IR 05000277/1980003
| ML19343B688 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1980 |
| From: | Blough A, Cowgill C, Greenman E, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343B680 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-80-03, 50-277-80-3, 50-278-80-03, 50-278-80-3, NUDOCS 8012300080 | |
| Download: ML19343B688 (11) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 50-277/80-03 Report No.
50-278/80-03 50-277 Docket No.
50-278 DPR-44 C
License No.
DPR-56 Priority
--
Category C
Licensee:
Philadelohia Flectric Comnany 2301 Market Street
.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name:
Peach Bottem Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Inspection at: Del ta, Pen.mylvania Inspection conducted: February 1-29, 1980
{
f-15-40 Inspectors:
_
E. G. Greenman, Resident Reactor Inspector date signed
~/h F-jr-fd C. J. Cowgill, Res1c'ent Reactor Inspector date signed w fh 9-1 5.5 0 A. R. Blough, Resident'R6 actor Inspector date signed
~
Approved by:
C. C. A % h Tfl6I80 E. C. McCabe, Jr., Chief, Reactor 1 Projects date signed Section No. 2, RO&NS Branch
.
.
.
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on February 1-29,1980 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-277/80-03
,
'
and 50-278/80-03 Areas Inspected:
Routine, onsite regular and off shift inspections by the resident inspectors (12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> Unit 2; 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, Unit 3).
Areas examined included operational i
safety verifications, physical security, follow-up on prior identified items, review
,
of periodic and special reports, control room inspections, LER review on site and in
'
office and radiation protection.
[
'
Results: Noncompliances - None in six areas and two in two areas (Infraction -
Failure to mairtain access controls (2.790(d) Information) Recurrent item, Detail 8);
Infraction - F.iilure to use tempo:ary monitdrs or initiate an orderly shutdown with the off-gas n'.'nitoring system out of. service, Detail 5).
!
l Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
8 01 m;0 0 WO
~<
-.
.
.
.
-
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted W. Barley, Health Physics B. Clark, Engineer - Electric Production M. J. Cooney, Superintendent - Generation Division
- R. S. Fleischmann, Assistant Station Superintendent N. Gazda, Health physics S. Roberts, Results Engineer D. Smith, Outage Planning J. Spencer, Maintenance Engineer
- W. T. Ullrich, Station Superintendent Other licensee employees were contacted during the inspection.
These included engineering personnel, administrative personnel, reactor operators, shift supervision, maintenance personnel, contractors, health physics per-sonnel, and security personnel.
- Denotes those present at exit interviews.
2.
Previous Inspection Item Uptake (Closed) Unresolved Item (79-15-02, 79-17-02)
sespiratory protection qua-lification.
The inspector reviewed Health Physics Procedure HPA-77, revi-sion which deletes usage of badge labels for determining that an individual is qualified to use protection factors for the specific equipment worn.
Additionally, review of RWP's located in the Unit 2 Reactor Building and direct observations of personnel signing in on RWP's verified that the proper protection factor codes were assigned.
'he inspector had no further questions regarding this item.
Review of Health Physics practices and con-trols disclosed no unacceptable conditions.
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
,
made; to verify that operating orders and night orders conform to l
l Technical Specification requirements; to check correctness of com-munications concerning equipment and lockout status; verify jumper
,
log conformance to procedural requirements; and to verify confor-i mance to limiting conditions for operations.
Logs and records reviewed were:
,
.
a.
Shift Supervision Log, February 1-21, 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 - February 1-21, 1980 g.
Reactor Operators Log Unit 3 - February 1-21, 1980 h.
ACO Log Book - February 1-21, 1980 1.
Night Orders - Current Entries J.
Radiation Work Permits (RWP's) - Units 2 and 3, February, 1980 k.
Maintenance Request Forms (MRF's) - Units 2 and 3, February,1980 1.
Fire System Status Sheets (Sampling) - February,1980 m.
Operation Work & Information Data - February,1980 Control room logs were reviewed pursuant to requirements of administrative procedure A-7, " Shift Operations".
