ML20204E537

Safety Insp Rept 50-461/86-49 on 860630-0703 & 07-11.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Evaluation of Applicant Action Re TMI Action Plan Requirements & 10CFR21 Items

ML20204E537
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	07/25/1986
From:	Knop R, Scheibelhut C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20204E535	List: IR 05000461/1986049 ML20204E530 ML20204E537
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.E.4.1, TASK-2.E.4.2, TASK-TM 50-461-86-49, NUDOCS 8608010120
Download: ML20204E537 (12)

See also: IR 05000461/1986049

Text

. .

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-461/86049(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 Conduct d: une 0- y 3 and July 7-11, 1986

Inspector: C. H. 1 hut 7/Z4/b

R F IU5 W ** '

Approved By: R. C. Knop, Chief *

7/2 f/f4

'

Reactor Projects Section 1B bate

Inspection Summary

Inspection on June'30-July 3 and July 7-11, 1986 (Report No. 50-461/86049

(DRP)) *

Areas Inspected: Routine safety inspection

applicant actions on previous inspection findings, evaluation of applicant

action with regard to Three Mile Island Action Plan requirements, and 10CFR21

items.

Results: Of the three areas inspected, no violations, deviations or safety

significant issues were identified.

!

1

i

$

l

- 8600010120

DR 860723

ADOCK 05000461

PDR

,

. .

DETAILS

1. Personnel Contacted

Illinois Power Company (IP)

'J. A. Brownell, LicensinE Specialist

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

'W. C. Gerstner, Executive Vice President

1. J. H. Greene, Manager, Nuclear Station Engineering Department

1. R. W. Greer, Director, Outage Maintenance Programs

'J. E. Loomis, Construction Manager

1. J. S. Perry, Manager, Nuclear Program Coordination

1. R. F. Schaller, Director, Nuclear Training

1. F. A. Spangenberg, Manager, Licensing and Safety

'J. D. Weaver, Director, Licensing

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

1. Denotes those attending the exit meeting.

The inspector also contacted others of the applicant's staff.

2. Applicant Actions on Previously Identified Items (92701)

,

a. (Closed) Open Item (461/86016-02 (DRP)): " Low cell voltage alarm

setpoint may be set too low in battery test procedures." During a

review of surveillance test procedures, it was found that the

individual cell voltage low limit setpoint was 1.00 VDC. This

voltage is the cell polarity reversal point defined by the Institute

of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) standard 450. The

setpoint should be set at a higher value to ensure that inaccuracies

in the test equipment will not cause a cell reversal that could

destroy the cell.

The applicant reviewed the concern and concluded that setting the

! low cell voltage alarm setpoint at a value higher than 1.00 VDC was

desirable. A value of 1.10 VDC was recommended by the Nuclear

Station Engineering Department (NSED). NSED also determined that

CPS No. 9382.06, "125 VDC Battery Service Test", was correct in

requiring termination of the battery service test where an

,

individual cell reached 1 volt. The applicant revised CPS No.

'

9382.06 and CPS No. 9382.07, "125 VDC Battery Capacity Test", to

indicate a low cell voltage alarm setpoint of 1.10 VDC.

The inspector reviewed both of the revised procedures and found that

the individual cell low voltage alarm setpoint had been changed to

1.10 VDC. This item is closed.

I

l b. (0 pen) Unresclved Item (461/86017-04(DRP)): After a detailed review

!

of Administrative Procedure CPS No. 1029.01, " Preparation and

Routing of Maintenance Work Requests", Revision 8, the inspector had

a number of concerns about the adequacy of the procedure and the

review and approval process that led to revision 8. A meeting was

j held with the applicant to discuss the concerns that resulted from

I

,

'

-2-

-- .- - - - . - . - - - _ - _ - -,--.---- -.-

. .

,

>

s

the review. At the conclusion of the meeting there were eight

questions that remained unresolved. These questions were as

follows:

(1) Comments developed during the applicant's review and approval

process leading t'o revision 8 could not be shown to be

documented and resolved in accordance with CPS No. 1005.01,

t

Revision 16, paragraph 8.3.1.5. This was considered an

unresolved item (451/86017-04A).

(2) Definition of the term "a repair disposition that does not

affect fit, form or. function" (461/86017-04B) .

(3) The definition of job priorities for security systems and other

important equipment that do not directly affect plant

operations (461/86017-04C).

