IR 05000461/1986026

Safety Insp Rept 50-461/86-26 on 860324-28 & 31-0404.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Evaluation of Action Re TMI Action Plan Requirements, Independent Insp Activities & Review of Maint Procedures

ML20203D346
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	04/16/1986
From:	Knop R, Scheibelhut C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20203D326	List: IR 05000461/1986026 ML20203D322
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.B.1, TASK-TM 50-461-86-26, NUDOCS 8604220085
Download: ML20203D346 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ -

s

-.

.U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-461/86026(DRP)

Docket No. 50-461 License No. CPPR-137 Licensee: Illinois Power Company 500 South 27th Street Decatur, IL 62525 Facility Name: Clinton Power Station Inspection At: Clinton Site, Clinton, IL Inspection Conducted- ,M r 24- 8 and March 31-April 4,1986 Inspector: C. H. Seffeibelhut R PUwM k "***

Approved By: R. C. Knop, Chief 4/' '/4 6

'

Reactor Projects Section IB Date Inspection Summary Inspection on March 24-28 and March 31-April 4 1986 (Report N /8602 6(DRP))

Areas Inspected: Routine safety inspection by a Regional Inspector of applicant actions on previous inspection findings, evaluation of applicant action with regard to Three Mile Island action plan requirements, independent inspection activities, and review of maintenance procedures. This inspection involved a total of 65 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector and includes 0 inspector-hours during off-shift Results: Of the four areas inspected, no violations, deviations or safety j significant issues were identified.

i f

8604220085 860417 (

i hDR ADOCK 05000461 PDR

. . .. . ..

. .. ..

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

DETAILS 1. Personnel Contacted Illinois Power Company (IP)

• G . W. Bell, Special Assistant to the Manager, Scheduling

• J. A. Brownell, Licensing Specialist

• E. J. Corrigan, Director, Quality Engineering and Verification

• H. Greene, Manager, Startup Programs

• D. P. Hall, Vice President, Nuclear

• J. E. Jones, Supervisor, Mechanical Maintenance

• J. E. Loomis, Construction-Manager

!

• J. F. Palchak, Supervisor, Plant Support Services

• J. S. Perry, Manager, _ Nuclear Program Coordination

• A. Ruwe, Director, Design Engineering

• R. F. Schallcr, Director, Nuclear Training

• A. Spangenberg, Manager, Licensing and Safety

• N. C. Williams, Director, Support Se rvices

• J. W. Wilson, Manager, Clinton Power Station l

WIPCO/Soyland Power l

• Greenwood, Manager, Power Supply

• Denotes those attending the exit meetin The inspector also contacted others of the construction project and l operations staff.

!

'

2. Applicant Actions on Previously Identified Items (92701)

(Closed) Open Item (461/86018-01): " Emergency Diesel Generator voltage regulator switch: improper position not annunciated in the control room." A review of the Division 3 Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG)

electrical drawings by an inspector and the applicant's personnel indicated that no annunciation was provided in the control room if the voltage regulator switch was not in the auto position. This was considered to be contrary to the design philosophy of Regulatory Guide 1.47, " Bypassed and Inoperable Status Indication for Nuclear Power Plant Safety Systems." In EDG Divisicns 1 and 2, the fact is annunciated in the control room if the voltage regulator switches are not in the auto positio Further investigation by the applicant showed that the condition does not exist. Electrical schematic diagrams E02-111P99, Sheet 104 Rev. E, Sheet

_

113 Rev. F, Sheet 202 Rev. D, Sheet 203 Rev. C, and Sheet 205 Rev. D show that if the voltage regulator switch is not in the auto position the fact is annunciated in the control room as "IIPCS NOT RDY FOR AUTO START."

Preoperational Test Procedure (PTP)-DG/DO-03 was performed to test the EDG's control logic including the annunciation in questio The inspector reviewed the drawings and the pertinent sections of the PTP and concluded that the Division 3 EDG voltage regulator switch position was properly annunciated in the control roo .

.

No violations or deviations were identifie . Evaluation of Applicant Action with Regard to Three Mile Island (TMI)

'

Action Plan Requirements (25401)

The NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement issued Temporary Instruction (TI) 2514/01, Revision 2, dated December 15, 1980, to supplement the Inspection and Enforcement Manual. The TI provides TM1-related inspection requirements for operating license applicants during the phase between prelicensing and licensing for full power operation. The TI was used as the basis for inspection of the following 5 d' item found in NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements."

(Closed) Item II.B.1: " Reactor Coolant System Vents." In NUREG-0 737, Item II.B.1 required installation of reactor coolant system and reactor vessel high point vents remotely operated from the control room. The Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group (BWROG) took the position that present BWR designs have an inherent capability to vent. However, because of differences in head vent design, the NRC required their review of the design to determine acceptabilit In Section 5.5.2 of the Clinton Power Station Safety Evaluation Report (SER) (NUREG-0853), the NRC accepted the design as meeting the requirements of Item II. The inspector determined by direct observation that the main steam line safety relief valves and head vent system had been installed in accordance with the design. PTP-MS-01 tested the redundant motor operated head vent valves (1B21-F001 and 1B21-F002) for proper operation from the control room. The inspector reviewed GTP-55 Data Sheet A and found that the valves had been successfully tested for proper ope ration. The inspector also found that Operating Procedures 3006.01,

" Unit Shutdown" and 3002.01, "Heatup and Pressurization" and Emergency Operating Procedure 4403.01, "Cooldown -- Emergency" contained instructions for the use of the head vent valve No violations or deviations were identifie . Plant Maintenance Procedures Review (42451)

This inspection continued the plant maintenance procedures review (refer to Inspection Reports 50 -461/85012 (DRP) and 90-461/85015 (DRP)) to determine if procedures are prepared to adequately control maintenance of safety-related systems within applicable regulatory requirement Applicable Regulatory Requirements and Applicant Commitments (1) 10 CFR 50 (2) Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, " Procedures for Performing Maintenance" (3) ANSI N18.7-1976, " Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants"

--

.

