEp. AAID WA6 la A6RdsHEdT cdITH 1'A6 od R(6L. c cd od iT-LD AS CH6CK6D,
)b.ViS8 9t.A RodhM. GD66S tJGR6 CesfRvCD.
L VOR taAdT USGo LDAS StaP-X ff'f.
6Kc696 C A D L. 6 LO A 6 ef dd6 WtTit McP6 g)RAPP6D ~3 X.
EM os M Rs -rA
..hdo CAeL6S 406RG 'Thb6t> hT Bu1% C4 OS.
9 6Al ktd 6 Du)G. 2o 6 Socc> e RGv. G so-to -s*a, s tA T. Ib Rapt os of 22.1 ed.
(CHtcK60 od WAs def (xcssosa.
Fof_L cages ( Att Asv. A - Vggirico og 5 4.L PRtdT-OoT' i d p 6cA ra d6 9fATVG of Fus.L.cAapy) tuGRE RGVsEsodO Ado AccgprAssM seMPt.GTSO Ado SL6d 6D 0Vf as' L.kc QC Ada MMG FOR6 HAM.
LKC QC adA6 PMCSGdT~ Ti> tJt rd css THG Pvt.L.
AMD PocuMsdT T'HE id 5P6cTied Rf6W.rs o4 Fons 91.
l
e l % s r A.lc. QA-2c.eh 5 l QuiSTecht N1 PX66 2.
Merrg (1):
L C4GTH of Cod 00* T (uAs MEASJRfD O v' fooTAss MA escdes c,J C Apg.6j Ccd oc e r QL9t&
t Al _
00 7 _
1*rt'AL.__
RCM AekS t
2tx.coz 2 Pit b6i 496 15 pr.
2pCool 2982 Lbo G4L 2 5 Fr.
6 Fr Pau Ses G46 hGl lAl etrutta Csdpa
'2 CC o o 3 2 Pu t 616 564 ilo fr.
(o ff" Paul es n.
H2 696 14 cirw%d Cosipe khd Ocks C.AOL4 Alo$. LJGRC Tektd FReM CAOL6 INSTALL 60 8 4
~f1+ 6 ft GLb, I l<c, RCLcKb6 fcK, *146S6 CAOL.GS ad6R611+6d CHCl'K6D fo VGRtFf 'Ti4 AT TMd R6mdoR_Gb DocvM6s}ThTied WA4 t'.oM PLsTE s Aslb od F'tLd:
Qc t>1srscTeod
-f*criseod Mcdn'endG dAmie Alo.
_Fogn 31 pcVics Pvce-CARD lI W
IAFzq3 ctE 5-3 es /
d/A' 5 3-63 l%Fot5 di6 l 8 3 /
-f6' dsiod Lt^l k I -19. e.3 t Rcce.1 CIG II-22 -82 /
sl/A II -t z -s.'.
lSX0)b CIG tl-l-Sz /
AfA())
0
\\t-t-6; l
^
I 653"l6 Clf, 3-3. sw /
A//A
'd 6 3 HAdo. POL $ge Thro 06t4 TP.Av LKc. Pgocs>0gs 4.s.e gev. e, FAcA
- 3. 2.'7. 3)
(b) O.ABLG CotLSD ST &ctrM f u L' 6 ALPS, g OT &cHfLGT60, 60 POLL. CALO NOT~ ccM PcGTCLY
$l646a cGF.
(ch Ch elt PsneCp *fMRoval4 ccdD dst th UAdO - 90 LL60 PJLLdp D ROJGt4 -(kAV, POSE 46t> -f's4Ro0G65 cod ef tT'.
DCCvM&4TAfsed kjAS Rs7RtCVASL6 t Acc4PrAet.Y ccMPLer4FD.
p.....
I g
CHECKLIST AND RECORD SHEET BRAIDWOOD STATION AUDIT NO.OA-20-83-59 AUDIT OF:
L.
K.
Comstock Page 8 of 14 Checklist Prepared By:
W. Hoffer.
J.
D.
Tolar.
M.
P.
Vela Lead Auditor:
D.
A.
Hoffer Auditors:
J.
D.
Tolar M.
P.
Vrla
/J g j C.
A.
Haves No. /
Ouestion
/ Reference
/ Acc / Def / N/A 8.
Verify that L.
K.
Comstock has 10CFR50 g
properly installed, inspected.
