IR 05000155/1977011
| ML20002E429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1977 |
| From: | Hunter D, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002E428 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-77-11, NUDOCS 8101270950 | |
| Download: ML20002E429 (7) | |
Text
..
-
-
..
t U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
REGION III
Report No. 50-155/77-11 Docket No. 50-155 License No. DPR-6 Licensce:
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name:
P".g Rock Po.pt Nuclear Plant
,
'
Inspection At Big Rock Point Site, Charlevoix, MI Inspectioa Conducted: July 25-29, August I and 2, 1977 f/ -[77
/ /J Inspectors-D. R. Hunter kh R. F. Warnick (July 28 and 29, 1977 only)
AmM Approved By:/
.F,
'arnick, Chief
!
7/
j Reactor Projects Section 2 Inspection Summary
'
'
Inspection on July 25-29, August I and 2,1977 (Report No.
~~'
50-155/77-11)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of plant opera-tions, refueling operations, reportable occurrences, organization and administration, review and audit, procurement, Quality assurance items, and outstanding inspection items. The inspection involved 64 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
c
.?i.dy l}
<
k
.
.
(
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. B. DeWi t t, Manage r, Produc t ion Nuclear
- C. J. Hartman, Plant Superintendent D. E. DeMoor, Technical Engineer 4J. P. Flynn, Operations Superintendent T. W. Elward, Technical Superintendent C. R. Abel, Maintenance Superintendent R. W. Doan, Training Coordinator A. C. Sevener, Operations Supervisor S. A. Carlisle, Shift Supervisor
~
C. F. Sonnenberg, Shift Supervisor E. McNamara, Training Supervisor D. D. Herboldsheimer, Maintenance Coordinator
- C. Gilbody, Quality Assurance Engineer
- r M. Burn, Plant Review Committee Secretary t
- F. S. Rittenhouse, Manager, SP&LS
- D. A. Bixel, Nuclear Licensing Administrator
- R. B. Cherba, General Superintendent, Production-Nuclear vK. Andrews, Department Head, Laboratory Technical Services
- H. W. Slazer, Section Head, Quality Engineering (QA-PE&C)
!
- J. B. Gilbert, Department Supervisor, NDT Services
- J. H. Maclaren, Section Head, Audit and Administration
- T. L. Briningstool, Quality Assurance Coordinator, SP&LS
- J. J. Fremeau, Quality Assurance Admiristrator - Operations R. Rosenfeld, Construction Coordinator, OSD L. M. Hausler, Manager, OSD M. Wade, 2ngineer, OSD F. M. Macric, GPMD The inspectors contacted several other licensee employees, including members of the technical, engineering and quality assurance staffs, reactor and auxiliary operators, and plant craftsmen.
- denotes those attending the management exists at the plant site on July 29 or at the corporate office on August 2, 1977.
2.
Plant Operations The inspector reviewed general plant operating conditions and records, conducted a facility tour.
The tour included selected plant areas to observe operating conditions, plant cleanliness (
-2-
.
.
_
-
L i
.
-
(
and housekeeping, plant tags, monitoring instrumentation, radiation controls, general system conditions (fluid leaks and vibrations), pipe hangers an* supports, selected valve and electrical breaker conditions, and shif t manning.
The inspector observed the in process portions of maintenance activity concerning the steam drum safety valves. One valve had been successfully tested (lif ted), but a foreign particle had dinged the seating surface requiring miner lapping and dressing of the surfaces. The licensee representative indicated that the next valve would be flushed with demineralized water before the lift test was performed.
The inspector reviewed selected deviation reports issued by the licensee to determine that adequate corrective actions had been
,
indicated and completed. The deviation reports reviewed included reports which identified an item of noncompliance concerning the failare to follow procedures. The licensee corrective actions are considered adequate.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified by the inspector.
3.
Refueling Operating (
The inspector reviewed selected plant and refueling operations to ascertain that the activitics were being performed in accord-ance with approved procedures and within the requirements of the Technical Specifications.
The review included plant refueling conditions, refueling procedures, and master and system checkoff lists. The inspector observed selected refueling activities and
'
-
plant conditions during refueling operations.
,
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Reportable Occurrences
-
The inspector reviewed licensee actions completed with respect to the following nonroutine event reports to verify that the events were reviewed and evaluated as required by the Technical Specifications, that corrective actions were taken, and that plant limits were not exceeded. The inspector reviewed selected records, meeting minutes and interviewed selected plant personnel.
-3-
.
,
.
.
.
.
i a.
RO 77-18 Emergency diesel generator starting time
-
excessive.
b.
RO 77-19 Emergency diesel generator starting time
-
excessive.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Organization and Administration The inspectcr reviewed selected areas of the plant organization, selected department personnel qualification requirements, and interviewed selected personnel to ascertain that their qualifica-tions were in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
.
