IR 05000295/1993007
| ML20035E613 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1993 |
| From: | Falevits Z, Gardner R, Mendez R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035E608 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-295-93-07, 50-295-93-7, 50-304-93-07, 50-304-93-7, NUDOCS 9304190035 | |
| Download: ML20035E613 (7) | |
Text
.
._.
_
__
-
j
-
,
.
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i'
REGION III
!
,
Reports No. 50-295/93007(DRS); No. 50-304/93007(DRS)
Docket Nos. 50-295; 50-304 Licenses No. DPR-39; No. DPR-48 l
Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company l
Executive Towers West III i
1400 Opus Place - Suite 300 l
Downers Grove, IL 60515 l
i Facility Name: Zion Nuclear Power Station - Units 1 and 2 l
?
Inspection At: Zion, IL 60099 j
Inspection Conducted: March 29 through April 2, 1993-i I
Inspectors: b t/,/3 c)3
Z. Falevits Date
i
[
f-/J-FJ l
R. Mendez
/
Date
'
Approved By:
3 R. N. Gardner, Chief Date i
Plant Systems Section j
Inspection Summary Inspection on March 29 throuah April 2.1993 (Reports No. 50-295/93007(DRS):
No. 50-304/93007(DRS))
' Areas Inspected: Announced followup inspection of previously identified EDSFI findings conducted in accordance with Temporary Instruction 2515/111 and
electrical modifications (NRC Inspection Procedure 37700).
Results: The licensee has made progress in' resolving the EDSFI issues. Six of
nine previously identified EDSFI findings were clused.
l I
During the course of the inspection, the following were noted:
j
o The engineers' involved in the modifications resulting from EDSFI l
findings.were knowledgeable in their area of expertise.
o The Integrated Quality Effort (IQE) program was considered an excellent
,
management initiative in' identifying problematic areas and improving
performance.
'
o A weakness was noted in the corrective action-process to address i
deficiencies identified during thermography testing.
_
,
o QA audits and surveillances of electrical Technical Staff activities
!
were narrow in scope.
.l l
9304190035 930413,
f C
PDR-ADOCK 0500029s j
G
,
-
..,.
-
--. -
-
-
,.
.
. - -.. -. - _.. -.. -.... - -. -.., ;
.
~
.
DETAILS 1.
Principal Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)
- D. Wozniak, Technical Superintendent
- R. Chrzanowski, Technical Staff Supervisor
- M. Lohmann, Site Engineering and Construction (SEC) Manager
- G. Poletto, SEC Engineer
- A. Amoroso, SEC Engineer
- W. Stone, Performance Improvement Director
- B. Demo, Electrical Maintenance Master
- R. Whittier, Ouality Verification Engineer
- D. Van Pelt, EDSFI Coordinator
- K. Dickerson, Regulatory Assurance U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission (NRC)
- M. Miller, Resident Inspector-
- Denotes those present during the exit meeting on April 2,1993.
2.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Inspection Findinos a.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (295/92003-01(DRS): 304/92003-01(DRSijl:
During the EDSFI in January 1992, the licensee could not provide the team design basis information to verify that safety related
thermal overloads were sized correctly. Also,approximately 15% of the thermal overloads inspected by the team were not set to the 100% setting specified.
As part of the corrective action, the licensee performed walkdowns on all safety related motor control centers (MCCs) to obtain the present field installed setpoints.
In addition, the licensee developed procedures for sizing and setting the thermal over?oads.
During initial evaluations performed by the licensee's architect engineer (AE) on the existing thermal overloads, the AE found that some overloads were oversized and would not withstand locked rotor current for the 15 second vendor recommended time. The licensee evaluated the oversized thermal overloads and concluded that this condition should not prevent valves from operating when needed.
Also, the inspectors noted that no evaluations have been performed to date for the continuous duty motors.
The licensee informed the aspectors that surveillance program tests ensure that safety-related continuous motors are functional.
However, the licensee plans to perform the evaluations as part of the setpoint data base program.
-.
.
__
_
_
._
_
_
.
'
i i
.
.
,
.
h The licensee plans to establish a'MCC setpoint data base and i
conduct engineering calculations / reviews to ensure that all
.
installed thermal overloads are sized properly to operate and
!
'
protect the motor during locked rotor current conditions. This item will remain open pending additional licensee action and NRC review.
r b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (295/92003-02(DRS): 304/92003-02(DRS)):
!
The EDSFI team was concerned that numerous safety related and j
balance of plant (B0P) cable tray routing points exceeded the
!
licensee's fill (weight) criteria.
The licensee has initiated corrective actions to address the~
l findings noted during the EDSFI. Some of the cable tray loading
deficiencies will be corrected during implementation of the
!
!
modifications initiated to resolve Safety Systems Outage Modification Inspection (SS0MI) findings. The licensee determined
that the deficiencies noted had no impact on safety. Nuclear l
Tracking System (NTS) items containing resolution target dates i
have been issued to resolve this issue. Also, the licensee
!
informed the inspectors that future addition of cables to safety j
related trays will be controlled by the computerized Sargent and
Lundy Interactive Cable Engineering (SLICE) program. This item is i
considered closed.
j c.
