IR 05000155/1981010
| ML20032A896 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1981 |
| From: | Boyd D, Parker M, Wright G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032A888 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-81-10, NUDOCS 8111020522 | |
| Download: ML20032A896 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:~.... .. - ... . , _ _. . _ _ .
. i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT i
REGION III
1-Report No. 50-155/81-10 Docket No. 50-155 License No. DPR-6 i Licensee: Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue-Jackson, MI 49201 i Facility Name: Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant- ' Inspection At: Charlevoix, MI
Inspection Conducted: August 15 - September 11, 1981
Ws $<($tdytoc , Inspectors:g. C. Wright /B/20,h/ G rk ld/2AlC/ > h, E . <
ApprovedBy:h,dhC ief, /#/M/P/ Projects Section 1A
' ., ! Inspection Summary Inspection on August 15 --September 11, 1981 (Report No. 50-155/81-10) Areas Inspected: Routine safety, resident inspection involving: Opera-l tional Safety Verification, Maintenance Observation, Surveillance Observa-tion, Review of Plant Operations, Independent Inspection Effort and Status , of Three Mile Island Temporary Instructions. The inspection involved a ' . total of 166 inspector-hours casite by two NRC inspectors including ~a total ! of 29 inspector-hours onsite during offshifts.
Results: Of the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified.
. ! , $ . i
~] l 811102 0 % Q! ; . - , m .. . ... - . .. . -. m .m . .. .... - . - ... . . . . . .. ... .
. . DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- C. R. Abel, Operations and Maintenance Superintendent
- C..E.
Axtell, Health Physicist
- A. C. Sevener, Operations Supervisor
- D. E. DeMoor, Technical Engineer G. L. Fox, C&RP Supervisor R. E. Schrader, Technical Superintendent
- E. W. Raciborski, QA Superintendent The inspectors also contacted other licensee personnel including shift supervisors, control room operators, maintenance personnel, and C&RP technicians.
- Denotes those present during the exit interview.
2.
Operational Safety Verification The inspector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussi.ns with control room operators during the month of August'. 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 buildings and turbine buildings were conducted to observe plant equipment condi-tions, including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations and to verify that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in need of maintenance. The inspector by observation and direct interview verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security plan.
The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and verified implementation of radiation protection controls. During the month of August, 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 radwaste shipments and barreling.
These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under technical specifications, 10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
No apparent items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Monthly Maintenance Observation Station maintenance activities of safety _related systems and compon-ents listed below were cbserved/ reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry codes or standards and in conformance with technical specifications.
-2- .. - - - -
. . 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 accomplished using approved procedures and were inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning components or systems to eervice; quality control records were maintained; 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: Control Rod Drive Pump Maintenance Rod Drive Pressure Control Valve CU-NC-18 Offgas System Leakage Following completion of maintenance on the control rod drive pump, pressure control valve and offgas system, the inspector verified that these systems had been returned to service properly.
4.
Monthly Surveillance Observation The inspector observed technical specifications required surveillance testing on the monthly reactor protection system logic test and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, that test instrumentation was calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal and restoration of the affected components were accomplished, that test results con-formed with technical specifications 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 activ-ities: Bypass Valve Test Calibration of Area Radiation Monitors No apparent items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Review of Plant Operations During the month of August the inspector reviewed the following activities: . -3- . . - - . . . - _
. ' l [m t- -
t \\ j ' .I - r- . a.
Review and Audits ./
- ,
- [ ' On August 13, 1981, the inspector sat in on a safety review j committee meeting. The inspector verific'd that fprovisions of f ,. technical specifications dealing with membersh1p, feview pro-cess, frequency, and qualifications were met.
The inspector i
also verified that decisions made were leflected in the meeting, (' ,, minutes and that corrective actions proposed were taken.
' , ,l, y l < .i , b.
Training l 7y
The inspector attended one of the licensee's operator requali- / fication lecture series and verified that lesson plan objectives were met and that training was in accordance with the approved operator requalification program schedule and objectives."
/ c.
Environmental Protection ' , ., g - i The inspector verified the installation and operabilityil eleven sampling (monitoring) station (s) and associated equipment and reviewed records for completeness and accuracy.
No apparent items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Independent Inspection Effort a.
On Friday, August 14, 1981, the diesel' driven fire pump started for no apparent reason.
Investigation, by the licensee, revealed that the instrument isolation valve to the fire header pressure' i switch was closed. The valve was immediately opened and the L - system was returned to its normal lineup.
