IR 05000254/1980006
| ML19323D230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1980 |
| From: | Chrissotimos N, Dupont S, Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323D224 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-80-06, 50-254-80-6, 50-265-80-09, 50-265-80-9, NUDOCS 8005210295 | |
| Download: ML19323D230 (8) | |
Text
.
O
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
..
,
.
Report No. 50-254/80-06; 50-265/80-09
.,
Docket No. 50-254; 50-265 License No. DPR-29, DPR-30 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690
,,
Facility Name: Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection At: Cordova, IL l
Inspection Conducted: March 4-25, 1980 l
Inspectors:
C sk 7 73 w
,,
S. G. D ont 4,,
Y/7/fo 1 w&
L. G. McGregor 8!IO WM Approved By:
R. L. Spessard, Chief f[7d Reactor Projects Section 1-1
'
Inspection Summary Inspection on March 4-25, 1980 (Report No. 50-254/80-06; 50-265/80-09)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced.nspection consisting of operations safety verification, maintenance, surveillance observation, IE Bulletin followup, licensee event followup, followup on headquarters requests, design changes and modifications, review and audits, and independent inspection. The inspection involved 189 inspector-hours onsite by three NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the nine areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified.
__
.
-.....
-~-
._:
80052102VS
_ -.
-_
Q
_
-.
_-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'O
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
,.
- N. Kalivianakis, Superintendent
!
T. Tamlyn, Assistant Superintendent Operations K. Graesser, Assistant Superintendent Administrative D. Bax, Assistant Superintendent Administrative
,
- L. Gerner, Technical Staff Supervisor G. Conschack, Senior Operating Engineer
- J. Heilman, Quality Assurance, Operations
- .
The inspector also interviewed several other licensee employees, including shift engineers and foremen, reactor operators, technical staff personnel and qual.'ty control personnel.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on March 25, 1980.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Open) Outstanding Inspection Item (254/80-01-02; 265/80-02-02):
Modification of ADS valie air supply line on Unit 1 and Unit 2. The inspector verified that this modification (M-4-2-80-3) had been completed on Unit 2, which is currently in a refueling outage, in accordance with the licensee's commitment to the NRC. A similar modification to Unit 1 during the next refueling outage remains to be completed. OII 265/80-02-02 is closed, and OII 254/80-01-02 remains open.
3.
Operations Safety Verification The inspector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discus-ions with control room operators during the month of March, 1980. The inspector verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed '.agout records and verified
,
proper return to service of affected components. Tours of Units 1 and 2 reactor buildings and turbine buildings were conducted to observe plant equipment conditions, including potential fire ha-
.
zards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations and to verify that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in need of maintenance. The inspector by observation and direct interview verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in l
accordance with the station security plan.
l
,
\\
The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and verified implementation of radiation protection controls. During the month of March, 1980, the inspector walked down the acceseibla-2-
!
,
'
l
-
,
._.
.. _ _
_
_
-.
_
-
.
._
.
i portions of the core spray and containment spray systems to verify o*
operability. The inspector also witnessed portions of the radio-active waste system controls associated with radwaste shipments and barreling.
-
~.
These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that fac-ility operations were in conformance with the requirements estab-lished under Technical Specifications, 10 CFR, and Administrative Procedures.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
4.
Maintenance
- .
Station maintenance activities of safety related systems and com-ponents were reviewed to ascertain that they are conducted in a
accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry
,
'
codes or standards and in conformance with technical specification-requirements.
The following items were considered during this review:
the limit-ing conditions for operation were met while components or systems were removed f rom service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work; activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning components or systems to service; quality control records were maintained; activities were accomp-lished by qualified personnel; parts and materials used were pro-perly certified; radiological controls were implemented; and, fire prevention controls were implemented.
Work requests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs and to assure that priority is assigned to safety related equipment maintenance which may affect system performance.
Following completion of maintenance on the diesel generator, RHR and HPCI systems, the inspector verified that these systems had been returned to service properly.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
5.
