flfIOM: COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO ~

NORRIS, ILLINOIS'.B. STEPHENSON

! TO: J. G. KEPPLER

NllC r:orlv. 199 ~ V.S. NVCLI.All III>GULATOIIY COt>IMISSIotd

~ NP('I~TIIIOUTIONI'ofl I'. >T vD DOC I(ET MATERIALl r

DOC VI:T NVthfiLII

50-?37I'ILI!NVMIllirl

INC ZDEW f. !ti'.I O;CT

DATE OF DOCUMENT

3/17/77DATE rlECEIVE'0

3/24/77QLETTE fl

QOIIIOINALR]COP Y

LIt4OTOII IZED

KUNC LASSI F IE 0PBOP INr>UT FonM IAVMDEAOf: COPII>S ILL'CEIVED

1 CY RECEIVED

DESCIIIPTION

LTR. TRANS THE FOLLOWING...."..

~OWLgggg

ENCLOSU lIE a7-C,LICENSEE EVE"Z REPORT'FOR R.O.if/ @; ON.2/16/77 CONCERNING THREE UNIT-2 SURVEILLANCE INERVALS HAD BEEN INADVERTENTLY EXCEEDED.....

(2P)

PLANT NAIIE; DRESDEN // 2

SAB D.Q NOT REMOVENOTE: IF PERSONNEL EXPOSURE XS XNVOLVED

SEND DXRECTLY TO I:REGER/J, COLT,XNS

BRANCH CHXEI":I</3 CYS FOR ACTXONLICo ASST»If CYSAC!CS Cga CYS ".",. "..'

FOR ACTION/IMFORIVIATIOIN

~LC~cd

REG >E

l

INTEIINALDISTRI BUTION

HXPCSCIIROEDE)t/XPPOLXTOIIOUSTONNOVAI(/CIIHCKGRXI ESCASII3UTLERIIANAUERTE))I',SC(3/ihiACCAIQI XSI'.NIIUTBhERSIIAOErOI.I.1 IE lt /IIUNCIII(RLGER/J COLLINS

I.FDIC: J~Sy~ ]y~$/TX(

HEMIC.

LXTLIRNAI. DIST llI f3Ul ION CONTnof NUIL1III:II

raoz) lip1 I

t4IIC I I)lth1 IOri r7 7li)

l

7

\I(

0 A

/

I

Commonweal;n EdisonDresden Nuclear Power StationR.R. g1Morris, Illinois 60450Telephone 815/942-2920

BBS Ltr. i/77-220 March 17, 197

(~~~~+~~Hr. James G. Keppler, Regional DirectorDirectorate of Regulatory Operations — Region IIIU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission799 Roosevelt RoadGlen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

REFERENCE: Reportable Occurrence report number 50-237/1976-71

Enclosed please find Reportable Occurrence report number 50-237/1977-6./This report is being submitted to your office in accordance with the DresdenNuclear Power Station Technical Specifications, Section 6.6.B.

~ ~B; tephensonStation SuperintendentDresden Nuclear Power Station

BBS:go

Enclosure

cc: Director of Inspection & EnforcementDirector of Management Information 6 Program ControlFile/NRC

i'>> WPj

d f

1

Jog i

s CONTROL BLOCK:

LICENSEENAME

L D R S

UCENSE NUhIBER

0 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 —0 0

OCENSE'YPE

4 1 1 1 1

EVENTTYPE

LICENSEE EVENT REPORT

~SE PRIMT ALI. REQUIRED INFORMATION;6

7 8'9 14 15 25 26 30 31 32REPORT REPORT

CATEGORY TYPE SOURCE

[oagcomv ~ h ~h7 8 57 58 59 60

REPORT OATE

0 3 1 8 77'VENT

OATE

0 2 1 6 7 774 7568 69

OCCItlET NUMBER

0 5 0 — 0 2 3 7

EVENT DESCRIPTION

Qp 2 A routine monthly surveillance audit revealed that three Unit-2 surveillance intervals8 9

m had been inadvertently exceeded. Tech Spec section 1.0.CC (a) and (b) (which .be-

7 8 9 80Q~ 5 25% of the interval and b that the total combined interval'f an 3 consecutive

I7 89 80toD~] came effective in May, 1976) specifies that (a) interval extensions are not to exceed

7 8 9~o 6 intervals is not to exceed 3.25 times the s ecified surveillance interval. 80

7 8 9SYSTEM CAUSE

COOE CODE

Ioa~] ~zz d z7 8 9 10 11 12

CAUSE DESCRIPTION

~0 8 The surveillance

FAMECOMPONENT

SUFPUERCOMPO eIENT

MANUFACIUPER

Z 9 9

COMPONENT COOE

Z Z Z Z Y17 43 44 47 48

interval violations were caused by personnel error.

