IR 05000220/1981029
| ML17053D007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1982 |
| From: | Doerflein L, Sharon Hudson, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053D006 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-81-29, NUDOCS 8201250441 | |
| Download: ML17053D007 (26) | |
Text
Repor t No.
81-29 Docket No.
50-220 U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I License No DPR-63 Priority Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard liest Category L. T. Doerf1 in, Resident Inspector Syracuse, New York 13202 Faci 1 ity Name Nine Mi1 e Poi nt Nucl ear Stati on, Unit
Inspection at:
Scriba, New York, Inspection conducted:
December 1-31, 1981 Inspectors:
S.
D. Hudson, Resident Inspector
/s Sz d te signed l3 ate signed Approved by:
.
B. Kiste
, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1C date signed date signed Ins ection Summar Ins ection on December 1-31, 1981 Ins ection Re ort No'. 50-220/81-29 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, onsite regular and backshift inspections by the res>dent inspectors (128 hours0.00148 days <br />0.0356 hours <br />2.116402e-4 weeks <br />4.8704e-5 months <br />).
Areas inspected included:
licensee action on previous inspection findings, operational safety verification, physical security, plant tours, surveillance tests, modification installation, safety system verification, fire protection program, training, licensee action on Bulletins and Circulars, fire protection modifications, and review of periodic reports.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified in the areas examined.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
P
~~~4gg
l s " <DOCg <>~<<>1Se oooo@<
. ~DR.
I
F y
I
~
I qt
,
Persons Contacted'ETAILS 2.
J. Aldrich, Supervisor, Operations K. Dahlberg, Site Maintenance Superintendent W. Drews, Technical Superintendent J. Duell, Supervisor, Chemistry and Radiation Protection E. Leach, Superintendent of Chemistry and Radiation Management T. Perkins, General Superintendent, Nuclear Generation R.
Raymond, Supervisor, Fire Protection T. Roman, Station Superintendent B. Taylor, Supervisor, Instrument and Control K. Zollitsch, Superintendent, Training The inspector also interviewed and talked with other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection including shift supervisors, administrative, operations, health physics', security, instrument and control and contractor personnel.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
(Closed)
INSPECTOR FOLLOW ITEM (81-27-04):
On November 25, 1981, the licensee submitted Licensee Event Report 881-50.
The report describes the malfunction of Pll Reactor Building Ventilation Radiation Monitor on July 15, 1981.
(Closed)
UNRESOLVED ITEM (80-10-04):
The inspector reviewed IMP-52,
"Procedure for Calibration and Functional Test of Meter and Protective Relay Systems,"
Revision 4, dated October 30, 1981 and verified that it now requires the calibration of both diesel generators'ilowatt and kilovars meters.
(Closed)
UNRESOLVED ITEM (80-10-03):
The inspector reviewed ICP-100,
"Fire Protection:
Foam, Spray Water, C02 and Sprinkler Systems,"
Revision 4, dated June 8, 1981 and verifsed that the tolerance for the calibration of the C02 Storage Tank Pressure Indicator had been revised to + 15 psi.
(Closed)
UNRESOLVED ITEM (80-10-05):
The inspector reviewed IMP-9.0,
"Control Rod Drive,'" Revision,3, dated January 2,
1981 and verified that it'now requires calibration of the entire control rod drive flow loop.
(Closed)
UNRESOLVED ITEM (80-10-06):
The inspector reviewed ISP-NEU-2,
"Intermediate Range Monitor Instrument," Revision 1, dated October 20, 1981 and verified that the procedure now specifies that the Technical Specification value for the upscale Hi Hi trip is
<120%.
The guide value for setting the trip point is 118 + 1%.
(Closed)
DEFICIENCY (76-24-01):
Failure to maintain surveillance records.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response dated December 9, 1976.
A computerized record retrieval system is now used at the station to help prevent error of this type in the futur I fj P
it
'4
F
I L
4 I'I "'
jl
'4 I
I I
'it II
'
~ (I
tk
~
I
h
4 t
,
~
~ r-f.,',/
I P
F,I I
jt P
~
4 (
I II'
l
, jtlj't
'I F
r I
4'
I l
, 4-4
r
1
k (Closed)
INFRACTION (77-02-01):
Fai 1 ure to conduct emergency drills.
The inspector verified that the licensee is now meeting the requirements of Emergency Procedure 'No. EPP-18,,"Emergency -Exercise/Drill Procedure,"
Revision 3, dated August 9, 1981.
