IR 05000254/1981013
| ML20030D329 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1981 |
| From: | Chrissotimos N, Dupont S, Reimann F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030D320 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-81-13, 50-265-81-13, NUDOCS 8109010188 | |
| Download: ML20030D329 (8) | |
Text
_
.
.
L l
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.tISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-254/81-13; 50-265/81-13 Docket No.
50-254; 50-265 License No. SPR-29; DiR-30 l
Licenste: Con:monwealth Edison Company
!
Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection at: Quad-Cities Site, Cordova, IL Inspection Conducted: July 1, 1981, through August 4, 1981 f
<
-
..-
, "
Inspectors: N ~J. Chrissotimos
[~ [~ 8 !
!
,
S. G. DuPont f-rl
/
~
gi 4%rn:
Approved by:
F. W.
eimann, Acting Chief Reactor Projects Section 1C Inspection Summary Inspection on July 1 through August 4, 1981 (Reports No. 50-254/81-13; 50-265/81-13)
Areas Inspected: Operational Safety Verification, Monthly Maintenance Observation, Monthly Surveillance Observation, Licensee Event Reports Followup, Review of Licensee's Monthly Performance Report, Review of Plant Operations and. Plant Scram. The inspection involved a total of 280 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors including 48 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results: Of the-7 areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in 5 areas; two items of noncompliance were identified in two areas - failure to follow procedures, paragraph 2 and failure of notification, paragr sph 7.
8109010188 810819 PDR ADOCK 05000254 G
- _ _
_ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _
_-
... -_ _ _ _.
,
. -
~.,
-
_-
~
.. -
.
.
'
!
.
DETAILS i
i
}
1.
Persons Contacted i
l
- N.
Kalivianakis, Superintendent j
T. Tamlyn, Assistant Superintendcat Operations
!
D. Bax, Assistant Superintendent Maintenance i
L. Cerner, Assistant Superintendent for Administration l
- J. Heilman, Quality Assurance, Operations
.
- R.
Flessner, Technical Staf f Supervisor
'
t The inspector also interviewed several other licensee employees,
including shift engineers and foremen, reactor operators, l
technical staf f personnel and quality control personnel.
l
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on August 4, 1981.
i r
2.
Operational Safety Verification I'
The inspector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators during the month of July, 1981. The inspector verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout. records and verified
- '
l 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
!
hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations and to verify that
'
naintenance requests had been initiated for aquipment in need of maintenance.
The inspector by observation and direct inter-view verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security plan.
On July 14, 1981, while on tour of the Units 1 and 2. reactor i
buildings, the inspector discovered the Unit 1 Refuel Floor High Radiation door. unlocked and unattended.
Following discussions
~
with the licensee and review of the radiation areas control keys logs "R-keys", it was ascertained that a security guard had not
'
locked-the door after exiting the-area during'a routine tour.
The door had been discovered unlocked on two previous dates
(July 4 and July 5, 1981), by the licensee during plant tours.
i l
The licensee corrected the problem by replacing the lock with
{
a positive locking device.
!
,
This is contrary to procedure QRP-18, in that the area was i
{
unlocked and not in direct surveillance, and it is considered f
an item of noncompliance.
!
!
I
!
'
-2-l
.
i
-... _.. _ _. ~. _ _ -. _, _.. _,.. - -.. _ _, _. _. ~..... _., _ _ _..... _ _ _. _, _.
.. _,,. _ _..
.
_
.
As a result of the review and licensee corrective actions, the inspector has no further concerns and therefore no further response to this noncompliance is required.
The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and verified implementation of radiation protection controls.
During the month of July, 1981, the inspector walked dcwn the accessible portions of the Units 1 and 2 Diesel Generator systems to verify operability.
The inspector also witnessed portions of the radioactive waste system controls associated with radwaste shipments and barreling.
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-trative procedures.
Except as described, no other items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Monthly Maintenance Observation Station maintenance activities of safety related systems and components listed below were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry codes or standards and in confor-mance with technical specifications.
The following items were considered during this review:
the limiting conditions for operation were met while components or systems were removed from 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 accomplished by qualified personnel; parts and materials used were properly 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.
