IR 05000373/1987013
| ML20206F495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1987 |
| From: | Choules N, Jablonski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206F489 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-87-13, 50-374-87-13, NUDOCS 8704140266 | |
| Download: ML20206F495 (6) | |
Text
_
. _.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-373/87013(DRS);-50-374/87013(DRS)
Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18-Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL - 60690 Facility Name:
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection At:
LaSalle Site, Marseilles, Illinois Inspection Conducted: March 24-27, 1987 f.-
Inspector:
N. C.
houles Y~ 8-87 Date b
Approved By:
F.
. sablonski, Chief 7-8-8 7 Quality Assurance Program Date Section Inspection Summary Inspection on March 24-27, 1987 (Reports No. 50-373/87013(DRS);50-374/83013(DRS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of licensee actions on previous inspection findings (92701), followup on recommendations made in Inspection Reports No. 50-373/85032; 50-374/85033 (92701), and review of QA auditors qualifications and certifications in accordance with Temporary Instruction 2515/78.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified. Of 13 inspection findings and recommendations reviewed, 13 were closed.
8704140266 870408 PDR ADOCK 05000373 G
,
t W
,
'
~.
'
DETAILS
'1.
Persons Contacted-
- J.-.Diederich, Statio'n Manager.
- R. Bishop,-Services Superintendent-
.*R. Crawford,: Training Supervisor
- J. Kodrick, Maintenance Staff Engineer
- S. Laughlin, Storekeeper
- . H.:Mulderink, Production Staff Assistant
- J. Renwick, Production Superintendent
- W. Sheldon, Assistant Superintendent, Maintenance-
- G. Wagner, Corporate Maintenance Manager-
- J.. Williams, Master Mechanic Other licensee personnel were contacted during the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview on March'27, 1987.
2.-
Licensee Action on Previous-Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item-(373/83041-02; 374/83042-02): -Lack of.
. a.
.
environmental gualification for feedwater check valve soft seat'
- seals. : Qualification testing of feedwater seals was completed in
~
February 1986.
The licensee reported the results of qualification testing in LER-85-032-02.
The LER indicated the soft seat material did not have a three year qualified life in the LaSalle Feedwater System. Wyle Laboratories qualification testing Re) ort No. 47382-2
- indicated that after 1.5 years of thermal ageing, tie soft seat seals-were swollen and excessive'-leakage occurred through the seals in the-test device. The licensee removed the soft seat seals ~ from Units 1 and 2 feedwater check valves in 1985, and have been operating with hard seats.
This-item is closed.
b.
(Closed)OpenItem(373/83041-04;374/83042-04):
Cause of excessive leakage through feedwater check valves with soft seat seals. Argonne National Laboratories performed an analysis of failed soft seat material for the licensee.
The-licensee reported results of Argonne's analysis in LER-85-032-02.
Analysis by optical and scanning electron microscopy indicated that the excessive leakage was caused by cracking and erosion of the soft seat-seals after exposure to hot feedwater.
LaSalle's final feedwater temperature was designed to be-approximately 420'F which is about 60'F higher than the final feedwater temperature at older boiling water reactors (BWRs). -Older-BWRs have not experienced the same accelerated deterioration of soft seat seals.
This item is closed.
c.
(Closed)OpenItem(373/85027-01;374/85028-01):
Implementation of
" Vendor Technical Information Program" (VETIP) per Procedure LAP-100-15.
Procedure LAP-100-15 required that vendor technical manuals be reviewed, approved, and administratively controlled.
Implementation of LAP 100-15
_
,
-
-
. -
.
.
,
-
-
.
.
u
.
y:
,
_
'
,
,
-
was approximatelf 85% completed.* Thefe were 36 manuals used by the
'
'
' Instrument Maintenance Department left to be reviewed and approved.
'
~
.
- y
. Review and approval of manuals was performed on a priority basis.
LAP-100-15 prohibits the:use of uncontrolled vendor manuals for safety related.or-significant non-safety related work.
Due to the extensive plant outages, complete implementation"of LAP-100-15 was delayed.
F Adequate controls were in place for. review of technical manuals and the inspector has no further concerns. This item is closed.-
-
!~
d.
L(Closed)' Unresolved Item'(373/87007-01; 374/87001-01):
The audit-schedule did not ensure that all functional areas of the maintenance.
program would be properly audited. The licensee revised the audit
'
schedule to include a specific-maintenance program audit. -The
'.
maintenance program audit now requires. audits of all functional areas
,
'
of maintenance. This item is closed.
I No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Maintenance Assessment Followup During October,- November, and December 1985, a s?ecial, in-depth' review
"
f and evaluation of maintenance activities at the LaSalle Plant.was performed.
'
As documented in Inspection Reports No. 50-373/85032; 50-374/85033, nine:
recommendations for improvements were made by the NRC.