The annual emergency response exercise was conducted on September 15, 1981, and a medical emergency drill was conducted on November 13, 1981.
The inspector also verified that quarterly fire drills have been held with each shift for the last two quarters of 1981.
(Closed)
INFRACTION (80-01-02)( and INFRACTION (80-08-03):
Fai1ur e to maintain valves locked.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's responses dated March 19, 1980, March 28, 1980, and November 4, 1980.
The inspector verified that each of the listed in the Notice of Violation was now in its proper position.
To prevent recurrence of this type of event, a licensee representative stated that all locked valves had been checked to be in their required position and that the cores of all locks changed to a unique key series with limited distribution.
On a sampling basis, the inspector verified this action to be complete.
(Closed)
UNRESOLVED ITEM (220/80-01-03):
Revision to markup procedure.
The inspector reviewed APN-7, "Procedure for Control of Equipment Markups," Revision 5, dated September 1981, and noted that the procedure adequately describes the issuance of markups at Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station.
(Closed)
UNRESOLVED ITEM (220/79-22-04):
Resubmit Licensee Event Reports (LER's).
The licensee resubmitted LER's79-013, 79-015, and 79-018.
The inspector reviewed the updated LER's and verified that, for each LER, the event description was adequate.
The inspector also verified that the cause code and cause subcode for LER 79-013 had been corrected.
(Closed)
ITEM OF NONCOMPLIANCE (81-24-01):
Failure to post radiological conditions.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response dated November 18, 1981 to determine the licensee proposed corrective action.
He examined the entrance to Reactor Building elevation 198 ft. and verified that the radiological conditions and appropriate entry requirements had been posted.
The inspector discussed the posting requirements with several radiation protection technicians and determined that they were aware-of the requirement to evaluate and post radiological conditions in areas where contamination levels exceed 25,000 dpm/100 cm2.
The inspector also reviewed the whole body count of two individuals who had entered the contaminated area and determined that there had been no significant intake of either cobalt 60 or cesium 137.
3.
0 eration Safet Verification a ~
Control Room Observations Routinely throughout the inspection period, the inspector independently verified plant parameters and equipment availability of engineered safeguard features against a plant specific checklist to ensure the following items were observed:
h, I
K
~'K b
h I 1
~ II,
<<K P I
I f
I I~I tj
',,'
I
'I" 4 I
jt *
'
I f
t gh jj Qt
"
Vl
)
'11 I/
',~w>>"
4<<
.
>> P
~ ~
I
4 tl jl<< '1 I 1>>
IP t,bb 1"
K
1 I
I I
I I'
/<<h, h,
-
11.
'I I
~
j 4'hq ht )
K I
'I jjw, "IW
,b-hl I
b>>lf
>>
I hg it'
>>
I b
K
Vl'f j
=h
"'>>>>
'I t
Ij It
'
I
tl
~,
1-(Kh-K h'
1'
K I I
1, h
I
I
"
h I
"l>>4 WW
'I
'
I h},'Ih
<<
w,l II K
t,
'
bl jj
II K
I
Proper Control room manning; Availability and proper valve line-up of safety systems; Availability and proper alignment of onsite and offsite emergency power sources; Reactor control panel indications and bypass switches; Core thermal limits; Primary containment temperature and pressure; Drywell to suppression chamber differential pressure; Stack monitor recorder traces; and Liquid poison tank level and concentration.
Selected lit annunciators were discussed with control room operators to verify that the reasons for them were understood and corrective action, if required, was being taken.
Shift tur novers were observed to ensure proper control room and shift manning on both day and back shifts.
Shift turnover checklists and log review by the oncoming and off-going shifts were also observed by the inspector.
The inspector directly observed portions of routine power operations to ensure adherence to approved procedures.
b.
