IR 05000295/1985032

Insp Repts 50-295/85-32 & 50-304/85-33 on 850918-20,23-26,30 & 1001-03.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Qa Program Implementation,Qa/Qc Administration & Calibr Activities

ML20138L311
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	10/25/1985
From:	Hawkins P, Sutphin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138L308	List: IR 05000295/1985032 ML20138L304
References
50-295-85-32, 50-304-85-33, NUDOCS 8510310265
Download: ML20138L311 (8)

Text

r-

,

,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'

REGION III

-Reports No. 50-295/85032(DRS); 50-304/85033(DRS)

Docket Nos. 50-295; 50-304 Licenses No. DPR-39; DPR-48 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P.O.-Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Zion Nuc1 car Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection.At: Zion IL Inspection Conducted: September 18-20, 23-26, 30, and October 1-3, 1985 Inspector: R. N. SutpHin /d / 25/ FJ Da'te J

~

Approved By: F. C. Hawkins, Chief Ioits /RS-Quality Assurance Programs Dat6 /

Section Inspection Summary Inspection on September 18-20, 23-26, 30, and October 1-3, 1985 (Reports No. 50-295/85032(DRS); 50-304/85033(DRS))

Areas Inspected:- Routine, unannounced inspection by one regional inspector of Quality Assurance program implementation, QA/QC administration, and calibration activities. The inspection involved a total of 73 inspector-hours onsit Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

'

8510310265 851025'

PDR ADOCM 05000295 G PDR

_

-

.

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company

• E. Fuerst, Superintendent, Production

• T. Rieck, Superintendent, Services

• R. Budowle, Assistant Superintendent, Technical Services

• C Schultz, Compliance Administrator

• W. Stone, Quality Assurance Supervisor

• J. Ballard, Quality Control Supervisor

• J. Gilmore, Operating Engineer

• E. Campbell, Master Instrument Mechanic

• J. Yost, Quality Control Inspector A. Ockert, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor M. Carnahan, Training Supervisor L. Pruett, Operating Engineer L. Minejeve, Office Supervisor L. Trezise, Central File Supervisor F. Tschakert, I. M. Work Analyst / Planner T. Lukens, Training Staff Assistant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Holzmer, Senior Resident Inspector, Zion

• L. Kanter, Resident Inspector, Zion

• C. Wolfsen, Resident Inspector, D. C. Cook J. Kish, Resident Inspector, Zion Other personnel were contacted as a matter of routine during the inspectio * Indicates persons present at the exit intervie . Quality Assurance Program - Implementation The inspector reviewed recent revisions to the licensee's Quality Assurance Program (QAP) to verify that personnel responsible for the identification, comunication, training, and implementation of changes were familiar with the recent changes and had taken appropriate action to communicate and implement those changes affecting their areas of responsibility. The inspection included the review of applicable QAP procedures and documents, the conduct of interviews with selected personnel and a review of record Documents Reviewed (1) Quality Assurance Manual (QAM), Revision of August 20, 198 (2) Zion Administrative Procedure (ZAP), ZAP 1-51-1, " Station Organization," Revision of May 2, 198 *

.

(3) ZAP 2-52-1, " Station Training Program," Revision of July 12, 198 (4) ZAP 2-54-1, "On-Site Station Review," Revision of December 13, 198 (5) ZAP 5-51-3, " Procedure Periodic Review," Revision of March 7, 198 (6) ZAP 5-51-4, " Procedure Control and Approval," Revision of May 31, 198 (7) ZAP 5-51-5, " Procedure Content and Format," Revision of July 15, 198 (8) ZAP 5-51-19, " Personnel Qualifications," Revision of December 27, 198 Inspection Results The inspector determined that the responsible Zion site personnel were generally responsive to changes in commitments made through amendments and revisions to the FSAR, Technical Specifications, QA Topical Report, and the Corporate Quality Assurance Manual (QAM). Training on the changes was generally completed within the 60 day time period, after the date of revision, per the applicable QAM procedure. The isolated cases of individuals who had not received the required training were.well documented and known to management. The site organization chart was in accordance with recent changes in the Corporate Topical Repor No violations or deviations were identified in this are . QA/QC Administration Program The inspector reviewed the licensee's Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Administration program to verify that (1) the QA/QC program documents clearly identify and define those structures, systems, components, parts, materials, items, documents, and activities to which the QA program applies, (2) procedures and responsibilities have been established and implemented for making changes to these lists of items, and (3) the licensee periodically reviews the overall effectiveness of the QA program, Documents Reviewed (1) ZAP 3-51-1B, " Plant Modification Program," Revision of July 15, 198 (2) ZAP 3-51-5, " Field Change Requests," Revision of July 5, 198 (3) ZAP 3-51-6, " Evaluation of Component Parts," Revision of May 16, 198 _

.