Appendix B s
and'Speumonted. equipment-Criterion XVII &X inesW istionslin accordance with C.u.. m,/ g
.pproved procedures.
py; BA562 vrod Tw ATTAC4(Sp parg m sg gg pggcg, fgs, ggy IS c>6 Ac n cM.
(01510)
F s-Avo,.
Jo. G A-2c-6 3 -51 Qu6sfood 98 coarAct: Rect: SAK.L A k-(H G COLLcWsdG P6dcts of t?Getrut.MT Wient RAdovucY Sgteccruu:> st ru6 focLo As A 54uPLc, Ado fas44 o,cvMea r"ATioe1 WAS CtMcK1Eb To VfRtFV THAT~ I T" k)As fRoPCRLV C.eHPLGTEp Ada ed ftL6 :
$C #d5PEcned W6Lp id V6 cried EA do FocM sa fogu 19 Wo. Mr anrogr_
\\ FASS T
/
J I PA o9 7 v/
l PA 137
/
l k P30 6 l {RE-INSP)
J { RG-IdSV.)
/
1 Arsz c 4 (e6-idse.)
/ l es-tase.)
/
IRHolPA l') 2cc.o 66 A l'E 2 Oco 2. 6 MC k)AS Ud ASLK.To RfTRIEV6 (A157A1.LArte d OR Id5P6CTicd 4(t.cEDS Iipft 1TSESG ERVsfMddf bles.
' Tits peconcarArnoa PAcen6cs k)cgg idcones-stre foK ALL ct" f~rst 6$verudMT hlok. A8vfG GXCGPt tAPsoC Ado ik f's2.6, Tats bgftcatstc.Y ts dot' AponacGsta 7
kS A ftdosslto tA Ti4 as Aup 1) 6+c yG sfgg, 66cAus6 if LUAS PKcdiofset t 06+17sFuca Ado wiLL er rxAcxco sy via.gois.ic. +aa or f,+c 4.o A4 c6A-Avgir or eeA,pwon PteroRu6o 66rrcuede - OcToedR, t 9 es,
$t4t 6WUnPMEdf WtrH ecMfs 6Tgp cc. PAcxA669
{ t Ar906 +' lAfDZ6) WAs CIAccwEn 84 THE FtGLo AG A erJ sY" ~1~HG PAf6RWOKK 10 VEKtFV 'T"HAr IT LJAs ldsTALLaCo f6K
-The DAAus4&s Adp rgers4LY id srsc1 Leo AdP DOcvMearso.
cvagsdf 5+1,
-do G A - zm e ;- S)
Q J 6STo os.i # 6 9%GmG 2 46Vt 5# o4 9 of fM6 DRAM A165 Wipr. US6p; 20 6.o-nez Rev. A:r, it-in-es C
R6v. Ac.,
is 8 5 (A1ovJreAJGDdf.)
h -
206-D- 3318 b - 206-0-33ifA Rdv. V, 18 'l. 8 3 (64cvxf oi4 6 06d l AP306 - or.
?AP32.6 - 046. R6QUIRGs Mcc fo 66 to idcuts Sev7H of Q Lsde + tr ss idSTALLGp APPROX. 52 e4ce46s sov1H of & Lide. ALso,11oo coatetsS HA4Kga Fn v4 Tec o%. ARE I4 PcAcC (4 'rHe figua Awa Tuo J
C.vA ca.eE5 R6@utAde By' TTft DW&.ARs deT~ (rJSTALLED, T%M't.1ATa o4 t$ M, Am TE m., Ado YaFr rf WA s de-s JwucTwo 6V 'Lkc@c e4 e
'lNaisl W f 4_.Fevda 15 Mr Aces N ar Y
l($
n h
I l
-=mD p
e 9
T' CHECKLIST AND RECORD SHEET AUDIT NO.OA-20-83-59_
BRAIDWOOD STATION Page 9 of 14 AUDIT OF:
L.
K. Comstock D.
A.
Hoffer.
J.
D.
Tolar.
M.
P.
Vela Checklist Prepared By:
D.
A.
Hoffer Lead Auditor:
J.
D.
Tolar Auditors:
j g
M.
P.
Vela C.
A.