(4) Disposition of form CFS No. 1029.01F007 when a maintenance

request is converted to a maintenance work request (CPS No.

1005.01, Appendix A, paragraph Documents (g)) (461/86017-04D).

(5) Definition as to the location where permission to release

equipment or systems for maintenance is documented / recorded by

designated operating personnel (ANSI N18.7-1976, paragraph

5.2.6) (461/86017-04E).

(6) Paragraph 8.2.3 did not provide or reference instructions for

maintenance planners concerning what was required to obtain a

minimally acceptable work package. In addition, no job

instructions were available to the maintenance planners

concerning the preparation of a work package (461/86017-04F).

(7) The procedure did not provide or reference limitations on the

term " Tool Box Skills" (461/86017-04G).

(8) CPS No. 1029.01, Paragraph 8.2.17 required clarification of the

words "The work can continue if the results will be within

design requirements" (461/86017-04H).

The applicant took a number of steps to resolve the questions as

follows:

(1) The required comment control form, CPS No. 1005.01F002 was

filled out and initia11ed by the attendees of the

comment / resolution meeting for revision 8 of CPS No. 1029.01.

Illinois Power (IP) QA indicated their concurrence with comment

resolutions by their final approval signature noted on the IP

QA Document Revicu Trar.:mittal Form for CPS No. 1029.01, Rev.

8. These forms were on record.

(2) To resolve this item, as well as several others noted below,

the applicant revised CPS No. 1029.01. Revision 10 was the

revision pertinent to the current review.

-3-

t

<(

. .

In CPS No. 1029.01 Revision 8, the terms " repair" and " rework"

were used interchangeably. The two terms do not have the same

definitions and in the context of CPS No. 1029.01 the proper

term to use is " rework" which means to return a component to

fit, form or function per the design specifications. In order

to avoid any confusion on this point, the term " repair" was

eliminated in paragraph 8.0 of CPS 1029.01 Revision 10.

(3) The definicion of job priorities for security systems and other

important equipment that do not directly affect plant

operations has been addressed in paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.2.1,1

of CPS No. 1029.01 Revision 10. Basically, the job priority

definition has been expanded to include all plant equipment and

security systems. Also in this revision, the Shift Supervisor

has been given responsibility for assignment of all job

priorities (paragraph 8.1.7).

(4) This was resolved by revising Section 8.2.2 of CPS No. 1029.01

in Revision 10 to have the original copy of the MR (form CPS

No.1029.01F007) attached to the MWR for inclusion in the work ,

'

package rather than just entering the MR/MWR into the Power

Plant Maintenance Planning System as was done in Revision 8.

(5) Designated individuals release equipment up to three times on

any given MWR, All MRs on equipment released to Plant Staff

are reviewed and signed by the Shift Supervisor prior to the MR

being forwarded to Maintenance. MWRs which remove equipment

from service must do so via a tagout request which must be

approved by the Shift Supervicer prier te Mair.tcr.ance beginning

work. All MWRs require that Maintenance group supervision

notify the Shift Supervisor prior to starting work and document

this notification by signing and dating Block 51 of the MWR.

Additionally, the following actions were taken:

(a) The Operations Department implemented a log book to

annotate the MWR and Shift Supervisor / Asst. Shift

Supervisor signature. This log is used to document that

permission has been given to perform work activities.

(b) Plant Staff revised procedures CPS No. 1029.01 paragraph

8.2.13 and CPS No. 1401.01 paragraph 8.5.8 to

proceduralize the use of the log book.

(6) Instructions have been provided in the form of a Maintenance ,

Standing Order (MS0), MS0-023, "In-House Guidelines for

Maintenance Work Requests". The purpose of this MSO is to

provide guidelines to be used during the preparation,

scheduling and closcout of work packages. This MSO is

referenced in Section 11.31 of CPS No. 1029.01 Revision 10.

(7) Tool box skills have been defined in a position paper by the

CPS Plant Manager and Manager of QA. This position paper,

" Quality Assurance and Plant Staff Interfaces," dated January

-4

4

. .

7,1986, lists examples of skills which are common knowledge

for the various disciplines by virtue of their being standard

industry practices. Work practices utilizing tool box skills

are routinely evaluated by supervisory personnel as required in

paragraph 2.2 of CPS No. 1502.03 Revision 2. Currently, each

maintenance discipline conducts inhouse tool box skills

training; however, beginning July 1, 1986, the Nuclear Training

Department will conduct formalized tool box skills training

which is required for all maintenance disciplines. Work

involving tool box skills is not considered to be a change of

work scope providing it is confined to the component covered by

the MWR as noted in CPS No. 1029.01 paragraph 8.2.15.

