IR 05000155/1975015
| ML20002D746 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1975 |
| From: | Hunter D, Jordan E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002D741 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-75-15, NUDOCS 8101220296 | |
| Download: ML20002D746 (18) | |
Text
..
-
.
-
.
.
,
,
U. S. NUCLEAR PICULATORY COFCIISSION
' ~ -
OFFICE OF INSPECTIO:' NiD ENFORCEMENT f
REGION III.
Report of Operations' Inspection
'
,
t IE Inspection Report No.- 050-155/75-15 Licensec: Consumers Power Co=pany 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49210 Big Roc 1-Point NucIcar Plant License. No. DPR-6
~
Charlevoix, Michigan Category:
C Type of Licensec:
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection:
Novc=ber 3-7, 1975 Y&
8l28 l-73 -
Principal Inspector:
D. R.' Hunter (Dine)
q.
' ~
Accocpanying Inspectors: None Other Accompanying Personnel: None IL)a n, y' / Jordan, Section Leader.
.
T Reviewed By:
z..
,
'
(D' te)
Reactor Projects No. 2 a
,
.
.
k e
-
.
. -
r
-
.
c
-
-
,
F/d/Aa.62Pd
.
_
.
..
. -
.-.-
... -..
.
. - - - -..
.
.
.
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ __ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
'
.
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS i
Inspection Summary I
!
Inspection of November 3-7, 1975, (75-15): ~ plant operations, plant records., followup of items of noncompliance, reportabic occurrence reports, unusual event reports, facility tour pnd inspector identified and outstanding items. One item of noncompliance was identified related to a facility modification.
Enforcenent Items
,
~
A.
Violations None.
.
B.
Infractions Contrary to 10 CFR 50.59, a docuanented safety evaluation was not provided as required prior.to a rodification involving the emergency electrical system.
(Report Details, Paragraph 4.c)
.
C.
Deficiencies None.
Licensec Action on Previcuciv Identified Enforeccent Itecs
!
A.
The corrective action by the licensee associated with I2:III Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-05. was reviewed to verify completion and docunentation. The licensec has implemented'
the new Aministrative Procedure 1.9, and Quality Assurance Manual Volume III, Section 3.
The corrective-actions are con-sidered adequate.
(Report Details, Paragraph 3.a)
B.
The corrective action by the licensec associated with IE:III
Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-10 was reviewed to verify com-piction and documentation. The licensee has reviewed and updated the plant startup checklists, -generated a schedule for calibra-tion of measuring and test.cquipment, impicnented an I & C surveillance status board, issued training memos relating to noncomforning itcc.s,. and revised Administrative Procedure 1.17.C.1, to insure review of. completed surveillance by the responsible supervisor. The corrective netions are considered adequate.
(Report Details, Paragraph 3.b)
-2-
.
.
.
.
e
v
-
,
,
!
-
.
Oth'r Signific nt Findingt i
)
A.
Systems and Components I
,
l Unresolved Iten:
Maintaining the shutdown cooling system heat
,
exchanger inlet valves and pump dischaine. valves normally closed -
' during power operations appears in conflict with the intent of the FilSR and the Technical. Specificatidas.
(Report Details, P, ara,raph 6.a.(10))
{
B.
Facility itccs (Plans and Procedures)
.
None.
C.
Managerial Items None.
.
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensec None.
,
.
E.
Deviations None.
,,
F.
. Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Iters No change.
.
Management Interviev
'
The canagement interview was conducted on November 7, 1975, with'the following persons present:
C. J. Hartuan, Plant Superintendent
.
C. R. Abel, Operations Engineer D. E. DeMoor, Technical Engineer
. C. T; se", ::aintenance Engineer
R. L. Sciirauer, Instrument and Control Supervisor R. W. Doan, Shift Supervisor / Training Supervisor A. C. Sevencr, Shif t Supervicor G. B. Szczotka, Quality Assurance Engineer A.
The inspector stated that a review of plant operations, plant records, completion of items of noncompliance and selected outstanding items revealed one apparent discrepancy concerning the shutdown cooling systcm which will be carried as an unresolved item.
(Report Details, Paragraph 6.a.(10))
B.
The inspector stat'ed that a review of three reportable occurrence
,
-3-
.
.
.
g-
.
-
,
.
.
.
