ML17252A320

LER 77-047/03L-0 for Dresden Unit 3 Regarding During Normal Unit 3 Operation, Surveillance Program Review Revealed Violation of T.S.1.0.CC.b Maximum Combined Interval Time by 3.5 Days for HPCI Monthly Valve and Pump Operability

ML17252A320
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	11/23/1977
From:	Stephenson B Commonwealth Edison Co
To:	James Keppler NRC/RGN-III
References
BBS Ltr #1095-77 LER 77-047/03L-0
Download: ML17252A320 (3)

Text

\ Commo'9alth Edison Dresden "'.luchfar Power Station R.R. #1

" Morris, Illinois 60450

-* Telephone 815/942-2920 REGUU\TD~Y DOCKET .flt[ COPY November 23,

~BS LTR #1095-77 James G. Keppler, Regional Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations - Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connnission 7,99 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 6013.7 Reportable Occurrence Report #77-047/03L-0, Docket #050-249 is hereby submitted to yo"ur office in accordance with Dresden Nuclear Power Sta-tion Technical Specification 6.6.B.2.(C), 0,bserved inadequacies in the implementation of administrative controls which threaten to cause re-duction of degree of redundancy provided in engineered safety feature systems.

tep nson Station.Superintendent Dresden Nuclear Power Station

s*Bs: dlz Enclosure

. cc: Director of Inspection & Enforcement Director of Management Information & Program Control File/NRC

-NOV 3 0 1971

NRC FORM 366 (7-7I) -

LICENSEE EVENT REPORT e U.S. NU.CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONTROL BLOCK: I I IG) IP.LEASE PRINT OR . TYPE ALL REQUIRED . INFORMATION)

. 1 6

~f 1 I~ *f D I R I s I 3 IG)I 14 15 o Io I~ I o Io Io Io Io I - Io Io 1<2)14 LICENSE.NUMBER 25 26

• I 1 I 1 11 I 1 101*

LICENSE TYPE 30 I

57 CAT 58 10 8 9 LICENSEE' CODE CON'T ITITI  :~~~~~ W©I o I 5 I d ol ol 21 41 910)11 Io I 2 I 6 I 1 I 1 l©I LI 1 I2 I3 I 1 It IG) 7 B 60 61 DOCKET NUMBER 68 69 EVENT DATE 74 75 REPORT DATE 80 EVENT 0ESCRIP.TION AND PRO.BABLE CON.SEQUENCES@ . .

EI:ill I During normal Unit ~3 operation, surveillance program review revealed violation of

~

l]TIJ ._I_T_:_s_._l_._o_._C_C_._b_m_a_x_._i_m_u_m_c_o_m_b_i_n_e_d_i_*n_t_e_rv_a_l_,_t_i_m_e_b_.y_3_._5_d_a~y.__s_f_o_r_H_P_C_I_m_o_n_t_h_l~y.__v_a_l_v_e_a_n_d_ __.

lillJ pump operability. This event had little safety significance since the HPCI pump and CQ:ITI valves operated normally when the late surveillanc~ was performed. Previous surveil-1

[QJ]J lance interval discrepancies were reported in LER's 50-237/77-6; 50-249/77-6, 31;

'[ill] 50-237/76-71; 50-249/76-36.

[Ill 7 8 9 80 SYSTEM CAUSE CAUSE COMP. VALVE.

CODE CODE SUBCODE COMPONENT CODE SUBCODE SUBCODE

[ill].

7 8 I ZI z*I@

9 10 w@ w@

11 12 .. 13 zl *zl z1 z1 z1 z1@

18

~@)

19 w@

20 SEQUENTIAL OCCURRENCE REPORT REVISION

@ LEA/RO LVENT YEAR REPORT NO. COD6 TYPE NO.

