IR 05000261/1986017
| ML20212Q092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1986 |
| From: | Fredrickson P, Krug H, Latta R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212Q084 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-261-86-17, NUDOCS 8609030413 | |
| Download: ML20212Q092 (14) | |
Text
.
,
/,pntiro UNITED STATES i
'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,.y '
\\
REGloN li
]
.g-j 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
,
ATL ANTA, GEORGI A 30323
\\.... /
Report No.: 50-261/86-17 Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Docket No.: 50-261 License No.:
DPR-23 Facility Name:
H. B. Robinson Inspection Conducted: Jul 11, - August 10, 1986
/ 3 A L)6 6 b Inspectors:
h H. E. P. Krug, Senior 3RM ident Inspector Date Signed
?///
+n
/!
n GC R. M.
a ta, Ras D nt nsepector Date Signed
/7 Approved by:
-
P.
E'. Fredrickson, Section Chief
/Dats Signed Division of Reactor Projects
.
I SUMMARY Scope: This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of Technical Specification (TS) compliance, plant tour, operations performance, reportable occurrences, housekeeping, site security, surveillance activities, maintenance activities, quality assurance practices, radiation control activities, outstand-ing items review, IE Bulletin and IE Notice followup, organization and admini stration, independent inspection, Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) and enforcement action followup.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
'
8609030413 860820 PDR ADOCK 05000261 G
- _. _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.,
_ _ _
_. -..
.-._
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Licensee Employees Contacted R. Barnett, Maintenance Supervisor, Electrical G. Beatty, Manager, Robinson Nuclear Project Department A. Beckman, Principal Specialist, Planning and Scheduling J. Benjamin, Supervisor, Operations R. Chambers, Engineering Supervisor, Performance D. Crocker, Principal Health Physics Specialist J. Curley, Director, Regulatory Compliance J. Eaddy, E&C Supervisor W. Flanagan, Manager, Design Engineering W. Gainey, Maintenance Supervisor, Mechanical E. Harris, Director, Onsite Nuclear Safety D. Sayre, Senior Specialist, Regulatory Compliance D. Knight, Shift Foreman, Operations E. Lee, Shift Foreman, Operations F. Lowery, Manager, Operations D. McCaskill, Shift Foreman, Operations A. McCauley, Principal Specialist, Onsite Nuclear Safety R. Moore, Shift Foreman, Operations P. Harding, Project Specialist (Acting), Radiation Control M. Marquick, Senior Specialist, Planning and Scheduling R. Morgan, Plant General Manager M. Morrow, Specialist, Emergency Preparedness D. Nelson, Operating Supervisor B. Murphy, Senior Instrumentation and Control Engineer M. Page, Engineering Supervisor, Plant Systems R. Powell, Principal Specialist, Maintenance D. Quick, Manager, Maintenance B. Rieck, Manager, Control and Administration W. Ritchie, Supervisor (Acting), Radiation Control D. Seagle, Shift Foreman, Operations R. Smith, Manager, Environmental and Radiation Control R. Steele, Shift Foreman, Operations R. Wallace, Manager, Technical Support L. Williams, Supervisor, Security C. Wright, Senior Specialist, Quality Assurance / Quality Control H. Young, Director, Quality Assurance / Quality Control Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personnel.
2.
Exit Interview (30702,30703)
The inspectf an scope and findings were summarized on August 8, 1986, with the Site Manager and the Director of Regulatory Compliance.
The licensee acknowledged the findings without exception. The licensee did not identify
_
.
.
as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
No written material was given to the licensee by the inspectors during this report period.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (92702)
a.
(Closed) Violation 50-261/84-09-01: Licensee personnel involved in the preparation of responses to the NRC have been counselled concerning the importance of ensuring a management review by all groups involved in an NRC response, whether or not they are in or out of the site organization.
This item is closed.
b.
