IR 05000373/1987015
| ML20215H097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1987 |
| From: | Gardner R, Westberg R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215H073 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-87-15, 50-374-87-15, NUDOCS 8704200045 | |
| Download: ML20215H097 (4) | |
Text
_
\\
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0l#11SSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-373/87015(DRS); 50-374/87015(DRS)
Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 License Nos. NPF-11; NPF-18 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: LaSalle Site, Marseilles, Illinois Inspection Conducted: April 1-3,1987 h
1/
O!87 Inspector:
h-O Rolf A. Westberg Date
'
/87 Approved By:
b-
'
/
Ronald N. Gardner, Chie" Date Plant Systems Section Inspection Sunnary Inspection on April 1-3, 1987 (Reports No. 50-373/87015(DRS);
No. 50-374/87015(DRS))
Areas Inspected: Routine closeout inspection by one regional inspector of licensee action on previously identified items (92701).
Results: No violations or deviations were identified. Of five previously identified items reviewed, four were closed.
8704200045 870413 PDR ADOCK 05000373
.
.
.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
s
..
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)
- R. D. Bishop, Services Superintendent
- M. H. Richter, Technical Staff
- R. J. Cozzi, Quality Assurance Engineer US NRC
- M. J. Jordan, Senior Resident Inspector Other personnel were contacted as a matter of routine during the inspection.
- Indicates those attending the exit meeting on April 3, 1987.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings A.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (374/85027-01): Excessive temperatures in Unit 2 Drywell in violation of TS 3.7.7.
The licensee committed to conduct daily temperature monitoring and to perform an analysis of the remaining qualified life on the components exceeding the limiting temperature requirements.
The inspector reviewed on October 10, 1985 an analysis by Sargent and Lundy (S&L) which determined the following:
(1)
Remaining life of all Class 1E equipment inside containment (2) Which temperature sensors should be monitored corresponding to Class 1E equipment and cables (3) The temperature values which would trigger further monitoring or analyses The analysis identified the equipment affected by the August 1986 excessive temperatures in the Unit 2 Drywell and calculated the remaining qualified life of that equipment. The methodology employed was to subtract the consumed life from the qualified life value in the station Environmental Qualification (EQ) binders.
For Unit 2 the consumed life was divided into two periods from 3/29/84 to 8/28/85 and from 8/28/85 and thereafter.
The S&L analysis was based on the highest value of every two consecutive temperature readings.
In the case where temperatures exceeded the threshold limit (trigger point), daily readings were taken until the temperature decreased below the trigger point or stabilized at a certain value.
For the temperature sensors documented in this unresolved item, ten EQ packages were affected; however, the temperatures experienced by this equipment were less than the temperatures that originally were used to qualify the equipment.
Therefore, daily temperature readings were not taken and analysis of the remaining qualified life was not required.
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
..-.
. _ -. _ - - - -
_
..
. _ _ _
\\
..
The inspector concluded that the actions taken by the licensee were
,
sufficient to close this item.
'
b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (374/85035-03): Evaluate corrective action for heat damaged thermocouple wire.
,
The inspector reviewed Work Request No. L53365 which removed the
'
damaged portions of the cables, spliced in new sections, formed new thermocouple junctions, and tested each cable for proper temperature response. This item is considered closed.
c.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/85039-02; 374/85040-02): As-built discrepancies identified during the implementation of WR No. L52489 i
were not noted on change documents.
The inspector reviewed Drawing Change Request (DCR) No.85-214,
.
i schematic diagram No. IE-2-4222AD, Revision J, and connection diagram 1E-2-4415AG, Revision E.
The discrepancies between the drawings had been corrected. The inspector also reviewed the proposed disposition to the wire with different color coding than
required by the S&L/ CECO standard. With the exception of the color, the cable is technically acceptable. This item is considered closed.
,
l d.
(Closed) Open Item (373/86013-02; 374/86013-02): Examine the results of the licensee's practice of cycling pressure switches
prior to taking as found data.
The inspector reviewed Procedure No. LIS-NB-205, " Unit 2 Reactor High Pressure Scram and Alarm Calibration," Revision 2 and Procedure No. LIS-N8-214, " Unit 2 Reactor High Pressure Automatic Blowdown
,
!
Calibration," Revision 1.
This review verified that the note recorrmending cycling the pressure switches prior to taking as found
,
'
data had been removed. This item is considered closed.
'
e.
(0 pen)OpenItem(374/86046-02(DRS)): The failure of the 2A Diesel Generator (DG) indicated that the lock out relay would not allow
,
]
the diesel to start until the residual oil pressure decreased to a certain value.
I The inspector reviewed LER No. 87-001-00 and Procedure No. LST-87-005, " Functional Test of Pressure Switch 2PS-D0045." This
!
review indicated that the 2A DG was prevented from starting because i
the lube oil pressure switch, 2PS-D0045, was not reset and it
prevented the air start solenoids from energizing. The inspector concluded that the system had operated as designed since the purpose of the lube oil switch is the keep the air start solenoids from energizing until the DG has stopped turning. The fact that it I
takes approximately 2 minutes and 46 seconds for the pressure switch to reset is currently being evaluated by NRR for adequacy relative to a DBA. Pending completion of this review, this item will remain j
open.
!
,
- - - _. _
.., _. - - _ _ _ _., _. _ _ _ _ _, __ _-_---
_ _ _, _, _ _ _ _ _, _
_ _ _ - _ _. _ _ _.. _ _
.\\
.
3.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives on April 3,1987, and summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.
The licensee did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.
4