ML20198C172
| ML20198C172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1991 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198C177 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9106280166 | |
| Download: ML20198C172 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000254/1991011
Text
_
.
,
.
..
%
'
.
y
JUN 2 4 1991
Docket No. 50-254
Docket No. 50-265
Commonwealth Edison Company
ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed
Senior Vice President
1400 Opus Place - Suite 300
Downers Grove, IL 60515
'
Dear Mr. Reed:
This refers to the special electrical distribution system functional
inspection (EDSFI) conducted by_ Mr. D. Butler and others of this office on
April 1 through May 10, 1991. The inspection evaluated activities at the Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, authorized by NFC Operating
License No. DPR-29 and No. DPR-30.
We discussed our inspection findings with
Mr. N. Kalivianakis and others of your staff at the conclusion of the
inspection on May 10, 1991.
'The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies the areas examined
i
during the inspection. The team assessed the design, implernentation, and
'
engineering technical support relative to the electrical distribution system.
The inspection consisted of a selective review of design calculations,
relevant procedures, representative records, installed equipment, and
interviews with engineering and technical support (E&TS) staff.
While the tea did not identify any electrical distribution system (EDS)
equipment that would be unable to perform its intended safety function, a
number of weaknesses were identified in system design ar.d supporting
engineering activities. Many of the weaknesses resulted from initial design
- decisions and may not be regulatory compliance issues: however, some reflect
upon recent engineering efforts. Weaknesses include the sparsity of design
basis information, including selected areas such as cable ampacity, degraded
voltage relay settings, and diesel generator loading conditions. These
weaknesses made it difficult for the team to draw conclusions as to the
functionality of the EDS and can hamper ongoing engineering activities.
Other
weaknesses include the use of unjustified or nonconservative assumptions and
incorrect references in EDS calculations; the lack of :. comprehensive
maintenance program for 250Vdc and 480Vac motor control centers (MCCs); the
potential for fault currents to exceed the interrupting capacity of 250Vdc and
4kV breakers; the lack of breaker / fuse coordination at all voltage levels; and
the lack of seismic qualification for the diesel generator fuel supplies and
generator output bus ducts. The team noted several strengths.
Examples
include the materiel condition of equipment, plant cleanliness in areas
housing electrical equipment, and the experience and technical competence of
the engineering and plant staff that interfaced with the team.
bk
$O0bk N
p
pC/
- .
.
.
.-
-
-
.-.
-
-
.-
-
_
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .
',
.
,
,
.1
Commonwealth Edison Company
2
mg;
"li
The team noted that the licensee plans to initiate an Updated Safety Analysis
Report (USAR) rebaseline program to provide personnel with an improved
understanding of the Quad Cities design and licensing basis. We consider this
to be an important effort as it will address, in part, identified weaknesses
relating to the sparsity of key design basis documentation.
During this inspection, we noted that certain of your activities were in
violation of NRC requirements or had deviated fror, the Quad Cities Final
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), as specified in the enclosed Notices.
A
written response is required.
In addition, the report addresses a number of
unresolved and open items. We request that you also address each of these
items along with your reply to the violations and deviation identified in the
enclosed Notices.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter, the enclosure, and your response to this letter will be placed in
the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not
subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 06-511.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
La
%.
<
_
3
,
H. J. Miller, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Notice of Deviation
3.
Inspection Reports No.
50-254/910ll(DRS); and
50-265/91007(DRS)
See Attached Distribution
'Sc=& F%'M00 5 undCorWBG ?%G
Rf h T b TI
Rill
] RII
RIllf&
f
Dm
(
)
Butler /lc i Gardner
Burgess
Ring
Martin
Miller
[
6)d /91
6/24 / 91
6/ /91
6/ /91
6/ /91
6/ /91
__
_____- _ _____ ___ -
. . ~ .
.
-
-
.
.-. .-.
.
.
. . . .
-
r
',
.
Commonwealth Edison Company
2
JUN: 4 1991
The team noted that the licensee plans to initiate an Updated Safety Analysis
Report (USAR) rebaseline program to provide personnel with an improved
understanding of the Quad Cities design and licensing basis. We consider this
to be an important effort as it will address, in part, identified weaknesses
relating to the sparsity of key design basis documentation.
During this inspection, we noted that certain of your activities were in
violation of NRC requirements or had deviated from the Quad Cities Final
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), as specified in the enclosed Notices.
A
written response is required.
In addition, the report addresses a number of
unresolved and open items. We request that you also address each of these
items along with your reply to the violations and deviation identified in the
enclosed Notices.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter. the enclosure, and your response to this letter will be placed in
the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not
subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
,
l
>
'
H. J. Miller, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Notice of Deviation
3.
Inspection Reports No.
50-254/91011(DRS); and
50-265/91007(DRS)
See Attached Distribution
-m
II
RI
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIIIfp+
RNW
W
&
7
@ iller
9 93
V
Butle~r/lc
Gardner
Burgess
Ring
Martin
M
6/21/91
6/M/91
6/J!/91
6/11/91
6/p/91
6/u/91
!
_ ._
__
- .
.
- . _ , _
.-
.
.
.
'.
.
,
'
,
Commonwealth Edison Company
3
d'dS A 4 USI
Distribution
cc w/ enclosures:
D. Galle, Vice President
BWR Operations
T. Kovach, Nuclear
Licensing Manager
R. L. Bax, Station Manager
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
OC/LFCDB
Resident Inspector, LaSalle,
Dresden, Quad Cities
Richard Hubbard
J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public
Utilities Division
Robert Newmann, Asst. Director
State of Illinois
L. Olshan, LPM, NRR
E. Imbro, Chief, Special Inspection
Branch
1
.
-
.-
.-