(Closed) Violation 50-261/84-19-01: The licensee promulgated a Nuclear
. Generation Group Manual Procedure, NGGM 304-1, titled " Outgoing NRC Correspondence Verification." NGGM 304-1 requires the completion of an
" Outgoing NRC Correspondence Input Verification" form which documents the licensee's verification of the accuracy of the contents of licensee correspondence prior to its transmittal to NRC. This item is closed,
c.
(Closed) Violation 50-261/84-44-01:
The individual who erroneously opened a controlled valve, without realizing it was a controlled valve, was counselled about proper valve identification and manipulation procedures.
Relevant information concerning the error was routed to all operations personnel. This item is closed.
I d.
(Closed) Violation 50-261/84-53-01: The licensee updated the adminis-trative directions in OMM-008 to eliminate discrepancies between the directions and the intent of each section of the procedure concerning shift turnover. With respect to the incorrect execution of OST-353, appropriate licensee personnel were retrained in the execution of the procedure by the cognizant shift foreman.
In addition, a series of meetings were held in which operations personnel were counselled as to
'
the requirements for strict procedure compliance. This item is closed.
e.
(Closed) Violation 50-261/85-11-01: As a result of a reorganization, a new Design Engineering Group was created which reports directly to the Site Manager. This group now has responsibility for all safety related modifications on Unit 2.
Also, Modification and Design Control Procedure M00-01 titled " Procedure for Preparing Engineering Evaluation" was revised to include, in Section 4.4, a safety review.
This item is closed.
4.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Inspection Items (92701)
a.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-261/83-32-05:
Now that the Emergency Operating Drocedures have been implemented by the licensee, their periodic reviews are covered by standard NRC inspection
,
procedures. This item is closed.
i
'
b.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-261/83-33-06: In October 1984, the l
licensee completed Modification 777 which moved the RHR sample point to
- - _ _ -
. _,.,. - _.._
.m_.,,,
_ _ -. _. _... _ _,
_ _ _ _, - =
__
_
_
m
_..
_.. _ _
.
.
't d
the discharge of the RHR pumps to take advantage of pump discharge pressure.
This item is closed, c.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-261/83-36-02:
The inspectors reviewed licensee performance of containment bellows leakage repairs.
This item is closed.
d.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-261/84-02-04:
This item was superseded by violation 50-261/84-53-01, which is also closed in this report. This item is closed.
e.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 50-261/84-03-03:
The licensee modified Operations Surveillance Test OST-154 titled " Safety Injection System High Head Check Valve Test (Refueling)" to provide for the operation of two safety injection pumps in order to provide sufficient flow to test both check valves.
This item is closed.
f.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-261/84-03-04:
The licensee completed the automatic shunt trip feature into the reactor trip breakers as part of Modification Package 799, completed in November 1984. This item is closed.
g.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-261/84-03-07:
Regarding valve CVC-381, the licensee obtained the design data validating the present torque switch settings. In addition, the licensee modified Operations Surveillance Test OST-154 (Revision 2) to require valves SI-867B and SI-870A to be tested against safety injection pump discharge pressure.
This item is closed.
i h.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-261/84-53-02:
The Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) control logic was modified so that all MSIV will now close on a close signal from either the "A" or "B" logic train.
This item is closed.
i.
(Closed)
Inspector Followup Item 50-261/85-25-01:
The licensee modified Engineering Surveillance Test Procedure EST-003 titled
"F (Delta I) Correlation," to provide a requirement to return the plant power distribution to equilid,ium conditions prior to increasing power above the excore detector calibration level. This item is closed.
J.
(Closed)
Inspector Followup Item 50-261/83-02-10:
The licensee modified Environmental and Radiation Control Radiation Surveillance Test Procedure RST-020 titled " Verification of Electronic Calibration
of Radiation Monitoring System Monitors R-32 A & B" to record the
,
post-calibration check sources value on the test data sheets for Radiation Monitori,ng System (RMS) monitors R-32 A & B.
