IR 05000133/1981005
| ML20039B354 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1981 |
| From: | Willett D, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039B350 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-133-81-05, 50-133-81-5, NUDOCS 8112220568 | |
| Download: ML20039B354 (6) | |
Text
c.
e
-
a U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tHISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report flo. En_1 u m1 nc Docket !!o. 50-133 License No.
nnn_7 Safeguards Group Licensee: Pacific Gas and noctric en-n>ne 77 Raala'U reat
,
San Francisco. California 94106 Facility Name: Humboldt Bay Unit 3 Inspection at: Eureka. California Inspection conducted:0ctober 26-29. 1981
,
Inspectors:
M O-28~~F/
-0$55is Willett/ Reactor Inspector Date Signed Date Signed Approved by:
tLU 4 (_[ Add NY.
//-- M
/
T. Young, Jr.,' Chief, Date Signed ReactorProjectsSebjion2 Sumary:
Inspection on October 26-29, 1981 (Report No. 50133/81-05J i
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of operations; organization and administration; training; maintenance; surveillance; followup on IE Bulletins and Circulars; Licensee Events; and independent inspection.
The inspection involved 23 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
<
$h
RV Fonn 219 (2)
G
-
w.-_ _ m _
a _. a,
.
-
-
- -
.
-.
r
.
,.
s DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- E. Weeks, Plant Superintendent
- B. C. Getty, Senior Power Production Engineer
- D. D. Richardson, Supervisor of Maintenance R. T. Nelson, Power Plant Engineer R. P. Flohaug, Training Co'rdi..' tor
-
o R. Thomas, Mechanical Foreman D. A. Peterson, Quality Control Supervisor ~
Theinspectoralsointerviewed'otherlicinseeemployeesduringthe course of the inspection. including control operators and the instrument and control supervisor.
-
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
?lant Operations - General The major items remaining to be completed during the outage have been deferred until resolution of the geologic / seismic issues at the plant.
No major work was observed to be in progress during this inspection.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Organization and Administration The licensee's organization has not changed significantly since the last inspection. One previous function, that of onsite Quality Assurance (QA), has been deleted in lieu of corporate quarterly QA audits.
No items of noncomrliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Review and Audit Representative samples of the following logs and records for 1980 and 1981 were examined and discussed with licensee personr.el:
Control Operator's Log Shift Foremen's Log Jumper Log Clearance Logs Plant Staff Review Committee (PSRC) Minutes Quality Control Audits Random Back Shif t Inspections Housekeeping Reports
.
-
-
.
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
_
.
,,
,
-2-The inspector expressed his concern to the licensee that it was not obvious from the PSRC minutes that Quality Control (QC) audits were being reviewed by the PSRC. The inspector noted that a QC audit in June, 1980 identified problems with current tagging precedures and implementation.
In August 1981 a water spill occurred and was attributable is part to the tagging program. The licensee assured the inspector
.aat QC audits were reviewed by members of the PSRC and conveyed his intent tc a more formal documentation in the PSRC minutes.
In addition, the licensee stated that the facilities tagging program is under current review and will be resolved by January 1, 1982.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Maintenance The inspector reviewed the following selected procedures: M 424.11 -
Service and Repairs to Closed Cooling Water Pumps; and M 424.72 -
Service and Repairs to Screen-Wash Pumps; E-1 - Motor Controllers; C-1 - Instrument and Controls Calibration Procedure (ICCP); C-3 -
Conduct of Plant and Equipment Tests; and E-4 - Procedures and Temporary Instructions. The inspector ext ~ ned selected records, interviewed cognizant personnel, and observt* the status of plant components and systems to verify the adequacy of procedures, qualifications of personnel, satisfactory calibration of' test equipment and conformance to regulatory
~
requirements.
The inspector expressed the following concerns:
a.
Maintenance procedures M 424.72 and M 424.11.i;d not identify persons doing maintenance.
b.
Maintenance procedures M 424.11 and M 424.72 stated that post maintenance functional testing should be completed or was optional.
Administrative Procedures C-3, Part 2 - General, Section B states that:
" Tests shall be performed following...significant maintenance and repairs to confirm... expected resuld."
c Maintenan u Procedures M 424.11 and M 424.72 did not provide acceptance criteria for post maintenance functional testing.
The licensee generated a problem report (#P0979) at the time of this inspectson and committed to review his procedures and generate the necessary changes by January 1, 1982. The licensee also conveyed his intent to incorporate, into the maintenance program, a procedure outlining a method of post maintenance calibration verification for equipment such as torque-wrenches, calipers and micrometers. This is to be used for reverification of the last equioment maintained, in the instance that test equipment is discovered out of calib'ation.
No items of noncompliance or d uiations were identified.
- - - - -
-
-
-
-
-.
--
.
- -
-.
-
-.