Havet
/ Reference
/ Ace / Def / N/A Ouestion No. /
bbhk*f _
10CFR50 Verify that L. K. Comstock has Appendix a inspected, Criterion XVII
- t. X 9.
ysoperly installed, and'decumented CSA, Installations c',4 c g e,,g# N IU 1ld) in ac'cordance with approved procedures.
crcs GC Arrusu> nacre %c4ce, es BAko h4 IS AccGFWSL4E.
l l
l l
i (01510)
AV D ir do. GA-2c os - Vi Gusstoca W9 ConTAcr5 :
T4 $ TIE,WA.Rf OttoW (5 A LIST' OF C6A ad 'eT'A LL ATs crJ 'I'JEAVct.L6R5. TH AT.J686 R6Vi6Mr As ceA ' a&9r A&a.AvieAls AKg Pre /Wacy' bocc84extrsp :
A 6AMect. -ro 44'Rtra,' TRAr rse6 s
0,6A
-f'er yst.g VATw Podtd aD PTL. Rd r'otT'
_GC CtdL L A ct.
CRENAek's 9 r199 l-25-0 3 WCA-1 (Ws)
' loo 9 -cFA ?.-l-ad
'7~. $Tsu utT' S-13.sa hc. fc.u-t 100% c 44 6 'I 8'5 f5R fo 2 (FmsfPrLtWCvrWI) togifrcu 4 ILf Q
$.2o.62 l[Qg,olQ A
}gg 3-Cgg g.gg.g g f.
$7ggggy g g,y.gg,
'I)'l t) 1-18 -62.
If6669 A 2646-CEA 6 -G-82 F I2-8 3-6 4941 4-I4-s2 ff05SSA 32co-CEA 4 -'l -s2 C His 1-I 6tq3 4-2s.s2 IJS-9 fil2-cEA la 15 62 T strasAser to.z2 ez-0046 9-16 62 LOS '06
$$o3r-Cg;A 10-24,-6 2.
to-29 02 8o99
'1216 WV-I 9140 c6A t t-te-82 to-ts s1 BILYI 9-24 62 IZbt49o A 59os-CGA fl-21-s2 t z-t-o z l
ll446 l'-8 4-8) idAd 9 '6S'CEA 6-3o-33 1-2 t-8 3 I
5699 5-Law.
W 5.- p..
'b'f 2 o-c6 A 1-r) s2 1-24 -8 2 5$/']
7-t& 8
.N-ill $
4209-CEA s-25-52.
6-3i-62 l
I46 fvLtovsd6 C6A td5fALLA11od (DAs 08564V60 id The. Aet a
- v. EA 54
\\1*gp LocArn oM Te Am n to (nw r e 1) oW&.
g acv _ Scey 22r
/
Us 11 364', V 12.'T l'5145 l 33t z A Ac.
AE LKC Qc WAS PRESid1~ AA P PitfoKMto' ed (M -PA'ocgM (MsP6C2'le+d,
-t'H 6 #76H '.*
L.tprGo oa THC QC tusflCCTsoa cH6cxl.l$Y LJERC CMCxsa, A4p Yks gcsours wcec Prof 6KLV MUH6dTED 6>J f'oKM 22I.
~1o'RWK WRGdct4 - L.kC h-6c'1, C.A L. STA-6'3 M '2*]
0
ab s
SURVEILLANCE DATE:
January 27. 1984 FILE NO.
2790A.22A'/
BRAIDWOOD Q.A. SURVEILLANCE REPORT NO.
3344 FOLLOW UP AUDIT REPORT NO. QA-20-83-59 Contractor / Organization:
L. K. Comstock Cat. #:
1, 3
Findino #2:
Contrary to 10CFR50 Appendix B Criteria XVII which states in part that " sufficient records shall be maintained to furnished evidence of activities affecting quality."
Thirteen (13) Comstock instrument calibration record reports were found which did not furnish proper evidence of an acceptable calibration.
Discussion:
Thirteen (13) calibration record reports associated with weld rod ovens and cripmers (Comstock Form #23) were found.tc contain, photocopied information..specifical Maiggecknast:iadicat
~a acceptance of.? calibration'and'the'in ials ofLthe O'.~C.
ins oAihat
~
performedithA salibrationi The following are examples of deficient calibration records.
Item Calibrated Calibration Date Crimper A926 8-25-83 9-26-83 Crimper A335 9-16-83 8-18-83 7-18-83 6-17-83 5-18-83 4-18-83 Rod Oven A137 3-02-83 9-02-83 6-02-83 Rod Oven A763 7-05-83 Rod Oven A2209 6-30-83 Reported by: bh>/ffd M Date N 'M Approvedbyh[@
Date 1-/-J V
WJM/n1w (0883S) cc:
Manager of Q.A.
