IR 05000454/1992022

Insp Repts 50-454/92-22 & 50-455/92-22 on 921105-1218.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Operational Safety, Verification,Onsite Event Followup,Radiological Controls, Security,Maint Activities & New Fuel Handling

ML20126G969
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	12/28/1992
From:	Farber M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20126G966	List: IR 05000454/1992022 ML20126G963
References
50-454-92-22, 50-455-92-22, NUDOCS 9301050024
Download: ML20126G969 (8)

Text

_ .

-__ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report Nos. 50-454/92022(DRP); 50-455/92022(DRP)

Docket Nos. 50-454; 50-455 License Nos. NP"s37; NPF-66 Licenoee Commonwealth Edison Company opus Went III 1400 opus Place Downers Grove, IL 60515 7tc111ty Names Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 -

$ Inspection Att Byron Site, Byron, Illinois

)

E Inspection Conducted: November 5, 1992 through December 18, 1992 Inspectors: C. H. Brown D. E nes y Approved By: Martin J /r l' 28 b~

Reactor rojects Section lA Date ipepection Summary Inspection from November to December 18. 1992 (Report;_ Nos. 50-454/92022(DRP): 50-455/92022fDRP)).

Are_,as Inspected: Routine, unannounced safety inspection by the resident

'

inspectors of action on previous inspection findings, cperatienal safety k verification, onsite event followup, current material conditien, housekeeping and plant cleanliness, radiological controls, security, maintenance activities, surveillance activities, and new fuel handlin Results: In the ten areas inspected, no violations, unresolved items or followup items were identifie The following is a summary of the licensee's performance during this inspection period:

Plant Operations The licensee's performance in Plant Operations for this inspection period was goo The shift briefing continues to provide a satisfactory level of information of the schedule and overall plant status to the on-cocning shif t cre The plant continues to maintain a " dark board" cost of the tim The plant has been maintained in good materiel condition.

>

9301050024 921228 PDR ADOCK 05000454 o PDR

- _ - _ - ____-_-_____--______-_-__-_-_ - _-__________ _____ - ___ __________ _____ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ -

,, . - - - - , , , - - - . ~ . . -- -. .. ... .~ --,... - --~..

• i

. , =4 .,

,

F Safety Assessment /Ouality Verification

~

Due to inspectors limited review of-Safety Assessment / Quality verificationL

-

..,

during this' inspection period the licensee's performance was not assessed for this perio '

Mpintenance and Surveillance The performance in the area of maintenance was good. The observed work in-progress was noted to be professional, necessary procedures were.available, and areas cleaned up at the completion of the task. Surveillance performance was considered to be generally good. The planning and scheduling of the maintenance and surveillance has continued to be good with an improving tren of fewer conflicts each mont ,

Encineerino and Technical Suonert Due to inspectors limited review of Engineering & Technical Support during-this inspection period the licensee's performance was not assessed.for this -

period.

.

- . . . . - -- . , . . . . . . , . . . - . . . -

,.

. . - . . . - . . ._ . .

v- -.. . .. . - , ,. .. . - , ~ .

- '. , .. .,

i DETAILS

. I Persons Contacte ~ Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco)

~

• K. Schwartz, Station Manager

• M. Burgess, Technical Service Superintendent

• D. St. Clair, Engineering & Construction Manager T. Tulon, Assistant Superintendent, Maintenance s

• T. Higgins, Assistant Superintendent, Operations T. Gierich,. Assistant Superintendent, Planning

• W. Grundman, onsite Quality verification

• D. Brindle, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor

• W. Dijstelbergen, Site Engineering Supervisor P. Johnson, Technical Staff Supervisor R. Colglazier, compliance Engineer

• E. Zittle, NRC Coordinator

• K. Rigge, Principle Engineer

• Denotes those attending the exit interview conducted on

-

December 18, 199 The inspectors also had diccussions with other licensee employees, including members of the technical and engineering staffe, reactor and auxiliary operators, shift engineers and foremen, electrical, mechanical, and instrument maintenance personnel,'and contract security personne . ' Action on Previous Inenection Findinas (92701 & 92702) (Closed) (454/92011-02(DRP)):_ Item 1 - 1BOS FW-SA1, Rev.2, " Unit 1

- Anticipated Transient Wit,hout Screm Mitigation System (AMS)._ At'