,
_-. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
___ __
_
_
e
- -
.
rsparta and three enuzual cv:nt rep:rtc;(Peregrcpha 4 cnd 5)-
-
identified one' item of noncompliance concerning the addition
.,
of a security load to the 480V bus 2A without the required safety evaluation. The inspector stated that the event was
.;
related to a previously reported evenc (A0 22-75) and.consti-tut (d an item of noncompliance. -
..
l~
.
.
The inspector asked if any other unreviewed modification had been made to the electrical-busses and the licenece indicated
~
that a nu=ber of changes may have been mhde since 1962.and safety evaluations were.not likely to bel availabic. The ~ inspec-tor asked the licensec.to consider a review of the emergency
electrical loads and testing during the next outage to. verify proper emergency power loads and transfer during a loss of offsite power.. The licensee acknowledged the above statc=cnts.
(Report Details, Paragraph 4c)
-
,,
C.
The inspector asked the licensee if any aircraft overflights of the Big Rock Point Plant had occurred recently. The licensee stated that no overflights had occurred.
.
k e
4
,
e I
e i
e 4-
-
,
I e
l t '~
. ]
.
r i '
.
~
~
REPORT DETAILS
,
l Perscas Conts:ted-
.,
C. J. Hart =an, Plant Supertindent C. R. Abel, Operations Engineer
-.
.
D. E. DeMoor, Technical Engineer C. C. Tyson, !!aintenance Engineer C. E. Axtcll, Chemistry and Radiation Protection Supervisor
.
HH. E. Black Assistant Maintenance Supervisor S. A. Carlisle, Shift Supervisor R. U..Doan, Shift Supervisor / Training. Supervisor
-
E. McNanara, Shif t Supervisor
.
R. A. )kVay, Maintenance Supervisor.-
.
E. F. Peltier Shift. Supervisor
,
Rs E. Schrader. I & C Supervisor.
.
H. H. Phelps, Assistant 1 & C Supervisor -
G. B. Szczotka,- Quality' Assurance Engineer.
A. C. Sevener Shift Supervisor R. W. Voll,- Reactor Engineer 1.
Revice of Plant Operations
.
The.roptine plant operations were reviewed to verify that solceted operation,s vere in accordance with the Technical Specifications-and Administrative Procedures.
,,
The selective review of the shift log-and data sheets to deter--
mine adequate logheeping practices and review in accordance with
the instructicus and requirements (Administrative Procedures 1.4 and Technical Specification 7.0) revealed no apparent discrepancies, Shift Supervisor Loc, Septecher 4, 1975, through Novc=ber 4..
a.
1975.
,
b.
Control Room Log, October 19.-1975, through Novc=ber-3, 1975._
,
1 -
c.
Control Rpen and Generation Data Sheets, October 15, 1975, threuth Eeverber 3, 1975.
d.
Reactor Log, October 1, 1975, through november 3, 1975.
'
The inspector _ reviewed selected.significant items entered _ in -
e.-
the logs and verified the required ic=ediate and follovep actions.
.
(1) The failure to _ locate the test line on the. resin sluice
'
line on September 8,1975, by. operations was evaluated and reported as a_ reportable event.3/ $/-
2/ A0 050-155/21-75.
,
.
~$-
r
.
.
.
...,
.
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
!
Tha weekly cqr.ipment r tetiengl wara spparently b ing
'
.
(2)
performed in accordance.with instructi:ns.
i
.
',
f.
The inspector reviewed'sc1ceted significant items entered i
in the data sheets.
~
(1) The safety reinted. data sheet readings arc presently under review by the licensee jo determine specific requirements for Technical Specification coverage and
'
acceptance criteria.
(2) The pipe tunnel steam leak lyigh deu point /tc=perature alarm was' not 111uminated.2/. The turbine drain line 1cah had been repaired during a veckend outage and the alarm was cleared. The inspector noted the humidity
.in the steam pipe L,unnel continues to r,cmain high due to other minor turbinc Icahage.
(3) The inspector verified that the control room materials, as required by Adninistrative Procedure 1.4, were avail-abic, with the exception of the technien1 data book.
The. technical data book, which is being generated by the reactor engineer, was nearing completion.
(4) The administrative key controls were reviewed in accor-dance with Adcinistrative Procedure 1.4.
The inspector reviewed the administrative lock checkoff sheet and verified that the administrative control keys were under the direct control of the shift supervisor.
