IR 05000255/1980013
| ML18045A664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1980 |
| From: | Boyd D, James Heller, Jorgensen B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18045A661 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-255-80-13, NUDOCS 8009300224 | |
| Download: ML18045A664 (7) | |
Text
U;S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT-REGION III
- Report No. 50-255/80-13 Docket No. 50-255 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name:
Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant Inspection At:
Cove.rt, MI License No. DPR-20 Inspection 'conducted:
July 1-3, 7-ll; 14-19, 21-25, and.28~31, 1980-j{A1J!u/~
Inspectors:/t'tB~""'t: IOrge~sen
- /~ll#tli~-;
{rr* K. Hiller*
J?/f /tdJ1AJllUJ
- Approved By~D. C. B~d, aHief Projects Section 4 Inspection Summary Inspection during July, 1980 (Report No. -050-255/80-13)
r. I F /;
J!5-IF-o -
I I
Areas Inspected:
Routine monthly ~esident inspection program activities including operational safety; maintenance; surveillance; reportable events; plant trips; organization and administration; review and audit; -
_
_ unresolved items; and action on NRC correspondenc The inspection involved 240 onsite inspection hours by two NRC inspector:s, including 44hours of off-shift inspectio Results:
Of the nine areas inspected, no noncompliance oi: deviations were identified in eight area One item of noncompliance (Infraction -
failure to adhere to adminis.trative procedures for equipment control -
Paragrap!J. 2) was identified in the remaining are *
- DETAILS Persons Contacted J. G. Lewis, General Manager (until August 1, 1980)
- R. W. Montross, General Manager (effective August 1, 1980)
- H. W. Keiser, Operations and Maintenance Superintendent
- R. E. McCaleb, Quality Assurance Superintendent W. S. Skibitsky, Operations Superintendent B. L. Shaner, Operations Supervisor
- G. H. Petitjean, Technical Engineer
- J. A. Meineke, Technical Engineer/Reactor Engineer F. G. Butler, Senior Engineer D. VanDenBurg, General Engineer J. E. Breson, General Engineer D. W. Kaupa, Shift Supervisor A. S. Kanicki, Shift Supervisor E. I. Thompson, Shift Supervisor N. Hough, Training Supervisor S. F. Pierce, Radioactive Materials Control Supervisor K. M. Farr, Public Affairs Director Numerous other members of the operations, technical, radiation protection* and administrative staffs were also contacted briefl *Denotes those present at management interview August 6, 198.
Operational Safety Verification The inspector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators during the month of July, 198 The inspector verified the operability of selected emergency systems, review.ed tagout records and evaluated proper return to service of affected component On July 9 and 10, 1980, the inspector observed preparations for and establishment of plant criticalities. Shortly after the criticality of July 10 at approximately 1230 hours0.0142 days <br />0.342 hours <br />0.00203 weeks <br />4.68015e-4 months <br /> (EDT), the inspector identi-fied an incomplete Equipment Outage Request (EOR) relating to NI-003, a wide-range nuclear power instrumen According to licensee Admin-istrative Procedure 5.0, paragraph 5.1.12.7, equipment controlled by an EOR may not be considered operable or relied upon to perform its design function until stipulated reviews and signoffs are made, completing the EOR For In that the NI-003 instrument was consid-ered operable and relied upon for the achievement of criticality without prior proper completion of the EOR, the licensee violated Administrative Procedure When this matter was brought to his attention by the inspector, the licensee immediately verified required
- 2 -
.*
administrative review and release were performed and completed required signatures, thus properly establishing operability of the equipment by about 1500 EDT the same day._ Adherence to administra-tive procedures for equipment control. is a requirement of Technical Specification 6.8.1 by reference to*Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix Violation of.the procedural requirements as discussed above is therefore an item of noncompliance with the referenced Technical Specification. *This item is an-Infractio On July 28, 1980, the licensee reported discovered the previous day that containment sump isolation.valve CV-3030 had been ope This valve, which would supply suction to one train of safety injection and containment spray pumps from a full sump following initial injection for a loss-of-coolant accident, is to be maintained closed during normal operatio With the valve open to an empty sump, the integrity or operability of.one safeguards train could have been compromised in an accident situatio The licensee's investigation indicates the valve was opened at 1936 hours0.0224 days <br />0.538 hours <br />0.0032 weeks <br />7.36648e-4 months <br /> (EDT) on July 25, 1980, and remained open until 0736 hours0.00852 days <br />0.204 hours <br />0.00122 weeks <br />2.80048e-4 months <br /> (EDT) on July 27, 1980:
A special NRC.inspection was initiated from the Region III Office of Inspection and Enforcemen The resident inspector assisted this effort and.
