IR 05000261/1987004
| ML20205N680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1987 |
| From: | Fredrickson P, Krug H, Latta R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205N630 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-261-87-04, 50-261-87-4, NUDOCS 8704030083 | |
| Download: ML20205N680 (12) | |
Text
-.
'
.,.
pk# 08fuq '
UNITED STATES
[4
. jo,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11 o
'$-
,j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
'"
ATL ANTA, G EORGI A 30323.-
%,.....j*
}
Report No.:
50-261/87-04_
Licensee:
Carolina' Power and L'ight Company P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602
Docket No.:
50-261
' License N'o.:
DPR-23 Facility Name:
H. B. Robinson Inspection Conducted:
February-11 - March 10, 1987 Inspect rs:
\\
U
, r/ H. E.(f. Krug, Senior Resident Inspector D' ate Signed
-
L U fs/ R.
Llatta, Resident Ins ector 04te Signed-Approved by: )[
3/'s /// 7 P. E. Fredrickson, Section Chief-
/Date Signed Division of Reactor Projects
.
-
SUMMARY
Scope: This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of Technical Specification (TS) compliance; including observance of any Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO), plant tour, operations performance, reportable occurrences, housekeeping, site security, surveillance activities, maintenance activities, quality assurance practices, radiation control activities, outstanding items review, IE Bulletin and IE Notice followup, organization and
administration, independent inspection, Plant Status Report, Systematic
Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) and enforcement action followup.
i Results:
Inspector Followup Item 50-261/87-04-01, " Modification of EST-005."
l
I
,
2704030083 870324 PDR ADOCK 05000261
'
.. _.
_
--
_. _.
.
.
_ -, _ -
_.
. _.
..
.
-
-
-
.
-- _ - _ -
.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Licensee Employees Contacted R. Barnett, Maintenance Supervisor, Electrical G. Beatty, Manager, Robinson Nuclear Project Department J. Benjamin, Supervisor, Operations R. Chambers, Engineering Supervisor, Performance
,
!'
D. Crocker, Principal Health Physics Specialist i
J. Curley, Director, Regulatory Compliance J. Eaddy, Supervisor, Environmental and Chemistry
W. Flanagan, Manager, Design Engineering W. Gainey, Maintenance Supervisor, Mechanical
- ,
P. Harding, Project Specialist (Acting), Radiation Control
'
E. Harris, Director, Onsite Nuclear Safety i
D. Knight, Shift Foreman, Operations
!
E. Lee, Shift Foreman, Operations j
F. Lowery, Manager, Operations D. McCaskill, Shift Foreman, Operations
A. McCauley, Principal Specialist, Onsite Nuclear Safety R. Moore, Shift Foreman, Operations i
R. Morgan, Plant General Manager i
M. Morrow, Specialist, Emergency Preparedness D. Nelson, Operating Supervisor
,
B. Murphy, Senior Instrumentation and Control Engineer M. Page, Engineering Supervisor, Plant Systems i.
R. Powell, Principal Specialist, Maintenance
!
D. Quick, Manager, Maintenance
B. Rieck, Manager, Control and Administration l
W. Ritchie, Supervisor (Acting), Radiation Control i
D. Sayre, Senior Specialist, Regulatory Compliance D. Seagle, Shift Foreman, Operations j
R. Smith, Manager, Environmental and Radiation Control
~
R. Steele, Shift Foreman, Operations R. Wallace, Manager, Technical Support L. Williams, Supervisor, Security
,
H. Young, Director, Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC)
'
Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, construction personnel, security force members, and office personnel.
j 2.
Exit Interview (30702, 30703)
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 10, 1987, with
,
the Plant General Manager, Director of Quality Assurance, Director of Onsite Nuclear Safety and the Director of Regulatory Compliance.
A violation described in paragraph 10 was discussed in detail. The licensee acknowledged the findings without exception.
The licensee did not I
i j
'
..
-.-
..-.
.
_ _. _.
-. -
.~..
-
-
.
. -.
~
.
.
d
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 Resident Inspectors during this report period.
-
3.
Plant Tour (71707, 62703, 71710)
i 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 inspectors 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 generally excellent. Minor discrepancies observed by the inspectors during plant tours were routinely identified to the licensee.
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 j
e.
Electrical Switchgear
f.
Chemical and Volume Control System
.
g.
Residual Heat Removal System l
h.
l No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
4.
Technical Specification Compliance (71707, 62703, 61726)
During this reporting interval, the inspectors verified compliance with j
selected limiting conditions for operation and reviewed results of certain i
surveillance and maintenance activities.
