IR 05000455/1986036
| ML20214P675 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1986 |
| From: | Jablonski F, Sutphin R, Walker H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214P658 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-455-86-36, NUDOCS 8612040303 | |
| Download: ML20214P675 (8) | |
Text
6
.
V. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Report No. 50-455/86036(DRS)
Docket No. 50-455 License No. NPF-60 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Byron Station, Unit 2 Inspection At: Byron Site, Byron, Illinois Inspection Conducted: October 8-30, 1986 Inspectors: . 1 //-26- 8b Date
.
R. N. Sutphin // [U /86
, Date'
h., -
Approved By: F. 3. Uhblonski, Chief //- 26 - 6 Quality Assurance Programs Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on October 8-30, 1986 (Report No. 50-455/86036(DRS))
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of Quality Assurance (QA)
for preoperational testing (35301); QA program administration (35740); audit
,
program (35741); document control program (35742); maintenance program (35743);
i
'
design changes and modification program (35744); surveillance testing program (35745); procurement control' program (35746); receipt, storage, and handling of equipment and materials (35747); records program (35748); tests and experiments program (35749); test and measuring equipment program (35750); and preoperational test program records (39301).
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
l l
'
,
8612040303 861128 '
.- . __ . _ .
__ __ ___ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
.. .. . . .
,
, '
~
f ;. % E , < > +T -
l, w
" .
~ i DETAILS g %
.- s +
E Persons Contacted
' Comonwealth Edison Company (CECO) e, c 4A * Burkamper, QA Superintendent e '
S. Campbell, Office Supervisor
'i *P. Donavin, Field Engineering Coordinator
- * *F. Hornbeak, Technical Staff Supervisor
- T. Joyce, Assistaat Superintendent, Technical Services
- P.. _ Klinger, Prcject QC Supervisor
- E. Martin,-Construction QA Superintendent-
- J. Veister, Overall ~ Field Coordination
"R. Moravel, Project Constructicn Assistant Superintendent
- P. O'Neill, Quality Control Supervisor
- J. Pausche, Regulatory Assurance
- Pirnat, Regulatory Assurance R. Plenlewill, Production Superintendent
- R. Querio, Station Manager
- R. Rhoads, Maintenance Staff
- G. Schwartz, Assistant Superintendent Maintenance M. Snow, Assistant Regulatory Assurance Supervisor
- J. Snyder,-QA Inspector
- R. Steder, Technical Staff
- R. Ward, Services Superintendent
- J. Wol,dridge, QA Supervisor
- K. Yates, Onsite Nuclear Safety
- E. Zittle, Regulatory Assurance Staff Westinghouse Electric Corporation
- M. Pitluk, Manager
- Denotes those attending th exit meeting on October 30, 1986. Areas Inspected This inspection was conducted to verify that the QA Program hd been properly implemented for Byron, Unit 2 in specific programacic area Byron Units 1 and 2 share a comon CECO QA Program, and in most cases, the same proceo.ures. Verification of-compliance with regulatory requirements and quality assurance program commitments was performed by reviewing applicable procedures and records, conducting personnel interviews, and observing work activities. Inspection results are documented in the following section .. . .. _____-__--_____-_____n
-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ .
.
.
a. Quality Assurance Program Implementation (35740)
The inspector reviewed implementation of the QA program in each of the areas inspected. Details are described in the following sections of this report. The program appeared to be properly. implemented in all areas. Controlled procedures that described methods used for *
conducting the respective activities were in place. Management personnel appeared to be knowledgeable of regulatory and quality program requirement No violations or deviations were noted in this are b. Quality Assurance for the Preoperational Testing Program (35301)
The inspector completed the review of QA coverage for preoperational testing. The operations QA organization performs audits or surveillances of each safety related preoperational test. They also perform a post test review of each preoperational test package after the required testing has been completed. Results of these audits, surveillances, and reviews are provided to the construction QA organization for review and evaluation prior to turnover of the system or subsystem to operations. Construction QA performs a complete review of the turnover packages to verify the system /subsysten status with emphasis on the tracking and resolution of open item The NRC inspector reviewed eight turnover packages and the respective preoperational test records for which turnover to operations had been completed. Records of four audits of preoperational tests were also reviewed. Quality Assurance associated with preoperational testing activities appeared to be adequately performe No violations or deviations were identifie c. Audit Program (35741)
The inspector reviewed the program used for operations and preoperational testing audits. Procedures QP 18-31, " Audits for Operations - Quality Assurance Program Audits," issued August 12, 1986, and QP 18-25, " Audit and Surveillance of Maintenance, Spare Parts and Inservice Inspection Activities," issued August 12, 1986, were reviewed to verify compliance with QA program requirement Also reviewed was QA Manager's Instruction No. 16 issued October 30, 1985, regarding the qualification and certification of QA auditor The procedures were acceptabl Records of four audits were reviewed and determined acceptable.
