IR 05000155/1976016
| ML20002D529 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1976 |
| From: | Jackiw I, Little W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002D524 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-76-16, NUDOCS 8101210308 | |
| Download: ML20002D529 (9) | |
Text
.
.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCDIENT
REGION III
Report of Operations Inspection.
-
IE Inspection Report No. 050-155/76-16 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company
212 West Michigan Aveno:
Jackson, Michigan 49 01
Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant License No. DPR-6 Charlevoix, Michigan Category:
C
.
Type of Licensee:
BWR GE 240 MWT Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced
-
Dates of Inspection:
July 26-30, 1976 fl
. N,. /< a(L L f//6 / 6
~
Principal Inspector:
ckiv v
'(Date)
i Accompanying Inspectors: None Other Accompanying Personnel: None
'
//
s Reviewed By:
W. S. Lit e, ChieZ
//I /d-
..
Nuclear Support Section
' (Dite) '
.
e
'
.
.
31olet/0308
.
.
,.
._.. _....
.
,
w-r
-- - - - - -, -
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Inspection Summary Inspection on Ju1~ 26-30, (76-16): Reviewed plant operations, nonroutine event reports,#
!ning and operator requalification training. One item of noncom,.ance was identified: Failure to implement a maintenane training program an failure to provide accelerated retraining.
d Enforcement 'tems The foll'owing item of noncompliance was found during the inspection:
Infraction Contrary to Technical Specifications 6.4.1, the followup training and retraining program elements for the plant staff were not being implemented:
1.
A training program for the plant maintenance department.
(Paragraph 4.f, Report Details)
2.
An accelerated requalification training for licensed personnel.
(Paragraph 5.e, Report Details)
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enfo" cement Items None reviewed.
I
'-
.0ther Significant Items A.
Systems and Components The refurbishing and reinstallation of the reactor depressurization system rolenoid operated pilot valves were completed on July 27, 1976. System testing was completed and the plant returned to power operation following the extended plant refueling outage for ECCS
modifications.
!
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
.
None.
.
C.
Managerial Items None.
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by. Licensee None.
,
-2-
,
-
.
!
T'
,
.
,
,
-
_.
,
__
-, _ _ _ _,. _
_
.
.
_ - - _
~ ~ - -
-
-
E.
Devictions None.
- y F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
.
None reviewed.
-
Management Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on July 30, 1976, an exit interview was conducted with Mr. Abel and other members of the staff. The following items were discusse9 A.
The inspector summarized the areas that were inspected.
B.
The inspector stated that a review o'f the licensee's p? ant operation activities and a review of a number of nonroutine event reports
-
revealed no problems in these areas.
(Paragraphs 2 and 3, Report Details)
C.
The inspector stated that ::be 'icensee had not implemented training programs for plant maintet. ace personnel.
In a subsequent telecon discussion with the licensee, the inspector stated that failure te provide a training program for the maintenance department is an item of noncompliance. The licensee acknowledged this and stated that a training program would be implemented.
(Paragraph 4.f, Report Details)
!
D.
La regard to licensed operator requalification training, the inspector stated that contrary to the requalification program requirements, four licensed operators received grades below the minimum required grade and were not re-examined. This is an item of noncompliance.
The licensee acknowledged the inspectors statement.
(Paragraph 5.e, Report Details)
E.
The inspector stated that he had reviewed records of the weekly classroom sessions and noted that it appears that this lecture program has not been fully implemented for the 1976 period.
(Paragraph 5.f. Report Details)
F.
In a subsequent tele on discussion with the licensee, the inspector stated that no qual.y assurance training is provided for instrument
,
and maintenance personnel. The inspector also stated that retraining l
programs had not be implemented in the instrument and radiation
'
protection departments. The licensee acknowledged the inspectors statements.
(Paragraphs 4.b an'd 4.c, Report Details)
.
O-3-I
~
....
-
,7
-
.
,
-
- -.
. _.
.
.
REPORT' DETAILS _
-
.
(
1.
Persons Contacted
.
- D. DeMoor Technical Engineer R. Abel,-Operations Superintendent V. Avery, Shif t Supervisor C. Axtell, Health Physist R. Schrader, I&C Supervisor J. Popa, Maintenance Engineer F. Valade,. Shif t Supervisor -
,
F. DeFoe, Security Supervisor
,
2.
Plant Operations Facility operation activities were reviewed to ascertain whether they are in conformance with requirements established in Technical Specifications,10 CFR, administrative procedures,' and licensee
_
The inspector confirmed the following:
commitments.
The control room, shift supervisor and reactor logs are filled out and reviewed in accordance with requirements set forth in a.
Administrative Procedures 1.4.
The daily order logbook is reviewed and initialed by the shift b.
Also, daily order entries into the logbook do supervisors.
not conflict with the requirements of the Technical Specifications.
