IR 05000261/1988038
| ML14191B077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1989 |
| From: | Dance H, Garner L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14191B076 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-261-88-38, NUDOCS 8902150259 | |
| Download: ML14191B077 (11) | |
Text
Report No.:
50-261/88-38 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company P. 0. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC '27602 Docket No.:
50-261 License No.: DPR-23 Facility Name: H. B. Robinson Inspection Conducted: December 11, 1988, - January 10, 1989 Inspector:
L. w. Garner, Senior sid t Inspector
[ate Signed Approved by: Aha H. C. DancejSection Chief Bate/Si ned Reactor Projects Section 1A Division of Reactor Projects SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of operational safety verification, physical protection, surveillance observation, maintenance observation, onsite followup of events at operating power reactors and modification Results:
One unresolved item was identified concerning the root cause and corrective actions to be taken associated with the hydrogen gas introduction into the plant air systems during refueling activities, paragraph 6. This event has been included on the agenda for the Enforcement Conference to be held in Region II on February 9, 198 The inspector observed that an escort had allowed two vistors to be unescorted in an area which has two normal means of egres Routine security followup is planned, paragraph The inspector indicated that requiring a new battery cell to receive a freshening charge or cycling prior to installation should be considered. Plant management is taking this under consideration, paragraph The licensee and the inspector observed that a recently issued maintenance procedure contained a NOTE which required actions to be performed. This is considered a poor procedural practice. Action is being taken to correct the procedure and ensure this is adequately addressed during the maintenance procedure upgrade program, paragraph F DR ADCK 0'
002C) 1 PDC
The licensee. was responsive to an inspector's observation that the battery charger acceptance test of M-940 did not directly demonstrate the FSAR described performance capabilit The acceptance area test was changed to more closely simulate the described capability, paragraph REPORT DETAILS 1. Licensee Employees Contacted R. Barnett, Maintenance Supervisor, Electrical R. Chambers, Engineering Supervisor, Performance 3. Curley, Director, Regulatory Compliance
- C. Dietz, Manager, Robinso'n Nuclear Project Department R. Femal, Shift Foreman, Operations W. Flanagan, Manager, Design Engineering R. Johnson, Manager, Control and Administration D. Knight, Shift Foreman, Operations D. McCaskill, Shift Foreman, Operations R. Moore, Shift Foreman, Operations
- R. Morgan, Plant General Manager M. Page, Acting Manager, Technical Support
- 0. Sayre, Senior Specialist, Regulatory Compliance D. Seagle, Shift Foreman, Operations J. Sheppard, Manager, Operations R. Steele, Acting Supervisor, Operations Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personne NRC Resident Inspector
- L. Garner
- Attended exit interview on January 26, 1989 Acronyms and initialisms used throughout this report are listed in th last paragrap. Operational Safety Verification (71707)
The inspector observed licensee activities to confirm that the facility was being operated safely, in conformance with regulatory requirements, and that the licensee management control system was effectively discharging its responsibilities for continued safe operatio These activities were confirmed by direct observations, tours of the facility, interviews and discussions with licensee management and personnel, independent verifications of safety sy 'stem status and Limiting Conditions'
for Operation, and reviews of facility record Periodically, the inspector reviewed shift logs, operations records, data sheets, instrument traces, and records of equipment malfunctions-to verify operability of safety related equipment and compliance with T Specific items reviewed include control room logs, maintenance work requests, auxiliary logs, jumper logs, and equipment tagout record Through periodic observations of work in progress and discussions with operations staff members, the inspector verified that the staff was knowledgeable of
plant conditions; adhering to procedures and applicable administrative controls; and aware of equipment out of service, surveillance testing, and maintenance activities in progres The inspector routinely observed shift changes to verify that continuity of system status was maintained and that proper control room staffing existe The inspector also observed that access to the control room was controlled and operations personnel were carrying out their assigned duties in an attentive and professional manne The control room was observed to be free of unnecessary distraction The inspector reviewed component status an safety related parameters to verify conformance with the T Plant tours were routinely conducted to verify the operability of standby equipment and verify that radiological controls, fire protection controls and equipment tag out procedures were being properly implemente These tours verified the following: proper positions and indications of important valves and circuit breakers; operability of fire suppression and fire fighting equipment; and operability of emergency lighting equipmen The inspector also verified that housekeeping was adequate and areas were free of unnecessary fire hazards and combustible material No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspecte.