- t (5) The inspector noted that the operations weekly trainin'g includes training in the specific administrative pro-cedures which applies to operators. Thi inspector noted that the operations group has been required to read and review the administrative procedures although no formal training program was. utilized at the time the procedures were implemented. The inspector verified that operations
,
personnel possessed an adequate understanding of the admin-
-
istrative procedurcs through direct observations and discussions with selected operations personnel.
(6) The inspector verified the availability of the newly established containment isolation checklist.-
l 2.
Review of records
~
The inspector reviewed selected plant records to ascertain that control, storage, retention and retrieval of records and documents J/ IE Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-10.
.
.
-6-
.
,,
r
-
t
~
s
-- - - - -
,
-,
-
-
,
. -
-
.
.
w;ro in c:nfercance with tha Technic 1 Sptcificctirna cud plcnt.
-
instructions.
I a.
Training Department Records, i
(1) The training records were reviewed and the, inspector noted that the overall staff training and records program was being evaluated and updated. The licensee indicated that a management meeting was s'cheduled for November 12, 1975, to attempt to formalize the plant training program.
The inspector noted that records of the training being per-formed were being maintained; including operator trcining
and retraining, plant security ' orientation, and radiological orientation and indoctrination (including offsite contractors).
,
(2) The Operations Manual, maintained by the, training supervisor, appeared to be current. A review of the
master procedure file (cats) and the superseded procedures indicated a weak area in the system with regards to the records of procedure changes prior to June 1975.
Subsequent to the issuing of the new Administrative Procedures, a procedure change sheet (record of change) is being filed with the procedure review forry and appears adequate.
b.
Reactor Engineering Department Records.
The fuel manage =ent records revicwed included:
(1) Fuel Management file.
(2) Annual physical inventory of source material.
.
!
(3)
Superseded fuel handling procedures - records of. procedure
.
changes revealed a weak area which should be resolved by the new Administrative Procedures.
Subsequent to June 1, 1975, procedure change sheets are being filed with the procedure review form.
Prior to that time the record may only include the procedure utili cd to perforn the evo-lutions as the record of procedures and procedure changes.
(4) Reactor. vessel material surveillance file.
rogram and record control system L'eakness in the overall record p/ and are under review and c.
are recognized by the licensca-i revision.
!
'
3.
Review of Corrective Actions Associated uith Previous Items of Noncompliance
.
i i
!
a.
A review of the corrective actions, associated with IE Inspection l
I 4/ IE Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-12.
i l t
_7-
.
!
i
.
.
..
,-
-
-
i
.
.
-
-
-.... - - - - - -
^
.
-
.
.
.
050-155/75-051/ cc indicated by-the lic:nsee'o-
. Report'N./ rGvraled o contiruing difsrt by the liccn :2
.
rscp:n:c,$
to assure that safety related changes'cro b31ng p2rferned in i
accordance with the Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50.59.
'
In a previous report a review of the Qu,ality Assurance Manual ji and the Administrative Procedures revealed a conflict, which is presently being-resolved by thellicensec. Ti e inspector t
~
verified that the licensec was following the Quality Assurance Manual and 10 CFR 50.59 until the donflict is resolved. The newly implceented Administrative Piocedures appear to be ade-quate to prevent further unreviewed changes. The; inspector
.
-
noted the continuing effort ~to update the. facility administrative procedures, provide training for personnel, and co plete the classification of safety related systems and co=ponents. The
.
corrective actions are adequate.
b.
A review of the corrective act ons, associated with IE~ Inspect-tion Report No. 050-155/75-101. as indicated by.the licensec's
.
responce,8/ revealed that the licensee has coepleted the required corrective actions.
(1) Plant Startup Checklists.
.
(a) ~Information me=o issued and routed.
(b)
Checklists revieved and updated for consistency.
,
(c) Checklists updated to contain a review sign-off.
(2) Control of Measuring and Test Equipment.
(a) The instrument and control department has generated a schedule requiring the departncnt censuring and
test equipment testing to be performed. Procedural control prevents or reveals the use of untested:
equipecnt by requiring the logging of the test equip-ment by serial number and calibration date on the procedure.
(b) The maintencnce department has a schedule partially c.:. crated rsqvir'r.g the ugert:u.: rensrr mr :c test equipment testing to be perforced. -Proco. tral contre;s should prevent the use of untested equipuent by re-quiring the logging of the equipment by serial nunber
and calibration in addition to an equipacnt checkout sheet. All of the maintenance departncnt controlled measuring equipment is handled in this manner. and is not availabic for general use.
