IR 05000270/1973014
| ML19317D412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1973 |
| From: | Cantrell F, Jape F, Murphy C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317D381 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-270-73-14, NUDOCS 7911270818 | |
| Download: ML19317D412 (16) | |
Text
-
-
)
.
v^*"' ' *
UN'TED STATES I
6
'
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
_
- (.i eV *
f DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATICNS
'
[ "k /,,
REGION li - $UIT E 818
'
%rd o* p 230 P E AC MT R E E ST RE E T, NCRT HWEST ATL4ur4,cEoRo 4 ac aos i
1 i
RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-14 Licensee:
Duke Power Company
Power Building 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201
..
Facility:
Oconee Unit 2 Docket No.:
50-270 License No.:
DPR-47 (Issued on October 6, 1973)
Category:
B2 Location:
Seneca, South Carolina Type of License: B&W, PWR, 2568 Mw(t)
)
Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced, and Special, Announced Dates of Inspection: October 3-5 and 8-11, 1973 Dates of Previous Inspection:
Septer.ber 17-21, 1973 Principal Inspector:
F. Jape, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch Accompanying Inspector:
F. Cantrell, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Stattup Branch Principal Inspector:
Ad i t LN N
^
Y. Jape, Reactor Inspector'
Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch Reviewed By:
p.,. (,,
/. t 1, s 1c
/C - / ? - 73 p C. E. Murphy, Chief
/
Date
)
Facilities Test and Startup Branch J
%
N gggS
_
_
_-
.
~
.
-
-
..
-
=m u,_._~_.
._ w_m s
~
m --
_ _
m
_, _ _
.
"
I
'
.
}
KO Report No. 50-270/73-14 2-
-
i SUMIARY OF FINDINGS
,
I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations 1.
The following violation is considered to be of Category II
'
severity:
Ventilation Imbalance Between Turbine Building and Auxiliary Building Procedures or instructions have not been provided to maintain control of air flow between the Turbine Building and the Auxiliary Building.
Failure to provide procedures appears to be in violation of Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures and Drawings," of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
(Details I, paragrrph 2 and Details II, paragraph 5)
2.
The following violation is considered to be of Category III severity:
,
Incomplete Docum2ntation of Test Results During performance of TP 210/8, " Trace Heating System Fu.- tional Test," results of the test were not documented on the isometric drawing provided for this purpose as specified in step 12.2.7.
Failure to perform this step appears to be in violation of Criterion XI, " Test Control," of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
(Details II, paragraph 4.a)
B.
Safety Items None II.
Licensee Actiou on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A.
Violations 1.
Welding Program Deficiencies (RO:II letter to DPC, Dated March 8, 1972, Item 5; RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/71-5)
The draft of the final report on welding program has been reviewed by the inspector. The questions that the inspector
l
-
had were clarified and where necesscry an explanation was
!
added to the final draft.
,,__
l
.
m.m e
m a
,,A a
--ses
-
.
_%____.
_
' -
~ _ _ _
_
=_2L_
_ _
e
-
.
l (}
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14 3-
-
The welding program deficiencies are considered to be resolved. The final report will be reviewed when received.
2.
Loss of Test Control (RO:II letter to DPC, Dated August 29, 1973)
The licensee's response has been received and action taken has been verified by the inspector.
This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 6)
B.
Safety Items There are no previously identified safety items.
III.
New Unresolved Items
!
73-14/1 Control of Radioactive Releases
,
!
!
The potential for unmonitored radioactive releases existed prior to October 5, 1973, due to improper balance of the ventilation system between the turbine building and
l auxiliary building. A review of health physics surveys is
~
I (_)
planned to determine if any releases have occurred.
(Details I, paragraph 2 and Details II, paragraph 5)
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 73-11/1 Source Range Flux Monitors
.
Field Change 121 has been completed.
(Details I, paragraph 3)
73-11/2 Electrical Interlock and Bypass Procedure The licensee has provided new tags for jumper and open circuits.
The tags are numbered and a quarterly audit is scheduled to account for all tags.
(Details I,
&
paragraph 4)
73-8/2 Valve Wall Thickness of Valve 2-RV-67 No change from previous report.
73-8/l Body Wall Thickness of Valves 2-51-244 and 2-51-245
.
