IR 05000155/1981009
| ML20010G004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1981 |
| From: | Boyd D, Parker M, Wright G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010G001 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-81-09, 50-155-81-9, NUDOCS 8109150217 | |
| Download: ML20010G004 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-155/81-09 i
Docket No. 50-155 License No. DPR-06
.
. Licensee: Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name: Big Rock Point Station Charlevoix, MI Inspection Conducted: July 11 through August 14, 1981 i
W k /- O /
Inspectors-G. C. Wright n,
9-/"8/
Approved By:
D.
ef 7'I' W Reactor Projects Section 1A Inspection Sumury Inspection on July 11 through August 14, 1981 (Peport No. 56-155/81-09)
i Areas Inspected: Routine safety, resident inspector inspection involving:
Operational safety verification, Maintenance observation, Surveillance l
observation, Review of Plaat Operations, Outstanding Inspection Items, l
Followup Items of Noncompliance / Deviations, Independent Inspection Effort l
and Offsite Meeting between Hayes Township and the Licensee. The inspec-
-
tion involved a total of 185 inspector-hours onsite by twe NRC inspectors l
including 20 inspector-hours onsite during offshifts.
Results_: Of the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identi-fied.
I 8109150217 810902 gDRADOCK05000g
-
,-
,
,
. - _,
-
,.
.
.
. - -.
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- C. J. Hartman, Plant Superintendent C. R. Abel, Operations and Maintenance Superintendent
- C. E. Axtell, Heal +h Physicist
!
- A. C. Sevener, Operations Supervisor
'
- D. E. DeMoor, Technical Engineer M. G. Dickson, General Health Physics G. L. Fox, C&RP Sup.?rvisor
?R. E. Scbrader, Technical Super 12tendent
,
'
- R. E. Barnhart, QA Engineer
- J. J. Popa, Maintenance Engineer
i The inspectors also contacted other licensee personnel including:
j shift supervisors, control room operators, maintenance personnel and C&RP Technicians.
'
- Denotes those prenent at exit interview.
2.
Op.erational Safety Verification f
The inspector obterved control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with cor.91 room operators during the month of July. The inspector verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records and verified proper return to service of affected components. Tours of the reactor building and l
turbine building were conducted to observe plant eq:1pment conditions,
~
including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibra-
tions and to verify that maintenance requests had been initiated for i
equipment in need of maintenaace. The inspector by observation and direct interview verified that the' physical security plan was being
implemented in accordance with the station security plan.
'
l The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and verified implementation of radiation protection controls. During
,
the month of July, the inspector walked down the accessible portions of the Core Spray and Post Incident systems to verify operability.
The inspector also witnessed portions of the radioactive waste system controls associated with rahaaste shipments.
These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility operaticas were in conformance with the requirements established under technical specifications,10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
No apparent iteta or noncompliance were identified.
3.
Monthly Maintenance observation
' Station maintenance activities of safety related systems and com-ponents listed below were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory-2-
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
.
.
guides and industry codes or standards and in conformance with Technical Specifications.
The following items were considered during this review:
the limiting conditions for operation were met while components or systems were removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work; activities were acccmplished using approved procedures and were inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or cali-
[.
brations were performed prior to returning components or systems I
to service; quality control records were maictained; activities were accomplished by qualified personnel; parts and materials used were properly certified; radiological controls were implemented; and, fire prevention controls were implemented. Work requests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs and to assure that priority is assigned to safety related equipment maintenance which may affect system performance.
The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:
P.M. Inspection of CRD Selector Valve, CV-NC19.
Replace leaking CRD-C2 withdraw Rate Set Valve.
Following completion of preventative maintenance inspection on the
,
CRD Selector Valves and replacement of withdraw Rate Set Valve the inspector verified that these systems had been returned to service properly.
No apparent items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Monthly Surveillance Observation The inspector observed Technical Specifications required surveillance testing on the.ECCS Valve Operability and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, that test instru-mentation was calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were
. met, that removal and restoraticn of the affected components were accomplished, that test results conformed with Technical Specifica-tions and procedure requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel.
The inspector also witnessed portions of the following test activities:
Process Radiation Monitor Calibration and Fire Hose Hydrostatic Tests.
No apparent items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Review of Plaut Operations JDuring'the months of April through July the inspector reviewed the
'
following activities:
- 3~-
.
. - - - _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _
Y
.
I a.
Procurement The inspector reviewed procurement and storage activities to ascertain whether the purchase of components, materials and supplies used for safety related functions, is in conformance with the licensee's approved QA program and implementing pro-cedures; nonconforming items are segregated and marked accordingly; applicable preventive maintenance is performed; and housekeeping and environmental requirements are imt.
The following component was inspected:
Control Rod Drive Components, b.
Training The inspector attended one of the licensee's operator lecture series dealing _aith Mitigation of Core Damage and verified that lesson plan objectives were met.
