ML20138N641

SALP Repts 50-295/85-01 & 50-304/85-01 for May 1984 - Sept 1985

ML20138N641
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	12/19/1985
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138N623	List: ML20138N619 ML20138N641
References
50-295-85-01, 50-295-85-1, 50-304-85-01, 50-304-85-1, NUDOCS 8512240096
Download: ML20138N641 (45)

See also: IR 05000295/1985001

Text

em ,z- '

-

+

a.

.':- ' .;

- -

'

-- -- -

--

-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

fy;qn.

' ~ ~ ' ~

.;. , ,

,

. 4 .. .

'*

f- . - -

'

,.

-'

'

.--

'

-

y *

,

n-

j ' SALP 5

,

.

y *

.+ , ,

'

, _ .

'

-e 'SALP 8OARD REPORT-

.

y

- ,J

_

<

.

~ - . .

-

-

~

.U.?S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. +v ,. .

.- c' . : /

. .

. REGION III

m,

r'

.,9'-

__.

.s.- ,

<.,7 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE

-

,

50-295/85001; 50-304/85001

. Inspection Report Nos.

._

Commonwealth Edison Company

Name of Licensee-

-

. Zion Nuclear Power Station

Name of Facility

,

..

May 1, 1984 - September 30, 1985

4

Assessment Period

,

,

, ? ':

,

' PDR estaa4oo*68@p'avs ADOCK 0 g

-G- 4

-

"

A

2

-mm

@V [ -

'

'

. 4 -

,

, '

.

/ y di? -

,

- y .

.w -[;- s, yr .

. ,.t

,

?Ii TINTRODUCTION

,

^

$ 'i TheSystematic' Assessment"ofLicenseePerformance(SALP)programLisanL

~

integrated NRC staff effort to collect available observations and data on

~

y.. - a periodic basis ~and to evaluate 311censee performance; based 'upon this'

'

information..'SALP is supplemental to-normal regulatory processes.used to

4' 1-c-

'

-ensure' compliance to NRC< rules'and regulations.1:SALP,1siintended to be-

sufficiently diagnostic to provide a rational' basis'for allocating NRC-

resources'and to provide meaningful. guidance to the:11censee's management

to promote quality.and safety of, plant construction and operation.

7: ; a ,

p, . _

,-

' '

A NRC.SALP: Board, composed of> staff members. listed below,; met on-November 5,

m

'

l1985,"to review the collection of performancefobservations and data to assess-

' the licensee'.s performance'in accordance with the guidance in NRC Manual-

, Chapter 0516, " Systematic. Assessment of Licensee Performance."; A summary of

3 the guidance and evaluation criteria.is provided in Section'II of this report.

1This report 11s the SALP Board's assessment of the licensee's safety

. performance at"the Zion Nuclear Power Station for the period May 1, 1984

-

,

through~ September 30,-1985.

'

.

-

,

{SALPBoard'!crZionNuclearGeneratingStation:

.y - ,

Name Title

., [JiA.' Hind Director,-Division of Reactor Safety and'

. Safeguards (DRSS)-

Director,DivisionofReactorProjects

'

C.' E. Norelius

-c' ,. .

(DRP)

' 4

C.lJ.Paperiello. Director, Division of Reactor Safety

(DRS)~

S. A.' Varga Chief, Operating Reactors Branch 1, NRR

c~ L.;A.;Reyes - Chief, Operations Branch, DRS

r M.:P. Phillips Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section, DRSS

,

m' . C. W.: Hehl Chief,ProjectsSection2A,.DRP

Chiaf, Facilities Radiation' Protection

'

,

L.LR. Greger

Section, DRSS

n 'J. R. Creed Chief,. Physical Security Section, DRSS

s

M. M. Holzmer Senior Resident Inspector, Zion

J. N. K1sh- Resident ' Inspector, Zion :

' _"

{L. E. Kanter Resident Inspector, Zion

.B. Drouin Safeguards Inspector, DRSS

. T.' Ploski: Emergency Preparedness Analyst, DRSS

X J.'F. Suermann- Project Manager, DRP

' M. L.= McCormick-Barger . Test Programs Inspector, DRS

.

f

%

2

'

.

_e

RC-

~

x ^

b&cy; ; z w, g%e; .

-

m

-

'

,

~

yp% -

.

<y :Ap .

,

~ '

' '

Y$$ s ,.

[{

_

s -

y

'

• ^

, ^

-f- } ,

,

-

,

-,

W :IIh;CR8ERIAL

1_

• '

-

_ -

'

r . .

W

,

9 7 ,1

"'

. 3 .

.

,

l

tThe ifcensee's performance.is assessed in selected functional-areas

'

' "

~

f f7 .

depending'on whether the. facility is in'a construction, preoperational, l

*

-

'

_ or operating phase. Each functional area normally-represents. areas  :

> Lsignificant to nuclear' safety and the environment,-and are normal? +i

+

programmatic areas.. Some functional areas may not be-assessed because

-x' tof C ittle.or no. licensee activities or lack of meaningful observations.=

. &g -

'Special

. . . =

areasimmy:be.added~to highlight'significant observations.

- .

,

'

co -

'

.One or moretof.thi following evaluation criteria were used to assess each r

+

,-

'

._ ,

, functional; area: , ,

,

y >> - -

-

t. Management' involvement.in assuring quality

'

,

?. - 11^. i

+

m ,

7 , _

.

. . ' ~ 2. f Approach'

-

m to resolution of technical issues from a safety standpoint  :

yl g

,

.

-{3.a m

Responsiveness to'NRC initiatives [

L4. Enforcement history I

'. t. 3 .

.

.

!

,

,

5.~ . Reporting and analysis of reportable events

) l 6. ; ' Staffing'(including' management)

,@ . 7. Training'effactiveness and qualification.

4 :. f

'

Howe'ver,'the'SALP Board is not limited to'these criteria and_others may ,

,

have.been used where appropriate.  !

.

l Based upon'the SALP, Board's assessment, each functional area avaluated is  !

classified.into!one of three performance categories. The definition of [

,Lthese performance' categories is:. l

'

>= ..

.

.

5 ,

- Cateeory li . Reduced'NRC attention may be appropriate. Licensee i

,

, management attention and involvement'are, aggressive and oriented.toward .1

'

-

,

-nuclear safety.. Licensee resources are~ ample and effectively used so

'

,

;9 ' that a:high level of performance with respect to'operational. safety or.  ;

construction is being achieved.

'

~

. , ,

l

'

' Category 2: NRC atention' t -

shod 1d be maintained at normal levels.-

1. Licensee-management. attention and' involvement are evident and management

~is concerned with nuclear safety. Licensee resources are adequate and

are reasonably effective such that satisfactory performance with respect

'

< ' -

-to operational safety or construction is being achieved. .

Category 3:^'Both NRC and licensee attention should be increased.

'

~

.

9 '

. ^ Licensee management attention and involvement is acceptable and considers

L" 3 + x

nuclear safety, but weaknesses'are evident. Licensee resources appear to r

be strained or not effectively used so that minimally satisfactory  ;

~d

' performance with respect to operational safety or construction is being

o,*

.

'

achieved. r

'

o

1. .

.

t

.

3 1

'

, , - t

.

I

7

r <

_

_ _ _ - . - - _ _ . - . _ . . . _ _ _

T. _ .

,

.- .-

'

,

.

scst

'

Trend: The SALP Board has also categorized the performance trend in-

-

-each functional area rated over the course of the SALP assessment

period., The categorization describes the general or prevailing tendency

(the performance gradient) during the SALP period. The performance

trends are defined as follows:

Improved: Licensee performance has generally improved over the course

of the SALP assessment period..

'

Same: Licensee performance has remained essentially constant over

the course of the SALP assessment period.

Declined: Licensee performance has generally declined over the course

of. the SALP assessment period.

a

"

,!:

<

4

-

t. , .

'

~

. , ,,.

n.

': '

5.;

u 4

.;

-

.

4 , . ,

-

III. SUMARY OF RESULTS

,. ,

' Rating Last-

'

1. . ;a .

.

~ Rating This.

Functional-Area- Period Period

'

Trend

~ (' .A.: Plant Operations ' 2 2 Same

_

18.1 Radiological Controls- 2 -

2 Improved

C. . Maintenance 1 2 Improved:

-

D.. LSurveillance 2 2- Declined

E .' - Fire Protection 2- 2 , Same

.

.F. ' Emergency Preparedness 2 -2- Improved'

2'

G.h ' Security 3 1 .Same

,H.. Refueling i 1- Same

.I. Quality Programs and

Administrative Controls 2 2 Same

J.' Licensing Activities

'

'

1 'l Same

-

'4

T

4

1

5

<

1

4

5

9

um

-

pmye4g. = -.

-- -

.

-

< ~, - -

-

..

r 's ,

,

' , 3

y ,y - .

w ), ,; .

- -# 4_

Q w} yx_ _ . -

l

_f_ .

_

l

r

- . -

w y . -

p: ' "

.

M Ab ' Plant'0perations- '

' , -

~,1 ; T , ,

. .

~-

'

" . . fil :: Analysis; '

.-  ;

' ._

~

'

.

n v .

,. .

~ 'i

y, . *

..

'

yDuring the assessment ' period sixteen inspections were performed ?  ;

• '-

~s lby the resident inspectors covering direct ~ observation of i

operating-activities, review of' logs and records, verification

~

'

,

.

. of: selected equipment;11neupa and operability, and. follow-up of-

<

, .

^

- ;significant operating events to verify that facility operations-

, , 4 :were in conformance withLthe Technical' Specifications and

.

m  : administrative procedures. Six violations were identifled as

(,' follows:~

'

g (a)lT Severity.' Level IV'- Procedure Violation (two= examples):

- +

R . .

'

..\(1): Failure to shut'and de-energize residual' heat removal

- ,

'

.

(RNR) system > suction valves resulting in RHR system

Loverpressurization and relief valve lifting

'

.>

'

,s ,

(Inspection Report.No. 295/84-20).

~

.

,:  ;(2)' Injesting' boron injection tank (BIT),

'

-

-a

.

.'overpressurizing the reactorpower'

and lifting the pressurizer coolantoperated

system;(RCS)

relief

,

-valve (PORV)'(Inspection Report No.. 295/84-20).

.

^

.(b) -Severity' Level IV - Technical Specification Violation,

, ' a licensed operator exceeding axial power distribution

..

'

monitoring' system-(APOMS) turn-on power prfor to

performing the required surveillance (Inspection Report

d n '

No. 295/84-25).

k- '

.

'(c) Severitiy Level IV - Technical Specification Violation,

'. group and individual control rod position indications not

^

s *M >

ri .being within 12 steps -(Inspection Report No. 304/84-26).

_

J .,

-

(d)T Severity Level IV.- 10 CFR 50.54 Violation, reactor

. .

'" operator was temporarily away from the controls of the

'

reactor (Inspection Report No. 295/85016).

7~

e .(e) Severity. Level IV - Technical Specification Violation,

'

.

resulted in "0" Diese1~ Generator aircraft crash fire

protection system being inoperable due to a paper clip

holding the reset switch in the " reset" position.

• ' ^

(Inspection Report No. 295/85016).

o, .

'

(f) ; Severity Level IV - 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 Violations:

Emergency notification system (ENS) notifications

, ,

L(1)' were not made within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> (2 events), and

,

+ +

t-

p

6

. ,

j.

4 ' s

@@.g. z 7, .- .

'

+ ,- ~' " "

7 **

MJ>p - 3 &

9> t w . '3s ,

..

' Wq

, . _ ,

N. - c -

s

~ '

-

f.

m(2): Licensee. event reports (LER's) not written within 30

'

"JZ' '

mi'

,c g' ~>

- ' ~

f '

' *

',

days-(2' events)1(Inspection Reports No.'295/85031;

y<' '

304/85032)..

t & *.g,

y ar~ *

r. y[fj'1theviolations..involvedpersonnelerrorsucnasoversights

J or_ omissions.. Items.a.(1), b, and c are examples of simple

,' -.J

r<

.' 'personne11 errors. :In the case of. items.a.(2) and e.. events

e T -

, ,

,

occurred which were'known to be contrary to plant ^ procedures.,

,

2% > For'itemia.(2), the individual (a shift control room engineer.

f .

<

. ar SCRE) was disciplined land for item e, since the licensee

Li m '

• Lwas unable to identify the responsible individual, extra

4 ,

, , itraining involving all operating personnel'.was conducted which

7 .

- y , jre-emphasized'str<ct requirements prohibitin0' intentional

4

"

.

.. ,

Jdefeating of' safety systems.. Management'act<ons in these' cases

A sb w . wore considered. appropriate.

^ '

: + <

. .. . . .

-

'

. ~ k. ' '

~t 1For. item d, while the.. individual was' aware that a recent

m . <

&

-station policy'had been issued which provided guidelines

" 4

> - <

? defining "at the controls", he and the licensee were unaware

-

s

e' s

-

uthat 10 CFR 50.54(m) had been revised to require operators to

u '# ..

Er

'

be=at the controls. The violation was considered a minor

oversight on the part of the operator, since the event involved

'

L

n4 ',* <

'

'a tempcrary relief, since the individual-remained in the

f*

'

. control. room in sight of the-control board, since the current

'3 Technical Specifications did not specify that operators remain

- .

/

' '

at the controls, and since the affected unit was shutdown with

~

o ,a greater than 105 margin for-a refueling outage. ~A review of

(! .

• ; . current practices-for ensuring that' changes to 10 CFR result in

," <

'

, . notifications of the appropriate personnel indicated that this

.

,

9

? _ m 'was an: isolated occurrence,

v , ..

~

'There were four violations of NRC requirements in the last

'

q ,  ; ,

>

-assessment period,Jand.the items listed above represent an

'

'k4 0

. . 7- .

increase in=the numbec of violations issued. Individually,

7p' m '

<

-.

' '

'

.the'se violations do not represent a high degree of' safety:

@ , significance,'however, collectively these items are of concern,

P ,y s  ; indicating-the need for improved attention to detail and

'a;' reduction of personnel errors. In each case the licensee's

,

W ,

,

.e ,

corrective actions were timely and appropriate.

,

n. r .. -

.' 3 .

'

. a lNine reactor trips occurred during this' period. Of these,

- =three involved personnel error, three involved equipment

problems, two involved procedure related problems, and one was

< * a manual trip following equipment problems. Three of these

ja trips occurred at power levels above 20%' compared to 10'during

W

,

.

>

, the last-assessment' period. Nosafetyinjectionsoccurred

t

. .,

1. > during this period. These figures were compared against the

%" '

20. reactor trips and three safety injections for the last SALP

a period. This significant improvement was attributed to

e *

increased management attention on reducing the number of

4 -

.,'

'

reactor trips and safety system challenges. One such method

j. . used was the Station Goal s Program. (See Paragraph IV.I).

-

v.

L

t

,

N

9 J

t ,

,

' ?

.

_

_ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

_ ,

7N, > , ., ,,

-

-

L%k

S' .

p;; ig " - , ,

p "

,

'

,

'L Another reason has been the heightened awareness and efforts  ;

a by the ~1icensed personnel on shift. :There has been -11ttle '

turnover in this group, and the experience'. level on shift is

>

' 4 ks *

.ponerally-good.= >

_ -

• -

Control room behavior and conduct are addressed in detail.in

corporate and plant directives,and procedures, which

,

%

'

specifically orohibit sleeping, chronic lack of attentiveness,-

,

-

alcohol.ordruguse,practicaljokesandotherdistractions

under penalty of disciplinary action. including discharge. In

'

-

addition, radios,1 televisions, and non professional' reading

'

, . materials'are prohibited. ' Operator adherence to these

t procedures is excellent. Operator's knowledge and awareness of

, ,, plant' status.is also very good. Operating units routinely'run

~

'

with few alarm status lights. During the assessment period,.

