IR 05000155/1990012
| ML20058N224 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1990 |
| From: | Defayette R, Plettner E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058N223 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-90-12, NUDOCS 9008130300 | |
| Download: ML20058N224 (6) | |
Text
,._
?.
(
.
..
.
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
REGION III
Report No. 50-155/90012(DRP)
Docket No.60-155 License No. DPR-6
.
Licensee: Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201
.
Facility Name:
Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant Inspection At:
Charlevoix, Michigan Inspection Conducted: June 12 through July 23, 1990 j
70
. Inspector:
'
E. A. Plet@
Date '
'
,
Approved By:
[
f fd R. W. DeFayette, Qfifif.
Dati
/
Reactor Projects Mction 2B Inspection Summary-Inspection on June 12 through July 23, 1990 (Report No. 50-155/900I2(DRP))
Areas Inspected:
The inspection was routine, unannounced, and conducted by
the Senior Resident Inspector.
The functional areas inspected consisted of
'-
'
~ the following: management meetings; surveillance activities; maintenance
'
activities on-various components; operational safety verification which included the Reactor Depressurization System; Systemetic Assessment of Licensee' Performance Conference; and two regional requests on the subject of zebra mussels and the effectiveness of check valve activities.
i Results: The licensee has responded in a timely manner to issues and concerns presented to it by the NRC. The surveillance, maintenance, and o>erational safety programs.rneared to be performed in a manner to ensure pu)1ic health and cafety.
Possiole Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking was identified
,
in-a pipe to valve weld joint requiring additional follow-up. This could be a
!
significant safety item.
8130300 90o997 o
ADACK 05000333
_
,
PDC i
q m
,
,
h
..-
,
.
~
_
.
>.'
.i y
i i
'
)
H DETAILS
'
U l '..
Persons' Contacted-F
- W. Beckman, Plant Manager L. Monshor,-Quality Assurance Superintendent H. Hoffman, Maintenance Superintendent
!
- W. Trubilowicz, Operations Superintendent G. Withrow, Plant Engineering Superintendent-
R. Alexander, Technical Engineer _
- P. Donnelly, Nuclear Assurance Administrator
- J. Beer, Chemistry / Health Physics Superintendent'
'
F
- D. Lacroix, Nuclear Training Administrator
!
- D. Moeggenberg, Engineering. Supervisor
,'
- A. Silva, Acting Quality Assurance Superintendent
.
c
- T. Dugan, Plant Safety Coordinator l
- J. Popa, Acting Maintenance Superintendent
The inspector also' contacted other licensee personnel in the Operations,-
l L
,
Maintenance, Engineering, Radiation Protection, and Technical Departments.
j
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on July 24. 1990.
- p 2.
Management (30703)
i i
On June 29, 1990, an NRC Comissioner conducted a site visit. He was
1 accompanied by the Region III Director Division of Reactor Safety and the_ Senior Resident Inspector. The Comissioner had discussions with the r
plant manager and three super 5tendents. A briefing was conducted at the
[
[
conclusion of the visit.- Thu
~ers Power Company Vice-president of i
- .
Nuclear Operations was present n
'he briefing. Topics of discussion i
!
included material condition of thw
. ant, the plant's performance history,
,
and areas for improvement.
.
3.
Monthly Surveillarice Observation (61726)
.
Station surveillance activities listed below were observed to verify -
.
that the activities were conducted in accordance with the Technical
'
Specifications and surveillance procedures.
The applicable procedures-i were reviewed for adequacy, test and process instrumentation were verified.
a to beiin their current cycle of_ calibration, personnel performing the tests-appeared to be qualified, and test data was reviewed for accuracy and
'
completeness. The NRC inspector ascertained that any deficiencies identified were reviewed and resolved. The NRC inspector observed the
' licensee's performance of the following surveillance tests on the indicated
,
dates:
June 25: T30-59, "RDS Channel Test," Revision 2, June 7,1990.
l July 5:
T7-28, " Emergency Diesel Generator Auto Test Start,"
-l Revision 9, December 8, 1989.
J No violations or deviations were identified in this srea.
!
v
,
-
-
.
s
..
j
Y
\\
-
4.
Lionthly Maintenance Observation (62703)
{
Station maintenance activities of safety related systems and components
'!
listed below were observed / 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.
