Text

Forwards Special Insp Repts 50-295/87-24 & 50-304/87-25 on 870914-18.Check Valve Testing Program Should Address Listed Issues.Util Aggressively Developing Program to Address Issues Raised in Significant Operating Event Rept 86-3
	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: ML20150C323; ML20150C328;
References
	NUDOCS 8803180120
	Download: ML20150C323 (4)
	v • d • e

- -

. ,

.,

..

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

Generic Letter 87-06. 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

PDR ADOCK 05000295

dy g 'n

Q DCD

_-- - _

. .

.

-

..

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

JPartlow , GHolahan Local PDR

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

ML20150C323

Text

Navigation menu

Search