ML20207N883
| ML20207N883 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1988 |
| From: | Bliss H COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| 4957K, NUDOCS 8810190439 | |
| Download: ML20207N883 (2) | |
Text
,_
\\ C0mmefMSGNh Edl00R g
t
_ / One First Notenal Mars. CNea00, l#wos i
Address Meply to. Poef Face un 76F CNeago, loros 60690 0767 October 7, 1988 i
l h
Mr. A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator l
U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission l
Region !!!
799 Roosevelt Road f
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 r
I l
Subject LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Response to Inspection Report Mos.
50-373/88016 and 50-374/88015 NRC_D9CktIJiOA J 0-372.And_ho-374 Reference (a):
Letter dated September 9, 1988 from H.J. Miller to Cordell Reed.
Dear Mr. Davist This letter 16 lu response to the inspection conducted by Mr. R. A. Hasse and other members of your staf f on June 27 through July 22, 1988, of activities at LaSalle County Station.
Rsference (a) indicated that certain activities appeared to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements. The Coeunonwealth Edison response to the second violation (373/88016-05) identitled in the Notice of Violation is provided in the Attachment to this letter. The response for the first violation will be transmitted following a meeting between members of your staff and and LaSalle Station personnel to clarify some factual items.
This inspection report was discussed in a telecen between Mr. H.J. Miller and Mr. L.O. De1 George of Conunonwealth Edison on October 7, 1988.
Mr. Miller indicated that providing a written response af ter our staf f s have had a working level meeting is acceptable to responding to vloistion number one. The response to violation number one and to the concerns identitled in the cover letter will be provided in the week following the PRA meeting which will be held at LaSalle Station on October 21, 1988.
If you have any questions please contact C.M. Allen of this office.
Very truly.
%l v) F, fCoJJ M
H.E. Bj,ls e Nuclear Licensing Manager ga Attachreent cct NRC Resident Insp+ctor 4957K OM \\ g %
8810190439 891007 PDR ALOCK 05000373 Q
e d
ATTAICHMEHI l
N0tiCCHELIARCE:
IR 373-88016-05
)
Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.2 requires that the emergency diesel generators be demonstrated operable in accordance with the frequency specified 1
In Table 4.8.1.1.2-1.
Table 4.8.1.1.2-1 requires that 'whenever the number of j,
failures per nuclear unit in the last 100 valid tests equals two, the test y
frequency be a t least once per 14 days.
For three failures in 100 valid tests, the tests frequency must be increased to at least once per seven days.
Contrary to the above, the Unit 1 diesel generators esperienced two failures i
within 74 valid starts (between August 10, 1986 and September 17, 1987).
l However, the test frequency remained at once per 31 days. On Decembo: 18, j
1987, the Unit 1 diesel generators experienced their third failure within the last 85 valid test and the test frequency was only increased to once per 14 days.
l CQRRECTIVI_ACT10tLTAEEtLAND_R E SU LTE.ACli1EVID :
Following detection of the error s detailed examination was made of the l
Control Room Diesel Generator Start Log and of all DVR's relating to diesel generator failure to start or failure to close onto a bus. No additional j
failures were found.
Examination of the valid f ailures included ensuring that all events involving the swing diesel (D/G "O") sthrts and failures were
)
correctly assigned to the proper unit.
Based on that detailed review it was determined that more than 100 valid starts had occured on the Unit one diesel i
generators since the missed f.silure. Therefore the Unit One diesel generator l
survie11ance frequency did not have to be increased.
I COR R E CT LVE_ACT10tLTAEZ1 LIQ _AYDID_IU RTliE RJONCOMPL IAN CE :
1 l
LaSalle Technical Procedure LTP-500-9, "Diesel Generator Valid Test Log and j
Test frequency Determination" was written end approved. This proceudre q
provides a log of all valid diesel generator tests performed and failures.
It also provides a simple mathematical method using this log to track the current a
test frequency.
This method does not require recounting failures every time a failure occurs. When a failure occurs, the impact on test frequency can be j
determined immediately, i
{
Since the error was detected this method has been used to track diesel j
generator valid tests, failures and test frequency.
Since that time there j
have been no discrepancies in tracking the diesel generators testing frequency.
1 J
DATEJLIULL_COMELIANCE i
The Station is currently in full compliance.
6 m
muun r - E rtlandGenefalElectricCori1xw1y Po m.
David W. Cockfield Vice Preddent, Nuclear October 14, 1988 Trojan Nuclear plant l
Docket 50-344 Licenso WPF-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisalon ATTN Document Control Desk Washington DC 20555 bear Sir Ninety-Day _inservlee Inspection Report Subarticle Ilia-6230 of the 1933 Edition with Summer 1983 Addenda of Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASMs) Boiler and pressure Vessel Code, requires submittal of a summary report of in-service inspection (ISI) activities conducted during a refueling outage within 90 days of their completion. the report is to include the NIS-2 forms. Owner's Report. for Repair or Replacement, for all repeirs and/or replacements performed under Section XI.
For the Trojan Nuclear plant's 1988 refueling outage ISI activities, the subject report was due to be submitted by October 6, 1902.
On that date, ths Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission (NRC) was inforr.ed, by telephone, the rnpori would be late, and a commitment was made to provide a revised rubmittal schedule by October 14, 1988.
The 90-Day Report is late because the NIS-1 and NIS-2 forms have not all been conpleted. As a result of the 1988 refueling outage activities.
I l
156 repairs or replacements were performed requiring completion of the HIS-2 form.
Aggressive action was not taken to ensure the forms were satisfactorily completed.
In addition, the Authorised Nuclear Inservice Inspector (AN11) identified several concerns which prevented him from approving the NIS-1 form and the work packages. The AW!!'s primary concern is with commercial grade procuromer.t similar to the concern previously j
discussed with the NHC and described in NRC Inspection Report (Dennis F. Kirsch to David W. Cockfield letter) 88-39 of September 13, 1988. We are continuing to evaluate the reason for this report being late, and will implement corrective cetion to prevent recurrence next year.
60310190507 881014
[DR ADOCN 05000344 FDC 15*
' 4
,c 5
I WWWW Document Control Desk October 14, 1988 o
Pase 2 s
An action plan has been developed to complete the forms.
The action plan delineates a schedule to complete the forms to support a November 30, 1988 submittal of tha 90-Day 151 Report. This schedule will be cet provided the AN!!'s concerns can be resolved and the forms ars approved.
If the sch*.dule cannot be met, you will be notified. A review of the outstanding packages has been performed and none of the open items constitute a safety conc e rn.
l Sincerely, g
l 3
ct Mr. John B. Martin l
Regional Adminletrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Mr. William T. Dixon J
State of Oregon j
r,epartment of Energy 1
l Mr. R. C. Barr i
NRC Resident Inspector j
Trojan kuelear Plant 1
1
)
i i
4 j
'I l
I r
l
-