5/ IE:III to CP, Itr dtd 5/20/75.
6/ CP to IE:III, ler dtd 6/28/75.
.
7/ IE:III to CP, ler dtd 8/7/75.
8/ CP to IE:III, Itr dtd 9/4,/75.
.
8-
-
..
.
.*
.
.
'
t.
s
%
-
,
,
y
~
,
%#
.
-
_
. _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
.
.
,
.
.-
'(c) The inspector verified that the plant quality
'
assurance engineer was aware of the program weak-;
ness and was involved in expediting the appropriate j
corrective actions.
.
(3)
It.atruction for Quality Activitics.
,
.
.
(a) The operations accos were being reviewe'd by all operations personnel and properly documented.
(b) 'All operating personnel had reviewed the applicabic'
administrative procedure.and the review was documented on the QA-05 form.
(c) The I & C surveillance status board was being utilized to assure no surveillance is overlooked.
,
(d) A training memo, dated September 11, 1975, had been issued and routed to~ emphasize.the identification and followup on nonconforming items or other anomalies.
(c) The review of operations, which includes the log book review, by the Plant Review Committec.(quorum) is being performed. This review should reveal any anomalies
and generate the appropriate management actions. The inspector verified. through discussions, that the pinnt personnel are more aware of the importance of.the fc11ou-
,'
up actions when nonconforming items or deviations arc identified.
(f) The newly revised Administrative Procedure (1.17.C.1)
requires the responsibic supervisor to revicu the cocpleted surveillance prior to the equipment being returned to service.
4.
Revicu of Reportabic Occurrence Reports
!.
a.
A0 050-155/IS-75, control rod worth calculation errors, reported on Augiist 25, 1975. The licenre reportedE/ that the het rod worth and cold rod worth calculations ucre in error due to
'
incorrect input data in the coeputer for cycic 13 in July, 1974.
The review of the old and new calculations with the reactor engineer indicated that the new calculations were within the technical specifications requirements (ccction 5.2).
The errors were identified as the wrong identification of four (4) control rod drive worth schemes (weak or strong) which affected the cal-culated shutdow.i margin, and the predicted critical calculations.
9/ CP to DL, ltr dtd 9/4/75.
-9-
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
Shutdown Mergin Beginning of Cyc1c 13 Middic of Cycic 13
'
Old New
,O_1 d New
-
All Rods 2.21%
5.94%
2.94%
7.93%
In
,
Rod A4 3.81%
3.70%
5.14%
4.14%
Out The control rod worths did not vary by more than 0.2% AX/K,
the ejected rod worth was less than the technical specification
,
requirement of 2.5% 4K/K, and the shutdown _nargin is greater than'the requirement of 0.3% LE/K. The licensee has issued an Action item Report (AIR BR-102-75) to insure, through procedural control, that the computer input data is reviewed or.d correct.
b.
A0 050-155/23-75, receipt of unlicensed reactor / uel, reported f
on* September 29, 1975. The licensee reporteg that the plant had received 20 bundles of uraniun dioxide fuel on September 25, 1975, which.had not been authorized for use with a technical specificction change. The inspector reviewed the corrective action taken by the liccuscc.
'a e Luc 1 containcts ate stored.in the laydevn area inside the containment awaiting a technical specification change. The review of the cause of the occurrence with the licensee representative indicated'that a facility change procedure was not utilized to provide design control measures
,
during this fuel change and the associated technical specification.
change requirement was overlooked.
'
c.
A0 050-155/24-75, improperly authorized addition of a load to
-
safety related 4SOV AC bus 2A in July 1975, classified-and reported as a reportabic etcurrence on November 6, 1975. The licensee reported that during the installation of a new system in carJy 1975, cicctrical equipment was connected to the 2A bus with no facility change initiated and no documented safety review-performed. The inspector verified that the load applied to the 2A bus was small but utilized a 100 a= pere breaker. The licensee indicated that the unauthorized change was discovered during an evaluation to locate a source of power for a trailer being pre-paredfortenporaryofficespaceandrecordsstoragegu ses.
This occurrence is similar to the previous occurrenca__ - /
reported to the NRC. The review of the previous occurrence docu-mented in IE Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-12. The inspector 10/ CP to DL, ltr dtd 10/9/75.
1_1_/ A0 050-155/22-75.
