ML20150C323
| ML20150C323 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1988 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150C327 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803180120 | |
| Download: ML20150C323 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000295/1987024
Text
-
-
.,
.
,
..
m aa
o
UNITED STATES
!
~ ,%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
5
rj
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
March 11, 1988'
Docket No. 50-295
50-304
Comonwealth Edison Company
ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed
Vice President
P.O. Box 767
Chicago, Illinois 60690
Gentlemen:
This letter refers to the announced special inspection performed by Messrs.
E. T. Baker, R. N. Moist and Mr. A. S. Masciantonio on September 14-18, 1987,
of activities at the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
The find-
ings were discussed with Mr. E. Fuerst and members of your-staff at the end
of the inspection.
This inspection was perfonned to review the check valve testing program at
Zion. Particular attention was directed to the ability of the testing program
to establish disk and seat integrity, location of check valves with respect to
sources of turbulence, maintenance and failure history, and your response to
the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations' (INP0) Significant Operating Event
Report (50ER) 86-3 concerning inspection and testing of check valves. Within
these areas,' the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures
and representative records, observations, and interviews with licensee personnel.
The inspector:; found that (1) pressure isolation valves are not being tested
individually as is required by an NRC confirmatory order issued February 29,
1980; (2) valve testing does not ensure that all safety functions will be ful-
filled; (3), test procedures do not result in valid tests of all valves listed
as being tested; and (4) va?ves falling leak rate testing are not being repaired
before restart contrary to rommitments made in a June 11, 1987 response to
In addition, it was noted that the majority of valvec
inspected for location were located close to sources of turbulence and that
the vast majority of the maintenance performed was corrective, as opposed to
preventive.
It appeared that the program, developed in response to INP0's 50ER
86-3, will address these issues.
With regard to the response to SOER 86-3, your corporate staff had developed
the internal response and were performing analyses in response to the 50ER.
This response was a comprehensive program which would evaluate check valve
reliability and performance. At the time of the inspection, Zion plant per-
sonnei were implementing some of the actions outlined in the program, including
meosuring actual flow and reviewing valve locations.
The inspectors considered
the 50ER response program to be the furthest along in terms of implementation
and consideration of design aspects of the four programs reviewed at the time
O
8803180120 880311
d
ADOCK 05000295
y g 'n
Q
_--
-
- -
.
_
. - .
. . . - .
.
.
.
-
..
Commonwealth Edison Company
-2-
March 11, 1988
of the inspection.
It was apparent that Connonwealth Edison is aggressively
developing a program to address the issues raised in SOER 86-3.
No response is required to this inspection report, because unresolved Items
295/87032 01 and 304/87033-01, issued under Region III inspection reports 50 295/
87032 and 50-304/87033, cover findings 1, 3, and 4.
Findin0 2 (0 pen Items 50 295/
87024 01 and 50-304/87025-01) is considered open and will be reviewed as part of
your latest Inservice Testing Program submittal.
Although the procedures and
valves reviewed by the team were specific to Unit 2, the findings are considered
programmatic and based on discussions with your staff are considered applicable
to Unit 1.
Should you have any questions on this matter, we would be pleased to discuss
them with you.
Sincerely,
,
-
Dennis M. Crutchfield, Director
Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Distribution:
EBaker
DCrutchfield
CNorelius, RIII
JRichardson
JStone
JNorris
HMiller, RIII
LMarsh
BGrimes
DMuller
c ,RRC_PDR
JPartlow
GHolahan
Local PDR
DRIS Reading File
PEng, RI
RMoist
VIB Reading File
MHolzmer, SRI
AMasciantonio
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES
OFC
- ABC:VIB:DRIS:NRR:AC:VIB:DRIS
- DD:DRIS:NRR
- D:DRIS:NRR
- PM/PD:3/2:NRR :PD3/2:NRR
......:................:_.............:_____ ........:............. :.. .........._:_........____
NAME
- ETBaker:mgc
- JCStone
- BKGrimes
- JGPartlow
- JANorris
- DRMuller*
- .... _
- ......... __....:______________: _____........:..... ________:_.......______:__... .......
