IR 05000155/1976007
| ML20002D563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1976 |
| From: | Hunter D, Jordon E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002D559 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-76-07, 50-155-76-7, NUDOCS 8101210355 | |
| Download: ML20002D563 (13) | |
Text
-
Li
.
.
.
..
'
(:
,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
~
REGION III
.
Report of Operations Inspection
.
IE Inspection Report'No. 050-155/76-07-
.7
.
.
Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson Michigan-49210-
,
Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant License No. DPR-6 Charlevoix, Michigan Category:
C Type of Licensee:
BWR (GE), 240 E't Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection:
April 12-15, 1976 4%~
/
Principal Inspector:
Hunter k/*2T N
/
.
'(Da te')
Accompanying Inspectors: None Other Accompanying Personnel: None
$
Jtb6
_
/
/
Reviewed By:
E.
Jordan, Chief 9/.29/76 Reactor Projects Section 2
'(Dati)
.
7/0 /z/ 035[
,
.
v v
-,.,r,
-
,w
.
-,, - -,
- -,.
w,
,
- -
e
-
,
.
..
' s.
4-
,
,
.
!.-
SINMART OF FINDINGS-n Inspection Summary Inspection on April. 12-15, (76-07):" Review of. reportable
.
occurrences, items of noncompliance. organization and '
administration, IE Bulletin, Semi-annuaireports, plant-cleanliness, procedures, construction testing..preoperationsl~
testing and selected outstanding items. Three items of non-
- '
compliance were. identified concerning : reporting requirements
'
and reportable occurrences.
Enforcement Items The following items were identified during the inspection:
A.
Infractions Contrary to Technical Specification 4.1.2. (b), the backup core spray valve breakers vere not de-energized (tagged open) prior to removal of the reactor vessel
. Paragraph 7.a. Report (
head on February 2,.1976.
Details)
B.
Deficiencies 1.
Contrary to Technical Specification 10/6.9.3.a.(3),
the licensee failed to report the volu=e of solid waste shipments in the 1975 semiannual reports as required.
(Paragraph 6.a. Report Details).
2.
Contrary to Technical Specification 10/6.9.2.b.(3), the licensee failed to provide written report, LER 03--
!
76, within the specified time requirements.
(Para-
,
graph 7.b, Report Details)
i Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
'
A.
A review of plant modification controls indicates that 6-the licensee's corrective' actions are not complete.
(Paragraph 8.a. Report Details)
B.
A review of plant retraining activities -indicates that
.
the licensee's corrective actions are not complete.
-
(Paragraph 8.b, Report Details)
.
(
-2-f l
_... _.
_. _
,_
- - -
,.
,
.
'
- *.
.i. 3
..
A Other Significant Findings--
,
,
A.-
Systems and Components 1.
The, installation of the reactor depressurization
'
.
system and the main steam tunnel blowout panel-is nearing completion.
2.
The installation of the fire barrier penetration
' i seals, the sprinkler systems and the. fire detector-
,
system is in progress.
.
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
1.
The 1976 Inservice Inspection of the primary systems and the preinservice inspection of.the reactor depressurization system are being performed.
2.
The refueling outage will apparentIV last'until June 1, 1976.
3.
The licensee has commenced construction activities-on the new office building.
.i C.
Managerial Items None.
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by the Licensee None.
E.
Deviations None.
F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items The licensee has identified a rejectable condition in a weld in the fire water supply (Paragraph 7.b, Report'
.
i'
Details). This is related to the unresolved item regard-ing a lack of third party inspection of welds in the core spray'line identified in IE Inspection Report No. 050-155/76-04. This item remains unresolved, t
3-
-
.
m
" * --
g-
-
e
+
-ny
-
ew%
v
.
.
..
-
Management Interview t:
- The management interview was ' conducted on April 15,1976, by Mr. Hunter with the following persons and others present:
C. J. Hartman,' Plant Superintendent C. R. Abel, Operations Superintendent D. E. DeMoor, Technical Superintendent-G. C. Tyson, Maintenance Superintendent
'E. B. Szczotka, Quality Assurance Superintendent-R. E. Schrader, Instrument and Control Supervisor i
R. W. Voll,-Reactor Engineer R. W. Doan, Shif t Supervisor. Training Coordinator-i T. M.'Brun, Chemistry and Radiological Protection
-
{
Supervisor S. E. Martin, Engineer A.
The inspector stated that the review of the construction activities and the management controls of the activities revealed no discrepancies.