These verifications were l
accomplished by direct observation of monitoring instrumentation, valve positions, switch positions, and review of completed logs and records.
j
'
i No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
'
5.
Plant Operations Review (71707, 62703, 61726, 61707)
Periodically during the inspection interval, the inspectors reviewed shift
,
logs and operations records, including data sheets, instrument traces, and t
records of equipment malfunctions. This review included control room logs,
.
maintenance work requests, auxiliary logs, operating orders, standing i
!
'
.
-
_- _ __. _,-,_. _ _ _
_.. _ _ _ _
. - _ _ _
.-
.
.
.
- -
_-
-
_
.
-
-
,
,
i
,4 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.
i l
The inspectors periodically verified.the reactor shutdown margin. The j
inspectors also periodically observed the reactor axial flux difference and compared the observed values with those required by the TS No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
!
6.
Physical Protection (71707)
l l
In the course of the monthly activities, the inspectors included a review j
of the licensee's physical security program.
The inspectors verified by j
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 personnel, packages and vehicles; badge issuance and retrieval; escorting of visitors; and patrols and compensatory posts.
In addition, the inspectors observed protected area lighting, protected and vital areas barrier integrity and verified an j
interface between the security organization and maintenance.
i The inspectors observed two firearms training and qualification sessions j
conducted on March 2nd and 3rd, 1987 at the site firing range.
This i
activity involved the demonstration of the required capability by two members of the security force.
The inspectors noted that the range
officer and the qualifying candidates exhibited professional demeanor and
)
appropriate firing range safety practices.
The inspectors also visited j
the central and secondary alarm stations.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
.
7.
Preparation for Refueling (60705, 37700)
i l
A refueling outage is scheduled to commence on March 28, 1987.
The r
inspectors continued to review licensee preparations for refueling i
including the adequacy of procedures and administrative controls for the i
refueling activities / outage.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee Cycle 12 - 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation.
Cycle 12 is similar to Cycle 11.
The licensee evaluation was comprehensive and included a comparison of the Cycle 11 and Cycle 12 neutron kinetics parameters and limiting heat transfer limits.
Based on the parameters presented in the evaluation, the licensee reached the
,
t
.-.-_
.
- - -. -
- - - _
.. - -
- - -
-. -
-.
-
.
._
_
.
_
_
._ __
'
.
f
.
conclusion that the Cycle 12 evaluation was bounded by the Cycle 11
,
evaluation and therefore did not represent an unreviewed safety question.
,
The inspectors did not identify any information which would tend to
invalidate the licensee's conclusions.
No violations.or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
8.
Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726, 61700, 71710)
i i
The inspectors observed portions of selected surveillance tests including j
all aspects of one major surveillance test involving safety-related
!
systems.
The inspectors determined that the surveillance test procedure
!
conformed to TS requirements, that all precautions and LCOs were met and l
that the surveillance test was completed at the required frequency. The inspectors also verified that the required administrative approvals and
'
tagouts were obtained prior to initiating the test, that the testing was
,!
accomplished by qualified personnel in accordance with an approved test
.
procedure and that the required test instrumentation was properly i
calibrated.
.
l The inspectors witnessed the execution of the weekly operability test of the emergency diesel as it was performed on the
"A" emergency diesel
generator.
This test was conducted using Operations Surveillance Test
Procedure OST-401 (Revision 8) titled " Emergency Diesels - Weekly".
"0ST-401 is designed to verify the mechanical performance and 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 performed as stated, TS 4.6.1.1 requires a:
" 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 rating.
Normal plant
,
!
operation will not be affected."
i TS 4.6.1.4 requires that:
i
" Diesel generator electric loads shall not be increased beyond the
i long term rating of 2500 kw."
!
!
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 a vendor 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.
The
"A" diesel generator j
successfully completed the test requirements.
,
l Upon completion of the testing, the inspectors observed that the recorded test data was accurate and complete, and independently verified that the
'
system was properly returned to service.
'
!
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
i
I
.
.
9.
Monthly Maintenance Observation and Maintenance Program Evaluation (62703, 62700,62704,62705)
The inspectors observed several maintenance related activities of safety-related systems and components 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 LC0's and that redundant components were operable. The inspectors also determined (1) that the procedures used were adequate to control the activity, (2) that QC hold points were established where required, (3) that required administrative approvals and tagouts were obtained prior to work initiation, (4) that proper radiological, and appropriate ignition and fire prevention controls were implemented. The inspectors verified that these activities were accomplished by qualified personnel using approved procedures. The inspectors independently verified that equipment was properly tested before being returned to service.
