ML19242B289

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Repts 50-295/79-11 & 50-304/79-11 on 790430-0518.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Operator Training, Engineered Safety Features Sys,Mods to Safety Injection Logic & Response to IE Bulletins 79-06,06A & 06A,Revision 1
ML19242B289
Person / Time
Site: Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date: 06/14/1979
From: Kohler J, Spessard R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML19242B285 List:
References
50-295-79-11-01, 50-295-79-11-1, 50-304-79-11, NUDOCS 7908070825
Download: ML19242B289 (9)


See also: IR 05000295/1979011

Text

,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION III

Report No. 50-295/79-11, 50-304/79-11

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 1 and 2

Insnection At:

Zion Site, Zion, IL

Inspection Conducted: April 30-May 18, 1979

'(d' & as .-d

k/

_

f!/f!7)

,

.nspector:

J. E. Kohler

n%-c

/

-

Approved By:

R. L. Spessard, Chief

6//V/79

'

Reactor Projects Section 1

Inspection Summary

Inspection on April 30-May 18, 1979 (Report No. 50-295/79-11;

50-304/79-11)

Areas Inspected:

Special inspection of the operator training

conducted as a result of the Three Mile Island incident, com-

plete review of engineered safety features systems, modifications

to safety injection logic, and licensee's response to IE Bulletin

No. 79-06, 06A and 06A Rev.

1.

The inspection involved 71 hours8.217593e-4 days <br />0.0197 hours <br />1.173942e-4 weeks <br />2.70155e-5 months <br />

of onsite inspection by one NRC inspector.

Results:

No items of noncompliance were identified.

, , , ~i

I

\\j

'

7908 070M

.

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. Stecha, Engineering Assistant

T. Oling, Engineering Assistant

B. Lowe, Training Instructor

F. Stetkar, Shift Foreman

T. Boyce, Shift Engineer

K. Garside, Shift Foreman

J. Harbin, Shift Engineer

G. Armstrong, Shift Engineer

G. Rowe, Nuclear Station Operator

R. Landrum, Nuclear Station Operator

D. Kaley, Nuclear Station Operatcr

N. Val

Shift Foreman

F. L

.ae,

Shift Foreman

F. Pauli, Shift Engineer

L. Pruett, Shift Foreman

C. Keene, Nuclear Station Operator

J. Brandes, Nuclear Station Operator

2.

Review of Operator- Training on Thcee Mile Island Incident

a.

The inspector met with various operators of each shift and

unit during the three working shifts to determine whether

the operators had received training regarding procedure

changes initiated as a result of IE Bulletin No. 79-06,

No.79-06A and No.79-06A, Revision 1.

Two procedure changes resulted from the bulletin that

required operator cognizance.

These changes dealt with

the following:

(1) Actuation of the safety injection system based on a

two out of three low pressurizer pressure logic and

temporary annunciator response when one pressure

channel is in test.

(2) Additional precautions regarding isolation of the

power operated relief valves during operation and

-2-

507

004

operator notification that setpoints for power oper-

ated relief valve actuation will be changed to comply

with IEEE requirements.

All discussions with operators indicated that they were

aware of these procedural changes and the location of the

instructions in the control room procedural file.

b.

The inspector determined that licensed personnel of each

unit were aware of the requirements for returning engineered

safety features to an operable status following test and

maintenance.

c.

The inspector discussed with licensed personnel when

automatically actuated safety injection can be reset.

Based on these discussions the inspector determined that

licensed personnel were aware of when overriding emergency

safety features was permitted.

d.

The licensee has committed in respm...e

so item 4 of IE

Bulletin No.79-06A to modify the following valves such

that they remain closed following reset of t>e safety

injection signal.

FCV-BD17

Steam Generator Blowdosn

A0V-BD0001 thru 8

Steam Generator Blowdo n

AOV-RV0001 thru 4

Containment Purge

FCV-SS-2 thru 5

Steam Generator Blowdown Sample

FCV-WD17A, B

Containment Sump Pump Discharge

Licensed personnel were questioned regarding automatic

actions initiated by reset of engineered safety features

that could affect the control of r adioactive liquids and

gases. The inspector determined *. hat licensed personnel

were aware of reset functions and requirements for switch

positioning prior to resetting safety injection.

e.

Plant operators and supervisorf personnel were questioned

regarding early notification of NRC as a result of serious

events.

At the present time, the licensee has not commit-

ted to the requirements of IEB-79-05A, item 11 as far as

staffing required and provisions for a continuous communi-

cation channel.

-3-

E)]f

OY>

The licensee's response to item 11 of IEB 79-05A requires

+ hat the station's General Site Emergency Plan be followed:

In an event that requires early notification of the NRC

the shift would immediately notify the System Load Dis-

patcher who would in turn notify the Command Center Director

on duty who makes an immediate call to the NRC.

In the

event that the load dispatcher cannot reach the Duty

Command Center Director within five minutes the load

dispatcher will then notify the NhC.

Command center

procedures require that specific telephones be designated

as open lines in which continuous communications would be

established. This matter, as well as the entire licensee's

response to this Bulletin, will be evaluated by NRR.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

3.

Onsite Inspection of Engineered Safety Features Systems (ESF)

The following systems designated as ESF were inspected:

charging

safety injection

auxiliary feedwater

containment spray

diesel generator

service water

residual heat removal

The inspection consisted of an examination of the electrical

and mechanical positioning to pr; vide assurance tha'

.. e

required safety related functions would be operable when

necessary.

Visual inspection was performed where possible.

A

detailed comparison of system valve and electrie:al valve lineup

procedures against current P&ID was also made.

For the above systems, the inspector made the following deter-

minations:

a.

Review of the following valve / breaker / switch alignment

procedures verified their accuracy.