Director of Q.A. - (Engr./Constr.)
Manager of Projects Project Manager Project Engineering Manager Site Construction Superintendent Q. A. Flie - 2790A.22A
r d',
Page 2 Surv. #3344 The measured values were original on the calibration records.
Corrective Action:
L. K. Comstock is reviewing the calibration files to identify all photocopied reports.
New calibration records are being generated with original signature and being attached to the photocopied report.
LKC will respond in writing by 1-11-84 for date of expected compliance.
Action Taken To Prevent Recurrence:
LKC will respond in writing by 1-11-84.
L.
K.
Coastock's Audit Response (Dated 1-10-84):
Corrective Action:
All calibration files have been reviewed to identify photocopied reports.
New calibration records were generatad with original signatures and are attached to the photocopied reports.
There was no photocopied reports after 9-29-83.
Action Taken To Prevent Recurrence:
Action was taken prior to Ceco Q.A. Audit 20-83-59 on 9-29-83.
A training session was held in response to the CECO G.O. Audit conducted 9-25 to 10-5-83.
In reviewing the calibration records, there were not photocopies after the 9-29-83 training session.
See attached training session sheets.
Ceco 0.A.
Letter BRD 10.357 (Dated 1-18-84):
l L. K. Comstock's audit reponse was accepted for Finding #2.
O.A.
Follow-UD:
On 1-27-84, the 13 identified calibration records as well as some other calibration records were examined for adherance to Finding #2 corrective action.
All of the 13 documents have been voided with a new form attached.
The new form has the same calibration data transcribed to it, but the O.C.
inspector's initials and checkmark are now original.
Other calibration files were examined to verify that their photocopied reports have been corrected as follows:
i t
(0883S)
. i I
j ',.
Page 3 Surv. #3344 Item Calibrated Calibration Date Rod Oven A2209 12-27-83 Rod Oven A137 12-03-82 Crimper A926 12-22-83 Rod Oven A763 12-21-83 Rod Oven A762 12-03-82 03-02-83 06-02-83 09-02-83 Rod Oven A408 No photocopied forms, all OK Rod Oven A781 No photocopied forms, all OK Crimper A709 06-17-83 07-18-83 08-18-83 09-16-83 Crimper A806 no photocopied forms, all OK Based upon the above satisfactory demonstration of the calibration file review, Finding #2 is considered closed.
i (0883S)
I
.r'i SURVEILLANCE DATE:
Hgich 20. 1984 FILE NO.
2790A.22A/
BRAIDWOOD Q.A. SURVEILLANCE REPORT NO.
3464 FOLLOW UP AUDIT REPORT NO. OA-20-83-59 Contractor /
Organization:
L. K. Comstock Cat. #:
4 Findina #1 Contrary to 10CFR50 Appendix' B, Criterion XVI which states in part
" Measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality...are promptly identified and corrected...the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition."
L. K. Comstock has not documented or trended visual welding nonconformities identified by PTL.
Discussion L. K. Constock's present program prescribes that when conditions adverse to quality are identified a Nonconformance Report (NCR) or an Inspection Correction Report (ICR) is to be generated.
LKC was directed by PCD to discontinue documenting deficient welds identified by PTL on LKC's NCR or ICR reports.
LKC was to continue to track the deficiencies identified by PTL in order to prevent any recurring deficiencies and their procedures were to be reviewed for compliance and changed if required.
LKC stopped writing NCR and ICR reports, but did not track the' deficiencies identified by PTL in order to prevent recurring deficiencies.
Also, LKC's procedure was not revised to reflect the change.
Reported by:
lA _
Date Y'20 kAI Lead Auditor:
ate Ik W Date1 N
Approved by:
t
/
WJM/nlw (09975) cc:
Manager of Q.A.
Assistant Manager of Q.A.
Director of Q.A.
(Engr./Constr.)
Manager of Projects Project Manager Project Engineering Manager Site Construction Superintendent Q. A. File - 2790A.22A
Page 2 Surv. #3464 In addition to not trending PTL identified deficiencies, L.
K.
Comstock-does not update their weld inspection file with an LKC Q.C.
weld inspection report for the reworked weld.
