IR 05000373/1988014

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Repts 50-373/88-14 & 50-374/88-13 on 880413-15.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items
ML20151T107
Person / Time
Site: LaSalle  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 04/20/1988
From: Gardner R, Westberg R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20151T103 List:
References
50-373-88-14, 50-374-88-13, NUDOCS 8804280581
Download: ML20151T107 (3)


Text

r

.

.

.

,

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-a

.

REGION III

Reports No. 50-373/88014(DRS);50-374/88013(DRS)

Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 Operating Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:

LaSalle Site, Marseilles, IL Inspection Conducted: April 13-5, 1988 I

C4-LU 4 go I g (

,

Inspector: Rolf A estberg Date k-Approved By: Ronald N. Gardner, Chief M [I Plant Systems Section Date Inspection Sununary

.

Inspection on April 13-15, 1988(Reports No. 50-373/88014(DRS); 50-374/88013(DRS))

Areas Inspected:

Routine closecut inspection of licensee action.on previously identified items (92701).

Results:

No violations or deviations were identified.

,

.

P

.

!

!

,

8804280581 880420 PDR ADOCK 05000373 Q

DCD

.

.

.

.

-.

DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Coninonwealth Edison-Company -(CECO)

  • G. J. Diederich, Plant Manager
  • D. J. Scott, Nuclear Operations
  • W. R. Huntington, Services Superintendent
  • D. A. Brown, Quality Assurance Superintendent
  • C. M. Allen, Nuclear Licensing
  • A. C. Settles, Regulatory Assurance M. G. Santic, Master Instrument Mechanic D. R. Reif, Technical Staff R. J. Rohrer, Technical Staff P. Wisniewski, Technical Staff W. J. Marcis, BWR Engineering, LaSalle E. L. Seckinger, BWR Engineering, Edison

2.

Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.

0)en (Unresolved Item (373/86013-01A; 374/86013-01A). NRC review of t1e results of the long range test program for Static-0-Ring (SOR)

pressure switches.

During this inspection, the inspector reviewed Action Item Requests (AIRS)No. 3'4-200-86-01600 and 374-100-86-1303, reviewed the results

'

of the test program performed to date by the manufacturer (SOR, Inc.),

nd interviewed key personnel relative to the operation of the SOR pressure switches.

The results of the pressure switch testing performed by 50R cor. firmed the findings of the licensee. A nine week test of switches identical to the models used at LaSalle exhibited the same setpoint drift. The test progrom indicated that the radius on the piston head was a contributing factor in the setpoint anomalies and that the surface finish of the piston and cylinder disc had the greatest effect on the stability of the setpoint. The hydrostatic pressure to which the switch had been subjected, which was originally thought to have been the cause of the setpoint drift, was determined not to be of much significance.

Based on the results of the testing, S0R provided replacement

,

L switches for the LaSalle switches which had exhibited large setpoint shifts. Tht:se new switches were assembled using pistens and cylinder discs with improved surface finish and increased radius on the head

'

of the pistons.

i l

.

..

..

,

__

.-.

.-

.

_

.-

.

..

...

Operational data collected for the switches since their replacement has shown good results. The setpoint drift exhibited by these switches has been reduced to the' range of 1 - 2%. Pending review of the calibration of these switches during the current refueling outage, this item remains open.

b.

(0 pen) Unresolved Item (373/86013-018; 374/86013-018).

This item involved review of the final supplement to LER No. 50-374/86-007-00.

This item remains open.

3.

Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)

on April 15, 1988, and summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection. The inspector alsa discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by I

the inspector during the inspection.

The licensee did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.

l

.

I I

I

,

.

.

,

h a

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

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