IR 05000263/1976003
| ML20024G254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1976 |
| From: | Charles Brown, Choules N, Jordan E, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G252 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-76-03, 50-263-76-3, NUDOCS 9102080429 | |
| Download: ML20024G254 (20) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- . __ a .'[ l / a m ,i. e. %f- ' . .
, e I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION (- 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report of Operations Inspection
IE Inspection Report No. 050-263/76-03
Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 . Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant L) cense No. DPR-22 Monticello, Minnesota Category: C Type of Licensee: BWR GE 1670 MWt Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: February 10-13 and 17-20, 1976
b.
Principal Inspector:
Co s /(Da t'e )*' YJ Accompanying Inspectors: . B. % ter =i'/[-7k (Date) . ,, T' sb ' E /[/ ] (Date) _ Other Accompanying Personnel: None 8ll l[[ Ze'dd < Reviewed By: E. L. Jordan, Ch'icf Reactor Projects Section 2 /Datt ( .
o ADOCK 05000263 PDR ,,. _ . _ - _ _ _ _. _-________-_ _ -__- - - ____ _____ _
. .. / t,,. - _: [, t. o , - , m.- ,[ [ b. . . . .. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ' > N.
- Inspection Summary Inspection on February 10-13 and 17-20, (76-03):
Design changes, procure ment, procedures, calibrations, surveillance testing, limit-ing safety setting, limiting conditions for operations, maintenance, and reportable occurrences were reviewed.
One item of noncompliance related to following administrative procedures was identified.
Enforcement Action Deficiency Contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Critorion V, plant administrative procedures relating to quality were not adhered
to in the following instances.
A.
Systems on which maintenance was performed were not identified as critical systems and second level review was not performed as required by 4 ACD 5.6, Paragraph 6.1.3.2, for Work Request Authorizations (WRAs) R1-110, R1-111, R1-146, and R2-147.
(Report Details, Paragraph 3) B.
For WRA 75-1530, the block identified on the WRA form as ' " Testing Completed and Satisfactory Results" was not signed off as required by 4 ACD 3.6, Paragraph 6.2.19.
(Repo'rt - Details, Paragraph 3) , . , C.
A change to Purchase Order No. 67830 was not properly documented in accordance with Paragraph 6.13 of ACD 8.1.
(Report Details, Paragraph 6) D.
Quality Assurance requirements were not included on Purchase Order No. M65357 in accordance with ACD.8.2, Paragraph 6.2.
(Report Details, Paragraph 6) - Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items . Corrective action has not been completed on establishing a system for Operations Committee review an plant management approval of correctivemaintenanceprocedures.gj 1/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/75-18.
( 2- . e t-I -- .-. - -.
g.a-- ... . . . ij;,, ' %$r - - - . Other Significant Items . . A.
System and Components Nonc.
B.
Facility Items The plant was shutdown on February 20, 1976, to perform plant maintenance and prepare for torus testing to obtain data on the effects of hydrodynamic forces.
As of March 1, 1976, this test has been indefinitely postponed due to possible design deficiencies with the torus.
C.
Managerial Items None, i D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee None.
E.
Deviations None.
F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items ' ~ . Not applicable.
. - .. Management In t e rview A management interview was conducted with Messrs. Clarity, Andersen, Antony, Shamla, and Scheinost at the conclusion of the inspection on February 20, 1976.
A.
Design Changes , The inspector stated that he had reviewed several design changes and that no items of noncompliance were identified.
The inspector stated that in the review of work requests for two design changes he noted that the torus and reactor cleanup systems were not identified as critical systems and review of the licensee's administrative procedures did not identify them as critical systems. The inspector stated it was his opinion that these systems meet the requirements for critical systems and requested the licensee to review his critical systems list.
The licensee stated they would review the critical systems list for complete-ness.
(Report Details, Paragraph 2) .. -3- . l - -- ._.
_ .-___________________ _ - ___ _ - - .
_ _ _ _, _ _ _ _
- ,[.
- l.$i '. . i$? ' ' ' B.
Maintenance ' e . ( The inspector stated that he had reviewed several Work Request . Authorizations (WRAs) and identified an item of noncompliance in that four authorizations involving critical systems, were not identified as such and signed off as being reviewed, and one WRA requiring testing was not signed off as completed, as required by the licensee's Administrative Control Directive ACD 3.6.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector % statement.