,
Certification records for four auditors were reviewed. The
! inspector noted that one lead auditor appeared to have not been properly certified because two certification points were awarded for two years experience in QA when the individual actually worked in QA for less than six months at the time of certification on 3 I
-_ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
_ -__ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
..
. .
September 13, 1985. .The lead auditor served as a' lead auditor for several audits beginning with Audit No. 06-85-73.61 conducted October 18 to 24, 1985. Licensee personnel took immediate action to correct the above inspector noted problem. The number of audits
-
that the individual served as lead auditor was determined and those audit _ records were reviewed by properly certified lead auditors to determine if identified deficiencies were proper and if any irregularities existed. Twenty audit ~ record packages were reviewed and no discrepancies were noted. The inspector determined that this was an isolated' case'with no impact on safety. Revision 5 to the audit!
qualification / certification procedure, QA Manager Memorandum No.16 was issued on.0ctober 15, 1986, to provide a clarifying statement to ensure that the term " quality assurance experience" was ' properly defined. The inspector has no further concerns about this matte Audit program activities were being adequately controlle No violations or deviations were identifie d. Document Control Program (35742)
The inspector reviewed design control activities for control of drawings, procurement and construction specifications, and station procedures. Design-drawings were maintained on microfilm. Copies were made and issued as neede Prior to issuing a drawing, a computer printout which provided the current revision level of design drawings, was reviewed so that only current drawings would be issue Specifications were manually controlled using the " Specification Log". Procedure " master copies" with approval sheets were maintained in Central Files. Twenty five procedures were selected and the master copy and approval sheets were reviewed f,or.each one. All procedures were the current issu No violations or deviations were identifie e. MaintenanceProgram(35743}
The inspector reviewed the preventative and corrective maintenance programs and their implementatio The preventative maintenance program utilized two computerized systems to track and initiate work on routine preventative maintenance items. Periodic maintenance intervals were established using manufacturer's recommendations. Where manufacturer's recommendations were not available, engineering established the interval based on past experience or an evaluation of the item's use. Both systems utilized tracking and notification methods. One system was used for mechanical and electrical equipment; the other was used for instrumentation. Both systems were functioning and appeared to be properly implemente .. .. ,
.
.
Corrective maintenance was performed as equipment troubles were noted utilizing Nuclear Work Requests (NWRs). BAP 1600-1, " Nuclear Work Requests," Revision 8, was reviewed and found to be acceptabl Maintenance program activities were being adequately controlled. The NWR form was used to document work instructions, required approvals, and completion of work. The NWR, with supporting documentation, was maintained as a record of the completed work activity. Ten NWRs were reviewed for adequate work instructions, required reviews and approvals. Maintenance activities were being adequately controlle No violations or deviations were identifie f. Design Changes and Modifications (35744)
The design change ar:d modification program was based on Q.P. 3-51,-
" Design Control for Operations Plant Modifications" and Q.P. 3-52,
" Design Control for Operations - Plant Maintenance" of the CECO QA Manual. Attachment A to QP 3-51 defined a modification as covered by Q.P. 3-5 The' inspector reviewed procedures BAP 1650-1, " Mod!fication Processing Procedures," Revision 7; BAP 330-2, " Temporary Alterations,"
Revision 51; and BAP 400-3, "Setpoint/ Scaling Changes," Revision The design change and modification program was adequately define No completed design change packages for Unit 2 were available for revie No violations or dr lations were identifie g. Surveillance Testing Program (35745)
The inspector reviewed BAP 1400-1, " Byron Station Surveillance Program," Revision 4. This procedure describes the program used for surveillance testing at Byron.
- The " Byron General Surveillance File Listing," issued October 3,1986,
'
and the " Scheduled Surveillances for the Period of January 1, 1980 l Through January 1, 1987," issued October 9, 1986, were reviewed for l Unit 2 only. The inspector selected surveillance requirements l
from the technical specification and verified that the surveillance requirements had been adequately addressed, including appropriate test interval Selected surveillance packages were reviewed by the inspector for completion and adequacy. The inspector noted that some Unit 2 surveillance procedures had not been issued. Schedules indicated that the surveillance procedures would be completed and issued l before the actual need. The surveillance testing program appeared to be adequately controlle No violations or deviat,fons were identifie l
'
__
.
.