(Continued)

The single-7 8 9 80~0 9 interval violation resulted from a misinterpretation oi the surveillance "due" date7 8 9 80~1 0 by instrument maintenance personnel. The other two violations occurred as the result

OTHER STATUS

NA

AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY

NA

NA

OFFSITE CONSEQUENCES

Q~g NA7 89

LOSS OR DAMAGE TO FACILITYTYPE OESCRIPTION

[11. ~Z NA7 89 10

PUBLICITYNA

7 8 9

ADDITIONAL FACTORS

Qsj NA7 89

7 89FACILITYSTATUS POWER

Q<g ~E ~oe7 8 9 10 12 13

FORM OFACTIVITY COATENTRELEASEO OF RELEASE

i a ~z ~z7 8 s 10 11

PERSONNEL EXPOSURESNUMBER TYPE OESCRIPTION

~s ~oo o z7 89 11 12 13

PERSONNEL INJURIESNUhISER OESCRIPTION

[i<4) ~oo o NA'7 89 11 12

METHOO OFOISCOVERY

44 45 46

44 45NA

NA

(Continued)OISCOVERY DESCRIPTION

LOCATION OF RELEASE

80

80

80

80

7 89NAME. D. C. Ifaxwell PHONE EX't ~ 422

'0

I/ f,

C.

/b

EVENT DESCRIPTION (Continued)'

one-interval and a three-consecutive-interval violation were identifiedfor the instrument department surveillance~'en'titled "Off-Gas High RadiationIsolation." "High Energy Pip4n'g Integrity," an operating department surveillance,was identified as having been performed in violation of the three-consecutive-interval requirement. Surveillance test results indicated that pertinent instru-ment settings and piping integrity remained satisfactory.

The number of surveillance items involved in this event represented less "

than one-half of 1% of the tota1 number of surveillances conducted during theperiod in question. The safety implications of this event, therefore, wereconsidered to be minimal. Previous surveillance interval violations for Unit-2were identified on 12/23/76. (50-237/1977-6)

CAUSE DESCRIPTION (Continued)

of changing surveillance scheduling criteria (which are outlined in ReportableOccurrence report no. 50-237/1976-71). Prior to 12/6/76, surveillance schedulingby computer was performed on a frequency basis. This meant that a monthly itemwas scheduled for the same time period each month regardless of when it had beenperformed the previous month. Consequently, if a monthly item, for example, wereperformed nine days "early," by the time the item appeared on the schedule to beperformed again, the interval plus 25% would have already elapsed, resulting ina Tech Spec violation. Since the new quarterly interval criteria (3.25 timesthe specified surveillance interval) are now being applied to intervals whichbegan prior to 12/6/76, occasional interval violations continue to occur.

The surveillance "due date" misinterpretation was reviewed with the personnelinvolved. It is expected that the surveillance scheduling revisions detailed inthe referenced report will greatly reduce the number of recurring surveillanceinterval violations. Implementation of the monthly surveillance review describedin that report permitted the prompt identification of these discrepancies.

RECElYro oocupfa/rFr~OCcSSlQG UtllT

err NR P5 Bf 4 l6

Commonw+h EdisonDresden Nuclear Power StationR.R. g1Morris, illinois 60450Telephone 815/942-2920

BBS Ltr. /f77-220 March 17, 1977

Mr. James G. Keppler, Regional DirectorDirectorate of Regulatory Operations — Region IIIU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission799 Roosevelt RoadGlen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

REFERENCE: Reportable Occurrence report number 50-237/1976-71

Enclosed please find Reportable Occurrence report number 50-237/1977-6.This repor't's being submitted to your office in accordance with the DresdenNuclear Power Station Technical Specifications, Section 6.6.B.