(8) The last sentence of paragraph 8.2.16 (8.2.17 in Revision 8) of

CPS No. 1029.01 was revised for clarification. Actual or

expected design deviations will require a review by the

Technical Department as defined in 8.2.5 and 8.2.6.

The inspector reviewed Revision 10 of CPS No. 1029.01 and found that

the changes indicated in items (2), (3), (4), (5) and (8) were

satisfactorily incorporated.

For item (1), the inspector reviewed the completed Comment Control

Form, CPS No. 1005.01F002, and the IP QA Document Review Transmittal

Form for Rev. 8 of CPS No. 1029.01 and determined that the originals

were on record. The review showed compliance with the pertinent

requirements of paragraph 8.3.1.5 of CPS No. 1005.01.

For item (5), the inspector also reviewed paragraph 8.5.8 of

Revision 7 of CPS No. 1401.01 and found it also proceduralized the

use of the Maintenance Work Request log book.

For item (6), the inspector reviewed Revision 6 of MS0-23. The

review showed that it provided adequate guidance to the maintenance

planners for the preparation of work packages. Paragraph 4.1.21

-

'

refers the planner to paragraph 8.12.5.1 of CPS No. 1501.02 if

approved procedures are not available to perform the work. However,

paragraph 8.12.5.1 uses the terms " guidance," "should," and "may"

for the preparation of approved procedures. This appeared to be

, inconsistent with the requirements of ANSI Standard N18.7-1976,

paragraph 5.3.5(4) which indicates that such procedures "shall" be

approved. The inspector requested that the applicant demonstrate

compliance with applicable requirements of ANSI N18.7-1976. This

matter remained unresolved at the conclusion of the inspection.

I This is considered another example of unresolved item 461/85012-02

which questioned the use of the terms "should" and "may" in

administrative procedures used to fulfill regulatory requirements

and applicant commitments.

For item (7), the inspector reviewed the position paper, CPS No.

1502.03 Revision 2, and paragraph 8.2.15 of CPS No. 1029.01. The

review showed that tool box skills were adequately defined and their

use controlled by the procedures.

-5-

_ , _

_ -

_,- ._ _ - - , . - _ - -

_=

. .

In summary, the inspector considers subitems 461/86017-04A, B, C, D,

E, G, and H to be closed. Subitem 461/86017-04F remains open until

a future inspection shows that paragraph 8.12.5 of CPS No. 1501.02

complies with the requirements of paragraph 5.3.5 of ANSI Standard

N18.7-1976.

c. (Closed) Open Item (461/86017-06): "For the containment purge and

vent. valves determine that (1) mechanical stops were installed to

limit 24 inch and 36 inch valves to 50' open, (2) body to bracket

bolting material for the 36 inch valves were changed to higher

stress allowable material ( A-354 GR BD), and (3) preferred

orientation of all valves were verified."

The work accomplished by the applicant to satisfy the three items

above was completed and documented on the following travellers: VQ-

4-E, VQ-7-D, VQ-8A supp. 8, VQ-8-F and VR-2 supp. 7.

The inspector reviewed the travellers and found documented evidence

that mechanical stops were installed in the 24 inch and 36 inch

valves that limited their travel to 50* open; that body to bracket

bolting for the 36 inch valves was changed to A-354 GR BD; and that

the orientation of all of tne pertinent valves was checked. Two

were found incorrectly installed. They were removed and installed

correctly. The inspector also selected two 36 inch and one 24 inch

valves at random and inspected them in the plant. The orientation

of all three was found to be correct. High strength (A-354 GR BD)

body to bracket bolting material was found on the 36 inch valves.

Physical evidence (scratched paint, paint removed from bolt threads,

'

paint removed from gasket edges, etc.) was found that the pneumatic

operators had been removed from all three valves. This was

necessary to install the mechanical stops. Based on the review and

inspection, this item is closed.

I

d. (Closed) Deviation (461/86018-02): " Failure to provide for periodic

testing of instrument air for particulate contamination, failure-to

provide for acceptance criteria concerning the size of particulates

present in the instrument air, and failure to provide for testing of

instrument air quality following repair or modification of the

instrument air system."