On May 28, 1986, the licensee made a presentation to the NRC, in the Region ~III office,' of
-
-
,
actions in progress and planned in response to the recommendations.
A followup inspection was performed in July 1986.
Results of that followup
'
i inspection-and the licensee's proposed actions to the recommendations were-
~ documented in Inspection Reports No. 50-373/86024; 50-374/86025.
During this inspection, the-inspector r'eviewed the status of the nine
'
-
recommendations.
Information was obtained b interviews, attendance at planning meetings;y_the inspector through'
and review of ' records and
procedures.
Results are as follows:
l a.
(Closed) Recommendation (373/85032J-01;374/85033J-01):
Evaluate
'
the effectiveness of management activities relative to the
-
engineering support groups, radiation protection organization, and i
maintenance organization to ensure-maintenance personnel receive-
,
correct:information, appropriate support, and guidance to perform their assigned duties. The increased involvement of the architect-
'
engineer in the modification process has continued.
Station Nuclear.
Engineering Department (SNED) support for the plant has improved and increased. Additional contract radiation protection personnel were hired for the current refueling outage.
During interviews most maintained since the followup inspection. protection support had.been persons indicated that improved radiation This recommendation is
- -
closed.
b.-
(Closed)LRecommendation (373/85032J-02; 374/85033J-02):
Expedite determination of the status and reduction of the work request backlog.
-
As indicated in the followup inspection report, the licensee!had improved the status of the work request backlog.
The work request
.
,-
n-
-n -N,
N,-
,--,+~A,wo,-,.-.
'
~r--,------,,*'------+,-~~,v,*-+n.n~
..-~n,w~
L-,
- + - ~
~ -,
,
a
&
A.
--
p e
-
I'
- ~
g.
(Closed) Recomendation (373/87032J-07; 374/87033J-07): Review frequently used Figure 9 documents, and prepare and approve routine
.
maintenance procedures as applicable. The licensee substantially
c i.
1 f
.
.. - -,. -., +vwe
..)-c,,_--,v-.-
-,.
- -,. -,. ',
,.w,,,n.._,,.-,,-m
,--r
,<w*
wemv r--
,.'mw-*www*-
-'=-,e r-et-w = ww-'
.
-
-
.
,
-
-
J w
-
.
,
,
'
increased the: scope'of this program. The program expansion included:
-the number _of. procedures to be written.and the details to be included-in the procedures. The ' procedures.for electrical maintenance.were
- about 48% completed; for.. mechanical only about 10%. The inspector
-
. reviewed some mechanical-procedures, which appeared to be of high quality; however, the l_icensee indicated it wo'uld take over two-years to. complete-preparation of. the mechanical maintenance procedures.- It-
-
- appeared that additional resources may be necessary to expedite.-
,
preparation of_ mechanical maintenance procedures. This' recommendation
'
is closed.-
h.
(Closed) Recommendation (373/85032J-08; 374/85033J-08):. Expedite:
implementation of an effective _ maintenance history trending program.
As-indicated in the followup inspection report, the maintenance history program was' in place and implemented.
Printouts of repetitively defective components were' being~ produced and reviewed for trends and corrective action requirements. Procedure LAP-300-11
" Computerized Maintenance _ History Program," was. revised to require documentation of trend reviews. The inspector ' verified that trend-reviews had been documented. This recomendation is closed.
11.
(Closed) Recommendation (373/83032J-09; 374/83033J-09): Review, evaluate, and revise, as necessary, instrument and electrical department procedures to ' ensure appropriate accuracy and detail.
~
-The revision of surveillance procedures was continuing. This-recommendation is. closed.
Licensee management involvement was evident and acceptable progress.was made with all nine recommendation _s.
All. recomendations were closed in this report; however, continued licensee management involvement is necessary to maintain acceptable performance in the~ area of maintenance,
including in particular, the backlog of work! requests; administration of the PM program; and preparation of maintenance procedures.
No violations or deviations were-identified.
_4.
Quality Assurance Auditor Qualifications (TI 2515/78)'-
The inspector reviewed the licensee's auditor qualification, training,
.and certification program. The licensee had programs for certifying auditors and lead' auditors in accordance with ANSI 45.2.23.
In addition,
,
the licensee had a training program for qualifying auditors in different plant activity areas. The inspector reviewed auditor qualification records for audits 0-1-86-02,'04, 05, 08, 12, 61, referred to in Inspection Report
-No. 50-373/87007; 50-374/87007, and determined that the auditors-were i
qualified and certified to perform those audits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
d j
.. --.- -..
=. -. -. -. -. -, - -. -. - - - -. -.
-. -. - - -.
..
..
.-
5.
Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)-
- at the conclusion of the inspection and summarized the purpose, scope, and results. The inspector also discussed the.likely content of this inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspectors.
The licensee did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.
,
,
j,
-
,
!
l
!
L
l t
r