Surveillance Observation The inspector observed technical specifications required surveil-lance testing on the RHR logic and verified that testing was per-formed in accordance with adequate procedures, that test instru-mentation was calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal and restoration of the affected components-3-
-
_
_
_
., _..
_
.
.
.-
_____,
__
.,
were accomplished, that test results conformed with technical speci-
fications and procedure requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, and that any deficien-cies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolv-ed by appropriate management personnel.
-
The inspector also witnessed portions of the following test activi-ties: standby gas treatment, scram timing, friction testing of control rod drives, target rock check valve leak rate testing, SRM rod block testing and steam jet air ejector monitor testing.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
6.
Review and Followup on Licensee Event Reports
Through direct observations, discussions with licensee personnel, and review of records, the following event reports were reviewed to determine that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had been accomplished in accordance with Technical Speci-fications.
,
Unit 1 R0 80-03/03L, dated February 6,1980, LPCI Motor Operated Valve Circuit Breaker Trip R0 80-04/03L, dated Feburary 15, 1980, Low-Low Level Switch Failed to Operate Properly Unit 2 R0 80-04/03L, dated February 19, 1980, ADS Blowdown Timer Exceeded Time Limit No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
7.
IE Bulletin Followup For the IE Bulletin listed below the inspector verified that the written response was within the time period stated in the bulletin, that the written response included the information required to be reported, that the written response included adequate corrective action commitments based on information presented in the bulletin and the licensee's response, that licensee management forwarded copies of the written response to the appropriate onsite management representatives, that information discussed in the licensee's writ-ten response was accurate, and that corrective action taken by the licensee was as described in the written response.
4-
-
_-
-_
_
-.
-..:.----.-_.... - - - =
.
.... -..
.... -.
-
- - - - - -
.o
IEB-79-25, Failures of Westinghouse BFD Relays in Safety Related Systems.
The licensee does not utilize these type of relays.
,.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
8.
Followup of Headquarters Request - Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident The inspectors reviewed the licensee's procedures and implementation of training programs. The following procedures were reviewed:
f'
QOP-1600-13 Rev. 2 QGA-3 Rev. 3 QOP-1000-5 Rev. 6 QGA-18 Rev. 2 QOP-1300-1 Rev. 3 QGA-1 Rev. 8 2 /
QOP-2300-1 Rev. 4 QGA-2 Rev. 3 QOP-1400-1 Rev. 2 QTS-110-3 Rev. 5 QGP-2 Rev. 3 The procedures were reviewed and approved as required by Technical Specifications. The procedures conform to the guidelines contained in NEDO 24708, TI 2515/32 and letter of October 26, 1979 B&0.T.F.
(ROSS). The procedures appear to be concise and do not require
'
numerous cross references which could lead to operator confusion.
Proper precautions are provided and where appropriate, were repeat-ed.
The procedures did not provide a caution to the operator that the safety valves may be the source of the SBLOCA; however, recent-ly, the licensee has submitted a procedure change to include these cautions.
The following procedures and prints were reviewed to determine that they adequately describe the actions required to ensure essential equipment is loaded on emergency buses and instrumentation is avail-able if a loss of offsite power occurs subsequent to the event.
Procedures: QTS-110-3 Rev. 5 QOP-6600-0 Rev. 6 QOP-6600-1 Rev. 3 QGA-12 Rev. 3 Print: 4E1328 The inspectors determined that procedures for automatic ECCS trans-fer from the condensate storage tank to the suppression pool are adequate.
-5-
_,
.,
-
_. - - _ _ _ _ _
__ _
_
__
.-
__.
..
i The licensee's training records were reviered, and the following o
i training was administered: All operators and staff SRO's received
,
formal classroom lectures regarding new additions to the SBLOCA procedures. Simulator training is presently scheduled for all RO's, SRO's and staff SRO's and is expected to be completed by June, 1980.
I The inspectors reviewed the following procedures and prints to
'
verify that all non-essential lines penetrating containment will isolate on System Isolation Signal and that radioactive fluids will not be released.