B. tephensonStation SuperintendentDresden Nuclear Power Station

BBS: jo

Enclosure

cc: Director of Inspection & EnforcementDirector of Management Information & Program ControlFile/NRC

0

I.l

L

CONTROL ELOCK:I1

LlCENSEE EVENT REPORT

~SE PRINT ALLREQUIRED INFORMATION)

UCENSEENAME

01 L L D R S

7 89

LICENSE NUhIBER

0 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 —0 025 2614 15

EVENTTYPE

UCENSETYPE

4 1 1 1 1 ~0530 31 32

REPORT REPORTCATEGORY TYPE SOURCE OOCKET NUMBER EVENT OATE

'~01 CON'T~ L L 0 5 0 — 0 2 3 7 0 2 2 6 7 77 8 57 58 59 60 61 68 69 75

EVENT OESCRIPTION

[gg~] A routine monthly surveillance audit revealed that three Unit-2 surveillance intervals

REPORT OATE

0 3 1 8 7 774 80 "

89 60tOD4] came effective in May, 1976) specifies that (a) interval extensions are not to exceed7 8 9 80Qg 25% of the interval'nd b that the total combined interval'f an 3 consecutive

7 8 9 80tOD~] had been inadvertently exceeded. Tech Spec section 1.0.CC (a) and (b) (which be-

7 8 9tOOI intervals is not to exceed 3.25 times the s ecified surveillance interval.

80

FAMECOMPONENT

SUPPUER

7 8 9SYSTEM CAUSE

COOE COO E COMPONENT COOE

~ZZ A 2 2 2 2 2 ~Z7 8 9 10 11 12 17 43

CAUSE OESCRIPTION

|00m The surveillance interval violations were

COMPONENTMANUFACIURER

Z 9 944 47

(Continued)

48

caused b personnel error. The single-7 8 9

~0 9 interval violation resulted from a misinterpretation of the surveillance "due" date80

7 8 9 80~1 0 by instrument maintenance personnel. The other two violations occurred as the result7 89

FACIUTYSTATUS 54 POWER OTHER STATUS

[111] ~E ~09 5 NA7 8 9 10 12 13

FORM OFACTMTY COATENTRELEASEO OF RELEASE AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY

[ig ~z""

z NA7 8 8 10 11

PERSONNEL EXPOSURESNUMBER TYPE OESCRIPTION

~TS ~OO O ~Z NA7 89 11 12 13

PERSONNEL INJURIESNUMBER OESCRIPTION

~4 ~00 o NA'7 89 11 12

OFFSITE CONSEQUENCES

t11g NA7 8 9

LOSS OR DAMAGE TO FACILITYTYPE OESCRIPTION

~Z NA7 89 10

PUBLICITY

. Q~~] NA

7 89AOOITIONAL FACTORS

~s NA7" 89

METHOO OFOISCOVERY

44 45 46

44 45NA

NA

(Continued)OSCOVERY OESCRIPTION

LOCATION OF RELEASE

80'0

80

80

80

80

80

80

7 89NAME D. C. Maxwell "PHONE Ex'22

CPO 44'I ~ 447

60

~ 4 "Ifeel 4W

~ > ~ ll ~ 4

I y

11

EVENT DESCRIPTION (Continued)

A one-interval and a three-consecutive-interval violation were identifiedfor the instrument department surveillance entitled "Off-Gas High RadiationIsolation." "High Energy Piping Integrity," an operating department surveillance,was identified as having>:been performed in violation of the three-consecutive-i'nterval requirement. Surveillance test results indicated that pertinent instru-'ment settings and piping integrity remained satisfactory.

The number of surveillance items involved in this event represented lessthan one-half of 1% of the total number of surveillances conducted during theperiod in question. The safety implications of this event, therefore, wereconsidered to be minimal. Previous surveillance interval violations for Unit-2were identified on 12/23/76. (50-237/1977-6)

CAUSE DESCRIPTION (Continued)

of changing surveillance scheduling criteria (which are outlined in ReportableOccurrence report no. 50-237/1976-71). Prior to 12/6/76, surveillance schedulingby computer was performed on a frequency basis. This meant that a monthly itemwas scheduled for the same time period each month regardless of when it had beenperformed the previous month. Consequently, if a monthly item, for example, wereperformed nine days "early," by the time the item appeared on the schedule to beperformed again, the interval plus 25% would have already elapsed, resulting ina Tech Spec violation. Since the new quarterly interval criteria (3.25 timesthe specified surveillance interval) are now being applied to intervals whichbegan prior to 12/6/76, occasional interval violations continue to occur.

The surveillance "due date" misinterpretation was reviewed with the personnelinvolved. It is expected that the surveillance s'cheduling revisions detailed inthe referenced report will greatly reduce the number of recurring surveillanceinterval violations. Implementation of the monthly surveillance review describedinithat report permitted the prompt identification of these discrepancies.

4~e

, I