The inspection report chat is in file is an acceptable inspection for the weld that was identified as deficient by PTL.
The weld inspection report in LKC's file is for a weld that no longer exists in the field.
This practice has been in existence for approximately one year.
Corrective Action LKC will respond in writing by 1-11-84.
Action Taken To Prevent Recurrence Same as corrective action.
L.
K.
Coustock's Audit Response (Dated 1-10-84)
Corrective Action PTL overview reports are filed in a separate file in the vault with the original transmittal as of 8-1-83.
All other PTL overview reports prior to 8-1-83 are attached to the inspection packages.
As a result of the vault document review program, those packages that were found to have missing PTL overviews were identified and will be back fitted to complete the packages by requesting copies of missing 1
PTL reports.
The PTL reports are traceable through the PTL log to the request number for accept / reject status.
The concern of having an acceptable weld on file after it has been rejected by PTL will be covered in that the new or repaired weld will be documented on the weld installation record, and this record will be attached to the weld inspection package.
Action to Prevent Recurrence l
The Comstock Weld Inspection Procedure 4.8.3 has been revised to read:
"6.2 -
Effective Revision "D"
- All PTL overview rejections shall be trended as applicable to each LKC Q.C. Weld Inspector.
6.2.1 - On a monthly basis, the LKC Q.A. Engineer will issue the PTL Trend Analysis Report and Evaluation Report, if required.
This report shall be distributed to the Ceco Q.A. Dept. and LKC Q.C. Manager for corrective action as necessary."
Revision "D" was submitted for approval on 12-30-83.
(0997S)
I Page 3 Surv. #3464 Ceco O.A.
Letter BRD #10.357 (Dated 1-18-84)
L.
K.
Comstock's audit response was accepted for Finding #1.
O.A.
Follow-Up On 2-2-84, it was verified that the PTL reports after 8-1-83 are in a separate file in the vault.
Those packages that were found to be missing PTL overviews have been identified for each discipline.
They are identified per each drawing number with the corresponding PTL report number.
PTL has been requested to supply copies of the missing reports.
John Cameron, LKC' Engineer, has not organized the files for PTL weld requests.
The new method of documenting a weld repair on a WIR (Welding Installation Record) form which will then trigger Q.C.
to re-inspect the repaired weld has not taken effect yet.
Procedure 4.8.3 has been revised to include provisions for trending PTL overview rejection reports.
It has interim approval by site Q.A.
Follow-UD On 2-15-84, John Cameron's file system was examined.
He has separated PTL weld requests into pending and closed files.
PTL request #4393VW is a repaired weld which has been sent to O.C.
for re-inspection.
Follow-Up On 2-24-84, it was verified that Q.C. has rejected the weld repairs made on PTL report #4393VW.
Two other reports have been t
I transmitted to Q.C.,
but they did not involve a WIR.
These welds were repaired by grinding out slag or by cleaning up arc strike or spatter.
The PTL report numbers were 1059VWR1 and 6286VW.
They were transmitted back to PTL for their re-inspection on request numbers 022184H and 022184I.
Follow-Up On 3-15-84, it was verified that the weld re-inspection program is functioning.
The PTL rejected weld on report #9040VW had been repaired.
A WIR was sent to Q.C. and the re-inspection documented on a form 19.
PTL request #031384 has been sent to PTL for their re-inspection.
John Cameron's file system was compared against BRD letter #10531 which listed the outstanding PTL non-conforming inspection reports as of 2-14-84.
Several disagreements were identified as to the status of the PTL non-conforming welds.
.(0997S) l l
- .'~
Page 4 Surv. #3464 Follow-Up On 3-20-84,-it was verified that J. Cameron's file system is in agreement with the 2-14-84 letter of PTL outstanding welds for re-inspection.
He has issued some reports back to the field for rework.-
Follow-Un 0
On 4-2-84, it was verified that Bob Seltman, Q.A. Engineer, has collected the PTL non-conforming reports for February and March in 1
order to review them for trending purposes.
This analysis was performed and documented on LKC Memorandum #84-03-06 dated 4-2-84.
Based on LKC establishing a file system to track PTL non-conforming welds for field repair and by using the WIR traveler for another Q.C.
inspection on a form #19 and by revising procedure
~
s 4.8.3 to incorporate a trending process, this finding is considered closed.
(0997S)
_