IR 05000254/1978029
| ML19261B848 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities, Zion  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1979 |
| From: | Boyd D, Knop R, Walker R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261B837 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-78-29, 50-265-78-31, 50-295-78-30, 50-304-78-29, NUDOCS 7903070317 | |
| Download: ML19261B848 (5) | |
Text
.
.
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
.
Report No. 50-295/78-30; 50-304/78-29; 50-254/78-29; 50-265/78-31 Docket No. 50-205; 50-304; 50-254; 50-265 License No. DPR-39; DPR-48 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edisen Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
Commamvealth Edison Corporate Offices Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Edison Building, Chicago, Illinois Zion Site, Zion, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
Corporate Office on November 30, 1978 Zion Station on December 6 and 7, 1978 Inspectors:
D. C. Boyd
/ - //- 79 (f l [
.-<7
-
.
N. C.
rissotimos (November 30, 1978 only)
- // /
<
!
f ',
.')
n'
'
R. Walker (November 30, only)
_, _
,
.. n s
/ t t * 4. -c g,
'
Approved By:
R. C. Knop, Chief J
t-
/'- /7 Reactor Projects Secticn 1
.
Inspection Summary Inspection at the Corporate Offices (Edison Building) on November 30, 1978; and at the Zion Station on Decer:ber 6 and 7, 1978.
(Reports No. 50-254/78-29; 50-265/78-31; 50-295/78-30; 50-304/78-29)
Areas Inspected:
Announced inspection at the Corporate Offices on offsite committee performance; routine unannounced inspection at Zion station on conduct of operation, licensee event followup, s.nd independent inspection effort. These inspections involved 34 manhours of inspection by four NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the four areas examined no items of noncompliance were found in three, and one item of noncompliance was found in the area of Licensee Event followup.
(Details - Paragraph 3)
790307036
.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- N. Wandke, Plant Superintendent J. Leider, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- L. Soth, Administrative Assistant
- C. Schumann, Operating Engineer E. Fuerst, Operating Engineer R. Ward, operating Engineer
- J. Gilmore, Shift Engineer T. hoyce, Shf.ft Engineer
- T. Parke r, Shif t Foreman C. Schultz, Training Supervisor R. Ungeran, Assistart Technical Staf f Supervisor
- B. Harl, Quality As sut -nce
- E. Murach, Maintenance Supervist.r
- W. Bailey, Instrument Foreman
- J. Bitel, Supervisor of Offsite Review
- P. Kuhel, Senior Participant - Offsite Review W. Wogsland, Senior Participant - Of fice Review '
F. Morris, Senior Participant - Offsite Review M. Giuffre, Senior Participant - Offsite Review
- Denotes those present at the November 30, 1978, Exit Interview.
the December 7, 1978, Exit Interview.
- Denotes those present at 2.
Review of Plant Operations The raajor portion of the inspection efforts, during this reporting During each inspection day the in this area.
period, were spent control roon operation and manning was examineJ on one or more a partial plant tour was made during each inspec-occasions. Al so,
during this reporting period all cccessible tion day such that areas of the plant were inspected o..e or more times.
inspection included the review of control room shift super-Tha foreman, and miscellaneous logs and data sheets.
visor / shift Adherence to procedures, work request implementation, tag out alarm annunciator procedures, performance of surveillance test response, and many other operational activities were also examined.
,
-2-
.
e t
3.
Licensee Event Followup An inspection was conducted into the circumstances which resulted in a reactor trip and cafety injection initiation which occt.rred on Unit 1, on November 2, 1978. This event was reported orally to the inspector on November 6,1978.
On November 2,1978, a problem existed in one of the feedwater flow loops. Work request 8-05265 was issued and approved to Trouble An instrument mechanic (IM) obtained Shooting of the system.
permission f rom the shif t supervisor to begin the trouble shooting When the activity in accordance with approved procedure IMWR511.
IM was part way through the procedure a seperate operational problem developed which required taking the turbine off the line, thus the shift supervisor requested that the IM return all the This was done and reported systems he was working on to normal.The turbine was then removed from the to the shift supervisor.
The reactor remained in operation at a low power level.
line.
period of time the 1M requested and was granted After a short permission to resume his trouble shooting ef forts in accordance with Procedure IMWR511. When the IM arrive'd at the Procedure Step each of 27 system status No. 8, which requires verification that lit, he observed that three lights were lit, lights are not The the turbine auto stop bistables were tripped.
indicating that since minutes earlier he IM elected to proceed with the procedure, difficulty.
had gone through this portion of the procedure withbutthat the The IN was not aware of the significance of the fact in turbine was off-line and the turbine auto-stop bistables were When the IM initiated step 1C of the the tripped position.
Procedure, which was to place additional bistables in the tripped position, it resulted in a reactor trip.
Shortly after the reactor trig the primary coolant average temperature, Tavg, dropped belo 547 F, and this, resulted in the indicated by steps 8 and 10 of the IM Procedure, automatic initiation of a safety injection.
the The NRC inspectors review of procedure IMWR511 indicates that result in opera-procedure is adequate and if adhered to will not tional problems.
Records establish that this event was reviewed by the onsite com-the of f site committee, and by a special review committee mittee, The major recommendation, which has been (Pro Team Review).
the station, is to increase the frequency of implemented at adherence to procedure.
emphasizing the need for strict-3-
.
.
.
o
.
This failure to ac..er? to a written and approved procedure is in noncompliance with the facility Technical Specifications and is con-sidered to be an inf raction.
Independent Inspection ffort The inspector spent approximately 20 percent of the inspection time pursuing activities outside the defined inspection program.
This included:
the re-examination of key procedures, and verification of adherence to these procedures, re-examination of response to annunciators, and general annunciator attention; and an expanded work activity observation effort.
No items of regulatory concern were identified.
5.
Corporate Of f-site Review Function An inspection was conducted on No,vember 30, 1978, at the Com=onwealth Edison Company Corporate offices to determine whether the offsite review functions are conducted in conformance with the requirements of the facility Technical Specification and as committed to in the CECO Quality Assurance Manual for Nuclear Generati,ng Stations.
The offsite review group is not required by the Technical Specifications to have a quorum or a specified number of committee meetings per year, however, the records establish the offeite committee has issued 22 reports for Zion Station during 1978 to date, and that er:h review was performed by two or more members of the affsite review committee.
There are five senior participants for the offsite review committee and there are 24 other identified CECO personnel who can be called upon to serve as review participants or to act as consultants.
Each of the above have expertise in one or more defined technical disciplines.
The inspectors reviewed the qualifications of each of the five senior participants for comparison against the requirements of Technical Specificatiou 6.1.G.l.f 1 and 2, and determined that all were adequately qualified.
The inspectors, working from a previously prepared list, requested the licensee to provide records verifying that the offsite committee had reviewed the following:
.Four items of noncompliance with NRR requirements.
. Twelve Licensee Event Reports (LER).
.One change to a safety related procedure.
.One change to the Generating Station Emergency Plan (GSEP)
.One Action item Request (AIR).
.One change to the Technical Specifications.
-4-
.*
w e
e The licensee promptly provided the above requested records. The inspectors review and evaluation of these records indicates that the of f site committee is objective in their findings and recommenda-tions.
,
The inspector reviewed, with the five senior participants, the offsite committee implementing procedures. No items of NRC concern were identified.
This inspection was conducted for the Quad-Cities and the Zion Stations.
6.
Exit Interview An exit interview was held with Mr. Bitel and others of his staff (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection held at the Corporate offices on November 30, 1978.
An exit interview was held with Mr. Wandke and others of his staff (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the site inspection on December 7, 1978.
.
-5-