" , A review of recent surveillance testing in the area indicated that the valve was last repositioned on Monday, August 10, 1981.
The review also indicated that the individual'per'foffihgithe / , test had signed-off the step verifying the iyolation' valve had ' .i , been re-opened.
' Review of the fire header pressure chart recorder indicated the isolation valve had been closed (per procedure) then it appears i that the valve was opened (per procedure) and then reclosed which was not per procedure.
, The opening and reclosing of the isolation valve trapped system header pressure between the isolation valve and the pressure switch. During the following four days the chart recorder indicated a steady pressure decrease. The deczdasing p,ressure eventually reached the Diesel Fire Pump start pressure and the pump started.
It is to be noted that the chart had.been observed approximately seven times between Monday and Friday; however, no report of abnormal system behavior was made to the control room.
-4- - - -
- ,-, yry'./.: / (. . > _
' , " > , ... J ,f
,- ~,, r e g ,/w u ? m
/ f- , ./a, -,, c > D{, Thd,f 're water system is d(sGed such that upon decreasing ,
- _
. ' '4 , ' ? fi y7 , ' I <syrtem pressure the fire wat'cr jockey pump would start first to / .i - .,f hailtain pressure. M f-theijockey pump is unable to maintain the ' ~ 'presdure the electric fire pump will start.
If the pressure -. ' [ , contintss to decrease the diesel fire pump starts. The station ' . Tetanigsl Specification-includes the ability of the electric and ' , g-diesel fire:pumpsrt.o start on decreasing fire header pressure as l part of the' operability statement for the pumps.
- i a'
,. i ' The isolation 4f the Diesel Fire Pump's starting pressure switch , ,.m.
[ 4 "/ ^ ! rendered th'e', auto. start-function of the diesel fire pump on i, decreasing p,ressuie in6perable.
,, - < i q It is to be noted that the, fire lumps are dual function pumps, , serving.both as fire pumps and core spray pumps. The automatic , 's " start if'the diesel'fiPe pump in its core spray mode was never - ' jeopardized and,would'have functioned as designed if the need j had arisen.
, -' .. , , ~ A review of the ' station Technicai Sphcifications for applicable action statements revealed that the inoperable system is to be ' , [ ",. ' 'returnedjJtQanoperableconditionrvithin seven days or a special ' ' f report ik to/be prepared and submitted within the next thirty , , . - , days.
, ~ f? t' 7 .g
, ' i !.nDiscussions between the inspectors and Region III concluded that ,even though the' Diesel Fire Pump was inoperable due to a personnel '
' error, no LCO was violated andus such po item of noncompliance
,# < , ( would be cited.
' , - n , . . B.
On August 20,,1981, thejinspectorsf teitnessed an onsite emergency drill. The purpose of-tue exercise was to test the response of onsite personnel-to a si'tes/e ergency alarm and subsegunet site m , ' evacuation.to the parking lot.
OaAugustIN,1981,theinshectorswitnessedanonsitethesite C.
, . fire brigade's response to a fire s.et by Consumers Power Fire Protection' Personnel. The exircise included announcement over / the PA system and siren,' fire brigade response time and the p brigades response tire and the brigades ability to control and ' exting[(yh the fire.
< e, _,, i w 4 A7.j ,a s , . Site Visit By'NRR Persannel e
', i i' - ., , < . - - Or September 3, 1981, the inspectors met wiih Mr. Gus C. Lainas, - Assi:stant Director for Safety Assessment.
Mr. Lainas was onsite for '
<
- - [[informaldiscussionswithonsifemanagementandtotourthesite.
%'
> , e . , , ,e
- .
,
. ,y
q . J- ' ~ ,,.:. - , ' Y
, ,, ', A ./ ^
't asf , i
' ~ ' [. ..,
' n - 5- ' - r
e s.
. r-Yh* ' e i E ..,..e__._._ - - - -,
. 8.
Status of Three Mile Island Temporary Instructions The inspectors reviewed the temporary instructions (TI's) which have been generated to inspect items listed in NUREG 0737. The review was initiated to identify those itcms 4hich require inspection and to allow for a means of efffective! . racking the open items. The following list indicates the appiicable Temporary Instructions (TI), TaskAction Plan Item Number. Status, and Inspection / Report Outstand-ing Inspection Item Number ,fI).
TAP TI ITEM # STATUS INS. RPT/0II# 2515/42 1.A.1.1.(1) Co.mplete 80-19 I.A.1.1.(3) Comi lete 80-19 I.A.I.2.