,

'

there were'long periods;in which fewer than four alarms were'

' illuminated for operating units. Plant management has also

acted to minimize the amount of traffic in the control room by

moving the master'out of service board from the control room to

, ,

the shift engineer's office, and limiting access to the control

'

room'to one route. Congestion in the control room caused by-

^ excessive amounts of. unnecessary personnel has been reduced

,

during the period.,

An increase in the number of reported partial ESF actuations

was observed during the assessment period. This.has been

attributed to the revisions to-10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 which

,became effective January 1, 1984. Most of these events would

not have been' reportable in'the,last assessment period.

Individual operator performance is viewed as very good, during

. abnormal plant transients. In addition, the resident

'

' inspectors routinelyfobserved startup and shutd wn evolutions

.1 '.

Land found operator performance to be very good. However

.several events occurred which can be traced back to individual

operator. or supervisory error, indicating the need for improved

- >

e ." performance during times'other than: routine startups and

,

-

shutdowns and abnormal' transients.

_

During this assessment period:there were 21 Deviation Reports

'

L(DVR's) involving personnel error. LThese vary 'in safety

significance and there does not seem to be any trend toward

increasing or decreasing personnel errors.

,  : ,

3

During the report period examinations were' administered to 6

i. reactor operator.and~10 senior' reactor operator candidates,

s 0ne senior and one reactor operator candidates were

reapplications. The overall pass rato was 87% which is above

the national average of 80%. Requalification examinations were

not administered at Zion'during this period.

.

E

,

'

, 8

.

~

( [ y;, -

,

,;j-) .

w 3  ; x

s-

~

.

, s l

~ '

2 - : -

' . ' The licensee _is' rated Category 2 in this area. Performance

remained theLsame during the_ assessment period..

~

c

. 3.. Board Recommendations

m . None'. - .

~ '

, t8.I Radioloeical Controls

' '

j 11.. Analysis T

Nine inspections,were conducted during this assessment period,

J ,

'by Region III: specialists.1 The inspections included radiation -

protection, radioactive waste management, TMI Action Plan.

Items,~ environmental protection, radiochemistry, and

confirmatory measurements. The resident inspectors also '

,

,. reviewed this area during routine' inspections. Four violations-

~

were identified as follows: .

'

1(a)' Severity Level:V - Unauthorized transfer of four low

'

,

-

activity americium'-241 sources to the Byron Station -

(Inspection Reports No. 295/84-08; 304/84-08).

, , ,

(b)'. Severity Level IV - Failure to adequately. evaluate. ,

radiation dose rates during work on the reactor head'

(Inspection Reports No. 295/85021;-304/85022).

,

'(c) ; Severity Level IV - Failure to make a required report

after exceeding the quarterly. technical specification

'

'

liquid radwaste release design' objective (Inspection .

'

,

Reports'No. 295/85034; 304/85036).

. ,

-

(d) Severity Level V - Alpha counter not rescud from service

after failing quality control QC performance checks q

(Inspection Reports No. 295/85030; 304/85031).

-

These violations are indicative of minor programmatic

breakdowns in the areas of radiological evaluations (surveys),

'

'

, byproduct material controls. technical specification reporting

. requirements, and counting room quality control (QC). Although

, _

licensee corrective actions have been timely in most cases,

. . survey problems were also evident during the previous two

assessment periods.

Licensee-staffing has generally improved during this assessment

period. Two technician and two professicnal staff positions

wera added. The staffing levels appear adequate to properly

establish acceptable radiation protection controls during

station operation and to provide sufficient oversight of

contracted radiation protection technicians during outages.

r

9

, .

- _ . . ,m

FM iw g .

,

k .

=

U. .( <

w

' '

-

-

2 ., .

.

"

.

. .

<

LThe~ radiation' protection and chemistry staff turnover rate,

'

which has been quite high in the past, has stabilized. This

'

s . . stability appears to have' helped the licensee improve

r j performance in the area of radiological controls, although

. experience levels on the average remain quite low. 'A recent

>

3 >

reorganization has added an additional layer of management

'between the Radiation Protection Manager (RPM) and the Station

Manager; this is: generally an undesirable change from the

Lstandpoint of RPM access.to top plant management.

'

In response

,,

..'

-toithis concern, the licensee agreed to schedule routine

r meetings between the Services Superintendent and the' RPM.

,

1

J-

' '

LThe licensee's management involvement is generally good, with

e> -

, occasional poor performance. Audits are thorough and timely,

w .

<

'with good responsiveness to findings.. The licensee has

, implemented measures to improve worker adherence to station

". .

, radiation protection. procedures by better identification of

. offenders and stronger disciplinary actions. The improvements

,

",

in' conjunction with increased surveillances and program changes

are expected to reduce the number of radiation occurrence

reports. .. Management control initiatives during this assessment

u . period'resulted'ini improved ALARA outage planning; reduction.

.of contaminated and respiratory areas in the auxiliary-

1 building; and development of a radiation work permit program,

a whole body frisking program, and.several trending programs.

'Several items, however, have remained open for prolonged

periods, including: development of compliance documentation

, for'certain TMI Action Plan Items; proper control of high

. radiation area access doors; repair of minor leaks in the

', ~K. - auxiliary building; post accident effluent sample line loss

determination; certification calibration of the containment

'

-

> high: range radiation monitors;~and documenting that the

, .

-sealants used in the modification and repair of the control

"

s room emergency air cleaning system possess acceptable

n Lproperties.- .

~

. The licensee's responsiveness'to NRC initiatives'has generally

been adequate during this assessment period. As noted above,

.

several.NRC concerns remained open for prolonged periods. On

the other hand, improvements were made for a number of NRC

. identified weaknesses, including those concerning the use of

-

' half-face respirators, inadequate number of continuous air

-  ; monitors, radioactive gases entering the counting room, the

need for new lead lined frisking booths at containment access,

,

the need to improve the review method of air sample results,

. .'

the need to' improve and formalize the method for guarding

'

containment access during entries, inadequate alpha counting

equipment, the need to revise the MPC-hr procedure to include a

method for calculating MPC-hrs from whole body count results,

, 6 the large number of lost film badges, and an unusually large

,

,

number of personal contamination incidents associated with the

use of the laundry facilities.

J

10

' - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - - - - -

- - - = - - - - - - -

4,;

.

m,c ,

-. -

"

, g[

Ki

.

-

7

,

, ,%,e , ,

'

x J

i_' ^m 1The'.lii:ensee has satisfactory formal training / qualification -l

i

'

'

Ltechnicians,

programs'for.plant'

radiation

workers,-and protectionplant

technicians,;

visitors contract A

3,

'

.

-

comprehensive-training and qualification program for. degreed *

,

-

. health physicists ~has been developed and implemented.' In ,

e

addition.-health physicists, foresun, and engineering .

assistants are being sent_to outside training courses on~-

'

!

., ~ E respiratory protection, health physics, dosimetry, radwaste,

.

"

., etc.:_more frequently.. The health physicists attended a

two-week Westinghouse, system traintag course followed by one  !

-

'

week of simulator training. The Rad Chen Technicians (RCTs)  !

s

~

also' attended the systems training. ~;

.

.

i

^~

.

sThe licensee's approach to the resolution of radiological

'

>

~

technical-is' sues'has generally been tschnically sound, J

'

thorough,.and' timely. ~ Radiological involvement in preplanning  :

for the'two refueling outages during this assessment period '

was good due,~in part,-to.the licensee's policy that ALARA l

,'

representatives routinely attend all outage meetings and the- }

, weekly planners' . meeting. : Control of access to radiological

77~ n~

'

controlled areas (RCA) by means of a radiation work permit t

(RWP) program was begun before the 1984-Unit 2 refueling .

'

-

, Joutage.' During this. assessment period, there was a significant

o-

'

improvementcin the overall: radiological control program.-

. Specific. improvement areas include: RWP, ALARA, whole body

_

,

frisking,' training,-oversight of contract personnel,  :

contamination and respiratory area reduction, staffing, i

self-reading dosimeter and film badge discrepancy review, 3

, s frequency of. surveys, monitoring and trending of radiological

H Loccurrence reports,' adherence to procedures,. procurement of ,

- new generation portal monitors, >new and more efficient laundry >

. ' facilities, design of temporary' shielding for outages, and  !

mock-up training. 'Significant: improvements have also been

~

'

,

, made in the airborne contro1' program, including additional i

, continuous air monitors,- half-face respirators were

. discontinued,; improved review method for air = sample analysis

'

~'..

results, and completion of whole body count evaluation '

guidance. No personal intakes exceeded the NRC action level  ;

'of 40 MPC-hours. ' Additional problems concerning engineered

safety' feature (ESF) filtration systems and certain TMI Action

-

Plan remain unresolved by the licensee. .-;

-

Personal exposures during this assessment period were about

'370 person-res per reactor in 1984, but are expected to

'

'"; ," '

increase to about 675 person-res per reactor in 1985 due to

'

' extensive Unit 1 and Unit 2 outage work. These exposures are-

'

i'

below the station avera

person-res per reactor)ge over the previous

and approximately equal tofive the years U.S. (700 ,

average for pressurized water reactors (550 person-rem per

.

reactor).  ;

Z

l 1

sc

-

,

g

.

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ ,

'

% ;# : _ g . ,

.;s;' 3qu, o. .

, . , , sp v. y, ,

y

p +', , .nm ,Es

.

' '

+ , , 9 . ,  :

cE .Ts ,,m . t- s

-

fg ..-

'

sy fNW ,

-9

f ,, -

. ,

.

,

-

_c

, jk? - .

'

gj <

'

'_ - ,

-

,

+-L *, _ -

'

Gaseousiandliquid/ radioactive.releasesremainedwithin .

'

,

,

l technical. specification limits during this assessment period.

"

However, during the third quarter of.1984,-the111censee, .

d_yA o '

exceeded the' technical socification quarterly liquid redweste

' release design objective. The licensee's liquid releases

'

n

'

<

'-

,

. increased significantly during this assessment period dueLin

+

,

,

'

~.

large part to the cleanup associated with a 1984 inadvertent

containment spray. system activation. . A new crystallizer'

'

' '

~

,

c y' (evaporator), expected to be:in operation by the end of 1986,.

' '

~ Lis expected to. improve the licensee's capability for processing -

r ' '

liquid waste.and allow reuse of water.from sources such as-

J:+ '

the auxiliary building. equipment and floor drains. -The solid

y '

,

radioactive waste volueestin 1984-and 1985Lwere significantly

fless;than in recent years, and the licensee has recently

, ,

. implemented a volume reduction program'and plans to begin

'

. + o . segregation of. dry active waste in the near future to reduce

'

the amount of-solid radweste further. . Other planned

1

a .,

'

lieprovements; include an interim redwaste storace facility,

, .' which is nearing completion, and plans'for inc'neration of dry

. e ' active waste in a contractor supplied incinerator. A warning'

',

x

'# was: issued in September 1985 by tha' South Carolina Department

• - .

~

of Health and Environmental Control concerning loose radioactive

weste in: shipping containers; the licensee took appropriate

'

n

W

.

. corrective action..'No additional transportation problems were

~

identified.

L .

.'The' station' performed very well in confirmatory measurements

,

,with 75' agreements'in 75 comparisons made in two different

'

Vinspections during the period. Licensee calibrations of the

'

gamma spectrometers used in these comparisons were current

and complete-and the licensee had verified consistency of

-calibration between the different detectors.

'

'

jinor problema. in'the annual.' report of the radiological

'

environmental monitoring program (REMP) were again noted during

,

,

this period. These problems, which involved d<screpancies

-between the annual REMP report and the offsite dose calculation

o manual, errors'in'nonroutine. reporting levels'and detection

' '

/ '

- limits, and differences:in-monitoring 1.ocations, were also

-

..noted during the.two previous assessment periods and are

' '

indicative of weak program oversight by the responsible

M <

corporate group. Following an April 1985 inspection at the

corporate office, the licensee took significant steps to

'

'

. strengthen the program,' including reorganization of the

,

'

x responsible group.to provide stronger review and oversight.

lMost'of the identified problems have been corrected or are in

,

,

,

the process of being corrected.

- .

,

jt

9

> 4L _

v

.

.L '12-

-

, ,

'

,,, -

-

m ... ,

r

I

4 sI' EN'

e.' _

-

.. t  !

.4. >

J

- -

. . - ,, ,

y ..

4

i ;k

- r

9 , ,

g .g 2.1 Conclusian

}> ~

-The Itcensee is rated Category 2 in'this area. The licensee  !

'

s ,

,

received a rating of. Category 2.in the last SALP period. An

improved performance trend has been. evident during'this  !

assessment period; additional improvement programs.were l

~

<

'

initiated near,the end of this assessment _ period.

.

3. - Board Recommendations .

, <

n ,  :

None.

!

C. Maintensnce ,!

'

' "

11.E . Analysis-

r

-

. Sixteen $inspectionswereperformedbytheresident-inspectors. <

of selected maintenance activities to verify these' activities 1

3' were accomplished in accordan:e with Technical Specifications, .

Quality Assurance requirements,- committed ANSI standards, and

-

.

,

,

, approved maintenance practices. In addition,.one other i

o inspection was performed by regional-specialists in this area. ,

Eight' violations were identified.as follows:  ;

'

,

(a) Severity Level V - Procedure Violation procedure  ;

authorizedbyMasterInstrumentMechanIcandnotby.  !

Station Superintendent (Inspection Report No. 304/84-12). .

<

~  ;,: ~

i

(b). Severity: Level IV - Inadequate' Procedure, procedure did  ;

not take into account system configuration durin

.

'

on RCS resistance-temperature detectors (RTD's) resultingg testing

in a reactor trip (Inspection Reports No. 295/84-12;

-Q - -

304/84-12). ,

i

e (c) Severity Level IV - Procedure Violation / Inadequate [

, Procedure, histables were tripped contrary to procedure  :

requirements resulting in reactor trip (Inspection Report

~

No 304/84 12).- ,

e  ?

(d) Severity Level IV - Procedure Violation, preventive and l*

- ~ corrective maintenance was performed without using a

,

procedure (Inspection Reports No. 295/S4-12; 304/84-12). -l

l

.(e) Severity Level V . Procedure Violation, work I

'

reauthorization from shift supervisor was not obtained  !

"-

.

,

as required by Instrument Maintenance Department  ;

procedure (InspectionReportNo. ~ 304/84-12). l

t

-

h

{

}

l

'-

., j

<

13 l

!

________-____--J

-. ~

-

l4 d. -

,

Da,h,[s%<[ N g , in '

,; ,

Q# i

'

jv , ,

,

l+ ? ';y * , a.

.

s

.

_

,

,

,

y -

3; <

,

, ,

' - ,

,c

<e;

'

? A c- '

i

'

~- L(f) Severity Level lIV " Inadequate' Procedure, procedure did.

not specify tolfilland vent Diesel Generator cooling'.

,

+

%p -

,  ; .

.

<

twaterJacketfollowingmaintenance-(InspectionReport:

M -

, ,

." - cNo. 295/84-23). ,

sn> t <

>

j

<

,

_. . . . .

4

- >

' '

t <

'

~ (g)lSeverity Level IV - Violation of License Condition,: heavy

~

<

iload moved over spent fuel pool (Inspection Reports- J

gy  ; '

1( , 'No.-295/85012;L304/85013).- l,

. m .

,

,

f(h);(SeverityLeve1 LIV--Inadequateprocedureandprocedure.

'

i ,b

'

,

>

violation, maintenance procedure for relief valves did

'

< 1

-

>

, . .

not' distinguish between two different types of valves .t

;; .' . .f_ >L 'n * -

1made by the same manufacturer, and component cooling- -!

% ' +p . , L relief valve nozzle rings were set 1 incorrectly (Inspection  !

W

p cy A '

,

,T

, 4

m..

. Report No.1295/85012).-

.

'

'

.

e ~ <, . Personnel errors 1such as' omissions or oversights contributed to ,

w@h m items e, e and g.--In these cases the licensee's corrective.

fy-y 9y >. :< 'y  ;. ,

actions were appropriate and generally timely. The remainder

,of:the~ violations involved weaknesses in the licensee's .  :

,

1.B , a- procedural controls in the Instrument Maintenance (IM) and

M,

,e

'

' Mechanical. Maintenance (M) departments. Although there has  :

,

- <

M- been'a.large increase in number of violations compared to the  !

