IR 05000254/1981002

IE Insp Repts 50-254/81-02 & 50-265/81-02 on 810207-0306.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Operational Safety Verification,Monthly Surveillance Observation,Lers & IE Bulletin Followup

ML19350D497
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	03/11/1981
From:	Chrissotimos N, Dupont S, Reimann F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML19350D496	List: IR 05000254/1981002
References
50-254-81-02, 50-254-81-2, 50-265-81-02, 50-265-81-2, NUDOCS 8104160034
Download: ML19350D497 (6)

Text

,_

.

__

_

-_ _

.--

. -.

_ -. _ _

_

.

U. S. NLCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION III

Report No.

50-254/81-02; 50-265/81-02 Docket Nos.

50-254; 50-265 License No. DPR-29; DPR-30 f

' Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 C 2

,

Inspection at: Quad-Cities Site, Cordova, IL Inspection Conduct,ed: February 7,1981, through March 6,1981

"

s

- n Inspectors:

N. J. Chrt s"otimos

>v.f j.8/

.

"$ - l / ' k /

I h

/

G c,

-

xe o

... -

,

Approved by:. W. R nn, eting Chief 5' // -8/

Reactor Projects Section 1C

.

Inspection Summary Inspection on February 7 through March 6,1981 (Reports No. 50-254/81-02; 50-265/81-02)

l, Areas Inspected: Operational Safety Verification; Monthly Surveillance Observation; Licensee Event Report Followup; IE Bulletin Followup; i

Surveillance; Independent Inspection; and Review and Audits. The inspection involved a total of 234 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors l

including 23 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.

(

Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.

l l

t 810.4160034 i

_,

.-

_. - _.. _

_ -

_ _. -., __

.._. _ _... _ _... _.. _

____. - ___

..

_,

.

-

-

_

-.

-

-- _

. _ _.

O r

.

DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted

• N. Kalivianakis, Superintendent T. Tamlyn, Assistant Superintendent Operations (

D. Bax, Assistant Superintendent Maintenance

,

• 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 J

staff personnel and quality control personnel.

,

I

• Denotes those present at the exit interview on March 6,1981.

2.

Operational Safety Verification The inspector observed control room operations, reviewed appli-cable logs and conducted discussions with control r'om operators during the month of February. The inspector verified the opera-

bility of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout 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 poten-tial fire hazards, 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 accordance with the station security plan.

The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and verified implementation of radiation protection controls.

l During the month of February, the inspector walked down the accessible portions of Units 1 and 2 Core Spray, HPCI, and LPCI

,

systems to verify operability. The inspector also witnessed I

portions of the radioactive waste system controls associated with radwaste shipments and barreling.

l l

l These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements

!

established under technical specifications, 10 CFR, and adminis-i trative procedures.

{

No items of noncompliance were identified.

I i-2-

!

l.

.

- -,,.

., -..

y

...... _ _,... _ _,... _

m

,

_

-,

..,

__,

. _. _ ~ _

.

.,. _

m,.

--

_ - _ _ _. - _ _

--_

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

-__

-____

-__

---

.

3.

Monthly Surveillance Observation l

The inspector observed technical specifications required surveil-lance testing on the Unit 1 Scram Discharge Volume and Unit 2 HPCI and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, that test instrumentation was calibrated, that limiting i

conditions for operation were met, that removal and restoration of l

the affected components were accomplished, that test results con-formed with technical specifications and procedure requirements and

'

were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel.

The inspector also witnessed portions of the following test activ-ities: Unit 1 Quarterly Functional Test of SDV Continuous Mcni-toring System and Calibration of the SDV Continuous Monitoring System (CMS).

No items of noncompliance were identified.

l 4.

Licensee Event Reports Followup Through direct observations, discussions with licensee personnel, and review of records, the following event reports were reviewed to i

determine that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective action was accomplished, and corrective action to pre-vent recurrence had been accomplished in accordance with technical specifications.

i Unit 2 RO 80-35, Supplemental Information, dated January 26, 1981 Drywell Equipment Drain Sump Outboard Isolation Valve closed in excess of limits.

RO 81-02, dated January 16, 1981, Pressure Contreller for Elec-

,

,

tromatic Relief Valve tripped in excess of limits.

i I

The occurrence was due to instrument drift in the pressure controller. A faulty microswitch internal to the pressure i

controller was replaced and the instrument tested satisfactorily on January 31, 1981.

R0 81-03, dated February 2, 1981, HPCI Outboard Steam Isolation

!

Valve would not re-open during a valve operability test.

No items of noncompliance was identified.

i

!

- 3-

,

L I

,

e

,a v,_,

. w.

-w

,,e-,,---

+-s.w%

___-,,-.,,-m-,-

-- -,

.e,

,.

---~-.-- -,, -,- -. - - --,

y-.,-~7

---

,,w,-,.-

-- - - - - - +,, - -

.

i 5.