The applicant took the following steps to correct the deviation:

(1) Vendors of safety-related equipment were contacted and the

maximum contaminant particle size that the components can

accept in the air stream and maintain cparational reliability

was determined.

(2) The smallest of the above particle sizes was set as the new

acceptance criterion for the Instrument Air (I A) system.

'

Amendment 38 to the Final Safety Analysis Report incorporated

'the criterion in section 9.3.1.

(3) Startup procedure No. XTP-I A-01, "I A Cleanliness Verification

Procedure," was written, accomplished, reviewed, and accepted

by IP QA.

-6-

. - -- - - - _ . - , , -.

- - - - _ - - .

. .

(4) Procedure CPS No. 2603.01, " Instrument Air Quality" was

revised. It was upgraded to safety-related status (designated

as class code SNQN). Revision 1 addressed: (a) periodicity

(yearly) of dewpoint measurements, (b) periodic changes of all

IA system filters, (c) periodic blowdowns to monitor IA system

cleanliness, (d) procedural examinations for cleanliness during

preventive maintenance, and (e) corrective action required when

acceptance criteria are not met.

(5) Procedure CPS No. 6804.01, " Collection and Determination of

Instrument air particulates", was revised. Revision 1

addressed periodicity of testing and corrective action required

!

when 3 micron criterion at the filter discharge is not met.

(6) Procedure CPS No. 1019.02, " System Cleanliness", was revised.

Revision 1 contained specific instructions related to IA

testing after repairs / maintenance / modifications.

(7) Sargent and Lundy (S&L) Specification K-2882, " Cleaning

Specifications," Appendix A, was revised. Revision 4 of

Appendix A showed the additional cleanliness requirements of

the I A system that supplies air to safety-related components.

(8) Personnel training for CPS No. 6804.01 Revision 1 was

, completed. Personnel training for the revisions to CPS Nos.

2603.01 and 1019.02 were not considered necessary because of

the nature of the changes. Training for startup procedure XTP-

IA-01 was not necessary because the author supervised the

testing. ,

The inspector reviewed the list of air-operated safety-related

components that require I A and the vendor correspondence concerning

acceptable air cleanliness requirements. The inspector also

reviewed section 9.3.1.4 of amendment 38 to the Final Safety

Analysis Report (FSAR) and found that the amendment reflected the

requirements of ANSI Standard MC 11.1-1976 and the vendor

requirements for air quality. The inspector reviewed startup

procedure XTP-IA-01 and the test results. The review showed that

all safety-related components requiring air for operation were

receiving air of the required quality. The inspector reviewed

Revision 1 of CPS No. 2603.01 and found that it was classified SNQN

and properly addressed a yearly determination of dewpoint, periodic

changes of all I A system filters, periodic blowdowns of the I A

system to monitor IA system cleanliness, procedural requirements to

inspect pertinent components for cleanliness during preventive

maintenance, and corrective actions required when cleanliness

criteria are not met. The inspector reviewed CPS No. 6804.01

Revision 1 and found it addressed required periodic (yearly) testing

of I A for particulate contamination and the corrective actions

required when the criteria are not met. The inspector reviewed

'

Revision 1 of CPS No. 1019.02 and found it contained instructions to

test for air quality following repair / maintenance / modifications to

the IA system. The inspector reviewed Revision 4 of Appendix A to

S&L specification K-2882 and found that it contained the additional

-7-

- , . .

- .- ..

. .

IA system cleanliness requirements. The inspector determined that

training for procedure CPS No. 6804.01 was completed and' agreed with

the applicant's reasons for not requiring additional training for

the other procedures. The inspector concluded that the corrective

actions taken and the actions taken to prevent recurrence were

adequate. This item is closed.

e. (Open) Open Item (461/86026-01): "A. Inadequate preventive

maintenance procedure, B. No list of approved solvents for the

plant, C. Inconsistent lubrication requirements for threaded

fasteners, D. Clarification of the role of PMT requirements in

maintenance procedures." During a review of maintenance procedures,

four specific concerns were identified. 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

(461/86026-01A).

(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

(461/86026-01B).

(3) There was inconsistency between procedures in steps requiring

'

the torquing of threaded fasteners. Some procedures required

lubrication of the threads with a specified lubricant. Other

procedures did not require thread lubrication before

torquing. This appeared to be a generic problem (461/86026-

01C).