No change from previous report.
~
vg N
.n-
.
'
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14-4-
,
r
!
_
-
!
I i
V.
Unusual Occurrences i
None
!
i VI.
Other Significant Findings
'
Cperating License t
Facility Operating License No. DPR-47 vss issued to DPC on
'
October 6, 1973, for Oconee 2.
Preparations for fuel loading were initiated on October 7, 1973 and the first assembly was inserted at 7:13 a.m. on October 9, 1973.
VII. Management Interview A management interview was held on October 5, 1973, with J. E. Smith, Plant Superintendent, and or. October 11, 1973, with J. E. Smith and J. W. Hampton, Assistant Plant Superintendent.
The following items were discussed:
A.
Ventilation Imbalance Eetween Turbine Building and
)
Auxiliary Building
'
Control of air flow from the auxiliary building to the turbine building was discussed.
The inspector stated that the operation of the ventilation system without procedures or instructions appears to be in violation of Criterien V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
(Details I, paragraph 2 and Details II, paragraph 5)
B.
Previously Reported Items The status of previously reported enforcement matters and unresolved items, as described in Sections II and IV of the Summary of Findings, was discussed.
(Details I, paragraphs 3, 4 and 6)
C.
Licensee's Approval of Test Results
.
The licensee's approval and acceptance of test results required to be completed prior to issuance of an operating license was reviewed and found completed on October 5, 1973.
(Details I, paragraph 5)
D.
Witnessing Fuel Loading The inspector commented that he had witnessed fuel loading
'
operations being conducted on both shifts and found the
,
,
,
'
.
_
i-
-
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14-5-activities to be in agreement with OP 1502/04, " Initial Fuel Loading Procedure."
(Details I, paragraph 7 and Details III, paragraphs 2 and 3)
i
!
]
E.
Review of Test Procedures and Test Results The inspector stated that 17 test procedures and the results
,
from these procedures were reviewed.
There were no major questions or comments, except for the incomplete documentation of test results on TP 210/8, " Trace Heating System Functional Test."
(Details I, paragraph 5 and Details II, paragraph 4)
F.
Training for Fuel Handlers The inspector stated that he had reviewed the training program for the utility operators who would be loading fuel into the
!
reactor.
There were no questions or com=ents on the program.
i (Details II, paragraph 3)
G.
Test Preparaticas The method for ensuring that test prerequisites and initial f, )
plant conditions have been verified was discussed.
(Details III,
'
paragraph 4)
'
H.
Control Ro Drive Mechanism Test Program The planned test program for the control rod drive mechanism was discussed.
(7etails II, paragraph 6)
&
.
g
_
-. _.
_
"
E M
,
.
,RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14 I-l
-
.
DETAILS I Prepared by:
A4E+ L
/rA._
[0-/ bM
F. Jape, Reactor 4nsi ector, Facili-Date f
ties Test and Startup Branch j
Dates of Inspection: October 3-5, 1973
October 8-11, 1973 Reviewed by:
ud A'ML
/O
. E. Murphy, Chie'f, Facilities Oate Test and Startup Branch
.
1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Company (DPC)
i J. E. Smith - Plant Superintendent
{
J. W. Hampton - Assistant Plant Superintendent R. M. Koehler - Technical Support Engineer i
!
L. E. Schmid - Operating Engineer D. J. Rains - Assistant Plant Engineer J. W. Cox - Assistant Plant Engineer R. J. Brackett - Junior Engineer t}
0. S. Bradham - Instrument and Control Engineer
-
'
R. C. Collins - Performance Engineer
S. A. Holland - Assistant Operating Engineer D. Rogers - Junior Engineer R. Sharpe - Assistant Plant Engineer C. L. Thames - HP Supervisor R. Adams - Instrument and Control Supervisor C. W. Graves - Shif t Supervisor G. A. Ridgeway - Shift Supervisor H. R. Lowery - Shif t Supervisor M. D. Kimray - Shift Supervisor Two Instrument and Control Technicicns Gamewell Mechanical Corporation R. Chapman - Service Representative 2.