W x y "

lastSALP' period,themajorityofthese(5)occurredinthe i

O" .

'

SIM area at the beginning of the period indicating that the  !

z 4

"

- ,  : licensee's corrective actions for IM practices appear to have

• x y -

. 'been effective. .

..

r,-,4 ,

The'IM department has. reviewed.and revised most of their 4

'

'

-

' .

n . procedures'to correct the deficiencies noted in the violations

1

^

- .i' -and to incorporate separate 1.ndependent verification provisions j

'

for instrument root valves and switches. Portions of this.

'

4

u

F9J procedure review and revision program have also.been applied.to

/ n M procedures. The M effort was not done in response to any  ;

" '

Lone-single event or events but due to a realization-that some ,

,%'a '

Lof the procedures involving maintenance (i.e.-' valve packing,

m,a relief valve setting; etc.) were inadequate. Specific M '

.. procedures mentioned in violations have been reviewed and ,

'

O1b W

,

revised as part of the licensee's corrective actions, and

h,,z. ,

r these" actions' appear to be appropriate. i

y

-

,

,

K The enforcement history during this period indicated that .i

,

'

, au _

Lmanagement" controls were in need of improvement.- In the area  ; *

' * >

of procedures, many-were outdated or.in need.of revision.

<f . In the past, there had been fewer events which resulted in  ;

, ,

. violations, as a result of either close attention to detail  :

m**> ,

by maintenance personnel, or fortuitous circumstances. As a

result of?the violations noted above, efforts which had been

l

'

y ' underway from the previous assessment period to feprove i

@' <

v. / procedural adherence ~and controls were increased. Revision  ;

'

of IM procedures is an example.

,  ;

s.

-

,

,

.

.

.j f .  !

}C

J

4

14 i

'

a ,; .

..

(

<fP i

e

"'

~ v:  :

w(m ' fe

- -- -

e- . -

.&~, ,. r i

!

_

$ 1gg ,,I f'

'

J -

..

,

,

'

w-

"t'- y

.

. O. .

m.

'

, , . , -

.

, . , ,

p Q7l ,_g -',_

,

,

y,

'

>

y,L _'

- P *' - 4

_,.

" ~

- 6 ,- ' ' .g LSeveralfpersonnel' changes'.were implemented in the 191 and IM

C 3 0epartments.c T hsC c hnges included'a new Master Mechanic and

,

,

, ,

x# - 1

T, - 2 'a new Master,xInstrument Mechanic (who is a formeriSCRE), as-

- N"W yn ;well as~new work" analysts (planners) in these departments.

-

,

<

.

>-

An assistant to.the head of the' Maintenance Department was also

added.- Theso individuals have considerable experience at the:

~

, ,

,,%' '"

'

-station, and these personnel changes are generally. viewed as

ifavorable. In addition, the licensee has provided SR0: license

' "

,

5 qualification for the Master IM,.EM and 101 to improve cross

c/o .'~

,

,'

training in the' maintenance department.

, .

~

Equipment reliability has.been good and is improving as

'

. <

;

'

,

. indicated by'the excellent. Unit'2 availability (99.$5) during.

m < cycle-8 and.the relatively event free return of Unit l'to

', service followinfi the refueling outage. Efforts to improve

J' , equipment reliab'lity-reported in-the previous assessment have

'

. continued and have been supplemented by a " Recurring Station

"

-

.

"

-

>~'

q  ; Problems. List" which highlights action plans for the ten most

significant problems. Only three reactor trips occurred which

',7 were directly attributable to equipment problems compared to

,

, , thirteen during the,last' assessment period. Two trips were-

,

• . attributable'to feedwater system control problems (feed pump-

,y , .

,

speed variations at full power and sluggish feed regulating

~

t j . valve' response at 205 power), and one resulted from a capacitor

failure in an. instrument inverter at 1% power. This is a

,; 'significant improvement over the previous assessment period.

'

A Durin

'

'

.(OVR'g this assessment

s) attributable perioderror.and

to personnel there were 17 Deviation Reports

2 DVR's

(1 ', fattributable to poor procedures.~ These DVR's vary.in safety

isignifica'nce.

i- h[ '

A preventive maintenance (PM) program was initiated early in 4

m. . -

.the. assessment' period to help improve equipment reliability.

L~'l

4, , .c

'

-

-The program includes a computerized list _of PMs which is used

.to produce a monthly list of PMs for the poi department. The

'

m licensee has encountered'some difficulty integrating this

4' additional work into the existing M work load.' IM and

electrical maintenance (EM) PMs are managed separately.

Because the program'is new and is not fully implemented, its

~

effectiveness to date has been difficult to assess.

T -

Control of the backlog-of outstanding work requests-(WR) in

-

' *, ,, the let department was improved by implementing a Total Job

u Management.(TJM) system.. The system helps manafie WRs by

M, enterinfl new WRs into a database by a number wh'ch uniquely

J identif es the equipment (EID number). When preparing to take

, ,

a component or system out of service for maintenance, the work

'

analyst checks the system for related WRs in order to make

,

more effective use of equipment down time. The 191 department

has used the; system for about a year, and because of the

j s improvements in WR management experienced by the 19ts, the

R ,

'

'

15

Y

J 6 t

[ .

_. ._ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..

r ,

e

_

..

.

). '

entire maintenance department was placed on_the system in

August of 1985. When work is complete, the data base is then

updated, and the completed WRs serve as machinery history.

) -Management of the department's work load in this manner appears

to have potential for significant. improvement of the total WR

backlog, i

2. Conclusion

The' licensee is' rated Category 2 for this assessment period.

The licensee was rated Category 1 in the past SALP period.

The Category 1 rating for the previous SALP is now considered

to have been too high due to information about maintenance

management controls gained during the current SALP period.

In addition, the trend in the NRC and industry is toward

increasing efforts to significantly improve maintenance

practices. The lower rating is based primarily on poor

enforcement history resulting from procedure control problems.

Management controls, especially in the area of procedures,

were improving.

3. Board Recommendations

None.

D. Surveillance

1. Analysis

Sixteen inspections of surveillance, calibration and inservice

inspection activities were performed by the resident inspectors

and seven inspections Nere performed by Region III specialists.

Six violations were identified as follows:

(a) Severity Level V - Procedure Violation, changes were

made to Technical Staff Surveillance Procedure 15.6.32-2

without the required approval (Inspection Reports

No. 295/84-21; 304/84-22).

(b) Severity Level IV - 10 CFR 50 Appendix J Violation, on

December 5, 1983 a Type A Containment Integrated Leak

Rate Test (CILRT) of less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> performed on Zion

Unit 1 was not in accordance with the requirements of

BN-TOP-1 (Inspection Reports No. 295/84-11; 304/84-11).

(c) Severity Level IV - 10 CFR 50 Appendix J Violations:

(1) Failure to establish a valid reason for the failure

of the first supplemental test performai 'a11nwing

the Type A CILRT of March 1981 and fai ed to perform

a successful second supplemental test of sufficient

16

y ~ c- o _s -

y , - ? .: , ,

'; :&n  ; *1 y/TCG A( 4>

.; * q'

,

-

'

.,

,

.

' ~gwb ,

,

, <

cp

.,

,, '[ %_3

,

g

,

'

"g .

14-

x. :.

i .. ' g-

4,-' . '

- - <

. duratioh, without the"need to arbitrarily post selectc

,

< < Y.the-destraddatasets,inordertoestablishthe-

,. ,

'

,

accuracyfoflthe Type A test-results.

',

n.

.

-

".* .s -

3 (2) In December /1983," failure to obtain, supplemental test

'

, f ,

'

' results witM3 0.25'It to determine the reason for .

,

this failure",'take c).rrective action, and perform a

n jr . satisfactory suppleme6tal test following the Type A

, ,

" "

test (Inspection Reports'No. 295/84-11;.304/84-11).

1'A.

T ' '

d,..(d)'SeverityLeve1~V-Lackof-Procedures,failuretohave-

administrative procedures or' documented guidelines.to-

,

/: assure the implementation of the inservice testing program

F  ? 1: in accordanee with Section XI of the ASME code (Inspection '

<

~ Reports;Mo.- 295/85002; 304/85002).

'i"~ '~

'

(e)l Severity Leva 1LV' 10 CFR 50'55a(g) Violation, obtaining

'; . . bearing. temperatures using a method at variance with the

^ code and neglecting to measure pump suction pressure as

,

m

j: delineated n ths code (Inspection Reports No. 295/85002;

'

, , <

m . ,,

304/85002). a

_

00 ' Severity Level V M 0 CFR 50' Appendix B,. Criterion XII

o-

_

,

'(f)' Violation, use of a noncalibrated, nontraceable stopwatch

in order to determine the acceptability of valve stroke

~ times (Inspec, tion Reportt No. 295/85002; 304/85002).

'

'

.

' '

._ ; . .

'

.e  :

<

, As a result of violations b.' and c. and of a meeting held

-

.between members of the-licensee, Containment System Branch of

'

NRR, and Region 111 staffs, it was concluded that Zion Unit 1

,

, cloak rate tests of 1981 and 1983 had not demonstrated-

"

.'_ ^

,

compliance with the Technical Specifications. Accordingly the

licensee shut down the voit on July 18, 1984. Satisfactory

7 >

Type A and supple ental tests _were conducted following the unit

m

, .

shutdown.- x' ,

,

i

,

w I ,

Theaove'vio1Ntions'showedthatmanagementinvolvementand

'

4~ . control to assure qLality, as well as the training

effeEtiveness andiqualification of the. staff performing the

" ~

1981fand1983.t.est,'weresubstandardasfollows: _

'o

^

'

. Commonwealth Edison Company had notified the Region !!!

. Administrator by letter, dated September 21, 1982 that

'

.

,

they were aware that in order to perform a slurt duration

< -

(less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) Type A test, the test must comply

, Swith the lechtel Topical Report, BN-T0P-1. The letter was

• '

applicable to the Zion station; however, those performing

-

the test,were unaware of the content of the letter,

• -

r

'

, ,

,

- i, *'

,t

17

"r

. _ _ 1

<

y <

-

"

g-

~ -

,

, ae- -q . +oe,

' *

• i-

^

"

} g;; , ;7 r ,

• ' Y f

.r, s > , 7e .

..y

, ,

x

. ,

-

p ,

-m .

'

. . . - .

q ,,

..

.

,,

~

, q

) iM 44 * #

• ~ ~

L* 'During'the:1983 supplemental test,ithe licensee connected

the flowmeter used to measure the superimposed leakage in

,'

, 4such^a way that a. pressure correction on the flowmeter

.

'

-calibration became necessary. The correction factor which ,

'

>

<

was used for the test was in error,.resulting in an "

A w ,

'

Linvalid test..

, ,

Two'LERs involving containment penetrations were inspected

' '

(LER 304/84005 and LER 304/84034). Both demonstrated

i ~

,  ; weaknesses'in management involvement and control in assuring

quality as.noted by:.

- 4

• M LER 304/84005'had to be revised three times before the'

h 9' ,

' actual penetration (2 DPT-RV85) leakage rate could be-

determined. This resulted in an Enforcement Conference

~

in Region III on September 14,:1984.

'o - LER 304/84034 was caused by the' licensee's failure to .

s jupdate their procedures to comply with the NRC's denial

" of an exemption request regarding containment. airlock

'f ,.

. leak rate testing.

E

1 Following'the problems identified in the July 1984 inspection

the licensee took steps.to standardize the procedures.

-

• '

<

. equipment, methods of data reduction, etc. employed by all '

'

Commonwealth Edison Nuclear Stations. This process is still in

Lprogress; however the licensee is no longer performing CILRT's

of short duration (less.than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) using unapproved data

reduction methods. :The licensee has also obtained the

appropriate equations and graphs from the flowmeter manufacturer

.to ensure proper use of correction factors when required.

t '

.

'

-These' actions continued to be effective as demonstrated by

. the successful completion of a CILRT in September 1985.

, ,

An in-depth inspection of the licensee's program for inservice

.

o=  ; testing of pumps and valves was performed by a Region III

specialist. ' Except for the violations noted above, the

licensee had fully implemented the inservice testing program

and was conducting testing in accordance with appropriate

a schedules and approved test procedures. Determination of

Joperability was made in a timely fashion; however, the licensee

,

"#

did'not-have administrative procedures in place regarding the

implementation and documentation of the practices and methods

,

'

used for the inservice testing program. The violations and

'

-

< problems identified in the inservice testing report appeared to

-

be due to. lack of administrative control of the inservice test

, t . program.

, One inspection by a Region III specialist reviewed the

inservice inspection (ISI) of piping systems, including a

review of the ISI program and procedures, equipment and

material certifications, personnel qualifications and selected

-

records of nondestructive examinations performed during the

o

18

,

4~ j

.. iv < ,

a

~

pc

~

gr -- 1

4:

,

, ,

_

-

-

z

mg y, , ,_

- 3., e, _

, ,

- . ,

J. '. u

~

.;

.; s,  ; .

r

DJ_anuary-to! June-1985frefuelingoutageforUnit11.and.theMarch

• h e ^ '

ya

to.Juneg1984 refueling: outage.for Unit 2. For the: areas

m gJ , 1 reviewed (theinspe'ctor;.determinedithatthe~ management l control

,

systems were'effectivelin:that: activities.had. received' prior

l planning and priorities 1had:been assigned. Activities were

'

-

9 '

.- _

~

.  ; controlled through the use of well stated and defined

-

, ; procedures. 3Records1were found to be! generally complete, well

- f". E maintained; and available. JThe: records also. indicated that

,  ; e equipment'and. material certifications;were current'and complete

<n av and;that ' personnel performingTnondestructive examinations were

_

A  %, properly. train'ed and ' certified. , p 4 a

m',' yy , n

Two1inspectionswereconductedbyaRegionIIIsp'ecialistwhich

,' .

'

coveredsurveillance(testingLrelatedtocoreperformance,.with

~a

p. n "

jemphasis;on:Unitt1 startup; testing subsequent to a refueling

?~ '

f : outage.4The ; inspections Sincluded : review ofs surveillance test

s y procedures'and~ test results. 'In the area of reloadistartup-

, , ' :testin'g'surveillances, staffing-levels appeared,to be adequate

and the.technica1' staff appeared to have an adequate grasp.of '

-  : technical issues. However, there is.a need for increased '

d'  %

' 7: ja.ttention to test:results documentation. For example, in two

e testiresults'p'ackages,3information related.to identifying' test

~ ~

E'

' -

.

-

instrumentation:was inadvertently omitted. :In .a second

, ,

- example, the" test evaluation for.the~ Doppler TemperatureL

'

-

'

Coefficientis'urveillance performed:on July 9, 1985, stated that

f.

'~

c ' Lalltdesign.and~safetyfcriteria were. net when.in fact, the

~

_

~

! Doppler'CoefficientLwas:outside of the desf3nLacceptance,

( z.

icriteita. band by a small. amount:(less than~1%). In e third

,

, ,: Texample,'the Unit 1 Cycle'9 startup: test packages were not-

"

asigred or dated to signify that the tests 1were complete to the

.

4. . E ,

,M Caxtent;necessary to satisfy surveillance requirements prior to-

L, - *

fproceeding with the.next phase of the reactor-startup. Taken

-

l pdividually,these'~ examples did not. appear to have any

.

,

,immediate safety. significance. However, collectively, these

b '

S ' examples; indicate the'need for increased management attention

m '

- in the area of reload startupitesting surveillances.

'

1. -

-A 1ampling of station deficiency reports (DVRs) showed that'the

_

4 . level:offaissed or improperly performed surveillances

• _ io'entified zin'the 'previ.ous SALP had essentially remained

. constant'over-this assessment period.

The increasds-

dA

1 observed during SALP 3 and 4 appear to have stabilized on a

llong: term basis.: However, the number of LERs submitted due

~

'

>

.

