ML20207F344

Notice of Violation from Insp on 860414-0613

ML20207F344
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	07/14/1986
From:	Guldemond W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207F309	List: IR 05000295/1986011 ML20207F304 ML20207F344
References
50-295-86-11, 50-304-86-10, NUDOCS 8607220520
Download: ML20207F344 (2)

Text

'

NOTICE OF VIOLATION Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-295 Docket No. 50-304

~

As a result of the inspection conducted on April 14 through June 13, 1986, and in accordance with the " General Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985), the following violations were identified:

1. Technical Specification 6.2.A states in part, " Detailed written procedures including applicable check off lists covering items listed below shall be prepared, approved, and adhered to:"

" Normal startup, operation, and shutdown of the reactor and other systems and components involving nuclear safety of the facility."

and,

" Preventive and corrective maintenance operations which could have an ef fect on the safety of the facility."

a. Operating procedure 50I-31, Main Steam, Step 3.6.5, CAUTION requires that prior to removing the DC solenoid fuses for the main steam isolation valve (MSIV) solenoids, the operator verify the correct fuses by checking the appropriate drawing,

b. Zion Administrative Procedure, ZAP 3-51-1, Origination and Routing of Work Requests, requires the following:

The Operating Shift Supervisors are required to record the tests and specify who will perform the tests upon the completion of the repair work, by checking the appropriate box.

The Operating Engineer is to make a final review of the work request, then sign and date the appropriate block.

The Master Mechanic / Maintenance Staff Engineer is to review the work request and initial to indicate receipt and acceptance.

The Operating Shift Supervisor (SRG licensed only) is to sign the block that gives authorization to start the work.

Contrary to the above:

a. On May 5, 1986, with Unit 1 in Mode 3 (Hot Shutdown), an equipment operator failed to follow operating procedure 50I-31 in that he attempted to remove the MSIV DC solenoid fuses, but failed to check the appropriate drawing prior to removing the fuses. As a result, the operator inadvertently removed the fuses to both trains of engineered safety features (ESF) logic, rendering both trains of ESF logic inoperable for a period of approximately three minutes.

EgCK052O B60715 coop 93 G

PDR

Notice of Violation 2

b. For Zion Work Request Z48625, dated March 2, 1986, for the replacement of the control room makeup HEPA filter:

The Operating Shift Supervisor failed to record the test and specify who will perform the test upon completion of the repair work in that he checked the incorrect box on the work request form, The Operating Engineer reviewed, signed and dated the appropriate block; however, in his review he failed to realize that a surveillance test was required, The Maintenance Staff Engineer who reviewed the work request, failed to initial the form to indicate receipt and acceptance, and Shift authorization was not obtained prior to the work and the block was not signed.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).

2. Technical Specification 4.17.1.C requires that the control room makeup adsorber system shall be demonstrated operable. Technical Specification 4.17.1.Crequires that the control room makeup HEPA filter be efficiency tested after each complete or partial replacement of the filter bank, Contrary to the above, the control room makeup HEPA filter was replaced on March 7,1986, and the system was returned to service without the system demonstrated system operability until efficiency testing approximately 40 days after the replacement.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each violation: (1) corrective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.

1-16 66 Dated f

W. G. y demo t/m Chief

~

Projects Branchq,2