The inspectors witnessed the surveillance test of the " Turbine Redundant Overspeed Trip System" as prescribed in MST-552, Revision 3.
This test is conducted monthly in accordance with TS requirements, as defined in Table 4.1-1, to determine the operability of the Turbine Redundant Overspeed Trip System.
The inspectors determined that the instrumentation and control (I&C) technicians involved in this activity appeared knowledgeable and were utilizing the latest revision of MST-552.
The inspectors verified that al' procedural prerequisites were satisfied and that the precautions and iimitations of this activity were complied with by the licensee.
The inspectors observed that the following surveillance test criteria were satisfied:
-
Voltages were within the specified tolerances Appropriate reactor turbine generator board indications were received
-
and acknowledged during the test Proper indications were observed on the test and failure lamps
-
Required operation of the overspeed trip system logic occurred as
-
verified by the correct operation of all test light indications The inspectors noted that during the conduct of testing on the channel 2 overspeed test potentiometer, the setting fell outside the acceptable tolerance.
The I&C technicians involved corrected this condition by performing the applicable portions of Loop Calibration Procedure LP-601, titled " Turbine Redundant Overspeed Trip System", Revision 2, after obtaining the required work permit authorization.
MST-552 was completed without further incident and the system was returned to service.
The inspectors also witnessed maintenance activities on the "B" Emergency Diesel on February 24, 1987.
These activities were conducted in
-
- -
-
-. _ _.
. _
-
...
-
- -
.
,
I
.
,
I
i accordance with Corrective Maintenance Procedures; CM-507 (Revision 2)
" Emergency Diesel Lube Oil Strainers", and Preventive Maintenance
Procedure; PM-007 (Revision 6) " Emergency Diesel Generator Inspection
Number 1". _ The inspectors examined the work clearance and equipment tagout of the
"B" diesel prior to work initiation as well as the valve t
l line-up required by the reference procedures. The inspectors noted that administrative and work controls appeared adequate, that the mechanical
'
maintenance personnel involved were familiar with the equipment, that copies of Revision 2 of the subject procedures were available at the work site, and that these activities were carried out efficiently and with
,
appropriate attention to detail.
i In particular, the inspectors witnessed the disassembly, inspection, cleaning, and reassembly of:
the lube oil strainer, the prelube pump strainer, and the lube oil circulating pump strainer. The inspectors also
examined the fuel injection racks and engine control linkage and observed
!
the sampling and refilling of the generator bearing oil.
Subsequent to j
the completion of CM-507 and PM-007, the inspectors verified the return to
service of the "B" Emergency Diesel.
!
j 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 j
developing on a given system.
.
i No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
10. Operational Safety Verification (71707)
l The inspectors observed licensee activities to ascertain that the facility was being operated safely and in conformance with regulatory requirements,
,
and that the licensee management control system was effectively
!
discharging its responsibilities for continued safe operation by direct i
observation of activities, tours of the facility, interviews and discussions with licensee management and personnel, independent
verification of safety system status and limiting conditions for
!
operation, and reviewing facility records.
'
In preparation for the refueling outage scheduled to commence on March 28,
.
1987, the inspectors witnessed the delivery of new fuel on February 10,
}
1987. The inspectors examined the shipping documentation and determined that the records agreed with the shipping canister numbered seals.
The
j inspectors also observed the disassembly of selected shipping containers, i
the receipt inspection of fuel assemblies, and the transfer of fuel j
assemblies to the new fuel storage racks in the auxiliary building.
t i
These operations were skillfully executed by the technicians involved and j
the work controls appeared adequate. The inspectors noted that, although l
not required by TS, the actual movement of fuel assemblies from the j
shipping containers to the new fuel racks was accomplished by a licensed j
senior reactor operator.
i
'
.
.
.
Fuel Management Procedure FMP-014 (Revision 2) " Insertion Limits for C and D Rod Banks" in part requires that at 50% of the fuel cycle as. defined by burnup, the alarms associated with the rod insertion limit curves shall be adjusted from the beginning of cycle (BOC) curve to the end of cycle (EOC)
curve. As identified by the licensee, the required adjustment of the C and D rod bank monitors which should have been accomplished during the week of September 22, 1986, were not made until January 23, 1987.