(Paragraph 2, Report Details)
.
B.
The' inspector stated that the review of selected kDS startup packages and the management controls of the startup activities revealed no discrepancies.
(Paragraph 3, Report Details)
C.
The inspector stated-that the review of the plant Organiza-tion and Administration revealed no discrepancies.
(Paragraph 4, Report Details)
D.
The inspector stated that the review of selected Operating Procedures, Emergency Procedures and Offnormal Procedures indicated that the licensee needs to address the loss of the spent fuel pit water level or loss of cooling water system.
The licensee indicated that the procedure require =ent would be reviewed and appropriate actions taken.
(Para-
,
graph 5, Report Details)
E.
The inspector stated that the Emergency Procedures training and walk throughs were not completed and noted that the schedule indicated completion in May 1976. -The inspector stated that the previous licensee commitment indicated'
,
that the training was to be completed during the present i
W
.
-4-(-
s r-
'
.
.
.
t t
-
.
r s
,
'
.
.
outage. The licensee stated that the intent was to complete the training during the outage. ' (Paragraph 10.a. Report Details)
.
F.
The inspector stated that the review of the semiannual reports for 1975 revealed one discrepancy with the reporti require =ents, and that the corrective actions
taken by 2 licensee were considered adequate.
(Para-
.
,
graph 6.o, eport Details)
G.
The inspector stated that two required. reports were late, LER 03-76, and the response to.IE:III Inspection Report.
No. 050-155/76-03. The licensee stated that_the reports were late due to the extre=ely heavy work load during the NRR/ Consumers evaluation of the ECCS syste=s.
The inspector asked the licensee to review the syste= of reporting to insure adequate control in the future to =eet the require--
ments. The licensee acknowledged the request by the
,
,,,,,,
inspector.
(Paragraphs 7.b and 8.b, Report Details)
H.
The inspector stated that the failure of the off-gas syste= to isolate adequately, and the apparent difficulty-in identifying the failure mechanis= will be reviewed further by IE:III.
(Paragraph 10.b,: Report Details)
1.
The inspector stated that a facility tour revealed two questionable practices concerning the control of the ingress and egress of the =ain stea= tunnel-for the purposes of radiological control and security. The lictasce stated that the work' area had been sealed ~off to ascure radiological controls provide a clean area. The licensee also stated ~that the main stea= tunnel security had been addreased by the facility and offss.te canage=ent.
The inspector stated that the radiological controls were cor sidered adequate, and that the cain stea= tunnel security controls would be further reviewed by IE:III.
(Paragraph 9.a. Report Details)
J.
The inspector stated that the review of the corrective actions being taken concerning the retraining progrs=
were not complete and the ite= would be reviewed in a
.
subsequent inspection. The inspector asked the licensee to prepare retraining lecture plans with the caster schedule to indicate the areas, dates and examinations planned during the monthly retraining sessions. The-(
-s-
~
.
.
.
-
.t.
Jicensee acknowledged the request and indicated that the
.
~
area would be evaluated and a schedule prepared.
(Para graph 8.b,' Report Details)
,
,
JThe inspector stated that1the review of the corrective K.
actions being taken concerning the modification' controls
"
'were not complete, and the item would be reviewed in a
. subsequent inspection. 'The. licensee indicated that the-electrical evaluation and Quality Assurance-Procedure-revisions were in progress.
(Paragraph 8.a, Report
,
Details)
s
'
-
...
.
h t
a
6-
- -
r*-
,
,
6--,,
.--
-,m.
y
,..-+-,.-~.r
--
-1,
, -= --
. -
.
.-
.
-
i
,
,.
(
,
REPORT DETAILS
,
,
1.
Persons Contacted s
.C. J. Hartman,-Plant Superintendent D. E. DeMoor, Technical Superintendent C. R..Able, Operations. Superintendent G. C. Tyson, Maintenance Superintendent _
,
G. B. Szczotka, Quality Assurance Supervisor'
!
T. M. Brun, Chemistry and Radiological Protection Supervisor
,
A. C. Sevener, Operations Supervisor P. M. Donnelly, Operator H. M. Phelps, Assistant I&O Supervisor A. J. DeGrasse, Catalytic Startup Coordinator S. E. Martin, Plant Engineer G. DaFoe, Security Supervisor
'R. W. Doan, Shift Supervisor, Training Coordinator K. F. Kruger, Consumers Startup Engineer
~
E. M. Evans, Plant Test Engineer 2.
Construction Activities The inspector reviewed the following construction work-packages to insure adequate administrative' controls,-
construction procedures and safety evaluations were included:
a.