Physical Protection (71707)
In the course of the monthly activities, the inspector included a review of the licensee's physical security progra The inspector verified by general observation, and interviews that measures taken to assure the physical protection of the facility met current requirement The performance of various shifts of the security force was observed to verify that daily activities were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the security pla Activities inspected included:
protected and vital areas, access controls, searching of personnel, packages and vehicles, badge issuance and retrieval, patrols, escorting of visitors, and compensatory measures. In addition, the inspector routinely observed protected and vital area lighting andbarrier integrit On January 6, 1989, the inspector observed two male visitors, contractor employees, inside a protected area restroom/changeroom without their escort. Their female escort was waiting outside. Apparently neither the escort nor the visitors were aware that the area had two normal areas of entry and exi This was reported to securit The licensee has temporarily suspended escorting of members of one sex by the the other se The inspector verified that the event was logged as required in the safeguard event log. A regional security inspector was notified of the event for routine followu No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspecte. Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726)
The inspector observed certain surveillance related activities of safety related systems and components to ascertain that these activities were conducted in accordance with license requirement For the surveillance test procedures listed below, the inspectors determined that precautions and LCOs were met, the tests were completed at the required frequency, the tests conformed to TS requirements, the required administrative approvals and tagouts were obtained prior to initiating the tests, and the testing was accomplished by qualified personnel in accordance with an approved test procedure. Specifically, the inspector witnessed/reviewed portions of the following test activities:
o OST-301 (revision 7) Service Water System (Refueling)
The procedure was performed in part to demonstrate operability of the A service water pump after adjusting the impeller clearanc The inspector verified that the evolution was performed in accordance with the procedur o OST-401 (revision 20) Emergency Diesels (Biweekly)
The inspector witnessed portions of the procedure which were performed to return B EDG to service after refueling PMs and system modifications. The diesel generator performed as expecte No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspecte. Monthly Maintenance Observation (62703)
The inspector 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 standard The inspector determined that these activities were not violating LCOs and that redundant components were operable. The inspector also determined that activities were accomplished by qualified personnel using approved procedures, required administrative approvals and tagouts were obtained prior to work initiation, appropriate ignition and fire prevention controls were implemented, and the effected equipment was properly tested before being returned to servic In particular, the inspector observed/reviewed the following maintenance activities:
o MST-920 (revision 0) Station Battery Performance Capacity Test (Five Year Interval)
The test demonstrates the performance capacity of the station batteries as required by TS 4.6.3.5. The inspector observed the last two hours of the test on both A and B batterie During th performance of the B battery test, cells 15 and 41 were jumpered out at 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> 37 minutes and cell 55 was jumpered out at 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> 56
minutes into the tes Individual cells were removed from the test when their terminal voltages decreased to less than 1.50 volt On the A battery no cells were jumpered out during the 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> discharge at rated current. B battery cell 15 had been installed after receipt from the manufacture Under such conditions, it would not be performing at peak capabilit The inspector discussed with the system engineer that discharging and recharging a new cell prior to installation could enhance its performanc The system engineer indicated that they were aware of this, but in this instance, because of outage scheduling the decision was made to go ahead and install it upon receipt from the manufacture Current practice as whether or not a cell needs a freshening charge or a discharge/recharge cycling prior to installation is a case by case judgmen However, it is normally performed, but not required by a procedur He further indicated that development of a PM to routinely cycle a cell prior to installation would be considere The desirability of this was discussed with plant management during the exi Initial engineering judgement indicates that both batteries successfully completed their performance capacity test. However, the final evaluation has not yet been completed. The inspector plans to review the evaluation when issued to verify corrective actions are taken if require This is an IFI:
Review Battery A and B 5 Year Performance Capacity Test Evaluation (261/88-38-01).
