IR 05000277/1980001
| ML19337A986 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1980 |
| From: | Cowgill C, Greenman E, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19337A974 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-80-01, 50-277-80-1, 50-278-80-01, 50-278-80-1, NUDOCS 8010010136 | |
| Download: ML19337A986 (10) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__ _______ __
. m. _. -.
.--
- -.. _ - _...
__-
--
_ _ -...
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
50-277/80-01 Report No.
50-278/80-01 50-277 Docket No.
50-278 DPR-44 C
License No.
DPR-56 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 Inspection At:
Delta, Pennsylvania 19101 Inspection Conducted:
January 1-31, 1980 Inspectors:
[- u _uv 2*d [~ O E. G. Greenman, Resident Reactor Inspector date kk '^ ^ ^ ^
h f=2J%$$
C. J. Cowgi11, Resident Reactor Inspector date f.
- lh T~ abs $
^ ^ :. _
A. R. Blough, Reside'nt fleactor Inspector date.
Approved by:
8 NO, bt-
'7-2 9 - &o E. C. McCabe, Jr., Chief, Reactor Projects date
,
Section No. 2, RO&NS Branch Inspection dummary-Inspection on January 1-31, 1980 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-277/80-01 and 50-278/80-01)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, onsite regular and backshift inspections by the resi-dent inspectors (55 hours6.365741e-4 days <br />0.0153 hours <br />9.093915e-5 weeks <br />2.09275e-5 months <br /> Unit 2; 55 hours6.365741e-4 days <br />0.0153 hours <br />9.093915e-5 weeks <br />2.09275e-5 months <br />, Unit 3).
Areas inspected included
'
accessible portions of the Unit 2 and Unit 3 facilities, radiation protection, maintenance activities, physical security, plant operations, facility tours, IE Bulletin and Circular followup, control room inspection, LER review onsite and in office, IE Bulletin Followup, followup on previously identified items, review of periodic and special reports and an NRR meeting with the licensee regarding short term lessons learned requirements.
Fi sults:
Noncompliance - None in 11 areas, one in one area (Infraction - failure f
to adhere to Health Physics procedural requirements to wear personnel dosimetry in a controlled area.
Detail 7)
8010010/N Region I Form 167 exwn<t_ansre
-. -.
-. _.
=
.-
_. -_-
- -..... -
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted C. E. Andersen, Operations Engineer W. H. Barley, Health Physics Supervisor
- R. S. Fleischmann, Assistant Station Superintendent A. Fulvio, I&C Engineer N. Gazda, Health Physics S. Mannix, Modification Coordinator S. R. Roberts, Results Engineer R. J. Scholz, Chemistry Supervisor J. W. Spencer, Maintenance Engineer
- W. T. Ullrich, Station Superintendent A. J. 1!asong, Test Engineer J. E. Winzenried, Technical Engineer Other licensee employees were contacted during the inspection.
These included angineering personnel, administrative personnel, reactor opera-tors, shift supervision, maintenance personnel, contractor personnel, health physics and security personnel.
- Denotes those present at exit interviews on site and for summation of pre-liminary inspection findings.
2.
Previous Inspection Item Update (Closed) Unresolved Item (278/78-11-01):
Safety evaluation concerning the replacement of 1 inch bore hydraulic snubber with a 2 inch bore hydraulic snubber on RHR "B" and "C" pump discharge times.
Review of Bechtel Power Corporation documentation dated April 26, 1978 indicated that the mechani-cal snubbers provided the piping system witn a level of protection equal to or greater than the hydraulic snubbers.
PORC Review on May 24, 1978, documented approval of a written safety evaluation that this change did not decrease plant safety.
The inspector had no further questions concern-ing this item.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (277/77-19-09):
Additional information needed concerning a broken pipe hangar asrociated with a two inch Reactor Vessel Bottom Head Drain line at the connection to the Radioactive Waste cleanup system piping.
The inspector reviewed documentation dated August 1, 1977, of the engineering inspections of this pipe hangar.
This inspection deter-mined that the pipe hangar had not been broken but had been disassembled to permit other rigging operations.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this item.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (277/79-11-06 and 278/79-12-07) Inspector Veri-fication of completion of licensee training required by IE Bulletin 79-08 for those individuals not available for sessions 4/9-13/79.
The inspector confirmed that two additional training sessions were held on 4/26 and 27/79
._ _
.
-
-
...
--
--
- - - - - - -. -
-
-
.
.
,
!
for those personnel unable to attend the training conducted on 4/9-13/79.
The inspector had no further questions concernirg this item.
3.
Plant Operations Review a.