-

, lto missed'or improperly performed surveillances-had increased

" '

. ' at the end of this assessment period. Two of these LERs were

b

'

, <

~

Essbeitted as a; result of a-review ofiall surveillance

procedures;in-a study;by Westinghouse which is discussed.

nJi'_<

.

d _

1

.below.1:While the: missed.or , improperly performed surveillances

PEi, '

' were usually'not related'to each othePand were of minor safety

1 _

'

s sigedficance,1 there is an apparent need to improve the

' management and scheduling of non-routine surveillances. The

H' <

,

licensee has'.not:yet undertaken any majo'r efforts to examine

'these items collectively.

~

L;

p

-

>

-

_ hs-

'

, -

~f ;

.I

'

q. -

,

19 ,

~~

., .

t

,- k ~ S 4

."

.

s 1

,,

j_

~

<

w. ~_ f

- ~ ~

. + - >

o..

. -.

,

r .,,':

,

.

- At:the request of station management, the Westinghouse

_ Technical Staff Support Team reviewed the licensee's Technical

C ,

Specification (TS) and surveillance program in detail to

determine whether any TS required surveillances were not-

included in station procedures. The review was initiated in-

mid-1984; iResults of the review provided.information on

.  : deficiencies found in several' procedures. The deficiencies

-

.noted were of minor significance, however,.~ analysis of the-

results, which extended into the mid-1985, could have been more

,

, prompt. '

~A surveillance scheduling. system exists; however, surveillance

scheduling is.done by the'various' plant departments who perform

~

the surveillances. The establishment of a master ~ surveillance

.schedulo1 reflecting the status of all planned in plant

surveillance testing has been an open item since'1982, but has-

,

not been implemented.

As noted in'the.last SkLP, the licensee' performs' eddy-current

testing of 100% of

the steam generator (SG) tubes each

refueling outage 1(this' exceeds 7the T.S. requirements). This

p m -*

A-  :# _ : ,

l. sprogram combined with maintenance efforts to reduce air:

~

-

in-leakage"and secondary cation conductivity has g'enerally

, , produced excellent test results. However, excessive primary-

a to secondary leakage was identified 11n Unit 1 Loop B SG on

? September 10,.1985,- which resulted~in shutting down the unit.

h 71983feddy current' data was re-evaluated and in accordance with

-

Technical Specification 4.3.1.B.3.C.1, 1220. tubes were eddy

. current tested. The review of 1983~-data revealed that a

.pluggablecindication existed, but was missed during the

analysis. .All 40% thruwall indications; identified were

iplugged.

/ 2.' . Conclusion-

The licenseeI is rated Category 2.in this area. . Performance

_ , Lduring thelperiod was declining.

~

3. Board Recommendations'

The-licensee should increase efforts to reduce the number of

mis' sed or improperly performed surveillances, and initiate a

master surveillance schedule.

E. Fire Protection and Housekeeping

Analysis-

~

1.

. ,

'" i ~ v  ; Portions of. sixteen inspections were performed by the resident

'

, inspectors on. licensee activities in the area of implementation

.of the existing fire protection and housekeeping programs to

' ^

-

, 20

z

2. - a

_

. - . - - ---

'

?-  % A \ .

v ) f

, i_ { . y-

, , ,4 -

-

n=

My y@ s , _

'

'

-

'

}

bh W f ,

~

4 - -

-

. .

"

. .. - .. . _

.

. >

-

,

Lverify,that activities were performed in accordance with--

.b ,J, '

Technical: Specifications and. applicable procedures. .One

g,

,.

.

,

_

.

TViolation'was identified as-follows:. i

[' .

'

.: jSeVerNyLevel/IV'-[ProceduriViolation,failuretocontro11 .

_, ,

,; , cans of flammable and combustible mate' rials (Inspection _ Reports?

gy

,

' -

No.:295/84-13;1304/84-13). >

_ . -

,

'

,

V UTheIlicenseepromptlyremovedthe^cansnotedaboveandrewrote

,,;'~ V ' '_ >- '

i their: procedure;which governs-thelcontrol. of combustible..

material s'.. This1was a repeat of a similar violation noted'in

'

,'

4

J

_- 'the previous 4 assessment: period. Since the licensee responded.

'

-

,

.

%

-

t -

to the item above:no further violations;of this nature haveL

' '

' .# ,

-

- been noted. _

, ,

' ~

-In addition', during;this-assessment: period one.special taan .

Dinspection was' conducted by Region III personnel to assess the

'

,

-

'

..

" ,

j 'as-built,plantjconditions and;the implementation of certain.  %

A , ,.interial compensatory measures 1taken by the licensee to. assure ,

'. safe shutdown capability until compliance with'10 CRF 50.48

'

3

,

. -

. ,

and Appendix.R to 10 CFR 50.is achievede .A review of the.

$&-,

e

9,br, =. - .j"

~ ~

licensee'syimplementation of certain Appendix R. requirements

'

land evaluation of: physical conditions associated with Appendix-

~

'

-

'R exemption requests;by the licensee was also made:during this - ~

y , ,

-

inspectionf Prior tofthis inspection,'it was known 'that both - --

1 . 1, -

-

.

(Zion units!were not meeting the requirements of 10'CFR 50.48(c).

.

,, <and Appendix RLto.10 CFR 50. lDuring this inspection', it was '

w .

--determined that the licensee isimakingLa good faith effort'at-

m

'

"

- - ,

completing those' actions-believed necessary:to ach hve~ i

~. - ' '

-

icompliance with_10_CFR.50.48'and Appendix-R in a timely 1

- *@

'

,

'

fashion. JThe interim compensatory measures taken by the .

,

,A

f' '

licensee provide >a means to safely place.both units in a stable

' '

. 4 hot.shutdownicondition'following a fire. Therefore, it was

% -

determined thatEa' decision'will be made on' potential ._

Lenforcement? action rep rding the licensee's failure to meet the

' '

' ,

.

-

i^

"

, - - ~10.'CFR'50.48(c) schedule for. Appendix R compliance following

~

.

s, a NRR's'-review of the licensee's re-analysis for final ~ Appendix R *

icompliance.

' ~

%-

].G

aI w "

I 'ADecember,21,-1983 NRC? letter to the~ licensee responded-to the

? ' llicensee's. November 21,s1983-schedule exemption request for

,

,

certain_ Appendix.R. requirements. This NRC-letter. recognized

W' that both Zion Units would=be' in' violation of the ,

S '

schedule for the period of time: extending

('

..

~ '

_

.~, s10

LfromCFR expiration 50.48(c)"ofithe existing deadlinestuntil NRC< approval

.

offa revised schedule for.the implementation of Appendix R'

%w&

,

1

>

S

Emodifications. Therefore, no further action was.taken as'a

A is .+~n., ', - dresult;ofjtheinspection.

.  ?

,

-

,, . .

, - ,. ,

. ,

7 m 1 ;An: assessment was'not made during this period of the licensee's

.  :

- '

? compliance with those aspects of:the fire protection program

+

i _

which cre covered by 10 CFR 50.48(a), Criterion III of Appendix

TA to 10 CFR 50,;and Appendix A to NRC Branch Technical Position

'

. 'APCSB 9c5-1.

' _ y,. .

'

, ,

~

h 4

,

21  :

fig

m

g[I -

-

..

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-- - -

_ .

p~ g .1 , -

-

v. m

.

., . d..' <

.

-

n

,

-

,

,,

.

_

j. : , .,s < ,

. x. ' *i .g ., . - m

,

1.-h,, .v l y -,

.

,

, . m , .

a- g

-

,

,

_x.e ~

4

Y licenseeiconstructediaL"smoka house,"Lincluding a mazel

"

,

' i .. . . .. .

T ihere' members of,theifire brigadeb using breathing apparatus,

7 _  ; ' receive training under simulated. smoke conditions.

N -

,

A =The: licensee's. housekeeping in the1 auxiliary building and

-

elsewhere in;the plant has improved throughout the assessment-

fperiod. . Contaminated _ areas are tracked weekly'and the; total is

'

,

plotted graphically.

iThroughout the period contaminated areas

'N

' '

J ,

'

have been maintained between 3500.and 6000 square' feet except.  :

.

cm s

'

for refueling outages.' ?This is about

fcontaminated.areainthe<previousasse; half:ofthetotal: ..

_ ,

.

'

, . s ssment period; ; Fluid 1'

,

yleaks'have been' controlled more closely, and improvement has

o, . .

been noted.especially in the. areas of.the component cooling. ~

Xm '

,

7 pumps..around service-water, valves,-and.inc.the crib house!

~

,

, nH .The licensee.should continue;these improvements in fluid' leak'

~

'

'

.

,,-

r. eduction.

- . . ~

~

'

'

1 Thezauxiliary building 'has been

1

somewh'at cluttered between

M_ . outages due to equipment _ stored in the: hallways, but the

A'- , l equipment 4has n'ot hindered: access to vital equipment. , Examples

~

~

,/ ~ include,: welding ^. machines, tool' boxes,Lscaffolding materials,

eMM =hydrostaticitest pumps, other equipment'and radwaste barrels.

.~y

-

The flo' ors are usually swept, but fixed' dirt and accumulations

.

l

,

- ~ '

, lof debris 1 detract from the overall; appearance'. Small. piles (of

• ; swept up dirt and material scraps.'can be found in cornersLand

L

-

"

'out of,the,wayLplaces. 'Many-areas are in need of repainting

.

K '. ~

duetowornorchippedpaint.ifMasonrywalls;arenotpainted

- ~.- o< ,

~

torisealed.except near the' floor. Lighting levels are low ~in-

my cf ;

_

e

several;: areas.~especially(in diesel generator rooms. Thef

-

-

111censeelhad been slow to make tic efforts.to improve

F c  ; housekeeping,o but1has recently"programmaimplemented a major effort to-

urelamp',< repaint,'and remove clutter from the auxiliary building.

'

pf' ,

- .

,

If }-

"

-

I2. fConclusion

~

The licenseelis rated a Category 2. Performance'in this. area  ;

_.' ~

'~

~ iremainedithe same.

'

>

,

.

. .

'

f, ,

-

..

_,

,

~

f3. 1 Board: Recommendations

"

>

P , -None.

. ,

'

F.,' Emergen'y c P'eparedness

r

- -

N j 1. ' Analysis'f _

!

P/

^ '

.

lThrer inshections wsre ' conducted duririg -the period' to evaluate

.. m

-

- the:following-aspects of the licensee's emergency. preparedness

+ c

'

, ' program:4 emergency detection and classification;' protective

-

^

'

- action decision-making; emergency. notifications;: emergency;

'

communications' systems; shift' augmentation provisions;' -

emergency;preparadness training';.offsite dose assessment;

'

4 m, m ,

1

r.., g

$

Y  %

. d.;- - F F

F_

p

LC.D ' $ :_ <

_~ __,__

'

QA q* , '

. '

,

- _

'

j

s. , , ,

. , .,

4

_

- ]h bf - ,

'

,

'

,

..; .

m ,

.

. . .

'%- .. : .

.w~, <

,

_ .

. .

m ;publicLinformation program; independent audits of emergencyI .  : ,

' .preparednessU and implementation of; changes to the program. One 7

o

,

inspection: involved the observation of the annual exercise.

?m 50ne-SeverityfLevel:Vviol'ation.wasidentifiedduring.these .

'

'

'

-

, s -

y,f inspections.: The' licensee failed to conduct an assembly and

accountability' drill within an' annual-period (Inspection"

~

~"5 ^

Ri - -  : Reports'No. 295/84-10;.304/84-10).

'

m ..m .

.

m. . .

'

M iThe:severalL corrective actions were promptly completed.~ .The ,

E .

violation was not indicative of a programmatic breakdown in.

i

,

n i. . l drill: scheduling.'

w

'l' , , .= Independent: audits of the.; emergency preparedness program sere

4,

' -

adequate in' scope, depth, and frequency.E Audit 1 records were

& complete'and well. maintained. Although.all . inventories of. ' '

-

.c _ emergency supplies were conducted at the required frequencie's,-

1. g,, inventories were not always adequately documented-per ' '

m 5 . - procedures. : Increased attention to inventory recordkeeping is

'

,- :needed.

~_ ,

~

Mg M _

-

'

lD'uring' the rating ' period the licensee improved its capabi_lity

b'

R

' 'o ' '

' -

to monitor. efforts on current corrective actions by

reinstituting.an effective tracking. system. Administrative

,

s

,

.-~

,

-procedures were: adhered to.regarding the: preparation, review,

m .and distribution of the emergency plan and its' implementing

'

' 4

1

procedures. Revisions to the-plan and procedures were~

~

-

.  : consistent:and:did:not degrade their effectiveness.

'

As evident from. observations of the 1984 and 1985 emergency

, V  ? preparedness; exercises,.the licensee has generally.been ,

4 responsiv'e tolNRC concerns and has: implemented acceptable

< cw '

improvements O The~most

notable' exception was the repeat '

" " '

W .. exercise observation that persons collecting post-accident-

, _

samples were provided with1 inadequate communication equipment.

w w < 1The licenseeihasn recently completed adequateicorrective'

'me'asu'res'to resolve this problem.

~ '

&.

,1 , - - . - , , , . ~

'

2During several+ inspections the staff identified a number of

<< ,~l -

Emergency; Action Levels 1(EALs);which the licensee l agreed'should

be. reworded lfor clarity or reevaluated for appropriateness of

~

-

.

N  %  ; associated emergency classification. The licensee's corrective

Q:!1 ' 1: ' . action approach,'which was to. address these EAL concerns as

v- C part of:a taskiforce. effort to improve-.the EALs of all its PWR

'

sites,.was sound-and thorough. However,-the expected.results.

,

have'not been received by the staff in a timely manner,'and one- -

,

. - due 'date' extension has already been granted. ; Another exception- '

,4

'

>

'

to the' licensee's typical responsiveness ~ involves the

' ~

JO s. acquisition' of :real-time wind speed-and direction data by

.

1. -

' '

iControl Room: personnel following an emergency declaration. . The

,

~ staff had recommended in several inspection reports that these

-_

'

,

' data be time-averaged and be representative of conditions

-

nearer the ground. Control ~ Room readouts of such data are now

available via computer terminal from the licensee's nearby.

u.

<

23

' '

,

,

4 w v

$+- a _-%...#...M_+,,~,4,,J.,-. -

. .. .....-r...-__,. , ,,,......_,,.,%,- , ,,,,.,m,,,.-.v.,m.-., _m, , .

< q

• ^

x(B, e .

, ' g ._,, 4

-

-

. .

' : '

, _

_

,

.\

- s:.y . <-

,

y,, ,

,

'

g:3 ,cM G < ^ g ,

,

• r

.' ~

, , , '

, - c

-

, ., f: lo . g,. , . , , .

_ . ,

,

Q ^? y  ? meteorological tower.' Nevertheless, walkthroughs indicate that ~

S1 ~  ? personnel continueLto obtain'this data from1 instantaneous

~

-

L

-

1. x s . . u . Treado'utsfof;other sensors mounted atop the Unit 1 containment,, 1

V .

'* . m, "which can~be very misleading.in.providing;information regarding l

e y 1 actual; wind; direction inilow wind speed condition.

'

' '

-

4

-

1. .#

@ J~ <

JThe licensee has forms 11y responded to other staff concerns in ~

R, :a timely mannert. The complete exercise scenario package was.

y, ;/ . ~ f

- e

.

,

sprovided:for technica1' review by the submittal deadline.

b :,_ '

^

reques.ted.

~

; '

' Records" associated with'actualfemergencyl plan activations since

'

", X Ls _ early 1983: indicated that.al.1 situations were_ properly

-

.

'

- a  ; classified.1 The NRC:and States of Illinois:and Wisconsin were.

i

"

" sinitially notified'of these emergency declarations in a timely

1 * _ ,

-

. manner. 1 Notification timeliness improved during the period,

-

--

n ' 4. ' ,

<particularly after improve'ments were made.to the dedicated

T ,

1,

u o

.' ,

communications equipment used_to contact State agencies.