Additionally,
Technical Support Management Manual Procedure TMM-003 titled "Q-List Control Procedure" was modified to include RMS monitors R-32 A & B on the Q-List. This item is closed, i
--. -
.
. --
...
.
.
.
-
- -
- -.
_
_
- - -
_
.
5.
Plant Tour (71707, 62703, 71710)
The inspectors conducted plant tours periodically during the inspection interval to verify that monitoring equipment was recording as required, equipment was properly tagged, operations personnel were aware of plant conditions and maintenance activities, and plant housekeeping efforts were adequate. The inspectors determined that appropriate radiation controls were properly established, excess equipment or material was stored properly, and combustible material was disposed of expeditiously. During tours the inspector looked for the existence of unusual fluid leaks, piping vibrations, pipe hanger and seismic restraint abnormal settings, various valve and breaker positions, equipment clearance tags and component status, adequacy of fire fighting equipment, and instrument calibration dates. Some tours were conducted on backshifts., Plant housekeeping and contamination control were observed to be outstanding.
The inspectors performed system status checks on the following systems:
-
a.
Safety Injection System b.
Component Cooling Water System c.
Auxiliary Feedwater System d.
Vital Station Batteries e.
Electrical Switchgear
-
f.
Chemical and Volume Control System g.
Emergency Diesels h.
Radiation Monitoring Systens l
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
6.
Worker's Concerns
'
Concern 84-165-01:
The concern was that the B Auxiliary Steam Boiler and Condensate Tank was contaminated with radioactive materials on or about
.
August 10, 1984, sufficient to cause a radiation reading near the boiler of
'
1000 mr/hr; and that this contamination occurred when the boiler was pressurized from another system.
Discussion: This item was inspected and closed by a Regional Inspector as i
reported in paragraph 10 of IE Inspection Report No. 50-261/84-42.
Findings: This item is closed.
'
I Concern 84-165-02:
The concern was that 'he licensee did not use drawing update personnel to verify modification drawings.
Discussion: The licensee has completed a significant organization change in that a riew group, the Design Engineering Group, has been created which
,
reports directly to the Site Manager. This well. staffed group maintains tight control over modification packages. The beginnings of these improved
,
i controls were present during the walkdowns in question.
Discussions with the licensee disclosed that the licensee used a system of cross checking
which raises no safety questions. A number of different control systems could have been used.
,.
_.
__.. _.
-
.
_
.
...
__
.
-.
.
.
.
Findings:
On the basis of the above review, no safety problems were identified. This item is closed.
Concern 84-165-03/04: The concern is that physical plant drawings are not up to date and do not reflect the condition of the plant.
Discussion: The licensee has completed a significant organizational change in that a new group, the Design Engineering Group, has been created which -
reports directly to the Site Manager.
This well staffed group maintains tight control over modification packages. The beginnings of these improved controls were present during the walkdowns under discussion.
The original physical piping plant drawings turned over to this turn-key plant were prepared under ASME B31.1 (1967) by the vendor and by-the architect / engineer.
Subsequent modifications were properly performed in accordance with the licensee's Quality Assurance Manual.
'
Prior to the approval of modifications, licensee personnel perform a Subsequent to the walkdownvalidationoftheasbuiltpiping)andequipment.
modification, the modified detailed drawin, flow drawings and procedures are verified by licensee personnel, including operations personnel.
The original piping drawings are annotated to reference the new detailed drawings, which are then attached to the originals.
Beginning in 1981 and ending in 1984, the licensee completed a major update of flow diagrams and related procedures.
This area of concern was closed by the NRC in early 1984.
In part, based upon independent inspection, but primarily based upon cross checking performed among flow diagrams, procedures, hardware and hardware labels, during the regular inspection program over the past two years, the inspector finds that no safety problems exist in this area.
Findings: Based on the above, this item is closed.
