ML20099E367
| ML20099E367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1984 |
| From: | Danni Smith COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| 84-17, 9427N, NUDOCS 8411210255 | |
| Download: ML20099E367 (2) | |
Text
+
r-g-
3 Did
- l i Commonwealth Edison
(
. One First Nation ~1 PI:tt, Chiergo. lihnois
, Addcss R ply to: Post Offics Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 November 9, 1984 Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
.Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 10 CFR 50.55(e) 30-day Report Concrete Expansion Anchor Inspection Deficiencies NRC Docket Nos. 50-456/457
Dear Mr. Keppler:
On October 10, 1984, the Commonwealth Edison Company notified Mr. W. L. Forney of your office of a potential deficiency reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50 55(e) regarding existing concrete e::pansion anchor installations which are being extensively evaluated due to a review of inspection documentation at our Braidwood Station.
This letter provides information concerning this matter to fulfill the thirty day reporting requirement and is considered an interim report.
For tracking purposes, this potential deficiency was assigned number 84-17.
Description of Deficiency A review of the Braidwood Station Contractor Programs for concrete expansion anchor (CEA) installations has revealed that:
1.
The number and types of attributes considered significant to the quality of a CEA installation and verified by Quality Control personnel are not consistent with those observed in l
CEA Installation Programs at our LaSalle County and Byron Stations.
Most of the attributes were verified by Production personnel at Braidwood Station.
2.
A small number of those attributes considered significant to the quality of a CEA installation have not been verified by Production and/or Quality Control personnel.
3.
An apparent trend exists of CEA installation rejections by the Quality Assurance Department's Independent Inspection Ages.;y for attributes they have inspected.
Analysis of Safety Implications If the lack of Quality Control verifications had allowed nonconforming installations to go unidentified, equipment could 8411210255 841109 i
NOV 13 ;
gDRADOCK05000 JJ O q
p ei % }3 ;
t i>x
'V r
_j H potentially shift'during th'e unlikely occurence ofla seismic. event,
- potentially resulting.in'the subsequent loss of the equipment's intended function.
Corrective Action-Taken Commonwealth Edison Company Nonconformance-Reports. Numbers 658
-(Unit'1) andL659 (Unit 2) have'been: issued to track and resolve this deficiency..The ~ procedures affecting the ' installation off Concrete Expansion Ar.chors for the four contractors performing Safety-Related..
installations -(Philips Getschow Co.,.L.1<. Comstock, G.1<. Newberg and Pullman Sheet Metal) ha've been revised to include increased 1 Production
- verification and_ Quality' Control verification of all: attributes considered significant to the quality of a CEA installation.
These interim program ~ changes were implemented by October ~29,
]984.
In an effort to provide. assurance that. future CEA.
installations will be installed, inspected and documented in a consistent ~ manner, the Commonwealth Edison Company, in conjunction with Sargent & Lundy, has developed ~a generic procedure for the installation and inspection of CEA's.
This generic procedure includes recommendations of The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)
-contained in INPO Good Practice (Draft)
" Installation of Concrete Expansion Anchors".
This procedure is currently undergoing internal Commonwealth Edison Company and Sargent &.Lundy review.
Upon approval,
-this procedure, PCD-08 "On Site Contractor Installation and Inspection of Concrete-Expansion ~ Anchors", will be transmitted to the contractors performing CEA installation activities'for implementation.
In an effort to ascertain the quality of past CEA work, a program is under development which will determine if the lack of Quality Control involvement in CEA activities has resulted in nonconforminp installations.
An interim report is expected to be submitted by February 1, 1985, addressing the status of program development and implementation.
Please address any questions that you or your staff may have concerning this matter to this office.
'ent truly y
- urs, N
i D vi H. Smith Nuclear Licensing Administrator cc:
NRC Resident Inspector - Braidwood l
Director of Inspection and Enforcement lj.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i
E