CWP 005-1307-008, Relocation of fire station on the emergency condenser level.
The inspector determined, through record review,
~
that no fuel-was moved during-the containment-vessel fire protection system outage..The i
review included the Standing Orders and the f
completed " Switching and Tagging Records" to l
verify that administrative controls were l
established during the maintenance sutage.
b.
CWP 005-1307-005, Fabrication and installation of
'
control air piping system, Three field changes;-IF, 2F and 3F.
l c.
CWP 005-1307-003, Installation of the RDS piping
!
supports inside the steam drum enclosure.
Two field changes, IF and 2F.
li l
l
- 7^-
'
I
<
q k
.
.L
,
.
..
(
d.
CWP'004-1607-005, Finalize electrical installation.
(1) Cable / wire check sheets.
'
-
-(2) Cable / wire megger sheets.
e.
CWP 001-2401-001, Pressure test of Conax to
-
containment. penetration welds.
Two field changes,-IF and 2F.
I f.
CWP 005-2401-001, Flushing and testing of RDS piping.
- I.
,
3.
Startup Testing
.The inspector reviewed the following preoperational testing packages to insitre adequate administrative controls, startup procedures and safety evaluations were.
included, a.
BRP STP 009, Blowdown line temperature element-functional check approved April 2, 1976; performed on April 2, 1976.
t Two procedure change notices-issued.
b.
CRP STP 007, Fire pump circuitry check.
.c.
BRP STP 001, Water level and eva cuation alarm functional check (reactor and steam drum level-transmitters).
d.
BRP STP 003, UPS system functional test, approved
>
March 29, 1976; performed on April 1, 1976.
l (1) Six change notices issued.
(2) Safety evaluation includes hold on startup until completion of electrical impact of UPS system on station electrical buses.
e.
BRP STP 011, UPS system performance test, approved
.
on April 13, 1976; performed on April 13, 1976.
Three change notices issued.
!
f-8-o
.
k
.
T w
w
--w w
w w
-
-
n
_ _-___-____ _
.
.
.
...
..
d 4.
-Organization and Administration
-
The inspector reviewed the onsite organization, selected personnel qualifications, authorities and responsibilities to be in accordance with Technical Specification 10/6.1,
'
- 10/6.2 and 10/6.3.
No discrepancies were noted.
5.
~0perating Procedures',-Emergency Procedures and Offnermal Procedures
,g.
- The inspector reviewed selected procedures to insure
'
coverage in accordance with Appendix A to Regulatory Guide 1.33.
a.
Selected Operating Procedures, no discrepancies noted.
The licensee is continuing to rewrite the operating.
procedures co conform with ANSI-N18.7 requirements. :
b.
Selected Emergency and Offnormal Procedures.
The loss of the spent fuel cooling water level or cooling systems is not addressed. The inspector t i discussed possible failure modes with the licensee
-
representative.
- The inspector verified that the. fira, protection system is available at all times to provide a backup source of water to the spent fuel pool if required.
.
The licensee's representative indicated that the procedure requirement would be evaluated and cor-
,
rective action taken as appropriate..This item will'
be followed up at a subsequent inspection.
6.
Review of Semiannual Reports Theinspectorreviewedthesemiannualreports!E!'for I
,
1975 to insure the reporting requirements of Technical
,
Specification 10/6.9.3.a were met.
1/ Ltr, CP to NRR, dtd 9/29/75.
2/ ltr, CP to NRR, dtd 3/16/76.
.
.
-9-
-
-
-...
-
u - 4
.
.
..
i a.
Solid Waste Shipments-Technical Specification 10/6.9.'3.a.(3)', re(iires the solid waste to be reported in curies and volume (cubic feet). The licensee failed to report the volume of solid waste shipped offsite.
.
The inspec' tor reviewed the newly issued. data sheet being maintained by the' Chemistry and Radiological-Department and verified that :he data sheet records
,
waste volume in cubic feet.
i
,
,. _
The licensee's corrective actions are considered adequate and no further information is neededLat this time.
7.
Reportable Occurrences
,
a.
LER-02-76, Lack of procedural control reported-on March 1, 1972.
The licensee reported that during vessel head'
removal on February 2, 1976, in preparation for refueling, the power supplies to the motor-operated
-
backup core spray valves were not de-energized and tagged open as required by Technical Specification 4.1.2.(b).