12/ CP to DL, Itr dtd 9/22/75.
- g
- 10 -
.
.
. *
I
,
.__.
.--
v
,
,-,.
-
_
., -,,
_
y
,,.
_
. -, - -.
.
.
.
.
'
noted that the licensas did not dicesvar this event thrcush a
-
normal cudit program or ao a recult cf review cf the prsvicua.
similar occurrence. The failure to perform the safety related-modification (cmcrgency power system) in accordance with the
,
facility change procedures and failure to provide a documented i
safety evaluation, is considered an item of noncoepliance pur--
suant to 10 CFR 50.59.
-
5.
Review of Unusual Event Reports
,
s.
UE 050-155/03-75, deficiency in automatic core spray flow establishment for small intermediate break (LOCA), reported on June.30, 1975. The inspector reviewe'd Operating Procedure B8 and Off-Normal Procedure D3.3 to verify operator action required to initiate the fire protection system, backup core spray system and backup building spray systen during a scall or intercediate breah (LOCA) during a loss of offsite poucr.
b.
UC 050-155/04-75, control rod E-4 withdrau failure on' July 25 1975, was reported cut August 11, 1975. The licensee reuorted 3/
that control rod E-4 failed to withdraw during the daily.
cxcrcising test. The review of the event with the technical engineer and reactor engineer indicated that the subsequent testing of the control rods revealed no general-rod covocent impaircent; rod E-4 had been inserted to step 19.during attecpts to withdraw the rod; and with the control rod valved out and tagged at step 19, assuming the highest uorth control rod' fails to-scram, the plant would ncet the required shutdown targin.
c.
UE 050-155/05-75, off-gas conitor channel fl failure to trip L
during testing, reported on September 23, 1975. The licensce-reported that thc fl off-gas monitor channel failed to trip
-
during the daily functional testing. The inspector verified
'
the celector switch for the off-gas monitors to be in the-f2'
chauncl' position and caution tagged (Report Dctcils, Paragraph 6.a).
The inspectoi verified that the inst rument department was continuing to follow the problen end the I & C Supervisor stated
,
that the channel has not failed to trip since the failure' on August 30, 1975, with normal daily functional testing continuing.
This iten will recain open.
6.
Facility Tour
.
The inspector reviewed the following scIccted system and corponent
'
. a.
status to ascertain the plant conditions to be within the adminis-trative limits and technical specifications requirementc.
(1) A yellow caution tag was in place on the number one off-gas instrument.due to a failure of the instrument to trip properly during testing. The inspector verified the number 13/ CP to DL, ler dtd 8/25/75.
.
- 11 -
.
.
T
.
.
e
.
-
_ - _ _
_.
--___-_-______---____ ___--
_
_ _
-
,
-l-
.
.
-5
.
.
,
I two cff-gan instrument in cGrvica.- A diccussien with the. instrument supervisor indicated the instruncut I
internal trip had operated intermittently and the channc1 was under obcervation. The routine instrument functional
- !
testing was continuing in an attempt to locate the
~
specific probica. Technical" Specification 6.4.1(a) re-quiresonechanneltobeinservicdatalltimes.
-
-
l (2) The reactor recirculation pump number two seal is -
'
,
continuing.to experience above normal leakage, maintaining a high pressurcion the nu=ber two. scal. The-seal system appea'.*s to be functioning within the systen design re-
'
quirements.
'(3) The main steam pipe tunnel high humidity /tceperature alarnli/.
was cicated after the renair of a turbine drain line Icak.
The initiation of the alarm will indicatc an increase in.
~
pipe tunnel humidity /tcepcraturc'and require cperator investigation, for possibic increased steam Icahage.
(4)- The condencate tank high icvel alern was illuninated, vith
,
the tank IcVel at approxicately 98%.
The high tank Icvel was due to a small condenser tube Icak requiring interni,-
.
tent batch releases of liquid frca the plant because of the icke water in-1cakage into the condensctc systen.
(5) The containment isolation valves pcsition indications on the control coard were revicued. All valve pcsitions ap-peared norcal, including the tain secsA drain-line valve (MO-7065) which is closed and deactiviated.
(6) The core spray systen remote-automatic operated valve
'
positions were reviewed and found norcal.
,
(a) MO-7051 and 7061 closed - green indicator lights.
'
(b) MO-7070 and 7071 closed - green indicator lights.
(c) MO-7066 closed - green indicator light.