(4) ZAP 4-51-1, " Establishing Quality Requirements for Requests for Purchase and Requisition Cards," Revision of August 29, 198 (5) ZAP 6-52-2, " Zion Station Document Control," Revision of July 12, 198 (6) ZAP 6-52-2A, " Control Room Drawing Control," Revision of April 8, 198 Inspection Results The inspector verified that the licensee had established several lists which identified the structures, systems and components to which the QA program was directed. One of the lists, the Supplementary Classified Parts List (SCPL), was controlled by Zion Administrative Procedure No. ZAP 3-51-6, which established the policies and procedures for the control of the information on classified parts. Although the SCPL is administratively controlled, it was not evident that similar admini-strative controls were applied to the lists of safety-related mechanical equipment, electrical equipment, instruments, piping and instrument diagrams (P& ids), and masonry walls. Because these lists are not formally controlled, the inspector is concerned that the information contained within the lists may not be consistent with FSAR and other license cocinitments. This considered an open item pending further review of administrative controls in this area (295/85032-01; 304/85033-01).

No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Calibration The inspector reviewed calibration activities to verify that a program had been implemented to control the functional testing and calibration of instruments, components and equipment associated with safety-related systems and functions as required by the Technical Specifications and approved guides and standards, Documents Reviewed (1) ZAP 3-51-1, " Origination and Routing of Work Requests,"

Revision of July 30, 198 (2) ZAP 3-51-1B, " Plant Modification Program," Revision of July 15, 198 (3) ZAP 3-51-4, " Procedure Governing the Use of Temporary Jumper Cables, the Lifting of Terminated Wires, The Bypassing of Alarms, or the Installation of Mechanical Blocks or Bypasses,"

Revision of August 20, 198 '

.

(4) ZAP 3-52-1, " Change of Instrument Setpoint/ Scaling," Revision of September 9, 198 (5) ZAP 3-52-2, "0AD Periodic Relay Testing and Instrument Calibration Procedure Reportability to Zion Station," Revision of May 16, 198 (6) ZAP 3-52-4, " Change of Protective Relay Setpoint," Revision of August 23, 198 (7) ZAP 3-52-5, " Timepiece Accuracy Checks," Revision of March 7, 198 (8) ZAP 10-53-2, " Qualification Requirements for Technical Staff Personnel Performing Surveillances Required by Technical Specifications," Revision of August 23, 198 (9) ZAP 14-51-2, " Inspection, Test and Operating Status Tagging of Equipment," Revision of May 7, 198 (10) ZAP 15-52-1, " Deviations and Reportable Events," Revision of

~

July 12, 198 (11) Channel Calibration Master Schedules, Zion No.1, and Zion No. (12) Calibration Procedures:

(a) 1F-414 E " Loop 1A Reactor Coolant Flow Channel Electronics,"

Revision of July 11, 198 (b) 1F-414 T, " Loop 1A Reactor Coolant Flow Channel Transmitter,"

Revision of July 17, 198 (c) 1T-RC 16, " Head Vent Temperature," Revision of June 17, 198 (d) 1A-SS-0501, " Ion Chromatograph Conductivity," Revision of September 10, 198 (e) 2T-411/412 E, " Loop A Delta T and TAVG Protection Electronics,"

Revision of September 24, 198 J (13) Calibration Record Files for (E) Electronics and (T) Transmitter calibrations:

(a) F-414 (E) RC Flow Loop A, Completed February 5,198 F-414 (T) RC Flow Loop A, Completed March 16, 198 (b) P-455 (E) Pressurizer Pressure Channel 1, Completed April 30, 198 P-455 (T) Pressurizer Pressure Channel 1, Completed April 19, 198 _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

..

