ML20132E531

Insp Repts 50-456/85-22 & 50-457/85-23 on 850429-0503.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Previously Identified Open Items Re Concrete Const,Concrete Deficiencies & Concerns Indicated by Unidentified Individual

ML20132E531
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	06/12/1985
From:	Varela A, Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20132E520	List: ML20132E517 ML20132E531
References
50-456-85-22, 50-457-85-23, NUDOCS 8508020015
Download: ML20132E531 (5)

See also: IR 05000429/2005003

Text

m -

.

. .'

. .

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

50-456/85-22

Report No. 50-457/85-23

50-456

Docket No. 50-457

CPPR-132

License No. CPPR-133 Priority --

Category A

Licensee: Commonwealth Edison

M , Box 767

Chicago, Illinois 60690

Facility Name: Braidwood Units 1 and 2

Inspection At: Joilet Illinois

Inspection Conducted: April 29 - May 3, 1985

.

-

N/

Inspectors: . AY A. T rela, Lead Reactor Engineer

Jt/ile // /988

datd

Approved by: [W

1.' Wi ggi n s ,

=

hRf,MaterialsProcesses

b/E!b

date '

J/jS

( ction, DRS \)

Inspection Summary:Ings ection on April 29 - May 3, 1985 (Report Nos.

50-456/85-22 and 5F4517is-23)

Areas Inspected: A routine, unannounced inspection by one region-based

l inspector of previously identified NRC open items relating to concrete

l construction, of apparent concrete deficiencies and concerns indicated by an

l unidentified individual and, review of CECO procedures for reportability of

,

significant construction deficiency or significant damage as identified in 10

i

,

CFR50.55(e).

Results: No violations were identified,

k$

.

.

.

.

.

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

Commonwealth Edison Company

P. L. Barnes, Licensing Engineer

D. A. Boone, PCD Engineer

D. L. Cecohett, Licensing Engineer

J. Gieseker, PCD Engineer

C. D. Gray, Project Structural Supervisor

L. M. Kline, Licensing and Compliance Supervisor

N. N. Kaushal, BCAP Director

J. F. Phelan, PFE Supervisor

C. W. Schroeder, Project Licensing & Compliance Superintendent

T. E. Quaka, Site QA Superintendent

D. L. Shamblin, Project Construction Superintendent

D. Skoza, PFE Supervisor

T. Ryan, BCAP

E. E. Fitzpatrick, Assistant Manager QA

D. H. Smith, Nuclear Licensing

W. Vahle, Project Field Engineering Manager

M. Wallace, Project Manager

Sargent and Lundy

D. A. Gallagher, Project Manager, Field

R. Johnson, Site QA Coordinator

J. D. Regan, Electrical Engineer

G. K. Newberg

R. Donica, QA Manager

D. Craven, Project Manager

'

NRC Region III

M. J. Farber, Project Inspector

R. Gardner, BCAP Inspector

W. J. Kropp, Resident Inspector

F. Hawkins, QA Programs Section

J. Harrison, Chief Engineering Branch, DRS

R. D. Schulz, Senior Resident Inspector

All of the above attended exit interview.

2. CECO Action on Previously Identified Items

__

(Closed)OpenItem(50-456/85-02-05;50-457/85-02-05) consisting of the

following elements:

.

w J

.

2

-

BCAP reinspection checklist for concrete placements does not address

attributes such as cracking and patch quality.

-

BCAP reinspection should inspect both sides of concrete walls for

all attributes whether attachments are Q or not-Q for the affect of

these Attachments on the structural integrity of the wall.

BCAP procedure #06, revision 8, BCAP-24, revision 3, and revision 3 to

Concrete Placements Checklist Instruction CSR-I-S-001 do address cracks

and patch quality and support closing both parts of this open item.

Additional CECO response, contained in letter of March 26, 1985 from S&L,

provided engineering justification for not including cracks as an

inspection item in BCAP's CSR reinspection checklist in concrete

placement. This was reviewed and discussed with BCAP engineers. The

licensee revised CSR-I-S-001 checklist as follows:

Related to this Checklist Instruction, reinspection for concrete cracks

will include this as an attribute:

"For beams and slabs, if in the inspector's judgement questionable cracks

are evident, the Level II inspector will request an evaluation by the

Level III inspector. Otherwise, the attribute on concrete cracks will be

accepted. For any such questionable cracks the Level III inspector will,

when requested, determine the acceptability of the cracks. If the Level

III believes the crack requires further engineering evaluation, then the

attribute will be rejected and (the inspector will) write an observation

report. Otherwise Level III will accept the attribute."