Logs and Records 1)
Documents Reviewed A sampling review of logs and records was made to:
identify significant changes and trends; assure that required entries were being made; to verify that operating orders and night orders conform to Technical Specification requirements; check correct-ness of communications concerning equipment and lockout status; verify jumper log conformance to procedural requirements; and to verify conformance to limiting conditions for operations.
Log and records reviewed were:
a.
Shift Supervision Log, January 1-31, 1980 b.
Unit 2 Jumper Log - Current Entries c.
Unit 3 Jumper Log - Current Entries d.
Reactor Engineering Log - Unit 2 e.
Reactor Engineering Log - Unit 3 f.
Reactor Operators Log Unit 2 - January 1-31, 1980 g.
Reactor Operators Log Unit 3 - January 1-31, 1980 1.
Night Orders - Current Entries j.
Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) - Various in both Units 2 and 3 k.
Maintenance Request Forms (MRFs) - Units 2 and 3, January, 1980 1.
Fire System Status Sheets (Sampling) January, 1980 m.
Operation Work & Information Data - January, 1980 2)
Facility Tours a.
During the course of this inspection, which also included shift turnover, the inspector conducted daily tours and made observations of:
- - _ -.
.
.
1
-
' Control Room - (daily)
Turbine Building - (all levels)
--
Reactor Building - (accessiole areas)
--
Diesel Generator Building
--
Yard area and perimeter exterior to the power block,
--
including Emergency Cooling Tower and torus dewatering tank construction Security Building, including CAS, Aux SAS, ano control
--
point monitoring Lighting
--
Vehicular Control
--
The SAS and power block control points
--
Security Fencing
--
Portal Monitoring
--
Personnel and Badging
--
Control of Radiation and High Radiation areas including
--
locked door checks TV monitoring capabilities
--
Monitoring Instrumentation.
The ir.spectors frequently,
--
during conduct of tours, confirmed that selected instru-mentation was operable and indicated values were within Technical Specification limits.
On a daily basis when the inspector was on site, ECCS switch positioning and valve lineups, as well as breaker status, were reviewed based on control room indication, alarm status, inplant checks and observations to determine operability.
Valve Positioning.
The inspectors independently veri-
--
fied that valves and breakers in selected safety-related systems were maintained locked as required by the licensee's system and were being properly maintained.
SBLC status was verified for both Units 2 and 3.
Parti-cular emphasis was placed upon potential for misposition-ing of safety-related breakers.
No missing valve handles for manual operated valves or unacceptable condition: were identifie _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _
__
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_. _... _ _ _ _
.
Plant Housekeeping and Fire Protection.
The inspector
--
observed housekeeping conditions, firehose station, and equipment status end observed the licensee's fire pro-tection procedures and practices, as well as the usage of fire watches.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
Fluid Leaks.
No significant fluid leaks were ider'.1-
--
fied which had not also been identified by the licensee and for which corrective action had not been taken.
Off-Normal Alarms.
Selected annunciators were discussed
--
with control room operators on a daily basis when the inspector was oa site.
Safety significance was assessed.
Operators, a= well as supervision, were knowledgeable of plant condition.
The inspector confirmed that corrective action, if required, was being taken.
b.
Reactor Water Chemistry The following surveillance tests for the periods indicated were reviewed by the inspector to assure that Technical Specification Limits were satisfied.
(1) Conductivity and Chloride Ion Content in Primary Coolant During Normal Operation and Time Conductivity and Chloride are Above Specified Limits.
Surveillance Tests 7.2.3.A and 7.2.3.C and Peach Bottom Daily BWR Chemistry Analysis - January 1-13, 1980.
Technical Specification 3.6.B requires prior to startup and when operating at rated pressure, reactor water conductivity at 25*C of less than or equal to 5.0 umho/cm and chloride concentration less than or equal to 0.2 ppm.
Reactor water quality may exceed these limits for up to two weeks per year.
Maximum limits are established as 10 umho/cm conductivity and 1.0 ppm chlorides.
Inspection at Unit 3 for January 1-13, indicated that conduc-tivity and chloride concentration were maintained within limit throughout all periods of operation during the month with a maxi-mum value of.43 ppm.
Unit 2 remained shutdown during the period reviewed.
(3) Determination of Dose Equivalent Microcuries/ Gram I-131 in the Primary Coolant Surveillance Test 7.2.1.A for the period was reviewed.
The licens-ee analyzes the following nuclides:
1-131, I-132, I-133, I-134,
- - -
=
..-..
- - - -. -.
-
. :. a
--
-
.
.. -.
.
.
.
.
and I-135 and computes dose equivalent I-131 -- that amount of I-131 which alone wnuld produce the same dose as the quantity and isotopic mixture actually present.