The inspector stated that in general thh WRAs need more instruc-tions regarding detailed work steps, referencing technical manuals and drawings.
The inspector stated that in discussions with the licensee's representatives, it was indicated that technical manuals and drawings are used in the execution of WRAs, but j they are not always referenced on WRA.
The inspector stated that the WRA should be as complete as possible to assure that . a job is properly accomplished.
The licensee stated they were ' taking steps to improve the content of their WRAs.
(Report Details, Paragraph 3) C.
Reportable Occurrences 1.
A0 75-23 The inspector stated he had rev1ewed this occurrence and , the licensee's corrective action was complete with the ' exception that the appropriate Operation Control Document (OCD) had not been revised to provide procedures,for governor installation and to require an AUTO start of' diesel generator whenever maintenance is performed,,on the governor system.
The licensee stated the OCD would be revised to require an AUTO start whenever maintenance is performed on the governors and to provide procedures for governor installation.
(Report Details, Paragraph 4) . 2.
A0 75-26 The inspector stated that from conversation with licensee * personnel, it was indicated that a preventative maintenance program would be initiated for the valve that was sticking.
The licensee confirmed that a preventative maintenance program would be initiated.
(Report Details, Paragraph 4) D.
Outstanding and Miscellaneous Items Subject items, including revision of surveillance test 120, lost parts in reactor vessel, containment valves, dead weight tester calibration, turbine piping thinning and motor operated valve overload indication were discussed.
(Report Details, Paragraph 5) ( -4- - . e 9" +. - ,,.
, _ _ _ _ , ' ?[ f
- .
-
- r..
. Y U.
' ' . f . I E.
Surveillance Procedures The inspector stated that changes to surveillance procedures that involve number designations should not be considered as typos. The licensee stated that a revision to the controlling procedure would be made so that apparent errors in number designations in the surveillance procedures would be treated as temporary changes.
(Report Details, Paragraph 9.d) F.
SBLC Surveillance The inspector stated that the accuracy had not been determined for the method used to verify the boron concentration of the Standby Liquid Control Tank and that the full intent of the applicable Technical Specifications was a quantitative analysis to be performed periodically.
The licensee stated that a review would be perforced in this area in a timely manner.
(Report Details, Paragraph 9.d) G.
Chemicals ' The inspector stated that he understood a monitoring program was being set up to maintain the inventory of chemicals and to assure that chemicals were within their shelf life.
The licensee affirmed the statement and stated that a program would be initiated in a timely manner.
, Management Interview ~ . A management interview was condue:ed with Messrs. Larspn, Clar$ty, Anderson, Pochop, Scheinost, Sparrow; and Antony on Februar713,1976.
A.
Procurement Program The inspector stated that he had reviewed the licensee's Administrative Controls relating to material procurement.
The inspector summarized the areas reviewed and his findings.
- An item of noncompliance was noted regarding purchase order preparation and changes.
(Report Details, Paragraph 6) B.
Procedures The inspector stated that he had reviewed the licensee's Administrative system for the control of Plant Procedures.
The inspector summarized the areas reviewed and his findings.
The inspector's questions with regard to temporary procedure-S-( - . -- - - - _ _ - -. - _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_. - - - - _ __ ,, I ?f. ~ - ! $ [/. -!' . . ' changes were resolved and the inspector's concern with regard ' ' to the need for Operations Committee review of the procedure k for removal of Reactor Well Shield Blocks (9203) resulted in , the licensee agreeing to review their position of not requiring Operations Committee review of this procedure.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
(Report Details, Paragraph 7) C.
Surveillance Procedures The inspector stated that he had noted that two surveillance procedures with corrections initialed by two SR0s did not have the master copy corrected. The licensee stated that in these two cases the errors were considered to be typos and not temporary changes to procedures.
The inspector stated that this item would be reviewed further.
(Report Details, Paragraph 9.d and February 20, 1976, Management Inte rview Item E) f e ge e-6- [ . m
e .
< ?[ -Y> * *, .. . l,[{SU.
. . REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted C. E. Larson, Plant Manager M. H. Clarity, Superintendent, Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection W. E. Anderson, Superintendent, Operation and Maintenance D. D. Antony, Plant Engineer Operations * V. H. Shama, Plant Engineer Technical H. E. Nimo, Maintenance Supervisor W. J. Hill, Engineer Instruments W. H. Sparrow, Operations Supervisor S. L. Pearson, Shift Supervisor R. A. Kmitch, Shif t Supervisor - L. R. Eliason, Radiation Protectiott Engineer R. D. Jacobson, Chemist P. A. Pochop, Quality Engineer R. L. Scheinost, Quality Engineer D. Nevinski, Nuclear Engineer R. A. Goranson, Engineer J. McVey, Engineer M. F. Hammer, Engineer B. D. Day, Enginer R. E. Perry, Engineer T. Grue, Engineer ' D. H. Alcott, Instrument and Control Specialist ,
E. M. Reilly, Instrument and Control Specialist H. Kendall, Office Supervisor , . , 2.
Design Changes and Modifications The following power production department ACDs describe the control of design changes and modifications to safety related equipment.
- 3 ACD 4.1, Design Change Control 3 ACD 4.2, Design Change Installation Procedure 3 ACD 4.3, Design Change Implementaticn 3 ACD 4.4, Design Change Preoperational Testing 4 ACD 3.6, Work Request Authorizations (Plaat ACD)
These ACDs were reviewed and they appear to be adequate to assure that the control of design changes and modifications will be in conformance with regulatory requirements.
( -7- . ,.- __ ___ _ _ __ _ ___ _
s ,
- ..e f , g .x - syr,- i. ' - - . , i ' (. The following completed safety related design change packages which wets completed during 1975 were reviewed: M74-45, Drywell to torus breaker test solenoid valves inside the torus.
M75-10, Modification of inner filter assembly on two control rod drives.
, M75-49, Removal of the reactor vessel bottom head drain line.
M75-59, Replacement of instrument root valves on main steam lines.
. M75-64, Backwash receiving tank vent to the steam packing exhauster delay line.
M75-76, Modified torus hatch cover.
SRI 149, Addition of pressure averaging manifold on main steam lines.
No items of noncompliance were noted in the review of these . design changes.
In the review of WRAs for M75-49 and i M75-76 the inspector noted that the torus and reactor cleanup systems connected to the pressure vessel were not iden,tified ~ as " critical" systems. Critical systems are defined in 4 ACD 3.6 as systems or equipment which are required to,,be operable by the Technical Specifications or are critical to continued operation of the planc.
4 ACD 3.6 requires a secend level review of proposed work for critical systems and requires signoffs on the WRA.
A list of critical systems is given in the licensee's procedure 4 AWI 3.6.1.
The torus and the cleanup system were not identified as critical systems in 4 AWI 3.6.1.
It is the inspector's opinion that these systems ' meet the requirements of a critical system as defined by the
licensee.
3.
Maintenance The following ACD describes the control of maintenance to safety related equipment: _g_ ( . l .- _ _ _ - _ _. _ _. _ _ _. _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ~ _ _
.< ..I g, ,. - ... ig<.. ' f.
. . 4 ACD 3.6, Work Request Authorization.
This ACD was - (* reviewed and it appears to be adequate to assure
that control of maintenance activities will be in accord-ance with regulatory requirements.
The following selected safety related Work Request Authorizations (WRAs), which were completed during 1975, were reviewed: WRAs Numbered 74-1955, 75-123, 75-137,'75-204, 75-225 75-809, 75-1257, 75-1530, R1-110, R1-111, R1-146, R2-8, R2-97, R2-177 R2-245, R2-283 and R2-292.
In review of these WRAs, two instances of noncompliance where the licensee failed to follow his procedures were identified as follows: The licensee's procedure 4 ACD 3.6, Paragraph 6.1.3.2, requires that when maintenance is performed on critical systems identified in 4 AWI 3.6.1, that the critical systems block on the WRn form be checked and the WRA reviewed and approved by the Plant Engineer Technical or Operations, and the Operations Supervisor.
Review of WRAs R1-110, Rl-111, R1-146 R2-174 showed the main-tenance was not identified as work on critical systems.
The WRAs involved maintenance on critical systems ident-ified in 4 AWI 3.6.1.
( 4 ACD 3.6, Paragraph 6.2.19, requires that when testing is required that the appropriate block on the WRA-shall be signed by the responsible persons when the testing requirements are satisfactory.
Review of WRA 75-L530 showed that testing was required but it was not signed off as being completed and satisfactory.
The next block "All Followup Requirements Complete" was signed off by the Shift Supervisor.
In review of the WRAs by the inspector, it was stated that in general they contained only a minimum of instructions and referencing of drawings and technical manuals.