~ * Thsilicensee,has maintained a prioritized roster of adequate

( ' ,, , numbers of qualified personnel to fill.well-defined, key

AMJ% J '

~

' " '

-

positions;in thel emergency organization.~ : Semiannual, off-hours

..

~

' drills have~been conducted to: test the capability to augment

'on-shift personnel in'a timely manner. However, the licensee

~

- -

'" ++

. . -

4 - . Idid not ; adequately; evaluate :1985; drills as successful or

S' _

<

'T un' successful. TheLstaff~ determined that:the mosterecent drill

y . was. unsuccessful and requested that the licensee repeat the. i

j  ; sdrill.~ The licensee needs to place greater emphasis on

- 4

-

ensuringithat:itiadequately; evaluates emergency' drills'.

~

. D' >

,

N; .

. , ,~~

J, ,

."- M -

tProficiency.of persons assigned'toithe onsite emergency. .

-

h _ ,.  : organization has largely been main _tained through annual

g

^

w % ,1 required re'ading of relevant procedures and participation in

.q g'

- '

>

Edrills and' exercises. _The;1icensee has generally ensured that ~

s ',

-

-

'both primary and: alternate. personnel assigned.to key positions

-

• -have.had.drilliand' exercise. experience. Reviews-of adequately

g' M " detailed training records, exercise observations and-

,m

W '

'

.

walkthroughs.' indicated that individuals had completed training

requirements and adequately-understood.their emergency duties.

f1 '

-

=However,{the 1.icensee has'not.taken full advantage of drills

- m as; training mechanism. For example, the 1985' assembly and

< .

., . ~-accountability drill was conducted on a weekend, when few

se ',

'

,

jpeople.were available to participate. -One demonstration during

-. ,f~ 1985: exercise wasfals'.used o to satisfy a. semiannual Health

kJ "" .

.

>

, 1 Physics .dri11 ' requirement, 'although exercise participants could

1,- '

not- receive on-the-spot correction from evaluators,'as would be

,

,' - l allowed during. drills. The licensee should place greater i

_ &/y ' . ,, importance on obtaining the maximum training benefits from ,

• y#  % . periodic emer'gency drills, rather than mainly seeking to

F -

satisfy drill requirements.

y _; -

m

g,- .

u  !

,

[ - ' .p,

m

h. g<< .

24

-

.

,

g',  ; q, 4

'

- . - .

- - - -

-

-

,

~ =^ w ,. , -

'y .-1"

.

, '~~

D

}w %

"

Q, W- . W - j. ,

,

~

qj$gf. a)

gh ;y , , _ c ,

,

s

,

y , , , g: . 4

_p ~, s g

-

,

%t m - , -

m ys ;

: -

, ,

W;, ,W

, .

' ' - +

,,

, ,

s i m

-

-

y_ .

- .

,

-

s, , - ,

N -

N _

22.3 LCon'lus'c ion: -

>

'

'- "

n -

• -

.

,

V lq ,

- iTklicens'ee[isiratedlCategory2?inLthis. area. Improved _-

>-< . .

_ iperformance was? evident ^during the rating period. .

.

v v.

,M - 13. ' Board Recommendations-

,. ,

• ~ <

' Nones

,

,.

' ' '

. _ LG. LSecurity;

,

.g - - .

,

'

1.~ UAnalysis- ~

'

'

M

'

Four securitp. inspections'(three routine;andLone.-sp~ecial) were

H y , ,

q t .  ; completed:byRegionLIIILspecialistsduringthe. assessment

period. t In_ addition, the resident inspectorsstoutinely._.

~

4 -

< 1 '

c y" 'iconductedLobservations;ofLsecurityl activities. The'special-

', '

Sinspection; involved:a review ofian allegation that security'

'4_ <

,

,' ~1 .: officers.were-verbally-' ordered by.their supervisor;to violate a

~

4 2 security directivei The. allegation was notLsubstantiated. No

7 N '

violations

werefidentified during the SALP period.-

i'n ;;::a  ?= N , .. .,

tThe' absence-of violations can be attributed to station

'

1 E -

1. ; management'sia' c tive involvement in the1 security decision making

,

l '"

,

-

!processjand in the strict 1 enforcement of station; security.

,

,~ s spolices. ?These; polices,_which are.well: stated and .

-

'

,

J - -understandable, received wider disseminationLin this; assessment' '

.

,~

'

period 1through theidevelopmentiofia comprehensive,' practical

'i ,

^

isecurity guide;forxthe .employe'e. 'This -guide contains -all

- appropriate ; security _. instruction ~s,' rules,iregulations', . -

-

M ~ '

'

! ' questions / answers,_ security ~ telephone' numbers, etc. that have

i' '

1- - been found tolbelveryzuseful' especially f.or new employees. ,

'l

~

,

iThe number offsecurity-related: personnel errors hasE

- , -

significantly, decreased asia ' result of the distribution of

~thiscguide.

~

i i ,. ~

n- ~ -

s

. 3 1

4 Station management'hast b een very' supportive of the program-

'

, s. ~  ; , .

~

J .m .and has1 demonstrated this; support in a number ~of ways.-

Z '6" 1 Adequate explosives 1and x-ray machinesfwere-replaced with

2

g>'m W , -." state-of-the-art'? : equipment ~ lThis replacement has .

,9 ' # substantially reduced-maintenance, improved the overall y

N (efficiency of the_ access control _ facility, and has upgraded

~

. ,

,

j.

'

the moral:of the' security force. ~ Additionally,_the licensee

% ,

.

^

installed an "Alternata Perimeter. Alarm Report System: and

i tincreased the height"of:the protected a_rea barrier, actions '

~

. -

.which exceeded. security plan commitments. Additionally, the

..' . - m Y clice'nseelupgraded the security computer system:by performing ,

• f1 .

x . .e iextensive-hardware and' software changes which hasresulted in

- + ; a, s ashighlyLreliable. system as' evidenced by few computer failures

" '

c

'

during the assessment period.

,

1. 7 y

-

-

, c; ,

s .

%.,

..

" ' ' '

.

,  :: , 25'

, . .

.

~

/ W 's

e,- q l- _ x

~ ~

~

~

( N[lin g f' .

'

-

W

'

y * ,, ,

~ , f  ;- , ,. .

~ '

.y

'

}; '

"

,,

"  % i. 4 ; , V i

sp - -

'

,

. ,, ~. .

. ~ ~ '

T .,

Corporate management'siinio1vementi witir onsite)adtivities1has -

W% -

,

significantly; increased during this' evaluation period through

1the: establishment ~of':the? Senior ~' Nuclear Security Administrator

9,. . -

'positi_on. iThis corporate-position has: strengthened:

~

. ,

a > -

+

ccommunications betwecn the: site:and the' corporate office and

-

.

'

t ihas~ assisted in.~ achieving consistency among the licensee's.

J 4

nuclear stations.-

_ ,

s 4

^

_ :TheNdependentauditsconductedbythelicens'ee'sQuality -

EAssurance' Department were timely and satisfied security plan

<

c 4

' ; commitments. ;During this: assessment period,cthe Station

y e -

-  : - 1 Security, Administrator established a' internal audit program.

O -

within'the security. organization. -This program has been;

f '"- . ieffective;in: identifying program' deficiencies and assuring that

' *~ records'are: complete and_well maintained. cCorrective actions

N #

'toEidentified problems wereftimely and' effective. These

~

,

_

,

internal auditsiare conducted on a-continuing ~ basis. ,

~

, ,

(There 'were no techriica'1:-issueslinvolving physical security from -

,

ia safety aspect which required. resolution during this-

- assessment period.

%=z @ 7 ..-x

w

Thelicen'see has provided technically sound and thorough'

responses to-NRC identified concerns / weaknesses-such as the.

t ~ 1- 1 development of a? comprehensive-drill program, a management

'

review of the' Training'and Qualification Program and a rotation.

~

'

7 program for protected and vital area locks.-

~ '

,-

7 -

iThere were noviolationslidentified during _the second-half of.-

thefprevious'SALP assessment period. There were no violations

'

1

-

G- .

< 'identifiedLduring the current-SALP period. Licensee-identified

N minor violations were'not repetitive and were not indicative of

Corrective. action was prompt and.

'

-

'

> " programmatic breakdown.

,

-

} effective.

< Events,1 reported lunder .10 CFRL73.71, were. properly . identified,

"

Janalyzed, and'promptly. reported. In this assessment period,.

t J .

thetnumber of reportable events significantly decreased,

.

w fattributable to improvements made to the security computer, and

'

V , to=the licensee's research efforts'which led to the development

-

. , M~-

'

of;a mechanica1Lmodification that eliminated the possibility of

O*. -

~

unlocked' vital' area doors,'the cause'of may of the previous

. reportable events.-

, ?

&+ - . Positions within~the' security organization are properly

-identified,-and'a'uthorities and responsibilities are adequately

'

.

' defined. Security force overtime is minimal. There is good

-

-

~

-

communication between the licensee and the contract security

'

[ " t ." . organization. Turnover within the security force is not

R -

~

significant. The. training and qualification program has made

- .a positive contribution to the security officers' understanding

,

-

of-procedures' and post orders.

_

V

,_

. 3

' ' ^

. 26

m

Is

--

~; y -

,y-

4 <

=.

-

,e

"

W -

3 ,

' ' '

^ [q t.. ,

( .. ,-

7p: py ^

,

G c *

_ - ,

' >

.c

^

s ,

/ -

F ~~

[ ,

,# , . ,

'

m+ , , In~ summary,(the aggressive mana'gement involvement ;in thes

• ~

< ,isecurity; program noted during the~second half-of the last-SALPJ

/ fevaluation,icontinued;throughoutthecurrentevaluation~ period,

s "; . ~

,

~

,,s

rThereJwere.no' violations ~' identified ~-in'the;second half of the

"Wf S, slast::SALP-period and L in the current' period.

'

'

Licensee. efforts

din the; upgrade of the security. system have~ prevented violations-

-

V( - '

'

cfrom occurring'and1 improved the overall efficiency ~of.the

_. - -

Loperation. . Communications-between"the site and corporatei

W^ '

security office were significantlyfimproved.L Management-has.

.

?- ,-

'

[ assured compliance with=the' security program by the_ improved.

disseminationLof policy guidance to allLemployees,and the .

, - ' ' -

jstrict;enforcementofsecurity. procedures. The' development of'

, .an ongoing: internal audit program has-been'effectiveJin'the

-

lidentificationlof potential: problems that could lead to

~ ~

- -

w ~

violations'.

f

"

'-c

42. l Conclusion'

' ~

Thblicenseeisrated? i Category 1inthis' area'. .This is'an

is .

.

-

. improvement from the. Category 3 rating in the last.SALP.

^-

LPerformance'during.the period' remained the same.

e .,u; a 4,L . ,

.

3.

~

'

.

< ' Board Recommendations,

,

as_ -

_

1'- None.

~w

. . . ,

-

m_ *

[H.- Refueling: Activities-

7 . ,

,

~~

-

1  ? Analysis =

' ~

^

-TwobinspectionsofTrefuelingactivitieswereperformedduring

. 'the: assessment' period covering direct observation of refueling

activities, verification-or refueling. equipment operability

'

,f <

.~

, . .*

.. procedures used-for.-fuel handling, surveillance: testing,

,,

" sverification of containment integrity,3and followup of

significant' events. One, inspection was performed by,the

1" .J' resident l inspectors and one was. performed by a' Region III

<m., 1 specialist.-~;No violations were: identified.

-

_-

_ s

~

lThe.in'spection activities-included a review 'of training plans

'_

>

~ ?and' records,1 fuel-handling and equipment check out procedures,

'n'

. verification of, refueling equipment operability and

' * , isurve111ance E

testingenew fuel-inspection results and

'

observation of fuelchandling activities. -The licensee

'

completed thejrequired training and established cleanliness,

.g (communication,-and. material accountability-controls to support.

core

alterations which were conducted in a ' safe and expeditious

'

& }

,

9 -

y .  : manner. .q , ,

o.,

>

.

- 3 '

I ~

,

'

LThe: licensee's performance in the~ area of refueling activities

Leontinues/tojbe good. As stated in previous SALP reports,:a;

. specific strength of theilicensee is:the existence'of'a

.

~ '

.

,

~

_ ipermanentyrefueling group which is responsible for all

~

,

, ,

'4

- .

y

Q97,

r

-

<

%.O; .a

.

__

, , ,

- - . .

s

'M m , 3 r .; oF.

~

, y+

Ji; 7 ;n , 3 ; f

o G^ ,* ;L

g,-~'gd -- .

.

,

_;~ ^ . :3 , % i. uV '%" - '

~

'I

r e t. .

~ ~ , ,

,

-

.i

' * ~ '

- . < . . . , . . . . ,

W a'. ~ ;. " 1 activities.! involving'the handlingiand_ storage'ofinew and_ spent-

~

c: m : fuel. :Theig~roup?can thus: maintainL a highilevel Lof ~ knowledge ?

'

of;theLrefuelingequipmentand. procedures.,ThiswJsfapparent

-

-

-

y

i' ~, . ,N duringlfuel;1oading that included! inspection of fuel to be1

reused:and'manipulationLof bowed fuel ~ modules,with'aiminimum:

c

'

,J s

'

,

.

sof. problems. All:: operations were conducted in accordance with

M TechnicaliSpecifications and approved procedures. :The conduct-- 4

j ,

.

• . :of Lthe overiall refueling:effor_t Lindicated prior. planning and -

, (productiveicommunication'between'groupst

, ~ !One1improvementtol Generating'Op'erating. Procedure;(GOP)2

"P1 ant 1Startup"'wasTnoted. The GOP now explicitly lists the

'

'2 -

. L

"

(physics. testing procedures dsed for initial criticality. .These

_

e  : procedures govern initial criticality for.the first startup on'-

-

M ,- 3, - T- . a new core.' This and other changes ~have added clarity to the

-

procedure.

'

l -

,

'

. -,

1 !2. cConclusion-

'

s -

'

The' Licensee" continues to be rated Category 1 in this-area'.

< - . Performance,in this area remained the same.

%2 Q* : w &

> s3; "B'oard Recommendations

-

,

~

,y LThe~ Board recommends reduced NRC inspection'. activity in.this.

1

'

,

area.

fQuality! Programs and' Administrative Controls

^

1~ -I.

• '1. fAnalysis'.

.-

• ~' I LQualityAssurance-(QA)-programs _and general administrative -

- K controls were routinely assessed during the' period in the

sixteen resident inspections. iThese' inspections-covered

~

.l adequ'acy o_f procedural controls, procedural _a'dherence; _ _

attendance..at corporate'and; site QA-exits, discussions with

,

plant 7and QA management and:supervisoryTpersonnel,.and followup:

% -

of events = including root cause determination and corrective

'

actions. Four Lin~spections were conducted by Region III

~

.

/ specialists during:this assessment ~ period. The inspecthons-

o reviewed the; adequacy:of-operational.' quality assurance programs

- - tin the areasaof design changes and modifications, offsite

-review andLinvestigative function .offsite-support staff,

E

'

'

nonroutineLr'eporting,' audits, surveillance testing, and

" procurement. activities.- Seven violations were identified as

., .

x ,

-follows:

y w , _

f~ n (a):; Severity Level IV - 10 CFR 50.73 Violation, failure to

'

an

ym .g -

'

~

^ issue a LER following a gas decay tank release (Inspection

M; LReport No.'304/84-12).

w

.

- W j

. -

, ,

T , 28

~ , ,3 3 -

.

3

r - Ik b : , : ,

,'.

~

W

,

9 p?

n;, ;' y ;;;  % {' ,'

,

"' '

y , ~

,

? - -

,

,

, 5(b) HSeverity . Level -IV :10 CFR 50.73 -Violation, ' failure Ao

,

~

, 1 issue a LER following.aireactor. trip when'both source

"

4, s. range. fuses:were pulledL (Inspection Report No. 304/84-13). -

-

c . _

.. ..

