IR 05000461/1988025
| ML20205G251 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1988 |
| From: | Gardner R, Neisler J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205G238 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-88-25, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8810280219 | |
| Download: ML20205G251 (6) | |
Text
_
.
= _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ _
tr
'
- .,.
..
'
L.1l
'
'.
,
,
t 3 v.
y U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
L ReportNo.-50-461/88025(DRS)
. Docket-No. 50-461 License No. NPF-62 i
,
.
Licensee:
Illinois Power Company i
500 South 27th Street
Decatur, IL 62525
Facility Name: Clinten Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 I
Inspection At: Clinton. Site, Clinton, IL l
,
,
Inspection Conducted:
September 26 through October 14, 1988 f
t u
-,p ggQ
/O-d- 5([
Inspector:
J. H. Neisle R. N. pardner, Chief 10- 2 f-8 8
K.h.
u
!
Approved By:
Plant Systems Section Date t
i Inspection _ Sumary Inspection on September 26'through October 14, 1988 (Report No. 50-461/88025(DRS))
Areas Inspected _: Routine, announced inspection of 11censee's implemantation of
Generic Letter 83-28 in the areas of equipment classification, vendor l
interface, post maintenance testing and reactor protection system reliability
((25564), (25595) SIMS 75 (B-77, B-78, B 79, B-80, B-86, B-87, B-88, B-92,
-
end B-93), MPA-C-02).
Results: No violations or deviations were identified. Within the scope of
'
,..
this inspection an area of apparent weakness was identified regarding the J
(fj development and implementation of training for certcin nonoperating personnel
?
performing safety-related activities. An area of perceived strength regarded
the licensee's computerized Master Equipment List (MEL).
~
I I
l I
j, t
{
t
?
,
!
!
l
[
,
6910280219 881021
$DR ADOCK 05000461
'
,
t
-
.,_
_, _.. _ _,. _ _ _. _, _ _., _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _..
.. _ _ _...
,. -
. _ -.
__
._
-
.
.
'
.
f DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Illinois Power Company (IP)
'
- D. Hall, ' lice President
- R. Campbell, Manager, Quality Assurance
- J. Taylor, Supervisor Support Programs
- R. Wyatt, Manager, Nuclear Training
- R. Freeman, Manager, NSED
- A. MacDonald, Director
- J. Perry, Assistant Vice President
,
- J. Weaver, Director, Licensing
- D. Holtzscher, Acting Manager, Licensing and Safety
- T. Camilleri, Assistant Plant Manager, Maintenance
- G. Bell, Director, Matertal Managenent
- J. Wilson, C11r,+.on Plant Manager
- K. Baker, Supervisor, !&E Interface R. Lebkuecher, Licensing J. Brownell, Licensing N. Dillon, Data Control Coordinator - MEL i
J. Withrow, QA Supervisor, Audits R. Weber, QA Supervisor, Yerification J. Spencer, Systems Engineer C. Patel, Systems Engineer J. Gruber, "aintenance Planning R. Evans, Electrical Planning W. Helenthal, Instrumentation and Control Planning J. Nuenberg, Procurement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Con-1ssion (NRC)
- P. Hiland, Senior Resident Inspector S. Ray, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those persons attending the exit meeting on October 14, 1988.
2.
TI 2515/64RI. SIMS 75 (Closed)
a.
Equipment Classification The inspector selected four components in the Reactor Protection System (RPS) and eight components in the Low Pressure Core Spray System (LPCSS) for examination during this inspection. The components selected were:
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- c
.
.
't Reactor Protection System Low Pressure Core Spray Hydraulic Control Unit Pump E21 C001 Manual Scram Valve E21 F001 Scram Pilot Solenoid Check Valve E21 F003 Mde Switch Flow Element E21 N002 Flow Transmitter E21 N003 Valve E21 F005 Pressure Transmitter E21 N053 Breaker Bus 1A1 Cubicle E For the selected components, the inspector performed the following reviews, examinations, or inspections:
(1) At Clinton, the hard copy Q-List has been replaced with a computerized data base, the Master Equipment List (MEL). The inspector verified the accuracy of the MEL and the proper classification of equipment by reviewing the MEL to determine whether selected components were included on the MEL and whether their classifications were correct.
In addition, the inspector reviewed plant procedures controlling the classificction of structures, systems and components, and procedures for maintaining the integrity of the Master Equipment List.
(2) To detennine the level of plant management oversight, the inspector reviewed procedures promulgated by the plant management, quality assurance and nuclear engineering departments. The procedures controlled classification of structures, systems and components, maintenance activities, inspection and testing of safety-related items, quality assurance audits and surveillances.
(3) The inspector reviewed surveillance procedures, calibration procedures, maintenance procedures and instructions, functional test procedures and storage procedures to verify that the licensee has issued adequate procedures and instructions for the performance of safety-related activities.
'
(4) The inspector reviewed the licensee's program and implementing procedures for the training and indcctrination of personnel performing safety-related activities. The plant is preparing for INPO accreditation of their craft, management and staff training programs. Training programs for design and systems engineers are developed and approved but not fully implemented.