The licensee representative indicated that in many cases additional instructions and drawings are attached to the WRAs when the WRAs are sent to the field for execution.
Examples of this were shown to the inspector for
some WRAs which were being prepcred for field execution.
. -9- .. . . . , - _ -, _. __ _, _, .,,.
1 - - - . _.r - ... _. _ [; y ~ f ' w(U,.- ,, .. ) . . . , k.
3.
Reportable Occurrences a.
A0 75-23 Tha licensee informed the inspector by telephone on November 17, 1976, that the No. 12 Emergency Diesel ) Generator tripped on overspeed during an automatic start.
The details and corrective action,fy this occurrence are given in the licensee's report Review of this occurrence with the licensee's representative showed that the diesel generator had been started manually following replacement of the governor on October 16, 1976, i but failed to start on November 16, 1976, from an automatic
start signal.
When the diesel receives an automatic
start signal, overspeed trip protection circuitry is i actuated which is not actuated during a manual start.
Maladjustment of the governor caused the unit to trip ) prior to obtaining nomal operating speed.
i In the licensee's investigation report of this occurrence, two recommendations are made which the licensee intends to implement: (1) A procedure will be developed for proper instal-f lation of the governor on the Emergency Diesel Generators.
, , (2) The procedure will require testing in the aut.o.* matic start capability following installation of a new governor.
, The licensee's representative indicated they plan to require automatic start capability testing whenever main- - tenance which could effect the automatic start capability.
is performed.
, b.
A0 75-26 The licensee informed the inspector at the plant site on November 19, 1975, that the RCIC failed to start due to a sticking steam control valve.
The detaila and cor-rective action fo his occurrence are given in the licensee's report 2/ A0 Rpt. No. 050-263/75-23, NSP to DL, dtd 11/26/75.
3/ A0 Rpt. No. 0$0-263/75-14, NSP to DL, dtd 11/16/75.
f - 10 - . e - - - - - -- . - -. - -.,.. -, ,- -. n ,. - , , , .,,, ,. - -.., -
, .. - - . - __ _ - - _ .. -. - ?[.f,.. *.,. . TV .. '{ !' ' ' ' . . l-The apparent cause of the sticking valve was a buildup of corrosion products and crud on the valve stem and - pivots.
In reviewing the occurrence with the licensee's representative it was indicated that the licensee plans to perform periodic preventative maintenance on the valve consisting of polishing and lubricating the stem and pivots.
4.
Outstanding and Miscellaneous Items The following items were reviewed: a.
Surveillance Test 0120, Reactor Vessel, and Head Flange Temperature Limitation The inspector verified that the licensee had revised the subject test to specify general locations on the head and ve yel where temperature measurements are to be made b.
Lost Parts in the Reactor Ves-el Theinspectorreviewedthelicenseeactg7nsinregardto a lost gauge block previously reported.- The licensee had made an analysis which indicated the flow blockage resulting from the gauge block covering part of the l fuel bundle orifice would not cause thermal problems. At the time of the inspection, a descriptive report describing the analysis had not been made and the analysis could.only be understood with verbal guidance from the licensee's representative.
The licensee stated a descriptiva re' port would be prepared.
. c.
Containment Isolation Valves the inspector inquired as to the licensee's action regarding valves with a history of excessive leakage.6/ The licensee stated the following action hau been taken . so far.
(1) Main Steam Drain Line Valve (MO 2373) This valve - has been replaced with a new same type valve.
(2) HPCI-9 Valve The licensee intends to install a - motor operated gate valve in addition to the currently installed check valve.
4/ 1E Inspection Rpt. No. 050-236/75-05.
5/ IE Inspection Rpt. No. 050-236/75-18.
6/ IE Inspection Rpt. No. 050-263/75-17.
( l - 11 - . .a e - - _.
. . .-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _. ,
- ..e*
- .
.. 9.. . . , (~ (3) CRD Return Line Valve (CRD-31) The licensee has - attempted to procure a new check valve, but has been unsuccessful so far.
(4) XP-6 Valve (Standby Liquid Control) The licensee - has attempted to procure a new check valve, but has been unsuccessful so far.
(5) Core Spray Injection Check Valves (14-13A and The licensee indicated they were submit-14-13B) - ting a technical specification change to delete testing these valves since there are two other isolation valves in each of the core spray lines.
d.
