ML20214F572
| ML20214F572 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1986 |
| From: | Little W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Jeffrey Jacobson, Kaufman P, Muffett J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| OL-I-ROREM-107, NUDOCS 8705260157 | |
| Download: ML20214F572 (5) | |
Text
.. -
m Ci u "I f 6 l -/ C *7 - O h r
l p.~us - /o7 5Mr/(r6
\\
.....,'e UNITED ST ATES 30(g[ Z
)
/
i 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.I REGION lil 8
m noostveu noao
'87 AFR 22 P7 :17
,\\*....,/
ouw suva. ituwois som 0Utv GCCi:
MEMORANDUM FOR:
J. Muffett, DRS J. Jacobson, DRS P. Kaufman, DRS R. Mendez, DRS W. Kropp. DRP FROM:
W. S. Little, Director, Braidwood Project, DRP
SUBJECT:
BRAIDWOOD FINAL WALKDOWN INSPECTIONS The final resolution of some of your assigned hearing issues may depend on the results of final walkdown inspections. Attachment 1 is a draft list of walkdown inspections, and their status, to be completed prior to Braidwood Unit 1 fuel load. This is for your use in planning and carrying out your inspections. For those walkdowns associated with hearing contentions which are not yet complete, our draft hearing testimony will be based on your review of Ceco's written, approved procedures, and on the fact that we will inspect to verify that the walkdowns were conducted properly and that any identified deficiencies are properly resolved.
During our seminar on Braidwood on February 12, 1986 Messrs. McGregor and Schulz expressed dissatisfaction with Ceco's program for walkdown inspecitons to identify potential piping interference problems. I asked that they document their concerns so that they could be given proper consideration during our inspections of these issues. Their concerns are documented in and 3.
In your inspection efforts please take their concerns into consideration when resolving issues involving final walkdown inspections.
8/[g[
f 8705260157 860828.
PDR ADOCK 05000456 W. S. L e, Director
{
PDR-Braidwood Project o
Division of Reactor Projects Attachments:
1.
Draft Walkdown Inspections 2.
Memo Schulz from Little dtd 01/30/86 3.
Memo McGregor from Little dtd 01/30/86 cc w/ Attachments:
James G. Keppler C. E. Norelius C. J. Paperiello J. J. Harrison f
ME-
- gj,7 R. N. Gardner D. H. Danielson op,% '";;gr R. a. g er w
a
[pa **%q#e UNITED STATES
~,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
)
{
.. I REGION lil g
[
799 ROOSEVELT AOAD I
GLEN ELLYM, ILLINOIS 40137
/
Y fjf g. e,... *'
.lanuary 30, 1986 F1Ll10RAtJDut1 FOR:
W.
S.
Little, Di r ec t or, Braidwood Project I !<t 'tt :
R.
D.
Schul:, SRI Construction Braidwood SUI *J E CT :
Pir IttG l tJT E R F E R E t4C E S, ELECTRICAL ltJTERFERENCES, HVAC IIITERFEREt4CES.
In eferc'nce to ynor January 27, 1986 memorandum, I am concerned about piping electrical, and HVAC interferences and any potential impact on plant safety.
PRS has not, as of this dat e, informed me of their general satisfaction with CECO's program, t:rr;o r. program f on-inter f er ence control was revised in the Fall of 1984 and up s, et that time, adequate to identify and resolve piping, electrical, and I tynr i nt er f er ences f or preserit and future installations.
However, for the yrmar s ni construction pri or to the Fall of 1984, controls were not adequate.
this concern was also echoed by the CAT inspection team in Of course, W6fn4-44; 457/04-40.
My concern is not whether the detailed walkdown of the 100 F and greater lines (thermal movement) prior to fuel load is adequate; bu-ii the " general walkdowns" by CECO (del i neated in their NRC answer to the cosit ention and i n their February 13, 1985 letter to the NRC responding to the ilRC inspection report 456/84-09; 457/84-09) are adequate f or piping lines les U
than IBO F and f or electrical and HVAC interferences.