Power-Semiannual Surveillance" did not require recording of the'

serial number of the meter used during the surveillance. Th ~

L current revision of 1BOS FW-SA1 and 2BOS;FW-SA1 provides a' apace-to identify the instrument used during the surveillance.- Item 2 - ,

Labels were missing from the AMS panel:and, handwritten numbers-were penciled on the panel. .The panel switsn.and light identifiers in the two above procedures.were changed to generally-used plant nomenclature and the handwritten labels were removed: '

from the pane Item 3 - 1A emergency. diesel generator (EDG)

tripped by the vibration switch during a routine surveillanc The EDG had been at about one-half load when it was tripped by the vibration switch. This switch is bypassed on an emergency start z -and was not a safety concern. The trip was caused.by an air. leak?

in a vibration switch' fitting. .The. leak was repaired and 1A ED ~

has not-tripped due to the vibration switch since the repair <was

~

completed. These items are considered closed..

l

__

. - ~, -~ .. - -- - ~ - - - - -. - - . ~. - - - - . - ~ ..~ - -

~

', . .,

, Plant Operations Unit 1 operated at power levels up to 100%'in the load following modo during this inspection period until_ December 15, 1992, when an unusual event was declared due to the start of a technical specification required reactor shutdow During a surveillance containment isolation valve 1FWOO9D ("D" Steam Generator Feedwater isolation) would not reopen. The valve was subsequently declared inoperabl Because it could not be made operable in 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, an unusual event was declared and

^' '

a plant shutdown was commenced. When reactor power reached approximately 22 percent, alternate feedwater was established through a bypass, 1FWOO9D was closed, and the action statement was exited.-

Reactor power was stabilized and the unusual event was terminated. The solenoid block on the valve operator was replaced, the valve was successfully tested, and declared operable on December 16. The rapid power decrease to meet the TS required hot standby condition combined with-low boron end of life conditions resulted in delta flux '

restrictions and return to full power was not completed until December 17, 199 Unit 2 operated at power levels up to 100% in the load following mode during this inspection perio Qperational Safety Verification (71707)

The inspectors verified that the facility was being operated in

conformance with the licenses and regulatory requirements,-and that the licensee's management control system was effectively

carrying out its responsibilities for safe operatio On a sampling basis the inspectors verified proper control room staffing and coordination of plant activities; verified operator adherence with procedures and technical specifications; monitored

,

control room indications for abnormalities; verified that i electrical power was availaole; and observed the frequency of

'

plant and control room visits by station management.

l l Qnsite Event Follow-up (93702)

Unit 11 entered an unusual event December-15, 1992 at 1:44 a.m. due i

to a Technica1' Specification (TS) action statement requiring shutdown to hot standby mode within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. The TS paragraph 3.6.3 states in part that containment isolation. valves in-Table

! 3.6-1 shall be operable or per action statement 3.6.3.a-1 restored to. operable status within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, otherwise the affected unit be in hot standby within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. This issue is discussed abov _ _ _, ._ , _ _ , _ . -

, . . - - ..- . . - _ - . .

. . . . .- -. - .-. ..

, ,, .. .,

'I M LggIIgnt Material condition-(71707)

'

The inspectors. performed general plant an'well as selected. system; and component walkdowns to assesn'the general and_ specific '

material' condition of the plant, to verify that Nuclear. Work

,

Requests -(NWRs) had been initiated for identified' equipmen problems, and to evaluate housekeeping. :Walkdowns-included an assessment of the buildings, components,-and systems for proper-identification and tagging, accessibility, fire and security door-integrity, scaffolding, radiological controls, and any unusual conditions. -Unusual conditions included but were not limited to water, oil, or.other liquids on the floor or equipments indications of leakage through ceiling, walls or floors; loose insulation; corrosion; excessive noise; unusual temperatures;-and abnormal ventilation and lightin The material condition of both units continues.to be maintained at a high level. The-corrective maintenance work request backlog remains relatively small, H291gkeenina and-Plant cleanliness r

The inspectors monitored the status of housokeeping and plant

cleanliness for fire protection and protection of-safety-related equipment from intrusion of foreign matte Housekeeping at the facility continues to be good. Work sites are- "

generally controlled within a minimum-area and stepu are taken to-limit spread of liquide or broken insulation. Transient fire loads are monitored and controlled to a minimu Egdloloalcal controle (71707)

,

The inspectors verified that personnel were following health'

physica procedures for dosimetry, protective clothing, . frisking,.

posting,-etc.'and randomly examined radiation. protection instrumentation for.use, operability, and calibratio Security Each week during routine-activities or tours, the inspectors monitored the licensee's security program to ensure that observed-actions were being.impismanted;according-to the approved security-plan. The inspectors noted that persons within.the protected' area displayed proper photo-identification badges!and those individuals reouiring escorts were properly escorted. The inspectors:also-verified that checked vital areas were locked and alarmed.'