Dead Veight Tester Calibration Onapreviousinspectionitwasdeterminedthatghelicensee dead weight tester was last calibrated in 1969.- At that time the licensee had not set a calibration frequency for the dead weight tester weights. The licensee indicated during this inspection that it was planned to calibrate the tester this year and they were working with the Prairie Island plant to establish a calibration frequency.
c.
Turbine Piping Thinning In a previous inspection it was reported that the erosion rate of the turbine o 3 inlel steam pipinghadincreased.gstureseparatorNo.
As a result o this, burst t.esting ofthepipewiththinningwasplanned.gj During the' fall refueling outage, measurements taken indicated that the previous measurements obtained in January 1975 were apparently in error and the erosion rate was normal.
A section of pipe was removed and verified the latest measurements.
Burst testing of the removed pipe section was not performed since the thinning was not nearly as much as it was pre-viously thought to be.
- f.
Motor Operated Valve Overload Indication In a previous inspection the licensee indicated that a design change was being processed which would modify the indication circuitry such that if the thermal overload is 2/ IE Inspection Rpt. No. 050-263/74-10.
8_/ IE Inspection Rpt. No. 050-263/75-05.
9/ IE Inspection Rpt. No. 050-263/75-12.
{ - 12 - ' l l
j__ _ _ _ _ _. A,'[,.k./.- . , ... . y . . . actuated, tha valve indicating lights in the control room (' would go out, indicating a problem to the operator. The licensee stated during this inspection that safety related motor operated valves indicating circuitry had been modified per the design change during the fall outage.
6.
Procurement The inspector reviewed the plant material procurement program.
The review included a tour of the material storage areas, review of purchase reques,ts, purchase orders, development of quality assurance requirements, receipt inspection and material , issue.
Comments are as follows: a.
A review of eight purchase requests and purchase orders identified two i.nstances of noncompliance with regard to preparation and processing of purchase orders.
(1) It was noted that the purchase request for Teledyne Snubbers (PO 67830) was designated as safety related material by the requestor.
As required by ACD 8.2, a statement regarding quality assurance requirements was included on the purchase order.
Upon review of the shipping invoice, it was noted that no certification or certificate of compliance was provided with the I.
material.
It was further noted that the requirements for material certification apparently were deleted.
This was indicated by a note in the package signed by the Of fice Supervisor stating that no quality ass'urance certificstion was required.
Paragraph 6.13 of.ACD 8.I states that any changes to the requirements of the purchase requisition without approval from the Office Supervisor and the Quality Engineer where Q-listed items are involved shall be cause for rejection.
No approval by the Quality Engineer was evident.
The licensee stated that the material had been accepted.
Also, Paragraph 6.13 states that all revisions shall, be processed in the same manner as the original requisition.
No review of the revision to the requisition was listed by the requestor or the Plant Manager.
(2) It was noted that the purchase request for vacuum breaker valve "0" rings (PO M69357) was designated safety related by the requestor; however, no request for certificate of compliance was included on the purchase order as required by ACD 8.1. nor was all specific information required by ACD 8.2 for age con-(~ _ 13 _ . r . - - ..--
._ ... g f p, - .- 1 j.'; ' y.
. . . trol items specified (e.g., storage requirements).
(- The inspector reviewed the receipt inspection form - and noted that the QA Engineer had accepted the material based on the catalog number on the package which agreed with the material specified under that number in the catalog, and the fact that the cure data was provided on the package.
b.
The inspector observed that several originally supplied G.E.
' spare parts did not have certifications other than drawing and part number identification.
The licensee stated that the spares under this category were original equipment supplied spares and no individual part certification was provided nor was it required at the time the equipment was provided.
However, the licensee further stated that spare parts currently being provided by G.E. do include . the required certification.
' 7.
Procedures The inspector reviewed selected areas of the licensee's program for controlling procedures.
Areas included were review and approval of initial procedures, permanent and temporary changes, updating of controlled copies, technical content of revisions and revisions required as a result of changes to technical I specifications.
Type of procedures reviewed included; Operating Instructions, Abnormal Procedures Emergency Procedures, Maintenance and Administrative Procedures.
Comments are as follows: , . ,, a.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's system for handling temporary changes to procedures and noted that records of these changes consist of the actual handwritten change . made in the procedure used including the required concurrences and the Operations Coc:mittee minutes which documents their review of the change. The completed procedure (with the , handwritten change) is filed and maintained for 6 years as the record of the chance made.
If the change is to be made permanent it is done so in the next revision of the procedure.