. -
-
- - -
-
-
-
.
6 *
-3-6.
Surveillance The following selected surveillance tests were examined: Operational Test Procedure (OTP)-6; Propane Engine Generator and OTP-9, Liquid Poison System. The inspector verified that the pre. Mures, results, and schedules met the requirements of administrat' /e procedures, industry standards, and NRC regulations.
Selected instrumentation calibrations in the reactivity control system, restor coolant system, emergency core cooling system, fire protection system, and plant electrical system were examined. The inspector observed that calibrations of devices not required during the present plant mode (cold shutdown) of cperation have been deferred indefinitely.
Licensee representatives stated that these deferred calibrations would be completed prior to start-up.
The inspector noted that there were pencilled in changes to the control room ccpy of a surveillance procedure. The inspector expressed his concern that this practice does not adequately reflect who made the changes, when they were made, was there proper review and approval of changes, and casts doubt on which way the procedure was performed.
The licensee stated that their administration rc[olved procedure chances by an individual generating a problem report ur through periodic reviews.
The licensee agreed cc_ reviewing this item at the next PSRC meeting. This item is considered open aid will be followed up at a later inspection (81-05-01).
No items of noncompliance or deviations wer identified.
7.
Training The inspector examined the licensee's Technical Specifications, Administrative Procedure (B-1, Qualification of Personnel on.the Plant Staff, and B-2, General Requirements for Training of Onsite Personnel) and ANSI N18.1, Requirements of Organizational Selection and Personnel Qualifications.
The inspector reviewed the minimum shif t crew composition and PSRC membership qualifications to verify that plant personnel were trained to a level commensurate with their duties. Through examination of training records and discussions with the present and a past training coordinator, the inspector verified that the level of training met the licensee's requirements and NRO regulations.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Bulletins /, Circulars The inspector verified the licensee had received the applicable IE Circulars and Bulletins. An examination of records and discussions with licensee representatives verified appropria*.o corrective action was identified or taken.
ihere is no change in status from that previously
- - - - -
.
- -
- -
,-
'
..-
-4-reported.
All applica' ole circulars and bulletins, that do not require immediate attention, are open and are being carried on an open items list for resolution prior to restart of the facility. All bulletins for 1980 (80-01 through 80-25) were reviewed.
Bulletins 80-07, 80-09, 80-12, 80-15, 80-18, and 80-22 are considered not applicable. All applicable 1980 bulletins have.been responded to:except 80-12. All 1980 bulletins are considered closed except the following: 80-01, 80-06, 80-08, 80-10, 80-11, 80-13,.80-14,-80 21, and 80-25.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were-identified.
9.
Reportable Event Followup
'
-
,
The circumstances and corrective actic'n ' described ^in the Licensee
Event Reports (LER) listed below were verified'by the inspector through examination of records, interviews with personnel, and examination of equipment. The events have been reviewed by'the ;icensee and reporting requirements were met.
80-01 setpoint drift, new pressure sensor installed (closed)
-
80-02
-
trip test, deferred till restart (open)
80-03
-
breaker failure, replace prior to restart (open)
80-04
-
breaker failure, replace prior to restart (open)
80-05
-
valve failure, replaced (closed)
80-06
-
pipe crack, replace prior to restart (open)
80-07
-
broken pulley, remanufacturjd (closed)
80-08
-
breaker failure, replace prior to restart (open)
80-09
-
motor failure, replace motor (open)
81-01
-
valve fTilure, replaced (closed)
81-02
-
valve Silure, replace prior to restart (open)
81-03
-
incorrect setpoint, set correctly (closed)
81-04
-
pump failure, repaired (closed)
81-05
-
cracked pump casing, remanufactured fooen)
No items of norcenpliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Independent Inspection The inspector walked through areas of the plant to observe ar.tivities in progress, to inspect the general state of housekeeping, and to check that monitoring instrumentation was reading or recording as required and in current cit nration.
Temperature and nuclear monitoring indications appeared normel.
The inspector observed that neutron monitoring indications appeared normal and that neutron monitoring was being performed in accordance with Technical Specification requirements. Normal radiation control practices were in effect including the establishment of barrier controls. No unusual fluid leaks or piping vibrations were observed.
The inspector verified that the ventilation systems, nuclear instrumentation, component cooling system, and reactor protection systems were operational.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. -
_
-. -
-
.
..
-5-i No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on October 29, 1981. The scope
'
and findings of the inspection were discussed and summarized as set fcrth in Paragraphs 2 through 10.
@
.
$
g
.
- -
-
. - -.
-.
-
- -
. -
. - -
. - - -.
. - - -
- -.
. -
.
. -
. -. -. -
-.
-
...
-. -
- -... - -.
. -
.
.
.
. -.
-
-. -. - -...
- -
-. -..
- -.
..
-