.:
h. . Procurement Control Program (35746)
The inspector reviewed'the procurement control program to ensure that regulatory and QA program requirements were met. Byron administrative procedures for the-control of purchasing and
Jreceiving inspection were reviewed. The procedures appeared to be acceptable and were implemented. During the review of selected
samples of purchase orders, the inspector noted an incorrect part number on a purchase order for spare' parts. 'During the licensee' . review with the supplier of this item, four other part number errors-were noted. The licensee:was coordinating with the supplier to
-
. resolve-this matter. Only one purchase order was involved; therefore, this was not considered a generic problem. Control of procurement activities appeared to be adequate.
-
No violations or deviation were noted in this are . Receipt, Storage, and Handling of Equipment and Materials (34747)
, The inspector reviewed the prograsa for receipt, storage and handling of equipment and materials. Procedures appeared to be adequate and
'
properly implemented. During this review the following items were noted:
, (1) The designation of material for Level A storage _was not consistent. .The same type of material (printed circuit cards) was designated for Level A and in Level B storag This'is an open item (455/86036-01).
(2) In walking through inside storage areas the inspector observed that many parts were on open shelving without protection such as plastic covers or boxes. Printed circuit cards were covered
'
with dust. The inspector noted that adequate protection was
! not provided for all types of parts in storage. The inspector i
also noted that housekeeping in the storage areas was not adequate. This is an open item (455/86036-02).
l (3) The inspector noted that many nonmetallic parts such as hoses l and seals were not designated as having a limited life. One t
part (hose assembly SI 500 C 34) was reevaluated by the licensee after the inspector questioned the classification as a non-limited life item. The part was then designated as having a five year limited life. The inspector noted that many other items were not properly ' evaluated for limited life requirement This item is unresolved pending further review on a subsequent-l inspection (455/86036-03).
-
No violations or deviations were identified; however, one unresolved i item was noted.
,..
o l
l
[
WL l 6
! .- - _ . _ . - . . _ _ . _ . , . , , _ _ - . . _ . . ~ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ . ~ . _ . _ - - . _ . - _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ - . ._
_ _
- l
.
-j. Quality Assurance Records Program (35748)
c The inspector reviewed the quality assurance records program for compliance with regulatory and quality assurance program requirements. Preoperational test records, turnover records, maintenance, surveillance and audit records were reviewed and record control practices appeared to be adequate. Quality 1 records prepared by construction were not reviewed since none had been turned over to Operations at the time of the inspectio Unit 2 construction records will be turned over with Unit I records after construction activities are complete '
No violations or deviations were identifie k. Test and Experiments Program (35749)
The inspector reviewed BAP 1310-8, "Special Procedures / Tests / '
Experiments," Revision 2. The procedure provided for adequate control of tests and experiments. No Unit 2 tests and experiments had been performe No violations or deviations were identifie . Measuring and Test Equipment Program (35750)
The inspector reviewed the program for control of measuring and test equipment (M&TE) to verify compliance with regulatory and QA program requirements. The program was adequately documented by procedures that appeared to be properly implemented. The following observation was made:
The CECO QA Program provides for a minimum accuracy ratio of four to one to be maintained between an instrument being calibrated and the calibration standard (s). Where this ratio cannot be raintained, an evaluation is required to determine the acceptability of the M&TE equipment for the intended application. The inspector was informed that the four to one accuracy ratio had not been met in a number of cases. No evaluation records on these cases were available for the inspector's review. This is an open item (455/86036-04).
! No violations or deviations were identifie m. Preoperational Test Program Records (39301)
The inspector reviewed preoperational test records for proper preparation, completion, and review as well as proper storage and retrievabilit Emphasis was placed on documentation, tracking and l- closing of open items.
i l
l l
7
__ _ __ _. . . _ . __ - . . _ _ _ _ ___ ~
. }
.c .
J
~
l
.
-t
'
Si :The inspector selected eight system / subsystems, which had been released to operations, and reviewed the preoperational test records as well as the turnover packages and associated open items. The turnover packages were complete and properly approved; open items were noted and properly tracked with completion schedules assigned; and preoperational test records were completed and contained the proper reviews and approval No violations or deviations were noted in this are . Unresolved Items
'
Unresolved items are-matters about which more information is reouired in order- to ascertain whether-they are acceptable items,1 violations or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is included in Paragraph 2.1.(3) of this'reper . Open Items Open items are matters that have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. 0 pen items disclosed during this inspection are presented in Paragraphs 2.1.(1), 2.1.(2), and 2.1. of this repor '
5 ~. Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on October 30, 1986, and summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection. The inspectors discussed the likely informational content _of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes
~
reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.
L k
l l
'
I
. - - - . . . - . _ - . - _ . . . _ - . _ -