Review of Lo s and 0 eratin Records The inspector reviewed the following logs and instructions for the period December 1 through December 31, 1981:
Control Room Log Book Station Shift Supervisor 's Log Book Station Shift Supervisor's Instructions Licensee Event Report Log Reactor Operating Log The logs and instructions were reviewed to:
Obtain information on plant problems and operation; Detect changes and trends in performance;
~ 11 g(
"I~
g
) ) g lry <
I yy)
r
r)gj <,yg fy-y,
I 1.)g 1 ~
'I u,
II II J
'll Iyl,y S 0
'4
'i II r (+
S
~,
"
ly
~ ~ 'yl I
y '
yh 'ry St'gy(IIO I);
S 8
~ ) )'S~)yy ) ) <<>>;
>
yy y I)
-fiy )
S 'I',$ ~1 yy I>> )
II I III ply ')
'
<<i "'I yy 'I
1 y,l+ f ylrS
Q '/) j SI y
l,y'fry
S
$ 'l S ')ryyi, g
)
) -I,-y~
(}
lli yyrf i
~ y
)-RQ yg
'J r-1. ~ qy i ],g,
",II
'
l yff y
$ ~,I l, y
yl yi I'
Detect possible conflicts with technical specifications or regulatory requirements; Determine that records are being reviewed as required; Assess the effectiveness of the communications provided by the logs and instructions; and Determine that the reporting requirements of technical specifications are met.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Observation of Ph sical Securit The inspector made observations and verified during regular and off-shift hours that selected aspects of the plant's physical security system were in accordance with regulatory requirements, physical security plan and approved procedures.
The following observations relating to physical security were made:
The security force on both regular and off-shifts were properly manned and appeared capable of performing their assigned functions.
Protected area barriers were intact - gates and doors closed and locked if not attended.
Communication checks were conducted.
Proper communication devices were available.
Isolation zones were free of visual obstructions and objects that could aid an intruder in penetrating the protected area and during periods of darkness, the protected area had sufficient illumination.
Persons and packages were checked prior to entry into the protected area.
Vehicles were properly authorized, searched and escorted or controlled within the protected area.
Persons within the protected area displayed photo-identification badges, persons in vital areas wer e properly authorized, and persons requiring escort were properly escorted.
Compensatory measures were implemented during periods of equipment failure.
No items of noncompliance were identifie II
I tl 4
4'
lt
4 H
<<It I)
'4
'I I'
t'
I tg,,
t
'
\\f III tl
)II g'
I4)l'I t
I-)MM
~
~
~
'1
4
<<I I fl lrI,I hl,'
'I tf II tl'4 r
ll lt
~
~
~ ll
5.
Plant Tours During the inspection period, the inspector made multiple tours of plant areas to make a independent assessment of equipment, conditions, radiological conditions, safety and adherence to regulatory requirements.
The following areas were among those inspected:
Turbine Building Auxiliary Control Room Vital Switchgear Rooms Yard Areas Radwaste Area Diesel Generator Rooms Screen House Reactor Building The following items were observed or verified:
a o Radiation Protection:
Personnel monitoring was properly conducted.
Randomly selected radiation protection instruments were calibrated and operable.
Radiation Work Permit requirements were being followed.
Area surveys were properly conducted and the Radiation Work Permits were appropriate for the as-found conditions.
The inspector witnessed the performance of radiation survey 8N61148 at Turbine Building elevation 305 ft. and survey 8N61202 in the drywell entrance area'.'.
Fire Protection:
!
Randomly selected fire extinguishers were accessible and inspected on schedule.
Fire doors were unobstructed and in their proper position.
Ignition sources and combustible materials were controlled in
,accordance with the licensee's approved procedures.
s
'
k k
<<
k
t I<<
I<<
)
I I
k I 'l II
~
k I
t '
i
kk k
)rl J
~
<<
c.
Equipment Controls:
Jumpers and equipment tag outs did not conflict with Technical Specification requirements.
Conditions requiring the use of jumpers received prompt licensee attention.
Selected jumpers had been properly installed and removed.
d.
Vital Instrumentation:
e.
Selected instruments appeared functional and demonstrated parameters within Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operat'ion.
Radioactive,llaste System Controls:
Gaseous releases were monitored and recorded.
The radioactive waste system was operated in accordance with approved procedures.
f.
Housekeeping:
Plant housekeeping and cleanliness were in accordance with approved licensee programs.
6.
Surveillance Tests During the inspection period, the inspector witnessed the performance of various surveillance tests.
Observations were made to verify that:
Surveillance procedures conform to technical specification requirements and have been properly approved.
Test instrumentation is calibrated.
Limiting conditions for operations for removing equipment from service are met.
Testing is performed by qualified personnel.
Surveillance schedule is met.
Test'esults met technical specification requirements.
Appropriate corrective action is initiated, if necessary.
Equipment is properly restored to service following the test.