,
-
'd)
MO-706S and 7064 closed - green indicator lights.
(c) MO-707.2 closed - green indicator light.
-
(f)
'M-7073 and 707L c?cred - green indicator lights.
(7) The manual core spray supply valves from the fire protection header in the turbine building were verified open and locked open.
(8)
Selected electrical systen lineups were reviewed for operability. All of the reviewed cicctrical breaker
alignments appeared norn.al.
14/ IE Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-10.
.
- 12 -
t
.
4 8
-
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
-
,
.
.
'
'
.
.
~
(a)
480V bus IA
'
s (b)
480V bus 2A-(c)
480V bus 2B (cmergency diesel bus)
(d)
2400V bus and 480V busses 1 and 2
-
,
(c)
480 bus IC
,
'
(f)
480V bus 2C t
(g)
480V power panel IP (h) 480V MCC ID (i)
125V DC distribution panci (j)
125V DC distribution panel DIO (k)
125V MCC-bus l
l
'
(9) The emergency _ condenser cyctem radiation monitors, valve positions and water level were revieced and appeared norcal.
(a) MO-7052 and 7062 open - red indfrator lights.
.
(b) M0-7053 and 7063 closed - gre.cn iodicator lights.
d (c) Condenser water Icyc1 logges "oormai en the control room data sheet.
-
(d)
Energency condenser vent radiatica monitors in service indicating the background radiation level.
(10) The shutdoun cooling system was reviewed.for operability in accordance with the operating procedure B5, the Technical Specification 4.1.2(b), and FHSR 5'.7.
.
(a) The primary icolation valves MO-7056 and MO-7058 and the secondary isolation valves MO-7057 and MO-7059 indicated closed -
';c,cu indicating lights.
.
(b) The valve chech list for the systen and the operating procedure indicated that the heat exchanger inlet valves (SC-1 and SC-3) and the pump discharge valves (SC-2 and SC-4) were closed. These valvo positions appear contrary to the FHSR 5.7.9, which indicates the entire cooling water operation can be placed in service from the control room.
8,
,
'i'
(c) Technical Specification 4.1.2(b) indicates that the shutdown coolingLsysten shall be operable and ready for service during power operations.
Plant operation with the heat exchanger inlet valves (SC-1 and 3C-3) and the pump discharge valves (SC-2 and SC-4) closed appears
contrary to this specification.
(d) The inspector verified that the shutdown cooling system could be placed into operation with local operator assistance as indicated in the Operating Procedure B5; however the maintenaace of ir.hibited water in the shut-down system as indicated in the FHSR 5.7.8 and the
.
I
- 11 -
-
.
f*
.
C
m
.
-
,-
-
.
t
.
.
.
-
.
Operating Procedure B5 has not proven conpatible with plant eperaticn, cnd-thel lack cf; inhibited
vater in the system.is contrary to cperating pro-cedure and THSR..
t
.
.
.
-
.(c) The routine operation with the shutdown cooling systen valves (SC-1, SC-3, SC-2 and SC-4) nor-nally closed and the apparent lack of. inhibited-water'in the shutdown cooling systen vill be l
con!.inued as an. unresolved item, b.
The control room canning was reviewed to be in compliance'vith
,
with Technical Specifications and 10 CFR-50.54(k)~.
.
c.
Selected workean protection and caution tags. vere revieved by the inspector to be in place as indicated within the plant.
.
(1).Three caution tags in th2 c=argency dicsc1' generator rco=.
(2)' ' Caution tag on the nu=ber one/tvo of fges nenitor scicetor
svitch.
.
,
.
-(3) k*orkman protection tags (3) on the condenser door alar =
circuit.
d.
The syster.s status board was reviewed to be indicative of tbc plant conditions. No apparent discrepancies verc^noted.
,
~
e.
The inspector, shift superxisor, No. l'operater, and No. 2 operator compered tuo recent cor:puter heat balancer with ti.e
' actual picca== ter readings en Kove=5cr 4,1975. The heat i.
balance indicated 191.9 MWt (98.4%) at 1600 and 193.3 21't
-
(99.38%) with the actual average flux-indication at apprcxi '
mately 97.2% and 93%, respectively.
f.
The inspector observed the surveillance test (T30-13) perforced on the ccergency diesel generator on Nove=ber 6, 1975. The ecergency diesel started and stabilized in about 10 seconds.