Concern 84-165-05/06:
The concern was that the licensee's training inhibited the reporting of worker's concerns to the NRC.
Discussion:
The licensee's-General Employment Training (GET) Program directly addresses these issues; both in lectures and handouts; and appropriately characterizes the relationship among employees, the licensee and the NRC.
Findings: Based upon the training all employees receive, employees should be clearly aware of their responsibilities and options concerning the reporting of concerns.
This item is closed.
Concern 84-165-07: The concern was that personnel used to verify drawings were inexperienced.
Discussion: The licensee gauged accuracy of walkdowns by comparing two or more walkdowns and reinspecting based upon inconsistencies found.
Also, final verification of the updated drawings was cerformed by licensee personnel, including operations personne.-
- -
- _..._ -
.--.
-.-.
. -.. ---
. _. _
.
.
.
Findings: The inspector identified no problems resulting from the experience
!'
level of personnel used to perform walkdowns. This item is closed.
Concern 84-165-08: The concern was that plant management had a political, rather than an appropriate engineering attitude.
Discussion: The inspector was unable to corroborate this allegation. The inspector found the licensee to have a very positive safety attitude.
i Findings: Based on the above, this item is closed.
Cancern 84-165-09:
The concern was that material certificates for all piping in the plant are not available and; therefore, certification of pipe in all systems is questionable.
'
Discussion: The inspector's review disclosed that the piping was installed in accordance with ASME B31.1 (1967) as was required at the time this turn-key plant was licensed.
Findings:
Based on the above, this item is closed.
Concern 84-165-10: The concern was that there are no certification ratings on any valves which are in place in the plant.
Discussion:
Inspection disclosed that valves were certified in accordance l
with ASME B31.1 (1967) as was required at the time for this turn-key plant.
Findings: Based on the above, this item is closed.
!
Concern 84-165-11: The concern was that the licensee dead headed the gas I
stripping system and modified the boric acid evaporators to perform the gas stripping function without clearance from Westinghouse.
'
Discussion:
Inspection disclosed no safety related questions.
Such a modification need not be cleared by Westinghouse.
Findings: Based on the above, this item is closed.
j.
Concern 84-165-12: The concern was that the explosion which occurred in the l
Auxiliary System condensate collection tank resulted from the atmospheric tank being subjected to 230 degree water at 100 psi; and that the record
'
drawings for that system were not used when the system was subjected to the
above pressure and temperature.
Discussion: Only the flow diagrams need be used, if necessary, to modify a
portion of an existing procedure in order to perform a hydrostatic test. A number of key licensee personnel maintain that no such hydrostatic test i
occurred. The licensee also identified three potential failure mechanisms and the subsequent tank replacement modification defended against these.
,
i
-
-.
.
~. -
-
. - - -
.. - -. - - - -. -.
.. - --
- - - -
---
,-
.
.
Findings:
The inspector was unable to corroborate the worker postulated failure mechanism. This item is closed.
Concern 84-165-13: The concern was that licensee personnel involved in the drawing update program were not permitted to see the modification packages and changes were made after the walkdown was completed which, in effect, invalidated the walkdown product.
Discussion:
The division of responsibility employed by the licensee was reasonable and did not require that drawing update personnel have access to the modification packages.
Licensee personnel, including operations personnel, verified the final drawings and procedures by walkdowns.
Inspection disclosed that good licensee management controls were used.
Findings:
Based upon the above, this item is closed.
Concern 84-165-14: The concern was that changes were made to the air start system on the diesel generator and these modifications were made without proper paper work after or during a walkdown of that system.
Discussion: This system is checked routinely by the NRC inspectors. It has been found to be safe and reliable.
Findings:
No safety concerns have been identified.
This item is closed.
Concern 84-165-15: The concern was that the plant instrument air system is not accurate and this system operates every control valve in the plant.
Discussion: This system is checked routinely by the NRC inspectors. It has been found to be safe and reliable.
Findings: No safety questions have been identified.
This item is closed.
Concern 84-165-16:
The concern was that Anti-Contamination (Anti-C)
clothing provided to people working the walkdown was not properly cleaned and may have been contaminated.
Discussion: Numerous NRC inspectors have used the Anti-C clothing provided by the licensee with no detectable problems as revealed by frisking and portal monitors.
Findings: Based on the above, this item is closed.
Concern 84-165-17: The concern was that valve lists were verified only with a field verification. The same valve may have different valve numbers on different documents.
This also applies to line and instrument lists.
Discussion:
This item was evaluated by the NRC during the period 1981 through 1983 and closed out in early 1984.
In part based on independent inspection, but primarily based upon cross checking performed among
.
_
__
__ -
-
--
.
..
drawings, procedures, hardware and hardware labels during the regular inspection program over the past two years, the inspector also finds that this problem has been corrected.
Findings:
Based on the above, this item is closed.
7.
Technical Specification Compliance (71707, 62703, 61726)
During this reporting interval, the inspectors verified compliance with selected limiting conditions for operation and reviewed results of certain i
surveillance and maintenance activities. These verifications were accom-plished by direct observation of monitoring instrumentation, valve positions, switch positions, and review of completed logs and records.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
8.
Plant Operations Review (71707, 62703, 61726, 61707, 61711)
i Periodically during the inspection interval, the inspectors reviewed shift logs and operations records, including data sheets, instrument traces, and records of equipment malfunctions. This review included control room logs, maintenance work requests, auxiliary logs, operating orders, standing orders, jumper logs, and equipment tagout records. The inspectors routinely observed operator alertness and demeanor during shift changes and plant tours. The inspectors conducted random off-hours inspections during the
'
reporting interval to assure that operations and security were maintained in
.
accordance with plant procedures.
!
The inspectors periodically verified the reactor shutdown margin.
The inspectors also periodically observed the reactor axial flux difference and i
compared the observed values with those required by the TS.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
9.
Physical Protection (71707)
In the course of the monthly activities, the Resident Inspectors included a review of the licensee's physical security program. The inspectors verified
'
by general observation, perimeter walkdowns and interviews that measures taken to assure the physical protection of the facility met current requirements.
The inspectors routinely observed the alertness and demeanor of security force personnel during plant tours.
The performance of various shifts of the security force was observed in the conduct of daily activities to include; protected and vital areas access controls, searching of parsonnel, packages and vehicles; badge issuance and retrieval, escorting of visitors; patrols and compensatory posts.
In i
addition, the inspectors observed protected area lighting, protected and vital areas barrier integrity and verified an interface between the security organization and operations or maintenance.
i
!
-.
.____.__
_ _ _ _ _
-
- _ _ -. - _
_
. _ _ _ _
-__
--
.-
-
.-
.
--
.
.
.-. -.
.
.
~
i
During the inspection period, the inspectors continued to monitor the progress and activities of the HBR Security System Upgrade Project. The
'
j inspectors attended the August 6, 1986 meeting of the Security Project
~
Implementation Task Force and determined that the licensee was pursuing corrective measures to previously identified inspector followup items and facility improvements in the area of physical security.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
10. Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726, 61700, 71710)
'
The inspectors observed portions of selected surveillance tests including
all aspects of one major surveillance test involving safety-related systems.
Specifically, the inspectors witnessed the execution of the weekly
.
operability test of the emergency diesel, as it was performed on the "A"
This test was conducted using Operations i
Surveillance Test Procedure OST-401 (Revision 8) titled " Emergency Diesels -
j Weekly." The test technician used the correct and current procedure and was
'
qualified to perform the test.
i OST-401 is designed to verify the mechanical performance a.,d operational readiness of the emergency diesels; and that the requirements of TS 4.6.1.1 and 4.6.1.4 are satisfied. With respect to tests and surveillances which
,
!
are to be performed as stated, TS 4.6.1.1 requires a i
" Manually-initiated start of the diesel generator, followed by manual synchronization with other power sources and
'
assumption of load by the diesel generator up to the nameplate j
rating.