The licensee's immediate corrective action was to perform the rod insertion limit alarm adjustments for "C and D" rod banks. An analysis was performed by the licensee to determine if the control rods had been inserted below the EOC insertion limits during the affected operating period.
The results of this analysis indicate that at no time were the limits exceeded.
The inspectors determined that this failure to adjust the rod insertion alarm limits would not have precluded an alarm actuation prior to the violation of a rod insertion limit during the interval between the middle of the cycle and the readjustment of the limits.
To preclude recurrence of this situation, the licensee was in the process of modifying Engineering Surveillance test procedure EST-005 " Review of Critical Baron Concentration Monthly Interval" to include specific directions on exactly when to implement FMP-014 to adjust the rod insertion limit alarm setpoints.
The licensee's modification of EST-005 is identified as an inspector followm: item.
Inspector Followup Item 50-261/87-04-01; " Modification of EST-005" 11.
ESF System Walkdown and Monthly Surveillance Observation (71710, 61726, 56700)
The inspectors verified the operability of an engineered safety features system by performing a walkdown of the accessible portions of the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system as was prescribed in Operations Surveillance
,
Test procedure OST-251 (Revision 10) titled "RHR Component Test (Monthly)".
The purpose of this surveillance test was to verify the mechanical performance and assess the operational readiness of components in the RHR system to fulfill their required safety functions.
The inspectors confirmed that the licensee's system lineup procedures matched plant drawings and the as-built configuration. The inspectors looked for equipment conditions and items that might degrade performance (hangers and supports were operable, housekeeping, etc.) and inspected the interiors of electrical and instrumentation cabinets for debris, loose material, jumpers, evidence of rodents, etc.
The inspectors verified that valves were locked as required. The inspectors compared both local and remote position indications.
The inspectors determined that OST-251 conformed to TS requirements, that all precautions and LCOs were met and that OST-251 was completed at the required frequency.
The inspectors also verified that the required
-
-- - -
- -
-
- -
-
- -
- --
- -
-
. _..
_ ____________ ___
.
administrative approvals and tagouts were obtained prior to initiating the test, that the testing was accomplished by qualified personnel in accordance with an approved test procedure and that the required test instrumentation was properly calibrated.
In particular, the inspectors witnessed the verification of proper oil levels in each of the RHR pumps tested, the starting and running of both the
"A" and the
"B" RHR pumps, the recording of pump discharge and differential pressures, and the recording of pump vibration amplitudes.
Upon completion of the testing, the inspectors observed that the recorded test data was accurate, complete and met TS requirements; and, independently verified that the systems were properly returned to service.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
12. Cold Weather Preparations (71714)
The inspectors conducted a review of licensee cold weather preparations to ascertain that the licensee maintained effective implementation of the program of protective measures for extreme cold weather. During the inspection, the inspectors verified that the licensee had inspected systems susceptible to freezing to verify the presence of heat tracing, strip heaters and insulation; the proper setting of thermostats; and that j
the heat tracing and strip heating circuits were energized.
On February 19, 1987, the inspectors witnessed the operability verification, performed by instrumentation and control technicians, of various freeze protection panels throughout the plant. The inspectors observed channel current testing in the subject panels and, for those freeze protection channels which indicated a faulted condition, the inspectors determined that corrective maintenance work requests were initiated.
Subsequent to the completion of the cold weather preventative maintenance testing, the inspectors independently witnessed the return to service of the affected equipment.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
13. 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 as described in the TS and is functioning effectively, (2) personnel qualification levels are in conformance with applicable codes and standards, and (3) the lines of authority and responsibility are in conformance with TS and applicable 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, Operations, Environmental
l
~
-
.
and Radiation Controls, Quality Assurance, Regulatory Compliance and Onsite Nuclear Safety organizations.
Topics discussed included licensee activities associated with plant operations activities, plant modifications, the fire protection system, ongoing construction activities, and communications interfaces.
On February 11, 1987, the inspectors attended the regularly scheduled refueling pre-outage meeting conducted by the licensee.
The inspectors observed that significant management involvement in pre planning efforts was being devoted to the upcoming refueling outage in that concerns relative to:
outage contracts and material status, work schedule implementation, resource planning, manpower loading, modification and exception closecut status, reduction of pre-outage work backlog, radiological work permits, control of projected dose rates, and action item review and assignment were discussed in detail.