(0 pen) Unresolved item (295/92003-03(DRS)- 304/92003-03(DRS)):
During the EDSFI, the licensee could not provide the team design
,
basis information to verify the molded case circuit breaker (MCCB)
instantaneous trip settings.
!
g As part of the corrective action, the licensee performed walkdowns on all safety related MCCs to obtain the.present MCCB settings.
!
In addition, a station procedure was issued for testing of MCCBs.
The licensee plans to evaluate the basis for each molded ' case l
circuit breaker setting as part of a generic Setpoint Control
!
Program. Additional licensee corrective actions are delineated in l
NTS item 295-100-92003-03. The licensee plans to complete
corrective actions relative to this issue in 1994. This item i
remains open pending licensee action and NRC review.
)
d.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (295/92003-04fDRS): 304/92003-04(DRS)):
The EDSFI team determined that the licensee lacked sufficient l
analysis and data to determine whether adequate DC voltage would J
be available at the safety related equipment load terminals.
The licensee performed voltage drop calculations to determine if adequate DC voltage was available at the inverters and at the safety related 4kV and 480V switchgear breaker closing coils.
The inspectors verified that adequate DC voltage was available to all safety related equipment with the exception of the closing _ coils on the 4kV_ diesel generator bus 147 and 247 output breakers. The voltage was below the manufacturer's re.:ommended minimum value.
.
.
..
..-
a,....
...
.
.~
.
..
.
. -
.
.
.
-
. ~.. _
_
.. _
_
!
[
-
.
!
.
'
!
However, the licensee performed field testing and' determined that
[
adequate voltage was available at the closing coils. To reduce j
the voltage drop, the license planned to install interposing
-
relays in the control circuit by June 1993.. This item is closed
based on the licensee's commitment to install the relays.
-!
e.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (295/92003-05(DRS): 304/92003-05(DRS)):
The EDSFI ream was concerned that the amount of fuel oil in the
!
emergency diesel generator (EDG) storage tanks would not provide
!
seven day operation of the diesels at rated power.
l The licensee implemented the following corrective actions to resolve this issue:
1.
Vary the EDG power level; and establish fuel oil consumption l
rates based on actual testing.
j t
2.
Establish the total fuel oil consumed.during a worst case l
accident scenario rather than oil consumed by the diesel at 100% rated power (4,000 kV) for 7 days.
!
3.
Raise the low level setpoint alarm which accounted-for the I
worst case accident loads' plus an additional 10% margin.
I 4.
Issue a Technical Specification (TS) bases submittal which
would revise the storage volume required during a seven day l
accident scenario. This_TS bases revision would require i
that the licensee store sufficient fuel oil for the worst l
case accident instead of seven day EDG operation at rated
!
power.
i
!
Based on the licensee's corrective action to establish a load l
profile and action to raise the storage tank alarm level setpoint l
to account for a 10% margin,'this item is considered closed.
j f.
(Closed) Unresolved item (295/92003-06(DRS): 304/92003-06(DRS))
The EDSFI team was concerned that-the EDG, ESF switchgear and service _ water pump room temperature alarms were set too high.
l The licensee performed a temperature profile study 4 found that
'the temperature alarm setpoint of the EDG room was _ Liequate.
However, the licensee found that the alarm setpoint of 110*F, in-the ESF switchgear and service water pump rooms, was set 6 F too high. The licensee expected to lower the setpoint to 104*F in
' April. This item is considered closed based on the licensee's-commitment to implement the setpoint change.
g.
(Closed) Violation !295/92003-07AfDRS): 305/92003-07A(PRS)): The EDSFI_ team determined that not all safety related time delay relays (TDRs) were included in the periodic calibration program.
!
.
. _
._
!
.
>
.
~
The licensee performed a review and determined that 37 TDRs on
unit I and 36 TDRs on Unit 2 were omitted from the calibration l
program. As of March 1993, 20 Unit I relays and 18 Unit 2 relays
had been calibrated. The licensee plans to calibrate the rest of the noted relays during the next Unit I and 2 refueling outages.
i Also, the-appropriate relays will be added to the preventive
,
maintenance program. This item is considered closed.
i h.
(Closed) Violation (295/92003-07B(DRS): 304/92003-07B(DRS)):
The
!
EDSFI determined that cut of calibration test instruments were j
used during the performance of Technical Staff Surveillance TSS 15.6.38C " Station Battery Service Test."
To resolve this issue, the licensee revised the appropriate i
'
procedures and made changes to the calf bration tolerances to account for the accuracy of the test equipment specified in the i
procedures.
In addition, Technical Staff engineers were given the
{
appropriate training. This item is considered closed.
l i.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (295/92003-08(DRS): 304/92003-08(DRS)):
!