Frequent ini-l tialing of entries by licensed operators, shift supervision, and licensee onsite management constituted evidence of licensee review.
Logs were also reviewed to ass'ure that plant conditions including abnormalities and signficant operations were accurately and com-pletely recorded.
Logs were also assessed to determined that r
I matters requiring reports to the NRC were being processed as sus-l pected reportable occurrences.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
2.
Facility Tours a.
During the course of this inspection, which also included observations of shift turnover, the inspectors conducted daily tours and made observations of:
Control Room - (daily)
--
Turbine Building - (all levels)
--
i
4 Reactor Building - (Accessible areas)
--
Diesel Generator Building
--
Yard area and perimeter exterior to the power block, includ-
--
ing the Emergency Cooling Tower and Torus Dewatering Tank construction Security Building, including CAS, Aux SAS, and 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 inspector frequently, during
--
conduct of tours, confirmed that selected instrumentation was operable and indicated values were within Technical Specifica-tion 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, alarn status, inplant checks and observation to determine operability.
Valve Positioning.
The inspector independently verified that
--
valves and breakers in seluted safety-related systems were maintained locked as required by the licensee's system and were being properly maintained.
SBLC status and local valve positioning was verified for both Units 2 and 3.
Further, particular emphasis was placed upon potential for misposition-ing of safety-related breakers.
No missing valve handles for manual operated valves were identifie ~
.
Plant Housekeeping and Fire Protection.
The inspector
--
observed housekeeping conditions, firehose stations, and equipment status and observed the licensee's fire protec-tion procedures and practices, as well as the usage of fire watches.
Piping Vibration.
No significant piping vibration or unusual
--
conditions were identified.
Anchor plates, bolts, and seismic restraints were observed.
--
Fluid Leaks.
No significant fluid leaks were identified
--
which had not 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 on site.
Safety significance was assessed.
Operators, as well as supervision, were knowledgeable of plant condi-tions.
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 Analysis of the Time Reactor Water Chloride and Conductivity are Above Limits.
Surveillance Tests 7.2.3.A and 7.2.3.C and Peach Bottom Daily
'
BWR Chemistry Analysis - February 1-17, 1980 were reviewed.
l Technical Specification 3.6.B requires prior to startup and I
when operating at rated pressure, reactor water conductivity at 250C of less than or equal to 5.0 mho/cm and chloride con-contration of 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 pg1 chlorides.
Inspections at Unit 2 for the report l
period, indicated that conductivity was maintained between 0.2 ppm and 1.05 ppm.
Chlorides were maintained less than
.038 ppm.
Through February 17, the 1980 total times above the.2 ppm chlorides limits and the 5.0 umho/cm conductivity limits are zero hours and 3.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> respectively.
. -. -.
-.
-
.
At Unit 3 on February 5,1980, a chemistry problem occurred during start up. Water quality was within specification prior to start up, but conductivity rose quickly at about 10.30 p.m. on February 4, with the reactor below rated pres-sure.
The licensee commenced as required a normal shutdown when conductivity exceeded 10 ppm at 11:15 p.m. and the reactor was fully shutdown at 5:00 a.m., February 5.
After shutdown the licensee placed an additional reactor water clean up system filter /demineralizer in service to aid in clean up.
The inspector determined that conductivity had exceeded the 10 ppm limit for about 4.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and that the chloride concentration limit had been maintained within limits.
Licensee and vendor investigations indicated that a resin injection was the most probable cause of the event.
The inspector will further review this event during a subse-quent inspection following issuance of a licensee event report and further evaluation of the licensee's actions (278-80-03-01).
Further revica of chemistry surveillance tests indicated that Unit 3 reactor water conductivity and chloride concen-trations were maintained within limits during a subsequent plant start up conducted on February 6 and operations during the review period.
Because the event on February 4,1980 occurred with the reactor below rated pressure, the time above specified limits is not applied against the cumulative
"two week per year" limits.
Through February 17, 1980, no time above limits (at rated pressure) had been accumulated at Unit 3.