Complete 80-06 I.A.1.3.
Complete-no formal commitment 80-19 I.A.2.1 Complete 80-19 I.C.1(1) Complete 80-15 I.C.1.(2b) & (3b', Complete 80-18 I.C.2.. Completc 80-03 , I.C.3 Complete 80-06 I.C.4.
Complete 80-06 I.C.5.
Complete 80-19 I.C.6.
Complete 80-19 II.B.4(2a) Complete 81-09 II.B.4(2b) Open 81-10-01 II.D.I.
Per TI-no TE Action 81-10 II.E.4.2(6) Complete 80-19 II.F.2.(1) Not applicable 81-10 II.K.3(22) Not appliacble 81-10 - III.D.1.1.(1) Complete 80-06 2515/43 II.B.1.(1) Per TI-no IE Action 81-10 II.B.2(1) Per TI-no IE Action 81-10 II.D.3.(1) Complete 80-06 II.E.1.2.(la) Not appliachle 81-10 II.E.1.2.(Ib) Not appliacble 81-10 i II.E.1.2(2a) Not appliacble 81-10 II.E.1.2.(2c) Not applicable 81-10 II.E.3.1.(1) Not applicable 81-10 II.E.4.1.(1) Not applicable 81-10 II.E.4.2(1-4) Complete 81-06 II.E.4.2(5b) T.S. issued imple-mentation-next re-fueling outage 81-10-02 ' II.F.1(4,5,66) Open 81-10-03 II.G.1(1) Not applicable 81-10 . -6- . __ -, . _ _ _ _, _ , _.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _.
. _.. - - -.,
. A TAP TI ITEM # STATUS INS. RPT/0II# II.K.3.(9) Not applicable 81-10 2515/44 II.B.3 Schedule Suspended (1) II.F.1.(la) Complete 80-06 II.F.1.(2ai Complete 80-06 III.u.a.3.(1) Complete 80-06 III.D.3.3.(2) Complete 80-19 2515/45 Not applicable to BRP 81-10 i 2515/52 II.E.1.1.(1) Not applicable 81-10 II.E.4.1.(2) Not applicable per D. Crutchfield Itr.
of 5/19/80 81-10 ! It.E.L.2.(7) Complete 87-01 II.K.1 Complete 79-13 II.K.3.(13b) Not applicable 81-10 II.K.3.(15) Not applicable 81-10 II.K.3.(19) Not applicable per H.-Denton ltr. of 8/12/81 81-10 II.K.3.(27) Open 81-10 2515/53 Il '3.(1b) Not applicable 81-10 - II.K.3.(12b) Not applicable 81-10 II.K.3.(16b) Open 81-10-05 II.K.3.(18c) Open 81-10-06 II.K.3.(21b) Mod. not app'icable 81-10-07 per C. Thomas (Hqs.)
2515/54 I.A.I.3.(1) Complete 80-19 I.C.5 Complete 80.'9 I.C.6 Complete 80-19 II.K.3(22)a Not applicable 80-19 , 2515/55 HQS Appraisal Team Responsible 2515/57 II.B.1(3) Open 81-10-08 II.K.9.(57) Open 81-10-09 2515/58 II.K.3.(10) Not applicable 81-10 III.D.3.4 Schedule Suspended (1) 2!.15/59 II.B.2.(2) Schedule Suspended (1) lI.B.3.(2) Schedule Suspended (1) II.E.1.1.(2) Not applicable 81-10 , -7- - - . . - - - -. - -. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - .
.' . TAP TI ITEM # STATUS ITS. RPT/0II# II.F.1.(1) Open 81-10-10 II.F.1.(2) Open 81-10-11 II.F.1.(3) Open 81-10-12 II.F.2.(3) Schedule Suspended (1) II.K.3.(14) Schedule Suspended (1) II.K.3(22b) Not applicabia 81-10 II.K.3(34) Not applicable 81-10 II.K.3(25b) Open 81-10-13 2515/60 II.B.1.(2) Open 81-10-14 II.D.2.
Schedule Suspdended (1) ' II.K.3.(5b) Not applicable 81-10-II.K.3.(25b) Open 81-10-15 (1) Schedule suspended pending NRC review of Consumers Power's Probabilistic Risk Assessment submitted per H. Denton's letter of August 12, 1981.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representativen (denoted in Paragraph 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 inspectors comments.
-8- - . . .. . . - -. - - - - - }}