The inspector reviewed four procedures that had temporary changes and verified that they had received the proper concurrence, had been reviewed within the required 30 days by the Operations Committee, and that the intent - 14 - . . F e e
' I[l, f, , , cds;;? .. . of the procedure had not been changed.
The inspector (, questioned the change made to procedure 9008B, out of Core Wet Sipping, in that the requirement of the presence of the Fuel Handling Supervisor was deleted during the sipping operation.
The licensee stated that the Fuel Handling Supervisor is required to be present during the refueling operation and handling of irradiated fuel and it had not been their intent that he need be present during the sipping operation.
The inspector noted that the Operations Committee had reviewed the change and had concurred with it.
This position was further reinforced at the management interview.
b.
The inspector noted that Procedure 9203, Reactor Cavity Shield Block Removal, had been excluded from_ review by the Operations Committee.
When questioned, the licensee indicated that the procedure had not been considered as safety related..The inspector further noted that the procedure allowed removal of the shield blocks at a re-duced power level if it had been determined that radiation levels were at a low enough level to permit work.
The inspector questioned the rationale for not requiring Operations Committee review.
During discussion at the management interview, the licensee agreed to review their position regarding this item.
( 8.
Calibration of Equipment ' a.
Primary Calibration Standards - ' The inspector reviewed calibration records for the"' following primary calibration standards: (1) Merriam Manometer The manometer scale was certified in December, 1972 and the mercury appeared clean.
. (2) Manfield and Green Dead Weight Tester The accuracy of the weights were verified in August, 1969 and a program is under study for routine verification.
(3) Hewlett Parkard DC Voltage Standard The voltage standard is being calibrated at the pre-scribed frequency.
( - 15 - . o -- - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - .- I
-. - _.. -. . - -. -- . f.f..e * -
t y.., A v.
. . -f The accuracies of these calibrations were traceable to ' the National Bureau of Standards.
The storage of the (, equipment appears satisfactory.
The date of certification . of calibration for the DC voltage standard is the date stated on the certificate as the shipping date.
b.
I&C Specialict Qualifications The inspector reviewed qualifications records of two I&C specialists and verified they were in accordance j with ANSI Standard 18.1.
c.
Secondary Standards The inspector reviewed the calibration records for Heise and Wallace and Tierney gauges; and Fairchild and Digitec
voltmeters used for component calibration in 1975.
The records indicated these instruments had been calibrated per j the licensee's requirements. The licensee has placed the pressure gauges on a two month calibration frequency to verify that the instrument accuracy is maintained over this ) period to allow ample time for verification of Manfield i and Green tester's weights.
To date no unacceptable drift has been noted.
d.
Component Instrumentation The inspector reviewed 1975 calibration records for the following component instrumentation and determined that the instruments were being calibrated using pro-cedures as required by the licensee: -*
- Procedure Number Procedure Title and/or Instruments 0018 IRM Scram Instrument Calibration 0043 Rod Block Upscale /Downscale Calibration , 0020 High Drywell Pressure Scram Calibration PS 5-12 A through D 0031 ECCS Drywell High Pressure Calibration PS 10-101 A through D, and PS 10-100 A through D - 16 - ( . . .
g, .
-.. - . ' Y(.[.. - -
't *.. . 1{ y. - - , {* 0023 Turbine CV Fast Closure Scram Calibration PS-7110 through PS-7113
0052 Main Steam Line Isolation High Flow Calibration.
DP152-116 A through D, DP152-117 A through D, DP152-118 A through D, DP152-119 A through D.
0036 ECCS UV Emergency Bus (Part I) Relays 127-5, 127-5X, 127-6, 127-6X, 162-3 and 162-4 0036 and 0039 ECCS UV Emergency Bus and ECCS Loss of Auxiliary Power PS 2-3-52 A and B, and LIS 2-3-72 A through D 9.
Surveillance a.
The inspector selected a sampling of technical specification surveillance testing requirements and verified that the licensee has surveillance test procedure which accomplished the required surveillance testing.
The review of the fol-lowing surveillance test procedures revealed that prerequisites and preparation for the tests are specified, acceptance criteria are specified and eperational checks prior to returning equipment to service are specified when required.
( b.