It is to be noted that the training was a special lecture required by NUREG-0737 TAP No. II.B.4.2A.
The inspector verified by direct questioning of one new, one existing, and one temporary employee that administrative controls and procedures, radiological health and safety, in-dustrial safety, centrolled access and security procedures, emergency plan, and quality assurance training were provided as required by the licensee's Technical Specifications; verified by direct questioning of one craftsmen and one technician that i
on-the-job training, formal technical training commencurate with job classification, and fire righting training were provided.
The inspector, while attending a plant operators training lecture, noted that a systems description training manual was being used as part of the lecture. The manual is believed to
'
be an important aid for training purposes; however, it has not been updated to reflect current plant status and, as such, was causing some confusion during the class room discussions. The inspector's concern is that use of the manual, in its present form, has the potential to create some confusion for new personnel.
Discussion with the licensee indicated that IMP 0 has the same concern and that the possibility of updating the manual is being investigated.
(81-09-01)
c.
Security The inspector attended one of the licensee's special training sessions for physical plant security personnel and verified that the lesson plan objectives were met.
-4-
_
...
.
d.
Emergency Preparedness The insne rtor visited Charlevoix /
i Hospital and verified that tha agency is familiar with eir ro e in the emergency plan. The inspector also obser-d an emergency drill cnd verified that,the licensee has program for correcting identified discrepencies and at equipment disrupted was returned to its proper locat.on after the drill.
The inspector inventoried the emergency and environmental kits maintained on site. The inspector used the Emergency Plan lists which give the minimum required contents for each-type of kit. During the inventory the inspector noted a number of discrepancies were brought to the licensee's at-tention and actions were taken immediately to correct the discrepancies.
The inspector has. requested the licensee to review their check list ogainst the Site Emergency Plan to verify that all items and quantities listed in the Plan are accounted for.
(81-09-02).
e.
Licensee Action Concerning Identified Problems The inspector reviewed corrective actions taken by the licensee pertaining to recurring failures and resolution of identified discrepancies invobring safety-related components.
The inspector-reviewed the Deviation Reports (DR) initiated by the licensee during the first half of 1981. During the review the inspector noted one DR which was potentially reportable as a 30 day Licensee Event Report (LER).
Discussions with the licensee discloced a difference in interpretas. ion in the area of reportability of the Fire Protection Technical Specifications.
Discussions with the other members of the NRC staff indicate that any time an action statement of an LCO is entered (other than for Preventive Maintenance) a 30 day LER is to be initiated. The requirement of a "Special Report" does not
relieve the licensee from the aormal reporting requirement of
the Technical Specifications.
'
. The above interpretation has been discussed with the licensee and the following agreement has been reached: Any time an action statemeat is-entered, in the fire _ protection area, due to equipment failure or personnel error the -licensee will initiate an LER.
Discussions are continuing ss to the reportability of voluntary entry into an' action statement in the fire protection area.
(81-09-03)
No apparent items of noncompliance were identified.
-
5--
_
__
=
- O 6.
Public Meeting At the request of the Hayes Township Planning Committee the inspector attended a special meeting during the evening of August 4, 1981 pertaining to the licensee's plans to enclose the existing waste storage / dram bailing station. The inspector responded to questions on radiation limits and storage of radioactive waste.
7.
Independent Inspection Effort Tne inspector attended and participated in a special meeting on Alternate Shutdown Capability on July 28, 1981 between the licensee and the NRC. The following individuals from the NRC were in attendance:
W. Paulson (NRR), N. Fioravante (NRR), V. Lettieri (NRC Contractor /BNL) and E. MacDougall (NRC Consultant /BNL).
8.
Outstanding Inspection Items Through direct observations, discussions with the licensee personnel, and review of recc.rds, the following outstanding inspection items were reviewed to determine that reportability requirements were ful-filled and that immediate corrective action to prevent recurrence had been accomplished.
OII 81-02-02 (Closed) - The inspector verified that the licensee has added a verification to the thift Turnover procedure for CRD exercising.
OII 81-05-06 (Closed) - The inspector verified that the licensee has redefined " Restricted Area" to be consistent with the agreement reached and documented in IE Report No. 81-05.
9.
Followup on Items of Noncompliance / Deviations
.
Through direct observations, discussions with licensee personnel and review of records the following outstanding items of noncompliance were reviewed to determine that the reportability requirements were i
fulfilled and that immediate corrective action to prevent recurrence j
had been accomplished.
t
~
OII 81-03-02 (Closed) - TLe inspectors verified the licensee's action 3 were consistent with their commitment pettxiaing to the item of noncompliance.
OII 81-05-05 (Closed) - The inspector verified that the corrective action outlined in the licensee's response to the item of noncom -
pliance had been completed.
10.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) throughout the month and at the conclusion of the inspection and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments.
-6-
,
.
-..-
__
- --
._.