-
During a tour of the plant the following observations were made:
.
Selected monitored parameters were within Technical Specification a.
limitations.
Observed radiation controls for postings, monitoring stations
.
b.
and changing areas were confirmed to be properly established,
Cleanup activities in tte area of the RDS valves were being Debris accumulated during repair of the valves uas c.
initiated.
being removed.
No abnormal fluid leaks nor piping vibrations were noted, d.
Selected safety-related valves, equipment start position switches and breakers were observed and confirmed to be in e.
their required positions., Equipment observed was the diesel generator, core spray valve position switches and equipment on MMC No. I and 2.
.
. 4
.
_
.
.
O
+~
.,
-,,,s
-,-a,-
.-,
,.7
,
.-,
,n-4
,-
r.
.,
,-g-
,,- -
--.n,,,,
e f.
A cumber cf ctuticn cnd out cf ccrvico trgo wera v3rifisd ta be under proper administrative control.
g.
Confirmation was made that control' room shift composition at
'
the time of the inspection was in conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(k), and the Technical Specific ations.
3.
Nonroutine Event Reports Licensee reportable occurrence reports were reviewed to ascertain whether information reportcd to the NRC reflected the actual event, whether the corrective action discussed in the reports was taken and whether safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation were exceeded during the event.
The following reports were reviewed:
a.
RO 10-76 Pressure Switch Accumulator PS-RD 40-F2
_
The inspector verified that this occurrence was properly reviewed and evaluated and that adequate corrective actions were taken to prevent reoccurrence, b.
RO 12-76 Containment Vent Supply Valve Leak
.
The licensee identified this leakage during performance :t test T180-01. The cause of leakage was determined to.be dust on the valve seat and misalignment of CV 4097. On June 23-25,
.1976, the Plant Review Co=mittee reviewed this occurrence and initiated a monthly surveillance program for this valve.
.
The inspector confirned that during the surveillance performed on July 20, 1976, no abnormal leakage was detected.
RO 13-76 Failure to Close RDS-115D Equalizing Valve c.
The inspector verified that adequate corrective actions were taken to prevent reoccurrence of this event.
d.
RO 14-76 Excessive Primary System Leakage Unidentified primary system leakage was recorded at 1.25gpm.
Primary leakage test T1-02 was performed on July 25, 1976, prior to reactor startup. The inspector verified that this occurrence was reviewed and evaluated and that adequate corrective actions were performed.
No discrepancies were noted during the review of these reportable
.
occurrences.
-5-(
.
'
.
.
y-
..
,
.
4.
Trcining Overall training activities for new employees and retraining for nonlicensed personnel were revisved to ascertain whether.they are I
in conformance with Technical Specifications and licensee's procedures.
The following items were considered during this review: establishment-of a formal training and retraining program for new employees, temporary employees, nonlicensed personnel, tachnicians and craf t personnel; the training program coverage of administrative controls, radiological health and safety, industrial safety, security, emergency plan, and quality assurance. training; the retraining program inclusion of on-the-job training and fire prev 9ntion training; the-
.
periodic evaluation of the training and retraining programs; and provisions for prenatal radiation exposure instructions to female
employees.
The following observations were made:
-
a.
Administrative Procedure 1.13.C establishes indoctrination
-
training requirements for general plant emploJees and temporary employees. This procedure also establishes that subjects such as radiological safety, plant controlled areas, use of protective clothing and site emergency plans are covered.
b.
Administrative Procedure 1.13.C.5 establishes and requires that maintenance repairmen and instrument technicians receive quality assurance training.
,
The inspector noted that no quality assurance training is provided for the above mentioned plant personnel. The licensee's
,
I representative stated that he is in the process of developing this training and that it will be included in the general plant training program.
c.
Review of training records for the instrument and radiation protection departments revealed the following:
(1) The instrument and control department has certified their technicians to meet the requirements of ANSI 45.2.6.
The inspector noted that the department has a training schedule for 1976 but has failed to implement this training. Of the fifty sessions scheduled only three had been completed. The department supervisor stated that the training schedule had not been fully implemented due to the extended refuel outage activities at the plant.
.
-6-(
T"
.
}
.
,
-
,
,,--
-n,
-
,
..
In r2 gard to th; sedicticn pret:ctisn d:p rtment th?
,
inspector noted that ai: hough a training program exists, a retraining program schedule has not been established to
-
(
update and maintain job skills of the department technicians.
The department supervisor stated that he is considering a retraining schedule for his detartment.
-
d.
The Fire Safety Trainiag was conducted on October.7 and 8, 1975, for all plant members. The liceisee's representa-cive stated that this fire fighting trait Ing is scheduled for all plant personnel once per year.
.
e.
. Records for a number of new employees, existing employees and temporary employees indicate that they had received training in accordance with the licensee's requirements.
f.