During performance of MST-920, both the licensee and.the inspector noted a procedural weakness. On page 11 of MST-920, a NOTE contained a procedure requirement to clean and assemble connections per PM-41 Inclusion of steps to be performed in a NOTE is considered a poor practice. Appropriate steps are being taken to revise this procedure and address this area during the maintenance procedure upgrade progra PM-008 (revision 13)
Emergency Diesel Generator Inspection Number 2 (Refueling)
The inspector observed the draining, flushing and refill of B EDG governor. In addition, the inspector visually examined the fuel injector racks, witnessed cleaning of the generator winding, inspected the exhaust manifolds and parts, and inspected the blower drive gearin No adverse conditions were note No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspecte. Onsite Followup of Events at Operating Power Reactors (93702)
NOUE - Hydrogen Gas Introduction Into Plant Air Systems While attempting to perform an air test on the turbine generator, a
breakdown in administrative controls resulted in cross-connecting the plant air systems with the higher pressure hydrogen gas syste This
resulted in an intrusion of approximately 5000 cubic feet of hydrogen into various branches of the plant air system Upon discovery, a NOUE was declared and steps were taken to vent the affected parts of the system All work involving use of plant air was discontinued and was not resumed until the effected air systems were vented and measured hydrogen concen trations were insignificant. A detailed sequence of events is presented below:
January 6, 1989 10:30 Turbine maintenance informs clearance desk that air test had starte :45 Shift foreman notified that air test had starte :15 Small fire in air line box at 2A MSR was out by time fire protection aid responded. Assumed to be welding sla :30 Turbine crew request help from clearance desk to determine why generator is not pressurizing. Informed that spool piece to generator needed to be installe January 7, 1989 1:30 Contract worker reports to clearance office that a small flame came out of air grinder he was using in turbine buildin Shift foreman notifie :45 Operations determines air line was connected to bulk hydrogen supply. All work using instrument or station air suspende :50 Sample of station air in turbine building indicated 2.48% hydrogen in syste :25 Operations Manager notifie :30 Turbine building station air header hydrogen concentration measured at 8.28%.
2:36 NOUE declare :45 Turbine building air system purge commenced. Sampling begins in RA :00 Samples of RAB station air system were 8.28% and 5.52%
hydrogen in the lower and upper levels respectivel Lower RAB instrument air system showed 1.30% hydroge :30 Air samples in CV station air gave results up to 8.28%
hydroge :32 CFR 50.72 report mad :00 RAB air systems purge commence :00 Initiate actions to purge CV air system :51 Started purge of CV air system :00 CV air systems show insignificant amount of hydroge Sample from dome vent system also shows insignificant amounts of hydrogen. Station air system blown down to zero pressure. PPS tanks vented and moisture traps blown dow :00 Repressurized station air header to
psi Resampling of Turbine and RAB air systems in progres :07 NOUE terminate :00 All resampling of turbine RAB and CV air systems indicate insignificant amounts of hydroge Work resume The inspector arrived in the control room at approximately 4:00 a.m.,
on January 7, 1989. Through discussions with the SEC, the inspector verified that the scope of the problem was being appropriately addressed and actions were in progress to mitigate the risk associated with the even Preliminary investigation by the licensee determined that the root causes included performance of the task without a procedure, failure to take out a clearance as required by the work request, and no clear definition of the division of responsibilities between the turbine maintenance crew and the operations department personnel for this type of activit Corrective actions-to prevent this event in the future are being formulated and will be included on their final investigation repor Interim measures to preclude recurrence include assigning the evoluation to operation department personne Until the final report is issued, this is considered an *URI:
Review Hydrogen Event Report and Associated Root Cause and Corrective Action Determinations (261/88-38-02).
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspecte O*An Unresolved Item is a matter about which more information is required to determine whether it is acceptable or may involve a violation or deviatio. Modifications (37700)
The inspector verified that selected breakers, heaters, and breaker setpoints were installed in accordance with modification procedure M-939, MCC 5,6,9 & 10 Protective Equipment Upgrade, and approved design change notices. Specific MCC compartments inspected involved those for battery chargers A and B and valves SI-866A, SI-880B and V6-16C. In addition, the inspector observed testing of the breakers associated with valves SI-744B, SI-865A, SI-865C, SI-878B and SI-880B. During the performance testing of SI-865A, the valve actuated properly when the instantaneous trip setpoint was at position F, but when adjusted to the next higher position G, it trippe Because of this type of abnormality and the large number of breakers which were having to be adjusted substantially different than the positions calculated, the licensee initiated field measurements *of instantaneous starting currents for breakers associated with the modifica tion. At the end of the reporting period, the licensee, with the aid of the vendor (Westinghouse), was in the process of developing new setpoints based upon the field measurement Subsequent to the report period, the licensee had determined that more than 20 breakers would require upgrading to a larger size and approximately 80% of the 130 breakers associated with the modification would require new setpoints. Resolution of this issue is an IFI:
Review Selection Methodology, Adjustment, and Testing of M-939 Breaker Setpoints (261/88-38-03).
