IR 05000295/1979018

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Repts 50-295/79-18 & 50-304/79-17 on 790801-30.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Plant Operations, Physical Protection,Physical Barriers,Access Control & Communications,Reviews & Audits,Calibr & LER Rept Followup
ML19250A612
Person / Time
Site: Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date: 09/12/1979
From: Kohler J, Spessard R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML19250A605 List:
References
50-295-79-18, 50-304-79-17, NUDOCS 7910240067
Download: ML19250A612 (9)


Text

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION III

Report No. 50-295/79-18; 50-304/79-17 Docket No. 50-295; 50-304 License No. DPR-39; DPR-48 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:

Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2 Inspection At:

Zion Site, Zion, IL Inspection Conducted: August 1-30, 1979 NMb

/

/

Inspector:

J. E. Koh er p 7//A/79

%ddpeawz e.-

//

a/ /-Y 7'/

/

Approved By:

R. L. Spessard, Chief

'

Reactor Projects Section 1 Inspection Summary Inspection on August 1-30, 1979 l Report No. 50-295/79-18; 50-304/79-17)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of plant operations; physical protection physical barriers, access control and communi-cations; review and audits; licensee's administrative controls during containment purging; calibration; non-routine events; licensee event report followup; and inspection and enforcement bulletin followup.

The inspection involved 140 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.

Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.

1202 211 7 9102400Q

.

DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted

  • N. Wandke, Station Superintendent C. Schumann, Operating Assistant Superintendent
  • E.

Fuerst, Unit 1 Operating Engineer R. Ward, Unit 2 Operating Engineer F. Stetkar, Shift Foreman T. Boyce, Shift Engineer K. Garside, Shift Foreman J. Harbin, Shift Engineer R. Landrum, Nuclear Station Operator D. Kaley, Nuclear Station Operator N. Valos, Shift Foreman F. Pauli, Shift Engineer J. Brandice, Nuclear Station Operator E. Murach, Maintenance Assistant Superintendent

  • L.

Soth, Assistant Superintendent Administrative Support Services J. Marianyi, Technical Staff Supervisor

  • T.

Parker, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor J. Gilmore, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor J. Russ, Technical Staff Engineer C. Silich, Technical Staff Engineer J. Montgomery, Maintenance Engineer R. Shannon, Technical Staff Engineer J. Joosten, Technical Staff Engineer

  • Denotes those present at the exit interview on August 30, 1979.

2.

Monthly Reactor Operations Summary Unit 1 The unit operated routinely at power levels up to 100%. The unit experienced an at power Reactor Trip on August 17, 1979 during a severe electrical storm. The unit was taken to hot shutdown on August 25, 1979 to repair secondary steam leaks.

Unit 2 The unit operated at power levels up to 95%. The unit continues to be power limited due to axial power distribution monitoring system limits on Fq(Z). The unit experienced a simultaneous trip along with Unit I during the electrical disturbance of August 17, 1979.

-2-1202 212

.

3.

Plant Operations

-

The inspector reviewed the p: 1nt operations including.xaminations of control room log books, routine patrol sheets, shift engineer log book, equipment outage logs, special operating orders, and jumper and tagout logs for the month of August 1979. The inspector observed plant operations during four offshifts during the month of August 1979.

The inspector also made visual observations of the routine surveillance and functional tests in progress during the period.

This review was conducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under Technical Speci-fications, 10 CFR, and Administrative Procedures. A resiew of the licensee's deviation reports for the period was conducted to verify that no violations of the licensee's Technical Specifications were made. The inspector conducted a tour of Units 1 and 2 auxiliary buildings and turbine buildings throughout the period and noted that the monitoring instrumentation was recorded as required, radiation controls were properly established, fluid leaks and pipe vibrations were minimal, seismic restraint oil levels appeared adequate, equip-ment caution and hold cards agreed with control room records, plant housekeeping conditions / cleanliness were adequate, and fire hazards were minimal. The inspector observed shift turnovers to verify that plant and component status and problem areas were being turned over to relieving shift personnel.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

4.

Physical Protection - Physical Barriers The inspector verified that certain aspects of the physical barriers and isolation zones conformed to regulatory requirements and commit-ments in the physical security plta (PSP); that gates in the protected area were closed and locked if not attended; that doors in vital area barriers were closed and locked if not att. ended; and that isolation zones were free of visual obstructions and objects that could aid an intruder in penetrating the ; otected area.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

5.