Training for maintenance planners and first line supervisory personnel has not been perforsned nor have programs been developed to provide training according to information received from personnel interviewed by the inspector.
(5) The inspector reviewed portions of twenty audit reports and fif teen surveillance reports documenting quality assurance audits and surveillances involving safety-related activities.
The quality assurance organization maintains a schedule of planned audits and surveillances for safety-related activities at the plant.
,
_
_
_ _.. _
_ _ _.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
<
(6) The corrective action program for safety-related activities is described in the licensee's quality ossurance manual and procedure CNP 3.02, "Corrective Action Program". The inspector's review of corrective action for audit and surveillance findings for those audits and surveillances in (5) above, revealed that corrective actions for these findings were timely and adequate.
(7) The licensee has established a program for the review and evaluation of malfunctioning equipment. The program requires
,
the review and evaluation of malfunctioning equipment reported i
by vendors, manufacturers, INP0 and regulatory agencies.
Included in the reviews and evaluations is the determination of the suitability of the equipment to perform its design functions.
(8) The inspector reviewed four safety-related modifications
,
involving plant systems. The modification packages, drawings, work requests, inspection documents and procurement documentation were correctly identified as to their safety classifications.
"
No violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Vendor Interface The inspector reviewed procedures CMP 1.17. "Control of E.,uipment
Technical Information"; NSED P.4, "Processing Vendor Information";
'
CPS 1003.01, "Design Control and Modification"; CNP 2.06,
"Configuration Management"; and CND 4.05, Plant Modification Control Program". These procedures establish and implement control of
'
plant structures, systems and components and provide assurance that vendor technical information for plant structures, systems and
.
'
components is reviewed, approved and current. Vendor manuals for
,
selected components were reviewed by the inspector for completeness
'
and to determine whether the manuals accurately reflected the
,
installed equipment.
Controlled vendor manuals were available for i
t selected components and each manual appeared to be the current revision. The licensee has an established program for vendor
.
interface that provides for annual vendor contacts to determine I
whether changes to manuals or components have occurred since the previous contact.
,
,
The inspector did not identify any installed components that had
been supplied by vendors who had gone out of business. Vendors
[
for the components selected are major suppliers of those components j
to the nuclear industry.
The licensee's procedures for controlling i
^
and replacing equipment and vendor technical information were
,
reviewed and determined to adequately control situations where the vendor refuses to supply information.
!
No violations or deviations were identified, i
i i
,
_ _ _ _. _. -
_- -
, _ _ _,
_ _ _.
. _. _,. _. _,
_ _, _ _ _, _, _, _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _., _, - -. - _ _ _ _ _. _,
-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _. - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____
___________________________ _ -__
.
,
.
,
.
c.
Post Maintenance Testing The inspector selected components from the reactor protection and low pressure core spray systems for review to ascertain whether the lit.ensee was implementing a post mainten?nce test pmgram.
For the selected components, the inspector determined that:
(1) Post maintenance test procedures and checklists have been developed by the plant staff. The inspector reviewed procedures, completed tests and work requests to verify that post maintenance testing was being accomplished on the selected components in accordance with the licensee's coninitments.
(2) Criteria and responsibilities for maintenance approval and for designating activities as safety-related or nonsafety-related have been established in work request initiation procedures.
Criteria for post maintenance testing and inspection are delineated in work order procedures and quality inspection procedures.
(3) Methods for performing functional testing following maintenance activities on safety-related components have been developed and are delineated in published plant operations and surveillance procedures.
(4) The inspector reviewed 17 completed safety-related maintenance work requests and their supporting documentation.
The work requests were appropriately classified, properly approved and the persons who performed the activity and insrctions or
',
verifications were identified on the work order and supporting documentation.
No violations or deviations were identified, d.
Reactor Trip Systems Reliability At Clinton, on-line functional testing of the scram pilot solenoid valves is perfonned with the reactor systems instrumentation channel functional tes's at the frequency required by the plant techniccl
,
specifications. The inspector reviewed test procedures and test l
results for the following functional tests:
,
Reactor Vessel Dome Pressure - High Reactor Yessel Water Level - Low
.
Reactor Vessel Water Level - High
'
Main Steam Line Isolation Valve Closure Main Steam Line Radiation - High Drywell Pressure - High
!
Turbine Stop Valve Fast Closure Scram Discharge Volume High Level Trip Manual Scram Average Power Range Monitor High Flux Trip i
Intermediate Range Monitor Trip
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ -
_
t
.,....
!
'
i
.
.
..
The procedures appeared to be adequate and the test data sheets indicated that testing was being accomplished at the frequencies
'
required by the Technical Specifications.
l 3.
TI 2515/95, MPA-C-02 (Closed)
t The inspector ascertained by review of as-built drawings and surveillance
'
procedures that the licensee has installed a recirculating pump trip that
'
is actuated by either low reactor vessel water level or high reactor vessel dome pressure.
4.
Exit Interview
,
,
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
l at the conclusion of the inspection on October 14, 1988, and summarized
)
the 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.
l The licensee did not identify any such documents or processes as
!
proprietary.
i
!
'
'
t I
L i
f 6