Normal plant operation will not be affected."
i l
TS 4.6.1.4 requires that; i
" Diesel generator electric loads shall not be increased i
beyond the long term rating of 2500 kw."
,
i l
The inspectors observed that the proper administrative approvals were
obtained and that the required precautions were observed. The inspectors
noted that although the TS requires that this test be performed on a monthly basis, the licensee performs the test weekly in accordance with vendor
'
l recommendation. As part of the test, the operator verified the operation of the redundant solenoid valves on the "A" diesel prior to the engine start.
[
i The "A" diesel generator successfully completed the test requirements.
Upon completion of the testing, the inspectors observed that the recorded
test data was accurate and complete, and independently verified that the l
systems were properly returned to service.
!
!
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
i i
!
!
!
.
.
..
. - - - - -.. -. -...
_ - -. _ _ - - __
_ -
--
-. -
.
.
_
_ - _ - - - - -
.
.
'
11. Monthly Maintenance Observation (62703)
The inspectors observed all aspects of the safety related maintenance activities associated with the disassembly, cleaning, repair, and reassembly of the "A" Emergency Diesel fuel oil transfer pump suction strainer. It was ascertained that this activity was conducted in accordance with approved work request procedures and appropriate industry codes and standards. The
,
inspectors also determined that this mainterance activity did not violate Limiting Conditions for Operations (LCO's), that redundant components were operable, that required administrative approvals and tagouts were obtained prior to work initiation, and that appropriate ignition, fire prevention and radiation controls were implemented.
The inspectors verified that these activities were accomplished by qualified personnel using appropriate controls. The inspectors independently verified that equipment was properly tested before being returned to service.
Additionally, the inspectors reviewed several outstanding job orders to determine that the licensee was giving priority to safety-related maintenance and that a backlog which might affect its performance was not developing on a given system.
Also, the inspectors witnessed the performance of Maintenance Surveillance Tests MST-004 (Revision 3) " Pressurizer Pressure Protection Channel Testing" and MST-005 (Revision 3) " Pressurizer Water Level Protection Channel Testing" to ascertain that these activities were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, TS and appropriate industry codes and standards.
The inspectors determined that these activities were not violating LCO's and that redundant components were operable. The inspectors also determined (1)
,
that the procedures used were adequate to control the activity, (2) that required administrative approvals and tagouts were obtained prior to work initiation, (3) that proper radiological controls were implemented, and (4)
that these activities were accomplished by qualified personnel using approved procedures.
The inspectors independently verified that the equipment involved was properly returned to service.
Specifically, the inspectors observed the preparations and conduct of the operations, QA, and I&C personnel involved in these surveillance tests.
,
During the accomplishment of these tests, the inspectors noted that all prerequisites and precautions were observed by the personnel involved including the limitations that only one protection channel set and one rack door may be open at any given time.
The inspectors witnessed the
'
restoration of all pressurizer channels tested for pressure and level protection.
,
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
12. Operational Safety Verification (71707)
The inspectors observed licensee activities to ascertain that the facility was being operated safely and in conformance with regulatory requirements.
Also, by direct observation of activities, tours of the facility, interviews and discussions with licensee management and personnel, and reviewing
,
__-
.
. _ _ -
--
- - - _ - _. - _ _ - _, - -.
- _ - -
.__.
_
.
.
facility records, the inspectors were able to verify that the licensee management control system was effectively providing continued safe operation.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
13.
ESF System Walkdown and Monthly Surveillance Observation (71710, 61726, 56700)
The inspectors verified the operability of the engineered safety features system by performing a walkdown of the accessible portions of the safety injection and containment spray systems as prescribed by Operations Surveillance Test Proceduro OST-158 (Revision 3) titled " Safety Injection and Containment Spray Systems Flowpath Verification Mor;thly Interval (At Power)."