(4) Section 8 of each maintenance procedure contained a subsection

sometimes called Post Maintenance Testing (PMT) and sometimes

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 process. Since these procedures were

,

written before this requirement was effective, the procedures

'

may not be adequate to address the PMT requirements. It was

, noted that the current revision of CPS No. 1029.01 contained

l provisions for specifying PMT. The applicant was requested to

i

clarify the use of PMT information contained in the maintenance

l procedures in light of current MWR practices (461/86026-01D).

To resolve these concerns, the applicant took the following actions:

(1) Routine preventive maintenance lubrication is scheduled by the

applicant's "Survtrac" computerized maintenance scheduling

system. Therefore, routine lubrication instructions were not

included in preventive maintenance procedures. Routine

j lubrication of the airlocks was identified in the "Survtrac"

system as preventive maintenance items MMMCSA004S, and

MMMCSA005S.

-8-

l

l

l

_ .. , _ _. . , _ , _ _ _ , - _ . . _ _ . . - , _ _ , - _ ~ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ . ,. _

. .

The inspector reviewed items MMMCSA004S and MMMCSA005S in the

"Survtrac" system and found that the items listed the frequency

(6 month), approved lubricants, and reference to a controlled

document (vendor manual). Review of the listed document in the

vault showed it contained identification of the lubrication

points. The inspector considers this approach to routine

lubrication satisfactory since approved lubricants for the

individual components were given, and reference was made to a

controlled document for specific lubrication cetails. This

subitem is closed.

(2) The applicant has prepared a list, "NSED Approved Products

List," that included solvents approved for use at CPS. For

each solvent, the list included typical applications and

limitations on its use. The applicant reviewed all (128)

mechanical maintenance procedures to identify usage of

acetone. Of the procedures reviewed, 43 were found to contain

a reference to the use of acetone as a solvent. These 43

procedures were revised to remove the reference to the use of

acetone and referenced the NSED Approved Products List instead.

The inspector reviewed the approved product list and found it

adequate. In particular, one of the limitations on the use of

acetone is that it is not to be used on non-metallic items.

The inspector chose three of the revised procedures at random

and found that reference to the use of acetone as a solvent was

removed. This subitem is closed.

(3) The applicant reviewed all (128) mechanical maintenance

procedures to determine conformance with the threaded fastener

lubrication requirements given in the vendor manuals. A total

of 15 procedures deviated from vendor requirements and were

revised to reflect the methods given by the vendor.

The inspector selected three of the revised procedures and

compared them with their pertinent vendor manuals. In all

cases the revised procedures reflected the methods given in the

vendor manuals. This subitem is closed.

(4) The applicant's actions on this subitem were not complete at

the time of the inspection. Therefore this item remains open.

No violations or deviations were identified.

3. 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 TMI-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 TMI items found in

NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements."

_g-

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

. .

a. (Closed) Item II 1.4.1: " Dedicated hydrogen penetrations."

Hydrogen recombiners for postaccident use located external to the-

containment shall have dedicated containm9nt penetration systems

that meet the single failure requirements of General Design Criteria

~

54 and 56 of Appendix A to 10CFR50. The procedures for the use of

the combustible gas control system following an accident that

results in a degraded core and release of radioactivity to the

containment must be reviewed and revised, if necessary.

In Inspection Report 50-461/86010, the inspector determined that the

hardware aspects of the item were satisfactory. However, one

procedure had not been written and another was incorrectly

classified as non-safety related.

The applicant has rewritten and reclassified CPS No. 3316.01,

" Containment Combustible Gas Control," which covers the operation of

the hydrogen recombiners. The applicant wrote Off-Normal Procedure

CPS No. 4111.01, " Combustible Gas Mitigation," which integrated the

operation of the combustible gas control system with other

technirues for combustible gas control.

The inspector reviewed the two procedures and found that they were

both classified as safety-related and covered the operation and

timing of use of the systems. This item is closed.

b. (Closed) Item II.E.4.2: " Containment Isolation Dependability." In

NUREG-0737, the following requirements for improved dependability of

containment isolation were listed:

(1) The containment isolation system design shall comply with the

requirements of Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.4

(2) All systems that penetrate containment shall be classified as

essential or non-essential and the results of the evaluation

reported to the NRC.

(3) All non-essential systems shall be isolated by the containment

isolation signal.

