IR 05000461/1986051
| ML20206N475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1986 |
| From: | Keating D, Knop R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206N473 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-86-51, NUDOCS 8608260299 | |
| Download: ML20206N475 (4) | |
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-461/86051(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, Clinten, IL Inspection Conducted: July 7 through August 9, 1986 Inspector:. D. E. Keating ffzo/Ela Da te d(C V4 g%
Approved By:
R. C. Knop, Chief Reactor Projects Section IB Date Inspection Summary
,
Inspection on July 7 through August 9, 1986 (Report No. 50-461/86051(DRP))
Areas Inspected:
Routine safety inspection by the resident inspector of construction completion activities including applicant action on 10 CFR 50.55(e)
reports, functional or program areas including site surveillance tours and review of turnover processing.
Results: Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified. The applicant's activities and corrective actions were adequate.
,
t 8608260299 860820 ADOCK05000ggi PDR G
.
_
_.
. - - - -
_ _ _
_
__
,
'
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Illinois Power Company (IP)
- S. Bell, Supervising Engineer
- R. Campbell, Director, Quality Assurance (QA)
- J. Weaver, Director, Licensing and Safety J. Brownell, Licensing and Safety
- R. Cannon, Specialist, Licensing and Safety T. Parrant, Construction Quality Assurance
,
-
- P. Raysirca, Assistant Director Design Engineering, NSED
,
- K. Baker, Licensing Specialist R. Pigeon, Licensing Specialist W. Shelly, Staff Engineer, NSED Sargent and Lundy Engineers (S&L)
J. Petrich, Structural Project Engineer
- Denotes those attending the monthly exit meeting. Other licensee personnel were routinely contacted during the course of the inspection.
2.
Applicant Action on 10 CFR 50.55(e) Rep _ orts (92700)
(0 pen)50.55(e) Report (461/86005-EE)(55-85-05): On July 17, 1986, IP informed Region III of a potentially reportable condition involving Brand Industrial Services Company (BISCO) penetration fire protection seals. The condition involved openings which were found between the 3-hour fire-rated concrete wall and structural steel beams at four locations on elevation 800'-0 Control Building. These openings are blockouts where the beams rest on the concrete wall. The openings were not sealed by Baldwin Associates (BA), the contractor, per the design requirements of Specification K-2944.
In addition, two penetrations were not sealed by BISCO per design Specification K-2840.
Three condition reports were written to identify and document these conditions. These were CR-1-86-07-029, -030, and -031.
The inspector reviewed the condition reports, the training materials used for the " tool box" sessions, the Seal Surveillance reports, and the BISCO printout listing of conduit fire seals. The inspector selected seven penetrations at random for review of related seal surveillance reports.
The surveillance reports identified the penetration number, whether the
-
seal was a conduit or another type of penetration.
If a conduit the type and size were identified.
The condition of the seals, whether " satisfactory" or " unsatisfactory" were identified and a description of what was satisfactory or unsatisfactory was included.
For unsatisfactory seals provision for identifying a Maintenance Request (MR) has been made. An MR number is issued during review of the seal surveillance reports.
,
,
. - - -
-
,, - - -. - - -, - -.
,
,
,,
_-
-
<
.
'
This is an in-process activity and will be reviewed further during a future inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Independent Inspection Activities (47053C)
The inspector assisted in limited reviews and evaluations of the applicant's turnover-process. A walkdown of the screen house was performed to determine what safety-related equipment was located in the pipe tunnel. Walkdowns were also conducted in selected areas of the power block to determine the status of these areas. Also reviewed were turnover procedures and release packages.
The walkdown revealed the inoperability of water tight door locking mechanisms, the apparent lack of door limit switches for personnel airlocks for drywell access at 737' level and 828' level, and apparent open items remaining from construction turnover.. These conditions are
,
in the power block. The conditions in the screen house are documented in inspection report No. 461/86048 and are presently under review by Region III management.-
The results of these reviews indicated that further inspections will be necessary.
This is an in-process activity which will be reviewed further in a future inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Site Surveillance Tours (42051C)
The inspector toured selected 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 being used in site construction; potential of fire or other hazards; and to witness the few remaining construction activities in progress.
The general plant and site cleanliness is very good. The scum and trash referred to in a previous report, (461/86043), was removed by the applicant. The suppression pool and drywell weir wall pool were clear.
-
The storage and control of mirror insulation was adequate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Exit Meetings (30703)
The inspector met with applicant representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
throughout the inspection period and at the conclusion of the inspection on August 12, 1986. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities.
-
i
.
,_
.
_
__
-.
.
-
. _ _. _ _,,, _
..
-
.
.
..
l
.
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 applicant did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietary. The applicant acknowledged the inspection findings.
,d
b i
s
.-
$
b
i
_. _..
. _ _, _ _
.
-. _ _.___
-.
_.._..._ _ _. _
. _ _ _.
- _ _ _ _ -.....
. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _.. _ _ _ _,,, _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _..... _ _, _ _..