1. '

(c) -Severity

Level IV -110 CFR.50 Appendix B, Criterion XVI-

M.', y^

, m ' Violation,'two examples of failure to take corrective

' "

action:

.

J .

i(1) 'A~ Quality _ Control (QC) inspector failed to. implement

J6 ~ ccorrective a'ctionito restore.atrelief valve! nozzle

NF

'

ring.tofits proper *po'sition atla-QC hold point, and

4

-

- -

,

_ .

.(2) rFailure tosidentify root.cause of.an inoperable:

@T w -

, 1 ' ; safety?related s'nubber (Inspection Report,

~ '

r 2 No'. 295/85012).! t -

' -

., ' -

i

5/ .

.

(d); Severity Level IV '10 CFR 50.73 Violation,- failure to .

c, >  % .

issue a LER following a. reactor trip (Inspection Report

,

,

.

.' . '

' No.- ~ 304/85019).

_ . -(e),JSeverity Level IV;- Inappropriate procedure,' failure of

nW- "

'a 'La1 hydrostatic test procedure to include;the latest

4 ~~ revision ofsthe system valve lineup (Inspection Report

- < ' ' ^

LNo.1295/85020).

I '

~

-

1(f) Severity Level IV-- Procurement activities not carried

'

1 .out in accordance with QA manual (Inspection Reports

'No.L295/84-19;;304/84-20).

_

'

'M ._ (g) : Severity: Level-IV.- Failure to. ensure safety, injection

',

pump conformed to procurement documents:(Inspection

- ,  ! Reports-No.'.295/84-19; 304/84-20).

2 ,

.

-

_ .

m w -Items a.,ib., d.', and. item.f. in section'IV.A.- (Plant

} 10perations) were violations of reporting requirements. - The

repetitive nature offthese-violations indicates the need for

, 2 prompt 1 management attention to ensure that regulatory

' - '

requirements-for providing' timely notification.to_the NRC

'are. net. Item e.Jinvolved~an inadequate procedure which

was subs'equently revised.. :In' addition, the: administrative

procedure'for procedure-development.and revision wasichanged

~

~ ~-

'

's to require _a reviewfof related procedures.

I. t

N .

Item c.1shows two~ examples of failure to take corrective

s _

action. .'In one case,:an ; inexperienced QC inspector signed for

,r-

"

a QC hold point even-though.the procedural requirements were

.not met.__ He was instructed regarding the importance of

~

,

' ~

.

'

. ensuring that either the conditions of the hold point are to

7M

be= met, or

a proper procedure change is to be obtained. The

~

- _ 4; ..

failur'e to identify the root cause of the inoperable snubber -

was--_ attributed to an inexperienced engineer investigating the

~

-

_

+ tcause:of the event combined with an inadequate review.

-

,

,

4

j s

'

" ~

-

.

~ :w . c .,

'

,

g Tl . .

-

_.

.' Q " .' -

' .

., ,

'

tItems"f. and g.'were.vio1'ations of procurement requirements.

JThe firstlinvolvediprocurement' activities which had not been

'

?carriediout?in accordance with policies' defined in the~

,

'

> - . ;1icensee? s-QA 'manurl._ . Documented examples'.of this violation.

. . 2 included (1) spare parts'and replacement.equipme'nt'and~

.

- u> ,A _ components;which were not purchased to equal'or better .

-

_

-

[ requirements-than.the original, (2) purchase.ordersLwhich did-

<

'

V. - ~ ' ' '

enot require-the-supplier to-submit.their nonconformances which

'were:dispositioned."use-as-is" or repair,_(3) purchase orders

,

• ' u --which did not invoke.on the supplier the responsibility to .

-i4

~

. - -

review commercial grade or previously approved' safety-related

- -.

7 * Mitems' forts'uitability of application,' and (4) afpurchase order

'p , m o for the;safetyjinjection pump which didinot identify.

s V '

nonconformances, radiographs,~ weld, and NDE procedures which

iwere required to be submitted!and the method of disposition of

'

m

1 _. --  : those , records 1which the ;vendora retai ned. The second_ violation

'"

_- -

.

'

', documented'thelfailure to ensure:that the safety , injection pump

t v '

conformed;to. procurement documents -in that.it was' received and -

t  : accepted without'. receipt of radiographs for the pump shell and

'

'

. . ,

+ 4 :that the= pump was manufactured to the vendor's non-ASME QA-

'~

manual which had not been approved by Commonwealth Edison.

a a m

'

-These. violations'were-indicative of a significant lack of'

EW '

7 attention'toidetail for procurement activities.-- The' licensee

'took thorough corrective-action in response to both violations.

~

.

w

During an~ inspection by Region III specialists,-several

tweaknesses were identified in the: licensee's independent.

verification program. :The' licensee:hadfdirected significant

~

f

~

_

_ resources into review and-revision of app 1_icable procedures

.in-this1 area. .These items were reviewed on-a subsequent

" ~

_

'

J inspection 1and the licensee's actions.were found to be adequate.

.. .

_

.

-

'

. Duri_ng the specialist inspections,:nine . violations, open, or - .

unresolved items'were closed. The promptness ofsthe -licensee's

'_

~

, corrective action in resolving _these items-indicates responsive

~

-management involvement. Management has been deeply involved in

q .the correction'of quality related-issues. Records are

' >

' generally complete we11' maintained and available. Quality

,

programs are well defined and stated.

u

, '. ,

-Near the end of the assessment period,'the resident inspectors

~

_ . expressed concerns'to management regarding an apparent trend

'

toward less adequate LER and DVR investigations. In addition,

s an evaluation of a sample of. LERs by the Office for Analysis

-and Evaluation of Operational-Data (AE00) showed the need for

-significant improvement in'LER investigations. This appears

~

'

'

'

cto be due to both training weaknesses for individuals

.

investigating events-as well-as weaknesses in the LER/DVR

1 . investigation and review process.

,,

/ l4

w

r , f;

f ~

-

2

. 30

,

r

u

Q.

,a ,

U.++

_.,,e- -,___--._-,,_m _ .. _ __._,,_ w

y .x jy ( .

-

.3 ,

.

1. y .

-f

'

.g

-

<

,, . .

'[,

p '

- j y f.

'

'6,, -t

-.A -

o

)

~

, s i

+ x 1

l .gg'g,g of 1985,xthefresia'ent_ inspectors Were placed.on ,  !

~

,

w % _s  ; distribution for'alllDVRs at theirJrequest. cAssa result, . 4

'

,

,

cs fevents:which would;have! ordinarily passed: unnoticed-werei ' L

Lattention on problem areas. 'The licensee has also implemented

.

-

-

. a station commitment list to trackLall NRC' concerns and .

~m .-

-

_ findings ~ as well- as-internal: commitments such as: corrective

~, < s # ~

actions-developed through their LER/DVR system. The licensee's

'%  :

_. + ,

. Regulatory: Improvement Program which was implemented during the

" -

'

,> last assessment period remains.in force.

~,  ; . . ..

O '

,

^The licensee changed the: site' organization at.all their

>' '  : operating stations (in June of 1985. .The reorganization created--

,_ ,

'

Lthe position of Plant Manager to whom the superintendents'of

, Production and Technical? Services.now report. .The Maintenance

' '

'

l

m J Department.which was'under Technical Servic'es now reports to i

%e -f'.'. ithe1 Superintendent of Production.

k5" n _

kThe-QAorganizationonsiteisadequatelystaffedandtrained.

' Relations.between QA~and site personnel are~ generally business-

'

like:and a: team; attitude;iszusually ev_ident. QA audits are

H ;3 -

m timely and:generallyithorough.-

gy ,

NoW

_

-

^One inspection of: environmental qualification (EQ) activities

was conducted by Region -III specialists and NRC Headquarters

'c

"

~~ '

_

sinspectors.n This inspection. covered.the licensee's Unit 2 EQ

. equipment;and the EQ program for both Unit l'and Unit 2. One

,c

'

-

- '

,

violation;(with two examples) was identified as follows:

.

.

^

w' "- '

Severity'LevelilV.-J(1) qualified Limitorque valve operators

'M were< installed.with plastic protection shipping caps on the "

D ~

valve operator ge'ar case relief valves;-however, these shipping

~" '

- , caps were not part of the documented qualification method;

'

(2) junction boxes with top conduit entries were installed in

"' - -

'some cases; however, these were not part of the documented

,

r* # _~ > qualification method (Inspection Report No. 304/85006).

a <-

,

,

2 .g v-.

< Cm - 31

M

.

,

. 7

de

'.

,

M_ ^

<

C -. u. ._m.,__.._ 1,L t. . . . . s._..___,,_ _ . - , . . , _ _ _ . _ , _ . _ , - _ - . -

.,

[ .c fQ A / " x _

. 'n' '-

Q, -},; ; ~ @ p - - ~

-- ., y > .

.- -

- . .e x _

Q:' '

u g.

[f ' '  ;

' ~ '

, [ l pi -

,,~ -

. :n . ,, .. .. . ~ , .. .. . . ,

% .o > 1"_ 1 _ iThe above1 examples 1were considered l minor in' respect-to plant: -

-

. s" , 7 Jsafety;?however? thez. licensee's_EQ-program.was: required to be

o; m e -

- >;' *in compliance! prior to-March 31,21985, thus:. adding. significance

>

~ 7w: , .

N' ito' this' findingt LTheLlicensee took immediate action to correct

M? Th D 'theistatusLof Limitorque operators and.. subsequently justified

-;the configurationfof:the junction boxes throughitechnical

~

'

( q '"t

,

<

3 analysis.

N O j $ ' ~ ~

LThe licensee's'EQ program was organized'and wellestated with'

?; fr ,' - idefined procedures for control of activities.' Policies were'-

"  %, ,9 -

fadequatelyl stated and appeared to.be understood by all-

_ , D , personnel interviewed. Management'was found to be adequately;

• s

' ^

involved;in decision making'even though the majority of the

f *

,

..

'< -

administrative work was performed at the corporate 11 eve 1~using

1. *

's #

contract: personnel; -Audits conducted at the. plant and of<the-

.

'

<

,

-

_- . subcontractors were found to:be both timely and(thorough. .

4 <,..

~ -.

eThe; review committees were properly: staffed. and Lin almost all'-

h cases provided timely reviews,which were technically sound.

Y  ? i TEQl records were' generally complete', well: maintained, and

.

M,- M available. Design and procurement were well: controlled, .

.

. n m zm 3_ -

documented and: verified. .

~

mmy n; mg

"~

.

The' licensee generally'provided_ timely: responses to NRC

linitiativesfregarding EQ issues. . Responses;to NRC EQ

'

A- -

'T. ._

%P , iC - initiatives are currently being reviewed by.IE-and NRR.- The-

11censee's.EQ training program for. plant personnel is.wel1

~

, *

< U 4, 6'

'

, defined;:however, :it had not'been presented to allLappropriate

y ,

'

-personnelfat the plant.

'

_ ,

~ .

r 32; .FConclusion:

n . . _

'

.:

m; my 1Thellicensee?is rated: Category 2 in this area. Due to'a

," -declining. performance trend in the procurement'and reporting

~

.

'

-' t - :

'

-activiti_es which, offset?an improving" trend.in other activities,-

.H

' -

- Etheioverall performance trend for thela'ssessment' period remains-

N -

.

'

the same.

m . w

y y .

.

' [3.L : Board Recommendations

_ w -

.

,

'

-

None~-

D ~ (J. .Licensina' Activities

-

w:

-

ci

4 (1. Analysis:

{

' ~

-

-

-

.- # i,.c iThe' basis;of;this~ appraisal was the licensee!s performance in

, p. I' E V ssuppnrt of:: licensing actions;that were either completed or-

.o' ts a + had.a:si~gnificantilevelzof activity'duringcthe rating period.

s These actions, consisting of. amendment requests, exemption

'~

J"

requests,cresponses;to generic letters, TMI' items, and other

',

'%?

im _ dactions, ; include itheT following sp.ecific items:

w ,

-

,

-

.

^ ~

• y  %._

g * ,

'^ , v. " - 32 '

,

., - ,

b _y

-D _ a ,  ;

. ~ - - -e +- --- - - - ~ -- ~ .

, ,. ,

l *Y '

~f >

Sf L ,

gg,. [yi%f ' \ % * ',

~

'

' '

- '

. - >

- +

^

m n

-

,

f$f

~

' ' -

,

, 9,. [ .,

N/F .

iMultiplant' Action ~ Items (MPAs)

R9G _

-

.

t., . ._

<

,_

M!$f * ' Completed or ha_vingia'significantblevel of' review action .

& ]k

,

. x ~ -

,

complqted. include:; .

{g 1 ,

^'

el Post-AccidentLSampling,;F-12,-complete

U'>> "

-

• - iSPDS, NUREG-07376 Item:I.D.2, complete .

' *

' :N-1l Loop operation,LE-05, complete-

),

_.

m

, _

• "

<

, ..

"EQ_ of electrical equipment, .8-60, complete ,

W "a ~

<

- *

.- : Methodology for Core damage assessment, F-12, complete-

• - 1 Shuntitrip, GL .83-28,; Item 4.3, B-82, complete

'

.m. m '

4

<

- *

s. 1 JInadequate Core coolingiguidelines,cF-04,-complete:

@;W i~ 'f, ,

' GL; 83-28,

• Item 4;2.1 and ~.4.2.2, B-81, L comple.te '

,

QJ *

LControllo.f heavyLloads, C-15, complete-

~

-#

&

e -

no Small: break LOCA,2F-57,; complete

.

'

.,

. . . . . .

%&_h

. .

'*l iNUREG-0737,1 Item 3.1.1 and 3.1.2; B-78',, complete

'o JReactor trip' system. reliability, B-80,' complete.

o

U6g% x

'

t iNUREG-0737, Item'3.'2.1land 3.2.2, B-87; complete  !

-

-*J LNUREG-0737; Item 4.'5.1, B-92, complete <4s

1. '

'

,

3 Post-tripreviewkGL~83-28,

• Item 1.1,'.-B-76,domplete

am[ ,

• ? Technical Specifications for GL183-36,'83-37,-B-83..

W ~ '" m ; -

comoletet. , ,

-

m

4

. r _

.

,

' .. , . , . -r _ - .* , -

.

' - P1'ar.tJSpedific! Action 5 Items b '

6 '

-

,

. ~

Completedfor.'having'aisignificant-level of, review' include:

'

- -

,

.

'~

-

~. ., .

.. . . .

,

-

*: Schedular.lexemptionfore10CFR;50.49(q)fcomplete

RV '

<

M *

sExemption from; Appendix J, complete ~

~-

'*

' Schedular l extension (EQ), complete.

' >

-

> '

s*-- Relief from ASME Code. Case-N-401', complete

c- -- - - '*, :ReliefJfronzISTLrequirements, complete-

s" PRA review of. AFW check' valves, complete

fw~*

%p>

J .

.

1*.  ? Revision 2ito first 10 year IST-ISI program, complete ,

• TechnicaljSpecification RCS vents,' complete

$

N~1 F*r " Amendment, hydrogen monitors,' complete

~

'

-

-

• ' Amendment, rod? urgent failure alare, complete

-*- l Amendments-89 and 79, ECCS: analysis, complete

es "

'

• -

.

Revision 1 to:first 10 year IST-ISI_ program, complete.

.'

"

,

~

>

, _

-

3 Revision 3 to first'10 year IST-ISI' program,' complete-

,  ;*- ' >; Revision ~4 to first 10 year IST-ISI program, completei

, ,

• 1 Amendments 90 and 80 - containment integrity, complete-

,o- Review of Zion 1Probabilistic-Safety Study,' complete

_. ,y

~

-

.7- ~

'

4 -

• ? _. Amendment,-RETS,.nearly completed _

W

.