The inspector reviewed the " Switching and Tagging" sheets, to verify that the valve motor operators.
were tagged on February 9, 1976, the issuance of a training memo, and the vessel head removal procedures revision.
The corrective actions by the licensee are considered adequate and no further information is required at this time.
-
b.
R0-03-76, Failure to identify dnd correct a rejectable condition in a weld made in the fire water supply to
';
the core spray system during May 1975.
-
1 that during relocation of
'
The licensee reported the primary core spray valves in May 1975 one of several velds, which was deemed acceptable at that 3/ Ltr, CP to IE:lII, dtd_4/5/76.
-f'
-
10 -
.
me m
,-ew y
w,-
m
,
yd e
p
,p,---
--n
,
w
--
y
,
&
-
., "
-
.
-
.
.
i time, was later deemed unacceptable during a tech-nical review in June 1975. Because of an ad=inis-
-
trative breakdown, the site was not notified of the unacceptable veld until February 25 1976.
Reactoroperationwiththerejectableveldv{J1 continue to be carried as an unresolved item-
.
pending further review by IE:III.
The unacceptable condition was identified to the
.
plant staff on February 25, 1976, and reported on'
-l'
,
April 5, 1976, which is in excess of the.30-day reporting requirements required by Technical'
Specification 10/6.9.2.b.(3).
8.
Items of Noncompliance a.
Facility Modifications Corrective action for the ites of ?necepliance5/6/
--
concerning the major modification costrols has not yet been co=pleted.
The procedure revisions.and the electrical circuit analysis re= sin outstanding.
'
This item re=ains open and vill be folleved up at a subsequent inspection.
b.
Retraining Activities
'
Corrective accion for the ites of nonce =pliance7/8/
--
concerning the operator retraining progra= re=ains inco=plete.
This item re=ains open and will be followed up at.a subsequent inspection.
9.
Facility Tour The inspector toured the facility to view the plant,
'
plant cleanliness, and construction activities.
~
4/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-155/76-04.
'
5/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-155/75-15.
6/ Ltr, CF to IE:III, dtd 12/19/76.
2/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-155/76-03.
8/ Ltr, CP to IE:III, dtd 4/5/76.
I
-
- 11 -
.
.
,
,
'
iL
.
.
,
,
.
(~
a.
The inspector viewed the construction activities being performed in the main steam tunnel area and verified that the licensee's radiological controls in the area continued to be effective following removal of a section of the main steam tunnel wall.
The inspector reviewed the security controls in
-
effect in the main steam tunnel.'
b.
The inspector viewed the completed Uninterruptable
-
Power Supply system including the batteries, the RDS I
protection cabinets, and the RDS control panel.
c.
The inspector observedLthe fire barrier installation
. activity in progress below -the control room.
10. Outstanding Items a.
Emergency Procedure Training The inspector reviewed the status of the emergency
- '
~
becompletedinMarch.gyalkthroughswhichwereto procedure training and The. inspector noted that the training was not completed, and that the schedule -
had been revised such that certain procedures might t~
not be completed during the present outage.
This item will be followed up in a subsequent inspection.
b.
Air Ejector Of f-gas Isolation System
.
Theinspectorreyg7wedtheprogressoftheoff-gas isolation system-- with the licensec and determined that the licensee has not been able to determine the-
'
failure mechanism preventing the system from func-
!
tioning properly. This item will be reviewed further by IE:III.
11.
Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin
,
IEB 76-01, BWR Isolation Condenser Tube'Failurell!
The inspector reviewed the control room data sheet
_
,
~
i
'
and noted that the licensee. takes leve1 readings each shift. The water level is maintained at the l
_9/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-155/76-03.
I 10/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-155/76-04.
I 11/ Ltr, CP to IE:III, dtd 4/5/76.
,(
- 12 -
l.
.
.
u-
,.
.
..
,
."
t
" Normal" c ierfiow level. Local water s3%ples are obtained at the sight glass monthly to be counted for activity to detect minor tube leaks.
The emergency condenser is hydrostatically tested with the primary system af te,r each refueling outage.
The inspector reviewed Op/ rating Procedure B6.0, Emergency Condenser Systen; Plant Instrumentation Procedure C.8.0, Emergency "ondenser Vent' Monitor
,
System; and Of fnormal Procedui e D1.3.33, Emergency
Condenser. Vent High Radiation and verified required
operator actions ~following anLEmergency Condenser tube leak.
.
.
a
.
i
^
13 -
-
.
e WP.
.