The inspector witnessed acceptance testing of the battery chargers which were installed under plant modification M-940, Battery Charger Additio The modification added backup battery chargers, A-1 and B-1 for the existing station battery chargers A and B respectivel As such, they must meet or exceed the performance requirements of the existing battery chargers as stated in the FSA During testing of the B-1 battery charger, the inspector observed that the test demonstrated that the battery charger could recharge a partially discharged battery in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />; however, the test did not demonstrate that the recharge could be accomplished while supplying normal loads as specified in Section 8.3.2 of the FSAR. Because the battery charger is sufficiently over designed for its application of recharging a 340 ampere-hour battery while carrying a 60 amp load, the inspector did not view this as a proble The inspector discussed the discrepancy with the system enginee The engineer indicated that they were considering a change to the modification procedure to require a simulated load. while performing the A-1 battery charger test. The test would involve placing a simulated 60 amp normal load on the battery charger while recharging the 1050 ampere-hour A battery after an eight hour discharge at rated current. Since the B-1 and A-1 chargers are the same model, the A-1 test would generically demon strate the ability of B-1 to perform its function. On December 30, 1988, DCN number 940-49 was issued to incorporate the additional test require ment. The inspector verified that the A-1 battery charger successfully satisfied the new acceptance criteri No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspecte. Action on Previous Identified Inspection Findings (92701)
(Open) URI, 88-24-05 Service Water Flow Analysis To Show Adequacy of Flows to Safety Related Component The inspector witnessed portions of the SW Flow test performed in accordance with SP-814. Flow measurements were being performed utilizing a Controlotron ultrasonic transient flow. system. During the initial run of SP-814, the licensee determined that the SW pumps were performing at up to a 20% loss in capabilit Investigation revealed that the pump impeller clearances had been set improperl This is addressed in Inspection Report 261/89-0 After adjusting the impeller clearances, subsequent performance of SP-814 indicated less flows to certain components than anticipate Examples of these include: the EDG heat exchangers measured 564-591 gpm (600 gpm design),
SDAFW pump measured 6 gpm (9 gpm design),
HVH 1-4 motor coolers measured 36-39 gpm (50 gpm design).
At the end of the report period, these issues were being evaluated and corrective actions being planned. Resolution of these items will be documented in Inspection Report 261/89-0 No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspecte. Exit Interview (30703)
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 26, 1989, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below and those addressed in the report summary. Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.* Proprietary information is not contained in this repor Item Number Status Description/Reference Paragraph 88-24-05 Open URI -
Service Water Flow Analysis to Show Adequacy of Flows to Safety Related Components (paragraph 8)
88-38-01 Open IFI -
Review Battery A and B 5 Year Performance Capacity Test Evaluation (paragraph 5)
88-38-02 Open URI - Review Hydrogen Event Report and Associated Root Cause and Corrective Action Determinations (paragraph 6).
This event will also be discussed at the Enforcement Conference in RII on February 9, 198 Open IFI -
Review Selection Methodogy, Adjustment and Testing of M-939 Breaker Setpoints (paragraph 7)
1 List of Acronyms and Initialisms CFR Code of Federal Regulations CV Containment Vessel EDG Emergency Diesel Generator FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report HVH Heating Ventilation Handling IFI Inspector Followup Item LCO Limiting Condition for Operation MCC Motor Control Center MST Maintenance Surveillance Test NOUE Notification of Unusual Event OST Operations Surveillance Test PM Preventive Maintenance PPS Penetration Pressurization.System RAB Reactor Auxiliary Building SEC Site Emergency Coordinator SDAFW System Driven Auxiliary Feedwater SP Special Procedure SW Service Water TS Technical Specification URI Unresolved Item