(2) Determination of Dose Eouivalent Microcuries/Gran I-131 in the Primary Coolant
.
Surveillance Test 7.2.1.A was reviewed.
The licensee analyzes the following nuclides:
I-131, I-132, I-133, I-134, and I-135 and computes dose equivalent I-131 -- that amount of I-131 which alone would produce the same dose as the quan-tity 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 February 13, 1980 indicated a dose equivalent I-131 concentration of 2.38 x 10-3 microcuries per gram.
At Unit 3, a sample on February 21, 1980 indicated a dose equi-valence of 1.79.10-3 microcuries per gram.
The inspector also confirmed that the required surveillance frequency was being satisfied.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
-
-
_
.
4.
Reactor Building Cooling Water System The Reactor Building Cooling Water (RBCW) system provides cooling to reactor building systems which are radioactive.
It is designed as a clean system (no radioactive fluid), and is provided with in line process radiation monitors. Weekly, the water in the RBCW system is sampled to monitor for the presence of radioactivity from any in leakage from one of the systems serviced.
The weekly sample for the RBCW system analyzed on January 7, 1980 indicated no detectable activity (NDA).
The January 14, 1980 weekly water sample indicated an increase in radioactivity in the system to 6.42 x 10-6 microcuries/mi total activity.
This increase in. activity was not investigated by the licensee.
The following January 21, 1980 sample showed an activity of 1.6 x 10-4 uc/ml.
A second sample drawn on January 22, 1980 indicated an activity of 2.3 x 10-4 uc/ml.
Following review of the results sampled on January 22, the Unit 2 Reactor Water Clean Up (RWCU) B system nonregenerative heat exchanger was isolated and the activity level in the RBCW stopped increasing.
The in-line radiation monitor for the RBCW indi-cated no increase in activity and at that time was reading 10 to 20 counts per second. When the increased system activity was discovered an investi-gation was conducted to determine why the radiation monitor had not indi-cated increasing activity.
The investigation determined that the radiation monitor had been isolated sometime previously while adding chemicals to the RBCW system.
The inspector held discussions with cognizant licensee person-nel regarding the review of the weekly activity samples and procedures for ensuring the Reactor Building Cooling Water System radiation monitors were properly aligned and in service.
The licensee representatives stated that there were no formal review procedures in effect for the weekly activity sampling and that criteria for acceptance or further investigation of test results did not exist.
The inspector also reviewed the weekly activity sheets provided and noted that no initials indicating review existed.
Additionally, the isolation valva for the radiation monitor had not been tagged to identify it.
This area will he reviewed further during as a subsequent inspection to assure that controls are established -to specify the need for evaluation of increases in activity and that emphasis is placed by the licensee on assessing the significance of substantive changes in systems, e.g., flow, pressure, radioactivity, maintenance, etc. (277-80-03-01).
The inspector's review indicated that these failures were contributory fac-tors which ultimately led to a small uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment.
Details concerning the release were as follows:
The Unit 2 Turbine Builoing Cooling Water system became contaminated through a valve connecting to the Unit 2 Reactor Building Cooling Water system.
The maximum activity level reached in the Unit 2 Turbine Building Cooling Water System (TBCW) was approximately 8 x 10-6 uc/ml.
,
l
!
!
_,.
. -..
_
_,
-_
.
...
, _.. _ _
-
__
.
.
.
The licensee attempted to reduce the activity in the Unit 2 TBCW by con-necting a temporary hose to a drain line on the system and conducting draining and refilling operations.
On January 31, 1980 this temporary hose parted trom the clamp that attached it to the drainline and approxi-mately 10 gallons of contaminated water passed into a floor drain that drains directly to the Susquehanna River before the leak was identified and stopped.
The inspector verified that this release was well below Technical Specification limits and that the licensee pursued adequate cor-rective action following this occurrence to minimize the potential for recurrence.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
5.
Non-Routine Event Review The inspector reviewed the following non-routine event on site, and in the NRC site office for safety significance circumstances, and relationship to Technical Specifications protective limits.