Throughout the meeting, the inspectors noted that the outage management organization emphasized the accountability and responsibility of task assignments to responsible individuals and organizations.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
14. 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 (1) attended the regular monthly PNSC meeting held on February 19, 1987 and observed the conduct of the meeting, (2) ascertained that provisions of the TS dealing with membership, review process, frequency, qualifications, etc., were satisfied, and (3) reviewed meeting minutes to confirm that decisions and recommendations were accurately reflected in the minutes, and (4) followed up on previously identified PNSC activities to independently confirm that corrective actions were progressing satisfactorily.
The inspection emphasized review of the following items:
plant modifications, nonconformance reports, proposed changes to the Operating License / Technical Specifications, ALARA subcommittee meeting minutes, and the Trip Reduction Assessment Program subcommittee (TRAP). The inspectors examined the data base which was previously developed for trip review and categorization and determined that it is currently being utilized for the development of a trip preventative measures program.
This effort has resulted in the detailed analysis of approximately 200 events characterized as near-misses.
The near-miss trending summary has highlighted the precursors for reactor trips for controllable conditions in both the heater drain and vent system and the operational concerns for clogger/ blocked sensing line...
.-
.._-
-. - _
_ _ _ _. _
_
.
__
_. _.
..
.
10
,
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
.
15. Calibration (56700)
!
The inspectors reviewed the established calibration program to ascertain
'
'
whether the calibration of components and equipment associated with
!
safety-related systems and functions is in conformance with the require-
ments of the T5 and approved regulatory guides and standards. During the inspection, the inspectors verified, for selected instrumentation and
)
controls, that the f requency of calibration as specified in the TS was
.
met, that all required documentation was accurately completed and that the j
technical content of calibration procedures was adequate.
f In particular, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's procedures for j
calibration control MMM-006 (Revision 6) titled " Calibration Program" and
'
associated procedure MMM-006 Appendix A (Revision 10) titled " Calibration
i Instrument List". The inspectors also examined instruments on the local
!
control panel as well as various process instrumentation on both the A and the B Emergency Diesels.
-
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
16.
Emergency Preparedness Drill (82301)
,
'
On February 18, 1987, the inspectors witnessed the execution of a limited scope emergency preparedness drill by the licensee.
The purpose of this l
drill was to demonstrate capability in specific areas which were identified in Inspection Report 50-261/86-30.
The drill scenario was based on a medical emergency, a hydrogen leak in a vital area, failure of
,
the reactor to trip on demand, fuel damage, and a loss of coolant accident, j
This emergency exercise included participation by licensee personnel in J
the control room, technical. support center, and the emergency operations t
facility.
The licensee assigned an evaluation team to overview and
critique the drill and to assure that the intended objective, were I
achieved. The stated objectives included successful demonstration of the t
'
following activities:
The ability to alert and mobilize RNPD emergency response personnel.
-
<
j The ability to notify and communicate initial and follow-up emergency
-
j information to State and Local authorities.
.
j The adequacy and effective use of communications procedures and
-
methods to inform onsite and offsite emergency response personnel of the status of the emergency situation and the plant conditions.
1 The ability to survey, respond to, and treat a contaminated medical
-
emergency using the proper first aid equipment.
!
!
l t
...
- -. - _.
-..
.-.
-
.. -.
..
.
. _..
. -.
-
_ - - - _
.
.
.
Adequate equipment and procedures necessary for decontamination of'
-
,
emergency workers and equipment.
The initial activation. and functional adequacy of the Technical
-
Support Center (TSC) and the Emergency Operations Facility (E0F)..
The precise and clear transfer of responsibilities from the control
-
room to the TSC staff and subsequently to the EOF.
The inspectors witnessed the initiating event response by operations personnel in the control room and the subsequent progression of events-
'
which led to assembly of the emergency response staff. The inspectors also observed the establishment -of emergency communications; the assessment of simulated plant off-normal conditions; the activation of the technical support center and the emergency operations center; and the simulated recovery efforts initiated by the licensee.
'
17.
Participation in NRR/ Licensee Meetings (94702)
On February 19, 1987, the inspectors attended the entrance of three EG&G representatives who were on site to perform a Task Analysis on Thermohydraulics transients operation response. Specifically, the purpose of their visit was to assess certain time dependent human factors aspects of three design basis accidents as requested by the Reactor Systems Branch of NRC Research.
Specifically, the EG&G representatives analyzed:
(1) small break LOCA; (2) loss of feedwater flow; and, (3) steam generator overfill.
Their analysis compared emergency procedure directions with their. associated operator work loads during these transients. The inspectors attended the exit interview on February 20, 1987.
i No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
,
)