REPORT NUMBER I 71 71 l==1 I 01 41 71 I o I 31 ~ ~

21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ACTION FUTURE EFFECT SHUTDOWN ~ ATTACHMENT NPR0-4 PRIME COMP. COMPONENT TAKEN . ACTION ON PLANT METHOD HOURS ~ SUBMITTED FORM :;us. SUPPLIER MANUFACTURER W@W@

33 34 W@

35 W

36 . .37 lo lo lo lo I LxJ@

40 41 LNJ@

42 UJ@

43 I zl 91 9 I 91@

44 47 CAUSE DESCRIPTION AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IT.ill I Manual tracking of HPCI surveillance combined interval was overlooked resulting in its late performance. A new computer surveillance tracking system has been institu-ted which provides each department a weekly list of surveillances* due based on both D.:IIJ I single and combined interval requirements. This corrective action should be suffici-I lJJI] ent.

7 B 9 .so FACILITY METHOD OF A STATUS  % POWER OTHER STATUS DISCOVERY DISCOVERY DESCRIPTION ~

o:m~@ I 01 91 6l@)l_ _ _ NA_ ___ l_U@ ...I ___R_e_v_i_e_w_o_f_S_u_r_v_e_i_*1_1_a_n_c_e_R_e.._c_o_r_d_s_ ___.

7 8 9 10 12 1'.l 44 45 46 BO ACTIVITY CONTENT RELEASED OF RELEASE AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY e~

LOCATION OF RELEASE @

C2:m ~ @) LI@I NA NA

• 7 B 9 . 10 11 44 45 BO PERSONNEL EXPOSURES ~

NUMBER ~TYPE DESCRIPTION

[Q2J I oI o I oJUj@.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _N_A_ _ _ _ _ _ ____,

B 9 11 12 13 80 PERSONNEL INJURIES Q NUMBER DESCRIPTION~

QE I 0 I 0 I 0 l@ _ _ _ _* _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _NA_ _ _ _ _ _ ___

7 B 9 11 12 BO LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO FACILITY 143\

TYPE DESCRIPTION i,:::.;

QTI] ~@ . NA B 9 10 BO PUBLICITY Q\ NRC USE ON y ISSUEDQ DESCRIPTION~

• L "'

ITTI] l!!J~----------------=NA....__ _ _ _ _ _~ I I II I I II II I I I~

B 9 10. 68 69 BO ;;;

0 NAMEOFPREPARER~-----~M=-*~P~a==-r=c=e=l=l'--------~

PHONE: _ _ _ ____..........__ _ _ _ __ a.

~~)1't* ' .

ATTACHMENT TO LICENSEE EVENT REPORT 77-047/031-0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (CWE)

DRESDEN UNIT .3 (ILDRS-3)

DOCKET # 050-249

. j .  : . .

. During normal Unit ~3~}op~ration, a review of completed surveillances revealed that the intervals between completion of theHPCI monthly.valve and pump operability sur~eillance had exceeded the maximum.combined time interval for any tl~ree consecutive* intervals of 3. 25

• t.imes the specified___._,

single surveillance interval by ~~-:J.-:-0:-'cc.-b) * .  : ". . .. *:-- . ~~

. . . . '*~--.:.----::-~~-::------;-~"--*- . . -:-.. .*-.*--****-~--C*"--------

The surveillance was performed on the following dates:

D-3 (May 11)

• (June 14) *.

(July 20)

(Aug. 22)

When the HPCI surveillance is performed within the maximum single interval period, it is still possible to" exceed the maximl.im. combined interval for any three consec~tive intervals.. ,....._,,

_The manual tracking of the HPCI surveil-lance combined interval was over;l!P.Q~~9,.,~.S resulting ih late performance of the surveillance. In order to prevent surveillance interval discrepancies, a new computer surveilla_nce tracking and monitoring system was* instituted on 8-1-77. This system utilizes both the single interval and combined inter-val requirements to determine a due date and a latest date due. A weekly surveillance list is .sent .to each department listing the surveillances due the next week. As the surveillances are performed, the.completion date is entered into the computer for use.in future due date determinations. After initiation of the new system, however' three intervals are required for the ..

system to become" effective in_ preventing exceeding the combined interval requirements. This is the reason the surveillance interval.* was exceeded af.ter. implementation of the new computer system; No *additional corrective action is planned.

This event had*little*safety.signifioance since the HPCI pump and valves operated normally when the late surveillance was performed. Previous sur-veillance interval discrepancies wer~ reported in LER's 50~237/77-6; 50-249/77-6, 31; 50-237/76-71; 50-249/76~36. . . .