The inspector reviewed the job classification of "On-Duty Superin-tendent" and the qualification / training requirements in accord-ance with Administrative Procedure 1.2 and the master Training Plan, Volume 18.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Review and Audit t
The inspector reviewed selected quality assurance audits and plant review minutes to assure licensee review and audit functions were conducted in accordance with requirements of the quality assurance program.
The review of the audit finding corrective actions revealed a con-flict in the corrective actions indicated to be taken concerning system protection and laboratory service group procedure review requirements.
Quality Assurance Program Procedures 5-51, Operations, and 5-1, Construction and Engineering, do not address the Technical Specifications requirements for review of procedures; and the System Protection Laboratory Service Department procedures were found to require the plant superintendents approval of safety related procedures used for plant services, but the working procedures did not specifcally require the plant superintendents approval of safety related procedures (only when requested).
The Quality Assurance Procedures and associated department procedures will be reviewed and rewritten by the licensee to formalize the implementation of the program in accordance with requirements. This item will remain open and be reviewed at a subsequent inspection. This item was discussed at the management exit.
.(:
-s.
-
.
.
-
.
s.
)
.
-
-(
No items of noncompliance or devaitions were identified.
7.
Procurement The inspector reviewed selected procurement activities to assure the purchase of components, materials and supplies used for safety related functions was in conformance with the approved quality assurance program and procedures.
No items of noncompliance or-deviations were identified.
8.
Quality Assurance Items The inspector reviewed selected quality assurance procedures and department impicmenting procedures for the areas of minor modific-ations and major modifications.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Outstanding Items The inspector reviewed selected outstanding inspection items to ascertain adequate completion of the items by the licensee.
The review of the requirements for fire watch qualifications 1/ with the licensee representative revealed the continued lack of a formal
,'~
method for selecting fire untches. The selection of the fire watr a is routinely performed by the maintenance Department during the evaluation of the maintenance activity. Adrftnistrative Procedure 1.5 specifically address fire hazards and a fire watch is routinely established when necessary by the plant staff. The qualification requirements of the individual were not apparent to the inspector.
This item will remain open and be rev(.-wed in a subsequent inspection.
This item was discussed at the manngement exit.
Theinspectorreviewegjthe licensee's outage schedule and noted order to meet a previous order jfications were being prepared in that specific testing-andmog and commitments. The tests which are to be performed include:
I&C Transformer Auto Transfer a.
TR-17
-
Transmission Line Transfer Test b.
TR-41
-
1/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 50-155/77-21.
2/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 50-155/77-10.
}/CommissionMemorandumandOrder,dtd5/26/76.
(_
-5-
.
ww-
=e
.
.
I Emergency Diesel Generator Full Load Test c.
TR-42
-
,
d.
FC-413 - ECCS Online Testing Core Spray Valve Relocation e.
f.
SST-02 - RDS Depressurization Valve Testing g.
RDS Logic Testing h.
FC-407 - LOCA Qualified Pressure Transmitter The inspector reviewed the preventative maintenance procedurce /5/
4 -
for visual inspection on the reactor depressurization system batteries, presently being performegjeach 6-month interval, and the Maintenance
.
Procedures for replacing-and lubricating the battery terminal bolting. The licensee representative indicated that explosive resistant vent plugs would be installed in each cell during the maintenance activity. No further questions are required of this matter s' this time, and this item is considered closed.
l TheinsyyctorreviewedAdministrativeProcedurerevisionstoSection 1.2.C.7-which delineates the specific job responsibilities and qualification requirements of the "On-Duty Superintendent". No further questions are required of this matter at this time, and this item is considered closed.
-
10.
Management Exit Interview The inspectors conducted a management interview with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection at the plant on July 29, 1977, and at the corporate office
~
on August 2, 1977. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee made the following remarks concern-ing certain items discussed by the inspector.
July 29, 1977 The licensee acknowledged the inspector's statement concerning the licensee identified item of noncompliance relating to the failure to follow procedures.
(Paragraph 2)
<4/ RO 50-155/77-07.
[/IEInspectionRptNo. 50-155/77-07.
6/ Ibid.
[/ Ibid.
.
-6-
.
'
..--
L
.
.
..
.
(
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's statement concerning the
'
' lack of formal qualification requsres ents for fire watches and identified that the specific area would be reviewed.
(Paragraph 9)
August 2, 1977 The licensee acknowledged the inspector's findings and statements concerning the apparent conflict within the System Protection and Laboratory Services Department procedures and within the Quality Assurance Program Procedures, Section 5-51 and 5-1, concerning review of department procedures by the plant.
The subject of procedure review was discussed by telecon with the licensee representative on August 9, 1977. The inspector
.
has no further questions regarding this matter at this time.
t
.
.
(=
7-
-
.
e S
.
,
,1