Procedures: QOP-1600-11 QOP-1600-13 ff Prints:
P&ID M-13 M-60 M-15 M-62 M-36 M-78 M-37 M-79 M-39 M-81 M-40 M-82 M-46 M-87 M-50 M-89 M-555 I&E inspection reports 50-254/79-12 and 50-265/79-10 were also reviewed in regards to the licensee's response to I&E Bulletin 79-08.
The inspectors interviewed five licensed operators. The operators interviewed were one staff SRO, one shift engineer, one SRO who stands shift work and two shift R0's.
All of these operators know-ledgeably discussed the symptoms and transient response charac-teristics of the plant with respect to a SBLOCA and demonstrated a knowledge of the SBLOCA procedures, including the immediate actions required, the importance of a heat sink, and indications of inadequ-ate core cooling. These operators were also interviewed to deter-mine the adequacy of the procedures from a functional standpoint and the effectiveness of the training program.
The inspectors reviewed the following procedures to establish which systems and componenta are required to accomplish safety functions during a High Energy Line Break.
QGA-1 Rev. 8 QGA-3 Rev. 3 QGA-18 Rev. 2 No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
-6-
"-
-
- -.
...
. - - - _
.
- - -
. - -.. - -. -.
- _ __ _ _.
- _ - -
. - -. _ _.
....
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
'
.,
l.
9.
Design, Design Changes and Modifications (Unit I and 2)
An inspection was conducted to determine whether design chaqges and modifications are reviewed and approved in accordance with the technical specifications and established QA/QC controls; and to determine if these design changes and modifications were made using proper procedures, codes, and functional testing.
'
Design change or modification packages for each of the following areas were reviewed: Drywell Mechanical Snubber (M-4-1-77-36),
Recirculation Pump Suction Valves (M-4-2-78-12), Simulated Control Rod Out Pushbutton (M-4-2-76-58), Refuel Bridge Interlock, Bypass Switch (M-4-2-76-62), Diesel Generator Accumulator Check Valves (M-4-2-77-25), Special Test 2-19 (Vacuum Breakers), and Special Test 2-30 (Leak Rate on Target-Rock Check Valve).
The inspection established that these design changes or modifica-tions are initially assigned an identification number and from that
point on the design change or modification is controlled by adher-ence to a review and approval procedure and check sheet. This control requires the reviewers to make determinations such as: Is the work safety related; is a 50.59 review required; is special code work required; what special procedures are required; what final verification testing is required.
In aCdition to the individual files, a master status book is maintained such that the status of each item can be readily determined.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
10.
Review and Audits
The inspector reviewed the records relating to onsite review commit-
'
tee meetings and determined requirements had been met, proposed tests and experiments which affect nuclear safety or whose perfor-mance may constitute an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59 were reviewed as required, violation of facility technical specifications were reviewed as required and proposed changes to the technical specifications were reviewed in accordance with the facil-ity technical specifications.
A review of the records relating to all offsite audits conducted l
during the period July 1979 - Februarr 1980 verified that audits were conducted in accordance with written procedures and checklists, by trained personnel not having direct responsibility in the area being audited, audit results were documented and reviewed by site management and corporate management, followup action has been initiat-ed and audit frequency was in conformance with the technical speci-fications.
!
!
-7-v
,
.,
.
.
--
.. _
.-
, - -
,e
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
11.
Independent Inspection The inspector verified that the Primary Containment Isolation i
Division II modification on Unit 2 had been completed and tested satisfactorily in accordance with the licensee's commitment to the
.
'
NRC (Response to IE Bulletin 79-08).
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
12.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted 1*n Para-graph 1) throughout the month and at the conclusion of the inspec-tion on March 25, 1980 and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities. The licensee acknowledged the inspectors comments and also informed the inspector that effective April 1, 1980, Mr. F. Geiger will replace Mr. P. Lau as the station training supervisor.
-8-
--
.
-
-