Additionally,-the inspectors also observed that personnel and packages entering the protected area-were searched by appropriat equipment or;by han ~

.a . _ , - _ _

m_ m_ -- _ .-,, , . - _ - - -

.

_ ___ _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ .

.. . ..

'

. . ,

No violations or deviations were identifie . tigintenance/ Surveillance (62703 & 61726) liaintenance Actly1L1 33 (6k 703)

Routinely, station maintenance activities were observed and/or reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry codes or rtandards, and in conformance with technical specification The fcllowing items were also considered during this reviews approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning components or systeas to service; quality control records were --

maintained; and activities were accomplished by qualified personne Portions of the following maintenance activities were observed and reviewed:

• B95104 - Relief Valve 2SA144A Lifting Too Early - Recalibration or Replac * B97498 & B97827 - Maintenance on 2B DG Air Start "D" Air Compressor Syste * B97942 - Resolve Spike on 2C OP Delta No violations or deviations were identifie Surveillance Activities (61726)

During the inspection period, the inspectors observed technical specification required surveillance testing and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, that -

test instrumentation was calibrated, that results conformed with technical specifications and procedure requirements and were reviewed, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly resolve The inspectors also witnessed portions of the following surveillances:

• IBVS 3.3.2-1 Operability Check on Moveable Incore Detectors

• IBVS 6.2.1.B-2 ASME Surveillance for CS Pump 1CS0lPB

• 2 BIS 6.4.1-002 Functional Test of Containment Hydrogen analyze No violations or deviations were identifie ,.% . . .

,

1 New Fuel Handlina

,

~

On several occasions the inspectors. witnessed the receipt and storage of new fuel within_the fuel handling building. The inspectors-verified the-appropriate documentation of new fuel and that station procedures were followed in unloading, lifting, moving, lowering, and inspecting new fuel assemblies. Appropriate cleanliness controls were implemente Efficient communications between fuel handlers, crana operators, radchem ,

technicians, and the fuel handling foremen facilitated fuel handling' -4 operat ions .

, . '

No violations or deviations-were identifie . Egnort Review During the inspection period, the-inspector reviewed the licensee's 1 Monthly Performance Report for November,1992. The inspector. confirmed that the information provided met the requirements of Technical Speeltication 6.9.1.8 and Regulatory Guide 1.1 The inspector also reviewed the licensee's Monthly plant Status Report for October, 199 No violations or deviations were identifie . Meetinas and other Activitien Manaaement Meetince (30702)

Mr. A. Bert Davis, Regional Administrator RIII, was onsite December 2, 1992, observing the RO-and SRO candidates performin " scenarios at the simulator" portion of license examination.- M ,

Davis also met with Mr. G. K. Schwartz, the new station manager and discussed matters of mutual interes Egard of Directorg. Operations Committeo The inspector attended a meeting of the Board ofLDirectors, operations Committee that was held with the station ~ management to discuss the past year's performance, and short and long term plannin The presentations were well received by the committe Exit Interview (30703)

The inspectors met with the licensee representatives denoted-in:

paragraph-1 during_the: inspection period and at the conclusion of-the inspection on December 18,-1992. The inspectors-summarized the scope and results of the inspection and discussed'the likely content of this inspection report. The licensee acknowledged.the information and'did not indicate that any of-the information

.

v- , ,1 .= ,-- -

+ ,m , # - * y 9-w--

,

d4 ; f .1:

._ .

-

..

H. disclosed.during the inspection could be considered proprietary-in-natur s

_ ._

- $

$

I

>

t I

w t

i r

d

$'..

-

(

>

b

..

,

,

k

. )

e

__

I'

a

> ..

$

. _ - . . . - . - , . - . . _ . . . . . . . . . . , _ . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . , . . . . _ . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . _ . . . , . . , _ , . , . . , ~ , . _ ~ _ . . . . . . , . . , , _ , , . . , . . - . ,