The following tests were included in this review:
IMP-NEU-2, "Intermediate Range Monitor Instrument Channel Calibration,"
Revision 2, dated October 30, 1981.
The inspector witnessed the calibration of channel 814 performed on December 4, 198 I II
~ <<P
~
~
XR
~
qf t,<<P Rywy,,<<R
.
Vw~,,
>>lt I
V 4 (~PI -)R q= g
<< ',ty; ~ ~
I
'
~
I h,wh hl'
h'
1 Rt
f'- Wh'
I 1, ~
g
=
~
k
.PI'
I I
4Pg
'\\ ',)
4th I,
~ ~
4 'I
'h
" <<P'RP I hj'IP4 I
R P!',
j II w
I I
I"
'I lP)P)'"'R I4 1,4
~ 1 h ~
~
~
V IP I,
~ RP I "h I'I "P I
~
11'W ll IIJ'") )
IP,I
'I V I
R IPIP 4,
p
<<P I
I
h
"Drywell and Torus Pressure and Drywell Level,"
Revision 0, dated October 30, 1980.
The inspector witnessed the calibration of the drywell to torus differential pressure instrument 8201.2-365 performed on December 8, 1981.
ST-M9, "Control Room Air Treatment System Operability Test,"
Revision 3, dated March 2, 1981, performed on December 8, 1981.
"ATNS Instr'ument Channel Test/Calibration,"
Revision 3, dated March 18, 1981.
The inspector witnessed the testing of pressure instrum'ent k'36-22 performed on December 16; 1981.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Modification Installation The inspector examined portions of,installation and testing of the post accident sampling, system.
Through direct observation and review of records, he determined that:
These activities did not violate the limiting conditions for operation.
Required administrative approvals and tag outs were obtained prior to initiating the work.
Approved procedures "were used.
Appropriate radiological controls were properly implemented.
The licensee was unable to complete the 1500 psi hydrostatic test of the post accident sampling system due to excessive leakage past the system's high pressure isolation valves.
This modification, required by NUREG-0737,
"Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,"
was scheduled for completion on January 1, 1982.
The licensee has requested an extension of the completion date for this system until January 31, 1982.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Safet S stem 0 erabilit Verification On a sampling basis, the inspector directly examined selected safety system trains to verify that the systems were properly aligned in the standby mode.
This examination included:
Verification that each accessible valve in the flow path is in the correct position by either visual observation of the valve or remote position indication.
Verification that power supply breakers are aligned for components that must actuate upon receipt of an initiation signal.
Visual inspection of the major components for leakage, proper lubrication, cooling water supply, and other general conditions that might prevent fulfillment of their functional requirement I,h~
I
~
~
I','
',kv 1)
I It kj,
'I I ~
IP I(
I'.7
~"
')
I
)
A
'
'r I
j )
It
'j )'J
~
I
" 't Ik'I g
7, Pj It h
'I 11, P
I
4 I"77 4'
tt I
I Ilk I
7 tr, tr'P'i PP
.
~
<
It P
4 I h
"'IEr I", '
'7',I'.
)
hwI
I 4 7, J, t
jl t).h 4=,
"'
~
I P
lr I
I
~ I I
~'",
', CW)
'I 7 Il
"I 'h II
4 I
I ft IP It'
I
~ 4
I
7rw
I ~
I'
~,
P
~
I*
7" I
4
W
Verification by observation that instrumentation essential to system actuation or performance is operational.
Motor operated or air operated valves are not mechanically blocked and power is available as appropriate.
There are no visual leakage paths between the containment and the isolation valves.
During this inspection period, the following systems were examined:
Emergency Condenser System Liquid Poison System Control Rod Drive Instrument Volume Level Transmitters Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) 8103 No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Fire Protection/Prevention Pro ram a ~
Administrative Controls The inspector reviewed the following administrative procedures:
APN-20, "Station Fire Pr otection Progr am," Revision 3, dated April 1981; APN-11, "Housekeeping and Cleanliness Control," Revision 2, dated March 1981;
Nl-FP-2, "Welding and Cutting," Revision 3, dated August 1979; Nl-FP-3, "Contractors and Subcontractors,"
Revision 1, dated April 1978; Nl-FP-7, "Combustible Materials Storage Procedure,"
Revision 0, dated February 1981.
The inspector verified that the administrative procedures included:
(1)
Control of Combustibles
Prohibition, on the storage of combustible, flammable or explosive hazardous material in safety-related areas.