The Technical Specification Limit is 2.0 microcuries per gram.
Increased sampling frequency is required if any analysis exceeds 0.02 microcuries per gram.
The representative sample for Unit 2, analyzed on January 9,1980, indicated a dose equivalent I-131 concentration of 5.35 x 10-3 microcuries per gram.
At Unit 3, a sample on January 10, 1980 indicated a dose equivalence of 1.31 x 10-3 microcuries p.er gram.
The inspector also confirmed that the required surveillance fre-quency was being satisfied.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
4.
Non-Routine Event Review The inspector reviewed the following non-routine event on site and in office for safety significance circumstances and relationship to Technical Specifi-cations protective limits.
The licencee's PORC review evaluation and cor-rective action was also verified.
LER Number Et_le 2-79-54/3L-0 B Channel Mainsteam Line, High Temperature Leak Detection Inoperable During surveillance testing on December 13, 1979, the four B channels were found reading low.
The redundant channels were determined operable.
The licensee's investigation showed a low voltage output on the power supply for the B channel monitors.
The licensee replaced the power supply, retested the monitors and returned them to service.
The inspector held discussions with I&C personnel regarding the failure mechanism and the potential for a single mode failure as a causative factor.
Discussion with the responsible individual indicated that dirt and/or dust was a factor in this failure.
The licensee was unable to duplicate the failure mechanism.
This area i?
unresolved pending review of the licensee's further investigation to assure that this occurrence was not the result of a single failure in that all four of the B channels indicated low.
(277/80-01-01)
5.
IE Bulletin and Circular Followup a.
IE Bulletins Inspection was performed for the following IE Bulletin to verify that the Bulletin was received by site and corporate licensee management and to confirm that tue licensee was complying with Bulletin requirements.
IE Bulletin 79-18, " Audibility Problems Encountered on Evacuation of Personnel from High Noise Areas."
_
_ _ _ _ _
. _ _. _ _ _.
- - _ _
_
.
.
.
.
The inspector verified that the licensee's actions were as described in PFCo response to IE Bulletin 79-18 dated September 21, 1979.
The inspector was apprised that the licensee's installation of a rotating beacon in each Condensate Pump Room had been delayed until mid-March, due to delays in procuring hardware.
NRC Region I was apprised of this delay by PEco letter to Region I dated January 18, 1980.
The licensee has measured noise levels in the Unit 2 and Unit 3 reactor buildings, turbine building, emergency diesel generator building, cooling tower pump structures, circulating water pump structures, auxi-j liary pump structures and the auxiliary boiler.
Thd results of the
required noise level survey indicated PA inaudibility in some areas.
The licensee had completed most work with the exception of the beacons as referenced.
Speaker repair and additional installations have been
'
completed and tested.
Final close out of licensee actions will be i
'
completed during a subsequent inspection following installation of visual evacuation signals.
This area is unresolved pending licensee completion of specified actions and a determination that the licensee has checked high radiation inaccessible areas for appropriate condi-tions, when these areas can be entered for inspection (277/80-01-02 and 278-80-01-01).
b.
IE Circulars Which Require No Response Inspections were performed for the following IE Circulars to verify whether the circular was received by licensee management, review for applicability was performed, corrective action (if any) was initiated and/or evaluated and supporting documentation evidencing licensee review was contained in PORC minutes.
The findings were as follows:
IE Circular 79-12, " Diesel Generator Turbo Charger Lubrication" A review for applicability was perforced and lubrication of the turbo charger was examined.
Interim actions were recommended for Electro-Motive Division (EMD) General Motors Corporation diesels while a modi-fication to the lube oil system was developed by EMD.
Peach Bottom utilizes Colt-Fairbanks Morse Diesels.
This subject was discussed between the licensee, Colt and the factory design engineer.
The turbo charger lubrication system for the Peach Bottom diesels is of a dif-ferent design and the licensee has determined that the as installed system is not susceptible to this problem.
The inspector had no fur-ther questions regarding this matter.
IE Circular 79-13, " Replacement of Diesel Fire Pump Starting Contactors" l
A review for applicability was performed and following this review the
!
licensee determined replacement of the diesel fire pump starting con-tactor was desirable.
The licensee has assigned responsibility to their engineering and is relying upon procedural controls to assure the
- ___
_.
c
-
_. __
_. _.. E _ _ Z ~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - -
.
.
.
contactor is replaced.
This item will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection for verification of replacement.
IE Circular 79-22, " Stroke Times for Power Operated Relief Valves" A review for applicability was performed by the licensee.
The circu-lar applied to equipment used in pressurized water reactors.