Physical Protection - Access % ontrol (Identification, Authorization, Badging, Search, and Escorting),

The inspector verified on a sampling basis that persons and packages were identified and authorization checked prior to entry into the protected area (PA), vehicles were properly authorized prior to entry into a PA, persons authorized in the PA were issued and dis-played identification badges, records of access authorized conformed to the PSP, and personnel in vital areas were authorized access; verified that persons, packages, and vehicles were searched in-3-1202 213

  • accordance to regulatory requirements, the PSP, and security proce-dures; verified tbst persons authorized escorted access were accom-panied by an escort when within a PA or vital area; and verified that vehicles authorized escorted access were accompanied by an escort when within the PA.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

6.

Physical Protection Communications The inspector verified by observation that communications checks were conducted satisfactorily at prescribed time (s) during the security personnel work shift and that fixed and roving posts, and members of the response team successfully communicate from their remote location.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

7.

Review and Followup on Licensee Event Reports Through direct observations, discussions with licensee personnel, and review of records, the following event reports were reviewed to determine that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had been accomplished in accordance with Technical Specifications.

Unit 1 79-05 79-07 79-09 79-18 79-20 79-24 79-46 79-50 No items of noncompliance were identified.

8.

Calibration of Safety-Related Instrumentation The inspector selected the calibration records related to the fol-lowing safety-related instrumentation to verify that Technical Specification calibration requirements were met.

a.

Unit I containment pressure channel I b.

Delta T/TAVE protection set 4-4-1202 214

.

BAT level ILT-102

d.

Steam generator loop C pressure The inspector determined that:

a.

Service status of the system was in conformance with the applicable limiting condition of operation.

b.

Procedures used to calibrate these systems contained review and approval and acceptance values for trip settings.

c.

Trip points cf components selected conformed to the applicable technical specifications.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

9.

Special Test Equipment The inspector selected three pieces of special test equipment used in the calibration of safety-related equipment and determined that the accuracy of these instruments was traceable to an NBS standard or other independent testing agency.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

10.

IE Bulletin 79-14 - Seismic Restraints The inspector followed work in progress relating to IEB 79-14 Seismic Restraints. The inspector determined that the nonconformances listed below were addressed according to technical specifications operability requirements including seismic considerations.

a.

Unit 2 Service Wcter Piping b.

Unit 2 Auxiliary Feed Pump Discharge Piping c.

Unit 1 Component Cooling Water Area Cracked Ceiling Member No items of noncompliance were identified.

11.

IE Bulletin 79-17 - Borated Water Piping On August 21, 1979, while performing visual inspections per IEB No.

79-17, the licensee observed piping from the bottom of the RWST of each unit which had boric acid deposits. The lines are the Unit 1 14" containment spray pump suction from the RWST and the Unit 2 8" RHR recirculation line to the RWST. On August 22, 1979, an onsite review committee meeting was conducted and the licensee determined that continued operation was justified because the leaks did not appear active and no.eakage was observed in the site glasses of the RWST weld channel leak-off lines. The licensee decided to remove-5-1202 26

'

the boric acid deposits from the lines, perform visual examinations, and to contract a diver with an underwater video camera to take pictures of the pipe ID's.

Between August 21-29, 1979, scaffolding was erected and the boric acid deposits removed. The lines were observed over a period of time and both appeared to be moist.

This matter was discussed at the exit interview on August 30, 1979, and the licensee was advised that an evaluation of this problem pursuant to Technical Specification operability requirements needed to be accomplished promptly.

Subsequent to the inspection, the licensee informed the resident inspector on September 4, 1979 of the following:

a.

On the evening of August 31, 1979, a diver with an underwater video camera made dives into both Units 1 and 2 RWST's.

The ID area of both pipes and the area around the pipes were photo-graphed. Additionally, blotter paper was installed on the affected piping to determine if the leakage was still active.

Evaluation indicates that the leakage is no longer active; however, potential leakage paths (degraded RWST/ piping weld on Unit 2 and degraded RWST plate / plate weld on Unit 1) were observed.

b.

Sargent and Lundy (0he Architect-Engineer) performed an engi-neericg evaluation on both lines. The conclusion was that the Unit I containment spray pump suction line was seismically supported by an adjacent wall and, therefore, the support of the line did not rely on the questionable weld. The licensee plans to repair the weld durinF the October 1979, scheduled refueling outage when the RWST will be drained.

For Unit 2, a mechanical seal was placed in the line and its normally closed recirculation valve was tagged out.