The following items were considered during this review:
the Limiting Conditions for Operation were met while components or systems were l
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 I rior to returning components or systeras to service; quality -
con'.rW ruordt were maintained; activities were accomplished by
,
'
quaiiii'ed versonnel; parts and materials used were certified; and
radiological and fire prevention controls were implemented.
f, Work requests were reviewed to determine the status of outstanding jobs and to assura that jriority was assigned to safety related equipment
,
maintenance which may affect system performance.
,
The NRC inspector observed the licensee's performance of the following
maintenance wotk orders on the indicated dates:
June 25: No. 90 RDS-0029, dated June 24, 1990, to replace "C" train RDS Pilot Valve, in conjunction with Procedure 0-RDS-5,
.
" Isolating /Unisolating RDS Depressurizing Pilot Valves at Pressure," Revision 2, dated April 12, 1989, and T30-59,;"RDS Channel Test," Revision 2, dated June 7, 1990.
,
^
July 13: No. 90-NMS-0076, dated June 25, 1990, to replace Source Range y
Channel No. 6, in conjunction with Procedure INMS-3, " Replacing a
'
Neutron Monitoring System Source Range Monitor," Revision 10, dated January 18, 1989.
Throughout the inspection period maintenance work was observed on the Makeup Demineralizer.
The work involved the replacement of various pipes
,
and refurbishment of equipment. The' work was performed by on-site and
contractor personnel in a professional manner.
Numerous work orders and
,
switching / tagging orders were correctly used to control the work. tasks.
No v olations or deviations were identified in this area.
5.
Operational Safety Verification (71707)
The NRC inspector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs, and conducted discussions with control room operators during the inspection period.
Instrumentation and recorder traces were examined for abnormalities and discussed with the control room operators, as was the status of control room annunciators.
Reviews were conducted to confirm that the required leak rate calculations were performed and were within
. Technical Specification limits.
It was observed that the Plant Manager
,
m
~
_,.
[R
-
..
.c
-
.
-.
.
I and the 0)erations Superintendent were well informed on the status of the plant. T1ey made frequent visits to the control room and toured the plant.
The' inspector conducted a system walkdown of the Reactor Depressurization -
,
System to verify operability. Tours of the containment sphere and
,
E turbine building were conducted to observe plant equipment conditions,
'
including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations and to verify that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment
i
'
k in need of maintenance.
Radiation protection controls were inspected, including Radiation Work Permits, calibration;of radiation detectors,
-
and proper posting and observance of radiation and/or contaminated areas.-
. The inspector observed site security measures including access control
E I
of personnel and vehicles, proper display of identification badges for
personnel within the protected area, and site compensatory measures when
security equipment had a failure or impairment.
.;
L On July 18, 1990, at 3:04 a.m. (EDT) the licensee commenced a shutdown of the reactor due to the failure of a drain trap in the Gland Seal Main
,
Turbine Exhaust System.
The Senior Resident Inspector observed part
of the reactor shutdown.
The shutdown was performed in a proper and-professional manner with detailed prcedures.
Procedures used during the i
shutdown included: System Operating l'rocedure (SOP) 13, " Turbine Generator-System", Revision 123, dated July 1,1590; Nneral Operating Procedure
,
(GOP) 6. " Plant Shutdown to Hot Shutdown", Revision 116, dated October 11, 1989; GOP 7, " Plant Shutdown to Cold Shutdown", Revision 107, dated
October 25, 1989; Technical Data Book Section 15.5.I.2, " Control Rod Withdrawal and Insertion Sequence - Cycle 24", Revision 88, dated July 25, 1989; and 0-TGS-1, "Haster Check-Off Sheet", Revision 66, dated June 6, 1990. The shutdown was completed with no problems on July 18, at 10:58 a.m.-
During a post-shutdown inspection of plant systems, the licensee observed a pinhole sized leak in a weld connecting a pipe to a valve in the Reactor Water Clean-up System.
The licensee placed the reactor into the the cold-shutdown condition later in the day to facilitate repair work on the pipe
n weld. The drain trap and minor repairs on other equipment were performed during the shutdown period.
The main. item of concern was the pinhole sized leak in the weld.
Extensive testing was performed on site to determine
>
root cause. The plant's initial evaluation has identified part of the-problem to be Intergranular Stress corrosion Cracking. Conc 1csive i
evaluation for root cause will be performed by laboratory examination..