Surveillance Tests ~ . The following surveillance tests performed in 1975 were
reviewed: Procedure Number Title 0003 High Drywell Pressure Scram 0008 MSIV Closure Scram
i 0011 Turbine CV Fast Closure Scram 0013 IRM Scram 0030 ECCS Drywell High Pressure Test ]
- 0036 ECCS UV Emergency Bus j
- 0039 ECCS Loss of Auxiliary Power
'
- 0050 Main Steam Line Isolation High Temperature 0051 Main Steam Line Isolation High Flow Test 0074 Control Rod Exercise-0005 SBLC Pump Flow Rate Check
- Tests include calibration of instrumentation, verified as per Report Details, Paragraph 8.
( - 17 - . , , ,,,--. ,,- -.,,,,. -,,,,., _ - _., -, -,,,.,, - , - -, -.~,-- - -
.s
,, .. e.
'% 'l.
. i v.
- - < Procedure Number T'itic ' 0086 SBLC Manually Initiated Check Explosive Valve 0088 .SB C Relief Valve Test L 1053 SBLC Boron Recirculation Test 0089 SBLC Boron concentration 0108 HPCI Pump Operability-0141 Vacuum Breaker Operability Check-0142 Vacuum Breaker Instrument Check 0159 MS1V Trip / Closure Time Check 0160 MSIV Exercised 0189 Standby Diesel Cenerator Simulate Auto Start 0192 Standby Diesel Generator Fuel Quality 0193 250 Volt Battery Weekly Check 0195 250 Volt Battery Quarterly Check 1034 250 Volt Battery Monthly Check 1072 250 Volt Battery Semiannual check 0197 250 Volt Battery Discharge Test \\ ' The inspector verified that applicable technice.1 specification j requirements were complied with.
-1041 and 0142 are reactor building to pressure suppression chamber vacuum breakers.
- c.
Daily Surveillance The inspector's review of daily surveillance included the following tests and checks performed during december '1975 and January 1976: ' Procedure Number Title 0001 Peak Heat Flux Check 0005 Reactor Water Level Instrumentation . 0029 Reactor Level Instrumentat Sensor Check 0044 Rod Block Upscale /Downscale Sensor Check 0049 Rod Block Upscalc/ Detector not in Startup Sensor Check Computer Printout-Core Preformance Calculations - 0014 Main Steam Line Isolation / Scram High Radiation Check - 18 - ( . em g.
-, +
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _. llk..L/~ te s '. r{ ty.
- < . . i . Procedure (, Number Title 0053 Main Steam Line Isolation High Flow Sensor Check 0072 Radiation Monitor Off-Gas Isolation Sensor Check 0126 Reactor Coolant Drywell Leak Check 0133 Reactor Jet Pump Operability 0082 CRD Accumulator Pressure / Level Status 0097 Core Spray Header D/P Instrument Check 0134 Suppression Chamber Water Level / Tempt sture 0090 SBLC Solution volume Check 0091 SBLC Solution Temperature Check 0092 SBLC Room Temperature Check The inspector verified that applicable Technical Specification requirements were complied with.
d.
Test Procedure Findings Two of the test procedures were noted to have had initialed changes made on them ((1) relay designation and (2) two terminal block numbers) without the master procedures having been revised.
In a discussion the licensee stated that thele items had been considered "to be ?ypo errors and the changes had not been followed as tempora /y procedure changes.
The inspector stated that only misspellinrs should be con-I sidered as typos so that the present administrative controls would assure mistakes in number designations woul,d be corrected on the master procedure.
The licensee agreed and stated a revision would be initiated to that effect.,The master pro- ~ cedures were up dated during the week of February 20, 1976.
The present boron concentration verification test is per-formed via specific gravity but not quantitatively for boron.
In a discussion on this item the licensee stated a review would _ be proformed and a periodic quantitative analysis would be performed.
- 10.
Limiting Conditions for Operations During the review of completed surveillance test procedures described in Paragraph 9, the inspector verified that the limiting conditions for operations, safety setting, and limiting safety system settings for the system associated with these surveillance tests vera met as required by the technical specifications. The inspector verified, by observa-tion, that the ECCS systems were lined ur properly for operation.
- 19 - - \\ . . - _ - _ _.. - ~ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -
, ___ _.
_ __ s.
g,#. -' .s '
- ye,.;
, ),c, . .
.,', Strip charts and operating logs for the periods during a ( shutdown, startup and normal operations were reviewed and A operations were verified maintained within safety 11mits.
. . . I i ~ . pe e ( 20 - - . .
. .. - -.. - '
}}