No additional action was required with respect to Peach Bottom 2 and 3.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter.
6.
In-Office Review of Monthly Operating Reports The following licensee report has been reviewed in office onsite.
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Monthly Operating Report for:
December, 1979, dated January 10, 1980.
,
This report was reviewed pursuant to Technical Specifications and verified to determine that operating statistics had been accurately reported and that narrative summaries of the month's operating experience were contained therein.
Review of projected refueling outage information indicated that the next refueling shutdown for Unit 2 was scheduled for March 21, 1979.
The inspector discussed with cognizant site management the licensee's requirement to shutdown by March 1, 1980 to complete inaccessible piping inspections related to IE Bulletin 79-14.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
7.
Radiation Protection The inspector reviewed work in progress throughout the Unit 2 and Unit 3 facilities during the month related to Health Physics centrol, badging, usage of protective clothing, Health Physics adherence to RWP requirements, surveys, trash removal, and handling of potentially contaminated equipment and materials.
Additionally, observations were made of usage of friskers and portal monitors on exiting various RWP areas, the power block, and the licensee's final exit point.
In excess of 50 people were observed during the month to properly frisk prior to exiting.
The licensee's control of radiation areas and high radiation doors including key control was reviewed.
No high radiation area doors required to be locked were found unsecured.
During the course of facility tours on January 7, 1980 the inspectors observed two individuals working in the " Hot Tool Room" located in the Unit 2 Reactor Building. This area had been posted as requiring an RWP for work, however, the individuals had neither signed in on any RWP nor had they contacted Health Physics Supervision prior to entry.
The inspec-tors contacted Health Physics Supervision who directed the individuals to exit the area.
The inspector then determined that one of the two indivi-duals was not wearing personnel dosimetry as required by Health Physics
.--.
-
-.. - -.. -. _. -
_
-.-. -
-
.
.
!
procedures (HP0/CO-10A)" Conduct in Controlled Areas" - Specifically Harshaw Badges, Eberline TLDs, and pocket reading dosimetry.
For the individual in question, these items had been left in his jacket when it was removed prior to working in the area.
Negligible exposure was received by this individual based on estimated exposure obtained from his co-workers dosimetry.
This failure to comply with Health Physics procedural requirements to wear provided dosimetry in controlled areas constitutes an infraction level item of noncompliance (50-277/80-01-03).
This item is recurrent in that similar examples of failure to comply
with Health Physics requirements were identified in November 1979 (Com-bined Inspection Report Nos. 50-277/79-29 and 50-278/79-32 and December 1979 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-277/79-30 and 50-278/79-33).
The licensee also conducted a survey of the area and the results were reviewed by the inspector.
Conditions in the Hot Tool Room at the time of this event were; radiation levels less than 2 millirem per hour and removable contamination levels ranging from less than one hundred dpm per 100 square centimeters to a maximum of six hundred dpm per 100 square centimeters.
The inspector also reviewed Health Physics Procedure HP0/
CO-10, " Health Physics Guides Used in the Control of Exposure to Radio-
,
active Material".
This procedure requires an RWP for:
1.
All entries into high radiation areas.
2.
Radiation levels such that a person would exceed 100 millirem per day on his dosimeter.
3.
Surface contamination levels greater than 5000 dpm/100 cm2 4.
Airborne contamination levels such that a person would be required to use respiratory protection.
5.
Potential exposure to high levels of radiation and contamination exist during the course of the work assignment.
The inspectors review indicated that an RWP was not required for this area
'
on January 7,1980, and that tne area was improperly designated.
This area, however, is subject to changing conditions and RWP coverage.
Posting, adherence to posting requirements, and requirements to consult Health Phy-sics Supervision as well as applicable procedural changes is considered unresolved pending reinspection in this area (277/80-01-04 and 278/80-01-02).
8.
NRR/ Licensee Meetin_g The resident inspectors participated in meetings conducted on site Janu-ary 22 and 23 with NRR and licensee representatives to discuss the licens-ee's implementation of category A short term lessons learned requirements.
Results of these meetings will be discussed in a subsequent inspection.
_
. _ ___. _ _ _ _ _ __
,
.
-
.
10 9.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are items about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
Unresolved items are discussed in Details 4, 5 and 7.
10.
Management Meetings During the period of the inspection, licensee management was periodically notified of the preliminary findings by the resident inspector (see Detail 1).
A summary was also provided at the conclusion of the inspection and prior to report issuance.
Additionally, the resident inspector attended an entrance interview on January 11, 1980, conducted by a region-based inspector in regard to an inspection of the licensee's fire protection /
prevention program.
-
-
.-
--
.
-