IR 05000255/1978023
| ML18043A301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1978 |
| From: | Reyes L, Streeter J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18043A296 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-255-78-23, NUDOCS 7812010129 | |
| Download: ML18043A301 (5) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-255/78-23 Docket No. 50-255 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name:
Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant Inspection At:
Palisades Site, Covert, MI Inspection Conducted:
October 2-6, 1978 Inspector:
L. A. Reyes
~~
Approved By:
J. F. Streeter, Chief Nuclear Support Section 1 Inspection Summary License No. DPR-20 Inspection on October 2-6, 1978 (Report No. 50-255/78-23)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of calibration and surveillance of safety related components and equipment, implementation of ASME Code Section X The inspection involved a total of 30 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in three area Two items of noncompliance were identified in one area (Infractions - failure to follow procedures and failure to implement an acceptable inservice testing program for pumps - Paragraph 6).
..
.._~..
.-*
781201 () /'2. '1
. \\' DETAILS Persons Contacted During Inspection
- H. W. Keiser, Operations Superintendent
- K. W. Berry, Technical Superintendent
- S. L. Fox, QA Engineer
- G. Petitjean, Technical Engineer
- R. A. Vincent, Senior Engineer D. I. Bollnow, Technical Clerk F. G. Butler, I&C Engineer H. Palmer, Senior Engineer The inspector also contacted several other licensee employees, including members of the technical and engineering staffs, reactor and auxiliary operators and clerical personne *Denotes those attending the exit intervie.
Calibration of Safety Related Components Required by Technical Specifications The inspector reviewed plant calibration records and selected logs and records for the below listed calibration activitie This *
review was performed to determine that the frequency of calibration was met; the service status of the system was in conformance with the applicable limiting conditions of operation; the procedures used to calibrate.the components were reviewed and approved as required by the Technical Specifications; the procedures used con-tained acceptable trip settings using applicable technical specif i-cation requirements; the procedures used contained detailed stepwise instructions; the technical content of the procedures would result in satisfactory calibration; the qualifications of two individuals in the I&C Group having responsibilities for performing calibrations were adequat Calibration Activities Reviewed Primary Rod Position Indication and roD position interlock (Procedures R0-19, Rev. 5 and R0-22, Rev. S)*. Secondary Rod Position Indication and out of sequence alarm (Procedure R0-21, Rev. 6). Feedwater Flow transmitter to steam gener~to~ {~rocedures RI-24, Rev.. 5 and M-MSI-7).
.,....
.
,
- ,'
...
-
2 -
. y
- Reactor Coolant System Flow transmitter (Procedures RI-1 and M-MPCS-13). Safety Injection tank level and pressure instrumentatio (Procedures RI-14, Rev. 1 and RI-15, Rev. 4). Containment High Pressure channels calibration and actuation logic for SIS containment isolation and containment spra (Procedures RI-6, Rev. 1 and M-VAS-2).
For these calibration activities additional records were evalu-ated to ascertain that procedural requirements were me While evaluating the records for the 1978 refueling outage calibrations it was determined that the acceptance criteria values for the difference between primary and secondary rod position indications was not met for several CRDM' There were five deviation requests issued (DR-PAL-133, -137, -138,
-139 and -140) but none have been complete This item is unresolved pending completion of corrective action by the license No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Special Test Equipment The inspector selected the below listed test equipment used in the calibration of safety-related equipment and determined that the accuracy of those.instruments were traceable to the National Bureau of Standards or other independent testing agencie DANA Model 5400 *
Simpson Model 460 Transmation MK tester SN 8428-10089 SN 8428-10098 SN 8428-00238 SN 3700-00064 Calibration of Safety Related Components Not Specified by Technical Specifications The inspector reviewed plant calibration records for the below listed component This review was performed to determine if the operating range/accuracy of components were consistent with applicable Technical Specification/SAR; the procedures used to calibrate the components were reviewed and approved as required by Technical Specifications; the procedures used contained acceptance criteria consistent with Technical Spe~ific~rions.
SAR; the proced,ures used contained detailed instructions commen-surate wi.th the complexity of the calibration and. that the technical content oi tne procedures would result in satisfactory calibratio "
- ,.
-
3 -
r
- Boric Acid tank level and temperature indicatio (Procedures R0-16, Rev. 7).
Containment building humidity detector (Procedure M-VAS-1).
Undervoltage Relays from Vital Buses to Diesel Generator HPSI Flow and discharge pressure instrumentatio (Instruments PT-0318 and RI-0318).
LPSI discharge pressure instrumentatio (Instruments PI-0306 and PT-0306).
Additional calibration records were evaluated for these components to ascertain that procedural requirements were me No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Surveillance of Safety Related Components or Equipment The-inspector reviewed plant surveillance records for the below listed equipmen This review was performed to determine if the surveillance test was covered by properly approved procedures; the procedures used contained prerequisites and preparations for the test; the procedures used contained functional testing of instru-mentation used and acceptance criteria; operational checks prior to returning equipment to service were identified in the surveil-lance test; the technical content of the procedures would result in satisfactory t~sting; the qualifications of one individual performing surveillance were adequat Flux -
~T Power Comparator (Procedures RI-23, Rev. 2 and M-NMS-2). Pressurizer Pressure channels (Procedures RI-3, Rev. 1, RI-7, Rev. 2, MI-4, Re. 4 and M-PCS-15). Emergency Diesels (Procedures MC-17, Rev. 5 and M0-7, Rev. 15). Primary and Secondary Rod P-0sition Co~pute~ alarm (Pro-cedure M0-8, Rev. 6). MSIV circuit and valve closure timin (Procedures RI-17 and M-MSS-11).
Additional surveillance records were evaluated f o~. thi~. equipment to ascertain tQ.at procedural requirements were*" ll)e,
.
No items J:>f no~compliance or deviations were identifie " ".
- 4 -
6.
Pump Inservice Testing The inspector conducted a review of the implementation of inservice testing of Class 1, 2 and 3 pumps in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code 1974 Edition and Addenda through Summer 1975 as required by 10 CFR 50.55(g) and the licensee's procedure EM-09-0 The following items were identified as problem areas with the testing of pumps: The April 26, 1978 results' of the three containment spray pump tests were in the "alert range" of Table IWP-3100- The double frequency testing was not accomplished until the causes of the deviations were determined and corrected as required by Subarticle IWP-323 The review of the May 21, 1978 test data for the containment spray pumps was not completed within 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> after completion of the test as required by ASME Code Section XI, Subarticle IWP-3220:
(The above items are examples of failure to implement an acceptable inservice testing program for pumps as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)
and Procedure EM-09-04 and constitute an item of noncompliance of the infraction level). The May 21, 1978 test results for the three containment spray pumps were in the "Required Action Range" of Table IWP-3100-2 of ASME Code,Section XI and the pumps were not declared inoperabl This is contrary to M0-19 "Inservice Test Procedure for Containment Spray Pumps." Failure to implement surveillance and testing requirements for safety-related equipment is contrary to Technical Specification 6.8.1 and is considered an item of nonc~mpliance of the infraction leve No other items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they.are acceptable items, item of non-compliance, or deviation An unresolved item d'isclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on October 6,. 1978. : ; The 'unres~lved item and items of ncfncompliance described in paragraphs 2 and 6 were discussed'.
I
- !.
.....
.-.... *
-
5 -