l (c) P-505 (E) Turbine Impulse, Completed March 7, 198 P-505.(T) Turbine Impulse, Completed March 7, 198 (d) F-510 (E) FW Flow Loop A, Completed April 4, 198 F-510 (T) FW Flow Loop A, Completed March 23, 198 (e) L-517 (E) Steam Generator Level A, Completed March 7,198 L-517 (T) Steam Generator Level A, Completed February 12, 198 (f) F-512 (E) Steam Generator Steam Flow Loop A, Completed February 8, 198 F-512 (T) Steam Generator Steam Flow Loop A, Completed March 20, 198 (g) CS-19 (E) Containment Pressure, Completed January 24, 198 CS-19 (T) Containment Pressure, Completed January 25, 198 (h) N-31 Source Range Nuclear Flux, Completed February 4,198 (1) T-411 Delta T and TAVG Loop A, Completed February 9,198 (14) ZIAP 5-51-12. " Zion Station Instrument Department Administrative Procedure," Revision 17, Revision 18, and Proposed Revision 1 (15) Instrument Department Master Surveillance Computer Printou b. Inspection Results The inspector found that Zion Station Instrument Department Administrative Procedure No. ZIAP 5-15-12 was in transitio Revision ~18 of the procedure was marked up for a proposed revision 19. The inspector's review of the proposed revision 19 identified several minor issues of concern. The licensee took immediate action to initiate the necessary actions to address the issues in revision 19. Revision 17 of the procedure was also reviewed by the inspector to clarify previous status of selected item During the review of revision 17 of ZIAP 5-51-12, the inspector identified that Appendix A to the procedure had been deleted in both revision 18 and in the proposed revision 19. Appendix A was an eight page table which identified those instruments listed in the Technical Specification and other documents requiring periodic functional tests and calibrations. The table also provided a direct link between the ,

commitments in the Technical Specifications and the assigned

'

responsibilities for work activity within the Instrument Maintenance (IM) department. Because of the relative importance of the information contained in Appendix A, the inspector requested that the licensee consider reinstating either Appendix A or its equivalent. Licensee personnel stated that they would review the matter further. Pending l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ,

.

..

further review, this is considered an open item (295/85032-02; 304/85033-02).

The inspector also checked the frequency of functional tests and calibrations as committed to in the Technical Specifications against various IM documents to verify that _the consnitments were being me This review included checking the Technical Specification requirements against ZIAP 5-51-12, Appendix A, Revision 1 Table 4.1-1 of the Technical Specifications included a commitment to perform a monthly channel functional test of permissive Nos.P-7, P-8, and P-10. However, IM documents indicated that the tests were conducted since April 1983 on a quarterly frequency by IM personnel. The Techni-cal Specification also included a requirement for monthly functional testing of turbine impulse pressure instrument Nos. PT-505 and PT-50 Similarly, these instruments were also tested on a quarterly basis by

-

IM personnel. The licensee stated that functional testing of these items on a monthly frequency was considered to be accomplished by the reactor protection logic testing performed by operations personne This matter is considered unresolved pending further review of the licensee's position (295/85032-03; 304/85033-03).

The inspector reviewed IM records of quarterly calibrations of the instruments associated with the permissives, completed during the past 12 months. These records indicated that the instruments were found to be operating within the established tolerance rang Table 3.1-2 of the Technical Specification lists the reactor protection system instrument numbers associated with various reactor trip channel descriptions. Four of the instrument numbers referenced in Part b. of the turbine trip channel description (33 SV1, 33 SV2,-33

'

SV3, and 33 SV4) were not similarly referenced to identify or associate any functional testing or other activities that were required to be performed using these devices. After substantial effort, the licensee concluded that these devices were probably the limit switches identified as 33T1/IO, 33T2/10, 33T3/IO, and 33T4/I Additional effort is required by the liransee to identify the activities associated with these Technical Specification item Pending the completion of this effort by the licensee, this is considered an unresolved item (295/85032-04; 304/85033-04).

5. Open Items Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involves some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. Open items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 3.b. and 4.b.

i

r

.1*

6. Unresolved items An unresolved item is a matter about which more information is required

! in order to ascertain whether it is an acceptable item, an open item, a L deviation, or a violation. Unresolved items disclosed durine this inspection are discussed in Paragraph 4.b.

.

7. Exit Interview

!

l- The Region III inspector met with the licensee. representatives (denoted in l Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 3,1985. The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed during the inspectio Licensee representatives did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.

I

!

!

l

u_