. will.continuewith review and evaluation of the lf1tter, which is*
being documented in a separate inspection report-.
Tours of the auxiliary building and 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 in need of maintenanc The inspector by observation and direct interview verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security pla The inspector observed plant housekeeping/cleanliness.conditions and verified implementation of radiation protection control The inspector walked down portions of the HPSI, LPSI,- and con1;.ainment spray'systems to verify operabilit The inspector witnessed portions of the radioactive waste system controls-associated with radwaste shipments and barrelin This included inspection of all solidified liquid waste packages placed on the initial shipment since the licens.ee switched to a concrete solidification proces Package_labeling and associated shipping papers were examined, as were vehicle placarding and package radia-tion levels.
One item of noncompliance and no deviations were identified in this area of inspectio ll IE *Inspection Report No. 050-255/80-12
- 3 -
- Monthly Maintenance Observation Station maintenance activities of safety related systems and com-ponents were observed/reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides and indus-try codes or standards and in conformance with technical specifica-tion The following items were considered during this review: the limiting conditions for operation were met while components or systems were removed from servi~e; 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 service; quality control records were maintained; activities were accomplished by qualified personnel; parts and materials.used were properly certified; radiological controls were implemented; and, fire preven-tion controls were implemente Work requests were reviewed to qetermine status of outstanding jobs and to assure that priority is assigned to safety related equipment maintenance which may affect system performanc The following maintenance activities were observed/reviewed:
P-SSB - charging pump "B" preventive maintenance P-SSC - charging pump "C" preventive maintenance P-56B - boric acid pump B" preventive maintenance K-7A
- diesel-generator motor preventive maintenance Following completion of maintenance on the components denoted above, the inspector verified that these systems had been returned to ser-
. vice properl No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Monthly Surveillance Observation The inspector observed technical specifications required surveil-
.. lance testing on the control rod system, including rod exercising and rod drop testing and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, that limiting conditions for operation were met, and that test results conformed with techni.cal si>ecifications and procedure requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the tes A previ-ously identified unresolved. item was addressed during this revie See Paragraph 9, belo The inspector also witnessed portions of the following test activ-ities: inservice inspection testing of containment spray and service
-
4 -
water pumps; start testing of emergency diesel g~nerator; and safety system valve position verificatio *No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Licensee Event Reports Followup Through direct observations, discussions with licensee personnel, and review of records, the following event *reports were reviewed to determine. that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had been accomplished in accordance with technical speci-fication LER 80-17
"Improper Calibration of Containment Pressure Switches."