The EDSFl team identified a concern that the present second level-l undervoltage setpoint of 3846 volts may not guarantee the starting
!
of all safety related equipment.
The licensee has implemented several additional modifications to resolve this issue. The licensee replaced the second level undervoltage relay with a more accurate model having a 0.5% pick up/ drop out ratio. Additionally, the. licensee adopted. a design
)
change that administratively raised the second level undervoltage
'
setpoint from 3846 to 3900V. However, a number of modifications,.
such as, changing the transformer tap settings, requesting a TS i
change to allow a new voltage setpoint and replacement of some ruotor contactors have not been implemented. Per. ding implementa-i tion and NRC review of changes, this item is considered open.
3.
Enaineerina and Technical Suonort (E&TS)
a.
Desion Control / Modification Review The inspectors evaluated the licensee's performance and programs relating to design changes and modifications. The areas reviewed included design review and approval process, post modification test requirements and execution, training and 10 CFR 50.59 safety reviews. The following modifications were reviewed:
.(1)
P-22-2-92-514.
Circuit Modification to Resolve Voltage -
Drop Problems with EDG Room Fans
.
(2)
M22-2-89-038 Replace Degraded Voltage Relays for j
Unit 2 l
(3)
M22-2-91-025 Install Interposing Relays for EDG I
"C" breaker
i
. -.
........, _ ~.,..
_,
-,,m
..
_,, _ - _..... _. _ ~ _.... _ _ _ _. _. - _
.
.
'
The inspectors concluded that the licensee was adequately implementing the design control process for these modifications.
The modification packages included adequate design inputs, reviews and approvals,10 CFR 50.59 reviews, post modifications testing requirements and implementation, walkdowns, and QC involvement.
b.
Observations of Onooino Modification Activities
!
The inspectors witnessed work performed under Work Request Z25291 and Modification M22-1-92-514-B. The modification required replacement of the 480V contactor coil in MCC 1371, Cubicle JI, to resolve a voltage drop problem. When the electricians attempted to determinate the motor feed conductors inside the MCC cubicle, the wire insulation was brittle and cracked. A Problem Identification Form (PIF) was written and the internal wiring in the cubicle was replaced.
Discussions with the electricians indicated that during maintenance inside MCC cubicles some motor feed conductors would crack under slight tension; however, these deficiencies were not always documented in DRs.
The inspectors determined that during performance of thermography in August 1992, the licensee identified a number of loose terminations which were causing hot spots inside MCC 1371, Cubicle J1, and other safety related MCC cubicles. The licensee indicated that although not required by procedure, work requests had been written to address the deficiencies but had subsequently been misplaced. Consequently, no corrective action had been taken to address the hot spots. During this inspection, new work requests were issued to resolve this issue. This lack of corrective action
,
')
appears to be an isolated case.
l The inspectors considered the corrective action program to address deficiencies noted during performance of thermography a weakness.
The licensee informed the inspectors that a revision to the
,
thermography procedure dated March 11, 1993, requires that a work request be written whenever hot spots are identified.
c.
Enoineerino Oroanization The inspectors noted that the engineers involved in the modifications resulting from EDSFI findings were knowledgeable in their area of expertise. The licensee has recently reorganized t
the site engineering and construction departments to improve the interf :e and experience level of the various engineering groups.
As put of this reorganization, corporate engineers were transferred to the plant and a new modification group was established. This was considered a positive management initiative.
.+u..
+.Mi+--m--4L4 s
e-.4 e-2
-
e.
di._.
-
-
.no.-+4
.
l
.
'
.
'
,
'
4.
Quality Verification and Improvement
,
a.
Intearated Ouality Effort (10E)
The Integrated Quality Effort (IQE) program was initiated by Zion management in 1992 to monitor and assess plant performance in various areas including Engineering and Technical Support.
Inputs to the IQE program come from the integrated reporting program,.
!
Q.A. audit findings, corporate assessments, senior management
!
observations and NRC and INPO findings, and other internal assessment reports. The program should identify adverse trends
,
and provide senior management with indication of areas needing l
improvement. The inspectors considered the IQE to be an excellent
'
management initiative inLearly identification of problematic j
areas.
{
b.
Quality Assurance Audits of Enaineerino and Technical Support-The inspectors reviewed the QA audits and surveillances that were
,
performed in the last two years that pertain to electrical i
engineering and technical support functions.
With the exception of the electrical technical staff engineering area, the audits l
were detailed and comprehensive. The site audit team was
I comprised of eight auditors with mainly mechanical engineering
'
l'
background; however, there was no electrical or I&C engineer on
!
l the site audit team. The lic.ensee plans to increase coverage of j
the technica'i staff area in future inspections.
I i
5.
Exit Interview
<
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph
.
1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April-2,1993. The inspectors
_
summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities.
The j
licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.
The inspectors 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 document / processes as proprietary.
7 i
l
-
.
.-..
-
.., -,-
.
. - ~... -. -.
-.. -,. -. - -.. -. -. -... -
.