ML20236M001
| ML20236M001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1998 |
| From: | Grant G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Kingsley O COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236M004 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-98-09, 50-254-98-9, 50-265-98-09, 50-265-98-9, EA-98-272, EA-98-328, NUDOCS 9807130262 | |
| Download: ML20236M001 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000254/1998009
Text
- - _ , - _ _ .
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - - - - - _ _ - _ - - _ - - . _ - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
j
p ratg'o
UNITE 0 3TATES
l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
t
8
REGION 111
g
y
801 WARRENVILLE ROAD
!
LISLE, ILLINOIS 60532-4351
%
/
July 2,1998
l
EA 98-272
EA 98 328
Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley
President, Nuclear Generation Group
Commonwealth Edison Company
ATTN: Regulatory Services
Executive Towers West til
1400 Opus Place, Suite 500
Downers Grove, IL 60515
SUBJECT:
QUAD CITIES INSPECTION REPORT 50-254/98009(DRP); 50-265/98009(DRP)
Dear Mr. Kingsley:
This refers to the inspection conducted April 1 through May 29,1998, at the Quad Cities Nuclear
Power Station. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether activities authorized by
the !! cense were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements. The NRC
conducted routine resident inspections in this period. Based on the inspectors' findings, overall
performance at the Quad Cities Station was characterized by a safety conscious approach. At
the conc!usion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your staff
identified in the enclosed report.
,
During this inspection period, the inspectors noted that your startup activities for Unit 2 were well
controlled. Additionally, operations personnel responded well to unanticipated equipment
problems throughout the startup. Some negative trends were identified during the reporting
period. Specifically, a number of problems were observed with the implementation of and
adherence to the out of-service tagging program. Several weaknesses were also identified in the
station's ability to effectively review and correct identified problems. While your staff was able to
l
readily identify issues, these issues were not always dispositioned properly and in a timely
manner. Finally, instances of low standards imposed during supervisory oversight contributed to
some of the problems.
Based on these and other findings of this inspection, the NRC has determined that six violations
of NRC requirements occurred. The violationt are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation
(Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detailin the subject inspection
i
report.
]
Three violations related to improper controls being implemented for out-of-service equipment.
The first violation involved a failure to obtain proper reviews of a change to an out-of-service
l
tagout. This failure was significant because the changes reduced the controls on equipment
!
operation without proper review. The reduced controls led to an event where a pump affecting
water flow near a diver was started without the diver's knowledge.
,
'
/
/
9007130262 990702
ADOCK 05000254
G
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ - .
____ D
>
I
<
O. Kingsley
-2-
l
.The second violation involved a fuel handler who operated an out-of-service piece of equipment
on the refuel floor. This violation was of concem because it undermined the confidence that
personnel will comply with the requirements of the out-of-service program. Additionally, the out-
of-service involved was being used as s,n equivalent reactivity control mechanism for refueling
bridge interlocks which were not installed in accordance with the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Repod.
The third violation involved the failure of a maintenance worker and supervision to initiate a
procedure change request when a maintenance procedure was deemed unacceptable. This
violation was of concem because an understanding of the fundamental process for procedure
adherence was not demonstrated by the maintenance workers or maintenance supervision.
The fourth out-of-service violation involved the failure to ensure that the traversing incore probe
system was out-of-service prior to performing work on this system. This violation was of concern
since workers failed to exhibit the appropriate concem for personnel safety while working on a
system which could result in significantly adverse radiological impacts if the appropriate controls
were not implemented. Although you identified this problem, it occurred over several shifts with
three different crews, and was not identified as an adverse situation in a timely manner.
The fifth violation involved a failure to take timely corrective action for deficiencies identified with
instrumentation setpoints. The violation was of concem because your staffidentified in 1991 that
important safety instrumentation potentially did not meet Technical Specification requirements
and actions to correct setpoint problems were spelled out by corporate Nuclear Engineering
Design in 1992, yet the setpoint issues were not addressed until 1998. Of particular concem was
that a management level Vulnerability Assessment Team report tracked the issue until 1996,
then the inue was closed without apparent resolution.
The final violation pertained to the failure to perform a safety evaluation for a degraded humidifier
which wa: required for the normal control room heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system.
This violation was of concem because your staff intentionally chose not to repair a degraded
piece of equipment, but failed h evaluate the consequences of abandoning the equipment in
place.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to
determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory
requirements.
Your responce to the out-of-service violations should include the measures you have taken to
ensure that the program is adequate, and that the nepotive trend in out-of-service errors is
stemmed, but should also specify measures you have taken to ensure that program requirements
are enforced by supervisors and plant staff alike.
l
l
l
l
. _ _ _ _ _ - .
.g
i
j
g g-
.
a
,
O. Kingsley '
-3-
l
!
i.
Your response to the corrective action violation should address how the issue was allowed to
remain without action until 1998, and why the issue was closed as a Vulnerability Assessment
!
. Team issue in 1996 without corrective action. This discussion should include a description of the
process used to close Vulnerability Assessment Team items and your confidence triat other
Vulnerability Assessment Team items were dispositioned properly. Further, your response
- should detail the specific resolution to each of the instrumentation issues raised in 1991 and
1992 by corporate Nuclear Engineering Design. Your response should also detail the confidence
. you have that those pieces of reactor protective system and engineered safety features
. instrumentation, for which you do not have calculations, still mcet Technical Specification
requirements. Finally, we request that your response indicate your planned actions and
completion dates for performing instrument calculations to ensure Technical Specification ~
requirements are met.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Prac'. ice," a copy of this letter, its
. enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Sincerely,
/s/ Marc L. Dapas for
>
Geoffrey E. Grant, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket Nos.: 50-254; 50-265
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Report 50-254/98009(DRP);
50465/98009(DRP)
See Attached Distribution
!
I
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ quad \\qua98009.drp
To receive a copy of this docuenent, Indicate in the boa "C* = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E* = Copy with ettachment/ enclosure
t
y..
.<
,
,
OFFICE l Rill
l
Rlli
l
Rlli
l
NAME
RLerch:co 651 -
MRingM
QGrant Mf &
DATE
06TR/98
06/p/98
AP M/ l^0 V/,7/ #
-
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
~
___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
. _ _
_
_l
_-
. _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
y
'O. Kingsley
-4-
cc w/ enc ls:
M. Wallace, Senior Vice President
D. Helwig, Senior Vice President
G. Stanley, PWR Vice President
J. Perry, BWR Vice President
D. Farrar, Regulatory
Services Manager
1. Johnson, Licensing Director
DCD - Licensing
J. Dimmette, Jr., Site Vice President
W. Pearco, Quad Cities Station Manager
i
C. Peterson, Regulatory Affairs Manager
R. Hubbard
N. Schloss, Economist
Office of the Attomey General
State Liaison Officer
Chairman, lilinois Commerce
Commission
W. Leech, Manager of Nuclear
MidAmerican Energy Company
Distribution:
J. Lieberman, OE w/encls
J. Goldberg, OGC w/encis
B. Boger, NRR w/encls
L
SAR (E-Mail)
i
' Project Mgr., NRR w/encls
l
C. Paperiello, Rlli w/encis
l
J.'Caldwell, Rill w/encls
!
B. Clayton, Rlli w/encls
l
SRI Quad Cities w/encls
'
DRP w/encls
TSS w/encls
DRS (2) w/encls
Rlil PRR w/encls
PUBLIC lE-01 w/encls
Docket File w/cncis
GREENS
LEO (E-Mail)
DOCDESK (E-Mail)
_ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _