IR 05000259/1998009

Insp Repts 50-259/98-09,50-260/98-09 & 50-296/98-09 on 981227-990206.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Operations,Maint,Engineering & Plant Support Re Plant Security

ML18039A721
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	03/05/1999
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML18039A701	List: IR 05000259/1998009 ML18039A700 ML18039A720
References
50-259-98-09, 50-259-98-9, 50-260-98-09, 50-260-98-9, 50-296-98-09, 50-296-98-9, NUDOCS 9903170370
Download: ML18039A721 (25)

Text

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

REGION II

Docket Nos:

License Nos:

50-259, 50-260, 50-296 DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68 Report Nos:

50-259/98-09, 50-260/98-09, 50-296/98-09 Licensee:

Tennessee Valley Authority Facility:

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 8 3 Location:

Corner of Shaw and Browns Ferry Roads Athens, AL 35611 Dates:

December 27, 1998-February 6, 1999 Inspectors:

Approved by:

W. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector J. Starefos, Resident Inspector E. DiPaolo, Resident Inspector P. E. Fredrickson, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 6 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure 2 9903i70370 990305 PDR ADOCK 05000259

PDR

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 NRC Inspection Report 50-259/98-09, 50-260/98-09, 50-296/98-09 This integrated inspection included aspects of licensee operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant support.

The report covers a 6-week period of resident inspection.

~oerettnns The operators continued to demonstrate good professionalism, conservatism, and communications in control of the plant (Section 01.1).

Maintenance

~

Work activities observed during the inspection period were performed in a professional manner.

Good self-checking and engineering support were noted during implementation of a temporary, alteration that bypassed a failed rod position indication switch. The temporary alteration package and engineering drawings were actively checked to ensure that the work was properly performed (Section M1.1).

~

Surveillance testing was performed satisfactorily during this inspection period. The licensee's response to a failed hydraulic valve operator during high pressure coolant injection system testing was prompt and well-executed (Section M1.2).

Incomplete communications between Operations and Maintenance personnel resulted in the shutdown board 3EB battery not being promptly declared inoperable.

Maintenance personnel failed to followthe procedure which required that they immediately notify the unit supervisor at the time of discovery. The inspectors concluded that the lack of detailed questioning on the part of the Unit Supervisor was a contributing factor (Section M1.3).

~

The licensee determined that performance of a deficient surveillance procedure resulted in both trains of the control room emergency ventilation (CREV) system being inoperable.

The operators demonstrated a good questioning perspective by identifying the procedure inadequacy and its effect on the plant (Section M3.1).

Enrnineering Procedures were not established to perform logic system functional testing of the CREV system low air flowtrip circuitry. The licensee identified additional examples of CREV system testing inadequacies (Section E1.1).

~

The licensee continued to demonstrate good radiation controls (Section R1.1).

Plant Security continued to be well-implemented (Section S1.1).

Re ort Details Summa of Plant Status Unit 1 remained in a long-term lay-up condition with the reactor defueled.

Unit 2 operated at or near full power with the exception of scheduled brief reductions in power to

'djust control rods and perform routine testing.

Unit 3 operated at or near full power with the exception of scheduled brief reductions in power.

One power reduction was to perform turbine valve testing; another power reduction was to perform control rod scram time testing, control rod adjustments, and balance of plant maintenance.

In addition, on January 10, 1999, power was reduced due to a feedwater heater isolation. The cause was a high heater level which resulted from a pressure perturbation while performing a turbine combined intercept valve test.

Conduct of Operations 01.1 General Comments 71707 The inspectors toured accessible portions of the plant and noted that scaffolds were being erected in preparation for the Unit 2 outage.

The inspectors found no cases where the scaffold structure interfered with the operation of safety-related equipment.

The licensee was maintaining vigilance over the scaffolds to ensure there were no seismic or physical interferences between the scaffolds and operable equipment.

Plant material

'ondition and housekeeping was adequate.

The inspectors found no significant problems.

Based on periodic inspection tours of the control rooms, the inspectors found that shift personnel acted professionally and with emphasis on safety. Three-way communication between watchstanders was, in general, crisp and utilized as appropriate.

Operator performance was good during the minor power reductions for control rod adjustments, turbine testing, and scram timing tests.

The inspector attended a Saturday evening turnover which was conducted in a structured and,professional manner.

The inspector also observed a control room operator swap reactor zone fans; the operator was very knowledgeable of the task and attentive to the correct equipment response.

In addition, on January 15, 1999, the inspector toured the radwaste tunnel.

General housekeeping was good. The inspector noted a small leak on an auxiliary boiler steam expansion joint in the tunnel. The licensee determined that the cause of the leak was a crack in the joint and work order 99-000903-000 was promptly initiated. This attention to non-safety-related equipment was an indication of the licensee's commitment to an overall well-performing plan Nliscelfaneous Operations Issues (92901)

Closed A

arent Violation EEI 50-260 296/98-08-01:

Inadequate Instrument Checks and Observations Procedure.

In NRC Inspection Report 50-259,260,296/98-08, three examples of procedure inadequacies were identified during a review of the licensee's implementing procedure for frequently performed Technical Specification (TS)

surveillance requirements.

These requirements were contained in the Procedure 2/3-SR-2, Instrument Checks and Observations, Revision 7.

The licensee's methodology for calculating unidentified reactor coolant system leakage resulted in a leak rate that was averaged over the previous 24-hour period versus 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, as required by the TSs.

Procedural steps for performing checks on the 2-out-os voter channels of the average power range monitors were not established in plant procedures.

The applicability for performing reactor vessel water level narrow range instrumentation checks was not adequate to cover the TS-required surveillance when the plant was in Modes 4 and 5. These procedural inadequacies represented an apparent violation of TS 5.4.1.a, which requires written procedures to be established, implemented, and maintained for TS-required surveillances.

The issue remained open for a reasonable time to allow the licensee to develop corrective actions and pending receipt and analysis of the Licensee Event Report (LER) required to be submitted for the missed TS surveillances.

The licensee submitted LER 50-260/1998-004, dated December 31, 1998, as a result of the first two examples of the apparent violation. The inspector reviewed the causes and corrective actions and considered that this information was already adequately addressed on the docket.

The licensee determined that the incorrect applicability for performing checks on the reactor water level narrow range instrumentation did not meet the reportability requirements of 10 CFR 50.73 because the required checks were conservatively performed by operators during the recent Unit 3 refueling outage while in, Modes 4 and 5.

This was the only occasion when Modes 4 and 5 had been entered since implementing the Improved Technical Specifications (ITS). The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions for this example as documented in Problem Evaluation Report (PER)

98-014727-000.

The licensee revised Procedure 2/3-SR-2 to properly reflect that reactor water level narrow range instrumentation channel checks are required in Modes 4 and 5. The licensee performed a review of Procedure 2/3-SR-2 to ensure that other similar errors did not exist.

In addition, a review of surveillances required by the Technical Requirements Manual and TSs was performed to ensure that applicability of modes was properly reflected in Procedure 2/3-SR-2.

Procedure writers also received training on the potential to miss required readirigs due to improper formatting and the importance of the procedure review process to prevent these types of error This issue is identified as Violation VIO 50-260,296/98-09-01, Inadequate Instrument Checks and Observations Procedure.

The NRC has concluded that the information regarding the reason for the violation, and the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence were adequately addressed on the docket in LER 50-260/1998-004 and in this report. This apparent violation is closed.

08.2 Closed Licensee Event Re ort LER 50-260/1998-004-00:

Surveillance Requirement Intent Not Adequately Implemented.

This issue was discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-259,260,296/98-08 and Section 08.1 of this report.

No new issues were identified in the LER. This LER is closed.

08.3 Closed Licensee Event Re ort LER 50-296/1998-004-00:

Primary Containment Allowable Leak Rate Exceeded.

This LER documented a failure of a reactor building closed cooling water system primary containment isolation valve during local leak rate testing which exceeded the maximum allowable containment leak rate. The licensee disassembled and inspected the valve.

No problems were revealed. The valve was successfully retested.

This LER is closed.

08.4 Closed Licensee Event Re ort LER 50-296/1998-007-00:

Unplanned ESF Following the Loss of 4kV Unit Board 3B. This issue was documented in detail in NRC Inspection Report 50-259,260,296/98-08, Section 01.2.

No new issues were revealed by the LER.

This LER is closed.

II. Maintenance M1 Conduct of Maintenance M1.1 General Maintenance Comments 62707 The inspectors observed portions of the following work activities:

~

WO-99-001365-000, Control Room Emergency Ventilation (CREV) System Simulated High Heater Discharge Temperature and Low Relative Humidity Heater Differential Temperature Test

~

WO-99-001733, Implement Temporary Alteration (3-99-001-085) to Disable Control Rod Position Indication Switch S46 on Unit 3 Control Rod 22-47

~

Unit 3 Containment Hydrogen and Oxygen Analyzer A Pressure Control Valve Replacement and Instrumentation Calibration

~

Unit 3 Diesel Generator B Start Circuit No. 1 Lockout Relay Replacement

~

Unit 1 Refueling Zone Secondary Containment Channel B Initializing Relay Set Screw Replacement Observed work practices during the inspection period were performed in a professional manner.

Workers were knowledgeable of the equipment and assigned tasks as demonstrated by responses to the inspectors'uestions.

Proper radiological work practices were observed during the inspection perio Good self-checking and engineering support were noted during the performance of WO 99-001733, which bypassed a failed rod position indication switch. The temporary alteration and engineering drawings were actively checked to ensure that the work was properly performed.

M1.2 Surveillance Observations a.

Ins ection Sco e 61726 71707 The inspector observed portions of the following surveillance tests:

3-SR-3.5.1.7, HPCI Main and Booster Pump Set Developed Head and Flow Rate Test at Rated Reactor Pressure O-SR-3.8.4.2(D), Shutdown Board D Battery Service Test O-SR-3.7.3.2(B VFTP), Control Room Emergency Ventilation Unit B Flow Rate and Filter Testing Program 3-SR-3.1.4.1, Scram Insertion Times b.

Observations and Findin s In general, the observed surveillance tests were performed in a controlled and professional manner.

Additional comments follow:

During the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) run, the licensee noted an oil leak from the bottom of the HPCI stop valve hydraulic cylinder. The leak was apparently caused by a broken bolt on the bottom of the cylinder. The operators requested assistance from maintenance and stopped the surveillance.

The inspector questioned several items with the maintenance superintendent and engineering personnel and noted that they were clearly focused and had considered the inspector's concerns.

The cause was immediately pursued and repair options were being considered.

The licensee responded to the event in a controlled and deliberate manner.

On a sampling basis, the inspector verified that the physical battery connections were consistent with the procedure during the shutdown board D battery service test. The inspector reviewed an associated test deficiency and resolution.

No problems were noted. The inspector also verified that the specific TSs for the DC sources and distribution system were entered.

c.

Conclusions Surveillance testing was performed satisfactorily during the inspection period. The licensee's response to a failed hydraulic valve operator during HPCI system testing was prompt and well-execute Shutdown Board 3EB Batte Low Tem erature Ins ection Sco e 71707 62707 On January 6, 1999, the licensee identified that a surveillance in progress had been stopped earlier during the previous shift when an acceptance criteria step could not be met. The inspectors reviewed the details surrounding the problem and assessed the licensee's actions.

Observations and Findin s During the Plan-of-the-Day meeting on January 6, 1999, plant management was notified that a TS-required surveillance procedure had been stopped due to temperature problems, and the problems would be resolved on the day shift. Licensee management questioned the temperature problems and pursued the issue.

Procedure 3-SR-3.8.6.2(3EB), Quarterly Check for Shutdown Board 3EB Battery, was performed in part during the midnight shift. The licensee determined that acceptance criteria steps to measure temperature had been performed on several cells. The average temperature did not meet the acceptance criteria minimum; however, this was not clearly communicated to control room personnel.

Incomplete communications between Operations and Maintenance personnel caused the failure to promptly declare the shutdown board 3EB battery inoperable, as required by TS 3.8.6. The allowed outage time permitted by TS 3.8.4 (7 days) was not exceeded and, therefore, the safety consequences were minimal. The inspector discussed this incident with licensee management and the involved unit supervisor (US) and determined that the lack of detailed questioning on the part of the US was a contributing factor.

Procedure 3-SR-3.8.6.2(3EB), Section 6.0, stated that responses which fail to meet the acceptance criteria stated in Section 6.0 shall constitute unsatisfactory surveillance procedure results and require immediate notification of the US at the time of the failure.

The US was notified that the procedure was stopped, but was not specifically informed that an acceptance criteria step was not met. Failure to comply with Section 6.0 of the above procedure was a violation of TS 5.4.1. This is an apparent violation and is identified as EEI 50-296/98-09-02, Failure to Follow Surveillance Procedure, pending review of the licensee's corrective actions.

The licensee initiated PER 99-000186-000.

Conclusions Incomplete communications between Operations and Maintenance personnel caused the failure to promptly declare the shutdown board 3EB battery inoperable.

Maintenance personnel failed to followthe procedure which required that they immediately notify the US at the time of the failure. The inspectors concluded that the lack of detailed questioning on the part of the US was a contributing facto M3 Maintenance Procedures and Documentation NI3.1 Control Room Emer enc Ventilation Flow Rate and Filter Test Surveillance Ins ection Sco e 61726 37551 71707 The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions when performance of a surveillance procedure vlas determined to have resulted in both trains of the CREV system being inoperable.

b.

Observations and Findin s The CREV system consists of two redundant trains. The system is designed such that an initiation signal would be sent to both trains; however, only one train (i.e., the preferred train) would start immediately. The non-preferred train would start automatically after a brief time delay ifflowwas not sensed in the preferred train. The preferred train was determined by the position of the primary unit selector switch (O-XSW-31-7214).

On January 14, 1999, the licensee was performing Procedure 'O-SR-3.7.3.2 (8 VFTP),

Revision 2, Control Room Emergency Ventilation Unit B Flow Rate and Filter Testing Program. At the time, the B train of the CREV system was declared inoperable following replacement of the charcoal adsorber elements.

The procedure directed starting the B train by placing the primary unit selector switch in the B position and placing a false initiation signal on the start circuitry. Due to delays which were encountered in completing the surveillance procedure, operators backed out of the surveillance procedure and secured the B train. The operators placed the primary unit selector switch in the A position (i.e., normal standby readiness lineup) in accordance with pla'nt operating procedures.

The operators questioned the operability of the A train while the switch was in the B position. At the operators'equest, site engineering initiated a technical operability evaluation (TOE).

The TOE concluded that the A train would not have automatically started on an actual initiation signal.

Because the B train was selected as the preferred train, the A train would remain in standby and would start only ifflow was not sensed in the B train on an initiation signal.

The licensee initiated PER 99-000804-000.

The licensee determined that TS 3.0.3 was applicable because both trains of the CREV system were inoperable during the time period that the primary unit selector switch was in the B position. This was because the B train had not been tested for operability following maintenance and the A train would only start ifno flowwas sensed in the B train after an initiation signal. This conditjon existed for approximately 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />.

TS 3.0.3 requires the plant to be in Mode 2 in 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />, but the plant remained in Mode 1.

Based on satisfactory results of post-maintenance testing, the licensee later determined that the B train would have performed its design function. The licensee determined that an LER was required because the plant was in a condition prohibited by TS 3. The surveillance procedure for performing CREV system flow rate and filtertesting was inadequate in that the procedure resulted in both trains of the CREV system being inoperable.

This represents an apparent violation of TS 5.4.1. This issue willremain open pending receipt and analysis of the LER required to be submitted to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.73. This issue is identified as Apparent Violation EEI 50-260,296/98-09-03, Surveillance Procedure Results in Both Trains of CREV Being Inoperable.

c.

Conclusions The licensee determined that performance of a surveillance procedure resulted in both trains of the CREV system being inoperable due to plant conditions and an inadequate procedure.

The operators demonstrated a good questioning perspective by identifying the procedure inadequacy and its effect on the plant.

MS Miscellaneous Maintenance Issues (92902)

M8.1 Closed Licensee Event Re ort LER 50-296/1995-002-00:

Diesel Generator Auto Start Due to Personnel Error. This event was discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-259,260,296/95-38, Section 5.b. No new issues were identified in the LER. This LER is closed.

III. Engineering E1 Engineering Support Of Facilities and Equipment E1.1 Control Room Emer enc Ventilation S stem Lo ic Testin a.

Ins ection Sco e 37551 61726 The inspectors reviewed CREV system design features and the licensee's logic system functional test (LSFT) procedures to verify TS surveillance requirements were met.

b.

Observations and Findin s As discussed in Section M3.1, the CREV system consists of two redundant trains.

Only one train would start immediately following an initiation signal. The non-preferred train operation would be delayed from starting by a timer and flow switch arrangement.

Following the time delay, the non-preferred train would start automatically only ifflow is not sensed in the preferred train, indicating failure of that train.

~

The inspector did not identify any CREV system logic test procedures that addressed testing of the low air flow trip circuitry. On January 20, 1999, the inspector questioned the licensee to determine whether the low air flow trip circuitry was tested by other plant procedures.

The licensee confirmed that logic testing of the low air flow trip circuitry was not covered by plant procedures.

The design feature was tested following system installation in 1993.

Prior to implementing the ITS in July 1998, the TS did not require an

e LSFT on the CREV system.

ITS Surveillance Requirements 3.3.7.1.4 and 3.3.7.1.6 implemented LSFT requirements for CREV system instrumentation.

The licensee initiated PER 99-001227-000.

Procedure O-SR-3.3.7.1.4, Control Room Emergency Ventilation Logic System Functional Test - Radiation Monitors, implemented TS Surveillance Requirement 3.3.7.1.4.

Although this procedure had already been performed in October 1998, the licensee determined that the required surveillance frequency for testing the low air flow trip circuitry had not been exceeded.

The licensee satisfactorily performed a work order (WO-99-001226) to test the degraded flow trip of the A and B trains of the CREV system.

The inspector reviewed the work order and determined that the methodology adequately tested the required circuitry.

Licensee extent of condition reviews found additional trip features for the CREV system trains that were not tested by plant procedures.

The licensee satisfactorily performed a work order (WO 99-001365-000) to test the trip features.

The inspector observed the performance of the work order and reviewed the test methodology.

The inspector determined. that the work order adequately tested for proper operation of the trip features in question.

The inspector reviewed the licensee's commitment for NRC Generic Letter (GL) 96-01, Testing of Safety-Related Logic Circuits.

In a letter dated April 18, 1996, the licensee committed to implement the recommendations of GL 96-01 in conjunction with the conversion to the ITS. The inspector concluded that review of logic circuits for the CREV system was within the licensee's review scope for GL 96-01.

Procedures were not established to perform logic system functional testing of the CREV system low air flowtrip circuitry. This issue represents an apparent violation of NRC requirements and willremain open for a reasonable time to allow the licensee to develop corrective actions.

This issue is applicable to Units 2 and 3 only because the CREV system has not been required to support Unit 1 plant conditions.

This is identified as Apparent Violation EEI 50-260,296/98-09-04, Failure to Establish Procedures to Properly Test CREV System Logic.

r Conclusions Procedures were not established to perform logic system functional testing of the CREV system low air flow trip circuitry. The licensee identified additional examples of CREV system testing inadequacies.

E8 Miscellaneous Engineering Issues (92903, 71707)

E8.1 Closed Licensee Event Re ort LER 50-296/1998-006-00:

Main Steam Safety/Relief Valves Exceeded the Technical Specifications Set Point Tolerance Due to Pilot Valve Disc/Seat Bonding. The licensee found that 5 of the 13 main steam safety/relief valves (SRVs) exhibited liftsettings in excess of the TS set point tolerance of a3 percent.

The cause was attributed to corrosion bonding at the pilot valve disc/seat interfac Although the test results were in excess of the TS set point tolerance, the licensee found that Unit 3 was within the reload specific analysis for Cycle 8 operation.

Based on this information and previous evaluations, the SRV driftwould not have resulted in exceeding any safety limitduring any abnormal operating transient.

There have been several LERs written previously concerning SRV set point drift due to pilot valve disc/seat coriosion bonding on two stage Target Rock valves. This issue continues to be an industry problem and is being evaluated by the Boiling Water Reactor Owner's Group (BWROG) SRV DriftFix Development Committee and the valve manufacturer.

The licensee continues to participate in the BWROG evaluation for a permanent solution to the problem.

In addition, the licensee implemented a modification during the Unit 3 Cycle 8 refueling outage which electrically actuates the SRVs through the use of a pressure switch. The pressure switch actuation minimizes the effects of SRV set point drift. The modification has also been implemented on Unit 2. This LER is closed.

Closed Licensee Event Re ort LER 50-259/1998-003 Revisions 00 and 01:

Containment Atmospheric Dilution Nitrogen Supply Does Not Meet Design Basis.

On June 16, 1998, the licensee reported a non-conservative calculation for the amount of nitrogen required to meet the seven-day design basis supply in the containment atmospheric dilution (CAD) tanks. The licensee identified this during a review for the Thermal Power Uprate Program.

It appeared that the amount of nitrogen required by the TS would not be sufficient for seven days of post-loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA)

operation, as required by the design basis.

Immediate corrective actions were implemented to maintain the tank levels above 95%

to ensure the design basis requirements were met. The licensee submitted LER 50-259/1998-003-00 on July 16, 1998. This condition had existed since original CAD system design.

PER 98-006718-000 was initiated to address the calculation issue.

The licensee performed corrective actions which included revising the calculation to correct the methodology for determining the amount of nitrogen required for storage in the tanks, determining a maximum allowable boil-offrate that bounds TS requirements, determining that no TS change was required, and initiating a Final Safety Analysis Report change request.

At the time that this issue was identified, the licensee also recognized that the boil-off rate for the two tanks was relatively high due to degraded vacuum in the insulation space of the tanks.

The TS minimum allowed volume of 2500 gallons was determined to equate to a 4-to 5-day supply based on the current boil-offrates.

PER 98-006995-000 was initiated to address the degraded vacuum space.

The licensee took prompt actions to repair the tanks and restore the vacuum to an acceptable value.

The licensee submitted a revision to the LER on October 28, 1998. The revised LER (50-259/1 998-003-01) stated that due to the excessive boil-offrate which was caused by insufficient vacuum being maintained in the insulation space of the storage tanks, a

7-day supply was not available under all circumstances in the past.

The inspector determined that the safety significance was minimal, because replenishment facilities

could deliver liquid nitrogen to the site within one day.

However, failure to meet the design basis requirement for 7-days of nitrogen caused both trains of the CAD system to be inoperable.

Failure to maintain the design configuration of the CAD tanks was a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, in that the design basis was not correctly translated into procedures and instructions.

This non-repetitive, licensee-identified and corrected violation is being treated as a non-cited violation consistent with Section VII.B.1ofthe NRC Enforcement Policy and is identified as non-cited viblation NCV 50-260,296/98-09-05, Failure to Maintain Proper Controls Over CAD Design.

The inspector questioned the system engineer about the use of vacuum readings to predict degradation of the tank insulation.

Procedures provided direction to the operators that when the CAD tank insulation space exceeded 25 microns, a work request should be initiated to address the degraded insulation space and Technical Support should be notified to address the nitrogen boil-offrate. The licensee indicated that Engineering was trending the boil-off; however, the licensee agreed that a more formal approach to trending boil-offwas appropriate.

Technical Instruction O-TI-384, CAD Tank Boil-OffDetermination, was issued, effective January 27, 1999. The inspector reviewed the issued procedure and found a few minor discrepancies.

Revision 1 to the procedure adequately resolved the minor problems identified by the inspector.

Both Revisions 00 and 01 of this LER are closed.

IV. Plant Su ort R1 Radiological Protection and Chemistry Control R1.1 General Comments 71750 During the maintenance and surveillance observations discussed above, the inspectors

~

noted that radiological controls and work practices were appropriately implemented.

Also, during the plant tours conducted by the inspectors, the locks for locked high radiation areas were checked and no problems were found.

S1 Conduct of Security and Safeguards Activities S1.1 General Comments 71750 On a daily basis, the inspectors evaluated the performance of security officers 'as they executed the processing in of plant personnel and visitors through the Primary Access Point. The officers were thorough and attentive to their tasks.

Security personnel exhibited teamwork while implementing compensatory measures to maintain security of the protected area perimeter during inclement weathe V. Mana ementMeetin s

X1 Exit Meeting Summary The resident inspectors presented inspection findings and results to licensee management on February 12, 1999. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.

The license did not identify any of the materials reviewed during this inspection as proprietary.

PARTIALLIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee T. Abney, Licensing Manager J. Brazell, Site Security Manager R. Coleman, Radiological Control Manager

.J. Corey, Radiation Protection and Chemistry Manager R. Greenman, Site. Support Manager J. Johnson, Site Quality Assurance Manager R. Jones, Plant Manager J. Ledgerwood, Maintenance Superintendent G. Little, Operations Manager R. Moll, System Engineering Manager W. Nurnberger, Chemistry Superintendent D. Olive, Operations Superintendent R. Ryan, Site Engineering Manager D. Sanchez, Training Manager J. Schlessel, Maintenance Manager J. Shaw, Design Engineering Manager B. Shriver, Assistant Plant Manager K. Singer, Site Vice President INSPECT)ON PROCEDURES USED IP 37551 IP 61726 IP 62707 IP 71707 IP 71750 IP 92901 IP 92902 IP 92903 Engineering Surveillance Observations Maintenance Observations Plant Operations Plant Support Activities Follow-up-Plant Operations Follow-up-Maintenance Follow-up-Engineering

~Oened 50-260,296/98-09-01 50-296/98-09-02 50-260,296/98-09-03 50-260,296/98-09-04 Closed ITEIIS OPENED AND CLOSED VIO Inadequate Instrument Checks and Observations Procedure (Section 08.1).

EEI Failure to Follow Surveillance Procedure (Section M1.3).

EEI Surveillance Procedure Results in Both Trains of CREV Being Inoperable (Section M3.1).

EEI Failure to Establish Procedures to Properly Test CREV System Logic (Section E1.1).

50-260,296/98-08-01 50-260/1998-004-00 50-296/1 998-004-00 50-296/1 998-007-00 50-296/1 995-002-00 50-296/1998-006-00 EEI Inadequate Instrument Checks and Observations Procedure (Section 08.1).

LER Surveillance Requirement Intent Not Adequately Implemented (Section 08.2).

LER Primary Containment Allowable Leak Rate Exceeded (Section 08.3).

LER Unplanned ESF Following the Loss of 4kV Unit Board 3B (Section 08.4).

LER Diesel Generator Auto Start Due to Personnel Error (Section M8.1).

LER Main Steam Safety/Relief Valves Exceeded the Technical Specifications Set Point Tolerance Due to Pilot Valve Disc/Seat Bonding (Section E8.1).

50-259/1998-003-008,-01 LER ContainmentAtmosphericDilutionNitrogenSupplyDoes Not Meet Design Basis (Section E8.2).

=

0 ened and Closed 50-260,296/98-09-05 NCV Failure to Maintain Proper Controls Over CAD Design (Section E8.2).