Ventilation Imbalance Between Turbine Building and Auxiliary Building Air was discovered flowing from the auxiliary building to the turbine building through openings in the common wall shared by these buildings on October 5,1973. The licensee immediately initiated corrective actions by placing appropriate exhaust fans in service and erecting a barrier in the corridors on levels 1 and 2 in the auxiliary building to stop air flow from the Unit 3 section of the building. These corrective
~'
measures were verified on October 9, 1973, by the inspector and air flow h'
was determined to be into the auxiliary building from the turbine building.
..
-
-. - -
-.
.-
-. -..
OS
- _ _ - _ _
.
.
.R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14 I-2
I
.
l A discussion with the licensee's representatives regarding operating instructions for the air handling system revealed that these proce-dures had not been prepared. The inspector stated that lack of procedures for operation of the air handling system appeared to be in violation of Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
The licensee's representative indicated that procedures would be prepared.
!
The inspector commented that control of air flow is necessary to ensure against unmonitored releases of radioactive materials. The potential for unmonitored releases existed prior to October 5,1973.
This matter will be carried as an unresolved item.
Further inspection is planned to ascertain if unmonitored releases have occurred.
i 3.
Source Range Instrumentation Response The installation of moderator around source range and intermediate range detectors has been completed.1/ The modification is described in Field Change 121.
A calibration was performed on each instrumentation channel as described in IP 301/3A through E.
This previously identified unre-solved item is now closed.
4.
Electrical Interlock and Bypass Procedure, UN 73-11/2
'
(_
During a previous inspection 2/ deficiencies in the electrical interlock and bypass procedure were noted.
Actions taken by the licensee to correct these deficiencies are described below.
All safety-related cabinets were surveyed to determine if any of the missing jumper tags were in use. None were found.
An audit procedure has been prepared to routinely check the tag procedure. New tags have been provided and are currently in use. The old tags have been removed from service.
The inspector verified that these actions have been implemented.
This previously identified unresolved item is now closed.
,
5.
Licensee's Approval of Test Results The licensee has approved and accepted all preoperational testing which had been identified as required before initial fuel loading.
1/ RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-11, Details I, paragraph 5.
2/ RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-13, Details I, paragraph 12.
.,.
J l
. - _. -.
....
.
-
-
- - - - - - - -
a
'
.
.
RO Rpt. Na, 50-270/73-14 I-3
,
i
,
Ihe inspector reviewed the following test procedures and the results of these tests:
i IP 301/3A,
"N1-1 Source Range Calibration" 1P 301/3B,
"N1-2 Source Range Calibration"
-
1P 360/2,
"RIA-50 Component Cooling System Monitor" f
IP 360/lD,
"RIA-46 Vent Gas Monitor High" 1P 306/2,
"lR Detector Electrical Test N1-3 & N1-4"
'
1P 306/1,
" Source Range Electrical Test N1-1 & N1-2" The inspector had no questions or comments on these tests and test results.
6.
Test control A deficiency was noted by the inspector during the conduct of TP 20 36,
!
" Loose Parts Monitoring Functional Test," on a previous inspection.-
The licensee's response has been received and the corrective actions
!
vere verified by the inspector.
'
An intrastation letter was issued to station supervisors on October 1, 1973, by the plant superintendent. The letter states that changes are
,
to be made only on request through management and that test coordinators t,
/
must verify the status of prerequisites before beginning a test.
These measures should help in avoiding similar incidents in the future.
)
No further inspection effort is planned on this item.
7.
Initial Fuel Loading The inspection period of October 8-11, 1973, was conducted to witness the completion of prerequisite tests and establishment of initial plant conditions prior to fuel loading.
!
The inspector verified that the following prerequisites and initial conditions were accomplished prior to the start of initial fuel loading:
..
a..
Area radiation monitors operable, b.
Reactor building evacuation alarm operable.
c.
One low pressure injection pump and cooler in operation.
d.
The core had been indexed using the fueling bridge main hoist and a dummy fuel assembly.
e.
The spent fuel cooling system was operable.
'
.
i l_/ RO Inspection Report 50-270/73-10, Details I, paragraph 2.
,
~
_.
-. ~.
_, __
T._I,7
-
-
-
- _ _ -
,
-4 RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14 I-4
- f i
)
'
I
.
I f.
The spent fuel pool and transfer canal water levels were at the normal operating level of the SFP, and borated to greater than 1900 ppm.
