IR 05000461/1988002

Insp Rept 50-461/88-02 on 880115-0406.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Actions on Previously Identified Item & Review of Startup Test Results

ML20151H503
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	04/13/1988
From:	Bongiovanni A, Maura F, Phillips M, Stasek S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20151H494	List: IR 05000461/1988002 ML20151H490
References
50-461-88-02, 50-461-88-2, NUDOCS 8804200408
Download: ML20151H503 (4)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .

. .; ,

. .

T -

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No.' 50-461/88002(DRS)

Docket No.'50-461 License No. NPF-62 Licensee: Illinois Power Company 500 South 27th Street Decatur, IL 62525

,

Facility Name: Clinton Nuclear Power Statisn, Unit 1 Inspection At: Clinton Site, Clinton, Illinois

,

Inspection Conducted: January 15 through April 6, 1988 Inspectors: ongio nn 9!f>Y Cate

"

F ura 9/6/ff Date '

r / f- '

[i.' Stas k d (1%

Date *

Approved By: . i lips, Chief I[/M88 Operational Programs Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on January 15 through April 6, 1988 (Report No. 50-461/88002 (DRS))

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced safety inspection of actions on a previously identified item (92701), and review of startup test results (72532, 72301).

Results: Of the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie Overall, the licensee appeared to have well documented test packages that included all required data /information to establish proper

.

validation of test results against approved acceptance criteri PDR ADOCK 05000461-Q DCD ,_, _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _-__ _ __ -__ __ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.., .," , ,

- 4

.

DETAILS 1. Personnel Contacted Jllinois Power Company (IP)

• W. C. Gerstner, Executive Vice President

• D.'P. Hall, Vice President

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

• J. Greenwood, Manager, Power Supply

• J. A. Miller, Manager, Scheduling and Outage Management

• R. E. Wyatt, Manager, Nuclear Training

• R. E. Campbell, Manager, QA

• L. S. Perry, Manager, Nuclear Program Coordination

• F. A.'Spangenberg, Manager, Licensing and Safety

• D. L. Holesinger, assistant Manager, Clinton Power Station

• R. W. Morgenstecn, Assistant Manager, Plant Technical

• R. J. Kerestes, Director, Field Engineering

• D. Tucker, Director, Configuration Management

• E. W. Kant, Director, NSED

• J. D. Weaver, Director, Licensing

• K. A. Baker, Supervisor, I&E Interface

• M. E. Aldridge, Graduate Trainee, Licensing and Safety U.S. Nuclear Reculatory' Commission

• P. Hiland, Senior Resident Inspector, Clinton

• Kropp, MOS, RIII

• i. Tella, MOS, RIII

• Denotes those personnel listed above who attended the exit interview on April 6, 1988, 2. Actions on Previously Identified Items (Closed) Open Item (461/87033-01(DRS)): Acceptability of the licensee's

,.

program for categorization and recalibration periodicity for permanently installed plant' instrumentation. The inspector reviewed the licensee's administrative program for categorizing instruments and the specific methodology used for establishing recalibration schedules. A review of a l computer generated master instrument list was also performed by the L

inspector and a sample selected to independently verify proper categori-

! zation. The licensee's administrative program was found to be adequate in tnis area and the selected sample of line items from the instrument list was determined to be properly categorized. This item is, therefore,

,

'

i considered closed.

l l

l l

l l

1 l

_ _

. .

.

, , Startup Test Results Evaluation The inspectors reviewed the results of the startup test procedures listed below to verify that 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, and test results were approved by apprcpriate personnel:

STP-05-H Control Rod Drive System STP-04-0 Full Core Shutdown Margin STP-06-0 SRM Performance and Control Rod Sequence STP-25A-1 MSIV Functional Tests STP-30C-1 Reactor Recirculation System Performance STP-31-1 Loss of Turbine Generator and Offsite Power STP-19-2 Core Performance STP-27-2 Turbine Trip Within Bypass Valve Capability STP-30C-2 Reactor Recirculation System Performance STP-29A-3 Recirculation Flow Control Tuneup and Demonstration Test STP-30A-3 Recirculation System: RPT Trip of One Pump STP-308-3 Recirculation System: RPT Trip of Two Pumps STP-30C-3 Reactor Recirculation System Performance STP-19-4 Core Performance STP-30C-4 Reactor Recirculation System Performance STP-25B-6 MSIV - Full Reactor Isolation STP-27-6 Generator Load Rejection STP-30C-6 fieactor Recirculation System Performance a. With respect to STP-05-H, the inspector noted that when comparing Data Sheet E, individual scram testing at rated RPV pressure, against the GETARS traces, the data sheet had scram times for CRDs 08-45 and 16-37 reversed. The same problem was noted for Data Sheet F. The licensee acknowledged the error and corrected the record. The inspector also noted that during friction testing, the licensee used a recorder which lacked adequate sensitivity / readability for proper measurement against the acceptance criteria limit of s15 psi (The recorder calibration was Imm = 10 psid with a trace width of nearly 10 psid). During the test, the measured dPs were sufficiently low so that the questionable sensitivity readability of the recorder did not adversely impact the 15 psid limi The licensee was encouraged to obtain a more appropriate measuring instrument to record future friction test The licensee agreed to evaluate an upgrade to the equipmen b. With respect to STP-25A-1, the inspector noted that when comparing Data Sheet C, MSIV Closure Transient Peaks, against the GETARS traces, the data sheet peak venturi dPs did not agree with the traces in five of the twelve traces reviewe The licensee performed a review, acknowledged the errors, and corrected the recor . .; - * .

,

, .

,

A During the performance of STP-31-1 the licensee experienced a loss of CRD position display, as well as closure of the turbine bypass valves at the start of the transien Both events were caused by the lack-of uninter-ruptible power to their respective circuits, or portions of i With respect to the loss of CRD position display, the licensee plans to modify the system by supplying it with uninterruptible power. It should be noted that CRD position indication is presently available to the operators through the use of the plant computer. With respect to the immediate closure of the bypass valves, the licensee plans no corrective action because, per plant design, closure of the MSIVs also occurs during a loss of offsite power due to the leak detection logic. In addition this transient is bounded by the turbine trip without bypass event. According to the licensee, other plants of the BWR/6 design also allow for loss of MSIV and bypass valve operability during a loss of offsite powe d. During the performance of STP-27-6 the feedwater pump turbines were automatically tripped at level 8.. This trip could be avoided by changing the values for the water level setpoint in the setdown logic folicwing a transient. The licensee decided against changing the level setpoint values to minimize the risk of ECCS injection on level 2. The licensee will depend on operator action to avoid the level 8 trip of both feedpump In the event both turbine driven feedpumps trip, the backup electric driven feedpump may be started once the high level trip is cleared. The inspector has no safety concerns regarding the licensee's actio . Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee and contractor representatives denoted in Paragraph 1 during and at the conclusion of the inspection on April 6, 198 The inspectors summarized the scope and results of the inspection and discussed the likely content of this inspection repor The licensee acknowledged the information and did not indicate that any of the information disclosed during the inspection could be considered proprietary in natur