IR 05000461/1986069

From kanterella
Revision as of 22:13, 6 December 2024 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Rept 50-461/86-69 on 861015-1208.No Violation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Unresolved Item,Including Applicant Action on 10CFR50.55(e) & 10CFR21 Repts & Site Surveillance Tours
ML20207D065
Person / Time
Site: Clinton 
Issue date: 12/23/1986
From: Knop R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207D034 List:
References
50-461-86-69, NUDOCS 8612300312
Download: ML20207D065 (3)


Text

-

.

4 -

,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-461/86069(DRP)

Docket No. 50-461 License No. NPF-55 Licensee:

Illinois Power Company 500 South 27th Street Decatur, IL 62525 Facility Name:

Clinton Power Station Inspection At:

Clinton Site, Clinton, IL Inspection Conducted: October 15 through December 8, 1986

_-

Inspector:

D. E. Keating R FINM k Approved By:

R. C. Knop, Chief 12/97df__

Projects Section IB Date '

Inspection Summary Inspection on October 15 through December 8, 1986 (Report No. 50-461/86069(DRP))

Areas Inspected: Routine safety inspection by the resident inspector of an unresolved item including applicant action on 10 CFR 50.55(e) and 10,CFR 21 reports, and site surveillance tours.

Results: No violations or deviations were identified. The applicant's activities and corrective actions were adequate.

[

l 8612300312

$DR ADOCKOo$$k61 PDR

-

-

- -

-

- -

-

-

-

-

.

.

.

DETAILS 1.

Personnel Contacted Illinois Power (IP)

  • J. S. Perry, Manager, Nuclear Program Coordination
  • F. A. Spangenberg, RIII, Manager, Licensing and Safety
  • R. E. Campbell, Manager, Quality Assurance
  • J. W. Wilson, Manager, Clinton Power Station
  • R. F. Schalle, Assistant Power Plant Manager - Operations
  • J. H. Greene, Manager, Nuclear Station Engineering Department
  • J. D. Weaver, Director, Licensing
  • R. W. Greer, Director, Outage Management Programs
  • K. L. Patterson, Director, Materials Management
  • J. Wemlinger, Supervisor, Operations Training
  • J. A. Brownell, Licensing Specialist Soyland/WIPC0
  • J. Greenwood, Manager, Power Supply
  • Denotes those attending the monthly exit meeting. Other licensee personnel were routinely contacted during the course of the inspection.

2.

Licensee Action on Unresolved Items (92702)

(Closed) Unresolved Item (461/86062-01):

Rework of Titus Products grilles, registers, and diffusers (GRD) in the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems within the plant.

The conditions leading to this unresolved item were documented in Inspection Report 50-461/86062.

This is a followup to the licensee's corrective actions necessary to complete the rework as recommended by Titus Products in Part 21 (461/85001-PP) (21-85-01) and Sargent and Lundy (S&L) specification K-2910. The initial evaluation performed by S&L, Baldwin Associates (BA), and IP determined that this condition was not reportable according to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21.

If the vanes had inadvertently cl1 sed during a seismic event, no systems required for the safe shutdown of the plant or required for the safe operation of the plant would have been jeopardized since the vanes were directional vanes only and offered no control function to the systems in which they were installed. Also, had the vanes been closed during installation or at any other time during operation or system testing, this would have been identified during surveillances and corrected during testing and balancing of the HVAC systems by procedural requirements.

Field Engineering Change Notice (FECN) 10698 was written to incorporate the rework recommended by Titus in their Part 21 notification. The inspector witnessed the reinspection of the drywell cooling (VP) system and the rework of the GRD's for this system. The inspector also witnessed the rework and reviewed the inspection documentation pertaining to the spare GRD's. These activities were in accordance with Titus Field

e-

.

.

.

Rework Procedure RW-07, dated October 1, 1984, and Titus drawing XY-10295, Containment Supply Register (Field Rework Procedure). The failure to complete corrective actions on grilles in storage appeared to be an isolated occurrence. However, to assure that this was in fact an isolated occurrence, the inspector reviewed licensee closed 10 CFR 50.55(e) and Part 21 reports to determine that required corrective actions had been performed to establish the basis for closure.

The inspector randomly selected seven 10 CFR 50.55(e) and ten Part 21 reports which had some corrective action initiated by nonconformance reports (NCR), maintenance work requests (MWR), condition reports (CR),

and field change requests (FCR) that had to be performed before these items could be closed. The inspector's review of objective evidence presented and field verification where possible, indicated that the corrective actions required had been performed and were adequate.

Based on the reviews and field verification conducted, the inspector determined that the unresolved item of the Titus grilles was an isolated case. This unresolved item and Part 21 (461/85001-PP) (21-85-01) are closed.

No violations or deviations were identified.

3.

Site Surveillance Tours (42051C)

The inspector toured areas of the site at periodic intervals during the report period.

Those tours assessed the general cleanliness of the site; storage and maintenance conditions of equipment and material; and potential for fire or other hazards.

The inspector was also sensitive to the potential for other areas to be effected by similar circumstances as indicated in paragraph 2.

The licensee's response to inquires and items brought to its attention was prompt and adequate.

The cleanliness of the plant remains very good.

4.

Exit Meetings (30703)

The inspector met with licensee representatives throughout the inspection period and the conclusion of the inspection on December 5, 1986. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities.

The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietary. The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.

3