,

Amen'dment,1 Item A.1 and A.2 of. Confirmatory Order of

'

i

f <

' "

_m

p -

11980' ~ nearly completed

,

$60 "

4 #" ~ During'the~present, rating _ period, Commonwealth Edison Company

L(Ceco): management actively. participated in licensing resolution- ~

~

~ -of the various licensinguissues:and kept abreast of current-and '

?i  ! anticipated 111 censing actions. Total _ absence ofJrequest for

A@@p .' -

-

Eemergency or. exigency; actions during the rating period vividly

1. a ,f

w_ r f

w( . , ~

,

.

-

-

$k

me'. -

~

,

'fN -

g _~

,

.

,

33

v ,

'

f _

Mrndi Lm.-a ._ _- a , _,.,_.. ._

,

, _ _ , , _ , _ _ _ , _ , . _ . , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . . _ . _ , _ , , _

-

- ~ ~ -

, 1

(n ,,, g ;:, ,n. , ._ v - -

.

.

m -

,.

' - -

.. ,.. .

,

-

,

m .. .

G- ~

_

,

.

C  % - -

'

hNN ) 'y.  :

demonstratesforesightland' advance.managementLattentionto

disportant.! safety issues. ~

,

gg '

~

Q'

~

,

4

Management? involvement was particularly evident in closure of

%

>

ca;1arge number'of NUREG-0737 items and attention'given to-

"

m '.importantiissues. : CECO mid-management' personnel frequently ,

.

Y [ visited NRR Project Manager to tinquire whether NRC -licensing:

Qe - ,

needs :were being met,' both:.in substance and : schedules.

..

. .. . _, .

'

.

>

JWorthy of,particular mention are subm1 tals:in.three areas,-all

Fv <'

> -

' requiring ~ extensive licensingfeffort. They are environmental

~ W . Lqualificationiofelectricalequipment'(EQ), radiological ~

'

-

. ~ effluent l technical specifications (RETS), and fire protection.

,

-

{The EQ program has. been:successfully-completed-and the

3 , licensing action hasLbeen; closed. ; This' program was

w; additionally verified by a'one-week audit-(see Section IV.I)

jthat' pointed out Zion's - exemplary . record keeping and record -

'

n ,

4~ , n Lavailability. LRETS have been reviewed and approved with an

.

'

'amendmentiinpreparation. Fire protection. interim measures

,

havelbeen approved with-the exemption request still under

4 n. 1 - -review. . _.

'

"' ~

, Zionmanagementfis'developinganintegratedliving-schedule

• s

'

Laimed at establishing procedures'by which new;and exiating

--

'

= regulatory requirements would-be schsduled forjimplementation '

o

'

.,

^ L takingyelative priorities into consideration.' ' ~ '

. , ..

e, '

- <The licensee maintained close. control overulicensing action

'r

,

-

"

_-  ; schedules.and either met the'origina11y' established dates or

"obtained timely. acceptance'of revisions.

~

N' 7 '

TWithin thelrating period,.the licensee demonstrated thorough

'

-.q'

-understanding and appreciation of the technical issues-

~

-

-

' involved. ' Ceco consistently exhibited conservatism in analyses

- *

Y '

-

.and' proposed [ resolutions. Rarely has(there.been-a need for

requests for. additional information, and when ~such were sent,

.

-

sthe response was' timely and-_ technically sound. This can be

~

<

.' ~' . attributed partly:to the competent engineering staff of Ceco.

-

- -and partly to' the well qualified consultants employed by Ceco.

1. ?The large number'of; completed multiplant actions demonstrates .

O - sthe licensee's sound'technica1' resolution of complex problems

"

', involving plant safety 'nd a plant operation,-with appropriate

-

attention given to regulatory. concerns.

,

g. ,

Ceco has been responsive to NRC initiatives in almost all

m 1

-

~ instances. Routinely,' technically sound and workable

w ,' *

• . resolutions.are proposed. . Priority safety reviews and ,

.m " responses are given prompt attention. The responses have

been thorough and'sufficiently-detailed to permit complete

. '

review withclittle need for further interaction with the-

"

y

g -

- - licensee.

, ,

S .,

1l

'

t > 34

,

,

A

r

'<hr . , + - m s_.,..__.....,.w,. ., ,.,..w._.,_, ...%,,,.._,._ . _ , _ , _ _ , , , , . . , . _ _ , , . _ , _ _ _ , , , _ , , . _ , , . , _ _ _

-

4

j. - v,< as ,

. ,

'ya;' -

-

~

.

,

o  : s y:- ,

g,  ; ' '

' '

fh) 4- $, 4 s

~

,' I [

Q%

pq

• [CEcofestablishedopen1andeffectivecommunications.betweenNRC'

' > Land;its own;1icensing. staffs...iAlmost daily; telephone contacts =

~; , .resulted.in close cooperation.between. Ceco-and NRR licensing

.

,

'

.

Lpersonnel.

" ~

jThilicensee.'consistentlyhasTsentadvancecopiesofsubmittals

4 . _ by the_ overnight. express service and, when' urgent matters were

~y Linvolved:telecopies them to'the' Division of Licensing the.same

,

-

. day. Periodically, Zion _ Licensing Administrator has reported

v ~ cp , .on

the progress <of Zion subaittals on NUREG-0737. items,cas well

as:on the-status lof the various commitments;to NRC; e

'

'

.

. , .

.

< .To ensure even greater responsiveness to NRC initiatives, the.

13 ,

elicensee designated aidedicated,; full-time coordinaton to -

~

. : '

.

.

D. ,

Erespond,to and , ~

track requ,irements;from. Generic Letters.

,

, , .

~

<

^ ' * -

iThe111_censee}hasbeenparticularlyresponsivetoNRC'srequests

,

,

'

L to assist:or participate;in special studies 'and surveys,.

-including 1 visits 1to the' station by NRCistaff.-and contractors..

.'

'

< '

'

On such occasions, Ceco has-consistently made availablestheir

J .

. 1most knowledgeable individuals to assist NRC visitors.

7  % - :Zionslice.nsing and. engineering staffinglis ample and any

vacancies are promptly filled with qualified individuals.' This

.

-

'

.~=N 'has resulted in' no backlog of. overdue licensing actions and in

a'

>

m prompt, timely processing of current' actions; To assure.

~

s= -continuitylin management supervision while the Director of-

GAM

-

, NuclearcLicensing,is not available, CECO established an- c

6 *

_ ,m additional mid-marigement' position of Operating Plant Licensing

g '

Director.

~~

e m '- iTheexcellentstaffinglevelof:thellicenseeisfurther.

m ,

" demonstrated by another department of Nuclear- Fuel Services,

,' - M Lwhich i_s currently preparing to' assume the.-responsibility for

p '

-

performing the reload safety analysis for: Zion station.

y

' -

CEcollicensing' staff;consistsiof highly trained,: qualified,

- '

land experienced. individuals._.-This;is' demonstrated, for example,

by both the' Zion Licensing Administrator.and the head of the

~

c f

-

m ' Station' Nuclear Engineering Department who maintain current

, _

-Senior: Reactor Operator licenses. Both individuals have'. spent

, .

'

,

?several. years:at the Zion station. holding various responsible

s

' ' -

, positions. L The. Licensing Administrator, before his' current

d'  ? assignment, headed the~ training department at Zion' station.

@ " s <

_ ,

7I n addition to" appointing highly trained individuals to the

-

- ,

. .

1icensing division.in the first place,' Ceco assures their

+ 7 M; q '

i - continuing qualif.ication by providing additional training.

-

'As-.an example, during this reporting period alone, the current

-

>

Licensing-Administrator. received the following training;

y >

one week of new fire. operating procedures, six days on the Zion

. T isimulator, two' weeks on 'SRO requalification lectures, one week

_

~

of instructions.on new emergency response guidelines (ERG), and

'

.

~

one week on the simulator using the new ERG.

. .

35

g

'

J' -

-

-

. . - . .

- .

g; _ ' J, . ,

-

-

m, ' -

l

• , .

'

_. e 5' , !! Us - ( .

',

s v m -

.

' ' , ,-' 4  ;

.' L_. , ,

- 9

..+s

' ^

+

l

]Q[??~ .

, .

.

' ^

, Ceco.h'asjaccAssltoinnd!rodinely[usestheWEsti$ghouse?

- P ~ ' 'simulato'r that?isilocated nextito Zion station'. -CECO also a- '

_ ,

' 'saintainsian2extensivelactive training program in a separate,: ,

_

i specially. constructed training' facility. -The Zion-training '

3

a ^

- program is:well.Ldefined-and and implemented. 5A11l Zion station

4 staff participates; yearly in"some form fof trainingt

.

% s

.e - .. . - -_ .

'-

'

'

EThe" licensee changed their.sitefan'dicorporate' organizations lin-

' 2 ?JuneLof 1985. jThese: organizations are: described.inLthe

' , LTechnical-Specifications. :However, NRC: approval was.not'

1. _

-

obtained prior to making these changes. ,This-matter was .

~

l ,

>

considered-unresolved pending determination of whether this

• Lconstitstes.:a violation of 10-CFR 50.59.

.x . .

w

.

v. '" n [2. Conclusion

'

'

.

~

LThelicenseelis'.ratedCategory1inthis-area. Performance

.' during(the period: remained the same.-

/ ,

a

. .- ' g .

g

' ~ ~None.

m

% I e

j '4 :'

'd5

. -

-*" '

- ,_

'

. , .

.

5

'3 ( , . .

e3

.*' ' '

. , , .m

<

<

Y

<

,

'

,i

A

'

>-

.Qw

'

A

i

_

I (

• 36

. . .

'

e

'a-'

x

q&g.

- -

,q ~ ' 3

< .

g% f

o -

'

,-

m "+,

,

y

. - '

'

.,

,

_

c - -

-

, ,

'

,

^

$ 9 ..

. (/

'

. ,

,g yV.. ' SUPPORTING DATA AND SlM4 ARIES:.

_

m - _ .

~

R, '

,

, 3Ah (Lihens~ee Activities ,

en i < s _ . . . ..

~

e< f l. Junitl2 was restored to power operation on ' July,10,1984'

~ *

1following a 102' day refueling-and maintenance outage.

-

,

,

, j _

I'"' ^

- i 2. LUnitilwasremovedfrom;thegridanNplacedinhotshutdown

'

- -

'_

Lon July 18(1984 in response:.to concerns over previsusly! .

3 ,

- -

.' performed containment integrated leak rate, tests. The~ unit

? . was placed?in co_1d shutdown, and.an? integrated leak rate test

• '

_ - wasisuccessfully= performed.

'

g,< ,

'

- . .

.+ w. -

.,

'

' ~ '# s3.' ' f on Augu's t 20,:19847 Unit 11wasplacedin' cold-shut'.downto.

- -

!correctnieakage through!an incoreffission detector thimble?to

c 1 the seal: table room. The plant ~ was restored tr, power operation

R ( ,

~on' August:28,11984.

'

" '

f4[>.,On' August 15,i1984,_ Unit 2wasshutdownforaboutonedaydue

~

-

L

' . '

-

-

_

stoLa high containmentitemperature condition.. The high

g>, ~ ,

^w itemperature-condition-was._ caused by high~1ake. temperatures:

>

'

1 combined.with~one of.five containment fan coolers being

-

'

, f inoperable.

g, ,

,

,,

% 5.- (OnSApte'aber?10,1984, Unit 1wasshutdowndue'toexcessive. .

tube ~ leakage;in steam generator 18. After eddy-current testing

-

Land! tube pluggingLwere completed, the unit was lastored to

power _ operation on October 6, 1984.

-

- / - _ .'. - .

.

,

.

, 16. :On December 19, 1984, Unit >1 was' shutdown to inspect solder

4

'. joints which might.have been overheated during a high-

-

W~ .

.

- temperature-transient involving 1the generator's hydrogen ,

cooling-system. The unit wasyrestored to power operation on'-

~

^

-

December 23, 1984.-

"

~

,

,m  : '

_ . .

"

A' scheduled refueling and maintenance outage was performed

'

j 17.

ton Unit:1_between January 30,_1985'and-June 18, 1985.

~~

1 .

u A _

>

1 -

_

-

w, '

8. . . .An Unusual' Event was declare' .d for Unit 1 on June 26, 1985 due

'

, , -to an unisolable nleak of approximately-3.gpm on the pressurizer '

3'4 -

. vent. valve.7The eventtwas terminated approximately nine hours-

'

[

- ;1ater.

• 9. 10 nit >2 began.a scheduled 10 year 4 Inservice Inspection"(ISI) and ~

y -

1 maintenance" outage on September!5, 1985. -

'

=. m -

-

-B.  : Inspection Activities _.

,

1. _ Environmental Qualifications (EQ) - A team inspection

'. Tconsisting~of six Headquarters and two Region III personnel

conducted an inspection from January 14-18, 1985 consisting

~

-

offimplementation of the licensee's EQ program as required

by 10 CFR 50.49. The' team determined that the licensee had

^

'

implemented.a program to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49,

.

and-identified four potential enforcement / unresolved items.

(- y .

_

37

,

s. . _

y .%,

pw - ,yr-,.,,,.w,w..n, , .m,o.--,,

T;'R ,

.

ee.- .

-99f;

~ 2.' Fire-Protection /10 CFR:50 Appendix R - A team consisting of

three' Headquarters and two Region III personnel. conducted an

. inspection from February 11-15,1985, ' consisting of a review

.and assessment of certain compensatory measures-taken to assure.

safeishutdownLuntil compliance with.10 CFR 50 Appendix R is

achieved. The team reviewed implementation of certain' Appendix-

R requirements?and assessed physical: conditions associated

-

1.with certain~ Appendix R' exemption requests. The. report noted-

that although Zion Station is not.in compliance with Appendix

- R, .the . licensee appears to be making af" good faith effort" at

completing outstanding issues in'a: timely manner.

'

3. 'Commissio'ner-Visits -Th'e following site visits'and plant. urs

by NRC commissioners took place

(a):: June 18, 1984;' Commissioner V. Gilinsky

(b) October 18, 1984; Commissioner J. K. Asselstine

-

.

. ,

'

'

1

4

4

C

l b' s

38

"

g'77 W '

a: .

, .

_

~

. p'  ? M , cf ,:W  ;? % ~ ~ . J u- -

r =%- '

7p*

. . ,

• & , ', %.G, iTP.% ' 'r

'J- -*. < fra' -" W

• ^ ' '

'] % G ~n*. .^) " l

Wg

' ^ ~ ' i' e

,

g g"% <m,>+ Q@

.

gg.l;l..

.

.

,

- ~

n; .y >

-

, . . .

. .

. <

3; y .- -

. q ---

-  ; -  ?  ?

"

, ;.

"

.;

x - ss p f, ; ' '

-

'

,Y..

f ;.' "

l

'

l , 'f-*

_- , ,.T'l _.

', . 1 '

_

t@t '

^

.

, C

C- .

rTABLE;1: i s  :

<

<

. _- o .. . . .

'

.

' -

-

. . g . .

-INSPECTION ACTIVITY AND ENFORCEMENT

.

. N .x , ZION NUCLEAR POWER' STATION UNIT-1," DOCKET 50-295

- '

. . , ,

- -

~

-

> . ... .

>f'n,! ' FUNCTIONAL . iNO.~ 0F VIOLATIONS (IN EACH SEVERITY' LEVEL'-

-1-

-

,  : AREAS - -

.II.  : III' IV V

, ,

.

g , O4

% C.. . , A .~ >PlantLdperations L4(1)'

m , mw '

.. .

-

e

- n , ,. ->.. . , . . , . . . , , .

" :" 1Radiologicals Controls

.B. ^

'(2) (2), ~_

7  : "MainEenance.

(

- .- 4

-

C.. -

-2(3)-

mn -  ; D,.4  : Surdillance: ~(2) (4)

, -

1 +

3 El: Fire 4 Protection - (1)

+= :3 .. + q; '  :-  :

-

., ' +

. ,

m' 7s: F._Emergency. - Preparedness ~ (1)

.- t  !

' ~ '

G.  : Security

c _ .

~"qg ,

J H.- - Refueling

.,

- A KI) ,jQual'ityPrograms:and. 2

Administrative Controls

,

-

.