(4) The design of the control systems for automatic containment

isolation valves shall be such that resetting the isolation

signal will not result in the automatic reopening of

containment isolation valves.

(5) The containment setpoint pressure that initiates the isolation

signal must be reduced to the minimum compatible with normal

operating conditions.

(6) Containment purge valves that do not satisfy the operability

criteria of the Staff Interim Position of October 23, 1979,

must be sealed closed or modified to meet the operability

criteria.

-10-

. . _ _ _ .

, - - . _ . _ _ . _ . . - - - - .

. .

(7) Containment purge and vent isolation valves must close on a

high radiation signal.

In response to these requirements, the system designs and their control

systems were reevaluated and the results included in the FSAR and

amendments to the FSAR. In section 6.2 of the CPS Safety Evaluation

Report (SER) (NUREG-0853), and Supplements 2 and 5 to the SER, the NRC

accepted' the design and definitions of essential and non-essential

systems. For item 6, above, modifications were required to satisfy

operability requirements for the containment purge valves and made an SER

confirmatory item (461/86017-06) to assure that the modifications were

made.

The applicant completed the modifications indicated in item 461/86017-06

(see paragraph 2.C above). The applicant performed the following

Preoperational Tests (PTPs) to demonstrate, among other things, that the

requirements of this TMI Action Plan Item were met:

• PTP-NB-04 demonstrated that requirements 3 and 4, above, were met.

• PTP-RH-01,-HP-01, and -LP-01 demonstrated that isolation of

'

essential systems performed as designed.

• PTP-VP-01, ano -VQ-01 demonstrated that the requirement 7, above,

was met.

A Region III inspector witnessed performance of parts of the PTPs listed

and reviewed the results of all the PTPs following applicant review and

approval. The inspector found that the PTPs satisfactorily demonstrated

operation of the systems in accordance with the requirements. This

inspection and review was documented in Inspection Report 50-461/86052.

This item is closed.

No violations or deviations were identified.

4. Applicant Actions on 10CFR21 Item (92700)

(Closed) 10CFR21 Item (461/86007-PP): " Failure to Incorporate Rockwell

Bulletins in S&L Design Documents". Rockwell International, supplier of

the hydrogen recombiner units for CPS, identified the failure of an

electrical component (timer KS-2) during environmental qualification

testing. Rockwell reported this matter to the NRC under the requirements

of 10CFR21. Rockwell then initiated and issued Bulletin #0020 describing

required modifications to correct the condition and transmitted it to S&L

(the applicant's Architect Engineer) for insertion into the

, operations / maintenance manual. During the resolution of an unrelated

matter, the applicant discovered that the hardware modifications required

by Bulletin #0020 had not been performed. Further review determined that

the bulletin had been inserted in the manual as an "Information Only"

document and no design change had been initiated.

The applicant requested a listing and copies of all Rockwell bulletins

that applied to CPS. Review of the information supplied by Rockwell

identified another bulletin (#0034) applicable to CPS. That bulletin had

-11-

-- - - __

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

- - - --

. . - __-

. .

also been sent only to S&L. However, S&L had no record of receipt of the

bulletin. The applicant and S&L reviewed the bulletins and determined

that hardware changes were required by both. Accordingly, Field

Engineering Change Notices (FECNs) 13011 and 13590 were issued to

implement the contents of Rockwell Bulletins #0020 and #0034. Bulletin

1. 0020 required removal of a timer and wiring modifications in the control

panel. Bulletin #0034 required replacement of some capacitors and

cleaning of the annunciator control circuits. To preclude recurrence,

Rockwell was requested to address future correspondence regarding the

Clinton hydrogen recombiner units directly to the Illinois Power Company

for technical evaluation and processing.

The inspector reviewed the FECNs and their accompanying work requests and

QA records. The review indicated that the work had been accomplished in

accordance with the applicant's QA program. The inspector reviewed the

applicant's letter, F-1452, dated March 14, 1986 to Rockwell

International and concluded that the problem should not recur. This item

is closed.

No violations or deviations were identified.

5. Exit Meeting

The inspector met with the resident inspector and applicant

i representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the

inspection on July 11, 1986. The resident inspector summarized the scope

and findings of the inspection. The 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.

.

4

1

-12-

,

- - - - - ..

-

, - - ~ , - ,7y,- - - - , - _ , v

-

. , - . - - --,,g<r -.-

--y ,y -