System

Procedure

Unit 1

Unit 2

charging

SOI-14

14A-1

14A-2

safety injection

SOI-11

11A-1

11A-2

containment spray

S0I-11B

11B-1

11B-2

-4-

h(j

b0

.

auxiliary feed

SOI-25

25A-1

25A-2

residual heat

SOI-38A

38A-1

38A-2

removal

diesel generator

PT-11

PT-11

PT-11

ser ice water

SOI-36A

36-Al

36-A2

b.

Using the above procedures, valve / breaker / switch alignmer2ts

for accessible components in ESF systems were found to be

in procedurally designated positions.

c.

Administrative procedures listed below were reviewed to

determine whether procedural controls to assure proper

return to service following maintenance and test were

adequate.

ZAP-14-51-2

Out Of Service System Control

ZAP-3-51-1

Work Request System

ZAP-3-51-4B

Nonroutine Valve Lineup Control

System

PT-14

Inoperable Equipment Surveillance

Program

These procedures which require independent management

verification of valve position and return to service

status following maintenance and test were found to be

acceptable.

d.

The following surveillance tests were reviewed in order to

determine whether the systems would be returned to an

operable condition following maintenance and test.

In

addition the last surveillance on each designated system

was reviewed to determine whether acceptance criteria were

met.

Surveillance

Acceptance

Management

Date Performed

Criteria

Verification

System

Test

_

UI

U2

UI

U2

charging

PT-2I

4/13/79

4/15/79

Yes

Yes

Yes

safety

PT-2A

4/20/79

4/14/79

Yes

Yes

Yes

injection

  • auxiliary

PT-7

4/28/79

4/12/79

Yes

Yes

Yes

feed

-5-

'

E) (';,}

.

    • containment PT-6

4/25/79

4/15/79

Yes

Yes

Yes

sp ray

diesel gener- PT-11

4/29&30/79 4/7&23/79

Yes

Yes

N/A

ator

service water S01-61

4/24/79

4/24/79

Yes

Yes

Yes

residual heat PT-2J

4/22/79

4/5/79

Yes

Yes

N/A

removal

  • Findings see Attachment 1
    • Findings see Attachment 2

e.

Pressurizer Level, Safety Injection Coincidence

The licensee has requested and been granted a technical

specification change to require actuation of safety

injection based on two out of three channels of low

pressurizer pressure, thereby deleting pressurizer level

from the safeguards logic.

The modification is installed

on both units as of May 4, 1979.

f.

Inspector verified that adequate administrative controls

exist to assure that ESF systems are returned to an oper-

able condition at the conclusion of extended outages.

g.

The inspector determined that the licensee uses management

verification as described in the Zion Administrative

procedures.

h.

The inspector determined that the following auxiliary feed

valves for each unit requiring locking were locked in the

required position.

FW34 Locked open

ICD 0369 Locked open

1FW35 Locked closed

FW36 Locked open

1CD0100 Locked open

1FW37 Locked closed

FW38 Locked open

ICD 01^' Locked open

FW42 Locked open

No items of noncompliance were identified.

4.

Onsite Assessment of Operating Prccedures

a.

The licensee does not require partial actuation of SI to

assist in level control of the pressurizer during routine

pcessurizer level fluctuations.

. 6-

'h 0)

10

.

.

b.

The operators are instructed to secure reactor coolant

pumps in the event pressutizer level is lost.

c.

Commonwealth Edison Company has not committed to Item

7.6(2) of IEB '/9-06A.

This iaatter will be reviewed by NRR

during their evaluation of the licensee's re=ponse to this

Bulletin

d.

The licensee does not have a procedura for feeding a hot

steam generator should it inadvertently be boiled dry.

e.

Tags have been placed so that no indicators are obscured

from view.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

5.

Exit Inte rview

An exit interview was held with Mr. N. Wandke and others of his

staff (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspec-

tion on May 18, 1979.

The inspector summarized the scope and

findings of the inspection.

Attachments:

1.

Auxiliary Feed System

2.

Containment S ray

t

System

-7-

',g

'

,,

.

ATTACHMENT 1

Auxiliary Feed System

The euxiliary feed system for each unit consists of two electric

pumps feeding into a common header and one steam driven pump feeding

its own header.

Each header can feed all four steam generators.

Technical Specif :ation 3.7 requires that two of the three pumps be

operable during aver operation; Technical Specification 4.7 requires

surveillance testing of these pumps each month.

The surveillance test requires that the discharge isolation valves

be closed and the pumps put on recirculation back to the secondary

water storage tanks.

If the turbine driven auxiliary feed pump were

out of service when the monthly surveillance test for the auxiliary

feed system came due, then no auxiliary feed would be automatically

available during performance of the required surveillance test.

If two of three auxiliary feed pumps became inoperable, reactor

operation is permissible during the following seven days per

Technical Specification 3.7.2.C provided that the operable pump is

tested immediately and tested daily thereafter.

As stated above,

portions of the surveillance test require the pump being tested to

be placed in a recirculation mode to the secondary water storage

tank.

During recirculation and with 2 auxiliary feed pumps inoper-

able, no auxiliary feed would be automatically available.

With respect to this surveillance test procedure, the last step in

the procedure reestablishes the steam generator injection path by an

actual flow verification.

bb

b!

,

.

ATTACHMENT 2

Containment Spray System

Technical Specification 4.6.C requires an immediate demonstration of

operability for the remaining two containment spray pumps when one

pump is made or found to be inoperable.

The performance of this

surveillance requires closure of the header isolation valve.

Closing

the header isolation valve to perform this required test, negates

the injection path, and therefore, during the LCO with one pump

inoperable and one pump in test, only one pump is available.

A

.

b

^