I

w.

'

.

=

. -!Ji , f Licen's'ing' Activities - NA: .NAL

-

y, _

-

.

-

- -

, -

TotalsE D(9) -- (7)

,

4

,.

" ~

~. LNumbers'in parentheses indicate violations' common to both units,

n .

'

4...

s

] r

g ,

- .. .

Y&

• t

'

g ,

m

~

.

-: - ) l

,, . , . . .

.

lK . ' "4 J

, <.

_

.h

I .

')-

8

5,.

.

--

m

.

_

-

_ -

p gyp -:.:< 3 , :, - - .

, 39

,'j','

.

~#~'

, ,

-

, _y

- %' . #

^a .

,

f

($Es

e. - -.s ^

=

;w

, .

.

[ ~

_

,

'

,

1

C-

3 ;?? .(o

Kf s, , .m ( _ _

- -

.

.

.w w

>m: -

-

.-

li} :

'

- '; e. -

W <

. .. .

'

m , -a ,

, ' TABLE 2;

' ' -

~ su

4' .

.

"

[:: , f NSPECTION

l ACTIVITY AND ENFORCEMENTi .

'd. ' , ,

_= ZION' NUCLEAR POW R STATION UNIT-2, DOCKET 50-3'04:

.

l'.

. . .

, s .- .. . .

? ;c~ ~

FUNCTIONAL-. ' *

<NO..0F VIOLATIONS IN EACH SEVERITY LEVEL-

<

AREAS'

-

1 -

II: III. .IV- 'V

-

.t .

,

s' k'- t

. . ,

_ , .

Th.' : Plant' Operations: ' .

1(1)' .

.

.- , ._ . . . - .

8.z LRadiological. Controls (2) (2)-

. g..

'

-

. C. lMhintenance' .1(3)~ .2

.,

'

~

7',lDh(Surveilla'nce1 (2) -(4)-

,heN

'

'

E... Fire Protection ~ -

(l)

D Fh, Emergency Preparedness 1 (1)

w

.

'

.+ . m :; . . : . t- .

o-

.

J ,SG : OSecurityl .

' :r: .

! .

H. '

~, Refueling; <

2: - , , .

' ~

11..- !QualityiP'rogrims and .

4

4

, , ~ l Administrative Controls

J J. . Licensing Activities NA NA

p_ ^ * Totals: 6(9) 2(7)

,

4%"' ,j. ,. . _

. ., _ . . _ .

,

5 Numbers;in parentheses indicate: violations common to both units. .

,,

,p

' "

_

s

lt . I

p- c

.

'

• N

N

>

I,e a ."

, . ~:/ ,,

,

.

}',.'"

1 -

. .

g (

b

• 1 T

's

E-e ' _ _

O,

'_

- ,

40

c

-(

n'

~

b , p. '.

' ,

.

. _f _ __

Ny

~

g .) ff , j fp I:i g g p j % q:p ^ 7 ,

7], ,. .

'

~l

1 a.  : x 4

4' a-- -

-tr  ;& ,

' -

~

w .A s

--  ;..> '- - n:

'

- ' - -

-qf ,

5 4

,' -

j

%.

.

~ x'+

'

w- _

\

,

,

-

c- .

+-

~

P, '~ "rC ' . SInvesticatidn iand Allegations Review > -

' ' '

-. .

. .

.- .

.

4: 4 , 1Threeta11egations_werel received during the' assessment period:

n. - -

.

,

'

t

@ .1.1 : Inlan1 August ~14bl984letterreceived:byRegionIII,isecurity'

iguards were'_ allegedly told to violatefa security directive.-

~

_ i p ,

,

LAn'inspectionLwas conductedLby.a Region:III security. inspector ~ 4

g. .e

+

.

1 f'and._the) allegation.wasinot: substantiated.

$c l ,

[ 2.2 7Airesident of Zion was concerned about.the excessive ' noise -

u

'"

m-

~

(caused by the ~use 'of the -steam! generator' atmospheric! reliefs.

--

w. to control plant; temperature. This was;a normal method'of-

Etemperature control for the given plant condition, and the,

^

,

,

w. . . ._,  : alleger was so informed.

gM -

. 13( l0n Augusti!14,._1985 an anonymous caller gave four allegations

• -

, , ;labout health-physics practices. An inspection'was conductedz 1

by a? Region-III.healthEphysics. specialist and three offthe

-

7 ,

2 allegations'were'not substantiated. : The fourth, already>known-

aa a,- Ltotthe NRC, was, substantiated. The licensee'.s corrective  :

'

Iactions;for_this~~ allegation were reviewed and found to be

~

"" l'

1 adequate.

-

. ~! .. .. .. + ..

!

JD; (Escalated Enforcement Actions

' 1. Ciyil' Penalties'

,

,

'

'

NoL civil, penalties were: issued during the .SALP' period.'

. .

< s

,

W -- '2;- (Orders-

[ '

,

i

-No' orders were issued'during the SALP period.

~

,,-

_ ;E. Management Conferences-

, y

'

'

, - x 1.' Conferences:

,m -

-

f(a)l On: Hay 18, 1984 a management meeting was held in._the NRC ,

J  ; ~ Region III.~ offices-to continue discussions _on improvement t

'

' of regulatory performanceand enhancement of-

-

.

w. communications between Commonwealth Edison and the NRC.

k

'

.b).0n'

( August'23,'1984 a management meeting was~ held in'the

N -

'

LRegion III. offices to present-the licensee with the

.e

.

4

'

. findings of.the SALP_ Cycle 4 report.

.

. :. . .

H

~

'.

g - (c) ;0n1 September 7, 1984 a management meeting was held in

, ' :

,

7the NRC; Region III' offices to continue discussions on.

-

.,

' improvement of regulatory performance and enhancement of

'

-

-

'

'

communicatio'ns between Commonwealth Edison and the NRC. ,

_ .

"l- k'

[ML I

1 , < -

,

--

m

-

p.

• '~

- . .z41.

,; - ,s, , .

,-

L=- - ^ - -

+

_ . . . . _ _ .,,__.__,..___,,.__n__,__._. ..

-

g;x -

- - - .

.

k . 1,

'

e

y ,. ,

.

.

.

. + ,

! *

a

'

.j', e .

. l ,

3

.

,

r. f' _ (d)l~0nSeptember 14, 1984 an! enforcement-confere'nce wasLheld

, '

fat the NRC Region III offices!regarding an equalizing-

-

- valve being left open between the containmentLand the

-#Rrry w , ,

, auxiliary building for an unknown. period of c.ime during-

-

'~ 7

,  : reactor operations.

l e

. +

-

• (e) LOn March 7,;1985.a management meeting sas held'in.the NRC

1 Region III officesLto-continue discussions on i'aprovement-

'

-

c; ~ of_ regulatory performance and enhancement of. '

t

= communications between Commonwealth Edison and the NRC.

^ .

'

(f);10n June 24,11985La. man'agement meeting;was held in.the.NRC' i

-

w ' ,. Region III offices-to continue discussions.on. improvement-

- -

7 of regulatory performance;and enhancement of

..,

-

-

,

communications between Commonwealth-Edison and the'NRC.

. . . . ,~ . .. . .

.

, ,

?21 . Confirmatory Action Letters (CAL)

.No confirmatory action letters'were issued during the SALP

Hperiod.

'

XW4m / _ 1 '

F. ~ Review of Licensee Event Reports, Construction Deficiency Reports,-

- :and 10 CFR 21 Reports-Subaitted by the Licensee

,

1. - . . Licensee Event Reports

x .

~

. x The following -is a list of Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

submittedkduringtheassessmentperiod:

'

Proximate C'ause*'

^

Number

s m .:

[ ' M 'SALP Period 4

-

~ SALP. Period 5

_ . 2(16 months)

= . . (17 months)

J# .E01/01/83-04/30/84 - 04/30/84-09/30/85

'

,' , MT ; % . - .. , ,

• • Personnel Error--

.* S,iy . . .

, . :

.

28 (li8)** >.

.

, '32:(1.9) .

"^

, :6 (0.4) - 23--(1.4) Design',

sn, .

m Manufacturing,.

R _

- - . and Construc-

P_. tion /Installa-

x f tion

, ~

"2L(0.1)- 1 (0.1)' External

-

4

, ,

Cause

'7)(0.4): ~14 (0.8) Defective

" '

.e

'

,

Procedure

^

-

'

71 (4.4)***' '0*** Component

.

Failure

'j,

. - N

t.

a .. 42'

W -

4

y-

e. -w-r-y=,ais E w w vi, - ,e+v-+y y ,,1 m ww , r e-* E e-*ve emw.

g ,-. .3 $ .y.

.

-

< -

-c

.

. . , .

m ,

,

,

,

'

N *

l *

• '

, n - y , y

[i %

'

'

Q lQQ '

, .- , .

~

'

,

, , ,

1

_ . Number, Proximate Cause*

W ..

_

4. - . 4

SALP Perio'd 4 -

SALP Period 5

, ?(16' months)~:

~

'

_

.

.(17 months)

'7

.

,

01/01/83-04/30/84 ~04/30/84-09/30/85

^  : ,0**** I ~ '

7f(0.-4)**** Management /.'

l Quality:

'

,

we .

..

,

. . _ Assurance.

w Deficiency.

'. ' < . ' ' 'i : ~

< ,

,

'

-13(0.8) Other

-

-

~ 27

'

'5 *

'J>

~

(121-(7.6) '98 (5.3)

v . . . .. -

J' . -, -#LERs. included in-this' assessment-period:

.

3  ; Unit 1 84-15 through.85-31-. -

aa .us .'r _w

Unit 2. 84-13 through 85-17.

's

'

" ~. W

1 < >

,

according to NUREG-0161, " Instructions for Preparation of Data

,

! Entry Sheets For' Licensee Event Report.(LER) File,"-or -

,,' ,

,

-

c

'NUREG-_1022, " Licensee Event Report System."

'** Number-in parentheses are the average number of' events per

-

'

'

month.-

n , .

'

.

• • • Category is no longer reported.'

}f '

.

.

• • • • Category was notLincluded in SALP period 4.

-m-

s LERs.were~ issued-at a somewhat' lower rate ddring.the SALP 5

Lassessment period compared'to SALP 4. Higher rates for

~'

?' , Jindividual categcries were observed for those caused by design',-

g . . manufacturing land construction / installation and defective

'

- . procedures.

. m The. number of LERs=per month due-to design, manufacturing and ,

• ' - construction / installation'more than-doubled. The: increase in

J - the number of LERs' assigned'to this-category appears to be

'- -

attr.ibutable to changes made in the cause classification

.

+ ' description.'. As:noted in SALP period ~4, the component failure

i,'i

f category nojlongerLexists. Review ~of the LERs classified as

.

x '

s , : design,-- manufacturing and" construction / installation revealed

N.l.if :m u. ': that 16 ofithe 23 listed under this category would have been

ep s. ^

~~ fclassified as component failure under. the old reporting rules.

• The seven LERs-which remained are about equal to the six

(reportedduring;SALP.4;in;;this' category.t

' - '

-

e _ _

-

a >

g- * < s

.h-

>

'

,

43

- .

-

e,- .y - -

,

-

.

a.

_. : -  ; +

M$ -

,

- -

y '

_ ,

,

-

._

'- '

'The number of LERs'per month due to; defective procedures . .

s >

_ - lapproximately. doubled from the last SALPJperiod. After; review

.'

2of these LERs, it appeared that several-could have been-

'

_ g>  : assigned under'a1different classification. The: number of'

7

m"

m 1 personnel errors remained essentially the same.as SALP.

~

. period 4J 4These' personnel error rates?are considered high-

' '

- :

'

, Loverall,'and~ action should be taken to' reduce.these rates.

- 2.: ':10 CFR 21 Reports.

~ '

NoPartl21 reports.weresubmittedbythelicenseeduringthe

-

, 7 SALP. period.-

\

'

~

.

.

'G. ' Licensing Actions - _ m

' i

'

.

e T: ... . . . ~

'

.. ..

NRR/ Licensee Meetings

'

~1.i

y

' < .? 4

m _

,

-

-

,.' .

,

,

=Firelrhtection,,AppendixR.

.

~

w 1 ~

'

P 205-24-84 -

6c- nw. s Diesel Generator TS;. ~

05-24-84 ~

g-- PRA' Integrated Living Schedule.

. .

08-15-84

.

>

1 Service. Range Monitor;.. 04-03-85

>~ '

-

Confirmatory Order of 1980 05-02-85

,z

~

'

J22 lNRR Site Visits / Meetings-

, -:n '

[f;

' '

37

^

Environmental, Qualification 01-18-85

n ' (' ^

'-Regulatory Performance Improvement Program .06-24-85-

rM -  : Site: Visit 07-10-85-

,

r3.n . Commission Meetingi

'

>

.w- N' '

7l None.

x a:

M n

4.' Extensions Grantedi

5A EnvironmentaliQualification. .06-04,-84

1' ' Environmental Qualification; 10-17-84 w

A J* 15.1 . Reliefs Grante d

.

12-28-84

'

'ASME? Code:

3.ASME Code,. Revision 2 to ISI Program

~

_

'

12-24-84

c' ,ASME Code," Revision.1 to ISI Program 06-06-85

jy ? _ ~ASME Code, Revision 3 to-ISI Program 06-06-85 '

.- > , - ..

4

% -

J~ ~6. , Exemption Granted:

None.

~ .

"

?

"

.p_,

y

&

3

44

-; -

.__,

,..

. '

_

.

.,

.

Q;.m

. <.  %

7 px  ;

-

.

.

. -

. m,3 7 .

-

m, ,

p .

_

w.

, ,  ; -

,

-

-

.3 ,s .

, -

-

1-.c

u-: t s . ,

1, ,.,

(r

.

,

y , <A * *

.

q-

"

'

. :; --tn  : 7. - License Amendments ~: Issued" - -

"

" v '8 ,

. .

. , .

. , . .

-

,

-

c .c Amendment .- +

.

• .

.- a-

/- ~

'

-Number' W ~ P O - Title + <b 'DATE

.,. ' "~

, ,

'

^ ru.

,.

'

.. , ,. , . ; ..

~

'

X -

-

186/76.; x <

"R. C.LSystem Vents

. 02-05-85-

- -

87/7) ,

'

s

Hydrogen. Monitors ( . ..- .03-14-85l

,

"

. 88/78; $ a Rod

Urgent Failure Condition. 05-13-85'

1. '

~89/79- x iPeakingLFactor & Load Follow ' .

05-24-85.

s. J,7 -

. . .

,-

'

. Modes. .

. .

'

z '

190/80';

'

Containment Integrity;and Tendon ~ .

~ <

_

-

Surveillance- 08-27-85

~

s. . . 8. :- ' EmeroencyTechnicalSdecificationsIssued'

"c g3'.

-

- ' .

P  : ,.

-

' . Nonel

~ ~

, a y,

.

,, .

.

'

l 9.  : Orders Issued

.

-

,

4,.).'g.' '-i [' i,3h [- .b 2 ., - #- # a J

r. -~

,

.

- N'one.f

- '

v

t,-

. . ---

"

- .10.' . NRR/ Licensee Nanagement'-Conferen'c'e

>; T .

' .

-

'None;;

., _

,.

F

$  !

(. .-

1 >. ' ,s<

1+4 ,

4

,y

-. g

/

- .

i r

. V

,

e

. 4 -

, .

.

N ,

'

.  :

%,5 ' O' t'

3 W. l' 3

'

l-^

-

-

,l

- _y ,

.

-

.k

>

7

'

, e

-

+

.. ...

..

, y

- "

i

'99.-r

Q y ,

W ' c'

( 4 . ' h '. i. $ f

g

E. A

~

+ -

.-y ,.

'

., ~) q

r4

J

'

, }{S g

i

p4

. +

. - me-

' .1 " ' , ,

n r s

(

d. V'.

^

, .

.a

~

,

,

45

~

--

. f *

4 .- 3

%

- i ~f. < ~ J s

m _ . r. . '