ML20236Y177

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Suppls 870929 Response to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-254/87-13 & 50-265/87-13.Corrective Actions:Ae Reviewed Functional Drawings Affected by Scram Discharge Vol Mod M-4-1(2)-81-21 & Changes Will Be Incorporated by 880331
ML20236Y177
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities  
Issue date: 11/13/1987
From: Johnson I
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To: Davis A
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
3898K, NUDOCS 8712110158
Download: ML20236Y177 (2)


Text

N Ccmm:nwrith Edison gs

/ One First National Plaza. Chicago, Illinois i

V Address Reply to: Post ufice Box 767 Chicago;lilinois 60690 - 0767 November 13, 1987 Mr. A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137

Subject:

Quad Cities Station Units 1 & 2

" Supplement to Commonwealth Edison Response totd NRC Inspection Report IE 50-254/87-013 & 50-254/87-013 NRC Docket Nos. 50-254 & 265

Reference:

Letter from M. S. Turbak to A. B. Davis dated September 29, 1987

Dear Mr. Davis:

W In the above referenced letter, Commonwealth Edison provided a response to your Inspection Report NRC IE 50-254/87-013 &

/87-013. The Inspection s:eport details two Level IV violations, one of which pertained to a situation where procedures and drawings may not have been updated prior to placing the modified equipment back in service, contrary to Quad Cities Station Procedure QAP 1270-1. Specifically, your staff found that station electrical drawings and station procedure QOA 6900-3, 24/48 VDC System Failure for Unit 2 did not reflect the scram discharge modifications, which were completed and approved for operation on May 1, 1985.

In our September 29, 1987 response, Commonwealth Edison indicated that we would request the Architect Engineer (AE) who was involved in Scram Discharge modification work to review and revise all functional drawings that have been affected by the SDV modification by October 31, 1987.

Additionally, we inidicated that the remaining AE's would be contacted by letter and request them to review and revise a functional drawings that are affected by a particular modification and that this activity would be completed by November 15, 1987.

The AE involved in the Scram Discharge modification has completed their review pursuant to the commitment made in our Inspection Report As a result of their review, Commonwealth Edison is revising our response.

response to the Inspection Report.

\\h O \\

Q grgas!Ea%+

an a G

.I

$ The discrepancy between the Unit 1 SDV key diagram and the Unit 2 SDV key diagram noted in the subject NRC violation is not of a technical nature.

It only involves more information appearing on the Unit 1 drawing than on the Unit 2 one.

It is our position, based on this additional review, that the Unit 2 drawing had been updated and was adequate.

l The AE has reviewed all the functional drawings that are affected by the Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) Modification No. M-4-1(2)-81-21.

Although the BWR Engineering Department concurs with the AE that the SDV modification drawings being cited by the NRC are technically correct, it has j

agreed to make the Urit 2 key diagram similar to the Unit 1 modification by r

incorporating the corresponding nomenclatural changes as an enhancement to the drawings.

These changes will be incorporated by means of DCR No. 4-87-120 that will be processed by March 31, 1988.

The AE will complete its portion of the DCR by November 30, 1987.

The SDV modification drawings for Dresden do not show any discrepancy between Unit 2 and Unit 3.

Therefore, no action is necessary.

With respect to our commitment that all other AE's would be contacted, given that the AE was not at fault in the failure to revise the affected drawings, and given that the latest Q.6 procedure contains guidelines (project plans' requirements) ensures that all the drawings affected by a particular modification are reviewed and revised, Commonwealth Edison does not feel that it is necessary to issue a letter to all other AE's reminding them to perform these tasks.

Therefore, this activity will not be performed.

Please direct any questions regarding this matter to this office.

Very truly yours, 1

J Al I. M. Johnso Nuclear Licen ng Administrator a

cc: QC Resident Inspector l

l 1

3898K/bs l

J