The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:
Unit 1 Q12898 1G RHR Service Water Q12734 1B CRD Discharge Filter Q13037 Suppression Chamber Level Q13422 1B Cleanup Pump Q13423 1A Cleanup Pump-3-
-
--
- -
.
.
Unit 2 Q12918 Instrument Air Co' pressor 01,3083 Relief Valve Acoustic Monitor Q12825 Torus Level Meter Following completion of maintenance on the Unit 1 Reactor Water Cleanup Pumps, lA and IB, the inspector verified that these systems 1id been returned to service properly.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Monthly Surveillance Observation The inspector observed technical specifications required surveil-lance testing on the Unit 1/2 Diesel Generator and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, that test instrumentation was calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal and restoration of the affected components were accomplished, that test results conformed 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 tne following test activ-ities: Unit 1 Control Rod Drive Exercise, and Unit 2 Diesel Generator Starting Air.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Licensee Event Reports Followup Through direct observations, discussions wi,th 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 specifications.
Unit 1 RO 81-11, lated June 18, 1981, Diesel Fire Pump was removed from service for maintenance longer than seven days.
Concerning R0 81-11, on June 10, 1931, the "B" Diesel Fire Pump failed to pass the Monthly Fire Pump Capacity Test, QOS 4100-7.
The fire pump was taken out of service on June 11, inspected, and re-tested with the pump capacity remaining unchanged.
-4-
-
-
--
-
.
- --
_
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
._
.
,
-
-
-
<
.
.
?
-
The pump was then removed from service for maintenance.
On-June 18, 1981, with both Units running, the limitation of.7 days was reached, for having the "R" Diesel Fire Pump out of service.
Technical Specification 3.12.1.2 requires a report to be submitted to the commission, explaining the back-up protection which replaces
.the systems' loss of redundancy.
While the "B" Fire Pump is inoperative, fire protection water was provided by the "A" Diesel Fire Pump and a portable Diesel Fire Pump.
The portable fire pump is located at the discharge flume with all hardware to readily tie into the Fire Suppression
"
System. Another portable fire pum ls on site and can be placed in parallel with the first portable fire pump to provide addi-tional pumping capacity should the need arise. The portable fire.
pump was tested and proven operable prior to June 18, 1981. A temporary procedure was written for operation of the portable fire pumps.
Un it 2 R0 81-11, dated June 8, 1981, removing Unit 1 Diesel Generator from service without demonstrating Unit 2 Diesel operable.
Concerning R0 81-11, on June 8, 1981, routine monthly preventive maintenance was performed for the three Standby Diesel Generators.
The Unit 1/2 Diesel was tested, proving operability. This permitted removing the Unit 1 or 2 Diesel from service. The Unit 1 Diesel was removed from service, preventive mair.tenance performed, ard the Diesel Generator returned to service. The operator then removed the 1/2 Diesel for maintenance.
It remained out of service for approximately 30 minutes,'until the shift engineer realized the operator er'ror and corrected the situation by having the Unit 2 Diesel Generator tested and proven operable.
By removing the 1/2 Diesel Generator from service without demonstrating the Unit 2 Diesel Generator operable, the licensee violated Technical Specifications 3.9.E.2.
This is a licensee identified item of. noncompliance.
In accordance with Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7,1980), IV. A. Notice of Violation: A Notice of Violation will not be issued to a licensee identified item of
'
noncompliance with Severity Levels V or VI.
R0 81-12, dated May 18,'1981, during surveillance, RHR Pump Valve tripped in excess of limits.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
i-5-
- - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
'
.
6.
Review of Licensee's Monthly Performance Report The inspector reviewed the licensee's monthly performance report of Units 1 and 2 for the month of July,1981.
Areas covered by the report were amendments to Technical Specifi-cations, summary of corrective maintenance performed on Safety Related Equipment, Licensee Everc 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.
7.
Review of Plant Operations During the months of February through July, 1981, the inspector reviewed the follt ing activities:
a.
Procurement The inspector reviewed procurement and storage activities to ascertain whether the purchase of components, materi'Is and supplies used for safety related functions, is in conformance with the licensee's approved QA program and implementing procedures; non-conforming items are segregated and marked accordingly; applicable preventive maintenance is performed; housekeeping and environmental requirements are met; and, limited shelf-life items are controlled.