,
g.
The reactor coolant water temperature was between 50*F and 140*F.
,.
h.
Both doors on the emergency hatch were closed.
,
I 1.
The personnel hatch doors were closed and the hatch was in operation.
j. The equipment hatch cover was bolted in place.
k.
All personnel entering and leaving the containment building were signing in and out.
1.
Only individuals approved by the plant superintendent or the senior
reactor operator on duty were allowed into the reactor building.
m.
Direct communications were established between the control room, the refueling personnel in the reactor building, and refueling personnel in the spent fuel pool area.
-)
n.
Two incore flux monitors had been response checked and were in
'
(
s ervice. The readouts were in the reactor building and the count
'
rate was audible in the reactor building.
o.
Two out-of-core source range flux monitors had been calibrated, response checked, and were in service. The readouts were in the control room and the count rate was audible in the control room.
p.
Stations were set up in the control room and in the reactor building to record neutron count rates and plot 1/M data, q.
A tag board was located in the control room to follow the move-ments and location of each fuel assembly.
r.
Required radiation work permits were approved and posted at the step-off pads of the spent fuel pool and at the transfer canal in the reactor building.
s.
Provisions were in force to prevent foreign objects from being introduced into the spent fuel pool, the transfer canal, or the reactor vessel.
i l
t.
Health physics and chemistry monitoring personnel were assigned
,
to each shift.
l
~.-
!
l
. - -,
.
. -
_,
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
'R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14 I-5
!
The first fuel assembly was placed in the reactor at 7:13 a.m. on October 9, 1973.
Fuel loading continued throughout the inspection pe riod. The inspection was over before the final fuel assembly
was placed.
'
The fuel loading was conducted as described in procedure OP-1502/4,
" Initial Fuel Loading." The inspector observed that the enclosures to the procedure were being properly filled out and reviewed by supervisory personnel, that the boron samples were within procedural limits, that nuclear instrumentation was on-scale and responding, and that inverse multiplication plots were being accurately calculated and plotted.
'
The initial fuel loading was conducted in a safe and orderly manner and in accardance with applicable procedures, FSAR, and Technical Specifications requirements.
8.
Process and Area Monitoring System The inspetor verified that the area and process monitors required in service-prior to initial fuel loading had been calibrated.
Calib ra-
]
tion had been conducted as prescribed in the following instrument procedures:
1P 361/1A, " Area Radiation Monitor System Calibration" 1P 361/1C, " Area Monitors Readout Calibration" 1P 361/1D, " Area Monitors Detectors Calibration" 9.
Verification of Adequate Hood Flow in the Unit 2 Samoling Room Work has been completed on the hood ventilation equipment and the inspector verified that air flow was in the proper direction. This
,
I workwascompletedprgrtoinitialfuelloading. This item was
!
previously identified-as being required before fuel loading.
The inspector has no further questions on this item.
1_/ RO Inspection Report 50-270/73-6, Details II, paragraph 7.
2_/ RO Inspection Report 50-270/73-6, Details II, paragraph 10.
,
f
!
l
-
,
,
,
,.
m w.+-ww ew 4 m e.
<~~<
O M-m v
-
-
,
l A t]
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14 II-l
,
l l
DETAILS II Prepared by:
'/R L
,
F.Sd'Cadtrell/ReactorInspector Date i
Facilities TeK and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: October 3
, 1973
,
Reviewed b :
rMM
.
/
1h
/8 g9-73
~
-G.
E. Murphy, Chief', Facilities Date Test and Startup Branch 1.
Persons Contacted Duke Pover Comoar v J. E. Smith - Plant Superintendent
.
J. W. Hampton - Assistant Plant Superintendent
'
R. M. Koehler - Technical Support Engineer j
D. J. Rains - Assistant Plant Engineer
!
R. C. Collins - Performance Engineer
!
C. L. Thames - Health Physics Supervisor B. Hamilton - Assistant Plant Engineer l ]
R. O. Sharpe - Assistant Plant Engineer Gamewell Mechanical Corporation R. Chapman - Service Representativ2 2.
Housekeeping Housekeeping was noted to be good during a tour of the reactor building on October 4, 1973.