The diesel generator was loaded to approxicctely 110 acpercs
' -
with the electric driven fire pu=p and the generator f requency decreased from 60.5 herta to 60.2 herte. No apparent discrep-ancies vere *ncted.-
7.
Cencrt] Facility Itens
-
j
"
The inspector revicued the sta'tus of the engineering progran en a.
several recently identified items and outstanding ite=s.
(1) The condensate tank vent to the environ = cat 11/ has been referred to the offsite engineering group (AIR ER-65-75)
with a requested coepiction date of April 1976. The licensee representative noted that the condensate reject line orifice requirement was also included in this study.
i 15/ IE Inspection Report No '050-155/75-11.
j
,
- 14 -
.
V~
j
'
.
)
e
' e
.
~
.
g
.
L-
.
-
,.
.
The c nd;n cts raject lina crifica requircecnt va id;nti-
,
ficd when a large load reject occurred and the feed pumps were not adequately supplied with water while the reject valve cycled open. The inspector noted that at the present time with the condensate tank almost full, the internal condensate tank vent might be required to pass full con-densate pump reject flow under certain extreme conditions.
The internal vent appears inadequate, under these circum-stances. This item will remain open!.
I (2) The resin sluice valve seals and seatsl6/17/18/ were reviewed with the licensee representative. The inspector noted that no other Worchester valves were being utilized under these conditions. The data package indicated that the valves are only designed for 800 psi at IE00F. During the investi-gation, the licensee has detercined that the valve actuator
.
seals may only be designed to operate at a maxirum of 1600F.
The inspector verified that the plant revicu had addressed the cv findings and 'dctermined that:
1) the valves vere normally closed; 2) the valves fail closed on a loss of air or electric power; and 3) the valves vould have failed closed upon seal failure. Based on these findings the plant deter-mined the neu finding not to be reportable since the valve safety function was not altered. The licensee has determined that new type ball valves will have to be installed during the next outage, if they are availabic, since Worchester can-not ecct the plant design criteria. This item vill remain open.
(3) The review of the facility change (FC-318)21/ recove the to 19/20/
previously installed electrical load to e=ergency lighting panel SL revealed no apparent discrepancies. The change was initiated on Septc=ber 18, 1975, and completed on November 3, 1975, utilizing maintenance procedurc 75-SPS-265-05, nev. O, October 21, 1975.
(4) The review of the facility change (FC-312) to correct the
-
22/23/24/ cade to the cecrgency lighting panel SL, change
<
revealed that the power supply to the security systen was roved freu the SL-5 breaker (15 aup) to the I & C panel 3Y-6 breaker (30 amp). The inspector reviewed the docu=cntated safety evaluation, facility change reviews, breaker testing 16/ A0 050-155/19-75.
12/ CP to DL, ltr dtd 9/18/75.
18/ IE Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-12.
19_/ A0 050-155/20-75.
20/ CP to DL, ltr dtd 9/19/75.
j21/ IE Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-12.
_22/ A0 050-155/22-75.
-
j23/ CP to DL, ltr dtd 9/22/75.
_24/ Ie Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-12.
- 15 -
-
.
h I
'
-
.
.
.
'
'perfcrmed_(licen:ce tacted'all cf.the 3Y brc:ksra)..
.
cnd the' drawing change ch: t (DCN 1-35-75). Tha in2psc~
_
- tor noted that the operations engineer generated the' -
I
. appropriate changes to the operations drawing.
as implied by.
(5)
-the FilSR'and-technical specifications,5Thestationbatteryscismicrequire
'
-
2 -
by_the licensec to the company offcite engineering group
~
(Aln gR 67-75) with-a requested complction date of-April 1976. This itcu will remain op'en.
I (6) :The dry sipping of-fuel assenb] es was reviewed for status with the reactor engineer 26/27 The reactor-engineer
'
.
indicated a completion date of'the review and hardware installations of early 1976.
This item will remain open.
systcm and pcactration scaling codi-(7)
Thefirciprotectior;wasreviewed'iththelicensec fications status 28
w representative..The inspector noted that the planned smoke detcetion system will include three regions and
'
an alarm panel. The penetrntion repair materials-have been selected (DC-Q3-6548 silicone RTV focm, medium density
.and DC 90-081, RTV siliconc caul 1) backed with high tcrpera-
ture board or packing as appropriate. This item will remain open.
