IR 05000455/1986023
| ML20215E920 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1986 |
| From: | Phil Brochman, Gunther W, Key W, Lerch R, Malloy J, Mccormickbarge, Ring M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215E901 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-455-86-23, NUDOCS 8610160022 | |
| Download: ML20215E920 (4) | |
Text
<
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-455/86023(DRS)
Docket No. 50-455 License No. CPPR-131 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Ill 60690 Facility Name: Byron Station, Unit 2 Inspection At: Byron Site, Byron, Ill Inspection Conducted: July 17 through September 29, 1986
&& ' Y$r?
/d[7/k(
Inspectors:
M. L. McCorm ck-Barger Date e
/#!7!f4, P. G. Broc man
'Date
~
@$$'
/'o['7I6 W. E. Gun er bite
,bifdfwasI &
/0 7 f4
//1, W. J. Key Date
/
O fh
/[7/f[
R. M. Lerch
~Date
,
J. A. Malloy
_/[7 s
vra
-
Approved By:
M. A. Rin#9, Chief
/d/7 7[
Test Programs Section Date ~
In_ spec _t,io,n, Summary inspection on July 17 through September 29,'tlbiiYo(_ Rep ~ ort No. 50-455/~86023]
1986 Areas Inspccted: YoEt'ii1F,' ahE0unced iris ~p'e'c revTesTireiisFe~actlbh on
-
iir~cViss inspection findings; evaluations of preoperational test results, pre-operational test results verification and reactor coolant system hydrostatic test results evaluation.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
0610160022 061000 DR ADOCK 00000 55
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Person Contacted
- R. Querio, Station Manager
- W. Burkamper, Quality Assurance Supervisor, Operations
- T. Joyce, Assistant Superintendent, Technical Services
- E. Falb, Unit 2 Testing Supervisor
- P. Devine, Unit 2 Assistant Technical Supervisor, Test Review Board
- G. Grabins, Unit 2 Assistant Testing Supervisor
- M. Whitemore, GSEP Coordinator
- A. Chernick, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor
- J. Pauche, Regulatory Assurance Group Leader
- J. Langan, Regulatory Assurance Staff
- J. Snyder, Quality Assurance Inspector
- K. Yates, Onsite Nuclear Safety
- Denotes personnel present at the exit interview.
Additional station technical and administrative personnel were contacted by the inspectors during the course of the inspection.
2.
Licensee Ac_ tion on Previous _In_ spec _ tion _ Items (Closed) Unresolved Item (455/85045-03(DRS)): Testing of runout orifices in the safety injection headers. The inspector reviewed Special Procedure No. SPP-86-003 to verify that the 2A and 28 Safety Injection (SI)
and the 2A and 2B Chemical and Volume Control (CV) purrps would be protected Coolant System (y orifices in the branch lines which lead to the ReactorThe against runout b RCS).
valve downstream of an orifice plate, which are located in each of the branch lines for SI system pipes which connect to the RCS cold and hot legs, and for the CV system pipes which connect to the RCS cold legs. During the test, one throttle valve at a time was fully opened and the pump flow and differential pressure were measured to verify that runout conditions did not exist; the throttle valve was then returned to its original position. A review of the test results indicated that the orifices would protect the purrps from runcut should a single failure of the throttle valves occur.
Based on the inspector's review, this item is considered closed.
3.
P reo p e ra t i o n s l_ T_e s_t_ _R e_s u_1_t_s_ E v a l u a_t,i_o_n The inspectors reviewed the results of the below listed preoperational test procedures to verify all test changes were identified and approved in accordance with administrative procedures; all test deficiencies were appropriately resolved, reviewed by management, and retested as required; test results were evaluated by appropriate engineering personnel and specifically compared with acceptance criteria; data was properly recorded, signed, dated, and documented as test deficiencies if out of tolerance; test packages were reviewed by QA for adequacy of contents; and test results were approved by appropriate personnel:
.
.
D0 24.62, " Diesel Fuel Oil-Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Fuel Oil Supply" RP 68.61, " Reactor Protection and Engineered Safeguards Logic Test" RP 68.62, " Reactor Protection Turbine Runback" RH 67.60, " Residual Heat Removal System" With respect to the results evaluation of RP 68.61, RP 68.62, and RH 67.60, the inspectors had not completed the reviews at the time of the inspection exit interview. These reviews will be documented in a subsequent inspection report.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Preoper_at_i_onal Test Results V_erification
-
_
The inspectors reviewed the following preoperational test procedures and verified that results were reviewed against approved acceptance crieria and an evaluation of the test results had been performed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.68 and the licensee's Startup Manual:
VP 93.60, " Containment Ventilation" EM 28.60, " Thermal Expansion-Primary Side" FH 32.62, " Fuel Handling Building Crane" HC 39.60, " Containment Polar Crane" LM 133.60, " Reactor Loose Parts Monitor" RY 69.60, " Reactor Coolant Pressurizer" RF 66.60, " Containment Floor Drain" With the exception of VP 93.60, the inspectors had not completed the verification reviews at the time of the inspection exit interview. These reviews will be documented in a subsequent inspection report.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Reactor _ Coolant _ System Hydrostatic Test The insper. tors began a review of the test results for the Unit 2 Reactor.
Coolant System Hydrostatic Test which was completed on October 11, 1985.
The review, which was not complete at the time of the inspection exit interview, will be documented in a subsequent inspection report.
No violations or deviations were identified.
i
- .
.
.
6.
Exit Interview
__
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on September 26, 1986, to discuss the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the statements made by the inspectors with respect to items discussed in the report. The inspectors also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietary.
.
&'
4