The housekeeping was excellent in the area between the reactor and the biological shield where the nuclear source inter-mediate and power range detectors are located.
3.
Training - Fuel Handling
'
The following information was supplied by the licensee's training director.
The licensee has conducted a one-week training proe am for fifteen utility
.
operators to qualify them for Unit 2 fuel loading. The program included
!
a description of the reactor and fuel handling equipment, emergency proce-
'
dures, radiation protection, and manipulation of the fuel handling equip-ment with a dummy element.
The training program was. compared against the requalification outline (as
,
appropriate to fuel handling only) in Appendix A to 10 CFR 55. No defi-
>
^
ciencies were noted.
,
'
V u.
.
_
%
-
._
-______
,,[
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14 II-2
~
i
- ).,
I
_
,
4.
Review of Test Procedures and Test Results i
The following test procedures and test results were reviewed by the inspector:
TP/2/B/255/2, " Loss Instrument Air" TP/2/A/200/12A, " Reactor Coolant Pump Flow Test (HFT)"
TP/2/A/200/13A, " Reactor Coolant Flow Coastdown" TP/2/B/600/5, " Reactor Coolant Chemistry Test" TP/2/B/600/4, " Chemical Addition and Sampling Test" TP/2/B/210/5, " Chemical Addition and Sampling System Functional Test" TP/2/B/210/8, " Trace Heating System Functional Test" TP/2/A/203/6, " Low ressure Injection System Engineered Safeguard Test" TP/2/B/270/33, " Main Steam Relief Valve Test" TP/2/A/600/15, " Control Rod Drive System Operational Test" TP/2/A/600/18, " Reactor Protection System Functional Test"
,
l Except as noted below, no deficiencies were noted.
I a.
Trace Heating System Functional Test The results of the test were not documented on the isometric drawing
.)
of the system (enclosure 13.1) as specified in step 12.2.7 of
,
-
TP/2/B/210/8. The test procedure was not modified by an approved
i procedure change; however, the test results were evaluated, audited,
!
and approved as documented.
Section 13 of the FSAR states, in part,
'
".
. The individual components and systems will be tested and
.
evaluated according to written test procedures."
Criterion XI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 requires preoperational testing, as appropriate, following written test procedures, docu-menting results, and evaluating results to assure that test require-ments have been satisfied.
This deficiency was discussed with licensee representatives, and the documentation was corrected prior to the end of the inspection.
-
The licensee representative stated this deficiency would be dis-cussed with other operating personnel, b.
Reactor Coolant Flow Coastdown Test The inspector questioned the basis for the revised acceptance criteria for the four pump flow coastdown test in TP/2/A/200/13A.
l The licensee's representative stated that the flow decay curve originally provided with the test procedure was for coastdown from a one pump trip where the flow did not decay as rapidly as from a two or more pump trip.
The revised decay curve is for
' -
two or more pumps, and this curve is the one that was used in
._.
_.
y,_
y, w%-
__
"*
- ^
M '
W'
W
.
.
I R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14 II-3
~
s l
I.
!
!
the safety analysis.
The decay flow measured in the tests equalled j
or exceeded the predicted flow shown in Figure 14-16 (Revision 7)
.in the FSAR. The above information was supplied by Babcock and
,
j Wilcox in a letter to Duke Power Company dated February 20, 1973,
_d and provided the basis for accepting the results of the same test on Unit 1.
A licensee's representative agreed that the revised
'
decay curve, based on Figure 14-16 in the FSAR, should have been included in the Unit 2 test procedure.
5.
Auxiliary Building Ventilation
!
j Paragraph 9.8.2.1 of the Final Safety Analysis Report states, in part,
".
. The exhaust f ans and supply fans are manually balanced to
.
achieve a negative pressure throughout the auxiliary building."
.
l
A check of the air flow between the auxiliary building and the turbine j
building on October 4,1973, shewed that air was exhausting from the (
auxiliary building to the turbine building via unsealed pipe and cable
sleeves at the basement level.
A subsequent check by licensee repre-sentatives showed that the reverse ficw condition was general in the vicinity of Unit 1 and 2, and that air was flowing down the corridors in the auxiliary bu.1 ding t' rom Unit 3 toward Unit 1 anc 2.