Requirement for the removal of all wastes, debris, rags, oil spills or other combustible materials resulting from the work activity during and/or following completion of the activity.
il Requirement that all wood used in safety-related areas is treated with flame retardan II Ii I
II
1 I
'I I
I Ii I
f:"'l I
~,
t
- I t.
l I
f
V
~
4tg'"
I It I
t
~
F 4 it I
l
'",'ft).f'..',',
I,'
I l,) ',if I
~
(,
~ (
I ll, Ittt*
'
l "f )
I*')' 'lt A
I l I'~ l'</l, "f I
l t
l t4 4 If fi f
I* ftf
'". tt-) l'
I I'
Requirement for periodic inspection for accumulation of combusti bles.
(2)
Control of I nition Sources Welding and cutting operations and other open flame ignition sources are controlled by a work permit.
The inspector also made facility tours to verify that:
Combustible materials are properly controlled in safety-related areas.
Flammable and combustible liquid usage is restricted or properly controlled in areas containing safety-related equipment and components.
'ousekeeping is properly maintained in safety-related areas.
Welding and grinding operations in safety-related areas are properly controlled by a welding permit and that fire watches were stationed.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Fire Protection S stems'and E ui ment'
The inspector reviewed, the following surveillance test procedures, including the results during the last year, to verify that fire protection systems and equipment installed for protection of safety-related areas are functional, properly maintained and tested in accordance with the" requirements specified in the Technical Specifications.
'l-ST-W14,"Fire Protection System-Weekly Operator Routine,"
Revision 3, dated Hay 1981.
Nl-PM-N2, "Fire Protection System-monthly Oper ator Routine,"
Revision 7, dated September 1980.
Nl-ST-Al, "Annual Valve Cycling for Fire Protection Systems,"
Revision 2, dated July 1981.
Nl-FST-Al, "Fire Hose Hydrostatic Test," Revision 0, dated November 1981.
During facility tours, the inspector also performed a visual inspection of fire protection systems and equipment to verify that the required equipment is provided and is functional.
This verification included an observation of the following:
Fire pumps were in service.
Hydrants and indicator valves were adequately protected by barrier 'F
. I
Pf C
j 4 II I
P II
'
II 4
.4
'j IM4 L
~
T
'
'I 1 fl jl
P'
)
I
~
T )
I
1 g
4- ~
P I '4 tt 4
I
1
'f
'M'
J
Mt
h M
M II
,'I
,I Mttf jj Iht )
~ '
P
'1 1 t
f I
lf
4 II
~ I=
jf)
P,M
~
ft" g jf
Yard indicator valves (PIY) viere maintained in the OPEN position.
Fire suppression and detection systems were in service.
Fire extinguishers were, located at designated places at each elevation.
Access to suppression devices was not restricted by materials or equipment.
Equipment or devices indicated current inspection date.
General condition of devices.
c ~
The inspector also performed a visual inspection of fire brigade equipment to verify that the required equipment was available and that all equipment, including the emergency breathing apparatus, was properly stored and maintained.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Fire Bri ade Trainin The inspector reviewed APN-10E, "Fire Brigade Training," Revision 1, dated November 1979, to verify that the procedure included:
(1)
Fire brigade training and retraining requirements which include classroom instruction and hands on equipment training.
(2)
Fire brigade drill requirements.
Based on a review of drill critiques, fire school records and selected personnel training files,i the inspector verified that the fire school training and the quarterly fire drills were conducted as required by APN-10E, "Fire Brigade Training".
The inspector noted, however, that the procedure did not include quarterly training sessions as required by Technical Specification 6.4.2.
Although some classroom training has been given to the fire brigade on fire system modifications and procedure changes when necessary, there is no training program to conduct regularly scheduled quarterly training sessions for the fire brigade.
Based on discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector noted that the licensee had identified this discrepancy and has initiated corrective measures to prevent recurrence.
The licensee is changing it's fire brigade training program to be in accordance with 10CFR50, Appendix R.
The licensee has had a contractor develop a lecture series for the fire brigade training program and is in the process of hiring a fire protection training specialist.
The licensee also plans on revising APN-10E,.
The inspector will verify that the fire brigade training program has been properly implemented and in accordance with 10CFR50, Appendix R, during a subsequent inspection.