IE Eulletin Followup For the IE Bulletins listed below the inspector verified that the written response was within the time period stated in the bulletin,

,

that the written response included the infor=ation required to be

-

reported, that the written response included adequate corrective action com:ittents based cn infor:ation presentation in the bulle-tin and the licensee's response, that licensee =anage:ent forwarded copies of the written response to the appropriate cnsite =anagement

'

representatives, that infor:ation discussed in the licensee *s written response was accurate, and that corrective acticn taken by the licensee was as described in the written response.

IE Bulletin 80-17, Supple ent 4, dated December 18, 1980, Failure of Control Rods to insert during a scra: at a BWR.

The Licensee's response of February 2,1981, was reviewed for adequacy. The inspector witnessed the operability and full test of Units 1 and 2 CMS, co:pleted on March 1,1981.

The folicwing surveillance and operating procedures were reviewed:

QLS 43-1, Quarterly Functional Test of SDV Continuous Moni-toring Syste: (CMS);

QLS 43-2, Calibration of the SDV Continuous Monitoring Syste: (CMS);

Q05 300-7, Manual UT surveillance of the SDV.

IE Bulletin 80-17, Supplement 5, dated February 13, 1981, Failure of Control Rods to insert during a scra: at a BWR, No response is required of the licensee.

No iters of nonco pliance were identified.

6.

Surveillance The inspector observed technical specifications required sur-veillance testing en the Unit 2 HFCI and RCIC; Unit 1 IRx Detector not in startup position functional and calibration; Unit 1 SDV testing of the continuous =onitoring syste: (Cx5), and scra:

verified that testing was perfor ed in accordance with technically adequate procedures, that results were in confor:ance with tech-nical specifications and procedure requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate canagement personnel.

-4-

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _____ _

_ _ _ _

.

.

The following procedures were reviewed for technical content and that testing of safety-related systems or co=ponents assures compliance with the requirements specified in the Technical Specifications:

QOS 200-3 Rod Block Monitor check if limiting Control Rod Pattern exists QOS 300-1 CRD Exercise QOS 300-3 Rod Position Indication e

QOS 300-5 Control Rod Accumulator Pressure QOS 700-8 SRM QOS 263-2 Reactor Water Level QOS 263-3 Reactor Pressure QOS 250-2 Main Steam Line High Flow QOS 700-1 SRM Rod Block QOS 700-3 IRM Rod Block QOS 700-2 SRM Detector not in Startup Position Calibration QOS 700-4 IRM Detector not in Startup Position Calibration QOS 250-6 Main Steam Line Air Pilot Valve Temperature QOS 020-1 Core Spray and RHR Room Doors QOS 020-2 Secondary Containment Capability Test QOS 202-6 Jet Pump Test QOS 202-7 Jet Pump Flow Distribution Comparison 00S 200-1 Peak Heat Flux QOS 1000-2 LPCI Pump Operability QOS 1000-3 LPCI Valve Operability QOS 1300-2 RCIC Pump Operability QOS 1300-3 RCIC Valve Operability QOS 1000-1 LPCI Flow Rate QOS 1000-4 RHR Service Water Flow Rate QOS 1000-5 RHR Service Water Valve Operability QOS 1300-1 RCIC Flow Rate QOS 030-4 Condenser Pit Trip Logic System Functional QOS 030-1 Condenser Pump. Room Floor Drain Check QOS 030-2 Condenser Pump Room Bed Plate Drain Check QOS 4100-1 Diesel Fire Pump Test QOS 4100-4 Fire Suppression Valve Inspection No items of noncompliance were identified.

7.

Independent Inspection The inspector reviewed the licensee's monthly performance report of Units 1 and 2 for the month of January,1981.

Areas covered by the report were amendments to Technical Specifi-cations summary of corrective maintenance performed on Safety-5-

.

-

--

-

- _ _

_-

---

-

..

-

-

_-

.-

-.

.

<

.

Related Equipment, Licensee Event Reports, Operating Data Tabulations, and refueling information. The report was reviewed for compliance with Technical Specifications 6.6.A.3.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

8.

Onsite Review The inspector reviewed the conduct of onsite review meetings and

'

ascertained that the membership, review process and qualifications as described in Technical Specifications were satisfied. The inspector reviewed the following onsite review reports:

80-35 Proposed Technical Specification Change 80-37 De-inerting during Reactor Power Operation 80-38 Improper Helium Fill Pressure in Gadolinia Rods 80-39 Unit 1 CRD Maneuvers for Scram Timing 80-43 Unit 1 Drywell Venting

'

The inspector attended the following meetings:

80-40 Review of Unit 2 Reactor Scram and Group I Isolation 80-34 Unit 1 Prior to Startup Cycle 6 Operation

The inspector verified that action on the decisions and recom-mendations made by the onsite reviews are being accomplished.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

9.

Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) throughout the month and at the conclusion of the

,

inspection on March 6, 1981, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities. The licensee acknowl-edged the inspectors comments.

-6-

.,. _ _ _.

.