(8) The of f-gas isolation test has not been perforced, but-is
.
planned 'at the ne:;t outage. The administrative off-gas lirits of 30,000 microcuric/sec and 50,000 cicrocuric/ rec
,
continues to be in effect.
This item will renain open.
(9) The c'ngineering review of the containment'vacuun system inadequacies, is still in progress.D The probicns associated with this particular design deficiency are due to the possible requirements to provide rc=ote manual
'*
or autotelic means of maintcining the cont'aincent ~ vaccr.
below the limits. This iten vill remain open.
(10) The yarway cover glass gasket catcria12 /.3Il was verified
'
-
by the licensee through'in-plant testing to be designed for
servicc et 250 F for extended periods of tine. The licensec conducted tests at 200 F for half an hour, 225 F for half an hour, and 250 F.for half an hour on three individual coupons with no gastat material deterioration noted (MR 75-PI5-205-
,
02-05). The.anufacturer's documentation indicated the material to be adequate for continuous service up to 25^0F.
2_5 / IE Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-11.
2_6 / A0 050-155/04-75.
27) CP to DL, ler dtd 7/11/75.
28/ CP to DL, ltr dtd 9/25/75.
29/ IE Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-05.
30/ A0 050-155/01-75.
31/ AP to D1, ltr dtd 1/27/7'5.
16 -
-
.
T
'
,
i
-
... -,,
-
-
+
,
'
.
.
-
'
.
(11) The crcrgency dits71 genereter' fuel cil system hts been evaluated to determine if-air could possible reach the
'
injectors during starting. The only apparent source of air has been addressed by the licensee (hand priming pump).
.
!
The manufacturer's representative (Michigan Tractor) is scheduled to perform mcjor preventive maintenance on the diesel during the'next outage. This maintenance will in-clude the fuel oil system injectors and components and vibration checks on the dicscl. This item remains open.
(12) The containment ventilation supply valve (CV-4097) has not experienced further lenhage.32/33/34/ and the manufacturer indicates that usage of the seat material in a cool, dark, moist atmosphere should not create a problem.
Storage of the sparc seats under similar conditions should provide extended life without deterioration. The licensec is con-tinuing the monthly surveillance. testing of the valve.
(13) The schedule for ccmpletion of the emergency procedures 35/
and the operator ratraining with walk throughs are scheduled.
The procedure uriting vill be cocpleted by December 31,.
1975, and the walk throughs should be corpleted shortly afterward. The scheduled plant outage planned for January 9, 1976, through March 1976, will allow completion of operator training on the newly uritten emergency procedures. This
,
item remains open.
8.
Reportable Occurrence Revicu The inspector revicued the facility pEocedures to asecrtain that the responsibilitics for review of off normal operating events have been assigned and the facility procedures provide for closcout of the corrective actions.
a.
The plant Administrative Procedure 1.3.D provides for responsi-bility, classification, evaluation, and notification in the case of jus event which is classified as a reportable' event, i
unusual event, or a nonreportable event.
b.
The plant Administrative Procedure 1.3.E.6 provides for ini-tiation of an Action Item elecord (AIR) to provide-tracking (30-day status report) and timely closecut of significant events,
-
nonconforming itcus, deficiencies, etc.
-
c.
The inspector verified that selected plant personnel understood the assigned responsibilitics. Discussions were conducted with two shift supervisors and the technical engineer concerning the 3_2_/ A0 050-155/08-75.
33/ A0 050-155/14-75.
){/ IE Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-05.
,
35/ IE Inspection Report No. 050-155/75-08.
- 17 -
r
>
.
I
. -...
.
. -
s
-
1d3ntificatisn cf cventru_.the clraaificatica cf r.v:nts -cnd
,
"
'
"
tha.verificatien of event cicssificatiens -in a tie:cly :ianntr.
-
'l-The inspector noted that the QA-16 form is reviewed'by the-
'
g'
superintendent, the technical.cngineer and subscquently by the Plant Review Cormittee to' assure proper classification.
"
,
,
'The inspector's review of the reportable event reports, bn-d.
~ usual event reports and!certain nonreportable events during'q-
- this inspection and' previous inspections conducted af ter June?
-1975, revealed.no apparcat discrepancies.
'
>
-
,
,
\\.
-
,
e
%
w c$-
e I.
g I.
.
%.
g.
i
.
.
.r:
a
- 18 -
.
r-
..
o
-
.
.
!
_
_ _ _
s
.
.
-
-
-
.,