(220/81-29-01)
t
'
~
'll
'I II a
~
I VNHN
4 P
0 alt J
lj
, f
'
jj j,','l II I
~
'<<1
~
I I
Nj j'a
",'
I
~
Ij It
a 4 tt N'~
)
Ijt
,r
~ g 11 I al VP I
m
~
~
P
~
~
'1 il a
I I=,
.r *'
I
jl
- ,
II ',
.
I
1 I,
111,1 tl I
P lj
~
~
P
10.
~Tnainin
~
~
~
'a ~
General Em lo ee Trainin b.
On December 7 and 8, 1981, the inspector attended the training lectures given as part of the General Employee Training Program.
The class consisted of new, existing and temporary employees.
The inspector reviewed APN-10D, "General Employee Training," Revision 1, dated January 1980 and verified that the required training was provided on radiological health and safety, controlled access and security procedures, the emergency plan, quality assurance, administrative controls and procedures, and industrial safety.
The inspector also verified that a written exam on radiation protection was administered, as required, to those personnel requiring unescorted access to the restricted areas of the plant.
Securit Trainin The inspector witnessed annual weapons requalification firing by two individuals.
The firing was performed on the standard
"Practical Pistol Bourse".
It involves shooting from various positions using both the left and right hands.
Each individual achieved scores greater than the required minimum.
The inspector also attended a scheduled training session for new security personnel.
The training consists of a practical session in the use of the x-ray detection equipment and a lecture about the plant access requirements of 10CFR73.55.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
11.
Licensee Action on IE Bulletin and Circular The The
'a ~
inspector reviewed the licensee's actions to determine that:
A written response was submitted in the time specified.
The response was accurate.
The licensee's action fully addressed the concerns addressed in Bulletin/Circular.
following items were included in this review:
IEB 81-01,"Surveillance of Mechanical Snubbers" The inspector reviewed the licensee's responses dated March 24, 1981 and June 24, 1981 and Maintenance Procedure MP-45.60, "Inspection of Mechanical Snubbers",'"
Revision 0, dated April 17, 1981.
The test performed on April 24, 1981 satisfies the requirements of IEB 81-01 for snubbers manufactured by Pacific Scientific Company.
This bu111letin is close,
I I t
~
'l I'
4 lt II IU
I 4>>
I
'g i
I
r J
III
41I l'II I
lt
~ p I,III
.'I
'4 It ih I IJ4 4 g
411 I
4
4 Irrr
)
.
I
4
II I
4
tl
4 rf
I>> Li
- >>,
4
4 t
44 '
I 4 ~
It It I
I 4 I f
4
II i.",I,
4 tr
W 4 h")
44
4I prrt>>
$
tf I-S
41
~ 4
4
4
4 I
- j-'I ht
'
I'
I I
P
4
b.
IEC 80-02,
"Nuclear Power Plant Staff >lork Hours" NUREG-0737, Item I.A.1.3, "Shift Manning," contained revised guidance on limiting the working hours of personnel who perform safety-related functions.
This supersedes IEC 80-02.
The inspector reviewed APN-2A,
"Conduct of Operations and Composition and Responsibilities of Station or Unit Organization," Revision 5, dated February 20, 1981 and verified that ther.-licensee had fully incorporated the working hour restrictions of NUREG-0737.
This circular is closed.
12.
Fire Protection Modifications Amendment 833 to the station's operating license required extensive modifications to the station s fire protection equipment.
The required completion date for these modifications was November 17, 1981.
The inspector questioned several licensee representatives to determine the status of these modifications.
Each stated that all modifications have been completed as required by Amendment k'33 or previously approved exceptions.
13.
Review of Periodic Re orts The following reports were r'eviewed to verify that reporting requirements of the Technical Specifications are being met and that plant operations are being accurately, reported:
Monthly Operating Report, November 1981.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
14.
Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and finding P I
JI
~
h
~
~
ir
'I P
>>)
I I h
)I III
I I I
P P
P
'I,I
~
r r
/
h hr P
I h
I ra hr
'I)
)rrhh J,=
hl,,;, 'r Ph>> I Ir '>>
I I>> IIP
>>alt'
t" I
~ hr>>
haj' ')If
@)r>>"Ilj)r I 9
"
",J I" >>
~ h Ih I,
h" I
hh
~
o'<<>>,I)
~
a
=
j yy*g.~ I
>>
r aha p)'ah)
~
/p'hr'g )'I yl')t
- h 'r ~ h/
I I-lh ~
q ~'
I
, ~
P 1