The licensees PORC review, evaluation, and corrective action was also examined.
LER Number Title 2-80-03/IP Loss of Off-Gas System Radiation 2-80-03/1T Monitors
,
During start-up on January 19, 1980 the Unit 3 off ga: radiation monitor-ing system (both Monitors) was discovered out of service when an off gas off normal flow alarm was received.
Investigation revealed that the sample flow control valve was not functioning properly.
The flow control valve was bypassed and the Unit 3 radiation monitoring system was returned to service.
The off gas "off normal flow" alarms had been considered in ser-l Vice at the time of the Unit 3 start up.
When the discovery of the blocked control flow valve was made an investigation was conducted to determine why the off normal flow alarm was not activated earlier in the start up.
The investigation revealed that the flow monitors had been improperly calibrated.
The monitors were subsequently recalibrated.
The inspector confirmed that the flow monitors had been recalibrated.
Licensee procedures for calibration of process instrumentation and changes thereto will be reviewed in detail for adequacy by the inspector.
This item is considered unresolved pending completion of this review (277-80-03-02, l
278-80-03-02).
The Unit 2 off-gas radiation monitoring system was also checked and deter-mined to be out of service at 10:45 p.m. on January 19, 1980, with the
,
j unit in start up at 30% power.
The cause was a valve in the sample line l
which had been incorrectly closed on January 15, 1980 while applying a
!
!
l l
.
__
-
-
,
.
.
safety block. The monitor was returned to service by opening the valve.
The off-gas radiation monitors do not provide a trip function with the off-gas recombiner system in service.
Inspection confirmed that the off-gas /
stack radiation monitors remained in service throughout the event.
The inspector reviewed continuously recorded off-gas stack radiation moni-tor data for the period of the event and verified that no abnonnal release of radioactivity occurred and that no release limits were approached.
The failure due to personnel error to have off-gas radiation monitors in ser-vice during Unit 2 reactor power operation and to either use temporary moni-toring or initiate an orderly shutdown is contrary to the Technical Specifi-cations and constitutes an infraction level item of noncomplitnce (277-80-03-03).
The licensee's report identified an additional contribu-tory cause of the event in that the startup checklist did not contain an operational verification far the off-gas radiation monitors.
The inspector reviewed the startup checkoff list and verified it had been changed.
During this review the inspector questioned whether the wording in the procedure change was adequate to preclude recurrence of the event and whether the entire procedure had been reviewed for the applicability of this type of change to other steps in the procedure. A licensee repre-sentative stated that both the wording of the change and potentici appli-cability to other steps of the procedure had been reviewed by the Plant Operations Review Coninittee.
This will be followed up to insure that during future startups the intent of the procedure change is properly understood and implemented (277-80-03-04, 278-80-03-03).
6.
In-Office Review of Monthly Operating Reports The following licensee reports were reviewed in the NRC office on site.
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Monthly Operating Report for:
January, 1980 dated February 11, 1980 This report was reviewed pursuant to Technical Specifications and verified to determine that operating statistics had been accurately reported and that narrative suninaries of the month's operating experience were contained therein.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
7.
Radiation Protection During the course of the month, the inspector observed work in progress by various licensee and contractor groups to assure that workers were adhering to requirements of Radiation Work Permits (RWP's).
Particular attention was directed at protective clothing, change areas, the use of
" friskers", sign-in and sign-out requirements, and taped openings.
No unacceptable conditions were identifie m
.
.
-
THIS PAGE, CONTAINING 10 CFR 2.790 INFORMATION, NOT FOR PUBLIC OISCLOSURE, IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
.
l
..
-
-
... _,.
- -.
-
i
.
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.
An unresolved item is contained in detail 5.
10.
Presentation of preliminary Inspection Findings During the period of the inspection, licensee management as identified in detail was periodically notified of the preliminary findings by the resi-dent inspector.
A summary of the items of noncompliance and report find-ings was provided to site management prior to report issuance.
.
l t
.
. -
-.
.
-
.
..