Factors to consider ar accessibility of components for maintenance, and blockage - such as inability to 1.or n a val ve or open a cabinet / Junction b o::.
The piping as-built drawings e.hich have been and are being done, do not take into consideration itterferences that may have resulted from the electrical contractor and/or llVAC contractor installing components after the piping as-built was completed l
f i
l 1
1
~
I W.
!i. La til e 2
January 30, 1986 I believe a meeting i s necessary between DRS and the residents to alleviate or resolve any concerns.
My desire is to ensure no saf ety problems exist and that we, the NRC, are on solid ground wi th respect to all aspects of this incue.
Possibly the pre-operational testing by the licensee and the general wallidowns of all. the site contractor installations will resolve the issue, r ather than a detailed wall.down as required of the piping lines greater than 109 F.
The Senior Resident Construction would appreciate being inf oreec' of DRS's conclusions and recommendations due to their expertise in this area.
.k' f R.
D.
Schulz SRI Braidwood cca B.
Davis C. Florelius J.
Paperi el l o E. Greenman J. Harrison R.
Gardner J.
tioffett ti. Chrissotimos e
9 l
t
m a
ghb.*.. l }
UNITED STATES
'g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
o
[
.I MEGION lli 8
790 MOOSEVELT ROAD e
OLEN ELLYN. lLLINOl5 00137
)
a...+
January 30, 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR:
W. S. Little, Director, Braidwood Project FRON:
L. G. McGregor, Senior Resident Inspector, i
Dresden Nuclear Power Station BRAIDWOOD PIPING INTERFERENCE PROBLEMS l
SUBJECT:
load and Dresden plant circumstances have The present work inspection prevented me from researching Braidwood records or The reports so that more accurate dates could be assembled.
(1) electrical conduit; interference problem of system piping to:
(2) electrical cable trays; (3) HVAC duct; (4) pipe hangers; (5)
I equipment supports; (6) other piping systems; (7) electrical junction boxes and; (8) electrical conduit or cable tray interference to HVAC duct has been identified by the NRC as early as February 22, 1983.
In Apri,1 of 1984, (in conjunction with a l
BCAP meeting held in Region III), this problem was also directed The problem l
to the licensee through discussion and photographs.
(photographn also submitted) by the Senior was again addressed Residents during an April-flay 1994 meeting with the licensee and The conclusion by i
the Architect Engineer at the Braidwood site.
and the licensee at both meetings was that the problem was real that system walkdowns seere necessary to document these interf erences and resolve them.
In January, 1985, during the NRC 11, 1995, in a DRP meeting, the CAT meetings and again on Marchinterferences were discussed.
subject of clearances and pipe 1986, I did not L..aring the Braidwood SALP meeting of January 22,(which has changed express dissa+1sfaction with the CECO program, from a system walkdown with resolution of clearance problems to a walkdown of only systems which are elevated in temperature prior j
but a question as to the ability, within the time to licensing)f or CECO to adequately inspect, document, evaluate l
restraints, and reroute, if necessary, all systems with negative clearance or l
interference problems.
i I
e M
-. _ _. ~ ~ _ _ _ _. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _,. _ _ _
2 January 30, 1986 W.S.
Litt1e The CECO response to the pipe clearance problem directs attention to f uture installation and initially only addressed piping systems.
This did not prevent a clearance problem from drawing and then developing to a piping system once installed per installed at a later the electrical system or HVAC system being date.
9t2'yo McGreg L.
G.
Senior Resident Inspector Dresden Nuclear Power Station cc: A.
B.
Davis C.
E.
Norelius C.
J.
Paperiello E.
G.
Greenman J. J.
Harrison R. N. Gardner-J. W.
MuH ett N.
J.
Chrissotimos
--.w-
-,