The licensee identified that the procedure for calibra-tion of. the containment pressure switches was in erro The procedure required the pressure setting to be set at less than 5 PSIG whereas Technical Spe!::;i~ication (T~S.) requires the settings to be 5 (+:'ts) PSI The procedure was rewritten and switches reset prior to startu This item is close The resident inspector identified to the licensee on June 30, 1980 that the T.S. "basis" for containment high pressure was not in agreement with the T.S. specificatio The licensee stated the discrepancy is documented and will be corrected in a future T.S. chang *
- *. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Plant Trips Following the plant trips on July 2, 1980, at 1739 hours0.0201 days <br />0.483 hours <br />0.00288 weeks <br />6.616895e-4 months <br /> (EDT), due to manual trip of the turbine to secure from sudden excessive oil leakage from the generator seal oil filter system, the inspector ascertained the status of the reactor and safety systems by obser-
- vation of control room indicators and discussions with licensee personnel concerning plant parameters; emergency system status and reactor coolant chemistr The inspector verified the establ,.ishment of proper communications and reviewed the corrective actions taken by the licensee.* During startup, the plant tripped on July 9, 1980, at 1518 hours0.0176 days <br />0.422 hours <br />0.00251 weeks <br />5.77599e-4 months <br /> (EDT), due to a spurious high rate trip signal caused by a defective wide range.nuclear instrumentation channe Following the plant trip, the inspector again ascertained the status of the reactor and safety systems by observation of control room indicators and discussions with licensee personnel concerning plant parameters, emergency system status and reactor coolant chemistr The inspector verified the establishment of. proper communications and reviewed the corrective actions taken by the license ' '
All systems responded as expected, and the plant was returned to operation on July 10, 1980 at 1230 hours0.0142 days <br />0.342 hours <br />0.00203 weeks <br />4.68015e-4 months <br /> (EDT).
Inspection relating to this plant startup is discussed in Paragraph 2 above *.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area of inspection.
. Organization and Administration The inspector verified that changes in the organizational structure and assignments had been reported to the NRC, and verified that persons assigned to new or different positions in the licensee's organization since the last inspection of this area satisfy quali-fications identified in the technical specifications, the licensee's QA program, and applicable national standard No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. *
Review and Audit The inspector reviewed the routine and special functions of the licensee's onsite quality control and quality assurance organiza-tions relating to review and audi Audit records were* examined to
- ascertain they were conducted with prepared procedures, by qualified personnel, in accord with prescribed frequencie Documentation, distribution, review and corrective action for audit findings, as appropriate, were selectively examine A number of audit reports were reviewe No.items of noncompliance or deviations were.identifie.
Action on Previously Identified Items (Closed) - Unresolved item (05~255/76-14 Paragraph 3.C):
The accept-ance criteria for calibration of the safety injection tank water le~el instrumentation permitted the high and low level alarms to be set outside the Technical,. Specification (T.S.) limit Level instru-mentation consists of a level transmitter which provides a signal to a level indicator and annunicated hi/lo alarm, and a pair of float switches which are physically fixed.in place and provide a signal to either a high or low annunicator alar The licensee has modified the level transmitter, per Palisades Field Change 418., to provide a wide and narrow range indicatio The narrow range transmitter expands the level sensitivity in the operating ran:ge to allow the alarms to be set within T.S. limit The float switches are phys-ically fixed in place and alarm at the T. S. Limi (Closed) - Unresolved item (05-255/79/17 Paragraph 4.C):
The bi-weekly movement of control rods per Palisades procedure "DWO_;ln did not appear to satisfy the letter of the Technical Specification
- 6 -
'.
(partial ll!Ovement of all control rods*a minimum of six (6) inches).
The inspector reported that all control rods were moved at least four (4) inches as.indicated by the data logger and were moved six (6) inches as indicated by the operator's initials on the surveil-lance check shee No actual rod movement was recorded other than the insertion alarm at approximately fout (4) inche Due to built-in errors, rod movement to the four (4) inch alarm point and back to the full out P_<?~~iol! __ d~~~-_go~_gµa_ra!lt~e six (6_)__inches toial mov_emen The resident inspector observed the reactor operator move the control rods per procedure "DW0-1" on July 24, 198 The operator inserted each rod six (6) inches. and withdrew the rod to the original position.
assuring total rod movement of at least six (6) inche No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. * Action on NRC Correspondence 1 **The inspector held brief discussions with plant training staff.to review their plans and actions pursuant to a March'28, 1980 letter from the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation concerning licensed operator/senior operator training and requalification program The information being requested was.in preparation according to the schedule specifie Management Interview-A management interview (attended as indicated in Paragraph 1) was conducted following completion of the inspectio The inspector swmnarized the scope and findings of* the inspection, specifically defining the one item of noncomplianc