'
Based on the site evaluation the licensee decided to replace the affected'
components (the pipe and valve). Work was in progress at the end'of the
inspection period on July 23. The work was being performed in a proper
- "
and professional manner.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
6.
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Conference L
On July 16, 1990, the Deputy Regional Administrator, Deputy Division-Director of the Division of Reactor Projects, Branch Chief in the Division of Reactor Projects, Section Chief in the Division of Reactor Projects, the
,
Licensing Project Manager, and Senior Resident Inspector, conducted a SALP conference with the licensee at the Edgewater Inn in Charlevoix, Michigan.
A plant inspectior, was conducted prior to the conference with NRC management noting the material condition of the plant.
Consumers Power Company was
-
.
e t
b.
.
I i
!
..
,
represented by th'e Senior Vice-prosident of Energy Supply Services, c,
Vice-president Nuclear Operations, Director of Nuclear Licensing, and Plant-Manager of Big Rock Point.
Various members of the plant staff were present
along with interested members of the public including the press.
7.
Regional' Request (92701)(73756)
i i
tlc incursion of Zebra Mussels has the potential to become a serious problem for nuclear power plants situated on the Great Lakes.
Big Rock Point plans to implement tie following measures to counteract the mussels prior to start-up from the 1990 refueling and maintenance outage: (a) place:
test samples of: material suitable for mussel and clam proliferation'in the intake bay and the. discharge canal and monitor for-organism growth; o
(b) review and revise:
the Post Incident System, the Fire Protection
!.
System, and the Emergency Diesel Generator surveillance tests to establish protest inspections and action or response levels which will. reduce the
. potential for bio-fouling;f communication to alert operations personnel (c) revise op equally effective method o r
to the threat and consequences of bio-fouling, (d) revise affected maintenance procedres to insure.that corrosion and bio-fouling considerations are included during routine maintenance inspections; and (e) implement chemistry practices and/or training to enhance awareness of the potential fo and consequences of bio-fouling.
A regional request dealing with check valve activities was initiated to:
(1) evaluate-the licensee _'s program in order to identify early indication of programmatic weaknesses,- poor test and maintenance histories, and
general assessment of the check valve o)erability and reliability program; j
and (2) provide early notification to t1e Region and Headquarters of.
~l program weaknesses which may warrant special inspections. The request
'will not evaluate the licensee's IS!/IST. program for check valves, but feed back to the Regi9n early signs of a degrading or deficient program.
As a result of the request, the Senior Resident Inspector by personnel.
interviews and correspondence review noted the following:
>
Surveillance monitoring of check valves is under evaluation by the
Consumers Power Company.
(This wouh' 'nclude both Big Rock Point and h
Palisades nuclear power plants.) A c.eck valve diagnostic system
'
which is capable of performing a signature analysis to detect-
. degradations in swing check v4.1ves is one of the surveillance methods being evaluated. However,'some major barriers must be overcome before such performance monitoring becomes feasible. As an example, many areas where safety related check valves are located are inaccessible during power operation which makes inservice diagnostics extremely-difficult. Acoustic and vibration surveillance analyses are not done j
on check valves at Big Rock Point.
i Check valves in applicable Big Rock Point Systems requiring testing
'
are listed in the Pump and Valve Program.
In addition, other valves
not listed in this program are tested in a Surveillance Test Program
,
f conducted during refueling outages. The testing involves disassembly
and inspection of the check valves.
Other check valves not listed i
.
w(. "
.
i
,
ro...
,
,
.>
'
in either program are disassembled and inspected through the normal
,
E maintenance process. There are no plans to initiate a specific h
sampling program for check valves at Big Rock Point.
s
~ Big Rock Point has not performed a design review of check valves. The
' Corrective Action System is used to review the design following check
,.
!>
valve' deficiencies.
The use.of the Corrective Action System for this y
type of analyses was not considered.to be preventive maintenance.
Additional information requested by the region will be completed during L
the 1990 refueling _ outage scheduled to begin in September. The findings
[
and final conclusions will be documented;in a subsequent resident inspection report.
8.
Exit Interview t
-,
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
throughout the month and at the conclusion of the inspection period and summarized.the scope and findings of the inspection activities. The'
licensee acknowledged these findings. The. inspector also discussed.the i
likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to.
documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.
The licensee did not identify any such documents or processes'as proprietary..
s
.
I
,
f l
.I J
I
i
'