The inspectors confirmed that the licensee's system lineup procedures matched plant drawings and the as-built configuration.
The inspectors looked for equipment conditions, maintenance status and items that might degrade performance (that hangers and supports were operable,
,
'
acceptable housekeeping, etc.). The inspectors verified that valves were in proper position, power was available, and valves were locked as appropriate.
The inspectors compared both local and remote position indications.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
14. Onsite Followup of Events and Subsequent Written Reports of Nonroutine Events at Power Reactor Facilities (92700, 90714, 93702)
For onsite followup of nonroutine events, the inspectors determined that the l
licensee had taken corrective actions as stated in written reports of the l
events and that these responses to the events were appropriate and met regulatory requirements, license conditions, and commitments.
During this reporting period, the inspectors reviewed the following LERs to verify that the report details met license requirements, identified the cause of the event, described appropriate corrective actions, adequately assessed the event, and addressed any generic implications. When licensee identified violations were noted, they were reviewed in accordance with enforcement policy. The inspectors had no further comments.
LER EVENT 84-02 Fire Damper Testing 86-11 Reactor Trip Due to Unsoldered Wire No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
15.
IE Bulletin, Confirmatory Action Letter, and Generic Letter Followup (92703)
The inspectors reviewed a licensee letter from A. B. Cutter to J. Nelson Grace dated July 28, 1986, to ascertain that the information submitted by the licensee in response to IE Bulletin No. 86-02:
" Static '0'
Ring Differential Pressure Switches" was technically adequate, satisfied the
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
requirements established in the IE bulletin, and represented. the action taken by the licensee. Specifically, the inspectors verified that (1) the written response was within the time period stated in the bulletin, (2) the written response included the information required to be reported, and (3)
the written response included adequate corrective action commitments based on information presented in the bulletin and licensee's response.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
16. Organization and Administration (36700)
The inspectors reviewed the on-site licensee organization to ascertain whether changes made to the licensee's onsite organization are in conformance with the requirements of the TS by verifying that (1) the established organization is functioning as described in the TS and is functioning effectively, (2) personnel qualification levels are in confor-mance with applicable codes and standards, and (3) the lines of authority and responsibility are in conformance with TS and applic'able codes and standards.
Comprehensive discussions of current safety-related activities were conducted with plant management and technical personnel during this reporting period including, and in particular, Design Engineering, Environ-mental and Radiation Controls, Quality Assurance, Regulatory Compliance and Onsite Nuclear Safety organizations.
Topics discussed included licensee activities associated with plant operations activities; plant modifications, including the security system upgrade; ongoing construction activities; and communications interfaces.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
17. Onsite Review Committee (40700)
The inspectors reviewed certain activities of the plant nuclear safety committee (PNSC) to ascertain whether the onsite review functions were conducted in accordance with TS and other regulatory requirements. The inspectors followed <up on previously identified PNSC activities to independently confirm that corrective actions were progressing satisfactorily.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
18.
Participation in NRR/ Licensee Meetings (94702)
On July 23, 1986, an electrical engineer from the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE00) was onsite performing followup activities regarding Licensee Event Report LER 36-05: " Loss of Offsite AC Event." Comprehensive and detailed presentations and discussions were held with the licensee which included reviews of schematic diagrams, startup
r' '
.
.
transformer loading history, phase balance relay transformer tendency toward AC and DC saturation and the fuse holder modifications performed.
The inspectors attended portions of the discussions and participated in the plant tour to observe the electrical hardware associated with the event.
Also on July 23, 1986, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager was onsite to participate in the AE00 plant tour and to review current licensing activities with the licensee. The inspectors attended the discussions of current licensing issues and, as previously noted, joined in the plant tour.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
.