DATE
- 02/08/88
- 02/09/88
- 02/ /88
- 02/09/88
- 02/09/88
- 02/12/88
,
0FC
- AD:RIII/V:NRR
- D:DRP III/IV/V: Tech Editor
i ______:.__.............:........._____:___...........:.......____...:........... ..:.............
NAME
- GHollahan*
- DMCru tchfield* : AThoma s*
___...:___..._____.....:..............:....____ .....: _______......:...____ ..____:.........____
DATE
- 03/09/88
- 03/10/88
- 01/20/88
,
_,
_
.
_
_
-- . -
r
-
.
.
. , *
..
Connonwealth Edison Company
-2-
March 11, 1988
,
of the inspection.
It was apparent that Connonwealth Edison is aggressively
developing a program to address the issues raised in SOER 86-3.
No response is required to this inspection repo'rt, because unresolved Items
295/87032 01 and 304/87033-01, issued under Region III inspection reports 50-295/
87032 and 50 304/87033, cover findings 1, 3, and 4.
Finding 2 (0 pen Items 50 295/
87024-01 and 50-304/87025 01) is considered open and will be reviewed as part of
your latest Inservice Testing Program submittal. Although the procedures and
valves reviewed by the team were specific to Unit 2, the findings are considered
programmatic and based on discussions with your staff are considered applicable
to Unit 1.
Should you have any questions on this matter, we would be pleased to discuss
them with you.
Sincerely,
/
Dennis M. Crutchfield, Director
Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Distribution:
EBaker
DCrutchfield
CNorelius, RIII
JRichardson
JStone
JNorris
HMiller, RIII
LMarsh
BGrimes
DMuller
NRC PDR
GHolahan
Local PDR
JPartlow
,
DRIS Reading File
PEng, RI
RMoist
VIB Reading File
MHolzmer, SRI
AMasciantonio
l
l
.-
l
l
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES
OFC
- ABC:VIB:DRIS:NRR:AC:VIB:DRIS
- DD:DRIS:NRR
- D:DRIS:NRR
- PM/PD:3/2:NRR :PD3/2:NRR
......:...........____ :..............:....... _____ :..............:..............:.............
NAME
- ETBaker:mgc
- JCStone
- BKGrimes
- JGPartlow
- JANorris
- DRMuller*
......:___...____......:._______.___.:..............:..............:..............:.............
DATE
- 02/08/88
- 02/09/88
- 02/ /88
- 02/09/88
- 02/09/88
iO2/12/88
0FC
- AD:Rlll/V:NRR
- D:DRP lil/IV/V: Tech Editor
......:...__...........:...........__.:..............:..............:..............:...........-.
NAME
- GHollahan*
- DMCrutchfield*:AThomas*
l ......:...........____:_.............:...........___:..............:............__:.............
lDATE :03/09/88
- 03/10/88
- 01/20/88
. .
..
,
-
.
C.
nonwealth Edison Company
-2-
March 11, 1988
-
of the inspection.
It was apparent that Commonwealth Edison is aggressively
developing a program to address the issues rais'ed in SOER 86-3.
No response is required to this inspection report, because unresolved Items
295/87032-01 and 304/87033-01, issued under Region III inspection reports 50-295/
87032 and 50-304/87033, cover findi'igs 1, 3, and 4.
Finding 2 (0 pen Items 50-295/
87024-01 and 50-304/87025-01) is considered open and will be reviewed as part of
your latest Inservice Testing P.rogram submittal. Although the procedures and
valves reviewed by the team were specific to Unit 2, the findings are considered
programmatic and based on discussions with your staff are considered applicable
to Unit 1.
Should you have any questions on this matter, we would be pleased to discuss
them with you.
Sincerely,
f'
Denni
. Cr chfield, D rector
Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
a
i
.'
{
l
l
l