Thus, the seal and isolation valve provide two isolation barriers. The mechanical seal is orificed to allow communication between the RWST and the line to relieve any pressure buildup that might be caused by increased temperature, and it is anchored to prevent movement. This line is not required to prevent or mitigate the consequences r,f an accident. The licensee concluded that Unit 2 can be operated safely until the March 1980 scheduled refueling outage at which time L91d repairs will be made.

Based on IEB No. 79-17, the Unit I containment spray pump c.

suction line is not classified as a stagnant line; however, the Unit 2 RHR Recirculation line is classified as a stagnent line.

The licensee has responded t( IEB No. 79-17 and will update this response to include the information on the Unit 2 RHR recirculation line.

A h

1202 216-6-

  • Based on this information a conference call between the licensee (Mr. Soth and others), RIII (Mr. Heishman and others), IE (Mr. Collins)

and NRR (Mr. Noonan and others) was held on September 5,1979. The licensee discussed the inspection results, basis for continued oper-ation and future plans. The licensee intends to submit an LER to the NRC to formally doeur.ent this matter. Additionally, during the interim, the affected piping will be periodically inspected for leakage.

Inspection and repairs, as required, will be performed during the next scheduled refueling outage of each unit. The NRC concluded that the licensee's actions were acceptable.

RIII will review the licensee's correttive actions.

(295/79-18-01; 304/79-17-01)

12.

IE Bulletin 79-01 - Environmental Qualification of Class IE Equipment The licensee has identified that several stem mounted limit switches, type Namco D 2400X, located in the Reactor Coolant Loop Isolation and bypass valves for both Units 1 and 2 are not environmentally qualified per IE Bulletin No. 79-01.

These limit switches have redundant limit switches (internally mounted limitorque limit switches) which are environmentally qualified. These limit switches perform three functions, as follows:

Defeat the Lo-Lo Steam Generator Level Trip for an isolated a.

Loop.

b.

Defeat the Hi Steam Line Delta Pressure Trip for an isolated Loop.

c.

Provides the interlock for pump and valve position for returning an idle loop to operation.

Due to the redundancy stated above, and the fact that one of the two limit switches in each pair is environmentally qualified, the licensee has determined that continued operation is justified.

Quolified limit switches are being ordered and will be installed as soon as possible.

A report will be submitted to the NRC pursuant to IEB 79-01 (Action Statement No. 4).

This item is unresolved pending completion of the licensee's action.

(295/79-18-02; 304/79-17-02)

1202 217

_7_

13.

IEB 79-21 - Temperature Effects on Level Measurement

'

The inspector determined that the requirements of IEB 79-21 per-taining to the Unit I and Unit 2 steam generator level trip set-points have resulted in the steam generator low level trip setpoint being raised from 10% to 15%.

This item is considered closed out.

14.

Review and Audits The inspector reviewed the results of several QA audits performed during 1979. This review and discussions with QA personnel indi-cated that QA audits were:

a.

performed with written procedures; b.

conducted by trained personnel; c.

audit results were documented and reviewed by management; and d.

followup action was taken.

The onsite review function required by technical specifications was reviewed. The inspector determined that technical specifications were followed.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

15.

Verification of Administrative Controls on Defeat of Safety Actuation Signals During Containment Purging The inspector determined that the licensee had received the NRR generic letter regarding purging and has adequate administrative controls to prevent improper manual defeat of safety actuation signals in accordance with the generic letter.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

16.

Simultaneous Trip of Units 1 and 2 At 9:57 p.m. on August 17, 1979 with Unit I at 95% power and Unit 2 at 88% power, both units tripped simultaneously during a severe electrical thunderstorm. The event which initiated the trip was the same for both units, i.e., Power Range Negative Rate Flux Trip.

An oosite review was convened shortly after the trip by the Station Superintendent and others of his staff.

It was the review committee's opinion that the lightening had struck the station inducing a voltage on the common grounding system.

Power to the rod control system was interrupted and the rods dropped. During rapid rod travel into the core, the reactor tripped on negative flux rate.

1202 218-8-

.

All safety systems operated as required. The resident inspector was notified of the event by telephone and followed up the next morning.

Both units returned to service the following day.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

17.

Three Mile Island 2 The inspector visited the RIII office to give an oral deposition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rogovin Investigation into Three Mile Island 2.

18.

Resident Inspection Program The inspector visited the RIII office to participate in an audit of the resident inspection program performed by the GAO.

19.

Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives on August 10,17 and 24, 1979, and summarized the week's inspection results. The inspector also met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on August 30, 1979, and summarized the month's inspection findings.

The licensee acknowledged the findings.

-9-1202 219