Quality Assurance Program Policy No. 2 dated December 1, 1975, states that to assure that safety-related operations and activities are performed correctly, Consumers Power conducts training programs for Company personnel and that these training programs include general, continuing and specialty training.
This policy also states that training programs are ccnducted to assure that the required level of proficiency of selected personnel is achieved and maintained and that the training programs are based on ANSI 18.1-1970, 10 CFR 55, and other applicable requirements.
Quality Assurance Program Proce' dure for Operations 2-54 states that a plant staff member coordinates with the re-i sponsible supervisors for the implementation of training and
~
indoctrination courses at the plant.
Administrative Procedure 1.13, Section C.'S requires that all maintenance repairmen will be trained as needed to perfore their assigned jobs and the training will include plant
,
systems and procedures and other training needs such as equipment handling, basic electricity, components, quality assurance and equipe at (valves, pumps, traps, etc.).
10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion II requires that the program I
shall provide for indoctrination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality as necessary to assure
-
that suitable proficiency is achieved and-maintained.
!
ANSI 18.1-1971 Section 5.5 requires that a training program shall be established which maintains the proficiency of the operating organization through periodic training exercises, instruction periods, and reviews covering those items; and equipment which relate to safe operation of the facility.
'
!
- 7..
,
(
.
.T
-
.
, -
, ~. ~ -
,
,
e
_
~
~
- -.
Thein:pecternatcdthatth2maint[n[ncsd:ptrtmenthasnot
~
-implement d a training prtgren fcr ths occhanicci and electrical-personnel in the department.
Failure to establish the trois:ing program is contrary to Technical Specifications 6.4.1 and is
,
an infraction.
g.
In regard to instructing female _ workers concerning prenatal exposure risks, the licensee's representative stated that fraale workers have been instructed on this stubject and also that he is considering including this instrur, tion in the general employee training program.
5.
dequalificationTraining The licensed operator requalification training program was reviewed to ascertain whether it is effective and in conformance with Regulatory requirements.
The following observations were made:
A preplanning lecture schedule has been established which a.
____
_.
includes a three week lacture series,and a one day lecture session each five weeks for each shift.
,
,,,, __,
b.
Documentation of attendance is being maintainea.
11e licensee's representative stated that in addition to the time ards which verify the individual's attendence at the three week lecture series, the licensee will also consider another method for keeping track of attendence.
I The program requires that an instructor be present continually c.
during video tape viewing and discussion periods, d.
Administrative Procedure 1.13, Section B.4.2 establishes on-the-job training requirements which include reactivity control manipulations and review of off-normal, abnormal and emergency procedures. The requalification program requirement also specifies that all licensed operators will review procedure changes, facility changes, abnormal occurrence reports, Technical Specification changes, license changes, and other commitments and sign off that they have seen this material, Records of a number of licensed individuals were reviewed to e.
verify that they include examinations with answers, documenta-tion of reactivity manipulations, documentation of simulated drills, evaluations and accelerated retraining as applicable.
.
e-8-(
'
.
-
_
_
_
,-
'
.
-
..
During tha r view of theco rcccrda, it-wao fcund that four
licensed individuals who attended the three week lecture
sessions in April and May 1976, received exam grades below 80%
and had not been re-examined.
The inspector noted that this is not in conformance with the
_
_
Big Rock Point Licensed Operator Requalification, Program dated July 19, 1974, Administrative Procedure 1.13 dated June 1, 1975 and 10 CFR 55, Appendix A, Section 4.e.
Big Rock Point Requalification Program and Administrative Procedure 1.13B both state that topical exams will be administered
.
throughout the classroom portions of the program and a minimum grade of 80% will be required for all participants in these examinations.
In addition, Adminirtrative Procedure 1.13 section B.S.b requires that a person receiving less that 80%
will re-study the topic and then be re-examined.
'
10 CFR 55, Appendix A, Section 4.e,. requires that each licensed
'
operator and senior operator participats n an accelerated requalification program where performance evaluations cicarly indicate the need.
Failure of licensed operators to particpate in an accelerated requalification program is conttsry to Technical Specifications 6.4.1 and is considered an infraction.
f.
In regard to the weekly classroom lecture series, the. inspector noted that the one day per five weeks lecture sessions for every shift had not been fully implemented. Also, the schedule
-
and the lecture outline for the period prior to April,1976, was not available for review. The inspector stated that this would be left as an open item and would be reinspected during subsequant inspections.
g.
Training records appear to be incomplete. A number of attendance sheets had not been completed and do not indicate the time and date of the training nor the subject material covered.
In some cases, the inspector was unable to determine.why and when a specific exam was taken The licensee's representative stated that he was aware of these problems and is initiating actions to correct them.
-
.
E-9-
.
(
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.