The following components were inspected:
(1) Main Steam Isolation Valve's Rod Seals (2) Control Rod Drive Repair Kits b.
Training The inspector attended two of the licensee's operator requalification lecture series and verified that lesson plan objectives were met and that training was in accor-dance with the approved operator requalification program schedule and objectives.
The inspector verified by direct questioning of one new and three existing employees that administrative controls and procedures, radiological health and safety, industrial safety, controlled access and security procedures, emergency plan, and quality assurance training were provided as required by the licensee's technical specifications; verified by direct questioning of one craftsmen and one technician that on-the-job training, formal technical training commensurate with job classification, and fire fighting training were provided.
-6-
_
,__.. _ _
.
__
_ _ _ _ _ _._ _
.. _ _
_
-. - _ i i
.
.
,
)
c.
Environmental Protection
'
The inspector verified the installation and operability of four sampling stations and associated equipment and reviewed records for completeness and accuracy.
j d.
Security The inspector observed that ten individuals achieved
,
acceptable scores during the conduct of weapons and
physical fitness tests.
'
i e.
Emergency Preparedness The inspector observed GSEP drills conducted by the l
licensee on April 23 and May 5, 1981, (IE Inspection
!
Reports 50-254/81-06 and 50-265/81-06) and the GSEP drills observed by Region III NRC personnel on
May 13, 1981, (IE Inspection Reports 50-254/81-09-and 50-265/81-09).
'
On May 20, 1981, an exercise of the licensee's Generating Station Emergency Plan (GSEP) was conducted to test the integrated respense of the licensee, state and local organizations to a simulated emergency (IE Inspection i
Reports 50-254/81-10 and 50-263/81-10).
f.
Licensee Action Concerning Identified Problems
The inspector reviaved corrective actions taken by the licensee pertaining to recurring failures and resolution
of identified discrepancies involving safety related components.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Plant Scram
)
Following the plant scram on July 7,1981, of Unit 1, :he
{
inspector ascertained the status of the reactor and safety j
systems by direct observation of control room indicators and l
discussions with licensee personnel concerning plant parameters,
,
[
emergency system status and reactor coolant chemistry.
!
l The cause was attributed to the tripping of the "1C" Condensate
-
l Pump. This resulted in the tripping of a feed pump from low suction pressure, because the trip setpoint had drif ted in the i
conservative direction.
-7-
..
...
..- _.
-
-
.=.
..
.. -
-
-
-
t
,
'
.,*
J The inspector reviewed the immediate actions taken by the licensee'and witnessed the corrective actions taken. The actions taken were correct and decisive with the exception of late notification of the NRC Operations Center (three hours after the event). This is contrary to 10 CFR 50.72.12, and i
is an item of noncompliance.
The immediate_ notification required of the licensee was
determined to be delayed because of a combination of shift-i turnover at the time of the event, the immediacy of establishing
'
j a safe and stable condition, and attempting to determine the j
cause were the licensee's priorities. At no time during the event was safety jeopardized to the reactor or Lhc public.
The licensee has previously reported events in a timely fashion
'
and this occurrence appears to be of an isolated nature. The licensee has discussed this matter with all personnel involved,
,
'
thus no response to this item of noncompliance is required.
i 9.
Exit Interview
!
The inspector met with licensee representatives (Cenoted on
,
j Paragraph 1) throughout the aonth and at the conclrsion of the j
inspection on August 4,1981, and summarized the sc ope and j
findings of the inspection activities. The licens<e acknowledged the inspectors comments.
!
t i
!
i I
t i
!
I i
<
>
,
j
- 8-l
.
emJw
-
gtv-w%d-*w a
s-ytipa r g* e a-9sy--m-e*pp--Wypie=,eyepmm-ig-m ywg rge p ev9, q-p agygp p vsymp v g. e w, yg p pgege,Mme rn q W ww9T
"N*F"*f'P'vMWT"W?*'*'7-"M*W~Nt3***-9'*'W'"7
.fl'PW'**'*"~-T"'^'
'