.

(4) ANSI N45.2-1977, " Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Facilities" (5) CPS No. 1005.01, Revision 16, " Preparation, Review, and Approval of Station Procedures and Documents" (6) CPS No. 1029.01, Revision 8, " Preparation and Routing of Maintenance Work Requests" Checklist The inspector utilized NUREG/CR-1369, revision 1, " Procedures Evaluation Checklist for Maintenance, Test and Calibration Procedures Used in Nuclear Power Plants." The checklist imposes no requirements on the applicant and was used by the NRC inspector solely as an aid in evaluating procedural characteristics and procedural deficiencies that could lead to errors in the performance of the procedure Procedures Reviewed The inspector reviewed the following mechanical maintenance procedure s:

(1) CPS No. 8019.01, Revision 1, "Pe rsonnel Airlock Inspection" (2) CPS No. 810 6.04, Revision 1, " Sling Inspection and Testing" (3) CPS No. 8110.01, Revision 1, " Maintenance and Repair of Gould 3196 Pumps" (4) CPS No. 8120.02, Revision 1, " Maintenance of Anchor / Darling Pressure Seal Gate Valves" (5) CPS No. 8120.23, Revision 1, "SX Check Valve Disassembly, Inspection, and Reassembly" (6) CPS No. 8140.02, Revision 1, "High Pressure Backdraf t Dampers Maintenance" (7) CPS No. 8160.01, Revision 1, " Overhaul of Mechanical Snubbers" (8) CPS No. 8203.01, Revision 1, " Inboard Feedwater Check Valve Maintenance" (9) CPS No. 8213.01, Revision 1, "HPCS Pump Maintenance" (10) CPS No. 8219.01, Revision 2, " Personnel Airlock Maintenance." Results Section 8, 'Trocedure," of the procedures reviewed, which described the work to be done in detail, was found to be technically adequate in all cases but one that is described late .

.

I

,

The administrative procedure, CPS No. 1005.01, 'Treparation, Review, i and Approval of Station Procedures and Documents" had been revised three times in the past year and was at Revision 1 The administrative procedure, CPS No. 102 9.01, " Preparation and Routing of Maintenance Work Requests" was in its eighth revision and was currently undergoing a revision. Since the MWR is the basis for doing any kind of safety-related maintenance in the plant, its content directly impacts the required content of the maintenance procedures. In consequence of the above, the inspector found considerable inconsistency among the reviewed procedures, especially in the areas of prerequisites, post-maintenance testing and materials, test equipment and tools. Four specific concerns were identified during the course of the review. These were as follows:

(1) The technical adequacy of CPS No. 8019.01, " Personnel Airlock Maintenance ," was in question because it did not contain preventive maintenance lubrication instructions even though it was classified as a preventive maintenance procedure (4 61/8 602 6-01A) .

(2) The inspector determined that a list of approved solvents did not exist for the plant. The solvent specified in most of the procedures reviewed, acetone, may be inappropriate in some mechanisms that contain organic seals or diaphragms that may be degraded by the acetone. This appeared to be a generic problem (4 61/8 602 6-01B) .

(3) There was inconsistency between procedures in steps requiring the torquing of threaded fasteners. Some procedures required lubrication of the threads with a specified Jubricant. Other procedures did not require thread lubrication before torquing. This appeared to be a generic problem (461/86026-01C).

(4) Section 8 of the procedure contains a subsection sometimes called Post Maintenance Testing (PMT) and sonetimes called Operational Test. The inspector learned that specifying PMT is now the responsibility of the plant technical staff and is a function of the MWR proces Since these procedures were written before this requirement was effective, what pre sently exists in the procedures may not be adequate to address the PMT re quire ments. It was noted that the current revision of CPS No. 1029.01 contained provisions for specifying PMT. The applicant was requested to clarify the use of PMT information contained in the maintenance procedures in light of current MWR practices (461/86026-01D).

These four concerns are considered to be an open item whose resolution will be reviewed in a future inspection (461/86026-01).

No violations or deviations were identifie ______ ____ _ - -

,

.  ;

'

e 5. Inde pendent Inspection Ef fort (92701)

Because of difficulties at other nuclear plants that may have generic significance, the inspector chose to look at one of those areas at the Clinton Power Statio EmerRency Diesel Generator Control Panel in the Control Room The Division 1 and 2 Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) control panels in the control room each contain a key switch that can direct control of the EDG to the diesel generator room or the control room. The switch is labeled " local" or " remote." When it is in the " local" position, control is in the diesel generator room. When it is in the " remote" position, control is in the control room. This can be confusing and for human engineering considerations, other plants have labeled the switches l

" diesel generator room" and " control room" to remove the confusion. This matter was discussed with the applicant and he was considering the need for corrective actio This is considered an open item pending inspection to determine the resolution (461/86026-02).

No violations or deviations were identifie . Open Items i Open items are matters which have been discussed with the applicant, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which will involve some action on the part of the NRC or applicant, or both. Two open items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 4 and . Exit Inte rview The inspector met with the resident inepector and applicant representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 4,1986. The resident inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. Tbs applicant acknowledged the inspector's findings. The applicant did not indicate that any of the information disclosed during the inspection could be considered proprietary in nature.

t

!

I

. . . .

.

- _ _ _ - _ _ .