(Closed)OpenItem(50-456/85-02-06;50-457/85-02-06) CECO response to

this item identifies existing G. K. Newberg's QC procedures that should

provide adequate controls on initial preparation of existing concrete for

patching of repairs, material to be used for the patch and on the method

of placing and curing of the patch. The inspector reviewed with CECO and

GKN's responsible engineers their response to this open item. GKN's

quality control procedures number 11, 12, 29, 36', 52, NCR procedure and

referenced ACI and ASTM standards appear an acceptable response to this

item.

3 Inspection of Apparent Concrete Deficiencies in Unit 1

Refueling Water Tunnel (RWT) and Its Attachment to Refuel Tank Slab

An inspection was perfonned of Unit 1 RWT walls and ceiling to observe

two apparent concreto defects and evaluate their significance. These

l were of concern to an unidentified individual,

t-

l 1. Beneath the refuel water tank slab, the concrete construction joint,

, slab to walls, at Elev. 395'-0", contains a thin layer of sand and

l appears to lack consolidation. Evidence of thin sand in this con-

! struction joint and a minor indication of honeycomb were confirmed

l

l

l

r

>

.

p .

.

'

! 3

)

,

to exist. The inspector evaluated the significance of these condi-

tions and concluded the minor imperfections did not warrant further

investigation. His review of relevant concrete drawings identified

the construction joint at Elev. 395'-0" contains a keyway and water

stop. Based on the above observations and consideration that the

tank's concrete slab was constructed bearing mostly on adequately

compacted soil he further concludes those imperfections are not

indicative of deficient QC inspection prior to concrete placement nor

of inadequate concrete consolidation.

2. The concrete in the ceiling of RWT contains a h"x6" embed plate

across the 7' wide tunnel. Spalled concrete adjacent to a weld for

attachment of one 24" pipe sway strut is an apparent concrete

deficiency. This condition was inspected to evaluate its

significance. Spalled concrete triangular in area approximately

5"x10" and h" maximum wedge thickness was observed in the tapered

concrete void adjacent to h" embed plate. The concrete that had

spalled was observed to have been a shear failure of well bonded

concrete as determined by visual observation. Concrete at other

sway struts in the RWT at welded attachments did not contain

concrete spalls. The spalled concrete was concluded not to have

been evidence of concrete deficiency, nor to have been caused by the

welding. The missing concrete adjacent to the embed is not of

structural significance.

No violations were identified.

'

4. Review of Licensee procedure for 10 CFR 50.55(e) Determination

and Ranorting

CECO procedure for 10 CFR 50.55(e) Determination and Reporting, PM-04

dated S/29/84 was reviewed. It appears to track well with 10 CFR in all

requirements for reportability to the NRC. However, Exhibit B - Con-

struction Deficiency Evaluation (COE) contains in Part 28, " Significance"

of the deficiency, a value of $100,000 for use in assessment of a QA

breakdown or of expenditures necessary to rework an item to bring it into

compliance with the approved design.

Exhibit B, Part 3, "Reportability of 50.55(e) Notification" indicates that

if the deficiency, whether or not safety related, affects safe operation

of the facility and requires less than $100,000 for either of the above

reasons, it does not have to be reported to NRC Region III Headquarters.

The inspector identified the above at the Exit Interview as an open item

(Unresolved items 50-456/85-22-01 and 50-457/85-23-01) and requested CECO

make available for subsequent NRC review the CDE of all potential signi-

ficant deficiencies. Those that were not formally reported in writing to

the NRC, as required by 10 CFR 50.55 because of cost, should be extracted

for NRC review.

-

,. ..

,

'

,

.

l 4

5. Unresolved Items

Unresolved items are matters about which more information is necessary to

l determine whether it is a violation, a deviation or acceptable. An

unresolved item is discussed in paragraph 4.

!

6. Exit Interview

An exit interview was held on May 3, 1985 at the Braidwood plant with

members of licensee's staff identified in paragraph 1. The inspector

summarized the scope and findings of this inspection. The licensee

acknowledged the inspector's comments. At no time during this inspection

was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.

!

!

!

i

i

!

!

,

!

'

.

l

1.._______-