Unit 3 is
3 t
connected to Units 1 and 2 by open corridor at each level in the auxiliary
'
b uilding.
A fan check showed that the proper number of fans were operating
,
for Unit 1 and 2, however, the Unit 3 supply fan for the auxiliary building was operating, without the corresponding Unit 3 exhaust fan operating.
(These Unit 3 fans had not been turned over from Construction.)
.
Discussions with licensee representatives indicated that the ventilation balance had been checked, and at that time, the auxiliary building had a negative pressure.
In order to achieve the proper ventilation balance, the original motors for the auxiliary building supply fans had been re-placed with larger motors because the original motors could not rotate the fans at the design RPM.
The inspector commented that maintaining a negative pressure in the auxiliary building is necessary to ensure against unmonitorad releases of radioactive materials.
The licensee's representative concurred with this requitame t and stated that corrective measures would be instituted immediately. The inspector stated that the matter would be carried as an unresolvcd item and that further inspection is planned to ascertain if any unmonitored releases have occurred.
A review of health physics surveys and area monitors is planned to aid in determining if unconitored releases have occurred.
6.
Control Rod Drive Tube Extensions (Letter to DPC, dated January 24, 1972, from Licensing)
s A discussion was held with the licensee's representative regarding limits and surveillance program for control rod drive tubes.
- -
=,,---ww--
%*
-
- - -
w-
%
--ww+
- - -.
,e-(..
.-
.--
-_
.
.. - -......
.- -.-.
-..
.
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14 II-4
'
.
In response to questions, a licensee's representative stated that I
all control rod drive tube extensions for Unit 2 are considere as being limited to the revised design conditions of 450 F and 2500
-
PSIG.
Instrumentation has been installed to monitor the tempera-
,
ture in the vicinity of the control rod drive tubes, and on selected tubes.
j
,
l l
l
.
i
,
e N_
,
!
-.
_._.
_
_.
___
_ _
_7
-
~
-
-
.
.
.
. _.
--
_
_ _.
_ _ _.
.
_
._
_
.'
-
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14 III-1
-
.
.
DETAILS III Prepared by:
b b6
/C L/73
,
f'
K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Test and Startup
Branch Dates of Inspection: October 9-11, 1973 Reviewed by:
m
/
1.b
/MiT!77 f. E. Murphy, Chief /
Date C
Facilities Test and Startup Branch 1.
Individuals contacted Duke Power Company (DPC)
i J. E. Smith - Plant Superintendent J. W. Hampton - Assistant Plant Superintendent R. M. Koehler - Technical Support Engineer
,
H. R. Lowery - Shif t Supervisor O-M. D. ximrav - Assietent Shift SuPerviser G. A. Ridgeway - Assistant Shift Supervisor
,
'
R. Land - Labman 2.
Fuel Loading The inspector observed fuel handling operation at the spent fuel pit and at the fuel transfer canal area. Direction of the fuel i
loading operations was observed in the control room.
Status boards repres'nting spent fuel pit and reactor core fuel locations were maintained in the c.ontrol room. The manipulation of the status board
tags simulating fuel assembly movement from the spent fuel pit to the reactor core was also observed. The inspector had no questions
'
concerning fuel handling operations or the recordkeeping system.
j 3.
Laboratorv Analysis The inspector observed the performance of a laboratory analysis for boron concentration and had no questions.
4.
Test Preparation
'
During a previous inspection, the inspector raised a question of the
)
adequacy of test preparation (R0 Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-11,
__
Details II, paragraph 3). An intrastation letter from the plant q.
.,-
...m.,.
. w w.hme e
=w-
<
e e h-ew *
a-
+ - ~ * *
- - - -
'
-
._.a,____.
_
_
_~.
,_
.
.
.. - -
-
.
._ _
m_
.
.
.
f
,
I[)
~ RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-14 III-2
-
superintendent to the station supervisors instructing them to assure that procedure prerequisites are satisfied shortly before beginning the test was written on October 1,.1973.
At the management interview following this inspection, a management representative agreed to
,
require an entry in the test coordinator's log stating that the j
'
prerequisites necessary for the portion of the test being conducted I
have been satisfied before the test is started. This item is con-
-
sidered closed.
i e
!
i I
s h,
t
"
i
4 I
l 2.
'QJ
.